FINAL


SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT


FOR THE JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT


ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT


Prepared for 

Bureau of Land Management


Wyoming State Office


Cheyenne, Wyoming 

and 

Pinedale Field Office 

Pinedale, Wyoming 

and 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project Operators 

Revised and Updated by 

SWCA Environmental Consultants 

2120 North Central Avenue, Suite 130 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004 

January 2006 
TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page 

List of Figures............................................................................................................................................... v 

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ v 

1.0 OVERVIEW......................................................................................................................................... 1


2.0 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................... 3


2.1 ECONOMIC PROFILES.......................................................................................................... 3 

2.1.1 Resources .................................................................................................................. 3 

2.1.2 Socioeconomic Study Factors................................................................................... 4 

2.1.2.1 Population and Demography..................................................................... 4 

2.1.2.2 Employment and Personal Income ........................................................... 4 

2.1.2.3 Quality of Living ...................................................................................... 4 

2.1.2.4 Industry and Economy .............................................................................. 4 

2.1.2.5 Taxes and Revenues.................................................................................. 5 

2.1.2.6 Recreation ................................................................................................. 5 

2.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS............................................................................................................... 6 

2.2.1 Natural Gas Activities............................................................................................... 7 

2.2.2 Recreation .................................................................................................................. 8 

2.2.3 Social Impacts........................................................................................................... 9 

2.2.4 Environmental Justice............................................................................................... 9 

3.0 SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILES AND EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ....................................... 11


3.1 POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHY................................................................................. 12 

3.1.1 Geographic Study Area........................................................................................... 12 

3.1.1.1 JIDP Location ......................................................................................... 12 

3.1.1.2 Economic Study Area ............................................................................. 12 

3.1.2 Population ............................................................................................................... 12 

3.1.2.1 United States ........................................................................................... 15 

3.1.2.2 Wyoming ................................................................................................ 15 

3.1.2.3 Lincoln County ....................................................................................... 15 

3.1.2.4 Sublette County....................................................................................... 17 

3.1.2.5 Sweetwater County ................................................................................. 17 

3.1.3 Income, Poverty, and Unemployment..................................................................... 18 

3.1.3.1 United States ........................................................................................... 20 

3.1.3.2 Wyoming ................................................................................................ 21 

3.1.3.3 Lincoln County ....................................................................................... 21 

3.1.3.4 Sublette County....................................................................................... 22 

3.1.3.5 Sweetwater County ................................................................................. 22 

3.1.4 Workforce Age, Gender, and Disabilities............................................................... 23 

3.1.4.1 United States ........................................................................................... 23 

3.1.4.2 Wyoming ................................................................................................ 24 

3.1.4.3 Lincoln County ....................................................................................... 24 

3.1.4.4 Sublette County....................................................................................... 24 

3.1.4.5 Sweetwater County ................................................................................. 25 

3.1.5 Quality of Living .................................................................................................... 25 

3.1.5.1 Crime ...................................................................................................... 25 

3.1.5.2 Infrastructure........................................................................................... 26 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
ii Contents 

3.1.5.3 Housing................................................................................................... 29 

3.1.5.4 Cost of Living and Inflation.................................................................... 37 

3.1.5.5 Inflation................................................................................................... 39 

3.1.6 Education ................................................................................................................ 40 

3.1.6.1 Primary and Secondary Education.......................................................... 40 

3.1.6.2 Post-Secondary Education ...................................................................... 44 

3.1.7 Social Traditions ..................................................................................................... 44 

3.2 WAGES AND PERSONAL INCOME .................................................................................. 45 

3.2.1 United States ........................................................................................................... 49 

3.2.2 Wyoming ................................................................................................................ 49 

3.2.3 Lincoln County ....................................................................................................... 49 

3.2.4 Sublette County....................................................................................................... 50 

3.2.5 Sweetwater County ................................................................................................. 50 

3.3 INDUSTRY AND ECONOMY.............................................................................................. 50 

3.3.1 Overview................................................................................................................. 50 

3.3.2 Wyoming Industry .................................................................................................. 51 

3.3.3 Industry Employment.............................................................................................. 53 

3.3.3.1 Wyoming ................................................................................................ 53 

3.3.3.2 Lincoln County ....................................................................................... 53 

3.3.3.3 Sublette County....................................................................................... 55 

3.3.3.4 Sweetwater County ................................................................................. 56 

3.3.4 Industry Earnings.................................................................................................... 56 

3.3.4.1 Wyoming ................................................................................................ 56 

3.3.4.2 Lincoln County ....................................................................................... 58 

3.3.4.3 Sublette County....................................................................................... 58 

3.3.4.4 Sweetwater County ................................................................................. 59 

3.4 TAXES AND REVENUES .................................................................................................... 59 

3.4.1 Wyoming Overview................................................................................................. 59 

3.4.1.1 Severance Taxes ..................................................................................... 61 

3.4.1.2 Royalties ................................................................................................. 64 

3.4.1.3 Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT).......................................................... 70 

3.4.1.4 Property Taxes (Ad Valorem Taxes) ...................................................... 70 

3.4.1.5 Sales and Use Tax................................................................................... 73 

3.4.1.6 Use Tax ................................................................................................... 75 

3.4.1.7 Lodging Tax............................................................................................ 75 

3.4.2 Study Area Overview.............................................................................................. 75 

3.4.2.1 Availability of Information ..................................................................... 75 

3.4.2.2 State Royalties ........................................................................................ 76 

3.4.3 Ad Valorem Valuation and Taxes Levied............................................................... 81 

3.4.3.1 Wyoming ................................................................................................ 81 

3.4.3.2 Lincoln County ....................................................................................... 81 

3.4.3.3 Sublette County....................................................................................... 82 

3.4.3.4 Sweetwater County ................................................................................. 82 

3.4.4 Sales Tax Collections.............................................................................................. 82 

3.4.4.1 Wyoming ................................................................................................ 89 

3.4.4.2 Lincoln County ....................................................................................... 89 

3.4.4.3 Sublette County....................................................................................... 89 

3.4.4.4 Sweetwater County ................................................................................. 90 

3.4.5 Use Tax Collections................................................................................................ 90 

3.4.5.1 Wyoming ................................................................................................ 91 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Contents iii 

3.4.5.2 Lincoln County ....................................................................................... 91 

3.4.5.3 Sublette County....................................................................................... 92 

3.4.5.4 Sweetwater County ................................................................................. 92 

3.4.6 Lodging Tax Collections......................................................................................... 92 

3.4.6.1 Sublette County....................................................................................... 92 

3.4.6.2 Sweetwater County ................................................................................. 93 

3.5 RECREATION ECONOMICS............................................................................................... 93 

3.5.1 Nonconsumptive Recreation................................................................................... 93 

3.5.2 Hunting ................................................................................................................... 93 

3.5.3 Value of Recreational Use ...................................................................................... 96 

3.5.3.1 Value of Nonconsumptive Recreation .................................................... 96 

3.5.3.2 Value of Hunting .................................................................................... 96 

4.0	 JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.................... 99


4.1 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS......................................... 99 

4.2 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OVERVIEW .............................................................................. 101 

4.2.1 Economic Analysis Assumptions ......................................................................... 102 

4.2.1.1 Labor..................................................................................................... 102 

4.2.1.2 Natural Gas Drilling and Completion Assumptions ............................. 103 

4.2.1.3 Natural Gas Production Assumptions................................................... 104 

4.3	 NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION ECONOMIC 

ACTIVITY...................................................................................................................... 105 

4.3.1 Drilling and Completion ....................................................................................... 105 

4.3.1.1 No Action Alternative........................................................................... 105 

4.3.1.2 Proposed Action.................................................................................... 106 

4.3.1.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) .................................................... 106 

4.3.1.4 Alternative B (Minimum Disturbance)................................................. 110 

4.3.1.5 Preferred Alternative............................................................................. 110 

4.3.2 Natural Gas Production Impacts ........................................................................... 110 

4.3.2.1 No Action Alternative........................................................................... 111 

4.3.2.2 Proposed Action.................................................................................... 111 

4.3.2.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) .................................................... 111 

4.3.2.4 Alternative B (Minimum Disturbance)................................................. 111 

4.3.2.5 Preferred Alternative............................................................................. 113 

4.3.3 Government Revenues .......................................................................................... 113 

4.3.3.1 No Action Alternative........................................................................... 116 

4.3.3.2 Proposed Action.................................................................................... 116 

4.3.3.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) .................................................... 119 

4.3.3.4 Alternative B (Minimum Disturbance)................................................. 119 

4.3.3.5 Preferred Alternative............................................................................. 119 

4.4 RECREATION IMPACTS................................................................................................... 120 

4.4.1 Nonconsumptive Recreation................................................................................. 120 

4.4.1.1 No Action Alternative........................................................................... 120 

4.4.1.2 Proposed Action.................................................................................... 122 

4.4.1.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) .................................................... 122 

4.4.1.4 Alternative B (Minimum Disturbance)................................................. 122 

4.4.1.5 Preferred Alternative............................................................................. 122 

4.4.2 Hunting ................................................................................................................. 122 

4.4.2.1 No Action Alternative........................................................................... 124 

4.4.2.2 Proposed Action.................................................................................... 124 

4.4.2.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) .................................................... 124 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
iv Contents 

4.4.2.4 Alternative B (Minimum Disturbance)................................................. 124 

4.4.2.5 Preferred Alternative............................................................................. 124 

4.5 POPULATION AND LABOR ACTIVITY ......................................................................... 125 

4.5.1 No Action Alternative............................................................................................ 125 

4.5.2 Proposed Action.................................................................................................... 125 

4.5.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) .................................................................... 125 

4.5.4 Alternative B (Minimum Disturbance)................................................................. 125 

4.5.5 Preferred Alternative............................................................................................. 125 

4.6 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY.......................................................................... 126 

4.6.1 No Action Alternative........................................................................................... 126 

4.6.2 Proposed Action.................................................................................................... 126 

4.6.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) .................................................................... 126 

4.6.4 Alternative B (Minimum Disturbance)................................................................. 126 

4.6.5 Preferred Alternative............................................................................................. 129 

4.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.................................................................................................. 129 

5.0 SOCIAL IMPACTS......................................................................................................................... 131


5.1 POPULATION ..................................................................................................................... 131 

5.2 INCOME, POVERTY, AND UNEMPLOYMENT ............................................................. 131 

5.3 QUALITY OF LIVING........................................................................................................ 131 

5.3.1 Crime .................................................................................................................... 132 

5.3.2 Health Care ........................................................................................................... 132 

5.3.3 Housing................................................................................................................. 132 

5.3.4 Cost of Living and Inflation.................................................................................. 133 

5.4 EDUCATION ....................................................................................................................... 133 

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ..................................................................................................... 135


6.1 DEFINING MINORITY AND/OR LOW-INCOME POPULATION ................................. 136 

6.1.1 Minority Communities.......................................................................................... 136 

6.1.2 Low-Income Population........................................................................................ 136 

6.1.3 Disproportionately High and Adverse Human Health Effects.............................. 136 

6.2 PROJECT STUDY AREA ................................................................................................... 137 

6.2.1 Minority Communities.......................................................................................... 137 

6.2.2 Low-Income Population........................................................................................ 137 

6.2.3 Disproportionately High and Adverse Human Health Effects.............................. 137 

7.0 ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY ......................................................................................... 139


7.1 ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................................. 139 

7.2 GLOSSARY ......................................................................................................................... 141 

8.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................. 147


APPENDICES 

A. Assumed Production Rates, Decline Curves, and Discounting Tables for Each Alternative 

B. Economic Analysis Methodology 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Contents v 

List of Figures 

Page 

1.	 Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 13 

List of Tables 

Page 

3.1.	 Landownership of the JIDP Study Area ........................................................................................ 14 

3.2.	 Historical and Projected Population............................................................................................... 16 

3.3.	 Urban and Rural Population and Density, 2000 ............................................................................ 17 

3.4.	 Income, Poverty, and Unemployment ........................................................................................... 19 

3.5. Population and Workforce, 2000 ................................................................................................... 24 

3.6a. Crime Rates1 for the U.S., Wyoming, and the Three-County Study Area, 2004........................... 26 

3.6b. Arrest Totals, 1999–2004............................................................................................................... 27 

3.7.	 Historical and Projected Housing Availability .............................................................................. 30 

3.8. Authorized Building Permits, 1980–2004 ..................................................................................... 31 

3.9a. Average Rental Rates, 2001–2005................................................................................................. 32 

3.9b. Housing Values and Percentage of Income Spent on Housing, 2000............................................ 33 

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

1990–2000 ..................................................................................................................................... 34 

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

Statewide Average of 100.............................................................................................................. 37 

3.12.	 Annual Inflation Rates in Wyoming by Category (Statewide Average)........................................ 39 

3.13.	 Annual Inflation Rates for the U.S., Wyoming, and Regions in Wyoming................................... 40 

3.14.	 Education Statistics, 2003–2004.................................................................................................... 41 

3.15.	 Results of WyCAS Testing, Categorized by Economically Disadvantaged Category .................. 41 

3.16.	 Wages and Number of Jobs, 1980–2000 ....................................................................................... 45 

3.17.	 Personal Income by Major Source ................................................................................................. 47 

3.18.	 Wyoming Gross State Product ...................................................................................................... 52 

3.19.	 Compensation of Employees ........................................................................................................ 52 

3.20.	 Employment by Industry................................................................................................................ 54 

3.21.	 Earnings by Industry...................................................................................................................... 57 

3.22.	 Wyoming General Fund Revenues, Fiscal Year Collections by Source........................................ 62 

3.23.	 Statutory Distribution of Severance Taxes (WS 39-14-801)......................................................... 63 

3.24.	 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 ..................................................................................................................................... 64 

3.25.	 Yearly Mineral Severance Taxes................................................................................................... 65 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
vi Contents 

Page 

3.26.	 Proportion of Mineral Severance Taxes to All Wyoming Accounts by Mineral...........................66 

3.27.	 Statutory Distribution of Federal Mineral Royalties (WS 9-4-601) .............................................. 67 

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

to All Counties and Cities and Project-Affected Counties and Cities ........................................... 70 

3.29.	 Summary of State of Wyoming Mineral Royalties........................................................................ 68 

3.30.	 Federal Mineral Royalties.............................................................................................................. 71 

3.31.	 Total PILT Payments and Total Acres........................................................................................... 72 

3.32.	 Total State-Assessed Mineral Production Valuations.................................................................... 73 

3.33.	 Proportionate Taxable Valuation of Various Classes of Property in Wyoming, 1998–2004 ........ 73 

3.34.	 Sales, Use, and Lodging Tax Rates by County (Effective April 1, 2003) ..................................... 74 

3.35.	 Big Piney Example Budgets .......................................................................................................... 77 

3.36.	 Pinedale Example Budgets ............................................................................................................ 78 

3.37.	 Sublette County Example Budgets ................................................................................................ 79 

3.38.	 Schedule of Oil and Natural Gas Royalties from State Lands Received by State and 

Counties, 1998–2004 ..................................................................................................................... 81 

3.39.	 Assessed Property Valuations for the State and Study Area.......................................................... 83 

3.40.	 Total Ad Valorem Taxes Levied, State and Study Area................................................................ 84 

3.41.	 Levies for K-12 Education, 2003................................................................................................... 85 

3.42.	 Levies for Community Colleges, 2003 .......................................................................................... 85 

3.43.	 County Taxes Levied, 2003 ........................................................................................................... 85 

3.44.	 County and Statewide Average 2003 Mill Levies Applied to 2002 Mineral Production 

and Taxes Assessed........................................................................................................................ 86 

3.45.	 Municipal Taxes Levied for the Year 2003 ................................................................................... 86 

3.46.	 City- and Town-Assessed Valuation and Taxes Levied, 2003 ...................................................... 87 

3.47.	 Total All Taxes Levied, 2003 ........................................................................................................ 87 

3.48.	 Sales Tax Collections in State and Study Area.............................................................................. 88 

3.49.	 Use Tax Collections in the State and Study Area .......................................................................... 90 

3.50.	 Lodging Tax Collections by County and Local Entity, 2002 ........................................................ 92 

3.51.	 Estimated Annual Recreational Visitor Days, PFO Area .............................................................. 94 

3.52.	 BLM-Estimated Big Game Hunter-Days, PFO Area..................................................................... 94 

3.53.	 Herd Unit and Landownership in the JIDPA................................................................................. 95 

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

Species in the PFO Area, 2002 ...................................................................................................... 95 

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

Hunter-Days in the JIDPA, 2002 ................................................................................................... 96 

3.56.	 Value of Recreation, PFO Area, 1997 ........................................................................................... 95 

3.57.	 Value of Hunting of Species Potentially Occurring on the Study Area, Wyoming and 

Study Area, 2002 ........................................................................................................................... 98 

3.58.	 Contribution of JIDPA to Hunting Revenues................................................................................ 98 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Contents vii 

Page 

4.1.	 Estimated Years to Complete Project, All Alternatives............................................................... 101 

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

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005..................................................................... 101 

4.3.	 Estimated Work Force Requirements, All Alternatives, JIDP, Sublette County, Wyoming, 

2005 ............................................................................................................................................. 102 

4.4.	 Average Per Well Drilling and Completion Costs of Natural Gas Development, JIDP, 

Sublette County, Wyoming.......................................................................................................... 103 

4.5.	 Annual Cost of Natural Gas Production, JIDP, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005..................... 105 

4.6.	 Per Well Economic Activity from Natural Gas Development, JIDP, Sublette County, 

Wyoming ..................................................................................................................................... 106 

4.7.	 Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Development Under the Proposed Action 

and the Preferred Alternative, JIDP, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005 ..................................... 107 

4.8.	 Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Development Under Alternative A 

(Maximum Recovery) and Alternative B (Minimum Disturbance), JIDP, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2005 ........................................................................................................................... 108 

4.9.	 Summary of Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Development under Each 

Alternative over the Life of Project, JIDP, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005............................ 109 

4.10.	 Gas Production Impacts from One BCF of Natural Gas and One MBO, JIDP, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005.............................................................................................................. 110 

4.11.	 Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Production Over the Life of Project, 

JIDP, Sublette County, 2005........................................................................................................ 112 

4.12.	 Government Taxes and Revenues Resulting from the JIDP (Life of Project), Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005.............................................................................................................. 114 

4.13.	 Taxes and Revenues Received by Governments from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

(Life of Project), Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.................................................................... 117 

4.14.	 Economic Activity per RVD from Nonconsumptive Recreation, JIDP, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2005 ........................................................................................................................... 118 

4.15.	 Economic Activity from Nonconsumptive Recreation for the Life of Project, JIDP, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005................................................................................................ 121 

4.16.	 Economic Activity per Hunter-day, JIDP, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005 ............................ 123 

4.17.	 Economic Activity Resulting from Hunting over the Life of Project, JIDP, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005.............................................................................................................. 123 

4.18.	 Summary of Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Development and 

Production Over the Life of Project, JIDP, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005 ........................... 127 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
1.0 OVERVIEW 

TRC Mariah Associates Inc. (TRC Mariah) developed socioeconomic profiles of the Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project (JIDP) study area for the draft version of this technical support document (TSD). 

The draft TSD was issued in February 2005 with the Draft JIDP Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS). SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) revised and updated the TSD to reflect changes 

made to the EIS after public review and to respond to public comments on the TSD itself. Revisions 

included providing more recent socioeconomic data whenever possible; however, it should be noted 

that the original 20-year study period (1980–2000) for the modeled economic impact analysis has not 

changed. Revisions also included removing all references to the South Piney Project, streamlining 

document presentation, and rewriting sections in Chapter 3 (for example, the crime discussion) to 

incorporate additional research. Descriptions of alternatives have been changed in accord with 

changes in the JIDP EIS. Alternatives C through G have been eliminated. Alternatives A and B each 

include only one rate of well development rather than the possible three rates described in the draft 

socioeconomic TSD. The number of well pads allowable under the Preferred Alternative have 

increased from 2,553 (same as the former Alternative G) to 2,825 (same as the Proposed Action). 

Because all the variables incorporated in the revised alternatives were captured in the initial modeling 

effort (see following paragraph), BLM determined that remodeling was not necessary. Quantitative 

results from that effort are integrated in the analysis portion of this document as appropriate. 

The University of Wyoming, College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, Agricultural 

Economics Department (UWAED) performed the input/output modeling used as the basis for 

economic impact estimates provided in this document. The analysis was performed according to the 

requirements of the socioeconomic analysis protocol developed for this project (TRC Mariah 2003). 

At the direction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wyoming State Office, the analysis used 

information from existing documents (as appropriate), documents currently in preparation (provided 

by the authors or analysts as necessary), the Sonoran Institute Economic Profile System (EPS) 

software (Sonoran Institute 2003), and other extant data to develop economic profile baseline data. 

IMPLAN� PRO 2.0 (IMPLAN) software was used to conduct an input/output analysis to determine 

potential impacts of the proposed project and alternatives. UWAED has calibrated county-specific 

data sets for the study area under a contract with the State of Wyoming (personal communication, 

October 14 and 17, 2003, with Roy Allen, Economist, BLM Wyoming State Office), and the protocol 

mandated that the calibrated county-specific datasets be used in place of the nationalized county data 

provided by MIG, Inc. (the manufacturer of IMPLAN). Cumulative impacts were estimated based on 

the information developed for the JIDP Proposed Action and alternatives and reasonable foreseeable 

development information. 

The proposed economic study area included the counties and communities most likely to be impacted 

by the JIDP, including the following: 

• Lincoln County and the community of LaBarge; 

• Sublette County and the communities of Pinedale, Big Piney, Marbleton, and Boulder; 

• Sweetwater County and the communities of Eden, Farson, and Rock Springs; 

• the State of Wyoming; and 

• the U.S. (for selected items, as appropriate). 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
2 Section 1 

Existing documents and documents in preparation that were used to develop economic profile 

baseline data and to estimate potential and cumulative impacts for the study area included the 

following reports: 

•	 Southwest Wyoming Resource Evaluation Socio/Economic Evaluation (SWREE), Final 

Report, Parts I and II (UWAED 1997); 

•	 the economic effect analysis developed for the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 

(JMHCAP) (UWAED 2003); 

•	 the JMHCAP supplemental draft EIS (BLM 2003a); 

•	 BLM’s Socioeconomic Profile-Pinedale (BLM 2003b); 

•	 the economic impact analysis currently being prepared for the Pinedale Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) (UWAED [2004]); and 

•	 Sublette County Comprehensive Plan: County Vision, Goals and Policies (Sublette County 

Board of Commissioners and Sublette County Planning Commission [SCBC and SCPC] 

2003). 

The following socioeconomic factors were profiled using either the EPS or other sources mentioned 

above: 

•	 population and demography; 

•	 employment and personal income; 

•	 quality of living (i.e., the degree to which a person enjoys the important possibilities of his or 

her life); 

•	 industry and economy; 

•	 tax and revenue; and 

•	 recreation. 

The draft TSD included grazing as a socioeconomic factor that was profiled and analyzed as part of 

the report. However, after public review of the TSD, BLM concluded a reduction of grazing permits 

as a result of Animal Unit Month (AUM) loss would occur only if reclamation efforts were 

unsuccessful, and could be determined only by collecting forage and rangeland monitoring data. 

Thus, in response to public comments, BLM removed grazing as a socioeconomic factor in this final 

socioeconomic TSD. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
2.0 METHODS 

2.1 ECONOMIC PROFILES 

TRC Mariah developed baseline profiles from selected statistics for the counties and affected 

communities in the JIDP study area for the 20-year study period (1980 to 2000). The baseline 

profiles were developed using existing documents, documents in preparation, the EPS, and data 

obtained from other extant sources. The baseline profiles developed from EPS provided the 

foundation from which social and economic impacts arising from the JIDP Proposed Action and 

alternatives were projected and compared. The EPS profiles, tables, and graphs used for this analysis 

are on file at TRC Mariah’s Laramie, Wyoming, office under Project 35982. EPS software is 

available to the public at no charge from <www.sonoran.org>, where it may be downloaded and 

individual county profiles may be created. Additionally, the State of Wyoming has developed county 

profiles that may be viewed at <http://eadiv.state.wy.us/wef/eps.asp>. 

2.1.1 Resources 

The EPS was formally adopted by the U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM, Washington, D.C. 

(Instruction Memorandum No. 2003-169, May 16, 2003) for use with all RMPs in the 14-state region 

covered by EPS. The BLM Wyoming State Office specified that EPS be used to profile affected 

counties and communities in the JIDP EIS study area (personal communication, October 14 and 17, 

2003, with Roy Allen, Economist, BLM Wyoming State Office). 

The EPS was developed by the Sonoran Institute Socio/Economics Program, in partnership with the 

BLM, to provide analysts and planners with a way to efficiently and consistently produce detailed 

socioeconomic profiles at the state, regional, county, and multi-county level. Profiles produced from 

EPS contain narrative, tables, and figures that illustrate long-term trends related to: 

• population; 

• employment and personal income by industry; 

• average earnings; 

• retirement and other non-labor income; 

• business development; and 

• agriculture. 

Additional or more-detailed information used to compile profile and baseline socioeconomic data 

may have been obtained from extant sources, including the following: 

• U.S. Census Bureau; 

• U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA); 

• BLM; 

• other U.S. departments and agencies; 

• State of Wyoming departments and agencies; 

• local county and community governments; 

• UWAED; 

• JIDP proponents (collectively referred to as Operators herein); and 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4 Section 2 

•	 personal interviews with individuals in affected areas (particularly when published data 

appeared to deviate from actual circumstances). 

2.1.2 Socioeconomic Study Factors 

TRC Mariah compiled baseline statistics for a 20-year study period (1980 to 2000) for the social and 

economic factors detailed in the sections below. SWCA Environmental Consultants provided updated 

information for the final document. 

2.1.2.1 Population and Demography 

Factors related to population and demography include the following: 

•	 population trends; 

•	 income, poverty, and unemployment; and 

•	 workforce age, gender, and disabilities. 

2.1.2.2 Employment and Personal Income 

Factors related to employment and personal income include the following: 

•	 average wages by area; 

•	 median wages by job category; 

•	 total personal income (TPI) (adjusted for place of residence and place of work), including 

labor income (i.e., wages, salaries, and self-employment income), investment income (i.e., 

dividends, interest, and rent), and transfer payments (i.e., Social Security benefits, Medicare 

and Medicaid benefits, and other income support and assistance); and 

•	 per capita personal income (PCPI). 

2.1.2.3 Quality of Living 

Factors related to quality of life (e.g., the degree to which a person enjoys the important possibilities 

of his or her life) of residents in the economic study area were gathered and enumerated where 

possible. Baseline statistics were compiled on quality of life in the affected communities, counties, 

and the State of Wyoming. Quality of life factors include the following: 

•	 crime (including crimes against people and crimes against property); 

•	 health care (facilities and providers); 

•	 housing (type, quality, quantity, cost, assessed values, building permits issued); 

•	 cost of living; 

•	 inflation; and 

•	 education (primary, secondary, post-secondary). 

2.1.2.4 Industry and Economy 

Factors related to income and the economy include the following: 

•	 gross state product (“value added” or the gross output [sales, operating income] minus 

intermediate inputs [purchased or imported goods or services used in production]); 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Methods 5 

•	 industry compensation of employees (sum of employees wages and salaries plus 

supplements to wages and salaries); 

•	 industry employment and job growth trends; and 

•	 earnings by industry and industry growth trends. 

2.1.2.5 Taxes and Revenues 

Factors related to taxes and revenue include the following: 

•	 mineral severance taxes and federal minerals royalties received by Wyoming and directly 

distributed to counties, cities, and towns; 

•	 fiscal year general fund revenue collections by source; 

•	 fiscal year distribution of mineral severance taxes to all accounts by mineral; 

•	 royalties from state minerals received and distributed by the State of Wyoming; 

•	 payments in lieu of taxes (PILT); 

•	 state-assessed real and personal property valuations; 

•	 state-assessed production valuations; 

•	 proportionate taxable valuation of various classes of property in Wyoming; 

•	 locally assessed property valuations; 

•	 ad valorem taxes; 

•	 sales tax collections; 

•	 use tax collections; and 

•	 lodging tax collections. 

2.1.2.6 Recreation 

TRC Mariah compiled baseline statistics for consumptive (hunting) and nonconsumptive recreation 

in the JIDPA, using the methodology developed for the SWREE (UWAED 1997). Historical 

information was derived from previously listed sources (see Sections 1.0 and 2.2) and/or the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) and the Wyoming Division of Tourism. 

Where sufficient data were available, recreation activities in the JIDPA were separated into 

nonresident and resident use. Nonresident use value was based on the economic impact from 

expenditures by nonresidents in the region. Direct fiscal revenues to local governments from 

recreation were estimated based on the proportion of nonresident sales, lodging, and gas tax revenues 

returned to local governments in the study area. 

Recreation data included the following items: 

•	 BLM-recorded recreation visits; 

•	 BLM recreation days (visits split into 12-hour days); 

•	 net consumer value per day for outdoor recreation activities; 

•	 visitor expenditures; 

•	 hunter recreation days for appropriate herd units (obtained from WGFD); 

•	 number of hunters; and 

•	 surface ownership status of herd units. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
6 Section 2 

2.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS 

TRC Mariah developed the socioeconomic impact analysis for the JIDP EIS using the methods 

developed for the SWREE (UWAED 1997) and the economic effect analysis developed for the 

JMHCAP (UWAED 2003, BLM 2003a). Additional information was obtained from the Operators, 

BLM, BLM’s pertinent reasonable foreseeable development documents, WGFD, and other sources. 

The economic impacts of the JIDP and alternatives on the economic study area were analyzed using 

IMPLAN, which is an input/output (I/O) modeling system (personal communication, October 14 and 

17, 2003, with Roy Allen, Economist, BLM Wyoming State Office). I/O modeling is a mathematical 

accounting of the flow of dollars and commodities through a region’s economy. These types of 

models provide estimates of how a given amount of a particular economic activity translates into jobs 

and income in a region. The I/O analysis used coefficients calibrated by the UWAED specifically for 

the SWREE from a combination of primary and secondary data specific to Lincoln, Sublette, and 

Sweetwater Counties. These calibrated county-specific coefficients were updated for the JMHCAP 

(BLM 2003a) and the Pinedale RMP (UWAED 2004, BLM 2004a). Year 2000 was used as the base 

year. 

The BLM provided estimates of physical outputs for selected commodities associated with the 

various alternatives. TRC Mariah, in consultation with the Operators, BLM, and UWAED, 

determined the appropriate values for these commodities. UWAED then used the output and value 

data in IMPLAN to estimate the economic impacts of the JIDP on the economic study area. 

The JIDP analysis was based on a 3- to 42-year development horizon (2004–2046) and a 43- to 85-

year production horizon (2004–2089), with 2000 being used as the base year. Cumulative economic 

effects are expressed as both short-term (2004–2013) and long-term (2014 up to 2089) impacts. 

The economic analysis focused on two types of commodities: natural gas infill development and 

recreation activities (hunting and nonconsumptive). 

Prior to modeling, input data used for the I/O model were adjusted for inflation and converted to 

2000 constant-dollars, as necessary. After modeling, impact dollar values were discounted using a 

3.5% discount rate as recommended for projects exceeding 30 years by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-94 (OMB 2004). The OMB recommendation for using a real 

discount rate of 3.5% for constant-dollar benefit-cost analysis approximates the marginal pretax rate 

of return on an average investment in the private sector in recent years (BLM 2003a). 

The OMB describes the discount rate policy in OMB (2004). To compute net present value, it is 

necessary to discount future benefits and costs. This discounting reflects the time value of money. 

Benefits and costs are worth more if they are experienced sooner. All future benefits and costs, 

including nonmonetized benefits and costs, should be discounted. The higher the discount rate, the 

lower is the present value of future cash flows. For typical investments, with costs concentrated in 

early periods and benefits following in later periods, raising the discount rate tends to reduce the net 

present value. On the other hand, when costs and revenues are both concentrated in early periods 

with lower benefits following in later periods, raising the discount rate tends to increase the net 

present value. 

Real versus Nominal Discount Rates. The proper discount rate to use depends on whether the benefits 

and costs are measured in real or nominal terms. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Methods 7 

•	 A real discount rate that has been adjusted to eliminate the effect of expected inflation is 

used to discount constant-dollar or real benefits and costs. A real discount rate can be 

approximated by subtracting expected inflation from a nominal interest rate. 

•	 A nominal discount rate that reflects expected inflation is used to discount nominal benefits 

and costs. Market interest rates are nominal interest rates in this sense. 

As presented herein, the “nominal” value of project activities is the simple calculation of dollars with 

no adjustments. The “present value” is the value of those activities after the real discount rate has 

been applied over time. 

The discount factor is calculated as 1/(1+i)

t where i is the interest rate and t is the project year 

(OMB 2004). 

The I/O model required a series of assumptions and inputs specific to the study area. Assumptions 

included the value of production resulting from land uses within the JIDPA under each alternative. 

BLM staff and cooperating agencies provided information on current uses in the JIDPA and how 

those uses may change under each alternative. This information provided a physical quantitative 

measure of inputs necessary for the economic impact analysis (e.g., number of gas wells, recreational 

visitor days, etc.). Primary data and sources used to estimate physical inputs for the I/O model are 

summarized in Appendix A. 

Estimates of inputs, including prices, were used to evaluate the potential sales from uses of the 

JIDPA under each alternative. This direct sales estimate serves as the input for the I/O model to 

obtain an estimate of total economic impact for each alternative (changes in direct and indirect 

income and employment). 

The economic impact analysis for the No Action Alternative was the first model prepared to provide 

a baseline for the alternatives analysis. It contains a discussion of impacts that were used for 

comparison with other alternatives. Methodology for the Proposed Action impact analyses are fully 

discussed in Appendix B. Project-specific impacts are discussed in Chapter 4.0. Where impacts are 

the same between alternatives, reference is made to the earlier analysis so that impact discussions are 

not repeated. Cumulative impacts for the Proposed Action and each alternative are discussed and 

include the social and economic impacts of the Proposed Action or alternatives in combination with 

other proposed, existing, or reasonable foreseeable developments. 

2.2.1 Natural Gas Activities 

The economic impact of the Proposed Action, alternatives, and cumulative effects on the study-area 

economy were analyzed in two parts. The first part of the project analyzed was the development 

phase and the economic impacts associated with drilling and completion of wells in the JIDPA. The 

second part analyzed was the production phase and the economic impacts associated with the 

production of natural gas from the completed wells. 

Estimated average per well development and production costs were provided by the Operators. 

Certain economic assumptions were used in the natural gas development analyses (the drilling and 

completion of natural gas wells), including the following: 

•	 expenditure per well (cost to drill); 

•	 volume of production (million cubic feet [MMCF]) per well; 

•	 value of production (the average price of natural gas used for the price forecast by the 

Consensus Revenue Estimating Group (CREG) [CREG 2004]); 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
8 Section 2 

• total economic impact per well (direct and indirect); 

• industry earnings per well; 

• annual job equivalents (AJEs) per well;1 and 

• local government taxes and revenues. 

2.2.2 Recreation 

Recreation activities are not purchased in an identifiable market so their economic value must be 

determined indirectly. Two types of measures are typically used for “non-market” commodities: 

• the expenditures associated with the use of the non-market commodity, and 

• the net value of the non-market commodity to the consumer. 

The first measure considers the economic activity generated by the use of the non-market commodity 

by measuring participant expenditures to estimate the economic activity that is generated in the 

region in terms of income and jobs. In regional analyses, this type of measure is typically used to 

value recreation use by nonresidents and this was the measure employed in this analysis. For resident 

expenditures, it was assumed that recreationists would have spent their money elsewhere in the 

region’s economy if they had not been participating in the recreation activity. Recreation 

expenditures by residents are viewed as a shifting of dollars from one site or commodity to another 

based on personal consumption preferences and not a net gain to the region’s economy. 

The second measure considers the value of the satisfaction that the non-market commodity provides 

the consumer by considering the value of the recreation activity to the participant after all his or her 

costs are subtracted. This measure represents the “net economic value” to the user that is 

over-and-above costs. It is similar to the concept of profit for a business. Special techniques based 

on observed consumer behavior or the expressed valuations by the consumer are used to estimate this 

type of value. In regional analysis, this type of measure is typically used to value recreation use by 

residents. This measure was not used for this analysis due to a lack of available data on resident use. 

A detailed discussion of the estimation of “net economic values” is presented in the appendix of the 

economic effect analysis developed for the JMHCAP (UWAED 2003, BLM 2003a). 

Recreation impacts were estimated using information obtained from the sources described in Chapter 

1.0 and Section 2.2.1. From those estimates, certain economic assumptions were developed for use 

in the analysis for consumptive (i.e., hunting pronghorn antelope and greater sage-grouse) and 

nonconsumptive recreation (e.g., wildlife and scenery viewing, off-road vehicle use), including the 

following: 

• expenditures by individual per recreation day; 

• total economic impact (direct and secondary) per recreation day; 

• labor earnings generated per recreation day; 

• AJEs generated per recreation day; 

• local government revenue generated per recreation day; and 

• net economic value generated per recreation day. 

1 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, one AJE is defined as 260 worker-days = 

1 worker-year, a person-year is 365 days; therefore, there are approximately 1.4 worker-years per person-year (one AJE 

= 1.4 person-years). 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Methods 9 

2.2.3 Social Impacts 

Baseline social and economic factors, including population, personal income, and quality of living 

factors described in Sections 2.1.2.1–2.1.2.3 were compared to expected changes in the economy that 

would affect a typical family in the study area. Impacts were evaluated against the potential for 

changes in quality of life factors (i.e., availability of necessities, recreation, and leisure time) and the 

ability of residents to maintain or improve the current quality of life as a result of the proposed 

project and alternatives. 

2.2.4 Environmental Justice 

The potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the social, cultural, and economic well-being 

and health of minority and low-income groups were evaluated per Executive Order (EO) 12898. 

This was done by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental impacts of the proposed project (including cumulative effects) on 

minority populations and low-income populations. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
3.0 SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILES AND EXISTING 

ENVIRONMENT 

The Pinedale Field Office (PFO) and Rock Springs Field Office (RSFO) RMP Records of Decision 

(RODs) (BLM 1988, 1997, 2004a) and land use plans for both the state (Wyoming State Land Use 

Commission 1979) and local areas (SCBC and SCPC 2003) identify the following management 

objectives associated with socioeconomics: 

•	 to coordinate land use decisions with economic factors and needs; 

•	 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. This is 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 businessfriendly atmosphere, reasonable taxation, a low cost of living, limited regulation, wise 

development of its natural resources, and a strong work ethic tradition. 

Additional guiding principles and information have been taken from the socioeconomic profile (BLM 

2003b) 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. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
12 Section 3 

3.1 POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHY 

3.1.1 Geographic Study Area 

3.1.1.1 JIDP Location 

The JIDPA is located in south-central Sublette County, Wyoming, approximately 32 miles southeast 

of Pinedale and 28 miles northwest of Farson, on approximately 30,500 acres in T28N and T29N, 

R107W through R109W (Figure 1). 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. Access to the area is from U.S. Highway 

191, located 1.5 to 11 miles east of the JIDPA. 

3.1.1.2 Economic Study Area 

The economic study area 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 (see Figure 1). 

Rock Springs is about 70 miles from the project area, but is a hub for regional natural gas 

development activities and is a community where some project workers are likely to reside. 

Wyoming and the U.S. are also included in the profile and impact analyses where information is 

available and pertinent. 

Like much of Wyoming, the economic study area is rural. All three counties have a large land area 

with a dispersed population as summarized in Table 3.1. Public lands constitute the majority of the 

land in the three counties, ranging from 72.4% in Sweetwater County to 81.5% in Sublette County. 

Landownership in all three counties is primarily federal, ranging from 68.7% in Sweetwater County 

to 74.7% in Sublette County. Private lands constitute 20.8% of Lincoln County lands, 18.5% of 

Sublette County lands, 27.6% of Sweetwater County lands, and 43.0% of all lands in Wyoming. 

3.1.2 Population 

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, 2005a). EPS uses BEA population data, 

which differ from census totals; however, percentages tend to approximate calculations based on 

census data. 

Where the population data conflict, census estimates were used for calculations and variances from 

EPS reporting are noted. EPS profiles, charts, and raw data are on file at TRC Mariah’s Laramie, 

Wyoming, office. Annual growth rates between two consecutive years (e.g., 1999–2000) were 

calculated using an annual growth formula (Formula 1). 

Formula 1: 

([Y2 data–Y1 data]/Y1 data) × 100 = annual growth 

Example of Annual Growth from 1999 to 2000 

([2000 data–1999 data]/1999 data) × 100 = Annual Growth rate for 1999 

Annualized growth rate over a period of time (e.g., 1980 to 1990) was calculated using Formula 2. 

Formula 2 is a geometric mean equation, based on end-points. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Figure 1. Location of Jonah Natural Gas Field. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 3.1. Landownership of the JIDP Study Area1 

Wyoming Counties Geographic Characteristic Lincoln Sublette 

Acres Mile2 Acres Mile2 Acres Mile2 

PUBLIC LANDS

Federal Lands

National Park Service 2,342,399 3,660.0 7,438 11.6 0 0 

Forest Service 9,270,312 14,484.9 901,026 1,407.9 1,169,377 1,827.2 Fish and Wildlife 92,805 145.0 6,029 9.4 0 0 Bureau of Land Management 17,428,611 27,232.2 1,013,269 1,583.2 1,257,155 1,964.3 4,3Bureau of Reclamation 803,294 1,255.1 25,032 39.1 5,428 8.5 2

Total Federal Lands 29,937,421 46,777.2 1,952,794 3,051.2 2,431,960 3,799.9 4,6Percentage of Total Federal Lands 47.6% n/a 71.4% n/a 74.7% n/a 

Wyoming

State Lands Commission 3,649,649 5,702.6 212,095 331.4 212,095 331.4 2

Recreation Commission 126,901 198.3 4 0.0 0 0 

Department of Game and Fish 156,170 244.0 2,181 3.4 9,425 14.7 

Total State Lands 3,932,720 6,144.9 214,280 334.8 221,520 346.1 2

Percentage of Total State Lands 6.3% n/a 7.8% n/a 6.8% n/a 

Local Government

County 15,156 23.7 0 0 701 1.1 

City 46,894 73.3 0 0 525 0.8 School Districts and Colleges 23,759 37.1 0 0 141 0.2 

Total Local Government Lands 85,809 134.1 0 0 1,367 2.1 

Percentage of Total Government Lands 0.14% n/a 0 0 0.04% n/a 

Other Public Lands 1,884,186 2,944.0 1,482 2.3 2,923 4.6 Percentage of Total Other Public Lands 2.99% n/a 0.05% n/a 0.09% n/a 

Total Public Lands 35,840,136 56,000.2 2,167,074 3,386.1 2,653,480 4,146.1 4,8Percentage of Total Public Lands 57.0% n/a 79.2% n/a 81.5% n/a PRIVATE LANDS 27,073,322 42,302.1 568,566 888.4 602,433 941.3 1,8

Percentage of Total Private Lands 43.0% n/a 20.8% n/a 18.5% n/a 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project TOTAL LANDS 62,913,458 98,302.3 2,735,640 4,274.4 3,255,913 5,087.4 6,7

1 Number of acres for each land classification was obtained from Wyoming Department of Administration and Information (WDAI) (2002a). The number of square miles and percentage of tota

instances, the calculated information differs from the information presented in WDAI (2002a) and BLM (2003b). 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 15 

Formula 2: 

[(Y2 data/Y1 data)(1/[Y2-Y1]) - 1] × 100 = average annual growth 

Example of Average Annual Growth from 1980 to 1990 

[(1990 data/1980 data)(1/[1990–1980]) - 1] × 100 = 

average annual growth rate for the period 1980 to 1990 

All state and local area dollar estimates are in Year 2000 dollars (thousands) (adjusted for inflation), 

with the exception of PCPI, which is stated in actual dollars and was obtained from BEA (2003d). 

3.1.2.1 United States 

As summarized in Table 3.2, the U.S. population increased by 24% from 1980 to 2000. EPS 

estimates a different number of people but arrives at the same percentage. As shown in Table 3.3, in 

2000 the U.S. has an average population density of 79.6 people/square mile with the majority of 

residents residing in urban areas (U.S. Census Bureau 2000a). 

3.1.2.2 Wyoming 

Numbers from the 2000 Census and estimates from U.S. Census Bureau data indicate considerable 

growth in the Rocky Mountain West; however, Wyoming has experienced both growth and decline 

over the past 20 years. After increasing by 41% between 1970 and 1980 and then decreasing by more 

than 3.4% from 1980 to 1990, Wyoming population trends have returned to a more moderate growth 

rate (Taylor and Lieske 2002a, WDAI 2002a). As summarized in Table 3.2, the state’s population 

increased by 8.9% between 1990 and 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000a). Between 2000 and 2004, 

the population in Wyoming increased by 2.6% (U.S. Census Bureau 2005c). In 2000, the majority of 

Wyoming residents lived in urban areas (see Table 3.3). 

The state’s growth from 1980 to 2000 (5.2%) was substantially lower than that of the neighboring 

states of Colorado (30.6%), Utah (29.6%), Idaho (28.5%), and Montana (12.9%) (Taylor and Lieske 

2002a). Growth was also lower than the national average (13.2%) but was comparable to growth in 

the eastern border states, South Dakota (8.5%) and Nebraska (8.4%). Wyoming’s growth, however, 

was substantially higher than growth in nearby North Dakota (0.5%). 

3.1.2.3 Lincoln County 

As shown in Tale 3.2, over the 20-year study period (1980–2000), Lincoln County population 

increased by 19.7% (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 7.2% growth increase between 2000 and 2004 (WDAI 2004) (see Table 3.2). Census 

urban and rural populations for Lincoln County are provided in Table 3.3. Unlike the State of 

Wyoming, the majority of Lincoln County residents in 2000 lived in rural areas. 

LaBarge is the community in Lincoln County most likely to be affected by the proposed project. 

Population data for LaBarge were not collected until the 1990 Census, though population data for 

1980 were reported by WDAI (2001a). As summarized in Table 3.2, LaBarge’s growth has fluctuated 

since 1980. Over the 20-year study period (1980–2000), LaBarge had a 42.7% increase in population, 

but between 2000 and 2004, the population declined 2.8% (U.S. Census Bureau 2005a). 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 3.2. Historical and Projected Population

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Population1 Total Change in Population (%)1 Projected Popu

Location 

19802 19902 20002 20041,3,4 1980–1990 1990–2000 1980–2000 2000–2004 20055,6 20105,6 20155,6 

U.S. (thousands) 226,542 248,709 281,421 293,655 9.8 13.2 24.2 4.3 295,507 308,935 322,36Wyoming 469,557 453,588 493,782 506,529 -3.4 8.9 5.2 2.6 506,184 519,595 529,35Lincoln 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 52Bondurant 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, N

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 Sources: WDAI (2000, 2001a). 1990 Census of Population and Housing: Profiles for State, Counties, and Major Cities and Towns. http://eadiv.state.wy.us/pop90/pop90.htm, Data acc

Information for Bondurant, Boulder, Cora, Daniel, Eden, and Farson was not collected until the 2000 census. U.S. Census Bureau information was not collected for LaBarge until the 19

reported 1980 estimates (WDAI 2001a).

3 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2005a).4 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2005b).5 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2005c).6 Source: WDAI (2004). 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 17 

Table 3.3. Urban and Rural Population and Density, 2000 

Population1 

Urban Rural Rural Farm2 Rural Non-Farm2 Density per 

Location (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Rural) (% of Rural) Square Mile 

U.S. 

No. of People 222,358,309 59,063,597 2,987,531 56,076,066 79.6 

Percent (79%) (21%) (5%) (95%) n/a 

Wyoming 

No. of People 322,073 171,709 15,150 156,559 5.1 

Percent (65%) (35%) (9%) (91%) n/a 

Lincoln County 

No. of People 2,958 11,653 718 10,897 3.6 

Percent (20%) (80%) (6%) (94%) n/a 

Sublette County 

No. of People --3 5,920 477 5,443 1.2 

Percent -- (100%) (8%) (92%) n/a 

Sweetwater County 

No. of People 33,512 4,101 416 3,685 3.6 

Percent (89%) (3%) (10%) (90%) n/a 

1 Source: 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. 

3.1.2.4 Sublette County 

The Sublette County population in 2000 was 5,920, up from 4,843 (22%) in 1990 and up from 4,548 

(30%) in 1980 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000a, 2000b) (EPS indicates a growth of 1,333 people, a 59% 

increase in population). The county’s population continues to increase, growing approximately12% 

between 2000 and 2004 (U.S. Census Bureau 2005a). In 2000, Sublette County had no urban clusters 

or urban areas as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau; thus, the entire population was considered rural. 

Approximately 8% of the county’s population resided on farms, while 92% were considered nonfarm residents (U.S. Census Bureau 2000d) (see Table 3.3). 

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 3.2). 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 3.2. 

3.1.2.5 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 (-9.9%) (U.S. Census Bureau 2000a, 2000b) (see Table 3.2). (EPS indicates an 

increase of 4,778 people [11%] over the 1980–2000 period.) Between 2000 and 2004, population in 

the county increased by 0.4% (U.S. Census Bureau 2005a). In 2000, Sweetwater County had a 

population density of 3.6 people/square mile; however, unlike Sublette County, the majority (89%, or 

33,512) of the Sweetwater County population lived in urban clusters (U.S. Census Bureau 2000d) 

(see Table 3.3). Of the 4,101 rural residents, only 416 (1% of county residents) resided on farms. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
18 Section 3 

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 (see Table 3.2). Overall, Rock Springs experienced a 3.9% 

decrease in growth in the 20-year study period (1980–2000). Similar to Sweetwater County as a 

whole, 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 3.2). 

3.1.3 Income, Poverty, and Unemployment 

Income, poverty, and unemployment data were obtained for each county in the study area from the 

U.S. Census Bureau (1981, 1990, 2000c, 2004); the Wyoming Department of Employment, Research, 

and Planning (WDERP) (2002a, 2002b, 2002c); and the Wyoming Department of Administration 

and Information (2005b). EPS does not address poverty and has limited coverage of unemployment 

trends. Personal per capita income as reported by the census is not the same as the PCPI reported by 

BEA (see Section 3.2). All income and wage statistics are reported in Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for 

inflation based on the U.S. average CPI used by EPS as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(BLS), unless otherwise noted. Table 3.4 shows the information on median household income, 

personal per capita income, poverty, and unemployment at the state and county level, as well as at the 

community level where available. 

The following definitions involved in the discussion of income, poverty, and unemployment were 

obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau (2000a). 

Household Income. Household income is the sum of money income received in a calendar year 

(1979, 1989, 1999) by all household members 15 years old and over, including household members 

not related to the householder, people living alone, and other non-family household members. 

Included in the total are amounts reported separately for wage or salary income; net self-employment 

income; interest, dividends, or net rental or royalty income or income from estates and trusts; Social 

Security or Railroad Retirement income; Supplemental Security Income (SSI); public assistance or 

welfare payments; retirement, survivor, or disability pensions; and all other income. 

Personal Per Capita Income. Personal per capita income is the mean income computed for every man, 

woman, and child in a geographic area. It is derived by dividing the total income of all people 

15 years old and over in a geographic area by the total population in that area. (Income information 

is not collected for all people under 15 years old even though all people under the age of 15 are 

included in the denominator of per capita income; thus, personal per capita income may be 

underestimated.) 

Below Poverty Level. Below poverty level is a classification assigned to families and persons if their 

total family income or unrelated individual income was less than the poverty threshold specified for 

the applicable family size, age of householder, and number of related children under 18 present. 

The U.S. Census Bureau follows OMB’s Statistical Policy Directive 14 to define poverty and uses a 

set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is poor. 

If a family’s total income is less than that family’s threshold, then that family, and every individual in 

it, is considered poor. If a person is not living with anyone related by birth, marriage, or adoption, 

then the person’s own income is compared with his or her poverty threshold. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 3.4. Income, Poverty, and Unemployment

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Median Household Income1,2 ($) Personal Per Capita Income1,2 ($) Poverty Rate1,2 (%) Unempl

Location 19803 19904 20005 

20026

Estimate 19803 19904 20005 200312 19793 19897 19995 

20026

Estimate 19808,9 1990

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 5.6 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 5.5 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 6.6 

LaBarge NR 12,142 18,837 NR NR 6,995 18,837 NR NR 24.5 12.3 NR 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 2.9 

Big Piney NR 15,418 17,647 NR NR 8,882 17,647 NR NR 6.2 11.5 NR NR NR Bondurant NR NR 19,432 NR NR NR 19,432 NR NR NR 19.2 NR NR NR Boulder NR NR 12,500 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 33.3 NR NR NR Cora NR NR 20,831 NR NR NR 20,831 NR NR NR 7.9 NR NR NR Daniel NR NR 21,213 NR NR NR 21,213 NR NR NR 24.4 NR NR NR Marbleton NR 15,125 18,446 NR NR 8,713 18,446 NR NR 10.1 4.2 NR NR NR Pinedale NR 17,030 20,441 NR NR 9,811 20,441 NR NR 12.9 8.9 NR 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 5.5 

Eden NR NR 52,625 NR NR NR 18,392 NR NR NR 17.6 NR NR NR Farson NR NR 44,545 NR NR NR 16,140 NR NR NR 0.0 NR 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 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 urban co

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 cities. Povein 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: WDAI (2001b). Poverty rate is the percent of people in poverty.8 Source: WDERP (2002a).9 Source: BLS (2003).10 Source: WDERP (2002b).11 Source: WDERP (2002c).12 Source: WDAI (2005b). 
20 Section 3 

The poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, and they are updated annually for inflation using 

the CPI. The official poverty definition counts money income before taxes and does not include 

capital gains and non-cash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps). 

Poverty is not defined for people in military barracks, or institutional group quarters, or for unrelated 

individuals under age 15 (such as foster children); these people are excluded from the poverty 

universe—that is, they are considered neither as “poor” nor as “non-poor” (Dalaker and Proctor 

2000). 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, for a family of four (i.e., two adults and two children), the 

poverty threshold in 2002 occurred at an annual income of $18,244 (U.S. Census Bureau 2003). 

If total family income is less than the poverty threshold (poverty guidelines as published by the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) appropriate for that family, the family is in poverty. 

All family members have the same poverty status. For individuals who do not live with family 

members, their own income is compared with the appropriate threshold. If total family income 

equals or is greater than the threshold, the family (or unrelated individual) is not in poverty. 

Total family income divided by the poverty threshold is called the ratio of income to poverty. 

A family is considered to be in poverty if the ratio of income to poverty is less than 1.0. 

The difference in dollars between family income and the poverty threshold is called the income 

deficit (for families in poverty) or income surplus (for families above poverty). 

Computation of Poverty 

Total Family Income/Poverty Threshold = Ratio of Income to Poverty 

Ratio of Income to Poverty >1.0 = family not in poverty 

Ratio of Income to Poverty <1.0 = family in poverty 

Total Family Income - Poverty Threshold = Income Deficit or Surplus 

Employment. As defined by the BEA, employment is the total number of persons: a) performing any 

type of labor for pay or profit, b) working at least 15 hours per week on an unpaid basis in family 

enterprises, and c) temporarily absent for non-economic reasons. Employment under this definition 

includes all full-time and part-time jobs. The BEA employment count is a measure of occupied jobs, 

rather than a measure of employed persons. If an individual holds two separate jobs at any given 

time, the individual is counted twice, since two employment positions are occupied. 

On the other hand, WDERP derives unemployment rates from the BLS data. The BLS employment 

and unemployment figures are a count of people, not jobs. This is the fundamental difference in 

methodology between BEA and BLS employment figures. Unemployed persons include those 

persons who did not work, have made specific efforts to find employment, and were also available 

for work. The unemployment rate is calculated by dividing the number of unemployed persons by the 

total civilian labor force. All unemployment information was obtained from WDERP (2002a, 2002b, 

2002c). 

3.1.3.1 United States 

Households throughout the U.S. 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 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 21 

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. Census estimates indicate that the median household income for 

the U.S. grew 3.2% between 2000 and 2002 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004). 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 3.4). 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). 

3.1.3.2 Wyoming 

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 3.4). According to U.S. Census Bureau estimates, 

the state’s median household income grew 5% between 2000 and 2002 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004). 

In distinct contrast to national increases, Wyoming’s personal per capita income fell by nearly 4% 

from 1980 to 1990, but experienced a recovery of 16% from 1990 to 2000, for an overall increase of 

11% (0.5% average annual growth) over the 20-year study period. This trend continues with an 

18.5% increase in personal per capita income from 2000 to 2003 (WDAI 2005b). 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 (WDERP 2002a, 2002b, 2002c). In 2003, the 

unemployment rate for Wyoming rose slightly to 4.4% (WDAI 2005b). 

3.1.3.3 Lincoln County 

Lincoln County residents experienced an overall increase in income, along with reduced poverty and 

unemployment rates over the 20-year study period. 

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) (see Table 3.4). Between 2000 and 2002, median household income 

increased by 9.2% (U.S. Census Bureau 2004). Personal per capita income in Lincoln County 

decreased by nearly 3% from 1980 to 1990 but followed the state trend for an increase of nearly 10% 

from 1990 to 2000, for an overall increase of almost 7% (0.3% average annual increase) over the 

20-year study period. Over that period, personal per capita income only slightly exceeded the poverty 

level. The poverty rate decreased slightly from 1979 (11.5%) to 1989 (11.4%) and decreased again, 

to 9% by 1999 (U.S. Census Bureau 1981, 1990, 2000a). The poverty rate rose slightly to 9.1% in 

2002 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004). Unemployment followed a rise-and-fall pattern similar to that 

experienced by the state and the other counties in the study area, with the unemployment rate 

increasing from 6.0% in 1980 to 6.6% in 1990, then falling to 5.2% in 2000 and increasing again to 

5.8 in 2003 (WDERP 2002a, 2002b, 2002c, WDAI 2005b). 

Data were not collected for LaBarge until the 1990 census. LaBarge has experienced trends similar 

to those of the state, with median household income increasing by approximately 55% (4% average 

annual growth) from 1990 to 2000 (see Table 3.4). Personal per capita income increased more than 

169% (10% average annual growth) between 1990 and 2000. Despite the dramatic increase, the per 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
22 Section 3 

capita income of LaBarge barely exceeded the poverty level ($18,244). The poverty rate 

significantly decreased from 24.5% in 1989 to 12.3% in 1999; however, it still exceeded the poverty 

rate in both the state and county, as well as the other counties in the study area. 

3.1.3.4 Sublette County 

Sublette County residents experienced an overall increase in income, although poverty rates remained 

stable and unemployment rates increased over the 20-year study period. 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 2005a). 

Personal per capita income in Sublette County followed the state trend and fell by almost 2% 

between 1980 and 1990 but increased by almost 9% from 1990 to 2000, for an overall increase of 7% 

(0.3% average annual growth) over the course of the 20-year study period (see Table 3.4). The 

poverty rate 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 (U.S. Census Bureau 1981, 1990, 2000a). The poverty rate decreased 

to 7.3 in 2003 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004). 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. 

Unemployment followed a rise-and-fall pattern similar to that experienced by the state and the other 

counties in the study area, with the unemployment rate increasing from 2.7% in 1980 to 3.8% in 2000 

and then decreasing to 2.8 in 2003 (WDERP 2002a, 2002b, 2002c, WDAI 2005b). 

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. Marbleton had the highest increase in 

median household income (22%; 2% average annual growth) and personal per capita income (112%; 

8% average annual growth) (see Table 3.4). Despite the increase, the per capita income of Marbleton 

barely exceeds the poverty level and 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 

($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. EPS indicates that the fastest growing area of personal income is from non-labor sources, 

presumably in-migrants attracted by the quality of life in the community (personal communication, 

December 2004, with Roy Allen, Economist, BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne). 

3.1.3.5 Sweetwater County 

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 3.4). Median household income increased 9% 

from 2000 to 2002. Median household income increased 9.6% from 2000 to 2002 (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2005a). Personal per capita income increased 53% from 1980 to 1990 and 67% from 1990 to 

2000, for an overall increase of 156% over the course of the 20-year study period (see Table 3.4). 

The poverty rate increased 42% from 1979 to 1989 but only increased 5% from 1989 to 1999 

and remained constant 2002–2004 (U.S. Census Bureau 1981, 1990, 2000a, 2004). The 2000 

unemployment rate in Sweetwater County was 4.8%, higher than both the state and national rates. 

Unemployment followed a rise-and-fall pattern similar to that experienced by the state and the other 

counties in the study area, with the unemployment rate increasing from 3.7% in 1980 to 5.5% in 

1990, then decreasing to 4.8% by 2000 and to 4.3% in 2003 (WDERP 2002a, 2002b, 2002c; WDAI 

2005b). 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 23 

Rock Springs experienced a decline in median household income (-0.4%) from 1980 to 1990 but 

experienced an increase (165%) from 1990 to 2000, for an overall increase of 164% (5% average 

annual growth) over the 20-year study period (see Table 3.4). Personal per capita income increased 

(151%) from 1980 to 1990 and again from 1990 to 2000 (73%), for an overall increase of 334% 

(8% average annual growth) over the course of the 20-year study period. Despite the increase in 

personal income, the Rock Springs poverty level increased from 5.8% in 1979 to 8.5% in 1989 and to 

9.4% in 1999. 

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 3.4). 

3.1.4 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. Employment 

disability was defined for the purposes of the last census as a condition that had lasted 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 the unemployment rates in 

each county, approximately 1,718 unemployed, working-age residents were available for 

employment in the study area in 2000 (Table 3.5). Of those, 1,140 were reported from Sweetwater 

County. In November 2004, however, a labor shortage was reported in all sectors in Sweetwater 

County, with as many as 600 job vacancies existing (Mast 2004). Additionally, Halliburton reported 

that it was having difficulty filling the 100 new jobs created by its facility in Rock Springs (Mast 

2004). 

3.1.4.1 United States 

As a whole, in 2000, the population of the U.S. was almost equally divided between males (49%) and 

females (51%). There were 186,047,605 (66% of the total population) working-age residents in the 

U.S. (U.S. Census Bureau 2000e) (see Table 3.5). According to census records, 57,890,659 

individuals in the U.S. were work-disabled (U.S. Census Bureau 2000f), leaving a total of 

128,156,946 working-age individuals nationwide (see Table 3.5). Given an unemployment rate of 

4%, approximately 5,126,277 unemployed residents of working age were available for employment 

in the nation. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
24 Section 3 

3.1.4.2 Wyoming 

As a whole, in 2000, the population of Wyoming was almost equally divided between males 

(248,253; 50.3%) and females (245,529; 49.7%) (see Table 3.5). There were 330,940 (67% of the 

total population) working-age residents in Wyoming (U.S. Census Bureau 2000e). According to 

census records, 30,952 individuals in Wyoming were work-disabled (U.S. Census Bureau 2000f), 

leaving a total of 299,988 working-age individuals statewide. Given an unemployment rate of 3.9%, 

approximately 11,699 unemployed residents of working age were available for employment in the 

state. 

Table 3.5. Population and Workforce, 20001 

County 

Sex and Age U.S. Wyoming Lincoln 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 disabilities2 57,890,659 30,952 633 325 1,942 

Total potential workforce 128,156,946 299,988 8,449 3,681 23,759 

Unemployment rate 4.0% 3.9% 5.2% 3.8% 4.8% 

Number of persons available 5,126,277 11,699 439 139 1,140 

for employment 

1 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000e). 2 Source for persons with disability data: U.S. Census Bureau (2000f). 

3.1.4.3 Lincoln County 

In 2000, the population of Lincoln County was nearly equally divided between males (7,375; 51%) 

and females (7,198; 49%) (see Table 3.5). There were 9,082 (62%) working-age residents in Lincoln 

County (U.S. Census Bureau 2000e). Of these, the census indicated that 633 people were workdisabled (U.S. Census Bureau 2000f), leaving 8,449 working-age individuals available for 

employment. Given an unemployment rate of 5.2%, approximately 439 unemployed residents of 

working age were available for employment in Lincoln County. 

3.1.4.4 Sublette County 

The population in Sublette County had slightly more males (3,041; 51%) than females (2,879; 49%) 

(see Table 3.5). There were 4,006 (68%) working-age residents in Sublette County (U.S. Census 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 25 

Bureau 2000e). Of these, the census indicated that 325 individuals were work-disabled (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2000f), leaving a total of 3,681 working-age individuals available for employment. Given an 

unemployment rate of 3.8%, approximately 139 unemployed residents of working age were available 

for employment in Sublette County. 

3.1.4.5 Sweetwater County 

In 2000, the population of Sweetwater County was nearly equally divided between males (18,967; 

50%) and females (18,646; 50%) (see Table 3.5). There were 25,701 (68%) working-age residents in 

Sweetwater County (U.S. Census Bureau 2000e). Of these, the census indicated that 1,942 

individuals were work-disabled (U.S. Census Bureau 2000f), leaving a total of 23,759 working-age 

individuals available for employment. Given an unemployment rate of 4.8%, approximately 

1,140 unemployed residents of working age were available for employment in Sweetwater County. 

3.1.5 Quality of Living 

Data on quality of living for each county in the study area were obtained from the Wyoming Business 

Council (2002), WDAI (2002b), and the Wyoming Attorney General’s office (1999, 2000, 2001, 

2002, 2003, 2004). Due to the remoteness and atypical nature of the JIDP study area, the U.S. is not 

included in the quality of life analysis. 

3.1.5.1 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 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. 

In 2004 the national crime rates were 465.5 arrests per 100,000 residents for violent offenses and 

3,517.7 per 100,000 residents for property crime (U.S. Department of Justice 2004). Wyoming’s 

crime rates were lower for both violent crimes (228.6) and property crimes (3,352.0) (Wyoming 

Attorney General 2004). Based on information provided in UCR annual reports, the comparable 

crime rates were calculated for Lincoln, Sublette, and Sweetwater Counties. National, state, and 

county crime rates are all reported in Table 3.6a. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
26 Section 3 

Table 3.6a. Crime Rates1 for the U.S., Wyoming, and the Three-County Study Area, 2004 

Jurisdiction U.S. Wyoming Lincoln 

County 

Sublette 

County 

Sweetwater 

County 

Violent Crime Rate 465.5 228.6 256.0 405.8 598.5 

Property Crime Rate 3,517.7 3,352.0 1,305.5 3,531.7 4,558.0 

1 Crime rate = number of crimes per 100,000 residents. 

In 2004, Lincoln County’s violent crime rate (256.0) was higher than the state’s but lower than the 

nation’s; the property crime rate (1,305.5) was lower than both the state’s and the nation’s. Sublette 

County’s violent crime rate (405.8) and property crime rate (3,531.7) were both higher than the state 

crime rates but lower than national crime rates. Sweetwater County’s violent crime rate (598.5) and 

property crime rate (4,558.0) were both higher than rates for the state and the nation. 

In addition to reporting crime rate offenses, the UCR program reports arrest totals. Table 3.6b 

provides the number of arrests in Wyoming and in the three-county study area for 1999 to 2004. 

Data presented in Table 3.6b 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 (see Table 3.6b) (Wyoming Attorney General 2004). Arrest totals decreased 

for the majority of crimes listed in Table 3.6b; however; the number of arrests for aggravated assault, 

burglary, drug offenses, and driving under the influence increased. 

Reported 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) 

(see Table 3.6b) (Wyoming Attorney General 2004). 

Reported 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 laws (25), and aggravated 

assault (14) (see Table 3.6b) (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 larcenytheft (220) (see Table 3.6b) (Wyoming Attorney General 2004). 

3.1.5.2 Infrastructure 

County and community profile information was primarily obtained from BLM (1997) as well as local 

community websites and other extant information. 

Lincoln County 

In Lincoln County, LaBarge is the only potentially affected community. Incorporated in 1973, 

LaBarge 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 full-time and one parttime policeman, 911 emergency telephone service, and a 15-member volunteer fire department. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 3.6b. Arrest Totals, 1999–2004 

Crime 

Wyoming State Lincoln County Sublett

19991 20002 20013 20024 20035 20046 19991 20002 20013 20024 20035 20046 19991 20002 20013 

A J A J A J A J A J A J A J A J A J A J A J A J A J A J A J 

Murder & Non-Negligent Manslaughter 11 0 12 0 12 0 8 2 10 0 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Forcible Rape 40 5 39 5 38 3 56 3 29 3 27 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Robbery 26 7 33 9 22 12 36 7 32 2 26 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Aggravated Assault 345 77 460 86 425 84 452 62 449 49 391 61 15 1 19 8 25 1 30 4 15 4 28 7 2 0 1 1 1 0 

Burglary 244 140 234 160 223 165 243 103 233 100 269 71 2 3 10 8 2 1 1 2 6 0 4 0 4 4 6 3 5 0 Larceny-Theft 1,389 1,316 1,347 968 1,205 894 1,296 804 1,155 897 1,222 790 11 6 11 17 16 19 8 7 9 5 4 6 7 2 9 4 5 1 

Motor Vehicle Theft 74 74 83 60 61 47 84 34 72 46 78 22 4 2 1 2 2 4 1 1 1 2 6 2 2 0 3 0 1 0 

Manslaughter by Negligence 4 1 6 0 4 0 10 1 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Arson 5 9 11 19 25 27 48 10 11 6 21 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Other Assaults 1,779 406 2,098 471 2,019 433 2,097 507 2,020 598 2,247 730 15 4 17 2 18 3 18 1 24 6 15 2 19 0 33 0 41 0 

Forgery & Counterfeiting 96 10 118 12 100 17 126 5 110 5 146 5 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Fraud 216 19 210 17 246 8 224 10 184 18 167 12 5 0 3 0 10 0 10 1 6 0 4 0 12 0 9 0 6 1 

Embezzlement 10 0 3 0 3 1 11 0 4 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Stolen Property; Buy, Receive or Possess 59 22 68 25 63 13 102 12 94 15 73 8 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Vandalism 327 274 319 216 398 270 330 247 378 207 388 276 0 1 0 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 5 0 4 0 

Weapons; Carry, Possess 95 60 90 56 70 67 90 45 74 49 83 51 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Prostitution & Commercialized Vice 2 1 4 0 3 0 2 5 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sex Offenses (Except Rape and Prostitution) 93 20 123 23 121 29 120 17 101 15 107 19 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 1 2 1 4 1 1 0 2 0 3 2 

Drug Abuse Violations 1,763 558 1,823 484 2,009 557 2,188 487 2,177 447 2,363 540 26 11 28 9 40 3 63 6 45 7 40 15 21 3 14 1 13 1 

Gambling Offenses 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Offenses Against Family & Children 213 9 194 17 171 17 150 13 237 20 228 20 1 0 3 0 4 1 0 0 9 0 1 0 5 1 1 0 1 1 

Driving under the Influence 4,157 101 4,386 80 4,357 81 4,164 68 4,207 71 4,469 81 151 2 124 3 159 1 153 2 132 3 109 3 75 0 63 0 47 0 

Liquor Laws 3,959 2,104 3,896 1,731 3,501 1,349 3,193 1304 3,016 1,193 2,892 1,141 37 13 28 12 27 6 33 6 9 3 8 7 33 7 28 2 28 3 

Drunkenness 1,578 74 1,387 66 1,277 53 1,204 23 1,430 30 1,370 22 25 19 8 7 23 8 7 3 14 1 10 3 1 0 3 0 6 0 

Disorderly Conduct 1,089 517 1,027 432 1,133 360 1,061 325 1,029 280 966 256 11 1 5 1 3 2 4 2 8 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Vagrancy 134 17 140 46 229 17 764 97 1124 107 38 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

All Other Offenses (except Traffic) 7,905 1,872 8,206 1,687 8,467 1,582 9,132 1389 9,109 1391 10,521 1,537 31 5 15 4 21 10 40 6 22 2 38 4 56 1 52 1 64 3 

Suspicion 17 32 12 88 32 84 47 52 11 75 21 51 8 0 4 0 4 0 5 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Curfew & Loitering Law Violations N/A 630 N/A 717 N/A 485 N/A 382 N/A 334 N/A 409 N/A 12 N/A 20 N/A 6 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 Runaways N/A 218 N/A 176 N/A 146 N/A 142 N/A 197 N/A 305 N/A 6 N/A 7 N/A 5 N/A 0 N/A 6 N/A 4 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 Totals 25,631 8,573 26,330 7,651 26,215 6,801 27,240 6,156 27,304 6,155 28,143 6,429 349 86 280 105 363 71 379 46 314 40 290 57 239 18 230 12 226 12 

Total Arrests 34,204 33,981 33,016 33,396 33,459 34,572 435 385 434 425 354 347 257 242 238 

1 Source: Wyoming Attorney General 1999 2 Source: Wyoming Attorney General 2000 3 Source: Wyoming Attorney General 2001 4 Source: Wyoming Attorney General 2002 5 Source: Wyoming Attorney General 2003 6 Source: Wyoming Attorney General 2004 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
28 Section 3 

There is a 6,000-

36 rooms, and an 

ambulance servic

Recreational faci

small airport. 

Sublette County Sublette County 

nearest hospitals 

post offices (Bi

Pinedale); and tw

schools, and a pr

distance learnin

garbage/refuse se

supplier, and on

infrastructure an

citizen’s recyclin

Sublette County a

Pinedale. Locat

JIDPA on U.S. 

mayor/council g

protection for the 

is a 37,000-volum

with a total of 16

include a clinic, t

home with 107 ro

Pinedale has one 

well as a small a

Sublette County 

straight. The Pin

and gas workers. 

Pinedale has a va

located on the we

the downtown ar

and individual ca

generally, is a ma

the many outdoor 

and hiking, wilde

skiing, cross-cou
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 29 

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 general store, gas station, RV park (nine spaces), motel (nine rooms), restaurant, and bar. 

Sweetwater County 

Sweetwater County is located in the southwestern part of Wyoming approximately 60 miles from the 

border with Utah and Colorado. Communities in Sweetwater County most likely to be affected by the 

JIDP include the county’s largest city, Rock Springs, and two unincorporated communities, Eden and 

Farson. 

Rock Springs. Established in 1888 as a mining town, 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 (I-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 (a 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 television, telephone service, 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 

opportunities available within 30 miles of the city include Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area 

and various opportunities 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. Eden 

and Farson together have 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 an emergency medical 

technician service is available. The nearest medical facility is in Rock Springs. The two communities 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
30 Section 3 

support 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. 

3.1.5.3 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 3.7. Numbers of authorized 

building permits for 1980–2004 were obtained from the Wyoming Housing Database Partnership 

(WHDP) (2005) and are listed in Table 3.8. Rental rates and costs in the three counties as compared 

to those for the state as a whole were obtained from WDAI (2003b) (Table 3.9a), and information on 

housing values as well as percentage of income spent on housing was obtained from the WHDP 

(2003) (Table 3.9b). Housing data reported in Tables 3.7–3.10 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 are more (2005) 

specific to local conditions than the data generated from WHDP and are used to supplement the data 

from both state and census sources. 

Table 3.7. Historical and Projected Housing Availability 

Wyoming Lincoln 

Housing Item Historical Projected Historical Projected 

1980 1990 2000 2002 2007 2012 1980 1990 2000 2002 2007 2012 

Type of Housing1,2 

Vacant 22,593 34,572 30,246 38,804 38,706 39,582 812 1,272 1,565 1,349 1,389 1,430 

Owner-occupied 114,653 114,544 135,514 139,391 149,399 159,413 3,035 3,310 4,280 4,461 4,869 5,282 

Renter-occupied 50,971 54,295 58,094 58,736 60,422 62,098 824 826 986 1,024 1,072 1,116 

Total housing units 188,217 203,411 223,854 236,931 248,527 261,093 4,671 5,408 6,831 6,834 7,330 7,828 

Percent of Housing1 

Vacant 12.0 17.0 13.5 16.4 15.6 15.2 17.4 23.5 22.9 19.7 18.9 18.3 

Owner-occupied 60.9 56.3 60.5 58.8 60.1 61.1 65.0 61.2 62.7 65.3 66.4 67.5 

Renter-occupied 27.1 26.7 26.0 24.8 24.3 23.8 17.6 15.3 14.4 15.0 14.6 14.30 

Sublette Sweetwater 

Housing Item Historical Projected Historical Projected 

1980 1990 2000 2002 2007 2012 1980 1990 2000 2002 2007 2012 

Type of Housing1,2 

Vacant 802 1,077 1,181 1,155 1,177 1,201 1,064 1,828 1,816 2,075 2,063 2,107 

Owner-occupied 1,121 1,281 1,737 1,820 2,055 2,289 9,470 9,552 10,586 10,722 10,960 11,154 

Renter-occupied 470 553 634 652 692 733 4,582 4,065 3,519 3,420 3,168 2,926 

Total housing units 2,393 2,911 3,552 3,627 3,924 4,223 15,116 15,445 15,921 16,217 16,191 16,187 

Percent of Housing1 

Vacant 33.5 37.0 33.2 31.8 30.0 28.4 7.0 11.8 11.4 12.8 12.7 13.0 

Owner-occupied 46.8 44.0 48.9 50.2 52.4 54.2 62.6 61.8 66.5 66.1 67.7 68.9 

Renter-occupied 19.6 19.0 17.9 18.0 17.6 17.4 30.3 26.3 22.1 21.1 19.6 18.1 

1 Historical data from WDAI (2002a); projected data from Wyoming Business Council (2002). Reported average availability may not 

accurately reflect actual availability within particular 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). 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 31 

Table 3.8. 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: WHDP 2005. 

The U.S. Census Bureau defines a housing unit as “a house, an apartment, a group of rooms or a 

single room intended for occupancy as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in 

which the occupants live separately from any other individuals in the building and which have a 

direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall. In accordance with this 

definition, each apartment unit in an apartment building is counted as one housing unit” (WHDP 

2003). 

Residences reported herein include single family units (including mobile homes), duplex units, triand four-plex units, and multi-family units. The habitability of vacant residences is unknown, and 

the acceptability of any individual housing unit is not quantifiable and is subjective for each 

individual tenant. Housing units are locations intended to be permanent living residences and do not 

include transient lodging facilities such as hotels, motels, and bed-and-breakfasts. 

In 2002, Wyoming had a total of 236,931 housing units with a 16.4% vacancy rate (38,804 vacant 

units). More than 2,000 residential housing building permits were issued statewide in 2002 (WHDP 

2003) (see Table 3.8). 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 3.9a. Average Rental Rates, 2001–20051,2,3 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Apartment4

Second Quarter Location Fourth Quarter1 

2001

($) 

2002

($) 

20053 

($) 

2001–

2005

Change

(%) 

House5

Fourth Second Quarter 

Quarter1 

2001

($) 

2002

($) 

20056 

($) 

2001–

2005

Change

(%) 

Mobile Home6

Fourth Second Quarter 

Quarter1 

2001

($) 

2002

($) 

20053 

($) 

2001–

2005

Change

(%) 

Mo

Fourth 

Quarter1 

2001

($) 

Wyoming 430 443 504 17.2 599 617 693 15.7 436 448 505 15.8 178 Lincoln 292 332 -- -- 400 388 -- -- 315 304 -- -- 158 Lincoln-Afton8 NR NR 496 -- NR NR 727 -- NR NR 476 -- NR 

LincolnKemmerer8 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 31.3 533 516 673 26.3 422 422 594 40.8 201 

1 Source for 2001–2002 data: WDAI (2003b). Reported average rental rates may not accurately reflect actual rates within particular communities (e.g., Pinedale) that hav

other projects (e.g., Pinedale Anticline Project) in the area.

2 Source for 2005 data: WDAI (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 no longer provided data for Lincoln County as a whole. Instead, they divided Lincoln County into two reporting units: Lincoln-A

The percent changes for 2001–2005, therefore, cannot be calculated for Lincoln County. 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 33 

Table 3.9b. Housing Values and Percentage of Income Spent on Housing, 20001 

Wyoming Lincoln 

County 

Sublette Sweetwater 

Housing Values 

Number of Occupied Units 193,608 5,266 2,371 14,105 

Median Value $96,600 $95,300 $112,000 $104,200 

Median Monthly Owner Costs 

Mortgage $825 $855 $847 $953 

No mortgage $229 $233 $243 $231 

Median Selected Renter Costs 

Contract Rent $373 $362 $413 $363 

Gross Rent $437 $434 $523 $428 

Percentage of Income Spent on Housing2 

Rental Units 

Number of Units 55,793 921 502 3,488 

Less than 10% 5,109 101 41 449 

10–14% 8,331 167 74 715 

15–19% 8,150 176 50 487 

20–24% 6,533 82 58 402 

25–29% 4,914 54 23 286 

30–34% 3,569 30 21 162 

35–39% 2,641 28 13 134 

40–49% 3,177 81 32 125 

>50% 7,179 120 75 385 

Not computed 6,190 921 115 343 

Units with Mortgage 

Number of Units 62,809 1,838 473 5,128 

Less than 10% 5,157 126 35 426 

10–14% 13,007 347 87 1,173 

15–19% 13,879 363 85 1,201 

20–24% 10,691 296 69 833 

25–29% 6,845 222 63 567 

30–34% 3,783 118 45 325 

35–39% 2,465 76 16 164 

40–49% 2,691 139 15 157 

>50% 4,081 139 56 259 

Not computed 210 12 2 23 

Units Without Mortgage 

Number of Units 32,782 1,147 389 2,155 

Less than 10% 19,215 688 239 1,423 

10–14% 5,770 235 54 371 

15–19% 2,737 96 24 122 

20–24% 1,703 38 32 93 

25–29% 921 24 11 39 

30–34% 565 17 9 20 

35–39% 322 23 4 23 

40–49% 328 17 8 13 

>50% 911 17 6 44 

Not computed 310 12 2 7 

Total No. of Units Compiled for Income Spent on Housing2 151,384 3,906 1,364 10,771 

1 Source: WHDP (2003). 2 Total number of units used by WHDP to calculate percentage of income spent on housing unit information does not equal total number of 

occupied units. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
34 Section 3 

The cost of rental housing for the fourth quarter of 2005 increased approximately 14–17% from 2001 

for apartments, houses, mobile homes, and mobile home lots n Wyoming. The highest rent in the 

second quarter of 2005 was for houses at $693, up 15.7% from 2001, and the lowest rent was for 

mobile home lots at $203 (assumes the renter owns a mobile home to place on a lot), up 14.0% from 

2001 (see Table 3.9a). 

3.1.5.3.1 Wyoming 

According to WHDP (2003), 193,608 residential units in Wyoming were occupied in 2000 (see Table 

3.9b). The median value of these units was $96,600, with a median mortgage payment of $825 and 

a median gross rent of $437. Of the 151,384 units surveyed for percentage of income spent on 

housing, 36.9% of these units were rentals, 41.5% were mortgaged units, and 21.7% were units 

without a mortgage. Some occupants paid more than 50% of their income for housing costs (12.9% 

of renters, 6.5% of mortgaged unit owners, and 2.8% of unmortgaged unit occupants) (see Table 

3.9b). 

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 3.10). 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). 

Table 3.10. Second Home Housing Units, Wyoming and Lincoln, Sublette, and Sweetwater 

Counties, 1990–20001 

1990 2000 

Area Name Total 

Housing Units 

Second 

Home Units 

Total 

Housing Units 

Second 

Home Units 

% Second 

Homes 

Change 

1990–2000 

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 Source: Taylor and Lieske (2002b). 

3.1.5.3.2 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 2003) (see Table 3.8). 

Lincoln County had the lowest rental costs in the study area in 2001 (see Table 3.9a). With the 

exception of one reporting category (house rentals in one division2 of Lincoln County), rents in 

Beginning in 2003, rather than report rental costs for Lincoln County as a whole, WDAI has reported Lincoln 

County statistics in two divisions: Lincoln-Afton and Lincoln-Kemmerer. For this reason, it is not possible to 

provide percentage changes in countywide rental costs before and after that date. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

2 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 35 

Lincoln County continued to be the lowest in the study area in the second quarter of 2005, the most 

recent reporting period. The highest rent category in the fourth quarter of 2001 was houses ($400); 

by the second quarter of 2005 that amount had risen to $727 in Lincoln-Afton but only $407 in 

Lincoln-Kemmerer. The lowest rent category in 2001 was mobile home lots ($158). By 2005, that 

had risen to $208 in Lincoln-Afton and $178 in Lincoln-Kemmerer. As shown in Table 3.9a, in the 

second quarter of 2005, rents in Lincoln-Afton were consistently higher than in Lincoln-Kemmerer. 

According to WHDP (2003), 5,266 residential units in Lincoln County were occupied in 2000 

(see Table 3.9b). The median value of these units was $95,300, with a median mortgage payment of 

$855 and a median gross rent of $434. Of the 3,906 units surveyed for percentage of income spent on 

housing, 23.6% were rentals, 47.1% were mortgaged units, and 29.4% were units without a mortgage. 

In Lincoln County, 8.8% of renters, 7.8% of mortgaged unit occupants, and 1.5% of unmortgaged 

unit occupants spent more than half their income on housing costs. 

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). 

3.1.5.3.3 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 3.7). 

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 3.10). According 

to the County Assessor’s Office, there is a shortage of available housing in Sublette 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. 

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, p. 21). 

Between 2000 and 2004, the number of new building permits issued annually in the county increased 

by 72% (see Table 3.8) (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: 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
36 Section 3 

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, p. 24). 

In the second quarter of 2005, Sublette County had the highest rental costs in the study area for 

apartments ($699, up 58.5% from the fourth quarter of 2001), houses ($822, up 43.9%), mobile 

homes ($590, up 68.6%), and mobile home lots ($240, up 37.1%) (see Table 3.9a). These increases 

tended to be the highest in the study area. 

According to WHDP (2003), 2,371 residential units in Sublette County were occupied in 2000 

(see Table 3.9b). The median value of these units was $112,000, with a median mortgage payment of 

$847 and a median gross rent of $523. Of the 1,364 units surveyed for percentage of income spent 

on housing, 36.8% were rentals, 34.7% were mortgaged units, and 28.5% were units without a 

mortgage. In Sublette County, 14.9% of renters, 18.4% of mortgaged unit occupants, and 61.4% of 

unmortgaged unit occupants spent more than half their income on housing costs. 

Between 1998 and 2004, the cost for an average single-family home in Sublette County increased by 

65% (PAWG 2005). Over the same time frame, the statewide increase for an average single-family 

home was 35%. 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 2005). 

3.1.5.3.4 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 3.7). 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 3.10). 

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 3.9a). 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). 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 3.8) (WHDP 2005). 

According to WHDP (2003), 14,105 residential units in Sweetwater County were occupied in 2000 

(see Table 3.9b). The median value of these units was $104,200, with a median mortgage payment of 

$953 and a median gross rent of $428. Of the 10,771 units surveyed for percentage of income spent 

on housing, 32.4% were rentals, 47.6% were mortgaged units, and 20.0% were units without a 

mortgage. In Sweetwater County, 11.0% of renters, 5.1% of mortgaged unit occupants, and 2.0% of 

unmortgaged unit occupants paid more than 50% of their income for housing costs. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 37 

3.1.5.4 Cost of Living and Inflation 

Cost of living and inflation information is collected by the WDAI and is used to build a Comparative 

Cost of Living Index for each of Wyoming’s 23 counties. To build the index, prices are collected for 

140 items and aggregated into six categories, which were then weighted according to their overall 

importance in the average consumer’s budget. These categories and their respective weight 

components include housing (46.3%), transportation (17.1%), food (14.7%), recreation and personal 

care (10.3%), apparel (5.8%), and medical costs (5.8%). The housing category, due to its relative 

importance in the average consumer’s budget, carries the largest weight factor and is the most 

influential category in both the comparative index and the inflation rates. Table 3.11 presents data 

from the Comparative Cost of Living Index for the fourth quarter of 2002 and for the second quarter 

of 2005 (WDAI 2003b, WDAI 2005c) 

Table 3.11. Comparative Cost of Living Index for Each Wyoming County Compared with the 

Statewide Average of 100 

Fourth Quarter 20021 

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 20052 

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 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
38 Section 3 

Table 3.11. (Continued) 

Second Quarter 20052 

Rank County All Items Food Housing Apparel Transportation Medical Recreation and 

Personal Care 

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 

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 

24 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). 

3.1.5.4.1 Lincoln County 

Lincoln County ranked eighteenth in the state in the fourth quarter of 2002 (see Table 3.11). 

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 

2005b). In the second quarter of 2005, Lincoln-Afton ranked fifth and Lincoln-Kemmerer ranked 

seventeenth for cost of living. Lincoln-Afton reported an all-items index of 103 and the state’s fourth 

highest housing index of 107. Lincoln-Kemmerer had a significantly lower cost of living than the 

other counties in the study area with an all-items index of 90. It had the lowest index in the study area 

for food (89), housing (83), transportation (100), and medical (88). 

3.4.5.4.2. Sublette County 

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 3.11). In 2005, the 

county had the highest cost of living in the study area, with an all-items ranking of 112—a sevenpoint increase from the second quarter 2002 (see Table 3.11). Sublette County had the highest index 

in the study area for food (102), housing (118), apparel (125), and recreation and personal care (114). 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 39 

3.4.5.4.3 Sweetwater County 

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 3.11). With an index of 104 in 2005, the cost of the county’s 

medical services remained the highest in the study area. Sweetwater County had the lowest index in 

the study area for apparel (95) and recreation and personal care (98). 

3.1.5.5 Inflation 

Tables 3.12 and 3.13 show estimated Wyoming inflation rates. Table 3.12 shows estimated inflation 

rates for all categories and the respective category weights. Table 3.13 shows the estimated annual 

“all-items” inflation rates for the five regions of the state, as well as statewide rates. 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 

(2005b) weighted the data by population to more accurately represent the price changes experienced 

by the majority of consumers in Wyoming. 

Table 3.12. Annual Inflation Rates in Wyoming by Category (Statewide Average)1 

Category (%) 

Quarter2 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 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
40 Section 3 

Table 3.13. Annual Inflation Rates for the U.S., Wyoming, and Regions in Wyoming1 

Quarter3 U.S. Consumer 

Price Index (%) 

Wyoming 

(All Items %) Southeast 

Region2 (All Items %) 

Southwest Central Northeast Northwest 

4Q96 3.3 4.8 5.2 4.0 5.0 4.2 4.9 

2Q97 2.3 2.8 3.6 2.8 3.1 1.0 2.6 

4Q97 1.7 2.9 3.3 4.0 1.9 3.0 2.2 

2Q98 1.7 1.5 1.3 2.6 0.3 2.1 2.5 

4Q98 1.6 2.2 2.7 2.8 1.4 2.0 2.4 

2Q99 2.0 2.6 3.8 3.4 1.5 2.6 0.9 

4Q994 2.7 3.1 3.6 2.6 2.8 3.4 3.0 

2Q00 3.7 4.3 3.9 2.3 4.4 7.4 4.0 

4Q00 3.4 3.2 2.8 2.6 3.4 6.9 3.8 

2Q01 3.2 4.3 4.1 3.1 5.0 4.8 4.6 

4Q01 1.6 3.5 4.9 2.3 2.9 4.0 2.6 

2Q02 1.1 2.5 2.6 1.4 2.8 3.1 2.2 

4Q02 2.4 3.7 3.0 2.5 5.1 5.1 2.7 

2Q03 2.1 2.9 3.0 3.5 2.1 3.1 3.0 

4Q03 1.9 3.6 4.1 4.3 2.6 3.4 3.9 

2Q04 3.3 4.9 4.4 4.6 5.1 6.4 4.4 

4Q04 3.3 4.3 4.0 4.8 4.8 4.3 3.3 

2Q05 2.5 4.5 4.4 6.6 4.6 3.2 3.5 

1 WDAI (2003b) was the source of data for 4Q96–4Q01; WDAI (2005c) was the source of data for 2Q02–2Q05. 2 Regional Composition for Inflation Estimate: 

Southeast: Albany, Carbon, Goshen, Laramie, Niobrara, and Platte Counties. 

Southwest: Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, and Uinta Counties. 

Central: Converse, Fremont, and Natrona Counties. 

Northeast: Campbell, Crook, Johnson, Sheridan, and Weston Counties. 

Northwest: Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, Teton, and Washakie Counties. 3 4Q96 = fourth quarter (October, November, December) 1996. Fourth quarter represents the December to December and 2nd Quarter represents the June 

to June percent change. 4 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 Wyoming annual all-items inflation rate for the second quarter of 2005 was 4.5.% (see Table 

3.12), with the transportation category experiencing the highest inflation rate for the second 

consecutive period. The inflation rate for medical ranked second overall; however, the rate had 

decreased since the fourth quarter 2004. 

Table 3.13 compares inflation rates of different regions in Wyoming with the U.S. and the entire 

state. The study area falls within the southwest region of the state, which consists of Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, and Unita 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. 

3.1.6 Education 

3.1.6.1 Primary and Secondary Education 

Table 3.14 provides information obtained from the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES) 

on education statistics in the study area (NCES 2003, 2005). Table 3.15 presents proficiency 

statistics for economically disadvantaged students in each school district in the study area. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 41 

Proficiency statistics are collected through the Wyoming Comprehensive Assessment System 

(WyCAS), a statewide, systematic approach to student assessment (Wyoming Department of 

Education Assessment and Accountability Office 2003). 

Table 3.14. Education Statistics, 2003–20041 

County Statistic Wyoming Lincoln Sublette Sweetwater 

Schools 380 13 8 25 

School Districts 59 2 2 2 

Students 87,462 3,191 1,306 7,012 

American Indian/Alaskan Native Students 3,033 23 10 81 

Asian/Pacific Islander Students 847 27 12 47 

Black Non-Hispanic Students 1,197 3 10 90 

Hispanic Students 7,200 94 30 784 

White Non-Hispanic Students 75,185 3,045 1,147 5,862 

Staff 14,126 473 212 1,058 

Teachers 6,568 212 102 476 

Pupil/Teacher Ratio 13:1 15:1 13:1 15:1 

1 Source: NCES (2003, 2005). 

Table 3.15. Results of WyCAS Testing, Categorized by Economically Disadvantaged Category1 

District Name 

Total Number 

of Students 

Tested 

Number of 

Economically 

Disadvantaged 

Students 

Proficient and 

Advancing 

(%) 

Number of 

Students Not 

Economically 

Disadvantaged 

Proficient and 

Advancing (%) 

FOURTH GRADE 

Reading 

Lincoln #1 42 9 11 33 33 

Lincoln #2 180 68 49 112 63 

Sublette #1 51 14 21 37 68 

Sublette #9 41 17 41 24 38 

Sweetwater #1 279 86 22 193 48 

Sweetwater #2 196 52 31 144 44 

Writing 

Lincoln #1 42 9 11 33 30 

Lincoln #2 180 68 34 112 49 

Sublette #1 51 14 14 37 62 

Sublette #9 41 17 17 24 46 

Sweetwater #1 279 86 86 193 45 

Sweetwater #2 196 52 52 144 37 

Mathematics 

Lincoln #1 42 9 22 33 27 

Lincoln #2 180 68 44 112 49 

Sublette #1 51 14 14 37 41 

Sublette #9 41 17 24 24 21 

Sweetwater #1 279 86 21 193 55 

Sweetwater #2 196 52 26 144 26 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
42 Section 3 

Table 3.15. (Continued) 

District Name Total Number of 

Students Tested 

Number of 

Economically 

Disadvantaged 

Students 

Proficient and 

Advancing 

(%) 

Number of 

Students Not 

Economically 

Disadvantaged 

Proficient and 

Advancing (%) 

EIGHT GRADE 

Reading 

Lincoln #1 61 12 33 49 31 

Lincoln #2 177 57 51 120 69 

Sublette #1 55 0 -- 55 64 

Sublette #9 58 15 27 43 53 

Sweetwater #1 332 37 11 295 25 

Sweetwater #2 205 20 15 185 45 

Writing 

Lincoln #1 61 12 33 49 45 

Lincoln #2 177 57 63 120 82 

Sublette #1 55 0 -- 55 65 

Sublette #9 58 15 60 43 60 

Sweetwater #1 332 37 11 295 35 

Sweetwater #2 205 20 25 185 56 

Mathematics 

Lincoln #1 61 12 25 49 24 

Lincoln #2 176 57 21 119 39 

Sublette #1 55 0 -- 55 56 

Sublette #9 58 15 27 43 33 

Sweetwater #1 332 37 3 295 33 

Sweetwater #2 205 20 0 185 44 

ELEVENTH GRADE 

Reading 

Lincoln #1 50 5 0 45 44 

Lincoln #2 180 33 55 147 69 

Sublette #1 55 11 55 44 66 

Sublette #9 41 5 20 36 58 

Sweetwater #1 308 0 -- 308 41 

Sweetwater #2 228 13 15 215 50 

Writing 

Lincoln #1 50 5 20 45 42 

Lincoln #2 180 33 70 147 69 

Sublette #1 55 11 64 44 89 

Sublette #9 41 5 60 36 61 

Sweetwater #1 308 0 -- 308 52 

Sweetwater #2 228 13 38 215 61 

Mathematics 

Lincoln #1 50 5 0 45 42 

Lincoln #2 180 33 48 147 54 

Sublette #1 55 11 55 44 61 

Sublette #9 41 5 40 36 56 

Sweetwater #1 308 0 -- 308 37 

Sweetwater #2 228 13 15 215 38 

1 Source: Wyoming Department of Education Assessment and Accountability Office (2003). 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 43 

3.1.6.1.1 Wyoming 

In the 2003–2004 school year, 380 schools in 59 school districts in Wyoming served a total 87,462 

students (see Table 3.14). The ethnic distribution of the students was as follows: white/non-Hispanic, 

86%; Hispanic, 8.2%; American Indian/Alaskan Native, 3.5%; black/non-Hispanic, 1.4%; and 

Asian/Pacific Islander, 1.0%. The average pupil/teacher ratio in the state was 13:1. 

3.1.6.1.2. Lincoln County 

Lincoln County had the second largest school system in the study area. In the 2003–2004 school 

year, 13 schools in two school districts (Lincoln #1 and Lincoln #2) served a total 3,191 students (see 

Table 3.14). The ethnic distribution of the students was as follows: white/non-Hispanic, 95.4%; 

Hispanic, 2.9%; Asian/Pacific Islander, 0.8%; American Indian/Alaskan Native, 0.7%; and 

black/non-Hispanic 0.1%. The average pupil/teacher ratio was15:1. 

As presented in the WyCAS test results, of the 222 fourth graders in Lincoln County tested for 

reading, writing, and mathematics, 34.7% were considered economically disadvantaged (see Table 

3.15). Of these, 44.2% were proficient in reading compared to 55.9% of students not economically 

disadvantaged. Approximately 31.2% of the economically disadvantaged fourth graders were 

proficient in writing compared to 44.8% of those not economically disadvantaged. Approximately 

41.6% of the economically disadvantaged students were proficient in mathematics compared to 

44.1% of those not economically disadvantaged. The results for eighth graders and eleventh graders 

were similar, with economically disadvantaged students consistently performing at lower levels than 

students not economically disadvantaged. 

3.1.6.1.3 Sublette County 

Sublette County had the smallest school system in the study area. In the 2003–2004 school year, 

eight schools in two school districts served a total 1,306 students (see Table 3.14). The ethnic 

distribution of the students was as follows: white/ non-Hispanic 87.8%; Hispanic, 2.3%; 

Asian/Pacific Islander, 0.9%; black/non-Hispanic, 0.8%; and American Indian/Alaskan Native, 0.8%. 

Sublette County had the lowest pupil/teacher ratio in the study area (13:1). 

As presented in the WyCAS test results, of the 92 fourth graders in Sublette County tested for 

reading, writing, and mathematics, 33.7% were considered economically disadvantaged (see Table 

3.15). Of these, 32.3% were proficient in reading compared to 55.7% of students not economically 

disadvantaged. Approximately 16.1% of economically disadvantaged fourth graders were proficient 

in writing compared to 55.7% of those not economically disadvantaged. Approximately 19.4% of the 

economically disadvantaged students were proficient in mathematics compared to 32.8% of those not 

economically disadvantaged. The results for eighth graders and eleventh graders in Sublette County 

were similar, with economically disadvantaged students consistently performing at lower levels than 

students not economically disadvantaged. 

3.1.6.1.4 Sweetwater County 

Sweetwater County had the largest school system in the study area. In the 2003–2004 school year, 

25 schools in two school districts served a total 7,012 students (see Table 3.14). The ethnic 

distribution of the students was as follows: white/ non-Hispanic, 83.6%; Hispanic, 11.2%; black/ 

non-Hispanic, 1.3%; American Indian/Alaskan Native, 1.2%; and Asian/Pacific Islander 0.7%. 

The average pupil/teacher ratio was 15:1, the same as Lincoln County. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
44 Section 3 

As presented in the WyCAS test results, of the 475 fourth graders in Sweetwater County tested for 

reading, writing, and mathematics, 29.1% were considered economically disadvantaged (see Table 

3.15). Of these, 25.4% were proficient in reading compared to 46.3% of students not economically 

disadvantaged. Approximately 73.2% of economically disadvantaged fourth graders were proficient 

in writing compared to 41.5% of those not economically disadvantaged. Approximately 23.2% of the 

economically disadvantaged students were proficient in mathematics compared to 42.7% of those not 

economically disadvantaged. The results for eighth graders and eleventh graders in Sweetwater 

County were similar, with economically disadvantaged students consistently performing at lower 

levels than students not economically disadvantaged. 

3.1.6.2 Post-Secondary Education 

Information on post-secondary educational services was obtained from the Wyoming Community 

College Commission (2003). 

Seven Wyoming community colleges and the University of Wyoming serve the state and the study 

area. Following the largest 1-year increase in the last decade, enrollments at Wyoming’s community 

colleges rose an average of 4.1% over the 2002–2003 school year. The increase was due in part to a 

number of strategic efforts implemented by the individual colleges and the college system, including 

an aggressive enrollment development campaign (Wyoming Community College Commission 2003). 

Compared to the previous academic year, enrollment at Western Wyoming Community College 

(located in Rock Springs, within the study area) was up 5.6% in 2002–2003. Central Wyoming 

Community College’s enrollment was up 11.7%%; Laramie County Community College’s 

enrollment was up 8.3%; Eastern Wyoming College’s enrollment was up 7.7%; and Casper College’s 

enrollment was up 4.0%. According to the Wyoming Community College Commission (2003), 

Wyoming leads the nation in proportion of the adult population served by community colleges at any 

given time. In 2003, Wyoming community colleges served 5.3% of the adult Wyoming population 

compared to a national average of 2.7%. On March 28, 2003, the Wyoming Community College 

Commission approved a statewide Technical Studies Associate of Applied Sciences Degree, which 

responds to the growing need for college degrees that recognize specialized workforce training 

programs offered by Wyoming community colleges. 

3.1.7 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 U.S., 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 3.3). Landownership is largely public (80% of Sublette County, 79% of Lincoln County, 

and 72% of Sweetwater County) (see Table 3.1). 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 Sublette 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. Study area residents recognize the importance of public lands in providing 

the 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 not 

only the economic base but lifestyles as well. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 45 

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 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 

historical and cultural influence. Moreover, agricultural is viewed as a guardian of resources and an 

underpinning of social culture in the area. Because management decisions made by federal land 

managers affect ranching operations beyond public land boundaries, communities are concerned 

about the social influences these decisions have on local communities. 

The oil and gas industry has 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 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. 

3.2 WAGES AND PERSONAL INCOME 

Wages and Number of Jobs. The average wage in Wyoming has steadily decreased over the 20-year 

study period, going from $32,004 in 1980 to $26,549 in 2000 (17.0% decrease; 0.9% average annual 

loss), while the number of jobs for the same period increased by a total of 17.5% (Table 3.16) (BEA 

2002, 2003e). In 2003, the average wage in Wyoming was $29,793, an increase of 12.2% over the 

2000 average wage (BEA 2005a). The number of jobs in the state increased by 4.2% over the same 

period (BEA 2005b). 

Table 3.16. Wages and Number of Jobs, 1980–2000 

Area Average Wage Per Job ($)1,2 Number of Jobs3 

1980 2000 2003 1980 2000 2003 

U.S. 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 for 1980 and 2000 data: 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 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
46 Section 3 

The average wage in Lincoln County in 2000 ($25,050) was 72.3% of the national average and 

94.3% of the state average (see Table 3.16) (BEA 2002). Wages in Lincoln County decreased a total 

of 20.7% over the 20-year study period (1.2% average annual decrease). The number of jobs for the 

same period increased by a total of 23.3%, well ahead of the state (17.5%) (BEA 2003e). In 2003, 

the average wage in Lincoln County was $30,273, an increase of 20.9% over the 2000 average wage 

(BEA 2005a). The number of jobs in the county increased by 14.6% over the same period (BEA 

2005b). 

The average wage in Sublette County in 2000 ($24,783) was 71.5% of the national average and 

93.3% of the state average (see Table 3.16) (BEA 2002). The 2000 wage in Sublette County was 

10.9% lower than in 1980 (0.6% average annual decrease). The number of jobs for the same period 

increased by a total of 41.0%, well ahead of the state (17.5%) (BEA 2003e). In 2003, the average 

wage in Sublette County was $29,887, an increase of 20.6% over the 2000 average wage (BEA 

2005a). The number of jobs in the county increased by 18.6% over the same period (BEA 2005b). 

The average wage in Sweetwater County during 2000 ($33,748) was 97.4% of the national average 

and 127.1% of the state average (see Table 3.16). Despite the apparent high wages, it is important to 

note that the 2000 wage was 14.7% lower than in 1980, an average annual loss of 0.8%. The number 

of jobs fell 4.8% in the same period, as compared to state growth (17.5% increase in the number of 

jobs) (BEA 2003e). In 2003, the average wage in Sweetwater County was $37,460, an increase of 

11% over the 2000 average wage (BEA 2005a). The number of jobs in the county increased by 3% 

over the same period (BEA 2005b). 

Personal income trend. Personal income trend data were obtained from the BEA (2003b). Table 3.17 

shows the components of personal income for 1980, 1990, and 2000 for the U.S., the State of 

Wyoming, and counties in the study area. Included in the table are data summarizing: 

•	 labor income (i.e., earnings from work: wages, salaries, and self-employment income); 

•	 investment income (i.e., dividends, interest, and rent); 

•	 transfer payments (i.e., Social Security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, other 

income support and assistance); 

•	 total personal income (TPI); and 

•	 per capita personal income (PCPI). 

Total Personal Income. TPI, as defined by the BEA, is the current income of residents of a particular 

area from all sources. It is measured after personal Social Security deductions but before personal tax 

deductions have been made. It includes income received from business; federal, state, and local 

governments; households; institutions; foreign governments; other labor income (such as employers’ 

contributions to private social insurance programs); farm and non-farm proprietor income; dividends, 

interest, and rent; and transfer payments. It is the only key economic indicator that is adjusted for 

seasonality; it is not, however, adjusted for price changes. 

Because total personal income is a measure of income received, estimates of state and local area 

personal income are assumed to reflect the residence of the income recipients (see below). Of the six 

major components of personal income, three are recorded on a place-of-residence basis. They are 

transfer payments; dividends, interest, and rental income; and proprietors’ income. The data available 

at the state and county level for wages and salaries, other labor income, and personal contributions 

for social insurance are estimated from data recorded by place-of-work. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 3.17. Personal Income by Major Source1 Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

County 

U.S. Wyoming 

Income Item Lincoln Sublette 

1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1

Income SourceLabor Income 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 1,07

(earnings from work) 

Less: Personal 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) (5

contributions forsocial insurance2 

Plus/minus: (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 (6

Adjustment for

residence3

Equals: Net earnings 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 95

by place of residence 

Plus: Dividends, 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 10

interest, and rent4 

Plus: Transfer 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 6

payments 

Total personal 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 1,12

income (TPI) 

Per capita personal 21,280 25,787 29,760 24,561 23,696 27,941 19,602 19,071 21,041 25,201 24,864 27,741 1

income (PCPI)5 

1 Source: BEA (2003b). Thousands of Year 2000 dollars adjusted for inflation unless otherwise noted. All national, state, and local estimates are in current dollars adjusted for inflation based 

consumers). EPS uses the urban consumer base; therefore, it was also applied to inflation adjustments for this technical report to maintain consistency. EPS uses unconventional groupings therefore, totals presented by EPS (Appendix A) 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 commuters (i.e., live in Sweetwater County, work in Sublette County, net inflow to Sublette County a

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. 
48 Section 3 

Four adjustments are made to earnings by place of work to derive total personal income by place of 

residence. Following these adjustments, total earnings still represent the bulk of total personal 

income. Beginning with total labor and proprietor earnings, the first adjustment is made by deducting 

contributions for social insurance. Although these are considered part of employee total earnings for 

the current period, social insurance contributions are not received during the current period and are, 

therefore, not included in personal income. 

The second adjustment is made for employee place of residency. The BEA defines employee 

residency as the location at which the employee is residing while employed. An example of this type 

of adjustment is a regular occurrence in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. Here, a significant number 

of employees work in the oil and gas fields in Sublette County but reside in Sweetwater County. 

Earnings for these employees show up as earnings data for Sweetwater County. However, in the 

derivation of personal income by place of residence, an adjustment is made to reallocate these 

earnings as personal income for Sublette County. This residency adjustment for Sublette County is, 

therefore, the net effect of place-of-work versus place-of-residence discrepancies. 

A third adjustment is made by appending dividends, interest (monetary and imputed), and rent 

income. 

•	 Dividends are payments in cash or other assets, excluding stock, by for-profit corporations to 

non-corporate stockholders in the state. 

•	 Interest is the monetary and imputed interest income of persons from all sources. Imputed 

interest income is an estimate of the value of the services (such as checking and record 

keeping) provided by commercial banks, mutual savings banks, savings and loan 

associations, credit unions, and regulated investment companies (excluding life insurance 

carriers) without an explicit charge which is included by BEA in personal interest income 

(BEA 2003b). 

•	 Rental income is the monetary income of persons from the rental of real property, the 

imputed net rental income of owner-occupants of non-farm dwellings, and the royalties 

received by persons from patents, copyrights, and rights to natural resources. The net rental 

value of owner-occupied non-farm housing is included in the rental income of persons. 

The imputation assumes that the owner-occupants are in the rental business and that they are 

renting the houses in which they live to themselves: As tenants, they pay rent to the landlords 

(that is, to themselves); as landlords, they collect rent from their tenants (that is, from 

themselves), they incur expenses, and they may have a profit or a loss from the rental 

business (BEA 2003b). 

The fourth and final adjustment is the addition of transfer payments. Transfer payments (benefits 

from government social insurance funds and certain other programs) are income payments to persons, 

generally in monetary form, for which they do not render current services. As a component of 

personal income, they are payments by governments and businesses to individuals and nonprofit 

institutions. 

Once these four adjustments to the earnings by place of work component are made, the result is total 

personal income by place of residence. Personal income effectively measures the size of consumer 

markets. When presented by industry of origin, as in this report, earnings can also be interpreted as a 

measure of the size of industrial markets. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 49 

Per Capita Personal Income. Per capita personal income (PCPI) is calculated by dividing total 

personal income of the area by the total population of the area (BEA 2003d). (PCPI is distinguished 

from the personal per capita income calculated by the U.S. Census Bureau and described in Section 

3.1.3.) PCPI as computed by BEA is a useful tool to compare income across regions, states, and 

counties. PCPI can be used to track income growth over time. It is also useful in that it removes the 

effect of population growth on total personal income. 

3.2.1 United States 

In 2000, the U.S. had a TPI of $8.4 trillion, an increase of 73.7% (2.8% average annual growth) from 

1980 (see Table 3.17). In 2000, net earnings from labor accounted for 68.2% of TPI (compared with 

71.4% in 1980); dividends, interest, and rent accounted for 19.0% (compared with 16.5% in 1980); 

and transfer payments accounted for 12.7% (compared with 12.1% in 1980). From 1990 to 2000, net 

earnings increased 31.6%; dividends, interest, and rent increased 23.0%; and transfer payments 

increased 36.6%. 

In 2000, the U.S. had a PCPI of $29,760 (see Table 3.17), which is an increase of 39.8% from 1980 

(1.7% average annual increase). The average wage in the U.S. has also steadily increased, from 

$29,254 (Year 2000 dollars adjusted for inflation) in 1980 to $34,647 in 2000 (18% increase; 0.8% 

average annual increase), while the number of jobs for the same period increased by a total of 46% 

(BEA 2002, 2003a, 2003d). 

3.2.2 Wyoming 

In 2000, Wyoming had a TPI of $13.8 billion (see Table 3.17), which ranked Wyoming 51st in the 

U.S. (ranking includes the District of Columbia), down from 1980, when the TPI of $11.6 billion 

(in 1980 dollars) ranked 49th in the U.S. The 2000 TPI reflected an increase of 18.5% since 1980 

(0.9% average annual growth). In 2000, net earnings from labor accounted for 61.1% of TPI 

(compared with 76.3% in 1980); dividends, interest, and rent accounted for 27.3% (compared with 

16.7% in 1980); and transfer payments accounted for 11.6% (compared with 7.0% in 1980). 

Personal income from investments and transfer payments in Wyoming between 1980 and 2000 grew 

by 94.3% and 95.5%, respectively, while labor income decreased by 5.1% over this same time period. 

This change in how individuals earn income is similar to national trends. A trend common in many 

areas in the Intermountain West, is the influx of individuals of retirement age choosing to reside in 

the region, thus resulting in an increasing dependence of the local economy on investment income 

(BLM 2003b). 

In 2000, Wyoming had a PCPI of $27,941, compared to $24,561 in 1980 (see Table 3.17). 

This reflects a 13.8% increase over the 20-year study period, or 0.6% average annual growth. 

Wyoming’s PCPI is 93.9% of the national average. 

3.2.3 Lincoln County 

In 2000, Lincoln County had a TPI of $308 million, an increase of 26.7% (1.2% average annual 

growth) since 1980 (see Table 3.17). In 2000, net earnings from labor accounted for 56.5% of TPI 

(compared with 74.4% in 1980); dividends, interest, and rent accounted for 30.5% (compared with 

17.1% in 1980); and transfer payments accounted for 12.9% (compared with 8.6% in 1980). 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
50 Section 3 

In 2000, Lincoln County had a PCPI of $21,041, up 7.3% (0.4% average annual growth) from 1980 

(see Table 3.17). The Lincoln County PCPI is 70.7% of the national average. 

3.2.4 Sublette County 

In 2000, Sublette County had a TPI of $165 million (see Table 3.17). The 2000 TPI reflected an 

increase of 42.0% (1.8% average annual growth) from 1980, higher than the state change but 

remaining lower than the national change. In 2000, net earnings from labor accounted for 52.2% of 

TPI (compared with 69.3% in 1980); dividends, interest, and rent were 37.7% (compared with 24.7% 

in 1980); and transfer payments were 10.1% (compared with 6.0% in 1980). 

In 2000, Sublette County had a PCPI of $27,741, up 10.1% (0.5% average annual growth) from 1980 

(see Table 3.17). The Sublette County PCPI is 93.2% of the national average. 

According to the EPS community profile, non-labor income sources are the fastest growing sector in 

Sublette County. Individuals in this segment of the income population are likely attracted by the 

quality of life and pristine beauty of the surrounding area (personal communication, December 2004, 

with Roy Allen, Economist, BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne).This trend could slow due to 

the increase in oil and gas development activities. 

3.2.5 Sweetwater County 

In 2000, Sweetwater County had a TPI of $1.1 billion. This reflected a 0.7% decrease from 1980 

(0.04% average annual decrease). In 2000, net earnings from labor accounted for 69.4% of TPI 

(compared with 84.7% in 1980); dividends, interest, and rent were 21.3% (compared with 9.8% in 

1980); and transfer payments were 9.3% (compared with 5.5% in 1980). 

In 2000, Sweetwater County had a PCPI of $29,811, up 11.9% (0.6% average annual growth) from 

1980 (see Table 3.17). The Sweetwater County PCPI is more than 100% of the national average. 

3.3 INDUSTRY AND ECONOMY 

3.3.1 Overview 

Gross state product (GSP) is the value added in 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 

(GSPO) by industry for 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). 

The GSPO by industry is the contribution of each industry, including government, to GSP. 

An industry’s GSPO, often referred to as its “value added,” is equal to its gross output (sales or 

receipts and other operating income, plus inventory change) minus its intermediate inputs 

(consumption of goods and services purchased from other industries or imported). 

For each industry, the estimate of gross product is composed of four components (estimated below in 

Year 2000 dollars): 1) compensation of employees; 2) proprietor income with inventory valuation 

adjustment and capital consumption allowances; 3) indirect business tax and non-tax liability; and 

4) other, mainly capital-related charges. Most of the compensation and proprietor income 

components of GSP are based primarily on BEA estimates of earnings by place of work, an aggregate 

in the state personal income series (BEA 2003c). The IBT component of GSP reflects liabilities 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 51 

charged to business expenses, most of which are sales and property taxes levied by state and local 

governments. The capital charges component of GSP comprises corporate profits with IVA, 

corporate capital consumption allowances, business transfer payments, net interest, rental income of 

persons, and subsidies less current surplus of government enterprises. 

The industry classifications represent groupings in accordance with the revised 1987 Standard 

Industrial Classification Manual, published by the OMB (OMB 1987). The Standard Industrial 

Classification (SIC) was developed for use in the classification of establishments by the type of 

activity in which they are engaged, for the purposes of facilitating the collection, tabulation, 

presentation, and analysis of data relating to establishments and for promoting uniformity and 

comparability. These 10 major industrial sectors (one-digit SIC codes) are 1) agriculture; 2) mining; 

3) construction; 4) manufacturing; 5) transportation, communication, and public utilities (TCPU); 

6) wholesale trade; 7) retail trade; 8) finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE); 9) services; and 

10) government. For purposes of this classification, an establishment is an economic unit, generally 

at a single physical location, where business is conducted or where services or industrial operations 

are performed (BEA 2003f). 

Each establishment is assigned an industry code on the basis of its primary activity, which is 

determined by its principal product (or group of products) produced or distributed or services 

rendered. Ideally, the principal product or service is determined by its relative share of “value added” 

at the establishment. In practice, however, it is rarely possible to obtain this measure for individual 

products or services. Typically, the BEA adopts some other criterion that may be expected to give 

approximately the same results in determining the primary activity of an establishment (BEA 2003f). 

3.3.2 Wyoming Industry 

The BEA calculates income and gross state product information at the SIC two-digit level. The data 

for GSP (Table 3.18) 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 divided into federal civilian, federal military, and state and local. Data presented in this 

technical support document are in Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation (see Table B.1 in 

Appendix B). Table 3.19 provides employee compensation data to provide a comparison of 

statewide income growth in relation to GSP changes. 

In 2000, the greatest percentage of GSP came from oil and gas (16.2%) and TCPU (13.1%), followed 

closely by FIRE (12.0%) and services (11.5%) (see Table 3.18). In contrast, in 1980, the greatest 

contributors to GSP were also from oil and gas (28.8%) and mining (14.0%), followed by TCPU 

(9.9%) and FIRE (9.0%) (see Table 3.19). In 2000, combined mineral extraction (mining plus oil and 

gas) contributed 23.7% of GSP, down from 42.8% in 1980 (a combined decline of more than 53.2% 

over the 20-year period) (see Table 3.18). 

In 2000, the greatest percentage of employee compensation came from state and local government 

(19.1%), followed by services (17.2%) (see Table 3.19). In contrast, in 1980, the greatest contributor 

to compensation came from mining (14.0%) and state and local government (13.4%), followed 

closely by oil and gas (11.6%) and construction (11.4%) (see Table 3.19). Combined mineral 

extraction (mining plus oil and gas) contributed 13.6% of employee compensation in 2000, down 

from a combined total of 25.6% in 1980 (a combined decline of more than 50.9% over the 20-year 

period) (see Table 3.19). This implies that economic development is resulting in job and revenue 

diversification within Wyoming. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
52 Section 3 

Table 3.18. Wyoming Gross State Product. 1 

Gross State Product (GSP) Growth (%) 

Industry 1980 1990 2000 

GSP % of 

GSP GSP % of GSP GSP % of GSP 

1980– 

1990 

1990– 

2000 

1980– 

2000 

Agriculture 619 2.7 510 2.9 468 2.4 -17.6 -8.2 -24.3 

Mining (metal, coal, 3,162 14.0 1,920 10.9 1,437 7.5 -39.3 -25.1 -54.6 

nonmetallic) 

Oil and Gas 6,499 28.8 4,215 23.8 3,089 16.2 -35.2 -26.7 -52.5 

Construction 1,601 7.1 573 3.2 1,015 5.3 -64.2 77.1 -36.6 

Manufacturing 917 4.1 779 4.4 1,335 7.0 -15.1 71.4 45.5 

TCPU 2,236 9.9 2,661 15.0 2,510 13.1 19.0 -5.7 12.2 

Wholesale Trade 802 3.6 505 2.9 773 4.0 -37.1 53.2 -3.7 

Retail Trade 1,273 5.6 1,053 6.0 1,403 7.3 -17.3 33.3 10.2 

FIRE 2,023 9.0 1,648 9.3 2,285 12.0 -18.5 38.6 13.0 

Services 1,500 6.7 1,505 8.5 2,202 11.5 0.3 46.4 46.8 

Government 

Federal Civilian 391 1.7 427 2.4 501 2.6 9.2 17.4 28.2 

Federal Military 196 0.9 246 1.4 277 1.4 25.4 12.4 41.0 

State and Local 1,312 5.8 1,650 9.3 1,817 9.5 25.7 10.2 38.4 

Total Gross State Product 22,532 100.0 17,690 100.0 19,112 100.0 -21.5 8.0 -15.2 

1 Source: BEA (2003f), millions of Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 

Table 3.19. Compensation of Employees 1 

Compensation Paid to Employees ($000,000) 

from Gross State Product (GSP)1 Growth (%) 

Industry 1980 1990 2000 

% of % of % of 

Total Total Total 1980– 1990– 1980– 

Paid Paid Paid Paid Paid Paid 1990 2000 2000 

Agriculture 148 1.7 100 1.5 132 1.6 -32.5 31.8 -12.4 

Mining (metal, coal, nonmetallic) 1,220 14.0 655 9.6 518 6.4 -46.3 -20.9 -135.6 

Oil and Gas 1,014 11.6 426 6.3 580 7.2 -58.0 36.3 -74.8 

Construction 997 11.4 402 5.9 642 7.9 -59.7 59.8 -55.3 

Manufacturing 422 4.8 364 5.3 461 5.7 -13.9 26.8 8.4 

TCPU 932 10.7 780 11.5 762 9.4 -16.3 -2.3 -22.3 

Wholesale Trade 416 4.8 250 3.7 299 3.7 -39.8 19.4 -39.1 

Retail Trade 775 8.9 622 9.1 799 9.9 -19.8 28.5 3.0 

FIRE 255 2.9 237 3.5 308 3.8 -7.0 29.9 17.2 

Services 832 9.5 895 13.2 1,393 17.2 7.6 55.7 40.3 

Government 

Federal Civilian 380 4.4 398 5.9 443 5.5 4.6 11.3 14.1 

Federal Military 173 2.0 217 3.2 226 2.8 25.3 4.0 23.3 

State and Local 1,166 13.4 1,455 21.4 1,547 19.1 24.7 6.4 24.6 

Total Gross State Product 8,731 100.0 6,798 100.0 8,108 100.0 -22.1 19.3 -7.7 

1 Source: BEA (2003c), Year 2000 dollars adjusted for inflation. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 53 

3.3.3 Industry Employment 

The BEA estimates annual employment and earnings for counties throughout the U.S. Total annual 

employment includes both full-time and part-time jobs so that individuals with more than one job will 

be counted twice. The employment estimates include those that are employed by businesses and 

public entities, as well as individuals that are self-employed. Data were obtained from BEA 

regarding total annual employment by industry for each county and for Wyoming for 1980, 1990, and 

2000 to examine trends over the 20-year study period. These data are presented in Table 3.20. 

3.3.3.1 Wyoming 

Over the 20-year study period (1980–2000), all employment categories in Wyoming added a total of 

48,882 jobs, an increase of 17.5% (0.8% average annual growth) (see Table 3.20). Between 2000 

and 2003, 13,831 new jobs were added, an increase of 4.2% over the 4-year period. 

Over the 20-year study period (1980–2000), services provided the greatest number of new jobs 

(34,724). This represented a 71.7% (2.7% average annual growth) increase in the number of service 

jobs, providing 25.3% of all jobs in 2000 compared to 17.3% in 1980. Between 2000 and 2003, 

Services continued to provide the largest number of new jobs (27,567). In 2003, services provided 

32.3% of all jobs in the State of Wyoming (see Table 3.20). 

Over the 20-year study period (1980–2000), agriculture services, forestry, and fisheries experienced 

the greatest percentage (186.2%; 5.4% average annual growth) of job growth, with 3,753 new jobs, 

and provided 1.8% of all Wyoming jobs in 2000 compared to 0.7% in 1980 (see Table 3.20). 

Between 2000 and 2003, the service sector experienced the highest growth in jobs, increasing by 

33.1%. 

Over the 20-year study period (1980–2000), the greatest number (-19,136) and highest percentage 

(-49.7%; -3.4% average annual loss) of job losses occurred in mining, and mining provided 5.9% of 

all Wyoming jobs in 2000 compared to 15.8% in 1980 (see Table 3.20). From 2000 to 2003, job 

losses were seen in a number of sectors, including retail trade, wholesale trade, transportation and 

utilities, and manufacturing. 

The average weekly wages in the private and government sectors in Wyoming in the first quarter of 

2003 were $547 and $598, respectively. Mining had the highest average weekly wage at $1,104, 

followed by utilities at $1,044, and management at $1,001. The greatest percentage of employee 

compensation statewide in the first quarter of 2003 came from government (27.2%), followed by total 

mineral extraction (14.7%) (WDERP 2003). 

3.3.3.2 Lincoln County 

Over the 20-year study period (1980–2000), all employment categories in Lincoln County added 

1,534 jobs from, an increase of 23.3% (1.1% average annual growth) (see Table 3.20). From 2000 to 

2003, 1,186 new jobs were added, an increase of 14.6%. 

Over the 20-year study period (1980–2000), services provided the greatest number of new jobs (702). 

This represented a 121.9% (4.1% average annual growth) increase in the number of service jobs, 

providing 15.7% of all jobs in 2000 compared to 8.7% in 1980. Between 2000 and 2003, construction 

provided the largest number of new jobs (763), providing 17.5% of all jobs in 2003 in Lincoln 

County (see Table 3.20). 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 3.20. Employment by Industry1 

Number of Jobs 

Industry Wyoming Lincoln County Sublette County Sw

1980 1990 2000 2003 1980 1990 2000 2003 1980 1990 2000 2003 1980 1

Farm employment 14,504 12,476 12,624 12,192 851 733 698 671 429 402 412 385 266 

Agriculture services, 2,016 3,353 5,769 3,155 32 77 149 100 27 83 132 99 48 

forestry, fishing and other 

Mining (coal, metal, 38,523 20,840 19,387 20,881 1,359 667 517 642 276 315 325 645 7,318 4,

nonmetal, oil and gas) 

Construction 25,805 15,782 24,879 27,544 575 444 863 1,626 388 261 427 502 3,282 1,

Manufacturing 10,512 11,203 13,583 10,940 467 614 530 345 31 (D) 2 91 (D) 494 

Transportation and public 19,169 16,583 17,084 14,070 503 568 582 223 176 145 108 116 2,208 1,

utilities 

Wholesale trade 10,055 7,633 8,812 8,000 196 80 133 (D) 25 (D) 55 16 773 

Retail trade 43,998 47,252 57,824 39,577 821 1,083 1,389 983 499 409 603 461 3,743 3,

Finance, insurance, and 16,334 17,167 21,303 23,367 287 307 471 601 147 184 228 284 693 1,

real estate Services 48,437 61,294 83,161 110,728 576 1,040 1,278 1,785 395 599 905 977 3,605 3,

Federal, civilian 7,539 7,589 7,400 7,482 117 146 110 127 62 91 96 107 304 

Federal, military 6,335 6,311 6,204 6,349 63 75 84 84 39 28 41 41 214 

State government 10,988 13,150 13,820 14,570 109 136 126 133 54 74 72 (D) 203 

Local government 25,435 31,838 36,682 38,706 635 903 1,195 1,299 264 364 470 (D) 2,352 3,

Total full-time and part- 279,650 272,471 328,532 342,363 6,591 6,873 8,125 9,311 2,812 2,955 3,965 4,704 25,503 22,

time employment 

1 Source: BEA (2003b).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. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 55 

Over the 20-year study period (1980–2000), agriculture services, forestry, and fisheries experienced 

the greatest percentage of job growth (365.6%; 8% average annual growth), with 117 new jobs, and 

provided 1.8% of all Lincoln County jobs in 2000 compared to less than 0.5% in 1980 (see Table 

3.20). Between 2000 and 2003, construction showed the greatest percentage of job growth (88.4%), 

followed by services (39.7%), finance (27.6%), and mining (24.2%). 

Over the 20-year study period (1980–2000), the greatest number (-842) and highest percentage 

(-62.0%; -4.7% average annual loss) of job losses occurred in mining from 1980 to 2000 (see Table 

3.20). Mining provided 6.4% of all Lincoln County jobs in 2000 compared to 20.6% in 1980. 

Between 2000 and 2003, the largest number of jobs (-406) was lost in retail trade, while the highest 

percentage of job loss (-61.7%) was in the TCPU sector. 

The average weekly wages in the private and government sectors in Lincoln County in the first 

quarter of 2003 were $660 and $495, respectively. Heavy and civil engineering construction had the 

highest average weekly wage at $1,439, followed by oil and gas at $1,243 and utilities at $1,051. 

Construction provided 29.5% of total income generated in Lincoln County in the first quarter of 2003 

and government provided 22.2% (WDERP 2003). 

3.3.3.3 Sublette County 

Over the 20-year study period (1980–2000), employment in Sublette County added 1,153 new jobs, 

an increase of 41.0% (1.7% average annual growth) (see Table 3.20). Between 2000 and 2003, 739 

new jobs were added in Sublette County, an increase of 18.6%. 

Over the 20-year study period (1980–2000), services provided the greatest number of new jobs (510). 

This represented a 129.1% (4.2% average annual growth) increase in the number of service jobs, 

providing 22.8% of all jobs in 2000 compared to 14.0% in 1980. From 2000 to 2003, mining 

accounted for the largest increase in the number of jobs (320), providing 13.7% of all jobs in 2003 in 

Sublette County. Construction and services also had significant increases in recent years. 

Over the 20-year study period (1980–2000), agriculture services, forestry, and fisheries experienced 

the greatest percentage of growth (388.9%; 8.3% average annual growth), adding 105 new jobs 

(see Table 3.20). This sector provided 3.3% all Sublette County jobs in 2000 compared to less than 

1.0% in 1980. Between 2000 to 2003, mining showed the greatest percentage of growth (98.5%). 

Over the 20-year study period (1980–2000), the greatest number (-68) and highest percentage 

(-38.6%; -2.4% average annual loss) of job losses occurred in TCPU (see Table 3.20). TCPU 

provided 2.7% of all Sublette County jobs in 2000 compared to 6.3% in 1980. Between 2000 and 

2003, the retail trade sector experienced the largest decline in jobs (-142), and wholesale trade 

experienced the great percentage of job loss (-70.9%). 

The average weekly wages in the private and government sectors in Sublette County in the first 

quarter of 2003 were $559 and $529, respectively. Oil and gas had the highest average weekly wage 

at $1,846, followed by finance/insurance at $964 and federal government at $719. Oil and gas 

extraction (plus support activities) provided 30.3% of total income generated in Sublette County and 

government provided 27.3% in the first quarter of 2003 (WDERP 2003). 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
56 Section 3 

3.3.3.4 Sweetwater County 

Over the 20-year study period (1980–2000), employment in Sweetwater County declined by 1,222 

jobs, a decrease of 4.8% (0.2% average annual decrease) (see Table 3.20). Between 2000 and 2003, 

736 new jobs were added, an increase of 3%. 

Over the 20-year study period (1980–2000), local government provided the greatest number of new 

jobs (1,188), representing a 50.5% (2.1% average annual growth) increase in the number of local 

government jobs from 1980 to 2000, providing 14.6% of all jobs in 2000 compared to 9.2% in 1980. 

Between 2000 and 2003, the services sector providing the greatest number of new jobs (384) and 

20.5% of all jobs in 2003 in Sweetwater County. 

Over the 20-year study period (1980–2000), agriculture services, forestry, and fisheries experienced 

the greatest percentage of growth (291.7%; 7.1% average annual growth), adding 140 new jobs 

(see Table 3.20). This category provided 0.8% of all Sublette County jobs in 2000 compared to 0.2% 

in 1980. Between 2000 and 2003, the finance sector showed the largest percentage increase in 

employment (15.7%), providing 5.2% of all jobs in Sweetwater County. 

Over the 20-year study period (1980–2000), 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 (see Table 

3.20). Mining provided 15.3% of all Sublette County jobs in 2000 compared to 28.7% in 1980. 

Between 2000 and 2003, the greatest number (-1,501) and highest percentage of job losses (-33.8%) 

occurred in retail trade. 

The average weekly wages in the private and government sectors in Sweetwater County in the first 

quarter of 2003 were $744 and $580, respectively. Oil and gas had the highest average weekly wage 

at $1,728, followed by chemical manufacturing at $1,485 and mining (exclusive of oil and gas) at 

$1,346. The greatest percentage of employee compensation countywide came in the first quarter of 

2003 from mining (20.0%), followed by local government (14.7%) (WDERP 2003). 

3.3.4 Industry Earnings 

Total earnings by industry for counties in the study area and Wyoming for 1980, 1990, and 2000 

were obtained from BEA (Table 3.21) (BEA 2003a). Data gaps and disclosure restrictions (e.g., 

income figures at the 2- and 3-digit SIC levels) often occur because data are not available for some 

regions or for certain years due to confidentiality restrictions. Data gaps may occur in both labor and 

income data. Data containing disclosure restrictions were estimated using the constant share of total 

method. Constant share of total calculations assume the category’s share of the total in previous 

years remains the same during the missing years. 

3.3.4.1 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. 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 (see Table 3.21). 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 TCPU (9.8%). 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 3.21. Earnings by Industry 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

County (Thousands of $) Wyoming (Thousands of $) 

Income Item Lincoln Sublette 

1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 

Far

m2 179,991 191,042 95,760 6,685 5,559 2,675 5,935 8,228 1,969 1,2

Nonfarm agricultural services, forestry,

fishing, and other3 30,425 50,777 77,999 403 513 1,165 357 677 892 7

Mining (metal, coal, nonmetallic)4 1,265,969 637,410 589,053 56,356 28,946 15,921 50 3,043 1,720 322,9

Oil and gas extraction5 1,102,210 673,330 750,850 20,493 5,747 10,688 16,551 10,934 13,919 116,8

Construction 1,131,352 498,755 768,822 23,211 15,296 25,949 15,425 7,686 11,937 177,1

Manufacturing5 433,727 365,436 478,173 12,825 17,514 12,887 610 1,481 1,135 21,8

Transportation and public utilities 924,125 740,282 751,189 24,867 29,076 29,519 8,071 5,503 3,245 109,4

Wholesale trade5 414,417 250,765 302,921 6,654 2,038 2,289 1,003 773 913 32,9

Retail trade 875,953 695,019 840,999 16,725 15,501 16,062 9,143 5,823 8,061 77,0

Finance, insurance, and real estate 290,903 247,437 446,611 5,124 4,182 6,131 1,989 1,457 3,932 15,0

Services 1,180,316 1,206,898 1,796,451 11,832 14,783 19,792 11,245 10,601 18,032 109,0

Federal government, civilian 374,702 382,042 421,904 4,942 6,000 5,538 2,610 4,126 5,566 16,2

Military 164,959 206,034 215,018 508 925 1,178 792 357 904 1,7

State government 372,796 437,358 435,192 4,017 4,556 4,183 2,102 2,486 2,362 7,8

Local government 740,096 947,968 1,035,117 16,685 26,319 32,837 7,057 9,478 11,944 69,1

Total Earnings 9,481,940 7,530,552 9,006,059 211,327 176,954 186,814 82,942 70,402 86,531 1,079,4
58 Section 3 

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 3.18) and supported approximately 

19,387 full-time wage earners, or 5.9% of Wyoming’s employment base (see Table 3.20) (BEA 

2003e). 

In 2000, government produced the most industry income, providing 23.4% of income, followed by 

services (20.0%), retail trade (9.3%), construction (8.5%), and TCPU (8.3%) (see Table 3.21). 

In real terms, for the 20-year study period, Wyoming industry income fell in farm, mining, oil and 

gas, construction, TCPU, 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 3.21). 

3.3.4.2 Lincoln County 

In 1980, total mineral extraction was the greatest source of industry income (36.4% of all income) in 

Lincoln County (see Table 3.21). All government categories constituted 12.4% of total industry 

income in Lincoln County, followed by TCPU (12.8%), construction (11.0%), oil and gas extraction 

(9.7%), and retail trade (7.9%). 

In 2000, all government categories led industry income (23.4%), followed by TCPU (15.8%), 

construction (13.9%), services (10.6%); and retail trade (8.6%). Total mineral extractions provided 

14.2% of industry income (see Table 3.21). 

Over the 20-year study period (1980–2000), non-farm agricultural services led industry growth 

(188.1%; 5.4% average annual growth), followed by services (67.3%; 2.6% average annual growth), 

total government (67.2%; 2.6% average annual growth) (note that military increased by 131.9% and 

local government increased by 96.8% over the 20-year study period), FIRE (19.6%), and TCPU 

(18.7%) (see Table 3.21). Losses occurred in total mineral extraction (-65.4%) and farm income 

(-60.0%). 

3.3.4.3 Sublette County 

In 1980, total mineral extraction provided 20.0% (oil and gas provided 20.0%, mining provided less 

than 0.1%) of Sublette County industry earnings, while construction provided 18.6%, followed by all 

government categories (15.1%), and services (13.6%) (see Table 3.21). 

In 2000, all government categories provided the most industry income to Sublette County (24.0%), 

followed by services (20.8%), total mineral extraction (18.1%), construction (13.8%), and retail trade 

(9.3%) (see Table 3.21). 

Industry income in Sublette County grew during the 20-year study period from 1980 to 2000 by 

4.3% (0.2% annually) (see Table 3.21). Mining (metal, coal, nonmetallic) in Sublette County 

demonstrated a boom/bust cycle, going from an average annual growth rate of 50.8% from 1980 to 

1990 to a declining average annual rate of 5.5% from 1990 to 2000; thus, while the industry overall 

grew by 3,340.0% (19.3% annual average growth) over the 20-year study period, it provided only 

2.0% of all Sublette County industry earnings in 2000. Non-farm agricultural services, forestry, 

fishing, and other was the next leading growth industry (149.9%; 4.7% average annual growth), 

followed by FIRE (97.7%), manufacturing (86.1%), and total government (65.4%; 2.5% annual 

average growth) (federal civilian government grew 113.3% and local government grew 69.3% during 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 59 

the study period). Farm industry income decreased a total of 66.8%, followed by TCPU (-59.8%), 

construction (-22.6%), and oil and gas extraction (-15.9%). Overall, mineral extraction provided a 

total of 18.1% of all Sublette County industry earnings in 2000 compared to 20.0% in 1980 (average 

annual a loss of 0.3%) (see Table 3.21). 

3.3.4.4 Sweetwater County 

In 1980, total mineral extraction provided 40.7% (mining provided 29.9%, and oil and gas provided 

10.8%) of Sweetwater County industry earnings, while construction provided 16.4%, followed by 

TCPU and services (10.1% each) (see Table 3.21). 

In 2000, total mineral extraction provided 31.3% (oil and gas provided 14.1%, and mining provided 

17.2%) of Sweetwater County industry earnings, while total government provided 14.9%, followed 

by manufacturing (12.1%), and services (12.0%) (see Table 3.21). 

Total earnings in Sweetwater County fell 18.2% (1.0% annual average loss) over the 20-year study 

period. Government industry income grew 38.9% (1.7% annual average growth) (military grew 

73.8%, local government grew 50.7%, and state government grew 14.9%, while federal civilian fell 

3.3%) (see Table 3.21). Manufacturing grew 389.5% (8.3% annually), followed by non-farm 

agricultural services (133.5%) and FIRE (70.0%). Farm fell 76.2%, followed by construction 

(-68.0%); wholesale trade (-38.2%), total mineral extraction (-37.1%; mining fell 52.9%, oil and gas 

grew 6.5%). 

3.4 TAXES AND REVENUES 

3.4.1 Wyoming Overview 

According to the Tax Reform 2000 Committee (1999), the reporting and collecting of mineral taxes 

in the state is confusing and time-consuming. Mineral producers must report the same production 

three times for severance, mineral property, and the oil and gas conservation taxes. These procedures 

are costly for both the taxpayers and the administrators. Owners of mineral interest pay property 

taxes on minerals as much as 2 years after production. County treasurers sometimes have difficulty 

collecting mineral property taxes and often must initiate collection procedures against mineral 

interest owners who may be scattered throughout the nation or, worse, whose company may no 

longer be in business. 

For this reason, only those revenues that are clearly and concisely reported by the state (i.e., 

severance taxes, ad valorem production and property taxes, federal royalties, and PILT) are discussed 

in detail in this technical support document. Historical information on the same types of revenues 

expected to occur as a result of the proposed project are provided in Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for 

inflation (see Table B.1 in Appendix B). Where available, revenue information was reported at the 

county and city level; however, information of this type is limited. 

In Wyoming, minerals are taxed after they are produced and a value has been established (Wyoming 

Energy Commission 2003). Minerals remaining in the ground are not taxed and generate no revenue 

(however, undeveloped mineral leases do collect lease rentals and up-front bonus payments). Given 

a consistent price, the larger the volume of the produced mineral, the larger the amounts that will be 

subject to taxation and the greater the revenue for the state. At the extreme, if all production ceased, 

Wyoming would receive no tax or royalty revenues. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
60 Section 3 

Produced minerals are classified as personal property. The two principal production taxes paid by 

mineral producers are (1) the county property (ad valorem) tax and (2) the state severance tax. As a 

result, produced minerals are the only class of property in the state on which two direct taxes are 

levied. 

In addition to the production taxes paid on the assessed value of the produced mineral, producers also 

pay county property (ad valorem) taxes on plants, refineries, mining and well head equipment, 

pipelines, and other facilities used in the mineral production and transportation operations. Mill levies 

applied against mineral facilities and structures are the same as those applied against all other 

property in the taxing jurisdiction. Property associated with mineral production is classified as 

industrial property and thus has a higher assessment ratio than commercial, agricultural, or residential 

property. 

Mineral producers also pay royalties, bonuses, rentals, and fees to the owner of the mineral for the 

right to obtain a lease and produce the mineral. Minerals are owned by the federal government, 

whereby the federal government receives a share of the revenues from the mineral production, or 

annual rentals are paid on mineral leases that are not producing. The same is true for minerals owned 

by the state government. In the case of federal royalty payments, the state receives a share of those 

payments through a federal revenue-sharing provision. Mineral disbursements to states are based on 

percentage share of royalties, rents, bonuses, and other mineral revenue collections. 

To obtain a mineral lease from the state or federal government, the lessee must pay a bonus. 

This “bonus” is the amount that the successful winner of the lease (i.e., highest bidder) pays to 

acquire the lease. The state retains the entire bonus bid to acquire state leases. One-half of the federal 

lease bonus proceeds for federal land leases are returned to the state. 

The Permanent Wyoming Mineral Trust Fund (PWMTF) is a fund that holds 25% of severance taxes 

currently received by the state and acts like a savings account for the state. The fund balance was 

$1.9 billion in June 2002 (Lummis et al. 2002). As reported by Lummis et al. (2002), during the 

previous fiscal year, over $74 million in severance taxes were added to the fund. Natural gas alone 

contributed 46.8% of severance taxes or more than $34.7 million to the PWMTF. Gas, oil, and 

associated products contributed more than $45.5 million (61.4%) of all severance added to the 

PWMTF. The principal of the PWMTF is inviolate but may be loaned to political subdivisions. 

The interest on the PWMTF goes to the state’s general fund for the legislature to allocate to current 

programs. 

The minerals industry accounts for a substantial share of revenues to the state and to local 

governments in Wyoming. Revenues that contributed to the general fund, including those from the 

minerals industry, from 1980 to 2000 are listed in Table 3.22. Ad valorem production revenues are 

the single largest source of state revenue and provided 96.5% of revenue in 1980, 94.6% in 1990, and 

94.5% in 2000. The second and third largest sources of revenue in 1980 were sales and use tax 

(1.8%) and severance tax (0.6%). In 1990, sales and use tax (1.5%) was the secondmost important 

source of revenue, followed by PWMTF income (1.3%). Total general fund revenues fell nearly 

16.6% from 1980 to 2000, with the greatest losses occurring in sales and service charges (-40.3%), 

followed by ad valorem production (-18.3%) and pooled income (-13.9%). Increases over the 20-

year study period were seen in PWMTF income (368.8%), penalties (289.7%), and all other sources 

(201.8%). However, market effects were markedly pronounced in 2000, as the significance of price 

increases in the natural gas industry became apparent as total revenues climbed 40.3% from 1998 to 

2000. This growth was led by all other (269.8%), revenue from others (134.8%), and ad valorem 

production revenues (42.0%). BP America, one of the project proponents, was the number one 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 61 

taxpayer by taxable value rank for 2002 mineral production, contributing more than 10% of taxable 

mineral value in 2002 (Wyoming Department of Revenue 2003a) (Table 3.22). 

Declines from 1998 to 2000 occurred in charges-sales and services (-2.1%), franchise taxes (-3.2%), 

and federal aid and grants (-26.6%). 

Ad valorem production revenues were not available for 2004; however, in 2003 they continued 

to provide the great majority of state revenue (95.6%), an increase of 21.4% over 2000 (see Table 

3.22). Sales and use tax continued to be the second most important source of revenue in 2003, 

representing 2.1% of state revenue, an increase of 7.4% over 2000. Revenues from sales and use 

tax continued to grow in 2004 (see Table 3.22). 

3.4.1.1 Severance Taxes 

A severance tax is an excise tax imposed on the present and continuing privilege of removing, 

extracting, severing, or producing any mineral in Wyoming. Severance taxes are distributed 

according to Wyoming Statute (WS) 39-14-801 as presented in Table 3.23. Severance distributions 

to all Wyoming counties and cities and to those counties and cities in the study area are summarized 

in Table 3.24. 

In 1980, Wyoming received $79.3 million in severance taxes compared to $83.6 million in 2000, an 

increase of 5.5% (see Table 3.22). While overall growth occurred over the 20-year study period, 

there was a large increase (22.7%) from 1980 to 1990, then a drop of more than 14.1% from 1990 to 

2000. Natural gas prices rose in 2000 due to tighter supplies, lower storage stocks, and market 

perceptions (Energy Information Administration [EIA] 2001). Increased exploration and lease 

auctions drove up the bonus payment component in the last several years. With renewed market 

pressure in late 1999, the value of production increased, as did corresponding tax revenues. 

Those effects were markedly pronounced in 2000 as the significance of the price increase 

became clear. In 2004, Wyoming received $168,106 million in severance taxes, an increase of 

101% over 2000 (see Table 3.22). 

Mineral Severance Tax Distribution. In 2000, Wyoming distributed $275.1 million in mineral 

severance taxes (down 16.9% from 1990), including $8.6 million to all counties (down 0.8% from 

1990) (see Table 3.24). Cities and towns received $21.5 million in 2000, a decrease of 16.9% from 

1990. In 2004, Wyoming distributed $513.7 million in mineral severance taxes (up 86.7% from 

2000), including $5.7 million to all counties (down 33% from 2000). Cities and towns received 

$13.7 million in 2004, a decrease of 36.4% from 2000 (see Table 3.24). 

In 1980, 36.1% of mineral severance taxes went to the general fund, 38.7% to PWMTF, 8.7% to the 

highway fund, 5.8% to water, 2.4% to the school foundation, 0.8% to community colleges, and 7.6% 

to other (Table 3.25). No funds were distributed to the budget reserves; cities and towns; counties; 

cities, towns, counties, and special districts; capital construction; or state aid. In 2000, 30% went to 

the general fund, 25% to the PWMTF, 14% to the budget reserve account, 8% to cities and towns, 

9% to water, 4% to other, 3% each to the highway fund and counties, 2% each to capital construction 

for cities, counties, and special districts, and state aid to county roads, and 1% to the school 

foundation. In 2004, 32.7% went to the general fund; 30.4% to the budget reserve account; 24.2% to 

the PWMTF; 4.1% to water; 2.7% to cities and towns; 1.9% to other; 1.4% to the highway fund; 

1.1% to counties; and 0.8% each to capital construction for cities, counties, and special districts, and 

state aid to county roads. No funds went to the school foundation or community colleges. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 3.22. Wyoming General Fund Revenues, Fiscal Year Collections by Source

ChargesFiscal Year	 Ad Valorem Severance Sales & Use PWMTF Pooled Sales Franchise Revenue Penalties4 Federal Aid A

(Production) Tax Tax Income Income2 and Services Tax from Others 3 and Grants 

1980 12,907,248 79,282 245,683 25,061 30,410 31,495 15,746 10,131 1,491 9,464 

1981 15,367,554 90,952 267,396 34,650 29,553 31,587 16,067 7,943 2,056 9,826 

1982 14,162,407 201,201 293,965 46,613 37,622 17,129 10,296 13,356 2,304 2,806 

1983 13,737,084 190,796 224,897 78,946 53,131 16,971 15,007 16,229 2,788 442 

1984 13,903,877 181,963 200,116 93,578 48,802 15,005 14,169 13,363 1,976 3,840 

1985 12,532,055 182,560 196,486 108,030 52,254 13,681 14,484 18,681 2,501 3,858 

1986 9,384,099 169,940 196,322 113,788 57,582 17,242 18,627 14,206 1,273 707 

1987 8,934,607 104,407 154,576 112,297 36,053 15,142 30,329 21,040 1,432 1,273 

1988 8,340,254 96,495 150,859 105,738 25,878 14,398 15,197 11,271 1,181 756 

1989 8,435,621 90,777 138,466 98,671 21,377 15,829 14,580 13,149 1,691 1,406 

1990 8,415,025 97,318 134,719 113,515 67,982 13,997 14,336 9,724 3,642 977 

1991 7,653,645 99,741 140,803 119,046 50,717 13,195 16,843 10,913 4,386 3,244 

1992 7,579,071 83,109 142,873 113,807 66,214 16,555 15,162 14,060 5,093 5,504 

1993 7,497,211 78,431 149,419 105,277 31,049 17,424 15,267 10,088 3,938 8,781 

1994 7,240,946 75,800 217,771 99,976 26,045 17,785 14,739 16,551 5,381 9,062 

1995 7,257,937 63,816 236,956 96,731 30,693 18,128 15,593 4,600 10,779 11,944 

1996 7,842,694 67,661 229,365 94,964 29,839 18,286 13,759 4,389 2,203 12,194 

1997 7,983,933 76,075 230,870 98,944 25,997 19,093 14,439 5,577 6,010 12,731 

1998 7,422,008 73,484 247,974 106,994 24,687 19,197 14,073 6,317 7,148 11,153 

1999 8,162,297 60,905 242,616 110,437 26,174 21,017 11,823 7,245 6,070 10,639 

2000 10,542,096 83,616 262,339 117,485 26,192 18,799 13,629 14,830 5,809 8,189 

Total Growth (%) -18.32 5.47 6.78 368.79 -13.87 -40.31 -13.45 46.39 289.74 -13.48 

(1980–2000) 

2001 10,860,274 135,256 288,143 94,684 33,886 20,001 14,614 9,807 6,430 10,643 

2002 9,897,515 112,170 299,678 86,637 27,869 19,966 16,368 7,210 6,088 8,498 

2003 12,802,262 139,958 281,654 54,887 17,982 19,155 18,341 7,673 9,482 9,911 

Not 2004	 168,106 297,749 89,437 26,178 22,116 19,823 4,846 8,233 10,622 

Available 

Total Growth (%) - 101.0 13.5 -23.9 -0.5 17.6 45.4 -67.3 41.7 29.7 

(2000–2004) 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 63 

Table 3.23. Statutory Distribution of Severance Taxes (WS 39-14-801) 

Portion of Recipient	 Basis/Authority Distribution 

Subsection (b) mandatory WS 39-14-801(b) 

distributions 

Corrective action account1 As needed To bring account balance to $10 million/WS 39-14-801(c) 

Environmental pollution As needed To bring account balance to $1 million/WS 39-14-801(c) 

financial responsibility 

account1 

Subsection (d) distributions2	 Remaining severance taxes, not to exceed $155 million 

General fund 62.26%	 WS 39-14-801(d)(i) 

Water Development Account I 12.45%	 Purposes specified in WS 41-2-124(a)(i)/WS 39-14-801(d)(ii) 

Water Development Account II 2.1%	 Purposes specified in WS 41-2-124(a)(ii)/ WS 39-14-801(d)(iii) 

Highway fund 4.33% or as To maintain a minimum balance of $500,000 in the state park 

needed road account/WS 24-14-102 

Counties 0.78%	 County purposes/WS 39-14-801(d)(v) 

Population based portion 50% of 0.78% Proportion that the population of the county bears to the 

(1/2 of 0.78%) population of the state as determined by the most recent 

decennial census/ WS 39-14-801(d)(v)(A) 

Assessed valuation portion 50% of 0.78% Inverse of the assessed valuation of each county as computed 

(1/2 of 0.78%) under subparagraph WS 39-14-801(d)(vii)(C)/ WS 39-14-

801(d)(v)(B) 

Counties 3.1%	 County purposes; proportion which the population of the county 

bears to total state population, population to be determined by 

resort to the latest federal census as periodically updated by the 

Census Bureau/WS 39-14-801(d)(vi) 

Road construction funds of 2.9% Purposes specified in WS 24-2-110/WS 39-14-801(d)(vii) 

various counties 

Population based �33.3% of 2.9% Ratio that the population of the county bears to total state 

(1/3 of 2.9%) population based on the most recent decennial federal census/ 

WS 39-14-801(d)(vii)(A) 

Road mileage based �33.3% of 2.9% Ratio that the mileage of county roads in the county bears to total 

(1/3 of 2.9%) county roads in Wyoming/ WS 39-14-801(d)(vii)(B) 

Assessment based �33.3% of 2.9% Divide the inverse of each county percentage of total state-

(1/3 of 2.9%) assessed valuation by the total sum of the inverses of all county 

percentages of state-assessed valuation/ WS 39-14-801(d)(vii)(C) 

Cities and Towns 9.25%	 Proportion which the population of the city or town bears to the 

population of all cities and towns in Wyoming, population to be 

determined by resort to the latest federal census as periodically 

updated by the Census Bureau/ WS 39-14-801(d)(viii) 

Capital Construction Account 2.83%	 Purposes specified in WS 9-4-604(k)(ii)/ WS 39-14-801(d)(ix) 

Total Severance Distributions 100% Not to exceed $155 million 

1 WS 39-14-801(c) requires that distributions under subsection (b) of this section be made prior to any distributions under subsection (d) of this section. 

The amount of distributions under subsection (d) of this section shall not exceed $155 million in any fiscal year. 

2 To the extent that distributions under subsection (d) of this section would exceed $155 million in any fiscal year, the excess shall be credited as 

follows: (i) one-third (1/3) to the general fund and (ii) two-thirds (2/3) to the budget reserve account. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
64 Section 3 

Table 3.24. 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 

Tax and Distribution Distributions (Thousands of $)1 

Entity 1980 1990 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Total Received by 

Wyoming2 

219,889 331,196 275,123 434,534 287,457 401,606 513,744 

Amount Distributed to -- 8,628 8,559 15,171 6,081 5,743 5,737 

All Counties2 

Lincoln County3 -- -- 159 405 231 164 155 

Sublette County3 -- -- 61 159 94 63 68 

Sweetwater County3 -- -- 489 1,175 595 499 298 

Amount Distributed to -- 25,885 21,506 32,136 14,498 13,691 13,678 

All Cities2 

LaBarge4 -- -- 27 53 22 18 17 

Big Piney4 -- -- 25 49 21 17 16 

Marbleton4 -- -- 35 74 37 30 29 

Pinedale4 -- -- 65 140 72 60 56 

Rock Springs4 -- -- 1,056 2,121 959 789 744 

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: Lummis et al. (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004). Distributions to counties. Total distributions reported by Lummis et al. do not add to the total 

reported as revenue received in CREG (2003, 2005). 

4 Source: 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). 

Crude oil contributed 40.5% of all distributed mineral severance taxes in 1980, while natural gas 

contributed only 10.1% of distributed mineral severance taxes (Table 3.26). By 2000, natural gas 

contributed 43.8% (a 445.4% increase from 1980; 8.9% average annual growth) of all mineral 

severance taxes distributed, while crude oil dropped 35.6%, to contribute only 20.8% of mineral 

severance tax distributions. In 2004, natural gas contributed 62% of all mineral severance taxes 

distributed (a 164% increase from 2000), while crude oil contributed 12.7% of mineral severance tax 

distributions (a 13.6% increase from 2000). CREG (2003) anticipates that natural gas will continue 

to provide a substantial portion of annual revenues, nearly 50% in 2008, while all other minerals are 

expected to decline in importance. 

3.4.1.2 Royalties 

A mineral royalty is the amount of money the owner of the mineral resource receives as a payment or 

royalty from the mineral producer. Wyoming receives a base royalty of 16.7% of the value of 

production from state-owned minerals. The federal government receives a royalty of 12.5% of the 

value of production for federal minerals. Fifty percent of federal mineral royalties are returned to the 

state. Unlike severance taxes, royalties are based on the value of the products of production, not just 

what leaves the ground. For example, natural gas royalties are based on the value of the methane, 

helium, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and liquids—not just the volume of raw gas. 

In 1999, the Wyoming Legislature addressing a projected $200 million shortfall in the state budget. 

Two years later, a surplus of over $600 million was projected. The difference came from 

skyrocketing natural gas and oil prices in 2000, which brought with them significant increases in all 

forms of mineral revenue, including those from coalbed methane production. In the late 1990s, these 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 3.25. Yearly Mineral Severance Taxes 

Distributions (Thousands of Dollars) 

Budget Reserve Highway Cities and School Community 

Fiscal Year General Fund Account2 PWMTF3 Water I Water II Fund4,5,6 Towns Counties5 Foundation4,6,7 Colleges4 

Historical: 

1980 79,282 0 85,015 12,820 0 19,117 0 0 5,285 1,762 

1981 90,952 0 99,641 16,213 0 23,694 0 0 6,442 2,147 

1982 201,201 0 227,632 35,284 3,637 85,484 53,763 17,921 9,865 3,288 

1983 190,796 0 215,378 27,910 12,557 88,110 56,506 18,835 9,638 3,213 

1984 181,963 0 204,736 28,652 11,667 85,351 52,502 17,501 9,790 3,263 

1985 182,560 0 210,348 28,342 12,200 87,198 54,898 18,299 9,563 3,188 

1986 169,940 0 195,725 29,125 10,995 83,295 49,476 16,492 9,736 3,245 

1987 104,407 0 94,694 24,802 5,900 56,760 26,552 8,851 8,213 2,738 

1988 96,495 3,956 85,325 21,732 5,752 52,009 25,885 8,628 7,269 2,423 

1989 90,777 39,377 70,530 21,562 5,332 50,702 23,995 7,998 7,384 2,461 

1990 97,318 41,535 74,240 20,386 5,752 43,343 25,885 8,628 7,310 2,437 

1991 99,741 42,042 75,268 20,515 5,914 43,809 26,615 8,872 7,224 2,408 

1992 83,109 38,575 65,338 25,221 4,631 42,236 20,841 6,947 7,956 2,652 

1993 78,431 53,598 63,614 19,255 4,630 25,761 20,836 6,945 19,166 2,347 

1994 75,800 45,396 60,379 18,443 4,413 21,183 19,858 6,619 0 0 

1995 63,816 29,917 49,012 17,711 3,192 11,659 14,364 5,557 110 37 

1996 67,661 32,752 53,508 18,785 3,423 7,412 15,405 6,344 40 13 

1997 76,075 35,941 60,884 18,134 4,193 8,124 18,870 7,656 13 4 

1998 73,484 35,022 57,974 20,912 3,593 7,520 16,167 6,745 118 39 

1999 60,905 29,111 50,300 18,733 2,846 0 12,805 5,500 4,977 4 

2000 83,616 39,082 69,720 18,040 4,779 9,109 21,506 8,559 1,415 1 

2001 134,931 56,178 109,606 20,160 9,109 27,674 32,136 15,171 23 3 

2002 112,498 37,700 69,378 18,547 3,298 7,138 14,498 6,081 0 0 

2003 140,576 98,998 98,409 18,088 3,125 6,533 13,751 5,768 0 0 

2004 173,344 161,155 127,942 18,667 3,208 7,254 14,104 5,916 0 0 

Projected: 

2005 121,200 49,400 73,700 19,300 3,300 6,700 14,300 6,000 0 0 

2006 123,400 53,800 75,000 19,300 3,300 6,700 14,300 6,000 0 0 

2007 125,600 58,200 76,500 19,300 3,300 6,700 14,300 6,000 0 0 

2008 127,200 61,300 77,900 19,300 3,300 6,700 14,300 6,000 0 0 

1 Source: CREG (2003, 2005). Presented in year 2000 dollars. 2 The FY93 actual total included an additional $5.4 million, and the FY94 actual total included an additional $5.2 million in penalty and interest from pre-1990 production. 3 Chapter 62, 2002 Session Laws made permanent the diversion of PWMTF revenues to the Severance Tax Distribution Account, and repealed the language of Chapter 99, 2000 Session Laws requiring a larger proportion of coal bed methane 4 The drop in revenues to these accounts in FY94 was due to the expiration of the Capital Facilities Tax on coal and trona. 5 Impacted by the PILT Restoration Act, beginning in March of FY95. This act effectively diverted federal mineral royalty revenue from the Counties; Cities, Towns, Counties, and Special Districts Capital Construction; and State Aid to CouFund coal severance tax. 6 In FY99 and FY00, mineral severance taxes and federal mineral royalties were diverted from the Highway Fund to the School Foundation Program account until a total of $20 million was received. This revenue diversion from the Highway these sources continued, however, the amount was not limited to a fixed dollar amount, rather it was a dollar for dollar swap in the amount raised by the fuel tax. 7 The FY93 total includes a one-time diversion of approximately $10.6 million from the Highway Fund. 8 Beginning in FY92, the totals shown in this column have included diversions from the Highway Fund to the LUST accounts (Financial Responsibility and Corrective Action accounts). Approximately $10.0 million a year will continue to be 

Compensation Reserve Account during FY94. 9 This column includes $5.5 million of Municipal Mineral Trust Fund monies in FY01. These funds are diverted from the Cities and Towns portion of Severance Taxes when the total Severance Taxes to those entities exceeds $24 million in an10 FY98 coal revenues include $8.0 million in protest severance taxes which were from prior production years. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
66 Section 3 

Table 3.26. Pro

Fiscal Year 

1980 

1981 

1982 

1983 

1984 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

Total Growth (%) 

Average Annual G

(1980–2000) 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

Total Growth (%) Average Annual G
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 67 

sources of income had declined as prices for gas and oil were depressed. With renewed market 

pressure in late 1999, the value of production increased, as did corresponding taxes. Natural gas 

prices rose in 2000 due to tighter supplies, lower storage stocks, and market perceptions (EIA 2001a). 

Federal royalties are distributed by the State of Wyoming according to WS 9-4-601 as presented in 

Table 3.27. Federal royalty distributions to all counties , all cities, and specific cities in the projectaffected area are shown in Table 3.28. State mineral royalties received for production of state 

minerals are presented in Table 3.29. 

Table 3.30 shows historical and projected federal mineral royalties and distributions. Federal 

royalties increased from $222 million in 1990 (Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation) to $309 

million in 2000. Distributions of federal mineral royalties in 1980 went to the school foundation 

(38%), the highway fund (26%), cities, towns, counties, and special districts capital construction and 

other (10% each), cities and towns (8%), the University of Wyoming (7%), and the highway fund for 

county roads (2%); no funds were distributed to the remaining accounts (Table 3.30). In 2000, 33% 

to the school foundation, 18% to the highway fund, 15% to Legislative Royalty Impact Assistance 

Account (LRI), 9% to school capital construction, 6% each to the University of Wyoming and to 

cities and towns, 4% to cities, towns, counties, and special districts capital construction, 2% each to 

highway fund for county roads, the transportation enterprise, and other, and 1% to community 

college. 

From 2000 to 2004, federal royalties increased from $309 million (Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for 

inflation) to $405.5 million (see Table 3.30). Reflecting a major change in the distribution of federal 

mineral royalties, the Legislative Royalty Impact Assistance account received 36.9% of all federal 

mineral royalties compared to 15.2% in 2000, an increase of 296.8%. All other categories received a 

smaller proportion of the royalties or minor increases (school foundation and general fund 

administrative). 

3.4.1.3 Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) 

The federal government owns and manages 49% of Wyoming lands. Federal lands are not subject to 

property taxes that support county governments and education; yet, local communities play an 

important role in supporting the management of federal lands. In 1976, Congress authorized 

federal land management agencies to share income with states and counties and provided a 

PILT program to help offset lost tax revenue (31 USC 6901–6907 [Public Law 103-397, 

October 22, 1994; Public Law 104-333, November 12, 1996; and Public Law 105-83, November 

14, 1997];43 CFR Part 1880 [65 Federal Register 51229–51234, August 23, 2000, effective 

September 22, 2000]). PILT payments are federal payments to local governments that help 

offset losses in property taxes due to nontaxable federal lands within their boundaries. PILT 

payments are administered by the BLM (Coupal et al. 2003). 

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 predetermined ceiling. 

These factors are used in two calculations: a standard and a minimum. The different calculations are 

compared to one another in an approach similar to that of federal income taxes. Instructions direct the 

use of the smaller or larger of two numbers. The Minimum Method Calculation is used in cases 

where significant revenue sharing in the previous year would mean no PILT in the current year for 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 3.27. Statutory Distribution of Federal Mineral Royalties (WS 9-4-601)

Recipient	 Portion of Distribution Basis/Authority/Use 

Subsection (a) distributions	 All royalties less Distributed to trust and agency accounts; first $200 million to be distrib

subsection (b) distributions Subsection (a) 

Highway Fund 2.25%	 WS 9-4-601(a)(i) Permanent construction or maintenance work in coun

royalties are attributable with priority given to roads and highways impdevelopment 

26.25%	 WS 9-4-601 (a)(iii) Except as provided by WS 9-4-605(a); subject to p

9-4-606 and 9-4-607 

1.25%	 WS 9-4-601(a)(vi) 2.25%	 WS 9-4-601(a)(ix) 0.625%	 WS 9-4-601(a)(x) 

Public School Foundation Program 44.8%	 Subject to WS 9-4-605 Account University of Wyoming Trust And 6.75%	 WS 9-4-601(a)(iv) When authorized by legislature for actual and necesAgency Fund	 constructing, equipping, and furnishing new buildings; repair of existin

of improved or unimproved real estate; payment of principal and interefinance these projects or refund previously issued securities

Incorporated Cities and Towns 9.375%	 WS 9-4-601(a)(v) Planning, construction, or maintenance of public fac

public services 

Population 325 or Less $12,000	 WS 9-4-601(a)(v)(A)Population Greater Than 325 $15,000	 WS 9-4-601(a)(v)(A)Remainder Based on Population Balance of 9.375%	 WS 9-4-601(a)(v)(B) Amount proportionate to percentage obtained by 

membership (WS 21-13-101) of all school districts within each county daily population of all school districts in the state. Distribution made in population of the city or town bears to the total population of all cities a

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 3.27. (Continued) 

Recipient Portion of Distribution	 Basis/Authority/Use

Capital Construction Account 3.75%	 WS 9-4-601(a)(vi) Purposes specified in WS 9-4-605(k)(i) or to fund b

604(g); priority given to state subdivisions socially or economically imp

indirectly by federal mineral development.

Amounts not to exceed:

1.	 $40 million to be loaned or granted to incorporated towns and citie

projects necessary for health, safety, and welfare of inhabitants

2.	 $20 million loaned or granted to counties or special districts (hospit

sanitary and improvement, solid waste disposal, service and impro

sewer)

Excess to earmarked revenue fund 

Public School Capital 2.7% WS 9-4-601(a)(vii) Purposes specified in WS 21-15-111(a)(i) Construction Account 

Subsection (b) distributions2	 WS 9-4-601(b) All bonus payments from the federal government attrib

or geothermal leases of federal land within Wyoming

Construction and Highway 50%	 WS 9-4-601(b)(i) Not to exceed $200 million; less WS 9-4-601(b)(v) d

Business Ready Community Stipulated amount WS 9-4-601(b)(v) If the school capital construction account is projected 

Account positive balance at the end of the fiscal year, then

1. Fiscal Year 2004, $7.5 million2. Fiscal Year 2005, $10.0 million3. Excess to be deposited to school capital construction account

Capital Construction Accounts	 75% of first 50% WS 9-4-601(b)(i)(A) Less amounts distributed under (b)(v); purposes s

604(k)(i) to fund bonds under WS 9-4-604(g)

Highway Fund 25% of first 50%	 WS 9-4-601(b)(i)(B) Less amounts distributed under (b)(v);

Community College Commission 10% of second 50%	 WS 9-4-601(b)(iv)(A) for fiscal years 2004 and 2005; not to exceed $1

Revenue Fund Account	 with and in addition to WS 21-18-205(c) appropriations; excess to scho

account; and any remainder after end of biennial budget period to schoo

account 

Business Ready Community Account 40% of second 50%	 WS 9-4-601(b)(iv)(B) for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 in accordance wit

thereafter to school capital construction account

School Foundation Program	 1/3 of any amount WS 9-4-601(d)(iii) 

exceeding $200 million 

Budget Reserve Account	 2/3 of any amount WS 9-4-601(d)(iv) 

exceeding $200 million 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
70 Section 3 

Table 3.28. Summary of Federal Mineral Royalties Received by Wyoming and Directly Distributed 

to All Counties and Cities and Project-Affected Counties and Cities1,2 

Tax and Distribution Entity Distributions (Thousands of $)3 

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 ND 1,389 ND ND ND ND ND 

Counties4 

Amount Distributed to Cities4 -- 20,830 19,588 21,678 20,007 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 Springs5 -- -- 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; ND = no distribution. 4 Consensus Revenue Estimating Group (CREG) (2003). Total direct disbursements to cities and counties, not including capital construction or other 

funds. 5 Source: 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). 

the county. The main difference between the Standard 

and Minimum Method Calculations is that the Minimum 

Method uses a different per-acre rate and does not take 

into account the prior year’s revenue sharing payments 

(see Coupal et al. [2003] for detailed calculations for each 

county). 

Between 1998 and 2003, PILT payments received by the 

State of Wyoming have increased by 63.9% (Table 

3.31). The three-county study area has experienced a 

similar increase. Lincoln County PILT payments have 

increased 74.2%, Sublette County payments increased 

58.9%, and Sweetwater County PILT payments increased 

58.0%. 

3.4.1.4 Property Taxes (Ad Valorem Taxes) 

Table 3.29. Summary of State of 

Wyoming Mineral Royalties 

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. Source: WDAI (2002a, 

2004). 

An ad valorem tax is a tax levied on a commodity as a percentage of its value. Ad valorem taxes on 

gas and oil in Wyoming go directly to the county in which the commodity is produced. Wyoming ad 

valorem taxes can be divided into two groups: production and property. Production taxes are levied 

on the assessed valuation of the amount of the commodity produced. Production ad valorem taxes 

are based on a percent of assessed value of production, the mineral, and the source (type of well or 

mine). 

Property taxes are levied on wells and producing equipment. The property tax rates are levied in 

mills (thousandths of a percent) set by each county. The overall state average for 2000 was 75.357 

mills based on assessed valuation of the property (Foulke et al. 2001). 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 3.30. Federal Mineral Royalties 

Distributions (Thousands of Dollars) 

Cities, Towns, 

Fiscal Year University of School Highway Highway Fund Cities and Counties, and Special Capital State Aid to 

Wyoming2 Foundation3 Fund3,4,5 County Roads Towns Districts Capital Construction Counties4 County Roads4 LRI2,7 

Construction 4,5,6 School Dist5,6 

Historical 

1980 13,415 74,528 52,170 4,472 14,906 19,377 0 0 0 0 

1981 15,143 84,125 58,888 5,048 16,825 21,879 0 0 0 6 

1982 17,589 97,716 68,401 5,863 19,543 25,913 14,868 0 0 507 

1983 19,682 109,346 76,542 6,561 21,869 39,787 16,621 0 0 11,357 

1984 17,263 95,905 67,134 5,754 19,181 33,871 14,578 0 0 8,935 

1985 23,202 120,987 90,228 7,734 25,779 30,478 27,502 0 7,734 4,699 

1986 20,299 96,479 73,408 6,292 20,974 28,495 24,329 0 6,292 7,521 

1987 12,402 63,389 48,231 4,134 13,780 21,810 15,985 0 4,134 8,029 

1988 15,527 107,121 60,383 5,176 17,252 18,878 0 0 5,176 1,626 

1989 16,410 108,916 63,818 5,470 22,792 12,925 6,564 1,519 5,470 769 

1990 14,998 99,540 58,324 4,999 20,830 11,109 5,999 1,389 4,999 0 

1991 18,599 123,444 64,753 6,200 25,832 14,820 7,440 1,722 13,777 1,042 

1992 15,153 99,306 52,091 4,987 20,781 11,184 5,985 1,385 11,083 1,828 

1993 13,685 90,830 53,221 4,562 19,007 18,099 5,474 1,267 4,562 11,536 

1994 13,954 92,613 54,265 4,651 19,380 18,448 5,582 1,292 4,651 11,598 

1995 14,675 97,398 62,376 4,892 20,382 20,146 5,870 590 2,124 8,837 

1996 13,051 86,617 61,663 4,350 18,126 16,057 5,220 0 0 9,394 

1997 15,917 97,929 69,389 4,918 20,493 17,171 5,902 0 0 20,105 

1998 15,866 94,404 64,775 4,741 19,753 10,538 8,145 0 0 14,890 

1999 13,871 101,810 49,959 4,624 19,265 13,520 29,439 0 0 0 

2000 19,886 101,996 56,432 4,902 19,588 13,796 29,155 0 0 46,950 

2001 16,277 127,363 48,709 5,426 20,397 14,499 36,141 0 0 137,398 2002 12,830 127,049 33,657 4,277 17,820 12,528 70,218 0 0 45,917 2003 12,563 146,887 58,296 4,188 17,449 12,267 65,688 0 0 126,972 

2004 12,162 173,893 56,436 4,054 16,892 11,876 39,598 0 0 186,288 

Projected 

2005 13,400 122,300 62,000 4,500 18,600 13,100 43,200 0 0 67,200 2006 13,400 125,000 62,000 4,500 18,600 13,100 34,200 0 0 72,600 2007 13,400 128,000 60,100 4,500 18,600 7,400 5,200 0 0 78,600 2008 13,400 130,400 60,100 4,500 18,600 7,400 5,200 0 0 83,400 

1	 Source: CREG (2003, 2005). In Year 2000 dollars. 2	 Under the distribution formula in place for FY00, 6.75% of all mineral royalties in excess of $200 million would normally flow to the University when that entity's bonded indebtedness necessitated the expenditure of those funds. Bec

Impact Assistance (LRI) account received the amount that otherwise would have flowed to the University, approximately $12.2 million. 

3	 In FY99 and FY00, mineral severance taxes and federal mineral royalties were diverted from the Highway Fund to the School Foundation Program account until a total of $20 million was received. This revenue diversion from the H

from these sources continued, however, the amount was not limited to a fixed dollar amount, rather it was a dollar for dollar swap in the amount raised by the fuel tax. 

4	 Impacted by the PILT Restoration Act, beginning in March of FY95. This act effectively diverted federal mineral royalty revenue from the Counties; Cities, Towns, Counties, & Special Districts Capital Construction; and State Aid to 

Highway Fund coal severance tax. 

5	 Since FY93, the state has been receiving approximately $30.0 million per year in coal lease bonus revenue, which has been earmarked for these specific funds. The projected coal lease bonuses for the forecast period are $74.0 million 6	 In FY94, a total of $3.0 million of the revenues received by this account was redistributed to cities, towns, and counties in accordance with the sales tax distribution formula. Also in FY94, $4.1 million was redistributed to the Genera7	 Beginning in FY98, coal lease bonus revenues normally flowing to the Legislative Royalty Impact Assistance Account have been diverted to the School District Capital Construction Account. 8	 In FY99, $4.5 million of Highway Fund federal mineral royalties were diverted to the Transportation Enterprise Account. In FY00, 01, and 02, $7.2 million in highway FMR funds were diverted to this account. 9	 The FY95 total includes approximately $9.0 million in additional revenue, which was received as the result of an oil and gas audit settlement. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
72 Section 3 

Table 3.31. Tota

Location Wyoming 

Payment ($) Acres 

Lincoln County 

Payment ($) Acres 

Sublette County 

Payment ($) Acres 

Sweetwater Coun

Payment ($) Acres 

1 Source: Coupal et al

An ad valorem taproperty multiplProperties are cla

•	 gross pro•	 property •	 all other 

(i.e., mo(taxed on 

Once the taxable $1 per $1,000 of district depends entities on how mmills, cities and mills. Mill levies vary dlevies for rural government. Unschool districts (k
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 73 

Table 3.32. Total State-Assessed Mineral Production Valuations1 

Taxable Valuation (Thousands of $) Mineral Type 

1980 1990 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 8,413,904 5,395,476 6,407,060 6,536,564 4,723,968 8,099,061 Valuation 

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 Source: CREG (2003, 2005), thousands of Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 

Wyoming Department of Revenue reports on property tax values 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 3.33). 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 3.33). 

3.4.1.5 Sales and Use 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, who 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 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, less state-imposed administrative costs. The state’s share of the sales tax revenue is 

distributed to the General Fund. The portion returned to the counties and municipalities is distributed 

based on population. Beginning in 1973, Wyoming counties were granted the option to impose an 

additional 1% sales tax through public election. During fiscal year 2002, all counties except 

Fremont, Goshen, Park, Sublette, and Washakie were imposing this optional sales tax. The optional 

sales tax revenue, less state-imposed administrative costs, is returned to the county of origin. 

In addition to the aforementioned county optional tax, any county, through public election, may 

impose an additional excise tax of up to 1% on retail sales made within the county. The revenue 

generated from this tax is designated solely for the planning, construction, furnishing, equipping, and 

debt servicing for any capital improvement project as authorized through public election. This tax is 

referred to as the 1% capital facilities option tax. During fiscal year 2002, Albany, Goshen, Laramie, 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
74 Section 3 

Table 3.33. Proportionate Taxable Valuation of Various Classes of Property in Wyoming, 1998– 

2004 

Proportion of Taxable Value1 

Property (Ranked Highest to Lowest According to 2002 Proportions) 

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Natural gas production 19.2% 18.6% 20.6% 31.9% 34.8% 24.30% 38.50% 

Residential lands and 19.9% 22.6% 22.0% 18.5% 18.5% 21.80% 17.80% 

improvements 

Mining (coal, minerals, 20.0% 41.6% 19.5% 15.2% 15.9% 19.60% 15.40% 

and non-minerals) 

Oil production 14.7% 8.8% 11.5% 13.7% 9.7% 10.50% 9.10% 

Industrial and 8.9% 9.8% 8.7% 7.1% 7.4% 8.10% 6.40% 

manufacturing property 

Commercial lands and 1.5% 5.6% 5.2% 4.2% 4.4% 4.90% 4.00% 

improvements 

Railroads 1.7% 2.0% 2.2% 1.7% 1.8% 2.00% 1.60% 

Electric/gas-privately 2.5% 2.6% 2.3% 1.6% 1.6% 1.80% 1.60% 

owned 

Commercial personal 1.5% 1.7% 1.6% 1.3% 1.3% 1.60% 1.30% 

property 

Agricultural lands 1.9% 2.0% 1.8% 1.3% 1.3% 1.50% 1.30% 

Natural gas pipelines 0.9% 1.1% 1.1% 0.8% 1.0% 1.20% 0.90% 

Electric-cooperatives 1.5% 1.1% 1.0% 0.7% 0.6% 0.80% 0.60% 

Major telecommunications 0.7% 0.7% 0.807% 0.7% 0.6% 0.50% 0.30% 

Residential personal 0.6% 0.6% 0.572% 0.4% 0.4% 0.40% 0.30% 

property 

Liquid pipelines 0.6% 0.7% 0.672% 0.4% 0.4% 0.50% 0.30% 

Rural telecommunications 0.2% 0.3% 0.232% 0.2% 0.2% 0.20% 0.20% 

Cellular/reseller 

telecommunications2 

<0.1% 0.1% 0.162% 0.1% 0.2% 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, 200b, 2004). 2 Designated as radio-telephones in 1998. 

Niobrara, Sheridan, Teton, and Uinta Counties were imposing the 1% capital facilities option tax, 

while Campbell and Sweetwater Counties chose to impose 0.25% and 0.5%, respectively. Effective 

tax rates for the study area as of 2002 are listed in Table 3.34. 

To derive an estimate of county gross sales, the specific county tax collection can be divided by the 

corresponding tax rate. 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%) is 

used for this analysis. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 75 

Table 3.34. 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 Sales and Use Tax Option 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 Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue (2003a). 

2 Lodging tax is imposed only in Afton (i.e., not countywide). 

3.4.1.6 Use Tax 

State use tax is imposed on purchases made outside a taxing jurisdiction for first use, storage, or other 

consumption within that jurisdiction. 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 (i.e., county where the tax was imposed) 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. 

3.4.1.7 Lodging Tax 

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. 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. 

3.4.2 Study Area Overview 

3.4.2.1 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. Most state agencies in Wyoming now distribute 

reports via the internet, and a significant number publish only on the internet (i.e., no hard copies are 

produced). This evolution has led to an unavailability of certain reports and information that predate 

1998 (personal communication, July 8, 2003, with Christie Yurek, Validation Supervisor, Wyoming 

Department of Revenue, Administrative Services Division). Therefore, the information presented 

below covers the years 1998–2002. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
76 Section 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 (TCPU) 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 to illustrate the distribution proportions of all revenues 

and expenditures (Tables 3.35–3.37). The budget for the town of Marbleton was not available and 

was stipulated to have insufficient detail to provide the information presented for the other 

communities (personal communication, May 21, 2004, Alice Griggs, Marbleton Town Clerk). 

According to Ms. Griggs, all funds received by Marbleton are distributed to infrastructure (streets), 

the fire department, and the Sheriff’s Department. 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. Surpluses have been placed in reserve accounts to develop savings for future 

requirements (personal communication, May 20, 2004, with Mary Langford, Sublette County Clerk). 

Funds received in Big Piney in excess of normal operating costs have also gone to capital 

improvements (personal communication, May 20, 2004, with Vickie Brown, Big Piney Town Clerk). 

3.4.2.2 State Royalties 

In total, royalties in Wyoming arising from natural gas production on state lands increased by nearly 

62.0% from 1998 to 2002 (Table 3.38) (Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments [WOSLI] 

2002). Oil royalties have been variable, although generally growing. Overall, oil royalties grew 6% 

from 1998 to 2002. Between 2002 and 2004, natural gas royalties in Wyoming increased 148.9% and 

oil royalties increased 40.7%. 

In Lincoln County, royalties from natural gas production on state lands fell 21.5% from 1998 to 2002 

(WOSLI 2002) (see Table 3.38). Oil royalties have risen and fallen in Lincoln County, but generally 

declined (-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 75.8%, while oil royalties decreased 2.3%. 

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 

(see Table 3.38) (WOSLI 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 124.4%. Oil royalties increased only 4.9%. 

Royalties from natural gas production on state lands increased by more than 17.1% (3.2% annual 

average growth) from 1998 to 2002 (see Table 3.38) (WOSLI 2002). Oil royalties also increased 

(20.6%) in Sweetwater County from 1998 to 2002. Sweetwater County received most of its royalties 

(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). 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 3.35. Big Piney Example Budgets 

Fiscal Year Revenues/Disbursements ($) 

Government/ Line Item 1999–2000 

Revenue/ 

Expense % of Total 

2000–2001 

Revenue/ 

Expense % of Total 

2001–2002 

Revenue/ 

Expense % of Total 

2002–2003 

Revenue/ 

Expense % of Total 

2003–2004 (Estimated2

) 

Revenue/ 

Expense % of Total 

REVENUES 

Taxes 

Property Taxes 9,500 1.5 9,500 1.1 17,000 2.0 14,000 1.5 NA --

Gasoline Tax 12,262 2.0 14,249 1.7 16,833 2.0 11,501 1.2 NA --

Sales and Use Tax 225,000 36.1 170,072 20.4 303,436 35.7 414,080 44.1 NA --

Electric Franchise 3,000 0.5 3,000 0.4 3,000 0.4 3,000 0.3 NA --

Telephone Franchise 1,000 0.2 1,000 0.1 1,000 0.1 1,000 0.1 NA --

Cable TV Franchise 600 0.1 600 0.1 600 0.1 600 0.1 NA --

Special Fuels Tax 2,228 0.4 1,920 0.2 2,267 0.3 2,364 0.3 NA --

Severance Tax 21,335 3.4 41,959 5.0 17,411 2.1 17,397 1.9 NA --

Mineral Royalty Allocation 62,670 10.1 67,026 8.0 53,263 6.3 53,418 5.7 NA --

Cigarette Tax 4,042 0.6 4,508 0.5 4,338 0.5 4,288 0.5 NA --

Motor Vehicle Tax 6,000 1.0 6,000 0.7 5,000 0.6 5,000 0.5 NA --

Municipal Trust (1 time) 0 0.0 117,744 14.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 NA --

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project

Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 77 

Total Tax Revenues 347,637 55.8 437,578 52.4 424,148 49.9 526,648 56.1 526,648 56.1 

Licenses and Permits 

Business Licenses 1,200 0.2 1,200 0.1 1,500 0.2 500 0.1 NA --

Building Permits 40 0.0 40 0.0 100 0.0 50 0.0 NA --

Animal Licenses 50 0.0 50 0.0 50 0.0 50 0.0 NA --

Totals Licenses and Permits 1,290 0.2 1,290 0.2 1,650 0.2 600 0.1 600 0.1 

Other Revenues 

Liquor License Fees 3,750 0.6 3,750 0.4 3,750 0.4 3,750 0.4 3,750 0.4 

Fines and Forfeitures 1,500 0.2 1,500 0.2 1,000 0.1 1,000 0.1 1,000 0.1 

Interest Earnings 13,000 2.1 20,000 2.4 20,000 2.4 20,000 2.1 NA --

Rents and Concessions 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 NA --

PP&L Collection Services 600 0.1 600 0.1 600 0.1 600 0.1 NA --

Sale of Fixed Assets 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 NA --

Sundry Revenues 100 0.0 100 0.0 100 0.0 100 0.0 NA --

Miscellaneous -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 20,700 2.2 

Contributions and Transfers 254,723 40.9 369,511 44.3 398,000 46.9 386,102 41.1 386,102 41.1 

Total Other Revenues 273,673 44.0 395,461 47.4 423,450 49.9 411,552 43.8 411,552 43.8 

Total Revenues 622,600 100.0 834,329 100.0 849,248 100.0 938,800 100.0 938,800 100.0 

EXPENDITURES 

Legislative 4,915 0.8 3,715 0.4 4,715 0.6 3,715 0.4 3,715 0.4 

Court 6,760 1.1 7,560 0.9 8,215 1.0 8,240 0.9 8,240 0.9 

Administrative 53,270 8.6 102,145 12.2 98,123 11.5 104,560 11.1 104,560 11.1 

Social Services/Holidays 19,880 3.2 20,100 2.4 23,550 2.8 33,578 3.6 33,678 3.6 

Buildings 10,435 1.7 20,735 2.5 25,112 2.9 28,637 3.1 28,637 3.1 

Time and Temperature 100 0.0 600 0.1 100 0.0 200 0.0 200 0.0 

Parks 3,000 0.5 10,000 1.2 10,000 1.2 18,077 1.9 18,077 1.9 

Health and Safety 6,130 1.0 5,130 0.6 5,090 0.6 5,696 0.6 5,696 0.6 

Police Department3 62,975 10.1 56,080 6.7 61,034 7.2 68,855 7.3 68,866 7.3 

Fire Protection4 17,000 2.7 17,000 2.0 17,000 2.0 17,000 1.8 17,000 1.8 

Airport Board 4,000 0.6 4,000 0.5 4,000 0.5 4,000 0.4 4,000 0.4 

Streets 166,075 26.7 167,348 20.1 168,075 19.7 146,545 15.6 146,545 15.6 

Capital Expenditures 266,026 42.7 391,390 46.9 420,417 49.3 484,296 51.6 484,296 51.6 

Unexpended funds 2,037 0.3 28,527 3.4 6,818 0.8 15,401 1.6 15,401 1.6 

Total Expenditures 622,603 100.0 834,330 100.0 852,249 100.0 938,800 100.0 938,911 100.0 

WATER FUND 

Fund Revenue 69,500 -- 76,500 -- 76,500 -- 76,500 -- 76,500 --

Fund Expenses 

Payroll 11,360 16.3 9,796 12.8 700 0.9 13,876 18.1 19,878 24.1 

Administrative 4,315 6.2 4,615 6.0 6,700 8.8 4,700 6.1 4,700 5.7 

Operation 43,900 63.2 53,600 70.1 61,615 80.5 56,569 73.9 56,569 68.6 

Unexpended Funds 9,925 14.3 8,489 11.1 7,485 9.8 1,355 1.8 1,355 1.6 

Total Fund Expenses 69,500 100.0 76,500 100.0 76,500 100.0 76,500 100.0 82,502 100.0 

SEWER FUND 

Fund Revenue 30,400 -- 30,400 -- 31,000 -- 31,875 -- 31,875 --

Fund Expenses 

Payroll 14,360 47.2 12,126 39.9 835 2.7 13,876 43.5 13,876 43.5 

Administrative 2,245 7.4 2,445 8.0 4,230 13.6 2,480 7.8 2,480 7.8 

Operation 6,550 21.5 14,650 48.2 18,600 60.0 15,519 48.7 15,519 48.7 

Unexpended Funds 7,245 23.8 1,179 3.9 7,335 23.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Total Fund Expenses 30,400 100.0 30,400 100.0 31,000 100.0 31,875 100.0 31,875 100.0 

1 Source: Town of Big Piney budget reports. 2 Totals are as presented on http://www.bigpiney.com/government/bigpiney/budget4.htm (accessed May 20, 2004). 3 All law enforcement is provided by the Sublette County Sheriff's Department. 4 Volunteer Fire Department. 
Table 3.36. Pinedale Example Budgets 

Fiscal Year Revenues/Disbursements ($) 

Government/ Line Item 1999–2000 2000–2001 2001–2002 2002–2003 2003–2004

Revenue/ Revenue/ Revenue/ Revenue/ Revenue/ % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total Expense Expense Expense Expense Expense 

78 Section 3 

REVENUES 

Motor Vehicle Tax 16,150 1.6 18,700 1.8 24,700 2.2 24,700 1.5 37,000 1.8 

Sales and Use Tax 500,000 50.5 500,000 48.9 588,580 53.0 1,065,510 65.0 1,433,043 68.3 

Cigarette Tax 16,700 1.7 12,246 1.2 5,000 0.5 5,394 0.3 6,400 0.3 

Gasoline Tax 14,800 1.5 17,423 1.7 53,887 4.9 50,300 3.1 42,127 2.0 

Mineral Royalties 137,000 13.8 139,000 13.6 143,697 12.9 147,420 9.0 147,420 7.0 

Mineral Severance 41,100 4.2 45,800 4.5 60,340 5.4 60,256 3.7 60,256 2.9 

Farm Loan grant 45,000 4.5 45,000 4.4 0 0.0 50,000 3.1 0 0.0 

L & WCF Grant 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 15,000 0.7 

WY Highway Park Development 40,200 4.1 13,181 1.3 0 0.0 13,181 0.8 5,000 0.2 

State Forestry Division 0 0.0 0 0.0 1,500 0.1 1,500 0.1 3,000 0.1 

Property Tax 70,000 7.1 80,000 7.8 80,000 7.2 85,000 5.2 107,000 5.1 

Dog Licenses2 1,500 0.2 1,700 0.2 1,700 0.2 1,700 0.1 2,500 0.1 

Dog Impound Fees2 900 0.1 500 0.0 700 0.1 700 0.0 0 0.0 

Building Permits 2,000 0.2 2,000 0.2 2,000 0.2 2,500 0.2 5,000 0.2 

Liqour Licenses 10,900 1.1 10,280 1.0 10,919 1.0 11,135 0.7 12,200 0.6 

Franchise Fees 20,000 2.0 23,500 2.3 30,000 2.7 35,000 2.1 30,000 1.4 

Court Costs and Fines 11,245 1.1 13,745 1.3 13,745 1.2 13,745 0.8 10,100 0.5 

Interest 50,000 5.1 56,000 5.5 56,000 5.0 37,500 2.3 37,500 1.8 

Fire Department 8,800 0.9 39,785 3.9 34,660 3.1 30,000 1.8 140,120 6.7 

Miscellaneous 3,000 0.3 3,000 0.3 3,000 0.3 3,000 0.2 3,000 0.1 

Total Revenues 989,295 100.0 1,021,860 100.0 1,110,428 100.0 1,638,541 100.0 2,096,666 100.0 

EXPENDITURES 

Administration 217,220 24.6 223,030 21.3 242,544 21.1 311,200 23.1 325,255 21.0 

Municipal Court 13,950 1.6 14,090 1.3 15,183 1.3 15,298 1.1 15,874 1.0 

Animal Control 31,127 3.5 28,550 2.7 30,716 2.7 30,984 2.3 52,312 3.4 

Police Department2 162,636 18.4 163,817 15.6 197,080 17.1 198,215 14.7 227,237 14.7 

Fire Protection3 50,250 5.7 85,625 8.2 86,950 7.6 82,790 6.1 194,060 12.5 

Streets 147,248 16.7 257,976 24.6 243,840 21.2 371,340 27.6 381,840 24.6 

Pest 14,641 1.7 14,641 1.4 13,841 1.2 9,468 0.7 25,137 1.6 

Recreation 17,000 1.9 12,000 1.1 11,000 1.0 11,000 0.8 11,000 0.7 

Parks 44,424 5.0 47,424 4.5 77,320 6.7 55,820 4.1 56,900 3.7 

Planning 2,000 0.2 2,000 0.2 3,000 0.3 4,500 0.3 4,500 0.3 

Maintenance 133,597 15.1 131,853 12.6 110,800 9.6 140,800 10.5 219,500 14.2 

Airport 27,500 3.1 36,240 3.5 56,100 4.9 112,200 8.3 32,500 2.1 

Sanitation 22,000 2.5 32,000 3.0 62,000 5.4 3,500 0.3 3,000 0.2 

Total Expenditures 883,593 100.0 1,049,246 100.0 1,150,374 100.0 1,347,115 100.0 1,549,115 100.0 

WATER FUND 

Revenue4 1,063,871 489,500 1,912,064 638,975 400,332 

Expenses 237,749 429,500 846,852 302,016 334,745 

SEWER FUND 

Revenue 150,000 150,500 260,500 459,500 493,899 

Expenses 150,000 150,500 103,500 118,800 123,080 

1 Source: Town of Pinedale annual appropriation ordinances. 2 Dog licenses/impound fees were combined in the 2003-2004 appropriation ordinance. 3 All law enforcement is provided by the Sublette County Sheriff 's Department. 4 Volunteer Fire Department. 5 1999–2000 revenue included a water development loan ($575,246). 2001-2002 water revenues and expenses were subsequently amended to reflect a loan from the Wyoming State Loan and Investment Board and associated 

reallocations of funds. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 3.37. Sublette County Example Budgets 

Fiscal Year Revenues/Disbursements ($) 

Government/ Line Item 

1999–2000 2000–2001 2001–2002 2002–2003 2003–2004 (Estimated--

Approved by Board) 

Revenue/ 

Expense 

% of 

Total 

Revenue/ 

Expense % of Total Revenue/ Expense % of Total Revenue/ Expense % of Total Revenue/ Expense % of Total 

NON-PROPERTY TAX REVENUES 

Gas Tax 217,092 5.5 187,709 3.7 242,976 3.7 268,475 4.0 275,000 4.1 

Forest Service 145,752 3.7 146,270 2.9 177,842 2.7 180,680 2.7 187,202 2.8 

Severance Tax 61,616 1.6 152,838 3.0 97,554 1.5 51,410 0.8 64,016 1.0 

PILT 240,300 6.1 256,483 5.0 391,914 5.9 442,097 6.6 410,577 6.1 

County Attorney 23,000 0.6 23,000 0.5 0 0.0 46,000 0.7 23,000 0.3 

URESA 0 0.0 1,008 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Emergency Management & S&R 19,414 0.5 32,643 0.6 31,124 0.5 15,422 0.2 25,000 0.4 

County Clerk Fees 68,699 1.7 78,013 1.5 70,877 1.1 124,041 1.9 120,000 1.8 

Clerk of Court Fees 9,296 0.2 12,976 0.3 27,000 0.4 17,213 0.3 12,000 0.2 

Planning and Zoning Fees 13,850 0.4 16,132 0.3 15,779 0.2 19,574 0.3 19,500 0.3 

Sheriff's Fees 29,393 0.7 16,824 0.3 18,200 0.3 23,412 0.4 24,000 0.4 

Sales and Use Tax 1,247,050 31.6 2,221,341 43.5 3,142,099 47.5 3,027,793 45.3 3,000,000 44.8 

Cigarette Tax 4,059 0.1 3,975 0.1 5,005 0.1 3,602 0.1 4,098 0.1 

Interest 308,981 7.8 456,225 8.9 291,118 4.4 380,627 5.7 300,000 4.5 

Liquor Licenses 418 0.0 12,735 0.2 563 0.0 13,065 0.2 6,750 0.1 

Big Piney & Pinedale Metro 286,960 7.3 273,810 5.4 385,009 5.8 341,248 5.1 352,882 5.3 

Miscellaneous Fees 69,658 1.8 27,992 0.5 255,163 3.9 209,740 3.1 30,000 0.4 

Special Fuel 274,986 7.0 255,610 5.0 316,517 4.8 369,791 5.5 350,000 5.2 

5% 15,123 0.4 26,762 0.5 23,000 0.3 25,418 0.4 20,000 0.3 

Nurse 29,096 0.7 28,439 0.6 38,059 0.6 40,360 0.6 35,000 0.5 

Motor Vehicles 1,948 0.0 210,633 4.1 290,852 4.4 288,672 4.3 250,000 3.7 

Pinedale Preschool 10,395 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Business Licenses 0 0.0 200 0.0 0 0.0 280 0.0 200 0.0 

Landfill 323,731 8.2 353,203 6.9 400,000 6.0 422,444 6.3 400,000 6.0 

Federal Mineral Royalty 17,922 0.5 15,403 0.3 6,000 0.1 16,004 0.2 10,000 0.1 

U.S. Forest-Law Enforcement 10,310 0.3 9,500 0.2 9,500 0.1 16,196 0.2 9,500 0.1 

Contract-Prisoners from Other Counties 18,909 0.5 39,752 0.8 16,500 0.2 0 0.0 168,000 2.5 

Car Rentals 0 0.0 4,916 0.1 2,200 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Sales Tax Penalty 7,051 0.2 10,698 0.2 10,000 0.2 9,837 0.1 8,000 0.1 

Fuel Reimbursement (W&P, Fair) 4,994 0.1 7,062 0.1 5,800 0.1 6,728 0.1 6,000 0.1 

COPS Universal Grant 217,068 5.5 47,635 0.9 0 0.0 22,215 0.3 48,000 0.7 

E-911 Reimbursement 25,448 0.6 26,057 0.5 28,100 0.4 32,925 0.5 30,000 0.4 

Donations-SO and DARE 0 0.0 0 0.0 1,800 0.0 0.0 2,000 0.0 

Search and Rescue 6,407 0.2 10,841 0.2 0 0.0 0.0 12,000 0.2 

County Court Jury and Reimbursement 952 0.0 6,319 0.1 1,800 0.0 13,015 0.2 2,000 0.0 

Vaccine 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 6,000 0.1 

Family Planning 724 0.0 600 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 

Health Fair 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 7,000 0.1 

State-County Road Fund 183,000 4.6 0 0.0 287,910 4.3 252,762 3.8 298,688 4.5 

CFM Funds 50,000 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

COPS Equipment Grant 0 0.0 16,825 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

COPS in School/Resource Officer 0 0.0 46,719 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

JAIBG 1998–1999 0 0.0 28,406 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 95,542 1.4 

JAIBG-Resource Grant 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

WDOT-Speed Grant 0 0.0 6,666 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Sanatarian Inspection Fees 0 0.0 4,605 0.1 3,698 0.1 3,718 0.1 3,000 0.0 

Historic Preservation 0 0.0 4,987 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

OJJDP Grant 0 0.0 0 0.0 10,640 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 

WCCA Grant 0 0.0 14,598 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Health Department Initiative 0 0.0 3,000 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Historic Preservation 0 0.0 4,987 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

LLEBG Grant 0 0.0 0 0.0 14,249 0.2 0 0.0 25,242 0.4 

Fire Board Reimbursement 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 10,000 0.1 

Jobs & Growth Reconciliation 

Distribution 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 28,729 0.4 

VEST Grant 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1,500 0.0 

Drinking Enforcement Grant 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 11,000 0.2 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 79 

Total Revenue Other than Property Taxes 3 3,943,602 100.0 5,104,397 100.0 6,618,848 100.0 6,684,764 100.0 6,691,426 100.0 

PROPERTY TAX REVENUES 

General Fund 3,428,191 60.0 4,616,279 45.2 8,721,419 66.3 10,466,887 79.6 9,616,995 85.7 

Fair 112,452 2.0 176,921 1.7 191,156 1.5 293,312 2.2 276,436 2.5 

Airport 64,629 1.1 70,244 0.7 101,138 0.8 95,000 0.7 115,500 1.0 

Library 349,843 6.1 396,500 3.9 370,291 2.8 517,720 3.9 520,495 4.6 

Museum 136,841 2.4 69,495 0.7 105,736 0.8 147,085 1.1 198,865 1.8 

Recreation 112,301 2.0 94,645 0.9 251,348 1.9 548,573 4.2 0 0.0 

Fire 335,679 5.9 285,989 2.8 466,320 3.5 1,081,648 8.2 487,688 4.3 

Total Revenue from Taxes 5,710,073 100.0 10,207,408 100.0 13,150,225 100.0 13,150,225 100.0 11,215,979 100.0 

GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS 

Specific Appropriations 

County Commissioners 107,175 1.4 194,486 2.7 181,531 1.6 127,410 0.8 204,700 1.2 

County Clerk 128,559 1.7 137,216 1.9 132,612 1.2 134,125 0.8 169,615 1.0 

County Treasurer 101,674 1.3 104,790 1.5 130,549 1.2 142,931 0.9 160,378 1.0 
Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 3.37. (Continued) 

Fiscal Year Revenues/Disbursements ($) 

2003–2004 (Estimated-- 1999–2000 2000–2001 2001–2002 2002–2003 Approved by Board)

Revenue/ % of Revenue/ Revenue/ Revenue/ Revenue/ 

Government/ Line Item 

% of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total Expense Total Expense Expense Expense Expense 

County Assessor 171,607 2.3 147,454 2.1 193,893 1.8 200,770 1.3 230,503 1.4 

County Attorney 141,772 1.9 148,409 2.1 152,461 1.4 196,732 1.2 214,807 1.3 

Clerk of Court 113,383 1.5 108,509 1.5 115,422 1.0 101,164 0.6 174,547 1.1 

Recycling 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 123,672 0.8 

GIS 30,868 0.4 32,570 0.5 43,012 0.4 38,314 0.2 48,171 0.3 

County Engineer 4,063 0.1 5,058 0.1 3,300 0.0 9,247 0.1 10,000 0.1 

Courthouse and Jail2 233,229 3.1 508,689 7.1 3,517,643 32.0 4,326,957 27.3 3,382,200 20.6 

Election 2,964 0.0 24,383 0.3 1,880 0.0 28,692 0.2 2,225 0.0 

Zoning and Land Planning 81,929 1.1 89,853 1.3 99,206 0.9 118,037 0.7 120,168 0.7 

Detention 311,607 4.1 348,275 4.9 342,937 3.1 507,005 3.2 1,278,212 7.8 

Communication 245,688 3.3 247,180 3.5 298,268 2.7 250,209 1.6 315,363 1.9 

Law Enforcement2 1,145,521 15.2 1,208,411 16.9 1,242,653 11.3 1,342,391 8.5 1,843,227 11.2 

County Coroner 8,476 0.1 15,768 0.2 19,523 0.2 24,005 0.2 26,857 0.2 

County Health 73,454 1.0 75,471 1.1 94,455 0.9 96,415 0.6 124,147 0.8 

Health Officer and Sanitarian 26,370 0.3 27,901 0.4 33,461 0.3 33,190 0.2 86,740 0.5 

Road and Bridge 1,702,815 22.6 1,987,383 27.9 2,215,692 20.1 2,693,890 17.0 3,651,063 22.2 

Transfer Station 61,398 0.8 63,000 0.9 70,426 0.6 108,110 0.7 48,200 0.3 

Sanitary Landfill 272,275 3.6 435,992 6.1 501,337 4.6 723,872 4.6 735,023 4.5 

Drug Court 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 91,500 0.6 

Emergency Management 33,147 0.4 29,403 0.4 58,109 0.5 51,431 0.3 108,112 0.7 

County Extension Office 38,677 0.5 34,440 0.5 59,098 0.5 66,832 0.4 96,484 0.6 

Total Specific Appropriations 5,036,651 66.8 5,974,641 83.7 9,507,468 86.4 11,321,729 71.3 13,245,914 80.6 

Other General Fund Appropriations 

Financial Administration 31,726 0.4 43,072 0.6 49,174 0.4 59,820 0.4 60,000 0.4 

Wyoming Business Council 0 0.0 0 0.0 2,064 0.0 2,064 0.0 0 0.0 

FICA, Insurance, Retirement 649,991 8.6 688,882 9.7 1,006,478 9.1 1,149,481 7.2 1,200,000 7.3 

County Officer's Expense 7,966 0.1 9,429 0.1 14,311 0.1 19,988 0.1 20,000 0.1 

Printing and Publication 36,765 0.5 35,943 0.5 38,654 0.4 30,209 0.2 40,000 0.2 

Postage 19,610 0.3 20,120 0.3 20,190 0.2 24,101 0.2 27,000 0.2 

Telephone 3,704 0.0 2,882 0.0 2,801 0.0 2,760 0.0 4,000 0.0 

CPA Audit 19,700 0.3 20,400 0.3 21,400 0.2 23,497 0.1 22,500 0.1 

Grant-Historic Survey 4,824 0.1 2,716 0.0 2,807 0.0 0 0.0 10,023 0.1 

Senior Citizens-Big Piney 20,000 0.3 27,470 0.4 31,500 0.3 35,000 0.2 35,000 0.2 

Senior Citizens-Pinedale 20,000 0.3 25,000 0.4 30,000 0.3 35,000 0.2 45,000 0.3 

Retirement Center 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 7,569 0.0 0 0.0 

SAFV Task Force 9,471 0.1 7,321 0.1 10,000 0.1 10,883 0.1 13,950 0.1 

Office Rent 1,968 0.0 5,728 0.1 1,968 0.0 1,968 0.0 1,968 0.0 

Worker's Compensation 46,147 0.6 36,371 0.5 83,295 0.8 99,038 0.6 125,000 0.8 

Unemployment Compensation 9,920 0.1 1,908 0.0 6,006 0.1 9,680 0.1 10,000 0.1 

Pre-School Grant 21,395 0.3 16,000 0.2 10,000 0.1 15,000 0.1 15,000 0.1 

Community Food Closet 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 6,000 0.0 

McKenzie Meningitis Foundation 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 6,000 0.0 

Learning Center 107,100 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 20,000 0.1 

Discovery Center 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 10,100 0.1 

Scholarship 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3,100 0.0 

Wyoming Community Foundation 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4,287 0.0 0 0.0 

Skyline Drive Plowing 747 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

MAD #2 0 0.0 1,418 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Library Addition 0 0.0 0 0.0 42,444 0.4 1,460,707 9.2 340,000 2.1 

Hockey Rink 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 62,530 0.4 800,000 4.9 

Museum Projects 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 24,063 0.2 38,450 0.2 

PDR Working Group 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 26,161 0.2 30,000 0.2 

Industrial Site Road Project 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 97,500 0.6 0 0.0 

Recycling Buildings 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 128,568 0.8 0 0.0 

Mosquito Research 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1,258 0.0 50,000 0.3 

New Fork Willow Creek Road 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1,038 0.0 0 0.0 

CDBG-The Learning Center 250,000 3.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Victim Assistance 1,000 0.0 8,000 0.1 11,022 0.1 11,000 0.1 0 0.0 

Multi-purpose Building/Ag. Center 920,550 12.2 101,713 1.4 876 0.0 0 0.0 20,000 0.1 

Soil Conservation 63,696 0.8 55,379 0.8 76,310 0.7 86,441 0.5 164,000 1.0 

County Court Jury 1,545 0.0 4,404 0.1 2,188 0.0 764 0.0 2,000 0.0 

Fine Arts 0 0.0 5,000 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Shelter Park Sewer Line 0 0.0 41,101 0.6 218 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Senior Citizens Facilities 0 0.0 0 0.0 37,709 0.3 1,125,659 7.1 68,000 0.4 

CDBG-The Learning Center 250,000 3.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Total Other General Fund 

Appropriations 2,497,825 33.2 1,160,257 16.3 1,501,415 13.6 4,556,034 28.7 3,187,091 19.4 

Total General Fund Appropriations 7,534,476 100.0 7,134,898 100.0 11,008,883 100.0 15,877,763 100.0 16,433,005 100.0 

80 Section 3

1 Source: Sublette County annual budget reports. 2 All law enforcement in Sublette County is provided by the Sublette County Sheriff's Department. 3 Official county budget records indicated a different total for fiscal years 1999-2000 ($3,943,601) and 2000-2001 ($5,081,812). 4 "Civil Defense" prior to 2000-2001. 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 81 

Table 3.38. Schedule of Oil and Natural Gas Royalties from State Lands Received by State and 

Counties, 1998–20041,2 

Royalties (Thousands of $) Location 

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Natural Gas 

Wyoming 12,711 11,717 15,906 37,641 20,587 36,842 51,232 

Lincoln County 1,815 1,572 1,753 3,280 1,424 1,873 2,503 

Sublette County 2,736 2,450 3,036 7,125 4,978 9,934 11,173 

Sweetwater County 2,592 2,702 3,276 5,891 3,036 4,879 11,963 

Oil 

Wyoming 8,467 5,307 10,348 11,590 8,937 13,261 12,576 

Lincoln County 156 135 162 169 129 156 126 

Sublette County 333 258 454 734 852 1,971 894 

Sweetwater County 257 199 437 428 310 689 298 

1 Source: WOSLI (2002, 2004), Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 2 Royalty amounts include sales of by products (i.e., natural gas liquids, sulfur, carbon dioxide, and helium) and prior period adjustments. 

Between 2002 and 2004, natural gas royalties in Sweetwater County increased 294%, while oil 

royalties decreased 3.9%. 

3.4.3 Ad Valorem Valuation and Taxes Levied 

Due to changes in agency reporting methods, information from 1980 and 1990 was only minimally 

available; therefore, information for a 5-year study period, 1998–2002, is presented in this section. 

Ad valorem valuations for the study area are presented in Table 3.39, and actual ad valorem taxes 

levied for 5-year study period are presented in Table 3.40. Taxes and actual mills for sample year 

2003 are presented in Tables 3.41–3.47 to illustrate source and allocation of ad valorem taxes in 

2003. These actual taxes were not adjusted for inflation. 

3.4.3.1 Wyoming 

Between 1980 and 2000, the total gross real and personal property valuation in Wyoming fell 44.6% 

(see Table 3.39). However, from 1998 to 2002, the 5-year study period for this section, total gross 

real and personal property valuation increased 45.7%. From 1980 to 2000, assessed mineral 

valuation fell 23.1%; however, from 1998 to 2002, there was an increase of 51.9%. Between 1980 

and 2000, non-mineral assessments dropped by 84.8%. In contrast to the recovery seen in other 

areas, non-mineral assessments only increased 5.1% from 1998 to 2002 (see Table 3.39). 

In Wyoming, total ad valorem taxes levied in the state increased 30.9% between 1998 and 2002 (see 

Table 3.40). Total county levies increased 35.5% from 1998 to 2002; total municipal levies increased 

9.5%; total special district levies increased 23.7%; and total education levies increased 31.0%. 

3.4.3.2 Lincoln County 

Lincoln County experienced dramatic changes in valuations during the 1998 to 2002 period (see 

Table 3.39). Mining valuations (mineral, coal, non-metal) fell 52.1%, although total state-assessed 

minerals in Lincoln County increased by 30.8%. Oil and gas were not reported in Lincoln County 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
82 Section 3 

until 2001; however, there was a 10.7% increase from 2001 to 2002. Assessment for agricultural 

land fell 10.3% from 1998 to 2002. Commercial land, improvements, and personal property 

increased by 52.2% during that same period. Total gross valuation for Lincoln County increased 

21.5% from 1998 to 2002, while LaBarge’s municipal valuation actually fell by 14.8% (see Table 

3.39). 

In Lincoln County, total ad valorem taxes levied grew a total of 13.2% between 1998 and 2002 (see 

Table 3.40). County levies increased 20.5%; municipal levies increased 16.8%; total special district 

levies fell 23.1%; and total education levies increased 17.4%. LaBarge levies fell a total of 21.3% 

during the 5-year study period. 

3.4.3.3 Sublette County 

Sublette County experienced dramatic changes in valuations during the 5-year study period 

(see Table 3.39). The gross valuation of all real and personal property in Sublette County increased 

164.0% from 1998 to 2002. Sublette County has no mining (mineral, coal, non-metal) properties to 

consider in either local- or state-assessed valuations. Only oil and gas properties are included in 

state-assessed mineral valuations in Sublette County, and they increased 211.2% from 1998 to 2002. 

Total local assessments increased 22.9%, although agricultural land fell 4.1%. Non-mineral industrial 

properties increased 67.1% from 1998 to 2002. Residential lands with improvements increased 

28.2%, and commercial lands with improvements increased 19.1%. Total gross valuation for 

Sublette County increased a total 31.7% from 1998 to 2002. Municipal valuations increased in Big 

Piney (10.4%), Marbleton (9.7%), and Pinedale (18.1%) over the 5-year period. 

In Sublette County, total ad valorem taxes levied increased 153.3% between 1998 and 2002 (see 

Table 3.40). County levies increased 181.7%; municipal levies increased by only 0.8%; special 

district levies increased 121.4%; and education levies increased 149.4%. Over the same period, Big 

Piney’s municipal levies increased 7.8%; Marbleton’s municipal levies dropped by 3.1%; and 

Pinedale’s municipal levies increased 13.5%. 

3.4.3.4 Sweetwater County 

Gross valuation of all real and personal property in Sweetwater County increased 8.9% from 1998 to 

2002 (see Table 3.39). State-assessed mineral valuations increased 16.7% over the same period. 

Locally assessed oil and gas had the greatest overall increase (40.0%). Sweetwater County has 

mining (mineral, coal, non-metal) properties that decreased (-20.2%) in value over the 5-year study 

period. Total gross valuation for Sweetwater County declined 43.3% from 1998 to 2002, while Rock 

Springs municipal valuations increased 0.9%. 

In Sweetwater County, total ad valorem taxes levied increased 6.2% between 1998 and 2002 (see 

Table 3.40). County levies increased 8.9%; municipal levies fell 2.8%; special district levies 

decreased by 10.0%; and education levies increased 6.8%. Rock Springs municipal levies declined 

1.2% from 1998 to 2002. 

3.4.4 Sales Tax Collections 

Sales tax collection information for the 5-year study period (1998–2002) was obtained from WDAI 

(2002c) and is presented for Wyoming and the three-county study area in Table 3.48. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 3.39. Assessed Property Valuations for the State and Study Area1 

Location 

19802 19902 

Assessed Property Values (Thousands of $) 

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Wyoming 

Agricultural Land -- -- 147,586 145,384 145,954 137,954 136,668 

Commercial Land, Improvements, and Personal Property -- -- 518,249 525,600 534,245 563,080 609,808 

Residential Land, Improvements, and Personal Property -- -- 1,615,472 1,678,735 1,779,786 1,937,840 2,031,913 

Mining (Mineral, Coal, Non-metal) -- -- 281,160 289,140 256,793 241,247 248,932 

Oil and Gas -- -- 135,894 134,468 158,016 173,707 207,408 

Non-mineral Industrial -- -- 282,022 286,232 273,231 308,805 336,917 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project

Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 83 

Total Locally Assessed -- -- 2,980,384 3,059,559 3,148,024 3,362,633 3,571,647 

State Assessed Mineral 8,413,904 5,395,476 4,258,668 4,168,881 6,407,060 6,536,564 6,469,177 

State Assessed Non-mineral 4,493,344 3,019,549 648,907 637,903 673,778 648,352 681,711 

Gross Valuation Real and Personal Property 12,907,248 8,415,025 4,907,575 4,806,784 7,080,838 7,184,916 7,150,888 

Gross Motor Vehicle Valuation -- -- 1,198,589 1,432,888 1,283,250 1,287,081 1,372,412 

Private Railroad Cars Valuation -- -- 28,353 30,908 34,800 35,948 36,291 

Total Gross Valuation -- -- 6,134,517 6,270,580 8,398,889 8,507,945 8,559,591 

Lincoln County 

Agricultural Land -- -- 5,001 3,604 4,830 4,392 4,484 

Commercial Land, Improvements, and Personal Property -- -- 7,015 8,556 8,986 10,326 10,680 

Residential Land, Improvements, and Personal Property -- -- 48,738 49,907 51,424 56,159 62,721 

Mining (Mineral, Coal, Non-metal) -- -- 12,215 6,793 5,753 5,646 5,848 

Oil and Gas -- -- -- -- -- 4,040 4,471 

Non-mineral Industrial -- -- 72,249 72,770 70,395 68,276 66,664 

Total Locally Assessed -- -- 145,218 141,630 141,389 148,839 154,868 

State Assessed Mineral -- -- 290,834 258,845 262,227 377,441 380,409 

State Assessed Non-mineral -- -- 35,727 36,082 34,192 30,575 32,746 

Gross Valuation Real and Personal Property -- -- 471,779 400,475 437,808 556,855 568,024 

Gross Motor Vehicle Valuation -- -- 34,495 33,913 42,433 43,194 46,942 

Private Railroad Cars Valuation -- -- 1,249 1,267 1,432 1,443 1,497 

Total Gross Valuation -- -- 507,523 1,965,516 481,672 601,492 616,462 

LaBarge Municipal Valuation -- -- 2,547 2,537 1,888 2,260 2,170 

Sublette County 

Agricultural Land -- -- 4,316 4,334 4,292 4,081 4,140 

Commercial Land, Improvements, and Personal Property -- -- 8,415 7,479 7,979 8,814 10,026 

Residential Land, Improvements, and Personal Property -- -- 38,896 42,346 44,031 46,756 49,882 

Mining (Mineral, Coal, Non-metal) -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Oil and Gas -- -- 37,585 36,598 38,154 40,883 42,861 

Non-mineral Industrial -- -- 6,217 5,577 5,335 7,497 10,387 

Total Locally Assessed -- -- 95,429 96,334 99,791 108,031 117,296 

State-assessed Mineral -- -- 299,812 290,820 372,714 714,807 933,125 

State-assessed Non-mineral -- -- 3,714 3,500 3,332 2,926 2,840 

Gross Valuation Real and Personal Property -- -- 398,955 390,654 475,836 825,763 1,053,261 

Gross Motor Vehicle Valuation -- -- 24,706 25,108 26,373 31,645 30,483 

Private Railroad Cars Valuation -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Total Gross Valuation -- -- 822,615 415,762 502,209 857,408 1,083,744 

Big Piney Municipal Valuation -- -- 1,471 1,524 1,515 1,500 1,624 

Marbleton Municipal Valuation -- -- 2,119 2,019 2,075 2,144 2,325 

Pinedale Municipal Valuation -- -- 9,254 9,259 9,344 9,878 10,930 

Sweetwater County 

Agricultural Land -- -- 3,371 2,946 2,868 3,012 3,003 

Commercial Land, Improvements, and Personal Property -- -- 30,269 30,507 30,769 31,226 32,174 

Residential Land, Improvements, and Personal Property -- -- 95,452 96,787 92,833 106,741 91,783 

Mining (Mineral, Coal, Non-metal) -- -- 108,911 105,681 95,569 88,691 86,865 

Oil and Gas -- -- 32,155 33,996 39,107 40,896 45,031 

Other Industrial -- -- 27,627 27,668 23,356 24,258 23,617 

Total Locally Assessed -- -- 297,785 297,584 284,502 294,824 282,473 

State Assessed Mineral -- -- 812,202 716,344 372,714 950,780 948,146 

State Assessed Non-mineral -- -- 127,543 125,279 3,332 119,164 117,481 

Gross Valuation Real and Personal Property -- -- 1,237,531 1,529,861 660,547 1,364,767 1,348,101 

Gross Motor Vehicle Valuation -- -- 96,049 98,862 102,166 103,111 107,785 

Private Railroad Cars Valuation -- -- 4,168 4,228 4,564 4,600 4,770 

Total Gross Valuation -- -- 2,575,279 1,632,951 767,277 1,472,479 1,460,655 

Rock Springs Municipal Valuation -- -- 74,581 76,125 74,326 89,821 75,212 

1 Thousands of Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. Cities with no reported values/taxes are omitted from this table, including Bondurant, Boulder, Cora, and Daniel in Sublette County and Eden and Farson in 

Sweetwater County. 2 CREG (2003). Due to changes in reporting methods, only gross state totals are available for 1980 and 1990. 2 Wyoming Department of Revenue (1998). 3 Wyoming Department of Revenue (1999). 4 Wyoming Department of Revenue (2000). 5 Wyoming Department of Revenue (2001). 6 Wyoming Department of Revenue (2002). 
84 Section 3 

Table 3.40. Tota

Location 

Wyoming 

County Taxes Le

Municipal Taxes 

Special District TEducation Taxes 

Total Ad Valorem 

Lincoln County 

County Taxes Le

Municipal Taxes 

Special District TEducation Taxes 

Total Ad Valore

LaBarge Total Ta

Sublette County 

County Taxes Le

Municipal Taxes 

Special District TEducation Taxes 

Total Ad Valore

Big Piney Total T

Marbleton Total T

Pinedale Total Ta

Sweetwater County 

County Taxes Le

Municipal Taxes 

Special District TEducation Taxes 

Total Ad Valore

Rock Springs Tot

1 Thousands of Year 200

Boulder, Cora, and Da

2 Wyoming Department 3 Wyoming Department 4 Wyoming Department 5 Wyoming Department 6 Wyoming Department 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 85 

Table 3.41. Levies for K-12 Education, 20031 

Education Item2 All Wyoming ($) Lincoln ($) 

Counties 

Sublette ($) Sweetwater ($) 

State Foundation Program 12-Mills 124,081,042 5,376,113 11,216,138 13,928,904 

6-Mill Mandatory County School Levy 62,040,519 2,688,057 5,608,069 6,964,452 

25-Mill Mandatory Level 258,502,173 11,200,235 23,366,955 29,018,550 

Boards of Cooperative Education 5,025,437 198,980 512,451 668,766 

Vocational and Adult Education3 541,880 -- -- 73,793 

Recreation 6,263,948 296,818 467,339 49,196 

Bonds and Interest 15,433,873 1,745,476 849,225 2,920,056 

Total K-12 Education 471,888,872 21,505,679 42,020,177 53,623,717 

1 Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue (2003a). In Year 2003 dollars, not adjusted for inflation. 2 None of the study area counties levied taxes for additional operating, capital facilities repair, or building fund in 2003. 3 -- = no tax levy in 2003 for this item. 

Table 3.42. Levies for Community Colleges, 20031 

Community College Levy Taxes Received ($) 

Operating Operating BOCES Operating Bonds & 

(4-mill) (up to 1 Mill (0.5 Mills) (up to 5 Mills Interest Total 

Board Approved) Voter Approved) 

Lincoln County -

2 - - - - -

Sublette County - - - - - -

Sweetwater County 4,642,968 1,160,742 - - - 5,803,710 

Wyoming 13,538,043 3,384,511 654,514 - 1,353,293 18,930,361 

1 Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue (2003a). In Year 2003 dollars, not adjusted for inflation. 2 -- = no tax levy in 2003 for this item. 

Table 3.43. County Taxes Levied, 20031 

County2,3 

Levy Lincoln Sublette Sweetwater 

Mills Amount of Taxes Mills Amount of Taxes Mills Amount of Taxes 

Levied Received ($) Levied Received ($) Levied Received ($) 

Airport Operations -- -- 0.124 $115,900 0.200 $232,148 

Civil Defense -- -- 0.330 $30,844 -- -­

Fair Operation 0.872 $269,344 0.296 $263,736 1.253 $276,665 

County Fire Protection -- -- 0.522 $478,507 -- -­

Other General Fund Levy 8.817 $3,950,099 9.110 $8,514,918 4.197 $4,871,170 

Library Operation 1.339 $599,885 0.557 $520,616 1.995 $2,315,448 

Museum Operation -- -- 0.213 $199,086 0.229 $265,462 

Public Health Purposes -- -- 0.027 $25,236 0.897 $1,040,721 

Recreation System -- -- -- -- 0.315 $365,286 

Road and Bridge Purpose Levy -- -- 1.118 $1,044,970 2.916 $3,384,607 

Total Under 12-Mill Limit 11.028 $4,940,648 12.297 $11,206,742 12.000 $13,928,903 

Total County Levies 11.028 $4,940,648 12.297 $11,206,742 12.000 $13,928,903 

1 Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue (2003a). In Year 2003 dollars, not adjusted for inflation. 2 -- = no tax levy for this item. 3 None of the study area counties levied taxes for building fund, hospital operation, public assistance and social services, or total county bond and 

interest. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 3.44. County and Statewide Average 2003 Mill Levies Applied to 2002 Mineral

Production and Taxes Assessed1

Average Mineral Total Ad Valorem Percentage of Total Ad Valorem Production Taxes Assessed in 2003 Mill Levies Production Tax Assessed Wyoming 

Lincoln County 63.542 $14,875,737 4.22 

Sublette County 59.571 $47,432,192 13.46 

Sweetwater County 66.458 $49,006,739 13.91 Wyoming 66.065 $352,376,219 100.00 

1 Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue (2003a). In Year 2003 dollars, not adjusted for inflation. 

Table 3.45. Municipal Taxes Levied for the Year 20031 

Total Special County District Taxes Levied for the Year 2003

Municipal Bonds and Grand Total Special Weed and Pest Taxes Under Interest ($) Municipal Levies Special County Other Special County District 

8-Mill Limit Levies ($) Fire District 

($) Mills Amount ($) Taxes ($) Taxes ($) District Types3 

Lincoln County 251,113 --2 251,113 0.785 351,687 259,937 2,077,679 G,H,J,L,O 

Sublette County 132,488 -- 132,488 0.300 280,403 198,170 2,152,670 C,K Sweetwater County 1,156,772 -- 1,156,772 0.349 405,099 8,329,177 2,461,913 A,C,G,J Wyoming 4 12,016,991 187,414 n/a 7,499,369 n/a 31,032,344 n/a 

1 Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue (2003a). In Year 2003 dollars, not adjusted for inflation.2 -- = no tax levy for this item.3 District Types: 

A – Hospital I - Weed and Pest B – Fire J - Solid Waste Disposal C – Cemetery K - Rural Health Care D – Museum L - Conservation E – Recreation M - Sanitary and Improvement F - Water Conservancy N - Flood Control G - Water and Sewer O - Downtown Development H - Improvement and Services P - Senior Citizens’ Service 

4 n/a = not applicable. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 3.46. City- and Town-Assessed Valuation and Taxes Levied, 20031

School Tax Levy Including

County Tax Levy Foundation Municipal Tax Levy Tot

Municipal Special City/Town Valuation Mills District2 Amount ($) Mills Amount ($) Mills Amount ($) Mills 

Big Piney 1,905,850 14.330 C,I,K 27,311 47.965 91,414 8.000 15,247 70.295 

LaBarge 2,299,884 15.330 A,C,I 35,257 47.965 110,314 8.000 18,399 71.295 

Marbleton 2,875,951 14.330 C,I,K 41,212 47.965 137,945 4.000 11,504 66.295 

Pinedale 13,217,084 13.934 C,I,K 184,167 44.000 581,552 8.000 105,737 65.934 

Rock Springs 81,327,144 13.899 I,J 1,130,366 48.600 3,952,499 8.000 650,617 70.499 

1 Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue (2003a). In Year 2003 dollars, not adjusted for inflation.2 District Types: 

A – Hospital I - Weed and Pest 

B – Fire J - Solid Waste Disposal 

C – Cemetery K - Rural Health Care 

D – Museum L - Conservation 

E – Recreation M - Sanitary and Improvement 

F - Water Conservancy N - Flood Control 

G - Water and Sewer O - Downtown Development 

H - Improvement and Services P - Senior Citizens’ Service 

Table 3.47. Total All Taxes Levied, 20031 

Total County Levies Total Municipal Total Special Total All Total All Taxes Average M

Mills Amount ($) Levies ($) District Taxes ($) Education ($) Levied ($) Levy 

Lincoln County 11.028 4,940,648 251,113 2,733,620 21,505,679 29,431,060 65.693 

Sublette County 12.297 11,206,742 132,488 2,433,073 42,020,177 55,792,480 59.692 

Sweetwater County 12.000 13,928,903 1,156,772 3,661,487 59,427,427 78,174,589 67.349 

Wyoming 119,082,631 12,204,405 46,860,890 490,819,233 668,967,159 64.696 

1 Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue (2003a). In Year 2003 dollars, not adjusted for inflation. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
88 Section 3 

Table 3.48. Sales Tax Collections in State and Study Area1 

Location/Industrial Sector 

1998 

Sales Tax Collections (Thousands of $) 

1999 2000 2001 2002 

Wyoming2 

Agriculture 1,399 1,358 1,374 1,347 1,257 

Mining3 28,651 19,694 22,259 34,163 46,358 

Construction 10,228 12,325 11,198 12,136 14,828 

Manufacturing 22,877 22,085 22,854 22,127 22,124 

Transportation 30,063 30,734 31,708 37,249 37,866 

Wholesale Trade 37,060 39,477 43,602 48,086 52,365 

Retail Trade 171,014 179,324 190,610 191,510 199,673 

Finance 1,611 1,059 1,134 1,009 762 

Services 53,876 57,672 60,014 66,634 75,901 

Public Administration 31,942 36,609 33,883 38,216 42,589 

Total 388,721 400,336 418,635 452,478 493,723 

Lincoln County4 

Agriculture 55 52 45 50 38 

Mining3 1,234 944 690 818 1,273 

Construction 188 186 165 155 170 

Manufacturing 705 768 870 670 565 

Transportation 844 942 821 833 871 

Wholesale Trade 1,933 1,385 2,312 1,782 2,135 

Retail Trade 3,112 3,381 3,659 3,389 3,712 

Finance 47 45 53 36 24 

Services 933 1,148 948 1,185 1,394 

Public Administration 710 732 783 797 954 

Total Collected 9,761 9,583 10,345 9,716 11,135 

Approximate Amount Returned to 

County 3,221 3,162 3,413 3,206 3,674 

Sublette County 5 

Agriculture 27 27 28 26 26 

Mining3 2,538 2,844 2,591 5,988 9,078 

Construction 110 89 125 139 173 

Manufacturing 527 396 381 882 1,047 

Transportation 383 404 481 459 483 

Wholesale Trade 956 1,034 1,145 1,201 1,557 

Retail Trade 1,691 1,629 1,923 2,289 2,575 

Finance 13 14 13 8 5 

Services 927 1,257 1,209 2,457 3,471 

Public Administration 460 407 452 451 648 

Total 7,632 8,102 8,348 13,901 19,063 

Approximate Amount Returned to 2,518 2,674 2,755 4,587 6,291 County 

Sweetwater County 6 

Agriculture 45 40 34 33 42 

Mining3 4,868 3,361 3,514 5,683 7,165 

Construction 1,379 1,304 1,109 1,008 952 

Manufacturing 3,751 3,118 2,916 2,548 2,722 

Transportation 3,041 2,773 3,753 3,171 3,620 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 89 

Table 3.48. (Continued) 

Location/Industrial Sector 

1998 

Sales Tax Collections (Thousands of $) 

1999 2000 2001 2002 

Wholesale Trade 6,333 5,687 5,449 6,701 7,023 

Retail Trade 14,572 14,680 14,552 14,514 15,673 

Finance 173 120 128 108 64 

Services 5,777 5,829 5,908 6,748 8,192 

Public Administration 3,038 3,416 3,180 3,461 3,441 

Total 42,975 40,328 40,544 43,975 48,894 

Approximate Amount Returned to 

County 14,182 13,308 13,380 14,512 16,135 

1 Source: WDAI (2002c). Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 2 Note: Penalty and interest monies are excluded; collections amounted to $1,751,376 in FY02. 3 Includes oil and gas. 4 Note: Penalty and interest monies are excluded; collections amounted to $39,384 in FY02. 5 Note: Penalty and interest monies are excluded; collections amounted to $27,109 in FY02. 6 Note: Penalty and interest monies are excluded; collections amounted to $134,973 in FY02. 

3.4.4.1 Wyoming 

Total sales tax collections for Wyoming increased 27.0% from 1998 to 2002 (see Table 3.48). 

Increases in the mining (61.8%), construction (45.0%), and wholesale trade (41.3%) sectors were the 

most substantial. Collections from the retail trade sector, which reflects consumers’ daily spending, 

increased 16.8% during the 5-year study period. The retail trade sector is the largest of the industrial 

sectors in Wyoming, and provided 40.4% of all sales tax collections in 2002, followed by services 

(15.4%), wholesale trade (10.6%), and mining (9.4%). The collections reported in the public 

administration sector (8.6% of all sales tax collections) were primarily composed of taxes generated 

through automobile sales (WDAI 2002c). 

3.4.4.2 Lincoln County 

Total sales tax collections in Lincoln County increased 14.1% from 1998 to 2002 (see Table 3.48). 

Collections from the retail trade sector, which reflects consumers’ daily spending, increased 19.3%. 

The largest increases were seen in services (49.4%) and public administration (34.3%). Losses 

occurred in finance (48.8%), agriculture (31.6%), manufacturing (19.9%), and construction (9.6%). 

In 2002, the retail trade sector was the largest of the industrial sectors, providing 33.3% of all sales 

tax collections in Lincoln County, followed by wholesale trade (19.2%), services (12.5%), and 

mining (11.4%) (see Table 3.48). 

3.4.4.3 Sublette County 

Total sales tax collections in Sublette County increased 149.8% from 1998 to 2002 (see Table 3.48). 

The largest overall increase during that term was seen in services, which expanded by 274.5%, 

followed by mining (257.7%) and manufacturing (98.5%). Finance and agriculture experienced 

declines (63.9% and 2.6% respectively) in sales taxes collected over the 5-year study period. 

Mining provided 47.6% of sales tax collections in Sublette County in 2002, followed by services 

(18.2%) and retail trade (13.5%) (see Table 3.48). 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
90 Section 3 

3.4.4.4 Sweetwater County 

Over the 5-year study period from 1998 to 2002, Sweetwater County’s total sales tax collection 

increased by 13.8% (see Table 3.48). The largest overall increase during that term was seen in 

mining (47.2%), followed by services (41.8%), and transportation (19.0%). Finance (-62.9%), 

construction 

(-30.9%), manufacturing (-27.4%), and agriculture (-5.1%) experienced declines in sales taxes 

collected over the 5-year study period. 

In 2002, the retail trade sector was the largest of the industrial sectors, providing 32.1% of all sales 

tax collections in Sweetwater County, followed by services (16.8%), mining (14.7%), and wholesale 

trade (14.4%) (see Table 3.48). 

3.4.5 Use Tax Collections 

Information on use tax collections was obtained from WDAI (2002c) and is presented in Table 3.49. 

Table 3.49. Use Tax Collections in the State and Study Area1 

Industrial Sector/Location 

1998 1999 

Use Tax Collections ($) 

2000 2001 2002 

Wyoming 

Agriculture 93,382 111,663 127,039 152,240 111,850 

Mining2 8,139,021 10,074,628 7,232,766 8,643,343 11,220,244 

Construction 10,532,112 6,717,700 10,488,778 9,951,474 12,265,909 

Manufacturing 2,963,424 2,818,252 3,342,641 2,138,754 1,978,751 

Transportation 6,624,357 6,319,928 7,385,411 7,501,867 8,316,000 

Wholesale and Retail Trade 3,822,364 5,142,008 6,048,701 4,978,284 6,197,634 

Finance 49,164 43,066 31,621 37,531 30,230 

Services 1,186,334 853,229 871,877 1,374,900 2,241,715 

Public Administration 12,788,608 13,208,328 14,312,741 15,920,514 17,454,299 

Total 46,198,767 45,288,804 49,841,575 50,698,909 59,816,633 

Lincoln County 

Agriculture 555 0 0 20 11 

Mining2 644,320 799,954 888,052 444,472 1,292,002 

Construction 208,598 170,128 599,236 120,078 157,138 

Manufacturing 3,337 3,362 6,476 12,436 11,747 

Transportation 372,195 406,785 315,849 374,900 572,565 

Wholesale and Retail Trade 50,998 135,608 127,355 99,442 116,337 

Finance 3,223 3,603 2,746 2,205 3,299 

Services 5,951 12,804 6,248 7,587 8,948 

Public Administration 630,704 626,041 791,122 643,870 812,841 

Total 1,919,880 2,158,285 2,737,084 1,705,013 2,974,888 

Sublette County 

Agriculture 639 452 903 763 420 

Mining2 218,581 227,655 209,822 520,867 373,000 

Construction 25,641 41,591 43,908 147,526 53,054 

Manufacturing 876 1,727 6,928 2,663 9,570 

Transportation 34,361 -1,653 10,592 85,822 24,937 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 91 

Table 3.49. (Continued) 

Industrial Sector/Location 

1998 1999 

Use Tax Collections ($) 

2000 2001 2002 

Wholesale and Retail Trade 16,529 41,742 40,722 42,935 114,937 

Finance 5 6 -6 -1 0 

Services 747 1,601 237 1,164 2,463 

Public Administration 277,764 246,362 265,268 362,521 390,185 

Total 575,143 559,482 578,375 1,164,262 968,565 

Sweetwater County 

Agriculture 4,374 4,000 3,082 3,144 2,559 

Mining2 3,874,717 3,837,244 2,397,057 3,348,485 4,080,921 

Construction 3,049,513 885,748 1,050,060 1,108,792 492,216 

Manufacturing 793,646 535,044 758,768 386,144 394,046 

Transportation 1,022,135 1,003,434 1,175,935 1,086,599 1,128,749 

Wholesale and Retail 158,663 159,346 546,294 615,474 495,225 

Finance 3,499 406 940 412 2,199 

Services 33,534 59,357 136,868 418,210 431,734 

Public Administration 950,775 909,189 877,057 959,182 1,092,998 

Total 9,890,855 7,393,770 6,946,061 7,926,441 8,120,645 

1 Source: WDAI (2002c). In Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 2 Includes oil and gas. 

3.4.5.1 Wyoming 

Use tax collections increased nearly 29.5% from 1998 to 2002 (see Table 3.49). Seven of the nine 

major sectors3 realized increases during the 5-year study period. Use tax collections usually fluctuate 

considerably from year to year, and from one sector to another. Unlike collections for sales tax, the 

goods-producing sectors (mining, construction, and manufacturing) typically cover a large portion of 

use tax collections. Public administration is the largest of the industrial sectors in terms of use tax, 

accounting for 29.2% of all Wyoming use tax collections in 2002. From 1998 to 2002, the service 

sector exhibited the largest increase (89.0%), followed by wholesale/retail trade (62.1%), mining 

(37.9%), and public administration (36.5%). The manufacturing and finance sectors suffered 

declines of 33.2% and 38.5%, respectively. Annual total use tax collections for 16 Wyoming counties 

increased over previous year levels, while collections in the remaining counties decreased. 

3.4.5.2 Lincoln County 

Over the 5-year study period (1998–2002), total use tax collections in Lincoln County increased by 

55.0% (see Table 3.49). Manufacturing led sector growth over the 5-year period, with a 252% 

increase, followed by wholesale/retail trade (128.1%), and mining (100.5%). Agriculture showed the 

greatest decline (-97.9%), followed by construction (-24.7%). Mining was the largest of the 

industrial sectors in terms of use tax in 2002, with 43.4% of all Lincoln County use tax collections, 

followed by public administration (27.3%) and transportation (19.3%). 

3 Wholesale and retail trade sectors are combined and counted as one for use tax reporting. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
92 Section 3 

3.4.5.3 Sublette County 

Over the 5-year study period (1998–2002), total use tax collections in Sublette County increased by 

68.4% (see Table 3.49). Manufacturing led sector growth over the 5-year period, with a 992.7% 

increase, followed by wholesale/retail trade (595.4%) and services (229.7%). Finance (-100.0%), 

agriculture (-34.3%), and transportation (-27.4%) declined over the 5-year study period. In 2002, 

public administration provided the greatest percentage (40.3%) of use tax collections in Sublette 

County, followed by mining (38.5%) and wholesale/retail trade (11.9%). 

3.4.5.4 Sweetwater County 

Over the 5-year study period (1998–2002), total use tax collections in Sweetwater County decreased 

by 17.9% (see Table 3.49). Services led sector growth over the 5-year period, with a 1,187.5% 

increase from 1998 to 2002, followed by wholesale/retail trade (212.1%) and public administration 

(15.0%). The greatest declines over the 5-year period occurred in construction (-83.9%), 

manufacturing (-50.3%), agriculture (-41.5%), and finance (-37.2%). In 2002, mining contributed the 

greatest percentage (50%) of total use tax collections in Sweetwater County, followed by TCPU 

(14%) and public administration (13%). 

3.4.6 Lodging Tax Collections 

Lodging tax information was derived from WDAI (2002c), and data for the study area are presented 

in Table 3.50. All data are provided in Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. All lodging taxes 

are returned to the city/county of origin, and no tax is imposed at the state level; therefore, Wyoming 

is not shown in Table 3.50. Lincoln County does not have a countywide lodging tax, and the towns 

within Lincoln County that charge a lodging tax are outside the study area; therefore, Lincoln County 

is not shown in Table 3.50. 

Table 3.50. Lodging Tax Collections by County and Local Entity, 20021 

Collecting Entity 19982 

Lodging Tax Collections ($) 

19992 20002 2001 2002 

Sublette County NA NA NA 2,028 12,641 

Big Piney NA NA NA 261 4,069 

Marbleton NA NA NA 2,176 11,609 

Pinedale 0 0 0 4,236 71,321 

Total 0 0 0 8,701 99,640 

Sweetwater County 63,904 57,619 39,936 41,051 42,336 

Rock Springs 196,257 197,293 204,703 235,747 243,063 

Total 260,161 254,912 239,744 276,798 285,399 

1 Source: WDAI (2002c). In Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 2 NA = no information available. 

3.4.6.1 Sublette County 

Sublette County reinstated a lodging tax in 2001. Lodging taxes collected in Sublette County 

increased 523.2% from 2001 to 2002 (see Table 3.50). Collections in Big Piney increased 1,461.5%; 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 93 

Marbleton increased 433.5%; and Pinedale increased 1,583.5%. Total collections for the county and 

municipalities combined increased 1,045.1% from 2001 to 2002. 

3.4.6.2 Sweetwater County 

A lodging tax was imposed in Sweetwater County for the duration of the 5-year study period. 

Lodging tax collections in 2002 were down 33.8% from 1998 (see Table 3.50). However, Rock 

Springs lodging tax collections increased by 23.8% over the same period. Total collections for the 

county and municipalities combined increased 9.7% from 1998 to 2002. 

3.5 RECREATION ECONOMICS 

Recreation information is not collected on a countywide basis in the three-county study area. 

Recreational activities in Lincoln and Sweetwater Counties are unlikely to be affected by the 

proposed project. The JIDPA lies primarily within the PFO area, and project activities are not 

expected to affect recreation on any portion of the RSFO area; therefore, recreation economics are 

evaluated only within the PFO area. 

3.5.1 Nonconsumptive Recreation 

The volume of nonconsumptive recreational use within the region of the projects was taken from 

BLM (2003b). In BLM (2003b), recreational use was estimated using recreational visitor days 

(RVDs) as a unit of measure (a recreational visitor day is defined as a 12-hour period). The RVDs 

for the planning area (PFO) were estimated with data from BLM’s Recreational Management 

Information System (RMIS) (BLM 2003b). In this system, the BLM tracks recreational use for 

several areas within Wyoming including the PFO area. Using this data, Table 3.51 was constructed, 

which shows the RVDs per activity for the PFO for a 4-year period from 1998 to 2002. During this 

time, over 300,000 RVDs occurred annually within the PFO area. The most popular recreational 

activities were float or raft trips, fishing, camping, and hiking/walking/running. Hunting is addressed 

separately in Section 3.5.2. 

3.5.2 Hunting 

Hunting is also popular within the PFO area. Much of this activity occurs on BLM-managed lands, 

which provide habitat for many species, including big game, small game, and upland game birds. 

Big game hunting was estimated from WGFD data because this agency regulates the sport and keeps 

data on hunting use by animal and by area throughout Wyoming. Hunting days reported in this 

section are not directly comparable with BLM recreation days, given the differences in estimation 

procedures and the definition of a recreation day. 

BLM (2003b) used WGFD’s Annual Report of Big Game Harvest (published from 1991 to 2000), to 

estimate the average hunting days by big game species over a 10-year period. The WGFD data were 

adjusted by the percentage of acreage within each hunt area contained within the PFO area. 

The adjusted data indicate that, on an average annual basis, residents and nonresidents of Wyoming 

spend an estimated 40,000 days hunting in the PFO area (Table 3.52) (BLM 2003b). Over the 10-year 

period (1991–2000), BLM estimated that hunters in the PFO area from Wyoming accounted for over 

80% of the hunting days on average. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
94 Section 3 

Table 3.51. Estimated Annual Recreational Visitor Days, PFO Area1 

Annual Recreational Percent of Total Activity Visitor Days 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) and 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 Source: BLM (2003b). Source: Annual average of data collected October 1, 1998–September 30, 2002 by RMIS. 

Table 3.52. BLM-Estimated Big Game Hunter-Days, PFO Area1 

Hunter Designation 

Pronghorn 

Big Game Hunter-Days per Year 

Mule Deer2 Elk Moose Bighorn sheep 

Hunter-Days 

Residents 1,318 11,414 19,811 539 11 33,093 

Nonresidents 433 3,359 3,142 96 2 7,032 

Total Hunter-days 1,751 14,773 22,953 635 13 40,125 

1 Based on 10-year average (1991–2000). Source: BLM (2003b). 2 Averages for mule deer are for 2000 only. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 95 

Big Game Animals. Elk was the most popular species hunted within the PFO area—nearly 23,000 

hunting days—followed by mule deer, pronghorn antelope, moose, and then bighorn sheep 

(BLM 2003b). Pronghorn is the only big game species likely to occur on the JIDPA (BLM 2004c). 

The JIDPA is not within the WGFD-designated ranges for elk, mule deer, moose, or big horn sheep 

(BLM 2004c); therefore, recreational activity related to these big game species is unlikely to occur in 

the JIDPA. 

The JIDPA is entirely encompassed within the Sublette Antelope Herd Unit, which occupies 

approximately 10,546 square miles (Table 3.53) (BLM 2004b, BLM 2004c). BLM is responsible for 

managing 64% of the surface of the Sublette Antelope Herd Unit; the USFS is responsible for 

managing 4% of the surface; 4% is managed by the Bureau of Reclamation; and 26% is in state and 

private ownership. Approximately 85,000 acres (1.3%) of the Sublette Antelope Herd Unit have 

been disturbed by wells, roads, towns, etc. Table 3.54 presents a summary of big game hunting in the 

Sublette Antelope Herd Unit. 

Table 3.53. Herd Unit and Landownership in the JIDPA1 

Herd Unit Name Total Acres Ownership/Management (acres) 

Federal State/Private 

Disturbed within 

Unit (acres) 

Sublette Antelope Herd Unit 6,749,440 4,994,586 1,754,854 85,000 

1 Source: BLM (2004b). 

Table 3.54. 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 Year3 

Total Resident Nonresident 

Hunter-Days per Year3,4 

Total Resident Nonresident 

Hunters per Year3 

Total Resident Nonresident 

Hunter-Days per Year3,4 

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. The JIDPA lies entirely within Small Game 

Management Area 7 (WGFD 2003b); however, due to habitat limitations, only greater sage-grouse 

and desert cottontail are likely to occur and be hunted on the JIDPA. 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 cottontail and greater sage-grouse. 

Waterfowl Area 5B encompasses the JIDPA, and duck and goose may be hunted in the vicinity of the 

project area (BLM 2004b, 2004c). The WGFD has not collected hunter expenditure information for 

the 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 3.55 presents a 

summary of small game and upland bird hunting in the area that may potentially be impacted by the 

proposed project. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
96 Section 3 

Table 3.55. Summary of Potentially Project-Affected Small Game and Upland Bird Hunters and 

Hunter-Days in the JIDPA, 20021 

Species 

Total Wyoming 

Hunters Hunter-Days 

Area 72 (Eden) 

Hunters Hunter-Days 

Waterfowl Area 5B2,3 

(Upper Green River Basin) 

Hunters Hunter-Days 

per Year per Year per Year per Year per Year per Year 

Cottontail 5,814 25,566 316 1,981 - -

Greater sage-grouse 2,947 7,164 271 938 - -

Totals 8,761 32,730 587 2,919 - -

1 Source: WGFD (2003b). 2 Encompasses the JIDPA in its entirety. 

3.5.3 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 economy that supports 

jobs and income. Economic stimuli occur as nonresidents 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 be spending 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 are spent 

outside the local economy. Outdoor recreation in general is important to the region both in terms of 

satisfaction to residents and economic stimulus for 

the regional economy. 

3.5.3.1 Value of Nonconsumptive 

Recreation 

The value of recreation was estimated using the 

methods developed for the SWREE (UWAED 

1997) and JMHCAP (UWAED 2003, BLM 

2003a). Nonconsumptive recreation was derived 

from UWAED (1997), and is presented in Year 

2000 dollars adjusted for inflation. The estimated 

per day value of recreation in the PFO is 

summarized in Table 3.56. 

3.5.3.2 Value of Hunting 

The method used to determine the value of hunting 

is based on that used by UWAED (1997), updated 

with 2002 hunting and hunter expenditure data 

from WGFD (2003a, 2003b, 2003c), and is 

presented in Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for 

Table 3.56. Value of Recreation, PFO Area, 

19971 

Recreation Activity Value per Visitor-Day ($) 

General recreation 

Developed camping 

Primitive camping 

Day hiking 

Picnicking 

Sightseeing 

Gathering forest products 

Wilderness recreation 

Big game hunting 

Trout fishing 

Wildlife watching 

Snowmobiling 

10.18 

15.73 

19.85 

33.01 

14.32 

16.68 

15.17 

14.45 

77.25 

30.04 

30.04 

51.50 

Average value per visitor day 27.35 

1 In Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. Source: UWAED 

(1997). Categories defined by this source vary from RMIS 

categories; therefore, some differences may exist in actual value 

per visitor day. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Socioeconomic Profiles and Existing Environment 97 

inflation. The JIDPA is fully encompassed by the Sublette Antelope Herd Unit, and for the purposes 

of this report, pronghorn antelope are assumed to be 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 overestimate 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 value of hunting for each 

species managed for hunting and potentially occurring on the proposed project area (pronghorn 

antelope, desert cottontail, and greater sage-grouse) is presented in Table 3.57. 

The value per hunter-day was established by dividing the total estimated hunter expenditures per 

species by total hunter-days (see Table 3.57). The total value of hunter expenditures attributable to 

the potentially affected hunt unit was determined for each species by multiplying the hunter-days for 

each species in the potentially affected hunt units by the value per hunter-day for that species. 

According to WGFD (2003a, 2003b, 2003c), the percentage of hunter expenditures contributed to all 

hunter expenditures in Wyoming by each species in the potentially affected hunt units were 

pronghorn antelope (13.2%), cottontail (9.8%), and greater sage-grouse (21.7%). The potentially 

affected hunting areas contributed 10.0% of all hunting expenditures in Wyoming. 

The value attributable to each project area was determined by multiplying the percent of the hunt unit 

occurring on the project area (Table 3.58) by the number of hunter-days for the entire unit. That 

number was multiplied by the average value/hunter-day for a particular species to arrive at the 

potential value of hunting for a particular species likely to be hunted on the project area. The value 

was not calculated for species unlikely to occur or to be hunted on the project area. 

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 antelope occur on the JIDPA, and an estimated 61.0 

hunter-days (0.4% 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 

pronghorn 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 annual 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. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 3.57. Value of Hunting of Species Potentially Occurring on the Study Area, Wyoming and Study Area, 2002

Wyoming Attributable to Potentially Affected 

Species5 Hunter-Days1,2 Hunter Average Value/ Hunter-Days Hunte

Total Resident Nonresident Expenditures3 ($) Hunter-day ($) Total Resident Nonresident Total 

Antelope 101,989 51,208 50,781 38,888,895 381.30 13,490 9,356 4,134 5,143,737 

Cottontail5 25,566 n/a n/a 4,424,464 173.06 2,516 n/a n/a 435,419 

Greater sage-grouse4 7,164 n/a n/a 933,437 130.30 1,553 n/a n/a 202,356 

Total 134,719 51,208 50,781 44,246,796 684.66 17,559 9,356 4,134 5,781,512 

1 Source: WGFD (2003a, 2003b). Calculated from Harvest, Hunting Pressure, Hunter Success By Hunt Area 2002 reports for each species. Totals may not match statewide summary ta2 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.3 Source: WGFD (2003c). In Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. WGFD does not distinguish between resident and nonresident expenditures.4 WGFD does not separate resident and nonresident hunter-days for small and upland game.

Table 3.58. Contribution of JIDPA to Hunting Revenues1 

Hunter-Days Average Value/ Project Area % Acres of Hunter

Species Hunt Unit Name Total Acres Attributable to Unit Hunter-Day ($) (acres) Unit in Project in Pr

Area Ar

Antelope Sublette Antelope Herd Unit 6,749,440 13,490 381.30 30,500 0.5% 61

Cottontail Small Game Management Area 7 2,906,068 2,516 173.06 30,500 1.0% 26Greater sage-grouse Small Game Management Area 7 2,906,068 1,553 130.30 30,500 1.0% 16

Total -- 12,561,576 17,559 684.66 30,500 -- 103

1 In Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
4.0 JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT ECONOMIC IMPACT 

ANALYSIS 

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

(collectively referred to as “Operators”) propose to expand existing Jonah Field natural gas drilling 

and development operations in south-central Sublette County approximately 32 miles southeast of 

Pinedale, 28 miles northwest of Farson, and 1.5 to 11 miles west of U.S. Highway 191. Expanded 

development is proposed in portions of Townships (T) 28 and 29 North (N), Range (R) 107, 108, and 

109 West (W). The proposed project is described in detail in BLM (2004c). 

4.1 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS 

The No Action Alternative, Proposed Action, and alternative action alternatives in the JIDP EIS are 

evaluated in this document: 

•	 the No Action Alternative assumes production from 533 existing wells on 497 well pads, 

with a total surface disturbance of 4,209 acres and life of project (LOP) disturbance of 1,409 

acres. 

•	 The Proposed Action assumes up to 3,100 new wells (2,825 conventional, 275 directional), 

with total disturbance on up to 20,409 acres (existing disturbance of 4,209 acres plus new 

disturbance of 16,200 acres) and LOP disturbance on up to 6,040 acres (existing disturbance 

of 1,409 acres plus new disturbance of 4,631 acres). Estimated pace of development: 250 

wells per year. 

•	 Alternative A (maximum recovery) assumes up to 3,100 new wells (all conventional) from 

3,100 new well pads with total disturbance on up to 20,409 acres (existing disturbance of 

4,209 acres plus new disturbance of 16,200 acres) and LOP disturbance on up to 6,040 acres 

(existing disturbance of 1,409 acres plus new disturbance of 4,631 acres). Estimated pace of 

development: 250 wells per year. 

•	 Alternative B (minimum disturbance) assumes up to 3,100 new wells (all directional) from 

the existing 497 well pads, with total disturbance on up to 7,431 acres (existing disturbance 

of 4,209 acres plus new disturbance of 3,222 acres) and LOP disturbance on up to 2,602 

acres (existing disturbance of 1,409 acres plus new disturbance of 1,193 acres). Estimated 

pace of development: 75 wells per year. 

•	 The Preferred Alternative assumes up to 3,100 new wells, with total disturbance on 14,030– 

20,334 acres (existing disturbance of 4,209 acres plus new disturbance of 9,821–16,125 

acres), and LOP disturbance on 4,257–6,020 acres (existing disturbance of 1,409 acres and 

new disturbance of 2,848 acres). Estimated pace of development: 250 wells per year. 

The following alternatives were evaluated in the Draft Socioeconomic Technical Support Document 

but eliminated from further consideration after public review of the Draft JIDP EIS. The rationale for 

eliminating these alternatives is found in the Final JIDP EIS. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
100 Section 4 

•	 Alternative C assumed up to 1,250 new wells (975 conventional, 275 directional) from a 

maximum of 1,250 new well pads. 

•	 Alternative D assumed up to 2,200 new wells (1,925 conventional, 275 directional) 

from a maximum of 2,200 new well pads, respectively. 

•	 Alternative E assumed up to 3,100 new wells (266 conventional, 2,834 directional) 

on up to 266 new well pads. 

•	 Alternative F assumed up to 3,100 new wells (1,028 conventional, 2,072 directional) 

on up to 1,028 new well pads. 

•	 Alternative G assumed up to 3,100 new wells (2,553 conventional, 547 directional) 

on up to 2,553 new well pads. 

A detailed description of the Proposed Action and alternatives is provided in the JIDP EIS. 

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. 

BLM generally defines a significant change as one that would result in a 10% or greater change of 

any affected factor. The following analyses show that the Proposed Action and the action 

alternatives are compatible with BLM management objectives. Socioeconomic impacts are 

anticipated as a result of increased local taxes and revenues. Under the No Action Alternative, the 

effects 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 conditions in 

the Cumulative Impact Assessment Area (CIAA). 

Depending upon the number of wells developed per year, project construction, drilling, completion, 

and production, from 40 to 82 years would be required to complete the project (the LOP), without 

taking into account reclamation. The fewer the number of wells and the faster the pace of 

development, the shorter the LOP. The estimated number of years to complete the project under each 

alternative is shown in Table 4.1. The economic impact calculations do not take into account postdevelopment reclamation; however, in the draft version of this socioeconomic technical support 

document, it was conjectured that post-development reclamation would last 3 years. 

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 anticipated gas and condensate recovery volumes are shown in Table 4.2. 

The economic impact of the Proposed Action, alternatives, and cumulative actions on the study-area 

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. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Economic Impact Analysis 101 

Table 4.1. Estimated Years to Complete Project, All Alternatives 

Project Duration 

No Action 

Alternative 

Proposed Action 

3,100 Wells/ 

2,825 Pads 

(250 wells/yr) 

Alternative A 

(Maximum 

Recovery) 

3,100 Wells/ 

3,100 Pads 

(250 wells/yr) 

Alternative B 

(Minimum 

Disturbance) 

3,100 Wells/ 

No New Pads 

(75 wells/yr) 

Preferred 

Alternative 

3,100 Wells/ 

2,825 Pads 

(250 wells/yr) 

Development NA 12.5 12.5 42.0 12.5 

Production 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 

Life of Project (LOP) 40.0 52.5 52.5 82.0 52.5 

Table 4.2. Anticipated Gas and Condensate Recovery Volumes for Each Alternative, 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 20051 

Alternative 

Approximate Natural Gas 

Recovered 

(billion cubic feet [BCF])2 

Approximate Condensate (Oil) 

Recovered2 

(millions of barrels) 

No Action 3,366 31.98 

Proposed Action3 7,947 75.50 

Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) 

Alternative B3 

8,191 

6,124 

77.81 

58.18 

1 Data provided by EnCana. 2 Based on estimated gas in place, estimated ultimate recoveries (EURs) per well, and other variables. 1 BCF corresponds to the 

annual use by approximately 13,700 residences (EIA 2004). 3 Assumes 10% of directional wells do not reach total depth and 1,000 ft of formation cannot be developed. Does not fully account 

for losses/unrecovered resources associated with undeveloped wells (assumed uneconomic). 

In the long term, all alternatives would likely result in economic impacts. Population figures are not 

likely to be affected over the LOP, with the possible exception that there may be short-term 

(development phase) population impacts as a result of cumulative impacts from in-migration 

associated with this project in combination with other regional projects (e.g., Pinedale Anticline). 

Secondary employment AJEs may occur locally (i.e., within the study area), but would be distributed 

throughout the state, region, and nation, depending on the patterns of production and distribution 

associated with the secondary activity. 

4.2 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OVERVIEW 

The economic study area for this analysis includes the counties and communities most likely to be 

affected, including LaBarge in Lincoln County; Pinedale, Big Piney, Marbleton, and Boulder in 

Sublette County; and Eden, Farson, and Rock Springs in Sweetwater County. 

An area’s economic base is composed of industries that are primarily responsible for bringing outside 

income into the local economy. These industries typically export their goods and services outside the 

region and in turn support ancillary industries such as retail trade, housing construction, and personal 

services within the region. The location of important industries in certain areas has traditionally been 

tied to such factors as natural resource base, cost factors (transportation and labor), and existing 

transportation infrastructure. However, technology has affected these location factors. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
102 Section 4 

Existing documents, as well as documents in preparation, used to estimate potential and cumulative 

economic impacts for the study area included the following: 

•	 Southwest Wyoming Resource Evaluation Socio/Economic Evaluation (SWREE) 

(UWAED 1997); 

•	 the economic effect analysis developed for the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity 

Plan (JMHCAP) (UWAED 2003); 

•	 the JMHCAP Draft EIS (BLM 2003a); 

•	 BLM’s Socioeconomic Profile-Pinedale (BLM 2003b); 

•	 the economic impact analysis currently being prepared for the PFO RMP (UWAED [2004]); 

•	 BLM’s reasonable foreseeable development information; and 

•	 existing county planning documents (SCBC and SCPC 2003). 

Additional information was obtained from BLM and Operators as necessary. 

The economic impacts of the JIDP and alternatives on the economic study area were analyzed using 

IMPLAN, which is an input/output (I/O) modeling system. More information about IMPLAN and 

the overall methodology used to assess socioeconomic impacts can be found in Chapter 2, Section 

2.2, of this document and in Appendix B. 

4.2.1 Economic Analysis Assumptions 

4.2.1.1 Labor 

The estimated direct-hire labor force is presented in Table 4.3. An estimated 16,863 worker-years of 

direct employment would be provided by the proposed project during the LOP. 

Table 4.3. Estimated Work Force Requirements, All Alternatives, JIDP, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 20051 

Employment Category Worker-Days 

per Well 

Worker-Years for 

3,100 Wells2 

Well Construction and Development 

Well pad and Access Road Construction (4 days × 4 workers) 16 191 

Rig Transportation/Setup (5 days × 15 workers) 75 895 

Drilling3 (Straight Hole) (22 days × 11 workers × 2 shifts) 528 6,296 

Completion Testing (17 days × 11 workers) 187 2,230 

Total Well Construction and Development 830 9,899 

Production and Maintenance Activities 

Production4,5 

Workovers6 (every 10 to 20 years) (10 days × 7 workers) 

305 

210 

3,863 

2,504 

Pipeline Construction (4 days × 6 workers) 24 287 

Total Production and Maintenance Activities 515 6,367 

Abandonment and Reclamation (5 days × 10 workers) 50 597 

Total 1,395 16,863 

1 Assumes all wells are drilled and completed as producers. 2 260 worker-days = 1 worker-year. 3 Assumes all vertical (straight) wells. 4 Assumes 1 pumper can visit 20 wells/day, all pads are visited every 3 days, and a productive well life of 40 years. 5 Assumes six full-time production foremen and six full-time field clerks in addition to pumpers. 6 Assumes three workovers per well. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Economic Impact Analysis 103 

4.2.1.2 Natural Gas Drilling and Completion Assumptions 

For this analysis, it was assumed that all wells would be drilled and completed and there would be no 

dry holes. The cost of drilling, completing, and setting production equipment is shown in Table 4.4. 

The total estimated cost to drill and complete a conventional well in the JIDPA is $2,186,684. 

Directional drilling adds an estimated $243,610 to the cost of drilling and completion; thus, the total 

estimated cost to drill and complete a directionally drilled well in the JIDPA is $2,430,294. 

Table 4.4. Average Per Well Drilling and Completion Costs of Natural Gas Development, JIDP, 

Sublette County, Wyoming1,2 

Cost Item Cost to Drill (Dry Hole 

without Pipe) ($) 

Cost to Complete 

Well3 ($) 

INTANGIBLE DRILLING COSTS 

Surveys, permits, and fees 5,000 --

Location and roads 42,620 --

Drilling contractor services 260,834 --

Drilling rig, mob/demob 59,250 --

Drill bits 43,100 --

Surface cementing service and equipment 16,000 --

BOP testing 1,500 --

Open hole logging 18,000 --

Contract supervision 18,900 --

Company supervision 6,000 --

Mud logging and geology 10,500 --

Drilling mud and chemicals 43,290 --

Surface rentals 19,660 --

Downhole rentals 31,500 --

Casing crews 4,500 --

Drilling water 20,000 --

Contract labor 5,000 --

Drilling admin overhead 7,500 --

Total Drilling Intangible Costs $620,154 --

Transportation and hauling 7,000 --

INTANGIBLE COMPLETION COSTS 

Completion rig and auxiliary services -- 16,225 

Snubbing unit -- 18,000 

Contract supervision -- 12,500 

Professional services -- 12,000 

Cased hole slick line service -- 3,000 

Casing crews -- 17,010 

Cementing service and equip -- 50,000 

Cased hole e-line services -- 82,000 

Pumping services -- 36,000 

Stimulation -- 860,048 

Transportation and hauling -- 5,000 

Location and roads -- 4,500 

Completion water -- 106,752 

Installation labor (battery construction) -- 8,500 

Surface rentals -- 43,525 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
104 Section 4 

Table 4.4. (Continued) 

Cost Item Cost to Drill (Dry Hole 

without Pipe) ($) 

Cost to Complete 

Well3 ($) 

Downhole rentals -- 32,800 

Frac flowback -- 30,000 

Miscellaneous -- 1,000 

Total Intangible Completion Costs -- $1,338,860 

TANGIBLE COSTS (DRILLING AND COMPLETION) 

Tubulars 

Surface4 $ 29,500 --

Production5 -- 63,180 

Tubing6 -- 19,320 

Wellhead equipment 3,920 23,000 

Flowline -- 6,500 

Storage tanks -- 12,500 

Treating equipment (gas dehydrator and separator) -- 62,750 

Combustors - emission controls -- 7,000 

Total Tangible Costs 33,420 194,250 

Total drilling cost $653,574 --

Total completion cost -- 1,533,110 

Total Cost (Drilling + Completion) for Conventional Wells -- $2,186,684 

Directional Drilling (average additional cost per well) $243,610 

Total Cost (Drilling + Completion) for Directionally Drilled Wells $2,430,294 

1 Source: Operators. Presented in Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 2 Source: Operators. Enumerated costs are for conventional drilling. Directional drilling would increase the total by an average of $243,610 per well. 3 Average assumed depth of 9,000 ft. 4 2,500 ft of 9 5/8-inch pipe at $11.80/ft. 5 11,700 ft of 4 1/2-inch pipe at $5.40/ft. 6 8,000 ft of 2 3/8-inch pipe at $2.30/ft. 

4.2.1.3 Natural Gas Production Assumptions 

Natural gas economic activity will depend upon three primary authorizations: 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 drilled and the number of pads on which they 

are placed. Some combinations of conventional/directional drilling may make full recovery 

uneconomical. The fewer the number of wells and the faster the pace of development, the shorter the 

LOP (see Table 4.4). An estimated 12,800 billion cubic feet (BCF) of natural gas4 and 99.8 million 

barrels (MBO) of Jonah Field condensate (oil) are assumed to be present beneath the JIDPA. No 

alternative anticipates total recovery of all natural gas or condensate resources present in the field. 

Total annual per well cost of operation is estimated to be $229,548 (includes $16,831 of direct labor 

costs), or approximately $0.32/thousand cubic feet (MCF) of natural gas (Table 4.5). 

4 When the Draft Technical Support Document and Draft EIS were completed, the gas in place was estimated to be 

10,500 BCF, but subsequent engineering and petrophysical data indicate that this estimate was low. The increased 

estimate of gas in place does not change the estimated recoveries, however, because they are based on well performance 

of more than 600 producing wells in the area. The annual field-wide production estimates remain the same. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Economic Impact Analysis 105 

Table 4.5. Annual Cost of Natural Gas Production, JIDP, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 20051 

Annual Production Operating Costs Annual Cost per Well 

Annual Production (MCF) 717,232 

Direct Labor and Overhead 16,831 

Non-labor 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 

Non-labor Annual Costs 212,717 

Total Annual Costs 229,548 

Total Annual Cost Per MCF $0.32 

Non-labor Cost Per MCF	 $0.30 

1 Source: EnCana. Assumes natural gas recovery costs include recovery of condensate. 

4.3	 NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION ECONOMIC 

ACTIVITY 

Estimates of the economic activity resulting from oil and gas development on the southwest 

Wyoming economy in terms of total direct expenditures, secondary (non-project-required) labor 

earnings, and secondary job creation were based on the updated calibrated county-specific model 

from the SWREE and JMHCAP reports. The employment estimates were expressed as AJEs, based 

on BEA methodology (personal communication, February 20, 2004, with David T. Taylor, Professor, 

UWAED) (see Section 2.1.1). Activity is described both in terms of nominal dollars and real dollars 

(i.e., present value calculated by discounting) (see Section 2.2). 

4.3.1 Drilling and Completion 

As shown in Table 4.6, expenditures made to drill and complete one conventional well ($2,186,684), 

would generate economic activity (direct and secondary) of $2,719,091 (includes $532,407 of 

secondary labor earnings) and would generate 16.7 AJEs (does not include project-required labor [see 

Table 4.1]). Expenditures made to drill and complete one directionally drilled well ($2,430,294) 

would generate economic activity (direct and secondary) of $3,051,586 (includes $621,292 of 

secondary labor earnings) and would generate 19.4 AJEs (does not include project-required jobs). 

This activity is assumed to remain constant across all alternatives on a per well basis. The timing of 

economic activity would depend on the approved number of wells and the rate of development. 

Tables 4.7 and 4.8 show both the nominal and present value of annual and LOP activity anticipated 

from each development rate scenario. Alternatives are summarized in Table 4.9. 

4.3.1.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no additional development would occur. This would reduce the 

number of drilling rigs, crews, and associated services operating in the project area. In 1996–2002, 

an estimated 59.3% of all exploration and production oilfield service fees paid in the state were spent 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
106 Section 4 

on services in the Jonah Field (Schlumberger Oil Field Services Companies 2003). These services 

and associated jobs would likely be reduced or eliminated under this alternative. No additional 

economic activity from development would occur; no additional secondary labor earnings or jobs 

would be created, and no additional taxes or revenues from development would be realized. Over the 

40-year LOP, the No Action Alternative would generate a nominal value of up to $15,255.9 million 

($11,028.5 million present value) and 13,947 AJEs. All action alternatives would have impacts 

greater than those described for the No Action because of increased development and longer LOP. 

Table 4.6. Per Well Economic Activity from Natural Gas Development, JIDP, Sublette 

County, Wyoming 

Estimated Activity Conventional Well Directionally Drilled Well 

Direct Expenditures1,2 

Drilling ($) $653,574 $897,184 

Total Direct Expenditures ($) $2,186,684 $2,430,294 

Secondary Labor Earnings 

Drilling ($) $239,402 $328,287 

Completion ($)2 $293,005 $293,005 

Total Secondary Labor Earnings ($) $532,407 $621,292 

Total Economic Activity per Well $2,719,091 $3,051,586 

Completion ($) $1,533,110 $1,533,110 

Annual Job Equivalents (AJEs) 

Drilling 7.3 3.3 

Completion2 9.4 1.2 

Total AJEs per Well3 16.7 19.4 

Average Earnings Per Created Job4 ($) $31,881 $32,025 

1 Includes project-required labor costs. 2 Completion includes the cost of completion plus the setting of production equipment (see Table 4.2). 3 AJEs are jobs indirectly created as a result of the activity. Project-required jobs are presented in Table 4.1. 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. 

4.3.1.2 Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, up to 3,100 new wells (assumed at 2,825 conventional and 275 

directional) would be developed at a rate of 250 wells per year (12.5 years). The nominal value of 

development would total $8,588.6 million ($6,631.8 million present value; $687.1 million annually), 

including $1,688.2 million secondary labor income ($135.1 million annually) and 52,930 AJEs for 

the development period (4,234.4 AJEs annually) (see Table 4.7). 

4.3.1.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) 

Under Alternative A, up to 3,100 new conventional wells would be developed at a rate of 250 wells 

per year (12.5 years). Economic activity of natural gas development from Alternative A would be 

less than that expected from the Proposed Action due to the removal of directional drilling. 

The nominal value of development would total $8,497.2 million ($6,561.2 million present value; 

$679.8 million annually), including $1,663.8 million secondary labor income ($133.1 million 

annually). The number of AJEs would be 52,187.5 for the development period (4,175 AJEs annually) 

(see Table 4.8). 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 4.7. Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Development Under the Proposed Action and the Preferred 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Economic Activity Resulting from 3,100 New Wells on 2

Years to

Development Rate Develop 2,825 Conventional Wells 275 Directional Wells 

Field Drilled Drilled 

Annual LOP Annual LOP 

NOMINAL VALUE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

250 Wells/Year (228 conventional/22 directional)1 12.5 

Direct Economic Activity from Development2 (millions of $) 498.6 6,232.0 53.5 668.3 

Secondary Labor Earnings3 (millions of $) 121.4 1,517.4 13.7 170.9 

Total Economic Activity (millions of $) 620.0 7,749.4 67.1 839.2 

AJEs4 3,807.6 47,595.0 426.8 5,335.0 

PRESENT VALUE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY5 Years Annual Present Annual Present 

Activity Value Activity Value A

250 Wells/Year (millions of $) 12.5 620.0 5,983.8 67.1 648.0 

1 The total number of conventional and directional wells may not exactly match the number of wells/year under the different development rates due to rounding. Operators propose 

the 250 wells/year development rate; however, BLM may require an alternate development rate. 

2 Based on costs presented in Table 4.2.3 Non-project labor earnings resulting from secondary economic activity induced by development. These earnings do not include actual development labor earnings. See Table 4.2 for 

development wages included in direct costs. 

5 Non-project-required jobs resulting from secondary economic activity induced by development. These do not include project-required jobs. See Table 4.1 for estimated project workfo

earnings per job would be approximately $31,881 for conventional drilling-induced jobs and $32,025 for directional drilling-induced jobs.

5 See Section 2.2 for a discussion of discounting. The discount rate used for this analysis was 3.5%. Conservatively assumes revenues are received as a lump sum at year end. 
Table 4.8. Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Development Under Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) 

(Minimum Disturbance), JIDP, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005 

Economic Activity Resulting from Economic Acti

Years to Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) Alternative B (M

Development Rate Develop Field (3,100 Conventional Wells) (3,100 Directio

Annual LOP Annual 

NOMINAL VALUE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

75 Wells/Year 42.0 

Direct Economic Activity from Development2 (millions of $) -- -- 182.3 

Secondary Labor Earnings3 (millions of $) -- -- 46.6 Total Economic Activity (millions of $) -- -- 228.9 Annual Job Equivalents (AJEs)4 -- -- 1,455.0 

250 Wells/Year 12.5 

Direct Economic Activity from Development2 (millions of $) 546.7 6,833.4 -- 

Secondary Labor Earnings3 (millions of $) 133.1 1,663.8 -- 

Total Economic Activity (millions of $) 679.8 8,497.2 -- AJEs4 4,175.0 52,187.5 -- 

PRESENT VALUE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY5 Years Annual Activity Present Value Annual Activity 

75 Wells/Year (millions of $) 42.0 -- -- 228.9 250 Wells/Year (millions of $) 12.5 679.8 6,561.2 -- 

1 The total number of conventional and directional wells may not exactly match the number of wells/year under the different development rates due to rounding.2 Based on costs presented in Table 4.2.3 Non-project labor earnings resulting from secondary economic activity induced by development. These earnings do not include actual development labor earnin

development wages included in direct costs.

5 Non-project-required jobs resulting from secondary economic activity induced by development. These do not include project-required jobs. See Table 4.1 for 

workforce requirements. Average earnings per job would be approximately $31,881 for conventional drilling-induced jobs and $32,025 for directional drilling

5 See Section 2.2 for a discussion of discounting. The discount rate used for this analysis was 3.5%. Conservatively assumes revenues are received as a lump su

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 4.9. Summary of Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Development under Each Alternative over the Li

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005 

Economic Activity Resulting from Development

Development Rate2 Alternative A Alternative 

No Action Proposed (Maximum (Minimum 

Alternative1 Action Development) Recovery) 

NOMINAL VALUE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY6 

75 Wells/Year

Direct Economic Activity from Development3 (millions of $) -- -- -- 7,655.4 

Secondary Labor Earnings4 (millions of $) -- -- -- 1,957.1 

Total Economic Activity (millions of $) -- -- -- 9,612.5 

Annual Job Equivalents (AJEs)5 -- 61,110.0 

250 Wells/Year

Direct Economic Activity from Development3 (millions of $) -- 6,900.4 6,833.4 -- 

Secondary Labor Earnings4 (millions of $) -- 1,688.2 1,663.8 -- 

Total Economic Activity (millions of $) -- 8,588.6 8,497.2 -- AJEs5 -- 52,930.0 52,187.5 -- 

PRESENT VALUE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY6 

75 Wells/Year (millions of $) -- -- -- 4,997.3 

250 Wells/Year (millions of $) -- 6,631.8 6,561.2 -- 

1 Assumes no new development would occur under the No Action Alternative. Operator propose the 250 well/year development rate; however, BLM may require an alternate developme2 See Table 4.3 for development rates for each alternative. Also see Tables 4.7–4.8.3 Based on costs presented in Table 4.2. Also see Tables 4.7–4.8.4 Non-project labor earnings resulting from secondary economic activity induced by development. These earnings do not include actual development labor earnings. See Table 4.2 for develo

costs. Also see Table 4.7–4.8.

5 Non-project-required jobs resulting from secondary economic activity induced by development. These do not include project-required jobs. See Table 4.1 for estimated project workforce 

per job would be approximately $31,881 for conventional drilling-induced jobs and $32,025 for directional drilling-induced jobs.

6 See Section 2.2 for a discussion of discounting. The discount rate used for this analysis was 3.5%. Conservatively assumes revenues are received as a lump sum at year end. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
110 Section 4 

4.3.1.4 Alternative B (Minimum Disturbance) 

Under Alternative B, up to 3,100 new directionally drilled wells would be developed at a rate of 

75 wells/year (42 years). Economic activity of natural gas development from Alternative B would be 

more than that expected from the Proposed Action due to the increased amount of directional drilling. 

The nominal value of development for Alternative B would be $9,612.5 million ($4,997.3 million 

present value; $228.9 million annually), including $1,957.1 million secondary labor income ($46.6). 

The number of AJEs would be 61,110 (1,455 AJEs annually) (see Table 4.8). 

4.3.1.5 Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, up to 3,100 new wells would be developed at a rate of 250 wells per 

year (12.5 years). Economic activity of natural gas development from the Preferred Alternative would 

be similar to that described for the Proposed Action (see Table 4.7). 

4.3.2 Natural Gas Production Impacts 

The value of natural gas production is based on revenues less cost of operation. Table 4.10 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. 

Table 4.10. Gas Production Impacts from One BCF of 

Natural Gas and One MBO, JIDP, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2005 

Resource Economic Activity 

Natural Gas Activity per BCF 

Revenue1 $3,500,000 

Total Economic Activity per BCF $3,682,083 

AJEs 3.92 

Secondary Labor Earnings $132,083 

Condensate Activity per MBO 

Revenue2 $21,000,000 

Secondary Labor Earnings $792,498 

Total Economic Activity per MBO $21,792,498 

AJEs 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 include 

recovery of condensate. 

One million barrels of condensate are 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 Appendix A. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Economic Impact Analysis 111 

4.3.2.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, 533 currently authorized wells would be expected to produce 3,366 

BCF of natural gas and 31.98 MBO, which would result in nominal economic activity of $12,922.5 

million (including $469.9 million of secondary labor earnings) and 13,947 AJEs (Table 4.11). 

Production would result in $9,275.7 million present value economic activity (including $319.8 

million in labor earnings) to the local economy over the LOP (see Table 4.11). The anticipated LOP 

for the No Action Alternative could be up to 40 years (excluding reclamation). 

It would be likely that, under the No Action Alternative, Jonah Operators also would produce at a 

slower pace. This would further reduce the number of crews and associated services employed in the 

area. Employment would likely be decreased, and these changes in employment might serve to 

decrease the population in the study area as disaffiliated workers might seek to leave the area in 

search of new employment. A potential decline in population due to fewer employment opportunities 

would result in less demand in housing. Potential increases in taxes and revenues would not be 

realized, and population-based disbursements, such as some royalties, severance, and PILT payments 

based on county and city populations, would likely decrease. Production impacts from all action 

alternatives would be higher than those described for the No Action Alternative due to the increased 

number of wells, higher production volume rates, and extended LOP. 

4.3.2.2 Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, production of natural gas over the LOP would be up to 7,947 BCF 

of natural gas and 75.50 MBO, which would result in nominal economic activity of $30,509.5 

million ($17,963.8 million present value), including $1,109.5 million of secondary labor earnings 

($619.3 million present value) and 32,928 AJEs (see Table 4.11). The LOP (excluding final 

reclamation) for the Proposed Action could be up to 52.5 years (12.5 years to develop, 40-year life of 

well). This alternative would have more nominal economic activity in terms of production than the 

No Action Alternative because of the higher level of resource recovery. 

4.3.2.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) 

Under Alternative A, it is assumed that recovery for the LOP would be up to 8,191 BCF of natural 

gas and 77.81 MBO. This would result in nominal economic activity of $31,446.1 million ($18, 

511.2 million present value), including $1,143.6 million of secondary labor earnings ($638.1 million 

present value) and 33,939 AJEs (see Table 4.11). The LOP (excluding reclamation) could be up to 

52.5 years (12.5 years to develop, 40-year life of well). Alternative A would have more nominal 

economic activity in terms of production than the Proposed Action because of the higher level of 

resource recovery. 

4.3.2.4 Alternative B (Minimum Disturbance) 

Under Alternative B, it is assumed that recovery for the LOP would be up to 6,124 BCF of natural 

gas and 58.18 MBO. This would result in nominal economic activity of $23,510.8 million, ($9, 

325.1 million present value), including $855.0 million of secondary labor earnings ($321.5 million 

present value) and 25,374 AJEs (see Table 4.11). The LOP, excluding final reclamation, for 

Alternative B could be up to 82 years (42 years to develop, 40-year life of well). This alternative 

would have less nominal economic activity in terms of production than the Proposed Action because 

of the lower level of resource recovery. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 4.11. Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Production Over the Life of Project, JIDP, Sublette County

Alternative A Alternativ

No Action Proposed (Maximum (Minimu

Impact Alternative1 Action2 Development)2 Recovery

Total Anticipated Natural Gas Recovery over the LOP (BCF) 3,366 7,947 8,191 6,124 

Total Anticipated Condensate Recovery over the LOP (million bbls) 31.98 75.50 77.81 58.18 

NOMINAL VALUE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

Value of Natural Gas Production3 (millions of $) 11,781.0 27,814.5 28,668.5 21,434.0 

Value of Condensate Production4 (millions of $) 671.6 1,585.5 1,634.0 1,221.8 Secondary Labor Earnings5 (millions of $) 469.9 1,109.5 1,143.6 855.0 

Total Economic Activity (millions of $) 12,922.5 30,509.5 31,446.1 23,510.8 AJEs 13,947 32,928 33,939 25,374 Average Earnings Per Job $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 

PRESENT VALUE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY6 

75 Wells Per Year Development Rate1 

Value of Natural Gas Production3 (millions of $) 8,473.0 -- -- 8,518.1 

Value of Condensate Production4 (millions of $) 483.0 -- -- 485.5 Secondary Labor Earnings5 (millions of $) 319.8 -- -- 321.5 Total Economic Activity (millions of $) 9,275.7 -- -- 9,325.1 

250 Wells Per Year Development Rate1 

Value of Natural Gas Production3 (millions of $) 8,473.0 16,409.2 16,909.2 -- Value of Condensate Production4 (millions of $) 483.0 935.3 963.8 -- Secondary Labor Earnings5 (millions of $) 319.8 619.3 638.1 -- 

Total Economic Activity (millions of $) 9,275.7 17,963.8 18,511.2 -- 

1 All wells under the No Action Alternative are currently under production, therefore, the rate of development will not affect the production values. Well life is assumed to be 40 years2 Includes wells currently in production (i.e., No Action Alternative wells).3 Price is $3.50/MCF of natural gas based on CREG (2004). The value of production is based on revenues less cost of operation.4 Price is $21.00/bbl of condensate based on CREG (2004). No additional cost of operation and no additional labor earnings or employment are attributable to condensate.5 Non-project labor earnings resulting from secondary economic activity induced by production. These earnings do not include actual production labor earnings. See Table 4.5 for producti6 Based on annual production calculated using decline curves provided by Operators. All wells are assumed to have a 40-year life. See Appendix B for decline curves and expected annual 

real value of production with discounting applied. See Section 2.2 for a discussion of discounting. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Economic Impact Analysis 113 

4.3.2.5 Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, recovery and economic impacts from production for the LOP would 

be similar to those described for the Proposed Action. 

4.3.3 Government Revenues 

The project would generate revenues for state, county, and local governments, as well as area school 

districts, through state sales tax, federal income tax, ad valorem taxes, severance taxes, federal 

minerals royalties, and other taxes on facilities and production. The assumed severance tax rates for 

both natural gas (base rate) and condensate is 6%, and approximately 4.2% of production is expected 

to come from state lands and would result in revenues from severance tax. The other 95.8% of 

production would be from federal lands and would result in revenues from federal mineral royalties 

at the rate of 12.5%. Secondary labor earnings would be subject to federal income tax at an assumed 

rate of 15% based on estimated average wages and Internal Revenue Service tax rate tables. 

The estimated revenues and taxes resulting from the project, as well as their present value for the 

LOP, are presented in Table 4.12. Table 4.13 shows the likely distribution of those funds to the U.S., 

State of Wyoming, and affected counties, cities, and towns based on current statutes and distribution 

trends presented in Chapter 3. For the purposes of this analysis, the rate of development and an 

average decline curve for individual well production was used to estimate total annual field 

production; well life was assumed to be 40 years (see Appendix A). 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 residents. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 4.12. Government Taxes and Revenues Resulting from the JIDP (Life of Project), Sublette County, Wyoming, 2

Economic Activity Resulting from Deve

Alternative A Alte

Development Rate1 No Action Proposed (Maximum (M

Alternative3 Action2 Recovery)2 Dist

NOMINAL VALUE OF TAX REVENUES FROM ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

75 Wells/Year

State Sales Taxes from Development3 (millions of $) 0.0 -- -- 

Federal Income Tax from Development Labor4 (millions of $) 0.0 -- -- Taxes from Secondary Development Labor Earnings4 (millions of $) 0.0 -- -- Severance Revenues from Production5 (millions of $) 31.4 -- -- Federal Mineral Royalties from Production5 (millions of $) 1,491.2 -- -- 2,Ad Valorem Taxes on Production6 (millions of $) 741.8 -- -- 1,Federal Income Taxes from Secondary Production Labor Earnings4 (millions of $) 70.5 -- -- 

Total Taxes and Revenues7 (millions of $) 2,334.9 -- -- 4,

250 Wells/Year

State Sales Taxes from Development3 (millions of $) 0.0 265.0 262.4 

Federal Income Tax from Development Labor4 (millions of $) 0.0 41.4 41.0 Taxes from Secondary Development Labor Earnings4 (millions of $) 0.0 253.2 249.6 Severance Revenues from Production5 (millions of $) 31.4 74.1 76.4 Federal Mineral Royalties from Production5 (millions of $) 1,491.2 3,520.7 3,628.7 Ad Valorem Taxes on Production6 (millions of $) 741.8 1,751.4 1,805.1 Federal Income Taxes from Secondary Production Labor Earnings4 (millions of $) 70.5 166.4 171.5 

Total Taxes and Revenues7 (millions of $) 2,334.9 6,072.1 6,234.7 

PRESENT VALUE OF REVENUES AND TAXES FROM ECONOMIC ACTIVITY8 

75 Wells/Year

State Sales Taxes from Development (millions of $) 0.0 -- -- 

Federal Income Tax from Development Labor (millions of $) 0.0 -- -- Taxes from Secondary Development Labor Earnings (millions of $) 0.0 -- -- Severance Revenues from Production (millions of $) 22.6 -- -- Federal Mineral Royalties from Production (millions of $) 1,072.5 -- -- 1,

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 4.12. (Continued) 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Economic Activity Resulting from Deve

Development Rate1 Alternative A Alte

No Action Proposed (Maximum (M

Alternative3 Action2 Recovery)2 Dist

Ad Valorem Taxes on Production (millions of $) 533.5 -- -- 

Federal Income Taxes from Secondary Production Labor Earnings (millions of $) 125.1 -- -- 

Total Taxes and Revenues (millions of $) 1,753.7 -- -- 2,

250 Wells/Year

State Sales Taxes from Development (millions of $) 0.0 63.9 63.3 

Federal Income Tax from Development Labor (millions of $) 0.0 10.0 9.9 

Taxes from Secondary Development Labor Earnings (millions of $) 0.0 61.1 60.2 

Severance Revenues from Production (millions of $) 22.6 43.7 45.0 Federal Mineral Royalties from Production (millions of $) 1,072.5 2,077.0 2,140.3 Ad Valorem Taxes on Production (millions of $) 533.5 1,033.2 1,064.7 Federal Income Taxes from Secondary Production Labor Earnings (millions of $) 125.1 185.8 191.4 

Total Taxes and Revenues (millions of $) 1,753.7 3,474.7 3,574.9 

1 Assumes no new development.2 Includes wells currently in production (i.e., No Action Alternative wells).3 Based on costs presented in Table 4.2. Assumes 96% of development cost is materials and supplies subject to state sales tax. Assumes state sales tax rate is 4%. Counties where mater

additional sales tax.

4 Non-project labor earnings resulting from secondary economic activity are assumed to be taxed at a federal income tax rate of 15% (rate for head of household in 2004 for average wag5 Assumes 4.2% of production is from state minerals with severance taxes at a rate of 6% on production value; 95.8% of production is from federal minerals and with federal royalty at a 

value. 

6 Assumes 59.57 mills levied as ad valorem tax rate on production in Sublette County.7 This analysis does not present an exhaustive analysis of all possible taxes and revenues but is an estimate of most likely consistent taxes and revenues.8 See Section 2.2 for a discussion of discounting. The discount rate used for this analysis was 3.5%. Conservatively assumes revenues are received as a lump sum at year end. 
116 Section 4 

All counties in the study area would benefit from increased revenues from federal royalties, 

severance taxes, sales taxes, and other indirect taxes such as use and lodging taxes. Development and 

production occurring within Sublette County would directly relate to increases in ad valorem 

production and property taxes. This would impact only Sublette County and its communities. Ad 

valorem taxes on production have been estimated; however, real property values are likely to change 

if the populations fluctuate, 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. 

4.3.3.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, total nominal taxes and royalties would amount to $2,334.9 million 

over the LOP (see Table 4.12). These returns would provide $741.92 million to Sublette County (see 

Table 4.13). Based on a population of 6,654 (Year 2004), this would be equivalent to the county 

receiving funds of $111,484 (approximately $2,787 annually) for each person in the county over the 

LOP. This alternative would generate approximately $20.13 million for the school capital account to 

be distributed by the state (see Table 4.13). 

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 other alternatives and may result in higher 

consumer prices and increased dependence on foreign supplies over the long term. The additional 

taxes and revenues generated by the Proposed Action and other alternatives would remain unrealized. 

Local community government operating budgets would likely remain essentially static under this 

alternative. 

Revenues from development would not be realized under the No Action Alternative; therefore, of all 

the alternatives, No Action would return the least amount of revenue ($2,334.9 million nominal; 

$1,753.7 million present value) to affected governments (see Table 4.12). 

4.3.3.2 Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, total nominal taxes and royalties would amount to $6,072.1 million 

($3,474.7 million present value) over the LOP (see Table 4.12). Nominal taxes and royalties to 

Sublette County would be $1,839.08 million (see Table 4.13). 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. This alternative would generate approximately 

$47.53 million for the school capital account to be distributed by the state (see Table 4.13). 

Property tax revenues would likely increase due to the increased tax base resulting from capital 

improvements in the JIDPA. Additional natural gas production could affect consumers because retail 

prices for natural gas are driven by supply and demand. As supply increases in relation to demand, 

prices of natural gas tend to fall. Reduced energy costs would also affect the local, state, and national 

economies. 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. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 4.13. Taxes and Revenues Received by Governments from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project (Life of Project), Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2005 

Taxes and Revenues Received by Governments 

Development Rate/Government Alternative A Alternative B 

No Action Proposed (Maximum (Minimum Preferred 

Alternative Action Recovery) Recovery) Alternative 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project

Economic Impact Analysis 117 

75 Wells/Year 

Federal 

Federal Income Tax from All Labor (millions of $) 70.49 -- -- 467.74 --

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production (millions of $) 1,491.20 -- -- 2,713.03 --

Total Federal Taxes and Revenues 1,561.69 -- -- 3,180.77 --

State -- --

State Sales Taxes from Development2 (millions of $) 0.00 -- -- 293.97 --

Severance Revenues from Production (millions of $) 31.38 -- -- 57.09 --

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to State (millions of $) 745.60 -- -- 1,356.51 --

Total State Taxes and Revenues 776.98 -- -- 1,707.58 --

Sublette County -- --

State Sales Taxes from Development Returned to County2 (millions of $) 0.00 -- -- 97.01 --

Severance Revenues from Production Returned to County3 (millions of $) 0.02 -- -- 0.03 --

Ad Valorem Taxes on Production5 (millions of $) 741.80 -- -- 1,349.60 --

Total County Taxes and Revenues 741.82 -- -- 1,446.65 --

Lincoln County -- --

Severance Revenues from Production Returned to County3 (millions of $) 0.05 -- -- 0.08 --

Sweetwater County -- --

Severance Revenues from Production Returned to County3 (millions of $) 0.12 -- -- 0.22 --

LaBarge -- --

Severance Revenues from Production Returned Cities and Towns3 

0.10 -- -- 0.19 -- (millions of $) 

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to Cities and Towns4 

0.20 -- -- 0.35 -- (millions of $) 

Total Town Taxes and Revenues 0.30 -- -- 0.55 --

Big Piney -- --

Severance Revenues from Production Returned Cities and Towns3 

0.10 -- -- 0.18 -- (millions of $) 

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to Cities and Towns4 

0.19 -- -- 0.35 -- (millions of $) 

Total Town Taxes and Revenues 0.29 -- -- 0.53 --

Marbleton -- --

Severance Revenues from Production Returned Cities and Towns3 

0.18 -- -- 0.32 -- (millions of $) 

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to Cities and Towns4 

0.30 -- -- 0.55 -- (millions of $) 

Total Town Taxes and Revenues 0.48 -- -- 0.87 --

Pinedale 

Severance Revenues from Production Returned Cities and Towns3 

0.34 -- -- 0.62 -- (millions of $) 

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to Cities and Towns4 

0.54 -- -- 0.98 -- (millions of $) 

Total Town Taxes and Revenues 0.88 -- -- 1.60 --

Rock Springs -- --

Severance Revenues from Production Returned Cities and Towns3 

4.56 -- -- 8.30 -- (millions of $) 

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to Cities and Towns4 

3.47 -- -- 6.32 -- (millions of $) 

Total Town Taxes and Revenues 8.04 -- -- 14.62 --

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Allocated to School Capital 

Account4 (millions of $) 20.13 -- -- 36.63 -- 

250 Wells/Year 

Federal 

Federal Income Tax from All Labor (millions of $) 70.49 461.06 462.10 -- 461.06 

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production (millions of $) 1,491.20 3,520.65 3,628.73 -- 3,520.65 

Total Federal Taxes and Revenues 1,561.69 3,981.71 4,090.83 -- 3,981.71 

State --

State Sales Taxes from Development2 (millions of $) 0.00 264.97 262.40 -- 264.97 

Severance Revenues from Production (millions of $) 31.38 74.09 76.36 -- 74.09 

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to State(millions of $) 745.60 1,760.33 1,814.36 -- 1,760.33 

Total State Taxes and Revenues 776.98 2,099.39 2,153.13 -- 2,099.39 

Sublette County --

State Sales Taxes from Development Returned to County2 (millions of $) 0.00 87.44 86.59 -- 87.44 

Severance Revenues from Production Returned to County3 (millions of $) 0.12 0.28 0.29 -- 0.28 

Ad Valorem Taxes on Production5 (millions of $) 741.80 1,751.36 1,805.12 -- 1,751.36 

Total County Taxes and Revenues 741.92 1,839.08 1,892.00 -- 1,839.08 

Lincoln County --

Severance Revenues from Production Returned to County3 (millions of $) 0.05 0.11 0.11 -- 0.11 
Table 4.13. (Continued) 

Taxes and Revenues Received by Governments 

Development Rate/Government Alternative A Alternative B 

No Action Proposed (Maximum (Minimum Preferred 

Alternative Action Recovery) Recovery) Alternative 

Sweetwater County --

Severance Revenues from Production Returned to County3 (millions of $) 0.12 0.28 0.29 -- 0.28 

118 Section 4 

Total To wn Taxes and Revenues 0.20 4.61 4.76 -- 4.61 

Total To wn Taxes and Revenues 0.29 4.55 4.92 -- 4.55 

Total To wn Taxes and Revenues 0.48 7.11 7.74 -- 7.11 

Total To wn Taxes and Revenues 0.88 4.61 5.00 -- 4.61 

LaBarge --

Severance Revenues from Production Returned Cities and Towns3 

0.00 0.01 0.01 -- 0.01 (millions of $) 

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to Cities and Towns4 

0.20 4.60 4.75 -- 4.60 (millions of $) 

Big Piney --

Severance Revenues from Production Returned Cities and Towns3 

0.10 0.01 0.24 -- 0.01 (millions of $) 

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to Cities and Towns4 

0.19 4.54 4.68 -- 4.54 (millions of $) 

Marbleton --

Severance Revenues from Production Returned Cities and Towns3 

0.18 0.02 0.43 -- 0.02 (millions of $) 

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to Cities and Towns4 

0.30 7.10 7.31 -- 7.10 (millions of $) 

Pinedale --

Severance Revenues from Production Returned Cities and Towns3 

0.34 0.01 0.26 -- 0.01 (millions of $) 

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to Cities and Towns4 

0.54 4.60 4.75 -- 4.60 (millions of $) 

Rock Springs --

Severance Revenues from Production Returned Cities and Towns3 

4.56 0.01 0.26 -- 0.01 (millions of $) 

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to Cities and Towns4 

3.47 4.60 4.75 -- 4.60 (millions of $) 

Total Town Taxes and Revenues 8.04 4.61 5.00 -- 4.61 

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Allocated to School Capital 

Account4 (millions of $) 20.13 47.53 48.99 -- 47.53 

1 This analysis does not present all possible taxes and revenues; it is an estimate of the most likely taxes and revenues. See Table 4.12 for present value of taxes. 2 Sales tax returns to the county of origin. It is likely that some taxable development costs will occur in other counties; for purposes of this analysis, all sales taxes are attributed to Sublette County. 3 Based on 2003 proportions. Counties would also receive a percentage of severance for road construction funds (see Table 3.23). 4 Based on 2003 proportions. See Table 3.27 for distribution formulas. For the purposes of this analysis all revenues are allocated to Sublette County; however, actual distribution is likely to vary. 

5 Assumes 59.57 mills levied as ad valorem tax rate on production in Sublette County. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Economic Impact Analysis 119 

4.3.3.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) 

Under Alternative A, nominal taxes and royalties would most likely amount to $6,234.7 million 

($3,574.9 million present value) over the LOP (see Table 4.12). Nominal taxes and royalties to 

Sublette County would be $1,892.00 million (see Table 4.13). Based on a population of 6,654 

(Year 2004), this would be equivalent to the county receiving funds of $284,340 (approximately 

$5,416 annually) for each person in the county. This alternative would generate approximately 

$48.99 million for the school capital account to be distributed by the state (see Table 4.12). 

Property tax revenues would likely be higher under this alternative than under the Proposed Action 

due to the greater amount of construction involved with development, which would result in an 

increased tax base resulting from capital improvements in the JIDPA. Because Alternative A 

maximizes resource recovery, benefits to consumers and local, state, and national economies would 

likely be higher than under the Proposed Action. Local area government operating budgets would 

likely increase, but be less under this alternative than under the Proposed Action due to reduced 

development expenditures. Alternative A would generate the most overall taxes and revenues 

($6,234.7 million) and the most funds ($48.99 million) for the school capital account over the LOP 

compared to the other alternatives (see Table 4.13). 

4.3.3.4 Alternative B (Minimum Disturbance) 

Under Alternative B, nominal taxes and royalties would most likely amount to $4,881.4 million 

($2,108.1 million present value) over the LOP (see Table 4.12). Nominal taxes and royalties to 

Sublette County would be $1,446.56 million (see Table 4.13). Based on a population of 6,654 

(Year 2004), this would be equivalent to the county receiving funds of $217,398 (approximately 

$2,651 annually) for each person in the county. This alternative would generate approximately 

$36.63 million for the school capital account to be distributed by the state (see Table 4.13). 

Property tax revenues would increase due to the increased tax base resulting from capital 

improvements in the JIDPA but at a lower amount 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. 

Conceptually, this may result in higher consumer prices and increased dependence on foreign 

supplies, although 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 but be less under this alternative than under the Proposed 

Action due to reduced development expenditures and lower recovery of resources. 

4.3.3.5 Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, impacts from increased taxes and revenues on local governments 

would be similar to those described under the Proposed Action 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
120 Section 4 

4.4 RECREATION IMPACTS 

4.4.1 Nonconsumptive Recreation 

No developed recreation sites or facilities are located in or immediately adjacent to the JIDPA; 

therefore, no impacts to recreation sites or facilities are anticipated under the Proposed Action or any 

of the alternatives. 

Some non-quantifiable long-term displacement or elimination of existing dispersed recreation would 

be likely due to an increased level of gas field development activities, but since development 

activities have been taking place in the area for several years, much of this impact may have already 

occurred. For example, potential recreational visitors may already avoid the JIDPA because of a 

perceived reduction in the quality of the recreational experience in the area. 

Information on the number of resident versus nonresident nonconsumptive recreational visitors is not 

collected for the JIDPA. 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 nonconsumptive Table 4.14. Economic Activity per RVD from 

recreationists (per visitor day) could result in a Nonconsumptive Recreation, JIDP, Sublette 

loss of $29.62 per RVD, including $6.80 of County, Wyoming, 2005 

labor income and 0.000518 AJEs per RVD 

(Table 4.14). If all 3,396 RVDs (see Table 

3.43) were lost (regardless of the alternative), 

there would be an annual loss in direct 

expenditures of $100,590 (including $23,093 

labor earnings) and an annual loss of 1.8 AJEs 

for the LOP (Table 4.15). 

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. 

Item Economic Activity 

per RVD 

Direct Expenditures 

Secondary Labor Earnings 

$22.82 

$6.80 

Total Economic Activity per RVD $29.62 

AJEs per RVD 0.000518 

4.4.1.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no change in economic activity from current conditions for 

recreation would be expected. No additional development would occur; therefore, current 

recreationists would not likely relocate their activities more than they do now (see Table 4.15). 

Impacts to economic activity related to recreation from all action alternatives would be higher than 

those described for the No Action Alternative due to the increased disturbance and extended LOP. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Economic Impact Analysis 121 

Table 4.15. Economic Activity from Nonconsumptive Recreation for the Life of Project, JIDP, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005 

Economic Activity No Action 

Alternative 

Proposed 

Action 

Alternative A 

(Maximum 

Recovery) 

Alternative B 

(Minimum 

Disturbance) 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Affected RVDs (Assumed Lost for LOP) 3,396 3,396 3,396 3,396 

Economic Activity/RVD 

Direct Expenditures ($) 22.8 22.8 22.8 22.8 22.8 

Secondary Labor Earnings ($) 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 

Total Economic Effect ($) 29.6 29.6 29.6 29.6 29.6 

Total AJEs 0.000518 0.000518 0.000518 0.000518 0.000518 

Annual Economic Activity --

Direct Expenditures ($) -- 77,496.7 77,496.7 77,496.7 77,496.7 

Secondary Labor Earnings ($) -- 23,092.8 23,092.8 23,092.8 23,092.8 

Total Economic Effect ($) -- 100,589.5 100,589.5 100,589.5 100,589.5 

Total Annual AJEs -- 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 

NOMINAL VALUE OF LOP RECREATION 

75 Wells/Year Development Rate 

Direct Expenditures (millions of $) -- -- -- 6.4 --

Secondary Labor Earnings (millions of $) -- -- -- 1.9 --

Total Economic Effect (millions of $) -- -- -- 8.2 --

Total LOP AJEs -- -- -- 144.2 --

250 Wells/Year Development Rate 

Direct Expenditures (millions of $) -- 4.1 4.1 -- 4.1 

Secondary Labor Earnings (millions of $) -- 1.2 1.2 -- 1.2 

Total Economic Effect (millions of $) -- 5.3 5.3 -- 5.3 

Total LOP AJEs -- 92.4 92.4 -- 92.4 

PRESENT VALUE OF LOP RECREATION2 

75 Wells/Year Development Rate 

Direct Expenditures (millions of $) -- -- -- 2.1 --

Secondary Labor Earnings (millions of $) -- -- -- 0.6 --

Total Economic Effect (millions of $) -- -- -- 2.7 --

250 Wells/Year Development Rate 

Direct Expenditures (millions of $) -- 1.8 1.8 -- 1.8 

Secondary Labor Earnings (millions of $) -- 0.5 0.5 -- 0.5 

Total Economic Effect (millions of $) -- 2.4 2.4 -- 2.4 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
122 Section 4 

4.4.1.2 Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, if it is assumed that all 3,396 RVDs are removed for the LOP, reduced 

recreation economic activity would amount to a nominal value of $5.3 million ($2.4 million present 

value), including $1.2 million secondary labor earnings ($0.5 million present value) and up to 92.4 

AJEs (see Table 4.15). 

4.4.1.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) 

Under Alternative A, losses to economic activity from recreation would be the same as those 

described for the Proposed Action (see Table 4.15). 

4.4.1.4 Alternative B (Minimum Disturbance) 

Under Alternative B, losses to economic activity from recreation would be greater than for the 

Proposed Action due to the longer LOP for Alternative B. Reduced recreation economic activity 

would amount to a nominal value of $8.2 million ($2.7 million present value), including $1.9 million 

secondary labor earnings ($0.6 million present value) and up to 144.2 AJEs (see Table 4.15). 

4.4.1.5 Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, changes to economic activity would be similar to those described for 

the Proposed Action. 

4.4.2 Hunting 

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. However, it is likely that 

hunters already avoid the area due to existing development. Lands adjacent to the JIDPA may absorb 

displaced hunting activities since 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 those hunting cottontail and 

greater sage-grouse; 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 lands) could result in a loss of $536.46/hunter-day (including $155.16 of 

secondary labor earnings) and 0.005486 AJEs each (Table 4.16). 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 secondary labor earnings) and 0.004131 AJEs each. If all hunters relocate their activities 

away from the JIDPA, the impact could be an annual economic activity loss of $42,140 ($12,188 of 

secondary labor earnings) and an annual loss 0.95 AJEs (Table 4.17). 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Economic Impact Analysis 123 

Table 4.16. Economic Activity per Hunter-day, JIDP, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005 

Item Economic Activity from Hunting 

Pronghorn Cottontail Greater Sage-grouse Total 

Economic Activity Per Hunter-day 

Direct Expenditures $381.30 $173.06 $130.30 $684.66 

Secondary Labor Earnings $155.16 $70.42 $53.02 $278.60 

Total Economic Activity per Hunter-day $536.46 $243.48 $183.32 $963.26 

AJEs 0.012087 0.005486 0.004131 0.021704 

Annual Economic Activity 

No. Hunter-days 61.0 26.4 16.3 103.70 

Direct Expenditures $23,259 $4,569 $2,124 $29,952 

Secondary Labor Earnings $9,465 $1,859 $864 $12,188 

Total Annual Economic Activity $32,724 $6,428 $2,988 $42,140 

AJEs 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.95 

Table 4.17. Economic Activity Resulting from Hunting over the Life of Project, JIDP, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005 

Alternative A Alternative B 

Economic Activity No Action 

Alternative 

Proposed 

Action 

(Maximum 

Recovery) 

(Minimum 

Disturbance) 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Affected Hunter-days1 (Assumed Lost for 

LOP) -- 103.7 103.7 103.7 103.7 

Economic Activity Per Hunter-day 

Direct Expenditures ($) 684.66 684.66 684.66 684.66 684.66 

Secondary Labor Earnings ($) 278.60 278.60 278.60 278.60 278.60 

Total Economic Effect ($) 963.26 963.26 963.26 963.26 963.26 

Total AJEs 0.021704 0.021704 0.021704 0.021704 0.021704 

Annual Economic Activity 

Direct Expenditures ($) -- 29,952.0 29,952.0 29,952.0 29,952.0 

Secondary Labor Earnings ($) -- 12,188.0 12,188.0 12,188.0 12,188.0 

Total Economic Effect ($) -- 42,140.0 42,140.0 42,140.0 42,140.0 

Total Annual AJEs -- 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 

NOMINAL VALUE OF LOP HUNTING 

75 Wells/Year Development Rate 

Direct Expenditures (millions of $) -- -- -- 2.5 --

Secondary Labor Earnings (millions of $) -- -- -- 1.0 --

Total Economic Effect (millions of $) -- -- -- 3.5 --

Total Annual AJEs -- -- -- 77.9 --

250 Wells/Year Development Rate 

Direct Expenditures (millions of $) -- 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 

Secondary Labor Earnings (millions of $) -- 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 

Total Economic Effect (millions of $) -- 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 

Total Annual AJEs -- 49.9 49.9 49.9 49.9 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
124 Section 4 

Table 4.17. (Continued) 

Alternative A Alternative B 

Economic Activity No Action 

Alternative 

Proposed 

Action 

(Maximum 

Recovery) 

(Minimum 

Disturbance) 

Preferred 

Alternative 

PRESENT VALUE OF LOP HUNTING 

75 Wells/Year Development Rate 

Direct Expenditures (millions of $) -- -- -- 0.8 --

Total Economic Effect (millions of $) -- -- -- 1.1 --

Secondary Labor Earnings (millions of $) -- -- -- 0.3 --

250 Wells/Year Development Rate 

Direct Expenditures (millions of $) -- 0.7 0.7 -- 0.7 

Secondary Labor Earnings (millions of $) -- 0.3 0.3 -- 0.3 

Total Economic Effect (millions of $) -- 1.0 1.0 -- 1.0 

1 Includes pronghorn, cottontail, and greater sage-grouse (assumed lost for LOP) (see Table 4.16). 

4.4.2.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no change in economic activity from current conditions for hunting 

would be expected. No additional development would occur; therefore, hunters currently using the 

area would not likely relocate their activities more than has already occurred (see Table 4.17). 

Impacts to hunting from all action alternatives would be higher than those described for the No 

Action Alternative due to the increased disturbance and extended LOP. 

4.4.2.2 Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, 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 likely amount to a nominal 

value of $2.2 million ($1.0 million present value), including $0.6 million secondary labor earnings 

($0.3 million present value)and up to 49.9 AJEs (see Table 4.17). 

4.4.2.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) 

Under Alternative A, changes to economic activity from hunting would likely be the same as those 

described for the Proposed Action (see Table 4.17). 

4.4.2.4 Alternative B (Minimum Disturbance) 

Under Alternative B, impacts would be greater than for the Proposed Action due to the longer LOP 

for Alternative B. If it is assumed that all 103.7 hunter-days per year are relocated for the LOP, 

reduction in economic activity from hunting would likely amount to a nominal value of $3.5 million 

($1.1 million present value), including $1.0 million secondary labor earnings ($0.3 million present 

value). AJEs would total 77.9 (see Table 4.17). 

4.4.2.5 Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, changes to economic activity from hunting would be similar to those 

described for the Proposed Action (see Table 4.17). 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Economic Impact Analysis 125 

4.5 POPULATION AND LABOR ACTIVITY 

4.5.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no additional induced development would occur and the pace of 

production would likely be slowed, resulting in a reduction in the number of drilling rigs, crews, and 

associated services currently operating in the area. Services and associated jobs would likely be 

reduced or eliminated under the No Action Alternative. No additional secondary labor earnings or 

jobs would occur from development under this alternative; minimal additional secondary labor and 

jobs may be created from production activities, but this employment is not expected to affect 

population in the study area. 

4.5.2 Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, project-required direct employment is not expected to appreciably affect 

population in the study area. Project-required natural gas workers would likely be primarily obtained 

from the existing pool of workers employed in the area because drilling and production in the JIDPA 

continues year-round, thus providing continuous employment for these workers. Increased potential 

for employment from secondary (non-project-required) jobs created as a result of the project may 

attract out-of-area job seekers, which could affect population in the study area; however, it is likely 

that these job seekers would already live in the area but work in adjoining counties, thus population 

changes are anticipated to be minimal. Additionally, secondary employment AJEs would likely be 

distributed throughout the study area, state, region, and nation. If population increases would occur, 

pressure for additional housing would likely increase, which could induce additional residential 

construction and development in the study area. 

4.5.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) 

Population changes from secondary employment would likely be similar to but reduced from that 

described for the Proposed Action because only conventional wells would be drilled; therefore, fewer 

AJEs would be created to attract new workers. The potential for population changes from secondary 

employment would likely be lowest under Alternative A when compared to the other action 

alternatives. 

4.5.4 Alternative B (Minimum Disturbance) 

Population changes from secondary employment would likely be similar to but increased from that 

described for the Proposed Action because all wells would be directionally drilled; therefore, more 

AJEs would be created to attract new workers. 

4.5.5 Preferred Alternative 

Population changes from secondary employment would likely be similar to those described for the 

Proposed Action. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
126 Section 4 

4.6 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY 

4.6.1 No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would cause the least amount of change in economic activity when 

compared to the other alternatives; no increased economic activity from additional development 

would occur. 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 (Table 4.18). Over 

the LOP, the No Action Alternative would generate a nominal value of up to $15,257.4 million 

($11,029.4 million present value) and 13,947 AJEs, with an average wage of $47,173 (see Table 

4.18). Up to $2,334.9 million nominal value ($1,753.7 million present value) in taxes and revenues 

would be realized over the LOP (Table 4.18). No effect would be expected to occur on recreation or 

hunting resources. The least total economic activity would occur under the No Action Alternative 

when compared to the other alternatives, and this alternative would create the least number of AJEs. 

Impacts from all action alternatives would likely be higher than those described under the No Action 

Alternative due to increased development and production, increased disturbance, and longer LOP. 

4.6.2 Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, 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 7,947 BCF of gas and 75.50 

MBO (see Table 4.18). Over the LOP of 52.5 years (excluding reclamation), the nominal value of 

economic activity would be $45,162.7 million ($28,066.9 million present value), including $6,072.1 

million nominal value ($3,474.7 million present value) in taxes and revenues (see Table 4.18). The 

number of AJEs created in the study area is estimated at 85,715.7, with an average wage ranging 

from $31,881 to $47,173 (see Table 4.18). This action could result in a loss of economic activity 

from recreation of $5.3 million nominal value ($2.4 million present value) and hunting of $2.2 

million nominal value ($1.0 million present value) over the LOP (see Table 4.18). 

4.6.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) 

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. 

Economic activity would have a nominal value of $46,170.5 million ($28,643.9 million present 

value), including $6,234.7 million in taxes and revenues ($3,574.9 million present value) (see Table 

4.18). The number of AJEs created in the study area is estimated at 85,984.2, with an average wage 

ranging from $31,881 to $47,173 (see Table 4.18). This alternative could result in the same loss of 

economic activity from recreation and hunting as the Proposed Action (see Table 4.18). 

4.6.4 Alternative B (Minimum Disturbance) 

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 4.18). LOP would be 82 years (excluding reclamation). Economic activity would be 

$37,993.0 million ($16,426.8 million present value), including $4,881.4 million in taxes and revenues 

($2,108.2 million present value) (see Table 4.18). The number of AJEs created in the study area is 

estimated at 86,261.9, with an average wage ranging from $31,881 to $47,173 (see Table 4.18). 

This alternative could result in a loss of economic activity from recreation of $8.2 million nominal 

value ($2.7 million present value) and hunting of $3.5 million nominal value ($1.1 million present 

value) over the LOP (see Table 4.18). 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table 4.18. Summary of Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Development and Production Over the Lif

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Economic Activity Resulting from Development (LOP)

Economic Effect Alternative A

No Action Proposed (Maximum Alternative B 

Action Development) (Minimum Recove

Total Anticipated Natural Gas Recovery over the LOP (BCF) 3,366 7,947 8,191 6,124 

Total Anticipated Condensate Recovery over the LOP (million bbls) 31.98 75.50 77.81 58.18 Potential Change in Employment

Secondary Development Employment (AJEs) -- 52,930 52,187.5 61,110 

Average Earnings Per Job -- $31,881 to $32,025 $31,881 to $32,025 $31,881 to $32,0

Secondary Production Employment (AJEs) 13,947 32,928 33,939 25,374 

Average Earnings Per Job $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 

Recreation AJEs -- -92.4 -92.4 -144.2 

Hunting AJEs -- -49.9 -49.9 -77.9 

Potential Change in Employment (AJEs) 13,947 85,715.7 85,984.2 86,261.9 

NOMINAL VALUE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

75 Wells Per Year Development Rate

Value of Development1 (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 Development1 (millions of $) 0.0 8,588.6 8,497.2 -- 

Value of Production1,2 (millions of $) 12,922.5 30,509.5 31,446.1 -- Taxes/royalties (millions of $) 2,334.9 6,072.1 6,234.7 -- Recreation (millions of $) 0.0 -5.3 -5.3 -- 

Hunting (millions of $) 0.0 -2.2 -2.2 -- 

Total Nominal Economic Activity (millions of $) 15,257.4 45,162.7 46,170.5 -- 
Table 4.18. (Continued) 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Economic Activity Resulting from Development (LOP)

Economic Effect Alternative A

No Action Proposed (Maximum Alternative B 

Action Development) (Minimum Recove

PRESENT VALUE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY3 

75 Wells Per Year Development Rate

Value of Development2 (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 Development2 (millions of $) 0.0 6,631.8 6,561.2 -- 

Value of Production2 (millions of $) 9,275.7 17,963.8 18,511.2 -- Taxes/royalties (millions of $) 1,753.7 3,474.7 3,574.9 -- Recreation (millions of $) 0.0 -2.4 -2.4 -- 

Hunting (millions of $) 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 -- 

Total Present Value of Economic Activity (millions of $) 11,029.4 28,066.9 28,643.9 -- 

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/m

assumed at $21/bbl. 

3 Number of years to develop varies for each alternative; well life is assumed to be 40 years; see Section 2.2 for a discussion of discounting. The discount rate used for this analysis was 

revenues are received as a lump 
Economic Impact Analysis 129 

4.6.5 Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, impacts to overall economic activity would likely be similar to those 

described for the Proposed Action. 

4.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

The cumulative impacts assessment area for socioeconomics includes Sublette, Lincoln, and 

Sweetwater Counties. All these counties depend upon the oil and gas industry for a portion of their 

economic activity and tax base (refer to Section 3.0). 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 in 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 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. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
5.0 SOCIAL IMPACTS 

Baseline social and economic factors, including population, personal income, quality of living, and 

education described in Chapter 3.0 were compared to expected changes in the economy that would 

affect a typical family in the study area. Impacts were evaluated against the potential for changes in 

quality of life factors and the ability of residents to maintain or improve the current quality of life as a 

result of the proposed project and alternatives. 

5.1 POPULATION 

The project could result in some increases in population in Sublette, Lincoln, and Sweetwater 

Counties as a result of job seekers from other localities moving to the area in search of employment, 

although existing industry expertise and services in the three counties is generally adequate to support 

additional oil and gas development. While the initial analysis assumed that adequate support 

services existed, the Operators have indicated (despite State of Wyoming reports to the contrary 

when data were collected for this analysis) that insufficient numbers of rigs are available for 

meeting drilling schedules, and the number of current employees is insufficient to staff the rigs 

that are available. The existing labor shortage, which is already impacting the study area, may 

be incrementally increased by the JIDP. 

5.2 INCOME, POVERTY, AND UNEMPLOYMENT 

The average wage in the study area ranged from 25,050 to $33,748 in 2000 (see Table 3.16). The 

estimated annual average earnings per job for jobs created indirectly from development on the JIDPA 

would range from $31,881 to $32,025. The estimated average earnings per job from JIDP production 

would be $47,173. These estimated annual 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. 

It is not anticipated that the JIDP will result in a notable in-migration of workers to the study area. 

With an estimated 1,713 available workers in the study area and 12,000 available workers in 

Wyoming (see Table 3.5), the estimated number of laborers that would be directly employed as a 

result of the projects would be readily available. The JIDP Proposed Action would directly provide 

up to 9,899 worker-years and up to 52,930 AJEs during development and up to 6,367 new workeryears and 32,928 new AJEs from 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 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 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. 

5.3 QUALITY OF LIVING 

Quality of life could cumulatively be impacted by oil and gas development and production in the 

area. Likely beneficial effects include increased affluence and reduced poverty, more health care 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
132 Section 5 

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 lowering of quality of life in the area. The increasing conversion of large tracts of land 

from rangeland 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. Displacement of ranching activity by gas 

extraction is seen by some as a loss of cultural heritage. While the JIDP is unlikely to result in 

significant increases in population from increased employment directly related to the project, the 

JIDP in combination with other oil and gas projects, plus the general growth in economic activity 

associated with these projects, may attract individuals to the area and result in cultural changes. For 

those who value the intimacy, security, and pace of small towns, population growth with its attendant 

increases in traffic, crowding, pressure on housing availability and costs, noise, crime, and the 

presence of strangers may be considered a lowering of the quality of life. 

5.3.1 Crime 

Crime may increase in the study area if the population grows directly or indirectly as a result of the 

JIDP. New residents without roots in the community, without social connections, and with a limited 

choice of leisure activities may contribute to existing and growing unlawful behavior related to 

alcohol and illicit drug use. An influx of job seekers attracted by the increased level of development 

in the area but who fail to find jobs could also result in some increased crime. 

5.3.2 Health Care 

Increased affluence in the study area could attract additional health care providers to the area or 

encourage existing health care providers to remain in the area. This would likely be a beneficial 

impact to the study area society. However, impacts already being experienced by the healthcare 

community may be incrementally increased by the JIDP as a result of increases in population 

from laborers attracted by jobs. 

5.3.3 Housing 

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 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. 

To meet the housing demand, new subdivisions are currently being planned and built. In Sublette 

County, several new rural subdivisions are under construction or have been platted in Pinedale, and a 

new subdivision is being developed in Big Piney. In Sweetwater County, it is expected that 500 new 

housing units will be constructed by next year. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Social Impacts 133 

5.3.4 Cost of Living and Inflation 

Increased cost of living and inflation already being experienced by the affected communities may be 

incrementally increased by the JIDP. 

5.4 EDUCATION 

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, allowing the purchase of higher-quality teaching 

materials 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. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Office of Environmental Justice defines 

environmental justice as “[t]he fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of 

race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of 

people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group[s] should bear a disproportionate share of 

the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial 

operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies.” Meaningful 

involvement means that: (1) community residents in the potential impact area have an 

appropriate opportunity to participate in decisions about a proposed activity that will affect their 

environment and/or health; (2) the public’s contribution can influence the regulatory agency’s 

decision; (3) the concerns of all participants involved will be considered in the decision-making 

process; and (4) the decision makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of those in the 

potential impact area (EPA 2003). Environmental justice is achieved when everyone, regardless 

of race, culture, or income, enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health 

hazards and has equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in 

which to live, learn, and work (EPA 2003). 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (February 11, 1994) and its accompanying memorandum have the 

primary purpose of ensuring that “each federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice 

part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income populations....” To meet this goal, EO 12898 specified that each 

agency develop an agency-wide environmental justice strategy. 

The Presidential Memorandum that accompanied EO 12898 calls for a variety of actions. Four 

specific actions were directed at National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)-related activities, 

including the following. 

1.	 Each federal agency must analyze environmental effects (i.e., human health, economic and 

social effects) of federal actions, including effects on minority communities and low-income 

communities, when such analysis is required by NEPA. 

2.	 Mitigation measures outlined or analyzed in environmental assessments, EISs, or RODs, 

whenever feasible, should address significant and adverse environmental effects of proposed 

federal actions on minority communities and low-income communities. 

3.	 Each federal agency must provide opportunities for community input in the NEPA process, 

including identifying potential effects and mitigation measures in consultation with affected 

communities and improving accessibility of public meetings, official documents, and notices 

to affected communities. 

4.	 In reviewing other agencies’ proposed actions under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the 

EPA must ensure that the agencies have fully analyzed environmental effects on minority 

communities and low-income communities, including human health, social, and economic 

effects. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
136 Section 6 

6.1 DEFINING MINORITY AND/OR LOW-INCOME POPULATION 

6.1.1 Minority Communities 

Minority or low-income communities that may be addressed in the scope of NEPA analysis are 

generally considered as follows: 

•	 Minority - Individual(s) classified by OMB Directive No. 15 as Black/African American, 

Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and other non-white 

persons. 

•	 Minority Population - Minority populations should be identified where either: 

-	 the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50% or 

- the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the 

minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of 

geographic analysis. 

In identifying minority communities, agencies may consider as a community either: (1) a group of 

individuals living in geographic proximity to one another, or (2) a geographically dispersed/transient 

set of individuals (such as migrant workers or American Indians), where either type of group 

experiences common conditions of environmental exposure or effect. The selection of the 

appropriate unit of geographic analysis may be a governing body’s jurisdiction, a neighborhood, 

census tract, or other similar unit that is to be chosen so as to not artificially dilute or inflate the 

affected minority population. A minority population also exists if there is more than one minority 

group present and the minority percentage, as calculated by aggregating all minority persons, meets 

one of the above-stated thresholds. 

6.1.2 Low-Income Population 

Two of the tests available for identifying low-income populations in an affected area are: 

(a) the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines or 

(b) the Department of Housing and Urban Development statutory definition for “very lowincome” for the purposes of housing benefits programs. 

In identifying low-income populations, agencies may consider as a community either a group of 

individuals living in geographic proximity to one another, or a geographically dispersed/transient set 

of individuals (such as migrant workers or Native Americans), where either type of group 

experiences common conditions of environmental exposure or effects. 

6.1.3 Disproportionately High and Adverse Human Health Effects 

According to EO 12898, when determining whether human health effects are disproportionately high 

and adverse, agencies are to consider the following three factors to the extent practicable: 

(a)	 whether the health effects, which may be measured in risks and rates, are significant, 

unacceptable, or above generally accepted norms (adverse health effects may include bodily 

impairment, infirmity, illness, or death.); 

(b) whether the risk or rate of hazard exposure by a minority population or low-income 

population to an environmental hazard is significant and appreciably exceeds or is likely to 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Environmental Justice 137 

appreciably exceed the risk or rate to the general population or other appropriate comparison 

group; and 

(c)	 whether health effects occur in a minority or low-income population affected by cumulative 

or multiple adverse exposures from environmental hazards. 

6.2 PROJECT STUDY AREA 

6.2.1 Minority Communities 

No minority communities as defined by EPA guidelines would be affected by the proposed project. 

About 2.5% of the Lincoln County population, 3.2% of the Sublette County population, and 11% of 

the Sweetwater County population is minority, as compared to 8.9% for the State of Wyoming (EPA 

2003). No potentially affected communities within the study area have minority populations 

exceeding 50%, nor are there any population clusters where the minority population percentage is 

meaningfully greater than the percentage in the general population. The proposed project, therefore, 

would not unduly affect minority populations (email from Karen Kellen [acting director], 

Environmental Justice, Region 8, EPA, on February 20, 2003). 

6.2.2 Low-Income Population 

Approximately 10.8% of the Lincoln County population, 8.4% of the Sublette County population, 

and 8.0% of the Sweetwater County population lives below the poverty level as compared to 11.9% 

for the State of Wyoming (EPA 2003). 

No low-income populations have been identified as a community (i.e., a group of individuals living 

in geographic proximity to one another) or as a geographically dispersed/transient set of individuals 

(e.g., migrant workers or Native Americans), that would experience common conditions of 

environmental exposure or effects. Development would not unduly affect low-income individuals 

in the study area (email from Karen Kellen [acting director]), Environmental Justice, Region 8, 

EPA, on February 20, 2003). 

6.2.3 Disproportionately High and Adverse Human Health Effects 

It is not anticipated that development of the projects would result in any health effects (i.e., bodily 

impairment, infirmity, illness, or death), which could be measured in risks and rates, that would be 

significant, unacceptable, or above generally accepted norms. No risk or rate of hazard exposure by a 

minority population or low-income population to an environmental hazard would be significant or 

appreciably exceed or be likely to appreciably exceed the risk or rate to the general population or 

other appropriate comparison group. No health effects would occur in a minority or low-income 

population as a result of exposures from environmental hazards related to the proposed project. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
7.0 ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY 

7.1 ABBREVIATIONS


AJE Annual job equivalent 

AUM Animal unit months 

BCF Billion cubic feet of natural gas 

BEA U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

Companies Infinity Oil and Gas of Wyoming, Inc. and Williams Production RMT Company 

CPI Consumer price index 

CREG Consensus Revenue Estimating Group 

DCI Division of Criminal Investigation 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EIS Environmental impact statement 

EnCana EnCana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc. 

EO Executive Order 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPS Sonoran Institute Economic Profile System 

FIRE Finance, insurance, and real estate 

GSP Gross state product 

GSPO Gross state product originating 

I/O Input/output 

I-80 Interstate 80 

IBT Indirect business tax and non-tax liability 

IMPLAN� Impact Analysis for Planning; IMPLAN Professional� 2.0 software 

Infinity Infinity Oil and Gas of Wyoming, Inc. 

JIDP Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

JIDPA JIDP area 

JMHCAP Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 

LOP Life of project 

LRI Legislative Royalty Impact Assistance Account 

MBO Million barrels of condensate (oil) 

MCF Thousand cubic feet of natural gas 

MIG Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 

MMCF Million cubic feet of natural gas 

N North 

NCES National Center of Education Statistics 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
140 Section 7 

Operators EnCana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc. and BP America 

PAWG Pinedale Anticline Working Group 

PCPI Per capita personal income 

PFO Pinedale Field Office 

PILT Payments in lieu of taxes 

PWMTF Permanent Wyoming Mineral Trust Fund 

R Range 

REIS Regional Economic Information System 

RMIS Recreational Management Information System 

ROD Record of Decision 

RSFO Rock Springs Field Office 

RVD Recreational visitor day 

SCBC Sublette County Board of Commissioners 

Schlumberger Schlumberger Oil Field Services 

SCPC Sublette County Planning Commission 

SIC Standard Industrial Classification 

SSI Supplemental Security Income 

SSSI Supplemental Social Security Income 

SWCA SWCA Environmental Consultants 

SWREE Southwest Wyoming Resource Evaluation Socio/Economic Evaluation 

T Township 

TCPU Transportation, communication, and public utilities 

TPI Total personal income 

TRC Mariah TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 

UCR Uniform Crime Reporting 

USC United States Code 

USDI U.S. Department of the Interior 

USFS U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

UWAED University of Wyoming, College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, 

Agricultural Economics Department 

W West 

WS Wyoming Statute 

WDAI Wyoming Department of Administration and Information 

WDERP Wyoming Department of Employment, Research, and Planning 

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

WHDP Wyoming Housing Database Partnership 

Williams Williams Production RMT Company 

WOSLI Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments 

WyCAS Wyoming Comprehensive Assessment System 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Abbreviations and Glossary 141 

7.2 GLOSSARY 

ad valorem: Tax levied on property or production according to assessed value. 

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. 

annual job equivalent (AJE): 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 = 1 worker-year, a person year is 365 

days; therefore, there are approximately 1.4 worker-years per person year (i.e., one AJE = 1.4 person 

years). 

animal unit month (AUM): The amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow/calf pair 

for 1 month. 

annual growth rate formulas: 

Between two consecutive years (e.g., 1999–2000): 

([Y2 data -Y1 data]/Y1 data) × 100 = annual growth where Y = year. 

Annualized growth rate over a period of time (e.g., 1980 to 1990): 

[(Y2 data/Y1 data)(1/[Y2-Y1]) - 1] × 100 = average annual growth where Y = year. 

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 contained in the natural gas stream and removed by 

condensation. 

consumer price index (CPI): A measure of the average change in prices over time in a market 

basket of goods and services. 

directional drilling: The intentional deviation of a wellbore from vertical to reach subsurface areas 

off to one side from the drilling site. 

discount factor formula: 1/(1+i)t where i is the interest rate and t is the year. 

displacement: As applied to recreation and hunting, forced shifts in the patterns of land use, either 

in location or timing of use. 

environment: The aggregate of physical, biological, economic, and social factors affecting 

organisms in an area. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
142 Section 7 

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; direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. 

entropy: a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder (i.e., chaos, disorganization, 

randomness). 

federal lands: All lands and interests in lands owned by the U.S. that 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. 

gross state product: GSP is the value added in production by the labor and property located in a 

state. GSP for a state is derived as the sum of the gross state product originating in all industries in a 

state. In concept, an industry’s GSP, referred to as its “value added,” is equivalent to its gross output 

(sales or receipts and other operating income, commodity taxes, and inventory change) minus its 

intermediate inputs (consumption of goods and services purchased from other U.S. industries or 

imported). Thus, GSP is often considered the state counterpart of the nation’s gross domestic product 

(GDP), BEA’s featured measure of U.S. output. In practice, GSP estimates are measured as the sum 

of the distributions by industry and state of the components of gross domestic income (GDI)—that is, 

the sum of the costs incurred and incomes earned in the production of GDP. 

gross state product calculation: The sum of gross state product originating by industry of all 

industries. 

impacts: These include: a) Direct impacts, which are caused by the action and occur at the same 

time and place; 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, historical , 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). 

industry compensation of employees: GSP estimates of compensation of employees are the sum of 

employee wages and salaries and supplements to wages and salaries. 

Wages and salaries are measured on an accrual, or “when earned” basis, which may be different from 

the measure of wages and salaries measured on a disbursement, or “when paid” basis. 

Wages and salaries and supplements of Federal military and civilian government employees stationed 

abroad are excluded from the measure of GSP. 

•	 Employee wages and salaries: The monetary remuneration of employees. This remuneration 

includes the compensation of corporate officers; commissions, tips, and bonuses; voluntary 

employee contributions to certain deferred compensation plans, such as 401(k) plans; and 

receipts in kind, or pay-in-kind. Wages and salaries are measured before deductions, such as 

social security contributions and union dues. 

•	 Supplements to wages and salaries consist of employer contributions for social insurance and 

other labor income. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
�

Abbreviations and Glossary 143 

−	 Employer contributions for social insurance consist of employer payments under the 

following programs: 

� old age, survivors, and disability insurance (“Social Security”), 

� hospital insurance, 

� unemployment insurance, 

� railroad retirement, 

� pension benefit guaranty, 

� veterans’ life insurance, 

� publicly-administered workers’ compensation, 

� military medical insurance, and 

� temporary disability insurance. 

Although these employer contributions to publicly-administered social insurance 

programs are treated as a cost of production, and are included in the calculation of GSP, 

they are not treated as part of income when accounting for personal income. Instead, the 

payments from the programs are counted as personal income when they are paid out to 

individuals. 

−	 Other Labor Income (OLI): Consists of employer payments to government employee 

retirement and private pension and profit-sharing plans, private group health and life 

insurance plans, privately-administered workers’ compensation plans, supplemental 

unemployment benefit plans, corporate directors’ fees, and several minor categories of 

employee compensation, including judicial fees to juries and witnesses, compensation of 

prison inmates, and marriage fees to justices of the peace. 

inflation calculations: 

Inflation Factor = (Current Year CPI / Year “X” CPI) 

Current Year Dollars = Year “X” Dollars x Inflation Factor 

infrastructure: The basic framework or underlying foundation of a community including road 

networks, electric and gas distribution, water and sanitation services, and facilities. 

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. 

long-term impacts: For the purpose of this NEPA analysis, long-term impacts last for the life of the 

project or beyond. 

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; 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
144 Section 7 

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 representation of an observable situation. In economics, models afford 

the ability to estimate the short- and long-term impacts of changes in industry on the local, regional, 

and/or national economy. 

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 

public 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. 

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. 

nominal value: Value of project activities is the simple calculation of dollars with no adjustments. 

present value: Value of project activities after the discount rate has been applied over time (i.e., the 

real value of project activities). 

production: Phase of commercial operation of an oil field. 

public land: Lands or interests in lands owned by the United States and administered by the 

Secretary of Interior through the Bureau of Land Management, without regard to how the United 

States acquired ownership. 

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 environmental impact statement or 

Supplemental EIS that publicly and officially discloses the responsible official’s decision regarding 

the actions proposed in the EIS and their implementation. 

recreational visitor day (RVD): As a unit of measure, a recreational visitor day is defined as a 

12-hour period. 

short-term impacts: For the purpose of this NEPA analysis, short-term impacts are generally 

defined as those that would last for 10 years or less. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Abbreviations and Glossary 145 

socioeconomics: Study of social and economic factors such as current and projected population, 

demographic characteristics, housing, economy, government, etc. 

well pad: Relatively flat work area that is used for drilling a well and producing from the well once 

it is completed. 

wellbore: The hole drilled from the surface to the gas-bearing formation. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
8.0 REFERENCES 

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. Data 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. Data 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. Data 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. Data accessed June 19, 2003. 

. 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. Data 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/. Data 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. Average annual Unemployment Rates. Labor Force Statistics from 

Current Population Survey. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

http://www.bls.gov/cps/ home.htm. Data accessed December 16, 2003. 

Bureau of Land Management. 1988. Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan for the Pinedale 

Resource Area. Prepared by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Pinedale Resource Area, Rock Springs District, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 118 pp. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
148 Section 8 

. 1997. 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. 

. 1999. Draft environmental impact statement for the Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Project, Sublette County, Wyoming. Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, 

Wyoming. 

. 2003a. Supplemental Draft EIS for the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan/Draft 

Green River RMP Amendment. BLM/WY/PL-03/008+1610. Prepared by BLM, Wyoming State 

Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming; BLM, Rock Springs Field Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming; and BLM, 

Lander Field Office, Lander, Wyoming. 

. 2003b. Socioeconomic Profile, Pinedale. Prepared by Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale 

Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming. January 2003. 37 pp. 

. 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. Data 

accessed July 10, 2003. 

. 2004a. Pinedale Resource Management Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming. 

. 2004b. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the South Piney Natural Gas Development 

Project, Sublette County, Wyoming. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming, by TRC Mariah Associates Inc., 

Laramie, Wyoming. 

. 2004c. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming by TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 

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. 

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 

Dalaker, J., and B.D. Proctor. 2000. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Series P60-210, 

Poverty in the United States: 1999. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 

Energy Information Administration. 2001a. Energy in the United States: A Brief History and Current 

Trends. United States Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. June 2001. 

www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh1999/eh1999.html. Data Accessed July 10, 2003. 

. 2004. Natural Gas Annual 2002. http://www.eia.doe.gov. Data accessed April 2004. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
References 149 

Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. EnviroMapper for Environmental Justice. 

http://map10.epa.gov/enviromapper/. Data accessed September 9, 2003. 

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. 

Gearino, J. 2005. Sweetwater County needs workers, housing. Casper Star Tribune. November 4, 2005. 

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. 

. 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. 

Mast, T. 2004. Labor shortages vary across state. Casper Star-Tribune. November 7, 2004. 

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. Data accessed July 3, 2003. 

. 2005. Common Core of Data, America's Public Schools. Data obtained from "Build a Table" 

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat/index.asp. Data accessed October 18, 2005. 

Office of Management and Budget. 1987. 1987 Standard Industrial Classification Manual. Office of 

Management and Budget. Washington, D.C. 

. 2004. Memorandum for the Heads of Departments and Agencies, 2004 Discount Rates for 

OMB Circular No. A-94. M-04-06, Office of Management and Budget, February 13, 2004. 

Pinedale Anticline Working Group. 2005. SocioEconomic Task Group Report and Monitoring Plan. 

Pinedale Online. 2002. http://pinedaleonline.com. Designed and maintained by Wind River Web Services 

and Office Outlet in Pinedale, Wyoming. Data accessed January 2, 2003. 

Rock Springs Chamber of Commerce. 2003. http://www.rockspringswyoming.net/. Data accessed January 

2, 2003. 

Royster, W. 2004. Growth strains social services. Casper Star-Tribune. November 7, 2004. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
150 Section 8 

Saxton, J. 2005. Email Correspondence from Jeness Saxton, Sublette County Assessor’s Office, to Katy 

Mays, SWCA Environmental Consultants, November 9, 2005. 

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. 

Sonoran Institute. 2003. Economic Profile System. Sonoran Institute, Northwest Office, Bozeman, 

Montana. 

Sublette.Com. 2001. http://www.sublette.com. Designed and maintained by Wind River Web Services and 

Office Outlet in Pinedale, Wyoming. Data accessed January 2, 2003. 

Sublette County Board of Commissioners and Sublette County Planning Commission. 2003. Sublette 

County Comprehensive Plan: County Vision, Goals and Policies. 

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. 

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. 

TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 2003. 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. 

University of Wyoming, College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, Agricultural Economics 

Department. 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. Report accessed October 21, 2003. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
References 151 

. 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 followup 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. 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. Data accessed June 20, 2003. 

. 2000a. State and County QuickFacts. www.census.gov. Last Revised: Friday, 24 September 

2002, 11:19:39 EDT. Data accessed December 26, 2002. 

. 2000b. U.S. Census Bureau 1990 Census of Population and Housing 

(http://factfinder.census.gov). Data accessed December 26, 2002. 

. 2000c. American Fact Finder, Census 2000 Quick Tables. DP-3: Profile of Selected 

Economic Characteristics: 2000. http://factfinder.census.gov. Data accessed January 2, 2003. 

. 2000d. American Fact Finder, Census 2000 Detailed Tables. P-5: Urban and Rural Population 

(Total Population) (Final National File Only): 2000. http://factfinder.census. gov. Data accessed 

April 24, 2003. 

. 2000e. American Fact Finder, Census 2000 Detailed Tables. P-8: Sex by Age. 

http://factfinder.census.gov. Data accessed June 18, 2003. 

. 2000f. American Fact Finder, Census 2000 Detailed Tables. P-41. Age by Types of Disability 

for the Civilian Non-institutionalized Population 5 Years and Over with Disabilities. 

http://factfinder.census.gov. Data accessed June 19, 2003. 

. 2003. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2003 Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement. http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/threshld/thresh02.html. Last revised October 14, 

2003. Data accessed January 25, 2004. 

. 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. Date 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/>. Date 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/. Date accessed 

October 14, 2005 

. 2005c. U.S. Census Bureau Population Division, Interim State Population Projections, 

http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/popproj.html. Date accessed October 18, 2005. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
152 Section 8 

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. Date accessed October 31, 2005. 

Woodward, J. 2005. Email Correspondence from John Woodward, Lincoln County Planner, to Katy Mays, 

SWCA Environmental Consultants, November 9, 2005. 

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. Date 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. Date 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. Date Accessed October 22, 2005. 

. 2002. Uniform Crime Reporting Division of Criminal Investigation Crime In Wyoming 2002 

Annual Report. http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/index.html. Date 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. Date 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. Date Accessed October 22, 2005. 

Wyoming Business Council. 2002. Interactive Business Center. Quality of Life Category: Housing. 

http://wyomingbusiness.org. Data accessed June 23, 2003. 

Wyoming Community College Commission. 2003. Press Release. April 4, 2003. http://commission.wcc.edu/ 

WCCC/press.htm. Data accessed July 7, 2003. 

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, 2003. 

. 2001a. Historical decennial census population for Wyoming counties, cities, and towns. 

http://eadiv.state.wy.us/demog_data/ cntycity_hist.htm. Data accessed June 17, 2003. 

. 2001b. Median Household Income By County: 1969, 1979, 1989 http://eadiv.state.wy.us/ 

demog_data/CNTY_INCOME70_90.htm. Data 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. Data accessed 

December 30, 2002. 

. 2002c. Wyoming Sales, Use, and Lodging Tax Report. 27th Edition. Prepared by Wyoming 

Department of Administration and Information, Economic Analysis Division, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
References 153 

. 2003a. Wyoming and County Population Estimates and Components of Changes: 2000 to 

2010. http://eadiv.state.wy.us/pop/CO-02EST.htm. Data accessed June 17, 2003. 

. 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. Date accessed October 18, 2005 

. 2005b. Economic Analysis Division. Wyoming Employment, Income and Gross State Product 

Report, August 2005 http://eadiv.state.wy.us/i&e/Inc_Emp_Report.pdf.. Date accessed October 17, 

2005. 

. 2005c. Economic Analysis Division. Wyoming Cost of Living for the Second Quarter 2005, 

September 30, 2005. http://eadiv.state.wy.us/wcli/wcli.asp. Date accessed October 14, 2005. 

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. Data 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. Data 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. Data 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. Data 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. Data accessed June 

20, 2003. 

. 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. Data accessed February 25, 2004. 

Wyoming Department of Revenue. 1998. State of Wyoming Department of Revenue 2002 Annual Report. 

Wyoming Department of Revenue, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 131 pp. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
154 Section 8 

. 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. 

. 2003a. 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/. Data accessed July 10, 2003. 

. 2003b. State of Wyoming Department of Revenue 2003 Annual Report. Wyoming Department 

of Revenue, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

. 2004. State of Wyoming Department of Revenue 2004 Annual Report. Wyoming Department 

of Revenue, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Wyoming Energy Commission. 2003. Energy Policy. Adopted April 16, 2003. 

http://www.wyomingbusiness.org/minerals/energy_commission/commission_meetings.cfm. Data 

accessed August 25, 2003. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 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, 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming to C. Keefe, TRC Mariah Associates 

Inc., Laramie, Wyoming, January 12, 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. 

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. Data 

accessed October 14, 2005 

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. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
References 155 

. 2004. Annual Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2004. Office of State Lands and 

Investments, Cheyenne, Wyoming. http://slf-web.state.wy.us/. Date accessed November 2, 2005. 

Wyoming State Land Use Commission. 1979. Wyoming State Land Use Plan. 180 pp. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
APPENDIX A 

Assumed Production Rates, Decline Curves, and Discounting Tables 

for Each Alternative 
No Action Alternative

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate 

Condensate Production NG Production Discount Factor Condensate Discount Factor Labor Ear

Total Production for Year 3,500.00 $21 PV of LOP Production PV of LOP Production 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

548,121.39 1,918,424,869.79 5,207,153.22 $109,350,218 1 0.966183575 1,853,550,598.83 1 0.966183575 105,652,384.13 1 

274,804.06 961,814,194.99 2,610,638.53 $54,823,409 2 0.9335107 897,863,842.79 2 0.9335107 51,178,239.04 2 

209,928.43 734,749,493.86 1,994,320.05 $41,880,721 3 0.901942706 662,701,946.48 3 0.901942706 37,774,010.95 3 

176,075.29 616,263,528.17 1,672,715.29 $35,127,021 4 0.871442228 537,038,061.83 4 0.871442228 30,611,169.52 4 

154,422.64 540,479,226.42 1,467,015.04 $30,807,316 5 0.841973167 455,069,005.89 5 0.841973167 25,938,933.34 5 

139,056.95 486,699,317.45 1,321,041.00 $27,741,861 6 0.813500644 395,930,208.33 6 0.813500644 22,568,021.87 6 

127,431.82 446,011,353.71 1,210,602.25 $25,422,647 7 0.785990961 350,560,892.38 7 0.785990961 19,981,970.87 7 

118,244.37 413,855,279.87 1,123,321.47 $23,589,751 8 0.759411556 314,286,482.13 8 0.759411556 17,914,329.48 8 

112,172.62 392,604,176.12 1,065,639.91 $22,378,438 9 0.733730972 288,065,843.83 9 0.733730972 16,419,753.10 9 

105,899.04 370,646,651.77 1,006,040.91 $21,126,859 10 0.708918814 262,758,384.68 10 0.708918814 14,977,227.93 10 

99,545.10 348,407,867.43 945,678.50 $19,859,248 11 0.684945714 238,640,475.42 11 0.684945714 13,602,507.10 11 

93,572.40 327,503,405.01 888,937.81 $18,667,694 12 0.661783298 216,736,283.57 12 0.661783298 12,353,968.16 12 

87,958.05 307,853,166.97 835,601.45 $17,547,631 13 0.639404153 196,842,593.45 13 0.639404153 11,220,027.83 13 

82,680.56 289,381,968.07 785,465.34 $16,494,772 14 0.61778179 178,774,910.31 14 0.61778179 10,190,169.89 14 

77,719.73 272,019,049.25 738,337.42 $15,505,086 15 0.596890619 162,365,618.59 15 0.596890619 9,254,840.26 15 

73,056.54 255,697,902.42 694,037.16 $14,574,780 16 0.576705912 147,462,491.94 16 0.576705912 8,405,362.04 16 

68,673.15 240,356,007.92 652,394.88 $13,700,292 17 0.557203779 133,927,276.02 17 0.557203779 7,633,854.73 17 

64,552.76 225,934,646.65 613,251.18 $12,878,275 18 0.53836114 121,634,433.83 18 0.53836114 6,933,162.73 18 

60,679.59 212,378,559.54 576,456.09 $12,105,578 19 0.52015569 110,469,916.26 19 0.52015569 6,296,785.23 19 

57,038.81 199,635,841.12 541,868.71 $11,379,243 20 0.502565884 100,330,163.06 20 0.502565884 5,718,819.29 20 

53,616.48 187,657,686.77 509,356.58 $10,696,488 21 0.485570903 91,121,112.39 21 0.485570903 5,193,903.41 21 

50,399.49 176,398,229.12 478,795.19 $10,054,699 22 0.469150631 82,757,340.46 22 0.469150631 4,717,168.41 22 

47,375.52 165,814,325.21 450,067.45 $9,451,417 23 0.453285634 75,161,251.46 23 0.453285634 4,284,191.33 23 

44,532.99 155,865,459.53 423,063.39 $8,884,331 24 0.437957134 68,262,389.93 24 0.437957134 3,890,956.23 24 

41,861.01 146,513,531.82 397,679.59 $8,351,271 25 0.423146989 61,996,759.88 25 0.423146989 3,533,815.31 25 

39,349.35 137,722,720.36 373,818.81 $7,850,195 26 0.408837671 56,306,236.21 26 0.408837671 3,209,455.46 26 

36,988.39 129,459,357.93 351,389.69 $7,379,183 27 0.395012242 51,138,031.27 27 0.395012242 2,914,867.78 27 

34,769.08 121,691,795.75 330,306.30 $6,936,432 28 0.38165434 46,444,202.04 28 0.38165434 2,647,319.52 28 

32,682.94 114,390,282.11 310,487.91 $6,520,246 29 0.368748155 42,181,205.48 29 0.368748155 2,404,328.71 29 

30,721.96 107,526,864.63 291,858.63 $6,129,031 30 0.356278411 38,309,500.43 30 0.356278411 2,183,641.52 30 

28,878.64 101,075,246.77 274,347.10 $5,761,289 31 0.344230348 34,793,167.41 31 0.344230348 1,983,210.54 31 

27,145.92 95,010,733.12 257,886.28 $5,415,612 32 0.332589709 31,599,592.04 32 0.332589709 1,801,176.75 32 

25,517.17 89,310,088.99 242,413.10 $5,090,675 33 0.321342714 28,699,146.35 33 0.321342714 1,635,851.34 33 

23,986.14 83,951,484.23 227,868.31 $4,785,235 34 0.310476052 26,064,925.37 34 0.310476052 1,485,700.75 34 

22,546.97 78,914,397.06 214,196.22 $4,498,121 35 0.299976862 23,672,493.17 35 0.299976862 1,349,332.11 35 

21,194.15 74,179,536.51 201,344.46 $4,228,234 36 0.289832717 21,499,656.58 36 0.289832717 1,225,480.43 36 

19,922.50 69,728,764.41 189,263.79 $3,974,540 37 0.28003161 19,526,258.18 37 0.28003161 1,112,996.72 37 

18,727.16 65,545,043.82 177,907.98 $3,736,067 38 0.270561942 17,733,994.36 38 0.270561942 1,010,837.68 38 

17,603.53 61,612,344.73 167,233.51 $3,511,904 39 0.261412505 16,106,237.35 39 0.261412505 918,055.53 39 

16,547.31 57,915,600.58 157,199.49 $3,301,189 40 0.252572468 14,627,886.19 40 0.252572468 833,789.51 40 

- - - $0 41 0.24403137 - 41 0.24403137 - 41 
No Action Alternative

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate 

Condensate Production NG Production Discount Factor Condensate Discount Factor Labor Ear

Total Production for Year 3,500.00 $21 PV of LOP Production PV of LOP Production 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

- - - $0 42 0.235779102 - 42 0.235779102 - 42 

- - - $0 43 0.227805895 - 43 0.227805895 - 43 

- - - $0 44 0.220102314 - 44 0.220102314 - 44 

- - - $0 45 0.212659241 - 45 0.212659241 - 45 

- - - $0 46 0.205467866 - 46 0.205467866 - 46 

- - - $0 47 0.198519677 - 47 0.198519677 - 47 

- - - $0 48 0.191806451 - 48 0.191806451 - 48 

- - - $0 49 0.185320243 - 49 0.185320243 - 49 

- - - $0 50 0.179053375 - 50 0.179053375 - 50 

- - - $0 51 0.172998429 - 51 0.172998429 - 51 

- - - $0 52 0.167148241 - 52 0.167148241 - 52 

- - - $0 53 0.161495885 - 53 0.161495885 - 53 

- - - $0 54 0.156034672 - 54 0.156034672 - 54 

- - - $0 55 0.150758137 - 55 0.150758137 - 55 

- - - $0 56 0.145660036 - 56 0.145660036 - 56 

- - - $0 57 0.140734334 - 57 0.140734334 - 57 

- - - $0 58 0.135975202 - 58 0.135975202 - 58 

- - - $0 59 0.131377007 - 59 0.131377007 - 59 

- - - $0 60 0.126934306 - 60 0.126934306 - 60 

- - - $0 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 - 61 

- - - $0 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 - 62 

- - - $0 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 - 63 

- - - $0 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 - 64 

- - - $0 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 - 65 

- - - $0 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 - 66 

- - - $0 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 - 67 

- - - $0 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 - 68 

- - - $0 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 - 69 

- - - $0 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 - 70 

- - - $0 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 - 71 

- - - $0 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 - 72 

- - - $0 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 - 73 

- - - $0 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 - 74 

- - - $0 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 - 75 

- - - $0 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 - 76 

- - - $0 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 - 77 

- - - $0 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 - 78 

- - - $0 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 - 79 

- - - $0 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 - 80 

- - - $0 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 - 81 

3,366,000.00 11,781,003,500 31,977,000.00 $671,517,000 8,473,010,816 482,961,617 
LOP PRODUCTION CURVES

No Action Alternative 

0

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

350 

400 

450 

500 

550 

600 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920 21222324252627282930313233 34

Production Year Number 

Th ou san d s of MMCF 

533 Existing Wells 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative (250 Wells/Year Development Rate)

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate 

Condensate Production NG Production Discount Factor Condensate Discount Factor Labor Earn

Total Production for Year 3,500.00 $21 PV of LOP Production PV of LOP Production 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

99,548.36 348,419,248.68 945,709.39 $19,859,897 1 0.966184 336,636,955.25 1 0.966184 19,188,306.45 1 

149,457.57 523,101,509.02 1,419,846.95 $29,816,786 2 0.933511 488,320,856.05 2 0.933511 27,834,288.79 2 

187,584.25 656,544,860.69 1,782,050.34 $37,423,057 3 0.901943 592,165,848.04 3 0.901943 33,753,453.34 3 

219,562.60 768,469,092.52 2,085,844.68 $43,802,738 4 0.871442 669,676,417.90 4 0.871442 38,171,555.82 4 

247,608.45 866,629,571.40 2,352,280.27 $49,397,886 5 0.841973 729,678,844.72 5 0.841973 41,591,694.15 5 

272,863.62 955,022,679.10 2,592,204.41 $54,436,293 6 0.813501 776,911,564.78 6 0.813501 44,283,959.19 6 

296,007.47 1,036,026,141.49 2,812,070.96 $59,053,490 7 0.785991 814,307,182.24 7 0.785991 46,415,509.39 7 

317,482.71 1,111,189,498.79 3,016,085.78 $63,337,801 8 0.759412 843,850,146.52 8 0.759412 48,099,458.35 8 

337,855.22 1,182,493,279.38 3,209,624.62 $67,402,117 9 0.733731 867,631,943.48 9 0.733731 49,455,020.78 9 

357,088.34 1,249,809,188.25 3,392,339.23 $71,239,124 10 0.708919 886,013,247.10 10 0.708919 50,502,755.08 10 

375,167.47 1,313,086,145.26 3,564,090.97 $74,845,910 11 0.684946 899,392,726.96 11 0.684946 51,265,385.44 11 

392,161.85 1,372,566,486.61 3,725,537.61 $78,236,290 12 0.661783 908,341,576.63 12 0.661783 51,775,469.87 12 

408,136.57 1,428,478,001.35 3,877,297.43 $81,423,246 13 0.639404 913,374,766.44 13 0.639404 52,062,361.69 13 

323,604.45 1,132,615,574.91 3,074,242.27 $64,559,088 14 0.617782 699,709,277.56 14 0.617782 39,883,428.82 14 

287,810.49 1,007,336,727.34 2,734,199.69 $57,418,193 15 0.596891 601,269,842.35 15 0.596891 34,272,381.01 15 

262,952.17 920,332,582.98 2,498,045.58 $52,458,957 16 0.576706 530,761,241.35 16 0.576706 30,253,390.76 16 

243,446.06 852,061,202.31 2,312,737.55 $48,567,489 17 0.557204 474,771,722.24 17 0.557204 27,061,988.17 17 

227,124.12 794,934,403.39 2,157,679.09 $45,311,261 18 0.538361 427,961,791.28 18 0.538361 24,393,822.10 18 

212,889.42 745,112,953.33 2,022,449.44 $42,471,438 19 0.520156 387,574,742.66 19 0.520156 22,091,760.33 19 

200,104.81 700,366,848.25 1,900,995.73 $39,920,910 20 0.502566 351,980,484.52 20 0.502566 20,062,887.62 20 

188,367.26 659,285,406.11 1,789,488.96 $37,579,268 21 0.485571 320,129,809.87 21 0.485571 18,247,399.16 21 

177,148.18 620,018,626.42 1,682,907.70 $35,341,062 22 0.469151 290,882,129.67 22 0.469151 16,580,281.39 22 

166,519.28 582,817,496.55 1,581,933.20 $33,220,597 23 0.453286 264,182,798.19 23 0.453286 15,058,419.50 23 

156,528.12 547,848,430.68 1,487,017.17 $31,227,361 24 0.437957 239,934,128.51 24 0.437957 13,676,245.32 24 

147,136.43 514,977,506.98 1,397,796.09 $29,353,718 25 0.423147 217,911,181.62 25 0.423147 12,420,937.35 25 

138,308.24 484,078,844.91 1,313,928.29 $27,592,494 26 0.408838 197,909,667.43 26 0.408838 11,280,851.04 26 

130,009.74 455,034,104.32 1,235,092.57 $25,936,944 27 0.395012 179,744,041.88 27 0.395012 10,245,410.39 27 

122,209.16 427,732,048.17 1,160,986.99 $24,380,727 28 0.381654 163,245,792.71 28 0.381654 9,305,010.18 28 

114,876.60 402,068,115.03 1,091,327.74 $22,917,883 29 0.368748 148,261,875.59 29 0.368748 8,450,926.91 29 

107,984.01 377,944,021.47 1,025,848.06 $21,542,809 30 0.356278 134,653,295.27 30 0.356278 7,675,237.83 30 

101,504.96 355,267,372.58 964,297.15 $20,250,240 31 0.34423 122,293,811.44 31 0.34423 6,970,747.25 31 

95,414.66 333,951,324.35 906,439.31 $19,035,225 32 0.33259 111,068,773.65 32 0.33259 6,330,920.10 32 

89,689.78 313,914,239.86 852,052.94 $17,893,112 33 0.321343 100,874,053.68 33 0.321343 5,749,821.06 33 

84,308.39 295,079,381.25 800,929.75 $16,819,525 34 0.310476 91,615,081.26 34 0.310476 5,222,059.63 34 

79,249.89 277,374,613.86 752,873.95 $15,810,353 35 0.299977 83,205,966.17 35 0.299977 4,742,740.07 35 

74,494.90 260,732,134.95 707,701.51 $14,861,732 36 0.289833 75,568,702.97 36 0.289833 4,307,416.07 36 

70,025.20 245,088,205.91 665,239.42 $13,970,028 37 0.280032 68,632,444.95 37 0.280032 3,912,049.36 37 

65,823.69 230,382,913.59 625,325.05 $13,131,826 38 0.270562 62,332,848.56 38 0.270562 3,552,972.37 38 

61,874.27 216,559,939.38 587,805.55 $12,343,917 39 0.261413 56,611,476.14 39 0.261413 3,226,854.14 39 

58,161.81 203,566,342.84 552,537.22 $11,603,282 40 0.252572 51,415,253.65 40 0.252572 2,930,669.46 40 

51,847.14 181,464,986.22 492,547.82 $10,343,504 41 0.244031 44,283,149.24 41 0.244031 2,524,139.51 41 

45,911.35 160,689,712.06 436,157.79 $9,159,314 42 0.235779 37,887,275.96 42 0.235779 2,159,574.73 42 
Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative (250 Wells/Year Development Rate)

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate 

Condensate Production NG Production Discount Factor Condensate Discount Factor Labor Earn

Total Production for Year 3,500.00 $21 PV of LOP Production PV of LOP Production 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

40,331.70 141,160,954.45 383,151.16 $8,046,174 43 0.227806 32,157,297.62 43 0.227806 1,832,965.96 43 

35,086.84 122,803,923.39 333,324.93 $6,999,824 44 0.220102 27,029,427.75 44 0.220102 1,540,677.38 44 

30,156.66 105,548,313.98 286,488.28 $6,016,254 45 0.212659 22,445,824.33 45 0.212659 1,279,411.99 45 

25,522.30 89,328,041.16 242,461.83 $5,091,698 46 0.205468 18,354,041.96 46 0.205468 1,046,180.39 46 

21,166.00 74,080,984.60 201,076.96 $4,222,616 47 0.19852 14,706,533.13 47 0.19852 838,272.39 47 

17,071.07 59,748,751.10 162,175.18 $3,405,679 48 0.191806 11,460,195.91 48 0.191806 653,231.17 48 

13,221.84 46,276,451.01 125,607.51 $2,637,758 49 0.18532 8,575,963.13 49 0.18532 488,829.90 49 

9,603.57 33,612,488.91 91,233.90 $1,915,912 50 0.179053 6,018,429.56 50 0.179053 343,050.49 50 

6,202.39 21,708,363.57 58,922.70 $1,237,377 51 0.172998 3,755,512.81 51 0.172998 214,064.23 51 

3,005.28 10,518,485.12 28,550.17 $599,554 52 0.167148 1,758,146.29 52 0.167148 100,214.34 52 

- - - $0 53 0.161496 - 53 0.161496 - 53 

- - - $0 54 0.156035 - 54 0.156035 - 54 

- - - $0 55 0.150758 - 55 0.150758 - 55 

- - - $0 56 0.14566 - 56 0.14566 - 56 

- - - $0 57 0.140734 - 57 0.140734 - 57 

- - - $0 58 0.135975 - 58 0.135975 - 58 

- - - $0 59 0.131377 - 59 0.131377 - 59 

- - - $0 60 0.126934 - 60 0.126934 - 60 

- - - $0 61 0.122642 - 61 0.122642 - 61 

- - - $0 62 0.118495 - 62 0.118495 - 62 

- - - $0 63 0.114487 - 63 0.114487 - 63 

- - - $0 64 0.110616 - 64 0.110616 - 64 

- - - $0 65 0.106875 - 65 0.106875 - 65 

- - - $0 66 0.103261 - 66 0.103261 - 66 

- - - $0 67 0.099769 - 67 0.099769 - 67 

- - - $0 68 0.096395 - 68 0.096395 - 68 

- - - $0 69 0.093136 - 69 0.093136 - 69 

- - - $0 70 0.089986 - 70 0.089986 - 70 

- - - $0 71 0.086943 - 71 0.086943 - 71 

- - - $0 72 0.084003 - 72 0.084003 - 72 

- - - $0 73 0.081162 - 73 0.081162 - 73 

- - - $0 74 0.078418 - 74 0.078418 - 74 

- - - $0 75 0.075766 - 75 0.075766 - 75 

- - - $0 76 0.073204 - 76 0.073204 - 76 

- - - $0 77 0.070728 - 77 0.070728 - 77 

- - - $0 78 0.068336 - 78 0.068336 - 78 

- - - $0 79 0.066026 - 79 0.066026 - 79 

- - - $0 80 0.063793 - 80 0.063793 - 80 

- - - $0 81 0.061636 - 81 0.061636 - 81 

7,947,216.72 27,815,262,020 75,498,558.84 $1,585,469,736 16,409,236,109 935,326,458 
LOP PRODUCTION CURVE Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative 

0

25 50 75 

100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 4

Production Year Number 

Thousands of MMCF 

250 wells 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Alternative A (250 Wells/Year Development Rate)

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate 

Condensate Production NG Production Discount Factor Condensate Discount Factor Labor Earn

Total Production for Year 3,500.00 $21 PV of LOP Production PV of LOP Production 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

102,579.32 359,027,637.20 974,503.59 $20,464,575 1 0.966183575 346,886,605.99 1 0.966183575 19,772,536.54 1 

154,073.65 539,257,775.91 1,463,699.68 $30,737,693 2 0.9335107 503,402,904.06 2 0.9335107 28,693,965.53 2 

193,354.15 676,739,521.41 1,836,864.42 $38,574,153 3 0.901942706 610,380,274.97 3 0.901942706 34,791,675.67 3 

226,280.54 791,981,901.74 2,149,665.16 $45,142,968 4 0.871442228 690,166,472.75 4 0.871442228 39,339,488.95 4 

255,148.33 893,019,149.89 2,423,909.12 $50,902,092 5 0.841973167 751,898,161.69 5 0.841973167 42,858,195.22 5 

281,138.21 983,983,718.45 2,670,812.95 $56,087,072 6 0.813500644 800,471,388.95 6 0.813500644 45,626,869.17 6 

304,951.88 1,067,331,581.41 2,897,042.86 $60,837,900 7 0.785990961 838,912,975.04 7 0.785990961 47,818,039.58 7 

327,046.31 1,144,662,086.96 3,106,939.95 $65,245,739 8 0.759411556 869,269,616.80 8 0.759411556 49,548,368.16 8 

348,039.76 1,218,139,151.79 3,306,377.70 $69,433,932 9 0.733730972 893,786,424.10 9 0.733730972 50,945,826.17 9 

367,870.15 1,287,545,535.90 3,494,766.45 $73,390,096 10 0.708918814 912,765,253.91 10 0.708918814 52,027,619.47 10 

386,510.73 1,352,787,540.45 3,671,851.90 $77,108,890 11 0.684945714 926,586,027.41 11 0.684945714 52,815,403.56 11 

404,032.87 1,414,115,027.86 3,838,312.22 $80,604,557 12 0.661783298 935,837,707.30 12 0.661783298 53,342,749.32 12 

420,503.67 1,471,762,860.66 3,994,784.91 $83,890,483 13 0.639404153 941,051,285.24 13 0.639404153 53,639,923.26 13 

333,406.91 1,166,924,185.42 3,167,365.65 $66,514,679 14 0.61778179 720,904,512.38 14 0.61778179 41,091,557.21 14 

296,466.19 1,037,631,670.46 2,816,428.82 $59,145,005 15 0.596890619 619,352,609.69 15 0.596890619 35,303,098.75 15 

270,866.08 948,031,290.59 2,573,227.79 $54,037,784 16 0.576705912 546,735,249.77 16 0.576705912 31,163,909.24 16 

250,799.25 877,797,389.61 2,382,592.91 $50,034,451 17 0.557203779 489,112,023.07 17 0.557203779 27,879,385.31 17 

234,019.46 819,068,111.77 2,223,184.87 $46,686,882 18 0.53836114 440,954,442.02 18 0.53836114 25,134,403.20 18 

219,392.30 767,873,033.71 2,084,226.81 $43,768,763 19 0.52015569 399,413,527.98 19 0.52015569 22,766,571.09 19 

206,259.57 721,908,489.72 1,959,465.90 $41,148,784 20 0.502565884 362,806,578.61 20 0.502565884 20,679,974.98 20 

194,205.23 679,718,302.52 1,844,949.68 $38,743,943 21 0.485570903 330,051,429.83 21 0.485570903 18,812,931.50 21 

182,649.47 639,273,136.96 1,735,169.94 $36,438,569 22 0.469150631 299,915,395.43 22 0.469150631 17,095,177.54 22 

171,690.50 600,916,737.11 1,631,059.72 $34,252,254 23 0.453285634 272,386,923.91 23 0.453285634 15,526,054.66 23 

161,389.06 564,861,716.50 1,533,196.09 $32,197,118 24 0.437957134 247,385,218.41 24 0.437957134 14,100,957.45 24 

151,705.71 530,969,993.94 1,441,204.27 $30,265,290 25 0.423146989 224,678,354.33 25 0.423146989 12,806,666.20 25 

142,603.37 499,111,780.22 1,354,731.97 $28,449,371 26 0.408837671 204,055,697.69 26 0.408837671 11,631,174.77 26 

134,047.16 469,165,060.86 1,273,448.02 $26,742,408 27 0.395012242 185,325,942.71 27 0.395012242 10,563,578.73 27 

126,004.33 441,015,145.88 1,197,041.11 $25,137,863 28 0.38165434 168,315,344.60 28 0.38165434 9,593,974.64 28 

118,444.06 414,554,225.15 1,125,218.61 $23,629,591 29 0.368748155 152,866,105.66 29 0.368748155 8,713,368.02 29 

111,337.42 389,680,964.37 1,057,705.47 $22,211,815 30 0.356278411 138,834,914.63 30 0.356278411 7,913,590.13 30 

104,657.17 366,300,098.76 994,243.13 $20,879,106 31 0.344230348 126,091,610.62 31 0.344230348 7,187,221.81 31 

98,377.74 344,322,087.37 934,588.52 $19,626,359 32 0.332589709 114,517,982.70 32 0.332589709 6,527,525.01 32 

92,475.07 323,662,759.28 878,513.20 $18,448,777 33 0.321342714 104,006,669.37 33 0.321342714 5,928,380.15 33 

86,926.57 304,242,992.75 825,802.41 $17,341,851 34 0.310476052 94,460,163.18 34 0.310476052 5,384,229.30 34 

81,710.98 285,988,412.78 776,254.26 $16,301,340 35 0.299976862 85,789,906.54 35 0.299976862 4,890,024.67 35 

76,808.32 268,829,109.36 729,679.01 $15,323,259 36 0.289832717 77,915,471.06 36 0.289832717 4,441,181.85 36 

72,199.82 252,699,365.37 685,898.28 $14,403,864 37 0.28003161 70,763,810.19 37 0.28003161 4,033,537.18 37 

67,867.83 237,537,407.17 644,744.39 $13,539,632 38 0.270561942 64,268,582.24 38 0.270561942 3,663,309.19 38 

63,795.76 223,285,166.72 606,059.74 $12,727,255 39 0.261412505 58,369,534.67 39 0.261412505 3,327,063.48 39 

59,968.02 209,888,059.47 569,696.16 $11,963,619 40 0.252572468 53,011,945.22 40 0.252572468 3,021,680.88 40 

53,457.24 187,100,350.70 507,843.81 $10,664,720 41 0.24403137 45,658,354.95 41 0.24403137 2,602,526.23 41 

47,337.12 165,679,905.80 449,702.60 $9,443,755 42 0.235779102 39,063,859.36 42 0.235779102 2,226,639.98 42 
Alternative A (250 Wells/Year Development Rate)

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate 

Condensate Production NG Production Discount Factor Condensate Discount Factor Labor Earn

Total Production for Year 3,500.00 $21 PV of LOP Production PV of LOP Production 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

41,584.20 145,544,687.23 395,049.87 $8,296,047 43 0.227805895 33,155,937.79 43 0.227805895 1,889,888.45 43 36,176.45 126,617,582.53 343,676.30 $7,217,202 44 0.220102314 27,868,822.95 44 0.220102314 1,588,522.91 44 

31,093.17 108,826,103.42 295,385.14 $6,203,088 45 0.212659241 23,142,876.54 45 0.212659241 1,319,143.96 45 

26,314.89 92,102,112.54 249,991.45 $5,249,820 46 0.205467866 18,924,024.48 46 0.205467866 1,078,669.40 46 

21,823.30 76,381,560.72 207,321.38 $4,353,749 47 0.198519677 15,163,242.76 47 0.198519677 864,304.84 47 

17,601.21 61,604,241.42 167,211.51 $3,511,442 48 0.191806451 11,816,090.92 48 0.191806451 673,517.18 48 

13,632.45 47,713,560.58 129,508.24 $2,719,673 49 0.185320243 8,842,288.62 49 0.185320243 504,010.45 49 

9,901.81 34,656,320.63 94,067.16 $1,975,410 50 0.179053375 6,205,331.16 50 0.179053375 353,703.88 50 

6,395.00 22,382,513.97 60,752.54 $1,275,803 51 0.172998429 3,872,139.76 51 0.172998429 220,711.97 51 

3,098.61 10,845,135.36 29,436.80 $618,173 52 0.167148241 1,812,745.30 52 0.167148241 103,326.48 52 

- - - $0 53 0.161495885 - 53 0.161495885 - 53 

- - - $0 54 0.156034672 - 54 0.156034672 - 54 

- - - $0 55 0.150758137 - 55 0.150758137 - 55 

- - - $0 56 0.145660036 - 56 0.145660036 - 56 

- - - $0 57 0.140734334 - 57 0.140734334 - 57 

- - - $0 58 0.135975202 - 58 0.135975202 - 58 

- - - $0 59 0.131377007 - 59 0.131377007 - 59 

- - - $0 60 0.126934306 - 60 0.126934306 - 60 

- - - $0 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 - 61 

- - - $0 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 - 62 

- - - $0 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 - 63 

- - - $0 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 - 64 

- - - $0 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 - 65 

- - - $0 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 - 66 

- - - $0 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 - 67 

- - - $0 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 - 68 

- - - $0 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 - 69 

- - - $0 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 - 70 

- - - $0 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 - 71 

- - - $0 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 - 72 

- - - $0 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 - 73 

- - - $0 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 - 74 

- - - $0 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 - 75 

- - - $0 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 - 76 

- - - $0 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 - 77 

- - - $0 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 - 78 

- - - $0 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 - 79 

- - - $0 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 - 80 

- - - $0 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 - 81 

8,190,018.36 28,665,067,758 77,805,174.42 $1,633,908,663 16,909,230,759 963,826,153 
LOP PRODUCTION CURVE

Alternative A 

0

50 

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 

Production Year Number 

Th ou san d s of MMCF 

250 Wells 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Alternative B (75 Wells/Year Development Rate)

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate 

Condensate Production NG Production Discount Factor Condensate Discount Factor Labor Ea

Total Production for Year 3,500.00 $21 PV of LOP Production PV of LOP Production 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

24,931.03 87,258,622.01 236,844.83 $4,973,741 1 0.966184 84,307,847.35 1 0.966184 4,805,547.30 1 

37,430.36 131,006,254.73 355,588.41 $7,467,357 2 0.933511 122,295,740.61 2 0.933511 6,970,857.21 2 

46,978.85 164,425,962.98 446,299.04 $9,372,280 3 0.901943 148,302,797.93 3 0.901943 8,453,259.48 3 

54,987.54 192,456,396.70 522,381.65 $10,970,015 4 0.871442 167,714,631.08 4 0.871442 9,559,733.97 4 

62,011.38 217,039,819.73 589,108.08 $12,371,270 5 0.841973 182,741,704.35 5 0.841973 10,416,277.15 5 

68,336.31 239,177,090.79 649,194.96 $13,633,094 6 0.813501 194,570,717.46 6 0.813501 11,090,530.90 6 

74,132.48 259,463,690.43 704,258.59 $14,789,430 7 0.785991 203,936,115.31 7 0.785991 11,624,358.57 7 

79,510.77 278,287,687.35 755,352.29 $15,862,398 8 0.759412 211,334,885.73 8 0.759412 12,046,088.49 8 

84,612.88 296,145,089.37 803,822.39 $16,880,270 9 0.733731 217,290,824.33 9 0.733731 12,385,576.99 9 

89,429.65 313,003,764.76 849,581.65 $17,841,215 10 0.708919 221,894,257.60 10 0.708919 12,647,972.68 10 

93,957.41 328,850,920.30 892,595.36 $18,744,502 11 0.684946 225,245,028.32 11 0.684946 12,838,966.61 11 

98,213.50 343,747,246.95 933,028.24 $19,593,593 12 0.661783 227,486,186.87 12 0.661783 12,966,712.65 12 

102,214.23 357,749,792.47 971,035.15 $20,391,738 13 0.639404 228,746,703.01 13 0.639404 13,038,562.07 13 

105,974.91 370,912,184.85 1,006,761.64 $21,141,995 14 0.617782 229,142,793.59 14 0.617782 13,061,139.23 14 

109,509.95 383,284,833.65 1,040,344.55 $21,847,236 15 0.596891 228,779,121.47 15 0.596891 13,040,409.92 15 

112,832.89 394,915,123.35 1,071,912.48 $22,510,162 16 0.576706 227,749,886.26 16 0.576706 12,981,743.52 16 

115,956.46 405,847,594.74 1,101,586.33 $23,133,313 17 0.557204 226,139,813.66 17 0.557204 12,889,969.38 17 

118,892.61 416,124,117.81 1,129,479.75 $23,719,075 18 0.538361 224,025,054.26 18 0.538361 12,769,428.09 18 

121,652.59 425,784,049.12 1,155,699.56 $24,269,691 19 0.520156 221,473,996.02 19 0.520156 12,624,017.77 19 

124,246.97 434,864,384.33 1,180,346.19 $24,787,270 20 0.502566 218,548,003.92 20 0.502566 12,457,236.22 20 

126,685.69 443,399,899.25 1,203,514.01 $25,273,794 21 0.485571 215,302,089.39 21 0.485571 12,272,219.10 21 

128,978.08 451,423,283.43 1,225,291.77 $25,731,127 22 0.469151 211,785,518.16 22 0.469151 12,071,774.54 22 

131,132.93 458,965,264.11 1,245,762.86 $26,161,020 23 0.453286 208,042,360.53 23 0.453286 11,858,414.55 23 

133,158.49 466,054,725.66 1,265,005.68 $26,565,119 24 0.437957 204,111,991.89 24 0.437957 11,634,383.54 24 

135,062.52 472,718,819.51 1,283,093.94 $26,944,973 25 0.423147 200,029,545.25 25 0.423147 11,401,684.08 25 

136,852.31 478,983,067.76 1,300,096.90 $27,302,035 26 0.408838 195,826,321.77 26 0.408838 11,162,100.34 26 

138,534.70 484,871,461.14 1,316,079.68 $27,637,673 27 0.395012 191,530,163.10 27 0.395012 10,917,219.30 27 

140,116.16 490,406,550.89 1,331,103.50 $27,953,173 28 0.381654 187,165,788.71 28 0.381654 10,668,449.96 28 

141,602.72 495,609,534.99 1,345,225.88 $28,249,743 29 0.368748 182,755,101.61 29 0.368748 10,417,040.79 29 

143,000.10 500,500,340.01 1,358,500.92 $28,528,519 30 0.356278 178,317,465.65 30 0.356278 10,164,095.54 30 

144,313.63 505,097,696.46 1,370,979.46 $28,790,569 31 0.34423 173,869,956.03 31 0.34423 9,910,587.49 31 

145,548.35 509,419,211.58 1,382,709.29 $29,036,895 32 0.33259 169,427,587.14 32 0.33259 9,657,372.47 32 

146,708.98 513,481,435.78 1,393,735.33 $29,268,442 33 0.321343 165,003,517.97 33 0.321343 9,405,200.52 33 

147,799.98 517,299,926.56 1,404,099.80 $29,486,096 34 0.310476 160,609,238.80 34 0.310476 9,154,726.61 34 

148,825.52 520,889,307.98 1,413,842.41 $29,690,691 35 0.299977 156,254,739.88 35 0.299977 8,906,520.17 35 

149,789.52 524,263,326.66 1,423,000.46 $29,883,010 36 0.289833 151,948,664.17 36 0.289833 8,661,073.86 36 

150,695.69 527,434,904.22 1,431,609.03 $30,063,790 37 0.280032 147,698,445.52 37 0.280032 8,418,811.39 37 

151,547.48 530,416,187.37 1,439,701.08 $30,233,723 38 0.270562 143,510,433.85 38 0.270562 8,180,094.73 38 

152,348.17 533,218,593.69 1,447,307.61 $30,393,460 39 0.261413 139,390,008.07 39 0.261413 7,945,230.46 39 

153,100.82 535,852,855.48 1,454,457.75 $30,543,613 40 0.252572 135,341,678.30 40 0.252572 7,714,475.66 40 

128,169.78 448,594,233.47 1,217,612.92 $25,569,871 41 0.244031 109,471,065.47 41 0.244031 6,239,850.73 41 

115,670.46 404,846,600.75 1,098,869.34 $23,076,256 42 0.235779 95,454,367.84 42 0.235779 5,440,898.97 42 
Alternative B (75 Wells/Year Development Rate)

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate 

Condensate Production NG Production Discount Factor Condensate Discount Factor Labor Ea

Total Production for Year 3,500.00 $21 PV of LOP Production PV of LOP Production 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

106,121.97 371,426,892.50 1,008,158.71 $21,171,333 43 0.227806 84,613,235.80 43 0.227806 4,822,954.44 43 

98,113.27 343,396,458.77 932,076.10 $19,573,598 44 0.220102 75,582,355.31 44 0.220102 4,308,194.25 44 

91,089.44 318,813,035.75 865,349.67 $18,172,343 45 0.212659 67,798,538.17 45 0.212659 3,864,516.68 45 

84,764.50 296,675,764.69 805,262.79 $16,910,519 46 0.205468 60,957,336.15 46 0.205468 3,474,568.16 46 

78,968.33 276,389,165.05 750,199.16 $15,754,182 47 0.19852 54,868,687.75 47 0.19852 3,127,515.20 47 

73,590.05 257,565,168.13 699,105.46 $14,681,215 48 0.191806 49,402,660.83 48 0.191806 2,815,951.67 48 

68,487.93 239,707,766.11 650,635.37 $13,663,343 49 0.18532 44,422,701.38 49 0.18532 2,532,093.98 49 

63,671.17 222,849,090.72 604,876.10 $12,702,398 50 0.179053 39,901,881.70 50 0.179053 2,274,407.26 50 

59,143.41 207,001,935.17 561,862.40 $11,799,110 51 0.172998 35,811,009.69 51 0.172998 2,041,227.55 51 

54,887.32 192,105,608.53 521,429.51 $10,950,020 52 0.167148 32,110,114.56 52 0.167148 1,830,276.53 52 

50,886.59 178,103,063.01 483,422.60 $10,151,875 53 0.161496 28,762,911.80 53 0.161496 1,639,485.97 53 

47,125.91 164,940,670.63 447,696.11 $9,401,618 54 0.156035 25,736,463.37 54 0.156035 1,466,978.41 54 

43,590.86 152,568,021.83 414,113.20 $8,696,377 55 0.150758 23,000,870.70 55 0.150758 1,311,049.63 55 

40,267.92 140,937,732.13 382,545.27 $8,033,451 56 0.14566 20,528,995.07 56 0.14566 1,170,152.72 56 

37,144.36 130,005,260.74 352,871.42 $7,410,300 57 0.140734 18,296,203.77 57 0.140734 1,042,883.61 57 

34,208.21 119,728,737.67 324,978.00 $6,824,538 58 0.135975 16,280,139.27 58 0.135975 927,967.94 58 

31,448.23 110,068,806.36 298,758.19 $6,273,922 59 0.131377 14,460,510.30 59 0.131377 824,249.09 59 

28,853.85 100,988,471.15 274,111.56 $5,756,343 60 0.126934 12,818,901.49 60 0.126934 730,677.38 60 

26,415.13 92,452,956.23 250,943.74 $5,269,819 61 0.122642 11,338,600.80 61 0.122642 646,300.25 61 

24,122.73 84,429,572.04 229,165.98 $4,812,486 62 0.118495 10,004,442.69 62 0.118495 570,253.23 62 

21,967.88 76,887,591.37 208,694.89 $4,382,593 63 0.114487 8,802,665.91 63 0.114487 501,751.96 63 

19,942.32 69,798,129.82 189,452.07 $3,978,493 64 0.110616 7,720,783.94 64 0.110616 440,084.68 64 

18,038.30 63,134,035.96 171,363.81 $3,598,640 65 0.106875 6,747,467.74 65 0.106875 384,605.66 65 

16,248.51 56,869,787.72 154,360.85 $3,241,578 66 0.103261 5,872,439.09 66 0.103261 334,729.03 66 

14,566.11 50,981,394.34 138,378.07 $2,905,939 67 0.099769 5,086,373.79 67 0.099769 289,923.31 67 

12,984.66 45,446,304.59 123,354.26 $2,590,439 68 0.096395 4,380,813.74 68 0.096395 249,706.38 68 

11,498.09 40,243,320.49 109,231.87 $2,293,869 69 0.093136 3,748,087.07 69 0.093136 213,640.96 69 

10,100.72 35,352,515.47 95,956.83 $2,015,093 70 0.089986 3,181,235.61 70 0.089986 181,330.43 70 

8,787.19 30,755,159.02 83,478.29 $1,753,044 71 0.086943 2,673,949.13 71 0.086943 152,415.10 71 

7,552.47 26,433,643.90 71,748.46 $1,506,718 72 0.084003 2,220,505.48 72 0.084003 126,568.81 72 

6,391.83 22,371,419.70 60,722.42 $1,275,171 73 0.081162 1,815,716.38 73 0.081162 103,495.83 73 

5,300.84 18,552,928.92 50,357.95 $1,057,517 74 0.078418 1,454,878.06 74 0.078418 82,928.05 74 

4,275.30 14,963,547.50 40,615.34 $852,922 75 0.075766 1,133,726.59 75 0.075766 64,622.42 75 

3,311.29 11,589,528.82 31,457.29 $660,603 76 0.073204 848,397.14 76 0.073204 48,358.64 76 

2,405.13 8,417,951.26 22,848.72 $479,823 77 0.070728 595,387.17 77 0.070728 33,937.07 77 

1,553.33 5,436,668.11 14,756.67 $309,890 78 0.068336 371,522.86 78 0.068336 21,176.80 78 

752.65	 2,634,261.78 7,150.14 $150,153 79 0.066026 173,928.72 79 0.066026 9,913.94 79 

- - - $0 80 0.063793 - 80 0.063793 - 80 

- - - $0 81 0.061636 - 81 0.061636 - 81 

6,124,032.63 21,434,117,719 58,178,310.02 1,221,744,510 8,518,096,597	 485,531,506 
LOP PRODUCTION CURVE

Alternative B 

0

20 40 60 80 

100 120 140 160 

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 

Production Year Number 

Th ou san d s of MMCF 75 Wells 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
APPENDIX B


Economic Analysis Methodology

.

Appendix B B-1 

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 

CPI AND INFLATION FACTORS 

The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis reports data adjusted to current dollars using the Consumer Price 

Index (CPI). CPI data, a measure of the average change in prices over time for a variety of goods and 

services, were obtained from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (2003, 2005). The BLS uses the 

following formula to compute the inflation factor and current year dollars. 

Inflation Factor = (Current Year CPI / Year “X” CPI) 

Current Year Dollars = Year “X” Dollars x Inflation Factor 

The CPI values and inflation factors used by Sonoran Institute Economic Profile System and applied in this 

document are listed in Table B.1. 

Table B.A.1. CPI and Inflation Factors, 1980–20041 

Year CPI Inflation Factor2 

1980 82.4 2.09 

1981 90.9 1.89 

1982 96.5 1.78 

1983 99.6 1.73 

1984 103.9 1.66 

1985 107.6 1.60 

1986 109.6 1.57 

1987 113.6 1.52 

1988 118.3 1.46 

1989 124.0 1.39 

1990 130.7 1.32 

1991 136.2 1.26 

1992 140.3 1.23 

Year CPI Inflation Factor2 

1993 144.5 1.19 

1994 148.2 1.16 

1995 152.4 1.13 

1996 156.9 1.10 

1997 160.5 1.07 

1998 163.0 1.06 

1999 166.6 1.03 

2000 3 172.2 1.00 

2001 177.1 0.97 

2002 179.9 0.96 

2003 184.0 0.94 

2004 188.9 0.91 

1 Data for 1980–2002 obtained from BLS (2003); data for 2003–2004 obtained from BLS (2005). 2 Inflation Factor = CPI current year/year “X” CPI. 3 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). 

GENERAL METHODS OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 

Time Series and Cross-Sectional Analysis 

In economic analysis, the two most commonly used tools are time series analysis and cross-sectional 

comparisons. Time series analysis, as the name implies, involves plotting data trends over time for one 

or more geographic areas or other units (e.g., industries) of analysis. Options for the nature of this 

analysis include nominal data (i.e., the actual numbers), percentage change over time from some base 

year (e.g., where the base year figure is converted to 100), and the ratio between two figures (e.g., a 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
B-2 Appendix B 

state’s per capita income as a percentage of the national figure). Time series analysis provides the basis 

for understanding how an economy is evolving over time, and in relation to other areas. While time 

series tracks trends over time, cross-sectional analysis examines the distribution of one variable in 

relation to other variables at one point in time. Typical visual tools include bar graphs and pie charts. 

Examples of cross-sectional analysis include the distribution of jobs by industry, of population by race, 

and of income by source. Cross-sectional analysis allows an understanding of the economic structure. 

Location Quotient 

Location quotients are used to measure the extent to which the contribution of one subgroup of 

economic factors (e.g., an industry, occupational group) to a regional economy is greater or lesser than 

the contribution of that subgroup to a larger, reference economy (usually, the U.S.). For instance, if the 

manufacturing sector provided 18% of all jobs in a region, and the U.S. figure was 15%, the location 

quotient would be 1.2 (i.e., 18/15). When used to measure industry concentration, a location quotient is 

taken as a rough indicator of a region’s competitiveness in that industry. The higher the location 

quotient, the greater the competitive advantage a region appears to have. Plotting location quotients 

over time for key industries in an economic base is one visual way to gauge changes in relative 

competitiveness. 

However, the location quotient can be spurious. For example, if a region suffers a major job loss with 

the closure of a large employer that is not replaced, other economic base industries’ share of total jobs 

(and their location quotients) would rise even if their employment is stable, because the total number of 

jobs (the denominator) has fallen. In this case, an apparent increase in competitiveness is in fact 

illusory. 

To assess the importance of major industries as a basic industry, BLM calculated location quotients on 

nine major industries as listed in Table B.2 (BLM 2003). A location quotient was calculated for both 

employment and income and compares each industry’s share of total local employment or income (PFO 

area) to the industry’s state or national share. This quotient yields a value generally between 0 and 2, 

where 1 indicates an equal share percentage between the local and state or national economies. 

Location quotients greater than 2 indicate a strong industry concentration while those less than 0.50 

indicate a weak concentration. Table B.2 indicates the PFO area mirrors the state’s economy as a whole 

in many ways. However, there are industries that show a stronger concentration in the area compared to 

the state’s economy, including mining, manufacturing, and transportation and utilities. 

Two industries that are weak in this area compared with the state are services and FIRE. When 

compared to the national economy, mining (includes oil and gas) shows an extremely high concentration 

in both employment and earnings. This is true for the earnings in the transportation and utilities sector 

as well. Alternatively, earnings for farm and agriculture services, manufacturing, trade, and FIRE for 

the area show a weak concentration compared to the national economy. 

Shift-Share Analysis 

Shift-share analysis is a means of attributing change in a region’s economy (e.g., change in jobs or 

earnings) to various factors—change in the nation’s economy, the particular industry mix in the region, 

and the competitiveness of the region’s economic base industries compared to similar industries 

elsewhere. Shift-share analysis is complex and if insufficient data exist for particular economic factors, 

the analysis is meaningless. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
1 

Appendix B B-3 

Table B.2. Location Quotients, 20001 

Location Quotient 

Industry Employment Earnings 

Wyoming U.S. Wyoming U.S. 

Farm and Agricultural Services 1.12 1.53 0.43 0.23 

Mining 2.22 26.20 2.09 182.63 

Construction 1.17 1.53 0.99 1.80 

Manufacturing 1.79 0.66 1.78 0.27 

Transportation and Utilities 1.54 1.68 1.21 12.55 

Trade 0.96 0.95 0.78 0.31 

FIRE 0.76 0.65 0.59 0.38 

Services 0.74 0.60 0.60 3.86 

Government 0.90 1.30 0.71 1.53 

Source: BLM (2003). 

Economic Modeling 

Modeling encompasses a variety of analytic approaches, such as input-output (I/O) analysis and 

economic simulation, that forecast how an economy would behave under certain circumstances. These 

circumstances may be a specific event in the regional economy (e.g., opening of a new mill, closure of 

an old one, building of a convention center), a particular type of policy intervention (e.g., change in the 

property tax rate), or macroeconomic in nature (e.g., shift in the prime rate). 

Economic impact analysis is defined as an assessment of change in overall economic activity as a result 

of some change in one or several economic activities. It involves applying a final demand change to a 

predictive I/O model, then analyzing the resulting changes in the economy. This study primarily 

utilizes I/O analysis performed by the UWAED. 

IMPLAN� MODELING SYSTEM 

IMPLAN� (IMpact Analysis for PLANning) was originally developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service (USFS) in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the BLM to 

assist in land and resource management planning (Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 2000). IMPLAN� 

provides estimates of the additional economic activity associated with sales of goods or services. This 

methodology has been packaged, along with the necessary data files, as IMPLAN� Pro by the Minnesota 

IMPLAN Group, Inc. (MIG) of Stillwater, Minnesota, and is the basis for the analysis in this report. Some of 

the conventions used by IMPLAN� are discussed below. 

Database Components 

The IMPLAN� databases consist of two major parts: 1) national-level matrices and tables and 2) economic 

and physical data at the county and/or state level. The national matrices are combined with regional data to 

create a regional model which can be edited to reflect local conditions. For this analysis, UWAED used 

updated calibrated county-specific data to more accurately reflect activities in the study area. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
B-4 Appendix B 

The IMPLAN� data are divided into four main categories: 

1. industry output, 

2. employment, 

3. value added (includes employee compensation), and 

4. final demands. 

Industry output represents the dollar value of an industry’s total production. These data are derived from a 

number of sources including U.S. Census Bureau economic censuses and the BLS employment projections. 

Employment is listed as a single number of jobs for each industry. Theses data are derived from ES202 

employment security data supplemented by county business patterns and Regional Economic Information 

System (REIS) data. All IMPLAN� databases (after 1985) include both full-time and part-time workers in 

employment estimates. 

Value added includes employee compensation, proprietor income, other property type income, and indirect 

business taxes. Employee compensation includes the total payroll costs (including benefits) of each industry 

in the region. Proprietary income consists of payments received by self-employed individuals (includes 

private business owners, doctors, and lawyers). Other property type income consists of payments from rents, 

royalties, dividends, and interest. Indirect business taxes consist primarily of excise and sales taxes paid by 

individuals to businesses. 

Final demands are the dollar value of goods and services purchased by consumers and institutions (federal, 

state, and local government). Personal consumption expenditures are the largest component of final demand, 

and consists of payments by individuals/households to industries for goods and services used for personal 

consumption. IMPLAN� final demands are measured in terms of producer prices. 

Multipliers 

Each industry that produces goods and services generates demands for other goods and services. Other 

producers, in turn, purchase goods and services. These indirect purchases (indirect effects) continue until 

“leakage” from the region (imports, wages, profits, etc.) stop the cycle. These iterations are described by 

multipliers. 

Each of these multiplier types can be calculated for output, employment, and income (value added). Output 

multipliers are derived by dividing the total (direct, indirect, and induced) output effects by the direct output. 

An output multiplier provides an indicator of the total output created (direct, indirect, and induced) for each 

dollar of direct output. 

Income multipliers (or any of the value added components) are derived by dividing the total (direct, indirect, 

and induced) income effects by the direct income. An income multiplier provides an indicator of the total 

income created (direct, indirect, and induced) for each dollar of direct income. 

Employment multipliers are created in the same manner as the income multiplier, but using employment 

rather than income. An employment multiplier provides an indicator of the total jobs (direct, indirect, and 

induced) for each direct job. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Appendix B B-5 

Key Assumptions 

IMPLAN� bases I/O modeling on several assumptions (MIG 2000). 

•	 Constant returns to scale. Production functions are considered linear; if additional output is 

required, all inputs increase proportionately. 

•	 No supply constraints. An industry has unlimited access to raw materials and its output is limited 

only by the demand for its products. 

•	 Fixed commodity input structure. Assumes that price changes will not cause a firm to buy 

substitute goods. This structure assumes that changes in the economy will affect the industry’s 

output, but not the mix of commodities and services it requires to make its product. 

•	 Homogenous sector output. The proportions of all the commodities produced by the industry 

remain the same, regardless of total output (i.e., an industry will not increase the output of one 

product without proportionately increasing the output of all its other products). 

•	 Industry technology. An industry uses the same technology to produce all its products (i.e., an 

industry has a primary or main product and all other products are byproducts of the primary 

product). 

Wyoming Data and Analysis Conventions 

This analysis makes use of a data set representing Wyoming for the Year 2000. All impact amounts 

expressed in 2000 dollars were adjusted to 2002 dollars using IMPLAN deflators based on the BLS’s CPI. 

Through IMPLAN, direct employment from the model was used to estimate all of the associated indirect and 

induced effects. 

APPENDIX B REFERENCES CITED 

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. Data 

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>. Data accessed November 1, 2005. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2003. Supplemental Draft EIS for the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated 

Activity Plan/Draft Green River RMP Amendment. BLM/WY/PL-03/008+1610. Prepared by 

BLM, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming; BLM, Rock Springs Field Office, Rock 

Springs, Wyoming; and BLM, Lander Field Office, Lander, Wyoming. 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 2000. Users Guide. IMPLAN Professional�, Version 2.0 Social 

Accounting and Impact Analysis Software, 2d Edition, June 2000. Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 

Stillwater, Minnesota. 418 pp. 

Final Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project