FINAL


ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT


JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT,


SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING


(Volume 1 of 2) 

Bureau of Land Management


Wyoming State Office


Cheyenne, Wyoming


Pinedale Field Office


Pinedale, Wyoming


and 

Rock Springs Field Office


Rock Springs, Wyoming


January 2006

ABSTRACT 

Environmental Impact Statement


Jonah Infill Drilling Project


Sublette County, Wyoming


( ) Draft (X) Final 

Lead Agency: Bureau of Land Management 

Pinedale Field Office 

Pinedale, Wyoming 

Cooperating Agency: State of Wyoming 

For Further Information, Contact: Mike Stiewig 

Bureau of Land Management 

432 E. Mill Street 

P.O. Box 768 

Pinedale, WY 82941 

307-367-5300 

The Bureau of Land Management has received a proposal from oil and gas developers to more 

intensively develop natural gas resources in an approximately 30,500-acre portion of the Jonah 

Field through infill drilling among existing wells. The project area is located approximately 

32 miles southeast of Pinedale and 28 miles northwest of Farson in south-central Sublette County, 

Wyoming. Within the project area boundary there are currently more than 500 wells permitted 

and operating or committed to on 497 well pads. The wells are expected to produce for 

approximately 40 years, and the life of the project (i.e., the time from first well is drilled to the 

last well is plugged and abandoned, and habitat function restored) is estimated at up to 105 years. 

Five alternatives were considered in detail. The No Action alternative is required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as a baseline against which other action alternatives can be 

analyzed. For this project, the No Action alternative would not authorize field-level development, 

though drilling could continue on state and private leases and would occur on federal leases as 

authorized by prior NEPA decisions. 

The Proposed Action includes drilling, completing, and operating up to 3,100 additional wells on 

up to 16,200 acres of new disturbance, including the roads, pipelines, and other ancillary facilities 

needed to support the new wells; minimum well pad (surface disturbance) density of 64 well pads 

per 640-acre section; bottomhole well density ranging from 1 bottomhole every 5 acres to 

1 bottomhole every 40 acres; and 250 wells drilled per year. Standard field development and 

production procedures would be followed. Above a certain level of authorized surface 

disturbance, the Operators have committed to establishing a fund to finance compensatory (offsite) mitigation for impacts that cannot be fully mitigated within the project area. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
ii Abstract 

One action alternative would remove certain standard restrictions, mitigations, and wildlife and 

surface protections to minimize the amount of directional drilling and facilitate additional gas 

recovery; another alternative would limit all drilling to the currently authorized 497 well pads. 

The BLM Preferred Alternative combines aspects of these alternatives and applies additional 

mitigation and outcome- or performance-based field management objectives to ensure ongoing 

habitat restoration throughout the life of the project. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Department of Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Pinedale Field Office 

(PFO) and Rock Springs Field Office (RSFO) have received a proposal from EnCana Oil and Gas 

(USA), Inc., BP America Production Company, and other natural gas operators (collectively 

known as the Operators) to expand existing natural gas drilling and development operations in the 

Jonah Field in south-central Sublette County, Wyoming. Operations are proposed for that portion 

of the Jonah Field referred to as the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area (JIDPA) which 

encompasses approximately 30,500 acres located in portions of Townships 28 and 29 North, 

Ranges 107 through 109 West, approximately 32 miles southeast of Pinedale and 28 miles 

northwest of Farson, Wyoming. 

The DOI/BLM PFO and RSFO have determined the proposed project would constitute a major 

federal action and therefore requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). This 

Final EIS (FEIS) replaces the Draft EIS (DEIS) in its entirety and was prepared in accordance 

with NEPA to assess the environmental consequences of the Operators’ proposed action and 

alternative courses of action. It is intended to provide the public and decision-makers with a 

complete and objective evaluation of impacts that might occur from the Proposed Action and 

reasonable alternatives. 

Life of project (LOP) is estimated to vary from 63 to 105 years, depending on the alternative and 

pace of development. 

Currently within the JIDPA, BLM has approved or committed to 497 well pads with associated 

access roads, pipelines, and ancillary facilities. Operation and maintenance of these facilities will 

continue as authorized by existing permits. 

PROPOSED ACTION 

The Operators propose to expand development of natural gas and condensate reserves from the 

Lance and other formations at depths of approximately 11,000 feet by drilling as many as 3,100 

additional wells on up to 16,200 acres of new surface disturbance during the development 

(drilling) phase. Specific features include the following: a minimum of 64 well pads per 640-acre 

section, downhole well spacing from 1 bottomhole/5 acres to 1 bottomhole/40 acres; up to 

465 miles of new resource roads with associated pipelines; 8 miles of new collector/local roads; 

41 acres of new surface disturbance for ancillary facilities; and 100 acres of new surface 

disturbance for exploration of other formations. The Operators have committed to various 

mitigation measures that vary by alternative and propose to fund compensatory or off-site 

mitigation (CM) under some alternatives. The CM fund could mitigate adverse impacts within the 

JIDPA by financing substitution mitigation projects outside the JIDPA. As proposed, the fund 

could be based on the level of surface disturbance authorized. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
iv Executive Summary 

SCOPING 

Public and agency scoping was conducted to determine issues relative to the Proposed Action. A 

scoping notice and informational materials were mailed to potentially interested parties beginning 

in March 2003. All issues identified during scoping and BLM and Interdisciplinary Team reviews 

were evaluated to identify key issues that drove development of alternatives and the impact 

analyses. The nine key issues identified are: surface disturbance acreage; socioeconomics and 

boom/bust avoidance; regional visibility effects; greater sage-grouse/greater sage-grouse habitat 

protection; pronghorn antelope migration corridor protection; direct and indirect habitat 

fragmentation and loss for all wildlife; maximum natural gas recovery; loss of livestock forage 

and project hazards; and BLM monitoring and enforcement capability. 

The three action alternatives meet the Purpose and Need of the proposal but vary in response to 

the key issues. Some alternatives considered in depth in the DEIS have not been carried over to 

the FEIS. Other alternatives were considered but rejected for a variety of reasons. 

ALTERNATIVES 

No Action Alternative: Reject Operators’ Proposal 

The No Action Alternative would reject the Operators’ Proposed Action and all field-level 

development alternatives. Though this alternative rejects the field-level development as proposed, 

previously approved drilling and drilling at spacing analyzed in previous NEPA documents could 

take place. An estimated 533 such wells that are not part of the current proposal have already 

been completed or are to be drilled in the study area. No Action Alternative serves as a 

benchmark enabling decision-makers and the public to compare the magnitude of environmental 

consequences across action alternatives. 

Alternative A: Minimize Directional Drilling 

New (drilling phase) surface disturbance would be comparable to the Proposed Action 

(16,200 acres), but development activity would be exempt from some existing BLM Conditions 

of Approval (COAs), stipulations, and mitigation. Most notably, environmentally sensitive areas 

would not be avoided in order to increase the gas recovered. 

Alternative B: Minimize Surface Disturbance 

All new wells would be drilled from the 497 currently approved well pads. This alternative 

requires expansion of existing well pads but results in the least amount of new surface 

disturbance (3,222 acres) while still providing for a higher level of resource recovery within the 

JIDPA. 

BLM Preferred Alternative 

The Preferred Alternative would limit total surface disturbance at any given time to 46% of the 

JIDPA, or a maximum of 14,030 acres. To mitigate environmental impacts as quickly as 

possible, Operators would be required to initiate reclamation of developed well pads pursuant to 

Reclamation Plan specifications. Credit would thereafter be given, on an acre-by-acre basis up to 

a maximum of 6,379 acres, for areas the BLM determines have successfully been reclaimed 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Executive Summary v 

(i.e., achieved 80% indigenous vegetative basal cover/density and species composition). Under 

no circumstances would cumulative total surface disturbance exceed 20,334 acres over the LOP. 

Performance-based field management objectives would address key issues and significant 

impacts, particularly those associated with air quality. Monitoring and surveying would be 

required to determine if objectives are being met. An interagency adaptive management working 

group would be established to monitor the effectiveness of development guidelines, mitigation, 

and monitoring, and to recommend to BLM any modifications to these procedures based on 

monitoring results. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Physical Resources Impacts 

Topography/Water 

The JIDPA has a continental, semi-arid, cold desert climate and is located in the central Green 

River Basin with ephemeral drainages primarily flowing to the Green or Big Sandy Rivers. 

Groundwater and surface water are variable in quality. Use of surface water from the JIDPA has 

been limited in the past due to the ephemeral nature of the surface stream system. Groundwater is 

taking an increasing role in both livestock watering and natural gas development operations. 

Significant impacts to topography are expected but not to groundwater resources. Surface water 

resources down-channel from the JIDPA could be affected by cumulative runoff events. 

Paleontology 

Paleontological resources are known to exist within the JIDPA and the surrounding cumulative 

impact assessment area. As such, the potential exists for direct impacts to unknown 

paleontological resources under all alternatives. 

Air Quality/Visibility 

Although, no violations of applicable federal or state air quality standards are anticipated, 

significant project-specific and cumulative air quality impacts to visibility are possible at regional 

Class I airsheds (e.g., Bridger Wilderness Area) are anticipated under all alternatives (including 

No Action). A summary of air quality impacts is presented in Tables 4.1 and 4.2, and a detailed 

analysis of air quality effects is provided in the Final Air Quality Technical Support Document 

for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Environmental Impact Statement. 

Soils 

Seventeen soil map units occur in the JIDPA and most have construction and reclamation 

limitations. Several known sand dunes and other windblown deposits occur in the area. 

Significant impacts to soils (loss during runoff events, loss of productivity) could occur under all 

alternatives. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
vi Executive Summary 

Biological Resources Impacts 

Wildlife 

Significant impacts to various wildlife habitats in the JIPDA have already occurred as a result of 

past and current oil and gas development activity. Wildlife that occurs in the JIPDA that may be 

impacted by this project include pronghorn antelope, greater sage-grouse, raptors, and up to 

17 BLM Wyoming Sensitive (BWS) species (most notably sagebrush obligates). On-site 

mitigation measures and monitoring would occur under most alternatives pursuant to the Wildlife 

Monitoring/Protection Plan; however, additional significant impacts to some of these species are 

anticipated. On-site habitat function should be restored as reclamation vegetation nears maturity. 

Threatened & Endangered Species 

Threatened and endangered (T&E) species that may occur on or downstream from the JIDPA 

include the black-footed ferret, bald eagle, four Colorado/Green River fish species (Colorado 

pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail chub, and razorback sucker), and the plant Ute ladies’­

tresses. Groundwater depletions may adversely affect the four endangered fishes, but no impacts 

are anticipated to the other T&E species. 

Plant Cover 

Plant cover values vary according to the three dominant sagebrush vegetation types present on the 

JIDPA, with significant impacts expected in many areas. To mitigate the potential impacts, a 

Reclamation Plan for the project has been prepared (see Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Development Procedures Technical Support Document, Appendix B) and would be required for 

all development alternatives. Performance-based management objectives in the BLM Preferred 

Alternative would further mitigate impacts by focusing development and reclamation on faster 

restoration of pre-development plant cover. 

Land Use Impacts 

During the LOP and beyond, the JIDPA may not be as suitable for the historical land uses of 

livestock grazing, wildlife use, and recreation until facilities are removed, lands are reclaimed, 

and on-site habitat function is restored. 

Cultural and Historic Resources Impacts 

Potential impacts to cultural resources would be mitigated through data recovery and/or 

avoidance of significant properties. Site-specific surveys for cultural resources would be 

conducted prior to disturbance, and formal Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 

consultation would occur where cultural resource properties may be impacted. If eligible cultural 

properties were inadvertently disturbed (unanticipated discoveries), appropriate data recovery 

programs would be implemented. 

Socioeconomic Impacts 

Communities most likely to be affected by the proposed project are Pinedale, Big 

Piney/Marbleton, and Boulder in Sublette County; La Barge in Lincoln County; and Eden/Farson 

and Rock Springs in Sweetwater County. A detailed socioeconomic impact assessment was 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Executive Summary vii 

prepared for this project (see Socioeconomic Analysis Technical Support Document for the Jonah 

Infill Drilling Project Environmental Impact Statement). Significant socioeconomic impacts have 

already occurred in these cities and counties, due in part to oil and gas development over the past 

decade. Beneficial impacts have included additional work opportunities, increased salaries, and 

increased government revenues. Increased population growth has resulted in adverse impacts, 

including increased demands on infrastructure, social services, emergency services, medical 

facilities, and housing availability, as well as increased crime that has burdened law enforcement 

organizations. JIDPA will have similar types of beneficial and adverse effects, but the additional 

impacts are not expected to be significant in scale. 

MITIGATION MEASURES 

Numerous standard, JIDPA-specific, and site-specific mitigation measures could be applied 

during all phases of the project to minimize potential impacts. Site-specific measures would be 

applied in approved Applications for Permit to Drill and Rights-of-Way applications for each new 

project feature as Conditions of Approval for mitigation or monitoring. Interim reclamation 

would restore any areas disturbed during initial development that are not required during the 

production phase for the LOP. Upon completion of the project, all wells would be plugged and 

abandoned, surface facilities would be removed, and the remaining disturbed areas (with the 

exception of certain road improvements) would be reclaimed and revegetated. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
viii Executive Summary 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

VOLUME 1 

Page 

ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................................. i


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................................ ix


LIST OF MAPS ....................................................................................................................................... xvii


LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................. xix


LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................................................... xx


ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................................ xxv


CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1-1


1.1 PROJECT LOCATION, SETTING, AND HISTORY OF PRIOR DEVELOPMENT..... 1-1


1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ................................................................ 1-3


1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT ................................................................. 1-4


1.4 DECISIONS TO BE MADE.............................................................................................. 1-5


1.5 REGULATORY SETTING............................................................................................... 1-5


1.5.1	 Federal Permits, Authorizations, and Coordination.............................................. 1-6


1.5.2	 Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines and Practices for Surface Disturbing


and Disruptive Activities ...................................................................................... 1-9


1.5.3	 Conformance with BLM Pinedale and Green River Resource Management


Plans...................................................................................................................... 1-9


1.5.4	 State and Local Permits, Authorization, and Coordination................................. 1-11


CHAPTER 2 — ALTERNATIVES....................................................................................................... 2-1


2.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF KEY ISSUES ...................... 2-1


2.1.1	 Public Scoping ...................................................................................................... 2-1


2.1.2	 Key Issues ............................................................................................................. 2-2


2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................... 2-4


2.2.1	 Summary of Alternatives Analyzed in the DEIS .................................................. 2-4


2.2.2	 Publication of the DEIS, Public Meetings, and Public Comments ....................... 2-6


2.2.3	 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Detailed Study ............................. 2-7


2.2.3.1 DEIS Alternatives Not Carried Forward for Final Analysis................. 2-7


2.2.3.2 Other Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Detailed Study... 2-8


2.3 ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD FOR FINAL ANALYSIS ............................ 2-9


2.3.1	 Features Common to All Alternatives Carried Forward for Final Analysis ......... 2-9


2.3.1.1 General Features ................................................................................... 2-9


2.3.1.2 Conditions of Approval ...................................................................... 2-10


2.3.2	 Features Common to the Proposed Action, Alternative B, and the Preferred


Alternative........................................................................................................... 2-11


Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
x Table of Contents 

Page 

2.4 ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN DETAIL ................................................................ 2-12


2.4.1	 No Action Alternative – Reject Operators’ Proposal.......................................... 2-12


2.4.2	 Proposed Action.................................................................................................. 2-14


2.4.3	 Alternative A – Maximize Mineral Resource Recovery..................................... 2-15


2.4.4	 Alternative B – Minimize Surface Disturbance .................................................. 2-16


2.4.5	 BLM Preferred Alternative ................................................................................. 2-18


2.4.5.1	 Outcome-Based Performance Objectives ........................................... 2-20


2.4.5.2	 Required Operating Procedures and Best Management Practices...... 2-21


2.4.5.3	 Site-Specific Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Monitoring,


Surveying, and Best Management Practices....................................... 2-25


2.5 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS......................................................... 2-25


CHAPTER 3 — AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT................................................................................. 3-1


3.1 PHYSICAL RESOURCES................................................................................................ 3-3


3.1.1	 Climate.................................................................................................................. 3-3


3.1.2	 Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 3-4


3.1.2.1 Concentrations .......................................................................................... 3-6


3.1.2.2 Visibility.................................................................................................... 3-6


3.1.2.3 Deposition ................................................................................................. 3-9


3.1.3	 Topography ......................................................................................................... 3-19


3.1.4	 Geology............................................................................................................... 3-19


3.1.4.1	 Mineral Resources .............................................................................. 3-20


3.1.4.2	 Geologic Hazards................................................................................ 3-26


3.1.4.3	 Paleontological Resources .................................................................. 3-28


3.1.5	 Soils..................................................................................................................... 3-29


3.1.6	 Water Resources ................................................................................................. 3-36


3.1.6.1	 Surface Water ..................................................................................... 3-36


3.1.6.2	 Groundwater ....................................................................................... 3-41


3.1.7	 Noise and Odor ................................................................................................... 3-45


3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 3-47


3.2.1	 Vegetation ........................................................................................................... 3-47


3.2.1.1	 Plant Communities.............................................................................. 3-47


3.2.1.2	 Riparian and Wetland Areas............................................................... 3-52


3.2.1.3	 Noxious Non-Native, and Invasive Plant Species .............................. 3-53


3.2.2	 Wildlife and Fisheries ......................................................................................... 3-53


3.2.2.1	 Big Game/Other Mammals................................................................. 3-53


3.2.2.2	 Birds.................................................................................................... 3-57


3.2.2.3	 Amphibians and Reptiles.................................................................... 3-66


3.2.2.4	 Fisheries.............................................................................................. 3-66


3.2.3	 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species and BLM


Wyoming Sensitive Species................................................................................ 3-66


3.2.3.1	 Black-footed Ferret............................................................................. 3-66


3.2.3.2	 Bald Eagle........................................................................................... 3-67


3.2.3.3	 Colorado River Endangered Fish Species .......................................... 3-68


3.2.3.4	 Ute Ladies’-Tresses ............................................................................ 3-68


3.2.3.5	 BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species...................................................... 3-68


3.2.4	 Wild Horses......................................................................................................... 3-71


3.3 CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES.......................................................... 3-71


3.3.1	 Introduction......................................................................................................... 3-71


Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table of Contents xi 

Page 

3.3.2 Site Types............................................................................................................ 3-73


3.3.3 Native American Sensitive Sites and Traditional Cultural Properties ................ 3-74


3.3.4 Culture History Context and Chronology ........................................................... 3-74


3.3.5 Geomorphology .................................................................................................. 3-80


3.3.6 Discovered Sites.................................................................................................. 3-80


3.3.7 Highly Sensitive Archaeological Locales ........................................................... 3-81


3.3.7.1 Sand Draw/Bull Draw Divide............................................................. 3-82


3.3.7.2 Sand Draw Playa Complex................................................................. 3-82


3.3.7.3 Central Sand Draw.............................................................................. 3-84


3.4 SOCIOECONOMICS ...................................................................................................... 3-85


3.4.1 Study Area........................................................................................................... 3-85


3.4.2 Demography........................................................................................................ 3-86


3.4.2.1 Population Dynamics and Census Data .............................................. 3-86


3.4.2.2 Income, Poverty, and Unemployment ................................................ 3-88


3.4.2.3 Workforce Age, Gender, and Disabilities........................................... 3-92


3.4.3 Housing............................................................................................................... 3-92


3.4.3.1 Lincoln County ................................................................................... 3-93


3.4.3.2 Sublette County .................................................................................. 3-95


3.4.3.3 Sweetwater County............................................................................. 3-96


3.4.4 Social Traditions ................................................................................................. 3-98


3.4.5 Quality of Living................................................................................................. 3-99


3.4.5.1 Crime .................................................................................................. 3-99


3.4.5.2 Infrastructure..................................................................................... 3-100


3.4.5.3 Cost of Living and Inflation.............................................................. 3-102


3.4.5.4 Education .......................................................................................... 3-103


3.4.6 Wages and Personal Income ............................................................................. 3-106


3.4.7 Industry and Economy ...................................................................................... 3-108


3.4.7.1 Overview........................................................................................... 3-108


3.4.7.2 Wyoming Industry and Industry Employment ................................. 3-108


3.4.7.3 Industry Employment ....................................................................... 3-108


3.4.7.4 Industry Earnings.............................................................................. 3-112


3.4.8 Taxes and Revenues.......................................................................................... 3-114


3.4.9 Study Area Taxes and Revenues....................................................................... 3-121


3.4.9.1 Availability of Information............................................................... 3-121


3.4.9.2 State Royalties .................................................................................. 3-122


3.4.9.3 Ad Valorem Valuation and Taxes Levied ........................................ 3-123


3.4.9.4 Sales, Use, and Lodging Tax Collections ......................................... 3-123


3.4.10 Recreation Economics......................................................................................... 3-123


3.4.10.1 Nonconsumptive Recreation............................................................. 3-123


3.4.10.2 Hunting ............................................................................................. 3-123


3.4.10.3 Value of Recreational Use ................................................................ 3-125


3.4.11 Environmental Justice ......................................................................................... 3-128


3.5 LAND USE.................................................................................................................... 3-128


3.5.1 Land Status/Prior Rights ................................................................................... 3-128


3.5.2 Livestock/Grazing Management ....................................................................... 3-128


3.5.3 Recreation ......................................................................................................... 3-133


3.5.4 Transportation ................................................................................................... 3-136


3.6 VISUAL RESOURCES................................................................................................. 3-136


3.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ....................................................................................... 3-138


Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
xii Table of Contents 

Page 

3.8 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION .............................................................................. 3-138


CHAPTER 4 — ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES ... 4-1


4.1 PHYSICAL RESOURCES................................................................................................ 4-3


4.1.1 Climate.................................................................................................................. 4-3


4.1.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 4-3


4.1.2.1 No Action Alternative......................................................................... 4-14


4.1.2.2 Proposed Action.................................................................................. 4-15


4.1.2.3 Alternative A ...................................................................................... 4-16


4.1.2.4 Alternative B....................................................................................... 4-17


4.1.2.5 BLM Preferred Alternative................................................................. 4-19


4.1.2.6 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................... 4-20


4.1.2.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts............................................................ 4-25


4.1.3 Topography ......................................................................................................... 4-25


4.1.3.1 No Action Alternative......................................................................... 4-25


4.1.3.2 The Proposed Action .......................................................................... 4-25


4.1.3.3 Alternative A ...................................................................................... 4-25


4.1.3.4 Alternative B....................................................................................... 4-26


4.1.3.5 BLM Preferred Alternative................................................................. 4-26


4.1.3.6 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................ 4-26


4.1.3.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts............................................................ 4-27


4.1.4 Mineral Resources............................................................................................... 4-27


4.1.4.1 No Action Alternative......................................................................... 4-28


4.1.4.2 The Proposed Action .......................................................................... 4-28


4.1.4.3 Alternative A ...................................................................................... 4-28


4.1.4.4 Alternative B....................................................................................... 4-28


4.1.4.5 BLM Preferred Alternative................................................................. 4-29


4.1.4.6 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................ 4-29


4.1.4.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts............................................................ 4-29


4.1.5 Geologic Hazards................................................................................................ 4-29


4.1.6 Paleontological Resources .................................................................................. 4-30


4.1.6.1 No Action Alternative......................................................................... 4-31


4.1.6.2 The Proposed Action .......................................................................... 4-31


4.1.6.3 Alternative A ...................................................................................... 4-31


4.1.6.4 Alternative B....................................................................................... 4-31


4.1.6.5 BLM Preferred Alternative................................................................. 4-31


4.1.6.6 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................ 4-31


4.1.6.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts............................................................ 4-32


4.1.7 Soils..................................................................................................................... 4-32


4.1.7.1 No Action Alternative......................................................................... 4-34


4.1.7.2 The Proposed Action .......................................................................... 4-34


4.1.7.3 Alternative A ...................................................................................... 4-37


4.1.7.4 Alternative B....................................................................................... 4-37


4.1.7.5 BLM Preferred Alternative................................................................. 4-37


4.1.7.6 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................ 4-38


4.1.7.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts............................................................ 4-39


4.1.8 Surface Water and Groundwater ............................................................................ 4-39


4.1.8.1 No Action Alternative......................................................................... 4-43


4.1.8.2 The Proposed Action .......................................................................... 4-43


Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
1

2

3

4

5

Table of Contents xiii 

Page 

4.1.8.3 Alternative A ...................................................................................... 4-44


4.1.8.4 Alternative B....................................................................................... 4-44


4.1.8.5 BLM Preferred Alternative................................................................. 4-45


4.1.8.6 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................ 4-46


4.1.8.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts............................................................ 4-47


4.1.9	 Noise and Odor ................................................................................................... 4-47


4.1.9.1 No Action Alternative......................................................................... 4-48


4.1.9.2 The Proposed Action .......................................................................... 4-49


4.1.9.3 Alternative A ...................................................................................... 4-49


4.1.9.4 Alternative B....................................................................................... 4-49


4.1.9.5 BLM Preferred Alternative................................................................. 4-49


4.1.9.6 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................ 4-50


4.1.9.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts............................................................ 4-50


4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 4-50


4.2.1 Vegetation ........................................................................................................... 4-50


4.2.1.1 No Action Alternative......................................................................... 4-52


4.2.1.2 Proposed Action.................................................................................. 4-52


4.2.1.3 Alternative A ...................................................................................... 4-53


4.2.1.4 Alternative B....................................................................................... 4-53


4.2.1.5 BLM Preferred Alternative................................................................. 4-53


4.2.1.6 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................ 4-54


4.2.1.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts............................................................ 4-55


4.2.2	 Wildlife and Fisheries ......................................................................................... 4-55


4.2.2.1 No Action Alternative......................................................................... 4-67


4.2.2.2 The Proposed Action .......................................................................... 4-67


4.2.2.3 Alternative A ...................................................................................... 4-68


4.2.2.4 Alternative B....................................................................................... 4-68


4.2.2.5 BLM Preferred Alternative................................................................. 4-68


4.2.2.6 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................ 4-68


4.2.2.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts............................................................ 4-72


4.2.3	 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate and BLM Wyoming


Sensitive Species................................................................................................. 4-73


4.2.3.1 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species .............. 4-73


4.2.3.2 BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species...................................................... 4-74


4.2.3.3 No Action Alternative......................................................................... 4-75


4.2.3.4 The Proposed Action .......................................................................... 4-76


4.2.3.5 Alternative A ...................................................................................... 4-76


4.2.3.6 Alternative B....................................................................................... 4-76


4.2.3.7 BLM Preferred Alternative................................................................. 4-76


4.2.3.8 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................ 4-77


4.2.3.9 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts............................................................ 4-77


4.2.4	 Wild Horses......................................................................................................... 4-77


4.2.4. No Action Alternative......................................................................... 4-78


4.2.4. The Proposed Action .......................................................................... 4-78


4.2.4. Alternative A ...................................................................................... 4-78


4.2.4. Alternative B....................................................................................... 4-79


4.2.4. BLM Preferred Alternative................................................................. 4-79


4.2.4.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts............................................................ 4-79


Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
xiv Table of Contents 

Page 

4.3 CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES.......................................................... 4-79


4.3.1 No Action Alternative......................................................................................... 4-82


4.3.2 The Proposed Action .......................................................................... 4-82


4.3.3 Alternative A....................................................................................................... 4-83


4.3.4 Alternative B....................................................................................................... 4-83


4.3.5 BLM Preferred Alternative ................................................................................. 4-83


4.3.6 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................ 4-83


4.3.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................ 4-84


4.4 SOCIOECONOMICS ...................................................................................................... 4-84


4.4.1 No Action Alternative......................................................................................... 4-92


4.4.2 Proposed Action.................................................................................................. 4-94


4.4.3 Alternative A....................................................................................................... 4-94


4.4.4 Alternative B....................................................................................................... 4-95


4.4.5 BLM Preferred Alternative ................................................................................. 4-95


4.4.6 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................ 4-96


4.4.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................ 4-96


4.4.8 Environmental Justice ......................................................................................... 4-97


4.5 LAND USE...................................................................................................................... 4-97


4.5.1 Status/Ownership ................................................................................................ 4-98


4.5.1.1 No Action Alternative......................................................................... 4-99


4.5.1.2 The Proposed Action .......................................................................... 4-99


4.5.1.3 Alternative A ...................................................................................... 4-99


4.5.1.4 Alternative B....................................................................................... 4-99


4.5.1.5 BLM Preferred Alternative................................................................. 4-99


4.5.1.6 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................... 4-100


4.5.1.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.......................................................... 4-100


4.5.2 Livestock/Grazing Management ....................................................................... 4-100


4.5.2.1 No Action Alternative....................................................................... 4-101


4.5.2.2 The Proposed Action ........................................................................ 4-101


4.5.2.3 Alternative A .................................................................................... 4-102


4.5.2.4 Alternative B..................................................................................... 4-103


4.5.2.5 BLM Preferred Alternative............................................................... 4-103


4.5.2.6 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................... 4-104


4.5.2.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.......................................................... 4-104


4.5.3 Recreation ......................................................................................................... 4-104


4.5.3.1 No Action Alternative....................................................................... 4-105


4.5.3.2 The Proposed Action ........................................................................ 4-105


4.5.3.3 Alternative A .................................................................................... 4-106


4.5.3.4 Alternative B..................................................................................... 4-106


4.5.3.5 BLM Preferred Alternative............................................................... 4-106


4.5.3.6 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................... 4-106


4.5.3.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.......................................................... 4-107


4.5.4 Transportation ................................................................................................... 4-107


4.5.4.1 No Action Alternative....................................................................... 4-108


4.5.4.2 The Proposed Action ........................................................................ 4-108


4.5.4.3 Alternative A .................................................................................... 4-109


4.5.4.4 Alternative B..................................................................................... 4-109


4.5.4.5 BLM Preferred Alternative............................................................... 4-109


4.5.4.6 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................... 4-109


Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table of Contents xv 

Page 

4.5.4.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.......................................................... 4-109


4.6 VISUAL RESOURCES................................................................................................. 4-110


4.6.1	 No Action Alternative....................................................................................... 4-110


4.6.2	 The Proposed Action......................................................................................... 4-110


4.6.3	 Alternative A..................................................................................................... 4-111


4.6.4	 Alternative B..................................................................................................... 4-111


4.6.5	 BLM Preferred Alternative ............................................................................... 4-111


4.6.6	 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................... 4-111


4.6.7	 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .......................................................................... 4-112


4.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ....................................................................................... 4-112


4.7.1	 No Action Alternative....................................................................................... 4-113


4.7.2	 The Proposed Action......................................................................................... 4-113


4.7.3	 Alternative A..................................................................................................... 4-113


4.7.4	 Alternative B..................................................................................................... 4-113


4.7.5	 BLM Preferred Alternative ............................................................................... 4-114


4.7.6	 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................... 4-114


4.7.7	 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .......................................................................... 4-114


4.8 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES....... 4-114


4.9	 SHORT-TERM USE OF THE ENVIRONMENT VS. LONG-TERM


PRODUCTIVITY....................................................................................................... 4-115


CHAPTER 5 — ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL MITIGATION, MONITORING MEASURES,


AND COMPENSATORY MITIGATION MEASURES......................................... 5-1


5.1 ADDITIONAL MITIGATION/MONITORING OPPORTUNITIES ............................... 5-1


5.1.1	 Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 5-2


5.1.1.1 BLM Goals and Performance Objectives ............................................. 5-2


5.1.1.2 Mitigation and Monitoring.................................................................... 5-2


5.1.2	 Topography ........................................................................................................... 5-6


5.1.3	 Paleontology.......................................................................................................... 5-6


5.1.4	 Soil Resources....................................................................................................... 5-6


5.1.5	 Surface Water Resources ...................................................................................... 5-7


5.1.6	 Vegetation, Including TEP&C and BWS Plant Species ....................................... 5-7


5.1.7	 Wildlife, Including TEP&C and BWS Animal Species........................................ 5-8


5.1.8	 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 5-8


5.1.9	 Land Use/Livestock Grazing................................................................................. 5-9


5.1.10	 Land Use/Recreation............................................................................................. 5-9


5.1.11	 Land Use/Transportation....................................................................................... 5-9


5.1.12	 Visual Resource .................................................................................................. 5-10


5.1.13	 Health and Safety/Hazardous Materials.............................................................. 5-10


5.1.14	 Other Actions ...................................................................................................... 5-10


5.2 COMPENSATORY (OFF-SITE) MITIGATION ........................................................... 5-11


5.2.1	 Operator-proposed CM ....................................................................................... 5-11


5.2.2	 Other Compensatory Mitigation Ideas................................................................ 5-13


CHAPTER 6 — CONSULTATION AND PREPARERS ................................................................... 6-1


CHAPTER 7 — REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 7-1


CHAPTER 8 — GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................ 8-1


Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
xvi Table of Contents 

VOLUME 2 

APPENDIX A – BLM STANDARD STIPULATION/MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS 

APPENDIX B – JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES 

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT 

Subappendix DP-A – Transportation Plan 

Subappendix DP-B – Reclamation Plan 

Subappendix DP-C – Hazardous Materials Management Summary 

APPENDIX C – OPERATOR-COMMITTED PRACTICES 

APPENDIX D – SCOPING ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

APPENDIX E – EROSION, SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND SALINITY MODELING 

TECHNICAL REPORT 

APPENDIX F – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT IN THE JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT 

AREA 

APPENDIX G – SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ACROSS ALTERNATIVES 

APPENDIX H – U.S. FISH AND 

CONSULTATION 

WILDLIFE SERVICE LETTER INITIATING FORMAL 

APPENDIX I – CULTURAL RESOURCES AND HISTORIC OVERVIEW 

APPENDIX J – AIR QUALITY IMPACT TABLES 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
LIST OF MAPS 

Page 

1.1.	 Jonah Infill Drilling Project Location, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 .................................. 1-2


2.1.	 Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006....................................... 2-13


3.1.	 Air Quality Modeling Domain (Cumulative Impact Assessment Area) Depicting Class I


and Other Sensitive Areas and Lakes, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 2005 .................................. 3-7


3.2.	 Area Topography, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006......... 3-21


3.3.	 Surface Geology, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006.......... 3-22


3.4.	 Bedrock Geology, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006......... 3-23


3.5.	 Mineral Resources/Geologic Hazards and Paleontological/Cultural Resources Cumulative


Impact Assessment Areas, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 .... 3-25


3.6.	 Soil Types (coarse-scale) within the Soils Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Jonah


Infill Drilling Project, Wyoming, 2006...................................................................................... 3-31


3.7.	 Soils Types (Fine-Scale) within the Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County,


Wyoming, 2006 ......................................................................................................................... 3-33


3.8.	 Surface Water Resources in the Jonah Infill Drilling Project and Associated Cumulative


Impact Assessment Areas (Project-affected Watersheds), Jonah Infill Drilling Project,


Wyoming, 2006 ......................................................................................................................... 3-37


3.9.	 Cumulative Impact Assessment Area (Project-affected Watersheds) for Surface Water,


Soils, Vegetation, and Fisheries, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Wyoming, 2006....................... 3-38


3.10.	 Estimated Steady-State Groundwater Levels (Potentiometric Surface), Jonah Infill Drilling


Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 ................................................................................ 3-42


3.11.	 Vegetation Communities (Course-Scale) in the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area and


Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Sublette and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming, 2006.... 3-48


3.12.	 Project Area Vegetation Types (Finely Mapped), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette


County, Wyoming, 2006............................................................................................................ 3-50


3.13.	 Sublette Herd Unit and Pronghorn Migration Routes, Cumulative Impact Assessment Area,


Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006................................................ 3-55


3.14.	 General Wildlife Species Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Jonah Infill Drilling


Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 ................................................................................ 3-56


Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
xviii List of Maps 

Page 

3.15.	 Prairie Dog Colonies, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006............ 3-58


3.16.	 Raptor Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County,


Wyoming, 2006 ......................................................................................................................... 3-59


3.17.	 Raptor Nests on or Adjacent to the Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County,


Wyoming, 2006 ......................................................................................................................... 3-60


3.18.	 Greater Sage-grouse Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Jonah Infill Drilling Project,


Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006.............................................................................................. 3-61


3.19.	 Greater Sage-grouse Leks, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 .... 3-63


3.20.	 Little Colorado Wild Horse Herd Management Area (CIAA), Jonah Infill Drilling Project,


Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006.............................................................................................. 3-72


3.21.	 Land Status/Prior Rights Cumulative Impact Assessment Area Boundary, Jonah Infill


Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006................................................................. 3-129


3.22.	 Grazing Allotments, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area and Cumulative Impact Assessment


Area, Sublette and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming, 2006 ..................................................... 3-130


3.23.	 Recreational Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette


and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming, 2006............................................................................. 3-134


3.24.	 Visual Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Lincoln,


Sublette, and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming, 2006.............................................................. 3-137


4.1.	 Modeled Cone of Depression for Development of 250 Wells per Year over 12.4 Years


(3,100 Total Wells), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005 .............. 4-42


4.2.	 Existing Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation (No Action), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette


County, Wyoming, 2006............................................................................................................ 4-58


4.3.	 Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation Expected Under Development at 16 Wells per Section


(Alternative E), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006...................... 4-59


4.4.	 Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation Expected Under Development at 32 Wells per Section


(Alternative F), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006...................... 4-60


4.5.	 Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation Expected Under Development at 64 Wells per Section


(Alternative G), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 ..................... 4-61


Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
LIST OF FIGURES 

Page 

3.1.	 Wind Rose, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005..................... 3-5


3.2.	 Standard Visual Range for 20th% Cleanest Days, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area,


Sublette County, Wyoming (IMPROVE 2005) ........................................................................ 3-10


3.3.	 Standard Visual Range for Average Days, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette


County, Wyoming (IMPROVE 2005) ...................................................................................... 3-11


3.4.	 Standard Visual Range for 20th% Haziest Days, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette


County, Wyoming (IMPROVE 2005) ...................................................................................... 3-12


3.5.	 Mean Annual Total Nitrogen Deposition near Pinedale, Wyoming (NADP [WY06] and


CASTNET [PND165])............................................................................................................... 3-13


3.6.	 Mean Annual Total Sulfur Deposition near Pinedale, Wyoming (NADP [WY06] and


CASTNET [PND165])............................................................................................................... 3-14


3.7.	 Weekly Concentrations of Nitrate near Pinedale, Wyoming (WARMS, Pinedale)................... 3-15


3.8.	 Weekly Concentrations of Ammonium near Pinedale, Wyoming (WARMS, Pinedale) .......... 3-16


3.9.	 Weekly Concentrations of Sulfur Dioxide near Pinedale, Wyoming (WARMS, Pinedale)...... 3-17


3.10.	 Weekly Concentrations of Sulfate near Pinedale, Wyoming (WARMS, Pinedale) .................. 3-18


3.11.	 Formations Underlying the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette Country, Wyoming,


2006 ........................................................................................................................................... 3-24


3.12.	 Typical Braided Stream ............................................................................................................. 3-27


3.13.	 Typical Natural Gas Field Noise Levels, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County,


Wyoming, 2006 ......................................................................................................................... 3-46


3.14.	 Typical Housepit Excavation, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming,


2006 ............................................................................................................................................ 3-78


Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
LIST OF TABLES 

Page 

1.1.	 Major Federal, State, and Local Permits, Approvals, and Authorizing Actions for the Jonah


Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006............................................................ 1-7


2.1.	 Comparison of Alternatives, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 . 2-12


2.2.	 Surface Disturbance Allowed by the No Action Alternative, Jonah Infill Drilling Project,


Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006.............................................................................................. 2-14


2.3.	 Surface Disturbance Allowed by the Proposed Action and Alternative A, Jonah Infill


Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006................................................................... 2-16


2.4.	 Surface Disturbance Allowed by Alternative B, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette


County, Wyoming, 2006............................................................................................................ 2-17


2.5.	 Surface Disturbance Allowed by the BLM Preferred Alternative, Jonah Infill Drilling


Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 ................................................................................ 2-19


2.6.	 Brief Comparison of Impacts to Key Issues Across Alternatives, Jonah Infill Drilling


Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 ................................................................................ 2-26


3.1.	 Critical Elements of the Human Environment, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette


County, Wyoming, 2005.............................................................................................................. 3-1


3.2.	 Cumulative Impact Assessment Areas, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County,


Wyoming, 2005 ........................................................................................................................... 3-2


3.3.	 Mean Monthly Temperature Ranges and Total Precipitation at LaBarge, Wyoming ................. 3-3


3.4.	 Wind Direction Frequency Distribution, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette


County, Wyoming, 2005.............................................................................................................. 3-4


3.5.	 Wind Speed Distribution, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming,


2005 ............................................................................................................................................. 3-4


3.6.	 Atmospheric Stability Class Distribution, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette


County, Wyoming, 2005.............................................................................................................. 3-6


3.7.	 Air Pollutant Background Concentrations, Wyoming and National Ambient Air Quality


Standards, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Increments (μg/m3)................... 3-8


3.8.	 Monitored Background Conditions at Sensitive Lakes.............................................................. 3-19


3.9.	 Surface Geologic Formations Present on the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area and Their


Paleontological Potential, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006.................................................... 3-28


Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
List of Tables xxi 

Page 

3.10.	 Soil Types in the Soil Resources Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Jonah Infill Drilling


Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 ................................................................................ 3-30


3.11.	 Existing Watershed Disturbance Acreage, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Cumulative Impact


Assessment Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 ................................................................ 3-32


3.12.	 Soil Types1, Soil Use, and Management Considerations for Soils, Jonah Infill Drilling


Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 ................................................................................ 3-34


3.13.	 Modeled Sediment Loss under Existing Conditions, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette


County, Wyoming, 2006............................................................................................................ 3-35


3.14.	 Watershed Acreages, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006............. 3-36


3.15.	 Produced Water Quality, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006....... 3-44


3.16.	 Comparison of Measured Noise Levels with Commonly Heard Sounds, Jonah Infill


Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006................................................................... 3-45


3.17.	 Acreages of Vegetation Communities in the CIAA and Vegetation Types in the JIDPA,


Sublette and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming, 2006................................................................. 3-49


3.18.	 Vegetation Data, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006.................... 3-51


3.19.	 Greater Sage-Grouse Lek Attendance Trends, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette


County, Wyoming, 1992–2004.................................................................................................. 3-64


3.20.	 Federal Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species and their Potential


Occurrence on the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006......... 3-67


3.21.	 BLM Pinedale Field Office Sensitive Animal and Plant Species and Potential Occurrence


in the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006............................. 3-69


3.22.	 Prehistoric Cultural Chronology for the JIDPA and Southwestern Wyoming .......................... 3-75


3.23.	 Historic and Projected Population ............................................................................................. 3-87


3.24.	 Urban and Rural Population and Density, 2000 ........................................................................ 3-88


3.25.	 Income, Poverty, and Unemployment ....................................................................................... 3-89


3.26.	 Population and Workforce, 2000 ............................................................................................... 3-93


3.27.	 Historic and Projected Housing Availability ............................................................................. 3-94


3.28.	 Authorized Building Permits, 1980–2004 ................................................................................. 3-95


3.29.	 Average Rental Rates, 2001–2005............................................................................................. 3-97


3.30.	 Second Home Housing Units, Wyoming and Lincoln, Sublette, and Sweetwater Counties,


1990–2000 ................................................................................................................................. 3-97


Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
xxii List of Tables 

Page 

3.31.	 Comparative Cost of Living Index for Each Wyoming County Compared with the


Statewide Average of 100........................................................................................................ 3-104


3.32.	 Annual Inflation Rates in Wyoming by Category (Statewide Average).................................. 3-105


3.33.	 CPI and Inflation Factors, 1980–2004..................................................................................... 3-106


3.34.	 Wages and Job Numbers.......................................................................................................... 3-106


3.35.	 Personal Income by Major Source........................................................................................... 3-107


3.36.	 Wyoming Gross State Product................................................................................................. 3-109


3.37.	 Compensation of Employees ................................................................................................... 3-110


3.38.	 Employment by Industry.......................................................................................................... 3-111


3.39.	 Earnings by Industry................................................................................................................ 3-113


3.40.	 Wyoming General Fund Revenues, Fiscal Year Collections by Source.................................. 3-115


3.41.	 Summary of Mineral Severance Taxes Received by Wyoming and Directly Distributed to


All Wyoming Counties and Cities and Project-Affected Counties and Cities in the Study


Area.......................................................................................................................................... 3-117


3.42.	 Summary of Federal Mineral Royalties Received by Wyoming and Directly Distributed to


All Counties and Cities and Project-Affected Counties and Cities.......................................... 3-118


3.43.	 Summary of State of Wyoming Mineral Royalties.................................................................. 3-118


3.44.	 Total PILT Payments and Total Acres..................................................................................... 3-119


3.45.	 Total State-Assessed Mineral Production Valuations.............................................................. 3-119


3.46.	 Proportionate Taxable Valuation of Various Classes of Property in Wyoming, 1998–2004 . 3-120


3.47.	 Sales, Use, and Lodging Tax Rates by County (Effective April 1, 2003) ............................... 3-121


3.48.	 Estimated Annual Recreational Visitor Days, PFO Area ........................................................ 3-124


3.49.	 Herd Unit and Landownership in the JIDPA ........................................................................... 3-124


3.50.	 Summary of Hunters and Hunter-Days for Potentially Project-Affected Big Game Species


in the PFO Area, 2002 ............................................................................................................. 3-125


3.51.	 Summary of Potentially Project-Affected Small Game and Upland Bird Hunters and


Hunter-Days in the JIDPA, 2002............................................................................................. 3-125


3.52.	 Expenditures per day for Nonconsumptive Recreation, PFO Area, 1997 ............................... 3-126


3.53.	 Total Expenditures for Hunting of Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Area,


Wyoming and Study Area, 2002.............................................................................................. 3-127


Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
List of Tables xxiii 

Page 

3.54.	 Contribution of JIDPA to Hunting Revenues .......................................................................... 3-127


3.55.	 Livestock/Grazing Allotments in the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area and Cumulative


Impact Assessment Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 .................................................. 3-131


4.1.	 Summary of Primary Additional Air Quality Impacts Across Alternatives, Jonah Infill


Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006..................................................................... 4-7


4.2.	 Summary of Air Quality Concentrations Impacts Across Alternatives, Jonah Infill Drilling


Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 20061 ................................................................................ 4-8


4.3.	 Summary of Acid Deposition Impacts Across Alternatives, Jonah Infill Drilling Project,


Sublette County, Wyoming, 20061.............................................................................................. 4-9


4.4.	 Summary of Visibility (Regional Haze) Impacts Across Alternatives, Jonah Infill Drilling


Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 20061 .............................................................................. 4-10


4.5.	 Anticipated Gas and Condensate Recovery Volumes for Each Alternative, Jonah Infill


Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006................................................................... 4-28


4.6.	 Cumulative Acreage of Disturbance in each CIAA Watershed and Including RFD, Jonah


Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006.......................................................... 4-35


4.7.	 Percent of Watersheds Affected, Including Existing Disturbance, Jonah Infill Drilling


Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 20061 .............................................................................. 4-36


4.8.	 Total Sediment Loss in Kilograms by Alternative, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette


County, Wyoming, 2006............................................................................................................ 4-36


4.9.	 Summary of Groundwater Pumping Scenarios (3,100 total wells), Jonah Infill Drilling


Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 ................................................................................ 4-41


4.10.	 Groundwater Recovery Time (3,100 Wells), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County,


Wyoming, 2006 ......................................................................................................................... 4-41


4.11.	 Estimated Noise Attenuation with Distance from Construction Equipment, Jonah Infill


Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006................................................................... 4-48


4.12.	 Vegetation Type Disturbance Across Alternatives, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette


County, Wyoming, 2006............................................................................................................ 4-51


4.13.	 Percent of the JIDPA Contained within Core Areas for Existing Conditions and Selected


Possible Development Scenarios, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming,


20061 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-57


4.14.	 Number and Mean Size of Core Areas in the JIDPA for Existing Conditions and Possible


Development Scenarios, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006........ 4-57


4.15.	 Potentially Disturbed Acreage in Each Wildlife CIAA, Jonah Infill Drilling Project,


Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006.............................................................................................. 4-71


Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
xxiv List of Tables 

Page 

4.16.	 Annual Cost of Natural Gas Production, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County,


Wyoming, 20061 ....................................................................................................................... 4-87


4.17.	 Economic Activity from Gas Drilling Per Well, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette


County, Wyoming, 2006............................................................................................................ 4-88


4.18.	 Economic Activity Gas Production from One BCF of Natural Gas and One MBO, Jonah


Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006........................................................ . 4-88


4.19.	 Economic Activity per RVD from Nonconsumptive Recreation, Jonah Infill Drilling


Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 ................................................................................ 4-89


4.20.	 Economic Activity per Hunter Day, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County,


Wyoming, 2006 ......................................................................................................................... 4-90


4.21.	 Summary of Total Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Development and


Production over the Life of Field, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 2006........... 4-93


4.22.	 Cumulative Acreage of Disturbance in the Recreation CIAA, Jonah Infill Drilling Project,


Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006............................................................................................ 4-107


4.23.	 Miles of New Roads, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006........... 4-108


4.24.	 Cumulative Acreage of Disturbance in the Visual Resources CIAA, Jonah Infill Drilling


Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 .............................................................................. 4-112


5.1.	 Existing Air Quality Monitoring.................................................................................................. 5-3


5.2.	 EnCana Proposed CM Funding, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County,


Wyoming, 2006 ......................................................................................................................... 5-13


6.1.	 List of Preparers and Participants, Jonah Infill, Drilling Project, 2006 ....................................... 6-1


6.2.	 Personnel Contacted or Consulted during Preparation of the Jonah Infill EIS............................ 6-4


6.3.	 Names and Affiliations (If Known) of Those Who Submitted Written Comments during


the DEIS Comment Period from February 11, 2005 through April 12, 2005............................ 6-12


6.4.	 Air Quality-related Comments on the DEIS or Comments on the August 2005 Draft Air


Quality Technical Support Document Supplement and/or the August 2005 Air Quality


Impact Analysis Supplement through October 7, 2005 ............................................................. 6-22


Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

oF	 Degrees Fahrenheit 

�eq/l	 Microequivalents per liter 

�g	 Micrograms 

�g/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter 

AACL Acceptable Ambient Concentration 

Levels 

AASHTO	 American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation 

Officials 

ACEC	 Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern 

ACHP	 Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation 

ADT	 Average daily traffic 

acre-ft	 Acre-foot/feet 

AGA	 American Gas Association 

AIRFA	 American Indian Religious Freedom 

Act 

AJE	 Annual Job Equivalents 

AML	 Appropriate Management Level 

ANC	 Acid-neutralizing capacity 

APD	 Application for Permit to Drill 

API	 American Petroleum Institute 

API	 Atmospheric pressure ionization 

AQD	 Air Quality Division 

AQRV	 Air Quality-Related Values 

ARPA	 Archaeological Resource Protection 

Act of 1979 

ARS Agricultural Research Service 

ATV All-terrain vehicle 

AUM Animal unit month 

BA Biological Assessment 

BACT Best Available Control Technology 

bbls Barrels 

BCF Billion cubic feet 

bcpd Barrels of condensate per day 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP Best Management Practice 

B.P. Before present 

BP America BP America Production Company 

(formerly BP Amoco). 

bpd	 barrels per day 

BTU	 British Thermal Unit 

BWS	 Bureau of Land Management 

Wyoming Sensitive 

BWPD Barrels of Water Per Day 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA 

CFR 

cfs 

CIAA 

CM 

CO 

CO2 

COA 

COOP 

COE 

CPI-U 

CRMP 

CSU 

DAT 

dB 

dBA 

DEIS 

DM 

DOE 

DOT 

DR 

dv 

EA 

ED 

EIS 

EnCana 

EO 

EPA 

EPCA 

ESA 

FAR 

FEMA 

FLPMA 

FONSI 

FR 

g/hp-hr 

gal 

GCIAA 

GDRA 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980 

Code of Federal Regulations 

Cubic feet per second 

Cumulative impact assessment area 

Compensation Mitigation 

Carbon monoxide 

Carbon dioxide 

Condition of Approval 

University of Wyoming Cooperative 

Fish and Wildlife Research Unit 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Consumer Price Index for all Urban 

Consumers 

Cultural Resource Management Plan 

Controlled Surface Use Stipulations 

Deposition Analysis Threshold 

Decibel 

A-weighted decibel 

Draft environmental impact 

statement 

Department Manual 

U.S. Department of Energy 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Decision Record 

Deciview 

Environmental assessment 

Economically Disadvantaged 

Environmental impact statement 

EnCana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc. 

Executive Order 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Energy Policy Conservation Act 

Endangered Species Act 

Functioning-at-risk 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

Federal Register 

Grams per horsepower-hour 

Gallon 

General Cumulative Impact 

Assessment Area 

Great Divide Resource Area 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
xxvi Abbreviations and Acronyms 

GIS Geographic information system 

gpm Gallons per minute 

GPS Global positioning system 

GRBAC Green River Basin Advisory 

Council 

GRRA Green River Resource Area 

GSP Gross State Product 

H2S Hydrogen sulfide 

HAP Hazardous air pollutant 

hp Horsepower 

HS-20 Refers to the AASHTO truck type 

and axle load rating 

HUD Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 

I-80 Interstate 80 

IAMWG Interagency Management Working 

Group 

IDT Interdisciplinary Team 

IM Instruction Memorandum 

IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments 

IWAQM Interagency Workgroup on Air 

Quality Modeling 

JACRMA Jonah-Anticline Cultural Resource 

Management Area 

JIDPA Jonah Infill Drilling Project area 

JMHCAP Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated 

Action Plan 

JIO Jonah Interagency Office 

kg/ha-yr Kilogram per hectare per year 

LAC Limit of Acceptable Change 

lb(s) Pound(s) 

LCHMA Little Colorado Herd Management 

Area 

LOP Life-of-Project 

LQD Land Quality Division 

MBO Million barrels of oil 

mcf Thousand cubic feet 

MCIAA Minerals Cumulative Impact 

Assessment Area 

MEI Maximally exposed individual 

MFP Management Framework Plan 

mg Milligram 

MGD Million gallons per day 

MJ2PA Modified Jonah II Project Area 

MLE Most likely exposure 

mmcf Million cubic feet 

mmcfd Million cubic feet per day 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

mph Miles per hour 

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet 

N2 Nitrogen 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NADP National Atmospheric Deposition 

Program 

NAGPRA 

NCPA 

n.d. 

NED 

NEPA 

NHPA 

NF 

NOx 

NO2 

NOI 

NOS 

NPDES 

NPS 

NRHP 

NSO 

NTL 

NWI 

OHV 

Operators 

OSHA 

OVM 

PA 

PAPA 

PAWG 

PFC 

PFO 

PILT 

PLS/ac 

PM2.5 

PM10 

POD 

ppm 

PRA 

PRBP 

PSD 

Pub. L. 

RCRA 

RDP 

RFD 

RMG 

RMP 

ROD 

ROS 

Native American Graves and 

Repatriation Act 

National Cultural Programmatic 

Agreement 

No date 

Not Economically Disadvantaged 

National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 

National Historic Preservation Act 

of 1966 

Nonfunctional 

Oxides of nitrogen 

Nitrogen dioxide 

Notice of Intent 

Notice of Staking 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

No Surface Occupancy 

Notice to Lessees 

National Wetland Inventory 

Off-highway vehicle 

EnCana, BP America, and other oil 

and gas companies working in the 

JIDPA 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

Organic vapor meter 

Programmatic Agreements 

Pinedale Anticline Project Area 

Pinedale Anticline Working Group 

Proper functioning condition 

Pinedale Field Office 

Payment in lieu of taxes 

Pure live seed per acre 

Particulate matter less than 2.5 

microns in effective diameter 

Particulate matter less than 10 

microns in effective diameter 

Plan of Development 

Parts per million 

Pinedale Resource Area 

Powder River Basin Project 

Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration 

Public Law 

Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act of 1976 

Road Development Plan 

Reasonably Foreseeable 

Development 

Reservoir Management Group 

Resource Management Plan 

Record of Decision 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Abbreviations and Acronyms xxvii 

ROW Right-of-way USDI U.S. Department of the Interior 

RSFO Rock Springs Field Office USDOC U.S. Department of Commerce 

RV Recreational vehicle USFS U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

RVD Recreational visitor days Forest Service 

SARA Superfund Amendments and USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Reauthorization Act of 1986 UW University of Wyoming 

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

Acquisition VOC Volatile organic compounds 

SCBC Sublette County Board of VRM Visual Resource Management 

Commissioners WAAQS Wyoming Ambient Air Quality 

SCPC Sublette County Planning Standards 

Commission WAPA Wyoming Association of 

SCS U.S. Soil Conservation Service Professional Archeologists 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office WAQSR Wyoming Air Quality Standards and 

SIL Significant Impact Level Regulations 

SMA Surface Management Agency WCLI Wyoming Cost of Living Index 

SOx Oxides of sulfur WDA Wyoming Department of 

SO2 Sulfur dioxide Agriculture 

SPCCP Spill Prevention, Control, and WDEQ Wyoming Department of 

Countermeasure Plan Environmental Quality 

SPSS Special Status Plant Species WDERP Wyoming Department of 

SRA Sensitive resource area Employment, Research, and 

SUP Surface Use Plan Planning 

SVR Standard visual range WDOC Wyoming Department of Commerce 

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention WDOE Wyoming Department of 

Plan Employment 

SWREE Southwest Regional Economic WDOT Wyoming Department of 

Evaluation Transportation 

T&E Threatened and endangered WDR Wyoming Department of Revenue 

TCF Trillion cubic feet WESTAR Western States’ Air Resource 

TCP Traditional Cultural Properties Council 

TCPU Transportation, Communication, and WGFC Wyoming Game and Fish 

Public Utilities Commission 

TDS Total dissolved solids WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish 

TEC&SC Threatened, endangered, candidate, Department 

and other species of concern WHHMA Wild Horse Herd Management Area 

TEE total energy efficiency WOGCC Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation 

TEP&C Threatened, endangered, proposed Commission 

and candidate species. WQD Water Quality Division 

THK THK Associates, Inc. WRCC Western Regional Climate Center 

TLS Timing Limitation Stipulations WS Wyoming Statute 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load WSA Wilderness Study Area 

TP Transportation Plan WSEO Wyoming State Engineer’s Office 

TPA Transportation planning area WSGS Wyoming State Geological Survey 

TPTSD Transportation Planning Technical WSLUC Wyoming State Land Use 

Support Document Commission 

TPQ Threshold planning quantity WSP Wyoming State Protocol 

tpy Tons per year WUS Waters of the U.S. 

TRC Mariah TRC Mariah Associates Inc. WyCAS Wyoming Comprehensive 

TRPH Total recoverable petroleum Assessment System 

hydrocarbons WyGISC Wyoming Geographic Information 

TSP Total suspended particulate matter Science Center 

USC United States Code WyNDD Wyoming Natural Diversity 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture Database 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Abbreviations and Acronyms xxviii


Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION 

1.1	 PROJECT LOCATION, SETTING, AND HISTORY OF PRIOR 

DEVELOPMENT 

The U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Pinedale Field 

Office (PFO) and Rock Springs Field Office (RSFO) received a proposal from EnCana Oil & Gas 

(USA), Inc. (EnCana), BP America Production Company (BP America), and other companies 

(referred to as “Operators”) to expand existing Jonah Field natural gas drilling and development 

operations in south-central Sublette County, Wyoming, approximately 32 miles southeast of 

Pinedale, 28 miles northwest of Farson, and 1.5 to 11.0 miles west of U.S. Highway 191 

(Map 1.1). Expanded development is proposed in portions of Townships 28 and 29 North (T28NT29N), Ranges 107, 108, and 109 West (R107-109W). 

The project is referred to as the Jonah Infill Drilling Project (JIDP), and the total Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project Area (JIDPA) encompasses approximately 30,500 acres. This acreage includes 

approximately 28,580 acres of federal surface and mineral estate managed by the BLM, 

1,280 acres of State of Wyoming surface and minerals, and 640 acres of private surface/federal 

minerals. The JIDPA includes the entire area formerly described as the Modified Jonah Field II 

Project Area (BLM 2000a), but for analysis purposes has been expanded to include the N1⁄2 of 

Section 23, T28N, R109W, because natural gas development from the same productive formation 

occurs in this area. 

Topography in the JIDPA and surrounding area is characterized by low, gently rolling hills 

interspersed with buttes; elevations range from approximately 7,000–7,400 feet above mean sea 

level. Vegetation consists primarily of Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var. 

wyomingensis) communities. Characteristic fauna inhabiting the JIDPA and surrounding areas 

include pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana); greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus); various raptor and passerine species; white-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus); 

and various hares, rabbits, ground squirrels, mice, rats, and voles. The JIDPA is intersected by 

numerous ephemeral washes, but contains no perennial water bodies and no known fish species; 

one large playa is located in Section 32, T29N, R108W, and numerous smaller playas and 

depressions are scattered throughout the project area. The Wind River Range is typically visible 

approximately 20 miles to the northeast and the Wyoming Range approximately 50 miles to the 

west. Precipitation throughout the area is meager, on average totaling only 8.0 inches per year. 

The JIDPA is widely acknowledged to be one of the most highly concentrated, highly productive 

sweet natural gas fields in North America (Bowker and Robinson 1997; Surdam 2001; Gray et al. 

2003). The field produces both natural gas and condensate (oil contained in the natural gas 

stream). Targeted producing strata lie primarily in the Lance Formation and the upper levels of 

the underlying Mesaverde Group, approximately 7,500–11,800 feet below ground surface. 

Operator estimates of original gas in place (OGIP) within these formations is at least 12,800 

billion cubic feet (BCF), with recoverable volumes under the Proposed Action estimated at 

approximately 62% of that volume, or roughly 7,900 BCF; condensate recovery under the 

Proposed Action is estimated at 75.5 million barrels. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
1-2 Chapter 1


Map 1.1. Jonah Infill Drilling Project Location, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Introduction 1-3 

According to the Energy Information Administration (2004), 1 BCF of natural gas is the average 

annual amount used by 13,700 Wyoming households. 

Existing natural gas drilling operations within the JIDPA have been previously authorized in the 

Jonah Field II Natural Gas Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (BLM 1997a, 1998a) 

and its Record of Decision (ROD) (BLM 1998b), and subsequently revised by the Environmental 

Assessment (EA), Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and Decision Record (DR) for the 

Modified Jonah Field II Natural Gas Project (BLM 2000a, 2000b). These decisions authorized 

surface disturbance from 497 well pads on 4,209 acres, including roads, pipelines, and other 

supporting facilities (see Table 2.3). The Proposed Action would entail a major expansion of 

these existing natural gas development operations. 

1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

Based on Operator knowledge of natural gas reservoir characteristics (geology, flow from 

existing wells, anticipated recovery rates, and economics), the Operators anticipate field 

development in the JIDPA to involve infill drilling among existing wells. The Operators propose 

drilling and developing up to 3,100 additional new wells in the JIDPA depending on the outcome 

of continued exploration and reservoir characterization. Bottom-hole (subsurface) well spacing is 

expected to range from 16 wells per 640-acre section up to as many as 128 wells/section 

(1 well/5 acres). The Operators propose a minimum of 64 well pads per section. The construction 

of various ancillary facilities such as roads, pipelines, water wells, water disposal sites, and 

compressor station expansions would occur in association with the expanded development. 

Because the Operators have identified the potential for up to 3,100 new wells with associated 

facilities on up to 16,200 acres of new surface disturbance, BLM determined that preparation of 

an EIS was required to analyze the impacts associated with this level of development. 

The Draft EIS (DEIS) for this proposed project, published in February 2005, assessed the 

estimated environmental impacts of the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action, seven 

additional action alternatives, and the BLM Preferred Alternative (BLM 2005a). Subsequent 

public, agency, and Operator comments on the DEIS, in conjunction with analyses later 

conducted by BLM and extensive internal and interagency discussion, led BLM to eliminate from 

final analysis in this Final EIS (FEIS) five of the alternatives presented in the DEIS and to 

significantly revise its Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 2). The purpose of this FEIS is to 

provide the public decision-makers with sufficient information to understand the anticipated 

environmental consequences of implementing the project and to select a project alternative that 

will adequately meet the defined Purpose and Need (Section 1.3) within the context of BLM’s 

broader management goals for all resources under its jurisdiction. Under any alternative, 

appropriate measures to minimize environmental impacts would be required; these will be 

stipulated in the project Record of Decision (ROD) and in later site-specific permitting actions. 

Standard operating procedures and practices currently used in gas field development throughout 

Wyoming and the surrounding region would be employed for this project (see Appendix A, BLM 

Standard Stipulation/Mitigation Requirements, and Appendix B, Development Procedures). 

In addition, the Operators have committed to a range of standard, project-specific, and 

site-specific mitigation measures under various alternatives that would serve to further avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate potential environmental impacts (see Appendix C, Operator-Committed 

Practices). Construction, development, production, and abandonment would comply with all 

applicable federal, state, and county laws, rules, and regulations (see Section 1.5). Reclamation 

would be conducted as soon as practical on disturbed areas, frequently in conjunction with 

ongoing development elsewhere in the field. Upon project completion, all wells would be 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
1-4 Chapter 1 

plugged and abandoned, surface facilities would be removed, and disturbed areas would be 

reclaimed and revegetated. 

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT 

The proposed development meets the purpose and need of BLM Resource Management Plan 

(RMP) minerals development objectives. These objectives are: 

•	 to maintain or enhance the opportunities for mineral exploration and development, while 

protecting other resource values; 

•	 to provide for oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development while protecting other 

values; 

•	 to consider the conservation and enhancement of natural resources with the economic 

benefits of resource development; 

•	 to coordinate land use decisions with economic factors and needs; 

•	 to plan land use consistent with the orderly development, use, and conservation of 

resources while preserving environmental quality; and 

•	 to plan uses that encourage energy conservation. 

The purpose of the proposed development is also to enable the commercial production by 

Operators of federally owned natural gas in conformance with BLM RMP oil and gas objectives, 

pursuant to their rights under existing oil and gas leases issued by the BLM, and to prevent 

drainage of federal minerals by wells located on adjacent non-federally owned lands (i.e., State of 

Wyoming lands). All of the federally owned minerals in the JIDPA have been leased. National 

mineral leasing policies and the regulations by which they are enforced recognize the statutory 

right of leaseholders to develop federal mineral resources to meet continuing national needs and 

economic demands as long as unnecessary and undue environmental degradation is not incurred. 

According to the American Gas Association (2003), 99% of the natural gas used in the U.S. is 

produced in North America (85% in the U.S. and nearly 15% in Canada), supplies are abundant, 

and demand is anticipated to increase 45% by 2015 and 53% by 2020; this project would assist in 

providing natural gas to meet anticipated demand. Demand has increased 35% in the last decade. 

The National Petroleum Council (2003) estimates that natural gas provides nearly one-quarter of 

all U.S. energy requirements, about 19% of electric power generation, and is used for heating and 

cooking in over 60 million U.S. households. U.S. industries get over 40% of all their primary 

energy from natural gas. 

Development of new gas resources like those proposed by the Operators in the JIDPA is 

consistent with the Comprehensive National Energy Strategy announced by the U.S. Department 

of Energy (DOE) in April 1998 (DOE 1998), the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 United 

States Code [USC] 6201), and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Introduction 1-5 

1.4 DECISIONS TO BE MADE 

The decision BLM will make as a result of the analysis presented in this FEIS is whether to 

allow, and under what conditions to allow, the development, operation, maintenance, and 

reclamation of expanded development/surface disturbances on federal land in the JIDPA. BLM 

will determine what levels of impacts are approved, and what Conditions of Approval (COAs), 

Best Management Practices (BMPs), mitigation, monitoring, and surveying would be required. 

The ROD associated with this FEIS will not be the final review or the final approval for all 

actions associated with this proposal. BLM must review and authorize each component of the 

project that involves the disturbance of federal lands on a site-specific basis. The method used to 

evaluate and authorize each surface-disturbing activity is normally an Application for Permit to 

Drill (APD), right-of-way (ROW) grant, or Sundry Notice, with supporting environmental record 

of review, which would be required before any construction can occur. 

1.5 REGULATORY SETTING 

This EIS incorporates key provisions of Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

(FLPMA) to manage public lands and their resource values to “best meet the present and future 

needs of the American people” (Section 103 [43 USC 1702]) and to coordinate resource 

management “without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the 

environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not 

necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or greatest unit 

output” (Section 103 [43 USC 1702]). FLPMA also states that it is appropriate that some lands be 

used “for less than all of the resources” (Section 103 [43 USC 1702]). The proposed project is 

compliant with resource management regulations (43 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1610). 

The BLM PFO is the lead agency for this EIS because the vast majority of development is 

proposed for lands under their jurisdiction. The BLM (PFO and RSFO) has provided guidance, 

input, participation, and independent evaluation during EIS preparation. The State of Wyoming 

participated in the preparation of this EIS as a cooperating agency; state agencies specifically 

participating include the Office of State Lands and Investments, Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality (WDEQ), Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC), 

Wyoming State Geological Survey (WSGS), Wyoming State Engineer’s Office (WSEO), 

Wyoming Department of Agriculture (WDA), Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), 

Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Wyoming State Parks and Historic Sites, 

Wyoming Business Council, and Wyoming Department of Transportation. BLM, in accordance 

with 40 CFR 1506.5(a) and (c), is in agreement with the information and analyses presented in 

this EIS and approves and takes responsibility for the scope and content of this document. 

This EIS was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), as amended, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing 

NEPA (40 CFR 1500–1508), and is in compliance with all applicable regulations and laws 

subsequently passed, including USDI requirements (Department Manual [DM] 516 

[516 DM 1 through 6, 11], Environmental Quality [USDI 2004]), guidelines listed in the BLM 

National Environmental Policy Act Handbook, H-1790-1 (BLM 1988a), Guidelines for Assessing 

and Documenting Cumulative Impacts (BLM 1994c), Washington Office Instruction 

Memorandum (IM) 2005-247 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance for Oil, 

Gas, and Geothermal Development, and CEQ’s Considering Cumulative Effects under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
1-6 Chapter 1 

1.5.1 Federal Permits, Authorizations, and Coordination 

Consistent with regulations regarding federal oil and gas leasing and operations (43 CFR Parts 

3100 and 3160 respectively) oil and gas leases are issued by the BLM. Stipulations may be added 

as terms of a lease to reflect management guidance established in the applicable RMP. 

Once the lease is issued, the leaseholder/operator must apply for and receive site-specific 

authorization(s) prior to drilling within the leasehold area. To meet required environmental 

obligations, the leaseholder/operator must submit to the BLM an APD or its associated 

application for ROW so that the appropriate environmental review may be prepared. 

Environmental documents such as EAs, Categorical Exclusion, or the appropriate environmental 

record of review for APD or ROW authorizations often include site-specific COAs that add 

further site-specific operation requirements. Drilling of federal minerals is subject to the BLM’s 

Onshore Oil and Gas Orders (43 CFR Subpart 3164 – Special Provisions). BLM Onshore Order 

Nos. 1 and 2 require an applicant to comply with the following conditions: 

•	 operations must result in the diligent development and efficient recovery of resources; 

•	 all activities must comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations 

applicable to federal leases; 

•	 all activities must include adequate safeguards to protect the environment; 

•	 disturbed lands must be properly reclaimed; and 

•	 all activities must protect public health and safety. 

Onshore Order No. 1 specifically states that “lessees and operators shall be held fully accountable 

for their contractor’s compliance with the requirements of the approved permit and/or plan” 

(48 Federal Register [FR] 56226, December 20, 1983). 

Pipeline and road ROWs on federal lands would be issued under the authority of the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920 as amended or FLPMA. ROW grants authorizing construction of ancillary 

facilities, access roads, and pipelines would grant the Operators certain rights that are subject to 

the terms and conditions incorporated into the grant by BLM. 

Nine Presidential Executive Orders (EOs) also affect implementation of the proposed project. 

These EOs, which are binding on all government agencies, place restrictions on government 

approval of construction activities and apply to wetlands (EO 11990), floodplains management 

(EO 11988), migratory birds (EO 13186), environmental justice (EO 12898), Native American 

sacred sites (EO 13007), historic trails (EO 13195), cultural resources and historic preservation 

(EO 11593 and EO 13287), and invasive species (EO 13112). 

The BLM also has specific provisions it must adhere to regarding the draining of federal minerals 

from adjoining nonfederal lands. These provisions are codified in 43 CFR 3100.2, which states 

that, upon determination that lands owned by the U.S. are being drained of oil or gas by wells 

drilled on adjacent lands, the BLM may execute agreements with the owners of adjacent lands 

whereby the U.S. and its lessees shall be compensated for such drainage. In addition, where lands 

in any lease are being drained of their oil and gas content by wells either on another federal lease, 

issued at a lower rate or royalty, or on nonfederal lands, the lessee shall both drill and produce all 

wells necessary to protect the lease lands from drainage. In lieu of drilling necessary wells, the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Introduction 1-7 

lessee may, with the consent of the BLM, pay compensatory royalty. These provisions are also 

incorporated in the lease terms contained in all federal oil and gas leases (Form 3100-11). 

A list of the major permits, approvals, and authorized actions necessary to construct, operate, 

maintain, and abandon project facilities is provided in Table 1.1. 

Table 1.1. Major Federal, State, and Local Permits, Approvals, and Authorizing Actions for the 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 20061 

Agency Permit, Approval, or Action Authority 

Office of the Protection and enhancement of the 

President of the cultural environment 

United States Floodplains management 

Protection of wetlands 

Environmental justice 

Indian sacred sites 

Invasive species 

Protection of migratory birds 

Trails for America in the 21st century 

Preserve America 

Executive Order 11593 

Executive Order 11988 

Executive Order 11990 

Executive Order 12898 

Executive Order 13007 

Executive Order 13112 

Executive Order 13186 

Executive Order 13195 

Executive Order 13287 

Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) 

Permit to drill, deepen, or plug back on 

federal onshore lands (Application for 

Permit to Drill [APD]/Sundry process); 

authorization for flaring and venting of 

natural gas on federal lands; plugging 

and abandonment of a well on federal 

lands 

Right-of-way (ROW) grants and 

temporary use clearances on federal 

lands 

Antiquities and cultural resource 

clearances on BLM-managed land 

Approval to dispose of produced water 

on BLM-managed land 

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 United States 

Code [USC] 181 et seq.); 43 Code of Federal 

Regulation (CFR) 3162 

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended 

(30 USC 185); 43 CFR 2880; Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 

(43 USC 1761–1771); 43 CFR 2800 

Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC Section 431– 

433); Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

of 1979 (16 USC Sections 470aa–470ll); 

Preservation of American Antiquities 

(43 CFR 3) 

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 USC 181 et 

seq.); 43 CFR 3164; Onshore Oil and Gas 

Order No. 7 

U.S. Army Corps of Section 404 permits and coordination Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 

Engineers (COE) regarding placement of dredged or fill (40 CFR 122-123, 230) 

material in area waters and adjacent 

wetlands 

U.S. Fish and Coordination, consultation, and impact Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 

Wildlife Service review on federally listed threatened Sec. 661 et seq.); Section 7 of the Endangered 

(USFWS) and endangered (T&E) species Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC et 

seq.); Bald Eagle Protection Act, as amended 

(16 USC 668–668dd) 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
1-8 Chapter 1 

Table 1.1. (Continued) 

Agency	 Permit, Approval, or Action Authority 

U.S. Environmental Spill Prevention, Control, and 40 CFR 112


Protection Agency Countermeasure Plans (SPCCPs)


(EPA)
 Regulation of hazardous waste Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

treatment, storage, and/or disposal (42 USC 6901) 

U.S. Department of Regulation of interstate pipeline Various sections of the USC and CFR 

Energy (DOE) product transportation 

U.S. Department of Control of pipeline maintenance and 49 CFR 191 and 192 

Transportation (DOT) operation 

Wyoming Board of Approval of oil and gas leases, ROWs Wyoming Statute (WS) 37-1-101 et seq.


Land Commissioners/ for long-term or permanent off-


Land and Investments lease/off-unit roads and pipelines,


Office temporary use permits, and


developments on state lands 

Wyoming Department	 Regulation of off-lease disposal of 

of Environmental	 drilling fluids from abandoned reserve 

Quality - Water Quality	 pits 

Division National Pollutant Discharge (WDEQ/WQD)	 Elimination System (NPDES) permits 

for discharging waste water and 

stormwater runoff 

Administrative approval for discharge 

of hydrostatic test water 

Wyoming Environmental Quality Act 

(WS 35-11-301 through 35-11-311) 

WDEQ Rules and Regulations, Chapter 18,


Wyoming Environmental Quality Act


(WS 35-11-301 through 35-11-311); Section


405 of the Clean Water Act (40 CFR 122–


124)


Wyoming Environmental Quality Act 

(WS 35-11-301 through 35-11-311) 

Wyoming Department Permits to construct and permits to Clean Air Act; Wyoming Environmental


of Environmental operate Quality Act (WS 35-11-201 through 35-11­


Quality - Air Quality 212)


Division (WDEQ/AQD)


Wyoming Department Mine permits, impoundments, and drill Wyoming Environmental Quality Act,


of Environmental hole plugging on state lands Article 4, and Quality, as amended (WS 35­


Quality - Land Quality 11-401 through 35-11-437)


Division (WDEQ/LQD)


Wyoming Department Construction fill permits and industrial Wyoming Environmental Quality Act 

of Environmental waste facility permits for solid waste (WS 35-11-501 through 35-11-520) 

Quality - Solid Waste disposal during construction and 

Division operations 

Wyoming Department Permits for oversize, overlength, and Chapters 17 and 20 of the Wyoming 

of Transportation overweight loads Highway Department Rules and Regulations 

(WDOT) 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Permit to use earthen pit (reserve pits) WOGCC Regulations (Section III; Rule 305)


Conservation on nonfederal lands


Commission (WOGCC)
 Authorization for flaring or venting of WOGCC Regulations (Section III; Rule 326) 

gas 

Permit for Class II underground WOGCC Regulations (Section III; Rule 346) 

injection wells 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Introduction 1-9 

Table 1.1. (Continued) 

Agency Permit, Approval, or Action Authority 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Well plugging and abandonment 40 CFR 146; 40 CFR 147.2551 

Minimum safety standards for oil WOGCC Regulations (Rules 320-A, 327, and 

and gas activities 328) 

Permit to drill, deepen, or plug back 

(APD process) 

WOGCC Regulations (Section III; Rule 315) 

Change in depletion plans Wyoming Oil and Gas Act (WS 30-5-110) 

Conservation 

Commission (WOGCC), 

continued 

Wyoming State Permits to appropriate groundwater WS 41-121 through 147 (Form U.W.5) 

Engineer’s Office (use, storage, wells, dewatering) 

(WSEO) Permits to appropriate surface water WS 41-201 (Form S.W.1) 

Wyoming State Historic Cultural resource protection, Section 106 of National Historic Preservation 

Preservation Office programmatic agreements, Act (NHPA) and Advisory Council 

(SHPO) consultation Regulations (36 CFR 800) 

Sublette County County road crossing/access permits Planning and Zoning Department 

Small wastewater permits Planning and Zoning Department 

Hazardous material recordation and 

storage 

Emergency Management Coordinator 

Zone changes Planning and Zoning Department 

Noxious weed control Weed and Pest Department 

1 This list is intended to provide an overview of the key regulatory requirements that would govern project implementation. Additional approvals, 

permits, and authorizing actions may be necessary. 

1.5.2 Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines and Practices for Surface 

Disturbing and Disruptive Activities 

The Wyoming BLM has adopted a standard set of guidelines and post-lease COAs that apply to 

all surface-disturbing activities on federal lands and minerals in Wyoming (see Appendix A). 

These mitigation guidelines encompass all aspects of environmental protection. Upon request by 

the applicant, an exception to a lease stipulation or a COA may be granted by the BLM following 

on-site review to see if the exception is warranted. 

With the exception of specific mitigations excluded from Alternative A (see Chapter 2), the 

standard Wyoming BLM mitigation guidelines are applied to all alternatives analyzed in this EIS. 

1.5.3 Conformance with BLM Pinedale and Green River Resource 

Management Plans 

Policies for development and land use decisions within the JIDPA are contained in the draft and 

final Pinedale Resource Area (now referred to as the PFO) RMP/EIS (BLM 1987a, 1987b), its 

ROD (BLM 1988b), and the Green River Resource Area (now referred to as the RSFO) RMP/EIS 

(BLM 1992a, 1996a) and its ROD (1997b). These two RMPs allocate which lands and/or 

minerals are appropriate for leasing. These documents also provide development guidelines. 

Both RODs indicate federal minerals will be made available for orderly and efficient 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
1-10 Chapter 1 

development, and all minerals actions will comply with goals, objectives, and resource 

restrictions (mitigations) required to protect other resource values. Both the PFO and RSFO 

planning areas (excluding specific locations outside the JIDPA) are open to consideration for 

exploration, leasing, and development for all leaseable minerals (e.g., oil, gas, coal). 

The alternative selected and approved for the JIDP must be in conformance with the PFO and 

RSFO RMPs. The PFO RMP states that Preferred Alternatives would be considered in 

conformance if they: (1) are specifically provided for in the plan, (2) are consistent with the 

provisions, guidelines, and objectives of the plan, or (3) are not specifically prohibited or are not 

inconsistent with objectives and other actions that are provided for in the plan. The Preferred 

Alternative must meet at least one of these requirements in all aspects of its implementation to be 

in conformance with the PFO RMP. The RSFO RMP simply states that “All public land and 

resource uses in the planning area must conform with the decisions, terms, and conditions of use” 

described in the RMP. BLM has determined that the Preferred Alternative for the JIDPA 

complies with the applicable decisions, terms, and conditions of use in the RSFO RMP. 

The Notice of Intent (NOI) for this EIS (see Section 2.1) indicated the possible need for an 

amendment to the PFO RMP as a result of proposed new well drilling and surface disturbance. 

However, an amendment would not be needed so long as the approved alternative remains in 

conformance with the RMP’s objectives. BLM has determined that the proposed project is in 

conformance with the RMP’s objectives, and therefore does not require an amendment of the 

PFO RMP as updated by the ROD for the Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development Project (BLM 2000c) if development at the proposed level were approved. 

Specifically, the proposed project is in conformance with the overall fluid minerals management 

objectives of the PFO and RSFO RMPs, even though it partially exceeds estimates of reasonably 

foreseeable development (RFD) in the PFO RMP (as updated in BLM 2000c). The Pinedale 

Anticline ROD set an oil and gas RFD projection of 1,944 new wells (above the 1,815 wells 

present at that time) over a 10- to 15-year period beginning in 2000, and included 6,300 acres of 

new long-term disturbance (above the 14,076 acres present at that time). As of March 2004, the 

WOGCC website listed 2,530 wells in the PFO area; these wells are estimated to require 

approximately 8,572 acres of long-term disturbance. Current oil and gas development proposals 

in the PFO could add approximately 3,310 more wells (more than the updated RFD) and 5,190 

acres of new long-term disturbance (less than the updated RFD). Though this exceeds the RFD 

for number of new wells, the BLM considers long-term surface disturbance as the governing 

objective. Under this management strategy, existing RMP objectives would still be met. 

It should be noted that projections of RFD are based upon the best data available at the time and 

the professional judgment of the estimators. Although considerable effort is put forth in 

developing these estimates, actual development may differ from the projections. However, any 

approved alternative must continue to comply with key elements of the RMPs (i.e., areas 

prohibited from surface disturbance continue to remain withdrawn, long-term surface disturbance 

objectives are met, and only areas previously opened for development are included in the JIDPA) 

or include actions necessary to update and/or amend the plan. In addition, reasonable stipulations 

must be implemented to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts resulting from the development. 

Thus, although the project may not be consistent with RFD projections for number of new wells, 

it remains in conformance with the overall fluid minerals management objectives of the RMPs. 

The air quality management objectives set forth in the RMPs state that air quality would be 

maintained at present levels or enhanced where possible. It also notes the BLM would try to 

minimize, within the scope of its authority, any emissions that may add to existing impacts. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Introduction 1-11 

Existing field development has already caused some impacts to air quality in the JIDPA, so the 

baseline conditions for implementation of the current proposal no longer meet those present when 

the PFO RMP was developed. Nevertheless, air quality in the Pinedale area remains excellent. 

It should be noted that agencies with responsibility and authority for regulating air quality include 

the Environmental Protection Agency and the State of Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality. Current modeling predicts that existing levels of emissions may cause some visibility 

impacts outside of the JIDPA boundary. However, the BLM will implement various mitigations 

that will require a reduction in project-specific air quality impacts over the life of the project 

compared to development stage levels. This will meet the RMPs’ objective of minimizing those 

air quality impacts that are within the BLM’s authority to regulate. 

The wildlife management objective of the PFO RMP is to maintain sufficient habitat to support 

wildlife populations at the 1987 WGFD planning objective levels, as updated in 2004 to reflect 

more recently available data. However, well spacing authorized prior to 2004 has resulted in 

adverse impacts to some species. To mitigate the additional impacts of infill drilling, the 

Operators have proposed off-site mitigation aimed at habitat enhancement linked to various levels 

of authorized surface disturbance (see Chapter 5). This off-site mitigation would also meet the 

objectives of the RSFO RMP, which include improving or enhancing biological diversity while 

providing for wildlife needs. Considering the existing conditions in the project area, incorporation 

of off-site mitigation in the selected alternative would result in a positive impact to wildlife in the 

area. Three of the four action alternatives presented in Chapter 2 (i.e., the Proposed Action, 

Alternative A, and the Preferred Alternative) would include extensive provisions for off-site 

mitigation aimed at habitat enhancement as part of the project and are therefore considered in 

conformance with the wildlife management objectives of the RMPs because such mitigation 

would help achieve the intent of those objectives. 

1.5.4 State and Local Permits, Authorization, and Coordination 

The proposed project development alternatives are in conformance with the Wyoming State Land 

Use Plan (Wyoming State Land Use Commission 1979) and the Sublette County Comprehensive 

Plan: County Vision, Goals and Policies (Sublette County Board of Commissioners [SCBC] and 

Sublette County Planning Commission [SCPC] 2003). The alternatives comply with all relevant 

state and county laws and regulations (see Table 1.1). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
1-12 Chapter 1


Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
CHAPTER 2 — ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF KEY ISSUES 

2.1.1 Public Scoping 

NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1500–1508) require the BLM to use an early scoping process to 

identify significant issues in preparation for impact analysis. The principal goals of scoping are to 

allow public participation and identify issues, concerns, and potential impacts that require 

detailed analysis in the EIS. Scoping was the primary mechanism used by the BLM to identify 

public interests and concerns about proposed development actions in the JIDPA. 

To encourage early and improved public participation and agency cooperation, a number of 

meetings/announcements involving the BLM, Operators, various agencies, and the public have 

been held. On March 13, 2003, the BLM’s Notice of Intent (NOI) appeared in the Federal 

Register and invited the public to comment or provide research information regarding the 

Operators’ proposal to infill drill in the Jonah natural gas field. On March 26, 2003, copies of a 

scoping notice describing the Proposed Action and seeking comments were mailed to appropriate 

government offices, elected officials, public land users, groups, newspapers, and radio and 

television stations. A scoping meeting was held in Pinedale, Wyoming, on April 17, 2003. 

An additional public meeting was held on November 13, 2003, to present to the public the draft 

project alternatives that had been developed to address public concerns and would be analyzed in 

the EIS. At the request of the BLM, on November 20, 2003, EnCana and BP jointly submitted to 

the BLM a revised development proposal. On December 12, 2003, the BLM issued a letter 

identifying Operator-proposed development plan revisions and soliciting further comment. 

This letter was issued to those who received the March 2003 scoping notice and other parties who 

had commented in response to the NOI. 

Numerous issues and concerns were identified and comments were submitted between March 

2003 and August 2004. Consultation and coordination with other government agencies included 

the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

WDEQ, and the BLM Interdisciplinary Team (IDT). The issues and concerns identified during 

this period are summarized in Section 2.1.2 and presented in detail in Appendix D. 

All comments received during the scoping process were reviewed and analyzed. The BLM 

identified nine key or driving issues based primarily upon the assumed quantity, intensity, or 

duration of a potential impact, and/or the volume of agency or public interest in the issue. 

The range of alternatives was developed in response to these key issues, and the potential effects 

to the issues expected to result from varying levels of surface disturbance and/or inclusion or 

exclusion of various development guidelines/management protocols. For the DEIS, ranges in the 

pace of development (75, 150, or 250 wells developed per year) were applied under Alternatives 

A through G, and a range of well numbers were analyzed (3,100 wells for most alternatives, 

1,250 wells for Alternative C, and 2,200 wells for Alternative D). This range in pace of 

development and well numbers provided a range of effects to socioeconomics and air quality, 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
2-2 Chapter 2 

BLM inspection and enforcement capability, and project duration. The application or renewal of 

alternative-specific on-site surface disturbance protocols and mitigation (see Section 2.3, and 

Appendices A and C), including Operator-committed monitoring, reporting and off-site 

compensatory mitigation (CM), provided a range of potential impacts to key resources/resource 

issues including air quality, greater sage-grouse, pronghorn antelope, and other wildlife, livestock 

forage, and BLM inspection and enforcement capability. 

2.1.2 Key Issues 

Issue 1	 The extent of proposed surface disturbance and its effects on all area resources. 

Respondents identified the total volume and distribution of proposed surface disturbance 

associated with the Proposed Action as an issue for numerous area resources (e.g., wildlife and 

wildlife habitat, cultural resources, vegetation, soils). The extent and duration of surface 

disturbance was also identified as potentially adversely affecting appropriate management of 

these area resources. 

Issue 2	 Pace of proposed development, associated regional socioeconomic effects, and 

boom/bust avoidance. 

Respondents expressed concern with the potential influx of transient workers who do not tend to 

maintain permanent residence as experienced with past energy development projects; the added 

burden to area infrastructures such as community support facilities, including hospitals and 

medical clinics, emergency services, housing, and roads; and inadequate capacity of governments 

to address infrastructure shortfalls. 

Employees also identified as a concern the desire to maintain permanent residence in the area, but 

held the belief that if BLM does not approve continued development in the JIDPA, they would be 

forced to relocate. Furthermore, project proponents and local government agencies identified that 

the potential revenues from tax dollars, royalties, and jobs associated with the proposed project 

would benefit the State, county, and local communities. 

Issue 3	 Potential project and cumulative impacts on regional visibility, particularly at area 

residences and in Class I wilderness areas, and other air quality impacts, including 

those associated with emission rates, atmospheric deposition, and regulatory 

authority. 

Many respondents indicated that regional haze and smoke plumes have increased locally in 

association with ongoing natural gas development projects in the region, and that maintenance 

and improvement of visibility is a requirement of the Clean Air Act within nearby Class I 

wilderness areas. Other respondents had concerns about project emission effects on worker and 

area resident health; others were concerned about excessive acid deposition. Nighttime star 

gazing was also identified as having been locally affected. Additionally, agencies and the public 

expressed concerns regarding the authority for air quality mitigation requirements. 

Issue 4	 Project effects to greater sage-grouse, greater sage-grouse habitats, and habitat 

function. 

Respondents identified effects to this species and its habitats as an issue because of the historic 

population levels of greater sage-grouse in the JIDPA and the apparent decline in greater sagegrouse populations across their range. Potential project effects to breeding, nesting, broodFinal Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Public Participation and Identification of Key Issues 2-3 

rearing, and wintering habitat and habitat function were identified as potentially contributing to 

continued population declines. It was also noted that existing greater sage-grouse protection 

measures appear to be inadequate within the JIDPA and that with the proposed increase in 

development, existing protection measures would be even less effective. 

Issue 5	 Project effects on pronghorn antelope migration corridors leading to and from 

crucial winter ranges north of the JIDPA. 

Current developments in the region were identified as already having adversely affected the 

historic migrations of the Sublette pronghorn herd. Continued development within the JIDPA and 

at other locations within the Sublette herd unit area were identified as potentially cumulatively 

affecting pronghorn seasonal migrations. Hunters, wildlife enthusiasts, and wildlife management 

agencies all consider the maintenance of existing migratory corridors extremely important to 

pronghorn population maintenance. 

Issue 6	 Proposed surface disturbance, human presence, and noise effects to overall habitat 

loss (direct and indirect) for numerous wildlife species and associated 

fragmentation of wildlife habitats. 

Respondents indicated that, with implementation of the proposed project, the JIDPA would no 

longer be suitable habitat for many wildlife species (e.g., threatened and endangered species, 

BLM-sensitive species, and raptors). Habitat loss was attributed to direct loss through surface 

disturbance, indirect loss through animal avoidance of areas proximal to developments, and 

habitat fragmentation (habitat is no longer suitable for species requiring intact habitat patches 

larger than what would be available if the project were constructed). 

Issue 7	 Maximize natural gas recovery from the field. 

Respondents indicated that one of BLM’s mandates under the Mineral Leasing Act is to 

maximize recovery of available resources. It was pointed out that many of the existing and 

proposed development restrictions (e.g., lease stipulations, RMP requirements, Operatorcommitted practices) limit the economic feasibility of maximizing recovery of the JIDPA’s 

natural gas resources. 

Issue 8	 Loss of livestock forage and project-associated hazardous conditions to area 

livestock/livestock operations. 

Respondents indicated concerns for livestock operations on the JIDPA. Concerns were generally 

associated with the direct loss of livestock forage and the associated potential for a reduction in 

permitted livestock numbers; livestock water quality impairment at existing water sources; 

livestock movement restrictions/alterations due to pipeline trenches, roads, and fences; livestock 

management problems associated with the inability to access required area two-track routes from 

project-developed crowned-and-ditched roads; and livestock hazards from vehicle collisions, 

drinking contaminated waters from project pits, entrapment in pipeline trenches, and the increase 

in fugitive dust emissions potentially causing dust-induced pneumonia. 

Issue 9	 BLM monitoring and enforcement capability. 

Respondents indicated that processing permits for current and proposed levels of natural gas 

development is limiting BLM staff from adequately fulfilling their concurrent responsibilities for 

area management (e.g., site inspections, reclamation monitoring, wildlife monitoring, cultural 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
2-4 Chapter 2 

resource clearance actions). It was suggested that this may lead to unidentified violations of 

numerous laws, rules, and regulations (e.g., Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, lease 

stipulations, RMP requirements, Operator-committed practices required under past project 

authorizations). 

For more detail on these key issues and the variability in scoping respondent concerns see 

Appendix D. 

2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES 

2.2.1 Summary of Alternatives Analyzed in the DEIS 

The No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action, and eight additional alternatives that the BLM 

determined were capable of meeting the purpose and need for the project, and that were in 

compliance with CEQ NEPA requirements under 40 CFR 1502.14 for reasonableness and 

feasibility based on technical, economic, environmental, and other factors, were analyzed in detail 

in the February 2005 DEIS. This range of alternatives was also considered highly responsive to 

the key issues and concerns identified from public scoping (Section 2.1). The alternatives 

analyzed in the DEIS are summarized below. 

The reader should note that throughout these descriptions and the remainder of the EIS, the terms 

“new surface disturbance” or “new disturbance” are used to denote the total surface disturbance 

that would be approved in the ROD for this project (i.e., any disturbance beyond the 4,209 acres 

already authorized by previous NEPA documents). The phrase “short-term disturbance” is used to 

indicate surface disturbance associated with the well drilling and completion phases of the project 

(i.e., that portion of new development disturbance from well pads, gathering pipelines, roads, and 

other necessary project-related infrastructure that is not subsequently reclaimed prior to the 

project production phase). The term “life-of-project (LOP) disturbance” denotes surface 

disturbance that will remain after interim reclamation (e.g., regrading and revegetation of portions 

of developed well pads and entire pipeline ROWs) has concluded, but prior to complete cessation 

of the production phase and full reclamation and abandonment of the JIDPA. 

No Action Alternative: Reject Operators’ Proposal 

The No Action Alternative would reject the Proposed Action and all new field-level development 

alternatives. Though this alternative rejects the field-level development as proposed, existing 

BLM management decisions could allow new drilling activity (BLM 1997a, 1998a, 1998b, 

2000a, 2000b). However, the BLM cannot predict what level of development would be required 

to support existing management protocols, so for alternative analysis purposes assumes no new 

development. The No Action alternative serves as a benchmark enabling decision-makers and the 

public to compare the magnitude of environmental consequences across action alternatives. This 

alternative is carried forward for analysis in this FEIS. 

Proposed Action 

The Operators propose to increase recovery of natural gas and condensate reserves from the 

Lance and other formations at depths of approximately 11,000 feet by drilling as many as 3,100 

additional wells on up to 16,200 acres of new surface disturbance. Specific features of the 

proposal include: a minimum of 64 well pads per 640-acre section; downhole well spacing from 

1 well/5 acres to 1 well/40 acres; up to 465 miles of new resource roads with associated pipelines; 

8 miles of new collector/local roads; 41 acres of new surface disturbance for ancillary facilities; 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Public Participation and Identification of Key Issues 2-5 

and 100 acres of new surface disturbance for exploration of other formations. A single well 

development rate of 250 wells drilled per year (20 simultaneously operating rigs) is assumed. 

The Operators have committed to various mitigation measures—these vary by alternative—and 

propose to fund a Cumulative Impacts Mitigation Fund (CIMF) for offsite compensatory 

mitigation (CM) under some alternatives. The CIMF could mitigate adverse impacts within the 

JIDPA by financing substitution mitigation projects outside the JIDPA. As proposed, the amount 

of the fund may be based on the level of authorized surface disturbance. This alternative is carried 

forward for analysis in this FEIS. 

Alternative A: Maximize Mineral Resource Recovery 

New short-term (drilling phase) surface disturbance would be comparable to the Proposed Action 

(16,200 acres), but development activity would be exempt from some existing BLM Conditions 

of Approval (COAs), stipulations, and mitigation. Most notably, environmentally sensitive areas 

such as the Sand Draw and greater sage-grouse lek Controlled Surface Use areas would not be 

avoided in order to increase gas recovery. Three well development rates (75, 150, and 250 wells 

drilled per year) were analyzed in the DEIS. This alternative, under a single well development 

rate of 250 wells drilled per year, is carried forward for analysis in this FEIS. 

Alternative B: Minimize Surface Disturbance 

All new wells would be drilled from the 497 currently approved well pads. This alternative 

requires expansion of existing well pads but results in the least amount of new surface 

disturbance (3,222 acres) while still providing for a high level of resource recovery within the 

JIDPA. Three well development rates (75, 150, and 250 wells drilled per year) were analyzed in 

the DEIS. This alternative, under a single well development rate of 75 wells drilled per year, is 

carried forward for analysis in this FEIS. 

Alternatives C and D: Restrict Number of New Wells 

Alternative C limits development to 1,250 new wells and well pads with an estimated total new 

surface disturbance of 6,705 acres. Alternative D increases the number of new wells and well 

pads to 2,200, resulting in new surface disturbance of 11,581 acres. Neither alternative includes 

well pad surface density restrictions. Three well development rates (75, 150, and 250 wells drilled 

per year) for each alternative were analyzed in the DEIS. These alternatives are not carried 

forward for analysis in this FEIS (see Section 2.2.3). 

Alternatives E, F, and G: Restrict Well Pad Density 

Alternative E stipulates a maximum of 16 well pads per section (1 well pad/40 acres) with a total 

new surface disturbance of approximately 6,386 acres. Alternative F increases well pad density to 

32 wells per section (1 well pad/20 acres) and results in new surface disturbance of 10,446 acres. 

Alternative G increases the density to 64 wells per section (1 well pad/10 acres) with 13,989 acres 

of new surface disturbance. Each alternative assumes up to 3,100 new wells would be drilled. 

Three well development rates (75, 150, and 250 wells drilled per year) for each alternative were 

analyzed in the DEIS. These alternatives are not carried forward for analysis in this FEIS 

(see Section 2.2.3). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
2-6 Chapter 2 

BLM Preferred Alternative 

As presented in the DEIS, under the Preferred Alternative three different surface disturbance 

allowances per section would be established within different areas of the JIDPA, resulting in a 

total of approximately 8,316 acres of new surface disturbance. A single well development rate of 

250 wells drilled per year is assumed. Performance-based field management objectives would 

address key issues and significant impacts. Monitoring and surveying would be required to 

determine if objectives are being met. An interagency adaptive management working group 

would be established to monitor the effectiveness of development guidelines, mitigation, and 

monitoring, and to recommend to BLM any modifications to these procedures based on 

monitoring results. This alternative has been significantly revised for the FEIS (see Section 2.4.5) 

as a result of public and agency comments on the DEIS. 

2.2.2 Publication of the DEIS, Public Meetings, and Public Comments 

On February 11, 2005, a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the DEIS for public review and 

comment was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 7296–7298). The DEIS was distributed in 

both paper and electronic formats (on CD-ROM), and was available for downloading from the 

BLM’s website. Additional copies of these volumes were made available for public inspection at 

the PFO and at the BLM Wyoming State Office. The BLM invited public and agency comment 

on the DEIS and the draft air quality and socioeconomic analysis technical support documents 

(TSDs) for a period of 60 calendar days, until April 12, 2005. BLM-sponsored public meetings to 

provide an opportunity to discuss the DEIS and the supporting documents were held on March 

21, 2005, at BLM’s Rock Springs office and March 23, 2005, at Rendezvous Pointe in Pinedale. 

Subsequent to publication of the DEIS, BLM determined that the air quality modeling and 

analysis done for the DEIS provided insufficient information for meaningful impact evaluation, 

largely because new analysis in another document showed emission levels of certain pollutants 

within the regional airshed had increased significantly since the original DEIS data had been 

compiled. Following consultation with the EPA and Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality-Air Quality Division (WDEQ/AQD), the BLM determined that supplemental air quality 

modeling and analysis would be conducted, DEIS and TSD supplements would be published, and 

the results of these studies would be incorporated into the FEIS. Therefore, on April 12, 2005, 

BLM published an Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register (70 FR 19094) to inform the 

public that supplemental DEIS documents would be prepared and that additional time would be 

made available to submit comments on the air quality information presented in the DEIS. When 

the new supplemental air quality information became available for public review and comment in 

August 2005, BLM published a new NOA in the Federal Register (70 FR 46187) and provided 

the public with an additional 60-day comment period. 

BLM received a total of 877 separate written comment submissions (letters, e-mails, forms, etc.) 

on the DEIS, TSDs, and the August 2005 supplements. Within these submissions, 1,147 

individual comments were identified as “substantive,” or meaningful to revision of the DEIS 

and/or its supporting volumes. Some submissions had several substantive comments; some had 

none. BLM crafted responses to each of these substantive comments, which were used to guide 

revision of the DEIS analyses. The substantive comments received and the responses that were 

generated as a result became central to the IDT’s decision to significantly revise the Preferred 

Alternative and to eliminate five of the alternatives presented in the DEIS from further 

consideration in the FEIS. All substantive comments, along with BLM’s responses, are included 

in Volume 3, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Comment Analysis Report. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Public Participation and Identification of Key Issues 2-7 

Subsequent to publication of the DEIS, BLM also determined that additional erosion modeling 

was needed to assess the relative impacts of the alternatives on soil loss and sedimentation of 

surface waters. The results of this modeling have been incorporated into the impact analysis in 

Chapter 4 of this document. The full modeling report, Erosion, Sediment Transport, and Salinity 

Modeling Technical Report: Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming (HydroGeo 

2005) is included as Appendix E. 

2.2.3 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Detailed Study 

2.2.3.1 DEIS Alternatives Not Carried Forward for Final Analysis 

Of the 10 alternatives that were analyzed in detail in the DEIS, the IDT determined that five of 

these alternatives—Alternatives C, D, E, F, and G—would not be carried forward for final 

analysis in the FEIS. The BLM also determined that multiple well development rates within any 

single alternative would not be further analyzed. 

Alternatives C and D provided different limits to restrict well numbers and were initially 

considered in the DEIS to provide a range of impacts to air quality. Alternative C proposed 

limiting development to 1,250 new wells and well pads and an estimated surface disturbance of 

6,705 acres. Alternative D would have limited the number of new wells and well pads to 2,200 

and an estimated surface disturbance of 11,581 acres. Neither Alternative C nor Alternative D 

limited well or well pad surface density. These two alternatives were eliminated from additional 

analysis because neither alternative is considered reasonable: at least 3,100 additional wells 

would be required to fully develop the field and anything less would result in stranded resources 

that would most likely never be recovered. Allowing mineral resources to remain unrecovered, as 

would occur under these and similar alternatives, would result in waste and prevent BLM from 

achieving its statutory and policy goals. In addition to not fully recovering the resource, 

Alternatives C and D would result in impacts similar to those resulting from components of the 

alternatives that are carried forward in this FEIS. Specifically, these components are individual 

wells from closely spaced well pads under Alternative A, multiple wells from a single well pad as 

analyzed in Alternative B, and a combination of single and multiple well pads as analyzed under 

the Preferred Alternative. 

Alternatives E, F, and G provided variable surface well pad spacing allowances, and were 

initially considered to provide a range in the amount and distribution of surface disturbance 

across the JIDPA. Alternative E examined drilling and developing 16 wells from 16 well pads in 

a section, resulting in approximately 6,386 acres of additional disturbance. Alternative F analyzed 

the effects of increasing the well pad density to 32 well pads per section for a total of 10,446 

acres of additional disturbance. Finally, Alternative G examined the effects of 64 well pads per 

section (one well pad for every 10 acres) at an estimated total additional disturbance of 13,898 

acres. As with Alternatives C and D, these alternatives were eliminated from further 

consideration in the FEIS because the anticipated impacts from the alternative actions would be 

similar to those resulting from components of the alternatives that are carried forward for 

additional analysis in this FEIS. 

Alternate paces of development within each alternative were eliminated from further analyses in 

this FEIS because it was determined that providing this information within each alternative 

introduced a level of complexity which made it difficult for the public and decision-makers to 

assess potential impacts across the full range of alternatives. Two development rates (250 and 

75 wells drilled per year) are carried forward as parts of specific alternatives analyzed in this 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
2-8 Chapter 2 

FEIS, and with these analyses a sufficient range of resource effects (e.g., LOP, air quality, 

socioeconomics) is provided. 

2.2.3.2	 Other Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Detailed 

Study 

Many suggestions for alternatives were proposed by the public during scoping. Most of the 

suggested alternatives involved addressing varying well numbers, varying the rate at which the 

field is developed, and varying surface disturbance. While not all the suggested well number, 

development rate, or surface disturbance suggestions were analyzed, the BLM used these 

suggestions when developing the range of alternatives. 

An alternative rejecting any new development was also suggested. While additional development 

in the area would likely occur under any no development alternative (e.g., State of Wyoming land 

development), for analytic purposes, the No Action Alternative sufficiently considers no new 

development-type impacts (see Section 2.4.1). 

Action alternatives limiting the total number of wells were rejected from consideration based 

upon known natural gas reservoir properties indicating that an estimated 3,100 additional wells 

would be necessary for adequate resource recovery. Additional justification for eliminating these 

alternatives from detailed analyses is provided in Section 2.2.3.1. 

Phased development alternatives suggesting a development pace slower than 75 wells per year 

were rejected from detailed analyses because the reduced development pace would result in 

recovery and operational and safety issues associated with drilling through depressurized zones 

(i.e., stuck pipe, mud weight variability problems, blow-out potential). It was determined that the 

analyzed development paces of 75 and 250 wells drilled per year provide an adequate range of 

development paces to assess the potential effects associated with development rate 

(e.g., socioeconomics, duration of habitat loss). Phased development alternatives involving 

systematic extraction of resources from portions of the JIDPA followed by appropriate 

reclamation prior to developing other areas of the JIDPA were not provided detailed analyses due 

to the potential for disproportionate adverse effects on resource recovery within some leaseholds 

(see also Section 2.2.3.1). Allowing mineral resources to remain unrecovered would result in 

waste and prevent BLM from achieving its statutory and policy goals. 

Two alternatives requiring all new wells to be directionally drilled and requiring no new roads 

were not specifically analyzed in detail because Alternative B has a similar potential effect 

(i.e., no new well pads, few new roads needed). 

An alternative rejecting all further development in the JIDPA until all existing disturbance in the 

area is adequately reclaimed was not considered since this action would likely lead to 

considerable unrecovered resource and would unnecessarily prolong the LOP. 

Numerous alternatives requiring the inclusion/exclusion of multiple resource protection, 

mitigation, and monitoring measures were suggested for analysis, including the application of 

best management practices (BMPs), the use of adaptive management procedures, and 

consideration of off-site CM (see Chapter 5). Some of these additional measures have been 

included as components of the Proposed Action and Preferred Action alternatives and/or may be 

included as project requirements in the ROD. Many if not all of these suggested requirements are 

considered under one or more of the alternatives analyzed in detail (see also Appendices A and C 

for BLM standard mitigations, Operator-committed measures, and CM ideas). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Public Participation and Identification of Key Issues 2-9 

2.3 ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD FOR FINAL ANALYSIS 

2.3.1 Features Common to All Alternatives Carried Forward for Final 

Analysis 

2.3.1.1 General Features 

All applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations would be applied under any 

approved alternative, and all requirements listed in Appendix A, BLM Standard 

Stipulation/Mitigation Requirements, would be implemented under all alternatives except 

Alternative A. To minimize directional drilling for the purpose of maximizing gas recovery under 

Alternative A, requirements for avoiding selected resources such as steep slopes, Sand Draw, 

greater sage-grouse leks, and raptor nests were not applied. 

Development requirements and procedures common to all alternatives are provided in 

Appendix B, Development Procedures Technical Support Document (BLM 2004a) and in general 

these procedures would be applied under all alternatives. 

Appendix C provides a list of Operator-committed measures; these will be finalized in the ROD 

for this project. 

Absent specific revisions in the ROD for this project, Operators would comply with the 

management objectives, COAs, standard stipulations, and mitigation measures identified in the 

BLM PFO RMP ROD (BLM 1988b), and BLM RSFO RMP ROD (BLM 1997b). Under any 

alternative, Operators must comply with all appropriate federal, state, and local laws and 

regulations, and all appropriate permits from the appropriate regulatory agency must be obtained 

before proceeding. 

General features of management applicable to all alternatives carried forward for analysis in this 

FEIS are listed below. 

Water 

•	 Operators would maintain or restore groundwater and surface water quality in the Jonah 

Field to Clean Water Act and WDEQ standards. 

•	 A groundwater monitoring program for all water wells in or affected by activities in the 

JIDPA would be implemented, with annual reports to BLM, Wyoming State Engineer’s 

Office (WSEO), and WDEQ. Water wells would be tested annually for drawdown, 

general chemical constituents, and total petroleum hydrocarbons, using WDEQ-approved 

methods. 

Transportation 

•	 Operators would continue to encourage limiting the speed of all vehicles operated by the 

leaseholder, Operator, or Operator agents in the JIDPA, and would implement voluntary 

fugitive dust control measures on primary access roads and heavily used resource roads 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
2-10 Chapter 2 

•	 Project-required traffic in the JIDPA would be limited to BLM-approved roads. 

Operators would continue to cooperate with the BLM to identify and prohibit use of twotracks where ROWs have not been obtained. 

•	 Operators would utilize remote telemetry or equivalent technology at all wells to 

minimize well monitoring trips, unless proven to the satisfaction of the authorized officer 

on a case-by-case basis that installation of remote telemetry or equivalent technology 

would not be technically or economically feasible, or that another method would create 

less environmental impact. 

Reclamation 

•	 Operators would submit to BLM for approval a reclamation plan, to include both interim 

and long-term reclamation of the JIDPA, within 1 year of the ROD for this project (see 

Appendix B). A reclamation quality assurance/quality control monitoring program would 

be implemented until development and interim (production phase) reclamation is 

completed to BLM standards. 

•	 Operators would employ appropriate topsoil storage and replacement technology and 

procedures to ensure soil viability and plant rooting potential are maintained. 

Wildlife 

•	 Operators would monitor nesting of raptors, including ferruginous hawk, bald eagle, and 

burrowing owl; greater sage-grouse lek attendance; and occurrence of other 

sagebrush-obligate species within the JIDPA in coordination with BLM and WGFD. 

2.3.1.2 Conditions of Approval 

The COAs applicable to all alternatives carried forward for final analysis in this FEIS are listed 

below. 

•	 Operators would monitor water withdrawal volumes from water wells and provide annual 

depletion reports to the BLM, WSEO, and USFWS. 

•	 New well pads would be designed and constructed to meet WDEQ stormwater discharge 

requirements. 

•	 Hydraulic structures (culverts, bridges, low water crossings, silt traps, catchments, 

retention dams, etc.) placed in existing, natural drainage courses would be engineered and 

designed by a certified civil engineer to ensure the structures are stable and erosion is 

minimized. Cross-drain structures installed outside existing, natural drainage courses 

would not require certified civil engineer design. 

•	 All well pads, roads, pipelines, and other facilities would be engineered and constructed 

to minimize sedimentation down-channel from the JIDPA. 

•	 All water wells would be cemented or grouted as required by the WSEO to protect 

groundwater aquifers. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Public Participation and Identification of Key Issues 2-11 

•	 Operators would restore those portions of pads not needed for production operations to as 

close to original contours as practical during interim reclamation to minimize or eliminate 

the need to re-disturb those reclaimed areas when wells are plugged and abandoned. 

2.3.2 Features Common to the Proposed Action, Alternative B, and 

the Preferred Alternative 

Because Alternative A was specifically designed to maximize mineral resource recovery within 

the JIDPA by exempting the Operators from certain standard management practices, the 

following conditions would only be applicable to the Proposed Action, Alternative B, and the 

Preferred Alternative: 

•	 The Sand Draw Conditional Surface Use restriction (formerly referred to as a No Surface 

Occupancy restriction) would be maintained. 

•	 Well pads, access roads, and other aboveground facilities would not be located 

within 825 feet of an active raptor nest, within 1,000 feet of an active ferruginous 

hawk nest, or within 2,640 feet of any bald eagle nest. 

•	 The following seasonal restrictions for activities near active raptor nests/roosting 

sites/foraging areas would be imposed: 

-	 February 1 through July 31, within 0.5 mile of all active raptor nests; 

-	 February 1 through July 31, within 1.0 mile of all active ferruginous hawk nests; 

-	 February 1 through August 15, within 1.0 mile of all active bald eagle nests; 

- November 1 through April 1, within 1.0 mile of active bald eagle communal winter 

roosts; and 

-	 November 1 through April 1, within 2.5 miles of a bald eagle nest and within 

1.0 mile of winter forage areas. 

•	 Operators would monitor nesting of raptors, including ferruginous hawk, bald eagle, and 

burrowing owl; greater sage-grouse lek attendance; and occurrence of other 

sagebrush-obligate species in coordination with BLM and WGFD. 

•	 Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in greater sage-grouse winter habitat would 

be avoided from November 15 through March 14. 

•	 Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in greater sage-grouse nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitat within 2.0 miles of an occupied lek, or in identified greater 

sage-grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitat outside the 2.0-mile buffer would be 

prohibited from March 15 through July 15. 

•	 Surface disturbance and occupancy would be prohibited within 0.25 mile of the perimeter 

of greater sage-grouse leks, and human activity in these areas would be avoided between 

8 p.m. and 8 a.m. from March 1 through May 15. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
2-12 Chapter 2 

2.4 ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN DETAIL 

The No Action, the Proposed Action, and three alternative development actions (Alternative A, 

Alternative B, and the BLM Preferred Alternative) are evaluated in this FEIS. A brief comparison 

of alternatives is provided in Table 2.1. 

Table 2.1. Comparison of Alternatives, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 

2006 

Alternative 

Project Parameter No Proposed BLM Preferred 

Action1 Action2 A2 B3 Alternative4 

Development Features 

Total Acres Surface Disturbance5 4,209 20,409 20,409 7,431 14,030–20,334 

Total Acres New Disturbance 0 16,200 16,200 3,222 9,821–16,125 

LOP Acres Surface Disturbance 1,409 6,040 6,040 2,600 4,267–6,020 

Total Miles of Resource Roads/Gathering Pipelines 199 664 664 199 488–710 

Total Miles of Collector/Local Roads 38 46 46 46 46 

Total Number of Natural Gas Well Pads 497 3,597 3,597 497 3,597 

These development features directly or indirectly affect habitat loss and fragmentation for all species, pronghorn 

migration, visibility, livestock hazards and available forage, socioeconomics, and gas recovery. 

Pace of Development 

Wells Developed per year 0 250 250 75 250 

Development Phase (years) 0 13 13 42 13 

Production Phase (years) 40 40 40 40 40 

23 23 23 23 23 

Total Life-of-Project (years) 63 76 76 105 76 

Pace of development directly or indirectly affects duration of habitat and forage loss, visibility, socioeconomics, gas 

recovery, and BLM enforcement and monitoring capability. 

1 See Table 2.2 for further detail. 2 See Table 2.3 for further detail. 3 See Table 2.4 for further detail. 4 See Table 2.5 for further detail. New disturbance in excess of 9,821 acres is contingent on successful on-site reclamation to BLM standards. 5 Total disturbance includes 4,209 acres already allocated for disturbance through the existing Jonah NEPA documents (BLM 2000b) plus new


disturbance proposed under each alternative.


2.4.1 No Action Alternative – Reject Operators’ Proposal 

Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM would reject the Operators’ proposal for additional 

field-level natural gas development on federal lands within the JIDPA. Authorizations for and 

impacts from previously approved or analyzed development (533 wells) and surface disturbance 

(497 well pads with associated roads, pipelines, and ancillary facilities) would continue (BLM 

1998b, 2000b). The approved surface disturbance under the No Action Alternative is 4,209 acres, 

including 1,409 acres of LOP disturbance (Table 2.2). LOP is estimated to be approximately 

63 years (see Table 2.1). The types and locations of existing surface disturbance in the JIDPA are 

presented in Map 2.1. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Public Participation and Identification of Key Issues 2-13


Map 2.1. Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
2-14 Chapter 2 

However, rejection of the Operators’ proposal would not preclude all additional natural gas 

development in the JIDPA. The No Action Alternative assumes the JIDPA would be managed as 

approved by existing management plans (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and as previously authorized by 

APDs and ROWs issued under existing decisions (BLM 1998b, 2000b). Though the extent of 

potential future development under this scenario is limited, it cannot be precisely predicted. 

Therefore, the impact analysis for the No Action Alternative assumes no new development. 

Table 2.2. Surface Disturbance Allowed by the No Action Alternative, Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 20061 

Project Parameter 2 Disturbance (acres)


Total Short-term LOP


Well Pads 3 1,889 1,442 447 

Resource Roads/Gathering Pipelines 4 1,766 1,067 699 

Collector/Local Roads 5 239 120 119 

Burma Road 6 35 0 35 

Ancillary Facilities 7 87 7 80 

Water Wells 8 0 0 11 

Sales Pipeline 9 133 133 0 

Exploration Activities 10 60 42 18 

Total 11 4,209 2,811 1,409 

1 Generally as described in the EA for the Modified Jonah Field II Natural Gas Project (BLM 2000a). 2 Includes all project parameters identified in BLM (2000a) as well as those proposed for the current project. 3 Assumes approximately 533 wells from 497 pads at 3.8 acres total and 0.9 acre LOP disturbance per pad. 4 Assumes a 0.4-mile road with adjacent gathering pipeline for each well pad with average total and LOP disturbance widths of 73.3 feet and 29.0 

feet, respectively (approximately 199 linear miles of road at 8.9 acres/mile total disturbance and 3.5 acres/mile LOP). 5 Assumes 26 miles of collector roads with average total and LOP disturbance widths of 75.7 feet and 37.8 feet, respectively (approximately 9.2 

acres/mile total disturbance and 4.6 acres/mile LOP disturbance). 6 Includes the approximately 12-mile road length outside the JIDPA and assumes an existing width of 24 feet. 7 Includes disturbances from four compressor stations, water disposal facilities, field offices, ware yards, a sand pit, and other facilities required for 

the existing project and occurring both within and outside the JIDPA. Approximately 7 acres of this disturbance would be reclaimed after 

completion of currently approved or committed to drilling activities. 8 Includes disturbance from approximately 25 existing water wells that have been developed on existing natural gas well pads; water wells require 

no new disturbance and less than 0.5 acre of disturbance each for the LOP. 9 Includes an approximately 22-mile pipeline corridor with 50-foot disturbance width for sales pipelines outside the JIDPA. 10 All exploration activities are included in the disturbance area estimates listed above. Disturbance estimates include areas occupied by existing 

natural gas developments (pads [five], roads, pipelines) in the N1/2 Section 23, T28N, R109W. 11 Includes 4,001 acres total and 1,348 acres LOP disturbance within the JIDPA, respectively; the additional 208 acres total and 61 acres LOP 

disturbance occur at locations outside the JIDPA (e.g., Burma Road, compressor stations). 

2.4.2 Proposed Action 

If selected, the Operators would infill drill and develop up to 3,100 new wells on a minimum of 

64 well pads/section (at least 1 pad every 10 acres) with related roads, pipelines, and ancillary 

facilities on up to 16,200 acres of new disturbance. 

Drilling would begin in 2006 and continue until the total number of proposed wells have been 

drilled, the natural gas resources in the field have been fully developed, or economic conditions 

are such that it is no longer profitable to drill additional wells. 

Operator reservoir modeling shows that 3,100 new wells would be necessary to adequately 

recover the natural gas resource present in the area. Their experience indicates that the use of 

directional drilling is in some cases not economically feasible and in other cases results in 

inadequate resource recovery. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Public Participation and Identification of Key Issues 2-15 

The Proposed Action assumes that 250 wells would be developed annually (20 rigs operating 

year-round). LOP would be approximately 76 years (see Table 2.1). 

If selected, the Proposed Action would approve: 

•	 up to 3,100 new wells on up to 11,780 acres new disturbance (2,790 acres LOP)— 

assumes all 3,100 wells would be drilled from single-well pads with an estimated total 

disturbance of 3.8 acres and 0.9 acre LOP per single well pad; 

•	 465 miles of new resource roads with gathering pipelines—4,131 acres new disturbance 

(1,635 acres LOP); 

•	 8 miles of new collector/local roads—73 acres new disturbance (37 acres LOP); 

•	 an upgrade of approximately 12 miles of the Burma Road—75 acres new disturbance 

(20 acres LOP); 

•	 ancillary facilities—41 acres new disturbance (all LOP) for water disposal, storage, and 

compressor station facilities; and 

•	 exploration activities—100 acres new disturbance (all LOP) to develop well pads and 

other infrastructures necessary to explore for natural gas resources in formations other 

than the Lance Pool (Table 2.3). 

Following successful interim reclamation (post-drilling during production phase), LOP surface 

disturbance under the Proposed Action would be 6,040 acres, which includes 1,409 acres of 

existing disturbance (see Table 2.3). 

Operators have identified a number of mitigation/development practices they would apply during 

development of the Proposed Action (see Appendix C). 

2.4.3 Alternative A – Maximize Mineral Resource Recovery 

Alternative A is similar to the Proposed Action in its estimated surface disturbance requirements 

(see Section 2.4.2 and Table 2.3), but differs from the Proposed Action in that known areas with 

sensitive resources in the JIDPA would not be avoided (e.g., Sand Draw, steep slopes, raptor nest 

and sage grouse lek buffers). Development of natural gas resources beneath these areas would 

therefore not require the use of directional drilling. A rate of development of 250 wells per year 

and an LOP of 76 years are assumed under Alternative A. This alternative would not necessarily 

provide for the RMP-required balance between gas recovery and other resource protection; 

therefore, project authorization under this alternative would require an RMP amendment. Other 

features of Alternative A include: 

•	 Well pads, access roads, and other aboveground facilities could be located within 825 feet 

of active raptor nests. 

•	 Surface disturbance and occupancy would not be prohibited within 0.25 mile of the 

perimeter of greater sage-grouse leks. 

•	 Prairie dog towns would not be avoided. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
2-16 Chapter 2 

•	 The Sand Draw Conditional Surface Use restriction (formerly referred to as a No Surface 

Occupancy restriction) and other drainage and steep slope avoidance areas would not be 

maintained. 

Operators have identified a number of mitigation/development practices they would apply during 

development of Alternative A (see Appendix C). 

Table 2.3. Surface Disturbance Allowed by the Proposed Action and Alternative A, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 

Project Parameter 

New 

Disturbance (acres) 

Short-term LOP 

Well Pads 1 11,780 8,990 2,790 

Resource Roads/Gathering Pipelines 2 4,131 2,496 1,635 

Collector/Local Roads 3 73 36 37 

Burma Road 4 75 55 20 

Ancillary Facilities 5 41 0 41 

Water Wells 6 0 0 8 

Sales Pipeline 7 0 0 0 

Exploration Activities 8 100 0 100 

Total New Disturbance 16,200 11,577 4,631 

Existing Disturbance 9 4,209 2,811 1,409 

Total New and Existing Disturbance 10 20,409 14,388 6,040 

1 Conservatively assumes all well pads are single-well pads and require 3.8 acres new total and 0.9 acre new LOP disturbance per pad. 2 Assumes an average well pad access road/gathering pipeline length of 0.15 mile for each pad with average new total and new LOP disturbance 

widths of 73.3 feet and 29.0 feet, respectively (approximately 465 linear miles of road). 3 Assumes approximately 8 miles of new collector/local roads would be required (existing resource roads may be expanded in some areas to serve as 

collector/local roads), and roads would have average new total and new LOP disturbance widths of 75.7 feet and 37.8 feet, respectively. 4 Assumes an approximate 12-mile road length outside the JIDPA with new total and new LOP disturbance widths of 51.7 feet (75.7 feet required 

less 24.0 feet existing) and 13.8 feet (37.8 feet required less 24.0 feet existing), respectively. 5 Accommodates areas potentially required for new water disposal facilities, storage yards, and increased pipeline compression capacity. 6 Approximately 16 new water wells would be developed on natural gas well pads. Water wells would require no new surface disturbance; assumes 

0.5 acre LOP disturbance per water well. 7 No new sales pipelines are proposed. 8 An estimated 100 acres of new disturbance (all LOP) is included to allow for exploration of geologic formations other than the Lance Pool and 

Mesa Verde. 9 See Table 2.2. 10 Estimates include 20,126 acres new total and 5,959 acres new LOP disturbance in the JIDPA, respectively; the additional 283 acres new total and 

81 acres new LOP disturbance would occur outside the JIDPA. 

2.4.4 Alternative B – Minimize Surface Disturbance 

Surface disturbance would be reduced under Alternative B by requiring all new wells be drilled 

from existing well pads. Existing well pads would need to be enlarged and new pipelines built 

within existing pipeline corridors. A rate of development of 75 wells per year and an LOP of 105 

years are assumed under Alternative B. If selected, Alternative B would approve: 

•	 expansion of existing well pads—3,081 acres new disturbance (1,044 acres LOP)— 

6.2 acres new disturbance (3.0 acres LOP) per well pad expansion; 

•	 ancillary facilities—41 acres new disturbance (all LOP) for water disposal, storage, and 

compressor station facilities; and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Public Participation and Identification of Key Issues 2-17 

•	 exploration activities—100 acres new disturbance (all LOP) to develop well pads and 

other infrastructures necessary to explore for natural gas resources in formations other 

than the Lance Pool (Table 2.4). 

Following successful interim reclamation, LOP surface disturbance under Alternative B would 

total 2,622 acres, which includes 1,409 acres of existing disturbance (see Table 2.4). 

Although directional drilling under Alternative B would minimize surface disturbance and 

thereby benefit wildlife and other resources, it would also increase air emissions by 

approximately 20% over the Proposed Action and Alternative A. Thus, Alternative B could have 

a greater impact on air quality resources (see Chapter 4, Section 4.1.2). 

Appendix C, Exhibit C-1 lists the Operator-committed practices that would be applied under 

Alternative B. 

Table 2.4. Surface Disturbance Allowed by Alternative B, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 

Project Parameter Disturbance (acres) 

New Short-term LOP 

Well Pads 1 3,081 2,037 1,044 

Resource Roads/Gathering Pipelines 2 0 0 0 

Collector/Local Roads 3 0 0 0 

Burma Road 4 0 0 0 

Ancillary Facilities 5 41 0 41 

Water Wells 6 0 0 8 

Sales Pipeline 7 0 0 0 

Exploration Activities 8 100 0 100 

Total New Disturbance 3,222 2,037 1,193


Existing Disturbance 9 4,209 2,811 1,409


Total New and Existing Disturbance 10 7,431 4,848 2,602 

1 Assumes expansion of existing well pads to accommodate 3,100 new wells (no new pads). Assumes all 497 existing pads would be expanded 

by an average of 6.2 acres initially (10.0 acres per multi-well pad less 3.8 acres existing disturbance) and 2.1 acres for the LOP (3.0 acres per 

multi-well pad less 0.9 acre of existing disturbance). 2 No new resource roads would be constructed, and while new gathering pipelines may be built, they would be constructed in existing pipeline 

corridor disturbance areas. 3 No new collector/local roads would be constructed. 4 Burma Road improvements would not be performed under Alternative B.

5 Accommodates areas potentially required for new water 

disposal facilities, storage yards, and increased pipeline compression capacity. 6 Approximately 16 new water wells would be developed on natural gas well pads. Water wells would require no new surface disturbance; 

assumes 0.5 acre LOP disturbance per water well. 7 No new sales pipelines would be constructed. 8 An estimated 100 acres new disturbance (all LOP) is included to allow for exploration of geologic formations other than the Lance Pool and 

Mesa Verde. 9 See Table 2.2. 10 Includes approximately 7,223 acres new total and 2,541 acres new LOP disturbance in the JIDPA, respectively; the additional 208 acres new 

total and 61 acres new LOP disturbance would occur outside the JIDPA. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
2-18 Chapter 2 

2.4.5 BLM Preferred Alternative 

The extensive and detailed public comment and associated technical information received on the 

DEIS, and subsequent new analyses conducted by BLM and WDEQ directly related to this 

information, have led BLM to revise its Preferred Alternative. The revised Preferred Alternative, 

and its associated outcome-based performance objectives, mitigation, and Best Management 

Practices (BMPs), would achieve high levels of natural gas recovery (potentially that of the 

Proposed Action) while minimizing impacts related to the key issues (see Section 2.1). BLM has 

concluded that this management approach would achieve the fewest long-term impacts while 

allowing recovery of the mineral resource as provided by federal laws and regulations, including 

FLPMA, and extant leasing stipulations. 

If selected, the revised Preferred Alternative would limit total surface disturbance at any given 

time to 46% of the JIDPA, or a maximum of 14,030 acres. To mitigate surface disturbance and 

associated environmental impacts as quickly as possible, Operators would be required to initiate 

reclamation of developed well pads and road and pipeline construction ROWs pursuant to 

Reclamation Plan specifications (Appendix B, subappendix DP-B). Credit would thereafter be 

given, on an acre-for-acre basis for areas the BLM determines have successfully been reclaimed 

(i.e., achieved 80% indigenous vegetative basal cover/density and species composition). Under 

no circumstances would cumulative total surface disturbance exceed 20,334 acres over the LOP 

(Table 2.5). 

BLM would not specifically regulate the pace of development. For the purposes of analysis, 

a total of 3,100 new wells and a pace of 250 wells drilled per year are assumed, resulting in the 

field development phase being completed in approximately 13 years. However, the actual pace of 

development may be limited by air quality impact restrictions and associated mitigation, which 

creates the potential to increase the duration of the field development phase. For the purposes of 

analysis the LOP is assumed to be 76 years. 

Additional specific provisions of the Preferred Alternative are as follows: 

•	 An interagency mitigation and monitoring implementation group, tentatively called the 

Jonah Interagency Mitigation and Reclamation Office (JIO), would be established and 

begin working once the ROD is issued. Details of JIO composition, objectives, and 

operating procedures are provided in Appendix F. General provisions of the JIO are as 

follows: 

- The JIO would oversee implementation of mitigation and monitoring of JIDP 

activities, including compensatory mitigation. 

- The JIO would include BLM, WDEQ, WGFD, and the Wyoming Department of 

Agriculture. 

-	 Funding for the JIO would be provided by the Operators. 

-	 BLM would consider annual JIO adaptive management recommendations to adjust 

COAs, monitoring, mitigation, and/or BMPs to meet field development and 

production objectives throughout the LOP. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Public Participation and Identification of Key Issues 2-19 

•	 BLM would require implementation of Operator-committed compensatory mitigation at 

issuance of the ROD as appropriate and consistent with BLM policy (see Chapter 5 and 

Appendix C for a detailed discussion of compensatory mitigation goals and objectives, 

performance standards, and program-specific strategies). 

•	 The Wildlife Monitoring/Protection Plan (Appendix D, Record of Decision for the Jonah 

Field II Natural Gas Development Project Environmental Impact Statement, Sublette 

County, Wyoming [BLM 1998b] as most recently adapted) would be modified to address 

activities within the JIDPA and include a habitat mitigation plan. 

•	 To reduce potential wildlife impacts, no further improvements to the Burma Road would 

be authorized. That portion of the Burma road that is currently upgraded would be 

maintained to BLM standards. 

Following successful interim reclamation and assuming the application of the maximum 

reclamation credit (6,379 acres), LOP surface disturbance under the BLM Preferred Alternative 

would total 6,020 acres, which includes 1,409 acres of existing long-term disturbance 

(see Table 2.5). 

Table 2.5. Surface Disturbance Allowed by the BLM Preferred Alternative, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 20061 

Project Parameter Disturbance (acres) 

New Short-term LOP 

Well Pads 2 7,113–11,780 5,428–8,990 1,685–2,790 

Resource Roads/Gathering Pipelines 3 2,494–4,131 1,507–2,496 987–1,635 

Collector/Local Roads 4 73 36 37 

Burma Road 5 0 0 0 

Ancillary Facilities 6 41 0 41 

Water Wells 7 0 0 8 

Sales Pipeline 8 0 0 0 

Exploration Activities 9 100 0 100 

Total New Disturbance 9,821–16,125 6,971–11,577 2,858–4,611 

Existing Disturbance 10 4,209 2,811 1,409 

Total New and Existing Disturbance 14,030–20,334 9,782–14,388 4,267–6,020 

1 Provides the full range of disturbance acreage estimates, with the low-end estimates being limited to 46% of the JIDPA and the high-end 

estimates assuming the application of the entire 6,379-acre reclamation credit. High-end estimates are consistent with the estimates provided 

for the Proposed Action. 2 Conservatively assumes all well pads are single-well pads and require 3.8 acres new total and 0.9 acre new LOP disturbance per pad. 3 Assumes an average well pad access road/gathering pipeline length of 0.15 mile for each pad with average new total and new LOP


disturbance widths of 73.3 feet and 29.0 feet, respectively (approximately 465 linear miles of road).
 4 Assumes approximately 8 miles of new collector/local roads would be required (existing resource roads may be expanded in some areas to 

serve as collector/local roads), and roads would have average new total and new LOP disturbance widths of 75.7 feet and 37.8 feet, 

respectively. 5 Burma Road improvements would not be performed under the Preferred Alternative. 6 Accommodates areas potentially required for new water disposal facilities, storage yards, and increased pipeline compression capacity. 7 Approximately 16 new water wells would be developed on natural gas well pads. Water wells would require no new surface disturbance; 

assumes 0.5 acre LOP disturbance per water well. 8 No new sales pipelines would be constructed. 9 An estimated 100 acres new total and new LOP disturbance is included to allow for exploration of geologic formations other than the Lance 

Pool and Mesa Verde. 10 See Table 2.2. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
2-20 Chapter 2 

2.4.5.1 Outcome-Based Performance Objectives 

Project development and production under the BLM Preferred Alternative would apply outcomebased performance objectives to allow Operators to utilize innovations to maximize gas recovery 

while providing long-term protection for other resources in the JIDPA. Furthermore, the 

Preferred Alternative encourages Operators to develop and use the most effective technologies 

and processes available to achieve these objectives. The outcome-based performance objectives 

for the BLM Preferred Alternative are listed below, categorized by resource. 

Land Use/Surface Disturbance 

•	 Continue developing and implementing innovations by utilizing state-of-the-art 

technologies and JIDPA-wide planning throughout the LOP to minimize well pad, road, 

pipeline, and ancillary facility surface disturbance. 

Air Quality 

•	 Air Quality Goal 1a: Minimize the impact of management actions in the planning area 

on air quality by complying with all applicable air quality laws, rules, and regulations. 

- Air Quality Objective 1a.1: Maintain concentrations of criteria pollutants associated 

with management actions in compliance with applicable Wyoming and National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS, NAAQS). 

- Air Quality Objective 1a.2: Maintain concentrations of Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) pollutants associated with management actions in compliance 

with the applicable increment. 

•	 Air Quality Goal 1b: Implement management actions in the planning area to improve air 

quality as practicable. 

- Air Quality Objective 1b.1: Reduce visibility-impairing pollutants, in accordance 

with the reasonable progress goals and time-frames established within the State of 

Wyoming’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

- Air Quality Objective 1b.2: Reduce atmospheric deposition pollutants to levels 

below federally established levels of concern (LOC) and levels of acceptable change 

(LAC). 

Water Resources/Soils 

•	 Maintain sediment erosion (salt and silt discharge rates) from the JIDPA at background 

levels. 

Noise 

•	 Design, construct, and implement operations so that ambient noise levels do not exceed 

75 A-weighted decibels (dBA) 30 feet from the noise source (e.g., border of drill pad, 

compressor, etc.), where technically and economically feasible. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Public Participation and Identification of Key Issues 2-21 

Biological Resources 

•	 Meet BLM Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (Appendix A, Section A.2). 

•	 Plan field-wide development activities and interim and final reclamation to maximize 

undisturbed/reclaimed habitat patch size and reduce habitat fragmentation for sagebrushobligate species. 

•	 Maintain the integrity of big game migration routes and movement corridors. 

•	 Reclaim sites to establish indigenous vegetative cover, structure, and species 

composition; maintain soil stability; provide forage nutritional value and palatability; and 

prevent invasive plant and noxious weed establishment. 

Visual Resources 

•	 Reduce visual intrusions through the use of new technology, removal of unnecessary 

equipment, and use of the most appropriate equipment and paint colors as these become 

available throughout the LOP. 

2.4.5.2 Required Operating Procedures and Best Management Practices 

The Operators would implement the following required operating procedures and BMPs for all 

project actions within the JIDPA. Broad-spectrum procedures or BMPs, such as mapping all 

prairie dog colonies within the JIDPA, inventorying roads and trails, maximizing centralized 

production facilities, inventorying greater sage-grouse seasonal habitats, etc., would be 

programmatically implemented. Others would be implemented on a case-by case basis through 

the Surface Use Plan of an APD or the Plan of Development for a ROW application. Based on 

environmental assessments (EAs) for individual APDs or ROW applications, BLM may apply 

site-specific COAs to the APD or ROW grant. BLM would consider annual JIO 

recommendations to adjust these requirements to meet field development and production 

objectives throughout the LOP. 

Exceptions to the following procedures and BMPs may be granted if a thorough analysis by BLM 

determines that the resource(s) for which the measure was developed would not be unacceptably 

impacted by the approved project. Exceptions may also be granted if the Operator can 

demonstrate to the satisfaction of the authorized officer on a case-by-case basis that the required 

mitigation or practice would not be technically or economically feasible, or that another method 

would create less environmental impact. 

Land Use/Surface Disturbance 

•	 Operators would track surface disturbance acreage. Operators would provide BLM and 

the JIO with Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC)-compliant metadata and 

geographic information system (GIS)/global positioning system (GPS) location data for 

all newly developed facilities and reclaimed areas within 30 days of completion of 

disturbance and/or reclamation activities. 

•	 Operators would track well numbers in the JIDPA and provide BLM and the JIO with 

data within 30 days of drilling or abandoning wells. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
2-22 Chapter 2 

•	 Operators would inventory all roads/trails in the JIDPA not already inventoried by 

BLM within 1 year of the ROD for this project; GIS data would be provided to BLM 

and the JIO with FGDC-compliant metadata. Operators would initiate coordination 

with the JIO prior to implementing this action. 

•	 Within 6 months of the ROD for this project, Operators would provide the JIO with 

estimates of the average number of vehicle trips per day to a representative individual 

well pad and centralized completion facility (see Appendix B, Subappendix DP-A, 

Transportation Plan). 

•	 To the extent reasonable and practical, well pad surface disturbance would not exceed 

7.0 acres for parent and multi-well pads, 4.0 acres for single-well pads, and 2.0 acres for 

satellite well pads, unless the Operator can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 

authorized officer on a case-by-case basis that the size limitation for a given pad would 

create a significant safety concern for the workers, the public at large, or the 

environment. These acreages include cut-and-fill slopes, but do not include access roads 

and pipelines. 

•	 All new development and production facilities in the JIDPA would be placed at 

centralized locations to accommodate multiple wells, unless proven to the satisfaction of 

the authorized officer on a case-by-case basis that centralization of development and 

production facilities would not be technically or economically feasible, or that another 

method would create less environmental impact. The Operators would centralize existing 

development and production facilities to the extent economically feasible. 

•	 Centralized fracturing processes would be required for all well pads when surface density 

is ≥ 1 well pad/40 acres, and recommended when well pad surface density is < 1 pad/40 

acres, unless the Operator can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the authorized officer 

that centralized fracturing is not reasonable or technically or economically feasible, or 

that another well completion procedure would create less surface impact. 

•	 Where technically and economically feasible, and at the earliest possible date, Operators 

would begin piping produced water and condensate from all wells in the JIDPA to an 

appropriate condensate collection point or sales line and an appropriate produced water 

treatment, disposal, or centralized transportation facility. 

•	 Operators would utilize closed drilling systems (no reserve pits) for all wells unless 

proven to the satisfaction of the authorized officer on a case-by-case basis that closed 

drilling systems would not be technologically or economically feasible. If reserve pits 

are approved, Operators would remove/vacuum fluids from reserve pits within 60 days of 

all wells on the pad being put into production. If this timeframe is infeasible on a 

particular site, the Operators would notify the JIO and fluids would be removed as soon 

as practical. 

•	 No surface occupancy would be allowed within 300 feet of Sand Draw. 

Air Quality 

•	 Operators would utilize flareless completions for all wells within the JIDPA unless 

proven to the satisfaction of the authorized officer on a case-by-case basis that flareless 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Public Participation and Identification of Key Issues 2-23 

completion operations would not be technically or economically feasible or would be 

unsafe, and that flaring completion is permitted by WDEQ. 

•	 Tier II or equivalent diesel engine emission technologies would be required for all drill 

rigs at the earliest possible date. 

•	 Operators would periodically demonstrate that potential impacts to visibility in the 

Bridger Wilderness from this project are less than or equal to the potential visibility 

impact level of concern. 

Water Resources/Soils 

•	 Operators would provide copies of their Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure 

(SPCC) plans and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) to the BLM upon 

request. 

•	 Stormwater and snowmelt water would be held on the JIDPA for as long as possible to 

allow for infiltration and to reduce surface flow velocity and associated sediment loads 

using geofabrics, jute netting, spreader dikes, retention ponds, additional armoring of 

existing watercourses, or other appropriate techniques. 

Noise 

•	 Operators would monitor the representative noise levels of drilling, cementing, and 

completion operations 30 feet from the well pad boundary and provide monitoring data to 

the JIO for the establishment of noise impact charts. 

•	 Operators would monitor noise at noise-sensitive resource locations, as determined by the 

JIO, and annually report results to the JIO. 

Biological Resources 

•	 Operators would inventory greater sage-grouse seasonal habitats within the JIDPA not 

already inventoried by BLM or WGFD within 1 year after signing of the ROD for this 

project; GIS data would be provided to the JIO with FGDC-compliant metadata. 

Operators would initiate coordination with the JIO prior to implementing this action. 

•	 Compressor stations would be sited at least 2 miles away from greater sage-grouse leks 

and no closer than 1⁄2 mile to an active raptor nest. 

•	 Operators would coordinate with the JIO to review and revise the Jonah Wildlife 

Monitoring and Protection Plan, and include a wildlife/habitat mitigation plan, within 

1 year of the ROD for this project. 

•	 Operators would complete surveys of soils and vegetation types throughout the JIDPA in 

coordination with the JIO, and provide survey results to BLM and the JIO in a digital, 

1:24,000-scale format with FGDC-compliant metadata. Operators would initiate 

coordination with the JIO prior to implementing this action. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
2-24 Chapter 2 

•	 Operators would maximize interim (production phase) well pad reclamation by 

recontouring to the drilling rig anchor pins and reclaiming/revegetating to within 20 feet 

of the wellhead, or to within 20 feet of the wellhead, facilities, tanks, and spill 

containment structures on those pads with production facilities. The initiation of interim 

reclamation would commence immediately after the last well scheduled on a pad is put 

into production. In the event that more than 1 year would lapse between the drilling of 

wells on a pad, the authorized officer may require temporary site stabilization measures. 

•	 Operators would submit interim and long-term reclamation plans for their respective 

areas of operation to the JIO for approval no later than 1 year from the date of the ROD 

for this project. Site-specific reclamation plans would be incorporated into all Surface 

Use Plans for APDs and Plans of Development for ROWs. 

•	 Operators would accelerate reclamation of disturbed areas using innovative seed mixtures 

and application techniques, supplementing natural precipitation with sprinkler irrigation 

at key times, and/or other practices as approved by the JIO. 

•	 Operators would undertake aggressive invasive plant species and noxious weed control or 

removal in disturbed areas, be responsible for weed control on all disturbed areas in the 

JIDPA, and be responsible for consultation with the authorized officer and/or local 

authorities for acceptable weed control methods. Where applicable, a “Pesticide Use 

Proposal” (Form WY-04-9222-1), surfactant material safety data sheet(s), and maps 

and/or legal descriptions of the area to be treated would be submitted by the Operator to 

the JIO no later than December 1 for use the following spring/summer. 

•	 Minimum reclamation requirements would be: 

- establishment of viable site-stabilizing plant growth, as determined by the authorized 

officer, within 1 year of initiation of reclamation; site-stabilizing plant growth would 

consist of indigenous species. 

- establishment within 5 years of initiation of reclamation of at least 50%, and within 8 

years of initiation of reclamation at least 80%, of indigenous vegetative basal 

cover/density and species composition to maintain soil stability and provide 

nutritional value, palatability, and vegetative structure (i.e., vegetative habitat 

function). 

•	 Wildlife habitat evaluations using Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) and Habitat 

Suitability Indices (HSI) for appropriate species would be developed and used to evaluate 

impacts to habitat and the effectiveness of reclamation and mitigation. 

•	 Operators would participate in and support published research that evaluates impacts 

from development and the effectiveness of applied mitigations. 

Livestock/Grazing Management 

•	 In coordination with the JIO, Operators would monitor forage utilization on reclaimed 

areas throughout project development and into the full production phase. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Public Participation and Identification of Key Issues 2-25 

Visual Resources 

•	 New production facilities would be painted a non-contrasting color which is harmonious 

with the surrounding landscape (i.e., shale green, unless otherwise specified by BLM on a 

case-by-case basis); existing production facilities would be painted that color at the 

earliest opportunity, and no later than when facilities are due for routine repainting. 

Operators would develop a visual resource monitoring plan to ensure long-term 

compliance with stated visual resource management (VRM) objectives. 

2.4.5.3	 Site-Specific Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Monitoring, 

Surveying, and Best Management Practices 

Based on the appropriate environmental review or assessment for individual APDs and ROW 

applications, the BLM may require the following COAs, mitigations, and BMPs. BLM would 

consider annual JIO recommendations to adjust these requirements to meet field development and 

production objectives throughout the LOP. 

•	 Implement additional air quality protection measures such as reduced development rates, 

reduced flaring, use of selective or non-selective catalytic reduction on internal 

combustion engines, increased diameter pipelines, and/or increased water or magnesium 

chloride applications or other treatments (gravel, paving) on all surface disturbances, 

including resource roads and well pads. 

•	 Convert resource roads to two-track roads during interim reclamation where 

environmentally sound, practical, safe, and where capable of providing the level of access 

necessary to maintain and produce the well. 

•	 Contour spoil piles to approximate the surrounding topography and apply soil 

stabilization practices to spoil piles. 

•	 Avoid prairie dog towns where practical to maintain burrowing owl habitat. 

•	 Institute nighttime lighting/glare restrictions (e.g., install light shades/hoods, directional 

lighting, colored lights, wattage limits, motion detectors; extinguish all unnecessary 

lighting during non-working hours). 

•	 Monitor effectiveness of night lighting mitigation measures in coordination with the JIO. 

2.5 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Table 2.6 provides a brief comparison of potential impacts to key project issues (see Section 2.1) 

across alternatives. Additional detail is provided in the summary of impacts table in Appendix G, 

and in the detailed impact assessments provided in Chapter 4. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 2.6. Brief Comparison of Impacts to Key Issues Across Alternatives, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette Count

Key Issue No Action Proposed Action A B Disturbance Volume 

Total Acres Surface Disturbance 4,209 20,409 20,409 7,431 Total Acres New Disturbance 0 16,200 16,200 3,297 LOP Acres Surface Disturbance 1,409 6,040 6,040 2,602 

Project Duration/Pace/Economics 

LOP (years) 63 76 76 105 Wells Developed Per Year 0 250 250 75 New Worker Years (development and production) 0 16,863 16,863 16,863 

Total Taxes and Royalties (millions) 2,335 6,077 6,239 4,881 Sublette County Share (millions) 742 1,839 1,892 1,446 

Air Quality/Visibility per year 

Additional Days of Impairment per year at Bridger Wilderness 0 10 10 4 Additional Days of Impairment per year at Pinedale 0 3 3 1 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Habitat Loss All Species 

Direct habitat loss for greater sage-grouse, pronghorn antelope, and other wildlife would be related to surface disturbance and project duratMost wildlife species would likely avoid development areas under all alternatives. Indirect habitat loss for greater sage-grouse, pronghorn antelope, and other wildlife would be related to total surface disturbance (and its lochuman presence (worker-years), and project duration as listed above. Total Well Pads 497 3,597 3,597 497 

New Roads (miles) 237 710 710 245 Average Daily Traffic Volume3 (round trips to and from the JIDPA per day) 45–88 312–610 312–610 312–610 

Mineral Resource Recovery 

Natural Gas (billion cubic feet) 3,366 7,947 8,191 6,124 

Condensate (million barrels) 32 76 78 58 

BLM Inspection and Enforcement 

BLM inspection and enforcement capability would be dependent upon management requirements and annual budgets and priorities. 

Compensatory Mitigation 

Hypothetical Value (million $) 0 28.5 28.5 0 

1 

2 3 4 

Further summary detail is provided in Appendix G, Summary of Impacts; detailed discussion of impacts to all resources is provided in Chapter 4. 

Application of alternative-specific COAs, BMPs, and other mitigation and monitoring may reduce impact levels from those shown in this table. Traffic volumes would be highest during development. Assumes no successful reclamation to BLM standards is achieved, and therefore no additional surface disturbance credit is granted. 
CHAPTER 3 — AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

This chapter describes existing conditions of the physical, biological, cultural, socioeconomic, 

and visual resources in the JIDPA and identifies associated resource-specific cumulative impact 

assessment areas (CIAAs). The resources and their respective CIAAs addressed in this EIS were 

identified during past Jonah project NEPA analyses, scoping for this project, and/or 

Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) reviews. 

Critical elements of the human environment (BLM 1988a, 1999a), their status in the JIDPA, and 

their potential to be affected by the proposed project are listed in Table 3.1. Three critical 

elements (areas of critical environmental concern [ACECs], prime and unique farmlands, and 

wild and scenic rivers) are not present and would not be affected, so are not addressed further. 

Other critical elements of the human environment may potentially be affected and are addressed. 

In addition to the critical elements, this EIS discusses existing conditions and potential project 

effects (see Chapter 4) on topography; mineral resources; geologic hazards; paleontological 

resources; soils; noise, and odor; biological resources; socioeconomics; land use, including status, 

livestock/grazing management, recreation, and transportation; and visual resources. 

Table 3.1. Critical Elements of the Human Environment, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005 

Element

1 Status on JIDPA Addressed in 

this EIS 

Air quality Potentially affected Yes 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Not present No 

Cultural resources Potentially affected Yes 

Environmental justice Not affected Yes 

Farmlands (prime or unique) Not present No 

Floodplains Potentially affected Yes 

Native American religious concerns Potentially affected Yes 

Noxious weeds Potentially affected Yes 

Threatened and endangered species Potentially affected Yes 

Wastes, hazardous or solid Potentially affected Yes 

Water quality (surface and ground water) Potentially affected Yes 

Wetlands/riparian zones Potentially affected Yes 

Wild and scenic Rivers Not present No 

Wilderness Not present Yes 

1 Adapted from BLM (1988a, 1999a). 

Table 3.2 lists the CIAAs for each resource, and CIAA maps are presented in specific resource 

sections of this EIS chapter. Existing disturbance in the JIDPA and CIAAs was estimated using 

existing digital geographic information system (GIS) data for roads, oil and gas wells, land cover, 

residential areas, surface water resources, wetlands, and watershed boundaries. Oil and gas well 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-2 Chapter 3 

Table 3.2. Cumulative Impact Assessment Areas, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2005 

Resource	 CIAA1 

Air quality	 Project area and nearby Class I and sensitive Class II areas

2 

Topography	 Project-affected sixth-level watersheds 

Geology 

Mineral resources Combined Jonah, Jonah II, and Jonah Infill Project areas 

Geologic hazards Combined Jonah, Jonah II, and Jonah Infill Project areas 

Paleontological resources Paleontological/cultural resource CIAA 

Soils	 Project-affected sixth-level watersheds 

Water resources 

Surface water Project-affected sixth-level watersheds 

Groundwater Project area and associated draw-down area 

Odor	 Project area and 2-mile buffer 

Noise	 Project area and 20-mile buffer 

Vegetation 

General Project-affected sixth-level watersheds 

Wetlands/riparian areas Project-affected sixth-level watersheds 

Wildlife and fisheries 

Big game Project-affected ranges and migration corridors for the Sublette Pronghorn 

Antelope Herd


Greater sage-grouse Northern portion of Upland Game Bird Management Area 7


Raptors Raptor CIAA


Fisheries Project-affected sixth-level watersheds


Other species Jonah Wildlife Study Area


Wild horses	 Little Colorado Herd Management Area 

Threatened, endangered, candidate, Entire ranges for affected species; Green and Colorado River depletion area 

proposed, and BLM-sensitive for the four endangered Colorado River fish species 

species 

Cultural resources	 Paleontological/cultural resource CIAA 

Socioeconomics	 Counties (Lincoln, Sublette, and Sweetwater) and communities (LaBarge, 

Pinedale, Big Piney, Marbleton, Boulder, Eden, Farson, and Rock Springs) 

most likely to be impacted by the proposed Project 

Land use 

Agricultural/rangeland Project-affected grazing allotments 

Minerals extraction Combined Jonah, Jonah II, and Jonah Infill Project areas 

Recreation Recreation CIAA 

Land status and prior rights Project area and leases that extend beyond Project area 

Visual resources	 Visual resource CIAA 

1 CIAA = cumulative impact assessment area; see resource-specific sections of EIS Chapter 3 for mapped locations. 2 Air quality emissions sources from a larger area; see Map 3.1. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-3 

and associated access road locational information was obtained from the WOGCC and BLM 

databases, as well as Operator-provided data. Existing development information for the JIDPA 

and surrounding areas was obtained from annual Jonah and Pinedale Anticline wildlife 

monitoring reports (TRC Mariah Associates Inc. [TRC Mariah] 2004a, 2004b) and aerial 

photographs of the JIDPA and surrounding areas. Big game ranges and migration routes; raptor 

nest and greater sage-grouse lek information; potential federally listed threatened, endangered, 

proposed, and candidate (TEP&C) and BLM Wyoming Sensitive (BWS) species habitat 

information; soils; vegetation types; general wildlife observation information; wild horse 

management areas; and grazing allotments information was obtained from WGFD, BLM, and 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WyNDD) digital shapefiles and associated data files and 

were used to assist in describing the affected environment for these resources. 

3.1 PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

3.1.1 Climate 

The JIDPA is located in a semiarid (dry and cold) mid-continental climate regime. The area is 

typified by dry windy conditions, with limited rainfall and long cold winters. The nearest 

long-term meteorological measurement station is at LaBarge, Wyoming (1958–2003), 

approximately 20 miles southwest of the JIDPA at an elevation of 6,858 feet (Western Regional 

Climate Center [WRCC] 2004). Variations in elevation and topography across the region result in 

variations in site-specific climatic conditions; therefore, site-specific conditions in the JIDPA 

likely vary somewhat from those reported herein. 

The total annual average precipitation at LaBarge is 8.0 inches, ranging from 17.8 inches (1995) 

to 3.4 inches (1975). Precipitation is greatest from mid-spring to early fall, tapering off during the 

winter months. An average of 30.5 inches of snow falls during the year (annual high 43.6 inches 

in 1987). Table 3.3 shows the average monthly temperature ranges and precipitation. 

Table 3.3. Mean Monthly Temperature Ranges and Total Precipitation at 

LaBarge, Wyoming1 

Average Monthly Low and Average Precipitation Month High Temperatures (°F) (inches) 

January -1.7 30.9 0.31 

February 1.0 34.6 0.34 

March 13.7 43.1 0.38 

April 23.4 54.0 0.81 

May 32.0 64.8 1.31 

June 38.9 73.6 1.03 

July 43.9 83.4 0.67 

August 42.3 81.6 0.88 

September 33.2 70.8 0.77 

October 22.4 59.2 0.57 

November 10.5 41.4 0.47 

December -0.9 31.0 0.46 

Annual Average 21.6 55.7 8.0 

1 Source: WRCC 2004. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-4 Chapter 3 

The region has cool temperatures, with average daily temperature (in degrees Fahrenheit [oF]) 

ranging between -1.7oF and 30.9oF in January to between 43.9oF and 83.4oF in July. Extreme 

temperatures have ranged from -52oF (1990) to 96oF (2002). The frost-free period generally 

occurs from mid-May to mid-September. 

The region is subject to strong and gusty winds, 

reflecting channeling and mountain valley flows 

due to complex terrain. During the winter months, 

strong winds are often accompanied by snow, 

producing blizzard conditions. The closest 

comprehensive wind measurements were collected in the JIDPA at a meteorological station 

operated by BP America from 1999 through 2003. 

A wind rose showing the frequency distribution of 

wind speed and direction in the JIDPA from 

1999–2002 is provided in Figure 3.1. Table 3.4 

provides the wind direction distribution in a 

tabular format. From this information, it is evident 

that winds in the JIDPA originate from the west to 

northwest approximately 40% of the time. 

The annual mean wind speed is 11.3 miles per 

hour (mph). 

Table 3.5 shows the frequency distribution of 

wind speeds in the JIDPA, and Table 3.6 shows 

the atmospheric stability class. The atmospheric 

stability class is the measure of atmospheric 

turbulence, which directly affects pollutant 

dispersion. The stability classes are divided into 

six categories designated “A” (unstable) through 

“F” (very stable). The “D” (neutral) stability class 

occurs more than half of the time. Unstable 

conditions are associated with good dispersion 

(about 20%), neutral conditions with fair 

dispersions (61%), and poor dispersion with stable 

conditions (19%). 

The frequency and strength of winds greatly 

affects the dispersion and transport of air 

pollutants. Because of the strong winds in the 

region, the potential for atmospheric dispersion is 

relatively high (although nighttime cooling 

enhances stable air, inhibiting air pollutant mixing 

and transport). 

An assessment of project impacts to climate is 

Table 3.4. Wind Direction Frequency 

Distribution, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 20061 

Wind Direction 

N 

NNE 

NE 

ENE 

E 

ESE 

SE 

SSE 

S 

SSW 

SW 

WSW 

W 

WNW 

NW 

NNW 

Occurrence (%) 

5.1 

3.8 

3.6 

4.1 

3.9 

3.4 

2.9 

2.8 

3.9 

5.0 

6.0 

6.6 

10.2 

16.0 

13.9 

8.8 

1 Source: BP America (2004). 

Table 3.5. Wind Speed Distribution, 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 20061 

Wind Speed (mph) 

0 – 4.0 

4.0 – 7.5 

7.5 – 12.1 

12.1 – 19.0 

19.0 – 24.7 

Greater than 24.7 

Occurrence (%) 

8.9 

25.8 

28.1 

24.4 

7.4 

5.4 

1 Source: BP America (2004). 

beyond the scope of this analysis; therefore climate is not discussed further in this EIS. 

3.1.2 Air Quality 

Components of air quality include concentration, visibility, and atmospheric deposition. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-5


Source: BP America (2004).


Figure 3.1. Wind Rose, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.


Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-6 Chapter 3 

3.1.2.1 Concentrations 

The Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards Table 3.6. Atmospheric Stability Class 

(WAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Distribution, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Standards (NAAQS) are health-based criteria for Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 20051 

the maximum acceptable concentrations of 

specific air pollutants at locations to which the 

public has access. Although specific air quality 

monitoring was not initiated within the JIDPA 

until 2005, air quality monitoring for the most 

relevant pollutants has been conducted and 

determined to be representative of the CIAA 

(Map 3.1). Air pollutants measured for which 

ambient air quality standards exist include 

carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 

ozone (O3), particulate matter less than 10 1 Source: BP America (2004). 

Class

2 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

Frequency (%) 

2.3 

5.9 

12.0 

60.8 

15.2 

3.7 

2 A = very unstable; B = unstable; C = slightly unstable; 

microns in effective diameter (PM10), particulate D = neutral; E = stable; F = very stable. 

matter less than 2.5 microns in effective 

diameter (PM2.5), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). 

Representative background concentrations for these pollutants are compared to the WAAQS and 

NAAQS and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class I and II Increments in 

Table 3.7. 

As shown in Table 3.7, regional background values are below established standards, and all areas 

within the CIAA are designated as attainment for all criteria pollutants. The Federal PSD 

regulations adopted and implemented by WDEQ/AQD limit the amount by which pollution levels 

are allowed to increase above historical levels, thus protecting against specific increases in 

pollution levels in areas with historically good air quality. The increases allowed under the 

program vary with location. Class I areas have the most stringent limits, while Class II areas have 

somewhat less stringent limitations (see Table 3.7). Six PSD Class I areas are identified as 

sensitive areas within the CIAA: the Bridger, Fitzpatrick, Teton, and Washakie Wilderness Areas, 

as well as Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks (see Map 3.1). The remainder of the 

CIAA is classified PSD Class II. The Popo Agie Wilderness Area and the Wind River Roadless 

Area are PSD Class II areas that have been identified as additional sensitive areas occurring 

within the CIAA for air quality. 

3.1.2.2 Visibility 

The 1977 Clean Air Act amendments declared “as a National Goal the prevention of any future, 

and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas in 

which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” The Clean Air Act gives federal land 

managers the affirmative responsibility, but no regulatory authority, to protect air quality-related 

values (AQRVs), including visibility. Regulations have since been established by EPA to protect 

visibility within Class I areas. Residents of the Pinedale area consider visibility impairment to be 

a major concern. Visibility impacts within Class II areas such as the Sublette County towns of 

Merna, Pinedale, and Boulder are categorized in this analysis as the mid-field area of study. 

Visibility or other AQRV impacts within these Class II areas are neither monitored nor regulated 

by state or federal agencies. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
F

inal Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Source: BLM 

Map 3.1. Air Quality Modeling Domain (Cumulative Impact Assessment Area) Depicting Class I and Other Sensitive AInfill Drilling Project, 2005. 
3-8 Chapter 3 

Table 3.7. Air Pollutant Background Concentrations, Wyoming and National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Increments (μg/m3

) 

Measured Wyoming and Incremental Increase Pollutant/ Background National Ambient Air Above Legal Baseline

1 

Averaging Time Concentration Quality Standards PSD Class I PSD Class II 

Carbon monoxide (CO)

2 

1-hour 

8-hour 

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)

3 

Annual 

Ozone4 

1-hour 

8-hour 

Particulate matter (PM10)

5 

24-hour 

Annual 

Particulate matter (PM2.5)

5 

24-hour 

Annual 

Sulfur dioxide (SO2)

6 

3-hour (National) 

24-hour (National) 

24-hour (Wyoming) 

Annual (National) 

Annual (Wyoming) 

3,336 

1,381 

3.4 

169 

147 

33 

16 

13 

5 

132 

43 

43 

9 

9 

40,000 

10,000 

100 

235 

157 

150 

50 

65 

15 

1,300 

365 

260 

80 

60 

n/a 

n/a 

2.5 

n/a 

n/a 

8 

4 

n/a 

n/a 

25 

5 

5 

2 

2 

n/a 

n/a 

25 

n/a 

n/a 

30 

17 

n/a 

n/a 

512 

91 

91 

20 

20 

1 n/a = not applicable. 2 Background data collected by Amoco at Ryckman Creek for an 8-month period during 1978–1979, summarized for the Riley Ridge project (BLM 

1983). 3 Background data collected at Green River Basin Visibility Study site, Green River, Wyoming, during period January–December 2001 (Air


Resource Specialists [ARS] 2002).
 4 Background data collected at Green River Basin Visibility Study site, Green River, Wyoming, during period June 10, 1998, through December 31, 

2001 (ARS 2002). 5 Background data collected by WDEQ/Air Quality Division (AQD) at the Emerson Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming, in 2001. These data have been 

determined by WDEQ/AQD to be the most representative co-located PM10 and PM2.5 data available. 6 Background data collected at the LaBarge Study Area/Northwest Pipeline Craven Creek site in 1982-1983. 

There are two types of visible impairment caused by emission sources: plume impairment and 

regional haze. Plume impairment occurs when a section of the atmosphere becomes visible due to 

the contrast or color difference between a discrete pollutant plume and a viewed background such 

as a landscape feature. Short-duration (usually less than 1–2 days) visual plumes occasionally 

occur from the JIDPA as a result of upset conditions occurring during flaring operations. 

Regional haze occurs when pollutants from more diffuse emission sources become well mixed in 

the atmosphere, causing a general alteration in the visual appearance of landscape features, 

changing the color or contrast between landscape features, or causing features of a view to 

disappear. 

Visibility impairment is measured in terms of change in light extinction or change in deciview 

(dv). A dv change of 1 to 2 (equivalent to a 10% to 20% change in extinction) represents a small 

but perceptible change in visibility. Visual range, referred to as standard visual range (SVR), is 

the farthest distance at which an observer can just see a black object viewed against the horizon 

sky. The larger the SVR, the cleaner the air. Visibility within the JIDPA air quality CIAA is 

considered very good, with an average SVR of over 93.2 miles (150.0 kilometers) (Malm 2000). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-9 

Visibility and atmospheric deposition monitoring is conducted within Class I areas. In 1985, the 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring program was 

initiated to establish current visibility conditions, to track visibility changes, to establish longterm trends, and to determine the causal mechanisms of visibility impairment in Class I areas. 

The Bridger Wilderness Area, North Absaroka Wilderness Area, and Yellowstone National Park 

IMPROVE sites are the closest such sites to the JIDPA. Data have been collected near the 

Bridger Wilderness Area and Yellowstone National Park sites since 1989, and at the North 

Absaroka Wilderness Area since 2000. Figures 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 present summaries of visibility 

conditions at the IMPROVE sites through 2003 for the cleanest days (20th percentile best 

visibility days), for average conditions, and for the haziest days (20th percentile haziest visibility 

days), respectively (IMPROVE 2005). These data are presented in SVR and were reconstructed 

from monitored aerosol (suspended liquid or solid particles) data. 

3.1.2.3 Deposition 

Atmospheric deposition refers to the processes by which air pollutants are removed from the 

atmosphere and deposited on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and it is reported as the mass of 

material deposited on an area per year (kg/ha-yr). Air pollutants are deposited by wet deposition 

(precipitation) and dry deposition (gravitational settling of pollutants). Background wet and dry 

atmospheric deposition impacts have been monitored at the National Acid Deposition Program 

(NADP) National Trends Network (NTN) (wet deposition) and Clean Air Status and Trends 

Network (CASTNET) (dry deposition) station near Pinedale, Wyoming. Total annual deposition 

(wet and dry) reported as total nitrogen and total sulfur deposition for this site for the monitoring 

period of record through 2003 are provided in Figures 3.5 and 3.6, respectively. 

Total deposition levels of concern (LOC) have been estimated for several areas, including the 

Bridger Wilderness Area (U.S. Forest Service [USFS] 1989). The “red line” LOC represents an 

estimate of the total pollutant loadings that each wilderness can tolerate. Total loadings above 

these values suggest that the land manager recommends a reduction of emissions from new 

sources unless data are available to indicate that no AQRVs in the Class I area are likely to be 

adversely affected. The “green line” LOC represents the total pollution loadings (current plus 

proposed new source contribution) below which a land manager can recommend a permit be 

issued for a new source, unless data are available that indicate otherwise. The USFS has indicated 

that the current green line values are set too high (Caplan pers. comm.). Cumulative impacts plus 

background are compared to these LOCs. The Bridger Wilderness nitrogen deposition red line 

LOC is 10 kg/ha-yr and nitrogen deposition green line LOC is 3–5 kg/ha-yr. The Bridger 

Wilderness sulfur deposition red line LOC is 20 kg/ha-yr and sulfur deposition green line is 

5 kg/ha-yr. For comparison with reported deposition values, these LOCs are shown on Figures 

3.5 and 3.6. 

The Wyoming Air Resources Monitoring System (WARMS) has measured concentrations of 

nitric acid, particulate nitrate, total nitrate, particulate ammonium, sulfur dioxide, and sulfate at 

a station near Pinedale, Wyoming since 1999. Figures 3.7 and 3.8 present the weekly 

concentrations of nitrogen compounds (nitrate and ammonium) and Figures 3.9 and 3.10 present 

concentrations of sulfur compounds (sulfur dioxide and sulfate) near Pinedale for the monitoring 

period of record through 2003. These data are provided as an additional measure of the nitrogen 

and sulfur levels near the Bridger Wilderness. WARMS data from the network start-up period 

from 1999 and 2000 may be unreliable; however, they are provided for comparison purposes. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
F

inal Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project

Standard Visual Range (SVR) for 20% Cleanest Days 

0 

25 50 75 

100 125 150 175 200 

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Year 

SVR (miles) 

Bridger Wilderness Area 

North Absaroka Wilderness A

Yellowstone National Park 

Figure 3.2. Standard Visual Range for 20th% Cleanest Days, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wy

2005). 
Standard Visual Range (SVR) for Average Days 

0 

25 50 75 

100 125 150 

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Year 

SVR (miles) 

Bridger Wilderness Area 

North Absaroka Wildernes

Yellowstone National Park 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Figure 3.3. Standard Visual Range for Average Days, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyom2005). 
Standard Visual Range (SVR) for 20% Haziest Days 

0 

25 50 75 

100 

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Year 

SVR (miles) 

Bridger Wilderness Area 

North Absaroka Wildernes

Yellowstone National Park 

Figure 3.4. Standard Visual Range for 20th% Haziest Days, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette C(IMPROVE 2005). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project
F

inal Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Mean Annual Total Nitrogen Deposition near Pinedale, Wyoming 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

10 

1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2

Deposition (kg/ha-year) 

N/NH4 (dryN/NO3 (dryN/HNO3 (dN/NO3 (weN/NH4 (wet) 

Red Line 

Green Line 

Source: BLM (Data from NADP[WY06

Figure 3.5. Mean Annual Total Nitrogen Deposition near Pinedale, Wyoming (NADP [WY06] and CASTNET [PND
F

inal Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project

Mean Annual Total Sulfur Deposition near Pinedale, Wyoming 

0 5 

10 15 20 

1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 

Deposition (kg/ha-year) 

S/S

S/S

S/S

Green Line 

Red Line 

Source: BLM (Data from NADP[WY

Figure 3.6. Mean Annual Total Sulfur Deposition near Pinedale, Wyoming (NADP [WY06] and CASTNET [PND1
F

inal Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Weekly Concentrations of Nitrate near Pinedale, Wyoming 

0 

0.5 

1 

1.5 

2 

2.5 

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

NO

3-

Concentration (ug/m3 ) 

Source: BLM (Da

Figure 3.7. Weekly Concentrations of Nitrate near Pinedale, Wyoming (WARMS, Pinedale). 
F

inal Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project

Weekly Concentrations of Ammonium near Pinedale, Wyoming 

0 

0.2 

0.4 

0.6 

0.8 

1 

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

NH

4+ 

Concentration (ug/m3 ) 

Source: BLM (Da

Figure 3.8. Weekly Concentrations of Ammonium near Pinedale, Wyoming (WARMS, Pinedale). 
F

inal Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Weekly Concentrations of Sulfur Dioxide near Pinedale, Wyoming 

0 

0.5 

1 

1.5 

2 

2.5 

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

SO2 Concentration (ug/m3 ) 

Source: BLM (D

Figure 3.9. Weekly Concentrations of Sulfur Dioxide near Pinedale, Wyoming (WARMS, Pinedale). 
ne a e

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project

Weekly Concentrations of Sulfate near Pinedale, Wyoming 

0 

0.5 

1 

1.5 

2 

2.5 

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

SO4 Concentration (ug/m3 ) 

Source: BLM 

Pi d l ) Figure 3.10. Weekly Concentrations of Sulfate near Pinedale, Wyoming (WARMS, Pinedale). 
Affected Environment 3-19 

Site-specific lake chemistry background data (pH, acid-neutralizing capacity [ANC], elemental 

concentrations, etc.) have been collected by the USFS in several high mountain lakes in the 

nearby Wilderness Areas. Lakes for which background data were collected are shown on 

Map 3.1. Lake acidification is measured in terms of change in ANC, which is the lake’s buffering 

capacity to resist acidification from atmospheric deposition of acid compounds such as sulfates 

and nitrates. Measured baseline ANC data for sensitive lakes within the cumulative study domain 

are provided in Table 3.8. 

Table 3.8. Monitored Background Conditions at Sensitive Lakes

1 

Sensitive Lake Lake Location Background ANC 

(μeq/l)

2 

Number of 

Samples 

Period of 

Monitoring 

Black Joe Lake Bridger Wilderness Area 67.0 61 1984–2003 

Deep Lake Popo Agie Wilderness Area 59.9 58 1984–2003 

Hobbs Lake Bridger Wilderness Area 69.9 65 1984–2003 

Lazy Boy Lake Bridger Wilderness Area 18.8 1 1997 

Upper Frozen Lake Bridger Wilderness Area 5.0 6 1997–2003 

Ross Lake Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area 53.5 44 1988–2003 

Lower Saddlebag Lake Popo Agie Wilderness Area 55.5 43 1989–2003 

1 From USFS (2003). 2 10th Percentile Lowest ANC Values reported. 

Lakes with ANC values ranging from 25 to 100 microequivalents per liter (μeq/l) are considered 

to be sensitive to atmospheric deposition, lakes with ANC values ranging from 10 to 25 μeq/l are 

considered very sensitive, and lakes with ANC values less than 10 μeq/l are considered extremely 

sensitive (Svalberg pers. comm.). 

The USFS has identified specific AQRV “Level of Acceptable Change” (LAC) values, which are 

used to evaluate potential air quality impacts from deposition within their wilderness areas (USFS 

2000). The USFS has identified a LAC of no greater than 1 μeq/l change in ANC (from human 

causes) for lakes with existing ANC levels less than 25 μeq/l. A limit of 10 percent change in 

ANC reduction was adopted for lakes with existing ANC greater than 25 μeq/l. 

3.1.3 Topography 

The JIDPA is located in the northern portion of the Green River Basin. Topography is generally 

gently rolling, with elevations ranging from approximately 7,400 feet on top of area buttes to 

about 7,000 feet on the JIDPA’s southern boundary (Map 3.2). Topographic relief areas (butte 

slopes) typically range in height from 50 to 150 feet. Sand Draw, the major drainage in the 

JIDPA, bisects the area, flowing northeast to southwest into Alkali Creek (a tributary to the Green 

River). All drainages in the JIDPA are ephemeral, flowing only in response to snowmelt and rain 

events. Drainage is predominantly to the southwest in Sand Draw and to Alkali Creek, to the west 

into Granite Draw, and to the southeast into Jonah Gulch (to a closed basin) and Long Draw and 

Bull Draw (to the Big Sandy River). The CIAA for topography is the project-affected JIDPA 

watershed areas described in detail in Sections 3.1.5 (Soils) and 3.2.1 (Vegetation). 

3.1.4 Geology 

The JIDPA is located on the northeastern flank of the northern Green River Basin—a structural 

and topographical basin located between the Overthrust Belt to the west and the Wind River 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-20 Chapter 3 

Mountains to the east. The Pinedale Anticline, a large structural feature, is located immediately 

north and east of the JIDPA. Surface geology in the JIDPA is composed primarily of residuum 

mixed with alluvium, aeolian (windblown) material, slopewash, grus, and/or bedrock outcrops. 

Also present are areas of slopewash and colluvium mixed with scattered deposits of residuum, 

grus, glacial and periglacial alluvium, aeolian deposits, and/or bedrock outcrops; shallow 

alluvium mixed with scattered bedrock outcrops; and an area with stabilized sand dunes 

(Wyoming Geographic Information Science Center [WyGISC] 2003a) (Map 3.3). 

Bedrock geology in the JIDPA is dominated by the Laney Member of the Green River Formation 

(Tgl) and the New Fork Tongue of the Wasatch Formation (Twg) (WyGISC 2003a) (Map 3.4). 

An area of the Wilkins Peak Member of the Green River Formation (Tgw) occurs in the 

west-central portion of the area. The Laney Member is composed of oil shale and marlstone; the 

New Fork Tongue consists of mudstone, sandstone, and thin limestone beds; and the Wilkins 

Peak Member is composed of tuffaceous sandstone. 

The JIDPA is underlain, in descending order, by the Tertiary Green River, Wasatch, and Fort 

Union Formations and an unnamed Tertiary bed; the Upper Cretaceous Lance Formation, 

Mesaverde Group (i.e., Almond Formation, Ericson Sandstone, Rock Springs Formation, and 

Blair Formation), and the Frontier Formation; the Lower Cretaceous Mowry Shale, Muddy 

Sandstone, Thermopolis Shale, and Cloverly Formation; and Jurassic, Triassic, Permian, 

Pennsylvanian, Mississippian (Madison Formation), Devonian, Ordovician, Cambrian, and 

Precambrian rocks (Figure 3.11). The Lance Pool, comprising the Lance Formation and the upper 

portions of the Mesaverde Group, is the primary target for gas production for the project. 

Other than the Green River and Wasatch Formations, which occur at the surface, the geological 

formations underlying the JIDPA would not be adversely affected by the proposed Project and, 

therefore, are not discussed further in this EIS. Surface geology is considered under Topography 

(see Section 3.1.3). 

3.1.4.1 Mineral Resources 

The mineral resources CIAA covers approximately 66,400 acres (103.8 square miles) on and 

surrounding the JIDPA and is defined as the combined Jonah EA, Jonah Field II EIS, and JIDPA 

areas (Map 3.5). Mineral resources within this area are generally as described below for the 

JIDPA; however, recovery of the natural gas resources in the CIAA area outside the JIDPA is 

currently considered uneconomic. Additional information on minerals industry earnings, labor, 

and revenues is provided in Section 3.4. 

The Jonah Field is a highly productive sweet natural gas field that produces both natural gas and 

condensate (oil contained in the natural gas stream). The estimated volume of natural gas in place 

in the JIDPA is 12,800 billion cubic feet (BCF), with recoverable volumes estimated to range 

between 3,400 and 8,200 BCF; 1 BCF of natural gas is the average annual amount used by 13,700 

Wyoming households (2002 use rates) (Energy Information Administration 2004). Through 

August 2004, approximately 1,121 BCF of gas and 11 million barrels of oil (MBO) had been 

produced from the field from over 500 wells (WOGCC 2004). Currently, the Jonah Field 

produces almost 250 BCF of natural gas a year, or 13.5% of all the natural gas produced in 

Wyoming. In terms of the quantity of gas produced in Wyoming, the Jonah Field is second only 

to the Powder River Basin, which encompasses several million acres in Campbell, Sheridan, and 

Johnson Counties in northeast Wyoming. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Map 3.2. Area Topography, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-22 

Ch

apter 3

Affected Environment 3-23


Source: BLM (Based on data from the Wyoming Geographic Information Science Center, 2003) 

Map 3.4. Bedrock Geology, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Fig

u

re 

3.11. F

ormatio

ns U

n

derlying the Jo

nah Infill Drilling 

Project Area, S

u

blette 

C

o

u

ntry, W

y

o

min

g, 2

0

0

6

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project
Affected Environment 3-25 

Source: BLM 

Map 3.5. Mineral Resources/Geologic Hazards and Paleontological/Cultural Resources Cumulative 

Impact Assessment Areas, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-26 Chapter 3 

Among gas fields in southwestern Wyoming, the estimated 12,800 BCF original gas in place 

(OGIP) for the JIDPA (30,500 acres) is more than four times that of the 2,933 BCF OGIP within 

the vastly larger (81,920-acre) Bruff Field in Sweetwater County. In an acre-by-acre comparison, 

the JIDPA contains approximately 0.42 BCF per acre compared to 0.036 BCF per acre in the 

Bruff Field, 0.022 BCF per acre in the Fontenelle Field, and 0.011 BCF per acre in the 

Wamsutter-Continental Divide Natural Gas Field. Thus, per acre, the Jonah Field contains several 

times more OGIP and gas reserves than other fields in southwestern Wyoming, and the oil 

reserves (from condensate) are also significantly higher than other fields in southwestern 

Wyoming. 

The Lance Formation (from which natural gas would be obtained) is a sedimentary formation, 

formed by fluvial processes, whereby sediments were deposited in complex, discontinuous bodies 

by braided flowing streams. Figure 3.12 provides a photograph of a typical braided stream. 

The gas-bearing sediments of the Lance Formation occur in numerous discontinuous lenses 

(see Appendix B, Figure 2.2). 

Other mineral resources in the area include coal and sand and gravel. The JIDPA is located within 

the Green River Basin Coal Field (Jones 1991) and is underlain by coal-bearing rocks. However, 

the potential for coal development is low because coal beds are thin and too deep to be 

economically mined. Limited sand and gravel resources occur in the JIDPA, and these resources 

have been used for existing area developments (e.g., roads). No other minerals are known to 

occur in the JIDPA (Harris 1996, 1997; Hausel 1997). 

3.1.4.2 Geologic Hazards 

The geologic hazards CIAA covers the same 66,400 acres (103.8 square miles) as the mineral 

resources CIAA (see Map 3.5). Geologic hazards within the CIAA are generally as described 

below for the JIDPA. 

All of Wyoming is seismically active, and the western quarter of the state is more active than the 

eastern three-quarters (Case 1997). The JIDPA is within an area where an earthquake could have 

an estimated peak acceleration of 16–20% gravity and an estimated 2,500-year recurrence 

interval. Earthquakes with acceleration of 16–20% gravity are equivalent to earthquakes with 

intensities of VII to VIII on the modified Mercali scale, which cause negligible to slight damage 

in well-designed buildings, slight to considerable damage in ordinary structures, and considerable 

to great damage in poorly built structures. In the western quarter of Wyoming, an intensity V 

earthquake (less intense than VII; windows broken, plaster cracked, objects overturned) can be 

expected to occur about every 1.5 years (Case 1997). 

Numerous earthquakes have occurred in a north/south-trending belt between Big Piney and 

Evanston in recent years. An earthquake with a 3.3 magnitude (Richter scale) occurred within the 

area in 1978 (Case et al. 1995). The epicenter was located in the northern portion of T29N, 

R108W. The Continental Fault System and the Leckie Fault occur approximately 10 miles 

northeast of the JIDPA (Case 1997). It is not known whether these faults have been active in 

Quaternary times. 

No landslides or active sand dunes are known to occur in the JIDPA (WyGISC 2003a), nor are 

there any known areas of subsidence (Case pers. comm.). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Figure 3.12. Typical Braided Stream. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-28 Chapter 3 

3.1.4.3 Paleontological Resources 

The CIAA for paleontological resources covers approximately 484.4 square miles (310,000 acres) 

on and surrounding the JIDPA (see Map 3.5). Approximately 3,331 acres of the CIAA have been 

disturbed primarily from existing oil and gas developments and associated road and pipeline 

networks. Forty-two percent of this disturbance (1,409 acres) occurs within the JIDPA, 1,388 

acres are due to roads outside the JIDPA, 468 acres are due to well pads outside the JIDPA, and 

66 acres are due to agricultural lands. Paleontological resources within the CIAA are generally 

the same as described for the JIDPA, and 26 fossil localities are known from the CIAA (ErathemVanir Geological Consultants 1997). Vertebrate fossils, including mammalian species, are known 

from some of these localities. The localities occur on the Green River, Wasatch, and Bridger 

Formations. 

The important fossil record of the Green River Basin is well known (BLM 1992, Grande 1984). 

Table 3.9 provides information on the various geologic formations present on and in the vicinity 

of the JIDPA and their paleontological potential. 

Table 3.9. Surface Geologic Formations Present on the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area and 

Their Paleontological Potential, Sublette County, Wyoming, 20061 

Deposit

2 Geologic 

Age 

Type of Deposit/ 

Environment of Deposition Thickness Fossil Resources 

Fossil 

Potential 

Alluvial Holocene Unconsolidated silts, sands of <20 feet None Low 

sediments valleys and plains; terrestrial 

Terrace deposits Pleistocene/ 

Holocene 

Gravels, silts, and sands that predate 

current erosional cycle; terrestrialfluvial 

<40 feet Pleistocene 

mammals 

Moderate 

Green River Fm 

Laney Mbr 

LaClede Bed 

Middle 

Eocene 

Chiefly oil shale, lesser algal 

limestone, sandstone, claystone, and 

tuff; lacustrine, accumulated during 

renewed expansion of Lake Gosiute 

<100 feet Vertebrates, 

invertebrates, 

trace fossils 

High 

Green River Fm 

Wilkins Peak Mbr 

(upper part) 

Early-Middle 

Eocene 

Chiefly brown or black oil shale 

interbedded with gray or green 

mudstone, evaporitic; lacustrine, 

deposited during re-expansion of 

Lake Gosiute (upper) 

<150 feet Vertebrates, 

invertebrates, 

plants 

High 

Wasatch Fm 

Alkali Creek or 

Early Eocene Interbedded brown, green, and gray 

sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, and 

<100 feet Vertebrates, 

invertebrates, 

High 

New Fork Tongue shale, locally conglomeratic; chiefly 

terrestrial-fluvial to floodplain, 

some lacustrine 

plants 

1 Adapted from Erathem-Vanir Geological Consultants (1997). 

2 Fm = formation; Mbr = member. 

The Green River and Wasatch Formations contain fossils from each of the five biological 

kingdoms and are well known for their abundant fish fossils (Grande 1984). The Laney Member 

of the Green River Formation is especially fossiliferous. Terrestrial mammalian fossils are not 

common because the Green River Formation was formed predominantly from lake deposits; 

however, reptile (crocodile, alligator, snake, lizard), amphibian (frog, salamander), bird (pelican, 

grouse, shorebird, and small perching bird), and insect and other invertebrate fossils have been 

recorded. Although uncommon, mammalian fossils, including marsupials, insectivores, primates, 

rodents, carnivores, and ungulates have been recovered. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-29 

The fossil flora of the Laney Member is not well studied but includes sycamore, horsetail, and lily 

pads. Other members of the Green River Formation, however, include a diverse mixture of trees, 

shrubs, and flowers, suggesting that the fossil flora of the Laney Member may be more diverse 

than is now known. Insects and other invertebrates (gastropods, arthropods), algae, fungi, 

flagellates, and bacteria also have been recovered from the Green River Formation. A review of 

museum and university records and literature (Erathem-Vanir Geological Consultants 1997) 

indicated no known significant localities within the JIDPA, although two localities occur within 

1.0 mile of the area. However, during past JIDPA developments, a few fossils of a Pleistocene 

horse (tentative identification) were discovered in JIDPA terrace deposits during construction of a 

well pad. It is likely that important fossils, including both Eocene and Pleistocene materials, are 

located in the JIDPA. 

3.1.5 Soils 

The CIAA for soil resources is the combined area of the 10 watersheds that drain the JIDPA 

(see Section 3.1.6). This CIAA covers approximately 328.6 square miles (210,300 acres) 

(Table 3.10, Map 3.6). Estimates of the types of soils most likely to be disturbed are based on 

coarse-scale Wyoming Gap Analysis soil information (Munn and Arneson 1999a, 1999b). Extant 

soils information for the CIAA (coarsely mapped) indicates that soil map units SU03 and SU05 

are the predominant soil types in the area (see Table 3.10). Approximately 1.6% (3,354.7 acres) 

of the CIAA has been disturbed primarily by oil and gas developments and roads (Table 3.11) 

and approximately 42% (1,409 acres) of this disturbance exists as long-term disturbance in the 

JIDPA; no crop lands or residential areas are known to occur within the CIAA. The Expanded 

Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed has the largest amount of existing disturbance (991.5 acres, 

or 4.2% of the watershed), and most of this disturbance (664.9 acres) is from existing natural gas 

developments in the JIDPA (see Table 3.11). 

Seventeen soil mapping units (fine resolution mapping) occur within the JIDPA (Map 3.7 and 

Table 3.12) (ERO Resources Corporation 1988; Munn and Arneson 1999a, 1999b; BKS 

Environmental Associates, Inc. 2003; Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2003). 

Table 3.12 lists the fine-scale soil map units, their JIDPA acreage, and soil use limitations and 

management considerations. Many of the soils within the JIDPA have characteristics that limit 

their suitability for road construction and may inhibit successful reclamation. The primary factors 

limiting soils use for road construction are shallow depth to rock, low strength, shrink-swell 

potential, frost action, flooding, and steep slopes. Reclamation potential is limited by alkalinity 

and salinity; excess stones, sand, clay, and/or lime; shallow depths; and steep slopes. 

One known area of stabilized sand dunes and other aeolian (windblown) deposits occur in the 

JIDPA (see Map 3.3) (Case and Boyd 1987), and it is likely that smaller areas of sand dunes or 

windblown deposits also occur in the area. The Spool Variant-Ouard Variant-San Arcacio Variant 

soil series (map unit 123) and Garsid-Terada-Langspring Variant complex (map unit 121) contain 

these features (see Table 3.12 and Maps 3.3 and 3.6). Stabilized dunes and other windblown 

deposits are usually very sandy and are highly susceptible to wind erosion. However, these soil 

types and/or known stabilized dunes are not common within the JIDPA and, where they do occur, 

they are limited in size and areal extent. 

Major soils within the JIDPA include the Vermillion Variant-Seedskadee-Fraddle complex on 

0–3% slopes (map unit 127); the Monte-Leckman complex on 1–6% slopes (map unit 106); the 

Fraddle-Ouard-San Arcacio Variant complex on 3–8% slopes (map unit 124); the Ouard-Ouard 

Variant-Boltus complex on 1–8% slopes (map unit 114); the Garsid-Monte Association on 1–6% 

slopes (map unit 119); the San Arcacio-Saguache association on 0–3% slopes (map unit 125); the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-30 Chapter 3 

Huguston-Horsley-Terada complex on 6–30% slopes (map unit 116); and the Haterton-Garsid 

complex on 1–8% slopes (map unit 113) (see Table 3.12). These mapping units collectively cover 

approximately 78% of the JIDPA. The Cowestglen sand loam on 0–2% slopes (map unit 

951/106) and the Monte-Leckman complex (map unit 106) on 1–6% slopes occur adjacent to 

drainage channels and on terraces and alluvial fans. 

Table 3.10. Soil Types in the Soil Resources Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 

Soil Map Total % of Acres in


Unit

1 Soil Type Description1 

Acres CIAA JIDPA


SU01	 Typic Torrifluvents, fine-silty and fine, mixed (calcareous), 

frigid-Typic Haplaquepts, fine-loamy and fine loamy over 

sandy or sandy-skeletal, mixed (calcareous), frigid 

SU02	 Aquic Haplustolls, coarse-loamy, mixed, frigid-Ustic 

Torriorthents, fine-loamy, mixed (calcareous), frigid-Typic 

Fluvaquents, fine-loamy, mixed (calcareous) frigid 

SU03	 Rock Outcrop-Typic Torriorthents, loamy, mixed (calcareous) 

frigid, shallow-Lithic Typic Torriorthents, loamy-skeletal, 

mixed (calcareous), frigid-Typic Natrargids, fine-loamy, 

mixed, frigid 

SU05	 Typic Torriorthents, loamy, mixed (calcareous) frigid, 

shallow-Typic Haplocalcids, coarse-loamy, mixed, frigidLithic Torriorthents, loamy-skeletal, mixed (calcareous), frigid 

SU07	 Ustic Torriorthents, fine loamy, mixed (calcareous), frigidUstic Torriorthents loamy, mixed (calcareous), frigid, 

shallow-Typic Haplocalcids, fine-loamy, mixed, frigid 

SU08	 Typic Haplosalids, fine, mixed, frigid-Typic Haplocambids, 

fine-silty, mixed, frigid 

SU09	 Typic and Lithic Torripsamments, mixed, frigid-Typic 

Torriorthents, loamy-skeletal, mixed, frigid-Rock OutcropTypic Haplocambids, loamy-skeletal, mixed, frigid 

SW08	 Typic Haplosalids, fine, mixed, frigid and Typic 

Haplocambids, fine-silty, mixed, frigid 

SW12	 Ustic Haplargids, fine-loamy and coarse-loamy, mixed, frigidUstic Haplocambids, sandy, mixed, frigid 

4,495 2.1 0 

899 0.4 0 

93,700 44.6 9,913 

68,323 32.5 20,496 

20,229 9.6 91 

10,249 4.9 0 

3,596 1.7 0 

1,079 0.5 0 

7,730 3.7 0 

Total	 210,300 100.0 30,500 

1 Based on Munn and Arneson (1999a, 1999b). 

Several soils (i.e., Monte-Leckman [map unit 106], Fraddle-Tresano [map unit 110], GarsidMonte [map unit 119], and Baston-Boltus-Chrisman [map unit 122] complexes/associations) may 

be good sources for topsoil (ERO Resources Corporation 1988) (see also Appendix B). 

The Spool Variant-Ouard Variant-San Arcacio Variant (map unit 123), the Fraddle-Ouard-San 

Arcacio Variant (map unit 124), and the San Arcacio-Saguache (map unit 125) complexes/ 

associations may be good gravel sources. The San Arcacio soils are also considered to be 

archaeologically sensitive in that they contain intact buried cultural resources. The Chrisman silty 

clay soil (map unit 104) is typically fine-textured and formed in thick clayey local alluvium in 

closed basins and is susceptible to high shrink-swell potential that may limit road construction 

activities (ERO Resources Corporation 1988). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-31 

Source: BLM (Based on data from Munn & Arneson, 1999) 

Map 3.6. Soil Types (coarse-scale) within the Soils Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 3.11. Existing Watershed Disturbance Acreage, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Cumulative Impact Assessm

County, Wyoming, 2006 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Watersheds 

Type Expanded Reduced Upper Upper Southeast New North Big Sandy 

Sand Draw- Alkali Creek- Eighteenmile Fork River- Alkali River-Bull Jo

Alkali Creek Granite Wash Green River Canyon Blue Ridge Draw Draw Long Draw Gu

Watershed Acreage 23,373 12,212 26,355 35,212 11,746 15,911 19,760 18,521 2Disturbance in the JIDPA2 664.9 0.0 114.1 132.6 0.0 0.0 43.7 390.3 Disturbance Outside the JIDPA 

Wells 3 4.0 0.0 8.0 56.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 8.0 

Roads4 

Connecting road 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Jeep trail 6.5 0.0 8.3 9.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 

Neighbor-hood road 146.2 34.6 141.7 170.2 19.8 85.0 128.5 88.0 State highway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.2 83.6 

Other (new oil and gas roads) 169.9 0.4 80.6 241.8 0.0 0.0 30.2 101.6 

Subtotal 322.6 36.0 230.6 421.1 23.2 85.8 216.9 273.2 1

Total Disturbance 991.5 36.0 352.7 609.7 23.2 97.8 260.6 671.5 1

% of Watershed Disturbed 4.2 0.3 1.3 1.7 0.2 0.6 1.3 3.6 

1 Data gathered from WyGISC (2003b), WOGCC (2003), TRC Mariah (2004a, 2004b), and unpublished BLM aerial photography. 2 See Table 2.3. 3 Assumes 4 acres per well pad. 4 Road acreage based on 20-foot width for connecting roads, jeep trails, and neighborhood roads; 29-foot width for other roads; and 150-foot width for state highways. 
Affected Environment 3-33 

Source: BLM (Based on data from ERO Resources (1988) & BKS Environmental (2003)) 

Map 3.7. Soils Types (Fine-Scale) within the Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 

2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-34 Chapter 3 

Table 3.12. Soil Types

1

, Soil Use, and Management Considerations for Soils, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 

Map Unit	 Map Unit Name Use and Management Considerations Acres No. 

102	 Langspring VariantLangspring complex, 1– 

10% slopes 

104	 Chrisman silty clay,


0–2% slopes


106	 Monte-Leckman complex, 

1–6% slopes 

108	 Dines-Clowers-Quealman 

complex, 0–3% slopes 

110	 Fraddle-Tresano complex, 

1–8% slopes 

113	 Haterton-Garsid complex, 

1–8% slopes 

114	 Ouard-Ouard VariantBoltus complex, 

1–8% slopes 

116	 Huguston-Horsley-Terada 

complex, 6–30% slopes 

119	 Garsid-Monte association, 

1–6% slopes 

121	 Garsid-Terada-Langspring 

Variant complex, 1– 

6% slopes 

122	 Baston-Boltus-Chrisman 

association, 0–6% slopes 

123	 Spool Variant-Ouard


Variant-San Arcacio


Variant complex,


4–25% slopes


124	 Fraddle-Ouard-San 

Arcacio Variant complex, 

3–8% slopes 

125	 San Arcacio-Saguache 

association, 0–3% slopes 

127	 Vermillion VariantSeedskadee-Fraddle 

complex, 0–3% slopes 

128	 Fraddle-Ouard-San 

Arcacio Variant complex, 

0–3% slopes 

951/106	 Cowestglen sandy loam, 

0–2% slopes/see also Map 

Unit 106, above 

Gently sloping to nearly level mesa tops and uplands. Loamy uplands. 149


Generally suitable for road construction. Rehabilitation limited due to


excess lime and small stones.


Saline upland sites, in closed basins. Construction activities limited due to 42


severe shrink-swell properties. Rehabilitation potential limited by


moderately alkaline soils.


Gently sloping alluvial fans and drainageways. Loamy, saline uplands. 3,488


Mostly suitable for road construction. Rehabilitation limited by excess


sands or small stones.


Nearly level to gently sloping drainageways and alluvial terraces. Loamy 268


sites, saline uplands. Limited for road construction due to low strength.


Rehabilitation potential limited by excess salt, sand, and small stones.


Rolling uplands, upper dissected fans, and valley-filling slopes. Loamy 1,541


uplands. Limited for construction activities and reclamation due to thin


soils.


Nearly level to gently sloping uplands and sideslopes. Shallow loamy and 2,102


loamy sites. Construction limited by shallow depth to bedrock, slope, and


low strength. Rehabilitation limited by shallow depth to bedrock and steep


slopes.


Nearly level to gently sloping uplands. Shallow loamy, shallow clayey, and 3,132


shaley sites. Limited due to low strength and shallow depth to bedrock.


Rehabilitation limited due to thin soils.


Gently sloping to moderately steep sideslopes and rolling uplands. Shaley 2,109


and loamy sites. Limited due to shallow depth to bedrock, low strength,


and steep slopes. Rehabilitation limited by shallow depths and slopes.


Gently undulating uplands. Loamy sites. Construction limited by thin soils, 3,087


low strength, and steep slopes. Rehabilitation limited by steep slopes.


Undulating uplands. Loamy sites. Construction limited due to thin soils, 1,261


low strength, and steep slopes. Rehabilitation limited by steep slopes, small


stones, and excess lime.


Undulating and dominantly concave uplands. Clayey, shaley, and saline 85


upland sites. Construction limited by low strength, shrink-swell potential,


thin soils, and steep slopes. Rehabilitation limited by thin soils, clayey


textures, excess salt and steep slopes.


Gently sloping to steep sideslopes and rolling uplands. Shallow sandy, 1,260


shallow clayey and loamy sites. Construction limited by shallow depth to


bedrock and low strength. Rehabilitation limited by shallow depths, small


stones, sandy or clayey textures, or steep slopes.


Rolling uplands. Loamy and shallow loamy sites. Construction limited by 3,194


thin soils and low strength. Rehabilitation limited by thin soils, clayey


textures, or small stones.


Old floodplains, fans, and terraces. Loamy and sandy sites. Generally 2,304


suitable for road construction. Rehabilitation limited by small stones.


Nearly level uplands and mesas. Shallow loamy and loamy sites. Limited 4,427


for construction due to shallow depth to bedrock, low strength, and thin


soils. Rehabilitation limited by stoniness, excess lime, and thin soils.


Nearly level upland surfaces. Loamy and shallow loamy sites. 1,645


Construction limited by low strength and shallow depth to bedrock.


Rehabilitation limited by thin soils and small stones.


Nearly level drainage ways. Road construction potentially limited by 406


moderate frost action and flooding. See also Map Unit 106, above.


Total	 30,500 

1 Adapted from: ERO Resources Corporation (1988) and BKS Environmental Associates Inc. (2003). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-35 

The extent of erosion in the JIDPA is currently undefined. Erosion modeling was conducted to 

assess the relative impacts of the alternatives considered on soil loss (HydroGeo 2005; see 

Appendix E). The modeling looked at the sediment loss experienced during individual storms of 

varying size; the amount of erosion experienced is proportional to the size of the storm. Under 

existing conditions, the model estimates that sediment loss in the JIDPA ranges from 16,110 

kilograms during a 5-year storm (a 5-year storm has a 20% chance of occurring in any given 

year), and over 1.3 million kilograms during a 150-year storm (a 150-year storm has less than a 

1% chance of occurring in any given year) (Table 3.13). 

Table 3.13. Modeled Sediment Loss under Existing Conditions, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 

Major Drainage/Watershed Percentage of 

JIDPA Area 

Soil Loss (kg) during 

5-year storm 

Soil Loss (kg) during 

150-year storm 

Green River/New Fork River 

Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek 45 0 320,822 

Granite Wash 4.3 20 243,820 

Reduced Upper Alkali Creek-Green River 12.4 6,150 1,052,956 

Upper Eighteenmile Canyon 6.4 172 219,184 

Southeast New Fork River-Blue Ridge 0 Not modeled Not modeled 

North Alkali Draw 0 Not modeled Not modeled 

Subtotal 68.1 6,342 1,836,782 

Big Sandy River 

Big Sandy River-Bull Draw 11.9 1,444 1,638,147 

Long Draw 16.5 7,123 4,730,072 

Subtotal 28.4 8,567 6,368,219 

Closed Basin 

Jonah Gulch 1 Not modeled Not modeled 

140401040603 2.5 1,203 170,173 

Subtotal 3.5 1,203 170,173 

Total 100 16,112 8,375,174 

Source: HydroGeo (2005) ; see Appendix E. 

The watersheds contributing to the Big Sandy River, Long Draw and Bull Draw, account for the 

most soil loss from the JIDPA: 53% during a 5-year storm, and 76% during a 150-year storm, 

despite the fact that these watersheds account for only 28% of the JIDPA. In contrast, Sand Draw, 

which represents the largest watershed within the JIDPA (45% of the total area), accounts for 

only 4% of the total sediment lost. 

The Transportation and Reclamation Plans (Appendix B, subappendices DP-A and DP-B, 

respectively) contain further information on soil characteristics, suitability for road construction 

and reclamation, use and management considerations, and criteria for establishing soil suitability 

for various uses. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-36 Chapter 3 

3.1.6 Water Resources 

3.1.6.1 Surface Water 

The CIAA for surface water resources is the combined area of the 10 watersheds that drain the 

JIDPA, which encompass approximately 328.6 miles (210,300 acres) (Table 3.14 and Maps 3.8 

and 3.9). Approximately 1.6% (3,354.7 acres) of the CIAA has been disturbed, primarily by oil 

and gas developments and roads (see Table 3.11). The Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek 

watershed has the largest amount of existing disturbance—4.2% of the watershed (991.5 acres)— 

and most of this disturbance (664.9 acres) is from existing natural gas developments in the JIDPA 

(see Table 3.11). 

The JIDPA lies within the Upper Green River Basin and is part of the Colorado River drainage 

system. The entire JIDPA is drained by intermittent and ephemeral streams; there are no 

perennial streams or springs in the area. However, there are two playas and several reservoirs and 

stockponds constructed in ephemeral washes that may contain water for all or a part of some 

years. The nearest flowing perennial water bodies to the JIDPA are the Big Sandy, New Fork, and 

Green Rivers (see Map 3.8). 

Table 3.14. Watershed Acreages, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 

Major Drainage/Watershed 

Total 

Acreage of 

Watershed 

Acres 

within 

JIDPA 

Percent of 

JIDPA in 

Watershed 

Percent of 

Watershed 

in JIDPA 

Watershed 

Acreage Along 

Burma Road 

(Outside JIDPA) 

Green River/New Fork River 

Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek 23,373 13,724 45.0 58.7 2 

Granite Wash 12,212 1,312 4.3 10.7 5 

Reduced Upper Alkali Creek-Green River 26,355 3,782 12.4 14.4 9 

Upper Eighteenmile Canyon 35,212 1,958 6.4 5.6 0 

Southeast New Fork River-Blue Rim 11,746 – – – 13 

North Alkali Draw 15,911 – – – 6 

Subtotal 124,809 20,776 68.1 16.6 35 

Big Sandy River 

Big Sandy River-Bull Draw 19,760 3,630 11.9 18.4 0 

Long Draw 18,521 5,028 16.5 27.1 0 

Subtotal 38,281 8,658 28.4 22.6 0 

Closed Basin 

Jonah Gulch 22,652 318 1.0 1.4 0 

140401040603 24,558 748 2.5 3.0 0 

Subtotal 47,210 1,066 3.5 2.3 0 

Total 210,300 30,500 100.0 14.5 35 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-37 

Source: BLM 

Map 3.8. Surface Water Resources in the Jonah Infill Drilling Project and Associated Cumulative 

Impact Assessment Areas (Project-affected Watersheds), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-38 Chapter 3 

Source: BLM (Based on data from the Wyoming Geographic Information Science Center, 2003) 

Map 3.9. Cumulative Impact Assessment Area (Project-affected Watersheds) for Surface Water, Soils, 

Vegetation, and Fisheries, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-39 

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum is a cooperative effort between federal 

agencies and seven states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and 

Wyoming) to address the problem of increasing salinity in the lower reaches of the Colorado 

River. Salinity has long been recognized as one of the major problems of the river. 

Salts contained within sedimentary rocks throughout the basin are easily eroded, dissolved, and 

transported into the river system, with salt-loading resulting from natural processes (i.e., saline 

springs, groundwater discharge into the river system, erosion, and the concentrating effects of 

evaporation and transpiration) and human-caused processes (i.e., irrigation return waters, 

reservoir evaporation, municipal and industrial discharges) (Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Forum 2002). 

The purpose of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum is to provide information 

necessary to comply with Section 303(a) and (b) of the Clean Water Act and to meet national, 

international, and state water quality objectives (Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum 

2002). The following measures have been identified to reduce salt loading in the Colorado River 

Basin: 

•	 implementation of management practices that minimize soil disturbances, repair 

disturbed surface environments, and protect water quality; 

•	 prevention of nonpoint-source salt mobilization through land-use planning, permit 

stipulations, land-use authorizations, best management practices, watershed protection 

strategies, and ecological restoration; 

•	 control of point sources such as saline springs and seeps and abandoned flowing wells 

(i.e., well plugging) that yield saline water; 

•	 implementation of water quality monitoring and analysis to assess the effectiveness of 

management practices; 

•	 implementation of vegetation management practices that improve vegetative cover (i.e., 

controlled burns, reclamation, revegetation), control noxious weed infestations, and 

improvement or repair of riparian areas, thereby decreasing the amount of runoff and soil 

erosion and the potential amount of salt leaving an area; and 

•	 implementation of construction and maintenance activities such as road and trail 

maintenance and closures, protective fencing and access control, development of springs 

and water sources to improve livestock distributions, and erosion control and sedimenttrapping structures (Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum 2002). 

Portions of 10 watersheds occur within the JIDPA and/or along the Burma Road: Expanded Sand 

Draw-Alkali Creek, Granite Wash, Reduced Upper Alkali Creek-Green River, Big Sandy RiverBull Draw, Long Draw, Upper Eighteenmile Canyon, Jonah Gulch, 140401040603, North Alkali 

Draw, and Southeast New Fork River-Blue Rim (see Map 3.9 and Table 3.14) (WyGISC 2003c). 

The Sand Draw-Alkali Creek and Upper Alkali Creek-Green River watershed boundaries were 

modified and renamed to reflect more accurate hydrologic boundaries, and the New Fork RiverBlue Rim watershed was reduced in size and renamed to the Southeast New Fork River-Blue Rim 

watershed for this project to eliminate drainage areas north of the New Fork River. The Expanded 

Sand Draw-Alkali Creek, Granite Wash, Reduced Upper Alkali Creek-Green River, and North 

Alkali Draw watersheds drain to the Green River (below the confluence with the New Fork 

River), approximately 12 miles west of the JIDPA. The Upper Eighteenmile watershed also 

drains into the Green River approximately 35 miles south of the JIDPA. The Southeast New Fork 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-40 Chapter 3 

River-Blue Rim watershed drains north to the New Fork River. The Big Sandy-Bull Draw and 

Long Draw watersheds drain to the Big Sandy River located approximately 5 miles southeast of 

the JIDPA. The Jonah Gulch and 140401040603 watersheds drain to a closed basin 

approximately 15 miles southeast of the JIDPA. 

Approximately 45% of the JIDPA is drained by the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek 

watershed (13,724 acres in the JIDPA), which includes Sand Draw and many other small 

ephemeral washes (see Maps 3.8 and 3.9 and Table 3.14). The northwest portion of the JIDPA is 

drained by the Granite Wash watershed (1,312 acres in the JIDPA), which includes Granite 

Wash, small ephemeral washes, and Wild Horse Reservoir. The Reduced Upper Alkali CreekGreen River watershed drains approximately 3,782 acres of western portions of the JIDPA. 

The southern portion of the JIDPA is drained by three watersheds: Upper Eighteenmile Canyon, 

140401040603, and Jonah Gulch. The Upper Eighteenmile Canyon watershed (1,958 acres in the 

JIDPA) includes the south side of Yellow Point Ridge and East Buckhorn Draw. The portions of 

the Jonah Gulch (318 acres) and 140401040603 (748 acres) watersheds contained in the JIDPA 

consist of small ephemeral channels. Eastern portions of the JIDPA are drained by the Long Draw 

(5,028 acres) and Big Sandy River-Bull Draw (3,630 acres) watersheds (see Table 3.14). The 12 

miles of the Burma Road outside the JIDPA cross approximately 0.6 mile (2 acres) of the 

Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed; 3.1 miles (9 acres) of Reduced Upper Alkali 

Creek-Green River watershed; 1.9 miles (5 acres) of the Granite Wash watershed; 2.0 miles 

(6 acres) of the North Alkali Draw watershed; and 4.4 miles (13 acres) of the Southeast New Fork 

River-Blue Rim watershed (see Table 3.14). 

The current PFO RMP indicates that Sand Draw and Alkali Creek are prone to flooding (BLM 

1987a, 1987b). However, flooding may occur in any of the ephemeral draws within the JIDPA 

after rainstorms. Drainages within the JIDPA flow only periodically in response to rain and 

snowmelt events, and have extended periods of no flow during most of the year. 

Surface Water Quality 

Alkali Creek, Sand Draw, Granite Wash, and all other named and unnamed streams in the JIDPA 

are Class 3B surface waters (WDEQ/WQD 2001). Class 3B waters are tributary waters including 

adjacent wetlands that are not known to support fish populations or drinking water supplies. They 

are intermittent and ephemeral streams with sufficient hydrology to normally support and sustain 

communities of aquatic life including invertebrates, amphibians, or other flora and fauna. Uses 

designated on Class 3B waters are for aquatic life (other than fish), recreation, wildlife, industry, 

agriculture, and scenic value. 

Down-channel of the JIDPA, the Big Sandy and New Fork Rivers are Class 2AB waters 

(i.e., waters known to support game fish populations and where a game fishery and drinking 

water use is attainable) (WDEQ/WQD 2001). Uses designated for Class 2AB waters include 

those listed above for Class 3B plus drinking water, game and non-game fish, and fish 

consumption, and these waters are protected for all these uses. The Green River, downstream 

from the New Fork River, is also Class 2AB. 

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify waters that are not supporting 

their designated uses and/or that need to have a total maximum daily load established to support 

their uses. There are no streams within the JIDPA or CIAA that are on the State of Wyoming’s 

2004 Section 303(d) list or included in the 2004 305(b) Report (WDEQ 2004). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-41 

The quantity of sediment and associated salt loads within ephemeral flows from the JIDPA is 

unknown. However, Alkali Creek and several associated watersheds outside of the JIDPA were 

listed in 1993 as salinity concerns by the BLM, NRCS, and University of Wyoming under the 

designation of “Long Island Watershed.” Stream surveys of Alkali Creek downstream from the 

JIDPA have noted drops in the channel base level (headcuts) that, while not within the immediate 

area of the JIDPA, have the potential to be affected and eventually affect the channels within the 

JIDPA as well as the salt and sediment loads coming from the affected watersheds. Efforts are 

underway to address the headcuts and their effects. 

Runoff modeling, including sediment and salt loading of surface waters, has been performed and 

used to analyze impacts to surface water quality. 

Surface Water Use 

Five adjudicated and numerous unadjudicated surface water rights occur in the JIDPA (State 

Engineer’s Office 2004). The major surface water uses in the JIDPA are for livestock and wildlife 

watering. Numerous impoundments and playas (internally drained, closed basins that periodically 

hold water) occur throughout the area. Several reservoirs (e.g., Warden, Lumen, Granite, Wild 

Horse, Sand Draw No. 4) have been constructed along drainages and may semipermanently, 

seasonally, or temporarily hold water. There are approximately 22 stock ponds scattered 

throughout the area. One large playa is located on private surface in Section 32, T29N, R108W. 

Other smaller playas or depressions occur throughout the JIDPA. No irrigation occurs on the 

JIDPA. 

3.1.6.2 Groundwater 

The JIDPA and associated groundwater CIAA (i.e., the JIDPA and adjacent potential draw-down 

areas) are underlain, in descending order, by the Laney and Wilkins Peak Members of the Green 

River Formation or the Wasatch Formation, the Fort Union Formation, an unnamed Tertiary bed, 

and the Lance Formation (Dynamac Corporation 2002) (see Figure 3.11). The Laney and Wilkins 

Peak Members of the Green River Formation contain small quantities of water (Welder 1968, 

Ahern et al. 1981). The Wasatch and Fort Union Formations underlying the JIDPA and the 

surrounding region are known to contain significant amounts of water. Unconfined aquifers occur 

within about 300 feet of the surface and include the upper portions of Tertiary sedimentary rocks. 

Confined aquifers include the lower portions of Tertiary rocks (below about 300 feet) and all 

underlying strata (Welder 1968). Lenses of impermeable rock occur throughout these formations, 

creating perched aquifers and localized aquitards (areas with restricted flows) (Doncaster pers. 

comm.). 

The JIDPA and groundwater CIAA are located on a recharge area for the Tertiary formations, and 

the main sources of recharge are precipitation and seepage from streams and reservoirs (Dynamac 

Corporation 2002). Groundwater discharge occurs through transpiration, seepage into streams, 

and pumping. HydroGeo, Inc. (2004) indicates a northeast to southwest groundwater flow. 

Estimated steady-state groundwater levels (i.e., with no pumping) show that groundwater levels 

slope gently from 7,100 feet in elevation in the northeast to 6,600 feet in elevation in the 

southwest (Map 3.10) (HydroGeo, Inc. 2004). 

The Laney Member has good potential for groundwater production (1–75 gallons per minute 

[gpm]), and well yields from the Wasatch Formation aquifer range from 1–3,000 gpm but 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-42 Chapter 3 

Source: HydroGeo, Inc. (2004) 

Map 3.10. Estimated Steady-State Groundwater Levels (Potentiometric Surface), Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-43 

typically less than 500 gpm (Ahern et al. 1981). The Fort Union Formation is deeply buried in the 

JIDPA so well yield data are not available. The Lance Formation produces non-potable water as a 

byproduct of hydrocarbon production (referred to as produced water). 

Groundwater Quality 

The standard for total dissolved solids (TDS) in drinking water is 500 milligrams per liter (mg/l) 

(WDEQ 1990), and much of the groundwater in the area exceeds this standard. TDS is used as a 

general measurement of groundwater condition, but does not cover all aspects of water quality. 

Sandstones in the Green River and Wasatch Formations contain fresh to brackish water, with 

TDS concentrations of 500–100,000 mg/l. Groundwater tends to become more mineralized with 

increasing depth below the surface. Groundwater in the Laney Member of the Green River 

Formation contains 2,000–7,000 mg/l TDS. Sodium and sulfate are the main ions, and calcium 

ion concentrations are high. Water quality in the Wilkins Peak Member is typically poor, with 

TDS concentrations of 7,000–100,000 mg/l. Sodium, bicarbonate, and carbonate are the dominant 

ions (Welder 1968, Ahern et al. 1981). Groundwater quality in the Wasatch aquifer is highly 

variable and tends to decline with distance from recharge areas. These waters are predominantly a 

calcium-bicarbonate type where, toward the basin center, sodium and chloride replace calcium 

(Bruce 1993). To a depth of about 2,300 feet, groundwater in the Wasatch Formation has a TDS 

content of about 640 mg/l. At a depth of 5,000 feet, TDS concentrations are about 21,000 mg/l; 

this disparity suggests that these waters occur in different aquifers within the Wasatch Formation 

(Bain pers. comm.). 

Natural gas well logs from existing wells in the JIDPA indicate that the Fort Union and Lance 

Formations contain discrete water-bearing sandstones, with water quality ranging from brackish 

to saline and TDS typically averaging 2,000–5,000 mg/l, within the range of 1,722–28,476 mg/l 

(Table 3.15). The groundwater standards for TDS are 500 mg/l for domestic use, 2,000 mg/l for 

agricultural use, and 5,000 mg/l for livestock use, so untreated produced water is not suitable for 

domestic use, is only marginally suited for agricultural, but is suitable for livestock use. 

Chloride concentrations in produced waters exceeded state groundwater standards for domestic 

and agricultural use and for livestock use in three of the wells tested. Chloride concentrations 

range from 290–18,300 mg/l (see Table 3.15), whereas the standard for domestic use is 250 mg/l, 

for agricultural use is 100 mg/l, and for livestock use is 2,000 mg/l. 

Iron concentrations also exceeded standards for domestic use (0.3 mg/l) and agricultural use 

(5.0 mg/l) in at least 18 and 13 of the wells sampled, respectively. 

Groundwater Use 

Groundwater in the JIDPA and CIAA contributes only a small fraction (less than 2.5%) of the 

water used in the Green River Basin (Ahern et al. 1981). Groundwater in the JIDPA and CIAA is 

primarily used for oil and gas development and stock and wildlife watering. At present, more than 

130 recognized groundwater permits are assigned to approximately 25 existing groundwater wells 

within the JIDPA. The majority of these permits are for existing oil and gas development use 

(State Engineer’s Office 2004). The location of groundwater wells is provided in Chapter 4 (see 

Map 4.1). No groundwater irrigation occurs in the JIDPA or CIAA. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 3.15. Produced Water Quality, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 20061 

Constituent 

pH Chloride Sulfate TDS Carbonate Bicarbonate Conductivity Sodium Potassium Calcium Magnesium 

Evaporation Pond 7.8 2,153 51 4,752 0 747 6,950 1,051 83 651 6.02 Well No. 

SHB 3-34 6.50 18,300 5 28,476 0 139 39,100 3,190 7,304.0 6,850.00 18.10 

JF 1-5X 7.72 520 99 3,004 0 1,148 3,850 964 41.3 22.50 4.23 

YP 2-1 7.81 470 12 3,208 0 1,441 4,060 1,040 17.9 11.90 2.04 

JF 2-8X 7.06 480 11 2,694 0 934 3,350 839 28.5 12.20 1.40 

CAB 2-25 7.63 970 58 3,656 0 961 4,690 1,090 32.0 11.60 1.25 

SHB 2-33 7.71 460 29 2,486 0 907 3,200 801 20.7 12.30 1.13 

YP 4-24 7.45 2,329 128 6,434 0 1,121 7,770 1,180 81.5 9.31 1.92 

SHB 4-34 7.81 470 33 3,200 0 1,308 4,170 1,025 43.2 17.60 2.64 

JF 5-4 7.94 430 30 2,752 0 1,148 3,650 900 17.7 9.45 1.69 

SHB 7-35 7.48 1,520 29 3,746 0 552 5,710 1,050 35.1 22.00 3.88 

JF 4-18 7.91 430 45 2,634 0 1,201 3,450 878 12.0 6.92 0.60 

SHB 5-34 7.79 710 58 3,126 0 1,121 4,210 992 61.1 17.90 2.81 

YP 8-13 8.05 350 18 2,462 0 1,174 3,250 793 7.8 6.50 1.06 

YP 9-12 6.38 1,500 15 2,848 0 214 4,850 884 15.9 37.00 6.25 

YP 10-11 7.87 290 23 2,154 0 854 2,670 640 8.64 17.50 1.07 

CSHB 10-31 8.00 600 34 3,552 0 1,521 4,640 1,160 28.6 15.30 4.18 

JF 11-7 8.00 340 29 2,192 0 881 2,890 654 10.2 6.16 1.15 

SHB 11-20 7.97 1,300 48 4,740 0 1,575 6,620 1,540 2,108.0 1,208.00 2.38 

SHB 11-28 7.90 1,150 63 4,260 0 1,201 5,860 1,280 67.0 29.50 4.38 

CAB 12-19 7.95 910 45 2,996 0 827 4,500 993 21.3 13.80 3.45 

SHB 12-27 7.94 450 34 2,850 0 1,041 3,600 854 13.1 14.10 2.06 

SHB 13-17 8.07 2,100 24 5,084 0 623 5,530 1,470 14.2 37.80 6.88 

SHB 13-32 7.78 950 16 2,088 0 240 2,760 630 58.4 18.10 2.90 

CAB 14-30 7.52 390 49 1,722 0 534 2,420 535 18.3 5.80 1.18 

SHB 16-26 8.05 790 7 2,954 0 694 4,010 868 12.3 10.10 1.36 

SHB 31-36 8.07 960 30 4,062 0 1,201 5,100 1,120 32.5 8.55 1.20 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

1 Data provided by EnCana. See also Appendix B. 
Affected Environment 3-45 

3.1.7 Noise and Odor 

The noise CIAA includes the JIDPA and surrounding 20-mile area. Noise levels depend on the 

loudness and pitch of the source, the listener’s distance from the source, air temperature, 

humidity, turbulence, wind gradient, and the screening effects of terrain. Existing natural gas 

development activities in the JIDPA generate noise through well pad, road, and pipeline 

construction; flaring, drilling, and facility operations; vehicle traffic; and site reclamation. 

Drilling rig and well testing (fracturing and flaring) operations produce noise levels of up to 

115 A-weighted decibels (dBA) (constant exposure endangers hearing), with a noise level of 

55 dBA (which is considered quiet) at 3,500 feet (0.66 mile) from the source (BLM 1991b). 

Typical natural gas development noise levels are provided in Figure 3.13, and Table 3.16 

provides example noise levels for commonly heard sounds. Flaring (one component of 

completion operations) tends to be the loudest noise event; however, with the use of flowback 

separators, noise from completion operations is reduced to approximately 64 dBA at the source. 

Noise levels at the Luman compressor station, just south of the JIDPA, are about 69–86 dBA at 

the compressor station, 58–75 dBA about 1.0 mile to the southeast, and 54 dBA about 1.25 miles 

to the southeast (TRC Mariah 2003a). Noise levels at the Falcon compressor station, just north of 

the JIDPA, are about 77 dBA at the compressor station and about 65 dBA about 1.0 mile east. 

Noise levels associated with construction activities range from 70 dBA (similar to busy traffic) to 

over 90 dBA within 50 feet of the activity; however, these noise levels attenuate with distance 

with a reduction of approximately 6 dBA with each doubling of distance (Thuman and Miller 

1996). While it is likely that noise from existing natural gas operations in the JIDPA during 

certain weather conditions (low winds) may be heard 20 or more miles from the area (outside the 

CIAA), noise levels at this distance are expected to be very quiet to barely audible (see 

Table 3.16). Background noise levels in the JIDPA are between 29 and 38 dBA (TRC Mariah 

2001a, 2003a) but may be higher 

depending on wind conditions. Table 3.16. Comparison of Measured Noise Levels with 

Commonly Heard Sounds, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Outside development areas, noise Sublette County, Wyoming, 20061 

levels can be characterized as rural 

or natural. Wind, thunderstorms, 

livestock, and wildlife (primarily 

passerine birds) are the primary 

noise sources, except for the 

occasional vehicle or aircraft. 

Noise-sensitive areas in the JIDPA 

include greater sage-grouse leks 

during the breeding season and 

occupied greater sage-grouse and 

raptor nests. No residences occur 

in or immediately adjacent to the 

Source 

Normal breathing 

Rustling leaves 

Soft whisper (at 16 feet [5 meters]) 

Library 

Quiet office 

Normal conversation (at 3 feet [1 meter]) 

Busy traffic 

Noisy office with machines; factory 

Heavy truck (at 49 feet [15 meters]) 

dBA2 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

Description 

Barely audible 

Very quiet 

Quiet 

Moderately noisy 

Loud 

1 Adapted from Tipler (1991). area. 2 dBA = A-weighted decibels. 

No specific data on odors are available from the JIDPA or the surrounding 2-mile CIAA area; 

however, odors present in the area, other than the natural odors of vegetation and wildlife, include 

those from vehicle emissions along roads, natural gas development, activities at well sites, 

compressor stations, other ancillary facility sites, and livestock. Odors are likely to be quickly 

dispersed by the wind. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Fig

ure 

3.13. T

y

pical Natural Gas Field 

N

oise 

Levels, Jo

nah Infill Drilling 

Project, S

u

blette 

C

o

u

nty, W

y

o

min

g, 2

0

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project
Affected Environment 3-47 

3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

3.2.1 Vegetation 

3.2.1.1 Plant Communities 

The CIAA for vegetation resources is the 10 watersheds, encompassing approximately 210,300 

acres, that drain the JIDPA (see Map 3.9). Wyoming big sagebrush is the predominant vegetation 

type based on 1:100,000 scale mapping of the CIAA (WyGISC 2003b) (Table 3.17). Based upon 

WyGISC digital data and aerial photographs of the CIAA, approximately 1.6% (3,355 acres) of 

the area has been disturbed by well pads, agricultural lands (i.e., hay meadows), reservoirs, 

pipelines, roads, and residences (i.e., ranches) (see Table 3.11). At 4.2% (992 acres), the 

Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed has the largest amount of existing disturbance, the 

majority of which is from natural gas development in the JIDPA (665 acres), of any of the 

watershed in the CIAA. 

Vegetation in the JIDPA and CIAA (the same CIAA as for soils and other surface water; see 

Sections 3.1 and 3.16) is dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush grasslands. Included in this 

vegetation type are saltbush and cushionplant communities (BLM 1987b, Intermountain 

Ecosystems LC 1996, TRC Mariah 2001a, WyGISC 2003b) (Map 3.11, see Table 3.17). 

Important plants in the Wyoming big sagebrush grasslands include Wyoming big sagebrush 

(Artemisia tridentata var. wyomingensis), western wheatgrass (Elymus smithii), thickspike 

wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus), Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda var. secunda), winterfat 

(Kraschenninikovia lanata), granite prickly gilia (Leptodactylon pungens), Hood’s phlox (Phlox 

hoodsii), stemless goldenweed (Haplopappus acaulis), and rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.) 

(Fertig 1993). Needle-and-thread (Stipa comata) and Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides) are 

major species on sandy soils (TRC Mariah 2001a). 

In an effort to define optimal greater sage-grouse nesting and brood-rearing areas in the JIDPA 

(Map 3.12, Table 3.18), the Wyoming big sagebrush grassland type was further delineated into 

three sagebrush habitat types during habitat mapping: moderate-density sagebrush, low-density 

sagebrush, and basin big sagebrush (TRC Mariah 2001a). 

•	 Moderate-density sagebrush (formerly referred to as dense sagebrush) was the most 

common habitat type, occupying approximately 87.2% (26,601 acres) of the JIDPA. This 

habitat type generally occurs on flat to rolling terrain and generally exhibits sagebrush 

cover of >20% (n = 15). 

•	 The low-density sagebrush (formerly referred to as moderate-density sagebrush) type 

occupies approximately 8.9% (2,721 acres) of the JIDPA (see Table 3.18). 

This habitat type primarily occupies slopes in the southeastern portion of the project area. 

Sagebrush cover in this type is approximately 6–8% of the total vegetative cover (n = 15) 

(TRC Mariah 2001a). Grass and forb species composition is generally similar to that in 

the dense sagebrush habitat type; however, Gardner’s saltbush (Atriplex gardneri), 

winterfat, and spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa) are more common. 

•	 The basin big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata tridentata) type occupies less than 0.1% 

(47 acres) of the JIDPA. Sagebrush canopy cover in this type is approximately 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-48 Chapter 3 

Source BLM (Based on data from the Wyoming Geographic Information Science Center (2003) & TRC Mariah (2001)) 

Map 3.11. Vegetation Communities (Course-Scale) in the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area and 

Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Sublette and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
T

a

ble 

3.17. Acreages of Vegetation 

C

o

m

mu

nities in the 

CIAA and 

Vegetation 

T

y

pes in the JID

P

A, S

u

blette and 

S

w

W

y

o

min

g, 2

0

06 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project

Hydrologic Unit Watersheds 

Expanded Reduced Upper Upper Southeast North Big Sandy 

Sand Draw- Granite Alkali Creek- Eighteenmile New Fork River- Alkali River-Bull Jona

Alkali Creek Wash Green River Canyon Blue Rim 

Draw 

Draw 

Long Draw 

Gulc

CIAA 

Vegetation Com

munities1 

JID

PA 

Wyoming big sagebrush 13,724 1,312 3,781 1,957 0 0 3,632 5,028 3

Outside JID

PA 

Wyoming big sagebrush 9,648 3,081 14,681 32,532 10,678 10,289 13,207 13,492 22,17

Desert shrub 0 7,819 7,892 722 843 5,623 1,805 0 

Greasewood fans and flats 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15

Riparian (shrub and forest) 0 0 0 0 225 0 1,119 1 

Subtotal 9,648 10,900 22,573 33,254 11,746 15,912 16,131 13,493 22,33

Total 23,372 12,213 26,354 35,211 11,746 15,912 19,763 18,521 22,65

JID

PA 

Vegetation Types2 

Scattered/ no sagebrush 170 21 110 15 0 0 61 371 

Low density sagebrush 404 76 223 118 0 0 320 1,566 

Moderate density sagebrush 13,053 1,211 3,448 1,504 0 0 3,247 3,089 30

Basin big sagebrush 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Wetlands 42 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 

Ephemeral stockponds 8 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 

Unmapped vegetation 0 0 0 320 0 0 0 0 

Total 13,724 1,312 3,781 1,957 0 0 3,632 5,028 3

1 Vegetation types based on Wyoming G

AP Analysis land cover for Wyoming (WyGISC 2003b). 

2 Vegetation types based on TRC Mariah (2001a). 
3-50 Chapter 3 

Source: BLM (Based on data from TRC Mariah, 2001) 

Map 3.12. Project Area Vegetation Types (Finely Mapped), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-51 

Table 3.18. Vegetation Data, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 20061 

Vegetation Type

2 

Parameter Moderate-Density 

Sagebrush 

(n = 15) 

Low-Density 

Sagebrush 

(n = 15) 

Basin Big 

Sagebrush 

(n = 5) 

Sagebrush height (inches) 9.8 7.9 31.0 

Percent sagebrush cover 

Daubenmire 21.7 6.5 30.8 

Line intercept 24.5 (99%) 7.9 (89%) 36.7 (79%) 

Percent total shrub cover 

Daubenmire 22.0 6.8 31.4 

Line intercept 24.7 (99%) 8.1 (92%) 38.0 (80%) 

Grass/forb height (inches) 5.6 6.5 6.5 

Percent grass and forb cover 10.6 (89%) 15.1 (96%) 20.1 (65%) 

Residual grass height (inches)

3 6.3 6.1 6.5 

Percent residual grass cover 8.5 10.9 20.1 

Sagebrush plants/acre 7,260 (99%) 2,636 (92%) 4,494 (86%) 

Total shrubs/acre 7,665 (99%) 2,951 (96%) 5,088 (91%) 

1 Adapted from TRC Mariah 2001a. Data on file at TRC Mariah, Laramie, Wyoming. Measurements recorded in late summer 2000. 2 See Map 3.12 for type locations. Numbers in parentheses are the confidence level achieved with 80% precision using the


appropriate z statistic.
 3 Excludes pre-2000 litter. 

30–38% (n = 5) (see Table 3.18). This type occurs as a narrow strip from less than 5 feet wide to 

approximately 150 feet wide along the Sand Draw drainage, where basin big sagebrush is the 

dominant species. The understory is relatively sparse, with scattered rabbitbrush, western and 

thickspike wheatgrasses, Sandberg bluegrass, and Great Basin wildrye (Elymus cinereus). 

The scattered/no sagebrush habitat type (2.5% of the JIDPA, 750 acres) contains saltbush and 

cushionplant communities. The saltbush communities support Gardner’s saltbush, shadscale 

(Atriplex confertifolia), bud sagebrush (Artemisia spinescens), winterfat, and western wheatgrass 

and generally occur on level lowland topographic locations or are associated with playas. 

The cushionplant communities, which are characterized by the near absence of big sagebrush and 

low overall vegetative cover, generally occupy rocky outcrops, ridgetops, or steep slopes. 

Dominant species in the cushionplant community include fringed sagebrush (Artemisia frigida), 

squarestem phlox (Phlox muscoides), spoonleaf milkvetch (Astragalus spatulatus), goldenweed 

(Haplopappus spp.), Hooker sandwort (Arenaria hookeri), cutleaf daisy (Erigeron compositus), 

mat beardtongue (Penstemon caespitosus), and silky locoweed (Oxytropus sericea). This habitat 

type also includes barren side slopes and fans derived from clay and shale substrates. 

Approximately 4,200 acres of the JIDPA have been authorized for surface-disturbance activities 

based on existing Jonah NEPA documents. An estimated 3,500 acres have already been disturbed. 

Of this total, approximately 2,800 acres are in various stages of reclamation, but approximately 

1,400 acres are anticipated to remain for another 40 to 60 years. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-52 Chapter 3 

3.2.1.2 Riparian and Wetland Areas 

Riparian plant communities are contiguous to and affected by surface and subsurface hydrologic 

features of perennial or intermittent water bodies (rivers, streams, lakes, or drainageways) and are 

usually transitional between wetland and upland communities. Riparian areas generally exhibit 

distinctly different vegetative species than adjacent areas and/or vegetative species similar to 

adjacent areas but exhibit more vigorous or robust growth forms (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

[USFWS] 1997). Based on this definition, no riparian communities occur within the JIDPA. 

However, riparian communities are present in the CIAA along the New Fork and Big Sandy 

Rivers. 

Wetlands are protected under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 CFR 1251 et seq.) and EO 

11990, and are considered sensitive and valuable resources. The current regulatory definition of 

wetlands for administrating the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit program for dredge and fill 

activities is “areas inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration 

sufficient to support, and [which] under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of 

vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

[COE] 1987, Wetlands Training Institute, Inc. 1995). A wetland must possess the following three 

general diagnostic characteristics: 

•	 Hydrophytic vegetation – The prevalent vegetation consists of macrophytes that are 

typically adapted to areas having hydrologic and soil conditions described in the wetland 

definition above. That is, they are adapted to actively grow in saturated soils. 

•	 Hydric soil – Soils are present and have been classified as hydric, or they possess 

characteristics that are associated with reducing (often saturated) soil conditions. 

•	 Hydrology – The area is inundated either permanently or periodically at mean water 

depths less than or equal to 6.6 feet, or the soil is saturated to the surface at some time 

during the growing season of the prevalent vegetation. 

In 2003, field investigations were conducted to verify the wetland designations indicated on 

existing USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps of the JIDPA. The maps generally 

proved to be accurate in the classification and location of wetlands; however, many of the 

mapped NWI sites may not be subject to regulation under Section 404 due to a lack of the three 

general diagnostic environmental characteristics described above. While some of the NWIidentified wetlands lack one or more of the regulatory requirements (i.e., dominance of 

hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, or wetland hydrology), these areas provide unique habitats 

for wildlife, as well as water for both wildlife and livestock, throughout all or part of the year. 

Approximately 13 acres of the NWI-identified wetland areas within the JIDPA are ephemeral 

stockponds (see Table 3.17 and Map 3.12). Approximately 47 acres (<0.1% of the JIDPA) of 

potentially jurisdictional wetlands (i.e., regulated under Section 404) occur within the JIDPA (see 

Map 3.12). These areas are generally classified as palustrine emergent seasonally or 

semipermanently flooded wetlands on the NWI maps and are primarily associated with 

stockponds and reservoirs. These wetlands generally range in size from 0.1 acre to 2.1 acres. 

The largest reservoirs in the area (e.g., Sand Draw No. 4 and Wild Horse) are classified as 

temporarily, seasonally, or semipermanently flooded and are 5 to 10 acres in size. A large playa 

located on private land in Section 32, T29N, R108W, is classified as temporarily or seasonally 

flooded and occupies approximately 36 acres. There are also several small depressions or playas 

less than one acre in size and classified as palustrine unconsolidated shore, temporarily, 

seasonally, or semipermanently flooded wetlands in the area. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-53 

Waters of the U.S. (WUS) have an active channel that exhibits relatively stable characteristics; 

the criterion for a WUS is the presence of a defined bed and bank. The boundary of a WUS 

extends to the ordinary high-water mark or to the boundaries of adjacent wetlands. Intermittent 

and ephemeral streams that exhibit a defined bed and bank qualify as WUS, as do reservoirs 

constructed on these streams. 

Numerous ephemeral channels, considered WUS by the COE and classified on the NWI maps as 

riverine intermittent streambed temporarily flooded, occur in the JIDPA (see Map 3.8). 

Bed channel widths range from 1 foot to more than 30 feet along Sand Draw, the largest 

ephemeral drainage in the JIDPA. 

3.2.1.3 Noxious Non-Native, and Invasive Plant Species 

The Wyoming State Legislature enacted the Wyoming Weed and Pest Control Act in 1973 for the 

purpose of controlling designated weeds and pests. EO 13112, “Invasive Species,” was signed by 

President Clinton on February 3, 1999, to prevent the introduction of invasive species, to provide 

for their control, and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that 

invasive species cause. Potential invader species (which include noxious weeds) identified by the 

Sublette County Weed and Pest Control for the JIDPA and vicinity include black henbane 

(Hyoscyamus niger), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), Dyer’s 

woad (Isatis tinctoria), spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), hoary cress (Cardaria draba 

and C. pubescens), perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), Russian knapweed (Centaurea 

repens), and perennial sow thistle (Sonchus arvensis). Sources of invasion include gravel 

obtained from outside the JIDPA and soil carried to the area on vehicles and drilling and 

construction equipment. 

A reconnaissance of the JIDPA in 2003 found Russian thistle (Salsola kali) and halogeton 

(Halogeton glomeratus) establishment on reclaimed areas (i.e., well pads, pipeline and road 

ROWs) reseeded from 1992 through 2002. Though Russian thistle and halogeton are not 

identified as noxious weeds by Sublette County Weed and Pest Control, they are generally 

considered undesirable for livestock and wildlife forage (Stubbendieck et al. 1997). 

3.2.2 Wildlife and Fisheries 

3.2.2.1 Big Game/Other Mammals 

Pronghorn antelope is the only big game species that regularly inhabits the JIDPA. Occasionally, 

mule deer have been observed in the area (TRC Mariah 2004a), but no range designation for mule 

deer has been delineated on the JIDPA by the WGFD, so mule deer are not discussed further. 

The WGFD determines range classifications for big game species and is in the process of revising 

big game ranges across the state. This revision is not complete for the big game herds in the 

JIDPA; therefore, the range designations that have been in place for the last several years are used 

in this EIS. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-54 Chapter 3 

Pronghorn Antelope 

The entire JIDPA is within spring/summer/fall range of the Sublette Pronghorn Antelope Herd 

Unit and is identified as the Herd Unit CIAA. This Herd Unit occupies approximately 

10,546 square miles and includes most of the Green River drainage north of Interstate 80, 

exclusive of the Black’s Fork and Ham’s Fork drainages (Map 3.13). Approximately 3,006,000 

acres (4,697 square miles) of the Sublette Herd Unit CIAA is designated as spring/summer/fall 

habitat. Limited portions of other drainages, including the Gros Ventre/Hoback River area near 

Jackson Hole, are also included in the Sublette Herd Unit. Within these boundaries, the Sublette 

Herd Unit pronghorn migrate farther between seasonal ranges than any other pronghorn in 

Wyoming, with documented movements of as much as 150 miles between several ranges (WGFD 

2001). WGFD has documented migration corridor occurrence within and adjacent to the JIDPA 

(Map 3.13). 

Total existing disturbance (from roads, wells, towns) within the Herd Unit CIAA is 

approximately 87,200 acres (136 square miles) or 1.3% of the total Herd Unit. Though no 

pronghorn crucial range occurs within the JIDPA, the Burma Road passes through some 

pronghorn crucial winter range. Approximately 27,200 acres (2.5%) of pronghorn crucial range in 

the Sublette Herd Unit have been disturbed. BLM is responsible for the majority of surface 

management in the Sublette Herd Unit. Other surface management entities include the USFS, the 

Bureau of Reclamation, the State of Wyoming, and private entities. 

The WGFD population objective for the Sublette Herd Unit is 48,000 pronghorn antelope. 

The 2002 population was estimated at 44,700 (93% of the current objective), and the estimated 

population averaged 44,080 from 1997 to 2001 (WGFD 2002). Because of its large size, the 

Sublette Herd Unit has been divided into three subunits. The JIDPA is within the North subunit, 

which has a population objective of 22,000 and an estimated 2001 population of 18,600 (84.5% 

of objective). The population trend in the North subunit has been relatively stable in recent years, 

ranging from 17,900 head in 1998 to 19,700 in 1994 (WGFD 2001). 

Reproductive success of the Sublette North subunit from 1985 to 2001 has been highly variable, 

ranging from 45 fawns/100 does in 1993 to 90 fawns/100 does in 1987. Fawn/doe ratios in 2000 

and 2001 were toward the low end of the range at 53/100 and 55/100, respectively (WGFD 2001). 

Drought conditions from 2000 to 2003 have reduced forage production and available water 

throughout the Sublette Herd Unit. Low summer precipitation typically results in poor body 

condition and subsequently, poor fawning rates and overwinter fawn survival (WGFD 2001). 

Other Wildlife 

The CIAA for other wildlife encompasses approximately 188,888 acres (295 square miles) 

(Map 3.14). Existing disturbance within the CIAA includes approximately 2,729 acres (4.3 square 

miles), or 1.4% of the CIAA, and results primarily from road and pipeline ROWs (44%) and 

existing long-term disturbance in the JIDPA (52%). 

Other mammals known or likely to occur in the JIDPA based on observations and range and 

habitat preferences (Clark and Stromberg 1987, WGFD 1999, WyNDD 2003) include: dwarf 

shrew, 10 bat species (California myotis, small-footed myotis, Yuma myotis, little brown myotis, 

long-legged myotis, silver-haired bat, big brown bat, hoary bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and 

pallid bat); four species of hares and rabbits (pygmy rabbit, Nuttall’s cottontail, desert cottontail, 

and white-tailed jackrabbit); five squirrel species (least chipmunk, Uinta ground squirrel, 

Wyoming ground squirrel, thirteen-lined ground squirrel, and white-tailed prairie dog); northern 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-55 

Source: BLM (Including data from Wyoming Game & Fish Dept, 2001) 

Map 3.13. Sublette Herd Unit and Pronghorn Migration Routes, Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-56 Chapter 3 

Source: BLM 

Map 3.14. General Wildlife Species Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-57 

and Idaho pocket gophers; six species of new world rats and mice (Ord’s kangaroo rat, deer 

mouse, grasshopper mouse, bushy-tailed woodrat, sagebrush vole, and long-tailed vole); coyote 

and red fox; four mustelid species (long-tailed weasel, badger, western spotted skunk, and striped 

skunk); and bobcat. Porcupines have been observed in the vicinity of the project area but are 

uncommon and not likely to be residents. 

All identified prairie dog colonies on the JIDPA have been mapped. Colonies vary from 6 to 893 

acres in size (Map 3.15) and are visited annually during wildlife surveys conducted for the Jonah 

Wildlife Studies Project (TRC Mariah 2004a). During these studies, newly observed colonies are 

mapped, and regular updates to colony boundaries are made. 

3.2.2.2 Birds 

Raptors 

The CIAA for raptors encompasses approximately 1,184,443 acres (1,850 square miles) 

(Map 3.16). Existing disturbance within this CIAA is approximately 113,092 acres (176 square 

miles), or 9.5% of the area. This disturbance is primarily from agriculture (88%) and road and 

pipeline ROWs (8%). 

Based on geographic range and habitat preferences, a variety of raptor species may occur within 

the JIDPA (Dorn and Dorn 1999, WGFD 1999). Raptor nest surveys are conducted annually on 

the JIDPA and within the greater Jonah Wildlife Study Area (TRC Mariah 2004a). All known 

raptor nests/nest sites are inventoried, and other suitable nesting habitat is observed to determine 

if there are new nests in the area (Map 3.17). These inventories have revealed declines in the 

number of active ferruginous hawk nests on and adjacent to the JIDPA over the last 8 years. 

Approximately 35 raptor nests are known to occur within the JIDPA. In 2004, seven nests were 

occupied, including five American kestrel nests, one ferruginous hawk nest, and one burrowing 

owl nest. In addition to the seven occupied nests, nine other nests on the JIDPA are considered 

active (i.e., occupied at least once during the last 3 years or having an unknown status) for 

management purposes. These include four ferruginous hawk, one American kestrel, and one 

burrowing owl nest. Approximately 19 known nests within the JIDPA have had no recent activity 

or use. A detailed analysis of raptor nesting history in the area is provided in 2003 Wildlife 

Studies, Jonah Field II Natural Gas Development Project (TRC Mariah 2004a). 

Game Birds 

The principal upland game bird inhabiting the JIDPA is greater sage-grouse. A detailed summary 

of known greater sage-grouse lek activity on the JIDPA is provided in 2003 Wildlife Studies, 

Jonah Field II Natural Gas Development Project (TRC Mariah 2004a). The CIAA for greater 

sage-grouse encompasses 1,061,805 acres (1,659 square miles) (Map 3.18). Existing disturbance 

within this CIAA includes approximately 28,767 acres (45 square miles), or 2.7% of the CIAA, 

and results primarily from agriculture (70%) and road and pipeline ROWs (21%). 

Greater sage-grouse has been extirpated from two states and populations over the remainder of its 

range have notably declined (Connelly and Braun 1997, Braun 1998, Connelly et al. 2004). 

Conservative estimates suggest that only 56% of the pre-European settlement area occupied by 

greater sage-grouse is still occupied or capable of supporting the species on an annual basis 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-58 Chapter 3


Source: BLM (Based on data from TRC Mariah, 2004) 

Map 3.15. Prairie Dog Colonies, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-59 

Source: BLM 

Map 3.16. Raptor Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-60 Chapter 3 

Source (Based on data from TRC Mariah, 2004) 

Map 3.17. Raptor Nests on or Adjacent to the Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 

2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-61 

Source: BLM 

Map 3.18. Greater Sage-grouse Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-62 Chapter 3 

(Braun et al. 1976, Braun 1995, Connelly et al. 2004). Eleven of 13 states have shown significant 

declines. Historically, Wyoming supported more greater sage-grouse than any other state due to 

the presence of extensive sagebrush habitats (Patterson 1952). The areas in central and western 

Wyoming, where sagebrush-dominated landscapes and greater sage-grouse populations remain 

relatively contiguous and intact, cumulatively represent one of the species’ last strongholds 

(Braun 1998). The number of male sage-grouse counted per lek in Wyoming decreased 17% 

between 1985 and 1995 (Connelly and Braun 1997), and regional declines as high as 73% 

between 1988 and 1999 have been recorded. The average decline in male attendance on leks in 

Wyoming from 1965–2003 is 49% and lek size has also significantly decreased (Connelly et al. 

2004). Changes in the sagebrush-dominated areas where birds typically reside are thought to be 

one of the principal reasons for population declines (Braun 1998). These changes have resulted 

from fire, plant invasions, land conversions, urbanization, livestock grazing, energy development, 

noise, and other factors. 

Greater sage-grouse lek monitoring is conducted annually on the JIDPA and surrounding areas. 

The WGFD, BLM, University of Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, and 

TRC Mariah are responsible for the lek activity status monitoring in the area (TRC Mariah 

2004a). Ten active leks have been identified on or within a 2-mile buffer of the JIDPA (Map 3.19 

and Table 3.19). In addition, six formerly identified leks occur in the area; however, these areas 

are no longer classified as leks (see Table 3.19). Data from the JIDPA and for the entire Upper 

Green River Basin show declines in male greater sage-grouse attendance at leks. Additionally, 

declines appear to be occurring at a faster rate in areas with oil and gas development (WGFD 

unpublished data; Clause pers. comm.). Declines in lek attendance likely indicate a reduction in 

the regional population. 

Site-specific surveys of the JIDPA conducted over the last few years indicate that while the area 

is still used for nesting and summer and winter foraging, use of the area by greater sage-grouse 

continues to decline. This decline is likely due in part to the increased loss of habitat resulting 

from oil and gas development. Habitat conditions in the JIDPA are described in Section 3.2.1. 

To maintain or move PFO greater sage-grouse habitat toward RMP goals, existing PFO area-wide 

and statewide stipulations on leases and COAs on APDs and ROWs apply a Controlled Surface 

Use restriction within 0.25 mile of an occupied lek. There are also timing stipulations protecting 

breeding activities, nesting and brood-rearing females, and wintering grouse, but these 

stipulations do not preclude exploration and development from occurring in nesting and wintering 

habitat outside of the timing restriction dates, and therefore, habitat is not protected from 

development. Given the noted decline in greater sage-grouse use of the JIDPA, existing 

protection measures within the JIDPA appear to be inadequate. 

Sand Draw and adjacent areas have been identified as containing important greater sage-grouse 

habitat (particularly for nesting and wintering); therefore, past BLM decisions for the Jonah Field 

identified specific measures for the protection of this drainage (BLM 1998b, 2000b). These 

measures include no well construction within 300 feet of the edge of Sand Draw and the basin big 

sagebrush-dominated areas associated with this drainage channel. Roads and pipelines that must 

cross these draws would be constructed perpendicular to drainage channels, and engineering 

designs would specifically address each road/pipeline crossing in an effort to minimize 

disturbance. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-63


Source (Based on data from TRC Mariah, 2004) 

Map 3.19. Greater Sage-grouse Leks, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 3.19. Greater Sage-Grouse Lek Attendance Trends, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 1

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Most Recent History 3 Lek No. 2 Activity 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20

1 2004 NS NS 9 NS 26 6 31 25 22 12 

2 2004 NS NS 2 NS 2 17 12 7 14 16 N

34 2004 NS NS NS NS 16 0? 36 26 22 27 

4 2003 NS NS 16 NS 15 4 4 0 1 1 

55 19966 NS NS NS NS 1 0? 0 0 NS NS N

65 19966 NS NS NS NS 3 0? 0 0 0 NS N

7 2004 NS NS 36 NS 0 16 17 11 9 6 N

85 19966 NS NS NS NS 2 0? 0 0? 0 NS 

9 2004 NS NS NS NS NS -50 26 62 47 45 

10 2004 NS NS NS NS NS 60 53 79 64 62 

115 UNK NS NS UNK NS UNK NS 0 0 0 NS N

155 19966 NS NS NS NS 1 0? 0 0 0 NS N

17 20016 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 5 3 3 

205 UNK NS NS 0 NS 0 NS NS NS NS NS N

215 20006 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 10 NS N

22 2000 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 9 0 

1 Further detail is provided in TRC Mariah 2004a. 2 See Map 3.19 for locations; lek numbering is consistent with TRC Mariah 2004a. 3 Numbers refer to maximum male attendance observed; NS = not surveyed; NL = not located—survey was attempted but no birds were observed and exact location of lek could no

UNK = unknown; + = unclassified birds observed but not included; ? = no males were observed on the lek, but the lek was visited less than three times during that breeding season

4 This lek/lek location may be revised to accommodate two leks. 5 WGFD in consultation with BLM has removed these locations from consideration as leks because they may never have met WGFD lek criteria and/or they may represent areas wh

departure from an established lek. 

6 The lek may have been active more recently than indicated because data are lacking for at least 1 year since the last known activity. 
Affected Environment 3-65 

Greater sage-grouse breeding habitats are sagebrush-dominated rangelands, typically consisting 

of large, relatively contiguous sagebrush stands, which are critical for the survival of greater sagegrouse populations (Connelly et al. 2000). Because grouse populations typically inhabit large 

interconnected expanses of sagebrush, they have been characterized as a landscape-scale species 

(Patterson 1952, Wakkinen 1990). Therefore, conserving landscapes with suitable winter habitat 

also may be important for species conservation (Eng and Schladweiler 1972). Total shrub canopy 

cover, residual grass cover, non-food forb cover, and litter cover are the best predictors of greater 

sage-grouse nesting habitat (Holloran 1999, Lyon 2000). Typically, greater sage-grouse nests are 

located in habitat with >20% sagebrush canopy cover (Holloran 1999, Lyon 2000). Braun et al. 

(1976) indicated that most hens nest within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 miles) of a lek, but more recent 

studies suggest many hens nest further away. The average distance moved by hens from 

undisturbed leks to nests in western Wyoming was 2.1 kilometers (1.3 miles), whereas the 

average distance traveled from disturbed leks to nests was 4.1 kilometers (2.5 miles) (Lyon and 

Anderson 2003). Nest initiation rate was also higher for hens captured on undisturbed leks than 

those captured on disturbed leks (Lyon and Anderson 2003), and the presence of vehicle traffic 

appears to lower nest initiation rates. The chance of successfully hatching chicks (nest success) 

increases by 30% if there is at least 20% cover that includes both sagebrush and herbaceous 

vegetation and if the vegetation is at least 15 centimeters in height (Holloran 1999). Greater sagegrouse nest success ranges from 12% to 86% and is relatively low compared to other prairie 

grouse species (Connelly et al. 2000). While sage-grouse have used highly fragmented habitats in 

some oil fields and reclaimed areas, population levels in these areas are below pre-disturbance 

numbers (Connelly et al. 2004). 

Important greater sage-grouse wintering habitat within the Jonah and Anticline Fields and 

surrounding areas currently is being identified by the BLM in cooperation with WGFD. 

Identification of sage-grouse wintering areas will be based, at least in part, on aerial winter sagegrouse surveys. 

The other game bird likely to occur on the JIDPA is the mourning dove. The mourning dove is a 

common summer resident that prefers open land with scattered vegetation and requires trees or 

some other type of structure for nesting. Mourning doves that frequent the JIDPA likely utilize 

the shrub-covered areas along Sand Draw that provide suitable cover for nesting and roosting. 

Other Birds 

The CIAA for other birds is the same as that for general wildlife (see Map 3.14). Based on 

observations and range and habitat preferences (WGFD 1999; Dorn and Dorn 1999; TRC Mariah 

2001a, 2001b, 2002, 2004a), other bird species known or likely to occur on the area include 

common raven, horned lark, lark bunting, loggerhead shrike, sage sparrow, sage thrasher, 

Brewer’s sparrow, cliff swallow, barn swallow, mountain bluebird, western kingbird, grasshopper 

sparrow, killdeer, common nighthawk, black-billed magpie, American crow, canyon wren, 

western meadowlark, Brewer’s blackbird, common grackle, and brown-headed cowbird. Several 

species of wading/shore birds and waterfowl also may occur around reservoirs. Wading/shore 

birds include black-necked stilt, willet, Wilson’s phalarope, common snipe, great blue heron, 

snowy egret, long-billed dowitcher, and black-crowned night-heron. Waterfowl include piedbilled grebe, eared grebe, western grebe, green-winged teal, blue-winged teal, cinnamon teal, 

mallard, northern pintail, northern shoveler, gadwall, American wigeon, and ruddy duck. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-66 Chapter 3 

3.2.2.3 Amphibians and Reptiles 

The CIAA for amphibians and reptiles is the same as that for general wildlife (see Map 3.14). 

Based on range and habitat preferences (Baxter and Stone 1980), two amphibian and four reptile 

species are likely to occur on the JIDPA. Amphibians include the Great Basin spadefoot and 

northern leopard frog, and reptiles include the northern sagebrush lizard, eastern short-horned 

lizard, bullsnake, and wandering garter snake. 

3.2.2.4 Fisheries 

The fisheries CIAA is the combined area of project-affected watersheds (see Map 3.8). There are 

no perennial streams on the JIDPA, and no fish are known to occur in the area. The nearest 

perennial streams with significant fishery resources are the Big Sandy, New Fork, and Green 

Rivers (see Section 3.1.6.1 and Map 3.8). The Big Sandy River is approximately 5 miles east of 

the JIDPA, the New Fork River is approximately 7 miles northwest of the area, and the Green 

River is approximately 12 miles west of the area. 

3.2.3 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species and 

BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 USC 1531–1543) protects listed threatened and 

endangered plant and animal (TEP&C) species and their critical habitats. To ensure compliance 

with the ESA, BLM prepared a Biological Assessment (BA) of potential impacts of the JIDP on 

federally listed species and submitted it to the USFWS on October 25, 2005, with a request for 

formal consultation. In a letter dated December 16, 2005, the USFWS agreed to initiate formal 

consultation on the potential effects of the JIDP (see Appendix H). The USFWS expects to issue 

a Biological Opinion in January 2006. 

A list of TEP&C species that potentially occur on or in the vicinity of the JIDPA was compiled 

from several sources, including a written communication from the Wyoming State Supervisor’s 

Office of the USFWS (USFWS 2003), the WyNDD, and information provided by the BLM PFO 

(Table 3.20). Seven federally listed TEP&C species potentially occur in the vicinity of the JIDPA 

or could otherwise be potentially affected by the proposed project: the black-footed ferret, bald 

eagle, four Colorado River endangered fish species (Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, 

razorback sucker, and bonytail chub), and one plant species (Ute ladies’-tresses). 

3.2.3.1 Black-footed Ferret 

Black-footed ferret, a federally endangered species (endangered species are those that are in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range), was once distributed 

throughout the high plains of the Rocky Mountain and western Great Plains regions (Forrest et al. 

1985). Prairie dogs are the main food of black-footed ferrets (Sheets et al. 1972), and few blackfooted ferrets have been collected away from prairie dog towns (Forrest et al. 1985). The Blackfooted Ferret Survey Guidelines for Compliance with the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 1989) 

defines potential black-footed ferret habitat as any white-tailed prairie dog towns or complexes 

greater than 200 acres in size with a burrow density greater than 20 active burrows per hectare 

(8 active burrows per acre). The USFWS Wyoming Field Office has block-cleared large portions 

of Wyoming for black-footed ferrets, including all lands within the JIDPA (USFWS 2004). 

USFWS considers block-cleared areas unlikely to be inhabited by black-footed ferrets, and 

surveys for ferrets in these areas are not required. However, block-clearance of an area “does not 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-67 

provide insight into an area’s value for survival and recovery of the species through future 

reintroduction efforts”; thus, prairie dog towns in the JIDPA (see Map 3.15) may still provide 

important habitat for the species. Therefore, BLM continues to evaluate actions in these areas to 

determine if actions could adversely affect the value of prairie dog towns as future black-footed 

ferret reintroduction sites. 

Table 3.20. Federal Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species 

and their Potential Occurrence on the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2006 

Species

1 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status

2 Potential Occurrence 

on JIDPA3 

Mammals 

Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes E X 

Birds 4 

Bald eagle5 Haliaeetus leucocephalus T R 

Fish 

Bonytail chub Gila elegans E X 

Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius E X 

Humpback chub Gila cypha E X 

Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus E X 

Plants 

Ute ladies’-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis T X 

1 List of species provided by USFWS (2003)., the WyNDD, and information provided by the BLM PFO. 2 Federal status:


E = Listed as federally endangered.


T = Listed as federally threatened.
 3 Potential occurrence:


R = Rare; although the species may occur in the JIDPA while foraging, such occurrences are expected to be infrequent and of


short duration based on recent field studies.


X = Unlikely; there has been no recent historical record of the species’ occurrence in the JIDPA; probability of encountering


the species during field development and operation is very unlikely.
 4 The mountain plover was previously included as proposed for listing as federally threatened by the USFWS, but the decision 

not to list the species has since been published (Federal Register, September 9, 2003, 68[174]:53083–53101). 5 Proposed for removal from federal listing. 

3.2.3.2 Bald Eagle 

Protection for bald eagles was initially provided through the passage of the Bald Eagle Protection 

Act of 1940 (16 USC 668–668dd) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 701–715). 

In 1973, the bald eagle was listed as endangered under the ESA (43 CFR 6233). 

Bald eagle population estimates have increased in Wyoming since the species was listed as 

endangered. This increase is due, in part, to population growth, to significant reduction of 

environmental contaminants, and to the initiation of more intensive nesting surveys (Greater 

Yellowstone Winter Wildlife Working Group 1999). On July 12, 1995, a final rule to downlist the 

bald eagle from endangered to threatened in the lower 48 states was published in the Federal 

Register and on July 6, 1999, the USFWS proposed delisting the bald eagle. 

The JIDPA is outside of any major bald eagle nesting or roosting areas. Bald eagles generally 

require cliffs, large trees, or sheltered canyons associated with concentrated food sources 

(e.g., fisheries or waterfowl concentration areas) for nesting and/or roosting areas (Edwards 1969, 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-68 Chapter 3 

Snow 1973, Call 1978, Steenhof 1978, Peterson 1986). Bald eagle winter habitat generally is 

associated with areas of open water where fish and/or waterfowl congregate (Stahlmaster 1987, 

Greater Yellowstone Winter Wildlife Working Group 1999). Wintering bald eagles frequent 

unfrozen portions of lakes and free-flowing rivers and may occupy upland areas where ungulate 

carrion, game birds, and lagomorphs (rabbits and hares) are available (Swenson et al. 1986). 

Additionally, bald eagles forage over wide areas during the non-nesting season (i.e., fall and 

winter) and scavenge on animal carcasses such as pronghorn, deer, and elk; they may therefore 

potentially forage in the JIDPA. 

No bald eagle nests or winter roosts are known to occur in the JIDPA, and the lack of suitable 

nesting areas or winter roosting habitats within the JIDPA precludes such activities by bald 

eagles. Fourteen bald eagle sightings (10 adults, two juveniles, and two unclassified) have been 

recorded within and adjacent to the JIDPA (WGFD 1996), although no bald eagles have been 

documented in the area since 1984. A WyNDD search revealed no records of bald eagle in the 

vicinity of the JIDPA (WyNDD 2003), and they have not been observed during annual wildlife 

investigations conducted on the JIDPA and surrounding wildlife study area (TRC Mariah 1999, 

2001a, 2001b, 2002, 2004a). Bald eagles are known to nest and roost along the New Fork and 

Green Rivers north of the JIDPA (TRC Mariah 2003c), and they also have been observed in the 

Farson-Eden area south of the JIDPA (BLM 1994b). 

3.2.3.3 Colorado River Endangered Fish Species 

Four endangered Colorado River fish species (Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, bonytail 

chub, and humpback chub) occur downstream from the JIDPA in the Green and Colorado Rivers. 

Water depletions from tributary waters within the Colorado River drainage may jeopardize the 

continued existence of these fish, and surface water or groundwater depletions in excess of 100 

acre-ft per year require formal consultation with the USFWS (see Appendix H). 

3.2.3.4 Ute Ladies’-Tresses 

Ute ladies’-tresses is a perennial member of the orchid family that inhabits moist stream banks, 

wet meadows, and abandoned stream channels at elevations of 4,500–6,800 feet (Fertig 1994, 

Spackman et al. 1997). Where this plant occurs in ephemeral drainages, the soil typically is 

saturated within approximately 18 inches of the ground surface (USFWS 1992). Based on 

elevational range and lack of suitable habitat within the JIDPA, Ute ladies’-tresses is unlikely to 

occur in the area. 

3.2.3.5 BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species 

The BLM PFO identified 28 BWS animal and 25 BWS plant species that may occur in the 

JIDPA. These species and their preferred habitats are listed in Table 3.21. Management efforts for 

these species primarily involve habitat maintenance. 

Based on field studies at JIDPA, a total of 12 BWS species (three mammals and nine birds) were 

recorded in the project area (see Table 3.21). BWS animal species recorded recently in the JIDPA 

include Idaho pocket gopher, white-tailed prairie dog, pygmy rabbit, Brewer’s sparrow, sage 

sparrow, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, mountain plover, greater sage-grouse, sage 

thrasher, burrowing owl, and ferruginous hawk (WyNDD 2003, TRC Mariah 2004a). Additional 

BWS animal species may occur in the project area, but such occurrences would likely be of 

foraging (e.g., long-eared myotis) or dispersing (e.g., peregrine falcon) individuals given the 

absence of suitable breeding/wintering habitats in the project area. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-69 

Table 3.21. BLM Pinedale Field Office Sensitive Animal and Plant Species and Potential 

Occurrence in the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 20061 

Recorded Common Name Habitat Preference

2 

Occurrence

3 

Mammals 

Long-eared myotis Conifer and deciduous forests, caves, and mines


White-tailed prairie dog Basin-prairie shrub, grasslands
 X 

Idaho pocket gopher Shallow stony soils X 

Pygmy rabbit Basin-prairie and riparian shrub X 

Birds 

White-faced ibis Marshes, wet meadows 

Trumpeter swan Lakes, ponds, rivers 

Northern goshawk Conifer and deciduous forests 

Ferruginous hawk Basin-prairie shrub, grassland, rock outcrops X 

Peregrine falcon Tall cliffs 

Greater sage-grouse Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub X 

Long-billed curlew Grasslands, plains, foothills, wet meadows X 

Mountain plover Cushionplant communities; low sparse vegetation X 

Yellow-billed cuckoo Open woodlands, streamside willow and alder groves 

Burrowing owl Grasslands, basin-prairie shrub X 

Sage thrasher Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub X 

Loggerhead shrike Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub X 

Brewer's sparrow Basin-prairie shrub X 

Sage sparrow Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub X 

Fish 

Roundtail chub Colorado River drainage, mostly large rivers, also streams and 

lakes 

Leatherside chub Bear, Snake, and Green River drainages, clear cool streams and 

pools 

Bluehead sucker Bear, Snake, and Green River drainages, all waters 

Flannelmouth sucker Colorado River drainage, large rivers, streams, and lakes 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout Yellowstone drainage, small mountain streams, and large rivers 

Colorado River cutthroat trout Colorado River drainage, clear mountain streams


Fine-spotted Snake River Snake River drainage, clear fast water


cutthroat trout


Amphibians 

Northern leopard frog Beaver ponds, permanent water in plains and foothills 

Boreal toad (Northern Rocky Pond margins, wet meadows, riparian areas


Mountain population)


Spotted frog Ponds, sloughs, small streams


Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-70 Chapter 3 

Table 3.21. (Continued) 

Recorded Common Name Habitat Preference

2 

Occurrence

3 

Plants 

Pink agoseris Mountain meadows


Meadow pussytoes Subirrigated meadows within broad stream channels


Soft aster Mountain parks and meadows


Meadow milkvetch Moist alkali meadows and swales in sagebrush valleys, 4,400–


6,300 ft in elevation 

Bastard draba milkvetch Rocky areas with low cover within sagebrush and cushionplant X 

communities on sandstone, stony clay, badlands, and barren clay 

slopes and ridges, 6,900–7,200 ft in elevation 

Payson's astragalus Clear cuts, burns, and blow-down areas in the Wyoming Range, 

6,700–9,600 ft in elevation 

Trelease's milkvetch Sparsely vegetated sagebrush communities on shale or limestone X 

outcrops and barren clay slopes at 6,500–8,200 ft in elevation 

Seaside sedge Alpine and subalpine meadows 

Black and purple sedge (F) High mountain slopes and meadows 

Cedar Rim thistle Barren, chalky hills, gravelly slopes, and fine textured, sandy- X 

shaley draws, 6,700–7,200 ft in elevation


Boreal draba Volcanic slopes; cliffs and riparian areas with loamy alluvium, and


mossy mats, 6,200–8,550 ft in elevation


Rockcress draba Rocky ridges and slopes in mountains


Giant helleborine Wet areas in Grand Teton and Yellowstone Parks


Wooly fleabane Talus steep alpine slopes or rims, 10,800–11,000 ft in elevation


Narrowleaf goldenweed Semi-barren clay flats and slopes, gravel bars and sandy lake


shores, northwest and central Wyoming 

Keeled bladderpod Sparsely vegetated outcrops on slopes and ridge crests, Teton 

County 

Large-fruited bladderpod Gypsum-clay hills and benches, clay flats, and barren hills, 6,800– X 

7,700 ft in elevation 

Payson's bladderpod Windswept gravelly ridge crests, semi-open slopes, and talus slopes 

in mountain sagebrush/grassland communities and conifer 

clearings, 5,500–10,600 ft in elevation 

Marsh muhly Bogs, springs, peaty or calcareous meadows, floating mats, and 

stream edges, 4,700–6,600 ft in elevation 

Contracted Indian ricegrass Plains and hills, basin areas, northwest-central, northeast, eastcentral, southwest and south-central Wyoming 

Naked-stemmed parrya Steep talus slopes in alpine or upper subalpine zones, 9,600–12,240 

ft in elevation 

Beaver Rim phlox Sparsely vegetated slopes, Wind River Basin, Fremont County, 

6,000–7,400 ft in elevation 

Tufted twinpod Sparsely vegetated shale slopes and ridges 6,500–7,000 ft in X 

elevation 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-71 

Table 3.21. (Continued) 

Common Name Habitat Preference

2 Recorded 

Occurrence

3 

Creeping twinpod Barren, rocky, calcareous hills and slopes in mountainous areas, 

6,500–8,600 ft in elevation 

Greenland primrose Wet meadows and calcareous montane bogs, 6,600–8,000 ft in 

elevation 

1 Based on BLM (2003b). 2 Plant habitat preference based on Hallsten et al. (1987), Dorn (1992), and Keinath et al. (2003). 3 Recorded occurrences on or in the vicinity of the JIDPA (WYNDD 2003; TRC Mariah 2001a, 2001b, 2002, 2004a). 

Based on a review of habitat preferences and known geographic locations (Hallsten et al. 1987, 

Dorn 1992), it was determined that the majority of BWS plant species listed in Table 3.21 have 

no or little potential for occurring in the vicinity of the JIDPA. Five of the 25 species—bastard 

draba milkvetch, Trelease’s milkvetch, Cedar Rim thistle, large-fruited bladderpod, and tufted 

twinpod—have been recorded in the JIDPA during field studies (WyNDD 2003). 

The scattered/no sagebrush vegetation type (see Section 3.2.1.1 and Map 3.12) appears to provide 

the most important potential habitat for these species. 

3.2.4 Wild Horses 

Spanish explorers originally introduced wild horses, also known as the American feral horses or 

mustangs, to the western United States. Over the years, wild horses have become a mix of 

numerous breeds that have escaped or been released by the U.S. cavalry, farmers, ranchers, and 

miners. That portion of the JIDPA contained in the RSFO area is included in the Little Colorado 

Herd Management Area (LCHMA) (Map 3.20). The LCHMA encompasses 519,541 acres (of 

which 6,310 acres [1.2%] are in the JIDPA). The estimated wild horse population was 240 in 

2001; the appropriate management level (AML) for this herd area is 69 to 100 horses (BLM 

2001). The entire LCHMA is the wild horse CIAA for this project. The portion of the JIDPA 

within the LCHMA does not receive a high level of wild horse use due to the limited availability 

of water. No managed wild horse herds occur in the PFO portion of the JIDPA and a fence 

separating the RSFO and the PFO areas restricts wild horse movement into the PFO area. 

However, horses from the LCHMA have entered the PFO area and the JIDPA (often through 

gates being left open), and are subsequently herded back to the RSFO and LCHMA. 

3.3 CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES 

The following sections discuss the cultural resources within the JIDPA. Cultural setting and an 

historic overview were provided in the Jonah II EIS (BLM 1997a, 1998a). Because this 

information is not fully repeated here, for immediate reference, the Jonah II Cultural Setting and 

Historic Overview has been included in the JIDPA FEIS Appendix I. 

3.3.1 Introduction 

Cultural resources, which are managed pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

(NHPA) and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) and other statutes, are 

the nonrenewable remains of past human activity. The CIAA for cultural resources includes the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-72 Chapter 3 

Source: BLM 

Map 3.20. Little Colorado Wild Horse Herd Management Area (CIAA), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-73 

JIDPA and surrounding area as depicted on Map 3.5. The cultural resource and archaeological 

record of the JIDPA has been identified and established through Class III cultural resource 

inventories (100% coverage pedestrian surveys), informal surveys, construction monitors, test 

excavations, salvage excavations, formal data recovery excavations, examination of ethnographic 

materials used to determine ethnic origin, local informant interviews, consultation with modern 

Native American people, archival sources, and the historic record. Continued development, 

accelerating in pace since 1997, has steadily increased the number of cultural resource inventories 

performed (estimated at approximately 1,500), and the number of known sites has increased 

accordingly (estimated at between 1,000 and 2,000 sites). 

3.3.2 Site Types 

Cultural resources are typically identified as tangible properties, which are generally defined 

within a range of site types. The JIDPA is rich in prehistoric archaeological sites, including 

several sites culturally sensitive to Native American peoples, but contains few historic period 

sites. An informal search of the SHPO cultural records database indicated that (as of November 

2003) there are over 1,000 known cultural properties within the JIDPA, the majority of which are 

prehistoric archaeological sites. Extrapolating from the results of seismic inventories that have 

provided broad systematic survey coverage of the area, roughly one site per 17 acres occurs 

within the JIDPA (an average of 38 sites per section). Actual site density is probably even higher 

due to frequently encountered buried archaeological sites that lack surface manifestations. 

A considerable amount of cultural resource inventory, and archaeological site testing, monitoring, 

and salvage or ‘data recovery’ excavation has been completed in the JIDPA, especially since the 

mid-1990s (estimated at over 1,500 actions). This work has resulted in the identification and 

recording of a large number of prehistoric cultural properties (estimated at over 1,000), most 

exceptionally including numerous subsurface archaeological sites discovered during construction. 

Larger-scale data recovery excavations are becoming more common as discoveries continue to be 

made and adverse effects are mitigated. 

Significant historic period cultural resources have not yet been part of archaeological discoveries 

or needed mitigation. This is because the majority of historic sites in the JIDPA consist of 

nonsignificant debris scatters. No known significant or sensitive historic period sites occur in the 

JIDPA and past work in the area has indicated a low likelihood of historic site types. The historic 

period sites in the JIDPA predominately relate to open-range ranching, stock grazing, and wagon 

road passage. Regional Emigrant Trails, such as the Pre-territorial period Lander Trail, and Fur 

Trade period rendezvous grounds, as near Fort Bonneville, occur well outside of the JIPDA. 

The fact that the area is dominated by BLM administered lands is indicative of the area not 

receiving substantial historic habitation; those lands remaining in federal holding did not become 

homesteads. Only one historic standing building, a log cabin, is believed to be in the JIDPA, but 

is not currently a formally documented resource. In the historic era, area lands remained 

predominantly rangelands, primarily used for grazing. Nonsignificant recent and past range 

improvements occur in the area, such as stock ponds and dams. 

Known prehistoric site types within or near the JIDPA are not as limited in number or range as 

historic site types. The spectrum of prehistoric site types includes open campsites, lithic scatters, 

housepits, rock alignments, kill/butchering sites, rockshelters, floral processing locales, sacred or 

respected sites, extensive lithic procurement locales (see Archaeological Landscapes, 

Appendix F-1.5 of the Jonah II EIS [BLM 1997a, 1998a]), limited activity sites, and Traditional 

Cultural Properties. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-74 Chapter 3 

A “Traditional Cultural Property” generally can be defined as a property that is eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) because of its association with 

cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are rooted in the community’s history and 

are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community. The Traditional 

Cultural Properties in the JIDPA also are considered sacred or respected places (areas that local 

Native American tribes consider sensitive, important for current uses [e.g., plant collection], 

and/or of religious importance) pursuant to EO 13007. These properties include rock alignment 

sites, visionquest locales, stone circle sites such as tipi rings, and cairns. No drivelines are 

currently known, but they may be present in the area. No petroglyph or pictograph sites are 

presently known, even though the geology of the area (i.e., the presence of numerous rock 

outcrops) is conducive to the presence of these site types. One prehistoric human burial has been 

encountered. Prehistoric sites between 4,000 and 7,000 years old are common, many of which are 

completely buried with few (if any) surface manifestations. 

3.3.3 Native American Sensitive Sites and Traditional Cultural 

Properties 

In the late nineteenth century, the JIDPA was used predominantly by the Shoshone Tribe, though 

Bannock, Ute, and other tribes frequented the Upper Green River. Sites relating to prehistoric 

tribal use exist, but identifying specific tribal affiliation to these remains is difficult. Some 

prehistoric sites, as well as some of the more recent Native American use sites, may be 

considered respected areas or sensitive sites by modern Native Americans and may be formally 

considered Traditional Cultural Properties. 

Sites and properties within this class are protected by numerous laws, such as the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act (AIRFA), and by various executive orders (e.g., EO 13007). Human burials, rock 

alignment sites, petroglyphs, steatite procurement locales, and modern-day Native American use, 

extraction, or religious sites are considered sensitive or sacred to modern Native Americans. 

Several such sites have been identified in the area. Consultation with potentially affected Native 

American Tribes concerning the identification and management of specific Traditional Cultural 

Properties and other sensitive sites began in 1998, and this consultation resulted in several 

recommendations concerning the management of sensitive/sacred/respected sites, disturbance 

buffers, holistic management approaches and guidelines, and how Native American traditional 

practitioners want BLM to manage sensitive areas. The general theme of the consultation has 

been to leave these sensitive areas undisturbed. 

Representatives of the Shoshone and Ute Tribes have visited the Jonah area during the period of 

1997 through 2001. Consultation particularly focused on the Site 48SU4000 Archaeological 

District. Additionally, in 2002, formal NAGPRA consultation with the Shoshone Business 

Council took place concerning the 7,300-year-old human remains encountered during 

construction of a well pad. The last consultation took place between the BLM and the Shoshone 

in October 2005 in support of the Jonah “Bullseye” seismic project. Consultation between the 

BLM, Shoshone Tribe, and possibly other tribes would continue throughout project development. 

3.3.4 Culture History Context and Chronology 

The general cultural setting and historic overview for the Jonah Field appear in Appendix I. 

Due to a paucity of significant historic site types in the area, a historic overview will not be 

reiterated here, and Appendix I should be specifically referred to in reference to the region’s 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-75 

historic period context, chronology, and themes. A prehistoric cultural setting is also presented 

generally in Appendix I; however, those portions of context relevant to known and potential 

significant cultural properties in the JIDPA are specifically represented here. 

The prehistory of the Green River Basin, which encompasses the JIDPA, is typically considered 

in relationship to the prehistory of the larger western Wyoming Basin, which also includes the 

Great Divide and Washakie Basins and the Rock Springs and Rawlins Uplifts. The prehistory of 

the western Wyoming Basin is typically discussed in terms of a series of periods and phases 

originally defined specifically for the region by Metcalf (1987) (Table 3.22). The breakdown of 

periods and phases is based on such characteristics as artifact assemblages, house and pit forms, 

shifts in settlement or resource procurement patterns, and peaks and valleys in the frequencies of 

radiocarbon dates (Wheeler et al. 1986, Metcalf 1987, McNees et al. 1992, Thompson and 

Pastor 1995, Vlcek 1997a). At the broader level, the prehistory of the region is broken down into 

the Paleoindian, Early Archaic, Late Archaic, Late Prehistoric, and Protohistoric periods. 

The Early Archaic, Late Archaic, and Late Prehistoric periods are typically further subdivided 

into the Great Divide and Opal phases, the Pine Spring and Deadman Wash phases, and the Uinta 

and Firehole phases, respectively. Although most researchers agree on the general nature and 

sequence of the phases, some disagreement exists on their beginning and ending dates. Table 3.22 

uses the dating modified from McNees et al. (1992) and Vlcek (1997a). 

Evidence indicates that the JIDPA has Table 3.22. Prehistoric Cultural Chronology for 

been occupied almost continuously since at the JIDPA and Southwestern Wyoming1 

least the Folsom stage of the Paleoindian 

period about 10,900 years before present 

(B.P.). Occupation of the area apparently 

intensified after approximately 8,500 years 

B.P. and especially after 7,200 years B.P. 

The Paleoindian period in Wyoming is 

typically discussed in terms of the sequence 

of “classic” Paleoindian point types initially 

established on the basis of data from the 

Hell Gap site in eastern Wyoming and 

subsequently amplified and refined. In the 

Wyoming Basin, it is typically represented 1 Metcalf 1987; McNees et al. 1992; Vlcek 1997. 

by the Clovis, Goshen, Folsom, Agate 

Basin, and Hell Gap points. Alberta, Alberta-Cody, and Cody cultural complexes are also 

commonly represented but appear to be more transitional to the lifeways represented in the 

subsequent Archaic period. The Paleoindian period was characterized by a large-animal huntingoriented economy that was specialized even in contrast to later bison-hunting groups on the 

plains. Initially, that strategy focused on the procurement of mammoth and/or other megafauna, 

but then it shifted to bison and apparently incorporated an increasingly broader spectrum of 

smaller animal and plant resources. 

Occasional surface finds of fluted projectile points of the Clovis and Folsom traditions indicate 

that, at a minimum, human beings have lived in the Green River Basin since the end of the 

Pleistocene geologic epoch. However, evidence of the big game foraging tradition, which has 

defined the early Paleoindian adaptation, is rare. Evidence most commonly consists of surface 

finds of Paleoindian points. 

Period Phase Age (Years Before 

Present [B.P.]) 

Paleoindian – 11,500–8,500 

Early Archaic Great Divide 8,500–6,000 

Opal 6,000–3,600 

Late Archaic Pine Spring 3,600–2,900 

Deadman Wash 2,900–1,800 

Late Prehistoric Uinta 1,800–1,000 

Firehole 1,000–250 

Protohistoric – 250–0 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-76 Chapter 3 

Few sites containing classic Paleoindian points have been discovered in the area, although such 

sites are known. For example, the site complex containing Sites 48SU389, 48SU907, 48SU908, 

and 48SU909 just south of the JIDPA has produced artifacts from the Folsom, Hell Gap, Agate 

Basin, Scottsbluff, and Cody complexes spanning a time period from 12,000 to 8,000 years B.P. 

(Frison 1991). Folsom points have been found at three localities in the JIDPA (two along Sand 

Draw and one in the 48SU4000 Archaeological District). At least 16 sites or locations have 

produced surface Paleoindian projectile points in the Jonah area. Site 48SU1421, situated 

adjacent to an ancient playa, contained several projectile points that tentatively date two 

components at the site from 9,000 to 8,500 years B.P. Another site (Site 48SU2980) encountered 

during pipeline construction has been dated to 8,600 years B.P. and has a possible Paleoindian 

connection, and sites/site complexes that include Sites 48SU2662, 48SU3087, and 48SU3090 

have also produced Paleoindian material. A Hell Gap point was discovered eroding out of a low 

sand sheet in the northern Jonah Field, and Scottsbluff complex artifacts have been recorded in 

various portions of the field, including within the Site 48SU4000 Archaeological District 

(see Section 3.3.7). Additionally, three Early Archaic period JIDPA sites (48SU2094, 48SU2324, 

and 48SU4479) dating from 4,590 to 8,210 years B.P. were recently excavated (McKern and 

Harrell 2004). 

The lifeways defining the Early Archaic period in the western Wyoming Basin may have begun 

as early as the middle Paleoindian period, possibly as a result of a “settling-in” process (McNees 

1998:36). These lifeways apparently were characterized by the more-intensive use of the 

landscape by groups pursuing an increasingly broad-spectrum hunting and gathering lifestyle. 

Specific characteristics of those lifeways are believed to have included a settlement and 

subsistence strategy oriented to specific geographic areas on a year-round basis, including 

especially a reliance on a broader range of plant and animal food resources. This more 

“place-oriented” lifeway resulted in the apparent elaboration of house and cooking pit forms 

represented in the archaeological record. 

In the western Wyoming Basin in general, the archaeological record contains a gradually 

increasing number of dated components through the time period beginning around 8,500 years 

B.P., with a more significant increase after 6,000 years B.P. Then the number of radiocarbon-dated 

sites generally declines again across the region throughout the Late Archaic period. Cultural 

remains dating to the Late Archaic period become more complex and more diverse through time. 

The earlier part of the Early Archaic period corresponding to the Great Divide phase is typically 

characterized by sites containing limited remains, typically a simple firepit or two, a few flaked 

stone artifacts, and bone scraps, most commonly from rabbits and occasionally pronghorn. 

Artifacts associated with Early Archaic period sites in the area tend to be limited in number and 

type. The Great Divide phase is typically characterized by large side-notched points, giving way 

to more-diverse, less-distinctive, and less-frequent collections of side- and corner-notched 

projectile points of the Opal phase. After about 6,500 years B.P., housepits become a prominent 

trait of the period, as do slab-lined cylindrical baking pits and deep unlined baking pits after about 

6,000 years B.P. The coalescence of those traits is judged to represent the transition to the Opal 

phase around 6,500 to 6,000 years B.P. The Opal phase appears to have been a time of a 

significant increase in the number of sites and population compared with the preceding and 

subsequent phases in the western Wyoming Basin in general (Smith 2003). Small mammals, 

especially rabbits probably opportunistically captured near the camps, are the most commonly 

identified animals from the housepit bone assemblages. However, pronghorn bone is also 

relatively common, and the Trapper’s Point site to the north of the JIDPA evidences relatively 

intensive pronghorn procurement. The deep baking pits suggest the relatively widespread use of 

roots, most likely biscuitroot and onion. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-77 

One of the most distinctive aspects of the archaeological record of the JIDPA and its immediate 

surroundings is the abundance of archaeological sites dating to the later Great Divide phase, in 

contrast to the rest of the western Wyoming Basin (TRC Mariah 2001c). The archaeological 

record indicates that occupation of the JIDPA began to intensify after approximately 8,500 years 

B.P. as elsewhere in the region. However, the major increase in occupation apparently began 

around 7,200 years B.P. The appearance of the remains of house structures in and around the 

JIDPA likewise pre-dates that in the rest of the region. Figure 3.14 illustrates the excavation of a 

typical housepit. Most of the houses have yielded radiocarbon dates between 7,110 and 

6,000 years B.P. A post mold associated with a house at Site 48SU3835 yielded an age estimate of 

8,240 years B.P. (Nelson and Richard 2004) and one associated with a house at the J. David Love 

site (Site 48SU4479) yielded an age estimate of 8,210 years B.P. (McKern and Current 2004), the 

two earliest dates for house structures recorded in the region. Only a few structures in the project 

area have yielded dates of less than 6,000 years B.P. By contrast, only one housepit out of 41 fully 

excavated housepits from 21 sites in Wyoming listed by Smith (2003) and a list of excavated 

housepits from the Green River Basin and immediately adjacent areas compiled by Thompson 

and Pastor (1995) yielded a date of 6,000 years B.P. or older, and it was dated at 6,000 years B.P. 

Therefore, it is clear that the house remains in the Jonah area represent a distinctive temporal 

phenomenon in the archaeological record of the region. 

The house structures excavated in the JIDPA are distinctive in other ways as well. They include 

both “classic” housepits characterized by large, circular stains that are basin-shaped in cross 

section, as well as circular or semicircular areas delineated by apparent post molds around the 

perimeter of clusters of hearth-type basins. The latter type appears to be distinctive to the Jonah 

area. 

The transition from the Early Archaic period to the Late Archaic period is marked by a decrease 

in radiocarbon-dated sites in the western Wyoming Basin at about 3,600 years B.P. Despite minor 

regional peaks from 3,200 to 3,000 years B.P., 2,900 to 2,700 years B.P., and 2,000 to 1,800 years 

B.P., the frequencies of radiocarbon-dated sites remain depressed into the early Late Prehistoric 

period. Because of the limited number of investigated sites dating to the Late Archaic period, it 

remains poorly understood. The period was apparently marked by the decreased use of the area 

by interior basin-adapted groups, possibly reflecting a decline in population and/or a shift in 

settlement and subsistence strategies (McNees 1992). 

Some investigators in the region have placed the end of the Opal phase Early Archaic period and 

the start of the Pine Spring phase Late Archaic period around 4,400 years ago to coincide with the 

full time span of McKean complex dart points in the region. However, sites containing McKean 

complex points appear to represent a different cultural phenomenon than the abundance of sites 

displaying more typical Opal phase traits such as housepits, slab-lined cylindrical pits, deep 

baking pits, and side- and corner-notched projectile points. Only after the cultural complex 

exhibiting these latter traits becomes attenuated around 3,600 years B.P. do sites containing 

McKean complex points become dominant as a result of the vacuum created by the absence of the 

more typical Opal phase sites. 

The Pine Spring phase of the Late Archaic period is typically defined by the prevalence of 

McKean complex dart points. McKean complex stemmed and lanceolate dart points occur at sites 

in the western Wyoming Basin beginning as early as 4,900 years B.P. (McNees 1992). They 

appear to be most common at sites dated between 4,400 and 3,000 years B.P. Surface finds of 

McKean complex dart points are common within and around the JIDPA. McKean complex points 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-78 Chapter 3 

Source: BLM 

Figure 3.14. Typical Housepit Excavation, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-79 

have been reported for Site 48SU1754 in the Bull Draw drainage, Site 48SU1328 on a bench 

above Sand Draw, and Site 48SU3090 at the Sand Draw playa complex. The McKean complex 

point at Site 48SU3090 is consistent with age estimates obtained from features in the complex, 

including estimates of 3,580 and 3,900 years B.P. from a cobble-lined and a bell-shaped basin, 

respectively, suggesting the presence of intact McKean complex components in the area (Plastino 

1999). Based upon radiocarbon dating, a McKean concentration has been found in the JIDPA. 

The presence of Pine Spring phase sites in the JIDPA is also indicated by firepits radiocarbondated to that time period (Vlcek 1997b). 

The transition from the Pine Spring phase to the Deadman Wash phase is typically placed around 

3,000 or 2,900 years B.P. to correspond with the transition from the use of McKean complex dart 

points to the use of corner-notched dart points. Evidence for Deadman Wash phase use of the 

JIDPA is even more limited than for Pine Spring phase use. Corner-notched dart points diagnostic 

of the phase are not as distinctive or definitive as McKean complex points, making them less 

effective as an indicator of occupation of the area during that time period. Likewise, fewer 

features have been dated to this phase, which suggests that the phase may be poorly represented 

in the area. 

The Uinta phase of the Late Prehistoric period exhibits a peak in the number of radiocarbon-dated 

components in the western Wyoming Basin, specifically between 1,500 and 1,000 years B.P. 

In many aspects, this phase of the Prehistoric period more closely resembles the Early Archaic 

period than the immediately preceding Late Archaic period or the subsequent Firehole phase. 

The Uinta phase is generally considered to coincide with the introduction or general adoption of 

bow and arrow technology. Pottery also first appears in the archaeological record of the region 

during this period, although it apparently only became an integral element of the indigenous 

inhabitants of the region after approximately 900 years B.P. 

The Uinta phase is characterized by repeated occupation of the same site localities and the use of 

deep cylindrical basins, small circular habitation structures, more common ornamental artifacts 

(e.g., bone tubes and bone disks), and a broad spectrum of large and small animals and plant 

resources, including pronghorn, occasionally bison, and seeds from weedy annuals. Uinta phase 

sites and components are often much more artifact- and data-rich than sites from other periods. 

Classic Uinta phase sites contain Rose Spring arrow points but lack pottery. Interestingly, 

radiocarbon-dated Uinta phase sites or sites with Rose Spring points are relatively uncommon in 

the JIDPA, though they do tend to cluster in the eolian sediments deposited along the 

northwestern edge of Yellow Point Ridge. 

Following the Uinta phase is the Firehole phase. In most of the western Wyoming Basin, Firehole 

phase sites are rare in comparison to Uinta phase sites. McNees (1992) argues the Firehole phase 

represents a return to a lifeway that relied more heavily on hunting large game animals, including 

bison, similar to that of the Pine Spring and Deadman Wash phases, with less reliance on more 

intensive use of smaller animals and plants. The Firehole phase is characterized by the 

predominance of side-notched, tri-notched, and unnotched points; by quartz sand-tempered 

(Intermountain Ware) pottery; and by the abrupt disappearance of typical Uinta phase traits 

between 1,000 and 950 years B.P. Historic Shoshone cultural lifeways of the region seem to first 

become distinguishable during the Firehole phase. 

In contrast to much of the western Wyoming Basin, the JIDPA and surrounding area contain a 

large number of sites dating to the Firehole phase. Site 48SU4000 Archaeological District appears 

to be dominated by Firehole phase materials (Miner 2001). The phase is associated with an 

extensive and distinct area of interior basin sandstone outcrops and includes numerous rockshelter 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-80 Chapter 3 

alcoves and stone circles. Associated artifacts include side-notched and unnotched points and 

ceramics from five distinct localities. Ceramics recovered from 48SU4000 have been subject to 

thin sectioning analysis, and local manufacture is indicated. These ceramics show similarities to 

those found at the Wardell Buffalo Trap (Frison 1993). This ceramic assemblage (two sites with 

500 sherds each) represents the highest known concentration of prehistoric ceramics anywhere in 

southwestern Wyoming. Ceramics have also been recovered from other sites in the area, 

including Sites 48SU1443, 48SU2261, and 48SU3017. 

3.3.5 Geomorphology 

Geomorphological studies that examine the relationship among geology, soils, topography, and 

vegetation are important to archaeologists because most significant prehistoric sites are located 

within specific soil matrices (i.e., the history of which contributes to the integrity of the site, the 

integrity of cultural deposits, and the post-depositional history of the site). These factors are 

critical for understanding the nature, integrity, and preservation potential of the archeological 

resources in the JIDPA. 

Of particular interest in the JIDPA is the San Arcacio-Saguache soils complex (soil map 

unit 125), which occurs along the lower and middle reaches of Sand Draw. The San Arcacio soils 

form on geomorphically stable surfaces at less than 3% slopes, primarily on level or uniformly 

sloping surfaces with deposits of uniform depth. They typically exhibit a sandy clay loam horizon 

with oxidized colors and clay enrichment over coarse sand (Eckerle and Taddie 1997) and occur 

on old floodplains, fans, and terraces. The soils are typically sandy and have formed in coarse 

sandy alluvium (ERO Resources Corporation 1988:49). Plastino (Plastino and Randolph 2000:4) 

describes the soils as “sandy loam above coarse sand with an increasing gravel content with 

increasing depth.” According to Eckerle and Taddie (1997:8), “The [San Arcacio] soil is formed 

into a coarse, moderately well-sorted, subangular to subrounded, nonfrosted sand, [the] exact 

genesis of which is not presently known.” They argue that the source material of the sand does 

not appear to be local. The depth of the sand deposit exceeds 4 meters in at least one location. 

Eckerle and Taddie (1997) state that the San Arcacio soils compare well to the Vonalee-Hiland 

soil/paleosol documented in other parts of the Wyoming Basin on aeolian deposits that have been 

stable since the middle Holocene, except that they are slightly older. They suggest that occupation 

occurred on a sheet deposit intermittently active from sometime before 7,000 years B.P. until 

approximately 3,700 years B.P., after which the surface stabilized, and the San Arcacio soils 

began to form. The San Arcacio soils remain the currently existing surface. 

Buried cultural features have frequently been encountered in San Arcacio soils during 

construction in the Sand Draw area. Those features typically range in age from approximately 

4,000 years B.P. to greater than 7,000 years B.P. The tops of the features typically occur at depths 

of only 15–20 centimeters below the ground surface, yet the locales frequently lack any surface 

manifestation or topographic relief to differentiate them from other portions of the surrounding 

landscape. The features typically include hemispherical basins with and without rock, as well as 

housepits and other house remains. They are typically encapsulated within the aforementioned 

sandy clay loam soil horizon and exhibit remarkable preservation. 

3.3.6 Discovered Sites 

In recent years, prehistoric site discoveries have occurred in a number of management contexts. 

Those contexts include discoveries at previously recorded archaeological sites at which 

subsurface components were not expected or detected (sometimes despite extensive, small-scale 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-81 

subsurface testing and/or magnetometer surveys across the entire site), previously unidentified 

sites with (often very sparse) surface expressions, and previously unidentified sites lacking any 

surface expression. The latter sites are by far the most prevalent discoveries and the most 

problematic because no favorable or adequate current methodology exists to identify them in a 

cost- and time-effective manner prior to such construction that tends to expose them. 

Discoveries have occurred in a number of different construction contexts, including well pad 

stripping and leveling, access road construction, and pipeline trench construction. In portions of 

the JIDPA (i.e., Stud Horse Butte, Corona, and Cabrito units), nearly one in six projects have 

yielded discoveries (TRC Mariah 2001c). 

The majority of the archaeological site discoveries to date have occurred at a relatively shallow 

depth (15–30 centimeters) in sheet deposits. The best known of those deposits are the San 

Arcacio soils of the Sand Draw area. Other sediment types in the JIDPA, away from the Sand 

Draw terraces, have yielded discoveries in often geomorphologically complex contexts that have 

also proven difficult to identify by surface analysis and preconstruction testing. These discoveries 

generally have not been as significant or as time-consuming to mitigate as the Archaic structural 

remains that are mostly found in the San Arcacio soil contexts along Sand Draw. 

Discovered archaeological sites have included locales with housepits or other structural remains 

and basins with low to moderate densities of artifacts, locales with stained layers and basin 

features with moderate densities of associated flaked stone artifacts and bone, locales consisting 

primarily of basin features with few associated artifacts, and locales with a single hearth or 

cultural stain. Incidentally and paleontologically, fossils tentatively identified as Pleistocene horse 

bones, a very rare occurrence in Wyoming, have also been discovered during construction 

activities. 

Prehistoric house remains initially identified during well pad or access road construction have 

been partially or completely excavated at a minimum of seven sites in the JIDPA to date. 

They include the remains of 17 housepits or surface structures excavated at the McKeva Ryka site 

(Site 48SU2094), Jonah’s House site (Site 48SU2324), and J. David Love site (Site 48SU4479), 

and Sites 48SU3835, 48SU2317, 48SU3291, and 48SU3519. The houses generally had interior 

firepits, but few flaked stone artifacts, bone fragments, or other remains were associated with 

most of the houses. 

A human burial dated at 7,290 years B.P. was encountered in a shallow circular pit at the J. David 

Love site (McKern and Current 2004). Although habitation features were discovered subsurface 

as a result of construction activities, the actual human remains were found during subsequent 

archaeological salvage excavations at that discovery site. This burial represents the earliest 

known human remains from Wyoming and is one of the earliest known burials from the entire 

Rocky Mountain region. As of August 2004, only this single prehistoric human burial has been 

encountered within a discovery scenario. 

3.3.7 Highly Sensitive Archaeological Locales 

This section discusses the most highly sensitive and threatened archaeological locales in the 

JIDPA. Development and implementation of specific activity plans may be necessary to ensure 

that these valuable resource areas are adequately protected from impacts directly or indirectly 

related to JIDPA development. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-82 Chapter 3 

3.3.7.1 Sand Draw/Bull Draw Divide 

The Sand Draw/Bull Draw Divide upland is one of the most sensitive and complex prehistoric 

archaeological locales currently known for the JIDPA. During 2000–2001, it was the subject of 

an intensive block inventory for cultural resources, followed by formal recording and evaluation 

of archaeological sites (Miner 2001). The site complex has been designated the “Site 48SU4000 

Archaeological District” and is also known as the “Vlcek Archaeological District.” This is the 

first Archaeological District established within the PFO. 

The District is characterized by sandstone outcrops containing vertical rock faces, overhangs, 

nooks, and boulders bordering and enclosing sand-filled openings and pockets. A nearly 

continuous scatter of cultural material is present across that area. Identified archaeological 

features and remains include numerous rockshelters and alcoves containing cultural deposits, 

stone circles, buried hearths, areas of culturally stained sediment, numerous projectile points and 

point fragments, abundant bifaces and other flaked stone tools, ceramics, abundant obsidian 

artifacts, groundstone, at least one sandstone abrader, abundant burned bone, and mussel shell, 

among other artifacts. Rock art is conspicuously absent from the cultural remains noted to date, 

despite the presence of suitable rock faces. Prehistoric human burials or internments also have not 

been identified to date, although their occurrence somewhere within or around the rock outcrops 

is quite possible within the District. 

Much of the described cultural remains apparently date to the Late Prehistoric period (primarily 

to the Firehole phase) but all other temporal periods are represented as well. Projectile points and 

point fragments typically include small side-notched points. Small triangular points and at least 

one base-notched point have also been recovered. Potsherds were recovered from at least five loci 

within the locale, some of which apparently closely resemble the ceramics from the Wardell 

Bison Kill site. Small- and medium-sized corner-notched points and point fragments are also 

present. A Folsom point was also reportedly collected from one locale within the site complex. 

Numerous clusters of artifacts were thought to be collectors’ piles and indicators of extensive 

vandalism. Miner (2001) refutes this, however, making a strong argument that most of the piles 

are the result of packrat activity. 

The Site 48SU4000 Archaeological District is an exceedingly significant complex of cultural 

properties unique to the region. The area is also considered highly sensitive by Native Americans. 

The types, density, and diversity of the cultural remains all contrast sharply with the remains 

typically encountered in the JIDPA and the region. The District contains numerous areas of 

apparently intact deposits containing dense, well-preserved remains with rich data potential. 

Moreover, it appears to have significant and perhaps unique potential to provide insight into some 

of the more distinctive and prominent cultural manifestations known in the region, especially 

from the Late Prehistoric period, including potentially the poorly understood but distinctive 

cultural manifestation represented at the nearby Wardell Bison Kill site. There is also a possibility 

of relict Folsom and other Paleoindian deposits in isolated nooks or pockets. 

3.3.7.2 Sand Draw Playa Complex 

The Sand Draw playa is situated toward the lower (western) end of Sand Draw approximately 

700 feet south of the stream channel. It is encircled by a low rim around its western, southern, and 

eastern sides but opens north toward Sand Draw. It has been modified by historic ranching 

activity by way of a ditch into Sand Draw. Surface lands in the playa area are privately owned. 

Another large enclosed depression is located slightly less than 1 mile to the north, and a smaller 

enclosed depression is located just over 0.5 mile to the north-northwest, north of Sand Draw. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-83 

Both of these depressions are on BLM surface lands. Neither of these depressions are presently 

mapped as playas, but both may have been playas in the past and they suggest that a complex of 

playas may have once been present in the area. 

The playa complex area may have served as a focus for Paleoindian period occupations. A similar 

playa complex in the Jonah Gulch site complex (including Sites 48SU389, 48SU907, 48SU908, 

and 48SU909), located approximately 12 miles to the southeast, contains extensive Paleoindian 

components. To date, no significant intact Paleoindian components have been identified in the 

vicinity of the Sand Draw playa complex. However, both a Folsom point and a point tentatively 

identified as Goshen or Dalton have been recovered as surface finds, suggesting that such 

components may be present. 

The Sand Draw playa complex, due to its capture of more moisture than other JIDPA locations, 

may preserve archaeologically important paleoclimatic data. Specifically, pollen, which usually is 

not preserved or recovered from archaeological deposits in other JIDPA locations, may be well 

preserved in the playa complex. These data are critical for establishing baseline information 

concerning the paleoenvironmental reconstruction of the JIDPA. 

Plastino (1999) noted two soil types within the playa complex area during testing at Site 

48SU3090 in a sheltered backslope context with colluvial and aeolian deposits, and in a lower 

slope/drainage bottom context characterized by slopewash deposits. Testing and monitoring have 

indicated the presence of intact subsurface deposits of both types, including a basin well out into 

and under modern playa deposits at a depth of 25 centimeters below the ground surface at Site 

48SU3089 at the northern tip of the playa. A stain of possible cultural origin was also noted at a 

greater depth of 51 centimeters. 

Three sites adjacent to the Sand Draw playa were tested as part of an archaeological testing 

program associated with a non-archaeological geophysical exploration project (Kohler et al. 

2003). The sites (Sites 48SU2662, 48SU3087, and 48SU3090) were selected because of their 

abundant surface artifacts and potential to contain buried Paleoindian cultural remains. 

These sites had been previously avoided by development projects, and little subsurface testing has 

been performed as a result. The limited testing program implemented in 2002 (Kohler et al. 2003) 

revealed few, if any, cultural remains at the three sites, and no intact cultural components were 

identified. The tested areas generally exhibited colluvial/slopewash deposits and did not contain 

San Arcacio soils. 

Archaeological site discoveries made during testing and monitoring indicate that the Sand Draw 

playa area is characterized by a large proportion of hearth basin types not commonly represented 

in other parts of the JIDPA. They include cobble-lined and cobble-filled basins, bell-shaped 

basins, and U-shaped basins (e.g., at Sites 48SU3049, 48SU3850, and 48SU3089). Point types 

noted in the area include a McKean complex point, a point described as a “Pelican Lake or Rose 

Spring” point, and a Rose Spring point. The apparent McKean point is consistent with age 

estimates obtained from features in the complex, including estimates of 3,580 and 3,900 years 

B.P. from a cobble-lined basin and a bell-shaped basin, respectively, which suggest the presence 

of intact McKean complex components in the area. 

These patterns suggest that the playa complex may have been a locus of different 

procurement/processing activities and/or of more concentrated occupation by different groups 

and/or at different times than other portions of the JIDPA. Therefore, sites in the area have the 

potential to provide distinct and important information concerning prehistoric land use patterns in 

the JIDPA and the region. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-84 Chapter 3 

3.3.7.3 Central Sand Draw 

Terraces along the central part of Sand Draw contain a concentrated locus of early to 

mid-Holocene housepits and other structural remains and contemporaneous basin features, as was 

discussed above with regard to the Sand Draw/Bull Draw Divide. This segment of Sand Draw lies 

below and to the west of Stud Horse Butte at its upper end and above the Sand Draw playa at its 

lower end. The housepit occupations may have been intentionally positioned in proximity to the 

playa complex. 

Plastino (1999) describes a series of at least three terraces above Sand Draw. He estimates the 

three terraces occur at 2 meters, 4 meters, and >4 meters above the modern Sand Draw channel. 

He describes two of the terraces as strath terraces with nearly level treads. Sediments across the 

lower terraces are classified as San Arcacio soils. 

As part of the geophysical exploration project mentioned above, four sites were selected for 

archaeological testing along Sand Draw to investigate areas of interest that are usually avoided 

during development projects (Kohler et al. 2003). Sites in the testing program along Sand Draw 

included Sites 48SU1779, 48SU2246, 48SU3088, and 48SU4011. Most of the site testing was 

conducted in San Arcacio sediments, and the majority of cultural material was recovered from 

San Arcacio strata. Two San Arcacio strata were identified: San Arcacio “A” stratum was 

interpreted as post-dating 3,000 years B.P., and San Arcacio “B” stratum was the lower, older 

layer dating between 3,000 and 7,000 years B.P. Site 48SU2246 was the only site tested that did 

not contain San Arcacio soils. Ceramic and obsidian artifacts were found on the surface of this 

site, and additional pieces of pottery were recovered from the test unit. Site 48SU2246 appears to 

date to the Late Prehistoric period based on the ceramic assemblage, while the remaining sites 

appear to date to the Archaic period based on their presence in San Arcacio soils. Only a few 

cultural features were identified in the 67 square meters of excavation, none were structural, and 

none were radiocarbon dated. Few of the test units yielded more than a small number of artifacts 

or other types of cultural remains. Recent notable housepit/structure data recovery excavations 

along Sand Draw have occurred at the McKeva Ryka site (Site 48SU2094), Jonah’s House site 

(Site 48SU2324), the J. David Love site (Site 48SU4479), Site 48SU3835, and Site 48SU3519. 

These sites are all located on the Sand Draw terraces in San Arcacio sediments, and all were 

excavated to mitigate impacts to features encountered during well pad or access road 

construction. 

The McKeva Ryka site contained two housepits with postholes and interior and exterior features 

(McKern and Current 2002). Artifacts included a light scatter of flaked stone and bone. 

The housepits were radiocarbon dated to between 5,990 and 6,880 years B.P. The housepits 

appear to represent short-term habitations that were revisited seasonally over hundreds of years. 

The Jonah’s House site is similar to the McKeva Ryka site in setting, cultural remains, and 

apparent function. It contained two housepits with postholes and a sparse scatter of artifacts and 

bone (McKern and Current 2003). It was radiocarbon dated to between 6,590 and 7,070 years B.P. 

and also is interpreted as representing short-term, repeated habitations. 

The J. David Love site is rich in structural remains, containing six housepits and three surface 

structures dating between 4,590 and 8,210 years B.P. (McKern and Current 2004). A pit feature in 

one of the housepits contained human burial remains dating to 7,290 years B.P. The burial 

represents the remains of an elderly woman, and it is suggested that the structure was constructed 

specifically for the burial. Artifacts at this site were sparse but did include fragments of red ochre. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-85 

Site 48SU3835 included a single, flat-floored surface structure with 26 postholes, six internal 

features, and an intact roof layer (Nelson and Richard 2004). A sparse scatter of lithic artifacts 

was present on the site surface, but a magnetometer survey of the area conducted prior to well pad 

blading did not yield evidence of buried cultural remains. Radiocarbon dates from the discovery 

ranged from 5,600 to 8,240 years B.P. Of particular interest was the presence of about 300 pieces 

of microdebitage (small discarded materials such as flakes) and about 1,000 small bone fragments 

recovered from feature fill. The recovery of this quantity of artifacts from a single structure is 

uncommon. 

Site 48SU3519 was not identified during the Class III inventory that included magnetometer 

survey, but well pad construction revealed a cluster of 10 basin features and 11 scattered basin 

features (Sines and Roufs 2001). Twenty-five flakes and approximately 800 small pieces of bone 

were recovered from the heavy fraction of flotation fill samples. A series of possible post molds 

associated with the feature cluster suggests that this site also contained a shelter. Six age 

estimates ranging from 4,050 to 7,110 years B.P. were obtained from the features. 

The housepits and other features in the central Sand Draw area provide excellent potential to 

contain cultural material from a time period that is crucial for understanding North American 

prehistory, particularly the Paleoindian-Archaic lifeway transition and hunter-gatherer adaptation 

to the severe climatic conditions of the Altithermal climatic episode. Intact buried components 

dating to that time period are uncommon, as are concentrations of housepit loci. The combination 

of the two in central Sand Draw would be unparalleled anywhere in the western United States. 

3.4 SOCIOECONOMICS 

Unless otherwise cited, the socioeconomic information that follows has been summarized from 

the Socioeconomic Analysis Technical Support Document for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 2005). This document is available from the BLM PFO. 

Please refer to that document for more detailed socioeconomic information and analysis. 

Additional information has been taken from the socioeconomic profile (BLM 2003d) prepared for 

inclusion in the new Pinedale RMP (now in preparation). Unless otherwise stated, all dollar 

amounts are presented in year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. Formulas used to make the 

calculations presented herein (e.g., change, average annual change) are illustrated and explained 

in detail in BLM’s socioeconomic technical support document (2005). 

3.4.1 Study Area 

The economic study area (i.e., the CIAA) includes the counties and communities most likely to be 

impacted by the proposed project, including LaBarge in Lincoln County; Pinedale, Big Piney, 

Marbleton, and Boulder in Sublette County; and Eden, Farson, and Rock Springs in Sweetwater 

County. Rock Springs is a hub of natural gas development activity and likely will be home to 

some of the workers. Wyoming and the United States are also included in the profile and impact 

analyses (see Section 4.4) where information is available and pertinent. The three-county area 

and the listed communities also comprise the CIAA. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-86 Chapter 3 

3.4.2 Demography 

3.4.2.1 Population Dynamics and Census Data 

Population data were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau (2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2000d, 2005a, 

2005b, 2005c), Taylor and Lieske (2002a), and the Wyoming Department of Administration and 

Information (WDAI) (2001a, 2001b, 2002a, 2002b, 2003a, 2004, 2005a). EPS uses BEA 

population data, which differ from census totals; however, percentages tend to approximate 

calculations based on census data. 

Lincoln County 

As shown in Table 3.23, Lincoln County population increased by 19.7% between 1980 and 2000 

(EPS, using BEA population estimates, indicated an 18% increase in population). Wyoming 

census population estimates for 2004 show that the county continues to grow, experiencing an 

approximate 7.0% growth increase between 2000 and 2004 (see Table 3.23) (WDAI 2004). 

Census data for urban and rural populations for Lincoln County are provided in Table 3.24. 

Unlike the State of Wyoming, the majority of Lincoln County residents in 2000 lived in rural 

areas. 

LaBarge is the community in Lincoln County that is most likely to be affected by the proposed 

project. As summarized in Table 3.23, LaBarge’s growth has fluctuated since 1980. Between 

1980 and 2000, LaBarge had a 42.7% increase in population. However, Census 2004 population 

estimates reflect a 2.8% decline in population since 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2005a). 

Sublette County 

The Sublette County population in 2000 was 5,920, up from 4,843 (22.2%) in 1990 and up 

from 4,548 (30.2% overall) in 1980 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000a, 2000b) (see Table 3.23). 

U.S. Census estimates indicate the county’s population continues to increase, growing 

approximately12.4% between 2000 and 2004 (U.S. Census Bureau 2005a). Sublette County 

had no urban clusters or urban areas as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. Thus, the entire 

population was considered rural; 8% of the county’s population resided on farms, while 92% 

were considered non-farm residents (U.S. Census Bureau 2000d) (see Table 3.24). 

Pinedale, Big Piney, Marbleton, and Boulder in Sublette County are the communities most likely 

to be affected by the proposed project. Bondurant, Cora, and Daniel may also be affected. Census 

data for Bondurant, Boulder, Cora, and Daniel were not collected until the 2000 census. In 2000, 

Pinedale had the largest population in Sublette County (1,412), while Boulder had the smallest 

population in the entire study area (30) (see Table 3.23). According to U.S. Census Bureau 

estimates, the communities of Pinedale, Marbleton, and Big Piney in Sublette County all 

experienced growth between 2000 and 2004 (U.S. Census Bureau 2005b). Population 

increases for each community are provided in Table 3.23. 

Sweetwater County 

The Sweetwater County population in 2000 was 37,613, down from 38,823 (-3.1%) in 1990 and 

from 41,723 in 1980, thus the decrease over the 20-year study period was 9.9% (-4,110) 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2000a, 2000b) (see Table 3.23). According to U.S. Census Bureau 

estimates, population in the county increased slightly between 2000 and 2004 (.04%) 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2005a). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
T

a

ble 

3.2

3. Historic and 

Projected 

P

o

p

ulation 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project

Population1 Total Change in Population (%)1 Projected Popul

Location 

19802 19902 20002 20041,3,4 1980– 

1990 

1990– 

2000 

1980– 

2000 

2000– 

2004 20055,6 20105,6 20155

U.S. (thousands) 226,542 248,709 281,421 293,655 9.8 13.2 24.2 4.3 295,507 308,935 322,36State of Wyoming 469,557 453,588 493,782 506,529 -3.4 8.9 5.2 2.6 506,184 519,595 529,35

Lincoln County 12,177 12,625 14,573 15,626 3.7 15.4 19.7 7.2 15,551 16,466 17,27

LaBarge 302 493 431 419 63.2 -12.6 42.7 -2.8 442 468 49

Sublette County 4,548 4,843 5,920 6,654 6.4 22.2 30.2 12.4 6586 7161 769

Big Piney 530 454 408 444 -10.1 -1.3 -23.0 8.8 452 491 52

Bondurant NR 

NR 155 NR -- -- -- -- NR 

NR 

NR 

Boulder NR 

NR 30 NR -- -- -- -- NR 

NR 

NR 

Cora NR 

NR 76 NR -- -- -- -- NR 

NR 

NR 

Daniel NR 

NR 89 NR -- -- -- -- NR 

NR 

NR 

Marbleton 537 634 720 789 18.0 16.9 34.1 9.6 804 874 94

Pinedale 1,066 1,181 1,412 1,575 10.7 20.3 32.5 11.5 1,552 1,688 1,81

Sweetwater County 41,723 38,823 37,613 37,758 -6.9 -3.1 -9.9 0.4 36,645 35,567 34,29

Eden NR 

NR 388 NR -- -- -- -- NR 

NR 

NR 

Farson NR 

NR 242 NR -- -- -- -- NR 

NR 

NR 

NP 

Rock Springs 19,458 19,050 18,708 18,746 -2.1 -1.7 -3.9 0.2 18,211 17,670 17,03

1 NR = not reported; -- = not calculated due to lack of information; NP = no projection available at this geographic level. 2 Wyoming Department of Administration and Information. 2000. 1990 Census of Population and Housing: Profiles for State, Counties, and Major Cities and Towns. 

<http://eadiv.state.wy.us/pop90/pop90.htm>. Data accessed June 17, 2000 W

D

AI (2001a). Information for Bondurant, Boulder, Cora, Daniel, Eden, and Farson was not collected un

Bureau information was not collected for LaBarge until the 1990 census; however, W

D

AI reported 1980 estimates (W

D

AI 2001a). 

3 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2005a). 4 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2005b). 5 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2005c). 6 Source: W

D

AI (2004). 
3-88 Chapter 3 

Table 3.24. Urban and Rural Population and Density, 2000 

Location Urban Total 

Population1 

Rural 

Farm2 Non-Farm2 

Density per 

Square Mile 

United States 

No. of People 222,358,309 59,063,597 2,987,531 56,076,066 79.6 

Percent 79% 21% 5% 95% NA 

State of Wyoming 

No. of People 322,073 171,709 15,150 156,559 5.1 

Percent 65% 35% 9% 91% NA 

Lincoln County 

No. of People 2,958 11,653 718 10,897 3.6 

Percent 20% 80% 6% 94% NA 

Sublette County 

No. of People – 3 5,920 477 5,443 1.2 

Percent – 100% 8% 92% NA 

Sweetwater County 

No. of People 33,512 4,101 416 3,685 3.6 

Percent 89% 3% 10% 90% NA 

1 U.S. Census Bureau (2000a). 2 Total rural residents living on farms and not living on farms. 3 Sublette County has no urban population as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Sweetwater County had a population density of 3.6 people/square mile; however, unlike Sublette 

County, 89.1% (33,512) of the Sweetwater County population lived in urban clusters (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2000d) (see Table 3.24). Of the 4,101 rural residents, only 416 (10.1% of rural 

residents; 1.1% of county residents) resided on farms. Rock Springs is the community most likely 

to be affected in Sweetwater County. Eden and Farson may also be affected, though minimally. 

No census data were collected for Eden and Farson until 2000. Rock Springs reflected 

Sweetwater County’s trend, declining 2.1% between 1980 and 1990 and 1.7% between 1990 and 

2000. Overall, Rock Springs experienced a 3.9% decrease in growth from 1980 to 2000 (see 

Table 3.23). Conversely, similar to Sweetwater County, U.S. Census Bureau population 

estimates reflect a slight increase in growth (0.2%) between 2000 and 2004 (U.S. Census Bureau 

2005a, 2005b). In 2004, Rock Springs had the largest estimated population in the entire study 

area (18,746) (see Table 3.23). 

3.4.2.2 Income, Poverty, and Unemployment 

Income, poverty, and unemployment data are presented in Table 3.25. Households throughout 

the United States experienced increased income over the 20-year study period, although poverty 

levels remained relatively static and unemployment decreased. The median household income 

throughout the U.S. increased by approximately 13% between 1980 and 1990 and by 6% 

between 1990 and 2000, with a total increase of 19% (<1% average annual increase) over 

the course of the 20-year study period. U.S. Census Bureau estimates indicate that the 

median household income for the U.S. grew 3.2% between 2000 and 2002 (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2004) (see Table 3.25). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
T

a

ble 

3.2

5. Inco

me, P

o

verty, and 

U

nemplo

y

ment Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Median Household Income

1,2 ($) Personal Per Capita Income

1,2 ($) Poverty Rate

1,2 (%) Une

Location 

19803 19904 20005 20026 

Estimate 19803 19904 20005 200312 19793 19897 19995 20026 

Estimate 19808,9 

U.S. 35,194 39,599 41,994 43,318 21,280 25,787 29,469 31,472 12.4 11.8 12.4 12.1 7.1 Wyoming 41,784 35,700 37,892 39,772 24,561 23,696 27,372 32,433 7.9 11.2 11.4 10.6 4.0 Lincoln County 37,627 37,534 40,794 44,567 19,602 19,071 20,980 27,156 11.5 11.1 9.0 9.1 6.0 

LaBarge NR 12,142 18,837 NR 

NR 6,995 18,837 NR 

NR 24.5 12.3 NR 

NR 

Sublette County 36,425 35,343 39,044 45,765 25,201 24,746 26,927 33,936 9.7 8.8 9.7 7.3 2.7 

Big Piney NR 15,418 17,647 NR 

NR 8,882 17,647 NR 

NR 6.2 11.5 NR 

NR 

Bondurant NR 

NR 19,432 NR 

NR 

NR 19,432 NR 

NR 

NR 19.2 NR 

NR 

Boulder NR 

NR 12,500 NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 33.3 NR 

NR 

Cora NR 

NR 20,831 NR 

NR 

NR 20,831 NR 

NR 

NR 7.9 NR 

NR 

Daniel NR 

NR 21,213 NR 

NR 

NR 21,213 NR 

NR 

NR 24.4 NR 

NR 

Marbleton NR 15,125 18,446 NR 

NR 8,713 18,446 NR 

NR 10.1 4.2 NR 

NR 

Pinedale NR 17,030 20,441 NR 

NR 9,811 20,441 NR 

NR 12.9 8.9 NR 

NR 

Sweetwater County 50,394 47,707 46,357 50,801 10,955 16,810 28,037 32,941 5.2 7.4 7.8 7.9 3.7 

Eden NR 

NR 52,625 NR 

NR 

NR 18,392 NR 

NR 

NR 17.6 NR 

NR 

Farson NR 

NR 44,545 NR 

NR 

NR 16,140 NR 

NR 

NR 0.0 NR 

NR 

Rock Springs 19,525 19,456 51,539 NR 4,471 11,208 19,396 NR 5.8 8.5 9.4 NR 

NR 

1
 NR = not reported. 

2
 All national, state, and local area dollar estimates are in Year 2000 dollars adjusted for inflation based on U.S. average consumer price index (for urban consumers). EPS uses the urb

was also applied to inflation adjustments for this technical report to maintain consistency. Median household income is for all geographic units; personal per capita is for towns and 

of people in poverty. Unemployment rate is the percentage of people actively seeking work but unemployed. 

3
 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1981) (based on 1979 income). 4
 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1990) (based on 1989 income). 5
 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000c) (based on 1999 income). 6
 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2004) (based on 2003 income 7
 Source: W

D

AI (2001b). Poverty rate is the percent of people in poverty. 

8
 Source: W

DERP (2002a). 

9
 Source: BLS (2003). 10
 Source: W

DERP (2002b). 11
 Source: WDERP (2002c). 12
 Source: WD

AI (2005b) . 
3-90 Chapter 3 

Personal per capita income increased 21% from 1980 to 1990 and again increased (14%) 

from 1990 to 2000, for a total increase of 38% (slightly less than 2% average annual 

increase) over the 20-year study period. Wyoming estimates imply a similar trend for the state 

as a whole, with a 7% increase in personal per capita income between 2000 and 2003 (WDAI 

2005b). Overall, for the 20-year study period, poverty levels did not change in the U.S., although 

they dropped slightly from 1979 to 1989 then increased again by 1999 (U.S. Census Bureau 1981, 

1990, 2000a) (see Table 3.25). The unemployment rate in the U.S. dropped throughout the 20­

year study period, from 7.1% (1980) to 4.0% (2000). The unemployment rate rose to 6.0% in 

2003 (BLS 2003,WDAI 2005b). 

The median household income throughout Wyoming fell by nearly 15% between 1980 and 

1990 and grew 6% between 1990 and 2000, for a total decline of 9% over the course of the 

20-year study period (-0.5% average annual decline]) (see Table 3.25). The state’s median 

household income grew 5% between 2000 and 2002 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004). 

The median household income in Lincoln County fell by 0.2% between 1980 and 1990, then 

grew by nearly 9% between 1990 and 2000, for an overall increase of 8% for the 20-year 

study period (0.4% average annual increase). Between 2000 and 2002, median household 

income increased by 9.2% (see Table 3.25) (U.S. Census Bureau 2004). The median 

household income in Sublette County fell by nearly 3% between 1980 and 1990, then 

increased by 10% between 1990 and 2000, for an overall increase of 7% (0.4% average 

annual growth) over the 20-year study period. Household income increased 17.2% from 

2000 to 2002 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004). The median household income in Sweetwater 

County fell by 5% between 1980 and 1990 and fell again by 3% between 1990 and 2000, for 

an overall decrease of 8% (-0.4% average annual change) over the course of the 20-year 

study period (see Table 3.25). Median household income increased 9.6% from 2000 to 2002 

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). 

Personal per capita income in 2000 in Wyoming was $27,372, whereas personal per capita 

income in the study area ranged from $28,037 in Sweetwater County to $20,980 in Lincoln 

County (see Table 3.25). The poverty rate in Wyoming was 11.4% in 1999, while poverty rates in 

the study area ranged from 33.3% in Boulder (Sublette County) to 0.0% in Farson (Sweetwater 

County) (U.S. Census Bureau 2000a). 

In distinct contrast to national increases, Wyoming’s personal per capita income fell by 3.5% 

from 1980 to 1990 but experienced a recovery of 15.5% from 1990 to 2000, for an overall 

increase of 11.4% (only 0.5% average annual growth) over the 20-year study period (see Table 

3.25). This trend continues with an 18% increase in personal per capita income from 2000 to 

2003 (WDAI 2005b) From 1980 to 2000, personal per capita income in Lincoln County 

increased 7.0% but only slightly exceeded the poverty level ($18,244), Sublette County increased 

by 6.8%, and Sweetwater County increased 155.9%. 

In Wyoming, the poverty rate increased over the 20-year study period, from 7.9% in 1979 to 

11.4% in 1999 (U.S. Census Bureau 1981, 1990, 2000a). During the two-year span between 

2000 and 2002, the poverty rate decreased to 10.6 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004). 

The unemployment rate for Wyoming rose from 1980 (4.0%) to 1990 (5.5%), then decreased 

to 3.9% by 2000 Wyoming Department of Employment, Research, and Planning (WDERP) 

2002a, 2002b, 2002c). In 2003, the unemployment rate for Wyoming rose slightly to 4.4% 

(WDAI 2005b). In Lincoln County, the poverty rate decreased slightly from 1979 (11.5%) to 

1989 (11.1%) and decreased again to 9.0% by 1999. The poverty rate rose slightly to 9.1% in 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-91 

2002 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004). In Sublette County, it decreased from 9.7% in 1979 to 8.8% 

in 1989 but, despite the gains in personal income, increased back to 9.7% by 1999. The poverty 

rate decrease to 7.3 in 2003 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004). In Sweetwater County, the poverty 

rate increased 42% 1979–1989 but only increased 5% 1989–1999 and remained constant 

2002–2004 (U.S. Census Bureau 1981, 1990, 2000c, 2004; WDAI 2001b). 

Similar to that experienced by the state, unemployment followed a rise-and-fall pattern in 

the study area. In Lincoln County the unemployment rate increased from 6.0% in 1980 to 

6.6% in 1990, then falling to 5.2% in 2000 and increased again to 5.8 in 2003 (WDERP 

2002a, 2002b, 2002c, WDAI 2005b). The 2000 unemployment rate in Sublette County 

(3.8%) was lower than the state overall and was the lowest unemployment rate in the study 

area. The unemployment rate increased from 2.7% in 1980 to 3.8% in 2000 and then 

decreased to 2.8 in 2003 (WDERP 2002a, 2002b, 2002c, WDAI 2005b ). In Sweetwater 

County, the unemployment rate increased from 3.7% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1990, then 

decreased to 4.8% by 2000 and to 4.3% in 2003 (WDERP 2002a, 2002b, 2002c; WDAI 

2005b). 

Data were not collected for LaBarge until the 1990 census. LaBarge has experienced trends 

similar to the state, with median household income increasing by approximately 55.1% 

(4% average annual growth [see BLM 2005 for formula used to calculate average annual 

growth]) from 1990 to 2000 (see Table 3.25). Personal per capita income increased more than 

169.3% (10% average annual growth) between 1990 and 2000. Despite the dramatic increase, the 

per capita income of LaBarge barely exceeds the poverty level (set at $18,244). The poverty rate 

has significantly decreased—from 24.5% in 1989 to 12.3% in 1999—however, it still exceeds the 

poverty rate in both the state and county, as well as the other counties in the study area. 

Complete information for the potentially affected communities in Sublette County is not available 

for all study years. Big Piney, Marbleton, and Pinedale have experienced increases in both 

median household income and personal per capita income since 1980 (see Table 3.25). Marbleton 

had the highest increase in median household income (22.0%; 2.2% average annual growth) and 

personal per capita income (111.7%; 8% average annual growth). Despite the increase, the per 

capita income of Marbleton barely exceeds the poverty level. No personal per capita income is 

reported for Boulder. The median household income in Boulder in 2000 was only $12,500— 

68.5% of the poverty level (set at $18,244). The highest reported poverty rates in the three-county 

study area in 2000 were in Sublette County: Boulder (33.3%), Daniel (24.4%), and Bondurant 

(19.2%). Although poverty in Sublette County has remained relatively stable, the poverty rates in 

Marbleton and Pinedale have decreased since 1989. 

Rock Springs experienced a decline in median household income (-0.4%) from 1980 to 1990 but 

experienced an increase (164.9%) from 1990 to 2000, for an overall increase of 164.9% (5.0% 

average annual growth) over the 20-year study period (see Table 3.25). Personal per capita 

income increased (150.7%) from 1980 to 1990 and again from 1990 to 2000 (73.1%), for an 

overall increase of 333.8% (8% average annual growth) over the course of the 20-year study 

period. Despite the increase in personal income, the poverty level increased from 5.8% in 1979 

to 8.5% in 1989 and continued to rise to 9.4% by 1999 in Rock Springs. 

Information for Eden and Farson in Sweetwater County was not collected until the 2000 census. 

However, the median household income in Eden was the highest in the three-county study area 

($52,625), and Farson had the lowest poverty level in the three-county study area in 1999 (0.0%) 

(see Table 3.25). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-92 Chapter 3 

3.4.2.3 Workforce Age, Gender, and Disabilities 

Workforce information was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau (2000e, 2000f). For the 

purposes of this report, the civilian labor force is defined as all persons between 16 and 66 years 

of age (retirement age is 67) in the civilian non-institutional population who either had a job or 

were looking for a job in the last 12 months and who did not have an employment disability. For 

the purposes of the last census, employment disability was defined as a condition lasting for 6 

months or more: 

•	 that limited the kind or amount of work that he or she could do at a job, 

•	 that prevented him or her from working at a job, 

•	 that made it difficult to go outside the home alone (for example, to shop or visit a 

doctor’s office), and 

•	 that made it difficult to take care of his or her own personal needs such as bathing, 

dressing, or getting around inside the home. 

Based on the age of residents, employment disability information, and unemployment rates in 

each county, there is a civilian labor force of approximately 1,719 unemployed working-age 

residents available for employment in the study area (Table 3.26). However, there may be some 

disconnect between published data and actual available labor. A labor shortage has been reported 

in all sectors in Sweetwater County, with as many as 600 job vacancies existing in November 

2004 (Mast 2004). Additionally, Halliburton has reported having difficulty filling the 100 new 

jobs created by its new facility in Rock Springs (Mast 2004). 

3.4.3 Housing 

Historical information on housing in Lincoln, Sublette, and Sweetwater Counties was obtained 

from the WDAI (2002a), and information on projected housing availability was obtained from the 

Wyoming Business Council (2002); these data are presented in Table 3.27. Numbers of 

authorized building permits for 1980–2004 were obtained from the Wyoming Housing Database 

Partnership (WHDP) (2005) and are listed in Table 3.28. Rental rates and costs in the three 

counties as compared to those for the state as a whole were obtained from WDAI (2003b, 2005c) 

(Table 3.29), and information on second homes housing units in the study area was obtained from 

Taylor and Lieske (2002b) (Table 3.30). Housing data reported in Tables 3.27–3.30 provide an 

overall view by state and affected county and are not intended to reflect conditions within 

particular communities (e.g., Pinedale) that have already been impacted by other projects (e.g., 

Pinedale Anticline Project) in the area. For example, information and data on housing in Sublette 

County provided by the Pinedale Anticline Working Group (PAWG) SocioEconomic Task Group 

Monitoring Plan (2005) are more specific to local conditions than the data generated from WHDP 

and are used to supplement the data from both state and census sources. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-93 

Table 3.26. Population and Workforce, 20001 

Sex and Age United States Wyoming 

Lincoln 

County 

Sublette Sweetwater 

Male 

0-15 years 32,919,334 57,604 1,985 680 4,727 

16-66 years 92,539,411 168,540 4,627 2,080 13,168 

67 years and over 12,594,818 22,109 763 281 1,072 

Total males 138,053,563 248,253 7,375 3,041 18,967 

Female 

0-15 years 31,353,445 54,266 1,901 663 4,515 

16-66 years 93,508,194 162,400 4,455 1,926 12,533 

67 years and over 18,506,704 28,863 842 290 1,598 

Total females 143,368,343 245,529 7,198 2,879 18,646 

Total all ages 281,421,906 493,782 14,573 5,920 37,613 

Total working age 186,047,605 330,940 9,082 4,006 25,701 

Persons with disabilities

2 57,890,659 30,952 633 325 1,942 

Total potential workforce 128,156,046 299,988 8,449 3,681 23,759 

Unemployment rate 4.0% 3.9% 5.2% 3.8% 4.8% 

Number of Persons Available for Employment 5,126,241 11,699 439 139 1,140 

1 U.S. Census Bureau (2000e). 2 U.S. Census Bureau (2000f). 

According to the WHPD (2003), there were 4,579 vacant units available for housing in the study 

area in 2003, with the vacancy rate ranging from 12.8% in Sweetwater County to 31.8% in 

Sublette County. Average contract rent for a home in the second quarter 2005 ranged from $407 

in Lincoln-Kemmerer to $882 in Sublette County (WDAI 2005c). Median monthly mortgage 

payments were lowest in Sublette County ($847/month) and highest in Sweetwater County 

($953/month), although the median house value was lowest in Lincoln County ($95,300) and 

highest in Sublette County ($112,000) (WHDP 2003). 

Some vacant units can be attributable to second home growth in the state, particularly in 

Sublette County. Between 1990 and 2000 second homes accounted for almost 3,000 new 

housing units in Wyoming (Table 3.30). This growth represents over 14% of the total 

increase in housing units for the decade (Taylor and Lieske 2002b). The Census Bureau 

defines “second home” as housing units that do not serve as the primary residence for their 

inhabitants. Usually this type of housing is used seasonally for recreation or other purposes 

(Taylor and Lieske 2002b). 

3.4.3.1 Lincoln County 

In 2002, Lincoln County had the fewest renter-occupied units (15%, 1,024 units) in the study 

area. A total of 1,349 units (19.7%) in Lincoln County were vacant in that year. The relatively 

high percentage of such units may be attributable to the growing number of second homes in the 

county (912 in 2000, a 46.9% increase over 1990). The greatest number of residential building 

permits (204) in the study area was issued in Lincoln County (WHDP 2005) (see Table 3.28). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 3.27. Historic and Projected Housing Availability 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Wyoming 

Housing Item Historic Projected 

1980 1990 2000 2002 2007 2012 

Type of Housing1,2 

Vacant 22,593 34,572 30,246 38,804 38,706 39,582 Owner-occupied 114,653 114,544 135,514 139,391 149,399 159,413 Renter-occupied 50,971 54,295 58,094 58,736 60,422 62,098 

Total housing units 188,217 203,411 223,854 236,931 248,527 261,093 

Percent of Housing1 

Vacant 12.0 17.0 13.5 16.4 15.6 15.2 Owner-occupied 60.9 56.3 60.5 58.8 60.1 61.1 Renter-occupied 27.1 26.7 26.0 24.8 24.3 23.8 

Sublette 

Housing Item Historic Projected 

1980 1990 2000 2002 2007 2012 

Type of Housing1,2 

Vacant 802 1,077 1,181 1,155 1,177 1,201 Owner-occupied 1,121 1,281 1,737 1,820 2,055 2,289 Renter-occupied 470 553 634 652 692 733 

Total housing units 2,393 2,911 3,552 3,627 3,924 4,223 

Percent of Housing1 

Vacant 33.5 37.0 33.2 31.8 30.0 28.4 Owner-occupied 46.8 44.0 48.9 50.2 52.4 54.2 Renter-occupied 19.6 19.0 17.9 18.0 17.6 17.4 

Lincoln 

Historic 

1980 

812 

3,035 

824 

4,671 

17.4 65.0 

17.6 

1980 

1,064 9,470 4,582 

15,116 

7.0 

62.6 

30.3 

1990 

1,272 3,310 

826 

5,408 

23.5 61.2 15.3 

2000 

1,565 4,280 

986 

6,831 

22.9 

62.7 

14.4 

20

1,4,1,

6,

161

Sweetwate

Historic 

1990 

1,828 9,552 4,065 

15,445 

11.8 61.8 26.3 

2000 

1,816 

10,586 

3,519 

15,921 

11.4 

66.5 

22.1 

20

2,

10,

3,

16,

162

1 Historical data from WDAI (2002a); projected data from Wyoming Business Council (2002d). Reported average availability may not accurately reflect actual ava

communities (e.g., Pinedale) that have already been impacted by other projects (e.g., Pinedale Anticline Project) in the area. 

2 Total residential units (i.e., single family units, duplex units, tri- and four-plex units, and multi-family units) (WHDP 2003). 
Affected Environment 3-95 

Table 3.28. Authorized Building Permits, 1980–20041 

Year Lincoln County Sublette County Sweetwater County 

1980 30 82 801 

1981 59 104 516 

1982 72 101 325 

1983 41 100 213 

1984 46 72 139 

1985 54 67 93 

1986 11 68 85 

1987 9 34 72 

1988 5 21 30 

1989 2 19 34 

1990 3 37 56 

1991 9 59 80 

1992 112 50 102 

1993 132 53 99 

1994 170 74 123 

1995 175 94 90 

1996 146 69 90 

1997 86 46 75 

1998 103 68 73 

1999 143 75 51 

2000 145 54 41 

2001 218 76 38 

2002 204 88 48 

2003 180 95 63 

2004 212 93 216 

1 Source: WHPD 2005. 

LaBarge is the community in Lincoln County most likely to be affected by the proposed project. 

According to the Lincoln County Planning Department, the housing market in LaBarge has 

recently turned a corner and is stabilizing after experiencing a decrease in housing prices for the 

last several years. Housing in LaBarge is considered available but limited (Woodward 2005). 

3.4.3.2 Sublette County 

According to the 2000 Census, Sublette County had the highest percent of second home units in 

Wyoming; a total of 26.2% of all housing units in the county were second homes at that time. In 

2002, Sublette County also had the highest officially reported vacancy rate in the study area 

(31.8%, 1,155 vacant units), and the lowest number of owner-occupied units (50.2%) (see Table 

3.27). Between 1990 and 2000 the number of second homes in the county grew by 24.5%, which 

contributes significantly to the county’s very high reported vacancy rate (see Table 3.30). 

According to the County Assessor’s Office, there is a shortage of available housing in Sublette 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-96 Chapter 3 

County (Saxton 2005). Housing shortages in the northern portions of the county are such that the 

demand for housing has increased the cost of current homes on the market. 

Between 1998-2004, the cost for an average single-family home in Sublette County increased by 

65% (PAWG). Over the same time frame the statewide increase for an average single-family 

home was 35%. (PAWG). Due to the housing shortage in the County, waiting lists exist for 

rental properties. A semi-annual rental vacancy survey conducted by WDAI in Sublette County 

reported one vacant single-family house and a waiting list of 86 existed in spring 2004 (PAWG). 

As a result of the lack of housing and rental market in the County, the PAWG 2005 

socioeconomic report and monitoring plan states: 

Businesses are having to supply employees with housing. Specific examples of 

this are: White Pine Ski Area converting a building into apartments for 

employees. Sinclair Gas Station...building an addition for employee housing. 

Sublette County School District Number One buying housing for teachers and 

also creating plans for a planned unit development west of Town for teacher 

housing. Numerous instance of people converting garages into apartments and 

renting them out. Camping trailers parked on town streets with people staying in 

them (PAWG 2005:21). 

Between 2000 and 2004, the number of new building permits issued annually in the county 

increased by 72% (see Table 3.28) (WHDP 2005a). According to PAWG (2005), the housing 

shortage in Sublette County varies with the most notable shortages occurring in the Town of 

Pinedale and the surrounding areas. As such, these areas are also experiencing the greatest 

increase in new housing growth within the County. Within the town limits of Big Piney, a new 

subdivision is currently being developed, and Pinedale has several new rural subdivisions under 

construction. A total of 130 residential lots were permitted within a mile of the town of Pinedale 

in 2004 and 40 residential lots associated with new subdivisions within the town of Pinedale were 

platted (PAWG 2005). The study states that: 

Overall, the most significant increases in building are in single-family housing, 

multi-family housing, motel/hotel units, and the large amount of land being 

developed around the Town of Pinedale. The percentage increases are extreme. 

The “fringe area” land development is particularly alarming due to water 

quality issues arising from a large increase in septic systems (PAWG 2005:24). 

3.4.3.3 Sweetwater County 

In 2002, Sweetwater County had the highest number of owner-occupied units (10,722, 66.1%), 

the highest number of renter-occupied units (3,420, 21.1%), and the lowest vacancy rate (2,075 

units, 12.8%) (see Table 3.27). In 2000, the county had 243 second homes, a total of 1.5% of all 

housing units. Compared to Lincoln and Sublette Counties, Sweetwater County had the greatest 

increase in second home development between 1990 and 2000, an increase of 77.4% (see Table 

3.30). Sweetwater County also had the greatest increase in new building permits issued in the 

study area. Between 2000 and 2004, the number of new building permits issued in the county 

increased over 400% (see Table 3.28) (WHDP 2005). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
T

a

ble 

3.2

9. A

verage 

Rental Rates, 2

0

01–

2

0

051,2,3 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project

Apartment4 House5 Mobile Home6 Mo

Second Quarter Second Quarter Second Quarter S

Location Fourth 

Quarter1 

2001 

($) 

2002 

($) 

20053 

($) 

2001– 

2005 

% 

Change 

Fourth 

Quarter1 

2001 

($) 

2002 

($) 

20056 

($) 

2001– 

2005 

% 

Change 

Fourth 

Quarter1 

2001 

($) 

2002 

($) 

20053 

($) 

2001– 

2005 

% 

Change 

Fourth 

Quarter1 

2001 

($) 

2

Lincoln 292 332 -- -- 400 388 -- -- 315 304 -- -- 158 Lincoln-Afton7 NR 

NR 496 -- NR 

NR 727 -- NR 

NR 476 -- NR 

Lincoln-Kem

merer7 NR 

NR 379 -- NR 

NR 407 -- NR 

NR 374 -- NR 

Sublette 441 534 699 58.5% 613 655 882 43.9 350 457 590 68.6% 175 Sweetwater 390 392 512 31.3.5 533 516 673 26.3% 422 422 594 40.8% 201 Wyoming average 430 443 504 17.2% 599 617 693 15.7% 436 448 505 15.8% 178 1
 Source for 2001–2002 data: W

D

AI (2003b). Reported average rental rates may not accurately reflect actual rates within particular com

munities (e.g., Pinedale) that h

by other projects (e.g., Pinedale Anticline Project) in the area. 

2
 Source for 2005 data: W

D

AI (2005c). 

3
 NR = Not Reported. 4
 Two-bedroom, unfurnished, excluding gas and electric. 5
 Two or three-bedroom, single family, excluding gas and electric. 6
 This price reflects total monthly rental expense, including lot rent. 7
 Single-wide, including water. 8
 Starting in 2003 the Wyoming Cost of Living report began including Afton in Lincoln County in the comparative index. 2001 and 2005 percent change was calculated 

figures and the Lincoln-Afton and Lincoln-Kem

merer 2005 figures.


T

a

ble 

3.3

0. Seco

nd 

H

o

me 

H

o

using 

U

nits, W

y

o

ming and 

Lincoln, S

u

blette, and 

S

weetwater 

C

o

u

nties, 19

9

0

–

2

0

0

01 

1990
 2000 Change Area Name Total Second Total Second % 1990–2000 Housing Units Home Units Housing Units Home Units Second Homes 

Wyoming 203,411 9,468 223,854 12,389 5.5% 30.9% Lincoln County 5,409 621 6,831 912 13.4% 46.9% Sublette County 2,911 747 3,552 930 26.2% 24.5% Sweetwater County 15,444 137 15,921 243 1.5% 77.4% 

1

Taylor and Lieske (2002b). 
3-98 Chapter 3 

According to a November 4, 2005, Casper Star Tribune article, housing in Sweetwater County is 

inadequate for the current demand for two reasons: (1) housing in the county is not readily 

available, and (2) housing currently on the market is expensive (Gearino 2005). In the second 

quarter of 2005, the average rental cost in Sweetwater County was $512 for apartments 

(up 31.3% from the fourth quarter of 2001); $673 for houses (up 26.3%); $594 for mobile homes 

(up 40.8%); and $214 for mobile home lots (up 6.5%) (see Table 3.29). To help meet the demand 

for new housing, the Sweetwater Economic Development Association has made housing 

development a priority for the county, and it is anticipated that 500 new housing units will be 

constructed in the county by next year (Gearino 2005). 

3.4.4 Social Traditions 

The study area’s general heritage is based on ranching and mineral extraction and remains one of 

least populated and most undeveloped areas in the lower United States, with a population density 

ranging from 1.2 people/square mile in Sublette County to 3.6 people/square mile in Sweetwater 

County (see Table 3.24). Landownership is largely public (80% of Sublette County, 79% of 

Lincoln County, and 72% of Sweetwater County). Oil and gas has played a significant role in the 

regional economy since the 1920s. Historically, most of the oil and gas activity was limited to the 

LaBarge area in southwestern Sublette County and neighboring Lincoln County but now extends 

over much of the southern portion of the county. 

The social characteristics throughout the study area are similar to other small rural western 

communities and are strongly tied to traditional natural resource-based industries such as 

agriculture and extractive industries. In addition, study area residents recognize the importance 

of public lands in providing a natural resource base for economic activities, as well as supporting 

a particular way of life. Public lands often provide scenic beauty, wildlife habitat, and 

recreational opportunities. Because public lands comprise 76% of all land within the study area, 

management decisions can affect lifestyles, as well as the economic base. 

Agriculture has provided the historical basis for community development for much of the 

nineteenth century, and ranching and grazing are viewed as a viable economic activity that 

provides open space, protection of natural resources, and support of cultural and ecological 

diversity. Although agricultural activities have become much less important economically in 

recent years (providing 0.7% of industry income and 4.7% of employment in the study area in 

2000), the industry is important for its historic and cultural influence. Moreover, because 

management decisions made by the federal land managers affect ranching operations beyond 

public land boundaries, residents are concerned about the social influences these decisions have 

on local communities. 

The oil and gas industry has also played a strong role in the social character of Sublette County 

and has been an important part of the tax base for Sublette, Sweetwater, and Lincoln Counties for 

nearly 50 years. The area has experienced several boom and bust cycles throughout its history 

and has realized an increased population tied to this industry. Individuals working in this industry 

are now active members of local communities and are directly affected by federal land 

management decisions. 

In spite of the traditional social characteristics, there are indications that the views and beliefs of 

residents in the study area are changing. Some areas have seen an increase in population, 

including a combination of retirees and others attracted to this region for the abundance of 

high-quality air, water, and land resources that offer a rich quality of life and reflect a western 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-99 

wilderness heritage. This new population is not tied to traditional natural resource industries and 

is more likely to support a conservation-oriented public land management policy. 

3.4.5 Quality of Living 

Data on quality of living for each county in the study area were obtained from the WDAI (2002b, 

2005c), and the Wyoming Attorney General Office (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004). 

Due to the remote and unique area encompassed by the JIDPA, the United States in not included 

in the quality of life analysis, with the exception of crime statistics. 

3.4.5.1 Crime 

The Wyoming Attorney General, Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) produces annual 

reports on crime statistics for the State of Wyoming. Crime data are complied from the Uniform 

Crime Reporting (UCR) records submitted to the DCI by law enforcement agencies across the 

state. In 2004, 64 individual law enforcement agencies contributed UCR data that work in 

jurisdictions representing 97.6% of the state’s population. The intent of the UCR program is to 

gather relevant standardized data at the city, county, and state levels for use in compiling 

and analyzing national crime statistics (Wyoming Attorney General 2004). 

The UCR program defines crime rates as representing the number of crimes in relation to a 

population of a given jurisdiction (Wyoming Attorney General 2004). As such, crime rates are 

often used to compare crime in different areas. Serious offenses reported in UCR data are 

categorized as violent crimes (murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) or as 

property crimes (burglary, larceny theft, and motor vehicle theft) (Wyoming Attorney General 

2004). Crime rates are calculated by dividing the number of offenses by the population and 

multiplying the result by 100,000. Census estimates for 2004 were used as the base population 

figures for calculating crime rates. 

According to the U.S. Justice Department, the national crime rate of violent offenses in 2004 was 

465.5 arrests per 100,000 residents; the national crime rate for property crime was 3,517.7 per 

100,000 residents (U.S. Justice Department 2004). Compared to national crime rates, Wyoming 

had a lower crime rate for both violent crimes (228.6) and property crimes (3,352.0) in 2004 

(Wyoming Attorney General 2004). 

Based on information provided in UCR annual reports, crime rates for both violent and property 

crimes were calculated for Lincoln, Sublette, and Sweetwater Counties. Lincoln County had a 

violent crime rate of 256.0, higher than the state crime rate but lower than the national crime rate. 

The county’s property crime rate of 1,305.5 was lower than both the state and national rate. 

Sublette County had a violent crime rate of 405.8 and a property crime rate of 3,531.7; both crime 

rates were higher than the state crime rates but lower than national crime rates. Violent and 

property crime rates for Sweetwater County were higher than both the Wyoming and national 

crime rates. Crime rates for Sweetwater County were 598.5 for violent crimes 4,558.0 for 

property crime. 

In addition to reporting crime rate offenses, the UCR program reports arrest totals. BLM 2005 

provides the number of arrests in Wyoming and in the three-county study area for 1999 to 2004. 

Data presented in BLM2005 were compiled from the UCR annual reports from 1999 to 

2004. UCR reports arrests by the type of crime committed and the age (adult or juvenile) of 

the defender. According to UCR data, the number of annual total arrests in Wyoming increased 

by 368 between 1999 and 2004 (Wyoming Attorney General 2004). Arrest totals decreased for 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-100 Chapter 3 

the majority of crimes; however, the number of arrests for aggravated assault, burglary, drug 

offenses, and driving under the influence increased. 

Overall arrests in Lincoln County decreased from 435 in 1999 to 347 in 2004. In 2004, crimes 

associated with the greatest number of arrests were driving under the influence (112), drug abuse 

violations (55), all other offenses except traffic (42), aggravated assault (35), and other assaults 

(17) (Wyoming Attorney General 2004). 

Arrests in Sublette County increased from 257 in 1999 to 442 in 2004. Crimes associated with 

the greatest number of arrests were all other offenses except traffic (174), driving under the 

influence (110), other assaults (36), drug abuse violations (33), liquor law violation (25), and 

aggravated assault (14) (Wyoming Attorney General 2004). 

In Sweetwater County, arrests decreased from 3,039 reported in 1999 to 2,773 reported in 2004. 

Crimes associated with the greatest number of arrests in 2004 were all other offenses except 

traffic (674), driving under the influence (364), drug abuse violations (336) drunkenness (270), 

and Larceny-Theft (220) (Wyoming Attorney General 2004). 

3.4.5.2 Infrastructure 

County and community profile information was primarily obtained from BLM (1997b) as well as 

local community websites and other extant information. 

Lincoln County 

In Lincoln County, LaBarge is the only potentially affected community. It was incorporated in 

1973, LaBarge and is located in Lincoln County on U.S. Highway 189 approximately 75 miles 

north of Green River and 21 miles south of Big Piney. The town has a mayor/council, one fulltime and one part-time policeman, 911 emergency telephone service, and a 15-member volunteer 

fire department. There is a 6,000-volume library, one day care center, one senior center, four 

churches, one motel with 36 rooms, and a recreational vehicle (RV) park with six spaces. 

Medical services are provided by a weekly clinic and by ambulance service, and communications 

include a weekly newspaper, cable TV, and a post office. Recreational facilities include one ice 

skating rink, two baseball fields, bike paths, two parks, and a small airport. 

Sublette County 

Sublette County has three airports; 26 churches; three libraries; five medical facilities (however, 

the nearest hospitals are in Jackson and Rock Springs, Wyoming); two museums; two 

newspapers; nine post offices (Big Piney, Bondurant, Boulder, Cora, Daniel, Farson, LaBarge, 

Marbleton, and Pinedale); and two school districts including three elementary schools, two 

middle schools, two high schools, and a private school, with higher education available from 

Western Community College’s distance learning program; and utilities/services are provided by 

one telephone company, two garbage/refuse services, one cable television provider, three natural 

gas suppliers, one electricity supplier, and one coal company. Citizen organizations are important 

to Sublette County’s infrastructure and include volunteer fire departments, a search-and-rescue 

organization, and a citizen’s recycling program (Sublette.Com 2001, Pinedale Online 2002). 

The largest communities in Sublette County are Pinedale, Big Piney, Marbleton, and Boulder. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-101 

Pinedale 

Located approximately 100 miles northwest of Rock Springs and 32 miles north of the JIDPA on 

U.S. Highway 191, Pinedale is the county seat of Sublette County. The town has a mayor/council 

government, 911 emergency service, and a volunteer fire department. Police protection for the 

town is provided through contract with the Sublette County Sheriff’s Office. There is a 37,000­

volume library, one day care center, one senior center, nine churches, 12 hotels/motels with a 

total of 244 rooms, and an RV park with 44 spaces. Medical services include a clinic, two 

doctors, a physician’s assistant, one dentist, ambulance service, and a nursing home with 107 

rooms. Communications include two weekly newspapers, cable TV, a local radio station, and a 

post office. There is one golf course, one ice skating rink, bike paths, two parks, and a recreation 

center, as well as a small airport. It has been reported that there is a shortage of health-care 

providers in Sublette County (Royster 2004). Some health-care providers may work shifts up to 

52 hours straight. The Pinedale Medical Clinic serviced approximately 12,000 patients in 2003— 

mostly oil and gas workers. 

Pinedale has a variety of establishments for overnight lodging. A Best Western, Amerihost Inn, 

and Super 8 are located on the west end of town and offer the most rooms. Several smaller 

motels are located in the downtown area. The surrounding area has several bed and breakfasts, 

guest ranches and lodges, and individual cabins available for rent. Tourism in and around 

Pinedale and in Sublette County in general, is a major business with the primary attraction being 

the natural resources in the area and the many outdoor activities associated with them, including 

hunting, fishing, camping, backpacking and hiking, wilderness escapes, horseback riding, 

mountain biking, golf, wildlife viewing, downhill skiing, cross-country skiing, and 

snowmobiling. 

Big Piney 

Big Piney is located on U.S. Highway 189 about 95 miles north of Green River and 35 miles 

southwest of Pinedale. The town has a mayor/council government, 911 emergency service, and a 

voluntary fire department. Police protection is provided by the Sublette County Sheriff’s Office. 

There is a 40,000-volume library, one day care center, six churches, and three motels. Medical 

services include two doctors, one dentist, and ambulance service. Communications include a 

weekly newspaper, cable TV, and a post office. There is one ice skating rink, one bike path, three 

parks, three baseball fields, one swimming pool, and a small airport. 

Marbleton 

Marbleton is located on U.S. Highway 189 1 mile north of Big Piney. Marbleton has an RV park 

and picnic grounds, two motels, a coffee shop and restaurant, gas stations, retail shops, a movie 

theater, a medical clinic, and an airport. 

Boulder 

Boulder is an unincorporated community located on U.S. Highway 191 12 miles south of 

Pinedale and 85 miles north of Rock Springs. Boulder has a post office and the Boulder Store, 

which includes a store, gas station, RV park (nine spaces), motel (nine rooms), restaurant, and 

bar. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-102 Chapter 3 

Sweetwater County 

Sweetwater County is located in the southwestern part of Wyoming with 60 miles of its border 

touching the states of Utah and Colorado. The county consists of 10,497 square miles. The two 

largest cities in the county are Rock Springs and Green River. 

Rock Springs 

Established in 1888 as a mining town, the cultural tradition in Rock Springs emphasizes natural 

resources as the driving force behind its economy (Rock Springs Chamber of Commerce 2004). 

Rock Springs is located along Interstate 80 in west-central Sweetwater County and serves as the 

economic hub of the area. Law enforcement and fire protection services are available, as well as a 

911 emergency number. Public education is provided by 11 elementary schools, two junior high 

schools, one high school, and Western Wyoming Community College (2-year junior college). 

Community services consist of two libraries (107,000 total volumes), eight day care centers, and 

32 churches. Commercial services include two shopping centers, five convention facilities (with 

a total capacity of 4,660 persons), 31 hotels/motels (1,680 total rooms), an RV park (50 spaces), 

and several mobile home parks. Medical care is provided by a hospital (100 beds), a nursing 

home (100 rooms), 33 doctors, 24 dentists, and an ambulance service. Communications consist of 

two local newspapers (one published in Rock Springs and one in Green River), cable TV, two 

AM and three FM radio stations, and two post offices. 

Recreation resources include 17 baseball fields, 24 tennis courts, six swimming pools, eight 

soccer fields, a golf course, one ice skating rink, two recreation centers, and 24 parks. Outdoor 

recreation sites available within 30 miles of the city include Flaming Gorge National Recreation 

Area and on BLM-administered lands, including Boar’s Tusk, sand dunes, petroglyphs, and the 

Oregon/California Trails. Cultural/entertainment attractions include the Red Desert Rodeo, Wild 

Horse Days, the Sweetwater County Museum, the historical Rock Springs City Hall Museum, the 

Fine Arts Center, and the Western Wyoming Community College Dinosaur Collection. Rock 

Springs is serviced by two commercial airlines providing flights to and from the Rock Springs 

Airport, two bus lines, four car rental services, and two taxi services. 

Eden/Farson 

Eden and Farson are two unincorporated communities located on U.S. Highway 191 about 40 

miles northwest of Rock Springs and 28 miles southeast of the JIDPA. The communities are 

governed by Sweetwater County and have a resident sheriff’s officer and highway patrolman, a 

26-member volunteer fire department, ambulance service, and 911 emergency phone service. 

There are four churches, two gas stations, two cafes, two bars, and a convenience store. 

Recreational facilities include a youth center and a county park. 

Eden and Farson are not serviced by a doctor, nurse, or dentist, although there is an emergency 

medical technician service. The nearest medical facility is in Rock Springs. There is one 

elementary and one secondary school. Bridger Valley Electric supplies energy and three vendors 

supply propane for heating. Residents have individual wells and septic systems, and solid waste 

disposal facilities are available. 

3.4.5.3 Cost of Living and Inflation 

Cost of living and inflation information is collected by the WDAI and used to build a 

Comparative Cost of Living Index for each of Wyoming’s 23 counties. Lincoln County ranked 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-103 

18th in the state in the fourth quarter of 2002 (Table 3.31). Beginning in 2003, WDAI no longer 

reported cost of living for Lincoln County as whole but divided the county into a northern portion 

(Lincoln-Afton) and southern portion (Lincoln-Kemmerer) (WDAI 2005c). In the second quarter 

of 2005, Lincoln-Afton ranked fifth and Lincoln-Kemmerer ranked 17th for cost of living. 

Lincoln-Afton reported an all-items index of 103 and the state’s fourth highest housing index of 

107. Sublette County rose from the third most expensive county in Wyoming in the fourth quarter 

of 2002 to the second most expensive county in the second quarter of 2005 (see Table 3.31). 

In 2005, the county had the highest cost of living in the study area with an all-items ranking of 

112, a seven-point increase from the second quarter 2002 (see Table 3.31). Sweetwater County 

was ranked ninth in the state in the fourth quarter of 2002 and rose to eighth in the second quarter 

of 2005 (see Table 3.31). 

The inflation rate represents the percent change in the price level of a standard basket of selected 

consumer items priced this quarter, compared with the price level of the same goods recorded one 

year ago. WDAI (2003b, 2005c) weighted the data by population to more accurately represent the 

price changes experienced by the majority of consumers in Wyoming (Table 3.32). Nationally, 

the inflation rate from December 2001 to December 2002 was 2.4% (consumer price index for 

urban consumers), as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Inflation is reported only 

at the regional level within Wyoming. The study area is in the southwest region. 

The Wyoming annual all-items inflation rate for the second quarter of 2005 was 4.5.% (see Table 

3.32), with the transportation category experiencing the highest inflation rate for the second 

consecutive period. Inflation rates for medical ranked second overall; however, rates had 

decreased since the fourth quarter 2004.) Inflation is reported only at the regional level within 

Wyoming. The study area falls within the southwest region of the state, which consists of 

Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, and Uinta Counties. This region had a 6.6% inflation rate in the 

second quarter of 2005, the highest in Wyoming, ranking higher than the state average of 4.5 and 

the U.S. average of 2.5(WDAI 2005c). 

Because the regional inflation rates are calculated using a smaller sample size than the state-wide 

all items rate, they may be more volatile over time. Thus, when using the regional inflation rates, 

it must be noted that they can vary significantly from quarter to quarter. 

3.4.5.4 Education 

Detailed information on education statistics in the study area is provided in BLM (2005). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-104 Chapter 3 

Table 3.31. Comparative Cost of Living Index for Each Wyoming County Compared with the 

Statewide Average of 1001,2 

Fourth Quarter 2002 

Rank County All Items Food Housing Apparel Transportation Medical Recreation and 

Personal Care 

1 Teton 139 105 174 121 104 110 111 

2 Sheridan 106 107 107 120 100 107 104 

3 Sublette 105 96 107 123 101 97 110 

4 Campbell 105 100 111 87 99 101 102 

5 Laramie 104 107 109 94 98 100 97 

6 Johnson 103 105 100 132 100 99 106 

7 Albany 102 94 107 103 101 99 96 

8 Natrona 99 105 98 103 100 98 96 

9 Sweetwater 98 100 95 94 100 99 103 

10 Park 97 99 92 107 101 102 101 

11 Carbon 94 105 85 91 102 96 107 

12 Converse 94 95 90 89 100 98 98 

13 Fremont 93 89 91 87 101 99 100 

14 Hot Springs 93 98 83 102 102 104 103 

15 Uinta 93 92 89 87 100 105 98 

16 Goshen 91 93 85 99 99 97 99 

17 Platte 91 100 80 107 100 95 100 

18 Lincoln 91 90 84 102 100 92 99 

19 Big Horn 89 96 77 117 100 95 99 

20 Washakie 89 92 78 112 99 101 98 

21 Niobrara 88 90 74 104 101 103 106 

22 Crook 87 93 76 98 100 93 101 

23 Weston 87 89 76 93 101 109 100 

Second Quarter 2005 

Rank County All Items Food Housing Apparel Transportation Medical Recreation and 

Personal Care 

1 Teton 139 104 173 127 105 111 108 

2 Sublette 112 102 118 125 101 99 114 

3 Sheridan 105 109 103 129 98 109 105 

4 Campbell 104 103 108 98 101 95 102 

5 Lincoln-Afton 103 94 107 101 101 103 106 

6 Laramie 103 109 108 86 98 99 93 

7 Albany 102 90 107 103 100 101 99 

8 Sweetwater 102 99 104 95 101 104 98 

9 Johnson 100 108 95 136 100 91 98 

10 Natrona 98 99 96 100 100 95 103 

11 Carbon 96 103 91 90 101 105 100 

12 Park 95 100 90 101 100 103 99 

13 Fremont 94 92 89 90 102 101 104 

14 Converse 93 95 88 87 100 98 104 

15 Uinta 93 93 90 94 99 93 94 

16 Hot Springs 91 108 76 121 101 103 96 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-105 

Table 3.31. (Continued) 

Second Quarter 2005 

Rank County All Items Food Housing Apparel Transportation Medical Recreation and 

Personal Care 

17 Lincoln-Kemmerer 90 89 83 100 100 88 111 

18 Crook 90 92 81 112 101 94 100 

19 Platte 90 100 78 105 99 106 101 

20 BigHorn 89 96 77 118 100 99 102 

21 Niobrara 89 94 78 109 102 101 94 

22 Washakie 88 95 73 115 100 101 106 

23 Goshen 88 91 78 93 99 104 96 

23 Weston 86 87 76 92 100 102 99 

1 Fourth quarter 2002. Prices as of January 8, 9, and 10, 2003 (statewide average = 100) (WDAI 2003b). 2 Second quarter 2005. Prices as of July 6,7, and 8, 2005 (statewide average = 100) (WDAI 2005c). 

Table 3.32. Annual Inflation Rates in Wyoming by Category (Statewide Average)

1 

Category (%) 

Quarter

2 

All Items Food Housing Apparel Transportation Medical 

Recreation 

and Personal 

Care 

Weights 100.0 14.7 46.3 5.8 17.1 5.8 10.3 

4Q96 4.8 9.3 2.4 7.0 7.0 4.1 2.9 

2Q97 2.8 4.9 2.1 2.8 2.4 3.3 2.8 

4Q97 2.9 4.5 2.5 -0.6 0.9 4.7 5.0 

2Q98 1.5 2.6 0.9 3.6 0.0 0.2 3.7 

4Q98 2.2 2.8 2.6 4.0 -2.2 0.7 6.2 

2Q993 2.6 3.7 3.2 1.1 0.7 3.0 2.3 

4Q99 3.1 4.7 2.5 -0.2 4.5 3.4 3.1 

2Q00 4.3 4.9 3.6 -1.2 7.9 5.2 3.3 

4Q00 3.2 1.8 3.9 -0.4 2.9 4.0 3.9 

2Q01 4.3 3.0 6.6 3.1 1.6 4.0 2.0 

4Q01 3.5 5.0 4.5 1.8 -0.1 7.3 2.3 

2Q02 2.5 1.9 3.1 0.5 -0.4 5.9 4.3 

4Q02 3.7 3.3 3.1 4.5 4.7 6.0 3.9 

2Q03 2.9 4.2 3.0 3.6 1.2 4.3 1.8 

4Q03 3.6 5.1 5.7 2.2 -1.2 3.0 1.4 

2Q04 4.9 5.2 6.3 1.8 4.8 5.0 -0.4 

4Q04 4.3 4.2 4.8 0.4 5.9 5.5 0.4 

2Q05 4.5 3.1 5.1 1.0 6.2 5.0 1.5 

1 WDAI (2003b) was the source of data for 4Q96–2Q02; WDAI (2005c) was the source of data for 4Q02–2Q05. 2 4Q96 = fourth quarter (October, November, December) 1996. Fourth quarter represents the December to December and 2nd Quarter represents the 

June to June percent change. 3 The 2Q99 inflation calculations mark the first time the WCLI used all 23 counties to calculate the inflation rates. Previously, only 15 counties were 

used. The inflation rate represents the percent change in the price level of a standard basket of selected consumer items priced this quarter, 

compared with the price level of the same goods recorded one year ago. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
.

.

3-106 Chapter 3 

3.4.6 Wages and Personal Income 

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reports data adjusted to current dollars using the 

Consumer Price Index (CPI). CPI data were obtained from the BLS (2003, 2005). CPI is a 

measure of the average change in prices over time in a market basket of goods and services. 

The estimate for 2003 was based on the change in the CPI from fourth quarter 2001 to fourth 

quarter 2002, and the base year was chained (i.e., three years were averaged to obtain a base year 

for the calculation of the CPI; e.g., 1982-1984 = 100). The BLS uses the following formula to 

make the calculation. 

Inflation Factor = (Current Year CPI / Year “X” CPI)


Current Year Dollars = Year “X” Dollars × Inflation Factor


The CPI values and inflation factors used by EPS are listed in Table 3.33. Average wage 

information was obtained from BEA (2002, 2005a) and is summarized in Table 3.34. Personal 

income trend data were obtained from the BEA (2003b). Table 3.35 shows the components of 

personal income for 1980, 1990, and 2000 for the counties in the study area and Wyoming. 

A detailed analysis of personal income trend data is presented in BLM (2005). 

Table 3.33. CPI and Inflation Factors, 1980–20041,2 

Year CPI Inflation Factor

2 Year CPI Inflation Factor2 

1980 82.4 2.09 1993 144.5 1.19 

1981 90.9 1.89 1994 148.2 1.16 

1982 96.5 1.78 1995 152.4 1.13 

1983 99.6 1.73 1996 156.9 1.10 

1984 103.9 1.66 1997 160.5 1.07 

1985 107.6 1.60 1998 163.0 1.06 

1986 109.6 1.57 1999 166.6 1.03 

1987 113.6 1.52 2000 3 172.2 1.00 

1988 118.3 1.46 2001 177.1 0.97 

1989 124.0 1.39 2002 179.9 0.96 

1990 130.7 1.32 2003 184.0 .94 

1991 136.2 1.26 2004 188.9 .91 

1992 140.3 1.23 

1 Obtained from BLS (2003). 2 Obtained from BLS (2005) 3 Inflation Factor = CPI current year/year "X" CPI. 4 2000 is the current year (base year) for the purposes of this analysis (i.e., inflation factor = 1.00--the base year when $1 is worth $1). 

Table 3.34. Wages and Job Numbers 

Area Average Wage Per Job ($)

1,2 Number of Jobs3 

1980 2000 2003 1980 2000 2003 

United States 29,254 34,647 37,130 114,231,200 167,283,800 167,487,500 

Wyoming 32,004 26,549 29,793 279,650 328,532 342,363 

Lincoln County 31,618 25,050 30,273 6,591 8,125 9,311 

Sublette County 27,816 24,783 29,887 2,812 3,965 4,704 

Sweetwater County 39,568 33,748 37,460 25,503 24,281 25,017 

1 The employment estimates used to compute the average wage are a job, not person, count. People holding more than one job are counted in the 

employment estimates for each job they hold. Source: BEA (2002); source for 2003 data: BEA (2005a). 2 All national, state, and local area dollar estimates are in Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 3 Source for 1980 and 2000 data: BEA (2003e); source for 2003 data: BEA (2005b)). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
T

a

ble 

3.3

5. Perso

nal Inco

me 

by 

Major S

o

urce

1 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project

U.S. Wyoming Lincoln County Sublette County 

Income Item 

1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 198

Income Source 

Labor Income 

(earnings from 

work) 

3,615,178,085 4,622,364,468 6,088,880,000 9,481,940 7,530,552 9,006,059 211,327 176,954 186,814 82,942 73,132 86,531 1,079

Less: Personal contributions for social insurance2 

160,889,971 267,369,815 357,843,000 (434,627) (443,716) (538,454) (9,960) (10,862) (11,294) (3,425) (3,845) (4,888) (57,

Plus/minus: 

Adjustment for 

residence3 

(948,772) (971,013) (1,060,000) (160,186) (15,830) (33,158) (20,687) (7,190) (1,374) 1,112 2,897 4,546 (68,

Equals: Net earnings 

by place of residence 

3,453,339,342 4,354,023,640 5,729,977,000 8,887,127 7,071,006 8,434,447 180,680 158,902 174,146 80,629 72,184 86,189 953

Plus: Dividends, 

interest, and rent4 

797,599,471 1,299,148,210 1,598,302,000 1,941,106 2,512,872 3,770,663 41,514 56,371 93,968 28,756 36,812 62,205 109

Plus: Transfer payments 

584,706,772 783,610,132 1,070,592,000 818,364 1,166,353 1,600,213 20,804 27,112 39,839 6,921 11,835 16,721 62

Total personal 

income (TPI) 

4,835,645,585 6,436,781,982 8,398,871,000 11,646,597 10,750,231 13,805,323 242,998 242,386 307,953 116,306 120,831 165,115 1,125

Per capita personal 

income (PCPI)5 

21,280 25,787 29,760 24,561 23,696 27,941 19,602 19,071 21,041 25,201 24,864 27,741 12

1 Source: BEA (2003a). Thousands of Year 2000 dollars adjusted for inflation unless otherwise noted. All national, state, and local estimates are in current dollars adjusted for inflati

CPI (for urban consumers). EPS uses the urban consumer base; therefore, it was also applied to inflation adjustments for this technical report to maintain consistency. EPS uses unc

some tabular information; therefore, totals presented by EPS may vary slightly from those shown in this document. 

2 Personal contributions for social insurance (e.g., Medicare) are included in earnings by type and industry but they are excluded from personal income. 3 The adjustment for residence is the net inflow/outflow of the earnings of inter-area com

muters (i.e., live in Sweetwater County, work in Sublette County, net inflow to Sublette Coun

Sweetwater County). 

4 Rental income of persons includes the capital consumption adjustment. 5 PCPI as calculated by the BEA is not the same as personal per capita income reported by the census; therefore, they may not be identical. 
3-108 Chapter 3 

3.4.7 Industry and Economy 

3.4.7.1 Overview 

Gross state product (GSP) is the value added to production by the labor and property located in a 

state (BEA 2003f). The BEA calculates GSP for a state as the sum of gross state product 

originating by industry of all industries. This measure of GSP is the state counterpart of the 

nation’s gross domestic product by industry from the national income and product accounts (BEA 

2003f). Further detail is provided in BLM (2005). 

3.4.7.2 Wyoming Industry and Industry Employment 

The BEA calculates income and gross state product information at the Standard Industrial 

Classification (SIC) two-digit level. The data for GSP (Table 3.36) are presented at the simplified 

one-digit SIC code level for the purposes of this report, with the exceptions of mining (coal, 

metal, and non-mineral) separated from oil and gas and government separated into federal 

civilian, federal military, and state and local. Table 3.37 provides employee compensation data in 

order to make a comparison of state-wide income growth in relation to GSP changes. Detailed 

analysis of Wyoming industry is presented in BLM (2005). 

3.4.7.3 Industry Employment 

Data were obtained from BEA regarding total annual employment by industry for the study area 

and for Wyoming for 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2003 to examine trends over the 20-year study 

period. These data are presented in Table 3.38. More detailed industry employment information 

for the counties as well as an analysis of industry employment for the State of Wyoming is 

presented in BLM (2005). 

Lincoln County 

All employment categories in Lincoln County added 1,534 jobs from 1980 to 2000, an increase of 

23.3% (1% average annual growth) (see Table 3.38). Agriculture services, forestry, and fisheries 

experienced the greatest percentage of job growth (365.6%; 8% average annual growth) during 

the 20-year study period. The greatest number (-842) and highest percentage (-62.0%; -5% 

average annual loss) of job losses occurred in mining from 1980 to 2000. From 2000 to 2003, 

1,186 new jobs were added (4.8% average annual growth), with construction providing the largest 

number of those new jobs (763) and 17.5% of all jobs in Lincoln County. The largest number of 

jobs (-406) was lost in retail trade, while the highest percentage of job loss (-61.7%) was in the 

transportation, communication, and public utilities (TCPU) sector. 

Sublette County 

Industry employment in Sublette County added 1,153 new jobs from 1980 to 2000, an increase of 

41.0% (2% average annual growth) (see Table 3.38). Agriculture services, forestry, and fisheries 

experienced the greatest percentage of growth (388.9%; 8% average annual growth) during the 

20-year study period. The greatest number (-68) and highest percentage (-38.6%; -2% average 

annual loss) of job losses occurred in TCPU from 1980 to 2000. Between 2000 and 2003, 739 

new jobs were added in Sublette County (6.2% average annual growth). Mining accounted for the 

largest increase in the number of jobs (320), providing 13.7% of all jobs in Sublette County. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
T

a

ble 

3.3

6. W

y

o

ming 

Gross State 

Pro

d

uct

1 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Gross State Product (GSP) 

1980 1990 2000 Gro

Industry 

GSP % of GSP 

GSP % of GSP 

GSP % of GSP 1980–1990 19

Agriculture 619 2.7 510 2.9 468 2.4 -17.6 Mining (metal, coal, non-mineral) 3,162 14.0 1,920 10.9 1,437 7.5 -39.3 Oil and Gas 6,499 28.8 4,215 23.8 3,089 16.2 -35.2 Construction 1,601 7.1 573 3.2 1,015 5.3 -64.2 Manufacturing 917 4.1 779 4.4 1,335 7.0 -15.1 T

C

PU 2,236 9.9 2,661 15.0 2,510 13.1 19.0 

Wholesale Trade 802 3.6 505 2.9 773 4.0 -37.1 Retail Trade 1,273 5.6 1,053 6.0 1,403 7.3 -17.3 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 2,023 9.0 1,648 9.3 2,285 12.0 -18.5 Services 1,500 6.7 1,505 8.5 2,202 11.5 0.3 Government 

Federal Civilian 391 1.7 427 2.4 501 2.6 9.2 Federal Military 196 0.9 246 1.4 277 1.4 25.4 State and Local 1,312 5.8 1,650 9.3 1,817 9.5 25.7 

Total Gross State Product 22,532 100.0 17,690 100.0 19,112 100.0 -21.5 

1
 Source: BEA (2003f), millions of Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 
Table 3.37. Compensation of Employees 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Compensation Paid to Employees ($000,000) 

from Gross State Product (GSP)1 

Industry 1980 1990 2000 

% of % of % of 

Paid Total Paid Paid Total Paid Paid Total Paid 

Agriculture 148 1.7 100 1.5 132 1.6 Mining (metal, coal, nonmetallic) 1,220 14.0 655 9.6 518 6.4 Oil and Gas 1,014 11.6 426 6.3 580 7.2 Construction 997 11.4 402 5.9 642 7.9 Manufacturing 422 4.8 364 5.3 461 5.7 TCPU 932 10.7 780 11.5 762 9.4 Wholesale Trade 416 4.8 250 3.7 299 3.7 Retail Trade 775 8.9 622 9.1 799 9.9 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 255 2.9 237 3.5 308 3.8 Services 832 9.5 895 13.2 1,393 17.2 Government 

Federal Civilian 380 4.4 398 5.9 443 5.5 

Federal Military 173 2.0 217 3.2 226 2.8 State and Local 1,166 13.4 1,455 21.4 1,547 19.1 

Total Gross State Product 8,731 100.0 6,798 100.0 8,108 100.0 

Growth 

1980–1990 1990–

-32.5 31.

-46.3 -20.9 

-58.0 36.

-59.7 59.

-13.9 26.

-16.3 -2.

-39.8 19.4 

-19.8 28.5 

-7.0 29.9 

7.6 55.7 

4.6 11.

25.3 4.0 

24.7 6.4 

-22.1 19.

1Source: BEA (2003c), Year 2000 dollars adjusted for inflation. 
T

a

ble 

3.3

8. E

mplo

y

ment by In

d

ustry1 

Number of Jobs 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

I ndustry Lincoln County Sublette County Sweetwater County 

1980 1990 2000 2003 1980 1990 2000 2003 1980 1990 2000 2003 1980 

Farm employment 851 733 698 671 429 402 412 385 266 220 205 197 14,504 12Agriculture services, forestry, fishing 

and other 

32 77 149 100 27 83 132 99 48 81 188 (D) 2,016 3

Mining (coal, metal, nonmetal, oil and 

gas) 

1,359 667 517 642 276 315 325 645 7,318 4,989 3,717 (D) 38,523 20

Construction 575 444 863 1,626 388 261 427 502 3,282 1,533 1,509 (D) 25,805 15Manufacturing 467 614 530 345 31 (D) 2 91 (D) 494 745 1,649 1,232 10,512 1TCPU 503 568 582 223 176 145 108 116 2,208 1,987 1,785 1,173 19,169 16Wholesale trade 196 80 133 (D) 25 (D) 55 16 773 648 615 (D) 10,055 7Retail trade 821 1,083 1,389 983 499 409 603 461 3,743 3,739 4,447 2,946 43,998 47Finance, insurance, and real estate 287 307 471 601 147 184 228 284 693 1,125 1,127 1,304 16,334 17Services 576 1,040 1,278 1,785 395 599 905 977 3,605 3,760 4,749 5,133 48,437 6Federal, civilian 117 146 110 127 62 91 96 107 304 262 266 250 7,539 7Federal, military 63 75 84 84 39 28 41 41 214 228 215 206 6,335 6State government 109 136 126 133 54 74 72 (D) 203 278 269 287 10,988 13Local government 635 903 1,195 1,299 264 364 470 (D) 2,352 3,261 3,540 3,463 25,435 3Total full-time and part-time 

employment 

6,591 6,873 8,125 9,311 2,812 2,955 3,965 4,704 25,503 22,856 24,281 25,017 279,650 272

1
 Source: BEA (2003e). 2
 (D) = not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals. BEA does not provide this information. 
3-112 Chapter 3 

The retail trade sector experienced the largest decline in jobs (-142), and wholesale trade 

experienced the great percentage of job loss (-70.9%) 

Sweetwater County 

Industry employment in Sweetwater County lost 1,222 jobs from 1980 to 2000, a decrease 

of 4.8% (0.2% average annual decrease) (see Table 3.38). Agriculture services, forestry, 

and fisheries experienced the greatest percentage of growth (291.7%; 7.1% average annual 

growth) during the 20-year study period. The greatest number (-3,601) and highest percentage 

of job losses (49.2%; 3.3% average annual loss) occurred in mining from 1980 to 2000. 

Between 2000 and 2003, 736 new jobs were added (1.0% average annual growth), with the 

services sector providing the greatest number of those new jobs (384) and 20.5% of all jobs in 

Sweetwater County. The greatest number (-1,501) and highest percentage of job losses (-33.8%; ­

11.3% average annual loss) occurred in retail trade. 

3.4.7.4 Industry Earnings 

Wyoming 

Wyoming experienced a loss in total gross earnings for all industries (private non-farm, farm, and 

government) of 5.0% from 1980 to 2000 (Table 3.39). In 1980, total mineral extraction was 

the largest source of industry earnings in Wyoming (25.0%), and government (federal 

civilian, military, state, and local government) provided 17.4% of income. Mining (metal, 

coal, nonmetallic) led the individual categories (13.4% of all income) in 1980, followed by 

services (12.5%), construction (11.9%), oil and gas extraction (11.6%), and transportation, 

communication, and public utilities (9.8%) (see Table 3.39). 

Wyoming’s mining and minerals sector contributes more to GSP than any other sector of the 

economy (Foulke et al. 2001). Minerals (including oil and gas) accounted for 23.7% of 

Wyoming’s GSP, or over $4.5 billion in 2000 (see Table 3.36), and supported approximately 

19,387 full-time wage earners, or 5.9% of Wyoming’s employment base (see Table 3.38) (BEA 

2003e). 

In 2000, government led industry income, providing 23.4% of income, followed by services 

(20.0%), retail trade (9.3%), construction (8.5%), and transportation, communication, and public 

utilities (8.3%) (see Table 3.39). 

In real terms, for the 20-year study period, Wyoming industry income fell in farm; mining; oil 

and gas; construction; transportation, communication, and public utilities; wholesale trade; and 

retail trade. The most industry income growth occurred in non-farm agricultural services 

(156.4%; 4.8% average annual growth) and government (27.5%; 1.2% average annual growth) 

(see Table 3.39) (BEA 2003e). 

Lincoln County 

In 1980, total mineral extraction was the greatest source of industry income (36.4% of all income) 

in Lincoln County (see Table 3.39). In 2000, total government led industry income (23.4%). 

Total mineral extractions provided 14.2% of industry income. Over the 20-year study period 

(1980–2000), non-farm agricultural services led industry growth (188.1%; 5.4% average annual 

growth). Losses occurred in total mineral extraction (-65.4%), and farm income (-60.0%). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 3.39. Earnings by Industry1 

Wyoming Lincoln County Suble

1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 

Thousands 

of $ % Thousands of $ % Thousands of $ % Thousands of $ % Thousands of $ % Thousands of $ % Thousands of $ % Thous

of 

Farm2 179,991 1.9 191,042 2.5 95,760 1.1 6,685 3.2 5,559 3.1 2,675 1.4 5,935 7.2 8,2Nonfarm agricultural services, forestry, 

fishing, and other3 30,425 0.3 50,777 0.7 77,999 0.9 403 0.2 513 0.3 1,165 0.6 357 0.4 6

Mining (metal, coal, nonmetallic)4 1,265,969 13.4 637,410 8.5 589,053 6.5 56,356 26.7 28,946 16.4 15,921 8.5 50 0.1 3,0Oil and gas extraction5 1,102,210 11.6 673,330 8.9 750,850 8.3 20,493 9.7 5,747 3.2 10,688 5.7 16,551 20 10,9Construction 1,131,352 11.9 498,755 6.6 768,822 8.5 23,211 11.0 15,296 8.6 25,949 13.9 15,425 18.6 7,6Manufacturing5 433,727 4.6 365,436 4.9 478,173 5.3 12,825 6.1 17,514 9.9 12,887 6.9 610 0.7 1,4Transportation and public utilities 924,125 9.7 740,282 9.8 751,189 8.3 24,867 11.8 29,076 16.4 29,519 15.8 8,071 9.7 5,5Wholesale trade5 414,417 4.4 250,765 3.3 302,921 3.4 6,654 3.1 2,038 1.2 2,289 1.2 1,003 1.2 7Retail trade 875,953 9.2 695,019 9.2 840,999 9.3 16,725 7.9 15,501 8.8 16,062 8.6 9,143 11 5,8Finance, insurance, and real estate 290,903 3.1 247,437 3.3 446,611 5.0 5,124 2.4 4,182 2.4 6,131 3.3 1,989 2.4 1,4Services 1,180,316 12.4 1,206,898 16.0 1,796,451 19.9 11,832 5.6 14,783 8.4 19,792 10.6 11,245 13.6 10,6Federal government, civilian 374,702 4.0 382,042 5.1 421,904 4.7 4,942 2.3 6,000 3.4 5,538 3.0 2,610 3.1 4,1Military 164,959 1.7 206,034 2.7 215,018 2.4 508 0.2 925 0.5 1,178 0.6 792 1.0 3State government 372,796 3.9 437,358 5.8 435,192 4.8 4,017 1.9 4,556 2.6 4,183 2.2 2,102 2.5 2,4

Local government 740,096 7.8 947,968 12.6 1,035,117 11.5 16,685 7.9 26,319 14.9 32,837 17.6 7,057 8.5 9,4Total Earnings 9,481,940 100 7,530,552 100 9,006,059 100 211,327 100 176,954 100 186,814 100 82,942 100 70,4

1 Source: BEA (2003a). Thousands of Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 2 Farm income consists of proprietors'income; the cash wages, pay-in-kind, and other labor income of hired farm workers; and the salaries of officers of corporate farms. 3 "Other" consists of wage and salary disbursements to U.S. residents employed by international organizations and foreign embassies and consulates in the United States. 4 Calculated by subtracting oil and gas extraction from total mining. 5 Oil and gas extraction for Sublette County in the year 2000 was not disclosed. Therefore, the value shown was estimated for the year 2000 using the constant share of total method based on the average of the shares for 1980 and 1990 and is likely u

manufacturing and wholesale in Sublette County in 1990 based on the average of the shares for 1980 and 2000. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-114 Chapter 3 

Sublette County In 1980, total m

less than 0.1%) o

provided the mo

County grew du

growth). Mining 

going from an a

annual rate of 5.

annual average 

County industry 

Sublette County 

of 0.3%. 

Sweetwater Cou

In 1980, total m

provided 10.8%) 

extraction provi

Sweetwater Couannual average l

3.4.8 Taxes The minerals in

governments in 

the minerals indu

Produced minera

taxes: (1) the co

Producers pay c

equipment, pipe

operations. Mill 

applied against 

production is c

commercial, agri

Mineral produce

the right to ob

government, the 

production, or an

for minerals ow

royalty payment
Affected Environment 3-115 

Table 3.40. Wyoming General Fund Revenues, Fiscal Year Collections by Source

1 

Fiscal Year Ad Valorem Severance Tax Sales & Use Tax PWMTF Income Pooled Income2 Charges-Sales Franchise Tax Revenue from Others

3 Penalties4 Federal Aid and Grants All Other5,6 Total (Production) and Services 

1980 12,907,248 79,282 245,683 25,061 30,410 31,495 15,746 10,131 1,491 9,464 21,444 13,377,455 

1981 15,367,554 90,952 267,396 34,650 29,553 31,587 16,067 7,943 2,056 9,826 20,182 15,877,767 

1982 14,162,407 201,201 293,965 46,613 37,622 17,129 10,296 13,356 2,304 2,806 21,938 14,809,638 

1983 13,737,084 190,796 224,897 78,946 53,131 16,971 15,007 16,229 2,788 442 40,612 14,376,904 

1984 13,903,877 181,963 200,116 93,578 48,802 15,005 14,169 13,363 1,976 3,840 29,000 14,505,689 

1985 12,532,055 182,560 196,486 108,030 52,254 13,681 14,484 18,681 2,501 3,858 42,055 13,166,647 

1986 9,384,099 169,940 196,322 113,788 57,582 17,242 18,627 14,206 1,273 707 26,932 10,000,718 

1987 8,934,607 104,407 154,576 112,297 36,053 15,142 30,329 21,040 1,432 1,273 31,046 9,442,200 

1988 8,340,254 96,495 150,859 105,738 25,878 14,398 15,197 11,271 1,181 756 22,310 8,784,337 

1989 8,435,621 90,777 138,466 98,671 21,377 15,829 14,580 13,149 1,691 1,406 20,005 8,851,573 

1990 8,415,025 97,318 134,719 113,515 67,982 13,997 14,336 9,724 3,642 977 22,153 8,893,390 

1991 7,653,645 99,741 140,803 119,046 50,717 13,195 16,843 10,913 4,386 3,244 22,080 8,134,614 

1992 7,579,071 83,109 142,873 113,807 66,214 16,555 15,162 14,060 5,093 5,504 14,362 8,055,810 

1993 7,497,211 78,431 149,419 105,277 31,049 17,424 15,267 10,088 3,938 8,781 12,857 7,929,742 

1994 7,240,946 75,800 217,771 99,976 26,045 17,785 14,739 16,551 5,381 9,062 38,561 7,762,616 

1995 7,257,937 63,816 236,956 96,731 30,693 18,128 15,593 4,600 10,779 11,944 13,641 7,760,818 

1996 7,842,694 67,661 229,365 94,964 29,839 18,286 13,759 4,389 2,203 12,194 15,166 8,330,520 

1997 7,983,933 76,075 230,870 98,944 25,997 19,093 14,439 5,577 6,010 12,731 13,225 8,486,894 

1998 7,422,008 73,484 247,974 106,994 24,687 19,197 14,073 6,317 7,148 11,153 17,499 7,950,534 

1999 8,162,297 60,905 242,616 110,437 26,174 21,017 11,823 7,245 6,070 10,639 20,143 8,679,364 

2000 10,542,096 83,616 262,339 117,485 26,192 18,799 13,629 14,830 5,809 8,189 64,712 11,157,696 

2001 10,860,274 135,256 288,143 94,684 33,886 20,001 14,614 9,807 6,430 10,643 20,712 11,494,450 

2002 9,897,515 112,170 299,678 86,637 27,869 19,966 16,368 7,210 6,088 8,498 26,159 10,508,158 

2003 12,802,262 139,958 281,654 54,887 17,982 19,155 18,341 7,673 9,482 9,911 25,580 13,386,885 

2004 Not Available 168,106 297,749 89,437 26,178 22,116 19,823 4,846 8,233 10,622 31,620 ­

Total Growth (%) (1980–2000) -18.32 5.47 6.78 368.79 -13.87 -40.31 -13.45 46.39 289.74 -13.48 201.77 

Average Annual (%) -1.01 0.27 0.33 8.03 -0.74 -2.55 -0.72 1.92 7.04 -0.72 5.68 

Total Growth (%) (2000–2004) - 101.0 13.5 -23.9 -0.5 17.6 45.4 -67.3 41.7 29.7 51.1 ­

1 Source: Consensus Revenue Estimating Group (CREG) (2003, 2005). In thousands of Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 2 Pooled income revenues earned on water development funds were no longer distributed to the General Fund beginning in FY93. 3 In FY94, this category received an additional $2.9 million in interest on severance tax protests. The rest of the difference in this series between FY94 and FY95 is primarily because revenues from Workers'Compensation ($6.8 million in FY94) and the Retirement System Board's Trust & Agency Fund ($0.8 million in FY94) no longer flowed into the General Fund 

beginning in FY95. However, the expenditure responsibilities were also shifted away from the General Fund at that time. Consequently, there was no net loss in actual General Fund revenues as a result of these changes. 4 Total revenues in this category in FY95 included $4.1 million in severance tax penalty and interest and interest received during the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles transition period and an additional $2.8 million from an oil audit settlement. 5 This category includes all 1200 series tax revenue, except sales and use taxes, inheritance tax (revenue code 1401), license and permit fees (2000 revenue series), property and money use fees (4000 revenue series, excluding investment income), and non-revenue receipts (9000 revenue series). The inheritance tax total for FY94 included $21.0 million in revenue 

from a single estate settlement, and in FY00 it totaled $45.1 million. 6 Inheritance taxes will provide revenue to the general fund at diminishing rates through FY05. Due to federal legislation, the tax will be completely phased-out by FY06. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

-16.59 

-0.90 
3-116 Chapter 3 

A severance tax 

extracting, sever

according to Wyand cities and to 

detail is provided The Permanent 

severance taxes 

The fund balanc

et al. during the 

Natural gas alo

PWMTF. Gas, o

severance added 

political subdivi

legislature to allo

Royalties 

A mineral royal

payment or roya

value of produc

12.5% of the val

mineral royalties 

cities. Unlike sev

and oil prices s

mineral revenue 

production. Na

market perceptio

income were dec

late 1999, the v

distributed by th

all counties and 

State mineral roy

Payments in Lie

The federal gove

to property taxe

federal land ma

payment in lieu 

[Public Law 103

Law 105-83, No

effective Septem
T

a

ble 

3.41. S

u

m

mary 

of Mineral Severance 

Taxes Received 

by 

W

y

o

ming and 

Directly 

Distrib

uted to 

All W

y

o

ming 

and 

Project-Affected 

C

o

u

nties and 

Cities in the 

Stu

dy 

Area 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Distributions (Thousands of $)1 

Tax and Distribution Entity 1980 1990 2000 2001 2002 200Total Received by Wyoming2 219,889 331,196 275,123 434,534 287,457 401,6A

mount Distributed to All Counties2 -- 8,628 8,559 15,171 6,081 5,7

Lincoln County3 -- -- 159 405 231 1

Sublette County3 -- -- 61 159 94 

Sweetwater County3 -- -- 489 1,175 595 4

A

mount Distributed to All Cities2 -- 25,885 21,506 32,136 14,498 13,6

LaBarge4 -- -- 27 53 22 Big Piney4 -- -- 25 49 21 Marbleton4 -- -- 35 74 37 

Pinedale4 -- -- 65 140 72 

Rock Springs4 -- -- 1,056 2,121 959 7

1 In Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation; -- = data not available. 

2 Source: CREG (2003, 2005). Total direct disbursements to cities and counties, not including capital construction or other funds. 3 Sources: Lum

mis et al. (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004). Distributions to counties. Total distributions reported by Lum

mis et al. do not add to the total reported as revenue received 

4 Source: Lum

mis et al. (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004). Distributions to towns and cities. Total distributions reported by Lum

mis et al. do not add to the total reported as revenue re
3-118 Chapter 3 

Table 3.42. Summary of Federal Mineral Royalties Received by Wyoming and Directly 

Distributed to All Counties and Cities and Project-Affected Counties and Cities

1,2 

Distributions (Thousands of $)

3 

Tax and Distribution Entity 1980 1990 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Total Received by Wyoming4 198,742 222,188 309,093 434,676 334,703 447,693 504,474 

Amount Distributed to Counties

4 n/d 1,389 n/d n/d n/d ND ND 

Amount Distributed to Cities

4 -- 20,830 19,588 21,678 17,820 17,449 16,892 

LaBarge5 -- -- 61 60 55 68 65 

Big Piney5 -- -- 66 64 55 67 65 

Marbleton5 -- -- 86 88 86 108 104 

Pinedale5 -- -- 147 152 154 198 190 

Rock Springs

5 -- -- 1,010 1,002 994 1,622 1,533 

1 Includes coal lease bonuses. 2 FY98 coal revenues include $8.0 million in protest severance taxes that were from prior production years. 3 In Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation; -- = data not available; n/d = no distribution. 4 Consensus Revenue Estimating Group (CREG) (2003). Total direct disbursements to cities and counties, not including capital construction or other 

funds. 5 Lummis et al. (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004). Distributions to towns and cities. Total distributions reported by Lummis et al. do not add to the total 

reported as revenue received in CREG (2003, 2005). 

Table 3.43. Summary of State of Wyoming 

Mineral Royalties

1 

Fiscal Year Thousands of $1 

1980 -­

1990 -­

2000 34,099 

2001 56,021 

2002 35,455 

2003 52,821 

1 Historical data for state-owned mineral royalties are not readily


available and are generally not included in socioeconomic analyses


prepared by Wyoming state agencies. WDAI (2002a, 2004)


PILT payments are based on three factors: 

• eligible federal acres in the county, 

• federal revenue-sharing going to the county the prior year, and 

• county population up to the pre-determined ceiling. 

Since 1998, PILT payments received by Wyoming have increased by 63.9% (Table 3.44). 

The three-county study area has experienced a similar increase. 

Lincoln County PILT payments increased 74.2%, Sublette County payments increased 58.9%, 

and Sweetwater County PILT payments increased 58.0% over the past 6 years. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-119 

Table 3.44. Total PILT Payments and Total Acres

1 

Location 1998 1999 

PILT Payments/Acres 

2000 2001 2002 2003 

Wyoming 

Payment ($) 8,118,173 8,208,280 8,318,110 11,828,099 12,392,400 13,304,416 

Acres 29,917,112 29,893,541 29,885,632 29,884,922 29,889,764 29,877,970 

Lincoln County 

Payment ($) 384,723 406,667 418,646 598,093 617,577 670,171 

Acres 1,946,836 1,946,805 1,946,765 1,946,631 1,947,558 1,947,558 

Sublette County 

Payment ($) 258,703 247,508 256,483 360,764 376,237 411,150 

Acres 2,432,160 2,432,000 2,431,960 2,431,960 2,431,305 2,431,305 

Sweetwater County 

Payment ($) 910,456 929,377 949,649 1,281,416 1,333,882 1,438,845 

Acres 4,609,862 4,606,891 4,606,891 4,606,888 4,606,888 4,606,799 

1 Coupal et al. (2003) and BLM (2003c), in year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 

Property Taxes (Ad Valorem Taxes) 

The taxable valuation of all mineral production in Wyoming fell 18% from $12.9 billion in 1980 

to $10.5 billion in 2000 (-1.1% average annual decline) (Wyoming Department of Revenue 

2002). Foulke et al. (2001) believe that mineral revenues will continue to rise and that gas 

production, particularly, will drive future revenues higher for the foreseeable future. Assessed 

production values are presented in Table 3.45. 

Table 3.45. Total State-Assessed Mineral Production Valuations

1 

Mineral Type 

1980 1990 

Taxable Valuation (Thousands of $) 

2000 2001 2002 2003 

Oil 4,847,711 2,561,672 1,438,976 1,047,618 1,068,000 1,169,559 

Natural Gas 1,402,442 1,057,631 3,365,841 3,765,627 1,894,848 4,949,226 

Coal 1,616,744 1,487,154 1,336,116 1,461,147 1,500,000 1,736,164 

Trona 290,327 236,359 206,219 202,916 203,520 183,491 

All Other Minerals 256,679 52,660 59,909 59,256 57,600 60,619 

Total Mineral Taxable 

Valuation 8,413,904 5,395,476 6,407,060 6,536,564 4,723,968 8,099,061 

Other Property 4,493,344 3,019,549 4,135,036 4,297,663 4,466,016 4,759,703 

Total 12,907,248 8,415,025 10,542,096 10,834,228 9,189,984 12,858,764 

1 Consensus Revenue Estimating Group (2003), thousands of year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-120 Chapter 3 

Wyoming Department of Revenue reports indicate that in 2002, natural gas production 

contributed the greatest proportion of taxable value to the state (34.8%), followed by residential 

land and improvements (18.5%), mining production (15.9%), and oil production (9.7%) 

(Table 3.46). In 2004 natural gas production continued to contribute the greatest proportion of 

taxable value to the state (38.5%), again followed by residential land and improvements (17.8%), 

mining production (15.4%), and oil production (9.1%) (see Table 3.46). 

Table 3.46. Proportionate Taxable Valuation of Various Classes of Property in Wyoming, 

1998–2004 

Proportion of Taxable Value

1 

Property 

(Ranked Highest to Lowest According to 2002 Proportions) 

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Natural gas production 19.20% 18.60% 20.60% 31.90% 34.80% 24.30% 38.50% 

Residential lands and improvements 19.90% 22.60% 22.00% 18.50% 18.50% 21.80% 17.80% 

Mining (coal, minerals, and non-minerals) 20.00% 41.60% 19.50% 15.20% 15.90% 19.60% 15.40% 

Oil production 14.70% 8.80% 11.50% 13.70% 9.70% 10.50% 9.10% 

Industrial and manufacturing property 8.90% 9.80% 8.70% 7.10% 7.40% 8.10% 6.40% 

Commercial lands and improvements 1.50% 5.60% 5.20% 4.20% 4.40% 4.90% 4.00% 

Railroads 1.70% 2.00% 2.20% 1.70% 1.80% 2.00% 1.60% 

Electric/gas-privately owned 2.50% 2.60% 2.30% 1.60% 1.60% 1.80% 1.60% 

Commercial personal property 1.50% 1.70% 1.60% 1.30% 1.30% 1.60% 1.30% 

Agricultural lands 1.90% 2.00% 1.80% 1.30% 1.30% 1.50% 1.30% 

Natural gas pipelines 0.90% 1.10% 1.10% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 0.90% 

Electric-cooperatives 1.50% 1.10% 1.00% 0.70% 0.60% 0.80% 0.60% 

Major telecommunications 0.70% 0.70% 0.81% 0.70% 0.60% 0.50% 0.30% 

Residential personal property 0.60% 0.60% 0.57% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.30% 

Liquid pipelines 0.60% 0.70% 0.67% 0.40% 0.40% 0.50% 0.30% 

Rural telecommunications 0.20% 0.30% 0.23% 0.20% 0.20% 0.20% 0.20% 

Cellular/reseller telecommunications

2 <0.1% 0.10% 0.16% 0.10% 0.20% 0.20% 0.10% 

Airlines <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% 0.05% 0.03% 

Electric-municipal <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% 0.06% 0.04% 

1 Columns may not total to 100% due to rounding. Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004). 2 Designated as radio-telephones in 1998. 

Sales, Use, and Lodging Tax 

Wyoming has had sales and use taxes since 1935. Sales taxes apply to the retail sale of personal 

property or services within the state. A use tax is levied on any sale of any property outside the 

state of Wyoming for use, storage, or consumption inside the state of Wyoming. 

Wyoming counties, cities, and towns benefit from sales and use tax collections. Each month, the 

treasurer’s office in each county sends the sales tax collections to the Wyoming Department of 

Revenue, which distributes the money. Currently, two-thirds of the 4% sales tax collections go to 

the state general fund, and one-third (minus 1% for state administrative purposes) is returned to 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-121 

the cities, towns, and counties. The money returned to the cities and counties is based on where 

the purchase occurred and the population of the city or county (which is based on the last federal 

census). Counties that have 1% optional sales taxes or a 1% capital facilities tax keep 100% of the 

additional 1% collected. The state’s share of the sales tax revenue is distributed to the General 

Fund. Effective tax rates for the study area as of 2002 are listed in Table 3.47. 

Table 3.47. Sales, Use, and Lodging Tax Rates by County (Effective 

April 1, 2003)

1 

Tax Rate Lincoln Sublette Sweetwater 

State Sales Tax Rate 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 

General Purpose Option Tax 1.0% -- 1.0% 

Specific Purpose Option Tax -- -- 0.5% 

Subtotal 5.0% 4.0% 5.5% 

Lodging Tax 2.0%2 3.0% 2.0% 

Total Tax Rate 7.0% 7.0% 7.5% 

1 Wyoming Department of Revenue (2003). 2 Note: Lodging tax is imposed only in Afton (i.e., not in a county-wide base). 

County sales tax rates can fluctuate from year to year because county option taxes originate and 

expire at varying times; therefore, only the total state imposed sales tax (4%) will be used for this 

analysis. State use tax is imposed on purchases made outside a taxing jurisdiction for first use, 

storage, or other consumption within that jurisdiction (see Table 3.47). Thus, the use tax prevents 

sales tax avoidance or the payment of a lesser tax rate by making purchases outside of the taxing 

jurisdiction where first use, storage, or other consumption will occur. Wyoming taxing 

jurisdictions are the State of Wyoming and/or each Wyoming county. Use tax is a complement of 

sales tax. Effective January 1, 1981, the adoption of an optional sales tax required a change in the 

use tax rate of equal amount. State use tax is shared between state government and the county of 

origin on the same distribution basis as sales tax. Therefore, the revised rate and allocation, as 

mentioned earlier in the sales tax description, applies here as well. 

Cities, towns, and counties, by voter approval, may impose a lodging excise tax of up to 4% on 

all sleeping accommodations for guests staying less than 30 days (see Table 3.47). This tax 

extends to mobile accommodations such as tents, trailers, and campers, as well. All collections 

(less a 2% state administrative cost during the first year the tax is imposed and 1% thereafter) are 

distributed to the cities, towns, and counties of origin. At least 90% of the tax distributions must 

be used to promote travel and tourism within the county, city, or town imposing the tax. 

The amount remaining, not to exceed 10% of the total amount distributed, may be used for 

general revenue within the governmental entity imposing the tax. 

3.4.9 Study Area Taxes and Revenues 

3.4.9.1 Availability of Information 

Reporting of tax and revenue information has evolved with the development of the internet and 

the ease of publishing large volumes of information; this evolution has led to an unavailability of 

certain reports and information that predate 1998 (Yurek pers. comm.). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-122 Chapter 3 

Oil and gas field operations support employment in many industries. Firms whose primary 

activity is operating oil and gas wells, exploring for oil and gas, or providing oil and gas field 

services are included in SIC 13, mining--oil and gas extraction. But many employers in other 

industries such as wholesale trade and transportation, communications, and public utilities depend 

on business from oil and gas service companies (WDERP 1999). According to Bullard in 

WDERP (1999: Table 1 and Map 1), the Sublette and Sweetwater County economies are highly 

dependent on oil and natural gas extraction (15.2% and 5.8%, respectively), while Lincoln 

County is moderately dependent (4.2%) on the oil and gas industry. 

While it is not possible to determine the proportion of funds each city and county spends on each 

item of infrastructure and services derived from oil and gas revenues, example budgets for Big 

Piney, Pinedale, and Sublette County are presented in BLM (2005). Funds received by Sublette 

County in recent years have been used for capital improvements, such as a new courthouse, jail, 

land fill, senior centers, and public clinic upgrade, and surpluses have been placed in reserve 

accounts to develop savings for future requirements (Langford pers. comm.). Funds received in 

Big Piney in excess of normal operating have also gone to capital improvements (Brown pers. 

comm.). 

3.4.9.2 State Royalties 

In total, royalties in Wyoming arising from natural gas production on state lands increased by 

nearly 62.0% from 1998 to 2002 (Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments [WOSLI] 

2002). Oil royalties rose and fell, but overall grew 5.6% from 1998 to 2002. Between 2002 and 

2004, natural gas royalties in Wyoming increased by 148.9% and oil royalties grew 40.7% 

(WOSLI 2004). 

In Lincoln County, royalties from natural gas production on state lands fell 21.5% from 1998 to 

2002. Oil royalties have risen and fallen, but generally declined in Lincoln County, falling 17.3% 

from 1998 to 2002. The only other mineral royalty paid to Lincoln County in 2001 and 2002 from 

state lands was for sand and gravel (WOSLI 2002). Between 2002 and 2004, natural gas 

royalties in Lincoln County increased by 75.8%, while oil royalties decreased by 2.3% 

(WOSLI 2004). 

In contrast, Sublette County has experienced significant increases in royalties from natural gas 

and oil production on state lands. Royalties from natural gas increased by 81.9% from 1998 to 

2002. Oil royalties increased even more dramatically (155.9%) from 1998 to 2002. The only 

other mineral royalty paid to Sublette County in 2001 and 2002 from state lands was for sand and 

gravel (WOSLI 2002). Between 2002 and 2004, natural gas royalties in Sublette County 

increased by 124.4%. Oil royalties grew only 4.9% ( WOSLI 2004). 

Sweetwater County royalties from natural gas production on state lands increased by more than 

17.1% from 1998 to 2002. Oil royalties also increased (20.6%; 3.8% average annual growth) in 

Sweetwater County from 1998 to 2002. Sweetwater County received most of its royalties from 

(and is the only county in Wyoming to receive royalties from) trona mining but also received 

royalties from coal (2000, 2001, 2002), limestone (2000), uranium (2002), and sand and gravel 

(2001, 2002). Between 2002 and 2004, natural gas royalties in Sweetwater County increased 

by 294%, while oil royalties decreased by 3.9% ( WOSLI 2004). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-123 

3.4.9.3 Ad Valorem Valuation and Taxes Levied 

Due to changes in agency reporting methods, information from 1980 and 1990 was only 

minimally available. Ad valorem valuations for the study area illustrating tax source and 

allocation are presented in BLM (2005). 

3.4.9.4 Sales, Use, and Lodging Tax Collections 

Sales, use, and lodging tax collection information is presented for Wyoming and the three-county 

study area in BLM (2005). 

3.4.10 Recreation Economics 

Because the JIDPA lies almost entirely within the PFO area, recreation economics are evaluated 

only within this area. However, some additional demand is likely in other areas (e.g., Lincoln 

and Sweetwater Counties). See BLM (2005) for more detailed analysis. 

3.4.10.1 Nonconsumptive Recreation 

Table 3.48 shows the recreational visitor days (RVDs) per activity for the PFO for a 4-year period 

from 1998 to 2002 (BLM 2003d). (These data are considered to be somewhat inaccurate.) 

During this time, over 300,000 RVDs are estimated to have occurred annually within the PFO 

area for a variety of activities. The most popular of these activities were float or raft trips, 

fishing, camping, and hiking/walking/running. Hunting is addressed separately (Section 3.4.10.2). 

3.4.10.2 Hunting 

Hunting is also popular within the PFO area. Much of this activity occurs on BLM-managed land 

because this land provides habitat for many species, including big game, small game, and upland 

game birds. Pronghorn is the only big game species likely to be hunted in the JIDPA; therefore, 

the economics of hunting other big game species are not addressed further in this EIS. 

The entire JIDPA lies within the Sublette Pronghorn Antelope Herd Unit, which occupies 

approximately 6.7 million acres (Table 3.49). BLM is responsible for management of 64% of the 

surface of the Sublette Herd Unit; the USFS is responsible for management of 4% of the surface; 

4% is managed by the Bureau of Reclamation; and 26% is in State of Wyoming and private 

ownership. Pronghorn hunting was estimated from WGFD data because WGFD regulates the 

sport and keeps data on hunting use by animal and by area throughout Wyoming (Table 3.50). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-124 Chapter 3 

Table 3.48. Estimated Annual Recreational Visitor Days, PFO Area

1 

Annual Recreational Percent of Total Activity Visitor Days

2 Activity 

Archery 760 0.24 

Backpacking 4,118 1.29 

Bicycling–Mountain 5,066 1.58 

Bicycling–Road 16 0.01 

Camping 35,168 10.99 

Climbing–Mountain/Rock 458 0.14 

Driving for Pleasure 4,182 1.31 

Environmental Education 55 0.02 

Fishing 73,227 22.89 

Hiking/Walking/Running 30,581 9.56 

Horseback Riding 732 0.23 

Nature Study 880 0.28 

Off-highway vehicles (OHVs)/All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) 1,268 0.40 

OHVs – Cars/Trucks/Sport Utility Vehicles 155 0.05 

Pack Trips 2,746 0.86 

Photography 880 0.28 

Picnicking 1,366 0.43 

Power Boating 789 0.25 

Row/Float/Raft 138,630 43.32 

Skiing – Cross-Country 2,123 0.66 

Snowmobiling 12,368 3.87 

Staging/Comfort Stop 829 0.26 

Swimming/Water Play 854 0.27 

Viewing Wildlife 2,727 0.85 

Total Recreational Visitor Days 319,978 100.00 

1 From BLM (2003d). 

Table 3.49. Herd Unit and Landownership in the JIDPA1 

Herd Unit Name Total Acres Ownership/Management (acres) Disturbed within 

Federal State/Private Unit (acres) 

Sublette Antelope Herd Unit 6,749,440 4,994,586 1,754,854 85,000 

1 Source: BLM (2004b). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-125 

Table 3.50. Summary of Hunters and Hunter-Days for Potentially Project-Affected Big Game 

Species in the PFO Area, 20021 

Wyoming Sublette Antelope Herd Unit 2 

Species Hunters per Year

3 

Total Resident Nonresident 

Hunter-Days per Year

3,4 

Total Resident Nonresident 

Hunters per Year

3 

Total Resident Nonresident 

Hunter-Days per Year

3,4 

Total Resident Nonresident 

Pronghorn 33,569 15,776 17,793 101,989 51,208 50,781 4,382 2,881 1,501 13,490 9,356 4,134 

1 Source: WGFD (2003a). 2 The proposed project area is encompassed within the Sublette Antelope Herd Unit. 3 Calculated from Harvest, Hunting Pressure, Hunter Success by Hunt Area 2002 reports for each species. Totals may not match statewide summary 

tables. 

4 WGFD defines a “hunter-day” as any day hunting occurred, regardless of actual time spent hunting. These data are based on licensed hunter survey 

reports. 

Furbearers, Small Game, Upland Birds, and Waterfowl 

Furbearers likely occur within the JIDPA, which lies within Furbearer Management Area 7 

(WGFD 2003b). Weasel, badger, skunk, coyote, red fox, and bobcat are likely to occur and may 

be hunted/trapped in the vicinity of the project area. WGFD has not collected hunter expenditure 

information for these species (WGFD 2003d); therefore, they are not addressed further herein. 

The JIDPA lies within Small Game Management Area 7 (WGFD 2003b); however, due to habitat 

limitations, only greater sage-grouse and desert cottontail rabbit are likely to occur and be hunted 

on the JIDPA (Table 3.51). The WGFD has not collected hunter expenditure information for all 

small game species that may potentially occur and may occasionally be hunted and trapped on the 

JIDPA (WGFD 2003d); therefore, impact analysis is provided only for desert cottontail rabbit and 

greater sage-grouse. 

Waterfowl Area 5B encompasses the JIDPA, and ducks and geese may be hunted in the vicinity 

of the project area. The WGFD has not collected hunter expenditure information for all waterfowl 

species that may potentially occur and may occasionally be hunted on the JIDPA (WGFD 2003d); 

therefore, these species are not addressed further herein. 

Table 3.51. Summary of Potentially Project-Affected Small Game and Upland Bird Hunters and 

Hunter-Days in the JIDPA, 20021 

Species Total Wyoming Area 72 (Eden) 

Number of Hunters Hunter Days Number of Hunters Hunter Days 

Desert cottontail rabbit 5,814 25,566 316 1,981 

Greater sage-grouse 2,947 7,164 271 938 

Total 8,761 32,730 587 2,919 

1

WGFD (2003b).
 2

Encompasses the JIDPA in its entirety.


3.4.10.3 Value of Recreational Use 

Recreational activities (nonconsumptive and hunting) have important economic value both in 

terms of the satisfaction provided to local residents and visitors and the economic activity it 

generates for the regional economy. Recreation generates additional spending in the local 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-126 Chapter 3 

economy that supports jobs and income. Economic stimulus occurs as non-residents visit the area 

and spend money in the local economy, which in turn generates additional spending by local 

residents. It is assumed that if local residents were not participating in recreation, they probably 

would have spent their money on something else in the region’s economy. Thus, expenditures by 

local residents are seen as a shifting of dollars from one sector to another within the local 

economy and not a net gain to the region. However, dollars that remain within the community 

when local residents have satisfactory recreational opportunities are important. Keeping dollars 

within the local economy helps maintain jobs, thus reducing employment and income fluctuations 

that may result if those dollars became an outflow from (i.e., are spent outside) the local 

economy. 

Value of Nonconsumptive Recreation 

The value of recreation was estimated using the methods developed for the South West Regional 

Economic Evaluation (University of Wyoming, Agricultural Economics Department [UWAED 

1997]) and Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan (BLM 2003a, UWAED 2003). 

Nonconsumptive recreation was derived from UWAED (1997), and is presented in Year 2000 

dollars adjusted for inflation. The estimated expenditures per day for nonconsumptive recreation 

in the PFO is summarized in Table 3.52. 

Value of Hunting Table 3.52. Expenditures per day for 

The method used to determine the total Nonconsumptive Recreation, PFO Area, 19971 

expenditures associated with hunting is 

based on that used by UWAED (1997) and 

then updated with 2002 hunting and hunter 

expenditure data from WGFD (2003a, 

2003b, 2003c). The data are then presented 

in Year 2000 dollars and adjusted for 

inflation. The JIDPA is fully encompassed 

by the Sublette Antelope Herd Unit, and for 

the purposes of this report it is assumed that 

pronghorn antelope are evenly hunted 

across the herd unit because it is not 

possible to derive from existing data exactly 

where any individual hunts. This method 

results in a conservative over-estimate of 

the value of hunting in a particular area 

because in actual practice, hunting likely 

does not occur evenly across all areas of a 

hunt unit. The total expenditures of hunting 

Recreation Activity 

General recreation 

Developed camping 

Primitive camping 

Day hiking 

Picnicking 

Sightseeing 

Gathering forest products 

Wilderness recreation 

Big game hunting 

Trout fishing 

Wildlife watching 

Snowmobiling 

Average value per visitor day 

Value per Visitor-Day ($) 

10.18 

15.73 

19.85 

33.01 

14.32 

16.68 

15.17 

14.45 

77.25 

30.04 

30.04 

51.50 

27.35 

1 

pronghorn antelope on the JIDPA is 

In Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. Source: UWAED (1997). 

presented in Tables 3.53 and 3.54. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
T

a

ble 

3.5

3. T

otal E

x

pen

ditures for H

u

nting 

of S

pecies P

otentially 

Occurring in the 

Project Area, W

y

o

ming and 

Stu

dy 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project

Wyoming Attributable to Potentially Affected Hu

Hunter-Days

1,2 

Hunter 

Expenditures3 

($) 

Hunter-Days4 

H

Exp

Species 

Total Resident Non-resident Total 

Average 

Value/ 

Hunter-Day 

($) Total Resident Non-resident Total Re

Antelope 101,989 51,208 50,781 38,888,895 381.30 13,490 9,356 4,134 5,143,737 3,567Cottontail6 25,566 NA 

NA 4,424,464 173.06 2,516 NA 

NA 435,419 

Greater sage-grouse6 

7,164 NA 

NA 933,437 130.30 1,553 NA 

NA 202,356 

Total 134,719 51,208 50,781 44,246,796 228.22 17,559 NA 

NA 5,781,512 

1 W

GFD (2003a, 2003b). Calculated from 

Harvest, Hunting Pressure, Hunter Success By Hunt Area 2002 reports for each species. Totals may not match state-wide sum

mary tables or 

2 W

GFD defines a "hunter-day" as any day hunting occurred, regardless of actual time spent hunting. This data is based on licensed hunter survey reports. 

3 W

GFD (2003c). In year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. W

GFD does not distinguish between resident and non-resident expenditures. 

4 Refer to Tables 3.54 and 3.55. 5 Species that may occur infrequently within the affected areas that W

GFD does not manage for hunting in the project areas may include bighorn sheep, Rocky Mountain goat, black bea

6 W

GFD does not separate resident and non-resident hunter days for small and upland game. 

T

a

ble 

3.5

4. C

o

ntrib

ution 

of JID

PA to 

H

u

nting 

Reven

ues 

Species Unit Name Total Acres Hunter-Days 

Attributable to Unit 

Average Value/ 

Hunter-Day ($) 

Project Area 

(acres) 

% 

Acres of Unit 

in Project Area 

Hunter-Days in 

Project Area 

Antelope Sublette Antelope 6,749,440 13,490 381.30 30,500 0.5% 61.0 

Herd Unit 

Cottontail Small Game 2,906,068 2,516 173.06 30,500 1.0% 26.4 

Management Area 7 

Greater Small Game 2,906,068 1,553 130.30 30,500 1.0% 16.3 sage-grouse Management Area 7 Total -- n/a2 n/a2 n/a2 n/a2 n/a2 103.7 

1 In year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 2 n/a = column is not additive. 
3-128 Chapter 3 

JIDPA Hunting Value 

Because elk, mule deer, and moose are unlikely to occur on the JIDPA, there is no value 

attributable to the project area for those species. Pronghorn do occur on the JIDPA, and an 

estimated 61.0 hunter days (0.5% of the Sublette Antelope Herd Unit hunter days) are attributed 

to the JIDPA. At a value of approximately $381.30/hunter day, approximately $23,244 of hunter 

expenditures for antelope annually is attributable to hunting on the JIDPA. Approximately 1.0% 

of hunting in Small Game Management Area 7 for cottontail and greater sage-grouse each are 

attributable to hunting on the JIDPA. Cottontail account for 26.4 hunter days for a value of 

approximately $4,569.84 of hunter expenditures attributable to cottontail hunting on the JIDPA. 

Greater sage-grouse account for 16.3 hunter days for a value of approximately $2,123.78 of 

hunter expenditures attributable to greater sage-grouse hunting annually on the JIDPA. 

3.4.11 Environmental Justice 

Less than 5% of the Sublette County population is minority (EPA 2003) and, although 9.7% of 

the population of Sublette County lives below the poverty level, this is a smaller percentage than 

for the State of Wyoming (11.4%) (U.S. Census Bureau 2000a). Therefore, Sublette County is 

neither a minority community nor a low-income community. 

3.5 LAND USE 

3.5.1 Land Status/Prior Rights 

The JIDPA consists of federal surface/federal minerals administered by the BLM 

(94%/28,580 acres), two sections (1,280 acres) of State of Wyoming surface/mineral, and one 

section (640 acres) of private surface/federal minerals (see Map 1.1). Current land use includes 

energy production and development (e.g., natural gas well pads, pipelines, access roads, ware 

yards, offices), livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, and recreation—primarily hunting. Map 2.1 

shows the extent of existing natural gas development in the JIDPA. 

The CIAA for land status/prior rights includes the JIDPA and leases that extend beyond the 

JIDPA, and it encompasses approximately 35,634 acres (Map 3.21). All of the JIDPA and the 

CIAA is leased for mineral development. Land use associated with mineral development on the 

JIDPA is described in Section 3.1.4.1. 

3.5.2 Livestock/Grazing Management 

The JIDPA includes portions of three grazing allotments—Stud Horse Common, Sand Draw 

Common, and Boundary—and the Burma Road Upgrade area includes portions of the Blue Rim 

Desert Common Allotment (Map 3.22 and Table 3.55). Livestock grazing is allocated to two 

permittees each in the Stud Horse Common and Sand Draw Common Allotments and four 

permittees in the Blue Rim Desert Common Allotment. The Boundary Allotment is allocated to 

two permittees. There are also approximately 640 acres of private lands (2% of the JIDPA) not 

included in allotments (see Map 3.22). 

Prior to 1997, the level of human activity in the area of the proposed action was minimal. Grazing 

was the major use of the land and ranchers would check on cattle and maintain range projects 

during a few weeks during the grazing season. Rock hunters would search for petrified wood, and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-129 

Source: BLM 

Map 3.21. Land Status/Prior Rights Cumulative Impact Assessment Area Boundary, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-130 Chapter 3 

Source: BLM 

Map 3.22. Grazing Allotments, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area and Cumulative Impact Assessment 

Area, Sublette and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-131 

Table 3.55. Livestock/Grazing Allotments in the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area and 

Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 

Grazing Allotment Allotment 

Size (acres) 

Federal Acres 

in Allotment 

Total 

AUMs 

Acres of 

Allotment 

in JIDPA 

AUMs in 

JIDPA 

Existing Disturbance in 

Entire Allotment (acres) 

Average 

Federal 

Acres/AUM 

Stud Horse Common 15,590 14,309 1,730 5,490 670 782 8.2 

Sand Draw 31,740 30,445 2,324 20,740 1,571 1,147 13.2 

Boundary 31,994 29,982 2,996 3,630 363 461 10.0 

Blue Rim Desert 41,273 39,467 2,826 n/a 1 -- 359 14.6 

No Allotment (Private) 640 640 -- 28 --

Total

1 120,597 114,203 9,876 30,500 2,604 2,777 11.52 

1 n/a = 12 miles of the Burma Road upgrade area is in the Blue Rim Desert Common Allotment. 2 Total does not include the "No Allotment"; average federal acres/AUM are not additive. 

hunters would seek antelope and sage-grouse in the fall. Since development of the gas field began 

the area has been dominated by human activity, consisting of vehicular traffic on upgraded roads 

and noise from heavy equipment and drilling rigs. Where transportation was once accomplished 

over a few primitive two-track roads, there is now a dense network of developed roads. Forage 

species immediately adjacent to high traffic areas accumulate a layer of dust, which temporarily 

decreases palatability. 

This new level of activity has caused cattle to shift their traditional use patterns. The quality of 

the forage on the reclaimed well pads and ROWs is attractive to livestock and antelope, as they 

are younger, more succulent, and easily obtained. New water sources are now available that either 

supplement existing livestock water sources, or provide new water in previously dry areas. 

Cattle mortalities have occurred from cattle drinking from drilling fluids pits, and from vehicular 

collisions along the upgraded roads. 

To ensure successful reclamation as well as to protect other interests, fencing has been 

implemented around many locations. In addition to speeding the vegetation recovery of disturbed 

sites, this fencing has also had the effect of creating shifts in cattle use patterns and movement. 

Forage demands by livestock are currently being met as permitted on the allotments within the 

JIDPA. This is in the wake of substantial industrial development in the affected area since 1997, 

where the construction of gas wells, pipelines, roads, and other related facilities have disturbed 

approximately 3,350 acres. As of the date of this analysis no specific studies have been conducted 

to evaluate the success of reclamation; however, observations reveal that today’s forage base in 

the JIDPA is in part supplied from the numerous acres that have been reclaimed since 

development began in this area. 

Monitoring protocols for the reclaimed areas are being developed to determine how cattle grazing 

is affecting reclamation. 

Blue Rim Desert Common Allotment 

The Burma Road is important for access into the east side of the Blue Rim Desert grazing 

allotment. Grazing permittees regularly use this road to maintain range management facilities and 

to check on cattle. The period for this activity is from mid-April until June 20. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-132 Chapter 3 

Stud Horse Common Allotment 

This allotment is important to the permittees for spring grazing. The grazing season begins May 1 

and ends June 30. This allotment contains approximately 15,590 total acres, and has two grazing 

permits totaling 1,729 active federal AUMs. The land area and permit relationship indicates an 

approximate stocking rate of 9 acres/AUM. The last actual Range Survey used for present AUM 

allocation occurred in 1962–63, and without a current survey it is not possible to know what the 

exact stocking rate is. However, periodic forage utilization monitoring indicates that there is an 

adequate supply of forage. The highest recorded forage utilization was 47% in grazing season 

2000, and utilization levels for the past 5 years have averaged around 25–30%, which is normal 

for the region. 

Observations during grazing seasons 2004 and 2005 have revealed that cattle grazing was 

concentrated on previously reclaimed areas. These areas provide readily available early forage 

and appear to be preferred over the native rangeland types. On open range cattle will graze the 

most available plants first, and within the JIDPA these occur on the reclaimed areas. When the 

majority of this reclamation forage is used, the grazing emphasis begins to shift to adjacent native 

rangeland where the forage is more available. By this time the grazing season is nearing the end 

and forage use on the native sites has been observed as light (10%). There has been no 

information to date suggesting that the use of reclamation sites by cattle or antelope is preventing 

the achievement of reclamation objectives. 

A 1999 review of the Standards for Healthy Rangelands revealed that there was an inadequate 

amount of perennial bunchgrasses on the allotment’s range sites, especially within 1 mile of water 

sources. This determination was based on general observations. For this reason the allotment did 

not meet the Standards, and in 2000 a reduction of 444 AUMs was implemented. However, 

considering the current amount of industrial development occurring in this area, it is doubtful that 

the results of this evaluation are relevant. 

The permittees of the Stud Horse Common Allotment have entered into a joint cooperative 

rangeland monitoring program funded through the Secretary of the Interior’s “4Cs” initiative, and 

through an agreement between the BLM and the Public Lands Council. Under this program, the 

grazing permittees jointly monitor rangeland use and health with BLM range specialists using 

scientifically approved rangeland monitoring methods. The monitoring primarily focuses on 

annual forage utilization and the long-term trend of species composition. 

Sand Draw Common Allotment 

This allotment is important to the permittees for spring grazing. The grazing season begins May 1 

and ends June 30. This allotment contains approximately 31,740 total acres, and has two grazing 

permits totaling 2,324 active federal AUMs. The land area and permit relationship indicates an 

approximate stocking rate of 13 acres/AUM. The last actual Range Survey used for present AUM 

allocation occurred in 1962–63, and without a current survey it is not possible to know what the 

exact stocking rate is. However, periodic forage utilization monitoring indicates that there is an 

adequate supply of forage. The highest recorded forage utilization was 54% in grazing season 

2001, and utilization levels for the past 5 years have averaged around 25–30%, which is normal 

for the region. 

Observations during grazing seasons 2004 and 2005 have revealed that cattle grazing was 

concentrated on previously reclaimed areas. These areas provide readily available early forage 

and appear to be preferred over the native rangeland types. On open range cattle will graze the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-133 

most available plants first, and within the JIDPA these occur on the reclaimed areas. When the 

majority of this reclamation forage is used, the grazing emphasis begins to shift to adjacent native 

rangeland where the forage is more available. By this time the grazing season is nearing the end 

and forage use on the native sites has been observed as light (10%). 

A 2001 review of the Standards for Healthy Rangelands revealed that the Standards were met. 

This determination was based on general observations. However, considering the current amount 

of industrial development occurring in this area, it is doubtful that the results of this evaluation 

are relevant. 

The permittees of the Sand Draw Common Allotment have entered into a joint cooperative 

rangeland monitoring program funded through the Secretary of the Interior’s 4Cs initiative, and 

through an agreement between the BLM and the Public Lands Council. Under this program, the 

grazing permittees jointly monitor rangeland use and health with BLM range specialists using 

scientifically approved rangeland monitoring methods. The monitoring primarily focuses on 

annual forage utilization and the long-term trend of species composition. 

Boundary Allotment 

The season of use in this allotment is from May 1 until December 1. Both cattle and sheep are 

permitted for the allotment. There are 31,988 total acres and 2,996 active federal AUMs. 

The land area and permit relationship indicates an approximate stocking rate of 11 acres/AUM, 

and this is an approximation of the stocking rate. About 10% of the allotment occurs within the 

JIDPA. The allotment is managed for three-pasture deferred rotation/short duration, low-intensity 

grazing. 

General observations show that light forage utilization is made in the northern portion of this 

allotment. 

A 2002 review of the Standards for Healthy Rangelands revealed that the Standards were met. 

The CIAA for livestock grazing is the four affected grazing allotments that encompass 

approximately 120,597 acres, of which the 114,203 acres of federal land provide a total of 

9,876 permitted AUMs (see Table 3.55 and Map 3.22). Based upon WyGISC (2002, 2003b) 

digital data and aerial photographs, approximately 2.3% of the CIAA for livestock grazing (2,777 

acres) has been disturbed by well pads, pipelines, resource roads, agricultural lands (i.e., hay 

meadows), and highways. The Sand Draw grazing allotment has the largest amount of existing 

disturbance with 1,147 acres (3.6% of the allotment) disturbed primarily from existing gas 

development in the Jonah Natural Gas Field. 

3.5.3 Recreation 

The CIAA for recreation encompasses 2,089,363 acres (3,264 square miles) (Map 3.23). Existing 

surface disturbance includes approximately 138,740 acres (216 square miles) or 6.6% of the 

CIAA, which is primarily a result of agriculture (83%), road and pipeline ROWs (12%), 

and existing natural gas development in the Jonah, Pinedale Anticline, Fontenelle, Moxa, 

Stagecoach Draw, LaBarge Platform, Riley Ridge, and Mesa Verde project areas (5%), as well as 

the Tip-Top and Hogsback Units. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-134 Chapter 3 

Source: BLM 

Map 3.23. Recreational Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-135 

Detailed information on recreation and recreation revenues is provided in Section 3.4.10. 

The following is additional information on recreation types and the importance of the various 

recreation types in the area. 

Dean Runyan Associates, Inc. (2005) estimates that total traveler expenditures in southwestern 

Wyoming (Carbon, Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, and Uinta Counties) were $370 million in 

2004, with Sweetwater County having the most ($126.5 million) and Sublette County the least 

($36 million). Vacationers represented 64% of total traveler expenditures in the five-county 

region. Travel spending has increased steadily since 1997 at a rate of 4.9% per year, or 2.2% per 

year in constant dollars (adjusted for inflation) (Dean Runyan 2005). Southwestern Wyoming is 

an important recreation area for Wyoming residents (University of Wyoming, Agricultural 

Economics Department 1997). Expenditures by out-of-state visitors for fishing, hunting, 

backpacking, winter sports, etc., are vital to local economies. 

The 1990 Wyoming State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (Wyoming Department of 

Commerce, Division of State Parks and Historic Sites 1990), while out of date, reported that 

southwestern Wyoming, with 20% of the state’s population, supported more than 50% of all 

Wyoming resident off-highway vehicle (OHV) and four-wheel drive use, 49% of all resident 

antelope hunting, 15% of all resident sightseeing, and 17% of all historical site visits and day 

hiking. Relative to its population (1.1% of state), Sublette County was especially important in 

terms of OHV use (21.6%), antelope hunting (15.6%), backpacking (especially designated 

wilderness) (18.7%), and camping (11.9%). Area-specific data were not collected for the 2003 

Wyoming State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. While recognizing the limitations of 

these data, the 1990 figures are included here for reference. It is likely that certain activities (e.g., 

OHV use) have increased dramatically in recent years in this area. 

Statewide, the most popular recreational activities include: wildlife viewing (71%); driving for 

pleasure (66%); hiking or walking (64%); viewing natural features such as scenery and flowers 

(64%); and general/other, such as relaxing, escaping crowds and noise (64%), fishing (63%), 

visiting historic and/or prehistoric sites (54%), and attending fairs or festivals (50%) (Wyoming 

Department of Commerce, Division of State Parks and Historic Sites 2003). 

There are no developed recreation areas within the JIDPA; however, BLM-administered lands 

provide a variety of recreational opportunities, including hunting for antelope, greater sagegrouse, and small game. Hunting for big game within the JIDPA has likely seen a large decrease 

since the initiation of field development (Hudson pers. comm.). Backpacking, camping, crosscountry skiing, snowshoeing, snowmobiling, rock collecting, sightseeing, wildlife viewing, and 

general photography are a few of the nonconsumptive recreational opportunities available in the 

region, although many of these activities likely no longer occur on the JIDPA due to existing oil 

and gas development. Most of these activities, other than camping associated with hunting, likely 

never occurred in great numbers. In recent years, commercial and private interest has increased in 

activities associated with wildlife watching for antelope, sage-grouse at leks, and raptors in the 

Pinedale Resource Management Area (Hudson pers. comm.). However, these activities are 

unlikely to occur in the JIPDA due to existing oil and gas development. 

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classification (see BLM Manual 8320, Appendix 1) 

for the JIDPA under the PFO RMP was semi-primitive motorized. This is expected to be changed 

to rural or urban under the PFO RMP revisions. The change in classification is the result of 

development already approved under previous NEPA documents (BLM 1998b, 2000b). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-136 Chapter 3 

Total annual recreational visitor days (other than hunting) in the PFO from October 1, 1998, to 

September 30, 2002, was 319,978 (BLM 2003c). The most popular activities included boating 

(43%), fishing (23%), camping (11%), and hiking/walking/running (10%). Recreational use data 

specific to the JIDPA are not available. However, dispersed recreation related to sightseeing and 

OHV use does likely occur on the JIDPA because the area is designated as suitable for OHV use 

in the PFO RMP, and recreational hunting is likely the most important recreational activity on the 

JIDPA. Because the JIDPA may have importance for recreational hunting by some individuals 

for the game species that occur in the area (e.g., pronghorn, cottontail rabbit, and greater sagegrouse), a conservative economic analysis of recreational hunting in the JIDPA is provided in 

Section 3.4.10.2. 

The Lake Mountain Wilderness Study Area (13,865 acres west of LaBarge) is encompassed by the 

CIAA for recreation. In addition, the BLM Scab Creek Wilderness Study Area (7,636 acres south 

of Boulder Lake) and the Bridger Wilderness Area are approximately 20 miles northeast of the 

area. The Scab Creek, Bridger, Fitzpatrick, and Popo Agie Wilderness provide regional 

opportunities for remote recreational activities. 

3.5.4 Transportation 

Surface transportation in the JIDPA is provided by an extensive network of collector and resource 

roads (see Map 2.1 and Appendix B, Subappendix DP-A). The two principal roadways to the 

JIDPA are State Highway 191, which links the field to Rock Springs and Pinedale, Wyoming, 

and State Highway 351, which links the field to Big Piney and Marbleton, Wyoming. 

The main access to the JIDPA is from the Luman Road, which runs east from the JIDPA to State 

Highway 191. The Jonah North Road, which runs north from the JIDPA to connect with State 

Highway 351, also provides access to the field (see Map 2.1). Further detail on the roads in the 

JIDPA and associated traffic is discussed in the Transportation Plan (Appendix B, Subappendix 

DP-A). 

3.6 VISUAL RESOURCES 

The CIAA for visual resources encompasses 2,089,363 acres (3,264 square miles) (Map 3.24). 

Existing surface disturbance includes approximately 138,740 acres (216 square miles) or 6.6% of 

the CIAA and results primarily from agriculture (83%), road and pipeline ROWs (12%), and 

existing natural gas development in the Jonah, Pinedale Anticline, Fontenelle, Moxa, Stagecoach 

Draw, LaBarge Platform, Riley Ridge, and Mesa Verde project areas (5%), as well as the Tip-Top 

and Hogsback Units. 

The Visual Resource Management (VRM) System is the basic tool used by the BLM to inventory 

and manage visual resources on public lands. The VRM classification combines evaluation of 

visual quality, visual sensitivity of the area, and view distances. The BLM’s PFO was first 

visually inventoried and classified in 1978. VRM classes are used to identify the degree of 

acceptable visual change within a characteristic landscape. Classes are based on the physical and 

sociological characteristics of a given homogeneous area and serve as a management objective. 

Projects of all types within established VRM class areas will generally be required to conform 

with objectives and characteristics of the classification, or the project will be modified to meet the 

VRM class objective. Short-term modifications in portions of visual class areas may be approved 

if a site-specific environmental analysis determines that impacts would be acceptable. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Affected Environment 3-137 

Source: BLM 

Map 3.24. Visual Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Lincoln, 

Sublette, and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3-138 Chapter 3 

The entire JIDPA is in a Class IV VRM area. A basic description of the landscape (high desert 

shrub area with flat to rolling topography containing buttes and ridges) is provided in Sections 

3.1.3 (Topography) and 3.2.1 (Vegetation). The landscape today is dominated by oil and gas 

development features (e.g., roads, well pads). The Class IV designation provides for management 

activities that may generate major modifications to the existing character of the landscape. 

Contrasts may attract attention and be a dominant feature of the landscape in terms of scale; 

however, the change should repeat the basic elements (form, line, color, and texture) inherent in 

the characteristic landscape. A Class IV VRM designation allows for modification of the 

landscape to accommodate natural gas production, but also advocates that surface facilities blend 

with surroundings to lessen the visual impacts. 

The connected actions, including the proposed upgrade of the Burma Road and the modification 

of the project area boundary to include the north half of Section 23, T28N, R109W, are also in 

areas designated as VRM Class IV. 

A VRM Class III area occurs as a 1-mile corridor surrounding U.S. Highway 191 just east of the 

JIDPA. A Class III designation provides for moderate changes to the existing landscape, although 

management activities associated with these changes should not dominate the view of the casual 

observer. For the most part, the JIDPA is not visible from U.S. Highway 191, a major corridor for 

tourists. However, current JIDPA developments (e.g., rig structures and production facilities) at 

higher elevations on Yellow Point Ridge in the southern JIDPA are visible at a distance of about 

8 miles from an approximately 8- to 10-mile length of U.S. Highway 191. Additional existing oil 

and gas development effects visible from the highway include nighttime lights, occasional smoke 

plumes, and haze events. The only currently identified project feature present in the VRM Class 

III corridor along U.S. Highway 191 is the existing Luman Road. 

3.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

Hazardous materials present in the JIDPA include those used and produced in association with 

natural gas drilling, completion, and production, and these substances and their current 

management protocol are discussed in detail in the Hazardous Materials Management Summary 

(Appendix B, Subappendix DP-C). 

3.8 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION 

No compensatory (off-site) mitigation (CM) projects have been completed or are in progress. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
CHAPTER 4 — ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

AND MITIGATION MEASURES 

The potential positive and adverse impacts of construction, drilling, completion, operation, 

maintenance, and reclamation of the proposed project are disclosed for each affected resource 

under each alternative. An environmental consequence or impact is defined as a modification to 

the existing environment brought about by development activities. Impacts can be beneficial or 

adverse, can be a primary result of an action (direct impacts) or a secondary result (indirect 

impacts), and can be permanent or long-lasting (long-term impacts—more than 5 years) or 

temporary and short duration (short-term—5 years or less). Impacts can vary in degree from a 

slightly discernable change to a dramatic change in the environment. 

Impacts are quantified whenever possible. Potential significant impacts are identified. 

“Significance,” as defined in CEQ guidelines (40 CFR 1508.27), considers both the degree of 

intensity and the context of the project. Significant impacts would be the most substantial and 

therefore should receive the greatest attention in decision-making. The use of adjectives 

(e.g., “moderate,” “low,” “negligible”) has been avoided because this EIS is an analytical document. 

The magnitude of an impact (i.e., its significance) is based on RMP and state and local land use 

planning objectives, regulatory standards, scientific and environmental documentation, and 

professional judgment. Impacts are considered adverse unless identified as beneficial. 

Significance criteria were developed to measure the intensity of an impact, either beneficial or 

negative, within the context of the human environment. Developing significance criteria is difficult 

for a number of reasons. First, although used extensively throughout the Act, NEPA does not 

identify what is meant by significant on a resource-by-resource basis. Second, it is often difficult to 

quantify impacts for some resources. In these cases, significance criteria must be subjective and 

often rely on the professional opinion of the persons preparing and reviewing the impact analysis. 

Finally, for readers, the significance of an impact is often framed in terms of personal experience 

(i.e., how they perceive impact intensity within their own context). For instance, persons who 

benefit directly from the positive economic impacts of the project are likely to consider that impact 

significant. Conversely, someone who recreates in the JIDPA is likely to find the negative 

environmental impacts of project-related activities significant. Although this document does not 

predict “worst-case” impacts, it may overestimate impacts from the project. For purposes of this 

analysis, it is assumed that development would occur throughout the JIDPA. Overestimation is 

unavoidable for complete disclosure of potential or reasonable foreseeable impacts from the project. 

Each resource discussed in this chapter includes a description of the following: 

•	 Impact Significance Criteria. Current resource management goals/objectives are 

summarized from BLM RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b), the State of Wyoming land use 

plan (Wyoming State Land Use Commission [WSLUC] 1979) and the Sublette County 

comprehensive plan (SCBC and SCPC 2003). In general, the ability of management 

agencies to achieve or maintain these goals/objectives determines significance (i.e., if plan 

goals/objectives can no longer be met on the JIDPA or for the planning area, then the 

potential for a significant impact exists). For some resources, additional impact significance 

criteria are provided (e.g., for air resources, various legally mandated thresholds/limits are 

identified). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-2 Chapter 4 

•	 Impacts. The level and duration of impacts anticipated to occur as a result of the No Action 

Alternative, the Proposed Action, Alternatives A and B, and the Preferred Alternative are 

described. It is assumed that BLM-identified and Operator-committed practices would be 

implemented to avoid or minimize adverse impacts (see Chapter 2, and Appendices A 

and C). 

•	 Cumulative Impacts. These are impacts that result from the incremental impacts of an 

action added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, regardless of who is 

responsible for such actions. Cumulative Impact Assessment Areas (CIAAs) for each 

resource are identified in Table 3.2 and existing disturbance/conditions in these areas are 

discussed in Chapter 3. Cumulative impact assessment includes past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable development (RFD). RFD for this project includes development that 

has been analyzed and approved under NEPA, including past development in Jonah Field, 

existing and approved developments in the Pinedale Anticline, and others, as appropriate, 

as well as other likely surface disturbance (e.g., South Piney Project). 

•	 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. These are impacts that cannot be completely mitigated. 

Mitigation and other environmental protection measures are identified across alternatives in 

Chapter 2. Detailed descriptions of these measures are provided in Appendix A (BLM Standards), 

and Appendix C (Operator-committed practices). It is assumed that the application of identified 

mitigation and protection measures would reduce impact levels; however, the efficacy of many 

mitigations is unknown. Therefore, no quantitative variation in impact levels based upon the 

application of variable mitigations is provided, except for air quality. 

Alternative-specific mitigation and monitoring measures for the Preferred Alternative are 

identified in Section 2.4.5. It is assumed that these measures would impart some level of impact 

reduction to various resources. 

Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources and short-term use of the environment 

versus long-term productivity are discussed in separate sections following the discussions of 

specific resources (Sections 4.8 and 4.9, respectively). 

Considerable natural gas development has already occurred within the JIDPA as approved in past 

NEPA documents (BLM 1998b, 2000b), and impacts from this past development would continue 

for approximately 63 years without any further development authorizations. Most impacts 

associated with this project, therefore, would involve increases in the magnitude and/or duration 

of impacts previously described in past NEPA documents (BLM 1997a, 2000a). Additionally, 

preliminary research and monitoring results indicate significant adverse impacts to many area 

resources have already occurred with existing development and mitigation requirements. 

Therefore, BLM is proposing to increase on-site mitigation efforts with a particular focus on 

reclamation, and recommend initiation of compensatory mitigation (CM) as appropriate and 

consistent with BLM policy. All CM efforts would be voluntarily developed and proposed by the 

Operator, and following approval and authorization by BLM, would become commitments of the 

Operator. 

For most resources, the quicker the project is implemented, the shorter the duration of impacts; 

therefore, pace of development may have the greatest effect on area resources. For example, the 

faster the gas is recovered, the sooner the surface area can be reclaimed. This fact must, however, 

be weighed against the potential for faster development to lead to accelerated impacts to other 

resources such as air quality and water resources. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-3 

4.1 PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

4.1.1 Climate 

An assessment of project impacts to climate is beyond the scope of this analysis and, therefore, is 

not discussed further in this EIS. 

4.1.2 Air Quality 

Direct, indirect, and cumulative air quality analyses were performed to predict maximum nearfield (surrounding the JIDPA) and far-field (sensitive Class I and Class II areas) ambient air 

pollutant concentrations, as well as maximum impacts to visibility (regional haze) and 

atmospheric deposition, including “acid rain.” Analyses were also performed to predict 

maximum mid-field (regional communities of Big Piney, Big Sandy, Boulder, Daniel, Farson, 

LaBarge, Merna, and Pinedale; see Map 3-1) visibility impacts and maximum in-field (within the 

JIDPA) concentrations. 

Air pollution impacts are limited by state and federal regulations, standards, and implementation 

plans established under the Clean Air Act and administered by the applicable air quality 

regulatory agency, specifically, the WDEQ/AQD and the EPA. The States of Utah, Colorado, 

and Idaho have similar jurisdiction over potential air pollutant emissions sources in those states, 

which can have a cumulative impact when combined with WDEQ/AQD-regulated sources. The 

applicable air quality regulatory agencies have the primary authority and responsibility to review 

permit applications and to require emission permits, fees, and control devices prior to 

construction and/or operation. The U.S. Congress (through the Clean Air Act Section 116) also 

authorizes local, state, and tribal air quality regulatory agencies to establish air pollution control 

requirements of equal or greater stringency than federal requirements. Any proposed emissions 

source is required to undergo a permit review by applicable air quality regulatory agencies 

(including state, tribal, and/or EPA) before construction can begin. The agencies review the 

specific air pollutant emission sources proposed and, depending upon the magnitude of emissions 

and other factors, the air quality regulatory agencies may require additional site-specific air 

quality analysis and/or additional emission control measures (including a Best Available Control 

Technology [BACT] analysis and determination) to ensure protection of air quality. 

Although WDEQ has the regulatory authority for air quality in Wyoming, BLM also has 

responsibility in regard to air quality. For example, under FLPMA and the Clean Air Act, BLM 

cannot authorize any activity that does not conform to all applicable local, state, tribal, and 

federal air quality laws, statutes, regulations, standards, and implementation plans. An extensive 

air quality impact assessment technical support document was prepared to analyze potential 

impacts from the development alternatives, as well as other reasonably foreseeable emission 

sources. The Jonah Infill Natural Gas Project Air Quality Technical Support Document (TRC 

Environmental Corporation [TRC EC] 2006) provides additional detail on this air quality 

evaluation and is available for review at the PFO. 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) prescribe the following 

management goals/objectives associated with air quality: 

• to maintain and, where possible, enhance air quality levels; 

• to protect public health and safety and sensitive natural resources; 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-4 Chapter 4 

•	 to within authority minimize emissions which may add to acid rain, cause violations of 

air quality standards, or reduce visibility; 

•	 to ensure that industries adhere to federal and state air quality standards; and 

•	 to consider the frequency of atmospheric inversions, meteorology, topography, present 

ambient air quality, significant deterioration limits, and applicable local, state, and federal 

laws when evaluating land use proposals and development issues. 

The significance criteria for potential air quality impacts include state and federally enforced 

legal requirements to ensure that air pollutant concentrations will remain within specific 

allowable levels, as well as adherence to the aforementioned RMP and land use plan goals and 

objectives. Legal requirements include the NAAQS and WAAQS, which set maximum limits for 

several air pollutants, and PSD increments, which limit the incremental increase of certain air 

pollutants (including NO2, PM10, and SO2) above legally defined baseline concentration levels. 

These standards and increments have been presented in Table 3.7. 

Where legal limits have not been established, the BLM uses best available scientific information 

to identify thresholds of significant adverse impacts. Thresholds or levels of concern have been 

identified for Hazardous Air Pollution (HAP) exposure, incremental cancer risks, a “just 

noticeable change” in potential visibility impacts, and potential atmospheric deposition impacts. 

These thresholds or levels of concern are described later in this chapter. 

Air quality impacts from the project would occur from pollutants emitted during construction 

(due to potential surface disturbance by earth-moving equipment, vehicle traffic fugitive dust, 

well completion and testing, and drilling rig and vehicle engine exhaust) and production (natural 

gas well-site production equipment, reciprocating pipeline compression engine exhausts, vehicle 

traffic engine exhausts, and fugitive dust). Pollutants emitted from these activities include PM10, 

PM2.5, NOX, CO, SO2, VOC, and HAPs. O3 may develop from NOx and VOC emissions. 

Some amount of unquantified HAPs may also occur from water treatment. The amount of air 

pollutant emissions during construction and production will be controlled or otherwise limited in 

accordance with mitigations, goals, and performance objectives set forth in Sections 2.4.5 and 

5.1, and Appendices A and C. Actual air quality impacts would depend on the amount, duration, 

location, and emission characteristics of potential emissions sources, as well as meteorological 

conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, precipitation, relative humidity). 

This air quality impact assessment is based on the operations and engineering data and 

assumptions available at the time of the analysis, the best available meteorology data, and 

currently accepted dispersion modeling procedures, as well as professional and scientific 

judgment. Assumptions representing most likely operating conditions were incorporated into the 

analysis whenever possible. For example, analyzed compression was assumed to operate at 90% 

of permitted capacity, and drilling engines were assumed to operate at an average of 42% of 

maximum capacity. Parameters for which most likely field operating projections were not 

provided by Operators were assumed to occur at maximum proposed levels. For example, impact 

assessments assume that all proposed wells would be productive (no dry holes), well completion 

flaring activities would be required for 20% of the completed wells, and flaring would occur daily 

throughout the year. 

The assessment of direct project impacts includes a near-field analysis and a far-field analysis, 

which were completed separately for project alternatives. The near-field analyses include impact 

assessments for comparison to applicable ambient air quality standards and for comparison to 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-5 

PSD increments. All NEPA PSD demonstrations serve information purposes only and do not 

constitute a regulatory PSD increment consumption analysis, which may be completed as 

necessary by the WDEQ-AQD; preliminary results from a WDEQ PSD increment consumption 

analysis may be reviewed at http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd. The near-field analyses also include 

assessments of HAP impacts for comparison to applicable health-based levels for non-cancer 

compounds and cancer risk for carcinogens. The near-field analysis assesses direct impacts in the 

immediate vicinity of project activities resulting from a single phase of construction or production 

reflective of maximum emissions. 

The in-field analyses are additional near-field impact assessments of field-wide source emissions 

for comparison to applicable ambient air quality standards and for comparison to PSD 

increments. The mid-field analyses assess potential changes to regional haze within Wyoming 

regional community locations, however these areas are classified as PSD Class II areas where no 

visibility protection exits under local, state, or federal law. The far-field analyses include impact 

assessments for comparison to applicable ambient air quality standards and for comparison to 

PSD increments. The PSD demonstrations serve information purposes only and do not constitute 

a regulatory PSD increment consumption analysis. In addition, the far-field analyses assess 

potential change to regional haze and acid deposition at sensitive Class I and Class II areas, and 

potential increase in acidification of acid sensitive lakes within the sensitive Class I and Class II 

areas. The far-field analysis also assesses regional emission sources located within the model 

domain illustrated in Map 3.1 to predict cumulative impacts at in-field, mid-field, and far-field 

locations. 

A summary of direct project potential near-field and far-field impacts across alternatives is 

provided in Table 4.1. Table 4.2 provides a detailed summary of potential direct project and 

cumulative impacts for each alternative compared with applicable ambient air quality standards, 

PSD increments, and levels of concern (LOC). Table 4.3 provides a summary of potential direct 

project and cumulative acid deposition impacts for each alternative compared with deposition 

analysis thresholds (DAT) and LOC, and lake acidity levels of acceptable change (LAC). 

Table 4.4 provides a summary of potential direct project and cumulative visibility impacts for 

each alternative. 

Near-field Analysis 

The near-field analysis utilized air pollutant emission rates calculated for all phases of 

construction and production based on WDEQ/AQD guidance in place at the time of the analysis. 

The EPA proposed guideline dispersion model, AERMOD was used to assess near-field impacts 

of PM10, PM2.5, CO, NO2, and SO2, and to estimate short-term and long-term HAP impacts. 

Impacts were assessed from the phase of single-well pad construction or field production that 

produced the highest emissions. The near-field analysis for PM10, PM2.5, and SO2 focused on 

localized impacts from construction and drilling activity at a single well pad and analyzed direct 

project impacts within the JIDPA using three different well pad configurations to predict 

maximum impacts that could result from a single pad. A 3.8-acre single-well pad configuration, a 

7-acre (two wells per pad) configuration, and a 10.0-acre (10 wells per pad) configuration were 

analyzed. These three scenarios reflect a range of wells per pad that may be developed under the 

alternatives. Direct project NOX, CO, and HAP impacts were modeled for 3,100-well 

developments to reflect the maximum number of wells in production under any alternatives. NO2 

and CO impact analyses included project emissions combined with existing JIDPA wells and 

non-project existing and proposed compression to better approximate a NAAQS analysis under 

WDEQ/AQD requirements. Detailed information regarding the modeling methodologies used in 

the near-field analysis is provided in TRC EC (2006). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-6 Chapter 4 

O3 is formed through a chemical reaction between NOx, VOCs, and ultraviolet light (sunlight) 

within the atmosphere. The EPA O3 formation screening methodology (Scheffe 1988) was used 

to estimate maximum ozone impacts from NOx and VOC emissions generated from the project. 

A representative 128-well section with a compressor station was used for this analysis. 

The maximum quantity of O3 that could be formed from this project in combination with other 

existing projects and potential future developments is expected to be less than NAAQS. 

In recognition of the importance of potential ozone concentrations resulting from the increase in 

natural gas development activities within and nearby the JIDPA, ozone monitoring was initiated 

in the Jonah Field area as well as near Daniel and Boulder. Further detail on O3 is provided in the 

Air Quality Technical Support Document (TRC EC 2006). 

Acute (short-term) HAP impacts were modeled by assuming a person would not persistently 

remain at a location closer than 100 m (328 ft) from a well pad or a compressor station due to site 

operations safety considerations. Long-term (chronic) health-based HAP impacts and long-term 

(chronic) cancer risk were modeled using the realistic estimate of long-term exposure, which 

assumes a person would not be closer than the nearest residence on the New Fork River, located 8 

miles from a well pad or compressor site, when averaged over a lifetime. Two estimates of 

cancer risk were made: one that corresponds to a most-likely-exposure (MLE) over a national 

residency average of 9 years with some time spent away from home, and one reflective of the 

maximally-exposed-individual (MEI) residing at one location for a lifetime with no time spent 

away from home. The estimated cancer risks were calculated based on EPA (1997) unit risk 

factors for carcinogenic constituents. 

Near-field Impacts Summary 

The near-field modeling results for the range of project alternatives are provided in Appendix J, 

Tables J-1 through J-8. A discussion of these results by alternative is presented in later sections. 

Maximum predicted concentrations of all criteria pollutants were added to the ambient 

background pollutant concentrations for comparison to WAAQS and NAAQS. Predicted impacts 

of NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and O3 are presented in Appendix J, Tables J-1, J-2, J-3, J-4, J-5, 

and J-6, respectively. These tables also present the maximum impacts expressed as a percentage 

of the NAAQS and WAAQS. Predicted impacts from all project alternatives are less than the 

applicable WAAQS and NAAQS. Table J-2 also presents a comparison of the maximum 

predicted NO2 impacts resulting from production activities to the PSD Class II increment for 

NO2. Background NO2 concentrations are not added to modeled concentrations for comparison 

to the PSD Class II increment for NO2. Predicted NO2 impacts from all project alternatives are 

less than the PSD increment, and preliminary results of a WDEQ increment consumption analysis 

show that the current increment consumption for NO2 in Bridger Wilderness is 5.6% (see 

http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd). A comparison of the maximum modeled PM10 and SO2 impacts to 

PSD Class II increments is not presented because these maximum impacts are associated with 

emissions from temporary construction activities and as such they do not consume PSD Class II 

increment (EPA 1990, WDEQ 1993). Production-related emissions of SO2 and PM10 that would 

be subject to PSD regulations were not modeled for this project. These impacts however, would 

be required by Wyoming and federal regulations to be within the applicable PSD increment 

thresholds. All NEPA analysis comparisons to the PSD Class II increments are intended to 

evaluate a threshold of concern and do not represent a regulatory PSD increment consumption 

analysis. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 4.1. Summary of Primary Additional Air Quality Impacts Across Alternatives, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 

IMPACT AIR QUALITY Increased concentrations of criteria pollutants and Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(HAPs) 

NO ACTION 

No impact above existing levels; 

no new developments 

PROPOSED ACTION Potential near-field concentrations would be in 

compliance with applicable National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS); 

potential near-field concentrations could exceed 

the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

24-hour PM10 increment but would be below the 

annual PM10 increment and below the PSD increments for all other pollutants; potential farfield concentrations would be in compliance with 

applicable NAAQS and WAAQS; potential farfield concentrations would be below PSD increments; potential HAP impacts would be 

below applicable health-based levels for noncancer compounds and within acceptable cancer 

risk ranges for carcinogens. 

ALTERNATIVE A 

Potential near-field concentrations would be 

in compliance with applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Wyoming Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (WAAQS); potential near-field 

concentrations could exceed the PSD 24-hour 

PM10 increment but would be below the 

annual PM10 increment and below the PSD increments for all other pollutants; potential 

far-field concentrations would be in compliance with applicable NAAQS and 

WAAQS; potential far-field concentrations 

would be below PSD increments; potential HAP impacts would be below applicable 

health-based levels for non-cancer 

compounds and within acceptable cancer risk 

ranges for carcinogens. 

ALTE

Potent

in comAmbieand W

Standa

conce

PM10 

annuaincrem

far-fiecompl

WAA

would HAP i

healthcompo

ranges 

Visibility (regional haze) at Class I and 

Sensitive Class II areas (far-field) 

Visibility (regional haze) 

(mid-field communities) 

Atmospheric/terrestrial deposition Sensitive lake acid neutralization capacity (ANC) 

No impact above existing levels; 

no new developments 

No impact above existing levels; 

no new developments 

No impact above existing levels; 

no new developments 

No impact above existing levels; 

no new developments 

Potential project impacts would be greater than 

1.0 deciview (dv) for a maximum of 10 days per 

year; impairment at Bridger Wilderness only 

Maximum of 23 days per year >1.0 dv at Big 

Sandy 

Potential project impacts from sulfur deposition 

would be less than Deposition Analysis Threshold (DAT) at all analyzed areas; potential 

project impacts from nitrogen deposition would 

be greater than DAT at Bridger Wilderness, Popo 

Agie Wilderness, and Wind River Roadless Area, and less than DAT at all other analyzed areas Potential project impacts would be less than 

Level of Acceptable Change (LAC) at acid 

sensitive lakes 

Potential project impacts would be greater 

than 1.0 dv for a maximum of 10 days per year; impairment at Bridger Wilderness only 

Maximum of 23 days per year >1.0 dv at Big 

Sandy 

Potential project impacts from sulfur deposition would be less than DAT at all 

analyzed areas; potential project impacts 

from nitrogen deposition would be greater 

than DAT at Bridger Wilderness, Popo Agie 

Wilderness, and Wind River Roadless Area, 

and less than DAT at all other analyzed areas 

Potential project impacts would be less than 

LAC at acid sensitive lakes 

Potent

than 1

year; i

Maxim

Sandy 

Potentdepos

analyz

from n

than D

Agie Wother 

Potent

LAC a

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-8 Chapter 4 

Table 4.2. Summary of Air Quality Concentrations Impacts Across Alternatives, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 20061 

Air Quality Component Criteria Source Group & Impact Area No Action Maximum Production (3100 wells) Proposed Action and Alter

Concentrations Air Quality Standards Project: Near-Field N/A PM10 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM2.5 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

NO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

SO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

CO < NAAQS&WAAQS 

O3 < NAAQS/WAAQS 

PM10 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM2.5 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

NO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

SO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

CO < NAAQS&WAAQS 

O3 < NAAQS/WAAQS 

Cumulative: Near-Field PM10 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM2.5 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

NO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

SO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM10 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM2.5 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

NO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

SO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM10 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM2.5 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

NO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

SO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

Project: Far-Field N/A PM10 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM2.5 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

NO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

SO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

CO < NAAQS&WAAQS 

O3 < NAAQS/WAAQS 

PM10 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM2.5 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

NO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

SO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

CO < NAAQS&WAAQS 

O3 < NAAQS/WAAQS 

Cumulative: Far-Field PM10 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM2.5 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

NO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

SO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM10 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM2.5 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

NO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

SO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM10 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM2.5 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

NO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

SO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PSD Class I Increments 2 Project: Far-Field N/A PM10 < increment 

NO2 < increment 

SO2 < increment 

PM10 < increment 

NO2 < increment 

SO2 < increment 

Cumulative: Far-Field PM10 < increment 

NO2 < increment 

SO2 < increment 

PM10 < increment 

NO2 < increment 

SO2 < increment 

PM10 < increment 

NO2 < increment 

SO2 < increment 

PSD Class II Increments 2 Project: Near-Field N/A PM10 24-hr > increment 

PM10 Annual < increment 

NO2 < increment 

SO2 < increment 

PM10 24-hr > increment 

PM10 Annual < increment 

NO2 < increment 

SO2 < increment 

Cumulative: Near-Field PM10 < increment 

NO2 < increment 

SO2 < increment 

PM10 24-hr > increment 

PM10 Annual < increment 

NO2 < increment 

SO2 < increment 

PM10 24-hr > increment 

PM10 Annual < increment 

NO2 < increment 

SO2 < increment 

Project: Far-Field N/A PM10 < increment 

NO2 < increment 

SO2 < increment 

PM10 < increment 

NO2 < increment 

SO2 < increment 

Cumulative: Far-Field PM10 < increment 

NO2 < increment 

SO2 < increment 

PM10 < increment 

NO2 < increment 

SO2 < increment 

PM10 < increment 

NO2 < increment 

SO2 < increment 

HAP Risk Assessment Project: Near-Field N/A All < Health Based LOC All < Health Based LOC 

Project: Far-Field N/A All < Health Based LOC All < Health Based LOC 

1 Results shown in normal text indicate impacts are below ambient air quality standards, PSD increments, and BLM-recognized significant threshold values and levels of concern. Results shown in bold text indicate that potential impacts are 2 The PSD demonstrations serve information purposes only and do not constitute a regulatory PSD Increment consumption analysis. 
Table 4.3. Summary of Acid Deposition Impacts Across Alternatives, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 20061 

Air Quality Component Criteria Source Group & Impact Area No Action Maximum Production (3100 wells) Alternative A Atmospheric Deposition N Deposition Project: Far-Field N/A Bridger WA, N > DAT 

Fitzpatrick WA, N < DAT 

Popo Agie WA, N < DAT 

Wind River RA, N < DAT 

Grand Teton NP, N < DAT Teton WA, N < DAT 

Yellowstone NP, N < DAT 

Washakie WA, N < DAT 

Bridger WA, N > DAT 

Fitzpatrick WA, N < DAT 

Popo Agie WA, N > DAT 

Wind River RA, N > DAT Grand Teton NP, N < DAT Teton WA, N < DAT 

Yellowstone NP, N < DAT 

Washakie WA, N < DAT 

Total: Far-Field N < LOC, All Areas N < LOC, All Areas N < LOC, All Areas 

S Deposition Project: Far-Field N/A N < DAT, All Areas N < DAT, All Areas 

Total: Far-Field S < LOC, All Areas S < LOC, All Areas S < LOC, All Areas 

Sensitive Lakes 

Project: Far-Field 

Cumulative: Far-Field 

N/A ANC Change < LAC, All Lakes 

ANC Change < LAC, All Lakes 

ANC Change < LAC, All Lakes 

ANC Change < LAC, All Lak

ANC Change < LAC, All Lak

1 Results shown in normal text indicate impacts are below recognized thresholds and levels. Results shown in bold text indicate that potential impacts are above these levels. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-10 Chapter 4 

Table 4.4. Summary of Visibility (Regional Haze) Impacts Across Alternatives, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 20061 

Air Quality Component Impact Area Source Group No Action Maximum Production (3100 wells) Alternative A Alternative 

Visibility 

(Regional 

Haze) 

PSD Class I and Sensitive 

Class II Areas 

Project N/A Bridger WA, >1.0dv 1 days, max dv = 1.14 

Fitzpatrick WA, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.15 

Popo Agie WA, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.24 

Wind River RA, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.20 

Grand Teton NP, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.08 

Teton WA, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.03 

Yellowstone NP, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.04 

Washakie WA, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.06 

Bridger WA, >1.0dv 10 days, max dv = 3.48 

Fitzpatrick WA, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.64 

Popo Agie WA, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.62 

Wind River RA, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.52 

Grand Teton NP, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.33 

Teton WA, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.14 

Yellowstone NP, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.16 

Washakie WA, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.24 

Bridger WA

Fitzpatrick W

Popo Agie W

Wind River 

Grand Teton 

Teton WA, >

Yellowstone 

Washakie W

Cumulative Bridger WA, >1.0dv 3 days, max dv = 1.94 

Fitzpatrick WA, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.49 

Bridger WA, >1.0dv 4 days, max dv = 2.26 

Fitzpatrick WA, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.56 

Bridger WA, >1.0dv 17 days, max dv = 4.01 

Fitzpatrick WA, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.87 

Bridger WA

Fitzpatrick W

Popo Agie WA, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.58 Popo Agie WA, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.66 Popo Agie WA, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.99 Popo Agie W

Wind River RA, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.81 

Grand Teton NP, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.33 

Wind River RA, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.92 

Grand Teton NP, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.35 

Wind River RA, >1.0dv 2 days, max dv = 1.21 

Grand Teton NP, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.50 

Wind River 

Grand Teton 

Teton WA, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.14 Teton WA, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.16 Teton WA, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.24 Teton WA, >Yellowstone NP, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.16 Yellowstone NP, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.17 Yellowstone NP, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.25 Yellowstone 

Washakie WA, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.17 Washakie WA, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.20 Washakie WA, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.34 Washakie W

Wyoming Project N/A Big Piney, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.66 Big Piney, >1.0dv 6 days, max dv = 2.01 Big Piney, >

Regional Big Sandy, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.85 Big Sandy, >1.0dv 23 days, max dv = 3.05 Big Sandy, Communities Boulder, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.56 

Bronx, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.36 

Boulder, >1.0dv 12 days, max dv = 2.39 Bronx, >1.0dv 1 days, max dv = 1.70 

Boulder, >1

Bronx, >1.0d

Cora, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.69 Cora, >1.0dv 1 days, max dv = 3.20 Cora, >1.0d

Daniel, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.57 

Farson, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.55 

Daniel, >1.0dv 1 days, max dv = 2.56 

Farson, >1.0dv 6 days, max dv = 2.33 

Daniel, >1.0

Farson, >1.0

Labarge, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.30 Labarge, >1.0dv 2 days, max dv = 1.32 Labarge, >1

Merna, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.22 Merna, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.79 Merna, >1.0

Pinedale, >1.0dv 1 days, max dv = 1.07 Pinedale, >1.0dv 3 days, max dv = 4.27 Pinedale, >1

Cumulative Big Piney, >1.0dv 7 days, max dv = 2.18 Big Piney, >1.0dv 11 days, max dv = 2.26 Big Piney, >1.0dv 20 days, max dv = 2.62 Big Piney, >

Big Sandy, >1.0dv 2 days, max dv = 1.45 Big Sandy, >1.0dv 9 days, max dv = 1.88 Big Sandy, >1.0dv 34 days, max dv = 3.62 Big Sandy, 

Boulder, >1.0dv 4 days, max dv = 2.92 Boulder, >1.0dv 5 days, max dv = 3.04 Boulder, >1.0dv 21 days, max dv = 3.70 Boulder, >1Bronx, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.74 Bronx, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.77 Bronx, >1.0dv 1 days, max dv = 1.79 Bronx, >1.0d

Cora, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.85 Cora, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.93 Cora, >1.0dv 8 days, max dv = 3.32 Cora, >1.0d

Daniel, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.79 Daniel, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.89 Daniel, >1.0dv 11 days, max dv = 2.67 Daniel, >1.0

Farson, >1.0dv 3 days, max dv = 1.48 Farson, >1.0dv 8 days, max dv = 1.69 Farson, >1.0dv 12 days, max dv = 2.75 Farson, >1.0

Labarge, >1.0dv 6 days, max dv = 1.86 Labarge, >1.0dv 6 days, max dv = 2.05 Labarge, >1.0dv 12 days, max dv = 2.90 Labarge, >1

Merna, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.98 Merna, >1.0dv 1 days, max dv = 1.01 Merna, >1.0dv 5 days, max dv = 1.13 Merna, >1.0

Pinedale, >1.0dv 2 days, max dv = 1.78 Pinedale, >1.0dv 5 days, max dv = 1.94 Pinedale, >1.0dv 10 days, max dv = 4.41 Pinedale, >1

1 Results shown in normal text indicate impacts are below 1.0 dv. Results shown in bold text indicate that potential impacts are above 1.0 dv. 
Environmental Consequences 4-11 

Appendix J, Tables J-7 and J-8 summarize modeled HAP impacts representative of all project 

alternatives. For all alternatives, the predicted acute and chronic (long-term) impacts would be 

below applicable health-based levels for non-cancer compounds. In addition, calculated cancer 

risks from formaldehyde and benzene are less than the level of acceptable cancer risk of 1 × 10-6 

(one in one million) for both the MLE and MEI scenarios except for MEI benzene scenario, 

which falls at the lower end of the presumptively acceptable risk range of 1 × 10-4 to 1 × 10-6 as 

stated by EPA (EPA 1999). 

When reviewing predicted near-field impacts, it is important to understand that results reported 

reflect the maximum pollutant emission rates calculated for the field and the resulting 

concentrations are combined with monitored background ambient pollutant concentrations. 

Maximum monitored background air pollutant concentrations were assumed to occur throughout 

the LOP at all locations in the region year-round. In addition, the maximum predicted air quality 

impacts from JIDPA emission sources would occur in the vicinity of the JIDPA. Because 

impacts typically lessen with distance from an emissions source, impacts at locations more distant 

from the JIDPA would be less than the predicted maximum concentrations. Finally, total air 

pollutant concentrations for comparison to WAAQS and NAAQS were assumed to be the sum of 

the maximum modeled concentration and the maximum background concentration. 

This methodology is used for both long-term and short-term averaging periods. For short-term 

averaging periods, these maximum concentrations may occur under very different meteorological 

conditions and may not occur simultaneously. 

Far-field Analysis 

The far-field analysis utilized the EPA CALMET/CALPUFF modeling system to predict 

maximum potential air quality impacts at mandatory federal PSD Class I and other sensitive PSD 

Class II areas, as well as designated acid-sensitive lakes within these areas, and at in-field 

locations within the JIDPA. The analysis also included an assessment of maximum mid-field 

(regional community) visibility impacts for the Wyoming regional community locations of Big 

Piney, Boulder, Bronx, Cora, Daniel, Farson, LaBarge, Merna, and Pinedale although these 

communities are classified as PSD Class II areas where no visibility protection exits under local, 

state, or federal law. 

The air emissions modeled for project and non-project sources in the far-field analysis are 

presented in Appendix J, Table J-9. Modeling scenarios were developed to approximate a range 

of project development including the No Action Alternative, Proposed Action, Alternative A, 

Alternative B, and the Preferred Alternative. These modeling scenarios assumed the maximum 

field emissions that could potentially occur concurrently during the final year of construction 

(representing the maximum annual construction activity rate) combined with nearly full-field 

production. For comparison purposes, an analysis of the JIDPA in full production, after all 

construction activities have ceased, is also presented for all alternatives with 3,100 producing 

wells. Maximum emissions scenarios include production emissions (producing well sites and 

ancillary equipment) and construction emissions (drilling rigs and pit flaring operations), both 

occurring continuously over the year. The maximum emissions scenarios are based on an 

estimate of what the maximum field emissions could be on any day during the year, and these 

emissions are modeled for each day of the year. Therefore, annual concentration and deposition 

estimates are reasonable but conservative. A well development rate of 250 wells per year 

(WDR250) was assumed for the Proposed Action, Alternative A and Preferred Alternative. 

Alternative B assumed a 75 well per year development rate (WDR75). WDR250 assumes 

simultaneous operation of 20 drilling rigs and three pit flares, and WDR75 assumes simultaneous 

operation of 6 drilling rigs and one pit flare. Development rates considered both straight and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-12 Chapter 4 

directional drilling operations generally consistent with the various proposed project alternatives. 

The Proposed Action and Alternative A assumed all straight-hole drilling. Alternative B assumed 

all directional drilling, and the Preferred Alternative assumed a combination of 50% straight hole 

drilling and 50% directional drilling operations. Details on modeling methodology are presented 

in the Air Quality Technical Support Document (TRC EC 2006). 

Predicted pollutant concentrations were compared to applicable ambient air quality standards and 

to PSD Class I and Class II increments, and were used to assess potential impacts to AQRVs— 

visibility (regional haze) and acid deposition—at sensitive PSD Class I and II areas. Ambient 

background concentrations were added to modeled concentrations for comparison to ambient air 

quality standards. No ambient background was added to modeled concentrations for comparison 

to PSD Class I and II increments. PSD Class I areas and sensitive Class II areas analyzed in the 

far-field analyses include the following: 

• Bridger Wilderness Area (Class I), 

• Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area (Class I), 

• Popo Agie Wilderness Area (Class II), 

• Wind River Roadless Area (Class II), 

• Grand Teton National Park (Class I), 

• Teton Wilderness Area (Class I) , 

• Yellowstone National Park (Class I), and 

• Washakie Wilderness Area (Class I). 

Because emissions sources under the Proposed Action and alternatives consist of many small 

sources spread out over a large area, discrete visible plumes are not likely to impact distant 

sensitive areas. However, visible plumes may be noticeable within the JIDPA from nearby travel 

routes and at nearby towns on occasion, especially during flaring upset conditions. Nonetheless, 

the potential for cumulative visibility impacts (increased regional haze) is a concern. 

Regional haze is caused by light scattering and light absorption by fine particles and gases. 

Potential changes to regional haze are calculated in terms of a perceptible “just noticeable change 

in visibility” when compared to background conditions, expressed in deciviews (dv). The BLM 

considers a potential 1.0-dv change to be a significant adverse impact. Although there are no 

applicable local, state, tribal, or federal regulatory visibility standards, the BLM has the 

responsibility under the Clean Air Act to assess visibility impacts. Other federal agencies use a 

0.5-dv change as a screening threshold for significance. The USFS and NPS compare direct 

project impacts to the 0.5-dv level, and those comparisons are included in the Air Quality 

Technical Support Document (TRC EC 2006). 

The NPS, USFS, and USFWS have published the Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related 

Values Workgroup (FLAG) Phase I Report (FLAG 2000) that prescribes several methods for 

assessing impacts of new and existing sources on AQRVs, including visibility. The FLAG 

Report describes a cumulative impacts analysis of new growth sources (defined as PSD 

increment-consuming sources) on visibility. If predicted visibility impacts are above a visibility 

threshold of 1.0 dv for all days, factors such as magnitude of dv change, frequency, seasonal 

variations, and meteorological conditions may be considered when assessing the significance of 

predicted impacts. 

Potential changes in regional haze at PSD Class I and sensitive PSD Class II areas were estimated 

by comparing CALPUFF modeled impacts to background visibility conditions in Class I or 

sensitive Class II areas. This comparison was performed using two different representations of 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-13 

background visibility conditions. One method used visibility values provided in the FLAG 

Report for each Class I area to represent natural background visibility. The second method used 

estimated background visibility values from an analysis of recent long-term monitored data 

(1988–2002) from the IMPROVE program. This analysis consisted of estimating visibility 

parameters for representative Class I areas corresponding to the monitoring period of record 

quarterly average of the 20% best visibility days. BLM recognizes that federal agencies may use 

different methods to calculate visibility impairment. Further detail can be found in TRC EC 

(2006: Section 4.6.4 and Appendix J). 

Potential changes to regional haze resulting from project source emissions were also estimated for 

nearby communities (mid-field) although these communities are classified as PSD Class II areas 

where no visibility protection exits under local, state, or federal law. Model-predicted 

concentration impacts within these communities were used to estimate potential impacts to 

visibility. Background visibility data monitored at the Class I Bridger Wilderness Area were used 

to estimate potential visibility impairment in these residential areas. These data were used 

because no visibility monitoring has been conducted in populated areas of the region. Because 

anthropogenic emissions (traffic, wood stoves, furnaces, etc.) exist in the residential locations it is 

likely that the visibility data measured in the Bridger Wilderness Area are more pristine than what 

would be measured in the residential areas. Therefore, because visibility impacts are calculated as 

percent increases of modeled concentrations above background values, the use of these data may 

overestimate the potential visibility impacts at these communities. 

Seven lakes within the sensitive PSD Class I and Class II Wilderness Areas were identified as 

being sensitive to acid deposition. These lakes are those for which the most recent and complete 

data are available and include the following: 

• Deep Lake in the Bridger Wilderness Area, 

• Black Joe Lake in the Bridger Wilderness Area, 

• Hobbs Lake in the Bridger Wilderness Area, 

• Lazy Boy Lake in the Bridger Wilderness Area, 

• Upper Frozen Lake in the Bridger Wilderness Area, 

• Ross Lake in the Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area, and 

• Lower Saddlebag Lake in the Popo Agie Wilderness Area. 

The NPS (2001) has identified Deposition Analysis Thresholds (DATs) for total nitrogen (N) and 

sulfur (S) deposition in the western U.S. as 0.005 kilograms per hectare per year (kg/ha-year) for 

both N and S. The DAT is used as an analysis threshold for evaluating potential impacts from 

project-related emissions. The USFS (Fox et al. 1989) has defined thresholds below which no 

adverse impacts from acid deposition are likely; however, the USFS has concerns that these 

deposition thresholds are set too high. These thresholds (herein referred to as levels of concern), 

defined as 5 kg/ha-yr for S and 3 kg/ha-yr for N, are used for comparison of potential impacts 

from cumulative source emissions. The USFS Rocky Mountain Region has also developed a 

screening method (USFS 2000) that identifies a Limit of Acceptable Change (LAC) in lake 

chemistry. The LACs are 1) no more than a 10% change in acid-neutralizing capacity (ANC) for 

lakes with an existing ANC of 25 microequivalents per liter (�eq/l) or greater and 2) no more 

than a 1-�eq/l change for extremely acid-sensitive lakes where the existing ANC is below 

25 �eq/l. Of the seven lakes identified by the USFS as acid-sensitive, Upper Frozen and Lazy 

Boy lakes are considered extremely acid-sensitive. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-14 Chapter 4 

Far-field Impacts Summary 

An overall summary of maximum direct project far-field impacts by alternative is provided in 

Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3. Pollutant concentrations under all project alternatives would be below 

applicable ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at far-field locations (see Appendix 

J, Tables J-10 through J-16). Direct project NO2 and PM10 concentrations may exceed the 

proposed PSD Class I SILs at the Bridger Wilderness Area for various development alternatives, 

and would be below the SILs at all other sensitive areas. The SILs are defined under the New 

Source Review (NSR) program and are applicable to impacts from a single facility only. The 

SILs are used to determine the need for further modeling analyses, and are not an indicator of 

“significance” as defined within a NEPA analysis. 

Direct project visibility impacts from all alternatives were predicted to be above “just noticeable 

visibility changes” (1.0-dv) threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area (see Appendix J, Tables J17 and J-18). FLAG (2000) identifies a goal that any specific project combined with cumulative 

new source growth will have no days of visibility impairment at or above 1.0 dv in any Class I 

area. There were no predicted direct project impacts above the 1.0-dv threshold at any other 

analyzed sensitive area. 

Direct project source emissions under all project alternatives would not result in an increase in 

ANC above any LAC at the acid-sensitive lakes (see Appendix J, Tables J-19 through J-21). The 

predicted maximum deposition impacts (Appendix J, Table J-20) from the Proposed Action are 

below the 0.005 kg/ha-yr DAT at all sensitive PSD Class I and Class II areas. Under the 

Proposed Action and Alternative B scenarios, the maximum predicted N impacts are above the 

0.005 kg/ha-yr DAT at the Bridger Wilderness Area, Popo Agie Wilderness Area, and Wind 

River Roadless Area, and are below the DAT at all other sensitive areas. For Alternative B and 

the Preferred Alternative, the maximum predicted N impacts are above the 0.005 kg/ha-yr DAT at 

the Bridger and Popo Agie Wilderness Areas, and are below the DAT at all other sensitive areas. 

The number of days of direct project visibility impacts within the mid-field (Wyoming regional 

communities) were predicted to be above the “just noticeable visibility change” (1.0-dv) 

threshold as shown in Appendix J, Tables J-22 and J-23. 

Estimated direct project impacts at in-field locations are below the applicable ambient air quality 

standards (see Appendix J, Table J-24). For the Proposed Action, Alternative A, and Alternative 

B scenarios, potential in-field (near-field) concentrations could exceed the PSD 24-hour PM10 

increment but are below the annual PM10 increment and below the PSD increments for all other 

pollutants. However, this PSD comparison is for information purposes only and does not 

constitute a regulatory PSD increment consumption analysis. 

A presentation of the aforementioned results for each alternative and for cumulative source 

impacts is presented below. 

4.1.2.1 No Action Alternative 

Near-field Impacts 

No project-related near-field impacts beyond currently approved levels would occur in the JIDPA 

under the No Action Alternative. As a result, near-field air quality impacts and air quality would 

remain similar to existing levels. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-15 

Far-field Impacts 

No new project-related development would occur under the No Action Alternative; therefore, air 

quality would remain similar to existing levels. 

Mid-field and In-field Impacts 

No project-related mid-field and in-field impacts beyond currently approved levels would occur 

in the JIDPA under the No Action Alternative. As a result, mid-field and in-field air quality 

impacts and air quality would remain similar to existing levels. 

4.1.2.2 Proposed Action 

Near-field Impacts 

The construction or production phase of the Proposed Action that would produce maximum 

emissions was identified by pollutant and analyzed. The maximum emissions configurations 

representative of the Proposed Action modeled were: PM10 and PM2.5 using a 3.8-acre pad; SO2 

using straight hole drilling; and NO2, CO, and HAP using 3,100 wells developed in the field at 

128 wells per section (5.0-acre surface well spacing). These configurations result in the 

maximum predicted impacts for the Proposed Action. 

The maximum predicted impacts of NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and O3 and comparison of these 

impacts to WAAQS and NAAQS are presented in Appendix J, Tables J-1, J-2, J-3, J-4, J-5, and 

J-6, respectively. Appendix J, Table J-1 also presents a comparison of maximum predicted NO2 

impacts resulting from production activities to the PSD Class II increment for NO2. Predicted 

impacts from Proposed Action source emissions are less than the applicable WAAQS, NAAQS, 

and PSD increments. 

Appendix J, Tables J-7 and J-8 summarize modeled HAP impacts based on emissions 

representative of the Proposed Action. 

Far-field Impacts 

Direct impacts from the Proposed Action maximum emissions scenario (the last year of field 

construction and the full field in production) were modeled as set forth in the Jonah Infill Natural 

Gas Project Air Quality Technical Support Document (TRC EC 2006). The emissions modeled 

are provided in Appendix J, Table J-1. Appendix J, Tables J-10, J-11, J-12, and J-13 present the 

maximum predicted impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, respectively, at the analyzed PSD 

Class I and sensitive PSD Class II areas. Appendix J, Tables J-14, J-15, and J-16 present the 

maximum modeled Proposed Action impacts of NO2, SO2, and PM10, respectively, for 

comparison to PSD SILs and increments. As shown in these tables, pollutant concentrations 

resulting from Proposed Action source emissions would be below the applicable ambient air 

quality standards and PSD increments for both emissions scenarios. Potential NO2 and PM10 

concentrations may exceed the proposed PSD Class I SILs at the Bridger Wilderness Area but 

would be below the significance levels at all other sensitive areas. 

Direct visibility impacts from the Proposed Action were predicted to be above the “just noticeable 

visibility change” (1.0-dv) threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area, using both the FLAG and 

IMPROVE background visibility data. The visibility impacts resulting from direct project source 

emissions are provided in Appendix J, Table J-17 for the FLAG background visibility data, and in 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-16 Chapter 4 

Table J-18 for the IMPROVE background visibility data. Visibility impacts at all other sensitive 

areas were predicted to be below the “just noticeable visibility change” threshold for all days. 

Direct project source emissions from the Proposed Action would not result in an increase in ANC 

above any LAC at the acid-sensitive lakes (Appendix J, Table J-19). The predicted maximum S 

deposition impacts (Appendix J, Table J-20) from the Proposed Action are below the 0.005 

kg/ha-yr DAT at all sensitive PSD Class I and Class II areas. For the maximum emissions 

scenario, maximum N impacts (Appendix J, Table J-21) are predicted to be above the 0.005 

kg/ha-yr threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area, Popo Agie Wilderness Area, and Wind River 

Roadless Area, and below the DAT at all other sensitive areas. The maximum predicted N 

deposition impacts from the full field in production emissions scenario are above the DAT at the 

Bridger Wilderness Area and below the DAT at all other sensitive areas. The exceedances of this 

threshold trigger a management concern but are not necessarily indicative of an adverse impact 

(NPS 2004). 

Mid-field Impacts 

Maximum visibility impacts and the estimated number of days predicted to be above the “just 

noticeable visibility change” (1.0-dv) threshold at nearby Wyoming communities from the 

Proposed Action source emissions scenarios are shown in Appendix J, Table J-22 for the FLAG 

visibility data and Table J-23 for the IMPROVE visibility data. 

In-field Impacts 

Appendix J, Table J-24 presents the maximum impacts from all Proposed Action source 

emissions compared to ambient air quality standards estimated to occur within the JIDPA. These 

project-related impacts are below applicable ambient air quality standards. Potential in-field 

(near-field) concentrations could exceed the PSD 24-hour PM10 increment but are below the 

annual PM10 increment and below the PSD increments for all other pollutants. 

4.1.2.3 Alternative A 

Near-field Impacts 

The construction or production phase of the Alternative A scenarios that would produce 

maximum emissions was identified by pollutant and analyzed. The maximum emissions 

configurations representative of Alternative A modeled were: PM10 and PM2.5 using a 3.8-acre 

pad; SO2 using straight hole drilling; and NO2, CO, and HAP using 3,100 wells developed in the 

field at 128 wells per section (5.0-acre surface well spacing). These configurations result in the 

maximum predicted impacts for Alternative A. 

The predicted impacts of NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and O3 and comparisons of these impacts 

to WAAQS and NAAQS are presented in Appendix J, Tables J-1, J-2, J-3, J-4, J-5, and J-6, 

respectively. Appendix J, Table J-1 also presents a comparison of the maximum predicted NO2 

impacts resulting from production activities to the PSD Class II increment for NO2. Predicted 

impacts from Alternative A source emissions are less than the applicable WAAQS, NAAQS and 

PSD increments. 

Appendix J, Tables J-8 and J-9 summarize modeled HAP impacts based on emissions from 

Alternative A sources. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-17 

Far-field Impacts 

Direct project concentration impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 from Alternative A were 

estimated at each of the eight Class I and sensitive Class II areas. The emissions modeled for 

Alternative A scenarios are provided in Appendix J, Table J-9. Appendix J, Tables J-10, J-11, J12, and J-13 present the maximum predicted impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, respectively, 

at the analyzed PSD Class I and sensitive PSD Class II areas. Appendix J, Tables J-14, J-15, and 

J-16 present the maximum modeled Alternative A concentration impacts of NO2, SO2, and PM10, 

respectively, for comparison to PSD SILs and increments. As shown in these tables, pollutant 

concentrations resulting from Alternative A source emissions scenarios are less than the 

applicable ambient air quality standards and PSD increments for both emissions scenarios. 

Potential NO2 and PM10 concentrations may exceed the proposed PSD Class I SILs at the Bridger 

Wilderness Area but would be below the significance levels at all other sensitive areas. 

Direct visibility impacts from Alternative A source emissions are predicted to be above the “just 

noticeable visibility change” (1.0-dv) threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area for each of the 

three development rate alternatives, using both the FLAG and IMPROVE background visibility 

data. The visibility impacts resulting from direct project source emissions are provided in 

Appendix J, Table J-17 for the FLAG background visibility data and in Table J-18 for the 

IMPROVE background visibility data. 

Direct project source emissions from Alternative A would not result in an increase in ANC above 

any LAC at the acid-sensitive lakes (Appendix J, Table J-19). The predicted maximum 

S deposition impacts (Appendix J, Table J-20) from Alternative A sources are below the 

0.005 kg/ha-yr DAT at all sensitive PSD Class I and Class II areas. The predicted N impacts 

(Appendix J, Table J-21) are above the 0.005 kg/ha-yr threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area, 

Popo Agie Wilderness Area, and Wind River Roadless Area, and below the DAT at all other 

sensitive areas. 

Mid-field Impacts 

The maximum visibility impacts (dv) and estimated number of days predicted to be above the 

“just noticeable visibility change” (1.0-dv) threshold at nearby Wyoming towns for Alternative A 

scenarios are shown in Appendix J, Tables J-22 for the FLAG visibility data and J-23 for the 

IMPROVE visibility data. 

In-field Impacts 

Model predicted concentrations of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, resulting from Alternative A 

source emissions at locations within the JIDPA are shown in Appendix J, Table J-24. 

The estimated project-related impacts are less than applicable ambient air quality standards. 

Potential in-field (near-field) concentrations could exceed the PSD 24-hour PM10 increment but 

are below the annual PM10 increment and below the PSD increments for all other pollutants. 

4.1.2.4 Alternative B 

Near-field Impacts 

The construction or production phase of Alternative B scenarios that would produce maximum 

emissions were identified by pollutant and analyzed. The maximum emissions configurations 

representative of Alternative B modeled were: PM10 and PM2.5 using a 10.0-acre pad; SO2 using 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-18 Chapter 4 

directional drilling; and NO2, CO, and HAP using 3,100 wells developed in the field at 16 well 

pads per section (40-acre surface well spacing). These configurations result in the maximum 

predicted impacts for Alternative B. 

Direct project impacts of NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and O3 and comparison of these impacts to 

WAAQS and NAAQS are presented in Appendix J, Tables J-1, J-2, J-3, J-4, J-5, and J-6, 

respectively. Appendix J, Table J-1 also presents a comparison of the maximum predicted NO2 

impacts resulting from production activities to the PSD Class II increment for NO2. Predicted 

impacts from Alternative B source emissions are less than applicable WAAQS, NAAQS and PSD 

increments. 

Appendix J, Tables J-7 and J-8 summarize modeled HAP impacts based on emissions from 

Alternative B sources. 

Far-field Impacts 

Direct project concentration impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 were estimated at each of the 

eight Class I and sensitive Class II areas. The emissions modeled for Alternative B scenarios are 

provided in Appendix J, Table J-9. Appendix J, Tables J-10, J-11, J-12, and J-13 present the 

maximum predicted concentration impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, respectively, at the 

analyzed PSD Class I and sensitive PSD Class II areas. Appendix J, Tables J-14, J-15, and J-16 

present the maximum modeled Alternative B impacts of NO2, SO2, and PM10, respectively, for 

comparison to PSD SILs and increments. As shown in these tables, pollutant concentrations 

resulting from all Alternative B source emissions scenarios would be below applicable ambient 

air quality standards and PSD increments for both emissions scenarios. Potential NO2 and PM10 

concentrations may exceed proposed PSD Class I SILs at the Bridger Wilderness Area but would 

be below the significance levels at all other sensitive areas. 

Direct visibility impacts from Alternative B source emissions are predicted to be above the “just 

noticeable visibility change” (1.0-dv) threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area for each 

development rate using both the FLAG and IMPROVE background visibility data. A summary 

of these impacts is provided in Appendix J, Tables J-17 (FLAG) and J-18 (IMPROVE). 

Visibility impacts at all other sensitive areas were predicted to be below the “just noticeable 

visibility change” threshold for all days. 

Direct project source emissions from Alternative B would not result in an increase in ANC above 

any LAC at the acid-sensitive lakes (Appendix J, Table J-19). Predicted maximum S deposition 

impacts (Appendix J, Table J-20) from Alternative B sources are below the 0.005 kg/ha-yr DAT 

at all sensitive PSD Class I and Class II areas. The predicted N impacts (Appendix J, Table 

J-21) are above the DAT at the Bridger Wilderness and Popo Agie Wilderness and below the 

DAT at all other sensitive areas. 

Mid-field Impacts 

The maximum visibility impacts (dv) and estimated number of days predicted to be above the 

“just noticeable visibility change” (1.0-dv) threshold at nearby Wyoming towns from Alternative 

B scenarios are shown in Appendix J, Tables J-22 (FLAG) and J-23 (IMPROVE). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-19 

In-field Impacts 

Model predicted concentrations of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 resulting from Alternative B source 

emissions at locations within the JIDPA are shown in Appendix J, Table J-24. The estimated 

project-related impacts are below applicable ambient air quality standards. 

Potential in-field (near-field) concentrations could exceed the PSD 24-hour PM10 increment but 

are below the annual PM10 increment and below the PSD increments for all other pollutants. 

4.1.2.5 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Various configurations of the Preferred Alternative were modeled to provide a representation of 

the range of possible impacts (low and high emissions scenarios) and of impacts that could occur 

using various mitigation methods (see AQTSD Appendix J, Section J-2; TRC EC 2006). Impacts 

from the Preferred Alternative as described herein are those potentially occurring from the high 

emissions scenario (i.e., 250 wells developed per year, 50% directionally drilled wells, 80% Tier 

0 [AP-42] [EPA 1995] and 20% Tier 1 drilling rig emission levels) with an 80% reduction in 

emission levels. 

Near-field Impacts 

The construction or production phase of the Preferred Alternative scenarios that would produce 

maximum emissions was identified by pollutant and analyzed. The maximum emissions 

configurations representative of the Preferred Alternative modeled were: PM10 and PM2.5 using a 

7.0-acre pad; SO2 using directional drilling; and NO2, CO, and HAP using 3,100 wells developed 

in the field at 16 well pads per section (40.0-acre surface well spacing). These configurations 

result in the maximum predicted impacts for the Preferred Alternative. 

Direct project impacts of NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and O3 and a comparison of those impacts 

to NAAQS and WAAQS are presented in Appendix J, Tables J-1, J-2, J-3, J-4, J-5, and J-6, 

respectively. Appendix J, Table J-1 also presents a comparison of the maximum predicted NO2 

impacts resulting from production activities to the PSD Class II increment for NO2. Predicted 

impacts from the Preferred Alternative source emissions would be below the applicable WAAQS 

and NAAQS and PSD increments. 

Appendix J, Tables J-7 and J-8 summarize modeled HAP impacts based on emissions from 

Preferred Alternative sources. 

Far-field Impacts 

Direct project concentration impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 were estimated at each of the 

eight Class I and sensitive Class II areas. The emissions modeled for Preferred Alternative 

scenarios are provided in Appendix J, Table J-9. Appendix J, Tables J-10, J-11, J-12, and J-13 

present the maximum predicted concentration impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, 

respectively, at the analyzed PSD Class I and sensitive PSD Class II areas. Appendix J, Tables J14, J-15, and J-16 present the maximum modeled Preferred Alternative impacts of NO2, SO2, and 

PM10, respectively, for comparison to PSD SILs and increments. As shown in these tables, 

pollutant concentrations resulting from all Preferred Alternative source emissions scenarios 

would be below applicable ambient air quality standards and PSD increments for both emissions 

scenarios. Potential NO2 and PM10 concentrations may exceed proposed PSD Class I SILs at the 

Bridger Wilderness Area but would be below the significance levels at all other sensitive areas. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-20 Chapter 4 

Direct visibility impacts from the Preferred Alternative are predicted to be above the “just 

noticeable visibility change” (1.0-dv) threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area for each 

development rate using both the FLAG and IMPROVE background visibility data. A summary 

of these impacts is provided in Appendix J, Tables J-17 (FLAG) and J-18 (IMPROVE). 

Visibility impacts at all other sensitive areas were predicted to be below the “just noticeable 

visibility change” threshold for all days. 

Direct project source emissions from the Preferred Alternative would not result in an increase in 

ANC above any LAC at the acid-sensitive lakes (Appendix J, Table J-19). Predicted maximum 

deposition impacts (Appendix J, Table J-20) from the Preferred Alternative are below the 

0.005 kg/ha-yr DAT at all sensitive PSD Class I and Class II areas. The predicted N impacts 

(Appendix J, Table J-21) are above the 0.005 kg/ha-yr threshold at the Bridger and Popo Agie 

Wilderness Areas, and below the DAT at all other sensitive areas. 

Mid-field Impacts 

The maximum visibility impacts (dv) and estimated number of days predicted to be above the 

“just noticeable visibility change” (1.0-dv) threshold at nearby Wyoming towns from Preferred 

Alternative scenarios are shown in Appendix J, Tables J-22 (FLAG) and J-23 (IMPROVE). 

In-field Impacts 

Model predicted concentrations of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 resulting from Preferred 

Alternative source emissions at locations within the JIDPA are shown in Appendix J, Table J-24. 

The estimated project-related impacts are below applicable ambient air quality standards. 

Potential in-field (near-field) concentrations are below PSD increments. 

Preferred Alternative Air Quality Mitigation Measures 

Under the Preferred Alternative, additional mitigation measures would be applied to facilitate 

achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources (see 

Section 2.4.5). 

4.1.2.6 Cumulative Impacts 

The CALPUFF model was used to quantify the impacts of NOX, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 resulting 

from project sources, state-permitted sources, RFFA, and RFD located within the model domain 

(see Map 3.1). Project source emissions are described in Section 4.1.2 and quantified in 

Appendix J, Table J-9. State-permitted sources include NOX, SO2 and/or PM10/PM2.5 sources that 

began operation after January 1, 2001, and were permitted before June 30, 2003. June 30, 2003 

became the end-date of the source inventory because the dispersion modeling analysis began on 

July 1, 2003. Sources permitted within the 18 months prior to January 1, 2001, but not yet 

operating were included as RFFA. RFD was defined as the undeveloped portion of 1) an 

approved NEPA project or 2) a proposed NEPA project for which quantified air emissions data 

were available at the time of the analysis. State-permitted, RFFA, and RFD emissions modeled in 

the cumulative analysis are quantified in Appendix J, Table J-9. RFD projects included in the 

cumulative analysis are listed in Appendix J, Table J-25. RFD projects were analyzed utilizing 

the maximum production scenario identified for each project. Emissions from field development 

(the construction phase) of RFD were not analyzed; rather, the combined emissions of all RFD 

operating at maximum production levels simultaneously was considered a conservative 

representation of domain-wide emissions. The development phases of individual RFD projects 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-21 

have the potential to cause or contribute to higher localized ambient air impacts than those 

demonstrated in this analysis. However, because RFD project development rates and schedules 

vary for each project and are difficult to define with certainty, it was determined that all emission 

sources operating at maximum production rates was the most reasonable representation of 

cumulative impacts occurring in the future when based on RFD information available at the time 

of analysis. 

While there may be additional gas processing and/or transmission requirements due to 

development of this and other natural gas projects regionally and nationally, the potential effects 

of these developments are not quantified herein because these developments are speculative and 

would likely require WDEQ/AQD permit analysis if they eventually are proposed. A portion of 

the Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Development project, located more than 185 miles 

(>300 km) east-northeast of the JIDPA, is located within the far-field modeling domain defined in 

Map 3.1. A ratio of total Powder River Basin project field development equal to the geographical 

portion within the JIDPA far-field modeling domain was included as RFD in this analysis. The 

Powder River Basin project identified significant project-specific and cumulative impacts in the 

Bridger Wilderness and other sensitive areas analyzed for this project. Further information on air 

quality impacts associated with the PRBP may be found in the BLM (2002b). 

Cumulative impacts were analyzed at each of the eight Class I and sensitive Class II areas, and at 

mid-field (regional communities) and in-field locations within the JIDPA. Ambient 

concentrations were estimated at each Class I and sensitive Class II area and at locations within 

the JIDPA. Acid deposition calculations were performed for each Class I and sensitive Class II 

area and at acid-sensitive lakes within these areas. Visibility impacts were computed for each 

Class I and sensitive Class II area and at mid-field (regional communities) locations. 

Impacts Summary. The cumulative far-field modeling results for the range of project alternatives 

are provided in Appendix J, Tables J-26 through J-40. These tables present the estimated 

cumulative impacts resulting from project and regional source emissions. A discussion of the 

cumulative modeling results for each alternative is presented below. 

Appendix J, Tables J-26, J-27, J-28, and J-29 present the maximum predicted cumulative impacts 

of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, respectively, at the analyzed PSD Class I and sensitive PSD Class 

II areas. These maximum predicted concentrations were added to the ambient background 

pollutant concentrations for comparison to the WAAQS and NAAQS. Appendix J, Tables J-30, J31, and J-32 present the maximum modeled direct project and cumulative source impacts of NO2, 

SO2, and PM10, respectively, for comparison to applicable PSD increments. As shown in these 

tables, cumulative pollutant concentrations from all project alternatives would be below 

applicable ambient air quality standards and PSD increments. 

Estimated cumulative visibility impacts at PSD Class I and sensitive PSD Class II areas resulting 

from project and regional source emissions are provided in Appendix J, Table J-33 for the FLAG 

background visibility data, and in Appendix J, Table J-34 for the IMPROVE background 

visibility data. As shown in these tables, cumulative visibility impacts from project alternatives 

were predicted to be above the “just noticeable visibility change” (1.0-dv) threshold at the 

Bridger Wilderness Area and Wind River Roadless Area using the FLAG background data and at 

the Bridger Wilderness Area, Popo Agie Wilderness Area, and Wind River Roadless Areas using 

the IMPROVE background visibility data. There were no predicted impacts above the 1.0-dv 

threshold at any of the other analyzed sensitive areas. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-22 Chapter 4 

Appendix J, Table J-35 provides a summary of the maximum potential change in ANC at each of 

the analyzed sensitive lakes for each project alternative. Maximum modeled cumulative 

deposition impacts are provided in Appendix J, Table J-36 (S) and Table J-37 (N). Cumulative 

emissions from any of the project alternative sources combined with regional sources would not 

result in an increase in ANC above any LAC at the acid-sensitive lakes. In addition, predicted 

maximum cumulative S and N deposition impacts from all alternatives are well below the 

5 kg/ha-yr (S) and 3 kg/ha-yr (N) levels of concern at all sensitive PSD Class I and Class II areas. 

Further detail on cumulative S and N deposition impacts is provided in the air quality technical 

support document (TRC EC 2004). 

Modeled cumulative visibility impacts at mid-field Wyoming regional community locations from 

project and regional source emissions are provided in Appendix J, Table J-38 for the FLAG 

background visibility data and in Table J-39 for the IMPROVE background visibility data. The 

number of days cumulative visibility impacts were predicted to be above the “just noticeable 

visibility change” (1.0-dv) threshold are shown in these tables for each project alternative 

scenario. 

Appendix J, Table J-40 presents the maximum predicted cumulative impacts for each project 

alternative at in-field location compared to ambient air quality standards after adding monitored 

background concentrations. These estimated cumulative impacts are below applicable ambient air 

quality standards. 

No Action Far-field Cumulative Impacts. Modeling was performed for the No Action Alternative 

to estimate cumulative impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 from non-project related source 

emissions consisting of RFD, RFFA, and state-permitted sources. Appendix J, Tables J-26, 

J-27, J-28, and J-29 present the maximum predicted impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, 

respectively, at the analyzed PSD Class I and sensitive PSD Class II areas. These maximum 

predicted concentrations were added to the ambient background pollutant concentrations for 

comparison to the WAAQS and NAAQS. Appendix J, Tables J-30, J-31, and J-32 present the 

maximum modeled cumulative No Action impacts of NO2, SO2, and PM10, respectively, for 

comparison to applicable PSD increments. As shown in these tables, pollutant concentrations 

from No Action Alternative source emissions scenarios would be well below the applicable 

ambient air quality standards and PSD increments. 

The visibility impacts resulting from cumulative No Action source emissions are provided in 

Appendix J, Table J-33 for the FLAG background visibility data and in Table J-34 for the 

IMPROVE background visibility data. Impacts are predicted to be above the “just noticeable 

visibility change” (1.0-dv) threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area (3-day maximum) using both 

the FLAG and IMPROVE background visibility data. Visibility impacts at all other sensitive 

areas were predicted to be below the “just noticeable visibility change” threshold for all days. 

Current regional visibility trends are shown in Figures 3.2 through 3.4. 

Cumulative acid deposition impacts at the seven sensitive lakes (Appendix J, Table J-35) are 

below the ANC change LACs. In addition, cumulative total N (Appendix J, Table J-36) and S 

deposition (Appendix J, Table J-37) are below the 5 kg/ha-yr (S) and 3 kg/ha-yr (N) levels of 

concern. 

No Action Mid-field Cumulative Impacts. The maximum visibility impacts at nearby Wyoming 

towns are shown in Appendix J, Table J-38 (FLAG) and Table J-39 (IMPROVE). The estimated 

number of days predicted to be above the “just noticeable visibility change” (1.0-dv) threshold 

and the maximum dv change are shown. The maximum number of days with a “just noticeable 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-23 

visibility change” are predicted to occur at Big Piney (7-day maximum), approximately 18 miles 

northwest of the JIDPA. 

No Action In-field Cumulative Impacts. Model predicted concentrations of NO2, SO2, PM10, and 

PM2.5 resulting from No Action cumulative source emissions at locations within the JIDPA are 

shown in Appendix J, Table J-24. The maximum impacts shown are compared to ambient air 

quality standards after adding monitored background concentrations. The estimated non-project 

impacts are below applicable ambient air quality standards. 

Proposed Action Far-field Cumulative Impacts. Modeling was performed for the Proposed 

Action to estimate cumulative impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 from project and 

non-project related source emissions, consisting of RFD, RFFA, and state-permitted sources. 

Appendix J, Tables J-26, J-27, J-28, and J-29 present the maximum predicted impacts of NO2, 

SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, respectively, at the analyzed PSD Class I and sensitive PSD Class II areas. 

These maximum predicted concentrations were added to the ambient background pollutant 

concentrations for comparison to the WAAQS and NAAQS. Appendix J, Tables J-30, J-31, and 

J-32 present the maximum modeled cumulative impacts of NO2, SO2, and PM10, respectively, 

from Proposed Action and regional sources for comparison to applicable PSD increments. As 

shown in these tables, pollutant concentrations from Proposed Action and regional source 

emissions scenarios would be below applicable ambient air quality standards and PSD 

increments. 

The cumulative visibility impacts for the Proposed Action are provided in Appendix J, Table J-33 

(FLAG) and in Table J-34 (IMPROVE). Visibility impacts are predicted to be above the “just 

noticeable visibility change” (1.0-dv) threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area (7-day maximum) 

and Wind River Roadless Area (2-day maximum) using both the FLAG and IMPROVE 

background visibility data. Visibility impacts at all other sensitive areas were predicted to be 

below the “just noticeable visibility change” threshold for all days. 

Cumulative acid deposition impacts at the seven sensitive lakes (Appendix J, Table J-35) are 

below the ANC change LACs. In addition, cumulative total N (Appendix J, Table J-36) and S 

deposition (Appendix J, Table J-37) are well below the 5 kg/ha-yr (S) and 3 kg/ha-yr (N) levels of 

concern. 

Proposed Action Mid-field Cumulative Impacts. The maximum visibility impacts at nearby 

Wyoming towns are shown in Appendix J, Table J-38 (FLAG) and Table J-39 (IMPROVE). The 

estimated number of days predicted to be above the “just noticeable visibility change” (1.0-dv) 

threshold and the maximum dv change are shown The maximum number of days with a “just 

noticeable visibility change” are predicted to occur at Big Sandy (34-day maximum), 

approximately 16 miles northeast of the JIDPA. 

Proposed Action In-field Cumulative Impacts. Model predicted concentrations of NO2, SO2, 

PM10, and PM2.5 resulting from Proposed Action and regional source emissions at locations 

within the JIDPA are shown in Appendix J, Table J-24. The maximum impacts shown are 

compared to ambient air quality standards after adding monitored background concentrations. 

The estimated impacts are below applicable ambient air quality standards. Potential cumulative 

in-field (near-field) concentrations could exceed the PSD 24-hour PM10 increment but are below 

the annual PM10 increment and below the PSD increments for all other pollutants. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-24 Chapter 4 

Preferred Alternative Far-field Cumulative Impacts. Modeling was performed for the Preferred 

Alternative to estimate cumulative impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 from project and 

non-project related source emissions, consisting of RFD, RFFA, and state-permitted sources. 

Appendix J, Tables J-26, J-27, J-28, and J-29 present the maximum predicted impacts of NO2, 

SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, respectively, at the analyzed PSD Class I and sensitive PSD Class II areas. 

These maximum predicted concentrations were added to the ambient background pollutant 

concentrations for comparison to the WAAQS and NAAQS. Appendix J, Tables J-30, J-31, and 

J-32 present the maximum modeled cumulative impacts of NO2, SO2, and PM10, respectively, 

from Preferred Alternative and regional sources for comparison to applicable PSD increments. As 

shown in these tables, pollutant concentrations from Preferred Alternative and regional source 

emissions scenarios would be below applicable ambient air quality standards and PSD 

increments. 

The cumulative visibility impacts for the Preferred Alternative are provided in Appendix J, 

Table J-33 (FLAG) and in Table J-34 (IMPROVE). Visibility impacts are predicted to be above 

the “just noticeable visibility change” (1.0-dv) threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area (6-day 

maximum) using both the FLAG and IMPROVE background visibility data. Visibility impacts at 

all other sensitive areas were predicted to be below the “just noticeable visibility change” 

threshold for all days. 

Cumulative acid deposition impacts at the seven sensitive lakes (Appendix J, Table J-35) are 

below the ANC change LACs. In addition, cumulative total N (Appendix J, Table J-36) and S 

deposition (Appendix J, Table J-37) are well below the 5 kg/ha-yr (S) and 3 kg/ha-yr (N) levels of 

concern. 

Preferred Alternative Mid-field Cumulative Impacts. The maximum visibility impacts at nearby 

Wyoming towns are shown in Appendix J, Table J-38 (FLAG) and Table J-39 (IMPROVE). The 

estimated number of days predicted to be above the “just noticeable visibility change” (1.0-dv) 

threshold and the maximum dv change are shown. The maximum number of days with a “just 

noticeable visibility change” are predicted to occur at Big Piney (13-day maximum), 

approximately 18 miles northwest of the JIDPA. 

Preferred Alternative In-field Cumulative Impacts. Model predicted concentrations of NO2, SO2, 

PM10, and PM2.5 resulting from Preferred Alternative and regional source emissions at locations 

within the JIDPA are shown in Appendix J, Table J-24. The maximum impacts shown are 

compared to ambient air quality standards after adding monitored background concentrations. 

The estimated cumulative impacts are below applicable ambient air quality standards and PSD 

increments. 

Cumulative Impacts for Other Project Alternatives. The predicted cumulative impacts from all 

other project alternatives are well below the applicable ambient air quality standards and PSD 

Class I increments. Potential cumulative in-field (near-field) concentrations from other project 

alternatives could exceed the PSD 24-hour PM10 increment but are below the annual PM10 

increment and below the PSD increments for all other pollutants. Estimated acid deposition 

impacts at the seven sensitive lakes are below the ANC change LACs. In addition, cumulative 

total N and S depositions are well below the 5 kg/ha-yr (S) and 3 kg/ha-yr (N) levels of concern. 

Predicted visibility impacts from the other project alternatives are less than or equivalent to the 

Proposed Action Alternative and greater than the Preferred Alternative. The cumulative far-field 

modeling results for all project alternatives are summarized in Appendix J, Tables J-26 

through J-40. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-25 

4.1.2.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Some increase in air pollutant emissions would occur as a result of the Proposed Action and 

alternatives. Near-field impacts from these emissions are predicted to be below applicable 

significance thresholds. However, there is a potential for direct and cumulative visibility impacts 

to exceed visibility levels of concern within PSD Class I Bridger Wilderness Area and deposition 

thresholds within Bridger Wilderness Area, Popo Agie Wilderness Area, and Wind River 

Roadless Area. 

4.1.3 Topography 

Impacts to topography would be considered significant if disturbance permanently inhibited or 

substantially altered surface drainage patterns (e.g., new head-cutting and/or gully formation 

inhibiting surface runoff to areas where wetlands or riparian areas depend on it, changes that 

substantially redirect surface runoff). Project impacts to topography are assumed to be 

proportional to the volume of surface disturbance (i.e., increased surface disturbance would 

correspond to an increase in the potential for altered surface drainage patterns). Specific impacts 

would include changes to the landscape due to cut-and-fill (surface-leveling) activities used to 

construct well pads, access roads, and other facilities; road and pipeline crossings of channels; 

and slope and drainage alterations. The landscape and surface drainage alterations associated with 

this project would require specific mitigation as identified in Appendices A, B, and C. 

4.1.3.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to topography would be limited to the existing 

developments for 497 well pads and associated facilities—4,209 acres total disturbance, of which 

2,811 acres would be short term and 1,409 acres would be long term over the LOP (see Table 

2.2). No significant impacts are anticipated. The duration of impacts would be approximately 63 

years (see Table 2.1) and until areas are adequately reclaimed (see Appendix B). 

4.1.3.2 The Proposed Action 

An estimated maximum of 20,409 acres of total disturbance would occur under the Proposed 

Action (see Table 2.3), 14,388 acres of which would be short term, because surface disturbance 

areas not needed for operations would be recontoured and reseeded within 2 to 4 years after 

disturbance (e.g., portions of well pads and road ROWs and entire pipeline ROW areas). 

Long-term LOP disturbance is estimated at 6,043 acres and is anticipated to last for 

approximately 76 years and until successful reclamation is achieved (see Table 2.1). 

An approximate 385% increase in total disturbance and 329% increase in LOP disturbance above 

the No Action Alternative would occur under the Proposed Action; impact duration would be 

extended at least an additional 13 years (76-year LOP), and significant impacts are anticipated. 

4.1.3.3 Alternative A 

The types of impacts to topography under Alternative A would be similar to those described for 

the Proposed Action, except that impacts may be further amplified if BLM standard stipulations 

(particularly those regarding steep slopes and drainage channels) are excepted (see Appendix A). 

Additionally, impacts would occur in some areas that would be avoided under the Proposed 

Action (i.e., greater sage-grouse lek, raptor nest, and Sand Draw buffers). Significant impacts are 

anticipated. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-26 Chapter 4 

4.1.3.4 Alternative B 

An estimated maximum of 7,431 acres of total disturbance would occur under Alternative B 

(see Table 2.4), 4,848 acres of which would be short term. LOP disturbance would be 2,602 

acres and is anticipated to last for approximately 105 years, plus the time needed for successful 

reclamation (see Table 2.1). An approximate 77% increase in total disturbance and 85% increase 

in LOP disturbance above the No Action Alternative would occur under Alternative B; impact 

duration would be extended at least an additional 42 years (105-year LOP). No significant 

impacts are anticipated. 

4.1.3.5 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, an estimated maximum of 14,030–20,334 acres of disturbance 

would occur (see Table 2.5), 9,782–14388 acres of which would be short term, because surface 

disturbance areas not needed for operations would be recontoured and reseeded within 2 to 

4 years after disturbance (e.g., portions of well pads, road ROWs, and entire pipeline ROW 

areas). Long-term LOP disturbance is estimated at 4,267–6,020 acres and is anticipated to last for 

approximately 76 years and until successful reclamation is achieved (see Table 2.1). 

An approximate 233–386% increase in total disturbance and 203–327% increase in LOP 

disturbance above the No Action Alternative would occur under the Preferred Alternative; impact 

duration would be extended at least an additional 13 years (76-year LOP), and significant impacts 

such as those described under Section 4.1.3 are anticipated. 

Impacts to topography would be similar to those of the Proposed Action, except that the BLM 

Preferred Alternative would limit total surface disturbance at any given time to a maximum of 

14,030 acres. Additional mitigation measures would also be applied to facilitate achievement of 

specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources (see Section 2.4.5). Even 

with the application of these measures, significant impacts may occur to topography for the LOP. 

4.1.3.6 Cumulative Impacts 

The CIAA for topography includes the combined 10 watersheds that drain the JIDPA, which 

encompass approximately 210,300 acres. Approximately 1.6% (3,355 acres) of the CIAA has 

been previously disturbed (see Table 3.11). 

RFD (total new surface disturbance) for the CIAA outside the JIDPA is estimated at 594 acres, 

primarily from gas-related development in the Pinedale Anticline Natural Gas Field (see Section 

4.1.7). Approximately 38% (228 acres) of the RFD would occur in the Expanded Sand DrawAlkali Creek watershed. RFD for the North Alkali Draw watershed is estimated at 168 acres; 

Southeast New Fork River is estimated at 126 acres; the Big Sandy River is estimated at 54 acres; 

and the Upper Eighteenmile Canyon is estimated at 18 acres. 

Maximum cumulative disturbance (i.e., the combined existing, proposed [under the Proposed 

Action, Alternative A, and the BLM Preferred Alternative], and RFD disturbance) could be on 

the order of 22,900 acres (10.9% of the CIAA) in the combined watersheds. Maximum 

cumulative disturbance would be greatest in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed, 

and would be primarily attributable to gas development (see Section 4.1.7). The Long Draw 

watershed that drains 16% of the JIDPA would experience the second greatest amount of 

cumulative disturbance. The closed basin watersheds—Jonah Gulch and 140401040603—would 

likely only experience a small increase in cumulative disturbance. Significant cumulative impacts 

to topography are anticipated under the Proposed Action and Alternative A, with somewhat less 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-27 

impact under the BLM Preferred Alternative because of the limit on disturbance allowable at any 

one time. Alternative B would result in the least impact on topography due to the associated 

reduction in surface disturbance. 

4.1.3.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Unavoidable adverse impacts to topography would include long-term changes in landform 

throughout the JIDPA. Because reclamation activities would be performed such that the 

reclaimed landscape emulates predisturbance conditions, no notable permanent changes (postLOP) in topography are anticipated. Minor differences from the predisturbance condition would 

be present, but the overall integrity to pre-existing topography would be retained. 

4.1.4 Mineral Resources 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and the land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) identify the following 

management goals/objectives associated with mineral resources: 

•	 to maintain or enhance opportunities for mineral exploration and development, while 

protecting other resource values; 

•	 to provide for oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development while protecting other 

values; 

•	 to provide saleable mineral materials (e.g., sand, gravel) in convenient locations for users, 

while protecting other resources; 

•	 to consider the conservation and enhancement of natural resources with the economic 

benefits of resource development; 

•	 to coordinate land use decisions with economic factors and needs; 

•	 to plan land use consistent with the orderly development, use, and conservation of 

resources while preserving environmental quality; and 

•	 to plan uses that encourage energy conservation. 

The primary project impact to mineral resources would be from the depletion of recoverable gas 

and oil reserves from the Lance Pool and possibly other formations underlying the JIDPA 

(Table 4.5), and significant impacts are anticipated under most alternatives because these are nonrenewable resources. The economic impacts from natural gas and oil recovery are described in 

Section 4.4. 

Because the project (under any alternative) is not anticipated to interfere with the recovery of 

other minerals (i.e., sand and gravel), these resources would remain available for recovery. 

Therefore, no impacts to other minerals are anticipated and they are not further discussed. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-28 Chapter 4 

Table 4.5. Anticipated Gas and Condensate Recovery Volumes for Each Alternative, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 

Alternative 

Approximate Natural Gas 

Recovered1 (billion cubic 

feet [BCF]) 

Approximate Condensate 

(Oil) Recovered1 (MBO) 

Recovery Volumes Compared to 

Proposed Action 

Gas (BCF) Oil (MBO) 

No Action 

Proposed Action2 

3,366 

7,947 

31.98 

75.50 

(4,581) 

0 

(43.52) 

0 

Alternative A 

Alternative B2 

Preferred Alternative

2 

8,191 

6,124 

4,824–7,947 

77.81 

58.18 

45.83–75.50 

+244 

(1,823) 

(3,123)–0 

+2.31 

(17.32) 

(29.67)–0 

1 Assumes approximately 12,800 BCF of natural gas and 99.75 MBO of condensate are present beneath the JIDPA. 2 Does not fully account for losses/unrecovered resources associated with undeveloped wells (assumed to be uneconomic). 

4.1.4.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, an estimated 3,366 BCF of natural gas and 31.98 MBO would 

be recovered. Compared to the Proposed Action, this would leave approximately 4,581 BCF of 

gas and 43.52 MBO unrecovered (see Table 4.5). 

The No Action Alternative could result in substantial volumes of unrecovered resource. Because 

large volumes of the resources would remain in place and could be potentially extracted at a 

future date, no significant impacts are anticipated. 

4.1.4.2 The Proposed Action 

Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in an estimated total production of natural 

gas and condensates (oil) from the field of 7,947 BCF and 75.50 MBO, respectively. 

These amounts represent 4,581 BCF more gas and 43.52 MBO more oil than would be recovered 

under the No Action Alternative. Because these extracted mineral resources would no longer be 

available, significant effects to mineral resources would occur. 

4.1.4.3 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, impacts to oil and gas reserves would be the recovery of 8,191 BCF of gas 

and 77.81 MBO (see Table 4.5). These amounts represent an increase in 4,825 BCF of gas and 

45.83 MBO of oil that would be recovered under the No Action Alternative. Compared to the 

Proposed Action, an additional 244 BCF of gas and 2.31 MBO would be recovered. Because the 

extracted mineral resources would no longer be available, significant effects to mineral resources 

and future consumers would occur. 

4.1.4.4 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, 6,124 BCF of natural gas and 58.18 MBO would be produced— 

approximately 2,758 BCF of gas and 26.20 MBO more than would be recovered under the No 

Action Alternative. Compared to the Proposed Action, Alternative B would leave approximately 

1,823 BCF of gas and 17.32 MBO unrecovered. Because considerable unrecovered reserves 

would remain available and could be potentially extracted at a future date, no significant impacts 

are anticipated. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-29 

4.1.4.5 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, impacts on gas and oil resources would equal that of the 

Proposed Action if the Operators maximize ongoing reclamation as described in Section 2.4.5 

(i.e., 4,824–7,947 BCF of gas and 45.83–75.50 MBO would be produced). An estimated 1,458– 

4,581 BCF more gas and 13.85–43.52 MBO more oil would be produced than for the No Action 

Alternative. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, additional mitigation measures would be applied to facilitate 

achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources (see 

Section 2.4.5); however, because most natural gas resources would be recovered and would no 

longer be available, significant effects would occur. 

4.1.4.6 Cumulative Impacts 

The CIAA for mineral resources is the composite Jonah Field, which includes the original Jonah 

Prospect field, the Jonah II project area, and the JIDPA (see Map 3.5). This project is proposed in 

part to maximize natural gas and condensate recovery from the known reserves in this area. 

Because additional development beyond that described herein is not anticipated in the CIAA, 

cumulative impacts to mineral resources would be the same as described for the No Action 

Alternative, Proposed Action, Alternatives A and B, and the BLM Preferred Alternative. 

4.1.4.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Unavoidable adverse impacts to mineral resources would include the permanent loss of the 

extracted mineral resource (e.g., natural gas), which would no longer be available. This would 

occur under the Proposed Action, Alternative A, and the BLM Preferred Alternative. Under the 

No Action Alternative and Alternative B there would be less-than-complete recovery of 

resources, which would either: 1) necessitate developing similar resources elsewhere with 

possible adverse effects; 2) delay the recovery of these resources until some unknown time in the 

future; or 3) result in the loss of royalties. These effects could lead to unavoidable adverse 

impacts to other resources in the future. 

4.1.5 Geologic Hazards 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) identify the following 

management goals/objectives associated with geologic hazards: 

•	 to protect the health and safety of the public and the well-being of sensitive natural 

resources, 

•	 to minimize the loss of life and property from natural hazards, and 

•	 to generate and provide data on development limitations. 

Any impacts that would lead to the inability of management agencies to achieve these 

goals/objectives would be considered a significant impact. 

Potential impacts associated with geologic hazards include impacts associated with subsidence, 

earthquakes, and landslides. The depth of gas reserves in the JIDPA and the lack of underground 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-30 Chapter 4 

mines in the area negate the potential for subsidence. There are no known active faults within the 

JIDPA. No known landslides occur in the JIDPA, so none of the alternatives would be affected 

by landslides. With the application of mitigations (see Appendices A and C), impacts are 

anticipated to be less than significant under all alternatives, and no further alternative-specific 

impact analyses are discussed. 

Under the BLM Preferred Alternative, additional mitigation measures would be applied to 

facilitate achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources 

(see Section 2.4.5). 

The CIAA area for geologic hazards includes the composite Jonah Field, including the original 

Jonah Prospect field, the Jonah Field II project area, and the JIDPA (see Map 3.5), and no further 

development beyond this proposed project is planned for the area. Development in this area is not 

likely to affect or be affected by geologic hazards. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be the 

same as described above for the proposed project. 

No unavoidable adverse impacts would occur due to geologic hazards. 

4.1.6 Paleontological Resources 

The PFO and RSFO RMP (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and land use plans for the State of Wyoming 

(WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) identify the following 

management goals/objectives associated with paleontological resources: 

•	 to expand the opportunities for scientific study and educational and interpretive uses 

of paleontological resources, 

•	 to protect and preserve important paleontological resources and/or their historic 

record for future generations, and 

•	 to resolve conflicts between paleontological resources and other resource uses. 

Under all alternatives, direct impacts to paleontological resources would include damage or 

destruction of fossils and associated data due to field development/surface disturbance for well 

pads, roads, pipelines, ancillary facilities, etc. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that 

increases in surface disturbance correspond to an increase in the potential for impacts to 

paleontological resources. Indirect impacts would include loss from unauthorized collection or 

vandalism which, in turn, would result in a loss of the opportunity to expand scientific study and 

educational and interpretive uses of these resources. However, surface-disturbing activities could 

uncover fossils of significant scientific importance that otherwise would have remained buried 

and unavailable for scientific study. 

The important fossil record of the Green River Basin is well known (Grande 1984; BLM 1992) 

(see also Table 3.9). The recent discovery of Pleistocene horse bones (tentative identification) 

during well pad construction in the JIDPA affects potential future paleontological mitigation 

procedures for the area because Pleistocene paleontological materials were previously unknown 

for the JIDPA. Other geologic formations within the JIDPA are known to contain significant 

fossils throughout their occurrence in the Green River Basin. Therefore, significant fossils likely 

occur in the JIDPA. To lessen impacts, mitigation measures including avoidance, survey, 

monitoring, and collection would be used under all alternatives (see also Appendices A and C). 

As additional mitigation, a synthesis and/or overview of paleontological resources found within 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-31 

the JIDPA could be generated. In areas of paleontological sensitivity, a determination would be 

made by the BLM as to whether a survey by a qualified paleontologist is necessary prior to the 

disturbance. 

4.1.6.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, potential impacts to paleontological resources would be 

primarily associated with existing surface disturbances (4,209 acres) related to currently approved 

field development activities. Indirect impacts associated with unauthorized collection or 

vandalism would continue for the LOP. 

4.1.6.2 The Proposed Action 

Direct impacts under the Proposed Action would be increased from those of the No Action 

Alternative because up to 20,409 acres of disturbance would occur—16,200 acres more than for 

the No Action Alternative (see Table 2.3). There would be an increase in human activity and it 

would occur for a longer duration (approximately 13 years longer than No Action), resulting in 

more potential for both vandalism and discovery. 

4.1.6.3 Alternative A 

Potential direct impacts to paleontological resources under Alternative A would be similar to 

those described for the Proposed Action except that under Alternative A, some disturbance would 

occur in areas such as along Sand Draw that would be avoided under the Proposed Action. 

Indirect impacts would be increased from the No Action Alternative due to the increase in human 

activity, and these indirect impacts would occur for a longer duration, resulting in more potential 

for both vandalism and discovery (see Table 2.3). 

4.1.6.4 Alternative B 

Direct and indirect impacts to paleontological resources under Alternative B would be increased 

from those of the No Action Alternative due to the increase in total surface disturbance of 3,222 

acres and the increased human presence. Duration of the impacts would be up to 42 years longer, 

resulting in more potential for both vandalism and discovery. 

4.1.6.5 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, impacts to paleontological resources would be increased from 

those of the No Action Alternative. The Preferred Alternative would result in 9,821–16,125 acres 

of additional surface disturbance and 2,858–4,611 acres more LOP disturbance. The Preferred 

Alternative would have a direct impact duration of approximately 13 years longer than the No 

Action Alternative. Total surface disturbance would be comparable to that of the Proposed Action 

if the Operators maximize ongoing reclamation as described in Section 2.4.5; however, under the 

Preferred Alternative, additional inventory and mitigation measures would be applied to facilitate 

achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources (see 

Section 2.4.5). 

4.1.6.6 Cumulative Impacts 

The CIAA for paleontological resources is a 310,000-acre area (surrounding the JIDPA (see 

Map 3.5). Approximately 1.1% (3,331 acres) of the CIAA has been previously disturbed, much of 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-32 Chapter 4 

which is from natural gas well pads, roads, and pipelines in the JIDPA (i.e., currently approved 

oil and gas development activities). Other activities include oil and gas development in the 

Pinedale Anticline Field, livestock grazing, and recreation. Livestock grazing and recreation have 

minimal impacts on paleontological resources, other than the possibility of increasing 

opportunities for illegal collecting and/or vandalism. 

RFD (new surface disturbance) for the portion of the CIAA outside the JIDPA is estimated at 594 

acres, primarily from gas-related development in the Pinedale Anticline Natural Gas Field. 

Maximum cumulative disturbance (i.e., the combined existing, proposed [the Proposed Action, 

Alternative A, and the BLM Preferred Alternative], and RFD disturbance) could be on the order 

of 22,900 acres (7.4% of the CIAA). Alternative B would have less activity and surface 

disturbance, therefore, would have a reduced potential for cumulative impacts. Cumulative 

impacts to paleontological resources would be of the same type as those described for the action 

alternatives; however, the potential for significant cumulative impacts is unknown because little 

paleontological inventory or evaluation has been conducted in the JIDPA. 

4.1.6.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Unavoidable adverse impacts to paleontological resources include the fossil resources that may be 

inadvertently damaged or destroyed by surface-disturbing activities and those potentially lost 

through illegal collecting and/or vandalism. 

4.1.7 Soils 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) identify the following 

management goals/objectives associated with soils: 

• to stabilize and conserve soils; 

• to increase vegetative production; 

• to maintain or improve surface water and groundwater quality; 

• to protect, maintain, or improve wetlands, floodplains, and riparian areas; 

• to minimize topsoil erosion; 

• to maintain or increase highly diverse native plant communities; and 

• to consider the suitability of soil composition in all land use decisions. 

Impacts to soils would be considered significant if a reduction in soil productivity and/or 

increased erosion would prevent successful reclamation and/or if disturbance or other activities 

resulted in a violation of the aforementioned land use objectives. Impacts to soils are assumed to 

be proportional to the amount of new surface disturbance for all alternatives (i.e., increased 

disturbance would result in a proportionally increased potential for adverse impacts to soils). 

Under the various alternatives, Operators would implement various management requirements/ 

mitigation measures (see Appendices A and C); therefore, impacts to soils would also be 

dependent on the effectiveness of this mitigation. Cumulative acreage of disturbance in each 

CIAA watershed and percent of watersheds affected are shown in Tables 4.6 and 4.7. 

respectively. Significant impacts to soils resulting from surface disturbance are anticipated under 

all alternatives. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-33 

Direct impacts to soils would include removal of vegetation, exposure of the soil, mixing of soil 

horizons, loss of topsoil productivity, soil compaction, and increased susceptibility to wind and 

water erosion. These impacts could, in turn, result in increased runoff, erosion, and 

sedimentation. Increased surface runoff and erosion would occur primarily in the short term and 

would decline in time due to natural stabilization through particle aggregation, soil structure 

development, and armoring. Short-term control of surface runoff would be dependent on the 

success and implementation of reclamation and revegetation efforts described in Reclamation 

Plan and Surface Use Plans and Plans of Development prepared for each Application for Permit 

to Drill (APD) and/or ROW application, and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) 

(see also Appendix B). Following application of reclamation and revegetation procedures, the 

susceptibility of disturbed areas to soil erosion would be minimized for both the short term and 

for the LOP. 

Because the extent of erosion in the JIDPA under any alternative is undefined, the BLM 

determined that modeling would be performed to quantify sediment loss and transport (load) at 

the JIDPA boundary. The modeling looked at the sediment loss experienced during individual 

storms of varying size, with the amount of erosion experienced proportional to the size of the 

storm. Modeling was done for two alternatives analyzed in this EIS: the No Action Alternative 

and the Proposed Action.

1 Potential impacts were extrapolated for the other project alternatives. 

Modeled impacts for each action alternative were assessed by looking at the total sediment loss 

(in kilograms) resulting from new disturbance above and beyond that of the No Action 

Alternative. Table 4.8 shows the total sediment loss, by watershed, for each alternative for 5-year 

and 150-year storms. Complete results of the modeling are reported in Appendix E, Erosion, 

Sediment Transport, and Salinity Modeling Technical Report: Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming (HydroGeo 2005). 

Most soils in the JIDPA have a naturally high erosion potential and generally have limited 

rehabilitation potential because of one or more characteristics including thin soils, shallow depth 

to bedrock, excess salts, excess sand and/or small stones, clayey textures, and excess lime. 

Concentrating development actions at larger well pads would have increased site-specific effects 

on overland flow patterns, groundwater infiltration (reduced on compacted areas), and runoff 

volumes (increased rates and potential erosion and sedimentation). Additionally, if surface 

disturbance is concentrated in any one watershed, increased potential erosion and runoff-related 

effects may occur, possibly requiring the need for special treatments to be specified in APD 

approvals. Estimates of potential total and LOP disturbance associated with the various project 

alternatives within each project-affected watershed are presented in Tables 4.6–4.8 and are 

discussed under each alternative. 

The potential for contamination of soils due to the accidental discharge would be limited by 

appropriate project implementation procedures and the remedial measures applied as specified in 

SPCCPs (see Appendix B). The following analyses show that the Proposed Action and 

alternatives generally are compatible with existing management goals/objectives; however, 

significant impacts to soils are anticipated in the short term in and down-channel from the JIDPA. 

Mitigation measures (see Appendices A and C) would be required under all project alternatives to 

minimize impacts to soil resources. 

In addition to the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action, HydroGeo (2005) modeled an undisturbed


condition and the Preferred Alternative as configured in the JIDP DEIS.


Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

1 
4-34 Chapter 4 

4.1.7.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no additional activities would occur that would potentially 

affect soil resources other than those previously approved for the area (BLM 1998b, 2000b)— 

2,811 acres of short-term and 1,409 acres of LOP disturbance, or 9.2% and 4.6% of the JIDPA, 

respectively. Total disturbance would equal 4,209 acres. The duration of impacts would be 

approximately 63 years and until areas are adequately reclaimed. No additional significant 

impacts to soils beyond those of previously authorized actions are expected under the No Action 

Alternative. 

4.1.7.2 The Proposed Action 

Compared to the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would result in an estimated 

increase of 16,200 acres of new disturbance, for a total disturbance of 20,126 acres in the JIDPA 

(66.0% of the JIDPA), and an additional 283 acres for ancillary facilities that may be constructed 

outside the JIDPA. Total project-specific existing and new disturbance under the Proposed Action 

would be 20,409 acres (see Table 4.6). Approximately 70.4% (14,388 acres) of this disturbance 

would be reclaimed and reseeded as soon as practical after disturbance (see Appendix B). 

Disturbance would not occur all at once, but would increase as development occurs (for 

approximately 13 years). Simultaneously, disturbance would decrease in some areas as some 

disturbed lands are reclaimed. Significant impacts to soils are anticipated under the Proposed 

Action; however, the magnitude of impacts to soil resources would depend on how much 

disturbance is present at any one time and the rate of reclamation. Approximately 6,043 acres 

would be disturbed for the LOP (i.e., approximately 76 years and until successful reclamation is 

achieved). 

As shown in Table 4.8, under the Proposed Action, a 5-year storm results in an 802% increase in 

soil loss over the No Action Alternative, while a 150-year storm results in a 55% increase over 

the No Action Alternative. (In general, the 150-year storm is such a powerful event that erosion 

will happen whether or not ground has been disturbed; thus, the No Action Alternative itself sees 

relatively high erosion rates, and the total increase under the Proposed Alternative is a smaller 

percentage.) In terms of actual soil loss, the 5-year storm yields 224,000 kilograms more than the 

No Action Alternative, and the 150-year storm yields approximately 5.1 million kilograms more 

than the No Action Alternative. 

The greatest impacts occur to the watersheds contributing to the Big Sandy River (see Table 4.8). 

The Long Draw and Bull Draw watersheds account for 79% of the 5-year soil loss, and 72% of 

the 150-year soil loss. Sand Draw, which accounts for 45% of the JIDPA area, yields relatively 

little sediment under any storm condition: no sediment during the 5-year event, and only 10% of 

the 150-year soil loss. 

No formal estimates of disturbance to the 17 soil map units defined for the JIDPA (see Map 3.7) 

are provided herein due to the variability and unknown locations for much of the proposed 

development. Estimates of the types of soils most likely to be disturbed are based on the coarsescale soil map units (see Map 3.6). The SU05 and SU03 soil mapping units comprise over 99% of 

the JIDPA. These soil units are impacted approximately the same under the Proposed Action. 

During the 5-year storm, 59% of the lost soil is from soil mapping unit SU03 and 41% of the lost 

soil is from soil mapping unit SU05. During the 150-year storm, 43% is from SU03 and 57% is 

from SU05. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 4.6. Cumulative Acreage of Disturbance in each CIAA Watershed and Including RFD, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 200

Existing J

Watershed/ Acres of Major River Drainage Total Acreage Watershed Disturbance in RFD No Action1 Proposed Action and 

of Watershed 

within JIDPA CIAA but Alternative A2 (3,100 Wells/Pads) 

Outside JIDPA 

JIDP Total LOP Cumulative5 JIDP Total LOP Cumulative5 

Green River/New Fork River 

Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek 22,931 13,725 327 228 1,800 607 2,355 9,057 2,682 9,612 

Granite Wash 12,212 1,312 36 0 172 58 208 866 256 902 

Reduced Upper Alkali Creek-Green River 26,797 3,782 239 0 496 167 735 2,496 739 2,735 

Upper Eighteenmile Canyon 35,212 1,958 477 18 257 87 752 1,292 386 1,787 

Southeast New Fork River-Blue Rim 11,746 0 23 126 0 0 149 0 0 149 

North Alkali Draw 15,911 0 101 168 0 0 269 0 0 269 

Subtotal 124,809 20,776 1,203 540 2,725 919 4,469 13,710 4,063 15,453 

Big Sandy River 

Big Sandy River-Bull Draw 19,760 3,630 217 54 476 160 747 2,395 709 2,666 

Long Draw 18,521 5,028 281 0 660 222 941 3,318 982 3,599 

Subtotal 38,281 8,658 498 54 1,136 382 1,688 5,713 1,691 6,265 

Closed Basins 

Jonah Gulch 22,652 318 127 0 42 14 169 210 62 337 

1.40401E+11 24,558 747 122 0 98 33 220 493 146 615 

Subtotal 47,210 1,065 249 0 140 47 389 703 208 952 

Total6 210,300 30,500 1,950 594 4,001 1,348 6,545 20,126 5,962 22,670 

Additional associated disturbance7 208 61 208 283 81 283 Grand Total6 -- -- 4,209 1,409 6,753 20,409 6,043 22,953 

Percent disturbance of entire CIAA 0.9 0.3 1.9 0.6 3.2 9.6 2.9 10.9 

1 Assumes total and LOP disturbance as currently authorized. 2 Assumes 20,126 acres of total and 5,962 acres of LOP disturbance in the JIDPA. 3 Assumes 7,223 acres of total and 2,539 acres of LOP disturbance in the JIDPA. 4 Assumes 13,822 acres of total and 4,090 acres of LOP disturbance in the JIDPA. With successful reclamation, could increase to 20,126 acres of total and 5,962 acres of LOP disturbance. 5 Cumulative disturbance = New + existing + RFD. 6 Columns may not total due to rounding error. 7 Assumes new total and LOP disturbance associated with selected ancillary facilities which may be constructed outside the JIDPA (e.g., Burma Road upgrade, compressor stations). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-36 Chapter 4 

Table 4.7. Percent of Watersheds Affected, Including Existing Disturbance, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 20061 

Percent of Entire Proposed Action and Alternative A 

Watershed/ Total Acreage Percent of Watershed No Action (3,100 Wells/ 3,100 Pads) 

Major River Drainage2 of Watershed Watershed in Currently JIDPA 

Disturbed2 JIDP Total 3 LOP3 Cumulative JIDP Total 3 LOP3 Cumulative 

Green River/New Fork River 

Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek 22,931 59.9 4.2 7.8 2.6 10.3 39.5 11.7 41.9 

Granite Wash 12,212 10.7 0.3 1.4 0.5 1.7 7.1 2.1 7.4 

Reduced Upper Alkali Creek-Green River 26,797 14.1 1.3 1.9 0.6 2.7 9.3 2.8 10.2 

Upper Eighteenmile Canyon 35,212 5.6 1.7 0.7 0.2 2.1 3.7 1.1 5.1 

Southeast New Fork River-Blue Rim 11,746 0.0 0.2 -- -- 1.3 -- -- 1.3 

North Alkali Draw 15,911 0.0 0.6 -- -- 1.7 -- -- 1.7 

Big Sandy River 

Big Sandy River-Bull Draw 19,760 18.4 1.1 2.4 0.8 3.8 12.1 3.6 13.5 

Long Draw 18,521 27.1 0.7 3.6 1.2 5.1 17.9 5.3 19.4 

Closed basins 

Jonah Gulch 22,652 1.4 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.9 0.3 1.5 

140401040603 24,558 3.0 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.9 2.0 0.6 2.5 

1 Percent of watershed affected is calculated using potential acreage affected (refer to Table 4.6) divided by the total watershed acreage multiplied by 100. 2 As described in Table 3.11. 3 Provides percent of the watershed within the JIDPA that would be disturbed. Table 4.8. Total Sediment Loss in Kilograms by Alternative, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 

Return Period 5 Years Return Period 150 Year

No Action1 

(4,209 acres)3 

Proposed Action1 

Alternative A1 

(20,409 acres) 

Alternative B2 

(7,431 acres) 

Preferred Action2 

(14,030–20,334 acres) 

No Action1 

(4,209 acres)3 

Proposed Action1 

Alternative A1 

(20,409 acres) 

Alterna

(7,431 

Green River/New Fork River 

Upper Eighteenmile Canyon 406 3,154 965 2,072 240,984 341,313 261

Granite Wash 27 2,430 516 1,484 286,727 478,232 325

Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek 0 0 0 0 439,567 1,433,122 641

North Alkali Draw 7,485 26,512 11,357 19,020 1,156,586 1,624,999 1,251

Big Sandy River 

Big Sandy River-Bull Draw 2,944 36,798 9,834 23,467 1,835,340 2,878,764 2,047

Long Draw 15,331 175,512 47,931 112,438 5,181,675 7,472,309 5,647

Closed Basins 

140401040603 1,688 7,110 2,791 4,975 182,220 238,606 193

Total 27,881 251,516 73,395 163,456 9,323,099 14,467,345 10,370

Total Increase over No Action 0 223,635 45,514 135,575 0 5,144,246 1,046

1 Based on erosion and sediment transport modeling, HydroGeo (2005); see Appendix E.
2 No modeling conducted. Interpolated based on surface area impacts as a percentage of Proposed Action.
3 Acreage refers to maximum amount of acreage disturbed at any one time under each alternative

Environmental Consequences 4-37 

4.1.7.3 Alternative A 

Implementation of Alternative A is anticipated to result in the same types and acreage of impacts 

and surface disturbance as the Proposed Action (see Tables 4.6 and 4.7) and would result in 

increased soil impacts and disturbance over those of the No Action Alternative. However, 

because selected Operator-committed and BLM-required practices would not be implemented 

(e.g., avoidance of steep slopes and drainage buffers), significant impacts are more likely to occur 

under this alternative. Development of natural gas resources in these areas could result in 

significant impacts to soil resources, particularly in the Long Draw and Bull Draw watersheds, 

due to increased erosion and/or sedimentation (see Table 4.8). As with the Proposed Action, not 

all areas would be disturbed at the same time, rather, disturbance would accumulate as 

development occurs. As with the Proposed Action, the rate of development would be 250 

wells/year, resulting in a LOP of approximately 76 years or until successful reclamation. 

4.1.7.4 Alternative B 

Compared to the No Action Alternative, Alternative B would result in an estimated increase of 

3,222 acres of new disturbance, for a total disturbance of 7,223 acres in the JIDPA (23.7% of the 

JIDPA), and an additional 208 acres for ancillary facilities that may be constructed outside the 

JIDPA (see Table 4.6). Existing and new disturbance under Alternative B would total 7,431 acres. 

Disturbance would not occur all at once, but would increase as development occurs (for 

approximately 42 years). Simultaneously, disturbance would decrease in some areas as some 

disturbed lands are reclaimed. Significant impacts to soils are anticipated under Alternative B; 

however, the magnitude of impacts to soil resources would depend on how much disturbance is 

present at any one time and the rate of reclamation. Approximately 2,602 acres would be 

disturbed for the LOP (i.e., approximately 105 years and until successful reclamation is 

achieved). 

Erosion modeling was not conducted for Alternative B; the estimates shown in Table 4.8 are 

based on interpolation and the amount of surface disturbance. The greatest impact would likely 

still occur in the Long Draw and Bull Draw watersheds, which would have 11% surface area 

impacted, compared to 16% under the Proposed Action, and less than 1% under the No Action 

Alternative. Based on area of surface disturbance and interpolating from the two modeling 

scenarios (No Action and Proposed Alternatives), the amount of soil loss during the 5-year storm 

would be approximately 73,000 kilograms (representing a 163% increase over the No Action 

Alternative) and during the 150-year storm would be approximately 10.3 million kilograms 

(representing an 11% increase over the No Action alternative). 

4.1.7.5 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Impacts to soils under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those described for all other 

alternatives and would be significant. While the total impacted acreage under the Preferred 

Alternative is 14,030–20,334 acres, not all of this acreage would be impacted at any given time. 

For soil loss estimates, the maximum disturbed acreage at any one time is the important measure. 

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in a maximum 14,030 acres of 

additional surface disturbance, at any given time, above that of the No Action Alternative, 

subsequently resulting in an assumed increase in soil impacts. Impact potential would increase as 

development occurs (for approximately 13 years); therefore, all surface disturbance would not be 

present at any one time. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-38 Chapter 4 

As with Alternative B, no erosion modeling was conducted for the Preferred Alternative as 

presently configured. Rather, the estimates presented in Table 4.8 are based on the amount of 

surface disturbance expected under the Preferred Alternative and interpolation from the four 

scenarios that were modeled (undisturbed condition, No Action, Proposed Action, and the DEIS 

Preferred Alternative). Using this approach, the amount of soil loss during the 5-year storm would 

be approximately 163,000 kilograms (representing a 486% increase over the No Action 

Alternative) and during the 150-year storm would be approximately 12.4 million kilograms 

(representing a 33% increase over the No Action Alternative). 

Under the Preferred Alternative, additional mitigation measures would be applied to facilitate 

achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources (see 

Section 2.4.5). 

4.1.7.6 Cumulative Impacts 

The CIAA for soil resources is the 10 watersheds that drain the JIDPA, which encompass 

approximately 210,300 acres. Areas east of Big Sandy River, occurring within the Big Sandy 

River-Bull Draw watershed, are included in the CIAA; however, no project impacts (cumulative 

or otherwise) would occur in this area. Approximately 1.6% of the CIAA (3,355 acres) has been 

disturbed by well pads, agricultural lands (i.e., hay meadows), reservoirs, pipelines, roads, and 

residential areas (i.e., ranches) (see Table 3.11). The Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek 

watershed has the largest amount of existing disturbance (992 acres or 4.2% of the watershed), 

most of which is from existing natural gas development in the Jonah Field. 

RFD (total surface disturbance) for the portion of the soil resources CIAA outside the JIDPA is 

estimated at 594 acres (see Table 4.6), primarily from gas-related development in the Pinedale 

Anticline Natural Gas Field. Approximately 38% (228 acres) of the RFD would occur in the 

Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed. RFD for the North Alkali Draw watershed is 

estimated at 168 acres, Southeast New Fork River is estimated at 126 acres, the Big Sandy RiverBull Draw is estimated at 54 acres, and Upper Eighteenmile Canyon is estimated at 18 acres. 

Maximum cumulative disturbance for the No Action Alternative (i.e., the combined existing and 

RFD disturbance) would be 6,753 acres (3.2%) in the combined watersheds. The maximum 

cumulative disturbance for the Proposed Action, Alternative A, and the BLM Preferred 

Alternative (i.e., the combined existing, proposed, and RFD disturbance) could be on the order of 

22,900 acres (10.9%) in the combined watersheds (see Table 4.6). Under Alternative B, 

maximum cumulative disturbance would be increased from the No Action Alternative to 9,975 

acres, 4.8% of the combined watersheds. 

Maximum cumulative disturbance would be greatest in the combined watersheds that drain into 

the Green River, and disturbance would be greatest in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek 

watershed (see Tables 4.6 and 4.7). Based on erosion modeling, the greatest soil loss would be 

experienced in watersheds contributing to the Big Sandy River (Long Draw and Bull Draw). Gas 

development would continue to be the primary component of this disturbance. Maximum 

cumulative disturbance as a result of the No Action Alternative in the Expanded Sand DrawAlkali Creek watershed is estimated at 2,355 acres (10.3% of the watershed). Maximum 

cumulative disturbance as a result of the Proposed Action and Alternative A in the Expanded 

Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed is estimated at 9,612 acres (41.9% of the watershed). 

Maximum cumulative disturbance in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed is 

estimated to be 3,805 acres (16.6%) under Alternative B. Maximum cumulative disturbance as a 

result of the Preferred Alternative in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed is 

estimated at 6,775–9,612 acres (29.5–41.9% of the watershed). The Long Draw watershed, which 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-39 

drains 16% of the JIDPA, would experience the next greatest amount of cumulative disturbance. 

The closed basin watersheds—Jonah Gulch and 140401040603—would likely only experience a 

small percentage of cumulative disturbance to soils. 

4.1.7.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Productivity of some disturbed soils would be reduced due to removal of vegetation, increased 

soil exposure, mixing of soil horizons, and increased susceptibility to wind and water erosion. 

Some increased soil loss through erosion would be unavoidable under all of the alternatives. 

4.1.8 Surface Water and Groundwater 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) identify the following 

management goals/objectives associated with water resources: 

•	 to maintain, improve, and/or protect surface water and groundwater quality; 

•	 to maintain or improve channel stability and overall watershed conditions; 

•	 to protect, maintain, or improve wetlands, floodplains, riparian areas, and other water 

resources; 

•	 to conserve water and relate water resources and development to desired land use; 

•	 to support and encourage water quality monitoring programs; 

•	 to establish more watering systems on all grazing lands for livestock, wildlife, and 

game/non-game birds; 

•	 to encourage strategies that utilize Wyoming’s appropriated share of Colorado River 

waters for beneficial uses; 

•	 to consider potential effects on surface water and groundwater quality/resources when 

land uses are planned or proposed, particularly near watercourses and lakes; 

•	 to ensure land uses and developments do not accelerate long-term groundwater depletion; 

and 

•	 to comply with water quality standards (e.g., salinity) set forth by the Colorado River 

Basin Salinity Control Act. 

Impacts to surface water or groundwater would be significant 1) if water quality declined (e.g., 

from sedimentation, accidental spills, or cross-aquifer mixing) such that existing WDEQ water 

quality classes (WDEQ 1990) would be downgraded; 2) if water quantities were depleted such 

that the water rights of groundwater or downstream users would be violated; 3) if project-related 

erosion and runoff into intermittent drainages and subsequently into perennial waters altered the 

physical characteristics of these waters; 4) if project activities resulted in a violation of RMP 

objectives within or downstream of the JIDPA; and/or 5) if project activities resulted in a 

violation of Colorado river Water Quality standards for salinity (723 mg/L salinity below Hoover 

Dam [Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum 2002]). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-40 Chapter 4 

There would be no use of or depletion of surface waters associated with the project. No impacts 

to and/or from flooding are anticipated because areas adjacent to drainages would be avoided. 

The erosion modeling conducted by HydroGeo (2005) indicates that even under the 150-year 

storm event, runoff originating on the JIDPA infiltrates or evaporates before reaching either the 

Green River or Big Sandy River (see Appendix E). However, because sediment lost from the 

watershed is redeposited downstream, a succession of storm events will eventually transport a 

portion of this sediment to perennial surface waters. With successful reclamation (including 

interim reclamation occurring during the LOP [Appendix B]) and the construction of sediment 

retention/catchment areas where needed, only minor amounts of project-related runoff sediments 

are anticipated to reach perennial surface waters. 

In addition to sediment load, water quality can be impacted by dissolved constituents imparted by 

the transported sediments. Concentrations of dissolved solids in water in contact with soils in the 

project area have been estimated at 300 to 1,300 milligrams per liter (mg/L). However, this 

assumes that the contact time with the soils is long enough for waters to reach equilibrium with 

the salinity of the soil. In reality, the relatively rapid dissipation of storm flows indicated by the 

erosion modeling may not provide this opportunity. Because no runoff from the JIDPA reaches 

perennial waters, even during the 150-year storm event, salinity impacts likely are not significant. 

Potential impacts to local surface water and/or groundwater resulting from the project include 

increased turbidity, salinity, and sedimentation of surface waters due to runoff and erosion from 

disturbed areas; accidental spills of petroleum products or other pollutants; and cross-aquifer 

mixing. No direct discharge of unsuitable quality produced water or pipeline test water is 

planned. Impacts to surface water from development generally would result from increased runoff 

from disturbed areas, and it is assumed that with increased surface disturbance acreage, there 

would be a corresponding decrease in water quality (increased sediment loads in runoff waters) 

and increased runoff rates. Rates of wind and water erosion would increase above natural rates 

until successful reclamation of disturbed areas is achieved. Short-term control of surface runoff 

would be dependent on the success of reclamation and revegetation efforts described in sitespecific reclamation plans, Surface Use Plans, or Plans of Development prepared for each APD 

and/or ROW application, and SWPPPs. 

Concentrating development actions at larger well pads would have increased site-specific effects 

on overland flow patterns, groundwater infiltration (reduced on compacted areas), and runoff 

volumes (increased rates and potential erosion and sedimentation). Additionally, if surface 

disturbance is concentrated in any one watershed, increased potential erosion and runoff-related 

effects may occur, possibly requiring the need for special treatments to be specified in APD 

approvals. Estimates of potential total and LOP disturbance associated with the Proposed Action 

and each of the alternatives within each project-affected watershed are presented in Tables 4.6 

and 4.7 and discussed under each alternative. Development activities in the JIDPA such as roads 

and well pads could affect natural overland flow patterns and groundwater infiltration. 

Compacted areas (e.g., roads and well pads) could reduce groundwater infiltration and potentially 

could increase the erosive potential of runoff events by creating a shorter period of runoff and an 

increased volume of runoff water and contained sediments. While increased sedimentation and 

salinity volumes are unknown, potential impacts could occur if increases result in the loss of 

channel stability and a decrease in overall watershed condition. While proper design, 

construction, and maintenance of proposed facilities would reduce erosion potential, these actions 

may not entirely compensate for anticipated increased flows. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-41 

As noted in Section 3.1.6.2, groundwater at depths less than approximately 2,300 feet below 

ground surface is relatively fresh, and the aquifer is extensive. Proposed groundwater 

consumption of fresh water would result in the temporary partial depletion of this aquifer. An 

estimated maximum of 4.9 acre-ft of new groundwater would be required to drill and complete 

each well (Table 4.9), and this water would be obtained from approximately 41 (25 existing, 16 

new) water wells drilled to the top 600 feet of the aquifer. 

Water wells pumping water out of an aquifer create a cone of depression, where groundwater 

levels are lowered near the pumping wells. The groundwater model MODFLOW was used to 

simulate the cone of depression created by pumping of all proposed groundwater from the 

existing 25 water wells and to determine the approximate time to full recovery of the aquifer after 

pumping stops (full recovery is defined as the point in time when drawdown is 1.6 feet or less) 

(HydroGeo, Inc. 2004). Two development rates were modeled: development of 75 wells per year 

over 41.3 years and 250 wells per year over 12.4 years (see Table 4.9). 

Table 4.9. Summary of Groundwater Pumping Scenarios (3,100 total wells), Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 

Gas Water Need Water Need for Length of Drilling 

Number of Water per Water per 

Wells/ Year per Gas Well All Gas Wells Program (years) Pumping Water Pumping Well Pumping Well 

(acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr) Wells (acre-ft/yr) (gpm) 

75 4.9 367.5 41.3 25 14.7 9.1 

250 4.9 1,225.0 12.4 25 49.0 30.4 

Groundwater modeling results (Map 4.1) showed that the cone of depression would extend only 

about 1.0 mile beyond the boundary of the JIDPA, even for the most rapid rate of maximum 

development (250 wells per year over 12.4 years) and that drawdown would be no greater than 

about 10 feet in the JIDPA (HydroGeo, Inc. 2004). The results also showed that the aquifer would 

fully recover within 0.5 to 6 years following the cessation of pumping (Table 4.10). Outside the 

JIDPA, no notable impacts to surface water or groundwater would occur due to pumping. 

Groundwater quality would not be 

impacted as a result of freshwater Table 4.10. Groundwater Recovery Time (3,100 

pumping because the freshwater Wells), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, aquifers from which proposed waters Wyoming, 2006 

would be obtained are isolated from 

deeper, poorer quality waters. None of 

the alternatives would result in 

significant aquifer drawdown, and this 

impact is not discussed further, except 

to note that rate of development 

would impact rate of aquifer recovery. 

No. Gas Years of Years to Full Recovery Total Years to 

Wells/Year Pumping after Pumping Ends Full Recovery 

75 41.3 0.5 41.8 

250 12.4 6.0 18.4 

Potential for contamination of the freshwater aquifer is low because the well drilling and casing 

practices used by the Operators and required by BLM and the WOGCC limit the potential for 

movement of any materials outside the well casing and across aquifers. Accidental contamination 

is possible but would be mitigated through a groundwater cleanup program, the scope of which 

would be determined by WDEQ should a reportable incident occur (see Appendix B). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-42


Map 4.1. Modeled Cone of Depression for Development of 250 Wells per Year over 12.4 Years 

(3,100 Total Wells), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-43 

Gas wells are expected to produce 0.5–10.0 barrels of water per day, which would be disposed of 

as described in Appendix B. The brackish water aquifer(s) that is the source of the produced 

water is thought to be isolated from the freshwater aquifer described above; thus, water 

production and disposal is not likely to impact the quantity or quality of fresh groundwater. 

Furthermore, because it apparently is isolated, production and disposal or reuse of this water for 

the project is not likely to impact surface water resources within or outside of the JIDPA. 

Hydrostatic pipeline testing water that does not meet applicable state and federal surface water or 

groundwater standards would not be released on the ground surface. This water may require 

treatment in a lined treatment pond prior to discharge or may be transported away from well 

locations to lined evaporation ponds or injector wells for disposal. All disposal and/or reuse of 

produced and test water would be in accordance with WDEQ rules and regulations and BLM Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 7. Considerable volumes of produced water could be purified and 

reused to the extent technically and economically feasible for project operations (see 

Appendix B). 

Impacts to surface water resources could be significant under any project alternative, except the 

No Action Alternative. Under all alternatives, Operators would be required to implement 

management requirements and mitigation measures (see Appendices A and C); therefore, impacts 

to surface water also would be relative to the effectiveness of these additional requirements. 

No significant impacts to groundwater resources are anticipated under any alternative. 

4.1.8.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no additional activities would occur that would potentially 

affect water resources other than those previously approved for the area (BLM 1998b, 2000b)— 

2,811 acres of short-term and 1,409 acres of LOP disturbance (see Table 2.2), or 9.2% and 4.6% 

of the JIDPA, respectively. Total disturbance would equal 4,209 acres. Some ephemeral 

drainages would remain prone to flooding after storm events, and their channels would continue 

to be subject to erosion at existing rates. The duration of impacts to surface water would be 

approximately 63 years (see Table 2.1) and until areas are adequately reclaimed. Further 

groundwater pumping would not be conducted, and aquifers would begin recharging 

immediately. Prior decisions found that the existing project would be unlikely to significantly 

impact surface water or groundwater resources (BLM 1998b, 2000b). 

4.1.8.2 The Proposed Action 

Compared to the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would result in an estimated 

additional 16,200 acres of new disturbance, for a total of 20,126 acres in the JIDPA (66.0% of the 

JIDPA) and an additional 283 acres for ancillary facilities that may be constructed outside the 

JIDPA. Total disturbance under the Proposed Action would be 20,409 acres (see Table 4.6). 

Approximately 70.5% (14,388 acres) of this disturbance would be reclaimed as soon as practical 

after disturbance. Disturbance would not occur all at once but would increase as development 

occurs (for approximately 13 years). The magnitude of surface disturbance would depend on the 

amount of disturbance present at any one time and the rate of reclamation. The remaining 

6,043 acres would be disturbed for the LOP (approximately 76 years and until successful 

reclamation is achieved); thus, surface water impacts would last approximately 13 years longer 

than under the No Action Alternative. As a result of this surface disturbance, impacts to surface 

water could be significant. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-44 Chapter 4 

Estimates of potential total and LOP disturbance acreages associated with the Proposed Action 

and each of the alternatives within each project-affected watershed are presented in Tables 4.6 

and 4.7. Based on modeled sediment erosion, the Long Draw and Bull Draw watersheds would 

suffer the greatest impact to surface water resources due to sediment transport and increased 

salinity. Under the Proposed Action, LOP impacts to these watersheds increases from 1,136 acres 

under the No Action Alternative to 5,713 acres, or from 13% to 66% of the area of these two 

watersheds within the JIDPA. However, modeling indicates that runoff from the JIDPA does not 

reach the Big Sandy River, even during the 150-year event. 

Under the Proposed Action, types of impacts to groundwater would be similar to those described 

for the No Action Alternative and, with effective mitigation, it is anticipated that the potential for 

adverse impacts also would be similar. However, more fresh groundwater would be consumed 

and more poor-quality water would be produced because more gas wells would be drilled. 

Under the Proposed Action, the duration of groundwater impacts would be approximately 13 

years longer than under the No Action Alternative (i.e., the development phase [see Table 2.1]) 

plus 6 years required to recharge the aquifer (see Table 4.10). 

4.1.8.3 Alternative A 

Implementation of Alternative A is anticipated to result in the same types and volumes of water 

resource impacts as described for the Proposed Action (see Section 4.1.8.2 and Tables 4.6 and 

4.7). However, because selected Operator-committed and BLM-required practices (e.g., 

avoidance of drainage buffers) would not be implemented, significant impacts are more likely to 

occur under this alternative. Because development of natural gas resources in these areas would 

not require the use of directional drilling, impacts to surface water resources, particularly 

sedimentation into the Big Sandy watersheds, likely would be greater than under the Proposed 

Action. As with the Proposed Action, areas would not all be disturbed at the same time; rather, 

disturbance would accumulate as development occurs. Impacts to surface water occur throughout 

the LOP, would last approximately 13 years longer than under the No Action Alternative, and 

could be significant. 

Implementation of Alternative A is anticipated to result in the same types of impacts to 

groundwater as described for the Proposed Action. 

4.1.8.4 Alternative B 

Implementation of Alternative B would result in an estimated additional 3,222 acres of new 

disturbance above that of the No Action Alternative, for a total of 7,223 acres in the JIDPA 

(23.7% of the JIDPA) and 208 acres for ancillary facilities that may be constructed outside the 

JIDPA. Total disturbance under Alternative B would be 7,431 acres (see Table 4.6). 

Approximately 65.2% (4,848 acres) of this disturbance would be reclaimed as soon as practical 

after disturbance. Disturbance would not occur all at once but would accumulate as development 

occurs (approximately 42 years). The remaining 2,602 acres would be disturbed for the LOP 

(approximately 105 years and until successful reclamation is achieved); thus, surface water 

impacts would last approximately 42 years longer than under the No Action Alternative, 

depending on the rate of development. These impacts could be significant. 

Based on modeled sediment erosion, the Long Draw and Bull Draw watersheds would have the 

greatest impact to surface water resources due to sediment transport and increased salinity. Under 

Alternative B, LOP impacts to these watersheds increases from 1,136 acres under the No Action 

Alternative to 2,050 acres, or from 13% to 24% of the area of these two watersheds within the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-45 

JIDPA. However, modeling indicates that runoff from the JIDPA does not reach the Big Sandy 

River, even during the 150-year event. 

Implementation of Alternative B would result in the same types of impacts to groundwater as the 

No Action Alternative; however, more fresh groundwater would be consumed and more poorquality water would be produced because more gas wells would be drilled. Because the rate of 

development may vary under Alternative B, the duration of groundwater impacts would range 

from approximately 13 to 42 years longer than the No Action Alternative (i.e., the development 

period) plus 1 to 6 years required to recharge the aquifer. 

4.1.8.5 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in an estimated additional 9,821–16,125 

acres of new disturbance above that of the No Action Alternative, for a total of 13,822– 

20,126 acres in the JIDPA (45.3–66.0% of the JIDPA) and 208 acres for ancillary facilities that 

may be constructed outside the JIDPA. Total disturbance under the Preferred Alternative would 

be 14,030–20,334 acres (see Table 4.6). If the Operators maximize ongoing reclamation as 

described in Section 2.4.5, total acres affected would be comparable to that of the Proposed 

Action (20,334 acres vs. 20,409 acres). However, at any one time, only 14,030 acres would be 

disturbed under the Preferred Alternative, as successful reclamation would be required for 

additional disturbance. Disturbance would not occur all at once but would accumulate as 

development occurs (for approximately 13 years); thus, surface water impacts would last 

approximately 13 years longer than under the No Action Alternative. 

Impacts to surface water resources under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those 

described under the Proposed Action and the other alternatives and could be significant; however, 

impacts are expected to be proportional to the amount of disturbance present at any one time. 

Potential impacts to surface water from the Preferred Alternative (14,030 acres of disturbance at 

any one time) would likely be somewhat less than the Proposed Action and Alternative A, where 

the disturbance at one time would not be regulated. Additionally, it is anticipated that potential 

impacts to surface water under the Preferred Alternative would be greater than impacts to surface 

water resources as a result of Alternative B, where maximum total disturbance is estimated at 

7,431 acres. Impacts are anticipated to be greatest in areas developed with the highest well pad 

densities. 

Based on modeled sediment erosion, the Long Draw and Bull Draw watersheds would have the 

greatest impact to surface water resources due to sediment transport and increased salinity. 

Because of concurrent reclamation, the amount of disturbance at any one time within these 

watersheds is not known. However, modeling indicates that runoff from the JIDPA does not reach 

the Big Sandy River, even during the 150-year event. 

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in the same types of impacts to 

groundwater as the No Action Alternative. Larger volumes of fresh water would be needed to 

drill directional wells and more wells would be drilled, so groundwater consumption would be 

greater than for the No Action Alternative and comparable to the Proposed Action and 

Alternatives A and B. The duration of groundwater impacts would be approximately 13 years 

(i.e., the development period) longer than the No Action Alternative plus 6 years required to 

recharge the aquifer. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-46 Chapter 4 

Under the Preferred Alternative additional mitigation measures would be applied to facilitate 

achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources (see 

Section 2.4.5). 

4.1.8.6 Cumulative Impacts 

The CIAA for surface water resources is the 10 watersheds that drain the JIDPA, which 

encompass approximately 210,300 acres. The overall stability of these watersheds is not 

anticipated to be significantly affected within the CIAA under any project alternative. Areas east 

of Big Sandy River, occurring within the Bull Draw watershed, are included in the CIAA; 

however, no project impacts would occur in this area. This is the same CIAA for soils and 

vegetation. Approximately 1.6% of the CIAA (3,355 acres) has been disturbed by well pads, 

agricultural lands (i.e., hay meadows), reservoirs, pipelines, roads, and residential areas 

(i.e., ranches) (see Table 3.11). The Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed has the largest 

amount of existing disturbance (992 acres or 4.2% of the watershed), most of which is from 

existing natural gas development in the Jonah Field. 

RFD for the portion of the surface water CIAA outside the JIDPA is estimated at 594 acres, 

primarily from gas-related development in the Pinedale Anticline Natural Gas Field (see 

Table 4.6). Approximately 38% (228 acres) of the RFD would occur in the Expanded Sand DrawAlkali Creek watershed. RFD for the North Alkali Draw watershed is estimated at 168 acres; for 

the Southeast New Fork River-Blue Rim watershed it is estimated at 126 acres; for the Big Sandy 

River-Bull Draw watershed it is estimated at 54 acres; and for the Upper Eighteenmile Canyon 

watershed it is estimated at 18 acres. 

Maximum cumulative disturbance for each alternative (i.e., the combined existing, 

alternative-specific, and RFD disturbance) is shown in Table 4.6. Cumulative impacts would be 

as described for all alternatives, but increased in volume and duration. 

Maximum cumulative disturbance would be greatest in the combined watersheds that drain into 

the Green River, and disturbance would be greatest in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek 

watershed (see Tables 4.6 and 4.7). Gas development would continue to be the primary 

component of the disturbance. Maximum cumulative disturbance as a result of the No Action 

Alternative in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed is estimated at 2,355 acres 

(10.3% of the watershed). Maximum cumulative disturbance as a result of the Proposed Action 

and Alternative A in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed is estimated at 9,612 acres 

(41.9% of the watershed). Maximum cumulative disturbance in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali 

Creek watershed is estimated to be 3,805 acres (16.6%) under Alternative B. Maximum 

cumulative disturbance as a result of the Preferred Alternative in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali 

Creek watershed is estimated at 6,775–9,612 acres (29–41.9% of the watershed). The Long Draw 

watershed, which drains 16.5% of the JIDPA, would experience the next greatest amount of 

cumulative disturbance. The closed basin watersheds—Jonah Gulch and 140401040603—would 

likely only experience a small percentage of cumulative disturbance to surface waters. 

The CIAA for groundwater includes the JIDPA and adjacent drawdown areas (see Map 4.1). 

Because no actions other than those proposed for this project are anticipated in the area, 

cumulative impacts to groundwater would be of the same type and extent as those described for 

the No Action and action alternatives. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-47 

4.1.8.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Based on the hydrologic modeling, it is anticipated there will be minimal unavoidable adverse 

impacts to surface water and soils resulting from cumulative events for the LOP. This expectation 

results from the increase in surface disturbance in watersheds in the JIDPA. These impacts have 

the potential to reduce water quality in ephemeral drainages during runoff events. On a watershed 

scale, little impact would be expected on downstream perennial waters. 

Project development would require a maximum of approximately 15,200 acre-ft of fresh water 

from shallow groundwater aquifers. 

4.1.9 Noise and Odor 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) do not specify any 

management goals/objectives specifically associated with noise and odor. However, the BLM’s 

general goal of preserving and maintaining the quality of the environment while coordinating 

multiple use objectives remains applicable for noise and odor. 

Impacts from noise and odor would be considered significant if they resulted in displacement of 

area residents, the loss of important wildlife features (e.g., greater sage-grouse leks, raptor nests, 

pronghorn migration corridors), and/or if BLM’s goals of preserving and maintaining the quality 

of the environment could not be met. 

Additional noise sources above and beyond current levels (i.e., the No Action Alternative) would 

include scraping, grading, and construction of new well pads; drilling, completion, and operation 

of new wells; Burma Road upgrade activities for some alternatives and associated increases in 

traffic; construction, maintenance, and traffic associated with new resource roads, gathering 

pipelines, and collector/resource roads; construction/upgrade of ancillary facilities (i.e., water 

disposal, storage, and compressor station facilities); and exploration activities. Additional odor 

sources would be associated primarily with wells and exhaust from increased vehicular traffic. 

Drilling and flaring operations would produce temporary noise levels of up to 115 dBA at the 

source, with noise levels of 55 dBA at 3,500 feet from the source (see Section 3.1.7). These 

activities are expected to be the loudest proposed noise-producing operations and would continue 

24 hours/day at well sites during development periods (see Appendix B). Increased noise levels 

associated with construction equipment (e.g., scrapers, dozers, trucks, graders, loaders) are 

expected to be between 70 and 90 dBA at about 50 feet from the source and would attenuate at a 

rate of approximately 6 dBA with each doubling of distance from the source (Table 4.11). 

Noise levels associated with production at each well pad would be minimal because no pumping 

is required. Noise levels associated with compressor stations (between 64 and 86 dBA at 

compressor stations, between 58 and 75 dBA at approximately 1.0 mile away) would continue at 

current levels for the LOP. Further noise level data are provided in Section 3.1.7, Figure 3.13, and 

Table 3.16. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-48 Chapter 4 

Table 4.11. Estimated Noise Attenuation with Distance from 

Construction Equipment, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2006 

Distance from Source


(feet) DBA (Example Noise Source)


50 70 (busy traffic) 90 (endangers hearing) 

100 64 (conversation) 84 (noisy factory) 

200 58 (conversation) 78 (noisy factory) 

400 52 (quite) 72 (busy traffic) 

800 46 (library) 66 (busy traffic, conversation) 

Project noise may be heard 20 or more miles from the area, and although this noise would be 

barely audible at such distance, it could affect resident and recreating visitor perceptions of 

solitude. Some area residents have indicated that project noise (especially at night) is pervasive 

and disruptive and does affect their quality of life. 

Under most weather conditions, it is anticipated that project odors would disperse rapidly and 

would not affect area users greater than 1.0 mile from sources; however, during temperature 

inversions and at other windless times, odors could be detected at distances greater than 1.0 mile 

from the JIDPA. This impact would be considered significant and could occur under all project 

alternatives. 

It is likely that noise already has contributed to the apparent decrease in wildlife use on and 

adjacent to the JIDPA (see Section 4.2.2), with observed decreases in raptor nesting activity and 

productivity, male greater sage-grouse lek attendance and sage-grouse nesting within the JIDPA 

having been reported over the past several years (TRC Mariah 1999, 2001a, 2001b, 2002, 2004a). 

Data also suggest that noise may contribute to disturbance and/or departure of greater sage-grouse 

from area leks (TRC Mariah 2001d, 2003a). 

Although project-related noise and odor are not anticipated to pose a human health hazard to 

persons in the area, they likely would be noticeable to recreationists and other visitors on and in 

the vicinity of the JIDPA (see Section 4.5.3) and might cause decreased use or diminished 

enjoyment of the area. Significant impacts from noise and odor are anticipated within the JIDPA 

and vicinity under all alternatives, although no additional significant impacts would occur under 

the No Action Alternative. 

4.1.9.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, impacts due to noise and odor would be as identified and 

approved for existing Jonah Field developments (see Section 3.1.7). Prior decisions found 

existing project noise and odor impacts to be less than significant (BLM 1998b, 2000b). 

However, monitoring data collected since those decisions were made indicate that noise 

associated with existing oil and gas development activities may be contributing to documented 

decreases in wildlife use on and adjacent to the JIDPA (i.e., may be significant) (TRC Mariah 

1999, 2001a, 2001b, 2001d, 2002, 2003a, 2004a). No additional significant impacts relating to 

noise and odor are expected under the No Action Alternative. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-49 

Once all approved wells are drilled and developed, noise levels would be reduced by limiting 

sources to those needed for production (primarily traffic), compressor stations, and reclamation 

(farm equipment), and would continue for an estimated 63 years and until all reclamation 

activities are completed. 

4.1.9.2 The Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, the nature of impacts due to noise and odor would be similar to those 

of the No Action Alternative, but levels would be substantially increased as a result of the new 

wells, well pads, and other proposed project facilities. Significant impacts from noise and odor 

are anticipated within the JIDPA and vicinity. 

Increased noise levels associated with construction of new well pads; drilling and completion of 

new wells; upgrade and/or construction of roads; and other project construction activities would 

be short term at any given location but would continue throughout the field development period— 

approximately 13 years. Noise levels from field traffic and well maintenance actions (which 

might include some flaring) would occur for an estimated 76 years and until all reclamation 

activities are completed, or approximately 13 years longer than the No Action Alternative. 

Odors present periodically at well and ancillary facility locations and along roadways could 

offend area users in the vicinity of emission sources. However, odors would be dispersed by wind 

and are not anticipated to adversely affect the majority of area users. 

4.1.9.3 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, noise and odor levels would be similar to those of the Proposed Action. 

However, potential noise-related impacts to wildlife would be amplified in areas that would have 

been avoided under the Proposed Action (i.e., greater sage-grouse lek and raptor nest buffers [see 

Section 4.2.2]), increasing the potential for significant impacts. Odor impacts would be the same 

as described for the Proposed Action. Noise and odor impacts would occur for an estimated 76 

years and until all reclamation activities are completed, or approximately 13 years longer than 

under the No Action Alternative. Significant impacts from noise and odor are anticipated within 

the JIDPA and vicinity. 

4.1.9.4 Alternative B 

Impacts due to noise and odor under Alternative B would be similar to those described for the 

Proposed Action except that elevated noise levels during development would be concentrated at 

the existing 497 wells pads and noise associated with construction of new well pads would not 

occur. Use of directional drilling would increase the site-specific (per well pad) duration of the 

noise impacts due to the additional time necessary to drill directional wells and the increased 

number of wells drilled per pad. Duration of field-wide impacts would be approximately 105 

years plus the time required to complete reclamation activities, or approximately 42 years longer 

than under the No Action Alternative. Significant impacts from noise and odor are anticipated 

within the JIDPA and vicinity. 

4.1.9.5 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Impacts due to noise and odor under the Preferred Alternative would be substantially higher than 

those described under the No Action Alternative but lower than described for other action 

alternatives because this alternative requires implementation of additional mitigation and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-50 Chapter 4 

monitoring measures/management requirements (see Section 2.4.5). Implementation of these 

measures would decrease noise and odor impacts from those described for other action 

alternatives but impacts associated with noise would still be considered significant within the 

JIDPA. 

Duration of field-wide noise and odor impacts would be approximately 76 years plus the time 

required to complete reclamation work, or approximately 13 years longer than under the No 

Action Alternative. 

4.1.9.6 Cumulative Impacts 

The CIAA for noise includes the JIDPA plus a 20-mile buffer, whereas the CIAA for odor is the 

JIDPA and a 2.0-mile buffer. Odors likely would not be detected more than 1.0 mile from the 

JIDPA and, in most cases, would be confined to the JIDPA because of dispersion. Noise impacts 

from the project in combination with other existing and proposed noises (most notably those from 

development in the Pinedale Anticline area) may be heard throughout the CIAA for the LOP. 

These noise levels could affect the use of some habitat features proximal to the JIDPA by wildlife 

(see Section 4.2.2) and may affect some recreationists and other visitors through a reduction in 

the perceived quality of experience throughout the CIAA. In no instance is it anticipated that 

cumulative noise levels would pose a human health hazard. Significant cumulative impacts 

associated with noise and odor are possible and would vary across alternatives depending upon 

the pace and extent of development. Cumulative impacts are anticipated to be greatest under the 

Proposed Action and Alternative A and least under the No Action Alternative. 

4.1.9.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

All of the action alternatives would result in some additional noise and odors within the JIDPA 

and in surrounding areas. 

4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

4.2.1 Vegetation 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (Wyoming State Land Use Commission 1979) and Sublette County (Sublette County 

Board of Commissioners and Sublette County Planning Commission 2003) identify the following 

management goals/objectives associated with vegetation: 

•	 to maintain or enhance vegetation community health, composition, and diversity to meet 

watershed, wild horse, and wildlife resource management objectives; 

•	 to provide for plant diversity (desired plant communities) to meet livestock management, 

watershed, wild horse, and wildlife objectives; and 

•	 to reduce the number and spread of invasive species. 

Impacts to plant communities (including wetlands) are considered significant if there is a longterm reduction in vegetation productivity, a permanent change in species composition, an increase 

in invasive non-native species (including noxious weeds), a net loss of wetlands, or a vegetation 

loss that results in a violation of BLM RMP or other land use plan objectives within or outside 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-51 

the JIDPA. Impacts to vegetation and wetland resources are assumed to be proportional to the 

amount of new surface disturbance for all alternatives (i.e., increased surface disturbance would 

result in a corresponding increase to vegetation impacts). 

Impacts to wetlands, waters of the U.S. (WUS), and riparian areas would be significant if there 

were a violation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or EOs 11988 or 11990 and/or if a BLM 

RMP or other land use planning objectives could not be achieved. Because these areas would 

generally be avoided, there are no perennial streams on the JIDPA, and the project would be 

developed in compliance with the Clean Water Act, no significant impacts to wetlands, WUS, or 

riparian areas are anticipated under any alternative. 

At the end of the LOP, most, if not all, disturbed areas including roads would be reclaimed and 

revegetated; however, BLM system roads (e.g., Burma and Luman Roads) would likely remain in 

an upgraded status under all action alternatives, with the exception that the Burma Road would 

not be improved under Alternative B and the BLM Preferred Alternative. 

All vegetation types that potentially could be disturbed by project-related development are 

common throughout the JIDPA and on surrounding lands. No uncommon or unique vegetation 

types would be impacted by the project. The estimated disturbance volumes to each of the 

vegetation types in the JIDPA are provided in Table 4.12. 

Table 4.12. Vegetation Type Disturbance Across Alternatives, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 

Alternative and Disturbance 

Type 

Dense 

Sagebrush 

Moderate 

Density 

Sagebrush 

Scattered/ 

No Sagebrush 

Basin Big 

Sagebrush 

Unknown 

Type 

(Unmapped 

Area) 

Total 

(Acres of New 

Disturbance) 

No Action 

Existing 3,671 375 112 7 44 4,209 

LOP 1,229 126 37 2 15 1,409 

Proposed Action and 

Alternative A 

New beyond No Action 14,129 1,445 431 25 170 16,200 

LOP beyond No Action 4,039 413 123 7 49 4,631 

Alternative B 

New beyond No Action 2,876 294 88 4 35 3,222 

LOP beyond No Action 1,058 108 32 2 13 1,193 

Preferred Alternative 

New beyond No Action 8,564–14,061 874–1,435 265–435 20–32 98–161 9,821–16,125 

LOP beyond No Action 2,492–4,021 254–410 77–124 6–9 28–46 2,858–4,611 

Total Acreage in JIDPA 26,601 2,721 811 47 320 30,500 

Impacts associated with the removal of vegetation include loss of wildlife habitat, a reduction in 

vegetation diversity, potential for increased soil erosion, potential invasion of undesirable plant 

species (non-native and/or noxious), and loss of livestock forage. Because it would take many 

years for reclaimed areas to develop the structure and function of self-sustaining vegetation 

communities (i.e., sagebrush), impacts would persist for an undetermined number of years 

following reclamation. Reclaimed areas would produce less forage for several years until 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-52 Chapter 4 

revegetation is considered successful, at which time grasses and possibly forbs would likely 

become more dominant than under existing conditions, providing increased forage for some 

wildlife and livestock (see Section 4.5.2). Shrubs may take 30–100 years or longer to reach 

predisturbance productivity levels and wildlife habitat complexity (Braun 1998, Slater 2003) (see 

also Section 4.2.2). 

The duration of impacts to vegetation communities would depend essentially on two factors: 1) 

the rate of development (i.e., 75 wells per year under Alternative B or 250 wells per year under 

the other action alternatives) and 2) the duration of time needed for reclaimed areas to reach 

predisturbance conditions. 

The following analyses show that all the alternatives are generally compatible with BLM 

management goals/objectives; however, significant impacts to vegetation are also anticipated in 

the JIDPA through loss of habitat, forage, and soil protection, and increased potential for 

invasive, non-native species invasion under any alternative except the No Action Alternative. For 

the PFO and RSFO areas as a whole, these significant impacts would not affect BLM’s capability 

to manage vegetation resources pursuant to RMP objectives field-wide. Under all alternatives, 

specific management requirements and mitigation measures would be implemented; therefore, 

impacts to vegetation would also be relative to the effectiveness of these additional measures. 

4.2.1.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional activities that would potentially 

affect vegetation resources other than those previously approved for the area—4,209 acres of 

existing disturbance of which 1,409 acres would be LOP disturbance, or 13.8% and 4.6% of the 

JIDPA, respectively. The duration of impacts would be approximately 63 years. According to 

prior evaluations, it is unlikely that the existing project would significantly impact vegetation 

resources (BLM 1998b, 2000b) (see also Section 3.2.1). 

4.2.1.2 Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action would result in an estimated increase of 16,200 acres of new surface 

disturbance. Therefore, total disturbance under the Proposed Action, including existing 

disturbance, would be 20,409 acres (see Table 2.3). Of these 20,409 acres, 14,388 acres (70.5%) 

would be reclaimed and revegetated as soon as possible after disturbance. Not all disturbance 

would occur at one time, but rather would continue over an approximately 13-year period as 

development proceeds. The magnitude of surface disturbance at any one time would depend on 

both the amount of disturbed land present and the rate of ongoing reclamation. Approximately 

6,043 acres of vegetation would be removed for the LOP (i.e., 76 years and until adequate 

reclamation is achieved). The surface disturbance anticipated under the Proposed Action would 

result in significant impacts to vegetation in the JIDPA. 

The Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed could experience the greatest level of impacts 

to vegetation resources from project-related activities. Potential disturbance to this watershed 

from the Proposed Action could increase from the existing 4.2% of the watershed to 39.5% (see 

Table 4.7). Estimated LOP disturbance to the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed from 

the Proposed Action could increase to 2,682 acres (11.7% of the watershed). 

The removal of existing vegetation in the project area would, by disturbing soils and removing 

native plant cover, render habitats more susceptible to invasion by noxious weeds and other 

undesirable plant species. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-53 

Direct impacts to wetlands and WUS would be temporary, resulting from road and pipeline 

crossings. Other proposed facilities (e.g., well pads, water disposal sites) would not be located 

within 500 feet of wetlands or open water or within 100 feet of ephemeral or intermittent 

channels. Indirect impacts to wetlands, WUS, and/or riparian areas could occur as a result of 

increased sediment deposition in these areas. 

4.2.1.3 Alternative A 

It is anticipated that implementation of Alternative A would result in the same types and volumes 

of vegetation impacts as the Proposed Action Alternative and would result in an increase in 

vegetation impacts from the No Action Alternative. However, under this Alternative, selected 

Operator-committed and BLM-required practices would not be implemented (i.e., avoidance of 

various buffers); therefore, impacts to vegetation, including wetlands, and WUS particularly in 

the Sand Draw area, would likely be greater than under the Proposed Action. The duration of 

vegetation impacts under Alternative A would be approximately 76 years. The surface 

disturbance anticipated under Alternative A would result in significant impacts to vegetation in 

the JIDPA. 

4.2.1.4 Alternative B 

Implementation of Alternative B would result in an increase of 3,222 acres of new surface 

disturbance from that of the No Action Alternative, thereby increasing potential impacts to 

vegetation. There would be 7,431 acres of total disturbance under Alternative B. Approximately 

65% (4,848 acres) of this disturbance would be reclaimed and reseeded as soon as practical after 

disturbance. An estimated 2,602 acres of total LOP disturbance is anticipated for Alternative B. 

Compared with the No Action Alternative, LOP disturbance to vegetation from this Alternative 

would increase from 4.6% to 8.5 % of the JIDPA. Disturbance acreages and percentages within 

affected watersheds are provided in Tables 4.6 and 4.7, respectively. The duration of vegetation 

impacts under Alternative B is estimated at 105 years. The surface disturbance anticipated under 

Alternative B would result in significant impacts to vegetation in the JIDPA. 

The removal of existing vegetation in the project area would, by disturbing soils and removing 

native plant cover, render habitats more susceptible to invasion by noxious weeds and other 

undesirable plant species. 

Direct impacts to wetlands and WUS would be temporary, resulting from road and pipeline 

crossings. Other proposed facilities (e.g., well pads, water disposal sites) would not be located 

within 500 feet of wetlands or open water or within 100 feet of ephemeral or intermittent 

channels. Indirect impacts to wetlands and WUS would occur as a result of increased sediment 

deposition in these areas. 

4.2.1.5 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would limit total surface disturbance in the Jonah 

Field at any one time to 14,030 acres (see Section 2.4.5). Contingent upon successful reclamation 

to BLM standards, Operators may receive credit on an acre-for-acre basis for additional surface 

disturbance up to 6,379 acres, or a maximum total disturbance through the LOP (new plus 

existing) of 20,334 acres. Total LOP disturbance (i.e., subsequent to interim reclamation) is 

expected to range from 4,267 to 6,020 acres, depending on how much acreage is successfully 

reclaimed, credited, and authorized for additional disturbance. Compared to the No Action 

Alternative, disturbance to vegetation would increase under this alternative to between 32.2% and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-54 Chapter 4 

46.0% of the JIDPA, or to a total (new plus existing) of between 46.0% and 66.7% of the 30,500­

acre project area. LOP disturbance to vegetation would increase to at least 13.9% and not more 

than 19.7% of the JIDPA. The surface disturbance anticipated under the Preferred Alternative 

would result in significant impacts to vegetation in the JIDPA. 

The removal of existing vegetation in the project area would, by disturbing soils and removing 

native plant cover, render habitats more susceptible to invasion by noxious weeds and other 

undesirable plant species. 

Direct impacts to wetlands and WUS would be temporary, resulting from road and pipeline 

crossings. Other proposed facilities (e.g., well pads, water disposal sites) would not be located 

within 500 feet of wetlands or open water or within 100 feet of ephemeral or intermittent 

channels. Indirect impacts to wetlands and WUS could occur as a result of increased sediment 

deposition in these areas. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, additional mitigation measures would be applied to facilitate 

achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources (see 

Section 2.4.5). 

4.2.1.6 Cumulative Impacts 

The CIAA for vegetation, including wetlands and WUS, are the 10 watersheds that drain the 

JIDPA, which together encompass approximately 210,300 acres. Areas east of Big Sandy River 

occurring within the Big Sandy River-Bull Draw watershed are included in the CIAA; however, 

no project impacts would occur in this area. Approximately 1.6% of the CIAA (3,355 acres) has 

had native vegetation removed primarily as a result of well pads, agricultural lands (i.e., hay 

meadows), reservoirs, pipelines, roads, and residential areas (i.e., ranches). The Expanded Sand 

Draw-Alkali Creek watershed has the largest amount of existing disturbance, of which most is 

from existing natural gas development in the Jonah Natural Gas Field. 

RFD and associated vegetation disturbance for the portion of the CIAA outside the JIDPA is 

estimated at 594 acres (see Table 4.6), and results primarily from gas-related development in the 

Pinedale Anticline Natural Gas Field. Approximately 38% (228 acres) of the RFD would occur 

in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek Watershed. RFD is estimated at 168 acres for the 

North Alkali Draw Watershed; 126 acres for the Southeast New Fork River; 54 acres for the Big 

Sandy River-Bull Draw; and 18 acres for the Upper Eighteenmile Canyon. 

Maximum cumulative disturbance for the No Action Alternative (i.e., the combined existing and 

RFD disturbance) would be 6,753 acres (3.2%) in the combined watersheds. The maximum 

cumulative disturbance for the Proposed Action, Alternative A, and the BLM Preferred 

Alternative (i.e., the combined existing, proposed, and RFD disturbance) could be on the order of 

22,900 acres (10.9%) in the combined watersheds (see Table 4.6). Under Alternative B, 

maximum cumulative disturbance would be increased from the No Action Alternative to 9,975 

acres, 4.8% of the combined watersheds. 

Maximum cumulative disturbance would be greatest in the watersheds that drain into the Green 

River, and disturbance would be greatest in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek Watershed 

(see Tables 4.6 and 4.7). 

The Wyoming sagebrush vegetation type, the primary vegetation type in the JIDPA and CIAA 

(see Tables 3.17 and 3.18 and Maps 3.11 and 3.12), would experience the greatest amount of 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-55 

cumulative disturbance regardless of development alternative. Disturbance to Wyoming 

sagebrush vegetation communities would be greatest in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek 

watershed, where gas development would continue to be the primary source of the disturbance. 

Maximum cumulative disturbance to vegetation in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek 

Watershed is estimated at 2,355 acres (10.3% of the watershed) under the No Action Alternative, 

9,612 acres (41.9% of the watershed) under the Proposed Action and Alternative A, 6,775 to 

9,612 acres (29.5% to 41.9% of the watershed) under the Preferred Alternative, and 3,805 acres 

(16.6%) under Alternative B. The Long Draw Watershed, which drains 16% of the JIDPA, would 

experience the next greatest amount of cumulative disturbance to vegetation. The closed basin 

watersheds—Jonah Gulch and 140401040603—would likely only experience a small amount of 

cumulative disturbance to vegetation resources. 

Within the CIAA, riparian and wetland habitats are primarily found along drainages and at ponds 

and reservoirs. Existing adverse impacts within these habitats include roads, livestock grazing, 

and recreational use. Wetlands, WUS, and riparian areas would be avoided where possible during 

implementation of this and other proposed projects in the area, so no significant direct impacts to 

these resources are anticipated. Indirect impacts to wetland and riparian areas would be limited to 

increased sediment deposition (see Section 4.1.8). A beneficial impact to riparian habitat would 

occur with planned improvements in grazing management. No permanent cumulative impacts are 

anticipated because all future development activities would comply with Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act and EO 11990. 

4.2.1.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

The proposed project would temporarily remove from 13.8% (No Action, 4,209 acres) to 66.0% 

(Proposed Action and Alternative A, 20,409 acres) of the vegetation in the JIDPA and would 

thereby render habitats more susceptible to invasion by noxious weeds and invasive species. 

Because wetlands, WUS, and riparian areas would generally be avoided and any disturbance of 

these areas would be promptly reclaimed, no long-term unavoidable adverse impacts to these 

resources are anticipated. 

4.2.2 Wildlife and Fisheries 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (Wyoming State Land Use Commission 1979) and Sublette County (Sublette County 

Board of Commissioners and Sublette County Planning Commission 2003) identify the following 

management goals/objectives associated with wildlife and fisheries: 

•	 to maintain, improve, or enhance the biological diversity of all plant and wildlife species 

while ensuring healthy ecosystems; 

•	 to restore disturbed or altered habitat with the objective to attain desired native plant 

communities, while providing for wildlife needs and soil stability; 

•	 to conserve and develop recreational resources for the benefit of present and future 

generations; 

•	 to consider wildlife migration corridors, crucial winter ranges, and other important 

habitats when evaluating land use proposals; 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-56 Chapter 4 

•	 to support and maintain healthy wildlife populations as an appropriate and desired land 

use; 

•	 to establish more watering systems on all grazing lands for livestock, wildlife, and 

game/non-game birds; and 

•	 to minimize conflicts between wildlife and domestic pets. 

Impacts to wildlife and fisheries would be considered significant if any project action 

compromised the above management objectives, and significant impacts to most wildlife species 

on the JIDPA are anticipated under all project alternatives. Specific impacts that would be 

considered significant include, but would not be limited to, the physical loss or the abandonment 

of important wildlife features (e.g., greater sage-grouse leks, greater sage-grouse winter 

concentration areas, raptor nests and nesting and foraging territories, and pronghorn migration 

corridors), diminished wildlife diversity in the JIDPA, and degradation of crucial winter ranges 

and/or other important wildlife habitats. For the PFO and RSFO areas as a whole, impacts to 

wildlife on and adjacent to the JIDPA would not affect BLM’s ability to manage these resources 

pursuant to RMP objectives. 

In general, impacts to wildlife would result from 1) the direct loss of habitat due to removal of 

vegetation; 2) displacement of wildlife due to disturbance and/or noise from project-related 

activities including construction, drilling, traffic, and human presence (indirect habitat loss); 

3) habitat fragmentation; 4) direct mortality due to construction activities and/or animal/vehicle 

collisions; 5) potential increased poaching and harassment as a result of increased access and 

human presence; 6) impediments to pronghorn antelope migration; 7) loss of habitat function 

(most notably for greater sage-grouse breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering); 8) loss of 

suitable raptor nesting areas and/or existing territories; and 9) a decrease in species diversity. 

No impacts to fisheries in the Big Sandy, New Fork, and Green Rivers are anticipated under any 

alternative due to the distance of the project from permanent surface waters, the absence of 

activities that contribute to surface water depletion, and the application of appropriate mitigation. 

Thus, impacts to fisheries are not discussed further in this section. 

Exploration and development activities may cause severely fragmented habitats, and habitat 

treatments may not be an effective mitigation to offset the impacts of new and LOP disturbance 

or loss of habitat function. When sagebrush habitats are degraded, vegetation reestablishment 

may take many years. Wyoming big sagebrush habitats may require 30–100 years or more to 

recover to approximate predisturbance habitat characteristics (Braun 1998, Slater 2003). 

Therefore, habitat functionality, particularly for nesting species, on disturbed areas may not be 

achieved for more than 100 years. However, with successful reclamation, a mosaic of sagebrush 

successional stages, which is desirable for most sagebrush obligate species, would be available in 

the JIDPA within a shorter timeframe. 

The Wilderness Society (2002) defines habitat fragmentation by quoting Noss and Csuti (1994); 

“Fragmentation of habitat can be defined as the decrease in the size of habitat patches and interior 

habitat and the increase in distance between patches.” When large blocks of habitat are separated 

into small patches, the resulting fragmentation of the habitat may limit the ability of some animals 

to move, resulting in the use of inferior or unsuitable habitat. The Wilderness Society (2002) 

suggests that landscape analysis is a proven way to identify habitat fragmentation. 

This EIS quantifies habitat fragmentation by using GIS technology to draw buffers of various 

widths around roads, pipeline ROWs, well pads, and other project-related disturbances. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-57 

The areas outside those buffers (i.e., those greater than a designated distance from project features 

and/or activities) are considered core areas. Core areas, by definition, are the habitat patches most 

removed from project disturbances and, in general, they are likely to have a higher comparative 

value to wildlife species in the JIDPA than non-core areas, all other factors being equal. By 

producing habitat fragmentation models of the JIDPA using various buffer distances (i.e., 0.5 

mile, 0.25 mile, 0.125 mile, and 0.063 mile) from existing and/or possible project disturbance at 

various well densities (16, 32, and 64 wells per 640-acre section), an estimate of total acreage and 

numbers and average sizes of core areas within the JIDPA under a variety of development 

scenarios has been analyzed. The modeling results are provided in Tables 4.13 and 4.14 and 

Maps 4.2 through 4.5. Although it is suspected that some species in the area (e.g., greater 

sage-grouse and pronghorn antelope) are sensitive to varying degrees of fragmentation, 

insufficient scientific research has been conducted to determine what level of fragmentation is 

critical for individual populations or species. 

Table 4.13. Percent of the JIDPA Contained within Core Areas for Existing Conditions and 

Selected Possible Development Scenarios, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 20061 

Disturbance Buffer Percent of JIDPA in Core Areas (%) 

Existing Conditions 16 Wells/Section 32 Wells/Section 64 Wells/Section 

0.063 mile 45.3 28.6 10.10 2.10 

0.125 mile 24.3 2.7 1.00 0.80 

0.25 mile 12.6 0.2 0.04 0.02 

0.5 mile 5.2 0 0 0 

1 Core areas are those areas within the JIDPA and outside the disturbance buffer (i.e., greater than a designated distance from Project-related


disturbance).


Table 4.14. Number and Mean Size of Core Areas in the JIDPA for Existing Conditions and 

Possible Development Scenarios, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 

Disturbance Buffer Number/Mean Size of Core Areas (acres) 

Existing Conditions 16 Wells/Section 32 Wells/Section 64 Wells/Section 

0.063 mile 164/84 205/42 616/5 93/7 

0.125 mile 119/62 237/3 64/5 7/33 

0.25 mile 18/214 6/10 3/5 2/3 

0.5 mile 7/226 0 0 0 

Impacts specific to species or groups of species are described in the following sections. 

Significant impacts are anticipated under all alternatives (including the No Action Alternative), 

but would vary in degree as discussed in Sections 4.2.2.1 through 4.2.2.6. Existing and BLMproposed mitigation for many wildlife species may be inadequate to reduce impacts to less than 

significant levels in the JIDPA. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-58 Chapter 4


Map 4.2. Existing Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation (No Action), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-59


Map 4.3. Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation Expected Under Development at 16 Wells per Section 

(Alternative E), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-60 Chapter 4


Map 4.4. Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation Expected Under Development at 32 Wells per Section 

(Alternative F), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-61


Map 4.5. Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation Expected Under Development at 64 Wells per Section 

(Alternative G), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-62 Chapter 4 

Pronghorn Antelope 

Surface disturbance (both short-term and LOP) would result in the direct loss of 

spring/summer/fall pronghorn habitat within the Sublette Herd Unit. This would include up to 

0.7% of the 4,697 square miles of spring/summer/fall habitat for the herd and up to 0.4% of the 

7,938 square miles of occupied habitat (spring/summer/fall/winter combined), depending on the 

alternative. No crucial pronghorn habitats would be disturbed in the JIDPA as a result of the 

proposed project. Upgrading the Burma Road in the Proposed Action and Alternative A would 

have negligible effects on crucial winter pronghorn habitat. Approximately 65–71% (depending 

on the alternative) of the disturbed areas would be reclaimed and revegetated shortly after 

disturbance. This short-term disturbance would occur within spring/summer/fall habitat and 

would be spread over the development period and scattered throughout the JIDPA. The remaining 

29–35% of the disturbance acreage would result in the removal of spring/summer/fall habitat on 

the Sublette Herd for the LOP and until successful reclamation and revegetation is achieved. 

Reclaimed and revegetated areas would produce less forage for a period of years until 

revegetation is successful, at which time grasses and possibly forbs would become more 

dominant. Shrubs likely would take 30 to 40 years or more to become established but may take 

more than 100 years to reach predisturbance productivity and structure levels (Braun 1998, Slater 

2003). In the interim, habitat function for sagebrush obligate species such as pronghorn would be 

compromised to varying degrees. 

In addition to the direct loss of habitat, disturbance from drilling activities (including noise, 

increased traffic volume, and human presence) would indirectly affect utilization of habitats 

adjacent to development areas. Depending on the severity of these indirect impacts, pronghorn 

displacement distance could be about 0.5 mile (Gusey 1986, Guenzel 1987, Easterly et al. 1991). 

However, as noise and human presence are reduced (e.g., during production operations), 

pronghorn likely would increase their use of otherwise suitable habitats, although probably not to 

the same extent as prior to disturbance. Although methodologies for documenting animal 

displacement or changes in distribution are fairly straightforward, those for documenting 

population-level impacts (i.e., survival and reproduction) are extremely complex. Thus, little 

information is available concerning how human-related disturbances impact reproduction and 

survival of ungulates (Western EcoSystems Technology Inc. [West] 2003). 

Because the Jonah Infill Project would disturb pronghorn spring/summer/fall range, it is 

reasonable to assume that the project would have some adverse impacts to pronghorn populations 

as a result of direct habitat removal and a reduction in habitat function on areas adjacent to 

development activities. However, specific quantitative estimates of such impacts are not possible 

because the requisite research has not been done. Lindzey (2002), commenting on impacts to big 

game from oil and gas development, said: 

Changes resulting from energy development, undoubtedly, will influence wildlife 

populations, yet little [research] is available to support inferences about the 

degree of population-level effects or the best way to address possible impacts. 

Understanding the population-level effects of disturbances, such as those realized 

during energy exploration and development require more than the short-term, 

observational studies biologists now have to rely on. 

Reeve (1984) found that pronghorn habituated to increased traffic volumes and heavy machinery 

noise as long as traffic moved in a predictable manner. Reaction of pronghorn to roads is not 

well understood; however, pronghorn are often seen adjacent to road ROWs, including busy 

interstate highways. It is likely that pronghorn movement is more affected by fences along ROWs 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-63 

than by the activity (traffic) on the ROW. However, increased mortality from vehicle/animal 

collisions is a potential direct impact that may occur due to increased traffic on the JIDPA for the 

LOP, and the provision of access to big game range may increase legal and illegal pronghorn 

harvest. On the other hand, some people may be deterred from poaching because of the increased 

number of vehicles and humans in the area and the subsequent likelihood of being observed by 

other area visitors. 

Pronghorn are known to move through the JIDPA on their way to and from crucial habitats (see 

Map 3.13), and some of these movements are likely to be hindered under most, if not all, of the 

development alternatives. However, no peer-reviewed scientific literature exists to assess possible 

energy-related effects on migration of the Sublette Herd Unit (Berger 2003). The existing 

migration corridor between U.S. Highway 191 and the JIDPA boundary is at least 1.0 mile wide 

and would remain undisturbed (excluding the existing and unfenced Luman, Jonah North, and 

Rim Roads). 

Furbearers, Small Game, and Other Mammals 

Impacts to furbearers, small game, and other mammals would include the direct loss of habitat 

due to surface disturbance. Total proposed surface disturbance represents up to 67% of the JIDPA 

(depending on the alternative), and some unknown portion of the undisturbed habitat likely would 

suffer a reduction in use because of its proximity to human activity (noise, traffic, etc.). The 

degree of loss of habitat function would, to some extent, depend on each species’ ability to adapt 

to disturbance. In addition, some smaller, less mobile animals like mice, voles, and ground 

squirrels are likely to be killed during construction operations. 

Some additional poaching and increased mortality from animal/vehicle collisions is likely due to 

the increased road and traffic volume associated with project activities. The ability of the lands 

within the JIDPA to support furbearers, small game, and other mammals likely would decrease 

from current levels due to habitat loss and human disturbance. Increased human activity would 

displace some species from areas near project features which, when coupled with direct habitat 

loss, would further fragment habitats. Populations would continue to fluctuate and impacts would 

be masked by natural variations in weather, incidence of disease, and other natural factors. 

Project-related disturbance to rare habitats (e.g., wetlands) would be avoided where practical (no 

other rare habitats are currently known to occur on the JIDPA). 

Raptors 

Existing seasonal and spatial restrictions at active raptor nests are intended to prevent adverse 

impacts (e.g., frightened adults, overexposure of eggs or young to heat or cold, missed feedings, 

premature fledging, and increased predation) to breeding, nesting, and brood-rearing raptors. 

However, no restrictions are in place to prevent development within the seasonal buffer zone 

outside of the nesting season except for the 825-foot or 1,000-foot no surface occupancy (NSO) 

buffers, and project facilities and roads constructed outside of the nesting season could result in 

disturbance to nesting activities in subsequent years. Tolerance to disturbance varies among 

raptor species and among individuals of the same species. In general, ferruginous hawks are 

among the most sensitive species to human disturbance. In some instances, raptor nest 

disturbance and the associated decrease in reproductive success may be avoided if project 

facilities are located outside of the line-of-sight of active raptor nests and/or if other raptor 

protection measures are effective. However, if suitable nesting habitat as identified during predevelopment surveys is determined to be unoccupied by raptors, development may be allowed in 

these areas potentially precluding the future use of these areas by nesting raptors. The potential 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-64 Chapter 4 

for adverse impacts to raptors would be greatest during project development, when human 

activity levels are highest; it is anticipated that impacts would decrease somewhat during the 

production phase of the project. 

Reduction in raptor prey species also is likely to occur as a result of the surface disturbance of up 

to two-thirds of the JIDPA (the amount of disturbance would depend on the alternative). This 

habitat loss and the associated decrease in available prey base would reduce the quality of raptor 

foraging habitat within the JIDPA and may increase the size of foraging territory necessary to 

support an individual and/or decrease the number of foraging raptors the area can support. 

Throughout the LOP, it is likely that raptor productivity (especially that of ferruginous hawks) 

would be negatively impacted by project-related activities. Increased human activity associated 

with the proposed project is likely to result in fewer nest initiations, increased nest site 

abandonment and/or reproductive failure, and decreased productivity of successful nests. 

Game Birds 

Disturbance of breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering greater sage-grouse and their 

habitats would increase from that currently occurring in the JIDPA as a result of increased habitat 

removal and noise and traffic associated with increased human presence. The currently identified 

0.25-mile active lek buffer and other seasonal avoidance measures may be inadequate to protect 

breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering grouse from noise or other impacts within the 

JIDPA (e.g., individuals flushed from leks, failure of females to breed, lek and nest abandonment, 

avoidance of habitat), which could result in reduced breeding initiation, reproductive success, and 

survival. The locations of known leks (see Map 3.19) on and adjacent to the JIDPA are assumed 

to represent optimal lek habitat. Impacts to leks and other important habitats (nesting, winter) 

may be serious enough to cause abandonment of the area. Even if alternate lek sites are 

established or existing leks at alternate locations are used, it is assumed that less than optimal 

conditions would prevail, resulting in decreased breeding success, even though lek availability is 

not considered to be a limiting factor for sage-grouse (USFWS 2005d). Furthermore, the loss of 

nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering areas may be equally, if not more, important to grouse 

survival. As with raptor nests, site-specific situations vary, and the success in reducing impacts 

using standard mitigation measures (e.g., NSO buffers and seasonal timing restrictions) is 

variable. 

Although greater sage-grouse still use the JIDPA, the direct and indirect impacts of previous 

developments in the JIDPA may have already rendered the area unsuitable for long-term sagegrouse use. Further habitat loss and disturbance would occur under all action alternatives. 

Recovery of habitat functionality for greater sage-grouse may take over 100 years (Braun 1998, 

Slater 2003). However, it is anticipated that a mosaic of sagebrush habitat age classes would be 

available on the JIDPA within a shorter time frame. 

In areas where 40% of greater sage-grouse nesting, early brood-rearing, and/or winter habitat has 

been lost or severely degraded within the range of a population, Connelly et al. (2000) suggest 

that the management emphasis should focus on protecting any remaining sagebrush that is in any 

way suitable for these functions. Disturbance to remaining suitable greater sage-grouse nesting, 

early brood-rearing, and winter habitats should be avoided to prevent further fragmentation of 

those habitats. Within comparatively intact sagebrush ecosystems, restoring up to 20% of 

degraded nesting and early brood-rearing habitats and 30% of the winter habitat may improve 

habitat conditions. Restoration treatments may consist of providing herbaceous understory, 

creating open patches of herbaceous vegetation, thinning dense sagebrush canopies exceeding 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-65 

30% cover, creating openings within dense sagebrush, regenerating the shrub component by 

setting back succession, or enhancing herbaceous understory by reducing herbivory. However, at 

some point, it becomes ineffective to mitigate habitat loss by restoring vegetation because the 

temporary loss of nesting and roosting habitat and decreased food availability during treatment 

and mitigation creates an unacceptable level of impacts to greater sage-grouse (Connelly et al. 

2000). Optimal food availability allows sage-grouse to minimize brood movement during 

foraging, thereby lowering predator exposure and energetic costs of foraging (Lyon 2000). With 

decreasing availability of forbs and grasses, broods move longer distances and expend more 

energy to find forage. This increased movement, in addition to decreased vegetative cover, may 

expose chicks to greater risk of predation (Lyon 2000). 

A study on coal mining activities and oil field development in North Park, Colorado, found that 

greater sage-grouse populations in areas experiencing disturbance decreased in relation to 

surrounding undisturbed populations (Braun 1986, 1987). Because adult male greater sage-grouse 

establish fidelity to specific leks, Braun (1986) hypothesized that mining activity and large-scale 

habitat loss occurring adjacent to leks may contribute to a reduction in the number of yearling 

male recruits to those areas and that the increased road construction associated with such 

development also may impact greater sage-grouse populations. Road construction results in 

permanent travel routes, improved public access, increased long-term traffic-related disturbance 

in previously inaccessible regions, indirect noise impacts to leks, and direct mortality (Braun 

1998). Roads also provide a clear pathway for predators to move unimpeded by vegetation or 

other obstructions (Lyon 2000). The road-effect distance, or the distance from a road at which a 

population density decrease is detected, is positively correlated with increased traffic density and 

speed and is more critical in years when wildlife populations are low (Forman and Alexander 

1998). Studies conducted in Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado suggest that some recovery of 

greater sage-grouse populations may occur after a site has been developed and subsequently 

reclaimed following energy development, road construction, and other human disturbances 

(Braun 1998). However, there has been no evidence that populations attain their pre-disturbance 

levels. 

Female greater sage-grouse also demonstrate site fidelity to nesting areas surrounding a lek 

(Schroeder et al. 1999; Lyon 2000). Female yearlings nest in the same area in which they hatched 

(Lyon 2000). Even in areas of high disturbance, females continue to maintain their site fidelity, 

though not without some behavioral modifications. The results from a study conducted by Lyon 

(2000) indicate that hens captured on disturbed leks demonstrate lower nest initiation rates, travel 

twice as far to nest sites, and select higher total shrub canopy cover and live sagebrush canopy 

cover than hens captured near undisturbed leks. The average distances between nests and the 

nearest lek varies from 0.7 to 3.9 miles; however, one female nested more than 12.4 miles from 

the nearest lek. Lyon (2000) found 74% of the hens captured from disturbed leks nested more 

than 1.9 miles from the lek, while 91% of the hens from undisturbed leks nested within 1.9 miles 

of the lek. Females that nest >2.0 miles from a lek are less likely to be protected under current 

BLM stipulations. Although information is not available regarding minimum sagebrush patch 

sizes required by sage-grouse (USFWS 2005d), maintaining large, continuous tracts of suitable 

habitat protected from disturbance is likely critical to the sustainability of greater sage-grouse 

populations. 

Field development also could reduce the value of some greater sage-grouse winter habitat, 

although some grouse winter habitat would remain on and adjacent to the JIDPA (especially 

within the Sand Draw buffer). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-66 Chapter 4 

Further identification of potential greater sage-grouse impacts would be provided during annual 

inventory and monitoring (TRC Mariah 2004a), and additional protection measures may be 

applied in the JIDPA as directed by BLM. 

Mourning doves are seasonal (summer) visitors in the JIDPA and populations likely would not be 

impacted by the Proposed Action because of their relatively high tolerance to human activity and 

presence, their inherent mobility, and the availability of suitable habitat on adjacent lands. 

Other Birds 

Non-game birds would be adversely affected by increased development in the JIDPA. Primary 

impacts to any given species would occur in direct proportion to the amount of suitable habitat 

removed (up to 67% of the JIDPA, depending on the alternative). Secondary impacts would 

include temporary displacement from potentially suitable habitat resulting from human 

disturbance. Approximately 65-71% of new disturbance (depending on the alternative) would be 

reclaimed and revegetated during the LOP; however, in sagebrush communities (the dominant 

predisturbance vegetation type in the JIDPA), it may take decades to recover the functional value 

of the habitat. Wyoming big sagebrush may require 30 to 40 years to become established and 

may take more than 100 years to achieve desirable habitat characteristics (e.g., canopy height, 

coverage, and area) (Braun 1998, Slater 2003). Thus, impacts, particularly for sagebrush-obligate 

bird species, could persist for decades after the LOP. Some increased mortality also is likely to 

occur due to vehicle/bird collisions resulting from increased traffic. 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Direct impacts to amphibians and reptiles would occur in direct proportion to the amount of 

habitat disturbed. Total surface disturbance in the JIDPA would be up to 67% (depending on the 

alternative). However, 65-71% of that disturbance would be short term, and wetlands and WUS 

generally would be avoided. An increase in mortality due to increased traffic is also anticipated 

as a result of the proposed project. 

All Species 

Impacts to most wildlife resources would be proportional to the amount of habitat lost, both 

directly (see Section 4.2.1) and indirectly, and the duration of the loss. While a variety of 

mitigation/protection measures would be applied across alternatives (see Chapter 2 and 

Appendices A and B), significant adverse impacts to some wildlife resources are anticipated 

under all alternatives including the No Action Alternative. These impacts have been identified in 

the JIDPA during annual wildlife monitoring of the area (e.g., TRC Mariah 2004a). Impacts noted 

during annual wildlife monitoring include non-attendance or decreased attendance by greater 

sage-grouse on some known leks, absence/decline in greater sage-grouse nesting, brood-rearing, 

and wintering in the area, and inactivity and failure of some raptor nests and/or nesting territories 

(particularly for ferruginous hawks). These existing impacts to wildlife species and their habitats 

would be exacerbated with the implementation of the alternatives and the accompanying direct 

and indirect disturbances. 

The degree of current habitat fragmentation within the JIDPA is high, with 87.40% of the lands in 

the JIDPA being within 0.25 mile (1,320 feet) of project-related disturbance and 75.70% of the 

lands being within 0.125 mile (660 feet) (see Table 4.13). Depending on the alternative, up to 

99.98% of the JIDPA would be within 0.25 mile (1,320 feet) of project-related disturbance, and 

up to 99.20% would be within 0.125 mile (660 feet). Furthermore, patch sizes for areas greater 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-67 

than 0.25 mile from project-related disturbance would be reduced from the current average of 214 

acres to as small as 3 acres (see Table 4.14). Although, as recognized above, insufficient 

scientific research has been conducted to determine what level of fragmentation is critical for 

individual populations or species, this level of disturbance is very likely a significant impact 

under all alternatives for at least some of the species of wildlife that inhabit the JIDPA. 

The aforementioned impacts (direct habitat loss, temporary or permanent displacement from 

existing habitat resulting from human disturbance, and habitat fragmentation) are significant to 

the majority of wildlife species within the JIDPA and on adjacent lands under all alternatives. 

Wildlife impacts due to increased mortality from construction, traffic, and poaching are not 

anticipated to be significant on either a local or a management area level under any alternative. 

Based on existing research data and observations of pronghorn reactions to oil and gas 

development, impacts on pronghorn populations in the Sublette Herd Unit resulting from 

development of the JIDPA, including habitat fragmentation and a reduction in habitat quality, are 

anticipated to be less than significant on both a local and a management area level. No loss of 

pronghorn migration routes is anticipated, although pronghorn may alter their migration routes to 

avoid project disturbances. The project would not result in any changes to existing migration 

bottlenecks outside the JIDPA. 

4.2.2.1 No Action Alternative 

Direct wildlife habitat loss resulting from 4,209 acres of short-term and 1,409 acres of LOP 

disturbance is currently approved within the JIDPA (BLM 1998b, 2000b) for ongoing natural gas 

development and production. Under the No Action Alternative, no additional direct or indirect 

impacts to wildlife species from natural gas development would occur in the JIDPA because no 

additional habitat disturbance would be approved beyond levels listed above. No further habitat 

fragmentation or displacement would occur beyond current levels (see Map 4.2 and Tables 4.13 

and 4.14); however, considerable habitat fragmentation already exists in the JIDPA, and the area 

may no longer be suitable for the long-term sustainability of some wildlife species. Impact 

duration would be approximately 63 years plus the time needed for successful reclamation. 

Impacts to most wildlife species on the JIDPA would be significant; however, no additional 

significant impacts beyond those of previously authorized actions are anticipated. 

4.2.2.2 The Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action would result in an estimated increase (over the No Action Alternative) of 

16,200 acres of new disturbance, which when combined with existing disturbance, would result in 

a total of 20,409 acres of project-related surface disturbance. All of the new disturbance would 

be within pronghorn Sublette Herd Unit spring/summer/fall habitat. This represents 0.68% of the 

4,697 square miles of spring/summer/fall habitat for the herd and 0.40% of the 7,938 square miles 

of all potential habitat (spring/summer/fall/winter combined). Approximately 70.4% of the total 

impact area (14,388 acres) would be short-term disturbance. The remaining 29.6% (6,043 acres) 

would remain disturbed for the LOP. In addition to the direct loss of habitat, disturbance from 

drilling and production activities (including noise, increased traffic volume, and human presence) 

would indirectly affect utilization of habitats adjacent to development areas. However, selected 

Operator-committed and BLM-required practices for the avoidance of sensitive areas would be 

implemented. Impact duration would be approximately 76 years plus the time needed for 

successful reclamation, or approximately 13 years longer than the No Action Alternative. Impacts 

to most wildlife species on the JIDPA would be significant. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-68 Chapter 4 

4.2.2.3 Alternative A 

Implementation of Alternative A would result in the same types and acreages of impacts to 

wildlife species as the Proposed Action (i.e., 16,200 acres of new disturbance and 4,631 acres of 

LOP over the No Action Alternative). However, under Alternative A, selected Operatorcommitted and BLM-required practices for the avoidance of sensitive areas (e.g., avoidance of 

the Sand Draw drainage [300-foot buffer either side], greater sage-grouse leks, and raptor nests) 

would not occur. This likely would result in increased impacts to greater sage-grouse, raptors, and 

other wildlife species. Habitat fragmentation under this alternative would result in all areas within 

the JIDPA being within 330 feet of project disturbance. Impact duration would be approximately 

76 years plus the time needed for successful reclamation, or approximately 13 years longer than 

the No Action Alternative. Impacts to most wildlife species on the JIDPA would be significant. 

4.2.2.4 Alternative B 

Alternative B would result in an estimated increase (over the No Action Alternative) of 3,222 

acres of new disturbance, for a total of 7,431 acres of project-related surface disturbance in the 

area. Approximately 65% (4,848 acres) of the total disturbance would be short term, and the 

remaining 35% (2,602 acres) would remain disturbed for the LOP. Areas of the JIDPA that 

currently lack well pads would have minimal new surface disturbance because this alternative 

does not allow for construction of new well pads, roads, or gathering pipelines. Habitat 

fragmentation would not increase significantly relative to the No Action Alternative (see Map 

4.2). Impact duration would be approximately 105 years plus the time needed for successful 

reclamation, or approximately 42 years longer than the No Action Alternative. Impacts to most 

wildlife species on the JIDPA would be significant. 

4.2.2.5 BLM Preferred Alternative 

The Preferred Alternative would result in an increase (over the No Action Alternative) of a 

minimum of 9,821 and a maximum of 16,125 acres of new surface disturbance. Approximately 

71% (6,971 to 11,577 acres) of the total disturbance would be short term, and the remaining 29% 

(2,858 to 4,611 acres) would remain disturbed for the LOP (see Table 2.5). Because the specific 

locations of future well pads are unknown, habitat fragmentation cannot yet be evaluated. Impact 

duration would be approximately 76 years plus the time needed for successful reclamation, or 

approximately 13 years longer than the No Action Alternative (see Table 2.1). Impacts to most 

wildlife species on the JIDPA would be significant. 

Total disturbance would be comparable to that of the Proposed Action if the Operators maximize 

ongoing reclamation as described in Section 2.4.5 (i.e., 20,234 acres vs. 20,409 acres). However, 

under the Preferred Alternative, additional mitigation measures would be applied to facilitate 

achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources (see 

Section 2.4.5). These measures would moderate, to some extent, anticipated impacts to wildlife 

species. 

4.2.2.6 Cumulative Impacts 

CIAAs for wildlife and fisheries vary by resource. While the principal focus of the following 

analysis is cumulative impacts from oil and gas development, other actions in each CIAA have 

affected and will continue to affect wildlife. These actions include, but are not limited to, 

urbanization, the proliferation of roads (in addition to those for oil and gas development), WGFD 

species management and associated hunter harvests, livestock grazing, and recreation. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-69 

For the following cumulative impacts discussion, impacts to CIAAs under the five alternatives 

discussed herein can be ranked based on new and LOP disturbance acreages, with the following 

caveats. 

•	 Although new and LOP disturbance under the Proposed Action and Alternative A are the 

same, impacts would be greater under Alternative A because selected 

Operator-committed practices and BLM development guidelines and stipulations would 

not be implemented. 

•	 Under the Preferred Alternative, impacts may be lower than implied by disturbance 

acreage alone, because BLM management and monitoring requirements designed to 

protect resources and minimize impacts while meeting field development objectives 

would be implemented. 

The Proposed Action and Alternative A would result in the most surface disturbance within the 

JIDPA (i.e., 20,409 acres new and 6,043 acres LOP disturbance). If the Operators maximize 

ongoing reclamation as described in Section 2.4.5, total acres affected under the Preferred 

Alternative would be almost as high (20,334 acres). However, under the Preferred Alternative 

total surface disturbance at any given time would be limited to a maximum of 14,030 acres, 

whereas the maximum disturbance at one time would be unregulated under the other alternatives. 

Alternative B has the lowest anticipated disturbance acreage of any of the action alternatives, 

with 7,431 acres of new disturbance and 2,602 acres of LOP disturbance. Under the No Action 

Alternative, disturbance would be limited to that already approved—4,209 acres total and 1,409 

acres LOP disturbance. 

Pronghorn Antelope 

The CIAA for pronghorn is the Sublette Herd Unit (see Map 3.13). The impacts of oil and gas 

development on pronghorn in the Herd Unit are largely unknown, but the WGFD indicates that 

pronghorn have and will continue to redistribute spatially, and that mortality may increase due to 

habitat loss (WGFD 2001). Avoiding a loss of habitat function on crucial winter range is 

especially important to maintaining pronghorn populations at a desired level. In addition, there 

are several migratory “bottlenecks” through which some Sublette Herd Unit pronghorn move 

(to and from winter range). These bottlenecks are created by natural topography and/or human 

activity and keeping them open is crucial to the continued survival of portions of the Sublette 

Herd. Efforts have been initiated to mitigate the impacts to pronghorn movement through these 

bottlenecks. Fences, particularly those along highways, also restrict pronghorn movements and 

hinder use of seasonal ranges. New highway construction may further restrict pronghorn 

movement and further fragment habitat. None of the alternatives would adversely affect known 

pronghorn crucial winter range or bottlenecks beyond a negligible degree; therefore, they would 

not contribute to cumulative impacts to these habitat features. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, between 1.6% and 1.7% of spring/summer/fall range in the 

Sublette Herd Unit would be disturbed and habitat function on an unknown amount of adjacent 

habitat would be reduced. The Proposed Action and Alternative A would be similar to the 

maximum allowable impact under the Preferred Alternative; these alternatives would result in 

approximately 1.7% disturbance to spring/summer/fall range in the Sublette Herd Unit. Based on 

these relatively low levels of disturbance, it is not anticipated that any of these alternatives would 

measurably add to cumulative impacts to the Sublette Herd Unit. RFD for the Sublette Herd Unit 

includes 1,591 wells, additional roads, and other related development disturbing more than 

12,000 acres, bringing the maximum cumulative development (existing disturbance, disturbance 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-70 Chapter 4 

from the proposed project, and disturbance from RFD) within the Herd Unit to 97,000–113,200 

acres, or approximately 1.4–1.7% of the area (Table 4.15). Indirect habitat loss (loss of habitat 

function resulting from human disturbance) would occur on an additional but unknown amount of 

land. The magnitude of these indirect impacts on the Sublette Herd Unit is unknown and cannot 

be predicted (WGFD 2001); however, these impacts are not anticipated to be cumulatively 

significant. 

Furbearers, Small Game, and Other Mammals 

The CIAA for furbearers, small game, and other mammals is depicted in Map 3.14 and is 

otherwise known as the Jonah Wildlife Study Area. 

RFD for the CIAA includes 1,014 acres primarily associated with oil and natural gas 

development in the Pinedale Anticline Project Area (see Table 4.15). Cumulative impacts 

resulting from development are anticipated to be similar in kind to those described for the 

proposed project but would include the additional developments associated with the Pinedale 

Anticline Project. Developments would result in additional cumulative impacts to small mammals 

due to direct and indirect habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, increased traffic volumes, and 

increased vehicle/small mammal collisions. Recreational hunter harvest of small game and 

shooting of prairie dogs and other small non-game mammals are also anticipated to increase as a 

result of increased access to the area. The increased mortality experienced by small mammal 

populations also would have a cumulative impact on predator species (e.g., raptors, foxes, 

coyotes, badgers, etc.) that depend on small mammal populations for prey. Cumulative 

disturbance within the Jonah Wildlife Study Area CIAA would range from 4.2% to 12.8% of the 

area, with up to 12.7% disturbance under the Preferred Alternative (see Table 4.15). Impacts 

generally would be in proportion to the amount of direct habitat loss and are anticipated to be less 

than significant. 

Raptors 

The CIAA for raptors is depicted in Map 3.16. 

RFD disturbance in the CIAA includes 2,862 acres (see Table 4.15) and is primarily associated 

with natural gas development described for the Pinedale Anticline Project. Between 10.1% and 

11.5% of the CIAA would be disturbed depending on the alternative—up to 11.5% would be 

disturbed under the Preferred Alternative (see Table 4.15). 

All raptor nests in the Pinedale Anticline Project Area are protected by No Surface Occupancy 

buffers year-round and active nests are protected during the nesting season by timing restrictions 

and seasonal buffers. Monitoring of raptor nests in the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah Field 

Wildlife Study areas is conducted annually (TRC Mariah 2004a, 2004b). The results of these 

investigations have led to the application of additional mitigation (artificial nest structure 

placement) and it is likely that mitigation opportunities will continue to identified in the future. 

Raptors using the JIDPA and CIAA for nesting and foraging would likely experience continued 

adverse effects, which could lead to reductions in the regional reproductive success of raptors in 

the CIAA. These adverse effects are anticipated to be cumulatively significant. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
1 

Table 4.15. Potentially Disturbed Acreage in Each Wildlife CIAA, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 

Cumulative Impact Analysis Area 

(CIAA) 

Total Acreage 

of CIAA 

Existing 

Disturbance in 

CIAA, outside 

JIDPA 

RFD 

JIDPA total 

No Action 

LOP Cumulative1 

Disturba

Proposed Action and Alternative A 

JIDPA total LOP Cumulative1 

Sublette Antelope Herd Unit Percent of Entire CIAA 

6,727,270 80,791 

0.01 

12,000 4,209 1,409 97,000 

1.4 

20,409 6,043 113,200 

1.7 

Jonah Wildlife Study Area 

Percent of Entire CIAA 

188,888 2,729 

1.4 

1,014 4,209 1,409 7,952 

4.2 

20,409 6,043 24,152 

12.8 

Raptors 

Percent of Entire CIAA 

1,184,443 113,092 

9.5 

2,862 4,209 1,409 120,163 

10.1 

20,409 6,043 136,363 

11.5 

Greater Sage-grouse 

Percent of Entire CIAA 

1,061,805 28,767 

2.71 

1,716 4,209 1,409 34,692 

3.2 

20,409 6,043 50,892 

4.8 

Cumulative disturbance = outside JIDPA + RFD + JIDPA total 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-72 Chapter 4 

Game Birds 

The CIAA for g

leks in the CIAA

RFD in the CIA

(see Table 4.15)

3.2 to 4.8% of th

The proposed pr

and wintering g

disturbance is u

regional greater 

The CIAA for 

No significant cu

Other Birds 

The CIAA for ot

project-related d

that for the Bur

Impacts generall

to be less than si

Amphibians and 

The CIAA for a

Little additional 

JIDPA, other th

disturbance, and 

reptiles would g

to be less than si

Fisheries 

The CIAA for fi

as for soils, surf

Alkali Creek, G

Draw, Long Dr

Draw, and South

therefore, cumuTable 4.6 for fur
Environmental Consequences 4-73 

4.2.3 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate and BLM 

Wyoming Sensitive Species 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (Wyoming State Land Use Commission 1979) and Sublette County (Sublette County 

Board of Commissioners and Sublette County Planning Commission 2003) identify the following 

management goals/objectives associated with wildlife and fisheries, including BLM Wyoming 

Sensitive Species (BWS). These goals/objectives are also relevant for TEP&C species: 

•	 to maintain, improve, or enhance the biological diversity of all plant and wildlife species 

while ensuring healthy ecosystems; 

•	 to restore disturbed or altered habitat with the objective to attain desired native plant 

communities, while providing for wildlife needs and soil stability; and 

•	 to conserve and develop recreational resources for the benefit of present and future 

generations; 

•	 to consider wildlife migration corridors, crucial winter ranges, and other important 

habitats when evaluating land use proposals; 

•	 to support and maintain healthy wildlife populations as an appropriate and desired land 

use; 

•	 to establish more watering systems on all grazing lands for livestock, wildlife, and 

game/non-game birds; and 

•	 to minimize conflicts between wildlife and domestic pets. 

Impacts to federal TEP&C species would be considered significant if any project action adversely 

affected or jeopardized these species or their critical habitat and/or any recovery program. 

Impacts to BWS species would be significant if project activities contributed to the federal listing 

of any BWS species. BLM prepared a Biological Assessment of potential impacts of the JIDP on 

federally listed species and submitted it to the USFWS on October 25, 2005, with a request for 

formal consultation on the Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail chub, and razorback 

sucker. In a letter dated December 16, 2005, the USFWS agreed to initiate formal consultation on 

the potential effects of the JIDP (see Appendix H). The USFWS expects to issue a Biological 

Opinion in January 2006. 

4.2.3.1 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species 

None of the alternatives are likely to adversely impact black-footed ferret, bald eagle, or Ute 

ladies’-tresses given their current absence from the JIDPA (see below) and the implementation of 

appropriate mitigation measures (see Chapter 2 and Appendices A and B). However, projectrelated groundwater depletions may adversely affect the four endangered fishes (Colorado 

pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail chub, and razorback sucker). 

Black-footed Ferret 

Black-footed ferrets are not known to occur, nor are they likely to occur, within the JIDPA, and 

the JIDPA and vicinity have been block-cleared for ferrets by the USFWS (i.e., surveys for ferrets 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-74 Chapter 4 

are not required in the area because USFWS has concluded that their presence in the area is 

unlikely) (USFWS 2004). However, should ferrets be discovered in the JIDPA, formal 

consultation would be initiated with the USFWS to ensure their protection and management. 

Bald Eagle 

No bald eagle nests or winter roosts are known to occur on the JIDPA; however, they do use the 

Green and New Fork River corridors north of the JIDPA for nesting and migration and may 

occasionally forage in the JIDPA. It is anticipated that bald eagles would avoid the JIDPA for the 

LOP and would move to other suitable foraging areas in the region. 

Fish 

The four species of endangered fish present in the Green and Colorado Rivers below Flaming 

Gorge Dam would not be affected by sedimentation from any alternative because sediment traps 

and catchments are proposed for the Jonah Field, and the Fontenelle and Flaming Gorge 

Reservoirs would serve as macro-scale traps/catchments for any turbidity or sedimentation that 

may reach the Green River. However, 1,225 acre-ft of groundwater a year would be pumped 

under three alternatives (the Proposed Action, Alternative A, and the Preferred Alternative), and 

367.5 acre-ft a year would be pumped under Alternative B. According to the Biological 

Assessment prepared for the JIDP, “no data collected ... prove that [these] water depletions are 

not connected to the Colorado River system”; therefore, the groundwater depletions my result in 

depletions of surface waters occupied by Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail chub, 

and razorback sucker and may indirectly and adversely affect these species. Mitigation would be 

in the form of paying a “depletion charge” to the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish 

Recovery Program. 

Ute Ladies’-tresses 

Ute ladies’-tresses habitat is not known to occur nor is the species likely to occur within the 

JIDPA. 

4.2.3.2 BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species 

Significant impacts to several BWS species, most notably to sagebrush-obligate species, are 

anticipated within the JIDPA under all alternatives. However, these impacts are not expected to 

contribute to the federal listing of any BWS species. 

Impacts to BWS animal species generally would be similar to those described for wildlife (see 

Section 4.2.2), whereas impacts to BWS plant species generally would be as described for 

vegetation (see Section 4.2.1). Vegetation/habitat recovery to approximate predisturbance 

productivity could take 30 to over 100 years in sagebrush habitats (Braun 1998, Slater 2003). 

Impacts include 1) the direct loss of habitat due to the removal of vegetation and possible 

increased weed infestations; 2) displacement (wildlife only) due to disturbance from projectrelated activities, and increased public access to the JIDPA (indirect habitat loss); 3) habitat 

fragmentation; 4) direct mortality due to construction activities and animal/vehicle collisions; and 

5) potential increased mortality due to poaching and harassment. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-75 

Mammals 

The best habitat areas for the pygmy rabbit (e.g., basin big sagebrush communities) occur along 

Sand Draw, and pygmy rabbits do occur in this area both on and adjacent to the JIDPA (TRC 

Mariah 2004a). Idaho pocket gophers may occur within the JIDPA in areas of shallow, stony 

soils. White-tailed prairie dog towns have been recorded within the JIDPA, and populations 

routinely utilize habitats on or close to surface disturbance; thus, prairie dogs may to some degree 

adapt to the human presence/disturbance associated with the proposed project. Nevertheless, 

populations of these mammals in the JIDPA would likely decline in the long term due to 

continued habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, and direct mortality. 

Birds 

Mountain plovers nest and forage in areas of low, sparse vegetation (often associated with prairie 

dog towns), and plovers have been observed in the vicinity of the JIDPA during wildlife 

monitoring efforts (e.g., TRC Mariah 2002, 2004a). Burrowing owls and ferruginous hawks nest 

and forage in the JIDPA; however, their use of the area appears to be declining in recent years 

(TRC Mariah 1999, 2001a, 2001b, 2002, 2004a). Similarly, greater sage-grouse forage, lek, nest, 

and winter in the JIDPA, but male lek attendance is declining on some leks on and adjacent to the 

JIDPA and a decrease in the use of the JIDPA for nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering also 

appears to be occurring (TRC Mariah 1999, 2001a, 2001b, 2002, 2004a). These declines likely 

are, in part, associated with increased human activity and disturbance associated with oil and gas 

activities in the area. 

Sagebrush obligate species (i.e., sage thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow, and sage sparrow) likely would 

be adversely affected due to habitat loss/disturbance. This impact is anticipated to be significant 

under all alternatives. Ingelfinger (2001) reported a 50–60% reduction in sagebrush obligates 

within 100 meters of roads in the Pinedale Anticline Project Area, likely due to traffic, increased 

horned lark abundance, and avoidance of habitat edges created by roads. The author suggested 

that oil and gas development likely would result in a decline in populations of sagebrush obligates 

and an increase in populations of horned larks, as well as additional nesting opportunities for 

common ravens on structures associated with gas extraction. Ravens prey on sagebrush-obligate 

nestlings (Martin and Carlson 1998). Nicholoff (2003) recommends that, for Brewer’s sparrow, 

sage sparrow, and sage thrasher, road construction and other developments that would reduce 

sagebrush habitat patch size to less than 50 acres be avoided where practical. For loggerhead 

shrike, another BWS species that occurs within the vicinity of the JIDPA, Nicholoff (2003) 

recommends minimizing conversion of sagebrush and other shrublands and woodlands to nonnative grasslands or croplands. 

Populations of long-billed curlew have been declining due to loss of suitable habitat as grasslands 

are converted to cropland or urban development (Nicholoff 2003). No cropland conversion or 

urban development is proposed; however, some unknown amount of disturbance and habitat 

fragmentation could result if suitable habitat is disturbed. 

4.2.3.3 No Action Alternative 

Currently, a total of 4,209 acres of existing and 1,409 acres of LOP disturbance are approved 

within the JIDPA (BLM 1998b, 2000b). Under the No Action Alternative, no additional impacts 

to TEP&C and BWS species from oil and gas development would occur in the JIDPA. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-76 Chapter 4 

4.2.3.4 The Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action would result in an estimated increase (over the No Action Alternative) of 

16,200 acres of new surface disturbance, for a total of 20,409 acres of project-related surface 

disturbance. Most of the disturbance would occur in habitats used by BWS species. 

Approximately 70.4% of the total disturbance (14,388 acres) would be reclaimed and reseeded as 

soon as practical after disturbance (i.e., short-term disturbance). The remaining 29.6% (6,043 

acres) would remain disturbed for the LOP. Impact duration would be approximately 76 years 

plus the time needed for successful reclamation, or approximately 13 years longer than the No 

Action Alternative. 

Potential indirect impacts to Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail chub, and 

razorback sucker of pumping 1,225 acre-ft of groundwater a year would be offset by payment of 

a “depletion charge” to the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

4.2.3.5 Alternative A 

Implementation of Alternative A would result in the same types and acreages of impacts to BWS 

species as the Proposed Action (i.e., an increase of 16,200 acres [11,577 acres of short-term 

disturbance and 4,361 acres of LOP disturbance] over the No Action Alternative). However, 

under Alternative A, selected Operator-committed and BLM-required practices (e.g., avoidance 

of Sand Draw buffer) would not occur; thus, additional impacts to BWS species and their habitats 

(e.g., pygmy rabbit, ferruginous hawk, burrowing owl, sagebrush-obligate species) would likely 

occur. Impact duration would be approximately 76 plus the time needed for adequate reclamation, 

or approximately 13 years longer than the No Action Alternative. 

Potential indirect impacts to Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail chub, and 

razorback sucker of pumping 1,225 acre-ft of groundwater a year would be offset by payment of 

a “depletion charge” to the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

4.2.3.6 Alternative B 

Alternative B would result in an estimated increase over the No Action Alternative of 3,222 acres 

of new disturbance, for a total of 7,431 acres of project-related surface disturbance in the area. 

All disturbance would occur in habitats used by BWS species. Approximately 65% (4,848 acres) 

of the total disturbance would be short term, and the remaining 35% (2,602 acres) would remain 

disturbed for the LOP. Areas of the JIDPA that currently lack well pads would have minimal new 

surface disturbance because the alternative does not allow for construction of new well pads, 

roads, or gathering pipelines. Impact duration would be approximately 105 years plus the time 

needed for adequate reclamation, or approximately 42 years longer than the No Action 

Alternative. 

Potential indirect impacts to Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail chub, and 

razorback sucker of pumping 367.5 acre-ft of groundwater a year would be offset by payment of 

a “depletion charge” to the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

4.2.3.7 BLM Preferred Alternative 

The Preferred Alternative would result in an estimated increase over the No Action Alternative of 

at least 9,821 and not more than 16,125 acres of new surface disturbance. All disturbance would 

occur in habitats used by BWS species. Approximately 71% (6,971 to 11,577 acres) of the new 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-77 

disturbance would be short term, and the remaining 29% (2,858 to 4,611 acres) would remain 

disturbed for the LOP (see Table 2.5). Total surface disturbance at any given time would be 

limited to a maximum of 14,030 acres. Impact duration would be approximately 76 years plus the 

time needed for adequate reclamation, or approximately 13 years longer than the No Action 

Alternative. 

The additional Preferred Alternative-specific mitigation and monitoring measures listed for 

vegetation and wildlife (see Section 2.4.5) would moderate, to some extent, any impacts to BWS 

species. Impacts still would occur at potentially significant levels for most, if not all BWS species 

identified as occurring in the JIDPA. Potential indirect impacts to Colorado pikeminnow, 

humpback chub, bonytail chub, and razorback sucker of pumping 1,225 acre-ft of groundwater a 

year would be offset by payment of a “depletion charge” to the Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

4.2.3.8 Cumulative Impacts 

The CIAA for TEP&C and BWS species includes the entire range of each species in the BLM 

PFO area. With regard to federally listed TEP&C species, it is unlikely that any of the alternatives 

would contribute to cumulative impacts to black-footed ferrets, Ute ladies’ tresses, or bald eagles. 

Neither black-footed ferrets nor Ute ladies’ tresses are known to occur on the JIDPA nor are they 

likely to be affected by the project. Because no bald eagle nests or winter roosts are known to 

occur within 1 mile of the JIDPA and alternate foraging areas exist within relatively close 

proximity to the JIDPA, it is unlikely that the project would have any cumulative impact on the 

bald eagle. The action alternatives may add to cumulative impacts for the four Colorado River 

endangered fish species as a result of water reductions in the Green and Colorado Rivers; any 

potential for indirect affect from groundwater pumping for the JIDP would be offset by payment 

of a “depletion charge” to the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

Project-related impacts to BWS species would add to existing impacts from other disturbances in 

the CIAA, including existing roads and traffic, oil and gas development, grazing, and other 

activities resulting in direct mortality, habitat fragmentation, or loss of habitat quality. However, 

there is no evidence that any of the species would be proposed for listing as threatened or 

endangered as a result of any cumulative impacts under any of the project alternatives. Sitespecific projects requiring surface disturbance on BLM lands require additional permitting which, 

in turn, may include mitigation measures for BWS similar to those for this project (see 

Appendices A and B). 

4.2.3.9 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Habitat loss (direct and indirect) would occur due to construction, and human presence would 

further reduce habitat quality in some of the remaining undisturbed or minimally disturbed areas. 

This would result in decreased populations of some BWS species on the JIDPA. Some direct 

mortality, especially to small mammals, likely would occur during construction and from projectrelated traffic. 

4.2.4 Wild Horses 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (Wyoming State Land Use Commission 1979), and Sublette County (Sublette County 

Board of Commissioners and Sublette County Planning Commission 2003) identify the following 

management goals/objectives associated with wild horses: 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-78 Chapter 4 

•	 to protect, maintain, and control viable, healthy herds of wild horses while retaining their 

free roaming nature; 

•	 to provide adequate habitat for free-roaming wild horses through management consistent 

with environmental protection; and 

•	 to provide opportunity for the public to view wild horses. 

Impacts to wild horses would be significant if there were a reduction in AUMs of a magnitude 

that required modification to the management of wild horses in the Little Colorado Herd 

Management Area (LCHMA) (see Map 3.20), if an action prevented the realization of herd 

objectives, or if project disturbance resulted in a violation of RMP wild horse objectives. 

Although there would be potential impacts to wild horses, it is unlikely that any of the 

alternatives would result in impacts that would be considered significant in terms of jeopardizing 

the aforementioned management goals/objectives. There would likely be an increase in wild 

horse displacement, including movement of wild horses off the RSFO LCHMA onto the PFO 

portion of the JIDPA (through damaged fences or open gates), resulting in the potential for more 

injuries as a result of encounters with project facilities (e.g., cattle guards, traffic). Direct impacts 

would result primarily from vegetation loss. Impacts to wild horse viewing are also anticipated 

under all alternatives because the quality of views (i.e., views set within an oil and gas 

development background) would be reduced. The reclamation measures proposed to ensure 

successful revegetation (see Appendix B) and other practices identified in Appendices A and C 

would help ensure that none of these impacts are significant. 

4.2.4.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional activities that would potentially 

affect wild horse populations other than those currently approved for the area (BLM 1998b, 

2000b). Approximately 16 AUMs would be lost within the LCHMA for the LOP. The duration 

of impacts would be approximately 63 years based on the proposed rate of development and the 

time period until affected areas are effectively reclaimed. 

4.2.4.2 The Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action would result in 2,415 acres of new disturbance (715 acres of LOP 

disturbance) within the LCHMA, decreasing forage for wild horses in the short term. The extent 

of forage loss depends on the results of reclamation efforts (see the discussion of effects on 

livestock grazing in Section 4.5.2). Wild horses would be displaced due to human presence, and 

the probability of potential vehicle/animal collisions would increase. Impact duration is 

anticipated to be approximately 76 years (approximately 13 years over the No Action Alternative) 

plus the time required for effective reclamation. 

4.2.4.3 Alternative A 

Implementation of Alternative A would result in the same types of impacts as all other action 

alternatives; however, impacts would be increased in areas that would otherwise have been 

avoided (e.g., steep slopes, drainage buffers). Impact duration would be the same as for the 

Proposed Action. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-79 

4.2.4.4 Alternative B 

Compared to the Proposed Action, loss of forage for wild horses would be lower under 

Alternative B because this alternative would result in less new disturbance (867 acres) and LOP 

disturbance (305 acres) within the LCHMA. Wild horses would be displaced due to human 

presence, and the probability of potential vehicle/animal collisions would increase compared to 

the No Action Alternative. Impact duration would be approximately 105 years plus the time 

required for effective reclamation. 

4.2.4.5 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Impacts under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed Action, 

except additional mitigation and monitoring measures would be implemented to facilitate 

achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources (see 

Section 2.4.5). 

4.2.4.6 Cumulative Impacts 

The CIAA for wild horses is the entire LCHMA (see Map 3.20). Existing developments in the 

LCHMA area are generally limited to secondary roads and natural gas infrastructure. Existing, 

proposed, and RFD activities are unlikely to reduce the carrying capacity of the Little Colorado 

Herd Management Unit although shifts in distribution may occur. Undo time expenditure and 

unnecessary hazing of wild horses back onto the RSFO LCHMA from the PFO portion of the 

JIDPA may occur due to increased area use for natural gas development and the failure to close 

field office boundary gates. The primary factor limiting the distribution of wild horses in the 

LCHMA is the availability of water, which is not anticipated to be affected cumulatively under 

any alternative, except possibly the Preferred Alternative if new water sources are provided. 

Cumulative impacts to wild horses are anticipated to be less than significant because wild horse 

population objectives are currently being met or exceeded in the LCMHA, and the reclamation 

activities that would be implemented under all alternatives have the potential to provide increased 

forage for wild horses. The aesthetic values associated with wild horse viewing would continue to 

decline under all alternatives where horses are observed in areas of development. 

4.2.4.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Other than the temporary short-term and LOP loss of forage, no unavoidable adverse impacts to 

wild horses are anticipated. 

4.3 CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) prescribe the following 

management goals/objectives associated with cultural resources: 

•	 to design cultural resource management actions to maintain the value of cultural 

resources; 

•	 to expand the opportunities for scientific study and educational and interpretive uses of 

cultural resources; 

•	 to protect and preserve important cultural resources or their historic record for future 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-80 Chapter 4 

generations; and 

•	 to resolve conflicts between cultural resources and other resource uses; and conserve and 

develop historic resources for the benefit of present and future generations. 

Because of the requirement for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and with the ARPA on 

federal lands, all areas on federal lands (surface or mineral estate) proposed for surface 

disturbance would be surveyed for cultural resources. These inventories would serve to further 

cultural heritage by protecting most cultural properties from significant damage, increasing 

cultural resource site databases, and furthering the understanding of history and prehistory. 

Impacts to historic and cultural resources would be considered significant if they resulted in nonmitigated impacts to National Register-eligible properties, diminishment of the aspects of site 

integrity, loss of scientifically important data or artifacts, a violation of the NHPA and/or ARPA, 

or disturbed Native American sensitive sites, or if they were inconsistent with the goals/objectives 

listed above. Application of various mitigation protocol (see Appendices A and C) would reduce 

impacts to cultural resources under all alternatives; however, in the absence of a Programmatic 

Agreement and Cultural Resource Management Plan, potential significant impacts to cultural 

resources could occur under any alternative. 

The greatest identifiable threats to cultural resources result from increased ground disturbance. 

Overall impacts to cultural resources would primarily occur in direct proportion to the volume of 

new surface disturbance. More acres of disturbance would generally make cultural property 

avoidance more difficult, would increase the need for cultural site mitigation, and would result in 

more discoveries, excavation, chances for illegal artifact collection and/or vandalism, and/or 

impacts to sites, locales, and places considered sacred, sensitive, or of importance to modern-day 

Native Americans, such as the Shoshone People. Vandalism and illegal collection impacts would 

occur in relative proportion to the amount of human use on the area. 

Because of the requirement for cultural resource inventories in new disturbance areas, a large 

number of cultural properties would also be found and added to the cultural resource database 

under all development alternatives. In addition, a large number of site mitigations (e.g., 

excavations) would be likely to occur, as avoidance of some NRHP-eligible sites likely would not 

be possible. Data recovery excavations would serve to increase the understanding of the culture 

history of the region. However, this would not be true for cultural resources on State of Wyoming 

lands. Procedures for identifying and protecting cultural resources on State of Wyoming lands are 

not in place. Generally, BLM requires inventory on State of Wyoming lands as a connected 

action for the first access; however, once federal access via a ROW or other federal permit to 

these lands is obtained, uninventoried future construction and project developments and 

associated unmitigated site disturbance may occur. Only with the implementation of a 

cooperative State of Wyoming land development protocol for addressing cultural resources, such 

as might be established through a Programmatic Agreement, could the avoidance of significant 

adverse impacts to cultural resources on state lands be assured. 

While avoidance of NRHP eligible sites would likely remain the primary tool to minimize 

potential adverse effects to cultural resources, a high degree of new development is proposed for 

the JIDPA, with much of this development likely to occur in geomorphologically sensitive areas 

with high archaeological site discovery potential, and project-by-project avoidance would prove 

to be increasingly difficult and time-consuming. Because new ground disturbance is proposed 

within the JIDPA under all development alternatives, it would not only be much more difficult to 

avoid identified cultural resources, but numbers of unanticipated archaeological discoveries 

would also increase. Such unexpected discoveries are currently being handled on a case-by-case 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-81 

basis under the general direction of 36 CFR 800.13. Consultation involves the Operators, BLM, 

Wyoming SHPO, and other interested parties. Under all project development alternatives, a 

greater number of construction projects would be delayed due to cultural resource discoveries and 

subsequent consultation requirements. Because of the frequently complex nature of such 

discoveries, the need for development of case-by-case treatment plans, the exposed nature of the 

resource discovered, and the availability of archaeologists to evaluate the discovery, delays are 

common. Implementation of Programmatic Agreements and treatment or discovery plans that 

identify standard treatments, procedures, and management alternatives would lessen the impacts 

unexpected discoveries have on specific development projects. Duplication of paperwork is 

reduced, timeframes for decision-making are greatly condensed, more “hands-on” management of 

an already damaged resource can occur, and overall management efficiencies are increased. A 

reduction in delay to Operators also results in a savings in construction costs and lessened 

shutdown impediments. Development and implementation of these plans would be beneficial to 

all parties, given the substantial increase in proposed ground disturbance within culturally 

sensitive areas. Programmatic approaches in the JIDPA could also benefit data synthesis and 

provide useful information to scholars and the general public. 

Overall, impacts to cultural resources not identified during surveys for cultural resources, such as 

arising from an archaeological discovery situation (cultural materials found during and not prior 

to surface-disturbing activities), could be greater and more significant than impacts to resources 

that were previously identified. This is because damage to discovery sites would occur prior to 

the site being either recorded or evaluated, thereby complicating cultural resource mitigation 

procedures. The most significant and time-consuming mitigation of archaeological discoveries 

would likely be when subsurface components containing extensive or abundant artifact 

assemblages are located during large disturbances and for sites with structural or human remains 

in San Arcacio soil contexts, as occur along Sand Draw. Mitigation of impacts to archaeological 

discovery sites could often be accomplished through data recovery excavations, which would 

increase our understanding of prehistory to varying degrees, depending on the nature and extent 

of the discovery. Significant impacts can occur in situations where undocumented NRHP-eligible 

archaeological sites are impacted but not recognized (and therefore not treated as discoveries and 

not appropriately mitigated). 

Subsurface prehistoric site discoveries resulting from construction are common in portions of the 

JIDPA, and more of these discoveries are likely to occur with continued development. 

Archaeological discoveries most often occur on the toes of small but discreet upland hillocks and 

rises flanked by intermittent drainages and on the terraces and valley slopes adjacent to Sand 

Draw. Sediments along Sand Draw are particularly sensitive; these are primarily San Arcacio 

soils known to contain intact Archaic period sites, including those with housepits. These soils 

extend as much as 0.5 mile from each side of the drainage channel. Impacts to cultural resources 

discovered during construction activities would be minimized by moving further proposed 

surface disturbances or through appropriate mitigation. Any cultural resources discovered during 

project construction would be treated in accordance with 36 CFR 800 and the statewide protocol. 

Adverse impacts to other NRHP-eligible properties, especially properties considered important to 

Native American groups, would be significant under all alternatives if they cannot be 

satisfactorily mitigated as determined through consultation with SHPO and other interested 

parties. Previous consultation with Native American Tribes has determined that the 48SU4000 

Archaeological District is sensitive to Native Americans, as are several rock alignment sites along 

the edge of Yellow Point Ridge. Any increase in ground-disturbing activities has an increased 

potential of impacting significant sites, locales, and places considered sacred, sensitive, or of 

importance to modern-day Native Americans, such as the Shoshone People in particular. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-82 Chapter 4 

The Site 48SU4000 complex is highly sensitive and currently at risk. Extant and potential field 

developments pose a risk of direct threats to the site complex, and these threats would continue as 

the number of individuals familiar with and accessing the area increases due to ancillary adverse 

effects resulting from vandalism. To begin addressing these issues, the BLM and one of the 

Operators have negotiated a long-term site monitoring plan that includes a detailed inventory and 

recording of the entire District, as well as photographic monitoring and evaluation of looting. 

Miner (2001) has recommended pre-emptive mitigative excavations of rockshelters in highly 

visible locations and at significant locations in the vicinity of any proposed well pads and related 

facilities. Area-specific plans and procedures would continue to be promulgated and implemented 

to protect the resources in this area. 

Overall, vandalism to cultural properties and illegal artifact collection would continue to be an 

issue in the JIDPA under all alternatives. Construction of new roads for well field expansion 

would provide access to additional areas, increasing the potential for vandalism. The increase in 

development under all development alternatives would increase traffic and human presence in the 

area, leading to additional artifact collecting and “pot hunting.” Potential impacts associated with 

vandalism and illegal artifact collection are assumed to be directly proportional to the level of 

human activity (i.e., with a higher human presence there would be increased impact potential). 

Therefore, these potential impacts would likely be greatest during the development period, but 

would continue for the LOP. For the JIDPA overall, vandalism may be minimized through law 

enforcement, site monitoring activities, and educational programs. 

4.3.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional surface disturbance other than that 

already approved by the BLM (1998b, 2000b). Prior NEPA documents concluded that there 

would be no significant adverse impacts to cultural resources as a result of the project; however, 

these conclusions assumed implementation of a Programmatic Agreement among BLM, SHPO, 

and Operators. Since expiration of the Programmatic Agreement ratified in 1998, significant 

impacts have occurred and, while most cultural resource impacts have already occurred and been 

largely mitigated, potentially significant impacts could still occur. Few new cultural resource 

inventories would be conducted, and no new sites would be recorded and added to the cultural 

resource database. Vandalism and illegal artifact collecting may continue for the LOP. In the 

absence of new ground disturbance, no additional unanticipated discoveries are likely to occur. 

Cultural resource impacts would continue for an estimated 63 years under the No Action 

Alternative. No new impacts to Native American religious or culturally significant sites are 

anticipated beyond current levels. 

4.3.2 The Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, an estimated 20,126 acres (66% of the JIDPA) would be directly 

impacted by surface-disturbing activities, and an additional 283 acres of disturbance would occur 

at locations outside the JIDPA (e.g., Burma Road upgrade, compressor stations). This equates to a 

total disturbance of 20,409 acres and an average disturbance of 429 acres per 640-acre section. 

Impacts to cultural resources would be increased due primarily to new surface disturbance 

(16,200 acres). Vandalism and illegal artifact collection would likely be greatest during 

development (approximately 13 years), but would continue for approximately 76 years and until 

project personnel are no longer required for the LOP. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-83 

4.3.3 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, impacts to cultural resources would be increased from those of the No 

Action Alternative, be the same as those of the Proposed Action, but be increased in areas such as 

Sand Draw that would be avoided under other alternatives. Vandalism and illegal artifact 

collection would likely be greatest during development (approximately 13 years), but the duration 

of these impacts would continue for the LOP (approximately 76 years). 

4.3.4 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, approximately 7,223 acres of the JIDPA would be directly impacted by 

surface-disturbing activities, and an additional 208 acres of disturbance would occur at locations 

outside the JIDPA (e.g., , compressor stations). This would result in an increase to potential 

impacts to cultural resources from that of the No Action Alternative. Cultural property avoidance 

may be more difficult under Alternative B as compared with the other development alternatives 

(i.e., existing pads would be increased in size) because pad locations are fixed. Vandalism and 

artifact collection would likely be greatest during development (approximately 42 years), but 

duration of these impacts would continue for the LOP (approximately 105 years). 

4.3.5 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, approximately 13,822–20,126 acres of the JIDPA (45.3–66.0%) 

would be directly impacted by surface-disturbing activities, and an additional 208 acres of 

disturbance would occur outside the JIDPA. An average disturbance of 290–423 acres per 

640-acre section would occur in the JIDPA. Impacts to cultural resources would be increased 

from that of the No Action Alternative due primarily to new surface disturbance (5,612–11,916 

acres more than No Action). Vandalism and illegal artifact collection would likely be greatest 

during the development period (approximately 13 years) but would continue for the LOP 

(approximately 76 years). 

Under the Preferred Alternative, additional mitigation and monitoring measures would be applied 

to facilitate achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources 

(see Section 2.4.5). Any measure that reduces the volume of surface disturbance or the level of 

human presence has the potential to reduce impacts to cultural resources. 

4.3.6 Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts to cultural resources within their CIAA (see Map 3.5) would include those 

detailed in past NEPA documents (BLM 1997a, 1998a, 2000a) and would generally be as 

described for this project, but would occur over the larger CIAA and as a result of additional nonproject-related ground-disturbing and vandalism/illegal collection activities primarily associated 

with energy developments in the Pinedale Anticline area. Additional direct impacts to cultural 

resources in the CIAA and outside the JIDPA have resulted primarily from development of the 

Pinedale Anticline Gas Field to the north of the JIDPA. With the implementation of the cultural 

resource mitigation actions identified in Appendices A and C, cumulative impacts to cultural 

resources in the JIDPA would be minimized or offset. 

The great increase in the human presence in the JIDPA and surrounding areas since 1997 has 

tremendously increased vandalism and artifact collection (Vlcek pers. comm.). Numerous 

contacts among regulatory agency personnel and consultants have noted considerable illegal 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-84 Chapter 4 

artifact collection in the area. The cumulative effect of this activity has been adverse. Illegal 

artifact removal has made the evaluation of surficial archaeological sites quite difficult due to the 

absence of diagnostic artifacts, tools (which aid in the determination of site function), and the 

resultant alteration of site context and setting. 

Unmitigated loss of cultural resources in discovery and undocumented site situations associated 

with ground-disturbing actions would accumulate. Inventory, recordation, and data recovery 

projects triggered by ground-disturbing actions would continue to increase the cultural resource 

database, likely improving future cultural resource management decisions. Generally, the greater 

the increase in permitted activity, the greater the data acquisition of cultural resource information 

will be. In 2004 alone, several major new archaeological discoveries were made and documented, 

greatly increasing our knowledge of the prehistory of the area. The recovery of a 7,300-year-old 

human burial is one such example and the data recovery efforts at Site 48SU4479 are beginning 

to tremendously expand knowledge of the prehistory of the Upper Green River Basin. 

Cumulatively, archaeological investigations in the JIDPA have made notable positive impacts 

upon our knowledge of the archeology of the region. 

Data recovery excavations remove all or a portion of in situ cultural materials at sites, thereby 

resulting in potential future data loss if new data recovery and analysis techniques are developed. 

These impacts would accumulate as additional sites are excavated. 

Increased surface-disturbing activities and human presence primarily resulting from expanded 

energy development activities in the CIAA would result in increased cumulative adverse effects, 

and because many of these impacts are indirect (illegal artifact collecting or digging), they are 

difficult to minimize or mitigate. Under any project development alternative, cumulative impacts 

would increase with increased surface disturbance and human activity, and significant cumulative 

effects to cultural resources could occur if undocumented and unrecognized NRHP-eligible sites 

are impacted and unmitigated. 

4.3.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Because of the requirement for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and with the ARPA on 

federal lands, adverse impacts are generally avoided or mitigated with the exception of situations 

where undocumented NRHP-eligible sites are impacted but not recognized, thereby occurring 

without mitigation. This type of unavoidable adverse impact may occur under all alternatives. 

Unmitigated adverse effects to eligible sites could also occur on State of Wyoming lands because 

fewer protections are afforded to cultural resources on lands falling outside BLM jurisdiction. 

Unexpected discoveries on state lands have occurred, and procedures for mitigative treatment of 

these finds are not in place. Therefore, unavoidable adverse impacts to discovery sites would 

continue until or unless formal procedures for protecting cultural resources on State of Wyoming 

lands are implemented. 

4.4 SOCIOECONOMICS 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b, 2004b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) identify the following 

management goals/objectives associated with socioeconomics: 

• to coordinate land use decisions with economic factors and needs; 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-85 

•	 to mitigate economic, social, and environmental impacts on communities caused by rapid 

or large-scale growth and development; 

•	 to plan for the provision of public facilities and services, including safe and efficient 

transportation and utility systems, in coordination with local land use policies, goals, and 

objectives; and 

•	 to provide adequate, suitable land to meet housing needs of all residents. 

BLM (1999) criteria stipulate that impacts to socioeconomic resources would be considered 

potentially significant if any of the following were to occur: 

•	 increased demand for housing resulting from project activities that exceeds supply; 

•	 short- or long-term increases in demand for local government facilities or services 

that exceed existing capacity and are not offset by adequate revenues from continued 

exploration and development; or 

•	 a 10% change in county government or in countywide employment. 

The SCBC and SCPC (2003) emphasize the following values specific to the social traditions and 

socioeconomic base of Sublette County: 

•	 Sublette County’s unique local culture should be preserved and enriched, a culture 

characterized by a rural Wyoming flavor, a thriving private business community, an 

atmosphere friendly to working families, and the security of friendly crime-free 

communities. 

•	 There should be an abundance of economic freedom and diverse opportunities for 

residents old and new to pursue prosperity and happiness—complemented and sustained 

by a business-friendly atmosphere, reasonable taxation, a low cost of living, limited 

regulation, wise development of its natural resources, and a strong work ethic. 

Unless otherwise cited, the socioeconomic information that follows has been summarized from 

the Socioeconomic Analysis Technical Support Document for the Jonah Infill Drilling 

Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 2005), which is available from the BLM PFO. Please 

refer to that document for more detailed socioeconomic information and analysis. Additional 

information has been taken from the socioeconomic profile (BLM 2003b) prepared for inclusion 

in the Pinedale RMP. 

BLM defines a significant change as any change that would result in a 10% or greater change of 

any affected factor. The following analyses show that the project under all alternatives is 

compatible with BLM management objectives. Socioeconomic impacts are anticipated as a result 

of increased local taxes and revenues. Under the No Action Alternative, the affects of increased 

employment, economic activity, and substantial federal, state, local, and county revenues would 

not occur; therefore, this alternative would not be in accord with BLM, state, and local land use 

plans. Cumulative impacts are likely to have some economic and social consequences in the 

CIAA. 

In the long term, all alternatives would likely result in economic impacts. Population figures are 

not likely to be substantially affected over the LOP, with the possible exception that there may be 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-86 Chapter 4 

short-term (development phase) population impacts as a result of cumulative impacts from inmigration associated with this project in combination with other regional projects (e.g., Pinedale 

Anticline). 

Depending upon the number of wells developed per year, project construction, drilling, 

completion, and production, from approximately 63 to 105 years would be required to complete 

the project. The fewer the number of wells and/or the faster the pace of development, the shorter 

the LOP. Production for the LOP could range from 3,366 billion cubic feet (BCF) under the No 

Action Alternative (no new development) to 8,191 BCF under the Alternative A (3,100 new wells 

and new well pads). 

The economic impact of the Proposed Action, alternatives, and cumulative actions on the studyarea economy were analyzed in two phases using the methods developed for the SWREE 

(UWAED 1997) and JMHCAP (UWAED 2003, BLM 2003a). Phase I was the development 

phase, which considered the economic impacts associated with drilling and completion of infill 

wells. Due to the large price fluctuations in natural gas, the economic impacts of production were 

estimated based on cost of production rather than total output. Phase II considered the economic 

impact of natural gas and condensate production as a result of the production from the wells 

completed under Phase I. 

Assumptions and Methods 

Assumptions and methods are detailed in the socioeconomic technical support document (BLM 

2005). Economic impacts are presented in terms of real and nominal impact. A real discount rate 

has been used to adjust and to eliminate the effect of expected inflation to determined discounted 

constant-dollar (present value or “real value”) of benefits and costs. Pursuant to OMB Circular 

No. A-94, the real discount factor is calculated as 1/(1+i)

t where i is the interest rate and t is the 

project year (OMB 2004). The present value is the value of those activities after the real discount 

rate has been applied over time. As presented herein, the nominal value of project activities is the 

simple calculation of dollars with no adjustments. Natural gas economic activity will depend 

upon three primary factors: 1) total number of wells authorized, 2) total number of pads on which 

wells can be placed, and 3) rate of development. Total recovery will depend upon the number of 

wells and the number of pads they are placed on. The fewer the number of wells and the faster the 

pace of development, the shorter the LOP. Some combinations of conventional/directional 

drilling may make full recovery uneconomical. An estimated 12,800 BCF of natural gas and 99.8 

million barrels of Jonah Field condensate (oil) are present beneath the JIDPA. No alternative 

anticipates total recovery of all natural gas or condensate resources present in the field. Total 

annual per well operation cost is presented in Table 4.16. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-87 

Table 4.16. Annual Cost of Natural Gas Production, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 20061 

Annual Production Operating Costs Annual Cost per Well 

Annual Production (thousand cubic feet [MCF]) 717,232 

Direct Labor and Overhead $16,831 

Nonlabor Annual Costs 

Fuel, Chemicals, and Disposal 9,850 

Surface Maintenance 5,847 

Subsurface Maintenance 5,979 

Electricity – 

Gas Compression Costs – 

Gas Transportation Costs 191,041 

Nonlabor Annual Costs $212,717 

Total Annual Costs $229,548 

Total Annual Cost Per MCF $0.32 

Nonlabor Cost Per MCF $0.30 

1 Source: Operators. Assumes natural gas recovery costs include recovery of condensate. 

Labor 

An estimated 16,863 worker-years of direct employment would be provided by the Proposed 

Action during the LOP (see Appendix B). Jobs indirectly created or induced as a result of 

development and operations are presented in terms of annual job equivalents (AJEs). An AJE 

represents 12 months of employment. For example, one AJE could represent one job for 

12 months or two jobs for 6 months or three jobs for 4 months. For the purposes of this analysis, 

a job is defined as 260 worker-days or 1 worker year, and a person-year is 365 days; therefore, 

there are approximately 1.4 worker years per person year. An AJE would not necessarily result in 

a new job; it may simply represent the continuation of an existing job that would otherwise have 

been terminated had the development not occurred. Average annual starting wages per job would 

not necessarily be the earnings for each job created/maintained. Actual wages are determined on 

an individual basis by employers as influenced by market forces. 

Economic Activity from Development and Production 

An in-depth discussion of expected economic activity is presented in BLM (2005). A summary of 

expected economic activity from one conventional and one directionally drilled well is presented 

in Table 4.17. AJEs represent secondary jobs and do not include project-related jobs listed in 

Table 2.2 of Appendix B. Expenditures made to drill and complete one conventional well would 

generate economic activity (direct and secondary) of $2,719,091 and would generate 16.7 AJEs. 

Expenditures made to drill and complete one directionally drilled well would generate economic 

activity (direct and secondary) of $3,051,586 (includes $621,292 of secondary labor earnings) 

and would generate 19.4 AJEs. This activity is assumed to remain constant across all alternatives 

on a per-well basis. The timing of economic activity will depend on the approved number of 

wells and the rate of development. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
nc u e recovery o con ensate.

4-88 Chapter 4 

Table 4.17. Economic Activity from Gas Drilling Per Well, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2006 

Estimated Impacts Conventional Well Directionally Drilled Well 

Direct Expenditures

1,2 

Drilling ($) $653,574 $897,184 

Completion ($) $1,533,110 $1,533,110 

Total Direct Expenditures ($) $2,186,684 $2,430,294 

Secondary Labor Earning 

Drilling ($) 

Completion ($) 

$239,402 

$293,005 

$328,287 

$293,005 

Total Secondary Labor Earnings ($) $532,407 $621,292 

Total Economic Activity Impact per Well $2,719,091 $3,051,586 

Annual Job Equivalents (AJEs) 

Drilling 7.3 3.3 

Completion 9.4 1.2 

Total AJEs per Well

3 16.7 19.4 

Average Earnings per Created Job ($)

4 $31,881 $32,025 

1 Includes proposed labor costs. 2 Completion includes the cost of completion and setting of production equipment. 3 AJEs are jobs indirectly created as a result of the activity. They do not include the direct labor jobs (proposed) presented in Appendix B. 4 This estimated average annual starting wage per job would not necessarily be the actual wage paid for each created job. Actual wages are


determined on an individual basis by employers as influenced by market forces.


The value of natural gas production is based on revenues less cost of operation. Table 4.18 shows 

that production from one BCF of natural gas would generate total economic activity (direct and 

secondary) of $3,632,083 (includes $132,083 of secondary labor earnings) and would create 3.92 

AJEs. One MBO is assumed to generate total economic activity (direct and secondary) of 

$21,792,498 (includes $792,498 of 

secondary labor earnings) and would 

create 23.52 AJEs. The economic 

activity associated with condensate 

production is likely conservatively 

underestimated because condensate from 

the Jonah Field is of particularly high 

quality and generally sells for a price 

higher than the price of crude oil. 

Assumed production rates, decline 

curves, and discounting tables are 

presented in the socioeconomic 

technical support document (BLM 2005: 

Appendix A). 

Government Revenues 

Under all alternatives (including No 

Action), the project would generate 

substantial revenues for state, county, 

and local governments, as well as area 

school districts, through state sales tax, 

Table 4.18. Economic Activity Gas Production 

from One BCF of Natural Gas and One MBO, 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2006 

Resource Economic Activity 

Natural Gas Activity per BCF 

Revenue1 

Secondary Labor Earnings 

Total Economic Activities 

AJEs 

$3,500,000 

$132,083 

$3,632,083 

3.92 

Condensate Activity per 

Million Barrels 

Revenue2 

Secondary Labor Earnings 

Total Economic Activities 

AJEs 

$21,000,000 

$792,498 

$21,792,498 

23.52 

1 Price is $3.50/MCF based on CREG (2004). The value of production is based 

on revenues less cost of operation. 2 Price is $21/bbl based on CREG (2004). Assumes natural gas recovery costs 

i l d f d 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-89 

federal income tax, ad valorem taxes, severance taxes, federal minerals royalties, and other taxes 

on facilities and production. Assumptions regarding the analysis of project effects on government 

revenues are detailed in the socioeconomic technical support document (BLM 2005). 

The estimated revenues and taxes resulting from the project, as well as their present value, for the 

LOP are presented in detail in the socio-economic technical support document (BLM 2005), 

including the likely distribution of those funds to the U.S., Wyoming, and affected counties, 

cities, and towns based on current statutes and distribution trends. For the purposes of this 

analysis, the rate of development and an average decline curve for individual well production 

(BLM 2005: 

Appendix A) was used to estimate total annual field production; well life was assumed to be 40 

years. Increases in taxes and revenues would have the effect of providing counties and 

communities with more discretionary dollars to develop infrastructure and provide for the needs 

of low-income residents; thus, the dependence on federal or state grant monies would be reduced. 

All counties in the study area would benefit from increased revenues from federal royalties, 

severance taxes, sales taxes, and presumably use and lodging taxes, although the latter are not 

discussed further. 

Because development and production would occur within Sublette County, directly related 

increases in ad valorem production and property taxes would impact only Sublette County and its 

communities. Ad valorem taxes on production were estimated for this analysis; however, real 

property values are likely to change if population fluctuates due to cumulative non-project-related 

factors, which could result in fluctuating receipts from ad valorem taxes on property. Real 

property value changes are beyond the scope of this analysis and are not addressed further. 

Recreation 

Economic losses could result if recreationists were displaced from the JIDPA and moved their 

activities out of the study area. Losses would be proportional to the number of displaced 

recreationists. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that all recreation would be lost 

from the JIDPA for the LOP. (It is also likely that most of this loss has already occurred due to 

existing development effects.) 

Direct impacts from displaced non- Table 4.19. Economic Activity per RVD from 

consumptive recreationists (per Nonconsumptive Recreation, Jonah Infill Drilling 

visitor day) could result in a loss of Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 

$29.62 (including $6.80 of labor 

income) and 0.000518 AJEs each 

(Table 4.19). If all 3,396 RVDs (see 

Section 3.4.10) were lost (regardless 

of the alternative), there would be a 

loss of direct expenditures of 

$100,590 (including $23,093 labor 

earnings) and a loss of 1.8 AJEs 

Item Economic Activity 

per RVD 

Direct Expenditures $22.82 

Secondary Labor Earnings $6.80 

Total Economic Activity per RVD $29.62 

AJES per RVD 0.000518 

annually for the LOP (BLM 2005). 

It is likely that most recreationists who would avoid the JIDPA as a result of natural gas 

development would relocate their activities to other places in the vicinity that provide similar 

recreational opportunities. Individuals may experience impacts in terms of lessened enjoyment 

and satisfaction from relocated recreational activities. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-90 Chapter 4 

Economic activity from hunting could be reduced if hunters were displaced from the JIDPA and 

moved their activities out of the study area. Losses would be proportional to the number of 

displaced hunters. Under the Proposed Action and alternatives, populations of pronghorn antelope 

and/or greater sage-grouse, which are the two principal species hunted on the JIDPA, would 

likely be displaced to such an extent that recreational hunting on the JIDPA may no longer occur. 

Cottontail rabbits are also hunted on the JIDPA, but are unlikely to be displaced by project 

activities. However, it is likely that hunters already avoid the area due to existing development. 

Lands adjacent to the JIDPA may absorb displaced hunting pressure because displaced wildlife 

(most notably pronghorn antelope and greater sage-grouse) may also move to adjacent lands; 

thus, no economic loss may result from loss of hunting due to the project. However, for the 

purposes of this economic analysis, it is conservatively assumed that all hunting on the JIDPA 

would be lost for the LOP. 

Only pronghorn antelope, cottontail, and greater sage-grouse are likely to be hunted on the 

JIDPA. WGFD does not collect resident versus nonresident information for cottontail and greater 

sage-grouse hunting; therefore, it will be conservatively assumed for the purposes of this analysis 

that all hunters are nonresident. Direct impacts from displaced pronghorn hunters (61.0 hunter 

days per year attributable to JIDPA) could result in a loss of $536.46/hunter day (including 

$155.16 of labor income) and 0.012087 AJEs each (Table 4.20). Direct impacts from displaced 

cottontail hunters (26.4 hunter days per year) could result in a loss of $243.48/hunter day 

(including $70.42 of labor income) and 0.005486 AJEs each. Direct impacts from displaced 

greater sage-grouse hunters (16.3 hunter days per year) could result in a loss of $183.32 

(including $53.02 of labor income) and 0.004131 AJEs each. If all hunters relocate their activities 

away from the JIDPA could result in a loss of $42,140 ($12,188 of labor income) and 0.95 AJEs 

of annual economic activity (BLM 2005). 

Table 4.20. Economic Activity per Hunter Day, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2006 

Economic Activity per Hunter Day Item Pronghorn Cottontail Greater Sage-grouse Total 

Direct Expenditures $381.30 $173.06 $130.30 $684.66


Secondary Labor Earnings $155.16 $70.42 $53.02 $278.60


Total Secondary Activity per Hunter Day $536.46 $243.48 $183.32 $963.26 

AJEs per Hunter Day 0.012087 0.005486 0.004131 0.021704 

It is likely that any hunters discouraged from engaging in activities in the JIDPA as a result of 

natural gas development would relocate their activities to other locations in the vicinity. 

Social Impacts 

Social impacts are discussed in more detail in the socioeconomic technical support document 

(BLM 2005). 

The project could result in some increases in population in Sublette, Lincoln, and Sweetwater 

Counties as a result of job seekers from other areas moving to the area in search of employment, 

although existing industry expertise and services in the three counties is generally adequate to 

service additional oil and gas development. With an estimated 1,713 available workers in the 

study area and 12,000 available workers in Wyoming, the estimated number of laborers that 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-91 

would be directly employed as a result of the project would be readily available. However, some 

in-migration of labor is anticipated as a result of the project; without adequate planning at the 

local level, increases in population would likely have some effect on communities in the study 

area. 

The project would directly provide up to 9,899 worker years and up to 52,930 AJEs during 

development and up to 6,964 new worker years and 32,823 new AJEs during production. 

The duration of these impacts, and therefore the number of jobs, would depend on the rate of 

development. Some of these jobs would be existing jobs that would continue to occur as a result 

of continued development and operations that would otherwise have been lost; some jobs would 

be newly created parallel or transitional jobs. These jobs would likely reduce or prevent an 

increase in unemployment in the study area and the state. The projects would result in beneficial 

impacts to local employment—both to the workforce directly involved in oil and gas 

development and to the general service economy—especially during construction and drilling. 

The average wage in the study area ranged from $25,050 to $33,478 in 2000 (see Table 3.34). 

The estimated annual starting wage per job for jobs created indirectly from development on the 

JIDPA would range from $31,881 to $32,025. The estimated annual starting wage per job from 

JIDP production would be $47,173. These estimated annual starting wages are higher than the 

average wages reported in 2000. Thus, there would likely be beneficial impacts on income and 

poverty reduction as a result of the Proposed Action and action alternatives. These benefits would 

not be realized under the No Action Alternative. 

Quality of life could cumulatively be impacted by oil and gas development and production in the 

area. Potential beneficial effects include increased local economic activity and reduced poverty, 

more health care providers, and improved schools and other tax-supported services and amenities 

(e.g., libraries, streets, parks). Increased economic activity could enhance the availability of 

goods, services, and cultural, educational, and certain recreational opportunities. However, some 

individuals would likely perceive a reduction in the quality of life in the area. The increasing 

conversion of large tracts of land to gas development is seen by some as industrialization and a 

diminishment of the characteristics they most value in the region: its natural beauty and quiet, 

vast reaches of unpopulated and undeveloped open space, fresh air, and wildlife. Moreover, as 

previously mentioned, the population in the study area is not anticipated to substantially increase 

in the long term as a result of this project. Because of the demographics of the laborers attracted 

to oil and gas development and production coupled with a record of increasing criminal activity 

already affecting the CIAA, the project will likely exacerbate an already worsening crime rate 

(see Jeffrey Jacquets December 2005 report entitled “Index Crimes, Arrests, and Incidents in 

Sublette County 1995 to 2004 Trends and Forecasts”). 

Depending on how many oil and gas employees relocated to the area, there is a possibility of 

higher per capita income in the study area. This could attract additional healthcare providers to 

the area or encourage existing healthcare providers to remain in the area. However, impacts 

already being experienced by the healthcare community may be incrementally increased as a 

result of potential increases in population from oil and gas employees attracted by jobs and the 

secondary employment expected to be generated by the project. 

Population in the study area may increase as a result of increased employment opportunities 

generated both directly and indirectly by the JIDP, affecting the availability of housing. To 

illustrate the point, both Sublette and Sweetwater Counties are facing a housing shortage and any 

additional pressure would exacerbate an already tight housing market (Saxton 2005, Gearino 

2005). Housing in LaBarge, Lincoln County, is considered available but limited (Woodward 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-92 Chapter 4 

2005). Moreover, if population were to increase, the increased demand for housing would likely 

put even more upward pressure on already high housing prices (rental costs and home sales 

prices). Additionally, increased affluence in the study area is likely to cause an increase in the 

demand for higher-quality housing, which could result in increased housing construction projects. 

This could make it more difficult for some individuals to obtain satisfactory housing within 

affordable price ranges. 

Increased cost of living and inflation already being experienced by the affected communities also 

may be incrementally increased by the project. 

Increased revenues to schools as a result of increased ad valorem and other taxes and revenues 

would be a beneficial impact to the school systems, thereby allowing for a higher quality teaching 

environment and potentially increasing the wages of teachers, which could attract teachers with 

better credentials than would otherwise seek positions within the study area. Any increases in 

population would likely aid in offsetting the current trend toward school closures/consolidations 

in some communities. Additionally, increased funding would provide schools with more options 

to improve education and raise performance test scores, thus increasing the overall education 

level and improving the overall quality of the workforce in the study area. Increases in population 

may help reduce impacts already being experienced by schools in affected communities that have 

resulted in school closures. 

4.4.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no additional well field development would occur; thus, no 

economic activity from development would occur (Table 4.21). Production would be limited to 

the life of currently producing wells; therefore, only up to 3,366 BCF of gas and 31.98 MBO 

would be recovered under this alternative. 

Over the LOP, the No Action Alternative would generate up to $11,029.4 million present value, 

including $1,753.7 million present value in taxes/royalties. Nominal taxes and royalties to 

Sublette County would be $741.92 million. Based on a population of 6,654 (Year 2004), this 

would be equivalent to the county receiving $111,484 (approximately $2,787 annually) for each 

person in the county. 

The No Action Alternative would create the least number of AJEs (13,947) (see Table 4.21) and 

no changes in population. 

No effect would be expected to occur on the economic value of recreation or hunting. 

In summary, under the No Action Alternative, the least amount of change in economic activity 

from current conditions would be expected when compared to all other alternatives. No additional 

secondary labor earnings or jobs would be created, and no additional taxes or revenues from 

development would be realized. This would reduce the number of drilling rigs, crews, and 

associated services currently operating in the area. Between 1996 and 2002, approximately 59.3% 

of all exploration and production oilfield service fees paid in the state were spent on services in 

the Jonah Field (Schlumberger Oil Field Services Companies 2003). These services and 

associated jobs would likely be reduced or eliminated under the No Action Alternative. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 4.21. Summary of Total Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Development and Production over the Life of Field, Jonah 

Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 2006 

Economic Activity Resulting from Development (LOP) 

Economic Effect No Action Proposed 

Action 

Alternative A 

(Maximum 

Development) 

Alternative B 

(Minimum 

Recovery) 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Total Anticipated Natural Gas Recovery over the LOP (BCF) 3,366 7,947 8,191 6,124 7,947 

Total Anticipated Condensate Recovery over the LOP (million 

bbls) 31.98 75.50 77.81 58.18 75.50 

Potential Change in Employment 

Secondary Development Employment (AJEs) -- 52,930 52,187.5 61,110 52,930 

Average Earnings Per Job -- $31,881 to $32,025 $31,881 to $32,025 $31,881 to $32,025 $31,881 to $32,025 

Secondary Production Employment (AJEs) 13,947 32,928 33,939 25,374 32,928 

Average Earnings Per Job $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 

Recreation AJEs -- -92.4 -92.4 -144.2 -92.4 

Hunting AJEs -- -49.9 -49.9 -77.9 -49.9 

Fin

al Enviro

n

mental Imp

act Statement, Jo

n

ah Infill Drilling 

Project

Enviro

n

mental Co

nseq

uences 4-93 

Potential Change in Employment (AJEs) 13,947 85,715.7 85,984.2 86,261.9 85,715.7 

NOMINAL VALUE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY 

75 Wells Per Year Development Rate 

Value of Development

1 (millions of $) 0.0 -- -- 9,612.5 -­

Value of Production1,2 (millions of $) 12,922.5 -- -- 23,510.8 -­

Taxes/royalties from proposed project (millions of $) 2,334.9 -- -- 4,881.4 -­

Recreation (millions of $) 0.0 -- -- -8.2 -­

Hunting (millions of $) 0.0 -- -- -3.5 --

Total Nominal Economic Activity (millions of $) 15,257.4 -- -- 37,993.0 -­

250 Wells Per Year Development Rate 

Value of Development

1 (millions of $) 0.0 8,588.6 8,497.2 -- 8,588.6 

Value of Production1,2 (millions of $) 12,922.5 30,509.5 31,446.1 -- 30,509.5 

Taxes/royalties (millions of $) 2,334.9 6,072.1 6,234.7 -- 6,072.1 

Recreation (millions of $) 0.0 -5.3 -5.3 -- -5.3 

Hunting (millions of $) 0.0 -2.2 -2.2 -- -2.2 

Total Nominal Economic Activity (millions of $) 15,257.4 45,162.7 46,170.5 -- 45,162.7 

PRESENT VALUE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY3 

75 Wells Per Year Development Rate 

Value of Development

2 (millions of $) 0.0 -- -- 4,997.3 -­

Value of Production2 (millions of $) 9,275.7 -- -- 9,325.1 -­

Taxes/royalties (millions of $) 1,753.7 -- -- 2,108.2 -­

Recreation (millions of $) 0.0 -- -- -2.7 -­

Hunting (millions of $) 0.0 -- -- -1.1 --

Total Present Value of Economic Activity (millions of $) 11,029.4 -- -- 16,426.8 -­

250 Wells Per Year Development Rate 

Value of Development

2 (millions of $) 0.0 6,631.8 6,561.2 -- 6,631.8 

Value of Production2 (millions of $) 9,275.7 17,963.8 18,511.2 -- 17,963.8 

Taxes/royalties (millions of $) 1,753.7 3,474.7 3,574.9 -- 3,474.7 

Recreation (millions of $) 0.0 -2.4 -2.4 -- -2.4 

Hunting (millions of $) 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 -- -1.0 

Total Present Value of Economic Activity (millions of $) 11,029.4 28,066.9 28,643.9 -- 28,066.9 

1 Includes non-project labor earnings resulting from secondary economic activity induced by project activities. These earnings do not include project labor earnings. 2 Natural gas plus condensate; Proposed Action and the other action alternatives wells currently in production (i.e., No Action Alternative wells); natural gas price is assumed at $3.50/mcf and condensate price is 

assumed at $21/bbl. 3 Number of years to develop is approximately 42 years for Alternative B and13 years for all other action alternatives; well life is assumed to be 40 years; see Section 4.4 for a discussion of discounting. The discount 

rate used for this analysis was 3.5%. Conservatively assumes revenues are received as a lump. 
4-94 Chapter 4 

4.4.2 Proposed Action Because up to 3,100 new wells (assumed at 2,825 conventional, 275 directional) would be drilled 

under the Proposed Action, economic activity from development would be greater than under the 

No Action Alternative (see Table 4.21). Up to 7,947 BCF of gas and 75.5 MBO would be 

recovered under this alternative. 

Over the LOP, economic activity would be $28,066.9 million present value, including $3,474.7 

million present value in taxes/royalties (see Table 4.21). Nominal taxes and royalties to Sublette 

County would be $1,839.08 million. Based on a population of 6,654 (Year 2004), this would be 

equivalent to the county receiving funds of $276,387 (approximately $5,264 annually) for each 

person in the county. Under the Proposed Action, local area government operating budgets would 

likely expand, increasing the level of services and infrastructure provided to community residents. 

These impacts would be higher under the Proposed Action than under the No Action Alternative. 

The number of AJEs that would be created in the study area is estimated at 85,715.7 with an 

average wage ranging from $31,881 to $47,173. Population changes from secondary employment 

would be higher than under the No Action Alternative (BLM 2005). 

Under the Proposed Action, if it is assumed that all 3,396 RVDs are relocated for the LOP, 

reduced recreation economic activity would amount to $2.4 million present value and 92.4 AJEs. 

If it is assumed that all 103.7 hunter days per year are relocated for the LOP, reduction in 

economic activity from hunting expenditures would amount to $1.0 million present value and 

49.9 AJEs. Impacts to recreation and hunting under the Proposed Action would be greater than 

under the No Action Alternative due to increased disturbance and longer project duration. 

In summary, this alternative would have more nominal economic activity related to development 

and production than the No Action Alternative because of the higher level of resource recovery. 

4.4.3 Alternative A Under Alternative A, change in economic activity from current conditions would be expected 

from the development of up to 3,100 wells and the recovery of up to 8,191 BCF of gas and 77.81 

MBO (see Table 4.21). 

Over the LOP, economic activity would be $28,643.9 million present value, including $3,574.9 

million present value in taxes/royalties (see Table 4.21). Nominal taxes and royalties to Sublette 

County would be $1,892.00 million. Based on a population of 6,654 (Year 2004), this would be 

equivalent to Sublette County receiving $284,340 (approximately $5,416 annually) for each 

person in the county. Property tax revenues would likely be higher under this alternative than 

under the No Action Alternative or the Proposed Action due to the greater amount of construction 

involved with development, which would result in an increased tax base. Because Alternative A 

maximizes resource recovery, at least conceptually, changes in production for this field could 

impact pricing of natural gas for consumers. But given the size of the market, it is not likely that a 

measurable change in market price would be associated with this alternative. Moreover, local area 

government operating budgets would likely increase more than under the No Action Alternative, 

but less than under the Proposed Action due to reduced development expenditures. Alternative A 

would generate the most overall taxes and revenues and the most funds for the school capital 

account over the LOP compared to all others alternatives (BLM 2005). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-95 

The number of AJEs that would be created in the study area is estimated at 85,984.2, with an 

average wage ranging from $31,881 to $47,173. Population changes from secondary employment 

would likely be similar to but increased from that described for the Proposed Action because 

more AJEs would be created to attract new workers (BLM 2005). 

This alternative could result in a loss of present value economic activity from recreation of 

$2.4 million and hunting of $1.0 million. The loss of economic activity from recreation and 

hunting would be greater under Alternative A than under the No Action Alternative. 

In summary, this alternative would have more nominal economic activity in terms of production 

than the Proposed Action because of the higher level of resource recovery. 

4.4.4 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, change in economic activity from current conditions would be expected 

from the development of up to 3,100 wells and the recovery of up to 6,124 BCF of gas and 

58.18 MBO (see Table 4.21). Economic activity would be $16,426.8 million present value, 

including $2,108.2 million present value in taxes/royalties (see Table 4.21). Nominal taxes and 

royalties to Sublette County would be $1,446.56 million. Based on a population of 6,654 (year 

2004), this would be nominally equivalent to Sublette County receiving funds of $217,398 

(approximately $2,651annually) for each person in the county (BLM 2005). Under Alternative B, 

property tax revenues would increase due to the increased tax base resulting from capital 

improvements in the JIDPA, but at a lower level than under the Proposed Action due to the 

decreased number of well pads. However, this alternative would result in a lower recovery of 

resources and a lower supply of natural gas over the long term than under the Proposed Action 

and may result in higher consumer prices and increased dependence on foreign supplies 

While, conceptually, changes in production for this field could impact pricing of natural gas for 

consumers, given the size of the market it is not likely that a measurable change in market price 

would be associated with this alternative due to the length of the LOP. Local area government 

operating budgets would likely increase under this alternative when compared to the No Action 

Alternative, but would be less than under the Proposed Action due to reduced development 

expenditures and lower recovery of resources. 

The number of AJEs that would be created in the study area is estimated at 86,261.9 with an 

average wage ranging from $31,881 to $47,173. Population changes from secondary employment 

would likely be similar to those of the Proposed Action. 

This alternative could result in a present value loss of economic activity from recreation of 

$2.7 million and from hunting of $1.1 million. The loss of economic activity from recreation and 

hunting would be increased under Alternative B as compared to the No Action Alternative. 

In summary, the least economic activity would occur under Alternative B when compared to all 

alternatives except for the No Action Alternative, both in nominal and real terms as well as 

numbers of jobs. This alternative would have less nominal economic activity in terms of 

production than the Proposed Action because of the lower level of resource recovery. 

4.4.5 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, up to 3,100 new wells would be developed. Economic activity 

from the Preferred Alternative would be similar to that described for the Proposed Action. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-96 Chapter 4 

4.4.6 Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative impacts assessment area for socioeconomics includes Sublette, Lincoln, and 

Sweetwater Counties. All of these counties depend upon the oil and gas industry for a portion of 

their economic activity and tax base (refer to Section 3.4.7.4). The JIDP, along with other oil and 

gas developments, would increase employment opportunities, expand the tax base, and improve 

the ability of the counties to maintain and increase services and infrastructure for residents. 

Increased oil and gas development results in impacts related to employment, tax base/revenues, 

and general economic health. Wells developed as part of this project would add proportionately to 

the economic benefits realized from the area. Local communities would experience economic 

impacts from an increase in consumption of local goods and services and increased sales tax 

revenues. For instance, construction of well pads and roads is usually contracted to local 

construction companies, and it is likely that many employees would spend some of their payroll 

in these communities. Actual impacts would depend on the rate of development and the number 

of wells authorized. 

Increases in regional oil and gas development activity over a short period can cause notable 

changes in employment and income. These variables can also cause changes in population trends, 

which could have impacts on community services, social structures, and lifestyles. Under all 

action alternatives, increased oil and gas development is expected to cause an increase in taxes 

and revenues to all governments in the study area. Increases to ad valorem taxes would be 

expected to occur in Sublette County. Conversely, under the No Action Alternative, these 

increases would not be realized, which could result in negative impacts to local governments. 

Additional revenues would accrue to the U.S. in the form of personal and corporate income taxes. 

Wyoming, and especially Sublette, Sweetwater, and Lincoln Counties are highly dependent on 

mineral revenues, and the revenue anticipated from the proposed project would add to those 

revenues. 

Where the surface is in private ownership and the minerals are in federal ownership, a lease 

holder has the right of ingress and egress on the private surface and the right to disturb whatever 

is reasonably necessary to recover the minerals. This does not prevent the private owner and the 

lease holder from entering into mutually acceptable terms regarding surface use to facilitate the 

process. When both the surface and minerals are in private ownership, negotiations for a lease, 

including financial considerations, are between the private owner and the potential lessee, and the 

terms of the lease, financial and otherwise, are negotiated by the two parties. It is typical for the 

private mineral owner to share in the profits from the recovery of the mineral resource. 

A portion of the resident population, as well as many nonresidents, place great value on 

preserving the character of the area and are not in favor of the high level of oil and gas 

development proposed in JIDPA. These individuals may be affected on a personal aesthetic and 

moral level by the proposed project. 

4.4.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

There would be unavoidable short-term or long-term adverse impacts to socioeconomics as a 

result of the proposed project. Impacts could be reduced by implementation of suggested 

mitigation measures. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-97 

4.4.8 Environmental Justice 

EO 12898 directs BLM to assess whether an action would have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental impacts on minority and/or low-income communities. 

The EO has three goals: 

•	 to focus federal agency attention on the environment and human health conditions in 

minority communities and low-income communities; 

•	 to promote non-discrimination in federal programs that substantially affect human health 

and the environment; and 

•	 to provide minority communities and low-income communities greater access to 

information on, and opportunities for public participation in, matters relating to human 

health and the environment. 

Sublette County is neither a minority community nor a low-income community (see Section 

3.4.11), and no impact associated with environmental justice would occur. 

4.5 LAND USE 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) identify the following 

management goals/objectives associated with land use (including status/ownership, 

livestock/grazing management, recreation, and transportation): 

•	 to manage public lands to support the goals and objectives of other resource programs; 

•	 to respond to public demand for land use authorizations; 

•	 to acquire administrative and public access, where necessary; 

•	 to maintain or improve the quality of land resources in the state; 

•	 to coordinate land use decisions with economic factors and needs; 

•	 to provide for a cooperative process of local land use planning with other governmental 

agencies; 

•	 to plan for continuing use of agricultural-rural lands and for potential changes in use of 

these lands; 

•	 to plan land use consistent with the orderly development, use, and conservation of 

renewable and nonrenewable natural resources; 

•	 to plan for the provision of public facilities and services, including safe and efficient 

transportation and utility systems, in coordination with local land use policies, goals, and 

objectives; 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-98 Chapter 4 

•	 to minimize conflicts among utility corridor needs, competing land uses, and local land 

use plans; 

•	 to consider the conservation and enhancement of natural resources with the economic 

benefit of resource development; 

•	 to consider site-specific environmental features (e.g., soil types, wetlands, riparian areas, 

topography, drainage patterns) as part of land use planning decisions and in the review of 

development proposals; 

•	 to plan land use in a manner that minimizes environmental pollution and disruption of 

natural resources; 

•	 to establish more watering systems on all grazing lands for livestock, wildlife, and 

game/non-game birds; 

•	 to support/encourage multiple-use policy implementation on federal and state lands; 

•	 to ensure the continued availability of outdoor recreational opportunities sought by the 

public while protecting other resources; 

•	 to prevent resource degradation resulting from recreation and other uses and to provide 

for the anticipated increase in recreational uses on BLM-administered lands; 

•	 to conserve and develop scenic resources for the benefit of present and future generation; 

and 

•	 to encourage recreational enterprise while preserving natural values. 

Impacts to land use would be significant if project activities precluded other current uses of the 

JIDPA for the long term, if there would be a reduction in AUMs of a magnitude that would 

require modification in grazing allotments or other actions that would prevent the realization of 

grazing management goals, or if project activities resulted in a violation of BLM RMP or other 

land use plan goals/objectives. Impacts to land use are assumed to be proportional to the amount 

of short-term and/or LOP disturbance for all alternatives. Impacts would primarily result from 

surface-disturbing activities and/or the presence of oil and gas developments. Impacts to land use, 

specifically grazing and recreation, would be significant in the short term under all project 

alternatives (see Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.3, respectively). 

4.5.1 Status/Ownership 

The current JIDPA land uses of livestock grazing (see Section 4.5.2), natural gas production (see 

Section 4.1.4), wildlife habitat (see Section 4.2.2), and recreation—primarily hunting (see 

Section 4.5.3)—are anticipated to continue for the LOP under all alternatives. Further 

development of the JIDPA primarily for natural gas extraction would alter the historic land use 

pattern for the LOP. There is the potential for some impacts to existing roads on the area if these 

roads are not adequately upgraded prior to their use for the project. Natural gas recovery would 

continue to be the dominant use of the JIDPA and would maintain the changed character of the 

landscape from a relatively undisturbed area (prior to about 1996) to one with industrial 

development; however, other existing uses are not anticipated to be excluded as defined in 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-99 

Section 103(1) of FLPMA. After the LOP, land use likely would revert back to primarily 

livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, and recreation under all alternatives. 

Ownership of surface and mineral estates in the JIDPA are anticipated to be unchanged under all 

alternatives; therefore, no significant impacts to land status/ownership are anticipated from the 

project. 

4.5.1.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional activities that would potentially 

affect land status or ownership, as previously identified for the area and including oil and gas 

development on 2,811 acres in the short term and 1,409 acres over the LOP (BLM 1998b, 2000b). 

Natural gas production is currently the dominant use of the JIDPA and would continue to be the 

dominant use for approximately 63 years. 

4.5.1.2 The Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, the ownership of surface and mineral estates in the JIDPA are 

anticipated to be unchanged, but natural gas development and production operations would 

increase compared to the No Action Alternative, resulting in approximately 16,200 acres of new 

surface disturbance. Short-term (14,388 acres) and LOP (6,043 acres) disturbance would total 

20,409 acres. The duration of impact under the Proposed Action would be approximately 76 

years. 

4.5.1.3 Alternative A 

Implementation of Alternative A would result in the same types of impacts and surface 

disturbance as the Proposed Action (see Section 4.5.1.2). However, natural gas development 

would occur in areas that would have been avoided under other action alternatives. Duration of 

impact would be approximately 76 years. 

4.5.1.4 Alternative B 

Implementation of Alternative B would result in the same types of impacts as the No Action 

Alternative but would result in an increase of 3,222 acres of new surface disturbance from that of 

the No Action Alternative. Short-term (4,848 acres) and LOP 2,602 acres) disturbance would 

total 7,431 acres. Impact duration would be approximately 105 years. 

4.5.1.5 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in the same types of impacts as the No 

Action Alternative but would result in an increase of an estimated 9,821–16,125 acres of new 

surface disturbance from that of the No Action Alternative. Short-term (9,782–14,388 acres) and 

LOP (4,267–6,020 acres) disturbance would total 14,030–20,334 acres. Project duration is 

anticipated to be approximately 76 years. 

If the Operators maximize ongoing reclamation as described in Section 2.4.5, total acres affected 

would be comparable to that of the Proposed Action (20,334 acres vs. 20,409 acres). However, 

under the Preferred Alternative, additional mitigation and monitoring measures would be 

implemented to ensure achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize projectrelated impacts (see Section 2.4.5). No specific measures are identified for land status/ownership. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-100 Chapter 4 

However, many of the measures identified for other resources (e.g., vegetation, wildlife, 

livestock, recreation) would mitigate, to some extent, impacts to land status. 

4.5.1.6 Cumulative Impacts 

The CIAA for land status/ownership is the JIDPA and the leases that extend beyond the project 

area; therefore, cumulative impacts would be the same as the impacts described for each of the 

alternatives above. Landownership would not change, and natural gas recovery would continue to 

be a dominant use but not to the exclusion of other existing uses. After the LOP, land use would 

revert back to livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, and recreation. 

4.5.1.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

There would be no unavoidable adverse impacts to land status/ownership. 

4.5.2 Livestock/Grazing Management 

The major premise in analyzing each alternative’s impacts to the livestock forage resource is the 

linear rationale that for every 10 acres of vegetation removed in construction of the Jonah gas 

field there will be approximately one AUM of livestock forage lost. This would indeed be true, 

and impacts would be significant, if the selected alternative resulted in an unvegetated landscape 

that failed to meet the forage demands of the permitted livestock. 

Section 3.5.2 describes how livestock forage demands are currently being met in the wake of 

several years of natural gas drilling in the area of analysis. Consequently, it is unrealistic to 

assume that forage (AUMs) will be lost proportionately to the degree of development in any 

particular alternative. Therefore, it is premature to assume that grazing permits will be reduced as 

a result of alternative implementation. This could occur if reclamation were unsuccessful, but any 

reduction in grazing permits can only be determined after an interpretation of rangeland 

monitoring data indicate a need to do so. 

If and when results of monitoring indicate that forage to satisfy permitted use is lacking, or that 

livestock use is preventing the accomplishment of other resource objectives, then the process 

outlined in 43 CFR 4110.3 will be used to make necessary adjustments in grazing management. 

Other potential impacts that may occur relative to the industrial development include loss of 

livestock to hazards such as increased traffic. The construction of additional roads and associated 

reclamation efforts could affect the pattern of livestock forage utilization on the JIDPA and could 

concentrate animals along roads and on reclaimed areas, thus increasing the chances of 

vehicle/livestock collisions. Construction activities could result in shifts in livestock distribution 

patterns, causing them to concentrate on and around reclamation areas. Open pits and trenches, if 

not properly fenced, can result in death or injury to livestock. Also, increased road/well densities 

would cause an increase in the amount of fugitive dust and its accumulation on forage and in the 

air, thereby increasing the potential for “dust pneumonia” in cattle, as well as decreasing forage 

palatability. These development associated impacts may occur regardless of the alternative 

selected, and would be proportionate to the amount of allowable activity. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-101 

4.5.2.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional impacts to livestock/grazing 

management other than those already approved for the area, which include 4,001 acres of 

disturbance in the JIDPA, including 1,348 acres of disturbance over the LOP (BLM 1998b, 

2000b). 

Blue Rim Desert Common Allotment 

Because the Burma Road would not be upgraded under the No Action Alternative, no impacts 

would occur to the Blue Rim Desert Common Allotment. 

Stud Horse Common Allotment 

Livestock grazing would continue at the permitted levels in conjunction with adaptive 

management strategies including rangeland and reclamation monitoring. 

Sand Draw Common Allotment 

Livestock grazing would continue at the permitted levels in conjunction with adaptive 

management strategies including rangeland and reclamation monitoring. 

Boundary Allotment 

Livestock grazing would continue at the permitted levels in conjunction with adaptive 

management strategies, including rangeland and reclamation monitoring. Watershed condition 

and forage availability could be reevaluated in the future based upon monitoring data and 

reclamation success. The allotment would be expected to, at a minimum, meet the Wyoming 

Standards for Healthy Rangelands. 

4.5.2.2 The Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action assumes 20,126 acres of disturbance in the JIDPA, including 5,962 acres of 

disturbance over the LOP. 

Blue Rim Desert Common Allotment 

The Burma Road upgrade will require reclamation along the roadsides and will attract cattle to 

the planted areas. Increased traffic and increased speed will increase the potential for vehicular 

collisions with cattle. 

Stud Horse Common Allotment 

There would be significant potential for a decrease in livestock forage under this alternative, 

depending on the results of reclamation efforts. Livestock grazing will continue at the permitted 

levels in conjunction with adaptive management strategies including rangeland and reclamation 

monitoring. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-102 Chapter 4 

Sand Draw Common Allotment 

There would be significant potential for a decrease in livestock forage under this alternative, 

depending on the results of reclamation efforts. Livestock grazing will continue at the permitted 

levels in conjunction with adaptive management strategies including rangeland and reclamation 

monitoring. 

Boundary Allotment 

There would be significant potential for a decrease in livestock forage under this alternative, 

depending on the results of reclamation efforts. Livestock grazing will continue at the permitted 

levels in conjunction with adaptive management strategies, including rangeland and reclamation 

monitoring. Watershed condition and forage availability could be reevaluated in the future based 

upon monitoring data and reclamation success. The allotment would be expected to, at a 

minimum, meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. 

4.5.2.3 Alternative A 

As with the Proposed Action, this alternative assumes 20,126 acres of total disturbance in the 

JIDPA, including 5,962 acres of disturbance over the LOP. 

Blue Rim Desert Common Allotment 

The Burma Road upgrade will require reclamation along the roadsides and will attract cattle to 

the planted areas. Increased traffic and increased speed will increase the potential for vehicular 

collisions with cattle. 

Stud Horse Common Allotment 

There would be significant potential for a decrease in livestock forage under this alternative as in 

the Proposed Action for a decrease in livestock forage, depending on the results of reclamation 

efforts. Livestock grazing will continue at the permitted levels in conjunction with adaptive 

management strategies including rangeland and reclamation monitoring. 

Sand Draw Common Allotment 

There would be significant potential for a decrease in livestock forage under this alternative as in 

the Proposed Action, depending on the results of reclamation efforts. Livestock grazing will 

continue at the permitted levels in conjunction with adaptive management strategies including 

rangeland and reclamation monitoring. 

Boundary Allotment 

As in the Proposed Action, there would be significant potential for a decrease in livestock forage 

under this alternative depending on the results of reclamation efforts. Livestock grazing will 

continue at the permitted levels in conjunction with adaptive management strategies, including 

rangeland and reclamation monitoring. Watershed condition and forage availability could be 

reevaluated in the future based upon monitoring data and reclamation success. The allotment 

would be expected to, at a minimum, meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-103 

4.5.2.4 Alternative B 

This alternative assumes 7,223 acres of total disturbance in the JIDPA, including 2,541 acres of 

disturbance over the LOP. 

Blue Rim Desert Common Allotment 

Because the Burma Road would not be upgraded under Alternative B, no impacts would occur to 

the Blue Rim Desert Common Allotment. 

Stud Horse Common Allotment 

There would be considerable potential for a decrease in livestock forage under this alternative, 

depending on the results of reclamation efforts. Livestock grazing will continue at the permitted 

levels in conjunction with adaptive management strategies including rangeland and reclamation 

monitoring. 

Sand Draw Common Allotment 

There would be considerable potential for a decrease in livestock forage under this alternative, 

depending on the results of reclamation efforts. Livestock grazing will continue at the permitted 

levels in conjunction with adaptive management strategies including rangeland and reclamation 

monitoring. 

Boundary Allotment 

There would be considerable potential for a decrease in livestock forage under this alternative, 

depending on the results of reclamation efforts. Livestock grazing will continue at the permitted 

levels in conjunction with adaptive management strategies, including rangeland and reclamation 

monitoring. Watershed condition and forage availability could be reevaluated in the future based 

upon monitoring data and reclamation success. The allotment would be expected to, at a 

minimum, meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. 

4.5.2.5 BLM Preferred Alternative 

This alternative assumes 13,822–20,126 acres of total disturbance in the JIDPA, including 4,090– 

5,962 acres of disturbance over the LOP. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, additional mitigation and monitoring measures would be applied 

to facilitate achievement of specific management objectives (i.e., maintain permitted livestock 

AUMs) and to minimize impacts to resources (see Section 2.4.5). 

Blue Rim Desert Common Allotment 

Because the Burma Road would not be upgraded under the Preferred Alternative, no impacts 

would occur to the Blue Rim Desert Common Allotment. 

Stud Horse Common Allotment 

There would be considerable potential for a decrease in livestock forage under this alternative, 

depending on the results of reclamation efforts. Livestock grazing will continue at the permitted 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-104 Chapter 4 

levels in conjunction with adaptive management strategies including rangeland and reclamation 

monitoring. 

Sand Draw Common Allotment 

There would be considerable potential for a decrease in livestock forage under this alternative, 

depending on the results of reclamation efforts. Livestock grazing will continue at the permitted 

levels in conjunction with adaptive management strategies including rangeland and reclamation 

monitoring. 

Boundary Allotment 

There would be considerable potential for a decrease in livestock forage under this alternative, 

depending on the results of reclamation efforts. Livestock grazing will continue at the permitted 

levels in conjunction with adaptive management strategies, including rangeland and reclamation 

monitoring. Watershed condition and forage availability could be reevaluated in the future based 

upon monitoring data and reclamation success. The allotment would be expected to, at a 

minimum, meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. 

4.5.2.6 Cumulative Impacts 

The CIAA for livestock/grazing includes all of the four grazing allotments (Blue Rim Desert 

Common, Stud Horse Common, Sand Draw Common, and Boundary) that may be affected by the 

proposed project. These four allotments cover 120,597 acres and contain a total of 9,876 AUMs. 

RFD surface disturbance in these allotments is estimated to be approximately 396 acres in the 

long term and would be associated with development for the Pinedale Anticline Project. 

Therefore, maximum cumulative short-term impact (i.e., the combined existing, proposed, and 

RFD disturbance) could potentially result in significant forage loss if reclamation strategies were 

not applied on a timely schedule and/or were unsuccessful. Maximum long-term cumulative 

AUM loss within all allotments is estimated to be insignificant, as current observation of 

reclamation results appears to be keeping up with AUM demand by livestock. Cumulative 

impacts to livestock/grazing across alternatives would be proportional to the extent of surface 

disturbance and development features/human activity. There is also a potential for well-field 

facilities to reach a density such that it is impractical to move cattle into the area. 

4.5.2.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

The project would result in the temporary and potentially long-term loss of available livestock 

forage, depending on reclamation results. Decreases in livestock forage would be determined 

through rangeland monitoring. 

4.5.3 Recreation 

Impacts to recreation would be considered significant if project development changes the 

recreational use of the JIDPA or would result in a violation of BLM RMP or other land use plan 

recreation objectives. Impacts to recreation are assumed to be proportional to the amount of 

development for all alternatives. Dispersed recreation opportunities would be lost from the JIDPA 

for the LOP under all project alternatives including the No Action Alternative, resulting in 

significant impacts for the LOP under all alternatives. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-105 

No developed recreation sites or facilities are present in or immediately adjacent to the JIDPA; 

therefore, no significant impacts to sites or facilities are anticipated. Project-improved roads may 

promote some increased recreational use (e.g., driving for pleasure, sightseeing, desire to view a 

natural gas field). However, long-term displacement or elimination of existing dispersed 

recreation due to increased levels of gas field development activity is anticipated. In addition, 

some potential recreational visitors would likely avoid the JIDPA because of a reduction in the 

quality of the recreational experience, especially for hunting, camping, wildlife watching, and 

OHV activities. 

Outdoor recreation is important both in terms of the satisfaction it provides residents of the region 

and for the activity it generates in the region’s economy as a result of expenditures by nonresident 

visitors; the economic impacts associated with project-affected recreation are described in Section 

4.4. Hunting pressure for any species on the JIDPA is likely to be directly related to wildlife 

population size, structure, and availability. Under all alternatives, populations of pronghorn and 

greater sage-grouse, which are the two primary hunted species on the JIDPA, would likely be 

displaced to such an extent that recreational hunting on the JIDPA may no longer occur (see also 

Section 4.2.2). However, lands adjacent to the JIDPA could, and likely would, absorb displaced 

hunting pressure because displaced wildlife would in part also likely move to adjacent lands. It is 

anticipated that not all wildlife would move to alternate locations, and that their breeding, nesting, 

brood-rearing, and foraging opportunities would in part be jeopardized; therefore, the wildlife 

populations currently found on the JIDPA are anticipated to decline. This would result in the loss 

of potential recreational opportunities associated with wildlife (e.g., hunting, wildlife viewing, 

photography), and associated recreational opportunities and revenues from these activities would 

also be lost. 

4.5.3.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional impacts to recreation other than 

those that have occurred as a result of approved development in the Jonah Field (i.e., loss of 

dispersed recreation and hunting for the 63-year LOP and until areas are adequately reclaimed) as 

detailed in past NEPA documents (BLM 1998b, 2000b). Under all alternatives, including the No 

Action Alternative, the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classification for the JIDPA is 

expected to change from semi-primitive motorized to rural or urban as a result of approved and 

existing development. Impacts on dispersed recreation opportunities may be significant; however, 

no additional significant impacts beyond those of previously authorized actions are anticipated. 

4.5.3.2 The Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, impacts to recreational opportunities are anticipated to increase from 

levels under the No Action Alternative as 3,100 new well pads and associated roads would be 

constructed. Duration of impacts would be for the 76-year LOP and until areas are adequately 

reclaimed. ROS classification changes would be as noted in the No Action Alternative. Impacts 

on dispersed recreation opportunities under the Proposed Action may be significant. 

Upgraded conditions on the Luman and Burma Roads would likely be retained after project 

completion, allowing for increased recreational use of the area. This improvement of non-paved 

road for oil and gas projects opens new areas for recreational use outside of the project area. New 

access and increased awareness of opportunities could encourage existing and new recreational 

use of previously primitive or semi-primitive areas. This could displace traditional recreational 

users with more new users and different uses (e.g., OHV). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-106 Chapter 4 

4.5.3.3 Alternative A 

Impacts to recreation under Alternative A would be the same as those of the Proposed Action. 

However, under this alternative, selected Operator-committed and BLM-required area-avoidance 

practices would not be implemented; therefore, increased impacts to pronghorn antelope, greater 

sage-grouse, raptors, and other wildlife are anticipated due to disturbance in habitat buffers. This 

would likely result in decreased wildlife populations and subsequent reductions in hunting and 

wildlife viewing opportunities. Duration of impacts would be for the LOP and until areas are 

adequately reclaimed (approximately 76 years). ROS classification changes would be as noted in 

the No Action Alternative. Impacts on dispersed recreation opportunities under Alternative A 

may be significant. Impacts resulting from upgraded road conditions would be the same as those 

of the Proposed Action. 

4.5.3.4 Alternative B 

Implementation of Alternative B would result in the same types of impacts to recreation as No 

Action but would likely occur at increased levels due to expanded development period 

(approximately 42 years). Impacts would likely be reduced from those of the Proposed Action 

due to the absence of disturbance in portions of the JIDPA. Duration of impacts would be for the 

LOP and until areas are adequately reclaimed (approximately 105 years). ROS classification 

changes would be as noted in the No Action Alternative. Impacts on dispersed recreation 

opportunities under Alternative B may be significant. Impacts resulting from upgraded road 

conditions would be similar to those of the Proposed Action except that the Burma Road would 

not be upgraded. 

4.5.3.5 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, impacts to recreational opportunities are anticipated to be of the 

same type as all other alternatives and would be comparable, if all acres potentially available for 

development credit following successful interim reclamation are utilized, to impacts under the 

Proposed Action. Duration of impacts would be for the LOP and until areas are adequately 

reclaimed (approximately 76 years). ROS classification changes would be as noted in the No 

Action Alternative. Impacts on dispersed recreation opportunities under the Preferred Alternative 

may be significant. Impacts resulting from upgraded road conditions would be similar to those of 

the Proposed Action except that the Burma Road would not be upgraded. 

While no recreation-specific mitigations for reducing impacts to recreation are proposed under 

the Preferred Alternative, any measure that reduces the volume of surface disturbance and human 

presence as well as those measures that minimize adverse effects to wildlife has the potential to 

reduce impacts to recreation (see Sections 2.3 and 2.4.5). 

4.5.3.6 Cumulative Impacts 

The CIAA for recreation, totaling 1,557,558 acres, is shown on Map 3.23. Existing surface 

disturbance impacting recreation opportunities throughout the CIAA is 138,740 acres (216 square 

miles) or 6.6% of the CIAA, which is primarily a result of agriculture (83%), road and pipeline 

ROWs (12%), and existing natural gas development in the Jonah, Pinedale Anticline, Fontenelle, 

Moxa, Stagecoach Draw, LaBarge Platform, Riley Ridge, and Mesa Verde project areas (5%) as 

well as the Tip-Top and Hogsback Units. The extent of development throughout the CIAA has 

and will continue to result in displaced recreational use from these areas and added pressure on 

existing recreational opportunities and facilities elsewhere within the CIAA. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-107 

Maximum cumulative disturbance (i.e., the combined alternative-specific and RFD disturbance) 

in the recreation CIAA for all alternatives is presented in Table 4.22. Cumulative impacts to 

recreation are anticipated to be similar under all development alternatives. ROS classifications 

may be altered as human activities increase in areas adjacent to the JIDPA. 

Table 4.22. Cumulative Acreage of Disturbance in the Recreation CIAA, Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 

Existing Disturbance Cumulative Total Disturbance


Impact Analysis Acreage of in CIAA, RFD No Action
 Proposed Action and Alternative A 

Area (CIAA) CIAA outside
 JIDP Total LOP Cumulative1
 JIDP Total LOP Cumulative1 

JIDPA


Recreation 1,557,558 84,352 7,014 4,209 1,409 95,575
 20,409 6,043 111,775


Percent of Entire
 5.4 6.1 7.2 CIAA 

Alternative B Preferred Alternative 

JIDP Total LOP Cumulative1 JIDP Total LOP Cumulative1 

14,030– 4,267– 105,396– Recreation 7,431 2,602 98,797 20,334 6,020 111,700


Percent of Entire
 6.3 6.7–7.2 CIAA 

1 Cumulative disturbance = outside JIDPA + RFD + JIDPA total. 

A large proportion of workers employed for this project would likely be hired from the local 

workforce. However, regional and local populations are increasing, in part from natural gas 

development projects, and this increase is creating an additional demand for recreation facilities 

and public access areas. Within the CIAA, traditional dispersed recreation has been and will 

continue to be directed away from areas with increased road and well development for the long 

term due to a reduction in the quality of the recreational experience on the part of most traditional 

users. Some individuals may no longer recreate in the area at all. Current users of recipient areas 

may be adversely affected by increased use, overcrowding, and a feeling that the quality of the 

recreation experience of solitude has diminished. 

4.5.3.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Some level of unavoidable adverse impact to recreation is anticipated under all alternatives due to 

the likely avoidance of the JIDPA by recreational visitors. 

4.5.4 Transportation 

Impacts due to traffic volume would be considered significant if the proposed project resulted in 

the inability of the BLM, the State of Wyoming, and/or Sublette County to achieve land use 

planning objectives for transportation. Because the design of new and upgraded roads in the 

JIDPA would be in compliance with the BLM road standard guidelines (BLM 1985, 1991a), the 

Transportation Plan for this project (Appendix B, subappendix DP-A), individually approved 

APD and ROW road specifications, and continued Sublette County and WDOT consultation 

would occur, no significant transportation impacts are anticipated under any alternative. 

Furthermore, the project would be implemented with mitigation as identified in Appendices A 

and C. Further detail on transportation planning and effects is provided in the project 

Transportation Plan (Appendix B, subappendix DP-A). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-108 Chapter 4 

Up to 465 miles of new resource roads and 8 miles of new collector roads would be required for 

this project (Table 4.23). Impacts to existing, upgraded, and newly constructed roads could result 

from inadequate road maintenance resulting in road failure. While maintenance agreements 

would be established by Operators, adverse weather conditions coupled with increased traffic 

may result in roads being temporally impassable (i.e., stuck vehicles, vehicles driving off roads). 

Increased traffic volumes are anticipated under all alternatives except the No Action Alternative. 

For the LOP and especially during development, traffic increases may cause congestion and road 

damage and an increased potential for vehicle collisions. 

Table 4.23. Miles of New Roads, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2006 

Miles of New Miles of New In-Field Miles of Burma Road Alternative Resource Roads

1 Collector Roads Upgrade 

No Action Alternative 0 0 0 

Proposed Action 465 8 12 

Alternative A 465 8 12 

Alternative B 0 0 0 

Preferred Alternative 465 8 0 

1 Based on 0.4 mile per well pad. 

For impact analysis, it is assumed that transportation impacts would be greatest during 

development and would be proportional to the rate of development (i.e., the faster the 

development pace, the greater the impact to transportation). 

4.5.4.1 No Action Alternative 

The current estimate of existing and/or approved roads in the JIDPA is approximately 199 miles 

(see Table 4.23). Under the No Action Alternative, transportation impacts would continue at 

existing approved levels (no new roads), the Burma Road would not be upgraded, and the 

duration of impacts would be approximately 63 years. A total of approximately 1,063,900 round 

trips, which could occur to and from any location in the JIDPA, or approximately 73 round trips 

per day is anticipated under the No Action Alternative for the LOP (Appendix B). Prior decisions 

found that the existing approved Jonah Field developments would be unlikely to have significant 

transportation impacts (BLM 1998b, 2000b). 

4.5.4.2 The Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, approximately 465 miles of resource roads, 8 miles of new 

collector/local roads, and 12 miles of Burma Road improvement would be required for field 

development (see Table 4.23). A total of approximately 8,698,600 round trips or approximately 

496 round trips per day is anticipated under the Proposed Action for the LOP (Appendix B). 

This is an increase of 7,634,700 round trips when compared to the No Action Alternative. 

The length of the Proposed Action and therefore increased traffic volumes is estimated to be 76 

years. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-109 

4.5.4.3 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, impacts would be the same as for the Proposed Action; however, some of 

the new roads would be built in areas that would be avoided under other project alternatives. 

4.5.4.4 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, impacts would be similar to those of the No Action Alternative in that no 

new well pads or roads would be built (see Table 4.21). Impacts would increase from the No 

Action Alternative due to new development and would increase from the Proposed Action during 

development due to the increased time necessary to drill the additional directional wells; 

however, during production, impacts would be decreased from the Proposed Action and all other 

development alternatives because traffic would occur only to the existing pads. The Burma Road 

would not be upgraded. A total of approximately 8,202,300 round trips or approximately 468 

round trips per day is anticipated under Alternative B for the LOP (Appendix B). This is an 

increase of 7,138,400 round trips when compared to the No Action Alternative. Duration of 

impacts would be an estimated 105 years. 

4.5.4.5 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, impacts would be similar to those for the Proposed Action, 

except the Burma Road would not be upgraded and additional mitigation and monitoring 

measures would be applied to facilitate achievement of specific management objectives and to 

minimize impacts to resources (see Section 2.4.5). Any measure that reduces the volume of 

human presence or centralizes development actions has the potential to reduce impacts to 

transportation. Furthermore, those measures associated with the Jonah Interagency Office (JIO) 

also could reduce impacts to transportation through appropriate planning. 

4.5.4.6 Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts from traffic resulting from the project in combination with other regional 

projects and overall regional growth could be significant. The project would be the major 

contributor to increased traffic on secondary roads within the JIDPA. Field development would 

result in increased traffic volumes on major highways (especially on U.S. Highway 191, a major 

tourist corridor) and on county and local roads. Increased traffic would result in an increased 

potential for public traffic hazards and other safety and road maintenance concerns. However, the 

magnitude of the increase would depend on alternative-specific development levels and 

development rates (i.e., 75 or 250 new wells developed per year). Existing major highways and 

county roads are adequate to handle anticipated increased traffic (Appendix B). The costs of 

maintaining county and local roads would be borne, to some extent, by Operators primarily 

through tax payments. Cumulative impacts on transportation are anticipated to be slightly 

beneficial for the long term as an increase in available roads, improved road conditions, and 

increased revenues for state-sponsored road improvements occur. It is anticipated that the 

upgraded conditions on the Burma and Luman Roads would be retained after project completion 

allowing for increased recreational use of the area under all alternatives, although to different 

degrees depending on whether the Burma Road is upgraded. 

4.5.4.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Unavoidable adverse impacts to transportation would occur for the LOP primarily as a result of 

increased traffic and the expanded road network. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-110 Chapter 4 

4.6 VISUAL RESOURCES 

The BLM PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b,1997b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) identify the following 

management goals/objectives associated with visual resources: 

•	 to maintain or improve scenic values and visual quality and to establish priorities for 

managing the visual resources in conjunction with other resource values; and 

•	 to conserve and develop scenic resources for the benefit of present and future 

generations. 

The BLM defines a significant impact to visual resources, on federal lands and minerals, as 

project-related development that would not meet VRM class objectives for an area. A significant 

impact would occur if oil and gas development becomes the dominant feature in the landscape 

where the objectives for that land are to maintain the existing character of the landscape. Impacts 

to visual resources on federal lands and minerals are also defined as an apparent visual change, to 

the casual observer, from a natural landscape to an “industrialized appearing” landscape. Due to 

the presence of natural gas development as a dominant visual feature throughout the JIDPA, as 

well as project effects such as haze, nighttime lighting, increased traffic, and short-term visible 

smoke plume events, visual resource impacts are anticipated under all alternatives for the LOP 

and until areas are adequately reclaimed. Significant visual resource impacts would not occur 

within the JIDPA specifically because the entire JIDPA is considered a Class IV VRM area. The 

project under all alternatives is generally consistent with Class IV objectives, but impacts may be 

significant when viewed from locations where the JIDPA and/or project effects (e.g., light 

sources, haze, smoke plumes) are visible. Non-JIDPA areas where project effects may be visible 

include VRM Class I and II areas, including wilderness and wilderness study areas. Projectrelated effects and features visible from U.S. Highway 191 would be consistent with VRM Class 

III objectives. 

4.6.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no new impacts to visual resources beyond 

those already approved for Jonah Field developments. The duration of impacts would be 

approximately 63 years and until areas are adequately reclaimed. While past NEPA decisions for 

the project identified no significant impacts to visual resources (BLM 1998b, 2000b), significant 

visual resource impacts from the existing developments have since been identified as described 

above. No additional significant impacts beyond those of previously authorized actions are 

anticipated under the No Action Alternative. 

4.6.2 The Proposed Action 

Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in a continuation of the existing long-term 

visual characteristics of the JIDPA as a developed natural gas field with increased impacts to 

visual resources from that of the No Action Alternative due to increased development and 

prolonged LOP. Increased natural gas field developments would include greater well pad 

densities, more miles of roads and associated traffic, and more ancillary facilities. Impact duration 

is anticipated to be approximately 76 years and until areas are adequately reclaimed. Impacts may 

be significant in some non-JIDPA areas, including VRM Class I and II areas. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-111 

4.6.3 Alternative A 

Implementation of Alternative A would result in the same types and volumes of visual resource 

impacts as the Proposed Action; however, there would be increased visual resource impacts in the 

resource buffer areas that would have otherwise been avoided under the other project alternatives. 

Duration of impacts would be approximately 76 years). Impacts may be significant in some nonJIDPA areas, including VRM Class I and II areas. 

4.6.4 Alternative B 

Implementation of Alternative B would result in the same types of impacts as the No Action 

Alternative but would be increased due to expanded development. Impacts would be reduced 

from the other project alternatives because no new well pads or roads would be built. Duration of 

impacts would be approximately 105 years. Impacts may be significant in some non-JIDPA areas, 

including VRM Class I and II areas. 

4.6.5 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Under this alternative, visual resource impacts are anticipated to be similar to those of the 

Proposed Action, but slightly less as the Operators would implement unique development 

procedures (see Section 2.4.5). Because the BLM Preferred Alternative would limit total surface 

disturbance at any given time to a maximum of 14,030 acres and the Proposed Action has no such 

limits, it is possible that at any given time visual impacts from surface disturbance may be less 

under this alternative. Duration of impacts would be approximately 76 years. Impacts may be 

significant in some non-JIDPA areas, including VRM Class I and II areas. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, additional mitigation and monitoring measures would be applied 

to facilitate achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources 

(see Section 2.4.5). Any measure that reduces regional haze or smoke plumes, the volume of 

surface disturbance, human presence, and/or traffic, as well as those measures that minimize 

adverse effects on vegetation or facilitate enhanced reclamation have the potential to reduce 

impacts to visual resources. 

4.6.6 Cumulative Impacts 

The CIAA for visual resources, totaling 2,089,363 acres, is shown on Map 3.24. The surface 

disturbance resulting from each of three of the alternatives (the Proposed Action, Alternative A, 

and the BLM Preferred Alternative) would likely exceed 20,000 acres. All of this disturbance 

would occur on areas designated as VRM Class IV. Maximum cumulative disturbance for the 

visual resources CIAA (i.e., the combined existing, proposed, and RFD disturbance) for each of 

these alternatives is 8.0% of the CIAA (Table 4.24). The RFD includes 7,302 acres of new 

disturbance primarily from natural gas developments in other project areas in the CIAA. 

Class IV areas allow for management activities that require major modifications to the existing 

character of the landscape. Although the activities may dominate the view of the casual observer 

and the relative change to the landscape may be high, all management activities must be 

conducted to minimize the impact to the visual quality of the area. Under all project alternatives, 

the JIDPA and its contributing developments and visual attributes (including haze, smoke plumes 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-112 Chapter 4 

Table 4.24. Cumulative Acreage of Disturbance in the Visual Resources CIAA, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006 

Existing	 Disturbance Cumulative Total Disturbance


Impact Analysis Acreage of In CIAA, RFD No Action
 Proposed Action and Alternative A 

Area (CIAA) CIAA Outside


JIDPA JIDP Total LOP Cumulative1
 JIDP Total LOP Cumulative1 

Visual 

Resources 2,089,363 138,740 7,302 4,209 1,409 150,252 20,409 6,043 166,452 

Percent of Entire 6.6	 7.2 8.0 CIAA 

Alternative B Preferred Alternative 

JIDP Total LOP Cumulative1 JIDP Total LOP Cumulative1 

Visual 14,030– 4,267– 160,072– 7,431 2,602 153,474 Resources 20,334 6,020 166,376 

Percent of Entire 7.3 7.7–8.0 CIAA 

1 Cumulative disturbance = outside JIDPA + RFD + JIDPA total. 

and night lighting), along with other regional developments, are visible and may be noticeable to 

the casual observer from areas outside the project area, including VRM Class II and I areas within 

the CIAA such as a BLM wilderness study area and the Bridger Wilderness. Therefore, 

significant cumulative impacts to regional visual resources may occur at these sites. 

4.6.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

The expansion of gas development facilities, and various development effects (e.g., haze, smoke 

plumes, nighttime lighting effects on regional star-gazing) and associated roads would be an 

unavoidable adverse impact to visual resources on the JIDPA and at locations where it is visible 

outside the JIDPA. 

4.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) identify the following 

management goals/objectives associated with hazardous materials: 

•	 to protect public and environmental health and safety on BLM-administered public lands; 

•	 to comply with applicable federal and state laws; 

•	 to prevent waste contamination due to any BLM-authorized action; 

•	 to minimize federal exposure to the liabilities associated with waste management on 

public lands; and 

•	 to integrate hazardous materials and waste management policies and controls into all 

BLM programs. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-113 

Impacts associated with hazardous materials would be considered significant if project activities 

resulted in violations of the aforementioned goals/objectives and/or local, state, and federal laws. 

Impacts to soils, surface water and groundwater resources, and wildlife could result from 

accidental hazardous materials spills, pipeline ruptures, and/or exposure to hazardous materials. It 

is likely that only small amounts of soil potentially would be contaminated and, should this occur, 

the affected area would be cleaned up in an appropriate and timely manner (Appendix B). Proper 

containment of oil and fuel in storage areas, containment of fluids in reserve pits, appropriate 

pipeline design and construction, proper well casing and cementing, and location of wells away 

from drainages (all but Alternative A) would prevent potential surface water and groundwater 

contamination. Project operations would comply with all relevant federal and state laws regarding 

hazardous materials and with directives identified in the Hazardous Materials Summary for this 

project (Appendix B) and existing SPCCPs. 

With the implementation of the aforementioned procedures plus the additional mitigations and 

practices identified in Appendices A, B, and C, no significant impacts are anticipated under any 

project alternative. 

4.7.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no new developments and associated 

opportunities for material spills, pipeline ruptures, and/or exposure to hazardous materials above 

present levels and as previously approved for the JIDPA. Prior NEPA documents concluded that 

there would be no significant adverse impacts involving hazardous materials (BLM 1998b, 

2000b). The duration for potential impacts would be for the LOP, which is anticipated to be 

approximately 63 years and until all potentially contaminated sites are remediated. 

4.7.2 The Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action Alternative there would be an approximate six-fold increase (from 

533 approved wells to 3,100 new wells) in the potential for material spills, pipeline ruptures, 

and/or exposure to hazardous materials above current approved levels. The duration for potential 

impacts would be for the LOP, which is anticipated to be approximately 76 years and until all 

potentially contaminated sites are remediated. 

4.7.3 Alternative A 

Implementation of Alternative A would have the same potential for hazardous material impacts as 

the Proposed Action. However, potential impacts to wildlife and surface waters would be 

increased in some areas because selected wildlife and drainage buffers would not be avoided. The 

duration for potential impacts would be for the LOP, which would be approximately 76 and until 

all potentially contaminated sites are remediated. 

4.7.4 Alternative B 

Implementation of Alternative B would have the same potential types of hazardous material 

impacts as the No Action Alternative; however, impacts would be increased due to the addition of 

new wells, pipelines, and produced materials. Compared to the Proposed Action, however, the 

potential for accidental hazardous materials spills, pipeline ruptures, and/or exposure to 

hazardous materials would be reduced because development and production activities would be 

limited to the existing well pads and roads because no new pads or roads would be constructed. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-114	 Chapter 4 

The duration for potential impacts would be approximately 105 years and until all potentially 

contaminated sites are remediated. 

4.7.5 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, the types of potential impacts would be the same as under the No 

Action Alternative, but there would be an approximate six-fold increase in the potential for 

material spills, pipeline ruptures, and/or exposure to hazardous materials above current approved 

levels (from 533 wells [No Action] to 3,100 new wells). The duration of the impacts would be 

approximately 76 years and until all potentially contaminated sites are remediated. 

Impacts under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those of the Proposed Action, except 

additional mitigation and monitoring measures would be applied to facilitate achievement of 

specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources (see Section 2.4.5). Any 

measure that reduces the overall level of development, the number of proposed facilities or 

facility locations, and/or traffic, as well as any actions that facilitate enhanced reclamation have 

the potential to reduce potential hazardous material impacts. 

4.7.6 Cumulative Impacts 

All existing, proposed, and future development projects would use mitigation measures similar to 

those described for this project (Appendix B) to prevent soil contamination, surface water and 

groundwater pollution, and wildlife exposure; therefore, cumulative impacts from hazardous 

materials are expected to be as described above for the various project alternatives and are not 

anticipated to be significant. There would, however, be some increased potential for hazardous 

material impacts associated with expanded regional developments associated with other oil and 

gas projects. 

4.7.7 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

With strict adherence to identified hazardous material management requirements (Appendix B), 

no unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. 

4.8	 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF 

RESOURCES 

An irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources is defined as a permanent reduction of 

resources that, once lost, cannot be regained. The degree of loss would be dependent upon the 

alternative implemented. The primary irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources for 

this project would result from the recovery of the natural gas and condensate reserves from the 

Lance Pool (see Section 4.1.4). These recovered reserves would no longer be available; however, 

some reserves would remain and could be recovered in the future with improved technology. 

Other permanent irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources would include soils lost 

through water or wind erosion (see Section 4.1.7); accidental or inadvertent destruction and/or 

vandalism of cultural (see Section 4.3) or paleontological (see Section 4.1.6) resources; loss of 

wildlife due to direct mortality (see Section 4.2.2); and the labor, materials, and energy expended 

during project-related activities (see Appendix B). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Consequences 4-115 

4.9	 SHORT-TERM USE OF THE ENVIRONMENT VS. LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY 

For the purposes of this discussion, short-term use of the environment is that use during the LOP, 

whereas long-term productivity refers to the period after the project is completed and the area is 

adequately reclaimed. Short-term use of the JIDPA for natural gas recovery for the LOP would 

not affect the long-term productivity of the area. LOP commitments of resources would include 

loss of vegetation productivity (see Section 4.2.1), wildlife habitat/habitat function (see 

Section 4.2.2), and livestock forage (see Section 4.5.2) on lands devoted to project activities (e.g., 

well pads, roads) until these areas are adequately reclaimed. After the project is completed and 

disturbed areas are reclaimed, the same resources that were present prior to project activities 

would be available, except for the natural gas and oil resources (see Section 4.1.4). It may take 20 

years or more after the LOP for some of the reclaimed areas to revegetate to predisturbance 

levels; however, reclamation would eventually provide conditions to support wildlife, livestock, 

and recreation. Use of the JIDPA during the LOP would not preclude the subsequent long-term 

use of the area for any purpose for which it was suited prior to the project. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4-116 Chapter 4


Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
CHAPTER 5 — ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL MITIGATION, 

MONITORING MEASURES, AND COMPENSATORY 

MITIGATION MEASURES 

This chapter provides a summary of mitigation and monitoring actions that could be applied to 

the project to further minimize adverse impacts or verify the presence, extent, or absence of 

anticipated impacts. This list itemizes mitigation, monitoring, and compensatory mitigation (CM) 

that have been identified by the public and/or Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) members and that are 

not already specifically included as measures applicable to all or to several alternatives (see 

Section 2.3), as measures specific to the BLM Preferred Alternative (see Section 2.4.5), or 

included in the Operator-committed practices detailed in Appendix C. 

Each measure listed in this chapter is briefly summarized and includes an identification of how 

application of the measure may influence project effects. A summary of CM as currently 

proposed by EnCana is also provided, as are some possible CM ideas, including estimated costs 

where available and identification of which resource(s) might benefit from each type of CM 

project. 

Mitigation measures fall within the actions the Secretary of the Interior can direct to prevent 

unnecessary or undue degradation of the public lands and protect surface resources in the 

approval of surface use plans. Mitigation, as defined by the CEQ in 40 CFR 1608.20, may 

include one or more of the following: 

(1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 

(2) Minimizing	 impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation; 

(3) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 

(4) Reducing	 or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance 

operations during the life of the action; and 

(5) Compensating	 for the impact by replacing, or providing substitute resources or 

environments. 

Any of the actions listed below may be required or recommended under any alternative if this 

project is approved. Decisions regarding the inclusion or exclusion of these actions will be made 

in the ROD for this project. 

5.1 ADDITIONAL MITIGATION/MONITORING OPPORTUNITIES 

The JIO could be established under any ROD-approved alternative except the No Action 

Alternative, and the JIO could consider any of the following measures for application to the 

project as part of its annual recommendations to the BLM. Following JIO recommendation, BLM 

could require certain actions, or make appropriate recommendations to affected governments, 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
5-2 Chapter 5 

agencies, and/or applicable Operators. Operators could voluntarily apply these measures with or 

without JIO recommendation. 

5.1.1 Air Quality 

The following actions could further identify, quantify, and reduce overall project emissions, 

which in turn could reduce impacts to visibility, atmospheric deposition, vegetation, wildlife, and 

other resources potentially affected by fugitive dust and emissions. 

5.1.1.1 BLM Goals and Performance Objectives 

BLM has established goals and objectives to measure its performance in meeting air quality 

requirements. The goals are qualitative descriptions of BLM’s desired condition of air quality, 

and the objectives are measurable benchmarks of BLM’s attainment of the goals. The reader 

should note that attainment of these performance objectives requires actions by many agencies, as 

well as BLM. The intent of the air quality goals and performance objectives is that BLM would: 

•	 Air Quality Goal 1a: Minimize the impact of management actions in the planning area on air 

quality by complying with all applicable air quality laws, rules, and regulations. 

- Air Quality Objective 1a.1: Maintain concentrations of criteria pollutants associated 

with management actions in compliance with applicable Wyoming and National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS, NAAQS). 

- Air Quality Objective 1a.2: Maintain concentrations of Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) pollutants associated with management actions in compliance 

with the applicable increment. 

•	 Air Quality Goal 1b: Implement management actions in the planning area to improve air 

quality as practicable. 

- Air Quality Objective 1b.1: Reduce visibility-impairing pollutants, in accordance 

with the reasonable progress goals and time-frames established within the State of 

Wyoming’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

- Air Quality Objective 1b.2: Reduce atmospheric deposition pollutants to levels 

below federally established levels of concern (LOC) and levels of acceptable change 

(LAC). 

5.1.1.2 Mitigation and Monitoring 

BLM would apply AQ Goal 1a to concentrations of criteria and PSD pollutants, and AQ Goal 1b 

to atmospheric deposition and visibility. Existing air quality monitoring sites are shown in 

Table 5.1. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Additional Potential Mitigation, Monitoring Measures 5-3 

Table 5.1. Existing Air Quality Monitoring 

Location Current Funding Air Quality Components 

SLAMS 

State & Local Air Monitoring Stations Pinedale WDEQ Particulate matter (PM2.5) 

SPM Nitrogen dioxide 

Special Purpose Monitors Boulder Shell/WDEQ Ozone 

Particulate matter (PM10), 

Daniel WDEQ Visibility 

Jonah EnCana 

CASTNet 

Clean Air Status & Trends Network 

Pinedale EPA and others Nitrogen compounds 

Ozone 

Sulfur compounds, Dry 

deposition 

WARMS 

Wyoming Air Resources Monitoring System 

Pinedale BLM Wyoming Nitrogen compounds 

Particulate matter (PM2.5) 

Sulfur compounds 

NADP Bridger 

Wilderness 

BLM Wyoming Wet deposition 

Lakes Bridger, 

Fitzpatrick, and 

Popo Agie 

USFS Lake chemistry 

Emissions Tracking 

The BLM would work cooperatively with state and other federal agencies, and with industry, to 

track emissions in the Pinedale Field Office area. 

•	 BLM would track numbers of wells, numbers of drill rigs, drilling emissions, and compressor 

stations 

•	 The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD) 

would continue to track permitted emissions 

•	 Operators would provide BLM with information on their drill rigs, including drilling days, 

horsepower, load factors, and emission factors. 

Concentrations 

Potential concentrations were all below applicable WAAQS and NAAQS (see TRC EC 

2006:Tables G-ES-1 and G-ES-4). BLM plans no additional mitigation focused on potential 

concentrations. In the case of ozone, however, it may become necessary for BLM to develop a 

strategy to mitigate impacts in the future. While developing the current EIS, BLM learned of 

exceedances of the levels of the ozone NAAQS that occurred in the Jonah field in February 2005; 

however, the factors contributing to these levels were unclear. In cooperation with the JIO 

established under the ROD, BLM would review ozone data collected in the area. If in the future 

air monitoring were to show ozone exceedances that were attributable at least in part to sources in 

the Jonah field, BLM would consult with WDEQ-AQD, EPA, USFS, and NPS to determine 

whether adaptive management would be needed to mitigate impacts. WDEQ has the regulatory 

authority to determine a NAAQS violation. To date, there is no finding of a NAAQS violation. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
5-4 Chapter 5 

BLM would continue to work cooperatively with WDEQ, EPA, USFS, and NPS to maintain 

concentration monitoring in the Pinedale Field Office (PFO) area. Existing concentration 

monitoring includes regulatory (SPM and SLAMS) and non-regulatory (CASTNet and WARMS) 

networks (Table 5.1). 

BLM would also work cooperatively with other federal and state agencies and industry to 

enhance concentration monitoring in the PFO area. BLM and the cooperating agencies would 

contribute technical expertise to maintaining and enhancing air quality monitoring. The Operators 

would bear the financial costs of maintaining and enhancing air quality monitoring. 

WDEQ is developing a joint funding agreement with federal agencies and industry to finance and 

operate air quality monitoring in southwest Wyoming. Operators would be required to participate 

in any joint industry/state/federal monitoring agreement. 

Ozone monitoring would continue at existing air monitoring stations in the region under the 

regulatory authority of WDEQ-AQD or the non-regulatory review of CASTNet. These authorities 

would periodically assess the networks and may add, move, or terminate ozone monitoring. 

WDEQ is currently performing a regulatory PSD Increment Consumption Analysis for southwest 

Wyoming, and preliminary results are available at http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd. That analysis will 

be available in early 2006, and will present the status of the NO2 increment consumption in 

Bridger and Fitzpatrick Wilderness Areas. BLM may provide a more informative PSD 

comparison in the State of the Atmosphere annual reports. This comparison, similar to the current 

comparison, will not constitute a regulatory PSD Increment Consumption Analysis. 

Atmospheric Deposition 

Potential atmospheric deposition values were all below applicable LOC and LAC (see TRC EC 

2006:Tables G-ES-1 and G-ES-4). BLM plans no additional mitigation focused on atmospheric 

deposition. 

BLM would continue to work cooperatively with WDEQ, EPA, USFS, and NPS to maintain 

atmospheric deposition monitoring in the PFO area. Existing atmospheric deposition monitoring 

includes: NADP wet deposition monitors (Pinedale, South Pass, Gypsum Creek), CASTNet dry 

deposition monitor (Pinedale), bulk deposition sites (Black Joe Lake, Hobbs Lake) and long-term 

lake sites (Black Joe, Hobbs, Deep, Upper Frozen, Ross, Saddlebag). 

BLM would also work cooperatively to enhance atmospheric deposition monitoring in the PFO 

area. BLM and the cooperating agencies would contribute technical expertise to maintaining and 

enhancing air quality monitoring. The Operators would bear the financial costs of maintaining 

and enhancing air quality monitoring. 

WDEQ is developing a joint funding agreement with federal agencies and industry to finance and 

operate air quality monitoring in southwest Wyoming. Operators would be required to participate 

in any joint industry/state/federal monitoring agreement. 

Visibility 

Potential visibility values were above applicable significance criteria for both project and 

cumulative impacts in Bridger Wilderness and other Class I areas (see TRC EC 2006: 

Tables G-ES-1 and G-ES-4). BLM would require the Operators to demonstrate annually that 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Additional Potential Mitigation, Monitoring Measures 5-5 

emission reductions from the Jonah Infill Project will reduce the potential impact to visibility as 

follows: 

Demonstration Period: Operators in the JIDPA would begin a 12-month demonstration period 

beginning with the signing of the ROD. In correspondence with BLM, WDEQ affirmed the 

State’s position that BLM “require the use of Tier II diesel technology on drill rigs used in the 

Jonah area at the earliest possible date” (WDEQ 2005). Because preliminary modeling conducted 

for the DEIS indicated that emissions from engines for drilling rigs would have to be further 

reduced to attain the air quality goals stated above, BLM treats emission factors for Tier 2 

engines (EPA 1998) as a reference point for the minimum control of emissions during the 

demonstration period. Operators in the Jonah and Pinedale fields have suggested several 

technologies that could achieve emissions lower than Tier 2. As part of this demonstration period, 

the Operators in the Jonah field would conduct emission tests on various drilling engine 

technologies as defined in a plan to be developed by the Operator(s) and approved by WDEQAQD. The results from this demonstration period would be provided to WDEQ as soon as 

possible, but no later than 1 year after the ROD is signed. WDEQ would then consider the 

emissions testing data in the determination of the appropriate Best Available Technology (BAT) 

for the engines associated with all drilling operations. Until such time as the WDEQ-AQD 

establishes appropriate BAT standards, Operators would be required to demonstrate that the 

impact levels from the proposed project will be less than the impact levels of the 80% emission 

reduction scenario as described in FEIS Section 4.1.2.5 and AQTSD Appendix G, Section G-2. 

Within 90 days of the ROD, the Operators would submit a plan to BLM that describes in detail 

how the potential impacts will be minimized. 

Implementation Period: All Operators would comply with WDEQ-established BAT standards. 

In the absence of WDEQ-established BAT standards, the Operators would submit annual 

operating plans that report the emissions from all emitting units in order to demonstrate that the 

potential visibility impact from the proposed project will be less than the potential visibility 

impact levels of the 80% emission reduction scenario described in FEIS Section 4.1.2.5 and 

AQTSD Appendix G, Section G-2, at a minimum, and to demonstrate that any potential visibility 

impact decreases as soon as possible to no days with an impact greater than 1 deciview (dv). 

Based upon emissions data collected during the demonstration period, BLM would run an air 

dispersion model, comparable to the model run for the AQIAS, to reassess air quality impacts. 

BLM, in conjunction with the JIO, would use the results of the model to assess whether emission 

controls in the JIDPA adequately control emissions to achieve the air quality goals. Annually 

thereafter, BLM would determine whether an additional model run is necessary based upon fieldwide emissions or a comparable indicator selected by BLM (in cooperation with the JIO). 

Operators should continue to innovate by demonstrating and using new techniques for controlling 

emissions after the demonstration period. 

The method by which the Operators would demonstrate potential project visibility impact would 

be determined by BLM in consultation with WDEQ, EPA, USFS, and NPS. BLM would rely on 

the Operators to determine how they would attain the reduction in potential visibility impacts 

from the Jonah Infill project. 

Technological advances in drill rig engines as well as aftermarket engine control represent great 

potential to reduce emissions from project development. In general, the more advanced the 

emission-reduction technology of drill rigs, the more wells per year could be drilled to net the 

same impact. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
5-6 Chapter 5 

BLM’s performance objective for visibility would be attained if actual visibility monitored by the 

Bridger Wilderness IMPROVE aerosol sampler complies with the reasonable progress goal of the 

Wyoming Regional Haze State Implementation Plan. Also, BLM would report the occurrence of 

layered hazes as measured by the visibility cameras operated by WDEQ-AQD. It is BLM’s goal 

that the occurrences of layered hazes decrease over the life of the Jonah Infill project. 

BLM would continue to work cooperatively with WDEQ, EPA, USFS, and NPS to maintain 

visibility monitoring in the PFO area. Existing visibility monitoring includes camera sites 

(Boulder, Daniel, Jonah), and IMPROVE aerosol and transmissometer sites (Bridger Wilderness). 

BLM would also work cooperatively to enhance visibility monitoring in the Pinedale Field Office 

area. The BLM and the cooperating agencies will contribute technical expertise and financial 

resources to maintaining and enhancing air quality monitoring. The Operators would bear the 

financial costs of maintaining and enhancing air quality monitoring. 

WDEQ is working on developing a joint funding agreement with federal agencies and industry to 

finance and operate air quality monitoring in southwest Wyoming. Operators would be required 

to participate in any joint industry/state/federal monitoring agreement. 

5.1.2 Topography 

The following action could protect important or unique topographic features in the JIDPA, which 

in turn could reduce soil erosion and protect the wildlife habitats provided by these features: 

•	 no disturbance at rock outcrops in the JIDPA. 

5.1.3 Paleontology 

The following action could protect important or unique paleontological features in the JIDPA by 

identifying their location and subsequently restricting project activities that could disturb them: 

•	 an active program of inventory and evaluation of sediments known or suspected to 

contain paleontological materials and an assessment of cumulative impacts. 

5.1.4 Soil Resources 

The following actions could protect soils by reducing erosion, compaction, loss through mixing 

with unsuitable plant growth material, and the time necessary for disturbance to be reclaimed. By 

reducing soil erosion, these actions could also protect surface water quality and promote 

revegetation, which in turn could promote the provision of forage for livestock and wildlife. 

These actions include: 

•	 site-specific predisturbance landscape descriptions, including soils data, plant species 

composition and cover data, and proposed reclamation seed mixes with application rates; 

•	 analyze soils prior to disturbance to determine appropriate reclamation seed mixtures and 

potential soil amendment needs; and 

•	 utilization of fertilizers or other soil amendments at reclamation sites to facilitate site 

re-vegetation. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Additional Potential Mitigation, Monitoring Measures 5-7 

5.1.5 Surface Water Resources 

The following actions could protect surface water resources and could protect groundwater 

quality in areas where surface water percolates below the ground surface. There is to be no 

surface discharge of wastewater from facilities in the JIDPA. Additional potential measures to 

protect water resources include: 

•	 utilize catchment basins, sediment retention ponds, and/or spreader dikes within or 

external to the JIDPA to capture potentially increased flows due to runoff from disturbed 

areas to prevent channel morphology damage; 

•	 monitor channel condition in the JIDPA with photopoints and/or other appropriate 

methods in coordination with BLM; 

•	 no additional linear crossings (road and/or pipeline crossings/crossing corridors) of Sand 

Draw and/or other ephemeral drainages, unless it can be proven that such activity would 

reduce the erosive potential of the JIDPA and could be accomplished with no disturbance 

to the drainages; 

•	 develop and implement an adaptive surface water management plan for the entire JIDPA 

which could include the NPDES process and consider runoff on a cumulative watershed 

basis; 

•	 pipeline crossings of all drainage channels could be fitted with shutoff valves or other 

systems to minimize accidental discharge and facilitate channel protection from 

contamination in the event of a pipeline break; 

•	 maximize recycling of waters utilized and produced for this project and increase 

capacities to both treat and re-use clean produced water within the field; 

•	 consider all practical methods and technological improvements that would increase the 

use of recycled water, and decrease fresh water withdrawals, erosion, and salt loading of 

surface soils and water bodies; and 

•	 file all NPDES permits and associated water quality data with the BLM and consult with 

WDEQ, WGFD, BLM, and livestock permittees before any water release. 

5.1.6 Vegetation, Including TEP&C and BWS Plant Species 

The following actions could protect vegetation, including TEP&C and BWS plant species and 

protect soils, water quality, and wildlife habitat and livestock forage: 

•	 scalping and post-construction ripping rather than removal and re-spreading of topsoil for 

all new pipelines; 

•	 establish vegetative plots to scientifically evaluate reclamation success, to develop 

appropriate procedures for timely sagebrush reestablishment, and/or to further identify 

the most desirable reclamation species; and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
5-8 Chapter 5 

•	 in coordination with the BLM, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Sublette 

County Conservation District, Operators could utilize irrigation at reclamation sites to 

improve germination and vegetation establishment. 

5.1.7 Wildlife, Including TEP&C and BWS Animal Species 

The following actions could protect wildlife, including TEP&C and BWS animal species and 

soils, vegetation, and water quality resources: 

•	 utilization of low-profile tanks within line-of-sight, up to a maximum of 0.5 mile, of 

greater sage-grouse leks; 

•	 develop water sources within the JIDPA that are outside of areas with a high level of 

development for area wildlife and/or convert existing project-developed water wells for 

wildlife use when they are no longer required; 

•	 avoid all raptor nest territories (rather than just active nests) during the nesting 

season; 

•	 expand annual wildlife monitoring in the JIDPA and Wildlife Study Area to include new 

wildlife/habitat study opportunities identified in consultation with the BLM, WGFD, 

and/or USFWS; 

•	 modify wildlife protection measures (e.g., altered buffer area sizes, seasonal restriction 

dates) based on the results of annual monitoring and/or other regional wildlife studies; 

•	 develop habitat enhancement projects on the JIDPA to accommodate displaced 

wildlife or altered migration routes; and 

•	 inventory the Big Piney white-tailed prairie dog complex for black-footed ferrets and 

pursue a block clearance of the complex. 

5.1.8 Cultural Resources 

The following actions could protect cultural resources: 

•	 Initiation of a Programmatic Agreement/Cultural Resources Management Plan 

(PA/CRMP) with SHPO; 

•	 develop and implement a research design, discovery plan, and/or cultural resource 

management plan for the combined areas of the Pinedale Anticline Project Area and 

JIDPA, and consult with SHPO pursuant to the effect of these plans on affected cultural 

resources; 

•	 implement larger cultural resource survey areas for site-specific development actions 

(areas of potential effect); and 

•	 intensify data collection efforts at affected high-value archaeological sites in exchange 

for disturbance of sites with less unique values. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Additional Potential Mitigation, Monitoring Measures 5-9 

5.1.9 Land Use/Livestock Grazing 

The following actions could protect livestock from hazards associated with development: 

•	 Operators could commit to work with BLM and affected livestock permittees to mitigate 

the loss of AUMs in the JIDPA through provision of range improvement projects to 

modify grazing distribution patterns (e.g., water developments, vegetation treatments, 

irrigation, fencing, use of herders, actions that improve carrying capacity) within the 

project-affected allotments; 

•	 Operators could commit to reduce fugitive dust on all proposed roads to decrease the 

potential for dust pneumonia in cattle; and 

•	 Operators could commit to converting project-developed water wells for livestock use 

when they are no longer required for the project. 

5.1.10 Land Use/Recreation 

The following actions could minimize adverse project effects to JIDPA recreation by providing a 

new tourism opportunity: 

•	 provide one or more quality interpretive sites with public access and/or publications with 

public distributions to provide the general public and interested parties educational 

information regarding JIDPA developments and management actions for other areaspecific natural resource values. 

5.1.11 Land Use/Transportation 

The following actions could reduce impacts to roads, the transportation network, the traveling 

public, air quality, soils, vegetation, wildlife, livestock grazing, and recreation: 

•	 prepare road development and transportation management plans; 

•	 utilize car pools and/or bus crews from communities of origin to the field to minimize 

commuting traffic; 

•	 utilize existing roads in the JIDPA as collector and/or resource roads to the maximum 

extent possible to avoid new surface disturbance; and 

•	 Operators could jointly develop and submit for BLM approval road maintenance and use 

agreements designating road development, maintenance, and use requirements by each 

Operator. These agreements could identify responsibilities for necessary preventative 

and corrective road maintenance throughout the LOP. Maintenance responsibilities could 

include, but not be limited to, blading, gravelling or aggregate-surfacing, cleaning ditches 

and drainage facilities, dust abatement, noxious weed control, culvert maintenance and 

repair, or other requirements. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
5-10 Chapter 5 

5.1.12 Visual Resource 

Additional measures identified for vegetation and wildlife habitat (reclamation actions) and 

transportation (reduced traffic volumes) could also benefit visual resources. The following 

measure could also reduce project impacts to the visual resource: 

•	 Funding a hosted worker (visual resource management specialist) or other such qualified 

consultant to work with the BLM and Operators to monitor and minimize visual effects. 

This position could be required until such time it is determined that both short- and longterm VRM objectives would be accomplished. 

5.1.13 Health and Safety/Hazardous Materials 

The following measures could protect public and worker health and safety and improve BLM’s 

inspection and enforcement capability: 

•	 provide the BLM copies of field- or lease-specific SWPPPs, SPCCPs, Spill Response 

Plans, and Emergency Response Plans; and 

•	 thoroughly purge pipelines prior to abandonment. 

5.1.14 Other Actions 

The following actions or recommendations could enhance various resource protections, facilitate 

field management, or assist other entities with management decisions. These actions include: 

•	 implement Operator-committed practices under any approved alternative when not 

already committed to (see Appendix B, Exhibit B-1) or required by BLM; 

•	 establish the JIO under any approved alternative; 

•	 utilize new drilling and development technologies (e.g., laser drilling, natural gas 

powered drill rig engines, micro-hole drilling, mat drilling) as they become available and 

feasible, and develop research or pilot projects to test new development technologies; 

•	 utilize new technologies or technological innovations as they become available and 

feasible to minimize pad/road/pipeline/ancillary facility footprints and/or other adverse 

impacts; 

•	 as a method of obtaining defensible data over the LOP to prove the success of 

reclamation efforts on a landscape scale, monitor both background and JIDPA-boundary 

“first flush” total suspended solids (TSS) using low-cost collection vessels placed at key 

locations (culverts), and monitor over the LOP in coordination with the JIO; 

•	 increase bond amounts for JIDPA developments. Such action could ensure that sufficient 

funds are available to reclaim disturbed areas in the event Operators inadequately 

implement reclamation; 

•	 Operator surveyors could submit electronic data for wells, roads, pipelines, and other 

project infrastructures in a format suitable to the BLM. Provision of electronic data 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Additional Potential Mitigation, Monitoring Measures 5-11 

would allow for consistency among project data across Operators and would facilitate 

BLM database management. This action could benefit all area resources potentially 

affected by specific project development features (e.g., wildlife, habitats); 

•	 Operators could provide hosted workers to the BLM as needed throughout the project 

development phase or LOP. If applied, this measure could facilitate efficient and timely 

BLM permitting; and 

•	 utilize smaller ROWs to disturb less surface area during pipeline construction and 

initially install larger diameter pipelines to minimize pipeline disturbance corridor 

widths. If applied, this measure could reduce all impacts associated with linear surface 

disturbances. 

5.2 COMPENSATORY (OFF-SITE) MITIGATION 

Preliminary research and monitoring results, as well as the project impacts reported herein, 

indicate that existing surface disturbance especially in combination with certain project 

alternatives may be appropriate for CM. Some Operators have also acknowledged that the level 

of development that would occur under the Proposed Action and other alternatives presented in 

the EIS would result in impacts that cannot be sufficiently mitigated within the JIDPA. 

As a general guideline, CM may be considered after other forms of on-site mitigation, including 

BMPs, have been analyzed. In other words, while on-site mitigation is the first priority when 

mitigating significant impacts, CM is an available tool for enhancing mitigation when impacts to 

BLM resources cannot be adequately mitigated on the site where the impacts are occurring. 

To comply with BLM Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2005-069, a signed cooperative agreement 

between all affected parties, including BLM, the Operators, and applicable state resource 

management agencies, would be required before any funds can be transferred or received. 

Additionally, BLM would retain final approval authority for all proposed mitigation projects. 

Considering projected impacts under each of the alternatives in the FEIS, BLM Wyoming 

identified CM as necessary to adequately offset or mitigate adverse on-site impacts. Though CM 

must be volunteered by the Operators prior to being included in a ROD, it is the BLM’s opinion, 

in consultation with the WGFD, that CM should be applied. 

In general, off-site mitigation or CM for direct surface disturbance impacts to wildlife would be 

necessary at a minimum rate of 3:1 (off-site treatments to on-site disturbance), with the goal of 

off-site treatments being to provide improvements and/or protection to other comparable habitat 

areas within relatively close proximity to the JIDPA. As an example, if the development approved 

10,000 acres of direct surface disturbance, a minimum of 30,000 acres of off-site habitat 

treatment would be required. For other impacted resources that could not be adequately mitigated 

on-site, CM would be considered acceptable on a 1:1 basis. Under no circumstances would 

implementation of CM measures obviate the Operator’s requirement to comply with all on-site 

mitigation and monitoring, outcome-based performance objectives, COAs, BMPs, and/or 

Operator-committed practices. 

5.2.1 Operator-proposed CM 

EnCana (Personal Communication, November 11, 2005, Letter from John Schopp, EnCana Vice 

President, Northern Rockies Business Unit, to Robert Bennett, BLM Wyoming State Director) is 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
5-12 Chapter 5 

committed to funding certain levels of offsite mitigation or CM depending on the level of future 

surface disturbance authorized, through subsequent applications of APD and ROW approvals by 

the BLM in the ROD for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project (Table 5.2). Funding levels are as 

indicated below for the following five developments scenarios: 

1.	 In the event the BLM selects an alternative in the ROD which authorizes between 

8,300 and 9,999 acres of new surface disturbance, EnCana would contribute 5.5 

million dollars to fund offsite mitigation projects and monitoring in and around the 

JIDPA. At least $1.5 million of the total $5.5 million would be deposited with the 

State of Wyoming Wildlife and National Resources Trust Account Board and would 

be dedicated to funding habitat improvement projects on lands around the JIDPA. As 

directed by the BLM, a portion of the remaining balance of the CM funds may be 

used to fund other positive environmental impacts including monitoring, inspection, 

and enforcement activities in and around the JIDPA. 

2.	 In the event the BLM selects an alternative in the ROD which authorizes between 

10,000 and 10,999 acres of new surface disturbance, EnCana would contribute 12.1 

million dollars to fund offsite mitigation projects and monitoring in and around the 

JIDPA. At least 7.5 million dollars of the total 12.1 million dollars would be 

deposited with the State of Wyoming Wildlife and National Resources Trust Account 

Board and would be dedicated to funding habitat improvement projects on lands 

around the JIDPA. As directed by the BLM, a portion of the remaining balance of 

the CM funds may be used to fund other positive environmental impacts including 

monitoring, inspection, and enforcement activities in and around the JIDPA. 

3.	 In the event the BLM selects an alternative in the ROD which authorizes between 

11,000 and 11,999 acres of new surface disturbance, EnCana would contribute 19.7 

million dollars to fund offsite mitigation projects and monitoring in and around the 

JIDPA. At least 13.5 million dollars of the total 19.7 million dollars would be 

deposited with the State of Wyoming Wildlife and National Resources Trust Account 

Board and would be dedicated to funding habitat improvement projects on lands 

around the JIDPA. As directed by the BLM, a portion of the remaining balance of 

the CM funds may be used to fund other positive environmental impacts including 

monitoring, inspection, and enforcement activities in and around the JIDPA. 

4.	 In the event the BLM selects an alternative in the ROD which authorizes between 

12,000 and 16,999 acres of new surface disturbance, EnCana would contribute 24.5 

million dollars to fund offsite mitigation projects and monitoring in and around the 

JIDPA. At least 16.5 million dollars of the total 24.5 million dollars would be 

deposited with the State of Wyoming Wildlife and National Resources Trust Account 

Board and would be dedicated to funding habitat improvement projects on lands 

around the JIDPA. As directed by the BLM, a portion of the remaining balance of 

the CM funds may be used to fund other positive environmental impacts including 

monitoring, inspection, and enforcement activities in and around the JIDPA. 

5.	 In the event the BLM selects an alternative in the ROD which authorizes at least 

16,200 acres of new surface disturbance, EnCana would contribute 28.5 million 

dollars to fund offsite mitigation projects and monitoring in and around the JIDPA. 

At least 20.5 million dollars of the total 28.5 million dollars would be deposited with 

the State of Wyoming Wildlife and National Resources Trust Account Board and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Additional Potential Mitigation, Monitoring Measures 5-13 

would be dedicated to funding habitat improvement projects on lands around the 

JIDPA. As directed by the BLM, a portion of the remaining balance of the 

compensatory mitigation funds may be used to fund other positive environmental 

impacts including monitoring, inspection, and enforcement activities in and around 

the JIDPA. 

Table 5.2. EnCana Proposed CM Funding, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2006 

Funding Distribution 

State of Wyoming Wildlife Other Positive Environmental Amount of Additional Surface Disturbance and Natural Resources Trust Projects Including Monitoring, Total Authorized in the Jonah Drilling Project ROD Account Board for Offsite Inspection, and Enforcement 

Wildlife Habitat Improvement Activities 

Projects 

16,200 or Greater Acres New Initial Surface 

Disturbance 

Between 12,000 and 16,199 Acres New Initial 

Surface Disturbance 

Between 11,000 and 11,999 Acres New Initial 

Surface Disturbance 

Between 10,000 and 10,999 Acres New Initial 

Surface Disturbance 

Between 8,300 and 9,999 Acres New Initial 

Surface Disturbance 

$20.5 million $8 million $28.5 million 

$16.5 million $8 million $24.5 million 

$13.5 million $6.2 million $19.7 million 

$7.5 million $4.6 million $12.1 million 

$1.5 million $4 million $5.5 million 

EnCana’s contribution to CM would be distributed as requested by the BLM so long as no more 

than 20% of the total commitment is paid out in any one year. Although EnCana is committed to 

funding CM as described above, EnCana hopes that other Operators in the JIDPA would agree to 

voluntarily contribute to CM funding in which case EnCana’s contribution would be 

proportionately reduced. 

EnCana understands that the CM funds would be distributed in accordance with an appropriate 

document such as a memorandum of understanding, agreement, or cooperative agreement 

between the BLM, the State of Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resources Trust Account Board, 

and any potentially impacted State of Wyoming divisions, agencies, or boards (see Appendix F). 

EnCana further understands that the funds designated for onsite and offsite monitoring, studies, 

and enforcement activities would be administered by the BLM or some other entity selected by 

the BLM and designated in the ROD for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project. 

5.2.2 Other Compensatory Mitigation Ideas 

It is assumed that any BLM-approved CM project would reduce impacts to the same or similar 

resources impacted by project activities, or would substitute resources for those impacted by the 

project. However, any quantitative analysis of beneficial effects of CM cannot be identified until 

specific projects are proposed and it is known what specific impacts a project is intended to 

mitigate. The BLM may include other affected federal agencies and the State of Wyoming in 

discussions regarding selection of specific CM projects, and may provide opportunity for public 

input. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
5-14 Chapter 5 

In lieu of EnCana proposed CM, the Operators could voluntarily develop proposals, submit those 

proposals to BLM for approval, and fund and implement the BLM-approved CM projects. 

The following list provides some of the types of CM activities that could be undertaken to 

mitigate for impacts within the JIDPA that cannot be fully mitigated on-site, to substitute similar 

resources for those not able to be mitigated on-site in the JIDPA, or to provide tangible benefits 

similar to those that would have been provided with successful on-site mitigation in the JIDPA. 

Included with each CM idea an estimated cost, where available, and the resources whose impacts 

might be mitigated by that type of project. There is no implied prioritization to the list, nor is the 

list intended to be exhaustive. 

Assist with funding for a WDEQ emissions inspector for the JIDPA for 5 years, or financially 

assist WDEQ and USFS with ongoing air quality monitoring in the Upper Green River area; 

consultation with the USFS and WDEQ/AQD to develop and implement a consistent funding 

mechanism to continue existing on- and off-site air quality monitoring actions at Class I airsheds 

and sensitive lakes. Monitoring at local communities and/or at other potentially affected sites 

could also be implemented. 

•	 Impacted resource potentially benefited: Air quality 

•	 Cost estimate: $15,000 to $100,000 per year 

Install an engineered headcut stabilization structure in the Alkali Creek drainage outside the 

JIDPA 

•	 Impacted resources potentially benefited: Soils, topography, surface water, stream 

channel morphology and stability 

•	 Cost estimate: $10,000 to $15,000 

Purchase a conservation easement on an irrigated hay meadow adjacent to existing greater sagegrouse habitat that is as close to the JIDPA as possible, that is not encumbered by fluid mineral 

leases, and restore that meadow to sagebrush vegetation similar to the adjacent sagebrush 

community 

•	 Impacted resources potentially benefited: Soils, vegetation, greater sage-grouse and other 

sagebrush-obligate species 

•	 Cost estimate: Conservation easements could vary from a few thousand to several 

million dollars, depending on size and location; restoration costs, likely less than 

$500,000 

Purchase ROW(s) and install water improvement on an area near the JIDPA where forage is 

underutilized for lack of water 

•	 Impacted resources potentially benefited: Wildlife including TEP&C and BWS, soils, 

surface water, vegetation, livestock grazing 

•	 Cost estimate: ROWs could vary from several hundred to several thousand dollars, 

depending on size and location; water improvement costs, likely less than $100,000 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Additional Potential Mitigation, Monitoring Measures 5-15 

Purchase a large block of sagebrush ecosystem land as close as possible to the JIDPA, that is 

unencumbered by fluid mineral leases and is adjacent to existing greater sage-grouse habitat, 

and enhance sagebrush habitat function on that land for the LOP at a ratio of 3:1, or three acres 

enhanced for every acre impacted in the JIDPA 

•	 Impacted resources potentially benefited: Wildlife including TEP&C and BWS, 

vegetation, soils 

•	 Cost estimate: Land prices vary from several thousand to tens of millions of dollars, 

depending on existing use, location, and parcel size; enhancement activity costs, likely 

less than $500,000 

Purchase development rights on grasslands in the area that are unencumbered by fluid mineral 

leases, and enhance forage production 

•	 Impacted resources potentially benefited: Wildlife including TEP&C and BWS, 

vegetation, soils, visual, recreation, livestock grazing 

•	 Cost estimate: Development rights costs vary considerably with location and parcel size, 

and could vary from several thousand to several million dollars; forage enhancement 

costs, likely less than $500,000 

Assist local government with funding of public service projects such as city sewage treatment 

facility upgrade, mosquito abatement, or West Nile virus inoculation programs 

•	 Impacted resource potentially benefited: Socioeconomic 

•	 Cost estimate: Several thousand to several million dollars 

Purchase conservation easements and establish and maintain 3 ferruginous hawk or bald eagle 

or burrowing owl nesting sites as close as possible to the JIDPA, and facilitate continued 

occupation of those nests for LOP 

•	 Impacted resource potentially benefited: Wildlife 

•	 Cost estimate: Cost of conservation easement + up to $10,000 

Work with impacted communities to develop and fund “portable” infrastructure enhancements 

(infrastructure provided by Operators during “boom” peaks, removed by Operators during 

“bust” times) 

•	 Impacted resource potentially benefited: Socioeconomic 

•	 Cost estimate: Several thousand to several million dollars 

Work with WyDOT and/or Sublette County Road and Bridge to install appropriate road-side 

signs outside the JIDPA that indicate potential hazards (e.g., school bus stops, high-traffic 

volume turnouts, trucks entering roadway) 

•	 Impacted resource potentially benefited: Socioeconomic 

•	 Cost estimate: Likely less than $10,000 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
5-16 Chapter 5 

Develop wildlife habitat improvements designed to increase huntable/viewable species 

populations 

• Impacted resource potentially benefited: Socioeconomic, recreation, wildlife 

• Cost estimate: Several thousand to several million dollars 

Develop rangeland improvement projects designed to increase the stability of ranching 

operations that depend on the use of federal forage, and intermingled private and state-owned 

forage, in the JIDPA. 

• Impacted resource potentially benefited: rangelands 

• Cost estimate: $10 to $20 per acre for improvements. 

Develop partnerships between industry, private recreation providers, non-governmental 

organizations, county governments, State of Wyoming, and BLM that improve recreation 

opportunities, benefit public health, and enhance regional tourism opportunities. 

• Impacted resource potentially benefited: recreation 

• Cost estimate: several thousand to perhaps $500,000 

Secure public access to recreational or visual opportunities where existing access across private, 

state or county lands is at risk or does not currently exist. This includes acquisition and/or 

negotiation of ROWs, easements, agreements, etc., for public access. 

• Impacted resource potentially benefited: recreation and visual resources 

• Cost estimate: several thousand to several million dollars 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
CHAPTER 6 — CONSULTATION AND PREPARERS 

The list of preparers and participants, including BLM IDT members and cooperating State of 

Wyoming personnel and offices, is presented in Table 6.1. Personnel contacted or consulted 

during preparation of this EIS and scoping respondents are listed in Table 6.2. 

Table 6.3 lists the names and affiliations (if known) of those who submitted written comments 

during the DEIS comment period from February 11, 2005, through April 12, 2005. Persons who 

submitted air quality-related comments on the DEIS or comments on the August 2005 Draft Air 

Quality Technical Support Document Supplement and/or the August 2005 Air Quality Impact 

Analysis Supplement through October 7, 2005, are shown in Table 6.4. 

Table 6.1. List of Preparers and Participants, Jonah Infill, Drilling Project, 2006 

Name EIS Responsibility 

BLM Interdisciplinary Team 

Denver Regional Office 

Craig Nicholls Air Quality/Climate 

Paul Sommers Water Resources 

State Office 

Roy Allen Socioeconomics 

Susan Caplan Air Quality/Climate 

Mark Gorges Compliance Review 

Dale Hanson Paleontology 

Ken Henke Hazardous Materials 

Janet Kurman Compliance Review 

Vickie Mistarka Compliance Review 

Brenda Vosika Neuman Compliance Review 

Ken Peacock Water Resources 

Tom Rinkes Wildlife 

Dave Roberts Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, and BLM Sensitive Species 

Rick Schuler Water Resources, Soils 

Pinedale Field Office 

Keith Andrews Wildlife; Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, and BLM 

Sensitive Species 

Frank Bain Topography/Physiography, Geology, Paleontology 

Steve Belinda Threatened and Endangered Wildlife 

Martin Hudson Recreation, Visual Resources 

Carol Kruse Project Management 

Bill Lanning Assistant Project Management/Team Lead, Entire Document 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
6-2 Chapter 6 

Table 6.1. (Continued) 

Name EIS Responsibility 

Steve Laster Vegetation/T&E Vegetation, Land Use/Agriculture/Grazing/Recreation 

Richard Rieman Mineral Resources 

Karen Rogers GIS Coordinator 

Pauline Schuette Wildlife/Threatened and Endangered Wildlife 

Mike Stiewig Project Management 

David Vlcek Cultural Resources/Historic Resources 

Rock Springs Field Office 

Rick Canterbury Soils, Reclamation, Topography/Physiography 

Dennis Doncaster Water Resources, Soils 

Jay D'Ewart Land Use/Grazing 

Jim Glennon Vegetation/T&E Vegetation 

John Henderson Fisheries Resources 

State of Wyoming Team 

Cara Casten Air Quality/Climate 

Susan Child Project Management/Team Lead, Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Matt Hoobler Vegetation/T&E Vegetation, Land Use/Agriculture/Grazing/Recreation 

Tom Collins Wildlife Resources/T&E Wildlife/Wild Horses, Fisheries 

Richard Currit Cultural Resources/Historic Resources 

Rod DeBruin Geology/Geologic Hazards/Paleontology 

Chris Fallbeck Land Use/Agriculture/Grazing/Recreation 

Kim Floyd Cultural Resources/Historic Resources 

Don Likwartz Mineral Resources 

Lisa Lindeman Socioeconomics 

Jeremy Lyon Water Resources 

Todd Parfitt Noise/Odor 

Darla Potter Air Quality/Climate 

Jodee Pring Water Resources, Hazardous Materials 

Scott Smith Wildlife Resources/T&E Wildlife/Wild Horses, Fisheries 

David Spencer Socioeconomics 

Timothy L. Stark Transportation 

Maxim Technologies 

Pete Guernsey Quality Assurance 

SWCA Environmental Consultants 

Jeff Connell, AICP Socioeconomic Analysis 

Charles Coyle Project Manager 

Lisa Dickerson Project Administration; Public Comment Analysis 

Camille Ensle Public Comment Analysis 

Chris Garrett, P.HGW Water Resources, Soils 

Al Herson, JD, FAICP NEPA Compliance 

Bill Wadsworth Land Use, Transportation 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Consultation and Preparers 6-3 

Table 6.1. (Continued) 

Name EIS Responsibility 

Dorothy House Task Leader, Public Comment Analysis, Technical Editor 

Ken Houser Project Director 

Ken Kertell Biological Resources 

Cynthia Manseau Technical Editor 

Peter Masson Project Coordinator 

Kathryn Mays Socioeconomic Analysis 

Elizabeth Moser Public Comment Analysis 

Michael O’Hara Public Comment Analysis 

Scott Phillips Cultural Resources 

Chris Query GIS/CADD 

TRC Environmental Corporation 

Susan Connell Air Quality/Climate 

Cassady Marshall Air Quality/Climate 

Brian Mitchell Air Quality 

TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 

S.L. Tiger Adolf Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice 

Bill Batterman Cultural Resources/Historic Resources 

Randall Blake Wildlife and Fisheries Resources, GIS 

Karyn Coppinger Geology/Minerals, Paleontology, Soils, Topography/Physiography, 

Groundwater 

Larry DeBrey Transportation, Hazardous Materials 

Genial DeCastro Document Production 

Pete Guernsey Project Management/Team Lead, Proposed Action and Alternatives, 

Natural Gas Resources 

Jan Hart Vegetation, Land Use/Grazing, Soils, Surface Water, TEP&C and BWS 

Plants 

Chris Keefe Wildlife Resources, TEP&C and BWS Animals, Recreation, Visual 

Resources 

Tamara Keefe Cartography, GIS 

Tamara Linse Technical Editor 

James Lowe Historic Resources 

Lance McNees Cultural Resources/Historic Resources 

Russell Richard Cultural Resources/Historic Resources 

Roger Schoumacher Quality Assurance 

Diane Thomas Wildlife Resources, Noise/Odor 

HydroGeo, Inc. 

Joe Frank Groundwater and Erosion/Sedimentation Modeling/Surface Water 

Depletions 

Gabrielle Walser Groundwater and Erosion/Sedimentation Modeling/Surface Water 

Depletions 

Sarah Springer Publications Specialist 

Jim Zapert Air Quality/Climate 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
6-4 Chapter 6 

Table 6.2. Personnel Contacted or Consulted during Preparation of the Jonah Infill EIS 

AGENCY/ORGANIZATION Individual Position 

Alliance for the Wild Rockies Michael T. Garity Executive Director 

Banko Petroleum Management David Banko President 

Barlow & Haun, Inc. – – 

Big Piney City Government Dickie Brown Town Clerk 

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance Jeff Kessler, Erik Molvar – 

BJ Services Company Dan Dells District Manager 

Bjork, Lindley, Danielson & Little, Laura Lindley Lawyer 

P.C. 

BKS Environmental Association Inc. Terri McGee, Brenda Schladweiler – 

BLM Lands Foundation G. Early – 

BLM Pinedale Field Office Priscilla Mecham Field Manager 

BLM Rock Springs Field Office John McDonald Soils Specialist 

BP America Production Company Victor Vega Project Manager 

Dalan D. Haase Production Engineer 

Kirk Steinle – 

Brother Grimm Trucking Mike Myers – 

Brown, Drew & Massey, LLP. Drake D. Hill – 

Casper Star Tribune Jeff Gearino – 

CAZA Drilling Inc. Ed Kautz Vice President 

Toni Schledwitz General Manager 

Center For Native Ecosystems Erin Robertson – 

Circle Nine Ranch Inc. Phelps H. Swift, Jr. – 

Defenders of Wildlife Matt Niemerski Public Lands Association 

Noah Matson – 

Duke Energy Field Services Stephen McNair Vice President 

George Courcier General Manager Rocky Mountain 

Region 

Lew D. Hagenlock – 

Encana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc. Gary R. Gardiner Vice President Northern Rockies 

John Ricter Field Supervisor 

Brandy Butler, Cally McKee – 

Energy Analysts Steve Fillingham – 

Environomics Eric Williams – 

EOG Resources C.C. Parsons Division Operation Manager


Federal Energy Regulatory L.J. Sauter –


Commission


Feed Barn, Inc. Kelly F. –


Frank’s Construction Frank Virden –


Flaming Gorge PFUSA Betty Wilkinson President


Gene R. George & Associates Inc. Gene R. George –


Gordon Gregory Photography Gordon Gregory –


Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Consultation and Preparers 6-5 

Table 6.2. (Continued) 

AGENCY/ORGANIZATION Individual	 Position 

Greater Yellowstone Coalition	 Tim Stevens Issues and Outreach Director 

Lloyd Dorsey Wyoming Representative 

Scott Groene – 

Gros Venture Investment Co.	 Phil Selby Ranch Manager/Rendezvous Ranch 

Sandra Wright Manager 

Grouse Inc.	 Clait E. Braun – 

Hayden-Wing Associates	 Larry Hayden-Wing – 

HydroGeo, Inc.	 Joe Frank – 

IPAMS	 Deena McMullen Manager of Government and Public 

Affairs 

Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance Pam Lichtman Program Director 

Tom Darin Public Lands Director 

JFC Joe Manatos – 

Johnson County Community College Rebecca Cramer Professor 

KMG Consulting Walter D. Lowry President 

Land Water Fund of Rockies Bruce Driver Executive Director 

Larz Equipment Brent Larsen – 

Marbleton City Government Alice Griggs Town Clerk 

Marion County Humane Society Barbara Warner Secretary 

Monmouth County Audubon Society Linda Mack Vice President 

Mount Vernon Data Services Michelle Poolet President 

Mountaintop Consulting, LLC Robin M. Smith –


Murdock Land and Livestock – –


Company


National Park Service Jere Krakow –


Lee Kreutzer	 National Trails System 

–	 Long Distance Trails Office 

Superintendent 

Natural Resources Conservation	 Carrie Hatch Water Quality Specialist 

Service, Sublette Co. Conservation 

District, Pinedale Field Office 

Jennifer Hayward Resource Conservationist/ GIS 

Ron Reckner Soil Scientist 

Natural Resources Defense Council	 Johanna Wald Senior Attorney 

Craig Dylan Wyatt – 

Nerd Enterprises Inc.	 – – 

Office of Federal Land Policy	 Lynne Boomgaarden Director 

Office of the Governor	 Tracy Williams Policy Analyst 

Oregon-California Trails Association	 Dave Welch National Preservations Officer 

Oregon-California Trails Association	 – – 

Preservation Officer 

People for Wyoming – Executive Director 

Pat Hickerson President 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
6-6 Chapter 6 

Table 6.2. (Continued) 

AGENCY/ORGANIZATION Individual	 Position 

Petroleum Association of Wyoming	 Dru Bower Vice President 

PFUSA	 Dorothy Bartholomew President 

Randy Shipman President 

Pinedale City Government	 Rose Skinner Mayor 

Patti Raisch Town Clerk 

Pinedale Properties	 Cyd Goodrich Realtor 

Pinedale Ranger District	 Terry Svalberg Air Quality Specialist 

Pittsburg & Midway	 Don Lamborn – 

Questar Energy Services	 Chris Thornhill Director of Applied Technology 

Questar Gas Management	 Dee Findley – 

Williams Energy Services	 – 

Rendezvous Ranch & Gros Ventre	 Paul Von Gontard – 

Cattle Company 

Rocky H. Ranch	 Bill Phelps – 

Rocky Mountain Energy Reporter	 Heather Anderson Marketing Director 

Gerry Minick Publisher 

Sandy Crossing Enterprises Inc.	 Curtis C. Martin – 

Schlumberger Oilfield Services	 Cliff McKellar Field Service Manager 

James Stewart General Manager 

Vernon Higdon Field Engineer 

Brandon Jones Operations Manager 

Brenda Bray Well Services Manager 

Jesus Espinoza Field Service Manager 

Jim Cunningham Bulk Plant Manager 

David G. Morris – 

Shell E&P Company	 Aimee Davison –


SOGO2/TRC Design, Inc.	 Susan Goldin –


South East Environmental Network	 Keene Hueftle Chairman


Southern Colorado AIM	 Renee Still Day Executive Director


Southern Ute Tribal Council Neil B. Cloud –


Southwest Wyoming Industrial – –


Association


Southwest Wyoming Mineral – –


Association


Steinaker Trucking – –


Sublette County Attorney's Office	 Marilyn Filkins County Attorney


Sublette County Courthouse	 Mary Lankford County Clerk


Sublette County Planning Office	 – –


Sublette County Road and Bridge	 Dan Holgate Supervisor


Sublette County Sheriff’s Office	 Hank Ruland Sheriff


Surveyor Scherbel, LTD	 Paul N. Scherbel President


Sweetwater County Conservation	 Mary E. Thoman Chairman 

District 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Consultation and Preparers 6-7 

Table 6.2. (Continued) 

AGENCY/ORGANIZATION Individual Position 

Sweetwater County Library – – 

TALCO Trucking Aaron McCallister – 

The Wilderness Society Peter Aengst Program Director 

Ultra Resources Brian Ault – 

U.S. Air Force Det Chief – 

U.S. EPA Cynthia Cody Director 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jodi L. Bush Acting Field Supervisor 

Seedskadee Refuge Manager 

Brian T. Kelly Field Supervisor 

U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region – 

Carole Hamilton Forest Supervisor 

U.S. Geological Survey Ann H. Csonka Environmental Educator 

John M. DeNoyer Former Associate Director 

Rick Hutchinson – 

U.S. Natural Resources Conservation 

Office 

District Office 

Dave Chase, Roger Miller 

– 

– 

U.S. Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 

U.S. Representative Barbara Cubin 

– 

Bonnie Cannon 

– 

Representative 

U.S. Senator Mike Enzi Lyn Shanaghy Representative 

U.S. Senator Craig Thomas Pati L. Smith Representative 

University at Albany, SUNY Kenneth P. Able Professor 

University of California Berkley Luna B. Leopold Professor of Geology 

University of Wyoming David (Tex) Taylor Professor of Agriculture Economics 

Upper Green River Valley Coalition Linda Baker Organizer 

Western Wyoming Community 

College 

Wildlife Management Institute 

Achaeological Services 

Len H. Carpenter 

– 

Field Representative 

Rollin D. Sparrowe – 

Wind River Environmental Quality 

Comm. 

Wold Trona 

Don Aragon 

– 

Executive Director 

– 

Jim Montuoro – 

Wyoming Advocates for Animals Jeannine R. Stallings – 

Wyoming Department of Agriculture John Etchepare Director 

Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality 

Dan Olson 

John V. Corra 

Air Quality Division Administrator 

Director 

Rich Vincent – 

Wyoming Department of Revenue Christie Yurek Validation Supervisor 

Wyoming Department of 

Transportation 

Mark Ayen Engineer 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
6-8 Chapter 6 

Table 6.2. (Continued) 

AGENCY/ORGANIZATION Individual Position 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department Bill Wichers Deputy Director 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department Dean Clause Biologist 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Commission Dave Chase Hydrogeologist 

Roger Miller Hydrogeologist 

Wyoming Outdoor Council Kelly Matheson Program Coordinator 

Meridith Taylor Yellowstone Field Director 

Wyoming State Board of Outfitters & Jane Flagg – 

Guides 

Wyoming State Historic Preservation Richard L. Currit State Historic Preservation Officer 

Office 

Wyoming State Representative Stan Cooper – 

Wyoming State Senator Larry Coller – 

Delaine Roberts – 

Wyoming Wildlife Consultants John Dahlke – 

Wyoming Wildlife Federation Cathy Purves Western Field Director 

INDIVIDUALS 

Lani J. Adams Leslie Van Barselaar Deniz Bolbol 

Steve Agueda Bryan Bates Joseph Bolinger 

Ken Aho Fred Baughman Julie Bond 

Jeremy Allen Jay Beach Scott Bondegard 

Karrin Allen Eli Bebout Chris Bookless 

Lonnie Allen Kenny Becker John Bookless 

Matt Allen David J. Bell Dan Boudrenault 

Rosemary Alles Tom Bell Pat Bower 

Christina Andersen William Belveal Dennis J. Brabec 

Martin Andersen LeeAnn Bennett Dan Brecht 

Neil & Lorna Anderson R.G. Bennett Joe Brewer 

Robert F. Anderson Leo Benson Ned Brewer 

Sarah Annarella Rosemary Benson Sarah Britt 

Jerry Arnold Kathy Berger Constance Brizuela 

Judy Arnold Henry Berkowitz Kenly Brown 

Priscilla Atwood Linda Berkowitz Vaughn Brown 

Joan Bailey F. Bernolf Steve Brunelle 

Julianne Baker Michelle J. Biggins Marlis Brunson 

Gene Ball Norman A. Bishop Dave Bunning 

Joann Bally Theresa Blair David Burkhart 

Craig Barber Russel Blalack Candace Burlingame 

David Barnett Bill Blazich James Burnett 

Peter V. Barrett Tim Blossom Barbara Burris 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Consultation and Preparers 6-9 

Table 6.2. (Continued) 

INDIVIDUALS 

Tom Burns Andrea Dean Steve Granada 

Corlann Gee Bush David R. Dean Stephen M. Greenberg 

Robert Byers Regina Dean Paul Grover 

James Callison Paul DeBonis Ravi Grover 

Mary Carlson Michael Deme Gil Gudmend 

Robert D. Carney Laurie Ann Denison Tanya Haanpac 

Mary Lou Carroll Danny Dickinson Caitlin Hakiel 

Michael Casey James Dillon Joyce L. Harkness 

Annette Chaudet Marilyn Dinger Denise Harmon 

Geneva Chong Ed Dolinar Alan Hayes 

Scott Christensen Rita Donham James Henley 

Anna Lee Clark Nick Downey Phil Hernandez 

Ashley Ann Clark Larry Downs Betty Jean Herner 

Dallas Clark Dana L. Dreinhofer Sanford Higginbotham 

Troy Clark Donald J. Duerr Ann Hinckley 

Duane Claypool Loretta Dunne Steve Hitshew 

Jim Cleary Nathan Ebinger Fernanda E. Hittel 

Trish Cleary Sol Eden Sarah Hixson 

Audry J. Cleland Kenneth B. Eldridge Larry D. Honeycutt 

Frances M. Cone Beth Enson Daryl Hood 

John S. Connolly Dinda Evans Jim Horner 

David Constable Donald Evans Brendan Hughes 

Patricia Constable Eric Fairbanks Guy Hulser 

Calvin Cooley Dale Fefzer Jeanne Hum 

Lonetta Cooley Carol Finan William Houghton 

Mike Cooney Casey Fisher Troy Householder 

Linda J. Cooper James H. Fitch Chris Jacobs 

Esther Cover D.R. Flock Leah Jacobs 

Jared Cox Donna Foote Lisa Jaeger 

Lydia Cressall Dorothy Foster Anne Jemas 

Anthony Criscola Georgia J. Frazier Jennifer Jensen 

Martie J. Crone Jeff Frontz Paul Jensen 

Larry Crowell John Geddie Roger Jensen 

Bill Current James R. Goddard Trinni Jensen 

Hall Cushman Ed Golnitz Debbie Johnson 

Jerry Dalton Tony Goodman Gordon Johnson 

Carl Daly Machelle Gossett Bob Johnston 

David L. Davidson Anne Grady Diana Jones 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
6-10 Chapter 6 

Table 6.2. (Continued) 

INDIVIDUALS 

Kent Jordan Tami Ingraham Malchow Maggie Palmer 

Les K. Rich Malone Jean Palmeter 

Angelo Kallas Lisa Marshall Mike Partansky 

Larry Kaml Paul Marsing John Patanelli 

Linda Karon Richard Marsing Jim Paulsen 

Richard Karon Shannon Marsing Sally Pederson 

Robert L. Kay Marissa Martin Larry Pennock 

Shari Kearney Jonathan Mathews Laveta Pennock 

Dennis Keeney T.J. Mathews Todd Perry 

John Kesich Lon Mayhew Lisa Persinger 

Brian Kettering Ellen McCallister Rodney Peterson 

Jacob Kettering Lillian McCallister Troy Peterson 

James H. King Tammie McCallister Clint A. Phillips 

Paul Kita Jenny C. McCune Brian Pierce 

Irene Kitzman Stuart McKinley Lynn Pierce 

John F. Kohler Holmes P. McLish Sandra Pierce 

Mark Koplik Mimi McMillen David Pitt 

Elinore Krell Stew McMillen Vern Plentenbery 

Corbett Kroehler Page McNeill Keith Potter 

Roger Kruse John Meng Kelly Powers 

Jean Kwall Jennifer S. Miller Angelina Pryich 

Stan Labbe Neil O. Miller Stacey Putman 

Londa Lamper Kat Mills Daron Raines 

Laurie Latta Lonnie Moffitt Kevin Ramage 

Jim Laybourn Jill Mogen Paul Rana 

Edith Leeper Kristin Mohney Jonathan B. Ratner 

Daryl LeFevre Cory Munter Clem L. Rawlins 

Carol J. Levitt Mike Narramore Kathy Rebescher 

David A. Lien Debra Nishida Joseph M. Reichert 

Thomas A. Linell Paul Nordeen Robin Reinholz 

Jim Liskovec Michael Normington Jim Von Rembow 

Leonard Lovell Karla Nye Mark Reneau 

Judann Luening Dave Obenchain Frank D. Reno 

Dave Luxem Gerald Orcholski Lavinia Reno 

Deb Luxem Jim Oriet Stephen A. Reynolds 

Matt Lye Larry Orzechowski Stephen Reynolds 

Audrey Lyke Jacob L. Overy Louis D. Rhodes, Jr. 

Justin M. Catherine Palmer Jake Ribordy 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Consultation and Preparers 6-11 

Table 6.2. (Continued) 

INDIVIDUALS 

Peggy Sue Richards Carole Shelby Jeff Troxel 

Nancy Richings Leslie Sheldon Sauwah Tsang 

Ted Richings Barbara A. Sherer Dennis Urbatsch 

Matt Ridenour Roger Sherman Cat Urbigkit 

Austin Rider Joe Shubert Jim Urbigkit 

Tim Rider Greg Simcakoski Daniel R. Vice 

Bradley Ridgway Christopher P. Simms Tom Volner 

Jim Riley Steve Simon John Wahl 

Dorothy Roberts Rebecca A. Skinner Russell Wakefield 

Dean M. Roddick Boyd Smiley Bucky Walker 

Jim R. Rogers Jeffrey J. Smith Judith B. Walker 

Justin L. Rogers Mike Smith Ronald P. Walker 

Justin Roghair Robin Smith Sunny Walter 

Craig Romero Ruth Smith A.J. Warner 

Donald G. Romero Ana Yong Soler Mary Warner 

Jamie Rose Albert Sommers Billie Watkins 

Paul W. Rosenberger Mario Soto Sally Weidemann 

Dave Rosenfeld G. Sozio Fredrick Wen 

James H. Ross Shawn Steed Janet Westbrook 

Kenneth Rouse Alice Stephens Howard Weston 

Ron Roy Alta Stephens Tara Whittaker 

Barbara Rugotzke Edward R. Stewart James Wilkins 

Dean Ruscoe Jeanne Sugel Robert E. Williams 

Chad Rutherford Dan Sullivan David W. Williamson 

Robert Rutkowski Dave Surette Rachel Winer 

Freddy Salgodo Paul Szymanowski Lyle Woelich 

Shane Sanchez Nick F. Tabler Jackie Woods 

Justin Santhuff Thomas Tennyson Mary Lynn Worl 

Todd Sasse Michael Teply James Wright 

Jim Schaefer D. Tetre Bryan Wyberg 

Sheron Schaeferle Duane Thompson Gretchen Dawn Yost 

C.W. Schertz Brian Thomson Peter Zadis 

Floyd Schneider Erik Tomasik John Zickel 

Kelvin B. Sellers Terry Ann Towers 

Bev & Sam Sharp Michael R. Traq 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
6-12 Chapter 6 

Table 6.3. Names and Affiliations (If Known) of Those Who Submitted Written Comments 

during the DEIS Comment Period from February 11, 2005 through April 12, 2005 

AGENCY/ORGANIZATION Individual 

Advantage Resources, Inc. Edward Ackman 

Amerifox Industries, LLC Gary Byers 

ASCG Inc. Tom Cavanaugh 

B&B Oilfield Services Sean Watts 

Baker Hughes, Inc. John Castetter 

Ballard Petroleum Holdings, LLC Robert Fisher 

Bear Cub Energy, LLC Robert Clark 

Bill Barrett Corp Francis Barron 

Scot Dunato 

Mindy Hollingshead 

Glen Jameson 

Kurt Reinecke 

Troy Schindler 

Donald Sell 

Floyd Wilson 

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance Suzanne Lewis 

BP America Production Company David Brown 

Brokerage Southwest Mary Ellen Painovich 

Burns Wall Smith & Mueller, P.C. Jack Merritts 

Cameron, Northern Rockies District Mark Brown 

Caza Drilling Mike Nuss 

Tom Schledwitz 

Center for Native Ecosystems Erin Robertson 

City of Rock Springs Timothy Kaumo 

Dolar Energy LLC Mark Dolar 

Double Eagle Petroleum Co. D. Steven Degenfelder 

Dugan Production Corp. Thomas Dugan 

Dynamic Drilling Fluids, Inc. Don Williams 

Encana Brandy Butler 

EnCana James Meyers 

EnCana Luke Roberts 

Encana Monte White 

EnCana (Rangeland Consultant) Cotton Bousman 

EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) John Schopp 

Envirnmental Protection Agency, Region 8 Robert E. Roberts 

Environomics Eric Williams 

EOG Resources, Inc. Jeane Taylor 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Consultation and Preparers 6-13 

Table 6.3. (Continued) 

AGENCY/ORGANIZATION Individual 

Equity Brokers GMAC Ronna Boril 

Evergreen Energy Ryan Buckley 

EXCO Resources, Inc. Dawn Krupp 

Fidelity Exploration & Production Company Vaughn Cox 

Joseph Icenogle 

Flaming Gorge PFUSA Betty Wilkinson 

G&E Livestock, Inc. John Erramouspe 

Gene R. George & Associates, Inc. George Gene 

Greater Yellowstone Coalition Lloyd Dorsey 

Greenhalgh, Beckwith, Lemich, Stith & George Lemich 

Cannon, P.C. 

Hayden-Wing Associates Larry Hayden-Wing 

Helm Energy Company John Helm 

Independent Petroleum Assoc. of Mountain Kathleen Eccleston 

States 

IPAMS Andrew Bremner 

Iron Creek Energy Group, LLC Vickie Wenke 

J.W. Williams, Inc. Ben Knox 

Tom Darin 

Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance Tom Darin 

Kail Consulting Carmel Kail 

Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Corp. Kurt Reisser 

Kinder Morgan, Inc. Greg Bloom 

Lesair Environmental, Inc. Ty Smith 

Lewellen Consulting, Inc. Laura Lewellen 

Log Inn Supper Club Kenneth Henley 

Melange International Gary Stewart 

Mountain Petroleum Corp John Lockridge 

Mountaintop Consulting, LLC Robin Smith 

National Wildlife Federation Michael Saul 

Nerd Gas Company LLC Dennis Brabec 

North American Grouse Partnership James Mosher 

Northwest Mining Association Laura Skaer 

Office of State Lands and Investments (WY) Lynne Boomgaarden 

Office of the Governor Dave Freudenthal 

Oxbow Mining LLC Kenneth Ball 

Padco, LLC Richard Ebener 

Patterson-UTI Drilling Company, LP Doug Rogers 

Pechin Engineering Edgar Pechin 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
6-14 Chapter 6 

Table 6.3. (Continued) 

AGENCY/ORGANIZATION Individual 

Petroleum Association of Wyoming Dru Bower 

Pruitt Gushee Angela Franklin 

Public Lands Advocacy Claire Moseley 

Rat Hole Managers, Inc. Clark Mortensen 

Dan Mortensen 

Kent Mortensen 

Rick Mortensen 

Rory Mortensen 

Rat Hole Managers, Inc. Bob Pope 

Joe Puckett 

Rock Springs City Council Neil Kourbelas 

Rock Springs Grazing Association John Hay III 

Rocky Mountain Region PFUSA Randy Shipman 

Samson Resources Mark Grummon 

Schlumberger Data & Consulting Services Barbara Luneau 

Schlumberger, US Land Western Region Alex Albert 

Shell Exploration & Production Co. J.R. Justus 

Sierra Club – Teton County Barbara Herz 

Sprinkle & Associates, LLC Stan Sprinkle 

State Senator, 

Sublette/Lincoln/Sweetwater/Uinta Stan Cooper 

Sterling Construction MGT, LLC Terry Alvord 

Sublette County Attorney Marilyn Filkins 

Sublette County Commissioners Betty Fear 

Sweetwater County Commision Wally Johnson 

Sweetwater County Commissioner Joseph Oldfield 

Sweetwater Economic Development Assoc. Patricia Robbins 

Sweetwater Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife Eric Adams 

The Wilderness Society Peter C. Aengst 

Janice L. Thomson 

Town of Pinedale Barbara Boyce 

Miriam Carlson 

Nylla Kunard 

Trout Unlimited, Public Lands Initiative David Stalling 

Ultra Resources, Inc. Brian Ault 

Upper Green River Valley Coalition Lauren McKeever 

Wellogix, Inc. Bob Fielding 

Western Watershed Project Jonathan Ratner 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Consultation and Preparers 6-15 

Table 6.3. (Continued) 

AGENCY/ORGANIZATION Individual 

White Eagle Exploration Jane Crouch 

Marshall Crouch 

Wold Oil Steve Morzenti 

Wy Dept of Agriculture John Etchepare 

Wy State Geological Survey Ronald Surdam 

Wyoming Business Alliance Bill Murphy 

Wyoming Game & Fish Dept. Bill Wichers 

Wyoming Legislature Doug Samuelson 

Wyoming Legislature (House) Kathleen Davison 

Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation 

Commission Don Likwartz 

Wyoming Outdoor Council Bruce Pendery 

Marisa Martin 

Wyoming Wildlife Federation Cathy Purves 

INDIVIDUALS 

Robert Aarts Douglas Arcand Michelle Biggins 

Dan Abeyta Glenn Archer Ray Blaisdell 

Dan Abeyta Glenn Archer James Blake 

Lynn Abrahamson Patrick Archer James Blake 

Sharif Abodnage Edna Arndt Lynn Bohnet 

Armond Acri Billy Arnett Gary Bonogafsky 

Patty Adair Bret Atchley E. K. Bostick 

Loren Adams Jamie Ballard Pat Boue 

Mike Aichele Stephen Banks Allen Bourgeois 

Guillermo Alatorre Anita Bartosh Cotton Bousman 

Jose Alatorre Rick Bates Roger Bower 

Jose Enrique Alatorre Taner Batmaz Shelly Brause 

Lorenzo Alatorre Steve Beardsly Ryan Brause 

Manuel Alatorre Debbie Beaver Andrew Bremner 

Fred Alexander Jason Belless Keith Brewer 

Adam Allen Charlotte Belton Ben Bridges 

Frank Amos Fred Benge Mary Alice Briggs 

Jim Amundson Fred Benge Judith Brink 

Robert Andersen Fred Benge James Broce 

Brent Anderson Ken Berscheit Bryon Brown 

John Anderson Ken Bersheit Gary Brown 

Ralph Anderson Terry Bertram Jason Brown 

Stephen V. Anderson, Jr. Larry Bevans Mike Brown 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
6-16 Chapter 6 

Table 6.3. (Continued) 

INDIVIDUALS 

Patricia Brown Dallas Clark Michael Davis 

Cary Brus J.T. Clark Andrea Dean 

Cal Buckendorf James Clark Richard DeFries 

Douglas Buckner Roger Clark Deven Delap 

Mike Buckner Ron Clark Devon, Jr Delap 

Ben Bulk Ron Clark Justin Delap 

George Bullington Ron Clark Sherril Jo Delap 

Stacey Bundy Ronald Clark David Dennis 

Steve Burch Ty Clark Jerry DePoyster 

James Burdick Hershell Clawson Auden Diaz 

James Burgess Myra Clayton Larry DiBrito 

Kristine Burton-Bacheller Steve Cluff Dorian Dietrich 

Brandy Butler William Coble Scott Dimit 

Joe Butner Michael Cole Rick Ditton 

Gary Byers Thomas Cole Christy Doak 

Joseph Caddell Kathy Collins Normando Dominguez 

H. D., Jr Cagle Kary Colvin Rita Donham 

Davie J. Callahan Ralph Combs T.J. Dowley 

Dan Campbell Daniel Coneybeer Jonathan Downing 

Larry Campbell Lorenzo Contreras Andre Dub 

Sandra Capps Robert Cooper Eric Dufek 

Joseph Carpenter Kenny Cooper Richard Duginski 

George Carroll Nathan Cordle Sheila Duginski 

Kevin Carter Mario Cortes Wade Duncan 

Roger Carter Eric Cothern David Duncan 

Charles H. Castor Boyd Cox Stephen Dunne 

Charles Castor Darrell Critsek Andrew Durham 

Charles Castor Julia Crusius Cory Dutra 

Jeffrey Cawsey Jim Cunningham David Eldredge 

Wayne Cessal George Danze Chancy Elkins 

Brent Cheeney Jason Danze Becky Ellifritz 

Sarah Cheezum Jennifer Danze John Elliott 

Jennifer Chidester Shane Danze Patricia Ellis 

Michael Christensen Travis Danze Bonnie Ellwood 

Tera Christoffeese David Datteri Edward Elverud 

Shane Christopher Dalis Davis Scott Ensign 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Consultation and Preparers 6-17 

Table 6.3. (Continued) 

INDIVIDUALS 

Barbara Erb Marcus Gailey Jeffery Halter 

Bryan Erickson Alonso Garcia Sam Hammers 

Byron Erickson Cindy Gardner Robert Hammond 

Douglas Erickson Matt Gardner William Hampton 

Joe Erwin Brian Garduno Marcy Handley 

Liberty Estell Tim, Jr. Garriott David Hanks 

Al Etcheverry Thomas Gebes Evan Hanson 

Al Etcheverry Ray Gentry James Hardegree 

Al Etcheverry Debbie Gibbs David Harding 

Greg Ethridge Erin Gibbs J. Hardman 

Jim Etzel Peter Gilbert Mary R. Hardy 

Trevor Evans Travis Gines Paul Harjo 

Eric Fairbanks Jonathan Godfrey Carol Harkness 

Eric Fairbanks R.J. Goodman Michael Hart 

John Fandek A.J. Gosar Carl Hauskjold 

Lucy Fandek Jay Gray James Hawkey 

Scott Farmer Louis "Duke" Gray Justin Hawkins 

Daryl Farrington James Green Sabine Hawkins 

Bill Fauber Mark Green Alan Hayes 

Larry Faulkner Alice Griggs Matt Heaton 

Jay Fear Stephen Grimes Richard Heil 

Rusty Feezer Stephen Grimes Leslie Henderson 

Daniel Ferris Gary Gross Jodi Hendricks 

Brennon Fica Gary Gross Tom Hendricks 

Brenda Fisher Dave Grover Darrin Henke 

Sharie Fisher Shannon Guffey Rogelio Hernandez 

Vernon Fisher Jay Gunsch Jon Herrmann 

Dan Fitzloff Klay Gustin Ryan Hettinger 

Justin Floyd Matthew Gustin Jerry Hoch 

Terence Ford James Gutierrez Ross Hocker 

Randy Foster Macedonio Gutierrez Ross Hocker 

Donnie Franklin Z. Guzman Kevin Holdsworth 

David Freeman Paul Hagenstein Steve Hole 

Joe Freeman Jacqueline Hajba-Miner Charlotte Hollis 

Jade Gaddis Ryan Hale Jim Hooks 

Thomas Gagnon Ryan Hale Chris Hoskins 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
6-18 Chapter 6 

Table 6.3. (Continued) 

INDIVIDUALS 

Tina House Troy Jones Dennis Lamoureux 

Philip Howland Troy Jones Natalie Lane 

Clark Huffman Angelo Kallas Howard Larsen 

Darrin Hughes John Kappes Tori Larsen 

Mike Hughes John L. Kappes Garrick Lawson 

Guy Hulsey Pat Keefe Jim Laybourn 

Roderick Hunter Pat Keefe Caleb Leake 

Forest Irons Carlos Keelin Nicole Ledford 

Ben Izatt Darren Keetch Brent Lee 

Mike Jacobs Pete Keller Jerry Lee 

Justin Jenkins Scott Kelley Tim Lee 

Kent Jenkins Scott Kelley Charles Leftwich 

Mary Jenkins Bill Kelly Marlow Lenling 

Mary Jenkins Lonnie Kelly Juan Leon 

Mary Jenkins Robert Kemp Thomas Lev 

Trinity Jenkins Ted Kerasote Michael Leverich 

Beth Ann Jennings Henry Kessel Douglas Lewis 

Clyde Jensen Henry Kessel Alfonso Linares 

Jennifer Jensen Donn Kesselheim Cesar Linares 

Jarrol, Sr. Jeppesen Eric Kester Francisco Linares 

Steve Jerald Michael Kettle Mario Linares 

Maria Jetkoski Ronald Kincaid Nichole Longmire 

D.M. Johnson Jason King Carlos Lopez 

D.M. Johnson Bret Kingsbury Carmelo Loredo 

Heath Johnson Kimberly Kirk Javier Loredo 

Shane Johnson Allan Kirkwood Terry Lowry 

Shawn Johnson Catherine Kirkwood John Lusch 

Tamara Johnson Randy Kirkwood Jimmie Joe Lusk 

Glen Johnston Michael Klein Jimmie Joe Lusk 

J. Thomas Johnston Jared Klier Jon Lyman 

Bonnie Jolovich Paul Knapp Anita MacGill 

Brandon Jones Paul Knapp Michael Magagna 

Mark Jones Bob Kouri Michael Magagna 

Mark Jones Arnie Kubischtan Rodney Mahan 

Renee Jones Dane Kujat Kerry Mair 

Roger Jones Linda Kulp Joseph Manatos 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Consultation and Preparers 6-19 

Table 6.3. (Continued) 

INDIVIDUALS 

Daniel Mapel Chris Miller Nick Nichols 

Desira Marincic Neil O. Miller Nick Nichols 

James Markham Shane Miller Betty Jo Nicodemus 

Rick Marshall James Mineheine Lewis Nielsen 

Rick Marshall Vicki Mines Peter Niper 

Neil Martin Robert Jr. Minor Daniel Noel 

Ramon Jr. Martinez Shawn Mitchell Erick Norviel 

A. Richard Marx James Moberly James Obley 

Rich Matlock Cody Monroe David O'Connell 

Steve Matthew Julian Morales Kevin O'Connell 

Josh Mauch Deborah Morley Floyd Ogle 

Nathan McAdams Dan Morrison Tami O'Harrow 

Jamie McBee Linda Morrison Bill Organ 

Calvin McDonald Mary Lou Morrison Bill Organ 

Nancy McDonald Danny Mortensen Charlie Ortiz 

Paul McDonald Danny Mortensen Joaquin Ortiz 

Brian McGahey Mike Mosbey Jose Ortiz 

Clifford McGowan Echo Mourer Linda Osborn 

Clifford McGowan John Mullen Dana Page 

Eric McGuire Cody Mullen Zack Page 

Alice McKeever John Mullen Scott Parish 

Cliff McKellar Stephanie Mullen Ted Parkyn 

Loni McKinney Tillie Mullen Jacob Paterniti 

T. J. McKinzie Tyler Mullen Jeff Patterson 

Joan McLaren James Mulvaney Timothy Pattison 

Neil McLaren William Mumm Michael Paules 

Greg McLaughlin Larry Murchison Jim Peay 

Cathy McMillen Brian Myhre Matthew Peckler 

Lance McMillen David Myhre Brian Pedersen 

Nathen McNutt Pam Myhre Sally Pedersen 

Kevin Megahey Brady Nate R.W. Perotti 

Patrick Mehle Brian Nate Ben Peterson 

Shannon Menard William Neill David Peterson 

Andy Messier Lisa Nenna Dusty Peterson 

Josh Meyer Daniel Newmeyer David Petrie 

George Milatovich Lora Nichols Alfess Pew 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
6-20 Chapter 6 

Table 6.3. (Continued) 

INDIVIDUALS 

Tanya Phillips Suzan Rogers Blaine Siddoway 

Duce Piaia Donald W. Rogers, Jr. Jeanne Siegel 

Scott Pilch Kenneth Rose Matthew Simmons 

Stephen Pinter Monte Rosendahl Jimmy Sims 

Andrew Pitts Ken Routh Michael Skinner 

Steve Postema Jim Ruch Danny Skoriz 

Kevin Powers Raul Saavedra, Jr. Mike Skrbich 

Tony Prater Raul Saavedra, Jr. Thomas Sleight 

Tony Prater B. Sachau Thomas Smart 

Darrell Price Carlos Sagrero Alyssa Smith 

Will Price Antonio Salazar Bob Smith 

Kevin Prinisle Jose Salazar David L., II Smith 

Jaime Proa George Sample Earl Henry III Smith 

Phillip Putnam Sharon Sample Jacquelynn Smith 

Ty Quickender Angelica Sanchez Jake Smith 

Callie Quintard Roberto Sanchez John Smith 

Tucker Quintard David Sanders Justin Smith 

A. L. Radke James Sandoval Justine Smith 

Dorothy Radosevich Mike Sassi Marc Smith 

Bill Rainbolt Pat Schmid Ron Smith 

Edmundo Flores Rascon Pat Schmid Ron Smith 

Eddie (Rusty) Ratcliff Pat Schmid Terah Smith 

Gary Ratti Tom Schmidt Terry Smith 

Tom Rea Donald Schramm Forrest Smonse 

Susan Rediger-Blackburn Jeff Schubert Neldon Smuin 

Steve Reeves Jill Schultz Ramiro, III Solis 

Lloyd Reints Denise Schulze Albert Sommers 

Craig Rends James Scott Sergio Soria 

Stephen Reynolds Eric Sechrist Bryan Sowers 

Charles Richards Da-Costa Shado Elton, Jr. Spotted Horse 

C. Warren Richardson Beverly Sharp Caryl K. Stafford 

Robert Richardson Larry Shepard Duane Stafford 

John Richter Mary Ann Sherbrook Caryl K. Stafford 

Jay Roberts Robin Sherwood Debra Stanberry 

Luke Roberts Steve Short Dan Stead 

Mark Roberts Blaine Siddoway Dana Steffen 

Robert Rode. Blaine Siddoway Dana Steffen 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Consultation and Preparers 6-21 

Table 6.3. (Continued) 

INDIVIDUALS 

Troy Stephenson Jack Trigg Mark Walsh 

Mike Stevens Stephen Trosclair Rockey Wasson 

Brett Stevenson Heather Trosclair Rockey Wasson 

Brett Stevenson Penny Trujillo Dan Webster 

Lloyd Stewart Robert Trujillo Derek Weidensee 

Monte Stoddard Mark Turner Paul Weil 

Gerald Stout Shirley Ulrich David Weisgerber 

Gerald Stout Joseph Uptain Mike Welch 

Dustin Stringfellow Gerald Uranker Devin Westenkow 

Robert Strother Emily Van Engel Glenn Whicker 

Jo Suftko David VanNorman Glenn Whicker 

Bethany Swank Troy Vavra Richard Whicker 

Gregory Swann Arsenio Vega Zane White 

Matt Tarbet Floro Vega Ben Whitman 

Ed Tardoni Jose Vega Fred Wilkie 

Rich Tatman Oswaldo Vega Allen Williams 

Chris Taylor Michael Vichi Ronald Wilson 

James Telck Bruce Vincent Lloyd Winters 

Joey Terrill Patti Vincent Ward Wise 

Eunice Thomas Frank Virden Emily Wolffing 

Craig Thompson Mary Viviano Carolyn Wood 

Raymond Thompson Matt Vogel Terry Woods 

Scott Thompson Tom Volner Paddy Workman 

Bradley Thoren Tom Volner Jamie Wright 

Chris Thornhill Greg Volney Ron Wright 

Chris Thornhill Greg Volney Jane Wylie 

Chris Thornhill Michael Vouros Albert II Yazzie 

Chris Thornhill Morgan Wade Jamison York 

Martin Timmens Adam Wadman Tyrell York 

Kenneth Tipps Sharon Wales Richard Zimmerman 

Andrew Tomich Rich Walker Jim Zinda 

Roger Torgersen Rich Walker Robert Zumbrennen 

Maria Torres Ronald Walker Robert Zumbrennen 

Chad Townsend Scott Walker Robert Zumbrennen 

Cammy Trapp David Wall Robert Zumbrennen 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
6-22 Chapter 6 

Table 6.4. Air Quality-related Comments on the DEIS or Comments on the August 2005 Draft 

Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement and/or the August 2005 Air Quality Impact 

Analysis Supplement through October 7, 2005 

AGENCY/ORGANIZATION Individual 

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance Suzanne Lewis 

Board of County Commissioners, County of Sublette William W. Cramer 

Betty Fear 

John Linn 

BP American Production Company David Brown 

City of Rock Springs Timothy A. Kaumo, Mayor 

EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. John Schopp 

Environmental Defense Jana Milford 

Environomics, Inc. Eric Wiliams 

First Interstate Bank – Casper Office Ron J. Pasco 

Grand Teton National Park Susan E. O’Ney 

Greater Yellowstone Coalition Craig Kenworthy 

Greenhalgh, Lemich, Stith & Cannon, P.C., Attorneys at Law George Lemich 

Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States (IPAMS) Marc W. Smith 

Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance Tom Darin 

Petroleum Association of Wyoming John Robitaille 

Questar C.B. Stanley 

Rock Springs Chamber of Commerce Fran Carrier 

Shell Rocky Mountain Production, LLC J.R. Justus 

The Wilderness Society Peter Aengst 

Town of Big Piney Phil Smith, Mayor 

Town of Marbleton Jim Robinson, Mayor 

Town of Jackson, Wyoming Mark Barron, Mayor 

Trout Unlimited Cathy Purves 

Ultra Resources, Inc. W.R. Picquet 

Upper Green River Valley Coalition Linda Baker 

USDA Forest Service - Rocky Mountain & Intermountain Regions Jeff A. Sorkin 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 Robert E. Roberts 

United States Senate The Honorable Michael B. Enzi, 

United States Senator 

Western Business Roundtable Jim Sim 

Wyoming Business Alliance, Wyoming Heritage Foundation Bill Murphy 

Wyoming DEQ - Air Quality Division Darla Potter 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality John Corra 

Wyoming Outdoor Council Bruce Pendery 

Vicki Stamper 

Bob Yuhnke 

Wyoming Public Radio Kristin Espeland 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Consultation and Preparers 6-23 

Table 6.4. (Continued) 

INDIVIDUALS 

Andrew Blair Amy McReynolds Stan Swearingen 

Eric Fairbanks Ann Morris Sharon Wales 

Leslie F. Henderson Burke L. Morin Bob 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
6-24 Chapter 6


Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
CHAPTER 7 — REFERENCES 

Printed References 

Ahern, J., M. Colletine, and S. Cooke. 1981. Occurrence and Characteristics of Groundwater in 

the Green River Basin and Overthrust Belt, Wyoming. Prepared for U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency by Water Resources Institute, University of Wyoming, Laramie. 

123 pp. + appends. 

Air Resource Specialists. 2002. Green River Basin Visibility Study: Monitored Air Quality 

Data. Air Resource Specialists, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

American Gas Association. 2003. Fueling the Future. New Gas and New Technology for a 

Cleaner 21st Century. <www.aga.org>. Accessed January 12, 2004. 

Amoco Production Company. 1993. Environmental, Occupational Health and Safety Policy. 

Mimeo. 2 pp. 

. 1995. Safety Manual, U.S. Operations, 1995 edition. Mimeo. 

Baxter and Stone. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department. 137 pp. 

Berger, J. 2003. The Last Mile: How to Sustain Long-distance Migration in Mammals. 

Conservation Biology 18:320–331. 

Bingaman, M., T. Thibodeau, W. Gribb, J. Teichert, N. Gribb, C. McManus, S. Tessman. 2003. 

The 2003–2008 Wyoming Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. 

Wyoming Division of State Parks and Historic Sites, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

BKS Environmental Associates, Inc. 2003. Soil Mapping Results for T29N, R107W, Sections 

28-31; T29N, R108W, Sections 25, 32, 36, Jonah Infill Area, Sublette County, Wyoming. 

Unpublished. Prepared for TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming, by BKS 

Environmental, Gillette, Wyoming. 

Blevins, A., K. Jensen, M. Coburn, and S. Utz. 2004. Executive Summary. In Social and 

Economic Impact Assessment of Oil and Gas Development in Sublette and 

Sweetwater Counties. Prepared for Shell Exploration and Production Company by 

University of Wyoming, Department of Sociology, Laramie. 

Bowker, K. A. and J. W. Robinson. 1997. “Jonah Field: A Shallow Sweetspot in the BasinCentered Gas Accumulation of the Northern Green River Basin, Wyoming.” American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, Vol. 81, p. 1219. 

BP America Production Company. 2004. Jonah Field wind data (unpublished). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
7-2 Chapter 7 

Braun, C.E. 1986. Changes in Sage-grouse Lek Counts With Advent of Surface Coal Mining. 

Proceedings: Issues and Technology in the Management of Impacted Western Wildlife, 

Thorne Ecological Institute 2:227–231. 

. 1987. Current Issues in Sage-grouse Management. 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 67:134–144. 

Proceedings of the Western 

. 1995. Distribution and Status of Sage-grouse in Colorado. Prairie Naturalist 27:1–9. 

. 1998. Sage-grouse Declines in Western North America: What Are the Problems: 

Proceedings of the Western Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies 78:139–156. 

. 2002. A Review of Sage-Grouse Habitat Needs and Sage-Grouse Management 

Issues for the Revision of the BLM’s Pinedale District Resource Management Plan. 

Prepared by Grouse Inc., Tucson, Arizona, for the Wilderness Society, Wyoming 

Outdoor Council, and Greater Yellowstone Coalition. 14 pp. 

Braun, C.E., M.G. Baker, R. L. Eng, J.S. Gashwiler, and M.H. Schroeder. 1976. Conservation 

Committee Report on the Effects of Alteration of Sagebrush Communities on the 

Associated Avifauna. Wilson Bulletin 88:165–171. 

Brown, C.G. 1992. Movement and Migration Patterns of Mule Deer in Southeastern Idaho. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 56:246–253. 

Bruce, B.W. 1993. Hydrochemistry of the Wasatch/Green River Aquifer System, Northeastern 

Green River Basin, Wyoming. Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Geology and 

Geophysics, University of Wyoming, Laramie. 137 pp. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2002. Regional Accounts Data, Local Area Personal 

Income, Regional Economic Information System. Table CA34 Average Wage per 

Job, Wyoming (dollars). <http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis>. December 

2002. Accessed June 19, 2003. 

.	 2003a. Regional Accounts Data, Local Area Personal Income, Regional Economic 

Information System. Tables CA05(SIC) and SA1-3. Personal Income by Major 

Source and Earnings by Industry. May 2003. <http://www.bea.doc.gov/ 

bea/regional/reis>. Accessed December 15, 2003. 

.	 2003b. Personal Dividend Income, Personal Interest Income, and Rental Income of 

Persons. <http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/articles/lapi2001/pdf/dir.pdf>, May 6, 

2003. Accessed December 15, 2003. 

. 2003c. Employee Compensation for Wyoming. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Analysis Division, May 2003. 

http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp/. Data accessed July 14, 2003. 

.	 2003d. Regional Accounts Data, Local Area Personal Income, Regional Economic 

Information System. Table C1-3 Per Capita Personal Income. May 2003. 

<http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis>. Accessed June 19, 2003. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
References 7-3 

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2003e. Regional Accounts Data, Local Area Personal 

Income, Regional Economic Information System. Table CA25 Total Full-time and 

Part-time Employment by Industry--Wyoming (number of jobs). May 2003. 

<http://www.bea. doc.gov/bea/regional/reis>. Accessed June 23, 2003. 

.	 2003f. Gross State Product (GSP), for States and Regions in Current-Dollar GSP 

and Real Chained-Dollar GSP, and GSP by Industry, for 1977–2001 (Annual). U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic 

Analysis Division, May 2003. <http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp/>. Accessed 

July 8, 2003. 

. 2005a. Regional Accounts Data, Local Area Personal Income, Regional Economic 

Information System. Table CA34 Average Wage per Job, Wyoming (dollars). 

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis. Data accessed November 13, 2005. 

. 2005b. Regional Accounts Data, Local Area Personal Income, Regional Economic 

Information System. Table CA25 Total full-time and part-time employment by 

industry, Wyoming (number of jobs). http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/ regional/reis. 

Data accessed November 13, 2005. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2003. Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers. U.S. 

Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. <http://data.bls.gov/servlet/ 

SurveyOutputServlet>. Accessed December 23, 2003. 

. 2005. Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of 

Labor Statistics. <http://data.bls.gov/servlet/ SurveyOutputServlet>. Accessed November 

1, 2005. 

Bureau of Land Management. 1983. Riley Ridge Natural Gas Project Air Resources 

Technical Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Kemmerer Field Office, Kemmerer, Wyoming, in cooperation with Environmental 

Research and Technology Inc. 

.	 1985. Manual 9113-Roads. Engineering Release 9-247. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 

.	 1987a. Pinedale Resource Area Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement. Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs District, Rock Springs, 

Wyoming, and Pinedale Resource Area, Pinedale, Wyoming. 

.	 1987b. Pinedale Resource Area Final Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement. Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs District, Rock Springs, 

Wyoming, and Pinedale Resource Area, Pinedale, Wyoming. Government Printing 

Office, Washington, D.C. 

.	 1988a. National Environmental Policy Act Handbook, H-1790-1. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 

.	 1988b. Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan for the Pinedale Resource 

Area. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Resource 

Area, Rock Springs District, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 118 pp. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
7-4 Chapter 7 

Bureau of Land Management. 1991a. Wyoming Supplement to the Bureau 9113 Manual. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State 

Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 16 pp. 

. 1991b. PG&E Resource Company Fontenelle II Unit Infill Drilling Program 

Environmental Assessment. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Green River and Kemmerer Resource Areas, Kemmerer, Wyoming. 

WY-048-EA-91-54. 

. 1992. Green River Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rock 

Springs District, Rock Springs, Wyoming. BLM-WY-ES-92-019-4410. 910 pp. 

. 1994a. McMurry Oil Company Jonah Prospect Field natural gas development, Decision 

Record and Finding of No Significant Impact. Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale 

and Green River Resource Area, Rock Springs, District Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

WY-046-EA-94-049. 

. 1994a. McMurry Oil Company Jonah Prospect Field natural gas environmental 

assessment. Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale and Green River Resource Area, 

Rock Springs, District Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming. WY-046-EA-94-049. 

. 1994c. Guidelines for Assessing and Documenting Cumulative Impacts. 

Bulletin 94-310. Washington, D.C. 70 pp. 

Information 

. 1996. Green River Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rock 

Springs District, Rock Springs, Wyoming, and Green River Resource Area, Rock 

Springs, Wyoming. 

. 1997a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Field II Natural Gas Project. 

Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale and Green River Resource Areas, Rock Springs 

District, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

. 1997b. Record of Decision for the Green River Resource Area Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Rock Springs District, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

. 1998a. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Field II Natural Gas Project. 

Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale and Green River Resource Area, Rock Springs 

District, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

. 1998b. Record of Decision for Jonah Field II Natural Gas Project, Environmental Impact 

Statement, Sublette County, Wyoming. Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale and 

Green River Resource Areas, Rock Springs District, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

. 1999a. Interim Guidance: Changes to the List of Critical Elements of the Human 

Environment in BLM’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Handbook. 

Instruction Memorandum No. 99-178. Washington, D.C. 3 pp. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
References 7-5 

Bureau of Land Management. 1999b. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Pinedale 

Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project, Sublette County. Bureau of 

Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming, in cooperation with the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Forest Service, and State of Wyoming. 

.	 1999c. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Continental Divide/Wamsutter II 

Natural Gas Project, Sweetwater and Carbon Counties, Wyoming. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins and Rock Springs Field 

Offices. DES-99-10. April 1999. BLM/WY/PL-98/02Y+1320. 

.	 2000a. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the 

Modified Jonah Field II Natural Gas Project, Sublette County, Wyoming. Bureau of 

Land Management. Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming, and Rock Springs Field 

Offices, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

.	 2000b. Decision Record and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Modified Jonah 

Field II Natural Gas Project, Sublette County, Wyoming. Bureau of Land Management. 

Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming, and Rock Springs Field Office, Rock Springs, 

Wyoming. 

.	 2000c. Record of Decision, Environmental Impact Statement for the Pinedale Anticline 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project, Sublette County, Wyoming. Bureau 

of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Pinedale Field 

Office, Pinedale, Wyoming. BLM/WY/PL-00/026+1310. RODEIS-00-018. 53 pp. + 

append. 

.	 2001. Decision Record and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Late Winter 

Gathering of Wild Horses in the Rock Springs Field Office Area. BLM-WY-040­

EA01-019. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rock 

Springs Field Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 33 pp. 

.	 2002a. Geologic and Reservoir Analysis of Proposal for 20-acre Infill Drilling of 

Selected Upper Cretaceous Lance Formation Wells in Four Pilot Areas, Jonah Field Area, 

Sublette County, Wyoming. BLM Reservoir Management Group, Wyoming State 

Office. Signed June 2002. 10 pp. + tables. 

.	 2002b. Technical Support Document, Air Quality Impact Assessment for the Montana 

Final Statewide Oil and Gas EIS and Proposed Amendment of the Powder River and 

Billings Resource Management Plans and the Wyoming Final EIS and Planning 

Amendment for the Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Development Project. Prepared for 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Montana and Wyoming 

State Offices, by Environmental Assessment Division, Argonne National Laboratory, 

Argonne, Illinois. 

.	 2003a. Supplemental Draft EIS for the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity 

Plan/Draft Green River RMP Amendment. BLM/WY/PL-03/008+1610. Bureau of 

Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, Rock Springs 

Field Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming, and Lander Field Office, Lander, Wyoming. 

.	 2003b. Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species by Field Office. <http://www.wy. 

blm.gov/botany/fieldoffices/pfo.htm>. Accessed December 2003. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
7-6 Chapter 7 

Bureau of Land Management. 2003c. Payments in Lieu of Taxes, Search Payments and 

Acres. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Office of Public Affairs, Washington, 

D.C. <http://www.blm. gov/pilt/search. html>. Accessed July 10, 2003. 

.	 2003d. Socioeconomic Profile for the Pinedale Resource Management Plan (Draft). 

Prepared by Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, 

Wyoming. 37 pp. <http://www.pinedalermp.com/documents/Pinedale_Socioeconomic 

Profile.pdf>. Accessed May 7, 2003. 

.	 2004a. Jonah Infill Drilling Project Development Procedures Technical Support 

Document. Appendix B in this EIS. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, Pinedale and Rock Springs Field Offices, Pinedale and Rock 

Springs, Wyoming. 

.	 2004b. Little Colorado Herd Management Area, Rock Springs Field Office. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs Field Office, 

Rock Springs, Wyoming. 2 pp. 

.	 2004c. Draft Socioeconomic Technical Support Document for the Jonah Infill 

Drilling and South Piney Projects Environmental Impact Statements. Prepared for 

Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, and 

Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming; Jonah Infill Drilling Project Operators; 

and South Piney Natural Gas Development Project Companies. Prepared by TRC 

Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 

.	 2004d. Finding of No Significant Impact, Decision Record and Environmental 

Assessment for the Questar Year-Round Drilling Proposal, Sublette County, 

Wyoming. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale 

Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming. WY-100-EAS-034. 

.	 2005. Socioeconomic Analysis Technical Support Document for the Jonah Infill Drilling 

and South Piney Projects Environmental Impact Statements. Prepared for Bureau of 

Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Bureau of Land 

Management Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming; Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Operators; South Piney Natural Gas Development Project Companies by TRC 

Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 232 pp. + appends. 

Call, M.W. 1978. Nesting Habitats and Surveying Techniques for Common Western Raptors. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Technical Note No. 316. 

115 pp. 

Campbell, P. 1997. Population Projections: States, 1995-2025. Current Population 

Reports, P25-1131. Prepared for Census Bureau. <http://www.census.gov/prod/2/ 

pop/p25/p25-1131.pdf>. Accessed December 15, 2003. 

Case, J.C. 1997. Earthquakes and Active Faults in Wyoming. Wyoming State Geological 

Survey Preliminary Hazards Report 97-2. 58 pp. 

Case, J.C., and C. Boyd. 1987. Preliminary Map of Wind Blown Sand Areas in Wyoming. 

Wyoming Geological Survey Open File Report 87-9. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
References 7-7 

Case, J.C., L.L. Larsen, C.S. Boyd, and J.C. Cannia. 1995. Earthquake Epicenters and Suspected 

Active Faults With Surficial Expression in Wyoming. The Geological Survey of 

Wyoming Preliminary Hazards Report 97-1. Map. 

Clark, T.W., and M.R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. University of Kansas, 

Museum of Natural History. 314 pp. 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum. 2002. 2002 Review Water Quality Standards for 

Salinity Colorado River System. Prepared by Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 

Forum. October 2002. 

Connelly, J.W., and C.E. Braun. 1997. Long-term Changes in Sage-grouse Centrcercus 

urophasianus Populations in Western North America. Wildlife Biology 3/4:123–128. 

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation Assessment of 

Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agenceis. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to Manage 

Sage-Grouse Populations and Their Habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2B(4):967–985. 

Consensus Revenue Estimating Group. 2003. Wyoming State Government Revenue 

Forecast Fiscal Year 2003–Fiscal Year 2008. January 2003. 

.	 2004. Wyoming State Government Revenue Forecast Fiscal Year 2004–Fiscal Year 

2008. January 2004. 

.	 2005. Wyoming State Government Revenue Forecast Fiscal Year 2005 – Fiscal 

Year 2010. January 2005 Consensus Revenue Estimating Group. Wyoming State 

Government. 

Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere. 2003. Interagency Monitoring of 

Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE). Summary data provided by Scott 

Copeland, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA), Colorado State 

University, October 2003. 

Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 64 pp. + append. 

Coupal, R., T. Taylor, and T. Foulke. 2003. Wyoming Economic Atlas: PILT. University 

of Wyoming Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics. <http://agecon. 

uwyo.edu/ econdev/PILT1.htm>. 

Dean Runyan Associates. 2005. The Economic Impact of Travel on Wyoming: 1997-2004 

Detailed State and County Estimates. Prepared for the Wyoming Business Council. 

Dorn, J.L., and R.D. Dorn. 1999. Wyoming Birds. Second Edition. Mountain West Publishing. 

Cheyenne, Wyoming. 187 pp. 

Dorn, R.D. 1992. Vascular Plants of Wyoming. Mountain West Publishing, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
7-8 Chapter 7 

Dynamac Corporation. 2002. Preliminary Groundwater Characterization Study, Pinedale 

Anticline Production Area (PAPA), Sublette County, Wyoming. Submitted to Bureau of 

Land Management, Pinedale Field Office. 

Easterly, T.E., A.W. Wood, and T Litchfield. 1991. Responses of Pronghorn and Mule Deer to 

Petroleum Development On Crucial Winter Range in the Rattlesnake Hills. Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department. 

Eckerle, W., and M. Taddie. 1997. Archaeological Sensitivity Model for the Bureau of Land 

Management, Burma Road Soil Survey Area. Jonah Natural Gas Field, Sublette County, 

Wyoming. Submitted to Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale. Western GeoArch 

Research, Salt Lake City. 

Edwards, C.C. 1969. Winter Behavior and Population Dynamics of American Eagles in Utah. 

Ph. D. dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 156 pp. 

EnCana Oil & Gas (U.S.A.), Inc. 2002a. Contractor Expectations for Environment, Health and 

Safety. U.S. Rockies Region Booklet. 

.	 2002b. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan for Yellow Point Area, Jonah 

Field, Sublette County, Wyoming. Prepared for EnCana Oil & Gas (U.S.A.), Inc., 

Denver, Colorado, by LESAIR Environmental, Inc., Littleton, Colorado. 22 pp. 

.	 2003. An Application for a Bio Remediation Cell Pad Facility to be Located in the Jonah 

Field Adjacent and Contiguous to McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte #7-36 

Production Battery Which is Located in the SWNE/4, Section 36, T29N, R108W Sublette 

County, Wyoming. Submitted by EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc., Denver, Colorado, to 

the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Committee, Casper. Prepared by L.C. Roberts, 

ASCE #320326. 8 pp. + append. 

.	 2004. Jonah Infill Drilling Project Evaluation of Directional Drilling. Prepared for 

EnCana Oil and Gas (U.S.A.) Inc., Denver, Colorado, by Reservoir Management 

Services, Inc. 22 pp. 

Energy Information Administration. 2001. Energy in the United States: A Brief History and 

Current Trends. United States Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration. June 2001. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh1999/eh1999. 

html>. Accessed July 10, 2003. 

. 2004. Natural Gas Annual 2002. <http://www.eia.doe.gov>. Accessed April 2004. 

Eng, R.L., and P. Schladweiler. 1972. Sage Grouse Winter Movements and Habitat Use in 

Central Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 36:141–146. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. New Source Review Workshop Manual (Draft). 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 

.	 1997. National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse (NATICH) database. Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 

.	 1998. Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines. Federal Register 64:5696. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
References 7-9 

Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Air Toxics Database. Dose-response Assessment for 

Assessing Health Risks Associated with Exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants, Table 2. 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS). Technology Transfer Network 

Air Toxics website. <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html>. Accessed 

June 20, 2003. 

.	 2003. EnviroMapper for Environmental Justice. <http://map10.epa.gov/enviro mapper/>. 

Accessed September 9, 2003. 

Eratham-Vanir Geological Consultants. 1997. Paleontologic Resource Evaluation, Proposed 

Jonah Field II Project, Sublette County, Wyoming. Prepared for TRC Mariah Associates 

Inc., Laramie, Wyoming, by Erathem-Vanir Geological Consultants, Pocatello, Idaho. 

29 pp. + append. 

ERO Resources Corporation. 1988. Burma Road Soil Survey. Prepared for the U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Resource Area, Rock Springs 

District by ERO Resources Corporation, Golden Colorado. February 1988. 

157 pp. + append. 

Federal Land Managers'Air Quality Related Values Workgroup. 2000. Federal Land Managers' 

Air Quality Related Workgroup (FLAG) Phase I Report. USDA Forest Service - Air 

Quality Program, National Park Service - Air Resources Division, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service - Air quality Branch. 

Fertig, W. 1993. Survey of Plant Species of Special Concern in the Yellow Point Ridge area, 

Sublette County, Wyoming. Prepared for McMurry Oil Company, Casper, Wyoming, 

and Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Resource area by Wyoming Natural Diversity 

Database, Laramie, Wyoming. 5 pp. 

.	 1994. Wyoming Rare Plant Field Guide. Prepared for U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, by Wyoming Rare 

Plant Technical Committee. 

Forman, R.T.T., and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and Their Major Ecological Effects. Annual 

Review of Ecological Systems 29:207-231. 

Forrest, S.C., T.W. Clark, L. Richardson, and T.M. Campbell III. 1985. Black-footed Ferret 

Habitat: Some Management and Reintroduction Considerations. Wyoming Bureau of 

Land Management Wildlife Technical Bulletin No. 2. 49 pp. 

Foulke, T., R. Coupal, and D. Taylor. 2001. Economic Trends in Wyoming's Mineral 

Sector: Gas and Oil. Editor, Hattie Penny. University of Wyoming College of 

Agriculture Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Laramie. B-1112, 

August 2001. 22 pp. 

Fox, D., A.M. Bartuska, J.G. Byrne, E. Cowling, R. Fisher, G.E. Likens, S.E. Lindberg, R.A. 

Linthurst, J. Messer, and D.S. Nichols. 1989. A Screening Procedure to Evaluate Air 

Pollution Effects on Class I Wilderness Areas. General Technical Report RM-168. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 36 pp. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
7-10 Chapter 7 

Frison, G.C. 1991. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. 2nd edition. Academic Press, New 

York. 

.	 1993. The Wardell Buffalo Trap 48SU301: Communal Procurement in the Upper Green 

River Basin, Wyoming. Anthropological Papers of the Museum of Anthropology No. 48. 

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 

Gearino, J. 2005. Sweetwater County needs workers, housing. Casper Star Tribune. November 4, 

2005. 

Gee, G.W., A. Bauer, and R.S. Decker. 1978. Physical Analyses of Overburden Material and Mine 

Land Soils. In F.W. Schaller and P. Sutton (eds), Reclamation of Drastically Disturbed 

Lands. American Society of Agronomy. Madison, Wisconsin. 742 pp. 

Grande, L. 1984. Paleontology of the Green River Formation, With a Review of the Fish Fauna. 

Second Edition. Geological Survey of Wyoming, Bulletin 63. 333 pp. 

Gray, D., S. Boerner, D. Todorovic-Marinic, and Y. Zheng. 2003. “Analyzing Fractures from 

Seismic for Improved Drilling Success.” World Oil Magazine 224(10). 

Greater Yellowstone Winter Wildlife Working Group. 1999. Effects of Winter Recreation On 

Wildlife on the Greater Yellowstone Area: A literature review and assessment. 

Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. 161 pp. + append. 

Guenzel, R.J. 1987. Rattlesnake Antelope. Pages 146–183 In District 7, 1987 Annual Big Game 

Herd Unit Reports. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne. 

Gusey, W.F. 1986. Terrestrial Wildlife and Petroleum Industry: Interactions and Relationships. 

Draft report. Shell Oil Company, Houston, Texas. 

Hallsten, G.P., Q.D Skinner, and A.A. Beetle. 1987. Grasses of Wyoming. Research 

Journal 202, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Wyoming. September 1987. 

431 pp. 

Harris, R.E. 1996. Industrial Minerals and Construction Materials Map of Wyoming. Wyoming 

State Geological Survey Map Series 47. 

.	 1997. Radioactive Mineral Occurrences in Sublette County, Wyoming. Wyoming State 

Geological Survey Radioactive Mineral Report RM-97-01. 23 pp. 

Hausel, W.D. 1997. Copper, Lead, Zinc, Molybdenum, and Associated Metal Deposits of 

Wyoming. Wyoming State Geological Survey Bulletin 70. 

Holloran, M., and S.H. Anderson. 2003. Potential Impacts of Natural Gas Field Development on 

Sage-Grouse Behavior, Preliminary Progress Report, December 3, 2003. Wyoming 

Cooperative Research Unit, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. 7 pp. 

Holloran, M.J. 1999. Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Seasonal Habitat Use Near 

Casper, Wyoming. M.S., Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of 

Wyoming. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
References 7-11 

HydroGeo, Inc. 2004. Groundwater Flow Model and Hydrologic Impact Assessment, Jonah 

Infill Project EIS. Prepared for TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming, by 

HydroGeo, Inc., Crested Butte, Colorado. 17 pp. 

.	 2005. Erosion, Sediment Transport, and Salinity Modeling Technical Report: Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming. Prepared for TRC Mariah Associates, Inc., 

Laramie, WY, by HydroGeo, Inc., Crested Butte, Colorado. 

Ingelfinger, F. 2001. The effects of natural gas development on sagebrush-steppe passerines in 

Sublette County, Wyoming. M.S. thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie. 110 pp. 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE). 2005. IMPROVE 

Summary Data. 

Intermountain Ecosystems LC. 1996. McMurry Oil Company Jonah Natural Gas Field EIS, 

Special Plant Inventory. Prepared for McMurry Oil Company, Casper, Wyoming, by 

Intermountain Ecosystems LC., Springfield, Utah. 5 pp. 

Jones, R.W. 1991. Coal Map of Wyoming. Wyoming Geological Survey. Map Series 34. 

Keinath, D., B. Heidel, and G.P. Beauvais. 2003. Wyoming Plant and Animal Species of 

Concern, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Species of Concern Plant Abstracts 

(2003). Prepared by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database - University of Wyoming, 

Laramie, Wyoming <http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/wyndd>. 

Kohler, T., Hays, H.G., and K.W. Thompson. 2003. Class III Cultural Resources Inventory and 

Subsurface Investigations for Paulsson Geophysical Services 3-D Seismic Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming. Prepared for Paulsson Geophysical Services, Inc., Denver. 

SWCA Environmental Consultants, Westminster, Colorado. 

Lindzey, F. 2002. Energy and Conservation: Does Big Oil Mix With Big Game? Opening 

Remarks. Transactions, North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 

27:311–312. 

Lummis, C.M., S. Garland, and G. Shaffer. 2000. Annual Report of the Treasurer of the 

State of Wyoming For the Period July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000. Prepared by 

Cynthia M. Lummis, State Treasurer; Sharon Garland, Deputy State Treasurer; and 

Glenn Shaffer, Chief Investment Officer. 

.	 2001. Annual Report of the Treasurer of the State of Wyoming For the Period 

July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001. Prepared by Cynthia M. Lummis, State 

Treasurer; Sharon Garland, Deputy State Treasurer; and Glenn Shaffer, Chief 

Investment Officer. 

.	 2002. Annual Report of the Treasurer of the State of Wyoming For the Period 

July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002. Prepared by Cynthia M. Lummis, State 

Treasurer; Sharon Garland, Deputy State Treasurer; and Glenn Shaffer, Chief 

Investment Officer. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
7-12 Chapter 7 

Lummis, C.M., S. Garland, and G. Shaffer. 2003. Annual Report of the Treasurer of the 

State of Wyoming For the Period July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003. Prepared by 

Cynthia M. Lummis, State Treasurer; Sharon Garland, Deputy State Treasurer; and 

Glenn Shaffer, Chief Investment Officer. 

.	 2004. Annual Report of the Treasurer of the State of Wyoming for the Period 

July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004. Prepared by Cynthia M. Lummis, State 

Treasurer; Sharon Garland, Deputy State Treasurer; and Glenn Shaffer, Chief 

Investment Officer. 

Lyon, A.G. 2000. The Potential Effects of Natural Gas Development on Sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) Near Pinedale, Wyoming. M.S. Department of Zoology 

and Physiology, University of Wyoming, May 2000. 

Lyon, A.G., and S.H Anderson. 2003. Potential Gas Development Impacts on Sage-grouse Nest 

Initiation and Movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:486–491. 

Malm, W.C. 2000. Spatial and Seasonal Patterns and Temporal Variability of Haze and Its 

Constituents in the United States, Report III, Cooperative Institute for Research in the 

Atmosphere, Colorado State University, ISSN 0737-5352-47. 

Martin, J.W., and B.A. Carlson. 1998. Sage sparrow. The birds of North America 326:1–19. 

Mast, T. 2004. Labor shortages vary across state. Casper Star-Tribune. November 7, 

2004. 

McKern, S.T., and B. Current. 2002. Archaeological Investigation of the McKeva Ryka Site 

(Site 48SU2094): A Multi-occupational Waystation on Sand Draw. Prepared for 

McMurry Oil Company by Current Archaeological Research, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

.	 2003. Archaeological Investigation of Jonah's House Site, Site 48SU2324: A 

Multi-occupational Waystation on Sand Draw. Prepared for McMurry Oil Company by 

Current Archaeological Research, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

.	 2004. Archaeological Investigation of the J. David Love Site (48SU4479): Another 

Multi-occupational Waystation on Sand Draw. Prepared for McMurry Oil Company by 

Current Archaeological Research, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

McKern, S.T., and L.L. Harrell. 2004. Archaic Way Stations: A Prelude of Things to Come? 

Photocopy. 

McNees, L.M. 1992. Implications of the Current Investigations for the Culture Historic 

Chronology of Southwest Wyoming. In Data Recovery Investigations at the Black Butte 

and Leucite Hills Mine Permit Areas, Sweetwater County, Wyoming, by L.M. McNees, 

T.P. Reust, R. Weathermon, C. Smith, R. Anduze, B. McClelland, W. Harding, K. Kibler, 

F. Oglesby, and C. Webb, pp. 30-1 to 30-46. Prepared for the Black Butte Coal Company, 

Point of Rocks, Wyoming. Mariah Associates, Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
References 7-13 

McNees, L.M. 1998. Cultural Resource Overview of the Continental Divide/Wamsutter II 

Environmental Impact Statement Project Area. Prepared for the Bureau of Land 

Management, Great Divide and Green River Resource Areas, Rawlins and Rock Springs. 

TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming.. 

McNees, L.M., T.P. Reust, R. Weathermon, C. Smith, R. Anduze, B. McClelland, W. Harding, 

K. Kibler, F. Oglesby, and C. Webb. 1992. Data Recovery Investigations at the Black 

Butte and Leucite Hills Mine Permit Areas, Sweetwater County, Wyoming. Prepared for 

the Black Butte Coal Company, Point of Rocks, Wyoming. Mariah Associates, Inc., 

Laramie, Wyoming. 

McMurry Oil Company. 2003. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Jonah Field. Prepared 

for McMurry Oil Company, an affiliate of EnCana Oil & Gas (U.S.A.), Inc., Denver, 

Colorado, by Lesair Environmental, Inc., Littleton, Colorado. 7 pp. + append. 

Metcalf, M.D. 1987. Contributions to the Prehistoric Chronology of the Wyoming Basin. In 

Perspectives on Archaeological Resources Management in the "Great Plains," edited by 

A.J. Osborn and R.C. Hassler, pp. 233-261. I & O Publishing Company, Omaha, 

Nebraska. 

Miner, T.L. 2001. Phase II, Cultural Resource Inventory of the BP Amoco Production Company, 

Sections 12 and 13, T29N, R108W, Sublette County, Wyoming. Prepared for BP Amoco 

Production Company and Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office. Current 

Archaeological Research, Inc., Rock Springs. 

Munn, L.C., and C.S. Arneson. 1999a. Draft 1:100,000 Scale Digital Soils Map of Sublette 

County: University of Wyoming Agricultural Experimental Station. <http://www.sdv. 

uwyo.edu/100k/ soil100.html>. 

.	 1999b. Draft 1:100,000 Scale Digital Soils Map of Sweetwater County: University of 

Wyoming Agricultural Experimental Station. <http://www.sdv.uwyo.edu/100k/ 

soil100.html>. 

National Center for Education Statistics. 2003. Common Core of Data, America's Public 

Schools. Data obtained from "Build a Table" <http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat/ 

index.asp>. Accessed July 3, 2003. 

National Park Service. 2001. Guidance on Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition Analysis Thresholds. 

National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Park Service Air 

Resources Division. <http://www.aqd.nps.gov/ard/flagfree/2001>. Accessed July 2003. 

.	 2004. Guidance on Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition Analysis Thresholds. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service. ParkNet, NatureNet: Nature and 

Science. <http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/Permits/flag/NSDATGuidance.htm>. Accessed 

July 2004. 6 pp. 

National Petroleum Council. 2003. Balancing Natural Gas Policy - Fueling the Demands of a 

Growing Economy. Volume 1. Summary of Findings and Recommendations. A report 

of the National Petroleum Council. Prepared for the Secretary of Energy, Washington 

D.C. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
7-14 Chapter 7 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2003. Soil Mapping Results, Unpublished, for T29N, 

R108W, Sections 32 and 36, Jonah Infill Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, by Ron 

Reckner, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Pinedale, Wyoming. 

Nelson, M.A., and R. Richard. 2004. Archaeological Excavations at Site 48SU3835, Sublette 

County, Wyoming. Prepared for BP America Production Company, Wamsutter, 

Wyoming. TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 

Nicholoff, S.H. (compiler). 2003. Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan, Version 2.0. Wyoming 

Partners in Flight. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, Wyoming. 

Noss, R.F., and B. Csuti. 1994. Habitat Fragmentation. Pages 237–264 In G.K. Meffe and C.R. 

Carroll, eds. Principles of Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, 

Massachusetts. 

Office of Management and Budget. 1987. 1987 Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 

Office of Management and Budget. Washington, D.C. 

Patterson, R.L. 1952. The Sage Grouse in Wyoming. Sage Books, Inc., Denver, Colorado. 

Peterson, A. 1986. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Bald Eagle (Breeding Season). U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(10.126). 25 pp. 

Pinedale Anticline Working Group. 2005. SocioEconomic Task Group Monitoring Plan. 

Pinedale Online. 2002. <http://pinedaleonline.com>. Designed and maintained by Wind 

River Web Services and Office Outlet in Pinedale, Wyoming. Accessed January 2, 

2003. 

Plastino, A.T. 1999. McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 5-32 Well, Access, and Pipeline 

Class III Cultural Resource Inventory (99-CAR-41). Prepared for McMurry Oil 

Company, Casper, Wyoming. Current Archaeological Research, Rock Springs. 

Plastino, A.T., and J. Randolph. 2000. McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 3-32 Well, 

Access Road and Pipeline, Monitor of Construction (99-CAR-175). Prepared for 

McMurry Oil Company, Casper, Wyoming. Current Archaeological Research, Rock 

Springs. 

Reeve, A.F. 1984. Environmental Influence on Male Pronghorn Home Range And Pronghorn 

Behavior. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wyoming, Laramie. 172 pp. 

Rock Springs Chamber of Commerce. 2004. <http://www.rockspringswyoming.net/>. 

Accessed February 24, 2004. 

Royster, W. 2004. Growth strains social services. Casper Star-Tribune. November 7, 

2004. 

Sawyer, H., F. Lindzey, D. McWhiter, and K. Andrews. 2001. Potential Effects of Oil and Gas 

Development on Mule Deer and Pronghorn Populations in Western Wyoming. 

Transactions of the 67th North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference. 

18 pp. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
References 7-15 

Scheffe, R.D. 1988. VOC/NOx Point Source Screening Tables. Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. August 1988. 

Schlumberger Oil Field Services Companies. 2003. Scoping Comment Letter. Letter to 

Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming from James 

Stewart, General Manager, U.S. Land Western Region, Schlumberger Oil Field 

Services Company, Greenwood Village, Colorado. April 25, 2003. 4 pp. 

Schroeder, M.A., J.R. Young, and C.E. Braun. 1999. Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). 

The Birds of North America 425:1–28. 

Sheets, R.G., R.L. Linder, and R.B. Dahlgren. 1972. Food Habits of Two Litters of Black-footed 

Ferrets in South Dakota. American Midland Naturalist 87:249–251. 

Sines, T. and S. Roufs. 2001. McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 1-28 Well Pad and 

Access Road Monitor of Construction Preliminary Report (00-CAR-023). Prepared for 

McMurry Oil Company, Denver. Current Archaeological Research, Rock Springs. 

Slater, S.J. 2003. Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Use of Different-aged Burns and 

the Effects of Coyote Control in Southwestern Wyoming. M.S., Department of Zoology 

and Physiology, University of Wyoming. 

Smith, C.S. 2003. Hunter-Gatherer Mobility, Storage, and Houses in a Marginal Environment: 

An Example from the Mid-Holocene of Wyoming. Journal of Anthropological Research. 

Snow, C. 1973. Habitat Management Series for Endangered Species. Report No. 1: American 

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) and Arctic Peregrine Falcon (F. p. tundris). 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Technical Note No. 167. 

35 pp. 

Soil Conservation Service. 1978. Soil Reconstruction Material for Drastically Disturbed Areas. 

National Soil Handbook. Notice 24. Washington, D.C. 

Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C. Spurrier. 1997. 

Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, the 

U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural 

Heritage Program. 

Stahlmaster, M.V. 1987. The Bald Eagle. Universe Books, New York, New York. 227 pp. 

Steenhof, K. 1978. Management of Wintering Bald Eagles. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

FWS/OBS-78/79. 59 pp. 

Stubbendieck, J., S.L. Hatch, and C.H. Butterfield. 1997. North American Range Plants. Fifth 

edition. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska. 501 pp. 

Sublette County Board of Commissioners and Sublette County Planning Commission. 2003. 

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan: County Vision, Goals and Policies. 64 pp. 

Sublette County Sheriff's Department. 2002. <http://www.sublette.com/government/ 

sheriff>. Accessed January 2, 2003. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
7-16 Chapter 7 

Sublette.Com. 2001. <http://www.sublette.com>. Designed and maintained by Wind River 

Web Services and Office Outlet in Pinedale, Wyoming. Accessed January 2, 2003. 

Surdam, R. C. 2001. “Anomalously Pressured Gas Accumulations in Rocky Mountain Laramide 

Basins.” World Oil Magazine 222(9). 

Swenson, J.E., K.L. Alt, and R.L. Eng. 1986. The Ecology of the Bald Eagle in the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem. Journal of Wildlife Management 42:506–513. 

Tax Reform 2000 Committee. 1999. Building Wyoming's Tax Structure for the 21st 

Century, Report of the State of Wyoming Tax Reform 2000 Committee, June 1999. 

Presented to Honorable Jim Geringer, Governor, State of Wyoming; Honorable Jim 

Twiford, President, Wyoming State Senate; and Honorable Eli D. Bebout, Speaker 

of the House, Wyoming House of Representatives. 

Taylor, D.T., and S. Lieske. 2002a. Population Change in Wyoming, 1990–2000. 

Wyoming Open Spaces Research Group. B-1121, April 2002. 

. 2002b. Second Home Growth in Wyoming, 1990–2000. Wyoming Open Spaces 

Research Group. B-1120, April 2002. 

Thompson, K.W., and J.V. Pastor. 1995. People of the Sage: 10,000 Years of Occupation in 

Southwest Wyoming. Cultural Resources Management Report No. 67. Archaeological 

Services-Western Wyoming College, Rock Springs. 

Thuman, A., and R.K. Miller. 1996. Fundamentals of Noise Control Engineering. Prentice-Hall, 

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 287 pp. 

Tipler, P.A. 1991. Physics for Scientists and Engineers. Third Edition. P.A. Tipler. 1,167 pp. + 

append. 

TRC Environmental Corporation. 2004. Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document for the 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for Bureau of 

Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, and the Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project Operators. Prepared by TRC Environmental Corporation. 

TRC Environmental Corporation. 2006. Final Air Quality Technical Support Document for the 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for Bureau of 

Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, and the Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project Operators. Prepared by TRC Environmental Corporation. 

TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 1999. 1997 and 1998 Wildlife Studies Jonah Field II Natural Gas 

Development Project. Prepared for U.S. Bureau of Land Management Pinedale Field 

Office, Pinedale, Wyoming, and Rock Springs Field Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming, by 

TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 32 pp. + append. 

. 2001a. 1999-2000 Wildlife Studies. Jonah Field II Natural Gas Project. Prepared for 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale Wyoming, and Rock 

Springs Field Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming by TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, 

Wyoming. 47 pp. + append. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
References 7-17 

TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 2001b. 2001 Wildlife Studies, Jonah Field II Natural Gas 

Development Project. Prepared for U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field 

Office and Rock Springs Field Office and Jonah Field II Operators. 53 pp. + append. 

.	 2001c (revised 2004). Preliminary Working Draft Historic Context/Discovery 

Plan/Cultural Resource Management Plan for the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah Field II, 

Sublette County, Wyoming. Prepared for Pinedale Anticline and Jonah Field II Operators 

and Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming, by TRC 

Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 

.	 2001d. Noise Monitoring and Noise Curve Data from the Bird Canyon Sage Grouse Lek 

near the Bird Canyon Compressor Station, 2001. Letter report prepared for Jonah Gas 

Gathering, Pinedale, WY, Wyoming Game and Fish Department Pinedale and Green 

River Offices, and Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office and Rock Springs 

Field Office. 5 pp. + attachments and tables. 

.	 2002. 2002 Wildlife Studies, Jonah Field II Natural Gas Development Project. Prepared 

for U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office and Rock Springs Field 

Office and Jonah Field II Operators. 54 pp. + append. 

.	 2003a. Noise Monitoring at Greater Sage-Grouse Leks Near the Bird Canyon, Luman, 

Falcon, and Paradise Compressor Stations, 2001 and 2003. Prepare for U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management, Rock Springs Field Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming, and Pinedale 

Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming, and Duke Energy Field Services/Jonah Gas Gathering, 

Greeley, Colorado, by TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 21 pp. + 

appends. 

.	 2003b. Final Socioeconomic Analysis Protocol for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management, 

Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Bureau of Land Management Pinedale 

Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming, and Jonah Infill Drilling Project Operators by 

TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 17 pp. 

.	 2003c. 2002 Wildlife Studies, Pinedale Anticline Project. Prepared for U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming, and Rock Springs Field 

Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming, by TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 

83 pp. + append. 

.	 2004a. 2003 Wildlife Studies, Jonah Field II Natural Gas Development Project. 

Prepared for U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, 

Wyoming, Rock Springs Field Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming, and Jonah II Area 

Operators, by TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 

.	 2004b. 2003 Wildlife Studies, Pinedale Anticline Project. Prepared for U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming and Pinedale Anticline 

Operators, by TRC Mariah Associates, Laramie, Wyoming. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
7-18	 Chapter 7 

University of Wyoming, Agricultural Economics Department. 1995. Southwest Wyoming 

Bureau of Land Management Area (Including Wyoming Counties of: Carbon, Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, and Uinta): Economic Growth, Economic Diversity, Valuation, 

Fiscal Revenue, and Average Daily Membership. Prepared for Bureau of Land 

Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

.	 1997. Southwest Wyoming Resource Evaluation Socio/Economic Evaluation 

(SWREE), Final Report, Parts I and II. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management, 

Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, by the University of Wyoming, 

College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, Agricultural Economics 

Department. 

.	 2003. Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan: Economic Analysis. Summary 

of an Analysis of the Regional Economic Effects on Southwest Wyoming Associated 

with the Resource Use Alternatives for the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity 

Plan and follow-up to the Southwest Wyoming Resource Evaluation, 

Socio/Economic Evaluation (1997). Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, 

Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, by the University of Wyoming, 

College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, Agricultural Economics 

Department. <http://agecon.uwyo.edu/econdev/PubStorage/JMHCAP.pdf> Accessed 

October 21, 2003. 

.	 2004. Summary of an Analysis of the Regional Economic Effects on Southwest 

Wyoming Associated with the Resource Use Alternatives for the Pinedale Resource 

Management Plan and Follow-Up to the Southwest Wyoming Resource Evaluation, 

Socio/Economic Evaluation. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office; BLM 

Pinedale Field Office; and State of Wyoming, Wyoming Business Council, by the 

University of Wyoming, College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, 

Agricultural Economics Department. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. 

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp. 

+ append. 

U.S. Census Bureau.	 1981. U.S. Census Bureau 1980 Census of Population and Housing. 

Table 080A: Median Household Income in 1979. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, 

D.C. 

.	 1990. U.S. Census Bureau 1990 Census of Population and Housing. Table 080A: 

Median Household Income in 1989. www.factfinder.gov. Accessed June 20, 2003. 

.	 2000a. State and County QuickFacts. www.census.gov. Last Revised: Friday, 

24-Sep-2002 11:19:39 EDT. Accessed December 26, 2002. 

.	 2000b. U.S. Census Bureau 1990 Census of Population and Housing 

<http://factfinder.census.gov>. Accessed December 26, 2002. 

.	 2000c. American Fact Finder, Census 2000 Quick Tables. DP-3: Profile of 

Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000. <http://factfinder.census.gov>. Accessed 

January 2, 2003. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
References 7-19 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000d. American Fact Finder, Census 2000 Detailed Tables. P-5: 

Urban and Rural Population (Total Population) (Final National File Only): 

<http://factfinder.census.gov>. Accessed April 24, 2003. 

2000. 

. 2000e. American Fact Finder, Census 2000 Detailed Tables. 

<http://factfinder.census.gov>. Accessed June 18, 2003. 

P-8: Sex by Age. 

. 2000f. American Fact Finder, Census 2000 Detailed Tables. P-41. Age By Types Of 

Disability For The Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population 5 Years And Over With 

Disabilities. <http://factfinder.census.gov>. Accessed June 19, 2003. 

. 2004. U.S. Census Bureau, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division, Small 

Area Estimates Branch. Medium Household Income and Poverty Rates for Wyoming 

and Wyoming Counties. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe/county.html. Accessed 

October 13, 2005. 

. 2005a U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division Table 1: Annual Estimates of the 

Population for Counties of Wyoming: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2004 (CO-EST2004-01­

56) Release Date. April 14, 2005 http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/>. Accessed 

October 14, 2005 

. 2005b U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division Table 4: Annual Estimates of the 

Population for Incorporated Places in Wyoming, Listed Alphabetically: April 1, 

2000 to July 1, 2004 (SUB-EST 2004-04-56) Release Date. June 30, 2005 

http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/. Accessed October 14, 2005 

. 2005c. U.S. Census Bureau Population Division, Interim State Population 

Projections, http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/popproj.html. Accessed 

October 18, 2005. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service	 1989. A Screening Procedure to Evaluate 

Air Pollution Effects on Class I Wilderness Areas. General Technical Report RM168. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 

Fort Collins, Colorado. 36 pp. 

.	 2000. Screening Methodology for Calculating ANC Change to High Elevation 

Lakes, User's Guide. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Region. January 2000. 

.	 2003. Unpublished lake water chemistry data provided by Terry Svalberg, USDA 

Forest Service, Fall 2003. 

U.S. Department of Energy.	 1998. Comprehensive National Energy Strategy: National Energy 

Policy Plan pursuant to Section 801 of the Department of Energy Organizational Act. 

Viii + 60 pp. 

U.S. Department of Justice.	 2004. Federal Bureau of Investigations. Crime in the United States 

2004. <http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/persons_arrested/index.html> Accessed October 

31, 2005. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
7-20 Chapter 7 

U.S.	 Department of the Interior. 2004. Environmental Quality Programs Part 516: National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Chapter 11: Managing the NEPA Process – Bureau 

of Land Management. Effective Date 5/27/04. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Final Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered 

Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Denver, Colorado. 

. 1989. Black-footed Ferret Survey Guidelines for Compliance with the Endangered 

Species Act. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado and Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. April 1989. 10 pp.+ append. 

. 1992. Interim Survey Requirements for Spiranthes diluvialis. November 23, 1992 U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Wyoming Field Office, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming. 

. 1997. National Wetlands Inventory – A System for Mapping Riparian Areas in the 

Western United States. Washington, D.C. 

. 2002. Mountain Plover Survey Guidelines. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, March 2002. 

7 pp. 

. 2003. Memorandum regarding scoping comments for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

from Jodi L. Bush, Acting Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wyoming 

Field Office, Cheyenne, to Priscilla Mecham, Field Manager, Bureau of Land 

Management, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming, dated May 9, 2003. 

ES-6141/W.02/ WY7064. 

. 2004. Letter to Interested Party from Brian T. Kelly, Field Supervisor, Wyoming Field 

Office. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

ES-61411/BFF/wY7746. 3 pp. + attach. 

. 2005a U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division Table 1: Annual Estimates of the 

Population for Counties of Wyoming: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2004 (CO-EST2004-01­

56) Release Date. April 14, 2005 http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/>. Accessed 

October 14, 2005 

. 2005b U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division Table 4: Annual Estimates of the 

Population for Incorporated Places in Wyoming, Listed Alphabetically: April 1, 2000 to 

July 1, 2004 (SUB-EST 2004-04-56). Release Date. June 30, 2005 

http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/. Accessed October 14, 2005 

. 2005c. U.S. Census Bureau Population Division, Interim State Population Projections, 

http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/popproj.html. Accessed October 18, 

2005. 

. 2005d. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month finding for Petitions 

to List the Greater Sage-grouse as Threatened or Endangered; Proposed Rule. Federal 

Register 70:2244–2282. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
References 7-21 

Vlcek,	 D.T. 1997a. Jonah/Pinedale Anticline Gas Field Research Design-An Archaic 

Laboratory. Draft Manuscript. Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, 

Pinedale, Wyoming. 

.	 1997b. McKean or Not McKean...Is That the Question? Paper presented at the Third 

Biennial Rocky Mountain Anthropological Conference, Bozeman, Montana. Ms on file, 

Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming. 

Wakkinen, W.L. 1990. Nest Site Characteristics and Spring-Summer Movements of Migratory 

Sage Grouse in Southeastern Idaho. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. 

Welder, G.E. 1968. Groundwater Reconnaissance of the Green River Basin, Southeastern 

Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations. Atlas HA-290. 5 pp.+ 

2 sheets. 

Weller, C., J. Thompson, P. Morton, and G. Aplet. 2002. Fragmenting Our Lands: The 

Ecological Footprint from Oil and Gas Development. A Spatial Analysis of a Wyoming 

Gas Field. The Wilderness Society. 24 pp. 

Western EcoSystems Technology Inc. 2003. An Evaluation of the 1988 BLM Pinedale Resource 

Management Plan, 2000 BLM Pinedale Anticline Final EIS and Recommendations for 

the Current Revision of the Pinedale Resource Management Plan, January 22, 2003. 

Prepared for Peter Aengst, The Wilderness Society, Bozeman, Montana, Kelly Matheson, 

The Wyoming Outdoor Council, Lander, Wyoming, and Scot Groene, The Greater 

Yellowstone Coalition, Jackson, Wyoming, by Western EcoSystems Technology Inc., 

Cheyenne, Wyoming. 57 pp. 

Western Regional Climate Center. 2004. Climate and Weather Information, Kemmerer, 

Wyoming. Online, Western Regional Climate Center. <http://www.wrcc.dir.edu>. 

Wetlands Training Institute, Inc. 1995. Field Guide for Wetland Delineation. 1987 Corps of 

Engineers Manual. Poolesville, Maryland. WTI 95-3. 143 pp. 

Wheeler, C.W., G.S. Firebaugh, W.L. Shields, and E.K. Wade. 1986. 5500 Years on the Great 

Plains-Great Basin Frontier: An Excavation of Sites in Section 14. Western Cultural 

Resources Management, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Wilderness Society. 2002. Fragmenting Our Lands: The Ecological Footprint from Oil and Gas 

Development. 24 pp. 

Wyoming Attorney General. 1999. Uniform Crime Reporting Division of Criminal Investigation 

Crime In Wyoming 1999 Annual Report. http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/ 

index.html. Accessed October 22, 2005. 

.	 2000. Uniform Crime Reporting Division of Criminal Investigation Crime In Wyoming 

2000 Annual Report. http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/index.html. Accessed October 

22, 2005. 

.	 2001. Uniform Crime Reporting Division of Criminal Investigation Crime In Wyoming 

2001 Annual Report. http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/index.html. Accessed October 

22, 2005. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
7-22 Chapter 7 

Wyoming Attorney General. 2002. Uniform Crime Reporting Division of Criminal Investigation 

Crime In Wyoming 2002 Annual Report. 

http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/index.html. Accessed October 22, 2005. 

.	 2003. Uniform Crime Reporting Division of Criminal Investigation Crime In 

Wyoming 2003 Annual Report. http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/index.html. 

Accessed October 22, 2005. 

.	 2004. Uniform Crime Reporting Division of Criminal Investigation Crime In 

Wyoming 2004 Annual Report. http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/index.html. 

Accessed October 22, 2005. 

Wyoming Business Council. 2002a. Interactive Business Center. Salaries. 

<http://wyomingbusiness.org>. Accessed June 23, 2003. 

.	 2002b. Interactive Business Center. Quality of Life Category: Crime. 

<http://wyomingbusiness.org>. Accessed June 23, 2003. 

.	 2002c. Interactive Business Center. Quality of Life Category: Health Care. 

<http://wyomingbusiness.org>. Accessed June 23, 2003. 

.	 2002d. Interactive Business Center. Quality of Life Category: Housing. 

<http://wyomingbusiness.org>. Accessed June 23, 2003. 

.	 2002e. Wyoming Sales, Use, and Lodging Tax Report. 27th Edition. Prepared by 

Wyoming Department of Administration and Information, Economic Analysis 

Division, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Wyoming Community College Commission. 2003. Press Release. April 4, 2003. 

<http://commission.wcc.edu/WCCC/press.htm>. Accessed July 7, 2003. 

Wyoming Department of Administration and Information. 2001a. Historical Decennial 

Census Population for Wyoming Counties, Cities, and Towns. 

<http://eadiv.state.wy.us/demog_data/ cntycity_hist.htm> Accessed June 17, 2003. 

.	 2001b. Median Household Income By County: 1969, 1979, 1989 

<http://eadiv.state.wy.us/demog_data/CNTY_INCOME70_90.htm>. Accessed June 17, 

2003. 

.	 2002a. Equality State Almanac 2000, 8th Edition. Prepared by Economic Analysis 

Division, Department of Administration and Information, State of Wyoming, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming. May 2002. 

.	 2002b. Wyoming Population Estimates and Forecasts for Counties, Cities, and 

Towns: 1991 to 2010. Prepared by Wyoming Department of Administration and 

Information, Division of Economic Analysis, October 1, 2002. 

<http://eadiv.state.wy.us/ pop/wyc&sc10.htm>. Accessed December 30, 2002. 

.	 2003a. Wyoming and County Population Estimates and Components of Changes: 2000 

to 2002. <http://eadiv.state.wy.us/pop/CO-02EST.htm>. Accessed June 17, 2003. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
References 7-23 

Wyoming Department of Administration and Information. 2003b. Wyoming Cost of Living 

for The Fourth Quarter 2002, Table Va: Average Rental Rates - 2Q02 & 2Q01. 

Department of Administration and Information, Economic Analysis Division, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming. March 27, 2003. Contact: Justin Ballard, Senior Economist. 

. 2004. Equality State Almanac 2002, 9th Edition. Prepared by Economic Analysis 

Division, Department of Administration and Information, State of Wyoming, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming. January 2004. 

. 2005a. Wyoming Department of Administration and Information. Wyoming 

Population and Estimates and Forecast for Wyoming, Counties, Cities and Towns for 

2000–2020. http://eadiv.state.wy.us/pop/pop.asp. Accessed October 18, 2005 

. 2005b. Economic Analysis Division. 

Product Report, August 2005 

Accessed October 17, 2005. 

Wyoming Employment, Income and Gross State 

http://eadiv.state.wy.us/i&e/Inc_Emp_Report.pdf.. 

. 2005c. Economic Analysis Division. Wyoming Cost of Living for the Second Quarter 

2005, September 30, 2005. http://eadiv.state.wy.us/wcli/wcli.asp. Accessed October 14, 

2005. 

Wyoming Department of Commerce, Division of State Parks and Historic Sites. 1990. 1990 

Wyoming State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

.	 2003. Wyoming Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2003–2008. 

Cheyenne. 

Wyoming Department of Education Assessment and Accountability Office. 2003. WyCAS 

Test Results and Released Items. Wyoming Department of Education Assessment 

and Accountability Office, Hathaway Building, 2nd Floor, 2300 Capitol Avenue 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002-0050. <http://www.asme.com/wycas/TestResults/ 

TestResults.htm>. Accessed September 8, 2003. 

Wyoming Department of Employment, Research, and Planning. 1999. Identifying 

Wyoming's Oil & Gas Dependent Counties. Wyoming Department of Employment, 

Research & Planning, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Prepared by David Bullard, Economist. 

Last modified on January 9, 2003 by Valerie A. Davis. <http://doe.state.wy.us/ 

lmi/1099/a3.htm>. Accessed April 23, 2003. 

.	 2002a. 1979 Wyoming Benchmark Labor Force Estimates. Wyoming Department 

of Employment, Research & Planning. <http://doe.state.wy.us/ 

lmi/laus/79bmk.htm>. Accessed June 20, 2003. 

.	 2002b. 1989 Wyoming Benchmark Labor Force Estimates. Wyoming Department 

of Employment, Research & Planning. <http://doe.state.wy.us/ 

lmi/laus/89bmk.htm>. Accessed June 20, 2003. 

.	 2002c. 2002 Wyoming Benchmark Labor Force Estimates. Wyoming Department 

of Employment, Research & Planning. <http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/ 

laus/02bmk.htm>. Accessed June 20, 2003. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
7-24 Chapter 7 

Wyoming Department of Employment, Research, and Planning. 2003. Tables 8, 83, 86, and 

89. In ES-202 Report (Second Run date: September 2003). Preliminary Wyoming 

Statewide Employing Units, Employment, and Wages by NAICS Sector, First Quarter 

2003. Prepared by Nancy Brennan, 09/09/2003. 

<http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/03Q1_202/toc.htm>. Accessed February 25, 2004. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 1990. Water Quality Rules and Regulations. 

Chapter I. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division. 

87 pp. 

.	 1993. Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations, including revisions through 

1993. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

.	 2001. Oil and Gas Production Facilities Chapter 6, Section 2 Permitting Guidance, 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality-Air Quality Division. June 1997 with 

revisions through August 2001. 

.	 2003. Section 303(2) Data Files. <http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/downloads/events/2-2227­

doc.pdf>. Accessed December 2003. 

.	 2004. Letter from John Corra, Director, Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality, to Prill Mecham, Pinedale Field Office Manager, U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management,. Dated October 14, 2004. 

.	 2005. Letter from John Corra, Director, Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality, to Don Simpson, Deputy State Director, Wyoming State Office, U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management. Dated March 9, 2005. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division. 2003. Wyoming’s Long 

Term Strategy for Visibility Protection 2003 Review Report – Appendix E, Visibility 

Monitoring Data Assessment. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Air 

Quality Division. May 29, 2003. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division. 1981. Guideline No. 1, 

Topsoil and Overburden. J.K.W. and D.F./January 1981. 34 pp. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division. 1993. Water Quality 

Rules and Regulations. Chapter I. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, 

Water Quality Division. 87 pp. 

.	 2001. Water Quality Division. Water Quality Division Surface Water Standards. 

<http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/surface standards>. 

.	 2004. Wyoming's 2004 305(b) State Water Quality Assessment Report and 2004 303(d) 

List of Waters Requiring TMDLs. June 2004. Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality, Water Quality Division. <http://deq.state.wy.us/wdeq/watershed/ index.asp>. 

Accessed December 21, 2004. 

Wyoming Department of Revenue. 1998. State of Wyoming Department of Revenue 1998 

Annual Report. Wyoming Department of Revenue, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 131 pp. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
References 7-25 

Wyoming Department of Revenue. 1999. State of Wyoming Department of Revenue 1999 

Annual Report. Wyoming Department of Revenue, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 131 pp. 

. 2000. State of Wyoming Department of Revenue 2000 Annual Report. Wyoming 

Department of Revenue, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 103 pp. 

. 2001. State of Wyoming Department of Revenue 2001 Annual Report. Wyoming 

Department of Revenue, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 110 pp. 

. 2002. State of Wyoming Department of Revenue 2002 Annual Report. Wyoming 

Department of Revenue, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 122 pp. 

. 2003. Sales & Use Tax, New Tax Rates Effective 4/1/03. Last Updated On: 

3/26/2003 2:35:23 PM. <http://revenue.state.wy.us/>. Accessed July 10, 2003. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Commission. 1998. Mitigation Policy. Pages E3–E13 In Policy 

Manual. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 1996. Wyoming Wildlife Observation System Records. 

Biological Services, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

.	 1999. Atlas of Birds, Mammals, Reptiles, and Amphibians in Wyoming. Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department, Wildlife Division. 190 pp. + append. 

.	 2001. Green River Region, Annual Big Game Herd Unit Reports, 2001. Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 479 pp. 

.	 2002. Annual Report of Game Harvest, 2002. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 

Biological Services Department. 2 CDs. 

.	 2003a. 2002 Annual Report of Big and Trophy Game Harvest. Data Tables and 

Summaries on CD-ROM. 

.	 2003b. 2002 Annual Report of Small and Upland Game Harvest. Data Tables and 

Summaries on CD-ROM. 

.	 2003c. 2003 Annual Report. Pages 56–58, 60, 67, and 73. Facsimile from Walt 

Gasson, WGFD, Cheyenne, Wyoming to C. Keefe, TRC Mariah Associates Inc., 

Laramie, Wyoming, January 2004. 

.	 2003d. Hunter/Angler/Wildlife Watcher Expenditures, By Species, Per BLM FO 

Administrative Areas. Facsimile from Tom Christiansen, Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department, Green River, Wyoming to C. Keefe, TRC Mariah Associates Inc., 

Laramie, Wyoming, January 23, 2004. 

.	 2004. State of Wyoming Department of Revenue 2004 Annual Report. Wyoming 

Department of Revenue, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Wyoming Geographic Information Science Center. 2002. U.S. Census TIGER files, 199711, 

Wyoming Roads - TIGER: Spatial Data and Visualization Center, Laramie, Wyoming. 

<http://www.sdvc.uwyo.edu/clearinghouse/road/quad.html>. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
7-26 Chapter 7 

Wyoming Geographic Information Science Center. 2003a. Surface and Bedrock Geology Files 

and Geologic Hazards Data. Spatial Data and Visualization Center, Laramie, Wyoming. 

Accessed October, 2003, <www.sdvc.uwyo.edu/clearinghouse>. 

.	 2003b. Analysis, Wyoming Gap, 1996, Hydrography and Land Cover for Wyoming: 

Spatial Data and Visualization Center, Laramie, Wyoming. Accessed 

December 2003. <http://www.sdvc.uwyo.edu/24k/hydro100.html> and <http://www. 

sdvc.uwyo.edu/24k/landcov.html>. 

.	 2003c. Watersheds: 5th and 6th Level Hydrologic Unit Boundaries for Wyoming. 

Wyoming Watershed Boundary Dataset Edition 1. Wyoming Geologic Information 

Science Center. University of Wyoming, Laramie. <http://www.wygisc.uwyo.edu/ 

clearinghouse/>. Accessed October 2003. 

Wyoming Housing Database Partnership. 2003. A Profile of Wyoming Demographics, 

Economics, and Housing Semiannual Report, Ending June 30, 2003, Final Report. 

August 28, 2003. Prepared by Western Economic Services, LLC, Portland Oregon. 

.	 2005. A Profile of Wyoming Demographics, Economics and Housing Semiannual 

Report, Ending June 30, 2005, Final Report. August 29, 2005. Prepared by Western 

Economic Services, LLC, Portland Oregon. http://www.wyomingcda. 

com/PDFfiles/ProfileJune05_Link.pdf. Accessed October 14, 2005. 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. 2003. August, 2003 Data Compilation for the Proposed 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project. Unpublished report. WYNDD, University of Wyoming, 

Laramie, Wyoming. 

Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments. 2002. Annual Report for Fiscal Year 

Ending June 30, 2002. Office of State Lands and Investments, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

49 pp. 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. 2003. Multiple Data Files. <http:// 

wogcc.state.wy.us>. Accessed December 2003. 

.	 2004. Multiple Data Files. <http://wogcc. state.wy.us>. Accessed March and 

October 2004. 

Wyoming State Engineer’s Office. 2005. Water Rights Database. <hhttp://seo.state.wy.us/wrdb/ 

index.aspx>. Accessed November 10, 2005. 

Wyoming State Land Use Commission. 1979. Wyoming State Land Use Plan. 180 pp. 

Personal Communications 

Bain, Frank. Geologist, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office. November 2003. 

Brown, Vickie. Big Piney Town Clerk. May 20, 2004. 

Caplan, Susan. Air Quality Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, 

Cheyenne. December 2004. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
References 7-27 

Case, Jim. Wyoming Geological Survey. October 1996. 

Clause, Dean. Biologist, Wyoming Game and Fish Department. December 2004. 

Doncaster, Dennis. Water Resources Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs 

Field Office. November 2003. 

Hudson, Martin. Recreation Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office. 

October 20 and October 26, 2005. 

Langford, Mary. Sublette County Clerk. May 20, 2004. 

Saxton, Jeness. 2005. Sublette County Assessor’s Office, email correspondence. November 9, 

2005. 

Svalberg, Terry. Air Quality Specialist, U.S. Forest Service, Pinedale Ranger District. January 

2005. 

Yurek,	 Christie. Validation Supervisor, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Administrative 

Services Division). July 8, 2003. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
7-28 Chapter 7


Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
CHAPTER 8 — GLOSSARY 

abandon: To cease producing oil or gas from a well when it becomes unprofitable. Usually, 

some of the casing is removed and salvaged, and one or more cement plugs placed in the borehole 

to prevent migration of fluids between formations. 

acre-foot or acre-feet (acre-ft): The volume of water that covers an area of one acre to a depth 

of one foot (43,560 cubic feet or 325,851 gallons). 

ad valorem: Levied according to assessed value. 

aeolian: The erosive action of the wind and deposits that are transported by the wind. 

affected environment: The resource values potentially affected by the Proposed Action and 

alternatives analyzed in a NEPA document. 

aggregate: Composed of a mixture of substances, separable by mechanical means. 

agrillic: Soils rich in clay. 

air quality: The properties and degree of purity of air to which people and natural and heritage 

resources are exposed (National Park Service website <http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/ 

AQBasics/glossary.htm>). 

algal: Of, pertaining to, or composed of algae. 

alkaline: Having the quality of a base (pH of 7.0 or greater). 

allotment: An area of land where one or more permittees graze their livestock. Generally 

consists of public land but may include parcels of private or state lands. The number of livestock 

and season of use are stipulated for each allotment. An allotment may consist of several pastures 

or be only one pasture. 

alluvium: Clay, silt, sand, and gravel or other rock material transported by flowing water and 

deposited as sorted or semi-sorted sediments. 

ambient air: The portion of the atmosphere, external to buildings, to which the public has 

general access (40 CFR 50). 

ambient concentration: The mass of a pollutant in a given volume of air, typically measured as 

micrograms of pollutant per cubic meter of air. 

ambient standards: The absolute maximum level of a pollutant allowed to protect either public 

health (primary) or welfare (secondary). 

ambient: The environment as it exists at the point of measurement and against which changes or 

impacts are measured. 

American Petroleum Institute (API): API is the governing authority on oil industry standards 

and practices. “API Gravity” is a reference system for the density of crude oils and constituent 

hydrocarbons. 

ancillary facilities: Facilities often required in an oil and gas field other than the wells and 

pipelines, such as compressor stations. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
8-2 Chapter 8 

animal unit month (AUM): The amount of forage necessary to sustain one cow/calf pair for 

1 month. 

anticline: A geological formation described usually as a dome or inverted saucer. If covered by 

an impermeable layer of rock, the anticline is a potential oil or gas reservoir. 

Application for Permit to Drill (APD): The Department of Interior application permit form to 

authorize oil and gas drilling activities on federal land or mineral estate. 

aquifer: A water-bearing bed or layer of permeable rock, sand, or gravel capable of yielding 

water. 

aquitard: A bed of low permeability adjacent to an aquifer that may serve as a storage unit for 

groundwater, although it does not readily yield water. 

archaeological: The scientific studies of past peoples and cultures by analysis of physical 

remains (artifacts). 

Ardisols: Soils formed in arid climates; they are often dry and have little organic accumulation 

in the upper layers. 

area of critical environmental concern (ACEC): An area on public lands designated for 

special management to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or 

scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes or to protect life 

and safety from natural hazards. 

background concentration: The existing levels of air pollutant concentration in a given region. 

In general, it includes natural and existing emission sources but not future emission sources. 

badland: Steep or very steep, commonly non-stony barren land dissected by many intermittent 

drainage channels. Badland is most common in semi-arid and arid regions where streams are 

entrenched in soft geologic material. Runoff potential is very high, and geologic erosion is active 

in such areas. 

base property: Lands owned or controlled by the grazing permittee to which a preference 

number of adjudicated federal livestock AUMs is attached. 

bedding material: Any material, often sand, used to prevent rocks in the bottom of the reserve 

pit from puncturing the synthetic pit liner. 

berm: A raised area with vertical or sloping sides. 

biodiversity: The variety of plant and animal life on a given area. 

borehole: The circular hole made by drilling, extending from the surface to the gas resource to 

be recovered. 

calcareous: Containing calcium carbonate. 

Cambic: Soils composed of very fine sand, loamy fine sand, or finer materials. 

capability: In the context of the Standards for Healthy Rangelands for the Public Lands 

Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the State of Wyoming, the highest 

ecological status a riparian-wetland area can attain given political, social, or economical 

constraints (i.e., human-caused limiting factors). 

casing: Steel pipe placed in an oil or gas well to prevent the hole from collapsing. 

cement: Cement is used to “set” casing in the well bore and to seal off unproductive formations 

and apertures. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Glossary 8-3 

collector roads: BLM roads that provide primary access to large blocks of land and connect 

with, or are extensions of, a public road system. 

colluvium: A general term applied to loose and incoherent deposits, usually at the foot of a slope 

or cliff and brought there chiefly by gravity. 

commercial reserves: Commercial reserves of oil and gas are restricted to volumes recoverable 

at an acceptable profitability. 

commercial well: A well capable of producing profitably. 

completion: The activities and methods to prepare a well for production. Includes installation of 

equipment for production from an oil or gas well. 

condensate (gas condensate): Hydrocarbons (oil) contained in the natural gas stream, often 

removed by condensation. 

conditions of approval (COAs): A set of restrictions, or conditions, included in the approval of 

a federal permit, including NEPA documents. 

conglomerate: Rounded water-worn fragments of rock or pebbles cemented together by another 

mineral substance. 

conglomeratic: Sandstones derived from rounded water-worn fragments of rocks or pebbles. 

contrast: The effect of a notable difference in the form, line, color, or texture of the landscape 

features within the area being viewed. 

Controlled Surface Use (CSU): A category of stipulation that allows some use and occupancy 

of public land while protecting identified resources or values. A CSU stipulation identifies the 

location protected, activities prohibited or restricted, and the resources protected. The extent of 

protection may range from a limited area for only one activity to all uses. 

corridor: A narrow strip of land. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): An advisory council to the President established by 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It reviews federal programs for their effect on 

the environment, conducts environmental studies, and advises the President on environmental 

matters. 

Cretaceous era: The latest system of rocks or period of the Mesozoic era, between 136 and 65 

million years ago. 

criteria pollutants: Air pollutants for which the EPA has established state and national ambient 

air quality standards. These include particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). 

critical elements of the human environment: A list of resource concerns that must be 

addressed in every NEPA document. 

crucial range: Any particular seasonal range or habitat component that has been documented as 

the determining factor in a population’s ability to maintain itself at a certain level over the 

long-term. 

cubic feet per second (cfs): The rate of discharge representing a volume of 1 cubic foot of water 

passing a given point during 1 second. 

cubic foot: The volume of gas contained in one cubic foot of space at a standard pressure base of 

14.7 pounds per square inch and a standard temperature base of 60 °F. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
8-4 Chapter 8 

cultural resources: The physical remains of human activity (artifacts, ruins, burial mounds, 

petroglyphs, etc.) and the conceptual content or context (as a setting for legendary, historic, or 

prehistoric events, such as a sacred area of native peoples, etc.) of an area of prehistoric or 

historic occupation. 

culvert: A drain or conduit often under a road. 

cumulative impact: The impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of 

the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless 

of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 

impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taken place over a 

period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). 

cuttings: The material removed from the borehole by the drill bit and lifted to the surface. 

decibel: A unit of measurement of noise intensity. The measurements are based on the energy of 

the sound waves and units are logarithmic. Changes of 5 decibels or more are normally 

discernible to the human ear. 

deciduous: Trees or shrubs that lose their leaves each year during a cold or dry season. 

deciview: The unit of measurement of haze developed to uniformly describe levels of monitored 

and modeled visibility impairment. 

delta: An alluvial deposit, usually triangular, at the mouth of a river. 

deltaic: Related to or like a delta. 

diffusion: A process by which substances are transferred from regions of higher concentrations 

to regions of lower concentrations (National Park Service website <http://www2.nature. 

nps.gov/air/AQBasics/glossary.htm>). 

directional drilling: The intentional deviation of a wellbore from vertical to reach subsurface 

areas off to one side from the surface drilling site. 

discharge: The volume of water flowing past a point per unit time, commonly expressed as 

cubic feet per second (cfs), gallons per minute (gpm), or million gallons per day (mgd). 

dispersion: The spreading out of pollutants. Generally used to show how much an air pollutant 

will spread from a particular point. 

displacement: As applied to wildlife, forced shifts in the patterns of wildlife use, either in 

location or timing of use. 

disposal well: A well into which produced water from other wells is injected into an 

underground formation for disposal. 

dissolved solids: The total amount of dissolved material, organic and inorganic, contained in 

water or wastes. 

diversity: The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and 

species. 

drainage: Natural channel through which water flows some time of the year. Natural and 

artificial means for effecting discharge of water as by a system of surface and subsurface 

passages. 

drill rig: The mast, draw works, and attendant surface equipment of a drilling unit. 

drilling fluid: Fluid used to lubricate and cool the drill bit, to assist in lifting cuttings from the 

borehole, and to control pressures in the borehole. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Glossary 8-5 

drilling mud: The circulating fluid used to bring cuttings out of the well bore, to cool the drill 

bit, and to provide hole stability and pressure control. Drilling mud includes a number of 

additives to maintain the mud at desired viscosities and weights. Some additives that may be 

used are caustic, toxic, or acidic. 

drought: Prolonged dry weather (precipitation less than 75% of average annual amount). 

ecosystem: An interacting system of organisms considered together with their environment (e.g., 

forest, marsh, and stream ecosystems). 

effluent: Mixture of oil, gas, water, and sand discharged from a well. 

emergent vegetation: Erect, rooted, herbaceous plants that project out of or emerge from the 

water. 

emission factor: An empirically derived mathematical relationship between pollutant emission 

rate and some characteristic of the source such as volume, area, mass, or process output. 

emission: Air pollution discharge into the atmosphere, usually specified by mass per unit time. 

endangered species (animal): Any animal species in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. This definition excludes species of insects that the Secretary of 

the Interior determines to be pests and whose protection under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to man. 

endangered species (plant): Species of plants in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of their ranges. Existence may be endangered because of the destruction, 

drastic change, or severe curtailment of habitat or because of over exploitation, disease, 

predation, or even unknown reasons. Plant taxa from limited areas (e.g., the type localities only) 

or from restricted fragile habitats usually are considered endangered. 

Entisols: Recently derived soils that show little profile development; formed from river deposits, 

sand dunes, or recent glacial deposits. 

environment: The aggregate of physical, biological, economic, and social factors affecting 

organisms in an area. 

environmental impact statement (EIS): An analysis of alternative actions and their predictable 

environmental impacts, including physical, biological, economic, and social consequences and 

their interactions; short- and long-term impacts; and direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. 

Eocene: 1) The next to the oldest of the five major epochs of the Tertiary period in the Cenozoic 

era. 2) The series of strata deposited during that epoch. 

ephemeral drainage: A drainage area or a stream that has no base flow. Water flows for a short 

time each year but only in direct response to rainfall or snowmelt events. 

epicenter: The portion of the earth’s surface directly above the focus of an earthquake. 

erosion: The removal, detachment, and entrainment of earth materials by weathering, 

dissolution, abrasion, and corrosion, later to be transported by moving water, wind, gravity, or 

glaciers. 

evaporitic: Sediments that are deposited from aqueous solution as a result of extensive or total 

evaporation of the solvent. 

exploratory well: A well that is drilled to evaluate the gas or oil resources that may be present. 

fault: A fracture in bedrock along which there has been vertical and/or horizontal movement 

caused by differential forces in the earth’s crust. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
8-6 Chapter 8 

federal lands: All lands and interests in lands owned by the U.S., which are subject to the 

mineral leasing laws, including mineral resources or mineral estates reserved to the U.S. in the 

conveyance of a surface or non-mineral estate. 

feral: having reverted to the wild state; not domesticated; as in feral (or wild) horses. 

field: 1) A set of rocks containing hydrocarbons. 2) An oil and gas reservoir. 

flare: Process that burns and evacuates unused gases. 

floodplain: That portion of a river valley, adjacent to the channel, which is built of recently 

deposited sediments and is covered with water when the river overflows its banks at flood stages. 

Fluvaquents: Entisols with aquic moisture regimes that occur on floodplains. Usually very 

deep, somewhat poorly drained soils that have grass-shrub cover. 

fluvial: Of or pertaining to rivers. 

forage: Vegetation of all forms available for animal consumption. 

forb: A broad-leafed flowering herb other than grass. 

formation: A rock/mineral deposit or structure covering an area with the same physical 

properties. 

fracing (fracturing): A method of stimulating well production by increasing the permeability of 

the producing formation. Under extremely high hydraulic pressure, the fracturing fluid (water, 

oil, dilute hydrochloric acid, or other fluid) is pumped into the formation that parts or fractures it. 

Proppants or propping agents such as sand or glass beads are pumped into the formation as part of 

the fracturing job. The proppants become wedged in the open fractures, leaving channels for oil 

or gas to flow into the well after the hydraulic fracture pressure is released. This process is often 

called a “frac job.” When high concentrations of acid are used, it may be called an “acid frac 

job.” 

fugitive dust: Airborne particles emitted from any source other than through a controllable stack 

or vent. 

gathering pipelines: Pipelines within a field that transport gas or oil from the well to a central 

production facility or to the point of sale. 

Global Positioning System (GPS): Computer software that records and stores coordinates for 

positions on earth via satellite. 

grazing preference: The total number of AUMs on public lands apportioned and attached to 

base property owned or controlled by a permittee, lessee, or an applicant for a permit or lease. 

Grazing preference holders have a superior or priority position against others for the purpose of 

receiving a grazing permit or lease. Grazing preference includes active use and use held in 

suspension. 

groundwater: Water contained in the pore spaces of consolidated and unconsolidated material. 

grus: An accumulation of angular coarse-grained fragments resulting from the granular 

disintegration of crystalline rocks (especially granite) generally in an arid or semiarid region. 

habitat: A specific set of physical conditions that surround a single species, a group of species, 

or a large community. In wildlife management, the major components of habitat are considered 

to be food, water, cover, and living space. 

habitat function: The arrangement of habitat features and capability of those features to sustain 

species, population, and diversity of wildlife over time. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Glossary 8-7 

Haplaquepts: Fine-loamy soils. 

Haplargids: Simple clay like soils (Aridosols). Moderately deep with argillic horizons often 

having grass-shrub cover. 

Haplocalcids: Soils that have a lithic (usually limestone) contact within 50 centimeters of the 

soil surface. 

Haplocambids: Shallow, cambic soils. 

Haplosalids: Ardisols that are high in saline content (see playa). 

Haplostolls: Coarse, loamy mixed mollisols. Deep dark-colored soils with thick surface layers 

often having grass-shrub cover. 

Holocene: That period of time (epoch) since the last ice age; also the series of strata deposited 

during that epoch. 

human environment: The factors that include but are not limited to biological, physical, social, 

economic, cultural, and aesthetic factors that interrelate to form the environment. 

hydraulic conductivity: The rate of water flow in gallons per day through a cross-section of 

1 square foot under a unit hydraulic gradient at the prevailing temperature of 60o

F. 

hydrocarbon: A compound formed from carbon and hydrogen, for example oil and gas. 

hydrology: A science that deals with the properties, distribution, and circulation of surface and 

subsurface water. 

hydrophytic plants: Those species that either require or tolerate wet or saturated soils and are 

therefore indicative of these conditions. 

hydrostatic testing: Testing of the integrity of a newly placed but uncovered pipeline for leaks. 

The pipeline is filled with water and pressurized to operating pressures, and the pipeline is 

visually inspected. 

impacts: These include a) direct impacts, which are caused by the action and occur at the same 

time and place and b) indirect impacts, which are caused by the action and are later in time or 

farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect impacts may include 

growth-inducing impacts and other impacts related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, 

population density, or growth rate and related impacts on air and water and other natural systems, 

including ecosystems. Impacts include ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on 

the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, 

economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. Impacts may also include 

those resulting from actions which may have both beneficial and detrimental impacts, even if on 

balance the agency believes that the impact will be beneficial (40 CFR 1508.8). 

impermeable: Not permitting the passage of a fluid. 

impoundment: The accumulation of any form of water in a reservoir or other storage area. 

increment: Incremental standards (prevention of significant deterioration [PSD]) are the 

maximum amounts of pollutants allowed above the baseline in regions of clean air. 

infiltration: The movement of water or some other liquid into the soil or rock through pores or 

other openings. 

infrastructure: The basic framework or underlying foundation of a community including road 

networks, electric and gas distribution, water and sanitation services, and facilities. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
8-8 Chapter 8 

injection well: A well that is used to inject produced water from drilling operations in order to 

maintain pressure or to bring a field back under pressure. 

interdisciplinary team (IDT): A group of federal and cooperating agencies selected to work 

within the NEPA process in scoping, analysis, and document preparation. The purpose of the 

team is to integrate its collective knowledge of the physical, biological, economic, and social 

sciences and the environmental design arts into the environmental analysis process. Interaction 

among team members often provides insight that otherwise would not be apparent. 

interim reclamation: Reclamation initiated on well pads, roads, and pipelines after drilling 

activity is completed and wells are in production. Interim reclamation is considered successful 

when reclamation performance objectives are met. 

intermittent stream: A stream or reach of a stream that is below the local water table for at least 

some part of the year and obtains its flow from both surface runoff and groundwater discharge. 

intertonguing: Irregular/overlapping boundaries among rock formations. 

irretrievable: A term that applies to the loss of production, harvest, or use of natural resources. 

For example, some or all of the timber production from an area is lost irretrievably while an area 

is serving as a winter sports site. The production lost is irretrievable, but the action is not 

irreversible. If the use changes, it is possible to resume timber production. 

irreversible: A term that describes the loss of future options. Applies primarily to the effects of 

use of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals or cultural resources, or to those factors, such as 

soil productivity, that are renewable only over long periods of time. 

lacustrine: Pertaining to, produced by, or formed in a lake or lakes. 

land use: The types of activities allowed (e.g., mining, agriculture, timber production, 

residential, industrial). 

landslide: A perceptible downhill sliding or falling of a mass of soil and rock lubricated by 

moisture or snow. 

leaching: To cause a liquid to percolate through something. 

lease: 1) A legal document that conveys to an operator the right to drill for oil and gas. 2) The 

tract of land on which a lease has been obtained, where producing wells and production 

equipment are located. 

lek: A traditional courtship display attended by male greater sage-grouse in or adjacent to 

sagebrush-dominated habitat. Leks are categorized as: 

Active - Any lek that has been attended by male greater sage-grouse during the strutting 

season. 

Inactive - Leks where it is known that there was no strutting activity through the course of 

a strutting season. 

Unknown - Leks that have not been documented either active or inactive during the 

course of a strutting season. 

Occupied - A lek that has been active during at least one strutting season within the last 

10 years. 

Unoccupied (formerly termed “historical lek”) - There are two types of unoccupied 

leks: (1) Destroyed - a formerly active lek site and surrounding sagebrush habitat that has 

been destroyed and is no longer capable of supporting greater sage-grouse breeding 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Glossary 8-9 

activity. (2) Abandoned - a lek in otherwise suitable habitat that has not been active 

during a consecutive 10-year period. 

Undetermined - Any lek that has not been documented as being active in the last 10 years 

but that does not have sufficient documentation to be designated unoccupied. 

life-of-project (LOP): Begins with the first disturbance authorized under the ROD for this 

project and ends when all wells are plugged and abandoned and all surface disturbance (each 

disturbed site) meets the reclamation performance objectives. 

lithic scatter: A surface scatter of cultural artifacts and debris that consists entirely of lithic (i.e., 

stone) tools and chipped stone debris. This is a common prehistoric site type that is contrasted to 

a cultural material scatter (which contains other or additional artifact types such as pottery or 

bone artifacts), or to a camp (which contains habitation features, such as hearths, storage features, 

or occupation features), or to other site types that contain different artifacts or features. 

lithology: The description of the physical character of a rock as determined by eye or with a lowpowered magnifier, based on color, structures, mineralogic components, and grain size. 

loam: A mixture of sand, silt, and clay containing between 7% and 27% clay, 28% to 50% silt 

and less than 50% sand. 

local roads: BLM roads that provide primary access to large blocks of land and connect with or 

are extensions of a public road system. 

log: A systematic recording of data, as from the driller’s log, mud log, electrical well log, or 

radioactivity log. Many different logs may be run to obtain various characteristics of downhole 

formations. 

long-term impacts: For the purpose of this NEPA analysis, long-term impacts last for the life of 

the project or beyond. 

migrate: To pass periodically from one region or climate to another. 

mineral rights: Reserved mineral rights are the retention of ownership of all or part of the 

mineral rights by a person or party conveying land to the United States. Conditions for exercising 

these rights have been defined in the Secretary’s Rules and Regulations to Govern Exercising of 

Mineral Rights Reserved in Conveyances to the United States attached to and made a part of 

deeds reserving mineral rights. 

mitigate: To lessen the severity. 

mitigation measures: Actions taken to reduce or minimize potential impacts to the environment. 

mitigation: Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 

minimizing impacts by limiting the degree of magnitude of the action and its implementation; 

rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; reducing 

or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of 

the action; and/or compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

environments. 

modeling: A mathematical or physical representation of an observable situation. In air pollution 

control, models afford the ability to predict pollutant distribution or dispersion from identified 

sources for specified weather conditions. 

Modified Mercalli (MM) Intensity Scale of 1931: A scale designed to describe the effects of an 

earthquake, at a given place, on natural features, on industrial installations, and on human beings. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
8-10 Chapter 8 

Mollisols: Soil order that has a thick (generally 10-inch), very dark brown to black surface 

horizon that is rich in organic matter (grassland soils common in prairie regions). 

monitor: To systematically and repeatedly watch, observe, or measure environmental conditions 

in order to track changes. 

mud: Mud is drilling fluid that consists mainly of a mixture of water, or oil distillate, and 

“heavy” minerals such as bentonite or barites. 

mud system: A system used to manage suspended mud in the well-drilling process. 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): The allowable concentrations of air 

pollutants in the air specified by the federal government. The air quality standards are divided 

into primary standards (based on the air quality criteria and allowing an adequate margin of safety 

and requisite to protect the public health) and secondary standards (based on the air quality 

criteria and allowing an adequate margin of safety and requisite to protect the public welfare from 

any unknown or expected adverse effects of air pollutants). 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA): The federal law established in 1969, 

which went into effect on January 1, 1970, that 1) established a national policy for the 

environment, 2) requires federal agencies to become aware of the environmental ramifications of 

their proposed actions, 3) requires full disclosure to the public of proposed federal actions and a 

mechanism for pubic input into the federal decision-making process, and 4) requires federal 

agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement for every major action that would 

significantly affect the quality of the human environment. 

National Register of Historic Places: A list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects 

significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture. 

native species: Plants or animals that originated in the area in which they are found (i.e., they 

naturally occur in that area); with respect to a particular ecosystem, a species that, other than as a 

result of an introduction, historically occurred or currently occurs in that ecosystem. 

Natrargids: Soils with a clay accumulation horizon and alkali (sodium) accumulation. 

natural gas: Those hydrocarbons, other than oil and other than natural gas liquids separated 

from natural gas, that occur naturally in the gaseous phase in the reservoir and are produced and 

recovered at the wellhead in gaseous form. 

No Action Alternative: The management direction, activities, outputs, and effects that are likely 

to exist in the future if the current plan would continue unchanged. 

No Surface Occupancy (NSO): A stipulation in a lease that disallows any surface disturbance in 

the lease area at any time. Natural gas or oil from an NSO area, for instance, would have to be 

recovered by directional drilling. 

Notice of Intent (NOI): A notice published in the Federal Register to announce the intent to 

prepare an EIS. 

noxious weeds: Officially designated (State of Wyoming-designated, Sublette County-declared) 

undesirable or invading weedy species generally introduced into an area due to human activity. 

oil and gas field: A natural accumulation of oil and gas in the subsurface. Oil and gas may be 

present in two or more reservoirs at different depths. 

oil and gas lease: A federal oil and gas lease is a legal document that gives the lease holder the 

right to explore for and develop any oil and gas that may be present under the area designated in 

the lease while complying with any surface use conditions which may have been stipulated when 

the lease was issued. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Glossary 8-11 

ozone (O3): A molecule containing three oxygen atoms produced by passage of an electrical


spark through air or oxygen (O2).


paleontology: The science that deals with the history and evolution of life on earth.


particulate matter: A particle of soil or liquid matter (e.g., soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and


mist).


passerine: Passerines are the perching birds, and most are also songbirds.


paraglacial: Refers to glacier-related processes and phenomena such as soil deposition and lake


formation.


perennial stream: A stream or reach of a stream that flows throughout the year.


perforation: Holes punched in the casing of a well at the pay zone to be produced to allow gas


or oil to enter the well.


permeability: The extent that a substance is open to passage or penetration, especially by fluids.


permeable: The property or capacity of a porous rock, sediment, or soil to transmit a liquid.


permittee (grazing): A person who has livestock grazing privileges on an allotment or


allotments within the resource area.


physiographic province: A region having a pattern of relief features or landforms that differs


significantly from adjacent regions.


physiographic: Pertaining to the genesis and evolution of landforms.


playa: The shallow central basin of a desert plain in which water gathers and is evaporated.


Pleistocene: Pertaining to the geologic epoch forming the earlier half of the Quaternary Period,


characterized by the advent of modern humans.


PM10: Airborne suspended particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less.


PM2.5: Airborne suspended particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less.


potential: In the context of the Standards for Healthy Rangelands for the Public Lands


Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the State of Wyoming, the highest ecological 

status a riparian-wetland area can attain given no political, social, or economical constraints.


potentiometric surface: An imaginary surface that represents the static head of groundwater and


is defined by the level to which water will rise.


preferred alternative: The alternative identified in the EIS as the action favored by the agency.


prevention of significant deterioration (PSD): A classification established to preserve, protect,


and enhance the air quality in National Wilderness Preservation System areas in existence prior to


August 1977 and other areas of national significance, while ensuring economic growth can occur


in a manner consistent with the preservation of existing clean air resources. Specific emission


limitations and other measures, by class, are detailed in the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1875 et


seq.).


produced water: Water brought to the surface through the borehole.


production casing: Steel pipe installed in the borehole to isolate formations in the borehole and


to eliminate communication among hydrocarbon-bearing zones and/or water aquifers and other


mineral resources.


production: Phase of commercial operation of an oil field.


Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
8-12 Chapter 8 

proppants: Proppants or propping agents are substances such as sand or glass beads that are 

pumped into the formation as part of the fracturing job. The proppants become wedged in the 

open fractures, leaving channels for oil to flow into the well after the hydraulic fracture pressure 

is released. This process is often called a “frac job.” When high concentrations of acid are used, 

it may be called an “acid frac job” (see also fracing/fracturing). 

PSD increments: The maximum allowable increase in pollutant concentrations permitted over 

baseline conditions as specified in the EPA Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

regulations (40 CFR Part 52.21). The regulations apply only to areas currently attaining 

NAAQS/WAAQS. Most National Parks and Wilderness Areas are Class I areas, where almost no 

future pollution increase is permitted. Most other areas are Class II areas, where moderate 

increases in pollution levels are allowed. 

public land: Lands or interests in lands owned by the United States and in this case administered 

by the Secretary of Interior through the Bureau of Land Management, without regard to how the 

United States acquired ownership. 

quaternary: The latest period of time, from the present to 2 million years ago and represented 

by local accumulations of glacial and post-glacial deposits. 

range: Land producing native forage for animal consumption and lands that are revegetated 

naturally or artificially to provide forage cover that is managed like native vegetation, that are 

amenable to certain range management principles or practices. 

raptor: A group of carnivorous birds consisting of hawks, eagles, falcons, kites, vultures, and 

owls. 

recharge: Replenishment of the water supply in an aquifer through the outcrop or along fracture 

lines. 

reclamation: Rehabilitation of a disturbed area to make it acceptable for designated uses. This 

normally involves regrading, replacement of topsoil, revegetation, and other work necessary to 

restore it for use. 

Record of Decision (ROD): A decision document for an EIS or Supplemental EIS that publicly 

and officially discloses the responsible official’s decision regarding the actions proposed in the 

EIS and their implementation. 

reserve pit: An excavated pit that may be lined with plastic that holds drill cuttings and waste 

mud. 

reserves/recoverable reserves: Areas of mineral-bearing rock from which the mineral can be 

extracted profitably with existing technology and under present economic conditions. 

reservoir: The “pool” of oil or gas that is being tapped. 

residuum: Something remaining after removal of a part; a residue. 

resource roads: Spur roads that provide point access, as to a well site, and connect to local or 

collector roads. 

revegetation: The reestablishment and development of self-sustaining plant cover. On disturbed 

sites, human assistance will speed natural processes by seedbed preparation, reseeding, and 

mulching. 

rig: A collective term to describe the equipment needed when drilling a well. 

right-of-way (ROW): The legal right for use, occupancy, or access across land or water areas 

for a specified purpose or purposes. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Glossary 8-13 

riparian: Land areas which are directly influenced by water. They usually have visible 

vegetative or physical characteristics showing this water influence. Streamsides and lake borders 

are typical riparian areas. 

roosting: To rest or sleep in a roost. A bird will typically use the same roost for an extended 

period of time. 

runoff: That part of precipitation that appears in surface streams. Precipitation that is not 

retained on the site where it falls and is not absorbed by the soil. 

salinity: 1) A measure of the amount of mineral substances dissolved in water; 2) salty. 

scatter (archeological): Archaeological evidence of prior disturbance that is distributed about an 

area rather than concentrated in a single location. 

scope: Extent or range of view. 

scoping: An early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed in an EIS 

and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action. Scoping may involve 

public meetings, field interviews with representatives of agencies and interest groups, discussions 

with resource specialists and managers, and written comments in response to news releases, direct 

mailings, and articles about the proposed action and scoping meetings. 

sediment: Soil or mineral transported by moving water, wind, gravity, or glaciers, and deposited 

in streams or other bodies of water or on land. 

sediment load: The amount of sediment (sand, silt, and fine particles) carried by a stream or 

river. 

seismic: Pertaining to an earthquake or earth vibration, including those that are artificially 

induced. 

shale: A laminated sediment in which the constituent particles are predominantly of the clay 

grade. 

short-term impacts: For the purpose of this analysis, short-term impacts are generally defined 

as those that would last for 5 years or less. 

shrink-swell: Refers to clays or soils that alternately expand and contract in a semiarid climate 

where drying out is possible. 

shut-in: The process of stopping production at an otherwise producing well. 

significant impact: A meaningful standard to which an action may impact the environment. The 

impact may be beneficial, adverse, direct, indirect, or cumulative and may be short-term or longterm. 

silt: Any earthy material composed of fine particles, smaller than sand but larger than clay, 

suspended in or deposited by water. 

site-specific environmental assessments: Environmental assessments generally completed for 

small projects such as individual wells, designed to address issues associated with small projects, 

and generally under the guidance of a more comprehensive NEPA document. 

slope wash: Soil and rock material that is being or has been moved down a slope predominantly 

by the action of gravity assisted by running water that is not concentrated into channels. 

socioeconomics: Study of an impact region on the current and projected population and relative 

demographic characteristics (housing, economy, government, etc.). 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
8-14 Chapter 8 

soil productivity: The capacity of a soil to produce a specific crop such as fiber and forage, 

under defined levels of management. It is generally dependent on available soil moisture, 

nutrients, and length of growing season. 

spacing: The number of acres per given well in the subsurface. For instance, 160-acre spacing 

means that one well would be drilled in each quarter section (160 acres) or up to four wells per 

section (640 acres). 

special management area: An area to which a given management objective and prescriptions 

are applied. 

species of concern: Species of concern include federally listed threatened or endangered species, 

species proposed for listing, BLM sensitive species, WGFD priority species, and species 

considered rare or important by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. 

stipulation: A legal requirement, specifically a requirement that is part of the terms of a mineral 

lease. Some stipulations are standard on all federal leases. Other stipulations may be applied to 

the lease at the discretion of the surface management agency to protect valuable surface 

resources. Stipulations are supported by the NEPA process; without NEPA support, a stipulation 

cannot be added to the lease. 

strata: An identifiable layer of bedrock or sediment. 

structural basin: A large depression of structural origin. 

substrate: Material consisting of silts, sands, gravels, boulders, and/or woody debris found on 

the bottom of a stream channel. 

surface disruptive (human) activities: The physical presence, sounds, and movements of 

people and their activities that are likely to cause displacement of or excessive stress to wildlife 

during critical life stages (breeding, nesting, birthing) or during periods of severe winter weather 

conditions. Examples of disruptive activities include noise, traffic, or human presence regardless 

of the purpose of the activity. Stipulations to mitigate disruptive activities can be absolute or 

timing-based. 

surface disturbing activities: Any authorized action that disturbs vegetation and surface soil, 

increasing erosion potential above normal site conditions. This definition typically applies to 

mechanized or mechanical disturbance. However, intense or extensive use of hand or motorized 

hand tools may fall under this definition. Examples of surface disturbing activities include 

construction of well pads and roads, pits and reservoirs, pipelines and power lines, mining, and 

vegetation treatments. 

synclinal axis: The axis of a fold where the youngest rocks are in the interior of the fold. 

Tertiary: The older of the two geologic periods comprising the Cenozoic Era; also the system of 

strata deposited during that period. 

threatened species: Any species (plant or animal) that is likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened 

species are identified by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the 1973 Endangered 

Species Act. 

thrust fault: A low angle fault in which the rocks above the fault plane move up relative to the 

rocks below. The rocks that move up are the thrust sheet. 

topographic basin: A large depression of erosional origin. 

topography: The features of the earth, including relief, vegetation, and waters. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Glossary 8-15 

topsoil: The uppermost layers of naturally occurring soils suitable for use as a plant growth 

medium. 

Torrispamments: Sandy soils in arid regions, soils associated with sandy uplands. Very deep 

soils often having a grass-shrub cover. 

total dissolved solids (TDS): Total amount of dissolved material, organic or inorganic, 

contained in a sample of water. 

Total Energy Efficiency (TEE): A measurement of energy efficiency that takes into account all 

energy used or lost in the production, processing, and delivery steps involved in supplying energy 

to the user, plus the efficiency of the energy-using product itself. 

transpiration: The process by which water vapor escapes from a living plant and enters the 

atmosphere. 

tuff(aceous): A rock formed by compacted volcanic fragments, generally smaller than 4 mm in 

diameter. 

turbidity: A measurement of the total suspended solids. 

two-track: A road that has not been constructed or maintained but that has been created by 

repeated use. 

typic: In soil taxonomy, the typical, or central, concept of a “great group,” one of six categories 

used to classify soils (order, suborder, great group, subgroup, family, and series). “Typic” is 

considered a “subgroup” in this hierarchy. 

unconformity: A break in the stratigraphic sequence. 

understory: A layer of vegetation underlying a layer of taller vegetation, such as brush and grass 

under trees. 

undulate: To move or cause to move with a wavelike motion. 

ustic: Soils that are moist for more than half a year but have a distinct dry season. 

vegetation type: A plant community with visually distinguishable characteristics, named for the 

apparent dominant species. 

viewshed: The areas seen from any given point. 

visibility: Refers to the visual quality of the view or scene in daylight, with respect to color, 

rendition, and contrast definition. The ability to perceive form, color, and texture. 

visual range: The distance at which a black object just disappears from view. 

visual resource: The composite of basic terrain, geologic features, water features, vegetation 

patterns, and land use effects that typify a land unit and influence the visual appeal the unit may 

have for viewers. 

Visual Resource Management (VRM): A system of visual management used by the BLM. The 

program has a dual purpose—to manage the quality of the visual environment, and to reduce the 

visual impact of development activities while maintaining effectiveness in all BLM resource 

programs. VRM also identifies scenic areas that warrant protection through special management 

attention. The system uses four classes for categorizing visual resources. 

Class I - Natural ecological changes and limited management activity are allowed. Any 

contrasts created within the characteristic landscape must not attract attention. This 

classification is applied to wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and other similar 

situations. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
8-16 Chapter 8 

Class II - Changes in any of the basic elements (form, line, color, texture) caused by a 

management activity should not be evident in the characteristic landscape. Contrasts are 

seen but must not attract attention. 

Class III - Contrasts to the basic elements caused by a management activity are evident 

but should remain subordinate to the existing landscape. 

Class IV - Any contrast may attract attention and be a dominant feature of the landscape 

in terms of scale, but it should repeat the form, line, color, and texture of the 

characteristic landscape. 

water bar: A ridge made across an incline to divert water to one side. 

water quality: Refers to a set of chemical, physical, or biological characteristics that describe 

the condition of a river, stream, or lake. The quality of water determines what beneficial uses it 

can support. Different conditions or levels of water quality are required to support different 

beneficial uses. 

water recharge: The natural process whereby surface water enters a groundwater aquifer. 

watershed: The total land area that drains to a given watercourse or body of water. 

watershed (6th level): The watershed and subwatershed hydrologic unit boundaries provide a 

uniquely identified and uniform method of subdividing large drainage areas. The smaller-sized 

level sub-watersheds (up to 250,000 acres) are useful for application programs. 

Waters of the U.S.: A jurisdictional term from Section 404 of the Clean Water Act referring to 

water bodies such as lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, 

wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds with defined bed 

and bank, the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign 

commerce. 

well or wellbore: The hole drilled from the surface to the gas-bearing formation, several of 

which may be developed from a single well pad. 

well pad: Relatively flat work area (surface location) that is used for drilling a well or wells and 

producing from the well once it is completed. 

wetlands: Areas that are inundated by surface water or groundwater with a frequency sufficient 

to support—and under normal circumstances do or would support—a prevalence of vegetation or 

aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and 

reproduction. 

wind rose: Any one of a class of diagrams designed to illustrate the distribution of wind 

direction experienced at a given location over a given period of time. Wind roses may also give 

information concerning distribution of wind speed, stability, or other meteorological parameters. 

winter range: The place where migratory (and sometimes non-migratory) animals congregate 

during the winter season. 

workover: Well maintenance activities that require onsite mobilization of a drill rig to repair the 

well bore equipment (casing, tubing, rods, or pumps) or the wellhead. In some cases, a workover 

may involve development activities to improve production from the target formation. 

Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS): The allowable concentrations of air 

pollutants in the air specified by the State of Wyoming. The air quality standards are divided into 

primary standards (based on the air quality criteria and allowing an adequate margin of safety and 

requisite to protect the public health) and secondary standards (based on the air quality criteria 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Glossary 8-17 

and allowing an adequate margin of safety and requisite to protect the public welfare from any 

unknown or expected adverse effects of air pollutants). 

zone: The area between two depths in a well containing reservoir or other characteristic. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
8-18 Chapter 8


Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project