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.
FINAL

Socioeconomic Baseline Report

for the

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse 

Resource Management Plan Amendments

for public lands administered by the

Bureau of Land Management

Casper, Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, Rawlins, 

and Rock Springs Field Offices

and the

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendments

for

National Forest System Lands

administered by the

Medicine Bow and Bridger-Teton National Forests and

Thunder Basin National Grassland

September 2012
This page intentionally left blank
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Acronyms List

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments i

ACRONYMS LIST

AMS Analysis of the Management Situation

ATV All-Terrain Vehicle

AUM Animal Unit Month

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis

BLM Bureau Land Management

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

BTNF Bridger-Teton National Forest

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EJ environmental justice

EO Executive Order

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

FY fiscal year

GDP Gross Domestic Product

I- Interstate Highway

IMPLAN IMPact analysis for PLANning

JEDI Jobs and Economic Development Impact

LQ Location Quotient

LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan

MBNF Medicine Bow National Forest

MMS U.S. Minerals Management Service

MW Megawatt

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service

ND No Data Available

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

OHV off-highway vehicle

ONRR Office of Natural Resources Revenue

ORV off-road vehicle

PILT payment in lieu of taxes

PWMTF Permanent Wyoming Mineral Trust Fund

REIS Regional Economic Information System
Acronyms List Socioeconomic Baseline Report

ii Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

RMP Resource Management Plan

ROW right-of-way

SIC Standard Industrial Classification

TBNG Thunder Basin National Grassland

USA United States of America

USFS U.S. Forest Service

WWF World Wildlife Fund

WY Wyoming
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Table of Contents

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

CHAPTER 2 —OVERVIEW OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC STUDY AREA.........................................2-1

CHAPTER 3 —SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CONDITIONS..................................................................3-1

3.1 COMMUNITIES...........................................................................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Albany County .....................................................................................................................3-1

3.1.2 Campbell County .................................................................................................................3-1

3.1.3 Carbon County .....................................................................................................................3-2

3.1.4 Converse County..................................................................................................................3-2

3.1.5 Crook County.......................................................................................................................3-2

3.1.6 Fremont County ...................................................................................................................3-3

3.1.7 Goshen County.....................................................................................................................3-3

3.1.8 Laramie County....................................................................................................................3-3

3.1.9 Lincoln County.....................................................................................................................3-4

3.1.10 Natrona County................................................................................................................3-4

3.1.11 Niobrara County ..............................................................................................................3-5

3.1.12 Park County .....................................................................................................................3-5

3.1.13 Platte County....................................................................................................................3-5

3.1.14 Sublette County................................................................................................................3-6

3.1.15 Sweetwater County..........................................................................................................3-6

3.1.16 Teton County ...................................................................................................................3-6

3.1.17 Uinta County....................................................................................................................3-7

3.1.18 Weston County ................................................................................................................3-7

3.2 POPULATION GROWTH..............................................................................................................3-7

3.3 DEMOGRAPHICS......................................................................................................................3-10

3.4 HOUSING.................................................................................................................................3-14

3.5 QUALITY OF LIFE....................................................................................................................3-18

3.6 SOCIAL ORGANIZATION AND INSTITUTIONS ..........................................................................3-19

3.6.1 Government........................................................................................................................3-20

3.6.2 Firms, Occupational and Interest Groups...........................................................................3-22

3.7 ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS........................................................................................................3-24

3.7.1 Wildlife/Ecosystem Conservation Stakeholders................................................................3-24

3.7.2 Mineral Development Stakeholders...................................................................................3-24

3.7.3 Renewable Energy Development Stakeholders .................................................................3-25

3.7.4 Livestock Grazing Stakeholders.........................................................................................3-25

3.7.5 Recreation Stakeholders.....................................................................................................3-26

3.8 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE......................................................................................................3-26

CHAPTER 4 —ECONOMIC CONDITIONS...........................................................................................4-1

4.1 EMPLOYMENT...........................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 EARNINGS AND PAY .................................................................................................................4-9

4.3 INCOME...................................................................................................................................4-16

4.4 ECONOMIC BASE.....................................................................................................................4-21

4.5 SPECIFIC ECONOMIC SECTORS ...............................................................................................4-22

4.5.1 Agriculture .........................................................................................................................4-23

4.5.2 Mining................................................................................................................................4-25

4.5.3 Renewable Energy .............................................................................................................4-33

4.5.4 Tourism and Recreation .....................................................................................................4-33
Acronyms List Socioeconomic Baseline Report

iv Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

4.6 PUBLIC FINANCE.....................................................................................................................4-36

4.6.1 Federal Payments...............................................................................................................4-36

4.6.2 State and Local Revenues ..................................................................................................4-39

4.7 GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES ...............................................................................................4-48

4.7.1 Local Government Expenditures and Services ..................................................................4-48

4.7.2 Federal Expenditures..........................................................................................................4-48

CHAPTER 5 —PUBLIC LAND USES AND VALUES..........................................................................5-1

5.1 GRAZING...................................................................................................................................5-1

5.2 MINERALS.................................................................................................................................5-4

5.3 RENEWABLE ENERGY ...............................................................................................................5-6

5.4 RECREATION/TRANSPORTATION (OHV USE)...........................................................................5-8

5.5 NONMARKET VALUES............................................................................................................5-10

REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................................R-1

APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS OF LABOR AND NONLABOR INCOME.....................................A-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1. Land Management in the Socioeconomic Study Area (Acres).................................................2-3

Table 2-2. Population, Area, and Population Density, 2010......................................................................2-5

Table 3-1. Population of the Socioeconomic Study Area, 1970 to 2020...................................................3-9

Table 3-2. Demographics Overview of Socioeconomic Study Area Compared to State and Nation......3-10

Table 3-3. Place of Birth of Socioeconomic Study Area Population.......................................................3-12

Table 3-4. Population by Race/Ethnicity in the Socioeconomic Study Area, 2010.................................3-12

Table 3-5. Income Levels in the Socioeconomic Study Area..................................................................3-13

Table 3-6. Housing Unit Types, Tenure, and Change 2000–2010...........................................................3-15

Table 3-7. Single-Family Housing Unit Sales Prices in Wyoming, 2004–2010......................................3-17

Table 3-8. Environmental Justice Indicators, Minority Population, 2010 Census...................................3-29

Table 3-9. Environmental Justice Indicators, Poverty, 2005–2009 American Community Survey ........3-30

Table 4-1. Annual Unemployment Rates, 1995–2010...............................................................................4-4

Table 4-2: Wyoming Employment, 2001–2009.........................................................................................4-5

Table 4-3. Employment in Selected Industries – Total Number Employed, 2007 ....................................4-7

Table 4-4. Employment in Selected Industries – Share of Total Employment, 2007................................4-8

Table 4-5: Wyoming Earnings by Industry, 2001–2009 ($1,000s) .........................................................4-11

Table 4-6. Employee Compensation in Selected Industries, 2007 ($1,000s) ..........................................4-13

Table 4-7. Employee Compensation in Selected Industries – Share of Total, 2007................................4-14

Table 4-8. Average Annual Pay by Industry, 2007..................................................................................4-15

Table 4-9. Prevalence of Income Sources for Households in the Socioeconomic Study Area................4-17

Table 4-10. Statewide Personal Income by Source ($1,000s) .................................................................4-18

Table 4-11. Net Earnings as a Percentage of Total Personal Income, 1970–2008 ($1,000s)..................4-19

Table 4-12. Location Quotients for Employment and Earnings in Wyoming, Relative to the 

United States, 2008.....................................................................................................................4-22

Table 4-13. Farms, Land in Farms, and Agricultural Value ....................................................................4-23

Table 4-14. Total Cattle and Calves, January 1, 2004–2011 ...................................................................4-24

Table 4-15. Total Sheep and Lambs, January 1, 2004–2011...................................................................4-24

Table 4-16. Taxable Valuation of Mineral Production, Wyoming, 2004–2010 ($Millions)...................4-26

Table 4-17. Gas Production by County, 2000–2011 (MCF)....................................................................4-27

Table 4-18. Oil Production by County, 2000–2011 (Barrels)..................................................................4-28

Table 4-19. Total Economic Contribution for Oil and Gas Activities in Wyoming, 2007*....................4-31
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Table of Contents

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments v

Table 4-20. Oil and Gas Activity as a Fraction of Wyoming’s Economy, 2007* ...................................4-32

Table 4-21. Wyoming Wind Energy Generation, 2004–2010 .................................................................4-33

Table 4-22. Wyoming Renewable Electric Power Industry Statistics, 2010 ...........................................4-33

Table 4-23. Direct Economic Impacts of Traveler Spending in the Study Area, 2011............................4-34

Table 4-24. ORV Permits Sold in Socioeconomic Study Area, 2002–2011............................................4-35

Table 4-25. Wyoming Federal Mineral Revenue Distributions, 2006–2010...........................................4-37

Table 4-26. PILT Payments in the Socioeconomic Study Area, 2005–2010...........................................4-38

Table 4-27. Distributions of Mineral Severance Taxes, Fiscal Year 2010 ..............................................4-39

Table 4-28. Severance Tax Distribution by County.................................................................................4-40

Table 4-29. Total Mineral Ad Valorem Production Tax Assessed: 2005, 2007, and 2010 ....................4-41

Table 4-30. Statewide Oil and Gas Ad Valorem and Severance Taxes Collected as a Percentage 

of Total Mineral Production Taxes Collected.............................................................................4-43

Table 4-31. State Assessed Values by Type of Company or Producer, 2010..........................................4-44

Table 4-32. Locally Assessed Property Valuations, Wyoming, 2010 .....................................................4-45

Table 4-33. Locally Assessed Property Valuations, 2006–2010 .............................................................4-45

Table 4-34. Locally Assessed Valuations for Mineral Properties, 2005 and 2010 ($1,000s)..................4-46

Table 4-35. Sales and Use Tax Collections by County, Fiscal Year 2010 ..............................................4-47

Table 4-36. BLM Wyoming’s Annual Budget for 2011..........................................................................4-49

Table 5-1. Value of an AUM for Cattle Production...................................................................................5-3

Table 5-2. Value of an AUM for Sheep Production ..................................................................................5-3

Table 5-3. Wyoming BLM Wind Energy Projects....................................................................................5-7

Table 5-4. OHV Trips by Land Ownership (Percent)................................................................................5-9

Table 5-5. Average Consumer Surplus Values and Additional Statistics, per Person per Day, 

Intermountain Region, 1967–2003 .............................................................................................5-12

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Planning Area and Sage-Grouse Habitat Areas ......................................................................1-2

Figure 2-1. Socioeconomic Study Area, Planning Area, and Surface Land Tenure..................................2-2

Figure 3-1. Statewide Trends in New Residential Housing Unit Permits................................................3-18

Figure 4-1. Trends in Employment by Industry, Wyoming, 1970–2000...................................................4-2

Figure 4-2. Total Mineral Taxable Valuation by County, 2010 ..............................................................4-29
Acronyms List Socioeconomic Baseline Report

vi Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

This page intentionally left blank
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 1–Introduction

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 1-1

CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION

This socioeconomic baseline report will assist in land use planning and development of the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) Programmatic Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendment 

and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and an EIS for the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Land and 

Resource Management Plan (LRMP) amendments associated with sage-grouse management. In this 

planning action, the BLM Wyoming State Office will prepare RMP amendments with an associated EIS 

for the Rawlins, Green River, Kemmerer, Pinedale, Casper, and Newcastle Field Office RMPs, and the 

USFS will prepare LRMP amendments with an associated EIS for the Medicine Bow National Forest 

(MBNF), Bridger-Teton National Forest (BTNF), and Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG)

LRMPs. As part of the planning process, socioeconomic information will be used to analyze the potential 

impacts of management alternatives. 

Figure 1-1 shows sage-grouse habitat across the state, including key, connectivity, and general habitat 

areas; it also identifies the extent of the planning area. The management actions under consideration for 

this planning effort will only address management of BLM- and USFS-administered lands within the 

habitat areas shown on this map that are within the planning area boundary. Management of nonBLM/USFS lands within the planning area, and management of sage-grouse habitat areas outside of the 

planning area, would not be changed. However, BLM and USFS management changes could have 

broader social and economic impacts, which will be addressed in the impacts analysis phase of the 

planning process.
Chapter 1–Introduction Socioeconomic Baseline Report

1-2 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

Figure 1-1. Planning Area and Sage-Grouse Habitat Areas
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 1–Introduction

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 1-3

Socioeconomics is not a BLM or USFS management decision; it is a contextual element for planning. 

This baseline report addresses social, cultural, and economic conditions and trends within the 

socioeconomic study area defined below. These conditions and trends will affect current and future uses 

of BLM and USFS public land resources. Conversely, decisions that BLM and the USFS make in the 

current planning process may have social, cultural, and economic impacts. These impacts may be viewed 

as positive or negative, depending on conditions and on the point of view of stakeholders to public lands. 

This report provides socioeconomic background information for the impact analysis to be conducted later 

in the planning process. This information can also help inform public discussion throughout the planning 

process.

Socioeconomic impacts from the sage-grouse management planning effort are most likely to be related to

the following potential decisions:

• Restrictions on oil and gas leasing; on the leasing of coal, trona, and other solid leasable minerals;

and potentially on access to mineral materials

• Restrictions on wind energy development

• Changes to grazing management

• Changes to recreation management; in particular, to some off-highway vehicle (OHV) open 

areas, limited areas, designated areas, or existing roads and trails.

Given the potential for impacts related to these types of decisions, this baseline report (particularly in the 

Public Land Uses and Values chapter) focuses on information relevant to minerals, renewable energy 

(particularly wind), grazing, and recreation/OHV use. 

The report is divided into five chapters:

• Introduction – This chapter describes the context for development of this socioeconomic 

baseline report.

• Overview of the Socioeconomic Study Area – This chapter defines the geographic area covered

and provides a high-level characterization of land ownership and current population. 

• Social and Cultural Conditions – This chapter identifies and profiles socioeconomic study area

population trends, demographics, and other social and cultural characteristics. 

• Economic Conditions – This chapter characterizes the socioeconomic study area economy in 

terms of employment, earnings, sources of income, economic base, public finance, and economic 

indicators for the specific economic sectors most relevant to the current planning action.

• Public Land Uses and Values – This chapter examines relevant public land uses and 

describes some of the economic and social implications of those uses.

Within the social/cultural and economics chapters, most data is presented for each county within the 

socioeconomic study area. Wyoming and U.S. data are presented for comparison.
Chapter 1–Introduction Socioeconomic Baseline Report

1-4 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

This page intentionally left blank
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 2–Overview of the Socioeconomic Study Area

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 2-1

CHAPTER 2—OVERVIEW OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC 

STUDY AREA

The BLM High Desert District Office encompasses the Rock Springs, Pinedale, Rawlins, and Kemmerer 

Field Offices; and the BLM High Plains District Office encompasses the Newcastle and Casper Field 

Offices. These six Field Offices are part of the sage-grouse planning action. Three USFS planning units 

are also included in the sage-grouse planning action: the BTNF, the MBNF, and the TBNG.

For planning purposes, the relevant geographic area is differentiated into a planning area, a decision area, 

and a socioeconomic study area, as described in the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) and 

discussed in the following paragraphs. Figure 2-1 shows the location of the planning area and the 

socioeconomic study area, along with land tenure (ownership) of surface land throughout Wyoming.
Chapter 2–Overview of the Socioeconomic Study Area Socioeconomic Baseline Report

2-2 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

Figure 2-1. Socioeconomic Study Area, Planning Area, and Surface Land Tenure
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 2–Overview of the Socioeconomic Study Area

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 2-3

The planning area encompasses much of the land area within Wyoming, covering all or most of the land 

area of 15 counties and small portions of Campbell, Fremont, and Park counties. It shares a border with 

Idaho to the west, Utah to the southwest, Colorado to the south, Nebraska and South Dakota to the east, 

and Montana to the north. 

The decision area consists of those lands and resources within the planning area that BLM and the USFS 

administer. It includes all public lands and federal mineral estate that the six BLM Field Offices and three 

USFS planning units manage. The decision area spans approximately 16.3 million acres of BLM and 

USFS-managed public surface land and 23.2 million acres of federal mineral estate in Albany, Campbell, 

Carbon, Converse, Crook, Fremont, Goshen, Laramie, Lincoln, Natrona, Niobrara, Park, Platte, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Teton, Uinta, and Weston counties. Of the surface land, BLM manages about 11.25 million 

acres, and the USFS manages just over 5 million acres. Federal mineral estate includes situations where 

the surface and subsurface are owned by the federal government, and situations where the subsurface 

mineral estate, or a portion thereof, is owned by the federal government and the surface is under 

nonfederal ownership. Hereafter, the terms “BLM-administered lands” or “USFS-administered lands” 

includes both surface land and mineral estate.

This baseline report is primarily focused on the socioeconomic study area, which is determined by the 

economic and social relationships between communities in the region and the surface land and subsurface 

mineral estate that BLM and the USFS manage. A socioeconomic study area commonly extends beyond 

the decision area and may extend beyond the planning area because the decisions agencies make can 

impact socioeconomic conditions in proximate lands and communities based on economic flows in the 

public and private sectors, how and where services and goods are obtained, and the cultural relationships 

of communities and resource users to BLM and USFS public lands. A socioeconomic study area may also 

be larger than the planning area in cases where key socioeconomic data is only available for geographies 

(e.g., counties) that extend beyond the planning area.

The socioeconomic study area for this planning action has been defined to include 18 counties within, or 

in proximity to, the boundaries of the following six Field Offices and three USFS planning units: Albany, 

Campbell, Carbon, Converse, Crook, Fremont, Goshen, Laramie, Lincoln, Natrona, Niobrara, Park, 

Platte, Sublette, Sweetwater, Teton, Uinta, and Weston counties. Most of Campbell, Fremont, and Park

counties fall outside of the planning area but are included in the socioeconomic study area because they 

have significant population centers within reasonable proximity to the planning area (e.g., Cody, Gillette, 

Lander, Riverton). For this reason, there may be significant economic interactions between the planning 

area and these counties.

Table 2-1 shows land management in the socioeconomic study area by county. Of the total land in the 18-

county socioeconomic study area, the majority is federally owned (49.7 percent). BLM manages 27.0 

percent, the USFS manages 14.4 percent, and other federal agencies manage 8.3 percent. Private 

landowners hold the next largest amount of land (44.1 percent). State and local government own 5.7 

percent of the land. Water covers 0.4 percent of the socioeconomic study area.

Table 2-1. Land Management in the Socioeconomic Study Area (Acres)

County BLM USFS All Other 

Federal

State and 

Local Private Water Total

Albany 296,290 372,006 4,378 220,736 1,840,117 21,969 2,755,495

Campbell 228,283 55,925 92,532 195,237 2,498,013 - 3,069,990

Carbon 2,057,757 625,663 35,090 325,053 2,011,649 37,878 5,093,090

Converse 130,091 177,439 74,529 255,791 2,082,294 5,845 2,725,989

Crook 90,604 169,528 15,717 127,960 1,426,508 5,384 1,835,702
Chapter 2–Overview of the Socioeconomic Study Area Socioeconomic Baseline Report

2-4 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

County BLM USFS All Other 

Federal

State and 

Local Private Water Total

Fremont 2,100,766 981,163 1,450,982 250,981 1,097,316 41,028 5,922,236

Goshen 25,172 - 1,014 88,016 1,309,548 3,331 1,427,080

Laramie 9,856 - 6,029 155,626 1,547,298 304 1,719,114

Lincoln 982,896 895,063 22,955 107,809 594,110 11,007 2,613,840

Natrona 1,502,981 5,514 23,949 394,256 1,493,397 15,712 3,435,808

Niobrara 123,998 332 488 164,368 1,390,191 - 1,679,378

Park 629,692 1,710,082 1,180,712 159,594 769,127 6,694 4,455,900

Platte 82,493 1,670 10,700 136,339 1,100,776 17,533 1,349,511

Sublette 1,266,318 1,162,159 4,518 112,269 601,398 8,016 3,154,679

Sweetwater 4,393,151 54,875 213,961 186,742 1,827,618 32,834 6,709,181

Teton 3,440 1,371,737 1,154,188 4,332 135,587 29,676 2,698,959

Uinta 479,923 37,439 - 54,068 762,477 1,509 1,335,415

Weston 71,246 76,392 163,245 114,235 1,108,843 - 1,533,962

Study Area 14,474,959 7,696,987 4,454,988 3,053,412 23,596,266 238,720 53,515,331

% of Study 

Area 27.0% 14.4% 8.3% 5.7% 44.1% 0.4% 100.0%

Note: The study area totals above include counties that are in the socioeconomic study area but are not in the planning area. Thus 

the total acreage for BLM and USFS is greater than the decision area, which encompasses the approximately 16.3 million acres of 

BLM and USFS-managed public surface land within the planning area only.

Source: BLM geographic information systems data, 2011.

Land use in the socioeconomic study area is split among various private, state, local, and federal 

landowners. Private land uses include urban and smaller rural communities, ranch land, and other private 

land uses scattered across the socioeconomic study area. State and local government land uses include 

several state and county parks, airports, and other public amenities. The major components of federal land 

use in the study area are as follows:

• BLM: Pinedale, Kemmerer, Rock Springs, Newcastle, Casper, and Rawlins Field Offices (within 

the planning area) and the Buffalo, Cody, and Lander Field Offices (outside the planning area but 

within the socioeconomic study area)

• USFS: BTNF, Shoshone National Forest, MBNF, and TBNG

• Bureau of Reclamation: Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, North Platte Project, Kendrick 

Project

• Bankhead Jones: Land conservation and utilization

• U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS): Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, Bamforth National 

Wildlife Refuge, Hutton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Mortenson Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge, Seeskadee National Wildlife Refuge, and Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge.

Spanning over 53 million acres, the socioeconomic study area represents nearly 86 percent of the total 

land area of Wyoming (just over 62 million acres), as shown in Table 2-2. The total population of the 

socioeconomic study area was estimated to be just under 501,000 in 2010, representing 88.7 percent of 

Wyoming’s population. Laramie County and Natrona County were the most populous counties with 

91,738 and 75,450 people, respectively. The socioeconomic study area has few urban areas; it is 

predominantly rural and sparsely populated. In 2010, the overall density of the socioeconomic study area
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 2–Overview of the Socioeconomic Study Area

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 2-5

averaged 6.0 people per square mile. Laramie County was the most densely populated at 34.2 people per 

square mile, and Niobrara County was the least densely populated at 0.9 persons per square mile. 

Wyoming as a whole is sparsely populated at 5.8 people per square mile, and 12 of the counties in the 

socioeconomic study area are less densely populated than the state. Laramie County, the most densely 

populated county in the socioeconomic study area, is far more densely populated than the state, but much 

less densely populated than the nation. Table 2-2 details population, land area, and population density 

information for 2010.

Table 2-2. Population, Area, and Population Density, 2010

Area Total Population 

(2010)

Land Area 

(Acres)

Land Area, 

2010

(Square Miles)

Persons per 

Square Mile

Albany 36,299 2,755,495 4,305 8.4

Campbell 46,133 3,069,990 4,797 9.6

Carbon 15,885 5,093,090 7,958 2.0

Converse 13,833 2,725,989 4,259 3.2

Crook 7,083 1,835,702 2,868 2.5

Fremont 40,123 5,922,236 9,253 4.3

Goshen 13,249 1,427,080 2,230 5.9

Laramie 91,738 1,719,114 2,686 34.2

Lincoln 18,106 2,613,840 4,084 4.4

Natrona 75,450 3,435,808 5,368 14.1

Niobrara 2,484 1,679,378 2,624 0.9

Park 28,205 4,455,900 6,962 4.1

Platte 8,667 1,349,511 2,109 4.1

Sublette 10,247 3,154,679 4,929 2.1

Sweetwater 43,806 6,709,181 10,483 4.2

Teton 21,294 2,698,959 4,217 5.0

Uinta 21,118 1,335,415 2,087 10.1

Weston 7,208 1,533,962 2,397 3.0

Study Area 500,928 53,515,331 83,618 6.0

Wyoming 564,460 62,139,610 97,093 5.8

United 

States 308,745,538 2,260,419,475 3,531,905 87.4

Source: 2010 population data – U.S. Census Bureau 2010 data QT-P3; Land area acreage – Table 1 above, except Wyoming 

and U.S. land area in square miles are from U.S. Census Bureau, State & County QuickFacts (http://quickfacts.census.gov/ 

qfd/index.html; accessed September 2012); All other figures – Calculated.
Chapter 2–Overview of the Socioeconomic Study Area Socioeconomic Baseline Report

2-6 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

This page intentionally left blank
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 3-1

CHAPTER 3—SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CONDITIONS

3.1 COMMUNITIES

The following sections describe each of the counties in the socioeconomic study area. Land areas are 

based on Table 2-1 and refer to surface land only, unless federal mineral estate is specifically mentioned.

3.1.1 Albany County

Albany County was organized December 16, 1868. Albany County covers 4,305 square miles in 

southeastern Wyoming and is home to a 2010 population of 36,299. BLM manages 463 square miles of 

Albany County, and the USFS manages 581 square miles.

Laramie, the county seat, is the largest city in Albany County, with a 2010 estimated population of nearly 

31,000. It is home to the University of Wyoming. Interstate Highway 80 (I-80) bisects the southern half 

of Albany County, running east to west, and the I-25 corridor, running north to south, is located about 20 

miles to the east in Laramie County. Colorado lies directly south of Albany County.

Albany County boasts numerous opportunities for year-round outdoor recreational activities and provides 

access to Bamforth National Wildlife Refuge, Hutton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, MBNF, and 

Mortenson Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

With the presence of the state university, Albany County employment is dominated by government and 

government enterprises and retail trade. Albany County also has the youngest and most educated 

population in the socioeconomic study area with a median age of 26.8 and 48.8 percent of the population 

with a postsecondary education.

3.1.2 Campbell County

Campbell County was organized in 1911 and spans 4,797 square miles of territory in northeastern

Wyoming. BLM administers 357 square miles of the county, and the USFS administers 87 square miles. 

With a population of 46,133, Campbell County is the third most populous county in Wyoming. The 

county seat is located in Gillette, by far the most populous community in the county with an estimated 

population of just over 26,000. I-90 bisects the county, running east and west. Montana lies directly to the 

north.

Campbell County touts itself as the energy capital of the nation. Thirty percent of the nation’s coal is 

produced in area surface mines. The oil and gas development and production industry is also an important

contributor to America’s economy and Campbell County’s prosperity. Mining accounts for 26 percent of 

Campbell County’s employment. Ranching is another important land use; herds of cattle and sheep graze 

among large herds of deer and antelope. Every fall, the abundance of wildlife in attracts hunters from 

around the world.

Campbell County was recently listed in a popular agricultural magazine as one of the top 100 places to 

live in rural America. The population is growing rapidly due to coal mining and oil and gas development. 

The unemployment rate is low and job opportunities are high. Median family income in Campbell County 

is among the highest in the state.
Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

3-2 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

3.1.3 Carbon County

Carbon County was organized in 1868 and spans 7,958 square miles in south-central Wyoming. BLM 

administers 3,215 square miles (40 percent) and the USFS administers 978 square miles of the county.

Carbon County has a population of nearly 16,000 and a population density of 2.0 persons per square mile, 

making it a predominantly rural area. Rawlins, with a population of 9,259, is the county seat and the most 

populous community. I-80 bisects Carbon County, running east and west. The county shares its southern 

border with Colorado.

Rawlins is significant as the original commercial heart of Carbon County. As one of hundreds of railroad 

towns along the Union Pacific mainline, Rawlins grew into a modern city with a diversified economy that 

today serves a regional ranching, oil and gas, and industrial community. Because of its location on the 

first transcontinental railroad and its status as a permanent water source in an otherwise semiarid region, 

Rawlins became a major division point for the Union Pacific Railroad. In the 20th century, the city was 

located on the first transcontinental auto highway, the Lincoln Highway. As such, it has played a key role 

in state, regional, and national transportation. Today, the main industry in Rawlins is oil and gas 

development and production, with several pipelines in the Rawlins area. Rawlins is also the home of the 

Wyoming State Penitentiary, a major employer in the area located just a few miles south of town. Wind 

energy development is another important industry in Rawlins and the county.

Located just 6 miles to the east is the small Wyoming community of Sinclair, home of the Sinclair 

Refinery, which boasts itself as “The West’s Most Modern Refinery.” First known as Parco, Sinclair was 

described by the Rocky Mountain News in August 1925 as “truly an oasis in an otherwise drab desert 

territory.” Carbon County also provides year-round access to the MBNF and Pathfinder National Wildlife 

Refuge, providing ample opportunities for outdoor enthusiasts. The abundance of wildlife in the county 

attracts hunters from around the world.

3.1.4 Converse County

Converse County was established in 1888, the same year Douglas was named as the county seat. Early 

explorers traveled west along the North Platte River, followed by pioneers traveling routes later identified 

as the Mormon and Oregon trails. Homesteaders began settling in the late 1800s and by the early 1900s, 

the area was producing oil and gas. Agriculture and energy production continue today as the primary 

economic engines in Converse County.

I-25 bisects the southern half of Converse County as it traverses east to west between Casper and Douglas

before turning south toward Cheyenne. In Douglas, Highway 59 begins at I-25 and travels north through 

the TBNG and on into Campbell County and Gillette, Wyoming. The MBNF extends into southern 

Converse County south of I-25.

The North Platte River flows west to east through Converse County, and the North Platte watershed 

drains the southern half of this county. The Cheyenne watershed drains most of the northern half of 

Converse County. Energy development in Converse County, which primarily involved oil, gas, uranium, 

and coal, began in the early 1900s and continues today.

Converse County comprises 4,259 square miles, of which BLM administers 203 square miles and the 

USFS administers 277 square miles. 

3.1.5 Crook County

Crook County was established in 1875. Covering 2,868 square miles of territory in the northeastern

corner of Wyoming, Crook County is among the least populous counties in the state at 7,083 people in 
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 3-3

2010. Crook County is a sparsely populated, rural community that shares its eastern border with South 

Dakota and its northern border with Montana. I-90 runs through Crook County east to west. Government,

agriculture, and construction are the primary employers in Crook County.

Crook County offers access to a variety of outdoor activities, including those on the Black Hills National 

Forest, Devils Tower National Monument, and TBNG. The largest town in Crook County is Sundance, 

the county seat, with a population of about 1,500. BLM manages 142 square miles in the county, and the 

USFS manages 277 square miles.

3.1.6 Fremont County

Fremont County was established in 1884. Covering 9,253 square miles of the western portion of 

Wyoming, with a population of 40,123, Fremont County is among the largest and most populous counties 

in the socioeconomic study area. The county seat is Lander, with a population of about 7,500, which is 

second only to Riverton with a population of just over 10,600. Highway 287 and Highway 26 are the 

major roadways through Fremont County, which has no interstate highways. 

Fremont County’s unique geography offers access to a diversity of minerals, including uranium, oil and 

gas, jade, gold, and precious gems. Economically, government and retail trade account for the largest 

percentage of employment in Fremont County. A substantial portion of the Wind River Indian 

Reservation, including the tribal headquarters, is located within the Fremont county boundaries. In 

addition, the only casino in Wyoming (operated by the Tribes) is located in Fremont County.

Fremont County offers a wide range of rural resources and uses, including National Historic Trails, the

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, historic mining areas, rock climbing, hiking, mountain biking, 

hang gliding, livestock grazing, and wild horses. The abundance of wildlife in the county attracts hunters 

from around the world. Fremont County also offers access to Bridger National Forest, Shoshone National 

Forest, and Teton National Forest, making it a popular destination for outdoor enthusiasts. BLM manages 

3,282 square miles of the county, and the USFS manages 1,533 square miles.

3.1.7 Goshen County

Goshen County was established in 1911, the same year Torrington was named as the county seat. 

Beginning in 1843, the area became a gateway for early explorers and pioneers traveling west via the 

North Platte River and the Oregon and Mormon trails. Agriculture became a primary economic activity

early in Goshen County’s history and remains so today. Energy development and transportation are also 

important economic sectors currently.

Highway 26 parallels the North Platte River traversing west to east between Guernsey and Torrington. 

Highway 85 intersects Highway 26 and is the primary north-south transportation corridor in the county. 

Goshen County comprises 2,230 square miles, of which BLM administers 39 square miles. The USFS 

does not manage any land in Goshen County. 

3.1.8 Laramie County

Laramie County’s most populous community, Cheyenne, began in 1867, when the Union Pacific Railroad 

came through on its way to the west coast. The town site was first surveyed by General Grenville Dodge 

and was named for an Indian tribe that roamed the area. Settlement came so fast to the area that the 

nickname “Magic City of the Plains” was adopted for Cheyenne. On August 8, 1867, the first charter for 

the government of the City of Cheyenne was established. At that time, Cheyenne was situated in the 

Dakota Territory and had a population of approximately 600 people. The following December, a 

permanent city charter was granted by the Dakota Territory legislature. 
Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

3-4 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

Cheyenne, the largest city in the county with a recent population of over 59,000, is strategically situated at 

a major transportation hub (the intersection of Interstates 25 and 80 and two major railroads) and is a 

developing center of commerce. Only 90 minutes north of Denver, Colorado, Cheyenne sits as the 

northern anchor city of the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. Cheyenne is the capital of Wyoming, 

the seat of Laramie County, and the site of F.E. Warren Air Force Base. Its economic base is extremely 

diverse, ranging from state and national government to high-technology industry, such as satellite 

communications.

Laramie County comprises 2,686 square miles, of which BLM administers 15 square miles. The USFS 

does not manage any land in Goshen County.

3.1.9 Lincoln County

Lincoln County was established in 1911, the same year Kemmerer was named as the county seat. 

Pioneers traveling west in the mid-to-late 1800s generally followed the Oregon Trail, which ran near 

Kemmerer. Early settlers established homesteads in the area in the late 1800s, and large sheep and cattle 

ranches took advantage of the vast rangeland. Extensive ranch settlement in the region followed the 

construction of the Union Pacific Railroad around 1867. Coal deposits at Kemmerer brought about its 

settlement in 1881. Kemmerer now boasts the largest open pit coal mine in the world.

State Highways 30 and 189 are the main roads through Lincoln County, and both connect Kemmerer with 

I-80 to the south in Uinta County. State Highway 30 bisects the southern portion of the county as it 

generally traverses east-west, passing through Kemmerer. State Highway 89, in the northern portion of 

the county, runs through the towns of Afton and Alpine.

Three important rivers pass through Lincoln County: the Bear River, the Snake River, and the Green 

River. The Bear River flows into the Great Salt Lake. The Snake River, which originates in Yellowstone 

National Park, crosses the northern tip of the county and joins the Columbia River before flowing into the 

Pacific Ocean. The Green River, which passes the eastern border of the county, flows southward into 

Utah, where it joins the Colorado River. Fontenelle Reservoir, created on the Green River system, is 

located in Lincoln County and is primarily surrounded by Bureau of Reclamation lands. Lincoln County 

comprises 4,084 square miles, of which BLM administers 1,536 square miles and the USFS administers 

1,399 square miles. 

3.1.10 Natrona County

Natrona County was established in 1888, the same year Casper was named as the county seat. Pioneers 

traveling west in the mid-to-late 1800s generally followed the Mormon and Oregon trails. Early settlers 

established homesteads in the area in the late 1800s, and large ranches of sheep and cattle took advantage 

of the vast rangeland. The Salt Creek and other early oil fields established the energy industry in this part 

of the planning area. Today, energy and agriculture remain important to the county’s economy. In 

addition, Casper’s role as a regional services and trade center, including health care and finance, also 

supports the county’s economy.

Highway 26 generally bisects the middle of Natrona County as it traverses east to west between Casper 

and Waltman. I-25 is the primary north-south transportation corridor between Casper and Buffalo (in 

Johnson County). Southern routes from Casper include Highway 220 to Alcova and Highway 487. 

Approximately 8 square miles of the MBNF are in southeast Natrona County.

The North Platte River runs through Natrona County, and the county includes Alcova Reservoir and a 

portion of Pathfinder Reservoir. Alcova Reservoir is important to the Casper-Alcova Irrigation District, 

which supplies water to most of the irrigated land in Natrona County. Energy development in Natrona 
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 3-5

County began in 1883 with the first oil well and continues today, primarily involving oil, gas, and 

uranium.

Natrona County comprises 5,368 square miles, of which BLM administers 2,348 square miles (44 

percent). The USFS administers 9 square miles of the county.

3.1.11 Niobrara County

Niobrara County was established in 1911. It is the least populated and most rural county within the 

socioeconomic study area, with a population of 2,484 and a population density of less than one person per 

square mile. Niobrara County encompasses 2,624 square miles of eastern Wyoming and shares a border 

with both South Dakota and Nebraska. BLM manages 194 square miles, and the USFS manages 1 square 

mile.

Lusk, the county seat and largest town in Niobrara County, is located at the crossroads of U.S. Highways 

85 and 20/26. The economy of the region is diverse; agriculture has long anchored the community 

business structure, but it has often been supplemented by booms in mineral exploration. The Union 

Pacific Railroad runs west to east through Niobrara County, carrying Wyoming’s coal to the Midwest and 

beyond. Lusk is also home to the Wyoming Women’s Center, Wyoming’s state correctional facility for 

women. Outdoor enthusiasts find ample opportunities in Niobrara County for hunting, horseback riding, 

fishing, boating, hiking, rock/fossil/artifact hunting, tennis, sightseeing and swimming.

3.1.12 Park County

Park County was established in 1909 and organized in 1911. It was named for Yellowstone National 

Park, the first national park. The majority of the national park is located within Park County. Most of the 

Shoshone National Forest, the first national forest, is also located in Park County.

Park County encompasses 6,962 square miles of land, the majority of which is state or federal land, with 

only 17 percent privately owned. BLM manages 984 square miles, whereas the USFS manages 2,672 

square miles (38 percent). Its population of 28,205 represents a population density of 4.1 persons per 

square mile. Cody is the largest community at 9,520 and is the county seat. It was founded in 1896 by 

Colonel William F. “Buffalo Bill” Cody.

The major industries of Park County are government, service industries, retail trade, and construction. 

Tourism related to Yellowstone National Park and the legacy of both Buffalo Bill and the cowboy history 

of the West are major foundations of the local economy. The town of Meeteetse, for example, is 

maintained as example of a frontier town complete with board sidewalks and other features of yesteryear.

Outdoor recreation in the national park and the substantial areas of designated wilderness in the county 

are important economically, as is agriculture. The abundance of wildlife in the county attracts hunters 

from around the world. 

3.1.13 Platte County

Platte County was established in 1911, the same year Wheatland was named as the county seat. Although 

pioneers traveled west along the Oregon Trail, which ran through what is now Platte County, the area was 

occupied primarily by Native Americans and fur trappers until the late 1860s, when cattle ranchers moved 

into the area. Agriculture remains an important economic activity in Platte County. 

Platte County is bisected by I-25 as it traverses north-south between Glendo and Chugwater. Between

Glendo and Wheatland, Highway 26 travels east to Guernsey and on to Torrington in Goshen County.

The North Platte River runs through northeast Platte County and includes the Glendo and Guernsey 
Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

3-6 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

reservoirs. Mining plays a relatively minor role in Platte County’s economy; however, the Laramie River

Station power plant is a consumer-owned coal power plant that contributes to the area’s economy.

Platte County comprises 2,109 square miles, of which BLM administers 129 square miles. In addition, 

BLM administers 660 square miles of federal mineral estate in Platte County. The USFS administers 3 

square miles in the county.

3.1.14 Sublette County

Sublette County was established in 1921, the same year Pinedale was named as the county seat. Sublette 

County comprises 4,929 square miles, of which BLM manages 1,979 square miles and the USFS 

manages 1,816 square miles. 

Located at the foot of the Wind River Mountain Range and close to the Bridger Wilderness, Pinedale is 

the county seat and the largest community in Sublette County with a population of about 2,000. The first 

inhabitants of the area were Shoshone, Gros Ventre, Bannock, Sheepeater, and Crow Native American 

tribes. White explorers, mainly trappers and mountain men, arrived in the early 1800s, drawn to the area 

by the tales of streams rich with beaver. Later, ranchers and cattlemen began to winter their stock in the 

area and eventually settled there themselves. 

Ranching has historically been an important industry for the area. The tourism industry has played a large 

part in the economic development of Pinedale, with recreation opportunities that include fishing or 

boating in the many lakes surrounding Pinedale, snowmobiling in the surrounding mountain ranges, 

skiing at White Pine Ski Area, hiking in the Wind River Mountains, and wildlife viewing. The abundance 

of wildlife in the county attracts hunters from around the world. In the last few years, the level of oil and 

gas development has considerably increased, making it the dominant industry, with timbering and 

ranching declining in the area. 

3.1.15 Sweetwater County

Sweetwater County was established in 1867, the same year Green River was named as the county seat. 

Several emigrant trails passed through the county, including the Oregon, California, Mormon, Overland, 

and Cherokee trails. In addition, the transcontinental railroad came in 1868, creating two major 

population centers—Green River and Rock Springs. Agriculture remains an important economic activity

in Sweetwater County, as does mining for mineral commodities, such as coal, trona, oil, and gas. The 

largest deposit of trona in the world, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (2011), is largely located is 

Sweetwater County. Trona mining and soda ash processing is a unique and important industry for 

Sweetwater County. 

I-80 traverses east-west through Sweetwater County. State Highway 30 traverses northwest from I-80 

near Granger to Kemmerer (Lincoln County). The Upper Green River watershed, which drains all of 

Sweetwater County, is an important portion of the planning area. The Seedskadee National Wildlife 

Refuge is located in Sweetwater County and is primarily surrounded by Bureau of Reclamation lands.

The Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area is a key recreation and tourism resource in the county.

Sweetwater County comprises 10,483 square miles. BLM administers 65 percent of the county, which 

constitutes 6,864 square miles. The USFS administers 86 square miles.

3.1.16 Teton County

Teton County, Wyoming, is named for the Teton Range, the most prominent feature in the area. In 1921,

it was part of Lincoln County, whose county seat was Kemmerer, which was too far away. In 1923, Teton 
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 3-7

County was created despite the fact that it did not meet the population and property valuations 

requirements. Instead, it was created by a special act.

Today, the spectacular beauty of the Teton Range and the area surrounding Jackson attract thousands of 

visitors annually, who come for skiing, climbing, hiking, fishing, hunting, and many other outdoor 

activities in Grand Teton National Park and throughout the county. The county’s economy is primarily 

based on this tourism and the expenditures of wealthy individuals and families who have established 

homes or vacation residences in the area.

The county seat of Teton County is Jackson. The county has a population of 21,294. It comprises 4,217 

square miles. The USFS manages 2,143 square miles (51 percent). BLM manages 5 square miles in the 

county.

3.1.17 Uinta County

Uinta County was established in 1869, the same year Evanston was named as the county seat. For early 

explorers traveling west along the Oregon Trail, Fort Bridger, the oldest settlement in the county, was an 

important trading post located in a valley on the Blacks Fork River and is still in existence today.

Agriculture and energy production are the primary economic activities in Uinta County.

I-80 generally traverses east-west through Uinta County. State Highway 189 traverses north from I-80 

between Evanston and Lyman toward Kemmerer (Lincoln County).

The Upper Bear River watershed drains the western portion of Uinta County. The Upper Green River 

watershed drains the central and eastern portions of the county. Uinta County comprises 2,087 square 

miles, of which BLM administers 750 square miles and the USFS administers 58 square miles. 

3.1.18 Weston County

Weston County was established in 1890. It covers 2,397 square miles of territory in northeastern 

Wyoming. BLM administers 111 square miles, and the USFS manages 119 square miles.

Weston County has a population of 7,208. Newcastle, with a population of roughly 3,500, is the county 

seat. Newcastle is located at the junction of Highway 16 and Highway 85, on the southwest edge of the 

Black Hills. 

The dominant industries in the area are bentonite mining, oil and gas development, ranching, tourism, 

recreation, and government. Weston County offers numerous opportunities for outdoor recreation,

including hunting, fishing, camping, backpacking, biking, boating, hiking, ice fishing, cross-country 

skiing, snowmobiling on over 335 miles of groomed snowmobile trails, wildlife viewing, and 

rockhounding. Keyhole Reservoir (about 54 miles north on Highway 16); Pactola Reservoir, Deerfield 

Reservoir, and Sheridan Lake (all approximately 50 miles into South Dakota); and Angastora Reservoir 

(approximately 100 miles southeast in South Dakota) provide fishing and boating opportunities. Weston 

County is rich in history, scenic beauty, and abundant wildlife with several loop tours that offer 

distinctive opportunities for sightseeing.

3.2 POPULATION GROWTH

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2010 population of the socioeconomic study area was 

estimated to be 500,928. As shown in Table 2-2, the most populous county is Laramie County, with a 

population of 91,738, followed by Natrona County, with a population of 75,450. These populations 

amount to 18.3 percent and 15.1 percent of the socioeconomic study area population, respectively. 

Niobrara County has the lowest population at 2,484, or 0.5 percent of the socioeconomic study area. 
Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

3-8 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

Other counties with populations under 10,000 (and thus under 2.0 percent of the socioeconomic study 

area) are Crook, Platte, and Weston counties.

Table 3-1 shows how the population of the socioeconomic study area has increased since the 1970s as has 

the population of Wyoming and the United States. Every county within the socioeconomic study area saw

positive population growth between 1970 and 2010, with the exception of Niobrara County, the smallest 

county by population in the socioeconomic study area. Seven counties saw population growth of over 100 

percent: Campbell, Converse, Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, Teton, and Uinta counties. In terms of 

absolute growth, the largest increases were in Laramie County (increase of 35,378 persons), Campbell 

County (33,176), Sweetwater County (25,415), and Natrona County (24,186). Growth in Campbell and 

Sweetwater counties is explained by increased mineral development (coal, oil, and gas, predominantly). 

Natrona County’s growth also reflects some oil and gas development, as well as growth associated with

the economy of Casper, the second-largest city in Wyoming. Laramie County’s growth is largely 

associated with the economy of Cheyenne, Wyoming’s largest city and state capital. Teton County’s 

growth is based on the development of Jackson and surrounding areas as a popular resort.

Population growth projections between 2010 and 2020, prepared by the state government, anticipate 

continued growth of 10.7 percent for the socioeconomic study area as a whole. At the county level, 

Campbell (23.3 percent) and Sublette (35.5 percent) counties are projected to have the highest percentage

population growth. Again, these counties have high levels of ongoing oil and gas development. In the 

same period, four other counties are projected to have greater than 10 percent population growth 

(Converse, Crook, and Fremont counties). Twelve counties are projected to have less than 10 percent 

population growth.
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 3-9

Table 3-1. Population of the Socioeconomic Study Area, 1970 to 2020

Area 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Change

1970–2010 2020

Projected Change 

2010–2020

Persons % Persons %

Albany 26,431 29,062 30,797 32,014 36,299 9,868 37.3 38,910 2,611 7.2

Campbell 12,957 24,367 29,370 33,698 46,133 33,176 256.0 56,890 10,757 23.3

Carbon 13,354 21,896 16,659 15,639 15,885 2,531 19.0 16,380 495 3.1

Converse 5,938 14,069 11,128 12,052 13,833 7,895 133.0 15,950 2,117 15.3

Crook 4,535 5,308 5,294 5,887 7,083 2,548 56.2 8,040 957 13.5

Fremont 28,352 38,992 33,662 35,804 40,123 11,771 41.5 44,360 4,237 10.6

Goshen 10,885 12,040 12,373 12,538 13,249 2,364 21.7 13,960 711 5.4

Laramie 56,360 68,649 73,142 81,607 91,738 35,378 62.8 99,710 7,972 8.7

Lincoln 8,640 12,177 12,625 14,573 18,106 9,466 109.6 19,170 1,064 5.9

Natrona 51,264 71,856 61,226 66,533 75,450 24,186 47.2 82,490 7,040 9.3

Niobrara 2,924 2,924 2,499 2,407 2,484 -440 -15.0 2,660 176 7.1

Park 17,752 21,639 23,178 25,786 28,205 10,453 58.9 30,440 2,235 7.9

Platte 6,486 11,975 8,145 8,807 8,667 2,181 33.6 8,780 113 1.3

Sublette 3,755 4,548 4,843 5,920 10,247 6,492 172.9 13,880 3,633 35.5

Sweetwater 18,391 41,723 38,823 37,613 43,806 25,415 138.2 49,280 5,474 12.5

Teton 4,823 9,355 11,172 18,251 21,294 16,471 341.5 23,360 2,066 9.7

Uinta 7,100 13,021 18,705 19,742 21,118 14,018 197.4 22,580 1,462 6.9

Weston 6,307 7,106 6,518 6,644 7,208 901 14.3 7,900 692 9.6

Study Area 286,254 410,707 400,159 435,515 500,928 214,674 75.0 554,740 53,812 10.7

Wyoming 332,416 469,557 453,588 493,782 563,626 231,210 69.6 622,360 58,734 10.4

U.S. 205,052,174 227,224,681 248,709,873 281,421,906 308,745,538 103,693,364 50.6 341,387,000 32,641,462 10.6

Source: U.S.: 1970 – U.S. Census Bureau 1970; 1980 – U.S. Census Bureau 1980; 1990 – U.S. Census Bureau 1990; 2000 – U.S. Census Bureau 2000; 2010 population data –

U.S. Census Bureau 2010 data QT-P3; 2020 projection – U.S. Census Bureau 2008 National Population Projections (current recommended series for data users; 

http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/2009projections.html). Wyoming and Counties: Wyoming Economic Analysis Division 2008a, 2008b.
Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

3-10 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

3.3 DEMOGRAPHICS

A comparison of several demographic characteristics of the 18 socioeconomic study area counties, 

Wyoming, and the United States is shown in Table 3-2. The figures depict various elements of the 

socioeconomic makeup of the socioeconomic study area. 

Table 3-2. Demographics Overview of Socioeconomic Study Area Compared to State and 

Nation

County

Sex Age (Years) Avg. 

Family 

Size

Education (Degrees) Language 

Other than 

Male English* Female Median Over 

65 Secondary PostSecondary

Albany 52.1% 47.9% 26.8 8.7% 2.84 94.0% 48.8% 10.7%

Campbell 50.2% 49.8% 31.9 5.7% 3.11 90.4% 16.9% 5.3%

Carbon 53.8% 46.2% 48.9 12.9% 2.91 89.8% 18.4% 9.5%

Converse 50.7% 49.3% 39.0 12.8% 2.93 92.6% 17.0% 3.6%

Crook 51.5% 48.5% 43.6 16.2% 2.90 91.4% 18.1% 2.9%

Fremont 49.9% 50.1% 38.5 14.5% 3.07 88.9% 22.2% 8.3%

Goshen 52.1% 47.9% 43.6 18.9% 2.82 88.3% 19.9% 5.4%

Laramie 50.0% 50.0% 37.0 12.5% 2.95 90.5% 22.7% 8.1%

Lincoln 51.4% 48.6% 37.4 12.4% 3.11 91.2% 17.4% 4.2%

Natrona 50.3% 49.7% 36.8 12.4% 2.94 92.0% 21.5% 4.4%

Niobrara 46.7% 53.3% 46.1 21.0% 2.71 92.0% 18.8% 1.8%

Park 49.7% 50.3% 43.6 17.5% 2.81 92.1% 25.7% 4.3%

Platte 49.6% 51.4% 47.5 20.7% 2.76 88.3% 17.0% 4.8%

Sublette 54.2% 45.8% 38.3 10.1% 2.99 94.1% 26.2% 2.7%

Sweetwater 52.3% 47.7% 32.8 8.3% 3.09 89.5% 16.9% 7.7%

Teton 52.6% 47.4% 36.9 9.9% 3.32 95.9% 49.5% 13.2%

Uinta 50.5% 49.5% 33.9 8.9% 3.19 89.9% 17.3% 4.7%

Weston 52.6% 47.4% 42.3 15.9% 2.81 90.0% 19.3% 2.6%

Wyoming 51.0% 49.0% 36.8 12.4% 2.96 91.1% 23.2% 6.4%

United States 49.2% 50.7% 37.2 13.0% 3.14 84.6% 27.5% 19.6%

*Language other than English spoken at home.

Source: Sex, Age, Avg. Family Size – U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Summary File 1, Tables: QT-P11, QT-P1; Education, 

Language Other than English – U.S. Census Bureau 2009a (2005-2009 American Community Survey).

As shown in Table 3-2, the male to female ratio is similar for all geographies, with slightly more males 

than females in both Wyoming and the socioeconomic study area. The exceptions are Fremont, Niobrara, 

Park, and Platte counties, which have slightly more females than males. 

The median age for counties within the socioeconomic study area varies from 26.8 to 48.9 years of age. 

These figures compare to the state median age of 36.8 years and the national median age of 37.2 years. 

The two counties with the lowest median age are Albany County, with a median age of 24.5, and 

Campbell County, with a median age of 31.7 years of age. Albany County’s lower median age can be 

attributed to the population of students at the University of Wyoming in Laramie. Campbell County’s 

lower median age is a result of the high concentration of mining jobs in the area, which require a younger 

workforce. Carbon County has the oldest median age at 48.9 years of age.
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 3-11

The percentage of the population over 65 years can be grouped into three categories: low, average, and 

high. The categories are determined in relation to the national (12.4 percent) and state (13. 0 percent) 

average of populations over 65 years of age. Albany, Campbell, Sublette, Sweetwater, Teton, and Uinta 

counties have a lower percentage of 65 and older residents than the nation and state, ranging from 5.7 

percent to 10.1 percent. These counties with a low percentage of persons over 65 have a university 

population (Albany County), a strong mining industry that attracts younger workers, or a dominant resort 

economy (Teton County). Carbon, Converse, Fremont, Laramie, Lincoln, and Natrona counties generally 

reflect the national and state average, ranging from 12.4 to 14.5 percent. Crook, Goshen, Niobrara, Park, 

Platte, and Weston counties each have an over 65 population that is higher than the national and state 

average, ranging from 15.9 to 21.0 percent. Except Park County, these counties are all on the plains on 

the eastern edge of the state and lack larger communities (compared to Laramie County with Cheyenne). 

This factor may result in outmigration of younger persons from these counties, which would increase the 

percentage of older people. 

Wyoming in general has a lower average family size than the United States (2.96 persons per family 

compared to 3.14 for the United States). Among the counties in the socioeconomic study area, the family 

size range is as low as 2.71 in Niobrara County and as high as 3.32 in Teton County. Generally speaking, 

low average family size—for example, as in Goshen (2.82), Niobrara (2.71), Platte (2.76), and Park and 

Weston (2.81) counties—correlates with high percentage of residents over 65. The exception is Albany 

County, whose low average family size is a result of its population of college students. Carbon (2.91), 

Converse (2.93), Crook (2.90), Fremont (3.07), Laramie (2.95), Lincoln (3.11), Natrona (2.94), and 

Sweetwater (3.09) counties are all relatively consistent with the statewide average (2.96) with respect to 

family size, but they are still below the national average (3.14).

Wyoming has a higher rate of high school graduates than the nation (91.1 percent compared to 84.6 

percent), but a lower rate of college graduates at 23.2 percent compared with 27.5 percent nationally. 

With the exception of Albany (94 percent), Teton (95.9 percent), and Sublette (94.1 percent) counties, the 

rest of the socioeconomic study area is consistent with the statewide percentage of high school graduates.

Albany County’s high school graduation rate probably can be attributed to the presence of the university, 

while Sublette County’s rate may be attributable to a higher than normal median family income. Teton 

County’s rate is probably due to the very affluent population attracted by its resort economy. Wyoming’s 

lower college graduation rate could be due in part to the high concentration of mining and construction

jobs in Wyoming, which can provide a good income without a college degree. 

Wyoming has a much lower percentage of residents who speak a language other than English at home 

than the nation (6.4 percent compared to 19.6 percent), and the majority of the counties in the 

socioeconomic study area are even lower than the statewide percentage. This pattern is consistent with the 

predominantly white racial demographics of the state (see discussion of Table 3-4). Albany and Teton 

counties’ high rates correspond with their high percentages of residents who are foreign born (see Table 

3-3).

Table 3-3 shows that the percentage of Wyoming residents born in Wyoming (42.0 percent) is lower than 

the percentage of people in the United States for whom their birth state is also their state of residence 

(59.0 percent). This statistic indicates strong migration into the area by persons born outside of Wyoming. 

This strong migratory draw is consistent with the effects of strong mining and construction industries, low 

unemployment in recent years, and affordable housing. These factors generally lure residents from other 

states. Teton (69.2 percent), Crook (66.2 percent), Uinta (63.0 percent), Park (62.5 percent), and Weston 

(62.0 percent) counties have the highest percentages of residents born in another state. Fremont (46.9 

percent), Natrona (48.2 percent), Park (35.1 percent) and Platte (48.8 percent) counties have low 

percentages of residents born in another state, but all are well above the national average of 27.3 percent.

Wyoming has a very low percentage of foreign born residents compared to the United States (3.5 percent

versus 13.7 percent). Teton County (9.0 percent), Albany County (6.0 percent) and Sweetwater County 
Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

3-12 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

(5.2 percent) have the highest percentage of foreign born residents in the socioeconomic study area, but 

are still well below the U.S. average.

Table 3-3. Place of Birth of Socioeconomic Study Area Population

State of Residence Different State Foreign born

% % %

Albany 40.8 53.2 6.0

Campbell 40.5 56.8 2.7

Carbon 40.9 55.1 4.0

Converse 47.0 51.8 1.2

Crook 32.8 66.2 1.0

Fremont 51.3 46.9 1.8

Goshen 42.3 56.1 1.6

Laramie 38.7 56.7 4.6

Lincoln 41.7 54.7 3.7

Natrona 49.3 48.2 2.5

Niobrara 41.7 57.9 0.4

Park 35.1 62.5 1.8

Platte 48.9 48.8 2.2

Sublette 37.6 60.1 2.3

Sweetwater 42.9 52.0 5.2

Teton 20.6 69.2 9.0

Uinta 33.6 63.0 3.3

Weston 36.6 62.0 1.4

Wyoming 42.0 54.5 3.5

United States 59.0 27.3 13.7

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2009a (2005–2009 American Community Survey).

The vast majority of the statewide population (90.7 percent) is of white race. As shown in Table 3-4, the 

socioeconomic study area’s county populations are similar to the statewide populations, with Crook 

County having the highest percentage of whites (97.2 percent) and Fremont County having the lowest 

percentage (74.3 percent). The minority population throughout the socioeconomic study area is very low. 

Hispanics make up the largest minority population for all but one county: Fremont County has a relatively 

large population of American Indian/Alaska Native (21.2 percent), due to the Wind River Indian 

Reservation. The largest Hispanic population (16.8 percent) is in Carbon County, which is higher than the 

state figure (8.9 percent) and closer to the national figure (13.5 percent) than the rest of the 

socioeconomic study area. Teton County also has a high Hispanic population (15.0 percent). Further 

analysis of minority populations is provided in the Environmental Justice section (see section 3.8). 

Table 3-4. Population by Race/Ethnicity in the Socioeconomic Study Area, 2010

Area Race Hispanic

County White Black/ 

African

American

American 

Indian/ 

Alaska 

Native

Asian Native 

Hawaiian/ 

Pacific 

Islander

Some 

Other 

Race

Two or 

More 

Races

Albany 90.1% 1.2% 0.7% 2.8% 0.1% 2.4% 2.7% 8.8%
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 3-13

Area Race Hispanic

County White Black/ 

African

American

American 

Indian/ 

Alaska 

Native

Asian Native 

Hawaiian/ 

Pacific 

Islander

Some 

Other 

Race

Two or 

More 

Races

Campbell 93.2% 0.3% 1.2% 0.6% 0.0% 2.7% 2.1% 7.8%

Carbon 88.8% 0.7% 1.0% 0.7% 0.1% 6.5% 2.2% 16.8%

Converse 95.1% 0.3% 0.8% 0.3% 0.1% 1.7% 1.7% 6.3%

Crook 97.2% 0.2% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.6% 1.2% 2.0%

Fremont 74.3% 0.3% 21.2% 0.4% 0.0% 1.0% 2.8% 5.6%

Goshen 94.5% 0.6% 0.8% 0.3% 0.1% 2.4% 1.2% 9.7%

Laramie 88.5% 2.5% 1.0% 1.1% 0.2% 3.8% 3.1% 13.1%

Lincoln 95.4% 0.2% 0.8% 0.3% 0.0% 2.0% 1.2% 4.3%

Natrona 92.8% 0.9% 1.0% 0.7% 0.1% 2.2% 2.4% 6.9%

Niobrara 96.5% 0.2% 0.8% 0.4% 0.0% 0.5% 1.6% 2.1%

Park 95.6% 0.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.1% 1.4% 1.6% 4.8%

Platte 95.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.1% 2.0% 1.5% 6.7%

Sublette 93.2% 0.3% 0.8% 0.5% 0.0% 3.7% 1.4% 6.9%

Sweetwater 88.5% 1.0% 1.0% 0.8% 0.1% 6.4% 2.3% 15.3%

Teton 88.4% 0.2% 0.5% 1.1% 0.1% 8.1% 1.6% 15.0%

Uinta 92.4% 0.3% 0.8% 0.3% 0.2% 4.1% 2.0% 8.8%

Weston 95.5% 0.3% 1.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.9% 1.7% 3.0%

Wyoming 90.7% 0.8% 2.4% 0.8% 0.1% 3.0% 2.2% 8.9%

United States 72.4% 12.6% 0.9% 4.8% 0.2% 6.2% 2.9% 16.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Summary File 1, Table QT-P3.

Note: Hispanic population is an additional designation, not a race designation; the Hispanic population includes multiple races.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau 2005–2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2009a), the median family income and per capita income for Wyoming is high relative to 

the United States ($63,545 median family income for Wyoming versus $51,425 for the nation), as shown 

in Table 3-5. Within the socioeconomic study area, median incomes range from a low in Platte County of 

$51,556 to a high in Teton County of $90,326. Eleven of the counties within the socioeconomic study 

area (Albany, Campbell, Carbon, Converse, Laramie, Lincoln, Natrona, Sublette, Sweetwater, Teton, and 

Uinta counties) have median family incomes above $60,000. Most of these counties have significant 

mining industries that provide strong wages. Albany and Laramie counties do not have as much mining, 

but do have strong professional occupational presence in the University of Wyoming and the City of 

Cheyenne, respectively. Teton County has a highly affluent resort economy. The remaining six counties 

(Crook, Fremont, Goshen, Niobrara, Platte, and Weston counties) all have a median family income above 

the national average, but lower than the statewide average.

Table 3-5. Income Levels in the Socioeconomic Study Area

Area Median Family 

Income

Per Capita Income 

(2008)

Individuals Below 

Poverty Level (%)

Albany $67,657 $35,993 21.4%

Campbell $82,626 $50,332 6.0%

Carbon $60,349 $42,772 9.6%
Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

3-14 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

Area Median Family 

Income

Per Capita Income 

(2008)

Individuals Below 

Poverty Level (%)

Converse $66,494 $44,458 6.8%

Crook $51,778 $44,269 10.1%

Fremont $54,040 $37,431 14.1%

Goshen $52,617 $35,412 12.8%

Laramie $62,200 $44,613 9.5%

Lincoln $63,619 $39,236 6.9%

Natrona $62,869 $52,185 9.6%

Niobrara $58,000 $41,066 10.7%

Platte $51,556 $39,418 11.0%

Park $55,264 $25,178 7.8%

Sublette $83,587 $66,122 3.4%

Sweetwater $74,615 $50,015 7.4%

Teton $90,326 $38,588 7.7%

Uinta $64,668 $44,580 10.4%

Weston $57,452 $43,239 7.3%

Wyoming $63,545 $48,580 9.6%

United States $51,425 $40,166 13.5%

Source: Median Family Income, Individuals Below Poverty Level – U.S. Census Bureau 2009a (2005-2009 American Community 

Survey); Per Capita Income – BEA 2008, Table CA 1-3.

Table 3-5 also shows that statewide, the percentage of individuals below the poverty level (9.6 percent) is 

low compared the nation (13.5 percent). Albany County is the clear exception, with 21.4 percent of its 

population below the poverty level. This percentage may be due largely to the high population of college 

students who are not yet earning a significant income. At 14.1 percent, Fremont County’s percentage of 

population below the poverty level is also higher than the nation’s. Fremont County has a large American 

Indian population, a population that historically has a high rate of poverty. Fremont County also has a low 

percentage of employment from mining. The lowest level of poverty is in Sublette County (3.4 percent), 

which also has the second highest median income in the socioeconomic study area as a result of its

mining industry. Additional detail on income is provided in the —Economic Conditions chapter, and 

poverty is discussed further in the Environmental Justice section (see section 3.8).

3.4 HOUSING

Table 3-6 provides U.S. Census Bureau (2005–2009) data showing that housing types in Wyoming are 

similar to the national figures, with the exception of mobile homes, which account for a much larger 

percentage of homes than in the nation as a whole. Niobrara County (80.4 percent) has the highest 

percentage of single-family detached homes in the socioeconomic study area, while Albany (50.6 percent) 

and Campbell (47.6 percent) counties have the lowest percentages. The Wyoming average is 66.3 percent, 

and the national average is 61.4 percent.
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 3-15

Table 3-6. Housing Unit Types, Tenure, and Change 2000–2010

County

Types Tenure Change 2000–2010

Single 

Unit 

Detached 

(2005–

2009)

Mobile 

Home 

(2005–

2009)

Owneroccupied 

(2010)

Vacant 

(2010)

Total 

Housing 

Units (2000)

Total 

Housing 

Units (2010)

Total 

Housing 

Units Net 

Change 

(2000-

2010)

(%) (%) (%) (%) N N N

Albany 50.6 11.2 49.9 12.5 15,215 17,939 2,724

Campbell 47.6 26.3 73.3 9.4 13,288 18,955 5,667

Carbon 74.7 11.5 71.3 25.5 8,307 8,576 269

Converse 65.8 17.6 72.0 11.4 5,669 6,403 734

Crook 69.9 27.3 79.3 18.7 2,935 3,595 660

Fremont 70.5 18.0 71.2 13.2 15,541 17,796 2,255

Goshen 79.1 11.9 70.4 11.1 5,881 5,972 91

Laramie 62.4 10.9 68.0 7.1 34,213 40,462 6,249

Lincoln 78.8 12.0 78.9 23.3 6,831 8,946 2,115

Natrona 70.6 10.9 70.3 9.4 29,882 33,807 3,925

Niobrara 80.4 11.3 72.0 20.1 1,338 1,338 0

Park 71.3 15.0 69.4 9.7 11,869 13,562 1,693

Platte 67.7 22.5 75.5 17.8 4,528 4,667 139

Sublette 78.8 17.2 68.0 32.3 3,552 5,770 2,218

Sweetwater 58.5 23.8 72.1 12.1 15,921 18,735 2,814

Teton 61.3 3.3 58.7 36.1 10,267 12,813 2,546

Uinta 60.7 17.2 75.1 12.0 8,011 8,713 702

Weston 68.7 23.1% 77.8 14.5 3,231 3,533 302

Wyoming 66.3 13.4 69.2 13.4 223,854 261,868 38,014

United States 61.4 6.6 65.1 11.4 115,904,641 131,704,730 15,800,089

Source: Housing unit types from U.S. Census Bureau 2009a (2005–2009 American Community Survey); percentage owneroccupied and percentage vacant from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Summary File 1, Tables DP-1 and DP-04; numbers of 

housing units from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table DP-1 and U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table H001.

Table 3-6 also shows that Campbell (26.3 percent), Crook (27.3 percent), Platte (22.5 percent), 

Sweetwater (23.8 percent), and Weston (23.1 percent) counties have high percentages of mobile homes 

compared to the state (13.4 percent) and the nation (6.6 percent). In most of these cases, this relatively 

high percentage of mobile homes is reflective of the fact that locally burgeoning construction and mining 

industries have new and/or transient workers who reside in mobile homes and other rapidly available or 

temporary housing.

Albany County has the lowest percentage of owner-occupied homes (49.9 percent), and Teton County’s 

percentage is also low (58.7 percent), whereas the rest of the socioeconomic study area is fairly consistent 

with state (69.2 percent) and national (65.1 percent) rates. Albany County’s low rate is reflective of the 

higher population of college students who tend to rent rather than own. Teton County’s rate reflects a 

strong rental market consistent with a resort economy and the presence of many second homes that are 

not usually occupied by their owners. The percentage of vacant homes is highest in Teton (36.1 percent), 

Sublette (32.3 percent), Carbon (25.5 percent), Lincoln (23.3 percent), Niobrara (20.1 percent) counties. 
Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

3-16 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

Total numbers of housing units, and net change between 2000 and 2010, are shown in Table 3-6. The 

largest net increases in total housing units are in Laramie County (an increase of 6,249 units, largely due 

to the economy of Cheyenne), and in Campbell County (an increase of 5,667 units, which is largely 

driven by the booming mineral development and production industry).

Table 3-7 shows the average sales prices of single-family homes for all Wyoming counties from 2004 to 

2010. Note that the statewide average figures are somewhat skewed upward by the very high values in 

Teton County ($1,975,000), due to the affluence of the Jackson area. Within the socioeconomic study 

area in 2010, the next highest sales values were in Sublette and Lincoln counties ($258,000 and $247,000,

respectively. The high value in Lincoln County probably reflects the proximity of parts of the county to 

Jackson. The high value in Sublette County may reflect this same factor, as well as the bidding up of 

housing values due to the recent oil and gas boom in that county. The lowest 2010 sales values in the 

socioeconomic study area were in Crook, Goshen, Niobrara, and Platte counties (ranging from $101,000 

to $141,000). All of these counties are very sparsely populated and located on the plains on the eastern 

side of the state. All study area counties saw significant increases in values from 2004 to 2008 (ranging 

from 26.7 percent in Albany County to 99.3 percent in Weston County and 269.2 percent in Teton 

County), followed by considerable volatility in average values from 2008 to 2009 and 2009 to 2010.
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions

Wyoming Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 3-17

Table 3-7. Single-Family Housing Unit Sales Prices in Wyoming, 2004–2010

County

Average Sales Price 2010 

Median 

Price

Number 

of 2010 

Sales 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % Change 

2004–08

% 

Change 

2008–09

% 

Change 

2009–10

Albany 175,320 182,000 184,159 212,313 222,151 215,069 225,991 26.7% −3.2% 5.1% 204,000 303

Big Horn 76,279 80,607 87,384 107,966 109,295 89,239 124,608 43.3% −18.4% 39.6% 110,000 71

Campbell 173,420 185,874 199,945 247,150 242,341 249,507 238,208 39.7% 3.0% −4.5% 229,000 361

Carbon 94,377 96,200 118,335 148,813 151,093 155,259 150,244 60.1% 2.8% −3.2% 150,000 92

Converse 115,800 141,949 148,804 173,375 187,131 178,401 189,267 61.6% −4.7% 6.1% 179,800 123

Crook 109,050 138,128 138,568 166,892 170,602 224,241 140,858 56.4% 31.4% −37.2% 140,000 26

Fremont 132,245 140,975 163,775 185,918 197,173 194,633 196,283 49.1% −1.3% 0.8% 181,000 261

Goshen 93,965 102,053 116,812 123,393 131,037 119,207 136,174 39.5% −9.0% 14.2% 125,600 136

Hot Springs 85,615 97,453 122,544 125,576 133,421 148,296 146,474 55.8% 11.1% −1.2% 146,000 36

Johnson 164,125 180,209 194,500 214,710 220,549 215,744 204,277 34.4% −2.2% −5.3% 216,000 41

Laramie 155,467 165,743 179,338 191,863 202,304 193,759 208,842 30.1% −4.2% 7.8% 189,000 959

Lincoln 170,814 187,924 259,458 300,092 246,253 218,350 246,864 44.2% −11.3% 13.1% 208,000 89

Natrona 139,651 156,281 158,950 201,269 204,154 202,006 201,425 46.2% −1.1% −0.3% 176,250 736

Niobrara 57,155 69,218 81,420 83,988 98,935 96,643 101,450 73.1% −2.3% 5.0% 83,500 14

Park 151,921 161,866 183,326 215,697 215,692 207,333 217,191 42.0% −3.9% 4.8% 204,290 194

Platte 83,393 101,802 115,617 120,692 134,896 126,479 123,898 61.8% −6.2% −2.0% 119,000 62

Sheridan 162,917 186,095 220,225 240,779 240,270 233,281 242,635 47.5% −2.9% 4.0% 213,000 331

Sublette 218,343 249,029 269,795 334,073 296,638 247,842 257,988 35.9% −16.4% 4.1% 237,500 55

Sweetwater 142,688 179,000 195,981 230,063 242,470 232,959 213,689 69.9% −3.9% −8.3% 211,500 313

Teton 495,500 551,265 806,287 1,441,115 1,829,237 1,453,628 1,974,629 269.2% −20.5% 35.8% 1,296,850 120

Uinta 112,540 137,911 145,243 168,204 197,390 194,928 181,269 75.4% −1.2% −7.0% 170,000 137

Washakie 102,144 102,948 123,072 123,363 133,754 150,202 147,467 30.9% 12.3% −1.8% 138,190 86

Weston 64,784 80,313 107,437 140,127 129,108 164,337 145,512 99.3% 27.3% −11.5% 138,000 40

Simple

Average 142,501 159,776 187,869 239,019 258,082 239,624 261,532 81.1% −7.2% 3.9% 189,900 195

Weighted 

Avg.

— — — 265,044 256,045 241,622 250,958 — — — — —

Source: Wyoming Housing Database Partnership 2011, Table I.36. Italics indicate counties in the socioeconomic study area.
Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

3-18 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

Along with recent declines and volatility in the sales price of homes, many areas have seen declines in 

new residential building activity. The level of new residential building activity is shown for the state in 

Figure 3-1 and described in the following excerpt from a recent report by the Wyoming Housing Database 

Partnership (2011):

Wyoming’s housing market has certainly responded to moderating sales prices. New housing unit 

production, indicated by residential permits, exceeded 2,000 units every year from 2002 to 2010. 

There were 4,584 units permitted in 2007, an all-time high production year, of which 3,706 were 

for single-family units. However, permits fell roughly 42.0 percent between 2007 and 2008 and 

then slipped another 14.0 percent between 2008 and 2009. Single-family permits have taken the 

largest fall by dipping 57.5 percent in these two years. In 2010, residential permits remained at 

the 2009 levels with total permitted units increasing by four to 2,298 total units.

Figure 3-1. Statewide Trends in New Residential Housing Unit Permits

3.5 QUALITY OF LIFE

Wyoming consists of predominantly rural communities and relatively small urban population centers. As 

one of the least populated states in the nation, Wyoming offers a unique way of life for its residents. 

The economy is dominated by oil and gas development, which has seen a significant boom over the last 

decade. As a result of the growing mineral extraction sector, particularly the oil and gas industry, the state 

has seen a rise in revenue. According to a recent Wyoming Heritage Foundation report, “in 2008, as a 

share of GDP, Wyoming spent more than the average state and its neighbors on K-12 education, 

highways, and natural resources” (2010). These increased spending levels can be directly attributed to the 

increased revenue from mineral severance taxes. There has also been an influx of out-of-state job seekers 

hoping to take advantage of the high number of mineral extraction jobs and perceived low cost of living. 

However, rapid in-migration has caused problems with the availability and affordability of housing in 

many energy resource development communities.

Additional industries contribute significantly to the economy and quality of life in Wyoming. 

Construction and transportation (some of which are related to energy development) are important 

contributors to the economy. Tourism and outdoor recreation are very important economically in many 

parts of the state. These activities rely significantly on the use of public lands, which are also important to 

the overall quality of life of all Wyoming residents.
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 3-19

In 2007, the Wyoming Rural Development Council released its seven-year community assessment 

synopsis. The assessment process involves annual community surveys across the state to determine the 

challenges, strengths, and goals of the citizens of these communities. The overall themes that emerged 

from these surveys provide a glimpse into the quality of life Wyoming residents enjoy. According to the 

seven-year synopsis of the annual surveys, Wyoming residents are impressed with the level of community 

leadership and feel the biggest community asset is the friendly people who pull together in times of need

and demonstrate exceptional community involvement through volunteerism. Residents also appreciate the

small size of their communities, which provides a safe environment with low crime. Moreover, the 

location, rural atmosphere, natural resources, and outdoor recreational activities are considered a valuable 

part of the community (Wyoming Rural Development Council 2007).

On the other hand, the growth of the oil and gas industry has not benefited all communities in the same 

way and has created a number of challenges. The influx of new residents lured by the promise of oil and 

gas jobs has created tensions in some communities struggling to adapt to the newcomers. For example, 

Sublette County has experienced significant growth due to the oil and gas boom. The 2008 Community 

Satisfaction and Quality of Life Survey of Long-Term Residents of Sublette County (Coburn 2008),

suggests that long-term residents feel the influx of newcomers has had a negative effect on the 

community; and despite the economic advantages of the oil and gas industry, future growth is not viewed 

positively. Still other communities have not benefitted from the economic growth attributed to the oil and 

gas industry and are struggling to develop new industries for their small communities. In many instances, 

infrastructure and economic development limit the quality of life in many communities within the 

socioeconomic study area (Wyoming Rural Development Council 2007).

The Wyoming Rural Development Council released its 10-year community assessment results in 2011. 

The following excerpt from the summary report is a wide-ranging synopsis of the quality of life across the 

socioeconomic study area:

The challenges facing rural Wyoming have many common themes to explore. Some of the overall 

major problems and challenges include lack of affordable housing, needed infrastructure 

improvements, the out-migration of youth due to lack of jobs and opportunities in their 

hometown, overall lack of good paying jobs in rural communities, the need for beautification in 

rural communities, lack of vision and planning, growth in the rural communities being decided by 

external forces, and an overall lack of activities and services for youth, families, and seniors.

When exploring the overall strengths and assets in Wyoming’s rural communities, it is easy to 

understand how proud the citizens of rural Wyoming are. The overall major strengths and assets 

include the people (biggest asset), friendly, people pull together in times of need, great 

volunteerism, small size of the community, safe, low crime, the location and rural atmosphere, 

natural resources, outdoor recreational activities of every possible type, and good community 

leadership. 

...

it was revealed that overall, Wyoming’s rural communities have similar hopes and desires. Every 

community wants to grow in the way that they choose, not one that is decided by an external 

source. Also, each community wants to preserve its unique history and culture, while building a 

future where their children can return to and be proud to live. (Wyoming Rural Development 

Council 2011)

3.6 SOCIAL ORGANIZATION AND INSTITUTIONS

Various government entities, institutions, social organizations, and interest groups are stakeholders to the 

management processes and decisions associated with the development and implementation of the BLM 

RMP and USFS LRMP amendments for sage-grouse management. The social organizations and 
Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

3-20 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

institutions identified in the initial phases of the BLM RMP revision process are listed in the sections 

below according to the following two categories: government; and firms, occupational and interest 

groups.

Undoubtedly, there are additional BLM RMP stakeholder organizations not mentioned below because 

they do not meet the criteria for inclusion in this report; this does not mean they are not important 

stakeholders and cannot participate in the RMP revision process. In addition, stakeholders to the USFS 

LRMP amendments are not included in this section. It is likely that many of the BLM RMP stakeholders 

listed here are also stakeholders of the USFS LRMPs. It is also likely that there are additional 

stakeholders that are focused on the USFS LRMPs.

3.6.1 Government 

The list below includes the government entities that BLM initially invited to participate in the scoping 

process, and any additional government entities that provided comments as part of the scoping process. 

The 34 agencies that have formalized an official cooperating agency status with BLM are also noted.

3.6.1.1 Federal Government

The following federal government entities were identified as stakeholders.

Cooperating Agencies

• USFS – Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest – Thunder Basin National Grasslands

• U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service – Wildlife Services

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• U.S. Office of Surface Mining

Other Agencies

• USFS – Bridger-Teton National Forest

• USFS – Ashley National Forest

• U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs

• U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

• U.S. Department of the Interior

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• U.S. Geological Survey

• U.S. National Park Service

• U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service 

• U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis’ Office

• U.S. Senator John Barrasso’s Office

• U.S. Senator Michael Enzi’s Office

• Western Area Power Administration

State Government

The following state government entities were identified as stakeholders.

Cooperating Agencies

• Wyoming Department of Agriculture

• Wyoming State Parks and Cultural Resources – State Historic Preservation Office

• Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 3-21

• Wyoming Game and Fish Department

• Wyoming Governor’s Office

• Wyoming State Planning Office

Other Agencies

• Office of State Lands and Investments

• State Historic Preservation Office

• Wyoming Department of Transportation

• Wyoming State Engineer’s Office

• Wyoming State Forestry Division

• Wyoming State Geological Survey

• Wyoming State Grazing Board

3.6.1.2 Local Government

The following local government entities were identified as stakeholders.

Cooperating Agencies

• City of Laramie

• City of Rawlins

• City of Rock Springs

• Crook County Commissioners

• Lincoln County Commissioners

• Natrona County Commissioners

• Platte County Commissioners

• Sublette County Commissioners

• Sweetwater County Commissioners

• Uinta County Commissioners

Other Agencies

• Albany County Commissioners

• City of Casper

• City of Cheyenne

• City of Green River

• Converse County Commissioners

• Laramie County Commissioners

• Lincoln County Clerk

• Niobrara County Commissioners

• Sublette County Clerk

• Town of Baggs

• Town of Bairoil

• Town of Big Piney

• Town of Burns

• Town of Dixon

• Town of Elk Mountain

• Town of Encampment

• Town of Hanna

• Town of LaBarge

• Town of Marbleton

• Town of Medicine Bow
Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

3-22 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

• Town of Pine Bluffs

• Town of Pinedale

• Town of Riverside

• Town of Rock River

• Town of Saratoga

• Town of Sinclair

• Town of Superior

• Town of Walden

• Town of Wamsutter

• Weston County Commissioners

Special Districts and Commissions

The following special districts and commissions were identified as stakeholders.

Cooperating Agencies

• Crook County Natural Resource District

• Lincoln Conservation District

• Lingle-Fort Laramie Conservation District

• Little Snake River Conservation District

• Medicine Bow Conservation District

• Natrona Country Conservation District

• Saratoga-Encampment-Rawlins Conservation District

• South Goshen Conservation District

• Sublette County Conservation District

• Sweetwater County Conservation District

• Uinta County Conservation District

• Weston County Natural Resource Conservation District

• Wyoming Pipeline Authority

Other Agencies

• Coalition of Local Governments

• Converse County Conservation District

• Laramie Rivers Conservation District

• North Platte Valley Conservation District

• Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

• Wyoming Public Service Commission

• Wyoming Recreation Commission

• Wyoming Water Development Commission

• Wyoming Game and Fish Commission

3.6.2 Firms, Occupational and Interest Groups

The firms and occupational and interest groups listed below participated in the scoping meetings and/or 

provided written comments as part of the scoping process for this RMP. This category includes individual 

companies, business associations, and nonprofit organizations. In addition to the organizations listed, 

there were a number of individuals and anonymous stakeholders who provided input as part of the 

scoping process. 

• Anadarko
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 3-23

• Aster Canyon Consulting

• Audubon Wyoming

• Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

• Black Hills Bentonite, LLC

• Bridger Coal Company

• Carbon County Stockgrowers

• Chesapeake Energy

• Chevron Mining Inc.

• Cole Creek Sheep Company

• Fidelity E and P

• FMC Corporation

• Garrett Ranch Company

• Gene George and Associates

• Grouse Mountain Environmental

• Kennecott Union Company

• Petroleum Association of Wyoming

• Powder River Basin Resource Council

• Power Company of Wyoming

• RES Americas

• Rocky Mountain Power

• Rock Springs Grazing Association

• Shell

• Short Powerline Services

• Sublette Examiner

• UR Energy

• Western Resource Advocates

• Williams Production

• Willis Ranch

• Wyoming Association of Municipalities

• Wyoming Power Producers Coalition

• Wyoming Board of Outfitters and Professional Guides

• Wyoming Business Council

• Wyoming Chapter of the Sierra Club

• Wyoming Conservation Alliance

• Wyoming Farm Bureau

• Wyoming Heritage Foundation

• Wyoming Land Holdings, Inc.

• Wyoming Livestock Board

• Wyoming Livestock Roundup

• Wyoming Mining Association

• Wyoming Natural Diversity Database

• Wyoming Outdoor Council

• Wyoming People for the USA

• Wyoming Pipeline Authority

• Wyoming Ranch Company LLC

• Wyoming Sportsman’s Association
Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

3-24 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

3.7 ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS

Section 3.6 identified many organizations that are stakeholders to the use and management of BLMadministered lands. These stakeholder organizations, as well as individuals, have widely varying interests 

in the use and management of these resources. 

Stakeholders have distinct sets of attitudes, beliefs, values, opinions, and perceptions about public 

resources and the effects of various management policies and actions. These views reflect different

cultural and economic linkages people have to public lands.

The social impact analysis that will be conducted later in the planning process will use categories of 

stakeholders as one means of identifying the impacts of management actions under each alternative. By 

looking at the management actions from different points of view, one can identify potential social and 

cultural impacts on each stakeholder group. 

Broad categories of stakeholders affected by the decisions to be made in this planning action are

identified and characterized in the following sections, based primarily on comments made during the 

BLM public scoping period. It is likely that these categories are also reflective of the types of 

stakeholders to the USFS LRMP amendments for sage-grouse management. 

The categorization of stakeholders is not meant to imply that all individuals and social groups fit neatly 

into a single category; many specific individuals or organizations may have multiple interests and would 

see themselves reflected in more than one stakeholder category. The point of categorization is to facilitate 

the impacts analysis phase of the planning process by allowing differentiation of social impacts based on 

broad differences in sociocultural linkages to public lands and associated points of view.

3.7.1 Wildlife/Ecosystem Conservation Stakeholders

These stakeholders believe that protecting at-risk species and maintaining the habitats and ecosystems for 

all species is a fundamental value and should be a high priority in public policy. With respect to sagegrouse, this group sees many individual and cumulative threats to the species and its habitat, including 

habitat loss from resource development and agricultural conversion; habitat fragmentation from oil and 

gas drilling, wind turbine sites, and other dispersed development; vegetative changes from grazing; 

proliferation of invasive species; fire; predation by other species; human disturbance from recreation, 

including OHV activities; climate change; and other factors. 

These stakeholders believe that sage-grouse management should address the entire sagebrush ecosystem 

comprehensively to address the range of threats and because other sagebrush obligate species’ 

populations are also in decline. As one commentator stated, “What the sage-grouse really needs is a 

comprehensive range-wide conservation plan ... and adoption of the full suite of management measures 

and protections necessary to ensure the survival of sage-grouse and its essential habitat.” These 

stakeholders place a particular importance on protecting “large expanses of interconnected, intact 

sagebrush free from human disturbance.” They value both core areas and noncore areas, including 

seasonal habitat and connectivity areas. They feel that noncore areas should not become “sacrifice” areas.

3.7.2 Mineral Development Stakeholders

These stakeholders believe mineral development is a vital component of the national, state, and local 

economies—creating jobs, generating income, and contributing tax and royalty payments to all levels of 

government. They also believe mineral development is socially important because it has been part of the 

social fabric of Wyoming for years and because it supports the social systems of local communities by 

providing private-sector livelihoods and revenues to local government. Public scoping comments from 

these stakeholders focused particularly on oil and gas development, with some attention to coal mining as 
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 3-25

well. Comments reflected the view that restrictions on development of Wyoming’s energy reserves would 

require the nation to rely more heavily on foreign sources of energy and would impact the state and many 

local communities. 

Mineral development stakeholders are concerned about the adverse impacts sage-grouse management 

decisions could have on the mineral development and production industry in Wyoming. Their concerns 

include the potential for reduced access on BLM land through exclusions, buffer distances, well 

spacing/density restrictions, and road development limitations. They also believe other requirements 

could impact the viability of projects; for instance, that requirements for subsurface water injection, land 

reclamation, and data collection and monitoring could exceed the financial limitations of operators or 

contradict their return on investment expectations. They are also concerned that sage-grouse restrictions 

could abrogate operators’ valid existing rights.

These stakeholders believe that the oil and gas industry has already done much to support sage-grouse and 

associated habitat. For example, one comment stated that the industry has “actively worked with BLM 

and the State to develop reasonable measures to protect Sage-grouse and associated habitat. To that end, 

an unprecedented comprehensive effort is underway by the energy industry to ensure the survival of the 

Sage-grouse in areas of oil and natural gas exploration and development. We urge BLM to recognize and 

iterate in the plan amendments the dynamic mitigation measures that have been utilized by the oil and gas 

industry for over two decades to protect Sage-grouse.”

3.7.3 Renewable Energy Development Stakeholders

This stakeholder group believes that renewable energy development is important at national, state, and 

local levels. These stakeholders point to national policies, such as the Energy Policy Act of 2005, that 

promote renewable energy development, and they highlight Wyoming’s wind energy resources as some 

of the best in the nation. They note that developing this resource creates jobs and income and generates 

tax revenues and thereby supports both local economies and social systems. 

Renewable energy development stakeholders are concerned that sage-grouse management decisions could 

have adverse impacts on this emerging industry. They are concerned that decisions could reduce access to 

the resource or affect the industry’s ability to develop the resource in an economical manner. They 

believe that wind energy developers are already making good efforts to protect sage-grouse and 

associated habitat. The ability to obtain rights-of-way (ROW) and build electric power transmission lines 

is also a very important matter to these stakeholders, as this infrastructure is essential to getting power to 

market.

3.7.4 Livestock Grazing Stakeholders

These stakeholders believe that ranching and livestock grazing are essential components of the landscape, 

economy, and social fabric of rural areas. One illustrative public scoping comment was the following: “In 

addition to its economic significance, livestock grazing provides irreplaceable environmental and social 

values. These values contribute irreplaceable wildlife habitat, open spaces, ranchland buffers between 

federal lands and developments, scenic vistas, visual beauty, and the traditional image and heritage of the 

historic rural landscapes of Wyoming and the West.” These stakeholders support the livelihoods and 

traditions associated with grazing and ranching, which they view as central to the vitality and values of 

local communities. They are concerned that sage-grouse management decisions could affect ranchers’ 

operations on BLM lands. They also note that grazing on public lands helps ranchers maintain their 

operations on private lands and continue providing key wildlife habitat and other public values on those 

private lands. 
Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

3-26 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

Livestock grazing stakeholders believe that livestock operators have irreplaceable, long-term, on-theground knowledge that should be used to its full advantage to manage grazing and habitat values together. 

They point to improvements in rangeland health that have occurred through the coordinated efforts of 

BLM and grazing permittees, and they believe this collaborative approach is essential. 

3.7.5 Recreation Stakeholders

Few comments reflecting concerns of recreation stakeholders emerged in the scoping process. 

Nonetheless, recreation interests nearly always come into play in RMP/EIS processes. These stakeholders 

favor access to BLM public lands for recreational purposes. (Subgroups may differ on degrees of access 

for motorized or nonmotorized recreation.) The potential for reduced access to BLM lands due to sagegrouse management actions is a concern for this group. Members believe uses that do not conflict with 

sage-grouse management should not be unnecessarily restricted.

3.8 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

The concept of environmental justice (EJ) first became a required consideration for federal agencies with 

the publication of Executive Order (EO) 12898 on February 11, 1994. The EO requires each federal 

agency to “make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations” (EO 12898, §59 Federal 

Register 7629, 1994).

To address EJ considerations in the BLM planning context, a screening analysis of the appropriate 

socioeconomic study area for the planning action is required to identify whether any “EJ populations” are 

present. If present, attention is needed in the planning process to determine whether there are any 

disproportionately high and adverse impacts on those populations, and if so, to take measures to avoid or 

mitigate those impacts.

The next subsection discusses the technical definitions used in identifying EJ populations and the 

definition of “disproportionately high and adverse” effects. The concluding subsection presents the results 

of the screening analysis.

Definitions

Subsequent to publication of the EO, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), part of the Executive 

Office of the President, issued guidance for considering EJ within the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) process (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997). This guidance defines minorities as 

individual(s) who are members of the following population groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native; 

Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic. The guidance further defines a 

“minority population” as follows: 

Minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the minority population of the affected 

area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is 

meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other 

appropriate unit of geographic analysis.

The guidance also makes clear that Indian Tribes in the affected area should also be considered in the EJ 

analysis.

The CEQ guidance states that “low income” should be determined using the annual statistical poverty 

thresholds from the U.S. Census Bureau. That is, persons living under the poverty income threshold are 

potentially of concern. The guidance does not specify how to identify a “low-income population,” but in 

practice the same approach used for minority populations can be followed—where persons in poverty 
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 3-27

status are greater than 50 percent of the area’s total population or where the percentage in poverty is 

meaningfully greater that the percentage in the general population or an appropriate comparison area.

The CEQ guidance does not define what constitutes “meaningfully greater.” In practice, meaningfully 

greater is often defined to identify an EJ population if the percentage of population in minority and/or 

poverty status in an area is at least 10 percentage points higher than in the comparison area. This 

threshold is based on experience evaluating EJ indicators and the sense that this threshold represents a 

significant difference between the affected and comparison populations. It is not a “hard and fast” rule 

and, in some cases, the appropriate difference to consider might be lower or higher.

As to “disproportionately high and adverse” effects, the CEQ guidance states:

Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects: When determining whether human 

health effects are disproportionately high and adverse, agencies are to consider the following 

three factors to the extent practicable:

(a) Whether the health effects, which may be measured in risks and rates, are significant (as 

employed by NEPA), or above generally accepted norms. Adverse health effects may include 

bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death; and

(b) Whether the risk or rate of hazard exposure by a minority population, low-income 

population, or Indian tribe to an environmental hazard is significant (as employed by NEPA) 

and appreciably exceeds or is likely to appreciably exceed the risk or rate to the general 

population or other appropriate comparison group; and

(c) Whether health effects occur in a minority population, low-income population, or Indian 

tribe affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from environmental hazards.

Disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects: When determining whether 

environmental effects are disproportionately high and adverse, agencies are to consider the 

following three factors to the extent practicable:

(a) Whether there is or will be an impact on the natural or physical environment that 

significantly (as employed by NEPA) and adversely affects a minority population, low-income 

population, or Indian tribe. Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, 

economic, or social impacts on minority communities, low-income communities, or Indian 

tribes when those impacts are interrelated to impacts on the natural or physical environment; 

and

(b) Whether environmental effects are significant (as employed by NEPA) and are or may be 

having an adverse impact on minority populations, low income populations, or Indian tribes 

that appreciably exceeds or is likely to appreciably exceed those on the general population or 

other appropriate comparison group; and

(c) Whether the environmental effects occur or would occur in a minority population, lowincome population, or Indian tribe affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from 

environmental hazards. (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997)

The guidance and the presidential memorandum that accompanied the EO emphasize that agencies should 

provide opportunities for effective community participation in the NEPA process, including identifying 

potential effects and mitigation measures in consultation with affected communities. 

Screening Analysis

Identification of potential EJ populations requires data on population makeup (numbers of persons by 

race), data on poverty (numbers of persons living under the poverty level), and identification of any 

special Indian Tribe areas, such as reservations. The data must be sufficiently disaggregated to show any 

significant variations across the socioeconomic study area in concentrations of minority populations or 
Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

3-28 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

populations living in poverty. The most recent data broken down to the county level in the socioeconomic 

study area is from the 2010 Census for race and the U.S. Census Bureau 2005–2009 American

Community Survey 5-year Estimates for poverty. 

Table 3-8 shows data for race for each county in the socioeconomic study area. Table 3-9 shows data on 

population below the poverty level. These tables also show the corresponding data for two reference 

populations: Wyoming and the United States.

In both tables, the data for each minority or poverty group is expressed as a percentage of the total 

population. For this screening analysis, the convention noted above was adopted: if the minority 

population or population in poverty was more than 10 percentage points greater than for one of the 

reference populations, the county was “flagged” as having a potential EJ population. Therefore, it is an 

area of potential concern from an EJ perspective. 

The adjective potential is emphasized here. No determination as to the likelihood of disproportionately 

high and adverse effects on these populations is made here. That determination can only be made once the 

management alternatives are defined and the socioeconomic impact analysis is performed. It should also 

be noted that the results (the places flagged) might be different based on more recent data.

Based on the definitions and threshold values noted above, and the data obtained for this study, the 

following places in the socioeconomic study area were flagged as areas of potential concern from an EJ 

perspective for the populations noted:

• Fremont County – Based on the population of American Indian/Alaska Native. Furthermore, the

American Indian population of the Wind River Indian Reservation can be considered a potential 

EJ population based on CEQ’s specific guidance on Tribes.

• Albany County – Based on the population of all ages living in poverty.

• Niobrara County – Based on the population of 65 years and older living in poverty.

Depending on the management decisions that will be considered for the RMP and LRMP amendments, 

additional analysis at the subcounty level may be necessary during the impacts analysis phase of the 

planning process. 
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions

Wyoming Sage-grouse LRMP Amendments 3-29

Table 3-8. Environmental Justice Indicators, Minority Population, 2010 Census

Geography

Total 

Population, 

2010

Race

White Black/African 

American

American 

Indian/Alaska 

Native

Asian

Native 

Hawaiian/Pacific 

Islander

Some 

Other 

Race

Two or 

More 

Races

Hispanic

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

United States 308,745,538 72.4 12.6 0.9 4.8 0.2 6.2 2.9 16.3

Wyoming 563,626 90.7 0.8 2.4 0.8 0.1 3.0 2.2 8.9

Albany 36,299 90.1 1.2 0.7 2.8 0.1 2.4 2.7 8.8

Campbell 46,133 93.2 0.3 1.2 0.6 0.0 2.7 2.1 7.8

Carbon 15,885 88.8 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.1 6.5 2.2 16.8

Converse 13,833 95.1 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.1 1.7 1.7 6.3

Crook 7,083 97.2 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.6 1.2 2.0

Fremont 40,123 74.3 0.3 21.2 0.4 0.0 1.0 2.8 5.6

Goshen 13,249 94.5 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.1 2.4 1.2 9.7

Laramie 91,738 88.5 2.5 1.0 1.1 0.2 3.8 3.1 13.1

Lincoln 18,106 95.4 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.0 2.0 1.2 4.3

Natrona 75,450 92.8 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.1 2.2 2.4 6.9

Niobrara 2,484 96.5 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.5 1.6 2.1

Park 28,205 95.6 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.1 1.4 1.6 4.8

Platte 8,667 95.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.1 2.0 1.5 6.7

Sublette 10,247 93.2 0.3 0.8 0.5 0.0 3.7 1.4 6.9

Sweetwater 43,806 88.5 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.1 6.4 2.3 15.3

Teton 21,294 88.4 0.2 0.5 1.1 0.1 8.1 1.6 15.0

Uinta 21,118 92.4 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.2 4.1 2.0 8.8

Weston 7,208 95.5 0.3 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.9 1.7 3.0

Yellow Shading and Bold (U.S. and Wyoming): Relevant reference population statistics.

Orange Shading and Bold (Counties): Statistics/places “flagged” for EJ impacts analysis.

Source: Population – U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, Summary File 1, Table QT-P3.

Note: Hispanic population is an additional designation, not a race designation; the Hispanic population includes multiple races.
Chapter 3–Social and Cultural Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

3-30 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

Table 3-9. Environmental Justice Indicators, Poverty, 2005–2009 American Community 

Survey

Geographic Area Total Population 

in 2009

Percent of Population in Poverty

Percent of 

Families All 

Ages

Related 

Children 

Under 18 

Years

65 Years 

and Over

United States 307,006,550 13.5 15.3 9.8 9.9

Wyoming 544,270 9.6 11.7 6.6 6.1

Albany County 33,979 21.4 10.1 4.4 8.2

Campbell County 43,967 6.0 9.1 3.4 4.7

Carbon County 15,720 9.6 12.6 12.6 7.2

Converse County 13,578 6.8 5.6 7.7 4.1

Crook County 6,653 10.1 17 6.8 7.2

Fremont County 38,719 14.1 20.5 7.6 10.0

Goshen County 12,319 12.8 16.6 7.3 6.3

Laramie County 88,854 9.5 13.6 4.4 6.6

Lincoln County 16,995 6.9 11.3 4.1 3.8

Natrona County 74,508 9.6 12.1 8.9 6.4

Niobrara County 2,366 10.7 16.4 16.6 6.2

Park 27,193 7.8 11.3 6.5 4.3

Platte County 8,196 11 19.3 6.8 7.5

Sublette County 8,792 3.4 2 0.7 1.4

Sweetwater County 41,226 7.4 9.2 6.4 5.9

Teton 20,067 7.7 12.5 2.0 4.0

Uinta County 20,927 10.4 11.8 7.5 6.8

Weston County 7,009 7.3 9.5 10.8 5.9

Yellow Shading and Bold (U.S. and Wyoming): Relevant reference population statistics.

Orange Shading and Bold (Counties): Statistics/places “flagged” for EJ impacts analysis.

Source: Population – U.S. Census Bureau 2009b; Poverty – U.S. Census Bureau 2009a (2005-2009 American Community 

Survey). 
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 4–Economic Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 4-1

CHAPTER 4—ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

4.1 EMPLOYMENT

Table 4-1 shows that the statewide unemployment rate tracked closely with the unemployment rate of the 

nation from 1995 to 2000. From 2001 to 2009, however, the unemployment rate for the state was lower 

than the national rate, likely as a result of the boom in oil and gas development and production during this 

time. At the county level, Albany, Teton, and Sublette counties have had the most consistently low 

unemployment rate. Even during the recent economic recession, Albany and Sublette counties stayed 

below 5.0 percent unemployment, except that Albany County in 2010 rose to 5.1 percent. Albany County 

is helped by strong demand generated by or associated with the university, and Sublette County enjoys a 

strong mining industry. Teton County benefited from its strong resort economy until the recent 

recession—unemployment rose sharply there in 2009 and 2010. Beginning in 2001 through 2008,

Campbell County maintained the generally lowest level of unemployment, no doubt due to a strong 

mining industry. Fremont County has consistently seen the highest rate of unemployment, reaching a 

peak of 8.1 percent in 1998; the most recent recession brought an unemployment rate of 8.0 percent in 

2010, just below Teton County’s 2010 rate of 8.3 percent. The Fremont County situation may be due in 

part to the problem of endemic unemployment in the Indian population, the prevalence of retail trade and 

construction industries in Fremont County that are highly susceptible to economic downturns, and the 

decline of the mining industry. Lincoln County has suffered the most from the economic downturn with 

an unemployment rate of 9.2 percent in 2010. Lincoln County’s dominant industry in 2007 was 

construction, which was strongly affected by the economic recession.

Historical data on jobs by sector demonstrate the relative importance of different industries to the 

socioeconomic study area over time. The figure and tables below provide several views of historical 

employment:

• Trends in employment between 1970 and 2000, statewide, by Standard Industrial 

Classification (SIC) industries (Figure 4-1). This graph shows long-term trends at the state 

level. Given that the socioeconomic study area has nearly 89 percent of the state population (as of 

2010) and includes the state’s largest economic hubs, statewide historical trends are highly 

indicative of trends across the socioeconomic study area as a whole.

• Trends in employment across all industries between 2001 and 2009, statewide, by North 

American Industry Classification System (NAICS) industries (Table 4-2). This data shows 

overall trends since 2001, including into the recession.

• Snapshots of employment in selected industries in 2007, by county, by NAICS industries

(Table 4-3 and Table 4-4). This data shows employment at the county level in key industries 

prior to any perturbations from the recession. The selected industries are the largest six services 

industries (not counting the catch-all “Other Services”) and the largest four nonservice industries, 

by 2007 employment.

This information uses two data sets and industry classifications because the Bureau of Economic Analysis 

(BEA) switched in 2001 from the SIC codes to the NAICS codes to better capture new industries that did 

not exist when the SIC classifications were created. The two data sets are not readily comparable. Note 

that although the BEA estimates annual employment and earnings for counties nationwide, it does not 

show some information (e.g., total employment for an industry sector that has few companies within a 

particular geography) to ensure that it does not violate confidentiality for those companies.

Between 1970 and 2000, Figure 4-1 shows that Government was the largest employment sector in 

Wyoming between 1970 and 1990, and Services became the largest sector after 1990. Retail Trade was 

the third largest sector during the 1970 to 2000 period. All three industries showed strong growth through 
Chapter 4–Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

4-2 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

the period, albeit with some minor downturns and flat periods for both Retail Trade and Government. 

Mining (which includes oil and gas development and production) had very strong growth in jobs between 

1970 and 1981, then experienced a sharp downturn between 1982 and 1987, followed by flat employment 

during the rest of the period. Construction had similar but less pronounced growth, then declined between 

1982 and 1987. This pattern reflects Construction’s linkages to Mining; for example, oil and gas 

development requires well pad, road, and utility development. Construction had slow growth after 1987. 

All other industries had very modest growth between 1970 and 2000.

Figure 4-1. Trends in Employment by Industry, Wyoming, 1970–2000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

1970197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000

Services Retail trade

Government Manufacturing

Construction Finance, ins. & real estate

Agricultural services Trans. & public utilities

Wholesale trade Farm

Mining

Source: Economic Profile System – Human Dimensions Toolkit, Socioeconomic Measures Report, July 27, 2012, based on data

obtained from the BEA, Regional Economic Analysis System, Table CA25.

Table 4-2 shows more recent trends, based on NAICS codes between 2001 and 2009. As noted above,

this data is not entirely comparable to the earlier data based on SIC codes, although some industry

definitions are similar. Government and Government Enterprises, Mining, Construction, and 

Manufacturing are similarly defined across the SIC and NAICS data sets.

As shown in Table 4-2, total employment in Wyoming grew by 18.6 percent between 2001 and 2009. 

Industries that grew at substantially greater rates were Finance and Insurance (61.4 percent), Mining

(61.0 percent), Real Estate and Rental and Leasing (59.5 percent), and Educational Services (39.5 

percent). Industries with very low growth or with losses in employment were Military (2.1 percent), Farm

(0.4 percent), Retail Trade (0.3 percent), Management of Companies and Enterprises (minus 1.5 percent), 

and Manufacturing (minus 5.4 percent). In some cases, these low to negative growth rates reflect the 

impact of the recession outweighing growth that occurred earlier in the period.
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 4–Economic Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 4-3

Table 4-3 and Table 4-4 provide a snapshot of industry employment by county for the socioeconomic 

study area based on NAICS codes for the year 2007. These tables show data for selected industries only. 

County-level NAICS-based data that is more recent than 2007 is available; however, the data used here

from just prior to the recession is probably more reflective of the longer term profile of the socioeconomic 

study area than a data snapshot taken during the recession or early recovery period. 

In 2007, throughout the socioeconomic study area, Government and Government Enterprises accounted

for a large percentage of employment. This percentage was highest in Albany County (35.6 percent) and 

lowest in Teton County (8.0 percent). The Mining industry accounted for a significant percentage of 

employment for Campbell (26.1 percent), Sublette (24.9 percent), Sweetwater (20 percent), Weston (14.4 

percent), and Converse (12.4 percent) counties. Lincoln (22.4 percent), Carbon (14.4 percent), Sublette 

(13.2 percent), Uinta (12.2 percent), Crook (11.1 percent), and Teton (11.0 percent) counties all had 

significant percentages of employment in the Construction industry in 2007. Accommodation and Food 

Services was particularly important to employment in Teton (23.0 percent) and Park (10.6 percent) 

counties. Healthcare and Social Assistance provided over 10 percent of jobs in Natrona County (10.8 

percent), while Real Estate and Rental and Leasing provided over 10 percent of jobs in Teton County 

(11.2 percent). Retail Trade provided over 10 percent of jobs (up to 12.6 percent) in multiple counties: 

Albany, Fremont, Goshen, Laramie, Natrona, Park, Platte, Uinta, and Weston counties. Farming was 

most important in Niobrara (15.0 percent), Goshen (11.9 percent), Crook (11.9 percent), and Platte (10.4 

percent) counties. Across all socioeconomic study area counties, Manufacturing provided no more than 

4.8 percent of jobs (Goshen County), while Professional, Scientific, & Technical Services provided no 

more than 7.0 percent of jobs (Teton County).
Chapter 4–Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

4-4 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

Table 4-1. Annual Unemployment Rates, 1995–2010

County

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Albany 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.2 1.8 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.6 4.1 5.1

Campbell 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.2 3.1 2.7 3.0 3.7 3.1 2.7 2.2 2.1 2.0 5.3 6.0

Carbon 5.4 5.4 4.9 5.5 5.3 4.2 4.4 4.6 5.6 4.5 4.0 3.4 3.0 3.4 7.3 7.6

Converse 5.4 5.6 5.9 5.4 5.2 3.9 3.9 4.3 4.7 4.1 3.8 3.5 2.9 2.9 5.8 5.8

Crook 4.2 4.7 4.6 5.5 5.0 3.7 3.6 3.7 4.3 3.9 3.6 2.9 2.8 3.0 5.7 5.8

Fremont 7.5 8.0 7.9 8.1 7.6 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.8 5.2 4.8 4.4 3.8 4.3 7.8 8.0

Goshen 4.5 5.2 4.7 4.8 3.7 3.6 4.0 4.3 4.6 4.4 4.5 3.9 3.3 3.7 5.4 6.1

Laramie 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.7 4.1 4.3 4.6 4.6 4.2 3.9 3.6 4.0 6.5 7.5

Lincoln 7.5 6.9 6.2 6.4 6.1 3.9 4.0 4.7 4.6 4.0 4.2 3.6 2.6 3.7 7.9 9.2

Natrona 5.8 6.6 5.6 5.6 5.4 3.9 3.8 4.2 4.5 3.8 3.5 3.0 2.7 2.9 6.6 7.2

Niobrara 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.9 2.8 3.6 4.0 4.6 4.8 3.9 4.0 3.3 3.1 3.5 5.2 5.5

Park 4.2 4.5 4.5 4.7 4.6 4.0 4.3 4.6 4.6 4.2 4.1 3.6 3.1 3.6 6.2 6.9

Platte 4.4 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 4.2 4.8 5.3 5.2 5.0 4.5 4.1 4.2 6.2 6.9

Sublette 3.8 3.7 2.8 3.3 3.8 2.9 2.7 2.9 3.2 2.4 2.1 1.9 1.5 1.7 4.5 4.6

Sweetwater 5.4 6.5 5.6 5.5 6.3 4.0 4.0 4.2 4.1 3.4 3.0 2.5 2.3 2.5 6.5 6.7

Uinta 6.8 7.6 5.9 5.9 7.0 4.0 3.8 4.3 4.7 3.9 3.5 3.1 2.7 3.0 6.9 7.0

Teton 2.4 2.9 2.4 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.7 3.1 3.6 3.2 3.1 2.5 2.2 3.0 6.9 8.3

Weston 4.9 5.4 5.3 5.0 5.5 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.7 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.2 3.3 6.4 6.3

Wyoming 4.9 5.1 4.8 4.9 4.8 3.9 3.9 4.1 4.5 3.9 3.7 3.2 2.9 3.2 6.4 7.0

United 

States 5.6 5.4 5.0 4.5 4.2 4.0 4.7 5.8 6.0 5.5 5.1 4.6 4.6 5.8 9.3 9.6

Source: BLS 1995 – 2010.
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 4–Economic Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 4-5

Table 4-2: Wyoming Employment, 2001–2009 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Change 

2001–

2009 (#)

Change 

2001–

2009 

(%)

Total Employment 330,878 333,771 336,901 344,343 355,201 371,472 390,073 401,501 392,431 61,553 18.6

Farm Employment 12,447 13,160 12,124 11,837 11,523 11,180 12,584 12,682 12,502 55 0.4

Nonfarm Employment 318,431 320,611 324,777 332,506 343,678 360,292 377,489 388,819 379,929 61,498 19.3

Private Employment 253,157 254,492 257,623 264,870 275,184 291,790 307,283 317,311 306,013 52,856 20.9

Forestry, Fishing, 

and Related 

Activities

2,601 2,658 2,516 2,631 2,594 2,563 2,669 2,779 2,822 221 8.5

Mining 20,671 20,128 21,434 23,019 25,413 29,950 31,668 34,974 33,273 12,602 61.0

Utilities (D) (D) 2,168 2,232 2,312 2,355 2,524 2,574 2,566 NA NA

Construction 27,291 (D) 27,270 27,378 29,522 33,248 36,363 37,976 33,273 5,982 21.9

Manufacturing 11,404 (D) 10,706 10,873 11,217 11,789 11,961 11,661 10,788 -616 -5.4

Wholesale Trade 7,741 7,814 7,785 8,236 8,708 9,172 9,683 10,062 9,663 1,922 24.8

Retail Trade 39,010 38,907 38,962 38,905 39,560 40,041 41,266 41,103 39,111 101 0.3

Transportation and 

Warehousing (D) (D) 11,683 12,213 12,936 13,929 14,917 14,982 14,231 NA NA

Information (D) (D) 4,831 5,003 5,067 4,935 4,793 4,782 4,744 NA NA

Finance and 

Insurance 10,302 10,904 11,172 11,333 11,535 11,738 13,193 15,211 16,625 6,323 61.4

Real Estate and 

Rental and Leasing 11,940 11,941 11,963 13,432 15,102 16,657 18,578 19,379 19,047 7,107 59.5

Professional, 

Scientific, and 

Technical Services

13,885 13,756 13,854 14,720 15,172 16,018 17,022 17,385 16,810 2,925 21.0

Management Of 

Companies and 

Enterprises

943 1,014 778 896 917 1,027 1,031 966 929 -14 -1.5

Administrative and 

Waste Services 11,522 11,668 11,843 11,437 11,262 11,940 13,098 12,873 12,191 669 5.8

Educational 

Services 2,382 2,595 2,628 2,796 2,945 3,143 2,998 3,186 3,323 941 39.5
Chapter 4–Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

4-6 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Change 

2001–

2009 (#)

Change 

2001–

2009 

(%)

Health Care and 

Social Assistance 22,917 23,264 24,207 24,958 25,322 25,973 27,005 27,973 28,900 5,983 26.1

Arts, 

Entertainment, and 

Recreation

6,350 5,715 5,795 5,959 6,104 6,285 6,480 6,623 6,707 357 5.6

Accommodation 

and Food Services 28,507 30,033 30,575 31,281 31,696 32,371 32,980 34,042 32,646 4,139 14.5

Other Services, 

Except Public 

Administration

(D) (D) 17,453 17,568 17,800 18,656 19,054 18,780 18,364 NA NA

Government and 

Government 

Enterprises

65,274 66,119 67,154 67,636 68,494 68,502 70,206 71,508 73,916 8,643 13.2

Federal, Civilian 7,186 7,344 7,685 7,645 7,490 7,300 7,280 7,452 7,794 608 8.5

Military 6,122 6,069 6,130 6,217 6,138 6,113 6,130 6,129 6,252 130 2.1

State and Local 51,966 52,706 53,339 53,774 54,866 55,089 56,796 57,927 59,870 7,904 15.2

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, BEA, Regional Income Division, Table CA25N, April 2011.

(D) Indicates that value was not disclosed due to confidentiality.

NA: Not applicable (lack of data disclosure prevented calculation of the value). 
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 4–Economic Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 4-7

Table 4-3. Employment in Selected Industries – Total Number Employed, 2007

Total 

Employment Farm Mining Const. Mfg. Retail Trade

Real 

Estate & 

Rental 

Leasing

Prof., 

Scientific, 

& 

Technical 

Services

Health 

Care & 

Social 

Assistance

Accom. 

& Food 

Services

Govt. & 

Govt. 

Enterprises

Albany 21,550 497 49 1,263 616 2,179 643 1,389 1,410 1,768 7,679

Campbell 32,398 695 8,449 3,980 712 2,828 631 1,042 1,009 1,977 4,038

Carbon 11,125 366 367 1,603 (D) 1,097 534 296 (D) 1,074 2,164

Converse 7,815 518 966 703 149 750 315 196 (D) 607 1,403

Crook 4,187 483 413 464 173 342 (D) 115 165 286 731

Fremont 24,363 1,497 1,030 1,944 634 2,707 1,174 903 (D) 1,679 5,534

Goshen 7,385 882 (D) 483 354 755 332 252 (D) 366 1,226

Laramie 61,602 915 (D) 4,173 1,784 7,475 2,827 2,740 4,586 4,462 16,772

Lincoln 11,104 606 786 2,487 333 979 490 382 445 626 1,786

Natrona 53,848 485 5,225 4,226 2,204 6,560 2,844 2,552 5,821 3,721 6,074

Niobrara 1,748 263 (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) 72 (D) 416

Park 20,434 936 742 1,887 707 2,567 922 962 1,642 2,162 3,560

Platte 5,740 596 (D) 367 134 591 299 204 (D) 472 933

Sublette 7,709 427 1,919 1,018 95 587 287 321 (D) 556 925

Sweetwater 30,815 267 6,170 2,738 1,325 3,045 1,122 838 1,268 2,495 4,377

Teton 27,455 178 (D) 3,129 201 2,254 3,068 1,921 950 6,327 2,268

Uinta 13,271 387 1,123 1,614 355 1,677 586 542 1,320 888 2,188

Weston 5,191 278 749 374 152 539 321 248 287 (D) 838

Study Area 347,740 10,276 27,988 32,453 9,928 36,932 16,395 14,903 18,9754 29,466 62,912

Wyoming 389,485 12,579 31,326 36,389 11,840 41,276 18,710 17,011 27,004 33,000 70,203

Source: BEA 2007, Table CA25N.

(D) Indicates that value was not disclosed due to confidentiality; (L) Less than 10 jobs, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals.

Note: Numbers for 2007 for Wyoming do not exactly match the figures in Table 4-2 above as that table’s data source is more recent and has been updated.
Chapter 4–Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

4-8 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

Table 4-4. Employment in Selected Industries – Share of Total Employment, 2007

Total 

Employment Farm Mining Constr. Mfg. Retail Trade

Real 

Estate 

& 

Rental 

Leasing

Prof., 

Scientific, 

& 

Technical 

Services

Health 

Care & 

Social 

Assistance

Accom. 

& Food 

Services

Govt. & 

Govt. 

Enterprises

Albany 21,550 2.3% 0.2% 5.9% 2.9% 10.1% 3.0% 6.4% 6.5% 8.2% 35.6%

Campbell 32,398 2.2% 26.1% 12.3% 2.2% 8.7% 1.9% 3.2% 3.1% 6.1% 12.5%

Carbon 11,125 3.3% 3.3% 14.4% (D) 9.9% 4.8% 2.7% (D) 9.7% 19.5%

Converse 7,815 6.6% 12.4% 9.0% 1.9% 9.6% 4.0% 2.5% (D) 7.8% 18.0%

Crook 4,187 11.5% 9.9% 11.1% 4.1% 8.2% (D) 2.7% 3.9% 6.8% 17.5%

Fremont 24,363 6.1% 4.2% 8.0% 2.6% 11.1% 4.8% 3.7% (D) 6.9% 22.7%

Goshen 7,385 11.9% (D) 6.5% 4.8% 10.2% 4.5% 3.4% (D) 5.0% 16.6%

Laramie 61,602 1.5% (D) 6.8% 2.9% 12.1% 4.6% 4.4% 7.4% 7.2% 27.2%

Lincoln 11,104 5.5% 7.1% 22.4% 3.0% 8.8% 4.4% 3.4% 4.0% 5.6% 16.1%

Natrona 53,848 0.9% 9.7% 7.8% 4.1% 12.2% 5.3% 4.7% 10.8% 6.9% 11.3%

Niobrara 1,748 15.0% (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) 4.1% (D) 23.8%

Park 20,434 4.6% 3.6% 9.2% 3.5% 12.6% 4.5% 4.7% 8.0% 10.6% 17.4%

Platte 5,740 10.4% (D) 6.4% 2.3% 10.3% 5.2% 3.6% (D) 8.2% 16.3%

Sublette 7,709 5.5% 24.9% 13.2% 1.2% 7.6% 3.7% 4.2% (D) 7.2% 12.0%

Sweetwater 30,815 0.9% 20.0% 8.9% 4.3% 9.9% 3.6% 2.7% 4.1% 8.1% 14.2%

Teton 27,455 0.6% (D) 11.0% 0.7% 8.0% 11.2% 7.0% 3.0% 23.0% 8.0%

Uinta 13,271 2.9% 8.5% 12.2% 2.7% 12.6% 4.4% 4.1% 9.9% 6.7% 16.5%

Weston 5,191 5.4% 14.4% 7.2% 2.9% 10.4% 6.2% 4.8% 5.5% (D) 16.1%

Study Area 299,851 3.1% 9.1% 9.2% 3.0% 10.7% 4.1% 4.0% 5.5% 7.0% 19.0%

Wyoming 389,485 3.2% 8.0% 9.3% 3.0% 10.6% 4.8% 4.4% 6.9% 8.5% 18.0%

Source: BEA 2007, Table CA25N.

(D) Indicates that value was not disclosed due to confidentiality; (L) Less than 10 jobs, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals.
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 4–Economic Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 4-9

4.2 EARNINGS AND PAY

Earnings are defined as the sum of wage and salary disbursements1, supplements to wages and salaries, 

and proprietors’ income (BEA 2010b).

Historical data on earnings by sector demonstrate the relative importance of different industries to the 

socioeconomic study area over time. The tables below provide several views of historical employment:

• Trends in earnings across all industries between 2001 and 2009, statewide, by NAICS

categories (Table 4-5). This data shows overall trends since 2001, including into the recession. 

Given that the socioeconomic study area has nearly 89 percent of the state population and 

includes the state’s largest economic hubs, the statewide situation is highly indicative of 

conditions across the socioeconomic study area as a whole.

• Snapshots of employee compensation in selected industries in 2007, by county, by NAICS

(Table 4-6 and Table 4-7). This data shows this important component of earnings at the county 

level in key industries prior to any perturbations from the recession.2

Table 4-5 shows how earnings by industry have changed between 2001 and 2009, statewide. The greatest 

total dollar increases were experienced in Mining ($1.598 billion) and State and Local Government

($1.432 billion). Construction ($0.599 billion) and Health Care and Social Assistance ($0.613 billion) 

also experienced large increases in earnings statewide. The greatest percentage increase in earnings also 

occurred in Mining (112.0 percent). Increases of over 70 percent occurred in Management of Companies 

and Enterprises (108.8 percent), Educational Services (98.2 percent), Military (82.1 percent), Health 

Care and Social Assistance (81.4 percent), State and Local Government (81.0 percent) and Wholesale 

Trade (73.4 percent). Industries with very low growth or with losses in employment were Forestry, 

Fishing, and Related Activities (8.7 percent); Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation (8.2 Percent); Real 

Estate and Rental and Leasing (−3.6 percent); and Farming (−75.6 percent). In some cases, these low to 

negative growth rates reflect the impact of the recession outweighing growth that occurred earlier in the 

period. In the case of Farming, earnings fluctuated dramatically throughout the 2001 to 2009 period.

Table 4-6 and Table 4-7 provide snapshots of employee compensation for the state and by county in the 

socioeconomic study area for 2007. Throughout Wyoming, Government and Government Enterprises 

($3,789,678, 25.6 percent) and Mining ($2,321,388, 15.7 percent) represent the largest industries in terms 

of earnings and percentage of total compensation. At the county level, Government and Government 

Enterprises is the largest industry, in terms of earnings, for the majority of the socioeconomic study area. 

Albany ($349,441,000; 49.7 percent), Carbon ($109,382,000; 26.1 percent), Converse ($68,863,000; 24.2 

percent), Crook ($33,678,000; 31.4 percent), Fremont ($265,197,000; 35.9 percent), Goshen 

($53,662,000; 32.1 percent), Laramie ($1,081,622,000; 44.2 percent), Niobrara ($18,050,000; 47.3 

percent), Platte ($42,955,000; 25.6 percent), and Weston ($36,505,000; 32.7 percent) counties have the 

highest percentages of earnings from the Government and Government Enterprises industry. Mining 

makes up the largest share of earnings for Campbell ($696,959,000; 38.2 percent), Natrona 

($363,499,000; 17.1 percent), Sublette ($158,471,000; 44.1 percent), Sweetwater ($525,523,000; 32.8 

percent), and Uinta ($103,545,000; 21 percent) counties. Across the socioeconomic study area, 

Construction is the largest industry, in terms of earnings percentage, in Lincoln County ($146,544,000; 

35.3 percent) and is also very large ($95,181,000; 22.7 percent) in Carbon County. 

Table 4-8 shows the average annual pay by private sector industries for the counties in the socioeconomic 

study area. The data is from 2007, so it indicates average salaries prior to changes brought on by the 

 

1 Note that employee contributions to retirement programs, as a portion of wages, are captured in the figures cited. 

2 Employee compensation is the sum of employee wages and salaries and supplements to wages and salaries; in other words, all 

earnings except proprietor’s income. In 2007 it constituted 87 percent of earnings. Selected industries match those used in the 

2007 employment tables.
Chapter 4–Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

4-10 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

recession. The industry categories are different for this table because data was pulled from the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, whereas previous industry data came from the BEA, which uses slightly different 

categories for industries. Across all industries in 2007, the annual pay for the socioeconomic study area

ranged between $24,715 (Goshen County) and $45,106 (Sweetwater County). The highest average annual 

pay by a specific industry is the Natural Resources and Mining industry in Uinta County at $82,150. The 

lowest average annual pay by a specific industry is the Leisure and Hospitality industry in Goshen 

County at $8,124. By a wide margin, the Natural Resources and Mining industry provided the highest 

average annual wage ($50,228) across the socioeconomic study area, followed by the Construction 

industry ($41,039). The Leisure and Hospitality industry provided the lowest average annual wage 

($12,031). 
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 4–Economic Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 4-11

Table 4-5: Wyoming Earnings by Industry, 2001–2009 ($1,000s)

Category 2001 2002 2003 2005* 2006 2007 2008 2009

Change,

2001–

2009 (#)

Percent 

Change

, 2001–

2009 

(%)

Total Earnings by 

Place of Work 11,041,357 11,429,206 12,031,289 13,925,481 15,910,063 17,009,078 18,667,863 17,794,164 6,752,807 61.2

Farm Earnings 189,954 99,558 180,075 231,506 99,694 29,908 86,066 46,294 -143,660 -75.6

Nonfarm Earnings 10,851,403 11,329,648 11,851,214 13,693,975 15,810,369 16,979,170 18,581,797 17,747,870 6,896,467 63.6

Private Earnings 8,385,068 8,654,275 8,991,820 10,459,708 12,331,156 13,189,492 14,530,030 13,430,303 5,045,235 60.2

Forestry, 

Fishing, and 

Related 

Activities

46,627 46,680 49,716 47,722 49,196 50,216 49,663 50,666 4,039 8.7

Mining 1,427,557 1,415,656 1,553,820 2,054,920 2,719,904 2,780,735 3,502,357 3,025,834 1,598,277 112.0

Utilities (D) (D) 192,590 213,944 240,624 250,726 268,392 277,681 NA NA

Construction 1,055,314 (D) 1,118,466 1,263,303 1,569,905 1,819,768 2,010,173 1,654,160 598,846 56.7

Manufacturing 517,920 (D) 510,960 557,648 637,599 675,965 717,253 692,672 174,752 33.7

Wholesale 

Trade 369,329 366,209 394,367 475,291 553,156 620,065 681,759 640,515 271,186 73.4

Retail Trade 817,169 822,872 859,677 936,119 1,031,776 1,105,628 1,109,775 1,055,929 238,760 29.2

Transportation 

and 

Warehousing

(D) (D) 603,680 732,460 857,840 935,050 995,261 928,359 NA NA

Information (D) (D) 166,021 179,734 192,388 200,307 208,421 209,895 NA NA

Finance and 

Insurance 360,987 365,360 379,741 407,495 465,323 464,427 472,869 450,140 89,153 24.7

Real Estate and 

Rental and 

Leasing

312,237 351,652 326,542 404,327 400,202 321,396 320,149 300,854 -11,383 -3.6

Professional, 

Scientific, and 

Technical 

Services

499,479 520,416 505,899 609,485 692,908 781,059 871,566 841,597 342,118 68.5
Chapter 4–Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

4-12 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

Category 2001 2002 2003 2005* 2006 2007 2008 2009

Change,

2001–

2009 (#)

Percent 

Change

, 2001–

2009 

(%)

Management of 

Companies and 

Enterprises

41,721 60,305 67,038 78,907 96,056 94,591 92,810 87,120 45,399 108.8

Administrative 

and Waste 

Services

240,222 226,635 245,545 241,648 277,010 322,249 338,736 305,248 65,026 27.1

Educational 

Services 36,447 48,148 45,875 52,974 59,041 62,701 67,858 72,253 35,806 98.2

Health Care 

and Social 

Assistance

753,759 812,140 869,725 982,117 1,061,313 1,165,303 1,308,870 1,367,169 613,410 81.4

Arts, 

Entertainment, 

and Recreation

175,741 194,743 197,996 179,890 185,634 189,616 191,090 190,139 14,398 8.2

Accommodation 

and Food 

Services

420,881 462,286 490,784 579,888 707,210 729,096 723,563 692,806 271,925 64.6

Other Services, 

Except Public 

Administration

(D) (D) 413,378 461,836 534,071 620,594 599,465 587,266 NA NA

Government and 

Government 

Enterprises

2,466,335 2,675,373 2,859,394 3,234,267 3,479,213 3,789,678 4,051,767 4,317,567 1,851,232 75.1

Federal, Civilian 459,874 485,635 514,103 574,434 596,298 622,838 648,284 683,554 223,680 48.6

Military 238,043 279,035 313,141 361,525 362,801 375,125 394,467 433,455 195,412 82.1

State and Local 1,768,418 1,910,703 2,032,150 2,298,308 2,520,114 2,791,715 3,009,016 3,200,558 1,432,140 81.0

*2004 data removed due to space considerations.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, BEA, Regional Income Division, Table CA05N, April 2011

(D) Indicates that value was not disclosed due to confidentiality.

NA: Not applicable (lack of data disclosure prevented calculation of the value).
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 4–Economic Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 4-13

Table 4-6. Employee Compensation in Selected Industries, 2007 ($1,000s)

County Total 

Earnings Farm Mining Const. Mfg. Retail Trade

Prof., 

Scienti., 

& Tech.

Services

Real 

Estate & 

Rental 

Leasing

Health 

Care & 

Social 

Assist.

Accom. 

& Food 

Services

Govt. & 

Govt. 

Enterpris.

Albany $703,576 $4,254 $1,222 $39,472 $24,326 $45,529 $46,514 $4,334 $54,847 $25,851 $349,441

Campbell $1,826,089 $3,501 $696,959 $224,109 $49,809 $84,417 $56,896 $11,395 $44,726 $36,691 $222,078

Carbon $419,399 $7,059 $16,339 $95,181 (D) $23,782 $6,186 $2,052 (D) $18,133 $109,382

Converse $285,094 $6,487 $65,326 $25,755 $4,826 $11,833 $3,204 $1,247 (D) $8,002 $68,863

Crook $107,170 $3,166 $18,118 $11,646 $8,105 $4,878 $2,670 (D) $2,615 $2,911 $33,678

Fremont $738,663 $10,051 $63,767 $52,090 $16,130 $62,574 $33,242 $17,014 (D) $26,294 $265,197

Goshen $166,982 $7,876 (D) $11,266 $12,996 $11,101 $5,963 $1,538 (D) $3,496 $53,662

Laramie $2,444,744 $9,713 (D) $160,347 $105,551 $174,205 $92,965 $21,223 $167,790 $94,992 $1,081,622

Lincoln $415,292 $3,049 $67,297 $146,544 $9,576 $18,685 $9,352 $617 $6,608 $6,199 $86,084

Natrona $2,131,709 $5,912 $363,499 $164,967 $112,008 $170,886 $86,207 $54,175 $249,511 $66,799 $345,332

Niobrara $38,129 $1,707 (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) $1,846 (D) $18,050

Park $1,165,655 $7,090 $70,899 $77,368 $25,009 $63,558 $33,972 $10,108 $66,741 $43,160 $183,882

Platte $167,572 $5,831 (D) $10,678 $2,800 $10,096 $2,782 $442 (D) $5,927 $42,955

Sublette $359,077 $5,618 $158,471 $43,966 $3,178 $14,275 $8,246 $2,253 (D) $18,261 $56,070

Sweetwater $1,603,126 $1,429 $525,523 $148,566 $122,832 $85,282 $35,574 $25,998 $36,058 $49,221 $219,046

Teton $2,553,721 $4,141 (D) $168,205 $5,777 $83,254 $114,065 $78,160 $63,427 $225,551 $134,652

Uinta $493,272 $2,253 $103,545 $74,797 $14,642 $32,193 $15,023 $12,603 $34,949 $12,328 $101,821

Weston $111,528 $2,024 $19,906 $5,431 $10,629 $5,692 $3,080 $413 $5,433 (D) $36,505

Study Area $15,730,798 $91,161 $2,170,871 $1,460,388 $528,194 $902,240 $555,941 $243,572 $734,551 $643,816 $3,408,320

Wyoming $14,791,335 $123,455 $2,321,388 $1,513,082 $623,725 $966,834 $550,905 $200,747 $946,665 $679,054 $3,789,678

Source: BEA 2007; Table CA05N.

(D) Indicates that value was not disclosed due to confidentiality; (L) Less than 10 jobs, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals.
Chapter 4–Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

4-14 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

Table 4-7. Employee Compensation in Selected Industries – Share of Total, 2007

County Total 

Earnings Farm Mining Const. Mfg. Retail Trade

Prof., 

Scienti., 

& Tech.

Services

Real 

Estate 

& 

Rental 

Leasing

Health 

Care & 

Social 

Assist.

Accom. 

& Food 

Services

Govt. & 

Govt. 

Enterpris.

Albany $703,576 0.6% 0.2% 5.6% 3.5% 6.5% 6.6% 0.6% 7.8% 3.7% 49.7%

Campbell $1,826,089 0.2% 38.2% 12.3% 2.7% 4.6% 3.1% 0.6% 2.4% 2.0% 12.2%

Carbon $419,399 1.7% 3.9% 22.7% (D) 5.7% 1.5% 0.5% (D) 4.3% 26.1%

Converse $285,094 2.3% 22.9% 9.0% 1.7% 4.2% 1.1% 0.4% (D) 2.8% 24.2%

Crook $107,170 3.0% 16.9% 10.9% 7.6% 4.6% 2.5% (D) 2.4% 2.7% 31.4%

Fremont $738,663 1.4% 8.6% 7.1% 2.2% 8.5% 4.5% 2.3% (D) 3.6% 35.9%

Goshen $166,982 4.7% (D) 6.7% 7.8% 6.6% 3.6% 0.9% (D) 2.1% 32.1%

Laramie $2,444,744 0.4% (D) 6.6% 4.3% 7.1% 3.8% 0.9% 6.9% 3.9% 44.2%

Lincoln $415,292 0.7% 16.2% 35.3% 2.3% 4.5% 2.3% 0.1% 1.6% 1.5% 20.7%

Natrona $2,131,709 0.3% 17.1% 7.7% 5.3% 8.0% 4.0% 2.5% 11.7% 3.1% 16.2%

Niobrara $38,129 4.5% (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) 4.8% (D) 47.3%

Park $1,165,655 0.6% 6.1% 6.6% 2.1% 5.5% 2.9% 0.9% 5.7% 3.7% 15.8%

Platte $167,572 3.5% (D) 6.4% 1.7% 6.0% 1.7% 0.3% (D) 3.5% 25.6%

Sublette $359,077 1.6% 44.1% 12.2% 0.9% 4.0% 2.3% 0.6% (D) 5.1% 15.6%

Sweetwater $1,603,126 0.1% 32.8% 9.3% 7.7% 5.3% 2.2% 1.6% 2.2% 3.1% 13.7%

Teton $2,553,721 0.2% (D) 6.6% 0.2% 3.3% 4.5% 3.1% 2.5% 8.8% 5.3%

Uinta $493,272 0.5% 21.0% 15.2% 3.0% 6.5% 3.0% 2.6% 7.1% 2.5% 20.6%

Weston $111,528 1.8% 17.8% 4.9% 9.5% 5.1% 2.8% 0.4% 4.9% (D) 32.7%

Study Area $15,730,798 1.6% 13.7% 10.3% 3.5% 5.3% 2.9% 1.0% 3.3% 3.1% 26.1%

Wyoming $14,791,335 0.8% 15.7% 10.2% 4.2% 6.5% 3.7% 1.4% 6.4% 4.6% 25.6%

Source: BEA 2007; Table CA05N.

(D) Indicates that value was not disclosed due to confidentiality; (L) Less than 10 jobs, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals.
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 4–Economic Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 4-15

Table 4-8. Average Annual Pay by Industry, 2007

County

Natural 

Resources 

& Mining

Const. Mfg.

Trade, 

Transp., 

& 

Utilities

Info. Financial 

Activities

Prof. & 

Business 

Services

Edu. & 

Health 

Services

Leisure & 

Hospitality

Other 

Services

Albany $51,230 $32,397 $34,080 $22,924 $36,892 $36,828 $34,129 $35,934 $10,878 $19,479 

Campbell $70,933 $49,242 $57,146 $41,199 $31,142 $39,865 $50,162 $43,872 $13,926 $42,888 

Carbon ND $58,369 ND $35,112 $30,643 $30,000 $38,409 $31,537 $14,239 $26,194 

Converse $61,205 $44,407 $41,681 $36,835 $25,217 $27,817 $30,989 $37,177 $10,317 $18,178 

Crook $43,722 $33,638 $41,166 $31,339 $24,169 $34,567 $43,315 $19,583 $11,337 $17,838 

Fremont $56,835 $33,413 $27,787 $29,028 $27,729 $37,583 $56,131 $32,596 $12,817 $28,612 

Goshen $24,879 $31,754 $31,015 $23,356 $21,987 $31,286 $29,095 $27,606 $8,124 $18,055 

Laramie $33,478 $40,547 $46,911 $28,987 $41,459 $41,278 $35,489 $36,186 $15,848 $29,874 

Lincoln $74,398 $62,363 $27,540 $33,975 $33,967 $27,294 $36,189 $18,516 $8,625 $19,856 

Natrona $73,732 $43,559 $43,730 $36,853 $34,649 $47,398 $38,748 $40,578 $14,079 $34,991 

Niobrara $46,290 ND ND $20,244 ND $24,238 $21,430 $28,721 ND ND

Park $66,535 $33,146 $35,137 $26,974 $28,881 $33,644 $35,023 $34,531 $15,372 $22,240

Platte $33,665 $39,786 $21,791 $43,917 $24,718 $28,068 $29,662 $29,461 $10,570 $12,449 

Sublette $73,982 $50,326 $34,262 $38,231 $37,778 $44,072 $49,509 $27,722 $26,258 $26,459 

Sweetwater $73,311 $53,616 $72,587 $43,247 $26,808 $46,277 $45,408 $30,164 $14,685 $44,966 

Teton $43,864 $42,745 $30,826 $31,801 $46,478 $64,615 $54,378 $46,020 $24,787 $31,283

Uinta $82,150 $46,390 $38,693 $31,341 $49,743 $42,001 $31,917 $24,950 $11,058 $23,329 

Weston $55,067 $36,811 $61,883 $27,265 $25,763 $30,555 $40,173 $23,103 $9,729 $23,749 

Source: BLS 2012.

(ND) – No data available
Chapter 4–Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

4-16 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

4.3 INCOME

Table 4-9 shows personal income by source, based on 2005–2009 data. Income patterns for households3

in the socioeconomic study area are very similar to those of Wyoming and relatively similar to the United 

States, with a few exceptions. Campbell (92.8 percent) and Sweetwater (88.2 percent) counties have the 

highest and third highest percentage of households with earnings, and both are above the state and 

national rate. Campbell County also has the lowest percentage of households with social security income 

(15.5 percent) and retirement income (7.8 percent). These two counties also have a strong mining industry 

that pays higher wages and attracts younger workers. Albany County has the second highest percentage of 

households with earnings, probably as a result of many county residents being employed by University of 

Wyoming or businesses that rely on the university. Goshen and Platte counties have the lowest percentage 

of households with earnings: both are at 76.8 percent, which is lower than the state and national rate. 

Additionally, Goshen (38.7 percent) and Platte (37.8 percent) counties have the highest percentage of 

social security income relative to total earnings. Goshen County also has the highest percentage of 

households with public assistance income, at 4.0 percent. These indicators probably derive from the lack 

of a strong mining industry or other major economic opportunities that result in outmigration of workingage individuals.

Table 4-10 provides a look at statewide trends in personal income sources between 1970 and 2009 

according to seven broad categories. The definitions of each of the labor and nonlabor categories are

provided in APPENDIX A. Statewide, the majority of personal income in 2009 came from labor income 

(net earnings). However, the percentage of income from labor has declined from 75.8 percent in 1970 to 

59.1 percent as of 2009, a drop of 16.7 percent, while the percentage of income from nonlabor sources has 

increased. Throughout the state, the following changes have occurred in the percentage share of total 

personal income: net earnings income has decreased; dividends, interest, and rent income has increased; 

and personal current transfer receipts income has increased. Within personal current transfer receipts 

income, income maintenance income (welfare) and unemployment insurance compensation income have 

remained relatively stable, while retirement and other income have increased. 

A county-by-county look at net earnings as a percentage of total income is shown in Table 4-11. Within 

the socioeconomic study area, the decline in the net earnings share is consistent with statewide trends 

with a few exceptions. Campbell, Converse, Sublette, Sweetwater, and Uinta counties—all counties with 

strong mining industries—have seen no more than a 5 percentage point decline in net earnings as a 

percentage of personal income since 1970. Uinta County has seen the smallest drop at 2.2 percentage 

points. Teton County has seen the largest drop, from 69.2 percent to 39.1 percent, or 30.1 percentage 

points, which is commensurate with its substantial affluence and resort-based economy. Fremont County 

has seen the next largest drop with 22.2 percentage points. On average, since 1970, the socioeconomic 

study area has seen an 11 percentage point drop in net earnings as a percentage of total income. The 

declines in net earnings as a percentage of total income are consistent with similar national trends that 

reflect an aging population. As the average age has increased, a greater percentage of the population has 

entered retirement and left the workforce. In addition, income from dividends, interest, and rent has 

increased in Wyoming and nationally, as the wealth of upper income and to some extent middle income 

portions of the population has increased over recent decades. 

 

3 A household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence (U.S. Census Bureau 2010a). 

Note that a household is different from a family, which is defined as a group of two or more people who reside together and 

who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption.
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 4–Economic Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 4-17

Table 4-9. Prevalence of Income Sources for Households in the Socioeconomic Study Area

Area Total Households

With Earnings

With Social 

Security 

Income

With Supplemental 

Security Income

With Public 

Assistance 

Income

With Retirement 

Income

% % % % %

Albany 14,193 89.4% 16.3% 2.2% 1.2% 11.9%

Campbell 13,797 92.8% 15.5% 1.7% 1.0% 7.8%

Carbon 6,156 86.4% 25.0% 1.5% 1.7% 12.0%

Converse 5,284 82.7% 26.4% 1.3% 1.0% 16.4%

Crook 2,524 79.4% 34.2% 1.3% 2.7% 19.3%

Fremont 14,489 79.6% 31.1% 3.7% 3.8% 18.7%

Goshen 5,146 76.8% 38.7% 4.1% 4.0% 17.1%

Laramie 33,871 82.7% 26.3% 2.6% 1.2% 21.6%

Lincoln 6,475 83.7% 28.6% 2.2% 0.8% 14.8%

Natrona 27,997 82.7% 26.8% 2.8% 2.2% 14.9%

Niobrara 971 85.9% 32.0% 2.1% 0.2% 11.3%

Park 11,832 79.6% 31.6% 3.3% 2.1% 19.9%

Platte 3,835 76.8% 37.8% 2.3% 2.0% 19.8%

Sublette 2,564 82.3% 27.4% 0.4% 0.0% 18.0%

Sweetwater 15,495 88.2% 20.0% 1.8% 1.1% 15.6%

Teton 7,734 85.8% 16.1% 1.2% 0.0% 7.8%

Uinta 7,251 86.6% 22.9% 2.0% 0.7% 13.8%

Weston 2,917 79.6% 32.0% 1.7% 2.1% 18.4%

Wyoming 208,269 83.4% 26.2% 2.4% 1.6% 16.3%

United States 112,611,029 80.1% 27.1% 3.8% 2.4% 17.4%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2009a (2005-2009 American Community Survey).
Chapter 4–Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

4-18 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

Table 4-10. Statewide Personal Income by Source ($1,000s)

Source

1970 1980 1990 2000 2009

$ % $ % $ % $ % $ %

Personal income $1,305,054 100.0% $5,532,918 100.0% $8,125,388 100.0% $14,463,473 100.0% $26,221,601 100.0%

Net earnings $989,224 75.8% $4,223,735 76.3% $5,341,007 65.7% $9,022,347 62.4% $15,504,367 59.1%

Personal current transfer

Receipts $102,746 7.9% $391,770 7.1% $905,474 11.1% $1,708,892 11.8% $3,357,177 12.8%

Income maintenance $6,784 0.5% $24,562 0.4% $68,094 0.8% $121,871 0.8% $199,031 0.8%

Unemployment insurance 

Compensation $2,815 0.2% $14,311 0.3% $22,791 0.3% $28,068 0.2% $190,861 0.7%

Retirement and other $93,147 7.1% $352,897 6.4% $814,589 10.0% $1,558,953 10.8% $2,967,285 11.3%

Dividends, interest, and rent $213,084 16.3% $917,413 16.6% $1,878,907 23.1% $3,732,234 25.8% $7,360,057 28.1%

Source: BEA 1970 - 2009, Table SA30.
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 4–Economic Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 4-19

Table 4-11. Net Earnings as a Percentage of Total Personal Income, 1970–2008 ($1,000s)

County

1970 1980 1990 2000 2008

$ % $ % $ % $ % $ %

Albany

Personal 

Income $78,598 100.0% $266,900 100.0% $441,024 100.0% $769,966 100.0% $1,191,322 100.0%

Net Earnings $58,817 74.8% $189,754 71.1% $294,779 66.8% $471,409 61.2% $705,641 59.2%

Campbell

Personal 

Income $45,276 100.0% $357,888 100.0% $541,525 100.0% $957,087 100.0% $2,087,459 100.0%

Net Earnings $38,194 84.4% $305,705 85.4% $425,516 78.6% $729,080 76.2% $1,659,515 79.5%

Carbon

Personal 

Income $59,025 100.0% $299,882 100.0% $284,987 100.0% $379,793 100.0% $665,697 100.0%

Net Earnings $43,852 74.3% $242,499 80.9% $185,281 65.0% $222,205 58.5% $412,749 62.0%

Converse

Personal 

Income $23,047 100.0% $168,454 100.0% $175,379 100.0% $316,746 100.0% $589,645 100.0%

Net Earnings $16,412 71.2% $135,462 80.4% $113,061 64.5% $210,136 66.3% $410,401 69.6%

Crook

Personal 

Income $15,702 100.0% $52,160 100.0% $95,584 100.0% $152,975 100.0% $290,141 100.0%

Net Earnings $11,892 75.7% $35,642 68.3% $61,132 64.0% $99,476 65.0% $191,240 65.9%

Fremont

Personal 

Income $91,118 100.0% $380,787 100.0% $462,380 100.0% $850,201 100.0% $1,424,527 100.0%

Net Earnings $71,714 78.7% $291,081 76.4% $282,100 61.0% $484,893 57.0% $804,785 56.5%

Goshen

Personal 

Income $37,999 100.0% $111,762 100.0% $195,577 100.0% $284,684 100.0% $430,574 100.0%

Net Earnings $28,656 75.4% $71,191 63.7% $124,546 63.7% $166,130 58.4% $233,963 54.3%

Laramie

Personal 

Income $231,007 100.0% $788,966 100.0% $1,364,804 100.0% $2,338,017 100.0% $3,915,224 100.0%

Net Earnings $177,126 76.7% $591,924 75.0% $894,587 65.5% $1,501,852 64.2% $2,477,610 63.3%

Lincoln

Personal 

Income $35,618 100.0% $116,202 100.0% $182,719 100.0% $350,449 100.0% $654,490 100.0%

Net Earnings $28,148 79.0% $86,485 74.4% $118,878 65.1% $213,141 60.8% $409,147 62.5%

Natrona

Personal 

Income $237,107 100.0% $1,032,291 100.0% $1,311,710 100.0% $2,299,731 100.0% $3,812,496 100.0%

Net Earnings $185,833 78.4% $823,845 79.8% $874,047 66.6% $1,549,339 67.4% $2,568,918 67.4%
Chapter 4–Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

4-20 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

County

1970 1980 1990 2000 2008

$ % $ % $ % $ % $ %

Niobrara

Personal 

Income $11,604 100.0% $30,513 100.0% $41,986 100.0% $62,425 100.0% $97,079 100.0%

Net Earnings $8,027 69.2% $19,240 63.1% $23,102 55.0% $33,473 53.6% $53,458 55.1%

Plat

Personal 

Income $68,237 100.0% $254,907 100.0% $390,883 100.0% $728,405 100.0% $1,265,164 100.0%

Net Earnings $50,457 73.94% $178,875 70.17% $230,127 58.87% $409,358 56.20% $665,949 52.64%

Platte

Personal 

Income $24,190 100.0% $105,872 100.0% $134,335 100.0% $229,613 100.0% $325,867 100.0%

Net Earnings $16,571 68.5% $75,989 71.8% $81,839 60.9% $137,510 59.9% $184,044 56.5%

Sublette

Personal 

Income $16,699 100.0% $55,727 100.0% $90,917 100.0% $172,289 100.0% $551,326 100.0%

Net Earnings $13,080 78.3% $38,804 69.6% $54,014 59.4% $96,490 56.0% $402,771 73.1%

Sweetwater

Personal 

Income $70,739 100.0% $541,684 100.0% $708,161 100.0% $1,141,414 100.0% $1,997,696 100.0%

Net Earnings $54,662 77.3% $458,870 84.7% $535,618 75.6% $812,878 71.2% $1,491,918 74.7%

Teton

Personal 

Income $30,235 100.0% $139,829 100.0% $400,134 100.0% $1,199,455 100.0% $2,481,104 100.0%

Net Earnings $20,914 69.17% $93,777 67.07% $239,533 59.86% $567,146 47.28% $970,070 39.10%

Uinta

Personal 

Income $27,138 100.0% $130,211 100.0% $274,651 100.0% $469,217 100.0% $915,540 100.0%

Net Earnings $21,243 78.3% $104,591 80.3% $215,797 78.6% $343,626 73.2% $696,679 76.1%

Weston

Personal 

Income $23,566 100.0% $78,863 100.0% $111,785 100.0% $185,517 100.0% $299,561 100.0%

Net Earnings $18,299 77.7% $57,892 73.4% $74,552 66.7% $122,791 66.2% $197,213 65.8%

Source: BEA 1970 – 2008; Table CA30.
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 4–Economic Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 4-21

4.4 ECONOMIC BASE

An area’s economic base consists of “basic industries” that bring outside income into the local economy. 

These industries export most or all of their goods and services outside the region, serving economic 

demand generated by nonlocal businesses and consumers. This economic activity brings new income into 

the region. Manufacturing and mining are often thought of as basic industries, as they usually export most 

of their goods outside of their local area and are dependent on nonlocal economic factors. By bringing in 

outside income, basic industries help support “nonbasic” industries, such as retail trade, housing, 

construction, and personal services that primarily serve locally generated economic demand. Some 

industries may be partly basic and partly nonbasic, depending on local conditions. For instance, 

restaurants are largely nonbasic when they primarily serve local businesses and residents; in other areas,

they may be strongly basic if they serve large amounts of tourist-generated demand, thereby bringing 

outside income into the local economy.

Another way to think of economic base is in terms of specializations in the local economy compared to a 

larger economy such as the national economy. The specialization of certain geographic areas in certain 

industries has traditionally been tied to such factors as the natural resource base, transportation and other 

infrastructure, and cost factors such as labor. In areas with a high proportion of public lands, industries 

such as mining, grazing, and recreation may be important local economic specializations that bring 

outside income into the local economy.

Calculation of “location quotients” is one way of assessing an area’s economic base or specializations 

(Florida State University 2010). A location quotient compares an industry’s share of total local economic 

activity to the industry’s share in a larger economy, such as the state or nation. The quotient is a ratio, 

where 1.0 indicates an equal share percentage between the local and larger economies. Location quotients 

under 1.0 signify a lesser share locally than for the larger economy; figures over 1.0 signify a greater 

share locally, and thus some degree of specialization of the local economy in that sector compared to the 

larger economy.

4 The greater the ratio, the greater the degree of specialization. Location quotients, 

however, must be interpreted along with data on the size of an industry. An industry could have a very 

high location quotient but not be especially important locally if it provides only a small amount of an

area’s jobs or earnings.

Location quotients for employment and earnings for Wyoming are shown in Table 4-12. These quotients 

are based on a comparison of the state’s economy to the national economy. 

In Wyoming, the following industries have particularly high location quotients and have a large share of 

employment (over 7 percent): mining, construction, accommodation and food services, and government 

and government enterprises. Mining has an especially high location quotient relative to other industries in 

the state, reflecting the key role of mining as a basic industry in the Wyoming economy. Construction is 

strongly related to the mining industry. Accommodation and food services likely reflects the impact of 

new and temporary workers for the mining industry and the impact of tourism in the state. With respect to 

government and government enterprises, Wyoming is a small state in population terms, and this industry 

tends to be proportionally larger in smaller populations than in larger populations. In Wyoming, the 

following industries have high quotients, but have a smaller share of employment (less than 7 percent): 

farming; forestry, fishing, and related activities; utilities; transportation and warehousing; and real 

estate and rental and leasing. These industries bring meaningful outside income into the local economy, 

but the relative impact to the local economy is smaller than other industries due to the lower levels of 

employment for each industry. Note also that while farming and forestry, fishing, and related activities

 

4 Put another way, if a ratio of 1.0 indicates the “expected” amount of economic activity based on the profile of the larger 

economy, the amount of activity that brings the ratio up to 1.0 probably serves local needs, while the amount that increases the 

ratio beyond 1.0 probably serves nonlocal needs.
Chapter 4–Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

4-22 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

have high location quotients for employment, they have substantially lower location quotients for 

earnings; these statistics reflect a higher degree of part-time employment in these industries compared to 

others. 

Table 4-12. Location Quotients for Employment and Earnings in Wyoming, Relative to the 

United States, 2008

NAICS Category

Wyoming

Employment Earnings

Private Farm employment/earnings 2.17 0.49

Private Nonfarm employment/earnings 0.98 0.94

Forestry, fishing, and related activities 1.44 0.95

Mining 12.89 11.26

Utilities 1.98 1.62

Construction 1.56 1.61

Manufacturing 0.37 0.33

Wholesale trade 0.69 0.65

Retail trade 0.99 0.92

Transportation and warehousing 1.15 1.49

Information 0.62 0.31

Finance and insurance 0.69 0.33

Real estate and rental and leasing 1.09 0.91

Professional, scientific, and technical services 0.65 0.43

Management of companies and enterprises 0.23 0.20

Administrative and waste services 0.54 0.44

Educational services 0.37 0.23

Health care and social assistance 0.69 0.63

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 0.79 0.86

Accommodation and food services 1.25 1.24

Other services, except public administration 0.83 0.84

Government and government enterprises 1.31 1.20

Federal, civilian 1.19 1.05

Military 1.33 1.14

State and local 1.32 1.24

State government 1.28 1.25

Local government 1.34 1.24

Source: BEA 2008; Table SA25N and Table SA05N.

The Location Quotient (LQ) is calculated as LQ = (ei/e)/(Ei/E), where ei is equal to the local measure (i.e., employment or 

earnings) in industry i, e is equal to the total local measure, Ei is equal to the reference area measure in industry i, and E is equal 

to the total reference area measure.

4.5 SPECIFIC ECONOMIC SECTORS

This section discusses in greater detail the economic sectors that are the most relevant to (and potentially 

affected by) the decisions that will be addressed in the RMP and LRMP amendments in the BLM and 
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 4–Economic Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 4-23

USFS planning actions. These most relevant sectors are agriculture, mining, renewable energy, and

tourism and recreation. 

4.5.1 Agriculture

Table 4-13 provides basic statistics on agriculture in the socioeconomic study area. The study area 

contains the top seven agricultural counties in the state. With respect to the livestock industry in 

particular, the following study area counties have over $100 million in livestock inventory value: Carbon, 

Fremont, Goshen, Laramie, and Platte.

Table 4-13. Farms, Land in Farms, and Agricultural Value

County No. of 

Farms1

Land in 

Farms1

Total 

Public 

Land2

Land 

Assessed as 

Agricultural 

Use2

Value of 

Livestock 

Inventory3

Value of 

Crop 

Production3

Total 

Value3

Rank 

Among 

Wyoming 

Counties

by Total 

Value3

1,000 

Acres

1,000 

Acres 1,000 Acres Million Dollars

Million 

Dollars

Million 

Dollars

Albany 448 1,856.1 925.7 1,678.0 63.2 7.0 70.2 14

Campbell 633 2,345.9 559.7 2,231.4 94.9 9.1 104.0 7

Carbon 287 2,172.5 3,098.3 1,915.8 103.0 12.1 115.1 5

Converse 435 2,366.0 653.2 1,922.9 72.5 8.8 81.3 11

Crook 457 1,569.9 467.1 1,359.4 81.3 15.9 97.2 10

Fremont 1,394 1,800.5 5,108.1 734.4 117.1 32.4 149.5 3

Goshen 815 1,368.3 130.7 1,269.9 130.3 48.0 178.3 1

Laramie 844 1,691.6 189.2 1,380.7 118.3 32.0 150.3 2

Lincoln 535 342.6 2,030.3 505.7 53.2 13.8 67.0 16

Natrona 413 2,181.5 1,864.4 1,294.9 70.2 7.0 77.2 12

Niobrara 235 1,449.1 295.7 1,352.4 59.9 6.2 66.1 18

Park 782 881.7 3,678.8 666.0 70.4 41.7 112.1 6

Platte 487 1,308.2 312.5 1,004.8 109.2 21.6 130.8 4

Sublette 366 599.3 2,568.7 542.4 60.5 9.0 69.5 15

Sweetwater 244 1,486.4 4,907.5 1,713.8 24.8 5.6 30.4 22

Teton 180 52.9 2,625.0 37.0 5.2 2.0 7.2 23

Uinta 344 742.8 580.3 716.6 58.6 7.8 66.4 17

Weston 237 1,328.3 432.1 1,042.6 52.5 4.6 57.1 20

Study Area 9,136 25,543.6 30,427.3 21,368.7 1,345.1 284.6 1,629.7 NA

Wyoming 11,069 30,169.3 35,670.6 24,976.4 1,632.5 371.3 2,003.8 NA

NA: Not applicable.

1 2007 Census of Agriculture. 

2 From “The Equality State Almanac” (Wyoming Economic Analysis Division 2010a).

3 2011 data from the National Agricultural Statistical Service.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service, Wyoming Field Office, Wyoming Agricultural Statistics 

2011, p. 30.

Table 4-14 shows trends in cattle production. Each of the counties, and the state as a whole, has seen 

some variation in production between 2004 and 2011. However, changes have neither been especially 

large, nor is there a consistent trend across the counties. Sheep production has also been variable, as 

shown in 
Chapter 4–Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

4-24 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

Table 4-15, with a clear downward trend in production in several counties and across the state in the last 

few years.

Table 4-14. Total Cattle and Calves, January 1, 2004–2011

County 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Albany 55,000 51,000 50,000 48,000 53,000 55,000 54,000 53,000

Campbell 80,000 80,000 84,000 86,000 77,000 79,000 77,000 76,000

Carbon 90,000 90,000 98,000 97,000 87,000 90,000 88,000 86,000

Converse 60,000 60,000 64,000 60,000 52,000 54,000 52,000 52,000

Crook 65,000 60,000 61,000 62,000 68,000 70,000 68,000 67,000

Fremont 90,000 85,000 80,000 80,000 97,000 100,000 97,000 96,000

Goshen 120,000 110,000 129,000 130,000 110,000 115,000 110,000 110,000

Laramie 60,000 60,000 71,000 70,000 83,000 86,000 84,000 83,000

Lincoln 39,000 40,000 44,000 42,000 36,000 37,000 36,000 35,500

Natrona 60,000 60,000 62,000 60,000 55,000 56,000 55,000 54,000

Niobrara 60,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 51,000 52,000 51,000 50,000

Park 50,000 45,000 50,000 50,000 56,000 57,000 57,000 56,000

Platte 100,000 110,000 116,000 115,000 88,000 91,000 91,000 88,000

Sublette 60,000 60,000 63,000 64,000 51,000 52,000 51,000 50,000

Sweetwater 15,000 14,000 15,000 15,000 19,300 19,900 19,500 19,100

Teton 9,000 7,000 7,000 6,000 4,700 4,600 4,500 4,400

Uinta 42,000 38,000 41,000 43,000 44,500 45,000 45,000 44,000

Weston 50,000 44,000 47,000 47,000 44,500 44,500 44,500 44,000

Study Area 1,105,000 1,074,000 1,147,000 1,145,000 1,077,000 1,108,000 1,084,500 1,068,000

Wyoming 1,350,000 1,300,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,310,000 1,350,000 1,320,000 1,300,000

Note: Beginning in 2008, estimates were revised based on new estimation process.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service, Wyoming Field Office, Wyoming Agricultural

Statistics 2011, p. 47.

Table 4-15. Total Sheep and Lambs, January 1, 2004–2011

County 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Albany 3,300 3,500 3,400 2,500 NA NA 2,900 2,900

Campbell 36,000 36,500 31,000 27,000 33,000 32,000 29,000 28,000

Carbon 13,600 14,500 19,400 17,000 9,300 9,200 8,200 8,000

Converse 35,000 68,000 72,800 68,000 70,000 69,000 62,000 60,000

Crook 14,500 23,000 21,000 19,000 14,000 13,900 12,300 12,200

Fremont 40,000 40,000 42,800 34,500 23,000 23,000 21,000 20,000

Goshen 2,500 3,000 3,000 4,000 2,300 2,300 2,100 2,000

Laramie 19,500 18,500 24,000 21,500 17,600 17,400 15,400 15,000

Lincoln 32,800 40,500 36,000 37,000 45,000 44,000 39,000 38,000

Natrona 23,300 24,500 20,100 18,500 41,000 40,000 36,000 35,000

Niobrara 6,700 6,000 6,100 5,000 5,300 5,300 4,700 4,600

Park 23,500 18,500 11,000 13,000 7,800 7,700 6,800 6,700
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 4–Economic Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 4-25

County 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Platte 500 500 1,100 1,000 400 400 300 300

Sublette 13,200 10,500 12,200 15,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Sweetwater 11,100 10,000 10,100 9,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Teton 400 500 700 500 N/A N/A 300 300

Uinta 43,600 44,500 46,100 45,000 42,000 43,000 37,000 36,500

Weston 2,700 2,500 6,400 5,000 3,200 3,200 2,900 2,800

Study Area 322,200 365,000 367,200 342,500 313,900 310,400 279,900 272,300

Wyoming 430,000 445,000 450,000 440,000 425,000 420,000 375,000 365,000

N/A: Not available.

Note: Beginning in 2008, estimates were revised based on new estimation process.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service, Wyoming Field Office, Wyoming Agricultural

Statistics 2011, p. 60.

4.5.2 Mining

The Wyoming mining industry is largely dominated by oil, gas, and coal—and to a lesser extent 

bentonite, sand and gravel, trona, and uranium. Table 4-16 provides the taxable value of mineral 

production in Wyoming between 2004 and 2010. Oil and natural gas taxable production value has risen 

substantially during that period, while coal and trona have also seen significant increases.

Total taxable valuation of mineral production dropped from $20.4 billion in 2008 to $12.6 billion in 2009, 

reflecting changes in demand and value due to the recession. In 2010, taxable valuation rebounded 

somewhat to $15.5 billion (Wyoming Department of Revenue, 2011). 

Table 4-17 and Table 4-18 show oil and gas production volumes between 2000 and 2011 for the counties 

in the socioeconomic study area. There are several points and trends worth noting here. The 

socioeconomic study area provides most of the oil and gas produced in Wyoming. Gas production across 

the study area and the state has increased substantially since 2000. Sublette County has by far the largest 

volume of gas production in 2011 of all counties in the study area and state, and showed enormous 

growth (more than doubling) between 2000 and 2011. Sweetwater, Fremont, Campbell, and Uinta 

counties are the next largest gas producers; production has seen some increases and decreases in these 

counties over the period shown. Comparatively, oil production in the study area and state has been

relatively steady through this period. No one county stands out as being way ahead of others in oil 

production. The following counties have 2011 production levels of over 5 million barrels: Campbell, 

Natrona, Park, Sublette, and Sweetwater. Of these counties, production over the period shown has 

declined considerably in Campbell County and somewhat in Park County, increased somewhat in Natrona 

County, and increased considerably in Sublette and Sweetwater counties. 

Figure 4-2 shows graphically the total mineral valuation in 2010 by county. This figure shows the 

dominance of Campbell, Sublette, and Sweetwater counties in the minerals economy of Wyoming. All 

three of these counties are in the socioeconomic study area. Campbell County’s mineral valuation is 

dominated by coal and oil production. Sublette County’s mineral valuation is dominated by gas and oil 

production. Sweetwater County’s mineral valuation is dominated by gas, oil, trona, and coal production.
Chapter 4–Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

4-26 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

Table 4-16. Taxable Valuation of Mineral Production, Wyoming, 2004–2010 ($Millions)

Mineral Type FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010

Oil $1,634.1 $2,152.8 $2,533.1 $2,843.2 $4,089.3 $2,439.7 $3,272.8

Natural Gas $7,039.1 $10,134.2 $8,770.2 $7,271.3 $12,003.5 $5,861.1 $7,601.4

Coal $2,039.1 $2,280.1 $2,884.9 $3,279.5 $3,760.5 $3,834.5 $4,108.4

Bentonite $38.2 $43.3 $45.2 $48.6 $58.1 $33.9 $64.2

Sand and Gravel $14.6 $18.3 $25.0 $28.3 $30.9 $26.1 $22.9

Trona $198.9 $255.2 $299.2 $339.7 $427.2 3$50.8 $376.0

Uranium $9.3 $12.3 $17.0 $19.9 $11.4 $22.7 $32.7

All Other 

Minerals $10.3 $10.1 $11.7 $14.8 $16.1 $15.1 $15.1

Total $10,984.0 $14,906.4 $14,586.4 $13,845.4 $20,396.9 $12,583.9 $15,493.5

Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue 2011 Annual Report.
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 4–Economic Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 4-27

Table 4-17. Gas Production by County, 2000–2011 (MCF)

County 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2009 2010 2011

Albany 13,598 9,646 8,000 6,595 6,323 6,531 5,199 7,117

Campbell 178,933,289 314,134,768 284,662,665 216,337,364 166,826,646 142,221,104 141,445,871 136,016,245

Carbon 103,463,738 98,278,472 97,344,366 110,913,451 121,339,856 129,970,886 125,196,960 107957862

Converse 22,349,475 24,213,709 17,919,343 11,163,827 8,884,008 8,374,842 7,796,484 8,966,972

Crook 91,468 130,387 94,004 59,220 42,025 42,162 43,219 42,754

Fremont 133,886,976 153,914,149 196,122,118 198,137,736 142,013,802 164,074,285 157,359,039 170,826,435

Goshen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,687

Laramie 292,321 149,013 128,739 138,172 97,005 100,918 210,934 633,561

Lincoln 99,151,194 86,752,866 81,391,972 85,741,567 89,774,994 83,875,812 78,362,895 67,595,370

Natrona 62,407,233 38,783,582 43,641,046 34,443,734 28,667,052 29,017,477 24,179,892 18,641,956

Niobrara 331,063 325,551 280,427 1,730,079 1,913,328 2,075,857 1,676,491 1,303,098

Park 10,951,319 12,915,426 14,950,291 16,004,874 13,713,716 11,213,116 11,266,815 10,180,150

Platte 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,092

Sublette 448,281,668 571,005,612 731,278,904 880,446,841 1,145,821,607 1,195,721,744 1,198,120,727 1,132,032,489

Sweetwater 233,453,423 229,597,363 233,500,641 237,821,949 241,447,926 231,472,264 244,983,641 246,813,957

Uinta 195,116,690 170,507,572 151,313,197 137,449,416 127,080,442 107,947,769 118,712,239 106,152,762

Weston 1,885,084 2,063,940 2,098,414 1,948,759 1,692,372 1,861,708 1,951,777 1,745,468

Study Area 1,490,608,539 1,702,782,056 1,854,734,127 1,932,343,584 2,089,321,102 2,107,976,475 2,111,312,183 2,008,931,975

Wyoming 1,505,002,627 1,749,584,75 1,929,187,013 2,115,079,597 2,477,970,352 2,542,319,609 2,526,390,664 2,375,575,017

Source: Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (2012).
Chapter 4–Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

4-28 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

Table 4-18. Oil Production by County, 2000–2011 (Barrels)

County 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2009 2010 2011

Albany 76,003 75,694 79,205 67,445 50,100 54,239 60,999 64534

Campbell 13,497,921 10,864,752 9,493,433 9,281,151 7,861,588 7,509,732 8,001,130 8,575,001

Carbon 1,643,539 1,714,621 1,749,339 1,783,961 1,719,265 1,801,217 1,597,049 1,340,726

Converse 2,991,155 2,226,708 2,014,414 1,903,636 1,815,917 1,894,918 2,398,730 3,535,429

Crook 2,320,714 2,108,333 1,740,759 1,640,306 1,502,038 1,533,938 1,585,362 1,541,777

Fremont 3,285,023 3,128,768 3,086,405 3,044,602 3,177,300 3,237,571 3,930,596 4,064,537

Goshen 194 383 46 0 0 0 0 6,088

Laramie 387,668 362,397 280,291 273,270 474,063 345,931 599,920 840,500

Lincoln 988,154 828,145 751,642 782,327 825,984 817,685 711,884 585,398

Natrona 3,561,186 3,456,637 3,198,036 3,705,900 4,332,408 4,622,435 5,299,985 5,229,343

Niobrara 446,364 447,252 452,330 571,124 493,107 516,286 573,978 693,442

Park 8,802,892 8,407,901 8,410,373 8,402,498 8,015,969 7,449,766 7,196,898 6,977,507

Platte 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,868

Sublette 3,345,063 4,378,710 4,823,833 5,770,042 7,673,864 7,962,065 7,621,104 7,324,675

Sweetwater 4,429,736 4,474,724 4,520,691 5,295,539 5,472,924 5,234,350 7,466,744 7,736,947

Uinta 4,437,208 3,079,892 2,601,731 1,911,747 1,338,800 1,120,845 1,100,583 982,716

Weston 1,106,189 1,220,091 1,198,263 1,155,679 995,091 909,558 838,192 768,434

Study Area 51,319,009 46,775,008 44,400,791 45,589,227 45,748,418 45,010,536 48,983,154 50,269,922

Wyoming 60,765,977 54,801,275 52,058,379 52,976,263 53,068,479 51,564,966 55,303,056 56,235,522

Source: Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (2012).
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 4–Economic Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 4-29

Figure 4-2. Total Mineral Taxable Valuation by County, 2010

Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue 2010-2011 Annual Report

The mining industry plays a central role in the economy of the socioeconomic study area. As noted in 

section 4.4, it is a basic industry that generates a disproportional amount of employment and earnings. 

This role of mining is also true for the state as a whole. Furthermore, mineral production from the 

socioeconomic study area generates large amounts of revenue for the state. A portion of this revenue is 

returned to local governments in the socioeconomic study area. Section 4.6 provides considerable detail 

on government revenues that the mining industry generates.

A dominant mining industry has both benefits and consequences. The benefit of a large mining industry is 

a substantial revenue stream derived from an “exportable” tax burden. Wyoming’s tax burden is second 

only to Alaska; however, due to “Wyoming’s vast mineral deposits, the taxpayers in the state have been 

able to shift a significant portion of the state and local spending burden to residents of other states” 

through a substantial severance tax that represents 43.3 percent of total tax collections (Wyoming 

Heritage Foundation, 2010). Subsequently, Wyoming’s rapid growth in severance taxes since 2000 has 

allowed the state to significantly increase spending on education, public welfare, highways, and natural 

resources (Wyoming Heritage Foundation, 2010). 

Furthermore, property owners benefit by granting access to private minerals and surface land and 

obtaining mineral royalties and lease payments in return. One study estimated that 82 percent of these 

payments to Wyoming residents are spent in the Wyoming economy, amounting to $183.8 million of 

additional spending or economic activity within the state per year, or a total of $238.1 million when 

“downstream” impacts of the additional spending are included (Wyoming Heritage Foundation 2008). 

On the other hand, a highly specialized mining economy is subject to the volatility of energy and other 

mineral markets. Anticipating spending levels is much more difficult when revenues are largely 

dependent on taxes based on mineral production since the level of these tax collections is highly 

dependent on the overall economy’s influence on energy demand and the strength or weakness of the 

dollar. As suggested by a 2010 Wyoming Heritage Foundation report, “a weak dollar tends to produce 

higher severance tax collections...due to the fact that a weaker U.S. dollar makes U.S. goods cheaper 

abroad and thus pushes up the prices of U.S. goods, especially energy commodities.” For this reason, the 

Wyoming economy is much more susceptible to national and global economic changes. For example, “a 
Chapter 4–Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

4-30 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

ten percent increase in the value of the dollar would reduce severance tax collections by $185 million” 

(Wyoming Heritage Foundation 2010).

The oil and gas industry is the most significant of the mining industries throughout the state. Table 4-19

provides a detailed look at the economic contribution of oil and gas activities in the state, from a study 

conducted in 2008 using 2007 data and the IMPLAN economic impact model (Wyoming Heritage 

Foundation 2008). Oil and gas activities contribute directly to the economy in both the development and 

extraction (production) phases. Additionally, oil and gas development and extraction produce indirect and 

induced economic impacts (from the interindustry transactions to support the direct activity, and 

respending of household income, respectively, resulting from the direct economic activity). Furthermore, 

extraction taxes and private mineral royalty and lease payments provide additional economic 

contributions, to the extent these tax revenues and private payments accrue within Wyoming.

Table 4-19 shows economic output, employment, and earnings from direct, indirect, and induced 

economic activity attributable to oil and gas development and extraction in Wyoming in 2007, and also 

presents employment and earnings multipliers. Multipliers show the relationships between direct and total

economic activity (which includes the indirect and induced activity). Note that the multipliers include the 

direct impacts. Thus these figures should be read as follows, using the 2.86 employment multiplier for 

extraction as an example: For every job directly created due to oil and gas activity, 1.86 jobs are created 

elsewhere in the economy. The same can be said of the 1.75 multiplier for earnings: for every dollar 

earned from direct oil and gas activities, $0.75 is earned elsewhere in the economy. It is important to note 

that for the impacts analysis phase, different multipliers will be derived from current IMPLAN model data 

for the current planning action study area or sub-areas. The figures for total economic contribution in 

Table 4-19 include the impacts of the respending of extraction taxes and private mineral royalty and lease 

payments. This additional activity is often not included in economic impact studies, thus the multipliers 

for total economic contribution may appear larger than those derived in other studies. 

Table 4-20 provides a look at the relative importance of the oil and gas industry to Wyoming, including 

the downstream impacts, from the same Wyoming Heritage Foundation report (2008) discussed above. 

According to that study, oil and gas activities within Wyoming in 2007 accounted for an estimated 32 

percent of the state’s total economic output or gross revenues, 20 percent of employment, 25 percent of 

total earnings, and 43 percent of Gross State Product. Furthermore, oil and gas accounted for 75 percent 

of severance taxes, 78 percent of mineral ad valorem levies, 55 percent of federal mineral royalties, and 

65 percent of state mineral royalty revenues.

What this data suggests is that a vibrant mining industry in Wyoming has numerous benefits throughout 

the state and is responsible for a substantial share of private income, government revenue, and private and 

public spending. However, Wyoming’s economy is also more susceptible to national and global economic 

conditions that affect the demand for minerals, particularly energy minerals. 
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 4–Economic Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 4-31

Table 4-19. Total Economic Contribution for Oil and Gas Activities in Wyoming, 2007*

Type of Impact

Drilling, 

Completion, and 

Recompletions

Extraction

Private Mineral 

Royalty and Lease 

Payments1

Extraction Taxes2 Total Economic 

Contribution

Total Economic Output 3,513,052,106 $11,963,561,646 $231,827,774 $2,908,623,519 $18,617,065,044 

Total Employment 26,701 11,765 1,447 33,316 73,229

Total Labor Earning $1,458,093,669 $736,813,207 $42,461,473 $1,677,264,966 $3,914,633,314 

Earnings Per Worker $54,608 $62,628 $29,344 $50,344 $53,457 

Employment Multiplier 1.67 2.86 NA NA 3.65 

Earnings Multiplier 1.32 1.75 NA NA 2.75 

Source: Wyoming Heritage Foundation 2008.

* These figures encompass direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts. Figures are in 2007 dollars.

1. These payments to households and companies are treated as all secondary induced impacts, that is, these payments are considered income of which a portion is spent in the 

economy. 

2. These tax payments to state and local governments are treated as all secondary indirect impacts, that is, these payments are considered downstream beneficiaries of oil and gas 

activities.
Chapter 4–Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

4-32 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

Table 4-20. Oil and Gas Activity as a Fraction of Wyoming’s Economy, 2007*

Indicator All Oil and Gas 

Activities in Wyoming

All Economic Activity 

in Wyoming

Percent of Oil 

and Gas to 

State

Source

Total Economic Output $18,617,065,044 $58,831,050,621 31.60% IMPLAN 2006

Total Employment 73,229 369,5653

19.80% IMPLAN 2006

Total Labor Earnings $3,914,633,314 $15,487,363,835 25.30% IMPLAN 2006

Average Earnings $53,457 $41,907 127.60% IMPLAN 2006

Gross State Product (i.e. value added) $13,329,075,050 $31,205,616,410 42.70% IMPLAN 2006

Severance Tax $666,397,115 $882,383,479 75.50% WY Department of Revenue 

Annual Report 2007

Mineral Ad Valorem Levies $712,637,118 $913,011,683 78.10% WY Department of Revenue 

Annual Report 2007

Assessed Valuation (Taxable Value)1

$11,303,378,284 $21,491,267,438 52.60% WY Department of Revenue 

Annual Report 2007

Federal Mineral Royalties (WY 

Disbursements, 50%)2 $515,500,646 $931,394,926 55.30% Minerals Management Service, 2007

State Mineral Royalties $90,031,996 $138,201,502 65.10% Wyoming Office of State Lands 

and Investments 2007

Sales and Use Taxes $50,344,215 $906,973,329 5.50% Wyoming Depart of Revenue 

Annual Report 2007

Source: Wyoming Heritage Foundation 2008.

* These figures encompass direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts. Figures are in 2007 dollars.

1. The assessed valuation, severance taxes, and ad valorem taxes are based on 2006 production. Severance and ad valorem taxes are paid to the state in 2007. 

2. This estimate is from the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS), and it includes federal mineral royalties from carbon dioxide, coalbed methane, condensate, gas plant 

products, oil, processed and unprocessed gas, and royalties associated with rents, bonuses, and other revenues. Fifty percent of royalties return to Wyoming and 50 percent 

accrue to the federal government (U.S. Minerals Management Services, http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Stats/pdfdocs/formulas.pdf). Native American royalties are not included in this 

estimate, and therefore, the receipts paid to reservations are not captured in this analysis. 

3. This employment figure is from IMPLAN, whose estimates are derived from BEA data. This includes full-time, part-time, self-employed, small business owners, and farm 

employment. The Wyoming Department of Employment figures are lower than those reported here (May 2007 labor force estimate is 285,553), as they do not include farm 

employment, self-employed, and small business owners (Wyoming Department of Employment Labor Trends, Volume 45, No. 7, July, 2008). The Bureau of Economic Statistics 

estimates that Wyoming had 85,987 self-employed (proprietor) jobs in 2006.
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 4–Economic Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 4-33

4.5.3 Renewable Energy

Wyoming’s renewable energy industry consists mostly of wind energy and hydroelectricity, with some 

geothermal energy. The current BLM and USFS planning effort may have implications for wind energy 

development, but is unlikely to impact hydroelectric power generation. 

Wyoming has long been recognized as an ideal location for wind energy development. The southern 

portion of the state, which includes the socioeconomic study area, is especially suited for wind 

development, with ample land area and consistent, high winds. Furthermore, wind energy has benefitted 

the Wyoming economy in that the state exports large amounts of wind energy to Colorado, Oregon, and 

Utah. 

Wind energy generation in Wyoming has seen strong growth—from 617 megawatt hours in 2004 to 3,247 

megawatt hours in 2010—as shown in Table 4-21. Table 4-22 details the 2010 capacity and generation of 

renewable energy throughout the state. Wind accounted for 17.9 percent of all electrical energy 

generation capacity in the state in 2010 and provided 6.7 percent of the electricity generated in that year.

Most of the wind energy capacity in Wyoming is located within the planning area. 

Table 4-21. Wyoming Wind Energy Generation, 2004–2010

Energy Source

Generation in Thousands of Megawatt Hours

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Wind 617 717 759 755 963 2,226 3,247

Source: U.S. EIA 2012a.

Table 4-22. Wyoming Renewable Electric Power Industry Statistics, 2010

Capacity/Generation Value Percent of State Total

Capacity (megawatts)

Total Existing Summer Electricity Capacity 7,896 100.0

Total Existing Summer Renewable Capacity 1,722 21.8

Hydro Conventional 307 3.9

Wind 1,415 17.9

Generation (thousand megawatt hours)

Total Electricity Net Generation 48,119 100.0

Total Renewable Net Generation 4,271 8.9

Hydro Conventional 1,024 2.1

Wind 3,247 6.7

Source: U.S. EIA 2012a; U.S. EIA 2012a.

Wind energy development and production benefit local economies. Local landowners and residents 

benefit by opening up their land to wind developers, generating revenue through property taxes, sales 

taxes, and royalty payments to landowners.

4.5.4 Tourism and Recreation

Tourism and recreation are important to the Wyoming economy. According to the Wyoming Office of 

Tourism 2011 Year in Review, travelers in Wyoming enjoyed 8.3 million overnight stays resulting in 
Chapter 4–Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

4-34 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

$2.88 billion in direct expenditures. The tourism industry supported 29,810 jobs, which account for 

almost 7.5 percent of Wyoming’s total employment. Travel and tourism generated $729 million in payroll 

income in Wyoming in 2010. Local and state tax receipts from tourism-generated spending increased 

from $57 million in 1997 to $118 million in 2010—a 5.3 percent growth rate, per year, over the 14 years

(Wyoming Office of Tourism 2012).

Within the study area, tourism and recreation make important contributions to the local economy and to 

local government revenues. According to an economic impact study prepared for the Wyoming Office of 

Tourism (2012), travelers spent $2.7 billion in the study area in 2011. This spending supported $674

million in direct earnings and 27,200 jobs. This spending also generated $48 million in local tax receipts 

and $63 million in state tax receipts. These figures do not include additional earnings, jobs, and tax 

receipts generated through the multiplier effect of the respending of earnings within the local economy. A 

breakdown of these figures by county is provided in Table 4-23.

Table 4-23. Direct Economic Impacts of Traveler Spending in the Study Area, 2011

County

Travel 

Spending

($Million)

Direct 

Earnings

($Million)

Direct 

Employment

(Jobs)

Tax Receipts*

Local

($Million)

State

($Million)

Total

($Million)

Albany $167.3 $29.3 1,630 $2.6 $4.5 $7.1

Campbell $108.3 $26.0 1,120 $1.8 $2.6 $4.3

Carbon $152.3 $29.3 1,210 $2.5 $4.0 $6.4

Converse $45.5 $12.0 560 $0.8 $1.1 $1.9

Crook $27.4 $6.3 310 $0.3 $0.7 $1.0

Fremont $137.7 $41.9 1,560 $1.4 $3.2 $4.6

Goshen $28.1 $4.3 280 $0.3 $0.7 $1.1

Laramie $333.2 $60.7 3,110 $5.9 $8.6 $14.5

Lincoln $70.7 $15.4 710 $0.6 $2.0 $2.6

Natrona $284.2 $67.5 2,600 $4.2 $6.9 $11.1

Niobrara $10.3 $3.6 150 $0.2 $0.2 $0.5

Park $284.3 $76.2 3,430 $3.7 $5.6 $9.3

Platte $40.5 $10.0 510 $0.4 $0.9 $1.3

Sublette $44.3 $14.0 430 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5

Sweetwater $178.7 $38.1 1,770 $2.9 $4.6 $7.5

Teton $694.2 $220.5 6,920 $18.8 $13.5 $32.3

Uinta $94.7 $16.3 730 $1.1 $2.8 $3.9

Weston $15.5 $2.8 160 $0.2 $0.4 $0.6

Study Area $2,717.2 $674.2 27,190 $48.2 $63.3 $111.5

State Total $2,938.1 $731.0 29,860 $52.0 $68.4 $120.4

*Local: Tax receipts collected by counties and municipalities, as levied on applicable travel-related purchases. Consists of local 

option lodging taxes, local sales taxes and other local use taxes. The local share (31 percent) of state sales taxes is included. 

Property taxes are not included. State: State sales taxes (including tax receipts distributed to local governments) and gasoline 

taxes attributable to travel expenditures. Only the state share (69 percent) of state sales taxes is included.

Source: Wyoming Travel and Tourism 2012.

In terms of outdoor recreation, specifically hunting and fishing, a 2006 study by the Sonoran Institute and 

the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership showed the following:

• Total annual expenditures from hunting and fishing in Wyoming exceeded $335 million.
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 4–Economic Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 4-35

• Anglers accounted for $212 million in total annual expenditures (34 percent equipment, 45

percent trip-related, 21 percent other).

• Hunters accounted for $123 million in total annual expenditures (29 percent equipment, 58

percent trip-related, 14 percent other).

• Hunters in Wyoming spent 74 percent of their hunting days (960,000 days) on public lands.

A growing component of recreation on BLM and USFS public lands and across the state is OHV use. 

Since January 2002, users of “off-road vehicles” (ORV, a largely synonymous term with OHV) in 

Wyoming have been required to purchase a $15.00 yearly permit to use ORV-designated trails enrolled in 

the Wyoming State Trails Program. A permit or a license plate is required to use roads and travel routes 

designated by land managers for ORV travel and enrolled in the program. According to the Wyoming 

State Trails Program (2012a), the state-wide status of roads and trails enrollment is as follows:

The USFS alone [has] enrolled over 8,000 miles of roads in the program along with about 425 

miles of trails, about 92 miles which are single-track trails for motorcycles—each year riding 

areas are improved and new opportunities are added. The BLM has enrolled 100% of their 

existing roads and trails which are estimated to be in excess of 40,000 miles. Additionally, 100% 

of existing roads and trails on State Trust lands and Game & Fish lands were also enrolled.

The Wyoming State Trails Program and the ORV permit program are administered by the Wyoming 

Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources. The revenue generated is used by the program to 

develop, maintain, and manage ORV trails. 

The increase in ORV permits sold since 2002 indicates a dramatic rise in ORV use throughout the 

socioeconomic study area (Table 4-24).5 As a whole, Wyoming issued 6,767 ORV permits in 2002 and 

54,177 permits in 2011, an 801 percent increase. Within the socioeconomic study area, 5,060 permits 

were issued in 2002 and 40,579 permits were issued in 2011, an 802 percent increase. Sweetwater County 

(4,675 permits) issued the most permits in 2011, suggesting the highest rate of ORV usage. Niobrara

County issued the fewest permits (55) in 2011. The number of out-of-state, agent-issued permits for 

Wyoming increased from 11 permits in 2002 to 3,301 permits in 2011, suggesting increased interest in 

ORV usage from out-of-state residents. Of note, the number of permits issued in the study area, study area 

counties, and the state peaked in 2009 or 2010, with slight declines in 2011. Whether ORV permits have 

plateaued or will again increase is not clear.

It is important to note that non-recreational use of ORVs is significant in Wyoming. Agriculture and the 

oil and gas industry in particular use ORVs to access remote facilities and the backcountry. Also, the 

general category of ORVs may include multi-purpose vehicles that can be operated on many public 

highways.

Table 4-24. ORV Permits Sold in Socioeconomic Study Area, 2002–2011

County 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Albany 834 1,912 2,722 3,574 4,031 4,586 5,674 5,013 4,231 4,074

Campbell 431 1,322 2,006 2,300 2,758 3,331 3,653 4,154 4,328 3,960

Carbon 359 1,253 1,458 1,818 1,786 2,007 2,020 2,580 2,609 2,375

Converse NA 339 553 579 1,714 1,774 864 915 905 880

Crook 47 266 216 213 341 413 447 487 500 655

Fremont 705 2,430 3,024 3,654 4,408 4,867 4,965 4,816 4,861 4,584

Goshen NA 118 174 193 239 264 310 305 325 329

 

5 The growth in permit numbers is probably due to both increased OHV use and to increased compliance with the permit 

requirement. The portion of growth attributable to each factor is not known.
Chapter 4–Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

4-36 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

County 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Laramie 602 1,661 2,142 2,767 2,786 3,095 1,806 1,929 3,071 1,808

Lincoln 342 1,705 1,634 2,138 2,403 2,929 3,763 3,987 4,258 3,782

Natrona 607 2,071 2,586 2,920 3,344 3,964 4,161 4,316 4,316 4,388

Niobrara NA NA NA NA NA NA 43 48 43 55

Park 236 1,416 1,674 1,952 2,251 2,716 2,478 2,661 2,795 2,647

Platte 115 342 438 510 602 717 653 664 709 696

Sublette 145 682 808 1,074 1,009 1,318 1,389 1,514 1,540 1,552

Sweetwater 393 1,904 2,453 3,009 3,575 4,318 4,533 4,668 4,715 4,675

Teton 87 615 858 1,141 1,466 1,637 1,407 1,548 1,455 1,435

Uinta 137 1,111 1,571 1,905 2,253 2,659 2,553 2,602 2,557 2,317

Weston 20 250 221 309 256 431 465 487 480 367

Study Area 5,060 19,397 24,538 30,056 35,222 41,026 41,184 42,694 43,698 40,579 

Wyoming

(In-State) 6,756 24,895 30,675 37,063 43,163 49,744 49,959 52,495 53,509 50,876

Out of State 

Agents 11 1,572 1,718 2,153 1,848 2,199 2,367 2,565 2,859 3,301

Grand Total 6,767 26,467 32,393 39,216 45,011 51,943 52,326 55,060 56,368 54,177

Source: Wyoming State Trails Program 2012b.

4.6 PUBLIC FINANCE

Lands and federal mineral estate managed within the socioeconomic study area affect local, county, state, 

and federal government budgets based on revenues from mineral royalties, taxes, payments in lieu of 

taxes (PILT), fees, and other funding sources. Likewise, lands and federal mineral estate in the 

socioeconomic study area result in government expenditures for management, law enforcement, and other 

activities. This section addresses revenues; the next addresses expenditures. 

4.6.1 Federal Payments

Major sources of natural resource-related revenues that the federal government collects and/or distributes

include royalties on federal mineral leases, and PILT; these are covered below. The federal government 

collects additional revenue from other types of leases and sales of various permits for use of federal land; 

some of these additional sources of revenue are addressed in Chapter 5.

Leasable mineral production taking place on BLM and USFS public lands is assessed a federal mineral 

royalty. Oil and gas and surface-mined coal production is assessed at 12.5 percent of value after allowable 

deductions. Some other mineral production is assessed at lower rates. For example, production of coal 

mined underground is assessed at 8 percent, and federal royalties for trona production vary from 5 percent

to 8 percent. Additional bonus payments are collected for some leases. In 2011, the federal government 

collected $1.742 billion in royalties and $242 million in bonuses, rents, and other revenues from federal 

mineral leases in Wyoming (ONRR 2012). The following paragraphs address the distribution of federal 

mineral revenues back to the state and local governments.
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 4–Economic Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 4-37

The federal government returns 49 percent of the total collected revenues to the state in which the mineral 

production occurred.6 In Wyoming, the allocation and distribution of the federal mineral revenues is 

based on a formula promulgated by the Wyoming statutes. Large portions of the state’s share of federal 

mineral revenues are allocated to funds for a state budget reserve, for the University of Wyoming, for 

highways and roads, and for capital construction at the local level. According to state statutes, portions of 

the received federal mineral revenues are distributed by the state to cities and towns for planning, 

construction, and maintenance of public facilities. In addition, local school districts may benefit from 

federal mineral revenue payments through the School Foundation Fund and advanced entitlement grants 

for capital construction funds. The School Foundation Fund helps provide a guarantee level of funding for 

all of Wyoming’s K–12 school districts.

Table 4-25 summarizes the state-wide allocations and distributions of federal mineral revenues between

2005 and 2010. In 2010, the largest disbursements were to the Budget Reserve Account ($420 million), 

the Foundation Fund ($299 million), and the Highway Fund ($60.1 million). Cities and towns within 

Wyoming directly received $18.6 million from federal mineral revenue distributions. However, these city 

and town disbursements do not include additional federal mineral revenue distributions of $7.4 million 

from state funds for city, county, and special district capital construction projects to be expended as 

provided by W.S. 9-4-604(k)(i) or to fund bonds, the proceeds of which are used under W.S. 9-4-604(g). 

Additional disbursements to schools in the form of grants were $5.3 million. Finally, counties, cities, and 

towns received additional disbursements out of some of the other funds. Bonus payments on royalties 

received from the federal government from coal, oil shale, or geothermal leases of federal land were also 

distributed for city, county, and special district capital construction ($5.6 million), and school capital 

construction ($38.1 million), as shown in Table 4-25.

Table 4-25. Wyoming Federal Mineral Revenue Distributions, 2006–2010

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Royalty Distributions

Cities and Towns $18,562,500 $18,562,500 $18,562,500 $18,562,500 $18,562,500

University of Wyoming $13,365,000 $13,365,000 $13,365,000 $13,365,000 $13,365,000

Foundation Fund $305,202,064 $268,388,138 $355,784,221 $310,204,537 $298,746,556

Highway Fund $60,142,500 $60,142,500 $60,142,500 $60,142,500 $60,142,500

Highway Fund – State 

Roads $4,455,000 $4,455,000 $4,455,000 $4,455,000 $4,455,000

Cities, Counties, and 

Special Districts

Capital Construction

$7,425,000 $7,425,000 $7,425,000 $7,425,000 $7,425,000

School Districts –

Grants $5,346,000 $5,346,000 $5,346,000 $5,346,000 $5,346,000

1% General Fund $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000

Budget Reserve 

Account $440,092,087 $371,530,741 $534,000,227 $424,874,535 $419,988,019

 

6 The state share is sometimes said to be 50 percent. However, since fiscal year 2008, Congress has annually required a twopercent deduction (equivalent to one percent of total mineral revenues) from each year’s state payments as part of the Interior, 

Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts to partially cover the costs of administering the federal mineral leasing 

program. This is a simpler form of an authority known as “net receipts sharing” that was in place until 2000. The state share 

was 50 percent between 2000 and 2008. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/int.html, 

Mineral Leasing and Associated Payments section.
Chapter 4–Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

4-38 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Bonus Payment Distributions

Cities, Counties and

Special Districts 

Capital Construction

$5,625,000 $5,625,000 $5,625,000 $5,625,000 $5,625,000

School Capital 

Construction $198,653,794 $160,703,329 $175,791,080 $204,530,037 $38,122,169

Community College 

Commission $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000

Highway Funds $1,875,000 $1,875,000 $1,875,000 $1,875,000 $1,875,000

Total FY Distributions $1,064,343,945 $921,018,208 $1,185,971,528 $1,060,005,109 $877,252,744

Source: Wyoming State Treasurer’s Office Annual Report 2005-2010.

While the state passes federal mineral revenues back to local government and schools in several ways, as 

just discussed, these direct payments are a relatively small portion of the total federal mineral revenues 

received the state receives. For 2010, the five payments noted above amounted to 8.6 percent of total 

federal mineral revenues. This percentage was higher in earlier years shown in Table 4-25, with a 

maximum of 22.8 percent in 2009.

PILT payments from the federal government to local governments to help compensate for lost property 

taxes resulting from tax exempt federal lands located within the local jurisdiction (Department of the 

Interior 2010). PILT payments are administered by the Department of the Interior and are made for lands 

managed by BLM, the USFS, the National Park Service, and the FWS, as well as some federal water 

projects and military installations. Local governments use PILT payments to pay for various government 

services, such as law enforcement and infrastructure. The payments are calculated based on acreage on 

eligible lands within the county, population, and other federal transfers, such as mineral royalties. Table 

4-26 contains PILT payments to the socioeconomic study area counties between 2005 and 2010. This 

PILT payment data is for all federal lands and because of the payment formula cannot readily be 

segregated out to BLM and the USFS versus other federal lands. In 2010, Sweetwater County and 

Fremont County received the largest PILT payments, $2.7 million and $2.5 million, respectively. Sublette 

County had the lowest PILT payment at $0.9 million. In all counties, PILT payments increased 

substantially between 2005 and 2010, due to an increase in Congressional funding for the program.

Table 4-26. PILT Payments in the Socioeconomic Study Area, 2005–2010

County 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Albany $853,913 $870,156 $870,156 $1,379,358 $1,379,358 $1,379,358 

Campbell $343,904 $344,493 $344,493 $552,015 $552,015 $552,015 

Carbon $668,767 $684,186 $684,186 $1,089,205 $1,089,205 $1,089,205 

Converse $306,531 $325,841 $325,841 $517,051 $517,051 $517,051 

Crook $195,003 $200,686 $200,686 $299,116 $299,116 $299,116 

Fremont $1,546,803 $1,576,233 $1,576,233 $2,513,884 $2,513,884 $2,513,884 

Goshen $38,940 $39,600 $39,600 $62,579 $62,579 $62,579 

Laramie $13,900 $14,136 $14,136 $21,773 $21,773 $21,773 

Lincoln $757,883 $817,726 $817,726 $1,295,915 $1,295,915 $1,295,915 

Natrona $1,908,155 $1,943,020 $1,943,020 $3,067,931 $3,067,931 $3,067,931 

Niobrara $177,261 $180,289 $180,289 $284,710 $284,710 $284,710 

Park $1,130,832 $1,153,749 $1,300,021 $1,906,035 $1,962,877 $1,183,971
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 4–Economic Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 4-39

County 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Platte $151,482 $154,058 $154,058 $243,277 $243,277 $243,277 

Sublette $481,089 $491,999 $491,999 $778,011 $778,011 $778,011 

Sweetwater $1,624,031 $1,699,067 $1,699,067 $2,699,785 $2,699,785 $2,699,785 

Teton $841,470 $859,886 $861,208 $516,584 $1,480,721 $1,661,840

Uinta $799,989 $813,730 $813,730 $1,285,407 $1,285,407 $1,285,407

Weston $125,029 $129,327 $129,327 $215,558 $215,558 $215,558 

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Business Center, PILT County Payments 2005 through 2010.

4.6.2 State and Local Revenues

The Wyoming state government levies the following taxes: mineral severance taxes, sales tax, use tax, 

franchise tax, cigarette tax, and other taxes. Wyoming does not have individual or corporate income taxes 

and does not collect inheritance taxes. The Wyoming Department of Revenue collects excise taxes (sales, 

use, franchise, cigarette), mineral severance taxes, and certain designated taxes in accordance with 

Wyoming statutes and rules. Local governments collect ad valorem mineral taxes, as well as state 

assessed and locally assessed property taxes, county levies, municipal levies, special district taxes, and 

education levies. 

4.6.2.1 Production-Based Mineral Taxes

Mineral severance taxes are a key revenue source for the state. The state assesses the value of mineral 

production and applies and collects severance taxes against 100 percent of the value, minus certain 

exemptions. The severance tax rates range from 2.0 percent for many solid minerals to 6.0 percent for 

most oils and gas production to 7.0 percent for surface coal.

Table 4-27 shows how mineral severance taxes were distributed in fiscal year 2010. As with federal 

mineral revenues, most mineral severance tax revenue remains with the state, mostly in the General Fund, 

the Budget Reserve Account, and the Permanent Wyoming Mineral Trust Fund.

7 Direct payments to 

cities and towns in 2010 were $14.3 million, and direct payments to counties were $6.0 million. Payments 

to cities, towns, counties, and special districts for capital construction were $3.6 million, and state aid to 

county roads totaled $4.5 million. Together, these distributions totaled $28.5 million, which was 3.1 

percent of the total severance tax distributions. While local governments benefit from some of the other 

distributions, such as the highway fund, those amounts are also small.

Table 4-27. Distributions of Mineral Severance Taxes, Fiscal Year 2010

Distribution Amount

General Fund $226,994,930

Budget Reserve Account $260,982,942

Permanent Wyoming Mineral Trust Fund1

$371,323,873

 

7 The Permanent Wyoming Mineral Trust Fund (PWMTF) was established by a state constitutional amendment in 1974, which 

requires a 1.5 percent severance tax on oil, natural gas, coal, and other minerals designated by the legislature to be deposited to 

the PWMTF. As of 2005, an additional 1.0 percent is deposited. Thus, the total contribution to the fund is equivalent to a 2.5 

percent severance tax on the value of all mineral production (and thus a variable portion of the 2.0 to 7.0 percent total severance 

tax rates) (Temte 2010). The 2011 year-end market value of the PWMTF was $5.326 billion. Investment income from the fund 

flows to the state general fund; in fiscal year 2011, this contribution was $216 million (Wyoming State Treasurer’s Office

2011).
Chapter 4–Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

4-40 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

Distribution Amount

Wyoming Water Development Account I $19,297,696

Wyoming Water Development Account II $3,254,961

Wyoming Water Development Account III $775,191

Highway Fund $6,711,030

Cities and Towns $14,336,803

Counties $6,014,028

School Foundation $0

Community Colleges $0

Cities, Towns, Counties, and Special Districts Capital 

Construction $3,611,625

State Aid County Roads $4,495,107

Others (primarily Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Accounts) $10,163,192

Totals $927,961,378

Source: Wyoming Consensus Revenue Estimating Group 2012.

1

Includes Permanent Wyoming Mineral Trust Fund Reserve.

Table 4-28 shows the total amount of severance taxes distributed by the state to the counties in the 

socioeconomic study area between 2005 and 2010. Severance tax distribution for the socioeconomic 

study area peaked in 2007, declined in 2008 and 2009, and turned upward in 2010. Additional severance 

tax revenue distributions were also made directly to cities and towns; to cities, towns, counties, and 

special districts for capital construction; and as state aid to county roads. But, as described earlier, these 

distributions were not especially large.

Table 4-28. Severance Tax Distribution by County

County 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Albany $384,957 $397,314 $404,989 $394,818 $372,865 $385,460

Campbell $380,925 $390,934 $396,655 $385,972 $369,118 $380,319

Carbon $188,710 $193,584 $195,929 $187,265 $177,916 $184,066

Converse $150,041 $155,108 $158,919 $155,085 $145,478 $149,131

Crook $121,697 $132,801 $135,369 $126,191 $111,551 $113,478

Fremont $413,169 $423,863 $428,472 $413,966 $395,530 $411,137

Goshen $198,867 $212,508 $224,635 $222,135 $199,864 $211,709

Laramie $927,418 $952,638 $967,158 $941,304 $899,146 $926,971

Lincoln $174,863 $179,921 $181,845 $174,685 $165,949 $171,660

Natrona $758,628 $779,260 $789,840 $766,891 $732,593 $755,055

Niobrara $155,667 $175,614 $192,530 $169,829 $137,540 $136,570

Park $303,648 $312,518 $317,072 $308,868 $291,446 $299,481

Platte $142,307 $153,220 $162,895 $167,000 $149,182 $163,606

Sublette $71,902 $72,776 $73,055 $69,314 $66,099 $68,318

Sweetwater $427,328 $438,560 $444,866 $432,096 $413,062 $425,873
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 4–Economic Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 4-41

County 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Teton $212,350 $218,858 $222,659 $216,771 $206,033 $211,775

Uinta $232,631 $239,556 $243,389 $235,825 $224,308 $234,171

Weston $139,864 $151,853 $156,779 $147,782 $129,892 $134,912

Study Area $5,384,972 $5,580,886 $5,697,056 $5,515,797 $5,187,572 $5,363,692 

Source: Wyoming State Treasurer’s Office Annual Reports 2005–2010.

Ad valorem taxes from mineral production are another source of revenue derived from mineral 

production. The state assesses the value of mineral production (the same value used for levies of the 

state’s severance taxes). The counties then apply mill levies to 100 percent of the state-assessed value and 

collect the ad valorem tax. One percent of tax equals 10 mills. Table 4-29 summarizes the average 

mineral mill levy and the total mineral ad valorem tax assessed in the socioeconomic study area and in 

Wyoming. These figures are shown in nominal dollars, which better describes the relative importance of 

the tax revenues to the local and state governments over time. In 2005, mineral ad valorem production 

taxes assessed in the socioeconomic study area accounted for 95 percent of all mineral ad valorem 

production taxes assessed in the state. 2007 saw that percentage drop to 91 percent of the state total, and 

2010 saw a continued decline to 89 percent of the state total. The total ad valorem taxes assessed in the 

study area rose from $679.8 million in 2005 to $913.0 million in 2007 and dropped to $696.9 million in 

2010. The variation is a function of total production and mineral prices in each year. Campbell, Sublette, 

and Sweetwater counties produce far larger amounts of ad valorem tax than any other counties. In 2010, 

the ad valorem tax assessed in these three counties amounted to nearly 66 percent of all mineral ad 

valorem production taxes assessed in the state.

Table 4-29. Total Mineral Ad Valorem Production Tax Assessed:

2005, 2007, and 2010

County 2005 2007 2010

Average

Mineral 

Mill Levy

Ad Valorem

Production 

Tax Assessed

Average

Mineral 

Mill Levy

Ad Valorem 

Production 

Tax Assessed

Average

Mineral 

Mill Levy

Ad Valorem 

Production 

Tax Assessed

Albany 67.000 $278,219 65 $312,062 63.949 $309,041

Campbell 58.901 $184,415,685 59.815 $233,486,459 59.776 $243,867,658

Carbon 62.308 $31,910,516 61.807 $41,807,319 66.435 $30,532,535

Converse 59.556 $15,909,882 60.26 $18,569,742 59.97 $22,299,654

Crook 60.534 $4,035,290 61.522 $5,309,708 61.519 $5,309,173

Fremont 71.297 $51,592,975 70.81 $61,386,027 72.266 $26,160,848

Goshen 68.020 $1,384 68.013 $2,892 68.02 $1,149

Laramie 67.050 $1,090,548 71.829 $1,622,651 67.515 $1,906,993

Lincoln 60.608 $29,863,401 61.876 $36,197,272 62.567 $24,400,390

Natrona 67.271 $22,243,154 66.028 $26,848,122 70.717 $22,321,338

Niobrara 68.500 $1,071,448 68.5 $2,207,037 68.5 $2,030,903

Park 72.515 $20,931,882 70.742 $29,780,328 70.096 $27,715,656

Platte 69.309 $136,061 67.539 $103,065 71.357 $105,459

Sublette 58.476 $159,931,009 59.27 $224,804,720 59.558 $186,118,882

Sweetwater 64.877 $87,912,768 65.449 $117,121,462 66.382 $87,034,364

Teton 59.692 $110,947 59.292 $140,626 57.35 $84,217

Uinta 61.237 $28,303,507 62.706 $29,059,972 63.964 $12,968,409
Chapter 4–Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

4-42 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

County 2005 2007 2010

Average

Mineral 

Mill Levy

Ad Valorem

Production 

Tax Assessed

Average

Mineral 

Mill Levy

Ad Valorem 

Production 

Tax Assessed

Average

Mineral 

Mill Levy

Ad Valorem 

Production 

Tax Assessed

Weston 68.979 $3,497,736 68.283 $4,462,589 71.497 $3,688,479

Study Area 1166.13 $643,236,412 1168.741 $833,222,053 1,181.44 $696,885,148

Wyoming 65.903 $679,817,058 62.593 $913,011,683 62.375 $784,912,412

Study Area % 

of State Total — 94.6% — 91.3% — 88.8%

Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue Annual Report, 2005, 2007, 2010; Mineral Tax Division

The mill levies shown in Table 4-29 for each county are the total of the mill levies of various taxing 

entities. Each total may include levies by the statewide School Foundation Program, local school districts, 

community colleges, counties, cities and towns, and special districts. According to a 2010 presentation by 

the Wyoming Legislative Service Office (Temte, 2010), the total of $1.851 billion in ad valorem property 

taxes levied in 2009 based on statewide assessed values of approximately $11.4 billion for minerals and 

$8.8 billion for other property accrued as follows: 70.1 percent K–12 education, 18.3 percent counties, 7.1 

percent special districts, 2.5 percent community colleges, and 1.2 percent cities and towns.

Table 4-30 shows statewide oil and gas production valuations compared to all mineral valuations for 

2005, 2007, and 2010. It also shows the ad valorem and severance tax collections for oil and gas and for

all minerals, and shows oil and gas as a percentage of total mineral production valuation and taxes. As 

shown in Table 4-30, statewide oil and gas valuation was 16 percent of the total mineral valuation in 

2005, followed by a small drop to 14 percent in 2007 and an increase to 19 percent in 2010. Oil and gas 

production accounted for 78 percent of all mineral production tax revenue in 2005, declining to 65

percent in 2010. 
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 4–Economic Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 4-43

Table 4-30. Statewide Oil and Gas Ad Valorem and Severance Taxes Collected as a Percentage of Total Mineral Production 

Taxes Collected

Tax 

Category

2005 2007 2010

Oil/Gas 

Production

All Mineral 

Production

Oil/Gas 

% of 

total

Oil/Gas 

Production

All Mineral 

Production

Oil/Gas 

% of 

total

Oil/Gas 

Production

All Mineral 

Production

Oil/Gas 

% of 

total

Total 

Valuation $1,799,416,541 $10,984,017,888 16% $2,069,911,273 $14,586,380,458 14% $2,415,680,479 $12,583,815,584 19%

Ad 

Valorem 

Tax

$540,158,681 $679,817,058 79% $712,637,118 $913,011,683 78% $524,467,321 $784,912,412 67%

Severance 

Tax $497,082,086 $649,282,411 77% $666,397,115 $882,383,479 76% $486,546,171 $769,807,595 63%

Total Tax $1,037,240,767 $1,329,099,469 78% $1,379,034,233 $1,795,395,162 77% $1,011,013,492 $1,554,720,007 65%

Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue Annual Report, 2005, 2007, 2010; Mineral Tax Division
Chapter 4–Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

4-44 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

4.6.2.2 Property Taxes

Property taxes are collected in Wyoming on property values that are assessed by either the state or by 

local government. In the case of state-assessed values, the state certifies the values to local government, 

which then collects the taxes. The state assesses the value of mineral production and certain nonmineral 

properties. Nonmineral property the state assesses includes airlines, utilities, pipelines and gas distribution 

systems, railroads, and telephone service. Assessed mineral production values and the ad valorem taxes 

levied on those values were described above. Another way of looking at mineral valuation is shown in 

Table 4-31, which includes the other types of property the state assesses. This table lists the total 2010 

state-assessed values by type of company or production for the state. Natural gas has the highest assessed 

value at $5.8 billion from 286 companies or producers. Coal, with only 17 companies or producers, has 

the second highest assessed value at $3.8 billion. Oil has the most companies or producers in the state 

(531) and an assessed value of $2.4 billion. In 2010, the total state assessed valuation was $13.789 billion. 

Of this, the value of mineral production was $12.584 billion.

Table 4-31. State Assessed Values by Type of Company or Producer, 2010

Type of Company or 

Producer

# of Companies or Producers 2010 Assessed Value

Natural Gas 286 $5,861,051,297

Coal 17 $3,834,477,312

Oil 531 $2,439,657,555

Private Electrics/Gas 32 $414,960,269

Trona 4 $350,783,487

Railroads 3 $259,627,196

Natural Gas Pipelines 19 $191,815,459

Rural Electrics 23 $160,110,614

Liquid Pipelines 18 $97,382,721

Bentonite 6 $33,864,379

Sand and Gravel 214 $26,146,507

Uranium 4 $22,702,505

Major Telephones 13 $20,094,951

Cell/Reseller Telephones 25 $19,273,437

Cable and Satellites 11 $16,639,330

All other minerals 28 $15,132,542

Rural Telephones 13 $12,800,742

Municipal Electrics 12 $7,320,473

Airlines 15 $5,494,169

Total 1,274 $13,789,334,945

Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue 2010 Annual Report, Property Tax Division.

Locally assessed taxes are based on valuations of real and personal property, including agricultural land, 

residential property, commercial property, and industrial property. Table 4-32 shows locally assessed 

property valuations for real and personal property in Wyoming in 2010; the total locally assessed 

valuation was $7.527 billion. This valuation was 35.3 percent of the total assessed value in the state 

($13.789 billion state assessed and $7.527 billion locally assessed, for a $21.316 billion total).
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 4–Economic Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 4-45

Table 4-32. Locally Assessed Property Valuations, Wyoming, 2010

Type of Property Assessed Value

Real Property $7,256,097,532 

Personal Property $271,045,154 

Total $7,527,142,686 

Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue 2010 Annual Report, Property Tax Division.

Table 4-33 lists locally assessed property valuations for all property for the socioeconomic study area 

between 2005 and 2010. Throughout the socioeconomic study area, values have steadily increased over 

the last five years. 

Table 4-33. Locally Assessed Property Valuations, 2006–2010

County 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Albany $226,143,984 $242,513,230 $263,852,636 $287,736,925 $293,017,412 $293,887,402

Campbell $452,603,785 $486,502,114 $561,650,264 $637,462,775 $761,319,842 $762,140,943

Carbon $108,913,407 $121,954,030 $156,117,705 $201,296,215 $261,141,911 $220,298,007

Converse $105,197,358 $116,952,031 $131,882,811 $149,346,412 $169,468,210 $178,193,359

Crook $43,800,580 $54,734,807 $50,417,125 $64,939,219 $70,269,588 $73,454,634

Fremont $242,999,522 $265,090,829 $303,432,207 $344,770,320 $367,178,842 $381,990,364

Goshen $72,755,503 $78,832,624 $84,307,636 $93,440,856 $95,582,833 $96,157,797

Laramie $582,820,730 $652,493,806 $697,048,532 $749,405,507 $774,077,579 $793,184,544

Lincoln $216,398,163 $246,341,051 $299,520,738 $390,362,515 $410,462,460 $408,997,661

Natrona $389,181,423 $471,473,689 $589,027,272 $661,867,647 $705,655,304 $671,079,265

Niobrara $16,249,561 $17,568,568 $18,413,765 $19,936,569 $22,253,954 $22,434,902

Park $222,957,576 $246,341,136 $286,738,881 $316,585,083 $336,920,437 $330,014,595

Platte $50,825,436 $52,296,834 $58,470,622 $62,092,738 $64,973,120 $65,771,217

Sublette $185,574,457 $230,922,401 $289,027,314 $359,753,709 $409,685,452 $387,979,295

Sweetwater $339,464,379 $390,096,548 $472,134,020 $562,464,929 $627,661,731 $617,832,780

Teton $830,357,245 $910,057,219 $999,867,944 $1,279,512,511 $1,313,278,913 $1,176,619,784

Uinta $129,437,210 $140,627,994 $165,137,637 $178,771,340 $197,318,818 $191,062,696

Weston $34,026,299 $35,003,149 $40,560,900 $46,295,645 $50,350,901 $50,501,446

Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue 2010 Annual Report, Property Tax Division.

Table 4-34 shows locally assessed property valuations specific to minerals, by county, for 2005 and 2010. 

These valuations are of mining property and equipment, not the mineral production itself. Total valuation 

increased substantially in most counties. For the socioeconomic study area, total mineral properties 

valuation increased from $0.802 billion to $1.554 billion led by a large increase in the valuation of oil and 

gas properties.

The total state-wide mineral properties valuation of $1.714 billion in 2010 is 22.8 percent of the total 

locally assessed property valuation of $7.527 billion. Thus, mineral properties also account for about the 

same percentage of taxes collected on locally assessed property. 
Chapter 4–Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

4-46 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

Table 4-34. Locally Assessed Valuations for Mineral Properties, 2005 and 2010 ($1,000s)

County

2005 2010

Oil & Gas 

Extraction

Coal 

Mining

Metal 

Mining

Non-Metal 

Mining & 

Quarrying

Petroleum 

& Coal 

Product 

Manufac.

Total Oil & Gas 

Extraction

Coal 

Mining

Metal 

Mining

Non-Metal 

Mining & 

Quarrying

Petroleum 

& Coal 

Product 

Manufac.

Total

Albany 84 0 0 0 0 84 182 0 0 18 1 201

Campbell 170 163,425 0 0 102,031 265,626 141,466 286,884 0 0 0 428,350

Carbon 21,654 840 110 0 13,492 36,095 90,148 456 78 0 11,472 102,153

Converse 2,431 16,356 3,232 140 11,949 34,108 4,075 31,011 5,133 0 14,584 54,804

Crook 895 0 0 3,748 0 4,644 1,506 0 0 1,650 0 3,156

Fremont 56,852 0 0 0 0 56,852 81,019 0 0 181 4,534 85,734

Goshen 0 0 0 0 1,054 1,055 0 0 0 14 1,050 1,064

Laramie 743 0 0 1,753 11,388 13,884 2,287 0 0 2,044 32,272 36,603

Lincoln 0 6,661 5,215 0 89,137 101,013 152,089 11,240 0 56 33,149 196,534

Natrona 15,935 0 46 1,022 2,587 19,591 45,273 0 0 1,425 6,206 52,905

Niobrara 378 0 0 0 8 385 2,069 0 0 0 13 2,082

Park 8,010 0 0 196 1,657 9,864 11,259 0 0 0 0 11,259

Platte 575 0 0 373 11 959 1,017 0 0 2 0 1,018

Sublette 61,299 0 0 0 0 61,299 235,022 0 0 0 0 235,022

Sweetwater 79,425 4,257 514 65,330 0 149,526 147,895 40,255 0 102,293 0 290,444

Teton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Uinta 5,261 0 0 0 36,738 41,999 45,411 0 0 0 10 45,421

Weston 1,528 0 0 312 3,628 5,467 2,669 0 0 515 3,705 6,888

Study 

Area 255,239 191,539 9,117 72,876 273,679 802,449 963,387 369,846 5,212 108,199 106,994 1,553,637

% of State 

Total 83% 100% 100% 93% 100% 93% 86% 100% 100% 99% 99% 91%

Wyoming 306,886 191,542 9,117 78,705 274,276 860,526 1,121,304 369,985 5,222 109,520 108,324 1,714,356

Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue Annual Report; 2005, 2010.
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 4–Economic Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 4-47

4.6.2.3 Other Taxes

Other tax revenue sources that may be affected by management actions associated with BLM-managed 

lands include sales and use taxes, lodging taxes, and fuel taxes. In addition, Wyoming continues to refine 

its levy of a production tax on wind energy.

According to the Wyoming Taxpayers Association (2012), lodging and fuel taxes are relatively small 

compared with sales and use taxes, totaling $8.1 and $41.6 million statewide in 2011. Sales and use taxes 

are a much larger revenue source. The state has a 4 percent rate for sales and use tax. Counties may levy 

up to an additional 3 percent with voter approval. Table 4-35 shows sales and use tax collections for fiscal 

year 2010. 

Table 4-35. Sales and Use Tax Collections by County, Fiscal Year 2010

County 4% State Tax Local Levy Total

Albany $19,010,287 $9,505,103 $28,515,390

Campbell $108,654,080 $26,846,533 $135,500,613

Carbon $18,210,158 $9,074,666 $27,284,824

Converse $16,699,327 $4,174,817 $20,874,144

Crook $4,342,147 $2,170,381 $6,512,528

Fremont $28,165,025 $212,362 $28,377,387

Goshen $5,736,163 $1,490,296 $7,226,459

Laramie $57,939,993 $28,968,871 $86,908,864

Lincoln $13,052,710 $3,261,730 $16,314,440

Natrona $70,455,790 $17,613,820 $88,069,610

Niobrara $1,771,749 $885,844 $2,657,593

Park $23,952,677 $2,882,745 $26,835,422

Platte $5,883,990 $2,937,059 $8,821,049

Sublette $60,073,816 $0 $60,073,816

Sweetwater $68,156,887 $27,584,486 $95,741,373

Teton $35,302,606 $19,277,749 $54,580,355

Uinta $13,912,618 $3,477,223 $17,389,841

Weston $4,072,226 $1,018,049 $5,090,275

Study Area Total $555,392,249 $161,381,734 $716,773,983

State Total $603,076,040 $178,927,524 $782,003,564

Source: Wyoming Economic Analysis Division 2012. 

Sales and use tax collections are split between the state general fund and local governments. Statewide, 

the distribution in 2010 was 54 percent to the state general fund and 46 percent to local governments 

(Wyoming Department of Revenue 2011). One example of such distributions is the Wyoming Impact 

Assistance Tax Program. Wyoming Statutes provide for counties that have a major construction project of 

$170.3 million or larger to receive extra revenue in direct proportion to any increase in their tax 

collections to help with the impact caused by the project. These funds are transferred from the state 

general fund to the county treasurer of the impacted county. These transfers totaled $16.3 million in fiscal 

year 2009, $2.2 million in fiscal year 2010, and $0.8 million in fiscal year 2011 (Wyoming Department of 

Revenue 2011).
Chapter 4–Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

4-48 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

There are clear, well-recognized linkages between sales and use taxes and both local consumer 

expenditures and tourism expenditures. It is also important to realize the linkages between sales and use 

taxes and the capital investment and other activities associated with energy development and production.

Sales and use taxes are generated from expenditures on labor and equipment as well as other goods and 

services required by the energy industry, but not always in proportion to needs for local or state 

government provision of infrastructure and services that are impacted by energy development and 

production. There are some risks to state and local sales and use tax revenues and expenditures based on

the level of energy development.

4.7 GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES

4.7.1 Local Government Expenditures and Services

Management of BLM and USFS administered land may affect state and local expenditures. For instance, 

recreation on public lands requires some support from local government for road maintenance, law 

enforcement, and search and rescue. Heavy truck traffic from mineral development and production may 

significantly impact state and local roads. It is difficult to separate expenditures related to BLM and USFS 

administered land from expenditures related to other land. Depending on the nature of the management 

alternatives identified in BLM RMP/EISs and USFS LRMP/EISs and the scope and scale of potential 

impacts, this topic may require further consideration during the impacts analysis phase of the process.

The types of state and local expenditures that may be affected include the following: 

• Maintenance of state and local roads

• Law enforcement personnel and equipment

• Emergency medical services

• Search and rescue teams

• Conservation and wildlife management

• Fire management

• Solid waste collection and disposal

• Public utilities.

These expenditures may be affected in two ways. First, increased use of public land resources may result 

in greater needs for the types of services and infrastructure listed above. For instance, increased 

backcountry recreational use may put greater demands on local search and rescue teams. Increased heavy 

truck traffic from oil and gas development may increase road maintenance needs.

In addition, in less common cases where use of public land resources leads to substantially increased 

employment opportunities (such as in an energy development boom), population in study area 

communities may increase, which often leads to increased demand for the services and infrastructure 

listed above, and may lead to additional needs, such as increased school space, teachers, and other public 

facilities and personnel. 

4.7.2 Federal Expenditures

Federal government expenditures related to federal lands benefit the local economy because federal 

salaries for land management staff that reside in the socioeconomic study area and federal contracts to 

businesses located in or with employees residing in the socioeconomic study area represent inflows of 

money. For instance, Table 4-36 shows BLM’s annual budget for Wyoming in 2011, broken down by the 

types of expenditures. This data is not specific to the socioeconomic study area; however, as all or most of 

8 of BLM’s 10 Field Offices in Wyoming are in the socioeconomic study area, most of the dollars shown 
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 4–Economic Conditions

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 4-49

in the table below are related to management of BLM lands in the socioeconomic study area. The USFS 

also makes considerable expenditures within the socioeconomic study area that benefit the local economy.

Table 4-36. BLM Wyoming’s Annual Budget for 2011

Item Expenditure ($)

Management of land and resources $81,277,239 

Land acquisition $2,734,295 

Range improvements $943,233 

Construction and access $55,967 

Wildland fire preparedness $4,094,298 

Wildland fire suppression $4,939,402 

Wildland fire fuels $3,270,377 

Energy pilot office funding $3,004,653 

Motorized fleet $3,508,167 

Reimbursables $5,184,470 

Other $570,838 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act $5,853,711 

Total $115,436,650

Source: BLM 2011.
Chapter 4–Economic Conditions Socioeconomic Baseline Report

4-50 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

This page intentionally left blank
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 5–Public Land Uses and Values

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 5-1

CHAPTER 5—PUBLIC LAND USES AND VALUES

This chapter profiles some of the many uses of BLM- and USFS-administered public lands in the 

planning area. It describes some of the economic and social implications of those uses, including 

quantitative values where readily available. This chapter also includes a discussion of nonmarket values, 

which are often overlooked when the economics of public lands are discussed. Given the information that 

was readily available when this report was prepared, most of the material below focuses on BLM land, or 

describes public land uses and values in the BLM context.

To describe BLM and USFS public land resource uses and associated values, the material below provides 

overviews of some important BLM and USFS policies and programs for resource management. It also 

identifies some important resource use conditions and practices in the planning area. Additional 

information on each resource use is available in the Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) and 

Chapter 3 of the Draft RMP/EIS (separate documents for BLM and USFS).

During the impacts analysis phase of this planning process, the economic impacts of the management 

alternatives will be estimated using the IMPLAN (IMPact analysis for PLANning) economic impact 

model. The IMPLAN model was originally developed by the USFS and is commonly used by BLM, 

USFS, and many other government and private sector organizations to estimate the total economic 

impacts of various activities and policies. The model tracks interindustry and consumer spending in a 

local or regional economy, allowing estimation of indirect and induced economic impacts in the economy 

(from the interindustry transactions and respending of household income, respectively, that result from 

the original economic activity or change in economic activity). Outputs of the IMPLAN model include 

employment, income, and gross regional economic output.

The IMPLAN model uses data specific to the local economy wherever possible, but also uses some data 

based on national-level economic relationships. Therefore, the model benefits from “calibration” of some 

of its data to better reflect the local economy. For the impact analysis, IMPLAN will be calibrated based 

on work the University of Wyoming has done with the model in Wyoming over many years and with data 

specific to BLM and USFS public land uses. Methodologies specific to each land use for implementing 

the calibrated IMPLAN model to estimate economic impacts are described briefly for some of the public 

land uses below.

5.1 GRAZING

Grazing is an important use of BLM and USFS public lands. The kinds of livestock grazing on public 

lands in the socioeconomic study area consist primarily of cattle and sheep, but also include domestic 

horses. Goats are sometimes authorized for the purpose of suppressing weeds. The relative numbers of 

these grazing animals has varied in response to their economic value as a commodity and their use in 

ranching operations.

Livestock grazing has been an important economic activity in the socioeconomic study area and continues

as an economic contributor locally and a livelihood for persons in the industry. It is also very significant

to the cultural identity of the region and especially to certain communities and stakeholder groups.

Ranching has a long history in the socioeconomic study area and has played a key role in the economic 

and social development of Wyoming. Use of BLM and USFS public lands for grazing livestock has been 

a vital component of that history and remains important today.

BLM and USFS allocate forage among uses based on the carrying capacity of the land. Carrying capacity 

reflects the maximum level of grazing and other uses of forage that the public lands can sustain on a longterm basis. A more specific definition of carrying capacity is “livestock carrying capacity,” which means 

the maximum stocking rate possible without inducing damage to vegetation or related resources. In 
Chapter 5–Public Land Uses and Values Socioeconomic Baseline Report

5-2 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

addition to livestock, forage allocations are made for wildlife, wild horses, and other purposes. Carrying 

capacity may vary from year to year on the same area due to fluctuating forage production. In addition, 

available forage for livestock grazing varies with changes in climatic conditions, forage production, and 

the availability of water.

Forage availability is expressed in animal unit months (AUMs). According to BLM Grazing Regulations 

(43 C.F.R. Part 4100), an AUM represents “the amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow 

or its equivalent for a period of 1 month.” Typically, a cow and her calf qualify as an AUM. A horse is 

usually considered 1.25 AUMs, sheep are typically measured at 5 sheep for every AUM, and goats are 

measured at 6 goats for every AUM.

Permitted use is the amount of forage, in AUMs, available for livestock grazing under a permit or lease. 

In any given year, more or less forage may be authorized and billed for livestock grazing under a valid 

permit or lease due to fluctuating forage production. 

Livestock grazing on specific allotments within BLM and USFS administrative units is authorized during 

different seasons. The grazing seasons vary with elevation and geographical change, resource needs, and 

user preference. The higher elevation allotments are generally grazed during summer and fall. The lower 

elevation areas may be grazed during any season, but are generally used in the fall, winter, and spring. 

The majority of the allotments in the planning area are operated under grazing strategies incorporating 

rest, seasonal rotations, deferment, and prescribed use levels that provide for adequate plant recovery time 

to enhance rangeland health. When rangelands are not meeting resource objectives, changes in grazing 

management are implemented.

Grazing on BLM and USFS public lands is very important to many livestock operators. Dependence on 

federal lands (versus other lands) varies by operator, but some graze almost entirely on public lands. 

Others may make substantial use of private lands, but may be very dependent on public lands for 

economical forage at certain times of the year. Many of the larger operators use public lands year-round.

Actual use of BLM and USFS lands for grazing has varied from year to year, in part because the planning 

area has experienced drought conditions. These conditions have resulted in less forage being available for 

livestock use at some times and the need for permittees/lessees to take voluntary nonuse. During drought 

years, the livestock operators, BLM, and the USFS work closely to tailor the adjustments in livestock use 

to meet the needs of the land and the ranch operation. In addition, annual fluctuations in the AUMs used 

may develop from user demands, climatic conditions, and/or from the collection of monitoring 

information.

Grazing fees for BLM lands are set annually by the Secretary of the Interior according to the provisions of 

43 C.F.R. 4130.8-1. The fee is equal to the $1.23 base established by the 1966 Western Livestock Grazing 

Survey, adjusted by indices for the value of forage, beef cattle prices, and livestock production costs, and 

is subject to a minimum fee of $1.35 per AUM. 

In accordance with 43 C.F.R. 4130.8-1(f), BLM adds a surcharge to the grazing fee bill for authorized 

grazing of livestock owned by persons other than the permittee or lessee, except where such use is made 

by livestock owned by sons and daughters of permittees and lessees as provided in 43 C.F.R. 4130.7(f). 

BLM adds the surcharge to the permittee’s or lessee’s grazing fee billing based on the number of AUMs 

being billed. The surcharge varies by state and equals 35 percent of the difference between the 2012 

grazing fee and the 2011 private land lease rate for the state where the pasturing agreement occurs. The 

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) publishes the state rates annually in January based on 

lease rates for private, nonirrigated grazing land from the January Cattle Survey.

The grazing for 2012 is $1.35, and the surcharge is $5.69. According to the NASS data, the average 

private land grazing fee in Wyoming in 2010 was $16.60 per AUM. This fee is considerably more than 

the $1.35 grazing fee BLM charged in 2010 or the fee plus the surcharge ($5.13 in 2010), totaling $6.48 

per AUM (BLM IM 2010-067). Thus, grazing on BLM lands appears to provide considerable value to 
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 5–Public Land Uses and Values

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 5-3

BLM grazing permittees as compared to leasing private land. However, recent research has shown that, in 

spite of the difference in fees for grazing on public verse private land, when other factors are considered 

(such as animal loss, rangeland improvement and maintenance, moving livestock, and herding), the cost 

of forage on public land compared to private land is generally similar (Rimbey and Torell 2011).

Grazing fees and surcharges from BLM public lands use generate some revenue for the federal 

government. Of the grazing revenues collected, 50 percent goes to the BLM Range Improvement Fund 

and is distributed to BLM District Offices according to their grazing receipts, 37.5 percent goes to the 

U.S. Treasury General Fund, and 12.5 goes to the origin state and is distributed to local grazing boards.

Economic Impact

The value of cattle grazing in a specific area can be estimated based on the actual grazing use of the area 

quantified in AUMs multiplied by the value of an AUM. According to Workman (1986), it takes 16 

AUMs to produce a marketable cow. Thus, the average value of an AUM can be estimated using data on 

the value of cattle production per bred cow and dividing by 16. These calculations are shown in Table 

5-1. A similar procedure can be used to estimate the value of an AUM used for sheep production, using 

3.2 AUMs per ewe, as shown in 

Table 5-2.

Table 5-1. Value of an AUM for Cattle Production

Year

Value of 

Production 

per Bred 

Cow*

AUMs per 

Cow**

Value of 

Production 

per AUM

IMPLAN 

Deflator

Deflated 

Value of 

Production 

per AUM

2001 $581.79 16 $36.36 0.817 $44.51

2002 $533.64 16 $33.35 0.831 $40.14

2003 $609.07 16 $38.07 0.848 $44.89

2004 $706.24 16 $44.14 0.872 $50.62

2005 $752.44 16 $47.03 0.901 $52.19

2006 $720.09 16 $45.01 0.930 $48.39

2007 $681.50 16 $42.59 0.957 $44.51

2008 $496.02 16 $31.00 0.978 $31.70

2009 $472.00 16 $29.50 0.989 $29.83

2010 $570.50 16 $35.66 1.000 $35.66

10-year Average $42.24

*U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Commodity Costs & Returns, data for Basin and Range 

region, cow-calf pair.

** Workman (1986).

Table 5-2. Value of an AUM for Sheep Production

Year

Value of 

Production 

per Ewe**

AUMs per 

Ewe

Value of 

Production 

per AUM

IMPLAN 

Deflator

Deflated 

Value of 

Production 

per AUM

2000 $127.48 3.2 $39.84 0.721 $55.25

2002 $127.75 3.2 $39.92 0.680 $58.71

2004 $134.08 3.2 $41.90 0.938 $44.67

2006 $138.81 3.2 $43.38 0.890 $48.74
Chapter 5–Public Land Uses and Values Socioeconomic Baseline Report

5-4 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

Year

Value of 

Production 

per Ewe**

AUMs per 

Ewe

Value of 

Production 

per AUM

IMPLAN 

Deflator

Deflated 

Value of 

Production 

per AUM

2008 $136.53 3.2 $42.67 1.011 $42.20

2010 $185.65 3.2 $58.02 1.000 $58.02

10-year Average (based on available data for every other year) $51.26

*Source: University of Idaho Extension, Idaho Livestock Costs and Returns Estimates, Sheep – Range, gross receipts per ewe.

Data only available for every other year.

During the impact analysis phase of this planning process, the economic impact (e.g., jobs, income,) 

resulting from grazing on BLM and USFS lands will be estimated for a baseline scenario (no action 

alternative) and management alternatives. The methodology will be as follows:

1. Determine the total value of production by multiplying the value of production per AUM from 

the tables above by the number of AUMs. The number of permitted AUMs may vary by 

alternative, which will result in different economic impacts. As part of the analysis, the number of 

permitted AUMs will be adjusted for historical rates of actual use.

2. Allocate the total value of production to the various economic sectors (agricultural industry 

segments) to which the various portions of the value accrue.

3. Run these value allocations through the IMPLAN economic impact model to determine direct, 

indirect, and induced economic impacts.

5.2 MINERALS

For management purposes, federal minerals are classified into three categories—Saleable Minerals, 

Locatable Minerals, and Leasable Minerals. 

• Leasable minerals are minerals for which the federal government issues leases, often through a 

competitive bidding process, allowing producers to access the mineral. Leasable minerals are 

divided into fluid and solid minerals. Leasable fluids include oil, gas, and geothermal. Solid 

leasables include coal, phosphate, potash, and sodium (e.g., trona). Except for coal, most solid 

leasables are used to make fertilizer and as feedstock for other industrial processes. Revenues 

from the leases are shared by the federal government and the state of origin. Many states direct 

portions of these revenues to local governments.

• Locatable minerals include hard-rock minerals, such as gold, silver, molybdenum, and uranium, 

and other minerals, such as gypsum, silica, and specialized clay products. Miners locate and stake 

(file) claims to acquire the right to develop the mineral values in a specified area under the 

provisions of the General Mining Law of 1872 as amended. Locatable minerals include both 

metallic minerals (precious and base metals) and nonmetallic minerals (gemstones and industrial 

minerals). Locatable minerals may produce severance taxes and other revenues to state 

governments, but other than small claim staking and maintenance fees, produce little to no 

revenue to the federal government.

• Salable minerals, also known as mineral materials, consist of common varieties of sand, stone, 

gravel, cinders, clay, pumice, and pumicite as described under the Materials Act of 1947 and the 

Surface Resources Act of 1955. No mining claims are required for their extraction. They are used 

in everyday building and other construction uses. These materials generally are bulky, and their 

sheer weight makes their transportation costs very high. Adequate local supplies of these basic 
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 5–Public Land Uses and Values

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 5-5

resources are vital to the economic life of any community. Saleable minerals are disposed of 

through a variety of contracted sales; most of the revenue goes to the U.S. Federal Treasury.

Mineral exploration, development, and production on federal mineral estate have many socioeconomic 

implications:

• Mineral exploration and mineral production generate economic activity through payments to 

labor and to capital both inside and outside of the socioeconomic study area.

• Mineral production generates tax revenue. Direct taxes on mineral production in Wyoming 

include severance taxes and ad valorem taxes. Additional tax revenues include property taxes on 

mining equipment and other mine-related assets, personal and corporate federal income tax on 

mining income (Wyoming has no state income taxes), and sales taxes. Several of these mineralrelated tax revenues are detailed in section 4.6 (Public Finance) above.

• Some mineral production on federal mineral estate generates revenues to the federal government; 

for instance, federal mineral royalties. These federal revenues generally come from leasable 

minerals and salable minerals, but not locatable minerals. Some of these federal revenues are 

shared with the state, which may in turn share the revenues with local governments. The types of 

revenues collected and the distributions of revenues to state and local government are described 

in section 4.6.

• Mineral exploration and production have social significance as livelihoods for persons in the 

industry and to the cultural identity of certain communities and stakeholder groups.

• Mineral exploration and production may result in environmental impacts, demands on physical 

infrastructure, increased traffic, “boom and bust” economic cycles, and other impacts that have 

economic and social costs. 

BLM, the USFS, and the state apply various fees and requirements to some or all mining operations. 

These fees and requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Claim staking and maintenance fees – For locatable minerals, a claim staking fee of $170 per 

claim is applied BLM-wide and a maintenance fee of $140 per year per claim.

• Reclamation bond – Most mining operations, excluding some sand and gravel operations, must 

post a bond with BLM or the state that ensures adequate funds are available to reclaim the mine 

site when the mining operation is completed. The bonds are reviewed within specific timeframes 

and reflect the current costs to reclaim these sites. These costs include inflation, labor, equipment, 

and administrative costs so BLM can contract out, via a third party, to reclaim a site should it 

become abandoned.

• Reclamation fee – A payment made in lieu of a bond for some sand and gravel production.

• Cost recovery – BLM charges cost recovery fees when permitting many types of mineral 

production. The fees cover the cost of BLM staff time for the NEPA process (when applicable), 

for claim validity examinations, and for some other mineral program costs.

Mineral potential and current and projected minerals development and production varies across the 

socioeconomic study area. The AMS and Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS present detailed information. 

Economic Impact

During the impact analysis phase of this planning process, the economic impact (e.g., jobs, income) 

resulting from mineral production on BLM and USFS lands will be estimated for a baseline scenario (no 

action alternative) and management alternatives. The analysis will be divided into estimates for mineral 

development (specifically, well drilling and completion for oil and gas) and estimates for mineral 

production. For drilling and completion, the methodology will be as follows:
Chapter 5–Public Land Uses and Values Socioeconomic Baseline Report

5-6 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

1. Obtain data on the number of oil and gas wells drilled on decision area federal minerals per year 

and the number of wells completed (from the Reasonable Foreseeable Development scenario) and 

data on the costs of drilling and completion.

2. Determine total direct costs by multiplying wells drilled by the cost per well and wells completed 

by the cost of completion.

3. Allocate total costs to the various economic sectors (petroleum and supporting industry segments) 

from which the various labor and supplies for mineral development are purchased.

4. Run these cost allocations through the IMPLAN economic impact model to determine direct, 

indirect, and induced economic impacts.

For mineral production the methodology will be as follows:

1. Obtain data on annual production from decision area federal minerals. Adjust the data as 

necessary to account for changes in production over the planning period (e.g., increasing numbers 

of oil and gas wells each year; production life cycles of wells or well fields).

2. Obtain data on monetary value of production per unit of production.

3. Multiply production quantities by values per unit to determine the total value of production.

4. Allocate production values to the economic sector(s) that produce(s) the mineral in question.

5. Run these values through the IMPLAN economic impact model to determine direct, indirect, and 

induced economic impacts.

In addition, public revenue impacts such as federal mineral royalties, severance taxes, and ad valorem 

taxes will be calculated.

5.3 RENEWABLE ENERGY

Renewable energy development on public lands is tied to land availability, power line access, and 

reasonable access to utility markets. Such development also varies with the type of renewable energy. 

Solar needs relatively flat lands with less than 2 percent slope. Wind is typically sited in hilly areas. 

However, not all BLM or USFS public lands are open to renewable energy development, due to 

restrictions on ROW development and other considerations.

Wind energy is the form of renewable energy that has received the most interest for use of federal public 

lands in Wyoming in recent years. For over a decade, wind energy has been the fastest growing energy 

technology worldwide, achieving an annual growth rate of over 30 percent. In the United States, the 

current total installed wind energy capacity is approximately 46,900 megawatts (MW), of which 

approximately 440 MW is located on BLM-administered public lands (BLM 2012a). Much of Wyoming 

has fair to excellent wind energy potential, with some areas having outstanding to superb potential as 

identified by the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Currently, most of the 

interest has been focused on southern Wyoming. 

The only project currently completed on BLM land in the socioeconomic study area is the Wyoming 

Wind Project, located on Foote Creek Rim above Arlington. It had an initial generating capacity of more 

than 85 MW of electricity, enough for about 27,000 average homes. Since development of the original 69

turbine project, several subsequent phases have been constructed, and the project now totals 183 turbines, 

with a generating capacity of 134.7 MW. 

Many additional projects on BLM land are in various stages of development. For example, the 

Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy project is proposing to build 1,000 turbines on 

approximately 98,500 acres south of Rawlins in Carbon County. The White Mountain Energy project is 

proposing the construction of 240 turbines northwest of Rock Springs. Table 5-3 details the status of wind 

projects currently underway or completed as of February 2012 on BLM lands throughout Wyoming. All 

of these projects are within the socioeconomic study area.
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 5–Public Land Uses and Values

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 5-7

Table 5-3. Wyoming BLM Wind Energy Projects

Project Name Status BLM Field Office

Badwater Full Field Development Casper

Beaver Divide West Full Field Development Lander

Beaver Rim (Beaver Divide Power) Full Field Development Lander

Beaver Rim (Wasatch Wind) Full Field Development Lander

Boner, Vollman & Scott Ranches Full Field Development Casper

Brush Creek Road Full Field Development Casper

Chokecherry-Sierra Madre Processing Rawlins

Cyclone Rim Full Field Development Lander

Dry Creek Full Field Development Casper

Foote Creek Rim Completed Rawlins

Goshen Rim Full Field Development Casper

Green Mountain Full Field Development Lander

Gumbo Hill Full Field Development Casper

Miller Mountain Processing Rock Springs

Pathfinder Wind Full Field Development Casper

Pathfinder Wind #2 Full Field Development Casper

Quaking Aspen Full Field Development Rock Springs

Rattlesnake Hills Full Field Development Casper

Rattlesnake Range South Full Field Development Casper

Sand Hills Processing Rawlins

Sweeney Ranch Processing Rock Springs

White Mountain (Evergreen) Processing Rock Springs

White Mountain (Teton) Processing Rock Springs

Source: BLM 2012b.

Within the USFS units that are part of this planning action, there has been limited renewable energy 

activity. In the MBNF, while there has been some exploration of wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal 

resources, these activities have predominantly occurred in the Pole Mountain area of the forest. There is 

no core or general sage-grouse habitat in this area. In the BTNF, there are numerous past geothermal 

exploration sites. There are neither current renewable energy projects in the BTNF, nor any foreseeable 

interest. The Wyoming Range Legacy Act withdrew additional areas from geothermal leasing, subject to 

valid existing rights.

Economic Impact

During the impact analysis phase of this planning process, the economic impact (e.g., jobs, income) 

resulting from renewable energy uses of BLM and USFS lands will be estimated for a baseline scenario 

(no action alternative) and management alternatives. The analysis will be divided into estimates for 

renewable energy development and estimates for renewable energy production. The analyses will likely 

be limited to wind energy impacts, given that other forms of renewable energy appear unlikely to receive 

considerable attention in the planning area within the planning period. For wind energy development, the 

methodology will be as follows:

1. Obtain data on the estimated wind energy capacity (MW) that will be installed in the planning 

area throughout the planning period.
Chapter 5–Public Land Uses and Values Socioeconomic Baseline Report

5-8 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

2. Estimate the construction expenditures per MW for the estimated amount of wind energy 

development. It is likely that a wind generation cost model—the Jobs and Economic 

Development Impact (JEDI) model from the Department of Energy National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory—will be used to generate the expenditure estimates. The model may be adjusted to 

reflect typical wind projects in Wyoming.

3. Determine total direct expenditures by multiplying estimated capacity in MW by expenditures per 

MW.

4. Allocate total estimated expenditures to the various economic sectors from which the various 

labor and supplies for wind energy development are purchased.

5. Run these expenditure allocations through the IMPLAN economic impact model to determine 

direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts.

For wind energy production, the methodology will be as follows:

1. Obtain data on estimated annual wind energy production or numbers of wind energy turbines for

the projected capacity for the planning period. Adjust the data as necessary to account for changes 

in production over the planning period (e.g., increasing numbers of turbines each year).

2. Obtain estimates of the dollar value of labor and other requirements per unit of wind energy 

production. It is likely that the JEDI model will be used for these estimates. 

3. Multiply wind energy production or turbine quantities by the operating values per unit to 

determine the expenditures resulting from the production levels.

4. Allocate production values to the economic sectors from which the labor and other requirements 

are purchased.

5. Run these values through the IMPLAN economic impact model to determine direct, indirect, and 

induced economic impacts.

In addition, public revenue impacts such as wind energy production taxes and property taxes will be 

calculated.

5.4 RECREATION/TRANSPORTATION (OHV USE)

OHV use is an important form of recreation on both BLM and USFS public lands. Of the various types of 

recreation on these public lands, OHV use is most likely to be impacted by management decisions 

resulting from this planning effort. Therefore, this discussion focuses on OHV use and predominantly on 

BLM public lands. The AMS and Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS present additional information on OHV 

policies and use patterns.

The national BLM objectives for OHV management are to protect the resources of public lands, promote 

the safety of all users of those lands, and minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands (BLM

2001). OHVs are defined as “any motorized vehicle capable of or designated for, travel on or immediately 

over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding (1) any non-amphibious registered motorboat; (2) any 

military, fire, emergency or law enforcement vehicle when being used for emergency purposes; (3) any 

vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the authorized officer, or otherwise officially approved; (4) 

vehicle in official use; and (5) any combat or combat support vehicle when used in times of national 

defense emergencies” (43 CFR 8340.0-5). 

The majority of OHV use on public lands occurs on unpaved roads and two-track trails. In the planning 

area, the most common vehicles used are 4-wheel drive trucks, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and sport 

utility vehicles. Snowmobile use is another popular OHV activity. Typical recreational OHV activities 

within the planning area include casual ATV and motorcycle trail riding, enduro races, trial competitions, 

and snowmobiling. OHV use, in itself, has become a popular method of exploring public lands. 
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 5–Public Land Uses and Values

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 5-9

OHVs are used within the planning area for nonrecreational purposes as well. Nonrecreational OHV use 

of the planning area includes agricultural management, energy development, and land management 

activities. OHVs also are used for noncommercial collection of decorative rock and native plant materials. 

Employees of government agencies, ranchers, timber companies, energy companies, and utility providers 

are permitted users who utilize OHVs to access and maintain the infrastructure required for the continued 

operation and maintenance of their facilities. BLM uses OHVs for range inspections, vegetation 

treatments, surveying and mapping, inventories, monitoring, fire suppression, project construction, and 

maintenance. 

The BLM has established OHV and snowmobile area designations in accordance with BLM Land Use 

Planning Handbook requirements and 43 CFR 8342.1. These designations outline management 

prescriptions and set restrictions on OHV use. Possible OHV designations are open, limited, or closed, as 

follows:

• Open: Areas used for intensive OHV use where there are no compelling resource needs, user 

conflicts, or public safety issues to warrant limiting cross-country travel.

• Limited: Areas or trails where BLM must restrict OHV use to meet specific resource 

management objectives. These limitations may include limiting the time, number, or types of 

vehicles; limiting the time or season of use; limiting to existing roads and trails; and limiting use 

to designated roads and trails. BLM may place additional limitations, as necessary, to protect 

other resources, particularly in areas that OHV enthusiasts used intensely or where they 

participate in competitive events. Limited can be broken into three categories: 

– Existing. Vehicle travel is permitted only on existing roads and vehicle routes that were in 

existence before the date of designation in the Federal Register.

– Designated. Vehicle travel is permitted only on roads and vehicle routes designated by BLM. 

In areas where final designation has not been completed, vehicle travel is limited to existing 

roads and vehicle routes as described above.

– Administrative. Vehicle travel off existing vehicle routes is permitted only to accomplish 

necessary tasks and only if such travel does not result in resource damage. Random travel 

from existing vehicle routes is not allowed. Creation of new routes or extensions and/or 

widening of existing routes is not allowed without prior written agency approval. 

• Closed: This designation is used if closure to all vehicular use is necessary to protect resources, 

ensure visitor safety, or reduce conflicts. Seasonal closures also exist in the planning area, which 

restrict OHV use in certain areas (generally crucial and critical wildlife areas) seasonally. The 

dates for these closures vary based on the area and species that they were instituted to protect.

People with disabilities may be allowed to travel on OHVs in otherwise closed areas on a case-by-case 

basis. Such travel would require a request to a BLM Field Office to initiate the exception.

According to a mid-2000s study by the Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources, 

shown in Table 5-4, USFS land was used by 36 percent of resident and 38 percent of nonresident ORV 

(i.e., OHV) users. BLM land was used by 14 percent of resident and 10 percent of nonresident OHV

users. BLM estimates that 300,020 OHV users visited BLM lands in Wyoming in 2009 (BLM 2009).

Table 5-4. OHV Trips by Land Ownership (Percent)

Land Owner Residents Nonresidents

USFS 36.4% 37.6%

BLM 14.0% 10.3%

Other 49.6% 52.1%

Source: Foulke et al 2006
Chapter 5–Public Land Uses and Values Socioeconomic Baseline Report

5-10 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

OHV use access to public lands is important to economic activity and quality of life. For instance, access 

to ROWs, communication sites, mining sites, and other commercial sites may impact the commercial 

viability of the operations at these sites and thereby effect the contributions of these sites to the local 

economy. Recreational use of OHVs also contributes to the local economy when OHV users make local 

expenditures for goods and services associated with their use of BLM public lands for OHV riding. These 

expenditures also generate tax revenues. 

OHV use can also have negative impacts. OHV damage includes driving off established roads and trails, 

pioneering unauthorized roads and trails, and associated damage to vegetation and soils. Certain 

environments are more susceptible to OHV damage, including crucial winter ranges, wildlife breeding 

areas, riparian habitats, and areas with steep slopes or sensitive soils. OHV use will continue into the 

future; however, the lack of appropriate signage, a shortage of law enforcement personnel, the increase in 

OHV use throughout the planning area, and a general lack of understanding of land use ethics have 

increased inappropriate uses of OHVs on federal lands and represent management challenges.

Economic Impact

During the impact analysis phase of this planning process, the economic impact (e.g., jobs, income) 

resulting from OHV use on BLM and USFS lands will be estimated for a baseline scenario (no action 

alternative) and management alternatives, assuming that adequate data on current OHV use is available 

and quantitative changes in OHV use can be estimated based on the management decisions of each 

alternative. The methodology will be as follows:

1. Obtain quantitative estimates of OHV use on public lands.

2. Estimate the local (within the socioeconomic study area) expenditures of OHV users associated 

with their OHV visits to public lands. Academic and agency studies and survey data with relevant 

data will be sought.

3. Multiply use (visits) by expenditures per visit to determine total expenditures. 

4. Allocate the total expenditures to the various economic sectors (e.g., lodging, retail, services) to 

which the various portions of the expenditures accrue.

5. Run these expenditure allocations through the IMPLAN economic impact model to determine 

direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts.

5.5 NONMARKET VALUES 

Market values of BLM and USFS public lands and the federal mineral estate are relatively easy to 

understand and assess. Commodities produced from use of public lands (such as oil and gas, hard rock 

minerals, mineral materials, livestock, timber, electricity from renewable energy projects) have a price in 

the marketplace that can be easily determined. Economic methods are readily available for measuring the 

flow of income and employment resulting from the production of commodities, e.g., production of 

electricity from renewable energy projects. A renewable energy development EIS presumes a certain 

number of wind turbines or solar panels developed over a specified period of time and constructed and 

operated by a workforce that can be estimated reasonably well. Using economic impact models, 

economists can then work “upstream” to estimate the purchases that renewable energy developers and 

operators will make from other firms and work “downstream” to estimate how much their employees’ 

wages will contribute to other businesses throughout the local economy.

The term nonmarket values refers to the benefits individuals attribute to experiences of the environment 

or uses of natural and cultural resources that do not involve market transactions and therefore lack prices. 

Examples include the benefits received from wildlife viewing, hiking in a wilderness, or hunting for 

recreation. Nevertheless, such values are important to consider because they help tell the entire economic 

story. Estimates of nonmarket values supplement estimates of income generated from commodity uses to 
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 5–Public Land Uses and Values

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 5-11

provide a more complete picture of the economic implications of proposed resource management 

decisions.

Market values associated with the public land uses and values discussed in the sections above will be 

carefully assessed during the impacts analysis phase of the planning process. Examples include the value 

of livestock attributable to grazing on BLM lands and the economic impacts of oil and gas development 

and production. To provide the more complete picture just noted, it is important to also discuss nonmarket 

values. 

To follow the example above, if renewable energy development represents one use, other uses may 

involve managing for some combination of habitat conservation and recreation. While this scenario may 

be relatively straightforward from a management standpoint, for determining economic impacts, it is 

problematic. Herds of elk do not pay user fees to graze on the public lands. Visiting OHV users, 

fishermen, and hunters may spend money on motels and restaurants, but for the most part recreation on 

BLM and USFS public lands comes free or at a nominal charge. Thus, much of the value that humans 

might place on maintaining lands for conservation and recreation is never measured in the market 

economy. BLM and the USFS are increasingly asked to consider these values, in effect, to replace that 

“zero” with a more useful number for planning and analysis purposes.8

Clearly, it is often useful for BLM and USFS planning purposes to evaluate the market expenditures 

associated with activities on public lands (e.g., spending by recreationists, mineral development 

expenditures) or the market value of products taken from public lands such as timber and minerals. 

Economic models can then be used to estimate the total economic activity that these expenditures or 

production values generate. 

It may also be useful to address the additional nonmarket economic values derived from public lands. In 

some cases, these values can be calculated if appropriate information is available. In other cases, this is 

not possible, but it may be helpful to discuss these values qualitatively or to provide examples of these 

values in analogous situations.

While there are difficulties associated with measurement of nonmarket values, it is well-accepted that the 

natural and cultural resources of an area and the open space the area may provide can have dollar values. 

For example, it is common for real estate investors to pay more for view lots or property adjacent to open 

space or for people to make financial donations to help protect old-growth forests, endangered species, or 

other sensitive resources.

In examining nonmarket values, economists often distinguish between “use values” and “nonuse values.” 

Use value refers to the benefits an individual derives from some direct experience or activity, such as 

climbing a spectacular peak, hunting, or wildlife viewing. In contrast, nonuse value refers to the utility or 

psychological benefit some people derive from the existence of some environmental condition that may 

never be directly experienced: an unspoiled Grand Canyon or the continued presence of an endangered 

species. 

Economists measure nonmarket use values by estimating the “consumer surplus” associated with these 

activities, which is defined as the maximum dollar amount above any actual payments made that a 

consumer would be willing to pay to enjoy a good or service. For instance, hikers pay a market price for 

gasoline used to reach a trail, but pay nothing to use the trail. Any amount that a recreationist would be 

willing to pay to use this otherwise free resource represents the nonmarket consumer surplus value of that 

resource to that consumer. There are many techniques for measuring this nonmarket use value. One 

common way is to collect data on variations in what recreationists do pay (e.g., gasoline, hotels, 

 

8 BLM has recently issued guidance on considering nonmarket values: Instruction Memorandum No. 2010-061, Guidance on 

Estimating Nonmarket Environmental Values, February 16, 2010 (BLM 2010). This discussion draws on that guidance.
Chapter 5–Public Land Uses and Values Socioeconomic Baseline Report

5-12 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

restaurants, entry fees, guides or outfitters); economists then use quantitative techniques to impute the 

additional willingness to pay that constitutes consumer surplus. 

Nonmarket use values have been studied extensively for a wide variety of recreation “goods.” To help the 

reader understand the potential nonmarket value of some of the planning area’s natural and cultural 

resources, an example of a range of typical nonmarket use values for recreation activities is summarized 

in Table 5-5, derived from a USFS report, Updated Outdoor Recreation Use Values on National Forests 

and Other Public Lands (Loomis 2005). That study summarizes the findings from 1,239 studies covering 

much of the nation between 1967 and 2003 and separates out the studies by region. Table 5-5 provides 

summary statistics for the Intermountain Region in which the socioeconomic study area is situated. 

Table 5-5. Average Consumer Surplus Values and Additional Statistics, per Person per 

Day, Intermountain Region, 1967–2003

Activity N Mean Std. Error Minimum Maximum

Camping 21 $34.72 $6.64 $2.03 $116.66

Cross-Country Skiing 7 $29.88 $4.58 $14.05 $46.49

Downhill Skiing 3 $39.62 $13.88 $15.05 $63.11

Fishing 48 $49.57 $6.96 $8.96 $227.28

Non-motorized Boating 22 $67.70 $14.33 $2.70 $316.42

General Recreation 12 $48.46 $20.92 $7.91 $257.51

Hiking 7 $38.53 $7.84 $12.85 $75.76

Hunting 109 $48.55 $3.35 $2.60 $169.31

Motorboating 7 $53.68 $25.93 $5.29 $203.62

Mountain Biking 6 $184.48 $41.05 $65.88 $295.69

OHV Driving 7 $22.81 $4.31 $7.96 $40.86

Other Recreation 10 $56.35 $17.36 $12.17 $206.82

Picnicking 5 $28.27 $4.09 $136.61 $38.76

Driving for Pleasure 4 $69.74 $33.23 $26.41 $167.24

Rock Climbing 3 $50.45 $7.58 $35.78 $61.14

Sightseeing 11 $23.58 $8.65 $0.65 $100.73

Snowmobiling 8 $36.29 $13.24 $10.79 $124.44

Swimming 1 $29.54 N/A $29.54 $29.54

Waterskiing 2 $56.96 $13.09 $43.87 $70.07

Wildlife Viewing 61 $37.24 $3.30 $5.26 $193.91

All Wilderness 

Activities 32 $41.68 N/A N/A N/A

N: Number of studies measuring specific recreation activity.

N/A: Not available.

Mean: Average (arithmetic mean) consumer surplus per visitor day for that activity.

Std. Error: Standard error of the mean, with larger values relative to the mean indicating larger response variability.

Minimum: Average minimum consumer surplus per visitor day for that activity.

Maximum: Average maximum consumer surplus per visitor day for that activity.

Source: Loomis 2005, Table 3. All dollar figures are in 2004 dollars.

By applying the range of values in Table 5-5 to recreational usage figures (visitor days) or a range from 

specific individual studies that are most comparable to the planning area, an estimate of the recreationrelated nonmarket use value, the consumer surplus, can be derived for the planning area. The resulting 

figure represents the total nonmarket use value recreationists derive from these activities, or alternatively, 
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Chapter 5–Public Land Uses and Values

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments 5-13

can be seen as the total additional amount recreationists would likely be willing to pay for the related 

recreation activities if a fee for participation were required. Those who are accustomed to free access and 

use of public land tend to forget that it represents a recreation opportunity and experience for which many 

would be willing to pay.9 This type of calculation must be done very carefully, with great attention to the 

reliability of the recreational usage numbers and the validity of the consumer surplus values derived from 

the literature. The results most also be carefully interpreted, as consumer surplus estimates are not directly 

comparable to estimates of income derived from commodity uses (BLM 2010). Nonmarket use value 

calculations will be considered for relevancy in the economic impact analysis phase of the RMP revision 

process and undertaken if useful to decision making and if possible with available data.

With respect to nonuse values, economists differentiate various types, including option values and 

existence values. Option value represents the benefits from having natural or cultural resources available 

for future use, while existence value reflects the benefits derived from knowing these resources simply 

exist. Evidence for the existence of these nonuse values is ample. Local, state, and national taxpayers 

support a large variety of conservation and protection programs (e.g., National Park Service, state parks, 

local parks and parkways, open space initiatives) through their tax dollars—programs that are very 

popular but support many resources that many taxpayers will never visit. A large number of nonprofits 

are devoted a wide variety of conservation and wildlife-related causes; many if not most donors to these 

groups derive no direct benefit from their contributions. Based on Internal Revenue Service filings, 

Giving USA reported that charitable contributions by individuals, foundations, and corporations totaled 

$298.42 billion in 2011, of which $7.81 billion went to the “environment/animals” sector (Giving USA 

2012). Examples of individual organizations with substantial contributions include the World Wildlife 

Fund (WWF) with over $221 million in contributions from all sources in 2009 (WWF 2009). The Nature 

Conservancy (TNC), with over 1,000,000 members, primarily in the United States, received over $665

million in contributions (TNC 2009). While this generalized evidence of nonuse values is clear, 

estimating nonuse values for specific resources is difficult and often controversial. BLM guidance 

recommends that use values be emphasized rather than nonuse values (BLM 2010).

Nonmarket values of open space and well-managed natural resources also include a broad range of human 

benefits resulting from healthy ecosystem conditions and functions. These benefits include potable water 

from groundwater recharge, flood control from intact wetlands, and carbon sequestration from healthy 

forests and certain agricultural lands. These human benefits from ecosystems are known as “ecosystem 

services” (Ruhl et al. 2007). Ecosystem services are receiving increasing attention from economists. As 

with the nonmarket values discussed above, there are many techniques available for estimating the dollar 

value of these ecosystem services.10 It may be useful in the planning process to further consider the 

economic value of maintaining or improving the functional benefits of ecosystems.

 

9 This observation is not meant to suggest that such fees should be charged. There are many philosophical and practical issues 

associated with charging fees for recreational use of public land.

10 The ecosystem services framework actually encompasses the amenity, recreational, and other values discussed above. For 

purposes of this brief discussion, the emphasis is on the additional functional benefits ecosystems provide.
Chapter 5–Public Land Uses and Values Socioeconomic Baseline Report

5-14 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

This page intentionally left blank
Socioeconomic Baseline Report References

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments R-1

1 REFERENCES

2 Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2010a. Glossary. Accessed September 2010 at 

3 http://www.bea.gov/glossary/glossary.cfm.

4 Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2010b. Regional Economic Accounts, Regional Definitions. 

5 Accessed June 2010 at http://www.bea.gov/regional/definitions/.

6 Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2008. BEA Regional Economic Information System (REIS). 

7 Accessed January 2011 at http://www.bea.gov/regional/spi/. 

8 Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2007. BEA Regional Economic Information System (REIS). 

9 Accessed January 2011 at http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/.

10 Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 1970–2009. BEA Regional Economic Information System (REIS). 

11 Accessed January 2011 at http://www.bea.gov/regional/spi/.

12 Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 1970–2008. BEA Regional Economic Information System (REIS). 

13 Accessed January 2011 at http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/.

14 Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 1970–2000. BEA Regional Economic Information System (REIS). 

15 Accessed January 2011 at http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/.

16 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2012. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. File 

17 “2007.all.county_high_level.zip” for 2007. Accessed July 2012 at ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/

18 special.requests/cew/.

19 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 1995–2010. Unemployment Rates. Web application accessed February, 

20 December 2011 at http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet.

21 Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2012a. Wind Energy. BLM national site accessed September 2012 

22 at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/wind_energy.html

23 Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2012b. Wind Energy. BLM Wyoming site accessed February 2012

24 at http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/renewable/wind.html.

25 Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2011. BLM Wyoming 2011 Annual Report. Accessed August 2012 

26 at http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/information/annualreports.Par.34192.File.dat/

27 2011anrpt.pdf.

28 Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2010. Instruction Memorandum No. 2010-061. Guidance on 

29 Estimating Nonmarket Environmental Values. February 16, 2010.

30 Coburn, Michael S. 2008. Community Satisfaction and Quality of Life Survey of Long-Term Residents of 

31 Sublette County. Prepared for Sublette Community Partnership November 2008.

32 Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President. 1997. Environmental Justice: 

33 Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act. December 10, 1997.
References Socioeconomic Baseline Report

R-2 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

1 Department of Energy. 2010. Job and Economic Development Impact Model. Web Application Accessed 

2 April 2011 at http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/economics_jedi.asp.

3 Department of the Interior. 2010. Payment in Lieu of Taxes County Payments and Acres. Accessed June 

4 2010 at http://www.nbc.gov/pilt/pilt/search.cfm.

5 EnergyAtlas.org. 2002. Wyoming Renewable Energy Resources (section within the Renewable Energy 

6 Atlas of the West). Accessed July 2012 at http://www.energyatlas.org/PDFs/LowRes/

7 atlas_state_WY.pdf.

8 Florida State University. 2010. Location Quotient Technique. Department of Urban and Regional 

9 Planning, Planning Methods III: Forecasting. Accessed February 2012 at http://mailer.fsu.edu/

10 ~tchapin/garnet-tchapin/urp5261/topics/econbase/lq.htm. 

11 Foulke, Thomas; Desiree Olson; David T. Taylor; Chris T. Bastian and Roger H. Coupal. 2006. “A 

12 Survey and Economic Assessment of Off-Road Vehicle Use in Wyoming.” Prepared for The 

13 Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources, Division of State Parks and Historic 

14 Sites, State Trails Program. Accessed at http://wyotrails.state.wy.us/Research/

15 ORVStudy2006.pdf.

16 Francese, Peter. 2003. “Trend Ticker: The Second Home Boom.” American Demographics. June 2003. 

17 Giving USA. 2012. The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the year 2011. Chicago: Giving USA 

18 Foundation. Accessed July 19, 2012 at www.givingusareports.org.

19 Headwaters Economics. 2007. The Potential Economic Impacts of the Badlands Wilderness in Central

20 Oregon. Available at http://headwaterseconomics.org/land/reports/potential-economic-impacts21 badlands-wilderness-oregon/.

22 Loomis, John. 2005. Updated Outdoor Recreation Use Values on National Forests and Other Public 

23 Lands. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-658. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

24 Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

25 Office of Natural Resources Revenue. 2012. 2001-Forward ONRR Statistical Information (values for 

26 Wyoming for 2011. Internet application. Accessed August 2012 at http://www.onrr.gov/

27 ONRRWebStats/Home.aspx.

28 Rimbey, Neil, and L. Allen Torell. 2011 (March 22). Grazing Costs: What’s the Current Situation? 

29 Agricultural Economics Extension Series No. 2011-02.

30 Ruhl, J. B., et al. 2007. The Law and Policy of Ecosystem Services. Washington, D.C. Island Press. 

31 Sonoran Institute. 2004. Public Lands Conservation and Economic Well-Being. Available at 

32 http://www.sonoraninstitute.org/library/reports.html.

33 Temte, Dean. 2010 (July). Wyoming Severance Taxes and Federal Mineral Royalties. Presentation slides. 

34 Accessed August 2012 at http://legisweb.state.wy.us/budget/wyosevtaxes.pdf.

35 The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2009. Annual Report. Accessed February 2011 at 

36 http://www.nature.org/ aboutus/ouraccountability/annualreport/annual-report-2009.xml.
Socioeconomic Baseline Report References

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments R-3

1 U.S. Census Bureau. 2010a. Glossary of Terms. Accessed September 2010 at http://factfinder.census.gov/

2 home/en/epss/glossary_a.html.

3 U.S. Census Bureau. 2010b. State Government Tax Collections. Accessed June 2010 at http://www.

4 census.gov/govs/statetax/. 

5 U.S. Census Bureau. 2009a. 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Web 

6 Application accessed January 2011. Current (September 2012) location: http://www.census.gov/

7 acs/www/data_documentation/2009_5yr_data/.

8 U.S. Census Bureau. 2009b. Population Estimates, Vintage 2009. Accessed May 2010 at 

9 http://www.census.gov/popest/data/historical/2000s/vintage_2009/index.html. 

10 U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. County Business Patterns. Accessed May 2010 at 

11 http://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/index.html. 

12 U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. 2000 Decennial Census. Web Application accessed May 2010 at 

13 http:www.factfinder.census.gov.

14 U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. State & County Quick Facts. Accessed January 2011 at 

15 http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/56000.html.

16 U.S. Census Bureau. 1990. 1990 Decennial Census. Web Application accessed May 2010 at 

17 http://factfinder.census.gov/.

18 U.S. Census Bureau. 1980. 1980 Decennial Census. Accessed May 2010 at http://www.census.

19 gov/popest/archives/1980s/. 

20 U.S. Census Bureau. 1970. 1970 Decennial Census. Accessed May 2010 at http://www.census.gov/

21 prod/www/abs/decennial/1970cenpopv1.html. 

22 U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2010. Power Plant Operations Report. Accessed February 2011 

23 at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/state_profiles/wyoming.html.

24 U.S. Geological Survey. 2011. Mineral Commodity Summaries 2011. Available at http://minerals.usgs.

25 gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/2011/mcs2011.pdf.

26 Venturoni, L., P. Long, and R. Perdue. 2005. “The Economic and Social Impacts of Second Homes in 

27 Four Mountain Resort Counties of Colorado.” Paper prepared for presentation as part of the 

28 “Tourism and the Tourist in the American West” Paper Session at the 2005 Annual Meeting of 

29 the Association of American Geographers, April 7, 2005, Denver, Colorado.

30 The Wilderness Society. 2007. Natural Dividends: Wildland Protection and the Changing Economy of 

31 the American West. Available at http://wilderness.org/resource/natural-dividends-wildland32 protection-and-changing-economy-rocky-mountain-west-0.

33 World Wildlife Fund. 2009. Annual Report. Accessed February 2011 at http://www.worldwildlife.org/

34 who/financialinfo/2009AR/index.html.

35 Workman, J.P. 1986. Range Economics. Macmillan Publishing, Inc. New York, New York.
References Socioeconomic Baseline Report

R-4 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

1 Wyoming Consensus Revenue Estimating Group. 2012 (January). Wyoming State Government Revenue 

2 Forecast Fiscal Year 2012 – Fiscal Year 2016. Accessed July 2012 at 

3 http://eadiv.state.wy.us/creg/creg.html. 

4 Wyoming Department of Employment. 2011. Annual Average Civilian Labor Force Estimates for the 

5 State of Wyoming and Its 23 Counties. (Not Seasonally Adjusted), 2000–2010. Accessed July 

6 2011 at http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/LAUS/TOC.HTM.

7 Wyoming Department of Revenue. 2011. State of Wyoming Department of Revenue 2010–2011 Annual 

8 Report. Accessed December 2011 at http://revenue.state.wy.us/portalvbvs/uploads/

9 DOR%20Annual%20Report%202011%20ver%203%2012.06.11.pdf.

10 Wyoming Department of Revenue. 2010. State of Wyoming Department of Revenue 2009 Annual 

11 Report. Accessed February 2011 at http://revenue.state.wy.us/portalvbvs/

12 desktopdefault.aspx?tabindex=3&tabid=10.

13 Wyoming Department of Revenue. 2009. State of Wyoming Department of Revenue 2008 Annual 

14 Report. Accessed February 2011 at http://revenue.state.wy.us/portalvbvs/

15 desktopdefault.aspx?tabindex=3&tabid=10.

16 Wyoming Department of Revenue. 2008. State of Wyoming Department of Revenue 2007 Annual 

17 Report. Accessed February 2011 at http://revenue.state.wy.us/portalvbvs/

18 desktopdefault.aspx?tabindex=3&tabid=10.

19 Wyoming Department of Revenue. 2007. State of Wyoming Department of Revenue 2006 Annual 

20 Report. Accessed February 2011 at http://revenue.state.wy.us/portalvbvs/

21 desktopdefault.aspx?tabindex=3&tabid=10.

22 Wyoming Department of Revenue. 2006. State of Wyoming Department of Revenue 2005 Annual 

23 Report. Accessed February 2011 at http://revenue.state.wy.us/portalvbvs/

24 desktopdefault.aspx?tabindex=3&tabid=10.

25 Wyoming Economic Analysis Division. 2012. Total Tax Collections by County, State General Fund 

26 Revenue. File “Misc_Table” accessed August 2012 at http://eadiv.state.wy.us/s&utax/s&u.html.

27 Wyoming Economic Analysis Division. 2010a. The Equality State Almanac. Accessed September 2012 at

28 http://eadiv.state.wy.us/almanac/almanac.asp. 

29 Wyoming Economic Analysis Division. 2010. CREG Monthly Report Revenues through December 2010. 

30 Accessed July 2012 at http://eadiv.state.wy.us/.

31 Wyoming Economic Analysis Division. 2008a. Wyoming and Counties: Population of Counties by 

32 Decennial Census: 1900 to 1990. Accessed January 2011 at http://eadiv.state.wy.us.

33 Wyoming Economic Analysis Division. 2008b. Population for Wyoming, Counties, Cities, and Towns: 

34 2000 to 2030. Accessed January 2011 at http://eadiv.state.wy.us.

35 Wyoming Heritage Foundation. 2010 (November). Wyoming State and Local Government Spending: 

36 Historical Comparisons, Projections and Options. Prepared by Ernest Goss Ph.D. Accessed at 

37 http://www.wyomingbusinessalliance.com/images/WBA_Executive_Summary_11-29-10.pdf.
Socioeconomic Baseline Report References

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments R-5

1 Wyoming Heritage Foundation. 2008 (August). Wyoming Oil and Gas Economic Contribution Study. 

2 Prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton.

3 Wyoming Housing Database Partnership. 2011. The 2011 Wyoming Profile of Demographics, Economics 

4 and Housing Semiannual Report, Ending June 30, 2011, Volume I. Sponsored by the Wyoming 

5 Community Development Authority. Prepared by Western Economic Services, LLC. Final 

6 Report: September 7, 2011.

7 Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. 2012. County Reports – Yearly Production. Web data 

8 application accessed September 2012 at http://wogcc.state.wy.us/.

9 Wyoming Office of Tourism. 2012. 2011 Year in Review. Accessed September 2012 at http://

10 www.wyomingofficeoftourism.gov/industry/pdf/homepage/YearInReview2011.pdf.

11 Wyoming Rural Development Council. 2011. Community Assessments: Empowering Rural Communities 

12 to Build Their Own Future; Celebrating Ten Years of Community Assessments in Wyoming.

13 Accessed February 2012 at http://www.wyomingrural.org/_pdfs/10_year_WRDC_assessment_

14 book_web.pdf.

15 Wyoming Rural Development Council. 2007. Seven Year Community Assessment Synopsis. Accessed at 

16 http://www.wyomingrural.org/_pdfs/10_year_WRDC_assessment_book_web.pdf.

17 Wyoming State Trails Program. Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources. 2012a. 

18 State of Wyoming Official Online ORV & Trails Page. Accessed September 2012 at 

19 http://wyotrails.state.wy.us/ORV/Index.aspx.

20 Wyoming State Trails Program, Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources. 2012b. 

21 ORV Permit Sales by Location 2002–2011. Accessed August 2012 at http://wyotrails.

22 state.wy.us/pdf/ORVPermitSalesbylocation2002-2011.pdf.

23 Wyoming State Treasurer’s Office. 2011. Wyoming State Treasurer Annual Report. Accessed July 2012

24 at http://treasurer.state.wy.us/publications.asp.

25 Wyoming State Treasurer’s Office. 2010. Wyoming State Treasurer Annual Report. Accessed July 2012

26 at http://treasurer.state.wy.us/publications.asp.

27 Wyoming State Treasurer’s Office. 2009. Wyoming State Treasurer Annual Report. Accessed August 

28 2012 at http://treasurer.state.wy.us/publications.asp.

29 Wyoming State Treasurer’s Office. 2008. Wyoming State Treasurer Annual Report. Accessed August 

30 2012 at http://treasurer.state.wy.us/publications.asp.

31 Wyoming State Treasurer’s Office. 2007. Wyoming State Treasurer Annual Report. Accessed August 

32 2012 at http://treasurer.state.wy.us/publications.asp.

33 Wyoming State Treasurer’s Office. 2006. Wyoming State Treasurer Annual Report. Accessed August 

34 2012 at http://treasurer.state.wy.us/publications.asp.

35 Wyoming State Treasurer’s Office. 2005. Wyoming State Treasurer Annual Report. Accessed August 

36 2012 at http://treasurer.state.wy.us/publications.asp.
References Socioeconomic Baseline Report

R-6 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

1 Wyoming Travel and Tourism. 2012 (May). Wyoming Travel Impacts 1998-2011p. Prepared by Dean 

2 Runyan Associates.
Socioeconomic Baseline Report Appendix A–Definitions of Labor and Nonlabor Income

Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments A-1

1 APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS OF LABOR AND 

2 NONLABOR INCOME

3 These definitions are taken from a BEA website (BEA 2010b).

4 Personal Income – Income received from all sources, including income received from participation in 

5 production, as well as from government and business transfer payments. It is the sum of compensation of 

6 employees (received), supplements to wages and salaries, proprietors’ income with inventory valuation 

7 adjustment and capital consumption adjustment (CCAdj), rental income of persons with CCAdj, personal 

8 income receipts on assets, and personal current transfer receipts, less contributions for government social 

9 insurance. 

10 Labor Income

11 Net Earnings – Net earnings by place of residence is earnings by place of work less contributions 

12 for government social insurance, plus an adjustment to convert earnings by place of work to a 

13 place of residence basis. Earnings by place of work is the sum of wage and salary disbursements, 

14 supplements to wages and salaries, and proprietors’ income.

15 Nonlabor Income

16 Dividends, Interest, and Rent – Personal dividend income, personal interest income, and rental 

17 income of persons with CCAdj, sometimes referred to as “investment income” or “property 

18 income.” 

19 Dividends: This component of personal income consists of the payments in cash or other 

20 assets, excluding the corporation’s own stock, made by corporations located in the United 

21 States or abroad to persons who are U.S. residents. It excludes that portion of dividends paid 

22 by regulated investment companies (mutual funds) related to capital gains distributions. 

23 Interest: This component of personal income is the interest income (monetary and imputed) 

24 of persons from all sources. 

25 Rent: Rental income is the net income of persons from the rental of real property except for 

26 the income of persons primarily engaged in the real estate business; the imputed net rental 

27 income of the owner-occupants of nonfarm dwellings; and the royalties received from 

28 patents, copyrights, and the right to natural resources.

29 Personal Current Transfer Receipts – This component of personal income is payments to persons 

30 for which no current services are performed. It consists of payments to individuals and to 

31 nonprofit institutions by federal, state, and local governments and by businesses. Government 

32 payments to individuals includes retirement and disability insurance benefits, medical benefits 

33 (mainly Medicare and Medicaid), income maintenance benefits, unemployment insurance 

34 compensation, veterans’ benefits, and federal education and training assistance. Government 

35 payments to nonprofit institutions exclude payments by the federal government for work under 

36 research and development contracts. Business payments to persons consist primarily of liability 

37 payments for personal injury and of corporate gifts to nonprofit institutions.

38 Income Maintenance – Income maintenance payments consists largely of supplemental 

39 security income payments, family assistance, food stamp payments, and other assistance 

40 payments, including general assistance.

41 Unemployment Insurance Compensation – Unemployment insurance compensation includes 

42 state unemployment compensation, unemployment compensation of federal civilian 

43 employees, unemployment compensation of railroad employees, unemployment 
Appendix A–Definitions of Labor and Non-labor Income Socioeconomic Baseline Report

A-2 Wyoming Sage-Grouse LRMP Amendments

1 compensation of veterans, and trade adjustment allowances to workers who are unemployed 

2 because of adverse economic effects of international trade arrangements. 

3 Retirement and Other – Retirement and other consists of retirement and disability insurance 

4 benefit payments, medical benefits, veterans benefit payments, federal education and training 

5 benefits, other government payments to individuals, government payments to nonprofit 

6 institutions, and business payments. However, disbursements received from private 

7 retirement programs (e.g., from 401k accounts) are not included. The Bureau of Economic 

8 Analysis Regional Economic Information System data does not currently capture this source 

9 of income, which is an important source of income in counties with substantial populations of 

10 retired persons.

11