U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management February 2005 

Pinedale and Rock Springs Field Offices DES-05-05 

DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT,

JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT,

SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING

(Volume 1 of 2) 
MISSION STATEMENT 

It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, and 

productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future 

generations. 

BLM/WY/PL-05/009+1310
January 31, 2005 


Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

COMMENT ADDRESSES 

Please submit written comments to: Jonah Infill Drilling Project Comments 

Bureau of Land Management – Pinedale Field Office 

 PO Box 768 

 Pinedale, WY 82941 

Please submit electronic comments to: WYMail_Jonah_Infill@blm.gov 
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, 

JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT, 

SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 

(Volume 1 of 2) 

Bureau of Land Management 

Wyoming State Office 

Cheyenne, Wyoming

Pinedale Field Office 

Pinedale, Wyoming

and 

Rock Springs Field Office 

Rock Springs, Wyoming 

February 2005 
This page intentionally left blank. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project i 

ABSTRACT 

Environmental Impact Statement, 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming

 (X) Draft ( ) Final

 Lead Agency: Bureau of Land Management 

 Pinedale Field Office

 Pinedale, Wyoming 

 Cooperating Agency: State of Wyoming 

For Further Information, Contact: Carol Kruse 

 Bureau of Land Management 

 432 E. Mill St. 

 Pinedale, WY 82941 

307-367-5352 

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

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

Field through infill drilling among existing wells. The project area is generally located about 32 

miles southeast of Pinedale and 28 miles northwest of Farson in southeastern Sublette County, 

Wyoming. Within the project area boundary there are currently 533 wells permitted or 

committed to from 497 well pads. Wells would be expected to produce for approximately 40 

years; the Life of the Project (from first well drilled to last well plugged and abandoned and 

habitat function restored) is estimated to be up to 110 years. 

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

Environmental Policy Act as a baseline against which other action alternatives can be analyzed. 

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

drilling could continue on State and private leases and would occur on Federal leases to prevent 

drainage of Federal resources. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

disturbance, the Operators have committed to establishing a fund to finance compensatory (offsite) mitigation for impacts that cannot be fully mitigated on-site. Recent communication from 
ii Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

the Operators indicates their willingness to consider other methods of implementing 

compensatory mitigation. 

One action alternative removes some standard restrictions and mitigations to minimize the 

amount of directional drilling required, to remove some wildlife and surface protections, etc., and 

to facilitate additional gas recovery; another limits all drilling to the currently-authorized 497 well 

pads; two others vary the number of wells; three others vary well pad density; and the BLM 

Preferred Alternative combines several of the other alternatives and applies additional mitigation 

and outcome- or performance-based field management objectives. 

The Wyoming State Director is the BLM’s Authorized Officer responsible for preparing this 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project iii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

northwest of Farson, Wyoming. 

The DOI/BLM Pinedale and Rock Springs Field Offices have determined the proposed project 

would constitute a major federal action and therefore requires the preparation of an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). This draft EIS was prepared in accordance with NEPA to 

assess the environmental consequences of the Operator's proposed action and alternative courses 

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

evaluation of impacts resulting from the Proposed Action and reasonable alternatives. 

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

pace of development. 

Currently within the JIDPA, BLM has approved or committed to 497 well pads and 533 wells 

with associated access roads, pipelines, and ancillary facilities. Operation and maintenance of 

these facilities will continue as authorized by existing permits. 

PROPOSED ACTION 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mitigation measures which vary by alternative and propose to fund a Cumulative Impacts 

Mitigation Fund for offsite Compensatory Mitigation (CM) under some alternatives. This fund 

could mitigate adverse impacts within the JIDPA by financing substitution mitigation projects 

outside the JIDPA. As proposed, the fund could be based on the level of surface disturbance 

authorized (e.g., $850/acre over 11,000 acres). Recent communication from the Operators 

indicates their willingness to consider other methods of implementing compensatory mitigation. 
iv Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

SCOPING 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and project hazards; and BLM monitoring and enforcement capability. 

The eight alternatives meet the Purpose and Need of the proposal but vary in response to the key 

issues. Three separate paces of development (75, 150 and 250 wells drilled per year) are analyzed 

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

ALTERNATIVES 

No Action Alternative: Reject Operator’s Proposal 

The No Action Alternative would reject the Operator's Proposed Action and all field-level 

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

existing BLM management protocols could allow new drilling activity. However, the BLM 

cannot predict what level of development would be required to support existing management 

protocols, so for alternative analysis purposes assumed zero new development. The No Action 

alternative serves as a benchmark enabling decision-makers and the public to compare the 

magnitude of environmental consequences across action alternatives. 

Alternative A: Minimize Directional Drilling 

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

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

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

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

Alternative B: Minimize Surface Disturbance 

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

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

disturbance (3,297 acres) while still providing for a higher level of resource recovery within the 

JIDPA. 

Alternatives C and D: Restrict Number of New Wells 

Alternative C limits development to 1,250 new wells and well pads with an estimated total new 

initial surface disturbance of 6,705 acres. Alternative D increases the number of new wells and 

well pads to 2,200, resulting in new surface disturbance of 11,581 acres. Neither alternative 

includes well pad surface density restrictions. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project v 

Alternatives E, F and G: Restrict Well Pad Density 

Alternative E stipulates a maximum of 16 well pads per section (1 well pad/40 acres) with a total 

new initial surface disturbance of approximately 6,386 acres. Alternative F increases well pad 

density to 32 wells per section (1 well pad/20 acres) and results in new surface disturbance of 

10,446 acres. Alternative G increases the density to 64 wells per section (1 well pad/10 acres) 

with 13,898 acres of new surface disturbance. Each alternative assumes up to 3,100 new wells 

would be drilled. 

BLM Preferred Alternative 

Three different surface disturbance allowances per section would be established within different 

areas of the JIDPA, resulting in a total of approximately 7,804 acres of new surface disturbance. 

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

impacts. Monitoring and surveying would be required to determine if objectives are being met. 

An interagency adaptive management working group would be established to monitor the 

effectiveness of development guidelines, mitigation, and monitoring, and to recommend to BLM 

any modifications to these procedures based on monitoring results. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Physical Resources Impacts 

Topography/Water 

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

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

Groundwater and surface water are variable in quality, and the major use is for livestock and 

natural gas development operations (ground water only). Significant impacts to topography are 

expected but not to ground water resources. Surface water resources down-channel from the 

JIDPA could be significantly affected during run-off events under all alternatives. 

Air Quality/Visibility 

Whereas no violations of applicable federal or state air quality regulations are anticipated, 

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

regional Class I airsheds (e.g., Bridger Wilderness Area) under all alternatives (including No 

Action). A detailed analysis of air quality effects is provided in the Draft Air Quality Technical 

Support Document for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Environmental Impact Statement. 

Modeling of air quality and air quality-related value (AQRV) impacts from the BLM Preferred 

Alternative will be run during the draft environmental impact statement public comment period 

and reported in the final environmental impact statement. 

Soils 

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

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

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

alternatives but are not quantified. Modeling to quantify soil impacts across the range of 
vi Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

alternatives will be run during the draft environmental impact statement public comment period 

and results will be reported in the final environmental impact statement. 

Biological Resources Impacts 

Wildlife 

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

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

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

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

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

Monitoring/Protection Plan (see Jonah Infill Drilling Project Development Procedures Technical 

Support Document); however, additional significant impacts to some of these species are 

anticipated. Only under the BLM Preferred Alternative are impacts during the LOP somewhat 

diminished by establishing specific objectives for wildlife attendance/productivity and faster 

restoration of habitat function through reclamation. On-site habitat function should be restored as 

reclamation vegetation nears maturity. 

Threatened & Endangered Species 

T&E species that may occur on or downstream from the JIDPA include the black-footed ferret, 

bald eagle, four Colorado/Green River fish species (Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, 

bonytail chub, and razorback sucker) and the plant Ute ladies' tresses. No impacts to these species 

are anticipated from proposed development under any alternative. 

Plant Cover 

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

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

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

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

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

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

restoration of pre-development plant cover. 

Land Use Impacts 

During the LOP and beyond, the JIDPA would not be as suitable for the historic land uses of 

livestock grazing, wildlife use, and recreation, until on-site habitat function is restored through 

reclamation. 

Cultural & Historic Resources Impacts 

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

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

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

consultation would occur where cultural resource properties may be impacted. If eligible cultural 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project vii 

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

programs would be implemented. 

Socioeconomic Impacts 

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

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

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

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

Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Project Environmental Impact Statements). Significant 

socioeconomic impacts have already occurred in these cities and counties, due in part to oil and 

gas development in the past decade. These impacts included additional work opportunities, 

increased salaries, and increased government revenues, along with growing populations and the 

inherent increase in infrastructure demands on emergency services, medical facilities and 

housing. This project is not likely to create additional, new significant impacts. 

MITIGATION MEASURES 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reclaimed and revegetated. 
viii Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project ix 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

VOLUME 1 

DEAR READER LETTER 

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

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

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

LIST OF MAPS ......................................................................................................................................... xix

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................xxii

LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................................................xxiii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................................ xxix

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

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED...................................................................................................1-3

1.2 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.........................................................1-5

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

1.4 AUTHORIZING ACTIONS AND RELATIONSHIP TO POLICIES, PLANS, 

AND PROGRAMS..........................................................................................................1-6

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

1.4.1.1 Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines and Practices for Surface 

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

1.4.1.2 Conformance with BLM Pinedale and Green River Resource 

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

1.4.2 State and Local Permits, Authorization, and Coordination .............................1-10

CHAPTER 2 — PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, ISSUES AND CONCERNS, AND 

ALTERNATIVES.........................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION............................................................................................2-1

2.1.1 Key Issues...........................................................................................................2-2

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

2.3 FEATURES COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES....................................................2-4

2.4 ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN DETAIL ................................................................2-5

2.5 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE – REJECT OPERATORS’ PROPOSAL......................2-5

2.6 PROPOSED ACTION.....................................................................................................2-8

2.7 ALTERNATIVE A – MINIMIZE DIRECTIONAL DRILLING .................................2-11

2.8 ALTERNATIVE B – MINIMIZE SURFACE DISTURBANCE .................................2-11
x Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

Page 

2.9 ALTERNATIVE C – 1,250 NEW WELLS...................................................................2-14

2.10 ALTERNATIVE D – 2,200 NEW WELLS ..................................................................2-14

2.11 ALTERNATIVE E – 16 WELL PADS/SECTION .......................................................2-16

2.12 ALTERNATIVE F – 32 WELL PADS/SECTION .......................................................2-19

2.13 ALTERNATIVE G – 64 WELL PADS/SECTION.......................................................2-19

2.14 BLM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ..........................................................................2-21

2.14.1 Outcome-Based Performance Objectives.........................................................2-26

2.14.2 General Conditions of Approval, Mitigation, Monitoring, Surveying, and 

Best Management Practices..............................................................................2-27

2.14.2.1Resource Monitoring and Surveying ...................................................2-30

2.14.3 Site-Specific Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Monitoring, Surveying, 

and Best Management Practices .......................................................................2-31

2.14.4 Compensatory Mitigation .................................................................................2-31

2.15 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED 

STUDY..........................................................................................................................2-32

2.16 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.......................................................2-32

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

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

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

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

3.1.3 Topography.......................................................................................................3-20

3.1.4 Geology.............................................................................................................3-20

3.1.4.1 Mineral Resources...............................................................................3-23

3.1.4.2 Geologic Hazards.................................................................................3-28

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

3.1.5 Soils ..................................................................................................................3-30

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

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

3.1.6.2 Ground Water ......................................................................................3-42

3.1.7 Noise and Odor.................................................................................................3-44

3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.......................................................................................3-49

3.2.1 Vegetation.........................................................................................................3-49

3.2.1.1 Plant Communities...............................................................................3-49

3.2.1.2 Riparian and Wetlands Areas ..............................................................3-54

3.2.1.3 Noxious Non-Native, and Invasive Plant Species ...............................3-55

3.2.2 Wildlife and Fisheries.......................................................................................3-56

3.2.2.1 Big Game/Other Mammals..................................................................3-56

3.2.2.2 Birds.....................................................................................................3-58

3.2.2.3 Amphibians and Reptiles.....................................................................3-68

3.2.2.4 Fisheries...............................................................................................3-68

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

Wyoming Sensitive Species..............................................................................3-68

3.2.3.1 Black-footed Ferret..............................................................................3-68

3.2.3.2 Bald Eagle............................................................................................3-70

3.2.3.3 Colorado River Endangered Fish Species............................................3-71
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project xi 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

Page 

3.2.3.4 Ute Ladies'-Tresses..............................................................................3-71

3.2.3.5 BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species.......................................................3-71

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

3.3 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES .............................................................3-75

3.3.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................3-75

3.3.2 Site Types .........................................................................................................3-75

3.3.3 Native American Sensitive Sites and Traditional Cultural Properties..............3-76

3.3.4 Culture Historic Context and Chronology ........................................................3-76

3.3.5 Geomorphology ................................................................................................3-82

3.3.6 Discovered Sites ...............................................................................................3-82

3.3.7 Highly Sensitive Archaeological Locales.........................................................3-83

3.3.7.1 Sand Draw/Bull Draw Divide..............................................................3-83

3.3.7.2 Sand Draw Playa Complex..................................................................3-84

3.3.7.3 Central Sand Draw...............................................................................3-85

3.4 SOCIOECONOMICS....................................................................................................3-87

3.4.1 Study Area ........................................................................................................3-87

3.4.2 Demography .....................................................................................................3-87

3.4.2.1 Population Dynamics and Census Data ...............................................3-87

3.4.2.2 Income, Poverty, and Unemployment .................................................3-90

3.4.2.3 Workforce Age, Gender, and Disabilities............................................3-93

3.4.3 Housing.............................................................................................................3-93

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

3.4.5 Quality of Living ..............................................................................................3-98

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

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

3.4.5.3 Cost of Living and Inflation...............................................................3-103

3.4.5.4 Education ...........................................................................................3-106

3.4.6 Personal Income Trends..................................................................................3-106

3.4.7 Industry and Economy ....................................................................................3-106

3.4.7.1 Overview............................................................................................3-106

3.4.7.2 Wyoming Industry and Industry Employment ..................................3-109

3.4.7.3 Industry Employment ........................................................................3-109

3.4.7.4 Industry Earnings...............................................................................3-113

3.4.8 Taxes and Revenues........................................................................................3-116

3.4.9 Study Area Taxes and Revenues.....................................................................3-124

3.4.9.1 Availability of Information................................................................3-124

3.4.9.2 State Royalties...................................................................................3-124

3.4.9.3 Ad Valorem Valuation and Taxes Levied .........................................3-125

3.4.9.4 Sales, Use, and Lodging Tax Collections..........................................3-125

3.4.10 Grazing Economics.........................................................................................3-125

3.4.10.1Grazing Allotments............................................................................3-125

3.4.10.2Value of Grazing................................................................................3-125

3.4.11 Recreation Economics ...................................................................................3-128

3.4.11.1Nonconsumptive Recreation..............................................................3-128

3.4.11.2Hunting ..............................................................................................3-128

3.4.11.3Value of Recreational Use .................................................................3-130
xii Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

Page 

3.4.12 Environmental Justice.....................................................................................3-132

3.5 LAND USE..................................................................................................................3-132

3.5.1 Land Status/Prior Rights.................................................................................3-132

3.5.2 Livestock/Grazing Management.....................................................................3-135

3.5.3 Recreation .......................................................................................................3-139

3.5.4 Transportation.................................................................................................3-141

3.6 VISUAL RESOURCES...............................................................................................3-141

3.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.....................................................................................3-143

3.8 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION............................................................................3-143

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

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

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

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

4.1.2.1 No Action Alternative..........................................................................4-11

4.1.2.2 Proposed Action...................................................................................4-11

4.1.2.3 Alternative A .......................................................................................4-13

4.1.2.4 Alternative B........................................................................................4-14

4.1.2.5 Alternative C........................................................................................4-15

4.1.2.6 Alternative D .......................................................................................4-16

4.1.2.7 Alternative E........................................................................................4-18

4.1.2.8 Alternative F ........................................................................................4-19

4.1.2.9 Alternative G .......................................................................................4-20

4.1.2.10BLM Preferred Alternative..................................................................4-21

4.1.2.11 Cumulative Impacts............................................................................4-23

4.1.2.12Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................4-26

4.1.3 Topography.......................................................................................................4-26

4.1.3.1 No Action Alternative..........................................................................4-27

4.1.3.2 The Proposed Action ...........................................................................4-27

4.1.3.3 Alternative A .......................................................................................4-27

4.1.3.4 Alternative B........................................................................................4-27

4.1.3.5 Alternative C........................................................................................4-27

4.1.3.6 Alternative D .......................................................................................4-28

4.1.3.7 Alternative E........................................................................................4-28

4.1.3.8 Alternative F ........................................................................................4-28

4.1.3.9 Alternative G .......................................................................................4-28

4.1.3.10BLM Preferred Alternative..................................................................4-28

4.1.3.11Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................4-29

4.1.3.12Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................4-29

4.1.4 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................4-29

4.1.4.1 No Action Alternative..........................................................................4-30

4.1.4.2 The Proposed Action ...........................................................................4-30

4.1.4.3 Alternative A........................................................................................4-30

4.1.4.4 Alternative B........................................................................................4-31

4.1.4.5 Alternative C........................................................................................4-31

4.1.4.6 Alternative D .......................................................................................4-32
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project xiii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

Page 

4.1.4.7 Alternative E........................................................................................4-32

4.1.4.8 Alternative F ........................................................................................4-32

4.1.4.9 Alternative G .......................................................................................4-32

4.1.4.10BLM Preferred Alternative..................................................................4-32

4.1.4.11Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................4-32

4.1.4.12Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................4-33

4.1.5 Geologic Hazards..............................................................................................4-33

4.1.6 Paleontological Resources................................................................................4-33

4.1.6.1 No Action Alternative..........................................................................4-34

4.1.6.2 The Proposed Action ...........................................................................4-34

4.1.6.3 Alternative A .......................................................................................4-34

4.1.6.4 Alternative B........................................................................................4-35

4.1.6.5 Alternative C........................................................................................4-35

4.1.6.6 Alternative D .......................................................................................4-35

4.1.6.7 Alternative E........................................................................................4-35

4.1.6.8 Alternative F ........................................................................................4-35

4.1.6.9 Alternative G .......................................................................................4-35

4.1.6.10BLM Preferred Alternative..................................................................4-36

4.1.6.11Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................4-36

4.1.6.12Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................4-36

4.1.7 Soils ..................................................................................................................4-37

4.1.7.1 No Action Alternative..........................................................................4-38

4.1.7.2 The Proposed Action Alternative ........................................................4-38

4.1.7.3 Alternative A .......................................................................................4-45

4.1.7.4 Alternative B........................................................................................4-45

4.1.7.5 Alternative C........................................................................................4-46

4.1.7.6 Alternative D .......................................................................................4-46

4.1.7.7 Alternative E........................................................................................4-47

4.1.7.8 Alternative F ........................................................................................4-47

4.1.7.9 Alternative G .......................................................................................4-48

4.1.7.10BLM Preferred Alternative.................................................................4-48

4.1.7.11Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................4-49

4.1.7.12 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...........................................................4-50

4.1.8 Surface Water and Ground Water........................................................................4-50

4.1.8.1 No Action Alternative..........................................................................4-53

4.1.8.2 The Proposed Action ...........................................................................4-55

4.1.8.3 Alternative A .......................................................................................4-56

4.1.8.4 Alternative B........................................................................................4-56

4.1.8.5 Alternative C........................................................................................4-57

4.1.8.6 Alternative D .......................................................................................4-57

4.1.8.7 Alternative E........................................................................................4-58

4.1.8.8 Alternative F ........................................................................................4-58

4.1.8.9 Alternative G .......................................................................................4-59

4.1.8.10BLM Preferred Alternative..................................................................4-59

4.1.8.11Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................4-60

4.1.8.12Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................4-61
xiv Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

Page 

4.1.9 Noise and Odor.................................................................................................4-62

4.1.9.1 No Action Alternative..........................................................................4-63

4.1.9.2 The Proposed Action ...........................................................................4-63

4.1.9.3 Alternative A .......................................................................................4-64

4.1.9.4 Alternative B........................................................................................4-64

4.1.9.5 Alternative C........................................................................................4-64

4.1.9.6 Alternative D .......................................................................................4-64

4.1.9.7 Alternative E........................................................................................4-65

4.1.9.8 Alternative F ........................................................................................4-65

4.1.9.9 Alternative G .......................................................................................4-65

4.1.9.10BLM Preferred Alternative..................................................................4-65

4.1.9.11Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................4-66

4.1.9.12Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................4-66

4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.......................................................................................4-66

4.2.1 Vegetation.........................................................................................................4-66

4.2.1.1 No Action Alternative..........................................................................4-67

4.2.1.2 The Proposed Action ...........................................................................4-67

4.2.1.3 Alternative A .......................................................................................4-69

4.2.1.4 Alternative B........................................................................................4-69

4.2.1.5 Alternative C........................................................................................4-70

4.2.1.6 Alternative D .......................................................................................4-70

4.2.1.7 Alternative E........................................................................................4-71

4.2.1.8 Alternative F ........................................................................................4-71

4.2.1.9 Alternative G .......................................................................................4-72

4.2.1.10BLM Preferred Alternative..................................................................4-72

4.2.1.11Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................4-73

4.2.1.12Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................4-74

4.2.2 Wildlife and Fisheries.......................................................................................4-75

4.2.2.1 No Action Alternative..........................................................................4-87

4.2.2.2 The Proposed Action ...........................................................................4-87

4.2.2.3 Alternative A .......................................................................................4-88

4.2.2.4 Alternative B........................................................................................4-88

4.2.2.5 Alternative C........................................................................................4-88

4.2.2.6 Alternative D .......................................................................................4-88

4.2.2.7 Alternative E........................................................................................4-89

4.2.2.8 Alternative F ........................................................................................4-89

4.2.2.9 Alternative G .......................................................................................4-89

4.2.2.10BLM Preferred Alternative..................................................................4-89

4.2.2.11Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................4-90

4.2.2.12Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................4-94

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

Sensitive Species...............................................................................................4-94

4.2.3.1 No Action Alternative..........................................................................4-96

4.2.3.2 The Proposed Action ...........................................................................4-96

4.2.3.3 Alternative A .......................................................................................4-97

4.2.3.4 Alternative B........................................................................................4-97
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project xv 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

Page 

4.2.3.5 Alternative C........................................................................................4-97

4.2.3.6 Alternative D .......................................................................................4-98

4.2.3.7 Alternative E........................................................................................4-98

4.2.3.8 Alternative F ........................................................................................4-98

4.2.3.9 Alternative G .......................................................................................4-98

4.2.3.10BLM Preferred Alternative..................................................................4-99

4.2.3.11Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................4-99

4.2.3.12Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................4-99

4.2.4 Wild Horses....................................................................................................4-100

4.2.4.1 No Action Alternative........................................................................4-100

4.2.4.2 The Proposed Action .........................................................................4-100

4.2.4.3 Alternative A .....................................................................................4-100

4.2.4.4 Alternative B......................................................................................4-101

4.2.4.5 Alternative C......................................................................................4-101

4.2.4.6 Alternative D .....................................................................................4-101

4.2.4.7 Alternative E......................................................................................4-101

4.2.4.8 Alternative F ......................................................................................4-101

4.2.4.9 Alternative G .....................................................................................4-101

4.2.4.10BLM Preferred Alternative................................................................4-102

4.2.4.11Cumulative Impacts...........................................................................4-102

4.2.4.12Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...........................................................4-102

4.3 CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES......................................................4-102

4.3.1 No Action Alternative.....................................................................................4-105

4.3.2 The Proposed Action ......................................................................................4-105

4.3.3 Alternative A ..................................................................................................4-106

4.3.4 Alternative B...................................................................................................4-106

4.3.5 Alternative C...................................................................................................4-106

4.3.6 Alternative D ..................................................................................................4-106

4.3.7 Alternative E...................................................................................................4-106

4.3.8 Alternative F ...................................................................................................4-106

4.3.9 Alternative G ..................................................................................................4-107

4.3.10 BLM Preferred Alternative.............................................................................4-107

4.3.11 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................4-107

4.3.12 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts........................................................................4-108

4.4 SOCIOECONOMICS..................................................................................................4-108

4.4.1 No Action Alternative.....................................................................................4-117

4.4.2 Proposed Action.................................................................................................4-120

4.4.3 Alternative A ..................................................................................................4-120

4.4.4 Alternative B...................................................................................................4-121

4.4.5 Alternative C...................................................................................................4-122

4.4.6 Alternative D ..................................................................................................4-123

4.4.7 Alternative E...................................................................................................4-124

4.4.8 Alternative F ...................................................................................................4-125

4.4.9 Alternative G ..................................................................................................4-125

4.4.10 BLM Preferred Alternative.............................................................................4-126

4.4.11 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................4-127
xvi Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

Page 

4.4.12 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts........................................................................4-128

4.4.13 Environmental Justice.....................................................................................4-128

4.5 LAND USE..................................................................................................................4-128

4.5.1 Status/Ownership............................................................................................4-130

4.5.1.1 No Action Alternative........................................................................4-130

4.5.1.2 The Proposed Action .........................................................................4-130

4.5.1.3 Alternative A .....................................................................................4-130

4.5.1.4 Alternative B......................................................................................4-130

4.5.1.5 Alternative C......................................................................................4-131

4.5.1.6 Alternative D .....................................................................................4-131

4.5.1.7 Alternative E......................................................................................4-131

4.5.1.8 Alternative F ......................................................................................4-131

4.5.1.9 Alternative G .....................................................................................4-131

4.5.1.10BLM Preferred Alternative................................................................4-131

4.5.1.11Cumulative Impacts...........................................................................4-132

4.5.1.12Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...........................................................4-132

4.5.2 Livestock/Grazing Management.....................................................................4-132

4.5.2.1 No Action Alternative........................................................................4-134

4.5.2.2 The Proposed Action .........................................................................4-134

4.5.2.3 Alternative A .....................................................................................4-134

4.5.2.4 Alternative B......................................................................................4-134

4.5.2.5 Alternative C......................................................................................4-135

4.5.2.6 Alternative D .....................................................................................4-135

4.5.2.7 Alternative E......................................................................................4-135

4.5.2.8 Alternative F ......................................................................................4-135

4.5.2.9 Alternative G .....................................................................................4-136

4.5.2.10BLM Preferred Alternative................................................................4-136

4.5.2.11Cumulative Impacts...........................................................................4-136

4.5.2.12Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...........................................................4-136

4.5.3 Recreation .......................................................................................................4-136

4.5.3.1 No Action Alternative........................................................................4-137

4.5.3.2 The Proposed Action .........................................................................4-137

4.5.3.3 Alternative A .....................................................................................4-137

4.5.3.4 Alternative B......................................................................................4-138

4.5.3.5 Alternative C......................................................................................4-138

4.5.3.6 Alternative D .....................................................................................4-138

4.5.3.7 Alternatives E, F, and G.....................................................................4-138

4.5.3.8 BLM Preferred Alternative................................................................4-138

4.5.3.9 Cumulative Impacts...........................................................................4-139

4.5.3.10Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...........................................................4-139

4.5.4 Transportation.................................................................................................4-139

4.5.4.1 No Action Alternative........................................................................4-141

4.5.4.2 The Proposed Action .........................................................................4-141

4.5.4.3 Alternative A .....................................................................................4-141

4.5.4.4 Alternative B......................................................................................4-142

4.5.4.5 Alternative C......................................................................................4-142
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project xvii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

Page 

4.5.4.6 Alternative D .....................................................................................4-143

4.5.4.7 Alternative E......................................................................................4-143

4.5.4.8 Alternative F ......................................................................................4-143

4.5.4.9 Alternative G .....................................................................................4-143

4.5.4.10BLM Preferred Alternative................................................................4-143

4.5.4.11Cumulative Impacts...........................................................................4-144

4.5.4.12Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...........................................................4-144

4.6 VISUAL RESOURCES...............................................................................................4-144

4.6.1 No Action Alternative.....................................................................................4-145

4.6.2 The Proposed Action ......................................................................................4-145

4.6.3 Alternative A ..................................................................................................4-145

4.6.4 Alternative B...................................................................................................4-145

4.6.5 Alternative C...................................................................................................4-146

4.6.6 Alternative D ..................................................................................................4-146

4.6.7 Alternative E...................................................................................................4-146

4.6.8 Alternative F ...................................................................................................4-146

4.6.9 Alternative G ..................................................................................................4-146

4.6.10 BLM Preferred Alternative.............................................................................4-146

4.6.11 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................4-147

4.6.12 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts........................................................................4-147

4.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.....................................................................................4-147

4.7.1 No Action Alternative.....................................................................................4-149

4.7.2 The Proposed Action ......................................................................................4-149

4.7.3 Alternative A ..................................................................................................4-149

4.7.4 Alternative B...................................................................................................4-150

4.7.5 Alternative C...................................................................................................4-150

4.7.6 Alternative D ..................................................................................................4-150

4.7.7 Alternative E...................................................................................................4-150

4.7.8 Alternative F ...................................................................................................4-150

4.7.9 Alternative G ..................................................................................................4-151

4.7.10 BLM Preferred Alternative.............................................................................4-151

4.7.11 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................4-151

4.7.12 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts........................................................................4-151

4.8 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION............................................................................4-151

4.8.1 Operator-proposed CM...................................................................................4-152

4.8.2 BLM Preferred Alternative CM......................................................................4-154

4.9 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES.....4-154

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

PRODUCTIVITY........................................................................................................4-154

CHAPTER 5 — ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL MITIGATION, MONITORING MEASURES 

AND COMPENSATORY MITIGATION IDEAS.......................................................................5-1

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

5.1.1 Air Quality ..........................................................................................................5-1

5.1.2 Topography.........................................................................................................5-2

5.1.3 Paleontology .......................................................................................................5-2
xviii Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

Page 

5.1.4 Soil Resources.....................................................................................................5-2

5.1.5 Surface Water Resources....................................................................................5-2

5.1.6 Vegetation, Including TEP&C and BWS Plant Species.....................................5-3

5.1.7 Wildlife, Including TEP&C and BWS Animal Species .....................................5-4

5.1.8 Cultural Resources..............................................................................................5-4

5.1.9 Land Use/Livestock Grazing ..............................................................................5-4

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

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

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

5.1.13 Health and Safety/Hazardous Materials..............................................................5-6

5.1.14 Other Actions......................................................................................................5-6

5.2 COMPENSATORY (OFF-SITE) MITIGATION IDEAS ..............................................5-7

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

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

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

VOLUME 2 

APPENDIX A — BLM STANDARD STIPULATION/ MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS 

APPENDIX B — OPERATOR-COMMITTED PRACTICES 

APPENDIX C — SCOPING ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

APPENDIX D — A FRAMEWORK FOR ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT IN THE JONAH 

INFILL DRILLING PROJECT AREA (JIDPA) 

APPENDIX E — SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

APPENDIX F — AIR QUALITY IMPACT TABLES 

APPENDIX G — JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES 

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project xix 

LIST OF MAPS 

Page 

Map 1.1 Jonah Infill Drilling Project Location, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. .....................1-2 

Map 2.1 Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.............................2-7 

Map 2.2 Preferred Action Surface Disturbance Limitation Areas, Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. ...................................................................2-23 

Map 3.1 Air Quality Modeling Domain (Cumulative Impact Assessment Area), Depicting 

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

Map 3.2 Area Topography, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 

2005 ...............................................................................................................................3-21 

Map 3.3 Surface Geology, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 

2005. ..............................................................................................................................3-22 

Map 3.4 Bedrock Geology, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 

2005. ..............................................................................................................................3-24 

Map 3.5 Mineral Resources/Geologic Hazards and Paleontological/Cultural Resources 

Cumulative Impact Assessment Areas, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2004................................................................................................3-26 

Map 3.6 Soil Types (Coarse-Scale) Within the Soils Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Wyoming, 2005. ..............................................................3-32 

Map 3.7 Soils Types (Fine-Scale) Within the Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005................................................................................................3-34 

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

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

Drilling Project, Wyoming, 2005...................................................................................3-38 

Map 3.9 Cumulative Impact Assessment Area (Project-affected Watersheds) for Surface 

Water, Soils, Vegetation, and Fisheries, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Wyoming, 

2005. ..............................................................................................................................3-39 

Map 3.10 Estimated Steady-State Ground Water Levels (Potentiometric Surface), Jonah 

Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005..............................................3-43 
xx Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

LIST OF MAPS (CONTINUED) 

Page 

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

and Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Sublette and Sweetwater Counties, 

Wyoming, 2005. ............................................................................................................3-50

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

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005..................................................................................3-53

Map 3.13 Sublette Herd Unit and Pronghorn Migration Routes, Cumulative Impact 

Assessment Area, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005......3-57

Map 3.14 General Wildlife Species Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.......................................................3-59

Map 3.15 Prairie Dog Colonies, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 

2005. ..............................................................................................................................3-60

Map 3.16 Raptor Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005..................................................................................3-61

Map 3.17 Raptor Nests On or Adjacent to the Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County,

Wyoming, 2005. ............................................................................................................3-62

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

Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. ...................................................................3-64

Map 3.19 Greater Sage-grouse Leks, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County,

Wyoming, 2005. ............................................................................................................3-65

Map 3.20 Little Colorado Wild Horse Herd Management Area (CIAA), Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.......................................................3-74

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

Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004............................................3-136

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

Assessment Area, Sublette and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming, 2004. ....................3-137

Map 3.23 Recreational Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming, 2004...................................................3-140

Map 3.24 Visual Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Lincoln, Sublette, and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming, 2005. ..................................3-142

Map 4.1 Modeled Cone of Depression for Development of 250 Wells per Year Over 

12.4 Years (3,100 total wells), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County,

Wyoming, 2005. ............................................................................................................4-54
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project xxi 

LIST OF MAPS (CONTINUED) 

Page 

Map 4.2 Existing Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation (No Action), Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. ...................................................................4-78 

Map 4.3 Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation Expected Under Development at 16 Wells per 

Section (Alternative E), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 

2005. ..............................................................................................................................4-79 

Map 4.4 Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation Expected Under Development at 32 Wells per 

Section (Alternative F), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 

2005. ..............................................................................................................................4-80 

Map 4.5 Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation Expected Under Development at 64 Wells per 

Section (Alternative G), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 

2005. ..............................................................................................................................4-81 
xxii Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Page 

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

Figure 3.2 Standard Visual Range for 20th% Cleanest Days, Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming (CIRA 2003)...........................................3-11 

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

Sublette County, Wyoming (CIRA 2003) .....................................................................3-12 

Figure 3.4 Standard Visual Range for 20th% Haziest Days, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Area, Sublette County, Wyoming (CIRA 2003)............................................................3-13 

Figure 3.5 Mean Annual Total Nitrogen Deposition Near Pinedale, Wyoming (NADP 

[WY06] and CASTNET [PND165]) .............................................................................3-14 

Figure 3.6 Mean Annual Total Sulfur Deposition Near Pinedale, Wyoming (NADP [WY06] 

and CASTNET [PND165])............................................................................................3-15 

Figure 3.7 Weekly Concentrations of Nitrate Near Pinedale, Wyoming (WARMS, 

Pinedale) .......................................................................................................................3-16 

Figure 3.8 Weekly Concentrations of Ammonium Near Pinedale, Wyoming (WARMS, 

Pinedale) ........................................................................................................................3-17 

Figure 3.9 Weekly Concentrations of Sulfur Dioxide Near Pinedale, Wyoming (WARMS, 

Pinedale) ........................................................................................................................3-18 

Figure 3.10 Weekly Concentrations of Sulfate Near Pinedale, Wyoming (WARMS, Pinedale) .....3-19 

Figure 3.11 Formations Underlying the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005..............................................................................................3-25 

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

Figure 3.13 Typical Natural Gas Field Noise Levels, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005 ...............................................................................3-47 

Figure 3.14 Typical Housepit Excavation, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2005. ............................................................................................................3-80 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project xxiii 

LIST OF TABLES 

Page 

Table 1.1 Major Federal, State, and Local Permits, Approvals, and Authorizing Actions for 

the Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004................................1-7

Table 2.1 Comparison of Alternatives, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County,

Wyoming, 2005. ..............................................................................................................2-6

Table 2.2 Estimated Life-of-Project (LOP) (in Years), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005..................................................................................................2-8

Table 2.3 Surface Disturbance Required for the No Action Alternative, Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. .....................................................................2-9

Table 2.4 Surface Disturbance Required for the Proposed Action and Alternative A, Jonah 

Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005..............................................2-12

Table 2.5 Surface Disturbance Required for Alternative B, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005..................................................................................2-13

Table 2.6 Surface Disturbance Required for Alternative C, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005..................................................................................2-15

Table 2.7 Surface Disturbance Required for Alternative D, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005..................................................................................2-17

Table 2.8 Surface Disturbance Required for Alternative E, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005..................................................................................2-18

Table 2.9 Surface Disturbance Required for Alternative F, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005..................................................................................2-20

Table 2.10 Surface Disturbance Required for Alternative G, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005..................................................................................2-21

Table 2.11 Surface Disturbance Required for the BLM Preferred Alternative, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.......................................................2-25

Table 2.12 Brief Comparison of Impacts to Key Issues Across Alternatives, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming. 2005.......................................................2-33

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

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005....................................................................................3-1
xxiv Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) 

Page 

Table 3.2 Cumulative Impact Assessment Areas, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

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

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

Table 3.4 Wind Direction Frequency Distribution, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, 

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

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

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

Table 3.6 Atmospheric Stability Class Distribution, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, 

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

Table 3.7 Air Pollutant Background Concentrations, Wyoming and National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Increments 

(μg/m3

).............................................................................................................................3-8

Table 3.8 Monitored Background Conditions at Sensitive Lakes..................................................3-20

Table 3.9 Surface Geologic Formations Present on the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area 

and Their Paleontologic Potential, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. .........................3-29

Table 3.10 Soil Types in the Soil Resources Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Jonah 

Infill Drilling Project, Wyoming, 2005..........................................................................3-31

Table 3.11 Existing Watershed Disturbance Acreage, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Wyoming, 2005. ...............................................3-33

Table 3.12 Soil Types, Soil Use, and Management Considerations for Soils, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.......................................................3-35

Table 3.13 Watershed Acreages, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Wyoming, 2005. ...........................3-37

Table 3.14 Produced Water Quality, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County,

Wyoming, 2005. ............................................................................................................3-45

Table 3.15 Comparison of Measured Noise Levels with Commonly Heard Sounds, Jonah 

Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005..............................................3-48

Table 3.16 Acreages of Vegetation Communities in the CIAA and Vegetation Types in the 

JIDPA, Sublette and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming, 2004. .......................................3-51

Table 3.17 Vegetation Data, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. ......3-52

Table 3.18 Greater Sage-Grouse Lek Attendance Trends, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 1992-2004. .......................................................................3-66
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project xxv 

LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) 

Page 

Table 3.19 Federal Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species and Their 

Potential Occurrence on the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2005. ............................................................................................................3-69

Table 3.20 BLM Pinedale Field Office Sensitive Animal and Plant Species and Potential 

Occurrence in the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 

2005. ..............................................................................................................................3-72

Table 3.21 Prehistoric Cultural Chronology for the JIDPA and Southwestern Wyoming. .............3-77

Table 3.22 Historic and Projected Population. ................................................................................3-88

Table 3.23 Urban and Rural Population and Density, 2000. ...........................................................3-89

Table 3.24 Income, Poverty and Unemployment ............................................................................3-91

Table 3.25 Population and Workforce, 2000 ...................................................................................3-94

Table 3.26 Historic and Projected Housing Availability. ................................................................3-95

Table 3.27 Average Rental Rates.....................................................................................................3-96

Table 3.28 Comparative Cost of Living Index ................................................................................. 104

Table 3.29 Annual Inflation Rates for the U.S., Wyoming, and Regions......................................3-105

Table 3.30 CPI and Inflation Factors, 1980-2003..........................................................................3-107

Table 3.31 Wages and Job Numbers..............................................................................................3-107

Table 3.32 Personal Income by Major Source...............................................................................3-108

Table 3.33 Wyoming Gross State Product (Millions of Year 2000 Dollars).................................3-110

Table 3.34 Compensation of Employees (Millions of Year 2000 Dollars) ...................................3-111

Table 3.35 Employment by Industry. ............................................................................................3-112

Table 3.36 Earnings by Industry....................................................................................................3-114

Table 3.37 Wyoming General Fund Revenues, Fiscal Year Collections by Source......................3-117

Table 3.38 Summary of Mineral Severance Taxes Received by Wyoming and Directly

Distributed to All Wyoming Counties and Cities and Project-Affected Counties 

and Cities in the Study Area. .......................................................................................3-118
xxvi Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) 

Page 

Table 3.39 Summary of Federal Mineral Royalties Received by Wyoming and Directly 

Distributed to All Counties and Cities and Project-Affected Counties and Cities.......3-120

Table 3.40 Summary of State of Wyoming Mineral Royalties......................................................3-120

Table 3.41 Total PILT Payments and Total Acres.........................................................................3-121

Table 3.42 Total State-Assessed Mineral Production Valuations..................................................3-121

Table 3.43 Proportionate Taxable Valuation of Various Classes of Property in Wyoming, 

1998-2002. ...................................................................................................................3-122

Table 3.45 Grazing Allotments and AUMs, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County,

Wyoming, 2004. ..........................................................................................................3-126

Table 3.46 Estimated Value of Cattle Grazing AUMs in Wyoming, Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004. .................................................................3-126

Table 3.47 Estimated Value of Grazing Activities on Project-Affected Lands, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004.....................................................3-127

Table 3.48 Percentage of Agricultural Sales Attributed to Grazing in the Jonah Field, 1997.......3-127

Table 3.49 Estimated Annual Recreational Visitor Days, PFO Area. ...........................................3-129

Table 3.50 Sublette Antelope Herd Unit Landownership and Management. ................................3-131

Table 3.51 Summary of Pronghorn Hunters and Hunter Days in Wyoming and the Sublette 

Antelope Herd Unit, 2002............................................................................................3-131

Table 3.52 Summary of Potentially Project-Affected Small Game and Upland Bird Hunters 

and Hunter-Days, 2002. ...............................................................................................3-131

Table 3.53 Value of Nonconsumptive Recreation, PFO Area, 1997.............................................3-132

Table 3.54 Value of Hunting of Species Potentially Occurring on the Project Area, 

Wyoming and Study Area, 2002..................................................................................3-133

Table 3.55 Contribution of JIDPA to Hunting Revenues..............................................................3-134

Table 3.56 Livestock/Grazing Allotments in the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area and 

Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. .................3-138

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

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.........................................................4-6
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project xxvii 

LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) 

Page 

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

Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005..............................................4-31

Table 4.3 Cumulative Acreage of Disturbance in each CIAA Watershed and Including 

RFD, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005..........................4-39

Table 4.4 Percent of Watersheds Affected, Including Existing Disturbance, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.......................................................4-43

Table 4.5 Summary of Ground Water Pumping Scenarios (3,100 total wells), Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.......................................................4-53

Table 4.6 Ground Water Recovery Time (3,100 wells), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 2005.........4-55

Table 4.7 Estimated Noise Attenuation with Distance from Construction Equipment, Jonah 

Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005..............................................4-63

Table 4.8 Vegetation Type Disturbance Across Alternatives, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005..................................................................................4-68

Table 4.9 Percent of the JIDPA Contained Within Core Areas for Existing Conditions and 

Selected Action Alternatives, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County,

Wyoming, 2005. ............................................................................................................4-77

Table 4.10 Number and Mean Size of Core Areas in the JIDPA for Existing Conditions and 

Selected Action Alternatives, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County,

Wyoming, 2005. ............................................................................................................4-77

Table 4.11 Potentially Disturbed Acreage in Each Wildlife CIAA, Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. ...................................................................4-92

Table 4.12 Annual Cost of Natural Gas Production, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005..............................................................................................4-111

Table 4.13 Economic Activity from Gas Drilling Per Well, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005................................................................................4-112

Table 4.14 Economic Activity Gas Production from One BCF of Natural Gas and One 

MBO, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. .....................4-112

Table 4.15 Economic Activity per RVD from Nonconsumptive Recreation, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.....................................................4-114

Table 4.16 Economic Activity per Hunter Day, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005..............................................................................................4-115
xxviii Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) 

Page 

Table 4.17 Economic Activity from Grazing per AUM, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005..............................................................................................4-116

Table 4.18 Summary of Total Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Development 

and Production over the Life of Field, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, 2004................................................................................................................4-118

Table 4.19 Acreage, AUMs, and Percent of AUMs Potentially Affected by Grazing 

Allotment, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. ..............4-133

Table 4.20 Cumulative Acreage of Disturbance in the Recreation CIAA, Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. .................................................................4-140

Table 4.21 Miles of New Roads, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 

2005. ............................................................................................................................4-142

Table 4.22 Cumulative Acreage of Disturbance in the Visual Resources CIAA, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.....................................................4-148

Table 6.1 Personnel Contacted or Consulted During Preparation of the Jonah Infill EIS...............6-1

Table 6.2 List of Preparers and Participants, Jonah Infill, Drilling Project, 2005. ........................6-10
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project xxix 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

oF Degrees Fahrenheit 

μeq/l Microequivalents per liter 

μg Micrograms 

μg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter 

AACL Acceptable Ambient Concentration 

Levels 

AASHTO American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation 

ADT Average daily traffic 

acre-ft Acre-foot/feet 

AGA American Gas Association 

AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom 

Act 

AJE Annual Job Equivalents 

AML Appropriate Management Level 

ANC Acid-neutralizing capacity 

APD Application for Permit to Drill 

API American Petroleum Institute 

API Atmospheric pressure ionization 

AQD Air Quality Division 

AQRV Air Quality-Related Values 

ARPA Archaeological Resource Protection 

Act of 1979 

ARS Agricultural Research Service 

ATV All-terrain vehicle 

AUM Animal unit month 

BA Biological Assessment 

BACT Best Available Control Technology 

bbls Barrels 

bcpd Barrels of condensate per day 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP Best Management Practice 

B.P. Before present 

BP America BP America Production Company 

(formerly BP Amoco). 

bpd barrels per day 

BTU British Thermal Unit 

BWS Bureau of Land Management 

Wyoming Sensitive 

BWPD Barrels of Water Per Day 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980 

C.F.R. 

cfs 

CIAA 

CM 

CO 

CO2

COA 

COOP 

COE 

CPI-U 

CRMP 

CSU 

DAT 

dB 

dBA 

DEIS 

DM 

DOE 

DOT 

DR 

dv 

EA 

ED 

EIS 

EnCana 

EO 

EPA 

EPCA 

ESA 

FAR 

FEMA 

FLPMA 

ft 

FONSI 

g/hp-hr 

gal 

GCIAA 

GDRA 

GIS 

gpm

GPS 

GRBAC 

Code of Federal Regulations 

Cubic feet per second 

Cumulative impact assessment area 

Compensation Mitigation 

Carbon monoxide 

 Carbon dioxide 

Condition of approval 

University of Wyoming Cooperative 

Fish and Wildlife Research Unit 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Consumer Price Index for all Urban 

Consumers 

Cultural Resource Management Plan 

Controlled Surface Use Stipulations 

Deposition Analysis Threshold 

Decibel 

A-weighted decibel 

Draft environmental impact statement 

Department Manual 

U.S. Department of Energy 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Decision Record 

Deciview 

Environmental assessment 

Economically Disadvantaged 

Environmental impact statement 

EnCana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc. 

Executive Order 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Energy Policy Conservation Act 

Endangered Species Act 

Functioning-at-risk 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 

Foot or feet 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

Grams per horsepower-hour 

Gallon 

General Cumulative Impact 

Assessment Area 

Great Divide Resource Area 

Geographic information system 

 Gallons per minute 

Global positioning system 

Green River Basin Advisory Council 
xxx Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (CONTINUED)

GRRA Green River Resource Area 

GSP Gross State Product 

H2S Hydrogen sulfide 

HAP Hazardous air pollutant 

hp Horsepower 

hr Hour 

HS-20 Refers to the AASHTO truck type 

and axle load rating 

HUD Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 

I-80 Interstate 80 

IAMWG Interagency Management Working 

Group 

IDT Interdisciplinary Team 

IM Instruction Memorandum 

IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments 

IWAQM Interagency Workgroup on Air 

Quality Modeling 

JACRMA Jonah-Anticline Cultural Resource 

Management Area 

JIDPA Jonah Infill Drilling Project area 

JMHCAP Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated 

Action Plan 

kg/ha-yr Kilogram per hectar per year 

l Liter 

LAC Limit of Acceptable Change 

lb(s) Pound(s) 

LCHMA Little Colorado Herd Management 

Area 

LOP Life-of-Project 

LQD Land Quality Division 

m Meter(s) 

MBO Million barrels of oil 

mcf Thousand cubic feet 

MCIAA Minerals Cumulative Impact 

Assessment Area 

MEI Maximally exposed individual 

MFP Management Framework Plan 

mg Milligram 

MGD Million gallons per day 

MJ2PA Modified Jonah II Project Area 

mi Mile(s) 

MLE Most likely exposure 

mmcf Million cubic feet 

mmcfd Million cubic feet per day 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

mph Miles per hour 

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet 

N2 Nitrogen 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NADP 

NAGPRA 

NCPA 

n.d. 

NED 

NEPA 

NHPA 

NF 

NOx 

NO2

NOI 

NOS 

NPDES 

NPS 

NRHP 

NSO 

NTL 

NWI 

OHV 

Operators 

OSHA 

OVM 

PA 

PAPA 

PAWG 

PFC 

PFO 

PILT 

PLS/ac 

PM2.5 

PM10 

POD 

ppm 

PRA 

PSD 

Pub. L. 

RCRA 

RDP 

RFD 

RMG 

National Atmospheric Deposition 

Program 

Native American Graves and 

Repatriation Act 

National Cultural Programmatic 

Agreement 

No date 

Not Economically Disadvantaged 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 

National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966 

Nonfunctional 

Oxides of nitrogen 

 Nitrogen dioxide 

Notice of Intent 

Notice of Staking 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

No Surface Occupancy 

Notice to Lessees 

National Wetland Inventory 

Off-highway vehicle 

EnCana, BP America, and other oil 

and gas companies working in the 

JIDPA 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

Organic vapor meter 

Programmatic Agreements 

Pinedale Anticline Project Area 

Pinedale Anticline Working Group 

Proper functioning condition 

Pinedale Field Office 

Payment in lieu of taxes 

Pure live seed per acre 

Particulate matter less than 2.5 

microns in effective diameter 

Particulate matter less than 10 

microns in effective diameter 

Plan of Developement 

Parts per million 

Pinedale Resource Area 

Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration 

Public Law 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act of 1976 

Road Development Plan 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development 

Reservoir Management Group 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project xxxi 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (CONTINUED)

RMP Resource Management Plan 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROW Right-of-way 

RSFO Rock Springs Field Office 

RV Recreational vehicle 

RVD Recreational visitor days 

SARA Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act of 1986 

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data 

Acquisition 

SCBC Sublette County Board of 

Commissioners 

SCPC Sublette County Planning 

Commission 

SCS U.S. Soil Conservation Service 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SIL Significant Impact Level 

SMA Surface Management Agency 

SOx Oxides of sulfur 

SO2 Sulfur dioxide 

SPCC Plan Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure Plan 

SPSS Special Status Plant Species 

SRA Sensitive resource area 

SUP Surface Use Plan 

SVR Standard visual range 

SWPP Plan Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

SWREE Southwest Regional Economic 

Evaluation 

T&E Threatened and endangered 

TCF Trillion cubic feet 

TCP Traditional Cultural Properties 

TCPU Transportation, Communication, and 

Public Utilities 

TDS Total dissolved solids 

TEC&SC Threatened, endangered, candidate, 

and other species of concern 

TEE total energy efficiency 

TEP&C Threatened, endangered, proposed 

and candidate species. 

THK THK Associates, Inc. 

TLS Timing Limitation Stipulations 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

TP Transportation Plan 

TPA Transportation planning area 

TPTSD Transportation Planning Technical 

Support Document 

TPQ Threshold planning quantity 

tpy Tons per year 

TRC Mariah TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 

TRPH Total recoverable petroleum 

hydrocarbons 

TSP Total suspended particulate matter 

U.S.C. 

USDA 

USDI 

USDOC 

USFS 

USFWS 

UW

USGS 

VOC 

VRM 

WAAQS 

WAPA 

WAQSR 

WCLI 

WDA 

WDEQ 

WDERP 

WDOC 

WDOE 

WDOT 

WDR 

WESTAR 

WGFC 

WGFD 

WHHMA 

WNDD 

WOGCC 

WQD 

WRCC 

W.S. 

WSA 

WSEO 

WSGS 

WSLUC 

WSP 

WUS 

WyCAS 

WyGISC 

WYNDD 

United States Code 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 University of Wyoming 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Volatile organic compounds 

Visual Resource Management 

Wyoming Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

Wyoming Association of Professional 

Archeologists 

Wyoming Air Quality Standards and 

Regulations 

Wyoming Cost of Living Index 

Wyoming Department of Agriculture 

Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality 

Wyoming Department of 

Employment, Research, and Planning 

Wyoming Department of Commerce 

Wyoming Department of 

Employment 

Wyoming Department of 

Transportation 

Wyoming Department of Revenue 

Western States' Air Resource Council 

Wyoming Game and Fish 

Commission 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

Wild Horse Herd Management Area 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation 

Commission 

Water Quality Division 

Western Regional Climate Center 

Wyoming Statute 

Wilderness Study Area 

Wyoming State Engineer's Office 

Wyoming State Geological Survey 

Wyoming State Land Use 

Commission 

Wyoming State Protocol 

Waters of the U.S. 

Wyoming Comprehensive 

Assessment System 

Wyoming Geographic Information 

Science Center 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 
xxxii Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 1-1 

CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION 

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

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

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

companies (referred to as "Operators") to expand the 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 11.0 miles west of U.S. Highway 191 

(Map 1.1). Expanded development is proposed in portions of Townships 28 and 29 North 

(T28N-T29N), Range 107, 108, and 109 West. 

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

Infill Drilling Project area (JIDPA) includes approximately 30,500 acres. This acreage includes 

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

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

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

Project Area (MJ2PA) (BLM 2000a) but has been expanded to include the N1⁄2 of Section 23, 

T28N, R109W for analysis purposes, since natural gas development from the same productive 

formation has occurred in this area. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

facilities on up to 16,200 of new surface disturbance, the BLM has determined it prudent to 

prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to analyze the impacts associated with this level 

of development. 

The proposed Project is a major expansion of existing natural gas development operations as 

initially proposed and authorized in the Jonah Field II Natural Gas Project EIS (BLM 1997a, 

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

Environmental Assessment (EA), Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and Decision 

Record (DR) for the Modified Jonah Field II Project (BLM 2000a, 2000b). 

The purpose of this EIS is to provide the public and decision-makers with sufficient information 

to understand the estimated environmental consequences of implementing the Project. This EIS 

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

seven alternatives, and the BLM Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 2). The analyses in this EIS 
1-2 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Map 1.1 Jonah Infill Drilling Project Location, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 1-3 

were also used to identify and develop appropriate mitigation measures to minimize 

environmental impacts. 

The BLM PFO is the lead agency for this EIS since the majority of development is proposed for 

lands under their jurisdiction. The BLM (PFO and RSFO) has provided guidance, input, 

participation, and independent evaluation during EIS preparation. The State of Wyoming 

participated in the preparation of this EIS as a cooperating agency; state agencies specifically 

participating include the Office of State Lands and Investments, Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality (WDEQ), Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC), 

Wyoming State Geological Survey (WSGS), Wyoming State Engineer's Office (WSEO), 

Wyoming Department of Agriculture (WDA), Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), 

Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Wyoming State Parks and Historic Sites, 

Wyoming Business Council, and Wyoming Department of Transportation. The BLM, in 

accordance with 40 C.F.R. 1506.5(a) and (c), is in agreement with the information and analyses 

presented in this EIS and approves and takes responsibility for the scope and content of this 

document. 

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

Wyoming and the surrounding region would be employed for this Project (see Appendix G). 

Construction, development, production, and abandonment would comply with all applicable 

federal, state, and county laws, rules, and regulations (see Section 1.3). Numerous standard, 

Project-specific, and site-specific mitigation measures would be employed during all phases of 

the Project to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts to the environment (see Appendix A: 

BLM Standard Stipulation/Mitigation Requirements and Appendix B: Operator-Committed 

Practices). Reclamation would be conducted as soon as practical on disturbed areas. Upon 

Project completion, all wells would be plugged and abandoned, surface facilities would be 

removed, and most disturbed areas would be reclaimed and revegetated. 

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, and the Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal 

Regulations [C.F.R.] 1500-1508), the BLM has prepared this EIS to describe and evaluate the 

probable impacts of the Proposed Action and other alternative actions. 

This EIS incorporates key provisions of Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

(FLPMA) to manage public lands and their resource values to "best meet the present and future 

needs of the American people" (Section 103 [43 U.S.C. 1702]) and to coordinate resource 

management "without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the 

environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not 

necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or greatest unit 

output" (Section 103 [43 U.S.C. 1702]). FLPMA also says that it is appropriate that some lands 

be used "for less than all of the resources" (Section 103 [43 U.S.C. 1702]). The proposed Project 

is compliant with resource management regulations (43 C.F.R. 1610). 

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED 

The proposed development meets the purpose and need of BLM Resource Management Plan 

(RMP) minerals development objectives. These objectives are: 

• to maintain or enhance the opportunities for mineral exploration and 

development, while protecting other resource values; 
1-4 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

• to provide for oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development while protecting 

other values; 

• to consider the conservation and enhancement of natural resources with the 

economic benefits of resource development; 

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

• to plan land use consistent with the orderly development, use, and conservation 

of resources while preserving environmental quality; and 

• to plan uses that encourage energy conservation. 

The purpose of the proposed development is also to enable the commercial production by 

Operators of federally owned natural gas in conformance with BLM RMP oil and gas objectives, 

pursuant to their rights under existing oil and gas leases issued by the BLM, and to prevent 

drainage of federal minerals by wells located on adjacent nonfederally owned lands (i.e., State of 

Wyoming lands). All of the federally owned minerals in the JIDPA have been leased. National 

mineral leasing policies and the regulations by which they are enforced recognize the statutory 

right of lease holders to develop federal mineral resources to meet continuing national needs and 

economic demands as long as unnecessary and undue environmental degradation is not incurred. 

Natural gas is an integral part of the U.S. energy future due to its availability and the presence of 

an existing market delivery infrastructure. By developing domestic reserves of natural gas, the 

U.S. reduces its dependence on foreign sources of energy while maintaining an adequate and 

stable supply of fuel to maintain economic well-being, industrial production, and national 

security. According to the American Gas Association (2003), 99% of the natural gas used in the 

U.S. is produced in North America (85% in the U.S. and nearly 15% in Canada), supplies are 

abundant, and demand is anticipated to increase 45% by 2015 and 53% by 2020; this project 

would assist in providing natural gas to meet anticipated demand. Demand has increased 35% in 

the last decade. The National Petroleum Council (2003) estimates that natural gas provides 

nearly one-quarter of all U.S. energy requirements, about 19% of electric power generation, and 

is used for heating and cooking in over 60 million U.S. households. U.S. industries get over 40% 

of all their primary energy from natural gas. 

The true measure of energy efficiency is total energy efficiency. Total energy efficiency (TEE) 

takes into account all of the energy used or lost in the production, processing, and delivery steps 

involved in supplying energy to run factories, businesses, homes, and vehicles, plus the efficiency 

of the energy-using product itself (American Gas Association, 2003). Natural gas is delivered to 

the consumer with a TEE of about 90%, whereas electricity is delivered with a TEE of about 

27%. The use of natural gas in chemical and energy production applications results in lower air 

pollutant emissions than does the comparable use of other fossil fuels. For instance, burning 

natural gas rather than coal results in a reduction of 85-96% in the pounds of emissions per 

million British Thermal Units (BTUs) of energy produced (American Gas Association 2003). 

The environmental advantages of burning natural gas are emphasized in the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990. 

Development of new gas resources like those proposed by the Operators in the JIDPA is 

consistent with the Comprehensive National Energy Strategy announced by the U.S. Department 

of Energy (DOE) in April 1998 (DOE 1998), and meets the purpose and need of the Energy 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 1-5 

Policy and Conservation Act (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 6201). That strategy is designed to 

guide national policy toward energy security, economic expansion, and greater protection of the 

environment. One of the goals of that strategy is to ensure against energy disruptions by 

increasing production of domestic sources of natural gas. 

1.2 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT 

This EIS was prepared in accordance with NEPA and is in compliance with all applicable 

regulations and laws subsequently passed, including regulations (40 C.F.R. 1500-1508), USDI 

requirements (Department Manual [DM] 516 [516 DM 1 through 6], Environmental Quality 

[USDI 2004]), guidelines listed in the BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook, 

H-1790-1 (BLM 1988a), Guidelines for Assessing and Documenting Cumulative Impacts (BLM 

1994c), and CEQ's Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(CEQ 1997). 

1.3 DECISIONS TO BE MADE 

The decision the BLM will make as a result of the analysis presented in this EIS is whether to 

allow, and under what conditions to allow, the development, operation, maintenance, and 

reclamation of expanded development/surface disturbances on federal land in the JIDPA. BLM 

will determine what level of impacts are approved, and what Conditions of Approval (COAs), 

Best Management Practices (BMPs), mitigation, monitoring, and surveying would be required. 

The ROD associated with this EIS will not be the final review or the final approval for all actions 

associated with this proposal. The BLM must analyze and authorize each component of the 

project that involves the disturbance of federal lands on a site-specific basis. The method used to 

evaluate and authorize each surface-disturbing activity is an Application for Permit to Drill 

(APD), right-of-way (ROW) grant, or Sundry Notice, with supporting Environmental Assessment 

(EA), which would be required before any construction can occur. 

Pinedale Field Office RMP Amendment Decision 

The Notice of Intent (NOI) for this Project (see Section 2.1) indicated the possible need for an 

RMP amendment. Determination of need to amend an RMP as a result of newly proposed oil and 

gas development projects was based on several factors including, but not limited to number of 

new wells, acres of new long-term surface disturbance, and conformance of the project with RMP 

objectives. Paramount among these factors is whether or not approving a proposed project would 

meet RMP objectives. An update to the PFO RMP was provided in the ROD for the Pinedale 

Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project (BLM 2000c). That ROD set an oil 

and gas reasonably foreseeable development (RFD) projection of 1,944 new wells (above the 

1,815 wells present at that time) over a 10- to 15-year period beginning in 2000, and included 

6,300 acres of new long-term disturbance (above the 14,076 acres present at that time). 

As of March 2004, the WOGCC website listed 2,530 wells in the PFO area; these wells are 

estimated to require approximately 8,572 acres of long-term disturbance. Current oil and gas 

development proposals in the PFO could add approximately 3,310 more wells (more than the 

updated RFD), 5,190 acres of new long-term disturbance (less than the updated RFD), and 

existing RMP objectives would still be met. Based on all criteria, BLM has determined that this 

proposed project would not require an amendment of the PFO RMP (as updated in BLM [2000c]) 

if development at the proposed level is approved. 
1-6 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

1.4 AUTHORIZING ACTIONS AND RELATIONSHIP TO POLICIES, 

PLANS, AND PROGRAMS 

A list of the major permits, approvals, and authorized actions necessary to construct, operate, 

maintain, and abandon project facilities is provided in Table 1.1. 

1.4.1 Federal Permits, Authorizations, and Coordination 

Drilling of federal minerals is subject to the BLM's Onshore Oil and Gas Orders (43 C.F.R. 

Subpart 3164 - Special Provisions). Operator drilling programs require BLM approval of each 

well and well pad on federal surface or federal minerals prior to commencement of drilling (see 

Figure 1.1). BLM reviews the drilling program through the APD process. BLM Onshore Order 

Nos. 1 and 2 require an applicant to comply with the following conditions: 

• operations must result in the diligent development and efficient recovery of 

resources; 

• all activities must comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws and 

regulations applicable to federal leases; all activities must include adequate 

safeguards to protect the environment; 

• disturbed lands must be properly reclaimed; and 

• all activities must protect public health and safety. 

Onshore Order No. 1 specifically states that "lessees and operators shall be held fully accountable 

for their contractor's compliance with the requirements of the approved permit and/or plan" (48 

Federal Register 56226, December 20, 1983). 

Pipeline and road ROWs on federal lands would be issued under the authority of the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920 as amended or FLPMA. ROW grants authorizing construction of ancillary 

facilities, access roads, and pipelines would grant the Operators certain rights that are subject to 

the terms and conditions incorporated into the grant by BLM. 

Nine Presidential Executive Orders (EOs) affect implementation of the project. These EOs, 

which are binding on all government agencies, place restrictions on government approval of 

construction activities and apply to wetlands (EO 11990), floodplains management (EO 11988), 

migratory birds (EO 13186), environmental justice (EO 12898), Native American sacred sites 

(EO 13007), historic trails (EO 13195), cultural resources and historic preservation (EO 11593 

and EO 13287), and invasive species (EO 13112). 

Policies for development and land use decisions within the JIDPA are contained in the draft and 

final Pinedale Resource Area (now referred to as the PFO) Resource Management Plan 

(RMP)/EIS (BLM 1987a, 1987b), its ROD (BLM 1988b) and the Green River Resource Area 

(now referred to as the RSFO) RMP/EIS (BLM 1992a, 1996a) and its ROD (1997b). These two 

RMPs allocate which lands and/or minerals are appropriate for leasing. These documents also 

provide development guidelines. Both RODs indicate federal minerals will be made available for 

orderly and efficient development, and all minerals actions will comply with goals, objectives, 

and resource restrictions (mitigations) required to protect other resource values. Both the PFO 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 1-7 

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

Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004.1 

Agency Permit, Approval, or Action Authority 

Office of the President of Protection and enhancement of the cultural Executive Order 11593 

the United States environment 

Floodplains management Executive Order 11988 

Protection of wetlands Executive Order 11990 

Environmental justice Executive Order 12898 

Indian sacred sites Executive Order 13007 

Invasive species Executive Order 13112 

Protection of migratory birds Executive Order 13186 

Trails for America in the 21st century Executive Order 13195 

Preserve America Executive Order 13287 

Bureau of Land Permit to drill, deepen, or plug back on federal Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 United States Code 

Management (BLM) onshore lands (APD/Sundry process); authorization [U.S.C.] 181 et seq.); 43 Code of Federal 

for flaring and venting of natural gas on federal lands; Regulation (C.F.R.) 3162 

plugging and abandonment of a well on federal lands 

Right-of-way grants and temporary use clearances on Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended 

federal lands (30 U.S.C. 185); 43 C.F.R. 3180; FLPMA 

(43 U.S.C. 1761 - 1771); 43 C.F.R. 2800 

Antiquities and cultural resource clearances on Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. Section 431­

BLM-managed land 433); Archaeological Resources Public Protection 

Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. Sections 470aa - 470ll); 43 

C.F.R. 3 

Approval to dispose of produced water on Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 181 et 

BLM-managed land seq.); 43 C.F.R. 3164; Onshore Oil and Gas Order 

No. 7 

U.S. Army Corps of Section 404 permits and coordination regarding Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 

Engineers (COE) placement of dredged or fill material in area waters (40 C.F.R. 122 - 123, 230) 

and adjacent wetlands 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination, consultation, and impact review on Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 

Service (USFWS) federally listed threatened and endangered (T&E) 661 et seq.); Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. et seq.); Bald 

Eagle Protection Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668­

668dd) 

U.S. Environmental Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plans 40 C.F.R. 112 

Protection Agency (EPA) (SPCCPs) 

Regulation of hazardous waste treatment, storage, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

and/or disposal (42 U.S.C. Section 6901) 

U.S. Department of Regulation of interstate pipeline product Various sections of the U.S.C. and C.F.R. 

Energy (DOE) transportation 

U.S. Department of Control of pipeline maintenance and operation 49 C.F.R. 191 and 192 

Transportation (DOT) 

Wyoming Board of Land Approval of oil and gas leases, ROWs for long-term Wyoming Statute (W.S.) 37-1-101 et seq. 

Commissioners/Land and or permanent off-lease/off-unit roads and pipelines, 

Investments Office temporary use permits, and developments on state 

lands 
1-8 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 1.1 (continued) 

Agency Permit, Approval, or Action Authority 

Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality - Water 

Regulation of off-lease disposal of drilling 

fluids from abandoned reserve pits 

Wyoming Environmental Quality Act 

(W.S. 35-11-301 through 35-11-311) 

Quality Division (WDEQ/ 

WQD) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permits for discharging 

WDEQ Rules and Regulations, Chapter 18, 

Wyoming Environmental Quality Act 

waste water and storm water runoff (W.S. 35-11-301 through 35-11-311); Section 405 

of the Clean Water Act (40 C.F.R. 122-124) 

Administrative approval for discharge of Wyoming Environmental Quality Act (W.S. 35-11­

hydrostatic test water 301 through 35-11-311) 

Wyoming Department of Permits to construct and permits to operate Clean Air Act; Wyoming Environmental Quality 

Environmental Quality - Air Act (W.S. 35-11-201 through 35-11-212) 

Quality Division (WDEQ/AQD) 

Wyoming Department of Mine permits, impoundments, and drill hole Wyoming Environmental Quality Act, Article 4, 

Environmental Quality - Land plugging on state lands and Quality, as amended (W.S. 35-11-401 through 

Quality Division (WDEQ/LQD) 35-11-437) 

Wyoming Department of Construction fill permits and industrial waste Wyoming Environmental Quality Act 

Environmental Quality - Solid facility permits for solid waste disposal during (W.S. 35-11-501 through 35-11-520) 

Waste Division construction and operations 

Wyoming Department of Permits for oversize, overlength, and Chapters 17 and 20 of the Wyoming Highway 

Transportation (WDOT) overweight loads Department Rules and Regulations 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Permit to use earthen pit (reserve pits) on WOGCC Regulations (Section III; Rule 305) 

Conservation Commission nonfederal lands 

(WOGCC) Authorization for flaring or venting of gas WOGCC Regulations (Section III; Rule 326) 

Permit for Class II underground injection wells WOGCC Regulations (Section III; Rule 346) 

Well plugging and abandonment 40 C.F.R. 146; 40 C.F.R. 147.2551 

Permit to drill, deepen, or plug back WOGCC Regulations (Section III; Rule 315) 

(APD process) 

Change in depletion plans Wyoming Oil and Gas Act (W.S. 30-5-110) 

Minimum safety standards for oil and gas WOGCC Regulations (Rules 320-A, 327, and 328) 

activities 

Wyoming State Engineer's Permits to appropriate ground water (use, W.S. 41-121 through 147 (Form U.W.5) 

Office (WSEO) storage, wells, dewatering) 

Permits to appropriate surface water W.S. 41-201 (Form S.W.1) 

Wyoming State Historic Cultural resource protection, programmatic Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act 

Preservation Office (SHPO) agreements, consultation (NHPA) and Advisory Council Regulations 

(36 C.F.R. 800) 

Sublette County County road crossing/access permits Planning and Zoning Department 

Small wastewater permits Planning and Zoning Department 

Hazardous material recordation and storage Emergency Management Coordinator 

Zone changes Planning and Zoning Department 

Noxious weed control Weed and Pest Department 

This list is intended to provide an overview of the key regulatory requirements that would govern project implementation. Additional 

approvals, permits, and authorizing actions may be necessary. 

1 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 1-9 

and RSFO planning areas (excluding specific locations outside the JIDPA) are open to 

consideration for exploration, leasing, and development for all leaseable minerals (e.g., oil, gas, 

coal). Execution of the Proposed Action or alternatives presented in this EIS is consistent with the 

management decisions presented in the PFO and RSFO RMP/RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b). 

The BLM also has specific provisions it must adhere to regarding the draining of federal minerals 

from adjoining nonfederal lands. These provisions are codified in 43 C.F.R. 3100.2 which states 

that, upon determination that lands owned by the U.S. are being drained of oil or gas by wells 

drilled on adjacent lands, the BLM may execute agreements with the owners of adjacent lands 

whereby the U.S. and its lessees shall be compensated for such drainage. In addition, where lands 

in any lease are being drained of their oil and gas content by wells either on another federal lease, 

issued at a lower rate or royalty, or on nonfederal lands, the lessee shall both drill and produce all 

wells necessary to protect the lease lands from drainage. In lieu of drilling necessary wells, the 

lessee may, with the consent of the BLM, pay compensatory royalty. These provisions are also 

incorporated in the lease terms contained in all federal oil and gas leases (Form 3100-11). 

1.4.1.1 Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines and Practices for Surface 

Disturbing and Disruptive Activities 

Consistent with Oil and Gas Onshore Order #1 regulations regarding leasing and operations, 43 

CFR Parts 3100 and 3160 respectively, oil and gas leases are issued by the BLM. Stipulations 

may be added as terms of the lease to reflect management guidance established in the applicable 

Resource Management Plan (RMP). Once the lease is issued, the leaseholder/operator must 

apply for and receive site-specific authorization(s) prior to drilling within the leasehold area. 

To meet required environmental obligations the leaseholder/operator must submit to the BLM an 

Application for Permit to Drill (APD) or its associated application for right-of-way (ROW) so 

that a site-specific environmental assessment (EA) may be prepared. EAs prepared for APD or 

ROW authorizations often include site-specific conditions of approval (COAs) that add further 

site-specific operation requirements based on the impact analysis in the EA. 

The Wyoming BLM has adopted a standard set of guidelines and post-lease COAs that apply to 

all surface disturbing activities on Federal lands and minerals in Wyoming (see Appendix A). 

These mitigation guidelines encompass all aspects of environmental protection. Upon request by 

the applicant, an exception to a lease stipulation or a COA may be granted by the BLM following 

on-site review to see if the exception is warranted. 

With the exception of five specific mitigations excluded from Alternative A, the standard 

Wyoming BLM mitigation guidelines are applied to all alternatives analyzed in this EIS. 

1.4.1.2 Conformance with BLM Pinedale and Green River Resource 

Management Plans 

The Operators' proposal is in conformance with the fluid minerals management objectives of the 

PFO and RSFO RMPs, including the RFD in the PFO RMP as updated by the ROD for the 

Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project (BLM 2000c) (see 

Section 1.3). Post-LOP, when full reclamation has occurred (habitat function is restored to 80% 

of pre-project levels), management within the JIDPA boundary would conform to all RMP 

objectives. Resource conditions within the JIDPA boundary during infill development and 
1-10 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

production may not be in full conformance with the RMPs; however, management objectives 

would be met within the Field Office as a whole during JIDPA development and production. 

1.4.2 State and Local Permits, Authorization, and Coordination 

The proposed project development alternatives are in conformance with the Wyoming State Land 

Use Plan (Wyoming State Land Use Commission 1979) and the Sublette County Comprehensive 

Plan: County Vision, Goals and Policies (Sublette County Board of Commissioners [SCBC] and 

Sublette County Planning Commission [SCPC] 2003). The alternatives comply with all relevant 

State and county laws and regulations (see Table 1.1). 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 2-1 

CHAPTER 2 — PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, 

ISSUES AND CONCERNS, AND ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 

NEPA regulations (40 C.F.R. 1500) require the BLM to use an early scoping process to identify 

significant issues in preparation for impact analysis. The principle goals of scoping are to allow 

public participation and identify issues, concerns, and potential impacts that require detailed 

analysis in the EIS. Scoping was the primary mechanism used by BLM to identify public 

interests and concerns about proposed development actions in the JIDPA. 

To encourage early and improved public participation and agency cooperation, a number of 

meetings/announcements involving the BLM, Operators, various agencies, and the public have 

been held. On March 13, 2003, the BLM’s Notice of Intent (NOI) appeared in the Federal 

Register and invited the public to comment or provide research information regarding the 

Operators’ proposal to infill drill in the Jonah natural gas field. On March 26, 2003, copies of a 

scoping notice describing the Proposed Action and seeking comments were mailed to appropriate 

government offices, elected officials, public land users, groups, newspapers, radio and television 

stations. A scoping meeting was held in Pinedale, Wyoming, on April 17, 2003. An additional 

public meeting was held on November 13, 2003, to present to the public the draft project 

alternatives that had been developed to address public concerns and would be analyzed in the 

EIS. On November 20, 2003, EnCana submitted to the BLM a revised development proposal. On 

December 12, 2003, the BLM issued a letter identifying Operator-proposed development plan 

revisions and soliciting further comment. This letter was issued to those who received the March 

2003 scoping notice and other parties who had commented in response to the NOI. Additional 

opportunities for agency and public participation are planned during EIS review periods. 

Numerous issues and concerns were identified and comments were submitted between March 

2003 and August 2004. Consultation and coordination with other government agencies included: 

WGFD, USFWS, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS), Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) and the BLM Interdisciplinary Team (IDT). The issues and concerns 

identified to date are summarized in Appendix C. 

All comments received during the scoping process were reviewed and analyzed. The BLM 

identified nine key or driving issues based primarily upon the assumed quantity, intensity, or 

duration of a potential impact, and/or the volume of agency or public interest in the issue. The 

range of alternatives was developed in response to the key issues. These alternatives provide a 

range of potential effects to key issues because of varying levels of surface disturbance and/or by 

inclusion or exclusion of various development guidelines/management protocol. 

The extent and distribution of surface disturbance affects all the key resources but most notably 

those associated with wildlife, wildlife habitat, and livestock forage. Ranges in the pace of 

development (75, 150, or 250 wells developed per year) were applied under Alternatives A 

through G, and a range of well numbers were analyzed (3,100 wells for most alternatives, 

1,250 wells for Alternative C, and 2,200 wells for Alternative D). This range in pace of 
2-2 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

development and well numbers provides a range of effects to socioeconomics and air quality, 

BLM inspection and enforcement capability, and project duration. The application or renewal of 

alternative-specific on-site surface disturbance protocols and mitigation (see Section 2.3, and 

Appendices A and B), including Operator-committed monitoring, reporting and off-site 

compensatory mitigation (CM), provides a range of potential impacts to most key 

resources/resource issues including air quality, greater sage-grouse, pronghorn antelope, and 

other wildlife, livestock forage, and BLM inspection and enforcement capability. 

2.1.1 Key Issues 

Issue 1 The extent of proposed surface disturbance and its effects on all area resources. 

Respondents identified the total volume and distribution of proposed surface disturbance 

associated with the Proposed Action as an issue for numerous area resources (e.g., wildlife and 

wildlife habitat, cultural resources, vegetation, soils). The extent and duration of surface 

disturbance was also identified as potentially adversely affecting appropriate management of 

these area resources. 

Issue 2 Pace of proposed development, associated regional socioeconomic effects, and 

boom/bust avoidance. 

Respondents expressed concern with the potential influx of transient workers who do not tend to 

maintain permanent residence as experienced with past energy development projects; the added 

burden to area infrastructures such as community support facilities including hospitals and 

medical clinics, emergency services, housing, and roads and; inadequate capacity of governments 

to address infrastructure shortfalls. 

Employees also identified as a concern the desire to maintain permanent residence in the area, but 

held the belief that if BLM does not approve continued development in the JIDPA, they would be 

forced to relocate. Furthermore, project proponents and local government agencies identified that 

the potential revenues from tax dollars, royalties, and jobs associated with the proposed project 

would benefit the State, county, and local communities. 

Issue 3 Potential project impacts on regional visibility, particularly at area residences and 

in Class I airsheds and other air quality impacts including those associated with 

emission volumes, atmospheric deposition, and regulatory authority. 

Many respondents indicated that regional haze and smoke plumes have increased locally in 

association with ongoing natural gas development projects in the region, and that maintenance 

and improvement of visibility is a requirement of the Clean Air Act within nearby wilderness 

areas (Class I airsheds). Other respondents had concerns about project emission effects on worker 

and area resident health; others were concerned about excessive acid deposition. Nighttime star 

gazing was also identified as having been locally affected. Additionally, agencies and the public 

expressed concerns regarding the authority for air quality mitigation requirements. 

Issue 4 Project effects to greater sage-grouse, greater sage-grouse habitats, and habitat 

function. 

Respondents identified effects to this species and its habitats as an issue because of the historic 

population levels of greater sage-grouse in the JIDPA and the apparent decline in greater sage­
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 2-3 

grouse populations across their range. Potential project effects to breeding, nesting, broodrearing, and wintering habitat and habitat function were identified as potentially contributing to 

continued population declines. It was also noted that existing greater sage-grouse protection 

measures appear to be inadequate within the JIDPA and that with the proposed increase in 

development, existing protection measures would be even less effective. 

Issue 5 Project effects on pronghorn antelope migration corridors leading to and from 

crucial winter ranges north of the JIDPA. 

Current developments in the region were identified as already having adversely affected the 

historic migrations of the Sublette antelope herd. Continued development within the JIDPA and at 

other locations within the Sublette herd unit area were identified as potentially cumulatively 

affecting pronghorn antelope seasonal migrations. Hunters, wildlife enthusiasts, and wildlife 

management agencies all consider the maintenance of existing migratory corridors extremely 

important to pronghorn population maintenance. 

Issue 6 Proposed surface disturbance, human presence, and noise effects to overall habitat 

loss (direct and indirect) for numerous wildlife species and associated 

fragmentation of wildlife habitats. 

Respondents indicated that, with implementation of the proposed project, the JIDPA would no 

longer be suitable habitat for many wildlife species (e.g., threatened and endangered species, 

BLM-sensitive species, and raptors). Habitat loss was attributed to direct loss through surface 

disturbance, indirect loss through animal avoidance of areas proximal to developments, and 

habitat fragmentation (habitat is no longer suitable for species requiring intact habitat patches 

larger than what would be available if the project were constructed). 

Issue 7 Maximize natural gas recovery from the field. 

Respondents indicated that one of BLM's mandates under the Mineral Leasing Act is to maximize 

recovery of available resources. It was pointed out that many of the existing and proposed 

development restrictions (e.g., lease stipulations, RMP requirements, Operator-committed 

practices) limit the economic feasibility of maximizing recovery of the JIDPA's natural gas 

resources. 

Issue 8 Loss of livestock forage and project-associated hazardous conditions to area 

livestock/livestock operations. 

Respondents indicated concerns for livestock operations on the JIDPA. Concerns were generally 

associated with the direct loss of livestock forage and the associated potential for a reduction in 

permitted livestock numbers; livestock water quality impairment at existing water sources; 

livestock movement restrictions/alterations due to pipeline trenches, roads, and fences; livestock 

management problems associated with the inability to access required area two-track routes from 

project-developed crowned-and-ditched roads; and livestock hazards from vehicle collisions, 

drinking contaminated waters from project pits, entrapment in pipeline trenches, and the increase 

in fugitive dust emissions potentially causing dust-induced pneumonia. 
2-4 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Issue 9 BLM monitoring and enforcement capability. 

Respondents indicated that processing permits for current and proposed levels of natural gas 

development in the area is limiting BLM staff from adequately fulfilling their concurrent 

responsibilities for area management (e.g., site inspections, reclamation monitoring, wildlife 

monitoring, cultural resource clearance actions). It was suggested that this may lead to 

unidentified violations of numerous laws, rules, and regulations (e.g., Endangered Species Act, 

Clean Water Act, lease stipulations, RMP requirements, Operator-committed practices required 

under past project authorizations). 

For more detail on these key issues and the variability in scoping respondent concerns see 

Appendix C. 

2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES 

The BLM IDT used the nine key issues (see Section 2.1) to build the project alternatives. The 

Proposed Action and other action alternatives meet the purpose and need for the project, are 

technically and economically reasonable and provide a reasonable range of management and 

mitigation opportunities. Operators committed to various mitigations depending on the alternative 

(see Appendix B, Exhibit B-1); the IDT developed additional mitigation measures that would 

avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for adverse impacts (see Sections 2.14 

and 5.2). Some of these mitigation measures are common to all action alternatives including the 

Proposed Action, whereas others are applied only to one or a few action alternatives. Some 

Operator-committed practices are outside the jurisdiction of the BLM (see Appendix B). 

The variable well numbers and development paces analyzed result from unknowns in the natural 

gas market and in potential future development technologies. Experience in Wyoming reveals 

that well number and development pace predictions are often incorrect; therefore, ranges in these 

development parameters are appropriate. Furthermore, as new technologies become available and 

resource demand changes, development protocol also will likely change. For example, in the past 

well development operations for wells similar to those in the JIDPA could take months to drill, 

require pads of >5.0 acres, lacked adequate surface casing to protect freshwater aquifers, and did 

not consider such practices as flareless completions or directional drilling. All alternatives 

analyzed in this EIS consider these new technological advances, and allow for the inclusion of 

new technologies as they become available. 

Alternatives considered to be technically or economically unfeasible, and/or unrealistic, were 

eliminated from detailed impact analysis. The rationale for eliminating these alternatives is 

provided in Section 2.15. 

2.3 FEATURES COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Development requirements and procedures common to all alternatives are provided in 

Appendix G, and in general these procedures would be applied under all alternatives. 

All applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations would be applied under any 

approved alternative, and all requirements listed in Appendix A would be implemented under all 

alternatives except Alternative A. For the purpose of analyses designed to minimize directional 

drilling under Alternative A, requirements for avoiding selected resources such as steep slopes, 

greater sage-grouse leks, and raptor nests, were not applied. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 2-5 

Appendix B provides a list of Operator-committed measures, and Exhibit B-1 lists which of these 

measures the operators committed to by alternative, except the BLM Preferred Alternative. All 

Operator-committed practices that can be required by the BLM would be applied under the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Absent specific revisions in the ROD for this project, Operators would comply with the 

management objectives, COAs, standard stipulations, and mitigation measures identified in the 

BLM PFO RMP ROD (BLM 1988b), and BLM RSFO RMP ROD (BLM 1997b). 

Operators would comply with all appropriate federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and all 

appropriate permits from the appropriate regulatory agency would be obtained before proceeding. 

Operators would continue to encourage limiting the speed of all vehicles operated by the 

leaseholder, Operator, or Operator agents in the JIDPA. 

Operators would install remote telemetry or equivalent technology at all wells to minimize well 

monitoring trips. 

A ground water monitoring program for all water wells in or affected by activities in the JIDPA 

would be implemented, with annual reports to BLM, Jonah Infill Working Group (JIWG), 

WSEO, and WDEQ. Water wells would be tested annually for drawdown, general chemical 

constituents, and total petroleum hydrocarbons, using WDEQ-approved methods. 

Operators would submit to BLM for approval a reclamation plan (interim and long-term) for the 

JIDPA within one year of the ROD for this project. A reclamation quality assurance/quality 

control monitoring program would be implemented until development and interim (production 

phase) reclamation is completed to BLM standards. 

Operators would monitor raptor, including ferruginous hawk and burrowing owl, nesting activity, 

greater sage-grouse lek attendance, and occurrence of other sagebrush-obligate species in the 

JIDPA. 

Traffic would be confined to the running surface of roads and well pads as approved in APDs and 

ROWs. Operators would continue to cooperate with the BLM to identify and prohibit use of twotracks where ROWs have not been obtained. 

2.4 ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN DETAIL 

The No Action, the Proposed Action, and eight alternative development actions are evaluated in 

this EIS. A brief comparison of alternatives is provided in Table 2.1. 

The types and locations of existing surface disturbance in the JIDPA are presented in Map 2.1. 

The LOP for all alternatives is shown in Table 2.2. 

2.5 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE – REJECT OPERATORS’ PROPOSAL 

Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM would reject the Operators’ proposal for additional 

field-level natural gas development on federal lands within the JIDPA. Authorizations for and 

impacts from previously approved or committed to development (533 wells) and surface 
2-6 

Table 2.1 Comparison of Alternatives, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Alternative 

Proposed BLM Preferred 

Project Parameter No Action1 Action2 A2

 B

3

 C

4

 D

5

 E

6

 F

7

 G

8 Alternative9 

Development Features 

Total Acres Surface Disturbance 4,209 20,409 20,409 7,506 10,914 15,790 10,595 14,655 18,198 12,525 

LOP Acres Surface Disturbance 1,409 6,040 6,040 2,622 3,399 4,755 3,597 3,997 5,408 3,847 Total Miles of Resource Roads/Gathering Pipelines 199 664 664 199 387 529 239 353 582 473 Total Miles of Collector/Local Roads 38 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 Total Number of Natural Gas Well Pads10 497 3,597 3,597 497 1,747 2,697 763 1,705 3,050 3,597 

These development features directly or indirectly affect habitat loss and fragmentation for all species, pronghorn migration, visibility, livestock hazards and available forage, socioeconomics, and gas recovery. Pace of Development 

Wells Developed per year 0 250 75-250 75-250 75-250 75-250 75-250 75-250 75-250 250 Life-of-Project (years) 63 76 76-105 76-105 68-80 72-73 76-105 76-105 76-105 76 

Pace of development directly or indirectly affects duration of habitat and forage loss, visibility, socioeconomics, gas recovery, and BLM enforcement and monitoring capability. 

1 See Table 2.3 for further detail. 2 See Table 2.4 for further detail. 3 See Table 2.5 for further detail. 4 See Table 2.6 for further detail. 5 See Table 2.7 for further detail. 6 See Table 2.8 for further detail. 7 See Table 2.9 for further detail. 8 See Table 2.10 for further detail. 9 See Table 2.11 for further detail. 10 Although pad numbers may not vary under some alternatives, the types and spatial distribution of pads would vary across all alternatives. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 2-7 

Map 2.1 Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 
. .

2-8 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 2.2 Estimated Life-of-Project (LOP) (in Years), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Project Phase No New Wells 1,250 Wells 2,200 Wells 3,100 Wells 

Development 

75 wells drilled/year 0 17 30 42 

150 wells drilled/year 0 9 15 21 

250 wells drilled/year 0 5 9 13 

Total Development 0 5-17 9-30 13-42 

Production 40 40 40 40 

Reclamation 23 23 23 23 

Life-of-Project (LOP) 63 1 68-80 72-93 76 2

-105 

1 No Action LOP. 2 Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative LOP. 

disturbance (497 well pads with associated roads, pipelines, and ancillary facilities) would 

continue (BLM 1998b, 2000b). The approved surface disturbance under the No Action 

Alternative is 4,209 acres initial and 1,409 acres LOP (see Table 2.3). 

However, rejection of the Operators’ proposal would not preclude all additional natural gas 

development in the JIDPA. The No Action Alternative assumes the JIDPA would be managed as 

approved by existing management plans (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and as previously authorized by 

APDs and ROWs issued under existing decisions (BLM 1998b, 2000b). Site-specific NEPA 

analyses would be conducted for each additional natural gas development activity authorized in 

the project area. Because the location and/or extent of individual well development under this 

scenario cannot be predicted, the impact analysis for the No Action Alternative assumes no new 

development. 

2.6 PROPOSED ACTION 

If selected, the Operators would infill drill and develop up to 3,100 new wells on a minimum of 

64 well pads/section (at least 1 pad every 10 acres) with related roads, pipelines, and ancillary 

facilities on up to 16,200 acres of new disturbance. Operators have committed to various 

mitigation measures depending upon alternative (see Appendix B), and propose to establish a 

Cumulative Impacts Mitigation Fund to mitigate potential adverse impacts in the JIDPA. While 

details are emerging, one form of financing the fund could be to deposit a particular dollar 

amount for every acre of new initial surface disturbance in the JIDPA above a certain acreage 

threshold. For example, Operators have suggested a hypothetical amount of $850.00 for every 

acre of new initial surface disturbance authorized in the JIDPA, above a threshold of 

11,000 acres. The Fund could be managed by an independent Advisory Board. 

On January 13, 2005, BLM received a letter from EnCana modifying their Proposed Action 

relative to compensatory mitigation. In part, the letter states “...EnCana is committed to 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 2-9 

Table 2.3 Surface Disturbance Required for the No Action Alternative, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.1

 Disturbance (acres) 

Project Parameter 2 Short-term LOP 

Well Pads 3 1,889 447 

Resource Roads/Gathering Pipelines 4 1,766 699 

Collector/Local Roads 5 239 119 

Burma Road 6 35 35 

Ancillary Facilities 7 87 80 

Water Wells 8 0 11 

Sales Pipeline 9 133 0 

Exploration Activities 10 60 18 

Total 11 4,209 1,409 

1 Generally as described in the EA for the Modified Jonah Field II Natural Gas Project (BLM 2000a). 2 Includes all project parameters identified in BLM (2000a) as well as those proposed for the current project. 3 Assumes approximately 533 wells from 497 pads at 3.8 acres of initial and 0.9 acre of LOP disturbance per pad. 4 Assumes a 0.4-mile road with adjacent gathering pipeline for each well pad with average initial and LOP 

disturbance widths of 73.3 ft and 29.0 ft, respectively (approximately 199 linear miles of road at 8.9 acres/mile 

initial disturbance and 3.5 acres/mile LOP disturbance). 5 Assumes 26 miles of collector roads with average initial and LOP disturbance widths of 75.7 ft and 37.8 ft, 

respectively (approximately 9.2 acres of disturbance/mile initially and 4.6 acres/mile LOP). 6 Includes the approximately 12-mile road length outside the JIDPA and assumes an existing width of 24 ft. 7 Includes disturbances from four compressor stations, water disposal facilities, field offices, ware yards, a sand 

pit, and other facilities required for the existing projects and occurring both within and outside the JIDPA. 

Approximately 7 acres of this disturbance would be reclaimed after completion of currently approved or 

committed to drilling activities. 8 Includes disturbance from approximately 25 existing water wells that have been developed on existing natural 

gas well pads; water wells require no new disturbance and less than 0.5 acre of disturbance each for the LOP. 9 Includes an approximately 22-mile pipeline corridor with 50-ft disturbance width for sales pipelines outside the 

JIDPA; no new sales pipelines are proposed to carry gas from the JIDPA under this alternative. 10 All exploration activities are included in the disturbance area estimates listed above. Disturbance estimate 

includes areas occupied by existing natural gas developments (pads [five], roads, pipelines) in the N1

/2 Section 

23, T28N, R109W. 11 Includes disturbance on 4,001 acres (short-term) and 1,348 acres (LOP) in the JIDPA; the additional 208 acres 

(short-term) and 61 acres (LOP) disturbance listed occur at location outside the JIDPA (e.g., Burma Road, 

compressor stations). 
2-10 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

achieving a net positive impact on the environment and resources affected by development in the 

Jonah Field. EnCana is willing to consider other approaches to mitigation including the funding 

of any compensatory mitigation measures identified by the Bureau of Land Management in the 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project (“Jonah Infill DEIS”). 

EnCana intends to discuss its willingness to fund specific compensatory mitigation proposals or 

projects, in relation to the various alternatives presented in the Jonah Infill DEIS, in its formal 

comments on the Jonah Infill DEIS.” 

Drilling would begin in 2005 and continue until the total number of proposed wells have been 

drilled, the natural gas resources in the field have been fully developed, or economic conditions 

are such that it is no longer profitable to drill additional wells. 

Operator reservoir modeling shows that 3,100 new wells would be necessary to adequately 

recover the natural gas resource present in the area. Their experience indicates that the use of 

directional drilling is in some cases not economically feasible and in other cases results in 

inadequate resource recovery. 

The Proposed Action assumes that 250 wells would be developed annually (20 rigs operating 

year-round). LOP would be approximately 76 years (see Table 2.2). 

If selected, the Proposed Action would approve: 

• up to 3,100 new wells on up to 11,780 acres new initial surface disturbance and 2,790 

acres LOP surface disturbance (assumes all 3,100 wells would be drilled from single-well 

pads with an estimated surface disturbance of 3.8 acres initial and 0.9 acre LOP per 

single well pad); 

• 465 miles of new resource roads with gathering pipelines--4,131 acres of new initial and 

1,635 acres of LOP disturbance; 

• 8 miles of new collector/local roads--73 acres of new initial and 37 acres of LOP 

disturbance; 

• an upgrade of approximately 12 miles of the Burma Road--75 acres of new and 20 acres 

LOP disturbance; 

• ancillary facilities--41 acres of new initial and LOP disturbance (water disposal, storage, 

and compressor station facilities); and 

• exploration activities--100 acres of new initial and LOP disturbance to develop well pads 

and other infrastructures necessary to explore for natural gas resources in formations 

other than the Lance Pool (Table 2.4). 

Following successful interim (post-drilling during production phase) reclamation, LOP surface 

disturbance under the Proposed Action would be 6,040 acres, which includes 1,409 acres of 

existing disturbance (Table 2.4). Interim reclamation success is estimated to require 5 to 10 years 

at any site because it generally takes that long to restore sagebrush. Restoration of habitat 

function could take twice that long. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 2-11 

Operators have identified a number of mitigation/development practices that they would apply 

during development of the Proposed Action (see Appendix B), including CM. 

2.7 ALTERNATIVE A – MINIMIZE DIRECTIONAL DRILLING 

Alternative A is similar to the Proposed Action in its estimated surface disturbance requirements 

(see Section 2.6 and Table 2.4), but differs from the Proposed Action in that known areas with 

sensitive resources in the JIDPA would not be avoided (e.g., Sand Draw, raptor nest and sage 

grouse lek buffers). Development of natural gas resources beneath these areas would therefore not 

require the use of directional drilling. Three rates of development (75, 150, and 250 wells per 

year) are considered under Alternative A. This alternative would not necessarily provide for 

required balance between gas recovery and other resource protection. 

Under this alternative, well pads, access roads, and other above-ground facilities could be located 

within 825 ft of active raptor nests. 

Under this alternative, surface disturbance and occupancy would not be prohibited within 0.25 

mile of the perimeter of greater sage-grouse leks. 

Under this alternative, prairie dog towns would not be avoided. 

Under this alternative, the Sand Draw NSO and other drainage and steep slope avoidance areas 

would not be maintained. 

Under this alternative, well pads, pipelines, and associated roads would not be located and 

designed to avoid disturbance to known raptor nest sites. 

Operators have identified a number of mitigation/development practices that they would apply 

during development of Alternative A (see Appendix B), including CM. 

2.8 ALTERNATIVE B – MINIMIZE SURFACE DISTURBANCE 

Surface disturbance would be reduced by requiring that all new wells be drilled from existing 

well pads. Existing well pads would need to be enlarged and new pipelines built within existing 

pipeline corridors. If selected, Alternative B would approve: 

• expansion of existing well pads--3,081 acres of initial and 1,044 acres of LOP 

disturbance (6.2 acres new initial and 3.0 acres of LOP disturbance per well pad 

expansion); 

• an upgrade of approximately 12 miles of the Burma Road--75 acres of new initial and 

20 acres of LOP disturbance; 

• ancillary facilities--41 acres of new initial and of LOP disturbance (water disposal, 

storage, and compressor station facilities); and 

• exploration activities--100 acres of new initial and of LOP disturbance to develop well 

pads and other infrastructures necessary to explore for natural gas resources in formations 

other than the Lance Pool (Table 2.5). 
2-12 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 2.4 Surface Disturbance Required for the Proposed Action and Alternative A, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Disturbance (acres) 

Project Parameter New LOP 

Well Pads 1 11,780 2,790 

Resource Roads/ 

Gathering Pipelines 2 

4,131 1,635 

Collector/Local Roads 3 73 37 

Burma Road 4 75 20 

Ancillary Facilities 5 41 41 

Water Wells 6 0 8 

Sales Pipeline 7 0 0 

Exploration Activities 8 100 100 

Subtotal 16,200 4,631 

Existing Disturbance 9 4,209 1,409 

Total 10 20,409 6,040 

1 Conservatively assumes all well pads are single-well pads and require 3.8 acres of initial disturbance and 0.9 acre 

of LOP disturbance per pad. 2 Assumes an average well pad access road/gathering pipeline length of 0.15 mile for each pad with average initial 

and LOP disturbance widths of 73.3 ft and 29.0 ft, respectively (approximately 465 linear miles of road). 3 Assumes approximately 8 miles of new collector/local roads would be required (existing resource roads may be 

expanded in some areas to serve as collector/local roads), and roads would have average initial and LOP 

disturbance widths of 75.7 ft and 37.8 ft, respectively. 4 Assumes an approximate 12-mile road length outside the JIDPA with initial and LOP disturbance widths of 

51.7 ft (75.7 ft required less 24.0 ft existing) and 13.8 ft (37.8 ft required less 24.0 ft existing), respectively. 5 Accommodates areas potentially required for new water disposal facilities, storage yards, and increased pipeline 

compression capacity. 6 Approximately 16 new water wells would be developed on natural gas well pads. Water wells would require no 

new surface disturbance; assumes 0.5 acre of LOP disturbance per water well. 7 No new sales pipelines are proposed. 8 An estimated 100 acres of new and LOP disturbance is included to allow for exploration of geologic formations 

other than the Lance Pool and Mesa Verde. 9 See Table 2.3. 10 Estimates include 20,126 acres and 5,959 acres of initial and LOP disturbance in the JIDPA, respectively; the 

additional 283 acres (new initial) and 81 acres (LOP) of disturbance would occur outside the JIDPA. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 2-13 

Table 2.5 Surface Disturbance Required for Alternative B, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Disturbance (acres) 

Project Parameter New LOP 

Well Pads 1 3,081 1,044 

Resource Roads/ 

Gathering Pipelines 2 

0 0 

Collector/Local Roads 3 0 0 

Burma Road 4 75 20 

Ancillary Facilities 5 41 41 

Water Wells 6 0 8 

Sales Pipeline 7 0 0 

Exploration Activities 8 100 100 

Subtotal 3,297 1,213 

Existing Disturbance 9 4,209 1,409 

Total 10 7,506 2,622 

1 Assumes expansion of existing well pads to accommodate 3,100 new wells (no new pads). Assumes all 

497 existing pads would be expanded by an average of 6.2 acres initially (10.0 acres per multi-well pad less 

3.8 acres existing disturbance) and 2.1 acres for the LOP (3.0 acres per multi-well pad less 0.9 acre of existing 

disturbance). 2 No new resource roads would be constructed, and while new gathering pipelines may be built, they would be 

constructed in existing pipeline corridor disturbance areas. 3 No new collector/local roads would be constructed. 4 Assumes an approximate 12-mile road length outside the JIDPA, with initial and LOP surface disturbance widths 

of 51.7 ft (75.7 ft required less 24.0 ft existing) and 13.8 ft (37.8 ft required less 24.0 ft existing), respectively. 5 Accommodates areas potentially required for new water disposal facilities, storage yards, and increased pipeline 

compression capacity. 6 Approximately 16 new water wells would be developed on natural gas well pads. Water wells would require no 

new surface disturbance; assumes 0.5 acre of LOP disturbance per water well. 7 No new sales pipelines would be constructed. 8 An estimated 100 acres of new and LOP disturbance is included to allow for exploration of geologic formations 

other than the Lance Pool and Mesa Verde. 9 See Table 2.3. 10 Includes approximately 7,223 acres and 2,541 acres new and LOP disturbance in the JIDPA, respectively; the 

additional 283 acres (new initial) and 81 acres (LOP) of disturbance would occur outside the JIDPA. 
2-14 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Following successful interim reclamation, LOP surface disturbance under Alternative B would 

total 2,622 acres, which includes 1,409 acres of existing disturbance (Table 2.5). 

Appendix B, Exhibit B-1 lists the Operator-committed practices that would be applied under 

Alternative B, and additional BLM protection requirements are provided in Appendix A. Three 

rates of development (75, 150, and 250 wells/year) are considered under Alternative B. 

2.9 ALTERNATIVE C – 1,250 NEW WELLS 

Alternative C limits drilling and development to an assumed 1,250 new wells on up to 1,250 new 

single-well pads with associated roads, pipelines, and ancillary facilities. If selected, Alternative 

C would approve: 

• 1,250 new well pads--4,750 acres of new initial surface disturbance and 1,125 acres of 

LOP surface disturbance; 

• 188 miles of new road construction with gathering pipelines--1,666 acres of new initial 

and 659 acres of LOP surface disturbance; 

• 8 miles of new collector/local roads--73 acres of new initial and 37 acres of LOP surface 

disturbance; 

• an upgrade of approximately 12 miles of the Burma Road--75 acres of new initial and 

20 acres of LOP surface disturbance; 

• ancillary facilities--41 acres of new initial and of LOP surface (water disposal, storage, 

and compressor station facilities) disturbance; and 

• exploration activities--100 acres of new initial and LOP surface disturbance to develop 

well pads and other infrastructures necessary to explore for natural gas resources in 

formations other than the Lance Pool (Table 2.6). 

Following successful interim reclamation, LOP surface disturbance under Alternative C would 

total 3,399 acres, which includes 1,409 acres of existing disturbance (Table 2.6). 

Appendix B, Exhibit B-1 lists the Operator-committed practices that would be applied under 

Alternative C, and additional BLM protection requirements are provided in Appendix A. Three 

rates of development (75, 150, and 250 wells/year) are considered under Alternative C. 

2.10 ALTERNATIVE D – 2,200 NEW WELLS 

Alternative D limits drilling and development up to an assumed 2,200 new wells on up to 

2,200 new single-well pads with associated roads, pipelines, and ancillary facilities. If selected, 

Alternative D would approve: 

• 2,200 new well pads--8,360 acres of new initial surface disturbance and 1,980 acres of 

LOP surface disturbance; 

• 330 miles of new road construction with gathering pipelines--2,932 acres of new initial 

and 1,160 acres of LOP surface disturbance; 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 2-15 

Table 2.6 Surface Disturbance Required for Alternative C, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Disturbance (acres) 

Project Parameter New LOP 

Well Pads 1 4,750 1,125 

Resource Roads/ 

Gathering Pipelines 2 

1,666 659 

Collector/Local Roads 3 73 37 

Burma Road 4 75 20 

Ancillary Facilities 5 41 41 

Water Wells 6 0 8 

Sales Pipeline 7 0 0 

Exploration Activities 8 100 100 

Subtotal 6,705 1,990 

Existing Disturbance 9 4,209 1,409 

Total 10 10,914 3,399 

1 Assumes all wells are developed from single-well pads with 3.8 acres of initial disturbance and 0.9 acre of LOP 

disturbance per pad. 2 Assumes an average well pad access road/gathering pipeline length of 0.15 mile for each pad, with average 

initial and LOP disturbance widths of 73.3 ft and 29.0 ft, respectively (approximately 188 linear miles of road). 3 Assumes approximately 8 miles of new collector/local roads would be required (existing resource roads may be 

expanded in some areas to serve as collector/local roads), and roads would have average initial and LOP 

disturbance widths of 75.7 ft and 37.8 ft, respectively. 4 Assumes an approximate 12-mile road length outside the JIDPA boundary with initial and LOP disturbance 

widths of 51.7 ft (75.7 ft required less 24.0 ft existing) and 13.8 ft (37.8 ft required less 24.0 ft existing), 

respectively. 5 Accommodates areas potentially required for new water disposal facilities, storage yards, and increased pipeline 

compression capacity. 6 Approximately 16 new water wells would be developed on natural gas well pads. Water wells would require no 

new surface disturbance; assumes 0.5 acre of LOP disturbance per water well. 7 No new sales pipelines would be constructed. 8 An estimated 100 acres of new and LOP disturbance is included to allow for exploration of geologic formations 

other than the Lance Pool and Mesa Verde. 9 See Table 2.3. 10 Includes approximately 10,631 acres and 3,318 acres new initial and LOP disturbance in the JIDPA, 

respectively. The additional 283 acres (new initial) and 81 acres (LOP) of disturbance would occur outside the 

JIDPA. 
2-16 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

• 8 miles of new collector/local roads--73 acres of new initial and 37 acres of LOP surface 

disturbance; 

• an upgrade of approximately 12 miles of the Burma Road--75 acres of new initial and 

20 acres of LOP surface disturbance; 

• ancillary facilities--41 acres of new initial and of LOP surface disturbance (water 

disposal, storage and compressor station facilities); and 

• exploration activities--100 acres of new initial and of LOP surface disturbance to develop 

well pads and other infrastructures necessary to explore for natural gas resources in 

formations other than the Lance Pool (Table 2.7). 

Following successful interim reclamation, LOP surface disturbance under Alternative D would 

total 4,755 acres, which includes 1,409 acres of existing disturbance (Table 2.7). 

Appendix B, Exhibit B-1 lists the Operator-committed practices that would be applied under 

Alternative D, and additional BLM protection requirements are provided in Appendix A. Three 

rates of development (75, 150, and 250 wells/year) are considered under Alternative D. 

2.11 ALTERNATIVE E – 16 WELL PADS/SECTION 

Under Alternative E no more than 16 well pads per 640-acre section (1 well pad/40 acres) would 

be developed, but there would be no restriction on the number of new wells (assumes 3,100 new 

wells). All new wells would be drilled from the 497 existing and 266 new well pads. Necessary 

roads, pipelines, and ancillary facilities would also be developed. If selected, Alternative E would 

approve: 

• 266 new well pads--5,742 acres of new initial surface disturbance and 1,842 acres of LOP 

surface disturbance; 

• 40 miles of new road construction with gathering pipelines--355 acres of new initial and 

140 acres of LOP disturbance; 

• 8 miles of new collector/local roads--73 acres of new initial and 37 acres of LOP surface 

disturbance; 

• an upgrade of approximately 12 miles of the Burma Road--75 acres of new initial and 

20 acres of LOP surface disturbance; 

• ancillary facilities--41 acres of new initial and of LOP surface disturbance (water 

disposal, storage and compressor station facilities); and 

• exploration activities--100 acres of new initial and of LOP surface disturbance to develop 

well pads and other infrastructures necessary to explore for natural gas resources in 

formations other than the Lance Pool (Table 2.8). 

Following successful interim reclamation, LOP surface disturbance under Alternative E would 

total 3,597 acres, which includes 1,409 acres of existing disturbance (Table 2.8). 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 2-17 

Table 2.7 Surface Disturbance Required for Alternative D, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Disturbance (acres) 

Project Parameter New LOP 

Well Pads 1 8,360 1,980 

Resource Roads/ 

Gathering Pipelines 2 

2,932 1,160 

Collector/Local Roads 3 73 37 

Burma Road 4 75 20 

Ancillary Facilities 5 41 41 

Water Wells 6 0 8 

Sales Pipeline 7 0 0 

Exploration Activities 8 100 100 

Subtotal 11,581 3,346 

Existing Disturbance 9 4,209 1,409 

Total 10 15,790 4,755 

1 Assumes all wells are developed from single-well pads with 3.8 acres of initial disturbance and 0.9 acre of LOP 

disturbance per pad. 2 Assumes an average well pad access road/gathering pipeline length of 0.15 mile for each pad with average initial 

and LOP disturbance widths of 73.3 ft and 29.0 ft, respectively (approximately 330 linear miles of road). 3 Assumes approximately 8 miles of new collector/local roads would be required (existing resource roads may be 

expanded in some areas to serve as collector/local roads), and roads would have average initial and LOP 

disturbance widths of 75.7 ft and 37.8 ft, respectively. 4 Assumes an approximate 12-mile road length outside the JIDPA boundary with initial and LOP disturbance 

widths of 51.7 ft (75.7 ft required less 24.0 ft existing) and 13.8 ft (37.8 ft required less 24.0 ft existing), 

respectively. 5 Accommodates areas potentially required for new water disposal facilities, storage yards, and increased pipeline 

compression capacity. 6 Approximately 16 new water wells would be developed on natural gas well pads. Water wells would require no 

new surface disturbance; assumes 0.5 acre of LOP disturbance per water well. 7 No new sales pipelines would be constructed. 8 An estimated 100 acres of new and LOP disturbance is included to allow for exploration of geologic formations 

other than the Lance Pool and Mesa Verde. 9 See Table 2.3. 10 Includes approximately 15,507 acres and 4,674 acres new initial and LOP disturbance in the JIDPA, 

respectively. The additional 283 acres (new initial) and 81 acres (LOP) of disturbance would occur outside the 

JIDPA. 
2-18 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 2.8 Surface Disturbance Required for Alternative E, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Disturbance (acres) 1 

Project Parameter New LOP 

Well Pads 2 5,742 1,842 

Resource Roads/Gathering Pipelines 3 355 140 

Collector/Local Roads 4 73 37 

Burma Road 5 75 20 

Ancillary Facilities 6 41 41 

Water Wells 7 0 8 

Sales Pipeline 8 0 0 

Exploration Activities 9 100 100 

Subtotal 6,386 2,188 

Existing Disturbance 10 4,209 1,409 

Total 11 10,595 3,597 

1 Assumes 16 well pads per 640-acre section throughout the entire 30,500-acre JIDPA. Disturbance from the 

currently approved 497 well pads is included in the "Existing Disturbance" of this table. 2 Assumes all new pads would have multiple wells requiring an average of 10 acres of new disturbance and 

3.0 acres of LOP disturbance per pad and that all existing pads (497) would require expansion from 3.8 acres to 

an average of 10.0 acres of initial disturbance (6.2 acres new disturbance per pad) and from 0.9 acre to 3.0 acres 

of LOP disturbance (2.1 acres new disturbance per pad). 3 Assumes an average well pad access road/gathering pipeline length of 0.15 mile for each pad, with average 

initial and LOP disturbance widths of 73.3 ft and 29.0 ft, respectively (approximately 40 linear miles of road). 

While new gathering pipelines may be constructed from existing pads, they would be built within existing 

pipeline corridor disturbance areas. 4 Assumes approximately 8 miles of new collector/local roads would be required (existing resource roads may be 

expanded in some areas to serve as collector/local roads). Collector/local road average initial and LOP 

disturbance widths of 75.7 ft and 37.8 ft, respectively. 5 Assumes an approximate 12-miles road length outside the JIDPA boundary, with initial and LOP disturbance 

widths of 51.7 ft (75.7 ft required less 24.0 ft existing) and 13.8 ft (37.8 ft required less 24.0 ft existing). 6 Accommodates areas potentially required for new water disposal facilities, storage yards, and increased pipeline 

compression capacity. 7 Approximately 16 new water wells would be developed on natural gas well pads. Water wells would require no 

new surface disturbance; assumes 0.5 acre of LOP disturbance per water well. 8 No new sales pipelines would be constructed. 9 An estimated 100 acres of new and LOP disturbance is included to allow for exploration of geologic formations 

other than the Lance Pool and Mesa Verde. 10 See Table 2.3. 11 Estimates include 10,312 acres and 3,516 acres of new initial and LOP disturbance in the JIDPA, respectively. 

The additional 283 acres (new initial) and 81 acres (LOP) of disturbance would occur outside the JIDPA. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 2-19 

Appendix B, Exhibit B-1 lists the Operator-committed practices that would be applied under 

Alternative E, and additional BLM protection requirements are provided in Appendix A. Three 

rates of development (75, 150, and 250 wells/year) are considered under Alternative E. 

2.12 ALTERNATIVE F – 32 WELL PADS/SECTION 

Under Alternative F no more than 32 pads per 640-acre section (1 well pad/20 acres) would be 

developed but there would be no restriction on the number of new wells (assumes 3,100 new 

wells). All wells would be drilled from the 497 existing and 1,028 new pads. Necessary roads, 

pipelines, and ancillary facilities would also be developed. If selected, Alternative F would 

approve: 

• 1,028 new well pads--8,787 acres of new initial surface disturbance and 1,840 acres of 

LOP surface disturbance; 

• 154 miles of new road construction with gathering pipelines--1,370 acres of new initial 

and 1,370 acres of LOP disturbance; 

• 8 miles of new collector/local roads--73 acres of new initial and 37 acres of LOP surface 

disturbance; 

• an upgrade of approximately 12 miles of the Burma Road--75 acres of new initial and 

20 acres of LOP surface disturbance; 

• ancillary facilities--41 acres of new initial and of LOP surface disturbance (water 

disposal, storage, and compressor station facilities); and 

• exploration activities--100 acres of new initial and of LOP surface disturbance to develop 

well pads and other infrastructures necessary to explore for natural gas resources in 

formations other than the Lance Pool (Table 2.9). 

Following successful interim reclamation, LOP surface disturbance under Alternative F would 

total 3,997 acres, which includes 1,409 acres of existing disturbance (Table 2.9). 

Appendix B, Exhibit B-1 lists the Operator-committed practices that would be applied under 

Alternative F, and additional BLM protection requirements are provided in Appendix A. Three 

rates of development (75, 150, and 250 wells/year) are considered under Alternative F. 

2.13 ALTERNATIVE G – 64 WELL PADS/SECTION 

Under Alternative G no more than 64 pads per 640-acre section (1 well pad/10 acres) would be 

developed, but there would be no restriction on the number of new wells (assumes 3,100 new 

wells). All wells would be drilled from the 497 existing and 2,553 new pads. Necessary roads, 

pipelines, and ancillary facilities would also be developed. If selected, Alternative G would 

approve: 

• 2,553 new well pads--10,298 acres of new initial disturbance and 2,247 acres of LOP 

surface disturbance; 
2-20 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 2.9 Surface Disturbance Required for Alternative F, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Disturbance (acres) 1 

Project Parameter New LOP 

Well Pads 2 8,787 1,840 

Resource Roads/Gathering Pipelines 3 1,370 542 

Collector/Local Roads 4 73 37 

Burma Road 5 75 20 

Ancillary Facilities 6 41 41 

Water Wells 7 0 8 

Sales Pipeline 8 0 0 

Exploration Activities 9 100 100 

Subtotal 10,446 2,588 

Existing Disturbance 10 4,209 1,409 

Total 11 14,655 3,997 

1 Assumes 32 well pads per 640-acre section throughout the entire 30,500-acre JIDPA. Disturbance from the 

currently approved 497 well pads is included in the "Existing Disturbance" row of this table. 2 Assumes all new pads would have multiple wells requiring an average of 7.0 acres new initial disturbance and 

1.5 acres of LOP disturbance per pad and that all existing pads would require expansion from 3.8 acres to an 

average of 7.0 acres of initial disturbance (3.2 acres new disturbance per pad) and from 0.9 acre to 1.5 acres LOP 

disturbance (0.6 acre new disturbance per pad). 3 Assumes an average well pad access road/gathering pipeline length of 0.15 mile for each pad with average initial 

and LOP disturbance widths of 73.3 ft and 29.0 ft, respectively (154 linear miles of road). While new gathering 

pipelines may be constructed from existing pads, they would be built within existing pipeline corridor 

disturbance areas. 4 Assumes approximately 8 miles of new collector/local roads would be required (existing resource roads may be 

expanded in some areas to serve as collector/local roads). Collector/local roads average initial and LOP 

disturbance widths of 75.7 ft and 37.8 ft, respectively. 5 Assumes an approximate 12-miles road length outside the JIDPA boundary with initial and LOP disturbance 

widths of 51.7 ft (75.7 ft required less 24.0 ft existing) and 13.8 ft (37.8 ft required less 24.0 ft existing). 6 Accommodates areas potentially required for new water disposal facilities, storage yards, and increased pipeline 

compression capacity. 7 Approximately 16 new water wells would be developed on natural gas well pads. Water wells would require no 

new surface disturbance; assumes 0.5 acre of LOP disturbance per water well. 8 No new sales pipelines would be constructed. 9 An estimated 100 acres of new and LOP disturbance is included to allow for exploration of geologic formations 

other than the Lance Pool and Mesa Verde. 10 See Table 2.3. 11 Estimates include 14,372 acres and 3,916 acres of new initial and LOP disturbance in the JIDPA, respectively. 

The additional 283 acres (new initial) and 81 acres (LOP) of disturbance would occur outside the JIDPA. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 2-21 

Table 2.10 Surface Disturbance Required for Alternative G, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Disturbance (acres) 1 

Project Parameter New LOP 

Well Pads 2 10,298 2,447 

Resource Roads/Gathering Pipelines 3 3,402 1,346 

Collector/Local Roads 4 73 37 

Burma Road 5 75 20 

Ancillary Facilities 6 41 41 

Water Wells 7 0 8 

Sales Pipeline 8 0 0 

Exploration Activities 9 100 100 

Subtotal 13,989 3,999 

Existing Disturbance 10 4,209 1,409 

Total 11 18,198 5,408 

1 Assumes 64 well pads per 640-acre section throughout the entire 30,500-acre JIDPA. Disturbance from the 

currently approved 497 well pads is included in the "Existing Disturbance" row of this table. 2 Assumes all new pads would have a single well requiring an average of 3.8 acres of new disturbance and 0.9 acre 

of LOP disturbance per pad and that all existing pads (497) would require expansion from 3.8 acres to an average 

of 5.0 acres initial disturbance (1.2 acres new disturbance per pad) and from 0.9 acre to 1.2 acres LOP 

disturbance (0.3 acre new disturbance per pad). 3 Assumes an average well pad access road/gathering pipeline length of 0.15 mile for each pad with average initial 

and LOP disturbance widths of 73.3 ft and 29.0 ft, respectively (383 linear miles of road). While new gathering 

pipelines may be constructed from existing pads, they would be built within existing pipeline corridor 

disturbance areas. 4 Assumes approximately 8 miles of new collector/local roads would be required (existing resource roads may be 

expanded in some areas to serve as collector/local roads). Collector/local road average initial and LOP 

disturbance widths of 75.7 ft and 37.8 ft, respectively. 5 Assumes an approximate 12-miles road length outside the JIDPA boundary with initial and LOP disturbance 

widths of 51.7 ft (75.7 ft required less 24.0 ft existing) and 13.8 ft (37.8 ft required less 24.0 ft existing). 6 Accommodates areas potentially required for new water disposal facilities, storage yards, and increased pipeline 

compression capacity. 7 Approximately 16 new water wells would be developed on natural gas well pads. Water wells would require no 

new surface disturbance; assumes 0.5 acre of LOP disturbance per water well. 8 No new sales pipelines would be constructed. 9 An estimated 100 acres of new and LOP disturbance is included to allow for exploration of geologic formations 

other than the Lance Pool and Mesa Verde. 10 See Table 2.3. 11 Estimates include 17,915 acres and 5,327 acres of new initial and LOP disturbance in the JIDPA, respectively. 

The additional 283 acres (new initial) and 81 acres (LOP) of disturbance would occur outside the JIDPA. 
2-22 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

• 383 miles of new road construction with gathering pipelines--3,402 acres of new initial 

and 1,346 acres of LOP disturbance; 

• 8 miles of new collector/local roads--73 acres of new initial and 37 acres of LOP surface 

disturbance; 

• an upgrade of approximately 12 miles of the Burma Road--75 acres of new initial and 

20 acres of LOP surface disturbance; 

• ancillary facilities--41 acres of new initial and of LOP surface disturbance (water 

disposal, storage and compressor station facilities); and 

• exploration activities--100 acres of new initial and of LOP surface disturbance to develop 

well pads and other infrastructures necessary to explore for natural gas resources in 

formations other than the Lance Pool (Table 2.10). 

Following successful interim reclamation, LOP surface disturbance under Alternative G would 

total 5,408 acres, which includes 1,409 acres of existing disturbance (Table 2.10). 

Appendix B, Exhibit B-1 lists the Operator-committed practices that would be applied under 

Alternative G, and additional BLM protection requirements are provided in Appendix A. Three 

rates of development (75, 150, and 250 wells/year) are considered under Alternative G. 

2.14 BLM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The BLM Preferred Alternative optimizes natural gas recovery while minimizing impacts related 

to the key issues (see Section 2.1) with outcome-based performance objectives, mitigation and 

Best Management Practices (BMPs). If selected, the Preferred Alternative would approve: 

• Up to approximately 34% (214 acres) new surface disturbance per 640-acre section 

within a 14,390-acre area (Map 2.2), based on 16 parent well pads and 48 satellite well 

pads per section (as many as 128 well bores per section) 

- 4,667 acres of new initial surface disturbance and 1,300 acres LOP surface 

disturbance within the 14,390-acre area 

- a parent well pad is a multi-well pad and/or a pad with centralized facilities 

(assumes 7.0 acres of surface disturbance, including resource road and gathering 

pipeline) 

- a satellite well pad is a well head with no on-site storage or processing facilities 

(assumes 2.0 acres of surface disturbance, including resource road and gathering 

pipeline); 

• up to approximately 24% (150 acres) new surface disturbance per 640-acre section within 

a 520-acre area (Map 2.2), based on 16 parent well pads and 16 satellite well pads per 

section (as many as 128 well bores per section) 

- 117 acres of new initial disturbance and 33 acres LOP surface disturbance. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 2-23 

Map 2.2 Preferred Action Surface Disturbance Limitation Areas, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 
2-24 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

- well pad density limitation would be applicable until monitoring data, with up to 

10-year trends, conclusively show that denser than 40-acre surface spacing can 

meet performance-based field development and production objectives; 

• up to approximately 19% (118 acres) new surface disturbance per 640-acre section within 

a 14,310-acre area (Map 2.2), based on 16 parent well pads per section (as many as 128 

well bores per section) 

- 2,576 acres of new initial disturbance and 716 acres of LOP surface disturbance 

- well pad density limitation would be applicable until monitoring data, with up to 

10-yr trends, conclusively show that denser than 40-acre surface spacing can 

meet performance-based field development and production objectives; 

• 8 miles of new collector/local roads -- 73 acres of new initial and 37 acres of LOP surface 

disturbance; 

• an upgrade of approximately 12 miles of the Burma Road -- 75 acres of new initial and 

20 acres of LOP surface disturbance; 

• ancillary facilities -- 41 acres of new initial and LOP surface disturbance (water disposal, 

storage, compressor station facilities); 

• exploration activities -- 100 acres of new initial and LOP surface disturbance to develop 

well pads and other infrastructure necessary to explore for natural gas resources in 

formations other then the Lance Pool (Table 2.11); 

• the Wildlife Monitoring/Protection Plan (Appendix D, Record of Decision for the Jonah 

Field II Natural Gas Development Project Environmental Impact Statement, Sublette 

County, Wyoming [BLM 1998b] as most recently adapted) would be modified to include 

activities within the JIDPA and would include a habitat mitigation plan; 

• establish/implement the JIWG, an interagency adaptive management working group, at 

the ROD for this project (see Appendix D); 

- BLM would consider annual JIWG recommendations to adjust conditions of 

approval (COAs), monitoring, mitigation, and best management practices 

(BMPs) to meet field development and production objectives throughout the LOP 

- If the Pinedale Anticline Working Group (PAWG) is functioning effectively in 

2006, the PAWG charter would be revised to include the Jonah Field in the 

PAWG's responsibilities during charter renewal in 2006; otherwise the JIWG 

would continue to function and 

• recommend implementation of Operator-committed CM at the ROD as appropriate and 

consistent with BLM policy. 

Following successful interim reclamation, LOP surface disturbance under the BLM Preferred 

Alternative would total 3,847 acres, which includes 1,409 acres of existing disturbance 

(Table 2.11). 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 2-25 

Table 2.11 Surface Disturbance Required for the BLM Preferred Alternative, Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Disturbance (acres) 

Project Parameter New LOP 

Well Pads/ Resource Roads/ Gathering Pipelines 

(34% Disturbance Area)1 4,677 1,300 

Well Pads/ Resource Roads/ Gathering Pipelines 

(24% Disturbance Area)2 117 33 

Well Pads/ Resource Roads/ Gathering Pipelines 

(19% Disturbance Area)3 2,576 716 

Well Pads/ Resource Roads/ Gathering Pipelines 

(State of Wyoming Lands)4 657 183 

Collector/ Local Roads5 73 37 

Burma Road6 75 20 

Ancillary Facilities7 41 41 

Water Wells8

 0 8 

Sales Pipeline9

 0 0 

Exploration Activities10 100 100 

Subtotal 8,316 2,438 

Existing Disturbance11 4,209 1,409 

Total12 12,525 3,847 

1 Assumes no more than 34% (approximately 214 acres) of new initial project-specific disturbance per 640-acre section, 33% 

of which would be associated with well pads, resource roads, and gathering pipelines (i.e., 16 7.0-acre pads and associated 

roads and pipeline disturbance areas and 48 2.0-acre satellite pads and associated roads and pipeline disturbance areas). The 

remaining 1% of the disturbance acreage would encompass other project facilities (i.e., collector/ local roads, Burma Road 

upgrade, ancillary facilities, and exploration activities). Approximately 27.8% of new initial disturbance would be retained 

for the LOP. See Map 2.2. 2 Assumes no more than 24% (150 acres) of new initial project-specific disturbance per 640-acre section, 23% of which would 

be associated with well pads, resource roads, and gathering pipelines (i.e., 16 7.0-acre pads and associated roads and pipeline 

disturbance areas and 16 2.0-acre satellite pads and associated roads and pipeline disturbance areas). The remaining 1% of 

the disturbance acreage would encompass other project facilities (i.e., collector/ local roads, Burma Road upgrade, ancillary 

facilities, and exploration activities). Approximately 27.8% of the new initial disturbance would be retained for the LOP. 

See Map 2.2. 3 Assumes no more than 19% (118 acres) of new initial project-specific disturbance per 640-acre section, 18% of which would 

be associated with well pads, resource roads, and gathering pipelines (i.e., 16 7.0-acre pads and associated roads and pipeline 

disturbance areas). The remaining 1% of the disturbance acreage would encompass other project facilities (i.e., collector/ 

local roads, Burma Road upgrade, ancillary facilities, and exploration activities). Approximately 27.8% of new initial 

disturbance would be retained for the LOP. See Map 2.2. 4 Assumes approximately 52% (333 acres) of new initial project-specific disturbance per 640-acre section, approximately 51% 

of which would be associated with well pads, resource roads, and gathering pipelines. The remaining 1% of the disturbance 

acreage would encompass other project facilities (i.e., collector/ local roads, Burma Road upgrade, ancillary facilities, and 

exploration activities). Approximately 27.8% of new initial disturbance would be retained for the LOP. See Map 2.2. 5 Conservatively assumes approximately 8 miles of new collector/ local roads would be required (existing resource roads may 

be expanded in some areas to serve as collector/ local roads), and roads would have average initial and LOP disturbance 

widths of 75.7 ft and 37.8 ft, respectively. 6 Assumes an approximate 12-mile road length outside the JIDPA with initial and LOP disturbance widths of 51.7 ft (75.7 ft 

required less 24.0 ft existing) and 13.8 ft (37.8 ft required less 24.0 ft existing), respectively. 7 Accommodates areas potentially required for new water disposal facilities, storage yards, and increased pipeline compression 

capacity. 8 Approximately 16 new water wells would be developed on natural gas well pads. Water wells would require no new initial 

surface disturbance; assumes 0.5 acre of LOP disturbance per water well. 9 No new sales pipelines are proposed. 10 An estimated 100 acres of new initial and LOP disturbance is included to allow for exploration of geologic formations other 

than the Lance Pool and Mesa Verde. 11 See Table 2.3. 12 Estimates include 12,242 acres and 3,766 acres of initial and LOP disturbance in the JIDPA, respectively; the additional 

283 acres (new initial) and 81 acres (LOP) of disturbance would occur outside the JIDPA. 
2-26 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Analysis of this alternative assumes that up to an estimated 52% (333 acres) of new surface 

disturbance/640-acre section would occur on State of Wyoming lands (1,280 acres) (see 

Map 2.2). Assumes 657 acres of new initial disturbance and 183 acres of LOP surface 

disturbance for well pads, resource roads, and pipelines on State of Wyoming lands. 

BLM would not regulate the number of wells or the pace of development under this alternative. 

For the purpose of this analysis, up to 3,100 wells at a pace of 250 wells drilled per year is 

considered. 

2.14.1 Outcome-Based Performance Objectives 

The BLM Preferred Alternative field development and production would be based on meeting 

performance objectives to allow maximum flexibility for Operators to utilize innovation to 

maximize gas recovery while providing long-term protection for other resources in the JIDPA. 

Objectives of the BLM Preferred Alternative are as follows: 

• Maintain airborne emissions at or below levels sufficient to avoid: 

- near-field or far-field concentrations exceeding Wyoming Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (WAAQS) or National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); 

- cumulative near-field concentrations greater than applicable Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class II increments; 

- cumulative far-field concentrations in regional Class I wilderness areas and parks 

and sensitive Class II areas greater than applicable PSD increments; 

- decreases in visibility in regional Class I and sensitive Class II areas greater than 

Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG), USFS, 

and/or National Park Service (NPS) thresholds; 

- decreases in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) in sensitive regional lakes 

greater than USFS levels of acceptable change (LAC); 

- increases in total acid deposition in sensitive areas greater than deposition 

analysis thresholds (DAT); and 

- cumulative deposition total loadings greater than USFS levels of concern (LOC). 

• Maximize centralization of development and production facilities. 

• Maintain sediment erosion (salt and silt discharge rates) at WDEQ- and BLM-acceptable 

levels. 

• Reclaim sites to establish indigenous vegetation cover and species composition to 

maintain soil stability and provide nutritional value, palatability, and vegetative structure 

(i.e., habitat function). 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 2-27 

• Plan development activities and interim and final reclamation to maximize and increase 

habitat patch sizes and reduce habitat fragmentation for sagebrush-obligate species. 

• Limit any increase in production activity noise levels to 10-decibel or less increase above 

background noise levels, as measured at noise-sensitive resource locations (e.g., greater 

sage-grouse leks, occupied raptor nests). 

• Minimize or reduce impacts to sagebrush and other habitats to maintain or minimize 

losses in the number of male greater sage-grouse on leks, numbers of sagebrush-obligate 

listed and sensitive species, and other wildlife. 

• Maintain or improve currently active big game migration routes. 

• Reduce human activity per well pad in the JIDPA below current levels during both the 

development and production phases. 

• Prevent contamination of all surface and ground water. 

• Utilize state-of-the-art technologies to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts. 

• Encourage Operators to participate in and support peer-reviewed research that evaluates 

impacts from development and effectiveness of applied mitigation. 

2.14.2 General Conditions of Approval, Mitigation, Monitoring, 

Surveying, and Best Management Practices 

The BLM would impose the following general COAs, mitigation and BMPs on all project 

authorizations and would consider annual JIWG recommendations to adjust these requirements to 

meet field development and production objectives throughout the LOP. 

• Tracking surface disturbance area would be implemented by Operators, and Operators 

would provide BLM with federal geographic data committee (FGDC) –compliant 

metadata and geographic information system (GIS)/global positioning system (GPS) 

location data for all newly developed facilities and reclaimed areas within 30 days of 

completion of disturbance and reclamation activities. BLM would randomly verify these 

data. 

• Well pad surface disturbance would be limited to a maximum of 7.0 acres for parent and 

multi- well pads, 4.0 acres for single-well well pads, and 2.0 acres for satellite well pads. 

These acreages include well pad, access road, pipeline, and topsoil and spoil piles. 

• Hard-line fracturing processes would be required for all well pads when surface density is 

 1 well pad/40 acres, and recommended when well pad surface density is < 1 pad/40 

acres. 

• Operators would utilize flareless completions for all wells within the JIDPA unless 

proven on a case-by-case basis that flareless completions would be unsafe. 
2-28 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

• Operators would begin piping produced water and condensate from all wells in the 

JIDPA to appropriate treatment or disposal facilities beginning no later than January 1, 

2008; this would supersede previous decisions related to method of condensate disposal. 

• To eliminate or minimize surface sediment discharge, all well pad and road construction 

shall comport WDEQ storm water discharge specifications, standards, and permitting 

requirements. Existing well pads and roads shall be retro-fitted to meet this requirement 

as directed by the Authorized Officer. Based on site-specific analysis, BLM may require 

more stringent sediment control measures be implemented. 

• Operators would utilize remote telemetry or equivalent technology at all wells to 

minimize well monitoring trips. 

• Centralization of development and production facilities would be maximized in the 

JIDPA. 

• All hydraulic structures would be engineered and designed by a certified civil engineer, 

utilizing hydraulic runoff modeling software, to ensure the structures are stable and 

erosion is minimized throughout the LOP. 

• All engineering for construction would be designed to minimize or mitigate cumulative 

impacts and minimize sedimentation at the JIDPA boundary. 

• Operators would utilize closed drilling systems (no reserve pits) for all wells unless 

proven on a case-by-case basis that to do so would be technologically or economically 

infeasible. If reserve pits are approved, Operators would remove/vacuum fluids from 

reserve pits within 60 days of all wells on a pad being placed into production, to 

accelerate pit closure and reclamation. 

• New compressor sites would be located away from noise-sensitive resources or muffled 

appropriately to minimum noise standards. 

• Topsoil stockpiles would be designed to maintain soil microbial and nutrient vitality and 

to minimize the surface area occupied. Should stockpiles exceed 3 feet in height and/or 

be stored for two years or longer, Operators would consult with BLM for acceptable 

site-specific mitigation to maintain microbial and nutrient viability. 

• Well pads, access roads, and other above-ground facilities would not be located 

within 825 feet of any raptor nest, within 1,000 feet of ferruginous hawk nests, and 

within 2,640 feet of bald eagle nests. 

• The following seasonal restrictions for activities near active raptor nests/roosting 

sites/foraging areas would be imposed: 

- February 1 through July 31, within 0.5 mile of all active raptor nests; 

- February 1 through July 31, within 1.0 mile of all active ferruginous hawk nests; 

- February 1 through August 15, within 1.0 mile of all active bald eagle nests; 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 2-29 

- November 1 through April 1, within 1.0 mile of active bald eagle communal winter 

roosts; and 

- November 15 through April 1, within 2.5 miles of all bald eagle winter foraging areas. 

• Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in greater sage-grouse winter concentration 

areas would be avoided from November 15 through March 14. 

• Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in greater sage-grouse nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitat within 2.0 miles of an occupied lek, or in identified greater 

sage-grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitat outside the 2.0-mile buffer, would be 

prohibited from March 15 through July 15. 

• Surface disturbance and occupancy would be prohibited within 0.25 mile of the perimeter 

of greater sage-grouse leks, and human activity would be avoided between 8 p.m. and 

8 a.m. from March 1 through May 15. 

• Operators would inventory greater sage-grouse seasonal habitats within the JIDPA not 

already inventoried by BLM or WGFD within one year of the ROD for this project; GIS 

data would be provided to BLM, WGFD, and the JIWG with FGDC-compliant 

metadata. 

• Operators would map prairie dog towns and provide all map data to BLM, WGFD, 

and the JIWG with FGDC-compliant metadata. 

• Three active and productive ferruginous hawk nesting territories, two burrowing owl 

nesting territories, and other raptor nesting territories would be maintained on and 

adjacent to the JIDPA; to the extent any of these may not be feasible, compensatory 

mitigation may be appropriate. 

• Operator-related vehicle and OHV traffic in the JIDPA would be limited to 

BLM-approved roads/trails and travel on non-all-weather roads would be avoided during 

saturated soil conditions to avoid impacts from rutting. 

• Operators would inventory all roads/trails in the JIDPA not already inventoried by 

BLM within one year of the date of the ROD for this project; GIS data would be 

provided to BLM, WGFD, and the JIWG with FGDC-compliant metadata. 

• The Sand Draw No Surface Occupancy (NSO) restriction would be maintained. 

• Operators would be responsible for establishing viable site-stabilizing plant growth, as 

determined by the Authorized Officer, within 2 years of initiation of reclamation. Sitestabilizing plant growth would consist of indigenous species and/or ecologicallycomparable species as approved by the Authorized Officer. Within 5 years of initiation 

of reclamation, Operators must establish at least 50%, and within 8 years of initiation of 

reclamation establish at least 80%, of indigenous vegetative cover and species 

composition to maintain soil stability and provide nutritional value, palatability, and 

vegetative structure (i.e., habitat function). The initiation of reclamation would 

commence within 1 year of drilling and completion of the last well scheduled on a pad. 
2-30 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

In the event that more than one year would lapse between the drilling of wells on a pad, 

the Authorized Officer may require temporary site stabilization measures. 

• Operators would maximize interim (production phase) well pad reclamation (reclaim up 

to the wellhead, or up to the wellhead and dehydrators and separators on those pads with 

central production facilities). 

• Field-wide interim and long-term reclamation plans would be submitted to BLM for 

approval no later than one year from the date of this ROD. Site-specific reclamation plans 

would be incorporated into all Surface Use Plans for APDs and Plans of Development for 

ROWs. A reclamation quality assurance/quality control monitoring program would be 

implemented by the Operators until development and interim (production phase) 

reclamation is completed to BLM standards. 

Some of the aforementioned seasonal and surface use restrictions may not match those listed in 

Appendix A. Those provided for this BLM Preferred Alternative incorporate recent changes in 

agency guidance regarding wildlife restrictions. 

2.14.2.1 Resource Monitoring and Surveying 

The following monitoring and surveying activities would be required to monitor the effectiveness 

of COAs, BMPs, and mitigation, and BLM would consider JIWG recommendations to adjust 

monitoring and surveying requirements which determine if field development and production 

objectives are being met. 

• Operators would continue supporting existing wildlife studies and monitoring efforts. 

• Operators would implement a ground water monitoring program for all water wells in or 

affected by activities in the JIDPA, with annual reports to BLM, JIWG, WSEO and 

WDEQ. Wells would be tested annually for general chemical constituents and total 

petroleum hydrocarbons, using WDEQ-approved methodology. 

• Operators would be required to conduct surveys of soils and vegetation types throughout 

the JIDPA in coordination with the BLM, and provide survey results to BLM within one 

year of the ROD for this project. 

• Operators would be required to conduct sixth-level watershed modeling throughout the 

JIDPA (including identification of current sediment discharge rates), and provide the 

results to BLM and WDEQ, contingent on availability of data. 

• Operators would prepare and implement a Sensitive Species Survey and Monitoring Plan 

for BLM and WGFD approval that would determine the presence, distribution, and 

population trends of all federally-listed, proposed, candidate, BWS, and other species 

including amphibians, reptiles, passerine birds, and small mammals, throughout the 

JIDPA. Monitoring would be conducted annually for the LOP or until BLM determines 

that additional monitoring is not required. Operators would prepare an annual report for 

BLM, WGFD, and the JIWG. Survey results would be provided annually to the WyNDD 

with FGDC-compliant metadata. 

• Operators would monitor first flush total suspended solids in coordination with WDEQ, 

BLM, and other agencies. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 2-31 

• Operators would be required to assist BLM and WGFD in monitoring greater sage-grouse 

movements to determine if populations are migratory. 

• In coordination with BLM, Operators would monitor forage utilization on reclaimed 

areas throughout project development and into the full production phase. 

• Operators would monitor traffic volume on collector roads and provide an annual report 

to BLM. 

• Operators would monitor the number of visits to well pads and provide an annual report 

to BLM. 

• Operators would monitor noise near noise-sensitive resources and provide an annual 

report to BLM. 

• In coordination with BLM and WGFD, Operators would monitor pronghorn antelope 

numbers on crucial winter ranges north and south of the JIDPA. 

• Operators would monitor nesting of raptors, including ferruginous hawk, bald eagle, and 

burrowing owl; greater sage-grouse lek attendance; and occurrence of other 

sagebrush-obligate species. 

2.14.3 Site-Specific Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Monitoring, 

Surveying, and Best Management Practices 

On a site-specific basis, the BLM would impose the following COAs, mitigations and BMPs and 

would consider annual JIWG recommendations to adjust these requirements to meet field 

development and production objectives throughout the LOP. 

• Convert resource roads to 2-tracks during interim reclamation. 

• Provide nighttime lighting/glare restrictions (e.g., light shades/hoods, directional lighting, 

colored lights, wattage limits, motion detectors, elimination during non-working hours) to 

minimize light within and from the field. 

• Monitor night lighting mitigation effectiveness in coordination with BLM. 

• Spoil piles would be contoured to blend with surrounding topography and be 

contemporaneously reclaimed. 

• Avoid prairie dog towns where practical to provide burrowing owl habitat. 

2.14.4 Compensatory Mitigation 

In lieu of the proposed Cumulative Impacts Mitigation Fund, the BLM Preferred Alternative 

recommends that, where appropriate and consistent with BLM policy, Operators voluntarily seek 

BLM-approved CM projects aimed at alleviating on-site mitigation concerns. 
2-32 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

2.15 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED FROM 

DETAILED STUDY 

Many suggestions for alternatives were proposed by the public. Most of the suggested alternatives 

involved addressing varying well numbers, varying the rate at which the field is developed, and 

varying surface disturbance. While not all suggested well number, development rate, or surface 

disturbance suggestions were analyzed, the BLM used these suggestions when developing the 

alternatives analyzed in this EIS to provide a range in well numbers, development paces, and 

surface disturbance. 

An alternative rejecting any new development was also suggested. While additional development 

in the area would likely occur under any no development alternative (e.g., State of Wyoming land 

development), for analytic purposes, the No Action Alternative sufficiently considers no new 

development-type impacts (see Section 2.5). 

Action alternatives with fewer than 1,250 wells were rejected from consideration based upon 

known natural gas reservoir properties indicating that at least this many wells would be necessary 

for adequate resource recovery. Operators believe up to 3,100 wells would be necessary for 

maximum recovery. 

Action alternatives with a development pace slower than 75 wells per year were rejected from 

consideration because the reduced development pace would result in operational and safety issues 

associated with drilling through depressurized zones (i.e., stuck pipe, mud weight variability 

problems, blow-out potential). It was determined that 75, 150, and 250 wells developed per year 

provides an adequate range of development paces to assess potential effects associated with the 

rate of development (e.g., socioeconomics, duration of habitat loss). 

Two alternatives requiring all new wells to be directionally drilled and requiring no new roads 

were not specifically analyzed in detail because Alternative B has a similar potential effect (i.e., 

no new well pads, few new roads needed). 

An alternative rejecting all further development in the JIDPA until all existing disturbance in the 

area is adequately reclaimed was not considered since this action would likely lead to 

considerable unrecovered resource and would unnecessarily prolong the LOP. 

Numerous alternatives requiring the inclusion/exclusion of multiple resource protection, 

mitigation, and monitoring measures were suggested for analysis, including the application of 

best management practices (BMPs), the use of adaptive management procedures, and 

consideration of off-site CM. Additional measures (see Chapter 5) may be included as project 

requirements in the ROD. Many if not all of these suggested requirements are considered under 

one or more of the alternatives analyzed in detail (see also Appendix A and B for BLM standard 

mitigations, Operator-committed measures and CM ideas). 

2.16 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Table 2.12 provides a brief comparison of potential impacts to key project issues (see Section 2.1) 

across alternatives. Additional detail is provided in the summary of impacts table in Appendix E, 

and in the detailed impact assessments provided in Chapter 4. 
2-33 

Table 2.12 Brief Comparison of Impacts to Key Issues Across Alternatives, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2005.1 

No Proposed Other Alternatives 

Key Issue Action Action A B C D E F G Preferred2 Disturbance Volume 

Total Acres Surface Disturbance 4,209 20,409 20,409 7,506 10,914 15,790 10,595 14,655 18,198 12,525 

LOP Acres Surface Disturbance 1,409 6,040 6,040 2,622 3,399 4,755 3,597 3,997 5,408 3,847 

Project Duration/Pace/Economics  LOP (years) 63 76 76-105 76-105 68-80 72-93 76-105 76-105 76-105 76 

Wells Developed Per Year 0 250 75-250 75-250 75-250 75-250 75-250 75-250 75-250 250 New Worker Years (development and production) 0 16,863 16,863 16,863 7,011 12,106 16,863 16,863 16,863 16,863 

Total Taxes and Royalties (millions) 2,335 6,072 6,235 4,876 4,846 5,646 4,993 5,588 6,030 6,030 Sublette County Share (millions) 742 1,839 1,892 1,446 1,503 1,728 1,484 1,677 1,824 1,824 

Air Quality/Visibility per year 

Additional Days of Impairment per year at Bridger Wilderness 0 10 10 11 8 8-10 11 11 10-11 10-11 

Additional Days of Impairment per year at Pinedale 0 3 3 5 2 2-3 3-5 3 3 3 

Habitat Loss All Species 

Direct habitat loss for greater sage-grouse, pronghorn antelope, and other wildlife would be related to surface disturbance and project duration as listed above. Most wildlife species would 

likely avoid development areas under all alternatives. Indirect habitat loss for greater sage-grouse, pronghorn antelope, and other wildlife would be related to total surface disturbance (and its location), volume of human presence (worker-years), and project duration as listed above. 

Total Well Pads 497 3,597 3,597 497 1,747 2,697 763 1,705 3,050 3,597 

New Roads (miles) 237 710 710 245 433 575 285 399 628 519 

Average Daily Traffic Volume3 (round trips to and from the 45-88 312-610 312-610 312- 145-284 231-452 312-610 312-610 312-610 312-610 

JIDPA per day) 610 

Mineral Resource Recovery 

Natural Gas (billion cubic feet) 3,366 7,947 8,191 6,124 6,657 7,554 6,302 7,186 7,876 7,876 

Condensate (million barrels) 32 76 78 58 63 72 60 68 75 75 

Livestock 

Livestock forage loss and hazard conditions would be related to the total volume of surface disturbance, the types of surface disturbance, and traffic as listed above. 

LOP Forage Loss (AUMs) 116 509 509 218 284 400 300 335 455 310 Short-term Forage Loss (AUMs) 342 1,720 1,720 618 909 1,325 881 1,277 1,531 1,002 

BLM Inspection and Enforcement 

BLM inspection and enforcement capability would be dependent upon management requirements and annual budgets and priorities. 

Compensatory Mitigation 

Hypothetical Value (thousand $) 0 4,420 4,420 0 0 494 0 0 2,541 0 

1 Further summary detail is provided in Appendix E, Summary of Impacts; complete detail for all resources is provided in Chapter 4.0. 2 Application of alternative-specific COAs, BMPs, and other mitigation and monitoring may reduce impact levels from those shown in this table. 3 Traffic volumes would be highest during development. 
2-34 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-1 

CHAPTER 3 — AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

This chapter describes existing conditions of the physical, biological, cultural, socioeconomic, 

and visual resources in the JIDPA and identifies associated resource-specific cumulative impact 

assessment areas (CIAAs). The resources and their respective CIAAs addressed in this EIS were 

identified during past Jonah project NEPA analyses, scoping for this project, and/or IDT reviews. 

Critical elements of the human environment (BLM 1988a, 1999a), their status in the JIDPA, and 

their potential to be affected by the proposed project are listed in Table 3.1. Three critical 

elements (areas of critical environmental concern [ACECs], prime and unique farmlands, and 

wild and scenic rivers) are not present and would not be affected so are not addressed further. 

Other critical elements of the human environment may potentially be affected and are addressed. 

In addition to the critical elements, this EIS discusses existing conditions and potential project 

effects (see Chapter 4) on topography; mineral resources; geologic hazards; paleontological 

resources; soils; noise and odor; biological resources; socioeconomics; land use including status, 

livestock/grazing management, recreation, and transportation; and visual resources. 

Table 3.2 lists the CIAAs for each resource, and CIAA maps are presented in specific resource 

sections of this EIS chapter. Existing disturbance in the JIDPA and CIAAs was estimated using 

existing digital geographic information system (GIS) data for roads, oil and gas wells, land cover, 

residential areas, surface water resources, wetlands, and watershed boundaries. Oil and gas well 

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

County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Addressed in 

Element1 Status on JIDPA This EIS 

Air quality Potentially affected Yes 

Areas of critical environmental concern Not present No 

Cultural resources Potentially affected Yes 

Environmental justice Not affected Yes 

Farmlands (prime or unique) Not present No 

Floodplains Potentially affected Yes 

Native American religious concerns Potentially affected Yes 

Noxious weeds Potentially affected Yes 

Threatened and endangered species Potentially affected Yes 

Wastes, hazardous or solid Potentially affected Yes 

Water quality (surface and ground water) Potentially affected Yes 

Wetlands/riparian zones Potentially affected Yes 

Wild and scenic rivers Not present No 

Wilderness Not present Yes 

Adapted from BLM (1988a, 1999a). 1 
3-2 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

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

Wyoming, 2005. 

Resource CIAA1 

Air quality Project area and nearby Class I and sensitive Class II airsheds2 

Topography Project-affected sixth-level watersheds 

Geology 

Mineral resources Combined Jonah, Jonah II and Jonah Infill Project areas 

Geologic hazards Combined Jonah, Jonah II and Jonah Infill Project areas 

 Paleontological resources Paleontological/cultural resource CIAA 

Soils Project-affected sixth-level watersheds 

Water resources 

Surface water Project-affected sixth-level watersheds 

Ground water Project area and associated draw-down area 

Odor Project area and 2-mile buffer 

Noise Project area and 20-mile buffer 

Vegetation 

General Project-affected sixth-level watersheds 

 Wetlands/Riparian areas Project-affected sixth-level watersheds 

Wildlife and fisheries 

Big game Project-affected ranges and migration corridors for the Sublette 

Pronghorn Antelope Herd 

Greater sage-grouse Northern portion of Upland Game Bird Management Area 7 

Raptors Raptor CIAA 

Fisheries Project-affected sixth-level watersheds 

Other species Jonah Wildlife Study Area 

Wild horses Little Colorado Herd Management Area 

Threatened, endangered, candidate, Entire ranges for affected species 

proposed, and BLM-sensitive species 

Cultural resources Paleontological/cultural resource CIAA 

Socioeconomics Counties (Lincoln, Sublette, and Sweetwater) and communities 

(LaBarge, Pinedale, Big Piney, Marbleton, Boulder, Eden, Farson, and 

Rock Springs) most likely to be impacted by the proposed Project 

Land use 

Agricultural/rangeland Project-affected grazing allotments 

Minerals extraction Combined Jonah, Jonah II, and Jonah Infill Project areas 

Recreation Recreation CIAA 

Land status and prior rights Project area and leases that extend beyond Project area 

Visual resources Visual resource CIAA 

1 CIAA = cumulative impact assessment area; see resource-specific sections of EIS Chapter 3 for mapped 

locations. 2 Air quality emissions sources from a larger area; see Map 3.1. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-3 

and associated access road locational information was obtained from the WOGCC and BLM 

databases, as well as Operator-provided data. Existing development information for the JIDPA 

and surrounding areas was obtained from annual Jonah and Pinedale Anticline wildlife 

monitoring reports (TRC Mariah Associates Inc. [TRC Mariah] 2004a, 2004b) and aerial 

photographs of the JIDPA and surrounding areas. Big game ranges and migration routes, raptor 

nest and greater sage-grouse lek information, potential TEP&C and BWS species habitat 

information, soils, vegetation types, general wildlife observation information, wild horse 

management areas, and grazing allotments information were obtained from WGFD, BLM, and 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD) digital shapefiles and associated data files and 

were used to assist in describing the affected environment for these resources. 

3.1 PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

3.1.1 Climate 

The JIDPA is located in a semiarid (dry and cold) mid-continental climate regime. The area is 

typified by dry windy conditions, with limited rainfall and long cold winters. The nearest 

long-term meteorological measurement station is at LaBarge, Wyoming (1958-2003), 

approximately 20 miles southwest of the JIDPA at an elevation of 6,858 ft (Western Regional 

Climate Center [WRCC] 2004). Variations in elevation and topography across the region 

result in variations in site-specific climatic conditions; therefore, site-specific conditions 

in the JIDPA likely vary somewhat from those reported herein. 

The total annual average precipitation at LaBarge is 8.0 inches, ranging from 17.8 inches (1995) 

to 3.4 inches (1975). Precipitation is greatest from mid-spring to early fall, tapering off during the 

winter months. An average of 30.5 inches of snow falls during the year (annual high 43.6 inches 

in 1987). Table 3.3 shows the average monthly temperature ranges and precipitation. 

Table 3.3 Mean Monthly Temperature Ranges and Total Precipitation at LaBarge.1 

Average Monthly Low and 

High Temperatures Average Precipitation 

Month (°F) (inches) 

January -1.7 - 30.9 0.31 

February 1.0 - 34.6 0.34 

March 13.7 - 43.1 0.38 

April 23.4 - 54.0 0.81 

May 32.0 - 64.8 1.31 

June 38.9 - 73.6 1.03 

July 43.9 - 83.4 0.67 

August 42.3 - 81.6 0.88 

September 33.2 -70.8 0.77 

October 22.4 - 59.2 0.57 

November 10.5 - 41.4 0.47 

December -0.9 - 31.0 0.46 

Annual Average 21.6 - 55.7 8.0 

Source: (WRCC 2004). 1 
3-4 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

The region has cool temperatures, with average daily temperature (in degrees Fahrenheit [oF]) 

ranging between -1.7oF and 30.9oF in January to between 43.9oF and 83.4oF in July. Extreme 

temperatures have ranged from -52oF (1990) to 96oF (2002). The frost-free period generally 

occurs from mid-May to mid-September. 

The region is subject to strong and gusty winds, reflecting channeling and mountain valley flows 

due to complex terrain. During the winter months, strong winds are often accompanied by snow, 

producing blizzard conditions. The closest comprehensive wind measurements are collected in 

the JIDPA at a meteorological station operated by BP America from 1999 through 2003. A wind 

rose for the JIDPA for years 1999 through 2002 is provided in Figure 3.1 and shows the 

frequency distribution of wind speed and direction. Table 3.4 provides the wind direction 

distribution in a tabular format. From this information, it is evident that winds in the JIDPA 

originate from the west to northwest approximately 40% of the time. The annual mean wind 

speed is 11.3 mph. 

Table 3.5 shows the frequency distribution of wind speeds in the JIDPA, and Table 3.6 shows the 

atmospheric stability class. The atmospheric stability class is the measure of atmospheric 

turbulence, which directly affects pollutant dispersion. The stability classes are divided into six 

categories designated "A" (unstable) through "F" (very stable). The "D" (neutral) stability class 

occurs more than half of the time. 

The frequency and strength of winds greatly affect the dispersion and transport of air pollutants. 

Because of the strong winds in the region, the potential for atmospheric dispersion is relatively 

high (although nighttime cooling enhances stable air, inhibiting air pollutant mixing and 

transport). 

An assessment of project impacts to climate is beyond the scope of this analysis and is therefore 

not discussed further in this EIS. 

3.1.2 Air Quality 

The Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) are health-based criteria for the maximum acceptable concentrations of 

specific air pollutants at locations to which the public has access. Although specific air quality 

monitoring has not been conducted within the JIDPA, air quality monitoring for the most relevant 

pollutants has been conducted and determined to be representative of the CIAA (Map 3.1). Air 

pollutants measured for which ambient air quality standards exist include carbon monoxide (CO), 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter less than 10 microns in effective diameter 

(PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in effective diameter (PM2.5), and sulfur dioxide 

(SO2). Background concentrations for these pollutants are compared to the WAAQS and NAAQS 

and PSD Class I and II Increments in Table 3.7. 

As shown in Table 3.7, regional background values are below established standards, and all areas 

within the CIAA are designated as attainment for all criteria pollutants. Background air quality 

concentrations can be combined with modeled Project-related emissions for the same averaging 

time periods so that total predicted pollutant concentrations can be compared to applicable air 

quality standards. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-5 

Source: BP America (2004). 

Figure 3.1 Wind Rose, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 
3-6 

1 

1 

Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

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

County, Wyoming, 2005.1 

Wind Direction Occurrence (%) 

N 5.1 

NNE 3.8 

NE 3.6 

ENE 4.1 

E 3.9 

ESE 3.4 

SE 2.9 

SSE 2.8 

S 3.9 

SSW 5.0 

SW 6.0 

WSW 6.6 

W 10.2 

WNW 16.0 

NW 13.9 

NNW 8.8

Source: BP America (2004). 

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

2005.1 

Wind Speed (mph) Occurrence (%) 

0 – 4.0 8.9 

4.0 – 7.5 25.8 

7.5 – 12.1 28.1 

12.1 – 19.0 24.4 

19.0 – 24.7 7.4 

Greater than 24.7 5.4 

Source: BP America (2004). 

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

County, Wyoming, 2005.1 

Class2 Frequency (%) 

A 2.3 

B 5.9 

C 12.0 

D 60.8 

E 15.2 

F 3.7 

1 Source: BP America (2004). 2 A = unstable; B = neutral; F = very stable. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-7 Map 3.1 Air Quality Modeling Domain (Cumulative Impact Assessment Area) Depicting Class I and Other Sensitive Areas and Lakes, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 2005 
3-8 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

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

Standards, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Increments (μg/m3

). 

Incremental Increase 

Measured Wyoming and Above Legal Baseline1 

Pollutant/ Background National Ambient Air 

Averaging Time Concentration Quality Standards PSD Class I PSD Class II 

Carbon monoxide (CO)2

 1-hour 3,336 40,000 n/a n/a 

8-hour 1,381 10,000 n/a n/a 

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)

3

 Annual 3.4 100 2.5 25 

Ozone4

 1-hour 169 235 n/a n/a 

8-hour 147 157 

Particulate matter 

(PM10)

5 33 150 8 30 

24-hour 16 50 4 17 

Annual 

Particulate matter 

(PM2.5)

5 13 65 n/a n/a 

24-hour 5 15 n/a n/a 

Annual 

Sulfur dioxide (SO2)

6

 3-hour (National) 132 1,300 25 512 

24-hour (National) 43 365 5 91 

 24-hour (Wyoming) 43 260 5 91 

Annual (National) 9 80 2 20 

 Annual (Wyoming) 9 60 2 20 

1 n/a = not applicable.

2 Background data collected by Amoco at Ryckman Creek for an 8-month period during 1978-1979, 

summarized for the Riley Ridge project (BLM 1983). 

3 Background data collected at Green River Basin Visibility Study site, Green River, Wyoming, during 

period January-December 2001 (Air Resource Specialists [ARS] 2002). 

4 Background data collected at Green River Basin Visibility Study site, Green River, Wyoming, during 

period June 10, 1998, through December 31, 2001 (ARS 2002). 

5 Background data collected by WDEQ/AQD at the Emerson Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming, in 2001. 

These data have been determined by WDEQ/AQD to be the most representative co-located PM10 and 

PM2.5 data available. 

6 Background data collected at the LaBarge Study Area/Northwest Pipeline Craven Creek site in 1982­

1983. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-9 

Federal air quality regulations adopted and enforced by WDEQ/AQD limit incremental emission 

increases to specific levels defined by the classification of air quality in an area. The PSD 

Program is designed to limit the incremental increase of specific air pollutant concentrations 

above a legally defined baseline level. The incremental increase depends upon an area's 

classification. Six PSD Class I areas are identified as sensitive areas within the CIAA: the 

Bridger, Fitzpatrick, Teton, and Washakie Wilderness Areas and Grand Teton and Yellowstone 

National Parks (see Map 3.1). Strict limitations on the additional amount of air pollution allowed 

from major emitting facilities in PSD Class I areas are applied. For Class I areas, potential 

cumulative concentrations are compared to applicable PSD increments, and potential Project 

concentrations are compared to proposed PSD significance levels. The remainder of the CIAA is 

classified PSD Class II, where similar but less-stringent incremental air quality limits apply. The 

Popo Agie Wilderness Area and the Wind River Roadless Area are PSD Class II areas that have 

been identified as additional sensitive areas occurring within the CIAA for air quality. PSD Class 

I and Class II areas are shown in Map 3.1. Regional background pollutant concentrations, 

NAAQS, and WAAQS, as well as PSD Class II increments are presented in Table 3.7. 

The 1977 Clean Air Act amendments established visibility as an Air Quality-Related Value 

(AQRV) which federal land managers must consider. The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments 

contain a goal of improving visibility within PSD Class I areas. Residents of the Pinedale area 

consider visibility impairment to be a major concern. 

There are two types of visible impairment caused by emission sources--plume impairment and 

regional haze. Plume impairment occurs when a section of the atmosphere becomes visible due 

to the contrast or color difference between a discrete pollutant plume and a viewed background 

such as a landscape feature. Short-duration (usually less than 1-2 days) visual plumes 

occasionally occur from the JIDPA as a result of upset conditions occurring during flaring 

operations. Regional haze occurs when pollutants from more diffuse emission sources become 

well mixed in the atmosphere, causing a general alteration in the appearance of landscape 

features, changing the color or contrast between landscape features, or causing features of a view 

to disappear. 

Visibility impairment is measured in terms of change in light extinction or change in deciview 

(dv). A dv change of 1 to 2 (equivalent to a 10% to 20% change in extinction) represents a small 

but perceptible change in visibility. Visual range, referred to as standard visual range (SVR), is 

the farthest distance at which an observer can just see a black object viewed against the horizon 

sky. The larger the SVR, the cleaner the air. Visibility within the JIDPA air quality CIAA is 

considered very good, with an average SVR of over 93.2 miles (150.0 km) (Malm 2000). 

Visibility impacts within Class II areas such as the Sublette County towns of Merna, Pinedale, 

and Boulder are categorized in this analysis as the mid-field area of study. Visibility or other 

AQRV impacts within these Class II areas are neither monitored nor regulated by state or federal 

agencies. Visibility and acid deposition monitoring is conducted within Class I areas. In 1985, the 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring program was 

initiated to establish current visibility conditions, to track visibility changes, to establish longterm trends, and to determine the causal mechanisms of visibility impairment in Class I areas. 

The Bridger Wilderness Area, North Absaroka Wilderness Area, and Yellowstone National Park 

IMPROVE sites are the closest such sites to the JIDPA. Data have been collected near the 

Bridger Wilderness Area and Yellowstone National Park sites since 1989, and at the North 
3-10 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Absaroka Wilderness Area since 2000. Figures 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 present summaries of visibility 

conditions at the IMPROVE sites for the cleanest days (20th percentile best visibility days), for 

average conditions; and for the haziest days (20th percentile haziest visibility days), respectively 

(Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere [CIRA] 2003). These data are presented in 

SVR and were reconstructed from monitored aerosol (suspended liquid or solid particles) data. 

Atmospheric deposition refers to the processes by which air pollutants are removed from the 

atmosphere and deposited on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and it is reported as the mass of 

material deposited on an area per year (kg/ha-yr). Air pollutants are deposited by wet deposition 

(precipitation) and dry deposition (gravitational settling of pollutants). Background wet and dry 

atmospheric acid deposition impacts have been monitored at the National Acid Deposition 

Program (NADP) National Trends Network (NTN) (wet deposition) and Clean Air Status and 

Trends Network (CASTNET) (dry deposition) station near Pinedale, Wyoming. Total annual 

deposition (wet and dry) reported as total nitrogen and total sulfur deposition for this site for the 

monitoring period of record are provided in Figure 3.5 and 3.6, respectively. 

Total deposition levels of concern (LOC) have been estimated for several areas, including the 

Bridger Wilderness Area (USFS 1989). The "red line" LOC represents an estimate of the total 

pollutant loadings that each wilderness can tolerate. Total loadings above these values suggest 

that the land manager recommend a reduction of emissions from new sources unless data are 

available to indicate that no AQRVs in the Class I area are unlikely to be adversely affected. The 

"green line" LOC represents the total pollution loadings (current plus proposed new source 

contribution) below which a land manager can recommend a permit be issued for a new source, 

unless data are available that indicate otherwise. The USFS has indicated that the current green 

line values are set too high (personal communication, December 2004, with Susan Caplan, BLM 

Air Quality Specialist). Cumulative impacts plus background are compared to these LOCs. The 

Bridger Wilderness nitrogen deposition red line LOC is 10 kg/ha-yr and nitrogen deposition 

green line LOC is 3-5 kg/ha-yr. The Bridger Wilderness sulfur deposition red line LOC is 20 

kg/ha-yr and sulfur deposition green line is 5 kg/ha-yr. For comparison with reported deposition 

values, these LOCs are shown on Figures 3.5 and 3.6. 

The Wyoming Air Resources Monitoring System (WARMS) has measured concentrations of 

nitric acid, particulate nitrate, total nitrate, particulate ammonium, sulfur dioxide, and sulfate at a 

station near Pinedale, Wyoming since 1999. Figures 3.7 and 3.8 present the weekly 

concentrations of nitrogen compounds (nitrate and ammonium) and Figures 3.9 and 3.10 present 

concentrations of sulfur compounds (sulfur dioxide and sulfate) near Pinedale. These data are 

provided as an additional measure of the nitrogen and sulfur levels near the Bridger Wilderness. 

WARMS data from the network start-up period from 1999 and 2000 may be unreliable, however, 

they are provided for comparison purposes. 

Site-specific lake chemistry background data (pH, acid-neutralizing capacity [ANC], elemental 

concentrations, etc.) have been collected by the USFS in several high mountain lakes in the 

nearby Wilderness Areas. Lakes for which background data were collected are shown on 

Map 3.1. Lake acidification is measured in terms of change in ANC, which is the lake’s 

buffering capacity to resist acidification from atmospheric deposition of acid compounds such as 

sulfates and nitrates. Measured baseline ANC data for sensitive lakes within the cumulative 

study domain are provided in Table 3.8. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-11 Figure 3.2 Standard Visual Range for 20th% Cleanest Days, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming (CIRA 

2003). 
3-12 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Figure 3.3 Standard Visual Range for Average Days, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming (CIRA 2003). 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-13 Figure 3.4 Standard Visual Range for 20th% Haziest Days, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming (CIRA

 (2003). 
3-14 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Figure 3.5 Mean Annual Total Nitrogen Deposition Near Pinedale, Wyoming (NADP [WY06] and CASTNET [PND165]). 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-15 Figure 3.6 Mean Annual Total Sulfur Deposition Near Pinedale, Wyoming (NADP [WY06] and CASTNET [PND165]). 
3-16 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Figure 3.7 Weekly Concentrations of Nitrate Near Pinedale, Wyoming (WARMS, Pinedale). 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-17 Figure 3.8 Weekly Concentrations of Ammonium Near Pinedale, Wyoming (WARMS, Pinedale). 
3-18 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Figure 3.9 Weekly Concentrations of Sulfur Dioxide Near Pinedale, Wyoming (WARMS, Pinedale). 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-19 Figure 3.10 Weekly Concentrations of Sulfate Near Pinedale, Wyoming (WARMS, Pinedale). 
3-20 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 3.8 Monitored Background Conditions at Sensitive Lakes.1 

Sensitive Lake Lake Location 

Background ANC 

(μeq/l)2 

Number of 

Samples 

Period of 

Monitoring 

Black Joe Lake Bridger Wilderness Area 67.0 61 1984-2003 

Deep Lake Popo Agie Wilderness Area 59.9 58 1984-2003 

Hobbs Lake Bridger Wilderness Area 69.9 65 1984-2003 

Lazy Boy Lake Bridger Wilderness Area 18.8 1 1997 

Upper Frozen Lake Bridger Wilderness Area 5.0 6 1997-2003 

Ross Lake Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area 53.5 44 1988-2003 

Lower Saddlebag Lake Popo Agie Wilderness Area 55.5 43 1989-2003 

1 From USFS (2003). 2 10th Percentile Lowest ANC Values reported. 

Lakes with ANC values ranging from 25 to 100 microequivalents per liter (μeq/l) are considered 

to be sensitive to atmospheric deposition, lakes with ANC values ranging from 10 to 25 μeq/l are 

considered very sensitive, and lakes with ANC values less than 10 μeq/l are considered extremely 

sensitive (personal communication, January 2005, with Terry Svalberg, USFS). 

The USFS has identified specific AQRV "Level of Acceptable Change" (LAC) values which are 

used to evaluate potential air quality impacts from deposition within their wilderness areas (USFS 

2000). The USFS has identified a LAC of no greater than 1 μeq/l change in ANC (from human 

causes) for lakes with existing ANC levels less than 25 μeq/l. A limit of 10 percent change in 

ANC reduction was adopted for lakes with existing ANC greater than 25 μeq/l. 

3.1.3 Topography 

The JIDPA is located in the northern portion of the Green River Basin. Topography is generally 

gently rolling, with elevations ranging from approximately 7,400 ft on top of area buttes to about 

7,000 ft on the JIDPA's southern boundary (Map 3.2). Topographic relief areas (butte slopes) 

typically range in height from 50 to 150 ft. Sand Draw, the major drainage in the JIDPA, bisects 

the area, flowing northeast to southwest into Alkali Creek (a tributary to the Green River). All 

drainages in the JIDPA are ephemeral, flowing only in response to snowmelt and rain storms. 

Drainage is predominantly to the southwest in Sand Draw and to Alkali Creek, to the west into 

Granite Draw, and to the southeast into Jonah Gulch (to a closed basin) and Long Draw and Bull 

Draw (to the Big Sandy River). 

Natural gas development in the JIDPA now dominates the landscape, with over 500 wells and 

associated roads and pipelines. The CIAA for topography is the Project-affected JIDPA 

watershed areas described in detail in Sections 3.1.5 (Soils) and 3.2.1 (Vegetation). 

3.1.4 Geology 

The JIDPA is located on the northeastern flank of the northern Green River Basin--a structural 

and topographical basin located between the Overthrust Belt to the west and the Wind River 

Mountains to the east. The Pinedale Anticline, a large structural feature, is located immediately 

north and east of the JIDPA. 
3-21 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area Jonah Field II Project Area 

0 0.8 1.6 2.4 0.4 

Miles 

0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 0.4 

Kilometers 

1:72,000 1 inch equals 6,000 feet 

G:/35982/topo_map.mxd/map3.2 9/20/04 

USGS 7.5' Quads: Bull Draw, Gobblers Knob, Juel Spring, Oasis Well, Olsen Ranch, Ross Butte, Square Top, Stud Horse Butte, Sugar Loaf, Sugar Loaf NE, Sugar Loaf NW, and Teakettle Butte, Wyoming. 

Map 3.2 Area Topography, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 
3-22 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Map 3.3 Surface Geology, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-23 

Surface geology in the JIDPA is composed primarily of residuum mixed with alluvium, aeolian 

material, slopewash, grus, and/or bedrock outcrops. Also present are areas of slopewash and 

colluvium mixed with scattered deposits of residuum, grus, glacial and periglacial alluvium, 

aeolian deposits, and/or bedrock outcrops; shallow alluvium mixed with scattered bedrock 

outcrops; and an area with stabilized sand dunes (Wyoming Geographic Information Science 

Center [WyGISC] 2003a) (Map 3.3). 

Bedrock geology in the JIDPA is dominated by the Laney Member of the Green River Formation 

(Tgl) and the New Fork Tongue of the Wasatch Formation (Twg) (WyGISC 2003a) (Map 3.4). 

An area of the Wilkins Peak Member of the Green River Formation (Tgw) occurs in the 

west-central portion of the area. The Laney Member is composed of oil shale and marlstone; the 

New Fork Tongue consists of mudstone, sandstone, and thin limestone beds; and the Wilkins 

Peak Member is composed of tuffaceous sandstone. 

The JIDPA is underlain, in descending order, by the Green River, the Wasatch Formation, the 

Fort Union Formation, an unnamed Tertiary bed, the Lance Formation, the Mesaverde Group 

(i.e., the Almond Formation, Ericson Sandstone, Rock Springs Formation, and the Blair 

Formation), the Baxter/Hilliard Shale, and Lower Cretaceous (Frontier Formation), Jurassic, 

Triassic, Upper Paleozoic, Lower Paleozoic (Madison Formation), and Precambrian rocks. 

(Figure 3.11). The Lance and the upper portions of the Mesa Verde Group (together referred to as 

the Lance Pool) is the primary target for gas production for the Project. 

Other than the Green River and Wasatch Formations, which occur at the surface, the geological 

formations underlying the JIDPA would not be adversely affected by the proposed Project and, 

therefore, are not discussed further in this EIS. Surface geology is considered under Topography 

(see Section 3.1.3). 

3.1.4.1 Mineral Resources 

The mineral resources CIAA covers approximately 66,400 acres (103.8 square miles) on and 

surrounding the JIDPA and is defined as the combined Jonah EA, Jonah Field II EIS, and JIDPA 

areas (Map 3.5). Mineral resources within this area are generally as described below for the 

JIDPA; however, recovery of the natural gas resources in the CIAA area outside the JIDPA is 

currently considered uneconomic. Additional information on minerals industry earnings, labor, 

and revenues is provided in Section 3.4. 

The Jonah Field is a highly productive natural gas field that produces both natural gas and 

condensate (oil contained in the natural gas stream). The estimated volume of natural gas in place 

in the field is 10,500 billion cubic ft (BCF), with recoverable volumes estimated to range between 

3,400 and 8,200 BCF; 1 BCF of natural gas is the average annual amount used by 13,700 

Wyoming households (2002 use rates) (Energy Information Administration 2004). Through 

August 2004, approximately 1,121 BCF of gas and 11 million barrels of oil (MBO) had been 

produced from the field from over 500 wells (WOGCC 2004). 

The Lance Formation (from which natural gas would be obtained) is a sedimentary formation, 

formed by fluvial processes, whereby sediments were deposited in complex, discontinuous bodies 

by braided flowing streams. Figure 3.12 provides a photograph of a typical braided stream. The 

gas-bearing sediments of the Lance Formation occur in numerous discontinuous lenses (see 

Appendix G). 
3-24 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Map 3.4 Bedrock Geology, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-25 Figure 3.11 Formations Underlying the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette Country, Wyoming, 2005. 
3-26 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

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

Impact Assessment Areas, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 

2004. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-27 Figure 3.12 Typical Braided Stream. 
3-28 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Other mineral resources in the area include coal and sand and gravel. The JIDPA is located within 

the Green River Basin Coal Field (Jones 1991) and is underlain by coal-bearing rocks. However, 

the potential for coal development is low because coal beds are thin and too deep to be 

economically mined. Limited sand and gravel resources occur in the JIDPA, and these resources 

have been used for existing area developments (e.g., roads). No other minerals are known to 

occur in the JIDPA (Harris 1996, 1997; Hausel 1997). 

3.1.4.2 Geologic Hazards 

The geologic hazards CIAA covers the same 66,400 acres (103.8 square miles) as the mineral 

resources CIAA (see Map 3.5). Geologic hazards within the CIAA are generally as described 

below for the JIDPA. 

All of Wyoming is seismically active, and the western quarter of the state is more active than the 

eastern three-quarters (Case 1997). The JIDPA is within an area where an earthquake could have 

an estimated peak acceleration of 16-20% gravity and an estimated 2,500-year recurrence 

interval. Earthquakes with acceleration of 16-20% gravity are equivalent to earthquakes with 

intensities of VII to VIII on the modified Mercali scale, which cause negligible to slight damage 

in well-designed buildings, slight to considerable damage in ordinary structures, and considerable 

to great damage in poorly built structures. In the western quarter of Wyoming, an intensity V 

earthquake (less intense than VII; windows broken, plaster cracked, objects overturned) can be 

expected to occur about every 1.5 years (Case 1997). 

Numerous earthquakes have occurred in a north/south-trending belt between Big Piney and 

Evanston in recent years. An earthquake with a 3.3 magnitude (Richter scale) occurred within the 

area in 1978 (Case et al. 1995). The epicenter was located in the northern portion of T29N, 

R108W. The Continental Fault System and the Leckie Fault occur approximately 10 miles 

northeast of the JIDPA (Case 1997). It is not known whether these faults have been active in 

Quaternary times. 

No landslides or active sand dunes are known to occur in the JIDPA (WyGISC 2003a), nor are 

there any known areas of subsidence (personal communication, October 1996, with Jim Case, 

Wyoming Geological Survey). 

3.1.4.3 Paleontological Resources 

The CIAA for paleontologic resources covers approximately 484.4 square miles (310,000 acres) 

on and surrounding the JIDPA (see Map 3.5). Approximately 3,331 acres of the CIAA have been 

disturbed primarily from existing oil and gas developments and associated road and pipeline 

networks. Forty-two percent of this disturbance (1,409 acres) occurs within the JIDPA, 1,388 

acres are due to roads outside the JIDPA, 468 acres are due to well pads outside the JIDPA, and 

66 acres are due to agricultural lands. Paleontologic resources within the CIAA are generally the 

same as described for the JIDPA, and 26 fossil localities are known from the CIAA (ErathemVanir Geological Consultants 1997). Vertebrate fossils, including mammalian species, are known 

from some of these localities. The localities occur on the Green River, Wasatch, and Bridger 

Formations. 

The important fossil record of the Green River Basin is well known (BLM 1992; Grande 1984). 

Table 3.9 provides information on the various geologic formations present on and in the vicinity 

of the JIDPA and their paleontologic potential. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-29 

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

Paleontologic Potential, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.1 

Deposit2 

Geologic 

Age 

Type of Deposit/ 

Environment of Deposition Thickness Fossil Resources 

Fossil 

Potential 

Alluvial sediments Holocene Unconsolidated silts, sands of 

valleys and plains; terrestrial 

<20 ft None Low 

Terrace deposits Pleistocene/ 

Holocene 

Gravels, silts, and sands that 

predate current erosional cycle; 

terrestrial-fluvial 

<40 ft Pleistocene 

mammals 

Moderate 

Green River Fm 

Laney Mbr 

LaClede Bed 

Middle Eocene Chiefly oil shale, lesser algal 

limestone, sandstone, claystone, and 

tuff; lacustrine, accumulated during 

renewed expansion of Lake Gosiute 

<100 ft Vertebrates, 

invertebrates, 

trace fossils 

High 

Green River Fm 

Wilkins Peak Mbr 

(upper part) 

Early-Middle 

Eocene 

Chiefly brown or black oil shale 

interbedded with gray or green 

mudstone, evaporitic; lacustrine, 

deposited during re-expansion of 

Lake Gosiute (upper) 

<150 ft Vertebrates, 

invertebrates, 

plants 

High 

Wasatch Fm 

Alkali Creek or 

New Fork Tongue 

Early Eocene Interbedded brown, green, and gray 

sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, and 

shale, locally conglomeratic; chiefly 

terrestrial-fluvial to floodplain, 

some lacustrine 

<100 ft Vertebrates, 

invertebrates, 

plants 

High 

1 Adapted from Erathem-Vanir Geological Consultants (1997). 2 Fm = formation; Mbr = member; Ss = sandstone. 

The Green River and Wasatch Formations contain fossils from each of the five biological 

kingdoms and is well-known for its abundant fish fossils (Grande 1984). The Laney Member of 

the Green River Formation is especially fossiliferous. Terrestrial mammalian fossils are not 

common because the Green River Formation was formed predominantly from lake deposits; 

however, reptile (crocodile, alligator, snake, lizard), amphibian (frog, salamander), bird (pelican, 

grouse, shorebird, and small perching bird), and insect and other invertebrate fossils have been 

recorded. Although uncommon, mammalian fossils, including marsupials, insectivores, primates, 

rodents, carnivores, and ungulates, have been recovered. 

The fossil flora of the Laney Member is not well studied but includes sycamore, horsetail, and lily 

pads. Other members of the Green River Formation, however, include a diverse mixture of trees, 

shrubs, and flowers, suggesting that the fossil flora of the Laney Member may be more diverse 

than is now known. Insects and other invertebrates (gastropods, arthropods), algae, fungi, 

flagellates, and bacteria also have been recovered from the Green River Formation. A review of 

museum and university records and literature (Erathem-Vanir Geological Consultants 1997) 

indicated no known significant localities within the JIDPA, although two localities occur within 

1.0 mile of the area. However, during past JIDPA developments, a few fossils of a Pleistocene 

horse (tentative identification) were discovered in JIDPA terrace deposits during construction of a 

well pad. It is likely that important fossils (including both Eocene and Pleistocene materials), are 

located in the JIDPA. 
3-30 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

3.1.5 Soils 

The CIAA for soil resources is the combined area of the 10 watersheds that drain the JIDPA (see 

Section 3.1.6). This CIAA covers approximately 328.6 square miles (210,300 acres) (Table 3.10, 

Map 3.6). Estimates of the types of soils most likely to be disturbed are based on coarse-scale 

Wyoming Gap Analysis soil information (Munn and Arneson 1999a, 1999b). Extant soils 

information for the CIAA (coarsely mapped) indicates that soil map units SU03 and SU05 are the 

predominant soil types in the area (see Table 3.10). Approximately 1.6% of the CIAA (3,354.7 

acres) has been disturbed primarily by oil and gas developments and roads (Table 3.11) and 

approximately 42% of this disturbance (1,409 acres) exists as long-term disturbance in the 

JIDPA; no crop lands or residential areas are known to occur within the CIAA. The Expanded 

Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed has the largest amount of existing disturbance (991.5 acres), 

4.2% of the watershed, and most of this disturbance (664.9 acres) is from existing natural gas 

developments in the JIDPA (see Table 3.11). 

Seventeen soil mapping units (fine resolution mapping) occur within the JIDPA (Map 3.7 and 

Table 3.12) (ERO Resources Corporation 1988; Munn and Arneson 1999a, 1999b; BKS 

Environmental Associates, Inc. 2003; Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2003). 

Table 3.12 lists the fine-scale soil map units, their JIDPA acreage, and soil use limitations and 

management considerations. Many of the soils within the JIDPA have characteristics that limit 

their suitability for road construction and may inhibit successful reclamation. The primary factors 

limiting soils use for road construction are shallow depth to rock, low strength, shrink-swell 

potential, frost action, flooding, and steep slopes. Reclamation potential is limited by alkalinity 

and salinity; excess stones, sand, clay, and/or lime; shallow depths; and steep slopes. 

One known area of stabilized sand dunes and other aeolian (windblown) deposits occurs in the 

JIDPA (see Map 3.3) (Case and Boyd 1987), and it is likely that smaller areas of sand dunes or 

windblown deposits also occur in the area. The Spool Variant-Ouard Variant-San Arcacio Variant 

soil series (map unit 123) and Garsid-Terada-Langspring Variant complex (map unit 121) 

contain these features (Table 3.12; Maps 3.3 and 3.6). Stabilized dunes and other windblown 

deposits are usually very sandy and are highly susceptible to wind erosion. However, these soil 

types and/or known stabilized dunes are not common within the JIDPA and, where they do occur, 

they are limited in size and areal extent. 

Major soils within the JIDPA include the Vermillion Variant-Seedskadee-Fraddle complex on 

0-3% slopes (map unit 127); the Monte-Leckman complex on 1-6% slopes (map unit 106); the 

Fraddle-Ouard-San Arcacio Variant complex on 3-8% slopes (map unit 124); the Ouard-Ouard 

Variant-Boltus complex on 1-8% slopes (map unit 114); the Garsid-Monte Association on 1-6% 

slopes (map unit 119); the San Arcacio-Saguache association on 0-3% slopes (map unit 125); the 

Huguston-Horsley-Terada complex on 6-30% slopes (map unit 116); and the Haterton-Garsid 

complex on 1-8% slopes (map unit 113) (Table 3.12). These mapping units collectively cover 

approximately 78% of the JIDPA. The Cowestglen sand loam on 0-2% slopes (map unit 951/106) 

and the Monte-Leckman complex (map unit 106) on 1-6% slopes occur adjacent to drainage 

channels and on terraces and alluvial fans. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-31 

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

Drilling Project, Wyoming, 2005. 

Soil Map Unit1 Soil Type Description1 

Total 

Acres % of CIAA 

Acres in 

JIDPA 

SU01 Typic Torrifluvents, fine-silty and fine, mixed 

(calcareous), frigid-Typic Haplaquepts, fine-loamy 

and fine loamy over sandy or sandy-skeletal, mixed 

(calcareous), frigid 

4,495 2.1 0 

SU02 Aquic Haplustolls, coarse-loamy, mixed, frigidUstic Torriorthents, fine-loamy, mixed 

(calcareous), frigid-Typic Fluvaquents, fine-loamy, 

mixed (calcareous) frigid 

899 0.4 0 

SU03 Rock Outcrop-Typic Torriorthents, loamy, mixed 

(calcareous) frigid, shallow-Lithic Typic 

Torriorthents, loamy-skeletal, mixed (calcareous), 

frigid-Typic Natrargids, fine-loamy, mixed, frigid 

93,700 44.6 9,913 

SU05 Typic Torriorthents, loamy, mixed (calcareous) 

frigid, shallow-Typic Haplocalcids, coarse-loamy, 

mixed, frigid-Lithic Torriorthents, loamy-skeletal, 

mixed (calcareous), frigid 

68,323 32.5 20,496 

SU07 Ustic Torriorthents, fine loamy, mixed (calcareous), 

frigid-Ustic Torriorthents loamy, mixed 

(calcareous), frigid, shallow-Typic Haplocalcids, 

fine-loamy, mixed, frigid 

20,229 9.6 91 

SU08 Typic Haplosalids, fine, mixed, frigid-Typic 

Haplocambids, fine-silty, mixed, frigid 

10,249 4.9 0 

SU09 Typic and Lithic Torripsamments, mixed, frigidTypic Torriorthents, loamy-skeletal, mixed, frigidRock Outcrop-Typic Haplocambids, loamyskeletal, mixed, frigid 3,596 1.7 0 

SW08 Typic Haplosalids, fine, mixed, frigid and Typic 

Haplocambids, fine-silty, mixed, frigid 

1,079 0.5 0 

SW12 Ustic Haplargids, fine-loamy and coarse-loamy, 

mixed, frigid-Ustic Haplocambids, sandy, mixed, 

frigid 

7,730 3.7 0 

Total 210,300 100.0 30,500 

Based on Munn and Arneson (1999a, 1999b). 1 
3-32 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Map 3.6 Soil Types (Coarse-Scale) Within the Soils Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Jonah 

Infill Drilling Project, Wyoming, 2005. 
3-33 

Table 3.11 Existing Watershed Disturbance Acreage, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Wyoming, 2005.1 

Watersheds 

Expanded Reduced Upper Upper Southeast New Fork North Big Sandy

Sand Draw- Granite Alkali Creek-Green Eighteenmile River- Alkali River-Bull Jonah 140401­

Type Alkali Creek Wash River Canyon Blue Ridge Draw Draw Long Draw Gulch 040603 Total Watershed 23,373 12,212 26,355 35,212 11,746 15,911 19,760 18,521 22,652 24,558 210,300 Acreage Disturbance in the JIDPA2 

664.9 0.0 114.1 132.6 0.0 0.0 43.7 390.3 24.0 39.4 1,409.0 

Disturbance Outside the JIDPA Wells 3 4.0 0.0 8.0 56.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 8.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 

Roads4 

Connecting 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 road Jeep trail 6.5 0.0 8.3 9.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 24.7 24.6 74.0 Neighbor- 146.2 34.6 141.7 170.2 19.8 85.0 128.5 88.0 84.6 84.8 986.4 hood road State 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.2 83.6 0.0 0.0 141.8 highway Other (new 169.9 0.4 80.6 241.8 0.0 0.0 30.2 101.6 5.6 0.0 630.1 oil and gasroads) Subtotal 322.6 36.0 230.6 421.1 23.2 85.8 216.9 273.2 114.9 109.4 1,833.7 

Total 991.5 36.0 352.7 609.7 23.2 97.8 260.6 671.5 150.9 160.8 3,354.7 Disturbance 

% of 4.2 0.3 1.3 1.7 0.2 0.6 1.3 3.6 0.7 0.7 1.6 Watershed Disturbed 

1 Data gathered from WyGISC (2003b), WOGCC (2003), TRC Mariah (2004a, 2004b), and unpublished BLM aerial photography. 2 See Table 2.3. 3 Assumes 4 acres per well pad. 4 Road acreage based on 20-ft width for connecting roads, jeep trails, and neighborhood roads; 29-ft width for other roads; and 150-ft width for state 

highways. 
3-34 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

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

Wyoming, 2005. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-35 

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

Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Map 

Unit 

No. Map Unit Name Use and Management Considerations Acres 

102 Langspring Variant- Gently sloping to nearly level mesa tops and uplands. Loamy uplands. 149 

Langspring complex, Generally suitable for road construction. Rehabilitation limited due to excess 

1-10% slopes lime and small stones. 

104 Chrisman silty clay, 0 to 2% Saline upland sites, in closed basins. Construction activities limited due to 42 

slopes severe shrink-swell properties. Rehabilitation potential limited by moderately 

alkaline soils. 

106 Monte-Leckman complex, Gently sloping alluvial fans and drainageways. Loamy, saline uplands. Mostly 3,488 

1-6% slopes suitable for road construction. Rehab limited by excess sands or small stones. 

108 Dines-Clowers-Quealman Nearly level to gently sloping drainageways and alluvial terraces. Loamy 268 

complex, 0-3% slopes sites, saline uplands. Limited for road construction due to low strength. 

Rehabilitation potential limited by excess salt, sand, and small stones. 

110 Fraddle-Tresano complex, Rolling uplands, upper dissected fans, and valley-filling slopes. Loamy 1,541 

1-8% slopes uplands. Limited for construction activities and reclamation due to thin soils. 

113 Haterton-Garsid complex, Nearly level to gently sloping uplands and sideslopes. Shallow loamy and 2,102 

1-8% slopes loamy sites. Construction limited by shallow depth to bedrock, slope, and low 

strength. Rehabilitation limited by shallow depth to bedrock and steep slopes. 

114 Ouard-Ouard Variant- Nearly level to gently sloping uplands. Shallow loamy, shallow clayey, and 3,132 

Boltus complex, shaley sites. Limited due to low strength and shallow depth to bedrock. 

1-8% slopes Rehabilitation limited due to thin soils. 

116 Huguston-Horsley-Terada Gently sloping to moderately steep sideslopes and rolling uplands. Shaley and 2,109 

complex, 6-30% slopes loamy sites. Limited due to shallow depth to bedrock, low strength, and steep 

slopes. Rehabilitation limited by shallow depths and slopes. 

119 Garsid-Monte association, Gently undulating uplands. Loamy sites. Construction limited by thin soils, 3,087 

1-6% slopes low strength, and steep slopes. Rehabilitation limited by steep slopes. 

121 Garsid-Terada-Langspring Undulating uplands. Loamy sites. Construction limited due to thin soils, low 1,261 

Variant complex, strength, and steep slopes. Rehabilitation limited by steep slopes, small stones, 

1-6% slopes and excess lime. 

122 Baston-Boltus-Chrisman Undulating and dominantly concave uplands. Clayey, shaley, and saline 85 

association, 0-6% slopes upland sites. Construction limited by low strength, shrink-swell potential, thin 

soils, and steep slopes. Rehabilitation limited by thin soils, clayey textures, 

excess salt and steep slopes. 

123 Spool Variant-Ouard Gently sloping to steep sideslopes and rolling uplands. Shallow sandy, 1,260 

Variant-San Arcacio Variant shallow clayey and loamy sites. Construction limited by shallow depth to 

complex, 4-25% slopes bedrock and low strength. Rehabilitation limited by shallow depths, small 

stones, sandy or clayey textures, or steep slopes. 

124 Fraddle-Ouard-San Arcacio Rolling uplands. Loamy and shallow loamy sites. Construction limited by thin 3,194 

Variant complex, soils and low strength. Rehabilitation limited by thin soils, clayey textures, or 

3-8% slopes small stones. 

125 San Arcacio-Saguache Old floodplains, fans, and terraces. Loamy and sandy sites. Generally suitable 2,304 

association, 0-3% slopes for road construction. Rehabilitation limited by small stones. 

127 Vermillion Variant- Nearly level uplands and mesas. Shallow loamy and loamy sites. Limited for 4,427 

Seedskadee-Fraddle construction due to shallow depth to bedrock, low strength, and thin soils. 

complex, 0-3% slopes Rehabilitation limited by stoniness, excess lime, and thin soils. 

128 Fraddle-Ouard-San Arcacio Nearly level upland surfaces. Loamy and shallow loamy sites. Construction 1,645 

Variant complex, limited by low strength and shallow depth to bedrock. Rehabilitation limited 

0-3% slopes by thin soils and small stones. 

951/106 Cowestglen sandy loam, 0­ Nearly level drainage ways. Road construction potentially limited by 406 

2% slopes/see also Map moderate frost action and flooding. See also Map Unit 106, above. 

Unit 106, above 

Total 30,500 

Adapted from: ERO Resources Corporation (1988) and BKS Environmental Associates Inc. (2003). 1 
3-36 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Several soils (i.e., Monte-Leckman [map unit 106], Fraddle-Tresano [map unit 110], GarsidMonte [map unit 119], and Baston-Boltus-Chrisman [map unit 122] complexes/associations) may 

be good sources for topsoil (ERO Resources Corporation 1988) (see also Appendix G). The 

Spool Variant-Ouard Variant-San Arcacio Variant (map unit 123), the Fraddle-Ouard-San 

Arcacio Variant (map unit 124), and the San Arcacio-Saguache (map unit 125) 

complexes/associations may be good gravel sources. The San Arcacio soils are also considered to 

be archaeologically sensitive in that they contain intact buried cultural resources. 

The Chrisman silty clay soil (map unit 104) is typically fine-textured and formed in thick clayey 

local alluvium in closed basins and is susceptible to high shrink-swell potential that may limit 

road construction activities (ERO Resources Corporation 1988).The extent of erosion in the 

JIDPA is currently undefined. However, the relatively flat nature of the area, desert-like 

precipitation patterns, and BLM's requirements for the use of BMPs to limit erosion are assumed 

to limit the extent of erosion in the area. Nonetheless, the BLM has determined that additional 

erosion/soil loss modeling will be performed for the JIDPA. The results of this modeling will be 

available in the Final EIS for this Project. 

The Transportation and Reclamation Plans (Appendix G) contain further information on soil 

characteristics, suitability for road construction and reclamation, use and management 

considerations, and criteria for establishing soil suitability for various uses. 

3.1.6 Water Resources 

3.1.6.1 Surface Water 

The CIAA for surface water resources is the combined area of the 10 watersheds that drain the 

JIDPA, which encompass approximately 328.6 miles (210,300 acres) (see Table 3.13 and 

Maps 3.8 and 3.9). Approximately 1.6% of the CIAA (3,354.7 acres) has been disturbed 

primarily by oil and gas developments and roads (see Table 3.11). The Expanded Sand 

Draw-Alkali Creek watershed has the largest amount of existing disturbance--4.2% of the 

watershed (991.5 acres)--and most of this disturbance (664.9 acres) is from existing natural gas 

developments in the JIDPA (see Table 3.11). 

The JIDPA lies within the Upper Green River Basin and is part of the Colorado River drainage 

system. The entire JIDPA is drained by intermittent and ephemeral streams; there are no 

perennial streams or springs in the area. However, there are two playas and several reservoirs and 

stockponds constructed in ephemeral washes that may contain water for all or a part of some 

years. The nearest flowing perennial water bodies to the JIDPA are the Big Sandy, New Fork, and 

Green Rivers (see Map 3.8). 

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum is a cooperative effort between federal 

agencies and seven states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and 

Wyoming) to address the problem of increasing salinity in the lower reaches of the Colorado 

River. Salinity has long been recognized as one of the major problems of the river. Salts 

contained within sedimentary rocks throughout the basin are easily eroded, dissolved, and 

transported into the river system, with salt-loading resulting from natural processes (i.e., saline 

springs, groundwater discharge into the river system, erosion and the concentrating effects of 

evaporation and transpiration) and human-caused processes (i.e., irrigation return waters, 

reservoir evaporation, municipal and industrial discharges) (Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Forum 2002). 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-37 

Table 3.13 Watershed Acreages, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Wyoming, 2005. 

Total Percent of Watershed Acreage 

Acreage of Acres within Percent of JIDPA Watershed in Along Burma Road 

Major Drainage/Watershed Watershed JIDPA in Watershed JIDPA (Outside JIDPA) 

Green River/New Fork River 

Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali 23,373 13,724 45.0 58.7 2 

Creek 

Granite Wash 12,212 1,312 4.3 10.7 5 

Reduced Upper Alkali Creek­ 26,355 3,782 12.4 14.4 9 

Green River 

Upper Eighteenmile Canyon 35,212 1,958 6.4 5.6 0 

Southeast New Fork River-Blue 11,746 -- -- -- 13 

Rim 

North Alkali Draw 15,911 -- -- -- 6 

Subtotal 124,809 20,776 68.1 16.6 35 

Big Sandy River 

Big Sandy River-Bull Draw 19,760 3,630 11.9 18.4 0 

Long Draw 18,521 5,028 16.5 27.1 0 

Subtotal 38,281 8,658 28.4 22.6 0 

Closed Basin 

Jonah Gulch 22,652 318 1.0 1.4 0 

140401040603 24,558 748 2.5 3.0 0 

Subtotal 47,210 1,066 3.5 2.3 0 

Total 210,300 30,500 100.0 14.5 35 
3-38 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

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

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

Wyoming, 2005. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-39 

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

Soils, Vegetation, and Fisheries, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Wyoming, 2005. 
3-40 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

The purpose of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum is to provide information 

necessary to comply with Section 303(a) and (b) of the Clean Water Act and to meet national, 

international, and state water quality objectives (Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum 

2002). The following measures have been identified to reduce salt loading in the Colorado River 

Basin: 

• implementation of management practices that minimize soil disturbances, repair 

disturbed surface environments, and protect water quality; 

• prevention of nonpoint-source salt mobilization through land-use planning, permit 

stipulations, land-use authorizations, best management practices, watershed protection 

strategies, and ecological restoration; 

• control of point sources such as saline springs and seeps and abandoned flowing wells 

(i.e., well plugging) that yield saline water; 

• implementation of water quality monitoring and analysis to assess the effectiveness of 

management practices; 

• implementation of vegetation management practices that improve vegetative cover (i.e., 

control burns, reclamation, revegetation), control noxious weed infestations, and 

improve or repair riparian areas thereby decreasing the amount of runoff and soil erosion 

and the potential amount of salt leaving an area; and 

• implementation of construction and maintenance activities such as road and trail 

maintenance and closures, protective fencing and access control, development of springs 

and water sources to improve livestock distributions, and erosion control and sedimenttrapping structures (Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum 2002). 

Portions of 10 watersheds occur within the JIDPA and/or along the Burma Road--Expanded Sand 

Draw-Alkali Creek, Granite Wash, Reduced Upper Alkali Creek-Green River, Big Sandy RiverBull Draw, Long Draw, Upper Eighteenmile Canyon, Jonah Gulch, 140401040603, North Alkali 

Draw, and Southeast New Fork River-Blue Rim (Map 3.9 and Table 3.13) (WyGISC 2003). The 

Sand Draw-Alkali Creek and Upper Alkali Creek-Green River watershed boundaries were 

modified and renamed to reflect more accurate hydrologic boundaries, and the New Fork RiverBlue Rim watershed was reduced in size and renamed to the Southeast New Fork River-Blue Rim 

watershed for this project to eliminate drainage areas north of the New Fork River. The Expanded 

Sand Draw-Alkali Creek, Granite Wash, Reduced Upper Alkali Creek-Green River, and North 

Alkali Draw watersheds drain to the Green River (below the confluence with the New Fork 

River), approximately 12 miles west of the JIDPA. The Upper Eighteenmile watershed also 

drains into the Green River approximately 35 miles south of the JIDPA. The Southeast New 

Fork River-Blue Rim watershed drains north to the New Fork River. The Big Sandy-Bull Draw 

and Long Draw watersheds drain to the Big Sandy River located approximately 5 miles southeast 

of the JIDPA. The Jonah Gulch and 140401040603 watersheds drain to a closed basin 

approximately 15 miles southeast of the JIDPA. 

Approximately 45% of the JIDPA is drained by the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek 

watershed (13,724 acres in the JIDPA), which includes Sand Draw and many other small 

ephemeral washes (see Maps 3.8 and 3.9 and Table 3.13). The northwest portion of the JIDPA is 

drained by the Granite Wash watershed (1,312 acres in the JIDPA), which includes Granite 

Wash, small ephemeral washes, and Wild Horse Reservoir. The Reduced Upper Alkali CreekGreen River watershed drains approximately 3,782 acres of western portions of the JIDPA. The 

southern portion of the JIDPA is drained by three watersheds--Upper Eighteenmile Canyon, 

140401040603, and Jonah Gulch. The Upper Eighteenmile Canyon watershed (1,958 acres in the 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-41 

JIDPA) includes the south side of Yellow Point Ridge and East Buckhorn Draw. The portions of 

the Jonah Gulch (318 acres) and 140401040603 (748 acres) watersheds contained in the JIDPA 

consist of small ephemeral channels. Eastern portions of the JIDPA are drained by the Long 

Draw (5,028 acres) and Big Sandy River-Bull Draw (3,630 acres) watersheds (see Table 3.13). 

The 12 miles of the Burma Road outside the JIDPA crosses approximately 0.6 mile of the 

Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed (2 acres); 3.1 miles of Reduced Upper Alkali 

Creek-Green River watershed (9 acres); 1.9 miles of the Granite Wash watershed (5 acres); 

2.0 miles of the North Alkali Draw watershed (6 acres); and 4.4 miles of the Southeast New Fork 

River-Blue Rim watershed (13 acres) (see Table 3.13). 

The current PFO RMP indicates that Sand Draw and Alkali Creek are prone to flooding (BLM 

1987a, 1987b). However, flooding may occur in any of the ephemeral draws within the JIDPA 

after rainstorms. Drainages within the JIDPA flow only periodically in response to rain and 

snowmelt events, having extended periods of no flow (most of the year). 

Surface Water Quality 

Alkali Creek, Sand Draw, Granite Wash, and all other named and unnamed streams in the JIDPA 

are Class 3B surface waters (WDEQ/WQD 2001). Class 3B waters are tributary waters including 

adjacent wetlands that are not known to support fish populations or drinking water supplies. They 

are intermittent and ephemeral streams with sufficient hydrology to normally support and sustain 

communities of aquatic life including invertebrates, amphibians, or other flora and fauna. Uses 

designated on Class 3B waters are for aquatic life (other than fish), recreation, wildlife, industry, 

agriculture, and scenic value. 

Down-channel of the JIDPA, the Big Sandy and New Fork Rivers are Class 2AB waters (i.e., 

waters known to support game fish populations and where a game fishery and drinking water use 

is attainable) (WDEQ/WQD 2001). Uses designated for Class 2AB waters include those listed 

above for Class 3B plus drinking water, game and non-game fish, and fish consumption, and 

these waters are protected for all these uses. The Green River, downstream from the New Fork 

River is also Class 2AB. 

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify waters that are not supporting 

their designated uses and/or that need to have a total maximum daily load established to support 

their uses. There are no streams within the JIDPA or CIAA that are on the State of Wyoming's 

2004 Section 303(d) list or included in the 2004 305(b) Report (WDEQ 2004). 

The quantity of sediment and associated salt loads within ephemeral flows from the JIDPA is 

unknown. However, Alkali Creek and several associated watersheds have been listed as salinity 

concerns under the designation of “Long Island Watershed.” Stream surveys of Alkali Creek 

down stream from the JIDPA have noted drops in the channel base level (headcuts) that, while 

not within the immediate area of the JIDPA, have the potential to be affected and eventually 

affect the channels within the JIDPA as well as the salt and sediment loads coming from the 

affected watersheds. Efforts are underway to address the headcuts and their effects. 

Due to the extent of proposed surface disturbance and topographic modification in the JIDPA for 

the LOP, BLM has determined that runoff condition modeling, including sediment and salt 

loading, will be performed for the JIDPA, and the results of this modeling will be available in the 

Final EIS for this project. 
3-42 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Surface Water Use 

Five adjudicated and numerous unadjudicated surface water rights occur in the JIDPA (State 

Engineer's Office 2004). The major surface water uses in the JIDPA are for livestock and wildlife 

watering. Numerous impoundments and playas (internally drained, closed basins that periodically 

hold water) occur throughout the area. Several reservoirs (e.g., Warden, Lumen, Granite, Wild 

Horse, Sand Draw No. 4) have been constructed along drainages and may semipermanently, 

seasonally, or temporarily hold water. There are approximately 22 stock ponds scattered 

throughout the area. One large playa is located on private surface in Section 32, T29N, R108W. 

Other smaller playas or depressions occur throughout the JIDPA. No irrigation occurs on the 

JIDPA. 

3.1.6.2 Ground Water 

The JIDPA and associated ground water CIAA (i.e., the JIDPA and adjacent potential draw-down 

areas) are underlain, in descending order, by the Laney and Wilkins Peak Members of the Green 

River Formation or the Wasatch Formation, the Fort Union Formation, an unnamed Tertiary bed, 

and the Lance Formation (Dynamac Corporation 2002) (see Figure 3.11). The Laney and Wilkins 

Peak Members of the Green River Formation contain small quantities of water (Welder 1968; 

Ahern et al. 1981). The Wasatch and Fort Union Formations underlying the JIDPA and the 

surrounding region are known to contain significant amounts of water. Unconfined aquifers occur 

within about 300 ft of the surface and include the upper portions of Tertiary sedimentary rocks. 

Confined aquifers include the lower portions of Tertiary rocks (below about 300 ft) and all 

underlying strata (Welder 1968). Lenses of impermeable rock occur throughout these formations, 

creating perched aquifers and localized aquitards (areas with restricted flows) (personal 

communication, November 2003, with Dennis Doncaster, BLM). 

The JIDPA and ground water CIAA are located on a recharge area for the Tertiary formations, 

and the main sources of recharge are precipitation and seepage from streams and reservoirs 

(Dynamac Corporation 2002). Ground water discharge occurs through transpiration, seepage into 

streams, and pumping. Ground water flow is predominantly from north to south, with a minor 

westerly component (Dynamac Corporation 2002); HydroGeo, Inc. (2004) indicates a northeast 

to southwest ground water flow. Estimated steady-state ground water levels (i.e., with no 

pumping), show that ground water levels slope gently from 7,100 ft in elevation in the northeast 

to 6,600 ft in elevation in the southwest (Map 3.10) (HydroGeo, Inc. 2004). 

The Laney Member has good potential for ground water production (1-75 gallons per minute 

[gpm]), and well yields from the Wasatch Formation aquifer range from 1 to 3,000 gpm but 

typically less than 500 gpm (Ahern et al. 1981). The Fort Union Formation is deeply buried in the 

JIDPA so well yield data are not available. The Lance Formation produces non-potable water as a 

byproduct of hydrocarbon production (referred to as produced water). 

Ground Water Quality 

The standard for total dissolved solids (TDS) in drinking water is 500 mg/l (WDEQ 1990), and 

much of the ground water in the area exceeds this standard. TDS is used as a general 

measurement of ground water condition, but does not cover all aspects of water quality. 

Sandstones in the Green River and Wasatch Formations contain fresh to brackish water, with 

TDS concentrations of 500 to 100,000 mg/l. Ground water tends to become more mineralized 

with increasing depth below the surface. Ground water in the Laney Member of the Green River 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-43 

Map 3.10 Estimated Steady-State Ground Water Levels (Potentiometric Surface), Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 
3-44 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Formation contains 2,000-7,000 mg/l TDS. Sodium and sulfate are the main salts, and calcium 

concentrations are high. Water quality in the Wilkins Peak Member is typically poor, with TDS 

concentrations of 7,000-100,000 mg/l. Sodium bicarbonate and sodium carbonate are the 

dominant ions (Welder 1968; Ahern et al. 1981). Ground water quality in the Wasatch aquifer is 

highly variable and tends to decline with distance from recharge areas. These waters are 

predominantly a calcium-bicarbonate type where, toward the basin center, sodium and chloride 

replace calcium (Bruce 1993). To a depth of about 2,300 ft, ground water in the Wasatch 

Formation has a TDS content of about 640 mg/l. At a depth of 5,000 ft, TDS concentrations are 

about 21,000 mg/l; this disparity suggests that these waters occur in different aquifers within the 

Wasatch Formation (personal communication, November 2003, with Frank Bain, BLM). 

Natural gas well logs from existing wells in the JIDPA indicate that the Fort Union and Lance 

Formations contain discrete water-bearing sandstones, with water quality ranging from brackish 

to saline and TDS typically averaging 2,000-5,000 mg/l, within the range of 1,722 to 28,476 mg/l 

(Table 3.14). The ground water standards for TDS are 500 mg/l for domestic use, 2,000 mg/l for 

agricultural use, and 5,000 mg/l for livestock use, so untreated produced water is not suitable for 

domestic use, is only marginally suited for agricultural, but is suitable for livestock use. 

Chloride concentrations in produced waters exceeded state ground water standards for domestic 

and agricultural use and for livestock use in three of the wells tested. Chloride concentrations 

range from 290 to 18,300 mg/l (see Table 3.14), whereas the standard for domestic use is 250 

mg/l, for agricultural use is 100 mg/l, and for livestock use is 2,000 mg/l. 

Iron concentrations also exceeded standards for domestic use (0.3 mg/l) and agricultural use 

(5.0 mg/l) in at least 18 and 13 of the wells sampled, respectively. 

Ground Water Use 

Ground water in the JIDPA and CIAA contributes only a small fraction (less than 2.5%) of the 

water used in the Green River Basin (Ahern et al. 1981). Ground water in the JIDPA and CIAA 

primarily is used for oil and gas development and stock and wildlife watering. More than 

130 recognized ground water wells/ground water permits occur in the JIDPA, the majority of 

which are for existing oil and gas development use (State Engineer's Office 2004). The location 

of ground water wells is provided in Chapter 4 (see Map 4.1). No ground water irrigation occurs 

in the JIDPA or CIAA. 

3.1.7 Noise and Odor 

The noise CIAA includes the JIDPA and surrounding 20-mile area. Noise levels depend on the 

loudness and pitch of the source, the listener's distance from the source, air temperature, 

humidity, turbulence, wind gradient, and the screening effects of terrain. Existing natural gas 

development activities in the JIDPA generate noise through wellpad, road, and pipeline 

construction; flaring, drilling, and facility operations; vehicle traffic; and site reclamation. 

Drilling rig and well testing (fracturing and flaring) operations produce noise levels of up to 

115 A-weighted decibels (dBA) (constant exposure endangers hearing), with a noise level of 

55 dBA (which is considered quiet) at 3,500 ft (0.66 mile) from the source (BLM 1991b). Typical 

natural gas development noise levels are provided in Figure 3.13, and Table 3.15 provides 

example noise levels for commonly heard sounds. Flaring (one component of completion 

operations) tends to be the loudest noise event; however, with the use of flowback separators, 

noise from completion operations is reduced to approximately 64 dBA at the source. 
3-45 

Table 3.14 1 

Produced Water Quality, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.1 

Well No. Evaporation 

Constituent Pond SHB 3-34 JF 1-5X YP 2-1 JF 2-8X CAB 2-25 SHB 2-33 YP 4-24 SHB 4-34 JF 5-4 SHB 7-35 JF 4-18 SHB 5-34 YP 8-13 pH 7.80 6.50 7.72 7.81 7.06 7.63 7.71 7.45 7.81 7.94 7.48 7.91 7.79 8.05 Chloride 2,153 18,300 520 470 480 970 460 2,329 470 430 1,520 430 710 350 Sulfate 51 5.00 99 12 11 58 29 128 33 30 29 45 58 18 TDS 4,752 28,476 3,004 3,208 2,694 3,656 2,486 6,434 3,200 2,752 3,746 2,634 3,126 2,462 Carbonate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bicarbonate 747 139 1,148 1,441 934 961 907 1,121 1,308 1,148 552 1,201 1,121 1,174 Conductivity 6,950 39,100 3,850 4,060 3,350 4,690 3,200 7,770 4,170 3,650 5,710 3,450 4,210 3,250 Sodium 1,051 3,190 964 1,040 839 1,090 801 1,180 1,025 900 1,050 878 992 793 Potassium 83.0 7,304 41.3 17.9 28.5 32 20.7 81.5 43.2 17.7 35.1 12.0 61.1 7.80 Calcium 651 6,850 22.5 11.9 12.2 11.6 12.3 9.31 17.6 9.45 22.0 6.92 17.9 6.50 Magnesium 6.02 18.1 4.23 2.04 1.4 1.25 1.13 1.92 2.64 1.69 3.88 0.6 2.81 1.06 Iron <2.09 58.5 43.5 4.97 54.4 60.3 15.5 9.48 <0.68 <0.68 <0.68 9.48 4.7 <0.68 Barium 6.01 6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Boron 2.67 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Data provided by EnCana. See also Appendix G. 
3-46 

Table 3.14 (continued) 1 

Well No. 

CSHB 

Constituent YP 9-12 YP 10-11 10-31 JF 11-7 SHB 11-20 SHB 11-28 CAB 12-19 SHB 12-27 SHB 13-17 SHB 13-32 CAB 14-30 SHB 16-26 SHB 31-36 pH 6.38 7.87 8.00 8.00 7.97 7.90 7.95 7.94 8.07 7.78 7.52 8.05 8.07 Chloride 1,500 290 600 340 1,300 1,150 910 450 2,100 950 390 790 960 Sulfate 15 23 34 29 48 63 45 34 24 16 49 7 30 TDS 2,848 2,154 3,552 2,192 4,740 4,260 2,996 2,850 5,084 2,088 1,722 2,954 4,062 Carbonate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bicarbonate 214 854 1,521 881 1,575 1,201 827 1,041 623 240 534 694 1,201 Conductivity 4,850 2,670 4,640 2,890 6,620 5,860 4,500 3,600 5,530 2,760 2,420 4,010 5,100 Sodium 884 640 1,160 654 1,540 1,280 993 854 1,470 630 535 868 1,120 Potassium 15.9 8.64 28.6 10.2 2,108 67.0 21.3 13.1 14.2 58.4 18.3 12.3 32.5 Calcium 37.0 17.5 15.3 6.16 1,208 29.5 13.8 14.1 37.8 18.1 5.8 10.1 8.55 Magnesium 6.25 1.07 4.18 1.15 2.38 4.38 3.45 2.06 6.88 2.90 1.18 1.36 1.20 Iron 56.0 <0.68 <0.68 0.86 8.39 <0.68 3.56 1.56 10.5 <0.68 45.4 26.7 43.0 Barium <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Boron -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Data provided by EnCana. See also Appendix G. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-47 Figure 3.13 Typical Natural Gas Field Noise Levels, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 
3-48 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 3.15 Comparison of Measured Noise Levels with Commonly Heard Sounds, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.1 

Source dBA2 Description 

Normal breathing 10 Barely audible 

Rustling leaves 20 

Soft whisper (at 16 ft [5 m]) 30 Very quiet 

Library 40 

Quiet office 50 Quiet 

Normal conversation (at 3 ft [1 m]) 60 

Busy traffic 70 Moderately noisy 

Noisy office with machines; factory 80 

Heavy truck (at 49 ft [15 m]) 90 Loud 

1 Adapted from Tipler (1991). 2 dBA = A-weighted decibels. 

Noise levels at the Luman compressor station, just south of the JIDPA, are about 69-86 dBA at 

the compressor station, 58-75 dBA about 1.0 mile to the southeast, and 54 dBA about 1.25 miles 

to the southeast (TRC Mariah 2003a). Noise levels at the Falcon compressor station, just north of 

the JIDPA, are about 77 dBA at the compressor station and about 65 dBA about 1.0 mile east. 

Noise levels associated with construction activities range from 70 dBA (similar to busy traffic) to 

over 90 dBA within 50 ft of the activity; however, these noise levels attenuate with distance with 

a reduction of approximately 6 dBA with each doubling of distance (Thuman and Miller 1996). 

While it is likely that noise from existing natural gas operations in the JIDPA during certain 

weather conditions (low winds) may be heard 20 or more miles from the area (outside the CIAA), 

noise levels at this distance are expected to be very quiet to barely audible (see Table 3.15). 

Background noise levels in the JIDPA are between 29 and 38 dBA (TRC Mariah 2001a, 2003a) 

but may be higher depending on wind conditions. 

Outside development areas, noise levels can be characterized as rural or natural. Wind, 

thunderstorms, livestock, and wildlife (primarily passerine birds) are the primary noise sources, 

except for the occasional vehicle or aircraft. 

Noise-sensitive areas in the JIDPA include greater sage-grouse leks during the breeding season 

and occupied greater sage-grouse and raptor nests. No residences occur in or immediately 

adjacent to the area. 

No specific data on odors are available from the JIDPA or the surrounding 2-mile CIAA area; 

however, odors present in the area, other than the natural odors of vegetation and wildlife, include 

those from vehicle emissions along roads, natural gas development, activities at well sites, 

compressor stations, other ancillary facility sites, and livestock. Odors are likely to be quickly 

dispersed by the wind. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-49 

3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

3.2.1 Vegetation 

3.2.1.1 Plant Communities 

Vegetation in the JIDPA and CIAA (the same CIAA as for soils and other surface water; see 

Sections 3.1 and 3.16) is dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush grasslands communities with 

inclusion of saltbush and cushionplant communities (BLM 1987b; Intermountain Ecosystems LC 

1996; TRC Mariah 2001a; WyGISC 2003) (Map 3.11, Table 3.16). Important plants in the 

Wyoming big sagebrush grasslands include Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var. 

wyomingensis), western wheatgrass (Elymus smithii), thickspike wheatgrass (Elymus 

lanceolatus), Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda var. secunda), winterfat (Kraschenninikovia 

lanata), granite prickly gilia (Leptodactylon pungens), Hood's phlox (Phlox hoodsii), stemless 

goldenweed (Haplopappus acaulis), and rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.) (Fertig 1993). 

Needle-and-thread (Stipa comata) and Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides) are major species 

on sandy soils (TRC Mariah 2001a). 

The CIAA for vegetation resources is the 10 watersheds that drain the JIDPA, which 

encompasses approximately 210,300 acres (see Map 3.9). Wyoming big sagebrush is the 

predominant vegetation type based on 1:100,000 scale mapping information of the CIAA 

(WyGISC 2003) (see Table 3.16). Based upon WyGISC digital data and aerial photographs of 

the CIAA, approximately 1.6% (3,355 acres) of the area has been disturbed by well pads, 

agricultural lands (i.e., hay meadows), reservoirs, pipelines, roads, and residences (i.e., ranches) 

(see Table 3.11). The Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed has the largest amount of 

existing disturbance 4.2% (992 acres), the majority of which is from natural gas development in 

the JIDPA (665 acres). 

Habitat mapping (TRC Mariah 2001a) in the JIDPA delineated the Wyoming big sagebrush 

communities into three sagebrush habitat types in an effort to define optimal greater sage-grouse 

nesting and brood-rearing areas (Table 3.17, Map 3.12). Moderate-density sagebrush (formerly 

referred to as dense sagebrush) was the most common habitat type, occupying approximately 

87.2% (26,601 acres) of the JIDPA. This habitat type generally occurs on flat to rolling terrain 

and generally exhibits sagebrush cover of >20% (n = 15). 

The low-density sagebrush (formerly referred to as moderate-density sagebrush) type occupies 

approximately 8.9% (2,721 acres) of the JIDPA (Table 3.17). This habitat type primarily 

occupies slopes in the southeastern portion of the project area. Sagebrush cover in this type is 

approximately 6-8% of the total vegetative cover (n = 15) (TRC Mariah 2001a). Grass and forb 

species composition is generally similar to species growing in the dense sagebrush habitat type; 

however, Gardner's saltbush (Atriplex gardneri), winterfat, and spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa) 

are more common. 

The scattered/no sagebrush habitat type (2.5% of the JIDPA, 750 acres) contains saltbush and 

cushionplant communities. The saltbush communities support Gardner's saltbush, shadscale 

(Atriplex confertifolia), bud sagebrush (Artemisia spinescens), winterfat, and western wheatgrass 

and generally occur on level lowland topographic locations or are associated with playas. The 

cushionplant communities--which are characterized by the near absence of big sagebrush and low 

overall vegetative cover--generally occupy rocky outcrops, ridgetops, or steep slopes. Dominant 
3-50 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

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

Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Sublette and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming, 

2005. 
3-51 

Table 3.16 Acreages of Vegetation Communities in the CIAA and Vegetation Types in the JIDPA, Sublette and Sweetwater Counties, 

Wyoming, 2005. 

Hydrologic Unit Watersheds 

Expanded Reduced Upper Upper Southeast North Big Sandy 

Sand Draw- Granite Alkali Creek- Eighteenmile New Fork River- Alkali River-Bull Long Jonah 140401­

Alkali Creek Wash Green River Canyon Blue Rim Draw Draw Draw Gulch 040603 Total 

CIAA Vegetation Communities1 JIDPA 

Wyoming big sagebrush 13,724 1,312 3,781 1,957 0 0 3,632 5,028 317 748 30,500 

Outside JIDPA 

Wyoming big sagebrush 9,648 3,081 14,681 32,532 10,678 10,289 13,207 13,492 22,179 20,943 150,730 

Desert shrub 0 7,819 7,892 722 843 5,623 1,805 0 0 369 25,073 Greasewood fans and flats 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 155 2,497 2,652 Riparian (shrub and forest) 0 0 0 0 225 0 1,119 1 0 0 1,345 

Subtotal 9,648 10,900 22,573 33,254 11,746 15,912 16,131 13,493 22,334 23,809 179,800 Total 23,372 12,213 26,354 35,211 11,746 15,912 19,763 18,521 22,651 24,557 210,300 JIDPA Vegetation Types2 

Scattered/ no sagebrush 170 21 110 15 0 0 61 371 2 0 750 Low density sagebrush 404 76 223 118 0 0 320 1,566 8 6 2,721 Moderate density 13,053 1,211 3,448 1,504 0 0 3,247 3,089 307 742 26,601 sagebrush Basin big sagebrush 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 Wetlands 42 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 47 Ephemeral stockponds 8 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 13 Unmapped vegetation 0 0 0 320 0 0 0 0 0 0 320 

Total 13,724 1,312 3,781 1,957 0 0 3,632 5,028 317 748 30,500 

1 Vegetation types based on Wyoming GAP Analysis land cover for Wyoming (WyGISC 2003). 2 Vegetation types based on TRC Mariah (2001a). 
3-52 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 3.17 Vegetation Data, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.1 

Vegetation Type2 

Parameter 

Moderate Density 

Sagebrush 

(n=15) 

Low Density Sagebrush 

(n=15) 

Basin Sagebrush 

(n=5) 

Sagebrush height (inches) 9.8 7.9 31.0 

Percent sagebrush cover 

Daubenmire 21.7 6.5 30.8 

Line intercept 24.5 (99%) 7.9 (89%) 36.7 (79%) 

Percent total shrub cover 

Daubenmire 22.0 6.8 31.4 

Line intercept 24.7 (99%) 8.1 (92%) 38.0 (80%) 

Grass/forb height (inches) 5.6 6.5 6.5 

Percent grass and forb cover 10.6 (89%) 15.1 (96%) 20.1 (65%) 

Residual grass height (inches)3

 6.3 6.1 6.5 

Percent residual grass cover 8.5 10.9 20.1 

Sagebrush plants/acre 7,260 (99%) 2,636 (92%) 4,494 (86%) 

Total shrubs/acre 7,665 (99%) 2,951 (96%) 5,088 (91%) 

1 Adapted from TRC Mariah 2001a. Data on file at TRC Mariah, Laramie, Wyoming. Measurements 

recorded in late summer 2000. 

2 See map 3.12 for type locations. Numbers in parentheses are the confidence level achieved with 80% 

precision using the appropriate z statistic.

3 Excludes pre-2000 litter. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-53 

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

County, Wyoming, 2005. 
3-54 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

species in the cushionplant community include fringed sagebrush (Artemisia frigida), squarestem 

phlox (Phlox muscoides), spoonleaf milkvetch (Astragalus spatulatus), goldenweed 

(Haplopappus spp.), Hooker sandwort (Arenaria hookeri), cutleaf daisy (Erigeron compositus), 

mat beardtongue (Penstemon caespitosus), and silky locoweed (Oxytropus sericea). This habitat 

type also includes barren side slopes and fans derived from clay and shale substrates. 

The basin big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata tridentata) type occupies less than 0.1% (47 acres) 

of the JIDPA. Sagebrush canopy cover in this type is approximately 30-38% (n = 5) (Table 3.17). 

This type occurs as a narrow strip from less than 5 ft wide to approximately 150 ft wide along the 

Sand Draw drainage, where basin big sagebrush is the dominant species. The understory is 

relatively sparse, with scattered rabbitbrush, western and thickspike wheatgrasses, Sandberg 

bluegrass, and Great Basin wildrye (Elymus cinereus). 

Approximately 4,200 acres of the JIDPA have been disturbed by existing oil and gas 

development (see Table 2.3). Approximately 1,400 acres of this disturbance is anticipated to 

remain for another 40 to 60 years; however, approximately 2,800 acres of disturbance are in 

various stages of reclamation. 

3.2.1.2 Riparian and Wetlands Areas 

Riparian areas are plant communities contiguous to and affected by surface and subsurface 

hydrologic features of perennial or intermittent water bodies (rivers, streams, lakes, or 

drainageways) and are usually transitional between wetland and upland communities. Riparian 

areas generally exhibit distinctly different vegetative species than adjacent areas and/or vegetative 

species similar to adjacent areas but exhibiting more vigorous or robust growth forms (USFWS 

1997). Based on this definition, no riparian communities occur within the JIDPA. However, 

riparian communities are present in the CIAA along the New Fork and Big Sandy Rivers. 

Wetlands are protected under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 C.F.R. 1251 et seq.) and 

EO 11990 and are considered sensitive and valuable resources. The current regulatory definition 

of wetlands for administrating the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit program for dredge and 

fill activities is "areas inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and 

duration sufficient to support, and [which] under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence 

of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers [COE] 1987; Wetlands Training Institute, Inc. 1995). A wetland must possess the 

following three general diagnostic characteristics: 

• Hydrophytic vegetation - The prevalent vegetation consists of macrophytes that 

are typically adapted to areas having hydrologic and soil conditions described in 

the wetland definition above. That is, they are adapted to actively grow in 

saturated soils. 

• Hydric soil - Soils are present and have been classified as hydric, or they possess 

characteristics that are associated with reducing (often saturated) soil conditions. 

• Hydrology - The area is inundated either permanently or periodically at mean 

water depths less than or equal to 6.6 ft, or the soil is saturated to the surface at 

some time during the growing season of the prevalent vegetation. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-55 

In 2003, field investigations were conducted to verify the wetland designations indicated on 

existing USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps of the JIDPA. The maps generally 

proved to be accurate in the classification and location of wetlands; however, many of the 

mapped NWI sites may not be subject to regulation under Section 404 due to a lack of the three 

general diagnostic environmental characteristic described above. While some of the NWIidentified wetlands lack one or more or the regulatory requirements (i.e., hydric soils, dominance 

of hydrophytic vegetation, or wetland hydrology), these areas provide unique habitats for 

wildlife, as well as water for both wildlife and livestock, throughout all or part of the year. 

Approximately 13 acres of the NWI-identified wetland areas within the JIDPA are ephemeral 

stockponds (see Table 3.16, Map 3.11). Approximately 47 acres (<0.1% of the JIDPA) of 

potentially jurisdictional wetlands (i.e., regulated under Section 404) occur within the JIDPA (see 

Map 3.11). These areas are generally classified as palustrine emergent seasonally or 

semipermanently flooded wetlands on the NWI maps and are primarily associated with 

stockponds and reservoirs. These wetlands generally range in size from 0.1 acre to 2.1 acres. The 

largest reservoirs in the area (e.g., Sand Draw No. 4 and Wild Horse) are classified as 

temporarily, seasonally, or semipermanently flooded and are 5 to 10 acres in size. A large playa 

located on private surface in Section 32, T29N, R108W, is classified as temporarily or seasonally 

flooded and occupies approximately 36 acres. There are also several small depressions or playas 

less than an acre in size and classified as palustrine unconsolidated shore, temporarily, seasonally, 

or semipermanently flooded wetlands in the area. 

Waters of the U.S. (WUS) have an active channel that exhibits relatively stable characteristics; 

the criterion for a WUS is the presence of a defined bed and bank. The boundary of a WUS 

extends to the ordinary high-water mark or to the boundaries of adjacent wetlands. Intermittent 

and ephemeral streams that exhibit a defined bed and bank qualify as WUS, as do reservoirs 

constructed on these streams. 

Numerous ephemeral channels (WUS) classified as riverine intermittent streambed temporarily 

flooded on the NWI maps occur in the JIDPA (see Map 3.8). Bed channel widths range from 1 ft 

to over 30 ft along Sand Draw, the largest ephemeral drainage in the JIDPA. 

3.2.1.3 Noxious Non-Native, and Invasive Plant Species 

The Wyoming State Legislature enacted the Wyoming Weed and Pest Control Act in 1973 for the 

purpose of controlling designated weeds and pests. EO 13112 "Invasive Species" was signed by 

President Clinton on February 3, 1999, to prevent the introduction of invasive species, to provide 

for their control, and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that 

invasive species cause. Potential invader species (which include noxious weeds) identified by the 

Sublette County Weed and Pest Control for the JIDPA and vicinity include black henbane 

(Hyoscyamus niger), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), Dyer's 

woad (Isatis tinctoria), spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), hoary cress (Cardaria draba 

and C. pubescens), perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), Russian knapweed (Centaurea 

repens), and perennial sow thistle (Sonchus arvensis). Sources of invasion include gravel 

obtained from outside the JIDPA and soil carried to the area on vehicles and drilling and 

construction equipment. 

A reconnaissance of JIDPA in 2003 found Russian thistle (Salsola kali) and halogeton 

(Halogeton glomeratus) establishment on reclaimed areas (i.e., well pads, pipeline and road 

ROWs) reseeded from 1992 through 2002. Though Russian thistle and halogeton are not 
3-56 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

identified as noxious weeds by Sublette County Weed and Pest Control, they are generally 

considered undesirable for livestock and wildlife forage (Stubbendieck et al. 1997). 

3.2.2 Wildlife and Fisheries 

3.2.2.1 Big Game/Other Mammals 

Pronghorn antelope is the only big game species that regularly inhabits the JIDPA. Occasionally, 

mule deer have been observed in the area (TRC Mariah 2004a), but no range designation for mule 

deer has been delineated on the JIDPA by the WGFD, so mule deer are not discussed further. 

The WGFD determines range classifications for big game species and is in the process of revising 

big game ranges across the state. This revision is not complete for the big game herds in the 

JIDPA; therefore, the range designations that have been in place for the last several years are used 

in this EIS. 

Pronghorn Antelope 

The entire JIDPA is within spring/summer/fall range of the Sublette Pronghorn Antelope Herd 

Unit (the CIAA). This herd unit occupies approximately 10,546 square miles and includes most 

of the Green River drainage north of Interstate 80, exclusive of the Black's Fork and Ham's Fork 

drainages (Map 3.13). Approximately 3,006,000 acres (4,697 square miles) of the Sublette Herd 

Unit CIAA is designated as spring/summer/fall habitat. Limited portions of other drainages, 

including the Gros Ventre/Hoback River area near Jackson Hole are also included in the Sublette 

Herd Unit. Within these boundaries, the Sublette Herd Unit pronghorn migrate farther between 

seasonal ranges than any other pronghorn in Wyoming, with documented movements of as much 

as 150 miles between several ranges (WGFD 2001). WGFD has documented migration corridor 

occurrence within and adjacent to the JIDPA (Map 3.13). 

Total existing disturbance (from roads, wells, towns) within the Herd Unit CIAA is 

approximately 87,200 acres (136 square miles) or 1.3% of the total herd unit. Though no 

pronghorn crucial range occurs within the JIDPA, approximately 27,200 acres (2.5%) of 

pronghorn crucial range in the Sublette Herd Unit have been disturbed. BLM is responsible for 

the majority of surface management in the Sublette Herd Unit. Other surface management entities 

include the USFS, the Bureau of Reclamation, the State of Wyoming, and private entities. 

The WGFD population objective for the Sublette Herd Unit is 48,000 pronghorn antelope. The 

2002 population was estimated at 44,700 (93% of the current objective), and the estimated 

population averaged 44,080 from 1997 to 2001 (WGFD 2002). Because of its large size, the 

Sublette Herd Unit has been divided into three sub-units. The JIDPA is within the North sub-unit, 

which has a population objective of 22,000 and an estimated 2001 population of 18,600 (84.5% 

of objective). The population trend in the North sub-unit has been relatively stable in recent years, 

ranging from 17,900 head in 1998 to 19,700 in 1994 (WGFD 2001). 

Reproductive success of the Sublette North sub-unit from 1985 to 2001 has been highly variable, 

ranging from 45 fawns/100 does in 1993 to 90 fawns/100 does in 1987. Fawn/doe ratios in 2000 

and 2001 were toward the low end of the range at 53/100 and 55/100, respectively (WGFD 2001). 

Drought conditions from 2000 to 2003 have reduced forage production and available water 

throughout the Sublette Herd Unit. Low summer precipitation typically results in poor body 

condition and subsequently, poor fawning rates and overwinter fawn survival (WGFD 2001). 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-57 

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

Area, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 
3-58 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Other Mammals 

The CIAA for other mammal species and general wildlife encompasses approximately 188,888 

acres (295 square miles) (Map 3.14). Existing disturbance within the CIAA includes 

approximately 2,729 acres (4.3 square miles), or 1.4% of the CIAA, and results primarily from 

road and pipeline ROWs (44%) and existing long-term disturbance in the JIDPA (52%). 

Other mammals known or likely to occur in the JIDPA based on observations and range and 

habitat preference (Clark and Stromberg 1987; WGFD 1999; WYNDD 2003) include: dwarf 

shrew, 10 bat species (California myotis, small-footed myotis, Yuma myotis, little brown myotis, 

long-legged myotis, silver-haired bat, big brown bat, hoary bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, and 

pallid bat); four species of hares and rabbits (pygmy rabbit, Nuttall's cottontail, desert cottontail, 

and white-tailed jackrabbit); five squirrel species (least chipmunk, Uinta ground squirrel, 

Wyoming ground squirrel, thirteen-lined ground squirrel, and white-tailed prairie dog); northern 

and Idaho pocket gophers; six species of new world rats and mice (Ord's kangaroo rat, deer 

mouse, grasshopper mouse, bushy-tailed woodrat, sagebrush vole, and long-tailed vole); coyote 

and red fox; four mustelid species (long-tailed weasel, badger, western spotted skunk, and striped 

skunk); and bobcat. Porcupines have been observed in the vicinity of the project area but are 

uncommon and not likely to be residents. 

All identified prairie dog colonies on the JIDPA have been mapped. Colonies vary from 6 to 893 

acres in size (Map 3.15) and are visited annually during wildlife surveys conducted for the Jonah 

wildlife studies project (TRC Mariah 2004a). During these studies, newly observed colonies are 

mapped, and regular updates to colony boundaries are made. 

3.2.2.2 Birds 

Raptors 

The CIAA for raptors encompasses approximately 1,184,443 acres (1,850 square miles) 

(Map 3.16). Existing disturbance within this CIAA is approximately 113,092 acres (176 square 

miles), or 9.5% of the area. This disturbance is primarily from agriculture (88%) and road and 

pipeline ROWs (8%). 

Based on geographic range and habitat preferences, a variety of raptor species may occur within 

the JIDPA (Dorn and Dorn 1999; WGFD 1999). Raptor nest surveys are conducted annually on 

the JIDPA and within the greater Jonah wildlife study area in association with Jonah wildlife 

studies (TRC Mariah 2004a). All known raptor nests/nest sites are inventoried, and other suitable 

nesting habitat is observed to determine if there are new nests in the area (Map 3.17). These 

inventories have revealed declines in the number of active ferruginous hawk nests on and 

adjacent to the JIDPA over the last 8 years. 

Approximately 35 raptor nests are known to occur within the JIDPA, and in 2004, seven were 

occupied, including five American kestrel nests, one ferruginous hawk nest, and one burrowing 

owl nest. In addition to the seven occupied nests, nine other nests on the JIDPA are considered 

active (i.e., occupied at least once during the last three years or having an unknown status) for 

management purposes. These include four ferruginous hawk, one American kestrel, and one 

burrowing owl nest. Approximately 19 known nests within the JIDPA have had no recent activity 

or use. A detailed analysis of raptor nesting history in the area is provided in 2003 Wildlife 

Studies, Jonah Field II Natural Gas Development Project (TRC Mariah 2004a). 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-59 

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

Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 
3-60 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Map 3.15 Prairie Dog Colonies, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-61 

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

County, Wyoming, 2005. 
3-62 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Map 3.17 Raptor Nests On or Adjacent to the Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2005. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-63 

Game Birds 

The principal upland game bird inhabiting the JIDPA is greater sage-grouse. A detailed summary 

of known greater sage-grouse lek activity on the JIDPA is provided in 2003 Wildlife Studies, 

Jonah Field II Natural Gas Project (TRC Mariah 2004a). The CIAA for greater sage-grouse 

encompasses 1,061,805 acres (1,659 square miles) (Map 3.18). Existing disturbance within this 

CIAA includes approximately 28,767 acres (45 square miles), or 2.7% of the CIAA, and results 

primarily from agriculture (70%) and road and pipeline ROWs (21%). 

Greater sage-grouse have been extirpated from two states and populations over the remainder of 

its range have notably declined (Connelly and Braun 1997; Braun 1998; Connelly et al. 2004). 

Conservative estimates suggest that only 56% of the pre-European settlement area occupied by 

greater sage-grouse is still occupied or capable of supporting the species on an annual basis 

(Braun et al. 1976; Braun 1995; Connelly et al. 2004). Eleven of 13 states have shown significant 

declines. Historically, Wyoming supported more greater sage-grouse than any other state due to 

the presence of extensive sagebrush habitats (Patterson 1952). The areas in central and western 

Wyoming, where sagebrush-dominated landscapes and greater sage-grouse populations remain 

relatively contiguous and intact, cumulatively represent one of the species’ last strongholds 

(Braun 1998). The number of male sage-grouse counted per lek in Wyoming decreased 17% 

between 1985 and 1995 (Connelly and Braun 1997), and regional declines as high as 73% 

between 1988 and 1999 have been recorded. The average decline in male attendance on leks in 

Wyoming from 1965 -2003 is 49% and lek size has also significantly decreased (Connelly et al. 

2004). Changes in the sagebrush-dominated areas where birds typically reside are thought to be 

one of the principal factors for population declines (Braun 1998). Factors include fire, plant 

invasions, land conversions, urbanization, livestock grazing, energy development, noise, and 

others. 

Greater sage-grouse lek monitoring is conducted annually on the JIDPA and surrounding areas. 

The WGFD, BLM, University of Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, and 

TRC Mariah are responsible for the lek activity status monitoring in the area (TRC Mariah 

2004a). Ten active leks have been identified on or within a 2-mile buffer of the JIDPA (Map 3.19 

and Table 3.18). In addition, six formerly identified leks occur in the area; however these areas 

are no longer classified as leks (Table 3.18). Data from the JIDPA and for the entire Upper Green 

River Basin show declines in male greater sage-grouse attendance at leks. Additionally, declines 

appear to be occurring at a faster rate in areas with oil and gas development (WGFD unpublished 

data; personal communication, December 2004, with Dean Clause, WGFD Biologist). Declines in 

lek attendance likely indicate a reduction in the regional population. 

Site-specific surveys of the JIDPA conducted over the last few years indicate that while the area 

is still used for nesting and summer and winter foraging, use of the area by greater sage-grouse 

continues to decline. This decline is likely due in part to the increased loss of habitat resulting 

from oil and gas development. Habitat vegetation conditions in the JIDPA are described in 

Section 3.2.1. 

To maintain or move PFO greater sage-grouse habitat toward RMP goals, existing PFO area-wide 

and statewide stipulations on leases and COAs on APDs and ROWs apply a Controlled Surface 

Use restriction within 0.25 mile of an occupied lek. There are also timing stipulations protecting 

breeding activities, nesting and brood-rearing females, and wintering grouse, but these 

stipulations do not preclude exploration and development from occurring in nesting and wintering 
3-64 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

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

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-65 

Map 3.19 Greater Sage-grouse Leks, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 

2005. 
3-66 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 3.18 Greater Sage-Grouse Lek Attendance Trends, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 1992-2004.1 

History 3 

Most Recent 

Lek No. 2 Activity 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

1 2004 NS NS 9 NS 26 6 31 25 22 12 10 14 13 

2 2004 NS NS 2 NS 2 17 12 7 14 16 NS 6 7 

34 2004 NS NS NS NS 16 0? 36 26 22 27 17 23 15 

4 2003 NS NS 16 NS 15 4 4 0 1 1 0 1 0 

55 19966 NS NS NS NS 1 0? 0 0 NS NS NS 0 NS 

65 19966 NS NS NS NS 3 0? 0 0 0 NS NS 0 0 

7 2004 NS NS 36 NS 0 16 17 11 9 6 NS 3+ 2 

85 19966 NS NS NS NS 2 0? 0 0? 0 NS 0 0 0? 

9 2004 NS NS NS NS NS -50 26 62 47 45 46 36 13 

10 2004 NS NS NS NS NS 60 53 79 64 62 47 25 16 

115 UNK NS NS UNK NS UNK NS 0 0 0 NS NS 0 0? 

155

 19966 NS NS NS NS 1 0? 0 0 0 NS NS 0 0 

17 20016 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 5 3 3 0 0? 0 

205 UNK NS NS 0 NS 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS 0 0 

215

 20006 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 10 NS NS NL 0 

22 2000 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 9 0 0 0 0 

1 Further detail is provided in TRC Mariah 2004a.

2 See Map 3.19 for locations; lek numbering is consistent with TRC Mariah 2004a. 

3 Numbers refer to maximum male attendance observed; NS = not surveyed; NL = not located- survey 

was attempted but no birds were observed and exact location of lek could not be confirmed; 

UNK = unknown; + = unclassified birds observed but not included; ? = no males were observed on the 

lek, but the lek was visited less than three times during that breeding season. 

4 This lek/lek location may be revised to accommodate two leks. 

5 WGFD in consultation with BLM has removed these locations from consideration as leks because they 

may never have met WGFD lek criteria and/or they may represent areas where birds were observed 

after departure from an established lek. 

6 The lek may have been active more recently than indicated because data are lacking for at least one 

year since the last known activity. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-67 

habitat outside of the timing restriction dates, and therefore, habitat is not protected from 

development. Given the noted decline in greater sage-grouse use of the JIDPA, existing 

protection measures within the JIDPA appear to be inadequate. 

Sand Draw and adjacent areas have been identified as containing important greater sage-grouse 

habitat (particularly for nesting and wintering); therefore, past BLM decisions for the Jonah Field 

identified specific measures for the protection of this drainage (BLM 1998b, 2000b). These 

measures include no well construction within 300 ft of the edge of Sand Draw and the basin big 

sagebrush-dominated areas associated with this drainage channel. Roads and pipelines that must 

cross these draws would be constructed perpendicular to drainage channels, and engineering 

designs would specifically address each road/pipeline crossing in an effort to minimize 

disturbance. 

Greater sage-grouse breeding habitats are sagebrush-dominated rangelands, typically consisting 

of large, relatively contiguous sagebrush stands, which are critical for the survival of greater sagegrouse populations (Connelly et al. 2000). Since grouse populations typically inhabit large 

interconnected expanses of sagebrush, they have been characterized as a landscape-scale species 

(Patterson 1952; Wakkinen 1990). Therefore, conserving landscapes with suitable winter habitat 

also may be important for species conservation (Eng and Schladweiler 1972). Total shrub canopy 

cover, residual grass cover, non-food forb cover, and litter cover are the best predictors of greater 

sage-grouse nesting habitat (Holloran 1999; Lyon 2000). Typically greater sage-grouse nests are 

located in habitat with >20% sagebrush canopy cover (Holloran 1999; Lyon 2000). Braun et al. 

(1976) indicated that most hens nest within 3.2 km (2.0 miles) of a lek, but more recent studies 

suggest many hens nest further away. The average distance moved by hens from undisturbed leks 

to nests in western Wyoming was 2.1 km (1.3 miles), whereas the average distance traveled from 

disturbed leks to nests was 4.1 km (2.5 miles) (Lyon and Anderson 2003). Nest initiation rate was 

also higher for hens captured on undisturbed leks than those captured on disturbed leks (Lyon and 

Anderson 2003), and the presence of vehicle traffic also appears to lower nest initiation rates. The 

chance of successfully hatching chicks (nest success) increases by 30% if there is at least 20% 

cover that includes both sagebrush and herbaceous vegetation and if the vegetation is at least 15 

cm in height (Holloran 1999). Greater sage-grouse nest success ranges from 12% to 86% and is 

relatively low compared to other prairie grouse species (Connelly et al. 2000). While sage-grouse 

have used highly fragmented habitats in some oil fields and reclaimed areas, population levels in 

these areas are below pre-disturbance numbers (Connelly et al. 2004). 

Important greater sage-grouse wintering habitat within the Jonah and Anticline Fields and 

surrounding areas currently is being identified by the BLM in cooperation with WGFD. 

Identification of sage-grouse wintering areas will be based, at least in part, on aerial winter sagegrouse surveys. 

The other game bird likely to occur on the JIDPA is the mourning dove. The mourning dove is a 

common summer resident that prefers open land with scattered vegetation and requires trees or 

some other type of structure for nesting. Mourning doves that frequent the JIDPA likely utilize 

the shrub-covered areas along Sand Draw that provide suitable cover for nesting and roosting. 

Other Birds 

The CIAA for other birds is the same as that for other general wildlife (see Map 3.14). Based on 

observations and range and habitat preference (WGFD 1999; Dorn and Dorn 1999; TRC Mariah 

2001a, 2001b, 2002, 2004a), other bird species known or likely to occur on the area include 
3-68 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

common raven, horned lark, lark bunting, loggerhead shrike, sage sparrow, sage thrasher, 

Brewer's sparrow, cliff swallow, barn swallow, mountain bluebird, western kingbird, grasshopper 

sparrow, killdeer, common nighthawk, black-billed magpie, American crow, canyon wren, 

western meadowlark, Brewer's blackbird, common grackle, and brown-headed cowbird. Several 

species of wading/shore birds and waterfowl also may occur around reservoirs. Wading/shore 

birds include black-necked stilt, willet, Wilson's phalarope, common snipe, great blue heron, 

snowy egret, long-billed dowitcher, and black-crowned night-heron. Waterfowl include piedbilled grebe, eared grebe, western grebe, green-winged teal, blue-winged teal, cinnamon teal, 

mallard, northern pintail, northern shoveler, gadwall, American wigeon, and ruddy duck. 

3.2.2.3 Amphibians and Reptiles 

The CIAA for amphibians and reptiles is the same as that for other general wildlife (see 

Map 3.14). Based on range and habitat preference (Baxter and Stone 1980), two amphibian and 

four reptile species are likely to occur on the JIDPA. Amphibians include the Great Basin 

spadefoot and northern leopard frog, and reptiles include the northern sagebrush lizard, eastern 

short-horned lizard, bullsnake, and wandering garter snake. 

3.2.2.4 Fisheries 

The fisheries CIAA is the combined area of project-affected watersheds (see Map 3.8). There are 

no perennial streams on the JIDPA, and no fish are known to occur in the area. The nearest 

perennial streams with significant fishery resources are the Big Sandy, New Fork, and Green 

Rivers (see Section 3.1.6.1 and Map 3.8). The Big Sandy River is approximately 5 miles east of 

the JIDPA, the New Fork River is approximately 7 miles northwest of the area, and the Green 

River is approximately 12 miles west of the area. 

3.2.3 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species and 

BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species 

The Endangered Species Act (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1531-1543) protects listed 

threatened and endangered plant and animal species and their critical habitats. To ensure 

compliance with this act, a biological assessment (BA) would be prepared and USFWS 

concurrence of effects determinations for the TEP&C species potentially occurring in the JIDPA 

would be obtained prior to project authorization. 

A list of TEP&C species that potentially occur on or in the vicinity of the JIDPA was compiled 

from several sources, including a written communication from the Wyoming State Supervisor's 

Office of the USFWS and the WYNDD (Table 3.19). Seven federally listed TEP&C plant and 

animal species potentially occur in the vicinity of the JIDPA or could otherwise be potentially 

affected by the proposed project, including the black-footed ferret, bald eagle, four Colorado 

River endangered fish species--Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, razorback sucker, and 

bonytail chub--and one plant species--Ute ladies'-tresses. 

3.2.3.1 Black-footed Ferret 

Black-footed ferret, a federally endangered species (endangered species are those that are in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range), was once distributed 

throughout the high plains of the Rocky Mountain and western Great Plains regions (Forrest et al. 

1985). Prairie dogs are the main food of black-footed ferrets (Sheets et al. 1972), and few 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-69 

Table 3.19 Federal Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species and Their Potential 

Occurrence on the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Species1 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status2 

Potential Occurrence 

on JIDPA3 

Mammals

 Black-footed ferret 

Birds 4

Mustela nigripes E X 

Fish

 Bald eagle5 Haliaeetus leucocephalus T U 

 Bonytail chub 

Colorado 

pikeminnow 

 Humpback chub 

Razorback sucker 

Plants

Gila elegans 

Ptychocheilus lucius 

Gila cypha 

Xyrauchen texanus 

E 

E 

E 

E 

X 

X 

X 

X 

 Ute ladies'-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis T X 

1 List of species provided by USFWS (2003). 

2

 Federal status: 

E = Listed as federally endangered. 

T = Listed as federally threatened. 

3

 Potential occurrence: 

U = Uncommon; species may be present in the JIDPA but in such low numbers or in such small 

and widely scattered populations that an encounter during field development and operation is 

unlikely; the species could be present for a significant part of the year (e.g., breeding season, 

summer resident) or the entire year. 

X = Unlikely; there has been no recent historical record of the species' occurrence in the JIDPA; 

probability of encountering the species during field development and operation is very 

unlikely. 4 The mountain plover was previously included as proposed for listing as federally threatened by the 

USFWS, but the decision not to list the species has since been published (Federal Register, 

September 9, 2003, 68[174]: 53083-53101). 

5 Proposed for removal from federal listing. 
3-70 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

black-footed ferrets have been collected away from prairie dog towns (Forrest et al. 1985). The 

Black-footed Ferret Survey Guidelines for Compliance with the Endangered Species Act 

(USFWS 1989) defines potential black-footed ferret habitat as any white-tailed prairie dog towns 

or complexes greater than 200 acres in size with a burrow density greater than 20 active burrows 

per hectare (8 active burrows per acre). The USFWS Wyoming Field Office has block-cleared 

large portions of Wyoming for black-footed ferrets, including all lands within the JIDPA 

(USFWS 2004). USFWS considers block-cleared areas unlikely to be inhabited by black-footed 

ferrets, and surveys for ferrets in these areas are not required. However, block-clearance of an 

area "does not provide insight into an area’s value for survival and recovery of the species 

through future reintroduction efforts"; thus, prairie dog towns in the JIDPA (see Map 3.15) may 

still provide important habitat for the species. Therefore, BLM continues to evaluate actions in 

these areas to determine if actions could adversely affect the value of prairie dog towns as future 

black-footed ferret reintroduction sites. 

3.2.3.2 Bald Eagle 

Protection for bald eagles was initially provided through the passage of the Bald Eagle Protection 

Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668dd) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 701-715). In 

1973, the bald eagle was listed as endangered under the ESA (43 C.F.R. 6233). 

Bald eagle population estimates have increased in Wyoming since the species was listed as 

endangered. This increase is due, in part, to population growth, to significant reduction of 

environmental contaminants, and to the initiation of intensive nesting surveys (Greater 

Yellowstone Winter Wildlife Working Group 1999). On July 12, 1995, a final rule to downlist the 

bald eagle from endangered to threatened in the lower 48 states was published in the Federal 

Register and on July 6, 1999, the USFWS proposed delisting the bald eagle. 

The JIDPA is outside of any major bald eagle nesting or roosting areas. Bald eagles generally 

require cliffs, large trees, or sheltered canyons associated with concentrated food sources 

(e.g., fisheries or waterfowl concentration areas) for nesting and/or roosting areas (Edwards 1969; 

Snow 1973; Call 1978; Steenhof 1978; Peterson 1986). Bald eagle winter habitat generally is 

associated with areas of open water where fish and/or waterfowl congregate (Stahlmaster 1987; 

Greater Yellowstone Winter Wildlife Working Group 1999). Wintering bald eagles frequent 

unfrozen portions of lakes and free-flowing rivers and may occupy upland areas where ungulate 

carrion, game birds, and lagomorphs (rabbits and hares) are available (Swenson et al. 1986). 

Additionally, bald eagles forage over wide areas during the non-nesting season (i.e., fall and 

winter) and scavenge on animal carcasses such as pronghorn, deer, and elk; they may therefore 

potentially forage in the JIDPA. 

No bald eagle nests or winter roosts are known to occur in the JIDPA, and the lack of suitable 

nesting areas or winter roosting habitats within the JIDPA precludes its use for such activities by 

bald eagles. Fourteen bald eagle sightings (10 adults, two juveniles, and two unclassified) have 

been recorded within and adjacent to the JIDPA (WGFD 1996), although no bald eagles have 

been documented in the area since 1984. A WYNDD search revealed no records of bald eagle in 

the vicinity of the JIDPA (WYNDD 2003), and they have not been observed during annual 

wildlife investigations conducted on the JIDPA and surrounding wildlife study area (TRC Mariah 

1999, 2001a, 2001b, 2002, 2004a). Bald eagles are known to nest and roost along the New Fork 

and Green Rivers north of the JIDPA (TRC Mariah 2003c), and they also have been observed in 

the Farson-Eden area south of the JIDPA (BLM 1994). 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-71 

3.2.3.3 Colorado River Endangered Fish Species 

Four endangered Colorado River fish species--Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, bonytail 

chub, and humpback chub--occur downstream from the JIDPA in the Green and Colorado Rivers. 

Water depletions from tributary waters within the Colorado River drainage jeopardize the 

continued existence of these fish and require formal consultation with the USFWS. 

3.2.3.4 Ute Ladies'-Tresses 

Ute ladies'-tresses is a perennial member of the orchid family that inhabits moist stream banks, 

wet meadows, and abandoned stream channels at elevations of 4,500-6,800 ft (Fertig 1994; 

Spackman et al. 1997). Where this plant occurs in ephemeral drainages, the soil typically is 

saturated within approximately 18 inches of the ground surface (USFWS 1992). Based on 

elevational range and lack of suitable habitat within the JIDPA, Ute ladies’-tresses is unlikely to 

occur in the area. 

3.2.3.5 BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species 

The BLM PFO identifies 27 BWS animal and 25 BWS plant species that may occur in the 

JIDPA. These species and their preferred habitats are listed in Table 3.20. Management efforts for 

these species primarily involve habitat maintenance. 

Based on habitat preference and geographic location, three mammal and eight bird BWS species 

of the 27 BWS animal species potentially occur in the JIDPA (see Table 3.20). BWS animal 

species recorded recently in the JIDPA include Idaho pocket gopher, white-tailed prairie dog, 

pygmy rabbit, Brewer's sparrow, sage sparrow, loggerhead shrike, long billed curlew, mountain 

plover, greater sage-grouse, sage thrasher, burrowing owl, and ferruginous hawk (WYNDD 

2003; TRC Mariah 2004a). 

Based on habitat preference and geographic location (Hallsten et al. 1987; Dorn 1992), five of the 

25 BWS plant species--bastard draba milkvetch, Trelease’s milkvetch, Cedar Rim thistle, largefruited bladderpod, and tufted twinpod--have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the JIDPA, 

and all five species have been recorded in the area (WYNDD 2003). The scattered/no sagebrush 

vegetation type (see Section 3.2.1.1 and Map 3.12) provides potential habitat for these species 

within the JIDPA. 

3.2.4 Wild Horses 

Spanish explorers originally introduced wild horses, also known as the American feral horse or 

mustang, to the western United States. Over the years, wild horses have become a mix of 

numerous breeds that have escaped or been released by the U.S. cavalry, farmers, ranchers, and 

miners. That portion of the JIDPA contained in the RSFO area is included in the Little Colorado 

Herd Management Area (LCHMA) (Map 3.20). The LCHMA encompasses 519,541 acres (of 

which 6,310 acres [1.2%] are in the JIDPA). The estimated wild horse population was 240 in 

2001; the appropriate management level (AML) for this herd area is 69 to 100 horses (BLM 

2001). The entire LCHMA is the wild horse CIAA for this Project. The portion of the JIDPA 

within the LCHMA does not receive a high level of wild horse use due to the limited availability 

of water. No managed wild horse herds occur in the PFO portion of the JIDPA and a fence 

separating the RSFO and the PFO areas restricts wild horse movement into the PFO area. 
3-72 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 3.20 BLM Pinedale Field Office Sensitive Animal and Plant Species and Potential Occurrence 

in the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 1 

Recorded 

Common Name Habitat Preference2 Occurrence3 

MAMMALS 

Long-eared myotis Conifer and deciduous forests, caves, and mines 

White-tailed prairie dog Basin-prairie shrub, grasslands X 

Idaho pocket gopher Shallow stony soils X 

Pygmy rabbit Basin-prairie and riparian shrub X 

BIRDS 

White-faced ibis Marshes, wet meadows 

Trumpeter swan Lakes, ponds, rivers 

Northern goshawk Conifer and deciduous forests 

Ferruginous hawk Basin-prairie shrub, grassland, rock outcrops X 

Peregrine falcon Tall cliffs 

Greater sage-grouse Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub X 

Long-billed curlew Grasslands, plains, foothills, wet meadows X 

Mountain plover Cushionplant communities; low sparse vegetation X 

Yellow-billed cuckoo Open woodlands, streamside willow and alder groves 

Burrowing owl Grasslands, basin-prairie shrub X 

Sage thrasher Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub X 

Loggerhead shrike Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub X 

Brewer's sparrow Basin-prairie shrub X 

Sage sparrow Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub X 

FISH 

Roundtail chub Colorado River drainage, mostly large rivers, also streams and lakes 

Leatherside chub Bear, Snake, and Green River drainages, clear cool streams and pools 

Bluehead sucker Bear, Snake, and Green River drainages, all waters 

Flannelmouth sucker Colorado River drainage, large rivers, streams, and lakes 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout Yellowstone drainage, small mountain streams, and large rivers 

Colorado River cutthroat trout Colorado River drainage, clear mountain streams 

Fine-spotted Snake River cutthroat Snake River drainage, clear fast water 

trout 

AMPHIBIANS 

Northern leopard frog Beaver ponds, permanent water in plains and foothills 

Boreal toad (Northern Rocky Pond margins, wet meadows, riparian areas 

Mountain population) 

Spotted frog Ponds, sloughs, small streams 

PLANTS 

Pink agoseris Mountain meadows 

Meadow pussytoes Subirrigated meadows within broad stream channels 

Soft aster Mountain parks and meadows 

Meadow milkvetch Moist alkali meadows and swales in sagebrush valleys, 4,400-6,300 ft 

in elevation 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-73 

Table 3.20 (continued) 

Recorded 

Common Name Habitat Preference2 Occurrence3 

Bastard draba milkvetch Rocky areas with low cover within sagebrush and cushionplant X 

communities on sandstone, stony clay, badlands, and barren clay 

slopes and ridges, 6,900-7,200 ft in elevation 

Payson's astragalus Clear cuts, burns, and blow-down areas in the Wyoming Range, 

6,700-9,600 ft in elevation 

Trelease's milkvetch Sparsely vegetated sagebrush communities on shale or limestone X 

outcrops and barren clay slopes at 6,500-8,200 ft in elevation 

Seaside sedge Alpine and subalpine meadows 

Black and purple sedge (F) High mountain slopes and meadows 

Cedar Rim thistle Barren, chalky hills, gravelly slopes, and fine textured, sandy-shaley X 

draws, 6,700-7,200 ft in elevation 

Boreal draba Volcanic slopes; cliffs and riparian areas with loamy alluvium, and 

mossy mats, 6,200-8,550 ft in elevation 

Rockcress draba Rocky ridges and slopes in mountains 

Giant helleborine Wet areas in Grand Teton and Yellowstone Parks 

Wooly fleabane Talus steep alpine slopes or rims, 10,800-11,000 ft in elevation 

Narrowleaf goldenweed Semi-barren clay flats and slopes, gravel bars and sandy lake shores, 

northwest and central Wyoming 

Keeled bladderpod Sparsely vegetated outcrops on slopes and ridge crests, Teton County 

Large-fruited bladderpod Gypsum-clay hills and benches, clay flats, and barren hills, 6,800­ X 

7,700 ft in elevation 

Payson's bladderpod Windswept gravelly ridge crests, semi-open slopes, and talus slopes 

in mountain sagebrush/grassland communities and conifer clearings, 

5,500-10,600 ft in elevation 

Marsh muhly Bogs, springs, peaty or calcareous meadows, floating mats, and 

stream edges, 4,700-6,600 ft in elevation 

Contracted Indian ricegrass Plains and hills, basin areas, northwest-central, northeast, east-central, 

southwest and south-central Wyoming 

Naked-stemmed parrya Steep talus slopes in alpine or upper subalpine zones, 9,600-12,240 ft 

in elevation 

Beaver Rim phlox Sparsely vegetated slopes, Wind River Basin, Fremont County, 

6,000-7,400 ft in elevation 

Tufted twinpod Sparsely vegetated shale slopes and ridges 6,500-7,000 ft in elevation X 

Creeping twinpod Barren, rocky, calcareous hills and slopes in mountainous areas, 

6,500-8,600 ft in elevation 

Greenland primrose Wet meadows and calcareous montane bogs, 6,600-8,000 ft in 

elevation 

1 Based on BLM (2003b). 2 Plant habitat preference based on Hallsten et al. (1987), Dorn (1992), and Keinath et al. (2003). 3 Recorded occurrences on or in the vicinity of the JIDPA (WYNDD 2003; TRC Mariah 2001a, 2001b, 2002, 2004a). 
3-74 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

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

Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-75 

However, horses from the LCHMA have entered the PFO area and the JIDPA (often through 

gates being left open); and are subsequently herded back to the RSFO and LCHMA. 

3.3 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 

The following sections discuss the cultural resources within the JIDPA. An historic overview was 

provided in the Jonah II EIS (BLM 1997a, 1998a) and is not repeated in this EIS. 

3.3.1 Introduction 

Cultural resources, which are managed pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966 and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 and other statutes, are the 

nonrenewable remains of past human activity. The CIAA for cultural resources includes the 

JIDPA and surrounding area as depicted on Map 3.5. The archaeological record of the JIDPA has 

been created and identified through Class III cultural resource inventories (100% coverage 

pedestrian surveys), informal surveys, construction monitors, test excavations, salvage 

excavations, formal data recovery excavations, examination of ethnographic materials used to 

determine ethnic origin, local informant interviews, consultation with modern Native American 

people, archival sources, and the historic record. Continued development since 1997 and at an 

accelerated pace has steadily increased the number of cultural resource inventories performed 

(estimated at approximately 1,500), and the number of known sites has increased accordingly 

(estimated at between 1,000 and 2,000 sites). 

3.3.2 Site Types 

The JIDPA is rich in prehistoric resources but contains few historic period sites. The historic 

period sites predominately relate to open-range ranching, stock grazing, and wagon road passage. 

Most historic sites consist of nonsignificant debris scatters. 

An informal search of the SHPO cultural records database indicated that (as of November 2003) 

there are over 1,000 known cultural properties within the JIDPA, the majority of which are 

prehistoric archaeological sites. Extrapolating from the results of seismic inventories that have 

provided broad systematic survey coverage of the area, roughly one site per 17 acres occurs 

within the JIDPA (an average of 38 sites per section). Actual site density is probably even higher 

due to frequently encountered buried archaeological sites that lack surface manifestations. 

Known prehistoric site types within or near the JIDPA include open campsites, lithic scatters, 

housepits, rock alignments, kill/butchering sites, rockshelters, floral processing locales, sacred or 

respected sites, extensive lithic procurement locales (see Archaeological Landscapes, 

Appendix F-1.5 of the Jonah II EIS [BLM 1997a, 1998a]), limited activity sites, Traditional 

Cultural Properties, and sacred or respected places. A "Traditional Cultural Property" can 

generally be defined as a property that is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP because of its 

association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are rooted in the 

community’s history and are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the 

community. The Traditional Cultural Properties in the JIDPA also are considered sacred or 

respected places (areas that local Native American tribes consider sensitive, important for current 

uses [e.g., plant collection], and/or of religious importance pursuant to EO 13007. These 

properties include rock alignment sites, visionquest locales, stone circle sites such as tipi rings, 

and cairns. No drivelines are currently known, but they may be present in the area. No petroglyph 

or pictograph sites are presently known, even though the geology of the area (i.e., the presence of 
3-76 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

numerous rock outcrops) is conducive to the presence of these site types. One prehistoric human 

burial has been encountered. Prehistoric sites between 4,000 and 7,000 years old are common, 

many of which are completely buried with few (if any) surface manifestations. 

A considerable amount of inventory, testing, monitoring, and salvage excavation has been 

completed in the JIDPA, especially since the mid-1990s (estimated at over 1,500 actions). It has 

resulted in the identification and recording of a large number of prehistoric cultural properties 

(estimated at over 1,000), most notably those discovered during construction. Larger-scale data 

recovery excavations are becoming more common as discoveries continue to be made and 

adverse effects are mitigated. 

3.3.3 Native American Sensitive Sites and Traditional Cultural 

Properties 

In the late nineteenth century, the JIDPA was used predominantly by the Shoshone Tribe, though 

Bannock, Ute, and other Tribes frequented the Upper Green River. Sites relating to prehistoric 

tribal use exist, but identifying specific tribal affiliation to these remains is difficult. Some 

prehistoric sites, as well as some of the more modern Native American use sites, may be 

considered respected areas or sensitive sites by modern Native Americans and may be formally 

considered Traditional Cultural Properties. 

Sites and properties within this class are protected by numerous laws, such as the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act (AIRFA), and by various executive orders (e.g., EO 13007). Human burials, rock 

alignment sites, petroglyphs, steatite procurement locales, and modern-day Native American use, 

extraction, or religious sites are considered sensitive or sacred to modern Native Americans. 

Several such sites have been identified in the area. Consultation with potentially affected Native 

American Tribes concerning the identification and management of specific Traditional Cultural 

Properties and other sensitive sites began in 1998, and this consultation resulted in several 

recommendations concerning the management of sensitive/sacred/respected sites, disturbance 

buffers, holistic management approaches and guidelines, and how Native American traditional 

practitioners want BLM to manage sensitive areas. The general theme of the consultation has 

been to leave these sensitive areas undisturbed. 

Representatives of the Shoshone and Ute Tribes have visited the Jonah area during the period of 

1997 through 2001. Consultation particularly focused on the site 48SU4000 Archaeological 

District. Additionally, in 2002, formal NAGPRA consultation with the Shoshone Business 

Council took place concerning the 7,300-year-old human remains encountered during 

construction of a well pad. Consultation among the BLM, Shoshone Tribe, and possibly other 

tribes would continue throughout Project development. 

3.3.4 Culture Historic Context and Chronology 

The prehistory of the Green River Basin, which encompasses the JIDPA, is typically considered 

in relationship to the prehistory of the larger western Wyoming Basin, which also includes the 

Great Divide and Washakie Basins and the Rock Springs and Rawlins Uplifts. The prehistory of 

the western Wyoming Basin is typically discussed in terms of a series of periods and phases 

originally defined specifically for the region by Metcalf (1987) (Table 3.21). The breakdown of 

periods and phases is based on such characteristics as artifact assemblages, house and pit forms, 

shifts in settlement or resource procurement patterns, and peaks and valleys in the frequencies of 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-77 

radiocarbon dates (Wheeler et al. 1986; Metcalf 1987; McNees et al. 1992; Thompson and 

Pastor 1995; Vlcek 1997). At the broader level, the prehistory of the region is broken down into 

the Paleoindian, Early Archaic, Late Archaic, Late Prehistoric, and Protohistoric periods. The 

Early Archaic, Late Archaic, and Late Prehistoric periods are typically further subdivided into the 

Great Divide and Opal phases, the Pine Spring and Deadman Wash phases, and the Uinta and 

Firehole phases, respectively. Though most researchers agree on the general nature and sequence 

of the phases, some disagreement exists on their beginning and ending dates. Table 3.21 uses the 

dating modified from McNees et al. (1992) and Vlcek (1997). 

Evidence indicates that the JIDPA has been occupied almost continuously since at least the 

Folsom stage of the Paleoindian period about 10,900 years before present (B.P.). Occupation of 

the area apparently intensified after approximately 8,500 years B.P. and especially after 7,200 

years B.P. 

The Paleoindian period in Wyoming is typically discussed in terms of the sequence of "classic" 

Paleoindian point types initially established on the basis of data from the Hell Gap site in eastern 

Wyoming and subsequently amplified and refined. In the Wyoming Basin, it is typically 

represented by the Clovis, Goshen, Folsom, Agate Basin, and Hell Gap points. Alberta, 

Alberta-Cody, and Cody cultural complexes are also commonly represented but appear to be 

more transitional to the lifeways represented in the subsequent Archaic period. The Paleoindian 

period was characterized by a large-animal hunting-oriented economy that was specialized even 

in contrast to later bison-hunting groups on the plains. 

Initially, that strategy focused on the procurement of mammoth and/or other megafauna, but then 

it shifted to bison and apparently incorporated an increasingly broader spectrum of smaller animal 

and plant resources. 

Occasional surface finds of fluted projectile points of the Clovis and Folsom traditions indicate 

that, at a minimum, human beings have lived in the Green River Basin since the end of the 

Pleistocene geologic epoch. However, evidence of the big game foraging tradition, which has 

defined the early Paleoindian adaptation, is rare. Evidence most commonly consists of surface 

finds of Paleoindian points. 

Table 3.21 Prehistoric Cultural Chronology for the JIDPA and Southwestern Wyoming.1 

Period Phase Age (Years Before Present [B.P.]) 

Paleoindian -- 11,500-8,500 

Early Archaic Great Divide 8,500-6,000 

Opal 6,000-3,600 

Late Archaic Pine Spring 3,600-2,900 

 Deadman Wash 2,900-1,800 

Late Prehistoric Uinta 1,800-1,000 

Firehole 1,000-250 

Protohistoric -- 250-0 

Metcalf 1987; McNees et al. 1992; Vlcek 1997. 1 
3-78 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Few sites containing classic Paleoindian points have been discovered in the area, although such 

sites are known. For example, the site complex containing Sites 48SU389, 48SU907, 48SU908, 

and 48SU909 just south of the JIDPA has produced artifacts from the Folsom, Hell Gap, Agate 

Basin, Scottsbluff, and Cody complexes spanning a time period from 12,000 to 8,000 years B.P. 

(Frison 1991). Folsom points have been found at three localities in the JIDPA (two along Sand 

Draw and one in the 48SU4000 Archaeological District). At least 16 sites or locations have 

produced surface Paleoindian projectile points in the Jonah area. Site 48SU1421, situated 

adjacent to an ancient playa, contained several projectile points that tentatively date two 

components at the site from 9,000 to 8,500 years B.P. Another site (Site 48SU2980) encountered 

during pipeline construction has been dated to 8,600 years B.P. and has a possible Paleoindian 

connection, and sites/site complexes that include Sites 48SU2662, 48SU3087, and 48SU3090 

have also produced Paleoindian material. A Hell Gap point was discovered eroding out of a low 

sand sheet in the northern Jonah field, and Scottsbluff complex artifacts have been recorded in 

various portions of the field, including within the Site 48SU4000 Archaeological District (see 

Section 3.3.7). Additionally, three Early Archaic period JIDPA sites (48SU2094, 48SU2324, and 

48SU4479) dating from 4,590 to 8,210 years B.P. were recently excavated (McKern and Harrell 

2004). 

The lifeways defining the Early Archaic period in the western Wyoming Basin may have begun 

as early as the middle Paleoindian period, possibly as a result of a "settling-in" process (McNees 

1998:36). These lifeways apparently were characterized by the more-intensive use of the 

landscape by groups pursuing an increasingly broad-spectrum hunting and gathering lifestyle. 

Specific characteristics of those lifeways are believed to have included a settlement and 

subsistence strategy oriented to specific geographic areas on a year-round basis, including 

especially a reliance on a broader range of plant and animal food resources. This more 

"place-oriented" lifeway resulted in the apparent elaboration of house and cooking pit forms 

represented in the archaeological record. 

In the western Wyoming Basin in general, the archaeological record contains a gradually 

increasing number of dated components through the time period beginning around 8,500 years 

B.P., with a more significant increase after 6,000 years B.P. The number of radiocarbon-dated 

sites then generally declines again across the region throughout the Late Archaic period. Cultural 

remains dating to the Late Archaic period become more complex and more diverse through time. 

The earlier part of the Early Archaic period corresponding to the Great Divide phase is typically 

characterized by sites containing limited remains, typically a simple firepit or two, a few flaked 

stone artifacts, and bone scraps, most commonly from rabbits and occasionally pronghorn. 

Artifacts associated with Early Archaic period sites in the area tend to be limited in number and 

type. The Great Divide phase tends to be characterized by large side-notched points, which give 

way to more-diverse, less-distinctive, and less-frequent collections of side- and corner-notched 

projectile points of the Opal phase. After about 6,500 years B.P., housepits become a prominent 

trait of the period, as do slab-lined cylindrical baking pits and deep unlined baking pits after about 

6,000 years B.P. The coalescence of those traits is judged to represent the transition to the Opal 

phase around 6,500 to 6,000 years B.P. The Opal phase appears to have been a time of a 

significant increase in the number of sites and population compared with the preceding and 

subsequent phases in the western Wyoming Basin in general (Smith 2003). Small mammals, 

especially rabbits probably opportunistically captured near the camps, are the most commonly 

identified animals from the housepit bone assemblages. However, pronghorn bone is also 

relatively common, and the Trapper's Point site to the north of the JIDPA evidences relatively 

intensive pronghorn procurement. The deep baking pits suggest the relatively widespread use of 

roots, most likely biscuitroot and onion. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-79 

One of the most distinctive aspects of the archaeological record of the JIDPA and its immediate 

surroundings is the abundance of archaeological sites dating to the later Great Divide phase, in 

contrast to the rest of the western Wyoming Basin (TRC Mariah 2001c). The archaeological 

record indicates that occupation of the JIDPA began to intensify after approximately 8,500 years 

B.P. as elsewhere in the region. However, the major increase in occupation apparently began 

around 7,200 years B.P. The appearance of the remains of house structures in and around the 

JIDPA likewise pre-dates that in the rest of the region. Figure 3.14 illustrates the excavation of a 

typical housepit. Most of the houses have yielded radiocarbon dates between 7,110 and 

6,000 years B.P. A post mold associated with a house at Site 48SU3835 yielded an age estimate 

of 8,240 years B.P. (Nelson and Richard 2004) and one associated with a house at the J. David 

Love site (Site 48SU4479) yielded an age estimate of 8,210 years B.P. (McKern and Current 

2004), the two earliest dates for house structures recorded in the region. Only a few structures in 

the project area have yielded dates of less than 6,000 years B.P. By contrast, only one housepit 

out of 41 fully excavated housepits from 21 sites in Wyoming listed by Smith (2003) and 

a list of excavated housepits from the Green River Basin and immediately adjacent areas 

compiled by Thompson and Pastor (1995) yielded a date of 6,000 years B.P. or older, and it was 

dated at 6,000 years B.P. Therefore, it is clear that the house remains in the Jonah area represent a 

distinctive temporal phenomenon in the archaeological record of the region. 

The house structures excavated in the JIDPA are distinctive in other ways as well. They include 

both "classic" housepits characterized by large, circular stains that are basin-shaped in cross 

section, as well as circular or semicircular areas delineated by apparent post molds around the 

perimeter of clusters of hearth-type basins. The latter type appears to be distinctive to the Jonah 

area. 

The transition from the Early Archaic period to the Late Archaic period is marked by a decrease 

in radiocarbon-dated sites in the western Wyoming Basin at about 3,600 years B.P. Despite minor 

regional peaks from 3,200 to 3,000 years B.P., 2,900 to 2,700 years B.P., and 2,000 to 1,800 

years B.P., the frequencies of radiocarbon-dated sites remain depressed into the early Late 

Prehistoric period. Because of the limited number of investigated sites dating to the Late Archaic 

period, it remains poorly understood. The period was apparently marked by the decreased use of 

the area by interior basin-adapted groups, possibly reflecting a decline in population and/or a shift 

in settlement and subsistence strategies (McNees 1992). 

Some investigators in the region have placed the end of the Opal phase Early Archaic period and 

the start of the Pine Spring phase Late Archaic period around 4,400 years ago to coincide with the 

full time span of McKean complex dart points in the region. However, sites containing McKean 

complex points appear to represent a different cultural phenomenon than the abundance of sites 

displaying more typical Opal phase traits such as housepits, slab-lined cylindrical pits, deep 

baking pits, and side- and corner-notched projectile points. Only after the cultural complex 

exhibiting these latter traits becomes attenuated around 3,600 years B.P. do sites containing 

McKean complex points become dominant as a result of the vacuum created by the absence of the 

more typical Opal phase sites. 

The Pine Spring phase of the Late Archaic period is typically defined by the prevalence of 

McKean complex dart points. McKean complex stemmed and lanceolate dart points occur at sites 

in the western Wyoming Basin beginning as early as 4,900 years B.P. (McNees 1992). They 

appear to be most common at sites dated between 4,400 and 3,000 years B.P. Surface finds of 

McKean complex dart points are common within and around the JIDPA. McKean complex points 
3-80 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

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

2005. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-81 

have been reported for Site 48SU1754 in the Bull Draw drainage, Site 48SU1328 on a bench 

above Sand Draw, and Site 48SU3090 at the Sand Draw playa complex. The McKean complex 

point at Site 48SU3090 is consistent with age estimates obtained from features in the complex, 

including estimates of 3,580 and 3,900 years B.P. from a cobble-lined and a bell-shaped basin, 

respectively, suggesting the presence of intact McKean complex components in the area (Plastino 

1999). Based upon radiocarbon dating, a McKean concentration has been found in the JIDPA. 

The presence of Pine Spring phase sites in the JIDPA is also indicated by firepits radiocarbon 

dated to that time period. 

The transition from the Pine Spring phase to the Deadman Wash phase is typically placed around 

3,000 or 2,900 years B.P. to correspond with the transition from the use of McKean complex dart 

points to the use of corner-notched dart points. Evidence for Deadman Wash phase use of the 

JIDPA area is even more limited than for Pine Spring phase use. Corner-notched dart points 

diagnostic of the phase are not as distinctive or definitive as McKean complex points, making 

them less effective as an indicator of occupation of the area during that time period. Likewise, 

fewer features have been dated to this phase, which suggests that the phase may be poorly 

represented in the area. 

The Uinta phase of the Late Prehistoric period exhibits a peak in the number of radiocarbon-dated 

components in the western Wyoming Basin, specifically between 1,500 and 1,000 years B.P. In 

many aspects, this phase of the Prehistoric period more closely resembles the Early Archaic 

period than the immediately preceding Late Archaic period or the subsequent Firehole phase. The 

Uinta phase is generally considered to coincide with the introduction or general adoption of bow 

and arrow technology. Pottery also first appears in the archaeological record of the region during 

this period, although it apparently only became an integral element of the indigenous inhabitants 

of the region after approximately 900 years B.P. 

The Uinta phase is characterized by repeated occupation of the same site localities and the use of 

deep cylindrical basins, small circular habitation structures, more common ornamental artifacts 

(e.g., bone tubes and bone disks), and a broad spectrum of large and small animals and plant 

resources, including pronghorn, occasionally bison, and seeds from weedy annuals. Uinta phase 

sites and components are often much more artifact- and data-rich than sites from other periods. 

Classic Uinta phase sites contain Rose Spring arrow points but lack pottery. Interestingly, 

radiocarbon-dated Uinta phase sites or sites with Rose Spring points are relatively uncommon in 

the JIDPA. 

Following the Uinta phase is the Firehole phase. In most of the western Wyoming Basin, Firehole 

phase sites are rare in comparison to Uinta phase sites. McNees (1992) argues the Firehole phase 

represents a return to a lifeway that relied more heavily on hunting large game animals, including 

bison, similar to that of the Pine Spring and Deadman Wash phases, with less reliance on more 

intensive use of smaller animals and plants. The Firehole phase is characterized by the 

predominance of side-notched, tri-notched, and unnotched points; by quartz sand-tempered 

(Intermountain Ware) pottery; and by the abrupt disappearance of typical Uinta phase traits 

between 1,000 and 950 years B.P. The historic Shoshone inhabitants of the region likely first 

arrived during the Firehole phase. 

In contrast to much of the western Wyoming Basin, the JIDPA and surrounding area contain a 

large number of sites dating to the Firehole phase. Site 48SU4000 Archaeological District appears 

to be dominated by Firehole phase materials (Miner 2001). The phase is associated with an 

extensive and distinct area of interior basin sandstone outcrops and includes numerous rockshelter 
3-82 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

alcoves and stone circles. Associated artifacts include side-notched and unnotched points and 

ceramics from five distinct localities. Ceramics recovered from 48SU4000 have been subject to 

thin sectioning analysis, and local manufacture is indicated. These ceramics show similarities to 

those found at the Wardell Buffalo Trap (Frison 1993). This ceramic assemblage (two sites with 

500 sherds each) represents the highest known concentration of prehistoric ceramics anywhere in 

southwestern Wyoming. Ceramics have also been recovered from other sites in the area, 

including Sites 48SU1443, 28SU2261, and 48SU3017. 

3.3.5 Geomorphology 

Geomorphological studies that examine the relationship among geology, soils, topography, and 

vegetation are important to archaeologists because most significant prehistoric sites are located 

within specific soil matrices (i.e., the history of which contributes to the integrity of the site, the 

integrity of cultural deposits, and the post-depositional history of the site). These factors are 

critical for understanding the nature, integrity, and preservation potential of the archeological 

resources in the JIDPA. 

Of particular interest in the JIDPA is the San Arcacio-Saguache soils complex (soil map 

unit 125), which occurs along the lower and middle reaches of Sand Draw. The San Arcacio soils 

form on geomorphically stable surfaces at less than 3% slopes, mainly on level or uniformly 

sloping surfaces with deposits of uniform depth. They typically exhibit a sandy clay loam 

horizon with oxidized colors and clay enrichment over coarse sand (Eckerle and Taddie 1997) 

and occur on old floodplains, fans, and terraces. The soils are typically sandy and have formed in 

coarse sandy alluvium (ERO Resources Corporation 1988:49). Plastino (Plastino and Randolph 

2000:4) describes the soils as "sandy loam above coarse sand with an increasing gravel content 

with increasing depth." According to Eckerle and Taddie (1997:8), "The [San Arcacio] soil is 

formed into a coarse, moderately well-sorted, subangular to subrounded, nonfrosted sand, [the] 

exact genesis of which is not presently known." They argue that the source material of the sand 

does not appear to be local. The depth of the sand deposit exceeds 4 m in at least one location. 

Eckerle and Taddie (1997) state that the San Arcacio soils compare well to the Vonalee-Hiland 

soil/paleosol documented in other parts of the Wyoming Basin on aeolian deposits that have been 

stable since the middle Holocene, except that they are slightly older. They suggest that occupation 

occurred on a sheet deposit intermittently active from sometime before 7,000 years B.P. until 

approximately 3,700 years B.P., after which the surface stabilized, and the San Arcacio soils 

began to form. The San Arcacio soils remain the modern surface. 

Buried cultural features have frequently been encountered in San Arcacio soils during 

construction in the Sand Draw area. Those features typically range in age from approximately 

4,000 years B.P. to greater than 7,000 years B.P. The tops of the features typically occur at depths 

of only 15 to 20 cm below the ground surface, yet the locales frequently lack any surface 

manifestation or topographic relief to differentiate them from other portions of the surrounding 

landscape. The features typically include hemispherical basins with and without rock, as well as 

housepits and other house remains. They are typically encapsulated within the aforementioned 

sandy clay loam soil horizon and exhibit remarkable preservation. 

3.3.6 Discovered Sites 

In recent years, discoveries have occurred in a number of management contexts. Those contexts 

include discoveries at previously recorded sites at which subsurface components were not 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-83 

expected or detected (sometimes despite extensive testing and/or magnetometer surveys), 

previously unidentified sites with (often very sparse) surface expressions, and previously 

unidentified sites lacking any surface expression. The latter are by far the most prevalent and the 

most problematic because there is no favorable or adequate current methodology to identify them 

in a cost- and time-effective manner prior to construction. Discoveries have occurred in a number 

of different construction contexts, including well pad stripping and leveling, access road 

construction, and pipeline trench construction. The sites include locales with housepits or other 

structural remains and basins with low to moderate densities of artifacts, locales with stained 

layers and basin features with moderate densities of associated flaked stone artifacts and bone, 

locales consisting primarily of basin features with few associated artifacts, and locales with a 

single hearth or cultural stain. In portions of the JIDPA (i.e., Stud Horse Butte, Corona, and 

Cabrito units), nearly one in six projects have yielded discoveries (TRC Mariah 2001c). 

As of August 2004, one prehistoric human burial has been encountered within a discovery 

scenario, although the actual human remains were found during salvage excavations. The 

majority of the discoveries to date have occurred at a relatively shallow depth (15 to 30 cm) in 

sheet deposits. The best known of those deposits are the San Arcacio soils of the Sand Draw 

area. Other sediment types in the JIDPA, away from the Sand Draw terraces, have yielded 

discoveries in often geomorphologically complex contexts that have also proven difficult to 

identify by surface analysis and preconstruction testing. These discoveries have generally not 

been as significant or as time-consuming to mitigate as the structural remains that are mostly 

found in the San Arcacio soil contexts along Sand Draw. 

House remains initially identified during well pad or access road construction have been partially 

or completely excavated at a minimum of seven sites in the JIDPA to date. They include the 

remains of 17 housepits or surface structures excavated at the McKeva Ryka site 

(Site 48SU2094), Jonah's House site (Site 48SU2324), and J. David Love site (Site 48SU4479), 

and Sites 48SU3835, 48SU2317, 48SU3291, and 48SU3519. The houses generally had interior 

firepits, but few flaked stone artifacts, bone fragments, or other remains were associated with 

most of the houses. Fossils, tentatively identified as Pleistocene horse bones, a very rare 

occurrence in Wyoming, have also been discovered and a human burial dated at 7,290 years B.P. 

was encountered in a shallow circular pit at the J. David Love site (McKern and Current 2004). 

This burial represents the earliest known human remains from Wyoming and is one of the earliest 

known burials from the entire Rocky Mountain region. 

3.3.7 Highly Sensitive Archaeological Locales 

The following section discusses the most highly sensitive and threatened archaeological locales in 

the JIDPA. Development and implementation of specific activity plans may be necessary to 

ensure that these valuable resource areas are adequately protected from impacts directly or 

indirectly related to energy development. 

3.3.7.1 Sand Draw/Bull Draw Divide 

The Sand Draw/Bull Draw Divide upland is one of the most sensitive and complex locales 

currently known for the JIDPA. During 2000-2001, it was the subject of an intensive block 

inventory followed by formal site recordations and evaluations (Miner 2001). The site complex 

has been designated the "Site 48SU4000 Archaeological District" and is also known as the "Vlcek 

Archaeological District." This is the first Archaeological District established within the PFO. 
3-84 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

The site complex is characterized by sandstone outcrops containing vertical rock faces, 

overhangs, nooks, and boulders bordering and enclosing sand-filled openings and pockets. A 

nearly continuous scatter of cultural material is present across that area. Identified archaeological 

remains include numerous rockshelters and alcoves containing cultural deposits, stone circles, 

buried hearths, areas of culturally stained sediment, numerous projectile points and point 

fragments, abundant bifaces and other flaked stone tools, ceramics, abundant obsidian artifacts, 

groundstone, at least one sandstone abrader, abundant burned bone, and mussel shell, among 

other things. Rock art is conspicuously absent from the cultural remains noted to date, despite the 

presence of suitable rock faces. Prehistoric human burials or interments have also not been 

identified to date, although their occurrence somewhere within or around the rock outcrops is 

likely. 

Much of the described cultural remains apparently date to the Late Prehistoric period (primarily 

to the Firehole phase) but all other temporal periods are represented as well. Projectile points and 

point fragments typically include small side-notched points. Small triangular points and at least 

one base-notched point have also been recovered. Potsherds were recovered from at least five 

loci within the locale, some of which apparently closely resemble the ceramics from the Wardell 

Bison Kill site. Small- and medium-sized corner-notched points and point fragments are also 

present. A Folsom point was also reportedly collected from one locale within the site complex. 

Numerous clusters of artifacts were thought to be collectors' piles and indicators of extensive 

vandalism. Miner (2001) refutes this, however, making a strong argument that most of the piles 

are the result of packrat activity. 

The Site 48SU4000 Archaeological District is an exceedingly significant set of properties unique 

to the region. The area is also considered highly sensitive by Native Americans. The types, 

density, and diversity of the remains all contrast sharply with the remains typically encountered in 

the JIDPA and the region. The District contains numerous areas of apparently intact deposits 

containing dense, well-preserved remains with rich data potential. Moreover, it appears to have 

significant, and perhaps unique potential to provide insight into some of the more distinctive and 

prominent cultural manifestations known in the region, especially during the Late Prehistoric 

period, including potentially the poorly understood but distinctive cultural manifestation 

represented at the nearby Wardell Bison Kill site. There is also a possibility of relict Folsom and 

other Paleoindian deposits in isolated nooks or pockets. 

3.3.7.2 Sand Draw Playa Complex 

The Sand Draw playa is situated toward the lower (western) end of Sand Draw approximately 

700 ft south of the stream channel. It is encircled by a low rim around its western, southern, and 

eastern sides but opens north toward Sand Draw. It has been modified by historic ranching 

activity by way of a ditch into Sand Draw. The playa area is privately owned. Another large 

enclosed depression is located slightly less than 1 mile to the north, and a smaller enclosed 

depression is located just over 0.5 mile to the north-northwest, north of Sand Draw. Both of these 

depressions are on BLM surface. Neither of these depressions are presently mapped as playas, but 

both may have been playas in the past and they suggest that a complex of playas may have once 

been present in the area. 

The playa complex area may have served as a focus for Paleoindian period occupations. A similar 

playa complex in the Jonah Gulch site complex (including Sites 48SU389, 48SU907, 48SU908, 

and 48SU909), located approximately 12 miles to the southeast, contains extensive Paleoindian 

components. To date, no significant intact Paleoindian components have been identified in the 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-85 

vicinity of the Sand Draw playa complex. However, both a Folsom point and a point tentatively 

identified as Goshen or Dalton have been recovered as surface finds, suggesting that such 

components may be present. 

The Sand Draw playa complex, due to its capture of more moisture than other JIDPA locations, 

may preserve archaeologically important paleoclimatic data. Specifically, pollen, which usually is 

not preserved or recovered from archaeological deposits in other JIDPA locations, may be well 

preserved in the playa complex. These data are critical for establishing baseline information 

concerning the paleoenvironmental reconstruction of the JIDPA. 

Plastino (1999) noted two soil types within the playa complex area during testing at Site 

48SU3090 in a sheltered backslope context with colluvial and aeolian deposits, and in a lower 

slope/drainage bottom context characterized by slopewash deposits. Testing and monitoring have 

indicated the presence of intact subsurface deposits of both types, including a basin well out into 

and under modern playa deposits at a depth of 25 cm below the ground surface at Site 48SU3089 

at the northern tip of the playa. A stain of possible cultural origin was also noted at a greater 

depth of 51 cm. 

Three sites adjacent to the Sand Draw playa were tested as part of a testing program associated 

with a geophysical project (Kohler et al. 2003). The sites (Sites 48SU2662, 48SU3087, and 

48SU3090) were selected because of their abundant surface artifacts and potential to contain 

buried Paleoindian cultural remains. These sites have usually been avoided by development 

projects, and little subsurface testing has been performed. The limited testing program revealed 

few, if any, cultural remains at the three sites, and no intact cultural components were identified. 

The tested areas generally exhibited colluvial/slopewash deposits and did not contain San Arcacio 

soils. 

Discoveries made during testing and monitoring indicate that the Sand Draw playa area is 

characterized by a large proportion of basin types not commonly represented in other parts of the 

JIDPA. They include cobble-lined and cobble-filled basins, bell-shaped basins, and U-shaped 

basins (e.g., at Sites 48SU3049, 48SU3850, and 48SU3089). Point types noted in the area include 

a McKean complex point, a point described as a "Pelican Lake or Rose Spring" point, and a Rose 

Spring point. The apparent McKean point is consistent with age estimates obtained from features 

in the complex, including estimates of 3,580 and 3,900 years B.P. from a cobble-lined basin and a 

bell-shaped basin, respectively, which suggest the presence of intact McKean complex 

components in the area. 

These patterns suggest that the playa complex may have been a locus of different 

procurement/processing activities and/or of more concentrated occupation by different groups 

and/or at different times than other portions of the JIDPA. Therefore, sites in the area have the 

potential to provide distinct and important information concerning prehistoric land use patterns in 

the JIDPA and the region. 

3.3.7.3 Central Sand Draw 

Terraces along the central part of Sand Draw contain a concentrated locus of early to 

mid-Holocene housepits and other structural remains and contemporaneous basins, as was 

discussed above with regard to the Sand Draw/Bull Draw Divide. This segment of Sand Draw lies 

below and to the west of Stud Horse Butte at its upper end and above the Sand Draw playa at its 
3-86 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

lower end. The housepit occupations may have been intentionally positioned in proximity to the 

playa complex. 

Plastino (1999) describes a series of at least three terraces above Sand Draw. He estimates the 

three terraces occur at 2 m, 4 m, and >4 m above the modern Sand Draw channel. He describes 

two of the terraces as strath terraces with nearly level trends. Sediments across the lower terraces 

are classified as San Arcacio soils. 

As part of the geophysical project mentioned above, four sites were selected for testing along 

Sand Draw to investigate areas of interest that are usually avoided during development projects 

(Kohler et al. 2003). Sites in the testing program along Sand Draw included Sites 48SU1779, 

48SU2246, 48SU3088, and 48SU4011. Most of the testing was conducted in San Arcacio 

sediments, and the majority of cultural material was recovered from San Arcacio strata. Two San 

Arcacio strata were identified: San Arcacio "A" stratum was interpreted as post-dating 

3,000 years B.P., and San Arcacio "B" stratum was the lower, older layer dating between 

3,000 and 7,000 years B.P. Site 48SU2246 was the only site tested that did not contain San 

Arcacio soils. Ceramic and obsidian artifacts were found on the surface of this site, and additional 

pieces of pottery were recovered from the test unit. Site 48SU2246 appears to date to the Late 

Prehistoric period based on the ceramic assemblage, while the remaining sites appear to date to 

the Archaic period based on their presence in San Arcacio soils. Only a few features were 

identified in the 67 m2

 of excavation, none were structural, and none were radiocarbon dated. Few 

of the test units yielded more than a small number of artifacts or other types of cultural remains. 

Recent notable housepit/structure data recovery excavations along Sand Draw have occurred at 

the McKeva Ryka site (Site 48SU2094), Jonah's House site (Site 48SU2324), the J. David Love 

site (Site 48SU4479), Site 48SU3835, and Site 48SU3519. These sites are all located on the Sand 

Draw terraces in San Arcacio sediments, and all were excavated to mitigate impacts to features 

encountered during well pad or access road construction. 

The McKeva Ryka site contained two housepits with postholes and interior and exterior features 

(McKern and Current 2002). Artifacts included a light scatter of flaked stone and bone. The 

housepits were radiocarbon dated to between 5,990 and 6,880 years B.P. The housepits appear to 

represent short-term habitations that were revisited seasonally over hundreds of years. 

The Jonah's House site is similar to the McKeva Ryka site in setting, cultural remains, and 

apparent function. It contained two housepits with postholes and a sparse scatter of artifacts and 

bone (McKern and Current 2003). It was radiocarbon dated to between 6,590 and 7,070 years 

B.P. and also is interpreted as representing short-term, repeated habitations. 

The J. David Love site is rich in structural remains, containing six housepits and three surface 

structures dating between 4,590 and 8,210 years B.P. (McKern and Current 2004). A pit feature 

in one of the housepits contained human burial remains dating to 7,290 years B.P. The burial 

represents the remains of an elderly woman, and it is suggested that the structure was constructed 

specifically for the burial. Artifacts at this site were sparse but did include fragments of red ochre. 

Site 48SU3835 included a single, flat-floored surface structure with 26 postholes, six internal 

features, and an intact roof layer (Nelson and Richard 2004). A sparse scatter of lithic artifacts 

was present on the site surface, but a magnetometer survey of the area conducted prior to well pad 

blading did not yield evidence of buried cultural remains. Radiocarbon dates from the discovery 

ranged from 5,600 to 8,240 years B.P. Of particular interest was the presence of about 300 pieces 

of microdebitage (small discarded materials such as flakes) and about 1,000 small bone fragments 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-87 

recovered from feature fill. The recovery of this quantity of artifacts from a single structure is 

uncommon. 

Site 48SU3519 was not identified during the Class III inventory that included magnetometer 

survey, but well pad construction revealed a cluster of 10 basin features and 11 scattered basin 

features (Sines and Roufs 2001). Twenty-five flakes and approximately 802 small pieces of bone 

were recovered from the heavy fraction of flotation fill samples. A series of possible post molds 

associated with the feature cluster suggests that this site also contained a shelter. Six age 

estimates ranging from 4,050 to 7,110 years B.P. were obtained from the features. 

The housepits and other features in the central Sand Draw area provide excellent potential to 

contain cultural material from a time period that is crucial for understanding North American 

prehistory, particularly the Paleoindian-Archaic lifeway transition and hunter-gatherer adaptation 

to the severe climatic conditions of the Altithermal climatic episode. Intact buried components 

dating to that time period are uncommon, as are concentrations of housepit loci. The combination 

of the two in central Sand Draw would be unparalleled anywhere in the western United States. 

3.4 SOCIOECONOMICS 

Unless otherwise cited, the socioeconomic information that follows has been summarized from 

the Socioeconomic Analysis Technical Support Document for the Jonah Infill Drilling and South 

Piney Projects Environmental Impact Statements (BLM 2005). This document is available from 

the BLM PFO. Please refer to that document for more detailed socioeconomic information and 

analysis. Additional information has been taken from the socioeconomic profile (BLM 2003d) 

prepared for inclusion in the new Pinedale RMP (now in preparation). Unless otherwise stated, all 

dollar amounts are presented in year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. Formulas used to make 

the calculations presented herein (e.g., change, average annual change) are illustrated and 

explained in detail in BLM (2005). 

3.4.1 Study Area 

The economic study area (i.e., the CIAA) includes the counties and communities most likely to be 

impacted by the proposed project, including LaBarge in Lincoln County; Pinedale, Big Piney, 

Marbleton, and Boulder in Sublette County; and Eden, Farson, and Rock Springs in Sweetwater 

County. Rock Springs is a hub of natural gas development activity and likely will be home to 

some of the workers. Wyoming and the United States are also included in the profile and impact 

analyses (see Section 4.4) where information is available and pertinent. The three-county area 

and the listed communities also comprise the CIAA. 

3.4.2 Demography 

3.4.2.1 Population Dynamics and Census Data 

Population data were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau (2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2000d), 

Taylor and Lieske (2002), and the Wyoming Department of Administration and Information 

(WDAI) (2001a, 2001b, 2002a, 2002b, 2003a) (Tables 3.22 and 3.23). Sonoran Institute 

Economic Profile System (EPS) reports, charts, and raw data are on file TRC Mariah's Laramie, 

Wyoming, office. 
3-88 

Table 3.22 Historic and Projected Population. 

Total Change in 

Population1 Population1 Projected Population1 

1980- 1990- 1980­

Location 19802 19902 20002 1990 2000 2000 20023 20104 20154 20204 20254 United States 226,542,199 248,709,873 281,421,906 9.8% 13.2% 24.2% 288,368,698 297,716,000 310,133,000 322,742,000 335,050,000 State of 469,557 453,588 493,782 -3.4% 8.9% 5.2% 498,703 607,000 641,000 670,000 694,000 Wyoming Lincoln 12,177 12,625 14,573 3.7% 15.4% 19.7% 14,890 15,520 NP NP NP County 

LaBarge 302 493 431 63.2% -12.6% 42.7% NR NR NP NP NP 

Sublette 4,548 4,843 5,920 6.4% 22.2% 30.2% 6,240 6,690 NP NP NP County 

Big Piney 530 454 408 -10.1% -1.3% -23.0% NR 461 NP NP NP Bondurant NR NR 155 -- -- -- NR NR NP NP NP Boulder NR NR 30 -- -- -- NR NR NP NP NP Cora NR NR 76 -- -- -- NR NR NP NP NP Daniel NR NR 89 -- -- -- NR NR NP NP NP Marbleton 537 634 720 18.0% 16.9% 34.1% NR 814 NP NP NP Pinedale 1,066 1,181 1,412 10.7% 20.3% 32.5% NR 1,596 NP NP NP 

Sweetwater 41,723 38,823 37,613 -6.9% -3.1% -9.9% 37,194 35,400 NP NP NP County 

Eden NR NR 388 -- -- -- NR NR NP NP NP Farson NR NR 242 -- -- -- NR NR NP NP NP Rock 19,458 19,050 18,708 -2.1% -1.7% -3.9% NR 17,607 NP NP NP 

 Springs

1 NR = not reported; -- = not calculated due to lack of information; NP = no projection available at this geographic level. 2 WDAI (2001a). 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 1990 census; however, WDAI reported 1980 estimates (WDAI 2001a). 

3 Estimate as of July 2002. WDAI (2003a).4 U.S. (Campbell 1997) and Wyoming (WDAI 2002b) projections. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-89 

Table 3.23 Urban and Rural Population and Density, 2000. 

Population1 

Location Urban Total 

Rural 

Farm2 Non-Farm2 

Density per 

Square Mile 

United States 

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

Percent 79% 21% 5% 95% NA 

State of Wyoming 

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

Percent 65% 35% 9% 91% NA 

Lincoln County 

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

Percent 20% 80% 6% 94% NA 

Sublette County 

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

Percent -- 100% 8% 92% NA 

Sweetwater County 

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

Percent 89% 3% 10% 90% NA 

1 U.S. Census Bureau (2000a). 2 Total rural residents living on farms and not living on farms. 3 Sublette County has no urban population as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Lincoln County 

The Lincoln County population increased 3.7% between 1980 (12,177) and 1990 (12,625); 

however, by 2000, the population rose to 14,573, a 15.4% increase from 1990 (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2000a, 2000b) (see Table 3.22). Thus, the Lincoln County population increased by 2,396 

(19.7%) during the 20-year study period. The majority of Lincoln County residents (11,653, 

80.0%) live in rural areas (see Table 3.23). Of these, 93.5% (10,897) are nonfarm residents (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2000d). Lincoln County has a population density of 3.6 people/square mile (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2000a). 

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

project. Unlike Lincoln County as a whole, the population of LaBarge rose from 302 in 1980 to 

493 in 1990 (63.2% increase) then fell to 431 in 2000 (-12.6%), for a net increase of 129 (42.7%) 

during the 20-year study period (see Table 3.22). 

Sublette County 

The Sublette County population in 2000 was 5,920, up from 4,843 (22.2%) in 1990 and up from 

4,548 (30.2% overall) in 1980 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000a, 2000b) (see Table 3.22). Sublette 
3-90 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

County has no urban areas as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. Therefore, the entire 

population is considered rural, but of that number, 477 (8.1%) are farm residents, while 5,443 

(91.9%) are nonfarm residents (U.S. Census Bureau 2000d) (see Table 3.23). Sublette County has 

a population density 1.2 people/square mile (U.S. Census Bureau 2000c). 

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 3.22). 

According to local officials, populations have changed in the Sublette County area since the 

census was conducted. Pinedale has grown, although the growth has not been quantified 

(personal communication, May 20, 2004, with Patti Raisch, Pinedale Town Clerk); Marbleton has 

increased to possibly 750 residents (personal communication, May 21, 2004, with Alice Griggs, 

Marbleton Town Clerk), and Big Piney has remained stable or declined (personal communication, 

May 20, 2004, with Vickie Brown, Big Piney Town Clerk). 

Sweetwater County 

The Sweetwater County population in 2000 was 37,613, down from 38,823 (-3.1%) in 1990 and 

from 41,723 in 1980, thus the decrease over the 20-year study period was 9.9% (-4,110) (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2000a, 2000b) (see Table 3.22). Sweetwater County has a population density of 

3.6 people/square mile; however, unlike Sublette County, 89.1% (33,512) of the Sweetwater 

County population lives in urban clusters (U.S. Census Bureau 2000d) (see Table 3.22). Of the 

4,101 rural residents, only 416 (10.1% of rural residents; 1.1% of county residents) reside on 

farms. 

Rock Springs is the community most likely to be affected in Sweetwater County; however, Eden 

and Farson may also be affected. No census data were collected for Eden and Farson until 2000. 

Rock Springs reflected Sweetwater County's trend, declining 1.7% from 19,458 in 1980, to 

19,050 (-2.1%) in 1990, to 18,708 (-3.9% from 1980) in 2000. In 2000, Rock Springs had the 

largest population in the entire study area (18,708) (see Table 3.22). In the affected portion of 

Sweetwater County, Farson had the smallest population (242) (U.S. Census Bureau 2000a, 

2000b). 

3.4.2.2 Income, Poverty, and Unemployment 

Income, poverty, and unemployment data are presented in Table 3.24. Households throughout 

the United States experienced increased income over the 20-year study period, although poverty 

levels remained relatively static and unemployment decreased. Overall, for the 20-year study 

period there was no change in poverty levels in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau 1981, 

1990, 2000a). The national unemployment rate dropped throughout the 20-year study period 

from 7.1% to 4.0% from 1980 to 2000 (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2003). Both median 

household income and personal per capita income increased throughout the United States over the 

course of the 20-year study period--19.3% and 38.5%, respectively. 

In contrast, the median household income throughout Wyoming fell by 9.3% over the course of 

the 20-year study period, although personal per capita income increased by 11.4% (only 0.5% 
3-91 

Table 3.24 Income, Poverty, and Unemployment. 

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

Location 19803 19904 20005 19803,6 19904,6 20005,6 19793 19897 19995 19808,9 19909,10 200010,11 United States 35,194 39,599 41,994 21,280 25,787 29,469 12.4 11.8 12.4 7.1 5.6 4.0 State of 41,784 35,700 37,892 24,561 23,696 27,372 7.9 11.2 11.4 4.0 5.5 3.9 Wyoming Lincoln County 37,627 37,534 40,794 19,602 19,071 20,980 11.5 11.1 9.0 6.0 6.6 5.2 LaBarge NR 12,142 18,837 NR 6,995 18,837 NR 24.5 12.3 NR NR NR Sublette County 36,425 35,343 39,044 25,201 24,746 26,927 9.7 8.8 9.7 2.7 2.9 3.8  Big Piney NR 15,418 17,647 NR 8,882 17,647 NR 6.2 11.5 NR NR NR Bondurant NR NR 19,432 NR NR 19,432 NR NR 19.2 NR NR NR Boulder NR NR 12,500 NR NR NR NR NR 33.3 NR NR NR Cora NR NR 20,831 NR NR 20,831 NR NR 7.9 NR NR NR Daniel NR NR 21,213 NR NR 21,213 NR NR 24.4 NR NR NR Marbleton NR 15,125 18,446 NR 8,713 18,446 NR 10.1 4.2 NR NR NR Pinedale NR 17,030 20,441 NR 9,811 20,441 NR 12.9 8.9 NR NR NR Sweetwater 50,394 47,707 46,357 10,955 16,810 28,037 5.2 7.4 7.8 3.7 5.5 4.8 County Eden NR NR 52,625 NR NR 18,392 NR NR 17.6 NR NR NR Farson NR NR 44,545 NR NR 16,140 NR NR 0.0 NR NR NR  Rock Springs 19,525 19,456 51,539 4,471 11,208 19,396 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 consumer base; therefore, it was also applied to inflation adjustments for this technical report to maintain consistency. 

3 U.S. Census Bureau (1981) (based on 1979 income); median household income for all geographic units; personal per capita for towns and cities. Poverty rate is the percent 

of people in poverty. 

4 U.S. Census Bureau (1990) (based on 1989 income); median household income for all geographic units; personal per capita for towns and cities. Poverty rate is the percent 

of people in poverty. 

5 U.S. Census Bureau (2000c) (based on 1999 income); median household income for all geographic units; personal per capita for towns and cities. 6 Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) (2003a); EPS (2003) for nation, state, and counties. 7 WDAI (2001b). Poverty rate is the percent of people in poverty. 8 Wyoming Department of Employment, Research, and Planning (WDERP) (2002a). Unemployment rate is the percentage of people actively seeking work but unemployed. 9 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (2003a). Unemployment rate is the percentage of people actively seeking work but unemployed. 10 WDERP (2002b). Unemployment rate is the percentage of people actively seeking work but unemployed. 11 WDERP (2002c). Unemployment rate is the percentage of people actively seeking work but unemployed. 
3-92 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

average annual growth) over the 20-year study period (see Table 3.24). Over the 20-year study 

period, the median household income in Lincoln County increased 8.4%, Sublette County 

increased 7.2%, and Sweetwater County fell 8.0%. 

Personal per capita income in 2000 in Wyoming was $27,372, whereas personal per capita 

income in the study area ranged from $28,037 in Sweetwater County to $20,980 in Lincoln 

County (see Table 3.24). The poverty rate in Wyoming was 11.4% in 2000, while poverty rates in 

the study area ranged from 33.3% in Boulder (Sublette County) to 0.0% in Farson (Sweetwater 

County) (U.S. Census Bureau 2000a). 

In distinct contrast to national increases, Wyoming's personal per capita income fell by 3.5% 

from 1980 to 1990 but experienced a recovery of 15.5% from 1990 to 2000, for an overall 

increase of 11.4% (only 0.5% average annual growth) over the 20-year study period (see Table 

3.24). From 1980 to 2000, personal per capita income in Lincoln County increased 7.0% but only 

slightly exceeded the poverty level ($18,244), Sublette County increased by 6.8%, and 

Sweetwater County increased 155.9%. 

The poverty rate in Wyoming increased over the 20-year study period from 7.9% in 1979 to 

11.4% in 1999 (U.S. Census Bureau 1981, 1990, 2000a), while the unemployment rate for 

Wyoming rose between 1980 (4.0%) and 1990 (5.5%) then decreased to 3.9% by 2000 (see 

Table 3.24) (Wyoming Department of Employment, Research, and Planning [WDERP] 2002a, 

2002b, 2002c). In Lincoln County, the poverty rate decreased slightly from 1979 (11.5%) to 1989 

(11.1%) and decreased again to 9.0% by 1999. In Sublette County, it decreased from 9.7% in 

1979 to 8.8% in 1989 but, despite the gains in personal income, increased back to 9.7% by 1999. 

In Sweetwater County, the poverty rate increased from 5.2% in 1979 to 7.4% in 1989 but only 

slightly increased to 7.8% between 1989 and 1999. 

Generally throughout the study area, unemployment rates have increased, ranging from 5.2% in 

Lincoln County to 3.8% in Sublette County (see Table 3.24). 

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

similar to the state, with median household income increasing by approximately 55.1% (4% 

average annual growth [see BLM 2005 for formula used to calculate average annual growth]) 

from 1990 to 2000 (see Table 3.24). Personal per capita income increased more than 169.3% 

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

capita income of LaBarge barely exceeds the poverty level (set at $18,244). The poverty rate has 

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

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

Complete information for the potentially affected communities in Sublette County is not available 

for all study years. Big Piney, Marbleton, and Pinedale have experienced increases in both 

median household income and personal per capita income since 1980 (see Table 3.24). Marbleton 

had the highest increase in median household income (22.0%; 2.2% average annual growth) and 

personal per capita income (111.7%; 8% average annual growth). Despite the increase, the per 

capita income of Marbleton barely exceeds the poverty level. No personal per capita income is 

reported for Boulder. The median household income in Boulder in 2000 was only $12,500-­

68.5% of the poverty level (set at $18,244). The highest reported poverty rates in the three-county 

study area in 2000 were in Sublette County--Boulder (33.3%), Daniel (24.4%), and Bondurant 

(19.2%). Although poverty in Sublette County has remained relatively stable, the poverty rates in 

Marbleton and Pinedale have decreased since 1989. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-93 

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

experienced an increase (164.9%) from 1990 to 2000, for an overall increase of 164.9% (5.0% 

average annual growth) over the 20-year study period (see Table 3.24). Personal per capita 

income increased (150.7%) from 1980 to 1990 and again from 1990 to 2000 (73.1%), for an 

overall increase of 333.8% (8% average annual growth) over the course of the 20-year study 

period. Despite the increase in personal income, the poverty level increased from 5.8% in 1979 

to 8.5% in 1989 and continued to rise to 9.4% by 1999 in Rock Springs. 

Information for Eden and Farson in Sweetwater County was not collected until the 2000 census. 

However, the median household income in Eden was the highest in the three-county study area 

($52,625), and Farson had the lowest poverty level in the three-county study area in 1999 (0.0%) 

(see Table 3.24). 

3.4.2.3 Workforce Age, Gender, and Disabilities 

Workforce information was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau (2000e, 2000f). For the 

purposes of this report, the civilian labor force is defined as all persons between 16 and 66 years 

of age (retirement age is 67) in the civilian non-institutional population who either had a job or 

were looking for a job in the last 12 months and who did not have an employment disability. For 

the purposes of the last census, employment disability was defined as a condition lasting for 6 

months or more that: 

• limited the kind or amount of work that he or she could do at a job, 

• prevented him or her from working at a job, 

• made it difficult to go outside the home alone (for example, to shop or visit a 

doctor's office), and 

• made it difficult to take care of his or her own personal needs such as bathing, 

dressing, or getting around inside the home. 

Based on the age of residents, employment disability information, and unemployment rates in 

each county, there is a civilian labor force of approximately 1,719 unemployed working-age 

residents available for employment in the study area (Table 3.25). However, there may be some 

disconnect between published data and actual available labor. A labor shortage has been reported 

in all sectors in Sweetwater County, with as many as 600 job vacancies existing in November 

2004 (Mast 2004). Additionally, a new Halliburton facility in Rock Springs has reported having 

difficulty filling the 100 new jobs created by its facility (Mast 2004). Smaller operators are also 

reported to have difficulties hiring and maintaining crews (personal communication, December 

2004, with Roy Allen, Economist, BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne and with Marilyn 

Filkins, Sublette County Attorney, Pinedale). 

3.4.3 Housing 

Historic information on housing was obtained from the WDAI (2002a), and projected data were 

obtained from the Wyoming Business Council (2002d) (Table 3.26). Rental rates and cost as 

compared to the state were obtained from WDAI (2003b) (Table 3.27). 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. 
3-94 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 3.25 Population and Workforce, 2000.1 

County

 Sex and Age United States 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 128,156,046 299,988 8,449 3,681 23,759 

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

Number of Persons Available 5,126,241 11,699 439 139 1,140 

for Employment 

1 U.S. Census Bureau (2000e).

2 U.S. Census Bureau (2000f). 
3-95 

Table 3.26 Historic and Projected Housing Availability.

 Wyoming Lincoln Sublette Sweetwater Historic 

Projected Historic Projected Historic Projected Historic Projected 

Housing Item 1980 1990 2000 2002 2007 2012 1980 1990 2000 2002 2007 2012 1980 1990 2000 2002 2007 2012 1980 1990 2000 2002 2007 2012 Type of Housing1,2 Vacant N/A 34,572 30,246 38,804 38,706 39,582 N/A 1,272 1,565 1,349 1,389 1,430 N/A 1,077 1,181 1,155 1,177 1,201 N/A 1,828 1,816 2,075 2,063 2,107 Owneroccupied N/A 114,544 135,514 139,391 149,399 159,413 N/A 3,310 4,280 4,461 4,869 5,282 N/A 1,281 1,737 1,820 2,055 2,289 N/A 9,552 10,586 10,722 10,960 11,154 Renteroccupied N/A 54,295 58,094 58,736 60,422 62,098 N/A 826 986 1,024 1,072 1,116 N/A 553 634 652 692 733 N/A 4,065 3,519 3,420 3,168 2,926 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 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 N/A 17.0 13.5 16.4 15.6 15.2 N/A 23.5 22.9 19.7 18.9 18.3 N/A 37.0 33.2 31.8 30.0 28.4 N/A 11.8 11.4 12.8 12.7 13.0 Owneroccupied N/A 56.3 60.5 58.8 60.1 61.1 N/A 61.2 62.7 65.3 66.4 67.5 N/A 44.0 48.9 50.2 52.4 54.2 N/A 61.8 66.5 66.1 67.7 68.9 Renteroccupied N/A 26.7 26.0 24.8 24.3 23.8 N/A 15.3 14.4 15.0 14.6 14.30 N/A 19.0 17.9 18.0 17.6 17.4 N/A 26.3 22.1 21.1 19.6 18.1 No. of Building Permits2 

3,845 692 1,582 2,045 -- -- 30 3 145 204 -- -- 82 37 54 88 -- -- 801 56 41 48 -- --

1 Historic data from WDAI (2002a); projected data from Wyoming Business Council (2002d). 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) (Wyoming Housing Database Partnership 2003). 
3-96 

Table 3.27 Average Rental Rates.1

 Apartment2 House3 Mobile Home4 Mobile Home Lot5 

Fourth Quarter Fourth Quarter Fourth Quarter Fourth Quarter 

2001 2002 Percent 2001 2002 Percent 2001 2002 Percent 2001 2002 Percent 

Location ($) ($) Change ($) ($) Change ($) ($) Change ($) ($) Change Lincoln 292 332 13.7 400 388 -3.1 315 304 -3.4 158 163 3.2 Sublette 441 534 21.1 613 655 7.0 350 457 30.6 175 165 -5.7 Sweetwater 390 392 0.5 533 516 -3.2 422 422 0.0 201 197 -2.2 Wyoming average 430 443 3.0 599 617 3.0 436 448 2.8 178 183 3.1 

1 WDAI (2003b). Reported average rental rates may not accurately reflect actual rental rates within particular communities (e.g., Pinedale) that 

have already been impacted by other projects (e.g., Pinedale/Anticline Project) in the area. 

2 Two-bedroom, unfurnished, excluding gas and electric. 3 Two or three-bedroom, single family, excluding gas and electric. 4 This price reflects total monthly rental expense, including lot rent. 5 Single-wide, including water. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-97 

According to the Wyoming Housing Database Partnership [WHDP] (2003), there were 4,579 

vacant units available for housing in the study area in 2003, with the vacancy rate ranging from 

12.8% in Sweetwater County to 31.8% in Sublette County. Average contract rent ranged from 

$362/$363 in Lincoln/Sweetwater Counties to $413 in Sublette County. Median monthly 

mortgage payments were lowest in Sublette County ($847/month) and highest in Sweetwater 

County ($953/month), although the median house value was lowest in Lincoln County ($95,300) 

and highest in Sublette County ($112,000) (WHDP 2003). 

However, individuals have reported that it was difficult to rent or purchase adequate housing in 

Sublette County and a surplus apparently does not exist (personal communication, Bill Lanning, 

BLM, PFO). Blevins et al. (2004) also reported an affordable housing shortage exists in the 

Pinedale community. No housing is available in Pinedale, Big Piney, or Marbleton (personal 

communication, May 20, 2004, with Patti Raisch, Pinedale Town Clerk; Vicky Brown, Big Piney 

Town Clerk; Alice Griggs, Marbleton Town Clerk; and Mary Langford, Sublette County Clerk). 

According to Ms. Langford, most of the housing impact in the town of Pinedale originates from 

administrators associated with oil and gas field development, rather than oil and gas field 

workers. However, according to Sheriff Hank Ruland, up to 40% of the demand on his office 

results from the in-migration of dislocated Teton County residents who cannot find adequate 

housing in Jackson Hole (personal communication, May 21, 2004, with Sheriff Hank Ruland, 

Sublette County Sheriff's Department). Therefore, a large percentage of the housing demand may 

result from dislocated Teton County residents rather than oil and gas workers. 

This view is shared by Cyd Goodrich. Ms. Goodrich stipulates that there is no low-income 

housing available in the Pinedale community. She holds the opinion that much of the pressure is 

from higher-middle to lower-upper income families moving out of Teton County and she has 

never heard anyone express a lack of interest in moving to Pinedale because of oil and gas 

development. However, most of the affected individuals who encounter difficulty obtaining 

housing are native residents of Pinedale, especially young or newly married, under-employed 

couples who simply cannot afford the high rental rates and are not in a position to purchase. 

The vacancy rate for rentals/hotels/motels in summer (April-November) is estimated to be 0%, 

while it is less than 10% the rest of the year and declining (personal communication, December 

2004, with Cyd Goodrich, Realtor, Pinedale Properties). Much of the seasonal pressure on 

housing comes from seasonal, often migrant workers from Canada, who come on work visas. 

Landlords offer only one-year leases and do not allow subletting, so, although the houses are only 

used during the drilling season by workers in areas without year-round operations and sit vacant 

the rest of the year, other workers who are involved in year-round operations have difficulty 

finding adequate housing. Housing pressures are less in the southern part of the county, because 

there are no direct roads to the oil and gas fields (personal communication, December 2004, with 

Cyd Goodrich, Realtor, Pinedale Properties). Additionally, the demand for new housing 

apparently exceeds the rate of building. A total of 88 new residential building permits were issued 

in Sublette County in 2002 (WHDP 2003). 

In 2004, rent for single family homes ranges from $1,000-$1,500/month, while small apartments 

in multi-unit facilities range from $850-$1,000/month (personal communication, December 2004, 

with Cyd Goodrich, Realtor, Pinedale Properties). 
3-98 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

3.4.4 Social Traditions 

The study area's general heritage is based on ranching and mineral extraction and remains one of 

least populated and most undeveloped areas in the lower United States, with a population density 

ranging from 1.2 people/square mile in Sublette County to 3.6 people/square mile in Sweetwater 

County (see Table 3.23). Landownership is largely public (80% of Sublette County, 79% of 

Lincoln County, and 72% of Sweetwater County). Oil and gas has played a significant role in the 

regional economy since the 1920s. Historically, most of the oil and gas activity was limited to the 

LaBarge area in southwestern Sublette County and neighboring Lincoln County but it now 

extends over much of the southern portion of the county. 

The social characteristics throughout the study area are similar to other small rural western 

communities and are strongly tied to traditional natural resource-based industries such as 

agriculture and extractive industries. In addition, study area residents recognize the importance 

of public lands in providing a natural resource base for economic activities, as well as supporting 

a particular way of life. Public lands often provide scenic beauty, wildlife habitat, and 

recreational opportunities. Because public lands comprise 76% of all land within the study area, 

management decisions can affect lifestyles, as well as the economic base. 

Agriculture has provided the historical basis for community development for much of the 

nineteenth century, and ranching and grazing are viewed as a viable economic activity that 

provides open space, protection of natural resources, and support of cultural and ecological 

diversity. Although agricultural activities have become much less important economically in 

recent years (providing 0.7% of industry income and 4.7% of employment in the study area in 

2000), the industry is important for its historic and cultural influence. Moreover, agricultural is 

viewed as a guardian of resources and an underpinning of cultural resources in the area. Because 

management decisions made by the 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 also played a vital 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. In 2000, the oil and gas industry provided 12.8% of industry income and 12.5% 

of employment in the study area. 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 manager 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. 

3.4.5 Quality of Living 

Data on quality of living and infrastructure for each county in the study area were obtained from 

the Wyoming Business Council (2002b, 2002c, 2002d), WDAI (2002b), and personal 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-99 

communications. Due to the remote and unique area encompassed by the JIDPA, the United 

States in not included in the quality of life analysis, with the exception of crime statistics. 

3.4.5.1 Crime 

The crime indexes are "100" based, meaning that a value of 100 for a particular level of 

geography is the average national value. For example, a value of 150 indicates that the area has 

one and a half times the average risk level. A value of 50 indicates that the area is at half the 

average risk level. 

Wyoming had a low crime index compared to the national average, with the index for personal 

crimes at 49--about half the national index--and property crimes at 71--about three-fourths the 

national index. The highest individual crime index for personal crime in Wyoming is for rape 

(80), which is higher than the index for any of the counties in the study area. The highest crime 

index for crimes against property is larceny (115)--15% greater than the national average 

(Wyoming Business Council 2002b). 

The overall personal crime index in the study area is less than the national average (ranging from 

30 to 60), although murder (133 in Sublette County) exceeds the national average. The crimes 

against property index is generally lower than the national average (ranging from 33 to 76), with 

the exception of larceny (155 in Sweetwater County). 

Sublette County has implemented an enhanced 911 system as part of community policing efforts 

and to promote citizen's health and safety (Sublette County Sheriff's Department 2002). A 911 

System Health Questionnaire identifies health concerns for local area citizens, which is included 

as part of a computer system used to assist medical, fire, or law enforcement in meeting the needs 

of victims in the event of an emergency. Additionally, Sublette County has implemented an 

innovative Ranch Watch program; child identification and fingerprinting; McGruff (child safety); 

D.A.R.E.; citizens' academy; county fair dance; Halloween dance; stay-out-of-jail free card (rides 

home); seminars on drug awareness, shoplifting, and check fraud; and a vacation watch program 

to aid in the prevention of crime in this largely rural area. 

The Sublette County Sheriff's Department staff includes a sheriff, undersheriff, lieutenant, 

emergency management coordinator, two patrol sergeants, three detectives, a probation/resource 

officer, a seasonal forest patrol deputy, five patrol deputies for Big Piney/Marbleton, five patrol 

deputies for Pinedale, four patrol deputies for the county, a detention sergeant and five detention 

deputies, a communication sergeant and five communication deputies, an office manager, and 

three secretaries/clerks (Sublette County Sheriff's Department 2002). 

The Sublette County Sheriff's office services all of Sublette County and the affected towns within 

the Sublette County Project-affected area. While calls for service have increased in recent years 

(from 3,000 in 1995 to 7,000 in 2003), approximately 40% of the increased demand is a result of 

displaced Jackson Hole residents who have in-migrated to Sublette County in an attempt to find 

housing; the remaining 60% of the increase results from a combination of Jonah Field workers 

and tourists (ranging from 11,000 to 14,000 visitors per day during the summer) (personal 

communication, May 2004, Sheriff Hank Ruland, Sublette County Sheriff's Department, 

Pinedale, Wyoming). The budget has increased from $1.0 million in 1995 to more than $4.5 

million in 2004. The majority of calls for service resulting from Jonah Field development are 

medical emergencies not involved with criminal action, although some increase in speeding 

violations can be attributed to Jonah Field workers. According to Sheriff Ruland, oil and gas 
3-100 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

workers are welcome and contributing members of the community who show that they genuinely 

care about the community by participating in such activities as community clean-up days. 

Additionally, recent improvements in the county legal system (new jail, courthouse, equipment, 

competitive wages, increased staffing [up from 12 officers in 1995 to 26 sheriff's deputies and 21 

jail officers in 2003], and vehicles) are a direct result of the tax revenues resulting from natural 

gas activities in the Jonah Field. 

The Sheriff's department and Sublette County would not have been able to sufficiently expand to 

keep up with the increased demand for services without those revenues (personal communication, 

May 2004, Sheriff Hank Ruland, Sublette County Sheriff's Department, Pinedale, Wyoming). 

However, service calls increased from 4,032 in 1995 to 7,347 in 2003 (Royster 2004). According 

to Sheriff Ruland, the biggest crime problem in Sublette County is methamphetamine. Drug use 

also leads to increases in domestic violence and bar fights--particularly within the temporary 

worker demographic. Although there has been an increase in drug use in Sublette County, Ruland 

does not equate that increase to oil and gas workers--it is a state-wide problem (Royster 2004). 

Additionally, Ruland recognizes that any increase in population--including visiting hunters and 

other tourists--result in an increase in drug and alcohol-related calls (Royster 2004). 

The majority of law enforcement calls in Sublette County still involve traffic--people speeding or 

running stop signs. One study indicates that transient workers pose challenges to law enforcement 

primarily in the form of highway safety and increased substance abuse (Blevins et al. 2204.) 

However, it is estimated that crime in Sublette and Sweetwater County has increased by 80% 

since 2000, largely as a result of oil and gas development (personal communication, December 

2004, Marilyn Filkins, Sublette County Attorney [formerly Sweetwater Deputy County 

Attorney], Pinedale). At the end of 2004, the Sublette County Attorney's office had 1,200 open 

cases and had hired an assistant county attorney to handle only criminal cases. Additionally, she 

indicated that in 2000-2001, there were one or fewer felony arrests in Sublette County, in 2004 

the average is approximately one felony arrest per week and many of those are egregious 

aggravated assaults. Ms. Filkins also reports gang-like behavior from various drilling and pipeline 

crews. Increases in felonies and drug-related calls have been reported by the Sweetwater County 

Sheriff and the Chief of Police in Rock Springs, and these were primarily attributed to oil and gas 

workers (crime report to Pinedale/Anticline Working Group (PAWG) presented by Jana Weber). 

Ms. Filkins holds the opinion that Sweetwater County has a higher incident of crime related to 

methamphetamine than Sublette County. 

It should be noted that both Questar (a local oil and gas producer) and EnCana require random 

drug testing for employees and subcontractors. Additionally, EnCana sponsors training sessions 

for emergency response personnel and Questar donates money to family violence organizations 

(Royster 2004). However, one of the smaller local operators is reported to have delayed drugtesting for a year and a half, and when a random drug test was performed, 16 of 18 workers on a 

drill rig tested positive and were fired (personal communication, December 2004, Marilyn 

Filkins, Sublette County Attorney [formerly Sweetwater Deputy County Attorney], Pinedale). 

3.4.5.2 Infrastructure 

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

local community websites and other extant information. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-101 

Lincoln County 

In Lincoln County, LaBarge is the only potentially affected community. It was incorporated in 

1973 and is located in Lincoln County on U.S. Highway 189 approximately 75 miles north of 

Green River and 21 miles south of Big Piney. The town has a mayor/council, one full-time and 

one part-time policeman, 911 emergency telephone service, and a 15-member volunteer fire 

department. There is a 6,000-volume library, one day care center, one senior center, four 

churches, one motel with 36 rooms, and a recreational vehicle (RV) park with six spaces. Medical 

services are provided by a weekly clinic and by ambulance service, and communications include 

a weekly newspaper, cable TV, and a post office. Recreational facilities include one ice skating 

rink, two baseball fields, bike paths, two parks, and a small airport. 

Sublette County 

Sublette County has three airports; 26 churches; three libraries; five medical facilities (however, 

the nearest hospitals are in Jackson and Rock Springs, Wyoming); two museums; two 

newspapers; nine post offices (Big Piney, Bondurant, Boulder, Cora, Daniel, Farson, LaBarge, 

Marbleton, and Pinedale); and two school districts including three elementary schools, two 

middle schools, two high schools, and a private school, with higher education available from 

Western Community College's distance learning program; and utilities/services are provided by 

one telephone company, two garbage/refuse services, one cable television provider, three natural 

gas suppliers, one electricity supplier, and one coal company. Citizen organizations are important 

to Sublette County's infrastructure and include volunteer fire departments, a search-and-rescue 

organization, and a citizen's recycling program (Sublette.Com 2001; Pinedale Online 2002). 

Pinedale 

Located approximately 100 miles northwest of Rock Springs and 32 miles north of the 

JIDPA on U.S. Highway 191, Pinedale is the county seat of Sublette County. The town 

has a mayor/council government, 911 emergency service, and a volunteer fire 

department. Police protection for the town is provided through contract with the Sublette 

County Sheriff's Office. There is a 37,000-volume library, one day care center, one 

senior center, nine churches, 11 hotels/motels with a total of 162 rooms, and an RV park 

with 44 spaces. Medical services include a clinic, two doctors, a physician's assistant, one 

dentist, ambulance service, and a nursing home with 107 rooms. Communications 

include a weekly newspaper, cable TV, and a post office. There is one golf course, one 

ice skating rink, bike paths, two parks, and a recreation center, as well as a small airport. 

It has been reported that there is a shortage of health-care providers in Sublette County 

(Royster 2004). Some health-care providers may work shifts up to 52 hours straight. 

The Pinedale Medical Clinic serviced approximately 12,000 patients in 2003--mostly oil 

and gas workers. 

Pinedale has a variety of establishments for overnight lodging. A Best Western and Super 

8 are located on the west end of town and offer the most rooms. Several smaller motels 

are located in the downtown area. The surrounding area has several bed and breakfasts, 

guest ranches and lodges, and individual cabins available for rent. Tourism in and around 

Pinedale and in Sublette County in general, is a major business with the primary 

attraction being the natural resources in the area and the many outdoor activities 

associated with them, including hunting, fishing, camping, backpacking and hiking, 

wilderness escapes, horseback riding, mountain biking, golf, wildlife viewing, downhill 
3-102 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

skiing, cross-country skiing, and snowmobiling. Plans are underway to build another 

motel in town and several mancamps are currently under discussion by area operators for 

permitting to alleviate some of the pressures on housing. Several housing developments 

are also being planned. 

Big Piney 

Big Piney is located on U.S. Highway 189 about 95 miles north of Green River and 35 

miles southwest of Pinedale. The town has a mayor/council government, 911 emergency 

service, and a voluntary fire department. Police protection is provided by the Sublette 

County Sheriff's Office. There is a 40,000-volume library, one day care center, six 

churches, and three motels. Medical services include two doctors, one dentist, and 

ambulance service. Communications include a weekly newspaper, cable TV, and a post 

office. There is one ice skating rink, one bike path, three parks, three baseball fields, one 

swimming pool, and a small airport. Major employers include the oil and gas industry, 

agriculture, and retail trade and services. 

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. Major industries include 

ranching, oil and gas, and recreation. 

Boulder 

Boulder is an unincorporated community located on U.S. Highway 191 12 miles south of 

Pinedale and 85 miles north of Rock Springs. Boulder has a post office and the Boulder 

Store, which includes a store, gas station, RV park (nine spaces), motel (nine rooms), 

restaurant, and bar. 

Sweetwater County 

Sweetwater County is located in the southwestern part of Wyoming with 60 miles of its border 

touching the states of Utah and Colorado. The county consists of 10,497 square miles. The two 

largest cities in the county are Rock Springs and Green River. 

Rock Springs 

Established in 1888 as a mining town, the cultural tradition in Rock Springs emphasizes 

natural resources as the driving force behind its economy (Rock Springs Chamber of 

Commerce 2004). Rock Springs is located along Interstate 80 in west-central Sweetwater 

County and serves as the economic hub of the area. Law enforcement and fire protection 

services are available, as well as a 911 emergency number. Public education is provided 

by 11 elementary schools, two junior high schools, one high school, and Western 

Wyoming Community College (2-year junior college). Community services consist of 

two libraries (107,000 total volumes), eight day care centers, and 32 churches. 

Commercial services include two shopping centers, five convention facilities (with a total 

capacity of 4,660 persons), 31 hotels/motels (1,680 total rooms), an RV park (50 spaces), 

and several mobile home parks. Medical care is provided by a hospital (100 beds), a 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-103 

nursing home (100 rooms), 33 doctors, 24 dentists, and an ambulance service. 

Communications consist of two local newspapers (one published in Rock Springs and 

one in Green River), cable TV, two AM and three FM radio stations, and two post 

offices. 

Recreation resources include 17 baseball fields, 24 tennis courts, six swimming pools, 

eight soccer fields, a golf course, one ice skating rink, two recreation centers, and 24 

parks. Outdoor recreation opportunities available within 30 miles of the city include 

Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area and various opportunities on BLMadministered lands, including Boar's Tusk, sand dunes, petroglyphs, and the 

Oregon/California Trails. 

Cultural/entertainment attractions include the Red Desert Rodeo, Wild Horse Days, the 

Sweetwater County Museum, the historical Rock Springs City Hall Museum, the Fine 

Arts Center, and the Western Wyoming Community College Dinosaur Collection. 

Rock Springs is serviced by two commercial airlines providing flights to and from the 

Rock Springs Airport, two bus lines, four car rental services, and two taxi services. 

Eden/Farson 

Eden and Farson are two unincorporated communities located on U.S. Highway 191 

about 40 miles northwest of Rock Springs and 28 miles southeast of the JIDPA. The 

communities are governed by Sweetwater County and have a resident sheriff's officer and 

highway patrolman, a 26-member volunteer fire department, ambulance service, and 911 

emergency phone service. There are four churches, two gas stations, two cafes, two bars, 

and a convenience store. Recreational facilities include a youth center and a county park. 

Eden and Farson are not serviced by a doctor, nurse, or dentist, although there is an 

emergency medical technician service. The nearest medical facility is in Rock Springs. 

There is one elementary and one secondary school. Bridger Valley Electric supplies 

energy and three vendors supply propane for heating. Residents have individual wells and 

septic systems, and solid waste disposal facilities are available. Housing is limited, with 

ranch homes being the primary type of housing. 

3.4.5.3 Cost of Living and Inflation 

Cost of living and inflation information was obtained from the Wyoming Cost of Living Index for 

the fourth quarter of 2002 (WDAI 2003b) (Table 3.28). The Wyoming Cost of Living Index is a 

summary of price data collected from 27 cities and towns throughout Wyoming over the period of 

January 8, 9, and 10, 2003. The price data collected are used to build a comparative index and to 

estimate inflation rates for Wyoming and the five regions of the state. 

During this period, Lincoln County ranked 18th in the state with an all items cost of living index 

of 91, while Sweetwater County was ranked ninth (see Table 3.28). Sublette County was the third 

most expensive county in the state and had the highest cost of living in the study area with an all 

items ranking of 105. 
1 

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

3-104 Table 3.28 Comparative Cost of Living Index.1 

Recreation and 

Rank County All Items Food Housing Apparel Transportation Medical Personal Care 

Teton 139 105 174 121 104 110 111 Sheridan 106 107 107 120 100 107 104 

Sublette 105 96 107 123 101 97 110 

Campbell 105 100 111 87 99 101 102 Laramie 104 107 109 94 98 100 97 Johnson 103 105 100 132 100 99 106 Albany 102 94 107 103 101 99 96 

Natrona 99 105 98 103 100 98 96 

Sweetwater 98 100 95 94 100 99 103 

Park 97 99 92 107 101 102 101 

Carbon 94 105 85 91 102 96 107 

Converse 94 95 90 89 100 98 98 

Fremont 93 89 91 87 101 99 100 

Hot Springs 93 98 83 102 102 104 103 

Uinta 93 92 89 87 100 105 98 

Goshen 91 93 85 99 99 97 99 

Platte 91 100 80 107 100 95 100 

Lincoln 91 90 84 102 100 92 99 

Big Horn 89 96 77 117 100 95 99 

Washakie 89 92 78 112 99 101 98 Niobrara 88 90 74 104 101 103 106 

Crook 87 93 76 98 100 93 101 

Weston 87 89 76 93 101 109 100 

Fourth quarter 2002. Prices as of January 8, 9, and 10, 2003 (statewide average = 100) (WDAI 2003b). 1 
3-105 

Table 3.29 Annual Inflation Rates for the U.S., Wyoming, and Regions.1 

Region2 (All Items %) 

Quarter3 

U.S. Consumer 

Price Index (%) 

Wyoming 

(All Items %) Southeast Southwest Central Northeast Northwest 

4Q96 3.3 4.8 5.2 2Q97 2.3 2.8 3.6 4Q97 1.7 2.9 3.3 2Q98 1.7 1.5 1.3 4Q98 1.6 2.2 2.7 2Q99 2.0 2.6 3.8 4Q99 2.7 3.1 3.6 2Q00 3.7 4.3 3.9 4Q00 3.4 3.2 2.8 2Q01 3.2 4.3 4.1 4Q01 1.6 3.5 4.9 2Q02 1.1 2.5 2.6 4Q02 2.4 3.7 3.0 

4.0 2.8 4.0 2.6 2.8 3.4 2.6 2.3 2.6 3.1 2.3 1.4 

2.5 

5.0 4.2 4.9 3.1 1.0 2.6 1.9 3.0 2.2 0.3 2.1 2.5 1.4 2.0 2.4 1.5 2.6 0.9 2.8 3.4 3.0 4.4 7.4 4.0 3.4 6.9 3.8 5.0 4.8 4.6 2.9 4.0 2.6 2.8 3.1 2.2 

5.1 5.1 2.7 

1 Source: WDAI (2003b). Note: 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.

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. 
3-106 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

The inflation rate represents the percent change in the price level of a standard basket of selected 

consumer items priced this quarter, compared with the price level of the same goods recorded one 

year ago. WDAI (2003b) weighted the data by population to more accurately represent the price 

changes experienced by the majority of consumers in Wyoming (Table 3.29). Nationally, the 

inflation rate from December 2001 to December 2002 was 2.4% (consumer price index for urban 

consumers), as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Inflation is reported only at the 

regional level within Wyoming. The study area is in the southwest region. 

The Wyoming annual all-items inflation rate for the fourth quarter of 2002 was 3.7% (see 

Table 3.29), with the medical category experiencing the highest inflation rate for the third 

consecutive period, increasing 6.0% over the previous period. The southwest region, which 

includes the study area, had the lowest inflation rate (2.5%) in the state for the fourth quarter of 

2002. Because the regional inflation rates are calculated using a smaller sample size than the 

state-wide all items rate, they may be more volatile over time. Thus, when using the regional 

inflation rates, it must be noted that they can vary significantly from quarter to quarter. 

3.4.5.4 Education 

Detailed information on education statistics in the study area is provided in BLM (2005). 

3.4.6 Personal Income Trends 

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reports data adjusted to current dollars using the 

Consumer Price Index (CPI). CPI data were obtained from the BLS (2003). CPI is a measure of 

the average change in prices over time in a market basket of goods and services. The estimate for 

2003 was based on the change in the CPI from fourth quarter 2001 to fourth quarter 2002, and the 

base year was chained (i.e., three years were averaged to obtain a base year for the calculation of 

the CPI; e.g., 1982-1984 = 100). The BLS uses the following formula to make the calculation. 

Inflation Factor = (Current Year CPI / Year "X" CPI) 

Current Year Dollars = Year "X" Dollars x Inflation Factor 

The CPI values and inflation factors used by EPS are listed in Table 3.30. Average wage 

information was obtained from BEA (2003a) and is summarized in Table 3.31. Personal income 

trend data were obtained from the BEA (2003b). Table 3.32 shows the components of 

personal income for 1980, 1990, and 2000 for the counties in the study area and Wyoming. A 

detailed analysis of personal income trend data is presented in BLM (2005). 

3.4.7 Industry and Economy 

3.4.7.1 Overview 

Gross state product (GSP) is the value added to production by the labor and property located in a 

state (BEA 2003f). The BEA calculates GSP for a state as the sum of gross state product 

originating by industry of all industries. This measure of GSP is the state counterpart of the 

nation's gross domestic product by industry from the national income and product accounts (BEA 

2003f). Further detail is provided in BLM (2005). 
.

.

Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-107 

Table 3.30 CPI and Inflation Factors, 1980-2003.1 

Year CPI Inflation Factor2 Year CPI Inflation Factor2 

1980 82.4 2.09 1992 140.3 1.23 

1981 90.9 1.89 1993 144.5 1.19 

1982 96.5 1.78 1994 148.2 1.16 

1983 99.6 1.73 1995 152.4 1.13 

1984 103.9 1.66 1996 156.9 1.10 

1985 107.6 1.60 1997 160.5 1.07 

1986 109.6 1.57 1998 163.0 1.06 

1987 113.6 1.52 1999 166.6 1.03 

1988 118.3 1.46 2000 3 172.2 1.00 

1989 124.0 1.39 2001 177.1 0.97 

1990 130.7 1.32 2002 179.9 0.96 

1991 136.2 1.26 2003 4

 184.5 0.93 

1 Obtained from BLS (2003). 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 year when 

$1 is worth $1). 4 November 2003 CPI. 

Table 3.31 Wages and Job Numbers. 

Average Wage ($)1,2 Number of Jobs3 

Area 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 

United States 29,254 30,738 34,647 114,231,200 139,426,900 167,283,800 

Wyoming 32,004 26,146 26,549 279,650 272,471 328,532 

Lincoln 31,618 26,545 25,050 6,591 6,873 8,125 

Sublette 27,816 23,260 24,783 2,812 3,076 3,965 

Sweetwater 39,568 33,759 33,748 25,503 22,856 24,281 

1 The employment estimates used to compute the average wage are a job, not person, count. People holding more 

than one job are counted in the employment estimates for each job they hold. Source: BEA (2003a). 2 All national, state, and local area dollar estimates are in year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 3 BEA (2003d). 
3-108 

Table 3.32 Personal Income by Major Source.1 

County

 United States Wyoming Lincoln Sublette Sweetwater Income Item 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 Income Source Labor Income 3,615,178 4,622,364 6,088,880 9,482 7,531 9,006 211 177 187 83 73 87 1,079 834 883 (earnings from work) Less: Personal 160,890 267,370 357,843 (435) (444) (538) (10) (11) (11) (3) (4) (5) (57) (57) (58) contributions for social insurance2 

Plus/minus: (949) (971) (1,060) (160) (16) (33) (21) (7) (1) 1 3 5 (68) (77) (50) Adjustment for residence3 

Equals: Net 3,453,339 4,354,024 5,729,977 8,887 7,071 8,434 181 159 174 81 72 86 954 700 775 earnings by place of residence Plus: Dividends, 797,599 1,299,148 1,598,302 1,941 2,513 3,771 42 56 94 29 37 62 110 140 238 interest, and rent4 

Plus: Transfer 584,707 783,610 1,070,592 818 1,166 1,600 21 27 40 7 12 17 62 83 104 payments Total personal 4,835,646 6,436,782 8,398,871 11,647 10,750 13,805 243 242 308 116 121 165 1,126 923 1,117 income Per capita 21,280 25,787 29,760 24,561 23,696 27,941 19,602 19,071 21,041 25,201 24,864 27,741 12,749 18,058 29,811 personal income5 

1 Source: BEA (2003b). All rows except per capita personal income are in millions of year 2000 dollars adjusted for inflation unless otherwise noted. All national, state, 

and local estimates are in current dollars adjusted for inflation based on U.S. average consumer price index (for urban consumers). 

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 and net outflow to Sweetwater County). 

4 Rental income of persons includes the capital consumption adjustment. 5 Year 2000 dollars, per capita personal income as calculated by the BEA is not the same as personal per capita income reported by the census. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-109 

3.4.7.2 Wyoming Industry and Industry Employment 

The BEA calculates income and gross state product information at the Standard Industrial 

Classification (SIC) two-digit level. The data for GSP (Table 3.33) are presented at the simplified 

one-digit SIC code level for the purposes of this report, with the exceptions of mining (coal, 

metal, and non-mineral) separated from oil and gas and government separated into federal 

civilian, federal military, and state and local. Table 3.34 provides employee compensation data in 

order to make a comparison of state-wide income growth in relation to GSP changes. Detailed 

analysis of Wyoming industry is presented in BLM (2005). 

3.4.7.3 Industry Employment 

Data were obtained from BEA regarding total annual employment by industry for the study area 

and for Wyoming for 1980, 1990, and 2000 to examine trends over the 20-year study period. 

These data are presented in Table 3.35. More detailed industry employment information for the 

counties as well as an analysis of industry employment for the State of Wyoming is presented in 

BLM (2005). 

Lincoln County 

All employment categories in Lincoln County added 1,534 jobs from 1980 to 2000, an increase of 

23.3% (1% average annual growth) (see Table 3.35). Agriculture services, forestry, and fisheries 

experienced the greatest percentage of job growth (365.6%; 8% average annual growth) during 

the 20-year study period. The greatest number (-842) and highest percentage (-62.0%; -5% 

average annual loss) of job losses occurred in mining from 1980 to 2000. 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 (WDERP 

2003a). 

Sublette County 

Industry employment in Sublette County added 1,153 new jobs from 1980 to 2000, an increase of 

41.0% (2% average annual growth) (see Table 3.35). Agriculture services, forestry, and fisheries 

experienced the greatest percentage of growth (388.9%; 8% average annual growth) during the 

20-year study period. The greatest number (-68) and highest percentage (-38.6%; -2% average 

annual loss) of job losses occurred in transportation, communication, and public utilities from 

1980 to 2000. 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 (WDERP 2003a). 

Sweetwater County 

Industry employment in Sweetwater County lost 1,222 jobs from 1980 to 2000, a decrease of 

4.8% (0.2% average annual decrease) (see Table 3.35). Agriculture services, forestry, and 

fisheries experienced the greatest percentage of growth (291.7%; 7.1% average annual growth) 

during the 20-year study period. The greatest number (-3,601) and highest percentage of job 

losses (49.2%; 3.3% average annual loss) occurred in mining from 1980 to 2000. The average 
3-110 

Table 3.33 Wyoming Gross State Product (Millions of Year 2000 Dollars). 1 

Gross State Product (GSP) 

1980 

1990 2000 Growth (%) 

Industry GSP % of GSP GSP % of GSP GSP % of GSP 1980-1990 1990-2000 1980-2000Agriculture 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 non-metallic) 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 Transportation, 2,236 9.9 2,661 15.0 2,510 13.1 19.0 -5.7 12.2 communication, and public utilities 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 Finance, insurance, and real 2,023 9.0 1,648 9.3 2,285 12.0 -18.5 38.6 13.0 estate 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 

BEA (2003e), millions of year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 1 
3-111 

Table 3.34 Compensation of Employees (Millions of Year 2000 Dollars).1 

Compensation Paid to Employees from Gross State Product (GSP)1

 1980 1990 2000 Growth (%) 

% of Total % of % of 

Industry Paid Paid Paid Total Paid Paid Total Paid 1980-1990 1990-2000 1980-2000 

Agriculture 148 1.7 100 1.5 132 1.6 -32.5 31.8 -12.4 Mining (metal, coal, non-metallic) 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 Transportation, communication, 932 10.7 780 11.5 762 9.4 -16.3 -2.3 -22.3 and public utilities 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 Finance, insurance, and real estate 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 

BEA (2003f), millions of year 2000 dollars adjusted for inflation. 1 
3-112 

Table 3.35 Employment by Industry.1 

Number of Jobs 

Lincoln 

Sublette Sweetwater Wyoming 

Industry 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 Farm employment 851 733 698 429 402 412 266 220 205 14,504 12,476 12,624 Agriculture services, forestry, 32 77 149 27 83 132 48 81 188 2,016 3,353 5,769 fishing, and other Mining (coal, metal, nonmetal, oil 1,359 667 517 276 315 325 7,318 4,989 3,717 38,523 20,840 19,387 and gas) Construction 575 444 863 388 261 427 3,282 1,533 1,509 25,805 15,782 24,879 Manufacturing 467 614 530 31 (D) 2 91 494 745 1,649 10,512 11,203 13,583 

Transportation, communication, 503 568 582 176 145 108 2,208 1,987 1,785 19,169 16,583 17,084 and public utilities Wholesale trade 196 80 133 25 (D) 55 773 648 615 10,055 7,633 8,812 Retail trade 821 1,083 1,389 499 409 603 3,743 3,739 4,447 43,998 47,252 57,824 Finance, insurance, and real estate 287 307 471 147 184 228 693 1,125 1,127 16,334 17,167 21,303 Services 576 1,040 1,278 395 599 905 3,605 3,760 4,749 48,437 61,294 83,161 Federal, civilian 117 146 110 62 91 96 304 262 266 7,539 7,589 7,400 Federal, military 63 75 84 39 28 41 214 228 215 6,335 6,311 6,204 State government 109 136 126 54 74 72 203 278 269 10,988 13,150 13,820 Local government 635 903 1,195 264 364 470 2,352 3,261 3,540 25,435 31,838 36,682 Total full-time and part-time 6,591 6,873 8,125 2,812 2,955 3,965 25,503 22,856 24,281 279,650 272,471 328,532 employment 

1 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. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-113 

weekly wages in the private and government sectors in Sweetwater County in the first quarter of 

2003 were $744 and $580, respectively (WDERP 2003a). Mining provided 20.0% of total 

income generated in Sweetwater County and local government provided 14.7% in the first quarter 

of 2003 (WDERP 2003a). 

3.4.7.4 Industry Earnings 

Wyoming 

Wyoming experienced a loss in total gross earnings for all industries (private non-farm, farm, and 

government) of 5.0% from 1980 to 2000. 

In 1980, total mineral extraction was the largest source of industry earnings in Wyoming (25.0%), 

and government (federal civilian, military, state, and local government) provided 17.4% of 

income. Mining (metal, coal, nonmetallic) led the individual categories (13.4% of all income) in 

1980, followed by services (12.5%), construction (11.9%), oil and gas extraction (11.6%), and 

transportation, communication, and public utilities (9.8%) (Table 3.36). 

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 3.33), and supported approximately 

19,387 full-time wage earners, or 5.9% of Wyoming's employment base (see Table 3.35) (BEA 

2003e). 

In 2000, government led industry income, providing 23.4% of income, followed by services 

(20.0%), retail trade (9.3%), construction (8.5%), and transportation, communication, and public 

utilities (8.3%). 

In real terms, for the 20-year study period, Wyoming industry income fell in farm; mining; oil 

and gas; construction; transportation, communication, and public utilities; wholesale trade; and 

retail trade. The most industry income growth occurred in non-farm agricultural services 

(156.4%; 4.8% average annual growth) and government (27.5%; 1.2% average annual growth). 

Lincoln County 

In 1980, total mineral extraction was the greatest source of industry income (36.4% of all income) 

in Lincoln County (see Table 3.36). In 2000, total government led industry income (23.4%). 

Total mineral extractions provided 14.2% of industry income. Over the 20-year study period 

(1980-2000), non-farm agricultural services led industry growth (188.1%; 5.4% average annual 

growth). Losses occurred in total mineral extraction (-65.4%), and farm income (-60.0%). 

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 (see Table 3.36). In 2000, total government 

provided the most industry income to Sublette County (24.0%). Industry income in Sublette 

County grew during the 20-year study period from 1980 to 2000 by 4.3% (0.2% annual average 

growth). 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 
3-114 

Table 3.36 Earnings by Industry.1 

County 

Wyoming ($) Lincoln ($) Sublette ($) Sweetwater ($) 

Income Item 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 Farm2 179,991 191,042 95,760 6,685 5,559 2,675 5,935 8,228 1,969 1,229 1,785 292 Nonfarm agricultural services, 30,425 50,777 77,999 403 513 1,165 357 677 892 713 726 1,665 forestry, fishing, and other3 

Mining (metal, coal, 1,265,969 637,410 589,053 56,356 28,946 15,921 50 3,043 1,720 322,982 262,370 151,984 nonmetallic)4 

Oil and gas extraction5 1,102,210 673,330 750,850 20,493 5,747 10,688 16,551 10,934 13,919 116,820 83,967 124,438 Construction 1,131,352 498,755 768,822 23,211 15,296 25,949 15,425 7,686 11,937 177,174 59,118 56,754 Manufacturing5 433,727 365,436 478,173 12,825 17,514 12,887 610 1,481 1,135 21,824 34,714 106,835 

Transportation and public 924,125 740,282 751,189 24,867 29,076 29,519 8,071 5,503 3,245 109,418 99,300 91,285 utilities Wholesale trade5 414,417 250,765 302,921 6,654 2,038 2,289 1,003 773 913 32,990 22,068 20,396 

Retail trade 875,953 695,019 840,999 16,725 15,501 16,062 9,143 5,823 8,061 77,068 57,889 66,061 Finance, insurance, and real 290,903 247,437 446,611 5,124 4,182 6,131 1,989 1,457 3,932 15,076 13,448 25,631 estate Services 1,180,316 1,206,898 1,796,451 11,832 14,783 19,792 11,245 10,601 18,032 109,094 73,273 105,933 Federal government, civilian 374,702 382,042 421,904 4,942 6,000 5,538 2,610 4,126 5,566 16,261 14,954 15,720 Military 164,959 206,034 215,018 508 925 1,178 792 357 904 1,735 2,834 3,016 State government 372,796 437,358 435,192 4,017 4,556 4,183 2,102 2,486 2,362 7,881 9,560 9,058 Local government 740,096 947,968 1,035,117 16,685 26,319 32,837 7,057 9,478 11,944 69,143 97,879 104,199 Total Earnings 9,481,940 7,530,552 9,006,059 211,327 176,954 186,814 82,942 70,402 86,531 1,079,406 833,885 883,267 
3-115 

Table 3.36 (continued) 

County 

Wyoming (%) Lincoln (%) Sublette (%) Sweetwater (%) 

Income Item 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 Farm2 1.90 2.54 1.06 3.16 3.14 1.43 7.16 11.69 2.28 0.11 0.21 0.03 Nonfarm agricultural services, 0.32 0.67 0.87 0.19 0.29 0.62 0.43 0.96 1.03 0.07 0.09 0.19 forestry, fishing and other3 

Mining (metal, coal, 13.35 8.46 6.54 26.67 16.36 8.52 0.06 4.32 1.99 29.92 31.46 17.21 nonmetallic)4 

Oil and gas extraction5 11.62 8.94 8.34 9.70 3.25 5.72 19.95 15.53 16.09 10.82 10.07 14.09 Construction 11.93 6.62 8.54 10.98 8.64 13.89 18.60 10.92 13.80 16.41 7.09 6.43 Manufacturing5 4.57 4.85 5.31 6.07 9.90 6.90 0.74 2.10 1.31 2.02 4.16 12.10 

Transportation and public 9.75 9.83 8.34 11.77 16.43 15.80 9.73 7.82 3.75 10.14 11.91 10.33 utilities Wholesale trade5 4.37 3.33 3.36 3.15 1.15 1.23 1.21 1.10 1.06 3.06 2.65 2.31 

Retail trade 9.24 9.23 9.34 7.91 8.76 8.60 11.02 8.27 9.32 7.14 6.94 7.48 Finance, insurance, and real 3.07 3.29 4.96 2.42 2.36 3.28 2.40 2.07 4.54 1.40 1.61 2.90 estate Services 12.45 16.03 19.95 5.60 8.35 10.59 13.56 15.06 20.84 10.11 8.79 11.99 Federal government, civilian 3.95 5.07 4.68 2.34 3.39 2.96 3.15 5.86 6.43 1.51 1.79 1.78 Military 1.74 2.74 2.39 0.24 0.52 0.63 0.95 0.51 1.04 0.16 0.34 0.34 State government 3.93 5.81 4.83 1.90 2.57 2.24 2.53 3.53 2.73 0.73 1.15 1.03 Local government 7.81 12.59 11.49 7.90 14.87 17.58 8.51 13.46 13.80 6.41 11.74 11.80 Total Earnings 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 

1 Source: BEA (2003b). Thousands of 2000 dollars unless otherwise noted. All state and local area dollar estimates are in current dollars, adjusted for inflation. 2 Farm income consists of proprietors' income; the cash wages, pay-in-kind, and other labor income of hired farm workers; and the salaries of officers of corporate farms. 3 "Other" consists of wage and salary disbursements to U.S. residents employed by international organizations and foreign embassies and consulates in the United States. 4 Calculated by subtracting oil and gas extraction from total mining. 5 Oil and gas extraction for Sublette County in the year 2000 was not disclosed. Therefore, the value shown was estimated for the year 2000 using the constant share of 

total method based on the average of the shares for 1980 and 1990 and is likely underestimated for 2000 given known increases in this sector during that period. The same method was used to estimate manufacturing and wholesale in Sublette County in 1990 based on the average of the shares for 1980 and 2000. 
3-116 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

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. Overall, mineral extraction provided a total of 18.1% of all 

Sublette County industry earnings in 2000 compared to 20.0% in 1980--an average annual loss of 

0.3%. 

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 (see Table 3.36). In 2000, total mineral 

extraction provided 31.3% (oil and gas provided 14.1% and mining provided 17.2%) of 

Sweetwater County industry earnings. Total earnings in Sweetwater County fell 18.2% (1.0% 

annual average loss) over the 20-year study period. 

3.4.8 Taxes and Revenues 

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 3.37. 

Produced minerals are classified as personal property, and mineral producers pay two types of 

taxes: (1) the county property (ad valorem) tax on production and (2) the state severance tax. 

Producers 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. For minerals owned by the federal 

government, 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. Additionally, the state receives a share of federal 

royalty payments for federal minerals through a federal revenue-sharing provision. 

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. 

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 (W.S.) 39-14-801. Severance distributions to all Wyoming 

counties and cities and to those counties and cities in the study area are summarized in 

Table 3.38. Further detail is provided in BLM (2005). 

The Permanent Wyoming Mineral Trust Fund (PWMTF) is a fund that holds 25% of all 

severance taxes currently received by the state, functioning like a savings account for the state. 
3-117 

Table 3.37 Wyoming General Fund Revenues, Fiscal Year Collections by Source.1 

Ad Valorem Severance Sales & Use PWMTF Pooled Charges-Sales Franchise Revenue from Federal Aid 

Fiscal Year (Production) Tax Tax Income Income2 and Services Tax Others 3 Penalties4 and Grants All Other5,6 Total7 

1980 12,907,248 79,282 245,683 25,061 30,410 31,495 15,746 10,131 1,491 9,464 21,444 13,377,455 1981 15,367,554 90,952 267,396 34,650 29,553 31,587 16,067 7,943 2,056 9,826 20,182 15,877,767 1982 14,162,407 201,201 293,965 46,613 37,622 17,129 10,296 13,356 2,304 2,806 21,938 14,809,638 1983 13,737,084 190,796 224,897 78,946 53,131 16,971 15,007 16,229 2,788 442 40,612 14,376,904 1984 13,903,877 181,963 200,116 93,578 48,802 15,005 14,169 13,363 1,976 3,840 29,000 14,505,689 1985 12,532,055 182,560 196,486 108,030 52,254 13,681 14,484 18,681 2,501 3,858 42,055 13,166,647 1986 9,384,099 169,940 196,322 113,788 57,582 17,242 18,627 14,206 1,273 707 26,932 10,000,718 1987 8,934,607 104,407 154,576 112,297 36,053 15,142 30,329 21,040 1,432 1,273 31,046 9,442,200 

1988 8,340,254 96,495 150,859 105,738 25,878 14,398 15,197 11,271 1,181 756 22,310 8,784,337 1989 8,435,621 90,777 138,466 98,671 21,377 15,829 14,580 13,149 1,691 1,406 20,005 8,851,573 1990 8,415,025 97,318 134,719 113,515 67,982 13,997 14,336 9,724 3,642 977 22,153 8,893,390 1991 7,653,645 99,741 140,803 119,046 50,717 13,195 16,843 10,913 4,386 3,244 22,080 8,134,614 1992 7,579,071 83,109 142,873 113,807 66,214 16,555 15,162 14,060 5,093 5,504 14,362 8,055,810 1993 7,497,211 78,431 149,419 105,277 31,049 17,424 15,267 10,088 3,938 8,781 12,857 7,929,742 1994 7,240,946 75,800 217,771 99,976 26,045 17,785 14,739 16,551 5,381 9,062 38,561 7,762,616 1995 7,257,937 63,816 236,956 96,731 30,693 18,128 15,593 4,600 10,779 11,944 13,641 7,760,818 1996 7,842,694 67,661 229,365 94,964 29,839 18,286 13,759 4,389 2,203 12,194 15,166 8,330,520 1997 7,983,933 76,075 230,870 98,944 25,997 19,093 14,439 5,577 6,010 12,731 13,225 8,486,894 1998 7,422,008 73,484 247,974 106,994 24,687 19,197 14,073 6,317 7,148 11,153 17,499 7,950,534 1999 8,162,297 60,905 242,616 110,437 26,174 21,017 11,823 7,245 6,070 10,639 20,143 8,679,364 2000 10,542,096 83,616 262,339 117,485 26,192 18,799 13,629 14,830 5,809 8,189 64,712 11,157,696 

Total Growth (%) -18.32 5.47 6.78 368.79 -13.87 -40.31 -13.45 46.39 289.74 -13.48 201.77 -16.59 

(1980-2000) 

Average Annual -1.01 0.27 0.33 8.03 -0.74 -2.55 -0.72 1.92 7.04 -0.72 5.68 -0.90 

Growth Rate (%)

(1980-2000) 

1 Source: Consensus Revenue Estimating Group (2003). In thousands of 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 2 Pooled income revenues earned on water development funds were no longer distributed to the General Fund beginning in FY93. 3 In FY94, this category received an additional $2.9 million in interest on severance tax protests. The rest of the difference in this series between FY94 and FY95 is primarily because revenues 

from Workers' Compensation ($6.8 million in FY94) and the Retirement System Board's Trust and Agency Fund ($0.8 million in FY94) no longer flowed into the General Fund beginning in FY95. However, the expenditure responsibilities were also shifted away from the General Fund at that time. Consequently, there was no net loss in actual General Fund revenues as a result of 

these changes. 4 Total revenues in this category in FY95 included $4.1 million in severance tax penalty and interest and interest received during the Generally Accepted Accounting Principals transition period 

and an additional $2.8 million from an oil audit settlement. 

5 This category includes all 1200 series tax revenue except sales and use taxes, inheritance tax (revenue code 1401), license and permit fees (2000 revenue series), property and money use fees 

(4000 revenue series, excluding investment income), and non-revenue receipts (9000 revenue series). The inheritance tax total for FY94 included $21.0 million in revenue from a single estate settlement, and in FY00 it totaled $45.1 million. 

6 Inheritance taxes will provide revenue to the general fund at diminishing rates through FY05. Due to federal legislation, the tax will be completely phased out by FY06. 
3-118 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 3.38 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. 

Distributions (Thousands of $)1 

Tax and Distribution Entity 1980 1990 2000 2001 2002 

Total Received by Wyoming2 219,889 331,196 275,123 434,534 287,457 

Amount Distributed to All 

Counties

2 

-- 8,628 8,559 15,171 6,081 

Lincoln County3 -- -- 159 405 231 

Sublette County3 -- -- 61 159 94 

Sweetwater County3 -- -- 489 1,175 595 

Amount Distributed to All Cities2 -- 25,885 21,506 32,136 14,498 

LaBarge4 -- -- 27 53 22 

Big Piney4 -- -- 25 49 21 

Marbleton4 -- -- 35 74 37 

Pinedale4 -- -- 65 140 72 

Rock Springs4

 -- -- 1,056 2,121 959 

1 In thousands of year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation; -- = data not available. 2 Consensus Revenue Estimating Group (2003). Total direct disbursements to cities and counties, not including 

capital construction or other funds. 3 Lummis et al. (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003). Distributions to counties. Total distributions reported by Lummis et al. 

do not add to the total reported as revenue received in Consensus Revenue Estimating Group (2003). 4 Lummis et al. (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003). Distributions to towns and cities. Total distributions reported by 

Lummis et al. do not add to the total reported as revenue received in Consensus Revenue Estimating Group 

(2003). 

The fund balance was $1.9 billion in June 2002 (Lummis et al. 2002). As reported by Lummis 

et al. 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. 

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 minerals produced on federal lands. Fifty percent of federal 

mineral royalties are returned to the state, and a portion of that is then distributed to counties and 

cities. Unlike severance taxes, royalties are based on the value of production and byproducts. Gas 

and oil prices skyrocketed in 2000, bringing with them significant increases in all forms of 

mineral revenue along with increasing natural gas revenues, which include coalbed methane 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-119 

production. Natural gas prices rose in 2000 due to tighter supplies, lower storage stocks, and 

market perceptions (Energy Information Administration 2001). In the late 1990s, these sources of 

income were declining as prices for gas and oil were depressed. With renewed market pressure in 

late 1999, the value of production increased, as did corresponding taxes. Federal royalties are 

distributed by the State of Wyoming according to W.S. 9-4-601. Federal royalty distributions to 

all counties and cities, and those cities in the project-affected area are shown in Table 3.39. State 

mineral royalties received are presented in Table 3.40. 

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. In 1976, Congress authorized 

federal land management agencies to share income with states and counties and provided a 

payment in lieu of taxes (PILT) program to help offset lost tax revenue (31 U.S.C. 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 C.F.R. 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 pre-determined ceiling. 

Since 1998, PILT payments received by Wyoming have increased by 63.9% (Table 3.41). The 

three-county study area has experienced a similar increase. 

Lincoln County PILT payments increased 74.2%, Sublette County payments increased 58.9%, 

and Sweetwater County PILT payments increased 58.0% over the past 6 years. 

Property Taxes (Ad Valorem Taxes) 

The taxable valuation of all mineral production in Wyoming fell 18% from $12.9 billion in 1980 

to $10.5 billion in 2000 (-1.1% average annual decline) (Wyoming Department of Revenue 

2002). Foulke et al. (2001) believe that mineral revenues will continue to rise and that gas 

production, particularly, will drive future revenues higher for the foreseeable future. Assessed 

production values are presented in Table 3.42. 

Wyoming Department of Revenue reports indicate that in 2002, natural gas production 

contributed the greatest proportion of taxable value to the state (34.8%), followed by residential 

land and improvements (18.5%), mining production (15.9%), and oil production (9.7%) 

(Table 3.43). 
3-120 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 3.39 Summary of Federal Mineral Royalties Received by Wyoming and Directly Distributed 

to All Counties and Cities and Project-Affected Counties and Cities.1 

Royalties Distributions (Thousands of $)2 

Tax and Distribution Entity 1980 1990 2000 2001 2002 

Total Received by Wyoming3 198,742 222,188 309,093 434,676 334,703 

Amount Distributed to 

Counties3,4 

n/d 1,389 n/d n/d n/d 

Amount Distributed to 

Cities3,4 

-- 20,830 19,588 21,678 20,007 

LaBarge5 -- -- 61 60 55 

Big Piney5

 -- -- 66 64 55 

Marbleton5

 -- -- 86 88 86 

Pinedale5

 -- -- 147 152 154 

Rock Springs5

 -- -- 1,010 1,002 994 

1 Includes coal lease bonuses. FY98 coal revenues include $8.0 million in protest severance taxes that 

were from prior production years. 

2 In thousands of year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation; -- = data not available; n/d = no distribution. 

3 Consensus Revenue Estimating Group (Consensus Revenue Estimating Group) (2003). 

4 Total direct disbursements to cities and counties, not including capital construction or other funds. 

5 Lummis et al. (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003). Total distributions reported by Lummis et al. do not add to 

the total reported as revenue received in Consensus Revenue Estimating Group (2003). 

Table 3.40 Summary of State of Wyoming Mineral Royalties. 

Fiscal Year Thousands of $1 

1980 -- 

1990 -- 

2000 27,721 

2001 34,099 

2002 56,021 

Historical data for state-owned mineral royalties are not readily available and are generally not 

included in socioeconomic analyses prepared by Wyoming state agencies. WDAI (2002a). 

1 
3-121 

1 

Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 3.41 Total PILT Payments and Total Acres.1

 PILT Payments/Acres 

Location 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Wyoming 

 Payment ($) 8,118,173 8,208,280 8,318,110 11,828,099 12,392,400 13,304,416 

Acres 29,917,112 29,893,541 29,885,632 29,884,922 29,889,764 29,877,970 

Lincoln County 

Payment ($) 384,723 406,667 418,646 598,093 617,577 670,171 

Acres 1,946,836 1,946,805 1,946,765 1,946,631 1,947,558 1,947,558 

Sublette County 

Payment ($) 258,703 247,508 256,483 360,764 376,237 411,150 

Acres 2,432,160 2,432,000 2,431,960 2,431,960 2,431,305 2,431,305 

Sweetwater 

County

 Payment ($) 910,456 929,377 949,649 1,281,416 1,333,882 1,438,845 

Acres 4,609,862 4,606,891 4,606,891 4,606,888 4,606,888 4,606,799 

Coupal et al. (2003) and BLM (2003c), in year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 

Table 3.42 Total State-Assessed Mineral Production Valuations.1 

Taxable Valuation (Thousands of $) 

Mineral Type 1980 1990 2000 

Oil 4,847,711 2,561,672 1,438,976 

Natural Gas 1,402,442 1,057,631 3,365,841 

Coal 1,616,744 1,487,154 1,336,116 

Trona 290,327 236,359 206,219 

All Other Minerals 256,679 52,660 59,909 

Total Mineral Taxable Valuation 8,413,904 5,395,476 6,407,060 

Other Property 4,493,344 3,019,549 4,135,036 

Grand total 12,907,248 8,415,025 10,542,096 

Consensus Revenue Estimating Group (2003), thousands of year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 1 
3-122 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 3.43 Proportionate Taxable Valuation of Various Classes of Property in Wyoming, 1998-2002. 

Proportion of Taxable Value1 

(Ranked Highest to Lowest According to 2002 Proportions) 

Property 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Natural gas production 19.2% 18.6% 20.6% 31.9% 34.8% 

Residential lands and 

improvements 

19.9% 22.6% 22.0% 18.5% 18.5% 

Mining (coal, minerals, and nonminerals) 

20.0% 41.6% 19.5% 15.2% 15.9% 

Oil production 14.7% 8.8% 11.5% 13.7% 9.7% 

Industrial and manufacturing 

property 

8.9% 9.8% 8.7% 7.1% 7.4% 

Commercial lands and 

improvements 

1.5% 5.6% 5.2% 4.2% 4.4% 

Railroads 1.7% 2.0% 2.2% 1.7% 1.8% 

Electric/gas-privately owned 2.5% 2.6% 2.3% 1.6% 1.6% 

Commercial personal property 1.5% 1.7% 1.6% 1.3% 1.3% 

Agricultural lands 1.9% 2.0% 1.8% 1.3% 1.3% 

Natural gas pipelines 0.9% 1.1% 1.1% 0.8% 1.0% 

Electric-cooperatives 1.5% 1.1% 1.0% 0.7% 0.6% 

Major telecommunications 0.7% 0.7% 0.807% 0.7% 0.6% 

Residential personal property 0.6% 0.6% 0.572% 0.4% 0.4% 

Liquid pipelines 0.6% 0.7% 0.672% 0.4% 0.4% 

Rural telecommunications 0.2% 0.3% 0.232% 0.2% 0.2% 

Cellular/reseller 

telecommunications2 

<0.1% 0.1% 0.162% 0.1% 0.2% 

Airlines <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% 

Electric-municipal <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% 

1 Columns may not total to 100% due to rounding. Wyoming Department of Revenue (1998, 1999, 2000, 

2001, 2002). 2 Designated as radio-telephones in 1998. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-123 

Sales, Use, and Lodging Tax 

Wyoming has had sales and use taxes since 1935. Sales taxes apply to the retail sale of personal 

property or services within the state. A use tax is levied on any sale of any property outside the 

state of Wyoming for use, storage, or consumption inside the state of Wyoming. 

Wyoming counties, cities, and towns benefit from sales and use tax collections. Each month, the 

treasurer's office in each county sends the sales tax collections to the Wyoming Department of 

Revenue, which distributes the money. Currently, two-thirds of the 4% sales tax collections go to 

the state general fund, and one-third (minus 1% for state administrative purposes) is returned to 

the cities, towns, and counties. The money returned to the cities and counties is based on where 

the purchase occurred and the population of the city or county (which is based on the last federal 

census). Counties that have 1% optional sales taxes or a 1% capital facilities tax keep 100% of the 

additional 1% collected. The state's share of the sales tax revenue is distributed to the General 

Fund. Effective tax rates for the study area as of 2002 are listed in Table 3.44. 

County sales tax rates can fluctuate from year to year because county option taxes originate and 

expire at varying times; therefore, only the total state imposed sales tax (4%) will be used for this 

analysis. State use tax is imposed on purchases made outside a taxing jurisdiction for first use, 

storage, or other consumption within that jurisdiction (Table 3.44). Thus, the use tax prevents 

sales tax avoidance or the payment of a lesser tax rate by making purchases outside of the taxing 

jurisdiction where first use, storage, or other consumption will occur. Wyoming taxing 

jurisdictions are the State of Wyoming and/or each Wyoming county. Use tax is a complement of 

sales tax. Effective January 1, 1981, the adoption of an optional sales tax required a change in the 

use tax rate of equal amount. State use tax is shared between state government and the county of 

origin on the same distribution basis as sales tax. Therefore, the revised rate and allocation, as 

mentioned earlier in the sales tax description, applies here as well. 

Cities, towns, and counties, by voter approval, may impose a lodging excise tax of up to 4% on 

all sleeping accommodations for guests staying less than 30 days (see Table 3.44). This tax 

extends to mobile accommodations such as tents, trailers, and campers, as well. All collections 

Table 3.44 Sales, Use, and Lodging Tax Rates by County (Effective April 1, 2003).1 

Tax Rate Lincoln Sublette Sweetwater 

State Sales Tax Rate 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 

General Purpose Option Tax 1.0% -- 1.0% 

Specific Purpose Option Tax -- -- 0.5% 

Subtotal 5.0% 4.0% 5.5% 

Lodging Tax 2.0%2 3.0% 2.0% 

Total Tax Rate 7.0% 7.0% 7.5% 

1 Wyoming Department of Revenue (2003). 2 Note: Lodging tax is imposed only in Afton (i.e., not in a county-wide base). 
3-124 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

(less a 2% state administrative cost during the first year the tax is imposed and 1% thereafter) are 

distributed to the cities, towns, and counties of origin. At least 90% of the tax distributions must 

be used to promote travel and tourism within the county, city, or town imposing the tax. The 

amount remaining, not to exceed 10% of the total amount distributed, may be used for general 

revenue within the governmental entity imposing the tax. 

3.4.9 Study Area Taxes and Revenues 

3.4.9.1 Availability of Information 

Reporting of tax and revenue information has evolved with the development of the internet and 

the ease of publishing large volumes of information; this evolution has led to an unavailability of 

certain reports and information that predate 1998 (personal communication, July 8, 2003, with 

Christie Yurek, Validation Supervisor, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Administrative 

Services Division). 

Oil and gas field operations support employment in many industries. Firms whose primary 

activity is operating oil and gas wells, exploring for oil and gas, or providing oil and gas field 

services are included in SIC 13, mining--oil and gas extraction. But many employers in other 

industries such as wholesale trade and transportation, communications, and public utilities depend 

on business from oil and gas service companies (WDERP 1999). According to Bullard in 

WDERP (1999: Table 1 and Map 1), the Sublette and Sweetwater County economies are highly 

dependent on oil and natural gas extraction (15.2% and 5.8%, respectively), while Lincoln 

County is moderately dependent (4.2%) on the oil and gas industry. 

While it is not possible to determine the proportion of funds each city and county spends on each 

item of infrastructure and services derived from oil and gas revenues, example budgets for Big 

Piney, Pinedale, and Sublette County are presented in BLM (2005). Funds received by Sublette 

County in recent years have been used for capital improvements, such as a new courthouse, jail, 

land fill, senior centers, and public clinic upgrade, and surpluses have been placed in reserve 

accounts to develop savings for future requirements (personal communication, May 20, 2004, 

with Mary Langford, Sublette County Clerk). Funds received in Big Piney in excess of normal 

operating have also gone to capital improvements (personal communication, May 20, 2004, with 

Vickie Brown, Big Piney Town Clerk). 

3.4.9.2 State Royalties 

In total, royalties in Wyoming arising from natural gas production on state lands increased by 

nearly 62.0% from 1998 to 2002 (Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments [WOSLI] 

2002). Oil royalties rose and fell, but overall grew 5.6% from 1998 to 2002. 

In Lincoln County, royalties from natural gas production on state lands fell 21.5% from 1998 to 

2002. Oil royalties have risen and fallen, but generally declined in Lincoln County, falling 17.3% 

from 1998 to 2002. The only other mineral royalty paid to Lincoln County in 2001 and 2002 from 

state lands was for sand and gravel (WOSLI 2002). 

In contrast, Sublette County has experienced significant increases in royalties from natural gas 

and oil production on state lands. Royalties from natural gas increased by 81.9% from 1998 to 

2002. Oil royalties increased even more dramatically (155.9%) from 1998 to 2002. The only 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-125 

other mineral royalty paid to Sublette County in 2001 and 2002 from state lands was for sand and 

gravel (WOSLI 2002). 

Sweetwater County royalties from natural gas production on state lands increased by more than 

17.1% from 1998 to 2002. Oil royalties also increased (20.6%; 3.8% average annual growth) in 

Sweetwater County from 1998 to 2002. Sweetwater County received most of its royalties from 

(and is the only county in Wyoming to receive royalties from) trona mining but also received 

royalties from coal (2000, 2001, 2002), limestone (2000), uranium (2002), and sand and gravel 

(2001, 2002). 

3.4.9.3 Ad Valorem Valuation and Taxes Levied 

Due to changes in agency reporting methods, information from 1980 and 1990 was only 

minimally available. Ad valorem valuations for the study area illustrating tax source and 

allocation are presented in BLM (2005). 

3.4.9.4 Sales, Use, and Lodging Tax Collections 

Sales, use, and lodging tax collection information is presented for Wyoming and the three-county 

study area in BLM (2005). 

3.4.10 Grazing Economics 

3.4.10.1 Grazing Allotments 

Table 3.45 summarizes grazing allotment acreages and animal unit months (AUMs) (an AUM is 

the amount of forage required to sustain one cow and calf for one month) in the JIDPA (see also 

EIS Section 3.5.2). 

3.4.10.2 Value of Grazing 

The estimated value of grazing in the JIDPA is summarized in Tables 3.46-3.48. The method 

used to determine the value of grazing per AUM is from BLM (2003a). 

The value of cattle grazing per AUM in Wyoming is shown in Table 3.46. AUM values for 

grazing cattle were determined from Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service (2003) values of 

cattle sold in Wyoming from 1998 to 2002 (presented in Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for 

inflation) (see Table 3.47). Total cattle sales were divided by the number of cows that calved, 

which provided a value per cow. The values per cow was then divided by an AUM conversion 

factor (Workman 1986), resulting in an estimated nominal value per AUM for 2000. The average 

values of these AUMs are used in the impact analyses presented in EIS Chapter 4. 

The JIDPA is entirely within Sublette County. Because there would be no impact on grazing 

activities in Lincoln or Sweetwater Counties as a result of the proposed project, Sublette County 

comprises the total study area for grazing analyses. The value of grazing associated with the 

JIDPA was compared to livestock sales during 1997 for Sublette County. Data on sales were 

obtained from the 1997 Census of Agriculture published by the National Agricultural Statistical 

Service (1999). Table 3.48 shows that total agricultural sales in Sublette County exceeded $29 

million, more than 95% of which was associated with livestock sales. Grazing activities 
. . .

3-126 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 3.45 Grazing Allotments and AUMs, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 

2004. 

Allotment Size (acres) AUMs Average 

Acres per 

Allotment Name Total In Project Area Total In Project Area AUM 

Stud Horse Common 15,590 5,490 1,730 670 8.2 

Sand Draw 31,740 20,740 2,324 1,571 13.2 

Boundary1 31,994 3,630 2,996 363 10.0 

Blue Rim Desert 41,273 02 2,826 -- 14.6 

Unalloted private lands 640 640 -- 3 -- 3 -- 3

Total JIDPA3 121,237 30,500 9,876 2,604 11.5 

1 Sheep are also approved for grazing on the Boundary allotment. 2 Approximately 35 acres of this allotment would be affected by the Burma Road upgrade. 3 Total does not include unalloted private lands; insufficient data available to calculate AUMs for these lands. 

Table 3.46 Estimated Value of Cattle Grazing AUMs in Wyoming, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004. 

Year 

Value of Cattle 

Production 

(Thousands of $)1 

Number of Cows 

that have Calved 

(Thousands of 

Head)2 Value Per Cow3 

AUM Conversion 

Factor4 

Value of Production Per 

AUM5 (Year 2000 $) 

1997 474,990 870 545.97 16 34.12 

1998 423,250 880 480.97 16 30.06 

1999 467,253 830 562.96 16 35.18 

2000 497,851 830 599.82 16 37.49 

2001 527,804 850 620.95 16 38.81 

2002 425,776 820 519.24 16 32.45 

Average 468,387 842 556.79 -- 34.80 

1 Thousands of Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. Source: Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service 

(2003:42). 2 Source: Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service (2003:40). 3 Value per cow = value of cattle production ÷ number of cows that have calved. 4

 Workman (1986). 5 Value of production per AUM = value per cow ÷ AUM conversion factor. 
.

. .

.

Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-127 

Table 3.47 Estimated Value of Grazing Activities on Project-Affected Lands1, Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004. 

Value of Grazing Cattle2

 ($) 

Allotment Name Total Project-Affected Lands 

Stud Horse Common 60,204 23,316 

Sand Draw 80,875 54,671 

Boundary 104,261 12,632 

Blue Rim Desert 98,345 1,218 3 

Unalloted private lands 1,636 4 1,636 4 

Total JIDPA 343,685 90,619 3,4 

1 See Table 3.45. 

2 Cattle grazing was valued at $34.80/AUM (see Table 3.46). Sheep are also approved for grazing on 

the Boundary allotment, but currently they do not occur on the project-affected portion of the 

allotment and are not discussed further. 

3 The JIDPA is 30,500 acres; 35 acres in the Blue Rim Desert allotment outside of the project boundary 

would be disturbed for the Burma Road upgrade (12 miles long x 24 ft wide = 35 acres). 

4 Unalloted private lands within the Sand Draw allotment are not under federal control; therefore, they 

are not shown in Table 3.44, however, the AUMs (47) are estimated based on the Sand Draw allotment 

for the purposes of valuation in this table. 

Table 3.48 Percentage of Agricultural Sales Attributed to Grazing in the Jonah Field, 1997. 

Sales in Sublette County1

 Value ($) Percentage 

Total Agricultural2 $29,191,000 

Value from Livestock2 $27,809,000 

Percent from Livestock 95.0% 

Sales Attributable to Grazing on the Project Area2,3 $90,619 

Percent of all Sublette County Agricultural Sales arising from Grazing on 0.31% 

the JIDPA

Percent of All Livestock Sales in Sublette County Arising from Grazing on 0.33% 

the JIDPA 

1 The JIDPA is entirely encompassed within Sublette County; therefore, Lincoln and Sweetwater County sales are 

unlikely to be affected and are not evaluated. 2 In year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation (National Agriculture Statistics Service 1999). 3 See Table 3.47. 
3-128 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

attributable to the JIDPA could account for $90,619, or up to 0.31% of all agricultural sales and 

0.33% of all livestock sales in Sublette County in 1997. 

3.4.11 Recreation Economics 

Since the JIDPA lies almost entirely within the PFO area, recreation economics are evaluated 

only within this area. However, some additional demand is likely in other areas (e.g., Lincoln 

and Sweetwater Counties). See BLM (2005) for more detailed analysis. 

3.4.11.1 Nonconsumptive Recreation 

Table 3.49 shows the recreational visitor days (RVDs) per activity for the PFO for a 4-year period 

from 1998 to 2002 (BLM 2003d). (These data are considered to be somewhat inaccurate.) 

During this time, over 300,000 RVDs are estimated to have occurred annually within the PFO 

area for a variety of activities. The most popular of these activities were float or raft trips, 

fishing, camping, and hiking/walking/running. Hunting is addressed separately (Section 

3.4.11.2). 

3.4.11.2 Hunting 

Hunting is also popular within the PFO area. Much of this activity occurs on BLM-managed land 

since this land provides habitat for many species, including big game, small game, and upland 

game birds. Pronghorn is the only big game species likely to be hunted in the JIDPA; therefore, 

the economics of hunting other big game species are not addressed further in this EIS. 

The entire JIDPA lies within the Sublette Pronghorn Antelope Herd Unit, which occupies 

approximately 6.7 million acres (Table 3.50). BLM is responsible for management of 64% of the 

surface of the Sublette Herd Unit; the USFS is responsible for management of 4% of the surface; 

4% is managed by the Bureau of Reclamation; and 26% is in State of Wyoming and private 

ownership. Pronghorn hunting was estimated from WGFD data since WGFD regulates the sport 

and keeps data on hunting use by animal and by area throughout Wyoming (Table 3.51). 

Furbearers, Small Game, Upland Birds, and Waterfowl 

Furbearers likely occur within the JIDPA, which lies within Furbearer Management Area 7 

(WGFD 2003b). Weasel, badger, skunk, coyote, red fox, and bobcat are likely to occur and may 

be hunted/trapped in the vicinity of the project area. WGFD has not collected hunter expenditure 

information for these species (WGFD 2003d); therefore, they are not addressed further herein. 

The JIDPA lies within Small Game Management Area 7 (WGFD 2003b); however, due to habitat 

limitations, only greater sage-grouse and desert cottontail rabbit are likely to occur and be hunted 

on the JIDPA (Table 3.52). The WGFD has not collected hunter expenditure information for all 

small game species that may potentially occur and may occasionally be hunted and trapped on the 

JIDPA (WGFD 2003d); therefore, impact analysis is provided only for desert cottontail rabbit and 

greater sage-grouse. 

Waterfowl Area 5B encompasses the JIDPA, and ducks and geese may be hunted in the vicinity 

of the project area. The WGFD has not collected hunter expenditure information for all waterfowl 

species that may potentially occur and may occasionally be hunted on the JIDPA (WGFD 2003d); 

therefore, these species are not addressed further herein. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-129 

Table 3.49 Estimated Annual Recreational Visitor Days, PFO Area.1 

Activity Annual Recreational Visitor Days2 Percent of Total 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) - 1,268 0.40 

All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) 

OHVs – Cars/Trucks/Sport Utility 155 0.05 

Vehicles 

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 

From BLM (2003d). 1 
3-130 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

3.4.11.3 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 stimulus occurs as non-residents visit the area 

and spend money in the local economy, which in turn generates additional spending by local 

residents. It is assumed that if local residents were not participating in recreation, they probably 

would have spent their money on something else in the region's economy. Thus, expenditures by 

local residents are seen as a shifting of dollars from one sector to another within the local 

economy and not a net gain to the region. However, dollars that remain within the community 

when local residents have satisfactory recreational opportunities are important. Keeping dollars 

within the local economy helps maintain jobs, thus reducing employment and income fluctuations 

that may result if those dollars became an outflow from (i.e., are spent outside) the local 

economy. 

Value of Nonconsumptive Recreation 

The value of recreation was estimated using the methods developed for the South West Regional 

Economic Evaluation (University of Wyoming, Agricultural Economics Department [UWAED 

1997]) and Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan (BLM 2003a; UWAED 2003). 

Nonconsumptive recreation was derived from UWAED (1997), and is presented in Year 2000 

dollars adjusted for inflation. The estimated value of nonconsumptive recreation in the PFO is 

summarized in Table 3.53. 

Value of Hunting 

The method used to determine the value of hunting is based 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 inflation. The JIDPA is fully encompassed by the 

Sublette Antelope Herd Unit, and for the purposes of this report it is assumed that pronghorn 

antelope are evenly hunted across the herd unit because it is not possible to derive from existing 

data exactly where any individual hunts. This method results in a conservative 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 pronghorn antelope on the JIDPA is 

presented in Tables 3.54 and 3.55. 

JIDPA Hunting Value 

Because elk, mule deer, and moose are unlikely to occur on the JIDPA, there is no value 

attributable to the project area for those species. Pronghorn do occur on the JIDPA, and an 

estimated 61.0 hunter days (0.5% of the Sublette Antelope Herd Unit hunter days) are attributed 

to the JIDPA. At a value of approximately $381.30/hunter day, approximately $23,244 of hunter 

expenditures for antelope annually is attributable to hunting on the JIDPA. Approximately 1.0% 

of hunting in Small Game Management Area 7 for cottontail and greater sage-grouse each are 

attributable to hunting on the JIDPA. Cottontail account for 26.4 hunter days for a value of 

approximately $4,569.84 of hunter expenditures attributable to cottontail hunting on the JIDPA. 

Greater sage-grouse account for 16.3 hunter days for a value of approximately $2,123.78 of 

hunter expenditures attributable to greater sage-grouse hunting annually on the JIDPA. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-131 

Table 3.50 Sublette Antelope Herd Unit Landownership and Management. 

Ownership/Management 

(acres) 

Herd Unit Name Total Acres Federal State/Private Disturbed 

Sublette Antelope Herd Unit 6,749,440 4,994,586 1,754,854 85,000 

Table 3.51 Summary of Pronghorn Hunters and Hunter Days in Wyoming and the Sublette Antelope 

Herd Unit, 2002.1

 Hunters2 Hunter Days

2,3 

Area Total Resident Non-resident Total Resident Non-resident 

Wyoming 33,569 15,776 17,793 101,989 51,208 50,781 

Sublette Antelope Herd Unit 4,382 2,881 1,501 13,490 9,356 4,134 

1 WGFD (2002; 2003a). 2 Calculated from Harvest, Hunting Pressure, Hunter Success By Hunt Area 2002 reports for each species. Totals 

may not match state-wide summary tables. 3 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. 

Table 3.52 Summary of Potentially Project-Affected Small Game and Upland Bird Hunters and 

Hunter-Days, 2002.1 

Total Wyoming Area 72 (Eden) 

Species Number of Hunters Hunter Days Number of Hunters Hunter Days 

Desert cottontail rabbit 5,814 25,566 316 1,981 

Greater sage-grouse 2,947 7,164 271 938 

Totals 8,761 32,730 587 2,919 

1

 WGFD (2003b). 

2 Encompasses the JIDPA in its entirety. 
3-132 

1 

Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 3.53 Value of Nonconsumptive Recreation, PFO Area, 1997.1 

Recreation Activity Value per Visitor-Day ($) 

General recreation 10.18 

Developed camping 15.73 

Primitive camping 19.85 

Day hiking 33.01 

Picnicking 14.32 

Sightseeing 16.68 

Gathering forest products 15.17 

Wilderness recreation 14.45 

Big game hunting 77.25 

Trout fishing 30.04 

Wildlife watching 30.04 

Snowmobiling 51.50 

Average value per visitor day 27.35 

In Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. Source: UWAED (1997). 

3.4.12 Environmental Justice 

Less than 5% of the Sublette County population is minority (EPA 2003) and, although 9.7% of 

the population of Sublette County lives below the poverty level, this is a smaller percentage than 

for the State of Wyoming (11.4%) (U.S. Census Bureau 2000a). Therefore, Sublette County is 

neither a minority community nor a low-income community. 

3.5 LAND USE 

3.5.1 Land Status/Prior Rights 

The JIDPA consists of federal surface/federal minerals administered by the BLM 

(94%/28,580 acres), two sections (1,280 acres) of State of Wyoming surface/mineral, and one 

section (640 acres) of private surface/federal minerals (see Map 1.1). Current land use includes 

energy production and development (e.g., natural gas well pads, pipelines, access roads, ware 

yards, offices), livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, and recreation--primarily hunting. Map 2.1 

shows the extent of existing natural gas development in the JIDPA. 
3-133 

Table 3.54 Value of Hunting of Species Potentially Occurring on the Project Area, Wyoming and Study Area, 2002. 

Wyoming Attributable to Potentially Affected Hunt Areas 

Hunter-Days

1,2 Average 

Hunter-Days

4 Hunter Expenditures ($)

Hunter Value/ 

Non- Expenditures3 Hunter-Day NonSpecies Total Resident resident ($) ($) Total Resident resident Total Resident Non-resident 

Antelope 101,989 51,208 50,781 38,888,895 381.30 13,490 9,356 4,134 5,143,737 3,567,443 1,576,294 Cottontail6 25,566 NA NA 4,424,464 173.06 2,516 NA NA 435,419 -- --

Greater 7,164 NA NA 933,437 130.30 1,553 NA NA 202,356 -- --

6 sage-grouse

Total 134,719 51,208 50,781 44,246,796 228.22 17,559 NA NA 5,781,512 -- --

1 WGFD (2003a, 2003b). Calculated from Harvest, Hunting Pressure, Hunter Success By Hunt Area 2002 reports for each species. Totals may not match 

state-wide summary tables or WGFD (2003c). 

2 WGFD defines a "hunter-day" as any day hunting occurred, regardless of actual time spent hunting. This data is based on licensed hunter survey reports. 3 WGFD (2003c). In year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. WGFD does not distinguish between resident and non-resident expenditures. 4 Refer to Table 3.51 and 3.52. 5 Species that may occur infrequently within the affected areas that WGFD does not manage for hunting in the project areas may include bighorn sheep, 

Rocky Mountain goat, black bear, and mountain lion. 

6 WGFD does not separate resident and non-resident hunter days for small and upland game. 
3-134 

Table 3.55 Contribution of JIDPA to Hunting Revenues. 1 

Hunter-Days Average Value/ Hunter-Days Annual Value Attributable 

Attributable to Hunter-Day Project Area % Acres of Unit in Project to Hunting on Project Area 

Species Unit Name Total Acres Unit ($) (acres) in Project Area Area ($) Antelope Sublette Antelope 6,749,440 13,490 381.30 30,500 0.5% 61.0 23,244.00 

Herd Unit 

Cottontail Small Game 2,906,068 2,516 173.06 30,500 1.0% 26.4 4,569.84 

Management Area 7 

Greater Small Game 2,906,068 1,553 130.30 30,500 1.0% 16.3 2,123.78 sage-grouse Management Area 7 Total -- n/a2 n/a2 n/a2 n/a2 n/a2 103.7 29,937.63 

1 In year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation.2 n/a = column is not additive. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-135 

The CIAA for land status/prior rights includes the JIDPA and leases that extend beyond the 

JIDPA, and it encompasses approximately 35,634 acres (Map 3.21). All of the JIDPA and the 

CIAA is leased for mineral development. Land use associated with mineral development on the 

JIDPA is described in Section 3.1.4.1. 

3.5.2 Livestock/Grazing Management 

The JIDPA includes portions of three grazing allotments--Stud Horse Common, Sand Draw, and 

Boundary--and the Burma Road Upgrade area includes portions the Blue Rim Desert allotment 

(Map 3.22 and Table 3.56). Livestock grazing is allocated to two permittees each in the Stud 

Horse Common and Sand Draw allotments and four permittees in the Blue Rim Desert allotment 

(personal communication January 6, 2003, with Steve Laster, BLM PFO). The Boundary 

allotment is allocated to two permittees. There are also approximately 640 acres of private lands 

(2% of the JIDPA) not included in allotments (see Map 3.22). 

The Stud Horse Common allotment (15,590 total acres) includes 14,309 acres of BLM lands 

providing 1,730 AUMs (personal communication, January 6, 2003, with Steve Laster, BLM PFO) 

and 1,280 acres of State of Wyoming lands--an average of 8.2 acres/AUM. Cattle are grazed 

from May 1 to June 30. The JIDPA includes approximately 5,490 acres of the Stud Horse 

Common allotment providing approximately 670 AUMs (see Table 3.56). 

The Sand Draw allotment (31,740 acres) includes 30,445 acres of BLM lands providing 

2,324 AUMs (personal communication, November 2003, with Steve Laster, BLM PFO) and 

1,295 acres of State of Wyoming lands. Cattle are grazed from May 1 to June 20 (personal 

communication, November 2003, with Steve Laster, BLM PFO). The JIDPA includes 

approximately 20,740 acres of the Sand Draw allotment providing an average of 1,571 AUMs, an 

average of 13.2 acres/AUM (see Table 3.56). 

The Boundary allotment (31,994 total acres) includes 29,982 acres of BLM lands (providing 

2,996 AUMs), 1,930 acres of state lands, and 82 acres of private land. The allotment is managed 

for three-pasture deferred rotation/short duration, low-intensity grazing and is approved for 

yearlong grazing. Sheep and/or cattle are grazed from May to July, with cattle remaining on the 

allotment until November (personal communication, January, 9, 2004, with Jay D'Ewart, BLM 

RSFO). The JIDPA includes approximately 3,630 acres of the Boundary allotment providing 

363 AUMs, an average 10 acres/AUM (see Table 3.56). Lambing occurs in a portion of the 

allotment from May 15 to June 15. Sheep grazing and lambing generally do not occur in the 

JIDPA; therefore, sheep are not discussed further. 

The Blue Rim Desert allotment (41,273 total acres) includes 39,467 acres of BLM lands 

providing 2,826 AUMs (personal communication, January 6, 2004, with Steve Laster, BLM 

PFO), 1,019 acres of state lands, and 787 acres of private land--an average of 14.6 acres/AUM 

(see Table 3.56). Cattle are grazed from May 1 to July 6. The proposed Burma Road Upgrade 

area crosses this allotment. 

Economic data for JIDPA livestock grazing is provided in Section 3.4.10. The CIAA for livestock 

grazing is the four affected grazing allotments that encompass approximately 120,597 acres, of 

which the 114,203 acres of federal land provide a total of 9,876 permitted AUMs (see Table 3.56, 

Map 3.22). Based upon WyGISC (2002, 2003) digital data and aerial photographs, approximately 

2.3% of the CIAA for livestock grazing (2,777 acres), has been disturbed by well pads, pipelines, 
3-136 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

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

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-137 

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

Assessment Area, Sublette and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming, 2004. 
3-138 

Table 3.56 Livestock/Grazing Allotments in the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area and Cumulative Impact Assessment Area, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Acres of Existing Disturbance 

Allotment Size Federal Acres Total Allotment in AUMs in in Entire Allotment Average Federal 

Grazing Allotment (acres) in Allotment AUMs JIDPA JIDPA (acres) Acres/AUM Stud Horse Common 15,590 14,309 1,730 5,490 670 782 8.2 Sand Draw 31,740 30,445 2,324 20,740 1,571 1,147 13.2 Boundary 31,994 29,982 2,996 3,630 363 461 10.0 Blue Rim Desert 41,273 39,467 2,826 n/a 1 -- 359 14.6 

No Allotment (Private) 640 -- -- 640 -- 28 --Total1 120,597 114,203 9,876 30,500 2,604 2,777 11.52

1 n/a = 12 miles of the Burma Road Upgrade Area is in the Blue Rim Desert. 2 Total does not include the "No Allotment"; average federal acres/AUM are not additive. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-139 

resource roads, agricultural lands (i.e., hay meadows), and highways. The Sand Draw grazing 

allotment has the largest amount of existing disturbance with 1,147 acres (3.6% of the allotment) 

disturbed primarily from existing gas development in the Jonah Natural Gas Field. 

3.5.3 Recreation 

The CIAA for recreation encompasses 1,557,558 acres (2,434 square miles) (Map 3.23). Existing 

surface disturbance includes approximately 84,331 acres (132 square miles), or 5.4% of the 

CIAA, and results primarily from agriculture (79%) and road and pipeline ROWs (14%). 

Detailed information on recreation and recreation revenues is provided in Section 3.4.11. The 

following provides some additional information on recreation types and the importance of the 

various recreation types in the area. 

Davis-Peterson Associates, Inc. (1995) estimate that total traveler expenditures in southwestern 

Wyoming (Carbon, Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, and Uinta Counties) were $282 million in 

1994, with Sweetwater County having the most ($98 million) and Sublette County the least 

($30 million). Vacationers represented 55% of total traveler expenditures in the five-county 

region. Data suggest that travel peaked in 1981, declined until 1988, and then grew steadily 

through 1993 (UWAED 1997). Southwestern Wyoming is an important recreation area for 

Wyoming residents (UWAED 1997). The 1990 Wyoming State Comprehensive Outdoor 

Recreation Plan (State of Wyoming 1990), while out of date, reported that southwestern 

Wyoming, with 20% of the state's population, supported more than 50% of all Wyoming resident 

OHV and four-wheel drive use, 49% of all resident antelope hunting, 15% of all resident 

sightseeing, and 17% of all historical site visits and day hiking. Relative to its population (1.1% 

of state), Sublette County was especially important in terms of OHVs (21.6%), antelope hunting 

(15.6%), backpacking (18.7%), and camping (11.9%). Statewide, the most popular recreational 

activities include: wildlife viewing (71%), driving for pleasure (66%), hiking or walking (64%), 

viewing natural features, such as scenery, flowers (64%), general/other, such as relaxing, 

escaping crowds, noise (64%), fishing (63%), visiting historic and/or prehistoric sites (54%), and 

attending fairs or festivals (50%) (Bingaman et al. 2003). 

There are no developed recreation areas within the JIDPA; however, BLM-administered lands 

provide a variety of recreational opportunities including hunting for antelope, greater 

sage-grouse, and small game. Backpacking, camping, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, 

snowmobiling, rock collecting, sightseeing, wildlife viewing and general photography are a few 

of the nonconsumptive recreational opportunities available in the region, although many of these 

actions likely no longer occur on the JIDPA due to existing oil and gas development. Total annual 

recreational visitor days (other than hunting) in the PFO from October 1, 1998, to September 30, 

2002, was 319,978 (BLM 2003c). The most popular activities included boating (43%), fishing 

(23%), camping (11%), and hiking/walking/running (10%). Recreational use data specific to the 

JIDPA are not available. However, dispersed recreation related to sightseeing and OHV use does 

likely occur on the JIDPA since the area is designated as suitable for OHV use in the PFO RMP, 

and recreational hunting is likely the most important recreational activity on the JIDPA. 

Since the JIDPA may have importance for recreational hunting by some individuals for the game 

species that occur in the area (e.g., pronghorn, cottontail rabbit, and greater sage-grouse), a 

conservative economic analysis of recreational hunting in the JIDPA is provided in 

Section 3.4.11.2. 
3-140 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

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

and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming, 2004. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-141 

While no wilderness or wilderness study areas occur in the JIDPA, the BLM Scab Creek 

Wilderness Study Area (7,636 acres south of Boulder Lake) and the Bridger Wilderness Area are 

approximately 20 miles northeast of the area. The Scab Creek, Bridger, Fitzpatrick, and Popo 

Agie Wilderness provide regional opportunities for remote recreational activities. 

3.5.4 Transportation 

Surface transportation in the JIDPA is provided by an extensive network of collector and resource 

roads (see Map 2.1 and Appendix G). The two principle roadways to the JIDPA are State 

Highway 191, which links the field to Rock Springs and Pinedale, Wyoming, and State Highway 

351, which links the field to Big Piney and Marbleton, Wyoming. 

The main access to the JIDPA is from the Luman Road, which runs east from the JIDPA to State 

Highway 191. The Burma and Jonah North Roads, which run north from the JIDPA to connect 

with State Highway 351 also provide access to the field (see Map 2.1). Further detail on the 

roads in the JIDPA and associated traffic is discussed in the Transportation Plan (Appendix G). 

3.6 VISUAL RESOURCES 

The CIAA for visual resources encompasses 2,089,363 acres (3,264 square miles) (Map 3.24). 

Existing surface disturbance includes approximately 138,740 acres (216 square miles) or 6.6% of 

the CIAA and results primarily from agriculture (83%) and road and pipeline ROWs (12%). 

The Visual Resource Management (VRM) System is the basic tool used by the BLM to inventory 

and manage visual resources on public lands. The VRM classification combines evaluation of 

visual quality, visual sensitivity of the area, and view distances. The BLM's PFO was first 

visually inventoried and classified in 1978. VRM classes are used to identify the degree of 

acceptable visual change within a characteristic landscape. Classes are based on the physical and 

sociological characteristics of a given homogeneous area and serve as a management objective. 

Projects of all types within established VRM class areas will generally be required to conform 

with objectives and characteristics of the classification, or the project will be modified to meet the 

VRM class objective. Short-term modifications in portions of visual class areas may be approved 

if a site-specific environmental analysis determines that impacts would be acceptable. 

The entire JIDPA is in a Class IV VRM area. A basic description of the landscape (high desert 

shrub area with flat to rolling topography containing buttes and ridges) is provided in Sections 

3.1.3 (Topography) and 3.2.1 (Vegetation). The landscape today is dominated by oil and gas 

development features (e.g., roads, well pads). The Class IV designation provides for management 

activities that may generate major modifications to the existing character of the landscape. 

Contrasts may attract attention and be a dominant feature of the landscape in terms of scale; 

however, the change should repeat the basic elements (form, line, color, and texture) inherent in 

the characteristic landscape. A Class IV VRM designation allows for modification of the 

landscape to accommodate natural gas production, but also advocates that surface facilities blend 

with surroundings to lessen the visual impacts. 

The connected actions, including the upgrade of the Burma Road and the modification of the 

Project area boundary to include the north half of Section 23, T28N, R109W, are also in areas 

designated as VRM Class IV. 
3-142 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

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

Sublette, and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming, 2005. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3-143 

A VRM Class III area occurs as a 1-mile corridor surrounding U.S. Highway 191 just east of the 

JIDPA. A Class III designation provides for moderate changes to the existing landscape, 

although management activities associated with these changes should not dominate the view of 

the casual observer. For the most part, the JIDPA is not visible from U.S. Highway 191, a major 

corridor for tourists. However, current JIDPA developments (e.g., rig structures and production 

facilities) at higher elevations on Yellow Point Ridge in the southern JIDPA are visible at a 

distance of about 8 miles from an approximately 8- to 10-mile length of U.S. Highway 191. 

Additional existing oil and gas development effects visible from the highway include nighttime 

lights, occasional smoke plumes, and haze events. The only currently identified project feature 

present in the VRM Class III corridor along U.S. Highway 191 is the existing Luman Road. 

3.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

Hazardous materials present in the JIDPA include those used and produced in association with 

natural gas drilling, completion, and production, and these substances and their current 

management protocol are discussed in detail in the Hazardous Materials Management Summary 

(Appendix G). 

3.8 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION 

No compensatory (off-site) mitigation (CM) projects have been completed or are in progress. 
3-144 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-1 

CHAPTER 4 — ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

AND MITIGATION MEASURES 

The potential positive and adverse impacts of construction, drilling, completion, operation, 

maintenance, and reclamation of the proposed project are disclosed for each affected resource 

under each alternative. An environmental consequence or impact is defined as a modification to 

the existing environment brought about by development activities. Impacts can be beneficial or 

adverse, can be a primary result of an action (direct impacts) or a secondary result (indirect 

impacts), and can be permanent or long-lasting (long-term impacts--more than 5 years) or 

temporary and short duration (short-term--5-years or less). Impacts can vary in degree from a 

slightly discernable change to a dramatic change in the environment. 

Impacts are quantified whenever possible. Potential significant impacts (as defined in CEQ 

guidelines 40 C.F.R. 1500-1508--effects that are most substantial and therefore should receive the 

greatest attention in decision-making) are identified. The use of adjectives (e.g., “moderate,” “low,” 

“negligible”) has been avoided because this EIS is an analytical document. The magnitude of an 

impact (i.e., its significance) is based on RMP and state and local land use planning objectives, 

regulatory standards, scientific and environmental documentation, and professional judgment. 

Impacts are considered adverse unless identified as beneficial. 

Significance criteria were developed to measure the degree to which an impact would affect 

(positively or negatively) the human and natural environment. Developing significance criteria is 

difficult for a number of reasons. First, although used extensively throughout the Act, NEPA does 

not identify what is meant by significant on a resource-by-resource basis. Second, it is often 

difficult to quantify impacts for some resources. In these cases, significance criteria must be 

subjective and often rely on the professional opinion of the persons preparing and reviewing the 

impact analysis. Finally, for the reader, the significance of an impact is often framed in terms of 

personal experience. For instance, persons who benefit directly from the positive economic impacts 

of the project are more likely to consider that positive impact more significant than someone who 

will not receive financial gain. Similarly, someone who recreates in the JIDPA is likely to find 

conflicts with project-related activities much more severe than someone who recreates elsewhere. 

Although this document does not predict "worst-case" impacts, it may overestimate impacts from 

the project. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that development would occur throughout 

the JIDPA. Overestimation is unavoidable for complete disclosure of potential or reasonable 

foreseeable impacts from the project. 

Each resource discussed in this chapter includes a description of the following: 

• Impact Significance Criteria. Current resource management goals/objectives are 

summarized from BLM RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b), the State of Wyoming 

land use plan (Wyoming State Land Use Commission [WSLUC] 1979) and the 

Sublette County comprehensive plan (SCBC and SCPC 2003). In general, the 

ability of management agencies to achieve or maintain these goals/objectives 

determines significance (i.e., if plan goals/objectives can no longer be met on the 

JIDPA or for the planning area, then the potential for a significant impact exists). 
4-2 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

For some resources, additional impact significance criteria are provided (e.g., for 

air resources, various legally mandated thresholds/limits are identified). 

• Impacts. The level and duration of impacts anticipated to occur as a result of the 

No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action, Alternatives A-G, and the Preferred 

Alternative are described. It is assumed that BLM-identified and 

Operator-committed practices would be implemented to avoid or minimize adverse 

impacts (see Chapter 2, and Appendices A and B). 

• Cumulative Impacts. These are impacts that result from the incremental impacts of 

an action added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, 

regardless of who is responsible for such actions. CIAAs for each resource are 

identified in Table 3.2 and existing disturbance/conditions in these areas are 

discussed in Chapter 3. Cumulative impact assessment includes past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable development (RFD). RFD for this project includes 

development that has been analyzed and approved under NEPA, including past 

development in Jonah Field, existing and approved developments in the Pinedale 

Anticline, and others, as appropriate, as well as other likely surface disturbance 

(e.g., South Piney Project). 

• Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. These are impacts that cannot be completely 

mitigated. 

Mitigation and other environmental protection measures are identified across alternatives in 

Chapter 2. Detailed descriptions of these measures are provided in Appendix A (BLM Standards), 

and Appendix B (Operator-committed practices). It is assumed that the application of identified 

mitigation and protection measures would reduce impact levels; however, the efficacy of many 

mitigations is unknown. Therefore, no quantitative variation in impact levels based upon the 

application of variable mitigations is provided. 

Alternative-specific mitigation and monitoring measures for the Preferred Alternative are identified 

in Section 2.14. It is assumed that these measures would impart some level of impact reduction to 

various resources. 

Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources and short-term use of the environment 

versus long-term productivity are discussed in separate sections following the discussions of 

specific resources (Sections 4.8 and 4.9, respectively). 

Considerable natural gas development has already occurred within the JIDPA as approved in past 

NEPA documents (BLM 1998b, 2000b), and impacts from this past development would continue 

for approximately 63 years without any further development authorizations. Most impacts 

associated with this project, therefore, would involve increases in the magnitude and/or duration of 

impacts previously described in past NEPA documents (BLM 1997a, 2000a). Additionally, 

preliminary research and monitoring results indicate significant adverse impacts to many area 

resources have already occurred with existing development and mitigation requirements. 

Therefore, BLM is proposing to increase on-site mitigation efforts with a particular focus on 

reclamation, and recommend initiation of CM as appropriate and consistent with BLM policy. All 

CM efforts would be voluntarily developed and proposed by the Operator, and following approval 

and authorization by BLM, would become commitments of the Operator. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-3 

For most resources, the quicker the project is implemented, the shorter the duration of impacts; 

therefore, pace of development may have the greatest effect on area resources. For example, the 

faster the gas is recovered, the sooner the area can be reclaimed. 

4.1 PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

4.1.1 Climate 

An assessment of project impacts to climate is beyond the scope of this analysis and is therefore 

not discussed further in this EIS. 

4.1.2 Air Quality 

Direct, indirect, and cumulative air quality impacts were analyzed to predict maximum potential 

near-field ambient air pollutant concentrations, as well as to determine maximum far-field 

ambient air pollutant concentrations, visibility (regional haze), and atmospheric deposition (acid 

rain) impacts. Maximum mid-field (regional community) visibility impacts were also 

determined, as were maximum in-field (within the JIDPA) concentration impacts. 

This air quality impact assessment is based on the best available engineering data and 

assumptions, meteorology data, and dispersion modeling procedures, as well as professional and 

scientific judgment. Assumptions representing most likely operating conditions were 

incorporated into the analysis whenever possible. For example, compression in the field was 

assumed to operate at 90% of fully permitted capacity. Other parameters for which no reliable 

most likely operating projections were available were assumed to occur at maximum proposed 

levels. For example, impact assessments for both the Proposed Action and alternatives assume 

that all proposed wells would be productive (no dry holes). 

Air pollution impacts are limited by state and federal regulations, standards, and implementation 

plans established under the Clean Air Act and administered by the applicable air quality 

regulatory agency--specifically, the WDEQ/AQD and the EPA. The States of Utah, Colorado, 

and Idaho have similar jurisdiction over potential air pollutant emissions sources in those states, 

which can have a cumulative impact when combined with WDEQ/AQD-regulated sources. The 

applicable air quality regulatory agencies have the primary authority and responsibility to review 

permit applications and to require emission permits, fees, and control devices prior to 

construction and/or operation. The U.S. Congress (through the Clean Air Act Section 116) also 

authorizes local, state, and tribal air quality regulatory agencies to establish air pollution control 

requirements of equal or greater stringency than federal requirements. Any proposed emissions 

source is required to undergo a permit review by applicable air quality regulatory agencies 

(including state, tribal, and/or EPA) before construction can begin. The agencies review the 

specific air pollutant emission sources proposed and, depending upon the magnitude of emissions 

and other factors, the air quality regulatory agencies may require additional site-specific air 

quality analysis and/or additional emission control measures (including a Best Available Control 

Technology [BACT] analysis and determination) to ensure protection of air quality. 

Under FLPMA and the Clean Air Act, BLM cannot authorize any activity that does not conform 

to all applicable local, state, tribal, and federal air quality laws, statutes, regulations, standards, 

and implementation plans. An extensive air quality impact assessment technical support 

document was prepared to analyze potential impacts from the development alternatives, as well as 

other reasonably foreseeable emission sources. The Jonah Infill Natural Gas Project Air Quality 
4-4 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Technical Support Document (TRC Environmental Corporation [TRC EC] 2004) provides 

additional detail on this air quality evaluation and is available for review at the PFO. 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) prescribe the following 

management goals/objectives associated with air quality: 

• to maintain and, where possible, enhance air quality levels; 

• to protect public health and safety and sensitive natural resources; 

• to within authority minimize emissions which may add to acid rain, cause 

violations of air quality standards, or reduce visibility; 

• to ensure that industries adhere to federal and state air quality standards; and 

• to consider the frequency of atmospheric inversions, meteorology, topography, 

present ambient air quality, significant deterioration limits, and applicable local, 

state, and federal laws when evaluating land use proposals and development 

issues. 

The significance criteria for potential air quality impacts include state and federally enforced 

legal requirements to ensure that air pollutant concentrations will remain within specific 

allowable levels, as well as adherence to the aforementioned RMP and land use plan goals and 

objectives. Legal requirements include the NAAQS and WAAQS, which set maximum limits for 

several air pollutants, and PSD Increments, which limit the incremental increase of certain air 

pollutants (including NO2, PM10, and SO2) above legally defined baseline concentration levels. 

These standards and increments have been presented in Table 3.7. 

Where legal limits have not been established, the BLM uses best available scientific information 

to identify thresholds of significant adverse impacts. Thresholds or levels of concern have been 

identified for Hazardous Air Pollution (HAP) exposure, incremental cancer risks, a "just 

noticeable change" in potential visibility impacts, and potential atmospheric deposition impacts. 

These thresholds or levels of concern are described later in this chapter. 

Air quality impacts from the project would occur from pollutants emitted during construction 

(due to potential surface disturbance by earth-moving equipment, vehicle traffic fugitive dust, 

well completion and testing, and drilling rig and vehicle engine exhaust) and production (natural 

gas well-site production equipment, reciprocating pipeline compression engine exhausts, vehicle 

traffic engine exhausts, and fugitive dust). Pollutants emitted from these activities include PM10, 

PM2.5, NOX, CO, SO2, VOC, and HAPs. O3 may develop from NOx and VOC emissions. Some 

amount of unquantified HAPs may also occur from water treatment. The amount of air pollutant 

emissions during construction and production may, in part, be controlled using the mitigation 

methods outlined in Section 2.14 and Appendices A and B. Impacts for the Preferred Alternative 

have been qualitatively estimated. Model runs to quantify the impacts of the Preferred 

Alternative will be conducted during the DEIS public comment period, and results will be 

reported in the FEIS. Actual air quality impacts from air pollutants would depend on the amount, 

duration, location, and emission characteristics of potential emissions sources, as well as 

meteorological conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, precipitation, relative humidity). 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-5 

The assessment of direct project impacts includes a near-field analysis and a far-field analysis, 

which were completed separately for selected project Alternatives. A summary of near-field and 

far-field impacts across alternatives is provided in Table 4.1. The near-field analysis assesses 

direct impacts in the immediate vicinity of project activities resulting from a single phase of 

construction or production reflective of maximum emissions. The far-field analysis assesses 

direct impacts from field-wide project emissions at in-field locations within the JIDPA, mid-field 

locations defined as Class II areas (Wyoming regional communities of Big Piney, Big Sandy, 

Boulder, Bronx, Cora, Daniel, Farson, LaBarge, Merna, and Pinedale), and at far-field locations 

(i.e., sensitive Class I and Class II areas) (see Map 3.1). The far-field analysis also assesses 

regional emission sources located within the model domain illustrated in Map 3.1 to predict 

cumulative impacts at in-field, mid-field, and far-field locations. While there may be additional 

gas processing and/or transmission requests due to development of this and other natural gas 

projects regionally and nationally, the potential effects of these developments are not quantified 

since they are speculative in nature and would likely require additional WDEQ/AQD permitting 

if eventually proposed. 

Near-field Analysis 

The near-field analysis utilized air pollutant emission rates calculated for all phases of 

construction and production based on WDEQ/AQD guidance in place at the time of the analysis. 

Impacts were assessed from the phase of single-well pad construction or field production that 

produced the highest emissions. Near-field analysis for PM10, PM2.5, and SO2 focused on 

localized impacts from construction and drilling activity at a single well pad and analyzed direct 

project impacts within the JIDPA using three different well pad configurations to predict 

maximum impacts that could result from a single pad. A 3.8-acre single-well pad configuration, a 

7-acre (two wells per pad) configuration, and a 10.0-acre (10 wells per pad) configuration were 

analyzed. These three scenarios reflect a range of wells per pad that may be developed under the 

alternatives. Direct project NOX, CO, and HAPs impacts were modeled for 3,100- and 1,250-well 

developments to reflect the maximum range of wells in production under any alternatives. NO2 

and CO impacts analyses included project emissions combined with existing JIDPA wells and 

non-project existing and proposed compression to better approximate a NAAQS analysis under 

WDEQ/AQD requirements. Detailed information regarding the modeling methodologies used in 

the near-field analysis is provided in the Jonah Infill Natural Gas Project Air Quality Technical 

Support Document (TRC EC 2004). 

O3 is formed through a chemical reaction between NOx, VOCs and ultraviolet light (sunlight) 

within the atmosphere. The EPA O3 formation screening methodology (Scheffe 1988) was used 

to estimate maximum ozone impacts from NOx and VOC emissions generated from the project. 

A representative 128-well section with a compressor station was used for this analysis. The 

maximum quantity of O3 that could be formed from this project in combination with other 

existing projects and potential future developments is expected to be less than NAAQS. Further 

detail on O3 is provided in the Air Quality Technical Support Document (TRC EC 2004). 

Acute (short-term) HAP impacts were modeled by assuming a person would not persistently 

remain at a location closer than 100 m (328 ft) from a well pad or a compressor station due to site 

operations safety considerations. Long-term (chronic) health-based HAP impacts and long-term 

(chronic) cancer risk were modeled using the realistic estimate of long-term exposure, which 

assumes a person would not be closer than the nearest residence on the New Fork River, located 8 

miles from a well pad or compressor site, when averaged over a lifetime. Two estimates of 
4-6 

Table 4.1 Summary of Primary Additional Air Quality Impacts Across Alternatives, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

IMPACT NO ACTION 

PROPOSED ACTION (3,100 Wells/16,200 Acres Disturbance) 

ALTERNATIVE A (3,100 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE B (3,100 Wells/No New Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE C (1,250 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE D (2,220 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE E (266 New Pads; 16 Total Pads/Section) 

ALTERNATIVE F (1,028 New Pads; 32 Total Pads/Section) 

ALTERNATIVE G (2,553 New Pads; 64 Total Pads/Section) 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (Specific Maximum Disturbance Allowances, Mitigation/Monitoring) 

AIR QUALITY Increased concentrations of No impact above existing Potential near-field Potential near-field Potential near-field Potential near-field Potential near-field Potential near-field Potential near-field Potential near-field Potential near-field concentrations criteria pollutants and levels; no new developments concentrations would be concentrations would be in concentrations would be concentrations would be in concentrations would be concentrations would be concentrations would be in concentrations would be would be in compliance with Hazardous Air Pollutants in compliance with compliance with applicable in compliance with compliance with applicable in compliance with in compliance with compliance with applicable in compliance with applicable NAAQS and WAAQS; (HAPs) applicable National NAAQS and WAAQS; applicable NAAQS and NAAQS and WAAQS; applicable NAAQS and applicable NAAQS and NAAQS and WAAQS; applicable NAAQS and potential far-field concentrations 

Ambient Air Quality potential far-field WAAQS; potential far- potential far-field WAAQS; potential far- WAAQS; potential far- potential far-field WAAQS; potential far- would be in compliance with Standards (NAAQS) and concentrations would be in field concentrations would concentrations would be in field concentrations would field concentrations would concentrations would be in field concentrations would applicable NAAQS and WAAQS; Wyoming Ambient Air compliance with applicable be in compliance with compliance with applicable be in compliance with be in compliance with compliance with applicable be in compliance with potential far-field concentrations Quality Standards NAAQS and WAAQS; applicable NAAQS and NAAQS and WAAQS; applicable NAAQS and applicable NAAQS and NAAQS and WAAQS; applicable NAAQS and would be below applicable PSD (WAAQS); potential far- potential far-field WAAQS; potential far- potential far-field WAAQS; potential far- WAAQS; potential far- potential far-field WAAQS; potential far- increments field concentrations would concentrations would be field concentrations would concentrations would be field concentrations would field concentrations would concentrations would be field concentrations would be in compliance with below applicable PSD be below applicable PSD below applicable PSD be below applicable PSD be below applicable PSD below applicable PSD be below applicable PSD applicable NAAQS and increments increments increments increments increments increments increments WAAQS; potential farfield concentrations would be below applicable Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) increments 

Visibility (regional haze) at No impact above existing Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts would be Class I and Sensitive Class II levels; no new developments would be greater than would be greater than 1.0 dv would be greater than would be greater than 1.0 dv would be greater than for would be similar to would be greater than 1.0 dv would be greater than for similar to Alternative G areas (far-field) 1.0 deciview (dv) for a for a maximum of 10 days 1.0 dv for a maximum of for a maximum of 8 days per Alternative C and less Alternative B for a maximum of 10 days Alternative A and less 

maximum of 10 days per per year; impairment at 11 days per year; year; impairment at Bridger than for Alternative A per year; impairment at than for Alternative F year; impairment at Bridger Wilderness only impairment at Bridger Wilderness only Bridger Wilderness only Bridger Wilderness only Wilderness only 

Visibility (regional haze) No impact above existing Maximum of 23 days per Maximum of 23 days per Maximum of 26 days per Maximum of 17 days per Impacts greater than Impacts similar to Maximum of 24 days per Impacts greater than Impacts similar to Alternative G (mid-field communities) levels; no new developments year >1.0 dv year >1.0 dv year >1.0 dv year >1.0 dv Alternative C but less than Alternative B year >1.0 dv Alternative A but less than 

Alternative A Alternative F 

Atmospheric/terrestrial No impact above existing Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts would be deposition levels; no new developments from sulfur deposition from sulfur deposition would from sulfur deposition from sulfur deposition would from sulfur deposition would be similar to from sulfur deposition would from sulfur deposition similar to Alternative G 

would be less than be less than DAT at all would be less than DAT at be less than DAT at all would be less than DAT Alternative B be less than DAT (i.e., 0.005 would be less than DAT Deposition Analysis analyzed areas; potential all analyzed areas; analyzed areas; potential (i.e., 0.005 kg/ha/yr) at all kg/ha/yr) at all analyzed (i.e., 0.005 kg/ha/yr) at all Threshold (DAT) at all project impacts from nitrogen potential project impacts project impacts from nitrogen analyzed areas; potential areas; potential project analyzed areas; potential analyzed areas; potential deposition would be greater from nitrogen deposition deposition would be greater project impacts from impacts from nitrogen project impacts from project impacts from than DAT (i.e., 0.005 would be greater than than DAT (i.e., 0.005 nitrogen deposition would deposition would be greater nitrogen deposition would nitrogen deposition would kg/ha/yr) at Bridger DAT kg/ha/yr) at Bridger be greater than for than DAT at Bridger be greater than for be greater than DAT (i.e., Wilderness (i.e., 0.005 kg/ha/yr) at Wilderness Alternative C but less than Wilderness Alternative A but less than 0.005 kg/ha/yr) at Bridger (0.035 kg/ha/yr), Popo Agie Bridger Wilderness (0.032 kg/ha/yr), Popo Agie for Alternative A (0.036 kg/ha/yr), Popo Agie for Alternative F Wilderness Wilderness (0.017 kg/ha/yr), (0.040 kg/ha/yr), Popo Wilderness Wilderness (0.035 kg/ha/yr), Popo and Wind River Roadless Agie Wilderness (0.015 kg/ha/yr), and Wind (0.017 kg/ha/yr), and Wind Agie Wilderness Area (0.010 kg/ha/yr), and (0.019 kg/ha/yr), and River Roadless Area River Roadless Area (0.017 kg/ha/yr), and less than DAT at all other Wind River Roadless Area (0.009 kg/ha/yr), and less (0.010 kg/ha/yr), and less Wind River Roadless Area analyzed areas (0.011 kg/ha/yr), and less than DAT at all other than DAT at all other (0.010 kg/ha/yr), and less than DAT at all other analyzed areas analyzed areas than DAT at all other analyzed areas analyzed areas 

Sensitive lake acid No impact above existing Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts would be neutralization capacity (ANC) levels; no new developments would be less than Level would be less than LAC; would be less than LAC; would be less than LAC; would be less than LAC; would be less than LAC; would be less than LAC; would be less than LAC; less than LAC; potential cumulative 

of Acceptable Change potential cumulative impacts potential cumulative potential cumulative impacts potential cumulative potential cumulative potential cumulative impacts potential cumulative impacts were less than LAC (LAC); potential would be less than LAC impacts would be less than would be less than LAC impacts would be less than impacts would be less than would be less than LAC impacts would be less than cumulative impacts would LAC LAC LAC LAC be less than LAC 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-7 

cancer risk were made: one that corresponds to a most-likely-exposure (MLE) over a national 

residency average of 9 years with some time spent away from home, and one reflective of the 

maximally-exposed-individual (MEI) residing at one location for a lifetime with no time spent 

away from home. The estimated cancer risks were calculated based on EPA (1997) unit risk 

factors for carcinogenic constituents. 

Near-field Impacts Summary 

The near-field modeling results for the range of project alternatives are provided in Appendix F, 

Tables F-1 through F-8. A discussion of these results by alternative is presented in later sections. 

Maximum predicted concentrations of all criteria pollutants were added to the ambient 

background pollutant concentrations for comparison to WAAQS and NAAQS. Predicted impacts 

of NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and O3 are presented in Appendix F Tables F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, 

F-5, and F-6, respectively. These tables also present the maximum impacts expressed as a 

percentage of the NAAQS and WAAQS. Predicted impacts from all project alternatives are less 

than the applicable WAAQS and NAAQS. Table F-2 also presents a comparison of the 

maximum predicted NO2 impacts resulting from production activities to the PSD Class II 

increment for NO2. Background NO2 concentrations are not added to modeled concentrations 

for comparison to the PSD Class II Increment for NO2. Predicted NO2 impacts from all project 

alternatives are less than the applicable PSD increment. A comparison of the maximum modeled 

PM10 and SO2 impacts to PSD Class II increments is not presented since these maximum impacts 

are associated with emissions from temporary construction activities and as such they do not 

consume PSD Class II increment (EPA 1990; WDEQ 1993). Production-related emissions of 

SO2 and PM10 that would be subject to PSD regulations were not modeled for this project. These 

impacts however, would be required by Wyoming and Federal regulations to be within the 

applicable PSD increment thresholds. All NEPA analysis comparisons to the PSD Class II 

increments are intended to evaluate a threshold of concern and do not represent a regulatory PSD 

Increment Consumption Analysis. 

Appendix F Tables F-7 and F-8 summarize modeled HAP impacts representative of all project 

alternatives. For all alternatives, the predicted acute and chronic (long-term) impacts would be 

below applicable health-based levels for non-cancer compounds. In addition, calculated cancer 

risks from formaldehyde and benzene are less than the level of acceptable cancer risk of 1 x 10-6 

(one in one million) for both the MLE and MEI scenarios except for MEI benzene scenario, 

which falls at the lower end of the 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6 cancer risk range. 

When reviewing predicted near-field impacts, it is important to understand that results reported 

reflect the maximum pollutant emission rates calculated for the field and the resulting 

concentrations are combined with monitored background ambient pollutant concentrations. 

Maximum monitored background air pollutant concentrations were assumed to occur throughout 

the LOP at all locations in the region year-round. In addition, the maximum predicted air quality 

impacts from JIDPA emission sources would occur in the vicinity of the JIDPA. Because 

impacts typically lessen with distance from an emissions source, impacts at locations more distant 

from the JIDPA would be less than the predicted maximum concentrations. Finally, total air 

pollutant concentrations for comparison to WAAQS and NAAQS were assumed to be the sum of 

the maximum modeled concentration and the maximum background concentration. This 

methodology is used for both long-term and short-term averaging periods. For short-term 

averaging periods, these maximum concentrations may occur under very different meteorological 

conditions and may not occur simultaneously. 
4-8 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Far-field Analysis 

The far-field analysis utilized the EPA CALMET/CALPUFF modeling system to predict 

maximum potential air quality impacts at mandatory federal PSD Class I and other sensitive PSD 

Class II areas, as well as designated acid-sensitive lakes within these areas. The analysis also 

included an assessment of maximum mid-field (regional community) visibility impacts and air 

quality impacts at in-field locations within the JIDPA. 

The air emissions modeled for project and non-project sources in the far-field analysis are 

presented in Appendix F Table F-9. Modeling scenarios were developed to approximate a range 

of project development including the Proposed Action, Alternative A, Alternative B, 

Alternative C, and Alternative F. These modeling scenarios assumed maximum field emissions 

that could potentially occur concurrently: during the final year of construction representing the 

maximum annual construction activity rate combined with nearly full-field production. For 

comparison purposes, an analysis of the JIDPA in full production, after all construction activities 

have ceased, is also presented for all alternatives with 3,100 producing wells. Maximum 

emissions scenarios include production emissions (producing well sites and ancillary equipment) 

and construction emissions (drilling rigs and pit flaring operations), both occurring continuously 

over the year. Three well development rates were analyzed--250 wells/year (WDR250), 150 

wells/year (WDR150), and 75 wells/year (WDR75). The WDR250 assumes simultaneous 

operation of 20 drilling rigs and 3 pit flares, WDR150 assumes simultaneous operation of 

12 drilling rigs and 2 pit flares, and WDR75 assumes simultaneous operation of 6 drilling rigs 

and 1 pit flare. Development rates considered both straight and directional drilling operations 

generally consistent with the various proposed project alternatives. The Proposed Action, 

Alternative A, and Alternative C scenarios assumed all straight-hole drilling. The Alternative B 

scenario assumed all directional drilling, and the Alternative F scenario assumes a combination of 

50% straight hole drilling and 50% directional drilling operations. The WDR250 scenario model 

approximates Alternative A and WDR250 approximates the Proposed Action. Details on 

modeling methodology are presented in the Air Quality Technical Support Document (TRC EC 

2004). 

Predicted pollutant concentrations were compared to applicable ambient air quality standards and 

to PSD Class I and Class II increments, and were used to assess potential impacts to AQRVs-­

visibility (regional haze) and acid deposition--at sensitive PSD Class I and II areas. Ambient 

background concentrations were added to modeled concentrations for comparison to ambient air 

quality standards. No ambient background was added to modeled concentrations for comparison 

to PSD Class I and II Increments. PSD Class I areas and sensitive Class II areas analyzed in the 

far-field analyses include the following: 

• Bridger Wilderness Area (Class I), 

• Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area (Class I), 

• Popo Agie Wilderness Area (Class II), 

• Wind River Roadless Area (Class II), 

• Grand Teton National Park (Class I), 

• Teton Wilderness Area (Class I) , 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-9 

• Yellowstone National Park (Class I), and 

• Washakie Wilderness Area (Class I). 

Because emissions sources under the Proposed Action and alternatives consist of many small 

sources spread out over a large area, discrete visible plumes are not likely to impact distant 

sensitive areas. However, visible plumes may be noticeable within the JIDPA from nearby travel 

routes and at nearby towns on occasion, especially during flaring upset conditions. Nonetheless, 

the potential for cumulative visibility impacts (increased regional haze) is a concern. 

Regional haze is caused by light scattering and light absorption by fine particles and gases. 

Potential changes to regional haze are calculated in terms of a perceptible "just noticeable change 

in visibility" when compared to background conditions, expressed in deciviews (dv). The BLM 

considers a 1.0-dv change to be a reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impact, although 

there are no applicable local, state, tribal, or federal regulatory visibility standards. Other federal 

agencies use a 0.5-dv change as a screening threshold for significance. The USFS and NPS 

compare direct project impacts to the 0.5-dv level, and those comparisons are included in the Air 

Quality Technical Support Document (TRC EC 2004). 

The NPS, USFS, and USFWS have published the Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related 

Values Workgroup (FLAG) Phase I Report (FLAG 2000) that prescribes a process for assessing 

impacts of new and existing sources on AQRVs, including visibility. The FLAG Report 

describes a cumulative impacts analysis of new growth sources (defined as PSD 

increment-consuming sources) on visibility. If predicted visibility impacts are above a visibility 

threshold of 1.0 dv for all days, factors such as magnitude of dv change, frequency, seasonal 

variations, and meteorological conditions may be considered when assessing the significance of 

predicted impacts. 

Potential changes in regional haze at PSD Class I and sensitive PSD Class II areas were estimated 

by comparing CALPUFF modeled impacts to background visibility conditions in Class I or 

sensitive Class II area. This comparison was performed using two different representations of 

background visibility conditions. One method used visibility values provided in the FLAG 

Report for each Class I area to represent natural background visibility. The second method used 

estimated background visibility values from an analysis of recent long-term monitored data 

(1988–2002) from the IMPROVE program. This analysis consisted of estimating visibility 

parameters for representative Class I areas corresponding to the monitoring period of record 

quarterly average of the 20% best visibility days. 

Potential changes to regional haze resulting from project source emissions were also estimated for 

nearby communities located in PSD Class II areas (mid-field). Model-predicted concentration 

impacts within these communities were used to estimate potential impacts to visibility. 

Background visibility data monitored at the Class I Bridger Wilderness Area, an area more 

pristine than populated residential areas, were used to estimate potential visibility impairment in 

these residential areas. These data were used because no visibility monitoring has been 

conducted in populated areas of the region. Since visibility impacts are calculated as percent 

increases of modeled concentrations above background values, the use of a more pristine 

background results in an overestimate of potential visibility impacts. 
4-10 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Seven lakes within the sensitive PSD Class I and Class II Wilderness Areas were identified as 

being sensitive to acid deposition. These lakes are those for which the most recent and complete 

data are available and include the following: 

• Deep Lake in the Bridger Wilderness Area, 

• Black Joe Lake in the Bridger Wilderness Area, 

• Hobbs Lake in the Bridger Wilderness Area, 

• Lazy Boy Lake in the Bridger Wilderness Area, 

• Upper Frozen Lake in the Bridger Wilderness Area, 

• Ross Lake in the Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area, and 

• Lower Saddlebag Lake in the Popo Agie Wilderness Area. 

The NPS (2001) has identified Deposition Analysis Thresholds (DATs) for total nitrogen (N) and 

sulfur (S) deposition in the western U.S. as 0.005 kilograms per hectare per year (kg/ha-year) for 

both N and S. The DAT is used as an analysis threshold for evaluating potential impacts from 

project-related emissions. The USFS (Fox et al. 1989) has defined thresholds below which no 

adverse impacts from acid deposition are likely; however, the USFS has concerns that these 

deposition thresholds are set too high. These thresholds (herein referred to as levels of concern), 

defined as 5 kg/ha-yr for S and 3 kg/ha-yr for N, are used for comparison of potential impacts 

from cumulative source emissions. The USFS Rocky Mountain Region has also developed a 

screening method (USFS 2000) that identifies a Limit of Acceptable Change (LAC) in lake 

chemistry. The LACs are 1) no more than a 10% change in acid-neutralizing capacity (ANC) for 

lakes with an existing ANC of 25 microequivalents per liter (μeq/l) or greater and 2) no more 

than a 1-μeq/l change for extremely acid-sensitive lakes where the existing ANC is below 

25 μeq/l. Of the seven lakes identified by the USFS as acid-sensitive, Upper Frozen and Lazy 

Boy lakes are considered extremely acid-sensitive. 

Far-field Impacts Summary 

An overall summary of maximum direct project far-field impacts by alternative is provided in 

Table 4.1. Pollutant concentrations under all project alternatives would be below applicable 

ambient air quality standards and PSD increments (see Appendix F, Tables F-10 through F-16). 

Direct project NO2 and PM10 concentrations may exceed the proposed PSD Class I SILs at the 

Bridger Wilderness Area for various development alternatives, but would be below the SILs at all 

other sensitive areas. 

Direct project visibility impacts from all alternatives were predicted to be above "just noticeable 

visibility changes" (1.0-dv) threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area, using both the FLAG and 

IMPROVE background visibility data (see Appendix F, Tables F-17 and F-18). There were no 

predicted direct project impacts above the 1.0-dv threshold at any other analyzed sensitive area. 

Direct project source emissions under all project alternatives would not result in an increase in 

ANC above any LAC at the acid-sensitive lakes (see Appendix F, Tables F-19 through F-21). 

The predicted maximum S deposition impacts from all alternatives are below the 0.005 kg/ha-yr 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-11 

DAT at all sensitive PSD Class I and Class II areas. Under various alternatives, the maximum 

predicted N impacts are above the 0.005 kg/ha-yr DAT at the Bridger Wilderness Area, Popo 

Agie Wilderness Area, and Wind River Roadless Area, and are below the DAT at all other 

sensitive areas. 

The number of days of direct project visibility impacts within the mid-field (Wyoming regional 

communities) were predicted to be above the "just noticeable visibility change" (1.0-dv) threshold 

as shown in Appendix F, Tables F-22 and F-23. 

Estimated direct project impacts at in-field locations are below the applicable ambient air quality 

standards (see Appendix F, Table 2-24). 

A presentation of the aforementioned results for each alternative and for cumulative source 

impacts is presented below. 

4.1.2.1 No Action Alternative 

Near-field Impacts 

No project-related near-field impacts beyond currently approved levels would occur in the JIDPA 

under the No Action Alternative. As a result, near-field air quality impacts would reflect those 

analyzed in the Jonah Field II EIS (BLM 1997a, 1998a), and air quality would remain similar to 

existing levels. 

Far-field Impacts 

No new project-related development would occur under the No Action Alternative; therefore, no 

far-field impacts would occur beyond those analyzed in the Jonah Field II EIS (BLM 1997a, 

1998a). Air quality would remain similar to existing levels. 

4.1.2.2 Proposed Action 

Near-field Impacts 

The construction or production phase of the Proposed Action that would produce maximum 

emissions was identified by pollutant and analyzed. The maximum emissions configurations 

representative of the Proposed Action modeled were: PM10 and PM2.5 using a 3.8-acre pad; SO2 

using straight hole drilling; and NO2, CO, and HAP using 3,100 wells developed in the field at 

128 wells per section (5.0-acre surface well spacing). These configurations result in the 

maximum predicted impacts for the Proposed Action. 

The maximum predicted impacts of NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and O3 and comparison of these 

impacts to WAAQS and NAAQS are presented in Appendix F Tables F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5, and 

F-6, respectively. Appendix F Table F-2 also presents a comparison of maximum predicted NO2 

impacts resulting from production activities to the PSD Class II increment for NO2. Predicted 

impacts from Proposed Action source emissions are less than the applicable WAAQS and 

NAAQS and PSD increments. 
4-12 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Appendix F Tables F-7 and F-8 summarize modeled HAP impacts based on emissions 

representative of the Proposed Action. 

Far-field Impacts 

Direct impacts from the Proposed Action maximum emissions scenario (the last year of field 

construction and the full field in production) were modeled as set forth in the Jonah Infill Natural 

Gas Project Air Quality Technical Support Document (TRC EC 2004). The emissions modeled 

are provided in Appendix F, Table F-1. Appendix F Tables F-10, F-11, F-12, and F-13 present 

the maximum predicted impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, respectively, at the analyzed PSD 

Class I and sensitive PSD Class II areas. Appendix F Tables F-14, F-15, and F-16 present the 

maximum modeled Proposed Action impacts of NO2, SO2, and PM10, respectively, for 

comparison to PSD SILs and increments. As shown in these tables, pollutant concentrations 

resulting from Proposed Action source emissions would be below the applicable ambient air 

quality standards and PSD increments for both emissions scenarios. Potential NO2 and PM10 

concentrations may exceed the proposed PSD Class I SILs at the Bridger Wilderness Area but 

would be below the significance levels at all other sensitive areas. 

Direct visibility impacts from the Proposed Action were predicted to be above the "just noticeable 

visibility change" (1.0-dv) threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area, using both the FLAG and 

IMPROVE background visibility data. The visibility impacts resulting from direct project source 

emissions are provided in Appendix F Table F-17 for the FLAG background visibility data, and 

in Table F-18 for the IMPROVE background visibility data. Visibility impacts at all other 

sensitive areas were predicted to be below the "just noticeable visibility change" threshold for all 

days. 

Direct project source emissions from the Proposed Action would not result in an increase in ANC 

above any LAC at the acid-sensitive lakes (Appendix F Table F-19). The predicted maximum S 

deposition impacts (Appendix F Table F-20) from the Proposed Action are below the 0.005 

kg/ha-yr DAT at all sensitive PSD Class I and Class II areas. For the maximum emissions 

scenario, maximum N impacts (Appendix F Table F-21) are predicted to be above the 0.005 

kg/ha-yr threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area, Popo Agie Wilderness Area, and Wind River 

Roadless Area, and below the DAT at all other sensitive areas. The maximum predicted N 

deposition impacts from the full field in production emissions scenario are above the DAT at the 

Bridger Wilderness Area and below the DAT at all other sensitive areas. The exceedances of this 

threshold trigger a management concern but are not necessarily indicative of an adverse impact 

(NPS 2004). 

Mid-field Impacts 

Maximum visibility impacts and the estimated number of days predicted to be above the "just 

noticeable visibility change" (1.0-dv) threshold at nearby Wyoming communities from the 

Proposed Action source emissions scenarios are shown in Appendix F Table F-22 for the FLAG 

visibility data and Table F-23 for the IMPROVE visibility data. 

In-field Impacts 

Appendix F Table F-24 presents the maximum impacts from all Proposed Action source 

emissions compared to ambient air quality standards estimated to occur within the JIDPA. These 

project-related impacts are below applicable ambient air quality standards. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-13 

4.1.2.3 Alternative A 

Near-field Impacts 

The construction or production phase of the Alternative A scenarios that would produce 

maximum emissions was identified by pollutant and analyzed. The maximum emissions 

configurations representative of Alternative A modeled were: PM10 and PM2.5 using a 3.8-acre 

pad; SO2 using straight hole drilling; and NO2, CO, and HAP using 3,100 wells developed in the 

field at 128 wells per section (5.0-acre surface well spacing). These configurations result in the 

maximum predicted impacts for Alternative A. 

The predicted impacts of NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and O3 and comparisons of these impacts 

to WAAQS and NAAQS are presented in Appendix F Tables F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5, and F-6, 

respectively. Appendix F Table F-2 also presents a comparison of the maximum predicted NO2 

impacts resulting from production activities to the PSD Class II increment for NO2. Predicted 

impacts from Alternative A source emissions are less than the applicable WAAQS and NAAQS 

and PSD increments. 

Appendix F Table F-8 and F-9 summarize modeled HAP impacts based on emissions from 

Alternative A sources. 

Far-field Impacts 

Direct project concentration impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 from Alternative A were 

estimated at each of the eight Class I and sensitive Class II areas. The emissions modeled for 

Alternative A scenarios are provided in Appendix F Table F-9. Appendix F Tables F-10, F-11, 

F-12, and F-13 present the maximum predicted impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, 

respectively, at the analyzed PSD Class I and sensitive PSD Class II areas. Appendix F 

Tables F-14, F-15, and F-16 present the maximum modeled Alternative A concentration impacts 

of NO2, SO2, and PM10, respectively, for comparison to PSD SILs and increments. As shown in 

these tables, pollutant concentrations resulting from Alternative A source emissions scenarios are 

less than the applicable ambient air quality standards and PSD increments for both emissions 

scenarios. Potential NO2 and PM10 concentrations may exceed the proposed PSD Class I SILs at 

the Bridger Wilderness Area but would be below the significance levels at all other sensitive 

areas. 

Direct visibility impacts from Alternative A source emissions are predicted to be above the "just 

noticeable visibility change" (1.0-dv) threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area for each of the 

three development rate alternatives, using both the FLAG and IMPROVE background visibility 

data. The visibility impacts resulting from direct project source emissions are provided in 

Appendix F Table F-17 for the FLAG background visibility data and in Table F-18 for the 

IMPROVE background visibility data. 

Direct project source emissions from Alternative A would not result in an increase in ANC above 

any LAC at the acid-sensitive lakes (Appendix F Table F-19). The predicted maximum 

S deposition impacts (Appendix F Table F-20) from Alternative A sources are below the 

0.005 kg/ha-yr DAT at all sensitive PSD Class I and Class II areas. For the development rates 

WDR250 and WDR150, the predicted N impacts (Appendix F Table F-21) are above the 0.005 

kg/ha-yr threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area, Popo Agie Wilderness Area, and Wind River 

Roadless Area, and below the DAT at all other sensitive areas. N impacts from the WDR75 
4-14 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

development rate are above the DAT at the Bridger Wilderness and Popo Agie Wilderness and 

below the DAT at all other sensitive areas. 

Mid-field Impacts 

The maximum visibility impacts (dv) and estimated number of days predicted to be above the 

"just noticeable visibility change" (1.0-dv) threshold at nearby Wyoming towns for Alternative A 

scenarios are shown in Appendix F Tables F-22 for the FLAG visibility data and F-23 for the 

IMPROVE visibility data. 

In-field Impacts 

Model predicted concentrations of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, resulting from Alternative A 

source emissions at locations within the JIDPA are shown in Appendix F Table F-24. The 

estimated project-related impacts are less than applicable ambient air quality standards. 

4.1.2.4 Alternative B 

Near-field Impacts 

The construction or production phase of Alternative B scenarios that would produce maximum 

emissions were identified by pollutant and analyzed. The maximum emissions configurations 

representative of Alternative B modeled were: PM10 and PM2.5 using a 10.0-acre pad; SO2 using 

directional drilling; and NO2, CO, and HAP using 3,100 wells developed in the field at 16 well 

pads per section (40-acre surface well spacing). These configurations result in the maximum 

predicted impacts for Alternative B. 

Direct project impacts of NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and O3 and comparison of these impacts to 

WAAQS and NAAQS are presented in Appendix F Tables F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5, and F-6, 

respectively. Appendix F Table F-2 also presents a comparison of the maximum predicted NO2 

impacts resulting from production activities to the PSD Class II increment for NO2. Predicted 

impacts from Alternative B source emissions are less than applicable WAAQS and NAAQS and 

PSD increments. 

Appendix F Tables F-7 and F-8 summarize modeled HAP impacts based on emissions from 

Alternative B sources. 

Far-field Impacts 

Direct project concentration impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 were estimated at each of the 

eight Class I and sensitive Class II areas. The emissions modeled for Alternative B scenarios are 

provided in Appendix F Table F-9. Appendix F Tables F-10, F-11, F-12, and F-13 present the 

maximum predicted concentration impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, respectively, at the 

analyzed PSD Class I and sensitive PSD Class II areas. Appendix F Tables F-14, F-15, and F-16 

present the maximum modeled Alternative B impacts of NO2, SO2, and PM10, respectively, for 

comparison to PSD SILs and increments. As shown in these tables, pollutant concentrations 

resulting from all Alternative B source emissions scenarios would be below applicable ambient 

air quality standards and PSD increments for both emissions scenarios. Potential NO2 and PM10 

concentrations may exceed proposed PSD Class I SILs at the Bridger Wilderness Area but would 

be below the significance levels at all other sensitive areas. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-15 

Direct visibility impacts from Alternative B source emissions are predicted to be above the "just 

noticeable visibility change" (1.0-dv) threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area for each 

development rate using both the FLAG and IMPROVE background visibility data. A summary 

of these impacts is provided in Appendix F Tables F-17 (FLAG) and F-18 (IMPROVE). 

Visibility impacts at all other sensitive areas were predicted to be below the "just noticeable 

visibility change" threshold for all days. 

Direct project source emissions from Alternative B would not result in an increase in ANC above 

any LAC at the acid-sensitive lakes (Appendix F Table F-19). Predicted maximum S deposition 

impacts (Appendix F Table F-20) from Alternative B sources are below the 0.005 kg/ha-yr DAT 

at all sensitive PSD Class I and Class II areas. For the well development rates WDR250 and 

WDR150, the predicted N impacts (Appendix F Table F-21) are above the 0.005 kg/ha-yr 

threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area, Popo Agie Wilderness Area, and Wind River Roadless 

Area, and below the DAT at all other sensitive areas. N impacts from the WDR75 development 

rate are above the DAT at the Bridger Wilderness and Popo Agie Wilderness and below the DAT 

at all other sensitive areas. 

Mid-field Impacts 

The maximum visibility impacts (dv) and estimated number of days predicted to be above the 

"just noticeable visibility change" (1.0-dv) threshold at nearby Wyoming towns from Alternative 

B scenarios are shown in Appendix F Table F-22 (FLAG) and F-23 (IMPROVE). 

In-field Impacts 

Model predicted concentrations of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 resulting from Alternative B source 

emissions at locations within the JIDPA are shown in Appendix F Table F-24. The estimated 

project-related impacts are below applicable ambient air quality standards. 

4.1.2.5 Alternative C 

Near-field Impacts 

The construction or production phase of the Alternative C scenarios that would produce 

maximum emissions were identified by pollutant and analyzed. The maximum emissions 

configurations representative of Alternative C modeled were: PM10 and PM2.5 using a 3.8-acre 

pad; SO2 using straight drilling; and NO2, CO, and HAP using 1,250 wells developed in the field 

at 32 well pads per section (20.0-acre surface well spacing). These configurations result in the 

maximum predicted impacts for Alternative C. 

Direct project impacts of NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and O3 and comparison of these impacts to 

WAAQS and NAAQS are presented in Appendix F Tables F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5, and F-6, 

respectively. Appendix F Table F-2 also presents a comparison of the maximum predicted NO2 

impacts resulting from production activities to the PSD Class II increment for NO2. Predicted 

impacts from Alternative C source emissions are less than the applicable WAAQS and NAAQS 

standards and PSD increments. 

Appendix F Tables F-7 and F-8 summarize modeled HAP impacts based on emissions from 

Alternative C sources. 
4-16 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Far-field Impacts 

Direct project concentration impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 were estimated at each of the 

eight Class I and sensitive Class II areas. The emissions modeled for Alternative C scenarios are 

provided in Appendix F Table F-9. Appendix F Tables F-10, F-11, F-12, and F-13 present the 

maximum predicted impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5, respectively, at the analyzed PSD 

Class I and sensitive PSD Class II areas. Appendix F Table F-14, F-15, and F-16 present the 

maximum modeled Alternative C impacts of NO2, SO2, and PM10, respectively, for comparison to 

PSD SILs and increments. As shown in these tables, pollutant concentrations resulting from all 

Alternative C source emissions scenarios would be below applicable ambient air quality standards 

and PSD increments for both emissions scenarios. Potential NO2 and PM10 concentrations may 

exceed the proposed PSD Class I SILs at the Bridger Wilderness Area but would be below the 

significance levels at all other sensitive areas. 

Direct visibility impacts from Alternative C source emissions are predicted to be above the "just 

noticeable visibility change" (1.0-dv) threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area for each 

development rate using both the FLAG and IMPROVE background visibility data. A summary 

of these impacts is provided in Appendix F Tables F-17 (FLAG) and F-18 (IMPROVE). 

Visibility impacts at all other sensitive areas were predicted to be below the "just noticeable 

visibility change" threshold for all days. 

Direct project source emissions would not result in an increase in ANC above any LAC at the 

acid-sensitive lakes (Appendix F Table F-19). The predicted maximum S deposition impacts 

(Appendix F Table F-20) from Alternative C sources are below the 0.005 kg/ha-yr DAT at all 

sensitive PSD Class I and Class II areas. For the well development rates WDR250 and WDR150, 

the predicted N impacts (Appendix F Table F-21) are above the 0.005 kg/ha-yr threshold at the 

Bridger Wilderness Area, Popo Agie Wilderness Area, and Wind River Roadless Area, and below 

the DAT at all other sensitive areas. N impacts from the WDR75 development rate are above the 

DAT at the Bridger Wilderness and Popo Agie Wilderness and below the DAT at all other 

sensitive areas. 

Mid-field Impacts 

The maximum visibility impacts (dv) and estimated number of days predicted to be above the 

"just noticeable visibility change" (1.0-dv) threshold at nearby Wyoming towns from Alternative 

C scenarios are shown in Appendix F Tables F-22 (FLAG) and F-23 (IMPROVE). 

In-field Impacts 

Model predicted concentrations of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 resulting from Alternative C source 

emissions at locations within the JIDPA are shown in Appendix F Table F-24. The estimated 

project-related impacts are below applicable ambient air quality standards. 

4.1.2.6 Alternative D 

Near-field Impacts 

The construction or production phase of the Alternative D scenarios that would produce 

maximum emissions was identified by pollutant and analyzed. The maximum emissions 

configurations representative of Alternative D modeled were: PM10 and PM2.5 using a 3.8-acre 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-17 

pad; SO2 using straight hole drilling; and NO2, CO, and HAP using 2,200 wells developed in the 

field at 64 well pads per section (10.0-acre surface well spacing). These configurations result in 

the maximum predicted impacts for Alternative D. 

Direct project impacts of NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and O3 and comparison of these impacts to 

WAAQS and NAAQS are presented in Appendix F Tables F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5, and F-6, 

respectively. Appendix F Table F-2 also presents a comparison of the maximum predicted NO2 

impacts resulting from production activities to the PSD Class II increment for NO2. Predicted 

impacts from Alternative D source emissions are less than the applicable WAAQS and NAAQS 

and PSD increments. 

Appendix F Tables F-7 and F-8 summarize modeled HAP impacts based on emissions from 

Alternative D sources. 

Far-field Impacts 

Direct project concentration impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 would be comparable to those 

estimated for Alternative A and Alternative C (see Sections 4.1.2.3 and 4.1.2.5, respectively, and 

Appendix F Tables F-10 through F-16). The estimated project-related impacts at the Class I and 

sensitive Class II areas are below the applicable ambient air quality standards and PSD 

increments. Potential NO2 and PM10 concentrations may exceed the proposed PSD Class I SILs 

at the Bridger Wilderness Area but would be below the significance levels at all other sensitive 

areas. 

Direct visibility impacts from Alternative D source emissions are predicted to be above the "just 

noticeable visibility change" (1.0-dv) threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area for each 

development rate using both the FLAG and IMPROVE background visibility data. Estimated 

impacts would be slightly less than those presented for Alternative A scenarios but above the 

impacts presented for Alternative C scenarios (Appendix F Table F-17 and F-18). Visibility 

impacts at all other sensitive areas are predicted to be below the "just noticeable visibility 

change" threshold for all days. 

Direct project source emissions would not result in an increase in ANC above any LAC at the 

acid-sensitive lakes (Appendix F Table F-19). The predicted maximum S deposition impacts 

(Appendix F Table F-20) from Alternative D sources would be below the 0.005 kg/ha-yr DAT at 

all sensitive PSD Class I and Class II areas. The predicted N deposition impacts (Appendix F 

Table F-21) would be similar to those presented for Alternative A and Alternative C scenarios 

(see Sections 4.1.2.3 and 4.1.2.5, respectively), which predict impacts would be above the 0.005 

kg/ha-yr threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area, Popo Agie Wilderness Area, and Wind River 

Roadless Area. 

Mid-field Impacts 

Maximum visibility impacts at nearby Wyoming towns from Alternative D scenarios are 

predicted to be slightly less than those of Alternative A scenarios but above those presented for 

Alternative C scenarios, (see Sections 4.1.2.3 and 4.1.2.5, respectively, and Appendix F 

Tables F-22 and F-23). 
4-18 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

In-field Impacts 

Predicted concentrations of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 resulting from Alternative D source 

emissions at locations within the JIDPA would be between those presented for Alternative A and 

Alternative C (see Sections 4.1.2.3 and 4.1.2.5, respectively, and Appendix F Table F-24). 

Estimated project-related impacts from Alternative D sources are predicted to be below 

applicable ambient air quality standards. 

4.1.2.7 Alternative E 

Near-field Impacts 

The construction or production phase of Alternative E scenarios that would produce maximum 

emissions was identified by pollutant and analyzed. The maximum emissions configurations 

representative of Alternative E modeled were: PM10 and PM2.5 using a 10.0-acre pad; SO2 using 

directional drilling; and NO2, CO, and HAP using 3,100 wells developed in the field at 40 well 

pads per section (16-acre surface well spacing). These configurations result in the maximum 

predicted impacts for Alternative E. 

Direct project impacts of NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and O3 and comparison of these impacts to 

WAAQS and NAAQS are presented in Appendix F Tables F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5, and F-6, 

respectively. Appendix F Table F-2 also presents a comparison of the maximum predicted NO2 

impacts resulting from production activities to the PSD Class II increment for NO2. Predicted 

impacts from Alternative E source emissions are less than the applicable WAAQS and NAAQS 

and PSD increments. 

Appendix F Tables F-7 and F-8 summarize modeled HAP impacts based on emissions from 

Alternative E sources. 

Far-field Impacts 

Direct project concentration impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 would be comparable to those 

estimated for Alternative B (see Section 4.1.2.4, and Appendix F Tables F-10-F-16). Estimated 

project-related impacts at the Class I and sensitive Class II areas are below the applicable ambient 

air quality standards and PSD increments. Potential NO2 and PM10 concentrations may exceed 

the proposed PSD Class I SILs at the Bridger Wilderness Area but would be below the 

significance levels at all other sensitive areas. 

Direct visibility impacts from Alternative E source emissions are predicted to be above the "just 

noticeable visibility change" (1.0-dv) threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area for each 

development rate using both the FLAG and IMPROVE background visibility data. Estimated 

impacts would be slightly less than those presented for Alternative B scenarios (Appendix F 

Tables F-17 and F-18). Visibility impacts at all other sensitive areas are predicted to be below the 

"just noticeable visibility change" threshold for all days. 

Direct project source emissions would not result in an increase in ANC above any LAC at the 

acid-sensitive lakes (Appendix F Table F-19). The predicted maximum S deposition impacts 

(Appendix F Table F-20) from Alternative E sources would be below the 0.005 kg/ha-yr DAT at 

all sensitive PSD Class I and Class II areas. Predicted N deposition impacts (Appendix F Table 

F-21) would be similar to those presented for Alternative B (see Section 4.1.2.4), which predict 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-19 

impacts would be above the 0.005 kg/ha-yr threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area, Popo Agie 

Wilderness Area, and Wind River Roadless Area. 

Mid-field Impacts 

Maximum visibility impacts at nearby Wyoming towns from Alternative E scenarios are 

predicted to be slightly lower than those of Alternative B scenarios (see Section 4.1.2.4 and 

Appendix F Table F-22 and F-23). 

In-field Impacts 

Predicted concentrations of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 resulting from Alternative E source 

emissions at locations within the JIDPA would be similar to those presented for Alternative B 

(see Section 4.1.2.4 and Appendix F Table F-24). The estimated project-related impacts from 

Alternative E sources are predicted to be below applicable ambient air quality standards. 

4.1.2.8 Alternative F 

Near-field Impacts 

The construction or production phase of Alternative F scenarios that would produce maximum 

emissions was identified by pollutant and analyzed. The maximum emission configurations 

representative of Alternative F modeled were: PM10 and PM2.5 using a 7.0-acre pad; SO2 using 

directional drilling; and NO2, CO, and HAP using 3,100 well pads developed in the field at 32 

well pads per section (20.0-acre surface well spacing). These configurations result in the 

maximum predicted impacts for Alternative F. 

Direct project impacts of NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and O3 and a comparison of these impacts 

to WAAQS and NAAQS are presented in Appendix F Tables F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5, and F-6, 

respectively. Appendix F Table F-2 also presents a comparison of the maximum predicted NO2 

impacts resulting from production activities to the PSD Class II increment for NO2. Predicted 

impacts from Alternative F source emissions would be below the applicable WAAQS and 

NAAQS and PSD increments. 

Appendix F Tables F-7 and F-8 summarize modeled HAP impacts based on emissions from 

Alternative F sources. 

Far-field Impacts 

Direct project concentration impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 were estimated at each of the 

eight Class I and sensitive Class II areas. The emissions modeled for Alternative F scenarios are 

provided in Appendix F Table F-9. Appendix F Tables F-10, F-11, F-12, and F-13 present the 

maximum predicted impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, respectively, at the analyzed PSD 

Class I and sensitive PSD Class II areas. Appendix F Table F-14, F-15, and F-16 present the 

maximum modeled Alternative F impacts of NO2, SO2, and PM10, respectively, for comparison to 

PSD SILs and increments. As shown in these tables, pollutant concentrations resulting from all 

Alternative F source emissions scenarios would be below applicable ambient air quality standards 

and PSD increments for both emissions scenarios. Potential NO2 and PM10 concentrations may 

exceed the proposed PSD Class I SILs at the Bridger Wilderness Area but would be below the 

significance levels at all other sensitive areas. 
4-20 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Direct visibility impacts from Alternative F source emissions are predicted to be above the "just 

noticeable visibility change" (1.0-dv) threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area for each 

development rate using both the FLAG and IMPROVE background visibility data. A summary 

of these impacts is provided in Appendix F Tables F-17 (FLAG) and F-18 (IMPROVE). 

Visibility impacts at all other sensitive areas were predicted to be below the "just noticeable 

visibility change" threshold for all days. 

Direct project source emissions from Alternative F would not result in an increase in ANC above 

any LAC at the acid-sensitive lakes (Appendix F Table F-19). Predicted maximum S deposition 

impacts (Appendix F Table F-20) from Alternative F sources are below the 0.005 kg/ha-yr DAT 

at all sensitive PSD Class I and Class II areas. For well development rates WDR250 and 

WDR150, predicted N impacts (Appendix F Table F-21) are above the 0.005 kg/ha-yr threshold 

at the Bridger Wilderness Area, Popo Agie Wilderness Area, and Wind River Roadless Area, and 

below the DAT at all other sensitive areas. N impacts from the WDR75 development rate are 

above the DAT at the Bridger Wilderness and Popo Agie Wilderness and below the DAT at all 

other sensitive areas. 

Mid-field Impacts 

Maximum visibility impacts (dv) and the estimated number of days predicted to be above the 

"just noticeable visibility change" (1.0-dv) threshold at nearby Wyoming towns from 

Alternative F scenarios are shown in Appendix F Table F-22 (FLAG) and Table F-23 

(IMPROVE). 

In-field Impacts 

Model predicted concentrations of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 resulting from Alternative F source 

emissions at locations within the JIDPA are shown in Appendix F Table F-24. The estimated 

project-related impacts are below applicable ambient air quality standards. 

4.1.2.9 Alternative G 

Near-field Impacts 

The construction or production phase of the Alternative G scenarios that would produce 

maximum emissions was identified by pollutant and analyzed. The maximum emissions 

configurations representative of Alternative G modeled were: PM10 and PM2.5 using a 3.8-acre 

pad; SO2 using directional drilling; and NO2, CO, and HAP using 3,100 wells developed in the 

field at 64 well pads per section (10.0-acre surface well spacing). These configurations result in 

the maximum predicted impacts for Alternative G. 

Direct project impacts of NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and O3 and comparison of these impacts to 

WAAQS and NAAQS are presented in Appendix F Tables F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5, and F-6, 

respectively. Appendix F Table F-2 also presents a comparison of the maximum predicted NO2 

impacts resulting from production activities to the PSD Class II increment for NO2. Predicted 

impacts from Alternative G source emissions are less than the applicable WAAQS and NAAQS 

and PSD increments. 

Appendix F Tables F-7 and F-8 summarize modeled HAP impacts based on emissions from 

Alternative G sources. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-21 

Far-field Impacts 

Direct project concentration impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 would be comparable to those 

estimated for Alternative A and Alternative C (see Sections 4.1.2.3 and 4.1.2.5, respectively, and 

Appendix F Tables F-10-F-16). The estimated project-related impacts at Class I and sensitive 

Class II areas are well below the applicable ambient air quality standards and PSD increments. 

Potential NO2 and PM10 concentrations may exceed the proposed PSD Class I SILs at the Bridger 

Wilderness Area but would be below the significance levels at all other sensitive areas. 

Direct visibility impacts from Alternative G source emissions are predicted to be above the "just 

noticeable visibility change" (1.0-dv) threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area for each 

development rate using both the FLAG and IMPROVE background visibility data. Estimated 

impacts would be slightly less than those presented for Alternative A scenarios but above the 

impacts presented for Alternative C scenarios (Appendix F Table F-17 and F-18). Visibility 

impacts at all other sensitive areas are predicted to be below the "just noticeable visibility 

change" threshold for all days. 

Direct project source emissions would not result in an increase in ANC above any LAC at the 

acid-sensitive lakes (Appendix F Table F-19). Predicted maximum S deposition impacts 

(Appendix F Table F-20) from Alternative G sources would be below the 0.005 kg/ha-yr DAT at 

all sensitive PSD Class I and Class II areas. Predicted N deposition impacts (Appendix F Table 

F-21) would be similar to those presented for Alternative A and Alternative F scenarios (see 

Sections 4.1.2.3 and 4.1.2.8, respectively), which predict impacts would be above the 0.005 

kg/ha-yr threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area, Popo Agie Wilderness Area, and Wind River 

Roadless Area. 

Mid-field Impacts 

Maximum visibility impacts at nearby Wyoming towns from Alternative G scenarios are 

predicted to be greater than those of Alternative A scenarios, but less than those presented for 

Alternative F scenarios, (see Sections 4.1.2.3 and 4.1.2.8, respectively, and Appendix F 

Tables F-22 and F-23). 

In-field Impacts 

Predicted concentrations of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 resulting from Alternative G source 

emissions at locations within the JIDPA would be between those presented for Alternative A and 

Alternative F (see Sections 4.1.2.3 and 4.1.2.8, respectively, and Appendix F Table F-24). 

Estimated project-related impacts from Alternative G sources are predicted to be below 

applicable ambient air quality standards. 

4.1.2.10 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Near-field Impacts 

The construction or production phase of the Preferred Alternative scenarios that would produce 

maximum emissions was identified by pollutant and analyzed. The maximum emissions 

configurations representative of the Preferred Alternative modeled were: PM10 and PM2.5 using a 

7.0-acre pad; SO2 using directional drilling; and NO2, CO, and HAP using 3,100 wells developed 
4-22 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

in the field at 16 well pads per section (40.0-acre surface well spacing). These configurations 

result in the maximum predicted impacts for the Preferred Alternative. 

Direct project impacts of NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and O3 and a comparison of those impacts 

to NAAQS and WAAQS are presented in Appendix F Tables F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5, and F-6, 

respectively. Appendix F Tables F-2 also presents a comparison of the maximum predicted NO2 

impacts resulting from production activities to the PSD Class II increment for NO2. Predicted 

impacts from the Preferred Alternative source emissions would be below the applicable WAAQS 

and NAAQS and PSD increments. 

Appendix F Tables F-7 and F-8 summarize modeled HAP impacts based on emissions from 

Preferred Alternative sources. 

Far-field Impacts 

Direct project impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 would be comparable to those estimated for 

Alternative G (Section 4.1.2.9, and Appendix F Tables F-10 through F-16). The estimated 

project-related impacts at the Class I and sensitive Class II areas are below applicable ambient air 

quality standards and PSD increments. Potential NO2 and PM10 concentrations may exceed the 

proposed PSD Class I SILs at the Bridger Wilderness Area but would be below the significance 

levels at all other sensitive areas. 

Direct visibility impacts from Preferred Alternative source emissions are predicted to be above 

the "just noticeable visibility change" (1.0-dv) threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area for each 

development rate using both the FLAG and IMPROVE background visibility data. Estimated 

impacts would be comparable to those presented for Alternative G scenarios (Appendix F Tables 

F-17 and F-18). Visibility impacts at all other sensitive areas are predicted to be below the "just 

noticeable visibility change" threshold for all days. 

Direct project source emissions would not result in an increase in ANC above any LAC at the 

acid-sensitive lakes (Appendix F Table F-19). Predicted maximum S deposition impacts 

(Appendix F Table F-20) from Preferred Alternative sources would be below the 0.005 kg/ha-yr 

DAT at all sensitive PSD Class I and Class II areas. Predicted N deposition impacts (Appendix F 

Table F-21) would be similar to those presented for Alternative G scenarios (see Section 4.1.2.9), 

which predict impacts would be above the 0.005 kg/ha-yr threshold at the Bridger Wilderness 

Area, Popo Agie Wilderness Area, and Wind River Roadless Area. 

Mid-field Impacts 

Maximum visibility impacts at nearby Wyoming towns from Preferred Alternative scenarios are 

predicted to be similar to those of Alternative G scenarios (see Section 4.1.2.9 and Appendix F 

Tables F-22 and F-23). 

In-field Impacts 

Predicted concentrations of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 resulting from Preferred Alternative 

source emissions at locations within the JIDPA would be similar to those presented for 

Alternative G (see Section 4.1.2.9, and Appendix F Table F-24). Estimated project-related 

impacts from Preferred Alternative sources are predicted to be below applicable ambient air 

quality standards. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-23 

Preferred Alternative Air Quality Mitigation Measures 

Under the Preferred Alternative, additional mitigation measures would be applied to facilitate 

achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources (see 

Section 2.14). 

4.1.2.11 Cumulative Impacts 

The CALPUFF model was used to quantify the impacts of NOX, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 resulting 

from project sources, state-permitted sources, RFFA, and RFD located within the model domain 

(see Map 3.1). Project source emissions are described in Section 4.1.2 and quantified in 

Appendix F Table F-9. State-permitted sources include NOX, SO2 and/or PM10/PM2.5 sources that 

began operation after January 1, 2001, and were permitted before June 20, 2003. Sources 

permitted within the 18 months prior to January 1, 2001, but not yet operating were included as 

RFFA. RFD was defined as the undeveloped portion of 1) an approved NEPA project or 2) a 

proposed NEPA project for which quantified air emissions data were available at the time of the 

analysis. State-permitted, RFFA, and RFD emissions modeled in the cumulative analysis are 

quantified in Appendix F Table F-9. RFD projects included in the cumulative analysis are listed 

in Appendix F Table F-25. RFD projects were analyzed utilizing the maximum production 

scenario identified for each project. Emissions from field development (the construction phase) 

of RFD were not analyzed; rather, the combined emissions of all RFD operating at maximum 

production levels simultaneously was considered a conservative representation of domain-wide 

emissions. The development phases of individual RFD projects have the potential to cause or 

contribute to higher localized ambient air impacts than those demonstrated in this analysis. 

However, because RFD project development rates and schedules vary for each project and are 

difficult to define with certainty, it was determined that all emission sources operating at 

maximum production rates was the most reasonable representation of cumulative impacts 

occurring in the future when based on RFD information available at the time of analysis. 

While there may be additional gas processing and/or transmission requirements due to 

development of this and other natural gas projects regionally and nationally, the potential effects 

of these developments are not quantified herein since these developments are speculative and 

would likely require additional WDEQ/AQD permitting if they eventually are proposed. A 

portion of the Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Development project, located more than 185 miles 

(>300 km) east-northeast of the JIDPA, is located within the far-field modeling domain defined in 

Map 3.1. A ratio of total Powder River Basin project field development equal to the 

geographical portion within the JIDPA far-field modeling domain was included as RFD in this 

analysis. The Powder River Basin project identified significant project-specific and cumulative 

impacts in the Bridger Wilderness and other sensitive areas analyzed for this project. Further 

information on air quality impacts associated with the PRBP may be found in the BLM (2002b). 

Recent estimation of NOX emissions in the Pinedale Anticline Project Area has shown that NOX 

emissions are greater than assumed in the Pinedale Anticline EIS (BLM 2004d). Since a 

quantitative relationship between air emissions and the subsequent potential cumulative impacts 

to air quality is complex and time consuming, it was not possible to quantify potential impacts of 

these increased NOX emissions in this DEIS. 

Cumulative impacts were analyzed at each of the eight Class I and sensitive Class II areas, and at 

mid-field (regional communities) and in-field locations within the JIDPA. Ambient 

concentrations were estimated at each Class I and sensitive Class II area and at locations within 

the JIDPA. Acid deposition calculations were performed for each Class I and sensitive Class II 
4-24 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

area and at acid-sensitive lakes within these areas. Visibility impacts were computed for each 

Class I and sensitive Class II area and at mid-field (regional communities) locations. 

Impacts Summary. The cumulative far-field modeling results for the range of project alternatives 

are provided in Appendix F Tables F-26 through F-40. These tables present the estimated 

cumulative impacts resulting from project and regional source emissions. A discussion of the 

cumulative modeling results for each alternative is presented below. 

Appendix F Tables F-26, F-27, F-28, and F-29 present the maximum predicted cumulative 

impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, respectively, at the analyzed PSD Class I and sensitive 

PSD Class II areas. These maximum predicted concentrations were added to the ambient 

background pollutant concentrations for comparison to the WAAQS and NAAQS. Appendix F 

Tables F-30, F-31, and F-32 present the maximum modeled direct project and cumulative source 

impacts of NO2, SO2, and PM10, respectively, for comparison to applicable PSD increments. As 

shown in these tables, cumulative pollutant concentrations from all project alternatives would be 

below applicable ambient air quality standards and PSD increments. 

Estimated cumulative visibility impacts at PSD Class I and sensitive PSD Class II areas resulting 

from project and regional source emissions are provided in Appendix F Table F-33 for the FLAG 

background visibility data, and in Appendix F Table F-34 for the IMPROVE background 

visibility data. As shown in these tables, cumulative visibility impacts from project alternatives 

were predicted to be above the "just noticeable visibility change" (1.0-dv) threshold at the Bridger 

Wilderness Area and Wind River Roadless Area using the FLAG background data and at the 

Bridger Wilderness Area, Popo Agie Wilderness Area, and Wind River Roadless Areas using the 

IMPROVE background visibility data. There were no predicted impacts above the 1.0-dv 

threshold at any of the other analyzed sensitive areas. 

Appendix F Table F-35 provides a summary of the maximum potential change in ANC at each of 

the analyzed sensitive lakes for each project alternative. Maximum modeled cumulative 

deposition impacts are provided in Appendix F Table F-36 (S) and Table F-37 (N). Cumulative 

emissions from any of the project alternative sources combined with regional sources would not 

result in an increase in ANC above any LAC at the acid-sensitive lakes. In addition, predicted 

maximum cumulative S and N deposition impacts from all alternatives are well below the 

5 kg/ha-yr (S) and 3 kg/ha-yr (N) levels of concern at all sensitive PSD Class I and Class II areas. 

Further detail on cumulative S and N deposition impacts is provided in the air quality technical 

support document (TRC EC 2004). 

Modeled cumulative visibility impacts at mid-field Wyoming regional community locations from 

project and regional source emissions are provided in Appendix F Table F-38 for the FLAG 

background visibility data and in Table F-39 for the IMPROVE background visibility data. The 

number of days cumulative visibility impacts were predicted to be above the "just noticeable 

visibility change" (1.0-dv) threshold are shown in these tables for each project alternative 

scenario. 

Appendix F Table F-40 presents the maximum predicted cumulative impacts for each project 

alternative at in-field location compared to ambient air quality standards after adding monitored 

background concentrations. These estimated cumulative impacts are below applicable ambient air 

quality standards. 

No Action Far-field Cumulative Impacts. Modeling was performed for the No Action Alternative 

to estimate cumulative impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 from non-project related source 

emissions consisting of RFD, RFFA, and state-permitted sources. Appendix F Tables F-26, F-27, 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-25 

F-28, and F-29 present the maximum predicted impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, 

respectively, at the analyzed PSD Class I and sensitive PSD Class II areas. These maximum 

predicted concentrations were added to the ambient background pollutant concentrations for 

comparison to the WAAQS and NAAQS. Appendix F Tables F-30, F-31, and F-32 present the 

maximum modeled cumulative No Action impacts of NO2, SO2, and PM10, respectively, for 

comparison to applicable PSD increments. As shown in these tables, pollutant concentrations 

from No Action Alternative source emissions scenarios would be well below the applicable 

ambient air quality standards and PSD increments. 

The visibility impacts resulting from cumulative No Action source emissions are provided in 

Appendix F Table F-33 for the FLAG background visibility data and in Table F-34 for the 

IMPROVE background visibility data. Impacts are predicted to be above the "just noticeable 

visibility change" (1.0-dv) threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area using both the FLAG and 

IMPROVE background visibility data. Visibility impacts at all other sensitive areas were 

predicted to be below the "just noticeable visibility change" threshold for all days. Current 

regional visibility trends are shown in Figures 3.2 through 3.4. 

Cumulative acid deposition impacts at the seven sensitive lakes (Appendix F Table F-35) are 

below the ANC change LACs. In addition, cumulative total N (Appendix F Table F-36) and S 

deposition (Appendix F Table F-37) are below the 5 kg/ha-yr (S) and 3 kg/ha-yr (N) levels of 

concern. 

No Action Mid-field Cumulative Impacts. The maximum visibility impacts at nearby Wyoming 

towns are shown in Appendix F Table F-38 (FLAG) and Table F-39 (IMPROVE). The estimated 

number of days predicted to be above the "just noticeable visibility change" (1.0-dv) threshold 

and the maximum dv change are shown. 

No Action In-field Cumulative Impacts. Model predicted concentrations of NO2, SO2, PM10, and 

PM2.5 resulting from No Action cumulative source emissions at locations within the JIDPA are 

shown in Appendix F Table F-24. The maximum impacts shown are compared to ambient air 

quality standards after adding monitored background concentrations. The estimated non-project 

impacts are below applicable ambient air quality standards. 

Proposed Action Far-field Cumulative Impacts. Modeling was performed for the Proposed 

Action to estimate cumulative impacts of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 from project and 

non-project related source emissions, consisting of RFD, RFFA, and state-permitted sources. 

Appendix F Tables F-26, F-27, F-28, and F-29 present the maximum predicted impacts of NO2, 

SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, respectively, at the analyzed PSD Class I and sensitive PSD Class II areas. 

These maximum predicted concentrations were added to the ambient background pollutant 

concentrations for comparison to the WAAQS and NAAQS. Appendix F Tables F-30, F-31, and 

F-32 present the maximum modeled cumulative impacts of NO2, SO2, and PM10, respectively, 

from Proposed Action and regional sources for comparison to applicable PSD increments. As 

shown in these tables, pollutant concentrations from Proposed Action and regional source 

emissions scenarios would be below applicable ambient air quality standards and PSD 

increments. 

The cumulative visibility impacts for the Proposed Action are provided in Appendix F Table F-33 

(FLAG) and in Table F-34 (IMPROVE). Visibility impacts are predicted to be above the "just 

noticeable visibility change" (1.0-dv) threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area and Wind River 

Roadless Area using both the FLAG and IMPROVE background visibility data. Visibility 

impacts at all other sensitive areas were predicted to be below the "just noticeable visibility 

change" threshold for all days. 
4-26 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Cumulative acid deposition impacts at the seven sensitive lakes (Appendix F Table F-35) are 

below the ANC change LACs. In addition, cumulative total N (Appendix F Table F-36) and S 

deposition (Appendix F Table F-37) are well below the 5 kg/ha-yr (S) and 3 kg/ha-yr (N) levels 

of concern. 

Proposed Action Mid-field Cumulative Impacts. The maximum visibility impacts at nearby 

Wyoming towns are shown in Appendix F Table F-38 (FLAG) and Table F-39 (IMPROVE). The 

estimated number of days predicted to be above the "just noticeable visibility change" (1.0-dv) 

threshold and the maximum dv change are shown. 

Proposed Action In-field Cumulative Impacts. Model predicted concentrations of NO2, SO2, 

PM10, and PM2.5 resulting from Proposed Action and regional source emissions at locations 

within the JIDPA are shown in Appendix F Table F-24. The maximum impacts shown are 

compared to ambient air quality standards after adding monitored background concentrations. 

Cumulative Impacts for Other Project Alternatives. The predicted cumulative impacts from all 

other project alternatives are well below the applicable ambient air quality standards and PSD 

Class I increments. Estimated acid deposition impacts at the seven sensitive lakes are below the 

ANC change LACs. In addition, cumulative total N and S depositions are well below the 

5 kg/ha-yr (S) and 3 kg/ha-yr (N) levels of concern. Visibility impacts from the other project 

alternatives that include increased directional drilling activities have the potential to slightly 

increase the estimated number of days of visibility impairment. The cumulative far-field 

modeling results for all project alternatives are summarized in Appendix F Tables F-26 through 

F-40. 

4.1.2.12 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Some increase in air pollutant emissions would occur as a result of the Proposed Action and 

alternatives. Near-field impacts from these emissions are predicted to be below applicable 

significance thresholds. However, there is a potential for direct and cumulative visibility impacts 

to exceed visibility levels of concern within PSD Class I Bridger Wilderness Area and deposition 

thresholds within Bridger Wilderness Area, Popo Agie Wilderness Area, and Wind River 

Roadless Area. 

4.1.3 Topography 

Impacts to topography would be considered significant if disturbance permanently inhibited or 

substantially altered surface drainage patterns (e.g., new head-cutting and/or gully formation 

inhibiting surface runoff to areas where wetlands or riparian areas depend on it, changes that 

substantially redirect surface runoff). Project impacts to topography are assumed to be 

proportional to the volume of surface disturbance (i.e., increased surface disturbance would 

correspond to an increase in the potential for altered surface drainage patterns). Specific impacts 

would include changes to the landscape due to cut-and-fill (surface-leveling) activities used to 

construct well pads, access roads, and other facilities; road and pipeline crossings of channels; 

and slope and drainage alterations. The landscape and surface drainage alterations associated 

with this project would require specific mitigation as identified in Appendices A, B, and G. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-27 

4.1.3.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to topography would be limited to the existing 

developments for 497 well pads and associated facilities--4,209 acres initially and 1,409 acres for 

the LOP (see Table 2.3). No significant impacts are anticipated. The duration of impacts would 

be approximately 63 years (see Table 2.2) and until areas are adequately reclaimed (see 

Appendix G). 

4.1.3.2 The Proposed Action 

An estimated maximum of 20,409 acres of disturbance would occur under the Proposed Action 

(see Table 2.4), 14,369 acres of which would be short-term, because surface disturbance areas not 

needed for operations would be recontoured and reseeded within 2 to 4 years after disturbance 

(e.g., portions of well pads and road ROWs and entire pipeline ROW areas). Long-term LOP 

disturbance is estimated at 6,040 acres and is anticipated to last for 76 years (250 wells developed 

per year) and until successful reclamation is achieved (see Table 2.2). An approximate 285% 

increase in new disturbance and 229% increase in LOP disturbance above the No Action would 

occur under the Proposed Action, impact duration would be extended at least an additional 13 

years (76-year LOP), and significant impacts are anticipated. 

4.1.3.3 Alternative A 

The types of impacts to topography under Alternative A would be similar to that described for the 

No Action but there would be an additional 16,200 acres of initial disturbance. Impacts may be 

further amplified if BLM standard stipulations (particularly those regarding steep slopes and 

drainage channels) are excepted (see Appendix A). Additionally, impacts would occur in some 

areas that would be avoided under the Proposed Action (i.e., greater sage-grouse lek, raptor nest, 

and Sand Draw buffers) and, depending upon the rate of development, impacts could last for an 

additional 29 or more years (75 wells developed per year) plus the time needed for successful 

reclamation (see Table 2.2). Significant impacts are anticipated. 

4.1.3.4 Alternative B 

Impacts to topography under Alternative B would be similar to those of the No Action 

Alternative except that total new initial disturbance would be 3,297 acres more than that required 

for the No Action Alternative (see Table 2.5). LOP disturbance would be 1,213 acres more than 

No Action LOP disturbance, and most surface disturbance would occur as expansions at existing 

disturbance areas. No significant impacts are anticipated. Depending upon the rate of 

development, the duration of impacts could be 76 (250 new wells per year) to a 105 years (75 

new wells per year) plus the time needed for successful reclamation (see Table 2.2). 

4.1.3.5 Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, impacts to topography would be similar to those of the No Action 

Alternative, except that Alternative C would result in 6,705 acres of disturbance, 1,990 acres of 

additional LOP disturbance (see Table 2.6). Impact duration would range from 68 years (250 

wells/year) to 80 years (75 wells/year) plus the time needed for successful reclamation (see Table 

2.2), and significant impacts are anticipated. 
4-28 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

4.1.3.6 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, impacts to topography would be similar to those of the No Action 

Alternative except that Alternative D would result in 11,581 acres more disturbance, and 3,346 

acres of additional LOP disturbance (see Table 2.7). Impact duration would range from 72 years 

(250 wells/year) to 93 years (75 wells/year) plus the time needed for successful reclamation (see 

Table 2.2), and significant impacts are anticipated. 

4.1.3.7 Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, impacts to topography would be similar to those of the No Action 

Alternative except that Alternative E would result in 6,386 acres additional disturbance and 2,188 

acres of additional LOP disturbance compared to the No Action Alternative (see Table 2.8). 

Impact duration would range from 76 to 105 years plus the time needed for successful 

reclamation (see Table 2.2). No significant impacts are anticipated. 

4.1.3.8 Alternative F 

Under Alternative F, impacts to topography would be similar to those of the No Action 

Alternative except that Alternative F would result in 10,446 acres of additional disturbance and 

2,588 acres more LOP disturbance (see Table 2.9). Impact duration would range from 76 to 105 

years plus the time needed for successful reclamation (see Table 2.2), and significant impacts are 

anticipated. 

4.1.3.9 Alternative G 

Under Alternative G, impacts to topography would be similar to those of the No Action 

Alternative except that Alternative G would result in 13,989 acres disturbance, 3,999 acres more 

LOP disturbance (see Table 2.10). Impact duration would range from 76 to 105 years plus the 

time needed for successful reclamation (see Table 2.2), and significant impacts are anticipated. 

4.1.3.10 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, impacts to topography would be similar to those of the No 

Action Alternative except that the Preferred Alternative would result in 8,316 acres of additional 

disturbance and 2,438 acres more LOP disturbance (see Table 2.11). In terms of the amount of 

disturbance over-and-above that expected for the No Action Alternative, the Preferred Alternative 

ranks sixth (out of the nine development alternatives), and thus, would result in less potential 

impacts than for the Proposed Action and Alternatives A, D, F, and G. In terms of duration of 

impact, the Preferred Alternative is comparable to most of the other alternatives under the 250 

well/year development scenario (76-year LOP) since a development rate of 250 wells/year is 

assumed. Only No Action and Alternatives C and D could result in shorter impact duration (see 

Table 2.2). 

Under the BLM Preferred Alternative, additional mitigation measures would be applied to 

facilitate achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-29 

(see Section 2.14). Even with the application of these measures, significant impacts may occur to 

topography for the LOP. 

4.1.3.11 Cumulative Impacts 

The CIAA for topography includes the combined 10 watersheds that drain the JIDPA, which 

encompass approximately 210,300 acres. Approximately 1.6% of the CIAA (3,355 acres), has 

previously been disturbed (see Table 3.11). 

RFD (total new initial surface disturbance) for the CIAA outside the JIDPA is estimated at 

594 acres, primarily from gas-related development in the Pinedale Anticline Natural Gas Field 

(see Section 4.1.7). Approximately 38% (228 acres) of the RFD would occur in the Expanded 

Sand Draw-Alkali Creek Watershed. RFD for the North Alkali Draw watershed is estimated at 

168 acres; Southeast New Fork River is estimated at 126 acres; the Big Sandy river is estimated 

at 54 acres; and the Upper Eighteenmile is estimated at 18 acres. 

Maximum cumulative disturbance (i.e., the combined existing, proposed [new initial under 

Proposed Action and Alternative A], and RFD disturbance) would be 22,953 acres (10.9%) in the 

combined watersheds. Maximum cumulative disturbance would be greatest in the Expanded 

Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed, and would be primarily attributable to gas development (see 

Section 4.1.7). The Long Draw watershed that drains 16% of the JIDPA would experience the 

second greatest amount of cumulative disturbance. The closed basin watersheds--Jonah Gulch 

and 140401040603--would likely only experience a small increase in cumulative disturbance. 

Significant cumulative impacts to topography are anticipated under the Proposed Action and 

Alternatives A, C, D, F, and G. 

4.1.3.12 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Unavoidable adverse impacts to topography would include long-term changes in landform 

throughout the JIDPA. Since reclamation activities would be performed such that the reclaimed 

landscape emulates pre-disturbance conditions, no notable permanent changes (post-LOP) in 

topography are anticipated. Minor differences from the pre-disturbance condition would be 

present, but the overall integrity to pre-existing topography would be retained. 

4.1.4 Mineral Resources 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and the land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) identify the following 

management goals/objectives associated with mineral resources: 

• to maintain or enhance opportunities for mineral exploration and development, 

while protecting other resource values; 

• to provide for oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development while protecting 

other values; 
4-30 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

• to provide saleable mineral materials (e.g., sand, gravel) in convenient locations 

for users, while protecting other resources; 

• to consider the conservation and enhancement of natural resources with the 

economic benefits of resource development; 

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

• to plan land use consistent with the orderly development, use, and conservation 

of resources while preserving environmental quality; and 

• to plan uses that encourage energy conservation. 

The primary project impact to mineral resources would be from the depletion of recoverable gas 

and oil reserves from the Lance Pool and possibly other formations underlying the JIDPA 

(Table 4.2), and significant impacts are anticipated under most alternatives since these are nonrenewable resources. The economic impacts from natural gas and oil recovery are described in 

Section 4.4. 

Since the project (under any alternative) is not anticipated to interfere with the recovery of other 

minerals (i.e., sand and gravel), these resources would remain available for recovery. Therefore, 

no impacts to other minerals are anticipated and they are not further discussed. 

4.1.4.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, an estimated 3,366 BCF of natural gas and 31.98 million 

barrels of oil (MBO) would be recovered. Compared to the Proposed Action, this would leave 

approximately 4,581 BCF of gas and 43.52 MBO unrecovered. 

The No Action Alternative could result in substantial volumes of unrecovered resource. Since 

large volumes of the resources would remain in place and could be potentially extracted at a 

future date, no significant impacts are anticipated. 

4.1.4.2 The Proposed Action 

Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in an estimated total production of natural 

gas and condensates (oil) from the field of 7,947 BCF and 75.50 MBO, respectively. These 

amounts represent 4,581 BCF more gas and 43.52 MBO more oil than would be recovered under 

the No Action Alternative. Since these extracted mineral resources would no longer be available, 

significant effects to mineral resources would occur. 

4.1.4.3 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, impacts to oil and gas reserves would be the recovery of 8,191 BCF of gas 

and 77.81 MBO (see Table 4.2). These amounts represent an increase in 4,825 BCF of gas and 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-31 

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

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Approximate Natural 

Gas Recovered1 

(billion cubic feet 

Approximate 

Condensate (Oil) 

Recovered1 

Recovery Volumes Compared to 

Proposed Action 

Gas Oil 

Alternative [BCF]) (MBO) (BCF) (MBO) 

No Action 3,366 31.98 (4,581) (43.52) 

Proposed Action2 7,947 75.50 0 0 

Alternative A 8,191 77.81 +244 +2.31 

Alternative B2 6,124 58.18 (1,823) (17.32) 

Alternative C 6,657 63.24 (1,290) (12.26) 

Alternative D 7,554 71.76 (393) (3.74) 

Alternative E2 6,302 59.87 (1,645) (15.63) 

Alternative F2 7,186 68.27 (761) (7.23) 

Alternative G2

 7,876 74.82 (71) (0.68) 

Preferred Alternative2 7,876 74.82 (71) (0.68) 

1 Assumes approximately 10,500 BCF of natural gas and 99.75 MBO of condensate are present beneath the 

JIDPA. 2 Does not fully account for losses/unrecovered resources associated with undeveloped wells (assumed to be 

uneconomic). 

45.83 MBO of oil that would be recovered under the No Action Alternative. Since the extracted 

mineral resources would no longer be available, significant effects to mineral resources and future 

consumers would occur. 

4.1.4.4 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, 6,124 BCF of natural gas and 58.18 MBO would be produced-­

approximately 2,758 BCF of gas and 26.20 MBO more than would be recovered under the No 

Action Alternative. Alternative B would leave approximately 1,823 BCF of gas and 17.32 MBO 

unrecovered. Since considerable unrecovered reserves would remain available and could be 

potentially extracted at a future date, no significant impacts are anticipated. 

4.1.4.5 Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, 6,657 BCF of natural gas and 63.24 MBO would be produced-­

approximately 3,291 BCF of gas and 31.26 MBO of oil more than for the No Action Alternative. 

Alternative C would leave approximately 1,290 BCF of gas and 12.26 MBO unrecovered. Since 

considerable unrecovered reserves would remain available and could be potentially extracted at a 

future date, no significant impacts are anticipated. 
4-32 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

4.1.4.6 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, 7,554 BCF of natural gas and 71.76 MBO would be produced-­

approximately 4,188 BCF of gas and 39.78 MBO of oil more than would be recovered under the 

No Action Alternative. Alternative D would leave approximately 393 BCF of gas and 3.74 MBO 

unrecovered. Since considerable unrecovered reserves would remain available and could be 

potentially extracted at a future date, no significant impacts are anticipated. 

4.1.4.7 Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, 6,302 BCF of natural gas and 59.87 MBO would be produced-­

approximately 2,936 BCF of gas and 27.89 MBO of oil more than for the Proposed Action. 

Alternative E would leave approximately 1,645 BCF of gas and 15.63 MBO unrecovered. Since 

considerable unrecovered reserves would remain available and could be potentially extracted at a 

future date, no significant impacts are anticipated. 

4.1.4.8 Alternative F 

Under Alternative F, 7,186 BCF of natural gas and 68.27 MBO would be produced, 

approximately 3,820 BCF of gas and 36.29 MBO of oil more than would be produced under the 

No Action Alternative. Alternative F would leave approximately 761 BCF of gas and 7.23 MBO 

unrecovered. Since considerable unrecovered reserves would remain available and could be 

potentially extracted at a future date, no significant impacts are anticipated. 

4.1.4.9 Alternative G 

Under Alternative G, impacts to oil and gas reserves would approximate those of the Proposed 

Action (i.e., 7,876 BCF of gas and 74.82 MBO of oil would be produced)--4,510 BCF more gas 

and 42.84 MBO more oil than for the No Action Alternative. Since these extracted mineral 

resources would no longer be available, significant effects to mineral resources would occur. 

4.1.4.10 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, impacts to oil and gas reserves would approximate those of 

Alternative G (i.e., 7,876 BCF of gas and 74.82 MBO of oil would be produced)--4,510 BCF 

more gas and 42.84 MBO more oil than for the No Action Alternative. Since these extracted 

mineral resources would no longer be available, significant effects to mineral resources would 

occur. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, additional mitigation measures would be applied to facilitate 

achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources (see 

Section 2.14); however, since most natural gas resources would be recovered and would no 

longer be available, significant effects would occur. 

4.1.4.11 Cumulative Impacts 

The CIAA for mineral resources is the composite Jonah Field, which includes the original Jonah 

Prospect field, the Jonah II project area, and the JIDPA (see Map 3.4). This project is proposed in 

part to maximize natural gas and condensate recovery from the known reserves in this area. 

Since no additional development beyond that described herein is anticipated in the CIAA, 

cumulative impacts to mineral resources would be the same as described for the No Action, 

Proposed Action, Alternatives A through G, and the BLM Preferred Action. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-33 

4.1.4.12 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Under the No Action Alternative and Alternatives B through F, there would be less-thancomplete recovery of resources, which would either: 1) necessitate developing similar resources 

elsewhere with possible adverse effects; 2) delay the recovery of these resources until some 

unknown time in the future; or 3) result in the complete loss of non-recovered energy resources 

and the associated royalties. 

4.1.5 Geologic Hazards 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) identify the following 

management goals/objectives associated with geologic hazards: 

• to protect the health and safety of the public and the well-being of sensitive 

natural resources, 

• to minimize the loss of life and property from natural hazards, and 

• to generate and provide data on development limitations. 

Any impacts that would lead to the inability of management agencies to achieve these 

goals/objectives would be considered a significant impact. 

Potential impacts associated with geologic hazards include impacts associated with subsidence, 

earthquakes, and landslides. The depth of gas reserves in the JIDPA and the lack of underground 

mines in the area negate the potential for subsidence. There are no known active faults within the 

JIDPA, and although earthquakes may occur infrequently, all facilities would be designed to 

withstand the effects of moderate earthquakes. No known landslides occur in the JIDPA, so none 

of the alternatives would be affected by landslides. With the application of mitigations (see 

Appendices A and B), impacts are anticipated to be less than significant under all alternatives, 

and no further alternative-specific impact analyses are discussed. 

Under the BLM Preferred Alternative, additional mitigation measures would be applied to 

facilitate achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources 

(see Section 2.14). 

The CIAA area for geologic hazards includes the composite Jonah field, including the original 

Jonah Prospect field, the Jonah Field II project area, and the JIDPA (see Map 3.5), and no further 

development beyond this proposed project is planned for the area. Development in this area is 

not likely to affect or be affected by geologic hazards. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be 

the same as described above for the proposed project. 

No unavoidable adverse impacts would occur due to geologic hazards. 

4.1.6 Paleontological Resources 

The PFO and RSFO RMP (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and land use plans for the State of Wyoming 

(WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) identify the following 

management goals/objectives associated with paleontologic resources: 
4-34 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

• to expand the opportunities for scientific study and educational and 

interpretive uses of paleontologic resources, 

• to protect and preserve important paleontologic resources and/or their 

historic record for future generations, and 

• to resolve conflicts between paleontologic resources and other resource uses. 

Under all alternatives, direct impacts to paleontological resources would include damage or 

destruction of fossils and associated data due to field development/surface disturbance for well 

pads, roads, pipelines, ancillary facilities, etc. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that 

increases in surface disturbance correspond to an increase in the potential for impacts to 

paleontological resources. Indirect impacts would include loss from unauthorized collection or 

vandalism which, in turn, would result in a loss of the opportunity to expand scientific study and 

educational and interpretive uses of these resources. However, surface-disturbing activities could 

uncover fossils of significant scientific importance that otherwise would have remained buried 

and unavailable for scientific study. 

The important fossil record of the Green River Basin is well known (Grande 1984; BLM 1992) 

(see also Table 3.9). The recent discovery of Pleistocene horse bones (tentative identification) 

during well pad construction in the JIDPA affects potential future paleontological mitigation 

procedures for the area since Pleistocene paleontologic materials were previously unknown for 

the JIDPA. Significant fossils likely occur in the JIDPA. To lessen impacts, mitigation measures 

including avoidance, survey, monitoring, and collection would be used under all alternatives (see 

also Appendices A and B). In areas of paleontological sensitivity, a determination would be 

made by the BLM as to whether a survey by a qualified paleontologist is necessary prior to the 

disturbance. 

4.1.6.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, potential impacts to paleontological resources would be 

primarily associated with existing surface disturbances (4,209 acres) related to currently approved 

field development activities. Indirect impacts associated with unauthorized collection or 

vandalism would continue for the LOP. 

4.1.6.2 The Proposed Action 

Direct impacts under the Proposed Action would be increased from those of the No Action 

Alternative since up to 20,409 acres of disturbance would occur--16,200 acres more than for the 

No Action Alternative. There would be an increase in human activity and it would occur for a 

longer duration, resulting in more potential for both vandalism and discovery. 

4.1.6.3 Alternative A 

Potential direct impacts to paleontological resources under Alternative A would be similar to 

those described for the Proposed Action except that under Alternative A, some disturbance would 

occur in areas such as along Sand Draw that would be avoided under the Proposed Action. 

Indirect impacts would be increased from the No Action Alternative due to the increase in human 

activity, and these indirect impacts would occur for a longer duration, resulting in more potential 

for both vandalism and discovery (see Table 2.2). 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-35 

4.1.6.4 Alternative B 

Direct and indirect impacts to paleontological resources under Alternative B would be increased 

from those of the No Action Alternative due to the increase in total surface disturbance of 3,297 

acres and the increased human presence. Duration of the impacts would be up to 42 years longer, 

resulting in more potential for both vandalism and discovery. 

4.1.6.5 Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, direct impacts to paleontological resources would be increased from those 

of the No Action Alternative due to the 6,705 acres of additional surface disturbance. Duration of 

the impacts would be dependent upon the rate of development, but could be up to 17 years longer 

than for the No Action Alternative. Indirect impacts would be increased from the No Action 

Alternative due to increased human presence during project development and production. 

4.1.6.6 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, direct impacts to paleontological resources would be increased from those 

of the No Action Alternative due to the 11,581 acres of additional surface disturbance. Duration 

of the impacts would be dependent upon the rate of development. Indirect impacts would occur 

for up to 42 years longer than the No Action Alternative, resulting in the potential for increased 

vandalism and discovery. 

4.1.6.7 Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, direct impacts to paleontological resources would be increased from those 

of the No Action Alternative due to the 6,386 acres of additional surface disturbance. Duration of 

the impacts would be dependent upon the rate of development, and could be up to 42 years 

longer. Indirect impacts would be increased from the No Action Alternative due to increased 

human presence during development and production. 

4.1.6.8 Alternative F 

Under Alternative F, direct impacts to paleontological resources would be increased from those of 

the No Action Alternative due to the 10,446 acres of additional surface disturbance. Duration of 

the impacts would be dependent upon the rate of development (see Table 2.2), and could be up to 

42 years longer than the No Action Alternative. Indirect impacts would be increased from the No 

Action Alternative due to increased human presence during development and production. 

4.1.6.9 Alternative G 

Under Alternative G, impacts to paleontological resources would be increased from those of the 

No Action Alternative due to the 13,989 acres of additional surface disturbance. Duration of the 

impacts would be dependent upon the rate of development, and could be up to 42 years longer 

than the No Action Alternative. Indirect impacts would be increased from the No Action 

Alternative due to increased human presence during development and production. 
4-36 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

4.1.6.10 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, impacts to paleontologic resources would be increased from 

those of the No Action Alternative. The Preferred Alternative would result in 8,316 acres of 

additional surface disturbance and 2,438 acres more LOP disturbance. The Preferred Alternative 

would have a direct impact duration of approximately 13 years (250 wells/year) longer than the 

No Action Alternative. In terms of the amount of disturbance over-and-above that expected for 

the No Action Alternative, the Preferred Alternative ranks sixth out of the nine potential 

development alternatives and, thus would result in a lower potential for inadvertent loss than the 

Proposed Action and Alternatives A, D, F, and G. In terms of duration of development (and thus 

exposure to potential indirect impacts such as vandalism, and, conversely, beneficial discoveries), 

the Preferred Alternative is comparable to most of the other alternatives under the 250 well/year 

development scenario; the Preferred Alternative would result in a 4- to 29-year shorter duration of 

impacts compared to all of the slower development scenarios. Only Alternatives C and D could 

result in a shorter duration of impact (4 to 8 years). Additionally, the application of alternativespecific management objectives and associated mitigation and monitoring protocol could further 

reduce impacts. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, additional mitigation measures would be applied to facilitate 

achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources (see 

Section 2.14). 

4.1.6.11 Cumulative Impacts 

The CIAA for paleontological resources is a 484.4-square mile area (310,000 acres) surrounding 

the JIDPA (see Map 3.5). Approximately 1.1% of the CIAA (3,331 acres) has previously been 

disturbed, much of which is from natural gas well pads, roads, and pipelines in the JIDPA (i.e., 

currently approved oil and gas development activities). Other activities include oil and gas 

development in the Pinedale Anticline Field, livestock grazing, and recreation. Livestock grazing 

and recreation have minimal impacts on paleontological resources, other than the possibility of 

increasing opportunities for illegal collecting and/or vandalism. 

RFD (new surface disturbance) for the portion of the CIAA outside the JIDPA is estimated at 594 

acres, primarily from gas-related development in the Pinedale Anticline Natural Gas Field. 

Maximum cumulative disturbance (i.e., the combined existing, proposed [Proposed Action and 

Alternative A], and RFD disturbance) would be 20,121 acres (6.4% of the CIAA); other action 

alternatives would have less surface disturbance and activity and would therefore have a reduced 

potential for cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts to paleontological resources would be of 

the same type as those described for the action alternatives; however, the potential for significant 

cumulative impacts is unknown since little paleontological inventory or evaluation has been 

conducted in the JIDPA. 

4.1.6.12 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Unavoidable adverse impacts to paleontological resources include the fossil resources that may be 

inadvertently damaged or destroyed by surface-disturbing activities and those potentially lost 

through illegal collecting and/or vandalism. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-37 

4.1.7 Soils 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) identify the following 

management goals/objectives associated with soils: 

• to stabilize and conserve soils; 

• to increase vegetative production; 

• to maintain or improve surface and ground water quality; 

• to protect, maintain, or improve wetlands, floodplains, and riparian areas; 

• to minimize topsoil erosion; 

• to maintain or increase highly diverse native plant communities; and 

• to consider the suitability of soil composition in all land use decisions. 

Impacts to soils would be considered significant if a reduction in soil productivity and/or 

increased erosion would prevent successful reclamation and/or if disturbance or other activities 

resulted in a violation of the aforementioned land use objectives. Impacts to soils are assumed to 

be proportional to the amount of new initial surface disturbance for all alternatives (i.e., increased 

disturbance would result in a proportionally increased potential for adverse impacts to soils). 

Under the various alternatives, Operators would implement various management 

requirements/mitigation measures (see Appendices A and B); therefore, impacts to soils would 

also be dependent on the effectiveness of this mitigation. Significant impacts to soils are 

anticipated under all project alternatives. 

Direct impacts to soils would include removal of vegetation, exposure of the soil, mixing of soil 

horizons, loss of topsoil productivity, soil compaction, and increased susceptibility to wind and 

water erosion. These impacts could, in turn, result in increased runoff, erosion, and 

sedimentation. Increased surface runoff and erosion would occur primarily in the short-term and 

would decline in time due to natural stabilization through particle aggregation, soil structure 

development, and armoring. Short-term control of surface runoff would be dependent on the 

success and implementation of reclamation and revegetation efforts described in Reclamation 

Plan and Surface Use Plans and Plans of Development prepared for each APD and/or ROW 

application, and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) (see also Appendix G). 

Following application of reclamation and revegetation procedures, the susceptibility of disturbed 

areas to soil erosion would be minimized for both the short term and for the LOP. Since the 

extent of erosion in the JIDPA under any alternative is undefined, the BLM has determined that 

modeling will be performed to identify potential soil losses. The results of this modeling will be 

available in the Final EIS. 

The potential for contamination of soils due to the accidental discharge would be limited by 

appropriate project implementation procedures and the remedial measures applied as specified in 

SPCCPs (see Appendix G). 
4-38 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Most soils in the JIDPA have a naturally high erosion potential and generally have limited 

rehabilitation potential because of one or more characteristics including thin soils, shallow depth 

to bedrock, excess salts, excess sand and/or small stones, clayey textures, and excess lime. 

Concentrating development actions at larger well pads would have increased site-specific effects 

on overland flow patterns, ground water infiltration (reduced on compacted areas), and runoff 

volumes (increased rates and potential erosion and sedimentation). Additionally, if surface 

disturbance is concentrated in any one watershed, increased potential erosion and runoff-related 

effects may occur, possibly requiring the need for special treatments to be specified in APD 

approvals. Estimates of potential new and LOP disturbance associated with the various project 

alternatives within each project-affected watershed are presented in Tables 4.3 and 4.4 and are 

discussed under each alternative. 

The following analyses show that the Proposed Action and alternatives generally are compatible 

with existing management goals/objectives; however, significant impacts to soils are anticipated 

in the short term in and down-channel from the JIDPA. Mitigation measures (see Appendices A 

and B) would be required under all project alternatives to minimize impacts to soil resources. 

4.1.7.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional activities that would potentially 

affect soil resources other than those previously approved for the area (BLM 1998b, 2000b)-­

4,209 acres of new (short-term) and 1,409 acres of LOP disturbance or 13.8% and 4.6% of the 

JIDPA, respectively. The duration of impacts would be approximately 63 years and until areas 

are adequately reclaimed. 

4.1.7.2 The Proposed Action Alternative 

A total of 4,209 acres of new (short-term) and 1,409 acres of LOP disturbance are currently 

approved (see Table 4.3) and would occur under the No Action Alternative. The Proposed 

Action would result in an estimated increase of 16,200 acres of new initial disturbance, for a total 

disturbance of 20,126 acres in the JIDPA (66.0% of the JIDPA), and an additional 283 acres for 

ancillary facilities that may be constructed outside the JIDPA. Total project-specific existing (i.e. 

No Action Alternative) and new initial disturbance under the Proposed Action would be 

20,409 acres (see Table 4.3). Approximately 70.4% (14,369 acres) of this disturbance would be 

reclaimed and reseeded as soon as practical after disturbance (see Appendix G). Disturbance 

would not occur all at once, but would increase as development occurs (for approximately 12 

years. Simultaneously, disturbance would decrease in some areas as some disturbed lands are 

reclaimed. The magnitude of impacts to soil resources would depend on how much disturbance is 

present at any one time and the rate of reclamation. Approximately 6,040 acres would be 

disturbed for the LOP--approximately 76 years and until successful reclamation is achieved. 

The Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed, which drains 45% of the JIDPA, could 

experience the greatest level of impacts to soil resources from project-related activities. Under 

the Proposed Action, potential new disturbance to this watershed could increase from that of the 
4-39 

Table 4.3 Cumulative Acreage of Disturbance in each CIAA Watershed and Including RFD, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Existing Proposed Action and

Total Acres of Disturbance Alternative A2 (3,100 Alternative B3 

Acreage Watershed In CIAA but No Action1 Wells/Pads) (3,100 Wells/497 Pads)

Watershed/ of Within Outside Major River Drainage Watershed JIDPA JIDPA RFD New LOP Cumulative10 New LOP Cumulative10 New LOP Cumulative10 Green River/New Fork River 

Expanded Sand Draw- 22,931 13,725 327 228 1,800 607 2,355 9,057 2,682 9,612 3,250 1,143 3,805 Alkali Creek 

 Granite Wash 12,212 1,312 36 0 172 58 208 866 256 902 311 109 347 

Reduced Upper Alkali 26,797 3,782 239 0 496 167 735 2,496 739 2,735 896 315 1,135 

Creek-Green River 

 Upper Eighteenmile 35,212 1,958 477 18 257 87 752 1,292 386 1,787 464 163 959 

Canyon Southeast New Fork River- 11,746 0 23 126 0 0 149 0 0 149 0 0 149 Blue Rim 

North Alkali Draw 15,911 0 101 168 0 0 269 0 0 269 0 0 269 

Subtotal 

124,809 20,777 1,203 540 2,725 919 4,469 13,710 4,059 15,453 4,920 1,731 6,663 

Big Sandy River 

Big Sandy River-Bull Draw 19,760 3,630 217 54 476 160 747 2,395 709 2,666 860 302 1,131 Long Draw 18,521 5,028 281 0 660 222 941 3,318 982 3,599 1,191 419 1,472 

Subtotal 38,281 8,658 498 54 1,136 382 1,688 5,713 1,692 6,265 2,050 721 2,603 

Closed Basins  Jonah Gulch 22,652 318 127 0 42 14 169 210 62 337 75 26 202 140401040603 

24,558 747 122 0 98 33 220 493 146 615 177 62 299 

Subtotal 

47,210 1,065 249 0 140 47 389 703 208 952 252 89 501 

Total11 210,300 30,500 1,950 594 4,001 1,348 6,545 20,126 5,959 22,670 7,223 2,541 9,767 Additional associated 208 61 208 283 81 283 283 81 283 

disturbance12 

Grand Total11 -- -- 4,209 1,409 6,753 20,409 6,040 22,953 7,506 2,622 10,050 

Percent disturbance of entire 0.9 0.3 1.9 0.6 3.2 9.6 2.9 10.9 3.4 1.2 4.8 CIAA 
4-40 

Table 4.3 (continued) 

Alternative C4 Alternative D5 Alternative E6 

(1,250 Wells and Pads) (2,220 Wells and Pads) (3,100 Wells/266 New Pads) 

Watershed/Major River Drainage New LOP Cumulative10 New LOP Cumulative10 New LOP Cumulative10Green River/New Fork River 

Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali 4,784 1,493 5,339 6,978 2,103 7,533 4,640 1,582 5,195 Creek 

 Granite Wash 457 143 493 667 201 703 444 151 480 

Reduced Upper Alkali 1,318 411 1,557 1,923 580 2,162 1,279 436 1,518 

Creek-Green River Upper Eighteenmile Canyon 682 213 1,177 995 300 1,490 662 226 1,157 Southeast New Fork River- 0 0 149 0 0 176 0 0 149 Blue Rim 

North Alkali Draw 0 0 269 0 0 281 0 0 269 

Subtotal 

7,242 2,260 8,985 10,564 3,184 12,307 7,025 2,395 8,768 

Big Sandy River 

Big Sandy River-Bull Draw 1,265 395 1,536 1,846 556 2,117 1,227 418 1,498 

 Long Draw 1,753 547 2,034 2,556 771 2,837 1,700 580 1,981 Subtotal 

3,018 942 3,570 4,402 1,327 4,954 2,927 998 3,479 

Closed Basins  Jonah Gulch 111 35 238 162 49 289 108 37 235 140401040603 

260 81 382 380 114 502 253 86 375 

Subtotal 

371 116 620 541 163 790 360 123 610 

Total11 10,631 3,318 13,175 15,507 4,674 18,051 10,312 3,516 12,857 Additional associated 283 81 283 283 81 283 283 81 283 

disturbance12 

Grand Total11 10,914 3,399 13,458 15,790 4,755 18,334 10,595 3,597 13,139 

Percent disturbance of entire 5.1 1.6 6.3 7.4 2.2 8.7 4.9 1.7 6.2 CIAA 
4-41 

Table 4.3 (continued) 

 Alternative F7 Alternative G8 

(3,100 Wells/ (3,100 Wells/ Preferred Alternative9 

1,028 New Pads) 2,553 New Pads) (3,100 Wells/Pads) 

6th Order Watershed/Major River Drainage New LOP Cumulative10 New LOP Cumulative10 New LOP Cumulative10Green River/New Fork River 

Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali 6,467 1,762 7,022 8,062 2,397 8,617 5,509 1,695 6,064 Creek 

 Granite Wash 618 168 654 771 229 807 527 162 563 

Reduced Upper Alkali 1,782 486 2,021 2,221 661 2,460 1,518 467 1,757 

Creek-Green River Upper Eighteenmile Canyon 923 251 1,418 1,150 342 1,645 786 242 1,281 

Southeast New Fork River- 0 0 149 0 0 149 0 0 149 

Blue Rim 

North Alkali Draw 0 0 269 0 0 269 0 0 269 

Subtotal 9,790 2,668 11,533 12,204 3,629 13,947 8,340 2,567 10,083 

Big Sandy River 

Big Sandy River-Bull Draw 1,711 466 1,982 2,132 634 2,403 1,458 448 1,729 

 Long Draw 2,369 646 2,650 2,953 878 3,234 2,018 620 2,299 Subtotal 

4,080 1,112 4,632 5,086 1,512 5,638 3,476 1,068 4,028 

Closed Basins 

Jonah Gulch 150 41 277 187 56 314 127 39 254 140401040603 352 96 474 439 130 561 299 92 421 

Subtotal 

502 137 751 626 186 875 426 131 675 

Total11 14,372 3,916 16,916 17,915 5,327 20,459 12,242 3,766 14,786 Additional associated 283 81 283 283 81 283 283 81 283 

disturbance11 

Grand Total 11 14,655 3,997 17,199 18,198 5,408 20,742 12,525 3,847 15,069 

Percent disturbance of entire 6.8 1.9 8.2 8.5 2.5 9.9 6.0 1.8 7.2 CIAA 
4-42 

Table 4.3 (continued) 1 Assumes new and LOP disturbance as currently authorized. 2 Assumes 20,126 acres of new initial and 5,956 acres of LOP disturbance in the JIDPA. 3 Assumes 7,223 acres of new initial and 2,541 acres of LOP disturbance in the JIDPA. 4 Assumes 10,631 acres of new initial and 3,318 acres of LOP disturbance in the JIDPA. 5 Assumes 15,507 acres of new initial and 4,674 acres of LOP disturbance in the JIDPA. 6 Assumes 10,312 acres of new initial and 3,516acres of LOP disturbance in the JIDPA. 7 Assumes 14,372 acres of new initial and 3,916 acres of LOP disturbance in the JIDPA. 8 Assumes 17,915 acres of new initial and 5,327 acres of LOP disturbance in the JIDPA. 9 Assumes 12,242 acres of new initial and 3,766 acres of LOP disturbance in the JIDPA. 10 Cumulative disturbance = New + existing + RFD. 11 Columns may not total due to rounding error. 12 Assumes new initial and LOP disturbance associated with selected ancillary facilities which may be constructed outside the JIDPA (e.g. Burma Road 

upgrade). 
4-43 

Table 4.4 Percent of Watersheds Affected, Including Existing Disturbance, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 

2005.1 

Percent of 

Entire Proposed Action and Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Total Percent of Watershed No Action (3,100 Wells/ Pads) (3,100 Wells/ 497 Pads) (1,250 Wells and Pads) Watershed/ Acreage of Watershed Currently Major River Drainage2 Watershed in JIDPA Disturbed2 New3 LOP3 Cumulative New3 LOP3 Cumulative New3 LOP3 Cumulative New3 LOP3 Cumulative 

Green River/New Fork River 

Expanded Sand DrawAlkali Creek 22,931 59.9 4.2 7.8 2.6 10.3 

 Granite Wash 12,212 10.7 0.3 1.4 0.5 1.7 

Reduced Upper Alkali 

Creek-Green River 

26,797 14.1 1.3 1.9 0.6 2.7 

 Upper Eighteenmile 

Canyon 

35,212 5.6 1.7 0.7 0.2 2.1 

Southeast New Fork River-Blue Rim 

11,746 0.0 0.2 1.3 

North Alkali Draw 15,911 0.0 0.6 1.7 

Big Sandy River 

Big Sandy River-Bull 

Draw 

19,760 18.4 1.1 2.4 0.8 3.8 

 Long Draw 18,521 27.1 0.7 3.6 1.2 5.1 Closed basins  Jonah Gulch 22,652 1.4 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.7 140401040603 

24,558 3.0 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.9 

-- -- -- -- 

39.5 11.7 41.9 

7.1 2.1 7.4 

9.3 2.8 10.2 

3.7 1.1 5.1 

1.3 1.7 

12.1 3.6 13.5 17.9 5.3 19.5 

0.9 0.3 1.5 2.0 0.6 2.5 

-- -- -- -- 

14.2 5.0 16.6 

2.5 0.9 2.8 

3.3 1.2 4.2 

1.3 0.5 2.7 

1.3 1.7 

4 1.5 5.7 

6.4 2.3 7.9 

0.3 0.1 0.9 0.7 0.3 1.2 

-- -- -- -- 

20.9 6.5 23.3 

3.7 1.2 4.0 

4.9 1.5 5.8 

1.9 0.6 3.3 

1.3 1.7 

6.4 2.0 7.8 

9.5 3.0 11.0 

0.5 0.2 1.1 1.1 0.3 1.6 

-- -- -- -- 
4-44 

Table 4.4 (continued) 

Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G Preferred Alternative 

Watershed/ (2,220 Wells and Pads) (3,100 Wells/ 266 Pads) (3,100 Wells/ 1,028 New Pads) (3,100 Wells/ 2,553 Pads) (3,100 Wells/ Pads) Major River Drainage2 New3 LOP3 Cumulative New3 LOP3 Cumulative New3 LOP3 Cumulative New3 LOP3 Cumulative New3 LOP3 Cumulative Green River/New Fork River 

Expanded Sand DrawAlkali Creek 30.4 9.2 32.9 

 Granite Wash 5.5 1.7 5.8 

Reduced Upper Alkali 

Creek-Green River 

7.2 2.2 8.1 

 Upper Eighteenmile 

Canyon 

2.8 0.9 4.2 

Southeast New Fork River-Blue Rim 

1.3 

North Alkali Draw 1.7 

Big Sandy River 

Big Sandy River-Bull 

Draw 

9.3 2.8 10.7 

 Long Draw 13.8 4.2 15.5 Closed basins  Jonah Gulch 0.7 0.2 1.3 140401040603 

1.5 0.5 2.0 

-- -- -- -- 

20.2 6.9 22.7 

3.6 1.2 3.9 4.8 1.6 5.7 1.9 0.6 3.3 

1.3 1.7 

6.2 2.1 7.6 

9.2 3.1 10.7 

0.5 0.2 1.0 1.0 0.4 1.5 

-- -- -- -- 

28.2 7.7 30.6 

5.1 1.4 5.4 6.6 1.8 7.5 2.6 0.7 4.0 

1.3 1.7 

8.7 2.4 10.0 

12.8 3.5 14.3 

0.7 0.2 1.2 1.4 0.4 1.9 

-- -- -- -- 

35.2 10.5 37.6 

6.3 1.9 6.6 8.3 2.5 9.2 3.3 1.0 4.7 

1.3 1.7 

10.8 3.2 12.2 

15.9 4.7 17.5 

0.8 0.2 1.4 1.8 0.5 2.3 

-- -- -- -- 

24.0 7.4 26.4 

4.3 1.3 4.6 5.6 1.7 6.6 2.2 0.7 3.6 

1.3 1.7 

7.3 2.2 8.7 

10.4 3.2 12.4 

0.6 0.2 1.1 1.2 0.4 1.7 

-- -- -- -- 

1 Percent of watershed affected is calculated using potential acreage affected (refer to Table 4.3) divided by the total watershed acreage multiplied by 100. 2

 As described in Table 3.12. 3 Provides percent of the watershed within the JIDPA that would be disturbed. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-45 

No Action Alternative to 39.5% (see Tables 4.3 and 4.4). Estimated LOP disturbance to the 

Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed from the Proposed Action would be 2,682 acres 

(11.7% of the watershed). 

No formal estimates of disturbance to the 17 soil map units defined for the JIDPA (see Map 3.6) 

are provided herein due to the variability and unknown locations for much of the proposed 

development. Estimates of the types of soils most likely to be disturbed are based on the coarsescale soil map units (see Map 3.6). The SU05 soil map unit that occurs on 67.2% of the JIDPA 

(see Table 3.10 and Map 3.6) is anticipated to experience the greatest amount of disturbance-­

13,525 acres of new disturbance as a result of the Proposed Action. The SU03 unit that occupies 

32.5% of the JIDPA could experience 6,541 acres of disturbance. The remaining 60 acres of 

disturbance could occur in the SU07 soil map unit type. 

4.1.7.3 Alternative A 

Implementation of Alternative A is anticipated to result in the same types and acreage of impacts 

and surface disturbance as the Proposed Action (see Tables 4.3 and 4.4) and would result in 

increased soil impacts and disturbance from these of the No Action Alternative. However, since 

selected Operator-committed and BLM-required practices would not be implemented (e.g., 

avoidance of steep slopes and drainage buffers), significant impacts are more likely to occur 

under this alternative. Development of natural gas resources in these areas could result in 

significant impacts to soil resources, particularly in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek 

watershed, due to increased erosion and/or sedimentation. As with the Proposed Action, not all 

areas would be disturbed at the same time, rather, disturbance would accumulate as development 

occurs. Since the rate of development may vary under Alternative A (i.e., 75, 150, or 250 wells 

developed/year) the duration of impacts could be extended from the No Action Alternative by an 

additional 42 years (75 wells/year development rate) and until areas are reclaimed. 

4.1.7.4 Alternative B 

Implementation of Alternative B would result in an increase of 3,297 acres of new initial surface 

disturbance from that of the No Action Alternative. Impact potential would increase as 

development occurs from approximately 5 to 17 years; all surface disturbance would not be 

present at any one time. The duration of impacts could be extended from the No Action 

Alternative by 42 years (75 wells/year development rate). 

Under Alternative B, there would be a total of 7,506 acres new disturbance--7,223 acres would 

occur in the JIDPA (i.e., 23.7% of the JIDPA). Of this total, 4,884 would be short-term and 2,622 

acres would be LOP disturbance. Under Alternative B, LOP disturbance to soils within the 

JIDPA would increase from the No Action Alternative of 4.6% (1,409 acres) to 8.3% 

(2,541 acres) of the JIDPA. 

The Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed could experience the greatest level of impacts 

to soil resources from project-related activities. Potential new disturbance to this watershed under 

Alternative B could increase from that of the No Action to 14.2% of the watershed (see Tables 

4.3 and 4.4). Estimated LOP disturbance to the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed 

from Alternative B would be 1,143 acres (5.0% of the watershed). 
4-46 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

It is anticipated that soil map unit SU05 would experience the greatest amount of disturbance 

(5,044 acres) under this alternative. The SU03 unit could experience 2,439 acres of disturbance. 

The remaining 23 acres of disturbance could occur in the SU07 soil map unit type. 

4.1.7.5 Alternative C 

Implementation of Alternative C would result an increase of 6,705 acres of new initial surface 

disturbance from that of the No Action Alternative. Impact potential would increase as 

development occurs; therefore, all surface disturbance would not be present at any one time. The 

duration of impacts to soils could be extended from the No Action Alternative from 5 to 17 years 

plus the time needed for successful reclamation. 

Under Alternative C, total new surface disturbance in the JIDPA would be 10,631 acres 

(7,313 and 3,318 acres for short-term and LOP disturbance, respectively) (34.9% of the JIDPA). 

An additional 283 acres of initial disturbance would be required for ancillary facilities that may 

be constructed outside the JIDPA; therefore total new disturbance under Alternative C would be 

10,914 acres (see Table 4.3). Approximately 68.9% (7,515 acres) of total disturbance would be 

short-term (i.e., reclaimed and reseeded as soon as practical after disturbance); the remaining 

3,399 acres would be disturbed for the LOP. Under Alternative C, LOP disturbance to soils 

within the JIDPA would increase from the No Action Alternative of 4.6% to 10.9% of the JIDPA. 

The Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed could experience the greatest level of impacts 

to soil resources from project-related activities. Potential new disturbance to this watershed under 

Alternative C could increase from that of the No Action Alternative to 20.9%of the watershed 

(see Tables 4.3 and 4.4). Estimated LOP disturbance to the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek 

watershed from Alternative C would be 1,493 acres (6.5% of the watershed). 

The SU05 soil map unit is anticipated to have approximately 7,144 acres of new disturbance. The 

SU03 unit could experience 3,455 acres of disturbance. The remaining 32 acres of new 

disturbance could occur in the SU07 soil map unit type. 

4.1.7.6 Alternative D 

Implementation of Alternative D would result in an increase of 11,581 acres of new initial surface 

disturbance from that of the No Action Alternative. Impact potential would increase as 

development occurs from approximately 9 to 30 years; therefore, all surface disturbance would 

not occur at once. Depending in the rate of development, impact duration would be 

approximately 72 to 93 years, the duration of impacts to soils could be extended from the No 

Action Alternative by approximately 9 to 30 years plus the time needed for successful 

reclamation. 

Under Alternative D, total new surface disturbance in the JIDPA would be 15,507 acres (10,833 

and 4,674 acres for short-term and LOP disturbance, respectively) (50.8% of the JIDPA). An 

additional 283 acres of new disturbance would be required for ancillary facilities that may be 

constructed outside the JIDPA; therefore, total new disturbance under this alternative would be 

15,790 acres (see Table 4.3). Approximately 69.9% (11,035 acres) of total disturbance would be 

short-term (i.e., reclaimed and reseeded as soon as practical after disturbance); the remaining 

4,755 acres would be disturbed for the LOP. Under Alternative D, LOP disturbance to soils 

within the JIDPA would increase from the No Action Alternative of 4.6% to 15.3% of the JIDPA. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-47 

The Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed could experience the greatest level of impacts 

to soil resources from project-related activities. Potential new disturbance to this watershed under 

Alternative D could increase from that of the No Action Alternative to 30.4% of the watershed 

(Tables 4.3 and 4.4). Estimated LOP disturbance to the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek 

watershed from Alternative D would be 2,103 acres (9.2% of the watershed). 

The SU05 soil map unit is anticipated to have approximately 10,421 acres of new disturbance. 

The SU03 unit could experience 5,040 acres of disturbance. The remaining 46 acres of 

disturbance could occur in the SU07 soil map unit type. 

4.1.7.7 Alternative E 

Implementation of Alternative E would result in an increase of 6,386 acres of new initial surface 

disturbance from that of the No Action Alternative. Impact potential would increase as 

development progresses, from 12 to 42 years. Depending on the rate of development, impact 

duration would be approximately 76 to 105 years and could be extended from that of the No 

Action Alternative by approximately 13 to 42 years plus the time needed for successful 

reclamation. 

Under Alternative E, total surface disturbance in the JIDPA would be 10,312 acres (6,796 and 

3,516 acres for short-term and LOP disturbance, respectively) (33.8% of the JIDPA). An 

additional 283 acres of new disturbance and 81 acres LOP disturbance would be required for 

ancillary facilities that may be constructed outside the JIDPA; therefore, total new initial 

disturbance under Alternative E would be 10,595 acres, and 3,597 acres of disturbance would 

occur for the LOP (see Table 4.3). Under Alternative E, LOP disturbance to soils within the 

JIDPA would increase from the No Action Alternative of 4.6% to 11.5% of the JIDPA. 

The Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed could experience the greatest level of impacts 

to soil resources from project-related activities. Potential new disturbance to this watershed from 

Alternative E could increase from that of the No Action Alternative to 20.3% of the watershed 

(see Tables 4.3 and 4.4). Estimated LOP disturbance to the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek 

watershed from Alternative E would be 1,582 acres (6.9% of the watershed). 

The SU05 soil map unit is anticipated to have approximately 6,930 acres of new disturbance. The 

SU03 unit could experience 3,354 acres of disturbance. The remaining 28 acres of new 

disturbance could occur in the SU07 soil map unit type. 

4.1.7.8 Alternative F 

Implementation of Alternative F would result in an increase of 10,446 acres of new initial surface 

disturbance from that of the No Action Alternative. Impact potential would increase as 

development progresses from 12 to 42 years. Depending on the rate of development, impact 

duration would be approximately 76 to 105 years and could be extended from that of the No 

Action Alternative by approximately 42 years plus the time needed for successful reclamation. 

Under Alternative F, total surface disturbance in the JIDPA would be 14,372 acres (10,456 and 

3,916 acres for short-term and LOP disturbance, respectively) (47.1% of the JIDPA). An 

additional 283 acres of new disturbance and 81 acres LOP disturbance would be required for 

ancillary facilities that may be constructed outside the JIDPA; therefore, total new disturbance 

under Alternative F would be 14,655 acres, and 3,997 acres of disturbance would occur for the 
4-48 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

LOP (see Table 4.3). Under Alternative F, LOP disturbance to soils would increase from the No 

Action Alternative of 4.6% to 12.8% of the JIDPA. 

The Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed could experience the greatest level of impacts 

to soil resources from project-related activities. Potential new disturbance to this watershed from 

Alternative F could increase from that of the No Action Alternative to 28.2% of the watershed 

(see Tables 4.3 and 4.4). Estimated LOP disturbance to the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek 

watershed from Alternative F would be 1,762 acres (7.7% of the watershed). 

The SU05 soil map unit is anticipated to have approximately 9,658 acres of new disturbance. The 

SU03 unit could experience 4,671 acres of disturbance. The remaining 43 acres of new 

disturbance could occur in the SU07 soil map unit type. 

4.1.7.9 Alternative G 

Implementation of Alternative G would result in an increase of 13,989 acres of new initial surface 

disturbance from that of the No Action Alternative. Impact potential would increase as 

development progresses from 12 to 42 years. Depending on the rate of development, impact 

duration would be approximately 76 to 105 years and could be extended from that of the No 

Action Alternative by approximately 13 to 42 years plus the time needed for successful 

reclamation. 

Under Alternative G, total surface disturbance in the JIDPA would be 17,915 acres (12,588 and 

5,327 acres for short-term and LOP disturbance, respectively) (58.7% of the JIDPA). An 

additional 283 acres of new disturbance and 81 acres LOP disturbance would be required for 

ancillary facilities that may be constructed outside the JIDPA; therefore, total new disturbance 

under Alternative G would be 18,198 acres, and 5,408 acres of disturbance would occur for the 

LOP (see Table 4.3). Under Alternative G, LOP disturbance to soils from would increase from 

that of the No Action Alternative of 4.6% to 17.5% of the JIDPA. 

The Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed could experience the greatest level of impacts 

to soil resources from project-related activities. Potential new disturbance to this watershed under 

Alternative G could increase from that of the No Action Alternative of 4.2% to 35.2% of the 

watershed (see Tables 4.3 and 4.4). Estimated LOP disturbance to the Expanded Sand DrawAlkali Creek watershed from Alternative G would be 2,397 acres (10.5% of the watershed. 

The SU05 soil map unit is anticipated to have approximately 12,039 acres of new disturbance. 

The SU03 unit could experience 5,822 acres of disturbance. The remaining 54 acres of new 

disturbance could occur in the SU07 soil map unit type. 

4.1.7.10 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Impacts to soils under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those described for all other 

alternatives. Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in an estimated 8,316 

acres of additional surface disturbance above that of the No Action Alternative, subsequently 

resulting in an assumed increase in soil impacts. Impact potential would increase as development 

occurs (for approximately 12 years); therefore, all surface disturbance would not be present at any 

one time. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-49 

Under the Preferred Action Alternative, total new surface disturbance in the JIDPA would be 

12,242 acres. An additional 283 acres of initial disturbance would be required for ancillary 

facilities that may be constructed outside the JIDPA; therefore, a total of 12,525 acres would be 

disturbed under this alternative (see Table 4.3). Approximately 69.2% (8,678 acres) of total 

disturbance would be short-term (i.e., reclaimed and reseeded as soon as practical after 

disturbance); the remaining 3,847 acres would be disturbed for the LOP. Under the Preferred 

Action Alternative, LOP disturbance to soils within the JIDPA would increase from the No 

Action Alternative of 4.6% to 12.6% of the JIDPA. 

Impacts to soil resources resulting from surface disturbance under the Preferred Alternative 

would be less than those from the Proposed Action and Alternatives A, D, F, and G, where total 

disturbance is estimated at 20,409 acres, 20,409 acres, 15,790 acres, 14,655 acres, and 

18,198 acres, respectively. Additionally, it is anticipated that impacts to soil resources resulting 

from surface disturbance under the Preferred Alternative would be greater than those from 

Alternatives B, C, and G, where new disturbance is estimated at 7,506 acres, 10,914 acres, and 

10,595 acres, respectively. 

The Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed could experience the greatest level of impacts 

to soil resources from project-related surface disturbance. Potential new disturbance to this 

watershed from the Preferred Alternative could increase from the No Action Alternative to 24.0% 

of the watershed (see Table 4.4). Estimated LOP disturbance to the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali 

Creek watershed from the Preferred Alternative would increase from 607 acres or 2.6% of the 

watershed (under the No Action Alternative) to 1,696 acres (7.4% of watershed) (see Tables 4.3 

and 4.4). 

Due to the variability and unknown locations for much of the proposed development disturbance, 

estimates of the types of soils most likely to be disturbed are based on the larger soil map units 

(see Map 3.6). Under this Alternative, it is anticipated that soil map unit SU05 would experience 

the greatest amount of disturbance--8,226 acres of new disturbance as a result of this alternative. 

The SU03 unit could experience 3,978 acres of disturbance. The remaining 38 acres of 

disturbance could occur in the SU07 soil map unit type. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, additional mitigation measures would be applied to facilitate 

achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources (see 

Section 2.14). 

4.1.7.11 Cumulative Impacts 

The CIAA for soil resources is the 10 watersheds that drain the JIDPA, which encompass 

approximately 210,300 acres. Areas west of Big Sandy River, occurring within the Big Sandy 

River-Bull Draw watershed are included in the CIAA; however, no project impacts (cumulative 

or otherwise) would occur in this area. Approximately 1.6% of the CIAA (3,355 acres) has been 

disturbed by well pads, agricultural lands (i.e., hay meadows), reservoirs, pipelines, roads, and 

residential areas (i.e., ranches) (see Table 3.11). The Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek 

watershed has the largest amount of existing disturbance (992 acres or 4.2% of the watershed), 

most of which is from existing natural gas development in the Jonah Field. 

RFD (total surface disturbance) for the portion of the soil resources CIAA outside the JIDPA is 

estimated at 594 acres (see Table 4.3), primarily from gas-related development in the Pinedale 

Anticline Natural Gas Field. Approximately 38% (228 acres) of the RFD would occur in the 
4-50 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek Watershed. RFD for the North Alkali Draw watershed is 

estimated at 168 acres, Southeast New Fork River is estimated at 126 acres, the Big Sandy RiverBull Draw is estimated at 54 acres, and Upper Eighteenmile Canyon is estimated at 18 acres. 

Maximum cumulative disturbance for the No Action Alternative (i.e., the combined existing and 

RFD disturbance) would be 6,753 acres (3.2%) in the combined watersheds. The maximum 

cumulative disturbance for the Proposed Action (i.e., the combined existing, proposed [Proposed 

Action and Alternative A], and RFD disturbance) would be 22,953 acres (10.9%) in the combined 

watersheds (see Table 4.3). Under Alternative B, maximum cumulative disturbance would be 

increased from the No Action to 10,050 acres, 4.8% of the combined watersheds. Under 

Alternatives C and D, maximum cumulative disturbance would be 13,458 acres and 18,334 acres 

or 6.3% and 8.7% of the CIAA, respectively. Under Alternative E, maximum cumulative 

disturbance would be 13,139 acres (6.2%). Under Alternative F, maximum cumulative 

disturbance would be 17,199 acres or 8.2% of the combined watersheds. Under Alternative G, 

maximum cumulative disturbance would be 20,742 acres or 9.9% of the combined watersheds. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, maximum cumulative disturbance would be 15,069 acres (7.2% 

of the combined watershed)--an increase of 8,316 acres above the No Action Alternative. 

Maximum cumulative disturbance would be greatest in the combined watersheds that drain into 

the Green River, and disturbance would be greatest in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek 

watershed (see Tables 4.3 and 4.4). Gas development would continue to be the primary 

component of this disturbance. Maximum cumulative disturbance as a result of the No Action 

Alternative in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed is estimated at 2,355 acres 

(10.3% of the watershed). Maximum cumulative disturbance as a result of the Proposed Action 

and Alternative A in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed is estimated at 9,612 acres 

(41.9% of the watershed). Maximum cumulative disturbance as a result of the Preferred 

Alternative in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed is estimated at 6,064 acres 

(26.4% of the watershed). Under other alternatives, maximum cumulative disturbance in the 

Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed is estimated to range from 3,805 acres (16.6%) 

under Alternative B to 8,617 acres (37.6%) under Alternative G. The Long Draw watershed that 

drains 16% of the JIDPA would experience the next greatest amount of cumulative disturbance. 

The closed basin watersheds--Jonah Gulch and 140401040603--would likely only experience a 

small percentage of cumulative disturbance to soils. 

4.1.7.12 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Productivity of some disturbed soils would be reduced due to removal of vegetation, increased 

soil exposure, mixing of soil horizons, and increased susceptibility to wind and water erosion. 

Some increased soil loss through erosion would be unavoidable under all of the alternatives. 

4.1.8 Surface Water and Ground Water 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) identify the following 

management goals/objectives associated with water resources: 

• to maintain, improve, and/or protect surface and ground water quality; 

• to maintain or improve channel stability and overall watershed conditions; 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-51 

• to protect, maintain, or improve wetlands, floodplains, riparian areas, and other 

water resources; 

• to conserve water and relate water resources and development to desired land 

use; 

• to support and encourage water quality monitoring programs; 

• to establish more watering systems on all grazing lands for livestock, wildlife, 

and game/non-game birds; 

• to encourage strategies that utilize Wyoming's appropriated share of Colorado 

River waters for beneficial uses; 

• to consider potential effects on surface and ground water quality/resources when 

land uses are planned or proposed, particularly near water courses and lakes; 

• to ensure land uses and developments do not accelerate long-term ground water 

depletion; and 

• to comply with water quality standards (e.g., salinity) set forth by the Colorado 

River Basin Salinity Control Act. 

Impacts to surface or ground waters would be significant 1) if water quality declined (e.g., from 

sedimentation, accidental spills, or cross-aquifer mixing) such that existing WDEQ water quality 

classes (WDEQ 1990) would be downgraded; 2) if water quantities were depleted such that the 

water rights of ground water or downstream users would be violated; 3) if project-related erosion 

and runoff into intermittent drainages and subsequently into perennial waters altered the physical 

characteristics of these waters; 4) if project activities resulted in a violation of RMP objectives 

within or downstream of the JIDPA; and/or 5) if project activities resulted in a violation of 

Colorado river Water Quality standards for salinity (723 mg/L salinity below Hoover Dam 

[Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum 2002]). 

There would be no depletion of surface waters associated with the project. With successful 

reclamation (including interim reclamation occurring during the LOP [Appendix G]) and the 

construction of sediment retention/catchment areas where needed, only minor amounts of projectrelated runoff sediments are anticipated to reach perennial surface waters. In the absence of 

successful reclamation and during periods of high runoff, significant sediment loads in runoff 

waters could potentially occur. No impacts to and/or from flooding are anticipated because areas 

adjacent to drainages would be avoided. 

Potential impacts to surface and/or ground water resulting from the project include increased 

turbidity, salinity, and sedimentation of surface waters due to runoff and erosion from disturbed 

areas; accidental spills of petroleum products or other pollutants; discharge of unsuitable quality 

produced water and/or pipeline test water; and cross-aquifer mixing. Impacts to surface water 

from development generally would result from increased runoff from disturbed areas, and it is 

assumed that with increased surface disturbance acreage, there would be a corresponding 

decrease in water quality (increased sediment loads in runoff waters) and increased runoff rates. 

Since the sediment and salt loads are unknown under any project alternative, the BLM has 

determined that modeling will be performed to identify these volumes. The results of this 
4-52 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

modeling will be available in the Final EIS. Rates of wind and water erosion would increase 

above natural rates until successful reclamation of disturbed areas is achieved. Short-term control 

of surface runoff would be dependent on the success of reclamation and revegetation efforts 

described in site-specific reclamation plans, Surface Use Plans, or Plans of Development prepared 

for each APD and/or ROW application, and SWPPPs. 

Concentrating development actions at larger well pads would have increased site-specific effects 

on overland flow patterns, ground water infiltration (reduced on compacted areas) and runoff 

volumes (increased rates and potential erosion and sedimentation). Additionally, if surface 

disturbance is concentrated in any one watershed, increased potential erosion and runoff-related 

effects may occur, possibly requiring the need for special treatments to be specified in APD 

approvals. Estimates of potential new initial and LOP disturbance associated with the Proposed 

Action and each of the alternatives within each project-affected watershed are presented in 

Tables 4.3 and 4.4 and discussed under each alternative. Development activities in the JIDPA 

such as roads and well pads could affect natural overland flow patterns and ground water 

infiltration. Compacted areas (e.g., roads and well pads) could reduce ground water infiltration 

and potentially could increase the erosive potential of runoff events by creating a shorter period 

of runoff and an increased volume of runoff water and contained sediments. While increased 

sedimentation and salinity volumes are unknown, potential impacts could occur if increases result 

in the loss of channel stability and a decrease in overall watershed condition. While proper 

design, construction, and maintenance of proposed facilities would reduce erosion potential, these 

actions may not entirely compensate for anticipated increased flows. 

As noted in Section 3.1.6.2, ground water greater than approximately 2,300 ft below ground 

surface is relatively fresh, and the aquifer is extensive. Proposed ground water consumption of 

fresh water would result in the temporary partial depletion of this aquifer. An estimated 

maximum of 4.9 acre-ft of new ground water would be required to drill and complete each well 

(Table 4.5), and this water would be obtained from approximately 41 (25 existing, 16 new) water 

wells drilled to the top 600 ft of the aquifer. 

Water wells pumping water out of an aquifer create a cone of depression, where ground water 

levels are lowered near the pumping wells. The ground water model MODFLOW was used to 

simulate the cone of depression created by pumping of all Proposed ground water from the 

existing 25 water wells and to determine the approximate time to full recovery of the aquifer after 

pumping stops (full recovery is defined as the point in time when drawdown is 1.6 ft or less) 

(HydroGeo, Inc. 2004). Three development rates were modeled: development of 75 wells per 

year over 41.3 years, 150 wells per year over 20.7 years, and 250 wells per year over 12.4 years 

(Table 4.5). 

Ground water modeling results (Map 4.1) showed that the cone of depression would extend only 

about 1.0 mile beyond the boundary of the JIDPA, even for the most rapid rate of maximum 

development (250 wells per year over 12.4 years) and that drawdown would be no greater than 

about 10 ft in the JIDPA (HydroGeo, Inc. 2004). The results also showed that the aquifer would 

fully recover within 1 to 6 years following the cessation of pumping (Table 4.6). Outside the 

JIDPA, no notable impacts to surface or ground water would occur. Ground water quality would 

not be impacted as a result of freshwater pumping, since the freshwater aquifers from which 

proposed waters would be obtained appear to be isolated from deeper, poorer quality waters. 

None of the alternatives would result in significant aquifer drawdown, and this impact is not 

discussed further, except to note that rate of development would impact rate of aquifer recovery. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-53 

Table 4.5 Summary of Ground Water Pumping Scenarios (3,100 total wells), Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Gas Water Need Water Need for Length of Number of Water per Water per 

Wells/ per Gas Well All Gas Wells Drilling Program Pumping Water Pumping Well Pumping Well 

Year (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr) (years) Wells (acre-ft/yr) (gpm) 

75 4.9 367.5 41.3 25 14.7 9.1 

150 4.9 735.0 20.7 25 29.4 18.2 

250 4.9 1,225.0 12.4 25 49.0 30.4 

Potential for contamination of the freshwater aquifer is low because the well drilling and casing 

practices used by the Operators and required by BLM and the WOGCC limit the potential for 

movement of any materials outside the well casing and across aquifers. Accidental contamination 

is possible but would be mitigated through a groundwater clean-up program, the scope of which 

would be determined by the EPA should a reportable incident occur (see Appendix G). 

Gas wells are expected to produce 0.5-10.0 bbls of water per day, which would be disposed of as 

described in Appendix G. The brackish water aquifer(s) that is the source of the produced water 

is thought to be isolated from the freshwater aquifer described above; thus, water production is 

not likely to impact the quantity or quality of fresh ground water. Furthermore, because it 

apparently is isolated, production and disposal or reuse of this water for the project is not likely to 

impact surface water resources within or outside of the JIDPA. 

Hydrostatic pipeline testing water that does not meet applicable state and federal surface or 

ground water standards would not be released on the ground surface. This water may require 

treatment in a lined treatment pond prior to discharge or may be transported away from well 

locations to lined evaporation ponds or injector wells for disposal. All disposal and/or reuse of 

produced and test water would be in accordance with WDEQ rules and regulations and BLM Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 7. Considerable volumes of produced water would be purified and 

reused for the project (see Appendix G). 

Impacts to surface water resources could be significant under any project alternative. Under all 

alternatives, Operators would be required to implement management requirements and mitigation 

measures (see Appendices A and B); therefore, impacts to surface water also would be relative to 

the effectiveness of these additional requirements. 

No significant impacts to ground water resources are anticipated under any alternative. 

4.1.8.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional activities that would potentially 

affect water resources other than those previously approved for the area (BLM 1998b, 2000b)-­

4,209 acres of new (short-term) and 1,409 acres of LOP disturbance (see Table 2.3) or 13.8% and 

4.6% of the JIDPA, respectively. Some ephemeral drainages would remain prone to flooding 
4-54 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Map 4.1 Modeled Cone of Depression for Development of 250 Wells per Year Over 12.4 Years 

(3,100 total wells), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-55 

Table 4.6 Ground Water Recovery Time (3,100 wells), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 2005. 

No. Gas Years to Full Recovery After Total Years to Full 

Wells/Year Years of Pumping Pumping Ends Recovery 

75 41.3 0.5 41.8 

150 20.7 4.0 24.7 

250 12.4 6.0 18.4 

after storm events, and their channels would continue to be subject to erosion at existing rates. 

The duration of impacts to surface water would be approximately 63 years (see Table 2.2) and 

until areas are adequately reclaimed. Further ground water pumping would not be conducted, and 

aquifers would begin recharging immediately. Prior decisions found that the existing project 

would be unlikely to significantly impact surface or ground water resources (BLM 1998b, 

2000b). 

4.1.8.2 The Proposed Action 

A total of 4,209 acres of new (short-term) and 1,409 acres of LOP disturbance currently is 

approved in the JIDPA (see Table 4.3). The Proposed Action would result in an estimated 

additional 16,200 acres of new initial disturbance, for a total of 20,126 acres in the JIDPA (66.0% 

of the JIDPA) and an additional 283 acres for ancillary facilities that may be constructed outside 

the JIDPA. Total disturbance under the Proposed Action would be 20,409 acres (see Table 4.3). 

Approximately 70.4% (14,369 acres) of this disturbance would be reclaimed as soon as practical 

after disturbance. Disturbance would not occur all at once but would increase as development 

occurs (for approximately 13 years). The magnitude of surface disturbance would depend on the 

amount of disturbance present at any one time and the rate of reclamation. The remaining 

6,040 acres would be disturbed for the LOP (approximately 76 years and until successful 

reclamation is achieved); thus, surface water impacts would last 13 years longer than under the 

No Action Alternative. 

Estimates of potential new initial and LOP disturbance acreages associated with the Proposed 

Action and each of the alternatives within each project-affected watershed are presented in 

Tables 4.3 and 4.4. The Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed, which drains 45.0% of 

the JIDPA, would experience the greatest level of impacts to surface water resources from 

project-related activities. Potential new initial disturbance to this watershed from implementation 

of the Proposed Action could increase from that of the No Action Alternative to 39.5% (see 

Table 4.4). Estimated LOP disturbance to the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed 

from the Proposed Action would increase from 607 acres or 2.6% of the watershed (under the No 

Action Alternative) to 2,682 acres (11.7% of the watershed). 

Under the Proposed Action, types of impacts to ground water would be similar to those described 

for the No Action Alternative and, with effective mitigation, it is anticipated that the potential for 

adverse impacts also would be similar. However, more fresh ground water would be consumed 

and more poor-quality water would be produced because more gas wells would be drilled. Under 

the Proposed Action Alternative, the duration of ground water impacts would be 13 years longer 

than under the No Action Alternative (i.e., the development phase [see Table 2.2]) plus 6 years 

required to recharge the aquifer (see Table 4.6). 
4-56 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

4.1.8.3 Alternative A 

Implementation of Alternative A is anticipated to result in the same types and volumes of water 

resource impacts as described for the Proposed Action (see Section 4.1.8.2 and Tables 4.3 and 

4.4). However, since selected Operator-committed and BLM-required practices (e.g., avoidance 

of drainage buffers) would not be implemented, significant impacts are more likely to occur 

under this alternative. Because development of natural gas resources in these areas would not 

require the use of directional drilling, impacts to surface water resources, particularly 

sedimentation into Sand Draw, likely would be greater than under the Proposed Action. As with 

the Proposed Action, areas would not all be disturbed at the same time; rather, disturbance would 

accumulate as development occurs. Impacts to surface water would depend on the rate of 

development and would occur throughout the LOP (approximately 76 to 105 years and until 

successful reclamation is achieved); thus, impacts would last 13 to 42 years longer than under the 

No Action Alternative. 

Implementation of Alternative A is anticipated to result in the same types of impacts to ground 

water as described for the No Action Alternative (see Tables 4.3 and 4.4); however, more fresh 

ground water would be consumed and more poor-quality water would be produced because more 

gas wells would be drilled. The ground water aquifer recovery rate would depend on the rate of 

development. Because the rate of development may vary under Alternative A (i.e., 75, 150, or 

250 wells developed/year), the duration of ground water impacts would range from 13 to 42 years 

longer than the No Action Alternative (i.e., the development period) plus up to 6 years required to 

recharge the aquifer (see Table 4.6). 

4.1.8.4 Alternative B 

Implementation of Alternative B would result in an estimated additional 3,297 acres of new initial 

disturbance above that of the No Action Alternative for a total of 7,223 acres in the JIDPA 

(23.7% of the JIDPA) and 283 acres for ancillary facilities that may be constructed outside the 

JIDPA. Total disturbance under Alternative B would be 7,506 acres (see Table 4.3). 

Approximately 65.1% (4,884 acres) of this disturbance would be reclaimed as soon as practical 

after disturbance. Disturbance would not occur all at once but would accumulate as development 

occurs (for approximately 13 to 42 years). The remaining 2,622 acres would be disturbed for the 

LOP (approximately 76 to 105 years and until successful reclamation is achieved); thus, surface 

water impacts would last 13 to 42 years longer than under the No Action Alternative, depending 

on the rate of development. 

The Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed could experience the greatest level of impacts 

to surface water resources from project-related activities. Potential new disturbance to this 

watershed from implementation of Alternative B could increase from that of the No Action 

Alternative to 14.2% (see Table 4.4). Estimated LOP disturbance to the Expanded Sand DrawAlkali Creek watershed from Alternative B would increase from 607 acres or 2.6% of the 

watershed (under the No Action Alternative) to 1,143 acres (5.0% of the watershed) (see 

Tables 4.3 and 4.4). 

Implementation of Alternative B would result in the same types of impacts to ground water as the 

No Action Alternative; however, more fresh ground water would be consumed and more poorquality water would be produced because more gas wells would be drilled. Because the rate of 

development may vary under Alternative B, the duration of ground water impacts would range 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-57 

from 13 to 42 years longer than the No Action Alternative (i.e., the development period) plus 1 to 

6 years required to recharge the aquifer. 

4.1.8.5 Alternative C 

Implementation of Alternative C would result in an estimated additional 6,705 acres of new initial 

disturbance above that of the No Action Alternative, for a total of 10,631 acres in the JIDPA 

(34.9% of the JIDPA) and 283 acres for ancillary facilities that may be constructed outside the 

JIDPA. Total disturbance under Alternative C would be 10,914 acres (see Table 4.3). 

Approximately 68.9% (7,515 acres) of this disturbance would be reclaimed as soon as practical 

after disturbance. Disturbance would not occur all at once but would accumulate as development 

occurs (for approximately 13 to 42 years). The remaining 3,399 acres would be disturbed for the 

LOP (i.e., approximately 68 to 80 years and until successful reclamation is achieved); thus, 

surface water impacts would last 5 to 17 years longer than under the No Action Alternative, 

depending on the rate of development. 

The Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed could experience the greatest level of impacts 

to surface water resources from project-related activities. Potential new disturbance to this 

watershed from implementation of Alternative C could increase from that of the No Action 

Alternative to 20.9% (see Table 4.4). Estimated LOP disturbance to the Expanded Sand 

Draw-Alkali Creek watershed from Alternative C would increase from 607 acres or 2.6% of the 

watershed (under the No Action Alternative) to 1,493 acres (6.5% of the watershed) (see 

Tables 4.3 and 4.4). 

Implementation of Alternative C would result in the same types of impacts to ground water as the 

No Action Alternative; however, more fresh ground water would be consumed and more poorquality water would be produced because more gas wells would be drilled. Because the rate of 

development may vary under Alternative C, the duration of ground water impacts would range 

from 5 to 17 years longer than the No Action Alternative (i.e., the development period) plus an 

undetermined number of years (<6) required to recharge the aquifer. 

4.1.8.6 Alternative D 

Implementation of Alternative D would result in an estimated additional 11,581 acres of new 

initial disturbance above that of the No Action Alternative, for a total of 15,507 acres in the 

JIDPA (50.8% of the JIDPA) and 283 acres for ancillary facilities that may be constructed outside 

the JIDPA. Total disturbance under Alternative D would be 15,790 acres (see Table 4.3). 

Approximately 69.9% (11,035 acres) of this disturbance would be reclaimed as soon as practical 

after disturbance. Disturbance would not occur all at once but would accumulate as development 

occurs (for approximately 9 to 30 years). The remaining 4,755 acres would be disturbed for the 

LOP (i.e., approximately 72 to 93 years and until successful reclamation is achieved); thus, 

surface water impacts would last 9 to 30 years longer than under the No Action Alternative, 

depending on the rate of development. 

The Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed could experience the greatest level of impacts 

to surface water resources from project-related activities. Potential new disturbance to this 

watershed from implementation of Alternative D could increase from that of the No Action 

Alternative to 30.4% (see Table 4.4). Estimated LOP disturbance to the Expanded Sand DrawAlkali Creek watershed from Alternative D would increase from 607 acres or 2.6% of the 
4-58 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

watershed (under the No Action Alternative) to 2,103 acres (9.2% of the watershed) (see 

Tables 4.3 and 4.4). 

Implementation of Alternative D would result in the same types of impacts to ground water as the 

No Action Alternative; however, more fresh ground water would be consumed and more poorquality water would be produced because more gas wells would be drilled. Because the rate of 

development may vary under Alternative D, the duration of ground water impacts would range 

from 9 to 30 years longer than the No Action Alternative (i.e., the development period) plus an 

undetermined number of years (<6) required to recharge the aquifer. 

4.1.8.7 Alternative E 

Implementation of Alternative E would result in an estimated additional 6,386 acres of new initial 

disturbance above that of the No Action Alternative, for a total of 10,312 acres in the JIDPA 

(33.8% of the JIDPA) and 283 acres for ancillary facilities that may be constructed outside the 

JIDPA. Total disturbance under Alternative E would be 10,595 acres (see Table 4.3). 

Approximately 66.0% (6,998 acres) of this disturbance would be reclaimed as soon as practical 

after disturbance. Disturbance would not occur all at once but would accumulate as development 

occurs (for approximately 13 to 42 years). The remaining 3,597 acres would be disturbed for the 

LOP (i.e., approximately 76 to 105 years and until successful reclamation is achieved); thus, 

surface water impacts would last 13 to 42 years longer than under the No Action Alternative, 

depending on the rate of development. 

The Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed could experience the greatest level of impacts 

to surface water resources from project-related activities. Potential new disturbance to this 

watershed from implementation of Alternative E could increase from that of the No Action 

Alternative to 20.2% (see Table 4.4). Estimated LOP disturbance to the Expanded Sand 

Draw-Alkali Creek watershed from Alternative E would increase from 607 acres or 2.6% of the 

watershed (under the No Action Alternative) to 1,582 acres (6.9% of the watershed) (see 

Tables 4.3 and 4.4). 

Implementation of Alternative E would result in the same types of impacts to ground water as the 

No Action Alternative; however, more fresh ground water would be consumed and more poorquality water would be produced because more gas wells would be drilled. Because the rate of 

development may vary under Alternative E, the duration of ground water impacts would range 

from 13 to 42 years (i.e., the development period) longer than the No Action Alternative plus up 

to 6 years required to recharge the aquifer. 

4.1.8.8 Alternative F 

Implementation of Alternative F would result in an estimated additional 10,446 acres of new 

initial disturbance above that of the No Action Alternative, for a total of 14,372 acres in the 

JIDPA (47.1% of the JIDPA) and 283 acres for ancillary facilities that may be constructed outside 

the JIDPA. Total disturbance under Alternative F would be 14,655 acres (see Table 4.3). 

Approximately 72.7% (10,658 acres) of this disturbance would be reclaimed as soon as practical 

after disturbance. Disturbance would not occur all at once but would accumulate as development 

occurs (for approximately 13 to 42 years). The remaining 3,997 acres would be disturbed for the 

LOP (i.e., approximately 76 to 105 years and until successful reclamation is achieved); thus, 

surface water impacts would last 13 to 42 years longer than under the No Action Alternative, 

depending on the rate of development. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-59 

The Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed could experience the greatest level of impacts 

to surface water resources from project-related activities. Potential new disturbance to this 

watershed from implementation of Alternative F could increase from that of the No Action 

Alternative to 28.2% (see Table 4.4). Estimated LOP disturbance to the Expanded Sand DrawAlkali Creek watershed from Alternative F would increase from 607 acres or 2.6% of the 

watershed (under the No Action Alternative) to 1,762 acres (7.7% of the watershed) (see 

Tables 4.3 and 4.4). 

Implementation of Alternative F would result in the same types of impacts to ground water as the 

No Action Alternative; however, more fresh ground water would be consumed and more poorquality water would be produced because more gas wells would be drilled. Slightly larger 

volumes of fresh water would be needed to drill directional wells than would be needed under the 

Proposed Action. Because the rate of development may vary under Alternative F, the duration of 

ground water impacts would range from 13 to 42 years (i.e., the development period) longer than 

the No Action Alternative plus up to 6 years required to recharge the aquifer. 

4.1.8.9 Alternative G 

Implementation of Alternative G would result in an estimated additional 13,989 acres of new 

initial disturbance above that of the No Action Alternative, for a total of 17,915 acres in the 

JIDPA (58.7% of the JIDPA) and 283 acres for ancillary facilities that may be constructed outside 

the JIDPA. Total disturbance under Alternative G would be 18,198 acres (see Table 4.3). 

Approximately 70.3% (12,790 acres) of this disturbance would be reclaimed as soon as practical 

after disturbance. Disturbance would not occur all at once but would accumulate as development 

occurs (for approximately 13 to 42 years). The remaining 5,408 acres would be disturbed for the 

LOP (i.e., approximately 76 to 105 years and until successful reclamation is achieved); thus, 

surface water impacts would last 13 to 42 years longer than under the No Action Alternative, 

depending on the rate of development. 

The Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed could experience the greatest level of impacts 

to surface water resources from project-related activities. Potential new disturbance to this 

watershed from implementation of Alternative G could increase from that of the No Action 

Alternative to 35.2% (see Table 4.4). Estimated LOP disturbance to the Expanded Sand 

Draw-Alkali Creek watershed from Alternative G would increase from 607 acres or 2.6% of the 

watershed (under the No Action Alternative) to 2,397 acres (10.5% of the watershed) (see 

Tables 4.3 and 4.4). 

Implementation of Alternative G would result in the same types of impacts to ground water as the 

No Action Alternative; however, more fresh ground water would be consumed and more poorquality water would be produced because more gas wells would be drilled. Because the rate of 

development may vary under Alternative G, the duration of ground water impacts would range 

from 13 to 42 years (i.e., the development period) longer than the No Action Alternative plus up 

to 6 years required to recharge the aquifer. 

4.1.8.10 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in an estimated additional 8,316 acres of 

new initial disturbance above that of the No Action Alternative, for a total of 12,242 acres in the 

JIDPA (38.5% of the JIDPA) and 283 acres for ancillary facilities that may be constructed outside 

the JIDPA. Total disturbance under the Preferred Alternative would be 12,525 acres (see 
4-60 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 4.3). Approximately 69.2% (8,678 acres) of this disturbance would be reclaimed as soon 

as practical after disturbance. Disturbance would not occur all at once but would accumulate as 

development occurs (for approximately 13 years). The remaining 3,847 acres would be disturbed 

for the LOP (i.e., approximately 76 years and until successful reclamation is achieved); thus, 

surface water impacts would last 13 years longer than under the No Action Alternative. 

Impacts to surface water resources under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those 

described under the Proposed Action and the other alternatives; however, impacts are expected to 

be proportional the amount of new initial surface disturbance. Potential impacts to surface water 

from the Preferred Alternative (12,525 acres of new initial disturbance) would likely be less than 

the Proposed Action and Alternatives A, D, F, and G, where initial disturbance is estimated at 

20,409 acres, 20,409 acres, 15,790 acres, 14,655 acres, and 18,198 acres, respectively. 

Additionally, it is anticipated that potential impacts to surface water under the Preferred 

Alternative would be greater than impacts to surface water resources as a result of Alternatives B, 

C, and G, where new disturbance is estimated at 7,506 acres, 10,914 acres, and 10,595 acres, 

respectively. Impacts are anticipated to be greatest in areas developed with the highest well pad 

densities (i.e., 48 wells/section). 

The Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed would likely experience the greatest level of 

impacts to surface water resources from project-related activities. Potential new disturbance to 

this watershed from implementation of the Preferred Alternative could increase from that of the 

No Action Alternative to 24.0% (see Table 4.4). Estimated LOP disturbance to the Expanded 

Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed from the Preferred Alternative would increase from 607 acres 

or 2.6% of the watershed (under the No Action Alternative) to 1,695 acres (7.4% of the 

watershed) (see Tables 4.3 and 4.4). 

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in the same types of impacts to ground 

water as the No Action Alternative. Larger volumes of fresh water would be needed to drill 

directional wells and more wells would be drilled, so ground water consumption would be greater 

than for the No Action Alternative and comparable to the Proposed Action and Alternatives A, B, 

E, F, and G (all with up to 3,100 new wells). Alternatives C and D (1,250 and 2,200 new wells, 

respectively) would result in less ground water consumption than the Preferred Alternative 

because fewer wells would be drilled. The duration of ground water impacts would be 13 years 

(i.e., the development period) longer than the No Action Alternative plus 6 years required to 

recharge the aquifer. 

Under the Preferred Alternative additional mitigation measures would be applied to facilitate 

achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources (see 

Section 2.14). 

4.1.8.11 Cumulative Impacts 

The CIAA for surface water resources is the 10 watersheds that drain the JIDPA, which 

encompass approximately 210,300 acres. The overall stability of these watersheds is not 

anticipated to be significantly affected within the CIAA under any project alternative. Areas west 

of Big Sandy-occurring within the Bull Draw watershed are included in the CIAA; however, no 

project impacts would occur in this area. This is the same CIAA for soils and vegetation. 

Approximately 1.6% of the CIAA (3,355 acres) has been disturbed by well pads, agricultural 

lands (i.e., hay meadows), reservoirs, pipelines, roads, and residential areas (i.e., ranches) (see 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-61 

Table 3.11). The Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed has the largest amount of 

existing disturbance (992 acres or 4.2% of the watershed), most of which is from existing natural 

gas development in the Jonah Field. 

RFD for the portion of the surface water CIAA outside the JIDPA is estimated at 594 acres, 

primarily from gas-related development in the Pinedale Anticline Natural Gas Field (see 

Table 4.3). Approximately 38% (228 acres) of the RFD would occur in the Expanded Sand 

Draw-Alkali Creek watershed. RFD for the North Alkali Draw watershed is estimated at 168 

acres; for the Southeast New Fork River-Blue Rim watershed it is estimated at 126 acres; for the 

Big Sandy River-Bull Draw watershed it is estimated at 54 acres; and for the Upper Eighteenmile 

Canyon watershed it is estimated at 18 acres. 

Maximum cumulative disturbance for each alternative (i.e., the combined existing, 

alternative-specific, and RFD disturbance) is shown in Table 4.3. Cumulative impacts would be 

as described for all alternatives, but increased in volume and duration. 

Maximum cumulative disturbance would be greatest in the combined watersheds that drain into 

the Green River, and disturbance would be greatest in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek 

watershed (see Tables 4.3 and 4.4). Gas development would continue to be the primary 

component of the disturbance. Maximum cumulative disturbance as a result of the No Action 

Alternative in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed is estimated at 2,355 acres 

(10.3% of the watershed). Maximum cumulative disturbance as a result of the Proposed Action 

and Alternative A in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed is estimated at 9,612 acres 

(41.9% of the watershed). Maximum cumulative disturbance as a result of the Preferred 

Alternative in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed is estimated at 6,064 acres 

(26.4% of the watershed). Under the other alternatives, maximum cumulative disturbance in the 

Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed is estimated to range from 3,805 acres (16.6%) 

under Alternative B to 8,617 acres (37.6%) under Alternative G. The Long Draw watershed that 

drains 16.5% of the JIDPA would experience the next greatest amount of cumulative disturbance. 

The closed basin watersheds--Jonah Gulch and 140401040603--would likely only experience a 

small percentage of cumulative disturbance to surface waters. 

The CIAA for ground water includes the JIDPA and adjacent drawdown areas (see Map 4.1). 

Since no actions other than those proposed for this project are anticipated in the area, cumulative 

impacts to ground water would be of the same type and extent as those described for the No 

Action and action alternatives. 

4.1.8.12 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

There would be an unavoidable increase in surface disturbance in watersheds within the JIDPA 

for the LOP that could reduce water quality in ephemeral drainages during runoff events. 

Project development would require a maximum of approximately 15,200 acre-ft of fresh water 

from shallow ground water aquifers. 
4-62 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

4.1.9 Noise and Odor 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) do not specify any 

management goals/objectives specifically associated with noise and odor. However, the BLM's 

general goal of preserving and maintaining the quality of the environment while coordinating 

multiple use objectives remains applicable for noise and odor. 

Impacts from noise and odor would be considered significant if they resulted in displacement of 

area residents, the loss of important wildlife features (e.g., greater sage-grouse leks, raptor nests, 

pronghorn migration corridors), and/or if BLM’s goals of preserving and maintaining the quality 

of the environment could not be met. 

Additional noise sources above and beyond current levels (i.e., the No Action Alternative) would 

include scraping, grading, and construction of new well pads; drilling, completion, and operation 

of new wells; Burma Road upgrade activities and associated increases in traffic; construction, 

maintenance, and traffic associated with new resource roads, gathering pipelines and 

collector/resource roads; construction/upgrade of ancillary facilities (i.e., water disposal, storage, 

and compressor station facilities); and exploration activities. Additional odor sources would be 

associated primarily with wells and exhaust from increased vehicular traffic. 

Drilling and flaring operations would produce temporary noise levels of up to 115 dBA at the 

source, with noise levels of 55 dBA at 3,500 ft from the source (see Section 3.1.7). These 

activities are expected to be the loudest proposed noise-producing operations and would continue 

24 hrs/day at well sites during development periods (see Appendix G). Increased noise levels 

associated with construction equipment (e.g., scrapers, dozers, trucks, graders, loaders) are 

expected to be between 70 and 90 dBA at about 50 ft from the source and would attenuate at a 

rate of approximately 6 dBA with each doubling of distance from the source (Table 4.7). Noise 

levels associated with production at each well pad would be minimal because no pumping is 

required. Noise levels associated with compressor stations (between 64 and 86 dBA at 

compressor stations, between 58 and 75 dBA at approximately 1.0 mile away) would continue at 

current levels for the LOP. Further noise level data are provided in Section 3.1.7, Figure 3.13, 

and Table 3.15. 

Project noise may be heard 20 or more miles from the area, and although this noise would be 

barely audible at such distance, it could affect resident and recreating visitor perceptions of 

solitude. Some area residents have indicated that project noise (especially at night) is pervasive 

and disruptive and does affect their quality of life. 

Under most weather conditions, it is anticipated that project odors would disperse rapidly and 

would not affect area users greater than 1.0 mile from sources; however, during temperature 

inversions and at other windless times, odors could be detected at distances greater than 1.0 mile 

from the JIDPA. This impact would be considered significant and could occur under all project 

alternatives. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-63 

Table 4.7 Estimated Noise Attenuation with Distance from Construction Equipment, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Distance from Source (ft) 

50 100 200 400 800 

70 (busy traffic) 64 (conversation) 58 (conversation) 52 (quiet) 46 (library) 

90 (endangers 84 (noisy, 78 (noisy, factory) 72 (busy traffic) 66 (busy traffic, 

hearing) factory) conversation) 

It is likely that noise already has contributed to the apparent decrease in wildlife use on and 

adjacent to the JIDPA (see Section 4.2.2), with observed decreases in raptor nesting activity and 

productivity, male greater sage-grouse lek attendance and sage-grouse nesting within the JIDPA 

having been reported over the past several years (TRC Mariah 1999, 2001a, 2001b, 2002, 2004a). 

Data also suggest that noise may contribute to disturbance and/or departure of greater sage-grouse 

from area leks (TRC Mariah 2001d, 2003a). 

Although project-related noise and odor are not anticipated to pose a human health hazard to 

persons in the area, they likely would be noticeable to recreationists and other visitors on and in 

the vicinity of the JIDPA (see Section 4.5.3) and might cause decreased use or diminished 

enjoyment of the area. 

Significant impacts from noise and odor are anticipated within the JIDPA and vicinity under all 

alternatives. 

4.1.9.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, impacts due to noise and odor would be as identified and 

approved for existing Jonah Field developments (see Section 3.1.7). Prior decisions found 

existing project noise and odor impacts to be less than significant (BLM 1998b, 2000b). 

However, monitoring data collected since those decisions were made indicate that noise 

associated with existing activities may be contributing to documented decreases in wildlife use on 

and adjacent to the JIDPA (i.e., may be significant) (TRC Mariah 1999, 2001a, 2001b, 2001d, 

2002, 2003a, 2004a). 

Once all approved wells are drilled and developed, noise levels would be limited to those needed 

for production (primarily traffic), compressor stations, and reclamation (farm equipment), and 

would continue for an estimated 63 years and until all reclamation activities are completed. 

4.1.9.2 The Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, the nature of impacts due to noise and odor would be similar to those 

of the No Action Alternative, but levels would be substantially increased as a result of the new 
4-64 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

wells, well pads, and other proposed project facilities. Increased noise levels associated with 

construction of new well pads; drilling and completion of new wells; upgrade and/or construction 

of roads; and other project construction activities would be short-term at any given location but 

would continue throughout the field development period--12 to 13 years. Noise levels from field 

traffic and well maintenance actions (which might include some flaring) would occur for an 

estimated 76 years and until all reclamation activities are completed (i.e., 13 years longer than the 

No Action Alternative). 

Odors present periodically at well and ancillary facility locations and along roadways could 

offend area users in the vicinity of emission sources. However, odors would be dispersed by 

wind and are not anticipated to adversely affect the majority of area users. 

4.1.9.3 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, noise and odor levels would be similar to those of the Proposed Action. 

However, potential noise-related impacts to wildlife would be amplified in areas that would have 

been avoided under the Proposed Action (i.e., greater sage-grouse lek and raptor nest buffers [see 

Section 4.2.2]), increasing the potential for significant impacts. Odor impacts would be the same 

as described for the Proposed Action. Since the rate of development may vary under Alternative 

A (i.e., 75, 150, or 250 wells developed/year), the noise and odor impacts would occur for an 

estimated 76 to 105 years and until all reclamation activities are completed (i.e., 13 to 42 years 

longer than under the No Action Alternative). 

4.1.9.4 Alternative B 

Impacts due to noise and odor under Alternative B would be similar to those described for the 

Proposed Action except that elevated noise levels during development would be concentrated at 

the existing 497 wells pads and noise associated with construction of new well pads would not 

occur. Use of directional drilling would increase the site-specific (per well pad) duration of the 

noise impacts due to the additional time necessary to drill directional wells and the increased 

number of wells drilled per pad. Duration of field-wide impacts would be dependent upon the 

rate of development (76 to 105 years plus the time required to complete reclamation activities, or 

13 to 42 years longer than under the No Action Alternative). 

4.1.9.5 Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, impacts due to increased noise levels and odor would be substantially 

higher than those for the No Action Alternative but lower than those described for the Proposed 

Action because 60% fewer well pads would be constructed and 60% fewer wells would be 

drilled. The duration of elevated noise levels associated with drilling would last from 5 to 17 

years depending on the rate of development. Impacts due to odors also would be commensurately 

reduced from the Proposed Action because fewer wells would be drilled. Duration of field-wide 

noise and odor impacts would be dependent upon the rate of development (68 to 80 years plus the 

time required to complete reclamation activities, or 5 to 17 years longer than under the No Action 

Alternative). 

4.1.9.6 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, impacts due to increased noise and odor levels would be substantially 

higher than those under the No Action Alternative but lower than those under the Proposed 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-65 

Action because 29% fewer well pads would be constructed and 29% fewer wells would be 

drilled. The duration of elevated noise levels associated with drilling would last from 12 to 29 

years depending on the rate of development. Impacts due to odors also would be commensurately 

reduced because fewer wells would be drilled. Duration of field-wide noise and odor impacts 

would be dependent upon the rate of development (72 to 93 years plus the time required to 

complete reclamation activities, or 9 to 30 years longer than under the No Action Alternative). 

4.1.9.7 Alternative E 

Impacts due to noise under Alternative E would be substantially higher than those described for 

the No Action Alternative but lower than those described for the Proposed Action, because 

elevated noise and odor levels during development would be concentrated at the 497 existing well 

pads and at 266 new well pads. Use of directional drilling would increase the site-specific (per 

well pad) duration of the noise impacts due to the additional time necessary to drill directional 

wells, as well as the increased number of wells per pad. Duration of the field-wide noise and odor 

impacts would be dependent on the rate of development (76 to 105 years plus the time required to 

complete reclamation activities, or 13 to 42 years longer than under the No Action Alternative). 

4.1.9.8 Alternative F 

Impacts due to noise and odor under Alternative F would be substantially higher than those 

described for the No Action Alternative but slightly lower than those under the Proposed Action 

because elevated noise and odor levels during development would be concentrated at the existing 

497 well pads and at 1,028 new well pads. Use of directional drilling would increase the sitespecific (per well pad) duration of the noise impacts due to the additional time necessary to drill 

directional wells, as well as the increased number of wells per pad. Duration of field-wide noise 

and odor impacts would be dependent on the rate of development (76 to 105 years plus the time 

required to complete reclamation work, or 13 to 42 years longer than under the No Action 

Alternative). 

4.1.9.9 Alternative G 

Impacts due to noise and odor under Alternative G would be substantially higher than those 

described under the No Action Alternative but lower than described for the Proposed Action 

because elevated noise and odor levels would be concentrated at the existing 497 well pads and at 

2,553 new well pads. Use of directional drilling would increase the site-specific (per well pad) 

duration of the noise impacts due to the additional time necessary to drill directional wells, as 

well as the increased number of wells per pad. Duration of field-wide noise and odor impacts 

would be dependent on the rate of development (76 to 105 years plus the time required to 

complete reclamation work, or 13 to 42 years longer than under the No Action Alternative). 

4.1.9.10 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Impacts due to noise and odor under the Preferred Alternative would be substantially higher than 

those described under the No Action Alternative but lower than described for other action 

alternatives because this alternative requires implementation of additional mitigation and 

monitoring measures/management requirements (see Section 2.14). Implementation of these 

measures would decrease noise and odor impacts from those described for other action 

alternatives but impacts associated with noise would still be considered significant within the 

JIDPA. 
4-66 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Duration of field-wide noise and odor impacts would be dependent on the rate of development 

(76 years plus the time required to complete reclamation work, or 13 years longer than under the 

No Action Alternative). 

4.1.9.11 Cumulative Impacts 

The CIAA area for noise includes the JIDPA plus a 20-mile buffer, whereas the CIAA for odor is 

the JIDPA and a 2.0-mile buffer. Odors would not likely be detected more than 1.0 mile from the 

JIDPA and, in most cases, would be confined to the JIDPA because of dispersion. Noise impacts 

from the project in combination with other existing and proposed noises (most notably those from 

development in the Pinedale Anticline area) may be heard throughout the CIAA for the LOP. 

These noise levels could affect the use of some habitat features proximal to the JIDPA by wildlife 

(see Section 4.2.2) and may affect some recreationists and other visitors through a reduction in 

the perceived quality of experience throughout the CIAA. In no instance is it anticipated that 

cumulative noise levels would pose a human health hazard. As with the project alternatives, 

significant impacts associated with noise and odor are possible and would vary across alternatives 

depending upon the pace and extent of development. Cumulative impacts are anticipated to be 

greatest under the Proposed Action and Alternative A and least under the No Action Alternative. 

4.1.9.12 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

All of the action alternatives would result in some additional noise and odors within the JIDPA 

and in surrounding areas. 

4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

4.2.1 Vegetation 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) identify the following 

management goals/objectives associated with vegetation: 

• to maintain or enhance vegetation community health, composition, and diversity 

to meet watershed, wild horse, and wildlife resource management objectives, 

• to provide for plant diversity (desired plant communities) to meet livestock 

management, watershed, wild horse, and wildlife objectives, and 

• to reduce the number and spread of invasive species. 

Impacts to plant communities (including wetlands) would be significant if there was a long-term 

reduction in vegetation productivity, a permanent change in species composition, an increase in 

invasive non-native species (including noxious weeds), a net loss of wetlands, or a vegetation loss 

that resulted in a violation of BLM RMP or other land use plan objectives within or outside the 

JIDPA. Impacts to vegetation and wetland resources are assumed to be proportional to the 

amount of new initial surface disturbance for all alternatives (i.e., increased surface disturbance 

would result in a corresponding increase to vegetation impacts). 

Impacts to wetlands, waters of the U.S. and riparian areas would be significant if there would be a 

violation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or EOs 11988 or 11990 and/or if BLM RMP or 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-67 

other land use planning objectives could not be achieved. Since these areas would generally be 

avoided, there are no perennial streams on the JIDPA, and the project would be developed in 

compliance with the Clean Water Act, no significant impacts to wetlands, waters of the U.S, or 

riparian areas are anticipated under any alternative. 

At the end of the LOP, most, if not all, disturbed areas including roads would be reclaimed and 

revegetated; however, BLM system roads (e.g., Burma and Luman Roads) would likely remain in 

an upgraded status. 

All potentially disturbed vegetation types are common throughout the JIDPA and on surrounding 

lands. No uncommon or unique vegetation types would be removed by the project. The 

estimated disturbance volumes to each of the vegetation type in the JIDPA are provided in 

Table 4.8. 

Impacts associated with the removal of vegetation include loss of wildlife habitat, a reduction in 

vegetation diversity, potential for increased soil erosion, potential invasion of undesirable plant 

species (non-native and/or noxious), and loss of livestock forage. Because it would take many 

years for reclaimed areas to develop the structure and function of self-sustaining vegetation 

communities (i.e., sagebrush), impacts would persist for an undetermined number of years 

following reclamation. Reclaimed areas would produce less forage for several years until 

revegetation is successful, at which time grasses and possibly forbs would likely become more 

dominant than the existing condition, providing increased forage for some wildlife and livestock 

(see Section 4.5.2). Shrubs may take 30 to 100 years or longer to reach predisturbance 

productivity levels and wildlife habitat structures (see also Section 4.2.2). The duration of 

impacts to vegetation communities would depend on the rate of development (i.e., 75, 150, or 250 

wells per year) and the duration of time needed for reclaimed area to reach pre-disturbance 

conditions. 

The following analyses show that the project under all alternatives is generally compatible with 

BLM management goals/objectives; however, significant impacts are anticipated to vegetation in 

the JIDPA through loss of habitat, forage, and soil protection, and increased potential for 

invasive, non-native species invasion under any alternative. For the PFO and RSFO areas as a 

whole, these significant impacts would not affect BLM’s capability to manage vegetation 

resources pursuant to RMP objectives field-wide. Under all alternatives, specific management 

requirements and mitigation measures would be implemented; therefore, impacts to vegetation 

would also be relative to the effectiveness of these additional measures. 

4.2.1.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional activities that would potentially 

affect vegetation resources other than those previously approved for the area--4,209 acres of new 

(short-term) and 1,409 acres of LOP disturbance or 13.8% and 4.6% of the JIDPA, respectively. 

The duration of impacts would be approximately 63 years and until areas are adequately 

reclaimed. Prior decisions found that the existing project would not be likely to significantly 

impact vegetation resources (BLM 1998b, 2000b) (see also Section 3.2.1). 

4.2.1.2 The Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action would result in an estimated increase of 16,200 acres of new initial 

disturbance. Therefore, total disturbance under the Proposed Action, including existing 
4-68 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 4.8 Vegetation Type Disturbance Across Alternatives, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Total 

Moderate Unknown Type (Acres of 

Alternative and Disturbance Dense Density Scattered/No Basin Big (Unmapped New 

Type sagebrush Sagebrush Sagebrush Sagebrush Area) Disturbance) 

No Action 

New Initial 3,671 375 112 7 44 4,209 

LOP 1,229 126 37 2 15 1,409 

Proposed Action and 

Alternative A 

New Initial 14,129 1,445 431 25 170 16,200 

LOP 4,039 413 123 7 49 4,631 

Alternative B 

New Initial 2,876 294 88 4 35 3,297 

LOP 1,058 108 32 2 13 1,213 

Alternative C 

New Initial 5,848 598 178 11 70 6,705 

LOP 1,736 178 53 2 21 1,990 

Alternative D 

New Initial 10,101 1,033 308 17 122 11,581 

LOP 2,918 299 89 5 35 3,346 

Alternative E 

New Initial 5,570 570 170 9 67 6,386 

LOP 1,908 195 58 4 23 2,188 

Alternative F 

New Initial 9,111 932 278 15 110 10,446 

LOP 2,257 231 69 4 27 2,588 

Alternative G 

New Initial 12,201 1,248 372 21 147 13,989 

LOP 3,448 357 106 6 42 3,999 

Preferred Alternative 

New Initial 7,253 742 221 13 87 8,316 

LOP 2,127 218 65 3 25 2,436 

Total Acreage in JIDPA 26,601 2,721 811 47 320 30,500 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-69 

disturbance, would be 20,409 acres (see Table 4.3). Of these 20,409 acres, 14,369 acres (70.4%) 

would be reclaimed and revegetated as soon as possible after disturbance. Not all disturbance 

would occur at one time but would accumulate as development occurs (for approximately 12 

years). The magnitude of surface disturbance would depend on how much disturbance is present 

at any one time, as well as the rate of reclamation. Approximately 6,040 acres of vegetation 

would be removed for the LOP (i.e., 76 years and until adequate reclamation is achieved). 

The Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed could experience the greatest level of impacts 

to vegetation resources from project-related activities. Potential new disturbance to this 

watershed from the Proposed Action could increase from the existing 4.2% to 39.5% (see 

Table 4.4). Estimated LOP disturbance to the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed 

from the Proposed Action could increase to 2,682 acres (11.7% of the watershed). 

Habitat suitable to the invasion of noxious weeds and other undesirable plant species would be 

created as a result of removal of existing vegetation. 

Direct impacts to wetlands and waters of the U.S. would occur temporarily only as a result of 

road and pipeline crossings. Other proposed facilities (e.g., well pads, water disposal sites) would 

not be located within 500 ft of wetlands or open water or within 100 ft of ephemeral or 

intermittent channels. Indirect impacts to wetlands, waters of the U.S, and/or riparian areas 

would occur as a result of increased sediment deposition in these areas. 

4.2.1.3 Alternative A 

Implementation of Alternative A is anticipated to result in the same types and volumes of 

vegetation impacts as the Proposed Action Alternative and would result in an increase in 

vegetation impacts from the No Action Alternative. However, under this Alternative, selected 

Operator-committed and BLM-required practices would not be implemented (i.e., avoidance of 

various buffers); therefore, impacts to vegetation, including wetlands, and waters of the U.S. 

particularly in the Sand Draw area would likely be greater than under the Proposed Action. 

Depending upon the rate of development (i.e., 75, 150, or 250 wells developed per year), the 

duration of vegetation impacts could be extended by an additional 42 years from that of the No 

Action Alternative (75 wells/year). 

4.2.1.4 Alternative B 

Implementation of Alternative B would result in an increase of 3,297 acres of new surface 

disturbance from that of the No Action Alternative, thereby increasing the potential of impacts to 

vegetation. There would be a total of 7,506 acres new disturbance (4,884 and 2,622 acres of 

short-term and LOP disturbance, respectively) under Alternative B. Approximately 65% (4,879 

acres) of this disturbance would be reclaimed and reseeded as soon as practical after disturbance. 

An estimated 2,622 acres of total LOP disturbance, of which 2,541 acres would occur in the 

JIDPA, would be required for Alternative B. LOP disturbance to vegetation from this Alternative 

would increase from the No Action Alternative to 8.3% of the JIDPA. Disturbance acreages and 

percentages within affected watersheds are provided in Tables 4.3 and 4.4, respectively. 

Depending upon the rate of development (i.e., 75, 150, or 250 wells developed per year), the 

duration of vegetation impacts could be extended by an additional 42 years from that of the No 

Action Alternative (75 wells/year). 
4-70 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Habitat suitable to the invasion of noxious weeds and other undesirable plant species would be 

created as a result of removal of existing vegetation. 

Direct impacts to wetlands, and waters of the U.S. would occur temporarily only as a result of 

road and pipeline crossings. Other proposed facilities (e.g., well pads, water disposal sites) would 

not be located within 500 ft of wetlands or open water or within 100 ft of ephemeral or 

intermittent channels. Indirect impacts to wetlands and waters of the U.S. would occur as a result 

of increased sediment deposition in these areas. 

4.2.1.5 Alternative C 

Implementation of Alternative C would result in an increase of 6,705 acres of new surface 

disturbance from that of the No Action Alternative, thereby increasing potential impacts to 

vegetation resources. The duration of impacts to vegetation would depend on the rate of 

development, and the rate of reclamation, which could be from 68 years (250 wells/year) to 80 

years (75 wells/year) plus the time needed for successful reclamation. 

Under Alternative C, total new surface disturbance in the JIDPA would be 10,631 acres (7,313 

acres and 3,318 acres for short-term and LOP disturbance, respectively). An additional 283 acres 

of new disturbance (81 acres for the LOP) would be required for ancillary facilities that may be 

constructed outside the JIDPA; therefore, total new disturbance under Alternative C would be 

10,914 acres (see Table 4.3). Approximately 69% (7,515 acres) of this disturbance would be 

reclaimed and reseeded as soon as practical after disturbance; the remaining 3,399 acres would be 

disturbed for the LOP. LOP disturbance to vegetation from this alternative would increase from 

the No Action Alternative to 10.9% of the JIDPA. Disturbance acreages and percentages within 

affected watersheds are provided in Tables 4.3 and 4.4, respectively. 

Habitat suitable to the invasion of noxious weeds and other undesirable plant species would be 

created as a result of removal of existing vegetation. 

Direct impacts to wetlands and waters of the U.S. would occur temporarily only as a result of 

road and pipeline crossings. Other proposed facilities (e.g., well pads, water disposal sites) would 

not be located within 500 ft of wetlands or open water or within 100 ft of ephemeral or 

intermittent channels. Indirect impacts to wetlands and waters of the U.S. would occur as a result 

of increased sediment deposition in these areas. 

4.2.1.6 Alternative D 

Implementation of Alternative D would result in an increase of 11,581 acres of new surface 

disturbance from that of the No Action Alternative, thereby increasing impacts to vegetation 

resources. Surface disturbance would accumulate as development occurs from 12 to 29 years. 

The duration of impacts to vegetation would depend on the rate of development and the rate of 

reclamation, which could be from 72 years (250 wells/year) to 93 years (75 wells/year) plus the 

time needed for successful reclamation. 

Under Alternative D, total new surface disturbance in the JIDPA would be 15,507 acres (10,833 

acres and 4,674 acres for short-term and LOP disturbance, respectively). An additional 283 acres 

of new initial disturbance (81 acres for the LOP) would be required for ancillary facilities that 

may be constructed outside the JIDPA; therefore, total new disturbance under this Alternative 

would be 15,790 acres (see Table 4.3). Approximately 70% (11,035 acres) of total disturbance 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-71 

would be short-term (i.e., reclaimed and reseeded as soon as practical after disturbance); the 

remaining 4,755 acres would be disturbed for the LOP. LOP disturbance to vegetation from 

Alternative D would increase from the No Action Alternative to 15.3% of the JIDPA. 

Disturbance acreages and percentages within affected watersheds are provided in Tables 4.3 and 

4.4, respectively. 

Habitat suitable to the invasion of noxious weeds and other undesirable plant species would be 

created as a result of removal of existing vegetation. 

Direct impacts to wetlands, waters of the U.S, and/or riparian areas would occur temporarily only 

as a result of road and pipeline crossings. Other proposed facilities (e.g., well pads, water 

disposal sites) would not be located within 500 ft of wetlands or open water or within 100 ft of 

ephemeral or intermittent channels. Indirect impacts to wetlands and waters of the U.S. would 

occur as a result of increased sediment deposition in these areas. 

4.2.1.7 Alternative E 

Implementation of Alternative E would result in an increase of 6,386 acres of new surface 

disturbance from that of the No Action Alternative, thereby increasing impacts to vegetation as 

more well pads (estimated at 266 new well pads) and roads would be constructed. Surface 

disturbance would accumulate as development occurs from 12 to 42 years. The duration of 

impacts to vegetation would depend on the rate of development and the rate of reclamation, 

which could be from 76 years (250 wells/year) to 105 years (75 wells/year) plus the time needed 

for successful reclamation. 

Under Alternative E, total surface disturbance in the JIDPA would be 10,312 acres (6,796 acres 

and 3,516 acres for short-term and LOP disturbance, respectively). An additional 283 acres of 

new disturbance and 81 acres LOP disturbance would be required for ancillary facilities that may 

be constructed outside the JIDPA; therefore, total new disturbance under Alternative E would be 

10,595 acres (see Table 4.3). LOP disturbance to vegetation from Alternative E would increase 

from the No Action Alternative to 11.5% of the JIDPA. Disturbance acreages and percentages 

within affected watersheds are provided in Tables 4.3 and 4.4, respectively. 

Habitat suitable to the invasion of noxious weeds and other undesirable plant species would be 

created as a result of removal of existing vegetation. 

Direct impacts to wetlands and waters of the U.S. would occur temporarily only as a result of 

road and pipeline crossings. Other proposed facilities (e.g., well pads, water disposal sites) would 

not be located within 500 ft of wetlands or open water or within 100 ft of ephemeral or 

intermittent channels. Indirect impacts to wetlands and waters of the U.S. would occur as a result 

of increased sediment deposition in these areas. 

4.2.1.8 Alternative F 

Implementation of Alternative F would result in an increase of 10,446 acres of new surface 

disturbance from that of the No Action Alternative; thereby increasing impacts to vegetation as 

more well pads (estimated at 1,028 new pads) and roads would be built. Surface disturbance 

would accumulate as development occurs from 12 to 42 years. The duration of impacts to 

vegetation would depend on the rate of development and the rate of reclamation, which could be 

from 76 years (250 wells/year) to 105 years (75 wells/year) plus the time needed for successful 

reclamation. 
4-72 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Under Alternative F, total surface disturbance in the JIDPA would be 14,372 acres (10,456 acres 

and 3,916 acres for short-term and LOP disturbance, respectively). An additional 283 acres of 

new disturbance and 81 acres LOP disturbance would be required for ancillary facilities that may 

be constructed outside the JIDPA; therefore, total new disturbance under Alternative F would be 

14,655 acres (see Table 4.3). LOP disturbance to vegetation from Alternative F would increase 

from the No Action Alternative to 12.8% of the JIDPA. Disturbance acreages and percentages 

within affected watersheds are provided in Tables 4.3 and 4.4, respectively. 

Habitat suitable to the invasion of noxious weeds and other undesirable plant species would be 

created as a result of removal of existing vegetation. 

Direct impacts to wetlands and waters of the U.S. would occur temporarily only as a result of 

road and pipeline crossings. Other proposed facilities (e.g., well pads, water disposal sites) would 

not be located within 500 ft of wetlands or open water or within 100 ft of ephemeral or 

intermittent channels. Indirect impacts to wetlands and waters of the U.S. would occur as a result 

of increased sediment deposition in these areas. 

4.2.1.9 Alternative G 

Implementation of Alternative G would result in an increase of 13,989 acres of new surface 

disturbance from that of the No Action Alternative; thereby increasing impacts to vegetation 

since more well pads (estimated at 2,553 new pads) and roads would be built. Surface 

disturbance would accumulate as development occurs from 12 to 42 years. The duration of 

impacts to vegetation would depend on the rate of development and rate of reclamation, which 

could be from 76 years (250 wells/year) to 105 years (75 wells/year) plus the time needed for 

successful reclamation. 

Under Alternative G, total surface disturbance in the JIDPA would be 17,915 acres (12,588 acres 

and 5,327 acres for short-term and LOP disturbance, respectively). An additional 283 acres of 

new disturbance and 81 acres LOP disturbance would be required for ancillary facilities that may 

be constructed outside the JIDPA; therefore, total new disturbance under Alternative G would be 

18,198 acres (see Table 4.3). LOP disturbance to vegetation from Alternative G would increase 

from the No Action Alternative to 17.5% of the JIDPA. Disturbance acreages and percentages 

within affected watersheds are provided in Tables 4.3 and 4.4, respectively. 

Habitat suitable to the invasion of noxious weeds and other undesirable plant species would be 

created as a result of removal of existing vegetation. 

Direct impacts to wetlands and waters of the U.S. would occur temporarily only as a result of 

road and pipeline crossings. Other proposed facilities (e.g., well pads, water disposal sites) would 

not be located within 500 ft of wetlands or open water or within 100 ft of ephemeral or 

intermittent channels. Indirect impacts to wetlands and waters of the U.S. would occur as a result 

of increased sediment deposition in these areas. 

4.2.1.10 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result an increase of an estimated 8,316 acres 

of surface disturbance from that of the No Action Alternative, resulting in an assumed increase in 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-73 

vegetation impacts. Surface disturbance would accumulate as development occurs (for 

approximately 12 years). 

Under the Preferred Alternative, total new initial surface disturbance in the JIDPA would be 

12,242 acres. An additional 283 acres of initial disturbance would be required for ancillary 

facilities that may be constructed outside the JIDPA; therefore, total new disturbance under this 

Alternative would be 12,525 acres (see Table 4.3). Approximately 69.2% (8,678 acres) of total 

disturbance would be short-term (i.e., reclaimed and reseeded as soon as practical after 

disturbance); the remaining 3,847 acres would be disturbed for the LOP. New initial disturbance 

to vegetation in the JIDPA under this Alternative would increase from No Action to 12,242 acres 

(40.1% of the JIDPA). LOP disturbance to vegetation from the Preferred Alternative would 

increase from the No Action Alternative to 12.6 % of the JIDPA. 

Habitat suitable to the invasion of noxious weeds and other undesirable plant species would be 

created as a result of removal of existing vegetation. 

Direct impacts to wetlands and waters of the U.S. would occur temporarily only as a result of 

road and pipeline crossings. Other proposed facilities (e.g., well pads, water disposal sites) would 

not be located within 500 ft of wetlands or open water or within 100 ft of ephemeral or 

intermittent channels. Indirect impacts to wetlands and waters of the U.S. would occur as a result 

of increased sediment deposition in these areas. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, additional mitigation measures would be applied to facilitate 

achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources (see 

Section 2.14). 

4.2.1.11 Cumulative Impacts 

The CIAA for vegetation including wetlands and waters of the U.S. are the 10 watersheds that 

drain the JIDPA which encompass approximately 210,300 acres. Areas west of Big Sandy River 

occurring within the Big Sandy River-Bull Draw watershed are included in the CIAA; however, 

no project impacts would occur in this area. Approximately 1.6% of the CIAA (3,355 acres) has 

had native vegetation removed primarily as a result of well pads, agricultural lands (i.e., hay 

meadows), reservoirs, pipelines, roads, and residential areas (i.e., ranches). The Expanded Sand 

Draw-Alkali Creek watershed has the largest amount of existing disturbance, of which most is 

from existing natural gas development in the Jonah Natural Gas Field. 

RFD (vegetation disturbance) for the portion of the vegetation CIAA outside the JIDPA is 

estimated at 594 acres (see Table 4.3), primarily from gas-related development in the Pinedale 

Anticline Natural Gas Field. Approximately 38% (228 acres) of the RFD would occur in the 

Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek Watershed. RFD for the North Alkali Draw watershed is 

estimated at 168 acres; for the Southeast New Fork River is estimated at 126 acres; for the Big 

Sandy River-Bull Draw is estimated at 54 acres; and for the Upper Eighteenmile Canyon is 

estimated at 18 acres. 

Maximum cumulative disturbance for the No Action Alternative (i.e., the combined existing and 

RFD disturbance) would be 6,753 acres (3.2%) in the combined watersheds (see Table 4.3). The 

maximum cumulative disturbance for the Proposed Action (i.e., the combined existing, proposed 
4-74 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

[Proposed Action and Alternative A], and RFD disturbance) would be 22,953 acres (10.9%) in 

the combined watersheds (see Table 4.3). Under Alternative B, maximum cumulative 

disturbance would be increased from the No Action to 10,050 acres, 4.8% of the combined 

watersheds. Under Alternatives C and D, maximum cumulative disturbance would be 13,458 

acres and 18,334 acres or 6.3% and 8.7% of the CIAA, respectively. Under Alternative E, 

maximum cumulative disturbance would be 13,139 acres (6.2%). Under Alternative F, maximum 

cumulative disturbance would be 17,199 acres or 8.2% of the combined watersheds. Under 

Alternative G, maximum cumulative disturbance would be 20,742 acres or 9.9% of the combined 

watersheds. Under the Preferred Alternative, maximum cumulative disturbance would be 15,069 

acres (7.2% of the combined watershed), an increase of 8,316 acres above the No Action 

Alternative. 

Maximum cumulative disturbance would be greatest in the combined watersheds that drain into 

the Green River, and disturbance would be greatest in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek 

watershed (see Tables 4.3 and 4.4). 

The Wyoming sagebrush vegetation type, the primary vegetation type in the JIDPA and CIAA 

(see Tables 3.16 and 3.17 and Maps 3.11 and 3.12), would experience the greatest amount of 

cumulative disturbance regardless of development alternative. Disturbance to Wyoming 

sagebrush vegetation communities would remain greatest in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali 

Creek watershed, where gas development would continue to be the primary component of the 

disturbance. Maximum cumulative disturbance to vegetation as a result of the No Action 

Alternative in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed is estimated at 2,355 acres 

(10.3% of the watershed). Maximum cumulative disturbance to vegetation as a result of the 

Proposed Action and Alternative A in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed is 

estimated at 9,612 acres (41.9% of the watershed). Maximum cumulative disturbance to 

vegetation as a result of the Preferred Alternative in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek 

watershed is estimated at 6,064 acres (26.4% of the watershed). Under other Alternatives, 

maximum cumulative disturbance in the Expanded Sand Draw-Alkali Creek watershed is 

estimated to range from 3,805 acres (16.6%) under Alternative B to 8,617 acres (37.6%) under 

Alternative G. The Long Draw watershed that drains 16% of the JIDPA would experience the 

next greatest amount of maximum cumulative disturbance. The closed basin watersheds--Jonah 

Gulch and 140401040603 would likely only experience a small percentage of cumulative 

disturbance to vegetation resources. 

Within the CIAA, riparian and wetland habitats are primarily found along drainages and 

dispersed at ponds and reservoirs. Existing adverse impacts include some roads within these 

habitats, livestock grazing, and recreational use. Wetlands, waters of the U.S., and riparian areas 

would be avoided where possible by this and most other proposed projects in the area, so there 

are not anticipated to be any significant direct impacts to these resources. Indirect impacts to 

wetland and riparian areas would be limited to increased sediment deposition (see Section 4.1.8). 

A beneficial impact to riparian habitat would occur with planned improvements in grazing 

management. No permanent cumulative impacts are anticipated since all future development 

activities would comply with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and EO 11990. 

4.2.1.12 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

The proposed project would temporarily remove from 13.8% (No Action, 4,209 acres) to 66.0% 

(Proposed Action and Alternative A, 20,409 acres) of the vegetation and would provide areas 

conducive to the invasion of noxious weeds and invasive species. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-75 

Since wetlands, WUS, and riparian areas would generally be avoided and any disturbance of 

these areas would be promptly reclaimed, no long-term unavoidable adverse impacts to these 

resources are anticipated. 

4.2.2 Wildlife and Fisheries 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) identify the following 

management goals/objectives associated with wildlife and fisheries: 

• to maintain, improve, or enhance the biological diversity of all plant and wildlife 

species while ensuring healthy ecosystems; 

• to restore disturbed or altered habitat with the objective to attain desired native 

plant communities, while providing for wildlife needs and soil stability; 

• to conserve and develop recreational resources for the benefit of present and 

future generations; 

• to consider wildlife migration corridors, crucial winter ranges, and other 

important habitats when evaluating land use proposals; 

• to support and maintain healthy wildlife populations as an appropriate and 

desired land use; 

• to establish more watering systems on all grazing lands for livestock, wildlife, 

and game/non-game birds; and 

• to minimize conflicts between wildlife and domestic pets. 

Impacts to wildlife and fisheries would be considered significant if any project action would 

compromise the ability to meet the above management objectives, and significant impacts to most 

wildlife species on the JIDPA are anticipated under all project alternatives. Specific impacts 

which would be considered significant include, but would not be limited to, the physical loss or 

the abandonment of important wildlife features (e.g., greater sage-grouse leks, greater sagegrouse winter concentration areas, raptor nests and nesting and foraging territories, pronghorn 

migration corridors), diminished wildlife diversity in the JIDPA, and degradation of crucial 

winter ranges and/or other important wildlife habitats. For the PFO and RSFO areas as a whole, 

significant impacts to wildlife on and adjacent to the JIDPA would not be to such a degree that 

they would affect BLM’s capability to manage these resources pursuant to RMP objectives field 

officewide. 

In general, impacts to wildlife would result from 1) the direct loss of habitat due to removal of 

vegetation; 2) displacement of wildlife due to disturbance and/or noise from project-related 

activities including construction, drilling, traffic, and human presence (indirect habitat loss); 

3) habitat fragmentation; 4) direct mortality due to construction activities and/or animal/vehicle 

collisions; 5) potential increased poaching and harassment as a result of increased access and 
4-76 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

human presence; 6) impediments to pronghorn antelope migration; 7) loss of habitat function 

(most notably for greater sage-grouse breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering); 8) loss of 

suitable raptor nesting areas and/or existing territories; and 9) a decrease in species diversity. No 

impacts to fisheries in the Big Sandy, New Fork, and Green Rivers are anticipated under any 

alternative due to the distance of the project from live surface waters, the absence of surface 

water depletion, and the application of appropriate mitigation. Thus, impacts to fisheries are not 

discussed further in this section. 

Exploration and development activities may cause severely fragmented habitats, and habitat 

treatments may not be an effective mitigation to offset the impacts of initial and long-term 

disturbance or loss of habitat function. When sagebrush habitats are degraded, vegetation 

reestablishment may take many years. Wyoming big sagebrush may require between 30 and 

40 years to become established and may take 90 to 110 years to achieve desirable habitat 

characteristics (e.g., canopy height, coverage, and area). Therefore, habitat functionality, 

particularly for nesting species, on disturbed areas may not be achieved for 90 to 110 years. 

However, with successful reclamation, a mosaic of sagebrush successional stages, which is 

desirable for most sagebrush obligate species would be available in the JIDPA within a shorter 

time frame. 

The Wilderness Society (2002) defines habitat fragmentation by quoting Noss and Csuti (1994); 

"Fragmentation of habitat can be defined as the decrease in the size of habitat patches and interior 

habitat and the increase in distance between patches." When large blocks of habitat are separated 

into small patches, the resulting fragmentation of the habitat may limit the ability of some animals 

to move, resulting in the use of inferior or unsuitable habitat. The Wilderness Society (2002) 

suggests that landscape analysis is a proven way to identify habitat fragmentation. 

This EIS quantifies habitat fragmentation using GIS technology to draw buffers of various widths 

around roads, pipeline ROWs, well pads, and other project-related disturbance. The areas outside 

those buffers (i.e., those greater than a designated distance from project features and/or activities) 

are considered core areas. Core areas, by their definition, are the habitat patches most removed 

from project disturbances and, in general, they are likely to have a higher comparative value to 

wildlife species in the JIDPA than non-core areas, all other factors being equal. By producing 

habitat fragmentation models of the JIDPA using various buffers (i.e., 0.5 mile, 0.25 mile, 

0.125 mile, and 0.063 mile) from existing and/or proposed project disturbance at various well 

densities (16, 32, and 64 wells per 640-acre section), an estimated total acreage and the number 

and average size of core areas within the JIDPA under a variety of development scenarios 

has been analyzed. The modeling results are provided in Tables 4.9 and 4.10 and Maps 4.2 

through 4.5. Although it is suspected that some species in the area (e.g., greater sage-grouse, 

pronghorn antelope) are sensitive to varying degrees of fragmentation, insufficient scientific 

research has been conducted to determine what level of fragmentation is critical for individual 

populations or species. 

Impacts specific to species or groups of species are described in the following sections. 

Significant impacts are anticipated under all alternatives (including the No Action Alternative), 

but would vary in degree as discussed in Sections 4.2.2.1 through 4.2.2.11. Existing and BLMproposed mitigations for many wildlife species may be inadequate to reduce impacts to less than 

significant levels in the JIDPA. 
4-77 

1 

Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 4.9 Percent of the JIDPA Contained Within Core Areas for Existing Conditions and Selected 

Action Alternatives, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.1 

Percent of JIDPA in Core Areas (%) 

Existing Conditions 16 Wells/Section 32 Wells/Section 64 Wells/Section 

Disturbance Buffer (No Action) (Alternative E) (Alternative F) (Alternative G) 

0.063 mile 45.3 28.6 10.1 2.1 

0.125 mile 24.3 2.7 1.0 0.8 

0.25 mile 12.6 0.2 0.04 0.02 

0.5 mile 5.2 0 0 0 

Core areas are those areas within the JIDPA and outside the disturbance buffer (i.e., greater than a 

designated distance from Project-related disturbance). 

Table 4.10 Number and Mean Size of Core Areas in the JIDPA for Existing Conditions and Selected 

Action Alternatives, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Number/Mean Size of Core Areas (acres) 

Existing Conditions 16 Wells/Section 32 Wells/Section 64 Wells/Section 

Disturbance Buffer (No Action) (Alternative E) (Alternative F) (Alternative G) 

0.063 mile 164/84 205/42 616/5 93/7 

0.125 mile 119/62 237/3 64/5 7/33 

0.25 mile 18/214 6/10 3/5 2/3 

0.5 mile 7/226 0 0 0 
4-78 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

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

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-79 

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

(Alternative E), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 
4-80 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

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

(Alternative F), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-81 

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

(Alternative G), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 
4-82 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Pronghorn Antelope 

Surface disturbance (both short-term and LOP) would result in a direct loss of spring/summer/fall 

pronghorn habitat within the Sublette Herd Unit. This represents up to 0.7% of the 4,697 square 

miles of spring/summer/fall habitat for the herd and up to 0.4% of the total acreage of the 7,938 

square miles of occupied habitat (the amount would depend on the alternative). No crucial 

pronghorn habitats would be disturbed as a result of the proposed project. Approximately 65­

73% (depending on the alternative) of the disturbed areas would be reclaimed and revegetated 

shortly after disturbance. This short-term disturbance would occur within spring/summer/fall 

habitat and would be spread over the development period and scattered throughout the JIDPA. 

The remaining 27-35% of the disturbance would result in the removal of spring/summer/fall 

habitat on the Sublette Herd for the LOP and until successful reclamation and revegetation is 

achieved. Reclaimed and revegetated areas would produce less forage for a period of years until 

revegetation is successful, at which time grasses and possibly forbs would become more 

dominant. Shrubs likely would take 30 to 40 years or more to become established but may take 

90 to 110 years to reach predisturbance productivity and structure levels. In the interim, habitat 

function for sagebrush obligate species such as pronghorn would be compromised to varying 

degrees. 

In addition to the direct loss of habitat, disturbance from drilling activities (including noise, 

increased traffic volume, and human presence) would affect utilization of habitats adjacent to 

development areas. Displacement likely would be about 0.5 mile (Gusey 1986; Guenzel 1987; 

Easterly et al. 1991). However, as noise and human presence are reduced, pronghorn likely 

would increase their use of these areas (e.g., during production operations), although probably not 

to the same extent as prior to disturbance. Although methodologies for documenting animal 

displacement or changes in distribution are fairly straightforward, those for documenting 

population-level impacts (i.e., survival, reproduction) are extremely complex. Thus, little 

information is available concerning how human-related disturbances impact reproduction and 

survival of ungulates (Western EcoSystems Technology Inc. [West] 2003). 

Because the Jonah Infill Project would disturb pronghorn spring/summer/fall range, it is 

reasonable to assume that the project would have some adverse impacts to pronghorn populations 

as a result of direct habitat removal and a reduction in habitat function on areas adjacent to 

development activities. However, specific quantitative estimates of such impacts are not possible 

because the requisite research has not been done. Lindzey (2002), commenting on impacts to big 

game from oil and gas development, said: 

Changes resulting from energy development, undoubtedly, will influence wildlife 

populations, yet little [research] is available to support inferences about the 

degree of population-level effects or the best way to address possible impacts. 

Understanding the population-level effects of disturbances, such as those realized 

during energy exploration and development require more than the short-term, 

observational studies biologists now have to rely on. 

Reeve (1984) found that pronghorn habituated to increased traffic volumes and heavy machinery 

as long as traffic moved in a predictable manner. Reaction of pronghorn to roads is not well 

understood; however, pronghorn are often seen adjacent to road ROWs, including busy interstate 

highways. It is likely that pronghorn movement is more affected by fences along ROWs than by 

the activity (traffic) on the ROW. However, increased mortality from vehicle/animal collisions is 

a potential direct impact that may occur due to increased traffic on the JIDPA for the LOP, and 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-83 

the provision of access to big game range may increase legal and illegal pronghorn harvest. On 

the other hand, some people may be deterred from poaching because of the increased number of 

vehicles and humans in the area and the subsequent likelihood of being observed by other area 

visitors. 

Pronghorn are known to move through the JIDPA on their way to and from crucial habitats (see 

Map 3.13), and some of these movements are likely to be hindered under most, if not all, of the 

development alternatives. The existing migration corridor between U.S. Highway 191 and the 

JIDPA boundary is at least 1.0 mile wide and would remain undisturbed (excluding the existing 

and unfenced Luman, Jonah North, and Rim Roads). 

Furbearers, Small Game, and Other Mammals 

Impacts to furbearers, small game, and other mammals would include the direct loss of habitat 

due to surface disturbance. Total proposed surface disturbance represents up to 67% of the 

JIDPA (depending on the alternative), and some unknown portion of the undisturbed habitat 

likely would suffer a reduction in use because of its proximity to human activity (noise, traffic, 

etc.). The degree of loss of habitat function would, to some extent, depend on each species' 

ability to adapt to disturbance. In addition, some smaller, less mobile animals like mice, voles, 

and ground squirrels are likely to be killed during construction operations. 

Some additional poaching and increased mortality from animal/vehicle collisions is likely due to 

the increased road and traffic volume associated with project activities. The ability of the lands 

within the JIDPA to support furbearers, small game, and other mammals likely would decrease 

from current levels due to habitat loss and human disturbance. Increased human activity would 

displace some species from areas near project features which, when coupled with direct habitat 

loss, would further fragment habitats. Populations would continue to fluctuate and impacts would 

be masked by natural variations in weather, incidence of disease, and other natural factors. 

project-related disturbance to rare habitats (e.g., wetlands) would be avoided where practical (no 

other rare habitats are currently known to occur on the JIDPA). 

Raptors 

Existing seasonal and spatial restrictions at active raptor nests are intended to prevent adverse 

impacts (e.g., frightened adults, overexposure of eggs or young to heat or cold, missed feedings, 

premature fledging, and increased predation) to breeding, nesting, and brood-rearing raptors. 

However, no restrictions are in place to prevent development within the seasonal buffer zone 

outside of the nesting season except for the 825-ft or 1,000-ft no surface occupancy (NSO) 

buffers, and project facilities and roads constructed outside of the nesting season could result in 

disturbance to nesting activities in subsequent years. Tolerance to disturbance varies among 

raptor species and among individuals of the same species. In general, ferruginous hawks are 

among the most sensitive species to human disturbance. In some instances, raptor nest 

disturbance and the associated decrease in reproductive success may be avoided if project 

facilities are located outside of the line-of-sight of active raptor nests and/or if other raptor 

protection measures are effective. However, if suitable nesting habitat as identified during predevelopment surveys is determined to be unoccupied by raptors, development may be allowed in 

these areas potentially precluding the future use of these areas by nesting raptors. The potential 

for adverse impacts to raptors would be greatest during project development, when human 

activity levels are highest; it is anticipated that impacts would decrease somewhat during the 

production phase of the project. 
4-84 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Reduction in raptor prey species also is likely to occur as a result of the surface disturbance of up 

to two-thirds of the JIDPA (the amount of disturbance would depend on the alternative). This 

habitat loss and the associated decrease in available prey base would reduce the quality of raptor 

foraging habitat within the JIDPA and may increase the size of foraging territory necessary to 

support an individual and/or decrease the number of foraging raptors the area can support. 

Throughout the LOP, it is likely that raptor productivity (especially that of ferruginous hawks) 

would be negatively impacted by project-related activities. Increased human activity associated 

with the proposed project is likely to result in fewer nest initiations, increased nest site 

abandonment and/or reproductive failure, and decreased productivity of successful nests. 

Game Birds 

Continued disturbance of breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering greater sage-grouse and 

their habitats would occur and would increase from that currently occurring in the JIDPA as a 

result of increased habitat removal and noise and disturbance from traffic and human presence. 

The currently identified 0.25-mile active lek buffer and other seasonal avoidance measures may 

be inadequate to protect breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering grouse from noise or 

other impacts within the JIDPA (e.g., individuals flushed from leks, failure of females to breed, 

lek and nest abandonment, avoidance of all habitat areas), which could result in reduced breeding 

initiation, reproductive success, and survival. The locations of known leks (see Map 3.19) on and 

adjacent to the JIDPA are assumed to represent optimal lek habitat. Impacts to leks and other 

important habitats (nesting, winter) may be serious enough to cause abandonment of the area. 

Even if alternate lek sites are established or existing leks at alternate locations are used, it is 

assumed that less than optimal conditions would prevail, resulting in decreased breeding success. 

Furthermore, the loss of nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering areas may be equally, if not more, 

important to grouse survival. As with raptor nests, site-specific situations vary, and the success in 

reducing impacts using standard mitigation measures (e.g., NSO buffers and seasonal timing 

restrictions) is variable. 

Most impacts to greater sage-grouse in the JIDPA have likely already occurred due to existing 

developments, and the area may no longer be suitable for sage-grouse use. Further habitat loss 

and disturbance would occur under all action alternatives. Recovery of habitat functionality for 

greater sage-grouse may take over 100 years. However, it is anticipated that a mosaic of 

sagebrush habitat age classes would be available on the JIDPA within a shorter time frame. 

In areas where 40% of greater sage-grouse nesting, early brood-rearing, and/or winter habitat has 

been lost or severely degraded within the range of a population, Connelly et al. (2000) suggest 

that the management emphasis should focus on protecting any remaining sagebrush that is in any 

way suitable for these functions. Disturbance to remaining suitable greater sage-grouse nesting, 

early brood-rearing, and winter habitats should be avoided to prevent further fragmentation of 

those habitats. Within comparatively intact sagebrush ecosystems, treating up to 20% of 

degraded nesting and early brood-rearing habitats and 30% of the winter habitat may improve 

habitat conditions. Treatments may consist of restoring herbaceous understory, creating open 

patches of herbaceous vegetation, thinning dense sagebrush canopies exceeding 30% cover, 

creating openings within dense sagebrush, regenerating the shrub component by setting back 

succession, or enhancing herbaceous understory by reducing herbivory. However, at some point, 

it becomes difficult to mitigate habitat loss by treating vegetation because the temporary loss of 

habitat as a result of the treatment, combined with the habitat loss that is being mitigated, creates 

an unacceptable level of impacts to greater sage-grouse (Connelly et al. 2000). These impacts 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-85 

include loss of nesting and roosting habitat and decreased food availability. Optimal food 

availability allows sage-grouse to minimize brood movement during foraging, thereby lowering 

predator exposure and energetic costs of foraging (Lyon 2000). With decreasing availability of 

forbs and grasses, broods move longer distances and expend more energy to find forage. This 

increased movement, in addition to decreased vegetative cover, may expose chicks to greater risk 

of predation (Lyon 2000). 

A study on coal mining activities and oil field development in North Park, Colorado, found that 

greater sage-grouse populations in areas experiencing disturbance decreased in relation to 

surrounding undisturbed populations (Braun 1986, 1987). Adult male greater sage-grouse 

establish fidelity to specific leks. Braun (1986) hypothesized that mining activity and large-scale 

habitat loss occurring adjacent to leks may contribute to a reduction in the number of yearling 

male recruits to those areas and that the increased road construction associated with such 

development also may impact greater sage-grouse populations. Road construction results in 

permanent travel routes, improved public access, increased long-term traffic-related disturbance 

to previously inaccessible regions, indirect noise impacts to leks, and direct mortality (Braun 

1998). Roads also provide a clear pathway for predators to move unimpeded by vegetation or 

other obstructions (Lyon 2000). The road-effect distance, or the distance from a road at which a 

population density decrease is detected, is positively correlated with increased traffic density and 

speed and is more critical in years when wildlife populations are low (Forman and Alexander 

1998). Studies conducted in Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado suggest that some recovery of 

greater sage-grouse populations may occur after a site has been developed and subsequently 

reclaimed following energy development, road construction, and other human disturbances 

(Braun 1998). However, there has been no evidence that populations attain their pre-disturbance 

levels. 

Female greater sage-grouse also demonstrate site fidelity to nesting areas surrounding a lek 

(Schroeder et al. 1999; Lyon 2000). Female yearlings nest in the same area in which they 

hatched (Lyon 2000). Even in areas of high disturbance, females continue to maintain their site 

fidelity, though not without some behavioral modifications. The results from a study conducted 

by Lyon (2000) indicate that hens captured on disturbed leks demonstrate lower nest initiation 

rates, travel twice as far to nest sites, and select higher total shrub canopy cover and live 

sagebrush canopy cover than hens captured near undisturbed leks. The average distances 

between nests and the nearest lek varies from 0.7 to 3.9 miles; however, one female nested more 

than 12.4 miles from the nearest lek. Lyon (2000) found 74% of the hens captured from 

disturbed leks nested more than 1.9 miles from the lek, while 91% of the hens from undisturbed 

leks nested within 1.9 miles of the lek. Females that nest >2.0 miles from a lek are less likely to 

be protected under current BLM stipulations. Maintaining large, continuous tracts of suitable 

habitat protected from disturbance is critical to the sustainability of greater sage-grouse 

populations. 

Field development also could reduce the value of some greater sage-grouse winter habitat, 

although some grouse winter habitat would remain on and adjacent to the JIDPA (especially 

within the Sand Draw buffer). 

Further definition of potential greater sage-grouse impacts would be provided during annual 

inventory and monitoring (TRC Mariah 2004a), and additional protection measures may be 

applied in the JIDPA as directed by BLM. 
4-86 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Mourning doves are seasonal (summer) visitors in the JIDPA and populations likely would not be 

impacted by the Proposed Action because of their relatively high tolerance to human activity and 

presence, their inherent mobility, and the availability of suitable habitat on adjacent lands. 

Other Birds 

Non-game birds would be adversely affected by increased human activity in the JIDPA. Primary 

impacts to any given species would occur in direct proportion to the amount of suitable habitat 

removed (up to 67% of the JIDPA, depending on the alternative) plus any additional habitat 

avoided by the birds (and thus, at least temporarily lost) because of human disturbance. 

Approximately 65-73% of initial disturbance (depending on the alternative) would be reclaimed 

and revegetated during the LOP; however, in sagebrush communities (the dominant 

predisturbance vegetation type in the JIDPA), it may take decades to recover the functional value 

of the habitat. Wyoming big sagebrush may require 30 to 40 years to become established and 

may take 90 to 110 years to achieve desirable habitat characteristics (e.g., canopy height, 

coverage, and area). Thus, impacts, particularly for sagebrush-obligate bird species, could persist 

for decades after the LOP. Some increased mortality also is likely to occur due to vehicle/bird 

collisions resulting from increased traffic. 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Direct impacts to amphibians and reptiles would occur in direct proportion to the amount of their 

habitats disturbed. Total surface disturbance in the JIDPA would be up to 67% of the area 

(depending on the alternative). However, 65-73% of that disturbance would be short-term, and 

wetlands and waters of the U.S. generally would be avoided. An increase in mortality due to 

increased traffic is also anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 

All Species 

Impacts to most wildlife resources would be proportional to the amount of direct (see Section 

4.2.1) and indirect habitat lost and the duration of this loss. While a variety of 

mitigation/protection measures would be applied across alternatives (see Chapter 2 and 

Appendices A and B), significant adverse impacts to some wildlife resources are anticipated 

under all alternatives including the No Action Alternative. These impacts have been identified in 

the JIDPA during annual wildlife monitoring of the area (e.g., TRC Mariah 2004a). Impacts 

noted during annual wildlife monitoring include non-attendance or decreased attendance by 

greater sage-grouse on some known leks, absence/decline in known greater sage-grouse nesting, 

brood-rearing, and wintering in the area, and inactivity and nest failure of some raptor nests 

and/or territories (particularly for ferruginous hawks). These existing impacts would be 

exacerbated with the implementation of the proposed project and the accompanying direct and 

indirect disturbances to wildlife species and their habitats. 

The degree of habitat fragmentation within the JIDPA at current levels is high, with 87.40% of 

the lands in the JIDPA being within 0.25 mile (1,320 ft) of project-related disturbance and 

75.70% of the lands being within 0.125 mile (660 ft) (see Table 4.9). With the implementation of 

the proposed project, up to 99.98% of the JIDPA would be within 0.25 mile (1,320 ft) of projectrelated disturbance, and up to 99.20% would be within 0.125 mile (660 ft). Furthermore, patch 

sizes for areas greater than 0.25 mile from project-related disturbance would be reduced from the 

current average of 214 acres to as small as 3 acres (depending on the alternative) (see Table 4.10). 

Although, as recognized above, insufficient scientific research has been conducted to determine 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-87 

what level of fragmentation is critical for individual populations or species, this level of 

disturbance is very likely a significant impact under all alternatives for at least some of the 

species of wildlife that inhabit the JIDPA. 

The aforementioned impacts are significant within the JIDPA and on adjacent lands under any 

alternative. 

Wildlife impacts due to increased mortality from construction, traffic, and poaching are not 

anticipated to be significant on either a local or a management area level under any alternative. 

Based on existing research data and observations of pronghorn reactions to oil and gas 

development, impacts on pronghorn populations in the Sublette Herd Unit resulting from 

development of the JIDPA, including habitat fragmentation and a reduction in habitat function, 

are anticipated to be less than significant on both a local and a management area level. No loss of 

pronghorn migration routes is anticipated, although pronghorn may alter their migration routes to 

avoid project disturbances. 

4.2.2.1 No Action Alternative 

Direct wildlife habitat loss through 4,209 acres of short-term and 1,409 acres of LOP disturbance 

is currently approved within the JIDPA (BLM 1998b, 2000b) for ongoing natural gas 

development and production. Under the No Action Alternative, no additional impacts to wildlife 

species from natural gas development would occur in the JIDPA as a result of the proposed 

project because no additional habitat disturbance would be approved, nor would indirect impacts 

change. Mortality rates due to construction would not occur; however, the potential for 

vehicle/wildlife collisions would remain. No further habitat fragmentation or displacement would 

occur beyond current levels (see Map 4.2 and Tables 4.9 and 4.10); however, considerable habitat 

fragmentation already exists in the JIDPA, and the area may no longer be suitable for many 

wildlife species. Impact duration would be approximately 63 years plus the time needed for 

adequate reclamation. 

4.2.2.2 The Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action would result in an estimated increase (over the No Action Alternative) of 

16,200 acres of new initial disturbance, for a total of 20,409 acres of project-related surface 

disturbance. All of the new initial disturbance would be within pronghorn Sublette Herd Unit 

spring/summer/fall habitat. This represents 0.68% of the 4,697 square miles of spring/summer/ 

fall habitat for the herd and 0.40% of the total acreage of the 7,938 square miles of occupied 

habitat. Approximately 70.4% of the total disturbance (14,369 acres) would be reclaimed and 

reseeded as soon as practical after disturbance (i.e., short-term disturbance). The remaining 

29.6% (6,040 acres) would remain disturbed for the LOP. In addition to the direct loss of habitat, 

disturbance from drilling and production activities (including noise, increased traffic volume, and 

human presence) would affect utilization of habitats adjacent to development areas. Impact 

duration would be approximately 76 years plus the time needed for adequate reclamation, or 13 

years longer than the No Action Alternative. 
4-88 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

4.2.2.3 Alternative A 

Implementation of Alternative A would result in the same types and acreages of impacts to 

wildlife species as the Proposed Action (i.e., an increase of 16,200 acres [11,569 acres of shortterm disturbance and 4,361 acres of LOP disturbance] over the No Action Alternative). 

However, under Alternative A, selected Operator-committed and BLM-required practices for the 

avoidance of sensitive areas (e.g., avoidance of the Sand Draw drainage [300-ft buffer either 

side], greater sage-grouse leks, and raptor nests) would not occur. This likely would result in 

increased impacts to greater sage-grouse, raptors, and other wildlife species. Habitat 

fragmentation under this alternative would result in all areas within the JIDPA being within 330 ft 

of project disturbance. Depending on the rate of development, impact duration would be 

approximately 76 to 105 years plus the time needed for adequate reclamation, or 13 to 42 years 

longer than the No Action Alternative. 

4.2.2.4 Alternative B 

Alternative B would result in an estimated increase (over the No Action Alternative) of 3,297 

acres of new initial disturbance, for a total of 7,506 acres of project-related surface disturbance in 

the area. Approximately 65% (4,884 acres) of the total disturbance would be short-term, and the 

remaining 35% (2,622 acres) would remain disturbed for the LOP. Areas of the JIDPA that 

currently lack well pads would have minimal new surface disturbance because this alternative 

does not allow for construction of new well pads and, as a result, disturbance for new roads and 

pipelines required in those areas also would be minimal. Habitat fragmentation would be similar 

to that of the No Action Alternative (see Map 4.2). Depending on the rate of development, 

impact duration would be approximately 76 to 105 years plus the time needed for adequate 

reclamation, or 13 to 42 years longer than the No Action Alternative. 

4.2.2.5 Alternative C 

Alternative C would result in an estimated increase (over the No Action Alternative) of 6,705 

acres of new initial disturbance, for a total of 10,914 acres of project-related surface disturbance 

in the area. Approximately 68.9% (7,515 acres) of the total disturbance would be short-term, and 

the remaining 31.1% (3,399 acres) would remain disturbed for the LOP. Since the location of 

new well pads is unknown, new habitat fragmentation conditions are not identified but likely 

would be similar to that shown on Map 4.4 (32 pads/section). Depending on the rate of 

development, impact duration would be approximately 68 to 80 years plus the time needed for 

adequate reclamation, or 5 to 17 years longer than the No Action Alternative . 

4.2.2.6 Alternative D 

Alternative D would result in an estimated increase (over the No Action Alternative) of 11,571 

acres of new initial disturbance, for a total of 15,790 acres of project-related surface disturbance. 

Approximately 69.9% (11,037 acres) of the total disturbance would be short-term, and the 

remaining 30.1% (4,753 acres) would remain disturbed for the LOP. Since the location of new 

well pads is unknown, new habitat fragmentation conditions are not identified but likely would be 

intermediate to that shown on Maps 4.4 (32 pads/section) and 4.5 (64 pads/section). Depending 

on the rate of development, impact duration would be approximately 72 to 93 years plus the time 

needed for adequate reclamation, or 9 to 30 years longer than the No Action Alternative. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-89 

4.2.2.7 Alternative E 

Alternative E would result in an estimated increase (over the No Action Alternative) of 6,386 

acres of new initial disturbance, for a total of 10,595 acres of project-related surface disturbance. 

Approximately 66.1% (6,998 acres) of the total disturbance would be short-term, and the 

remaining 33.9% (3,597 acres) would remain disturbed for the LOP. Habitat fragmentation 

conditions would be as shown on Map 4.3. Depending on the rate of development, impact 

duration would be approximately 76 to 105 years plus the time needed for adequate reclamation, 

or 13 to 42 years longer than the No Action Alternative. 

4.2.2.8 Alternative F 

Alternative F would result in an estimated increase (over the No Action Alternative) of 10,446 

acres of new initial disturbance, for a total of 14,655 acres of project-related surface disturbance. 

Approximately 72.7% (10,658 acres) of the total disturbance would be short-term, and the 

remaining 27.3% (3,997 acres) would remain disturbed for the LOP. Habitat fragmentation 

conditions would be as shown on Map 4.4. Depending on the rate of development, impact 

duration would be approximately 76 to 105 years plus the time needed for adequate reclamation, 

or 13 to 42 years longer than the No Action Alternative. 

4.2.2.9 Alternative G 

Alternative G would result in an estimated increase (over the No Action Alternative) of 13,989 

acres of new initial disturbance, for a total of 18,198 acres of project-related surface disturbance. 

Approximately 70.3% (12,790 acres) of the total disturbance would be short-term, and the 

remaining 29.7% (5,408 acres) would remain disturbed for the LOP. Habitat fragmentation 

conditions would be as shown on Figure 4.5. Depending on the rate of development, impact 

duration would be approximately 76 to 105 years plus the time needed for adequate reclamation, 

or 13 to 42 years longer than the No Action Alternative. 

4.2.2.10 BLM Preferred Alternative 

The Preferred Alternative would result in an estimated increase (over the No Action Alternative) 

of 7,804 acres of new initial disturbance, for a total of 12,013 acres of project-related surface 

disturbance. Approximately 69.2% (8,309 acres) of the total disturbance would be short-term, 

and the remaining 30.8% (3,704 acres) would remain disturbed for the LOP. Since the location 

of new well pads is unknown, new habitat fragmentation conditions are not identified but likely 

would be similar to that shown on Map 4.4 (32 pads/section). Impact duration would be 

approximately 76 years plus the time needed for adequate reclamation, or 13 years longer than the 

No Action Alternative. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, additional mitigation measures would be applied to facilitate 

achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources (see 

Section 2.14). These measures would moderate, to some extent, anticipated impacts to wildlife 

species. 
4-90 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

4.2.2.11 Cumulative Impacts 

CIAAs for wildlife and fisheries vary by resource. While the principle focus of the following 

analysis is cumulative impacts from oil and gas development, other actions in each CIAA have 

affected and will continue to affect wildlife. These actions include, but are not limited to, 

urbanization, the proliferation of roads (in addition to those for oil and gas development), WGFD 

species management and associated hunter harvests, livestock grazing, and recreation. 

For the following cumulative impacts discussion, impacts under the 10 alternatives discussed 

herein can be ranked based on new initial and LOP disturbance acreages, with the following 

caveats. 

• Although new initial and LOP disturbance under the Proposed Action and 

Alternative A are the same, impacts would be greater under Alternative A 

because selected Operator-committed practices and BLM development 

guidelines and stipulations would not be implemented. 

• Under the Preferred Alternative, impacts may be lower than implied by 

disturbance acreage alone, because BLM management and monitoring 

requirements designed to protect resources and minimize impacts while meeting 

field development objectives would be implemented. 

That said, Alternative A and the Proposed Action would result in the largest surface disturbance 

within the JIDPA (i.e., 20,409 acres new initial disturbance and 6,040 acres LOP disturbance). 

The next highest disturbance would be Alternative G (18,198 acres new initial and 5,408 acres 

LOP disturbance), followed by Alternative D (15,790 acres and 4,753 acres), Alternative F 

(14,655 acres and 3,997 acres), the Preferred Alternative (12,525 acres and 3,847 acres), 

Alternative E (10,595 acres and 3,597 acres), and Alternative C (10,914 acres and 3,399 acres). 

Alternative B has the lowest proposed disturbance acreage of any of the action alternatives, with 

7,506 acres of new initial disturbance and 2,622 acres of LOP disturbance. Under the No Action 

Alternative, disturbance would be limited to that already approved—4,209 acres of new initial 

disturbance and 1,409 acres of LOP disturbance. 

Pronghorn Antelope 

The CIAA for pronghorn is the Sublette Herd Unit (see Map 3.13). The impacts of oil and gas 

development on pronghorn in the herd unit are largely unknown, but the WGFD indicates that 

pronghorn have been and will continue to be redistributed, and mortality may increase due to 

habitat loss (WGFD 2001). Avoiding a loss of habitat function on crucial winter range is 

especially important to maintaining pronghorn populations at a desired level. In addition, there 

are several migratory "bottlenecks" through which some Sublette Herd Unit pronghorn move (to 

and from winter range). These bottlenecks are created by natural topography and/or human 

activity and are crucial to the continued survival of portions of the Sublette Herd. Efforts have 

been initiated to mitigate the impacts to pronghorn movement through these bottlenecks. Fences, 

particularly those along highways, also restrict pronghorn movements and hinder use of seasonal 

ranges. New highway and other area fencing may further restrict pronghorn movement and 

further fragment habitat. The proposed project would not affect any known pronghorn crucial 

winter range or bottlenecks; therefore, it would not contribute to cumulative impacts to these 

habitat features. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-91 

Under the Preferred Alternative, approximately 0.40% (initial disturbance) and approximately 

0.12% (LOP disturbance) of spring/summer/fall range in the Sublette Herd Unit would be 

disturbed and habitat function on an unknown amount of adjacent habitat would be reduced. 

Maximum disturbance to spring/summer/fall range within the Herd Unit would occur under the 

Proposed Action and Alternative A development scenarios—approximately 0.68% initial 

disturbance and 0.20% LOP disturbance. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to 

measurably add to cumulative impacts to the Sublette Herd Unit. RFD for the Sublette Herd Unit 

includes 1,591 wells, additional roads, and other related development disturbing more than 

12,000 acres, bringing the maximum cumulative development (existing disturbance, disturbance 

from the proposed project, and disturbance from RFD) within the Herd Unit to 97,000-113,200 

acres, or approximately 1.4-1.7% of the area (Table 4.11). Indirect habitat loss affecting habitat 

function would occur on an additional but unknown amount of land. The magnitude of impacts 

from such development on the Sublette Herd Unit are unknown (WGFD 2001); however, they are 

not anticipated to be cumulatively significant. 

Furbearers, Small Game, and Other Mammals 

The CIAA for furbearers, small game, and other mammals for the JIDPA is depicted in Map 3.14 

and is otherwise known as the Jonah wildlife study area. 

RFD for the CIAA includes 1,014 acres primarily associated with oil and natural gas 

development in the Pinedale Anticline Project area (see Table 4.11). Cumulative impacts 

resulting from development are anticipated to be similar in kind to those described for the 

proposed project but would include the additional developments for the Pinedale Anticline 

Project. Developments would result in additional cumulative impacts to small mammals due to 

direct and indirect habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, increased traffic volumes, and increased 

vehicle/small mammal collisions. Recreational hunter harvest of small game and shooting of 

prairie dogs and other small non-game mammals are also anticipated to increase as a result of 

increased access to the area. The increased mortality experienced by small mammal populations 

also would have a cumulative impact on the predator species that depend on small mammal 

populations for prey (e.g., raptors, foxes, coyotes, badgers, etc.). Cumulative disturbance within 

the CIAA (i.e., Jonah wildlife study area) would range from 4.2% to 12.8% of the area, with 8.6% 

disturbance under the Preferred Alternative (see Table 4.11). Impacts generally would be in 

proportion to the amount of direct habitat loss and are anticipated to be less than significant. 

Raptors 

The CIAA for raptors is depicted in Map 3.16. 

RFD disturbance in the CIAA includes 2,862 acres (see Table 4.11) and is primarily associated 

with natural gas development described for the Pinedale Anticline Project. With the 

implementation of the proposed project, between 10.1 and 11.5% of the CIAA would be surface 

disturbed—10.8% would be disturbed under the Preferred Alternative (see Table 4.11). 

All raptor nests in the Pinedale Anticline Project Area are protected by No Surface Occupancy 

buffers year-round and active nests are protected during the nesting season by timing restrictions 

and seasonal buffers. Monitoring of raptor nests in the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah Field 

wildlife study areas is conducted annually (TRC Mariah 2004a, 2004b). The results of these 

investigations have led to the application of additional mitigation (artificial nest structure 

placement) and likely would continue to identify expanded mitigation opportunities. 
4-92 

Table 4.11 Potentially Disturbed Acreage in Each Wildlife CIAA, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Existing Disturbance 

Disturbance In Proposed Action and 

Total CIAA, No Action Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Cumulative Impact Analysis Area Acreage of Outside Cumu- Cumu- Cumu- Cumu­

(CIAA) Percent of CIAA CIAA JIDPA RFD New LOP lative1 New LOP lative1 New LOP lative1 New LOP lative1 

Sublette Antelope Herd Unit 6,727,270 80,791 12,000 4,209 1,409 97,000 20,409 6,040 113,200 7,390 2,561 100,181 10,914 3,399 103,705 

Percent of entire CIAA 0.01 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.5 

Jonah Wildlife Study Area 188,888 2,729 1,014 4,209 1,409 7,952 20,409 6,040 24,152 7,390 2,561 11,133 10,914 3,399 14,657 

Percent of entire CIAA 1.4 4.2 12.8 5.9 7.8 

Raptors 1,184,443 113,092 2,862 4,209 1,409 120,153 20,409 6,040 136,363 7,390 2,561 123,344 10,914 3,399 126,868 

Percent of entire CIAA 9.5 10.1 11.5 10.4 10.7 

Greater Sage-grouse 1,061,805 28,767 1,716 4,209 1,409 34,692 20,409 6,040 50,892 7,390 2,561 37,873 10,914 3,399 41,397 

Percent of entire CIAA 2.71 

3.2 

4.8 

3.6 

3.9 

Disturbance 

Cumulative Impact Analysis Area Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternavtive G Preferred Alternative 

(CIAA) Percent of CIAA New LOP Cumulative1 New LOP Cumulative1 New LOP Cumulative1 New LOP Cumulative2 New LOP Cumulative1 

Sublette Antelope Herd Unit 15,790 4,755 108,581 10,595 3,597 103,386 14,655 3,997 107,446 18,198 5,408 110,989 12,525 3,847 105,316 

Percent of entire CIAA 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 

Jonah Wildlife Study Area 15,790 4,755 19,533 10,595 3,597 14,338 14,655 3,997 18,398 18,198 5,408 21,941 12,525 3,847 105,316 

Percent of entire CIAA 10.3 7.6 9.7 11.6 8.6 

Raptors 15,790 4,755 131,744 10,595 3,597 126,549 14,655 3,997 130,609 18,198 5,408 134,152 12,525 3,847 105,316 

Percent of entire CIAA 11.1 10.7 11.0 11.3 10.9 

Greater Sage-grouse 15,790 4,755 46,273 10,595 3,597 41,078 14,655 3,997 45,138 18,198 5,408 48,681 12,525 3,847 105,316 

Percent of entire CIAA 4.4 3.9 4.3 4.6 4.1 

Cumulative disturbance = new + existing + RFD. 1 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-93 

Raptors using the JIDPA and CIAA for nesting and foraging would experience continued adverse 

effects within nesting and foraging territories, which would likely lead to reductions in the 

regional reproductive success of raptors in the CIAA. These adverse effects are anticipated to be 

cumulatively significant. 

Game Birds 

The CIAA for greater sage-grouse is depicted in Map 3.18. There are approximately 52 known 

leks in the CIAA, with the highest percentage of those occurring east of Highway 191. 

RFD in the CIAA includes 1,716 acres and is primarily associated with oil and gas development 

(see Table 4.11). With the implementation of the proposed project, disturbance within the CIAA 

would range from 3.2-4.8% of the area—disturbance under the Preferred Alternative would be 

4.1%. 

The proposed project and RFD likely would result in some disturbance of nesting, brood-rearing, 

wintering, and possibly breeding greater sage-grouse, and although the magnitude of impact 

resulting from that disturbance is unknown, it is anticipated that cumulative effects on the 

continued apparent decline in regional greater sage-grouse populations would be significant. 

The CIAA for mourning dove is the Jonah Field wildlife study area (see Map 3.14). No 

significant cumulative impacts to mourning doves are anticipated. 

Other Birds 

The CIAA for other birds is the Jonah Field wildlife study area (see Map 3.14). Little additional 

project-related disturbance is anticipated in wildlife study area outside the JIDPA, other than that 

for the Burma Road upgrade and impacts occurring for the Pinedale Anticline Project. Impacts 

generally would be in proportion to the amount of direct habitat loss and are anticipated to be less 

than significant. 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

The CIAA for amphibians and reptiles is the Jonah Field wildlife study area (see Map 3.14). 

Little additional project-related disturbance is anticipated in the wildlife study area outside the 

JIDPA, other than the Burma Road upgrade that would disturb the area adjacent to existing 

disturbance, and impacts occurring for the Pinedale Anticline Project. Impacts would generally 

be in proportion to the amount of direct habitat loss and are anticipated to be less than significant. 

Fisheries 

The CIAA for fisheries includes all 10 project-affected watersheds (see Map 3.9), the same CIAA 

as for soils, surface waters, and vegetation. Affected drainages include Expanded Sand DrawAlkali Creek, Granite Wash, Reduced Upper Alkali Creek-Green River, Big Sandy River-Bull 

Draw, Long Draw, Upper Eighteen Mile Canyon, Jonah Gulch, 140401040603, North Alkali 

Draw, and Southeast New Fork River-Blue Rim. Project-affected drainages do not support fish; 

therefore, cumulative impacts on fisheries would not be significant as a result of the proposed 

project. See Section 4.1.8.11 and Table 4.3 for further information regarding cumulative 

disturbance within these watersheds. 
4-94 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

4.2.2.12 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Unavoidable impacts to wildlife would include reductions in available habitat and habitat 

effectiveness due to both direct surface disturbance/vegetation removal and project-related 

activities such as increased traffic, noise, and human presence. Some direct wildlife mortality to 

small mammals during construction and from project traffic/vehicle collisions is also likely to 

occur. 

4.2.3 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate and BLM 

Wyoming Sensitive Species 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) identify the following 

management goals/objectives associated with wildlife and fisheries which are also relevant for 

TEP&C and BWS species: 

• to maintain, improve, or enhance the biological diversity of all plant and wildlife 

species while ensuring healthy ecosystems; 

• to restore disturbed or altered habitat with the objective to attain desired native 

plant communities, while providing for wildlife needs and soil stability; and 

• to conserve and develop recreational resources for the benefit of present and 

future generations; 

• to consider wildlife migration corridors, crucial winter ranges, and other 

important habitats when evaluating land use proposals; 

• to support and maintain healthy wildlife populations as an appropriate and 

desired land use; 

• to establish more watering systems on all grazing lands for livestock, wildlife, 

and game/non-game birds; and 

• to minimize conflicts between wildlife and domestic pets. 

Impacts to TEP&C species would be considered significant if any project action would adversely 

affect or jeopardize federal TEP&C species or their critical habitat and/or any recovery program. 

Impacts to BWS species would be significant if project activities would cause any BWS species 

to become federally listed. 

Black-footed ferrets are not known to occur, nor are they likely to occur, within the JIDPA, and 

the JIDPA and vicinity have been block-cleared for ferrets by the USFWS (i.e., surveys for ferrets 

are not required in the area because USFWS has concluded that their presence in the area is 

unlikely) (USFWS 2004). However, should ferrets be discovered in the JIDPA, consultation 

would be initiated with the USFWS to ensure their protection and management. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-95 

No bald eagle nests or winter roosts are known to occur on the JIDPA; however, they do use the 

Green and New Fork River corridors north of the JIDPA for nesting and migration and may 

occasionally forage in the JIDPA. It is anticipated that bald eagles would avoid the JIDPA for the 

LOP and would move to other suitable foraging areas in the region. 

Since no withdrawals or depletions of surface water nor increased turbidity or sedimentation of 

surface waters are expected to occur as a result of development of the JIDPA, no adverse affects 

to the four species of endangered fish present in the Green and Colorado Rivers below Flaming 

Gorge Dam are anticipated to occur. 

Ute ladies'-tresses habitat is not known to occur nor is the species likely to occur within the 

JIDPA. 

A biological assessment (BA) with USFWS concurrence of effects determinations for the above 

federally listed TEP&C species would be obtained prior to project authorization. 

The best habitat areas for the BWS pygmy rabbit (e.g., basin big sagebrush communities) occur 

along Sand Draw, and pygmy rabbits do occur in this area both on and adjacent to the JIDPA 

(TRC Mariah 2004a). Idaho pocket gophers may occur within the JIDPA in areas of shallow, 

stony soils. White-tailed prairie dog towns have been recorded within the JIDPA, and 

populations routinely utilize habitats on or close to surface disturbance; thus, to some degree, 

prairie dogs may adapt to the human presence/disturbance associated with the proposed project. 

The ability of habitats in the JIDPA to support these mammals likely would decrease due to 

continued habitat disturbance, habitat fragmentation, and direct mortality. 

Mountain plovers nest and forage in areas of low, sparse vegetation (often associated with prairie 

dog towns), and plovers have been observed in the vicinity of the JIDPA during wildlife 

monitoring efforts (e.g., TRC Mariah 2002, 2004a). Burrowing owls and ferruginous hawks nest 

and forage in the vicinity of the JIDPA; however, their use of the area appears to be declining in 

recent years (TRC Mariah 1999, 2001a, 2001b, 2002, 2004a). Similarly, greater sage-grouse 

forage, lek, nest, and winter in the vicinity of the JIDPA, but male lek attendance is declining on 

some leks on and adjacent to the JIDPA and a decrease in the use of the JIDPA for nesting, 

brood-rearing, and wintering also appears to be occurring (TRC Mariah 1999, 2001a, 2001b, 

2002, 2004a). These declines likely are, in part, associated with increased human activity and 

disturbance associated with oil and gas activities in the area. 

Species which are sagebrush obligates (i.e., sage thrasher, Brewer's sparrow, and sage sparrow) 

likely would be adversely affected due to habitat loss/disturbance, which could have negative 

impacts on these populations regionally, and this impact is anticipated to be significant under all 

alternatives. Ingelfinger (2001) reported a 50-60% reduction in sagebrush obligates within 100 m 

of roads in the Pinedale Anticline Project area, likely due to traffic, increased horned lark 

abundance, and avoidance of habitat edges created by roads. The author suggested that oil and 

gas development likely would result in a decline in populations of sagebrush obligates and an 

increase in populations of horned larks, as well as additional nesting opportunities for common 

ravens on structures associated with gas extraction. Ravens prey on sagebrush-obligate nestlings 

(Martin and Carlson 1998). Nicholoff (2003) recommends that, for Brewer's sparrow, sage 

sparrow, and sage thrasher, road construction and other developments that would reduce 

sagebrush habitat patch size to less than 50 acres be avoided where practical. For loggerhead 
4-96 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

shrike, another BWS species which occurs within the vicinity of the JIDPA, Nicholoff (2003) 

recommends minimizing conversion of sagebrush and other shrublands and woodlands to nonnative grasslands or croplands. 

Populations of long-billed curlew have been declining due to loss of suitable habitat as grasslands 

are converted to cropland or urban development (Nicholoff 2003). No cropland conversion or 

urban development is proposed; however, some unknown amount of disturbance and habitat 

fragmentation could result if suitable habitat is disturbed. 

Impacts to TEP&C and BWS animal species generally would be as described for wildlife (see 

Section 4.2.2), whereas impacts to TEP&C and BWS plant species generally would be as 

described for vegetation (see Section 4.2.1). Vegetation/habitat recovery to approximate 

predisturbance productivity could take 30 to over 100 years in sagebrush habitats (Braun 1998; 

Slater 2003). Impacts include 1) the direct loss of habitat due to the removal of vegetation and 

possible increased weed infestations; 2) displacement (wildlife only) due to disturbance from 

project-related activities, and increased public access to the JIDPA (indirect habitat loss); 3) 

habitat fragmentation; 4) direct mortality due to construction activities and animal/vehicle 

collisions; and 5) potential increased mortality due to poaching and harassment. 

This project is unlikely to adversely affect TEP&C species occurring or potentially occurring on 

or adjacent to project-affected areas due primarily to the absence of these species on the area and 

the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures (see Chapter 2 and Appendices A and B). 

Therefore, the project is not anticipated to significantly impact TEC&P species under any 

alternative. Significant impacts to BWS species are anticipated within the JIDPA under all 

alternatives (most notably to sagebrush-obligate species). However, these impacts are not 

anticipated to result in the need to federally list any BWS species. 

4.2.3.1 No Action Alternative 

Currently, a total of 4,209 acres of short-term and 1,409 acres of LOP disturbance are approved 

within the JIDPA (BLM 1998b, 2000b). Under the No Action Alternative, no additional impacts 

to TEP&C and BWS species from oil and gas development would occur in the JIDPA. Impact 

duration would be approximately 63 years plus the time needed for adequate reclamation. 

4.2.3.2 The Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action would result in an estimated increase (over the No Action Alternative) of 

16,200 acres of new initial disturbance, for a total of 20,409 acres of project-related surface 

disturbance. Most of the disturbance would occur in habitats used by BWS species. 

Approximately 70.4% of the total disturbance (14,369 acres) would be reclaimed and reseeded as 

soon as practical after disturbance (i.e., short-term disturbance). The remaining 29.6% (6,040 

acres) would remain disturbed for the LOP. Impact duration would be approximately 76 years 

plus the time needed for adequate reclamation, or 13 years longer than the No Action Alternative. 

Impacts to TEP&C species and their habitat would be minimal because of their infrequent use of 

the area. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-97 

4.2.3.3 Alternative A 

Implementation of Alternative A would result in the same types and acreages of impacts to 

TEP&C and BWS species as the Proposed Action (i.e., an increase of 16,200 acres [11,569 acres 

of short-term disturbance and 4,361 acres of LOP disturbance] over the No Action Alternative). 

However, under Alternative A, selected Operator-committed and BLM-required practices (e.g., 

avoidance of Sand Draw buffer) would not occur; thus, additional impacts to BWS species and 

their habitats (e.g., pygmy rabbit, ferruginous hawk, burrowing owl, sagebrush-obligate species) 

would likely occur. Depending on the rate of development, impact duration would be 

approximately 76 to 105 years plus the time needed for adequate reclamation, or 13 to 42 years 

longer than the No Action Alternative. 

Impacts to TEP&C species and their habitat would be minimal because of their infrequent use of 

the area. 

4.2.3.4 Alternative B 

Alternative B would result in an estimated increase over the No Action Alternative of 3,297 acres 

of new initial disturbance, for a total of 7,506 acres of project-related surface disturbance in the 

area. Most of the disturbance would occur in habitats used by BWS species. Approximately 65% 

(4,884 acres) of the total disturbance would be short-term, and the remaining 35% (2,622 acres) 

would remain disturbed for the LOP. Areas of the JIDPA that currently lack well pads would 

have minimal new surface disturbance because the alternative does not allow for construction of 

new well pads and, as a result, disturbance for new roads and pipelines required in those areas 

also would be minimal. Depending on the rate of development, impact duration would be 

approximately 76 to 105 years plus the time needed for adequate reclamation, or 13 to 42 years 

longer than the No Action Alternative. 

Impacts to TEP&C species and their habitat would be minimal because of their infrequent use of 

the area. 

4.2.3.5 Alternative C 

Alternative C would result in an estimated increase over the No Action Alternative of 6,705 acres 

of new initial disturbance, for a total of 10,914 acres of project-related surface disturbance in the 

area. Most of the disturbance would occur in habitats used by BWS species. Approximately 

68.9% (7,515 acres) of the total disturbance would be short-term, and the remaining 31.1% (3,399 

acres) would remain disturbed for the LOP. Depending on the rate of development, impact 

duration would be approximately 68 to 80 years plus the time needed for adequate reclamation, or 

5 to 17 years longer than the No Action Alternative. 

Impacts to TEP&C species and their habitat would be minimal because of their infrequent use of 

the area. 
4-98 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

4.2.3.6 Alternative D 

Alternative D would result in an estimated increase over the No Action Alternative of 11,571 

acres of new initial disturbance, for a total of 15,790 acres of project-related surface disturbance. 

Most of the disturbance would occur in habitats used by BWS species. Approximately 69.9% 

(11,037 acres) of the total disturbance would be short-term, and the remaining 30.1% (4,753 

acres) would remain disturbed for the LOP. Depending on the rate of development, impact 

duration would be approximately 72 to 93 years plus the time needed for adequate reclamation, or 

9 to 30 years longer than the No Action Alternative. 

Impacts to TEP&C species and their habitat would be minimal because of their infrequent use of 

the area. 

4.2.3.7 Alternative E 

Alternative E would result in an estimated increase over the No Action Alternative of 6,386 acres 

of new initial disturbance, for a total of 10,595 acres of project-related surface disturbance. Most 

of the disturbance would occur in habitats used by BWS species. Approximately 66.1% (6,998 

acres) of the total disturbance would be short-term, and the remaining 33.9% (3,597 acres) would 

remain disturbed for the LOP. Depending on the rate of development, impact duration would be 

approximately 76 to 105 years plus the time needed for adequate reclamation, or 13 to 42 years 

longer than the No Action Alternative. 

Impacts to TEP&C species and their habitat would be minimal because of their infrequent use of 

the area. 

4.2.3.8 Alternative F 

Alternative F would result in an estimated increase over the No Action Alternative of 10,446 

acres of new initial disturbance, for a total of 14,655 acres of project-related surface disturbance. 

Most of the disturbance would occur in habitats used by BWS species. Approximately 72.7% 

(10,658 acres) of the total disturbance would be short-term, and the remaining 27.3% (3,997 

acres) would remain disturbed for the LOP. Depending on the rate of development, impact 

duration would be approximately 76 to 105 years plus the time needed for adequate reclamation, 

or 13 to 42 years longer than the No Action Alternative. 

Impacts to TEP&C species and their habitat would be minimal because of their infrequent use of 

the area. 

4.2.3.9 Alternative G 

Alternative G would result in an estimated increase over the No Action Alternative of 13,989 

acres of new initial disturbance, for a total of 18,198 acres of project-related surface disturbance. 

Most of the disturbance would occur in habitats used by BWS species. Approximately 70.3% 

(12,790 acres) of the total disturbance would be short-term, and the remaining 29.7% (5,408 

acres) would remain disturbed for the LOP. Depending on the rate of development, impact 

duration would be approximately 76 to 105 years plus the time needed for adequate reclamation, 

or 13 to 42 years longer than the No Action Alternative. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-99 

Impacts to TEP&C species and their habitat would be minimal because of their infrequent use of 

the area. 

4.2.3.10 BLM Preferred Alternative 

The Preferred Alternative would result in an estimated increase over the No Action Alternative of 

7,804 acres of new initial disturbance, for a total of 12,013 acres of project-related surface 

disturbance. Most of the disturbance would occur in habitats used by BWS species. 

Approximately 69.2% (8,309 acres) of the total disturbance would be short-term, and the 

remaining 30.8% (3,704 acres) would remain disturbed for the LOP. Depending on the rate of 

development, impact duration would be approximately 76 years plus the time needed for adequate 

reclamation, or 13 years longer than the No Action Alternative. 

The additional Preferred Alternative-specific mitigation and monitoring measures listed for 

vegetation and wildlife (see Section 2.14) would moderate, to some extent, any impacts to 

TEP&C and BWS species. Impacts still would occur at potentially significant levels for most, if 

not all BWS species identified as occurring in the JIDPA. Impacts to TEP&C species and their 

habitat would be minimal because of their infrequent use of the area. 

4.2.3.11 Cumulative Impacts 

The CIAA for TEP&C and BWS species includes the entire range of each potentially affected 

species, with an emphasis for BWS species, on the BLM PFO area. With regard to federally 

listed TEP&C species, the proposed project would not likely contribute to cumulative impacts to 

the black-footed ferret or Ute ladies’-tresses, because these species are not known to occur on the 

JIDPA nor are they likely to be affected by the project. Because no bald eagle nests or winter 

roosts are known to occur within 1 mile of the JIDPA and alternate foraging areas exist within 

relatively close proximity to the JIDPA, it is unlikely that the project would have any cumulative 

impact on the bald eagle. The proposed project would not add to cumulative impacts (surface 

water depletions) for the four Colorado River endangered fish species. 

Project-related impacts to BWS species would add to impacts from other disturbance in the 

CIAA, including existing roads and traffic, oil and gas development, grazing and any other 

activity that would result in direct mortality, habitat fragmentation, or loss of habitat/habitat 

function. However, there is no evidence that any of the species would be proposed for listing as 

threatened or endangered as a result of cumulative impacts under any of the project alternatives. 

Site-specific projects requiring surface disturbance on BLM lands would require additional 

permitting which, in turn, may include mitigation measures for BWS similar to those for this 

project (see Appendices A and B). 

4.2.3.12 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Habitat loss (direct and indirect) would occur due to construction, and human presence would 

further reduce habitat functionality in some of the remaining undisturbed or minimally disturbed 

areas. This would result in decreased populations of some BWS species on the JIDPA. Some 

direct mortality, especially to small mammals, likely would occur during construction and from 

project-related traffic. 
4-100 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

4.2.4 Wild Horses 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (WSLUC 1979), and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) identify the following 

management goals/objectives associated with wild horses: 

• to protect, maintain, and control viable, healthy herds of wild horses while 

retaining their free roaming nature; 

• to provide adequate habitat for free-roaming wild horses through management 

consistent with environmental protection; and 

• to provide opportunity for the public to view wild horses. 

Impacts to wild horses would be significant if there would be a reduction in AUMs of a 

magnitude that would require modification to the management of wild horses in the LCHMA, or 

other actions that would prevent the realization of herd objectives, or if project disturbance 

resulted in a violation of RMP wild horse objectives. 

There would be an increase in wild horse displacement, including movement of wild horses off 

the RSFO LCHMA onto PFO portion of the JIDPA (through potentially damaged fences or gates 

left open), and potential injury as a result of encounters with project facilities (e.g., cattle guards, 

traffic). Project impacts would occur primarily from vegetation loss (i.e., AUM loss); however, 

some impact to wild horse viewing is also anticipated under all alternatives since the quality of 

views (i.e., set with an oil and gas development background) would be reduced. With the 

revegetation and reclamation measures proposed to ensure successful revegetation (see 

Appendix G) and other practices identified in Appendices A and B, no significant impacts to wild 

horses are anticipated under any alternative. 

4.2.4.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional activities that would potentially 

affect wild horse populations other than those currently approved for the area (BLM 1998b, 

2000b). Approximately 16 AUMs would be lost within the LCHMA for the LOP. The duration 

of impacts would be approximately 63 years and until areas are adequately reclaimed. 

4.2.4.2 The Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action would result in the direct removal of forage from approximately 2,415 acres 

(242 AUMs) initially, and 715 acres (72 AUMs) for the LOP within the 519,541-acre LCHMA. 

Impact duration is anticipated to be approximately 76 years and until adequate reclamation is 

achieved. 

4.2.4.3 Alternative A 

Implementation of Alternative A would result in the same types of impacts as all other 

development alternatives; however, impacts would be increased in areas that would otherwise 

have been avoided (e.g., steep slopes, drainage buffers). Alternative A would result in the direct 

removal of forage from approximately 2,415 acres (242 AUMs) initially, and 715 acres 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-101 

(72 AUMs) for the LOP within the 519,541-acre LCHMA. Impact duration would be dependent 

upon the rate of development (from 76 to 105 years) plus the time required for adequate 

reclamation. 

4.2.4.4 Alternative B 

Under implementation of Alternative B, there would be forage losses on approximately 867 acres 

(87 AUMs) initially and 306 acres (31 AUMs) for the LOP in the LCHMA. Impact duration 

would be dependent upon the rate of development (from 76 to 105 years) plus the time required 

for adequate reclamation. 

4.2.4.5 Alternative C 

Under implementation of Alternative C, there would be forage losses on approximately 

1,276 acres (128 AUMs) initially and 398 acres (40 AUMs) for the LOP in the LCHMA. Impact 

duration would be dependent upon the rate of development (from 68 to 80 years) plus the time 

required for adequate reclamation. 

4.2.4.6 Alternative D 

Under implementation of Alternative D, there would be forage losses on approximately 

1,861 acres (186 AUMs) initially and 561 acres (56 AUMs) for the LOP in the LCHMA. Impact 

duration would be dependent upon the rate of development (from 72 to 93 years) plus the time 

required for adequate reclamation. 

4.2.4.7 Alternative E 

Under implementation of Alternative E, there would be forage losses on approximately 

1,237 acres (124 AUMs) initially and 422 acres (42 AUMs) for the LOP in the LCHMA. Impact 

duration would be dependent upon the rate of development (from 76 to 105 years) plus the time 

required for adequate reclamation. 

4.2.4.8 Alternative F 

Under implementation of Alternative F, there would be forage losses on approximately 

1,725 acres (172 AUMs) initially and 470 acres (47 AUMs) for the LOP in the LCHMA. Impact 

duration would be dependent upon the rate of development (from 76 to 105 years) plus the time 

required for adequate reclamation. 

4.2.4.9 Alternative G 

Under implementation of Alternative G, there would be forage losses on approximately 

2,150 acres (215 AUMs) initially and 639 acres (64 AUMs) for the LOP in the LCHMA. Impact 

duration would be dependent upon the rate of development (from 76 to 105 years) plus the time 

required for adequate reclamation. 
4-102 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

4.2.4.10 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Under implementation of the Preferred Alternative, there would be forage losses on 

approximately 1,469 acres (147 AUMs) initially and 452 acres (45 AUMs) for the LOP in the 

LCHMA. Impact duration is anticipated to be approximately 76 years and until adequate 

reclamation is achieved. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, additional mitigation and monitoring measures would be applied 

to facilitate achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources 

(see Section 2.14). 

4.2.4.11 Cumulative Impacts 

The CIAA for wild horses is the entire LCHMA (see Map 3.20). Other existing developments in 

the LCHMA area are generally limited to secondary roads and natural gas development. 

Existing, proposed, and RFD (surface disturbance) activities are unlikely to reduce the carrying 

capacity of the Little Colorado Herd Management Unit although shifts in distribution may occur. 

Undo time expenditure and unnecessary hazing of wild horses back onto the RSFO LCHMA 

from the PFO portion of the JIDPA may occur due to increased area use for natural gas 

development and the failure to close field office boundary gates. The primary factor limiting the 

distribution of wild horses in the LCHMA is the availability of water, which is not anticipated to 

be affected cumulatively under any alternative except possibly the Preferred Alternative, if new 

water sources are provided. Cumulative impacts to wild horses are anticipated to be less than 

significant since wild horse population objectives are currently being met or exceeded in the 

LCMHA, and the reclamation activities that would be implemented under all alternatives have the 

potential to provide increased forage for wild horses. The aesthetic values associated with wild 

horse viewing would continue to decline where horses are observed in areas of development. 

This would occur cumulatively under all alternatives. 

4.2.4.12 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Other than the temporary short-term and LOP loss of forage, no unavoidable adverse impacts to 

wild horses are anticipated. 

4.3 CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) prescribe the following 

management goals/objectives associated with cultural resources: 

• to design cultural resource management actions to maintain the value of cultural 

resources; 

• to expand the opportunities for scientific study and educational and interpretive 

uses of cultural resources; 

• to protect and preserve important cultural resources or their historic record for 

future generations; 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-103 

• to resolve conflicts between cultural resources and other resource uses; and 

conserve and develop historic resources for the benefit of present and future 

generations. 

Because of the requirement for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and with the ARPA on 

federal lands, all areas on federal lands (surface or mineral estate) proposed for surface 

disturbance would be surveyed for cultural resources. These inventories would serve to protect 

most cultural properties from significant damage and would increase the site database and further 

our understanding of history and prehistory. Impacts to cultural and historic resources would be 

considered significant if they resulted in non-mitigated impacts to National Register-eligible 

historic properties, loss of scientifically important data or artifacts, a violation of the NHPA 

and/or ARPA, or disturbed Native American sensitive sites, or if they were inconsistent with the 

goals/objectives listed above. Adverse impacts to NRHP-eligible properties, or properties 

considered important to Native American groups, would be significant if they cannot be 

satisfactorily mitigated as determined through consultation with SHPO, ACHP, and other 

interested parties. 

Impacts to cultural resources identified in a discovery situation (archaeological features found 

during and not prior to surface disturbing activities) could be greater and more significant than 

impacts to resources that were previously identified because damage to discovery sites would 

occur prior to their recordation and evaluation, thereby complicating mitigation procedures. The 

most significant and time-consuming mitigation of discoveries would likely be for sites with 

structural remains in San Arcacio soil contexts along Sand Draw and when subsurface 

components containing extensive or abundant artifact assemblages are located during large 

disturbances. Mitigation of impacts to discoveries could often be accomplished through data 

recovery excavations, which would increase our understanding of prehistory to varying degrees, 

depending on the nature and extent of the discovery. Significant impacts can occur in situations 

where undocumented NRHP-eligible archaeological sites are impacted but not recognized (and 

therefore not treated as discoveries and appropriately mitigated). 

The Site 48SU4000 complex is highly sensitive and currently at risk. Extant and potential field 

developments pose a risk of direct threats to the site complex, and these threats would continue as 

the number of individuals familiar with and accessing the area increases due to ancillary adverse 

effects resulting from vandalism. To begin addressing these issues, the BLM and one of the 

Operators have negotiated a long-term site monitoring plan that includes a detailed inventory and 

recording of the entire District, as well as photographic monitoring and evaluation of looting. 

Miner (2001) has recommended pre-emptive mitigative excavations of rockshelters in highly 

visible locations and at significant locations in the vicinity of any proposed well pads and related 

facilities. Area-specific plans and procedures would continue to be promulgated and 

implemented to protect the resources in this area. 

Impacts would primarily occur in direct proportion to the volume of new surface disturbance (i.e., 

more acres of disturbance generally would result in more discoveries, excavation, chances for 

illegal artifact collection and/or vandalism, and/or impacts to sites, locales, and places considered 

sacred, sensitive, or of importance to modern-day Native Americans [especially the Shoshone 

People]). Vandalism and illegal collection impacts would occur in proportion to the amount of 

human use on the area. Vandalism may be minimized through law enforcement, site monitoring 
4-104 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

activities, and educational programs. Application of various mitigation protocol (see Appendices 

A and B), would reduce impacts to cultural resources under all alternatives; however, in the 

absence of a Programmatic Agreement and Cultural Resource Management Plan, potential 

significant impacts to cultural resources could occur under any alternative. 

Because of the requirement for cultural resource inventories in new disturbance areas, a large 

number of cultural properties would be found and added to the cultural resource database under 

all development alternatives. In addition, a large number of site mitigations (e.g., excavations) 

would be likely to occur, as avoidance of some NRHP-eligible sites likely would not be possible. 

Data recovery excavations would serve to increase our understanding of the prehistory of the 

region. 

Procedures for identifying and protecting cultural resources on State of Wyoming lands are not in 

place. Generally, BLM requires inventory on State of Wyoming lands as a connected action for 

the first access; however, once federal access via a ROW or other federal permit to these lands is 

obtained, uninventoried future construction and project developments and associated unmitigated 

site disturbance may occur. Only with the implementation of a Programmatic Agreement that 

addresses State of Wyoming land development protocol could the avoidance of significant 

adverse impacts to cultural resources on these lands be assured. 

Vandalism to cultural properties and illegal artifact collection would continue to be an issue in the 

JIDPA. Construction of new roads for well field expansion would provide access to additional 

areas, increasing the potential for vandalism. The increase in development under all development 

alternatives would increase traffic and human presence in the area, leading to additional artifact 

collecting and "pot hunting." Potential impacts associated with vandalism and illegal artifact 

collection are assumed to be proportional to the level of human activity (i.e., with a higher human 

presence there would be increased impact potential). Therefore, these potential impacts would 

likely be greatest during the development period, but would continue for the LOP. 

Subsurface prehistoric discoveries resulting from construction are common in portions of the 

JIDPA, and more of these discoveries are likely to occur with continued development. 

Discoveries usually occur on the toes of small but discreet upland hillocks and rises flanked by 

intermittent drainages and on the terraces and valley slopes adjacent to Sand Draw. Sediments 

along Sand Draw are particularly sensitive; these are primarily San Arcacio soils known to 

contain intact Early Archaic period sites, including those with housepits. These soils extend as 

much as 0.5 mile from each side of the drainage channel. Impacts to cultural resources 

discovered during construction activities would be minimized by relocating further proposed 

surface disturbances or through appropriate mitigation. Any cultural resources discovered during 

project construction would be treated in accordance with 36 C.F.R. 800 and the State-wide 

protocol. 

While avoidance of eligible sites would likely remain the primary tool to minimize potential 

adverse effects to cultural resources, there is a high degree of new development proposed for the 

JIDPA, with much of this development likely to occur in geomorphologically sensitive areas with 

high discovery potential, and project-by-project avoidance would prove to be increasingly 

difficult and time-consuming. Since substantial new ground disturbance is proposed within the 

JIDPA under all development alternatives, it would not only be much more difficult to avoid 

identified cultural resources, but there would likely be an increase in unanticipated discoveries. 

Such unexpected discoveries are currently being handled on a case-by-case basis under the 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-105 

general direction of 36 C.F.R. 800.13. Consultation involves the Operators, BLM, Wyoming 

SHPO, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and other interested parties. Under all project 

development alternatives, a greater number of construction projects would be delayed due to 

discoveries and subsequent consultation requirements. Because of the frequently complex nature 

of such discoveries, the need for development of case-by-case treatment plans, the exposed nature 

of the discovery, and the availability of archaeologists to evaluate the discovery, delays are 

common. Implementation of Programmatic Agreements and treatment or discovery plans that 

identify standard treatments, procedures, and management alternatives would lessen the impacts 

unexpected discoveries have on specific development projects. Duplication of paperwork is 

reduced, time frames for decision-making are greatly condensed, more “hands-on” management 

of an already damaged resource can occur, and overall management efficiencies are increased. A 

reduction in delay to Operators also results in a savings in construction costs and lessened shutdown impediments. Development and implementation of these plans would be beneficial to all 

parties, given the substantial increase in proposed ground disturbance within culturally sensitive 

areas. Programmatic approaches in the JIDPA could also benefit data synthesis and provide 

useful information to scholars and the general public. 

Past consultation with Native American Tribes has determined that the 48SU4000 Archaeological 

District is sensitive to Native Americans, as are several rock alignment sites along the edge of 

Yellow Point Ridge. Any increase in ground-disturbing activities has an increased potential of 

impacting significant sites, locales, and places considered sacred, sensitive, or of importance to 

modern-day Native Americans (especially the Shoshone People). 

4.3.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional surface disturbance other than that 

already approved by the BLM (1998b, 2000b). Prior NEPA documents concluded that there 

would be no significant adverse impacts to cultural resources as a result of the project; however, 

these conclusions assumed implementation of a Programmatic Agreement among BLM, SHPO, 

and Operators. Since this Programmatic Agreement expired, significant impacts have occurred, 

and while most cultural resource impacts have already happened, potentially significant impacts 

could still occur. Few new cultural resource inventories would be conducted, and no new sites 

would be recorded and added to the cultural resource database. Vandalism and illegal artifact 

collecting may continue for the LOP. In the absence of new ground disturbance, no additional 

unanticipated discoveries are likely to occur. Cultural resource impacts would continue for an 

estimated 63 years under the No Action Alternative. No new impacts to Native American 

religious or culturally significant sites are anticipated beyond current levels. 

4.3.2 The Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, an estimated 20,409 acres (67% of the JIDPA) would be directly 

impacted by surface-disturbing activities. This equates to an average disturbance of 429 acres per 

640-acre section. Impacts to cultural resources would be increased due primarily to new surface 

disturbance (16,200 acres). Vandalism and illegal artifact collection would likely be greatest 

during development (13 years), but would continue for approximately 76 years and until project 

personnel are no longer required. 
4-106 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

4.3.3 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, impacts to cultural resources would be increased from those of the No 

Action Alternative, be the same as those of the Proposed Action, but be increased in areas such as 

Sand Draw that would be avoided under other alternatives. Vandalism and illegal artifact 

collection would likely be greatest during development (13 to 42 years) but the duration of these 

impacts would continue for the LOP (from 76 to 105 years). 

4.3.4 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, approximately 7,298 acres of the JIDPA would be directly impacted by 

surface-disturbing activities, and an additional 283 acres of disturbance would occur at locations 

outside the JIDPA (e.g., Burma Road upgrade). This would result in an increase to potential 

impacts to cultural resources from that of the No Action Alternative. Cultural property avoidance 

may be more difficult under Alternative B as compared with the other development alternatives 

(i.e., existing pads would be increased in size) since pad locations are fixed. Vandalism and 

artifact collection would likely be greatest during development (13 to 42 years) but duration of 

these impacts would continue for the LOP (from 76 to 105 years). 

4.3.5 Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, approximately 10,631 acres of the JIDPA would be directly impacted by 

surface-disturbing activities, and an additional 283 acres of disturbance would occur outside the 

JIDPA. This would result in an increase to potential impacts to cultural resources from that of the 

No Action Alternative. Vandalism and illegal artifact collection would likely be greatest during 

development (5 to 17 years) but would continue for the LOP (68 to 80 years). 

4.3.6 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, approximately 15,507 acres of the JIDPA would be impacted, and an 

additional 283 acres of disturbance would occur outside the JIDPA. This would result in an 

increase to potential impacts to cultural resources from that of the No Action Alternative. 

Vandalism and illegal artifact collection would likely be greatest during development (9 to 30 

years) but would continue for the LOP (72 to 93 years). 

4.3.7 Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, approximately 10,312 acres of the JIDPA would be impacted, and an 

additional 283 acres of disturbance would occur outside the JIDPA. This would result in an 

increase to potential impacts to cultural resources from that of the No Action Alternative. 

Vandalism and illegal artifact collection would likely be greatest during development (13 to 42 

years) but would continue for the LOP (76 to 105 years). 

4.3.8 Alternative F 

Under Alternative F, approximately 14,372 acres of the JIDPA would be impacted, and an 

additional 283 acres of disturbance would occur outside the JIDPA. This would result in an 

increase to potential impacts to cultural resources from that of No Action Alternative. Vandalism 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-107 

and illegal artifact collection would likely be greatest during development (13 to 42 years) but 

would continue for the LOP (76 to 105 years). 

4.3.9 Alternative G 

Under Alternative G, approximately 17,915 acres of the JIDPA would be impacted, and an 

additional 283 acres of disturbance would occur outside the JIDPA. This would result in an 

increase to potential impacts to cultural resources from that of the No Action Alternative. 

Vandalism and illegal artifact collection would likely be greatest during development (13 to 42 

years) but would continue for the LOP (76 to 105 years). 

4.3.10 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, approximately 11,730 acres of the JIDPA (38%) would be 

directly impacted by surface-disturbing activities, and an additional 283 acres of disturbance 

would occur outside the JIDPA. An average disturbance of 243 acres per 640-acre section would 

occur in the JIDPA. Impacts to cultural resources would be increased from that of the No Action 

Alternative due primarily to new surface disturbance (7,804 acres more than No Action). 

Vandalism and illegal artifact collection would likely be greatest during development (13 years) 

but would continue for the LOP (76 years). 

Under the Preferred Alternative, additional mitigation and monitoring measures would be applied 

to facilitate achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources 

(see Section 2.14). Any measure that reduces the volume of surface disturbance or the level of 

human presence has the potential to reduce impacts to cultural resources. 

4.3.11 Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts to cultural resources within their CIAA (see Map 3.5) would include those 

detailed in past NEPA documents (BLM 1997a, 1998a, 2000a) and would generally be as 

described for this project, but would occur over the larger CIAA and as a result of additional nonproject-related ground-disturbing and vandalism/illegal collection activities primarily associated 

with energy developments in the Pinedale Anticline area. Additional direct impacts to cultural 

resources in the CIAA and outside the JIDPA have resulted primarily from development of the 

Pinedale Anticline Gas Field to the north of the JIDPA. 

The great increase in the human presence in the JIDPA and surrounding areas over the last 

8 years has tremendously increased vandalism and artifact collection (personal communication, 

September 2004, with Dave Vlcek, Cultural Resource Specialist, PFO). Numerous contacts 

among regulatory agency personnel and consultants have noted considerable illegal artifact 

collection in the area. The cumulative effect of this activity has been adverse. Illegal artifact 

removal has made the evaluation of surficial archaeological sites quite difficult due to the absence 

of diagnostic artifacts, tools (which aid in the determination of site function), and the dislocation 

of the tools of the archaeologist. 

Unmitigated loss of cultural resources in discovery and undocumented site situations associated 

with ground-disturbing actions would accumulate. Inventory, recordation, and data recovery 

projects triggered by ground-disturbing actions would continue to increase the cultural resource 

database, likely improving future cultural resource management decisions. Generally, the greater 

the increase in permitted activity, the greater the data acquisition of cultural resource information 
4-108 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

will be. Already in 2004, several major new archaeological discoveries have been made and 

documented, greatly increasing our knowledge of the prehistory of the area. The recovery of a 

7,300-year-old human burial is one such example and the data recovery efforts at Site 48SU4479 

are beginning to rewrite the prehistory of the Upper Green River Basin. Cumulatively, 

archaeological investigations in the JIDPA have made notable positive impacts upon our 

knowledge of the archeology of the region. 

Data recovery excavations remove all or a portion of in situ cultural materials at sites, thereby 

resulting in potential future data loss if new data recovery and analysis techniques are developed. 

These impacts would accumulate as additional sites are excavated. 

With the implementation of the cultural resource mitigation actions identified in Appendices A 

and B, cumulative impacts to cultural resources would be minimized or offset. 

Increased surface-disturbing activities and human presence primarily resulting from expanded 

energy development activities in the CIAA would result in increased cumulative adverse effects, 

and because many of these impacts are indirect (pot hunting), they are difficult to minimize or 

mitigate. Under any project development alternative, cumulative impacts would increase with 

increased surface disturbance and human activity, and significant cumulative effects to cultural 

resources could occur if undocumented and unrecognized NRHP-eligible sites are impacted and 

unmitigated. 

4.3.12 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Because of the requirement for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and with the ARPA on 

federal lands, adverse impacts are generally avoided or mitigated with the exception of situations 

where undocumented NRHP-eligible sites are impacted but not recognized, thereby occurring 

without mitigation. This type of unavoidable adverse impact may occur under all alternatives. 

Unmitigated adverse effects to eligible sites could also occur on State of Wyoming lands because 

fewer protections are afforded to cultural resources on lands falling outside BLM jurisdiction. 

Unexpected discoveries on state lands have occurred, and procedures for mitigative treatment of 

these finds are not in place. Therefore, unavoidable adverse impacts to discovery sites would 

continue until or unless formal procedures for protecting cultural resources on State of Wyoming 

lands are implemented. 

4.4 SOCIOECONOMICS 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b, 2004b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) identify the following 

management goals/objectives associated with socioeconomics: 

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

• 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. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-109 

BLM (2004b) criteria stipulate that impacts to socioeconomic resources would be considered 

potentially significant if any of the following were to occur: 

• changes in total employment in Lincoln, Sublette, and Sweetwater Counties 

exceed an increase or decrease of 1% of the trend or 

• changes in local tax revenues exceed an increase or decrease of 15% of the trend. 

The SCBC and SCPC (2003) emphasize the following values specific to the social traditions and 

socioeconomic base of Sublette County. 

• Sublette County’s unique local culture should be preserved and enriched, a 

culture characterized by a rural Wyoming flavor, a thriving private business 

community, an atmosphere friendly to working families, and the security of 

friendly crime-free communities. 

• There should be an abundance of economic freedom and diverse opportunities 

for residents old and new to pursue prosperity and happiness--complemented and 

sustained by a business-friendly atmosphere, reasonable taxation, a low cost of 

living, limited regulation, wise development of its natural resources, and a strong 

tradition of a good work ethic. 

Unless otherwise cited, the socioeconomic information that follows has been summarized from 

the Socioeconomic Analysis Technical Support Document for the Jonah Infill Drilling and South 

Piney Projects Environmental Impact Statements (BLM 2005), which is available from the BLM 

PFO. Please refer to that document for more detailed socioeconomic information and analysis. 

Additional information has been taken from the socioeconomic profile (BLM 2003b) prepared for 

inclusion in the Pinedale RMP. 

BLM defines a significant change as any change that would result in a 15% or greater change of 

any affected factor. The following analyses show that the project under all alternatives is 

compatible with BLM management objectives. Socioeconomic impacts are anticipated as a result 

of increased local taxes and revenues. Under the No Action Alternative, the affects of increased 

employment, economic activity, and substantial federal, state, local, and county revenues would 

not occur; which could result in impacts on socioeconomics. Cumulative economic impacts are 

likely to occur. 

In the long-term, all alternatives would likely result in economic impacts; however, while 

population is not likely to be affected over the LOP as a direct result of this project, 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). 

Depending upon the number of wells (1,250, 2,200, or 3,100) and the number of wells developed 

per year (75, 150, or 250), project construction, drilling, completion, and production would 

require from 43 to 82 years to complete (the LOP). The fewer the number of wells and/or 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 2.2. Production for the LOP could range 

from 3,366 billion cubic feet (BCF) under the No Action Alternative (no new development) to 
4-110 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

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 impacts on the 

study-area economy were analyzed in two phases using the methods developed for the Southwest 

Regional Economic Evaluation (SWREE) (UWAED 1997) and the Jack Morrow Hills 

Coordinated Action Plan (JMHCAP) (UWAED 2003; BLM 2003a). Phase I was the 

development phase, which considered the economic impacts associated with drilling and 

completion of infill wells in the JIDPA. Due to the large price fluctuations in natural gas prices, 

the economic impacts of production were estimated based on cost of production rather than total 

output. Phase II considered the economic impact of natural gas and condensate production as a 

result of the production from the wells completed under Phase I. 

Assumptions and Methods 

Assumptions and methods are detailed in BLM (2005). Economic impacts are presented in terms 

of real and nominal impact. A real discount rate has been used to adjust and to eliminate the 

effect of expected inflation to determined discounted constant-dollar (present value or "real 

value") of benefits and costs. Pursuant to OMB Circular No. A-94, the real discount factor is 

calculated as 1/(1+i)

t

 where i is the interest rate and t is the project year (OMB 2004). The 

present value is the value of those activities after the real discount rate has been applied over 

time. As presented herein, the nominal value of project activities is the simple calculation of 

dollars with no adjustments. Natural gas economic activity will depend upon three primary 

factors: 1) total number of wells, 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 (1,250, 2,200, or 

3,100) and the number of pads they are placed on. Some combinations of 

conventional/directional drilling may make full recovery uneconomical. An estimated 10,500 

BCF of natural gas and 99.85 million barrels of Jonah Field condensate (oil) are present beneath 

the JIDPA (see Table 4.2). No alternative anticipates total recovery of all natural gas or 

condensate resources present in the field. Total annual per well operation cost is presented in 

Table 4.12. 

Labor 

An estimated 7,011-16,863 worker-years of direct employment would be provided by the 

Proposed Action during the LOP (see Appendix G ). Jobs indirectly created or induced as a result 

of development and operations are presented in terms of annual job equivalents (AJEs). An AJE 

represents 12 months of employment. For example, one AJE could represent one job for 

12 months or two jobs for 6 months or three jobs for 4 months. For the purposes of this analysis, 

a job is defined as 260 worker-days or 1 worker year, a person-year is 365 days; therefore, there 

are approximately 1.4 worker years per person year. An AJE would not necessarily result in a 

new job; it may simply represent the continuation of an existing job that would otherwise have 

been terminated had the development not occurred. Average annual starting wages per job would 

not necessarily be the earnings for each job created/maintained. Actual wages are determined on 

an individual basis by employers as influenced by market forces. 

4-112 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 4.13 Economic Activity from Gas Drilling Per Well, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Estimated Impacts Conventional Well Directionally Drilled Well 

Direct Expenditures1,2

 Drilling ($) $653,574 $897,184 

Total Direct Expenditures ($) $2,186,684 $2,430,294 

Secondary Labor Earning

 Drilling ($) $239,402 $328,287 

 Completion ($) $1,533,110 $1,533,110 

 Completion ($) $293,005 $293,005 

Total Secondary Labor Earnings ($) $532,407 $621,292 

Total Economic Activity Impact per Well $2,719,091 $3,051,586 

Annual Job Equivalents (AJEs) 

Drilling 7.3 3.3 

 Completion 9.4 1.2 

Total AJEs per Well3 16.7 19.4 

Average Earnings Per Created Job ($)4 $31,881 $32,025 

1 Includes proposed labor costs. 2 Completion includes the cost of completion and setting of production equipment. 3 AJEs are jobs indirectly created as a result of the activity. They do not include the direct labor jobs (proposed) 

presented in Appendix G. 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. 

Table 4.14 Economic Activity Gas Production from One BCF of Natural Gas and One MBO, Jonah 

Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Resource Economic Activity 

Natural Gas Activity per BCF 

Revenue1 $3,500,000 

Secondary Labor Earnings $132,083 

Total Economic Activities $3,632,083 

AJEs 3.92 

Condensate Activity per Million Barrels 

Revenue2 $21,000,000

Secondary Labor Earnings $792,498 

Total Economic Activities $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. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-113 

Government Revenues 

Under all alternatives (including No Action), the project would generate substantial revenues for 

state, county, and local governments, as well as area school districts, through state sales tax, 

federal income tax, ad valorem taxes, severance taxes, federal minerals royalties, and other taxes 

on facilities and production. Assumptions regarding the analysis of project effects on government 

revenues are detailed in BLM (2005). 

The estimated revenues and taxes resulting from the project, as well as their present value, for the 

LOP are presented in detail in BLM (2005), including the likely distribution of those funds to the 

U.S., Wyoming, and affected counties, cities, and towns based on current statutes and distribution 

trends. For the purposes of this analysis, the rate of development and an average decline curve 

for individual well production (BLM 2005: Appendix A) was used to estimate total annual field 

production; well life was assumed to be 40 years. Increases in taxes and revenues would have the 

effect of providing counties and communities with more discretionary dollars to develop 

infrastructure and provide for the needs of low-income residents; thus, the dependence on federal 

or state grant monies would be reduced. 

All counties in the study area would benefit from increased revenues from federal royalties, 

severance taxes, sales taxes, and presumably use and lodging taxes, although the latter are not 

discussed further herein. 

Because development and production would occur within Sublette County, directly related 

increases in ad valorem production and property taxes would impact only Sublette County and its 

communities. Ad valorem taxes on production were estimated herein; however, real property 

values are likely to change if population fluctuates due to cumulative non-project-related factors, 

which could result in fluctuating receipts from ad valorem taxes on property. Real property value 

changes are beyond the scope of this analysis and are not addressed further. 

Recreation 

Economic losses could result if recreationists were displaced from the JIDPA and moved their 

activities out of the study area. Losses would be proportional to the number of displaced 

recreationists. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that all recreation would be lost 

from the JIDPA for the LOP. (It is likely that most of this loss has already occurred due to extant 

development effects.) 

Direct impacts from displaced nonconsumptive recreationists (per visitor day) could result in a 

loss of $29.62 (including $6.80 of labor income) and 0.000518 AJEs each (Table 4.15). If all 

3,396 RVDs (see Section 3.4) were lost (regardless of the alternative), there would be a loss of 

direct expenditures of $100,590 (including $23,093 labor earnings) and a loss of 1.8 AJEs 

annually for the LOP (BLM 2005). 

However, it is likely that any recreationists discouraged from engaging in activities in the JIDPA 

as a result of natural gas development would relocate their activities to other locations in the 

vicinity that would provide similar recreational opportunities unique to the PFO area; thus, no 

actual economic loss is likely to result from loss of recreation due to the proposed project. 

Individuals may experience some impacts in terms of lessened enjoyment and satisfaction from 

relocated recreational activities. 
4-114 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 4.15 Economic Activity per RVD from Nonconsumptive Recreation, Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Item Economic Activity per RVD 

Direct Expenditures $22.82 

Secondary Labor Earnings $6.80 

Total Economic Activity per RVD $29.62 

AJES per RVD 0.000518 

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 principle species hunted on the JIDPA, 

would likely be displaced to such an extent that recreational hunting on the JIDPA may no longer 

occur. Cottontail rabbits are also hunted on the JIDPA, but are unlikely to be displaced by project 

activities. However, it is likely that hunters already avoid the area due to extant development. 

Lands adjacent to the JIDPA may absorb displaced hunting pressure 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 cottontail, greater sage-grouse, and pronghorn are likely to be hunted on the JIDPA. WGFD 

does not collect resident versus nonresident information for cottontail and greater sage-grouse 

hunting; therefore, it will be conservatively assumed for the purposes of this analysis that all 

hunters are nonresident. Direct impacts from displaced pronghorn hunters (61.0 hunter days per 

year attributable to JIDPA) could result in a loss of $536.46/hunter day (including $155.16 of 

labor income) and 0.012087 AJEs each (Table 4.16). Direct impacts from displaced cottontail 

hunters (26.4 hunter days per year) could result in a loss of $243.48/hunter day (including $70.42 

of labor income) and 0.005486 AJEs each. Direct impacts from displaced greater sage-grouse 

hunters (16.3 hunter days per year) could result in a loss of $183.32 (including $53.02 of labor 

income) and 0.004131 AJEs each. If all hunters relocate their activities away from the JIDPA 

could result in a loss of $42,140 ($12,188 of labor income) and 0.95 AJEs of annual economic 

activity (BLM 2005). 

It is likely that any hunters discouraged from engaging in activities in the JIDPA as a result of 

natural gas development would relocate their activities to other locations in the vicinity; thus, no 

economic loss is likely to result from loss of hunting due to the proposed project. 

Grazing 

There would be a reduction in available forage on grazing allotments within the JIDPA due to 

road, pipeline, and well pad construction (see Section 4.5.2). For the purposes of this analysis, it 

is conservatively assumed that, based on the reduction in forage, BLM would reduce the number 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-115 

Table 4.16 Economic Activity per Hunter Day, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2005. 

Economic Activity per Hunter Day 

Item Pronghorn Cottontail Greater Sage-grouse Total 

Direct Expenditures $381.30 $173.06 $130.30 $684.66 

Secondary Labor Earnings $155.16 $70.42 $53.02 $278.60 

Total Secondary Activity $536.46 $243.48 $183.32 $963.26 

per Hunter Day 

AJEs per Hunter Day 0.012087 0.005486 0.004131 0.021704 

of permitted AUMs during initial disturbance and for the LOP; these estimated reductions are 

presented in BLM (2005). The economic activity from these AUMs is presented in Table 4.17. 

The assumed reduction in AUMs does not take into consideration the possibility that areas 

reclaimed shortly after initial disturbance--areas not needed for the LOP--would provide more 

forage (primarily grass) for livestock than the previously undisturbed range. Total economic 

impact per AUM lost is estimated at $114.99 (including $18.46 labor earnings) and 0.000709 

AJEs annually and (Table 4.17). Additionally, fees paid to the BLM by permittees ($1.35/AUM) 

would not be realized if the number of permitted AUMs were reduced. 

For the purposes of this economic analysis, it is conservatively assumed that all affected AUMs 

(cumulative plus RFD) would be lost under each action alternative for the LOP (BLM 2005). 

Total losses would depend on the length of the LOP, which depends on the number of wells and 

rate of development ultimately approved. Some AUMs would return to productivity during the 

LOP as reclamation proceeds and forage production increases. Removal and subsequent 

reinstatement of any permitted AUMs would be at the discretion of the BLM. 

Social Impacts 

Social impacts are discussed in more detail in BLM (2005). 

The project could result in some increases in population in Sublette, Lincoln, and Sweetwater 

Counties, as a result of job seekers from other areas moving to the area in search of employment; 

although existing industry expertise and services in the three counties is generally adequate to 

service additional oil and gas development. Some limited degree in-migration of labor is 

anticipated as a result of the project; without adequate planning at the local level, increases in 

population would likely have some effect on communities in the study area. 

Personal per capita income in the study area ranged from $16,140 to $28,037 in 2000. Estimated 

annual starting wages per job created as a result of the project would be from 50-58% higher than 

the personal per capita income reported in 2000. Thus, there would likely be impacts from 

increased income to local families and reduced poverty as a result of the Proposed Actions and 

alternatives. These impacts would not be realized under the No Action Alternative. 
4-116 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 4.17 Economic Activity from Grazing per AUM, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Item/AUM Economic Activity per AUM 

Value of Production $35.29 

Indirect Economic Activity (not labor) $61.24 

Secondary Labor Earnings $18.46 

Total Economic Activity per AUM $114.99 

AJEs per AUM 0.000709 

It is not anticipated that the project would result in an in-migration of workers to the study area. 

With an estimated 1,713 available workers available in the study area and 12,000 available 

workers in Wyoming, the estimated number of laborers that would be directly employed as a 

result of the project would be readily available. The project would directly provide 166-401 jobs 

annually (assuming a 43-year LOP) and would indirectly generate 1,690 to 5,256 AJEs annually. 

Some of these jobs would be existing jobs that would continue to occur as a result of continued 

development and operations that would otherwise have been lost; some jobs would be newly 

created parallel or transitional jobs. These jobs would likely reduce or prevent an increase in 

unemployment in the study area and the state. The project would result in impacts resulting from 

increased local employment--both to the workforce directly involved in oil and gas development 

and to the general service economy--especially during construction and drilling. However, the 

existing labor shortage reported by Mast (2004) may be incrementally increased by the project 

(personal communication, December 2004, with Roy Allen, Economist, BLM Wyoming State 

Office, Cheyenne and with Marilyn Filkins, Sublette County Attorney, Pinedale). 

Increased revenues, incomes, and population in the study area would likely result in increased 

entropy in the study area society. Crime could increase in the study area as a result of greater 

affluence among the residents of the study area. However, the population in the study area is not 

anticipated to increase in the long-term as a result of this project; therefore, no project-specific 

increase in crime is anticipated. However, because of the demographics of the laborers attracted 

to oil and gas development and production, the existing crime situation, which is already affecting 

the CIAA, may be incrementally increased by the project. 

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. However, impacts already being 

experienced by the healthcare community may be incrementally increased by the project as a 

result of increases in population by individuals attracted to potential new opportunities. 

While it is possible that there may be some increase in the study area population as a result of 

job-seekers coming to the area, such an increase in population would not place an undue burden 

on existing infrastructure. For instance, nearly 32% of the housing in Sublette County is vacant, 

although the habitability of this vacant housing is unknown. No housing shortages are 

anticipated. However, if there were an increase in the population, increased demand would likely 

cause an increase in housing prices (rental costs and home sale prices). Additionally, increased 

affluence in the study area is likely to cause an increase in the demand for higher-quality housing. 

This would result in increased ad valorem tax revenues to local governments. It could also make 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-117 

it more difficult for some individuals to obtain satisfactory housing within affordable price 

ranges, which would have an effect on those individuals. Impacts to housing already being 

experienced by the affected communities may be incrementally increased by the project as a 

result of increases in population. A motel is being planned for construction in Pinedale and 

several mancamps are also under discussion by area operators not involved with this project, to 

help alleviate pressures on housing. Additionally, several multi-unit housing developments are 

under discussion (personal communication, December 2004, with Roy Allen, Economist, BLM 

Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne and Cyd Goodrich, Realtor, Pinedale Properties). 

Increased cost of living and inflation already being experienced by the affected communities also 

may be incrementally increased by the project. 

Increased revenues to schools as a result of increased ad valorem and other taxes and revenues 

would be an impact to the school systems, thereby allowing the purchase of higher quality 

teaching materials and potentially increasing the wages of teachers, which could attract teachers 

with higher credentials than would otherwise have been attracted to 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 Wyoming Comprehensive Assessment 

System scores, thus increasing the overall education rate and improving the quality of the overall 

work force 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. All area 

schools have plenty of capacity for expansion of enrollment (Blevins et al 2004). 

4.4.1 No Action Alternative 

See BLM (2005) for a detailed analysis of socioeconomic impacts related to production, 

recreation, and grazing, as well as social impacts. Under the No Action Alternative, no additional 

development would occur. This would reduce the number of rigs, crews, and associated services 

currently operating in the area. Currently, one oilfield service operator employs over 300 people 

and employs local contractors from over 30 companies within the town of Rock Springs 

(Schlumberger Oil Field Services Companies 2003). It is approximated that between 1996 and 

2002, 59.3% of all exploration and production oilfield service fees paid in the state were spent on 

services in the Jonah Field (Schlumberger Oil Field Services Companies 2003). These services 

and associated jobs would likely be reduced or eliminated under the No Action Alternative. No 

additional economic activity from development would occur under this alternative--no additional 

secondary labor earnings or jobs would be created, and no additional taxes or revenues from 

development would be realized. 

Under the No Action Alternative, the least amount of change in economic activity from current 

conditions would be expected when compared to all other alternatives. Because no additional 

development would occur, no economic activity from development would occur (Table 4.18). 

Production would be limited to the life of currently producing wells, therefore, only up to 

3,366 BCF of gas and 31.98 MBO would be recovered under this alternative. Over the LOP, the 

No Action Alternative would generate up to $9,275.7 million present value, including $1,753.7 

million present value in taxes/royalties. Based on a population of 6,024 (year 2002), this would 

be nominally equivalent to the county receiving funds of $123,144 (approximately $3,079 

annually) for each person in the county (see BLM 2005). 
 4-118

Table 4.18 Summary of Total Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Development and Production Over the Life of Field, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 2005.

Economic Activity Resulting from Development (LOF)

No Action Preferred

Economic Effect Alternative Proposed Action Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G Alternative Total Anticipated Natural Gas Recovery over the LOF (BCF) 3,366 7,947 8,191 6,124 6,657 7,554 6,302 7,186 7,876 Total Anticipated Condensate Recovery over the LOF 31.98 75.50 77.81 58.18 63.24 71.76 59.87 68.27 74.82 (million bbls)Potential Range of Change in EmploymentSecondary Development Employment (AJEs) -- 52,930 to 53,342 52,187.5 to 52,605.0 60,625 to 61,110 21,617 to 22,119 38,466 to 38,474 59,848 to 60,316 57,823 to 99,071 53,740 to 54,193

Average Earnings Per Job -- $31,881 to $32,025 $31,881 to $32,025 $31,881 to $32,025 $31,881 to $32,025 $31,881 to $32,025 $31,881 to $32,025 $31,881 to $32,025 $31,881 to $32,025

Secondary Production Employment (AJEs) 13,947 32,928 33,939 25,374 27,583 31,299 26,112 29,775 32,634 

Average Earnings Per Job $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 

Recreation AJEs -- -92.4 to -144.2 -92.4 to -144.3 -92.4 to -144.4 -79.2 to -100.3 -86.2 to -123.1 -92.4 to -144.4 -92.4 to -144.4 -92.4 to -144.4Hunting AJEs -- -49.9 to -77.9 -49.9 to -77.9 -49.9 to -77.9 -42.8 to -54.2 -46.6 to -66.5 -49.9 to -77.9 -49.9 to -77.9 -49.9 to -77.9 

Grazing AJEs -- -65.7 to -102.7 -65.7 to -102.7 -24.4 to -38.1 -30.5 to -38.6 -47.6 to -68.0 -34.5 to -53.9 -47.4 to -74.1 -58.7 to -91.7Potential Range of Change in Employment 13,947 85,110.0 to 85,945.2 85,918.5 to 86,219.1 85,832.3 to 86,223.6 59,047.5 to 49,508.9 69,584.6 to 69,515.4 85,732.2 to 86,151.8 87,408.3 to 128,549.0 86,173.0 to 86,513.0 

 G tiveanr lte As a me sa ly the te oxima pprA

NOMINAL VALUE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

75 Wells Per Year Development Rate

Value of Development1 (millions of $) 0.0 8,655.9 8,565.1 9,612.5 3,568.6 6,227.7 9,514.7 9,263.4 8,760.6 

Value of Production1,2 (millions of $) 12,922.5 30,509.5 31,446.1 23,510.8 25,556.9 29,000.6 24,194.1 27,587.9 30,236.8 

Taxes/royalties from proposed project (millions of $) 2,334.9 6,076.0 6,239.1 4,881.4 4,850.7 5,646.0 4,997.8 5,592.7 6,034.8 Recreation (millions of $) 0.0 -8.2 -8.2 -8.2 -5.7 -7.0 -8.2 -8.2 -8.2 Hunting (millions of $) 0.0 -3.5 -3.5 -3.5 -2.4 -2.9 -3.5 -3.5 -3.5 Grazing (millions of $) -1.5 -14.2 -14.2 -5.3 -5.3 -9.4 -7.8 -10.2 -12.0 Total Nominal Economic Activity (millions of $) 15,255.9 45,215.5 46,224.5 37,987.7 33,962.7 40,854.9 38,687.2 42,422.1 45,008.6 

150 Wells Per Year Development Rate

Value of Development1 (millions of $) 0.0 8,655.9 8,565.1 9,612.5 3,796.5 6,227.7 9,507.8 15,678.7 8,760.6 

Value of Production1,2 (millions of $) 12,922.5 30,509.5 31,446.1 23,510.8 25,556.9 29,000.6 24,194.1 27,587.9 30,236.8 

Taxes/royalties (millions of $) 2,334.9 6,076.5 6,239.1 4,881.4 4,865.7 5,646.0 4,997.3 6,015.6 6,034.8 Recreation (millions of $) 0.0 -6.1 -6.1 -6.1 -4.9 -5.5 -6.1 -6.1 -6.1 Hunting (millions of $) 0.0 -2.6 -2.6 -2.6 -2.1 -2.3 -2.6 -2.6 -2.6 Grazing (millions of $) -1.5 -10.5 -10.5 -3.9 -4.6 -7.4 -5.8 -7.6 -8.9 Total Nominal Economic Activity (millions of $) 15,255.9 45,222.7 46,231.1 37,992.0 34,207.5 40,859.0 38,684.7 49,265.9 45,014.7 

250 Wells Per Year Development Rate

Value of Development1 (millions of $) 0.0 8,588.6 8,497.2 9,536.2 3,490.3 6,228.7 9,440.6 9,191.2 8,688.3 

Value of Production1,2 (millions of $) 12,922.5 30,509.5 31,446.1 23,510.8 25,556.9 29,000.6 24,194.1 27,587.9 30,236.8 

Taxes/royalties (millions of $) 2,334.9 6,072.1 6,234.7 4,876.4 4,845.5 5,646.1 4,992.9 5,588.0 6,030.1 Recreation (millions of $) 0.0 -5.3 -5.3 -5.3 -4.5 -4.9 -5.3 -5.3 -5.3 Hunting (millions of $) 0.0 -2.2 -2.2 -2.2 -1.9 -2.1 -2.2 -2.2 -2.2 Grazing (millions of $) -1.5 -9.1 -9.1 -3.4 -4.2 -6.6 -5.0 -6.5 -7.7 Total Nominal Economic Activity (millions of $) 15,255.9 45,153.7 46,161.4 37,912.5 33,882.1 40,861.8 38,615.2 42,353.2 44,940.1 

 G tiveanr lte As a me sa ly the te oxima pprA
 4-119 

Table 4.18 (Continued)

Economic Activity Resulting from Development (LOF)

No Action Preferred

Economic Effect Alternative Proposed Action Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G Alternative 

PRESENT VALUE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY3 

75 Wells Per Year Development Rate

Value of Development2 (millions of $) 0.0 4,496.4 4,452.8 4,997.3 2,655.7 3,818.0 4,946.5 4,815.8 4,554.5 

Value of Production2 (millions of $) 9,275.7 12,101.0 12,144.6 9,325.1 14,130.0 13,208.8 9,596.1 10,942.1 11,992.8 

Taxes/royalties (millions of $) 1,753.7 2,557.3 2,561.7 2,108.2 2,733.2 2,665.9 2,151.9 2,378.2 2,542.8 Recreation (millions of $) 0.0 -2.7 -2.7 -2.7 -2.5 -2.6 -2.7 -2.7 -2.7 Hunting (millions of $) 0.0 -1.1 -1.1 -1.1 -1.0 -1.1 -1.1 -1.1 -1.1 Grazing (millions of $) -0.9 -5.4 -5.4 -2.0 -2.7 -4.1 -3.0 -3.9 -4.6 Total Present Value of Economic Activity (millions of $) 11,028.5 19,145.4 19,149.8 16,424.7 19,512.7 19,684.9 16,687.6 18,128.4 19,081.6 

150 Wells Per Year Development Rate

Value of Development2 (millions of $) 0.0 6,058.3 5,994.8 6,727.8 3,209.1 4,781.8 6,654.5 10,973.6 6,131.6 

Value of Production2 (millions of $) 9,275.7 15,864.2 16,349.9 12,225.0 16,049.7 16,543.1 12,580.4 14,345.1 15,722.5 

Taxes/royalties (millions of $) 1,753.7 3,156.6 3,239.5 2,543.2 3,073.1 3,217.8 2,602.8 3,061.5 3,134.5 Recreation (millions of $) 0.0 -2.5 -2.5 -2.5 -2.3 -2.4 -2.5 -2.5 -2.5 Hunting (millions of $) 0.0 -1.1 -1.1 -1.1 -1.0 -1.0 -1.1 -1.1 -1.1 Grazing (millions of $) -0.9 -5.1 -5.1 -1.9 -2.4 -3.8 -2.8 -3.7 -4.3 Total Present Value of Economic Activity (millions of $) 11,028.5 25,070.4 25,575.5 21,490.6 22,326.1 24,535.3 21,831.3 28,372.9 24,980.7 

250 Wells Per Year Development Rate

Value of Development2 (millions of $) 0.0 6,631.8 6,561.2 7,363.5 3,151.8 5,265.1 7,289.7 7,097.1 6,708.8 

Value of Production2 (millions of $) 9,275.7 17,963.8 18,511.2 13,842.7 17,145.3 18,212.2 14,245.2 16,243.3 17,803.0 

Taxes/royalties (millions of $) 1,753.7 3,474.7 3,574.9 2,725.2 3,242.5 3,483.9 2,798.3 3,165.4 3,446.6 Recreation (millions of $) 0.0 -2.4 -2.4 -2.4 -2.3 -2.3 -2.4 -2.4 -2.4 Hunting (millions of $) 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -0.9 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 Grazing (millions of $) -0.9 -6.6 -6.6 -2.5 -2.5 -3.7 -3.6 -4.7 -5.6 Total Present Value of Economic Activity (millions of $) 11,028.5 28,060.4 28,637.3 23,925.5 23,533.9 26,954.2 24,326.2 26,497.8 27,949.5 

 G tiveanr lte As a me sa ly the te oxima pprA

1 Includes nonproject 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 Alternatives A-G include wells currently in production (i.e., No Action Alternative wells); natural gas price is $3.50/mcf and condensate is $21/bbl.3 Variable development rates porvided for each alternative; well life is assumed to be 40 years; see TRC Mariah (2004c) 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. 
4-120 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Grazing could be reduced by up to $0.9 million present value. No effect would be expected to 

occur on recreation or hunting resources. The least total economic activity would occur under the 

No Action Alternative of all alternatives and this alternative would create the least number of 

AJEs. 

4.4.2 Proposed Action 

See BLM (2005) for a detailed analysis of impacts related to this alternative. Because no new 

development would occur under the No Action Alternative, development impacts would be 

greater under the Proposed Action which provides that up to 3,100 new (assumed at 2,825 

conventional, 275 directional) wells would be developed (see Table 4.18). The economic activity 

under the 250 wells/year development rate (12.5 years) would be $4,496.4 million present value 

and 52,930.0 AJEs for the LOP (BLM 2005). The Proposed Action would have more economic 

activity in terms of production than the No Action Alternative because of the higher level of 

resource recovery. The number of AJEs that would be created in the study area would be up to 

85,945.2 with an average wage ranging from $31,881 to $47,173. 

Over an LOP of 52.5 years (12.5 years to develop), economic activity would be $28,060.4 million 

present value, including $3,474.7 million present value in taxes/royalties (see Table 4.18). Based 

on a population of 6,024 (year 2002), this would be nominally equivalent to the county receiving 

funds of $305,292 (approximately $5,815 annually) for each person in the county (BLM 2005). 

BLM (2005) presents speculative examples of what budgets for Big Piney, Pinedale, and Sublette 

County may be in year 10 of development under the Proposed Action. Under the Proposed 

Action, local area government operating budgets would likely expand and increase the amount of 

services and infrastructure provided to community residents. These impacts would be higher 

under the Proposed Action than under the No Action Alternative. 

The Proposed Action could result in a present value loss of economic activity from recreation of 

$2.4 million, hunting of $1.0 million, and grazing of $6.6 million over the LOP. Impacts to 

recreation, hunting, and grazing would be greater than for the No Action Alternative due to 

increased disturbance and longer project duration. Under the Proposed Action, if it is assumed 

that all 3,396 RVDs are relocated for the LOP, reduced recreation economic activity would 

amount to $2.4 million present value and up to 92.4 AJEs. These impacts would be higher than 

under the No Action Alternative. 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 amount to $1.0 million present value and up to 49.9 AJEs. These impacts 

would be higher than under the No Action Alternative. Under the Proposed Action, if it is 

assumed that 1,761 AUMs would be lost for the LOP, reduction in economic activity would 

amount to $6.6 million present value and up to 65.5 AJEs. 

4.4.3 Alternative A 

See BLM (2005) for a detailed analysis of impacts related to this alternative. Under Alternative 

A, change in economic activity from current conditions would be expected from the development 

of up to 3,100 wells and the recovery of up to 8,191 BCF of gas and 77.81 MBO (see Table 4.18). 

Economic activity from Alternative A would be less than that expected from the Proposed Action 

due to the removal of directional drilling, but greater than expected under the No Action 

Alternative. This alternative would have more nominal economic activity in terms of production 

than the Proposed Action or the No Action Alternative because of the higher level of resource 

recovery. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-121 

Economic activity could range from $19,149.8 million present value (including $2,561.7 million 

in taxes and revenues) to $28,637.3 million present value (including $3,574.9 million in taxes and 

revenues) (see Table 4.18). Based on a population of 6,024 (year 2002), this would be nominally 

equivalent to Sublette County receiving funds of $314,077 (approximately $5,982 annually) for 

each person in the county (BLM 2005). Property tax revenues would likely be higher under this 

alternative than under the No Action Alternative or 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. While, conceptually, changes in production for this field could impact 

pricing of natural gas for consumers, given the size of the market it is not likely that a measurable 

change in market price would be associated with this alternative due to the length of the LOP. 

Local area government operating budgets would likely increase but more under this alternative 

than under the No Action Alternative, but less than under the Proposed Action due to reduced 

development expenditures. Alternative A would generate the most overall taxes and revenues 

and the most funds for the school capital account over the LOP compared to all others alternatives 

(BLM 2005). 

The number of AJEs that would be created in the study area could range from 85,918.5-86,219.1 

with an average wage ranging from $31,881 to $47,173. Population changes from secondary 

employment would be higher than under the No Action Alternative and would likely be similar to 

but reduced from that described for the Proposed Action because fewer AJEs would be created to 

attract new workers (BLM 2005). The potential for population changes from secondary 

employment would likely be lowest under Alternative A when compared to all other alternatives 

that contain a development component. 

This alternative could result in a loss of economic activity from recreation ranging from 

$2.4 million present value to $2.7 million present value, hunting ranging from $1.0 million 

present value to $1.1 million present value, and grazing ranging from $6.6 million present value 

to $5.1 million present value over the LOP. The loss of economic activity from recreation, 

hunting, and grazing would be increased under Alternative A as compared to the No Action 

Alternative and longer development periods under the 75 and 150 wells/year development rates 

would result in greater reductions in economic activity from these resources than under the 

Proposed Action. The greatest loss in grazing from all alternatives would occur under Alternative 

A 75 wells/year development rate. 

4.4.4 Alternative B 

See BLM (2005) for a detailed analysis of impacts related to this alternative. 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). 

Economic activity from Alternative B would be more than that expected from the Proposed 

Action and the No Action Alternative due to the increased amount of directional drilling from the 

development activities. The least economic activity would occur under Alternative B when 

compared to all alternatives except for the No Action Alternative, both in nominal and real terms 

as well as numbers of jobs. This alternative would have less nominal economic activity in terms 

of production than the Proposed Action because of the lower level of resource recovery. 
4-122 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Economic activity could range from $16,424.7 million present value (including $2,108.2 million 

present value in taxes and revenues to $23,925.5 million present value including $2,725.2 million 

present value in taxes and revenues (see Table 4.18). Based on a population of 6,024 (year 2002), 

this would be nominally equivalent to Sublette County receiving funds of $240,050 

(approximately $5,334 annually) for each person in the county (BLM 2005). Under Alternative B, 

property tax revenues would increase due to the increased tax base resulting from capital 

improvements in the JIDPA, but at a lower 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 

and may result in higher consumer prices and increased dependence on foreign supplies. While, 

conceptually, changes in production for this field could impact pricing of natural gas for 

consumers, given the size of the market it is not likely that a measurable change in market price 

would be associated with this alternative due to the length of the LOP. Local area government 

operating budgets would likely increase under this alternative when compared to the No Action 

Alternative, but less than under the Proposed Action due to reduced development expenditures 

and lower recovery of resources. 

The number of AJEs that would be created in the study area could range from 85,832.3-86,223.6 

with an average wage ranging from $31,881 to $47,173. Population changes from secondary 

employment would likely be similar to but increased from that described for the Proposed Action 

because more AJEs would be created to attract new workers (BLM 2005). 

Under Alternative B, losses to economic activity for recreation, hunting, and grazing would be 

the same as those described for Alternative A (BLM 2005). 

4.4.5 Alternative C 

See BLM (2005) for a detailed analysis of impacts related to this alternative. Under 

Alternative C, change in economic activity from current conditions would be expected from the 

development of up to 1,250 wells and the recovery of up to 6,657 BCF of gas and 63.24 MBO 

(see Table 4.18). 

Impacts to economic activity from Alternative C would be greater than for the No Action 

Alternative, but would be less than half that expected from the Proposed Action due to the 

reduced number of wells to be developed (BLM 2005). This alternative would also have less 

nominal economic activity in terms of production than the Proposed Action because of the lower 

level of resource recovery. 

Economic activity could range from $23,533.9 million present value (including $3,242.5 million 

present value in taxes and revenues) to $19,512.7 million present value (including $2,733.2 

million present value in taxes and revenues) (see Table 4.18). Based on a population of 6,024 

(year 2002), this would be nominally equivalent to Sublette County receiving funds of $249,465 

(approximately $5,091 annually) for each person in the county (BLM 2005). Impacts to taxes 

and revenues would be greater than that expected for the No Action Alternative, but less than that 

described for the Proposed Action. This alternative would result in more tax and revenue 

economic activity than the No Action Alternative; however, due to lower recovery of resources 

and a lower supply of natural gas over the long-term than under the Proposed Action, it may 

result in higher consumer prices and increased dependence on foreign supplies. While, 

conceptually, changes in production for this field could impact pricing of natural gas for 

consumers, given the size of the market it is not likely that a measurable change in market price 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-123 

would be associated with this alternative due to the length of the LOP. Local area government 

operating budgets would likely increase but less under this alternative than under the Proposed 

Action due to lower recovery of resources. 

Alternative C would produce the least economic activity in terms of both dollars and jobs (except 

for the No Action alternative) when compared to the other alternatives. 

The number of AJEs that would be created in the study area under Alternative C could range 

from 59,047.5-49,508.9 with an average wage ranging from $31,881 to $47,173. Population 

changes from secondary employment would be greater than that described for the No Action 

Alternative, but likely be less than that described for the Proposed Action due to the creation of 

fewer AJEs as a result of fewer wells being developed (BLM 2005). 

This alternative could result in a loss of economic activity from recreation ranging from 

$2.3 million present value to $2.5 million present value, hunting ranging from $0.9 million 

present value to $1.0 million present value, and grazing ranging from $2.4 million present value 

to $2.7 million present value over the LOP. Impacts to these resources would be greater under 

Alternative C than under the No Action Alternative, but would be less than for the Proposed 

Action due to reduced disturbance over the LOP. 

4.4.6 Alternative D 

See BLM (2005) for a detailed analysis of impacts related to this alternative. Under Alternative 

D, change in economic activity from current conditions would be expected from the development 

of up to 2,200 wells and the recovery of up to 7,554 BCF of gas and 71.76 MBO (see Table 4.18). 

Economic activity from development under Alternative D would be greater than that expected 

from the No Action Alternative, but less than that expected from the Proposed Action due to the 

reduced number of wells to be developed. This alternative would have less nominal economic 

activity in terms of production than the Proposed Action because of the lower level of resource 

recovery. 

Economic activity could range from $26,954.2 million present value (including $3,483.9 million 

present value in taxes and revenues) to $19,684.9 million present value (including $2,665.9 

million present value in taxes and revenues (see Table 4.18). Based on a population of 6,024 

(year 2002), this would be nominally equivalent to Sublette County receiving funds of $286,915 

(approximately $5,855 annually) for each person in the county (BLM 2005). Impacts to taxes and 

revenues would be greater than that expected for the No Action Alternative, but less than that 

described for the Proposed Action. This alternative would result in more tax and revenue 

economic activity than the No Action Alternative; however, due to lower recovery of resources 

and a lower supply of natural gas over the long-term than under the Proposed Action, it may 

result in higher consumer prices and increased dependence on foreign supplies. While, 

conceptually, changes in production for this field could impact pricing of natural gas for 

consumers, given the size of the market it is not likely that a measurable change in market price 

would be associated with this alternative due to the length of the LOP. Local area government 

operating budgets would likely increase but less under this alternative than under the Proposed 

Action due to lower recovery of resources. 

The number of AJEs that would be created in the study area could range from 69,584.6-69,515.4 

with an average wage ranging from $31,881 to $47,173. Population changes from secondary 

employment would be higher than that expected for the No Action Alternative, but would likely 
4-124 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

be similar to but decreased from that described for the Proposed Action due to fewer numbers of 

AJEs being created as a result of fewer wells being developed (BLM 2005). 

This alternative could result in a loss of economic activity from recreation ranging from 

$2.3 million present value to $2.6 million present value, hunting ranging from $1.0 million 

present value to $1.1 million present value, and grazing ranging from $3.7 million present value 

to $4.1 million present value over the LOP. Impacts to recreation, hunting, and grazing would be 

higher than that expected for the No Action Alternative but would be less than for the Proposed 

Action due to reduced disturbance over the LOP. 

4.4.7 Alternative E 

See BLM (2005) for a detailed analysis of impacts related to this alternative. Under Alternative 

E, 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 6,302 BCF of gas and 59.87 MBO (see Table 4.18). 

Economic activity from development Alternative E would be more than that expected from the 

No Action Alternative or the Proposed Action due to the increased number of directionally drilled 

wells to be developed. This alternative would have less nominal economic activity in terms of 

production than the Proposed Action because of the lower level of resource recovery, but more 

than under the No Action Alternative. 

Economic activity could range from $24,326.2 million present value (including $2,798.3 million 

present value in taxes and revenues) to $16,687.6 million present value (including $2,151.9 

million present value in taxes and revenues (see Table 4.18). Based on a population of 6,024 

(year 2002), this would be nominally equivalent to Sublette County receiving funds of $246,416 

(approximately $4,694 annually) for each person in the county (BLM 2005). Under Alternative 

E, property tax revenues would increase from that expected under the No Action Alternative 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. Impacts to 

taxes and revenues would be greater than that expected for the No Action Alternative, but less 

than that described for the Proposed Action. This alternative would result in more tax and 

revenue economic activity than the No Action Alternative; however, due to lower recovery of 

resources and a lower supply of natural gas over the long-term than under the Proposed Action, it 

may result in higher consumer prices and increased dependence on foreign supplies. While, 

conceptually, changes in production for this field could impact pricing of natural gas for 

consumers, given the size of the market it is not likely that a measurable change in market price 

would be associated with this alternative due to the length of the LOP. Local area government 

operating budgets would likely increase but less under this alternative than under the Proposed 

Action due to lower recovery of resources. 

The number of AJEs that would be created in the study area could range from 85,732.2-86,151.8 

with an average wage ranging from $31,881 to $47,173. Population changes from secondary 

employment would be higher than for the No Action Alternative and would likely be similar to 

but somewhat higher than that described for the Proposed Action due to the increased number of 

AJEs created because of the higher level of directional drilling (BLM 2005). 

Alternative E could result in a loss of economic activity from recreation ranging from 

$2.4 million present value to $2.7 million present value, hunting ranging from $1.0 million 

present value to $1.1 million present value, and grazing ranging from $2.8 million present value 

to $3.6 million present value over the LOP. Under Alternative E, changes to economic activity 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-125 

for recreation, hunting, and grazing would be the same as those described for Alternative A 

(BLM 2005). 

4.4.8 Alternative F 

See BLM (2005) for a detailed analysis of impacts related to this alternative. Under Alternative 

F, 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 7,186 BCF of gas and 68.27 MBO (see Table 4.18). 

Economic activity from Alternative F would be more than that expected from the either No 

Action Alternative or the Proposed Action due to the increased number of directionally drilled 

wells to be developed. This alternative would have less nominal economic activity in terms of 

production than the Proposed Action because of the lower level of resource recovery, but more 

than under the No Action Alternative. 

Economic activity could range from $26,497.8 million present value (including $3,165.4 million 

present value in taxes and revenues) to $18,128.4 million present value (including $2,378.2 

million present value in taxes and revenues (see Table 4.18). Based on a population of 6,024 

(year 2002), this would be nominally equivalent to Sublette County receiving funds of $278,376 

(approximately $5,302 annually) for each person in the county (BLM 2005). Under Alternative 

F, property tax revenues would increase from that described for the No Action Alternative 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 and may result in higher consumer prices and 

increased dependence on foreign supplies. While, conceptually, changes in production for this 

field could impact pricing of natural gas for consumers, given the size of the market it is not 

likely that a measurable change in market price would be associated with this alternative due to 

the length of the LOP. Local area government operating budgets would likely increase but less 

under this alternative than under the Proposed Action due to lower recovery of resources. 

The number of AJEs that would be created in the study area could range from 87,408.3-128,549.0 

with an average wage ranging from $31,881 to $47,173. Population changes from secondary 

employment would likely be higher than that described for either the No Action Alternative or the 

Proposed Action. The potential for population changes from secondary employment would likely 

be highest under Alternative F when compared to all other alternatives. 

This alternative could result in a loss of economic activity from recreation ranging from 

$2.4 million present value to $2.7 million present value, hunting ranging from $1.0 million 

present value to $1.1 million present value, and grazing ranging from $4.3 million present value 

to $5.6 million present value over the LOP. Impacts would likely be similar to those described 

under Alternative A. 

The greatest total economic activity in terms of dollars and jobs would occur under the 

Alternative F under the 150 wells/year development rate (see Table 4.57). 

4.4.9 Alternative G 

See BLM (2005) for a detailed analysis of impacts related to this alternative. Under Alternative 

G, 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 7,876 BCF of gas and 74.82 MBO (see Table 4.18). 
4-126 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Economic activity from Alternative G would similar to but slightly higher than that described for 

the Proposed Action due to the slightly increased number of directionally drilled wells to be 

developed and would be higher than that expected for the No Action Alternative. This alternative 

would have less nominal economic activity in terms of production than the Proposed Action 

because of the lower level of resource recovery, but more than under the No Action Alternative. 

Economic activity could range from $27,949.5 million present value (including $3,446.6 million 

present value in taxes and revenues) to $19,081.6 million present value (including $2,542.8 

million present value in taxes and revenues (see Table 4.18). Based on a population of 6,024 

(year 2002), this would be nominally equivalent to Sublette County receiving funds of $302,847 

(approximately $5,769 annually) for each person in the county (BLM 2005). Under Alternative 

G, property tax revenues would increase over that described for the No Action Alternative 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 and may result in higher consumer prices and 

increased dependence on foreign supplies. While, conceptually, changes in production for this 

field could impact pricing of natural gas for consumers, given the size of the market it is not 

likely that a measurable change in market price would be associated with this alternative due to 

the length of the LOP. Local area government operating budgets would likely increase but less 

under this alternative than under the Proposed Action due to lower recovery of resources. 

The number of AJEs that would be created in the study area could range from 86,173-86,513 with 

an average wage ranging from $31,881 to $47,173. Population changes from secondary 

employment would likely be similar to but somewhat higher than that described for the Proposed 

Action due to the increased number of AJEs created as a result of the higher number of 

directionally drilled wells (BLM 2005). 

This alternative could result in a loss of economic activity from recreation ranging from 

$2.4 million present value to $2.7 million present value, hunting ranging from $1.0 million 

present value to $1.1 million present value, and grazing ranging from $4.3 million present value 

to $5.6 million present value over the LOP. Under Alternative G, changes to economic activity 

from recreation and hunting would be the same as those described for Alternative A (BLM 2005). 

Impacts would be less than for the Proposed Action due to reduced disturbance over the LOP. 

4.4.10 BLM Preferred Alternative 

See BLM (2005) for a detailed analysis of impacts related to this alternative. Under the Preferred 

Alternative, change in economic activity from current conditions would be expected from the 

development of up to 3,100 wells. Economic activity would be greater than that described under 

the No Action Alternative and similar to that described under Alternative G (see Section 4.4.9). 

This alternative would have less nominal economic activity in terms of production than the 

Proposed Action because of the lower level of resource recovery, but more than under the No 

Action Alternative. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-127 

4.4.11 Cumulative Impacts 

The CIAA for socioeconomics includes Sublette, Lincoln, and Sweetwater Counties. All of these 

counties depend upon the oil and gas industry for a portion of their economic activity and tax 

base (refer to Section 3.4), and the project, along with other oil and gas development, would 

increase employment opportunities, expand the tax base, and improve the abilities for the 

counties to maintain and increase services and infrastructure to their residents. When considering 

employment, tax base/revenues, and general economic health, increased oil and gas development 

produces impacts. Wells developed as part of this project would add proportionately to the 

economic potential to be realized in 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. 

Increases in regional oil and gas development activity in a short period of time can cause notable 

changes in employment and income. These variables can in turn cause changes in population 

trends, which could have detrimental effects on community services, social structures and 

lifestyles. Increased oil and gas development is expected under all alternatives except No Action, 

and would cause an increase in taxes and revenues to all governments in the study area 

proportional to the volume of gas produced and associated development levels. 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 

government. 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 Action 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 usual for the 

private mineral owner to share in the profits from the recovery of the mineral resource. 

However, some portion of the resident population, as well as many non-residents, prioritize 

preserving the naturalness of the area above all else 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 Action and alternatives. 
4-128 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

4.4.12 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

There would be avoidable adverse impacts to socioeconomics as a result of the proposed project. 

Impacts could be reduced by implementation of suggested mitigation measures. 

4.4.13 Environmental Justice 

EO 12898 directs BLM to assess whether an action would have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental impacts on minority and/or low-income communities. 

The EO has three goals: 

• to focus federal agency attention on the environment and human health 

conditions in minority communities and low-income communities; 

• to promote non-discrimination in federal programs that substantially affect 

human health and the environment; and 

• to provide minority communities and low-income communities greater access to 

information on, and opportunities for public participation in, matters relating to 

human health and the environment. 

Sublette County is neither a minority community nor a low-income community (see Section 

3.4.12), and no impact associated with environmental justice would occur. 

4.5 LAND USE 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) identify the following 

management goals/objectives associated with land use (including status/ownership, 

livestock/grazing management, recreation, and transportation): 

• to manage public lands to support the goals and objectives of other resource 

programs; 

• to respond to public demand for land use authorizations; 

• to acquire administrative and public access, where necessary; 

• to maintain or improve the quality of land resources in the state; 

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

• to provide for a cooperative process of local land use planning with other 

governmental agencies; 

• to plan for continuing use of agricultural-rural lands and for potential changes in 

use of these lands; 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-129 

• to plan land use consistent with the orderly development, use, and conservation 

of renewable and nonrenewable natural resources; 

• to plan for the provision of public facilities and services, including safe and 

efficient transportation and utility systems, in coordination with local land use 

policies, goals, and objectives; 

• to minimize conflicts among utility corridor needs, competing land uses, and 

local land use plans; 

• to consider the conservation and enhancement of natural resources with the 

economic benefit of resource development; 

• to consider site-specific environmental features (e.g., soil types, wetlands, 

riparian areas, topography, drainage patterns) as part of land use planning 

decisions and in the review of development proposals; 

• to plan land use in a manner that minimizes environmental pollution and 

disruption of natural resources; 

• to establish more watering systems on all grazing lands for livestock, wildlife, 

and game/non-game birds; 

• to support/encourage multiple-use policy implementation on federal and state 

lands; 

• to ensure the continued availability of outdoor recreational opportunities sought 

by the public while protecting other resources; 

• to prevent resource degradation resulting from recreation and other uses and to 

provide for the anticipated increase in recreational uses on BLM-administered 

lands; 

• to conserve and develop scenic resources for the benefit of present and future 

generation; and 

• to encourage recreational enterprise while preserving natural values. 

Impacts to land use would be significant if project activities precluded other current uses of the 

JIDPA for the long term, if there would be a reduction in AUMs of a magnitude that would 

require modification in grazing allotments or other actions that would prevent the realization of 

grazing management goals, or if project activities resulted in a violation of BLM RMP or other 

land use plan goals/objectives. Impacts to land use are assumed to be proportional to the amount 

of new initial and/or LOP disturbance for all alternatives. Impacts would primarily result from 

surface disturbing activities and/or the presence of oil and gas developments. Impacts to land 

use, specifically, grazing and recreation would be significant in the short-term under all project 

alternatives (see Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.3, respectively). 
4-130 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

4.5.1 Status/Ownership 

The current JIDPA land uses of livestock grazing (see Section 4.5.2), natural gas production (see 

Section 4.1.3), wildlife habitat (see Section 4.2.2), and recreation--primarily hunting (see 

Section 4.5.3)—are anticipated to continue for the LOP under all alternatives. Further 

development of the JIDPA primarily for natural gas extraction would alter the historic land use 

pattern for the LOP. There is the potential for some impacts to existing roads on the area if these 

roads are not adequately upgraded prior to their use for the project. Natural gas recovery would 

continue to be the dominant use of the JIDPA and would maintain the changed character of the 

landscape from a relatively undisturbed area (prior to about 1996) to one with industrial 

development; however, other existing uses are not anticipated to be excluded as defined in 

Section 103(1) of FLPMA. After the LOP, land use likely would revert back to primarily 

livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, and recreation under all alternatives. 

Ownership of surface and mineral estates in the JIDPA are anticipated to be unchanged under all 

alternatives; therefore, no significant impacts to land status/ownership are anticipated from the 

project. 

4.5.1.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional activities that would potentially 

affect land status or ownership, as previously identified for the area and including oil and gas 

development on 4,209 acres of new (short-term) and 1,409 acres of LOP (BLM 1998b, 2000b). 

Natural gas production is currently the dominant use of the JIDPA and would continue to be the 

dominant use for approximately 63 years. 

4.5.1.2 The Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, the ownership of surface and mineral estates in the JIDPA are 

anticipated to be unchanged. There would be increased natural gas development and production 

operations from that of the No Action Alternative under the Proposed Action; there would be an 

increase of approximately 16,200 acres of new initial surface disturbance. New and LOP surface 

disturbance would be 20,409 acres and 6,040 acres, respectively. The duration of the project 

under the Proposed Action would be approximately 76 years. 

4.5.1.3 Alternative A 

Implementation of Alternative A would result in the same types of impacts and surface 

disturbance as the Proposed Action (see Section 4.5.1.2). However, natural gas development 

would occur in areas that would have been avoided under other action alternatives. Project 

duration would be dependent upon the rate of development (from 76 to 105 years). 

4.5.1.4 Alternative B 

Implementation of Alternative B would result in the same types of impacts as the No Action 

Alternative but would result in an increase of 3,297 acres of new initial surface disturbance from 

that of the No Action Alternative. Total new and LOP disturbance under Alternative B would be 

7,506 acres and 2,622 acres, respectively. Project duration would be dependent upon the rate of 

development (from 76 to 105 years). 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-131 

4.5.1.5 Alternative C 

Implementation of Alternative C would result in the same types of impacts as the No Action 

Alternative but would result in an increase of 6,705 acres of new initial surface disturbance from 

that of the No Action Alternative. Total new and LOP disturbance under Alternative C would be 

10,914 acres and 3,399 acres, respectively. Project duration would be dependent upon the rate of 

development (from 68 to 80 years). 

4.5.1.6 Alternative D 

Implementation of Alternative D would result in the same types of impacts as the No Action 

Alternative but would result in an increase of 11,581 acres of new initial surface disturbance from 

that of the No Action Alternative. Total new and LOP disturbance under Alternative D would be 

15,790 acres and 4,755 acres, respectively. Project duration would be dependent upon the rate of 

development (from 72 to 93 years). 

4.5.1.7 Alternative E 

Implementation of Alternative E would result in the same types of impacts as the No Action 

Alternative but would result in an increase of 6,386 acres of new initial surface disturbance from 

that of the No Action Alternative. Total new and LOP disturbance under Alternative E would be 

10,595 acres and 3,597 acres, respectively. Project duration would be dependent upon the rate of 

development (from 76 to 105 years). 

4.5.1.8 Alternative F 

Implementation of Alternative F would result in the same types of impacts as the No Action 

Alternative but would result in an increase of 10,446 acres of new initial surface disturbance from 

the No Action Alternative. Total new and LOP disturbance under Alternative F would be 

14,655 acres and 3,997 acres, respectively. Project duration would be dependent upon the rate of 

development (from 76 to 105 years). 

4.5.1.9 Alternative G 

Implementation of Alternative G would result in the same types of impacts as the No Action 

Alternative but would result in an increase of 13,989 acres of new initial surface disturbance from 

that of the No Action. Total new and LOP disturbance under Alternative G would be 

18,198 acres and 5,408 acres, respectively. Project duration would be dependent upon the rate of 

development (from 76 to 105 years). 

4.5.1.10 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in the same types of impacts as the No 

Action Alternative but would result in an increase of an estimated 8,316 acres of new initial 

surface disturbance from that of the No Action Alternative. Total new and LOP disturbance 

under the Preferred Alternative would be 12,525 acres and 3,847 acres, respectively. Project 

duration is anticipated to be approximately 76 years. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, additional mitigation and monitoring measures would be 

implemented to ensure achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize 
4-132 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

project-related impacts (see Section 2.14). No specific measures are identified for land 

status/ownership. However, many of the measures identified for other resources (e.g., vegetation, 

wildlife, livestock, recreation) would mitigate, to some extent, impacts to land status. 

4.5.1.11 Cumulative Impacts 

The CIAA for land status/ownership is the JIDPA and the leases that extend beyond the project 

area; therefore, cumulative impacts would be the same as the impacts described for each of the 

alternatives above. Landownership would not change, and natural gas recovery would continue 

to be a dominant use but not to the exclusion of other existing uses. After the LOP, land use 

would revert back to livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, and recreation. 

4.5.1.12 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

There would be no unavoidable adverse impacts to land status/ownership. 

4.5.2 Livestock/Grazing Management 

Impacts to grazing would be significant if there would be a reduction in AUMs of a magnitude 

that would require modification in grazing allotments (e.g., changes in ranching operations, 

livestock trailing, watering, fencing, and feeding), other actions that would prevent the realization 

of grazing goals, or if project activities resulted in a violation of RMP or other land use plan 

grazing objectives. Impacts to grazing are assumed to be proportional to the amount of new 

initial and/or LOP disturbance for all alternatives. Impacts would primarily result from surface 

disturbing activities and/or the presence of oil and gas developments and associated disturbance 

to livestock. Significant impacts could occur under any of the project development alternatives if 

AUM reductions require grazing allotment modifications; this action would be most likely to 

occur in the Sand Draw and Stud Horse Common Allotments under the Proposed Action and 

Alternatives A, D, F, and G. Impacts to grazing are anticipated to be significant in the short-term 

under all alternatives, even with the implementation of identified reclamation practices (see 

Appendix G) and mitigations (see Appendices A and B). 

The principal impact to livestock/grazing management would be the direct impact resulting from 

the removal of forage due to proposed surface disturbance. Livestock operations (primarily 

animal movement, forage availability [i.e., AUMs], and distribution) would be significantly 

adversely affected under each of the development alternatives in the short-term due to the 

increased number and density of well pads, noise, and other project-related activities. Economic 

impacts to livestock/grazing management are described in Section 4.4. Short-term removal of 

vegetative cover would remove rangeland from production until revegetation is successful. 

Disturbance would be greatest in the Sand Draw allotment and less in each of the remaining three 

allotments (Table 4.19). The actual loss of production on lands subjected to short-term 

disturbance would be dependent on the success of reclamation efforts. As with short-term 

disturbance, LOP disturbance would be greatest in the Sand Draw allotment. 

The construction of additional roads and associated reclamation efforts could affect the pattern of 

livestock forage utilization on the JIDPA and could concentrate animals along roads and on 
4-133 

Table 4.19 Acreage, AUMs, and Percent of AUMs Potentially Affected by Grazing Allotment, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Proposed Action and Average Percent of No Action1 Alternative A2 Alternative B3 Alternative C4 Alternative D5 Alternative E6 Alternative F7 Alternative G8 Preferred Alternative9 Total Federal JIDPA 

Acres in Total Acres per AUMs Occurring in RFD10 

Allotment Allotment AUMs AUM in JIDPA Allotment New11 LOP New11 LOP New11 LOP New11 LOP New11 LOP New11 LOP New11 LOP New11 LOP New11 LOP (acres) Potentially Affected Acres (Includes Existing Project-required Disturbance)12, 13 Stud Horse 15,590 1,730 8.2 670 18.0 720 243 3,623 1,073 1,300 457 1,914 597 2,791 841 1,856 633 2,587 705 3,225 959 2,203 677 252 Common Sand Draw 31,740 2,324 13.2 1,571 68.0 2,721 917 13,686 4,052 4,912 1,728 7,229 2,256 10,545 3,178 7,012 2,391 9,773 2,663 12,182 3,622 8,325 2,562 0 Boundary 31,994 2,996 10.0 363 12.0 480 162 2,415 715 867 306 1,276 398 1,861 561 1,237 422 1,725 470 2,150 639 1,469 452 24 Blue Rim Desert 41,273 2,826 14.6 -- 0.0 -- -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- 120 No Allotment 640 0 -- -- 2.0 80 27 403 119 144 51 213 66 310 93 206 70 287 78 358 107 245 75 --Total 120,597 9,876 2,604 100.0 4,001 1,348 20,126 5,959 7,223 2,541 10,631 3,318 15,507 4,674 10,312 3,516 14,372 3,916 17,915 5,327 12,242 3,766 396 Change from No -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 16,125 4,611 3,222 1,193 6,630 1,970 11,506 3,326 6,311 2,168 10,371 2,568 13,914 3,979 8,241 2,418 --Action Potentially Affected AUMs (Includes Existing Project-required Disturbance)14 Stud Horse 15,590 1,730 8.2 670 18.0 88 30 442 130 159 56 233 73 340 103 226 77 315 86 393 117 269 83 31 Common Sand Draw 31,740 2,324 13.2 1,571 68.0 206 70 1,036 307 372 131 548 171 799 241 531 181 740 202 923 274 631 194 0 Boundary 31,994 2,996 10.0 363 12.0 48 16 242 72 87 31 128 40 186 56 124 42 172 47 215 64 147 45 2 Blue Rim Desert 41,273 2,826 14.6 -- 0.0 -- -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 No Allotment 640 0 -- -- 2.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Total 120,597 9,876 2,604 100.0 342 116 1,720 509 618 218 909 284 1,325 400 881 300 1,227 335 1,531 455 1,047 322 41 Change from No -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1,378 393 276 102 567 168 983 284 539 184 885 219 1,189 339 705 206 --Action Percent of Potentially Affected AUMs Within the JIDPA (Includes Existing Project-required Disturbance)15 No Allotment 640 0 -- -- 2.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- n/a Stud Horse 15,590 1,730 8.2 670 18.0 5.1 1.7 25.5 7.5 9.2 3.2 13.5 4.2 19.7 5.9 13.1 4.5 18.2 5.0 22.7 6.8 15.5 4.8 n/aCommon Sand Draw 31,740 2,324 13.2 1,571 68.0 8.8 3.3 44.6 13.2 16.0 5.6 23.6 7.4 34.4 10.4 22.9 7.8 31.9 8.7 39.7 11.8 27.1 8.3 n/a 

Boundary 31,994 2,996 10.0 363 12.0 1.6 0.5 8.1 2.9 2.9 1.0 4.3 1.3 6.2 1.9 4.1 1.4 5.8 1.6 7.2 2.1 4.9 1.5 n/a Blue Rim Desert 41,273 2,826 14.6 -- 0.0 -- -- 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 n/a 

Total16 120,597 9,876 2,604 100.0 --

1 Existing project-required disturbance. 2 Proposed Action and Alternative A assume 20,126 acres of new initial and 6,020 acres of LOP disturbance in the JIDPA. 3 Alternative B assumes 7,223 acres of new initial and 2,541 acres LOP disturbance in the JIDPA.4 Alternative C assumes 10,631 acres of new initial and 3,318 acres of LOP disturbance in the JIDPA.5 Alternative D assumes 15,507 acres of new initial and 4,674 acres of LOP disturbance in the JIDPA.6 Alternative E assumes 10,312 acres of new initial and 3,516acres of LOP disturbance in the JIDPA. 7 Alternative F assumes 14,372 acres of new initial and 3,916 acres of LOP disturbance in the JIDPA.8 Alternative G assumes 17,915 acres of new initial and 5,327 acres of LOP disturbance in the JIDPA.9 Preferred Alternative assumes 12,242 acres of new initial and 3,766 acres of LOP disturbance in the JIDPA.10 RFD = reasonable foreseeable development; n/a = not applicable. 11 Excludes 283 acres of new initial and 81 acres of LOP disturbance associated with selected ancillary facilities which may be constructed outside the JIDPA. 12 Excludes 208 acres (short-term) and 61 acres LOP disturbance outside JIDPA.13 Assumes percent JIDPA occurring in each allotment multiplied by proposed new initial and LOP disturbance. 14 Assumes number of potentially affected acres divided by average federal acres/AUM. 15 Assumes number of potentially affected AUMs divided by total number of AUMs permitted in each allotment multiplied by 100. 16 Percentages are not additive. 
4-134 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

reclaimed areas, thus increasing the chances of vehicle/livestock collisions. Construction and 

drilling activities could contribute to livestock movement off uplands and concentration in 

lowlands and reclamation areas. Proposed increased road/well densities would cause an increase 

in the amount of fugitive dust and its accumulation on forage and in the air, thereby increasing the 

potential for "dust pneumonia" in cattle. Project hazards to livestock in addition to increased 

traffic include pipeline trenches and unprotected water sources, and potential impacts from these 

hazards would increase proportionally to the number of new developments under all project 

alternatives. 

4.5.2.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional impacts to livestock/grazing 

management other than those already approved for the area, which include 4,001 acres of new 

initial and 1,348 acres of LOP disturbance (excludes minor disturbances outside the JIDPA) in 

the JIDPA (see Table 4.58) (BLM 1998b, 2000b). An estimated 342 AUMs initially and 

116 AUMs for the LOP would be affected under the No Action Alternative. Project duration is 

anticipated to be approximately 63 years and until areas are adequately reclaimed. 

4.5.2.2 The Proposed Action 

The JIDPA contains a total of approximately 2,604 AUMs or 26% of the total 9,876 permitted 

AUMs distributed among three grazing allotments. Under the Proposed Action, LOP AUM loss 

would increase from the No Action Alternative by approximately 393 AUMs. Some additional 

minor and unquantified AUM loss would occur to the Blue Rim Desert allotment, primarily 

associated with the Burma Road upgrade. Implementation of the Proposed Action would affect a 

total of approximately 1,720 AUMs in the short term and 509 AUMs for the LOP (see Table 

4.19). Under the Proposed Action, approximately 70% (1,204 AUMs) of all disturbance would 

be reclaimed as soon as practical after disturbance and reclamation on these areas would likely 

provide forage within an estimated 5 to 10 years after disturbance; therefore, all 1,720 AUMs 

would not be out of production at any one time. AUM losses would accumulate as development 

occurs for approximately 12 years but would occur for the entire 76-year LOP and until areas are 

adequately reclaimed. LOP losses are those associated with disturbances that would not be 

reclaimed until project abandonment. 

4.5.2.3 Alternative A 

Implementation of Alternative A would result in the same types and acreage of impacts as the 

Proposed Action (see Section 4.5.2.2). However, under this alternative, selected Operatorcommitted and BLM-required practices (i.e., avoidance of selected area buffers) would not be 

implemented. Therefore, impacts to forage resources in these areas (most notably along Sand 

Draw and other drainage channels) would be greater than that of other project alternatives. The 

duration of surface disturbance and hence forage loss would depend on the rate of development 

and the rate of reclamation; losses would accumulate during development (13 to 42 years) and 

would continue for the LOP (76 to 105 years). 

4.5.2.4 Alternative B 

Implementation of Alternative B would result in the same types of impacts as the No Action 

Alternative; however, LOP forage loss would increase by approximately 102 AUMs (see 

Table 4.19). Implementation of Alternative B would affect approximately 618 AUMs in the short 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-135 

term and 218 AUMs for the LOP. Under Alternative B, approximately 65% (400 AUMs) of all 

disturbance would be reclaimed as soon as practical after disturbance; therefore, all 618 AUMs 

would not be out of production at the same time. AUM losses would accumulate as development 

occurs (13 to 42 years) but would also occur for the LOP (76 to 105 years) and until areas are 

adequately reclaimed. 

4.5.2.5 Alternative C 

Implementation of Alternative C would result in the same types of impacts as the No Action 

Alternative, however, LOP forage loss would increase by approximately 168 AUMs (see 

Table 4.19). Implementation of Alternative C would affect a total of approximately 909 AUMs 

in the short term and 284 AUMs for the LOP. Under Alternative C, approximately 69% 

(625 AUMs) of all disturbance would be reclaimed as soon as practical after disturbance; 

therefore, all 909 AUMs would not be out of production at the same time. AUM loss would 

accumulate as development occurs (5 to 17 years) but would also occur for the LOP (68 to 

80 years) and until areas are adequately reclaimed. 

4.5.2.6 Alternative D 

Implementation of Alternative D would result in the same types of impacts as the No Action 

Alternative; however, LOP forage loss would increase by approximately 284 AUMs (see 

Table 4.19). Implementation of Alternative D would affect a total of approximately 1,325 AUMs 

in the short term and 400 AUMs for the LOP. Under Alternative D, approximately 70% (925 

AUMs) of all disturbance would be reclaimed as soon as practical after disturbance; therefore, all 

1,325 AUMs would not be out of production at the same time. AUM loss would accumulate as 

development occurs (9 to 30 years) but would also occur for the LOP (72 to 93 years) and until 

areas are adequately reclaimed. 

4.5.2.7 Alternative E 

Implementation of Alternative E would result in the same types of impacts as the No Alternative; 

however, LOP forage loss would increase by approximately 184 AUMs (see Table 4.19). 

Implementation of Alternative E would affect a total of approximately 881 AUMs in the short 

term and 300 AUMs for the LOP. Under Alternative E, approximately 66% (581 AUMs) of all 

disturbance would be reclaimed as soon as practical after disturbance; therefore, all 881 AUMs 

would not be out of production at the same time. AUM loss would accumulate as development 

occurs (13 to 42 years) but would also occur for the LOP (76 to 105 years) and until areas are 

adequately reclaimed. 

4.5.2.8 Alternative F 

Implementation of Alternative F would result in the same types of impacts as the No Action 

Alternative; however, LOP forage loss would increase by approximately 219 AUMs (see 

Table 4.19). Implementation of Alternative F would affect a total of approximately 1,227 AUMs 

in the short term and 335 AUMs for the LOP. Under Alternative F, approximately 73% 

(892 AUMs) of disturbance would be reclaimed as soon as practical after disturbance; therefore, 

all 1,227 AUMs would not be out of production at the same time. AUM loss would accumulate 

as development occurs (13 to 42 years) but would also occur for the LOP (76 to 105 years) and 

until areas are adequately reclaimed. 
4-136 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

4.5.2.9 Alternative G 

Implementation of Alternative G would result in the same types of impacts as the No Action 

Alternative; however, LOP forage loss would increase by approximately 339 AUMs (see 

Table 4.19). Implementation of Alternative G would affect a total of approximately 1,531 AUMs 

in the short term and 455 AUMs for the LOP. Under Alternative G, approximately 71% (1,076 

AUMs) of disturbance loss would be reclaimed as soon as practical after disturbance; therefore, 

all 1,531 AUMs would not be out of production at the same time. AUM loss would accumulate 

as development occurs (13 to 42 years) but would also occur for the LOP (76 to 105 years) and 

until areas are adequately reclaimed. 

4.5.2.10 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in the same types of impacts as the No 

Action Alternative, however, LOP forage loss would increase by approximately 206 AUMs (see 

Table 4.58). Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would affect approximately 

1,047 AUMs in the short term and 322 AUMs for the LOP. Under the Preferred Alternative, 

approximately 69% (722 AUMs) of disturbance would be reclaimed as soon as practical after 

disturbance; therefore, all 1,047 AUMs would not be out of production at the same time. AUM 

loss would accumulate as development occurs (13 to 42 years) but would also occur for the LOP 

(76 to 105 years) and until areas are adequately reclaimed. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, additional mitigation and monitoring measures would be applied 

to facilitate achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources 

(see Section 2.14). Any measure that reduces the volume of surface disturbance has the potential 

to reduce impacts to livestock grazing. 

4.5.2.11 Cumulative Impacts 

The CIAA for livestock/grazing includes all of the four grazing allotments (Stud Horse Common, 

Sand Draw, Blue Rim Desert, and Boundary) that may be affected by the proposed development. 

These four allotments cover 120,597 acres and contain a total of 9,876 AUMs (see Table 4.19). 

RFD surface disturbance in these allotments is estimated to be approximately 396 acres (46 

AUMs) in the long term and would be associated with development for the Pinedale Anticline 

Project. Therefore, maximum cumulative short-term impact (i.e., the combined existing, 

proposed, and RFD disturbance) would result in the loss of approximately 1,766 AUMs or 17.9% 

of the combined allotments. Maximum long-term cumulative AUM loss within all allotments is 

estimated to be less than 550 AUMs. Cumulative impacts to livestock/grazing across alternatives 

would be proportional to the extent of surface disturbance and development features/human 

activity. 

4.5.2.12 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

The project would result in the temporary and potentially long-term loss of livestock forage and 

available AUMs. 

4.5.3 Recreation 

Impacts to recreation would be considered significant if project development changes the 

recreational use of the JIDPA or would result in a violation of BLM RMP or other land use plan 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-137 

recreation objectives. Impacts to recreation are assumed to be proportional to the amount of 

development for all alternatives. Dispersed recreation opportunities would be lost from the 

JIDPA for the LOP under all project alternatives including the No Action Alternative, resulting in 

significant impacts for the LOP under all alternatives. 

No developed recreation sites or facilities are present in or immediately adjacent to the JIDPA; 

therefore, no significant impacts to sites or facilities are anticipated. Project-improved roads may 

promote some increased recreational use (e.g., driving for pleasure, sightseeing, desire to view a 

natural gas field). However, long-term displacement or elimination of existing dispersed 

recreation due to increased levels of gas field development activity is anticipated. In addition, 

some potential recreational visitors would likely avoid the JIDPA because of a perceived 

reduction in the quality of the recreational experience. 

Outdoor recreation is important both in terms of the satisfaction it provides residents of the region 

and for the activity it generates in the region's economy as a result of expenditures by nonresident 

visitors; the economic impacts associated with project-affected recreation are described in Section 

4.4. Hunting pressure for any species on the JIDPA is likely to be directly related to wildlife 

population size, structure, and availability. Under all alternatives, populations of pronghorn and 

greater sage-grouse, which are the two primary hunted species on the JIDPA, would likely be 

displaced to such an extent that recreational hunting on the JIDPA may no longer occur (see also 

Section 4.2.2). However, lands adjacent to the JIDPA could, and likely would, absorb displaced 

hunting pressure since displaced wildlife would in part also likely move to adjacent lands. It is 

anticipated that not all wildlife would move to alternate locations, and that their breeding, nesting, 

brood-rearing, and foraging opportunities would in part be jeopardized; therefore, the wildlife 

populations currently found on the JIDPA are anticipated to decline. This would result in the loss 

of potential recreational opportunities associated with wildlife (e.g., hunting, wildlife viewing and 

photography, etc.), and associated recreational opportunities and revenues from these activities 

would also be lost. 

4.5.3.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional impacts to recreation other than 

those which have occurred as a result of approved development in the Jonah Field (i.e., loss of 

dispersed recreation and hunting for the 63-year LOP and until areas are adequately reclaimed). 

Past NEPA documents concluded that there would be no significant adverse impacts to recreation 

as a result of the project (BLM 1998b, 2000b). 

4.5.3.2 The Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, impacts to recreational opportunities are anticipated to increase from 

levels under the No Action Alternative as 3,100 new well pads and associated roads would be 

constructed. Duration of impacts would be for the 76-year LOP and until areas are adequately 

reclaimed. 

4.5.3.3 Alternative A 

Impacts to recreation under Alternative A would be the same as those of the Proposed Action. 

However, under this alternative, selected Operator-committed and BLM-required area-avoidance 

practices would not be implemented; therefore, increased impacts to greater sage-grouse, raptors, 
4-138 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

and other wildlife are anticipated due to disturbance in habitat buffers, this would likely result in 

decreased wildlife populations and subsequent reductions in hunting and wildlife viewing 

opportunities. Duration of impacts would be for the LOP and until areas are adequately 

reclaimed (i.e., from 76 to 105 years). 

4.5.3.4 Alternative B 

Implementation of Alternative B would result in the same types of impacts to recreation as No 

Action but would likely occur at increased levels due to expanded development. Impacts would 

likely be reduced from those of the Proposed Action due to the absence of disturbance in portions 

of the JIDPA. Duration of impacts would be for the LOP and until areas are adequately 

reclaimed (i.e., 76 to 105 years). 

4.5.3.5 Alternative C 

Implementation of Alternative C would result in the same types of impacts to recreation as the No 

Action Alternative but impacts would be increased as more well pads and roads would be 

constructed. However, Alternative C provides for fewer areas of surface disturbance than the 

Proposed Action, Alternatives D, E, F, G, and the Preferred Alternative, and this decreased 

disturbance would likely result in reduced impact levels, including human presence, traffic, and 

noise. Duration of impacts would be for the LOP and until areas are adequately reclaimed (i.e., 

68 to 80 years). 

4.5.3.6 Alternative D 

Implementation of Alternative D would result in the same types of impacts to recreation as the No 

Action Alternative but impacts would be increased as more well pads and roads would be 

constructed. However, Alternative D provides for fewer areas of surface disturbance than the 

Proposed Action, Alternative G, and the Preferred Alternative, and this decreased disturbance 

would likely result in reduced impact levels, including human presence, traffic, and noise. 

Duration of impacts would be for the LOP and until areas are adequately reclaimed (i.e., 72 to 

93 years). 

4.5.3.7 Alternatives E, F, and G 

Alternative E (16 total pads/section), Alternative F (32 total pads/section), and Alternative G 

(64 total pads/section) would produce the same types of impacts as the No Action Alternative, 

and it is assumed that impacts to recreation would likely be proportional to the different volumes 

and densities of surface disturbance (as well as other disturbances [e.g., human presence, noise, 

traffic, dust]). Given that any increased level of project-related human presence or disturbance 

has the potential to adversely affect the perceived quality of the recreational experience, then it 

follows that the greater the disturbance, the greater the likelihood that recreational opportunities 

would be negatively impacted. Duration of impacts would be for the LOP and until areas are 

adequately reclaimed (i.e., 76 to 105 years). 

4.5.3.8 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative impacts to recreational opportunities are anticipated to be of the 

same type as all other alternatives and would be increased from levels under the No Action 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-139 

Alternative as additional development would occur. Duration of impacts would be for the LOP 

and until areas are adequately reclaimed. 

While no recreation-specific mitigations for reducing impacts to recreation are proposed under 

the Preferred Alternative, any measure that reduces the volume of surface disturbance and human 

presence as well as those measures that minimize adverse effects to wildlife has the potential to 

reduce impacts to recreation (see Section 2.14). 

4.5.3.9 Cumulative Impacts 

The CIAA for recreation is shown on Map 3.23. Existing disturbance in the CIAA is 

84,352 acres, and RFD surface disturbance includes 7,014 acres primarily associated with natural 

gas development. The extent of development throughout the CIAA has and will continue to 

result in displaced recreational use from the area. 

Maximum cumulative disturbance (i.e., the combined alternative-specific and RFD disturbance) 

in the recreation CIAA for all alternatives is presented in (Table 4.20). Cumulative impacts to 

recreation are anticipated to be similar under all development alternatives. 

Since it is assumed that the majority of workers employed for this project would be hired from 

the local workforce, there would be little increase in local populations and subsequent demand for 

recreation associated specifically with this project. However, regional populations are increasing 

in part from natural gas development projects, and this increase is creating an additional demand 

for recreation facilities and public access areas. Within the CIAA, traditional dispersed recreation 

has been and will continue to be directed away from areas with increased road and well 

development for the long term due to a reduction in the quality of the recreational experience on 

the part of some users. Some individuals may no longer recreate in the area at all. Current users 

of recipient areas may be adversely affected by increased use, over-crowding, and/or a feeling 

that the quality of the recreation experience of solitude has been decreased. 

It is anticipated that the upgraded conditions on the Burma and Luman Roads would be retained 

after project completion allowing for increased recreational use of the area. This additional nonpaved road development for oil and gas projects opens new areas for recreational use and raises 

the awareness of the recreational opportunity in these newly open areas for nontraditional use and 

new users. This new access and increased awareness of opportunities could encourage existing 

and new recreational use of previously primitive or semi-primitive areas, displacing those 

traditional recreational users with more new users and different uses (i.e., OHV) that may put new 

stresses on resources in these areas. 

4.5.3.10 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Some level of unavoidable adverse impact to recreation is anticipated under all alternatives due to 

the likely avoidance of the JIDPA by recreational visitors. 

4.5.4 Transportation 

Impacts due to traffic volume would be considered significant if the proposed project resulted in 

the inability of the BLM, the State of Wyoming, and/or Sublette County to achieve land use 

planning objectives for transportation. Since the design of new and upgraded roads in the JIDPA 

would be in compliance with the BLM road standard guidelines (BLM 1985, 1991a), the 
4-140 

Table 4.20 Cumulative Acreage of Disturbance in the Recreation CIAA, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Disturbance 

Existing No Action Proposed Action and Alternative A 

Total Disturbance In 

Cumulative Impact Acreage of CIAA, Outside Analysis Area (CIAA) CIAA JIDPA RFD New LOP Cumulative1 New LOP Cumulative1 Recreation 1,557,558 84,352 7,014 4,209 1,409 95,575 20,409 6,040 111,775 Percent of entire CIAA 

5.4 6.1 

7.2 

Disturbance 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Cumulative Impact 

Analysis Area (CIAA) New LOP Cumulative1 New LOP Cumulative1 New LOP Cumulative1 New LOP Cumulative1 Recreation 7,390 2,561 98,756 10,914 3,399 102,280 15,790 4,755 107,156 10,595 3,597 101,961 Percent of entire CIAA 6.3 6.6 6.9 

6.6 Disturbance 

Alternative F Alternative G Preferred Alternative Cumulative Impact 

Analysis Area (CIAA) New LOP Cumulative1 New LOP Cumulative1 New LOP Cumulative1 Recreation 14,655 3,997 106,021 18,198 5,408 109,564 12,525 3,847 103,891 Percent of entire CIAA 6.8 

7.0 

6.7 

Cumulative disturbance = new + existing + RFD. 1 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-141 

Transportation Plan for this project (Appendix G), individually approved APD and ROW road 

specifications, and continued Sublette County and WDOT consultation would occur, no 

significant transportation impacts are anticipated under any alternative. Furthermore, the project 

would be implemented with mitigation as identified in Appendices A and B. Further detail on 

transportation planning and effects is provided in the project Transportation Plan (Appendix G). 

From 199 to 672 miles of new roads would be required for this project (Table 4.21). Impacts to 

existing, upgraded, and newly constructed roads could result from inadequate road maintenance 

resulting in road failure. While maintenance agreements would be established by Operators, 

adverse weather conditions coupled with increased traffic may result in roads being temporally 

impassable (i.e., stuck vehicles, vehicles driving off roads). Increased traffic volumes are 

anticipated under all Alternatives except the No Action Alternative. For the LOP and especially 

during development, traffic increases may cause congestion and road damage and an increased 

potential for vehicle collisions. 

For impact analysis, it is assumed that transportation impacts would be greatest during 

development and would be proportional to the rate of development (i.e., the faster the 

development pace, the greater the impact to transportation). 

4.5.4.1 No Action Alternative 

The current estimate of existing and/or proposed in the JIDPA is approximately 199 miles (see 

Table 4.21). Under No Action, transportation impacts would continue at existing approved 

levels, the Burma Road would not be upgraded, and the duration of impacts would be 

approximately 63 years. A total of approximately 1,063,900 round trips, which could occur to 

and from any location in the JIDPA, or approximately 73 round trips per day is anticipated under 

the No Action Alternative for the LOP (Appendix G). Prior decisions found that the existing 

Jonah Field developments would be unlikely to have significant transportation impacts (BLM 

1998b, 2000b). 

4.5.4.2 The Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, approximately 664 miles of resource roads, 8 miles of new 

collector/local roads, and 12 miles of Burma Road improvement would be required for field 

development (see Table 4.21). A total of approximately 8,698,600 round trips or approximately 

496 round trips per day is anticipated under the Proposed Action for the LOP (Appendix G). This 

is an increase of 473 new miles of road and 7,634,700 round trips when compared to the No 

Action Alternative. The length of the Proposed Action and therefore increased traffic volumes is 

estimated to be 76 years. 

4.5.4.3 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, impacts would be the same as for the Proposed Action Alternative; 

however, some new roads would be built in areas that would be avoided under other project 

alternatives, and the duration of impacts could be extended by an additional 29 years (at a 

development rate of 75 wells/year) beyond the Proposed Action Alternative depending upon the 

rate of development. 
4-142 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 4.21 Miles of New Roads, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Miles of New InMiles of New Field Miles of Burma 

Alternative Resource Roads1 Collector Roads Road Upgrade 

No Action Alternative1 199 0 0 

Proposed Action2 664 8 12 

Alternative A2 664 8 12 

Alternative B1

 199 0 12 

Alternative C2

 387 8 12 

Alternative D2 529 8 12 

Alternative E2

 239 8 12 

Alternative F2

 353 8 12 

Alternative G2 652 8 12 

Preferred Alternative2,3 353 8 12 

1 Based on 0.4 mile per well pad. 2 Based on 0.15 mile per well pad and includes existing (No Action) road miles. 3 Assumed to be similar to Alternative F. 

4.5.4.4 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, impacts would be similar to the No Action Alternative in that no new well 

pads or roads would be built (see Table 4.21). Impacts would increase from the No Action 

Alternative due to new development and would increase from the Proposed Action during 

development due to the increased time necessary to drill the additional directional wells; 

however, during production, impacts would be decreased from the Proposed Action and all other 

development alternatives since traffic would occur only to the existing pads. The Burma Road 

would be upgraded. A total of approximately 8,202,300 round trips or approximately 468 round 

trips per day is anticipated under Alternative B for the LOP (Appendix G). This is an increase of 

7,138,400 round trips when compared to the No Action Alternative. Duration of impacts would 

be from 76 (250 wells/year) to 105 years (75 wells/year), depending upon the rate of 

development. 

4.5.4.5 Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, impacts would be increased from the No Action Alternative due to the 

increase in the number of new well pads and access roads. Approximately 387 total miles of 

resource roads, 8 miles of new in-field collector roads, and 12 miles of Burma Road improvement 

would be developed (see Table 4.21). A total of approximately 3,507,600 round trips or 

approximately 200 round trips per day is anticipated under Alternative C for the LOP 

(Appendix G). This is an increase of 196 new miles of road and 2,443,700 round trips when 

compared to the No Action Alternative. Duration of impacts could be from 68 years (250 

wells/year) to 80 years (75 wells/year), depending upon the rate of development. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-143 

4.5.4.6 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, impacts would be increased from the No Action Alternative due to the 

increase in the number of new well pads and access roads. Approximately 529 total miles of 

resource roads, 8 miles of new in-field collector roads, and 12 miles of Burma Road improvement 

would be developed (see Table 4.21). A total of approximately 6,232,600 round trips or 

approximately 356 round trips per day is anticipated under Alternative D for the LOP 

(Appendix G). This is an increase of 338 new miles of road and 5,168,700 round trips when 

compared to the No Action Alternative. Duration of impacts could be from 72 years (250 

wells/year) to 93 years (75 wells/year), depending upon the rate of development. 

4.5.4.7 Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, impacts would be increased from the No Action Alternative due to the 

increase in the number of new well pads and access roads. Approximately 239 total miles of 

resource roads, 8 miles of new in-field collector roads, and 12 miles of Burma Road improvement 

would be developed (see Table 4.21). A total of approximately 8,342,500 round trips or 

approximately 476 round trips per day is anticipated under Alternative E for the LOP 

(Appendix G). This is an increase of 48 new miles of road and 7,278,600 round trips when 

compared to the No Action Alternative. Duration of impacts could be from 76 years (250 

wells/year) to 105 years (75 wells/year), depending upon the rate of development. 

4.5.4.8 Alternative F 

Under Alternative F, impacts would be increased from the No Action Alternative due to the 

increase in the number of new well pads and access roads. Approximately 353 total miles of 

resource roads, 8 miles of new in-field collector roads, and 12 miles of Burma Road improvement 

would be developed (see Table 4.21). A total of approximately 8,744,000 round trips or 

approximately 499 round trips per day is anticipated under Alternative F for the LOP 

(Appendix G). This is an increase of 162 new miles of road and 7,680,100 round trips when 

compared to the No Action Alternative. Duration of impacts could be from 76 years 

(250 wells/year) to 105 years (75 wells/year), depending upon the rate of development. 

4.5.4.9 Alternative G 

Under Alternative G, impacts would be increased from the No Action Alternative due to the 

increase in the number of new well pads and access roads. Approximately 652 total miles of 

resource roads, 8 miles of in-field collector roads, and 12 miles of Burma Road improvement 

would be developed (see Table 4.21). A total of approximately 8,691,600 round trips or 

approximately 496 round trips per day is anticipated under Alternative G (Appendix G). This is 

an increase of 461 new miles of road and 7,627,700 round trips when compared to the No Action 

Alternative. Duration of impacts could be from 76 years (250 wells/year) to 105 years (75 

wells/year), depending upon the rate of development. 

4.5.4.10 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, impacts would be increased from the No Action Alternative due 

to the increase in the number of new well pads and access roads. Approximately 353 miles of 

resource roads, 8 miles of new collector/local roads, and 12 miles of Burma Road improvement 

would be required for field development (see Table 4.21). A total of approximately 8,744,600 
4-144 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

round trips or approximately 499 round trips per day is anticipated under the Preferred Action for 

the LOP. This is an increase of 162 new miles of road and 7,680,100 round trips when compared 

to the No Action Alternative. Duration of impacts could be from 76 years (250 wells/year) to 105 

years (75 wells/year) depending upon the rate of development. 

Under the Preferred Alternative additional mitigation and monitoring measures would be applied 

to facilitate achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources 

(see Section 2.14). Any measure that reduces the volume of human presence or centralizes 

development actions has the potential to reduce impacts to transportation. Furthermore, those 

measures associated with the JIWG also could reduce impacts to transportation through 

appropriate planning. 

4.5.4.11 Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts from traffic resulting from the project in combination with other regional 

projects and overall regional growth could be significant. The project would be the major 

contributor to increased traffic on secondary roads within the JIDPA. Field development would 

result in increased traffic volumes on major highways (especially on U.S. Highway 191, a major 

tourist corridor) and on county and local roads. Increased traffic would result in an increased 

potential for public traffic hazards and other safety and road maintenance concerns. However, the 

magnitude of the increase would depend on alternative-specific development levels and 

development rates (i.e., 75, 150, or 250 new wells developed per year). Existing major highways 

and county roads are adequate to handle anticipated increased traffic (Appendix G). The costs of 

maintaining county and local roads would be borne, to some extent, by Operators primarily 

through tax payments. Cumulative impacts on transportation are anticipated to be slightly 

beneficial for the long term as an increase in available roads, improved road conditions, and 

increased revenues for state-sponsored road improvements occur. It is anticipated that the 

upgraded conditions on the Burma and Luman Roads would be retained after project completion 

allowing for increased recreational use of the area under all alternatives. 

4.5.4.12 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Unavoidable adverse impacts to transportation would occur for the LOP primarily as a result of 

increased traffic and the expanded road network. 

4.6 VISUAL RESOURCES 

The BLM PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b,1997b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) identify the following 

management goals/objectives associated with visual resources: 

• to maintain or improve scenic values and visual quality and to establish priorities 

for managing the visual resources in conjunction with other resource values; and 

• to conserve and develop scenic resources for the benefit of present and future 

generations. 

The BLM defines a significant impact to visual resources, on federal lands and minerals, as 

project-related development that would not meet VRM class objectives for an area. A significant 

impact would occur if oil and gas development becomes the dominant feature in the landscape 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-145 

where the objectives for that land are to maintain the existing character of the landscape. Impacts 

to visual resources are assumed to be proportional to the amount of new initial and LOP 

development. A significant impact to the visual resources on non-federal lands and minerals is 

also defined as an apparent change, to the casual observer, from a natural landscape to an 

"industrialized appearing" landscape in areas visible from U.S. Highway 191, residential areas, 

and the town of Pinedale. Due to the presence of natural gas development as a dominant visual 

feature throughout the JIDPA, as well as project effects such as haze, nighttime lighting, 

increased traffic, and short-term visible smoke plume events, significant visual resource impacts 

are anticipated under all alternatives for the LOP and until areas are adequately reclaimed. These 

significant visual resource impacts would not occur within the JIDPA specifically since the entire 

JIDPA is considered a Class IV VRM area and the project under all alternatives is generally 

consistent with Class IV objectives, but would occur at locations where the JIDPA and/or project 

effects (e.g., light sources, haze, smoke plumes) are visible. These non-JIDPA areas include 

VRM Class II and III areas, sections of U.S. Highway 191, and other locations including 

wilderness and wilderness study areas. 

4.6.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no new impacts to visual resources beyond 

those already approved for Jonah Field developments. The duration of impacts would be 

approximately 63 years and until areas are adequately reclaimed. While past NEPA decisions for 

the project identified no significant impacts to visual resources (BLM 1998b, 2000b), significant 

visual resource impacts from the existing developments have since been identified as described 

above. 

4.6.2 The Proposed Action 

Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in a continuation of the existing long-term 

visual characteristics of the JIDPA as a developed natural gas field with increased impacts to 

visual resources from that of the No Action Alternative due to increased development and 

prolonged development life. Increased natural gas field developments would include greater well 

pad densities, more miles of roads and associated traffic, and more ancillary facilities. Impact 

duration is anticipated to be approximately 76 years and until areas are adequately reclaimed. 

4.6.3 Alternative A 

Implementation of Alternative A would result in the same types and volumes of visual resource 

impacts as the Proposed Action; however, there would be increased visual resource impacts in the 

resource buffer areas that would have otherwise been avoided under the other project alternatives. 

Duration of impacts would be dependent upon the rate of development plus the time needed for 

adequate reclamation (i.e., from 76 to 105 years). 

4.6.4 Alternative B 

Implementation of Alternative B would result in the same types of impacts as No Action but 

would be increased due to expanded development. Impacts would be reduced from the other 

project alternatives since no new well pads or roads would be built. Duration of impacts would 

be dependent upon the rate of development plus the time needed for adequate reclamation (i.e., 

from 76 to 105 years). 
4-146 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

4.6.5 Alternative C 

Implementation of Alternative C would result in the same types of visual resource impacts as No 

Action, but impacts would be increased since more well pads and roads would be constructed. 

Reductions in visual resource impacts from those of the Proposed Action are anticipated as 

development would be concentrated on fewer well pads. Duration of impacts would be 

dependent upon the rate of development plus the time needed for adequate reclamation (i.e., from 

68 to 80 years). 

4.6.6 Alternative D 

Implementation of Alternative D would result in the same types of visual resource impacts as No 

Action, but impacts would be increased since more well pads and roads would be constructed. 

Reductions in visual resource impacts from those of the Proposed Action are anticipated as 

development would be concentrated on fewer well pads. Duration of impacts would be 

dependent upon the rate of development plus the time needed for adequate reclamation (i.e., from 

72 to 93 years). 

4.6.7 Alternative E 

Implementation of Alternative E would result in the same types of visual resource impacts as No 

Action, but impacts would be increased since more well pads and roads would be constructed. 

Reductions in visual resource impacts from those of the Proposed Action (3,100 wells/pads) are 

anticipated as development would be concentrated on fewer well pads. Duration of impacts 

would be dependent upon the rate of development plus the time needed for adequate reclamation 

(i.e., from 76 to 105 years). 

4.6.8 Alternative F 

Implementation of Alternative F would result in the same types of visual resource impacts as No 

Action, but impacts would be increased since more well pads and roads would be constructed. 

Under this alternative, visual resource impacts are anticipated to be similar to those of the 

Proposed Action but reduced since the 3,100 proposed wells would be concentrated on only 1,028 

well pads. Duration of impacts would be dependent upon the rate of development plus the time 

needed for adequate reclamation (i.e., from 76 to 105 years). 

4.6.9 Alternative G 

Implementation of Alternative G (64 total pads/section) would result in the same types of visual 

resource impacts as No Action, but impacts would be increased since more well pads and roads 

would be constructed. Under this alternative, visual resource impacts are anticipated to be similar 

to those of the Proposed Action but reduced since the 3,100 proposed wells would be 

concentrated on only 2,553 well pads. Duration of impacts would be dependent upon the rate of 

development plus the time needed for adequate reclamation (i.e., from 76 to 105 years). 

4.6.10 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in the same types of visual resource 

impacts as No Action, but impacts would be increased since more well pads and roads would be 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-147 

constructed. Under this alternative, visual resource impacts are anticipated to be similar to those 

of the Proposed Action (3,100 wells/pads), but slightly less as the Operators would implement 

unique development procedures and additional mitigation requirements. Duration of impacts 

would be approximately 76 years. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, additional mitigation and monitoring measures would be applied 

to facilitate achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources 

(see Section 2.14). Any measure that reduces regional haze or smoke plumes, the volume of 

surface disturbance, human presence, and/or traffic, as well as those measures that minimize 

adverse effects vegetation or facilitate enhanced reclamation have the potential to reduce impacts 

to visual resource. 

4.6.11 Cumulative Impacts 

Total surface disturbance resulting from the Proposed Action and Alternative A would be 

20,409 acres (the most disturbance of all potential alternatives), all of which would occur on areas 

designated as VRM Class IV. RFD (disturbance) in the visual resource CIAA (see Map 3.24) 

includes 7,302 acres of existing disturbance primarily from natural gas developments in the 

Jonah, Pinedale Anticline, Fontenelle, Moxa, and Stagecoach Draw project areas (Table 4.22). 

Maximum cumulative disturbance for the visual resources CIAA (i.e., the combined existing, 

proposed [Proposed Action and Alternative A], and RFD disturbance) is 166,452 acres, or 8.0% 

of the CIAA. 

Most of the visual resource CIAA is designated as VRM Class IV (see Map 3.24). Class IV areas 

allow for management activities that require major modifications to the existing character of the 

landscape. Although the activities may dominate the view of the casual observer and the relative 

change to the landscape may be high, all management activities must be conducted to minimize 

the impact to the visual quality of the area. Under all project alternatives, the JIDPA and its 

incumbent developments coupled with other regional developments are visible and may dominate 

the viewscape from VRM Class II and III areas, some sections of U.S. Highway 191, and nearby 

wilderness and wilderness study areas within the CIAA; therefore, significant cumulative impacts 

to regional visual resources would occur at these sites. 

4.6.12 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

The expansion of gas development facilities, and various development effects (e.g., haze, smoke 

plumes, nighttime lighting effects on regional star-gazing) and associated roads would be an 

unavoidable adverse impact to visual resources on the JIDPA and at locations where it is visible 

outside the JIDPA. This impact would occur throughout the LOP and for some additional time 

necessary for reclaimed areas to acquire predisturbance visual characteristics. 

4.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997b) and land use plans for the State of 

Wyoming (WSLUC 1979) and Sublette County (SCBC and SCPC 2003) identify the following 

management goals/objectives associated with hazardous materials: 

• to protect public and environmental health and safety on BLM-administered 

public lands; 
4-148 

Table 4.22 Cumulative Acreage of Disturbance in the Visual Resources CIAA, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 

2005. 

Disturbance Existing 

Total Disturbance In No Action Proposed Action and Alternative A 

Cumulative Impact Acreage of CIAA, Outside Analysis Area (CIAA) CIAA JIDPA RFD New LOP Cumulative1 New LOP Cumulative1 Visual Resources 2,089,363 138,740 7,302 4,209 1,409 150,252 20,409 6,040 166,452 Percent of entire CIAA 

6.6 7.2 

8.0 

Disturbance 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Cumulative Impact 

Analysis Area (CIAA) New LOP Cumulative1 New LOP Cumulative1 New LOP Cumulative1 New LOP Cumulative1 Visual Resources 7,390 2,561 153,433 10,914 3,399 156,957 15,790 4,755 161,833 10,595 3,597 157,002 Percent of entire CIAA 7.3 7.5 7.8 

7.5 Disturbance 

Alternative F Alternative G Preferred Alternative Cumulative Impact 

Analysis Area (CIAA) New LOP Cumulative1 New LOP Cumulative1 New LOP Cumulative1 Visual Resources 14,655 3,997 160,698 18,198 5,408 164,241 12,525 3,847 158,567 Percent of entire CIAA 7.7 

7.9 

7.6 

Cumulative disturbance = new + existing + RFD. 1 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-149 

• to comply with applicable federal and state laws; 

• to prevent waste contamination due to any BLM-authorized action; 

• to minimize federal exposure to the liabilities associated with waste management 

on public lands; and 

• to integrate hazardous materials and waste management policies and controls into 

all BLM programs. 

Impacts associated with hazardous materials would be considered significant if project activities 

resulted in violations of the aforementioned goals/objectives and/or local, state, and federal laws. 

Impacts to soils, surface and ground water resources, and wildlife could result from accidental 

hazardous materials spills, pipeline ruptures, and/or exposure to hazardous materials. It is likely 

that only small amounts of soil potentially would be contaminated and, should this occur, the 

affected area would be cleaned up in an appropriate and timely manner (Appendix G). Proper 

containment of oil and fuel in storage areas, containment of fluids in reserve pits, appropriate 

pipeline design and construction, proper well casing and cementing, and location of wells away 

from drainages (all but Alternative A) would prevent potential surface and ground water 

contamination. Project operations would comply with all relevant federal and state laws 

regarding hazardous materials and with directives identified in the Hazardous Materials Summary 

for this project (Appendix G) and existing SPCCPs. 

With the implementation of the aforementioned procedures plus the additional mitigations and 

practices identified in Appendices A, B, and G, no significant impacts are anticipated under any 

project alternative. 

4.7.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no new developments and associated 

opportunities for material spills, pipeline ruptures, and/or exposure to hazardous materials above 

present levels and as previously approved for the JIDPA. Prior NEPA documents concluded that 

there would be no significant adverse impacts involving hazardous materials (BLM 1998b, 

2000b). The duration for potential impacts would be for the LOP which is anticipated to be 

approximately 63 years and until all potentially contaminated sites are remediated. 

4.7.2 The Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action Alternative there would be an approximate six-fold increase (from 

533 approved wells to 3,100 new wells) in the potential for material spills, pipeline ruptures, 

and/or exposure to hazardous materials above current approved levels. The duration for potential 

impacts would be for the LOP which is anticipated to be approximately 76 years and until all 

potentially contaminated sites are remediated. 

4.7.3 Alternative A 

Implementation of Alternative A would have the same potential for hazardous material impacts as 

the Proposed Action Alternative. However, potential impacts to wildlife and surface waters 

would be increased in some areas since selected wildlife and drainage buffers would not be 

avoided. The duration for potential impacts would be for the LOP which would be dependent 
4-150 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

upon the approved rate of development (i.e., from 76 to 105 years) and until all potentially 

contaminated sites are remediated. 

4.7.4 Alternative B 

Implementation of Alternative B would have the same potential types of hazardous material 

impacts as the No Action Alternative; however, impacts would be increased due to the addition of 

new wells, pipelines, and produced materials. Potential impacts and impact areas would be 

limited to the existing well pads and roads since no new pads or roads would be constructed. The 

duration for potential impacts would be dependent upon the rate of development (i.e., from 76 to 

105 years) and until all potentially contaminated sites are remediated. 

4.7.5 Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the types of potential impacts would be the same as under the No Action 

Alternative, but there would be an approximately two-fold increase (from 533 [No Action] to 

1,250 new wells) in the potential for impacts. Potential impacts would be increased from those 

of the No Action Alternative due to the addition of new wells, pipelines, and produced materials. 

The duration of the impacts would be dependent upon the rate of development (i.e., from 68 to 80 

years) and until all potentially contaminated sites are remediated. 

4.7.6 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the types of potential impacts would be the same as under the No Action 

Alternative, but there would be an approximately four-fold increase (from 533 [No Action] to 

2,200 new wells) in the potential for impacts. Potential impacts would be increased from those of 

the No Action Alternative due to the addition of new wells, pipelines, and produced materials. 

The duration of the impacts would be dependent upon the rate of development (i.e., from 72 to 93 

years) and until all potentially contaminated sites are remediated. 

4.7.7 Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, the types of potential impacts would be the same as under the No Action 

Alternative, but there would be an approximate six-fold increase in the potential for material 

spills, pipeline ruptures, and/or exposure to hazardous materials above current approved levels 

(from 533 wells [No Action] to 3,100 new wells). The duration of the impacts would be 

dependent upon the rate of development (i.e., from 76 to 105 years) and until all potentially 

contaminated sites are remediated. 

4.7.8 Alternative F 

Under Alternative F, the types of potential impacts would be the same as under the No Action 

Alternative, but there would be an approximate six-fold increase in the potential for material 

spills, pipeline ruptures, and/or exposure to hazardous materials above current approved levels 

(from 533 wells [No Action] to 3,100 new wells). The duration of the impacts would be 

dependent upon the rate of development (i.e., from 76 to 105 years) and until all potentially 

contaminated sites are remediated. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-151 

4.7.9 Alternative G 

Under Alternative G, the types of potential impacts would be the same as under the No Action 

Alternative, but there would be an approximate six-fold increase in the potential for material 

spills, pipeline ruptures, and/or exposure to hazardous materials above current approved levels 

(from 533 wells [No Action] to 3,100 new wells). The duration of the impacts would be 

dependent upon the rate of development (i.e., from 76 to 105 years) and until all potentially 

contaminated sites are remediated. 

4.7.10 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, the types of potential impacts would be the same as under the No 

Action Alternative, but there would be an approximate six-fold increase in the potential for 

material spills, pipeline ruptures, and/or exposure to hazardous materials above current approved 

levels (from 533 wells [No Action] to 3,100 new wells). The duration of the impacts would be 

approximately 76 years and until all potentially contaminated sites are remediated. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, additional mitigation and monitoring measures would be applied 

to facilitate achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources 

(see Section 2.14). Any measure that reduces the overall level of development, the number of 

proposed facilities or facility locations, and/or traffic, as well as any actions that facilitate 

enhanced reclamation have the potential to reduce potential hazardous material impacts. 

4.7.11 Cumulative Impacts 

All existing, proposed, and future development projects would use mitigation measures similar to 

those described for this project (Appendix G) to prevent soil contamination, surface and ground 

water pollution, and wildlife exposure; therefore cumulative impacts from hazardous materials 

are expected to be as described above for the various project alternatives and are not anticipated 

to be significant. There would, however, be some increased potential for hazardous material 

impacts associated with expanded regional developments associated with other oil and gas 

projects. 

4.7.12 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

With strict adherence to identified hazardous material management requirements (Appendix G), 

no unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. 

4.8 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION 

Preliminary research and monitoring results, as well as the impact results reported here, indicate 

that existing surface disturbance activity especially when combined with certain project 

alternatives considered in this EIS may be appropriate for CM. 

Mitigation measures fall within the actions the Secretary of the Interior can direct to prevent 

unnecessary or undue degradation of the public lands and protect surface resources in the 

approval of surface use plans. These measures, as part of the Proposed Action, are analyzed as 

part of BLM’s compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Mitigation, as 
4-152 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in 40 CFR 1608.20, may include one or 

more of the following: 

(1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an 

action; 

(2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation; 

(3) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected 

environment; 

(4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and 

maintenance operations during the life of the action; and 

(5) Compensating for the impact by replacing, or providing substitute resources 

or environments. [emphasis added] 

As a general guideline, CM may be considered after other forms of on-site mitigation, including 

best management practices, have been analyzed. In other words, while on-site mitigation is the 

first priority when mitigating significant impacts, CM is an available tool for enhancing 

mitigation when impacts to BLM resources cannot be adequately mitigated on the site where the 

impacts are occurring. 

It is assumed that any BLM-approved CM project would reduce impacts to the same or similar 

resources impacted by Jonah Infill activities, or would substitute resources for those impacted by 

Jonah Infill activities. However, any quantitative analysis of beneficial effects of CM cannot be 

identified until specific projects are proposed and it is known what specific impacts that project is 

intended to mitigate. The BLM may include other affected Federal agencies and the State of 

Wyoming in discussions regarding selection of specific CM projects, and may provide 

opportunity for public input. 

A partial list of CM project ideas is provided in Section 5.2. Included with each idea is an 

estimated cost, where available, and the resources whose impacts might be mitigated by that type 

of project. There is no implied prioritization in that list. 

4.8.1 Operator-proposed CM 

The Operators have committed to funding a Cumulative Impacts Mitigation Fund (CIMF) to 

offset impacts of their proposed Jonah Infill development. While details are emerging, one form 

of financing the fund could be to deposit a particular dollar amount for every acre of new initial 

surface disturbance in the JIDPA above a certain acreage threshold. For example, Operators have 

suggested a hypothetical amount of $850.00 for every acre of new initial surface disturbance 

authorized in the JIDPA, above a threshold of 11,000 acres. The CIMF could be administered by 

an independent Advisory Board. 

The hypothetical dollar amounts that the Operators would commit to the CIMF by alternative, 

based on the acres of surface disturbance each alternative would approve if selected, are shown 

below and summarized in Table 2.12. 

No Action: 

No new initial surface disturbance approved for authorization 

= No money committed to the CIMF 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4-153 

Proposed Action: 

16,200 acres new initial surface disturbance approved for authorization 

- 11,000 acres new initial surface disturbance authorization threshold 

5,200 acres x $850/acre of authorized new initial surface disturbance 

= $4,420,000 potentially available to finance CIMF 

Alternative A: 

16,200 acres new initial surface disturbance approved for authorization 

- 11,000 acres new initial surface disturbance authorization threshold 

5,200 acres x $850/acre of authorized new initial surface disturbance 

= $4,420,000 potentially available to finance CIMF 

Alternative B: 

3,297 acres new initial surface disturbance approved for authorization 

11,000 acres new initial surface disturbance authorization threshold 

= No money committed to the CIMF 

Alternative C: 

6,705 acres new initial surface disturbance approved for authorization 

11,000 acres new initial surface disturbance authorization threshold 

= No money committed to the CIMF 

Alternative D: 

11,581 acres new initial surface disturbance approved for authorization 

- 11,000 acres new initial surface disturbance authorization threshold 

581 acres x $850/acre of authorized new initial surface disturbance 

= $493,850 potentially available to finance CIMF 

Alternative E: 

6,386 acres new initial surface disturbance approved for authorization 

11,000 acres new initial surface disturbance authorization threshold 

= No money committed to the CIMF 

Alternative F: 

10,446 acres new initial surface disturbance approved for authorization 

11,000 acres new initial surface disturbance threshold 

= No money committed to the CIMF 

Alternative G: 

13,989 acres new initial surface disturbance approved for authorization 

- 11,000 acres new initial surface disturbance authorization threshold 

2,989 acres x $850/acre of authorized new initial surface disturbance 

= $2,540,650 potentially available to finance CIMF 

BLM Preferred Alternative: 

8,316 acres new initial surface disturbance approved for authorization 

11,000 acres new initial surface disturbance authorization threshold 

= No money committed to the CIMF 
4-154 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

4.8.2 BLM Preferred Alternative CM 

In lieu of the proposed CIMF, the Operators could voluntarily develop proposals, submit those 

proposals to BLM for approval, and fund and implement the BLM-approved CM projects. 

4.9 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF 

RESOURCES 

An irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources is defined as a permanent reduction of 

resources that, once lost, cannot be regained. The degree of loss would be dependent upon the 

alternative implemented. The primary irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources for 

this project would result from the recovery of the natural gas and condensate reserves from the 

Lance Pool (see Section 4.1.4). These recovered reserves would no longer be available; however, 

some reserves would remain and could be recovered in the future with improved technology. 

Other permanent irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources would include soils lost 

through water or wind erosion (see Section 4.1.7); accidental or inadvertent destruction and/or 

vandalism of cultural (see Section 4.3) or paleontological (see Section 4.1.6) resources; loss of 

wildlife due to direct mortality (see Section 4.2.2); and the labor, materials, and energy expended 

during project-related activities (see Appendix G). 

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

PRODUCTIVITY 

For the purposes of this discussion, short-term use of the environment is that use during the LOP, 

whereas long-term productivity refers to the period after the project is completed and the area is 

adequately reclaimed. Short-term use of the JIDPA for natural gas recovery for the LOP would 

not affect the long-term productivity of the area. LOP commitments of resources would include 

loss of vegetation productivity (see Section 4.2.1), wildlife habitat/habitat function (see 

Section 4.2.2), and livestock forage (see Section 4.5.2) on lands devoted to project activities (e.g., 

well pads, roads) until these areas are adequately reclaimed. After the project is completed and 

disturbed areas are reclaimed, the same resources that were present prior to project activities 

would be available, except for the natural gas and oil resources (see Section 4.1.4). It may take 

20 years or more after the LOP for some of the reclaimed areas to revegetate to predisturbance 

levels; however, reclamation would eventually provide conditions to support wildlife, livestock, 

and recreation. Use of the JIDPA during the LOP would not preclude the subsequent long-term 

use of the area for any purpose for which it was suited prior to the project. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 5-1 

CHAPTER 5 — ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL 

MITIGATION, MONITORING MEASURES AND 

COMPENSATORY MITIGATION IDEAS 

This chapter provides a summary of mitigation and monitoring actions that could be applied 

to the project to further minimize adverse impacts or verify the presence, extent or absence 

of anticipated impacts. This list itemizes mitigation, monitoring, and compensatory 

mitigation (CM) that have been identified by the public and/or Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) 

members and that are not already included in the BLM Preferred Alternative (see 

Section 2.14) or the Operator-committed practices detailed in Appendix B. Each listed 

measure is briefly summarized and includes an identification of how application of the 

measure may influence project effects. CM ideas include estimated costs where available, 

and identification of which resource(s) might benefit from that type of CM project. 

Any of the listed actions may be required or recommended under any alternative if this 

project is approved. Decisions regarding the inclusion or exclusion of these actions will be 

made in the ROD for this project. 

5.1 ADDITIONAL MITIGATION OPPORTUNITIES 

The JIWG could consider the following measures for application to the project as part of its 

annual recommendations to the BLM. Following JIWG recommendation, BLM could require 

certain of these actions, or make appropriate recommendations to affected Governments, 

Agencies, and/or applicable Operators. Operators could commit to the application of these 

measures with or without JIWG recommendation. 

5.1.1 Air Quality 

The following mitigation actions could reduce overall project emissions, which in turn could 

protect other resources such as visibility, acid deposition, vegetation, wildlife and other resources 

potentially affected by fugitive dust and emissions. These actions include: 

• a HAP assessment at five locations in the JIDPA to assess ambient air concentrations to 

address public concerns; 

• work with WDEQ/AQD to evaluate the use of alternate technologies (e.g., condensers on 

dehydrators, carbon filters on condensate tanks, remote telemetry monitoring) for well 

pad production facilities (dehydrators, separators, heaters) to reduce emissions from these 

features and traffic; 

• use low-pressure gas gathering pipelines to reduce compression needs, recover flash gas 

lost during processing, and eliminate VOC and HAP emissions when the gas is 

introduced to the sales gas distribution system; 
5-2 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

• use Tier II-compliant diesel engines and/or other low emission drill rig engines, including 

alternatively powered drill rig engines (e.g., natural gas, hybrid non-diesel), on all drill 

rigs operating in the JIDPA when they become available; 

• work with the WDEQ/AQD developing and financing appropriate identification, 

monitoring, and emissions control procedures for HAPs and other emissions from water 

treatment/disposal facilities; and 

• use alternative energy sources (e.g., solar, wind, hydrogen) to power proposed internal 

combustion engines. 

5.1.2 Topography 

The following action could protect important or unique topographic features in the JIDPA, which 

in turn could reduce soil erosion and protect the wildlife habitats provided by these features: 

• no disturbance at rock outcrops in the JIDPA. 

5.1.3 Paleontology 

The following action could protect important or unique paleontological features in the JIDPA by 

identifying their location and subsequently restricting project activities that could disturb them: 

• an active program of inventory and evaluation of sediments known or suspected to 

contain paleontological materials and an assessment of cumulative impacts. 

5.1.4 Soil Resources 

The following actions could protect soils by reducing erosion, compaction, loss through mixing 

with unsuitable plant growth material, and the time necessary for disturbance to be reclaimed. By 

reducing soil erosion, these actions could also protect surface water quality and promote 

revegetation, which in turn could promote the provision of forage for livestock and wildlife. 

These actions include: 

• site-specific predisturbance landscape descriptions, including soils data, plant species 

composition and cover data, and proposed reclamation seed mixes with application rates; 

• analyze soils prior to disturbance to determine appropriate reclamation seed mixtures and 

potential soil amendment needs; and 

• utilization of fertilizers or other soil amendments at reclamation sites to facilitate site 

re-vegetation. 

5.1.5 Surface Water Resources 

The following actions could protect surface water resources and could protect ground water 

quality in areas where surface water percolates below the ground surface: 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 5-3 

• utilize catchment basins, sediment retention ponds, and/or spreader dikes within or 

external to the JIDPA to capture potentially increased flows due to runoff from disturbed 

areas to prevent channel morphology damage; 

• monitor channel condition in the JIDPA with photo points and/or other appropriate 

methods in coordination with BLM; 

• no additional linear crossings (road and/or pipeline crossings/crossing corridors) of Sand 

Draw and/or other ephemeral drainages, unless it can be proven that such activity would 

reduce the erosive potential of the JIDPA and could be accomplished with no disturbance 

to the drainages; 

• hold storm water and snowmelt water in the JIDPA for as long as possible to allow for 

infiltration, reduce runoff energy and associated sediment loads, using geofabrics, jute 

netting, spreader dikes, retention ponds, additional armoring of existing water courses, or 

other techniques; 

• develop and implement an adaptive surface water management plan for the entire JIDPA 

which could include the NPDES process and consider runoff on a cumulative watershed 

basis; 

• pipeline crossings of all drainage channels could be fitted with shutoff valves or other 

systems to minimize accidental discharge and facilitate channel protection from 

contamination in the event of a pipeline break; 

• maximize recycling of waters utilized and produced for this project and increase 

capacities to both treat and re-use clean produced water within the field; 

• consider produced water treatment and/or disposal facilities (e.g., evaporation ponds) on 

federal surface in the JIDPA; and 

• file all NPDES permits and associated water quality data with the BLM and consult with 

WDEQ, WGFD, BLM and livestock permittees before any water release. 

5.1.6 Vegetation, Including TEP&C and BWS Plant Species 

The following actions could protect vegetation, including TEP&C and BWS plant species and 

protect soils, water quality, and wildlife habitat and livestock forage: 

• scalping and post-construction ripping rather than removal and re-spreading of topsoil for 

all new pipelines; 

• establish vegetative plots to scientifically evaluate reclamation success, to develop 

appropriate procedures for timely sagebrush reestablishment, and/or to further identify 

the most desirable reclamation species; and 

• in coordination with the BLM, Natural Resources Conservation Service and Sublette 

County Conservation District, Operators could utilize irrigation at reclamation sites to 

improve germination and vegetation establishment. 
5-4 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

5.1.7 Wildlife, Including TEP&C and BWS Animal Species 

The following actions could protect wildlife, including TEP&C and BWS animal species and 

soils, vegetation, and water quality resources: 

• utilization of low-profile tanks within line-of-sight, up to a maximum of 0.5 mile, of 

greater sage-grouse leks; 

• develop water sources within the JIDPA that are outside of areas with a high level of 

development for area wildlife and/or convert existing project-developed water wells for 

wildlife use when they are no longer required; 

• avoid all raptor nest territories (rather than just active nests) during the nesting 

season; 

• expand annual wildlife monitoring in the JIDPA and Wildlife Study Area to include new 

wildlife/habitat study opportunities identified in consultation with the BLM, WGFD 

and/or USFWS; 

• modify wildlife protection measures (e.g., altered buffer area sizes, seasonal restriction 

dates) based on the results of annual monitoring and/or other regional wildlife studies; 

• develop habitat enhancement projects on the JIDPA to accommodate displaced 

wildlife or altered migration routes; and 

• inventory the Big Piney white-tailed prairie dog complex for black-footed ferrets and 

pursue a block clearance of the complex. 

5.1.8 Cultural Resources 

The following actions could protect cultural resources: 

• develop and implement a research design, discovery plan, and/or cultural resource 

management plan for the combined areas of the Pinedale Anticline Project Area and 

JIDPA, and consult with SHPO pursuant to the effect of these plans on affected cultural 

resources; 

• implement larger cultural resource survey areas for site-specific development actions 

(areas of potential effect); and 

• intensify data collection efforts at affected high-value archaeological sites in exchange 

for disturbance of sites with less unique values. 

5.1.9 Land Use/Livestock Grazing 

The following actions could protect livestock from hazards associated with development: 

• Operators could commit to work with BLM and affected livestock permittees to mitigate 

the loss of AUMs in the JIDPA through provision of range improvement projects to 

modify grazing distribution patterns (e.g., water developments, vegetation treatments, 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 5-5 

irrigation, fencing, use of herders, actions that improve carrying capacity) within the 

project-affected allotments; 

• Operators could commit to reduce fugitive dust on all proposed roads to decrease the 

potential for dust pneumonia in cattle; and 

• Operators could commit to converting project-developed water wells for livestock use 

when they are no longer required for the project. 

5.1.10 Land Use/Recreation 

The following actions could minimize adverse project effects to JIDPA recreation by providing a 

new tourism opportunity: 

• provide one or more quality interpretive sites with public access and/or publications with 

public distributions to provide the general public and interested parties educational 

information regarding JIDPA developments and management actions for other areaspecific natural resource values. 

5.1.11 Land Use/Transportation 

The following actions could reduce impacts to roads, the transportation network, the traveling 

public, air quality, soils, vegetation, wildlife, livestock grazing, and recreation: 

• prepare road development and transportation management plans; 

• utilize car pools and/or bus crews from communities of origin to the field to minimize 

commuting traffic; 

• utilize existing roads in the JIDPA as collector and/or resource roads to the maximum 

extent possible to avoid new surface disturbance; and 

• Operators could jointly develop and submit for BLM approval road maintenance and use 

agreements designating road development, maintenance, and use requirements by each 

Operator. These agreements could identify responsibilities for necessary preventative 

and corrective road maintenance throughout the LOP. Maintenance responsibilities could 

include, but not be limited to, blading, gravelling or aggregate-surfacing, cleaning ditches 

and drainage facilities, dust abatement, noxious weed control, culvert maintenance and 

repair, or other requirements. 

5.1.12 Visual Resource 

Additional measures identified for vegetation and wildlife habitat (reclamation actions) and 

transportation (reduced traffic volumes) could also benefit visual resources. The following 

measure could also reduce project impacts to the visual resource: 

• funding a hosted worker (visual resource management specialist) to be assigned to the 

BLM PFO. 
5-6 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

5.1.13 Health and Safety/Hazardous Materials 

The following measures could protect public and worker health and safety and improve BLM’s 

inspection and enforcement capability: 

• provide the BLM copies of field- or lease-specific SWPPPs, SPCCPs, Spill Response 

Plans, and Emergency Response Plans; 

• fill pipelines with clay or cement slurry at abandonment 

• install highly visible signage on JIDPA access roads to 

- notify the public of the presence of potentially hazardous features in the area, 

- advise the public to stay on developed roads and avoid well pads and other 

facility sites, and/or 

- identify areas of no overnight camping, no discharge of firearms, no off-leash 

pets, and/or no off-road travel; and 

• install and lock all gates at all non-major transportation routes in the JIDPA (e.g., well 

and facility site access roads) to control unauthorized access. 

5.1.14 Other Actions 

The following actions or recommendations could enhance various resource protections, facilitate 

field management, or assist other entities with management decisions. These actions include: 

• implement Operator-committed practices under any approved alternative when not 

already committed to (see Appendix B, Exhibit B-1) or required by BLM; 

• file valid copies of access and/or surface use agreements between Operators and the 

private surface owner with APDs and/or ROW grants with the BLM for all future 

development proposals on private surface with BLM mineral estate. This action could be 

beneficial for area transportation planning (optimization of road location and design, road 

maintenance planning) for single roads that cross both public and private surface by 

providing an opportunity for the BLM to coordinate agreement specifications; 

• Operators could acquire the 640 acres of private land surface in the JIDPA. This action 

could reduce potential conflicts between Operators and the private landowner, and 

facilitate comprehensive management of the entire area as a contiguous block rather than 

a patchwork of separately owned sections with varying management protocols; 

• utilize new drilling and development technologies (e.g., laser drilling, natural gas 

powered drill rig engines, micro-hole drilling, mat drilling) as they become available and 

feasible. This could decrease a variety of impacts and assist Operators in developing 

research or pilot projects to test new development technologies; 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 5-7 

• utilize unknown technologies or technological innovations as they become available and 

feasible to minimize pad/road/pipeline/ancillary facility footprints and/or other adverse 

impacts; 

• increase bond amounts for JIDPA developments. Such action could ensure that sufficient 

funds are available to reclaim disturbed areas in the event Operators inadequately 

implement reclamation; 

• Operator surveyors could submit electronic data for wells, roads, pipelines, and other 

project infrastructures in a format suitable to the BLM. Provision of electronic data 

would allow for consistency among project data across Operators and would facilitate 

BLM database management. This action could benefit all area resources potentially 

affected by specific project development features (e.g., wildlife, habitats); 

• Operators could provide hosted workers to the BLM as needed throughout the project 

development phase or LOP. If applied, this measure could facilitate efficient and timely 

BLM permitting; 

• investigate the feasibility of providing gas from the JIDPA to area gas users (e.g., local 

residents and businesses). If applied this measure could provide area residents with 

reduced natural gas costs, potentially off-setting regional natural gas cost increases to 

local consumers; 

• utilize smaller ROWs to disturb less surface area during pipeline construction. and 

initially install larger diameter pipelines to minimize pipeline disturbance corridor 

widths. If applied, this measure could reduce all impacts associated with linear surface 

disturbances; and 

• develop a wildlife compensation fund to be administered by the State of Wyoming. 

5.2 COMPENSATORY (OFF-SITE) MITIGATION IDEAS 

The following list is not intended to be exhaustive. It is simply a list of the types of CM activities 

that could be undertaken to mitigate for impacts within the JIDPA that cannot be fully mitigated 

on-site, to substitute similar resources for those not able to be mitigated on-site in the JIDPA, or 

to provide tangible benefits similar to those that would have been provided with successful onsite mitigation in the JIDPA. The CM guidelines provided in Section 4.8 would apply to these or 

any other projects proposed for CM. 

Assist with funding for a WDEQ mobile emissions inspector for the JIDPA for 5 years, or 

financially assist WDEQ and USFS with on-going air quality monitoring in the Upper Green 

River area; consultation with the USFS and WDEQ/AQD to develop and implement a consistent 

funding mechanism to continue existing on- and off-site air quality monitoring actions at Class I 

airsheds and sensitive lakes. Monitoring at local communities and/or at other potentially affected 

sites could also be implemented. 

• Impacted resource potentially benefited: Air quality 

• Cost estimate: $15,000 to $100,000 per year 
5-8 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Install a headcut stabilization structure in the Alkali Creek drainage outside the JIDPA 

• Impacted resources potentially benefited: Soils, topography, surface water 

• Cost estimate: $10,000 to $15,000 

Purchase a conservation easement on an irrigated hay meadow adjacent to existing greater sagegrouse habitat that is as close to the JIDPA as possible, that is not encumbered by fluid mineral 

leases, and restore that meadow to sagebrush vegetation similar to the adjacent sagebrush 

community 

• Impacted resources potentially benefited: Soils, vegetation, greater sage-grouse and other 

sagebrush-obligate species 

• Cost estimate: Conservation easements could vary from a few thousand to several 

million dollars, depending on size and location; restoration costs, likely less than 

$500,000 

Purchase right-of-way and install water improvement on an area near but outside the JIDPA 

where forage is underutilized for lack of water 

• Impacted resources potentially benefited: Wildlife including TEP&C and BWS, soils, 

surface water, vegetation, livestock grazing 

• Cost estimate: Rights-of-way could vary from several hundred to several thousand 

dollars, depending on size and location; water improvement costs, likely less than 

$100,000 

Purchase a large block of sagebrush ecosystem land as close as possible to the JIDPA, that is 

unencumbered by fluid mineral leases and is adjacent to existing greater sage-grouse habitat, 

and enhance sagebrush habitat function on that land for LOP at a ratio of 3:1, or three acres 

enhanced for every acre impacted in the JIDPA 

• Impacted resources potentially benefited: Wildlife including TEP&C and BWS, 

vegetation, soils 

• Cost estimate: Land prices vary from several thousand to tens of millions of dollars, 

depending on existing use, location, and parcel size; enhancement activity costs, likely 

less than $500,000 

Purchase development rights on grasslands in the area that are unencumbered by fluid mineral 

leases, and enhance forage production 

• Impacted resources potentially benefited: Wildlife including TEP&C and BWS, 

vegetation, soils, visual, recreation, livestock grazing 

• Cost estimate: Development rights costs vary considerably with location and parcel size, 

and could vary from several thousand to several million dollars; forage enhancement 

costs, likely less than $500,000 

Assist local government with funding of public service projects such as city sewage treatment 

facility upgrade, mosquito abatement, or West Nile virus inoculation programs 

• Impacted resource potentially benefited: Socioeconomic 

• Cost estimate: Several thousand to several million dollars 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 5-9 

Purchase conservation easement and establish and maintain 3 ferruginous hawk or bald eagle or 

burrowing owl nesting sites as close as possible to the JIDPA, and facilitate continued 

occupation of those nests for LOP 

• Impacted resource potentially benefited: Wildlife 

• Cost estimate: Cost of conservation easement + up to $10,000 

Work with impacted communities to develop and fund “portable” infrastructure enhancements 

(infrastructure provided by Operators during “boom” peaks, removed by Operators during 

“bust” times) 

• Impacted resource potentially benefited: Socioeconomic 

• Cost estimate: Several thousand to several million dollars 

Work with WyDOT and/or Sublette County Road and Bridge to install appropriate road-side 

signs outside the JIDPA that indicate potential hazards (e.g., school bus stops, high-traffic 

volume turnouts, trucks entering roadway) 

• Impacted resource potentially benefited: Socioeconomic 

• Cost estimate: Likely less than $10,000 

Develop wildlife habitat improvements designed to increase huntable/viewable species 

populations 

• Impacted resource potentially benefited: Socioeconomic, recreation, wildlife 

• Cost estimate: Several thousand to several million dollars 
5-10 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 6-1 

CHAPTER 6 — CONSULTATION AND PREPARERS 

The list of preparers and participants, including BLM IDT members and cooperating State of 

Wyoming personnel and offices, is presented in Table 6.1. 

Personnel contacted or consulted during preparation of this EIS and scoping respondents are 

listed in Table 6.2. All individuals and entities providing comment during scoping, as well as 

selected additional agency and media offices, will be provided copies or access to this Draft EIS 

or its abstract, if so requested. Those entities commenting via email will be directed to 

<www.wy.blm.gov/nepa/> for access to an electronic copy of the document. 

Table 6.1 List of Preparers and Participants, Jonah Infill, Drilling Project, 2005. 

Name EIS Responsibility 

BLM Interdisciplinary Team 

Denver Regional Office 

Craig Nicholls Air Quality/Climate 

Paul Sommers Water Resources 

 State Office 

Roy Allen Socioeconomics 

Susan Caplan Air Quality and Climate 

Mark Gorges Compliance Review 

Dale Hanson Paleontology 

Ken Henke Hazardous Materials 

Janet Kurman Compliance Review 

Vickie Mistarka Compliance Review 

Brenda Vosika Neuman Compliance Review 

Ken Peackock Water Resources 

Tom Rinkes Wildlife 

Dave Roberts Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, and BLM Sensitive Species 

Rick Schuler Water Resources 

Pinedale Field Office 

Keith Andrews Wildlife; Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, and BLM Sensitive Species 

Frank Bain Topography/Physiography, Geology, Paleontology 

Steve Belinda Threatened and Endangered Wildlife 

Martin Hudson Recreation, Visual Resources 

Carol Kruse Project Management/Team Lead, Entire Document 

Bill Lanning Assistant Project Management/Team Lead, Entire Document 

Steve Laster Vegetation/T&E Vegetation, Land Use/Agriculture/Grazing/Recreation 

Richard Rieman Mineral Resources 

Karen Rogers GIS Coordinator 

Pauline Schuette Wildlife/Threatened and Endangered Wildlife 

Mike Stiewig Writer/Editor 

David Vlcek Cultural Resources/Historic Resources 

Bill Wadsworth Land Use, Agriculture, Grazing, Recreation, Transportation 

Rock Springs Field Office 

Rick Canterbury Soils, Reclamation, Topography/Physiography 
6-2 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 6.1 (continued) 

Name EIS Responsibility 

Dennis Doncaster 

Jay D'Ewart 

Jim Glennon 

John Henderson 

State of Wyoming Team 

Cara Casten 

Susan Child 

Don Christianson 

Tom Collins 

Richard Currit 

Rod DeBruin 

Chris Fallbeck 

Kim Floyd 

Don Likwartz 

 Lisa Lindeman 

Jeremy Lyon 

 Todd Parfitt 

Darla Potter 

Jodee Pring 

Scott Smith 

 David Spencer 

Timothy L. Stark 

TRC Environmental Corporation 

Susan Connell 

Cassady Marshall 

Jim Zapert 

TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 

S.L. Tiger Adolf 

Bill Batterman 

Randall Blake 

Karyn Coppinger 

Larry DeBrey

Genial DeCastro 

Pete Guernsey

Jan Hart 

Chris Keefe 

Tamara Keefe 

Tamara Linse 

James Lowe 

Lance McNees 

Russell Richard 

Roger Schoumacher 

Diane Thomas 

HydroGeo, Inc. 

Joe Frank 

Gabrielle Walser 

Water Resources, Soils 

Land Use/Grazing 

Vegetation/T&E Vegetation 

Fisheries Resources 

Air Quality/Climate 

Project Management/Team Lead, Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Vegetation/T&E Vegetation, Land Use/Agriculture/Grazing/Recreation 

Wildlife Resources/T&E Wildlife/Wild Horses, Fisheries 

Cultural Resources/Historic Resources 

Geology/Geologic Hazards/Paleontology 

Land Use/Agriculture/Grazing/Recreation 

Cultural Resources/Historic Resources 

Mineral Resources 

Socioeconomics 

Water Resources 

Noise/Odor 

Air Quality/Climate 

Water Resources, Hazardous Materials 

Wildlife Resources/T&E Wildlife/Wild Horses, Fisheries 

Socioeconomics 

Transportation 

Air Quality/Climate 

Air Quality/Climate 

Air Quality/Climate 

Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice 

Cultural Resources/Historic Resources 

Wildlife and Fisheries Resources, GIS 

Geology/Minerals, Paleontology, Soils, Topography/Physiography, Ground Water 

Transportation, Hazardous Materials 

Document Production 

Project Management/Team Lead, Proposed Action and Alternatives, Natural Gas 

Resources 

Vegetation, Land Use/Grazing, Soils, Surface Water, TEP&C and BWS Plants 

Wildlife Resources, TEP&C and BWS Animals, Recreation, Visual Resources 

Cartography, GIS 

Technical Editor 

Historic Resources 

Cultural Resources/Historic Resources 

Cultural Resources/Historic Resources 

Quality Assurance 

Wildlife Resources, Noise/Odor 

Ground Water Modeling/Surface Water Depletions 

Ground Water Modeling/Surface Water Depletions 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 6-3 

Table 6.2 Personnel Contacted or Consulted During Preparation of the Jonah Infill EIS. 

Agency/Organization Individual Position 

Alliance for the Wild Rockies Michael T. Garity Executive Director 

Banko Petroleum Management David Banko President 

Barlow & Haun Inc. -- -- 

Big Piney City Government Dickie Brown Town Clerk 

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance Jeff Kessler -- 

 Erik Molvar -- 

BJ Services Company Dan Dells District Manager 

Bjork, Lindley, Danielson & Little, P.C. Laura Lindley Lawyer 

BKS Environmental Association Inc. Terri McGee -- 

 Brenda Schladweiler -- 

BLM Lands Foundation G. Early -- 

BLM Pinedale Field Office Priscilla Mecham Field Manager 

BLM Rock Springs Field Office John McDonald Soils Specialist 

BP America Production Company Victor Vega Project Manager 

Dalan D. Haase Production Engineer 

 Kirk Steinle -- 

Brother Grimm Trucking Mike Myers -- 

Brown, Drew & Massey, LLP. Drake D. Hill -- 

Casper Star Tribune Jeff Gearino -- 

CAZA Drilling Inc. Ed Kautz Vice President 

Toni Schledwitz General Manager 

Center For Native Ecosystems Erin Robertson -- 

Circle Nine Ranch Inc. Phelps H. Swift, Jr. -- 

Defenders of Wildlife Matt Niemerski Public Lands Association 

 Noah Matson -- 

Duke Energy Field Services Stephen McNair Vice President 

George Courcier General Manager Rocky Mountain Region 

Lew D. Hagenlock -- 

Encana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc. Gary R. Gardiner Vice President Northern Rockies 

John Ricter Field Supervisor 

 Brandy Butler -- 

 Cally McKee -- 

Energy Analysts Steve Fillingham -- 

Environomics Eric Williams -- 

EOG Resources C.C. Parsons Division Operation Manager 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission L.J. Sauter -- 

Feed Barn, Inc. Kelly F. -- 

Flaming Gorge PFUSA Betty Wilkinson President 

Frank’s Construction Frank Virden -- 

Gene R. George & Associates Inc. Gene R. George -- 

Gordon Gregory Photography Gordon Gregory -- 

Greater Yellowstone Coalition Tim Stevens Issues and Outreach Director 

 Scott Groene -- 

Lloyd Dorsey Wyoming Representative 

Gros Venture Investment Co. Phil Selby Ranch Manager/Rendezvous Ranch 

 Sandra Wright Manager 
6-4 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 6.2 (continued) 

Agency/Organization Individual Position 

Grouse Inc. Clait E. Braun -- 

Hayden-Wing Associates Larry Hayden-Wing -- 

HydroGeo, Inc. Joe Frank -- 

IPAMS Deena McMullen Manager of Government and Public Affairs 

Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance Pam Lichtman Program Director 

Tom Darin Public Lands Director 

JFC Joe Manatos -- 

Johnson County Community College Rebecca Cramer Professor 

KMG Consulting Walter D. Lowry President 

Land Water Fund of Rockies Bruce Driver Executive Director 

Larz Equipment Brent Larsen -- 

Marbleton City Government Alice Griggs Town Clerk 

Marion County Humane Society Barbara Warner Secretary 

Monmouth County Audubon Society Linda Mack Vice President 

Mount Vernon Data Services Michelle Poolet President 

Mountaintop Consulting, LLC Robin M. Smith -- 

Murdock Land and Livestock Company -- -- 

National Park Service Jere Krakow -- 

Lee Kreutzer National Trails System 

Long Distance Trails Office --

Superintendent 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Carrie Hatch Water Quality Specialist 

Sublette Co. Conservation District, Pinedale 

Field Office 

Jennifer Hayward 

Ron Reckner 

Resource Conservationist/ GIS 

Soil Scientist 

Natural Resources Defense Council Johanna Wald Senior Attorney 

Craig Dylan Wyatt -- 

Nerd Enterprises Inc. -- -- 

Office of Federal Land Policy Lynne Boomgaarden Director 

Office of the Governor Tracy Williams Policy Analyst 

Oregon-California Trails Association Dave Welch National Preservations Officer 

Oregon-California Trails Association -- -- 

Preservation Officer 

People for Wyoming -- Executive Director 

 Pat Hickerson President 

Petroleum Association of Wyoming Dru Bower Vice President 

PFUSA Dorothy Bartholomew President 

 Randy Shipman President 

Pinedale City Government Rose Skinner Mayor 

Patti Raisch Town Clerk 

Pinedale Properties Cyd Goodrich Realtor 

Pinedale Ranger District Terry Svalberg Air Quality Specialist 

Pittsburg & Midway Don Lamborn -- 

Questar Energy Services Chris Thornhill Director of Applied Technology 

Questar Gas Management Dee Findley --

Williams Energy Services -- --

Rendezvous Ranch & Gros Ventre Cattle Paul Von Gontard -- 

Company 

Rocky H. Ranch Bill Phelps -- 

Rocky Mountain Energy Reporter Heather Anderson Marketing Director 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 6-5 

Table 6.2 (continued) 

Agency/Organization Individual Position 

 Gerry Minick Publisher 

Sandy Crossing Enterprises Inc. Curtis C. Martin -- 

Schlumberger Oilfield Services Cliff McKellar Field Service Manager 

James Stewart General Manager 

Vernon Higdon Field Engineer 

Brandon Jones Operations Manager 

Brenda Bray Well Services Manager 

Jesus Espinoza Field Service Manager 

Jim Cunningham Bulk Plant Manager 

David G. Morris -- 

Shell E&P Company Aimee Davison -- 

SOGO2/TRC Design, Inc. Susan Goldin -- 

South East Environmental Network Keene Hueftle Chairman 

Southern Colorado AIM Renee Still Day Executive Director 

Southern Ute Tribal Council Neil B. Cloud -- 

Southwest Wyoming Industrial Association -- -- 

Southwest Wyoming Mineral Association -- -- 

Steinaker Trucking -- -- 

Sublette County Attorney's Office Marilyn Filkins County Attorney 

Sublette County Courthouse Mary Lankford County Clerk 

Sublette County Planning Office -- -- 

Sublette County Road and Bridge Dan Holgate Supervisor 

Sublette County Sheriff’s Office Hank Ruland Sheriff 

Surveyor Scherbel, LTD Paul N. Scherbel President 

Sweetwater County Conservation District Mary E. Thoman Chairman 

Sweetwater County Library -- -- 

TALCO Trucking Aaron McCallister -- 

The Wilderness Society Peter Aengst Program Director 

Ultra Resources Brian Ault -- 

U.S. Air Force Det Chief -- 

U.S. EPA Cynthia Cody Director 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jodi L. Bush Acting Field Supervisor 

Seedskadee Refuge Manager 

Brian T. Kelly Field Supervisor 

U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region -- 

Carole Hamilton Forest Supervisor 

U.S. Geological Survey Ann H. Csonka Environmental Educator 

John M. DeNoyer Former Associate Director 

 Rick Hutchinson -- 

U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Office District Office -- 

 Dave Chase -- 

Roger Miller Hydrogeologist 

U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service -- -- 

U.S. Representative Barbara Cubin Bonnie Cannon Representative 

U.S. Senator Mike Enzi Lyn Shanaghy Representative 

U.S. Senator Craig Thomas Pati L. Smith Representative 

University at Albany, SUNY Kenneth P. Able Professor 

University of California Berkley Luna B. Leopold Professor of Geology 
6-6 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 6.2 (continued) 

Agency/Organization Individual Position 

University of Wyoming David (Tex) Taylor Professor of Agriculture Economics 

Upper Green River Valley Coalition Linda Baker Organizer 

Western Wyoming Community College Achaeological Services -- 

Wildlife Management Institute Len H. Carpenter Field Representative 

Rollin D. Sparrowe -- 

Wind River Environmental Quality Comm. Don Aragon Executive Director 

Wold Trona -- -- 

 Jim Montuoro -- 

Wyoming Advocates for Animals Jeannine R. Stallings -- 

Wyoming Department of Agriculture John Etchepare Director 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Dan Olson Air Quality Division Administrator 

Quality John V. Corra Director 

 Rich Vincent -- 

Wyoming Department of Revenue Christie Yurek Validation Supervisor 

Wyoming Department of Transportation Mark Ayen Engineer 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department Bill Wichers Deputy Director 

 Dean Clause Biologist 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Commission Dave Chase Hydrogeologist 

 Roger Miller Hydrogeologist 

Wyoming Outdoor Council Kelly Matheson Program Coordinator 

Meridith Taylor Yellowstone Field Director 

Wyoming State Board of Outfitters & Guides Jane Flagg -- 

Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office Richard L. Currit State Historic Preservation Officer 

Wyoming State Representative Stan Cooper -- 

Wyoming State Senator Larry Coller -- 

 Delaine Roberts -- 

Wyoming Wildlife Consultants John Dahlke -- 

Wyoming Wildlife Federation Cathy Purves Western Field Director 

INDIVIDUALS Lani J. Adams Citizen 

 Steve Agueda Citizen 

 Ken Aho Citizen 

 Jeremy Allen Citizen 

 Karrin Allen Citizen 

 Lonnie Allen Citizen 

 Matt Allen Citizen 

 Rosemary Alles Citizen 

 Christina Andersen Citizen 

 Martin Andersen Citizen 

Neil & Lorna Anderson Citizen 

Robert F. Anderson Citizen 

 Sarah Annarella Citizen 

 Jerry Arnold Citizen 

 Judy Arnold Citizen 

 Priscilla Atwood Citizen 

 Joan Bailey Citizen 

 Julianne Baker Citizen 

 Gene Ball Citizen 

 Joann Bally Citizen 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 6-7 

Table 6.2 (continued) 

Agency/Organization Individual Position 

 Craig Barber Citizen 

 David Barnett Citizen 

Peter V. Barrett Citizen 

Leslie Van Barselaar Citizen 

 Bryan Bates Citizen 

 Fred Baughman Citizen 

 Jay Beach Citizen 

 Eli Bebout Citizen 

 Kenny Becker Citizen 

David J. Bell Citizen 

 Tom Bell Citizen 

 William Belveal Citizen 

 LeeAnn Bennett Citizen 

 R.G. Bennett Citizen 

 Leo Benson Citizen 

 Rosemary Benson Citizen 

 Kathy Berger Citizen 

 Henry Berkowitz Citizen 

 Linda Berkowitz Citizen 

 F. Bernolf Citizen 

Michelle J. Biggins Citizen 

Norman A. Bishop Citizen 

 Theresa Blair Citizen 

 Russel Blalack Citizen 

 Bill Blazich Citizen 

 Tim Blossom Citizen 

 Deniz Bolbol Citizen 

 Joseph Bolinger Citizen 

 Julie Bond Citizen 

 Scott Bondegard Citizen 

 Chris Bookless Citizen 

 John Bookless Citizen 

 Dan Boudrenault Citizen 

 Pat Bower Citizen 

Dennis J. Brabec Citizen 

 Dan Brecht Citizen 

 Joe Brewer Citizen 

 Ned Brewer Citizen 

 Sarah Britt Citizen 

 Constance Brizuela Citizen 

 Kenly Brown Citizen 

 Vaughn Brown Citizen 

 Steve Brunelle Citizen 

 Marlis Brunson Citizen 

 Dave Bunning Citizen 

 David Burkhart Citizen 

 Candace Burlingame Citizen 

 James Burnett Citizen 
6-8 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 6.2 (continued) 

Agency/Organization Individual Position 

 Barbara Burris Citizen 

 Tom Burns Citizen 

Corlann Gee Bush Citizen 

 Robert Byers Citizen 

James Callison Citizen 

 Mary Carlson Citizen 

Robert D. Carney Citizen 

Mary Lou Carroll Citizen 

 Michael Casey Citizen 

 Annette Chaudet Citizen 

 Geneva Chong Citizen 

 Scott Christensen Citizen 

Anna Lee Clark Citizen 

Ashley Ann Clark Citizen 

 Dallas Clark Citizen 

 Troy Clark Citizen 

 Duane Claypool Citizen 

 Jim Cleary Citizen 

 Trish Cleary Citizen 

Audry J. Cleland Citizen 

Frances M. Cone Citizen 

John S. Connolly Citizen 

 David Constable Citizen 

 Patricia Constable Citizen 

 Calvin Cooley Citizen 

 Lonetta Cooley Citizen 

 Mike Cooney Citizen 

Linda J. Cooper Citizen 

 Esther Cover Citizen 

 Jared Cox Citizen 

 Lydia Cressall Citizen 

 Anthony Criscola Citizen 

Martie J. Crone Citizen 

 Larry Crowell Citizen 

 Bill Current Citizen 

 Hall Cushman Citizen 

 Jerry Dalton Citizen 

 Carl Daly Citizen 

David L. Davidson Citizen 

 Andrea Dean Citizen 

David R. Dean Citizen 

 Regina Dean Citizen 

 Paul DeBonis Citizen 

 Michael Deme Citizen 

Laurie Ann Denison Citizen 

 Danny Dickinson Citizen 

 James Dillon Citizen 

 Marilyn Dinger Citizen 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 6-9 

Table 6.2 (continued) 

Agency/Organization Individual Position 

 Ed Dolinar Citizen 

 Rita Donham Citizen 

 Nick Downey Citizen 

 Larry Downs Citizen 

Dana L. Dreinhofer Citizen 

Donald J. Duerr Citizen 

 Loretta Dunne Citizen 

 Nathan Ebinger Citizen 

 Sol Eden Citizen 

Kenneth B. Eldridge Citizen 

 Beth Enson Citizen 

 Dinda Evans Citizen 

 Donald Evans Citizen 

 Eric Fairbanks Citizen 

 Dale Fefzer Citizen 

 Carol Finan Citizen 

 Casey Fisher Citizen 

James H. Fitch Citizen 

 D.R. Flock Citizen 

 Donna Foote Citizen 

 Dorothy Foster Citizen 

Georgia J. Frazier Citizen 

 Jeff Frontz Citizen 

 John Geddie Citizen 

James R. Goddard Citizen 

 Ed Golnitz Citizen 

 Tony Goodman Citizen 

 Machelle Gossett Citizen 

 Anne Grady Citizen 

 Steve Granada Citizen 

Stephen M. Greenberg Citizen 

 Paul Grover Citizen 

 Ravi Grover Citizen 

 Gil Gudmend Citizen 

 Tanya Haanpac Citizen 

 Caitlin Hakiel Citizen 

Joyce L. Harkness Citizen 

 Denise Harmon Citizen 

 Alan Hayes Citizen 

 James Henley Citizen 

 Phil Hernandez Citizen 

Betty Jean Herner Citizen 

 Sanford Higginbotham Citizen 

 Ann Hinckley Citizen 

 Steve Hitshew Citizen 

Fernanda E. Hittel Citizen 

 Sarah Hixson Citizen 

Larry D. Honeycutt Citizen 
6-10 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 6.2 (continued) 

Agency/Organization Individual Position 

 Daryl Hood Citizen 

 Jim Horner Citizen 

 Brendan Hughes Citizen 

 Guy Hulser Citizen 

 Jeanne Hum Citizen 

 William Houghton Citizen 

 Troy Householder Citizen 

 Chris Jacobs Citizen 

 Leah Jacobs Citizen 

 Lisa Jaeger Citizen 

 Anne Jemas Citizen 

 Jennifer Jensen Citizen 

 Paul Jensen Citizen 

 Roger Jensen Citizen 

 Trinni Jensen Citizen 

 Debbie Johnson Citizen 

 Gordon Johnson Citizen 

 Bob Johnston Citizen 

 Diana Jones Citizen 

 Kent Jordan Citizen 

 Les K. Citizen 

 Angelo Kallas Citizen 

 Larry Kaml Citizen 

 Linda Karon Citizen 

 Richard Karon Citizen 

Robert L. Kay Citizen 

 Shari Kearney Citizen 

 Dennis Keeney Citizen 

 John Kesich Citizen 

 Brian Kettering Citizen 

 Jacob Kettering Citizen 

James H. King Citizen 

 Paul Kita Citizen 

 Irene Kitzman Citizen 

John F. Kohler Citizen 

 Mark Koplik Citizen 

 Elinore Krell Citizen 

 Corbett Kroehler Citizen 

 Roger Kruse Citizen 

 Jean Kwall Citizen 

 Stan Labbe Citizen 

 Londa Lamper Citizen 

 Laurie Latta Citizen 

 Jim Laybourn Citizen 

 Edith Leeper Citizen 

Daryl LeFevre Petroleum Engineer 

Carol J. Levitt Citizen 

David A. Lien Citizen 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 6-11 

Table 6.2 (continued) 

Agency/Organization Individual Position 

Thomas A. Linell Citizen 

 Jim Liskovec Citizen 

 Leonard Lovell Citizen 

 Judann Luening Citizen 

 Dave Luxem Citizen 

 Deb Luxem Citizen 

 Matt Lye Citizen 

 Audrey Lyke Citizen 

 Justin M. Citizen 

Tami Ingraham Malchow Citizen 

 Rich Malone Citizen 

 Lisa Marshall Citizen 

 Paul Marsing Citizen 

 Richard Marsing Citizen 

 Shannon Marsing Citizen 

 Marissa Martin Citizen 

 Jonathan Mathews Citizen 

 T.J. Mathews Citizen 

 Lon Mayhew Citizen 

 Ellen McCallister Citizen 

 Lillian McCallister Citizen 

 Tammie McCallister Citizen 

Jenny C. McCune Citizen 

 Stuart McKinley Citizen 

Holmes P. McLish Citizen 

 Mimi McMillen Citizen 

 Stew McMillen Citizen 

 Page McNeill Citizen 

 John Meng Citizen 

Jennifer S. Miller Citizen 

Neil O. Miller Citizen 

 Kat Mills Citizen 

 Lonnie Moffitt Citizen 

 Jill Mogen Citizen 

 Kristin Mohney Citizen 

 Cory Munter Citizen 

 Mike Narramore Citizen 

 Debra Nishida Citizen 

 Paul Nordeen Citizen 

 Michael Normington Citizen 

 Karla Nye Citizen 

 Dave Obenchain Citizen 

 Gerald Orcholski Citizen 

 Jim Oriet Citizen 

 Larry Orzechowski Citizen 

Jacob L. Overy Citizen 

 Catherine Palmer Citizen 

 Maggie Palmer Citizen 
6-12 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 6.2 (continued) 

Agency/Organization Individual Position 

 Jean Palmeter Citizen 

 Mike Partansky Citizen 

 John Patanelli Citizen 

 Jim Paulsen Citizen 

 Sally Pederson Citizen 

 Larry Pennock Citizen 

 Laveta Pennock Citizen 

 Todd Perry Citizen 

 Lisa Persinger Citizen 

 Rodney Peterson Citizen 

 Troy Peterson Citizen 

Clint A. Phillips Citizen 

 Brian Pierce Citizen 

 Lynn Pierce Citizen 

 Sandra Pierce Citizen 

 David Pitt Citizen 

 Vern Plentenbery Citizen 

 Keith Potter Citizen 

 Kelly Powers Citizen 

 Angelina Pryich Citizen 

 Stacey Putman Citizen 

 Daron Raines Citizen 

 Kevin Ramage Citizen 

 Paul Rana Citizen 

Jonathan B. Ratner Citizen 

Clem L. Rawlins Citizen 

 Kathy Rebescher Citizen 

Joseph M. Reichert Citizen 

 Robin Reinholz Citizen 

Jim Von Rembow Citizen 

 Mark Reneau Citizen 

Frank D. Reno Citizen 

 Lavinia Reno Citizen 

Stephen A. Reynolds Citizen 

 Stephen Reynolds Citizen 

Louis D. Rhodes, Jr. Citizen 

 Jake Ribordy Citizen 

Peggy Sue Richards Citizen 

 Nancy Richings Citizen 

 Ted Richings Citizen 

 Matt Ridenour Citizen 

 Austin Rider Citizen 

 Tim Rider Citizen 

 Bradley Ridgway Citizen 

 Jim Riley Citizen 

 Dorothy Roberts Citizen 

Dean M. Roddick Citizen 

Jim R. Rogers Citizen 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 6-13 

Table 6.2 (continued) 

Agency/Organization Individual Position 

Justin L. Rogers Citizen 

 Justin Roghair Citizen 

 Craig Romero Citizen 

Donald G. Romero Citizen 

 Jamie Rose Citizen 

Paul W. Rosenberger Citizen 

 Dave Rosenfeld Citizen 

James H. Ross Citizen 

 Kenneth Rouse Citizen 

 Ron Roy Citizen 

 Barbara Rugotzke Citizen 

 Dean Ruscoe Citizen 

 Chad Rutherford Citizen 

 Robert Rutkowski Citizen 

 Freddy Salgodo Citizen 

 Shane Sanchez Citizen 

 Justin Santhuff Citizen 

 Todd Sasse Citizen 

 Jim Schaefer Citizen 

 Sheron Schaeferle Citizen 

 C.W. Schertz Citizen 

 Floyd Schneider Citizen 

Kelvin B. Sellers Citizen 

Bev & Sam Sharp Citizen 

 Carole Shelby Citizen 

 Leslie Sheldon Citizen 

Barbara A. Sherer Citizen 

 Roger Sherman Citizen 

 Joe Shubert Citizen 

 Greg Simcakoski Citizen 

Christopher P. Simms Citizen 

 Steve Simon Citizen 

Rebecca A. Skinner Citizen 

 Boyd Smiley Citizen 

Jeffrey J. Smith Citizen 

 Mike Smith Citizen 

 Robin Smith Citizen 

 Ruth Smith Citizen 

Ana Yong Soler Citizen 

 Albert Sommers Citizen 

 Mario Soto Citizen 

 G. Sozio Citizen 

 Shawn Steed Citizen 

 Alice Stephens Citizen 

 Alta Stephens Citizen 

Edward R. Stewart Citizen 

 Jeanne Sugel Citizen 

 Dan Sullivan Citizen 
6-14 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 6.2 (continued) 

Agency/Organization Individual Position 

 Dave Surette Citizen 

 Paul Szymanowski Citizen 

Nick F. Tabler Citizen 

 Thomas Tennyson Citizen 

 Michael Teply Citizen 

 D. Tetre Citizen 

 Duane Thompson Citizen 

 Brian Thomson Citizen 

 Erik Tomasik Citizen 

Terry Ann Towers Citizen 

Michael R. Traq Citizen 

 Jeff Troxel Citizen 

 Sauwah Tsang Citizen 

 Dennis Urbatsch Citizen 

 Cat Urbigkit Citizen 

 Jim Urbigkit Citizen 

Daniel R. Vice Citizen 

 Tom Volner Citizen 

 John Wahl Citizen 

 Russell Wakefield Citizen 

 Bucky Walker Citizen 

Judith B. Walker Citizen 

Ronald P. Walker Citizen 

 Sunny Walter Citizen 

 A.J. Warner Citizen 

 Mary Warner Citizen 

 Billie Watkins Citizen 

 Sally Weidemann Citizen 

 Fredrick Wen Citizen 

 Janet Westbrook Citizen 

 Howard Weston Citizen 

 Tara Whittaker Citizen 

 James Wilkins Citizen 

Robert E. Williams Citizen 

David W. Williamson Citizen 

 Rachel Winer Citizen 

 Lyle Woelich Citizen 

 Jackie Woods Citizen 

Mary Lynn Worl Citizen 

 James Wright Citizen 

 Bryan Wyberg Citizen 

Gretchen Dawn Yost Citizen 

 Peter Zadis Citizen 

John Zickel Citizen 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 7-1 

CHAPTER 7 — REFERENCES 

Ahern, J., M. Colletine, and S. Cooke. 1981. Occurrence and Characteristics of Groundwater in 

the Green River Basin and Overthrust Belt, Wyoming. Prepared for U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency by Water Resources Institute, University of Wyoming, Laramie. 

123 pp. + appends. 

Air Resource Specialists. 2002. Green River Basin Visibility Study: Monitored Air Quality 

Data. Air Resource Specialists, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

American Gas Association. 2003. Fueling the Future. New Gas and New Technology for a 

Cleaner 21st Century. <www.aga.org>. Accessed on January 12, 2004. 

Amoco Production Company. 1993. Environmental, Occupational Health and Safety Policy. 

Mimeo. 2 pp. 

. 1995. Safety Manual, U.S. Operations, 1995 edition. Mimeo. 

Baxter and Stone. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department. 137 pp. 

Bingaman, M., T. Thibodeau, W. Gribb, J. Teichert, N. Gribb, C. McManus, S. Tessman. 2003. 

The 2003-2008 Wyoming Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. 

Wyoming Division of State Parks and Historic Sites, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

BKS Environmental Associates, Inc. 2003. Soil Mapping Results for T29N, R107W, Sections 

28-31; T29N, R108W, Sections 25, 32, 36, Jonah Infill Area, Sublette County, Wyoming. 

Unpublished. Prepared for TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming, by BKS 

Environmental, Gillette, Wyoming. 

Blevins, A., K. Jensen, M. Coburn, and S. Utz. 2004. Executive Summary. In Social and 

Economic Impact Assessment of Oil and Gas Development in Sublette and 

Sweetwater Counties. Prepared for Shell Exploration and Production Company by 

University of Wyoming, Department of Sociology, Laramie. 

BP America Production Company. 2004. Jonah Field wind data (unpublished). 

Braun, C.E. 1986. Changes in Sage-grouse Lek Counts With Advent of Surface Coal Mining. 

Proceedings: Issues and Technology in the Management of Impacted Western Wildlife, 

Thorne Ecological Institute 2:227-231. 

. 1987. Current Issues in Sage-grouse Management. Proceedings of the Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 67: 134-144. 

. 1995. Distribution and Status of Sage-grouse in Colorado. Prairie Naturalist 27:1-9. 
7-2 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

. 1998. Sage-grouse Declines in Western North America: What Are the Problems: 

Proceedings of the Western Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies 78:139-156. 

. 2002. A Review of Sage-Grouse Habitat Needs and Sage-Grouse Management 

Issues for the Revision of the BLM’s Pinedale District Resource Management Plan. 

Prepared by Grouse Inc., Tucson, Arizona, for the Wilderness Society, Wyoming 

Outdoor Council, and Greater Yellowstone Coalition. 14 pp. 

Braun, C.E., M.G. Baker, R. L. Eng, J.S. Gashwiler, and M.H. Schroeder. 1976. Conservation 

Committee Report on the Effects of Alteration of Sagebrush Communities on the 

Associated Avifauna. Wilson Bulletin 88:165-171. 

Brown, C.G. 1992. Movement and Migration Patterns of Mule Deer in Southeastern Idaho. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 56:246-253. 

Bruce, B.W. 1993. Hydrochemistry of the Wasatch/Green River Aquifer System, Northeastern 

Green River Basin, Wyoming. Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Geology and 

Geophysics, University of Wyoming, Laramie. 137 pp. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2002. Regional Accounts Data, Local Area Personal 

Income, Regional Economic Information System. Table CA34 Average Wage per 

Job, Wyoming (dollars). <http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis>. December 

2002. Accessed June 19, 2003. 

. 2003a. Regional Accounts Data, Local Area Personal Income, Regional 

Economic Information System. Tables CA05(SIC) and SA1-3. Personal Income by 

Major Source and Earnings by Industry. May 2003. <http://www.bea.doc.gov/ 

bea/regional/reis>. Accessed December 15, 2003. 

. 2003b. Personal Dividend Income, Personal Interest Income, and Rental Income 

of Persons. <http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/articles/lapi2001/pdf/dir.pdf>, 

May 6, 2003. Accessed December 15, 2003. 

. 2003c. Regional Accounts Data, Local Area Personal Income, Regional 

Economic Information System. Table CA25 Total Full-time And Part-time 

Employment by Industry. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic 

Analysis, Regional Economic Analysis Division. May 2003. <http://www.bea. 

doc.gov/bea/regional/reis>. Accessed June 19, 2003. 

. 2003d. Regional Accounts Data, Local Area Personal Income, Regional 

Economic Information System. Table C1-3 Per Capita Personal Income. May 2003. 

<http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis>. Accessed June 19, 2003. 

. 2003e. Regional Accounts Data, Local Area Personal Income, Regional 

Economic Information System. Table CA25 Total Full-time and Part-time 

Employment by Industry--Wyoming (number of jobs). May 2003. <http://www.bea. 

doc.gov/bea/regional/reis>. Accessed June 23, 2003. 

. 2003f. Gross State Product (GSP), for States and Regions in Current-Dollar 

GSP and Real Chained-Dollar GSP, and GSP by Industry, for 1977–2001 (Annual). 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 7-3 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic 

Analysis Division--May 2003. <http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp/>. Accessed 

July 8, 2003. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2003. Consumer Price Index--All Urban Consumers. U.S. 

Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. <http://data.bls.gov/servlet/ 

SurveyOutputServlet>. Accessed on December 23, 2003. 

Bureau of Land Management. 1983. Riley Ridge Natural Gas Project Air Resources 

Technical Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Kemmerer Field Office, Kemmerer, Wyoming, in cooperation with Environmental 

Research and Technology Inc. 

. 1985. Manual 9113-Roads. Engineering Rel. 9-247. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 

. 1987a. Pinedale Resource Area Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement. Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs District, Rock Springs, 

Wyoming, and Pinedale Resource Area, Pinedale, Wyoming. 

. 1987b. Pinedale Resource Area Final Resource Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement. Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs District, Rock Springs, 

Wyoming, and Pinedale Resource Area, Pinedale, Wyoming. Government Printing 

Office, Washington, D.C. 

. 1988a. National Environmental Policy Act Handbook, H-1790-1. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 

. 1988b. Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan for the Pinedale 

Resource Area. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale 

Resource Area, Rock Springs District, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 118 pp. 

. 1990a. Bureau of Land Management Manual Section 9112. 

. 1991a. Wyoming Supplement to the Bureau 9113 Manual. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming. 16 pp. 

. 1991b. PG&E Resource Company Fontenelle II Unit Infill Drilling Program 

Environmental Assessment. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Green River and Kemmerer Resource Areas, Kemmerer, Wyoming. 

WY-048-EA-91-54. 

. 1992. Green River Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Rock Springs District, Rock Springs, Wyoming. BLM-WY-ES-92-019­

4410. 910 pp. 

. 1994a. McMurry Oil Company Jonah Prospect Field natural gas development, 

Decision Record and Finding of No Significant Impact. Bureau of Land Management, 
7-4 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Pinedale and Green River Resource Area, Rock Springs, District Office, Rock Springs, 

Wyoming. WY-046-EA-94-049. 

. 1994a. McMurry Oil Company Jonah Prospect Field natural gas environmental 

assessment. Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale and Green River Resource Area, 

Rock Springs, District Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming. WY-046-EA-94-049. 

. 1994c. Guidelines for Assessing and Documenting Cumulative Impacts. 

Information Bulletin 94-310. Washington, D.C. 70 pp. 

. 1996a. Green River Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Rock Springs District, Rock Springs, Wyoming, and Green River Resource 

Area, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

. 1997a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Field II Natural Gas Project. 

Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale and Green River Resource Areas, Rock Springs 

District, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

. 1997b. Record of Decision for the Green River Resource Area Management Plan 

and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Rock Springs District, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

. 1998a. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Field II Natural Gas Project. 

Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale and Green River Resource Area, Rock Springs 

District, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

. 1998b. Record of Decision for Jonah Field II Natural Gas Project, Environmental 

Impact Statement, Sublette County, Wyoming. Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale 

and Green River Resource Areas, Rock Springs District, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

. 1999a. Interim Guidance: Changes to the List of Critical Elements of the 

Human Environment in BLM’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

Handbook. Instruction Memorandum No. 99-178. Washington, D.C. 3 pp. 

. 1999b. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Pinedale Anticline Oil and 

Gas Exploration and Development Project, Sublette County. Bureau of Land 

Management, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming, in cooperation with the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Forest Service, and State of Wyoming. 

. 1999c. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Continental Divide/Wamsutter II 

Natural Gas Project, Sweetwater and Carbon Counties, Wyoming. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins and Rock Springs Field 

Offices. DES-99-10. April 1999. BLM/WY/PL-98/02Y+1320. 

. 2000a. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the 

Modified Jonah Field II Natural Gas Project, Sublette County, Wyoming. Bureau of 

Land Management. Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming, and Rock Springs Field 

Offices, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 7-5 

. 2000b. Decision Record and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Modified 

Jonah Field II Natural Gas Project, Sublette County, Wyoming. Bureau of Land 

Management. Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming, and Rock Springs Field Office, 

Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

. 2000c. Record of Decision, Environmental Impact Statement for the Pinedale 

Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project, Sublette County, Wyoming. 

Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Pinedale 

Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming. BLM/WY/PL-00/026+1310. RODEIS-00-018. 

53 pp. + append. 

. 2001. Decision Record and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Late 

Winter Gathering of Wild Horses in the Rock Springs Field Office Area. BLM-WY040-EA01-019. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rock 

Springs Field Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 33 pp. 

. 2002a. Geologic and Reservoir Analysis of Proposal for 20-acre Infill Drilling of 

Selected Upper Cretaceous Lance Formation Wells in Four Pilot Areas, Jonah Field Area, 

Sublette County, Wyoming. BLM Reservoir Management Group, Wyoming State 

Office. Signed June 2002. 10 pp. + tables. 

. 2002b. Technical Support Document, Air Quality Impact Assessment for the 

Montana Final Statewide Oil and Gas EIS and Proposed Amendment of the Powder 

River and Billings Resource Management Plans and the Wyoming Final EIS and 

Planning Amendment for the Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Development Project. 

Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Montana and 

Wyoming State Offices, by Environmental Assessment Division, Argonne National 

Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois. 

. 2003a. Supplemental Draft EIS for the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity 

Plan/Draft Green River RMP Amendment. BLM/WY/PL-03/008+1610. Bureau of 

Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, Rock Springs 

Field Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming, and Lander Field Office, Lander, Wyoming. 

. 2003b. Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species by Field Office. <http://www.wy. 

blm.gov/botany/fieldoffices/pfo.htm>. Accessed December 2003. 

. 2003c. Payments in Lieu of Taxes, Search Payments and Acres. U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management, Office of Public Affairs, Washington, D.C. <http://www.blm. 

gov/pilt/search. html>. Accessed July 10, 2003. 

. 2003d. Socioeconomic Profile for the Pinedale Resource Management Plan (Draft). 

Prepared by Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, 

Wyoming. 37 pp. <http://www.pinedalermp.com/documents/Pinedale_Socioeconomic 

Profile.pdf>. Accessed May 7, 2003. 

. 2004a. Jonah Infill Drilling Project Development Procedures Technical Support 

Document. Appendix G in this EIS. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, Pinedale and Rock Springs Field Offices, Pinedale and Rock 

Springs, Wyoming. 
7-6 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

. 2004b. Little Colorado Herd Management Area, Rock Springs Field Office. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs Field 

Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 2 pp. 

. 2004c. Draft Socioeconomic Technical Support Document for the Jonah Infill 

Drilling and South Piney Projects Environmental Impact Statements. Prepared for 

Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, and 

Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming; Jonah Infill Drilling Project Operators; 

and South Piney Natural Gas Development Project Companies. Prepared by TRC 

Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 

. 2004d. Finding of No Significant Impact, Decision Record and Environmental 

Assessment for the Questar Year-Round Drilling Proposal, Sublette County, 

Wyoming. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale 

Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming. WY-100-EAS-034. 

. 2005. Socioeconomic Analysis Technical Support Document for the Jonah Infill 

Drilling and South Piney Projects Environmental Impact Statements. Prepared for 

Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Bureau 

of Land Management Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming; Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project Operators; South Piney Natural Gas Development Project 

Companies by TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 232 pp. + appends. 

Call, M.W. 1978. Nesting Habitats and Surveying Techniques for Common Western Raptors. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Technical Note No. 316. 

115 pp. 

Campbell, P. 1997. Population Projections: States, 1995-2025. Current Population 

Reports, P25-1131. Prepared for Census Bureau. <http://www.census.gov/prod/2/ 

pop/p25/p25-1131.pdf>. Accessed on December 15, 2003. 

Case, J.C. 1997. Earthquakes and Active Faults in Wyoming. Wyoming State Geological 

Survey Preliminary Hazards Report 97-2. 58 pp. 

Case, J.C., and C. Boyd. 1987. Preliminary Map of Wind Blown Sand Areas in Wyoming. 

Wyoming Geological Survey Open File Report 87-9. 

Case, J.C., L.L. Larsen, C.S. Boyd, and J.C. Cannia. 1995. Earthquake Epicenters and Suspected 

Active Faults With Surficial Expression in Wyoming. The Geological Survey of 

Wyoming Preliminary Hazards Report 97-1. Map. 

Clark, T.W., and M.R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. University of Kansas, 

Museum of Natural History. 314 pp. 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum. 2002. 2002 Review Water Quality Standards for 

Salinity Colorado River System. Prepared by Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 

Forum. October 2002. 

Connelly, J.W., and C.E. Braun. 1997. Long-term Changes in Sage-grouse Centrcercus 

urophasianus Populations in Western North Amercia. Wildlife Biology 3/4:123-128. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 7-7 

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation Assessment of 

Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agenceis. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to Manage 

Sage-Grouse Populations and Their Habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2B(4): 967-985. 

Consensus Revenue Estimating Group. 2003. Wyoming State Government Revenue 

Forecast Fiscal Year 2003–Fiscal Year 2008. January 2003. 

. 2004. Wyoming State Government Revenue Forecast Fiscal Year 2004–Fiscal 

Year 2008. January 2004. 

Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere. 2003. Interagency Monitoring of 

Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE). Summary data provided by Scott 

Copeland, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA), Colorado State 

University, October 2003. 

Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 64 pp. + append. 

Coupal, R., T. Taylor, and T. Foulke. 2003. Wyoming Economic Atlas: PILT. University 

of Wyoming Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics. <http://agecon. 

uwyo.edu/ econdev/PILT1.htm>. 

Davis-Peterson Associates, Inc. 1995. The Economic Impact of Expenditures by Tourists in 

Wyoming: York, Maine. April 1995. 

Dorn, J.L., and R.D. Dorn. 1999. Wyoming Birds. Second Edition. Mountain West Publishing. 

Cheyenne, Wyoming. 187 pp. 

Dorn, R.D. 1992. Vascular Plants of Wyoming. Mountain West Publishing, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming. 

Dynamac Corporation. 2002. Preliminary Groundwater Characterization Study, Pinedale 

Anticline Production Area (PAPA), Sublette County, Wyoming. Submitted to Bureau of 

Land Management, Pinedale Field Office. 

Easterly, T.E., A.W. Wood, and T Litchfield. 1991. Responses of Pronghorn and Mule Deer to 

Petroleum Development On Crucial Winter Range in the Rattlesnake Hills. Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department. 

Eckerle, W., and M. Taddie. 1997. Archaeological Sensitivity Model for the Bureau of Land 

Management, Burma Road Soil Survey Area. Jonah Natural Gas Field, Sublette County, 

Wyoming. Submitted to Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale. Western GeoArch 

Research, Salt Lake City. 

Edwards, C.C. 1969. Winter Behavior and Population Dynamics of American Eagles in Utah. 

Ph. D. dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 156 pp. 
7-8 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

EnCana Oil & Gas (U.S.A.), Inc. 2002a. Contractor Expectations for Environment, Health and 

Safety. U.S. Rockies Region Booklet. 

. 2002b. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan for Yellow Point Area, 

Jonah Field, Sublette County, Wyoming. Prepared for EnCana Oil & Gas (U.S.A.), Inc., 

Denver, Colorado, by LESAIR Environmental, Inc., Littleton, Colorado. 22 pp. 

. 2003. An Application for a Bio Remediation Cell Pad Facility to be Located in the 

Jonah Field Adjacent and Contiguous to McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte #7-36 

Production Battery Which is Located in the SWNE/4, Section 36, T29N, R108W Sublette 

County, Wyoming. Submitted by EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc., Denver, Colorado, to 

the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Committee, Casper. Prepared by L.C. Roberts, 

ASCE #320326. 8 pp. + append. 

. 2004. Jonah Infill Drilling Project Evaluation of Directional Drilling. Prepared for 

EnCana Oil and Gas (U.S.A.) Inc., Denver, Colorado, by Reservoir Management 

Services, Inc. 22 pp. 

Energy Information Administration. 2001. Energy in the United States: A Brief History and 

Current Trends. United States Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration. June 2001. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh1999/eh1999. 

html>. Accessed July 10, 2003. 

. 2004. Natural Gas Annual 2002. <http://www.eia.doe.gov>. Accessed April 2004. 

Eng, R.L., and P. Schladweiler. 1972. Sage Grouse Winter Movements and Habitat Use in 

Central Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 36: 141-146. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. New Source Review Workshop Manual (Draft). 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 

. 1997. National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse (NATICH) database. Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 

. 2002. Air Toxics Database. Dose-response Assessment for Assessing Health Risks 

Associated with Exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants, Table 2. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (OAQPS). Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics website.. 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html>. Accessed June 20, 2003. 

. 2003. EnviroMapper for Environmental Justice. <http://map10.epa.gov/enviro 

mapper/>. Accessed September 9, 2003. 

Eratham-Vanir Geological Consultants. 1997. Paleontologic Resource Evaluation, Proposed 

Jonah Field II Project, Sublette County, Wyoming. Prepared for TRC Mariah Associates 

Inc., Laramie, Wyoming, by Erathem-Vanir Geological Consultants, Pocatello, Idaho. 

29 pp. + append. 

ERO Resources Corporation. 1988. Burma Road Soil Survey. Prepared for the U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Resource Area, Rock Springs 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 7-9 

District by ERO Resources Corporation, Golden Colorado. February 1988. 

157 pp. + append. 

Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Workgroup. 2000. Federal Land Managers' 

Air Quality Related Workgroup (FLAG) Phase I Report. USDA Forest Service - Air 

Quality Program, National Park Service - Air Resources Division, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service - Air quality Branch. 

Fertig, W. 1993. Survey of Plant Species of Special Concern in the Yellow Point Ridge area, 

Sublette County, Wyoming. Prepared for McMurry Oil Company, Casper, Wyoming, 

and Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Resource area by Wyoming Natural Diversity 

Database, Laramie, Wyoming. 5 pp. 

. 1994. Wyoming Rare Plant Field Guide. Prepared for U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, by Wyoming Rare 

Plant Technical Committee. 

Forman, R.T.T., and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and Their Major Ecological Effects. Annual 

Review of Ecological Systems 29:207-231. 

Forrest, S.C., T.W. Clark, L. Richardson, and T.M. Campbell III. 1985. Black-footed Ferret 

Habitat: Some Management and Reintroduction Considerations. Wyoming Bureau of 

Land Management Wildlife Technical Bulletin No. 2. 49 pp. 

Foulke, T., R. Coupal, and D. Taylor. 2001. Economic Trends in Wyoming's Mineral 

Sector: Gas and Oil. Editor, Hattie Penny. University of Wyoming College of 

Agriculture Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Laramie. B-1112, 

August 2001. 22 pp. 

Fox, D., A.M. Bartuska, J.G. Byrne, E. Cowling, R. Fisher, G.E. Likens, S.E. Lindberg, R.A. 

Linthurst, J. Messer, and D.S. Nichols. 1989. A Screening Procedure to Evaluate Air 

Pollution Effects on Class I Wilderness Areas. General Technical Report RM-168. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiement Station, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 36 pp. 

Frison, G.C. 1991. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. 2nd edition. Academic Press, New 

York. 

. 1993. The Wardell Buffalo Trap 48SU301: Communal Procurement in the Upper 

Green River Basin, Wyoming. Anthropological Papers of the Museum of Anthropology 

No. 48. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 

Gee, G.W., A. Bauer, and R.S. Decker. 1978. Physical Analyses of Overburden Material and Mine 

Land Soils. In F.W. Schaller and P. Sutton (eds), Reclamation of Drastically Disturbed 

Lands. American Society of Agronomy. Madison, Wisconsin. 742 pp. 

Grande, L. 1984. Paleontology of the Green River Formation, With a Review of the Fish Fauna. 

Second Edition. Geological Survey of Wyoming, Bulletin 63. 333 pp. 
7-10 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Greater Yellowstone Winter Wildlife Working Group. 1999. Effects of Winter Recreation On 

Wildlife on the Greater Yellowstone Area: A literature review and assessment. 

Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. 161 pp. + append. 

Guenzel, R.J. 1987. Rattlesnake Antelope. Pages 146-183 In District 7, 1987 Annual Big Game 

Herd Unit Reports. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne. 

Gusey, W.F. 1986. Terrestrial Wildlife and Petroleum Industry: Interactions and Relationships. 

Draft report. Shell Oil Company, Houston, Texas. 

Hallsten, G.P., Q.D Skinner, and A.A. Beetle. 1987. Grasses of Wyoming. Research 

Journal 202, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Wyoming. September 1987. 

431 pp. 

Harris, R.E. 1996. Industrial Minerals and Construction Materials Map of Wyoming. Wyoming 

State Geological Survey Map Series 47. 

. 1997. Radioactive Mineral Occurrences in Sublette County, Wyoming. Wyoming 

State Geological Survey Radioactive Mineral Report RM-97-01. 23 pp. 

Hausel, W.D. 1997. Copper, Lead, Zinc, Molybdenum, and Associated Metal Deposits of 

Wyoming. Wyoming State Geological Survey Bulletin 70. 

Holloran, M. and S.H. Anderson. 2003. Potential Impacts of Natural Gas Field Development on 

Sage-Grouse Behavior, Preliminary Progress Report, December 3, 2003. Wyoming 

Cooperative Research Unit, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. 7 pp. 

Holloran, M.J. 1999. Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Seasonal Habitat Use Near 

Casper, Wyoming. M.S., Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of 

Wyoming. 

HydroGeo, Inc. 2004. Groundwater Flow Model and Hydrologic Impact Assessment, Jonah 

Infill Project EIS. Prepared for TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming, by 

HydroGeo, Inc., Crested Butte, Colorado. 17 pp. 

Ingelfinger, F. 2001. The effects of natural gas development on sagebrush-steppe passerines in 

Sublette County, Wyoming. M.S. thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie. 110 pp. 

Intermountain Ecosystems LC. 1996. McMurry Oil Company Jonah Natural Gas Field EIS, 

Special Plant Inventory. Prepared for McMurry Oil Company, Casper, Wyoming, by 

Intermountain Ecosystems LC., Springfield, Utah. 5 pp. 

Jones, R.W. 1991. Coal Map of Wyoming. Wyoming Geological Survey. Map Series 34. 

Keinath, D., B. Heidel, and G.P. Beauvais. 2003. Wyoming Plant and Animal Species of 

Concern, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Species of Concern Plant Abstracts 

(2003). Prepared by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database - University of Wyoming, 

Laramie, Wyoming <http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/wyndd>. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 7-11 

Kohler, T., Hays, H.G., and K.W. Thompson. 2003. Class III Cultural Resources Inventory and 

Subsurface Investigations for Paulsson Geophysical Services 3-D Seismic Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming. Prepared for Paulsson Geophysical Services, Inc., Denver. 

SWCA Environmental Consultants, Westminster, Colorado. 

Lindzey, F. 2002. Energy and Conservation: Does Big Oil Mix With Big Game? Opening 

Remarks. Transactions, North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 

27:311-312. 

Lummis, C.M., S. Garland, and G. Shaffer. 2000. Annual Report of the Treasurer of the 

State of Wyoming For the Period July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000. Prepared by 

Cynthia M. Lummis, State Treasurer; Sharon Garland, Deputy State Treasurer; and 

Glenn Shaffer, Chief Investment Officer. 

. 2001. Annual Report of the Treasurer of the State of Wyoming For the Period 

July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001. Prepared by Cynthia M. Lummis, State 

Treasurer; Sharon Garland, Deputy State Treasurer; and Glenn Shaffer, Chief 

Investment Officer. 

. 2002. Annual Report of the Treasurer of the State of Wyoming For the Period 

July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002. Prepared by Cynthia M. Lummis, State 

Treasurer; Sharon Garland, Deputy State Treasurer; and Glenn Shaffer, Chief 

Investment Officer. 

. 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. 

Lyon, A.G. 2000. The Potential Effects of Natural Gas Development on Sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) Near Pinedale, Wyoming. M.S. Department of Zoology 

and Physiology, University of Wyoming, May 2000. 

Lyon, A.G., and S.H Anderson. 2003. Potential Gas Development Impacts on Sage-grouse Nest 

Initiation and Movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 486-491. 

Malm, W.C. 2000. Spatial and Seasonal Patterns and Temporal Variability of Haze and Its 

Constituents in the United States, Report III, Cooperative Institute for Research in the 

Atmosphere, Colorado State University, ISSN 0737-5352-47. 

Martin, J.W., and B.A. Carlson. 1998. Sage sparrow. The birds of North America 326:1-19. 

Mast, T. 2004. Labor shortages vary across state. Casper Star-Tribune. November 7, 

2004. 

McKern, S.T., and B. Current. 2002. Archaeological Investigation of the McKeva Ryka Site 

(Site 48SU2094): A Multi-occupational Waystation on Sand Draw. Prepared for 

McMurry Oil Company by Current Archaeological Research, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 
7-12 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

. 2003. Archaeological Investigation of Jonah's House Site, Site 48SU2324: A 

Multi-occupational Waystation on Sand Draw. Prepared for McMurry Oil Company by 

Current Archaeological Research, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

. 2004. Archaeological Investigation of the J. David Love Site (48SU4479): Another 

Multi-occupational Waystation on Sand Draw. Prepared for McMurry Oil Company by 

Current Archaeological Research, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

McKern, S.T., and L.L. Harrell. 2004. Archaic Way Stations: A Prelude of Things to Come? 

Photocopy. 

McNees, L.M. 1992. Implications of the Current Investigations for the Culture Historic 

Chronology of Southwest Wyoming. In Data Recovery Investigations at the Black Butte 

and Leucite Hills Mine Permit Areas, Sweetwater County, Wyoming, by L.M. McNees, 

T.P. Reust, R. Weathermon, C. Smith, R. Anduze, B. McClelland, W. Harding, K. Kibler, 

F. Oglesby, and C. Webb, pp. 30-1 to 30-46. Prepared for the Black Butte Coal Company, 

Point of Rocks, Wyoming. Mariah Associates, Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 

. 1998. Cultural Resource Overview of the Continental Divide/Wamsutter II 

Environmental Impact Statement Project Area. Prepared for the Bureau of Land 

Management, Great Divide and Green River Resource Areas, Rawlins and Rock Springs. 

TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming.. 

McNees, L.M., T.P. Reust, R. Weathermon, C. Smith, R. Anduze, B. McClelland, W. Harding, 

K. Kibler, F. Oglesby, and C. Webb. 1992. Data Recovery Investigations at the Black 

Butte and Leucite Hills Mine Permit Areas, Sweetwater County, Wyoming. Prepared for 

the Black Butte Coal Company, Point of Rocks, Wyoming. Mariah Associates, Inc., 

Laramie, Wyoming. 

McMurry Oil Company. 2003. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Jonah Field. Prepared 

for McMurry Oil Company, an affiliate of EnCana Oil & Gas (U.S.A.), Inc., Denver, 

Colorado, by Lesair Environmental, Inc., Littleton, Colorado. 7 pp. + append. 

Metcalf, M.D. 1987. Contributions to the Prehistoric Chronology of the Wyoming Basin. In 

Perspectives on Archaeological Resources Management in the "Great Plains," edited by 

A.J. Osborn and R.C. Hassler, pp. 233-261. I & O Publishing Company, Omaha, 

Nebraska. 

Miner, T.L. 2001. Phase II, Cultural Resource Inventory of the BP Amoco Production Company, 

Sections 12 and 13, T29N, R108W, Sublette County, Wyoming. Prepared for BP Amoco 

Production Company and Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office. Current 

Archaeological Research, Inc., Rock Springs. 

Munn, L.C., and C.S. Arneson. 1999a. Draft 1:100,000 Scale Digital Soils Map of Sublette 

County: University of Wyoming Agricultural Experimental Station. <http://www.sdv. 

uwyo.edu/100k/ soil100.html>. 

. 1999b. Draft 1:100,000 Scale Digital Soils Map of Sweetwater County: University 

of Wyoming Agricultural Experimental Station. <http://www.sdv.uwyo.edu/100k/ 

soil100.html>. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 7-13 

National Agriculture Statistical Service. 1999. 1997 Census of Agriculture Volume 1: 

Part 50, Chapter 2, Wyoming County-Level Data. Table 1: County Summary 

Highlights. AC97-A-51. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture 

Statistical Service, Washington, D.C. March 1999. 

National Center for Education Statistics. 2003. Common Core of Data, America's Public 

Schools. Data obtained from "Build a Table" <http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat/ 

index.asp>. Accessed July 3, 2003. 

National Park Service. 2001. Guidance on Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition Analysis Thresholds. 

National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Park Service Air 

Resources Division. <http://www.aqd.nps.gov/ard/flagfree/2001>, Data accessed July 

2003. 

. 2004. Guidance on Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition Analysis Thresholds. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service. ParkNet, NatureNet: Nature and 

Science. <http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/Permits/flag/NSDATGuidance.htm>. Accessed 

July 2004. 6 pp. 

National Petroleum Council. 2003. Balancing Natural Gas Policy - Fueling the Demands of a 

Growing Economy. Volume 1. Summary of Findings and Recommendations. A report 

of the National Petroleum Council. Prepared for the Secretary of Energy, Washington 

D.C. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2003. Soil Mapping Results, Unpublished, for T29N, 

R108W, Sections 32 and 36, Jonah Infill Area, Sublette County, Wyoming, by Ron 

Reckner, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Pinedale, Wyoming. 

Nelson, M.A., and R. Richard. 2004. Archaeological Excavations at Site 48SU3835, Sublette 

County, Wyoming. Prepared for BP America Production Company, Wamsutter, 

Wyoming. TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 

Nicholoff, S.H. (compiler). 2003. Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan, Version 2.0. Wyoming 

Partners in Flight. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, Wyoming. 

Noss, R.F., and B. Csuti. 1994. Habitat Fragmentation. Pages 237-264. In G.K. Meffe and C.R. 

Carroll, eds. Principles of Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, 

Massachussetts. 

Office of Management and Budget. 1987. 1987 Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 

Office of Management and Budget. Washington, D.C. 

Patterson, R.L. 1952. The Sage Grouse in Wyoming. Sage Books, Inc., Denver, Colorado. 

Peterson, A. 1986. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Bald Eagle (Breeding Season). U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(10.126). 25 pp. 

Pinedale Online. 2002. <http://pinedaleonline.com>. Designed and maintained by Wind 

River Web Services and Office Outlet in Pinedale, Wyoming. Accessed January 2, 

2003. 
7-14 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Plastino, A.T. 1999. McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 5-32 Well, Access, and Pipeline 

Class III Cultural Resource Inventory (99-CAR-41). Prepared for McMurry Oil 

Company, Casper, Wyoming. Current Archaeological Research, Rock Springs. 

Plastino, A.T., and J. Randolph. 2000. McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 3-32 Well, 

Access Road and Pipeline, Monitor of Construction (99-CAR-175). Prepared for 

McMurry Oil Company, Casper, Wyoming. Current Archaeological Research, Rock 

Springs. 

Reeve, A.F. 1984. Environmental Influence on Male Pronghorn Home Range And Pronghorn 

Behavior. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wyoming, Laramie. 172 pp. 

Rock Springs Chamber of Commerce. 2004. <http://www.rockspringswyoming.net/>. 

Accessed February 24, 2004. 

Royster, W. 2004. Growth strains social services. Casper Star-Tribune. November 7, 

2004. 

Sawyer, H., F. Lindzey, D. McWhiter, and K. Andrews. 2001. Potential Effects of Oil and Gas 

Development on Mule Deer and Pronghorn Populations in Western Wyoming. 

Transactions of the 67th North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference. 

18 pp. 

Scheffe, R. D. 1988. VOC/NOx Point Source Screening Tables. Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. August 1988. 

Schlumberger Oil Field Services Companies. 2003. Scoping Comment Letter. Letter to 

Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming from James 

Stewart, General Manager, U.S. Land Western Region, Schlumberger Oil Field 

Services Company, Greenwood Village, Colorado. April 25, 2003. 4 pp. 

Schroeder, M.A., J.R. Young, and C.E. Braun. 1999. Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). 

The Birds of North America 425: 1-28. 

Sheets, R.G., R.L. Linder, and R.B. Dahlgren. 1972. Food Habits of Two Litters of Black-footed 

Ferrets in South Dakota. American Midland Naturalist 87:249-251. 

Sines, T. and S. Roufs. 2001. McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 1-28 Well Pad and 

Access Road Monitor of Construction Preliminary Report (00-CAR-023). Prepared for 

McMurry Oil Company, Denver. Current Archaeological Research, Rock Springs. 

Slater, S.J. 2003. Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Use of Different-aged Burns and 

the Effects of Coyote Control in Southwestern Wyoming. M.S., Department of Zoology 

and Physiology, University of Wyoming. 

Smith, C.S. 2003. Hunter-Gatherer Mobility, Storage, and Houses in a Marginal Environment: 

An Example from the Mid-Holocene of Wyoming. Journal of Anthropological Research. 

Snow, C. 1973. Habitat Management Series for Endangered Species. Report No. 1: American 

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) and Arctic Peregrine Falcon (F. p. tundris). 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 7-15 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Technical Note No. 167. 

35 pp. 

Soil Conservation Service. 1978. Soil Reconstruction Material for Drastically Disturbed Areas. 

National Soil Handbook. Notice 24. Washington, D.C. 

Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C. Spurrier. 1997. 

Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, the 

U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural 

Heritage Program. 

Stahlmaster, M.V. 1987. The Bald Eagle. Universe Books, New York, New York. 227 pp. 

State of Wyoming. 1990. 1990 Wyoming State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. 

Department of Commerce, State Parks and Historical Sites. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Steenhof, K. 1978. Management of Wintering Bald Eagles. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

FWS/OBS-78/79. 59 pp. 

Stubbendieck, J., S.L. Hatch, and C.H. Butterfield. 1997. North American Range Plants. Fifth 

edition. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska. 501 pp. 

Sublette County Board of Commissioners and Sublette County Planning Commission. 2003. 

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan: County Vision, Goals and Policies. 64 pp. 

Sublette County Sheriff's Department. 2002. <http://www.sublette.com/government/ 

sheriff>. Accessed January 2, 2003. 

Sublette.Com. 2001. <http://www.sublette.com>. Designed and maintained by Wind River 

Web Services and Office Outlet in Pinedale, Wyoming. Accessed January 2, 2003. 

Swenson, J.E., K.L. Alt, and R.L. Eng. 1986. The Ecology of the Bald Eagle in the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem. Journal of Wildlife Management 42:506-513. 

Tax Reform 2000 Committee. 1999. Building Wyoming's Tax Structure for the 21st 

Century, Report of the State of Wyoming Tax Reform 2000 Committee, June 1999. 

Presented to Honorable Jim Geringer, Governor, State of Wyoming; Honorable Jim 

Twiford, President, Wyoming State Senate; and Honorable Eli D. Bebout, Speaker 

of the House, Wyoming House of Representatives. 

Taylor, D.T., and S. Lieske. 2002. Population Change in Wyoming, 1990-2000. Wyoming 

Open Spaces Research Group. B-1121, April 2002. 

Thompson, K.W. and J.V. Pastor. 1995. People of the Sage: 10,000 Years of Occupation in 

Southwest Wyoming. Cultural Resources Management Report No. 67. Archaeological 

Services-Western Wyoming College, Rock Springs. 

Thuman, A., and R.K. Miller. 1996. Fundamentals of Noise Control Engineering. Prentice-Hall, 

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 287 pp. 
7-16 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Tipler, P.A. 1991. Physics for Scientists and Engineers. Third Edition. P.A. Tipler. 1,167 pp. + 

append. 

TRC Environmental Corporation. 2004. Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document for the 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for Bureau of 

Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, and the Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project Operators. Prepared by TRC Environmental Corporation. 

TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 1999. 1997 and 1998 Wildlife Studies Jonah Field II Natural Gas 

Development Project. Prepared for U.S. Bureau of Land Management Pinedale Field 

Office, Pinedale, Wyoming, and Rock Springs Field Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming, by 

TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 32 pp. + append. 

. 2001a. 1999-2000 Wildlife Studies. Jonah Field II Natural Gas Project. Prepared 

for U.S. Bureau of Land Management Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale Wyoming, and 

Rock Springs Field Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming by TRC Mariah Associates Inc., 

Laramie, Wyoming. 47 pp. + append. 

. 2001b. 2001 Wildlife Studies, Jonah Field II Natural Gas Development Project. 

Prepared for U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office and Rock Springs 

Field Office and Jonah Field II Operators. 53 pp. + append. 

. 2001c (revised 2004). Preliminary Working Draft Historic Context/Discovery 

Plan/Cultural Resource Management Plan for the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah Field II, 

Sublette County, Wyoming. Prepared for Pinedale Anticline and Jonah Field II Operators 

and Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming, by TRC 

Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 

. 2001d. Noise Monitoring and Noise Curve Data from the Bird Canyon Sage Grouse 

Lek near the Bird Canyon Compressor Station, 2001. Letter report prepared for Jonah 

Gas Gathering, Pinedale, WY, Wyoming Game and Fish Department Pinedale and Green 

River Offices, and Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office and Rock Springs 

Field Office. 5 pp. + attachments and tables. 

. 2002. 2002 Wildlife Studies, Jonah Field II Natural Gas Development Project. 

Prepared for U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office and Rock Springs 

Field Office and Jonah Field II Operators. 54 pp. + append. 

. 2003a. Noise Monitoring at Greater Sage-Grouse Leks Near the Bird Canyon, 

Luman, Falcon, and Paradise Compressor Stations, 2001 and 2003. Prepare for U.S. 

Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs Field Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming, and 

Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming, and Duke Energy Field Services/Jonah Gas 

Gathering, Greeley, Colorado, by TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 

21 pp. + appends. 

. 2003b. Final Socioeconomic Analysis Protocol for the Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for Bureau of Land 

Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Bureau of Land 

Management Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming, and Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project Operators by TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 17 pp. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 7-17 

. 2003c. 2002 Wildlife Studies, Pinedale Anticline Project. Prepared for U.S. Bureau 

of Land Management Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming, and Rock Springs Field 

Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming, by TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 

83 pp. + append. 

. 2004a. 2003 Wildlife Studies, Jonah Field II Natural Gas Development Project. 

Prepared for U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, 

Wyoming, Rock Springs Field Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming, and Jonah II Area 

Operators, by TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 

. 2004b. 2003 Wildlife Studies, Pinedale Anticline Project. Prepared for U.S. Bureau 

of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming and Pinedale Anticline 

Operators, by TRC Mariah Associates, Laramie, Wyoming. 

University of Wyoming, Agricultural Economics Department. 1995. Southwest Wyoming 

Bureau of Land Management Area (Including Wyoming Counties of: Carbon, Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, and Uinta): Economic Growth, Economic Diversity, Valuation, 

Fiscal Revenue, and Average Daily Membership. Prepared for Bureau of Land 

Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

. 1997. Southwest Wyoming Resource Evaluation Socio/Economic Evaluation 

(SWREE), Final Report, Parts I and II. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management, 

Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, by the University of Wyoming, 

College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, Agricultural Economics 

Department. 

. 2003. Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan: Economic Analysis. 

Summary of an analysis of the regional economic effects on Southwest Wyoming 

associated with the resource use alternatives for the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated 

Activity Plan and follow-up to the Southwest Wyoming Resource Evaluation, 

Socio/Economic Evaluation (1997). Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, 

Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, by the University of Wyoming, 

College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, Agricultural Economics 

Department. <http://agecon.uwyo.edu/econdev/PubStorage/JMHCAP.pdf> 

Accessed October 21, 2003. 

. 2004. Summary of an analysis of the regional economic effects on Southwest 

Wyoming associated with the resource use alternatives for the Pinedale Resource 

Management Plan and follow-up to the Southwest Wyoming Resource Evaluation, 

Socio/Economic Evaluation. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office; BLM 

Pinedale Field Office; and State of Wyoming, Wyoming Business Council, by the 

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

Agricultural Economics Department. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. 

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp. 

+ append. 
7-18 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

U.S. Census Bureau. 1981. U.S. Census Bureau 1980 Census of Population and Housing. 

Table 080A: Median Household Income in 1979. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, 

D.C. 

. 1990. U.S. Census Bureau 1990 Census of Population and Housing. Table 

080A: Median Household Income in 1989. www.factfinder.gov. Accessed June 20, 

2003. 

. 2000a. State and County QuickFacts. www.census.gov. Last Revised: Friday, 

24-Sep-2002 11:19:39 EDT. Accessed December 26, 2002. 

. 2000b. U.S. Census Bureau 1990 Census of Population and Housing 

<http://factfinder.census.gov>. Accessed December 26, 2002. 

. 2000c. American Fact Finder, Census 2000 Quick Tables. DP-3: Profile of 

Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000. <http://factfinder.census.gov>. Accessed 

January 2, 2003. 

. 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>. Accessed April 24, 2003. 

. 2000e. American Fact Finder, Census 2000 Detailed Tables. P-8: Sex by Age. 

<http://factfinder.census.gov>. Accessed June 18, 2003. 

. 2000f. American Fact Finder, Census 2000 Detailed Tables. P-41. Age By 

Types Of Disability For The Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population 5 Years And 

Over With Disabilities. <http://factfinder.census.gov>. Accessed June 19, 2003. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 1989. A Screening Procedure to Evaluate 

Air Pollution Effects on Class I Wilderness Areas. General Technical Report RM168. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 

Fort Collins, Colorado. 36 pp. 

. 2000. Screening Methodology for Calculating ANC Change to High Elevation 

Lakes, User's Guide. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Region. January 2000. 

. 2003. Unpublished lake water chemistry data provided by Terry Svalberg, 

USDA Forest Service, Fall 2003. 

U.S. Department of Energy. 1998. Comprehensive National Energy Strategy: National Energy 

Policy Plan pursuant to Section 801 of the Department of Energy Organizational Act. 

Viii + 60 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2004. Environmental Quality Programs Part 516: National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Chapter 11: Managing the NEPA Process--Bureau of 

Land Management. Effective Date 5/27/04. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Washington, D.C. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 7-19 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Final Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered 

Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Denver, Colorado. 

. 1989. Black-footed Ferret Survey Guidelines for Compliance with the Endangered 

Species Act. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado and Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. April 1989. 10 pp.+ append. 

. 1992. Interim Survey Requirements for Spiranthes diluvialis. November 23, 1992 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Wyoming Field Office, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming. 

. 1997. National Wetlands Inventory – A System for Mapping Riparian Areas in the 

Western United States. Washington, D.C. 

. 2002. Mountain Plover Survey Guidelines. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

March 2002. 7 pp. 

. 2003. Memorandum regarding scoping comments for the Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project from Jodi L. Bush, Acting Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Wyoming Field Office, Cheyenne, to Priscilla Mecham, Field Manager, Bureau of Land 

Management, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, dated May 9, 2003. ES-6141/W.02/ 

WY7064. 

. 2004. Letter to Interested Party from Brian T. Kelly, Field Supervisor, Wyoming 

Field Office. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming. ES-61411/BFF/wY7746. 3 pp. + attach. 

Vlcek, D.T. 1997. Jonah/Pinedale Anticline Gas Field Research Design-An Archaic Laboratory. 

Draft Manuscript. Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale. 

Wakkinen, W.L. 1990. Nest Site Characteristics and Spring-Summer Movements of Migratory 

Sage Grouse in Southeastern Idaho. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. 

Welder, G.E. 1968. Groundwater Reconnaissance of the Green River Basin, Southeastern 

Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations. Atlas HA-290. 5 pp.+ 

2 sheets. 

Weller, C., J. Thompson, P. Morton, and G. Aplet. 2002. Fragmenting Our Lands: The 

Ecological Footprint from Oil and Gas Development. A Spatial Analysis of a Wyoming 

Gas Field. The Wilderness Society. 24 pp. 

Western EcoSystems Technology Inc. 2003. An Evaluation of the 1988 BLM Pinedale Resource 

Management Plan, 2000 BLM Pinedale Anticline Final EIS and Recommendations for 

the Current Revision of the Pinedale Resource Management Plan, January 22, 2003. 

Prepared for Peter Aengst, The Wilderness Society, Bozeman, Montana, Kelly Matheson, 

The Wyoming Outdoor Council, Lander, Wyoming, and Scot Groene, The Greater 

Yellowstone Coalition, Jackson, Wyoming, by Western EsoSystems Technology Inc., 

Cheyenne, Wyoming. 57 pp. 
7-20 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Western Regional Climate Center. 2004. Climate and Weather Information, Kemmerer, 

Wyoming. Online, Western Regional Climate Center. <http://www.wrcc.dir.edu>. 

Wetlands Training Institute, Inc. 1995. Field Guide for Wetland Delineation. 1987 Corps of 

Engineers Manual. Poolesville, Maryland. WTI 95-3. 143 pp. 

Wheeler, C.W., G.S. Firebaugh, W.L. Shields, and E.K. Wade. 1986. 5500 Years on the Great 

Plains-Great Basin Frontier: An Excavation of Sites in Section 14. Western Cultural 

Resources Management, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Wilderness Society. 2002. Fragmenting Our Lands: The Ecological Footprint from Oil and Gas 

Development. 24 pp. 

Workman, J.P. 1986. Range Economics. McMillan Publishing, Inc. New York, New York. 

Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service. 2003. Wyoming Agricultural Statistics 2003. 

Issued cooperatively by the Wyoming Business Council; University of Wyoming, 

College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station, and Department of 

Agricultural and Applied Economics; and U.S. Department of Agriculture, National 

Agricultural Statistics Service. Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming. 

Wyoming Business Council. 2002a. Interactive Business Center. Salaries. 

<http://wyomingbusiness.org>. Accessed June 23, 2003. 

. 2002b. Interactive Business Center. Quality of Life Category: Crime. 

<http://wyomingbusiness.org>. Accessed June 23, 2003. 

. 2002c. Interactive Business Center. Quality of Life Category: Health Care. 

<http://wyomingbusiness.org>. Accessed June 23, 2003. 

. 2002d. Interactive Business Center. Quality of Life Category: Housing. 

<http://wyomingbusiness.org>. Accessed June 23, 2003. 

. 2002e. Wyoming Sales, Use, and Lodging Tax Report. 27th Edition. Prepared 

by Wyoming Department of Administration and Information, Economic Analysis 

Division, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Wyoming Community College Commission. 2003. Press Release. April 4, 2003. 

<http://commission.wcc.edu/WCCC/press.htm>. Accessed July 7, 2003. 

Wyoming Department of Administration and Information. 2001a. Historical Decennial 

Census Population for Wyoming Counties, Cities, and Towns. 

<http://eadiv.state.wy.us/demog_data/ cntycity_hist.htm> Accessed June 17, 2003. 

. 2001b. Median Household Income By County: 1969, 1979, 1989 

<http://eadiv.state.wy.us/demog_data/CNTY_INCOME70_90.htm>. Accessed June 17, 

2003. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 7-21 

. 2002a. Equality State Almanac 2000, 8th Edition. Prepared by Economic 

Analysis Division, Department of Administration and Information, State of 

Wyoming, Cheyenne, Wyoming. May 2002. 

. 2002b. Wyoming Population Estimates and Forecasts for Counties, Cities, and 

Towns: 1991 to 2010. Prepared by Wyoming Department of Administration and 

Information, Division of Economic Analysis, October 1, 2002. 

<http://eadiv.state.wy.us/ pop/wyc&sc10.htm>. Accessed December 30, 2002. 

. 2003a. Wyoming and County Population Estimates and Components of Changes: 

2000 to 2002. <http://eadiv.state.wy.us/pop/CO-02EST.htm>. Accessed June 17, 2003. 

. 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. 

Wyoming Department of Education Assessment and Accountability Office. 2003. WyCAS 

Test Results and Released Items. Wyoming Department of Education Assessment 

and Accountability Office, Hathaway Building, 2nd Floor, 2300 Capitol Avenue 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002-0050. <http://www.asme.com/wycas/TestResults/ 

TestResults.htm>. Accessed September 8, 2003. 

Wyoming Department of Employment, Research, and Planning. 1999. Identifying 

Wyoming's Oil & Gas Dependent Counties. Wyoming Department of Employment, 

Research & Planning, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Prepared by David Bullard, Economist. 

Last modified on January 9, 2003 by Valerie A. Davis. <http://doe.state.wy.us/ 

lmi/1099/a3.htm>. Accessed April 23, 2003. 

. 2002a. 1979 Wyoming Benchmark Labor Force Estimates. Wyoming 

Department of Employment, Research & Planning. <http://doe.state.wy.us/ 

lmi/laus/79bmk.htm>. Accessed June 20, 2003. 

. 2002b. 1989 Wyoming Benchmark Labor Force Estimates. Wyoming 

Department of Employment, Research & Planning. <http://doe.state.wy.us/ 

lmi/laus/89bmk.htm>. Accessed June 20, 2003. 

. 2002c. 2002 Wyoming Benchmark Labor Force Estimates. Wyoming 

Department of Employment, Research & Planning. <http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/ 

laus/02bmk.htm>. Accessed June 20, 2003. 

. 2003. Tables 8, 83, 86, and 89. In ES-202 Report (Second Run date: September 

2003). Preliminary Wyoming Statewide Employing Units, Employment, and Wages by 

NAICS Sector, First Quarter 2003. Prepared by Nancy Brennan, 09/09/2003. 

<http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/03Q1_202/toc.htm>. Accessed February 25, 2004. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 1990. Water Quality Rules and Regulations. 

Chapter I. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division. 

87 pp. 
7-22 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

. 1993. Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations, including revisions through 

1993. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

. 2001. Oil and Gas Production Facilities Chapter 6, Section 2 Permitting Guidance, 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality-Air Quality Division. June 1997 with 

revisions through August 2001. 

. 2003. Section 303(2) Data Files. <http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/downloads/events/2­

2227-doc.pdf>. Accessed December 2003. 

. 2004. Letter to Prill Mecham, Pinedale Field Office Manager, U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management, from John Corra, Director, Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality. Dated October 14, 2004. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division. 2003. Wyoming’s Long 

Term Strategy for Visibility Protection 2003 Review Report – Appendix E, Visibility 

Monitoring Data Assessment. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Air 

Quality Division. May 29, 2003. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division. 1981. Guideline No. 1, 

Topsoil and Overburden. J.K.W. and D.F./January 1981. 34 pp. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division. 1993. Water Quality 

Rules and Regulations. Chapter I. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, 

Water Quality Division. 87 pp. 

. 2001. Water Quality Division. Water Quality Division Surface Water Standards. 

<http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/surface standards>. 

. 2004. Wyoming's 2004 305(b) State Water Quality Assessment Report and 2004 

303(d) List of Waters Requiring TMDLs. June 2004. Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division. <http://deq.state.wy.us/wdeq/watershed/ 

index.asp>. Accessed December 21, 2004. 

Wyoming Department of Revenue. 1998. State of Wyoming Department of Revenue 1998 

Annual Report. Wyoming Department of Revenue, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 131 pp. 

. 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. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 7-23 

. 2003. Sales & Use Tax, New Tax Rates Effective 4/1/03. Last Updated On: 

3/26/2003 2:35:23 PM. <http://revenue.state.wy.us/>. Accessed July 10, 2003. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Commission. 1998. Mitigation Policy. Pgs. E3-E13 In: Policy 

Manual. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 1996. Wyoming Wildlife Observation System Records. 

Biological Services, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

. 1999. Atlas of Birds, Mammals, Reptiles, and Amphibians in Wyoming. Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department, Wildlife Division. 190 pp. + append. 

. 2001. Green River Region, Annual Big Game Herd Unit Reports, 2001. Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 479 pp. 

. 2002. Annual Report of Game Harvest, 2002. Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department, Biological Services Department. 2 CDs. 

. 2003a. 2002 Annual Report of Big and Trophy Game Harvest. Data Tables and 

Summaries on CD-ROM. 

. 2003b. 2002 Annual Report of Small and Upland Game Harvest. Data Tables 

and Summaries on CD-ROM. 

. 2003c. 2003 Annual Report. Pages 56-58, 60, 67, and 73. Facsimile from Walt 

Gasson, WGFD, Cheyenne, Wyoming to C. Keefe, TRC Mariah Associates Inc., 

Laramie, Wyoming, January 2004. 

. 2003d. Hunter/Angler/Wildlife Watcher Expenditures, By Species, Per BLM FO 

Administrative Areas. Facsimile from Tom Christiansen, Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department, Green River, Wyoming to C. Keefe, TRC Mariah Associates Inc., 

Laramie, Wyoming, January 23, 2004. 

Wyoming Geographic Information Science Center. 2002. U.S. Census TIGER files, 199711, 

Wyoming Roads - TIGER: Spatial Data and Visualization Center, Laramie, Wyoming. 

<http://www.sdvc.uwyo.edu/clearinghouse/road/quad.html>. 

. 2003a. Surface and Bedrock Geology Files and Geologic Hazards Data. Spatial 

Data and Visualization Center, Laramie, Wyoming. Accessed October, 2003, 

<www.sdvc.uwyo.edu/clearinghouse>. 

. 2003b. Analysis, Wyoming Gap, 1996, Hydrography and Land Cover for Wyoming: 

Spatial Data and Visualization Center, Laramie, Wyoming. Accessed 

December 2003. <http://www.sdvc.uwyo.edu/24k/hydro100.html> and <http://www. 

sdvc.uwyo.edu/24k/landcov.html>. 

. 2003c. Watersheds: 5th and 6th Level Hydrologic Unit Boundaries for Wyoming. 

Wyoming Watershed Boundary Dataset Edition 1. Wyoming Geologic Information 

Science Center. University of Wyoming, Laramie. <http://www.wygisc.uwyo.edu/ 

clearinghouse/>. Accessed October 2003. 
7-24 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

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. 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. 2003. August, 2003 Data Compilation for the Proposed 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project. Unpublished report. WYNDD, University of Wyoming, 

Laramie, Wyoming. 

Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments. 2002. Annual Report for Fiscal Year 

Ending June 30, 2002. Office of State Lands and Investments, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

49 pp. 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. 2003. Multiple Data Files. <http:// 

wogcc.state.wy.us>. Accessed December 2003. 

. 2004. Multiple Data Files. <http://wogcc. state.wy.us>. Accessed March and 

October 2004. 

Wyoming State Land Use Commission. 1979. Wyoming State Land Use Plan. 180 pp. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 8-1 

CHAPTER 8 — GLOSSARY 

abandon: To cease producing oil or gas from a well when it becomes unprofitable. Usually, 

some of the casing is removed and salvaged, and one or more cement plugs placed in the borehole 

to prevent migration of fluids between formations. 

acre-foot or acre-feet (acre-ft): The volume of water that covers an area of one acre to a depth 

of one foot (43,560 cubic feet or 325,851 gallons). 

ad valorem: Levied according to assessed value. 

aeolian: The erosive action of the wind and deposits that are transported by the wind. 

affected environment: The resource values potentially affected by the Proposed Action and 

alternatives analyzed in a NEPA document. 

aggregate: Composed of a mixture of substances, separable by mechanical means. 

agrillic: Soils rich in clay. 

air quality: The properties and degree of purity of air to which people and natural and heritage 

resources are exposed (National Park Service website <http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/ 

AQBasics/glossary.htm>). 

algal: Of, pertaining to, or composed of algae. 

alkaline: Having the quality of a base (pH of 7.0 or greater). 

allotment: An area of land where one or more permittees graze their livestock. Generally 

consists of public land but may include parcels of private or state lands. The number of livestock 

and season of use are stipulated for each allotment. An allotment may consist of several pastures 

or be only one pasture. 

alluvium: Clay, silt, sand, and gravel or other rock material transported by flowing water and 

deposited as sorted or semi-sorted sediments. 

ambient air: The portion of the atmosphere, external to buildings, to which the public has 

general access (40 C.F.R. 50). 

ambient concentration: The mass of a pollutant in a given volume of air, typically measured as 

micrograms of pollutant per cubic meter of air. 

ambient standards: The absolute maximum level of a pollutant allowed to protect either public 

health (primary) or welfare (secondary). 

ambient: The environment as it exists at the point of measurement and against which changes or 

impacts are measured. 

American Petroleum Institute (API): API is the governing authority on oil industry standards 

and practices. “API Gravity” is a reference system for the density of crude oils and constituent 

hydrocarbons. 

ancillary facilities: Facilities often required in an oil and gas field other than the wells and 

pipelines, such as compressor stations. 
8-2 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

animal unit month (AUM): The amount of forage necessary to sustain one cow/calf pair for 1 

month. 

anticline: A geological formation described usually as a dome or inverted saucer. If covered by 

an impermeable layer of rock, the anticline is a potential oil or gas reservoir. 

Application for Permit to Drill (APD): The Department of Interior application permit form to 

authorize oil and gas drilling activities on federal land or mineral estate. 

aquifer: A water-bearing bed or layer of permeable rock, sand, or gravel capable of yielding 

water. 

aquitard: A bed of low permeability adjacent to an aquifer that may serve as a storage unit for 

ground water, although it does not readily yield water. 

archaeological: The scientific studies of past peoples and cultures by analysis of physical 

remains (artifacts). 

Ardisols: Soils formed in arid climates; they are often dry and have little organic accumulation 

in the upper layers. 

area of critical environmental concern (ACEC): An area on public lands designated for 

special management to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or 

scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes or to protect life 

and safety from natural hazards. 

background concentration: The existing levels of air pollutant concentration in a given region. 

In general, it includes natural and existing emission sources but not future emission sources. 

badland: Steep or very steep, commonly non-stony barren land dissected by many intermittent 

drainage channels. Badland is most common in semi-arid and arid regions where streams are 

entrenched in soft geologic material. Runoff potential is very high, and geologic erosion is active 

in such areas. 

bedding material: Any material, often sand, used to prevent rocks in the bottom of the reserve 

pit from puncturing the synthetic pit liner. 

berm: A raised area with vertical or sloping sides. 

biodiversity: The variety of plant and animal life on a given area. 

borehole: The circular hole made by drilling, extending from the surface to the gas resource to 

be recovered. 

calcareous: Containing calcium carbonate. 

Cambic: Soils composed of very fine sand, loamy fine sand, or finer materials. 

casing: Steel pipe placed in an oil or gas well to prevent the hole from collapsing. 

cement: Cement is used to “set” casing in the well bore and to seal off unproductive formations 

and apertures. 

collector roads: BLM roads that provide primary access to large blocks of land and connect 

with, or are extensions of, a public road system. 

colluvium: A general term applied to loose and incoherent deposits, usually at the foot of a slope 

or cliff and brought there chiefly by gravity. 

commercial reserves: Commercial reserves of oil and gas are restricted to volumes recoverable 

at an acceptable profitability. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 8-3 

commercial well: A well capable of producing profitably. 

completion: The activities and methods to prepare a well for production. Includes installation of 

equipment for production from an oil or gas well. 

condensate (gas condensate): Hydrocarbons (oil) contained in the natural gas stream, often 

removed by condensation. 

conditions of approval (COAs): A set of restrictions, or conditions, included in the approval of 

a federal permit, including NEPA documents. 

conglomerate: Rounded water-worn fragments of rock or pebbles cemented together by another 

mineral substance. 

conglomeratic: Sandstone's derivation from rounded water-worn fragments of rocks or pebbles. 

contrast: The effect of a notable difference in the form, line, color, or texture of the landscape 

features within the area being viewed. 

corridor: A narrow strip of land. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): An advisory council to the President established by 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It reviews federal programs for their effect on 

the environment, conducts environmental studies, and advises the President on environmental 

matters. 

Cretaceous era: The latest system of rocks or period of the Mesozoic era, between 136 and 65 

million years ago. 

criteria pollutants: Air pollutants for which the EPA has established state and national ambient 

air quality standards. These include particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). 

critical elements of the human environment: A list of resource concerns that must be 

addressed in every NEPA document. 

crucial range: Any particular seasonal range or habitat component that has been documented as 

the determining factor in a population’s ability to maintain itself at a certain level over the 

long-term. 

cubic feet per second (cfs): The rate of discharge representing a volume of 1 cubic foot of water 

passing a given point during 1 second. 

cubic foot: The volume of gas contained in one cubic foot of space at a standard pressure base of 

14.7 pounds per square inch and a standard temperature base of 60 °F. 

cultural resources: The physical remains of human activity (artifacts, ruins, burial mounds, 

petroglyphs, etc.) and the conceptual content or context (as a setting for legendary, historic, or 

prehistoric events, such as a sacred area of native peoples, etc.) of an area of prehistoric or 

historic occupation. 

culvert: A drain or conduit often under a road. 

cumulative impact: The impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of 

the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless 

of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 

impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taken place over a 

period of time (40 C.F.R. 1508.7). 

cuttings: The material removed from the borehole by the drill bit and lifted to the surface. 
8-4 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

decibel: A unit of measurement of noise intensity. The measurements are based on the energy of 

the sound waves and units are logarithmic. Changes of 5 decibels or more are normally 

discernible to the human ear. 

deciduous: Trees or shrubs that lose their leaves each year during a cold or dry season. 

deciview: The unit of measurement of haze developed to uniformly describe levels of monitored 

and modeled visibility impairment. 

delta: An alluvial deposit, usually triangular, at the mouth of a river. 

deltaic: Related to or like a delta. 

diffusion: A process by which substances are transferred from regions of higher concentrations 

to regions of lower concentrations (National Park Service website <http://www2.nature. 

nps.gov/air/AQBasics/glossary.htm>). 

directional drilling: The intentional deviation of a wellbore from vertical to reach subsurface 

areas off to one side from the surface drilling site. 

discharge: The volume of water flowing past a point per unit time, commonly expressed as 

cubic feet per second (cfs), gallons per minute (gpm), or million gallons per day (mgd). 

dispersion: The spreading out of pollutants. Generally used to show how much an air pollutant 

will spread from a particular point. 

displacement: As applied to wildlife, forced shifts in the patterns of wildlife use, either in 

location or timing of use. 

disposal well: A well into which produced water from other wells is injected into an 

underground formation for disposal. 

dissolved solids: The total amount of dissolved material, organic and inorganic, contained in 

water or wastes. 

diversity: The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and 

species. 

drainage: Natural channel through which water flows some time of the year. Natural and 

artificial means for effecting discharge of water as by a system of surface and subsurface 

passages. 

drill rig: The mast, draw works, and attendant surface equipment of a drilling unit. 

drilling fluid: Fluid used to lubricate and cool the drill bit, to assist in lifting cuttings from the 

borehole, and to control pressures in the borehole. 

drilling mud: The circulating fluid used to bring cuttings out of the well bore, to cool the drill 

bit, and to provide hole stability and pressure control. Drilling mud includes a number of 

additives to maintain the mud at desired viscosities and weights. Some additives that may be 

used are caustic, toxic, or acidic. 

ecosystem: An interacting system of organisms considered together with their environment--for 

example, marsh, watershed, and stream ecosystems. 

effluent: Mixture of oil, gas, water, and sand discharged from a well. 

emergent vegetation: Erect, rooted, herbaceous plants that project out of or emerge from the 

water. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 8-5 

emission factor: An empirically derived mathematical relationship between pollutant emission 

rate and some characteristic of the source such as volume, area, mass, or process output. 

emission: Air pollution discharge into the atmosphere, usually specified by mass per unit time. 

endangered species (animal): Any animal species in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. This definition excludes species of insects that the Secretary of 

the Interior determines to be pests and whose protection under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to man. 

endangered species (plant): Species of plants in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of their ranges. Existence may be endangered because of the destruction, 

drastic change, or severe curtailment of habitat or because of over exploitation, disease, 

predation, or even unknown reasons. Plant taxa from limited areas (e.g., the type localities only) 

or from restricted fragile habitats usually are considered endangered. 

Entisols: Recently derived soils that show little profile development; formed from river deposits, 

sand dunes, or recent glacial deposits. 

environment: The aggregate of physical, biological, economic, and social factors affecting 

organisms in an area. 

environmental impact statement (EIS): An analysis of alternative actions and their predictable 

environmental impacts, including physical, biological, economic, and social consequences and 

their interactions; short- and long-term impacts; and direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. 

Eocene: 1) The next to the oldest of the five major epochs of the Tertiary period in the Cenozoic 

era. 2) The series of strata deposited during that epoch. 

ephemeral drainage: A drainage area or a stream that has no base flow. Water flows for a short 

time each year but only in direct response to rainfall or snowmelt events. 

epicenter: The portion of the earth’s surface directly above the focus of an earthquake. 

erosion: The removal, detachment, and entrainment of earth materials by weathering, 

dissolution, abrasion, and corrosion, later to be transported by moving water, wind, gravity, or 

glaciers. 

evaporitic: Sediments that are deposited from aqueous solution as a result of extensive or total 

evaporation of the solvent. 

exploratory well: A well that is drilled to evaluate the gas or oil resources that may be present. 

fault: A fracture in bedrock along which there has been vertical and/or horizontal movement 

caused by differential forces in the earth’s crust. 

federal lands: All lands and interests in lands owned by the U.S., which are subject to the 

mineral leasing laws, including mineral resources or mineral estates reserved to the U.S. in the 

conveyance of a surface or non-mineral estate. 

feral: having reverted to the wild state; not domesticated; as in feral (or wild) horses. 

field: 1) A set of rocks containing hydrocarbons. 2) An oil and gas reservoir. 

flare: Process that burns and evacuates unused gases. 

floodplain: That portion of a river valley, adjacent to the channel, which is built of recently 

deposited sediments and is covered with water when the river overflows its banks at flood stages. 
8-6 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Fluvaquents: Entisols with aquic moisture regimes that occur on floodplains. Usually very 

deep, somewhat poorly drained soils that have grass-shrub cover. 

fluvial: Of or pertaining to rivers. 

forage: Vegetation of all forms available for animal consumption. 

forb: A broad-leafed flowering herb other than grass. 

formation: A rock/mineral deposit or structure covering an area with the same physical 

properties. 

fracing (fracturing): A method of stimulating well production by increasing the permeability of 

the producing formation. Under extremely high hydraulic pressure, the fracturing fluid (water, 

oil, dilute hydrochloric acid, or other fluid) is pumped into the formation that parts or fractures it. 

Proppants or propping agents such as sand or glass beads are pumped into the formation as part of 

the fracturing job. The proppants become wedged in the open fractures, leaving channels for oil 

or gas to flow into the well after the hydraulic fracture pressure is released. This process is often 

called a “frac job.” When high concentrations of acid are used, it may be called an “acid frac 

job.” 

frigid: Very cold in temperature. 

fugitive dust: Airborne particles emitted from any source other then through a controllable stack 

or vent. 

gathering pipelines: Pipelines within a field that transport gas or oil from the well to a central 

production facility or to the point of sale. 

Global Positioning System (GPS): Computer software that records and stores coordinates for 

positions on earth via satellite. 

ground water: Water contained in the pore spaces of consolidated and unconsolidated material. 

grus: An accumulation of angular coarse-grained fragments resulting from the granular 

disintegration of crystalline rocks (especially granite) generally in an arid or semiarid region. 

habitat: A specific set of physical conditions that surround a single species, a group of species, 

or a large community. In wildlife management, the major components of habitat are considered 

to be food, water, cover, and living space. 

habitat function: The arrangement of habitat features and capability of those features to sustain 

species, population, and diversity of wildlife over time. 

Haplaquepts: Fine-loamy soils. 

Haplargids: Simple clay like soils (Aridosols). Moderately deep with argillic horizons often 

having grass-shrub cover. 

Haplocalcids: Soils that have a lithic (usually limestone) contact within 50 cm of the soil 

surface. 

Haplocambids: Shallow, cambic soils. 

Haplosalids: Ardisols that are high in saline content (see playa). 

Haplostolls: Coarse, loamy mixed mollisols. Deep dark-colored soils with thick surface layers 

often having grass-shrub cover. 

Holocene: That period of time (epoch) since the last ice age; also the series of strata deposited 

during that epoch. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 8-7 

human environment: The factors that include but are not limited to biological, physical, social, 

economic, cultural, and aesthetic factors that interrelate to form the environment. 

hydraulic conductivity: The rate of water flow in gallons per day through a cross-section of 

1 square foot under a unit hydraulic gradient at the prevailing temperature of 60oF. 

hydrocarbon: A compound formed from carbon and hydrogen, for example oil and gas. 

hydrology: A science that deals with the properties, distribution, and circulation of surface and 

subsurface water. 

hydrophytic plants: Those species that either require or tolerate wet or saturated soils and are 

therefore indicative of these conditions. 

hydrostatic testing: Testing of the integrity of a newly placed but uncovered pipeline for leaks. 

The pipeline is filled with water and pressurized to operating pressures, and the pipeline is 

visually inspected. 

impacts: These include a) direct impacts, which are caused by the action and occur at the same 

time and place and b) indirect impacts, which are caused by the action and are later in time or 

farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect impacts may include 

growth-inducing impacts and other impacts related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, 

population density, or growth rate and related impacts on air and water and other natural systems, 

including ecosystems. Impacts include ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on 

the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, 

economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. Impacts may also include 

those resulting from actions which may have both beneficial and detrimental impacts, even if on 

balance the agency believes that the impact will be beneficial (40 C.F.R. 1508.8). 

impermeable: Not permitting the passage of a fluid. 

impoundment: The accumulation of any form of water in a reservoir or other storage area. 

increment: Incremental standards (prevention of significant deterioration [PSD]) are the 

maximum amounts of pollutants allowed above the baseline in regions of clean air. 

infiltration: The movement of water or some other liquid into the soil or rock through pores or 

other openings. 

infrastructure: The basic framework or underlying foundation of a community including road 

networks, electric and gas distribution, water and sanitation services, and facilities. 

injection well: A well that is used to inject water of gas in order to maintain pressure or to bring 

a field back under pressure. 

interdisciplinary team (IDT): A group of Federal and cooperating agencies selected to work 

within the NEPA process in scoping, analysis, and document preparation. The purpose of the 

team is to integrate its collective knowledge of the physical, biological, economic, and social 

sciences and the environmental design arts into the environmental analysis process. Interaction 

among team members often provides insight that otherwise would not be apparent. 

interim reclamation: Reclamation initiated on well pads, roads, and pipelines after drilling 

activity is completed and wells are in production. Interim reclamation is considered successful 

when reclamation performance objectives are met. 

intermittent stream: A stream or reach of a stream that is below the local water table for at least 

some part of the year and obtains its flow from both surface runoff and groundwater discharge. 
8-8 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

intertonguing: Irregular/overlapping boundaries among rock formations. 

irretrievable: A term that applies to the loss of production, harvest, or use of natural resources. 

For example, some or all of the timber production from an area is lost irretrievably while an area 

is serving as a winter sports site. The production lost is irretrievable, but the action is not 

irreversible. If the use changes, it is possible to resume timber production. 

irreversible: A term that describes the loss of future options. Applies primarily to the effects of 

use of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals or cultural resources, or to those factors, such as 

soil productivity, that are renewable only over long periods of time. 

lacustrine: Pertaining to, produced by, or formed in a lake or lakes. 

land use: The types of activities allowed (e.g., mining, agriculture, timber production, 

residential, industrial). 

landslide: A perceptible downhill sliding or falling of a mass of soil and rock lubricated by 

moisture or snow. 

leaching: To cause a liquid to percolate through something. 

lease: 1) A legal document that conveys to an operator the right to drill for oil and gas. 2) The 

tract of land on which a lease has been obtained, where producing wells and production 

equipment are located. 

lek: A traditional courtship display attended by male greater sage-grouse in or adjacent to 

sagebrush-dominated habitat. Leks are categorized as: 

Active - Any lek that has been attended by male greater sage-grouse during the strutting 

season. 

Inactive - Leks where it is known that there was no strutting activity through the course of 

a strutting season. 

Unknown - Leks that have not been documented either active or inactive during the 

course of a strutting season. 

Occupied - A lek that has been active during at least one strutting season within the last 

10 years. 

Unoccupied (formerly termed "historical lek") - There are two types of unoccupied 

leks: (1) Destroyed - a formerly active lek site and surrounding sagebrush habitat that has 

been destroyed and is no longer capable of supporting greater sage-grouse breeding 

activity. (2) Abandoned - a lek in otherwise suitable habitat that has not been active 

during a consecutive 10-year period. 

Undetermined - Any lek that has not been documented as being active in the last 10 years 

but that does not have sufficient documentation to be designated unoccupied. 

life-of-project (LOP): Begins with the first disturbance authorized under the ROD for this 

project and ends when all wells are plugged and abandoned and all surface disturbance (each 

disturbed site) meets the reclamation performance objectives. 

lithic scatter: A surface scatter of cultural artifacts and debris that consists entirely of lithic (i.e., 

stone) tools and chipped stone debris. This is a common prehistoric site type that is contrasted to 

a cultural material scatter (which contains other or additional artifact types such as pottery or 

bone artifacts), or to a camp (which contains habitation features, such as hearths, storage features, 

or occupation features), or to other site types that contain different artifacts or features. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 8-9 

lithology: The description of the physical character of a rock as determined by eye or with a lowpowered magnifier, based on color, structures, mineralogic components, and grain size. 

loam: A mixture of sand, silt, and clay containing between 7% and 27% clay, 28% to 50% silt 

and less than 50% sand. 

local roads: BLM roads that provide primary access to large blocks of land and connect with or 

are extensions of a public road system. 

log: A systematic recording of data, as from the driller’s log, mud log, electrical well log, or 

radioactivity log. Many different logs may be run to obtain various characteristics of downhole 

formations. 

long-term impacts: For the purpose of this NEPA analysis, long-term impacts last for the life of 

the project or beyond. 

migrate: To pass periodically from one region or climate to another. 

mineral rights: Reserved mineral rights are the retention of ownership of all or part of the 

mineral rights by a person or party conveying land to the United States. Conditions for exercising 

these rights have been defined in the Secretary’s Rules and Regulations to Govern Exercising of 

Mineral Rights Reserved in Conveyances to the United States attached to and made a part of 

deeds reserving mineral rights. 

mitigate: To lessen the severity. 

mitigation measures: Actions taken to reduce or minimize potential impacts to the environment. 

mitigation: Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 

minimizing impacts by limiting the degree of magnitude of the action and its implementation; 

rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; reducing 

or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of 

the action; and/or compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

environments. 

modeling: A mathematical or physical representation of an observable situation. In air pollution 

control, models afford the ability to predict pollutant distribution or dispersion from identified 

sources for specified weather conditions. 

Modified Mercalli (MM) Intensity Scale of 1931: A scale designed to describe the effects of an 

earthquake, at a given place, on natural features, on industrial installations, and on human beings. 

Mollisols: Soil order that has a thick (generally 10-inch), very dark brown to black surface 

horizon that is rich in organic matter (grassland soils common in prairie regions). 

monitor: To systematically and repeatedly watch, observe, or measure environmental conditions 

in order to track changes. 

mud: Mud is drilling fluid that consists mainly of a mixture of water, or oil distillate, and 

“heavy” minerals such as bentonite or barites. 

mud system: A system used to manage suspended mud in the well-drilling process. 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): The allowable concentrations of air 

pollutants in the air specified by the federal government. The air quality standards are divided 

into primary standards (based on the air quality criteria and allowing an adequate margin of safety 

and requisite to protect the public health) and secondary standards (based on the air quality 

criteria and allowing an adequate margin of safety and requisite to protect the public welfare from 

any unknown or expected adverse effects of air pollutants). 
8-10 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA): The federal law established in 1969, 

which went into effect on January 1, 1970, that 1) established a national policy for the 

environment, 2) requires federal agencies to become aware of the environmental ramifications of 

their proposed actions, 3) requires full disclosure to the public of proposed federal actions and a 

mechanism for pubic input into the federal decision-making process, and 4) requires federal 

agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement for every major action that would 

significantly affect the quality of the human environment. 

National Register of Historic Places: A list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects 

significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture. 

native species: Plants or animals that originated in the area in which they are found (i.e., they 

naturally occur in that area); with respect to a particular ecosystem, a species that, other than as a 

result of an introduction, historically occurred or currently occurs in that ecosystem. 

Natrargids: Soils with a clay accumulation horizon and alkali (sodium) accumulation. 

natural gas: Those hydrocarbons, other than oil and other than natural gas liquids separated 

from natural gas, that occur naturally in the gaseous phase in the reservoir and are produced and 

recovered at the wellhead in gaseous form. 

No Action Alternative: The management direction, activities, outputs, and effects that are likely 

to exist in the future if the current plan would continue unchanged. 

No Surface Occupancy (NSO): A stipulation in a lease that disallows any surface disturbance in 

the lease area at any time. Natural gas or oil from an NSO area, for instance, would have to be 

recovered by directional drilling. 

Notice of Intent (NOI): A notice published in the Federal Register to announce the intent to 

prepare an EIS. 

noxious weeds: Officially designated (State of Wyoming-designated, Sublette County-declared) 

undesirable or invading weedy species generally introduced into an area due to human activity. 

oil and gas field: A natural accumulation of oil and gas in the subsurface. Oil and gas may be 

present in two or more reservoirs at different depths. 

oil and gas lease: A federal oil and gas lease is a legal document that gives the lease holder the 

right to explore for and develop any oil and gas that may be present under the area designated in 

the lease while complying with any surface use conditions which may have been stipulated when 

the lease was issued. 

ozone (O3): A molecule containing three oxygen atoms produced by passage of an electrical 

spark through air or oxygen (O2). 

paleontology: The science that deals with the history and evolution of life on earth. 

particulate matter: A particle of soil or liquid matter (e.g., soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and 

mist). 

passerine: Passerines are the perching birds, and most are also songbirds. 

paraglacial: Refers to glacier-related processes and phenomena such as soil deposition and lake 

formation. 

perennial stream: A stream or reach of a stream that flows throughout the year. 

perforation: Holes punched in the casing of a well at the pay zone to be produced to allow gas 

or oil to enter the well. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 8-11 

permeability: The extent that a substance is open to passage or penetration, especially by fluids. 

permeable: The property or capacity of a porous rock, sediment, or soil to transmit a liquid. 

permittee (grazing): A person who has livestock grazing privileges on an allotment or 

allotments within the resource area. 

physiographic province: A region having a pattern of relief features or landforms that differs 

significantly from adjacent regions. 

physiographic: Pertaining to the genesis and evolution of landforms. 

playa: The shallow central basin of a desert plain in which water gathers and is evaporated. 

Pleistocene: Pertaining to the geologic epoch forming the earlier half of the Quaternary Period, 

characterized by the advent of modern humans. 

PM10: Airborne suspended particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less. 

PM2.5: Airborne suspended particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less. 

potentiometric surface: An imaginary surface that represents the static head of groundwater and 

is defined by the level to which water will rise. 

preferred alternative: The alternative identified in the EIS as the action favored by the agency. 

prevention of significant deterioration (PSD): A classification established to preserve, protect, 

and enhance the air quality in National Wilderness Preservation System areas in existence prior to 

August 1977 and other areas of national significance, while ensuring economic growth can occur 

in a manner consistent with the preservation of existing clean air resources. Specific emission 

limitations and other measures, by class, are detailed in the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1875 et 

seq.). 

produced water: Water brought to the surface through the borehole. 

production casing: Steel pipe installed in the borehole to isolate formations in the borehole and 

to eliminate communication among hydrocarbon-bearing zones and/or water aquifers and other 

mineral resources. 

production: Phase of commercial operation of an oil field. 

proppants: Proppants or propping agents are substances such as sand or glass beads that are 

pumped into the formation as part of the fracturing job. The proppants become wedged in the 

open fractures, leaving channels for oil to flow into the well after the hydraulic fracture pressure 

is released. This process is often called a “frac job.” When high concentrations of acid are used, 

it may be called an “acid frac job” (see also fracing/fracturing). 

PSD increments: The maximum allowable increase in pollutant concentrations permitted over 

baseline conditions as specified in the EPA Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

regulations (40 C.F.R. Part 52.21). The regulations apply only to areas currently attaining 

NAAQS/WAAQS. Most National Parks and Wilderness Areas are Class I areas, where almost no 

future pollution increase is permitted. Most other areas are Class II areas, where moderate 

increases in pollution levels are allowed. 

public land: Lands or interests in lands owned by the United States and in this case administered 

by the Secretary of Interior through the Bureau of Land Management, without regard to how the 

United States acquired ownership. 

quaternary: The latest period of time, from the present to 2 million years ago and represented 

by local accumulations of glacial and post-glacial deposits. 
8-12 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

range: Land producing native forage for animal consumption and lands that are revegetated 

naturally or artificially to provide forage cover that is managed like native vegetation, that are 

amenable to certain range management principles or practices. 

raptor: A group of carnivorous birds consisting of hawks, eagles, falcons, kites, vultures, and 

owls. 

recharge: Replenishment of the water supply in an aquifer through the outcrop or along fracture 

lines. 

reclamation: Rehabilitation of a disturbed area to make it acceptable for designated uses. This 

normally involves regrading, replacement of topsoil, revegetation, and other work necessary to 

restore it for use. 

Record of Decision (ROD): A decision document for an EIS or Supplemental EIS that publicly 

and officially discloses the responsible official’s decision regarding the actions proposed in the 

EIS and their implementation. 

reserve pit: An excavated pit that may be lined with plastic that holds drill cuttings and waste 

mud. 

reserves/recoverable reserves: Areas of mineral-bearing rock from which the mineral can be 

extracted profitably with existing technology and under present economic conditions. 

reservoir: The “pool” of oil or gas that is being tapped. 

residuum: Something remaining after removal of a part; a residue. 

resource roads: Spur roads that provide point access, as to a well site, and connect to local or 

collector roads. 

revegetation: The re-establishment and development of self-sustaining plant cover. On 

disturbed sites, human assistance will speed natural processes by seed bed preparation, reseeding, 

and mulching. 

rig: A collective term to describe the permanent equipment needed when drilling a well. 

right-of-way (ROW): The legal right for use, occupancy, or access across land or water areas 

for a specified purpose or purposes. 

riparian: Land areas which are directly influenced by water. They usually have visible 

vegetative or physical characteristics showing this water influence. Streamsides and lake borders 

are typical riparian areas. 

roosting: To rest or sleep in a roost. A bird will typically use the same roost for an extended 

period of time. 

runoff: That part of precipitation that appears in surface streams. Precipitation that is not 

retained on the site where it falls and is not absorbed by the soil. 

salinity: 1) A measure of the amount of mineral substances dissolved in water; 2) salty. 

scatter (archeological): Archaeological evidence of prior disturbance that is distributed about an 

area rather than concentrated in a single location. 

scope: Extent or range of view. 

scoping: An early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed in an EIS 

and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action. Scoping may involve 

public meetings, field interviews with representatives of agencies and interest groups, discussions 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 8-13 

with resource specialists and managers, and written comments in response to news releases, direct 

mailings, and articles about the proposed action and scoping meetings. 

sediment: Soil or mineral transported by moving water, wind, gravity, or glaciers, and deposited 

in streams or other bodies of water or on land. 

sediment load: The amount of sediment (sand, silt, and fine particles) carried by a stream or 

river. 

seismic: Pertaining to an earthquake or earth vibration, including those that are artificially 

induced. 

shale: A laminated sediment in which the constituent particles are predominantly of the clay 

grade. 

short-term impacts: For the purpose of this analysis, short-term impacts are generally defined 

as those that would last for 5 years or less. 

shrink-swell: Refers to clays or soils that alternately expand and contract in a semiarid climate 

where drying out is possible. 

shut-in: The process of stopping production at an otherwise producing well. 

significant impact: A meaningful standard to which an action may impact the environment. The 

impact may be beneficial, adverse, direct, indirect, or cumulative and may be short-term or longterm. 

silt: Any earthy material composed of fine particles, smaller than sand but larger than clay, 

suspended in or deposited by water. 

site-specific environmental assessments: Environmental assessments generally completed for 

small projects such as individual wells, designed to address issues associated with small projects, 

and generally under the guidance of a more comprehensive NEPA document. 

slope wash: Soil and rack material that is being or has been moved down a slope predominantly 

by the action of gravity assisted by running water that is not concentrated into channels. 

socioeconomics: Study of an impact region on the current and projected population and relative 

demographic characteristics (housing, economy, government, etc.). 

soil productivity: The capacity of a soil to produce a specific crop such as fiber and forage, 

under defined levels of management. It is generally dependent on available soil moisture, 

nutrients, and length of growing season. 

spacing: The number of acres per given well in the subsurface. For instance, 160-acre spacing 

means that one well would be drilled in each quarter section (160 acres) or up to four wells per 

section (640 acres). 

special management area: An area to which a given management objective and prescriptions 

are applied. 

species of concern: Species of concern include federally listed threatened or endangered species, 

species proposed for listing, BLM sensitive species, WGFD priority species, and species 

considered rare or important by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. 

stipulation: A legal requirement, specifically a requirement that is part of the terms of a mineral 

lease. Some stipulations are standard on all federal leases. Other stipulations may be applied to 

the lease at the discretion of the surface management agency to protect valuable surface 
8-14 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

resources. Stipulations are supported by the NEPA process; without NEPA support, a stipulation 

cannot be added to the lease. 

strata: An identifiable layer of bedrock or sediment. 

structural basin: A large depression of structural origin. 

substrate: Material consisting of silts, sands, gravels, boulders, and/or woody debris found on 

the bottom of a stream channel. 

synclinal axis: The axis of a fold where the youngest rocks are in the interior of the fold. 

terrestrial: Consisting of or pertaining to the land. 

Tertiary: The older of the two geologic periods comprising the Cenozoic Era; also the system of 

strata deposited during that period. 

threatened species: Any species (plant or animal) that is likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened 

species are identified by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the 1973 Endangered

Species Act.

thrust fault: A low angle fault in which the rocks above the fault plane move up relative to the 

rocks below. The rocks that move up are the thrust sheet. 

topographic basin: A large depression of erosional origin. 

topography: The features of the earth, including relief, vegetation, and waters. 

topsoil: The uppermost layers of naturally occurring soils suitable for use as a plant growth 

medium. 

Torrispamments: Sandy soils in arid regions, soils associated with sandy uplands. Very deep 

soils often having a grass-shrub cover. 

total dissolved solids (TDS): Total amount of dissolved material, organic or inorganic, 

contained in a sample of water. 

Total Energy Efficiency (TEE): A measurement of energy efficiency that takes into account all 

energy used or lost in the production, processing, and delivery steps involved in supplying energy

to the user, plus the efficiency of the energy-using product itself. 

transpiration: The process by which water vapor escapes from a living plant and enters the 

atmosphere. 

tuff(aceous): A rock formed by compacted volcanic fragments, generally smaller than 4 mm in 

diameter. 

turbidity: A measurement of the total suspended solids. 

two-track: A road that has not been constructed or maintained but that has been created by

repeated use. 

typic: Being or serving as an illustration of a type. For soil classification, it is used as a root 

word meaning typical (see subgroups). 

unconformity: A break in the stratigraphic sequence. 

understory: A layer of vegetation underlying a layer of taller vegetation, such as brush and grass 

under trees. 

undulate: To move or cause to move with a wavelike motion. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 8-15 

ustic: Soils that are moist for more than half a year but have a distinct dry season. 

vegetation type: A plant community with visually distinguishable characteristics, named for the 

apparent dominant species. 

viewshed: The areas seen from any given point. 

visibility: Refers to the visual quality of the view or scene in daylight, with respect to color, 

rendition, and contrast definition. The ability to perceive form, color, and texture. 

visual range: The distance at which a black object just disappears from view. 

visual resource: The composite of basic terrain, geologic features, water features, vegetation 

patterns, and land use effects that typify a land unit and influence the visual appeal the unit may 

have for viewers. 

Visual Resource Management (VRM): A system of visual management used by the BLM. The 

program has a dual purpose--to manage the quality of the visual environment and to reduce the 

visual impact of development activities while maintaining effectiveness in all BLM resource 

programs. VRM also identifies scenic areas that warrant protection through special management 

attention. The system uses four classes for categorizing visual resources. 

Class I - Natural ecological changes and limited management activity are allowed. Any 

contrasts created within the characteristic landscape must not attract attention. This 

classification is applied to wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and other similar 

situations. 

Class II - Changes in any of the basic elements (form, line, color, texture) caused by a 

management activity should not be evident in the characteristic landscape. Contrasts are 

seen but must not attract attention. 

Class III - Contrasts to the basic elements caused by a management activity are evident 

but should remain subordinate to the existing landscape. 

Class IV - Any contrast may attract attention and be a dominant feature of the landscape 

in terms of scale, but it should repeat the form, line, color, and texture of the 

characteristic landscape. 

water bar: A ridge made across an incline to divert water to one side. 

water quality: Refers to a set of chemical, physical, or biological characteristics that describe 

the condition of a river, stream, or lake. The quality of water determines what beneficial uses it 

can support. Different conditions or levels of water quality are required to support different 

beneficial uses. 

water recharge: The natural process whereby surface water enters a ground water aquifer. 

watershed: The total land area that drains to a given watercourse or body of water. 

watershed (6th level): The watershed and subwatershed hydrologic unit boundaries provide a 

uniquely identified and uniform method of subdividing large drainage areas. The smaller-sized 

level sub-watersheds (up to 250,000 acres) are useful for application programs. 

Waters of the U.S.: A jurisdictional term from Section 404 of the Clean Water Act referring to 

water bodies such as lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, 

wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds with defined bed 

and bank, the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign 

commerce. 
8-16 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

well or wellbore: The hole drilled from the surface to the gas-bearing formation, several of 

which may be developed from a single well pad. 

well pad: Relatively flat work area (surface location) that is used for drilling a well or wells and 

producing from the well once it is completed. 

wetlands: Areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to 

support and under normal circumstances does or would support a prevalence of vegetation or 

aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and 

reproduction. 

wind rose: Any one of a class of diagrams designed to illustrate the distribution of wind 

direction experienced at a given location over a given period of time. Wind roses may also give 

information concerning distribution of wind speed, stability, or other meteorological parameters. 

winter range: The place where migratory (and sometimes non-migratory) animals congregate 

during the winter season. 

workover: Well maintenance activities that require onsite mobilization of a drill rig to repair the 

well bore equipment (casing, tubing, rods, or pumps) or the wellhead. In some cases, a workover 

may involve development activities to improve production from the target formation. 

Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS): The allowable concentrations of air 

pollutants in the air specified by the State of Wyoming. The air quality standards are divided into 

primary standards (based on the air quality criteria and allowing an adequate margin of safety and 

requisite to protect the public health) and secondary standards (based on the air quality criteria 

and allowing an adequate margin of safety and requisite to protect the public welfare from any 

unknown or expected adverse effects of air pollutants). 

zone: The area between two depths in a well containing reservoir or other characteristic.