SUMMARY

SUM-1

SUMMARY

Introduction

In 2003, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 

the State of Montana jointly prepared the Montana 

Final Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact 

Statement and Proposed Amendment of the Powder 

River and Billings Resource Management Plans 

(Statewide Document). For the BLM, the Statewide 

Document analyzed the environmental impacts 

associated with the exploration and development of 

oil and gas resources, including coal bed natural gas 

(CBNG) in the Powder River and Billings Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) areas. The BLM Record of 

Decision (ROD) for the Statewide Document, 

approved on April 30, 2003, amended the Powder 

River and Billings RMPs to change existing land use 

decisions regarding the development of oil and gas 

resources, including CBNG exploration and 

development. 

As a result of lawsuits filed against the BLM’s ROD, 

the U.S. District Court issued orders, dated February 

25, 2005, and April 5, 2005, that required the BLM to 

1) prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact 

statement (SEIS) to evaluate a phased development 

alternative for CBNG production, 2) include the 

proposed Tongue River Railroad in the cumulative 

impact analysis and to 3) analyze the effectiveness of 

water well mitigation agreements.

The Final SEIS (FSEIS) provides additional 

information and analyses regarding the topics 

identified by the U.S. District Court. It is intended to 

expand on the information presented in the Statewide 

Document, not replace it. The FSEIS has been 

prepared according to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 

as amended. It considers the three topics identified 

above at a programmatic planning level. 

Additionally, the FSEIS updates the Statewide 

Document with new information and reflects any 

changes in policies, regulations, or activities since 

that document was approved. Summaries of 

monitoring data and the results of studies completed 

since the Statewide Document was finalized have 

been incorporated to update the public. These 

additions can be found in Chapter 3 under the 

individual resource topics as well as in appropriate 

appendices.

This summary discusses the following information:

• The planning area analyzed in the SEIS.

• The federal agencies responsible for preparing 

the SEIS.

• A brief explanation of what CBNG is and why it 

occurs in coal beds.

• A summary of the purpose of and need for the 

SEIS.

• An explanation of how the SEIS conforms with 

the Powder River and Billings RMPs.

• A description of the environmental issues 

discussed in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the SEIS.

The Planning Area

The planning area for the SEIS encompasses the 

BLM-administered lands and minerals in the Powder 

River and Billings RMP areas (Map 1-1). The 

planning area excludes those lands administered by 

other agencies such as the Forest Service; and 

sovereign tribal governments, such as the Crow Tribe 

of Indians, and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. Indian 

allotted lands are also excluded from the planning 

area. The BLM will make oil and gas decisions based 

on the Statewide Document and this SEIS for the oil 

and gas estate it administers within the Powder River 

and Billings RMP areas. See the location map on the 

next page. 

Preparers of the SEIS

The BLM is the lead agency responsible for 

preparing the SEIS. The information and proposed 

decisions discussed in the plan are not final until the 

BLM signs a ROD. The ROD will be signed no 

sooner than 30 days after the FSEIS is published. The 

BLM will take any protests into account before 

signing the ROD.

What does the Summary Include?

The sections in this summary are the same as the five major 

chapters within the FSEIS. In most cases, second-level 

headings in the summary cover the same information as the 

same headings in the Draft SEIS (DSEIS). Readers of this 

summary with questions should go to the parallel chapter or 

section in the FSEIS.
SUMMARY

SUM-2

The following cooperating agencies and tribes 

assisted the BLM in the preparation of the DSEIS:

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

• Department of Energy (DOE)

• Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

• Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ)

• Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation 

(MBOGC)

• Lower Brule Sioux Tribe

• Crow Tribe of Indians

• Commissioners from the following counties: Big 

Horn, Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, 

Powder River, Rosebud, Treasure, and 

Yellowstone.

The Northern Cheyenne Tribe has also commented

on the development of the SEIS.

The cooperators’ assistance included the submission 

of technical information and frequent consultation 

meetings with the BLM to discuss issues and 

concerns along with possible mitigation measures. 

The cooperators may use or reference the SEIS for 

their future actions. 

Coal Bed Natural Gas

CBNG is a natural hydrocarbon gas, primarily 

methane (CH4) that occurs in beds of coal. Coal beds 

developed when dead plant material collected in 

ancient swamps and bogs. Once preserved and 

covered by soil and rocks, the plant material began to 

decay and to lose water, becoming more compact and 

dense, and its temperature began to increase. Over 

thousands of years, these natural processes ultimately 

produced various types of coal. Methane is usually 

found in sub-bituminous and bituminous coals.

CBNG exploratory wells are drilled in an attempt to 

find viable commercial quantities of trapped 

methane. If the CBNG exploratory wells are 

successful, additional wells are drilled to produce the 

methane by bringing it to the surface where it is 

processed and transported through pipelines to 

markets. Currently, the only methane production in 

Montana is from approximately 555 wells at the CX 

Field and a few other fields near Decker, Montana.

Chapter 1: 

Purpose and Need

The BLM and the State of Montana were co-leads for 

preparation of the Statewide Document. The BLM is 

responsible for managing federally owned oil and gas 

resources. For the BLM, the purpose of the Statewide 

Document was to analyze impacts from oil and gas 

activity, including CBNG exploration, production, 

development, and reclamation in the Powder River 

and Billings RMP areas. The EIS was used to analyze 

options for the BLM to change its planning decision 

by considering oil and gas management options,

including mitigating measures that will help address

the environmental and social impacts related to 

CBNG activities. 

The analysis in the Statewide Document focused on 

oil and gas development issues not covered in the 

1994 and previous RMPs, such as water management 

from CBNG production. The alternatives provided a 

range of management options for amending the 

RMPs. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) was 

BLM’s proposed and selected RMP amendment. 

For the State of Montana, the purpose of the 

Statewide Document was to support the state’s 

development of a program to address CBNG 

exploration, development, production, and 

reclamation in Montana. The Statewide Document, in 

part, responded to the stipulation and settlement 

agreement, dated June 19, 2000, resulting from a 

lawsuit brought by the Northern Plains Resource 

Council challenging the MBOGC in the Montana 

First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County.

The BLM published the original Notice of Intent for 

the Statewide Document in the Federal Register on 

December 19, 2000. The BLM published the Notice 

of Availability in the Federal Register on January 17, 

2003. Immediately following approval of the ROD

on April 30, 2003, several lawsuits were filed against 

the BLM’s decision in the U.S. District Court. The 

U.S. District Court issued orders, dated February 25, 

2005, and April 5, 2005, that required the BLM to 

prepare an SEIS to evaluate a phased development 

alternative for CBNG production. The U.S. District 

Court also advised the BLM to include the proposed 

Tongue River Railroad in the cumulative impact 

analysis and to analyze the effectiveness of water 

well mitigation agreements.
SUM-3
SUMMARY

SUM-4

This SEIS addresses the three topics identified by the 

U.S. District Court. For the evaluation of CBNG 

phased development, this document will analyze the 

direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental and 

social impacts of phased development alternatives

based on issues identified by the U.S. District Court, 

cooperating agencies, and public scoping comments. 

These phased development alternatives, coupled with 

the alternatives presented in the Statewide Document,

will provide a range of management options for 

amending the Powder River and Billings RMPs to 

address CBNG development. The SEIS impact analysis 

in Chapter 4 will also include the cumulative impacts 

from the proposed Tongue River Railroad and will 

address the effectiveness of water well mitigation 

agreements, as required under 85-11-175, Montana 

Code Annotated (MCA).

This SEIS updates the description of the Affected 

Environment (Chapter 3) and the Environmental 

Consequences (Chapter 4) presented in the Statewide 

Document with relevant new information and reflects

any changes in policies, regulations, or activities since 

that document was approved. Summaries of monitoring 

data and the results of studies completed since the 

Statewide Document was finalized have been 

incorporated to update the public.

Conformance with BLM Land Use 

Plans

This SEIS considers alternatives that would amend the 

two BLM RMPs:

• The Billings RMP issued by BLM on 

September 28, 1984, and subsequently amended to 

consider oil and gas development in 1994

• The Powder River RMP issued by the BLM on 

March 15, 1985, and subsequently amended for oil 

and gas in 1994

• The 1994 amendment to the RMPs analyzed oil 

and gas leasing operations and management 

actions on BLM administered lands.

Consultation

As part of the scoping effort, BLM consulted with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), regarding 

analysis in the SEIS and compliance with the 

Endangered Species Act.

In addition to the cooperating agencies, a number of 

state departments were consulted, including the 

Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (MBMG), the 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP), the 

Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation (DNRC), and the Montana State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO).

Finally, consultation included meetings with the three

Native American tribes. The Crow Tribe of Indians and 

the Northern Cheyenne Tribe have land in the planning 

area. The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe has areas of historic 

use within the planning area. The BLM has met with 

these Tribes several times to discuss their concerns 

about CBNG development.

Issues Developed During Scoping

The following issues were identified from the public 

scoping process held during August and September 

2005. The issues raised were in relation to CBNG 

phased development. Note, these issues have been 

expressed in the form of questions.

Air Quality/Climate

• How will air quality, including visibility, be 

protected and mitigated, especially when 

considering all existing and proposed sources 

within the region? Concerns include general air 

quality, visibility, and potential adverse effects to 

public health from cumulative emissions of fine 

particles and fine particle precursors.

• How will air quality, including visibility be 

protected within the Northern Cheyenne Indian 

Reservation airshed and other Class I airsheds?

• How will impacts on water chemistry in high 

altitude lakes with little acid neutralizing capacity 

be prevented?

• How will potential for fires from the migration of 

methane be avoided?

• What additional impacts will the Tongue River 

Railroad have on regional air quality?

Cultural Resources

• How will culturally important springs and other 

traditional cultural properties be affected and 

protected? These include all traditional cultural 

properties identified by the Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe as important such as the Rosebud and Wolf 

Mountains Battlefield sites and Northern 

Cheyenne Homestead sites in the Tongue River 

Valley.

• What traditional cultural properties in the RMP 

areas may be affected by CBNG development and 

how will they be managed?

Native American Concerns

• How will unique environmental, social, economic, 

and cultural impacts to Native Americans be 

addressed by phased development?
SUMMARY

SUM-5

• How will phased development provide an 

economic base to benefit tribal members, while not 

leading to another boom-and-bust cycle?

• How will subsistence hunting, fishing, and 

gathering be affected and protected? 

• How will phased development help BLM to fulfill 

its Native American treaty trust obligations?

• How will phased development provide protection 

to tribal reserved water rights?

• How will phased development include 

coordination and consultation with tribal 

representatives?

Oil and Gas

• How will phased development be structured to 

address the national supply and demand situation 

and reduce the United States’ dependence on 

foreign energy resources?

• How will RMP- or landscape-scale effects be 

addressed by phased development?

• How will lease stipulations be used to mitigate for 

effects from phased development?

• How will phased development be structured to 

minimize infrastructure development (to reduce 

both costs and impacts), including coordination 

with neighboring landowners?

• How will reclamation and restoration be addressed 

by phased development?

Phased Development

• How will be phased development be planned to 

account for and protect other resources?

• How will resource impacts from development and 

other CBNG activities be evaluated and addressed 

throughout the implementation of phased 

development?

• How will phased development minimize 

fluctuations in populations, air quality impacts, 

overburdening of infrastructure and services, and 

increases in secondary development?

• How will drainage of federal gas resources and 

impacts to federal lessees be addressed or affected 

by phased development?

• What phased development implementation 

strategy or strategies will be included 

(e.g., restrictions on location [specific area or coal 

seam], timing, or number of wells)?

• Will more than one phased development 

alternative be addressed in the SEIS/Amendment?

• How will phased development reduce impacts, 

improve mitigation options, or protect multiple-use 

of resources?

Socioeconomics

• How will social and cultural changes be addressed 

by phased development? Specific concerns 

included infrastructure and service costs borne by 

state, local, and tribal governments, increased 

population, social pathologies (e.g. crime, 

alcoholism, drug use) and environmental 

exploitation.

• How will revenues (income lessees and state and 

local taxes) be affected by phased development, 

and how will these effects differ for reservation 

and off-reservation communities?

• How will phased development affect jobs, job 

security, local economy, and farming and ranching 

activities, and how will these effects differ for 

reservation and off-reservation communities? 

Vegetation

• How will phased development address impacts to 

and the reclamation of sagebrush steppe and 

grassland ecosystems?

• How will phased development account for the 

relatively slow vegetative response to changes in 

groundwater or surface water characteristics?

• How will phased development address the spread 

of non-native species in affected areas?

• How will phased development affect medicinal 

and ceremonial native plants important to Native 

Americans? 

Water Resources

• How will produced water be managed by phased 

development?

• How will groundwater impacts be addressed by 

phased development? Concerns include 

groundwater drawdown in area or neighboring 

aquifers, effects on drinking water and stock 

watering wells, natural springs, and approved 

water rights.

• How will phased development address surface 

water effects and mitigation? Concerns include the 

consequences of changing surface water quality 

and transforming ephemeral or intermittent 

streams into perennial water bodies.
SUMMARY

SUM-6

• How will effects from development outside the 

planning area be addressed by phased 

development?

• How will water well mitigation agreements 

mitigate the effects of aquifer drawdown and 

methane migration?

• How will phased development affect surface and 

groundwater quality?

Wildlife

• How will phased development address impacts on 

wildlife (particularly fish and other aquatic 

species) and habitat from changes to water 

quality?

• How will phased development address impacts 

(both site-specific and at the RMP, landscape, or 

ecosystem scale) to terrestrial wildlife species (and 

associated habitats), including song birds, 

burrowing owls, and bald eagles, but especially 

sage grouse and prairie dogs? Particular concerns 

included habitat fragmentation and cumulative 

effects from development outside the planning 

area and the ability to assign and quantify impacts 

from various anthropogenic influences.

• How will phased development address potential 

effects on big game and other subsistence wildlife 

populations relative to tribal hunting and fishing 

rights?

• How will phased development affect ESA-listed or 

potentially listed ESA species?

Data Gaps 

The SEIS incorporates relevant new data collected 

since the spring of 2002 to update information 

presented in the Statewide Document, as needed to 

meet the requirements of the Court’s decision. The 

BLM incorporated this new data to address the topics 

identified by the Court and during public scoping, to 

evaluate project effects from phased development 

alternatives, and to analyze significant new 

environmental information relevant to environmental 

concerns that have a bearing on alternatives or their 

impacts.

Chapter 2: Alternatives

The SEIS presents eight alternatives that describe and 

analyze different actions regarding the management of 

CBNG activities. The No Action Alternative describes 

and analyzes current management of CBNG activities 

by BLM and the State while the other seven

alternatives describe and analyze other management 

actions including phased development that provide 

different methods of protection to other resources and 

land uses from CBNG activities. The eight alternatives 

analyzed in detail are described briefly below.

Alternatives Considered

Alternative A—No Action (Existing 

CBNG Management)

BLM would continue to review and approve APDs for 

conventional oil and gas and for CBNG wells in 

accordance with the 1994 Oil and Gas Amendment. 

Approved APDs would include only CBNG

exploration wells, not production wells. The State 

would conduct its permitting process by complying 

with the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement dated 

June 19, 2000. Under this agreement, the State can 

approve up to a maximum of 325 producing wells in 

the CX Field and 200 exploratory CBNG wells 

throughout the rest of the state.

Alternative B—CBNG Development 

with Emphasis on Soil, Water, Air, 

Vegetation, Wildlife, and Cultural 

Resources

BLM and the State would review and approve CBNG

activities with an emphasis on resource protection. 

BLM and the State would use stringent mitigation 

measures to minimize or eliminate adverse impacts to 

other resources. Examples of such mitigation measures 

would include requiring the injection of water 

produced with CBNG and requiring all compressors to 

be fueled by natural gas rather than by diesel or 

electricity.

Alternative C—Emphasize CBNG

Development

BLM and the State would review and approve CBNG

activities with an emphasis on facilitating production of 

CBNG. BLM and the State would use the least 

restrictive mitigation measures to minimize or 

eliminate adverse impacts to other resources. Examples 

of such measures would be to authorize the discharge 

of water produced with CBNG onto the ground or into 

the water bodies when the discharge water meets 

applicable standards. Compressors could be fueled by 

gas, diesel, electricity, or other means as long as other 

permitting standards, such as air quality, are met. 
SUMMARY

SUM-7

Alternative D—Encourage CBNG 

Exploration and Development While 

Maintaining Existing Land Uses

BLM and the State would review and approve CBNG 

activities with an emphasis on maintaining or 

enhancing land uses in combination with CBNG 

development. BLM and the State would use mitigation 

measures, as much as possible, that compliment the 

needs of land owners and other lessees. Management of 

water produced with CBNG would be greatly 

influenced by the surface owner. The water could be 

made available for beneficial uses or may be required 

to be reinjected. Location of facilities, such as 

compressors, would be influenced by the needs of the 

landowner.

Alternative E—Allow CBNG 

Exploration and Development with 

Enhanced Mitigation to Minimize 

Environmental Impacts While 

Maintaining Existing Land Uses

BLM and the State would review and approve CBNG 

activities in a manner that facilitates efficient and 

orderly CBNG activities while providing the 

appropriate type of resource protection on a site 

specific basis as well as an ecosystem basis. Different 

management actions, such as discharge, impoundment, 

reinjection or beneficial use, would be applied to water 

produced with CBNG. Likewise, different management 

actions such as location, size, and mufflers (as 

required) would be applied to compressors. Also, realty 

questions, such as the handling of surface disturbance, 

would be handled by requiring the operator to consult 

with the owner of the surface rights.

The State chose this alternative as their Preferred in 

2003 and issued a ROD based on this approach.

Alternative F – Phased Development 

Multiple Screens (High Range)

Under this alternative, development of CBNG on 

federal leases in the Billings and Powder River RMP 

areas would be done in a phased manner through 

restrictions imposed by the BLM. The BLM would 

limit the number of federal applications for permit to 

drill (APD) approved each year (910) cumulatively 

(both state and federal APDs combined) and in each 

fourth order watershed. BLM would also limit the 

percentage of disturbance on BLM surface or on 

private surface overlying federal minerals within each 

identified crucial habitat polygon. Furthermore, 

conditions would be placed on any proposed federal 

CBNG development within crucial sage-grouse habitat 

areas with the goal of avoiding displacement of sagegrouse from crucial habitat areas. BLM would place a 

limit on the volume of untreated water discharged to 

surface waters from federal CBNG wells within each 

fourth order watershed. The fourth order watershed 

level was adopted for this alternative because it 

provides a geographic perspective consistent with the 

analysis completed for the 2003 FEIS and is 

appropriate for the SEIS analysis.

Exploration and development of CBNG resources on 

BLM-administered minerals would also be subject to a 

Reservation buffer (5 miles), an evaluation of water 

management options, POD requirements, State and 

federal permits, and lease stipulations.

Alternative G – Phased Development 

Multiple Screens (Low Range)

Under this alternative, development of CBNG on 

federal leases in the Billings and Powder River RMP 

areas would be done following the same management 

actions as described under Alternative F; however,

development would be limited to the low range of 

predicted wells (6,470) from the RFD (325 per year). 

Therefore, the following would be applied under 

Alternative G: 

• Annual cumulative limit (5 percent or 325 

APDs/year)

• Fourth order watershed rate of development

• Wildlife habitat (20 percent over 20 years)

• Crucial Sage-grouse habitat conditions

• Untreated produced water (10 percent of 7Q10) 

thresholds

• Reservation buffer distance (5 miles)

• Principles of adaptive management

• Plan of development (POD) requirements

• State and federal permits, and lease stipulations 

• Discussion of a range of water management 

options

The low range of development, as described in the 

reasonably foreseeable development (RFD) scenario, 

was developed following the same assumptions as the 

high range. 
SUMMARY

SUM-8

Alternative H – Preferred Alternative -

Multiple Screens

Alternative H is the BLM’s preferred alternative for the 

development of CBNG resources on BLMadministered lands. Mitigation measures and screens in 

this alternative would be applied to BLM administered 

mineral estate. 

Alternative H has three key components. First, a 

phased development approach would be implemented 

where CBNG proposals would be reviewed against 

four filters or screens to determine if the proposal 

needs to be modified. Second, this alternative would 

include extensive requirements that an operator must 

meet when submitting a POD. Third, mitigation 

measures would be considered and applied to each 

POD, as appropriate. 

The review screens would be applied to water 

resources, wildlife, Native American concerns, and air 

resources. The screens would be implemented to

monitor impacts and develop a decision-making 

process that could control and reduce impacts before 

authorizing the action. The phased approach is intended 

to reduce the overall cumulative impacts to any 

resource by managing the pace of development. 

Reduced development rates may extend the overall 

time required for extraction of the CBNG resources. 

Such reductions might be one outcome of the phased 

development approach. No restrictions on the pace of 

development may occur if POD submittals were slower 

than anticipated, or if monitoring data indicates that 

additional impacts to resources are being mitigated. In 

other words, full-field development may be allowed if 

each POD passed the four screens and sufficient 

monitoring data were available to evaluate each POD 

against the four screens.

Exploration and development of CBNG resources on 

BLM-administered minerals would be subject to 

agency decisions, lease stipulations, permit 

requirements, and surface owner agreements.

Chapter 3: 

Affected Environment

This chapter in the SEIS does not present impacts. It 

describes what is currently present or happening within 

the counties being analyzed.

The affected environment includes the physical,

biological, social, and economic resources that the 

alternatives could impact. For the BLM, these 

resources are in two resource planning areas located in 

south-central and southeastern Montana. Several 

federally recognized Indian tribes own land within the 

RMP areas analyzed in the SEIS. These tribal 

governments include the Crow Tribe of Indians, the 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe, The Lower Brule Sioux 

Tribe, and the North Dakota Turtle Mountain Tribe. 

Their land holdings are an important share of the 

planning area:

• The Crow Reservation comprises nearly 

2,296,000 acres in south-central Montana.

• The Northern Cheyenne Reservation comprises 

about 445,000 acres in southeastern Montana, and 

lies just east of the Crow Reservation.

• The North Dakota Turtle Mountain Tribe has 

approximately 61,250 acres of federal trust lands 

allotted to their members, which are scattered 

throughout the emphasis area.

• The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe has also contacted 

BLM about the allotted lands held in trust by the 

federal government in the emphasis area, along 

with numerous traditional cultural sites.

These Native American land holdings share many of 

the same resource values as those summarized below 

for the planning area.

Resources in the emphasis area are described in the 

SEIS based on the scope and intensity of the potential 

impacts. The following bullet points highlight the 

existing resource conditions. For more information 

about the resources in the study area, see Chapter 3 in 

the SEIS.

• Air quality is generally very good, based on few 

industrial emission sources and on scattered 

residences in small communities and isolated 

ranches.

• The area is rich in cultural resources, especially 

historic sites, including fur trading posts, 

homesteads, emigrant and stage trails, Indian war 

battle sites, ranch centers, and many Native 

American sites (the use of which continued well 

into the historic period).

• Minerals include uranium, gold, silver, gypsum, 

vanadium, and bentonite. Oil and gas resources are 

scattered across the analysis area. Extensive coal

beds are an especially important resource in southcentral and southeastern Montana.

• Surface water is the primary water source for 

Montana users. The quality of surface water is 

generally good to fair, but some problems with 

salinity occur during periods of low flow. 

Groundwater is a minor source of usable water, 

however in some areas groundwater is the only 

source of water for domestic stock use. 

Groundwater quality is sometimes a problem, 

often making it unsuitable for irrigation; however 

it typically meets standards for domestic and stock 

use. 
SUMMARY

SUM-9

• Indian trust assets include lands, timber, water 

resources, other natural resources, and assets held 

in trust by the U.S. government for Indian tribes 

and individual Indians. 

• Livestock grazing is an important economic 

activity. The planning area includes some 

1,205 federal grazing allotments, covering about 

1.6 million acres of federal land.

• Recreation is an increasingly important feature of 

the Montana economy. Large areas of federal and 

state land are dedicated to recreation, including 

land for fishing, hunting, hiking, photography, 

wildlife viewing, water sports, off-road vehicle 

activities, camping, touring, and caving.

• Population within the planning areas is increasing 

at an average annual rate of 1.1 percent. Socioeconomic data from the 2000 census shows a total 

population of about 238,760 people in the planning

area. These residents, along with the many 

thousands who annually visit and use Montana 

resources, are important contributors to the overall 

health of the Montana economy.

• Socio-economic data includes the per capita 

income figure for the planning area: $17,427. The 

statewide per capita figure was $21,229, while the 

total U.S. figure was $27,203. Per capita income 

has been increasing in the planning area at roughly 

a 5.2 percent annual rate.

• Vegetation varies within a wide range of plant 

communities: grasslands, shrublands, forests, and 

riparian areas.

• Visual resources in the analysis area are diverse 

and of high importance, both to residents and to 

the many visitors to Montana.

• Wildlife include mammals such as elk, mule deer, 

white-tailed deer, and pronghorn; bird species, 

including waterfowl, raptors, and songbirds (many 

of which are neotropical migrants); reptiles and 

amphibians; and many species are either listed for 

protection or are of special management concern, 

including sage grouse, mountain plover, prairie 

dogs, gray wolf, Canada lynx, and the grizzly bear.

Chapter 4: Environmental 

Consequences 

This chapter of the SEIS presents the scientific and 

analytical information that supports conclusions about 

the potential impacts of the alternatives analyzed. 

The resource impacts summarized in this section focus 

on the most important impacts of Alternative H—

Preferred CBNG Development Alternative. 

Alternative H is the one that the BLM currently 

consider to be “preferred” (that is, the alternative that 

the BLM will likely select in their respective RODs 

following issuance of the FSEIS). 

Resources with Low Intensity 

Impacts

Potential impacts on some resources are of low 

intensity and do not change much, if at all, among 

alternatives. Impacts of this sort do not help readers 

distinguish between alternatives. 

This similarity among alternatives occurs because the 

alternatives are programmatic in nature. Programmatic 

alternatives do not and cannot reflect actual conditions 

at specific sites. The APD process is used to verify that 

the BLM and the State have considered actual site 

conditions before issuing an APD. Resources with low 

intensity and similar impacts include the following:

• Cultural Resources

• Environmental Justice

• Geology and Minerals

• Livestock Grazing

• Paleontological Resources

• Solid and Hazardous Wastes

• Wilderness Study Areas

Resource Impacts that are 

Important Features of Alternative H

The following sections highlight those impacts that 

would help readers understand the context and intensity 

of the actions included in Alternative H. For more 

information about these impacts, see the full text of 

Chapter 4 in the SEIS. 

Air Quality

Alternative H project emissions would not alone cause 

a potential violation of National or Montana Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS/MAAQS) or 

Prevention of Significant Determination (PSD) Class 

I/Class II Increments. However, impacts on visibility at 

several (15) Class I and Class II areas, including the 

Northern Cheyenne, and Crow Indian Reservations, 

have been predicted through modeling. BLM has 

developed the Air Quality Screen under Alternative H 

to mitigate potential impacts to air resulting from 

project related emissions. Additionally, the air quality 

permitting process would be used to analyze emission 

sources at the project level for CBNG development. 

Emission sources that would violate standards would 

not be permitted by the agencies. Thus, the residual 

impacts to air quality would remain within standards.
SUMMARY

SUM-10

Hydrological Resources

Surface Water 

Surface water quality would be slightly altered from 

current water quality conditions, which are generally 

good. Downstream uses would not be diminished. 

Surface water flows moderately increase from existing 

flows, causing some minimal riparian erosion as well 

as associated sedimentation.

Groundwater

Groundwater drawdown of more than 20 feet is 

anticipated to extend 4 to 5 miles from the edge of 

production within the coal seam. However, this value 

may vary, depending on the intensity of CBNG 

development and site-specific conditions. Minor 

impacts on shallow groundwater quality could occur, 

due to some infiltration from impoundments and from 

other water management practices.

Beneficial Reuse 

The required use of Water Management Plans would 

increase beneficial reuse of production waters (more than 

20 percent of the production water from a given well).

Indian Trust Assets

Impacts on Indian trust assets would be mitigated, as 

with the preceding discussion of surface water, 

groundwater, and beneficial reuse management 

requirements. Potential effects from groundwater 

drawdown would be reduced by implementation of a 5-

mile buffer zone. With regards to Tribal CBNG 

resources, mitigation and monitoring measures would 

protect the resources of the Tribes. Wildlife monitoring 

and protection measures would be employed to prevent 

the loss of important hunting, fishing, and plant 

gathering locations. Traditional cultural property sites 

would be identified sooner through the use of block 

surveys and Tribal consultations. Air Quality impacts

would be mitigated through site specific permits and

implementation of the control measures included 

within the Air Quality Screen under Alternative H.

Lands and Realty

Impacts would result from ground disturbance 

associated with roads, utility corridors, and CBNG drill 

pads. The land disturbed by CBNG activities could 

range from approximately 32,850 acres (long-term) to 

as many as 55,100 acres (short-term). These acreages 

are less than 1 percent of the planning area analyzed 

(approximately 19.4 million acres).

Recreation

Adverse impacts from roads, utility corridors, and well 

pads would be balanced by the increased road access. 

The overall impacts of Alternative H would be limited 

in intensity and would vary greatly from site to site.

Social and Economic Values

Exploratory and production wells could result in some 

new employment opportunities and some associated 

increases in population, but the overall percentage 

increase would be less than 1 percent. These impacts 

would be economically beneficial, but the social 

impacts could be either beneficial or adverse.

Soils

Disturbance to soils would be minor, based on the 

estimate that only 32,850 acres (long-term) would be 

disturbed by CBNG activities. Changes in soil 

chemistry would also be minimal, based on the control 

of production water discharges and water quality 

protection measures. 

Vegetation

Alternative H would potentially disturb nearly 

55,100 acres in the initial short-term period. Of this, 

approximately 48,850 acres would be native vegetation 

consisting of 21,450 acres of grassland, 13,200 acres of 

shrubland, 11,700 acres of forest land, and 2,500 acres 

of barren land. Noxious weed controls would be 

employed to control the potential spread of these 

unwanted species. This disturbance is less than 

1 percent of the acreage in the emphasis area. 

No federal threatened or endangered plant species are 

known to occur within the Planning Area.

Visual Quality

Visual impacts would be moderate in nature and, in 

some cases, permanent. For example, power line access 

corridors are likely to be permanent and highly visible. 

Required management actions (mitigations) would 

lessen the impacts on visual quality by employing 

camouflage techniques and limiting development on 

certain visual resource classified areas.

Wildlife

Direct impacts on wildlife would include habitat loss, 

death from collisions with vehicles, and disturbance 

from human access. Mitigation of these impacts would 

occur through implementation of the control measures 

included within the Wildlife Screen under Alternative 

H.
SUMMARY

SUM-11

Chapter 5: Consultation and 

Coordination 

The BLM and the State conducted extensive 

consultation and coordination and provided 

opportunities for public comment during SEIS

preparation. Public comment periods are intended to 

provide interested and concerned individuals 

opportunities to express their concerns and issues 

related to decisions the BLM should make.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

scoping and consultation included federal agencies, 

state departments, and Native American tribes. Key 

steps and dates in the consultation and coordination 

were as follows:

• The BLM published a Notice of Intent in the 

Federal Register, informing the public and other 

agencies that the SEIS process is beginning 

(August 5, 2005 (Vol. 70, No. 150, Page 45417).

• The BLM held four scoping meetings and 

circulated written requests for information and 

questions (August and September 2005).

• The BLM met with FWS and with other federal 

agencies, including the agencies that are official 

cooperators in the SEIS process. The BLM and the 

State also met with the Crow Tribe of Indians, and 

the Northern Cheyenne Tribe throughout 2005 -

2007.