CHAPTER 3

Air Quality

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Introduction 

This chapter contains a description of the natural 

resources, economic and social conditions found in the 

Planning Area, including the two Indian reservations 

that lie within the Planning Area boundary. 

Air Quality and Climate 

The air quality of any region is controlled primarily by 

the magnitude and distribution of pollutant emissions 

and the regional climate. The transport of pollutants 

from specific source areas is affected by local 

topography and meteorology. In the mountainous 

western U.S., topography is particularly important in 

channeling pollutants along valleys, creating upslope 

and downslope circulations that may entrain airborne 

pollutants and blocking the flow of pollutants toward 

certain areas. In general, local effects are superimposed 

on the general synoptic weather regime and are most 

important when the large-scale wind flow is weak. 

Topography 

The SEIS Planning Area is located in the northern 

portion of the Powder River Basin of the northwestern 

Great Plains Steppe in southeastern Montana. The 

Great Plains Steppe is a large physiographic province 

extending throughout most of eastern Montana, 

Wyoming and Colorado, as well as portions of western 

North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and the 

Oklahoma panhandle. The topography of the Planning 

Area varies from moderately steep to steep mountains 

and canyons in the western portions, to rolling plains 

and tablelands of moderate relief (with occasional 

valleys, canyons and buttes) in the eastern regions. 

Elevations generally range from about 3,000 to 

7,000 feet above mean sea level, with mountain peaks 

rising to over 10,000 feet in the southwestern portion 

of the Planning Area. 

Climate and Meteorology 

Because of the variation in elevation and topography 

throughout the Planning Area, climatic conditions will 

vary considerably. Most of the area is classified as a 

semiarid cool steppe, where evaporation exceeds 

precipitation, with relatively short warm summers and 

longer cold winters. On the plains, average daily 

temperatures typically range between 5 to 10 (low) and 

30 to 35 (high) degrees Fahrenheit in mid-winter and 

between 55 to 60 (low) and 85 to 90 (high) degrees 

Fahrenheit in mid-summer. The frost-free period (at 32 

degrees Fahrenheit) generally occurs for 120 days 

between late May and mid-September. The annual 

average total precipitation is nearly 12 to 16 inches, 

with 36 to 60 inches of total annual snowfall. 

Temperatures will generally be cooler, frost-free 

periods shorter and both precipitation and snowfall 

greater at the higher elevations, including the 

mountains in the southwest portion of the Planning 

Area. 

Prevailing surface winds occur from the southwest, but 

local wind conditions will reflect channeling (mountain 

and valley flows) due to complex terrain. Nighttime 

cooling will enhance stable air, inhibiting air pollutant 

mixing and enhancing transport along the valley 

drainages. Dispersion potential will improve along 

ridge and mountain tops, especially during winterspring weather transition periods and summer 

convective heating periods. 

Existing Air Quality 

Although site-specific air quality monitoring is not 

conducted throughout most of the Planning Area, air 

quality conditions are generally good and well within 

existing air quality standards, as characterized by 

limited air pollution emission sources (few industrial 

facilities and residential emissions in the relatively 

small communities and isolated ranches). Existing air 

quality throughout most of the analysis area is in 

attainment with all ambient air quality standards, as 

demonstrated by the data presented in Table 3-1. 

However, three areas have been designated as federal 

nonattainment areas where the applicable standards 

have been exceeded in the past: Lame Deer (PM10— 

moderate) and Laurel (SO2—primary), Montana; and 

Sheridan, Wyoming (PM10—moderate). Anticipated 

existing contributors of pollutants within the region 

include the following: 

• Emissions from conventional oil and gas 

developments, e.g., natural gas-fired compressor 

engines (primarily carbon monoxide [CO] and 

oxides of nitrogen [NOx]) 

What has Changed in Chapter 3 

Since the Draft SEIS? 

Chapter 3 describes the affected environment. The BLM 

Planning Area did not change between the Draft and Final 

SEIS; it remains the Powder River and Billings RMP areas. 

Changes to this chapter include grammatical clarifications 

and additional information regarding air quality analyses, 

climate, black footed ferret release, wolfs and sage-grouse 

data that have become available since publication of the 

Draft SEIS. 

3-1 
CHAPTER 3 

Air Quality 

• Coal mining activities (i.e., PM2.5 and PM10) 

• Coal-fired power plants (primarily NOX, SO2 and 

CO) 

• Gasoline and diesel vehicle tailpipe emissions of 

combustion pollutants (volatile organic 

compounds [VOC], CO, NOx, fine particulate 

matter less than 2.5 microns in effective diameter 

[PM2.5], inhalable particulate matter less than 

10 microns in effective diameter [PM10] and sulfur 

dioxide [SO2]). 

• Dust (particulate matter) generated by vehicle 

travel on unpaved roads, windblown dust from 

neighboring areas, including tilled agricultural 

fields, construction activities and road sanding 

during the winter months. 

• Transport of air pollutants from emission sources 

located outside the region. 

As part of the Air Quality Impact Assessment – 

Technical Support Document (Argonne 2002) and 

during the Draft Task 1A Report for the Powder River 

Basin Coal Review Current Air Quality Conditions 

(ENSR July 2005a) monitoring data measured 

throughout southeastern Montana and northeastern 

Wyoming were assembled and reviewed. Although 

monitoring is primarily conducted in urban or 

industrial areas and may be relatively higher than 

expected in the rural areas of the state, the data is 

considered representative of existing background air 

pollutant concentrations throughout the Planning Area. 

These values, presented in Table 3-1, reflect conditions 

where existing air pollutant sources (e.g., industrial 

sources, range fires, agricultural operations, etc.) may 

be impacting ambient air concentrations and so were 

deemed to be reasonable for use to define existing 

background conditions in the air quality impact 

analysis. Although deemed representative, background 

values were not inserted into the modeling results for 

this study (ENSR July 2005a) because the purpose of 

this effort was to model a baseline of current conditions 

and evaluate potential changes due to sources in the 

study area. Existing air quality conditions were 

developed from the State and Local Air Quality 

Monitoring System (SLAMS) database. The assumed 

background pollutant concentrations are below 

applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and applicable Montana Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (MAAQS) and Wyoming Ambient

Air Quality Standards (WAAQS) for all pollutants and

averaging times, as shown in Table 3-1. 

Additional Air Quality Modeling 

Studies 

Two additional air quality modeling efforts have 

recently been conducted and can be reviewed to 

provide additional information on current regional air 

quality. These are the Wyoming Powder River Basin 

Coal Review modeling being conducted by the 

Wyoming BLM; and the MDEQ cumulative modeling 

prepared as part of the Badger Hills POD. These efforts 

were initiated in 2005 and 2004, respectively. 

Wyoming Powder River Basin Coal Review 

Model 

BLM identified a need to prepare a cumulative study of 

future development activities in the Powder River 

Basin (PRB) in northeastern Wyoming (the PRB Coal 

Review). The study area encompasses all of Campbell 

County, all of Johnson and Sheridan Counties (except 

land managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

[USDA] Forest Service [USFS]) and a major portion of 

northern Converse County. A portion of the PRB in 

south central Montana is also included. It touches on 

portions of Rosebud, Custer, Powder River, Big Horn 

and Treasure counties. 

The PRB Coal Review is an assessment of potential 

impacts on ambient air and air quality related values 

(AQRVs) associated with coal activities and future 

development using the CALPUFF modeling system. 

The project domain modeled includes most of 

Wyoming and portions of adjacent states (Montana, 

South Dakota and Nebraska). The domain refers to the 

area analyzed in the model. 

Accurate, up-to-date (mid 2004) emissions inventories 

are not available; thus, for purposes of this study, 

“current” is defined as the most recent year, 2002, for 

which accurate emissions data are available. Some of 

the potential development included in the analysis for 

the 2003 Final EIS is no longer planned; therefore, the 

PRB Coal Review Study does not include such sources. 

The 2003 Final EIS suggested that impacts from coal 

development (including CBNG) could be substantial; 

indicating that there would be several additional days 

of haze in the region and that some thresholds might be 

exceeded. Therefore, the PRB Coal Review Study 

included modeling current (2002) emissions (modeled 

baseline) from all sources and comparing those results 

with current ambient monitoring data. Anticipated 

changes in emissions subsequent to a base year were 

modeled for the PRB Coal Review analysis. 

3-2 
- -

- -

- -

CHAPTER 3 

Air Quality 

TABLE 3-1 

BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS OF REGULATED AIR POLLUTANTS (μg/m3) 

Background 

Concentrations1 

National 

Ambient 

Montana 

Ambient Air 

Wyoming 

Ambient Air 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time MDEQ WDEQ 

Air Quality 

Standards 

Quality 

Standards2 

Quality 

Standards2 

Carbon monoxide (CO) 8 hour 6,600 1,381 10,000 10,300 10,000 

1 hour 15,000 3,336 40,000 26,340 40,000 

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Annual 11 5 100 94 100 

1 hour 117 - n/a 564 n/a 

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Annual 16 13 80 53 60 

24 hour 89 62 365 260 260 

3 hour 325 181 1,300 n/a 1,300 

1 hour 666 - n/a 1,300 n/a 

1 hour 

8 hour 

1 hour5 

70 703 Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) n/a 

157 

235 

n/a n/a 

200 n/a 

PM 2.5 Annual 8 - 15 15 15 

24 hour 20 - 35 35 65 

PM 10 Annual 30 13 Revoked4 50 50 

24 hour 105 54 150 150 150 

Ozone (O3) 

Source: Argonne (2002), ENSR (2005), Wyoming DEQ (www.deq.state.wy.us/aqd/standards.asp), USEPA

(www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html)

1 Background numbers are from Montana DEQ (MDEQ 2002), Wyoming DEQ, Modeling protocol (Argonne 2002 and ENSR 2005a) 2

The Montana and Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards apply equally across their respective states. Conversions from state standards in

ppm were calculated using standard pressure (1 atmosphere) and temperature (298K). 3

The 0.5-hour standard is not to be exceeded more than twice per year. 4

Due to a lack of evidence linking health problems to long-term exposure to coarse particle pollution, EPA revoked the annual PM10 standard

in 2006 (effective December 17, 2006).

5

The ozone 1-hour standard applies only to areas that were designated nonattainment when the ozone 8-hour standard was adopted in July

1997. The 1-hour standard does not apply to Wyoming.

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter 

n/a = not applicable 

PM10 fine particulate matter less than 10 microns in effective diameter 

PM2.5 fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in effective diameter 

This approach of comparing the modeled baseline with 

the study’s findings provided a more accurate 

assessment of the sensitivity of the region to future 

development, as well as a qualitative measure of how 

well the CALPUFF model emulates near- and far-field 

transport of source emissions characteristic of those in 

the PRB. 

The 2005 PRB Coal Review cumulative modeled air 

quality impacts for 2010 indicated that potential 

concentrations of all criteria pollutants would be below 

NAAQS and Montana and Wyoming AAQS, except 

near-field PM10. Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) 

would be lower than reference exposure levels and 

reference concentrations for chronic inhalation, except 

for benzene. Far-field visibility modeled impacts 

showed three Class I areas (Badlands National Park, 

Northern Cheyenne Reservation and Wind Cave 

National Park) with more than 200 days of greater than 

1 deciview, increasing with development based the All 

Sources emissions group. Atmospheric deposition of 

the sulfur level of concern (LOC) was below the 

established threshold of 5 kilograms per hectare per 

year and atmospheric deposition of the nitrogen LOC 

was below the established threshold of 3 kilograms per 

hectare per year. In addition, atmospheric deposition 

effects on lake chemistry, as determined through 

modeled impacts on the acid neutralizing capacity, 

showed raised impacts above the level of acceptable 

impact for two lakes (Upper Frozen Lake in Bridger 

Wilderness Area and Florence Lake in Cloud Peak 

Wilderness Area). No significant impacts were 

predicted for the identified lakes. 

The coal study also contained projected air quality 

impacts for 2015 and 2020. The impacts were 

evaluated qualitatively for those periods by using 

comparative development levels for each of the source 

groups. Coal production in general was anticipated to 

contribute substantially to impacts on the near-field 

receptor grid in the project area, particularly PM10 

impacts. The potential PM10 impacts were of greatest 

3-3 
CHAPTER 3 

Air Quality 

concern in the near-field and the projected increase in 

coal production likely would continue to affect the 

PM10 air quality levels. The 2010 modeling predicted 

potential exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 standard 

likely would be adversely affected by increased coal 

operations in 2015 and 2020. Increased development in 

2015 and 2020 might lead to further visibility impacts 

at the Class I and identified Class II areas. In 2010, 

impacts on the non-affected lakes were well below the 

thresholds and expected increases in development 

likely would not lead to impacts beyond those noted in 

the model. The projected levels of increased coal 

production in 2015 and 2020 would not lead to a 

change in the impacts of HAP emissions for the nearfield receptors in Montana or Wyoming. Furthermore, 

the qualitative results for 2015 and 2020 showed that 

no other NAAQS or state AAQS would be exceeded. 

MDEQ Cumulative Model

concentrations are located close to sources (John 

Coefield, personal communication, MDEQ 11/18/05). 

Additionally MDEQ, EPA and the Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe are conducting a cumulative analysis of the 

Northern Cheyenne’s Class I airshed increment. This 

study is intended to determine the definitive increment 

for the reservation for NOX, SO2 and PM10. MDEQ 

anticipates this study will be completed by the end of 

summer 2008. 

Existing Monitoring Network

MDEQ operates various types of equipment to measure 

pollutants and meteorological parameters at monitoring 

sites across Montana. Within the Planning Area, 

MDEQ presently maintains five monitoring facilities in 

the Billings metropolitan area and has additional, 

permit-required monitoring facilities in and around 

Colstrip. These additional facilities are operated by 

The most recent cumulative impact modeling 

conducted by MDEQ was part of its review of the 

Badger Hills POD in 2004. 

MDEQ conducted the recent cumulative impact 

modeling using EPA’s approved Industrial Complex 

Short Term Version (ISCST3) model, Version 02035. 

This refined dispersion model uses detailed 

information regarding the region’s meteorology, terrain 

and local emissions sources to estimate ambient air 

pollutant concentrations. The modeling analyses used 

the ISCST3 model in the regulatory default mode and 

EPA-approved modeling options. 

Each emission source identified at all of the CBNG 

compressor stations was included in the air dispersion 

model as a point source. The model input data included 

stack exit height, temperature, velocity and stack 

diameter for each of the modeled emission sources. 

The permitted allowable emissions were used in the 

model for all Montana and Wyoming sources, rather 

than actual emissions. Typically, NAAQS/MAAQS 

demonstrations are conducted using permitted 

allowable emissions, whereas PSD increment analyses 

are conducted using actual emissions. Since all 

emission sources represented in this modeling study 

were permitted allowable emissions, the Class I/Class 

II increment analysis was conducted using permitted 

allowable emissions instead of actual emission 

estimates. Therefore, the Class I/Class II increment 

analysis results must be considered conservative, 

because not all emissions would be expected to operate 

continuously at maximum permitted levels. 

This MDEQ cumulative modeling analysis 

demonstrated that CBNG development currently 

complies with the MAAQS/NAAQS and the PSD 

Class I/Class II increments. The peak modeled 

Pennsylvania Power and Light (PPL), formerly 

Montana Power Company (MPC). MPC/PPL also 

supports a tribal air monitoring program on the 

Northern Cheyenne Reservation. 

Billings 

The five monitoring stations currently operating in the 

Billings area are the Bridal Shop, Coburn Road, 

Lockwood Park, Lower Coburn Road and Mount Olive 

Stations. These monitoring stations conduct ambient 

sampling for various parameters and at various 

frequencies. Each is discussed below: 

The Bridal Shop site has been collecting data since 

December 1997. It is a continuous (hourly) carbon 

monoxide (CO) monitoring site, but it has also 

previously collected meteorological (wind speed, wind 

direction and standard deviation of wind direction) 

data. The Aerometric Information Retrieval System 

(AIRS) reference number for this site is 30-111-0082. 

The Bridal Shop site is located at 8 Grand Avenue, 

Billings, Montana. 

The Coburn Road site is a continuous (hourly) and 5­

minute sulfur dioxide (SO2) monitoring site. It has been 

collecting data since January 1981. It also collects 

meteorological data (wind speed, wind direction, 

standard deviation of wind direction and temperature). 

The AIRS reference number for this site is 30-111­

0066. The Coburn Road site is located on Coburn Road 

south of Billings, Montana. 

The Lockwood Park monitoring site has been 

collecting PM10 data since January 1996, PM2.5 data 

since January 1999 and SO2 and meteorological data 

since November 1987. The AIRS reference number for 

this site is 30-111-1065. The Lockwood Park site is 

located on Old Hardin Road, Billings, Montana. 

3-4 
The Lower Coburn Road site has been collecting data 

since August 1999. It is a continuous (hourly) and 5­

minute SO2 monitoring site. The AIRS reference 

number for Lower Coburn Road is 30-111-0083. The 

Lower Coburn Road site is located on Coburn Road 

south of Billings and north of the Coburn Road site. 

The Mount Olive site is a continuous (hourly) CO and 

SO2 monitoring site. The AIRS reference number for 

this site is 30-111-0079. The Mount Olive site is 

located at Mount Olive Lutheran Church, 7 24th Street 

West, Billings, Montana. 

Particulate monitoring has been conducted in Billings 

since 1971. Although there have been several total 

suspended particulate (TSP) sites in Yellowstone 

County, only those in the central part of Billings 

recorded elevated concentrations. PM10 monitoring in 

Billings started in December 1986 and continues today 

at the Lockwood Park (30-111-1065) site. There has 

never been a recorded PM10 exceedance in Billings. 

The sulfur dioxide issue in Billings has focused on 

emissions from industrial facilities since the early 

1980s. The monitoring network was scaled down in 

1996 when low sulfur coal was introduced and a 

dramatic drop in ambient levels was observed. Today, 

four of the five monitoring stations collect SO2 data. 

Billings is in an area where sources emit fairly large 

quantities of VOC and NOx. Billings is also an area 

where hot summer days may promote photochemical 

reactions. EPA defines the ozone monitoring season for 

Montana as June 1 to September 30. Ozone data 

collected at monitoring sites showed higher 

concentrations in the summer months, but all were 

within the NAAQS. The ozone monitoring was 

discontinued in September 1989 because the readings 

were low. Since then, MDEQ has not conducted ozone 

monitoring. 

Monitoring of CO is limited to two stations in the 

Billings area. NO2 monitoring is not conducted at any 

of the stations. 

Colstrip

The air quality concern for particulate in Rosebud 

County (population 9,383) centers around the cities of 

Colstrip and Ashland. Five coal-fired power generating 

plants and two large coal mines are near Colstrip. 

Montana Power Company, Western Energy Company, 

Colstrip Energy Limited Partnership (CELP) and Big 

Sky Coal Company have operated particulate sampling 

networks around their facilities as conditions of their 

permits. In Ashland, there have been recent concerns 

due to area sources, including wood- and coal-burning 

stoves. 

MDEQ asked MPC/PPL to install and operate a PM10 

site at its MPC Site 3 in Colstrip. Two samplers 

CHAPTER 3

Air Quality

(reporting and collocated) were installed in December 

1989 and the data were submitted to MDEQ. The TSP 

samplers at MPC Sites 1 and 2 were replaced with 

PM10 samplers in July 1992. At that time, MDEQ 

required MPC/PPL to operate the PM10samplers at all 

sites on an every-third-day sampling schedule. In July 

1994, MPC/PPL requested that MDEQ review its 

Colstrip PM10 network. As a result of that review, 

changes were allowed, starting on July 1, 1995. The 

PM10 sampling frequency at Site 1 was reduced to once 

every sixth day and the PM10 sampling at Site 2 was 

terminated. The long history of low values led to 

termination of Site 1 in 2002. 

MPC/PPL maintains an ambient network around the 

facility and supports a tribal air monitoring program on 

the Northern Cheyenne Reservation. The tribal network 

consists of three sites: Morning Star, Garfield Peak 

and Badger Peak. MPC/PPL also operates three SO2 

sites. These are at MPC 1, MPC 2 and MPC 3. Years of 

data from the sites around the MPC/PPL facility 

revealed little to no accumulation and SO2 monitoring 

at the facility was discontinued at the end of 2001. 

MPC/PPL also maintained an ambient network for NO2 

around the facility through 2001. It continues to 

support a tribal air monitoring program on the Northern 

Cheyenne Reservation. Nearly 20 years of data 

collection around the facility revealed no significant 

NO2 in the area. As a result of these findings, NO2 

monitoring around the MPC facility was terminated in 

2001. 

MDEQ conducted ozone monitoring in Colstrip from 

1975 through 1977 at the BN monitoring site. MDEQ 

also conducted ozone monitoring in Colstrip at the 

McRae monitoring site in 1974 and 1975. Many 

exceedances of the NAAQS (1-hour concentrations) 

were recorded at the BN site, while no exceedances of 

the NAAQS or MAAQS were recorded at the McRae 

monitor. 

Regulatory Framework 

The NAAQS and MAAQS set the absolute upper limits 

for specific air pollutant concentrations at all locations 

where the public has access. The analysis of the 

proposed Alternatives must demonstrate continued 

compliance with all applicable local, state, tribal and 

federal air quality standards. Montana’s ambient 

standards are not applicable within the reservation but 

apply to adjacent areas off the reservation. The EPA 

recently revised both the ozone (8-hour) and PM2.5 

NAAQS; these revised limits will not be effective until 

the Montana State Implementation Plan (SIP) is 

formally approved by EPA. On November 9, 2005, 

EPA issued a final rule to take the next steps to protect 

the American public from ground-level ozone 

pollution. This rule, often called the Phase 2 Ozone 

3-5 
CHAPTER 3 

Air Quality 

Rule, describes the plans states must make to reduce 

ground level ozone. These plans, known as state 

implementation plans or SIPs, were to be submitted to 

EPA by June 2007. 

Although EPA promulgated the NAAQS for PM2.5 in 

July 1997, it lacked the necessary data to make 

designations. Therefore, the PM2.5 designations were 

not finalized until April 5, 2005. The Clean Air Act 

requires states with designated nonattainment areas to 

develop a state implementation plan and submit it to 

the EPA within 3 years (April 2008). 

Given that most of the Planning Area is in attainment 

with the NAAQS, future development projects 

(including any proposed Alternative) which have the 

potential to emit more than 250 tons per year of any 

criteria pollutant (or certain listed sources that have the 

potential to emit more than 100 tons per year) would be 

required to undergo a regulatory Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) Increment 

Consumption analysis under the federal New Source 

Review and permitting regulations. Development 

projects subject to the PSD regulations must also 

demonstrate the use of Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT) and show that the combined 

impacts of all PSD sources will not exceed the 

allowable incremental air quality impacts for NO2, SO2 

and PM10. A regulatory PSD Increment Consumption 

analysis may be conducted as part of a major New 

Source Review, or independently. The determination of 

PSD increment consumption is a legal responsibility of 

the applicable air quality regulatory agencies, with 

EPA oversight. Finally, an analysis of cumulative 

impacts due to all existing sources and the permit 

applicant’s sources, is also required during New Source 

Review to demonstrate that applicable ambient air 

quality standards will be met during the operational 

lifetime of the permit applicant’s operations. 

MDEQ requires that ambient air quality modeling be 

conducted for CBNG facilities that exceed the 25-tonper-year Montana Air Quality Permit (MAQP) 

threshold, regardless of the potential to emit (PTE) of 

the facility. This is required to demonstrate compliance 

with the MAAQS/NAAQS. In addition, MDEQ 

requires that the modeling include an NOX PSD 

increment analysis to demonstrate compliance with the 

Class I NOX increment and the Class II NOX 

increment, regardless of whether PSD applies to the 

facility. 

The permit writer also provides a list of sources to be 

included in the modeling effort and recommends the 

appropriate near-field model to be used i.e. AERMOD, 

CALPUFF, SCREEN3. In addition an evaluation of 

cumulative effects is required. 

MDEQ will continue to require MAQP applicants to 

model NOX emitting units that locate in the area 

defined by the MT FEIS to ensure that the MAAQS 

and NAAQS, as well as the Class I and Class II NOX 

PSD increments, are not exceeded. In addition, as 

CBNG development continues, or as CBNG facilities 

are proposed on properties closer to the Northern 

Cheyenne Indian Reservation, MDEQ intends to 

continue to require applicants to conduct NOX PSD 

Class II increment analyses, as well as NOX PSD Class 

I increment analyses. As CBNG development becomes 

more prevalent in Montana, MDEQ intends to require 

applicants conducting ambient air quality modeling for 

CBNG facilities to perform a cumulative impact 

modeling study. That is, MDEQ intends to require 

applicants conducting modeling for CBNG facilities to 

include the receptors that showed the highest impacts 

from previous models. 

In 2005, MDEQ approved a new air permitting 

program that requires oil and gas facilities with a PTE 

greater than 25 tons per year to apply for an air permit 

before initiating operation of a new facility. The 

agency also initiated a new air registration program in 

2006 to further regulate oil and gas activities across the 

state. Together, these new air permitting programs 

provide enforceable conditions that ensure both 

existing and future oil and gas activities are in 

compliance with state and federal regulatory 

requirements. 

Mandatory federal Class I areas were designated by the 

U.S. Congress on August 7, 1977. These areas included 

wilderness areas greater than 5,000 acres in size and 

national parks greater than 6,000 acres in size on that 

date. In addition, the Fort Peck and Northern Cheyenne 

tribes have designated their lands as PSD Class I areas. 

The allowable incremental impacts for NO2, SO2 and 

PM10 within these PSD Class I areas are limited to 

ensure these areas remain pristine. In other locations of 

the country that are designated as PSD Class II areas, 

the requirements on future development are less 

stringent. Table 3-2 shows the relevant ambient air 

quality standards and PSD increment values. 

This NEPA analysis compares potential air quality 

impacts from the proposed Alternatives to applicable 

ambient air quality standards and PSD increments. The 

comparisons to the PSD Class I and II increments are 

only intended to evaluate a threshold of concern for 

potential impacts and do not represent a regulatory 

PSD increment consumption analysis. Even though 

most of the development activities would occur within 

areas designated PSD Class II, the potential impacts on 

regional Class I areas are to be evaluated. MDEQ is 

responsible for performing any required regulatory 

PSD increment analysis as a part of the new source 

review process. The MDEQ’s formal regulatory 

process would include an analysis of impacts on Class I 

and II air quality areas by emission sources following a 

triggered baseline date. Future development activities 

3-6 
are not allowed to consume more of the increment than 

is available within that PSD Class I or II area. To 

ensure compliance, stringent emission controls 

(BACT) and emission limits may be stipulated by state 

agencies in air quality permits as a result of their 

increment review. In more radical circumstances, a 

permit could be denied due to the lack of available 

increment. 

In addition, sources subject to the PSD permit review 

procedure are required to demonstrate impacts on Air 

Quality Related Values (AQRV) will be below Federal 

Land Managers’ “Limits of Acceptable Change.” The 

AQRVs to be evaluated include potential reduction of 

the acid neutralizing capability in mountain lakes from 

atmospheric deposition (acid rain), visibility impacts 

and effects on sensitive flora and fauna in the Class I 

areas. The Clean Air Act (CAA) also provides specific 

visibility protection procedures for the mandatory 

federal Class I areas designated by the U.S. Congress. 

Although the Fort Peck and Northern Cheyenne Tribes 

have also designated their lands as voluntary PSD 

Class I areas, national visibility regulations do not 

apply in these areas. Finally, the CAA directs the EPA 

to promulgate the Tribal Authority Rule, establishing 

tribal jurisdiction over air emission sources on both 

CHAPTER 3 

Air Quality 

trust and private lands within the exterior boundaries of 

tribal lands. Pursuant to this rule, Native American 

tribes may submit a “Treatment as a State” application 

to the EPA, requesting that they be treated in the same 

manner as a state under the CAA, including Section 

105 grants and formal recognition as an affected 

“state” when permits are written for sources within 50 

miles of tribal land boundaries (per 40 CFR 70.8 and 

71.2). Also, the tribes can be delegated authority to 

establish an Operating Permits Program under Title V 

of the CAA, in order to issue permits for air pollutant 

major emission sources located within the exterior 

boundaries of tribal lands. 

The Northern Cheyenne Tribe has held “Treatment as a 

State” status since 1999. Under EPA Program Section 

105, the tribe conducts air quality monitoring for PM10 

to support PSD increment studies. According to the 

MDEQ 2003 Air Monitoring Network Report (MDEQ 

AQ 2003) the MPC/PPL has been supporting the air 

quality monitoring on the Northern Cheyenne 

Reservation for a number of years. However, the 

Montana Power Company recently terminated its last 

PM10 monitoring site outside the coal fired power 

plants near Colstrip in 2002 due “to a long history of 

low values,” as stated in the report. 

TABLE 3-2

APPLICABLE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND PSD INCREMENT VALUES (μg/m3

)

Averaging National National PSD Class I PSD Class II 

Pollutant Time 1 Primary Secondary Montana Increments Increments 

Carbon monoxide 8-hours 10,000 10,000 10,300 n/a n/a 

1-hour 40,000 40,000 26,340 n/a n/a 

Nitrogen dioxide Annual 100 100 94 2.5 25 

1-hour n/a n/a 564 n/a n/a 

Ozone 8-hours 157 157 n/a n/a n/a 

1-hour 235 235 200 n/a n/a 

Sulfur dioxide Annual 80 n/a 53 2 20 

24-hours 365 n/a 260 5 91 

3-hours n/a 1300 n/a 25 512 

1-hour n/a n/a 1300 n/a n/a 

PM2.5 Annual 15 15 15 n/a n/a 

24-hours 35 35 35 n/a n/a 

PM10 Annual revoked 50 50 4 17 

24-hours 150 150 150 8 30 

Lead Quarterly 1.5 1.5 1.5 n/a n/a 

Source: Argonne (2002). 

Annual standards are not to be exceeded; short-term standards are not to be exceeded more than once per year. 

n/a = not applicable. 

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter 

3-7 

1 
CHAPTER 3 

Climate Change 

Climate Change

The National Academy of Sciences has noted that 

“Most scientists agree that the warming in recent 

decades has been caused primarily by human activities 

that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in 

the atmosphere.” The National Academy of Sciences 

has also indicated that “There is no doubt that climate 

will continue to change throughout the 21st century and 

beyond, but there are still important questions 

regarding how large and how fast these changes will 

be, and what effects they will have in different 

regions.” (NAS, 2008). It has also been noted that 

“[a]s with any field of scientific study, there are 

uncertainties associated with the science of climate 

change. This does not imply that scientists do not have 

confidence in many aspects of climate science. Some 

aspects of the science are known with virtual certainty, 

because they are based on well-known physical laws 

and documented trends” (EPA, 2007a). 

The primary gas associated with climate change is 

carbon dioxide (CO2). Methane (CH4), nitrous oxide, 

sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and 

perfluorocarbons are also associated with climate 

change. Together these gases are typically referred to 

as greenhouse gases (GHGs). Emissions of GHGs are 

typically reported as CO2 equivalents (CO2e), which is 

the amount of the gas emitted, multiplied by its 

warming potential relative to CO2. Through complex 

interactions on a regional and global scale, these 

emissions cause a net warming effect of the 

atmosphere, primarily by decreasing the amount of 

heat energy radiated by the Earth back into space 

(NAS, 2008). 

Although GHG levels and corresponding variations in 

climatic conditions have varied for millennia, recent 

industrialization and burning of fossil carbon sources 

have caused CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to 

increase dramatically, and these increases may 

contribute to overall climatic changes, typically 

referred to as global warming. Over the past three 

centuries the concentration of CO2 has been increasing 

in the earth’s atmosphere. In the early 1700s CO2 

concentrations have been estimated to be 

approximately 280 parts per million (ppm), while in 

2005 the concentration was approximately 381 ppm 

(See Figure 3-CC-1) (Neftel et al., 1994; Keeling & 

Whorf, 2006). 

The Center for Climate Strategies (CCS) prepared a 

report under contract to the Montana Department of 

Environment Quality (MDEQ) (CCS, 2007). The 

report contains an inventory of the State’s GHG 

emissions. Activities in Montana accounted for 

approximately 36.8 million metric tons (MMT) of 

CO2e emissions in 2005. This report also projects that 

in Montana there will be 38.5 MMT of CO2e emitted in 

2010, and 41.7 MMT of CO2e emitted 2020. These 

figures are for the reference case scenario which 

“[a]ssumes very limited CBM activity” (CCS, 2007). 

Therefore, this scenario is comparable to that assumed 

for Alternative A (Existing Management). 

Figure 3-CC-1: IPCC ESTIMATED CHANGE IN 

CO2 OVER TIME

(Figure obtained from IPCC, 2007) 

National and global carbon dioxide emissions for 2004 

were tabulated by Energy Information Administration 

(EIA) in their Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Report 

(EIA, 2007). This information indicates that in 2005 

there were approximately 7181 MMT of CO2e 

emissions in the US. From the data in this report it can 

be extrapolated that U.S. CO2e emissions in 2010 and 

2020 will be approximately 7405 and 8275 MMT CO2e 

respectively; assuming that the mix of GHGs remains 

constant. The data in this report can also be combined 

with data from the EPA (2006) for global non-CO2 

GHG emissions to estimate current and future CO2e 

emission values. This analysis shows that in 2004 total 

global CO2e emissions would have been approximately 

36,510 MMT. It can also be projected that in 2010 

global CO2e emissions will be approximately 41,851 

MMT, and in 2020 global CO2e emissions will be 

approximately 49,750 MMT. 

Human influences believed to have contributed to this 

rise include the combustion of fossil fuels, conversion 

of natural prairie to farmland, and deforestation (EPA, 

2008a). In 2006 the primary GHG emitted by human 

activities in the U.S. was CO2, representing 

approximately 84.8 percent of total GHG emissions, 

with the largest source of CO2 being fossil fuel 

combustion. Conversely, U.S. GHG emissions are 

partly offset by carbon sequestration in forests, trees, in 

urban areas, and agricultural soils, which in aggregate, 

offset 12.5 percent of total emissions in 2006 (EPA 

2008b). 

3-8 
Global mean surface temperatures have increased 

nearly 1.8°F (1.0°C) from 1890 to 2006 (Goddard 

Institute for Space Studies, 2008), but observations and 

predictive models indicate that average temperature 

changes are likely to be greatest in the Northern 

Hemisphere. Figure 3-CC-2 demonstrates that northern 

latitudes (above 24° N – which includes all of the 

United States) have exhibited temperature increases of 

over 2.3°F (1.3°C) since 1900, with approximately a 

2.2°F (1.2°C ) increase since 1970. Without additional 

meteorological monitoring systems, it is difficult to 

determine the spatial and temporal variability and 

change of climatic conditions, but increasing 

concentrations of GHG are likely to accelerate the rate 

of climate change. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC) has recently completed a comprehensive report 

assessing the current state of knowledge on climate 

change, its potential impacts, and options for 

adaptation and mitigation (IPCC, 2007). The IPCC has 

reported that “[g]lobal mean surface temperatures have 

risen by 0.74°C ± 0.18°C [1.3± 0.3°F] when estimated 

by a linear trend over the last 100 years (1906–2005)”. 

The IPCC has also determined that “most of the 

observed increase in globally average temperatures 

since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the 

observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) 

greenhouse gas concentrations” (IPCC, 2007). The 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS, 2008) has also 

noted that “model simulations of temperature changes 

during the past century only match the observed 

temperature increase when greenhouse gas increases 

and other human causes are included”. 

Figure 3-CC-2: Annual Mean Temperature

Change for Northern Latitudes

The National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST, 

2000) has determined that “Across the Northern and 

Central Great Plains, temperatures have risen more 

3-9 

CHAPTER 3 

Climate Change 

than 2oF (1oC) in the past century, with increases up to 

5.5oF (3oC) in parts of Montana, North Dakota, and 

South Dakota. In the southern Great Plains, the 20th 

century temperature record shows no trend. Over the 

last 100 years, annual precipitation has decreased by 

10% in eastern Montana, North Dakota, eastern 

Wyoming, and Colorado. In the eastern portion of the 

Great Plains, precipitation has increased by more than 

10%. Texas has experienced significantly more high 

intensity rainfall. The snow season ends earlier in the 

spring, reflecting the greater seasonal warming in 

winter and spring.” 

It is difficult to attribute any particular weather event to 

global climate change; however a comparison can be 

made between the anticipated impacts from global 

warming and recent observations. The EPA (2008a) 

has made several projections of cumulative effects for 

Region 8 (including the Planning Area) which can be 

compared to observed conditions. For this comparison 

the most recent 10 years is compared to the historical 

record for several parameters in order to evaluate 

recent trends relative to historic trends. These are 

discussed below. 

Projection: The region will experience warmer 

temperatures overall... 

Observed conditions: 

Data from the Western Regional Climate Center 

(WRCC, 2008a) indicate that for the Miles City Airport 

the average annual temperature from 1937-1997 was 

45.8oF (7.7oC). From 1998-2007 (the last 10 years of 

record) the average annual temperature has been 47.5oF 

(8.6oC), for an overall increase of 1.7oF (0.9oC). The 

five warmest years in the record (from warmest to 

coolest) are 2007, 1987, 1999, 1981, and 1998 (See Fig 

3-CC-3). These results appear to be in line with the 

EPA (2008a) projection. 

Figure 3-CC-3 

(Data from http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmemt.html) 
CHAPTER 3 

Climate Change 

1980-81, 1966-67, and 1968-69. These results do not 

Projection: Temperatures are expected to increase support the EPA (2008a) projection. 

more in the winter than in the summer... 

Observed conditions: 

As discussed above, there has been an overall increase 

of 1.7oF (0.9oC) when average annual temperature 

records at Miles City from 1937-1997 are compared to 

1998-2007. The monthly mean temperatures can also 

be grouped by season. For this analysis temperatures 

from December, January, February and March are 

considered “Winter” and temperatures from June, July, 

August and September are considered “Summer”. 

Following this approach the mean winter temperature 

at Miles City from 1937-1997 was 23.1oF (-4.9oC), 

while the mean winter temperature from 1998-2007 

was 27.0oF (-2.8oC). This represents a difference of 

3.9oF (2.1oC). The mean summer temperature at Miles 

City from 1937-1997 was 68.3oF (20.2oC), while the 

mean summer temperature from 1998-2007 was 69.4oF 

(20.8oC). This represents a difference of 1.1oF 

(0.6oC). These results appear to be in line with the 

EPA (2008a) projection. 

Projection: The region will experience ... less 

snowfall. 

Observed conditions: 

Snowfall records are not available from the WRCC for 

Miles City; however there is data from Burgess 

Junction, WY (in the Bighorn Mountains). While the 

values from this station are not directly applicable to 

the Powder River Basin, the trends should be 

meaningful, particularly since the Tongue and Powder 

Rivers obtain a significant portion of their flow from 

snowmelt in the Bighorn Mountains. Data from the 

WRCC (2008b) indicate that for Burgess Junction the 

average annual snowfall from 1960-1997 was 233 

inches. From 1998-2007 the average annual snowfall 

was 255 inches. The five winters with the least 

snowfall (from least to most) were 1965-66, 1978-79, 

Projection: Earlier snowmelt means peak stream 

flows will be earlier... 

Observed conditions: 

Average Mean Daily Discharge data from the Tongue 

River at Miles City can be compared from 1937-1997, 

and from 1998-2007. The average date of the peak 

stream flow from 1937-1997 occurred on May 28th. 

From 1998-2007 the average date of the peak stream 

occurred on June 3rd. Peak stream flows are thus 

occurring, on average, seven days later. This result 

does not support the EPA (2008a) projection. 

Projection: In late summer, rivers...will be drier. 

Observed conditions: 

Minimum observed flows during August and 

September (late summer) can be compared from 1937­

1997 and from 1998-2007. The average minimum late 

summer flow from 1937-1997 was 86 cfs. From 1998­

2007 the average minimum late summer flow was 49 

cfs. This represents a 37 cfs (43%) decrease in late 

summer flows. These results appear to be in line with 

the EPA (2008a) projection. 

BLM recognizes the importance of climate change and 

the potential effects it may have on the natural 

environment. Several activities associated with the 

decisions in the MT SEIS/Proposed Amendments 

regarding CBNG development may generate emissions 

of climate changing pollutants. GHG emissions from 

CBNG development are anticipated to result from the 

burning of fossil fuels in compressor engines, and from 

methane emissions during processing. Wind erosion 

from disturbed areas and fugitive dust from roads along 

with entrained atmospheric dust have the potential to 

darken glacial surfaces and snow packs resulting in 

faster snowmelt. 

3-10 
CHAPTER 3 

Cultural and Historical 

Cultural and Historical

Cultural resources consist of the material remains of— 

or the locations of—past human activities, including 

traditional cultural properties (TCP) to both past and 

contemporary Native American Communities. Cultural 

resources within the Planning Area represent human 

occupation throughout two broad periods: the 

prehistoric and the historic. The prehistoric period is 

separated into the Paleo-Indian Period (circa 

10,000 B.C. to 5,500 B.C.), the Archaic Period (circa 

5,500 B.C. to A.D. 500), the Late Prehistoric Period 

(circa A.D. 500 to 1750) and the Proto-historic Period 

(circa 1750 to 1805+). The prehistoric period began 

with the arrival of humans to the area around 

12,000 years ago and is generally considered to have 

ended in 1805 when the Lewis and Clark Expedition 

passed through the area. Cultural resources relating to 

the prehistoric period may consist of scatters of flaked 

and ground stone tools and debris, stone quarry 

locations, hearths and other camp debris, stone circles, 

wooden lodges and other evidence of domestic 

structures, occupied or utilized rock shelters and caves, 

game traps and kill sites and petroglyphs, pictographs, 

stone cairns and alignments and other features 

associated with past human activities. Some of these 

sites contain cultural resource features that are in 

buried deposits. 

The historic period is characterized by the arrival of fur 

traders and explorers to the area and is the start of the 

period for which written records exist. Cultural 

resources within the Planning Area that are associated 

with the historic period consist of fur trading posts, 

homesteads, settlements, historic emigrant and stage 

trails, Indian war period battle sites, ranch 

development, railroad installations, mining operations, 

oil and gas fields and Native American sites. 

The following areas are designated cultural Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs): 

• Powder River Resource Management Plan (RMP) 

area—Battle Butte ACEC is a 120-acre site in 

Rosebud County. Reynolds Battlefield ACEC is a 

336-acre site in Powder River County. 

• Billings RMP area—Pompeys Pillar is a 470-acre 

site in Yellowstone County. Castle Butte ACEC is 

a 185-acre site in Yellowstone County. Petroglyph 

Canyon is a 240-acre in Carbon County. The Stark 

Site is an 800-acre site in western Musselshell 

County. Weatherman Draw is a 4,268-acre site in 

Carbon County. 

Each of these ACECs has their own management plans 

that include restrictions on activities and development 

(BLM 1999a). Two additional cultural resource sites, 

the Mill Iron and Powers-Yonkee sites in the Powder 

River RMP area, have been designated Special 

Management Areas (SMAs) that also have their own 

management plans that include restrictions on activities 

and development. 

TCPs in southeastern Montana that are currently 

important to Native Americans, include ceremonial, 

homestead, burial, cairn, rock art, fasting, medicine 

wheel, medicine lodges, settlements, stone rings, Sun 

Dance lodges, communal kills and battle/raiding sites 

as well as rivers, springs, spirit homes and vision quest 

spiritual locations and landscapes that include plant 

collecting areas, fossil and mineral locations, paint 

sources and water. For the Northern Cheyenne these 

include TCPs in or near Deer Medicine Rocks, Little 

Bighorn Battlefield, Medicine Rock Site, Chalk Buttes, 

locations in and around Custer National Forest and the 

Tongue River Valley. Detailed descriptions of these 

locations and their importance to the Northern 

Cheyenne can be found in the “The Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe and its Reservation” (Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

2002). Crow TCPs include the west slopes of the Pryor 

Mountains, Tongue River Valley, Chalk Buttes, 

Broadus and Bighorn mountains (Crow Tribe 2002). 

Other TCPs exist in the Planning Area for tribes such 

as the Lower Brule Sioux and the Turtle Mountain 

Band of Chippewa, but they have not been specifically 

identified. 

The existence of cultural resources within a specific 

location is determined through examination of existing 

records, on-the-ground surveys and subsurface testing 

of areas that are proposed for disturbance on federal, 

state and private lands. Cultural resources are evaluated 

if federal or state minerals are involved and, for 

traditional cultural properties, consultation with 

appointed tribal government representatives who have 

knowledge of and can address issues of traditional 

cultural significance. Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires an 

inventory of cultural resources if federal involvement is 

present either in terms of surface or mineral estate, 

federal funds, federal grant, or federal license. 

Consultation with federally recognized Native 

American tribes must also be conducted to evaluate 

TCPs. The Montana State Historical Preservation 

Officer (SHPO) maintains a register of all identified 

sites within each of Montana’s counties as well as all 

sites that are listed or eligible for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

Table 3-3 contains information about the number of 

cultural resource sites that have been identified to date 

by SHPO for each of the counties within the Planning 

Area. Also included in this exhibit is information about 

the number and density of sites that are known to be 

located within the current area of CBNG production. 

This table has been updated based on 67,158 acres of 

3-11 
CHAPTER 3 

Cultural and Historical 

TABLE 3-3 

CULTURAL RESOURCE SITES IDENTIFIED BY SHPO WITHIN EACH COUNTY OF 

THE PLANNING AREA 

Number of 

Cultural Number of 

Resource Sites Per Extrapolated 

Sites Number Surveyed Acres Percent of Number of Number of 

Identified of Acres 1,000 Within the County Sites In the NRHP Sites 

RMP Area County in Surveys Surveyed Acres County Surveyed County Listed 

Powder River RMP Area 

Carter 1,007 135,233 7.45 2,132,128 6.3 15,877 0 

Powder River 1,807 94,468 19.13 2,109,880 4.5 40,358 1 

Custer 812 44,346 18.31 2,425,137 1.8 44,406 15 

Rosebud 1,689 200,413 8.43 3,213,997 6.2 27,086 16 

Treasure 109 16,356 6.66 629,224 2.6 4,193 2 

Subtotal 5,424 490,816 11.05 10,510,366 4.7 131,920 

Billings RMP Area 

Wheatland 235 8,086 29.06 913,079 0.9 26,536 2 

Sweet Grass 272 27,591 9.86 1,190,833 2.3 11,740 8 

Stillwater 302 10,770 28.04 1,154,243 0.9 32,366 8 

Carbon 1,367 41,469 32.96 1,319,367 3.1 43,492 64 

Golden Valley 126 9,997 12.62 752,094 1.3 9,489 3 

Musselshell 568 39,608 14.34 1,196,032 3.3 17,152 1 

Yellowstone 918 48,087 19.09 1,693,991 2.8 32,339 22 

Big Horn** 2,061 293,115 7.03 3,208,115 9.1 22,557 40 

Subtotal 5,849 478,723 12.22 11,427,754 4.2 195,671 148 

Total for SEIS 

Planning Area* 11,273 969,529 11.63 21,938,120 4.4 327,591 182 

CBNG Area Above 11.53 7,286,144 84,009 Known Coal Reserves 

* CBNG Production Area includes portions of Big Horn, Rosebud and Powder River counties where active coal mining is currently conducted and 

where federal and non-federal CBNG production wells currently exist.

**Also includes portion of Powder River RMP area.

Note: Information obtained from SHPO current as of November 2, 2004.

additional surveying done since the completion of the 

Statewide Document. 

A complete listing of SHPO recorded sites can be 

found in “An Ethnographic Overview of Southeast 

Montana” (Peterson and Deaver 2002) along with a 

listing of sites mentioned in literary sources, potential 

homestead locations and spring locations. 

The SEIS predicts 36,944 fewer cultural resource sites 

than the BLM 2003 Statewide Plan. This difference 

reflects improvements to eliminate duplication in the 

SHPO database and the exclusion of Blaine, Gallatin 

and Park counties from the SEIS planning area. 

Approximately 4.4 percent of the SEIS Planning Area 

has been surveyed for cultural resources resulting in a 

total of 11,273 cultural resource properties or sites 

being identified. This represents an average density of 

11.6 sites per 1,000 surveyed acres or, assuming an 

equal distribution of sites, one site per 86 surveyed 

acres. Assuming this data across the total acreage 

contained within the counties of the Planning Area 

yields a total of 327,591 cultural resource properties or 

sites that might be expected. A total of 3,744 sites have 

been identified in those portions of Big Horn, Rosebud 

and Powder River counties that represent the area with 

the greatest potential for CBNG production, with an 

average density of 11.5 sites per 1,000 surveyed acres 

or, assuming an equal distribution of sites, one site per 

87 acres. Extrapolated data yields a total of 84,009 sites 

that might be expected within the CBNG production 

area. 

The site densities estimated above are, of course, 

extrapolated assuming a consistent distribution within 

each county. This analysis is only valid for general site 

3-12 

34 
number estimates and not for site location or type of 

site. Sites cluster based on a host of additional site 

location information such as geographical location, 

access to water, plant, animal and other resources, view 

and visibility, exposure, etc. The type of site is directly 

related to site location depending on the activity 

conducted at the site. Easily accessible geographical 

classification and other associated site data did not 

exist at the time this report was prepared and the 

estimates provided are the best that can be made at this 

time. 

The data used for this analysis were based, in part, on 

surveys conducted more than 20 years ago and on 

recent surveys conducted for CBNG development 

projects. Standards for survey and recordation have 

changed and it is likely that the actual number of sites 

and their relative density is higher than indicated on 

Table 3-3. Despite these anticipated differences the 

general findings of this analysis are still valid. 

Two reviews were prepared: the Class I Literature 

Review for the Miles City Field Office (MCFO) RMP 

Revision and the Landscape Level Overview for 

CBNG development areas in Montana. The Class I 

literature review for cultural resources was prepared to 

construct an overview of the cultural resources in the 

area. This document was prepared in concert with the 

State Historic Preservation Office to identify ongoing 

efforts and expand the knowledge of traditional uses 

within the Planning Area. 

The Landscape Level Overview was prepared to 

provide a clear understanding of the cultural resources 

present within the CBNG development area and to 

identify any additional measures needed to protect 

these sites. A summary of the recent survey activity 

conducted for PODs is presented in Table 3-4. 

Preservation projects within the Planning Area include 

the Rosebud Battle Field State Park Preservation Plan 

and the Tongue River Digital Archive Project (ACRS, 

2006). Both projects were conducted by the Montana 

Preservation Alliance (MPA) through grants by the 

National Park Service. 

CHAPTER 3 

Cultural and Historical 

The Rosebud Battlefield State Park Preservation Plan is 

being funded by the NPS American Battlefield 

Protection Program (ABPP) and is designed to create a 

broad and effective preservation plan to protect 

Rosebud Battlefield. MPA is working with Montana 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP), leaders of tribes 

who share this history and other interested parties to 

produce a preservation plan for Rosebud Battlefield 

State Park and surrounding lands. The developers of 

the plan will strive to identify threats, lay out clear 

strategies for limiting the impacts of development and 

develop a design for long-term stewardship of the 

park’s important historic and prehistoric cultural 

resources. 

There are three existing National Historic Landmarks 

within the planning area. These include the Chief 

Plenty Coups Home, Pompey's Pillar and Pictograph 

Cave. Pictograph Cave and Chief Plenty Coups Home 

are state parks, while Pompey’s Pillar is a National 

Monument/ACEC. Development is prohibited within 

state parks and National Monuments. 

The Tongue River Digital Archive Project will create a 

digital archive of the rich cultural landscape that is the 

Tongue River Valley. The digital archive will integrate 

Native American and rural ranching traditions with 

rigorous historic sites recordation practices to create a 

lasting record of the history and cultural significance of 

valley resources. 

The Tongue River Digital Archive project builds upon 

years of inquiry into the area’s people, heritage 

resources and the land. MPA will visit historic places 

throughout the valley with Native American 

traditionalists and members of rural families to record 

important culture sites and stories. The information 

collected will be tagged to GIS cadastral maps, 

enabling photos and site forms to be called up from 

mapped points. The data will also be integrated into a 

statewide historic records database maintained by 

Montana’s State Historic Preservation Office and the 

University of Montana. 

3-13 
TABLE 3-4 

Cultural and Historical CHAPTER 3 

3-14 

CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORIES FOR COAL BED NATURAL GAS and OTTER CREEK COAL TRACTS 

Plan of 

Development 

(POD) Name 

Cultural 

Resource 

Contractor 

Previously. 

Recorded Sites – 

Not Relocated 

Total Acres Acres Acres Total Private 

Sponsor Acres BLM Private State Sites State Sites Sites BLM Sites 

Badger Hills Fidelity Foothills Arch. 604.0 0 Pre: 0 Pre: 0 Pre: 0 0 

E&P Coni Hist: 0 Hist: 0 Hist: 0 

Old: 0 Old: 0 Old: 0 

New: 0 New: 0 New: 0 

Isolates: 0 Isolates: 1 Isolates: 0 

Badger Hills Fidelity Ethnoscience 3,544 123 2,810 611 18 Pre: 1 Pre: 12 Pre: 0 0 

Infill E&P Hist: 0 Hist: 5 Hist: 0 

Old: 0 Old: 5 Old: 0 

New: 1 New: 12 New: 0 

Isolates: 0 Isolates: 2 Isolates: 0 

Coal Creek A Powder Western Land 736.40 0 736.40ii 0 3 Pre: 0 Pre: 2 Pre: 0 0 

River Gas Services Hist: 0 Hist: 1 Hist: 0 

New: 0 New: 3 New: 0 

Old: 0 Old: 0 Old: 0 

Isolates: 0 Isolates: 6 Isolates 0 

Coal Creek 2 Powder 

River Gas 

Western Land 

Servicesiii 

1,720 160 1,560 0 22 Pre:0 

Hist: 0 

Pre: 18 

Hist: 3 

Pre: 1 

Hist: 0 

0 

Old: 0 New: 21 New: 1 

New: 0 Old: 0 Old: 0 

Isolates: 0 Isolates: 8 Isolates: 1 

Coal Creek 

South viii 

Fidelity 

E&P 

Ethnoscience 

Foothills Arch. 

3,606iv 726.58 2,591.97 395.87 4 Pre: 1 

Hist: 0 

Pre: 0 

Hist: 2 

Pre: 0 

Hist: 1 

1v 

Old: 1 Old: 1 Old: 0 

New: 0 New: 1 New: 0 

Isolates: 0 Isolates: 0 Isolates: 0 

Coal Creek Fidelity Ethnoscience 4,943 1,292.0 3,375.0 276 4 Pre: 1 Pre: 1 Pre: 2 0 

South -Infill E&P Hist: 0 Hist: 0 Hist: 0 

Old: 0 Old: 0 Old: 0 

New: 1 New: 1 New: 0 

Isolates: 0 Isolates: 1 Isolates: 1 

Dry Creek vii Fidelity Ethnoscience 685.58 68 538.08 70 20 Pre: 2 Pre: 14 Pre:3 0 

E&P Hist: 0 Hist: 1 Hist: 0 

New: 0 New: 3 New: 0 

Old: 2 Old: 12 Old:3 

Isolates: 0 Isolates: 8 Isolates: 0 
TABLE 3-4

CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORIES FOR COAL BED NATURAL GAS and OTTER CREEK COAL TRACTS

Plan of 

Development 

(POD) Name Sponsor 

Cultural 

Resource 

Contractor 

Total Acres Acres Acres Total Private 

Acres BLM Private State Sites State Sites Sites BLM Sites 

Previously. 

Recorded Sites – 

Not Relocated 

Deer Creek Fidelity Ethnoscience 9,780.83 836.6 8,750.74 193.49 57 Pre: 2 Pre: 24 Pre: 2 5 

North E&P Hist: 0 Hist: 29 Hist: 0 

Old: 0 Old: 17 Old: 0 

New: 2 New: 36 New: 2 

Isolates: 0 Isolates: 42 Isolates: 1 

Pond Creek Fidelity Ethnoscience 9,945.77 911.03 8,394.74 640.0 147 Pre: 6 

E&P Hist: 0 

Old: 1 

New: 5 

Isolates: 4 

Deer Creek Fidelity Ethnoscience 4,479 854 2,717 588 8(11)vi Pre: 0 

South (POD E&P Hist: 0 

Not Yet 

Submitted) 

Old: 0 

New: 0 

Isolates: 0 

Dietz NorthState Only ix Pinnacle 

Gas 

Western Land 

Services 

640 0 0 640 11 Pre: 11 

Hist. 0 

Resources, Old: 0 

Inc. New: 0 

Isolates: 22 

Totals 37,115.18 4,903.29 28,797.53 3,414.36 294 25 

Pre: 111 

Hist: 14 

Old: 46 

New: 86 

Isolates: 56 

Pre: 4 

Hist: 3 

Old: 1 

New: 6 

Isolates: 7 

Pre: 0 

Hist: 0 

Old: 0 

New: 0 

Isolates: 0 

255 

Pre: 5 5 

Hist: 0 

Old: 0 

New: 5 

Isolates: 2 

Pre: 1 0 

Hist: 0 

Old: 1 

New: 0 

Isolates: 3 

Pre: 0 1 

Hist: 0 

Old: 0 

New: 0 

Isolates: 0 

14 12 

3-15 

CHAPTER 3 

Cultural and Historical 
TABLE 3-4

CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORIES FOR COAL BED NATURAL GAS and OTTER CREEK COAL TRACTS

Cultural and Historical CHAPTER 3 

3-16 

Plan of 

Development 

(POD) Name 

Cultural Previously. 

Recorded Sites – 

Not Relocated 

Resource 

Sponsor Contractor 

Total

Acres

Acres

BLM

Acres

Private

Acres

State

Total 

Sites

Private

State Sites Sites BLM Sites 

Pending CBNG Projects and Otter Creek Inventory 

Dietz South – Pinnacle Western Land 5,040.00 1,160.00 3,880.00 0 18 Pre: 0 Pre: 6 Pre: 4 0 

POD and Gas Services/Aaberg (estimate) Hist.: 0 Hist.: 3 Hist.: 5 

Reports Not Resources, Cultural Old: 0 Old: 0 Old: 9 

Yet Inc. Resources New: 0 New: 9 New: 0 

Submitted x Consulting Isolates: 0 Isolates: ? Isolates: 1 

Services-1999 

Otter Creek State of GCM Services, 7,720.00 1,770.00 4,030.00 1,920.00 139 Pre: 22 Pre: 55 Pre: 37 15 

Coal Tracts Montana Inc. Hist: 2 Hist. 7 Hist.: 0 

Inventory xi Old: 3 Old: 22 Old: 14 

New: 21 New: 40 New: 23 

Isolates: 19 Isolates: 57 Isolates: 12 

Sub-Total 12,760 2,930 7,910 1,920 157 24 62 37 15 

Final Total 49,875.18 7,833.29 36,707.53 5,334.36 451 49 317 51 27 

i Not Done as Block Inventory (10 acres – 40 acres around wells and 100 foot Access Road/Infrastructure Corridors) ii Includes Multiple Reports 1 for block, 1 for inventory of site and 1 monitor iii Draft Report Only 

iv Includes multiple reports done in small blocks and corridors v Prehistoric Site On State Lands Not Relocated 

vi 3 Sites recorded as part of Deer Creek North POD 

vii Based on 3 Reports 

viii Partially overlaps with Deer Creek North POD ix Includes 2 sites recorded as part of Deer Creek North POD x 580 acres previously inventoried for Pennaco Prospect in 1999 xi Some sites in this project are made of multiple previously recorded sites 
CHAPTER 3 

Geology and Minerals 

Geology and Minerals 

Montana is the site of the juxtaposition of the Great 

Plains with the Rocky Mountains. The rocks at the 

surface vary from the ancient metamorphic and 

igneous complexes forming the cores of some 

mountains to recent sediments in the major river 

valleys of the state. The Geology of Montana plays 

an indispensable role in forming the mineral 

resources, visual resources and water resources of the 

state. The geologic history of the state has been a 

series of major structural events in the tectonics, or 

continent building of North America. 

Map 3-1 is the Tectonic Element Map of the state of 

Montana. The map shows the locations of important 

basins such as the Bighorn and Williston that have 

trapped sediment containing coal, oil and natural gas. 

The map also locates mountain ranges such as the 

Crazy Mountains and Black Hills that served as 

sources for some of the sedimentary units. Several 

tectonic elements will be discussed in detail including 

those features that affect the state’s resources – The 

Powder River Basin, The Bighorn Basin, Bighorn 

Mountains, the Bull Mountains Basin and others. 

These major tectonic elements influence the porous 

reservoirs that hold the usable water, oil and natural 

gas. They also influence the impermeable barriers to 

fluid movement. These elements influence the local 

folds and faults that form the oil and gas fields of the 

state. 

Montana’s basins have accumulated sediments 

several miles in thickness; these sands, shales, coals 

and limestones form the source and reservoirs of 

Montana’s fossil energy reserves – crude oil, natural 

gas, coal and coal bed natural gas (CBNG). In these 

basins, ancient sediments were buried to great depths 

within the earth where heating and increased pressure 

formed the fuels from the raw organic materials 

trapped in the sediments. The sedimentary basins also 

hold a significant portion of the water resources of 

the state; in the deep parts of these basins the water is 

generally salty while the shallower parts of these 

basins there is fresh water of meteoric origin. 

Map 3-2 presents the statewide outcrop geology. The 

map emphasizes broad basin features underlying the 

Great Plains in contrast to the intensely contorted 

structures under the many mountain areas. The basins 

mentioned above as likely to contain CBNG 

resources, such as the Powder River Basin, can be 

seen as broad expanses of similar outcrop. In the case 

of the Powder River Basin, rocks at the surface are all 

coal-bearing Tertiary formations except for the 

scattered Quaternary age alluvium in stream and river 

valleys. Other basins contain coal-bearing sediments 

of Cretaceous age. The presence of large volumes of 

suitable coal is vital for predicting CBNG 

development. 

CBNG is the focus of this SEIS; it is important to 

recognize the resource is intimately associated with 

coal deposits. The natural gas is generated by the coal 

deposit both under thermogenic (heat-driven) and 

biogenic (microbe-driven) conditions. At the same 

time, the natural gas is trapped in the coal seams by 

the pressure of groundwater. Releasing the pressure 

of groundwater from the coal aquifers liberates the 

natural gas, allowing it to be produced and sold. The 

magnitude of the CBNG resource is determined by 

gas content, coal type and volume; the location of 

coal reserves can be used to predict the location of 

Montana’s CBNG resources. 

Map 3-3 is the statewide coal occurrence map. The 

map displays the extent of coal deposits that support 

mines and are expected to support projected CBNG 

development. The geology of Montana has given rise 

to several different kinds of coal; the most important 

differentiator is coal rank or thermal maturity. As 

coal is buried or otherwise heated, the raw plant 

material is gradually converted from complex carbon 

compounds to simple compounds and elemental 

carbon. Map 3-3 highlights coal rank or maturation 

ranging from lignite, sub-bituminous, high-volatile 

bituminous, medium-volatile bituminous, lowvolatile bituminous and anthracite coals 

(Leythenhaeuser and Welte 1969). The major areas 

of interest are the Powder River Basin and Bull 

Mountain Basin, which contain mostly subbituminous coal that has not reached a high degree of 

maturation. Also of interest for CBNG is the Bighorn 

Basin which contains medium and high volatile 

bituminous coal of slightly higher maturity. 

According to the Montana Board of Oil and Gas 

Conservation (MBOGC) records, CBNG has been 

produced only in the CX Ranch field in the Montana 

portion of the Powder River Basin since April 1999. 

Exploration solely for CBNG first happened in the 

Montana Powder River Basin in December 1990 in 

the area of CX Ranch. However, the first CBNG 

exploration in the state was in August 1990 in the 

Bighorn Basin where CBNG was tested but never 

sold. In many parts of the state, coals are aquifers that 

contain significant amounts of groundwater and are 

used by residents for water needs. In order to produce 

the CBNG in the Montana part of the Powder River 

Basin, groundwater must be drawn off the coal 

aquifer. Unless groundwater is produced from the 

coals, CBNG will not be produced; water production 

3-17 
3-18
3-19
3-20
cannot be avoided during CBNG development. This 

is the central conflict between CBNG and traditional 

uses of the land; when CBNG is produced, local coal 

aquifers must be depressurized. Depending on the 

area, this depressurization may extend beyond the 

CBNG producing field boundaries. 

Regional Geology 

The Planning Area of the SEIS consists of the 

Powder River RMP area and the Billings RMP area. 

The Planning Area contains three major basinal 

features – Powder River, Bighorn and Bull 

Mountains basins – and surrounding uplifted areas. 

All three basins were formerly broad shelves until 

Laramide tectonics caused uplift in the surrounding 

areas. This era of uplift and mountain building 

contributed to sedimentary deposition and subsidence 

within the basins during the Late Cretaceous and 

Early Tertiary. The Bull Mountains Basin and 

Powder River Basin were one continuous basin 

during the depositional periods of the Cretaceous and 

Early Tertiary. It was post-depositional tectonics that 

divided the two (Stricker, 1999). The asymmetric 

basins are the result of a combination of sedimentary 

and structural subsidence with most of the fill 

consisting of the Fort Union Formation. The Fort 

Union Formation also contains most of the coals 

occurring in these three basins. 

The Powder River Basin in its entirety covers 

approximately 12,000 square miles with the smaller 

portion in Montana (Ellis et al., 1998). The Powder 

River Basin is bounded to the west by the Bighorn 

Uplift, to the southwest and south by the Casper 

Arch, Laramie Mountains and Hartville Uplift; and to 

the east by the Black Hills Uplift. The Miles City 

Arch and the Cedar Creek Anticline to the north 

essentially separate the Powder River Basin from the 

Williston Basin (ibid). 

Coal has been mined in the Powder River Basin since 

1865 and large-scale strip-mining has been underway 

since the mid-1960s when demand increased for 

relatively clean-burning coals (Flores and Bader 

1999). Conventional oil and gas have been exploited 

in the Powder River Basin for more than 50 years 

while CBNG has been only lately developed with 

major activity beginning in 1997 (Rice et al. 2000). 

Map 3-4 depicts the outcrop geology of the Montana 

portion of the Powder River Basin. The map 

illustrates the broad geometry of the basin with the 

youngest Tertiary strata (Wasatch Formation) 

preserved in the deepest part of the basin just north of 

the Wyoming-Montana state line. The broad bands of 

the Tongue River and Lebo/Tullock members 

throughout most of the basin attest to the shallow 

dips to the east and north edges of the basin. The 

CHAPTER 3 

Geology and Minerals 

narrow outcrop bands on the west limb of the basin 

indicate that the basin is somewhat asymmetrical 

with steeper dips on the western side. 

Map 3-5 portrays the distribution of water wells, the 

prospective CBNG areas and existing CBNG 

production within the Montana portion of the Powder 

River Basin. The map was constructed from 

information in the MBMG Map 60 (Van Voast and 

Thale, 2001) and emphasizes those areas with thick, 

sub-bituminous and bituminous coal reserves. Coals 

are both water reservoirs and gas reservoirs and as 

such, CBNG production will affect local aquifers and 

even surface water. CBNG development is expected 

to be concentrated in the southern portion of the 

Powder River RMP area although coals exist over 

most of the basin and CBNG coverage could prove to 

be greater. The water wells shown in the map could 

be at risk to drawdown impact from CBNG 

development, especially those water wells completed 

in coal aquifers. Those aquifers at risk to CBNG 

impact are described in the Hydrology section. 

Stratigraphy 

The stratigraphy of the Planning Area describes the 

age, composition and continuity of sedimentary 

rocks. The sedimentary strata of the Planning Area 

extend backward in time from Recent-age alluvium 

found in stream valleys, to strata at the surface that is 

largely Tertiary and Cretaceous. These older 

formations were deposited during the Laramide 

orogeny that gave rise to most of the uplifted areas in 

Montana. Though the area contains significant 

thicknesses of older formations, the Tertiary Age 

basin fills are of particular interest for coal, CBNG 

and groundwater production (Ellis et al. 1998). 

Conventional oil and natural gas occur in the older, 

pre-Laramide section but most coals of interest in the 

Powder River Basin are found in the Early Tertiary 

Age units. See Figure 3-1 for a stratigraphic 

interpretation of the regional geology of the Powder 

River Basin. 

Figure 3-2 is a stratigraphic column of Upper 

Cretaceous and Lower Tertiary sediments in the 

Montana Powder River Basin. The stratigraphic 

column shows the continuous development of several 

thousand feet of sediments that include widespread 

sands, coals and fluvial, fine-grained sediments. The 

major formations are named along with major coal 

seams that are discussed in greater detail elsewhere. 

Geologic formations found at the surface of the 

Powder River Basin consist largely of the several 

members of the Paleocene Fort Union Formation, as 

well as the overlying Wasatch Formation in a small 

corner of the basin (Rice et al. 2000). The Tongue 

River member of the Fort Union Formation contains 

3-21 
CHAPTER 3 

Geology and Minerals 

3-22
CHAPTER 3 

Geology and Minerals 

3-23
CHAPTER 3 

Geology and Minerals 

FIGURE 3-1 - STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN OF THE TERIARY, MESOZOIC AND PART OF THE 

PAELOZOIC SEDIMENTS IN THE MONTANA AND WYOMING PORTIONS OF

THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

The column includes formations that make up CBNG reservoirs and sources of water in the basin. 

ERATHEM SYSTEM, SERIES and 

OTHER DIVISIONS 

POWDER RIVER BASIN, MONTANA AND WYOMING 

CENOZOIC 

Quatemary Alluvium 

Tertiary 

Pliocene 

Miocene 

Oligocene White River Formation 

Eocene Wasatch Formation 

Paleocene Fort Union 

Formation 

Tongue River Member 

Lebo Shale Member 

Tullock Member 

MESOZOIC 

Cretaceous 

Upper 

Hell Creek Formation 

Fox Hills Sandstone 

Lewis Shale 

Judith River Pierre Shale 

Cody Shale Niobrara Formation 

Carlile Shale 

Frontier Formation Greenhorn Formation 

Belle Fourche Shale 

Mowry Shale 

Lower 

Muddy Sandstone Newcastle Sandstone 

Thermopolis Shale Skull Creek Shale Inyan Kara Group

Fall River Formation 

Lakota Formation 

Jurassic 

Morrison Formation 

Sundance 

Formation 

Upper Part 

Lower Part 

Gypsum Spring 

Formation 

Jurassic (?) or Triassic (?) Chugwater Group or 

Formation Spearfish 

Triassic 

Goose Egg 

Formation 

Upper part Formation (Upper part) 

PALEOZOIC 

Permian Lower 

Part 

(Lower part) 

Minnekahta Limestone 

Opeche Formation 

Pennsylvanian Tensleep Sandstone 

Minnelusa Formation Amsden Formation 

Mississippian Madison 

Limestone Madison Group 

3-24 
CHAPTER 3 

Geology and Minerals 

FIGURE 3-2 - STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN OF UPPER CRETACEOUS AND LOWER TERTIARY 

SEDIMENTS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN 

BEDROCK UNITS THAT FILL THE POWDER RIVER BASIN INCLUDE THE HELLCREEK, FORT

UNION AND WASATCH FORMATIONS (MODIFIED FROM RICE ET AL. 2000).

Upper Cretaceous (part) 

Hell Creek Formation 

Fox Hills Sandstone 

3-25 
CHAPTER 3 

Geology and Minerals 

the coal seams of interest within the Montana portion 

of the Powder River Basin. These coal seams 

function as the source of the CBNG, as well as 

aquifers carrying groundwater of varying quantity 

and quality. In the Powder River Basin coal seams 

range in depth from the surface to approximately 

900 feet deep. Individual coal beds can be up to 50 

feet thick and can form aggregate thicknesses over 

100 feet. Coal seams in the Tongue River member do 

not have significant matrix porosity and permeability 

(Gray 1987); they can act as aquifers because fluids 

such as water and CBNG are contained within the 

coal’s fracture system, known as cleat (Montgomery 

et al. 2001). The fractures accumulate the fluids and 

allow the fluids to move horizontally and vertically 

within the coal. Coals typically are bounded above 

and below by low permeability shale units (Wheaton 

and Donato, 2004). 

Sediments in the Powder River 

Basin 

Deep Formations 

A number of regional geologic formations occur 

beneath the major basin fill units within the Powder 

River Basin. These formations as shown on the 

regional stratigraphic column in Figure 3-1 are 

broadly present across Montana including the Powder 

River Basin. Penetrations of these formations by 

conventional oil and gas wells have been few in the 

Montana Powder River Basin and hydrocarbon 

production is scattered. The Cretaceous age Judith 

River, Shannon, Eagle and Dakota/Lakota 

Formations are present in the subsurface between 

approximately 2,200 feet below ground surface (bgs) 

and 9,000 feet bgs. These four sandy formations are 

encased and overlain by thick Cretaceous shales of 

the Colorado and Pierre Formations (Noble et al, 

1982). Reservoir quality sands are not present 

everywhere within each of these formations but each 

could locally be a suitable disposal zone for produced 

CBNG water. Only the Shannon Formation produces 

gas within the Powder River Basin (Nobel et al. 

1982). 

Upper Cretaceous Fox Hills and Hell 

Creek Formations 

The Fox Hills Sandstone and Hell Creek Formations 

are Late Cretaceous in age and underlie the Fort 

Union in the Montana portion of the Powder River 

Basin. The formations are difficult to separate in 

outcrop and can be very difficult to separate in the 

subsurface, depending on the area and appear to be in 

hydrologic continuity. Together, the Hell Creek and 

Fox Hills total approximately 500 feet of non-marine 

coastal plain sediments that have been shed from the 

mountains to the east and west (Perry, 1962). They 

are made up of variable, shaley sands that contain 

some of the youngest dinosaur fossils in the world. 

The sands are scattered over most of Eastern 

Montana but are not present everywhere in the 

Powder River Basin; the formations crop out at the 

edges of the basin and are found as deep as 3,700 feet 

bgs near the axis of the basin in Montana (Miller 

1981). The Fox Hills Formation lies conformably 

upon approximately 2,000 feet of Upper Cretaceous 

Pierre Shale. The Hell Creek is overlain by the thick 

Tertiary Fort Union Formation. 

Paleocene Fort Union Formation 

The Fort Union forms most of the sedimentary fill 

within the Montana Powder River Basin. It consists 

of approximately 3,500 feet of non-marine 

interbedded, sandstones, siltstones, shales and coal 

beds (Roberts et al, 1999a). The Fort Union also 

contains clinker deposits, formed by the natural 

burning of coal beds and the resultant baking or 

fusing of strata overlying the burning coal, which are 

present throughout much of the area and can be more 

than 125 feet thick (Tudor, 1975). 

The Fort Union is split into three stratigraphic 

members: the lowest and oldest is the Tullock 

Member, overlain by the Lebo Shale Member, 

overlain by the Tongue River Member (McLellan et 

al. 1990). In the Montana portion of the Powder 

River Basin, the bulk of the coals are confined to the 

Tongue River Member, while the Lebo and Tullock 

Members are predominantly shale and shaley sand 

(McLellan et al. 1990). The Members are discussed 

in detail below: 

The Tullock Member 

This is the stratigraphically lowest part of the Fort 

Union, consisting of approximately 300 feet to more 

than 500 feet of interbedded sands and shales with 

minor coals near the base (Tudor 1975). The Tullock 

rests unconformably upon the Upper Cretaceous Hell 

Creek Formation throughout the Powder River Basin. 

While generally sandier, the Tullock is difficult to 

separate in outcrop and in the subsurface from the 

overlying Lebo Member. The Tullock and Lebo 

Members are combined into the Ludlow Member on 

the east side of the Powder River. 

The Lebo Member 

This middle member ranges from 75 feet to more 

than 200 feet of claystones, limestones and 

mudstones with the Big Dirty coal (3 to 13 feet of 

thickness) at the very base (Tudor 1975). The Lebo 

Member forms an effective barrier to vertical flow. 

3-26 
As such, any drawdown-related impacts associated 

with CBNG development in the Tongue River 

Member would be limited to that member. 

The Tongue River Member 

The thickness of the Tongue River Member varies 

from zero at the outcrop edge near the fringe of the 

basin to 3,000 feet near the axis of the basin 

(Williams 2001). The total aggregate thickness of all 

the coal seams ranges up to approximately 150 feet 

(Ellis et al. 1999b). The Tongue River Member can 

be locally divided into three units. The lower unit 

includes that portion below the Sawyer coal seam. 

The middle unit includes the Sawyer through the 

Wall coal seam. The upper unit includes that portion 

above the Wall coal seam (Ellis et al. 1999b). 

The Lower Tongue River unit is present across most 

of the Montana portion of the basin. It includes, from 

the base up, the Stag, Terret, Witham, Robinson, 

Rosebud-McKay, Flowers-Goodale, Nance, Calvert 

and Knoblach coals. In the Ashland coalfield, the 

Lower Tongue River unit is up to 1,660 feet in 

thickness (Roberts et al. 1999b). 

The Middle Tongue River unit is present over a large 

part of the Montana portion of the Powder River 

Basin. It includes, from the base up, the Sawyer, 

Mackin -Walker, Cache, Odell, Brewster-Arnold, 

Pawnee and Wall coals. 

The Upper Tongue River unit is present only in the 

southern part of the Montana portion of the Powder 

River Basin. It includes, from the base up, the Otter, 

Cook, Carney, Canyon, Dietz anderson and Smith 

coals. At the Decker mine, the Upper Tongue River is 

up to 1,500 feet thick; coals can attain an aggregate 

thickness up to 111 feet (Roberts et al. 1999a). 

Although coals are the most economically significant 

part of the Tongue River Member, they form a small 

portion of the sedimentary volume. They are also 

extremely variable stratigraphically, as shown in the 

cross-section depicted in Figure 3-3. Figure 3-3 

shows stratigraphic variation of the AndersonCanyon Coals in the area of the Decker Mine, 

Powder River Basin, Montana. 

The cross-section illustrates the continuity or lack of 

continuity within the stratigraphic units. Coal 

aquifers can be seen to have local continuity but lack 

regional continuity. A local coal seam such as Dietz 1 

can persist for several miles but the entire AndersonDietz package is eroded from the Colstrip area. The 

CHAPTER 3 

Geology and Minerals 

stratigraphic complications documented in Figure 3-2 

suggest that even thinly separated coal seams may be 

very dissimilar. The cross-section illustrates the 

pinch-outs of coal seams, bifurcating coal seams and 

erosional cut-off of coal seams by Paleocene and 

Recent stream erosion. All of these factors can play a 

role in complicating the production of water and 

CBNG from the Fort Union Formation. 

Fort Union coals are also present in the Bighorn 

Basin and the Bull Mountain Basin, where they are 

prospective for CBNG resources. 

Wasatch Formation 

The Eocene Age Wasatch Formation is present in the 

Montana portion of the Powder River Basin as fine-to 

medium-grained sandstone lenses and channel-fill 

interbedded with siltstones, shales and minor coal. 

The thickness of the Wasatch Formation ranges from 

near zero at the outcrop edge to 400 feet near the 

southern state boundary (Roberts et al. 1999a). It is 

present in outcrop in the extreme southwest corner of 

the basin where it overlies the Fort Union. 

Quaternary Alluvium 

Quaternary age sediments are those that are 

Pleistocene (the latest glacial episode) and Recent 

(post-glacial episode) in age; the sequence is 

dominated by events and effects associated with 

continental glaciation, including glacial till and 

exaggerated peri-glacial valley fill. Quaternary 

sediments in the Powder River Basin and most of the 

state are present as variable fill in stream and river 

valleys. Quaternary alluvium consists of 

unconsolidated sand, silt and gravel that make up the 

floodplains and stream terraces of river and creek 

valleys in the Powder River Basin (BLM 1999b). 

Thickness is highly variable, but maximum thickness 

is not expected to exceed 90 feet. Lithology is 

somewhat dependent on bedrock outcrop; alluvium 

overlying the Tertiary strata are mostly fine-grained 

to medium-grained sands and silts. Coarser-grained 

alluvium may be associated with some of the larger 

rivers where provenance has been outside the Powder 

River Basin (Hodson et al. 1973). Alluvial aquifers 

are largely unconfined and connected to active river 

flow. Because alluvial aquifers can deliver large 

quantities of water to wells, they are important 

stratigraphic features. They are also important 

because they are vulnerable to impact from produced 

water management and are often connected to surface 

water resources. 

3-27 
CHAPTER 3 

Geology and Minerals 

FIGURE 3-3 - STRATIGRAPHIC VARIATION OF THE ANDERSON-CANYON COALS IN THE AREA 

OF THE DECKER MINE, POWDER RIVER BASIN, MONTANA (ROBERTS ET AL. 1999A) 

CROSS-SECTION OF LOCALIZED STRATIGRAPHY OVER A SMALL PORTION OF THE POWDER 

RIVER BASIN NEAR DECKER, MONTANA.

Note: this cross-section reflects localized stratigraphy over a small portion of the Powder River Basin and is not 

intended to be a regional reflection of the entire Montana portion of the basin. 

Powder River RMP Area 

The Powder River RMP area is centered over the 

broad, flat-lying Powder River Basin, with basin 

margins rising up to the Black Hills (South Dakota) 

on the southeast and the Bighorn Mountains to the 

west. Oil production has occurred in The Powder 

River Basin since 1954. During 2004, 24 

conventional oil and natural gas fields were active in 

the RMP area (MBOGC 2005). Production trends 

summarized in Figure MIN-1 of the Minerals 

Appendix (ALL 2001b) shows a sharp decline of oil 

production during the past 15 years caused by the 

aging of the several Muddy Formation fields on the 

edge of the basin. During the same time, 

conventional natural gas production from shallow 

Cretaceous reservoirs has increased, although it has 

remained at minor levels. 

Billings RMP Area 

The Billings RMP area centers on the Montana 

portion of the Bighorn Basin, the largest structural 

element in the area. The RMP area also includes the 

Basin and oil is also produced from the Central 

Montana Uplift. Natural gas and oil were produced 

from 55 fields in the year 2004. Production statistics 

for 2000 show a 50 percent decline of both natural 

gas and oil production in the past 15 years, although 

significant quantities of both commodities are still 

being produced in the area (ALL 2001b). 

Conventional Oil and Gas 

Conventional oil and gas resources are scattered 

across Tertiary and older basins of the state, as well 

as in faulted and thrusted sedimentary rocks at the 

edges of some of the basins. The type of hydrocarbon 

fluids that are produced (oil, natural gas, or both) 

varies with the local geology and position in the field. 

Natural gas can be produced along with oil in some 

reservoirs or it can be produced “dry”—without 

associated oil. Most oil and gas reservoirs will also 

produce associated water. Produced water is mostly 

injected under UIC permits, back into the producing 

formations to maintain reservoir energy or into nonproductive, salt-water bearing reservoirs although 

there are currently 24 surface water discharge permits 

Big and Little Snowy and Little Belt mountains to the that have been issued for producing conventional oil 

north that combine to make up the Central Montana and gas fields. 

Uplift. Oil and gas is produced from the Bighorn 

3-28 
CHAPTER 3 

Geology and Minerals 

• The Williston Basin produces the majority of the 

oil for the state of Montana and small amounts of 

natural gas associated with the oil; except for 

shallow gas fields along the Cedar Creek 

Anticline, little dry gas is produced. 

• North-central Montana produces mainly dry 

natural gas from shallow fields. 

• Northwestern Montana produces shallow oil 

with little associated natural gas. 

• Central Montana produces oil with virtually no 

natural gas. 

• The Bighorn Basin produces small amounts of 

both oil and natural gas. 

• The Powder River Basin produces small amounts 

of oil at the eastern edge of the basin and very 

small amounts of conventional natural gas from 

shallow reservoirs (MBOGC 2000). 

Conventional oil and gas production for the RMP 

areas is summarized in the Minerals Appendix of this 

volume. 

Coal Bed Natural Gas 

CBNG is a naturally occurring resource becoming 

very important throughout the U.S. CBNG is natural 

gas that is generated during the geological process of 

converting plant material into coal through the action 

of burial and geothermal temperatures and during the 

natural process of biogenic transformation of organic 

matter into methane through the action of microbes in 

the coal. Several thousand CBNG wells have been 

completed in the Wyoming portion of the Powder 

River Basin while only approximately 950 CBNG 

wells exist in the Montana portion. CBNG is 

discussed in more detail in the Minerals Appendix of 

this volume and in the Water Resources Technical 

report (ALL 2001b) that includes numerous 

important references. 

Table 3-5 contains the CBNG Plans of Development 

for Montana submitted since the ROD was signed in 

the spring of 2003. Figures 3-4 and 3-5 show the 

POD locations within the Upper and Lower Tongue 

Watersheds and the Middle Powder Watershed. 

TABLE 3-5 

CBNG PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED AND APPROVED APDS 

Plan of Development Date Approved Proposed Proposed Proposed 

(POD) Company BLM MBOGC Federal State Private Total 

Badger Hills Fidelity Exploration & 

Production Co. 

9/03­

2/04 7/03 86 72 20 178 

Coal Creek Powder River Gas/Pinnacle 

Gas Resources, Inc. 11/04 11/04 8 0 8 16 

Dry Creek Fidelity Exploration & 

Production Co. 12/04 5/04 24 11 3 38 

Coal Creek (CX) 

(Original) 

Fidelity Exploration & 

Production Co. 1/05 2/05 132 16 62 210 

Coal Creek Expansion Pinnacle Gas Resources, Inc. 8/05 0 0 48 48 

Pond Creek Fidelity Exploration & 

Production Co. 9/05 55 0 23 78 

Dietz Pinnacle Gas Resources, Inc. 9/05 0 0 132 132 

Deer Creek North 

(Original) 

Fidelity Exploration & 

Production Co. 9/05 71 0 99 170 

Castle Rock – Stevens Powder River Gas, LLC 11/05 0 0 284 284 

Deer Creek North 

POD Amendment 

Fidelity Exploration & 

Production Co. 1/06 68 4 112 184 

Coal Creek (CX) 

Amendment 

Fidelity Exploration & 

Production Co. 3/061 173 20 43 236 

Black Eagle Butte Pinnacle Gas Resources, Inc. 3/06 0 100 0 100 

Badger Hills 

Amendment 

Fidelity Exploration & 

Production Co. 6/06 36 29 38 103 

Totals: 653 252 872 1,777 

Total Approved 250 252 872 1,374 1 Pending approval tentative date 

3-29 
FIGURE 3-4: UPPER TONGUE WATERSHED POD LOCATION MAP 

3-30
CHAPTER 3 

Geology and Minerals 

FIGURE 3-5: LOWER TONGUE AND 

MIDDLE POWDER WATERSHED 

POD LOCATION MAP 

Coal 

Coal occurs in all of the RMP areas discussed in this 

SEIS (Roberts 1966 and Calvert 1912a and 1912b). 

Coal mining is underway at five mines in the Powder 

River RMP area and has historically been conducted 

in the Billings RMP area (USDL 1999). A more 

detailed description is included in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Resource 

Management Plan, Powder River Resource Area 

(BLM 1984b). Coal resources are discussed in more 

detail in the Minerals Appendix of this volume. 

Mineral Materials 

Construction materials that are classified as saleable 

minerals are found in the RMP areas. These include 

sand and gravel, scoria, common clay and crushed 

common stone not subject to regulation under the 

1872 Mining Law. Descriptions of these materials are 

given under Mineral Materials and Locatable 

Minerals in the Final Oil and Gas RMP/EIS 

Amendment (BLM 1992) and in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Resource 

Management Plan, Billings Resource Area (BLM 

1983) as well as the Final EIS Amendment for the 

Billings, Powder River and South Dakota Resource 

Management Plans of the Miles City District (BLM 

1992). 

Locatable Minerals 

Locatable minerals are subject to provisions of the 

1872 Mining Law. Minerals such as vanadium, 

uranium, gold, silver, gypsum and uncommon 

varieties of bentonite are found in the various 

Planning Areas. Detailed descriptions of management 

practices for locatable minerals on federally managed 

lands are given in the Final RMP/EIS for the Billings 

and Powder River Resource Management Plans of 

the Miles City District (BLM 1983, 1984b). 

Geologic Hazards

Seismic activity, rock falls and abandoned mines are 

all geologic hazards that occur in the Planning Area. 

Rock falls are common in road cuts, stream cuts and 

cliff faces. Hazards are associated with abandoned 

3-31 
CHAPTER 3 

Geology and Minerals 

underground mines; these include adits and shafts, as 

well as subsidence holes over the mines. Landslides 

and avalanches can result from activities in surface 

mines; even small gravel pits can present a hazard. 

Current management restricts activities in areas of 

known geologic hazards. Geologic hazard 

information is considered during the environmental 

analysis of individual proposals. When necessary, the 

MCFO develops appropriate mitigation measures. 

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977 provided the authority and funding to reclaim 

abandoned mines, as administered through MDEQ. 

Additional information on geologic hazards is 

generated through ongoing inventories conducted by 

the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology and the 

MDEQ Abandoned Mine Lands Division. 

Geologic hazards in eastern Montana consist 

primarily of threats from earthquakes; although even 

these are rare. Most strong earthquakes in Montana 

have occurred in the western third of the state. The 

only significant shock outside this area was an 

intensity VI earthquake on June 24, 1943, in southern 

Sheridan County, in the northeastern corner of the 

state. A well-constructed granary at Froid cracked so 

severely that wheat spilled out. Plaster cracks and 

minor chimney damage were reported at Homestead, 

Redstone and Reserve. 

Methane Seepage, Migration and 

Venting 

Methane seeps usually occur where coal beds are 

extremely close to the surface. Natural cracks or 

passageways for the gas to flow usually do not exist 

where the coal is deeper. The methane contained in 

Fort Union coals is present in a free state, adsorbed 

on interior pore surfaces and micropores of the coal 

matrix and dissolved in water contained within the 

coal seam. 

Gas migration and seepage can be increased by coal 

mining or CBNG development. Reducing the 

hydrostatic pressure on the coal seam by pumping the 

water enhances the release of methane that was 

previously trapped in the coal matrix, as well as gas 

dissolved in the water. This free gas typically will 

flow towards the low pressure created by the 

pumping well. The objective is to extract the CBNG 

before it flows into areas of lower pressure. 

Methane migration and seepage in the PRB have 

been associated with the escape of methane from coal 

mines located along the coal outcrops. Experience in 

the PRB has shown that seeps that involve potentially 

explosive concentrations of methane have occurred in 

coal seams near the surface. Escaping methane has 

created hazardous conditions. Examples are those 

documented in 1987, before CBNG development at 

the Rawhide Village subdivision 10 miles north of 

Gillette, Wyoming (Flores et al. 2001). The impacts 

of methane migration and concentration in a 

populated area can be serious. Rawhide Village was 

abandoned after explosive concentrations of methane 

were found to underlie the entire subdivision (Flores 

et al. 2001). 

Methane seepage also can occur naturally in nearsurface coal seams (Glass et al. 1987, Jones et al. 

1987). The potential for methane migration within 

the PRB is not limited to areas that contain nearsurface coal seams or areas where dewatering has 

occurred. Methane migration could occur at 

widespread locations within the PRB, as it can 

migrate long distances along joints or fractures in 

rocks. Gas generated in coal beds has also migrated 

into adjoining sandstone beds (Rice and Finn 1995). 

Methane can escape due to inadequate well control 

procedures and faulty casing or plugging. Water 

wells frequently are screened over multiple aquifer 

zones, which would facilitate migration of methane 

through the well bore. Older, conventional oil and 

gas wells may not have had surface casing installed 

across all the coal seams, which could allow 

migration of methane from a lower seam to a 

formation that is closer to the surface. Conventional 

oil and gas wells could provide a conduit for methane 

migration if faulty cement was present behind casing 

or if the cement plugs placed in the well during 

abandonment developed a micro annulus. Numerous 

uncased boreholes were drilled in the PRB to 

evaluate the potential for uranium, as coal “strat” test 

wells or as monitoring wells. They were not properly 

plugged, which could allow methane, if present, to 

move through the formations penetrated. 

Areas near coal outcrops and areas of coal or CBNG 

production where substantial dewatering has occurred 

or is occurring represent possible migration or 

seepage areas. Methane could emerge from water 

wells near CBNG production areas, affecting stock 

and residential wells. Other potential migration or 

seepage areas include areas with existing well bores 

and areas where faults, fractures, or sandstone layers 

occur in an orientation that provides a conduit for 

movement of methane. Methane hazard areas have 

not been mapped or compiled within the Planning 

Area. Furthermore, the integrity of existing wells 

within the Planning Area has not been 

comprehensively evaluated. No estimate of the total 

volume of seepage is available for the PRB. 

Methane Seepage Study

Wyoming BLM has been conducting a methane 

seepage monitoring program for the past 5 years. The 

3-32 
CHAPTER 3 

Geology and Minerals 

study is being conducted out of the Buffalo Office by 

using soil-gas probes. The study was initiated by the 

Wyoming BLM state office and included installation 

of numerous soil-gas monitoring wells (each about 

3 feet deep with a rubber septum on top) around the 

CBNG producing areas. BLM has gone back to these 

and newer wells several times to sample (pierce 

septum, evacuate well casing and replace septum,) 

and analyze the gas. The gas is analyzed for O2, CO2 

and CO. Low values of O2 and high values of CO2 

indicate seepage and oxidation of the gas. To date, 

this BLM study has not found indications of surface 

seepage. BLM continues to install these soil gas 

monitoring wells, but has observed no changes in gas 

content. They are currently proposing to put wells 

around the western side of the basin where shallow 

coals outcrop in clinker ridges. The Buffalo Office 

will be preparing a methane seepage report 

documenting the study and findings for release 

(personal communication, Dan Leeman, Mike 

McKinley and Ed Heffern, November 2005). 

Comparison with Methane Migration 

and Seepage in the San Juan Basin

Methane migration and seepage associated with 

CBNG development in the San Juan Basin (SJB) of 

southwest Colorado are specific to local conditions in 

that area. Geologic conditions differ significantly 

between the PRB and the SJB. Most experience from 

the SJB is, therefore, not directly applicable to the 

PRB. 

Basin pressurization and groundwater flow systems 

are not comparable between the two basins. The coals 

are found at a deeper depth and higher pressure in the 

SJB as compared to the PRB. The SJB is more 

deformed than the PRB and contains more faults and 

fractures that could serve as conduits for methane 

migration. In addition, coals are higher grade within 

the SJB, with a significantly higher gas content (400 

scf/ton) and have cleats and fractures that are better 

developed than the lower-grade coals (25 to 100 

scf/ton) within the PRB (GRI 2000). The PRB is not 

characterized by naturally occurring gas seeps, as is 

the SJB. 

Naturally occurring gas seeps existed throughout the 

SJB before the earliest oil and gas drilling operations 

or CBNG development. Shallow water wells that 

penetrate coals in the SJB produced methane. 

Intensified seepage was reported as CBNG 

development progressed (BLM 2000c). Some 

residents noticed an apparent increase in the 

occurrence of methane in domestic wells as CBNG 

development progressed. Others noted the presence 

of gas seeps and dead vegetation in pastures. Stands 

of stressed and dying trees were discovered aligned 

with coal beds beneath the surface. Explosive 

accumulations of methane were discovered in wells 

and residences (BLM 2000c). As of early 2000, 

seepage was estimated (by a computer model) to 

have increased by at least 3 million cubic feet per day 

(MMcfd) and possibly by as much as 10 MMcfd over 

predevelopment levels (Questa 2000). 

In the SJB, agencies recognized that older gas wells 

may have been acting as conduits for migration of 

gas into groundwater and implemented aggressive 

procedures to test existing wells, remediate problem 

wells and ensure that new and future wells could not 

act as conduits Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation 

Commission (COGCC 2000). Through May 2000, 

269 repair procedures were completed on gas wells in 

La Plata County. The repairs were performed to 

eliminate the possibility that these wells would serve 

as conduits for migration of methane. Most of these 

repairs (except 36) were completed on conventional 

gas wells (COGCC 2000). 

Reports of Montana Methane 

Seepage 

Methane production from Montana wells has been an 

historical issue. In the 1970’s, shallow wells drilled 

for coal exploration often produced methane 

(Wheaton, 2006). MBMG has compiled a list of 

monitoring wells impacted by methane production in 

the PRB. These include monitoring wells used by 

Spring Creek Coal Mine, Decker Coal Mine and 

MBMG. Most of the gas wells are located within 

areas depressurized by coal mines and CBNG 

production; however, some of the wells are located 

considerably outside areas of CBNG production and 

coal mining. 

Reports of increased methane production led to 

plugging several water wells near the CX Ranch 

Field (Williams 2006). Montana Department of Fish, 

Wildlife and Parks reports increased methane 

production in two water wells on the Tongue River 

Reservoir State Park, as well as increased seepage 

under the reservoir. 

Methane Seepage and the Use of 

Water Mitigation Agreements 

Water mitigation agreements currently in use in the 

PRB were reviewed to evaluate their potential to 

alleviate the impacts of methane migration and 

seepage. Typical agreements indicated that all water 

wells within a specified vicinity (1 mile) and for 

which the agreement was enacted, would be sampled 

for gas content as a means of measuring change once 

CBNG operations were initiated. The agreements 

3-33 
CHAPTER 3 

Geology and Minerals 

define an impaired water well as one that experiences 

reduced capacity to deliver water in quantity and/or 

quality sufficient to support the ordinary and 

customary use of the well. In a discussion with 

Fidelity Exploration & Production Company, it was 

confirmed that the agreement would cover a well 

rendered unusable by methane migration (Williams, 

personal communication, March 2006). 

The agreement states an affected well could be 

reconfigured, redrilled, or replaced; access to water 

could also be provided by other means as a method to 

offset such impairment. The agreement, however, did 

not necessarily indicate that anything would be done 

to mitigate or eliminate impacts related to methane 

gas creating either a safety or environmental hazard. 

Discussions with J.M. Huber Corporation (Huber) 

have revealed that it installs cisterns at local ranches 

where it suspects that the water wells might start 

venting natural gas. The cisterns function as degassing vessels that are open to the atmosphere and 

allow the natural gas to vent before the water is piped 

into the house or barn (DeLapp, personal 

communication, March 2006). Huber stated that it 

considers any water well with elevated natural gas as 

covered by its mitigation agreement. 

3-34 
Hydrological Resources

Hydrology within the Planning Area consists of surface 

water flow from several rivers and their associated 

tributaries and the production of groundwater from a 

variety of geological formations—the combination of 

which comprises the aquifer systems within any 

specific portion of the Planning Area. Of particular 

importance to residents is the protection of surface 

water and groundwater in the vicinity of CBNG 

development. CBNG development typically involves 

the necessary and unavoidable production of large 

volumes of water from coal aquifers and the 

appropriate use or disposal of this produced water. 

Continuous CBNG water production and disposal has 

the ability to impact both groundwater and surface 

water. As such, it is the subject of the Montana 

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation 

(DNRC) Final Order: In the Matter of the Designation 

of the Powder River Basin Controlled Groundwater 

Area. This order describes the authorities that pertain to 

CBNG development. A copy of the order is included as 

an appendix to the Water Resources Technical Report 

(ALL 2001b). The order outlines water rights issues, 

mitigation, monitoring plans and jurisdiction. 

Jurisdiction is summed up by this paragraph of the 

Order: 

“With this designation of a controlled 

groundwater area the withdrawal of 

groundwater associated with coal bed 

methane production will be under the prior 

jurisdiction of the Montana Board of Oil 

and Gas. However, water rights matters and 

hydrogeologic issues are not within the 

ordinary technical expertise and area of 

concern to the Board. These are matters 

ordinarily dealt with by the Montana 

Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation and the Montana Bureau of 

Mines and Geology. 

The Montana Department of Natural 

Resources may petition the Board for 

hearings in regard to the production, use 

and disposal of water from coal bed 

methane development wells that could 

affect existing water rights in the area based 

upon information gathered concerning 

water withdrawals.” 

Protection of groundwater will focus on maintaining 

beneficial uses. The coal seams are the primary 

aquifers for the agricultural community in southeastern 

Montana. In many areas, the coal aquifers supply water 

CHAPTER 3 

Hydrological Resources 

for livestock, wildlife and domestic use. In the Bull 

Mountain coalfield, the coal seams are also used as 

aquifers, though to a lesser degree than in southeastern 

Montana. In other coal bearing areas of the state, coal 

seams are not used as aquifers, or that use is limited 

and not well documented. 

Surface Water 

Surface water is the primary source of water for all 

uses in Montana, representing 97 percent of the water 

used throughout the state (Solley et al. 1995). The 

quality of groundwater from near-surface aquifers 

within the west half of the Billings RMP area is usually 

very good. Maps 3-6 and 3-7 show the occurrence of 

surficial aquifers as well as the quality of the 

groundwater produced from these aquifers. 

Map 3-8 shows PRB fourth order watersheds and the 

locations of selected USGS monitoring stations. The 

map emphasizes those watersheds most likely to 

experience CBNG development. The volume and 

quality of surface water can best be interpreted on a 

watershed basis. 

Electrical conductivity (EC) and sodium adsorption 

ratio (SAR) are the primary constituents of concern 

with CBNG discharges (MDEQ 2003); therefore, the 

surface water analysis in this document will focus on 

these parameters. EC is the ease with which electric 

current will pass through a water sample and it is 

proportional to the salinity of the sample. The units 

used for EC of a water sample are microSiemens per 

centimeter (μS/cm). SAR is a complex ratio of sodium 

to calcium and magnesium and it is an important 

parameter for determining the utility of water for 

irrigation due to the potential impacts of sodium on 

clay rich soils. Since SAR is a ratio, it is unitless. EC 

and SAR are the primary factors that determine the 

usability of water for irrigation (Suarez, 2006) and 

irrigation is the use that has been determined to be 

most sensitive to CBNG inputs (MDEQ 2003). 

Although EPA has no recommended 304(a) criteria for 

SAR and EC, states may choose to adopt criteria for 

SAR and EC to protect agricultural crops. 

Effective April 25, 2003, the Montana Board of 

Environmental Review (MT-BER) adopted standards 

for EC and SAR for PRB streams. These standards are 

displayed in Table 3-6. The irrigation-season standards 

for the Tongue River apply year-round for the Tongue 

River Reservoir and that part of the river above the 

reservoir. These standards have been reviewed and 

approved by EPA and, therefore, have Clean Water Act 

standing (see Volume II, Hydrology Appendix, pages 

HYD-10 and HYD-11). 

3-35 
3-36
3-37
CHAPTER 3 

Hydrological Resources 

3-38
CHAPTER 3 

Hydrological Resources 

TABLE 3-6 

MONTANA STATE NUMERICAL STANDARDS FOR PRB WATERSHEDS. 

Irrigation Season Non-Irrigation Season 

Stream 

Mean 

Monthly 

EC 

Not-toExceed 

EC 

Mean 

Monthly 

SAR 

Not-toExceed 

SAR 

Mean 

Monthly 

EC 

Not-toExceed 

EC 

Mean 

Monthly 

SAR 

Not-toExceed 

SAR 

Tongue 1,000 1,500 3.0 4.5 1,500 2,500 5.0 7.5 

Tongue 

River 1,000 1,500 3.0 4.5 1,000 1,500 3.0 4.5 

Reservoir 

Rosebud 1,000 1,500 3.0 4.5 1,500 2,500 5.0 7.5 

Powder 2,000 2,500 5.0 7.5 2,500 2,500 6.5 9.75 

Little 2,000 2,500 5.0 7.5 2,500 2,500 6.5 9.75 Powder 

Tributaries 500 500 3.0 4.5 500 500 5.0 7.5 

On March 23, 2006 Montana BER amended portions 

of ARM 17.30.670, the EC and SAR standards 

pertaining to the non-degradation category of EC and 

SAR. This ruling changed EC and SAR to “harmful 

parameters,” which modified the non-degradation 

non-significance threshold criteria. The essence of 

non-degradation is to protect high-quality state 

waters by limiting changes of water quality to nonsignificant changes or to require an “authorization to 

degrade” when a resultant change would be greater 

than the threshold. The intention of the rule is to 

establish a threshold where small changes (10 percent 

of the standard) are considered not significant. A 

change in water quality greater than approximately 

40 percent of the standard would require additional 

review by MDEQ. The numerical standards for EC 

and SAR shown in Table 3-6 are the same under 

Montana’s 2003 and 2006 standards. 

The Northern Cheyenne Tribe has also adopted 

surface water quality standards for EC and SAR. The 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe was granted treatment as a 

state (TAS) status by EPA as of 8/11/2006; however, 

EPA has not yet reviewed these standards. As such, 

the Northern Cheyenne numerical standards do not 

have Clean Water Act standing. They do, however, 

set out the tribe’s considered determination of the 

water quality needed to accomplish the following: 

• Protect irrigated agriculture on the reservation. 

• Protect native plant species with cultural 

significance and those that are integral in 

ceremonial and traditional aspects of the 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe. 

These standards are summarized on Table 3-24 in the 

Native American Concerns Section. 

By law, discharges to surface waters must be covered 

by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permit. In Montana, the NPDES 

program is administered by MDEQ through its 

Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(MPDES) program. Before issuing MPDES permits, 

MDEQ must analyze the potential for a discharge to 

cause exceedance of applicable numeric or narrative 

surface water quality standards (including nondegradation criteria). 

Table 3-7 lists basic data during minimum mean 

monthly flows on volume and quality for the USGS 

stations used in the analysis of impacts to surface 

water in the Surface Water Quality Analysis 

Technical Report (SWQATR). Data for 7Q10 and 

maximum mean monthly flow are included in the 

SWQATR. Generally, water quality at a particular 

station varies inversely with flow volume. High-flow 

periods (Maximum Mean Monthly Flows) 

correspond to the seasonal influx of relatively low 

salinity, low SAR, meteoric waters, during spring 

snowmelt and early summer rains. Low-flow periods 

(Minimum Mean Monthly Flows) correspond to 

periods of scarce surface water, typically during the 

winter when streams are fed only by the influx of 

naturally occurring more saline, higher SAR 

groundwaters. Thus, high flows correspond to times 

of high water quality and low flows correspond to 

times of low surface water quality. The Tongue River 

near Decker illustrates this variation with a discharge 

rate as seen in Figure 3-6. 

3-39 
CHAPTER 3 

Hydrological Resources 

TABLE 3-7 

SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE AND WATER QUALITY FOR MINIMUM 

MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AT SELECTED USGS STATIONS 

Minimum Mean Monthly Flow 

USGS Flow EC 

USGS Station Station # (cfs) SAR μS/cm 

Little Bighorn near Wyola 06289000 110 0.5 548 

Little Bighorn near Hardin 06294000 123 1.0 768 

Bighorn near Bighorn 06294500 1523 2.1 952 

Rosebud near Kirby 06295113 1.8 0.8 1016 

Rosebud near Rosebud 06296003 8.4 4.8 1780 

Tongue near Decker (stateline) 06306300 178 0.9 731 

Tongue near Birney Day School 06307616 183 1.1 863 

Tongue at Brandenburg Bridge 06307830 207 1.4 1016 

Powder at Moorhead (stateline) 06324500 145 4.7 2154 

Powder near Locate 06326500 143 4.6 2287 

Little Powder near Weston, WY 06324970 3.0 6.9 3300 

Mizpah near Mizpah 06326300 0.3 16.6 3503 

Yellowstone at Forsyth 06295000 5820 2.0 745 

Yellowstone near Sidney 06329500 5764 2.0 870 

Minimum Mean Monthly Flow = The lowest mean monthly flow of the station based on historical data. 

EC = Electrical Conductance; SAR = Sodium Absorption Ratio; cfs = cubic feet per second 

μS/cm = microseimens per centimeter 

Values calculated bases upon USGS data collected through 2002 

All water quality values have been determined from historical data obtained from the USGS for the flow volume in 

question. 

FIGURE 3-6 - VARIATION IN SURFACE WATER QUALITY WITH FLOW AT USGS STATION 

06306300 ON THE TONGUE RIVER NEAR DECKER, BASED UPON USGS DATA FROM NOVEMBER 

1985 TO SEPTEMBER 2004 

3-40 
CHAPTER 3 

Hydrological Resources 

Drainage within the Powder River Basin study area is 

to the Little Bighorn River, Rosebud Creek, the 

Tongue River and the Powder River. All of these 

streams flow generally north to join the Yellowstone 

River. The central and southern portions of the 

Billings RMP area are drained by a series of 

tributaries that also flow north-northeast into the 

Yellowstone River; these tributaries are the Boulder, 

Stillwater, Rock/Red Lodge Creeks, Clarks Fork, 

Bighorn and Little Bighorn. Drainage within the 

northern portion of the Billings RMP area is to the 

Musselshell River, which flows eastward until it 

meets the boundary between Musselshell and 

Rosebud counties—at which point it turns northward 

and flows into the Missouri River. 

Surface water can be impacted by cultural activity 

such as agriculture and industry. When groundcover 

is broken it exposes soil to wind and water erosion, 

leading to suspended sediment being brought to 

bodies of surface water. Artificial impoundments can 

cause infiltration into the soil and migration into 

surface water. Accidental releases of wastes can 

migrate into water bodies. 

Watershed water-use statistics in Table 3-8 apply to 

those watersheds shown in Map 3-8. Table 3-8 

presents data about the quantity of surface water and 

groundwater used in each water-use category. These 

data cover the area projected to have maximum 

CBNG potential but similar data is available for other 

areas of the state (USGS 1995). Surface water in 

these watersheds is the dominate source of water, 

however locally groundwater use is important for 

public and domestic drinking water and for stock 

water. 

The Clean Water Act of 1972 and amendments 

require states to adopt standards for the protection of 

surface water quality. These standards are designed 

to maintain water quality sufficient to support the 

beneficial uses of the water body. Montana water 

bodies are classified according to the present and 

future beneficial uses that they normally would be 

capable of supporting (75-5-301 MCA). The state 

Water-Use Classification System (ARM 17.30.621­

629) identifies the following beneficial uses: 

• Drinking, culinary use and food processing 

• Aquatic life support for fishes and associated 

aquatic life, waterfowl and furbearers 

• Bathing, swimming, recreation and aesthetics 

• Agriculture (crop irrigation, stock watering, etc.) 

water supply 

• Industrial (coal mining, electrical power 

generation, etc.) water supply 

TABLE 3-8 

WATER USE (IN MILLIONS OF GALLONS PER DAY [gpd]) STATISTICS IN 1995 BY WATERSHED

SURFACE AND/OR GROUNDWATER USE

Total Total 

Public Thermo- Ground- Surface 

Watershed Supply Domestic Industrial Electric Mining Livestock Irrigation water Water 

Little Bighorn 0.01/0.15 0.0/0.12 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.9/0.37 84.01/1.46 2.1 84.24 

Lower Bighorn 0.61/0.02 0.0/0.25 0.0/0.01 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.44 0.3/0.73 221.6/3.67 5.12 222.51 

Lower 2.37/0.19 0.0/0.17 0.0/0.12 16.1/0.0 0.45/0.0 1.48/0.4 250/2.56 3.44 270.4 

Yellowstone 

Rosebud 0.01/0.43 0.0/0.08 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/1.04 0.2/0.25 8.04/0.1 1.90 8.25 

Upper Tongue 0.0/0.06 0.0/0.09 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.11/0.27 23.75/0.34 0.76 23.86 

Lower Tongue 0.01/0.11 0.0/0.17 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/1.18 0.45/0.61 36.29/0.36 2.43 39.75 

Middle Powder 0.01/0.12 0.0/0.04 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.02/0.24 3.18/0.04 0.44 3.21 

Mizpah 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.03 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.1/0.19 6.41/0.06 0.28 6.51 

Little Powder 0.0/0.12 0.0/0.04 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.05/0.24 2.18/0.03 0.43 2.23 

Lower Powder 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.06 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.5/0.24 9.65/0.09 0.39 10.15 

Source: USGS 1995. 

3-41 
CHAPTER 3 

Hydrological Resources 

The current use classification of each water body in 

Montana was assigned on the basis of its actual or 

anticipated uses in the early 1970s. Water bodies are 

classified primarily by: 1) the level of protection that 

they require; 2) the type of fisheries that they support 

(warm water or cold water) or; 3) their natural ability 

to support use for drinking water, agriculture, etc. 

The water quality standards employed to maintain 

these uses address changes from natural conditions 

for such parameters as coliform bacteria, dissolved 

oxygen, pH, turbidity, temperature, color, toxics and 

other harmful substances. 

When streams and other water bodies are impacted 

by outside agents, their support of beneficial uses can 

become impaired. In Montana, surface water quality 

is tracked by the MDEQ. Table 3-9 provides a 

summary of the 2004 compilation of impaired and 

threatened water bodies in need of water quality 

restoration (MDEQ 2004). Water bodies included in 

this list do not currently support their identified 

beneficial uses. 

In accordance with Section 303(d) of the Federal 

Clean Water Act, the Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has prepared a list 

of impaired and threatened waters every 2 years since 

1992. This so called “303(d) list” identifies lakes, 

rivers and streams that are not meeting water quality 

standards and establishes priorities for Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development. 

However, Montana, like the rest of the nation, was 

slow to develop TMDLs. On June 21, 2000, the U.S. 

District Court of Montana ordered EPA to work with 

the state of Montana to develop and adopt a schedule 

that would result in developing all necessary TMDLs 

for water bodies on Montana’s 1996 Section 303(d) 

list by May 5, 2007; however a settlement agreement 

has extended that deadline until 2012 (Friends of the 

Wild Swan et al., v. EPA et al., CV 97-35-M-DWM). 

TABLE 3-9

IMPAIRED WATER BODIES IN AREA OF MAXIMUM CBNG POTENTIAL

Probable Causes Probable Sources of 

Watershed Impaired Water body of Impairment Impairment 

Lower Yellowstone-Sunday Yellowstone River (MT42K001_020) Other habitat Dam construction 

from the Bighorn River to the alterations Hydro-modification 

Carterville Diversion Dam 

Lower Yellowstone Yellowstone River (MT42M001_012) Other habitat Dam construction 

from the Powder River to the Lower alterations Hydro-modification 

Yellowstone Diversion Dam 

Lower Bighorn Bighorn River (MT43R001_010) Crow Lead Source unknown 

Reservation Boundary to the Mouth Mercury 

(Yellowstone R) Metals 

Bighorn River (MT43R001_020) from Nitrogen Other 

Yellowtail Dam to Crow Indian Res. Nutrients 

Boundary 

Upper Tongue Hanging Woman Creek Siltation Grazing-related sources 

(MT42B002_031from Stroud Creek to Agriculture 

the mouth (Tongue R) 

Tongue River Reservoir Algal growth Domestic wastewater lagoon 

(MT42B003_010) Chlorophyll a Agriculture 

Lower Tongue Tongue River (MT42C001_011) from Flow alteration Dam construction 

diversion dam just above Pumpkin Flow regulation/modification 

Creek to the mouth (Yellowstone River) Hydromodification 

Rosebud Rosebud Creek (MT42A001_011) from Bank erosion Removal of riparian vegetation 

the mouth 3.8 miles upstream to an Other habitat Habitat modification (other 

irrigation dam alteration than hydromodification) 

Rosebud Creek (MT42A001_012) Bank erosion Removal of riparian vegetation 

Northern Cheyenne Reservation Other habitat Habitat modification (other 

Boundary to an irrigation dam 3.8 miles alteration than hydromodification) 

above the mouth 

Source: Water Quality Integrated Report for Montana, 2004. Prepared By the MDEQ Water Quality Planning Bureau 

(http://nris.state.mt.us/wis/environet/2004Home.html). 

3-42 
Based upon concern due to proposed CBNG 

development plans, the MDEQ and EPA are 

currently developing TMDLs for the Tongue, Powder 

and Rosebud watersheds. Impacted water bodies and 

TMDL issues are discussed in detail in the 

Hydrology Appendix. 

Several of the above watersheds and impaired water 

bodies are shared jurisdictionally among the state of 

Montana, the state of Wyoming, the Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe and the Crow Tribe. For example, 

while the Rosebud watershed is located entirely 

within the state of Montana, it includes most of the 

Northern Cheyenne Reservation and part of the Crow 

Reservation. 

CBNG Discharges in Montana

Fidelity has been discharging untreated CBNG water 

into the Tongue River upstream of the Tongue River 

Reservoir since September 1999 under MPDES 

permit MT-0030457. Discharge under this permit is 

currently occurring at a rate of approximately 

820 gallons per minute (gpm) upstream of the 

Tongue River Reservoir (Pond Creek POD WMP). 

This permit originally allowed for the discharge of up 

to 1,600 gpm. This untreated discharge has an EC of 

approximately 2,145 μS/cm and a SAR of 

approximately 57. During Water Year 2005, the 

average volume discharged under this permit was 

1,067 gpm (MBMG 2005). This permit was revised 

to comply with the requirement that permits that are 

limited by EC and SAR be flow-based. DEQ 

approved the new permit on February 3, 2006 (prior 

to elimination of the flow-based requirement). It has 

an effective duration of 5 years from April 1, 2006, to 

March 31, 2011. The revised permit allows Fidelity 

to discharge untreated CBNG-produced water from 

15 outfalls. The allowed discharge rates vary 

seasonally, as expressed on the following list. 

Total Flow (gpm) Annual Period 

Nov. 01 – Feb. 28 2,500 

Mar. 01 – Jun. 30 2,375 

Jul. 01 – Oct. 31* 1,600 

Other effluent limits include pH (between 6.5 and 9.0), oil and 

grease (10 mg/l) and total suspended solids (average monthly 

[25 mg/l] and daily maximum [30 mg/l)] and they apply to all 

periods during the year. 

* Total discharges to the upper reach of the Tongue River would be 

limited to 1,000 gpm. The remainder of permitted flows may be 

discharged below the final crossing of the Wyoming border. 

CHAPTER 3 

Hydrological Resources 

Flow restrictions for specific conductivity are based 

on daily stream flow values recorded at USGS 

gauging station 06306300 (Tongue River at State 

Line near Decker). Fidelity has to conduct daily 

instream monitoring for specific conductivity when 

daily stream flow values are lower than 35 cubic feet 

per second (cfs). Fidelity would cease discharging to 

the Tongue River if the measured instream specific 

conductance exceeded the following values on any 

two consecutive calendar days: 

November 1 through March 1: 2,500 μS/cm 

March 2 through October 31: 1,500 μS/cm

If Fidelity ceased discharge due to these conditions, 

discharges could recommence until the flow in the 

Tongue River at the gauge station exceeded 35 cfs. 

Fidelity has also received a permit (MT0030724) to 

discharge treated, CBNG-produced water into the 

Tongue River. MDEQ approved this permit on 

February 3, 2006, with an effective duration of 5 

years from April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2011. 

The use of this permit began in the summer of 2006. 

The effluent quality limitations for this permit depend 

on the season of the year; however, the discharge rate 

is fixed at 1,700 gpm. The numerical effluent limits 

for average monthly discharges are presented in the 

list below. 

Annual Period SAR 

Specific 

Conductivity 

μS/cm 

Total 

Nitrogen 

(mg/l) 

Nov. 01 – Mar. 01 5.0 1,500 1.2 

Mar. 02 – Jun. 30 3.0 1,000 1.3 

Jul. 01 – Oct. 31 3.0 1,000 1.1 

Total suspended solids average monthly (25 mg/l) and daily maximum 

(30 mg/l) quantity applies to all periods during the year. 

Powder River Gas has also been granted an MPDES 

permit to discharge up to 1,122 gpm of treated 

CBNG water immediately downstream of the Tongue 

River Reservoir (MT-0030660). This discharge 

averaged 200 gpm from April to September of 2005 

(Bobst 2006). This permit requires that EC be lower 

than 1,000μS/cm and SAR be lower than 3. 

Results of Surface Water Monitoring

Since approximately 1999, the PRB has been in an 

extended drought. This pattern of precipitation has 

affected the fundamental surface water resource of 

several watersheds within the PRB. The changes are 

documented in various publications (Bobst 2005a, 

Bobst 2005b, Bobst 2006, USGS 2005) as well as the 

hydrological reports that accompanied various plans 

of development submitted by CBNG developers to 

BLM and the state of Montana (Fidelity 2003, 

Fidelity 2004, Fidelity 2005a, Fidelity 2005b, PRG 

3-43 
CHAPTER 3 

Hydrological Resources 

2004, Pinnacle 2005a, Pinnacle 2005b). Within the 

Tongue, Powder, Little Powder and Rosebud 

Watersheds, spring runoff has diminished or vanished 

at times during recent years due to meager snowpack. Flow rates observed at USGS gauging stations 

have been substantially lower than historical averages 

and many tributary gauging stations routinely exceed 

Montana State Numerical Standards, including notto-exceed (NTE) limits (see Table 3-6). When current 

EC and SAR values are measured against historical 

values at similar flows, they appear to be comparable. 

As such it does not appear that CBNG development 

had a measurable effect on EC and SAR through 

2005. 

Groundwater

Groundwater represents less than 3 percent of the 

total water use in the state (Solley et al. 1995). Aside 

from surface water sources, however, groundwater 

use is locally important for domestic drinking water 

and stock water. Groundwater sources include wells 

and springs. 

CBNG development has the potential to impact 

groundwater by decreasing the pressure within the 

coal aquifers (drawdown). As such, it is the subject of 

Montana Code Annotated 82-11-175, which was 

enacted by the Montana Legislature in 2003 and 

MBOGC Order 99-99. This order describes the 

authorities that pertain to CBNG development. A 

copy of the order is included as an appendix to the 

Water Resources Technical Report (ALL 2001b). 

The order outlines water rights issues, mitigation, 

monitoring plans and jurisdiction. 

MCA 82-11-175 requires that CBNG operators offer 

a reasonable mitigation agreement to each 

appropriator of water who holds an appropriation 

right or a permit to appropriate groundwater. The 

point of diversion has to be within 1 mile of the 

CBNG well, or 0.5 mile of a water source that is 

adversely affected by the CBNG well. 

Mitigation agreements must address reduction or loss 

of water resources and must provide for prompt 

supplementation or replacement of water from any 

natural spring or water well adversely affected by the 

coal bed natural gas well. An example water 

mitigation agreement is included in the Hydrology 

Appendix. 

Groundwater within the Planning Area is found 

within a variety of aquifers, ranging from shallow 

unconsolidated alluvial aquifers associated with 

modern rivers to deep bedrock aquifers consisting of 

consolidated sandstone, limestone, or coal. Known 

wells within Montana’s PRB are shown on Map 3-5. 

Water quality and quantity vary within the Planning 

Area. Table 3-8 presents data about the quantity of 

groundwater taken on a watershed basis in each 

water-use category. Although groundwater only 

represents a small percentage of the total water use, it 

is critical because it provides almost 100 percent of 

the domestic water for farmsteads throughout the 

PRB. It also constitutes the largest percentage of 

dependable stock water, because the groundwater 

experiences fewer seasonal or drought effects than 

surface water. 

Surficial aquifers within the Planning Area consist of 

Quaternary and Tertiary alluvium, Tertiary fluvial 

sand and gravel deposits and Tertiary terrace 

deposits. These surficial aquifers are located within 

the floodplains and along the channels of larger 

streams, tributaries and rivers. They are among the 

most productive sources of groundwater within the 

Planning Area and the quality of groundwater from 

surficial aquifers varies highly; the water is, however, 

typically a calcium-sulfate type. The quality of 

groundwater from alluvial aquifers within the west 

half of the Billings RMP area is usually good (Class I 

aquifers) and is suitable for human consumption. The 

quality of alluvial groundwater within the PRB is 

relatively low (Class II and III aquifers). Maps 3-6 

and 3-7 show the occurrence of surficial aquifers, as 

well as the quality of the groundwater produced from 

these aquifers. 

The major bedrock aquifers within the Planning Area 

include the coals and sands of the Fort Union 

Formation and the Lower Hell Creek-Fox Hills. Most 

CBNG is produced from coals within the Tongue 

River Member of the Fort Union Formation, as 

shown in Figures 3-1, 3-2 and 3-7. Table 3-10 

contains information about the general depth, yield, 

geologic materials and water quality of aquifers in 

the PRB study area. 

The Lebo Shale Member of the Fort Union formation 

is a regional barrier to groundwater flow (aquitard). 

As such, drawdown-related CBNG impacts would be 

limited to the Tongue River Member of the Fort 

Union Formation. 

3-44 
CHAPTER 3 

Hydrological Resources 

FIGURE 3-7 

MAJOR BEDROCK AQUIFERS WITH THE PLANNING AREAS 

ERA Period Principal Aquifers Age: 

C 

E 

N 

O 

Z 

O 

I 

C 

Quaternary Alluvium and Fluvial-Glacial Gravels 

10,000 Years 

1.6 million years 

before present 

(MYBP) 

66.4 MYBP 

245 MYBP 

Tertiary 

Alluvium 

Fluvial-Glacial Gravels (and equivalents) 

Terraces 

Fort Union Formation 

M 

E 

S 

O 

Cretaceous 

Lower Hell Creek-Fox Hills Formation 

Judith River Formation 

Eagle Formation 

Kootenai Formation 

Z 

O 

I 

C 

Jurassic Ellis Group 

Triassic No Principal Aquifers 

A 

P 

L 

E 

O 

Z 

O 

I 

C 

Pennsylvanian 

Permian 

Mississippian 

Devonian 

Silurian 

Ordovician 

Cambrian 

No Principal Aquifers 

No Principal Aquifers 

Madison Group 

No Principal Aquifers 

570 MYBP 

3-45 
TABLE 3-10

PLANNING AREA AQUIFERS AND THEIR GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

Hydrological Resources CHAPTER 3 

3-46 

Common Total 

Drilling Geologic Aquifer Production or Dissolved 

Aquifer Depth Materials Type Yield Solids General Comments 

AQUIFERS IN SURFICIAL DEPOSITS 

Alluvium, Fluvial­ 20 to 40 ft. Unconsoli- Commonly Typically 5 to Range 300 to Widely used aquifer systems. Alluvial aquifers are most 

Glacial Gravels, May exceed dated clay, unconfined 50 gpm. 2,200 often used because they lie near the surface and are 

Terrace Gravels and 250 ft. silt, sand and milligrams/ accessible via shallow wells and water yield is routinely 

Flaxville Formation gravel. liter (mg/l). quite good. They can be partially confined to completely 

Gravels and confined with yields that may exceed 1,500 gpm in some 

equivalents. areas. Yields from gravel deposits are more variable but 

water quality is usually quite good. Alluvial aquifers are 

vulnerable to human-caused contamination in a variety of 

settings. 

AQUIFERS IN CENOZOIC ROCKS 

Fort Union 

Formation 

50 to 300 ft. 

May exceed 

1,000 ft. 

Interbedded 

shale, 

siltstone, 

sandstone and 

Commonly 

confined, 

except near 

surface. 

Typically 5 to 

50 gpm. 

Range 500 to 

5,000 mg/l. 

The Fort Union is a major source of groundwater for 

eastern Montana. Water is suitable for watering stock but 

may not be suitable for irrigation. 

coal. 

AQUIFERS IN MESOZOIC ROCKS 

Lower Hell CreekFox Hills Formations 150 to 500 ft. 

May exceed 

1,000 ft. 

Mainly 

sandstone 

with some 

siltstone and 

Confined 5 to 20 gpm. 

May exceed 200 

gpm. 

Range 500 to 

1,800 mg/l. 

Although the Fort Union overlies the Hell Creek-Fox 

Hills, the latter is often the target for water well drilling 

as a result of its higher quality of water. 

shale. 

Judith River 

Formation 

200 to 600 ft. 

May exceed 

1,000 ft. 

Sandstone, 

siltstone, with 

some coal. 

Confined 5 to 15 gpm. 

May exceed 100 

gpm. 

Range 160 to 

27,000 mg/l. 

Eagle Formation 100 to 800 ft. 

May exceed 

2,000 ft. 

Interbedded 

sandstone and 

shale. 

Confined 10 to 20 gpm. 

May exceed 200 

gpm. 

Range 800 to 

1,500 mg/l. 

Water quality is best in central Montana, poorer in 

eastern Montana. 
TABLE 3-10

PLANNING AREA AQUIFERS AND THEIR GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

Common Total 

Drilling Geologic Aquifer Production or Dissolved 

Aquifer Depth Materials Type Yield Solids General Comments 

AQUIFERS IN MESOZOIC ROCKS (CONTINUED) 

Kootenai Formation 100 to 1,000 Interbedded Confined 10 to 30 gpm. Range 200 to Used heavily near the Belt Mountains where water 

ft. May sandstone, May exceed 100 500 mg/l. May quality is good. 

exceed 3,000 siltstone and gpm. exceed 

ft. shale. 14,000 mg/l. 

Ellis Group 300 to 2,000 Sandstone, Confined No Data. Generally less Water quality is best near outcrop areas. 

ft. May shale, than 600 mg/l. 

exceed 5000 limestone and 

ft. dolomite. 

AQUIFERS IN PALEOZOIC ROCKS 

Madison Group 500 to 3,000 Limestone, Confined 20 to 6,000 Range 500 to Very extensive aquifer, it underlies a large portion of the 

ft. May dolomite, gpm. Higher in 300,000 mg/l. Great Plains. Water quality can be very high near 

exceed 7,000 anhydrite and karst areas. recharge areas and is poorest in northeastern Montana. 

ft. halite. 

3-47 

CHAPTER 3 

Hydrological Resources 
CHAPTER 3 

Hydrological Resources 

The occurrence of specific bedrock aquifers and the 

quality of groundwater produced from these aquifers 

vary throughout the Planning Area. Maps 3-9 and 

3-10 are maps that show the occurrence of bedrock 

aquifers and the quality as well as quantity of 

groundwater produced from these aquifers. 

Water enters the aquifers during deposition of the 

sedimentary unit as formation water that can be salty 

or fresh. Later, meteoric water can enter the aquifer 

through outcropping recharge zones where runoff 

water infiltrates and is conducted into the subsurface. 

A small amount of water also reaches the aquifers via 

migration through adjacent aquitards. 

Aquifer pressure can be measured in pounds per 

square inch (psi) or in feet of head and can vary from 

a low-pressure reservoir where water stands below 

the top of the reservoir, to an artesian aquifer where 

water stands above the top of the reservoir, 

sometimes being above ground surface and flowing 

from wells. Aquifer pressure can be measured in a 

monitoring well where water is not normally 

produced except for testing and sampling. 

Groundwater can be produced through water wells 

that pump or convey water from aquifers to the 

surface. Groundwater also comes to the surface by 

way of natural springs that occur where the aquifer 

outcrops. Springs may conduct groundwater onto the 

surface or into bodies of surface water. 

Groundwater near an aquifer’s recharge zone has 

been in contact with the rocks and minerals in the 

aquifer material for a relatively short period. As a 

result, the water has not had time to dissolve 

substantial amounts of soluble salts and minerals, so 

it remains fresh. The longer the water is in the 

aquifer, the more time it has to dissolve salts and 

minerals. In general, the concentration of total 

dissolved solids increases with distance from an 

aquifer’s recharge or outcrop zone. 

The coals within the Tongue River Member of the 

Fort Union Formation are the primary CBNG targets 

in Montana. Groundwater within the Tongue River 

Member of the Fort Union Formation has been 

shown to evolve in a predicable manner along its 

flow path (Van Voast and Reiten 1988). Cation 

exchange is one of the normal processes that increase 

salinity, where calcium and magnesium are replaced 

by sodium, as the groundwater comes into contact 

with sodium-rich shale. In deeper portions of the 

aquifers, sulfate is removed by reduction reactions. 

This reduction causes the salinity of the water to 

decrease, while increasing the ratio of sodium to 

calcium and magnesium. The result is a moderately 

saline (EC of ~1,800 to 2,500 μS/cm), sodiumbicarbonate-rich water in the coal seam aquifers 

where CBNG is expected to be produced. 

The sands and coals of the Tongue River Member of 

the Fort Union Formation are important aquifers in 

the Powder River and Billings RMP areas. The 

Tongue River Member of the Fort Union formation 

contains substantial laterally continuous layers of low 

permeability shale interbedded with coals and sands. 

The coal units are typically overlain and underlain by 

shale units (Wheaton and Donato 2004). As such, 

most of the impacts from CBNG-related drawdown 

will be to the coal aquifers. 

Observed CBNG Related 

Groundwater Drawdown 

Groundwater is being produced from many PRB 

water wells. Known wells are shown on 

Map 3-5. Since 1999, CBNG production has drawn 

down the pressure within the coal seam aquifers. This 

drawdown can extend beyond the field’s boundaries. 

The present state of the groundwater resource in PRB 

coal seams can be addressed by examining existing 

monitoring well conditions. 

One hundred sixty-two wells were used to monitor 

regional groundwater levels in the area of Montana’s 

CBNG production. After 6 years of CBNG 

production, the 20-foot drawdown contour has been 

interpreted to extend about 1.5 miles beyond the 

edges of the CX field (Wheaton et al. 2006). This 

drawdown is in line with, but somewhat less than, the 

Statewide EIS predictions for this period of 

development. No drawdown has been observed 

within units other than the developed coals. 

Drawdown is sensitive to the presence and 

orientation of faults, which are flow barriers 

(Wheaton and Donato 2004). 

Within and next to Montana’s CX Ranch field, 

Fidelity Exploration & Production Company used 

water-level readings from approximately 250 wells to 

derive water drawdown maps (Fidelity 2005a, 

Fidelity 2006). The Fidelity Exploration & 

Production Company maps showed in-field 

drawdowns up to 594 feet, with the interpreted 20­

foot drawdown extending up to 2 miles away from 

production. This drawdown is in line with the 

Statewide EIS predictions for this period of 

development. 

Several Montana CBNG operators were contacted to 

discuss use of water mitigation agreements and their 

experiences using them. Fidelity Exploration & 

Production Company, J.M. Huber Corporation and 

Pinnacle Gas Resources, Inc., responded to the 

inquiry. Fidelity reports that its CBNG production 

since 1999 has resulted in impacts to six water wells 

near CX Ranch field (Williams 2006). Fidelity 

Exploration & Production Company drilled new 

wells to replace these six wells. The company has not 

3-48 
3-49
3-50
received any complaints regarding springs that may 

have been impacted (Williams 2006). Furthermore, 

Fidelity reports that it has not had any formal 

complaints of gas in wells. The company, however, 

indicated if there were any, its mitigation agreement 

would be used (personal communication, Williams, 

2006). A copy of a typical water mitigation 

agreement can be reviewed in the Hydrology 

Appendix. 

Huber reported receiving complaints from 12 well 

owners about reduced water pressure in Wyoming. 

Huber has drilled six new wells so far and is trying to 

settle with the other six well owners in a small 

subdivision where the wells have been impacted. The 

company has offered to install a small domestic water 

supply system, but the residents have so far refused. 

Huber also received one complaint regarding a spring 

going dry, but upon investigation it was determined, 

with concurrence from the owner, that the drought 

was probably responsible because of the shallow 

nature of the spring. With regards to natural gas in 

wells, Huber stated it had had some problems a few 

years ago; there were two wells with elevated levels 

of natural gas. Huber replaced the wells. The 

company also installed three cisterns at local ranches 

CHAPTER 3 

Hydrological Resources 

where it suspected the water wells might start venting 

natural gas. The cisterns function as degassing 

vessels that are open to the atmosphere and allow 

natural gas to vent before water is piped into the 

house or barn. The company is not aware whether 

these water wells are experiencing increasing 

methane, but the wells are completed in a coal seam 

being produced. Huber stated it considers any water 

well with elevated natural gas as covered by its 

mitigation agreement. 

Pinnacle reported one complaint from a prominent 

ranch family that filed suit for “future water 

shortage.” Pinnacle has had no specific complaints 

about reduced water pressure in wells, springs drying 

up, or elevated natural gas in domestic wells. 

The Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology 

(MBMG) issued a 2005 Draft Groundwater 

Monitoring Report indicating the observed 

production rate for water is somewhat lower than the 

assumption used in the statewide CBNG EIS. Figure 

3-8 is a graphic that depicts the assumed water 

production rate versus the normalized observed rate 

of production. 

FIGURE 3-8 

OBSERVED WATER PRODUCTION VERSUS CBNG FEIS ASSUMED WATER PRODUCTION RATE 

FOR THE MONTANA PORTION OF THE POWDER RIVER BASIN 

Source: MBMG 2005 Draft Groundwater Monitoring Report. 

3-51 
CHAPTER 3 

Hydrological Resources 

The pumping rates BLM estimated for early years 

(which determined the peak rates and drove the 

analysis) are somewhat greater than observed. 

However, most of the new wells have been installed 

in areas near existing development, so initial head 

would have been less than the wells used to 

extrapolate the trend. In areas of virgin pressure, the 

original curve is probably more reasonable. Also, 

basin-wide, some of the coals are substantially 

thicker and would, therefore, yield more water and 

would be expected to have higher pumping rates. 

MBMG’s Draft 2005 Groundwater Report also 

indicates that drawdown associated with CBNG 

development appears to be causing a slight increase 

in the volume of water drawn from the Tongue River 

Reservoir to the Upper Dietz coal seam. This coal 

seam sub-crops in the reservoir, so the reservoir has 

historically recharged it. Assuming the faults in this 

area function as flow barriers and regional aquifer 

characteristics can be applied, the volume of water 

being drawn from the reservoir can be estimated 

using Darcy’s Law (Fetter 1994). This analysis 

indicates CBNG-related drawdown has increased the 

flow from the reservoir to the coal seam by 

approximately 2.4 acre-feet per year (from 19.2 acfeet/year to 21.6 ac-feet/year). This is equivalent to 

an increase of 1.5 gpm. 

Observed Infiltration Effects 

Storage ponds have often been used to manage 

CBNG-produced water. Those ponds that are not 

lined and are located on permeable materials can 

infiltrate water and create saturated flow to the 

subsoil or bedrock beneath the ponds. New 

publications have provided some additional 

information on this management process (Wheaton 

and Brown 2005, Brinck et al. 2004). Three 

infiltration ponds were selected for research: one in 

the CX Ranch field of Montana and two south of the 

CX Field in Wyoming, but still in the PRB. These 

reports documented downward infiltrating waters 

beneath CBNG ponds, but impacts were highly sitespecific. The Montana pond has impacted a 

monitoring well located approximately 200 feet 

downgradient from the pond; the well documented a 

water-level rise of 25 feet in overburden, an increase 

of TDS from 2,566 to 3,548 mg/L and a decrease in 

SAR from 43 to 14. An off-channel infiltration pond 

in the Coal Creek area of Wyoming apparently 

impacted bedrock aquifers beneath the pond; both 

TDS and SAR were affected near the pond. Farther 

south in the PRB, in the Beaver Creek area, two onchannel ponds have received CBNG-produced water. 

After a year, information on the effect from discharge 

into these ponds is lacking and there is no indication 

of what has happened to groundwater near the pond. 

In general, it appears infiltrated CBNG water 

dissolves soluble minerals in the subsurface along its 

flow path. This results in water with a higher TDS 

and lower SAR than the original CBNG water 

(Table 3-11). The resultant water is dominated by 

ions of Mg and SO4 (Wheaton and Brown 2005). It 

appears salts are flushed from the system over time 

(Wheaton et al. 2005). The duration and geographic 

extent of effects to the underlying groundwater are 

poorly defined. Impoundments that are lined, or are 

located on low-permeability materials, do not have 

the potential to infiltrate at a rate that will result in 

saturated flow. If saturated flow does not occur, 

impacts to underlying groundwater are unlikely, since 

the salts would be “parked” in the unsaturated zone 

and the water would migrate as vapor. 

Water Rights 

Water rights in Montana are the subject of The 

Montana Water Use Act (Title 85, Chapter 2, MCA) 

of 1973, which became effective July 1, 1973. Water 

rights existing prior to that date are to be finalized by 

state courts. Water rights applications since that date 

are secured through a MDNRC permit system. In 

addition, some water rights are protected under 

federal and state statutes. 

Water rights on some BLM-administered lands are 

protected by the Federally Reserved Water Rights for 

Public Springs and Water Holes, Public Water 

Reserve 107, pursuant to Executive Order dated 

April 17, 1926. Compacts between the state of 

Montana and Northern Cheyenne Tribe have placed 

moratoria on new water use developments on Tribal 

Lands within the Rosebud, Lower Bighorn and Pryor 

watersheds. Native American water rights are 

discussed in detail in the Indian Trust Assets section 

of this chapter. 

Watershed water-use statistics in Table 3-8 apply to 

those watersheds shown in Map 3-8. Table 3-8 

presents data about the quantity of surface water and 

groundwater used in each water-use category. These 

data cover the area projected to have the maximum 

CBNG potential, but similar data are available for 

other areas of the state (USGS 1995). 

Water rights are being adjudicated on a watershed 

basis. The Tongue River and Little Bighorn have not 

yet been fully adjudicated, Rosebud is 78 percent 

examined prior to being adjudicated, Lower 

Yellowstone is 90 percent examined. Table 3-12 lists 

water rights developments by watershed in the area 

of main potential for CBNG production. Native 

American Water Rights are discussed in detail in the 

Indian Trust Assets section of this chapter. 

3-52 
CHAPTER 3 

Hydrological Resources 

TABLE 3-11

GROUNDWATER QUALITY FOR THE MONTANA PORTION OF THE POWDER RIVER BASIN ­

SELECTED GROUNDWATER QUALITY DATA COLLECTED FROM WATER SUPPLY WELLS

LOCATED THROUGHOUT MONTANA POWDER RIVER BASIN

Judith River 

Formation 

Hell Creek /Fox Hills 

Formation Fort Union Formation Quaternary Alluvium 

Avg. TDS Avg. TDS Avg. TDS Avg. TDS 

County (mg/l) Avg. SAR (mg/l) Avg. SAR (mg/l) Avg. SAR (mg/l) Avg. SAR 

Big Horn 936 54 1,440 14 1,658 8 2,118 5 

Rosebud 2,465 31 1,376 35 1,595 16 1,516 9 

Powder River No data No data 890 35 1,882 15 2,783 5 

Custer No data No data 896 37 1,810 31 1,665 8 

Treasure 2,312 64 1,985 56 1,782 32 2,437 10 

Weighted 

Average 2,100 42 1,148 37 1,892 18 2,014 7 

Avg. TDS = Average Total Dissolved Solids 

Avg. SAR = Average Sodium Adsorption Ratio 

Source: MBMG 2001. 

TABLE 3-12 

WATER RIGHTS DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY BY WATERSHED 

Number of Pre-1973 Number of Post-1973 

Developments Developments 

Number of Pending 

Watershed Surface Ground-water Surface Ground-water Water Rights Permits 

Rosebud 765 408 27 210 1 

Upper Tongue River 820 504 35 136 3 

Lower Tongue River 2,407 2,278 98 662 1 

Little Powder 1,320 741 66 166 3 

Lower and Middle 5,204 2,816 314 4 7 

Powder and Mizpah 

Lower Yellowstone 3,398 1,330 278 804 4 

Little Bighorn 786 387 35 96 0 

Lower Bighorn 1,522 596 105 419 3 

Source: DNRC 2001. 

The Montana Water Use Act (85-2-506) established 

the designation of the Powder River Basin Controlled 

Groundwater Area. The MDNRC established in the 

Controlled Groundwater Area in anticipation of the 

withdrawal of groundwater associated with CBNG 

development. Two issues relating to water rights 

were addressed as part of the order. First, CBNG 

operators must offer water mitigation agreements to 

owners, as discussed above. Second, beneficial uses 

of CBNG -produced water require water rights issued 

by MDNRC as established by law. 

Existing Wells and Springs

Map 3-11 shows the existing springs in the Montana 

portion of the PRB and existing CBNG wells. Spring 

locations, as supplied by MBMG (2002), are widely 

scattered across the basin. As noted above, Fidelity 

Exploration & Production Company, operator of 

most CBNG wells in the CX Ranch field, has 

received no complaints of impacted springs. 

Furthermore, it is unlikely that CBNG production 

would impact springs, because if subsurface coal 

seams were in direct contact with surface springs, 

water and methane gas would have long ago leaked 

to the surface, leaving the coal seam depleted. 

3-53 
CHAPTER 3 

Hydrological Resources 

3-54
CHAPTER 3 

Hydrological Resources 

The fact that a coal seam produces gas strongly 

suggests it is isolated from a surface outlet. 

Water Management

The management of produced water associated with 

CBNG development is one of the primary issues 

relating to existing, as well as future, CBNG 

development and production operations. These issues 

develop from both the volume and the quality of the 

water produced. Initial water production rates common 

to CBNG wells in the Montana portion of the PRB 

range from approximately 15 to 20 gpm. Over time, 

water production rates decline, with average water 

production rates ranging from 2 to 5 gpm over the life 

of a well. As of July 2005, CBNG water production 

within the CX Ranch Field in Montana averaged 

approximately 3 gpm per well. 

In addition to the overall volume of water produced, 

the quality of CBNG-produced water has 

characteristics that make managing it challenging and 

complex. The quality of CBNG-produced water is 

generally good, but, depending on the area of the basin 

where it is produced, it may have a SAR ranging from 

30 to 60 and TDS ranging from 500 to 2,500 mg/L. 

Both the quantity and quality of CBNG-produced 

water can also vary based on the specific coal seam(s) 

being developed. The combination of CBNG-produced 

water quantity and quality and the variation of these 

parameters found from one site to the next, as well as 

between producing coal seams, may require having a 

variety of water management options available for use. 

While initial CBNG development depended almost 

exclusively on untreated discharge to surface waters, a 

number of other CBNG-produced water management 

options are currently being used or considered within 

both the Montana and Wyoming portions of the PRB. 

Numerous water management options have been 

discussed in recent reports, including Kuipers, et al. 

(2004) and CDM (2004). The following list includes 

the major water management options being used, or 

proposed for use, in the PRB: 

• Class V—injection into shallow sands 

• Class V—reinjection into coal seams 

• Class IID—injection into deep underground 

non-drinking water sources reservoirs 

• Class IIR—injection into secondary 

recovery projects 

• Treatment and beneficial use or discharge 

• Industrial uses 

• Managed irrigation 

• Livestock watering – cattle feedlots 

• Public water supply 

• Impoundments 

A brief discussion of these water management 

options is provided in the following paragraphs. The 

water management options discussed are not intended 

to be all-inclusive. Rather they demonstrate a variety 

of options, including beneficial uses, that have to be 

considered and their implementation is largely sitespecific, depending on the quality and quantity of 

water produced from a particular area or coal seam. 

Class V Injection into Shallow Sands

Underground injection into shallow sand aquifers 

offers a potential way to manage some quantity of 

water produced from CBNG wells. This type of 

injection uses boreholes drilled into shallow sands 

classified as USDWs and then involves pumping the 

produced water into those aquifers. Injection would 

be limited to permeable sands, either between or 

below, producing Fort Union coals. Implementation 

of this option would depend on the quality of the 

produced water and groundwater within the shallow 

sand injection zone, as well as current and future 

beneficial uses of the shallow sand injection zone. 

Beneficial uses could include, but would not be 

limited to, public drinking water, agriculture, aquifer 

recharge, storage and industrial uses. When injection 

is considered using Class V type wells for beneficial 

uses, pretreatment of the produced water may be 

required before it is injected into an aquifer for either 

recharge or storage. 

The feasibility of underground injection as a tool for 

managing produced water involves several technical 

considerations, including geology, economics and 

engineering. These considerations can vary 

considerably based on site-specific conditions. 

Within particular study areas, it has been shown that 

suitable sand injection targets underlie approximately 

9 percent of the site (Wheaton and Reddish 2005). 

Class V Reinjection into Coal Seams

This alternative includes the option of reinjecting 

CBNG-produced water into an underground coal 

seam. At the present time, there appear to be no PRB 

wells actively injecting produced water into coals. 

There are, however, records of at least nine wells that 

historically injected into shallow nonproductive coals 

in the PRB. These wells gave varying results from 

less than 100 barrels per day (bpd) to more than 

2,000 bpd. The receiving coals ranged in depth from 

45 to 400 feet below land surface. There are no 

records of operators attempting to inject into depleted 

coal seams (Likwartz, 2005). 

3-55 
CHAPTER 3 

Hydrological Resources 

The alternative has, however, been tested on a very 

limited basis. There are several reasons why 

reinjection of produced water into coal seams has not 

been widely used. These include the following: 

1) 

2) 

3) 

4) 

5) 

6) 

The reintroduction of water into a producing 

coal seam increases the hydrostatic pressure 

slows the natural gas production. 

2) Non-produced coal seams are saturated an

cannot receive the volumes of water produce

3) The financial investment to construct a 

pipeline to bring the produced water to a suit

coal seam is high. 

4) Not all produced water has to be treated or 

disposed of, but it can be and is used for 

beneficial purposes. 

5) The possibility of causing vertical fracture

the coal seam exists, thereby causing the 

injected water to be injected not only into the 

target seam but into another seam of formati

6) The possibility exists of causing the press

in the seam to increase and thereby increase 

water pressure in any domestic water well or 

stock well to such an extent that the affected 

well would no longer be useable. 

and 

d 

d. 

able 

s in 

on. 

ure 

the 

Coal seams serve as water supply aquifers throughout 

many PRB areas. Many of the shallow coals in the 

basin are unconfined and open to the surface, often 

via clinker zones. Under unconfined conditions, the 

coal seams do not usually produce CBNG, as any gas 

that was present has escaped into the atmosphere. 

Coals can also be present as confined aquifers 

isolated from the surface by formations such as 

shales and claystones. Confined coals can often 

produce water and CBNG. When fluids no longer can 

be produced from these coals, they are depleted. 

Injection may be possible into non-productive coals 

as well as depleted coals, but each has its own 

drawbacks and barriers to use. 

Coal is designated nonproductive because the 

methane either was never generated or has leaked off. 

If it has leaked off, then the coal seam is an 

unconfined aquifer and its fluids can reach the 

surface and discharge, although the time required to 

do so may be a few days or many hundreds of years. 

A depleted coal seam well may have been produced 

for a number of months or years and it may no longer 

produce CBNG in economic quantities. Such a well 

would have a lower reservoir pressure than when it 

began producing. If the reservoir pressure has been 

reduced, the reservoir may accept large volumes of 

fluid at relatively low injection pressures. 

A coal seam that is depleted in one well or one 

project area may still be productive in an adjacent 

CBNG project area. If an operator applies for a 

Class V injection permit in a depleted well, an 

offsetting operator may protest this application by 

arguing that any injection by the other operator will 

retard adjacent production, thereby reducing the 

mineral estate under lease. For this reason, successful 

injection applications will have to be sufficiently 

separated, either geographically or stratigraphically, 

from active CBNG production from the same coal 

seam. 

Technical parameters relating to the feasibility of 

injection into coal seams are site-specific. They 

primarily include the porosity and permeability of the 

injection coal seam and injection pressures required 

to inject the proposed volume of CBNG-produced 

water. 

Class IID Injection into Deep NonUSDW Reservoirs 

Class II injection wells, typically used for 

conventional oil and gas operations, have the 

potential to be used for CBNG water disposal. EPA 

classifies deep injection wells used for disposal 

below any USDW as Class II wells. Class II injection 

wells are subdivided as either IID (for disposal) or 

IIR (for secondary oil recovery). 

Class IID permits are issued for injection into an 

underground formation that contains water with a 

TDS greater than 10,000 mg/L or is an exempted 

aquifer. These deep Class IID wells may be able to 

accept large volumes of water in an environmentally 

safe manner; however, success with these wells in the 

PRB has been limited, with only ~30 percent being 

successful (Sattler et al., 2006). Class IID injection 

zones typically are very deep and are isolated from 

drinking water sources by thick, impermeable, 

confining zones. 

Technical parameters relating to the feasibility of 

deep well injection are site-specific. They primarily 

include a high enough porosity and permeability and 

low enough pressure within the deep injection zone 

to allow for injecting large volumes of water. Water 

quality of the injection zone with respect to TDS is 

also a factor. The distance and cost of running 

pipelines to injection wells and the cost of drilling the 

injection wells would also be factors. 

Class IIR Injection into Secondary 

Recovery Projects 

CBNG-produced water could be used to supply water 

for injection into Class IIR wells as part of secondary 

3-56 
CHAPTER 3 

Hydrological Resources 

oil recovery (water-flood) projects. Class IIR CBNG-produced water beneficially would be 

injection is done by oil producers to more efficiently reasonable for cooling at power plants. 

produce oil from conventional oil fields. Under this 

option, CBNG operators could pipeline their 

produced water to oilfields being flooded by other 

operators in an effort to produce additional oil. Water 

floods could inject large volumes of water up to 

50,000 bpd. 

Technical issues relating to the feasibility of using 

CBNG water in a water flood would include its 

chemical compatibility with the particular oil 

reservoir. Injected water that is chemically 

incompatible with water already in the oil reservoir 

could result in precipitation of solids. This could 

reduce permeability of the reservoir, resulting in 

lower production. The distance and cost of running 

pipelines to water-flood fields would also be a factor. 

Treatment and Beneficial Use or 

Discharge 

In general, CBNG-produced water is characterized by 

elevated levels of salinity, SAR and TDS. The 

concentrations of each of these parameters would 

vary based on location and the coal seam being 

developed and might require treatment before 

beneficial use or discharge. A variety of treatment 

technologies could be used to improve the quality of 

this water and allow for increased beneficial use or 

discharge. Ion exchange and reverse osmosis are two 

common examples. 

Treatment processes would depend both on treatment 

goals and influent water quality. Continual 

adjustments to treatment processes might be required 

if influent water quality varied from the expected 

quality. Recent and proposed changes in discharge 

standards might require upsizing or modifying 

treatment equipment to meet the new standards. The 

costs associated with treatment systems might be a 

factor. 

Industrial Uses

Coal mines in the PRB use large volumes of water 

for dust control. CBNG-produced water is currently 

used at local coal mines to control dust and for 

equipment washing, as well as for other uses. CBNGproduced water has to be transported to the active 

mines for this option to be feasible. 

Another potential industrial use of CBNG-produced 

water would be at electric generating power plants, 

which have a considerable need for cooling water. 

Nationally, water availability has been a limiting 

factor in the development of new power plants. With 

the current and projected volume of produced water 

from CBNG development, consideration of using 

Technical aspects of this option would involve 

variations in the quality and quantity of CBNGproduced water relative to location and coal seam(s) 

developed. Electric generating plants generally are 

designed to accommodate cooling water of a 

relatively high and consistent quality. Additionally, 

CBNG-produced water would have to be available to 

the power plant for a long enough time to make it 

worth the power plant’s effort to treat or install 

piping to access the water. 

Managed Irrigation

Irrigation is one of the more common and proven 

beneficial uses of CBNG-produced water in the PRB. 

Good sources of water for irrigation are only 

abundant near rivers and reservoirs; therefore, good 

sources of usable, CBNG-produced water are 

desirable for farmers and ranchers. The problems 

associated with using CBNG-produced water for 

typical surface irrigation would result from its high 

EC and SAR values. These problems might include 

soil crusting on the surface, dispersion and salt 

accumulation in the root zone. 

With any irrigation project, a user must ensure that 

saturated flow to outcrop or to groundwater would 

not occur. Once the water infiltrated, it would 

dissolve naturally occurring salts along its flow path. 

Saturated flow to outcrop would result in 

development of a potentially low-quality surface 

discharge (seep). Saturated flow to groundwater 

would cause the salts from the CBNG-produced 

water and those dissolved along the flow path to 

discharge to groundwater; potentially affecting 

groundwater quality. This could be avoided by 

ensuring that the water application occurred at 

agronomic rates. 

Soil amendments (typically gypsum and native 

sulfur) have been used to offset the high SAR of the 

CBNG-produced water. This keeps the soil 

permeable and leaching fractions sufficient to keep 

the root zone salinity at an acceptable level. 

Systems where amendments are added to the water 

rather than the soil (gypsum beds and sulfur burners) 

are also used. These function in essentially the same 

way as the soil amendments, only the constituents are 

added through a different path. 

Subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) supplies water to 

crops by a system of hoses and pipes buried in a 

network of trenches under the field. The water 

interacts with the salts, which have naturally 

accumulated in the subsurface (Ca-Mg sulfates), to 

reduce the SAR. Again, the reduced SAR allows for 

3-57 
CHAPTER 3 

Hydrological Resources 

acceptable root zone salinity within the root zone to 

be maintained by using a sufficient leaching fraction. 

Technical aspects of this option relate to the salinity 

of CBNG-produced water, which may be a problem 

in arid and semiarid areas since any leaching above 

the subsurface irrigation tubing would occur only as 

the result of rain. Thus, salts may accumulate in this 

area during the season as the plants extract water and 

leave the salts behind. 

Livestock Watering - Feedlots

Livestock watering is another common and proven 

beneficial use of CBNG-produced water in the PRB. 

Livestock watering would require relatively small 

quantities compared to the amounts of water 

produced in the basin; however they may result in 

better livestock distribution. Selected CBNG wells 

could also be left unplugged for livestock watering 

purposes, if the surface owner consented. 

CBNG-produced water could also be used to support 

feedlots. Water uses at a feedlot could include 

consumption by cattle, irrigation of forage crops and 

waste management. CBNG-produced water in the 

PRB is typically of sufficient quality for livestock 

watering without any treatment. 

Public Water Supply

Public water supplies can be limiting factors in both 

residential and industrial development. CBNGproduced water could be used as input for a public 

water supply; the water could be used to ensure 

continued growth and development. No towns at 

present are known to use CBNG-produced water as 

part of their water supply. 

Technical aspects of this option would involve the 

quality of CBNG-produced water. CBNG-produced 

water might not be high enough quality to use in a 

public water supply without treatment. Additionally, 

the cost of piping CBNG-produced water to towns 

for use, as well as the continued long-term supply of 

the resource, would also be factors. 

Impoundments

Impoundment construction in connection with oil and 

gas development must be permitted by MBOGC and 

might also require permits from DEQ, DNRC and 

other agencies. Surface storage is sometimes 

appropriate for produced water, depending on water 

quality and the availability of beneficial use. An 

impoundment for storing and managing produced 

water can be constructed as either an on-channel or 

off-channel facility. On-channel impoundments are 

defined as any impoundment constructed by building 

an embankment or dam across a stream, intermittent 

channel, or watercourse where the stream valley is 

depressed enough to permit storing 5 or more feet of 

water (USDA, NRCS, 1982). The land slope may 

range from gentle to steep. 

Off-channel impoundments are defined as any 

impoundment constructed by digging a pit or dugout 

in a nearly level area (USDA, NRCS, 1982) outside 

an existing stream channel or intermittent 

watercourse. Off-channel impoundments can be built 

in gently to moderately sloping areas where their 

capacity is obtained both by excavating and by 

building a dam (USDA, NRCS, 1982). 

One important difference between the two types of 

impoundments is the potential for stored produced 

water to infiltrate and discharge to surface waters. 

Due to the nature of the alluvium present in most onchannel impoundments in Montana, the path to 

surface discharge is essentially direct; that is, water 

infiltrated into the alluvium can communicate 

directly with the water in the river or stream. This 

situation can lead to regulatory issues. On channel 

impoundments may also intercept surface flows 

unless a by-pass is constructed. 

General siting criteria for constructing an 

impoundment can include geomorphology, surface 

soil type, stratigraphy, presence and nature of both 

shallow and deep groundwater, hydrogeology, 

regional geology and vegetation. These factors, plus 

produced water quantity and quality, would all have 

to be considered when determining the use of 

impoundments for managing produced water. 

3-58 
Indian Trust Assets 

The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) 

Departmental Manual 303 DM 2 defines Indian Trust 

Assets (ITAs) as lands, natural resources, money, or 

other assets held by the federal government in trust or 

that are restricted against alienation for Indian tribes 

and individual Indians. DOI Departmental Manual 512 

DM 2 requires all of its bureaus and offices to 

explicitly address anticipated effects on ITAs in 

planning, decision and operating documents. 

Beyond the maintenance of tangible assets, the federal 

government also has a trust responsibility to be 

considerate of the general well being of the tribes. This 

responsibility includes recognizing the Indian culture 

as an important value and to carefully consider Indian 

cultural values when conducting planning efforts. 

Indian cultural values include their unique way of life, 

ceremonial practices, spiritual beliefs, family values 

and worldview. The DOI Department Manual 512 

DM 2 also asserts an affirmative responsibility to 

ensure the tribal health and safety, to consult on a 

government-to-government basis with tribes who may 

be affected by proposed actions, to disclose all 

applicable information and to fully incorporate tribal 

views in its decision-making processes. 

Background 

Lands associated with a reservation or public domain 

allotments are examples of ITAs. Natural resources 

that exist within Indian reservations such as standing 

timber, minerals and oil and gas are ITAs. Treaty 

CHAPTER 3 

Indian Trust Assets 

rights, water rights and hunting and fishing rights may 

also be ITAs. Other ITAs may consist of financial 

assets held in trust accounts or intangible items such as 

Indian cultural values, ITAs are a product of the unique 

history and relationship of the U.S. government with 

various American Indian tribes. There is no similar 

relationship between the Montana State government 

agencies and sovereign dependent Indian tribal nations 

(like the Northern Cheyenne and Crow Tribes). See 

Map 1-1 for the general location and boundaries of the 

reservations and Table 3-13 for ITA acreages. 

Identification Methods 

The BIA is required to develop inventories of ITAs for 

all Indian tribes. The only ITAs in the Planning Area 

are the actual Indian reservation lands, natural 

resources and rights belonging to the Northern 

Cheyenne, Crow and the Turtle Mountain Band of 

Chippewa. 

Applicable Laws 

Federal 

The DOI Department Manual 512 DM 2 requires all 

DOI Bureaus and offices to explicitly address 

anticipated effects on ITAs in planning, decision and 

operating documents. This order also requires 

descriptions of how decisions will conform to the 

DOI’s trust responsibilities. Furthermore, DOI 

Department Manual 303 DM 2 outlines the principals 

for managing ITAs. 

TABLE 3-13 

INDIAN TRUST ASSETS 

Tribal Individually Tribal Individually 

Acreage of Trust Surface Allotted Mineral Allotted Mineral Private 

Tribe Reservation Acres Acres Surface Acres Acres Acres Acreage 

The Northern 

Cheyenne 445,000 442,193 444,000 138,211 444,000 138,211 2,087 

The Crow 2,296,000 1,491,569 455,719 1,035,850 405,888 824,427 804,431 

Turtle Mountain Public 

Domain Allotments* N/A 61,520 N/A 61,520 N/A 61,520 N/A 

Source: Madison 2001. 

*Not all of these acres lie within the Planning Area. 

3-59 
CHAPTER 3 

Indian Trust Assets 

and mineral estate lands. There are 138,211 individual The Crow Tribe allotted acres on the reservation. 

The Crow Reservation is located in south-central 

Montana and comprises nearly 2,296,000 acres. Access 

is via Interstate 90 or U.S. Highway 87. The 

reservation is bordered on the south by the state of 

Wyoming, on the east by the Northern Cheyenne 

Reservation and on the northwest by the city of 

Billings, which is Montana’s largest metropolitan area. 

The reservation encompasses the Little Bighorn 

Battlefield and approximately 3,600 square miles of 

rolling prairie and rugged foothills drained by the 

Bighorn River. The BIA Realty Office indicated that 

the tribe has some 455,719 surface acres and 

405,888 acres of mineral rights. There are another 

1,035,850 acres that have been individually allotted 

and 824,427 acres of allotted mineral rights. 

There are about 10,083 Crow tribal members, the 

majority of which live on the reservation. The Crow 

language is spoken by more than 80 percent of the 

tribe. Headquarters are at Crow Agency, Montana, just 

south of Hardin, Montana. The total labor force on the 

Crow Reservation is 3,902. The unemployment rate is 

61 percent. The average per capita income is $4,243. 

Water Rights 

The Crow have existing water rights held in trust by 

the United States. The Crow Tribe has not negotiated a 

water rights compact with the state of Montana. 

Mineral Rights 

The BIA Realty Office has stated that the Crow have 

mineral right assets totaling some 405,888 subsurface 

acres and another 824,427 allotted mineral acres. 

Cultural Resources 

The Crow also considers cultural and prehistoric 

resources located within their reservation to be ITAs. 

At present, an unknown number of archaeological 

resources are on the reservation. Sites are known to 

exist on the reservation, but the tribe reserves the 

information. These sites can consist of burials, trails, 

rock features, lithic scatters, house pits/rings, rockshelters, caves, bison kills and petroglyphs. 

The Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

The Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation occupies 

about 445,000 acres in eastern Big Horn and southern 

Rosebud counties, Montana. Access is provided by 

U.S. Highway 212. The reservation covers nearly 

695 square miles and is bordered on the east by the 

Tongue River and on the west by the Crow 

Reservation. According to the BIA Realty Office, the 

tribe has 442,193 trust acres and 444,000 of surface 

The Northern Cheyenne Tribe also has trust lands 

located off the reservation. The tribe acquired two 

tracts of land immediately west of the Tongue River 

Reservoir. These tracts are approximately 160 acres 

each and include the mineral estates. 

The tribe also has two larger tracts immediately south 

of the reservation and north and west of the Zook 

Creek Wilderness Study Area (WSA), respectively. 

The tribe obtained these tracts under an agreement with 

Consolidated Coal Company in 1981. The tribe 

acquired the surface rights, but the mineral rights were 

retained by the company. One of these tracts, known as 

the Moreland Ranch, is where the tribe pastures its 

buffalo herd. 

The total tribal population is 7,473, of which 

approximately 4,212 Northern Cheyenne live on or 

near the reservation. The tribal headquarters are in the 

town of Lame Deer. The total work force of the tribe is 

approximately 2,437 and the unemployment rate is 

71 percent according to the BIA Indian Labor Force 

Report (U.S. BIA 1999). According to the U.S. Bureau 

of the Census (Census 2000), the per capita income is 

estimated at $7,736 and the poverty status as of 1999 

was 46.1 percent. 

Water Rights 

The Northern Cheyenne Tribe has existing water rights 

held in trust by the U.S. The 1908 U.S. Supreme Court 

ruling in Winters v. U.S. (207 US 564) ruled that water 

rights needed to develop Indian reservations were 

reserved and this includes both groundwater and 

surface water rights. 

The Northern Cheyenne have a water rights compact 

with the state of Montana and own a significant amount 

of water in the Tongue River Basin, including a 

principal portion of the Tongue River Reservoir. 

The Northern Cheyenne Tribe has developed draft 

water quality standards and is currently discussing an 

agreement with the state of Montana and the BLM 

regarding preservation of beneficial uses. The draft 

water quality standards have been submitted to the 

EPA for approval. 

Mineral Rights 

The Indian Minerals Development Act (PL 97-382, 

25 USC 2101) and the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty 

Management Act of 1982 (PL 97-451) provide that 

information about mineral development of Indian Trust 

lands are proprietary to the individual tribe and may 

not be disclosed without consent. The BIA Realty 

Office has stated that the Northern Cheyenne have 

3-60 
mineral right assets totaling some 444,000 subsurface 

acres. 

Cultural Resources 

The Northern Cheyenne Tribe considers cultural 

resources located within their reservation to be ITAs. 

Sites are known to exist on the reservation, but the 

information is reserved by the tribe. These sites can 

consist of burials, trails, rock features, lithic scatters, 

house pits/rings, rock-shelters, caves, bison kills and 

petroglyphs. 

CHAPTER 3 

Indian Trust Assets 

The Turtle Mountain Public Domain 

Allotments 

There are approximately 61,520 acres (Madison 2001) 

of trust lands allotted to the members of the North 

Dakota Turtle Mountain Tribe scattered throughout 

2,000 square miles of Montana. 

In 1906, the Burke Act provided that individual tribe 

members could receive allotments of reservation land. 

At that time, parcels of 160 acres each were allotted to 

individuals of the Turtle Mountain Tribe in Montana. 

These allotments, although not grouped as a 

reservation, are within the Planning Area. These Trust 

lands are subject to the same leasing and development 

procedures as for the reservations. 

3-61 
CHAPTER 3 

Lands and Realty 

Lands and Realty 

A variety of land uses exist throughout the Planning 

Area, including agricultural (crops and grazing); roads 

and highways; railroads; utility rights-of-way (ROW) 

for electrical power lines and telephone; 

communication sites; oil and gas production and 

pipelines; residential; commercial and light industrial 

uses; mining; municipalities; and recreation. 

Table 3-14, Land Administration, shows surface 

ownership in acres by county for federal, state, tribal 

and private lands. It also shows that approximately 69 

percent of the land is private land. The majority of the 

private land is agriculturally based (grazing and crops). 

The next largest ownership is federal lands at 15 

percent. Federal lands include lands managed by the 

BLM, USFS, National Park Service, U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation (USBR), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) ) and USDA. BLM and USFS lands are used 

for grazing, timber production, mineral production 

(except for the Custer National Forest, which is 

excluded from surface coal mining by Section 522 of 

the SMCA of 1977) and year-round recreation 

activities. USBR lands are used for water storage and 

recreation. National Park Service lands are used for 

Tribal lands comprise 10 percent of the land in the 

Planning Area. They are used for cattle production, 

mining, logging and lumber production, residential and 

recreation on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation. 

Major land uses on the Crow Reservation include 

agriculture, mining and recreation (Madison 2001). 

State lands comprise the least amount of land in the 

Planning Area at 5 percent. This land is used for 

grazing, mining, timber production, oil and gas 

production, state parks and recreation activities. State 

lands are composed of school trust land administered 

by DNRC Trust Land Management Division, land 

owned by DNRC Water Resources Division and land 

owned by other state agencies. Uses vary by agency. 

School trust land uses include agriculture, grazing, 

mineral exploration and mining, aggregate production, 

recreational activities, oil and gas exploration and 

production, timber production and special uses, for 

example, wind turbines for energy production. School 

trust lands also have pipelines, power lines, telephone 

lines, roads and highways, home site leases and cabin 

site leases, depending on the situation. 

Roads and highways include interstate, U.S., state and 

off-system roads open to the public—county, local and 

private roads open to public use. Table 3-15 lists the 

recreation. USFWS lands are used for wildlife refuges 

and recreation. USDA lands are used for livestock and 

range research (Fort Keogh Livestock and Range 

Research Laboratory). 

Since completion of the Statewide Document, BLM 

has managed two land exchanges within the Planning 

Area (both in Carter County). The Johnston Exchange 

resulted in trading 454 acres of private land for 

480 acres of BLM land to be used for recreation and 

grazing access. The Higgins Exchange resulted in 

trading 551 acres of private land for 560 acres of BLM 

land, also designated for recreation and grazing access. 

number of miles of each type within the Planning Area. 

Railroad ROW crisscross the counties in the Planning 

Area. Railroads in the Planning Area transport goods 

such as grains, intermodal containers and coal. 

Table 3-16 indicates the approximate miles of railroad 

ROW within the Planning Area for each county, by 

railroad. 

There are existing gas pipelines in all the counties 

being studied. Some existing roads, utilities and gas 

lines could be used as part of the network for new 

CBNG installations. 

3-62 
TABLE 3-14

LAND ADMINISTRATION

Federal 

National U.S. Fish & 

Total Forest Park Bureau of Wildlife U.S. Department State County Tribal 

County Acres BLM Service Service Reclamation Service of Agriculture Lands Lands Lands Private Water 

Big Horn 3,209,390 27,301 2,497 64,305 1,611,968 1,492,196 11,122 

Carbon 1,319,798 217,469 325,674 26,798 261 44,061 192 700,492 4,850 

Carter 2,134,533 503,915 90,620 143,994 329 531 1,394,517 627 

Custer* 1,557,683 183,975 9 46,522 93,684 346 1,233,147 

Golden Valley 752,882 8,073 23,547 304 48,866 671,135 958 

Musselshell 1,197,365 100,514 11,427 76,093 1,007,178 2,153 

Powder River 2,110,643 257,147 340,415 143,339 1,369,699 43 

Rosebud* 1,503,407 77,986 95,613 64,920 242,194 1,020,141 2,553 

Stillwater 1,154,939 5,412 192,526 4,055 56,308 896,637 

Sweetgrass 1,191,687 15,496 279,860 48,539 844,077 3,716 

Treasure 629,822 840 39,058 10,666 576,006 3,252 

Wheatland 914,081 1,418 65,035 75,976 768,725 2,927 

Yellowstone 1,695,363 76,864 1,666 284 73,638 142,997 1,392,373 7,540 

Total 19,371,593 1,476,411 1,413,299 29,296 1,666 16,331 46,522 972,781 675 2,008,017 13,366,433 39,774 

Sources: Land Ownership, Montana State Library/NRIS, Helena, Montana, 2005. Created from GIS intersection of 1:100,000 scale county boundaries with 1:100,000 scale Land Ownership. 

*Acreage reflects only that portion of this county included in the Planning Area. 

Note: Acreage changes from the Statewide Document reflect actual changes in ownership, as well as changes to GIS source data from ongoing maintenance of the data layer and/or NRIS Library. 

3-63 

CHAPTER 3 

Lands and Realty 
CHAPTER 3 

Lands and Realty 

TABLE 3-15 

MILES OF ROAD/HIGHWAY 

County Interstate U.S. State Off-System 

Big Horn 88.3 63.1 23.0 4,625.9 

Carbon 106.9 60.6 1,310.4 

Carter 38.3 84.3 906.9 

Custer 42.8 25.8 57.8 1,636.6 

Golden Valley 29.0 12.5 1,453.4 

Musselshell 99.6 1,952.4 

Powder River 64.6 55.1 1,925.7 

Rosebud 41.9 26.6 51.3 2,296.2 

Stillwater 46.0 23.1 1,625.6 

Sweetgrass 39.3 52.6 0.1 1,386.4 

Treasure 26.2 742.9 

Wheatland 79.9 1,278.3 

Yellowstone 101.4 88.1 41.8 3,290.6 

Total 385.8 674.5 409.4 24,430.7 

Sources: 2000 Census roads, Montana State Library/NRIS, Helena, Montana, 2005. Created from GIS intersection of 1:100,000 scale county 

boundaries with 1:100,000 scale 2000 Census roads. 

Note: Road/highway mile changes from the Statewide Document reflect actual changes, as well as changes to GIS source data from ongoing 

maintenance of the data layer and/or the NRIS Library. 

TABLE 3-16

MILES OF RAILROAD ROW

Railroad 

Tongue River Railroad 

County BNSF1 Montana Rail Link (Proposed) 

Big Horn 119 19 

Carbon 55 

Custer 44 44 

Golden Valley 38 

Musselshell 

Rosebud 104 64 

Stillwater 46 

Sweetgrass 44 

Treasure 61 

Wheatland 28 

Yellowstone 124 57 

Total 573 146 127 (proposed) 

Sources: Railroads, Montana State Library/NRIS, Helena, Montana, 2005. Created from GIS intersection of 1:100,000 scale county

boundaries with 1:100,000 scale Railroads. 1

BNSF—Burlington, Northern and Santa Fe Railroad. 

Note: Railroad mile changes from the Statewide Document reflect actual changes, as well as changes to GIS source data from ongoing 

maintenance of the data layer and/or NRIS Library. 

3-64 
CHAPTER 3 

Livestock Grazing 

Livestock Grazing 

Most BLM grazing allotments involve only one 

permittee; however, there are several multi-permittee 

allotments. There are no other uses or control of public 

lands granted by issuance of a grazing permit. The 

length of grazing periods varies from seasonal to yearlong use. Most ranch operators using the allotments are 

cow-calf operations with sheep operations coming in 

second. Most allotments have several range 

improvements such as fences, stock ponds, pipelines, 

springs, windmills, seedings, wells and access roads for 

better control of livestock for management purposes 

(BLM 1992). 

In the Planning Area, approximately 1,066 allotments 

cover 1.4 million acres of BLM-administered lands, 

including 351 allotments covering approximately 0.4 

million acres in the Billings RMP area and 715 

allotments covering approximately 1.0 million acres in 

the Powder River RMP area. 

These allotments are used to graze cattle, sheep and 

horses. The main class of livestock using public lands 

is cattle (93 percent). Current BLM data indicates 

authorized livestock use on BLM-administered grazing 

allotments totals about 260,000 animal unit months. 

These allotments include active-use, non-use and 

exchange-of-use options (Tribby 2001; Padden 2001; 

Haas 2001). An AUM is the amount of forage 

necessary to support one cow and her calf, or five 

sheep, for one month. 

3-65 
CHAPTER 3 

Native American Concerns 

Native American Concerns 

There are seven federally recognized Indian tribal 

organizations in Montana. They are the Assiniboine 

and Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck (Sioux Division of 

Sisseton/Wahpetons, the Yantonias, the Teton 

Hunkpapa and the Assiniboine bands of Canoe Paddler 

and Red Bottoms), the Blackfeet Tribe, the Chippewa 

Cree Tribe, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai, the 

Crow Tribe of Montana, the Fort Belknap Indian 

Community (the Assiniboine and the Gros Ventre) and 

the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. Non-federally 

recognized tribes also reside in Montana: the Little 

Shell Band of Chippewa of Montana and the Métis. 

Tribal enrollment within these organizations is 

recorded as 61,203 individuals or nearly 6.6 percent of 

the state’s population. Within this population there is 

an average unemployment rate of 61 percent and a high 

level of poverty (U.S. BIA 1999). 

The majority of these native people reside on seven 

Indian reservations throughout Montana. The 

reservations are the Crow, Northern Cheyenne, Fort 

Peck, Fort Belknap, Rocky Boys, Blackfeet and the 

Flathead. Two reservations are within the SEIS 

Planning Area: the Crow and Northern Cheyenne. 

The Crow Reservation 

Much of the information in this section has been 

summarized from the Crow Indian Reservation’s 

Natural, Socio-Economic and Cultural Resources 

Assessment and Conditions Report (Crow Tribe 2002). 

Readers should refer to that document for more 

detailed information. This document can be 

downloaded from the MDEQ CBNG web page at 

http://www.mt.blm.gov/mcfo/cbm/eis/CrowTribeNarra 

tiveReport/index.html. 

The Crow Reservation is located in south-central 

Montana and comprises nearly 2,296,000 acres. Access 

is via Interstate 90 or U.S. Highway 87. The 

reservation is bordered on the south by the state of 

Wyoming, on the east by the Northern Cheyenne 

Reservation and on the northwest by the city of 

Billings, which is Montana’s largest metropolitan area. 

The reservation encompasses the Little Bighorn 

Battlefield and approximately 3,600 square miles of 

rolling prairie and rugged foothills drained by the 

Bighorn River. The BIA Realty Office indicated that 

the tribe has some 455,719 surface acres and 

405,888 acres of mineral rights. There are another 

1,035,850 acres that have been individually allotted 

and 824,427 acres of allotted mineral rights. 

Mountains, residual uplands and alluvial bottoms make 

up the topography of the Crow Reservation. The three 

principle mountain areas are the Wolf Mountains 

(CHEETIISH) to the east and the Bighorn 

(BASAWAXAAWUUA) and Pryor Mountains 

(BAAHPUUO ISAWAXAAWUUA) to the south. 

Sloping downward to the north from the mountains are 

rolling upland plains. The plains constitute the bulk of 

the reservation and vary in altitude from 3,000 to 

4,500 feet. The alluvial bottomlands are located along 

the Bighorn River, Little Bighorn River and Pryor 

Creek drainage systems. 

Reservation communities include Crow Agency, Saint 

Xavier, Yellowtail (Fort Smith), Lodge Grass, Wyola 

and Pryor. The Crow Tribe recognizes six districts 

within the reservation. The six districts are Bighorn, 

Black Lodge, Lodge Grass, Pryor, Reno and Wyola. 

(Crow Tribe 2002). 

Tribal Government 

The U.S. signed treaties in 1825, 1851 and 1868 with 

the Crow Tribe. These legal documents define the 

tribe’s relationship with the U.S., recognized their 

rights as a sovereign government and established 

reservation boundaries. The U.S. first recognized the 

Crow Tribe by Treaty in 1825 (ratified August 4, 1825. 

7 Stat. 266, proclaimed February 6, 1826) and this 

recognition has continued through today as evidenced 

by the Federal Register notice of July 12, 2002. The 

Treaty of 1851 established the Crow Reservation. The 

Tribal government has authority within the boundaries 

of the reservation for all ROW, waterways, 

watercourses and streams, running through any part of 

the reservation. 

The Crow Tribe of Indians repealed its 1948 

constitution and By-Laws in July 2001. The Crow 

Constitution of 2001 established a three-branch 

government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Each 

branch possesses separate and distinct power. Elected 

Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch officials 

hold 4-year terms. Judgeships consist of a Chief and 

two Associate Judges. The Crow Tribal Law and Order 

Code governs the structure of the Tribal Court. 

The Legislature consists of 18 representatives from six 

Legislative Districts (three representatives from each 

district) in the reservation. The Legislative Branch 

promulgates and adopts laws, resolutions, ordinances, 

codes, regulations and guidelines in accordance with 

the 2001 Constitution and federal laws. These 

legislative measures include taxes and licensing to 

protect and preserve property, wildlife and natural 

resources. 

The Executive Branch includes a Chairman, ViceChairman, Secretary and Vice-Secretary. The 

Executive Branch is empowered to administer funds 

and to enforce laws, ordinances, resolutions, 

regulations, or guidelines passed by the Legislative 

Branch. 

3-66 
Demographics 

As of 2000, 69 percent of the 10,220 enrolled members 

of the Crow Tribe were living on the Crow Indian 

Reservation (reservation). The off-reservation 

population of enrolled members included 850 

(8 percent) in Hardin and 2,340 (23 percent) in other 

areas, primarily Big Horn County, Billings 

(Yellowstone County) and other Montana and 

Wyoming counties near the reservation. In the 2000 

Census, the reservation’s population was 6,890, an 

increase of 15 percent from 1980. Native Americans 

made up 75 percent of the reservation’s population. 

Ninety-four percent of the reservation’s population was 

in Big Horn County and the other 6 percent in 

Yellowstone County. 

Between 1990 and 2000, the population of the Crow 

Indian Reservation increased by 520 (8 percent) 

compared to an 11.8 percent increase for all of Big 

Horn County. Average annual population growth has 

been less than 1 percent since 1980. The median age on 

the reservation is 27.6, compared to 37.5 for Montana 

as a whole. The population is distributed between the 

reservation communities of Crow Agency, Dunmore, 

Garryowen, Lodge Grass, Wyola, Pryor, Saint Xavier 

and Yellowtail and rural areas outside of the 

communities. 

In the 1990 Census, 41.7 percent of persons on the 

Crow Indian Reservation were living below the poverty 

level. Poverty status on the reservation as determined 

by the BIA for 1999 was 38 percent (Table 3-17). 

Social Organization 

As of 2000, there were 2,280 housing units on the 

reservation. Of these, 1,320 (58 percent) were owneroccupied, 24 percent were rented-occupied and 

18 percent were vacant (presumably due to substandard 

CHAPTER 3 

Native American Concerns 

conditions). Household size in 2002 was 3.5 for owneroccupied and 3.9 for renter-occupied. The reservation 

has a shortage of adequate housing for the needs of the 

population. The Crow Tribal Housing Authority 

identified 250 homes with more than one family in the 

households in 2002 and a waiting list of 300 families in 

need of housing. In 1997, the BIA identified a need for 

1,040 new housing units on the reservation and 

890 families in need of housing. Temporary housing 

off the reservation is available in Hardin, just north of 

the reservation in Montana and in Sheridan, Wyoming, 

about 25 miles south of the reservation. 

The Crow Indian Reservation Natural, Socio-Economic 

and Cultural Resources Assessment and Conditions 

Report describes in detail the public facilities and 

services in five of the larger communities on the Crow 

reservation. Telephone, gas and electric utilities are 

provided by a variety of county and other utility 

companies. Educational facilities include elementary, 

junior high and high schools and Little Big Horn 

Community College. Varying levels of public water 

and sewer systems are provided, depending on the 

community. Some of these systems are in need of 

maintenance and repair. The communities also have 

varying levels of medical, police and fire protection 

services. 

The reservation has eight elementary schools, three 

high schools and the Little Big Horn Community 

College. The three high schools are located in Lodge 

Grass, Pryor and Hardin. From coal mining revenues, 

the schools at Hardin and Lodge Grass have become 

two of the wealthiest in the state. Public schools are 

also available in both Billings and Hardin. 

Approximately 70 percent of members have a high 

school diploma and more than 6 percent have a 

Bachelor’s Degree or higher. 

TABLE 3-17

TRIBAL POVERTY RATES AMONG THOSE EMPLOYED (1999)

Percent Employed but 

Tribe County Total Tribal Enrollment Below Poverty Guideline 

Crow Tribe of Montana Big Horn County, 10,083 38% 

Yellowstone County 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe Big Horn County, Rosebud 7,473 26% 

County 

Montana (all tribes) 61,203 33% 

Source: BIA 1999. 

3-67 
CHAPTER 3 

Native American Concerns 

Economics 

The most recent employment information for the 

reservation is from the 1990 Census. In 1990, total 

employment on the reservation was 1,660. The tribal 

and federal governments are the largest employers. 

The Crow tribal government employed 400 persons 

in 2002. Agriculture (330, 20 percent), education 

(240, 15 percent) and retail trade (230, 14 percent) 

were the largest industry sectors. Private wage and 

salary (780, 47 percent) and government (590, 

36 percent) were the largest classes of employment. 

According to the 1990 Census, the reservation’s labor 

force (persons 16 years and older) was 2,380, with an 

unemployment rate of 30.4 percent. Much higher 

rates (61 percent) are reported by BIA statistics from 

1999 (Table 3-18). 

Page 3-38 of the Statewide Draft Oil and Gas EIS 

states that tribal members’ 1999 per capita income 

was $4,243. By comparison, per capita income for 

Big Horn County was $13,329 and the state of 

Montana was $21,229. In the 1990 Census, median 

household income for the reservation was $17,270, 

compared with $19,900 for Big Horn County and 

$22,988 for the state. 

Agriculture has been the historic base of the 

reservation economy. Agricultural crops include 

livestock, wheat, barley, oats, corn, sugar beets, 

alfalfa and hay. In 2000, the Montana State 

University/Big Horn County Agricultural Extension 

Service estimated the values of crops and livestock 

on the reservation were $20.9 and $35.5 million, 

respectively. 

Natural resources (land, water, coal, oil and gas, 

timber and sand and gravel) also contribute to the 

employment base and income on the reservation. The 

Absaloka Mine is located within five miles of the 

reservation’s northern boundary and employs 

between 40 and 75 Crow tribal members. The 

Statewide Draft Oil and Gas EIS (p. 3-40) states there 

have been 172 conventional oil and gas wells drilled 

on the reservation. These wells have been drilled by 

non-Indian interests through leases with the Crow 

Tribe. In 1985, 20 companies had 709 oil and gas 

leases with the Crow Tribe. The reservation has about 

36,000 acres of commercial forest in the Wolf and 

Pryor mountains; timber units are generally leased to 

non-Indian interests for harvesting. 

The Crow Tribe receives government revenue from 

its natural resources through numerous land leases, 

boundary settlement allotments and incomeproducing trusts generated through coal, mineral, oil, 

gas and timber reserves. The majority of these trusts 

are administered by the U.S. Government’s Office of 

Trust Fund Management. 

The Crow Tribe’s economic development plans 

incorporate the reservation’s resources such as 

agriculture, energy, tourism and recreation and 

commercial enterprises. The tribe is currently working 

with programs from federal agencies to prepare a 

strategy for comprehensive economic development. As 

part of the federal Economic Development 

Administration’s community economic development 

strategy (CEDS), the tribe is preparing an economic 

development plan to balance development and 

protection of the reservation’s resources. 

Air Quality 

The air quality and climate of the Crow Reservation 

is similar to that of the regions described earlier in 

Chapter 3. The Crow Reservation is classified as a 

PSD Class II area. 

The reservation is located in a part of Montana that 

has a moderate climate relative to its latitude. Snow 

rarely accrues for long periods of time because of the 

warm Chinook winds, which originate from the 

mountains in the West. This portion of Montana is 

also known for its “Indian Summers” which 

frequently extend into November. The mean annual 

temperature is 45.5o

F with a summer high of 110oF 

and a winter low of -48o

F. The bulk of the reservation 

varies from 12 to 18 inches annual precipitation, 

depending on the elevation. 

The tribe is currently in the process of developing 

and rewriting its codes and standards for air quality. 

TABLE 3-18

AVERAGE ANNUAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATES BY RESERVATION

1996 Rate 1999 Rate Change 

(%) (%) 1996-1999 

Crow Reservation 15.5 14.9 0.6

Northern Cheyenne Reservation 26.0 18.7 7.3

Source: Montana Department of Labor & Industry, Research & Analysis Bureau, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (2001a). 

3-68 
Culture and History 

The Crow Tribe’s native name is the Apsalooke, 

literally translated, “children of the large beaked bird.” 

Early explorers mistook the signing for Apsalooke, the 

flapping of one’s hands like the wings of a bird in 

flight and called them the Crow. The Crow were 

historically recognized as matrilineal and their social 

system was clan based. The original 13 clans of the 

Crow Tribe are as follows: 

• Ashilaaliio—Newly Made Lodges 

• Ashshitchite—Big (husky) Lodges 

• Ashiiooshe—Sore (burnt) Lip Lodge 

• Uuwuutashshe—Greasy Mouths 

• Uussaawaachia—Brings Game Home Without 

Shooting 

• Xuhkaalaxche—Ties Things Into a Bundle 

• Ashpeennuushe—Filth Eaters 

• Ashkapkawia—Bad War Deeds 

• Bilikooshe—Whistling Water 

• Ashxache—Hair Left on the Hide Lodge 

• Ishaashkapaaleete—Cropped Ear Pets Lodge 

• Ishaashkakaawia—Furious Pets Lodge 

• Ashbatshua—Traitorous Lodge 

Of these three are extinct and the remaining 10 

recognized clans have been consolidated into the 

following six; Bad War Deeds, Big Lodges, Greasy 

Mouths, Ties Things Into a Bundle, Traitorous Lodge 

and Whistling Water (Reed, G. 2002). 

The Crow people were originally part of the Hidatsa 

Tribe, which originated in the upper mid-west of the 

present U.S. Their subsistence and lifestyle was 

agriculture based. The Mountain Crow separated from 

the Hidatsa in North Dakota in the 1550s into eastern 

Montana and during the 1600s expanded along the 

Yellowstone River drainage. The River Crow moved 

into central Montana in 1670 and by 1720 were 

concentrated in the Yellowstone and Bighorn River 

drainages. 

With the introduction of the horse, people in the Plains 

tribes became more mobile and began intruding on 

each other’s hunting grounds. The Crow became 

known for their skill with horses. By 1800 the Powder, 

Bighorn, Yellowstone and Wind River drainages 

became areas of continuing conflict between the 

CHAPTER 3 

Native American Concerns 

Lakota, Northern Cheyenne, Arapaho, Blackfeet, Gros 

Ventre, Assiniboine and Crow. 

In 1806, the Lewis and Clark expedition spent one 

month in the Crow Territory, which aided in the Crow 

developing good relations with fur traders. Fur trading 

posts were established and fostered the development of 

the Crow as middlemen in the regional transfer of 

goods and the Crow prospered. The 1840s saw a period 

of massive small pox and flu epidemics in which, along 

with battles between native peoples, the majority of 

Crow died. 

Treaties were signed with the U.S. in 1825, 1851 and 

1868. The 1825 Treaty, a treaty of friendship, 

established a relationship with the U.S. Government. In 

the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851, the Crow lost control 

of the Powder River Basin but gained a promise of 

peace and annuities that were to be supplied for 

50 years. The treaty resulted in some gains but friction 

continued from tribes who were attracted to the game 

in the region and by wagon trains of gold seekers 

making their way to the California or other gold fields. 

The Crow were busy protecting their territorial 

boundaries. 

Continued conflict in the region led the U.S. 

government to propose the Fort Laramie Treaty of 

1868, which provided territories for individual tribes 

and closed the Bozeman trail and its forts. In this 

treaty, the Crow lost lands north of Yellowstone, south 

of the Montana territorial border and east of the 

107th Meridian. 

In 1869, the U.S. government established the Crow 

Agency near present-day Livingston, Montana. 

Conditions became sufficiently bad on the reservation 

that by 1872 the River Crow returned to their Missouri 

River hunting grounds while the Mountain Crow 

attempted farming on the reservation. In 1876, the 

Crow joined the U.S. in a war against the Sioux, 

Cheyenne and Arapaho. 

The Crow struggled against tradition and the elements 

to develop farming on the reservation and at times 

obtained permission to leave the reservation to hunt. 

White settlers and miners continued to place pressure 

on the Crow lands. The Crow ceded the western 

boundaries of their land, one-quarter of their 

reservation, in the How-How Treaty of 1882 in 

exchange for houses and livestock. In the 1891 Act, the 

Crow ceded the western third of their reservation and 

in 1905 more land was ceded. 

In the Crow perception of the world there is not a clear 

distinction between the western perception of spiritual 

and physical. All things in the universe are living 

entities: animals, plants, forces of nature, topographic 

features. The Supreme Force (First Maker) designed 

the universe and the Crow show their respect for these 

3-69 
CHAPTER 3 

Native American Concerns 

blessings through their daily life (customs, traditions 

and practices). First Maker instilled the universe with 

baxpe or spiritualness. They maintain an intimate 

personal relationship with all things in the world 

around them and the spiritualness that they possess. By 

treating all things in a respectful fashion, the Crow can 

continue to survive. 

The Crow historical perspective sees time as 

interlinked so that there is an intimate relationship 

between the individual and the past. The past (tradition 

or time) provides the template for the appropriate way 

to live. The Crow live in constant presence with the 

past that truly transcends the western concept of time. 

There are five qualities of time; sacred time, ancient 

Indian time, historic time, the present and the future, 

which have some sequential qualities but for the Crow 

the spiritualness of these times is most important. 

In this world perception many landscapes and places 

are sacred. They are sacred because they represent why 

and how things are done. Sacred sites include cultural 

material scatters, petroglyphs, tipi rings, homesteads, 

burial areas, cairns, communal kills, fasting beds, 

medicine lodges, rock art, stone rings and settlements. 

Sacred locations and places include water (springs and 

rivers), spirit homes (springs, rivers, hills and 

mountains), landscapes (mountains and topographic 

features), plant and animal procurement areas, fossil 

areas and mineral locations. 

Geology and Minerals 

The reservation contains a varied geology, as does the 

state of Montana (see earlier Geology and Minerals 

description). Of particular interest to this SEIS are the 

deposits of subbituminous coal within the reservation. 

The known coal occurrences in the Powder River Basin 

are generally located in the Paleocene Fort Union 

Formation. Coal on the reservation is produced 

primarily from nine coal beds: 

1. Roland: Top of Tongue River Member; average 

thickness 9 feet; resources 0.3 billion short tons; 

ranges in calorific value from 7,021 to 9,114 BTU, 

the sulfur content is 0.2 to 0.7 percent and ash 

content 3.8 to 9.7 percent. 

2. Smith: Tongue River Member; average thickness 

7 feet; resources 0.3 billion short tons; ranges in 

calorific value from 7,607 to 8,272 BTU, the 

sulfur content is 0.6 to 1.0 percent and ash content 

6.8 to 30.2 percent. 

3. Anderson: Tongue River Member; average 

thickness 20 feet; resources 1.9 billion short tons; 

ranges in calorific value from 8,705 to 9,850 BTU, 

the sulfur content is 0.2 to 0.6 percent and ash 

content 2.9 to 6.2 percent. 

4. Dietz: Tongue River Member; two coal beds; 

average thickness 35 feet; resources 5.6 billion 

short tons; ranges in calorific value from 6,019 to 

9,373 BTU, the sulfur content is 0.3 to 0.4 percent 

and ash content 2.9 to 6.3 percent. 

5. Canyon: Tongue River Member; average thickness 

20 feet; resources 3.7 billion short tons; ranges in 

calorific value from 8,446 to 9,113 BTU, the 

sulfur content is 0.2 to 0.3 percent and ash content 

3.2 to 10.7 percent. 

6. Wall: Tongue River Member; average thickness 

20 feet; resources 4.9 billion short tons; ranges in 

calorific value from 7,637 to 10,079 BTU, the 

sulfur content is 0.1 to 1.1 percent and ash content 

3.1 to 12.5 percent. 

7. Rosebud: Tongue River Member; average 

thickness 10 feet; resources 0.1 billion short tons; 

ranges in calorific value from 7,810 to 9,090 BTU, 

the sulfur content is 0.5 to 1.1 percent and ash 

content 8.1 to 12.6 percent. 

8. McKay: Tongue River Member; average thickness 

10 feet; resources 0.1 billion short tons. 

9. Robison: Tongue River Member; average 

thickness 10 feet; resources 0.05 billion short tons. 

The coals occur on the east side of the reservation in a 

12 to 15 mile wide area, extending from the Wyoming 

border to the north border of the reservation. 

These deposits have been estimated to contain 

17.1 billion short tons of coal of which 16.1 billion 

tons may be prospective for CBNG development 

(Crow Tribe 2002). The aggregate thickness of these 

coals may be as thick as 100 feet in places (Admin. 

Report BIA-7, 1975). Geology and stratigraphy of the 

Planning Area are discussed at length in the Minerals 

Appendix. 

The Absaloka coal mine produces coal from a strip of 

land the Crow Tribe ceded in 1904 to the U.S. for 

settlement by non-Indians. The U.S. holds rights to 

minerals underlying the ceded strip in trust for the 

tribe. In 1972, with the approval of the Department of 

the Interior and pursuant to the Indian Mineral Leasing 

Act of 1938, Westmoreland Resources, Inc., a nonIndian company, entered into a mining lease with the 

tribe for coal underlying the ceded strip (U.S. Supreme 

Court May 1998). Today the Absaloka mine annually 

produces an average of 5,500,000 short tons of coal 

from its 5,400-acre permitted facility. 

The reservation also includes the Soap Creek, Lodge 

Grass, Gray Blanket, Hardin and Ash Creek oil and gas 

fields. There have been 172 conventional wells drilled to 

date on the reservation. Production occurs from the Fort 

3-70 
CHAPTER 3 

Native American Concerns 

Union, Shannon, Tensleep, Amsden and Madison 

formations within the reservation (Crow Tribe 2002). 

Protecting the Indian lessors from loss of royalty as a 

result of conventional oil and gas drainage is a prime 

responsibility of the BLM. Under the terms of both 

federal and Indian leases, the lessee has the obligation to 

protect the leased land from drainage by drilling and 

producing any well(s) that are necessary to protect the 

lease from drainage, or in lieu thereof and with the 

consent of the authorized officer, by paying 

compensatory royalty. Drainage analysis, on the basis of 

a production screen or other criteria, is required by BLM 

document H-3160-2, Drainage Protection Guidelines 

Instruction Memorandum. Under this memorandum, 

federal or Indian mineral interests determined to be in 

danger of drainage will be subject to geologic, 

engineering and economic analyses in order to define the 

presence and magnitude of resource drainage. 

Hydrology 

Hydrological resources on the reservation consist of 

surface water flow from several rivers and their 

associated tributaries and the production of 

groundwater from a variety of geological formations. A 

detailed explanation of the regional hydrology 

including that of the reservations is included in an 

earlier section of this chapter under Hydrology. 

The Crow Indian Reservation is within the Billings 

RMP area. The three major drainages on the Crow 

Reservation are the Bighorn River, Little Bighorn 

River and Pryor Creek (Crow Tribe 2002). Three 

additional drainage basins partially headwatered on the 

reservation are Bighorn Lake (on the Bighorn River), 

the upper Tongue River and Rosebud Creek. 

Collectively, these drainages are part of the 

Yellowstone River Basin (Crow Tribe 2002). 

Water quality in the rivers and streams on the reservation 

is reported to be generally good, with levels of dissolved 

solids naturally high (Crow Tribe 2002). Pollution 

problems (primarily high sediment and salinity levels) are 

primarily related to non-point source agricultural 

practices and return flows. Table WIL-2 in the Wildlife 

Appendix summarizes aquatic resources characteristics 

and resource values from the Montana State Library 

NRIS (2001) Internet database for several representative 

drainages on the Crow Reservation, including the upper 

and lower Bighorn River, the Little Bighorn River, the 

upper Tongue River and Rosebud Creek. 

According to the 2004 303d list, several watersheds 

and impaired water bodies are adjacent to the Crow 

Reservation. These include the Rosebud watershed 

which crosses a part of the Crow Reservation; The 

Lower Bighorn watershed includes a large part of the 

Crow Reservation, which contacts both impaired 

portions of the Bighorn River; and the Little Bighorn 

watershed that includes a large part of the Crow 

Reservation, but no water bodies are determined to be 

impaired on the 2004 303d list. 

Most streams experience an increase in concentrations 

of dissolved solids downstream because of irrigation 

return flow, increased base flow contributions and 

pollution from human activities. Water contributed as 

base flow water has been in contact with soil and rocks 

for long periods of time. It therefore contains larger 

concentrations of dissolved solids than surface runoff 

water (Crow Tribe 2002). 

Surface water quality in the Little Bighorn River Basin 

is affected by high-quality Bighorn Mountain 

snowmelt, surface- and ground-water inflow and 

irrigation in Montana. As in most semi-arid areas, the 

concentration of dissolved materials in effluent streams 

generally increases with distance downstream. The 

total sediment load is large, ranging between 158 and 

16,200 tons/day for the Little Bighorn below Pass 

Creek. Other than its high suspended sediment 

concentrations, water in the Little Bighorn River can be 

characterized as very good water that is suitable for 

most uses. 

Snowmelt, ground- and surface-water inflow, geology 

and irrigation affect water quality in the creeks 

draining into the Tongue River. The chemical quality 

of these creeks is suitable for most uses, although the 

high hardness and alkalinity values might require 

treatment for some industrial uses. Again, water quality 

in these creeks degrades with increasing distance 

downstream. Based on an analysis for the referenced 

document, water in Squirrel Creek failed to meet the 

Secondary Drinking Water Standards for Total 

Dissolved Solids. Surface and groundwater inflows, as 

well as evaporation, degrade water quality in Rosebud 

Creek (Crow Tribe 2002). 

The groundwater resources for the reservation are more 

diverse than to those described for the Powder River 

Basin in the previous Hydrology section of this 

chapter. The potential for groundwater resources 

underlies most of the Crow Reservation. The 

stratigraphy varies from Pre-Cambrian age granitic 

gneiss and schist in the Bighorn and Pryor mountains 

on the west to the Eocene deposits of the Wasatch 

Formation in the Wolf Mountains and Powder River 

Basin on the east. The pronounced geologic structures, 

semi-arid climate and sculptured terrain lead to highly 

varied, but often prolific, groundwater resources within 

the reservation. Regional aquifers located on the 

reservation include the following: 

• Alluvial sand and gravel (Holocene) 

• Terrace gravel (Pleistocene) 

• Clinker deposits (Holocene, Pleistocene and 

Pliocene) 

3-71 
CHAPTER 3 

Native American Concerns 

• Fort Union Formation (Paleocene) 

• Fox Hills—Hell Creek sandstone (Upper Cretaceous) 

• Eagle Sandstone (Upper Cretaceous) 

• Parkman Sandstone (Upper Cretaceous) 

• Pryor Conglomerate (Lower Cretaceous) 

• Tensleep Formation (Pennsylvanian) 

• Mission Canyon limestone of the Madison Group 

(Mississippian) 

• Jefferson limestone (Ordovician) 

Locally many other water-bearing zones may occur in 

isolated sandstone and siltstone beds and in fractured 

bedrock of any type (Crow Tribe 2002). A total of 

2,237 wells have been registered with the MBMG. The 

majority of the wells are producing at depths less than 

200 feet bgs and only 30 wells have been drilled deeper 

than 700 feet bgs. The majority of the wells are used 

for stock water, irrigation and domestic consumption 

(Crow Tribe 2002). 

Groundwater quality under the reservation is 

summarized on Table 3-19. 

Land Use and Realty 

The Crow Reservation comprises approximately 

9 percent of the land in the Planning Area. Of the 

approximately 1.5 million acres of tribal or allotted trust 

ownership, 68 percent is grazing rangeland, 12 percent is 

dry cropland, 3 percent is irrigated cropland, 1 percent is 

forested, 1 percent is wildland and 1 percent is 

developed area (Crow Tribe 2002). The Crow maintain 

almost 1.2 million acres of leased grazing lands, 

150,000 acres leased dry-farming land and the nearly 

30,000 acres leased irrigated farming land. Most lands 

are leased to large non-Indian interests by Allottees 

(U.S. Department of Commerce 1996). 

The principal communities located on the Crow 

Reservation are as follows: 

• Crow Agency—The Crow Tribal Government 

administration, the BIA and the Crow Hospital are 

located in the town of Crow Agency. There are 

approximately 3,245 Indian people residing in 

Crow Agency. A 16-bed hospital is located in 

Hardin, Montana, approximately 12 miles from 

Crow Agency. Two larger hospitals (250+ bed 

facilities) are located in Billings, Montana, 

65 miles from Crow Agency. Billings is 

recognized as the major medical referral center for 

east-central Montana and northern Wyoming. 

• Lodge Grass—The Lodge Grass is located 

approximately 22 miles south of Crow Agency and 

houses the Lodge Grass Health Center. 

Approximately 2,125 Indian people live in Lodge 

Grass. 

TABLE 3-19

GROUNDWATER SODIUM ADSORPTION RATIO AND TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS VALUES

CROW INDIAN RESERVATION

Study Area Formation # Wells Avg. SAR SAR Range Avg. TDS TDS Range 

Hardin 3 (NE) Fort Union 22/2 4.7/43 55 – 0.4 

36 1,794 405 – 4,672 

Quaternary 16 4.36 32 – 0.1 1,487 184 – 3,920 

Judith River 1 0.7 405 

Hardin 4 (NW) Quaternary 15 7.3 15 – 1 2,859 6,570 – 724 

Unknown 9 9 47 – 0.1 2,223 4,770 – 606 

Pre Judith River 2 0.5 – 0.4 3,170 – 2790 

Hardin 5 (SW) Quaternary 6 4 7 – 2 2,871 806 – 5,850 

Unknown 1 12 614 

Pre Judith River 2 52 – 0.4 4,990 – 2,065 

Hardin 6 (SE) Quaternary 14 1.9 11 – 0.7 1,318 7,720 – 400 

Judith River 3 54 64 – 47 1,107 1180 – 1,000 

Pre Judith River 3 50 82 – 23 3,126 8,060 – 452 

Source: Miller et al. 1977, Crow Tribe 2002. 

SAR is sodium adsorption ratio 

TDS is total dissolved solids 

Avg. is average 

3-72 
CHAPTER 3 

Native American Concerns 

• Pryor—The Pryor Health Station is located here, 

approximately 69 miles northwest of Crow 

Agency. The Indian population of Pryor is 

estimated at 1,018. 

• Wyola—This community is located approximately 

13 miles from Lodge Grass and approximately 

35 miles from Crow Agency. There are nearly 

450 Indian people residing in Wyola. 

Paleontological Resources 

The Crow Reservation includes bedrock deposited 

during the Late Cretaceous to Early Tertiary time. 

These geologic formations were deposited in a broad, 

epicontinental seaway that extended through the 

western interior from the Arctic Ocean to the Gulf of 

Mexico during Late Cretaceous. The cyclic 

transgression and regression of the shallow seas and 

the final withdrawal during the Late Tertiary time 

resulted in a wide variety of environments of 

deposition. The depositional environments of marine 

and nonmarine sedimentation resulted in a rich fossil 

record including dinosaurs, mammals and other 

vertebrate and paleobotanical remains. The great 

abundance, diversity and generally excellent fossil 

preservation in the region present significant scientific 

research opportunities. 

Detailed paleontological field surveys have not been 

conducted within the reservation. The formations listed 

below are known to yield paleontological material 

across Montana: 

• Wasatch—has yielded mammals and plant fossils 

• Fort Union—various non-marine animals and 

plants 

• Fox Hills-Hell Creek—marine and non-marine 

animals including dinosaurs 

• Bearpaw, Judith River, Claggett—marine animals 

and dinosaurs 

• Morrison—dinosaurs and early mammals 

• Swift and Rierdon—marine invertebrates 

• Madison—marine invertebrates 

• Cloverly Formation-early cretaceous fossils 

Site-specific studies would need to be conducted prior 

to bedrock disturbance (Crow Tribe 2002). 

Recreation 

The Crow Indian Reservation is a large contiguous 

tract of land that provides dispersed outdoor recreation 

for tribal members. This includes hunting, fishing, 

picnicking, camping, hiking, horseback riding, 

snowmobiling and off-road vehicle use. Yellowtail 

Dam at Bighorn Canyon provides some of the finest 

fishing, water sports and camping in the state of 

Montana. Non-tribal members are not allowed to hunt 

on the reservation except for spouses of tribal 

members. Crow Agency recreational facilities are 

provided at three city parks, the school gymnasium, 

playground areas and the Crow Tribal Fairgrounds. 

Within the town of Lodge Grass on the reservation, 

there is a city park with landscaped open space and 

picnic facilities. Outdoor sports and playground 

equipment are available on the school grounds in 

Lodge Grass. 

The Crow Tribe hosts one of the largest powwows held 

in the U.S. The Crow Fair takes place at the Crow 

Agency every August. There is spirited competition 

dancing, drumming and singing, as well as food and 

craft concessions. Crow Agency is also near the Battle 

of the Little Bighorn National Monument, a popular 

tourist site. Once each year the tribe does a brilliant reenactment of the battle. 

Soils 

Soils in the reservation, just like soils in the 

surrounding area, are derived mainly from sedimentary 

bedrock and alluvium. The soils generally range from 

loams to clays, but are principally loams to silty clay 

loams. For more information on soil types, see the 

Soils Appendix. 

Vegetation 

The major native plant communities on Crow Lands 

include grass and shrub rangelands, forestlands, 

riparian areas and barren lands. These classifications 

are discussed in detail in the Vegetation section. 

Rangelands on the reservations are mostly mixed grass 

prairie in the lowlands and mixed grass, ponderosa pine 

(Pinus ponderosa), Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus 

scopulorum) and Douglas fir (Pseudostuga menziesii) 

in foothill and mountain areas (Crow Tribe et al. 1997). 

Predominant rangeland species are bluebunch 

wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria/Agropyron spicata), 

western wheatgrass (Pascopynum smithii), Idaho 

fescue (Festuca idahoensis), green needlegrass (Stipa 

viridula), needle and thread (Stipa comata), little 

bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), blue grama 

(Bouteloua gracilis) and sideoats grama 

(B. curtipendula). Other species of grass such as 

switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), Indian ricegrass 

(Oryzopsis hymenoides), big bluestem (Andropogon 

gerardii), prairie sandreed (Calamovilfa longifolia) and 

little bluestem are found on sandy sites. 

3-73 
CHAPTER 3 

Native American Concerns 

Riparian species include prairie cordgrass, rushes and 

sedges. Forbs include lupine (Lupinus spp.), Hood’s 

phlox (Phlox hoodii), green sagewort (Artemisia 

campestris), cudweed sagewort (Artemisia 

ludoviciana), fringed sagewort (Artemisia frigida), 

white loco (Oxytropis lambertii), povertyweed 

(Monolepis sp.) and scurf pea (Psoralea tenuiflora). 

Shrubs include big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), 

rabbitbrush (Chysothamnus spp.), snowberry 

(Symphoricarpus albus), greasewood (Sarcobatus 

vermiculatus) and snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae) 

(Crow Tribe 2002). 

Forestlands on tribal lands are mainly in the higher 

elevations in the Wolf Mountains, Bighorn Mountains 

and Pryor Mountains. Ponderosa pine is the dominant 

tree with aspen (Populus tremuloides) stands also 

present in some drainages. 

Riparian zones are the smallest land cover type on the 

Crow Reservation (Crow Tribe et al. 1997). Dominant 

vegetation in these linear strands along rivers and 

streams are cottonwood (Populus spp.), boxelder (Acer 

negundo), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sandbar 

willow (Salix interior) and American plum (Prunus 

americana). These areas can also have a thick 

understory of shrubs, if livestock access to them is 

limited. 

Special Status Species 

Four plant species of special concern to the state of 

Montana that occur on tribal lands are sweetwater 

milkvetch (Astragalus areetioides), Joe Pye weed 

(Eupatorium maculatum var. bruneri), Purpus’ 

sullivantia (Sullivantia hapemanii var. hapemanii) and 

tall centaury (Centaurium exaltatum). See the 

Vegetation Appendix Table VEG-6 for habitat 

information for these species. 

There are certain other plant species that are sacred to 

the Crow Nation for traditional and/or therapeutic 

reasons. These special status plants are in addition to 

those listed under the Vegetation section for the total 

project area. 

Noxious weeds are similar on the Crow Reservation to 

the rest of the project area and are discussed under the 

main Vegetation section in this SEIS. 

Wildlife 

According to the Crow Indian Reservation Natural, 

Socio-Economic and Cultural Resources Assessment 

and Conditions Report there are an estimated 79 

species of mammals, 260 species of birds, five species 

of amphibians and 14 species of reptiles found on the 

Crow Reservation some time during the year. Big game 

species include pronghorn antelope, elk, white-tailed 

deer, buffalo and black bear. Small game animals 

include white-tailed jackrabbit, snowshoe hare and 

mountain cottontail. Upland game birds include 

Merriam’s turkey, mourning dove, blue grouse, ruffed 

grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, sage-grouse, chukar 

partridge, ring-necked pheasant and gray partridge. 

Fur bearers on the reservation include: beaver, muskrat, 

lynx, bobcat, raccoon, red fox, coyote, badger, striped 

skunk, western spotted skunk, mink, ermine and long 

tailed weasel. Many species of rodents are found on the 

reservation, of these the prairie dog is the most 

important because of its relationship as prey. 

Several raptorial birds are common throughout the area 

and nest on the reservation. Some of these include the 

American kestrel, northern harrier, red-tailed hawk, 

bald eagle and golden eagle. Prairie falcons may also 

reside on the reservation but are considered 

uncommon. 

Special Status Species 

Five endangered species may at times be found on the 

reservation (Crow Tribe of Indians 2002). These are 

the grizzly bear, gray wolf, black-footed ferret, 

whooping crane and peregrine falcon. It is unlikely that 

any of the endangered mammals reside on the 

reservation. Whooping cranes and peregrine falcons 

may migrate through the Crow Reservation in the 

spring and fall months. 

Aquatic Resources 

The Crow Tribe (2002) reported that 19 species of fish 

occur on the Crow Reservation at some time during the 

year. The tribe also stated that Bighorn Lake 

(impounded by Yellowtail Dam), which begins in 

Wyoming and runs into the Crow Reservation in 

Montana, provides some of the finest fishing in the 

state. The tribe noted that a nationally famous fishery 

for huge rainbow trout and brown trout occurs in a 

12-mile reach of the Bighorn River downstream of 

Yellowtail Dam. 

Water discharged from Bighorn Lake to the river is 

cool and nutrient-rich and supports a blue-ribbon trout 

fishery reported to be the premier tail-water fishery in 

North America (Crow Tribe 2002). Table WIL-3 (in 

the Wildlife Appendix) summarizes fish species 

composition and abundance information from the 

Montana State Library Natural Resource Information 

System (Montana NRIS 2001) Internet data base for 

the same representative drainages on the Crow 

Reservation that were listed in the preceding paragraph 

for Table WIL-2 (in the Wildlife Appendix). In 

addition to these drainages, Pryor Creek in the western 

portion of the Crow Reservation provides some habitat 

for rainbow, Yellowstone cutthroat and brook trout and 

is rated as having a moderate fisheries resource value 

(Montana NRIS 2001). 

3-74 
Northern Cheyenne Reservation 

Much of the information in this section was summarized 

from The Northern Cheyenne Tribe and Its Reservation: 

A Report to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and 

the state of Montana Department of Natural Resources 

and Conservation (Northern Cheyenne Tribe April 

2002). Readers should refer to that document for more 

detailed information. This document can be downloaded 

from the BLM web site at 

http://www.mt.blm.gov/mcfo/cbm/eis/NCheyenneNarrat 

iveReport/index.html. 

The Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation occupies 

about 445,000 acres in eastern Big Horn and southern 

Rosebud counties, Montana. U.S. Highway 212 

provides access. The reservation covers nearly 

695 square miles and is bordered on the east by the 

Tongue River and on the west by the Crow 

Reservation. According to the BIA Realty Office, the 

tribe has 442,193 trust acres and 444,000 of surface 

and mineral estate lands. There are 138,211 individual 

allotted acres on the reservation. 

President Arthur issued an Executive Order 

establishing the reservation in November of 1884 with 

a land trust of about 271,000 acres. In 1900, President 

McKinley issued a second Executive Order on behalf 

of the Northern Cheyenne that shifted the eastern 

boundary to the Tongue River, expanding the 

reservation to its current size. The topography deviates 

from low, grass-covered hills to high, steep 

outcroppings and narrow valleys. Elevations range 

from approximately 3,000 to 5,000 feet. 

Tribal Government 

The tribe ratified a constitution and bylaws in 1936 

according to Indian Reorganization Act rules. The 

Tribal Constitution was amended in 1960 and 1996. 

The 1996 amendment initiated a three branch system: 

Executive Branch, consisting of the Tribal President, 

Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer; Legislative 

Branch consisting of the Tribal Council and it 

committees and Judicial Branch consisting of the 

courts. The Tribal Council consists of 11 full-time 

members, a seat held by the Vice President, five seats 

each representing one of the districts (Ashland, Birney, 

Busby, Muddy and Lame Deer) and five seats allocated 

among the five districts based on the percentage of 

Tribal membership. The Tribal President presides over 

the Tribal Council. The Tribal Council powers include 

representative, proprietary, fiscal, police and economic. 

In the Executive Branch, the Tribal President and Vice 

President are elected by the Tribal membership and the 

Tribal Council appoints the Secretary and Treasurer. 

The Tribal President oversees the Executive Branch 

and appoints persons to all Tribal Boards, 

CHAPTER 3 

Native American Concerns 

commissions, departments and agencies (Culture 

Committee, Economic Development Committee, 

Enrollment Committee, Gaming Commission, Land 

Committee, St. Labre Task Force, Newsletter 

Committee, Grazing Board, Natural Resource Board, 

Housing Authority, Utilities Commission, TERO 

Commission, Board of Health, Ad Hoc Committee and 

Credit Committee) and oversees a host of tribal 

programs. 

The reservation court system was updated in 1998 

providing for the election of at least two full-time 

trained court judges and at least three part-time 

appellate judges appointed by the Tribal President. A 

Constitutional Court was established to review the 

constitutionality of Tribal Council ordinances and has 

the exclusive power to remove a Tribal judge. 

Demographics 

According to the 2000 Census, the population of the 

Northern Cheyenne Reservation (reservation) is 

4,470 persons, of whom 4,029 are Native Americans. 

The Northern Cheyenne Tribe report indicates that this 

number likely underestimates the actual population. 

Although the Census does not provide estimates of 

undercounts, the report estimates the actual reservation 

population could be about 5,000, based on past Census 

adjustment methods. Tribal enrollment is 

8,008 persons, of whom 4,343 live on or near the 

reservation. 

Geographically, the Northern Cheyenne Reservation’s 

most immediate social environment consists of Big 

Horn and Rosebud counties, the Crow Reservation on 

the west and Powder River County to the east. The 

reservation has a much higher population density than 

the surrounding counties. According to the 2000 

Census, the reservation had 6.4 persons per square 

mile, several times greater than the surrounding 

counties, which had 1.4 persons per square mile. The 

age distribution on the reservation is more heavily 

weighted toward the young than the surrounding 

counties. The median age on the reservation is 

22.7 years compared to an average of 39.2 years in the 

three surrounding counties. 

According to the 1990 Census, the poverty rate on the 

reservation was 47 percent. This compares to an 

average poverty rate of 12 percent for the nonreservation portions of Rosebud and Powder River 

counties. Additional information on poverty rates, 

including rates calculated by the BIA, is provided in 

the Socioeconomics section of Chapter 3. 

Social Organization 

There is a housing shortage on the reservation. The 

Northern Cheyenne Report estimates that there are 

3-75 
CHAPTER 3 

Native American Concerns 

about 1,200 housing units on the reservation to serve a 

population of about 5,000. As a result, most reservation 

housing is overcrowded and a number of tribal 

members commute from off-reservation housing to 

jobs on the reservation. Of the 1,200 housing units, 

about 800 are public housing managed by the Northern 

Cheyenne Housing Authority, about 20 units are 

employer-owned housing and about 300 units are 

privately owned. In addition, there are an unknown 

number of mobile homes and trailers. Overall, the 

housing on the reservation is in poor condition, due to a 

number of factors including age, poor construction and 

lack of financial resources to maintain it. A significant 

number of the housing units do not have regular 

electrical service. 

The tribe operates two programs intended to address 

the housing situation on the reservation—the Northern 

Cheyenne Housing Authority, which is responsible for 

new public housing construction and renovation 

projects and the Housing Improvement Program, which 

provides funding for the renovation of private homes 

on the reservation. 

The report provides a detailed description of public 

services and facilities, including utilities, education, 

social services, police, fire and medical services, 

employment and job training and transportation. A 

common theme with a number of the services is their 

inadequacy due to maintenance or capacity issues. A 

number of basic programs and services on the 

reservation are still administered by the federal 

government. The BIA is directly responsible for 

providing law enforcement services and also manages 

the reservation’s forests and range lands. The BIA is 

responsible for the reservation’s road network and 

oversees all real estate transactions. 

Public schools are available for pre-school grades and 

K-12 in Lame Deer. Ashland houses the St. Labre 

Indian High School or students may decide to attend 

public high school in Colstrip, Montana. In Colstrip 

there are three public elementary schools, a middle 

school and a transportation system, which serves all 

grade levels. For college, students may choose to 

attend the Dull Knife Community College in Lame 

Deer. The institution offers several associate degrees 

and certified programs. Dull Knife Community College 

also offers courses on the Cheyenne language. 

Approximately 62 percent of the tribal members have a 

high school diploma and 5.6 percent have a Bachelor’s 

Degree or higher. 

Economics 

The current economy is primarily based on livestock; 

individual tribal members own an estimated 12 to 

15 thousand head of cattle, which are presently worth 

about $12 million on the open market. The tribe has 

approximately 27,000 acres of reservation lands 

presently under cultivation, the vast majority of which 

is dryland farming. This primarily entails hay, wheat, 

barley and small grains. Annual revenues generated by 

farming are estimated at about $2.5 million (U.S. 

Department of Commerce 1996). 

In addition to this agricultural-based income, the tribe 

has developed several secondary routes of income 

including construction, timber sales, small business and 

casino gaming. 

There are several skilled construction contractors and 

subcontractors amongst the tribe, one of which is 

reported to have a contract for construction of the new 

Community Center (the old one having burned down in 

1989). Additionally, new tribal housing units are 

planned; tribally based contractors are bidding for this 

project. In general, the construction industry generates 

sizable employment and revenues for the tribe. 

One third of the reservation or approximately 

147,000 acres is composed of forested land, the 

majority of which is comprised of Ponderosa Pine 

forests. The commercially available portion of these 

forested lands is estimated at 70 percent. The tribe’s 

sawmill was closed; since then, little if any timber has 

been sold. The Northern Cheyenne Pine Company is 

the lead forest product company using reservation 

timber resources. 

There are currently 44 small businesses on the 

reservation, the majority Indian-owned. These 

businesses include laundromats, restaurants, gas 

stations, grocery stores, construction contractors, 

drilling companies, a lumber mill, a clothing designer 

and Indian arts and crafts outlets. 

The tribe operates the Northern Cheyenne Bingo 

facility, a moderate-sized casino operation, offering 

bingo, pull tabs and video poker. The casino generates 

no net revenues for the tribe; however it employs a 

number of tribal members (letter from Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe dated October 18, 2005). 

Additional Detail 

The information that follows was summarized from a 

report by the Northern Cheyenne Tribe (April 2002). 

Readers should refer to that document for more 

detailed information. 

According to the 1999 BIA Labor Force Report, only 

29 percent of the potential 2,437-person labor force on 

the reservation is employed; the unemployment rate is 

71 percent. For further discussion, see Table 3-31 and 

the text in the Social and Economic Values section 

under the heading of Unemployment. 

A detailed discussion of the history of reservation 

employment and economics in relation to energy 

3-76 
CHAPTER 3 

Native American Concerns 

production is provided in the Northern Cheyenne funds—those funds available to fund the operations of 

report. The report reviews the energy development the tribal government and discretionary programs and 

between 1970 and 1990 and the associated rise and services—are limited. 

then fall of wages, employment and property taxes in 

the reservation area. The primary local economic 

impact of the mineral development during that time 

was in the creation of jobs and payment of wages, in 

addition to state and local taxes collected on mineral 

extraction. Energy and extraction provided some of the 

highest-paying jobs available in Montana. 

Despite the new wealth and jobs created, the energy 

boom from 1970 to 1990 generally did not support 

improved prosperity on the reservation. On the 

reservation, a number of indicators of economic health 

declined during this period. Reasons cited for this 

deterioration of economic conditions include lack of 

access by Northern Cheyenne to the high-paid energy 

jobs, limited local commercial infrastructure on the 

reservation and lack of access to the energy-related 

revenues to support public services and infrastructure 

on the reservation. 

The federal government plays a major role in tribal 

economics. Direct federal funding in the form of 

grants, contracts and funding agreements and indirect 

costs recovery make up the lion’s share of the tribe’s 

total revenues and expenditures. Between 1976 and 

1997, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe entered into 

contracts with the BIA assuming responsibility for 

more than 20 BIA programs with a total budget in 

fiscal year 2002 of $3.7 million. The tribe also enters 

into funding agreements with the Indian Health Service 

and federal housing, welfare and employment 

programs. In all, the tribe administers about 70 federal 

grants and programs with a combined value in fiscal 

year 2002 of about $21.3 million. In fiscal year 2002, 

federal funding for direct and indirect program 

expenditures is projected to exceed the tribe’s general 

fund revenues by a factor of 10. 

Sources of tribal government fiscal resources include 

the general fund, indirect cost reimbursement, fiduciary 

funds and special revenue funds. The general fund is 

used to finance the basic operations of tribal 

government. The fund is also used to provide matching 

funds for federal programs and to subsidize underfunded federal programs. General fund revenues are 

derived from income from tribal natural resources 

(primarily timber sales and grazing leases), earnings 

distributed from the permanent fund, interest on other 

funds and federal payments in lieu of taxes. Because 

the reservation tax base is limited, the tribe imposes no 

taxes and derives no revenues from taxation. The 

general fund budget for fiscal year 2002 is 

$2.03 million, which represents a 40 percent decline 

from 2001, primarily due to decreased earnings 

distribution from the permanent fund and declining 

income from natural resources. Tribal discretionary 

Air Quality 

The air quality and climate of the Northern Cheyenne 

Reservation is similar to that of the regions described 

earlier in Chapter 3. The Northern Cheyenne 

Reservation is classified as a PSD Class I area. 

Additionally, the community of Lame Deer, Montana, 

is classified as a moderate PM10 nonattainment area. 

The tribe is under contract with Pennsylvania Power 

and Light to maintain, calibrate and report data from 

three ambient air PSD stations. These stations are used 

to monitor SO2, NO2, wind speed and direction, 

precipitation, barometric pressure, solar radiation, 

temperature and dew point. Background data from two 

of these stations for the January 1999 through June 

2000 period indicate the maximum hourly 

concentration for SO2 was 0.021 ppm and for NO2, 

0.034 ppm. However, the annual averages remain very 

close to zero. 

Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) ambient air 

monitoring is conducted in the community of Lame 

Deer. No exceedances of the NAAQS were noted in 

the years 1999 to 2000. Daily PM10 values ranged from 

1.6 ug/m3 to 131.3 ug/m3

. The PM10, 24-hour average 

“not to exceed” value is 150 ug/m3

. 

The tribe is in the process of developing a Tribal 

Implementation Plan, which will allow for enforcement 

of Class I air quality standards. 

The reservation is located in a part of Montana that has 

a moderate climate relative to its latitude. Snow rarely 

accrues for long periods of time because of the warm 

Chinook winds, which originate from the mountains in 

the West. This portion of Montana is also known for its 

“Indian Summers” which frequently extend into 

November. The mean annual temperature is 45.5o

F 

with a summer high of 110o

F and a winter low of 

-48o

F. The bulk of the reservation varies from 12 to 

18 inches annual precipitation, depending on the 

elevation. 

Culture and History 

The Cheyenne are believed to descend from the 

Algonquian language people in the Great Lakes region, 

what the Northern Cheyenne call the northern 

homelands (Notum’histah’o’omih’nah). Western 

scientists believe that during the 1400s and 1500s they 

migrated southward into the Missouri River and the 

Black Hills country. The Northern Cheyenne believe 

that they left the Great Lakes region about 1600 to 

avoid contact with encroaching Europeans. They 

farmed corn and squash and practiced subsistence 

3-77 
CHAPTER 3 

Native American Concerns 

fishing and gathering and hunting small game. While in 

the Missouri River region they encountered a group of 

Suhtio and they later integrated their beliefs, traditions 

and customs into one culture. 

After 1600 they adopted the horse and became reliant 

on large game hunting and following the buffalo herds. 

From around 1640 to 1830, the Cheyenne engaged in 

commerce with Europeans as part of the fur trade, 

encountering the Lewis and Clark expedition about 

1804. 

The first treaty with the U.S. government was signed 

by a small group of Cheyenne in 1825 (the Friendship 

Treaty). In the 1830s, the Cheyenne began to split into 

the Southern Cheyenne and the Northern Cheyenne, 

preferring to live close to their Lakota relatives in the 

Black Hills, Powder River, Yellowstone River and 

Tongue River regions. 

European settlement, gold seekers and other 

Euroamerican activity increased in the region 

throughout the first half of the 1800s leading to 

increased conflict, between Native People and with 

Euroamericans. In an attempt to decrease conflict the 

U.S. government established military outposts and an 

Indian Agency in the Upper Platte River Valley. They 

convinced a number of Native nations to adopt the Fort 

Laramie Treaty of 1851, which assigned the Cheyenne 

and Arapaho to lands south of the North Platte River 

and north of the Arkansas River in present day 

Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado and Kansas. However, 

some Cheyenne bands remained north of the South 

Platte River and became known as the Northern 

Cheyenne. The Northern Cheyenne continued to resist 

incursions into what they considered their territory. 

Tensions between Euroamericans and the Northern 

Cheyenne increased during the Civil War. The 

Colorado Volunteer Militia raided a peaceful Cheyenne 

Village culminating in the Sand Creek Massacre. From 

this point through the late 1870s, the Cheyenne were at 

war with the U.S. government. The Battle of the Little 

Bighorn is the most well-known incident of this long 

struggle. 

There were many bands involved in these battles and 

struggles and their movements were complicated and 

read like any war story. The Cheyenne were eventually 

subdued and split into various groups. In 1881, all of 

the Northern Cheyenne were sent to Fort Keogh and 

were allowed, under the Indian Homestead Act of 

1875, to move south near the Tongue River and along 

Rosebud and Muddy creeks. The Northern Cheyenne 

settled in the area practicing their traditional culture 

and making a livelihood practicing western farming 

and ranching. 

Disputes arose between white ranchers and the 

Northern Cheyenne leading to a special investigation, 

the outcome of which was the establishment of the 

Northern Cheyenne Reservation in 1884. 

Disagreements over the reservation boundaries 

continued until 1900 when the current reservation 

boundaries were established. 

The Northern Cheyenne are the people of The Morning 

Star. They are caretakers of the Sacred Buffalo Hat, a 

sacred covenant with Maheo (Creator). Life for the 

Northern Cheyenne is a holistic interrelationship of 

history, work, religion, language, sacred belongings, 

health, medicine and education. All of these work to 

maintain the environment and culture of the people. 

Their sacred ways, such as the Keeper of the Sacred 

Buffalo Hat Covenant greeting the grandfather 

morning star, maintain a connection to Maheo and the 

creative essence that caused the universe and life itself 

to exist. Ritual and diligence in daily life to follow 

tradition maintains the elemental arrangement of 

creation. In this arrangement, all elements of creation 

are like a family: Sun as Grandfather, Earth as 

Grandmother, Moon as Mother, Stars as Brothers and 

Sisters and to the four cardinal directions as the Sacred 

Spirit Helpers who watch over their way of life. 

An excellent outline and illustration of the Cheyenne 

cosmology and interrelationships can be found in the 

report, The “Northern Cheyenne Tribe” and it’s 

Reservation (2002), which illustrates the universe as a 

renewable cycle with spiritual essence in constant 

interaction. Maheo, spiritual essence, is contrasted with 

Heestoz, substance or matter. Both are necessary for 

the continuation of the universe. Maleness, associated 

with Maheo, is the highest point in the universe and 

femaleness, associated with Heestoz, is the lowest 

point. The interaction of Maheo, Sun (Creator) and 

Heh’voom, earth (Grandmother) bring about all life. 

Between Maheo and Heh’voom are layers of space 

creating the structure of the universe is between. These 

layers are the Blue-Sky Space, the Nearer-Sky Space, 

the Atmosphere, the Earth Surface Dome and the Deep 

Earth. With this cosmology, birds and mountains are 

special sacred animals and places since they are closer 

to Blue-Sky Space containing the manifestation of 

Maheo (sun, moon, etc.). All things in this cosmology 

are animate. 

Through sacred ways and ceremony, the Cheyenne 

believe that they can harness the spiritual essence as a 

power to benefit physical existence. If they do not 

practice traditional culture and beliefs to maintain the 

balance and cycle, the spiritual essence will not be 

available to benefit them or maintain the earth system. 

With these belief systems natural resources become 

culturally and spiritually important, particularly water 

(with living spirits), plants (considered to be relatives), 

animals (also relatives), great birds (messengers to the 

spirits in Blue-Sky Space) and fossil and mineral 

sources (used in ceremony). Cultural resources such as 

3-78 
CHAPTER 3 

Native American Concerns 

burials, ceremonial sites (fasting locations, vision quest Indian position) and continues toward the town of 

sites, sweet lodges and memorials), homes (tipi rings, Birney. Except for the road, the site has remained 

historic depressions, foundations and cabins), unchanged since 1877. 

community and commercial reservation-era sites, 

military and exploration-related sites and prehistoric 

sites (lithic scatters, cairns and petroglyphs) are 

considered sacred to the Northern Cheyenne. 

Traditional Cultural Properties

The Northern Cheyenne have expressed concern 

regarding off-reservation TCPs and they have 

identified numerous such sites. These TCP sites are 

held as sacred or of high importance to the tribe. Two 

particular sites mentioned at tribal consultation 

meetings and in tribal correspondence are the Rosebud 

and Wolf Mountain Battlefields. The Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe voiced concern over Northern 

Cheyenne homestead sites in the Tongue River valley. 

The Rosebud Battlefield is the site of the 

June 17, 1876, battle between the Sioux and Cheyenne 

Indians and General George Crook’s cavalry and 

infantry. One of the biggest Indian battles ever waged 

in the United States, it set the stage for the Indian 

victory eight days later at the Little Bighorn against 

Lt. Col. George A. Custer. The battle ranged over 

10 square miles and involved 2,500 combatants. 

General George Crook’s Big Horn and Yellowstone 

expedition force had 1,000 men and there were 1,500 

Sioux and Cheyenne warriors. MFWP has a final 

management plan for the battlefield available. 

In 1972, the Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and 

Parks purchased the ranch from the Kobold family and 

it became a state park. The Rosebud Battlefield is on 

the list of National Register of Historic Places. 

The Wolf Mountain Battlefield is located on the east 

side of the Tongue River, beneath Pyramid Butte, a 

spur of the Wolf Mountains. The battle fought at this 

site climaxed Col. Nelson A. Miles’ winter drive of 

1876 and 1877. He pursued the Sioux under Crazy 

Horse, who had defeated the Custer command the 

preceding summer on the Little Bighorn. In October, 

Miles captured and sent 2,000 Sioux and Cheyenne 

back to the reservation. On January 7, 1877, Miles 

camped beside the Tongue River on the southern flank 

of the Wolf Mountains. The next morning, Crazy 

Horse and 800 braves made a surprise attack. Miles, his 

howitzers disguised as wagons, repulsed the attack. 

The Indians took refuge on bluffs overlooking the 

camp. When the troops assaulted the bluffs, the 

warriors withdrew under cover of a snowstorm. Many 

of the warriors surrendered with Crazy Horse and 

Dull Knife’s Cheyenne in the spring at Fort Robinson, 

Nebraska. Today a gravel road bridges the river from 

the west, crosses the valley where Miles camped, 

ascends the bluffs just south of Pyramid Butte (the final 

Geology and Minerals 

The reservation contains a varied geology, as does the 

state of Montana (see earlier Geology and Minerals 

description). Of particular interest are the deposits of 

subbituminous coal within the reservation. The known 

coal occurrences in the Powder River Basin are 

generally located in the Paleocene Fort Union 

Formation. The coals on the reservation are known to 

be beneath the entire reservation and are estimated to 

contain 23 billion tons of coal of which 16.3 billion 

tons may be prospective for CBNG development 

(Admin Report BIA-3 1975). Five CBNG wells have 

been drilled prior to 1989 on the reservation with 

modest results (Northern Cheyenne Tribe 2002). In 

1991, the tribe drilled and tested two CBNG 

exploratory wells (Northern Cheyenne Tribe 2002). 

Geology and stratigraphy of the Planning Area are 

discussed at length in Chapter 3, Geology and Minerals 

and in the Minerals Appendix. 

The reservation does not have any known oil or gas 

fields. Twenty conventional wells have been drilled to 

date. Additionally, Atlantic Richfield (ARCO) has 

explored for oil and gas reserves on tribal lands but this 

data has not been released to state or federal agencies. 

Non-metallic mineral resources on the reservation 

include bentonite, building and ornamental stone, 

claystone and shale, clinker and gravel (Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe 2002). 

Protecting the Indian lessors from loss of royalty as a 

result of conventional oil and gas drainage is a prime 

responsibility of the BLM. Under the terms of both 

federal and Indian leases, the lessee has the obligation 

to protect the leased land from drainage by drilling and 

producing any well(s) that is necessary to protect the 

lease from drainage or, in lieu thereof and with the 

consent of the authorized officer, by paying 

compensatory royalty. Drainage analysis, on the basis 

of a production screen or other criteria, is required by 

BLM Handbook H-3160-2, Drainage Protection 

Guidelines. Federal or Indian mineral interests 

determined to be in danger of drainage are subject to 

geologic, engineering and economic analyses in order 

to define the presence and magnitude of resource 

drainage. 

Hydrology 

Hydrological resources on the reservation consist of 

surface water flow from the Rosebud Creek and the 

Tongue River and their associated tributaries and the 

3-79 
CHAPTER 3 

Native American Concerns 

production of groundwater from a variety of geological nutrients and “other,” with the probable sources being 

formations. dam construction and hydro-modification. No other 

impaired stream segments are located next to the Surface Water reservation. 

Surface water on the reservation is contained in the Groundwater 

Rosebud and Tongue River watersheds. These two 

watersheds support natural flows as summarized in The groundwater resources of the reservation are 

Tables 3-20 and 3-21. similar to those described for the Powder River Basin 

These two watersheds contain water resources of 

variable quality as described in the Water Resources 

Technical Report (ALL 2001b). Table 3-22 

summarizes the long-term average water quality for the 

Tongue River watershed. 

According to the 2004 state of Montana 303(d) list, 

Rosebud Creek is listed as being impaired immediately 

downstream of the northern reservation boundary. The 

probable causes identified on the 303(d) list are 

in the previous Hydrology section of this chapter. 

Formations of importance to the groundwater resources 

of the reservation include the Madison Group of 

Mississippian age; the Fox Hills Sandstone and Hell 

Creek Formation of Cretaceous age; the Fort Union 

Formation of Tertiary age and the valley fill-alluvium 

of Quaternary age. The geologic formations and 

associated aquifers are discussed below. (Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe, 2002). 

TABLE 3-20

AVERAGE ANNUAL GAGE AND ESTIMATED NATURAL FLOWS FOR THE TONGUE 

RIVER NEAR THE NORTHERN CHEYENNE RESERVATION

(STUDY PERIOD 1940-1982, HKM 1983)

Location Flow Type Acre-Feet/Year 

Tongue River at Tongue River Dam Gage Flow 

Est. Natural Flow 

332,907 (St. Dev. = 112,406) 

421,238 (St. Dev. = 102,464) 

Southern Boundary of Reservation Est. Natural Flow 439,253 (St. Dev. = 106,154) 

Northern Boundary of Reservation Est. Natural Flow 455,161 (St. Dev. = 103,255) 

Tongue River at Brandenburg Bridge Gage Flow 

Est. Natural Flow 

362,614 (St. Dev. = 152,288) 

461,019 (St. Dev. = 104,352) 

Source: Northern Cheyenne Tribe 2002. 

TABLE 3-21

AVERAGE ESTIMATED NATURAL FLOWS FOR ROSEBUD CREEK, NORTHERN 

CHEYENNE RESERVATION

(STUDY PERIOD 1939-1981)

Estimated Natural Flow at Location Acre-Feet/Year 

Rosebud Creek at Southern Boundary 11,818 (St. Dev. = 6,417) 

Rosebud Creek neat Colstrip, Near Northern Boundary 26,727 (St. Dev. = 14,172) 

Rosebud Creek near Mouth, Near Rosebud 27,297 (St. Dev. = 18,439 

Source: HKM, RCB Hydrology 1982, Northern Cheyenne Tribe 2002. 

3-80 
CHAPTER 3 

Native American Concerns 

TABLE 3-22 

COMPARISON OF PREVIOUSLY CITED WATER-QUALITY PARAMETERS WITH LONGTERM AVERAGE FIGURES, TONGUE RIVER AT STATE LINE 

Data Source Range 

Sulfate 

(mg/l) 

Dissolved 

Magnesium 

(mg/l) EC (μS/cm) SAR 

Boron 

(μg/l) 

HKM (1972) High 500 50 1,100 2.0 0.38 

Low 230 

USGS (1985-1999 

average) 

Mo. Average 

High 

180 45 699 0.671 <1 

Mo. Average 

Low 

30 10 299 

1

SAR = 0.67 reflects published USGS data for water year 1997 as parameter 00931. SAR is not included in the data set available 

on USGS website (Northern Cheyenne Tribe 2002). 

Madison Group 

The Madison Group is divided into the Lodgepole 

Limestone at the base, the Mission Canyon Limestone 

and the Charles Formation at the top. The Madison 

Group is estimated to average around 1,100 feet thick 

within the reservation and the depth to the top is 

estimated to range between 7,200 and 9,100 feet below 

land surface. The aquifer contained within the Madison 

Group reportedly consists of extensive limestone and 

dolomite with shale, evaporate and cherty zones. 

Yields from Madison wells in the area range from 

94 gpm immediately NW of the reservation to a 

reported 2,382 gpm from a flowing well approximately 

90 miles NW of the reservation. Better porosity and 

permeability in the Madison aquifer are mainly 

associated with oolitic to fragmental limestone and 

with coarsely crystalline dolomite in the lower part. 

Solution and collapse breccias occur in the outcrops off 

the reservation; the extent of these features in the 

subsurface within the reservation is unknown. 

Fox Hills Sandstone 

The Fox Hills Sandstone, in the central Powder River 

Basin east of the reservation, is a sequence of marine 

and continental sandstone and shale 20 to 200 feet 

thick. Limited information available from oil and gas 

test holes on the reservation indicates the thickness of 

this unit to range from 65 to 760 feet. Depth to the top 

of the Fox Hills in the reservation is estimated to range 

between 2,200 and 3,500 feet. The most extensively 

used aquifer in the Central Powder River Basin is 

called the Fox Hills-Lower Hell Creek aquifer and it 

consists of the Fox Hills Sandstone and the overlying 

lower part of the Hell Creek Formation. Well yields 

from the Fox Hills-Lower Hell Creek aquifer range 

from 0.5 to 20 gpm and commonly are about 5 gpm. 

Yields of as much as 200 gpm to industrial wells have 

been reported (Slagle et al. 1985). 

Hell Creek Formation 

The Hell Creek Formation consists of sandstones, 

interbedded shales and siltstones. Available data 

indicates this unit underlies the entire reservation with 

a thickness of between 600 and 650 feet. Depth to the 

top of the Hell Creek formation within the reservation 

is estimated to be greater than 600 feet. Only one well 

is known to be completed in the Hell Creek formation 

near the reservation. It was drilled in 1959 for Saint 

Labre Mission to a total depth of 980 feet. At the time 

the well was constructed, it was under artesian pressure 

and flowed at the land surface at a rate of 60 gpm. 

Fort Union Formation 

The Fort Union Formation consists of the Tullock, 

Lebo Shale and Tongue River Members. The total 

thickness of this formation within the reservation is 

estimated to range from 1,800 to 2,200 feet. The 

formation dips to the southeast at 1 to 2 degrees 

regionally. 

Tullock Member 

The Tullock Member of the Fort Union Formation is 

estimated to range between 100 and 250 feet thick on 

the reservation and consists of sandstone, coal and 

shale beds. This unit is not a known source of water on 

the reservation. Yields to wells completed off the 

reservation in the Tullock Member range from about 

0.3 to 40 gpm and generally are about 15 gpm (Slagle 

et al. 1985). 

3-81 
CHAPTER 3 

Native American Concerns 

Lebo Shale Member 

The Lebo Shale Member of the Fort Union Formation 

consists of dark shale and reportedly contains some 

lignite beds but no coal. The thickness of this unit on 

the reservation is estimated to range between 100 and 

300 feet. It is not a known source of water. 

Tongue River Member 

The Tongue River Member of the Fort Union 

Formation is the major source of water withdrawn from 

wells in the northern Powder River Basin (Slagle 

1985). It is the most reliable and shallow aquifer 

underlying most of the area, including the Northern 

Cheyenne Reservation. There are more than 

100 springs on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation. 

Many of these springs emanate from the base of a 

clinker-shale contact, very commonly in the Tongue 

River Member of the Fort Union Formation. 

Depending on the geologic location of the spring, yield 

can range from 1 to 92 gpm. 

Lower Tongue River Aquifer 

The Lower Tongue River aquifer consists of the 

sandstone, siltstone, shale, coal and clinker beds from 

the base of the Robinson coal seam to the shale beneath 

the Knobloch coal seam. The aquifer is generally 

around 500 feet thick, except in the major stream 

valleys where erosion has reduced the total thickness to 

between 300 and 450 feet thick. Drill hole data 

indicates beds of permeable sandstone and shale are 

discontinuous and occur primarily as lenses grading 

from shale to siltstones. 

Several wells are known to be completed in the Lower 

Tongue River aquifer. Most of these domestic wells 

were completed in sandstone and yield between 8 and 

20 gpm. Wells in Muddy Cluster and Busby finished in 

the sandstone reportedly yield 18 and 50 gpm, 

respectively. 

Upper Tongue River Aquifer 

The Tongue River Member is Tertiary in age and crops 

out at the surface over much of the reservation. The 

Upper Tongue River aquifer consists of the sandstone 

and clinker beds within the Knobloch, Wall and 

Anderson systems. 

Knobloch System 

This unit consists of sandstone, siltstone, shale, coal 

and clinker. The Knobloch system ranges from 0 to 

366 feet in thickness. Depth to the top of the unit is 

generally less than 1,100 feet depending on location on 

the reservation. Many wells and springs obtain 

groundwater from this system. Yields of wells 

completed in the sandstone generally range between 8 

and 10 gpm. Wells completed in the Knobloch clinker 

yield as much as 50 gpm. Springs associated with 

sandstone and coal outcrops of the Knobloch generally 

flow less than 3 gpm. 

Wall System 

The Wall system consists of sandstone, siltstone, shale, 

coal and clinker. It ranges in thickness from 0 to 790 

feet. Beds of permeable sandstone are discontinuous 

and occur primarily as lenses between shale and 

siltstone layers. Depth to the top of the unit is generally 

less than 300 feet depending on location on the 

reservation. The Wall coal seam and its related clinker 

form the thickest most continuous unit of this system, 

ranging from 20 to 40 feet. The Canyon coal seam, 

within the Wall system, also forms a relatively thick 

and continuous unit (20 to 30 feet). Several wells and 

springs derive water from the Wall system. Well yield 

ranges from 10 to 15 gpm. Springs flow from 

sandstone, siltstone and clinker units and vary from 1 

to 25 gpm within the reservation. 

Anderson System 

This system consists of fine sandstone, siltstone, shale, 

coal and clinker ranging in thickness from 0 to 300 

feet. The Anderson coal seam and its related clinker 

deposits form the thickest single unit within this 

system. Thickness of the Anderson coal varies from 30 

to 60 feet but thins to the west. Massive clinker related 

to the burning of the Anderson and thin upper coal 

seams is reported to vary from 100 to 200 feet in the 

central and northern portions of the reservation. 

Several wells and springs are known to derive water 

from the Anderson aquifer system. No production data 

is available as all wells completed before 1977 were 

monitoring wells. Springs associated with sandstone 

and siltstone units above the Anderson coal seam 

generally yield less than 1 gpm within the reservation. 

Valley Fill-Alluvium 

Valley fill-alluvium is found underlying and bordering 

the principal drainages within the reservation. These 

deposits include the Rosebud Creek, Muddy Creek, 

Lame Deer Creek and Tongue River alluvium. 

Rosebud Creek Alluvium 

The Rosebud Creek alluvium consists of clay, silt, 

sand, gravel and clinker fragments. Silts and clays are 

usually found as thin beds separating sand and gravel 

deposits. According to driller’s logs, the Rosebud 

Creek alluvium ranges in thickness from 6 to 110 feet, 

with an average thickness of 52 feet. An aquifer test 

performed in 1978 indicated an average transmissivity 

3-82 
of 6,243 ft

2

/d for a saturated thickness of 

approximately 76 feet. This value is considered to be 

representative of the valley fill alluvium immediately 

adjacent to Rosebud Creek between the southern 

reservation boundary and Busby. For wells completed 

in the Rosebud Creek alluvium, yield ranges between 6 

and 20 gpm. 

Muddy Creek Alluvium 

The Muddy Creek alluvium consists of a mixture of 

silt, sand, gravel and clinker fragments. Based on 

driller’s logs, the thickness of these deposits range 

from 0 to 112 feet and average 52 feet thick. The 

average saturated thickness is 30 feet. Assuming the 

deposits are similar to the Rosebud Creek alluvium, a 

transmissivity of 2,463 ft2

/d is calculated. Several 

wells, known to be completed in the Muddy Creek 

alluvium, yield between 10 and 15 gpm for domestic 

supply. 

Lame Deer Creek Alluvium 

The Lame Deer Creek alluvium consists of silt, sand 

and relatively thick gravel and clinker wash as 

compared to that of Rosebud and Muddy Creek 

deposits. Driller’s logs indicate that the thickness of 

this deposit ranges from 12 to 63 feet. Domestic wells 

completed in the Lame Deer Creek alluvium yield 

between 6 and 15 gpm. 

Tongue River Alluvium 

The Tongue River alluvium consists of sand and 

gravel-sized clinker fragments derived from the 

Tongue River Member of the Fort Union formation. 

The thickness of this deposit ranges from 34 to 100 feet 

and averages 66 feet (Northern Cheyenne Tribe 2002). 

Groundwater Quality 

A thorough evaluation of groundwater quality was 

performed by the Northern Cheyenne Research Project 

from 1973 through 1977 and published by HKM in 

1983. The following descriptions are based on the data 

collected during that study period. The majority of 

water quality data on the reservation exists for the Fort 

Union and alluvial aquifers. Individual aquifers are 

discussed below (Northern Cheyenne Tribe 2002). 

Fort Union Formation and Tongue River 

Member 

Samples obtained from wells indicated water in these 

geologic units to be a mixed type with this dominant 

CHAPTER 3 

Native American Concerns 

ions being sodium, magnesium, calcium, bicarbonate 

and sulfate. TDS concentration generally range from 

232 to 3,774 mg/l in wells tapping sandstone, coal and 

clinker units. Water ranges from soft to very hard with 

calcium carbonate levels between 14 to 1,468 mg/l. 

Fluoride concentrations range from 0.1 to 9.1 mg/l and 

sulfate concentrations range from 0 to 2,119 mg/l. 

Adjusted SAR values for water samples obtained from 

the sandstone units of the Tongue River Member of the 

Fort Union formation ranged from 0 to 53. Water 

samples from the coal beds of the Fort Union had 

adjusted SAR values ranging from 2.6 to 101. Springs 

contained very hard water with calcium carbonate 

concentrations between 190 to 950 mg/l. Sulfate and 

fluoride concentrations ranged from 8.0 to 337 mg/l 

and 0.27 to 12.0 mg/l, respectively. The adjusted SAR 

ranged from 0.5 to 50.8. 

Groundwater from sandstone and coal aquifers of the 

Tongue River Member is generally suitable to serve as 

a drinking water source; however, several samples 

from wells obtaining water from the coals did exceed 

the Primary Drinking Water Standards for chromium 

and fluoride. Water from the Tongue River aquifers is 

generally quite mineralized and not aesthetically 

pleasing. This water is generally undesirable for 

irrigation due to salinity problems; however, it is 

acceptable for livestock use. 

Valley Fill—Alluvium 

Water-quality for the valley fill-alluvium on the 

reservation appears to be a mixed-type, with the 

dominant ions being calcium, magnesium, sodium, 

bicarbonate and sulfate. A range of water-quality 

values in the alluvial systems is presented in 

Table 3-23. 

Groundwater from the alluvium is generally suitable 

for drinking water with respect to the Primary Drinking 

Water Standards, although several samples taken from 

wells completed in the alluvium of Rosebud, Muddy, 

Lame Deer creeks and the Tongue River, equaled or 

exceeded the Primary Standards for cadmium. One 

sample from a well completed in the Rosebud Creek 

alluvium exceeded the limits for chromium and lead. 

The alluvial groundwater is quite mineralized with 

concentrations of TDS, sulfate, iron and manganese 

that often exceed Secondary Drinking Water Standards. 

Exceeding secondary standards does not represent a 

health hazard, but rather makes the water less desirable 

as a drinking water source for aesthetic reasons. The 

alluvial groundwater would probably be suitable for 

3-83 
CHAPTER 3 

Native American Concerns 

TABLE 3-23 

WATER-QUALITY OF THE ALLUVIUM ON THE NORTHERN CHEYENNE 

RESERVATION 

Constituent Rosebud Creek Muddy Creek Lame Deer Creek Tongue River 

TDS (mg/l) 374 - 2,048 1,082 - 1574 558 – 1,144 527 - 3,277 

CaCO3 (mg/l) 140 - 1,225 664 - 955 450 - 626 35 - 946 

Sulfate (mg/l) 67 - 1,370 313 - 731 119 - 361 0 - 1,893 

Nitrate (mg/l) 0 - 4.0 0 - 1.0 1.0 - 4.3 0.1 - 6.2 

Fluoride (mg/l) 0 - 1.3 0.5 - 1.5 0.8 - 2.0 0.3 - 6.4 

Adjusted SAR 0 - 34 5.2 - 6.0 5.2 - 6.0 4.3 - 51 

No. wells tested 17 5 samples 4 12 

Source: Northern Cheyenne Tribe 2002. 

irrigation provided tolerant crops were used and special 

irrigation practices were instituted to prevent salinity 

and permeability problems. The water is acceptable for 

livestock use (Northern Cheyenne Tribe 2002). 

Water Rights 

The water rights of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe are 

set forth in the Northern Cheyenne-Montana Compact, 

which represents a statement of the federally reserved 

water rights held by the tribe. The Reserved Water 

Rights Compact Commission (RWRCC) of Montana 

describes Federal Reserved Water Rights as follows: 

Federal Reserved Water Right 

A federal reserved water right is a right to water that 

was created when Congress or the President of the U.S. 

reserved land out of public domain. The U.S. Supreme 

Court has ruled that enough water be reserved to meet 

the purposes for which the reserved lands were 

designated. The date that the land was withdrawn and 

the reservation created is the priority date of a federal 

reserved water right. Reserved water rights for Indian 

reservations, for instance, go back to the 1800s. Federal 

reserved water rights do not have the same restrictions 

placed on them as on state appropriative water rights. 

For example, a notice of appropriation or beneficial use 

is not required to maintain a federal reserved right and 

it is not lost due to non-use. The Tribe’s reserved water 

right addresses three sources of water, the Tongue 

River, the Bighorn River and Rosebud Creek. The 

Compact entitles the Tribe to a priority date of 

October 1, 1884. This right provides for: 

1. The diversion of 1,800 acre-feet per year, or the 

amount necessary to irrigate 600 acres, from 

Rosebud Creek. 

2. The diversion of 30,000 acre-feet per year from the 

Bighorn Lake at Yellowtail Dam for any beneficial 

use. 

3. The diversion of 32,500 acre-feet from the Tongue 

River for any beneficial use. 

4. An additional 19,530 acre-feet from Rosebud 

Creek, for any beneficial use subject to the 

constraint that diversion and use do not adversely 

affect other water right holders of priority June 30, 

1973 and earlier. 

The extraction of alluvial groundwater by means of 

wells of less than 100 gallons per minute pumping 

capacity, exclusive of other water rights (Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe 2002). 

History of Compact 

In 1913, the state court of Montana initiated a 

proceeding to adjudicate water rights on Tongue River. 

In this proceeding, the federal government did not fully 

satisfy the Northern Cheyenne Tribe’s Winters v. U.S. 

(207 US564) water rights claims to water in the Tongue 

River. Instead, the U.S. asserted a claim on behalf of 

the tribe only for the amount of water used by the Tribe 

at that time. In the Miles City Decree of 1914 (the 

Decree), the tribe was awarded only 30 cfs of water out 

of an available 425 cfs. The Decree established a 

priority date of 1909 for the Northern Cheyenne water 

claim: the next to last priority awarded in the Decree. 

The tribe’s water right as set forth in the Decree was 

insufficient to irrigate the tribe’s agricultural lands at 

the time and the late priority date established a high 

probability that the tribe would be out of water before 

the irrigation season began (Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

2002). 

3-84 
The tribe has asserted that the failure to pursue the 

tribe’s Winters v. U.S. (207 US564) rights claims 

constituted a breach of the federal trust responsibility. 

In 1975, the tribe filed an action in U.S. District Court 

to determine its water rights. The United States also 

filed suit on behalf of the tribe. In 1979, the state of 

Montana initiated proceedings for a general stream 

adjudication, which included the claims of the tribe. In 

that same year, the estate established the Montana 

Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission to 

negotiate a water rights settlement with the tribes of 

Montana. Negotiations with the Tribe began in 1980. 

Several years of negotiations yielded the Northern 

Cheyenne-Montana Water Rights Compact (the 

Compact). The Tribe formally approved the Compact 

on May 20, 1991, with Tribal Resolution #144. The 

Compact was ratified by the Montana State Legislature 

on June 11, 1991 and was re-ratified on December 16, 

1993, by the 53rd Legislature Special Session 

(Northern Cheyenne Tribe 2002). 

On September 30, 1992, the federal government 

ratified the Compact via “The Northern Cheyenne 

Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act of 1992” 

(Pub. L. 102-374, 106 Stat. 1186) (Settlement Act). 

The purposes of the Settlement Act of 1992 are: 

To achieve a fair, equitable and final settlement of all 

claims to Federal reserved water rights in the state of 

Montana of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and its 

members and allottees and the U.S. on behalf of the 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe and its members and 

allottees. To approve, ratify and confirm the Water 

Rights Compact entered into by the Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe and the state of Montana on June 11, 1991. To 

direct the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a 

cooperative agreement with the state of Montana for 

the planning, environmental compliance, design and 

construction of the Tongue River Dam Project (P.L. 

102-374, 106 Stat, 1186, Section 3(8)) in order to: 

implement the Compact’s settlement of the Tribe’s 

reserved water rights claims in the Tongue River Basin, 

protect existing Tribal contract water rights in the 

Tongue River Basin: provide [up to as per the 

Compact] 20,000 acre-feet per year of additional 

storage water for allocation to the tribe and allow the 

state to implement its responsibilities to correct 

identified Tongue River Dam safety inadequacies. To 

provide for the conservation and development of fish 

and wildlife resources in the Tongue River Basin. To 

provide for the enhancement of fish and wildlife 

habitat in the Tongue River Basin. To authorize certain 

modifications to the purposes and operation of the 

Bighorn Reservoir in order to implement the 

Compact’s settlement of the Tribe’s reserved water 

rights claims. To authorize the Secretary of the Interior 

to take such other actions as are necessary to 

implement the Compact. 

CHAPTER 3 

Native American Concerns 

Northern Cheyenne Tribal Water Policy and 

Management 

Northern Cheyenne Water Code: The Northern 

Cheyenne Water Code sets the regulatory framework 

for the management of tribal water resources on the 

reservation. The purpose of the Water Code is to 

preserve and protect the quantity and quality of Tribal 

water resources through wise use, administration, 

management and enforcement. This includes, but is not 

limited to, permitting and prioritizing tribal water use, 

long-term planning to ensure the sustainability of 

resources, encouraging conservation practices and 

protecting traditional, religious and cultural uses of 

water (Northern Cheyenne Tribe 2002). 

• Tribal Water Resources Board and Administrator: 

The administration of the Water Code will be the 

responsibility of a Tribal Water Administrator 

(TWA) and a Tribal Water Resources Board (Water 

Board). The Tribal Water Board is responsible for 

adopting new rules and regulations, approving or 

disapproving permits, reporting to the Tribal 

Council on relevant water-related issues, declaring 

critical management areas and water supply 

conditions, establishing and maintaining a technical 

staff to administer and enforce the Code and 

developing recommendations for long-term funding 

sources to support tribal water management. 

• The TWA: The TWA issues citations and initiates 

enforcement proceedings for violations of the Code. 

The TWA administers water rights, monitors and 

enforces water use through inspections, responds to 

emergency situations, collects data and researches 

development possibilities and conducts educational 

programs. Recommendations are made to the Water 

Board on critical management areas and methods 

for improving water use and efficiency. The TWA 

develops and submits an annual budget and report 

to the Water Board. 

• Water Management: The Water Code sets forth the 

primary physical, hydrologic and engineering 

principles guiding the management of surface and 

groundwater resources on the reservation. These 

procedures are required to effectively manage, fully 

utilize and protect the water rights of the Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe and to assure compliance with 

applicable laws and requirements of the Northern 

Cheyenne Montana Compact of 1991 and the 

Northern Cheyenne Water Rights Settlement Act of 

1992. The Water Board will adopt a Comprehensive 

Water Management Plan at least every 5 years to 

guide water resource decisions, permitting and 

management. Surface water and groundwater is 

evaluated and no later than March 1 of each year, 

the condition of these resources is declared. Water 

3-85 
CHAPTER 3 

Native American Concerns 

allocation procedures for both surface and 

groundwater are outlined in this section for use 

during drought conditions. 

• Permitting: A water permit is required to divert or 

undertake any activity affecting or involving tribal 

water. This includes water diversions, discharge, 

injection, transfers, surface water alterations, 

groundwater recharge, storage impoundments, or 

hydropower generation. The Code clearly identifies 

the application process outlining the procedures, 

hearings and resolution of water disputes. The 

Water Board will preside over all hearings. The 

Tribal Court will enforce subpoenas issued by the 

Water Board. 

• Enforcement: Prohibited acts and penalties are 

clearly outlined in the Water Code. Any person who 

commits prohibited acts shall be subject to civil 

proceedings before the Water Board on citation by 

the Tribal Water Administrator. All decisions of the 

Water Board shall be appealable directly and 

exclusively to the Tribal Courts. 

• Summary: The Northern Cheyenne Water Code 

contains the provisions and guidelines to effectively 

manage the water resources of the reservation, 

however, with the fairly recent approval of the 

Water Code, the Tribal Water Resources Board has 

not yet been established. Currently, no permitting 

process or accounting for water resources exists on 

the reservation. Once underway, the Water Code 

will empower the Tribe by enabling them to control 

and protect the water resources on the reservation. 

• Northern Cheyenne Tribe Draft Surface Water 

Quality Standards: A water quality standard defines 

the water quality goals for a water body, or portion 

thereof, by designating the use or uses to be made 

of the water, by setting criteria necessary to protect 

the uses and by protecting water quality through 

antidegradation provisions. The Tribe has adopted 

these standards to protect public health and welfare, 

enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes 

of the Federal Clean Water Act. Currently, the 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe’s Draft Surface Water 

Quality Standards have been submitted to the EPA 

and the public review process is near completion. In 

addition, the Tribe’s application under Section 518 

of the Clean Water Act for Treatment as a State for 

the purposes of implementing the Clean Water 

Act’s water quality standards program is still 

pending before the EPA. The Tribe’s Treatment as a 

State application and water quality standards are 

vital in the Tribe’s water quality protection program 

and aid in evaluating potential impacts on water 

quality from a broad range of causes and sources. 

• A primary purpose of the water quality standards is 

to guide efforts to monitor and assess surface water 

quality within the reservation. Any regulatory 

pollution controls established by the Tribe or the 

Federal Government must be developed to ensure a 

level of water quality that will satisfy these water 

quality standards. Surface water quality standards 

are adopted to establish maximum allowable levels 

or concentrations of pollutants and provide a basis 

for protecting water quality that is presently better 

than standards required for surface water quality. 

They serve to establish a basis for limiting the 

introduction of pollutants, which could affect 

existing or designated uses of reservation surface 

waters. The following surface water characteristics 

and policies are described in the Draft Water 

Quality Standards: 

• Beneficial Uses: Beneficial use classifications are 

designated to all surface waters of the reservation in 

order to achieve national “fishable and swimmable” 

goals. Narrative water quality criteria and sampling 

methods are described along with the tribe’s 

biological and radiological surface water standards. 

• Antidegradation Policy: The tribe’s antidegradation 

policy is consistent with the federal antidegradation 

policy found in EPA’s water quality standards 

regulation. The purpose of the policy is to protect 

existing water quality where the quality of the water 

is better than required to support the designated 

uses. 

• Mixing Zone and Dilution Policy: The mixing zone 

and dilution policy describes how dilution and 

mixing of point source discharges within receiving 

waters will be addressed in developing discharge 

limitations for point source discharges. Compliance 

requirements and 401 Certification procedures are 

also described. The requirements for standards 

implementation are outlined. Once approved and 

adopted by EPA, the Tribe’s standards program will 

have the same legal standing as those adopted by 

states. The federal government will be responsible 

for the enforcement of the standards. EPA Region 

VIII will have the responsibility of enforcing 

requirements applicable to point source discharges, 

including those permit requirements that are based 

on the Tribe’s water quality standards. 

3-86 
CHAPTER 3 

Native American Concerns 

TABLE 3-24 

NORTHERN CHEYENNE NUMERIC STANDARDS FOR EC AND SAR AND TDS INDICATOR 

VALUES 

Electrical Conductivity Sodium Adsorption Total3 Dissolved Solids 

(EC) μS/cm1 Ratio (SAR) 2 (TDS) mg/l 

Southern Boundary 

Irrigation period 30-day average4 1,000 -- 660

Year-round instantaneous maximum 2,000 2.0 1,320

Northern Boundary 

Irrigation period 30-day average 1,500 -- 990 

Year-round instantaneous maximum 2,000 3.0 1,320 

Tributaries 

Irrigation period 30-day average 1,500 -- 990 

Year-round instantaneous maximum 2,000 3.0 1,320 

Source: Northern Cheyenne Tribe 2002. 1

The EC values are numerical water quality standards. EC is an expression of salinity as electrical conductance reported in microSiemens per

meter at 25 degrees C (μS/cm). Note that 1,000 μS/cm = 1 deciSiemen per meter (dS/m). 2

The SAR values are numerical water quality standards. SAR is an expression of the concentration of sodium relative to the square root of the

average of the concentrations of calcium and magnesium in water where all constituents are in milliequivalants per liter (meq/l). 3

The TDS values are indicator values and are not water quality standards. TDS is an expression of salinity as total dissolved solids in mg/L. The 

TDS values will be used to monitor conditions and trends in Tribal waters. If a TDS indicator value is exceeded, the tribe will evaluate the cause 

and, where appropriate, make necessary adjustments to the EC water quality standard(s). Any change to the EC standard will be made through the 

tribe’s water quality standards-setting process. 4

The irrigation period is defined by the tribe as April 1 through November 15 annually. 

• SAR and EC. The Tribe is especially concerned 

about salinity and its impacts on riparian areas and 

irrigated lands. The Tribe has developed numeric 

criteria for the Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) and 

Electrical Conductivity (EC) of waters of the 

reservation to address these concerns. The proposed 

numeric standards for EC and SAR are presented in 

Table 3-24. The rationale behind the numeric 

criteria for SAR is based on James Bauder’s final 

report, “Recommended In-Stream Standards, 

Thresholds and Criteria for Irrigation or Water 

Spreading to Soils of Alluvial Channels, Ephemeral 

Streams, Floodplains and Potentially Irrigable 

Parcels of Land within the Boundaries of the 

Northern Cheyenne Reservation” (Bauder 2001). 

In response and consideration of comments, concerns 

and objections received from various parties, 

modifications have been incorporated into the proposed 

surface water standards for EC and SAR of the 

Northern Cheyenne Reservation. 

Table 3-24 shows revised numeric standards for EC 

and SAR and indicator values for TDS applicable to 

the mainstems of the Tongue River and Rosebud Creek 

and their tributaries. 

Land Use and Realty 

The Northern Cheyenne Reservation comprises 

approximately 2 percent of the land in the Planning 

Area. The Northern Cheyenne lands are used for cattle 

production, mining, logging and lumber production, 

residential and recreation (Madison 2001). About 

27,000 acres of reservation lands are presently under 

cultivation; the vast majority of this is dry-land 

farming, an additional 105,000 acres is composed of 

forested land that is considered commercially 

harvestable (U.S. Dept. of Commerce 1996). 

The principal communities located on the Northern 

Cheyenne Reservation are as follows: 

• Lame Deer—Lame Deer is located in Rosebud 

County approximately 21 miles west of Ashland 

between Busby and Custer National Forest along 

Highway 212/39. Lame Deer is the tribal 

headquarters and home of the Northern Cheyenne 

Powwow. There are approximately 1,925 Indian 

people residing in Lame Deer. 

• Ashland—Ashland is located in Rosebud County 

70 miles south of Miles City between Birney and 

Brandenburg along Highway 212 on the banks of 

the Tongue River near the Custer National Forest. 

Approximately 500 Indian people live in Ashland. 

3-87 
CHAPTER 3 

Native American Concerns 

Recreation 

The Northern Cheyenne Reservation also provides 

dispersed outdoor recreation activities for tribal 

members. Activities include hunting, fishing, hiking, 

horseback riding and plant and berry gathering. 

Unrestricted hunting is limited to tribal members. 

Developed recreation sites include Crazy Head Springs 

and Lost Leg Lake (fishing, camping, picnicking); 

Green Leaf, Red Nose, Parker and LaFerre ponds 

(fishing); and Morning Star Lookout. Undeveloped 

sites include Buffalo Jump and Badger Peak. 

Camping facilities exist at the Northern Cheyenne 

Craft Center in Lame Deer and at the Morning Star 

View Campgrounds. Tribal buffalo herds are pastured 

near Lame Deer Ice Well Campgrounds. A 

museum/curio shop is under development; this will 

serve, in part, as an outlet for the work of numerous 

tribal artists and craftspeople. The tribe holds a 4th of 

July powwow each year, which is widely attended. 

Finally, many visitors on their way to Glacier and 

Yellowstone parks, the Little Bighorn Battlefield and 

other regional attractions find it convenient to stop by 

the reservation. 

The only developed recreation area on the Northern 

Cheyenne Reservation is Crazy Head Springs. Picnic 

and camping facilities are available at the spring, which 

is used heavily. There are also several parks on the 

reservation including Birney Park, White Moon Park, 

Tongue River Park, Busby Park and Lame Deer Park. 

The Northern Cheyenne Reservation has lost 

recreational facilities in recent years with the closure of 

a swimming pool at Lame Deer Park and the loss of 

other park facilities with the opening of a new health 

center. A public gym was also removed to make room 

for a tribal government center. 

Soils 

Soils in the reservation, just like soils in the 

surrounding RMP area, are derived mainly from 

sedimentary bedrock and alluvium. The soils generally 

range from loams to clays, but are principally loams to 

silty clay loams. For more information on soil types, 

see the Soils Appendix. 

Vegetation 

The same types of vegetative communities as described 

in this chapter are anticipated to be found on the 

reservation. It is understood that the Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe considers certain plants to be sacred 

for their medicinal or traditional values. 

The major native plant communities on Northern 

Cheyenne Lands include grass and shrub rangelands, 

forestlands and riparian areas. These classifications are 

similar to those for the project area as a whole. These 

classifications are discussed in detail in the Vegetation 

section. Approximately 391,852 acres are classified as 

rangelands and 147,319 are classified as forestlands 

(Northern Cheyenne Tribe 2002). There are 

approximately 20,000 acres of riparian wetlands on 

Northern Cheyenne lands. Dominant species for these 

community types can be found under the Crow 

Reservation Vegetation section. 

Special Status Species 

The Northern Cheyenne have many sacred plants that 

are used for ceremonial and traditional uses. There are 

at least 170 plants with documented traditional or 

cultural uses (Northern Cheyenne Tribe 2002). 

Wildlife 

Wildlife habitat types and species occurring on the 

Northern Cheyenne Reservation are also generally the 

same as those described for the CBNG study area. 

Population estimates are not available because of a lack 

of population survey data. However, the limited 

available data suggest that big game populations are far 

below what the habitat can support (Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe 2002). Mule and white-tailed deer 

populations have declined recently because of yearround hunting. Mackie (2004) surveyed mule deer on 

the southern portion of the Northern Cheyenne 

Reservation and adjacent public and private lands from 

April 27 to April 29, 2004. The surveys covered 

approximately 250 square miles. Two hundred fortyseven mule deer were observed, 35 (14 percent) of 

which were recorded on the Northern Cheyenne 

Reservation. A second spring mule deer survey was 

conducted over two days in April 2005 on the southern 

portion of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation and 

adjacent public lands. Two hundred twenty-one mule 

deer were observed, while 20 white-tailed deer and 46 

pronghorn were also observed. Most big game animals 

(mule deer and pronghorn) were observed on private 

and public lands south of the reservation boundary. As 

in other dry Western areas, riparian areas are the single 

most important wildlife habitat for many species. The 

riparian communities and mixed terrain of the Tongue 

River breaks have been identified as especially 

valuable wildlife habitat. 

Sage-grouse are widely distributed in suitable habitat. 

However, their numbers have declined on the 

reservation over the last 20 years. Black-tailed prairie 

dogs, black-footed ferrets, swift fox, mountain plovers, 

bald eagles and peregrine falcon are species of concern 

found on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation 

(Northern Cheyenne Tribe 2002). Captive-bred blackfooted ferrets were released in January of 2008 within 

the boundary of the Northern Cheyenne Indian 

3-88 
Reservation. With the exception of swift fox, these 

species of concern are considered under the Wildlife: 

Special Status Species section for the total project area. 

Swift fox (Vulpes velox) are one of the smallest foxes 

in the world and are only found in the Great Plains of 

North America. They were removed as a Candidate 

Species for Threatened Status by the USFWS on 

January 8, 2001. Their numbers are believed to be 

stable, but there is still concern for their future. They 

prefer short to mid-grass prairies, but they also 

sometimes inhabit mixed agricultural land (Egoscue 

1979; Uresk and Sharps 1986). 

The Northern Cheyenne Reservation is within that 

portion of the CBNG Planning Area associated with 

the Powder River RMP area. The Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe (2002) stated that the major streams of concern 

on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation are the Tongue 

River and Rosebud Creek. The Tribe reported that 

Rosebud Creek could support a game fish population if 

there were an assured flow and temperature control. 

The Tribe noted that Rosebud Creek is not suited for 

trout, but that it could support smallmouth bass—a 

species that prefers cool-water streams with clean 

bottoms and extensive riffles. Table WIL-2 (Wildlife 

Appendix) summarizes aquatic resources 

characteristics and resource values from the Montana 

NRIS (2001) Internet data base for the upper Tongue 

River and Rosebud Creek. 

The Northern Cheyenne Tribe (2002) reported there is 

a diversity of aquatic resources on the Northern 

CHAPTER 3 

Native American Concerns 

Cheyenne Reservation, including some 32 different 

fish species. The Tribe, citing fisheries studies 

conducted in the vicinity of the reservation in 1973 

(HKM 1973), stated that a reproducing population of 

smallmouth bass had been established in the Tongue 

River. Other important species of sport fish that were 

collected in the Tongue River include walleye, sauger, 

northern pike and channel catfish. The Tribe also noted 

that the Tongue River is unique in supporting the only 

population of rock bass in Montana. Table WIL-3 in 

the Wildlife Appendix summarizes fish species 

composition and abundance information from the 

Montana NRIS (2001) Internet data base for the upper 

Tongue River and Rosebud Creek. 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe

The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of South Dakota has 

expressed a concern to BLM regarding TCPs found 

within the SEIS Planning Area. The tribe’s concerns 

center around the possible destruction or loss of its 

TCPs due to CBNG exploration and development. The 

MCFO has signed a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) with the tribe to participate in the SEIS as a 

cooperating agency. The MCFO has also entered into 

government-to- government consultation with the tribe 

to address these concerns. At this time, the number and 

location of the TCPs in question are unknown. It is 

anticipated that this information will be transferred to 

BLM as the consultation process matures. 

3-89 
CHAPTER 3 

Paleontological Resources 

Paleontological Resources 

Paleontological resources consist of fossil-bearing rock 

formations containing information that can be 

interpreted to provide a further understanding about 

Montana’s past. Fossil-bearing rock units underlie the 

entire Planning Area. While fossils are relatively rare 

in most rock layers, there are seven geologic rock units 

within the Planning Area that do contain significant 

fossil material. Rock units that are known to contain 

fossils are the Tullock and Ludlow Members of the 

Fort Union Formation, the Judith River, Hell Creek, 

Morrison and Cloverly Formations, the Lakota 

Sandstone Formation and the White River Group. 

Figure 3-1 is a stratigraphic section showing the age 

and relative position of each of these fossil-bearing 

units. 

The Morrison, Hell Creek, Cloverly and Lakota 

Sandstone formations are noted for the occurrence of 

dinosaur fossils. The Bridger Fossil ACEC, a 575-acre 

site located in Carbon County within the Billings RMP 

area, contains outcrops of both the Cretaceous Period 

Cloverly Formation and the Jurassic Period Morrison 

Formation. Outcrops of the Morrison Formation within 

the Bridger Fossil area have yielded the fossil remains 

of numerous juvenile and subadult sauropods. The 

Bridger Fossil Area is one of two listed National 

Natural Landmarks within the Billings RMP area, the 

other is the Cloverly Formation site in Bighorn County 

(Federal Register 48(41):8693 1983). There are other 

areas within the SEIS study areas that have been 

nominated for National Natural Landmarks for 

paleontological resources. 

The Judith River Formation preserves the fossil record 

from ancient environments including shallow oceans, 

deltas, rivers, freshwater swamps and lakes. The Judith 

River Formation contains the fossil remains of plants 

as well as many animal species including mollusks, 

fish, amphibians, lizards, small mammals, dinosaurs 

and other reptiles. 

The Cretaceous Period Hell Creek Formation preserves 

the fossil record of a subtropical to tropical 

environment that was characterized by low plains 

interrupted by broad swampy bottoms and deltaic 

areas. Fossil remains from the Hell Creek Formation 

include a wide variety of plants, mollusks, fish, 

amphibians, reptiles, birds, small mammals and 

dinosaurs. Fossil dinosaur remains include Triceratops, 

Anatosaurus and Tyrannosaurus. The fossil record of 

plant and animal communities found within the Hell 

Creek Formation varies between low moist areas and 

the drier, upland plains environments that were present 

in the past. The Castle Butte ACEC, located in 

Yellowstone County within the Billings RMP area, 

contains outcrops of the Hell Creek Formation, which 

are noted for their paleontological resources. 

The contact between the Cretaceous Period Hell Creek 

Formation and the Paleocene Tullock/Ludlow Member 

of the Fort Union Formation marks an important event 

in time. This contact represents a time of worldwide 

extinction for many animals, most notably the 

dinosaurs and the beginning of the rapid evolution of 

mammals. The fossil record from the Fort Union 

Formation contains evidence of ancient environments 

that include streamside swamps, bottomlands and wellestablished river courses. Fill within ancient river 

channels contains fossils of fresh water clams and 

snails. The Tullock /Ludlow Member is the primary 

fossil-bearing unit of the Fort Union Formation and 

contains fossils of turtles, fish, reptiles and mammals. 

The Tertiary Period White River Group is considered 

an important source of fossil mammals. Although the 

White River Group outcrops in the Planning Areas, the 

majority of the fossil-bearing areas are in the Dakotas. 

3-90 
Recreation 

Montana’s natural features, coupled with the large 

amount of state and federal lands, offer residents and 

vacationers a variety of year-round recreational 

opportunities. Montana has thousands of miles of 

streams, hundreds of lakes, reservoirs, mountainous 

areas, rolling hills and grassland prairies—many of 

which are available for recreational purposes. 

The Planning Area, which includes the Billings and 

Powder River RMP areas, is replete with recreational 

opportunities that vary with seasonal changes. Spring 

and summer provide opportunities for fishing, hiking, 

photography, wildlife viewing, spring turkey hunting, 

water sports (powered and non-powered), off-road 

vehicle activities, camping, picnicking, touring (vehicle 

and bicycle) and caving. Early to late fall is hunting 

season. Winter brings the winter sports of skiing, 

snowshoeing and snowmobiling. The Planning Area 

provides vast areas for people to enjoy. Some of the 

benefits and experiences enjoyed by recreational users 

include opportunities for solitude, spending time with 

families, enhancing leisure time and improving sports 

skills. 

Federal 

There are three national forests in the Planning Area: 

Custer, Gallatin and Lewis and Clark. These forests 

provide a variety of yearlong, outdoor recreation. The 

Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness in the Gallatin 

National Forest provides unique wilderness 

opportunities for hiking, horseback riding, camping, 

fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing and photography. 

The Lewis and Clark Historic Trail and the Nez Perce 

National Historic Trail provide opportunities for 

hiking, photography, wildlife viewing and historic 

touring. 

The Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area is a 

popular area for camping, fishing, boating, hiking, 

wildlife viewing and photography. West of and 

adjacent to the Bighorn Canyon National Recreation 

Area is the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range where 

off-road vehicles are not allowed and skiing, caving, 

hiking and wildlife viewing occur. 

The BLM has land holdings throughout the state. The 

majority of this land is not contiguous; it is fragmented 

and many times isolated by private holdings. Most of 

this land is managed for multiple uses. Recreational 

opportunities include hiking, horseback riding, off-road 

vehicle travel, fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, 

camping, picnicking, caving, skiing and snowshoeing. 

Included in this land are the Pryor Mountain Wild 

Horse Range and the Pompey’s Pillar National 

Monument. 

CHAPTER 3 

Recreation 

There are seven National Wildlife Refuges in the 

Planning Area— one in Golden Valley County, four in 

Musselshell County and two in Stillwater County. 

They provide opportunities for wildlife viewing, hiking 

and photography. 

According to 33 CFR Part 329, navigable waters of the 

U.S. are those waters that are subject to the ebb and 

flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been 

used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to 

transport interstate or foreign commerce. A 

determination of navigability, once made, applies 

laterally over the entire surface of the water body and 

is not extinguished by later actions or events that 

impede or destroy navigable capacity. A determination 

whether a water body in the project area is a navigable 

water of the U.S. is made by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Omaha District’s Division Engineer and is 

based on a report of findings prepared at the district 

level in accordance with the criteria set out in 

regulations. Tabulated lists of final determinations of 

navigability are maintained in the District office and 

are updated as necessitated by court decisions, 

jurisdictional inquiries, or other changed conditions. 

State 

There are nine state parks within the SEIS Planning 

Area that offer outdoor activities, Native American 

history and geological sites, wildlife preserves, water 

sports, photography, hiking, camping and fishing. 

These parks are Chief Plenty Coups, Cooney 

Reservoir, Greycliff Prairie Dog Town, Lake Elmo, 

Medicine Rocks, Natural Bridge, Pictograph Cave, 

Rosebud Battlefield and Tongue River Reservoir. 

In addition, state-owned lands checkerboard the 

Planning Area. Much of this land is surrounded by 

private or federal land. Recreational opportunities 

include hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, hiking, 

snowmobiling and skiing. Navigable waterways and 

islands owned by the state also provide additional 

recreational opportunities. 

Local/City Recreation 

Within the Planning Area, the larger municipalities of 

Billings, Laurel and Miles City, offer museums, parks, 

baseball fields, rodeo grounds/fairgrounds, 

walking/hiking/bike trails, water sports and other 

opportunities. The other municipalities in the Planning 

Area offer a city park, outdoor sports activities at the 

schools and, depending on the municipality, possibly a 

museum or rodeo grounds. 

Private Lands 

In addition to public lands, recreational opportunities 

also exist on privately owned lands, including private 

3-91 
CHAPTER 3 

Recreation 

campgrounds, resorts and dude ranches. Activities such a result of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) 

as hunting and backcountry trips also may be permitted actions, such as hunting opportunities through the 

on privately owned land with landowner consent. block management program and conservation 

Recreational opportunities also arise on private lands as easements. 

Typical mobile rig used to drill shallow CBNG wells 

3-92 
Social and Economic 

Values 

This section examines social, economic and 

environmental justice information for the 13 counties 

in the SEIS Planning Area. The three counties with 

the most potential CBNG wells are Big Horn, Powder 

River and Rosebud counties. These counties are 

located adjacent to each other in southeastern 

Montana (see Map 1-1). The Crow and Northern 

Cheyenne Reservations are located predominantly in 

Big Horn and Rosebud counties. Information on 

these reservations is located in this section as well as 

the sections entitled Indian Trust Assets and Native 

Americans in this chapter. CBNG production in

Montana may also affect Sheridan and Campbell

Counties in Wyoming, the counties from which the 

CBNG workforce would likely commute. See the 

Wyoming Oil and Gas EIS for information on the 

affected environment for Sheridan and Campbell 

Counties (BLM 2005e). 

Demographics 

Population data for Montana and the 13-county 

Planning Area is presented in Table 3-25. Between 

1990 and 2000, the population in Montana increased 

at an average annual rate of 1.2 percent to 

CHAPTER 3 

Social and Economic Values 

902,195 persons. The 13-county Planning Area grew 

at a slightly slower rate of 1.1 percent over the same 

period. Two counties—Stillwater and Carbon—grew 

faster than the average for the Planning Area, with 

average annual rates of 2.5 percent and 1.8 percent, 

respectively. Four counties—Carter, Powder River, 

Rosebud and Treasure—had negative growth rates 

and lost population. 

The forecasted population for the year 2020 is also 

shown in Table 3-25. For both the state and the 

Planning Area, the forecasts show compatible growth 

over the next 20 years compared to the last 10 years. 

State population is forecast to grow by 1.0 percent 

and the Planning Area is forecast to grow by 

1.1 percent. Two counties—Rosebud and 

Stillwater— are projected to grow at equal or greater 

rates than the average for the Planning Area, with 

rates of 2.3 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively. 

Population in Treasure County is forecast to fall, with 

a rate of –0.4 percent. However, personal 

communication with the Montana Department of 

Labor and Industry indicates that the projected 

population of 13,720 for Rosebud County in the year 

2020 is an overestimate and that a more likely future 

population is 12,200 or 12,500 (Montana Department 

of Labor and Industry 2001b). These numbers 

correspond to annual growth rates of 1.5 percent and 

1.7 percent, respectively, which are more consistent 

with the average for the Planning Area and the state. 

TABLE 3-25 

HISTORICAL POPULATION AND POPULATION FORECASTS 

1990 2000 

Percent Annual 

Average Growth 2020 

Percent Average 

Annual Growth 

(Census) (Census) 1990-2000 (Forecast) 2000-20201 

Big Horn County 11,337 12,671 1.2% 14,880 0.9% 

Carbon County 8,080 9,552 1.8% 11,390 1.0% 

Carter County 1,503 1,360 -1.0% 1,470 0.4% 

Custer County 11,697 11,696 0.0% 13,060 0.6% 

Golden Valley County 912 1,042 1.4% 1,180 0.7% 

Musselshell County 4,106 4,497 1.0% 5,390 1.0% 

Powder River County 2,090 1,858 -1.1% 1,770 -0.2% 

Rosebud County 10,505 9,383 -1.1% 13,720 2.3% 

Stillwater County 6,536 8,195 2.5% 10,590 1.5% 

Sweetgrass County 3,154 3,609 1.4% 3,870 0.4% 

Treasure County 874 861 -0.1% 800 -0.4% 

Wheatland County 2,246 2,259 0.1% 2,330 0.2% 

Yellowstone County 113,419 129,352 1.4% 158,310 1.1% 

Planning Area 176,459 196,335 1.1% 238,760 1.1% 

State of Montana 799,065 902,195 1.3% 1,082,260 1.0% 

Source: Montana Department of Commerce, 2001. Census and Economic Information Center. Projections by NPA Data Services, Inc. 

1 1990 to 2000 percent average annual growth rates corrected for rounding from original calculations and 2000 to 2020 percent average annual 

growth calculations corrected to use a 20-year range. 

3-93 
CHAPTER 3 

Social and Economic Values 

Data on race and ethnicity from the 2000 U.S. Census 

are shown in Table 3-26. The data indicate that the 

Montana population is 90.6 percent white, similar to 

the 13-county Planning Area, which is 88.8 percent 

white. Statewide and in the Planning Area, Native 

Americans make up the largest non-white group, 

totaling 6.2 percent and 7.7 percent, respectively. 

Persons identified as Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 

compose 2.0 percent of the state population and 

3.1 percent of the 13-county area population. 

While 11 of the 13 counties are between 92.8 percent 

and 99.1 percent white, two of the counties—Big 

Horn and Rosebud—include Indian reservations with 

substantial Native American populations. Big Horn 

County, which includes most of the Crow 

Reservation and part of the Northern Cheyenne 

Reservation, has a Native American population of 

59.7 percent. Rosebud County also includes part of 

the Northern Cheyenne Reservation and is 32.4 

percent Native American. 

TABLE 3-26 

RACE/ETHNICITY AS PERCENT OF TOTAL POPULATION 

Percent 

Percent Native Percent 

Percent American Hawaiian Percent Hispanic 

Black or Indian and and Other Some Two or or Latino 

Geographic 

Area 

Total 

Population 

Percent 

White 

African 

American 

Alaska 

Native 

Percent 

Asian 

Pacific 

Islander 

Other 

Race 

More 

Races 

(of any 

race)1 

Big Horn 12,671 36.6% 0.0% 59.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.7% 2.8% 3.7% 

County 

Carbon 9,552 97.1% 0.3% 0.7% 0.4% 0.0% 0.6% 1.0% 1.8% 

County 

Carter County 1,360 98.6% 0.1% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 

Custer County 11,696 97.0% 0.1% 1.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 1.0% 1.5% 

Golden Valley 1,042 99.1% 0.0% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 1.2% 

County 

Musselshell 4,497 96.9% 0.1% 1.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 1.2% 1.6% 

County 

Powder River 1,858 97.4% 0.0% 1.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.6% 

County 

Rosebud 9,383 64.4% 0.2% 32.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.7% 2.0% 2.3% 

County 

Stillwater 8,195 96.8% 0.1% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.9% 1.2% 2.0% 

County 

Sweet Grass 3,609 97.0% 0.1% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.7% 1.3% 1.5% 

County 

Treasure 861 96.4% 0.1% 1.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.9% 0.6% 1.5% 

County 

Wheatland 2,259 97.0% 0.1% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 1.6% 1.1% 

County 

Yellowstone 129,352 92.8% 0.4% 3.1% 0.5% 0.0% 1.3% 1.9% 3.7% 

County 

Planning 

Area Total 

196,335 88.8% 0.3% 7.7% 0.4% 0.0% 1.1% 1.8% 3.1% 

MONTANA 902,195 90.6% 0.3% 6.2% 0.5% 0.1% 0.6% 1.7% 2.0% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2001a Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, Matrices PL1 and PL2. 1

Percent numbers in this column are a subset of one or more of the other race/ethnicity designation percentages. 

3-94 
Table 3-27 shows the percentage of people below the 

poverty level (as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, 

2001b) for Montana and each of the 13 Planning Area 

counties (1997 data). The Census Bureau uses a set of 

money income thresholds that vary by family size and 

composition to determine who is poor. Compared to 

the state as a whole, the 13-county Planning Area has a 

somewhat greater percentage of people below the 

poverty level; some counties within the Planning Area 

have poverty rates that are much higher than average 

for the state. 

In 1997, the percentage of the population of Montana 

below the U.S. Census Bureau poverty threshold was 

15.5 percent; the average in the 13-county Planning 

Area was 17.3 percent. Nine of the 13 counties in the 

Planning Area have poverty rates greater than the state 

average. The county with the highest rate is Big Horn 

where more than one quarter of the population had an 

income below the poverty level in 1997. The total 

number of persons in the Planning Area below the 

poverty level was about 27,934. This represents about 

20.6 percent of the state’s total population below the 

poverty level. 

Table 3-17 in the Native Americans section of Chapter 

3 shows the percent of tribal members who are 

employed but below U.S. Health and Human Services 

poverty guidelines (similar to U.S. Census guidelines). 

These data indicate that the percent of tribal members 

CHAPTER 3 

Social and Economic Values 

who are employed but below the poverty guideline is 

greater than the total percent of persons below poverty 

for the respective counties where the tribes are located. 

It can be inferred that the total poverty rate for all tribal 

members (employed and unemployed) would be even 

greater than just for those who are employed, 

suggesting relatively large numbers of persons on the 

reservations living in poverty. 

The three counties with the most potential CBNG 

wells, Big Horn, Powder River and Rosebud counties, 

have a combined 2000 population of 24,000, which is 

less than 10 percent of the total population of the 

Planning Area. Two of these counties, Powder River 

and Rosebud, lost population during the previous 

decade (both lost 11 percent), while Big Horn County 

grew 12 percent during the same time period. Big Horn 

and Rosebud counties are forecasted to grow 17 

percent and 30 percent, respectively, between the years 

of 2000 and 2020. Powder River County, with its 

population of 1,858, is projected to continue to slowly 

lose population between 2000 and 2020. The county 

seats are in Hardin in Big Horn County with a 2000 

population of 3,384, Broadus in Powder River County 

with a 2000 population of 451 and Forsyth in Rosebud 

County with a 2000 population of 1,944. There are 

numerous small reservation communities located in 

Big Horn and Rosebud counties. In 1990, Big Horn 

County, which includes most of the Crow Reservation 

TABLE 3-27

POVERTY STATUS BY COUNTY (AS DEFINED BY U.S. CENSUS BUREAU) (1997)

Number of Persons Below Percent of Population Below 

Poverty Level Poverty 

Big Horn County 3,768 29.6% 

Carbon County 1,230 12.9% 

Carter County 294 19.3% 

Custer County 2,022 17.0% 

Golden Valley County 216 21.2% 

Musselshell County 893 19.4% 

Powder River County 277 15.3% 

Rosebud County 1,999 19.9% 

Stillwater County 860 10.6% 

Sweetgrass County 418 12.3% 

Treasure County 141 15.8% 

Wheatland County 453 19.8% 

Yellowstone County 15,363 12.1% 

Planning Area Total 27,934 17.3% 

Montana 135,691 15.5% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates Program 2001b. 

3-95 
CHAPTER 3 

Social and Economic Values 

and part of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, had a Area. Eleven percent (9,574) of the Planning Area 

population that was nearly 60% Native American. housing units was located in Big Horn, Rosebud and 

Rosebud County, which includes most of the Northern Powder River counties. 

Cheyenne Reservation, had a 2000 population that was 

32 percent Native American. The 1997 poverty rates 

for Big Horn, Powder River and Rosebud counties 

were 29.6 percent, 15.3 percent and 19.9 percent, 

respectively. These rates reflect the relatively large 

numbers of persons on the reservations living in 

poverty. For additional information on demographics 

for the Northern Cheyenne and Crow Tribes see Social 

and Economic Values in the Native Americans section 

of this Chapter. 

Social Organization 

Housing Units and Vacancy 

Housing units and vacancy rates for Montana and the 

13-county Planning Area are shown in Table 3-28. 

The latest available county-specific data on housing 

units is from the 2000 Census (U.S. Census Bureau 

2001b). Although the vacancy rates reported here 

illustrate the averages in the counties in the Planning 

Area, sub-county variations may exist as a result of 

factors such as high population growth in a portion of 

the county. 

In 2000, Montana had 412,633 housing units, 84,952 

or 21 percent of these were in the 13-county Planning 

Homeowner vacancy rates indicate the percent of 

total owner-occupied housing that is vacant. In 

Montana, the homeowner vacancy rate for 2000 was 

2.2 percent, compared to 3.6 percent for the Planning 

Area. Four counties had home ownership vacancy 

rates higher than the Planning Area average, 

suggesting a surplus of vacant houses on the market. 

The three counties with the most potential for CBNG 

wells, Big Horn, Powder River and Rosebud, all had 

lower homeowner vacancy rates than the Planning 

Area average. Housing availability on the Northern 

Cheyenne and Crow Reservations is discussed under 

Social Organization in the Native Americans section 

of this chapter. 

The rental vacancy rate in 2000 was 7.6 percent for 

the state and 14.0 percent for the Planning Area. 

Generally, rental vacancy rates between 5 percent and 

10 percent are considered adequate. Rental vacancy 

rates below 5 percent can indicate potential rental 

shortages and above 10 percent can indicate potential 

surplus. The rental vacancy rates for the three 

counties with the most potential for CBNG wells, Big 

Horn, Powder River and Rosebud, were 6.3 percent, 

13.1 percent and 11.7 percent, respectively. 

TABLE 3-28

HOUSING UNITS

2000 Homeowner 2000 Rental 

Vacancy Rate Vacancy Rate 

2000 Housing Units (%) (%) 

Big Horn County 4,655 2.2 6.3 

Carbon County 5,494 3.0 8.1 

Carter County 811 6.9 8.1 

Custer County 5,360 2.6 11.6 

Golden Valley County 450 6.3 8.8 

Musselshell County 2,317 6.8 8.4 

Powder River County 1,007 3.0 13.1 

Rosebud County 3,912 1.9 11.7 

Stillwater County 3,947 2.7 6.1 

Sweetgrass County 1,860 2.1 10.3 

Treasure County 422 2.3 6.4 

Wheatland County 1,154 6.4 18.2 

Yellowstone County 54,563 1.2 5.4 

Planning Area Total 85,952 3.6% 14.0% 

Montana 412,633 2.2% 7.6% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2001. 

3-96 
Temporary Housing 

Temporary housing units are typically defined to 

include hotels and motels and recreational vehicle or 

camping sites. An inventory of temporary housing 

units is typically included in an environmental impacts 

analysis to use in determining potential impacts on the 

local housing supply from an influx of temporary 

population (such as construction workers or other 

employees). This data is typically gathered for a city, 

county, or small region. Because of the broad scope of 

this study, however, an inventory of accommodations 

by specific location was not attempted. A large number 

of hotels/motels and recreational vehicle and camping 

areas are available throughout the state and the 

13-county Planning Area. These sites tend to be 

concentrated in and around the large cities, such as 

Billings, as well as major tourist or recreation areas, 

such as Yellowstone National Park. They are less likely 

to be available in the three counties with the most 

potential for CBNG wells. 

Public Services and Utilities 

Public services, typically provided by local 

governments (cities, counties and special service 

districts), include police and fire protection, emergency 

medical services, schools, public housing, parks and 

recreation facilities, water supply, sewage and solid 

waste disposal, libraries and roads and other transportation 

infrastructure. Other important community services 

include electric and communications utilities. The 

provision of public services and the ability of service 

providers to adapt to change over time, or resulting from 

specific development activities, depend on a number of 

factors, including financial ability and community 

leadership. Public services are generally funded by tax 

revenues, although there may be other sources of 

revenue such as user fees or utility franchise fees. The 

tax base of the county or community where public 

services are provided is often a key component of the 

funding of public services. Information on public 

services and facilities for the Northern Cheyenne and 

Crow Reservations is presented under Social 

Organization in the Native American section of this 

chapter. 

Attitudes, Beliefs, Lifestyles and 

Values 

Information on general attitudes, beliefs, lifestyles and 

values in Montana and the general Planning Area as 

they relate to CBNG development has been gathered 

from public comment letters received during the 

scoping process for this project and also from past 

summaries in several related documents. While the 

CHAPTER 3 

Social and Economic Values 

generalized characterizations are not likely to apply to 

all individuals, the intention is to provide an idea of the 

range of the attitudes and lifestyles of the population 

subgroups present in the study area. See the 

Socioeconomics Appendix for detailed information. 

The study area population is largely rural, with strong 

ties to the land and to the many small towns. Residents 

generally value the rural character of their lifestyle. 

Specific aspects of this lifestyle might include 

appreciation of wide-open spaces, natural landscape, 

fresh air and solitude. The lifestyle of rural 

communities often offers the desirable qualities of 

neighbors knowing each other, lack of urban problems, 

relaxed pace, personal freedom and being a good place 

to raise children. Longtime residents often want to see 

continued control of the land at the local level without 

interference from outside agencies or groups. 

A portion of the population in the study area are Native 

Americans, who generally desire to preserve many 

elements of their heritage, express strong connections 

with the natural environment and often do not wish to 

become homogenized into the non-Indian culture. At 

the same time, some tribal members or subgroups are 

pursuing the development of energy resources for the 

long-term social and economic betterment of tribal 

members. 

A small but growing population is made up of 

professionals, craftspeople, retirees and others who 

have moved to small towns to enjoy the slower pace of 

life and various amenities. While the forested areas of 

western Montana tend to attract more of this group than 

eastern Montana, these people are present in the study 

area as well. They may participate in opposition to 

development proposals that appear to jeopardize the 

quality of their new lifestyles. 

Areas where energy resources are developed often see 

the influx of people from other areas. Many of these 

people regard their employment as temporary, expect 

to move on to other areas and do not play an integral 

part in community affairs. Long-term local residents 

often resent these “outsiders” while at the same time 

realizing some economic benefits from the business 

and service demands of these newcomers. 

The vast majority of public comments on the Statewide 

Document received during the scoping process in early 

2001 relayed concerns about potential impacts on water 

quality and quantity. Those who commented were most 

concerned with the discharge of water of poor quality 

(e.g., saline) and the drawdown of groundwater 

aquifers. Other concerns include possible increases in 

traffic levels, noise, visual resource impacts and 

psychological stress associated with change to the 

surrounding built and natural environment. 

3-97 
CHAPTER 3 

Social and Economic Values 

The comments reflect a difference in attitudes toward 

CBNG development among those individuals and 

organizations that might profit directly from CBNG 

and those that would not. The comments reflect a 

tension between the desire for new development to 

support the often stagnant rural economies and the 

concern that such development could harm the 

environment and the lifestyle qualities for which 

Montana is known, including natural beauty, wideopen spaces and solitude. Concerns were also 

expressed about potential adverse affects on the 

lifestyles of Native Americans, particularly those on 

the reservations. The comments reflect the traditional 

high value placed on natural resources by these groups, 

the importance of existing water and other natural 

resources in tribal economies and cultures and the 

opinion that tribal members will be unduly burdened 

with the costs of development while not receiving 

many or any benefits. 

Scoping comments received in the summer of 2005 for 

this SEIS reflect similar concerns about and support 

for, CBNG development as those discussed above. In 

addition, there was a concern that delayed or phased 

development would create economic impacts. 

Specifically, lessees and lessors would lose revenue 

due to leasing and permitting delays and the state 

would have a net present value loss in income and 

payroll taxes, as well as production taxes and royalties. 

There were also concerns about the displacement of 

wildlife to livestock grazing tracts, the subsequent 

interference with livestock grazing and the potential 

effect on subirrigated tracts. 

The Northern Cheyenne Tribe and others expressed 

concern that unrestrained CBNG development could 

lead to a boom and bust cycle. The fear is that this type 

of development could lead to adverse, long-term social 

and economic effects within the region. These adverse 

effects have been expressed as increases in population 

on the reservation, resulting in stress on tribal 

infrastructure and social services, as well as increases 

in teenage pregnancy, drug and alcohol use and crime. 

Economics 

Employment 

Table 3-29 displays state employment by sector for the 

years 1990 and 1998 and Table 3-30 shows 1998 

employment by sector within the Planning Area. In 

1998, an estimated 543,333 people were employed in 

Montana, with 122,209 in the 13-county Planning 

Area. In 1998, employment in the Planning Area 

represented about 22 percent of the jobs in the state. 

Between 1990 and 1998, total employment in the state 

grew by 106,759, an increase of 24.5 percent. 

Employment in the 13-county Planning Area grew by 

20,444 people, or 20.1 percent, during the same period. 

TABLE 3-29 

MONTANA EMPLOYMENT TRENDS BY SECTOR 

Farm Employment 30,576 32,071 1,495 

1990 1998 1990-1998 

Non-Farm Employment 

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and other 6,154 8,739 2,585 

Mining 7,824 6,730 -1,094 

Construction 19,070 33,245 14,175 

Manufacturing 26,342 29,504 3,162 

Transportation and Public Utilities 23,858 26,759 2,901 

Wholesale Trade 17,449 20,693 3,244 

Retail Trade 78,715 106,202 27,487 

Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 27,693 34,673 6,980 

Services 118,623 161,740 43,117 

4.9% 

Change, 

Percentage 

Point Change, 

1990-1998 

42.0% 

-14.0% 

74.3% 

12.0% 

12.2% 

18.6% 

34.9% 

Montana Total 436,574 543,333 106,759 

Government 

Federal, Civilian 13,771 12,647 -1,124 

Military 10,516 8,474 -2,042 

State 21,561 22,972 1,411 

Local 34,422 38,884 4,462 

24.5% 

25.2% 

36.3% 

-8.2% 

-19.4% 

6.5% 

13.0% 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, BEA 2001. 

3-98 
CHAPTER 3 

Social and Economic Values 

TABLE 3-30 

STATE EMPLOYMENT VERSUS PLANNING AREA EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR (1998) 

Planning Area % of Planning State 

Employment by 

Sector 

Area Total by 

Sector 

Employment by 

Sector 

% of State 

Total by Sector 

Farm Employment 6,971 5.7% 32,071 5.9% 

Non-Farm Employment 

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and other 1.2% 8,739 1.6% 

Mining 1.6% 6,730 1.2% 

Construction 5.5% 33,245 6.1% 

Manufacturing 4.0% 29,504 5.4% 

Transportation and Public Utilities 5.3% 26,759 4.9% 

Wholesale Trade 5.8% 20,693 3.8% 

Retail Trade 19.3% 106,202 19.5% 

Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 6.3% 34,673 6.4% 

Services 29.3% 161,740 29.8% 

Government 

Federal, Civilian 2,902 2.4% 12,647 2.3% 

Military 1,079 0.9% 8,474 1.6% 

State 2,160 1.8% 22,972 4.2% 

Local 10,675 8.7% 38,884 7.2% 

Undisclosed or under 10 jobs 2,578 2.1% N/A N/A 

Montana Total 100.0% 543,333 100.0% 

1,476 

1,996 

6,776 

4,889 

6,494 

7,107 

23,616 

7,654 

35,836 

122,209 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, BEA 2001, 2005. 

Montana’s largest employment sectors in 1998 were 

services, retail trade and government; the smallest 

sector was mining. By far the fastest-growing sector 

between 1990 and 1998 was construction, which 

increased by 74.3 percent during the period. Other 

fast-growing sectors were agriculture, forestry and 

fishing services and retail trade. 

Some sectors of state employment decreased between 

1990 and 1998. Mining jobs decreased by 14 percent 

in the state, from 7,824 to 6,730. Overall, government 

jobs increased by only 3.4 percent; within that sector, 

military jobs decreased by 19.4 percent and federal 

civilian jobs decreased by 8.2 percent. 

Tables 3-30 and 3-31 present state and Planning Area 

employment by sector. Table 3-30 shows that the 

economic base of the Planning Area by sector is very 

similar to the state as a whole. However, as indicated 

in Table 3-31, there is substantial variation among the 

sizes and strengths of the various economic sectors in 

the 13 Planning Area counties. 

Unemployment 

Table 3-32 presents the unemployment rate for 

Montana and each of the Planning Area counties in 

1995 and 2000. In 1995, the average unemployment 

rates in Montana and in the Planning Area were 

essentially the same; 5.9 percent for the state and 5.8 

percent for the Planning Area. In 2000, the average 

state unemployment rate had dropped to 4.9 percent 

while the average rate in the Planning Area decreased 

to 5.4 percent. 

In 2000, unemployment rates in three of the Planning 

Area counties were higher than the 13-county 

average: Big Horn (14.4 percent); Musselshell (7.4 

percent); and Rosebud (7.5 percent). Unemployment 

rates in each of the counties but Musselshell are 

explained in part by the high unemployment rates on 

the Indian reservations contained wholly or partly 

within these counties. As indicated in Table 3-18 (in 

the Native Americans section of Chapter 3), 

unemployment on the Crow and Northern Cheyenne 

Indian reservations in 1999 ranged between 14.9 

percent and 18.7 percent. Consistent with trends in 

the rest of the state, the unemployment rate on each 

reservation fell between 1996 and 1999. 

Unemployment rates on the reservations as measured 

by the Bureau of Indian Affairs are reported in 

Table 3-33. These rates are based on self-reported 

information from tribal leaders; 1999 is the latest 

year available. The rates calculated in this manner are 

substantially greater than those reported by the 

Montana Department of Labor and Industry 

(Table 3-32). They indicate unemployment at 61 

percent for the Crow tribe and 71 percent for the 

Northern Cheyenne tribe. For all tribal members in 

Montana, the unemployment rate was 61 percent. 

3-99 
Social and Economic Values 

CHAPTER 3 

3-100 

TABLE 3-31 

PLANNING AREA EMPLOYMENT BY COUNTY AND SECTOR (1998) 

Golden Powder Sweet 

Industry Big Horn Carbon Carter Custer Valley Musselshell River Rosebud Stillwater Grass Treasure Wheatland Yellowstone 

Farm Employment 13.2% 17.9% 44.4% 6.9% 41.7% 15.8% 33.8% 9.7% 14.3% 22.4% 40.6% 22.1% 1.6% 

Non-Farm Employment 

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 3.0% 3.1% a 1.5% a a a 1.4% 2.5% a a a 0.9% 

and other 

Mining 8.7% 1.2% a b 0.0% 3.6% 1.7% 9.2% a b 0.0% b 0.9% 

Construction 3.3% 6.8% a a a 6.5% a 1.5% 5.1% 9.0% a a 6.4% 

Manufacturing 1.2% 3.4% 1.9% 2.6% a 5.8% a 2.5% 8.9% 4.2% 0.0% 3.3% 4.3% 

Transportation and public 1.8% 2.2% 3.6% a b 4.3% 5.0% 12.0% a a 5.7% 2.7% 6.1% 

utilities 

Wholesale trade 1.5% 2.0% 0.0% 3.0% a a 1.0% 0.1% 1.6% 2.1% a a 7.6% 

Retail trade 12.6% 18.6% 8.0% 22.6% a 17.6% 13.1% 12.3% 14.5% 20.5% 12.2% 20.5% 21.1% 

Finance, Insurance and Real 3.7% 5.9% 2.2% 5.9% 0.0% 4.4% 1.7% 3.3% 3.8% 5.4% a 3.9% 7.5% 

Estate 

Services 30.3% 27.0% a 29.5% a 23.9% 15.4% 34.0% 17.8% 16.3% 11.7% 22.5% 32.8% 

Government 

Federal, Civilian 7.3% 1.4% 2.0% 4.7% b 0.8% 1.4% 3.2% 0.8% 1.5% 1.1% 3.6% 2.0% 

Military 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% b 1.3% 0.8% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 1.1% 0.8% 

State 0.8% 0.5% 0.3% 4.1% b 0.8% 1.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.8% 1.4% 0.7% 1.9% 

Local 11.4% 8.9% 12.6% 7.7% 16.3% 10.8% 16.5% 9.3% 8.4% 12.2% 17.0% 12.7% 6.0% 

Undisclosed or under 10 jobs 0 0 24.0% 10.4% 41.9% 4.2% 7.8% 0 20.9% 4.6% 9.4% 6.8% 0 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, BEA 2001.

a = Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information but the estimates for these items are included in the totals.

b = Less than 10 jobs but the estimates for these items are included in the totals.
CHAPTER 3 

Social and Economic Values 

TABLE 3-32 

AVERAGE ANNUAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATES BY COUNTY 

Percentage Point 

1995 Rate 2000 Rate Change, 1995­

(%) (%) 2000 

Big Horn County 12.7 14.4 1.7 

Carbon County 6.0 5.1 -0.9 

Carter County 1.8 2.1 0.3 

Custer County 4.6 4.3 -0.3 

Golden Valley County 7.6 5.7 -1.9 

Musselshell County 8.6 7.4 -1.2 

Powder River County 2.4 3.0 0.6 

Rosebud County 9.2 7.5 -1.7 

Stillwater County 5.0 4.9 -0.1 

Sweetgrass County 3.7 2.5 -1.2 

Treasure County 3.5 5.0 1.5 

Wheatland County 5.1 4.6 -0.5 

Yellowstone County 4.8 3.8 -1.0 

Planning Area Average 5.8 5.4 -0.4 

Montana 5.9 4.9 -1.0 

Source: Montana Department of Labor & Industry, Research & Analysis Bureau, Local Area. 

Unemployment Statistics (2001a). 

TABLE 3-33 

TRIBAL WORKFORCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT (1999) 

Percent 

Available for Unemployed as Employed but 

Total Tribal Work of Total % of Labor Below Poverty 

Tribe County Enrollment Work Force Force Guideline 

Crow Tribe of Big Horn 10,083 3,902 61% 38% 

Montana County 

Northern Cheyenne Big Horn 7,473 2,437 71% 26% 

Tribe County, 

Rosebud 

County 

Montana (all tribes) 61,203 26,348 61% 33% 

Source: U.S. BIA 1999. 

Per Capita Income 

Per capita income for the state of Montana and the 

counties in the Planning Area is shown in Table 3-34. 

In 1998, the average U.S. per capita income was 

$27,203 and the state average was $21,229. The 

average per capita income in the Planning Area was 

$17,715, only 83.4 percent of the state average. In 

1998, per capita income in Yellowstone County was 

higher than the state average and incomes in Carbon, 

Custer and Stillwater counties were more than 

90 percent of the state average. On the other hand, 

per capita income in three counties was substantially 

lower: Big Horn County (62.4 percent); Carter 

County (61.9 percent) and Musselshell County (67.6 

percent). 

3-101 
CHAPTER 3 

Social and Economic Values 

TABLE 3-34 

PER CAPITA INCOME, 1996-1998 

Dollars per Year % Average % of State 

1996 1997 1998 

Annual Increase 

(1996-1998)1 

Average 

(1998) 

Big Horn County 11,987 12,418 13,239 5.2% 62.4% 

Carbon County 17,798 18,901 19,745 5.5% 93.0% 

Carter County 11,793 12,480 13,139 5.7% 61.9% 

Custer County 18,879 19,792 20,487 4.3% 96.5% 

Golden Valley County 14,471 15,115 16,095 5.6% 75.8% 

Musselshell County 13,087 14,047 14,351 4.8% 67.6% 

Powder River County 13,593 15,061 16,314 10.0% 76.8% 

Rosebud County 16,395 17,423 18,066 5.1% 85.1% 

Stillwater County 18,114 18,726 19,736 4.5% 93.0% 

Sweet Grass County 16,871 18,591 19,032 6.4% 89.7% 

Treasure County 15,208 14,744 15,707 1.6% 74.0% 

Wheatland County 14,784 16,695 16,217 4.8% 76.4% 

Yellowstone County 22,173 23,168 24,425 5.1% 115.1% 

Planning Area Average 15,781 16,705 17,427 5.2% 82.1% 

Montana 19,383 20,130 21,229 4.7% 100.0% 

U.S. 24,651 25,924 27,203 5.0% 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 2001.

1 1996 to 1998 average annual increases corrected for rounding from original calculations.

Between 1996 and 1998, per capita income in the 

Planning Area increased by an average of 5.2 percent 

annually, slightly greater than in the state as a whole, 

in which per capita income increased by 4.7 percent. 

Per capita income increased in all of the Planning 

Area counties between 1996 and 1998. 

Government Revenue Sources 

Government revenues include taxes, royalties, fees 

and several other income sources. Please see the 

Socioeconomics Appendix for more information. 

Taxes 

Public finance mechanisms include taxes, royalties 

and other fees paid to local, state and federal 

governments. Taxes in Montana consist of property 

taxes, income taxes, natural resource taxes (coal, oil 

and natural gas) and selective sales taxes (cigarette 

and alcoholic beverages). There is no general sales 

tax in Montana. Table 3-35 shows total taxes 

collected in Montana. In 2004, more than $1 billion 

was collected in property taxes, accounting for 

50.6 percent of the total state tax revenues collected. 

Income taxes were the second largest portion at 

33.6 percent, followed by other taxes (8.4 percent) 

and natural resources (7.4 percent). 

The taxes and royalties assessed on oil and gas 

development and production are an important source 

of revenue for local governments and the state of 

Montana. The oil and gas industry pays rents, 

royalties and bonuses on federal leases; production 

taxes on working and non-working interests in the 

state of Montana; and local property taxes on drilling 

and production equipment. 

Generally, as county oil and gas production tax 

revenues increase (e.g., because of new oil and gas 

production), the property tax rate (mill levy) for the 

county is decreased accordingly. A percent of statelevied oil and gas production taxes are distributed to 

the counties based on the county where production 

occurred. For natural gas, 86 percent of the 

production taxes are distributed to the counties for 

local governments and schools. For oil, 60.7 percent 

of the production taxes are distributed to the counties. 

See the Socioeconomics Appendix for more 

information on taxes. 

3-102 
CHAPTER 3 

Social and Economic Values 

TABLE 3-35 

TOTAL TAXES COLLECTED IN MONTANA (2004) 

2004 Tax Revenues Collected in 

Montana Percent of Total 

Property Taxes $1,014,487,652 50.6% 

Income Taxes $673,071,361 33.6% 

Natural Resource Taxes $148,675,401 7.4% 

Other Taxes $168,133,456 8.4% 

Montana Total $2,004,367,870 100.0% 

Source: Montana Department of Revenue (2004). 

State Oil and Gas Lease Income 

DNRC leases oil and gas, metalliferous and nonmetalliferous, coal, sand and gravel mineral rights 

agreements on 6.2 million acres of school trust lands 

and more than 100,000 acres of other state-owned land 

throughout Montana. School trust lands are lands 

historically granted to the state of Montana to be used 

to support common schools and other educational and 

state institutions. 

State mineral lease royalties are collected from 

production facilities located on state lands. Royalty 

payments are based on the volume of oil and gas 

produced and the price of the commodity. Rental and 

royalty revenues are either deposited into the 

appropriate permanent or distributable school trust or 

the state general fund. Table 3-36 presents the revenues 

received by the state in fiscal years (FY) 2000 and 

2005 from minerals management, including leases 

(rents) and mineral production royalties on state trust 

lands. Oil and gas revenues in FY 2000 were 

$6.6 million, or 57.2 percent of total state mineral 

management revenues, while these revenues totaled 

$19 million, or 80.8 percent, in FY 2005. Oil and gas 

revenues comprised the largest share, with coal 

revenues the second largest, at 40.3 percent of the total 

for FY 2000 and 18.1 percent for FY 2005. 

The state mineral leasing program includes 2,433 oil 

and gas leases, 534 of which are currently productive. 

From FY 1999 and FY 2000, the number of oil and gas 

leases increased by 8.1 percent and the number of 

productive leases increased by 14.3 percent. In FY 

2000, state lands yielded 923,777 barrels of oil, 

5,050,552 million cubic feet of gas and 375,113 gallons 

of condensate. Oil production declined 6.5 percent 

from FY 1999. However, the increase in average price 

from $10.50 per barrel in FY 1999 to $20.21 per barrel 

in FY 2000 accounted for the large increase in oil 

royalty revenue. Gas production in FY 2000 increased 

19.6 percent, while price increased 36.0 percent 

compared to FY 1999, also resulting in a substantial 

increase in royalty revenue. 

Federal Mineral Revenues 

Oil and gas royalties are earned from production 

facilities on federal leases, units, or communitization 

agreements. Federal mineral lease royalties are 

collected on oil and gas produced based on the volume 

of product. Table 3-37 presents federal mineral revenue 

disbursements by county of origin for the 13 Planning 

Area counties and the state as a whole for FY 2000. 

Coal, gas and oil are the main mineral products. The 

totals reported do not include royalties and rents from 

leases on Native American tribal and allotted lands. For 

FY 2005, statewide revenue and disbursements are 

presented in Table 3-38. For the entire state of 

Montana, royalty values nearly doubled between 

FY 2000 and FY 2005 and disbursements to the state 

increased from $20 million to almost $36 million. 

For FY 2000, mineral royalties from the 13 Planning 

Area counties totaled $29.8 million—approximately 

69.5 percent of the $42.8 million collected in the state. 

Big Horn County accounted for a large share of the 

Planning Area revenues, with total royalties of $21.4 

million, which were mostly from coal. Coal and oil 

revenues are far greater than gas revenues. 

Formulas for disbursement of revenues from federal 

mineral leases are governed by legislation and 

regulations. Nationally, in fiscal year 2000, federal 

mineral lease revenues were disbursed as follows: 

66.0 percent to the U.S. Treasury; 20.2 percent to 

special purpose funds, such as historic preservation, 

land and water conservation and reclamation; 

10.8 percent to states; and 3.0 percent to Native 

3-103 
CHAPTER 3 

Social and Economic Values 

TABLE 3-36 

REVENUES RECEIVED FROM MINERALS MANAGEMENT ON STATE LANDS 

IN FISCAL YEARS 2000 AND 2005 

FY 2000 Revenue FY 2005 Revenue 

(Dollars) (Dollars) 

Oil and Gas 

Rentals/Bonuses/Penalties 2,966,285 6,554,239 

Royalties 3,684,595 12,546,646 

Seismic Exploration 11,075 4,796 

Subtotal 6,661,955 19,105,681 

Percent 57.2% 80.8% 

Aggregate Minerals 

Rentals 250 100 

Royalties 245,693 227,171 

Subtotal 245,943 227,271 

Percent 2.1% 1.0% 

Coal 

Rentals 44,371 40,057 

Royalties 4,649,634 4,239,865 

Subtotal 4,694,005 4,279,923 

Percent 40.3% 18.1% 

Other Minerals 

Subtotal 41,124 28,973 

Percent 0.4% 0.1% 

Rentals/Penalties 32,246 22,490 

Royalties 8,878 6,483 

TOTAL 11,643,027 23,641,848 

Sources: MDNRC 2000 (http://www.dnrc.state.mt.us/trust/mmb.htm), MDNRC 2005 (http://dnrc.mt.gov/trust/MMB/Default.asp). 

TABLE 3-37 

ONSHORE FEDERAL MINERAL REVENUE DISBURSEMENTS IDENTIFIED BY COUNTY OF 

ORIGIN, FISCAL YEAR 2000, MONTANA1 

Product Sales Volume 

Royalty Value 

($) 

Disbursed to State 

($) 

Big Horn Bonus 185,076 92,538 

Coal (ton) 20,416,210 20,912,616 10,456,308 

Gas (mcf) 44,411 4,028 2,014 

Other Revenues 16,562 8,281 

Rent 335,127 167,564 

Carbon 

Subtotal 

Gas (mcf) 166,547 

21,453,409 

45,722 

10,726,705 

22,861 

Gas Plant Products (gal) 2,789,164 89,617 44,809 

3-104 
CHAPTER 3 

Social and Economic Values 

TABLE 3-37 

ONSHORE FEDERAL MINERAL REVENUE DISBURSEMENTS IDENTIFIED BY COUNTY OF 

ORIGIN, FISCAL YEAR 2000, MONTANA1 

Royalty Value Disbursed to State 

Product Sales Volume ($) ($) 

Oil (bbl) 386,161 1,042,440 521,220 

Other Revenues 2,616,601 1,308,301 

Rent 76,892 38,446 

Sulfur (lton) 1,023 524 262 

Subtotal 3,871,797 1,935,899 

Carter Bonus 47,366 23,683 

Oil (bbl) 865 1,888 944 

Other Revenues 22,294 11,147 

Rent 90,429 45,214 

Subtotal 161,976 80,988 

Custer Bonus 51,904 25,952 

Gas (mcf) 56,563 11,875 5,938 

Other Revenues 1,135 568 

Rent 44,205 22,103 

Subtotal 109,119 54,560 

Golden Valley 0 0 

Musselshell Bonus 594 297 

Oil (bbl) 5,378 2,394 1,197 

Other Revenues 1,077 539 

Rent 19,030 9,515 

Subtotal 23,095 11,547 

Powder River Bonus 39,028 19,514 

Gas (mcf) 14,352 4,076 2,038 

Oil (bbl) 74,079 172,508 86,254 

Other Revenues 6,796 3,398 

Rent 482,732 241,366 

Subtotal 705,139 352,569 

Rosebud Bonus 517,040 258,520 

Coal (ton) 1,612,516 1,852,468 926,234 

Oil (bbl) 21,613 42,355 21,178 

Other Revenues 690,601 345,301 

Rent 220,533 110,266 

Subtotal 3,322,997 1,661,499 

Stillwater Bonus 6,766 3,383 

Oil (bbl) 3,499 5,222 2,611 

Rent 26,077 13,039 

Subtotal 38,066 19,033 

Sweet Grass Bonus 8,928 4,464 

Rent 25,854 12,927 

Subtotal 34,782 17,391 

3-105 
CHAPTER 3 

Social and Economic Values 

TABLE 3-37 

ONSHORE FEDERAL MINERAL REVENUE DISBURSEMENTS IDENTIFIED BY COUNTY OF 

ORIGIN, FISCAL YEAR 2000, MONTANA1 

Royalty Value Disbursed to State 

Product Sales Volume ($) ($) 

Treasure Coal (ton) 97,143 118,745 59,372 

Rent 2,760 1,380 

Subtotal 121,505 60,752 

Wheatland Other Revenues 480 240 

Subtotal 480 240 

Yellowstone Oil (bbl) 1,648 2,494 1,247 

Other Revenues 516 258 

Rent 131 65 

Subtotal 3,140 1,570 

Planning Area 29,810,723 14,905,361 

Total 

% of State Total 69.5% 73.1% 

Montana Total2 42,881,292 20,401,472 

Source: U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service 2001. mcf – thousand cubic feet 1

Does not include revenues collected from American Indian lands or offshore operations. bbl – barrel 2

Adjusted for net receipts sharing (less $1,039,174 disbursed to state). lton – long ton 

TABLE 3-38

ONSHORE FEDERAL MINERAL REVENUE DISBURSEMENTS, FISCAL YEAR 2005, MONTANA1

Royalty Value Disbursed to State 

Product Sales Volume ($) ($) 

Coal (ton) 27,398,404 32,895,894 16,207,608 

CBNG (mcf) 3,586,513 2,131,761 938,787 

Condensate (bbl) 29,799 169,892 82,709 

Drip or Scrubber Condensate (bbl) 868 4,143 496 

Fuel Gas (mcf) 2,248 1,347 400 

Gas Lost – Flared or Vented (mcf) 59,905 48,205 

Gas Plant Products (gal) 3,711,746 308,212 141,156 

Oil (bbl) 4,255,590 22,080,910 8,281,428 

Other Royalties 2,113,546 959,664 

Processed (Residue) Gas (mcf) 438,035 245,717 71,863 

Sulfur (long ton) 1,620 984 477 

Unprocessed (wet) Gas (mcf) 26,302,336 15,417,717 6,307,602 

Subtotal 75,418,326 32,992,191 

Rents 3,809,836 1,653,314 

Bonus 1,059,752 417,503 

Other Revenues 970,906 499,298 

Subtotal 5,840,493 2,570,116 

Total 81,258,819 35,562,307 

Source: U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service 2006. 1

Does not include revenues collected from American Indian lands or offshore operations. Revenues and disbursements by county of origin

are not available. 

3-106 
American tribes. This corresponds to $5.1 billion to 

the U.S. Treasury, $1.6 billion to special purpose 

funds, $843 million to states and $235 million to 

tribes. These disbursements were made to tribes that 

leased their land for minerals development. 

Federal legislation provides that Montana receive 

50 percent of the net receipts of all bonuses, rents and 

royalties collected on BLM-administered lands 

within Montana. As a result, the percentage of 

royalties disbursed in Montana is much greater than 

the national average. Of the $42.8 million in royalties 

collected on federal lands in Montana counties in 

2000, nearly half, or $20.4 million, was disbursed to 

the state. 

Statewide for FY 2005, the Minerals Management 

Service reported nearly 3,587,000 mcf of CBNG 

produced in Montana. This production generated 

$2.13 million in royalties, of which $939,000 was 

disbursed to the state (U.S. Department of Interior 

Minerals Management Service 2006). 

Private Landowner Revenue 

Some landowners in Montana own the mineral rights 

to their land and lease those rights for natural gas 

development and other uses. Landowners who do not 

own mineral rights may be subject to the 

development of natural gas or other energy or 

mineral resources on their land. Both of these 

categories of landowners receive income for use of 

their land, in the form of natural gas royalties or onetime compensation for land disturbance and use, 

respectively. This income is included in the total per 

capita incomes presented in Table 3-34. 

Water Resource Values 

Water plays an important role in the state and local 

economies of Montana. Water is a scarce resource in 

Montana—particularly in eastern Montana. Many of 

the state’s surface water basins are over-appropriated 

and have been closed to future appropriations. In 

these locations, water users are turning more and 

more to groundwater to meet their water needs. 

Most of the water used in the Planning Area is 

surface water (see Hydrology section of this chapter). 

Most of the surface water is from snowmelt and 

precipitation. Livestock watering and domestic water 

wells are the primary uses of groundwater in the area. 

Surface water and groundwater are also used for 

agricultural irrigation and surface water is used for 

recreation in some areas. Continued availability of 

adequate quantity and quality for these major uses is 

essential to maintaining the health of these sectors of 

the local and state economies. 

CHAPTER 3 

Social and Economic Values 

The economic value of water resources for human 

uses varies greatly by location and by use and user. 

As an example, it has been estimated that the value of 

irrigation water to agricultural producers, based on 

the increase in production attributable to the use of 

the water for irrigation, is between $25 and $50 per 

acre-foot in eastern Montana (Schaefer 2001). Costs 

for domestic water would generally be more. The 

values are inherent components of the values of the 

various sectors of the economy, such as income from 

grazing and agriculture or costs of providing public 

water service. Changes in the supply or cost of water 

would contribute to changes in the costs and revenues 

for these activities. 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income 

Populations” (1994) requires the non-discriminatory 

treatment of minority populations and low-income 

populations for projects that occur on federal lands, 

require federal permits, use federal funds, or are 

otherwise under the jurisdiction of a federal agency. 

Disproportionately high or adverse health or 

environmental effects on such populations must be 

identified and addressed as appropriate. 

Native Americans are environmental justice 

populations represented in the Planning Area. 

Information on the Northern Cheyenne and Crow 

tribes is provided in the Demographics, Social 

Organization and Economics subsections of this 

section. In addition, information on the Northern 

Cheyenne and Crow Indian Reservations is provided 

in the Indian Trust Assets and Native American 

Concerns sections of this chapter. 

Low-Income and Minority 

Populations 

This section describes locations of concentrations of 

minority populations and low-income populations at 

the county level, in accordance with the scope of this 

study. Potential sub-county concentrations of 

minority populations and low-income populations are 

also possible but could only be identified on a 

project-specific basis. The occurrences of minority 

populations and low-income populations are 

discussed in detail in the Demographics section of 

this report and are presented in Tables 3-26 and 3-27, 

respectively. 

The Montana population is 90.6 percent white, 

similar to the 13-county Planning Area, which is 

88.8 percent white. While 11 of the 13 Planning Area 

counties are between 92.8 percent and 99.1 percent 

3-107 
CHAPTER 3 

Social and Economic Values 

white, two of the counties—Big Horn and Rosebud— 

include Indian reservations with substantial Native 

American populations. Big Horn County, where the 

population is 59.7 percent Native American, includes 

most of the Crow Reservation and part of the 

Northern Cheyenne Reservation. Rosebud County 

also includes part of the Northern Cheyenne 

Reservation and is 32.4 percent Native American. 

Bighorn and Rosebud counties are two of the 

counties with the most potential for CBNG activity. 

The percentage of the Montana population living in 

poverty is 15.5 percent; the average in the 13-county 

Planning Area is 14.3 percent. The Planning Area 

contains 27,934 persons below the poverty level, or 

about 20.6 percent of the state’s total below the 

poverty level. Nine of the 13 study-area counties 

have poverty rates greater than the state average. The 

county with the highest rate is Big Horn, where more 

than one quarter of the population had an income 

below the poverty level in 1997. 

An Amish community located along the Tongue 

River north of Ashland in Rosebud County could be 

considered a low-income population. This small 

community consists of 15 people (BLM 2003). 

Two typical field compressors. These four-stage, 6.0 million cubic foot per day, reciprocal compressors 

operate at 380 horsepower and use natural gas as a fuel. 

3-108 
CHAPTER 3 

Soils 

Soils 

Montana, with its wide mix of geologic parent 

material, has a vast array of different soil types. 

Differences in climate, parent material, topography 

and erosional conditions result in soils with diverse 

physical and chemical properties. The distribution 

and occurrence of soils can be highly variable and is 

dependent on a number of factors including slope, 

geology, vegetation, climate and age. All areas 

covered by the Billings and Powder River RMPs 

have had soils mapped. Soil surveys in some areas 

are currently being updated. More detailed 

information is available from Soil Survey Geographic 

Databases (SSURGO) at 

http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/ssur 

go/index.html. Interpretations and physical and 

chemical characteristics of soils, can be found in the 

Soils Appendix. 

The five major soil forming factors are as follows 

(Brady 1990): 

1. Climate—particularly temperature and 

precipitation. 

2. Living Organisms—especially native vegetation, 

microbes, soil animals and human beings. 

3. Nature of parent material. 

4. Topography of the site. 

5. Time that parent materials are subject to soil 

formation. 

Soils in the RMP areas are derived mainly from 

sedimentary bedrock and alluvium. The soils 

generally range from loams to clays, but are 

principally loams to silty clay loams. 

Soil salinity affects the suitability of a soil for crop 

production and the stability of the soil. The SAR is 

the measure of sodium relative to calcium and 

magnesium and affects the soil structure and 

infiltration rate of water. The Soils Technical Report 

presents a more detailed discussion pertaining to the 

salinity and SAR of the soils in the Billings RMP and 

Powder River RMP areas. A summary of this report 

is presented in the Soils Appendix. 

Irrigated Soils 

Virtually all of the irrigated lands are currently 

located in the river and stream valleys. Some dry 

farming occurs on the higher terraces above the 

valleys. Some of the land next to the rivers and major 

tributaries is irrigated for wheat, feed grains, alfalfa, 

grass hay, sugar beets and tame pasture (BLM 1992). 

However, most of the area is native range used for 

grazing livestock. 

The principal irrigated crops grown in the study area 

and their estimated acreages are shown below: 

PRINCIPAL CROPS IN STUDY AREA 

Irrigated Non-Irrigated 

Crop (acre) (acre) 

Wheat 17,200 535,100 

Barley 27,800 95,700 

Oats 5,000 15,400 

Corn 37,600 0 

Sugar Beets 26,200 0 

Alfalfa 139,500 279,500 

Grass Hay 49,500 126,500 

Source: Montana Department of Agriculture, Agricultural 

Statistics (2000) for 1999 Crop Year. 

3-109 
CHAPTER 3 

Solid and Hazardous Wastes 

Solid and Hazardous 

Wastes 

The BLM’s hazardous materials program priorities are 

to protect the public health and safety; protect natural 

and environmental resources; comply with applicable 

federal and state laws and regulations; and minimize 

future hazardous substance risks, costs and liabilities 

on public lands. BLM is responsible for all releases of 

hazardous materials on public lands and requires 

notification of all hazardous materials to be used or 

transported on public land. 

Solid and hazardous wastes can be generated during oil 

and gas and CBNG activity. These wastes are under the 

jurisdiction of the MDEQ for Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act (RCRA) wastes; the MBOGC for 

RCRA-exempt wastes such as drilling wastes; and the 

EPA on tribal lands. At the present time, wastes 

generated from the wellhead through the production 

stream to and through the gas plant are exempt from 

regulation as a hazardous waste under RCRA’s 

exploration and production exemption, but are covered 

by mineral leasing regulations. 

The exemption does not apply to natural gas as it 

leaves the gas plant for transportation to market. 

Releases must be reported in a timely manner to the 

National Response Center the same as any release 

covered under the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). 

Prior to a gas plant, releases are reported to the BLM 

via a Report of Undesirable Event (NTL-3A; 43 CFR 

3162.5-1(c)). The BLM requires immediate reporting 

of all Class I events, which involve the release of more 

than 100 barrels of fluid/500 MCF of gas, or fatalities. 

The MDEQ’s Waste and Underground Tank 

Management Bureau is responsible for administering 

both the Montana Solid Waste Management Act 

(75-10-201 et seq., MCA) and the Montana Hazardous 

Waste Act (75-10-401 et seq., MCA). 

It has been established by CERCLA that the owner of 

the land is ultimately responsible for hazardous 

materials or substances placed or released on their 

lands. Under CERCLA, the term “hazardous 

substance” is typically any toxic, corrosive, ignitable, 

explosive, or chemically reactive substance, but does 

not include petroleum, crude oil, natural gas, natural 

gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, or synthetic gas 

usable for fuel, or mixtures of natural gas and synthetic 

gas. According to MCA 82-10-505: the oil and gas 

developer or operator is responsible for all damages to 

property, real or personal, resulting from the lack of 

ordinary care by the oil and gas developer or operator. 

The oil and gas developer or operator is responsible for 

damages to property, real or personal, caused by 

drilling operations and production. This places the 

liability of any cleanup that results from spills or 

unused non-exempt waste and the removal of such 

waste (paint, acid, or other chemicals) to the oil and 

gas developer and operator. The oil and gas industry 

transports hazardous materials on the highways, stores 

and uses the materials at the sites and produces some 

hazardous wastes, such as paint waste from the 

painting of facilities and unused acid or chemicals that 

were not used in well treatments. This presents a 

potential for spills, leaks and illegal disposal. Reserve 

pits may be required to be lined, which reduces but 

does not eliminate leaks. Produced water is the 

predominant fluid, but some hazardous substances also 

are released. The content of the releases or spills will 

be varied and unpredictable. 

The transportation of hazardous materials is regulated 

by Montana’s Department of Transportation (MDT) 

under CFR Parts 171-180. These regulations pertain to 

packing, container handling, labeling, vehicle placarding 

and other safety aspects. The transportation of all 

hazardous waste materials in Montana must comply 

with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, part 

390 through part 397. 

The EPA requires manufacturers to report releases of 

more than 600 designated toxic chemicals into the 

environment. EPA compiles this data in an annual 

Toxics Release Inventory. Toxics Release Inventory 

facilities are required to report on releases of toxic 

chemicals into the air, water and land. In addition, they 

report on offsite, pollution prevention activities and 

chemical recycling. The Toxics Release Inventory also 

provides information about potentially hazardous 

chemicals and their use; however, the law does not 

cover toxic chemicals that reach the environment from 

non-industrial sources, such as dry cleaners or auto 

service stations. 

In 1998, EPA added seven new industries to the Toxics 

Release Inventory: metal mining, coal mining, 

electrical utilities that combust coal or oil, RCRA 

Subtitle C hazardous waste treatment and disposal 

facilities, chemicals and allied products wholesale 

distributors, petroleum bulk plants and terminals and 

solvent recovery services. There are currently (as of the 

end of 2003, the period for which the most recent data 

are available) eight facilities in the RMP areas that 

report Toxics Release Inventory information to the 

EPA, with most of them being related to the energy and 

mining industries. The Solid and Hazardous Waste 

Appendix contains the Toxics Release Inventory for 

Montana. 

3-110 
CHAPTER 3 

Vegetation 

Vegetation 

The land classification system developed by the 

University of Montana for the Montana Gap Analysis 

(MT-GAP) is used for this discussion because it has a 

large amount of detailed information about vegetation 

and wildlife distribution. All classification descriptions 

are from the MT-GAP project and acreage estimates 

and calculations are based on their data results (Fisher 

et al. 1998). 

The Planning Area includes six general land classes or 

vegetative communities: Agriculture/Urban Areas, 

Grassland, Shrubland, Forests, Riparian Areas and 

Barren Lands. (Non-riparian wetlands are also present 

but are widespread and generally in relatively small 

areal units compared to other land classes, so are not 

defined separately.) The six general land classification 

descriptions and their subdivisions will be explained in 

more detail below. All of these habitats are important 

to a wide variety of wildlife species. 

Plant Communities 

Grasslands 

Grasslands are among the most biologically productive 

of all vegetative communities because of soil nutrient 

retention and fast biological recycling. They are also 

very valuable because the vegetation is nutritious and 

used by livestock and by a large constituent of wildlife 

(Williams and Diebel 1996; Estes et al. 1982). 

Grassland sites are dominated by herbaceous canopy 

cover at greater than 15 percent, shrub cover at less 

than 15 percent and forest cover at less than 10 percent 

(Fisher et al. 1998). 

Grasslands cover an estimated 7.9 million acres of the 

13 counties that make up the SEIS Planning Area. This 

is almost twice as much land as any other vegetation 

type in the Planning Area. Those grasslands with 

underlying subbituminous or bituminous coal deposits 

cover 1.5 million acres of the Powder River RMP area 

and 1 million acres of the Billings RMP area. For 

grassland types, see the Vegetation Appendix. 

Shrublands 

Shrublands are characterized by shrub covers greater 

than 15 percent and forest cover less than 10 percent 

(Fisher et al. 1998). This vegetation type is dominant 

on approximately 4.8 million acres of the Planning 

Area. Of this, 1.7 million acres are underlain by 

subbituminous or bituminous coal deposits. Important 

shrubs include several species of sagebrush (Artemisia 

nova, A. tridentata ssp. tridentata, A. tridentata ssp. 

vaseyana, A. cana and A. tridentata ssp. wyomingensis) 

and shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia) or fourwing 

saltbush (Atriplex canescens). Other important shrub 

species in this category are bitterbrush (Purshia 

tridentata), creeping juniper (Juniperus horizontalis), 

greasewood (Sarcobatus spp.), mountain mahogany 

(Cercocarpus spp.), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.) 

and shadscale (Atriplex canescens). These shrublands 

are often associated with a complex of understory 

grasses such as bluebunch wheatgrass (Agropyron 

spicatum), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), Idaho 

fescue (Festuca idahoensis), needle and thread (Stipa 

comata) and western wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii). 

Forests 

Land is classified as forest if it has more than 

10 percent tree cover. Montana has 19 categories of 

forests under this classification. Within the Planning 

Area, 2.8 million acres are classified as forest. Of that, 

almost 1.3 million acres are underlain by 

subbituminous or bituminous coal deposits. Two forest 

types account for the majority of the forested areas 

within the Planning Area: Ponderosa Pine Forests and 

Low-Density Xeric Forests. Ponderosa Pine sites are 

dominated by ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) at 

20 to 80 percent cover. They are associated with big 

sagebrush, ninebark, snowberry, bluebunch 

wheatgrass, blue grama and Idaho fescue. Low-density 

xeric forests have tree cover at 5 to 20 percent with a 

grass understory. Dominant tree species are Douglas 

fir, limber pine, ponderosa pine, Rocky Mountain 

juniper, or Utah juniper (Fisher et al. 1998). 

Riparian Areas 

These are sites that are associated with intermittent and 

perennial water sources or with woody draws. Riparian 

areas are classified as Conifer, Broadleaf, Mixed 

Broadleaf and Conifer, Graminoid and Forb, Shrub and 

Mixed (Fisher et al. 1998). All riparian types have high 

species richness, which reaffirms why riparian sites are 

considered to be some of the most biologically diverse 

habitats anywhere. 

Other Wetlands 

Wetlands not associated with streams or rivers 

(riparian) are found in many low areas across Montana. 

In general, these wetlands (palustrine) are dominated 

by either emergent marsh vegetation, such as cattails, 

sedges and/rushes, or by shrub vegetation, such as 

willows. Forested wetlands many also be present in 

some areas. 

Barren Lands 

These are sites with less than 10 percent forest cover, 

less than 10 percent shrub cover and less than 

10 percent herbaceous cover (Fisher et al. 1998). The 

3-111 
CHAPTER 3 

Vegetation 

category name may imply that these areas have no 

biological value, but this would be misleading. 

Noxious Weeds 

Noxious weeds are generally non-native plants 

designated by federal, state, or local governments that 

can be directly or indirectly injurious to public health, 

agriculture, livestock, navigation, recreation, fish, 

wildlife, or property (Sheley et al. 1999; Montana 

Summit Steering Committee and Weed Management 

Task Force 2005). In disturbed areas, noxious weeds 

readily establish and may out-compete native plants. 

Once established, they can spread by aggressive 

vegetative growth and advantageous seed dispersal 

mechanisms. They are generally unpalatable, 

potentially toxic and highly competitive in native 

rangeland and riparian habitats. 

An indicator of the extent of exotic or introduced 

species, including noxious weeds, in the Planning Area 

was derived from the Montana GAP Analysis. 

MT-GAP was described previously under plant 

communities. The altered herbaceous habitats cover 

type includes areas dominated by noxious weeds and 

old agricultural field areas previously planted for 

pasture with crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) 

and yellow sweet-clover (Melilotus officinalis). The 

altered herbaceous habitats cover type encompasses 

approximately 36,969 acres underlain by 

subbituminous or bituminous coal beds in the Planning 

Area. This estimate includes land altered by exotic or 

introduced species and it is larger than surveyed areas 

for state-listed noxious weeds. The list of state of 

Montana noxious weeds is provided in the Vegetation 

Appendix (Table VEG-7). Detailed noxious weed 

surveys have been conducted for only small portions of 

the Planning Area. 

Since the spring of 2003, the state of Montana has 

increased the listed number of noxious weeds to 31 

from the 26 reported in the original EIS. The noxious 

weeds are divided into three categories. Category 1 

species are currently established and widespread in 

many counties. Category 2 weeds are recently 

introduced and are rapidly spreading. Category 3 

weeds are either not detected in Montana, or are 

usually found in small localized infestations. The 

Invaders Database at the University of Montana (2004) 

is an electronic database of noxious weeds in Montana. 

In the state, there are 15 plants classified as Category 1 

noxious weeds (Table VEG-7). 

Noxious weeds surveys were last reported in the 

Planning Area in 2002. Many of these weed 

occurrences were recorded during an extensive survey 

of weed populations conducted in 2002 along the 

Yellowstone River in Yellowstone County within the 

Billings RMP area. Approximately 2,690 weed 

occurrences were reported, covering approximately 

1,900 acres. In addition, 8 and 20 acres of noxious 

weeds were found in Carbon and Stillwater Counties, 

respectively, within the Billings RMP area. A few 

additional occurrences of noxious weeds, totaling 

2 acres, have been reported in Treasure County within 

the Powder River RMP area. 

See the Vegetation Appendix for a complete list of 

noxious weeds for Montana. 

Species of Concern 

Federally listed plant species have been designated as 

either threatened, endangered, or candidate species of 

concern under ESA. The MNHP (2005) did not report 

any federally listed plants currently present within the 

Planning Area. 

State Species of Concern 

In addition to species that are federally protected under 

the ESA, the state of Montana has designated 

additional species of concern within its jurisdictional 

boundaries. There are five rankings for State Species of 

Special Concern. This document focuses only on the 

highest ranking (S1). This ranking is defined as 

critically imperiled because of extreme rarity (five or 

fewer occurrences, or very few remaining individuals), 

or because some factor of its biology make it especially 

vulnerable to extinction. 

Special status or sensitive plant species on BLMadministered lands are managed through guidelines in 

Section 6840 of the BLM Manual. Sensitive species are 

those thought to be rare or imperiled by proper study 

and have been documented on BLM-administered land. 

Seven criteria outlined in Section 6840 are used to 

determine whether a species is at risk. The sensitive 

species designation is used to provide conservation 

actions for species to preclude the need for listing and 

to improve the status of species to the point where 

special status recognition is no longer warranted (BLM 

2005a). 

The Montana NHP maintains the statewide rare plant 

database for the state of Montana. Table VEG-8 

includes BLM, USFS and state species of concern 

identified by Montana NHP on September 23, 2005. 

State-listed species (with BLM and Forest Service 

rankings) that have potential distributions within the 

13-county Planning Area are listed in the Vegetation 

Appendix (see Table VEG-8). The Vegetation 

Appendix also includes the type of habitat where they 

are likely to be found (Montana NRIS 2001). 

Table VEG-6 links wildlife species to habitat 

requirements. 

The Montana NHP (2005) reported 45 BLM sensitive 

plant species of concern that occur in the Planning 

3-112 
Area. Thirteen USFS sensitive plant species also occur 

within the Planning Area (Table VEG-8). In addition, 

detailed surveys were conducted in selected areas in 

Rosebud (Barton and Crispin 2003), Big Horn (Carlson 

and Cooper 2003) and Powder River counties (Heidel 

et al. 2002). These studies identified several new 

occurrences of various BLM sensitive species in these 

areas. 

The large geographic area of the Planning Area 

supports a variety of habitats that support special status 

species. Currently, there are 83 state-listed species of 

concern in the 13-county Planning Area (Table VEG8). Most occurrences (42) have been documented in 

Carbon County. Conversely, only one special status 

species occurs in Golden Valley and in Musselshell 

counties. 

CHAPTER 3 

Vegetation 

Thirteen special-status species have been reported in 

Big Horn County, while nine occur in both Powder 

River and Rosebud counties. This disparity in species 

occurrences reflects the degree of diversity of habitats 

in the area, but also may result from less extensive field 

surveys conducted in some areas. Fifteen species of 

concern are restricted to alpine habitats, which would 

not be affected by CBNG development. Historic maps 

for most species of concern show much wider 

distributions than present distributions. 

3-113 
CHAPTER 3 

Visual Resource Management 

Visual Resource 

Management 

Visual resources are visual features in the Montana 

landscape that include landform, water, vegetation, 

color, adjacent scenery, uniqueness or rarity, structures 

and other man-made features. The 13 counties in the 

Planning Area portray a variety of landscapes and 

habitats, all with different visual qualities. Current 

visual resource management is in accordance with the 

two RMPs. The four classes are as follows: 

• Class I—preserve the existing character of the 

landscape 

• Class II—retain the existing character of the 

landscape 

• Class III—partially retain the existing character of 

the landscape 

• Class IV—provide for management activities that 

require major modifications to the existing 

character of the landscape 

Non-federal land is not under any visual resource 

management system although there are often visual 

quality concerns. Federally authorized projects, 

however, undergo a visual assessment to comply with 

aesthetic requirements. Typically, sensitive areas 

include residential areas, recreation sites, historical 

sites, significant landmarks or topographic features, or 

any areas where existing visual quality is valued. 

Three CBNG well heads forming a field pod near Decker, Montana. Each well is drilled to a 

different depth and into a different layer of coal. 

3-114 
Wilderness Study Areas 

Six wilderness study areas (WSA) are within the 

Planning Area: 

• Carbon County 

− Burnt Timber Canyon WSA 

− Pryor Mountain WSA 

− Big Horn Tack-On WSA 

• Golden Valley County 

− Twin Coulee WSA 

CHAPTER 3 

Wilderness Study Areas 

• Rosebud County 

− Zook Creek WSA 

• Powder River County 

− Buffalo Creek WSA 

Monitoring reports for these WSAs list little or no 

activity with the exception of some minor vehicle 

tracks found in the Pryor Mountain WSA, Big Horn 

Tack-On WSA and Burnt Timber Canyon WSA. 

3-115 
CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

Wildlife 

The SEIS Planning Area covers a large portion of 

southeast and south central Montana and includes 

substantial geographic and topographic variation and a 

wide variety of plant communities and wildlife habitat 

types. This combination of factors results in diverse 

wildlife communities, with some species having 

widespread occurrence throughout the Planning Area 

and others being restricted to one or a few specialized 

habitats and locations. 

The Vegetation section described the predominant 

native plant communities that provide habitat for 

wildlife in the Planning Area. These include a variety 

of grassland, shrubland, forest and riparian habitat 

types. Drier grasslands and shrublands are dominant 

with breaks, badlands, coulees, wooded draws, open 

conifer forests and riparian shrub and forest 

communities along perennial and intermittent 

drainages. Two other cover types present in the 

Planning Area include open water and a variety of 

agricultural land uses, both of which provide important 

habitat value to certain species during some seasons. 

Additionally, special habitat features such as cliffs, 

snags, springs, natural potholes, reservoirs, lakes and 

islands are present in the Planning Area. 

Mammals 

The variety of locations, topography and cover types in 

the Planning Area support many mammal species. The 

MT-GAP atlas of terrestrial vertebrates (MT-GAP 

1998) shows the known distribution of vertebrates in 

Montana. It indicates the Planning Area supports 

10 species of bats; 8 species of shrews; 34 other 

species of small mammals and lagomorphs; 

17 omnivores or predators ranging in size from the 

least weasel (Mustela nivalis) to the black bear (Ursus 

americanus) and mountain lion (Felis concolor); and 

5 to 7 big game species. Several of these species have 

suffered substantial habitat loss and population decline 

and are considered to be rare or are protected by 

federal statutes. These species are addressed in the 

Species of Concern (SOC) section. 

Some of the more common predators include the 

coyote (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), 

raccoon (Procyon lotor), badger (Taxidea taxus) and 

striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). Local occurrence of 

these and other predators varies by habitat type. 

Big game species common within parts or all of the 

Planning Area include elk (Cervus elaphus), mule deer 

(Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer 

(O. virginianus) and pronghorn (Antilocapra 

americana). The MT-GAP (1998) provides the 

following summary of habitat preferences for these 

species. 

Elk habitat preference is described as including moist 

sites during the summer. Elk use open areas such as 

alpine pastures, marshy meadows, river flats and aspen 

parkland as well as coniferous forests, brushy clearcuts 

and forest edges. High-quality winter range is critical 

to long-term elk survival. The distribution of elk winter 

habitat in the planning area is shown on Map 3-12. 

Mule deer are the most widely distributed big game 

species in Montana and occupy a wide range of habitat 

types during the year. Breaks, badlands and brushy 

draws are preferred in open prairie country. 

McCracken and Uresk (1984) reported that both 

hardwood and pine forests were important to mule deer 

in southeastern Montana, with hardwood forests 

preferred. The Billings RMP (BLM 1983) indicates 

that although mule deer occur throughout the Planning 

Area, they are more abundant in the open shrubgrassland habitats adjacent to timbered or broken 

terrain. Habitat such as riparian bottoms, agricultural 

areas and forests are used as well, either year long or 

seasonally. Winter ranges are typically at lower 

elevation than summer ranges and are often dominated 

by shrub species that provide crucial browse. The 

distribution of mule deer winter range in the Planning 

Area is shown in Map 3-13. 

In the Powder River RMP area, mule deer use all 

habitat types, but generally prefer sagebrush, grassland 

and conifer (BLM 1984b). Broken terrain provides 

important cover in these habitats (Hamlin 1978). 

Browse is an important component in the mule deer 

annual diet. Observations by the Montana Department 

of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (Youmans et al. 1982), 

indicated 73 percent of the mule deer observed in 

winter concentration areas in southeastern Montana 

were in rough topography, especially in pinedominated habitats. However, along the Powder and 

Little Missouri Rivers, however, riparian habitat 

accounted for 94 percent of the wintering mule deer 

concentrations, probably due to the lack of rough 

breaks. These habitats are crucial to herd survival in 

the Powder River RMP area. There appears to be little 

or no seasonal migration of mule deer in southeastern 

Montana (BLM 1984b). The Wildlife Surveys and 

Monitoring since the Statewide Document section 

provides information on the number of mule deer and 

other ungulates observed on the southern portion of the 

Northern Cheyenne Reservation and in the Planning 

Area. 

White-tailed deer also occur throughout Montana but 

are more restricted by habitat preference than are mule 

deer. Preferred habitats include forest types, 

agricultural fields and prairie areas adjacent to cover. 

Mesic areas such as riparian areas and montane forests 

are preferred in the drier portions of central and eastern 

3-116 
CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

Montana. McCracken and Uresk (1984) reported a 

strong preference for hardwood forests in southeastern 

Montana. During the winter, white-tailed deer using 

forested areas prefer dense canopy classes, moist 

habitat types, uncut areas and low snow depths. 

Suitable winter range is a key habitat factor for whitetailed deer and winter concentration areas occur almost 

exclusively in riparian-wetland habitats and in dense 

pine (Youmans and Swenson 1982). Although whitetailed deer move on and off winter range, as dictated by 

seasonal habitat requirements, the animals do not 

migrate long distances (Hamlin 1978). The distribution 

of white-tailed deer winter habitat in the PRB is shown 

on Map 3-14. 

Pronghorn are relatively common throughout eastern 

and central Montana and occupy a variety of grassland 

and shrubland habitats on prairies, semi-desert areas 

and foothills. Summer habitat preferences are reported 

to include mixed shrub communities, perennial 

grasslands, silver sagebrush stands, annual forblands 

and croplands (Armstrup 1978; Wentland 1968). 

McCracken and Uresk (1984) reported a strong 

preference to sagebrush-grassland cover types in 

southeastern Montana. Sagebrush-grasslands with 

shrubs 12 to 24 inches tall are preferred in the winter 

when sagebrush composes a significant portion of the 

pronghorn diet (Bayless 1967). The distribution of 

pronghorn winter habitat in the PRB is shown on Map 

3-15. 

The range of moose (Alces alces) overlaps with coalbearing lands in Carbon County. Moose habitat 

generally consists of a mosaic of second-growth forest, 

openings, swamps, lakes and wetlands. Water bodies 

are required for foraging and hardwood-conifer forests 

provide winter cover. Willow flats may provide 

yearlong habitat in some areas (Stone 1971) and closed 

canopy stands may be important in late winter 

(Mattson and Despain 1985). 

The other two big game species that may occur in the 

Planning Area include the mountain goat (Oreamnos 

americanus) and Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep 

(Ovis canadensis). Mountain goats typically occupy 

alpine and subalpine habitats, steep grassy talus slopes, 

grassy ledges and cliffs, or alpine meadows. Both 

mountain goats and mountain sheep may overlap with 

coal-bearing lands in southwestern and southern 

Carbon County, respectively. The Pryor Mountain 

bighorn herd, which occurs south of Billings, is 

estimated at 125 to 150 individuals as of the 2005/2006 

winter index count conducted by MFWP (Stewart, 

2006). Grasses and forbs provide the major portion of 

their yearlong diet, which is supplemented with browse 

types such as curlleaf mountain mahogany and 

sagebrush (USFWS 1978). Little information is 

currently available on the migratory routes of this herd. 

In eastern Montana, most mule deer and elk winter 

range is located on relatively large areas of land with a 

diversity of slopes, aspects and topographic features 

(MBOGC 1989). Winter range is often part of yearround habitat. 

Prairie dog towns provide habitat for more than 

163 vertebrate species, including several rare or 

endangered species such as the burrowing owl (Athene 

cunicularia), swift fox (Vulpes velox), mountain plover 

(Charadrius montanus) and black-footed ferret 

(Mustela nigripes), an endangered species (Reading et 

al. 1989, Koford 1958, Tyler 1968, Campbell and 

Clark 1981, Clark et al. 1982 and Agnew 1983). Most 

prairie dog towns in the Planning Area are composed 

of black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus); 

white-tailed prairie dogs (C. leucurus) are found only 

along the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River in 

Carbon County, which is at the northern limit of its 

range. 

As noted above, at least 10 species of bats probably 

occur in the Planning Area. Additional species migrate 

through central and eastern Montana. Habitat varies by 

species and includes caves, large-diameter hollow 

trees, old buildings, abandoned mines, rock crevices 

and under the loose bark on large trees. 

As noted above, at least 42 species of small mammals 

and lagomorphs occur in the Planning Area. MFWP 

has expressed particular concern about the Preble’s 

shrew (Sorex preblei) and Merriam’s shrew 

(S. merriami). Preble’s shrew has a spotty distribution 

associated with dry sagebrush and sagebrush 

grasslands (Hoffman and Pattie 1968) and riparian 

shrubs (Allen et al. 1994, Ports and George 1990). 

Merriam’s shrew is apparently somewhat more widely 

distributed in the Planning Area. It occupies the same 

general habitat types as the Preble’s shrew plus 

grasslands and open ponderosa pine stands (MT-GAP 

1998). 

Birds 

As noted for mammals, the variety of locations, 

topography and cover types in the Planning Area also 

support many bird species. The MT-GAP (1998) 

indicates that more than 250 species of birds occur in 

the Planning Area. Some are yearlong residents; a few 

migrate south into the Planning Area during the winter 

and most breed in the Planning Area and winter to the 

south. Approximate numbers of species include 

32 waterfowl and related species; 33 shore and wading 

birds; 18 diurnal and 11 nocturnal raptors; 8 species of 

gallinaceous birds; 8 woodpeckers; and 137 songbirds, 

including many neotropical migrants. Species richness 

and breeding bird densities are highest in riparian 

woodlands and wetland habitats. 

3-117 
Wildlife 

CHAPTER 3 

3-118 
CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

3-119 
Wildlife 

CHAPTER 3 

3-120 
CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

3-121 
CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

Waterfowl 

The Planning Area is within the Central Flyway, which 

has important migration corridors. Lands in the 

Planning Area also fall within the Prairie Pothole Joint 

Venture Management Zone established through the 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The 

Prairie Pothole Joint Venture is thought to contain the 

most important duck-breeding habitat in North 

America. Many spring runoff ponds in the Planning 

Area provide important habitat for nesting waterfowl. 

The major rivers and stock ponds provide important 

habitat for resident ducks and geese, as well as resting 

areas for migrants. A large variety of ducks, geese and 

shorebirds use riparian-wetland habitats within the 

Planning Area for both nesting and migration 

stopovers. Common species include the mallard (Anas 

platyrhynchos), pintail (A. acuta), gadwall 

(A. strepera), blue-winged teal (A. discors), common 

merganser (Mergus merganser), Canada goose (Branta 

canadensis), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) and 

American avocet (Recurvirostra americana). The 

Yellowstone and Clarks Fork drainages are used 

heavily for nesting by Canada geese and some species 

of ducks. Nesting occurs mostly on established islands 

and brushy riparian-wetland areas, providing protection 

from predators. 

Hansen (2001) identified several specific areas that are 

important to waterfowl and shorebirds. One critical 

habitat (for waterfowl and shorebird nesting and 

migration) is the Lake Mason National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR), its entire watershed and some associated 

shallow lakes located in Musselshell County. Another 

is the Spidel Waterfowl Production Area, USFWS area 

for waterfowl and shorebirds located at the edge of one 

of the coal areas about 3 miles northeast of Broadview. 

A group of major waterfowl and shorebird areas 

located in Stillwater County between Molt and Rapelje 

includes Big Lake, Halfbreed NWR and Hailstone 

NWR. 

The Yellowstone River through Yellowstone, Big 

Horn, Treasure, Rosebud and Custer counties is a 

major habitat for nesting, migrating and wintering 

waterfowl. Also, the Howrey Island ACEC is a large 

island in the Yellowstone River in Treasure County 

that provides valuable habitat for waterfowl and many 

other species. 

Raptors 

Many of the raptors occurring in the Planning Area 

have been identified by the state of Montana, the 

USFS, or BLM as sensitive species or species of 

special interest or concern (Flath 1991; Houtcooper et 

al. 1985). Those listed by the state include the 

ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), osprey (Pandion 

haliaetus), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), 

northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), golden eagle 

(Aquila chrysaetos), merlin (Falco columbarius), 

prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), burrowing owl, 

flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus), great gray owl 

(Strix nebulosa) and Boreal owl (Aegolius funereus). 

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is discussed 

in the Species of Concern section. 

Raptor surveys conducted from 2002 to 2005 in 

proposed CBNG drilling and pipeline development 

areas in Big Horn and Powder River counties, redtailed hawk nests were the most frequently detected 

raptor nest (see the Wildlife Surveys and Monitoring 

Since the Statewide Document section). 

Burrowing owls are of particular interest because of the 

rapid decline in their numbers (MT-GAP 1998). They 

occur in a variety of open habitat types, nesting and 

roosting in burrows dug by mammals (AOU 1983). 

They appear to be totally dependent on these mammal 

burrows with prairie dog towns providing prime habitat 

(MT-GAP 1998). Raptor surveys conducted from 2002 

to 2005 in proposed CBNG drilling and pipeline 

development areas in Big Horn and Powder River 

counties, active burrowing owl nesting areas were 

detected in three of seven surveys (see the Wildlife 

Surveys and Monitoring Since the Statewide Document 

section). 

Ferruginous hawks occupy relatively undisturbed 

prairie and shrub steppe regions with scattered trees, 

rock outcrops and wooded stream bottoms (Evans 

1982; Clark et al. 1989). MFWP notes there are a few 

pairs that apparently nest along tributaries in both the 

Powder River and Tongue River watersheds. 

Ferruginous hawks have declined throughout their 

range over the last 30 years. In seven raptor surveys 

conducted from 2002 to 2005 in proposed CBNG 

drilling and pipeline development areas in Big Horn 

and Powder River counties, one active ferruginous 

hawk nest was detected (see the Wildlife Surveys and 

Monitoring Since the Statewide Document section). 

Merlins have also suffered substantial population 

declines. They occur in sparsely treed prairie, prairie 

parkland, along stream bottoms and in grassland 

habitats. MFWP notes merlins were present in the 

Powder River watershed, but little current information 

is available. No merlin nest sites were detected in the 

seven raptor surveys mentioned above. 

Upland Game Birds 

The following section from the Billings and Powder 

River RMPs describes habitat preferences and 

important natural history information for the prairie 

sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus jamesi) 

and sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) that 

applies to the entire Planning Area. Sharp-tails are 

widely distributed and are generally found in the 

3-122 
CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

grassland, shrub-grassland and woodland vegetation 

areas. Sharp-tail habitat includes hills, benchlands and 

other areas of rolling topography that have good stands 

of residual cover composed chiefly of grasses for 

roosting, feeding and nesting. Dancing grounds, or 

leks, are usually flat areas on elevated knolls or 

benches. The dancing or mating sites are nearly bare of 

vegetation, although brushy cover is located nearby for 

feeding and escape. The breeding and nesting period 

from March to June is the most critical period in the 

life cycle. Females nest and raise their broods in the 

grassy uplands, with most nests located within 4 miles 

of mating grounds. 

Studies in southwestern North Dakota have shown 

more than 90 percent of the nest sites occurred in areas 

with residual vegetation over 6 inches high and 70 

percent of brood locations were in vegetation over 

9 inches high (Kohn 1976). Habitat preferences in this 

Planning Area are similar. 

Sage-grouse are discussed under Species of Concern 

later in this Wildlife section. 

Neotropical Migrants 

A wide variety of neotropical migrants pass through or 

breed in the Planning Area. Habitat types expected to 

support the highest species richness and breeding 

densities include cottonwood and green ash riparian 

communities (Hopkins 1984) and emergent wetland 

communities. Several species of birds declining in 

numbers, including Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus 

bairdii), Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii), chestnutcollared longspur (Calcarius lapponicus) and 

McCown’s longspur (Calcarius mccownii) are found in 

the Planning Area. A number of other bird species, 

including the Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) and 

loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), are also 

declining throughout their range (Hansen 2001) and 

found within the Planning Area. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

The MT-GAP (1998) indicates that the Planning Area 

supports 9 species of amphibians and 14 species of 

reptiles. These include one salamander, four frogs, four 

toads, three turtles, two lizards and nine snakes. MFWP 

has expressed particular concern about nine of these 

species, including the northern leopard frog (Rana 

pipiens), boreal/western toad (Bufo boreas), Great 

Plains toad (Bufo cognatus), Plains spadefoot (Spea 

bombifrons), western hog-nose snake (Heterdon 

nasicus), milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum), 

greater short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi), 

snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentine) and spiny 

softshell turtle (Trionyx spiniferus). 

Leopard frogs have declined substantially in western 

and to a somewhat lesser extent, central Montana 

(MT-GAP 1998). They are locally abundant in 

southeastern Montana (Reichel and Flath 1995). They 

are associated with permanent slow moving water 

bodies with considerable vegetation, but may also 

range into moist meadows and grassy woodlands and 

occasionally agricultural areas (Nussbaum et al. 1983). 

They are most often associated with riparian habitats 

and near permanent water. Tiger salamanders occur 

throughout the Planning Area wherever there is 

terrestrial substrate suitable for burrowing and a nearby 

body of water for breeding (MT-GAP 1998). All 

amphibians are particularly susceptible to effects from 

water quality degradation because larval stages are 

spent in water and they absorb water through their skin 

during all life stages. 

The western hognose snake occurs in a variety of 

habitats throughout central and eastern Montana. They 

are especially associated with arid areas, prairie 

grasslands and shrublands and floodplains with gravely 

or sandy soils (Reichel and Flath 1995). Milk snakes 

occur in suitable habitats throughout south central and 

southeastern Montana. Preferred habitats include 

sandstone bluffs, rock outcrops, grasslands and open 

ponderosa pine and juniper stands (Hendricks and 

Reichel 1996). The spiny softshell is a riverine species 

that occurs primarily in the larger rivers of southeastern 

Montana. It is found in well-oxygenated, slower 

moving water with nearby mud flats and sandbars and 

occasionally in back water sloughs (MT-GAP 1998). 

Species of Concern 

This section discusses wildlife species of concern that 

occur in the Planning Area. These include species 

listed or proposed for protection under the ESA, 

species classified as sensitive by the BLM or Forest 

Service and species considered to be critically 

imperiled in the State of Montana. Table 3-39 and the 

following discussion present information about the 

species protected under ESA. 

Birds 

Bald Eagle 

This species was removed from the list of threatened 

and endangered species in 2007. Bald eagles 

concentrate in and around areas of open water where 

waterfowl and fish are available. They prefer solitude, 

late-successional forests, shorelines adjacent to open 

water, a large prey base for successful brood rearing 

and large, mature trees for nesting and roosting. 

Bald eagle recovery zones include the Powder and 

Missouri rivers. Bald eagles nest along the 

Yellowstone River in Rosebud and Custer counties and 

the Tongue River in Custer and Powder River counties. 

The Yellowstone River is used during spring and fall 

3-123 
CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

TABLE 3-39 

ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND PROPOSED ANIMAL SPECIES PRESENT IN THE 

SEIS PLANNING AREA 

Federal 

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat in Montana Status* 

Birds 

interior least tern Sterna antillarum Sandbars and beaches in eastern Montana and along the E 

athalassos Yellowstone and Missouri rivers 

Mammals 

gray wolf Canis lupus Adapted to many habitats, need large ungulate prey base E/10(j) 

and freedom from human influence 

Canada lynx Felis lynx Montana spruce/fir forest in western Montana T 

canadensis 

black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes Prairie dog complexes in eastern Montana E 

grizzly bear Ursus arctos Alpine/subalpine coniferous forest in western Montana T 

horribilis 

*T = Threatened; E = Endangered; C = Candidate; PT = Proposed Threatened; 

E/10(j) = Endangered/Experimental Nonessential Populations. 

migration. Peak occurrence is November through 

April. The Missouri, Yellowstone, Musselshell, 

Tongue and Powder rivers provide habitat during 

migration as well as during the winter months. Bald 

eagles currently are expanding their nesting territories 

down the Yellowstone River (Flath 1991). 

Bald eagle winter roost and nest surveys have been 

conducted in association with the POD areas (Dry 

Creek, Pond Creek, Deer Creek North, Coal Creek and 

Badger Hills). These surveys are conducted for the area 

covered by the POD as well as a 2-mile buffer. 

Additionally, winter roost and nest surveys have been 

conducted along the Tongue River corridor from the 

Wyoming state line to below the Tongue River 

Reservoir along the Tongue River corridor. Surveys are 

ongoing and have been conducted by Fidelity 

Exploration, Quaneco, Powder River Gas and BLM. 

Three bald eagle winter habitat/roost surveys were 

completed within the Upper Tongue River in 2004. The 

survey route started at Birney, Montana, to 

approximately 5 miles south of the Montana/Wyoming 

border at the intersection of the Tongue River and 

Wyoming Highway 338. Survey results were as 

follows: 

• January 14th —15 bald eagles (9 mature and 6 

immature) were observed at 11 locations. 

• February 2nd—17 bald eagles (9 mature and 

8 immature) were observed at 9 locations. 

• March 4th—50 bald eagles (24 mature/26 

immature) were observed at 22 locations. 

The increase in numbers of bald eagles in the March 

flight was due, in part, to this portion of the river 

containing relatively little ice cover. The Wildlife 

Surveys and Monitoring since the Statewide Document 

section provides additional information on recent bald 

eagle surveys. 

Interior Least Tern 

The historic distribution of the interior least tern is the 

major river systems of the plains states and midwestern 

U.S. The occurrence of breeding least terns is localized 

and is highly dependent on the presence of dry, 

exposed sandbars and favorable river flows that 

support a forage fish supply and isolate the sandbars 

from the riverbanks. Characteristic riverine nesting 

sites are dry, flat, sparsely vegetated sand and gravel 

bars within a wide, unobstructed, water-filled river 

channel. In the upper Missouri River Basin, it often 

nests with piping plovers. During spring and fall 

migrations, the least tern uses stockwater reservoirs 

(Flath 1991). 

The least tern is known to nest in the Planning Area. Its 

habitat includes graveled islands in the lower 

Yellowstone River. 

Peregrine Falcon 

The peregrine falcon was delisted on August 25, 1999 

and protection from take and commerce for the 

peregrine falcon is no longer provided under the ESA. 

However, peregrine falcons are still protected by the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA and 

its implementing regulations (50 CFR parts 20 and 21) 

prohibit take, possession, import, export, transport, 

3-124 
selling, purchase, barter, or offering for sale, purchase, 

or barter any migratory bird, their eggs, parts and nests, 

except as authorized under a valid permit (50 CFR 

21.11). With limited exceptions, take will not be 

permitted under MBTA until a management plan is 

developed in cooperation with state wildlife agencies, 

undergoes public review, is approved, finalized and 

published in the FR. 

Peregrine falcons migrate through the Planning Area 

during spring and fall, especially along rivers and other 

water bodies that support waterfowl and shorebirds. 

Peregrines are believed to nest northeast of Great Falls, 

possibly within the Planning Area. 

Mammals 

Gray Wolf 

This species was listed as endangered on March 11, 

1967. On November 18, 1994, the USFWS announced 

experimental populations of this species would be 

reintroduced in central Idaho and southwestern 

Montana. Populations classified as experimental are 

exempt from full endangered status. Historically, the 

gray wolf ranged throughout Montana. It appears to 

have been common throughout the state, inhabiting 

both short and tall grass prairie as well as forested 

regions. It has no particular habitat preference, but 

requires areas with low human population, low road 

density and high prey density, which are ideally large, 

wild ungulates. 

Most confirmed wolf sightings and pack accounts are 

for western Montana, along the Bitterroot divide and in 

the areas around Yellowstone National Park, where it 

has been reintroduced (Fisher et al. 1998). 

The most recent Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 

Annual Report estimates the experimental wolf 

population in southern Montana to be 73 wolves 

(MFWP, 2008). The range of the Moccasin Lake, 

Phantom Lake, Red Lodge and Beartooth wolf packs 

occurs within, or partially within, the Planning Area 

(USFWS et al. 2005). 

Canada Lynx 

This species was listed as threatened on March 24, 

2000. It is dependent on snowshoe hares and found in 

the same habitats, which include dense, mature oldgrowth lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, Engelmann spruce 

and subalpine fir forest. Distribution and primary 

potential habitats for Montana are in the western 

portion of the State in mature coniferous forests with a 

well-developed understory. Dens are primarily located 

in mature lodgepole pine and spruce-fir forests. 

CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

Black-footed Ferret 

Black-footed ferrets depend almost exclusively on 

prairie dogs for food and shelter. They primarily prey 

on prairie dogs and use their burrows for shelter and 

dens. Ferret range is coincident with that of prairie 

dogs. There is no documentation of black-footed ferrets 

breeding outside of prairie dog colonies. There are 

specimen records of black-footed ferrets from ranges of 

three species of prairie dogs: the black-tailed prairie 

dog (Cynomys ludovicianus), white-tailed prairie dog 

(Cynomys leucurus) and Gunnison’s prairie dog 

(Cynomys gunnisoni). 

Several releases of black-footed ferrets have taken 

place over the years on public land and the Fort 

Belknap Indian Reservation north of the Planning Area 

in Phillips County, Montana. Black-footed ferrets have 

been released on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation in 

January of 2008 and additional ferrets will be released 

the summer of 2008. This population is considered 

endangered (Hanebury 2008). In Montana, the goal is 

to reestablish two viable populations with a minimum 

of 50 breeding adults in each. 

Grizzly Bear 

This species was listed as threatened on March 11, 

1967. On November 11, 2000, the USFWS listed some 

populations in Montana and Idaho as experimental in 

order to facilitate restoration to designated recovery 

areas. The grizzly bear was once found in a wide 

variety of habitats including open prairie, brushlands, 

riparian woodlands and semidesert scrub. Its 

distribution in Montana is now limited to the Northern 

Continental Divide Ecosystem and the Yellowstone 

Ecosystem with a few in the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem. 

Scattered individuals may occur in the mountainous 

areas of western Montana. It no longer exists in the 

wild in eastern Montana. Most populations require vast 

areas of suitable habitat to prosper. This species is 

common only in habitats where food is abundant and 

concentrated, including white-bark pine, berries and 

salmon or cutthroat runs and where conflicts with 

humans are minimal. 

State Species of Special Concern 

In addition to species that are federally protected under 

the ESA, the State of Montana has designated 

additional species of concern within its jurisdictional 

boundaries. There are five rankings for State Species of 

Special Concern. This document focuses only on the 

highest ranking (S1). This ranking is defined as 

critically imperiled because of extreme rarity (five or 

fewer occurrences, or very few remaining individuals), 

3-125 
CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

or because some factor of its biology makes it 

especially vulnerable to extinction. 

State-listed species (with BLM and USFS rankings) 

that have potential distributions within the 13-county 

Planning Area of this SEIS or have undefined 

distributions in the state are listed in the Wildlife 

Appendix, Wildlife Species of Concern (see 

Table WIL-1 for Special Status Species of State of 

Montana, BLM and USFS). Species that are federally 

listed under the ESA have been omitted from these 

tables because they have been considered. 

Table WIL-1 also lists vertebrate species of concern for 

the state, BLM, or the USFS. 

The Statewide Document included three other species 

proposed for listing or considered possible candidates 

for listing under ESA. These species include sagegrouse, mountain plover and black-tailed prairie dog 

and are discussed below. 

Birds

Sage-grouse

Previously considered a possible candidate for listing 

under ESA, USFWS determined the sage-grouse is not 

warranted for listing, because the species is not likely 

to become endangered or threatened in the foreseeable 

future (USFWS 2005b). However, a recent ruling in 

Idaho (December 2007) remanded the decision not to 

list the sage grouse back to the USFWS for 

reconsideration. This species is a BLM and a Forest 

Service sensitive species. 

Sage-grouse Distribution, Habitat Needs 

and Population Dynamics 

Sage-grouse are native to the sagebrush steppe of 

western North America and their distribution closely 

follows that of sagebrush, primarily big sagebrush 

(Montana Sage-grouse Work Group 2005). The 

importance of mature sagebrush with a good 

understory of grasses and forbs is well documented. In 

eastern Montana, where close interspersion of 

wintering, nesting, breeding and brood-rearing habitat 

rarely require large seasonal movements, sage-grouse 

are essentially nonmigratory. Seasonal habitat 

components for sage-grouse are described in 

Table 3-40 and habitat distribution and use within the 

Planning Area are depicted in Map 3-16. 

Sage-grouse densities for Wyoming and Montana are 

shown on Map 3-17. Densities were derived from male 

lek attendance and are meant to illustrate the 

importance of the PRB to sage-grouse (Draft Greater 

Sage Grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy). 

The map illustrates the importance of the PRB for 

connectivity for sage-grouse. 

Sage-grouse males appear to form strutting grounds 

(leks) opportunistically at sites within or next to 

potential nesting habitat. Although the lek may be an 

approximate center of annual ranges for non-migratory 

populations (Eng and Schladweiler 1972, Wallestad 

and Pyrah 1974, Wallestad and Schladweiler 1975), 

this may not be the case for migratory populations 

(Connelly et al. 1988, Wakkinen et al. 1992). Average 

distances between nests and nearest leks vary from 

0.66 to 3.75 miles, but the documented distances from 

leks with which females were associated to their nests 

have exceeded 12 miles (Autenrieth 1981, Wakkinen et 

al. 1992, Fischer 1994, Hanf et al. 1994, Lyon 2000). 

Nests are placed independent of lek location (Bradbury 

et al. 1989, Wakkinen et al. 1992). Nesting habitat is 

usually located under sagebrush with about 50 percent 

of the nests within 2 miles of leks (Wallestad and 

Pyrah 1974, Martin 1970). 

Since the 1950s, counts of sage-grouse males on leks 

have been used to provide an index of relative size and 

trends of breeding populations of sage-grouse in 

Montana (Montana Sage-grouse Work Group 2005). 

Statewide, sage-grouse numbers increased from the 

mid-1960s through 1973 and fluctuated at about the 

same level until 1984. Sage-grouse declined rather 

sharply statewide from 1991 through 1996 and 

increased through 2000. 

Results illustrated in Table 3-41 bear out the general 

trend of sage-grouse in the Planning Area. Results 

indicate average male high counts from 2002 to 2004 

were lower than those from 1999 to 2001 (Table 3-41). 

3-126 
CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

TABLE 3-40 

CHARACTERISTICS OF SAGE-GROUSE SEASONAL HABITATS 

Seasonal Habitat Characteristics 

Breeding Strutting grounds (leks) where breeding actually occurs are key activity areas and most often consist of 

clearings surrounded by sagebrush cover. 

Nesting Sagebrush (with a combination of shrub [sage-grouse most frequently select nesting cover with a 

sagebrush canopy of 15 to 31 percent] and residual grass cover) provides for concealment of nests. 

Brood-rearing Relatively open (generally canopy cover from 1 to 25 percent) stands of sagebrush contain an abundance 

and diversity of succulent forbs. In late summer, sage-grouse often move to moist areas still supporting 

succulent vegetation, including alfalfa fields, roadside ditches and other moist sites. 

Winter Relatively tall and large expanses of dense sagebrush are present. The importance of shrub height 

increases with snow depth; thus, snow depth can limit the availability of wintering sites for sage-grouse. 

Source: Montana Sage-grouse Work Group 2005. 

TABLE 3-41 

SAGE-GROUSE ACTIVE LEK AVERAGE MALE HIGH COUNTS IN THE PLANNING AREA, 

1995 TO 2004 

Year Number of Active Leks Surveyed Average Male High Count for Active Leks1 

1995 4 10.3 

1996 9 12.1 

1997 4 21.0 

1998 4 20.0 

1999 39 21.4 

2000 73 25.2 

2001 67 22.2 

2002 52 14.0 

2003 73 10.3 

2004 42 14.0 

Source: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (2004). 

1 Values are based on those active leks where at least one male was observed during a given year. 

3-127 
Wildlife 

CHAPTER 3 

3-128 
CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

Sage-grouse Diet 

Sagebrush provides 80 to 100 percent of sage-grouses’ 

winter diet (Wallestad and Schladweiler 1975, Martin 

1970, Eng and Schladweiler 1972). Forbs, especially 

dandelion and salsify and insects are an important 

dietary component for the juveniles and adults in the 

spring and summer and wet meadows and other 

riparian areas are heavily used in the summer as 

sagebrush areas dry out. 

West Nile Virus 

West Nile virus (WNV) is a disease transmitted to 

birds and other animals by the mosquito (Culex 

tarsalis). Mosquitoes can potentially breed in any 

standing water that lasts more than four days. 

However, Culex tarsalis depends at least somewhat on 

water bodies with emergent vegetation (BLM 2005b). 

Since publication of the Statewide Document, research 

has indicated that WNV is affecting sage-grouse 

(Naugle et al. 2004, Walker et al. 2004). A report 

published by Naugle and others in 2004 indicated 

WNV reduced late summer 2003 female sage-grouse 

survival an average of 25 percent in four radio-marked 

populations in Montana, Wyoming and Canada 

(Naugle et al. 2004). In the following spring (2004), 

the researchers discovered breeding sage-grouse 

populations declined precipitously in an area of 

northeastern Wyoming with concentrated WNV 

mortalities the previous summer, whereas unaffected 

areas showed increased populations (Walker et al. 

2004). 

Despite regular spring and summer precipitation, 

researchers confirmed only two WNV mortalities in 

2005. The low rates of WNV-related mortality and the 

low seroprevalence (less than 10 percent) suggests that 

WNV impacts may be limited by low rates of exposure 

to the virus rather than to high levels of resistance (B. 

Walker, e-mail communication, December 1, 2005). 

Another study, (Zou, et. al, 2006) shows a 75 percent 

increase in larval habitats for mosquitoes from 1999 to 

2004 as a result of coal bed natural gas water discharge 

ponds. In addition, 70 percent of all human cases of 

WNV in 2003 in Wyoming were from the PRB. In a 

similar, but unrelated, study near Roundup, Montana, 

researcher Jay Rotella at Montana State University 

documented that in 2005 three sage-grouse mortalities 

tested positive for the WNV (J. Sika, e-mail 

communication, September 16, 2005). 

Montana Management Plan and 

Conservation Strategies for Sage-grouse 

The Montana Sage-grouse Work Group, a cooperative 

membership of state, federal, tribal and private entities, 

recently prepared a conservation and management plan 

for sage-grouse in Montana (Montana Sage-grouse 

Work Group 2005). The plan establishes a process to 

achieve sage-grouse management objectives and 

provides a framework to guide local management 

efforts and coordinated management across 

jurisdictional boundaries. The overall goal of the plan 

is to “provide for the long-term conservation and 

enhancement of the sagebrush steppe/mixed-grass 

prairie complex within Montana in a manner that 

supports sage-grouse and a healthy diversity and 

abundance of wildlife species and human uses. 

Objectives include maintaining the distribution of sagegrouse populations within the mountain foothills mixed 

sagebrush and Wyoming big sagebrush-silver 

sagebrush ecotypes based on a consistently applied 

monitoring protocol” (p. ii of the Plan). 

BLM is an active participant in the Montana Sagegrouse Work Group. The agency continues to 

collaborate with the work group and implement actions 

to conserve sage-grouse and other sagebrush-associated 

species. BLM is also an active participant in the 

southeastern Montana Local Working Group 

developing plan implementation strategies. BLM has 

provided funding for a statewide interagency sagegrouse coordinator. 

Ongoing Sage-grouse Habitat and Oil and 

Gas Research 

Naugle et.al. (2004) from the University of Montana 

and Gail Patricelli (2005) from the University of 

California-Davis are currently conducting studies on 

the effects of oil and gas development on sage-grouse, 

including nest success and brood survival. Patricelli’s 

study focuses on the effects of noise from oil and gas 

development on sage-grouse. Naugle is investigating 

sage-grouse habitat use and developing sage-grouse 

habitat models to prioritize landscapes for sage-grouse 

conservation. 

In 2006, Naugle, used satellite imagery to identify 

priority habitats for sage-grouse in the PRB. This 

information coupled with digital elevation models and 

ground verified, identified areas of high value sagegrouse habitat. This mapping used several components, 

including roughness, sagebrush coverage 

(height/abundance) and distance from conifers. Much 

of the recent research conducted by Naugle, et al. 

3-129 
CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

focused on the impact of CBNG development on male 

sage-grouse attendance on strutting grounds. 

Research conducted by Holloran in southwest 

Wyoming focused mainly on natural gas development 

in the Jonah Field and the Pinedale Anticline. The 

research clearly indicated male sage-grouse avoid 

strutting grounds close to active development. 

Avoidance was observed to a distance of 

approximately 6.2 kilometers from active development. 

Male sage-grouse avoided leks within 2 kilometers of 

development. Leks within areas of development 

showed a drop in the number of males, while leks on 

the edge of development showed increases in male 

attendance. This increase is possibly due to male 

displaced from leks within areas of development. 

Sage-grouse hens near active development moved 

twice as far in search of undisturbed nesting habitat as 

did hens in areas with no development. Holloran also 

found nest success was lower, the closer hens nested to 

development. 

BLM identified four crucial sage-grouse habitat areas 

within the study area (see Map 3-18), two of which 

extend into Wyoming. These areas are considered to be 

of crucial importance to maintaining viable populations 

of sage-grouse within the Montana portion of the PRB. 

The goal was to identify nonfragmented, core habitats 

in which existing sage-grouse populations could be 

maintained. 

Maintaining core populations is important to conserve 

sage-grouse throughout this area. Genetic diversity is 

necessary for the sage-grouse to adapt to changes 

within its environment. Loss of genetic diversity will 

limit a population’s ability to overcome stressors such 

as habitat change, disease and climate. Maintaining the 

ability of the sage-grouse to disperse (corridors) is the 

most efficient way to ensure genetic diversity. In 

addition, these small populations may be an important 

source of birds needed to repopulate those portions of 

the PRB, once energy development has been competed 

(personal communication, David Naugle). 

Holloran and Anderson from the University of 

Wyoming, recently conducted studies on the effects of 

natural gas development on sage-grouse. This recent 

research (Holloran and Anderson 2004, Holloran 2005) 

and ongoing studies specific to CBNG development in 

the Powder River Basin indicate local populations of 

sage-grouse will decline unless areas are maintained to 

provide suitable habitat for all critical life cycle periods 

(i.e., brood rearing, breeding and wintering). 

Mountain Plover

When the Statewide Document was completed, the 

mountain plover had been proposed for listing as 

threatened. USFWS withdrew the proposed listing 

because new information indicated threats to the 

species included in the proposed listing were lower 

than earlier believed (USFWS 2003). This species is a 

BLM sensitive species. 

The mountain plover was once widely distributed 

across short-grass prairies on the western Great Plains, 

occupying a range extending from Montana to New 

Mexico and Texas. Conversion of native prairies to 

agriculture has significantly reduced suitable breeding 

habitats for this species. It prefers relatively flat sites of 

short grass. Intensive grazing may be beneficial for 

mountain plovers and they also regularly occupy 

prairie dog towns. High arid plains and shortgrass 

prairie with blue grama-buffalo grass communities are 

the primary habitat. The mountain plover does not 

winter in Montana, but may breed within the Planning 

Area, particularly on black-tailed prairie dog towns. A 

breeding population is known to exist north of 

Ingomar, Montana, as well as central, north-central and 

southwest Montana and is considered transitory in 

other parts of the state, such as the Greater 

Yellowstone ecosystem. Blaine and Phillips Counties 

currently support the bulk of mountain plovers that nest 

in Montana. No mountain plovers were detected in 

surveys conducted from 2002 to 2005 in areas of 

proposed CBNG development in Big Horn, Powder 

River and Rosebud counties (see the Wildlife Surveys 

and Monitoring Since the Statewide Document 

section). 

3-130 
CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

3-131 
Wildlife 

CHAPTER 3 

3-132 
Mammals 

Black-tailed Prairie Dog 

This species was proposed for listing as threatened on 

March 25, 1999. On February 3, 2000, USFWS 

determined the black-tailed prairie dog warranted 

listing under ESA. USFWS did not propose to list the 

species at that time due to higher priority species 

awaiting listing. Since that time, USFWS removed 

the black-tailed prairie dog from the list of candidate 

species because it is not likely to become endangered 

or threatened within the foreseeable future (USFWS 

2004). The black-tailed prairie dog is a BLM 

sensitive species. 

The current distribution of black-tailed prairie dogs 

(Cynomys ludivicianus) includes suitable short grass 

prairie within all but the southwestern most portion 

of the Planning Area (MFWP 2005). Black-tailed 

prairie dogs were detected in each of six surveys 

conducted from 2002 to 2005 in areas of proposed 

CBNG development in Big Horn, Powder River and 

Rosebud counties (see Wildlife Surveys and 

Monitoring Since the Statewide Document section). 

Although the original abundance of prairie dogs in 

Montana is unknown, early accounts indicate they 

were abundant and widely distributed east of the 

Continental Divide in grasslands and sagebrushgrasslands. This species can colonize a variety of 

shrub-grassland and grassland habitats. Generally, the 

most frequently used habitats in Montana are 

dominated by western wheatgrass, blue grama and 

big sagebrush and are located in relatively level areas 

in wide valley bottoms, rolling prairies and the tops 

of broad ridges. Species with close associations to 

prairie dogs include black-footed ferrets, burrowing 

owls, mountain plovers and ferruginous hawks. 

These are all species of concern. 

Wildlife Surveys and Monitoring 

Since the Statewide Document

Since publication of the Statewide Document, 

numerous wildlife-related surveys and inventories 

CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

have been conducted, as described below. Due to 

adjacent overlapping survey areas, some raptor nests 

have been inventoried or monitored in more than one 

POD. Therefore, the total number of raptor nests is 

not additive in the following inventory or monitoring 

efforts. 

1. Raptor Nests Inventory and Monitoring in the 

CBNG Area, 2003 to 2005 

BLM maintains a database of results from 

multiple raptor nest surveys conducted from 

2003 through 2005. Information from this 

database identifies 67 nest sites surveyed and 

monitored from 2003 to 2005 in the CBNG area 

(Table 3-42). 

2. Ongoing Sage-grouse Studies 

Male sage-grouse attendance on leks has been 

surveyed annually, primarily since 2001. 

Essentially all leks within and directly adjacent 

to areas of development have been surveyed by 

BLM MFWP, industry, interest groups and 

researchers. This information has been provided 

to and is stored by MFWP. 

3. Fidelity Exploration & Production Company, 

Montana 2002 and 2003 Drilling Area, 

Baseline Wildlife Inventory 

Hayden-Wing Associates (2002) conducted 

baseline wildlife surveys (raptor nests, prairie 

dog towns and mountain plover) in 2002 on 

Fidelity Exploration & Production Company’s 

proposed CBNG drilling areas located in Big 

Horn County, Montana. Forty-four raptor nest 

sites were located in the area (Table 3-43). Other 

survey results included the identification of 

11 prairie dog colonies. No mountain plovers 

were observed. 

4. Fidelity Exploration & Production Company, 

Big Horn County Black-footed Ferret Surveys 

Hayden-Wing (2003) conducted black-footed 

ferret surveys in an area proposed for pipeline 

installation in Big Horn County, Montana. No 

black-footed ferrets or their sign were observed. 

3-133 
CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

TABLE 3-42 

RAPTOR NESTS SURVEYED AND MONITORED IN THE CBNG AREA, 2003-2005

Species Total Number of Nests Active Nests 

Red-tailed hawk 41 23

Cooper’s hawk 1 1

Golden eagle 5 5

Bald eagle 1 1

Prairie falcon 1 0

Osprey 6 5

Great-horned owl 2 2

Barn owl 1 1

Burrowing owl 8 7

Unidentified raptor 1 0

Source: BLM database raptor nests inventory and monitoring in the CBNG area, 2003 to 2005 

TABLE 3-43 

RAPTOR NESTS LOCATED IN THE FIDELITY’S MONTANA 2002 AND 

2003 DRILLING AREA IN BIG HORN COUNTY, MONTANA 2002 

Active Nests 

Species Total Number of Nests (during the May surveys) 

Red-tailed hawk 24 7 

Golden eagle 6 2 

Bald eagle 2 2 

Prairie falcon 8 1 

Osprey 2 2 

Great-horned owl 2 2 

Source: Hayden-Wing Associates baseline wildlife surveys (2002) 

5. Fidelity Exploration & Production Company, 

Proposed Coal Creek POD, Big Horn County, 

Baseline Wildlife Inventory 

Hayden-Wing Associates (2004a) conducted 

baseline wildlife surveys (raptor nests, prairie 

dog towns and mountain plover) during 2003 on 

Fidelity Exploration & Production Company’s 

Coal Creek POD located in Big Horn County, 

Montana. Eleven raptor nest sites were located in 

the area (Table 3-44). 

No bald eagle nests were located within the POD 

area or 1-mile buffer. One active bald eagle nest 

was located approximately 10.6 miles from the 

POD. Bald eagle winter surveys were also 

conducted in January and December 2003. 

Fifty-three bald eagles were observed during the 

January 30th survey. Nineteen bald eagles were 

observed during the December 2nd survey and 

ten bald eagles were observed during the 

December 12th survey, although none of these 

birds were located within the POD or the 1-mile 

buffer. During the December 19th survey, 

14 bald eagles were located, with one inside the 

1-mile buffer and the others outside the buffer. 

Other survey results include identification of one 

active double-crested cormorant rookery, one 

active great blue heron rookery and one blacktailed prairie dog colony. No mountain plovers 

were observed. 

6. Fidelity Exploration & Production Company, 

Proposed Pond Creek POD and Dry Creek 

POD, Big Horn County, Black-footed Ferret 

Surveys 

Hayden-Wing (2004b) conducted black-footed 

ferret surveys in areas proposed for road 

construction and well development (Pond Creek 

POD and Dry Creek POD) in Big Horn County, 

Montana. No black-footed ferrets or their sign 

were observed. 

3-134 
CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

TABLE 3-44 

RAPTOR NESTS LOCATED IN THE FIDELITY’S MONTANA PROPOSED COAL CREEK POD,

BIG HORN COUNTY, MONTANA 2002

Active Nests 

Species Total Number of Nests (during the May surveys) 

Red-tailed hawk 8 1 

Bald eagle 1 1 

American kestrel 1 1 

Great-horned owl 1 1 

Source: Hayden-Wing Associates baseline wildlife surveys (2003) 

7. Fidelity Exploration & Production Company, 

Coalbed Natural Gas Development Areas in 

Big Horn County, Montana, Wildlife Surveys, 

2004 

Hayden-Wing Associates (2005) conducted 

baseline and monitoring surveys for wildlife 

(raptor nests, wintering bald eagles, sage-grouse, 

sharp-tailed grouse, prairie dog towns, mountain 

plover and black-footed ferret) during 2004 on 

Fidelity Exploration & Production Company’s 

proposed CBNG drilling areas located in Big 

Horn County, Montana. Seventy raptor nest sites 

were located in the area (Table 3-45). 

In addition, one bald eagle nest was located just 

outside the 1-mile buffer of the Coal Creek and 

Pond Creek PODs. Forty-three bald eagles were 

observed during the three winter surveys. Other 

survey results include the identification and 

monitoring of 20 sage-grouse leks, 10 of which 

were active; 26 sharp-tailed grouse leks, four of 

which were active; and 29 black-tailed prairie 

dog colonies. No mountain plovers or blackfooted ferrets or their signs were observed. 

8. Fidelity Exploration & Production Company, 

Coalbed Natural Gas Development Areas in 

Big Horn County, Montana, Wildlife Surveys, 

2005 

Hayden-Wing Associates (2006) conducted 

baseline and monitoring surveys for wildlife 

(raptor nests, wintering bald eagles, sage-grouse, 

sharp-tailed grouse, prairie dog towns, mountain 

plover and mule deer) during 2005 on Fidelity 

Exploration & Production Company’s proposed 

CBNG drilling areas located in Big Horn 

County, Montana. Seventy-five raptor nest sites 

were located in the area (Table 3-46). 

In addition, one bald eagle nest was located just 

outside the 1-mile buffer of the Coal Creek and 

Pond Creek PODs. Seventy-nine bald eagles 

were observed during the three winter surveys, 

46 of which were on or within 1 mile of the 

PODs. Other survey results include the 

identification and monitoring of 26 sage-grouse 

leks, eight of which were active; 29 sharp-tailed 

grouse leks, six of which were active; and 33 

black-tailed prairie dog colonies. No mountain 

plovers or their signs were observed. A total of 

369 mule deer and 168 pronghorn were recorded 

on and around the Dry Creek POD area during 

the three winter surveys. 

9. Mule Deer Survey on the Southern Portion of 

the Northern Cheyenne Reservation and 

Adjacent Public and Private Lands, 2004 

Mackie (2004) surveyed mule deer on the 

southern portion of the Northern Cheyenne 

Reservation and adjacent public and private 

lands south of the reservation boundary from 

April 27 to 29, 2004. The surveys covered 

approximately 250 square miles. Two hundred 

forty-seven mule deer were observed, 35 (14 

percent) of which were recorded on the Northern 

Cheyenne Reservation. 

3-135 
CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

TABLE 3-45 

RAPTOR NESTS LOCATED IN THE FIDELITY’S COALBED NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT 

AREAS IN BIG HORN COUNTY, MONTANA 2002

Active Nests 

Species Total Number of Nests (during the May surveys) 

Red-tailed hawk 37 17 

Golden eagle 8 3 

Bald eagle 2 2 

Prairie falcon 7 0 

Osprey 1 0 

American kestrel 1 0 

Great-horned owl 6 3 

Burrowing owl 6 5 

Unidentified raptor 2 0 

Source: Hayden-Wing Associates baseline and monitoring surveys for wildlife (2004) 

TABLE 3-46 

RAPTOR NESTS LOCATED IN THE FIDELITY’S COALBED NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT

AREAS IN BIG HORN COUNTY, MONTANA 2005

Active Nests 

Species Total Number of Nests (during the May surveys) 

Red-tailed hawk 33 19

Golden eagle 10 4

Bald eagle 2 2

Prairie falcon 7 1

Osprey 2 1

American kestrel 1 0

Great-horned owl 11 6

Burrowing owl 7 2

Unidentified raptor 2 0

Source: Hayden-Wing Associates baseline and monitoring surveys for wildlife (2005) 

10. Raptor Inventory and Monitoring Report, 

Powder River County, BLM Miles City Field 

Office 2005 

During 2005, raptor monitoring and inventory 

for the BLM MCFO were conducted in Powder 

River County. Ninety-seven raptor nests were 

located in the area (Table 3-47). 

11. Raptor Survey and Inventory for Big Horn 

County, Montana, conducted for BLM Miles 

City Field Office, 2004 

acres of suitable nesting habitat (cliffs, rims, 

buttes, cottonwood/riparian areas, green ash 

draws, etc.) within Big Horn County, Montana. 

Aerial surveys were conducted on two days in 

May 2004 and ground surveys were conducted 

over four days in May 2004. Thirty-five raptor 

nests were located in the area (Table 3-48). In 

addition, one sharp-tailed grouse lek was 

documented. 

Greystone Environmental (2004a) completed a 

raptor survey and inventory covering 376,000 

3-136 
CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

TABLE 3-47 

RAPTOR NESTS LOCATED DURING THE POWDER RIVER COUNTY SURVEYS, 2005* 

Species Total Number of Nests Active Nests Total Number of Young 

Red-tailed hawk 25 24 40+ 

Golden eagle 14 7 10+ 

Ferruginous hawk 4 1 N/S 

Prairie falcon 5 3 N/S 

Great-horned owl 4 3 N/S 

Unidentified raptor 45 7 12+ 

*Source: BLM raptor monitoring and inventory (Greystone Environmental Consultants 2005) 

N/S = not specified in report. 

TABLE 3-48 

RAPTOR NEST FOUND DURING THE BIG HORN COUNTY SURVEYS, 2004 

Species Total Number of Nests Active Nests Total Number of Young 

Red-tailed hawk 21 10 ? 

Golden eagle 3 3 6 

Bald eagle 1 1 3 

Osprey 4 4 ? 

Great-horned owl 3 3 ? 

Barn owl 1 1 ? 

Burrowing owl 1 1 ? 

Unidentified raptor 1 0 0 

Source: Greystone Environmental raptor survey and inventory (May 2004a) 

12. Mountain Plover Habitat Evaluation and 

Survey and Black-tailed Prairie Dog Survey ­

Big Horn, Powder River and Rosebud Counties, 

Montana, 2004 

Mountain plover habitat surveys were conducted 

in May 2004 and surveys for mountain plovers 

were conducted over five consecutive days during 

the same month. No mountain plovers were 

observed and habitat surveyed indicated there was 

little potential mountain plover habitat in the area. Greystone Environmental (2004b) completed a 

mountain plover habitat evaluation and survey, as 

well as black-tailed prairie dog surveys, in Big 

Horn, Powder River and Rosebud Counties. Aerial 

surveys for black-tailed prairie dogs were 

conducted over two consecutive days in February 

2004 and ground surveys for prairie dogs were 

conducted over five consecutive days in May 

2004. Aerial surveys documented 100 black-tailed 

prairie dog colonies previously documented by 

BLM from 2001 to 2003. Four of the colonies 

previously documented by BLM were not present 

and 59 new colonies were located. Of the colonies 

located through aerial surveys, all but eight were 

active. The ground surveys documented 28 active 

prairie dog colonies and 5 inactive colonies. 

13. 2005 Bald Eagle Winter Observations in the 

CBNG area 

Hayden-Wing and Associates documented the 

following wintering bald eagle observations in the 

CBNG area over four days of surveys in January 

and February 2005: 

• 24 bald eagle observations on January 6 

• 15 bald eagle observations on January 25 

• 36 bald eagle observations on February 22 

• 4 bald eagle observations on February 23 

3-137 
CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

14. 2005 Mule Deer Observations in the CBNG 

area. 

Hayden-Wing and Associates documented the 

following wintering mule deer observations in the 

area of Fidelity’s CBNG holdings in Bighorn 

County, Montana over three days of surveys in 

January and February 2005: 

• 95 mule deer on January 6 

• 119 mule deer on January 25 

• 160 mule deer on February 22 

Additional observations included 95 pronghorn on 

January 6, 57 pronghorn on January 25 and 

16 pronghorn on February 22. 

Bald Eagles 

• The Tongue River was surveyed for bald 

eagle nest occupancy and new territory 

establishment in spring 2004. Three active 

nests were located between the Wyoming state 

line and Birney, Montana. Two of these nests 

are within current or proposed CBNG project 

areas. One new territory was identified. 

However, the nest associated with this 

territory was apparently abandoned later in the 

spring. 

• BLM conducted three wintering bald eagle 

surveys between January 14 and March 4, 

2004. Preliminary results include sightings of 

15, 17 and 50 eagles, respectively, in the three 

15. Coalbed Natural Gas Program Wildlife 

Monitoring and Protection Plan, 2003 Annual 

Report 

The 2003 annual report for the Coalbed Natural 

Gas Program Wildlife Monitoring and Protection 

Plan (Rau 2004) provided information on the 

following surveys not discussed in previous text: 

Breeding Birds 

One hundred four bird species were observed in 

June to August 2002 surveys on the Forks Unit of 

the Padlock Ranch. Thirty-seven bird species were 

observed in a June 2001 study in the Decker area. 

Forty-nine bird species were observed in a 

different study in the Decker Montana area during 

the 2002 field season. 

Sage-grouse 

• BLM completed comprehensive sage-grouse 

lek surveys in 2003. All known sage-grouse 

lek locations between the Crow Indian 

Reservation and the Powder River were 

aerially searched by helicopter. Forty-two 

known lek locations were surveyed, with 13 

active leks, found with 109 sage-grouse 

counted. 

surveys. 

Sage-grouse 

• A comprehensive landscape-level sage-grouse 

lek survey was not conducted in 2004. 

However, all leks within current and nearfuture CBNG development areas were 

intensively surveyed. Seven leks were 

observed in these areas. 

Black-footed Ferret 

• Project proponents were required to complete 

black-footed ferret surveys on nine prairie dog 

colonies totaling 550 acres within CBNG 

development areas. No ferrets or sign were 

observed. 

17. Coalbed Natural Gas Program Wildlife 

Monitoring and Protection Plan, 2005 Annual 

Report, Draft 

The Draft 2005 Annual Report for the Coalbed 

Natural Gas Program Wildlife Monitoring and 

Protection Plan (BLM 2005b) provided 

information on the following surveys not discussed 

in previous text. 

Mule Deer 

• BLM completed winter surveys focusing on 

sagebrush habitats within core CBNG 

development areas in 2002/03. Approximately 

41,000 acres of potential sage-grouse winter 

habitats were surveyed and eight winter flocks 

totaling 173 individual birds were observed. 

16. Coalbed Natural Gas Program Wildlife 

Monitoring and Protection Plan, 2004 Annual 

Report 

The 2004 Annual Report for the Coalbed Natural 

Gas Program Wildlife Monitoring and Protection 

Plan (BLM 2004a) provided information on the 

following surveys not discussed in previous text 

• A second spring mule deer survey was 

conducted over two days in April 2005 on the 

southern portion of the Northern Cheyenne 

Reservation and adjacent public lands. Two 

hundred twenty-one mule deer were observed. 

Twenty white-tailed deer and forty-six 

pronghorn were also observed. Most (mule 

deer and pronghorn were observed on private 

and public lands south of the reservation 

boundary. 

Sage-grouse 

• Surveys conducted by BLM and contractors 

for CBNG development companies within the 

3-138 
CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

CBNG development area recorded12 sagegrouse leks, 11 of which were active. 

• Winter surveys could not be conducted due to 

inadequate snow cover. 

18. Maximum Number of Males/Lek, CBNG 

Monitoring, Montana, 2000 to 2005 

The Draft 2005 Annual Report for the Coalbed 

Natural Gas Program Wildlife Monitoring and 

Protection Plan (BLM 2005b) lists the maximum 

number of males/leks for 28 sites in the CBNG 

monitoring area. Each lek site was monitored at 

least once between 2000 and 2005. For the six leks 

within POD/mine boundaries, two of the sites were 

inactive and the maximum number of males for the 

other four sites ranged from 5 to 55. For the seven 

leks outside, but within 2 miles of POD/mine 

boundaries, three of the leks were inactive and the 

maximum number of males for the other four leks 

ranged from 8 to 14. For the 15 leks located more 

than 2 miles from the POD/mine boundaries, 5 

were inactive and the maximum number of males 

for the other 10 sites ranged from 7 to 29. 

Aquatic Resources 

Aquatic habitat in the CBNG Planning Area that 

supports, or could potentially support, fisheries and 

other aquatic resources briefly described in the 

following paragraph includes rivers, streams, lakes and 

stock ponds. Extensive information on aquatic habitat 

and fisheries resources in the Billings and Powder 

River RMP areas is contained in the Montana NRIS on 

the Internet at http://nris.state.mt.us/wis/mris1.html 

(Montana State Library NRIS 2005). 

Tables WIL-2 through WIL-4 in the Wildlife Appendix 

summarize representative Planning Area information 

from the Montana State Library NRIS (2005) Internet 

data base. Table WIL-2 summarizes aquatic resources 

characteristics of major drainages and representative 

tributaries within the boundaries of each RMP area. 

These characteristics include drainage length, 

aesthetics, fisheries management, fisheries resource 

value, number of fish species present and whether a 

dewatering problem has been identified. The relative 

abundances of fish species present in major drainages 

and representative tributaries are summarized in 

Table WIL-3 (Billings RMP area) and WIL-4 (Powder 

River RMP area). The scientific names of fish species 

discussed in the following text are given in 

Tables WIL-3 and WIL-4. 

While additional fish sampling has occurred in the 

Planning Area and throughout the state, long-term 

trends are difficult to identify because scant data exist 

for baseline biological and ecological conditions. The 

Statewide Document identified the number of fish 

species found in the various streams and stream 

reaches within the Planning Area (Table WIL-2). 

While additional sampling can identify new or 

previously unrecorded species in a stream, this is not 

necessarily an indication of a long-term change or 

evidence that a species no longer occurs in that stream. 

Species do not necessarily occupy a stream or stream 

reach throughout the year, so sample timing can have a 

substantial influence on sampling results. The 

particular sampling methods can also influence the 

results, as each method varies in effectiveness based on 

environmental conditions and species present. 

Only when sampling is conducted in the same reach, at 

the same time of year and with similar methods can 

some relative inference be obtained regarding longterm changes. Annual variation can, however, 

confound even these results. Therefore, while the 

number of species identified in the various Planning 

Area streams may have changed since the Statewide 

Document (see WIL-2), the numbers tend to increase 

rather than decrease. Such increases result from the 

identification of previously unrecorded species, while 

there typically is no definitive information regarding 

the loss of a species. 

Numerous other aquatic resources besides fish are 

present in Planning Area water bodies. These resources 

often are important in the diet of various species of 

fish, or they comprise part of the food web that fish 

ultimately depend on in their diet. Examples of other 

aquatic resources include benthic macroinvertebrates 

and microinvertebrates, zooplankton, phytoplankton, 

periphyton (attached algae), snails, clams and worms. 

Numerous taxa of aquatic insects whose distribution 

and abundance vary with geographic location, habitat 

type and habitat condition occur in Planning Area 

drainages. Immature and adult forms of Plecoptera 

(stoneflies), Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Trichoptera 

(caddisflies) and Diptera (true flies) are particularly 

important in the diets of juvenile and adult trout, 

whitefish and other native fish species. 

Fish and other aquatic species listed, proposed, or are 

candidates for listing as federally endangered or 

threatened species, or have otherwise been designated 

as federal or state sensitive species or species of 

concern, are discussed under Special Status Species in 

this Aquatic Resources section. 

Billings RMP Area 

Major rivers and streams in the Billings RMP area are 

the Yellowstone River and its tributaries in the 

southern two-thirds of the area and the Musselshell 

River and its tributaries in the northern one-third of the 

area. Both of these rivers eventually drain to the 

Missouri River outside of the RMP area. Major 

tributaries to the Yellowstone River are the Boulder, 

3-139 
CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

Stillwater, Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone and Bighorn 

rivers. Careless Creek is a major tributary to the 

Musselshell River. Each of the referenced drainages is 

characterized by a dendritic pattern of tributaries, with 

flows ranging from perennial to ephemeral (MBOGC 

1989). Examples of other water bodies that provide 

important habitat for aquatic resources in this resource 

management plan are Bighorn Lake, Cooney 

Reservoir, Big Lake, Lebo Lake, numerous mountain 

lakes at higher elevations and miscellaneous water 

bodies such as storage reservoirs and stock ponds. 

The Billings RMP area drainages listed in Table WIL-2 

have been characterized as ranging from “national 

renown” in the more upstream reaches to “stream and 

area fair” in some of the downstream reaches (Montana 

NRIS 2001). Designated fisheries management in these 

drainages is for trout, except in the Yellowstone River 

east of Billings (managed for warm/cool water and 

non-trout species) and in the downstream section of the 

Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone (managed for non-trout 

species) (see Table WIL-2). The fisheries resource 

value in these drainages is outstanding, high, or 

substantial, except in the Little Bighorn River 

(moderate value) and Careless Creek (moderate or 

limited value in some reaches). The greatest numbers 

of fish species are generally found in the more 

downstream reaches of larger drainages, with 

comparatively fewer species present in the more 

upstream, or upstream reaches of, tributaries. Numbers 

of fish species present vary from 32 in the Musselshell 

River, 28 in the Yellowstone River east of Billings, 

20 in the Yellowstone River west of Billings, 9 in the 

Boulder and Stillwater rivers and 8 in the Little 

Bighorn River (see Table WIL-2). 

Table WIL-3 provides detail about the relative 

abundance of fish species collected from each of the 

Billings RMP area drainages listed in Table WIL-2. 

Many of the same fish species are abundant or common 

in many of these drainages, although there is a pattern, 

proceeding downstream, of increased species diversity 

and the replacement of predominantly cold-water 

species by cool and warm water species. Examples of 

abundant or commonly occurring game fish in the 

Yellowstone River west of Billings are rainbow trout, 

brown trout, mountain whitefish and burbot (ling); 

abundant or common non-game fish species in this 

reach of the Yellowstone River include, among others, 

goldeye, longnose sucker, white sucker, mountain 

sucker, shorthead redhorse and mottled sculpin (see 

Table WIL-3). 

The same species of trout and whitefish, as well as 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout and brook trout, also are 

abundant or common in the Boulder and Stillwater 

rivers. By comparison, these same species of salmonids 

are either uncommon in occurrence or absent from the 

mainstem Yellowstone River east of Billings. Instead, 

game fish typically associated with cool or warm water 

regimes—such as channel catfish, northern pike, 

smallmouth and largemouth bass, yellow perch, sauger 

and walleye—first appear in river collections or are 

more abundant than farther upstream (see 

Table WIL-3). 

Fish species present in the Clarks Fork of the 

Yellowstone and in the Bighorn River generally 

represent a subset of fish species present in nearby 

reaches of the Yellowstone River. There are more fish 

species present in the downstream sections of the 

Clarks Fork (19 species) and the Bighorn (30 species) 

than in their upstream sections (12 species in the Clarks 

Fork and 17 species in the Bighorn) (see Table WIL-2). 

Rainbow trout, brown trout and mountain whitefish are 

present in both sections of the Clarks Fork and Bighorn 

rivers, but these game species are more abundant in the 

upstream than downstream sections (see Table WIL-3). 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout also are present in the 

Clarks Fork and Arctic grayling are present in the 

upstream section of the Clarks Fork. Other game 

species present in these two drainages include channel 

catfish, burbot and sauger in the downstream section of 

the Clarks Fork and channel catfish, northern pike, 

burbot, smallmouth bass, sauger and walleye in both 

sections of the Bighorn River. The Little Bighorn 

River, which is tributary to the downstream section of 

the Bighorn River, supports five commonly occurring 

game fish species, including rainbow trout, brown 

trout, mountain whitefish, channel catfish and 

smallmouth bass 

(see Table WIL-3). 

A variety of 32 fish species are present in the 

Musselshell River within the Billings RMP area 

(Table WIL-2). More than half of these species have 

been rated as abundant or common in occurrence in 

various fisheries studies conducted on this drainage 

(see Table WIL-3) (Montana NRIS 2001). Examples of 

game species present in the Musselshell, which is 

managed as a trout fishery within the RMP area, 

include brown trout, mountain whitefish, channel 

catfish, black bullhead, northern pike, smallmouth 

bass, sauger and walleye. Examples of dominant nongame species present in the Musselshell are goldeye, 

common carp, sand shiner, flathead chub, longnose 

dace, longnose sucker, white sucker, mountain sucker, 

shorthead redhorse and mottled sculpin. The 10 species 

of fish present in Careless Creek, a tributary to the 

Musselshell, are dominated by non-game fish, such as 

lake chub, fathead chub, longnose dace and white 

sucker. The only game fish reported from Careless 

Creek is brook trout, which is common in occurrence 

(see Table WIL-3). 

Some of the storage reservoirs and stockponds in the 

Billings RMP area and in other Planning Area 

reservoirs and stockponds, have been stocked with 

3-140 
various game fish species. Examples include northern 

pike, largemouth bass, yellow perch, walleye, bluegill, 

crappie and rainbow trout (MBOGC 1989, BLM 1995). 

Rainbow trout must be restocked regularly because 

they will not reproduce in ponds, but other species such 

as bass, perch, bluegill and crappie may establish selfsustaining populations in ponds. 

Water quality in perennial rivers and streams within the 

Billings RMP area is generally good. Water quality in 

the Yellowstone River has been rated as good for 

wildlife uses, while water quality in the Musselshell 

River has been rated as satisfactory for wildlife uses 

(BLM 1995). The BLM (1995) also reported that the 

area’s semi-arid climate is not conducive to 

maintaining fish habitat and populations in most 

intermittent streams. However, Regele and Stark 

(2000), citing the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

(MFWP), stated that perennial as well as intermittent 

prairie streams in southeastern Montana are important 

in the life histories of native fish species and often 

provide spawning and rearing habitat for mainstem fish 

species. 

Powder River RMP Area 

Major rivers and streams that comprise important 

aquatic habitat in the Powder River RMP area are the 

Yellowstone River and its tributaries in the western 

two-thirds of the area and the Little Missouri River and 

its tributaries in the eastern one-third of the area. All of 

these rivers eventually drain to the Missouri River 

outside of the RMP area. Major tributaries to the 

Yellowstone River are the Tongue (and Tongue River 

Reservoir), Little Powder and Powder rivers and 

Rosebud, Pumpkin, Otter, Armells, Hanging Woman 

and Mizpah creeks. Box Elder Creek is a tributary to 

the Little Missouri River. The referenced drainages are 

characterized by a dendritic pattern of perennial and 

ephemeral tributaries (MBOGC 1989). Examples of 

other water bodies that provide habitat for aquatic 

resources in this RMP area are lakes, storage reservoirs 

and stock ponds. 

The Powder River RMP area drainages listed in 

Table WIL-2 have been characterized as typically 

ranging from “clean stream and natural setting” to 

“stream and area fair,” although the Powder River 

varies from “natural and pristine beauty” in the 

upstream section to “low” in the downstream section 

(Montana NRIS 2001). Fisheries management in these 

drainages is primarily for non-trout species, warm/cool 

water species, or has not been designated. One 

exception is in the upstream section of the Tongue 

River, including the 10-mile reach immediately 

downstream of the Tongue River Dam, where 

designated fisheries management is for trout. 

CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

Relatively cool water released from the Tongue River 

Dam allows rainbow and brown trout to occupy the 

upper 10 miles of the reach immediately downstream 

of the Tongue River Dam. However, high water 

temperatures, flow fluctuations, predation and habitat 

conditions limit natural reproduction of these two 

species throughout much of the rest of the lower 

Tongue River (BLM 2004b). As a result, these trout 

populations exist and are maintained with a stocking 

program by MFWP. The rainbow trout stocking 

program likely contributes little to natural production, 

because the natural spring spawning timing has been 

shifted from the spring to the fall for the hatchery 

stock. Lack of success for brown trout spawning is due 

to (1) brown trout migrate downstream during cooler 

temperatures to feed and then get caught in natural 

warm stream temperatures and end up perishing below 

the 10 mile reach that can support trout and (2) there is 

a limited amount of deep pool habitat for fish to hold 

over in during low flows. In addition to these two trout 

species, the reach downstream of the Tongue River 

Dam supports recreational fisheries for smallmouth 

bass, sauger, walleye and channel catfish (BLM 2005c, 

d). 

Nineteen fish species recently have been documented 

in the Tongue River Reservoir and fourteen species 

occur upstream of the reservoir (BLM 2005c). The 

primary species occurring in these areas include black 

crappie, white crappie, walleye, smallmouth bass, 

sauger, northern pike and channel catfish. In addition, 

sauger is the only sensitive species in these areas of the 

Tongue River (BLM 2005c). 

The fisheries resource value in most of the Powder 

River RMP drainages is high, substantial, or moderate, 

except in some reaches of Pumpkin and Mizpah creeks 

that have limited fisheries resource value. The greatest 

numbers of fish species are generally found in the 

downstream reaches of larger drainages, with fewer 

species typically present in the more upstream reaches 

or in smaller tributaries. Numbers of fish species 

present vary from 40 in the Yellowstone River and 

33 in the downstream section of the Tongue River to 

13 in the Little Powder River and 18 in the Little 

Missouri River (see Table WIL-2). 

Table WIL-4 provides detail on the relative abundance 

of fish species collected from many of the Powder 

River RMP area drainages listed in Table WIL-2. The 

number of fish species in this reach of the Yellowstone 

River (40 species) is considerably greater than in the 

Yellowstone River reach within the Billings RMP area, 

either east of Billings (28 species) or west of Billings 

(20 species). The most abundant game fish in the 

Yellowstone River in the Powder River RMP area are 

shovelnose sturgeon, paddlefish, channel catfish, 

burbot, sauger and walleye. Lesser numbers of a wide 

variety of other game species also are present, such as 

3-141 
CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

northern pike, smallmouth and largemouth bass, white 

and black crappie and rainbow and brown trout. 

Examples of some of the more abundant non-game 

species in the Yellowstone River are goldeye, common 

carp, emerald shiner, flathead chub, river carpsucker, 

white sucker, shorthead redhorse and stonecat. The 

federally listed endangered pallid sturgeon occurs 

rarely in the Yellowstone River within this RMP area 

(see Table WIL-4). 

Species present in tributaries to the Yellowstone River 

within the Powder River RMP area generally overlap 

with those species present in the mainstem 

Yellowstone. However, species composition in the 

tributaries is less diverse overall, particularly in the 

smaller drainages and in the upstream sections of 

drainages (see Table WIL-4). Some of the fish species 

dominant in the Yellowstone River are also prominent 

in sections of the Tongue and Powder Rivers include 

shovelnose sturgeon, channel catfish, sauger, goldeye, 

common carp, flathead chub, white sucker and 

shorthead redhorse (Montana NRIS 2002). However, 

recent sampling found no common carp, shovelnose 

sturgeon, sauger, shorthead redhorse, or white sucker at 

any of the four lower Powder River sampling sites in 

Montana and no goldeye, shovelnose sturgeon, or 

sauger were found at any of the five lower Tongue 

River sites (USGS 2005a). While this suggests a 

decrease in diversity in these reaches, these fish are 

migratory species that typically occur in the tributary 

areas only for relatively short periods of time (i.e., 

spawning periods). Therefore, the inconsistent 

sampling results are likely due to sampling bias related 

to the timing of the sampling, as well as the sampling 

methods used. The size and turbidity of these rivers 

also contribute to the variable effectiveness of different 

sampling methods. 

Other species present in the Tongue and Powder rivers 

include northern pike, walleye, several species each of 

bullheads, sunfishes and crappies in the Tongue River; 

burbot, green sunfish and walleye in the Powder River; 

and rainbow and brown trout, which are uncommon in 

occurrence, in the upstream sections of the Tongue and 

Powder rivers (see Table WIL-4). Smallmouth bass, a 

popular cool water game fish, have been captured at 

various locations throughout the Tongue River and are 

reported to be abundant in Tongue River Reservoir 

(Montana State Library NRIS 2002). 

Considerably fewer game species are present in the 

smaller Powder River RMP area tributaries. For 

example, the only game species reported as common in 

occurrence are channel catfish, northern pike, burbot 

and sauger in Rosebud Creek, which drains directly to 

the Yellowstone; channel catfish in Pumpkin Creek, 

which is a tributary to the downstream section of the 

Tongue River; and channel catfish in the Little Powder 

River, which is tributary to the downstream section of 

the Powder River (Montana State Library NRIS 2001) 

(see Table WIL-4). The Little Missouri River, which 

empties into the Missouri River, contains 18 fish 

species, including three game species (channel catfish, 

black bullhead and sauger) (see Table WIL-4). 

Since the Statewide Document was completed, 

additional sampling has occurred within the Powder 

River RMP area. These results provide more detailed 

information regarding specific fish species within the 

Planning Area, as well as areas directly or indirectly 

affected by CBNG development facilities. 

Confluence Consulting (2004) reported only two 

sturgeon chub at one Wyoming sampling location in the 

Powder River, while sampling in the early 1990s 

revealed sturgeon chub at considerably more Wyoming 

locations. Monthly sampling at 10 Powder River 

locations in Wyoming, between June and October 2004, 

resulted in no sturgeon chub collected (Zafft 2005a). 

However, sturgeon chub were collected at three of four 

Powder River sites in Montana (USGS 2005b). 

Jaeger (2004) also reports the sauger distribution to be 

limited to the Yellowstone River, downstream of 

Rosebud Creek, but rare or absent in major tributaries 

such as Big Horn and Tongue Rivers and a small 

population is present in the Powder River. Sampling in 

2004 and 2005 found no sauger in the Montana or 

Wyoming portions of the Tongue or Powder Rivers 

(Zafft 2005a, USGS 2005a). FWP (2005c) also 

reported that historically, the lower Tongue River 

facilitated a considerable sauger migration for 

spawning, but few migration movements have been 

evident in recent years. 

Recent sampling within streams affected by CBNG 

development has also provided some specific 

information regarding changes in species composition 

and biodiversity possibly resulting from such activities. 

However, the complexity and uncertainties associated 

with determining biological effects are confounded by 

numerous factors. These factors include geologic, 

hydrologic and land use variations throughout the 

Planning Area. The effects of these factors, as well as 

their interactions, result in substantial variation in the 

biological, physical and chemical influences that might 

occur from CBNG development. Such variations affect 

the ability to sample the different aquatic habitats 

effectively and consistently, resulting in substantial 

uncertainty regarding species composition and 

distribution (Zafft 2005b). Other confounding factors 

are drought conditions that have occurred in the region 

for about the last six years. As a result, there are 

limited data to assess baseline population conditions 

accurately or to allow an assessment of potential 

CBNG effects. 

Fish sampling in a number of Tongue River tributaries 

suggests fish in Squirrel Creek have a substantial 

3-142 
CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

potential to be affected by CBNG development, Consulting reported to be declining throughout their 

primarily from impoundments located within historic range. 

intermittent and ephemeral draws that flow into the 

creek (BLM 2005d). The stream has not, however, been 

assessed to the extent needed to identify the specific 

cause(s) of habitat changes between sampling sites 

located upstream and downstream of CBNG 

development facilities. Despite these uncertainties, the 

data suggest an increase in dissolved solids and a 

marked decline in biological integrity ratings between 

the upper and lower reaches of Squirrel Creek. 

Conductivity increased by approximately a factor of 

four, while aquatic invertebrate taxa richness and fish 

numbers substantially decreased between the upstream 

and downstream sampling locations in 2002 (BLM 

2005d). Preliminary results from sampling in 2004 

suggest similar differences between these same sampling 

locations. While these changes could be the result of 

natural conditions, dissolved solids were substantially 

higher in the lower river site compared to 1970. 

Sampson (2005) and MFWP (2006) reported the results 

of fish sampling in 2003, 2004 and 2006 at a number of 

sites where CBNG extraction was occurring in MFWP 

Region 7. Sampling occurred once in 2003 and twice 

(spring and summer) in 2004 and 2005. In addition, 

four of these sites had historical data compiled by Elser 

(1980). The recent sampling results indicate a decrease 

in species at two of these four historically sampled sites 

(Sampson 2005, MFWP 2006). One site in Pumpkin 

Creek showed a decrease from 10 to 4 species, with 

only white suckers occurring both historically and 

recently. There are currently no CBNG discharges to 

Pumpkin Creek. In contrast, fathead minnow was the 

only species captured in all three recently sampled 

years, but not historically. Confluence Consulting 

(2003) reported fathead minnow was among the most 

saline tolerant species in the Tongue River Basin. 

Another site showing a substantial decrease in species 

over time was Sarpy Creek. This site showed a decrease 

from five species historically to one species (fathead 

minnow) in 2003 and 2005 (MFWP 2006). There are 

currently no CBNG discharges to Sarpy Creek. Two 

other sites (Hanging Woman and Rosebud creeks) 

showed a similar number of species, both historically 

and recently. Overall, fathead minnow were captured at 

most locations and in most years. Fathead minnow were 

found in 7 of 8 sites in 2003 and in 8 of 10 sites in 2004 

and 2005. No other species were captured at more than 

four sampling sites in any of the three years. In addition, 

fathead minnow comprised 38 percent of all fish caught 

in 2004 and more than 72 percent in 2005. 

Confluence Consulting (2004) found the Wyoming reach 

of the Powder River to have a high level of biological, 

chemical and physical integrity. It also maintained a 

mostly native assemblage of fish. These fish included 

flathead chub and sturgeon chub, which Confluence 

Confluence Consulting (2004) reported 15 species of 

fish were captured in the Wyoming portion of the 

Powder River in 2002 and 2003, with flathead chub, 

plains minnow and sand shiner the most abundant 

species at most sampling locations. They also found 

abundant channel catfish at one location, suggesting 

some areas are important rearing areas for this species. 

While sampling in 2004 indicated flathead chub and 

sand shiner at all 10 Powder River sampling sites (6 in 

Wyoming and 4 in Montana), no plains minnow were 

captured (Zafft 2005a, USGS 2005a). Other frequently 

observed fish in the four Montana reach sites were 

channel catfish (four sites), plains killifish (three sites), 

river carpsucker (three sites) and longnose dace (two 

sites) (USGS 2005a). 

Skaar et al. (2005) reported the presence and absence of 

native fish at six sites in the Powder River Basin, relative 

to where they would be expected to occur based on 

historic distributions and habitat conditions. They found 

sand shiner, white sucker and flathead chub at all the sites 

where they were expected to occur (and at least five of the 

six sites). However, lake chub, sauger and goldeye were 

found at fewer than 50 percent of the expected locations. 

Results from the Tongue River Basin were similar, 

although fathead minnow and mountain sucker were also 

absent from more than half of the areas where they were 

expected. This apparent widespread decline in the 

distribution of some native fish species suggests that a 

number of environmental factors may be affecting the 

presence of native fish in southeastern Montana. 

While some data suggest that CBNG development might 

be affecting aquatic resources, a number of other factors 

also likely contribute to these apparent resource changes. 

These factors include coal mining, livestock grazing, 

agriculture/irrigation, dams/reservoirs, residential 

development and existing transportation systems (BLM 

2004b, 2005d). No data are available, however, to 

quantify the effects of any of these factors on aquatic 

resources in the Planning Area. Drought conditions over 

the past several years also likely affected aquatic 

resources in the Planning Area. 

Regarding other aquatic resources Confluence 

Consulting (2004) reports that the Powder River in 

Wyoming supports several rare macroinvertebrate 

species, which have been extirpated in other areas due to 

river modifications throughout the northern Great Plains. 

It also observed a marked decline in species diversity 

between samples obtained in the 1970s and 2002. 

Aquatic invertebrate sampling was conducted at two sites 

on the Tongue River in 2003, near the state line and at 

Brandenburg Bridge. These data indicate ephemeroptera 

(mayfly) was the most abundant invertebrate species ( 

62 percent and 49 percent at the two sites). Other 

3-143 
CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

abundant species included Diptera (12 percent) and 

Coleptera (11 percent) at the state line site and Tricoptera 

(27 percent at Brandenburg Bridge (BLM 2005c). 

The Aquatic Biota Monitoring Plan (November 9, 2006) 

has been developed by an aquatic task group for Montana 

and Wyoming. Members include representatives from 

BLM, MFWP, Wyoming Game and Fish, EPA, MDEQ, 

WYDEQ, MSU, USFWS and Montana Natural Heritage. 

The Aquatic Biota Monitoring Plan was developed in 

2005 and has been implemented for aquatic species from 

2005 to present. The plan addresses fish, macroinvertebrates, peryphyton, water quality, habitat, 

amphibians and reptiles. Monitoring results are not 

available at this time. However, preliminary research 

indicates the following. 

Recent experiments have shown that increased 

concentrations of a salt compound (sodium bicarbonate) 

typically occurring in CBNG-produced water may be 

more toxic to some fish than previously estimated (Skarr 

et al, 2005). These data indicate significant mortality of 

newly hatched fathead minnow at concentrations greater 

than 400 mg/L. In contrast, similar experiments with 

white suckers indicated improved hatching and early 

survival at concentrations as high as 1,400 mg/L 

compared to control groups. Fifty percent mortality of 

white suckers occurred, however, at a concentration 

between 4,049 and 6,678 mg/L (Skarr et al. 2005). By 

comparison, CBNG wells in the Tongue and Powder 

River basins may average concentration of about 1,000 to 

1,500 mg/L (Skarr 2006). 

The Aquatic Biota Monitoring Plan will use a weight-ofevidence approach to determine effects on aquatic species. 

Triggers that would indicate a need for change in 

management would include the following: (1) fish kill, (2) 

losing or gaining species of fish, (3) gaining invasive 

species, (4) decrease in spawning runs, (5) acute and 

chronic toxicity of ions, (6) instream habitat loss, (7) 

avoidance of certain habitat types due to CBNG discharge, 

(8) large increases or decreases in temperature and (9) 

decrease in the score of 15 to 20 points for the index of 

Biological Integrity for fish assemblages (Bramblett et al. 

2005). Information on aquatics monitoring is found in the 

Monitoring Appendix, Table MON-1. 

Water quality conditions and concerns in perennial, 

intermittent and ephemeral drainages in the Powder 

River RMP area are generally similar to those described 

for drainages in the Billings RMP area. Water quality in 

the Yellowstone and Powder rivers has been rated as 

good for wildlife uses (MBOGC 1989). 

Elser et al. (1980) reported the results of extensive 

fisheries investigations conducted on numerous large and 

small drainages in southeastern Montana. The authors 

found that the lower Yellowstone River in this part of the 

state supports a diverse, productive fishery that is 

dependent on adequate flows and good water quality. 

Elser et al. (1980) reported that in the Tongue River, fish 

populations range from a cold water-mixed population 

immediately downstream of the Tongue River Dam to an 

assemblage of slow-water species downstream near the 

river’s mouth. They added that migrant fish species from 

the Yellowstone River depend on high spring flows to 

allow good passage into the Tongue River. Elser et al. 

(1980) noted that fish populations in the Powder River 

are limited in diversity and abundance because of water 

quality and water quantity conditions. Fish populations 

are probably limited for similar reasons in the Little 

Missouri River, which Elser et al. (1980) described as 

having highly erratic flows, fair to poor water quality, 

very hard water and moderate to high turbidities. 

Special Status Species 

Many federally listed threatened, endangered, or 

candidate species of special concern exist in the 

Planning Area and are given special consideration 

under Section 7(c) of the ESA of 1973. As required by 

the ESA, the USFWS has provided a list of 

endangered, threatened and proposed species that may 

be present in the Planning Area. This section reviews 

the habitat requirements of the one special status 

aquatic species identified by the USFWS (Table 3-49), 

as well as the likelihood of them being found in the 

13 counties that may be potentially affected by this 

project. 

While USFWS found that Yellowstone cutthroat trout 

did not warrant listing under ESA in 2001, a recent 

court ruling resulted in another status review to 

determine whether to propose listing the species as 

threatened or endangered (USFWS 2005a). This review 

process was completed in February 2006 with a 

determination that Yellowstone cutthroat trout did not 

warrant listing under ESA. 

In addition to the federal special status species, seven 

other fish species expected to occur in the Planning 

Area are listed as sensitive species by BLM 

(Table 3-49). Sturgeon chub were, however, the only 

sensitive species captured in recent sampling in the 

Tongue and Powder River Basins (USGS 2005a, Zafft 

2005a). 

Montana Arctic Grayling 

This species is a candidate for listing under the ESA. 

On October 2, 1991, a petition requested that the 

“fluvial Arctic grayling” be listed as an endangered 

species throughout its historic range in the lower 

48 states. The petitioners stated the decline of the 

fluvial Arctic grayling was a result of many factors, 

including habitat degradation as a result of the effects 

of domestic livestock grazing and stream diversions for 

irrigation, competition with nonnative trout species and 

past overharvesting by anglers. 

3-144 
CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

TABLE 3-49 

SPECIAL STATUS AQUATIC SPECIES PRESENT IN THE CBNG PLANNING AREA 

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat in Montana Federal Status* 

Montana Arctic grayling 

Pallid sturgeon 

Blue sucker 

Northern redbelly X 

Finescale dace 

Paddlefish 

Pearl dace 

Sauger 

Sturgeon chub 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout 

Thymallus 

arcticus 

Scaphirhynchus 

albus 

Cycleptus 

elongatus 

Phoxinus eos x P. 

neogaeus 

Polyodon 

spathula 

Semotilus/Margar 

iscus margarita 

Sitzostedion 

canadense 

Macrhybopsis 

gelida 

Oncorhynchus 

clarki bouvieri 

Fluvial populations in the cold-water, mountain reaches S 

of the Upper Missouri River 

Bottom dwelling fish of the Missouri and Yellowstone E 

rivers 

Large rivers like the Missouri and Yellowstone, but S 

spawn in tributaries 

Boggy lakes, creeks and ponds, often with cool, dark- S 

colored water 

Calm open water of large rivers, such as the Missouri S 

and Yellowstone Rivers 

Cool or cold water lakes, bog ponds, creeks and springs S 

Large turbid rivers and shallow turbid lakes S 

Turbid rivers with moderate currents and depths and S 

sand or rock substrates 

Relatively clear, cold streams, rivers and lakes S 

*E = Federal Endangered; C = Federal Candidate; S = BLM Sensitive. 

Additionally, the petition stated that much of the 

annual recruitment is lost in irrigation ditches. 

Historically, this species was widely, but irregularly, 

distributed and locally abundant above Great Falls in 

the upper Missouri River drainage in Montana 

(USFWS 1994c). 

In 2007, USFWS determined the following: 

"currently available genetic information indicates 

fluvial Arctic grayling of the upper Missouri River 

drainage do not differ markedly in their genetic 

characteristic from adfluvial (lake or reservoir 

dwelling) Arctic grayling native to the Missouri 

River system. The fluvial Arctic grayling, therefore, 

is not considered biologically or ecologically 

significant based on genetics... Because the Service is 

unable to conclude at this time that the fluvial Arctic 

grayling populations of the upper Missouri River is 

significant, it does not qualify as a distinct population 

segment and is not a listable entity under the Act." 

Pallid Sturgeon 

This species was listed as endangered on 

September 6, 1990 (55 FR 36641). They evolved in 

large rivers with high turbidity and a natural 

hydrograph consisting of spring flooding and other 

natural highwater events. Historically in Montana, 

they occupied reaches of the Missouri River from 

Fort Benton downstream and in the Yellowstone 

River from about Forsyth (RM 183) to the Missouri 

River (USFWS 1993, Montana NRIS 2005). There 

are three priority recovery management areas in 

Montana, two on reaches of the Missouri and one on 

the Yellowstone River. 

Blue Sucker 

USFWS listed the blue sucker as a Category 2 

species in 1994 and it was listed as a species of 

concern by the state of Montana in 1996. This species 

may be susceptible to population declines in Montana 

due to its slow maturity, relatively low recruitment 

rate, migratory life history and reliance on high flows 

in tributary streams for spawning. The blue sucker is 

found in the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers, 

although blue suckers have also been found in many 

of the major tributary streams during their April to 

June spawning season. They prefer main channel 

swift water habitats. Where extensive riverine habitat 

losses and population isolation have occurred due to 

impoundments, however, major population declines 

and population fragmentation have resulted. In 

3-145 
CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

Montana, the blue sucker is present in most places 

with available habitat. They are an indicator species 

for ecosystem health because of their habitat-specific 

requirements. 

Northern Redbelly x Finescale Dace

The northern redbelly x finescale dace hybrid is 

designated as a species of special concern in 

Montana, primarily due to its limited distribution. 

This unique species consists only of female fish, as 

the hybrid female breeds with redbelly dace males, 

but the genetic material of the redbelly dace is not 

passed on to the progeny. Thus, the progeny are 

clones of the female. Northern redbelly and finescale 

dace prefer quiet water habitat in beaver ponds, bogs 

and clear streams, although finescale dace are also 

found in larger lakes and reservoirs. The northern 

redbelly x finescale dace hybrid has a relatively 

limited distribution in the Planning Area, primarily in 

the Yellowstone River drainage 

Paddlefish

The paddlefish is a mostly cartilaginous fish with 

smooth skin and is closely related to the sturgeon. 

Males mature at about age 9 or 10, while females 

mature at age 16 or 17. Montana is home to one of 

few remaining self-sustaining populations. These 

long-lived game fish have low reproductive rates, 

making them susceptible to the effects of habitat loss 

and recreational harvest. Because of its biological 

vulnerability, it was listed as a sensitive species in 

Montana in 1979. Paddlefish are more commonly 

found seasonally in the Upper Missouri River during 

the spawning season (May to July). In or near the 

CBNG Planning Area, they are found in the lower 

Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers. Paddlefish spawn 

during high water periods in late spring (May to 

June). 

Pearl Dace 

Pearl dace likely have a relatively limited distribution 

in the CBNG Planning Area. They have been found 

primarily in small, cold tributaries north of the 

Missouri River, with limited observations in the 

lower Yellowstone River. They are designated as a 

species of special concern in Montana, primarily 

because of their limited distribution. Pearl dace 

mature in two years and they spawn during the spring 

in clear water from 1 to 2 feet deep, over gravel and 

sandy substrate. 

Sauger

The sauger is a game fish added to the Montana 

species of special concern list in June 2000 because 

of the recent widespread declines in populations 

throughout Montana. This designation recognizes 

sauger as vulnerable to relatively minor disturbances 

to its habitat and deserving of careful monitoring as 

to its status. A severe decline in sauger numbers was 

first noticed in 1989 and populations have remained 

low. Sauger fingerlings depend on normal summer 

flows for maintaining adequate nursery habitat in side 

channels and backwater areas. A combination of 

drought years, flow control from the upstream dams 

and lack of woody cover in the rivers have 

contributed to poor conditions for the survival of 

young sauger (Jaeger 2004). Adult sauger inhabit 

sand and gravel runs or sandy and muddy pools and 

backwater areas in small to large river systems. The 

sauger distribution within the Planning Area is 

limited primarily to the larger rivers and streams. 

Sturgeon Chub

The sturgeon chub is indigenous to the MissouriMississippi River Basins from Montana to Louisiana. 

The sturgeon chub is classified as a species of special 

concern in Montana because of its limited numbers 

and/or habitat, although recent data show this species 

has a wide distribution in the Missouri, Yellowstone 

and Powder Rivers in Montana. 

The biology of the sturgeon chub is not well known. 

It apparently spawns from June through July in 

waters from about 64 to 75 degrees (oF) (18 to 

25o C). Chub are most closely associated with sites 

having moderate currents and depths and sand or 

rock substrates and they appear to be highly adapted 

to life in turbid waters. The major threat to the 

sturgeon chub is thought to be habitat alteration by 

dam and irrigation operations, as well as 

development. Low stream flows probably have 

eliminated some peripheral sturgeon chub 

populations, but dewatering poses little threat to the 

core populations of chubs in the Missouri and 

Yellowstone Rivers. 

This species has persisted in the Powder, 

Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers during the recent 

years of drought in Montana, as well as in a few 

isolated tributaries. Recent sampling in the Tongue 

and Powder River Basins revealed the presence of 

sturgeon chub at only three sites in the lower Powder 

River (USGS 2005). 

3-146 
CHAPTER 3 

Wildlife 

Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout

The Yellowstone cutthroat trout is one of two 

cutthroat trout subspecies in Montana and, as the 

name implies, is native to the Yellowstone River 

drainage of southwest and south-central Montana. 

Originally its range was as far downstream as the 

Tongue River, but today pure, unhybridized 

populations are limited to some headwaters streams 

and Yellowstone National Park. 

The complex life-history behavior of many 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout populations requires 

movement among diverse habitats. Hence, 

disruptions in habitat quality or availability may 

reduce their diversity or lead to extinction of isolated 

populations. 

Hybridization with non-native fish species is, 

however, considered the greatest threat to the 

persistence of Yellowstone cutthroat trout. The 

influence of other non-native organisms also 

threatens the persistence of Yellowstone cutthroat 

trout. Yellowstone cutthroat trout are susceptible to 

infection by Myxobolus cerebralis, a European 

protozoan and the causative agent of whirling disease 

(AFS 2005). 

Other factors affecting Yellowstone cutthroat trout 

include irrigation, dam and culvert barriers, poor 

reservoir habitat, river channelization and rip rap, 

grazing, mining, logging and road building. 

Unfortunately, most remaining populations in 

Montana are isolated and are at risk of extinction 

from natural and human-caused events (AFS 2005). 

3-147