Final EIS Appendix 26 

APPENDIX 26—SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODS 

MODIFICATIONS OF IMPLAN FOR THE PLANNING AREA

The IMPLAN modeling system is based on national production coefficients. To better reflect local 

production practices, the oil and gas and cattle production sectors of the three-county IMPLAN model for 

the Pinedale Resource Management Plan (RMP) were modified. The IMPLAN sectors associated with 

recreation were not adjusted because it was believed that they were a reasonably accurate representation 

of the sectors found in the study area. 

In IMPLAN, oil and gas production is divided into three sectors: 38. Natural Gas and Crude Petroleum 

(production); 39. Natural Gas Liquids (by-products); and 57. Maintenance and Repair of Oil and Gas 

Wells (oil and gas field services). Employment for these three sectors was estimated from Wyoming 

Department of Employment data on covered employment. These estimates were then adjusted to account 

for self-employment based on Wyoming data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of 

Commerce. Labor earnings for the three sectors were also estimated from Wyoming Department of 

Employment data. These estimates were then adjusted for self-employment earnings and benefits. 

Benefits were estimated from national data in the Survey of Current Business. 

Total industry output for production was based on the quantities of production data in the Wyoming 

Department of Revenue’s Annual Report and price forecasts from the Wyoming Consensus Revenue 

Estimating Group (CREG). Total industry output for by-products was estimated from information on 

county gas plant products from Minerals Management Services. Total industry output for oil and gas field 

services was estimated using output/employment ratios developed from the 1997 Economic Census, U.S. 

Census Bureau. As a result of the large price fluctuations in natural gas and oil prices, the economic 

impacts of production were estimated based on cost of production rather than total output. 

In IMPLAN, the cattle ranching industry is separated into two sectors: 3. Ranch Feed Cattle and 4. Range 

Feed Cattle. For this analysis, sectors 3 and 4 were combined into a single Cattle Ranching sector. The 

production coefficients for this aggregated cattle ranching sector were then modified based on a 

University of Idaho Cow-Calf Budget. This budget was considered a more accurate reflection of 

production practices in the study area. The sheep sector production coefficients were not modified. 

Because of price fluctuations, the 2000–2005 average value of production estimates from the Wyoming 

Agricultural Statistics was used to estimate per animal unit month (AUM) values for cattle production. 

The quantity of production was estimated based on Wyoming Agricultural Statistics data on cattle 

inventories by county. Finally, regional purchase coefficients were adjusted to reflect current purchasing 

patterns in the study area. 

OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

The economic impacts of oil and gas operations were analyzed in two phases: 

• Phase I: Exploration and Development 

• Phase II: Production. 

Phase I considered how many exploratory and development wells would be drilled under each alternative 

in the planning area and what percentage of these wells would be completed. This includes both 

Pinedale RMP A26-1 
Appendix 26 Final EIS 

conventional wells and coalbed natural gas (CBNG) development. Table A26-1 summarizes the 

assumptions used in analyzing the development phase. Oil and gas costs and employment were assumed 

to be a weighted average of the Pinedale Anticline, Jonah Field, wells near Jonah Field figures. Helium 

production was considered a byproduct of gas production. 

Table A26-1. Economic Assumptions for Gas Exploration and Development (Costs per 

Well, 2003$) 

Well Location 

Impacts Pinedale 

Anticline 

Jonah 

Field 

Wells Near 

Jonah Field 

Coalbed 

Methane 

Other Wells 

in Planning 

Area 

Drilling Costs $2,264,900 $766,800 $568,000 $400,000 $340,800 

Completion Costs $1,952,500 $1,789,200 $568,000 $275,000 $369,200 

Drilling Jobs 23.2 9.0 5.9 4.0 3.6 

Completion Jobs 11.0 11.7 3.3 1.5 2.2 

Drilling Earnings $1,211,243 $478,872 $310,046 $206,378 $188,765 

Completion Earnings $546,729 $582,929 $161,866 $74,027 $106,180 

Percentage of Wells on 

Federal Lands Variable Variable Variable Variable Variable 

In addition, well projections were provided from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Reservoir 

Management Group for the number of wells drilled, completed, and brought to production, as well as the 

number of wells drilled, plugged, and abandoned. Federal well number projections were determined by 

the percentage of federal projected wells in 2020. This information is summarized in Table A26-2. 

Table A26-2. Well Development Projections by Alternative 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Year Completed 

Wells 

P&A 

Wells1

Completed 

Wells 

P&A 

Wells1

Completed 

Wells 

P&A 

Wells1 

Completed 

Wells 

P&A 

Wells1

2001–2005 1,714 153 1714 153 1,714 153 1,714 153 

2006 399 55 428 67 332 7 402 51 

2007 407 56 436 68 340 7 410 52 

2008 407 56 437 68 340 7 411 52 

2009 444 61 472 74 356 7 445 56 

2010 467 64 501 78 363 7 470 59 

2011 467 64 500 78 383 8 469 59 

2012 467 64 500 78 388 8 469 59 

2013 392 54 425 67 313 6 395 50 

2014 261 36 295 46 203 4 264 33 

2015 262 36 297 46 206 4 269 34 

A26-2 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 26 

Pinedale RMP A26-3 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Year Completed 

Wells 

P&A 

Wells1

Completed 

Wells 

P&A 

Wells1

Completed 

Wells 

P&A 

Wells1 

Completed 

Wells 

P&A 

Wells1

2016 292 40 327 51 219 4 288 36 

2017 342 47 378 59 225 5 347 44 

2018 327 45 343 54 172 3 315 40 

2019 430 59 430 67 430 9 430 54 

2020 345 47 345 54 345 7 345 44 

Total 7,421 936 7,826 1,110 6,328 246 7,443 876 

Total Well 

Projections 8,439 9,051 6,456 8,383 

Federal Wells 7,192 7,804 5,209 7,136 

1

Wells that were drilled, plugged, and abandoned. 

Source: BLM Reservoir Management Group

In Table A26-2, Alternative 3 assumes a much lower percentage of plugged and abandoned wells in 

relation to the other alternatives. This is because the Jonah Field and the Pinedale Anticline areas have a 

very low historical failure rate (about 1.5 percent of wells are plugged and abandoned) compared with 

other parts of the Planning Area, which can have up to a 30-percent failure rate. Alternative 3 proposed 

applying significant restrictions, affecting future oil and gas development, compared with those applied 

for all other alternatives. Restrictions applied under Alternative 3 were most often applied to areas 

outside the Jonah Field and Pinedale Anticline areas and had a much larger negative impact on future 

development (fewer wells drilled) in those higher risk areas than in Jonah Field and the Pinedale 

Anticline. As a result, the overall abandonment rate under Alternative 3 skewed significantly toward the 

historical abandonment rate of 1.5 percent for Jonah and Pinedale, where most wells could still be drilled 

(Stilwell, 2007). 

According to local industry representatives, approximately 81% of well drilling and completion costs 

were assumed to be incurred within the study area. It was further assumed that drilled, plugged, and 

abandoned wells were only associated with oil and conventional gas wells, and not CBNG wells as 

indicated by industry interviews. In addition, drilled, plugged, and abandoned wells were assumed to 

comprise two-thirds of the total costs to bring a well into production. For all employment and income 

impacts, it was assumed that only 40% of the induced impact stayed within the local study area. 

Phase II considered the economic impact of producing additional gas reserves as a result of the 

exploration and development under Phase I. Table A26-3 summarizes the economic assumptions used to 

analyze gas and helium production estimated to occur under each alternative. Note that these assumptions 

represent economic impacts to the three-county study area and do not represent total earnings over the life 

of the well. 
Appendix 26 Final EIS 

Table A26-3. Economic Assumptions for Gas and Helium Production 

Type of Product 

Inputs/ 

Impacts Conventional Gas 

(MMCF) 

Coalbed 

Natural Gas 

(MMCF) 

Oil 

(Condensate) 

(MB) 

Price/a, $5,020 $5,020 $50,000 

Labor 

Earnings $124.75 $124.75 $831.85 

Employment .002324 0.002324 0.015497 

a Prices for natural gas were obtained from the Wyoming State Consensus Revenue Estimating 

Group, January 2006. 

The average price of natural gas and oil used for this analysis was obtained from the Wyoming State 

Government Revenue Forecast, published in January 2006. The average price forecast for CBNG was 

estimated to be $5.02 ($/mcf) and for oil was $50 ($/bbl). 

GRAZING

Grazing activities under each alternative were analyzed in the following manner. First, historical grazing 

use within the planning area was determined. The value of grazing AUMs for cattle and sheep were 

estimated as shown in Table A26-4. AUM data, which were obtained from the Wyoming Agricultural 

Statistical Service as shown in columns 2 and 3, include the value of cattle sold in Wyoming. Total cattle 

sales were divided by the number of cows that had calved, which provided a value per cow sold as 

summarized in column 4. The value per cow was then divided by an AUM conversion factor resulting in 

an estimated value per AUM. 

Table A26-4. Estimated Value of Cattle AUMs 

Year 

Value of 

Production 

(1,000$s)a

Cows that 

have 

Calved 

(1,000 

Head)a

Value 

Per Cow 

Conversion 

to AUMs 

(AUMs/cow) b

Value of 

Production 

Per AUM 

Nominal $s 

Value of 

Production 

Per AUM Real 

(2001$) 

2001 $542,187 850 $637.87 16 $39.87 $43.59 

2002 $449,894 820 $548.65 16 $34.29 $36.81 

2003 $506,424 720 $703.37 16 $43.96 $46.36 

2004 $596,546 760 $784.93 16 $49.06 $50.73 

2005 $593,737 760 $781.23 16 $48.83 $48.83 

5-yr Average $45.26 

a Wyoming Agricultural Statistics. 

b J.P. Workman, Range Economics, 1986, McMillian Publishing, Inc. New York, New York. 

The economic analysis used the 5-year average value of AUMs, or $45.26/AUM for cattle in inflationadjusted dollars (2005$). The value and number of AUMs per alternative were then used in combination 

A26-4 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 26 

Pinedale RMP A26-5 

with the IMPLAN model to estimate economic impacts of grazing under each alternative. The economic 

assumptions used to analyze grazing impacts are summarized in Table A26-5. 

Table A26-5. Economic Assumptions for Grazing 

 Cattle Grazing 

(2005$) 

Sheep Grazing 

(2005$) 

Production Value Per AUM $45.26 $30.61 

Total Economic Impact Per AUM $78.55 $59.97 

Earnings Per AUM $23.68 $8.25 

Jobs Per AUM 0.000709 0.000951 

RECREATION

Recreational impacts were analyzed as follows. The number of Recreational Visitor Days (RVD) was 

estimated for each alternative, considering several assumptions. These assumptions are summarized in 

Table A26-6. Once the number of RVDs was estimated by activity, the RVDs were separated into 

resident and nonresident use and analyzed separately. Residents were considered as any individual living 

in the three-county study area, whereas nonresidents lived outside the three-county region. Residents of 

the study area associated with big game hunting were determined by evaluating zip codes of hunters that 

applied for licenses from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department within the relevant hunting areas. 

Residents and nonresidents participating in off-highway vehicle (OHV) and other dispersed use were 

based on observations of the BLM staff for this area. 

The economic impact of recreation in the planning area considered activities of nonresidents only. 

Regional economic impact modeling (input/output [I/O] models) evaluates the additional economic 

activity associated with “new” money brought into an economy. This action can occur as goods and 

services are produced by local firms and exported to entities outside the region (e.g., agricultural 

products, oil and gas production). In addition, new money can come into an economy as visitors come to 

the area and spend money. I/O models estimate the additional economic activity that occurs with the new 

money expenditures. Therefore, nonresident spending is evaluated when determining the economic 

impacts of recreation. However, this does not imply that recreational activities are not important to the 

quality of life of residents in the area. 

Total annual recreational expenditures of nonresidents were estimated for each alternative using the 

estimated RVDs per activity and the average expenditures per day per activity. Table A26-7 summarizes 

the average expenditures for each activity. The economic assumptions used to estimate recreational 

impacts are summarized in Table A26-8. 
Appendix 26 

Table A26-6. Recreation Assumptions 

Use Type Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Nonconsumptive 

OHV 

OHV use is estimated to increase by 1.5% per year during the planning period based on current trends in OHV use. 

OHV use is expected to increase 2% per year. Increases in OHV use are expected as a result of the creation of the Rawlins OHV Special Recreation Management Area. Also, an increase is expected in the number of roads and trails open to OHV use as a result of changes in wildlife management restrictions and increased mineral development. 

OHV use is expected to decrease by only 10% per year under Alternative 3. 

OHV uconstaRVD u

Snowmobiling Use is estimated to remain at the annual average. Use is expected to remain at the annual average. 

A slight decrease in use is expected resulting from seasonal restrictions surrounding the Continental Divide Trail. 

Use is the an

Other Recreational Uses 

Nonconsumptive RVDs are estimated to increase by 1.5% per year over the study period based on current trends. 

Nonconsumptive RVDs are expected to remain constant; impacts are expected to the Wind River Front. 

Nonconsumptive RVDs are expected to increase by 2.5% per year over the study period as a result of increased protection for wildlife and fisheries resources. 

Noncoestimaper yebased 

Consumptive 

Fishing 

Fishing RVDs are expected to decline slightly (1% per year) as a result of increased impacts on rivers and streams from infrastructure construction. 

Fishing RVDs are expected to decline by 2% per year as a result of increased development activities that would impact important habitat areas. 

Fishing RVDs are expected to increase by 2.5% per year as a result of changes in vegetation management, protection of riparian areas, and protection of wildlife and fish resources. 

Fishing increasbased 

Elk 

Elk hunting is expected to remain constant at the current 5-year average for the Pinedale Field Office (PFO). 

Elk hunting is expected to decline by 2.5% per year during the study period as a result of expected declines in herd numbers resulting from increased mineral development, changes in vegetation management, and increased OHV use. 

Elk hunting is expected to increase under this alternative as a result of changes in vegetation management, protection of riparian areas, and protection of wildlife habitat, resulting in an increase in RVDs by 0.5% per year. 

Elk huremain 5-year 

A26-6 
Pinedale RMP 

Use Type Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Pronghorn 

Pronghorn hunting is expected to remain constant at the current 5-year average for the PFO. 

Pronghorn hunting is expected to decline by 2.5% per year during the study period as a result of expected declines in herd numbers attributed to increased mineral development, changes in vegetation management, and increased OHV use. 

Pronghorn hunting opportunities are expected to increase under this alternative resulting in an increase in RVDs by 0.5% per year. 

Pronghto remcurrenPFO. I

Mule and White Tail Deer 

Deer hunting is expected to continue to decline by 2% per year in the PFO, which follows recent trends. In addition, declines are expected as a result of increased occurrences of chronic wasting disease and loss of winter range availability. 

Deer hunting is expected to decline by 3% per year during the study period resulting from impacts on wildlife from increased mineral development, changes in vegetation management, and increased OHV use. 

Same as Alternative 1. Same 

Moose and Bighorn Sheep 

Moose and bighorn sheep hunting are expected to remain constant at the current 5-year average for the PFO. 

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Same 

Final EIS
Appendix 26 Final EIS 

Table A26-7. Summary of Visitor Expenditures 

Summary of Daily Visitor Expenditures Per Person Per Day 

Nonresident OHV Use $130.27a

Nonresident Hunting $127.18b

Nonresident Other Nonconsumptive Uses $44.34c

a Hazen and Sawyer, Economic Contribution of Off-Highway Vehicle Use in Colorado, Prepared 

for the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, Denver, Colorado, July 2001. 

b Morey & Associates, Inc., Report on the Economic Impact of the Travel Industry in Wyoming,

1998, prepared for the Wyoming Business Council, Division of Tourism, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 

1999. 

c U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated 

Recreation, Wyoming, FHW/01-WY Rev., 2003. 

Table A26-8. Economic Assumptions for Recreation 

(Per Recreation Day) 

OHV 

(2005$) 

Other 

Nonconsumptive 

Uses 

Hunting 

(2005$) 

Direct Expenditures $130.27 $44.34 $127.18 

Jobs Per RVD 0.002716 0.000920 0.003687 

Earnings Per RVD $42.26 $13.21 $51.76 

A26-8 Pinedale RMP