CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-1

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

Introduction

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

the State of Montana jointly prepared the Montana 

Statewide Oil and Gas Final Environmental Impact 

Statement and Amendment of the Powder River and 

Billings Resource Management Plans (Statewide 

Document). The Statewide Document analyzed the 

environmental impacts associated with amending the 

resource management plans (RMPs) to change 

existing land use decisions regarding the 

development of oil and gas resources, including coal 

bed natural gas (CBNG) exploration and 

development. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 

Statewide Document was approved on 

April 30, 2003.

As a result of lawsuits filed against the BLM’s 

decision, the District Court ordered the BLM to 

prepare a supplement to the Statewide Document. 

The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana 

identified three topics to be evaluated in the 

supplement:

1. CBNG phased development

2. Cumulative impacts from the proposed 

Tongue River Railroad

3. How private water well mitigation 

agreements will help alleviate the impacts of 

methane migration and groundwater 

drawdown

The Draft Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil 

and Gas EIS and Amendment of the Powder River 

and Billings RMPs (DSEIS) was prepared by an 

interdisciplinary team of specialists from the BLM’s

Miles City Field Office and Billings Field Office, the 

Montana State Office of the BLM, and the consulting 

firms of ALL Consulting and Parametrix under 

contract to the BLM.

Preparation of the document began in August 2005.

The BLM solicited comments from agencies and the 

public using a variety of tools to announce the 

beginning of the SEIS process. Public participation 

activities included public scoping meetings, informal 

meetings, SEIS website information, and newsletters. 

Biweekly teleconference calls are also hosted by the 

BLM to provide ongoing communication with 

cooperating agencies and collaborators. 

Public Participation

The BLM prepared a public participation plan to 

guide project management and team efforts to 

develop the SEIS and to ensure public involvement 

during the entire SEIS preparation process. During 

the scoping for and preparation of the DSEIS, formal 

and informal public input was encouraged.

The 30-day scoping period began with the Federal 

Register Notice of Intent (NOI) published on August 

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

period and the availability of planning criteria were 

announced in a legal notice, newspaper 

advertisements, and media releases. During the 

scoping period, the BLM received written comments 

in the form of letters, comment forms, and emails.

Public scoping meetings were held in four towns 

within the Planning Area. Total attendance was 126 

people, with some people attending more than one 

meeting.

PLACE DATE

ATTENDANCE

Broadus August 22, 2005 24

Lame Deer August 23, 2005 65

Billings August 24, 2005 22

Miles City August 25, 2005 15

Total 126

A meeting was also held with the Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe during the public scoping period.

More than 500 comments were submitted during the 

scoping meetings and in written communications. 

Many comments were received in several categories, 

including air quality, oil and gas, phased 

development, water resources, and wildlife.

What has Changed in Chapter 5 

Since the DSEIS?

Chapter 5 documents the public participation-as well as 

agency and tribal consultation and coordination-during the 

preparation of this SEIS. A detailed list of Tribal coordination 

dates and meetings is provided. The most significant addition 

is the list of the public’s comments, along with the agency 

responses. Comments and responses are provided for each 

resource topic.
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-2

Following the public scoping period, the BLM held 

an alternative development meeting with cooperating 

agencies and other collaborators on September 21, 

2005, in Miles City. As a result of this meeting, a

preliminary phased development alternative was 

developed and distributed to the cooperating agencies 

and collaborators for comment. Based on cooperating 

agency and other collaborator comments, and further 

consideration of scoping comments, the BLM revised 

the alternative.

The revised phased development alternative was then 

summarized in an October 2005 project newsletter. 

More than 1,800 copies of the newsletter were sent to 

interested parties on the current project mailing list.

The phased development alternative presented in the 

newsletter was based on the proposed high range of 

development identified in the original reasonably 

foreseeable development (RFD) report. In response to 

several comments received as a result of the 

newsletter, the BLM developed a second phased 

development alternative based on the low range of 

predicted development.

On November 9, 2005, another meeting was held in 

Miles City with cooperating agencies and other

collaborators. Both the high and low range phased 

development alternatives were presented for 

discussion and feedback. As a result of this meeting, 

the two alternatives were fine-tuned before impact 

analysis.

On February 2, 2007, a Notice of Availability (NO

A) was published in the Federal Register announcing 

the availability of the DSEIS and beginning a 90 day 

public comment period which ended on May 2, 2007. 

Approximately 1510 copies of the DSEIS were 

distributed to the public for comment. Additionally, a 

copy was posted on the BLM-Miles City Field Office 

SEIS website for downloading by the public. 

Public meetings were held at five locations within the 

Planning Area to gather comments on and answer 

questions concerning the DSEIS.

PLACE DATE ATTENDANCE

Broadus March 26, 2007 29

Billings March 27, 2007 50

Hardin April 17, 2007 9

Lame Deer April 17, 2007 43

Miles City April 19, 2007 30

TOTAL 161

The meetings were attended by a total of 161 

members of the public. Comments were received 

both in writing and orally. 

On December 12, 2007 a Notice of Availability 

(NOA) was published in the Federal Register

announcing the availability of a Supplemental Air 

Quality Analysis for the DSEIS and beginning a 90 

day public comment period which ended on March

13, 2008. A public meeting was held at Miles City, 

Montana on February 20, 2008. The meeting was 

attended by 12 members of the public. Comments 

were received both in writing and orally.

Consultation with U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service on 

Threatened and 

Endangered Species

As required by section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) of 1973, the BLM initiated consultation 

with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) by 

submitting a letter dated September, 15, 2005, to 

FWS. This letter introduced the project and requested 

a list of threatened and endangered species to be 

considered in the DSEIS. The FWS responded with a 

letter, dated November 4, 2005, to provide an 

updated species list for preparation of a biological 

assessment (BA). A copy of this letter is included in 

the Wildlife Appendix of the SEIS.

The BLM then prepared a BA based on the preferred 

alternative and submitted the document to FWS. A 

copy of the draft BA is included in the Wildlife 

Appendix of this SEIS.

The following is a record of correspondence between 

the BLM and FWS for section 7 consultation.

09/15/05 The BLM submitted a letter introducing 

the project and requesting an updated 

species list

11/04/05 FWS responded to the BLM letter dated 

September 15, 2005, request for updated 

species list

09/13/06 The BLM submitted the Draft BA for

FWS review

04/27/07 FWS provides comments to BLM.

Consultation with FWS has continued throughout the 

SEIS process. As BLM did not propose actions that 

may affect a threatened or endangered species, formal 

consultation as required by section 7 of the ESA 

would not be required (P.C. FWS 1/17/08).
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-3

Consultation and 

Coordination with Native 

American Tribes

This section summarizes the BLM’s consultation and 

coordination efforts with the tribes in preparing the 

SEIS. The list does not include routine phone calls, 

such as the biweekly teleconference calls held with 

cooperating agencies and other collaborators during 

preparation of the SEIS.

Crow Tribe

09/21/05 Meeting on Phased Development 

Alternative held at Ft. Keogh in Miles 

City, MT, attended by representatives of 

the Crow Tribe

06/27/06 Consultation meeting on the DSEIS held 

at the Crow Agency, attended by 

representatives of the Crow Tribe

03/26/08 Consultation meeting on the Supplemental 

Air Quality Analysis was held on the 

Crow Reservation in Crow Agency, 

Montana. This meeting was attended by 

representatives of the Crow Tribal 

Council.

Northern Cheyenne Tribe

09/07/05 SEIS consultation meeting with the 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe held in Lame 

Deer, MT

09/21/05 Meeting on phased development 

alternative held at Ft. Keogh in Miles 

City, MT, attended by representatives of 

the Northern Cheyenne Tribe

11/29/05 Meeting to present and collect feedback 

on two phased development alternatives 

held in Lame Deer, MT

04/13/06 Meeting with the Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe to discuss the phased development 

alternatives

11/9/06 Meeting with the Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe to discuss a new phased 

development alternative

4/5/07 Consultation meeting on the DSEIS held 

at Lame Deer, MT, attended by 

representatives of the Northern Cheyenne

Tribe

03/13/08 Consultation meeting on the Supplemental 

Air Quality Analysis held in Lame Deer, 

MT, attended by representatives of the 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe

Lower Brule Sioux

06/08/05 Meeting to present SEIS project and 

discuss MOU with tribe for cooperating 

agency status held at the Lower Brule 

Sioux headquarters in Lower Brule, SD

11/09/05 Meeting to discuss phased development 

alternatives and elements of a preferred 

alternative held at Ft. Keogh in Miles 

City, MT, attended by representatives of 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe

04/09/08 Consultation meeting on the Supplemental 

Air Quality Analysis was held at the 

Lower Brule Sioux Reservation, in Lower 

Brule, South Dakota. This meeting was 

attended by representatives of the Lower 

Brule Sioux Tribal Council.

The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of South Dakota and 

the Crow Tribe of Montana have agreed to participate 

as cooperating agencies for this project. The Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe has entered into formal Governmentto-Government consultation in preparation of this 

document.

Consistency

The BLM’s planning regulations require that 

resource management plans “be consistent with 

officially approved or adopted resource related plans,

and the policies and programs contained therein, of

other Federal agencies, State and local governments, 

and Indian tribes, so long as the guidance and 

resource management plans are also consistent with 

the purposes, policies, and programs of Federal laws, 

and regulations applicable to public lands....” 

(43 CFR 1610.3-2).

All federal, state, and local agencies and Tribal 

councils have been requested to review this document 

and inform the BLM of any inconsistencies with their 

plans.

The Montana Governor’s clearinghouse will be 

supplied with copies of the final document for review 

to ensure consistency with the state’s plans.
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-4

Comments and Responses

The BLM received 152 public response documents, 

including letters, e-mails, website submittals, 

comment forms, and public meeting testimony during 

the DSEIS and the BLM 2007 Supplemental Air 

Quality Analysis (SAQA) public comment periods.

In preparing the FSEIS, the comments were used to 

accomplish the following:

• Modify analysis

• Develop and evaluate analyses not 

previously considered by the agency

• Supplement, improve, or modify the 

analysis

• Make factual corrections

• Explain why the comments do not warrant 

further agency response

Comments that expressed a preference or opinion did 

not affect the analysis. These comments were 

carefully considered in the decision-making process 

for developing the FSEIS. Copies of all comments 

are available at the BLM Miles City Field Office.

Comments that were incorporated into this analysis 

for the FSEIS are included in this chapter, grouped 

by topic area. Comments that addressed multiple 

topics were placed under the predominant concern or 

issue. Any comment that contains a reference to a 

specific chapter, page, table, map, or figure refers to 

the DSEIS document. Each comment is then 

followed by BLM’s response. References to pages, 

tables, maps or figures refer to the FSEIS.

Air Quality and Climate

Comment 1 (C-1): Are there any studies, 

information, or guesses as to how much CBNG is 

released naturally into the atmosphere, contributing 

to the greenhouse gasses? How much naturally 

occurring CBNG escaping to the atmosphere would 

be reduced by lessening the pressure and putting 

these gasses to beneficial use?

Response 1 (R-1): For a discussion of methane 

seepage to the surface, see the Geology and Minerals 

section of Chapter 3 under the heading “Methane 

Seepage, Migration, and Venting.”

C-2: The FSEIS must identify the maximum

permissible air emissions as part of its evaluation of 

the role that phased development can play as a 

mitigation strategy in achieving compliance with 

applicable air quality requirements. To perform an 

evaluation of the mitigation benefits that can be 

achieved by phased development, the FSEIS must 

identify the level of emissions that can be allowed 

from the project, when considered together with other 

emissions in the region, without causing or 

contributing to violations of the various Clean Air 

Act (CAA) requirements. 

R-2: An air quality model that considered the project 

impacts to air quality from Alternative E and phased 

development alternatives F and H was conducted for 

the SEIS. The air quality model considered the 

potential for air quality impacts from all sources, 

including project sources, and evaluated the predicted 

air emissions with respect to applicable air quality 

standards. The maximum air concentrations were 

predicted to be below applicable state and national 

ambient air quality standards. The results of the

analyses are included in Chapter 4 under "Air Quality 

and Climate", in the Air Quality Appendix, and in the 

Air Quality Technical Support Document (BLM 

2006). In addition, the Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has permitting 

authority for all individual sources that could impact 

air quality and has also committed to conducting an 

annual air model to assess overall impacts resulting 

from project-related activities. As part of the air 

quality impact analysis, BLM has modeled the level 

of development that eliminates visibility impacts over 

the life of the project at Class I airsheds including the 

Northern Cheyenne Reservation. This effort is based 

on actual well-to-compressor ratios that are currently 

being experienced in the Montana portion of the 

Powder River Basin (PRB). The results of these air 

quality mitigation modeling efforts are included in 

the Air Quality and Climate section of Chapter 4, the 

Air Quality Appendix, and the Supplemental Air 

Quality Analysis Document (BLM 2007).

C-3: The FSEIS identifies that CBNG companies 

will be exploring, constructing, and operating with 

few, if any, mitigation measures until ambient air 

quality monitoring and/or annual cumulative ambient 

air quality modeling indicate that an ambient air 

quality standard or increment has been exceeded. 

After an exceedance of an ambient air quality 

standard or increment is realized, the FSEIS then 

identifies authorities and obligations of MDEQ, tribal 

authorities, and/or the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) to require controls to restore air 

quality back to within the ambient standards and/or 

increment. Implementing mitigation measures after 

an ambient air quality standard or increment is 

exceeded is not the appropriate approach. Rather, the 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-5

FSEIS should identify, and BLM should require, the 

mitigation measures as emission control requirements 

in each alternative to minimize air quality impacts 

from oil and gas development. Placing emission 

controls on all sources, non-permitted and permitted 

alike, will help preserve the air quality of the area, 

while allowing the appropriate CBNG development 

to occur. In addition, the FSEIS should include as 

required mitigation measures that all CBNG 

compressor engines be either lean-burn engines or 

rich-burn engines with properly installed and 

maintained non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR) 

units. The FSEIS should include as mitigation 

measures the emission control requirements for 

engines located at facilities that do not exceed the 

25 tons per year permitting threshold. 

R-3: All CBNG operations equipment, such as 

compressor engines, currently operating within the 

Project Area have permitted air emissions controls 

installed on them based on MDEQ permitting and 

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) 

determinations. Such measures include but are not 

limited to catalytic oxidation units, air-to-fuel ration 

controllers, and non-selective catalytic reduction. In 

addition the following measures are part of the 

preferred alternative:

• Use of surface material for roads, well pads, 

and facility sites on soils susceptible to wind 

erosion

• Dust inhibitors on unpaved collector, local 

and resource roads

• Posting and enforcing speed limits

• Maximize the number of wells per 

compressor

• Require natural gas fired or electrical 

compressors or generators

Project-related air emissions sources that would not 

have air emissions controls consist of construction or 

development equipment such as bulldozers and 

drilling rigs. The authority for requiring air emissions 

controls on these types of mobile sources, or on 

stationary sources such as compressor engines with 

air emissions that do not exceed the current 25 tons 

per year threshold, lies with MDEQ. BLM would 

support MDEQ should it choose to implement 

regulations that would require these mobile sources, 

or other sources that currently do not require permits 

or controls, to have permitted air emission controls. 

BLM does have the authority to implement 

mitigation measures through the alternative selection 

process, the use of conditions of approval for 

Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs), or the use of 

lease stipulations. BLM has worked with MDEQ to 

include conducting an annual air quality model to 

assess the impacts resulting from CBNG 

development as an element of phased development 

under Alternatives F, G, and H. In addition, MDEQ 

has moved to a policy of conducting AERMOD 

models for all compressor stations that would require 

a permit. These models will look at both near-field 

(fenceline) emissions as well as cumulative 

emissions. The results of modeling at the permit stage 

and on a continuing cycle will identify when 

additional mitigation measures may be necessary 

before air quality standards are compromised. 

Examples of measures that could be implemented to 

mitigate air impacts are included in the Air Quality 

and Climate section of Chapter 4 under "Mitigation" 

and in Attachment B to the Air Quality Appendix. 

BLM would work with MDEQ and EPA in 

determining what mitigation measures would be most 

effective in addressing impacts to air quality and how 

or when those measures should be implemented.

C-4: The SEIS identifies mitigation measures that are 

common to all alternatives in Table 2-1 (page 2-8). 

However, the common mitigation measures are not 

required mitigation measures in the preferred 

alternative. These mitigation measures should be 

required in the preferred alternative.

R-4: Mitigation measures that are common to all 

alternatives would be required for all alternatives, 

including the Preferred Alternative (H).

C-5: BLM should fund the installation and operation 

of appropriately located ambient air quality monitors 

for NOx or particulate matter in the PRB.

R-5: The PRB Interagency Air Quality Task Group 

made recommendations and established the Montana 

portion of the PRB as a high priority area for 

monitoring. On May 10, 2007, the Powder River 

Basin Interagency Working Group decided that the 

Montana BLM and MDEQ would approach the 

Montana CBNG operators to determine if there were 

opportunities for funding assistance. The BLM and 

MDEQ will continue to pursue options for installing 

and operating additional air quality monitoring 

stations in the Montana portion of the Powder River 

Basin monitoring pollutants including nitrogen 

oxides, PM2.5, PM10 and ozone. 

C-6: The SEIS correctly states that MDEQ has 

committed to preparation of an annual estimate of 

cumulative impacts of CBNG development as 

resources allow, but many of the sources locating in 

the impact area are not installing equipment that 

exceed MDEQ’s 25 tons per year permitting 

threshold. MDEQ has no way to track these sources 

under current law. BLM could require its permittees 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-6

to submit an annual report summarizing emissions 

data and the required modeling parameters to allow 

MDEQ, or BLM if necessary, to conduct this annual 

modeling study.

R-6: BLM does have estimates for emissions that 

would be associated with construction equipment or 

other non-permitted project emissions that could be 

used for the emissions input to the annual air quality 

modeling conducted by MDEQ. These estimates are 

derived from industry standards and EPA 

publications and are widely used for air quality 

modeling. It is correct that a compressor site with two 

compressor engines does not typically exceed the 

tons per year threshold for implementing MDEQ’s 

permitting process. However, the engines used for 

these compressors are very similar, if not identical, to 

those currently being permitted by MDEQ, thus, 

providing another means to develop reasonable 

estimates for annual air quality modeling. BLM and 

MDEQ will both have to track development activities 

to account properly for emission sources to keep the 

annual monitoring up to date. If it becomes necessary 

to use other measures to ensure that this information 

is tracked, the Monitoring Appendix already includes 

the provision that BLM could require submittal of 

annual emission reports.

C-7: With respect to the breadth and scope of the 

increment and visibility impacts in the SEIS, consider 

the following. If all of the mitigating measures 

proposed were applied proactively, these impacts 

could be substantially reduced. BLM should 

reanalyze the impacts in the preferred alternative with 

all of the mitigating controls applied to the emission 

estimates to quantify the benefit of applying these 

controls earlier rather than later.

R-7: BLM has reanalyzed air impacts resulting from 

project-related activities under scenarios that would 

result in greater than 50% emission reductions from 

compressor engines and the effect this would have on 

reducing impacts to visibility at specific Class I and 

II airsheds within the Project Area. This analysis also 

considered comparisons to prevention of significant

deterioration (PSD) increments to quantify the 

benefit of further emission controls. The results of 

these analyses are contained in the Air Quality and 

Climate section of Chapter 4, the Air Quality 

Appendix, and the Supplemental Air Quality 

Analysis.

C-8: BLM should use caution when applying a 65 

percent reduction to Alternative F to estimate the 

impacts from Alternative G. Spatial and temporal 

distribution is an important element in estimation of 

impacts.

R-8: While applying a 65 percent reduction may not 

be directly linear due to variables such as 

photochemistry, well locations, etc., it is an 

appropriate means of assessing the potential impacts 

to air quality that would result from implementation 

of Alternative G on a regional basis. 

C-9: Page 3-2, Table 3-1. It appears that the form of 

the ozone standard is 8-hour rather than 1-hour. 

Please remove reference to annual PM10 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard. On September 21, 

2006, EPA announced final revisions to the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter, 

which were published in the Federal Register on 

October 17, 2006, and took effect on December 18, 

2006. The revision not only strengthened the 24-hour, 

PM2.5 standard from 65 to 35 μg/m3, but also 

revoked the annual PM10 standard of 50 μg/m3. EPA 

retained the existing annual PM2.5 standard of 15 

μg/m3 and the 24-hour PM10 standard of 150 μg/m3. 

The state of Wyoming will enter into rulemaking to 

revise the Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards, 

but as the state has not yet done so, the Wyoming 

Ambient Air Quality Standard for 24-hour PM2.5 

should be listed as 65 μg/m3, and the annual PM10

standard should be listed as 

50 μg/m3.

R-9: BLM is aware of the changes that were made to 

certain air quality standards; however, these changes 

had not been made prior to the printing of the DSEIS. 

These changes have been reviewed, and the 

appropriate updates have been incorporated into the 

FSEIS.

C-10: Page 3-7, Table 3-2. Please remove the 

reference to 1-hour averaging time for ozone in the 

table. EPA published a final rule on 

August 3, 2005, identifying areas for which the 1-

hour ozone standard was revoked. In that notice the 

1-hour ozone standard was revoked, effective June 

15, 2005, for all areas of Wyoming. WYDEQ-Air 

Quality Division then completed the process to 

remove the 1-hour standard from Wyoming Air 

Quality Standards & Regulations. That action was 

completed, and the effective date for the removal 

from the regulations was January 30, 2006. As a 

result, there is no federal 1-hour ozone standard that 

applies to Wyoming and there is no state 1-hour 

ozone standard that applied to Wyoming.

R-10: The data in Table 3-2 are referenced to 

national and state of Montana air quality standards. A 

footnote has been added which states that the national 

1-hour ozone standard does not apply to Wyoming.

C-11: Page AIR-5: Last Paragraph. Short-term (24-

hour) modeling exercises are not endorsed as a viable 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-7

tool in predicting short-term ambient impacts from 

fugitive dust particulate emissions, as the 

recommended EPA dispersion models have not been 

shown to work well when evaluating short-term 

fugitive particulate emissions. Please include a 

discussion of this within the text of the document.

R-11: The referenced text refers to the air quality 

model that was conducted for the coal review for the 

states of Montana and Wyoming and is a summation 

of the results of that study. 

C-12: Page 3, AIR-II, Emission Source Groups. 

Background concentrations are used as an indicator 

of existing conditions in the region and are assumed 

to include emissions from industrial sources in 

operation and from mobile, urban, biogenic, and 

other non-industrial emission sources. Therefore, it is 

inappropriate to include sources such as those 

identified by the Environmental Defense Fund in the 

emissions inventory, as those sources were in 

operation during the year in which background data 

were collected and are accounted for in the monitored 

background data.

R-12: The emission sources identified by the 

Environmental Defense Fund that were in operation 

during the base year (2004) and located in the 

modeling domain are included as part of the 

emissions inventory. They are listed as a separate 

source group only to highlight that emissions from 

those sources were incorporated into the analysis. 

Base year emissions for the FSEIS air quality 

modeling effort are predicated on permitted 

emissions data obtained from each state and the 

Western Regional Air Partnership emissions 

inventory database for emission sources within the 

modeling domain. Monitored background data were 

not used in development of the base year emissions.

C-13: Include language that states that the threshold 

values used for visibility and acid deposition are 

simply screening thresholds. They should not be 

interpreted to be standards as there are no applicable 

local, state, tribal, or federal regulatory standards for 

either visibility or acid deposition.

R-13: The referenced text states that the values used 

to evaluate visibility and acid deposition are 

“thresholds” The text does not imply that they are 

standards.

C-14: Existing Air Quality, page 3-2: “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 are 

considered representative of existing background air 

pollutant concentrations throughout the Planning 

Area.” As stated above, pollutant background 

concentration levels were based on several 

monitoring sites generally located either in urban 

areas or near industrial facilities where elevated 

concentrations would be measured. This sentence 

acknowledges that the background is conservatively

high. A high background concentration may show a 

false violation of an applicable ambient air quality 

standard.

R-14: The referenced text states that the monitored 

data were not used in conducting the Powder River 

Basin Coal Review Current Air Quality Condition air 

quality analysis (ENSR July 2005). The background 

emissions used for this particular air quality model 

and air impact analysis were developed from the state 

and local air quality monitoring system database.

C-15: Air Quality and Climate, Alternative A, 

Mitigation, page 4-30, “Electric Compression. Using 

electric-powered compressor motors in place of the 

typical natural gas-fired compressor engines could 

eliminate direct NOx emissions from compressor 

station locations.” The Alternative A air quality 

mitigation measures are the same for all alternatives. 

Electric compressors would reduce local air 

pollution; however, the electricity generated to run 

these units is likely generated by a nearby fossil-fuelfired utility. If there is an air quality issue on the 

project level (i.e., locally within about 1 km), then 

electric compressors may be a viable mitigation 

measure. However, long-range transport issues, such 

as visibility in Class I areas, may be adversely 

affected because the emissions have effectively just 

been moved to a tall stack (at a power plant) and will 

have a greater transport capability.

R-15: BLM recognizes that the use of electric 

engines for compressors as an air impact mitigation 

measure is only effective at the local level and does 

not eliminate the potential for emissions at the point 

where the electricity is generated. The statement 

referenced correctly points out that the use of electric 

motors for compressors would only be effective in 

eliminating “direct” NOx emissions from compressor 

station locations.

C-16: The DSEIS, under Alternative H implements 

an air quality impact screen that requires operators to 

submit air quality monitoring data to BLM for 

review. This requirement suggests that BLM has the 

authority to regulate air quality. While BLM should 

consult with MDEQ and EPA regarding its air quality 

concerns and an operator’s compliance with the 

applicable air quality laws, BLM does not have the 

authority to regulate air quality. BLM should allow 

CBNG activity provided air quality is being protected 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-8

per the legal avenue of federal and state air 

regulations already in place. 

R-16: The authority for issuing air quality permits 

and implementing air quality regulations lies with 

MDEQ. However, BLM does have a responsibility to 

evaluate whether project-related activities would 

result in an exceedance of air quality standards or an 

unacceptable impact to air quality. BLM also has the 

authority to implement mitigation measures through 

the alternative selection process, the use of conditions 

of approval for APDs, or the use of lease stipulations. 

BLM would work with MDEQ and EPA in 

determining what mitigation measures would be most 

effective in addressing impacts to air quality and how 

or when those measures should be implemented.

C-17: The air quality impact screen should be 

eliminated in its entirety because it does not 

accurately portray CBNG air emissions. First, most 

CBNG-related air emissions are local impacts. Due to 

the relatively short stacks of compressor engines and 

ground-level generation of PM10 emissions from 

construction activities and road travel, air quality 

impacts occur very near the point of emission. In fact, 

compressor station maximum impacts generally 

occur on the fenceline, or within a couple hundred 

meters of the fenceline. Because of CBNG activity 

emission characteristics, monitoring would show 

impacts from non-CBNG activity unless the sources 

were in close proximity. Monitoring would show 

when other non-CBNG sources were becoming 

problems. Second, DEQ already requires a 

cumulative type analysis when a CBNG facility 

applies for an air quality permit. Emission sources 

within 10 km are modeled to determine local impacts. 

This type of analysis is appropriate for the reasons 

mentioned above about CBNG activity emission 

characteristics. If the modeling analysis showed a 

potential violation of the standard, the project either 

would not be allowed, or the applicant would have to 

reduce emissions and ambient concentrations. Having 

BLM review the air quality status would be 

redundant and would create an additional 

unnecessary burden.

R-17: See R-14 and R-16. Additionally, while it is 

true that impacts from individual CBNG emission 

sources, such as compressors, are local, the combined 

impacts to air quality from hundreds of compressors 

could have an impact to air quality that would not be 

addressed by individual air quality permits or 

analyses conducted for individual emission sources. 

For this reason, the air quality impact screen would 

be a necessary component that would allow for 

evaluating air quality impacts on a more regional 

level than would be conducted in conjunction with 

the permitting process for individual emission 

sources.

C-18: Please define/explain when air modeling 

would be appropriate, what air modeling software 

would be acceptable, and what the protocol would be 

for air quality field modeling (i.e., explain how BLM 

would prefer to receive data in plan of development 

[POD] submissions).

R-18: The type of air quality modeling that BLM 

proposes is a model that would be updated annually 

to assess potential changes in air quality resulting 

from project-related activities on a regional basis. 

MDEQ would conduct the annual modeling and 

would determine which model it deemed best suited 

to evaluate potential changes in air quality. It is 

anticipated that data submitted to MDEQ in 

conjunction with applying for an air quality permit 

would be sufficient for conducting the annual 

modeling. Should additional data be required, BLM 

would let operators know when they submit their 

plans of development.

C-19: Regarding PSD increment analysis, the SEIS 

states that “an analysis of this sort is beyond the 

scope of this project.” The air quality of the Northern 

Cheyenne Reservation is greatly valued, as evidenced 

by attaining Class I status. Therefore, an air 

increment analysis is very much needed. For 

instance, the reservation lies just north and west of 

the areas expected to have the most development 

within the Powder River RMP. It is even stated in 

Chapter 3 that Rosebud and Bighorn counties would 

likely have the most CBNG development and 

production. Of particular concern is the fugitive dust

and exhaust from construction activities and 

operations such as compressor stations and how these 

activities would affect particulate matter and 

visibility.

R-19: Conducting a PSD increment analysis would 

be beyond the scope of the SEIS. A PSD increment 

analysis that includes the Northern Cheyenne 

Reservation is being conducted by EPA and MDEQ. 

As part of the air quality impact analysis, BLM has 

modeled the level of development that eliminates 

visibility impacts over the life of the project at Class I 

airsheds, including the Northern Cheyenne 

Reservation. This effort is based on actual well-tocompressor ratios currently being experienced in the 

Montana portion of the PRB. The results of these air 

quality mitigation modeling efforts are included in 

the Air Quality and Climate section of Chapter 4, the 

Air Quality Appendix, and the Supplemental Air 

Quality Analysis (BLM 2007).
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-9

The MDEQ requires that ambient air quality 

modeling be conducted for CBNG facilities (i.e. 

compressors) that exceed the 25-ton-per-year 

Montana Air Quality Permit threshold, regardless of 

the potential to emit from the facility. This is required 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

MAAQS/NAAQS. In addition, MDEQ requires that 

the modeling include a NOX PSD increment analysis 

to demonstrate compliance with the Class I NOX

increment (specifically at the Northern Cheyenne 

Reservation) and the Class II NOX increment, 

regardless of whether PSD applies to the facility.

C-20: The Northern Cheyenne Air Quality Division 

continuously strives to manage and maintain a 

current emissions inventory of known and suspected 

air pollutants within the exterior and posterior of the 

reservation. It is the Northern Cheyenne Air Quality 

Division’s goal to protect the air quality on the 

reservation. The Northern Cheyenne Tribe requests 

that, at a minimum, BLM establish and maintain a 

productive relationship with the tribe to preserve the 

Northern Cheyenne Reservation's Class I airshed as 

part of its trust responsibility to the tribe.

R-20: BLM is committed to working with EPA, 

MDEQ, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, and others

within the Project Area to ensure that project 

activities do not result in exceedances of air quality 

standards. BLM has conducted additional modeling 

and revised the Air Quality screen to contain 

measures that are protective of the Northern 

Cheyenne Class I airshed.

C-21: The air modeling presented in the DSEIS

included cumulative impacts from both the Tongue 

River Railroad (TRR) and the Roundup Power Plant. 

While these two projects are certainly within the 

realm of foreseeable development, it is believed that 

there are other potential projects that should also be 

considered in the model. For example, in October 

2006, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer 

announced the development of a $2 billion coal-todiesel plant that would accompany the power plant 

south of Roundup. Air quality concerns associated 

with this facility would include sulfur dioxide, 

various nitrous oxides, carbon dioxide, hydrogen 

sulfide, and volatile organic compounds. This 

proposed project would ultimately have a long-term 

impact on the air quality of the planning area and 

should have been included in the model.

R-21: The proposed coal-to-liquids facility south of 

Roundup has no funding and no permits have been 

applied for (e.g. construction, siting). There is no 

information available such as parameters, size, or 

through-put that could be used in anticipating

emissions. The project is considered speculative.

C-22: We are concerned about the increased impacts 

on visibility that are predicted for the Northern 

Cheyenne and Crow reservations. Although BLM 

states in the Mitigation Measures section (under 

Preferred Alternative H, page 4-54), “As modeling 

and monitoring results become available, the BLM 

may adopt more stringent measures so predicted air 

quality impacts are avoided,” it is likely that the 

predicted visibility impacts would have already 

occurred before modeling and monitoring results 

were available. Under the Air Quality Screen 

description (page 2-22), monitoring would take place 

on an annual basis. In an effort to ensure that 

visibility impacts would not be exceeded, we strongly 

urge BLM to work with MDEQ to shorten the 

monitoring interval from annually to quarterly. We 

also ask that BLM ensure that current and future 

PODs include mitigation measures to minimize the 

impacts of increased visibility problems before the 

PODs were approved.

R-22: See also R-19. BLM has conducted additional 

modeling to evaluate the effectiveness of control and 

mitigation measures to reduce impacts to visibility at 

specific airsheds within the project air modeling 

domain, including the Northern Cheyenne and Crow 

reservations. The results of that modeling are 

contained in the Air Quality and Climate section of 

Chapter 4, the Air Quality Appendix, and the 

Supplemental Air Quality Analysis Report. The air 

quality screen has been revised to include monitoring 

of compressor engine horsepower requirements and 

mitigation if the horsepower requirements should 

reach a level that modeling indicates impacts would 

occur.

C-23: While air quality from CBNG operations 

received some analysis in the DSEIS, there is no 

analysis of the additional emissions from operating 

trains along the railroad or emissions and dust from 

maintenance vehicles along roadways, should the 

TRR be built. 

R-23: Air emissions resulting from the TRR were 

included as a reasonably foreseeable future action in 

the cumulative air impact analysis (see Chapter 4, Air 

Quality and Climate and the Air Quality Appendix). 

C-24: The agency must analyze the cumulative 

effects from emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) 

that result from permitted activities under the SEIS.

(1) Quantify GHG emissions from past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable oil and gas operations; (2) 

address the emissions as direct, indirect and 

cumulative impacts to the human environment for the 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-10

entire Powder River Basin; (3) consider lease 

stipulations and post-lease conditions of approval 

applicable to all oil and gas operations designed to 

reduce GHG emissions as components of the 

alternative analyses; (4) consider how climate change 

impacts ecological resiliency across the basin, and 

whether such impacts warrant enhanced ecological 

protections to ensure the landscape’s long-term 

ecological viability; and (5) consider how climate 

change impacts may operate to constrain oil and gas 

field operations. BLM must factor the changes 

wrought by global climate change into its cumulative 

effects analysis concerning vegetation, wildlife, and 

water quality.

R-24: The assessment of GHG emissions and climate 

change is in its formative phase and many existing 

climate prediction models are global in nature. 

However a section has been added to Chapter 4 that 

addresses the quantitative contribution of GHG from 

the project, indirect impacts from the burning of the 

methane extracted over the estimated development 

period and cumulative impacts related to climate 

change. Impacts addressed include potential climate 

change impacts identified by the EPA at a regional 

scale. However, scientific uncertainty does remain, 

and the lack of proven scientific tools designed to 

predict climate change on local scales limits the 

ability to project potential future impacts of climate 

change on the resources found in the Powder River 

Basin. For additional information and the 

contribution of project direct and indirect impacts to 

this global issue see the Air Quality sections within 

Chapters 3 and 4 of the FSEIS. 

C-25: The Supplemental Air Quality Analysis shows 

potential violations of the NAAQS and MAAQS for 

the Preferred Alternative from both direct project 

impacts and cumulative impacts. The modeling 

results indicate that there will be exceedances of the 

1-hour NO2 MAAQS under all scenarios of the 

Preferred Alternative when considering the impact 

from all sources on the Crow Reservation in 

Montana. The SAQA does not disclose the potential 

exceedances of the NO2 MAAQS and PM10 NAAQS 

in the cumulative impact modeling for near-field 

impacts in Montana. Tables 5-1, 5-2 and 5-3 of the 

SAQA indicate that “[b]ackground is to be added to 

modeled impact for comparison to AAQS” and yet 

there are no background concentrations included in 

the tables. The background concentrations from 

Table AQ-1 of the Air Quality Appendix from the 

January 2003 analysis, when added to the projected 

concentrations from all sources for all Preferred 

Alternative scenarios results in predicted violations 

of the 1-hour NO2 MAAQS and the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS for the Montana near-field grid. For 

example, Table 5-3 of the SAQA (p. 21) shows 

predicted 1-hour NO2 concentrations of 1,589 μg/m3

for the cumulative modeling run (“ALL Sources”) for 

all of the Preferred Alternative H scenarios. 

Compared with the 1-hour MAAQS of 565 μg/m3

and considering that the 1,589 μg/m3 does not include 

the background concentration for NO2 in Montana 

(117 μg/m3 from Table AQ-1 of the SEIS Air Quality 

Appendix) these predicted impacts are huge at three 

times the MAAQS.1

R-25: The tables in the printed copy of the SAQA 

were initially revised and an Errata sheet was 

provided in December of 2007. The revision was 

required to update model predicted impacts following 

the removal of an incorrectly identified emission 

source. The tables have been further revised to show 

background ambient air concentrations and initial 

base year modeling impacts and have been 

incorporated into the SAQA document. The 

background values presented in the Tables 5-1, 5-2, 

and 5-3 of the SAQA document were provided by 

MDEQ and are not the same as the Base Year 

background levels contained in Table AQ-1 of the 

SEIS Air Quality Appendix. The Base Year 

background levels were provided in Table AQ-1 to 

allow comparison of future impacts to Base Year 

impacts. The background levels provided by MDEQ 

are to be added to model predicted results for 

comparison to AAQS. The revised results indicate 

that air quality impacts from CBNG project sources 

would be below applicable air quality standards at all 

receptors; however, the results for Revised 

Alternative H show a maximum predicted level for 1-

hour NO2 of 544 μg/m3 with a MAAQS of 565 μg/m3

which indicates the potential for the standard to be 

exceeded. Cumulative impacts from the revised 

results show the potential to exceed the PSD 

increment for 24-hr PM10 and the 1-hr NO2 AAQS at 

the Montana Near-field receptors, and the potential to 

exceed the 24-hr PM10 PSD increment at both the 

Northern Cheyenne and Crow reservations. A review 

of modeled sources contributing to these cumulative 

PM10 and NO2 impacts indicates that coal mining 

activities in the region are the predominant 

contributing sources. Furthermore, the cumulative 

impacts include reasonably foreseeable future actions 

Similarly, the 24-hour PM10

cumulative impact concentrations from all of the 

Preferred Alternative H scenarios, when combined 

with the background concentration for PM10 (105 

μg/m3 from Table AQ-1 of the SEIS Air Quality 

Appendix), are two times the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.

 1 1,589 μg/m3 + 117 μg/m3 = 1,706 μg/m3

1,706 μg/m3 / 565 μg/m3 = 3.1
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-11

(RFFA) sources which would be located on the 

Northern Cheyenne and Crow reservations. BLM 

has revised the Air quality Screen within the 

Preferred Alternative (H) to include additional 

control and monitoring measures that will allow for 

better tracking of project emissions to avoid 

exceedances of air quality standards.

C-26: The SAQA does not disclose the potential 

exceedances of the NO2 MAAQS and PM10 NAAQS 

in the cumulative impact modeling for near-field 

impacts in Montana. Tables 5-1, 5-2 and 5-3 of the 

SAQA indicate that “background is to be added to 

modeled impact for comparison to AAQS” and yet 

there are no background concentrations included in 

the tables. 

R-26: Tables 5-1, 5-2 and 5-3 have been revised to 

include background values for comparison against 

the air quality standards. The background values 

found in Tables 5-1, 5-2 and 5-3 should be used, not 

the values from Table AQ-1. The values in AQ-1 

were used in the original model completed for the 

2003 Final Montana Statewide Oil and Gas 

Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed 

Amendment of the Powder River and Billings 

Resource Management Plans (Statewide Document). 

Elevated background levels were used in this analysis 

to represent many existing sources. Contrary to this 

approach, the air quality modeling conducted for this 

SEIS included all major existing sources and the 

background values used for most of the State of 

Montana to represent mobile sources, small 

stationary sources, and distant (outside of the 

modeling domain) large sources.

C-27: The BLM’s emissions estimates for PM 

emissions from construction activities and travel on 

unpaved roads are based on the assumption that there 

will be 50% control of fugitive dust emissions (by 

watering). See, for example, SAQA Appendix at A-2, 

A-4, A-5, A-11, A-12. The requirement to cut 

fugitive dust emissions in half through watering of 

construction sites and roads should clearly be 

specified in the SEIS. 

R-27: The use of dust control measures is addressed 

as a mitigation measure common to all alternatives 

within Chapter 2, Table 2-1. The control of dust is 

included in the preferred alternative. The following 

measures are required to reduce fugitive dust.

• Access roads, well pads and production 

facility sites constructed on soils susceptible 

to wind erosion will be appropriately 

surfaced to reduce fugitive dust emissions.

• Dust inhibitors will be used as necessary on 

unpaved collector, local and resource roads 

to reduce fugitive dust emissions to the air 

and resources adjacent to the road.

• To reduce dust, operators of federal leases 

would have to post and enforce speed limits 

for their employees and contractors. 

In addition, the preferred alternative includes a best 

management practice (BMP) to encourage operators 

to work with local government to use dust 

suppression techniques on county roads.

C-28: The Supplemental Air Quality Analysis shows 

the potential for violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

cumulative PM2.5 modeled concentrations are over 

75% of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Short-term PM2.5

concentrations from direct project sources are over 

60% of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Previous modeling has shown that emissions from 

non-project sources of PM2.5 result in 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations of 44 μg/m3. See Table AQ-4 of the 

Air Quality Appendix from the January 2003 air 

quality analysis. This suggests that ambient 

concentrations from non-project sources already 

exceed the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 μg/m3, at 

least according to the original modeling. It is not 

clear why the cumulative modeling in the SAQA now 

predicts significantly lower PM2.5 concentrations than 

the previous modeling analyses. Tables 5-1, 5-2 and 

5-3 show cumulative 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations of 

6-7 μg/m3. The fact that non-project source 

concentrations were formerly 7 times the total 

cumulative source concentrations in the 2007 SAQA 

(and exceeded the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS) and now 

the cumulative modeled impacts are only a fraction 

of the NAAQS must be more clearly explained in the 

SAQA. 

R-28: The modeling conducted for the SAQA 

utilized recalculated project emissions based on 

updated information of current CBNG production 

methodologies being used in Montana, and removed 

emissions from maintenance and operations that had 

inadvertently been counted twice in the DSEIS 

modeling. The recalculated project emissions were 

less than those used in the DSEIS modeling. 

Additionally, placement of project CBNG emissions 

sources were reconfigured to better reflect anticipated 

locations of CBNG activities. The combined effects 

of the recalculated emissions and the source 

reconfiguration lead to reduced model predicted 

impacts. The difference between the 2003 nonproject source emissions and the non-project source 

emissions utilized in the SAQA air modeling is due 

to several changes between the models. The SEIS and 

SAQA utilized an updated meteorological base year 

(2002), updated emission sources to the most current 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-12

year (2004) at the time of conducting the DSEIS air 

modeling, and revision to RFFA source point 

locations within the Northern Cheyenne and Crow 

reservations. Each of these changes could feasibly 

lead to the observed reduction of impacts for nonproject sources. Additionally, the reduction in project 

emissions due to the recalculation would provide 

reduced cumulative impacts when a project source 

was the dominating emission source to a receptor. 

Direct comparison of cumulative impacts and nonproject source impacts with AAQS is done by adding 

the background values provided by MDEQ and 

contained within Tables 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 to the 

modeled impacts.

C-29: The SAQA describes PSD increment 

violations for all Preferred Alternative H Scenarios 

for 24-hour PM10. The Montana Near-Field shows a 

potential to exceed the Class II PSD increment for 

24-hour PM10. There is also a potential to exceed the 

Class I PSD increment for 24-hour PM10 at the 

Northern Cheyenne Reservation. The BLM must 

consider the PSD increments as important and legally 

binding Clean Air Act requirements and it must 

provide for compliance with these requirements in 

the statewide EIS and amended RMPs. 

R-29: See also R-19. The SAQA modeling results do 

not show the potential for direct project CBNG 

sources to exceed PSD increments on Class I or Class 

II sensitive areas. However, the cumulative impacts, 

which include RFFA CBNG well development on the 

Northern Cheyenne and Crow Reservations, could 

have the potential to exceed certain PSD increments. 

The BLM will use the air screen to identify and 

address any potential exceedances, and will work 

with MDEQ, EPA and Tribal Agencies to minimize 

the potential for exceedances. Also, comparisons to 

the PSD Class I and II increments are intended to 

evaluate a threshold of concern for potential impacts 

and do not represent a regulatory PSD Increment 

Consumption Analysis. Such an analysis would be 

conducted by the appropriate air regulatory agency.

C-30: The results of the visibility analyses for all of 

the Preferred Alternative scenarios show visibility 

impacts from direct project impacts and cumulative 

impacts at the Northern Cheyenne and Crow 

reservations. None of the preferred alternative 

scenarios protect against visibility impairment at 

these Class I and Class II locations. Specifically, 

when measured by the 0.5 deciview (dv) metric of 

change in light extinction, visibility degradation will 

occur at the Northern Cheyenne and Crow 

reservations under all modeled scenarios (i.e., 

Alternative H Revised, Scenario 1, Scenario 1A, 

Scenario 2 and Scenario 2A) from project CBNG 

construction source impacts alone, from project 

CBNG operations source impacts alone and when 

considering cumulative source impacts. 

R-30: The FLAG guidance document utilizes a value 

of 1.0 deciview as the basis for determining if a “just 

noticeable” impact to visibility has occurred. BLM 

has used the value recommended by FLAG. For 

additional information see the Dispersion Modeling 

Protocol for Ambient Air Quality Impact Assessment 

(BLM 2006) under the heading of “Air Quality 

Related Values/Visibility”.

C-31: The Supplemental Air Quality Analysis does 

not address the ecosystem impacts from nitrogen and 

sulfur deposition for the Preferred Alternative. The 

BLM claims these impacts are insignificant based on 

an acceptability threshold of 3 kilograms/hectare-year 

(kg/ha-yr) and 5 kg/ha-yr for nitrogen and sulfur 

deposition respectively. However, these impacts are 

considered significant when compared to the 

National Park Service’s (NPS) Class I area 

“Deposition Analysis Thresholds” of 0.005 kg/ha-yr 

for both nitrogen and sulfur deposition.

R-31: The USFS (USFS 2000) has indicated that 

deposition values below thresholds of 3 kg/ha-yr and 

5 kg/ha-yr, for nitrogen and sulfur deposition 

respectively, will not lead to significant air quality 

related value impacts. Deposition predictions were 

based on USFS prediction methodologies as 

described in the Dispersion Modeling Protocol for 

Ambient Air Quality Impact Assessment (BLM 

2006) prepared for the DSEIS, and were therefore 

compared to threshold level values recommended by 

the USFS. 

C-32: The Supplemental Air Quality Analysis does 

not include an analysis of impacts on ground-level 

ozone concentrations.

R-32: As stated in the Dispersion Modeling Protocol 

for Ambient Air Quality Impact Assessment (BLM 

2006) prepared for the DSEIS, CBNG activities 

would lead to insignificant levels of volatile organic 

compounds, precursors that chemically combine with 

other atmospheric pollutants to form ground level 

ozone, therefore it was not necessary to include 

ozone in the air quality modeling..

C-33: The Supplemental Air Quality Analysis does 

not address potential methane mitigation as a means 

to minimize GHG impacts from CBNG development 

in the Powder River Basin. BLM should consider and 

adopt the mitigation strategies identified by EPA and 

others for minimizing methane emissions from oil 

and gas development.
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-13

R-33: See also R24. Methane is the predominant 

resource being developed and captured for sale. As 

such, it is anticipated that producers will make efforts 

to ensure that minimal amounts are lost to the 

atmosphere as fugitive emissions of methane 

represent a lost revenue source. Furthermore, EPA 

has established a voluntary program to reduce 

methane emissions in the natural gas industry. This 

program, known as the Natural Gas STAR Program

(Gas STAR) is a voluntary partnership between EPA 

and the natural gas and oil industries to reduce 

emissions of methane from the production, 

transmission, and distribution of natural gas. The 

Final SEIS includes additional BMPs (mitigation 

measures) from EPA’s Natural Gas STAR Program 

that could be used to reduce fugitive methane 

emissions from compressor stations, metering and 

regulating stations and other field production 

activities.

C-34: Methane is leaking in the Tongue River 

Reservoir. The methane keeps the reservoir from 

freezing in the winter where the gas is leaking. The 

reservoir used to freeze in the area it is open now. 

The amount of methane leaking needs to be 

quantified. The carbon dioxide from CBM 

development should also be quantified as well as the 

cumulative impacts of carbon dioxide from other 

potential regional projects, such as the Tongue River 

Railroad, the coal plant at Hardin and Colstrip. The 

supplement should determine greenhouse gases 

emitted from the proposed Highwood Generating 

Plant being considered in Great Falls. In addition 

there is a coal-to-diesel facility being proposed in the 

Great Falls area as well. 

An important aspect that needs to be looked at is the 

increase in coal seam fires because of CBM 

development and how much carbon dioxide is being 

added to the atmosphere from this source. Not only 

should this be controlled, it needs to be quantified for 

the cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions.

R-34: See also R-1, R-21 and R-24. A discussion of 

methane seepage to the surface is contained in the 

Geology and Minerals section of Chapter 3 under the 

heading “Methane Seepage, Migration, and Venting.” 

The Wyoming BLM (Buffalo Field Office) has been 

conducting a methane seepage monitoring program 

for over five years. To date, this BLM study has not 

found indications of surface-seepage. Additionally, a 

discussion of the potential for impacts from coal 

seam fires can be found in the Geology and Minerals 

section of Chapter 4 under the heading of Impacts 

From Management Common to All Alternatives.

A discussion of greenhouse gases and climate change 

issues is included within the Air Quality sections of

Chapters 3 and 4 of the FSEIS.

C-35: The Hardin plant was recently fined for 

exceeding the air quality limits. The air quality 

analysis in this SEIS is done for normal pollution 

limits. We believe that the analysis should include 

data for what happens when Hardin exceeds the 

standards again.

R-35: Many of the sources included in the base year 

modeling analysis and RFFA sources in the 

alternative development year (ADY) utilize permit 

level emissions rates rather than actual emissions 

rates. In general, most facilities have actual emissions 

that are significantly less than their permitted levels, 

in order to maintain sufficient overhead to allow for 

process modifications that may slightly increase 

actual emissions, but would not require modification 

of their permit. The use of permitted levels in the 

modeling analysis is considered to be conservative 

enough to allow for temporary excursions over 

permitted levels by a modeled source when 

considering that other modeled sources would be 

operating well below their permitted levels at the 

same time.

C-36: According to the revised Alternative H some 

of the Reservations will be impacted. My concern 

here is the impact on any residents within those 

impacted areas. Are they people who reside there that 

have any type of ailment, disease, condition, that 

would be impacted by the dust in the air? Has any 

plans been put into effect for these people to decrease 

the impact on them during the time of production and 

operation and maintenance? How does this whole 

operation in its entirety affect the people, their health, 

welfare and livelihood? 

R-36: The area encompassed by the project boundary 

includes populated regions which would have 

persons that could potentially be susceptible to 

certain health effects from airborne pollutants. 

Attachment A of the Air Quality Appendix- Part 2 to 

the DSEIS is entitled, “Review of Information on 

Health Effects,” and discusses reported health effects 

of exposure to particulate matter. Attachment B of 

the Air Quality Appendix – Part 2 to the DSEIS, 

entitled “Review of Mitigation Measures,” provides a 

discussion on methods which could be used to reduce 

potential project air quality emissions to avoid any 

adverse health impacts. Further, the AAQS are set to 

be protective of public health with a margin of safety, 

accounting for health effects on some of the most 

sensitive members of the population.
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-14

C-37: It is not clear if the emissions from the nearby 

operating Colstrip and Hardin coal-fired generating 

plants were included in the SAQA model's baseline 

data.

R-37: The DSEIS and its supporting documents 

including the Air Quality Appendix, and the Air 

Quality Technical Support Document fully describe 

the sources included in the baseline modeling. The 

coal-fired power plants at Hardin and Colstrip are 

included in the baseline modeling.

C-38: The DSEIS SAQA states that "to reduce dust, 

operators of federal leases would have to post and 

enforce speed limits for their employees and 

contractors. Operators could work with local 

government to use dust suppression techniques on 

roads." The issue of road dust should be directly 

addressed in a manner that controls and reduces 

fugitive dust.

R-38: See also R-27. Reducing road traveling speeds 

and use of dust suppression methods are required 

under the preferred alternative. These methods are 

effective controls accepted by EPA to minimize the 

potential for particulate matter (see Table AQ-13, 

page AIR-33 and Supplemental Air Quality Analysis, 

page A-2)

C-39: As the Air Quality Screen is implemented, 

EPA recommends that BLM take measures to ensure 

that interested parties are adequately involved in this 

endeavor. EPA recommends the FSEIS and 

subsequent Record of Decision include a mechanism 

for public disclosure of the future air quality 

modeling, monitoring data collected, and horsepower 

threshold calculations completed under the Revised 

Air Screen. Data and analysis conducted under the 

Air Quality Screen will be important to share with 

relevant stakeholders including the Northern 

Cheyenne Reservation, the Crow Reservation, the 

MDEQ, and the general public. The data and analysis 

will also be important for energy companies in 

planning future development in the area.

R-39: BLM will make public on the Miles City Field 

Office website

http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/miles_city_field_offi

ce/cbng/monitoring.html the results of future air 

quality modeling, monitoring data collected, and 

horsepower calculation conducted under the Revised 

Air Quality Screen. The summary of ongoing 

monitoring related to coal bed natural gas is 

scheduled to be updated every six (6) months.

C-40: The cumulative impact analysis included in 

the SAQA suggests the potential for exceedances of 

the Montana Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(MAAQS) for NO2. BLM's Revised Air Quality 

Screen is designed to identify and mitigate these 

potential impacts before they occur. To address this 

potential for exceedances, the Revised Air Quality 

Screen notes that "BLM would approve additional 

APDs only if it can be demonstrated that they would 

not contribute to the exceedances of air standards." 

(SAQA, page 2). Nonetheless, the SAQA suggests 

the need for BLM to closely monitor the NO2 levels 

to ensure compliance of future drilling activities with 

the MAAQS. EPA recommends BLM conduct nearfield air quality modeling, such as AERMOD, prior 

to approval of any project-specific development 

proposals. EPA understands near-field air quality 

modeling may already be incorporated into the 

permitting process by MDEQ. If so, EPA suggests 

the Final SEIS include a discussion of this process 

and clarify that additional near-field modeling will 

occur prior to approval of project-specific 

development.

R-40: MDEQ conducts project specific near-field air 

quality modeling as well as an evaluation of potential 

cumulative effects for each proposed air quality 

permit. A detailed discussion of this process is 

included in Chapter 3 of the FSEIS within the Air 

Quality section. This process is also identified in 

Chapter 2 within the Air Quality Screen and in 

Chapter 4 as part of processes in place to protect air 

quality. See R-19.

C-41: Given the results disclosed in this 

Supplemental Air Quality Analysis, EPA 

recommends BLM work with the operators and 

MDEQ to fund and install additional NO2 monitors in 

the area.

R-41: Addressed under R-5.

C-42: The SAQA uses a NOx emission factor of 1.0 

or 1.5 gram/brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) for 

compressor engines, depending on the scenario. If 

these emission rates form the basis for producing 

modeling results that show an acceptable level of 

impact for the project, then these emission rates 

should be made enforceable limits (through 

regulation, permit condition, or some other 

enforceable mechanism).

R-42: The horsepower requirement thresholds were 

incorporated into the air quality screen as a means to 

track and monitor levels of potential impacts. Air 

quality modeling has shown that emissions below the 

horsepower threshold would not have the potential to 

cause an exceedance of ambient air quality standards 

or have an impact on visibility. As horsepower 

requirements approach the threshold, BLM will 

consider further mitigation measures and/or 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-15

requirements that would be enacted to minimize the 

potential for exceedance of any air quality standard. 

The MDEQ is the permitting authority for air quality 

in the State of Montana and will ultimately decide on 

the allowable emissions for each permitted unit. 

Currently, they are issuing permits with a NOx 

emission factor of 1.0 g/bhp-hr; however they have 

the flexibility within regulation to issue permits with 

a higher emission factor. For this reason, BLM has 

selected a conservative horsepower threshold as an 

effective means to monitor potential impacts.

C-43: The emission calculations for road dust 

particulate emissions throughout the inventory use an 

old (1998) version of AP-42 Section 13.2.2. This 

section has since been revised three times. The 1998 

version used in the SAQA gives a more conservative 

(higher) estimate of PMl0 and PM2.5 emissions. 

Therefore, particulate impacts due to road dust may 

be over-predicted in the modeling analysis. 

R-43: The calculations of potential air emissions 

associated with project activities were intentionally 

conservative. The continued use of previous (1998) 

emission factors was done to maintain consistency 

with the prior air modeling conducted for the 2003 

Statewide EIS. The road dust particulate calculations 

may result in a conservative estimate of PM10 and 

PM2.5 emissions. 

C-44: The sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission calculations 

for gas flaring use an AP-42 emission factor for 

combustion of pipeline quality gas. This assumes low 

sulfur content in the fuel. While the literature 

suggests that CBNG is likely to be low in sulfur, in 

conventional oil and gas project operations, the gas 

being flared is likely to have high sulfur content 

unless the gas has undergone a sweetening process. 

Due to the site-specific variation in sulfur content of 

fuels, an analysis of sulfur content of a representative 

sample of CBNG that would typically be flared 

would be preferable to the use of the AP-42 emission 

factor.

R-44: As stated in the comment, literature sources 

indicate that sulfur content of CBNG is typically 

either very low or below laboratory analytical 

detection limits. The predominant sources of flaring 

will occur during CBNG well development. Based on 

the considerations that CBNG well development will 

be the greatest source of flaring and given the 

literature descriptions of CBNG as containing little or 

no sulfur, it was reasonable to use the AP-42 

emission factor for natural gas flaring. It should also 

be noted that air model predicted impacts of sulfur 

dioxide were all well below any regulatory threshold 

limits.

C-45: The emission inventory in the SAQA for 

"Conventional Oil and Gas Operations" does not 

appear to include emissions from compressors or 

dehydration units. The BLM should confirm that 

compressors or dehydration units are either 1) 

included in the emissions inventory, or 2) not 

expected to be sources of emissions in the 

Conventional Oil and Gas Operations.

R-45: Emissions from compressors and dehydration 

units were accounted for in the emission inventory. 

The calculations presented in Appendix B of the 

Argonne Technical Support Document (TSD)

(Argonne 2002) for conventional oil and gas 

emissions included a comment under the compressor 

calculations stating, “Note: Not applicable, as 

compressor installation will coincide with 

compressor installation for CBM operations. No 

additional compression will be required.” The 

comment under dehydrator calculations states, “Note: 

Same as above. The small amount of conventional 

gas would be mingled with the CBM gas in the basin. 

No appreciable increase of emissions is expected.”

The above notes reference an email from C. Martinez 

(WGR) to K. C. Chun entitled, “Basic Data for 

Emission Estimation” dated March 30, 2001. These 

assumptions remain accurate. Furthermore, existing 

sources, including compressors for conventional oil 

and gas activity throughout the modeling domain, are 

included as part of the emission inventory, see the 

emission inventory tables in the Air Quality 

Appendix.

C-46: The SAQA uses an emission factor for total 

suspended particulate (TSP) from AP-42 Section 

13.2.3 to calculate fugitive dust emissions from 

construction operations. PM10 and PM2.5 are then 

determined by multiplying TSP emissions by ratios 

determined in the 2002 TSD prepared by Argonne 

National Laboratory. These ratios are 26 percent for 

PM10 and 3.9 percent for PM2.5 (15 percent of PM10). 

The 26 percent PM10 ratio from the Argonne TSD is 

the same as the ratio in AP-42 for unpaved road 

emissions from vehicle use. However, the 26 percent 

PM10 ratio is much lower than ratios published in AP42 for activities more similar to construction 

operations. AP42 Section 13.2 refers the user to other 

AP-42 sections for more refined calculation of PM 

emissions from construction operations. The referral 

for construction operations involving surface 

disturbance is Section 11.9. Table 11.9-2 gives a 

PM10 to TSP ratio of 60 percent for grading and 75 

percent for bulldozing of overburden. The TSP to 

PM2.5 ratio from the Argonne TSD (3.9 percent) is 

within the range of values given in Table 11.9-2 (3.1 

percent for grading and 10.5 percent for bulldozing).
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-16

R-46: The particulate emission factors were carried 

forward from the air modeling conducted for the 

2003 Statewide FEIS and described fully in the 2002 

Air TSD. These same emission factors were used to 

maintain consistency with the air modeling presented 

in the 2003 Statewide FEIS. Heavy equipment 

fugitive dust emissions account for less than five 

percent of total project particulate emissions. The 

difference in using the ratios suggested would not 

likely result in a change to modeled particulate matter 

impacts beyond those already predicted based on the 

current model.

C-47: Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission calculations for 

diesel exhaust use emission factors ranging from 0.85 

to 0.93 g/hp-hr. This indicates the use of diesel fuel 

with sulfur content of 2,500 ppm or higher. If the 

results of the modeling analysis suggest that the 

impact of SO2 emissions to ambient air quality or to 

visibility conditions are higher than acceptable levels, 

then SO2 emissions could be lowered and impacts 

mitigated by requiring the use of low sulfur diesel 

(500 ppm) or ultra-low sulfur diesel (15 ppm) in 

project equipment that burns diesel fuel. Such a 

requirement to limit sulfur content in diesel fuel 

should be codified by regulation, permit condition, or 

some other appropriate and enforceable mechanism.

R-47: The results of the air quality model do not 

indicate the potential to exceed any sulfur air quality 

standard or regulatory threshold limits. The higher 

sulfur content fuel was utilized for the air quality 

model to be conservative. The use of low sulfur and 

low nitrogen fuels is identified as a potential 

mitigation measure within the Air Quality and 

Climate section of Chapter 4 under the heading of 

Mitigation.

C-48: The SAQA states that model results indicate 

that applicable air quality standards are not expected 

to be exceeded. However, receptors on Reservation 

lands have been excluded from the modeling analysis 

due to the proximity of these Receptors to emission 

sources. Even with the exclusion of these receptors, 

the figures (maps) in Appendix D indicate localized 

high air quality impacts from sources, particularly for 

pollutants for which short-term averages (e.g., 1-

hour, 3-hour, 8-hour) have been established as 

standards. The receptors that have been excluded 

from the modeling analysis are representative of 

areas that should be considered ambient air. 

Therefore, comparison of modeled impacts for these 

receptors to the applicable ambient air quality 

standards should be represented in the analysis and 

documentation.

R-48: The purpose of establishing the near-field 

receptors is to characterize the overall air quality 

conditions in the PRB as a result of this development. 

The modeling for assessing potential impacts at any 

facility fence line, which is required for obtaining an 

air permit, would be determined by MDEQ. 

Consequently, all near-field receptors that were 

located within 1 km of a modeled project emission 

source were removed from the near-field grid for the 

SAQA analysis. While the Crow and Northern 

Cheyenne Reservations are discussed under the far 

field analysis this is due to their airshed 

classifications, sensitive Class II and I respectively. 

In actuality these two receptor groups would be 

considered near field receptors based on their close 

proximity to the modeled project emission sources. 

The receptors that were removed due to being within 

1 km of the project emission source would represent 

fence line modeling results and not regional scale 

which was the objective of the modeling effort. Note 

the Final Protocol and SAQA state certain receptors 

(those within 1- km of emission sources will be 

removed from the near field modeling domain). This 

provision was accepted by the stakeholders as a 

feature of the air quality modeling proposed and 

subsequently completed for the SEIS. 

C-49: The documentation should be made clearer 

with regard to the expected net change in emission 

from the base year. Table 3-2 from the Technical 

Support Document (TSD) suggests project emissions 

of particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10) will 

be increasing while SO2 and oxides of nitrogen 

(NOx) emission will decrease only because of the 

offset of increased 2004 construction. Figure 2-5 

indicates that emissions in the airshed will increase. 

The documentation is not clear as to what the overall 

change in air basin emissions will be.

R-49: Table 3-2 within the TSD depicts visibility 

impacts predicted for the Base Year using the 

Method 6 approach and does not provide any 

information as described in the comment. There is 

not a figure 2-5 in either the TSD or the SAQA 

documents. However, from Table 5-3 of the SAQA 

document, a comparison of Base Year to ADY 20, 

model predicted impacts shows that ADY 20 impacts 

are less than those for the Base Year. This would 

result from emission levels for that year which are 

less than the Base Year. The SAQA document is 

meant to provide supplemental information in 

support of information already contained within the 

FSEIS and its existing supporting documents. The 

Air Quality Technical Support Document (ALL 

2007) for the FSEIS indicates the emission source 

groups and their respective contributions to air 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-17

emissions for the modeled base year. Additionally, 

the relative change in emissions between the Base 

Year and ADY 20 can be seen in the tables presented 

in the FSEIS, Air Quality Appendix – Part 2, and the 

SAQA. 

C-50: The documentation should be made clearer 

with regard to the presentation of receptor impacts. 

Tables 5-2 and 5-3 of the SAQA include a column of 

"All Sources MT Base Year 2004." However, the 

values appear to be only for the near-field receptors 

(from Table 5-1 and are the highest in the domain) 

and not receptors specific to the area. The reader is 

required to refer back to Table 4-1 to see the 

difference from base to project year. Tables 5-2 and 

5-3 of the SAQA should be revised to include the 

appropriate receptor values from Section 4.

R-50: Tables 5-2 and 5-3 in the SAQA have been 

revised to include appropriate area base year 

information.

C-51: Tables 5-5 and 5-6 show that under all 

scenarios visibility in the Northern Cheyenne Class I 

area and in the surrounding areas is projected to get 

worse as compared to the base year. Because the 

CBNG project represents many permitted activities, 

the cumulative 10 percent criteria should be applied 

to interpreting the results of the modeling analysis.

R-51: The “Issues, Impact Types and Criteria” and 

“Air Quality Modeling Assumptions” Sections of the 

SEIS Air Quality analysis discuss criteria and 

thresholds used for interpreting visibility modeling 

results. The Supplemental Air Quality Analysis is 

designed to disclose the level of CBNG activity that 

creates a potential impact greater than 10% on the 

Northern Cheyenne Reservation. As shown in the 

supplemental air quality analysis there are no impacts 

greater than 10% under Scenario 1A and Scenario 

2A. As a result of these findings the Air Quality 

Screen component of the preferred alternative has 

been modified to include method to evaluate the need 

and effectiveness of additional mitigation before 

impacts greater than 10% occur at the Northern 

Cheyenne Reservation.

Aquatic Resources

Comment 1 (C-1): The DSEIS does not include 

bicarbonates in its monitoring criteria. Bicarbonate 

has been shown to be toxic to fathead minnows and 

could be toxic to other species. Adding bicarbonate to 

the monitoring of water quality and adapting the fate 

of produced water accordingly, will address this 

deficiency.

Response 1 (R-1): BLM will conduct appropriate 

monitoring activities stipulated in the permitting of 

individual CBNG development sites, as governed by 

federal, state, or local permitting laws. The Aquatic 

Biota Monitoring Plan (November 9, 2006) has been 

developed by an aquatic task group for Montana and 

Wyoming. The plan addresses fish, macroinvertebrates, periphyton, water quality, habitat, and 

amphibians/reptiles. This plan includes funding 

research for bicarbonate toxicity effects on fishes. 

Preliminary results from MFWP and U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) indicate that high bicarbonate levels 

can impact fathead minnows. They are conducting 

further research on other aquatic species the summer

of 2008, but the research is not complete at this time.

Information on aquatics monitoring is found in the 

Monitoring Appendix: Table Mon-1.

C-2: Discharge of produced water may decrease the 

seasonality of streams, wetlands, and ponds. 

Additional research and monitoring of fish, aquatic 

reptiles, and amphibians is encouraged to identify 

and address potential impacts resulting from changes 

in flow regimes and the seasonality of wetlands. A

water monitoring system that will allow 

quantification of CBNG-produced water discharge 

into the system at any given time is needed. The 

availability of data pertaining to quantity or water 

volume will assist with the study of potential impacts 

to aquatics, but data have not been readily available 

in the areas of development.

R-2: Additional monitoring requirements have been 

added to the monitoring table (see the Wildlife and 

Aquatics sections of the Monitoring Appendix). 

MDEQ requires monitoring of water quality and 

quantity in association with Montana Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (MPDES) permits.

The preparation of MPDES permits includes a nondegradation analysis related to the change in flow.

Data collected in association with MPDES permits 

are available through EPA’s STORET database. The 

Montana BLM has established a CBNG monitoring 

website where all monitoring reports are posted 

(http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/miles_city_field_off

ice/cbng/monitoring.html).

C-3: Groundwater drawdown will cause pools in 

streams to dry up, affecting fish and other aquatic 

wildlife (amphibians and reptiles). Does a CBNG 

operator's responsibility to mitigate for loss of water 

extend to public water bodies? A timeline should be 

required for supplementation that would reduce the 

amount of time that instream flows are compromised.

R-3: CBNG production is generally several hundred 

feet deep. Additionally both modeling and 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-18

monitoring have shown little if any effect on aquifers 

other than the coal seams; therefore, it is unlikely that 

surface pools would be impacted. See Chapters 3 and 

4, Hydrological Resources, for more discussion.

C-4: The DSEIS does not address the impacts of 

impoundments on fish and water quality. An index of 

biotic integrity developed for Montana prairie 

streams (Bramblett et al. 2005) should be included as 

a measure of stream health as part of the aquatic 

monitoring and protection plan. What monitoring has 

been done to evaluate the impact of effluents on 

invertebrates, larval fish, or adult fish in the localized 

area below these outflows? Are there screening 

mechanisms in place that help BLM determine if the 

operator's plan of development should be altered?

R-4: An aquatic task group has been formed for 

CBNG development in Montana and Wyoming.

Representatives from BLM, MFWP, Wyoming Game 

and Fish (WYGF), EPA, MDEQ, WYDEQ, Montana 

State University (MSU), FWS, and Montana Natural 

Heritage are all crucial partners of the task group.

The Aquatic Biota Monitoring Plan (2006) was 

developed and has been implemented for aquatic 

species from 2005 to present. The plan addresses 

fish, macro-invertebrates, periphyton, water quality, 

habitat, and amphibians/reptiles. The potential for 

project-related CBNG activities to affect fish and 

water quality is addressed in Chapter 4, the 

Hydrological Resources and the Wildlife, Aquatic 

Resources sections. Additional information on the 

results of past water quality sampling and aquatic 

surveys conducted within the Planning Area is 

contained within the Hydrological Resources section

and the Wildlife, Aquatic Resources, section of 

Chapter 3.

C-5: Yellowstone cutthroat trout, brown trout, 

rainbow trout, sauger, northern pike, and smallmouth 

bass are significant to state fishery management 

objectives and have to be adequately considered. 

Potential impacts resulting from surface disturbances, 

aquifer drawdown, and produced-water discharge to 

these fisheries from conventional and CBNG 

development need to be addressed through (1) 

effective and timely communication with Montana 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks staff; (2) identification of 

areas as off-limits to drilling because of significant 

biological, social, or cultural importance; (3) 

responsible energy development practices to protect 

our natural resources, particularly fish; and (4) basinwide planning and analysis of every project.

R-5: The potential for project-related CBNG 

activities to impact fish and aquatic habitats is 

contained within the Wildlife, Aquatic Resources

section of Chapter 4. Also see R-4.

C-6: The DSEIS does not adequately consider the 

direct and indirect impacts of either energy 

development or railroad construction to fish and other 

aquatic species. For example, the potential of the 

Tongue and Powder rivers to be recovery areas for 

pallid sturgeon is high, and restoration is being 

planned for this federally endangered species through 

improving fish passage in the rivers. The DEIS and 

DSEIS provide no information on how energy 

development or construction of the TRR would affect 

pallid sturgeon populations or their recovery.

R-6: For direct and indirect impacts, see the TRR 

EIS (ICC 1992; STB 2004). The SEIS does address 

the cumulative effects of the TRR and energy 

development to aquatics. See Chapter 4 under 

Wildlife, Aquatics Resources for discussion.

Measures to protect water quality are described 

within the water screen under the preferred 

alternative (Alternative H) as described within 

Chapter 2.

Long-term effects on pallid sturgeon associated with 

discontinued activities, such as sediment delivery 

from roads, would subside as disturbed areas are 

reclaimed. Agency mitigation measures implemented 

during abandonment would reduce erosion potential, 

prevent water pollution, facilitate reclamation of 

disturbed lands, and further reduce the potential for 

long-term impacts on pallid sturgeon.

As determined by FWS, implementation of the SEIS, 

including all of the above conservation measures 

“may affect but is not likely to adversely affect” 

pallid sturgeon.

C-7: The SEIS lacks information on fisheries in the 

development area, including Tongue River Reservoir 

and the Big Horn River. Specifically, the SEIS lacks 

information on the current distribution of recreational 

fisheries for brown as well as rainbow and brook 

trout, Yellowstone cutthroat trout (YCT); and sauger; 

northern pike; and smallmouth bass. Information is 

also lacking regarding the potential impacts to these 

fisheries from surface disturbances, aquifer 

drawdown, and produced water discharge from 

conventional and CBNG development. BLM should 

eliminate threats by precluding development in 

sensitive watersheds, or mitigate the losses in the 

development area. BLM should coordinate with 

MFWP to develop plans before development occurs 

to protect fisheries, gather baseline information, 

monitor effects, mitigate impacts, and enforce 

regulations.
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-19

R-7: The SEIS discusses the potential effects of 

surface disturbances, aquifer drawdown, and 

produced water discharge from conventional and 

CBNG development on aquatic species within the 

Wildlife, Aquatic Resources section, of Chapter 4. 

See also R-4.

C-8: Page 3-135 contains the following statement: 

"Fish sampling in a number of Tongue River 

tributaries suggests fish in Squirrel Creek have a 

substantial potential to be affected by CBNG 

development, primarily from impoundments located 

within intermittent and ephemeral draws that flow 

into the creek (BLM 2005d). However, the stream 

has not 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." It appears, according 

to this statement, that the DSEIS is using speculation 

to describe the affected environment. This statement 

should be deleted from this section and placed in 

Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, where this 

type of speculative analysis is more appropriately 

located. There is only one CBNG impoundment, for 

the purpose of analyzing overflow, located within the 

intermittent and ephemeral draws that flow into 

Squirrel Creek.

R-8: The statement reflects the observed conditions 

in Squirrel Creek based on sampling, as referenced 

by BLM (2005d). The statement provides specific 

information regarding evidence of potential effects of 

CBNG development on fish assemblages, but also 

provides some clarification concerning the potential 

accuracy of the data interpretation. The referenced 

statement has been modified in Chapter 3 of the 

FSEIS as follows: "Fish sampling in a number of 

Tongue River tributaries suggests fish in Squirrel 

Creek have a potential to be affected by CBNG 

development, primarily from impoundments located 

within intermittent and ephemeral draws that flow 

into the creek (BLM 2005d).”

C-9: Page 3-136 contains the following statement: 

"One site in Pumpkin Creek showed a decrease from 

10 to four species, with only white suckers occurring 

both historically and recently." The DSEIS fails to 

inform the reader that there are no CBNG discharges 

into Pumpkin Creek in Montana.

R-9: The text within Chapter 3 of the FSEIS has been 

modified to include the following: “There are 

currently no CBNG discharges to Pumpkin Creek.”

C-10: Page 3-136 contains the following statement: 

"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)." The DSEIS fails to inform the reader that 

there are no CBNG discharges into Sarpy Creek, nor 

are there any CBNG impoundments within the 

vicinity of Sarpy Creek.

R-10: The text within Chapter 3 of the FSEIS has 

been modified to include the following: “There are 

currently no CBNG discharges to Sarpy Creek.”

C-11: There is particular concern about the health of 

coldwater fisheries in the planning area and the lack 

of information that the SElS provides regarding (1) 

the current distribution of native salmonids and 

recreational coldwater fisheries; (2) the potential 

impacts resulting from surface disturbances, 

groundwater withdrawals, and well discharges to 

these fisheries from conventional and CBNG 

development; (3) how BLM will mitigate these 

impacts or eliminate threats by precluding 

development in sensitive watersheds; (4) how BLM 

will coordinate efforts with MFWP to ensure that 

development plans protect coldwater fisheries before 

development occurs; and (5) how and whether the 

federal agency will gather baseline information, 

monitor effects, mitigate impacts, and enforce 

regulations to ensure that CBNG development does 

not impair fisheries. With regard to recreational 

coldwater fisheries, we are concerned that CBNG 

development will negatively affect important 

populations of wild brown, rainbow, and brook trout. 

It is essential that BLM include a complete inventory 

of YCT populations using the best available 

information after consulting with its own biologists, 

as well as with U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and 

MFWP fishery professionals. It is suggested that a 

No Surface Occupancy (NSO) within 0.5-mile of a 

stream containing genetically pure (99 to 100 

percent) native trout stipulation be incorporated into 

the FSEIS. It is further recommended that this 

stipulation be expanded to include all conservation 

populations (90 to 100 percent genetically pure) of 

YCT. It is also recommended that groundwater 

withdrawals from aquifers hydrologically connected 

to streams containing conservation populations of 

YCT be prohibited. Moreover, we recommend that 

discharges of produced water also not be approved in 

watersheds containing conservation populations. 

BLM has to fully disclose all of the coldwater 

fisheries that could be affected by CBNG 

development, not only for the larger rivers in the 

Planning Area. Also of concern are the popular 

reservoir fisheries in Tongue River Reservoir, 

Cooney Reservoir, and Bighorn Lake.

R-11: Information on existing aquatic species within 

the Planning Area is presented within the Wildlife, 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-20

Aquatic Resources section of Chapter 3. The 

potential for project-related CBNG activities to 

impact fish and aquatic habitats is contained within 

the Wildlife, Aquatic Resources section of Chapter 4. 

The FSEIS has been modified within the Wildlife, 

Aquatic Resources section of Chapter 3 to include 

additional information on the occurrence of YCT 

within the Planning Area. The potential for adverse 

impacts to individual populations of YCT or 

restoration efforts will be evaluated during the review 

process of an operator’s POD. Should a proposed 

development activity have the potential for an 

adverse effect on the species or individual 

population, then BLM would implement appropriate 

measures to provide protection. As stated in the 

Wildlife Appendix under the heading of Aquatic 

Species, “Detection of a retraction in the range of a 

species, a downward trend in abundance, or reduced 

population diversity in systems with produced water 

discharge shall warrant a review of Project Plans and 

possible recommendations for adjustment of 

management to address the specific problems.” This 

provision would apply to aquatic species in general 

including those in coldwater fisheries and reservoirs.

Also see R-4.

C-12: The use of the 7Q10 tool ensures that poor 

quality CBNG water is not the majority of stream 

flow in a system. The text on page 2-19 of the DSEIS 

allows for modification of this rule based upon 

monitoring. There is often a delayed response in 

monitoring aquatic species that may create situations 

where eliminating the 7Q10 would result when it 

should not be eliminated. Other impacts, especially 

drought, would create problems not identified 

through monitoring.

R-12: The referenced text refers to Alternative F; 

BLM’s Preferred Alternative is Alternative H. Unlike 

Alternative F, Alternative H would only allow 

additional produced water discharges from BLM 

wells so long as water quality criteria are not 

exceeded. This approach places more emphasis on 

specific water quality criteria, rather than relying on 

total discharge limitations to protect aquatic habitat. 

The monitoring component of Alternative H, 

combined with adaptive management, would increase 

the likelihood of obtaining accurate and quantifiable 

data concerning potential effects of CBNG 

development on aquatic resources. While there is still 

uncertainty, including the potential for delayed 

response, regarding the specific effects of CBNG 

development on aquatic resources, the use of 

adaptive management and water quality monitoring 

are believed to provide an effective means for the 

protection of this resource. Additionally, use of the 

7Q10, combined with monitoring and adaptive 

management, also considers water volume, as well as 

water quality. It would, therefore, consider the 

combined effects that could result from drought 

conditions. As a result, relatively few impacts on 

aquatic resources would be expected under 

Alternative H.

C-13: One of the rationales for the SEIS was a need 

to further expand on the cumulative impacts of 

development in the planning area, and more 

specifically the Powder River Basin. Although some 

consideration was given for the additional impacts of 

the TRR for wildlife, the overall cumulative impacts 

analysis was not conducted. For example, the

removal of Intake Dam by the Bureau of 

Reclamations is as reasonable and foreseeable as the 

TRR.

R-13: The MDEQ adopts water quality standards to 

protect beneficial use of surface water. Currently, 

irrigation use is considered the most sensitive 

beneficial use. The water quality standards that 

MDEQ has set to protect irrigation are assumed to 

also protect aquatic resources. As such, pallid 

sturgeon should not be impacted by adverse water 

quality from CBNG-produced water discharges 

should the fish bypasses at Intake and the Tongue and 

Yellowstone (T&Y) diversions allow for the pallid 

sturgeon to increase its range upstream in the 

Yellowstone or Tongue rivers.

Cultural Resources

Comment 1 (C-1): The DSEIS does not specifically 

note the presence of the several designated and/or 

potential National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) within 

the impact area. The FSEIS should include an 

evaluation of the impacts to these sites and the 

measures that will be taken to avoid and minimize 

impacts to these nationally significant resources. As 

part of this discussion, BLM must acknowledge the 

heightened legal standard that applies to the 

management of NHLs under section 110 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and 

explain how it will satisfy this standard through the 

development of measures designed to minimize harm 

to NHLs.

Response 1 (R-1): The existing NHLs have been 

added to the cultural table in Chapter 3. BLM has 

requested additional information from the Park 

Service on the potential NHLs in the SEIS area. The 

existing listed NHLs, Chief Plenty Coups, Pompey's 

Pillar Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC), and Pictograph Cave are either in State 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-21

Parks (Pictograph Cave, Chief Plenty Coups) or 

National Monuments/ACEC (Pompey's Pillar) where 

development is not allowed. Site specific impacts on 

the listed NHLs would be addressed in the POD 

plans. If it were found that CBNG development 

would adversely affect an NHL, BLM would apply 

the procedures found in 36 CFR 800, rather than 

using the National Programmatic Agreement (BLM 

1997b).

C-2: In the Cultural Resources section of Chapter 4, 

under the conclusions for all alternatives (pages 4-56 

through 4-61), the DSEIS does not advise the reader 

that on private surface lands, regardless of mineral 

ownership, title to any cultural resource (excluding 

grave sites) belongs to the surface owner.

R-2: The FSEIS has text clarifying that on private 

surface lands, regardless of mineral ownership, title 

to any cultural resource (excluding grave sites) 

belongs to the surface owner.

C-3: The SEIS states that there will be no adverse 

impacts to cultural resources resulting from 

construction of the TRR. To the contrary, there 

would most definitely be adverse impacts, beginning 

with the fact that the railroad is drawn to run directly 

through the Wolf Mountains Battlefield, a site 

approved for NHL listing and now pending with the 

National Park Service (NPS) NHL program in 

Washington, D.C. In addition, the TRR will run 

through miles of country that is highly historic. By 

programmatic agreement, the FEIS deferred section

106 consultation on these impacts to coincide with 

planning of the railroad segments. There will 

undoubtedly be impacts; there is no way to build the 

railroad through the region of the Great Sioux Wars 

campaign, an NHL, and a rural historic district in the 

Birney area (recognized in the landscape-level report 

by RTI for BLM in 2006) without impacting cultural 

resources. To state otherwise is inaccurate.

R-3: The SEIS incorporates the findings of the 

Supplement to the TRR EIS. The Transportation 

Board's section of environmental analysis for its 

Supplement to the TRR EIS indicated that, with 

mitigation, neither the construction nor the operation 

of the TRR would result in significant impacts on 

cultural resources. Pursuant to the Cultural Resource 

Programmatic Agreement for the TRR, the landscape 

level and historic/ traditional cultural property (TCP) 

district issues would be addressed for any segment 

proposed for construction that might affect those 

resources.

C-4: The SEIS states that the planning area includes 

BLM-administered lands and minerals in the Powder 

River and Billings RMP areas, but excludes lands 

administered by other agencies such as the Forest 

Service, sovereign tribal governments, and Indian 

allotted lands. While this may represent the land base 

for which BLM is directly responsible, it then fails to 

consider the cumulative impacts of BLM-driven 

development alongside that anticipated on the 

neighboring Indian reservations, Custer National 

Forest, and state leased lands. If these areas of 

development are not included in BLM’s cumulative 

analysis, the leading federal agency for oil and gas 

development in the region, how will those cumulative 

regional impacts on the natural and cultural resource 

base be considered?

R-4: The SEIS includes an analysis of the potential 

cumulative impacts resulting from future CBNG 

development on the Northern Cheyenne and Crow 

Reservations, allotted lands within the reservation 

boundaries, state lands, and the Ashland District of 

the U.S. Forest Service. See Chapter 4, Conclusion 

section.

C-5: Is there no situation wherein BLM would 

choose not to promote development of mineral 

resources it administers?

R-5: BLM does have situations where there is no 

development of mineral resources in certain areas of 

critical environmental concern (USDI BLM 1999a).

C-6: Why is the landscape cultural level study not 

mentioned in the SEIS? The commenter notes that 

the SEIS cites the work of the Montana Preservation 

Alliance (MPA) in the Tongue River area, which the 

commenter believes to be misleading, and 

recommends that it be removed from the document in 

favor of discussion of BLM’s efforts in this area. 

While MPA’s work does further the understanding of 

resources located within the region, it does not 

substitute for BLM actively working to meet agency 

responsibilities under NEPA and section 106 of the 

NHPA, nor does it alleviate BLM’s broader 

management and planning mandates under section

110 of the National Historic Preservation Act and 

under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA).

R-6: The Landscape Level Overview for CBNG 

development areas was used for the SEIS and is 

referenced within the Cultural and Historical section

of Chapter 3.

BLM has included information from many sources, 

as well as information generated from its own work, 

in the preparation of the SEIS in an effort to provide 

the most relevant information to describe the affected 

area. BLM recognizes that the inclusion of 

information generated from other sources does not 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-22

substitute for meeting its responsibilities under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), NHPA, 

or FLPMA. Rather, BLM believes that inclusion of 

information from other sources is a necessary 

element of meeting these responsibilities.

C-7: Has there been any effort by BLM to conduct 

landscape level studies within the Billings RMP 

Management Area?

R-7: The Billings Field Office has not done a 

landscape level overview such as the one completed 

by the Miles City Field Office. This was due to 

limited funding. The Billings Field Office will 

address landscape level issues when they update their 

Class I Overview as part of their Resource 

Management Plan update.

C-8: There are numerous landscapes and spiritual 

sites of cultural significance to the Northern 

Cheyenne, Crow, Arapaho, Ute, Shoshone, and 

several Sioux bands, including Oglala, Santee, 

Rosebud, Hunkpapa, Lower Brule, and others—some 

of which are found in BLM’s, “An Ethnographic 

Overview of Southeast Montana.” Throughout the 

Miles City and Billings RMP areas are many more 

sites of significance to tribes. These sites warrant a 

separate Indian cultural resource survey to identify 

the locations of archeological, ethnographic, and 

traditional cultural properties, “the contexts within 

which to evaluate their significance,” and the 

prospects for avoiding, minimizing, and/or mitigating 

any potential impacts to these resources.

R-8: Every proposed POD requires that a cultural 

survey be conducted by an archeologist (who meets 

the requirements necessary to hold a BLM permit 

under Manual 8151) before approval of any surfacedisturbing activities. Additionally, consultation with 

potentially affected tribes is conducted before the 

approval of each POD to identify TCPs. This has 

included on-site visits with the Northern Cheyenne.

C-9: For the past two years, research has been 

conducted on the Birney/Hanging Woman Creek 

drainages with a cultural landscape orientation. 

Findings from this work include the following:

• A National-Register-eligible Historic 

District centered on historic ranching. 

Several individual listings already on the 

National Register are located in our study 

area.

• The potential for an NHL district for dude 

ranching centered in Sheridan, Wyoming, 

which historically extended into the Birney 

rural community.

R-9: As with any culturally significant sites, BLM 

would consider these in evaluating proposed PODs.

C-10: Table 3-3 is misleading. The reason that only a 

handful of NRHP sites are listed is not that these are 

the only ones eligible out of tens of thousands, but 

that, most of the time, the agency either does not 

have enough information or chooses not to seek a 

determination of eligibility on sites it records.

R-10: The NRHP sites listed in Table 3-3 include 

those officially listed on the NRHP; they do not 

include sites that are eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

Table 3-3 also includes the total numbers of cultural 

resource sites that have been identified by survey for 

each county.

C-11: Will BLM consider special management 

designations such as ACECs for split-estate situations 

where the surface ownership is not federal? Doesn’t 

the Rosebud Battlefield merit the highest sensitivity 

designation by BLM management? Some formal 

management consideration seems warranted for this 

and other highly significant sites to be affected by 

agency minerals management decisions.

R-11: ACEC consideration can be done on BLMadministered surface only. There are no BLMadministered surface acres in the Rosebud Battlefield.

C-12: On page 2-8, under Cultural Resources, the 

SEIS prohibits use "within sites or areas designated 

for conservation uses, public use, or sociocultural 

use." Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks requests a list 

of these areas before any Record of Decision (ROD) 

is issued for the SEIS. It would be beneficial to both 

the public and potential/existing lessees, plus it 

requires that these areas be defined up front. The 

same comment applies for the Recreation section on 

page 2-9, these areas have to be delineated before any 

development.

R-12: There are currently neither concentrated use 

recreation areas, nor cultural sites designated for 

conservation, public, or sociocultural use. BLM will 

coordinate with MFWP in its planning.

C-13: Cultural sites are not only affected by physical 

alterations of the landscape, but by mineral 

development that could affect traffic, smells, activity, 

aesthetics, noise, and solitude. This could alter use of 

these sites significant to historic and modern cultures.

R-13: The Cultural Resources section of Chapter 4, 

“Impacts from Management Common to All 

Alternatives,” states that “Noise, activity, traffic, and 

smells can affect the quality and continued use of 

Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs).” This also 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-23

applies to other eligible sites under the criteria of 

effect found in 36 CFR 800.

C-14: The SEIS includes the following statement 

(page 4-55): "Most of the mitigation of native 

American cultural resources will entail avoidance, 

particularly any site associated with burials of human 

remains." Other state and federally significant sites 

should also receive these stipulations. Many sites are 

significant due to 19th century occupation, 

encampments for the U.S. military, and use by 

explorers, in addition to Native Americans. They 

hold social, historical, and cultural significance. 

Surface owners must be consulted to understand this 

significance since BLM, state agencies, tribes, and 

private landowners have yet to conduct scientific or 

ethnographic studies and document their findings 

throughout much of the SEIS study area. 

R-14: BLM generally stipulates that significant 

cultural sites are to be avoided when in conflict with 

oil and gas development, regardless of their 

ownership. If the site cannot be avoided, there are 

remedies for preserving the site data; see Chapter 4, 

Cultural Resources.

C-15: BLM failed to acknowledge that Pompey’s 

Pillar is a National Monument established by 

presidential proclamation under the Antiquities Act 

of 1906, 16 U.S.C. §§ 431–33. By failing to 

recognize Pompey’s Pillar as a National Monument 

in the DSEIS, BLM may make decisions related to 

CBNG development that are inconsistent with the 

protection of the objects identified in the 

proclamation. BLM has to recognize Pompey’s Pillar 

as a National Monument in the FSEIS and discuss its 

duty to manage Pompey’s Pillar to protect the 

historic and prehistoric objects identified within 

President Clinton’s proclamation. The FSEIS must 

address how CBNG development will affect the 

objects, including the landscape surrounding 

Pompey’s Pillar, and explain how BLM will ensure 

that CBNG development does not adversely affect 

any of the protected objects.

R-15: The FSEIS has been modified to include the 

National Monument information in Chapter 3, under 

"Cultural and Historical." The effects on the 

monument would be similar to those disclosed on 

cultural resources in Chapter 4, if development were 

to occur. However, Pompey's Pillar Monument is 

withdrawn from mineral entry (oil and gas 

development is not allowed). The monument 

boundary lies within the Pompey's Pillar ACEC. 

Minerals not within the monument and in the ACEC 

are held in trust for the Crow Tribe.

C-16: On pages 4-55 and 4-56, paragraphs 1 and 2, 

the Assumptions section within the Cultural Resource 

section seems to be based strictly on an archeological 

definition of a cultural resource. That is, it is 

something that can be quantified, seen with the eye, 

is a remnant of human activity, and/or is individual in 

nature that can be moved or transported. Such 

examples could be burial sites, lithic scatters, or 

petroglyphs. The Native American perspective of a

cultural resource differs greatly from this. It not only 

includes physical, human-generated, cultural 

resources, but cultural resources that are seen as a 

whole landscape, as well. For instance, a specific 

place that holds great religious value within Native 

American cultures is considered a cultural resource, 

even though it may or may not display any evidence 

of human activity. One example may be a particular 

field or area within a valley. 

R-16: BLM’s 8100 Manual defines cultural 

resources or cultural properties as a definite location 

of human activity, occupation or use identifiable 

through field evidence (survey)historical 

documentation, or oral evidence. The term includes 

archaeological, historic, or architectural sites, or 

places with important public and scientific uses, and 

may include definite locations (sites and places) of 

traditional cultural or religious importance to 

specified social and/or cultural groups. BLM 

manages cultural resources through guidance 

provided in its 8100 (Cultural Resource) Manual 

which provides for identification (8110) Protecting 

Cultural Resources (8140) and Permitting Uses of 

Cultural Resources (8150).

C-17: Surface owners, other than BLM or Trust Land 

Management Division (TLMD), should also be given 

the authority to require a cultural survey before 

surface-disturbing activities with the results presented 

as part of the permit review or approval process. If 

cultural resources are found, the surface owner and 

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) have to 

approve of the activities and mitigation, if 

appropriate, before disturbance. 

R-17: When federal or state minerals are involved, a 

cultural resource survey is required, and all findings 

are shared with SHPO. Consultation with tribes is 

required for all PODs. Although BLM does not have 

the authority to require cultural surveys where private 

surface is involved; BLM does make 

recommendations to the landowner to avoid any sites 

on their property.

C-18: The DSEIS states that “BLM would consult 

with affected tribes when operator's proposed actions 

are near American Indian traditional cultural 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-24

properties, such as the Rosebud Battlefield and the 

Wolf Mountain Battlefield. Consultation might result 

in mitigation of impacts to traditional cultural 

properties." Chief Plenty Coups State Park and 

Pictograph Cave State Park should also be included 

on this list. How will BLM determine what is "near”? 

BLM must also consult with surface owners to 

determine importance of the site to the state of 

Montana and the property's social significance, such 

as a state park or original homestead.

R-18: BLM will consult with tribes for all TCP sites 

as identified by the tribes. Consultation with SHPO 

and surface owners will be appropriate when 

minerals are owned by the federal government, and a 

site is discovered. It is not appropriate to include 

Chief Plenty Coups State Park and Pictograph Cave 

State Park on this list, because there are few or no 

federal minerals and no potential for CBNG 

development in or within more than 20 miles of these 

two parks.

C-19: Individual well APDs (1 per 640 acres) would 

be accepted and processed without a project POD in 

accordance with requirements of Onshore Order 1."

One well in a sensitive location combined with the 

entry roads and pad could pose irreparable damage to 

cultural sites. How will BLM assure MFWP or the 

surface owner that cultural sites will be avoided 

without a POD?

R-19: Cultural surveys are required for all 

development, whether a POD is required or not. 

C-20: Why is there no screen for cultural resources?

R-20: While there is no screen for cultural resources,

cultural surveys are required for each proposed POD, 

as well as tribal consultation to define any TCPs 

within the proposed development area.

Geology and Minerals 

Comment 1 (C-1): BLM did not fully study the 

combined effects of coal bed methane extraction and 

the Tongue River Railroad (TRR). This massive 

project consisting of over 130 miles of railroad track 

through a ranching valley will have major impacts 

and must be considered in light of any additional 

development such as coal bed methane (p. 4-80).

Response 1 (R-1): Cumulative impacts resulting 

from the construction of the TRR are included 

throughout Chapter 4 of the SEIS. Additional 

information on the cumulative impacts resulting from 

the TRR is in the Minerals Appendix and the Air 

Quality Appendix.

C-2: BLM needs to state that the Spring Creek Mine 

is a “dry mine” that does not produce water. This 

should be addressed under the Geology and Minerals 

discussion of Alternative H.

R-2: Language has been added to the FSEIS to show 

that the Spring Creek Mine is a dry mine.

C-3: BLM should advise the reader that the 

5-mile buffer around reservation lands will result in a 

loss of gas resource and tax revenues to the nation, 

and these losses should be quantified. The Powder 

River Basin is the third largest gas field with the 

thirteenth greatest proven reserves in the United 

States. BLM should also explain that the 5-mile 

buffer would further add to the loss of private and 

state gas resources because of the disincentive it 

provides to developers. BLM should advise the 

readers that its responsibility to Indian Trust Asset 

(ITA) lands has a higher statutory priority than its 

obligation to protect and develop the public domain 

natural gas resource. 

R-3: The analysis and discussions are provided in 

Chapter 4; Alternatives F, G, and H under the

headings “Geology and Minerals” “Social and 

Economic Values”. The 5-mile buffer is not excluded 

from development; there are, however, additional 

provisions that must be satisfied for development to 

proceed. BLM Departmental Manual 303, Chapter 2, 

defines the Secretary of Interior’s Principles for 

Managing Indian Trust Assets, section DM 303.2.7:

Trust Principles. This reads in part, “The proper 

discharge of the Secretary’s trust responsibilities 

requires that persons who manage Indian trust assets:

A. protect and preserve Indian trust assets from loss, 

damage, unlawful alienation, waste, and depletion...”

C-4: Naturally occurring radioactive materials 

(NORMs) pose a potential risk to human health and 

the environment when brought to the surface as a 

result of coal, oil, or gas development. The DSEIS 

did not discuss whether these constituents are present 

in CBNG-produced water from the Powder River 

Basin in Montana and if they pose a level of risk to 

the public. The DSEIS did not discuss whether 

radium is present in CBNG-produced water from the 

Powder River Basin in Montana and if it poses a 

level of risk to the public. The Alberta Geological 

Survey is studying the presence of NORMs in 

CBNG-produced water; the commenter believes that 

its findings are relevant to the Montana portion of the 

Powder River Basin. Radon, a common NORM 

constituent, may pose a potential risk to human health 

and the environment when brought to the surface as a 

result of coal, oil, or gas development. The DSEIS 

does not discuss whether radon is present in CBNG-
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-25

produced water from the Powder River Basin in 

Montana and if secondary escape via springs and 

water wells poses a risk to the public. 

R-4: NORM, including radium and radon, is a 

potential byproduct of oil and gas production. It 

typically accumulates in piping and equipment as 

scale or sludge and can be present in produced water. 

It requires appropriate disposal, sometimes including 

the piping or equipment it has accumulated in once it 

is removed from service. Because variations 

frequently occur within and among geologic basins, 

the findings of the Alberta Geological Survey are not 

necessarily applicable to the Montana portion of the 

Powder River Basin. Radon is a volatile gas and 

readily liberates from the water in which it is 

dissolved once sufficient pressure is released. The 

threat to human health posed by radon is most 

typically the result of exposure in hot water showers, 

basements, and “tightly” built homes. BLM is not 

aware of NORM wastes being present in water 

produced from the PRB. 

C-5: Consider withdrawal of mineral leases from all 

state parks and fishing access sites within the study 

area, including a 5-mile buffer around those areas, 

and prohibit surface occupancy and disturbance, 

including roads. BLM should also consider an 

alternative that withdraws mineral leases under 

significant sites that are important to the public 

socially, culturally, and historically, including 

traditional cultural properties (for a variety of 

cultures) and state parks.

R-5: Making oil and gas leasing decisions is beyond 

the scope of the plan (see Chapter 2, “Alternatives 

Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail” under 

“Leasing” for discussion. However, surface 

occupancy and use is prohibited within sites or areas 

designated for conservation, public, or sociocultural 

uses. Surface occupancy and use is also prohibited 

within developed recreation areas and undeveloped 

recreation areas receiving concentrated public use;

and within 0.25-mile of designated reservoirs and 

fisheries.

C-6: If lessee surface use rights mature when the 

SEIS ROD is signed, how can BLM condition the 

exercise of surface use rights at the APD/POD stage?

BLM has to define the relationship of the SEIS 

relative to the lessees' surface use rights and explain 

how those rights are managed from the lease stage, 

through the RMP stage, to the APD/ROD stage. 

BLM must expressly retain the authority to condition 

the exercise of surface use rights at the APD/POD 

stage, or conduct a site-specific NEPA analysis based 

on the SEIS ROD maturing lessee surface rights.

R-6: Oil and gas mineral lessees do not have a 

surface use right to their mineral lease. The surface 

rights are retained by the state and federal 

governments or the private surface owner. Prior to 

surface development mineral lessees are required to 

gain concurrence from surface owners/managers 

through private surface use agreements or regulations 

such as Onshore Order #1.

C-7: BLM should abandon its “no-development” 

approach (e.g., crucial sage-grouse habitat and lands 

next to Indian reservations) under Alternative H 

because it could cause further delays in the decision 

process. BLM has no authority to adjust or “clarify” 

lease stipulations unless it obtains voluntary 

agreement from the lessee (43 CFR 3101.1-1 and 

BLM's Manual 1624). Furthermore, if BLM intends 

to attach a condition of approval to a permit, it must 

also be consistent with lease rights. Once a lease has 

been sold, BLM does not have the authority to 

prevent development unless the lease terms prohibit 

surface occupancy, or development would result in 

unnecessary and undue degradation that could not be 

mitigated.

R-7: Leases issued by the BLM do not convey full 

development rights to the lessee. Also, Alternative H 

does not say “no development” within sage-grouse 

habitat or on lands near the Indian reservation 

boundaries. Alternative H requires the BLM and 

operators that propose development on leases in those 

areas must conduct more analysis and evaluations 

against the screens proposed in the alternative. The 

increase in analysis may cause delays in the decision 

process, may slow the rate of development and may 

limit full field development within sage grouse 

habitat and on lands near the Indian reservation 

boundaries.

C-8: Many of the mineral leases for CBNG should be 

reconsidered because these leases were sold without 

the natural resources data necessary to evaluate 

whether the impacts from development would 

significantly negatively affect those other resources. 

Based on the legal decision, Northern Plains v. 

Bureau of Land Management (CV-O1096-BLGRWA), the federal oil and gas leases in the Powder 

River Basin do not yet convey the right to full field 

development, and BLM has ample authority to 

reconsider these leasing decisions under that legal 

decision.

R-8: BLM oil and gas leasing decisions and lease 

stipulations, including those applicable to CBNG, 

were previously analyzed in the BLM 1992 Final Oil 

and Gas RMP/EIS Amendment. Those decisions 

were approved in the project's ROD published in 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-26

February 1994. Analyzing new federal lease 

decisions, such as closing federal areas of oil and gas 

estate in the Powder River and Billings RMP areas, 

are, therefore, beyond the scope of this SEIS. 

C-9: It is difficult for the public to obtain documents 

and notification of pending activities, including 

leases, when they are offered, projects open for 

comment, and comment reports. The BLM should 

have to notify surface owners ahead of time when 

minerals are being put up for lease, so they can raise 

valid concerns that could inform agency management 

and could actually bid on those minerals if the leases 

were offered for sale. Is BLM doing anything to 

improve on the current state of communication that 

forces the public to try to monitor oil and gas 

activities overseen by BLM offices in both Montana 

and Wyoming?

R-9: BLM provides public notice when federal 

minerals are up for lease. BLM provides notice to the 

public 45 days ahead of all lease sales by posting 

available lease parcels at the Public Room in the 

Montana State Office, on the BLM website 

http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_ga

s/leasing.html and at the local office (Miles City 

Field Office). All applications for permit to drill 

federal wells are posted in local BLM offices and on 

the internet for 30 days before approval. During this 

30-day period, the APDs undergo NEPA review. The 

public can comment on the APDs during this time.

C-10: How will BLM modify lease permits already 

granted with new on-the-ground information on 

resources that has and will continue to become 

available? There are areas leased that should not have 

any development because of the sensitive nature of 

specific resources. In the development of the 

alternatives, the DSEIS does not state that BLM will 

exercise its authority to impose conditions through 

RMP amendments to add no surface occupancy 

stipulations to prevent development in areas or 

surface disturbance to protect important resources.

R-10: Under Alternative H, the BLM will use the 

screens and thresholds developed to protect resources 

while evaluating Plans of Development (PODs) and 

Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs). By using 

these screens, BLM will apply conditions of approval 

to the proposals to protect resources identified during 

BLM’s review. The BLM will use adaptive 

management techniques to adjust to changes in the 

future.

C-11: Alternative H does not address the effect of 

landowner surface use agreements, a very important 

factor for surface and mineral owners.

R-11: The provisions for landowner surface use 

agreements are contained within the Plan of 

Development, which is a required element of the 

Preferred Alternative, Alternative H. Plans of 

Development are also required under Alternative E, 

F, and G.

C-12: How is “phased in development” going to be 

defined if BLM limits the number of permits issued 

per year? How is permitting going to be addressed? 

R-12: The Preferred Alternative, Alternative H, does 

not set numeric limits on the pace of development, 

but uses the four identified resource screens to 

control and monitor development to mitigate or 

reduce potential impacts. Numeric limits on the 

number of APDs BLM would approve annually and 

within specified watersheds are elements of 

Alternatives F and G. Under Alternatives F and G, 

numeric limits may affect the timing of how some 

developments proceed.

C-13: It is imperative that the producer/operator post 

enough bonding capacity to cover any mitigation, 

including revocation for non-performance or poor 

performance.

R-13: Bonding is discussed within Chapter 2 under

“Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail, 

Bonding.”

C-14: BLM is avoiding its federal trust responsibility 

for Indian Trust Assets by putting the mitigation 

decisions onto the operators. 

R-14: BLM would require operators to demonstrate 

how their proposal, with mitigation incorporated, 

would not impact Trust Assets. It then is BLM’s 

responsibility to assess the proposal and make the 

determination if Trust Assets are protected or require 

additional measures to provide this assurance. The 

application of the four screens, increased planning 

and monitoring for development within the 5-mile 

buffer zone, and tribal consultation assist in the 

protection of ITAs as well as TCPs. 

C-15: Alternative “H” places a higher value on the 

protection of tribal assets than development of public 

domain natural gas resources.

R-15: It is BLM’s responsibility to assess proposals 

and make the determination that Indian Trust Assets 

are protected or require additional measures to 

provide this assurance. Development isn’t necessarily 

precluded (see Response R-14 above).

C-16: Tables 4-3 and 4-4 provide the number of 

APDs to be issued under BLM's assumed rates of 

development for Alternatives F and G, respectively. 

The private/state rates are based on the reasonably 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-27

foreseeable development (RFD) scenario, while the 

BLM rate results from application of its four 

“screens.” This section indicates BLM would issue 

no APDs in years 3, 4, and 5 of Alternatives F and G, 

with peak APD approvals in years 11 and 12. Neither 

of these alternatives, in particular Alternative F, 

appears reasonable since without concurrent approval 

of federal APDs it is highly unlikely that CBNG 

producers could expand into new adjoining POD 

areas. They would also be unable to advance into 

new private/state leases that lie beyond lease blocks 

dominated by federal ownership. 

R-16: The information provided in Tables 4-3 and 4-

4 is for assumed development rates for Alternatives F 

and G, respectively. Under Alternatives F and G, 

BLM would not issue any federal APDs if state and 

private APDs exceeded the annual limits under these 

alternatives. In Tables 4-3 and 4-4 this is assumed to 

occur in years 3 and 4. If state and private APDs did 

not meet or exceed the annual limits set under 

Alternatives F and G, then BLM could still issue 

APDs. If state and private APDs met or exceeded the 

annual limits set under Alternatives F and G, whether 

in year 3 or 4 or any year of development, however, 

then BLM would not issue any federal APDs. Annual 

limits set under Alternatives F and G could affect the 

timing of some developments on federal leases if the 

annual limit on APDs were met or exceeded by state 

and private APDs. Alternatives F and G also include 

limits on the number of APDs that would be 

approved each year by watershed. This provision 

could also affect the timing of some developments on 

federal leases if the annual watershed limit were met 

or exceeded by state and private APDs.

C-17: The Montana Board of Oil and Gas 

Conservation (MBOGC) has the authority to control 

CBNG development on state and private lands, and 

operators on federal land must seek permits from 

MBOGC. MBOGC is a cooperating agency on this 

DSEIS. MBOGC thus has ample authority to guide 

development on state and private lands to implement 

a phased alternative. Therefore, the fact that “BLM 

authorizes BLM wells only” does not preclude the 

agency from working with the state of Montana to 

implement a phased development alternative that 

develops one watershed or specific area at a time.

R-17: BLM is working with the State of Montana, 

but no commitment has been made by the State to 

develop one watershed, or specific area at a time.

BLM has considered geographic phasing by setting 

numeric limits on the number of APDs that would be 

approved annually within each watershed in the 

development area under Alternatives F and G. By 

setting federal numeric limits on the number of APDs 

approved annually per watershed, development 

within certain watersheds would be delayed pending 

approval of the number of APDs that would be 

economically viable.

Hydrological Resources 

Comment 1 (C-1): The SEIS states that the 

discharge of CBNG-produced water would be in 

accordance with rules and regulations of state or 

federal agencies. What rules and regulations are 

being referred to?

Response-1 (R-1): A discussion of the regulations 

and agencies responsible for regulating wastewater 

discharges is included in Chapter 1.

C-2: Is reinjection of CBNG-produced water 

considered in the SEIS? BLM dismissed the 

alternative of reinjecting CBNG wastewater into the 

aquifer as a produced water management tool; this is 

a practice in other states. Although reinjection is a 

logical solution to pursue, BLM simply fails to 

consider it as a possible mitigation measure for one 

of the biggest impacts of CBNG extraction (p. 2-4).

As an example of best available control technology 

(BACT) that we believe is not adequately addressed, 

BLM quotes (on page 2-4) a 2005 report that states 

that injection into the Fort Union Formation in the 

Powder River Basin has not been widely tested, and 

areas where favorable conditions exist appear to be 

limited to 9 percent of the area. However, there is no 

additional information provided, such as potential 

storage capacity or location of these areas. The 

Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology continues to 

study this issue, and these conclusions will likely 

change. We do not believe that BLM should dismiss 

reinjection.

R-2: The text within the SEIS states that reinjection 

may be feasible in 9 percent of the planning area. 

Reinjection must be technically and economically 

feasible. Injection into the Madison Group strata is 

discouraged, because it would essentially result in 

removal of that water source for future use within the 

Powder River Basin. Reinjection, as a method of 

produced water management, is discussed under 

Hydrological Resources Alternatives B, F, and H.

BLM has not dismissed the option of injection as a 

CBNG-produced water management option and 

provides information on the various types of injection 

options that could be used within the Hydrological 

Resources section of Chapter 3. Reinjection of 

produced water into the same aquifer is discussed 

under the heading of "Reinjection of Produced Water 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-28

into the Same Aquifer Alternative" within Chapter 2.

Alternative B provides a detailed analysis of the 

injection of produced water into units other than the 

coal seams (see Chapter 4 for analysis).

C-3: What elements does the SEIS include to protect 

water, one of Montana's most valuable resources?

R-3: The Montana Department of Natural Resources 

and Conservation (DNRC) issued an order that 

describes the authorities that pertain to CBNG 

development and groundwater: "Final Order: In the 

Matter of the Designation of the Powder River Basin 

Controlled Groundwater Area." The order is included 

in the SEIS via reference to Appendix E of the Water 

Resources Technical Report (ALL 2001b). The order 

requires groundwater monitoring and reporting and 

indicates that water mitigation agreements must be 

offered to owners of water wells or natural springs 

within the area that may be impacted by CBNG 

development. Water management plans must be 

submitted by CBNG operators before approval to 

drill can be obtained. If a surface discharge is 

requested, the CBNG operator must obtain a 

Montana Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

Permit, which must protect all beneficial uses. In 

addition, BLM’s Preferred Alternative, Alternative 

H, includes a water screen to further protect surface 

water quality (see Chapter 2 under Alternative H.)

C-4: When proposing water mitigation within 

1 mile on private property versus 5 miles around 

Indian reservations, the 5-mile area is more prudent. 

Data from around Decker and Wyoming show 

significant drawdowns (20 percent of more) 2 miles 

out.

R-4: Pursuant to MCA 82-11-175, if appropriated 

groundwater within 1 mile of the coal bed methane 

well may be impacted by a CBNG production 

operation, then the mitigation area will be 

automatically extended 0.5 mile beyond the water 

well or natural spring adversely affected. The owners 

of water rights are also protected from impacts from 

CBNG through the Coal Bed Methane Protection Act 

(MCA 76-15-9). The Act provides for the 

establishment of a fund that can be used to 

compensate landowners and water rights holders for 

damages attributable to coal bed methane 

development. Also, MBOGC Order 99-99 states that 

water mitigation agreements must be offered to any 

water right holder who is in the area of impact. 

Therefore the 1-mile distance should be viewed as a 

minimum distance.

The 5-mile buffer around the reservations is to help 

protect Indian Trust Assets and resources of concern 

to the Tribes. This buffer delineates an area where 

additional analysis is needed when CBNG projects 

are proposed, while the 1-mile buffer delineates an 

area in which a water mitigation agreement must be 

offered. The difference in buffer distances is largely a 

function of the buffer’s purpose.

C-5: The development of CBNG should allow for 

unlined, on-channel reservoirs for the storage of 

produced water. The use of unlined, on-channel 

reservoirs should be combined with an intelligent 

groundwater monitoring program.

R-5: The use of unlined, on-channel reservoirs is 

allowed under the preferred alternative (see 

discussion in Chapter 2, Alternative H, Produced 

Water Management). Any on-channel CBNG 

impoundments would have to be approved by 

MDEQ, and MDEQ would develop the groundwater 

monitoring requirements. The MBOGC would have 

to concur with MDEQ from a water management 

perspective. The BLM would also have to concur 

with the MDEQ for impoundments that received 

water from federal wells, or were located on federal 

surface.

C-6: BLM did not consider whether water mitigation 

agreements effectively protect landowners. To 

measure the effectiveness of these agreements, BLM 

only interviewed industry representatives; they did 

not consider the perspectives of landowners (pages. 

2-6, 3-45 through 3-48). 

Aquifer drawdowns are projected to occur 20 miles 

or more from CBNG development, yet water-well 

mitigation agreements are still required only for wells 

within 1 mile of a producing CBNG well. Other 

problems with these agreements still are not 

addressed. BLM cannot continue to rely on these 

agreements without an analysis of their efficacy and 

assessment of other possible mitigation that could be 

implemented to make up for their shortcomings.

R-6: BLM had to determine whether water mitigation 

agreements actually mitigated effects. As every 

agreement can be different, BLM interviewed 

industry representatives to determine how many 

water mitigation agreements had been executed and 

what mitigation measures were used to address the 

potential impacts from CBNG production to area 

water wells. How effectively the landowner is 

protected in the agreement depends on the agreement 

the landowner made with the company. 

The protective measures provided for in using water 

mitigation agreements are discussed under the 

heading of "Management Common to All 

Alternatives" within Chapter 2. Should a well within 

1 mile of a producing CBNG well be impacted, then 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-29

the cone of influence for the agreement is extended 

out another 0.5 mile and so on until no more wells 

are impacted. Groundwater drawdown, how it relates 

to water mitigation agreements and possible 

mitigation measures are discussed under the heading 

of "CBNG Groundwater Drawdown and Water 

Mitigation Agreements" within the Hydrological 

Resources section of Chapter 4.

C-7: If a water supply well goes dry as a result of 

nearby CBNG activity, the operator must replace that 

lost water supply. However, the mitigation agreement 

does not state how the lost water must be replaced. 

Thus, the CBNG company could haul water to the 

damaged party and keep a cistern filled, or could drill 

a new well. If the latter, the new well will be in a 

different aquifer, causing the water right holder to 

lose his/her senior water rights; he/she now has a 

junior water right to the CBNG company that 

destroyed his/her water source. And, this new, deeper 

well will require more electricity to operate in 

perpetuity. This after-the-fact mitigation is simply 

inadequate given the severity of impact on senior 

water right holders and the severity and longevity of 

the impacts on naturally flowing springs and artesian 

wells.

R-7: The form of the replaced water will depend on

the area and the agreement between the landowner 

and the CBNG operator. If an existing well fails and 

a new well is constructed to replace it, a replacement 

well water right may be issued by DNRC, which 

would retain the priority date of the old well. This

information has been added to Chapter 4, 

Hydrological Resources, CBNG Groundwater 

Drawdown and Water Mitigation Agreements 

subsection of the FSEIS.

If the replaced water consists of a deeper well with 

higher operating costs, then it is up to the operator to 

negotiate compensation for the higher operating costs 

with the CBNG operator. If cost negotiations with the 

operator are not successful, the landowner can 

petition for compensation under the Coal Bed 

Methane Protection Act (MCA 76-15-9).

C-8: The DSEIS ignores the consequences of CBNG 

wastewater discharges on downstream irrigation, 

because (on page 4-125) BLM assumes wastewater 

will be treated before being discharged. However, no 

wastewater treatment requirements have been 

established in Montana, in part, because the CBNG 

industry has fought every effort made to establish 

standards and because both the CBNG industry and 

the state of Montana are arguing against establishing 

treatment requirements in the MPDES lawsuit 

Northern Cheyenne et al. v. DEQ et al., DV 06-34 

Big Horn County. BLM has to examine the positions 

being advanced in that lawsuit, because there will be 

no wastewater treatment required if DEQ prevails.

R-8: While treatment is not specifically required at 

this time, the Montana Board of Environmental 

Quality has designated EC and SAR as harmful 

parameters. The designation of these parameters as 

“harmful” causes non-degradation criteria to apply. 

As such, CBNG water would have to be treated to 

ambient, or better, water quality since all streams in 

the Montana portion of the Powder River Basin 

currently exceed 40 percent of the established 

standards.

The potential effects to surface water quantity and 

quality are detailed in the Hydrological Resources 

section of Chapter 4 and the Surface Water Quality 

Analysis Technical Report (SWQATR). BLM 

recognizes the transitional nature of current water 

quality standards and CBNG rules in Montana. 

Implementation of the provisions of the Water Screen 

(i.e., 10 percent of the 7Q10) provides an additional 

level of assurance for protecting surface water 

quality.

C-9: The SEIS has to address the Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe proposed regulations for dealing with coal bed 

methane development that are pending before EPA. 

The tribe also has nondegradation criteria with 

different standards. Why is there no discussion of the 

Northern Cheyenne non-degradation criterion?

R-9: The adoption of surface water quality standards 

by the Northern Cheyenne Tribe is discussed in the 

Hydrology section of Chapter 3 and in the 

Hydrological Resources section of Chapter 4. The 

Northern Cheyenne water quality standards are 

mentioned, but not in detail, because they have not 

been approved by EPA.

C-10: Aquifer drawdown has not yet been truly 

examined. 

R-10: The drawdown of groundwater within aquifers 

is discussed in the Hydrologic Resources section of 

Chapter 3, under the heading "Observed CBNG 

Related Groundwater Drawdown," and in the 

Hydrological Resources section of Chapter 4 under 

the heading, "CBNG Groundwater Drawdown and 

Water Mitigation Agreements." Additional 

information is also contained in the Water Resources 

Technical Report (ALL 2001b), the groundwater 

modeling reports (Wheaton and Metesh 2001; 

Wheaton and Metesh 2002), and the subsequent 

groundwater monitoring reports (MBMG Open File

Reports 508, 528, 538, and 556).
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-30

C-11: If BLM were to implement phased 

development under Alternatives F, G, or H, as 

indicated on Page 4-4, it could result in longer time 

frames for a given amount of CBNG development. 

Application of general groundwater theory suggests 

that a given amount of CBNG development, which is 

more spread out in time and space, will result in a 

greater total quantity of produced water due to the 

additional recharge to the coal beds over the longer 

period of production. The time period for recovery of 

pressure head in the produced coal beds would also 

be extended. The SEIS should make it clear that this 

is one of the tradeoffs of phased development. 

R-11: CBNG production will continue until the wells 

no longer produce natural gas in economic quantities. 

Thus each individual well is not producing for a 

longer period of time. While the amount of water 

produced per well may be somewhat increased if 

CBNG development is spread out in space (due to 

there being more “edge”), this difference is unlikely 

to be substantially different than that assumed for the 

SEIS.

C-12: Page 4-101 discusses the mixing ability of the 

Yellowstone River and concludes that CBNG water 

will have no impacts on the Yellowstone River 

waters. No attempt was made to quantify the sitespecific impacts to Tongue River irrigators, T&Y, 

Kinsey, Buffalo Rapids Project and the other major 

private irrigators along the Yellowstone River 

downstream of the confluences which bear CBNG 

water. This opinion is not currently shared by the 

Buffalo Rapids Irrigation Company. The irrigation 

company's proposed solution to its perceived water 

quality problem will have habitat impacts that are 

unacceptable to MFWP fisheries managers. Buffalo 

Rapids Irrigation Company is proposing drastic 

habitat alterations to the stream course of the 

Yellowstone River to reduce the detrimental effect of 

CBNG discharge water on its crops. The Buffalo 

Rapids Company has asked state regulatory agencies 

about building deflection barriers in the Yellowstone 

River downstream of the confluence of the Powder 

River. The District purports that saline water from 

CBNG production in the upper Powder River is not 

diluting in the low flow period of the summer 

months. This water is then flowing along the south 

bank of the Yellowstone River, a distance about 2 

miles downstream, where it enters one of the district's 

water intakes and is fed into the irrigation system to 

irrigate crops. The district's theory is that building 

jetty-like berms into the river would make it easier to 

mix and dilute the saline water coming from the 

Powder River with higher quality water from the 

Yellowstone River before it is used in the irrigation 

system. The proposed berms would create fish 

movement and navigation problems during these low 

flow periods and are discouraged by MFWP fisheries 

staff. Furthermore, there is no definitive proof that 

these measures would increase the quality of water 

pumped into district intakes during these low flow 

periods.

There is no account of what the SAR/EC 

relationships are just downstream of the Tongue and 

Powder rivers. The Powder River water does not mix 

until well past Terry, close to Fallon, and it hugs the 

south bank. This causes an acute problem for the 

Terry irrigators as SARs above 3 have been seen with 

ECs below 800. A soils analysis of Buffalo Rapids' 

soils and what effect varying CBNG water 

compositions might have on them indicated that a 

SAR of 3 with a corresponding EC of 800 spelled 

trouble for heavy soils (51 percent of BRP soils). At 

that point danger exists that a cumulative effect could 

take place over years, permanently damaging the 

heavy soils and rendering them useless for crop 

production. There is no way to know how far 

downstream these effects may carry before adequate 

mixing occurs. 

R-12: The referenced text refers to potential effects 

to the Yellowstone River resulting from CBNGproduced water discharges under Alternative C, 

which was not selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

Further, the text does not indicate that CBNG water 

will have no impacts on the Yellowstone River 

waters. Rather the text states, "The surface water 

quality of the Yellowstone River would be noticeably 

degraded by discharges from Montana and Wyoming 

under Alternative C; however, beneficial uses would 

not be impacted." 

MDEQ has set numerical standards for SAR and EC 

that it believes are protective of soils, plants, and 

animals. The analysis conducted for the Tongue 

River at Brandenburg Bridge (USGS Station 

06307830) and for the Yellowstone River near 

Sidney (USGS Station 06329500) are believed to be 

representative of the water quality that will be 

experienced by irrigators near Miles City and on the 

Yellowstone below the Powder River. Impacts at 

Kinsey would be lower than those calculated for the 

Sidney Station, since the intake is upstream from the 

Powder River. If it is anticipated that irrigation water 

is going to come primarily from the Powder River, 

the calculations for the Powder River at Locate 

should be representative (USGS Station 06326500).

C-13: The SEIS states that the water from the 

shallow Dietz seam near the Tongue River Reservoir 

is recharged from the Tongue River Reservoir. Now 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-31

that the aquifer pressure has been lowered, more 

water comes from the reservoir. This is water that 

belongs to the Tongue River water users and the 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe. How will the water users 

or the tribe be compensated for this taking of water?

R-13: The SEIS considers this issue in Chapter 3, 

Hydrology, under “Observed CBNG related 

Groundwater Drawdown.” The SEIS suggests that a 

small volume (approximately 1.5 gallons per minute 

[gpm]) of water is being drawn into the shallow Dietz 

coal aquifer. BLM has a responsibility to protect 

Indian Trust Assets, which includes groundwater.

C-14: I obtained water quality data from the United 

States Geological Survey for the gauging station at 

Miles City for 1959 to the present. I used the period 

from 1959 to 1972 as a baseline because no 

discharges from coal mining or CBNG were present 

at that time. I then averaged the water quality data 

from 1999 to the present and compared it to baseline 

data. The sodium adsorption ratio increased by 44 

percent from the baseline data. 

When will the screening guidelines kick in? Do 10 

percent of the irrigators have to be damaged before 

anything is done? Do 50 percent of the irrigators have 

to be damaged? I do not see that there is a screening 

guideline for soil damages in this SEIS.

R-14: An increase in SAR, or any other single 

indicator, cannot be assigned to a single source 

without modeling flow and composition in the 

stream. As described in the SEIS, flow rate and 

composition are closely related in Montana's rivers. 

The samples mentioned for CBNG development lie 

entirely in a period with extended drought. As stream 

levels drop, salts increase, and calculated indicators 

such as SAR also frequently increase. As discussed in 

Chapter 2, the water screen will kick in if untreated 

CBNG discharges to a stream exceed 10 percent of 

the 7Q10.

Screening guidelines under the Preferred Alternative, 

Alternative H, would not be implemented until the 

ROD is approved and signed. A screen for damages 

to soils from the use of CBNG-produced water was 

not deemed necessary. Water quality standards are 

set to protect irrigation. Should a landowner decide to 

use CBNG-produced water directly for irrigation, it is 

up to the landowner to determine if the water is 

useable, given site-specific soil properties, the type of 

crop to be irrigated, and the application rate and 

overall volume of water used.

C-15: The cumulative effects on water quality are not 

considered. The Tongue River Railroad final EIS was 

submitted last fall. It states that 20,000 tons of 

sediment will be introduced to the Tongue River 

during construction. It also states that 7,000 to 10,000 

tons of sediment will be dumped into the Tongue 

River every year after that. If standards at Miles City 

are being exceeded now, things will only get worse 

with the TRR. The cursory review of effects from 

TRR is not adequate.

R-15: The potential for sedimentation impacts to the 

Tongue River from the TRR is discussed within the 

Hydrological Resources section of Chapter 4. 

Construction of the TRR would be consistent with all 

state and federal rules and regulations, and 

hydrological impacts are expected to be short-lived 

and minor. Construction of the TRR will increase the 

local effects of soil erosion with a greater suspended 

sediment load to the Tongue River and its tributaries. 

The use of mitigating measures and best management 

practices is expected to minimize erosion and control 

runoff. These impacts are anticipated to be of low 

intensity and short duration. Sediment yields will 

return to natural levels once vegetation is 

reestablished.

C-16: BLM failed to include and recognize its only 

requirement, as contained in Onshore Oil & Gas 

Order Nos. 1 and 7, is for federal acceptance of water 

management plans, so long as mitigation agreements 

meet all applicable laws of the state.

R-16: The SEIS points out repeatedly that the 

requirement for water mitigation agreements is a state 

issue administered by the DNRC and MBOGC. BLM 

must have reasonable assurance that water mitigation 

agreements have been offered prior to approving 

federal APDs; however BLM believes that including 

an example Water Well Mitigation Agreement 

provides a better explanation of how these 

agreements would work as opposed to a bulleted or 

check list of those items required by state law. The 

terms of actual agreements will be as determined by 

operators and the water source owners.

C-17: What methodology, frequency, and discharge 

rate will be used to determine “projected to exceed”? 

How would the 7Q10 be derived for ephemeral 

streams that do not flow most of the year? What will 

be the obligation for MDEQ to complete the report in 

a timely manner? What is the scope of the report? 

How frequently would the report have to be redone if 

new data or proposed sites come to light? If another 

operator proposes discharges in the same area how 

will the report include those sites? Would not it be 

more efficient for the operator to prepare the report 

following BLM specified requirements and methods 

and use MDEQ to review? Will the operator have 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-32

opportunity to review, comment, or rebuff parts of 

the report and findings?

As BLM recognizes in the water screen, MDEQ has 

the lead role in managing Montana water resources 

and administers the MPDES permit program for all 

CBNG discharges. Under criteria for determining 

nonsignificant changes in water quality 

(Administrative Rules of Montana [ARM] 30-

7:17.30.715), the existing surface water quality 

resulting from activities that would increase the 7Q10 

flow by less than 10 percent is defined as 

nonsignificant and does not require additional review 

under 75-5-303, MCA. Therefore BLM’s screen and 

proposal to prepare a surface water monitoring report 

only serve to complicate the regulatory framework 

and burden the MDEQ with further collaboration. 

Please clarify how the water screen is different from 

the review required under 75-5-303 MCA, and if any 

additional mitigation measures would be required 

above and beyond what can be expected from 

MDEQ.

R-17: The water screen is not a limit on discharge. It 

is a trigger to be used by BLM to indicate when 

detailed analysis of monitoring data is needed. This 

would allow BLM to evaluate the potential for water 

quality standards being exceeded before the 

exceedance actually occurs. 

Discharge monitoring reports will be used to 

determine the volume of untreated water being 

discharged. The 7Q10 calculations will be based on 

USGS streamflow data. Ephemeral and intermittent 

streams will have a 7Q10 of zero, so analysis will be 

required if there is any untreated discharge.

BLM has entered into a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) with MDEQ under which 

BLM is providing funding under the Energy Policy 

Act’s Pilot Office provisions for several MDEQ 

positions. One of the duties specifically identified for 

these positions is the review of BLM analysis.

The scope of the report is discussed in Chapter 2 of 

the SEIS, under Alternative H. This section has also 

been modified to clarify that this would be an annual 

report, which considerers all discharges within the 

watershed cumulatively.

BLM does not believe that it would be more efficient 

to have operators prepare the reports, since this 

would require preparation effort and then detailed 

review and analysis of many reports. In most cases, 

these reports will probably not be complicated or 

controversial; in cases where it appears that there are 

issues, however, stakeholders may be consulted.

The provisions of the water screen are not 

substantially different from MDEQ requirements 

under 17.30.715. Both items relate to the 

10 percent over the 7Q10 threshold and both allow 

re-evaluation under "cumulative impacts" and "any 

other information deemed relevant by the 

department.”

C-18: The SEIS does not analyze the indirect impacts 

to wildlife or the human environment from discharge 

of produced water to surface streams. This may 

impact shoreline vegetation and increase soil salts to 

the extent that both sensitive crops and native 

vegetation may be killed. In addition, there may be 

impacts to shallow groundwater quality from 

impoundment infiltration and other water 

management practices.

R-18: The SEIS does analyze the direct and indirect 

potential impacts to wildlife and the human 

environment. They are addressed in several sections 

of Chapter 4, including Hydrological Resources and 

Wildlife. 

C-19: There is no evidence of water quality 

degradation at the Montana border attributable to 

CBNG discharges. This fact should be highlighted 

and stated directly in the EIS. Any reference to 

assertions that the way WYDEQ is managing water 

quality discharges will lead to degradation of surface 

water quality below standards in Montana is 

unwarranted, unsupported by the facts, and should be 

removed from the document.

R-19: The SEIS states that the impact analysis is 

based on the assumption that water management in 

Wyoming will proceed as assumed under the 

Wyoming EISs (USDI 2003) Alternative 2A (see the 

“General Assumptions” section in Chapter 4. It is 

also discussed in the impacts section that 

implementation in Wyoming may be different than 

assumed to assure compliance with the Montana 

Standards (e.g. see Chapter 4 “Hydrologic 

Resources” Alternative E under “Powder River”.

C-20: Page 2-8: Under "Hydrologic Resources" the 

wording in the second paragraph should be changed 

to the following: "Montana's water quality standards 

for the Tongue and Powder Rivers are being 

challenged by court actions which are not yet 

resolved. The states of Montana and Wyoming are in 

negotiations on appropriate state line standards and 

how CBNG discharges in Wyoming will be managed 

to meet whatever standards are eventually adopted."

R-20: The wording within the FSEIS Mitigation 

Measures Common to All Alternatives table has been 

modified accordingly.
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-33

C-21: Page 4-77: In the second paragraph of the 

right-hand column, note that Montana's 2003 

standards are being challenged in both Montana and 

federal courts and that those court actions have not 

been resolved. Additionally, the last sentence should 

be modified as follows: "In addition, all CWA 

permits issued in Wyoming authorizing discharges 

into streams that flow north into Montana contain 

conditions to ensure that Montana's water quality 

standards are not exceeded at the border."

R-21: The language in the FSEIS has been modified.

C-22: Pages 4-77 and 4-78: Montana's proposed 

nondegradation requirements have not been approved 

by EPA. Their impact, even if approved by EPA is 

very speculative at this time. Wyoming suggests that 

the discussion of this issue be limited to those basic 

facts and that the discussion on page 4-78 as written 

be deleted.

R-22: The text within the SEIS acknowledges that 

the standards have not been approved by EPA. 

However, BLM believes that the discussion 

concerning the effect of possible outcomes is 

necessary to understand the issue.

C-23: Page 4-84, Table 4-33: The table should 

include the timeframe of the data set used to establish 

the existing stream water quality and the data source 

(i.e., USGS). The table should include the 

assumptions used in making the calculations, such as 

assumed additional flow from CBNG water; assumed 

EC, sodium, calcium, magnesium and any other 

constituent concentrations used in the calculations; 

the method of calculating resulting concentrations; 

and the timeframe represented (i.e., yearly average, 

seasonal average, or monthly average). This 

comment is applicable to all other tables representing 

mixing calculations throughout the document.

R-23: The data set used is in Chapter 3, Hydrological 

Resources, Surface Water Discharge and Water 

Quality for Minimum Mean Monthly Flows at 

Selected USGS Stations Table. The stream segments 

and gauging stations are shown on the Powder River 

Basin Watersheds and Area USGS Gauging Stations 

Map. The assumptions used concerning water 

quantity and quality is contained in the text. 

C-24: Page 4-84: This section discusses Alternative 

A, No Action (Existing CBNG Management) and 

assumes that approximately 15 percent of the water 

produced in Wyoming would reach the Tongue 

River, but there is no basis for this assumption. In 

fact, WYDEQ records and records from the 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

substantiate that no more than 1.1 percent of 

produced water in the Tongue River Drainage Basin 

has actually reached the Tongue River in any given 

month. That equates to a peak average monthly 

volume of 0.19 cubic feet per second. Consequently, 

the effects presented in Table 4-33 should be 

amended to incorporate realistic expectations of 

CBNG flows and concentrations.

R-24: The assumption is 15 percent of the produced 

water in the Wyoming portion of the Tongue River 

watershed discharged to impoundments would reach 

the Tongue River. This is based not only on existing 

production but also on future production under the 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario. This 

value was derived during the development of the 

Surface Water Quality Analysis Technical Report in 

2002. The development of this analysis included 

input from WYDEQ, MDEQ, EPA, and BLM. Using 

15 percent as an estimate is a reasonable approach to 

assessing potential affects from the discharges in 

Wyoming. The text within the FSEIS clarifies that 

the 15 percent refers to produced water within the 

Tongue River watershed that is discharged into 

impoundments.

C-25: The first paragraph under Powder River on 

page 4-85 and first paragraph on page 4-86 under 

Little Powder River incorrectly suggest that 

Wyoming discharge permits do not protect the 

Montana water quality standards. Wyoming CBNG 

discharges are managed to result in minimal to no 

change in water quality in rivers shared between 

Montana and Wyoming. In all circumstances, they 

are managed not to exceed Montana water quality 

standards. The management of CBNG in Wyoming 

should not be in question in this document. The 40 

percent minimum mean monthly flow is not relevant 

to the document because it is not an existing 

enforceable standard and should be deleted.

R-25: The referenced language states that under 

Alternative A, there would not be any CBNG wells in 

Montana discharging to the Powder or Little Powder 

rivers. Therefore, any alteration in quantity or quality 

of water in the two rivers would be due to discharges 

in Wyoming. This does not suggest that Wyoming 

discharge permits do not protect Montana Water 

quality standards.

C-26: The DSEIS does not describe what an 

application must contain to demonstrate that surface 

or subsurface water will not be degraded. The DSEIS 

must set forth how Onshore Order No. 7 will be 

applied in this instance to be consistent with previous 

applications in other locations and for other oil and 

gas operations.
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-34

R-26: What an application must contain is 

determined on a case-by-case basis depending on 

several factors, including the water quality and soil 

type (it is site specific). Demonstrating that water will 

not be degraded will depend on site-specific 

conditions. 

C-27: The term "land application" should be replaced 

with "managed irrigation" to maintain consistency 

throughout the document. "Land application" as the 

term is generally used is not considered to be a 

beneficial use.

R-27: The text in the FSEIS has been modified to 

read "managed irrigation" as opposed to "land 

application.”

C-28: Regarding increased methane production in 

two water wells on the Tongue River Reservoir State 

Park, as well increased seepage under the reservoir, 

the DSEIS only refers to the MFWP in this 

discussion. Have operators been approached about 

this issue? What data are available, and how does 

MFWP know that there is increased seepage under 

the reservoir? The DSEIS does not explain the fact 

that there is an outcropping of coals within the 

reservoir.

R-28: The information as presented was reported to 

BLM by MFWP and concerns only reports of 

methane. Potential causes are not discussed. 

C-29: SAR is not a constituent; it is the ratio of 

calcium and magnesium in comparison to sodium. 

The DSEIS does not provide a complete list and map 

showing the USGS monitoring stations along the 

Tongue River.

R-29: SAR is defined as a ratio within the text of the 

Hydrological Resources section of Chapter 3. A list 

of USGS monitoring stations is in Chapter 3, 

Hydrological Resources, Surface Water Discharge 

and Water Quality for Minimum Mean Monthly 

Flows at Selected USGS Stations Table. A map also 

shows the location of USGS monitoring stations 

included as Powder River Basin Watersheds and 

Area USGS Gauging Stations Map.

C-30: There is a statement in the SEIS, "As such it 

does not appear that CBNG development had a 

measurable effect on EC and SAR through 2005." 

Has this knowledge and the relevant data been 

considered and applied in the development of the 

new alternatives? If so, how and in which 

alternatives?

R-30: Surface water quality and quantity data were 

considered in the development of each alternative. 

The more recent data for 2003 through 2005 was also 

considered in the development of Alternatives F, G, 

and H. The potential for impacts to surface water 

quality and quantity are not based solely on current 

levels of development, but also on future 

development as outlined in the Reasonably 

Foreseeable Development Scenario described in 

Chapter 4.

C-31: There are no electrical power plants using 

CBNG-produced water within the DSEIS area. They 

are not applicable to the current affected 

environment.

R-31: It is appropriate for Chapter 3, Affected 

Environment, to include a discussion of the potential 

beneficial uses for CBNG-produced water. 

C-32: The DSEIS fails to address the naturally 

occurring groundwater quality present in the wells on 

the reservation. Table 3-19 demonstrates an 

extremely wide range of SAR and total dissolved 

solids (TDS) values, with the upper ends of the 

ranges higher than most CBNG-produced water; e.g., 

in the table, highs for SAR range from 11 to 82, and, 

TDS ranges from 1,180 to 8,060 mg/l.

R-32: The data in the Chapter 3, Native American 

Concerns, Groundwater Sodium Adsorption Ratio 

and Total Dissolved Solids Values Crow Reservation 

Table are based on the analysis of naturally occurring 

groundwater present in wells on the reservation. The 

source of the data is referenced in the table.

C-33: How will BLM (and the Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe) enforce very low allowable SAR and TDS 

numbers in CBNG-produced water when natural 

sources have high numbers and wide ranges?

R-33: MDEQ, EPA, and the Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe are responsible for enforcement of water 

quality standards. 

C-34: The DSEIS should advise the reader that 

MDEQ has never granted an authorization to degrade 

water quality. Consequently, it should not be 

presented as a viable option for any alternative.

R-34: The fact that MDEQ has never approved an 

authorization to degrade water quality is 

acknowledged within the DSEIS (for example see 

Chapter 4, Hydrological Resources, Alternative C, 

Rosebud Creek and Yellowstone River Subsections, 

etc.). Although it has not been done yet, an 

authorization to degrade is still a legal option (MCA 

75-5-303.3).

C-35: On page 3-50 under "Existing Wells and 

Springs," the DSEIS states the following: 

“Furthermore, it is unlikely that CBNG production 

would impact springs, because if subsurface coal
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-35

seams were in direct contact with surface springs, 

water and methane gas would have long ago leaked 

to the surface....” Most springs are expressions of 

local groundwater flow systems. BLM should make 

its discussion on page 4-81 consistent with its 

interpretation in Chapter 3.

R-35: The text in Chapter 3 provides that it is 

unlikely that CBNG production would impact 

springs. The text in Chapter 4 provides management 

alternatives that could be used should a spring be 

impacted, however unlikely that may be. The text 

from Chapters 3 and 4 is consistent.

C-36: Nonproductive coals are predicted to regain 80 

percent of their pressure within five years. Surface 

aquifers that are projected to lose only 6 feet of 

pressure, would regain 50 percent of that pressure in 

less than 10 years (Wheaton and Metesh 2002, page 

4-82). BLM should modify this statement because no 

drawdown effects from CBNG production have been 

observed in non-producing aquifers or overlying 

aquifers after 6 years of monitoring in the CX Field 

(Source: Ground Water Information Center database 

2006).

R-36: The statement accurately reflects the 

groundwater modeling results and is not based on the 

current level of production from the CX Ranch Field.

The fact that drawdown has not been observed in 

units other than the developed coal seams is included 

in Chapter 3, Hydrological Resources, Observed 

CBNG Related Groundwater Drawdown Subsection.

C-37: A recent analysis of WYDEQ's Impoundment 

Groundwater Monitoring Database found that of 77 

CBNG impoundments in compliance monitoring;

only 6 came out of compliance due to exceeding one 

or more water quality parameters. By the end of 

2006, those six sites were back in compliance 

following subsequent monitoring (Osborne, et al. 

2007). BLM should advise the reader of these 

updated findings.

R-37: BLM reviewed this information in the 

preparation of the FSEIS. The review determined 

that, when compared to the DSEIS, new significant 

information was not presented. Therefore, the new 

information did not result in a modification to the 

FSEIS.

C-38: Water well or spring mitigation agreements are 

private contracts between operators and willing 

landowners. Operators cannot be required to certify 

that agreements have been made when some 

landowners may not be willing to sign one. 

Jurisdiction over mitigation agreements is under the 

Montana DNRC, not BLM. Thus, requiring that an 

operator certify entering into such an agreement is 

unreasonable and unwarranted.

R-38: Alternative E does require the operator to 

certify that mitigation agreements have been ratified; 

however, this requirement has been dropped from the 

proposed decision (see Chapter 2, Alternative H).

C-39: The DSEIS should note that the cause of the 

siltation in Hanging Woman Creek is not related to 

CBNG production and that this impairment is best 

addressed by correcting the sources of the 

impairment through the total maximum daily load 

(TMDL) program by the appropriate agencies and 

landowners. It is not within BLM's statutory authority 

to limit treated water discharges.

R-39: The identified probable source of impairment 

is included in Chapter 3, Hydrological Resources, 

Impaired Water Bodies in Area of Maximum CBNG 

Potential Table of the SEIS. The fact that the stream 

is impaired may be used by MDEQ to determine the 

level of discharge of treated and untreated water that 

would be allowed. Additionally, since BLM is the 

designated management agency for water quality for 

lands it manages (2002 Non-point source MOU 

between BLM and DEQ), the agency must evaluate 

potential impacts to surface water quality from 

erosion/siltation.

C-40: MDEQ, not BLM has the responsibility to 

issue discharge permits that meet applicable water 

quality standards and non-degradation criteria under 

the Clean Water Act (CWA). BLM attempts to 

impose water quality criteria which are duplicative of 

the state of Montana's criteria, are mandated without 

any formal rule-making process, do not acknowledge 

whether an operator is compliant with its MPDES 

permit, and would be applied without consideration 

of site-specific conditions. Furthermore, BLM has 

not defined land health standards, nor invoked an 

authoritative reference. The proposed 

7Q10 limitation exceeds BLM's authority and could 

create more environmental impacts, while interfering 

with POD area-wide water management, which will 

be permitted by MDEQ to meet all applicable water 

quality rules. 

The "potential to cause water quality standards to be 

exceeded" is not defined. How is potential defined in 

terms of concentrations, for which parameters, and at 

what flow rates? The DSEIS has not indicated if and 

how BLM would account for the natural variations in 

water quality in determining potential. The DSEIS 

has not indicated if and how BLM would account for 

contributions of contaminants from non-CBNG 

sources, such as mining or irrigation return flows, in 

determining potential. The DSEIS has not indicated 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-36

what regional surface water monitoring stations it is 

referring to, nor if and how it will deal with potential 

discharge sites that do not have upstream and/or 

downstream regional monitoring stations.

R-40: BLM's intent with the water screen and 

implementation of the 10 percent of the 

7Q10 threshold is to provide a way to evaluate the 

potential for a discharge to exceed a water quality 

standard before the exceedance actually occurs. This 

would allow BLM, in consultation with MDEQ, to 

work with operators in implementing measures to 

avoid the exceedance.

The first paragraph describing the screen (see 

Chapter 2, Alternatives, Alternative H, Water Screen 

Subsection) clearly identifies the objective as 

coordination and reducing duplication of efforts. 

Natural variations and non-CBNG sources would be 

considered during consultation with MDEQ.

BLM recognizes the primacy of MDEQ in permitting 

and enforcement of water quality in the state but 

retains its oversight responsibility as it applies to 

management of produced water from federal 

minerals. The water screen does not have specific 

limits attached to it, as each hydrological setting and 

CBNG development is site-specific. CBNG water, 

although it is unaltered groundwater, is considered to 

be a pollutant. As such, it is regulated by the 

MDEQ’s MPDES program.

Land health standards refer to the Montana/Dakotas 

Standards for Rangeland Health, operating standards 

developed to guide management of all uses on BLM 

rangelands managed by the Miles City Field Office.

Potential to exceed is determined by surface mixing 

models included in Chapter 4 Hydrology. Regional 

monitoring guidance is spelled out in the USGS 

Surface-Water Monitoring in Watersheds of the 

Powder River Basin, 2005 report in the Monitoring 

Appendix.

C-41: New Tables HYD-2 and HYD-3 present the 

2004 TMDL impaired water body status for the 

Upper Tongue River and Lower Tongue River, 

respectively. These stream segments have 

experienced discharge of treated and untreated 

CBNG-produced water. However, CBNG was not 

found to be a source of water quality impairment by 

MDEQ. The impairment sources included grazing, 

agriculture, wastewater lagoons, dam construction, 

and flow modification or hydromodification. Flow 

modification and hydromodifications are associated 

with stream diversions for irrigation. Given this new 

information, BLM should update the 2003 discussion 

on page HYD-3 under the heading "Surface Water 

Impact from Discharge." The initial statement, 

"[i]mpacts to surface water from discharge of CBNG 

water can be severe depending upon the quality of the 

CBNG water," is also not consistent with the TMDL 

findings. The cited TMDL report demonstrates that 

the other referenced sources have resulted in 

impaired water bodies in the Tongue River drainage, 

but that CBNG activities to date have not.

R-41: Findings of the 2004 Impaired Waterbodies 

List are included in Chapter 3, Hydrological 

Resources, Impaired Water Bodies in Area of 

Maximum CBNG Potential Table of the SEIS. This 

table includes the probable sources of impairment. 

Neither CBNG nor oil and gas development is 

mentioned as a probable source. While CBNG 

activities have not impaired water bodies in the 

Tongue River drainage to date, the potential does 

exist, particularly as development expands beyond 

current levels.

C-42: HYD-8: "The 1996 list identified many waters 

within the Tongue and Powder TMDL planning areas 

as impaired by salinity, total dissolved solids, 

chlorides, metals, inorganics, suspended solids, 

siltation, nutrients, low dissolved oxygen, pathogens, 

flow alteration, thermal modification, and habitat 

alteration. Of these pollutants, salinity, total dissolved 

solids, metals, and nutrients are frequently associated 

with produced water from CBNG development. 

CBNG development may also cause flow alterations 

and associated pollutants to exceed standards (i.e., 

total suspended solids)." 

This paragraph does not accurately reflect the sources 

of water quality impairment actually found in the 

2004 TMDL assessment. It should be updated to 

more accurately reflect that sources other than CBNG 

discharges are responsible for the current 

impairments in the Tongue River Basin. BLM's 

updated discussion should clarify that the pollutants 

listed, including salinity, total dissolved solids, and 

nutrients are also frequently associated with 

agricultural sources of contamination and that 

irrigated agriculture in the Tongue River Basin is a 

large source of flow alterations.

R-42: The tables contained within the Hydrology 

Appendix contain information on the "Probable 

Causes of Impairment.” The text in the FSEIS states

”agriculture, dam construction and hydromodification 

(all of which relate to irrigated crop production), are 

included on these lists.”

C-43: The DSEIS should set forth that the 

monitoring requirements for CBNG discharges are 

contained in an operator's MPDES permit, which is 

administered and enforced by MDEQ. It should also 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-37

state that BLM will rely on MDEQ to implement 

monitoring requirements and trigger levels and to 

require remedial action as necessary.

R-43: BLM has the responsibility to monitor the 

disposition of water and other products taken from 

federal minerals. While it does not approve and 

administer MPDES permits, it retains an advisory 

role to MDEQ as these permits pertain to federal 

minerals. Onshore Order Number 7 clearly states the 

following: “The approval of the Environmental 

Protection Agency or a State/Tribe shall not be 

considered as granting approval to dispose of 

produced water from leased Federal or Indian lands 

until and unless BLM approval is obtained.”

C-44: There is significant new information regarding 

the feasibility of reinjection that further establishes its 

viability as a means of protecting ground and surface 

water resources. MBOGC recently granted a permit 

to Pinnacle Resources to reinject CBNG wastewater, 

and the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology has 

produced maps of underground formations suitable 

for injection. The SEIS must incorporate these and

other developments in taking a hard look at a phased 

development alternative that incorporates reinjection.

R-44: Injection is already considered and analyzed as 

a water management option under the preferred 

alternative; however it cannot be mandated in all 

areas. When injecting into coal seams, the area must 

be geologically or geographically separated from 

CBNG development. As discussed in the SEIS, 

studies indicate that suitable shallow injection zones 

in units other than the coals, which would allow for

the future use of the water, are limited to about 9 

percent of the PRB.

C-45: The water screen is unsupported by science or 

data. Because the screen is applied on a watershed 

basis, it would not provide protection to the countless 

ephemeral streams. As with the wildlife screen, the 

10 percent of the 7Q10 limit appears to be pulled out 

of a hat. We can find no scientific basis for requiring 

a surface water monitoring report only if discharges 

within the watershed are projected to exceed 10 

percent of the 7Q10.

R-45: The use of 10 percent of the 7Q10 limit is 

based on MDEQ's non-degradation regulations. 

BLM's intent with the water screen and 

implementation of the 10 percent of the 

7Q10 threshold was to provide a way the agency 

could evaluate the potential for a discharge to exceed 

a water quality standard before the exceedance 

actually occurred. This would allow BLM, in 

consultation with MDEQ, to work with the 

operator(s) in implementing measures to avoid the 

exceedance. Because the water screen is applied on a 

watershed basis, it would apply to ephemeral as well 

as main stem streams (i.e., any untreated discharge to 

an ephemeral or intermittent stream would trigger the 

requirement since the 7Q10 is zero). 

C-47: BLM's proposed use of the 7Q10 flow rate as a 

water screen is a mistaken policy. Evidently BLM 

assumes that all discharge permits issued by MDEQ 

would be based on the annual 7Q10. Although some 

permits include discharge limits incorporating the 

annual 7Q10 flow, not all permits do, and other flow 

criteria may be used. The Montana Board of 

Environmental Review specifically eliminated a 

provision in state rules that had previously required 

use of the 7Q10 flow for CBNG permitting. 

(httD:/Iwww.dea.state.mt.uSldirl/egallNotices/17 -

236adD.pdf).

R-47: The provisions of the water screen are in 

addition to MPDES permit conditions. In accordance 

with BLM's responsibilities that apply to federal 

minerals, they will advise MDEQ about surface water 

quality changes and CBNG production

The screens are not a regulatory step, but rather a tool 

to identify potential problems. MDEQ is responsible 

for making all determinations of water quality 

impairment. Until such a determination is made, 

BLM may prohibit disposal of any substance on 

public lands.

The text within the SEIS does not imply that BLM is 

regulating water quality. In fact, it clearly discloses 

who has regulatory authority. Outside of this 

regulatory arena, BLM has a responsibility to know 

the condition of public resources and what effects are 

being generated by activities it approved. This would 

allow BLM to coordinate with the proper agency that 

does have regulatory authority. This regulatory body 

could then take appropriate regulatory action while 

BLM takes appropriate management action (actions 

necessary to meet BLM’s standards for rangeland 

health, Miles City Standard 5). In this case, MDEQ 

would be responsible for regulatory action, and BLM 

would be responsible for its land health 

(management) standard.

C-48: On page 2-21, it is specified that even if the 10 

percent of 7Q10 threshold is not exceeded, CBNG 

discharges could be arbitrarily disallowed from 

federal wells. The first full paragraph on page 2-21 

appears to authorize this in ill-defined situations 

where CBNG discharges are causing surface water 

quality standards or land health standards to be 

exceeded, but not by enough to exceed the actual 

standard stated in the SEIS.
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-38

R-48: The text is correct. If CBNG discharges are 

causing surface water quality standards to be 

exceeded (i.e., excessive erosion), even if discharges 

do not exceed the 10 percent of the 7Q10 threshold, 

no additional CBNG discharges would be allowed 

from federal wells upstream of the exceedance. 

Land Health Standards refer to the Montana/Dakotas 

Standards for Rangeland Health, operating standards 

developed to guide management of all uses on BLM 

rangelands managed by the Miles City Field Office. 

Excessive erosion is covered under these standards.

C-49: EPA recommends that the water screen clearly 

state that the CWA and EPA's implementing 

regulations require that discharges with the potential 

to cause or contribute to water quality standards 

(WQS) excursions be subject to water-quality-based 

effluent limitations as stringent as necessary to meet 

water quality standards.

R-49: The water screen is in addition to MDEQ 

permits, including MPDES requirements for water 

quality based effluent limitations. See the modified 

text in Chapter 1 of the FSEIS under the heading of 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality.

C-50: There is a concern that applications for 

individual well permits will not require preparation 

and submittal of a plan of development, which 

includes a water management plan. Information 

provided in the DSEIS indicates that CBNG wells 

produce water at a rate of 15 to 20 gpm, which, over 

time, is reduced to 2 to 5 gpm (page 3-52). With the 

substantial quantities of water produced by even an 

individual CBNG well, EPA recommends that BLM 

require water management plans for individual 

CBNG APDs.

R-50: While not submitted as part of a POD, water 

management for individual well APDs must conform 

to Onshore Order 1 (Approval of Operations) and 

Onshore Order 7 (Water Management). Part of 

Onshore Order 7 is a demonstration of the ability to 

safely manage produced water.

C-51: In the DSEIS, the impacts to surface water 

quality were estimated using EC and SAR values for 

CBNG-produced water quality based on data 

available through 2002. Considering the extensive 

CBNG development that has occurred since 2002, 

EPA recommends that BLM review the CBNG water 

quality estimates used in the impact analysis to 

ensure that they are still representative and not 

significantly under-predicting or over-predicting the 

impact to surface water quality.

R-51: Comparisons of monitoring data to modeling 

data indicate that the model used for the SEIS is 

somewhat conservative. While there have been much 

more data collected about CBNG water quality in the 

basin, most is from Wyoming or that part of Montana 

directly adjacent to Wyoming. Large portions of the 

Montana part of the basin have had no CBNG 

production. In some respects, the coal sequence is 

getting shallower, and higher quality water may 

occur, as seen in the eastern edge of the basin in 

Wyoming. The general trend up to now is that water 

quality declines as production moves north and west 

in the basin. In the next 20 years, these outlying areas 

are expected to become productive, but water 

production rates and water quality are likely to vary 

highly. Parameters used in the SEIS are considered to 

be conservative, but reasonable, estimates.

C-52: EPA is concerned about concluding that 

CBNG development will not affect surface water 

quality because additional discharges of saline 

CBNG-produced water will likely increase total 

dissolved solid (TDS) loading to receiving streams. 

Also, increased stream flows from CBNG discharges 

beyond historical flows have the potential to 

destabilize stream channels and increase channel and 

bank erosion, thus, potentially increasing sediment 

and siltation impairments. EPA recommends that 

BLM clarify this text in Chapter 3.

R-52: Chapter 3 does not conclude that CBNG 

development will not affect surface water quality. It 

concludes that monitoring to date has not resulted in 

noticeable impacts. This is not to say that future 

development at RFD levels could not result in 

noticeable impacts. The SEIS highlights the impacts 

of CBNG development on surface water quality in 

the Hydrology section of Chapter 4, which includes a 

quantitative analysis of impacts to EC (proportional 

to TDS) and SAR. A qualitative description of the 

impacts from increased flows, sediment, and siltation 

is also included in Chapter 4. Uncertainty of impacts 

was one of the reasons behind the proposed water 

screen and the subsequent adoption of a two-part 

discharge monitoring program with built-in 

redundancy. To discharge treated, partly treated, or 

untreated water, an operator must first obtain an 

MPDES permit from MDEQ. The permit will set 

limits on discharge in terms of TDS loading, SAR 

effects, and flow rate impacts. Permits are written 

with knowledge of and reference to existing stream 

conditions and existing discharge permits. The water 

screen functions as an additional way to alert the 

oversight authority of BLM on federal minerals.

C-53: It is unclear from the discussion in Chapter 4 

of the DSEIS whether the Yellowstone River would 

receive both untreated and/or treated discharges.
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-39

R-53: The Yellowstone River at Sidney, Montana 

(the gauging station downstream of all Montana and 

Wyoming CBNG development), will receive both 

treated and untreated water. The text in the FSEIS in 

Chapter 4, "Hydrological Resources" and then 

"Yellowstone River" has been modified to read as 

follows: “...from the Wyoming portion of the 

Powder River Basin under the Preferred Alternative. 

CBNG discharges to these streams will be a 

combination of treated and untreated water.”

C-54: Up to 18,225 new CBNG wells could 

potentiality be developed on federal surface and 

mineral estate lands, including some with additional 

saline discharges to surface waters. BLM predicts 

that water quality will be "slightly altered; however, 

beneficial uses will not be diminished," due to the 

proposed CBNG development (page 4-77). EPA is 

concerned about even slight alterations in water 

quality, since monitoring data show that water quality 

standards are currently exceeded at times in some 

surface waters (Table 3-7, page 3-37, Table 4-54, 

page 4-113), and water bodies in the area are listed as 

water quality impaired under section 303(d) of the 

CWA (Table 3-9, page 3-39). Where existing water 

quality is already at or near the water quality 

standards, even small reductions in water quality may 

cause or contribute to water quality impairments.

R-54: The potential for impacts to surface water 

quality resulting from project related activities is 

discussed in detail under the Hydrological Resources 

section of Chapter 4. The potential impacts are based 

on the specific elements for each alternative, which 

could include up to 18,225 Applications for Permit to 

Drill being approved for CBNG wells.

As stated in the SEIS (see Chapter 4 Hydrological 

Resources), many streams exceed Montana’s water 

quality standards. CBNG has the potential for 

impacting surface water, but the MPDES permitting 

process and the water screen process are designed to 

mitigate the impacts. Page 1-10 has been modified to 

clarify that discharges with the potential to cause or 

contribute to water quality standard excursions are 

subject to water quality-based effluent limitations as 

stringent as necessary to meet water quality 

standards.

C-55: Throughout the development of the EIS and 

subsequent SEIS, numerous stakeholders have 

expressed concern regarding CBNG water 

management and impacts. Thus, it is important that 

the SEIS clearly identify the water bodies that may be 

impacted and the potential impacts. EPA 

recommends this section be expanded in the SEIS to 

include more detailed maps and to clarify impacts 

predicted under the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 

H.

R-55: More detail can be found in the SWQATR and 

the 2003 EIS, which are part of the SEIS. These are 

the best estimates of impacts from a regional 

perspective. Detailed site-specific analysis will be 

conducted for each proposed federal POD per NEPA 

requirements.

C-56: EPA recommends that Table 3-9 

(page 3-39), Impaired Water Bodies In Area Of 

Maximum CBNG Potential be expanded to include 

all CWA section 303(d) listed water bodies in the 

area that could potentiality be affected by CBNG 

development (e.g., Otter Creek, Pumpkin Creek, 

Powder River, Little Powder River, Mizpah Creek, 

Stump Creek). Table 3-9 should be revised to 

disclose all water quality impaired streams in the 

project area that could potentially be affected by 

CBNG development.

R-56: All section 303(d) impaired streams from the 

2004 report that may be affected are listed in Chapter 

3, Hydrological Resources - Impaired Water Bodies 

in Area of Maximum CBNG Potential Table. The 

referenced streams are not listed as impaired on the 

2004 303(d) list. The 303(d) list is defined as waters 

with Category 5 designations: i.e., "Waters where one 

or more applicable beneficial uses have been assessed 

as being impaired or threatened, and a TMDL is 

required to address the factors causing the 

impairment or threat." (MDEQ 2004). 

C-57: EPA recommends that sufficient monitoring be 

conducted in all receiving streams where there are 

CBNG discharges to surface waters to ensure that 

such discharges are not causing or contributing to 

excursions of water quality standards, rather than 

only in those watersheds where proposed untreated 

discharges exceed 10 percent of the 7Q10 flow.

R-57: MPDES permits contain monitoring 

requirements. In addition, the Miles City Field Office 

has published annual watershed monitoring reports 

describing water quality trends in the main streams. 

The water screen contains provisions for additional 

monitoring of stream water quality. This level of 

monitoring is believed to be adequate, based on 

results of the monitoring data collected to date for 

streams in the basin.

C-58: The DSEIS discusses the extent to which

Montana's water quality standards would apply to 

Wyoming. We suggest that BLM review the current 

draft language to ensure the document clearly and 

consistently explains that regulated discharges in 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-40

Wyoming must ensure compliance with Montana's 

water quality standards at the border.

R-58: This requirement has not been clarified. See 

the discussion within the Hydrological Resources 

section of Chapter 4.

C-59: EPA recommends that the SEIS evaluate and 

discuss potential water quality impacts associated 

with other potential pollutants in CBNG discharges, 

especially selenium and fluoride.

R-59: The Water Resources Technical Report (ALL 

2001b), which the SEIS incorporates by reference, 

includes data on selenium and fluoride, as well as 

many other constituents from the water produced 

from the CX field on page 36, Exhibit 24. Selenium 

and fluoride have not been seen as a widespread 

problem in CBNG water in the PRB; however they 

may be of concern as site-specific parameters. As 

such, they will be addressed in the site-specific water 

management plans and discharge permits, rather than 

in this basin-wide document.

C-60: EPA recommends groundwater modeling and 

monitoring be required for CBNG development 

within 11 miles of reservation boundaries at a 

minimum. EPA believes that the commitments in the 

water screen could be strengthened to provide a way 

to detect all potential aquifer drawdown that may 

occur from CBNG developments, including those 

that result from CBNG developments that are over 5 

miles from reservation boundaries.

R-60: Aquifer drawdown that would occur beyond 

the 5-mile reservation boundaries is taken into 

account (see response to C-4). In addition to the 

water screen, the water well and springs mitigation 

agreements, as required under Order 99-99, would 

provide a way to monitor groundwater drawdown 

around private water wells and tribal land.

C-61: The DSEIS indicates that production plans will 

be modified to limit drawdown impacts to springs 

that are culturally significant or critical to wildlife. If 

the springs have been identified, EPA recommends 

that the SEIS include a map identifying the springs. If 

the springs have not been identified, EPA 

recommends that the SEIS include a discussion of 

how the springs will be identified and monitored and 

how mitigation measures will be considered to reduce 

impacts from drawdown.

R-61: As detailed in Chapter 2, POD Requirements, 

CBNG developers must identify water wells and 

springs in the vicinity of proposed development 

during POD submission. Monitoring springs will be 

part of any development plan. Springs that are 

culturally significant would be identified through 

consultations with tribal authorities on a site-specific 

basis for each POD submitted to BLM. Springs that 

are important to wildlife would be identified through 

the site-specific wildlife survey conducted for each 

POD.

C-62: Exceedance of Northern Cheyenne Tribal 

Water Quality Standards should be included among 

the factors for remedial action triggers (Table Mon1). The remedial action trigger for groundwater 

drawdown is a 20-foot decrease in static water level. 

It appears that this would allow for a significant 

groundwater drawdown before the remedial action of 

a water well mitigation agreement is offered to 

landowners. EPA recommends that a lower 

magnitude of groundwater drawdown (e.g., 5 feet) be 

considered for a remedial action trigger. It is not clear 

why the remedial action trigger of a 50 percent 

decrease in spring discharge is only determined in the 

first three years. If groundwater drawdowns that 

cause significant reduction in spring flows occur after 

three years, EPA recommends these adverse effects 

to springs should also be mitigated.

R-62: Receiving stream monitoring is part of every 

MPDES permit issued by MDEQ regardless of the 

rate of discharge. MDEQ determines which 

parameters would be monitored for surface water 

discharges on a site-specific basis depending on the 

quality of the discharged water and the receiving 

water body. Where appropriate, and if approved by 

EPA, the Northern Cheyenne Water Quality 

Standards would be included in monitoring 

requirements. BLM believes that a 20-foot drawdown 

in static water level is appropriate for determining 

potential impacts to groundwater, particularly since it 

is dealing with aquifers having substantial artesian 

pressure. Requirements for water mitigation 

agreements are specified by MBOGC Order 99-99, 

and are not a function of the trigger in the monitoring 

appendix. The seasonally adjusted mean spring flow 

is determined in the first 3 years; this is the spring's 

baseline flow rate against which subsequent flows are 

measured to determine impact. 

C-63: Adequate resources are often not devoted to 

monitoring of environmental effects so that effects 

may go undetected. Thus, they are not adequately 

mitigated. EPA recommends that BLM discuss this 

issue in the SEIS and ensure adequate resources for 

monitoring. EPA also recommends that BLM ensure 

that agencies and the public to have access to 

periodic monitoring reports and information on 

mitigation taken in response to monitoring results.

R-63: Monitoring of surface water quality is 

specified by MDEQ and written into MPDES 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-41

permits. Groundwater monitoring is required by 

MBOGC as part of each development plan. 

Monitoring reports submitted to the MBOGC are 

posted on its website. Data collected in association 

with MPDES permits are available through EPA’s 

STORET database. The Montana BLM has 

established a CBNG monitoring website where all 

monitoring reports are posted 

(http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/miles_city_field_off

ice/cbng/monitoring.html).

C-64: For the benefit of the public, when discussing 

the regulatory areas where BLM has shared 

responsibilities or consultation requirements with 

other federal agencies in Chapter 1, page 1-6, EPA 

suggests the following edits to the second bullet: “ 

For activities that would impact waters of the United 

States from the discharge of produced water, BLM 

must comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA) as 

provided by section 313 (which subjects the federal 

government to the same requirements regarding the 

control and abatement of water pollution as any 

nongovernmental entity relating to the discharge or 

runoff of pollutants) and section 401 of the CWA, 

(which gives states the authority to veto or place 

conditions on federally permitted activities that may 

result in water pollution).”

R-64: The existing text clearly states BLM's 

responsibility to comply with the Clean Water Act 

and the Montana Water Quality Act.

C-65: EPA also suggests the SEIS include language 

in Chapter 1, page 1-12, to explain the link between 

water quality standards, permits, monitoring and 

assessment. EPA suggests adding the following text 

to the end of the CWA section 303(c) paragraph on 

page 1-12: "NPDES permits must include limits as 

stringent as necessary to meet water quality standards 

(40 CFR 122.44). When waters are monitored and 

assessed, the data are compared to the water quality 

standards to determine whether the water is impaired 

and whether discharges have the reasonable potential 

to cause or contribute to such impairments."

R-65: The text in the FSEIS has been modified to 

include the recommended language.

C-70: In Chapter 3, page 3-32, EPA suggests adding 

a reference in the fourth paragraph of the Surface 

Water section to Vol. II, HYD-10 to -11 and adding 

language to HYD-10 to clarify that the standards 

language there is the 2003 language, not the 2006 

language. EPA also suggests BLM add the following 

clarification to the end of the first paragraph on page 

3-36: "The numerical standards for EC and SAR 

shown in Table 3-6 are the same under Montana's 

2003 and 2006 standards."

R-70: The text in the FSEIS has been modified to 

include the recommended language and changes.

C-71: In Chapter 3, page 3-32, EPA also suggests 

adding the following sentence to the end of the 

paragraph about EC and SAR: "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."

R-71: The text in the FSEIS has been modified to 

include the recommended language.

C-72: In Chapter 3, page 3-36, the SAR and EC 

concentrations corresponding to the minimum mean 

monthly flows at each station were estimated from 

flow versus concentration relationships developed for 

each station based on USGS data through 2002. This 

cutoff date is appropriate for most rivers in the 

Powder River Basin, but may not be appropriate for 

the Tongue River and downstream of the Tongue 

River at Stateline Station. CBNG-produced water has 

been directly discharged to the Tongue River 

upstream of the Tongue River at Stateline Station 

since 1997. The flow versus concentrations 

relationships for the Tongue River should be 

reviewed to ensure that those used in the SWQATR 

for the impact analysis are appropriate for the time 

period before CBNG discharge to the river.

R-72: Numerous studies have been made of the preCBNG and post-CBNG water quality in the Tongue 

River, and no noticeable increases have been 

observed for these parameters after the onset of direct 

discharge of CBNG-produced water to the Tongue 

River. 

C-73: In Chapter 3, page 3-52, Water Management, 

EPA recommends the text under the third bullet be 

revised from "injection into deep non-underground 

sources of drinking water...” to "injection into deep 

underground non-drinking water sources,” for clarity.

R-73: The text in the FSEIS has been modified to 

include the recommended language.

C-74: In Chapter 4, page 4-88, Table 4-37, please 

clarify the EC values for the Bighorn River at 

Bighorn. The Table lists the EC values as 962, but 

the SWQATR lists the values as 952.

R-74: The SWQATR is correct. The EC value of the 

Bighorn River at Bighorn in Chapter 4, Hydrological 

Resources, Effects on Surface Waters of the little 

Bighorn and Bighorn Rivers under the Alternative A 

Table has been corrected in the FSEIS.

C-75: In the Surface Water Quality Analysis 

Technical Report, the hydrologic resources sections 

refer repeatedly to the SWQATR, but do not provide 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-42

a valid reference to the report. The Bibliography lists 

this report as written by Greystone Environmental 

Consultants, November 2002. However, the final 

report was published in January 2003 and lists both 

Greystone and ALL Consultants as the authors.

R-75: Text of the bibliography for the FSEIS has 

been changed to the following: USDI Bureau of Land 

Management, 2003. SWQATR: Surface Water 

Quality Analysis Technical Report, report to 

accompany Final Montana Statewide CBNG EIS, 

Greystone Environmental Consultants and ALL 

Consultants, Jan 2003.

C-76: Existing approved water management 

operations may require alteration or even complete 

changeover to a new method to meet new, more 

restrictive, standards based on monitoring. Provide a

clarification of how BLM intends to phase in new 

water management measures so that production can 

continue at a reasonable level. Also provide time 

criteria that will be allotted to implement new water 

management measures.

R-76: The Preferred Alternative (H) allows for 

changing water management requirements. If 

requirements change, different proposed water 

management practices will be evaluated on a site 

specific basis.

C-77: Within the water screen discussion on page 2-

21, the word "untreated" should be inserted in the 

following sentence: "If CBNG discharges are causing 

surface water quality standards, or land health 

standards (i.e., excessive erosion), to be exceeded, 

even if discharges do not exceed the 10 percent of 

7Q10 threshold, no additional untreated CBNG 

discharges would be allowed from federal wells 

upstream of the exceedance.”

R-77: Existing language emphasizes that either 

treated or untreated water discharges can impact 

water quality and stream conditions. Even additional 

treated water discharges can cause increases in 

suspended sediments and modification to the riparian 

zone.

C-78: BLM indicated that in addition to following 

court orders, the agency decided to include an 

analysis of certain changes in conditions that 

occurred since the previous ROD was signed. 

However, additional changes which have to be 

addressed are itemized below: 

• The rate of development is much slower than 

projected in the 2003 FEIS. 

• Water from CBNG wells is significantly less 

than projected in the 2003 FEIS. 

• Groundwater monitoring data show significantly 

less extensive drawdown than expected in the 

2003 FEIS. 

• Montana has adopted new stringent water quality 

standards in the Powder River Basin. 

• Additional monitoring activities addressing 

surface water quality, soils, and crops in the 

Tongue River watershed have been initiated 

(USGS Tongue River monitoring, an additional 

gauging station directly above the T&Y 12-mile 

diversion dam on the Tongue River. 

• The MDEQ Tongue, Powder and Rosebud Creek 

TMDL Modeling Committee has been 

established. 

• The Agronomic Monitoring and Protection Plan 

program and Tongue River Information Program 

have been established.

R-78: The comments provided address current 

conditions relative to CBNG production at current 

levels, and most of these points have been 

incorporated into the SEIS (see Chapter 3, 

Hydrological Resources). The SEIS also has to 

consider the potential for those conditions to change 

as a result of increased CBNG production as 

proposed within the Reasonably Foreseeable 

Development Scenario, particularly as development 

spreads to areas away from the CX Field 

development.

C-79: Inclusion of the 7Q10 flow rate in the water

screen is inappropriate because it presumes all 

discharge permits issued by the respective state 

departments of environmental quality would be based 

on the annual 7Q10 flow. Many permits do not fall 

within these parameters. In fact, the Montana Board 

of Environmental Review specifically eliminated a 

provision in the state rules which had previously 

required use of the 7Q10 flow for CBNG permitting. 

The SEIS fails to identify criteria for determining 

when water quality standards are exceeded. The term 

“potential” is undefined and fails to explain how 

natural variations in water quality would be 

addressed. Moreover, it fails to discuss contaminants 

from non-CBNG sources or how BLM would handle 

potential discharge sites not covered by regional 

monitoring stations. 

R-79: The water screen is a BLM reporting trigger, 

and is not directly linked to any particular permit. 

Use of 10 percent of the 7Q10 flow is a valid 

threshold for evaluating if the potential exists for 

exceeding a water quality standard.
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-43

C-80: The paragraph discussing observed infiltration 

effects on page 3-49 describes what happens to water 

stored in ponds. It shows that the SAR of the water 

decreases as it infiltrates, and the EC of the water 

increases. Photos of ponds near the Decker Coal mine 

show that the seepage water goes down, hits an 

impermeable layer, and then proceeds down-gradient. 

The photos reveal that the water comes out of that 

seam and then seeps into the mine. The same 

phenomena will occur with CBNG ponds, but they do 

not empty into the mine. The water from them will 

proceed down-gradient until it hits the Tongue River. 

The seepage water has a TDS of 3,548 and a SAR of 

14. How will this water affect water quality in the 

Tongue River? How long does it take to progress 

underground to the Tongue River? This management 

option of water should be discontinued as it only 

postpones the load of salt from getting into the river. 

It could very well postpone it until after the 

developers are gone. The cost of cleanup will then be 

the responsibility of the state or the landowner.

R-80: Storage of CBNG water in surface 

impoundments is one option for water management. 

Many studies are underway in both the Wyoming and 

Montana portions of the Powder River Basin. While 

some subsurface migration has occurred, many 

impoundments appear to be appropriate vehicles for 

managing waste water. The potential for using 

impoundments to manage produced water would 

depend on site-specific conditions. If unacceptable 

impacts would occur, such as poor quality water 

seepage into the Tongue River, the proposed 

impoundment would not be approved.

C-81: Will plugged wells be reopened once the 

development is complete? Will any water be put back 

into the aquifers to replace the water that has been 

removed? What good is the water right for this well if 

the developer is allowed to take all of the usable 

water from it?

R-81: Mitigation agreements must be offered to 

potentially affected landowners; whether or not they 

execute the agreements is up to the landowners. If the 

well is impacted, it is often plugged to avoid venting

of natural gas. The water supply is then replaced by 

the operator. After abandonment of the CBNG field, 

the water wells could be returned to use after a period 

of recharge so long as they were shut-in rather than 

plugged.

C-82: On page 4-78, the SEIS talks about the newly 

adopted non-degradation policy. This nondegradation policy has recently been challenged by 

the state of Montana, which has sued the state of 

Wyoming (in the U.S. Supreme Court) for violation 

of the Yellowstone River Compact. This case has 

relevance for issues in this DSEIS because the 

outcome of this suit will determine how the issues of 

CBNG wastewater, water mitigation agreements, and 

other water-related issues are addressed for water 

coming into Montana from Wyoming. The DSEIS 

does not consider this issue. The comment is made 

that non-degradation will be assumed in Montana but 

not in Wyoming. How can water quality be 

maintained at ambient levels in Montana if Wyoming 

does not comply? 

R-82: The SEIS addresses Wyoming development 

and the potential affects that development could have 

on surface water quality in Montana. The SEIS does 

not claim that ambient water quality will be 

preserved in all watersheds. In addition, Wyoming 

has a pollutions discharge elimination system 

permitting process to protect water quality. 

C-83: On page 4-81 of the SEIS, there is a discussion 

about a hydraulic barrier, and injection wells could be 

used for such a purpose. This highlights the fact that 

water can be injected into the aquifers being 

developed. Why wasn't reinjection into the same 

aquifer considered in this document for phased in 

development? Couldn't this also serve to protect wells 

of adjacent landowners that are not developing? BLM 

discussed the CX field at the hearing and stated that 

some of operators' wells are shut in on the edge of 

their fields. BLM also stated that those wells have 

come back to about 80 percent of their original levels 

in about one year. The recharge is coming from the 

aquifer horizontally. This means that the aquifer is 

being drawn down for people who obtain their water 

from that aquifer. Why hasn't reinjection been 

practiced when the wells were shut in to serve as a 

hydrologic barrier? It would help alleviate some of 

the problems caused by CBNG discharge water. 

R-83: Reinjection of produced water into the same 

Aquifer is discussed in Chapter 2, "Alternatives 

Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail," under the 

heading, "Reinjection of Produced Water into the 

Same Aquifer Alternative." The use of reinjection 

wells to create a hydraulic barrier is presented as an 

example of one way to limit the lateral extent of 

drawdown. 

C-84: On page 4-82 of the SEIS, there is a statement 

that the water would likely take hundreds of years to 

recharge through infiltration. How will landowners 

be able to sustain their operations if the aquifers do 

not come back for as long as the SEIS estimates?

R-84: The SEIS (Chapter 4 Hydrological Resources, 

CBNG Groundwater Drawdown and Water 

Mitigation Agreements subsection) states that 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-44

“...within three to four years water levels in the coal 

aquifers are expected to partially recover to within 20 

to 30 feet of pre-operational conditions. Complete 

water level recovery will be a long-term process, 

likely requiring hundreds of years....” In these 

artesian aquifers, it is believed that 20 feet of 

drawdown is a reasonable parameter for evaluation of 

impacts. Water wells that are impacted by CBNG 

development would also be covered by the 

requirement for water mitigation agreements.

C-85: On page 4-84 of the EIS, there is a table that 

shows water quality at the gauging stations on the 

Tongue River. Why has the Miles City Station been 

omitted? The Miles City Station is one that has been 

monitored for a long time. I acquired the grab sample 

data from USGS for the Miles City Station, and I 

arrived at baseline water quality for the Miles City 

Station for 1959 until 1972. At this point in time, the 

T&Y ditch was in existence for over 50 years. The 

return flows from irrigation from T&Y irrigation 

would be included in these averages. The EC average 

was 826 microsiemens per centimeter, and the SAR 

average was 1.48. The next time period I averaged 

was from 1973 to 1998. The Decker Mine began 

discharging coal water into the Tongue River in 

1973. The EC average was 808 microsiemens per 

centimeter, and the SAR average was 1.55. In 1999, 

CBNG discharges started into the Tongue River. 

From 1999 to 2006, the EC average was 904 

microsiemens per centimeter, and the SAR was 2.13. 

Using the 1959 to 1972 data as baseline, the SAR has 

increased by 44 percent. The EC has only increased 

by about 9 percent. This is an unacceptable increase 

in SAR. This decrease in water quality can only be 

attributed to CBNG. If the change were due to 

drought, the EC would have changed by 44 percent to 

match the change in SAR.

R-85: The station at Miles City was not included 

since the data at low flows are complicated by the 

diversion of most of the Tongue River water by the 

T&Y diversion dam at this time. An increase in SAR,

EC, or any other single indicator, cannot be assigned 

to a single source without modeling flow and 

composition in the stream. As described in the SEIS, 

flow rate and composition are closely related in 

Montana's rivers. The samples mentioned for CBNG 

development lie entirely in the extended drought area 

experienced by Montana and much of the arid west. 

As stream levels drop, salts increase, and calculated 

indicators such as SAR frequently also increase.

CBNG development activities are not expected in 

northern Custer County for the foreseeable future. As 

such, the analysis conducted for the Tongue River at 

Brandenburg Bridge (USGS Station 06307830) is 

believed to be representative of the water quality that 

will be experienced by irrigators near Miles City

Surface water monitoring conducted along the 

Tongue River does not indicate any noticeable 

differences in surface water quality due to CBNG 

development once flow is taken into account. 

C-86: The tables begin on page 4-84. For water 

quality at the state line, the SAR has increased from 

0.86 SAR to 1.93 SAR. This is a 124 percent increase 

in SAR level. How does this satisfy non-degradation? 

The purpose of the Clean Water Act is to protect 

existing quality. The SAR at Birney Day is estimated 

to increase by 131 percent. The SAR at Brandenburg 

is estimated to increase by 84 percent. There are no 

estimates done for Miles City. Why were no 

estimates done for Miles City? The data for the 

Powder shows that SAR increases by about 130 

percent at the State Line and about 146 percent at 

Locate. The flow on the Little Powder River is 

increased by 430 percent (page 4-86). How does this 

meet the nondegradation requirement for flow? 

Alternatives A thru E show how the water quality 

will be affected pre-development versus post 

development. In Alternatives A through E, there are 

predictions that show that SAR will be affected by 

almost 130 percent on most of the alternatives.

R-86: See R-85. Also, the Tables in Chapter 4, 

Hydrological Resources, Alternative A, Effects on 

Surface Waters of the Tongue River Under 

Alternative A and similar tables for other alternatives 

are projections based upon conservative assumptions. 

The changes to water quality are well within MDEQ 

water quality standards. If there are changes in 

surface water quality requirements, water 

management practices will also need to be modified 

to ensure that standards are not exceeded.

C-87: Page 4-92 states that water discharges may 

have to be curtailed. When will this happen? It 

appears that there will be no controls placed on 

Wyoming. The Wyoming discharges alone could 

impair Montana rivers. This EIS has no control over 

Wyoming discharges. How will the Wyoming EIS be 

modified to stop discharges in Wyoming, once EPA 

has ruled that non-degradation is the law of the land?

R-87: Chapter 3, Hydrological Resources section, 

states that the numerical surface water quality limits 

adopted by the Montana Board of Environmental 

Review are enforceable upstream under the CWA. As 

such, both Montana and Wyoming may have to 

modify water management practices if EPA approves 

the designation of EC and SAR as “harmful” 

parameters.
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-45

C-88: If the TMDL will not be done until 2012, how 

can a good analysis be done in this SEIS regarding 

TMDLs? On Page 3-32, paragraph 5, it states the 

following: “The completion of TMDLs for the 

Tongue River for the parameters of concern, such as 

SAR and EC, should be included in the SEIS 

document to ensure that the proper permits must be 

obtained and complied with....”

R-88: Surface water quality models estimate surface 

water conditions. Findings of the TMDL will allow 

better modeling and prediction of surface water 

conditions. TMDLs will not be established until 

2012.

C-89: The DSEIS proposes using CBNG water for 

“managed” irrigation. Most wastewater from CBNG 

wells has far too high a pH to be useful for irrigation. 

BLM does little to describe the factors that may make 

this option less than desirable. For example, the 

necessary amendments added to soils so that they can 

tolerate the highly saline CBNG wastewater are 

costly and would be needed on an ongoing basis. An 

economic analysis of these costs was not included. A 

review of the BLM-sponsored report that was 

published in 2005, Soil Chemical Changes Resulting 

from Irrigation with Water Co-Produced with 

Coalbed Natural Gas, by Girusha J. Ganjegunte et al. 

(Attachment L), provides information on the 

significant problems associated with using this 

wastewater as irrigation water.

There is little discussion in the DSEIS of the short- or 

long-term success of managed irrigation as 

wastewater management technology. Land 

application and disposal operations create significant 

problems, such as over-application and massive 

reclamation costs required for rehabilitation, 

especially of areas that were once rangelands (see 

below) after CBNG wastewater declines and 

disappears. Additionally, there is increasing evidence 

(increased SAR and EC levels) from the Wyoming 

portion of the basin that land application and disposal

activities are resulting in unpermitted discharges of 

CBNG wastewater into tributaries of the Powder and 

Tongue rivers.

R-89: Irrigation is one of several water management 

options available. The potential for CBNG-produced 

water to be used for managed irrigation will depend 

on the quality of the produced water. The water 

quality can vary by coal seam, as well as by location 

of the development within the basin. The use of 

CBNG-produced water in Wyoming has shown that 

with the correct pH and use of other parameters it can 

be managed to allow short-term and long-term 

irrigation of various crops. An analysis of the 

potential effects resulting from the use of CBNGproduced water for irrigation is contained in the Soils 

Technical Report (ALL 2001a).

The decision whether to use CBNG-produced water 

for managed irrigation, or other types of crop 

irrigation, rests with the land owner, who will have to 

weigh the economic benefit against any increased 

cost. 

C-90: On page 3-39, Table 3-9, the lower Tongue 

River has only one small segment listed as impaired 

for flow alteration, which does not reflect other 

impairments that were often discussed by the Tongue 

and Rosebud TMDL workgroup. Salinity is a 

parameter that should be listed as an impairment 

from the mouth of the Tongue River to the 

Montana/Wyoming stateline.

R-90: BLM is using MDEQ's determination of which 

stream segments are impaired. MDEQ does not list 

the noted segment as impaired.

C-91: On page 3-45, it states that groundwater 

drawdowns are of concern to the Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe as they pertain to aquifers on the reservation 

that provide drinking water from domestic wells and 

springs. Drawdowns that are reported to be around 

594 to 20 feet 2 miles from a CBNG production field 

are not what the tribe favors. As the CBNG fields 

move closer to the tribe's boundaries, the need for 

added protection of tribal resources must be planned 

and implemented.

R-91: The Preferred Alternative, H, contains a Native 

American Concerns Screen which includes a 5-mile 

buffer around reservation boundaries. Within the 5-

mile boundary, operators would have to demonstrate 

that the overall POD would be protective of Indian 

Trust Assets and air quality. If the site-specific 

analyses indicate that unacceptable levels of 

impairment would occur and could not be mitigated, 

BLM would not approve the APDs.

C-92: Calculations show that each CBNG well in the 

Dietz Project is expected to produce at an average of 

14 gpm and will remove approximately 450 acre-feet 

of water in its 20-year life (Myers 2006). At an 

infiltration rate of 0.3 inch per year, it will take 

approximately 200 years for the aquifer to recharge 

after the 20-year operational period of the wells, 

assuming extensive simultaneous development of the 

CBNG extraction in the basin. If the Dietz Project 

were conducted in isolation, the recharge times 

would be reduced, and the expected recharge time 

over the footprint of the project would be 

approximately 150 years (Myers 2006). Recharge of 

the coal and sandstone aquifers in the area and 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-46

reestablishment of the supported springs in the area 

will not occur for at least 150 years after the Dietz 

CBNG development is completed. The SEIS does not 

contain an estimate of recharge rates for the coal 

seam aquifers in the Powder River Basin, nor any 

analysis of what factors influence recharge or the rate 

of recharge.

R-92: The SEIS estimated that the initial rate of 

water production from a CBNG well would be 

approximately 15 gpm and would decline over time 

with an average rate of water production of 

approximately 2.5 gpm. These numbers were derived 

from actual CBNG well water production rates for 

Wyoming and Montana. Using an average water 

production rate of 14 gpm over the life of the well 

will overestimate the quantity of water withdrawn, as 

well as the subsequent time required for recharge. 

Groundwater modelers assisting the Wyoming BLM 

determined that coal seams experiencing substantial 

drawdown also experience recovery as a two-part 

process. After CBNG development (and water 

removal) ends, within three to four years water levels 

in the coal aquifers are expected to partially recover 

to within 20 to 30 feet of preoperational conditions. 

Complete water level recovery will be a long-term 

process, likely requiring hundreds of years for the 

removed groundwater to be replaced through the 

infiltration of precipitation. A similar recovery 

process is expected to occur in the Montana portion 

of the basin. The 3D computer model conducted for 

the Montana 2003 FEIS predicted that aquifers within 

CBNG fields would be expected to recover at least 70 

percent within five to 12 years. Aquifers outside of 

the CBNG fields would be expected to recover 90 

percent within three to five years. Factors relating to 

aquifer recharge, including groundwater modeling 

results, are contained in the Hydrological Resources 

section of Chapter 4.

C-93: BLM has stated (during litigation proceedings) 

that impacts to tributaries were not evaluated during 

the first EIS process because "untreated produced 

water discharges to perennial tributaries of the 

Tongue and Powder Rivers are not likely to ever 

occur because of the water quality standards adopted 

by the State of Montana for such tributaries (i.e., EC 

= 500)." We have previously provided BLM with 

volumes of evidence refuting this assumption and 

showing untreated methane discharges (from 

impoundment failures, overflows, or creation of 

saline seeps) into Youngs Creek, Squirrel Creek, and 

Badger Creek─all tributaries of the Tongue River 

that flow through Wyoming CBNG development 

fields before emptying into the river. All the 

discharges were from total containment 

impoundments that failed. One failure discharged 

almost 2.5 million gallons of wastewater into Youngs 

Creek, measurably increasing pollution. We have 

documented numerous failures of impoundments in

Montana and Wyoming resulting in similar 

discharges. 

R-93: See R-5 and R-80. Application of current and 

proposed water quality standards for the state of 

Montana would likely prevent the intentional 

discharge of untreated CBNG-produced water to 

main stream tributaries. 

C-94: The DSEIS has failed to seriously and 

adequately address the negative impacts that CBNG 

wastewater is having and will continue to have on 

irrigated agriculture.

R-94: The potential effects on irrigated agriculture 

relate primarily to the potential for impacts to soils 

from the discharge of CBNG-produced water with 

high EC and SAR values. Detailed analysis of 

resultant instream EC and SAR values are provided 

in Chapter 4. Potential effects are also detailed in the 

Soils Technical Report prepared for the 2003 FEIS 

(ALL 2001a). Detailed analysis of resultant instream 

EC and SAR values are provided within the 

Hydrological Resources section of Chapter 4.

C-95: In the DSEIS, BLM estimates that only 20 

percent of the water discharged from CBNG 

production will be put to a beneficial use. Where did 

this number come from? BLM has not adequately 

addressed the BACT that exists for the management 

of CBNG wastewater.

R-95: The 20 percent number representing beneficial 

use is presented in Chapter 4 under the heading of 

Assumption Rationale, Beneficial Use of CBNG 

Production Water. CBNG-produced water 

management/treatment options, as well as potential 

effects resulting from project related activities, are 

discussed in the Hydrological Resources section of 

Chapter 4 and the SWQATR. EPA, not BLM, 

develops BACT requirements for each industry. EPA 

has not yet developed BACT for the CBNG industry.

C-96: BLM's surface water quality analysis was 

based on numerous unsupported assumptions and 

conclusions that likely underestimate the volume of 

wastewater that will reach the mainstreams of the 

Tongue and Powder rivers. First, BLM assumed that 

operators will use certain disposal methods in each 

watershed and then made assumptions about how 

much wastewater from each means of disposal would 

reach the mainstreams of the rivers. Second, BLM 

assumed that none of the wastewater put to a 

beneficial use (including land application and 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-47

disposal operations) or discharged into 

impoundments would reach surface waters. Third, 

BLM assumed that none or at least minimal volumes 

of wastewater discharge to ephemeral or intermittent 

tributaries of the Powder and Tongue rivers would 

ever reach the mainstreams. These assumptions are 

not supported by scientific data, have no basis in 

reality, and are wrong. 

R-96: The assumptions referenced are based on data 

from current CBNG operations. A discussion of the 

assumptions used and the rationale is found under the 

headings of General Assumptions and Assumption 

Rationale within Chapter 4 and are further discussed 

in the SWQATR. It was assumed that 80% of this 

water would reach the mainstems.

C-97: There is evidence from the Wyoming portion 

of the basin showing that discharges into intermittent 

and ephemeral tributaries of the Powder River are, in 

fact, transforming these streams into perennial water 

bodies and reaching the mainstem of the Powder 

River. Many months of the year, the flows of these 

tributaries comprise entirely CBNG wastewater. The 

DSEIS does not address the potential impacts of 

transforming ephemeral and intermittent streams into 

perennial waterbodies, including the impacts on 

surface water quality; on stream morphology; on 

sedimentation and erosion rates (head cutting); on 

riparian vegetation, including spread of salt cedar 

(tamarisk) and killing of cottonwoods; or on native 

aquatic life, including reptiles and amphibians. Nor 

did BLM evaluate the toxicity of contaminants in the 

CBNG wastewater such as selenium, lead, cadmium, 

copper, and arsenic. This transformation of the 

intermittent and ephemeral tributaries represents a 

fundamental change in the ecology of these prairie 

ecosystems that will likely have devastating impacts. 

The DSElS did not evaluate the impacts of such 

transformations on farming and ranching operations 

or the impacts of such discharges creating ice jams 

and resulting overland flows of water with high EC 

and SAR levels onto adjacent meadows. The DSEIS 

did not consider the impacts of such incidents on 

native soils and vegetation and the impacts of the 

potential loss of these resources on local ranches.

R-97: A detailed discussion of the potential effects 

resulting from project-related activities, including the 

discharge of CBNG-produced water, is contained 

within the resource sections of Chapter 4. The 

potential effects of constituents that have been found 

to be of concern for CBNG-produced water are 

discussed within the Hydrological Resources section

of Chapter 4 and the SWQATR (Greystone 2002). 

The potential for those constituents of CBNGproduced water to affect soils, wildlife, aquatics, and 

vegetation are discussed within the relevant resource 

sections of Chapter 4. The potential to alter 

ephemeral drainages to a more perennial nature is 

discussed in Chapter 4, Hydrological Resources, 

Alternative C, under the Production Subsection.

C-98: BLM has not analyzed the impacts of LAD 

practices on the water quality of shallow groundwater 

resources and nearby surface waters by 

assuming─without providing any supporting data or 

studies─that none of the wastewater applied will 

reach groundwater or surface waters because the 

wastewater will be applied at agronomic uptake rates. 

In doing so, BLM ignores available studies showing 

the potential impacts of LAD operations on 

groundwater and surface water resources. 

R-98: The potential effects to groundwater from 

managed irrigation or other land applications of 

CBNG-produced water are discussed in the SEIS via 

reference to the Soils Technical Report (ALL 2001a).

C-99: Is somebody going to be testing water that we 

use where it comes out of the Tongue River so that 

we know that the SAR and the other measurements 

are acceptable for our irrigation? And if not, what 

options do I have?

R-99: CBNG-produced water is tested before being 

discharged to ensure that it meets Montana Water 

Quality Standards. MPDES permits also require 

instream monitoring to ensure that standards are not 

exceeded. The Montana Water Quality Standards for 

EC and SAR have been developed specifically at 

levels that are protective of irrigation use.

C-100: If we have a process in Tongue River, the 

Rosebud, or even the Powder River, of exceeded 

water standards, what mechanism does BLM or DEQ 

or the state of Montana have in place when multiple 

companies are in that drainage? In other words, if we 

have high sodium levels and EC levels in the river 

and five companies at the head of it, who steps in and 

says you are the one who caused the problem? What 

is going to happen?

R-100: If an exceedance within a water body occurs, 

MDEQ would investigate the source, or sources, and 

implement measures to correct the cause of the 

exceedance. Once the source of the problem is 

determined, MPDES permits can be reopened and 

modified as needed.

C-101: Do BLM employees check water quality and 

quantity of discharges into the Tongue River, or is it 

self-reported by industry? The commenter believes it 

is self-reported by industry, and this is wrong; it 

should be performed by an independent party.
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-48

R-101: Water discharge sampling is conducted by 

industry and reported to MDEQ in accordance with 

its standards. MDEQ also conducts periodic site 

investigations and takes samples to ensure 

consistency with industry-collected samples and to 

ensure that industry complies with its permit 

requirements. BLM, USGS, MDEQ, and other state 

and federal agencies also collect water quality 

samples along the Tongue River and other rivers and 

streams in the basin to evaluate overall water quality 

and stream health.

C-102: The document mentions the importance of 

groundwater to agriculture. It does nothing to 

mitigate or protect it, nor did the original EIS. How 

does this fit with the mission statement of BLM?

R-102: See R-4. CBNG operators have to replace any 

water supply, including springs or groundwater 

supply wells used for irrigation or for any other 

purpose that is impacted by CBNG operations. This 

is accomplished through the execution of a water 

mitigation agreement with the landowner. Water 

rights issues are under the purview of DNRC, not 

BLM.

C-103: Our reservation lies right under and right on 

the Fort Union formation. Our reservation stands to 

have the most damage from this CBNG. Aquifers are 

going to deplete, and the water that is drained into the 

creeks and into the rivers is going to kill the 

ecosystems.

R-103: An element of the Preferred Alternative, 

Alternative H, is the Native American Concerns 

Screen, which establishes a 5-mile buffer around the 

reservation boundaries. Development within the 5-

mile boundary would have to show that it would be 

protective of Indian Trust Assets (including 

groundwater) and air resources. All discharges to 

surface waters must comply with MPDES 

requirements.

C-104: In the last bullet point on Page SUM-8 in the 

summary, it says, "Surface water is the primary water 

source for Montana users. Groundwater is a minor 

source of usable water, however, in some areas 

groundwater is the only source of water for domestic 

stock use." A USGS circular, number 1081, 

published in 1993, contradicts this flatly. It says, 

"More than 50 percent of Montana's citizens rely on 

groundwater for drinking and household use." The 

Montana groundwater plan, published in 1998 by 

DNRC, repeats the USGS circular and adds this, "95 

percent of rural residents depend on groundwater for 

their domestic water supply."

R-104: The statement in the Summary section refers 

to the volume of water used. Most of water used in 

Montana for industrial or agricultural uses comes 

from surface water. It is equally true that 

groundwater is a significant source for household 

use, particularly in rural areas; however, when 

compared to the larger volume of water used from 

surface water sources, the actual volume of 

groundwater used is relatively minor.

C-105: Under Preferred Alternative H, The water 

screen says, "if surface water monitoring indicates 

permitted levels of CBNG discharge have the 

potential to cause water quality standards to be 

exceeded, no future untreated discharge of CBNG 

water would be allowed from federal wells unless the 

regional surface water monitoring stations above and 

below the proposed discharge are active.” If the 

application for discharge is recognized to have the 

potential to cause water quality exceedance, why 

allow it to occur without requiring the applicant to 

modify their discharge proposal? To rely on the 

monitoring stations to trigger alteration of the 

discharge puts correction of the problem behind a 

power curve that could and should be avoided in the 

first place.

R-105: If the threshold of 10 percent of the 7Q10 

within the water screen is exceeded, the monitoring 

would be used to ensure that water quality standards 

are not exceeded. This monitoring will allow MDEQ 

to develop appropriate mitigation measures before 

exceedances are observed.

C-106: Under the DSEIS. companies must mitigate 

for the loss of water resources by providing a 

supplemental water source. It is, however, unclear if 

these supplements will be in place for in-stream 

water augmentation or if they are to supplement 

beneficial uses for off-stream landowners.

R-106: Supplemental water sources would be 

supplied to a landowner if water use, either from a 

groundwater supply well or spring, is impacted by 

CBNG operations. This water supplement is supplied 

by the CBNG operator under the provisions of a 

water mitigation agreement executed between the 

CBNG operator and the landowner. 

C-107: BLM should implement a water monitoring 

system that will allow for the quantification of all 

CBNG-produced water discharge into the system at 

any given time. The availability of this information 

will assist with the study of potential impacts to 

aquatics.

R-107: BLM believes that the existing system of 

USGS stations and MPDES requirements for DMRs 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-49

is sufficient to assess changes in mainstem stream 

flows resulting from the discharge of CBNGproduced water.

C-108: The SEIS does not fully address the impacts 

of numerous evaporative storage basins across the 

landscapes on water quality and fisheries. Aquatics 

monitoring should take place on streams in the study 

area that are in areas where water management 

includes the use of storage ponds.

R-108: The potential for project-related activities to 

affect water quality and fisheries is discussed within 

the Wildlife Aquatics section of Chapter 4. 

Monitoring requirements for CBNG operations with 

respect to assessing aquatic biological diversity are 

included in the Monitoring Appendix. BLM has 

several ongoing studies considering these potential 

impacts.

C-109: Methane seepage into Tongue River 

Reservoir is noted, but it is not addressed. Are the 

impacts of seeping methane on the reservoirs 

fisheries to be addressed? Will this effort be 

incorporated into the overall monitoring program? 

Who is accountable for non-point source issues such 

as potential impacts to fisheries due to methane 

seepage?

R-109: Increased seepage of methane into the 

Tongue River Reservoir was reported by the MFWP; 

however, there have been no data to confirm this or 

reports of impacts resulting from methane seepage to 

fisheries.

C-110: Non-irrigation season standards for EC and 

SAR could have severe impacts on fish populations. 

The not to exceed standards (2,500 EC) are at levels 

that can impact fish eggs and juveniles (Skaar 2006). 

These standards potentially allow for operators to 

maintain discharges at the not to exceed level for 

extended periods of time so long as the monthly 

mean standard is met. This slug of poor-quality water 

could destroy eggs and juvenile fish during the early 

spring months of March and April. High SAR values 

could be seen under the same scenario.

R-110: The mean monthly standard for EC is 1,500, 

which operators would have to maintain. The not to 

exceed standard of 2,500 could not be maintained for 

an extended period and still allow for maintaining the 

mean monthly standard. The MDEQ developed these 

standards to protect all beneficial uses, including 

aquatic life.

C-111: On page 3-41, the concept that "some water, 

even if it is of poor quality, is better than none" may 

not be the best assumption to make. Prairie stream 

systems evolved with drought and function 

appropriately. The addition of poor-quality water 

may indeed be detrimental in the long term.

C-111: The text states that data indicate the high EC 

and SAR levels observed in 2005 are the result of 

low flows due to drought conditions. It does not 

appear that CBNG development had a measurable 

effect on the high EC and SAR levels that were 

measured.

C-112: On page 4-103, Hydrology, Alternative D, it 

states that an increase of 1,135 percent flow in the 

Rosebud Creek drainage for a sustained duration 

could be catastrophic to stream morphology. These 

soils are not accustomed to this type of flow or 

saturation, and they would be destroyed over time, 

resulting in the loss of this stream course’s definition.

R-112: The referenced text refers to potential 

increases to flow in Rosebud Creek at Kirby, 

resulting from CBNG-produced water discharges 

under Alternative D, which was not selected as the 

Preferred Alternative. The text also outlines the 

potential impacts and states the following: "These 

increases in water flow rates would be likely to cause 

changes in streambed geometry, flow regime, stream 

depth distribution, presence and condition of in 

stream vegetation, and other physical factors 

associated with the stream and adjacent riparian 

zone."

C-113: On page 4-105, Hydrology: Alternative E, it 

states the following: “Water management based on 

site-specific water management plans (WMPs) allows 

for regulatory ability.” Other alternatives seem 

deficient in holding industry to meet state and federal 

water quality standards. This alternative would secure 

fragile stream systems such as the Rosebud, because 

MPDES standards would be met.

R-113: The requirement for operators to submit sitespecific WMPs is a component of Alternatives E, F, 

G, and H. Alternative H, the Preferred Alternative, 

also includes an additional water screen to further 

protect the water quality of streams and rivers that 

would receive CBNG-produced water.

C-114: On page 3-30 of the DSEIS, BLM states that 

the "Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

reports increased methane production in two water 

wells on the Tongue River Reservoir State Park as 

well increased seepage under the reservoir." What is 

the basis for this statement and are supporting data 

available for public review?

R-114: As the commenter notes, the text within the 

SEIS references the MFWP as the source for this 

information.
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-50

C-115: Before development proceeds, Miles City 

water quality exceedances in the summer of 2006 

should be resolved. These exceedances led to soil 

damages on several farms along the Tongue River 

and should be addressed. How will damages to 

irrigated landowners be dealt with?

R-115: The Suarez Report, submitted June 2006, was 

not evaluated in the DSEIS because of a May 2006 

submittal date for the draft document. The referenced

report has been reviewed for the FSEIS.

C-116: Impoundments used to store CBNG-produced 

water can leak, even if lined, and therefore will get 

into the streams and rivers. 

R-116: The use of impoundments will not be the case 

for all disposal of CBNG-produced water in the 

Powder River Basin. Remediation and monitoring of 

the impoundments will be included in the POD to 

ensure that produced water from CBNG wells does 

not adversely affect the surrounding environment.

C-117: Several farms obtain water for irrigation from 

the Tongue, Yellowstone, and Powder Rivers. Many 

of these farms are outside the Planning Area, as 

defined in this DSEIS, but could be affected by the 

discharge of CBNG-produced water into the Tongue 

and Powder rivers (which flow into the Yellowstone 

River). By excluding an analysis of how CBNGproduced water discharges will potentially adversely 

affect soils that are irrigated in and around Miles 

City, Terry, Fallon, and Glendive, the affected 

environment outside the Planning Area is not 

properly considered, and we believe this makes the 

DSEIS significantly deficient.

R-117: Discharge of CBNG-produced water into the 

Tongue or Powder rivers is regulated by the state of 

Montana, and operators must obtain MPDES permits 

to discharge. Furthermore, water quality along the

Yellowstone River at Forsyth and Sidney is evaluated 

in the SEIS.

C-118: MDEQ, not BLM, has the authority to write 

water quality permits and enforce the Clean Water 

Act. 

R-118: BLM recognizes that MDEQ has the lead role 

in managing water resources. BLM would coordinate 

all water monitoring efforts with MDEQ. While 

Onshore Order 7 reinforces BLM's approval authority 

for produced water disposal, it does not provide BLM 

with primacy for the management of water within the 

state of Montana. Therefore, BLM would apply the 

water quality screen in close coordination and under 

the lead of MDEQ. Close coordination would avoid 

duplication of effort and ensure that each agency 

fulfilled its roles with respect to resource 

management.

C-119: Under Results of Surface Water Monitoring, 

Page 3-41, it states, "As such it does not appear that 

CBNG development had a measurable effect on EC 

and SAR through 2005." Have this knowledge and 

the relevant data been considered and applied in the 

development of the new alternatives? If so, how, and 

in which alternatives?

R-119: BLM has recognized this study in the SEIS 

and chooses to ensure water quality is protected for 

all downstream users by implementation of the water 

screen under Alternative H. The fact that noticeable 

changes have not been seen with the current level of 

development does not necessarily imply that impacts 

at the RFD level of development will not be 

noticeable.

Indian Trust and Native American 

Concerns 

Comment 1 (C-1): BLM did not address the full 

impact of CBNG extraction on Native American 

communities. The Northern Cheyenne have 

developed water quality standards that are awaiting 

EPA approval for their reservation. However, the 

draft supplemental EIS does not address how CBNG 

extraction would affect these proposed standards. 

BLM also did not assess the number and location of 

traditional cultural properties of the Lower Brule 

Sioux Tribe in the area (pp. 3-36, 3-86).

Response 1 (R-1): Impacts on Native American 

communities resulting from project-related activities 

are outlined in the Indian Trust and Native American 

Concerns section of Chapter 4. Water quality impacts 

specific to the Northern Cheyenne resulting from 

project-related activities for each alternative are in 

the Hydrological Resources section of 

Chapter 4. The tribe has adopted surface water 

quality standards for EC and SAR and has been 

granted treatment as a state status by EPA. EPA has 

not yet reviewed the tribe’s proposed water quality 

standards, however, the tribe does not yet have Clean 

Water Act standing (see Chapter 3 Hydrological 

Resources, Surface Water). Surface water quality for 

the Tongue River (see Chapter 4 Hydrological 

Resources, Alternative C, Surface Water Analysis, 

Tongue River) and Rosebud Creek (see Chapter 4 

Hydrological Resources, Alternative C, Surface 

Water Analysis, Rosebud Creek) would potentially 

exceed the tribe’s proposed standards under 

Alternative C.
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-51

With regard to off-reservation TCPs, BLM requires 

cultural block surveys for most CBNG lands to be 

developed under each POD. These block surveys, 

coupled with tribal consultation requirements, 

demonstrate the ability to identify cultural sites and 

reduce the potential impacts associated with 

developing CBNG near cultural resources. 

Additionally, BLM has signed a memorandum of 

understanding with the Lower Brule Sioux to 

participate in the SEIS as a cooperating agency. BLM 

has also entered into government-to-government 

consultation with the tribe to address its concerns 

over TCPs within the Project Area.

C-2: Page MON-5: Regarding "Indian Trust 

Groundwater," the specific monitoring techniques, 

the frequency of monitoring, remedial actions, and 

management options listed are premature and 

inappropriate at the SEIS level. The need for and 

extent of groundwater monitoring around POD areas 

near Indian reservations should be determined within 

the context of the water management plan submitted 

with the POD application. At that point, operators 

will have developed specific CBNG production 

plans, identified coals to be produced, and sitespecific geology. These elements are critical to 

establishing monitoring objectives and tasks. This 

level of information is necessary to determine 

whether hydrologic connectivity exists between the 

POD area and reservation aquifers. BLM will have 

the opportunity to conduct its review of such 

information, consult with tribes and the operator, and 

develop an appropriate groundwater monitoring plan.

R-2: The process would transpire as outlined above. 

CBNG development within the 5-mile buffer zone 

would require the operators to demonstrate within 

their water management plan that Indian Trust Assets 

or resources would not be impacted. The level of 

monitoring and remedial actions required would 

depend on site-specific conditions and results of the 

operator’s analysis. 

C-3: The Northern Cheyenne Mitigation Appendix 

summarizes the DSEIS's proposed mitigation 

measures resulting from the Native American 

Concerns Screen under Preferred Alternative H. The 

DSEIS does not, however, provide any data on how 

the 5-mile buffer is determined. This improperly 

shifts the burden of proof to CBNG operators. Instead 

of allowing CBNG development to take place, then 

making mid-course corrections if the development 

impacts tribal resources/interests, the DSEIS assumes 

that impacts will occur and improperly requires 

operators to prove at the outset that their 

development(s) would not affect tribal 

resources/interests. Next, the DSEIS does not 

acknowledge pre-existing lease rights. Denial of a 

permit under this Native American screen may be 

viewed as a federal taking. Would BLM buy back 

leases that operators cannot develop because they 

cannot prove that drainage of groundwater or CBNG 

will not occur? BLM is shifting its fiduciary 

responsibilities to the CBNG operator. Additionally, 

while the DSEIS does advise the reader that the 

Native American screen would result in a loss of gas 

resource to the nation, the agency does not quantify 

that loss and does not explain the collateral loss of 

local and state revenues. The DSEIS should 

acknowledge that the Native American Concerns 

Screen would probably lead to the loss of private and 

state gas resources because an operator might be less 

inclined to develop an area knowing he or she could 

not develop all of the gas; therefore, the project might 

be uneconomical. The DSEIS should also advise the 

reader that the Native American Concerns Screen is 

not applicable to existing federal leases lacking such 

a stipulation because of valid existing lease rights. 

Finally, the DSEIS should acknowledge the legal 

complexities of the Native American screen and how 

it might lead to a federal takings issue and increased 

litigation. 

R-3: The 5-mile buffer was determined from 

groundwater modeling conducted for the 2003 FEIS, 

which showed that groundwater drawdown at a 

distance of 5 miles was minimal. BLM has a 

responsibility to protect Indian Trust Assets, which 

include CBNG and groundwater. PODs submitted for 

existing federal leases would be subject to the 

provisions of the Native American screen and would 

have to show that the proposed development would 

not impact Indian Trust Assets or resources. BLM 

understands that local geologic conditions combined 

with mitigation measures would determine where and 

how much development would occur within the 5-

mile buffer. Some loss of the federal CBNG resource 

might result from the provisions of this screen and 

BLM's responsibility to protect Indian Trust Assets. 

The amount of gas resource potentially lost to the 

federal government and foregone revenue are detailed 

within the Geology and Minerals and Social and 

Economic Values sections of Chapter 4. Due to many 

factors, it is impossible for BLM to predict how 

economics might affect development on private and 

state leases within the 5-mile buffer zone if 

development were to be restricted on adjoining 

federal minerals.

C-4: Page CHE-2: The DSEIS should explain the 

increase in the proposed buffer zone around 

reservations from 2 miles in the 2003 statewide FEIS 

to 5 miles in the DSEIS. As cited in the DSEIS, 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-52

recent studies (Wheaton et al. 2006) indicate that the 

extent of CBNG drawdown is lower than expected. 

The third paragraph on this page states, 

"Groundwater monitoring to date indicates drawdown 

has extended approximately 1.5 miles from 

production fields." This is after approximately 

6 years of CBNG production in the CX Field area. 

Since BLM states it uses adaptive management, it 

should provide justification for the larger buffer zone. 

BLM's provision requiring site-specific determination 

of potential impacts based on hydrologic connectivity 

to reservation groundwater resources is a superior 

criterion. The last sentence under Alternative H 

mentions "to demonstrate model adequacy." Which 

model BLM references is unclear. The discussion 

immediately above refers to the modeling performed 

for the statewide FEIS (by Montana Bureau of Mines 

and Geology [MBMG]). BLM should clarify that 

operators do not have to model groundwater. We 

suggest that BLM specify that the demonstration of 

no impacts to reservation groundwater be submitted 

with the water management plan in the POD 

application, unless the parties agree to other 

provisions.

R-4: The 5-mile buffer was determined from 

groundwater modeling conducted for the 

2003 FEIS, which showed that groundwater 

drawdown at a distance of 5 miles was minimal. 

Recent studies do indicate that groundwater 

drawdown resulting from development at the CX 

Field extends out approximately 1.5 miles. When 

considering the effects from all of the wells 

predicted, however, groundwater modeling results 

indicate drawdown could be up to 5 miles. The 

referenced sentence on page CHE-2 states, 

“Additional monitoring of groundwater and air may 

be required to demonstrate model adequacy." This 

refers to modeling that the operator may have to 

conduct to demonstrate that development would not 

adversely impact Indian Trust Assets and resources. 

Language in the FSEIS has been modified to clarify 

that methods employed to demonstrate that Indian 

Trust Asset groundwater will not be adversely 

impacted will be submitted as part of the water 

management plan in the POD application, unless the 

parties agree to alternative provisions.

C-5: Page CHE-4: The lower portion of Alternative 

H states, "Where there is potential for affecting 

reservation groundwater...” BLM should define what 

it means by "potential.”

R-5: Before development, operators would have to 

demonstrate within their water management plans 

that Indian Trust groundwater would not be 

impacted. Should that analysis indicate that Indian 

Trust groundwater could be impacted, then there 

would be a "potential for affecting reservation 

groundwater.”

C-6: Page CHE-27: Regarding protection of 

culturally important springs under Alternative H, 

BLM should clarify that operators would have to 

evaluate potential impacts of proposed CBNG 

operations only on those springs that the tribal 

authority identified to BLM and for which it provided 

basic information, including adequate location, flow, 

and water quality data. The tribal authority would 

also agree to assist BLM and the operator in

obtaining that information for springs that lie within 

the anticipated drawdown radius of the proposed 

development.

R-6: BLM would consult with tribal authorities and 

work with operators to identify TCPs, including 

springs, located within the Planning Area before 

development. The Northern Cheyenne Document and 

2002 Ethnographic Overview have lists of springs to 

assist the applicant in determining if culturally 

important springs are present in their POD areas.

C-7: Page CHE-28: In the second row under 

Alternative H, BLM should revise this to state that 

operators could be required to monitor the condition 

of culturally significant springs. The springs would 

be identified by the tribal authority only where there 

would be a reasonable potential for impacts, based on 

a site-specific hydrologic evaluation associated with 

APD approval, and where the tribal authority would 

agree to assist in the monitoring.

R-7: The current language states that monitoring 

would be required only "where there is the potential 

for production activities to impact the springs." BLM 

believes that this language is adequate, and operators 

should not assume that tribal authorities would agree 

to assist in the monitoring.

C-8: The standards proposed in the Native American 

Concerns Screen are arbitrary and ill-defined. For 

proposed development within 5 miles of the Northern 

Cheyenne and Crow reservations, site-specific 

groundwater and air analyses would have to be 

submitted along with the POD. However, Alternative 

H does not specify what these analyses would entail, 

further eroding an operator’s ability to determine a 

business plan that would adequately include the costs 

of regulation. If rules were made up as the process 

moved from the leasing phase to the exploration and 

development phase, operators would not be able to 

assess whether implementing a business plan in a 

given area would be feasible. This would put small, 

independent operators at a particular disadvantage. 

The SEIS does not define the standards for 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-53

“unacceptable levels of impact,” further rendering 

this screen arbitrary. The table in the Monitoring 

Index does not contain the standards for this screen.

R-8: The type of site-specific air and groundwater 

analyses required under the Native American 

Concerns Screen is left up to the operator with the 

only requirement being that it is sufficient to 

demonstrate whether the proposed development 

would have an impact on Indian Trust Assets or 

resources. The level of impact that would be deemed 

unacceptable would depend on site-specific factors

such as proximity of the development to culturally 

significant springs or groundwater use wells and 

expected impact, as well as the type of operational 

equipment and air emission control measures 

proposed in the project POD.

C-9: The Native American Concerns Screen states 

that, as development proceeds, BLM would monitor 

the effects on air, water, and “other resources of 

concern to Native American tribes.” So not only 

would BLM take over jurisdiction from the state for 

regulating air and water, it could decide that other 

resources are now of concern and deny any further 

APDs accordingly. This, in effect, would extend the 

jurisdiction of the tribes 5 miles into BLM

administered lands that adjoin theirs. 

R-9: The 5-mile buffer does not extend the Tribe’s 

jurisdiction. It extends BLM’s area of concern for 

potential effects to Indian Trust Assets. The BLM 

would work with the appropriate regulatory agency if 

monitoring indicated that an air quality or water 

standard may have been exceeded.

C-10: The 5-mile buffer zone described in the Native 

American Concerns Screen to protect water and air 

obscures a problem with Alternative H. In Chapter 4, 

page 200, BLM admits that if development of federal 

minerals were delayed or restricted in the 5-mile 

buffer zone, there would be an increased potential for 

drainage of federal minerals. As much as 1.4 to 1.6 

trillion cubic feet (tcf) of gas might be lost to federal, 

state, and county governments, with a loss of 

royalties to the federal government of $1.2 billion at 

current gas prices. This is a significant economic loss 

to Montana, which would otherwise receive 

$600 million. Alternative H does not contain any plan 

for mitigating this loss of federal minerals.

R-10: BLM recognizes that implementation of the 

Native American Concerns Screen could result in 

restricted development of federal minerals within the 

5-mile buffer. The numbers contained in Chapter 4 

reflect what would happen if no development were to 

occur on federal minerals within the 5-mile buffer.

C-11: It is not clear from the SEIS that BLM has 

adequately contacted the numerous tribes with 

historical associations with the region under 

discussion. For Rosebud Battlefield alone, this would 

entail discussions with the Northern Cheyenne, 

Crow, several bands of the Sioux, Shoshone, 

Arapaho, and Utes. In addition, there are tribes that 

were active in this region and the area farther to the 

east that merit consultation for the planning area 

covered by this document.

R-11: BLM has held meetings with the Northern 

Cheyenne, Crow, and Lower Brule Sioux Tribes 

concerning the SEIS and proposed activities. As 

operators propose specific sites for development, 

consultation and meetings with additional tribes may 

become necessary. BLM contacted the tribes 

identified in the 2002 Ethnographic Overview of 

Southeast Montana. Twelve tribes were contacted 

with an invitation to participate as cooperating 

agencies. Of those, two tribes elected to become 

cooperating agencies for the SEIS (for additional 

information see Chapter 5 under the headings of 

Consultation and Coordination with Native American 

Tribes and Official Cooperating Agencies).

C-12: Northern Cheyenne representatives and others 

have repeatedly expressed concerns related to the 

impact of CBNG development on aboriginal lands, 

indicated that their right to a government-togovernment relationship among themselves and the 

United States was being undermined, and stated that 

the heritage of the tribe is being threatened. Has 

BLM contacted and consulted with these tribes? Has 

the agency developed any formal consultation 

process through memoranda of agreement or other 

approaches to help ensure meaningful consultation? 

Has BLM followed its own 2004 Manual Tribal 

Consultation under Cultural Resources in the 

development and consultation for this SEIS?

R-12: In accord with BLM Manual on Tribal 

Consultations, BLM has held consultations and 

meetings with the Northern Cheyenne, Crow, and 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribes concerning the SEIS and 

proposed activities. The consultations and meetings 

held are listed in Chapter 5 of the SEIS. The Crow 

Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux Tribe signed a 

memorandum of understanding with BLM to become 

a cooperating agency for the development of the 

SEIS. A Memorandum of Understanding to become a 

Cooperating Agency was offered to the Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe, which declined.

C-13: Within the Native American Concerns section 

of Chapter 3, subheading Aquatic Resources, 

Bighorn Lake is listed as being a highly valuable 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-54

recreational fishery. The same emphasis is not being 

given to the recreational fishery in the Tongue River 

Reservoir. This fishery is the premier crappie fishery 

in the state and often ranks in the top 10 sites within 

Montana for angling opportunity. This system 

receives over 100,000 recreation days of use each 

year, primarily related to angling activities. Emphasis 

has to be given to the protection of this resource.

R-13: The Tongue River Reservoir is recognized as 

an important fishery and recreational site within the 

Planning Area. It is not emphasized within the Native 

Americans Concerns section of Chapter 3 because it 

is not located within the boundaries of a reservation. 

C-14: Under the section detailing the "Native 

American Concerns Screen," Alternative H would 

require site-specific groundwater and air analyses 

from operators. The analyses would be intended to 

demonstrate "that the overall POD would be 

protective of Indian Trust Assets (groundwater and 

CBNG) and air quality," and must not indicate an 

"unacceptable level of impairment to these resources” 

(DSEIS at 2-22). As a preliminary matter, BLM's 

attempt to push an affirmative obligation to conduct 

these initial analyses down to operators and, in effect, 

prove a negative, is inappropriate. Moreover, this 

requirement is unnecessary to ensure protection of 

Indian Trust Assets and would likely prohibit all 

development in those areas. Given BLM's obligation 

to manage federal lands for alternative multiple uses, 

see the DSEIS at 3-88, BLM should adopt its 

previous preferred alternative, Alternative E, under 

which BLM would have ample authority to impose 

appropriate mitigation.

R-14: See R-3. Additionally, the elements of 

Alternative E, such as the requirements for CBNG 

operators to submit PODs and conduct monitoring, 

have been carried over into Alternative H. Because of 

new data and information obtained since the Record 

of Decision for the 2003 FEIS was signed, 

Alternative H was developed to include an adaptive 

management approach, four resource screens to 

evaluate PODs, and mitigation measures 

implemented during development to better protect 

resource values within the CBNG development area.

C-15: It is conceivable that observed impacts could 

be the result of development on private or state 

minerals. Please include provisions/define protocols 

to differentiate between impacts to Indian Trust 

Assets that result from private and state development 

and those that result from development of federal 

minerals. Also, please provide details/plan for 

developing a coalition of buffer zone operators to 

optimize monitoring and share monitoring results.

R-15: BLM has a responsibility to protect Indian 

Trust Assets, including natural gas. However 

development of public domain gas resources 

wouldn’t necessarily be precluded. BLM would have 

to evaluate a proposal and determine if Indian Trust 

Assets would be protected or if any additional 

mitigation might be required to assure BLM that the 

ITAs were protected.

C-16: If development occurs on an Indian reservation 

(i.e., private minerals, allottee minerals, or tribal 

minerals), please state clearly how this would change 

the management of the 5-mile buffer around the 

reservations. Furthermore, please establish and justify 

a threshold of wells to be drilled on an Indian 

reservation before the buffer zone would be removed.

R-16: The development of mineral resources within 

the boundaries of a reservation, whether it be on

private, allottee, or tribal minerals, would not change 

BLM's responsibility to protect Indian Trust Assets or 

resources from development outside of a reservation 

boundary. If CBNG development occurred on a 

reservation, the requirements of the Native American 

Concerns Screen might be modified in consultation 

with the tribes and other affected parties.

C-17: We are concerned regarding the Native 

American Concerns Screen, especially because the 

SEIS has no additional impacts beyond those 

included in the 2003 EIS. The 2003 EIS had a 2-mile 

buffer around the Indian reservations as an element 

of Alternative B, which was not selected as BLM's 

preferred alternative. Since no new information has 

been included in the SEIS that would justify the 

inclusion of a 5-mile buffer in the preferred 

alternative, it is recommended that BLM remove this 

screen from the preferred alternative and instead 

incorporate the mitigation measures outlined for 

Alternative E contained in the Northern Cheyenne 

Mitigation Appendix. Please explain/clarify how the 

5-mile distance was determined and how BLM and 

tribal consultation process would work (i.e., time 

limits, ability of operator to attend consultation 

meetings, types of appropriate analyses that might be 

required, etc.).

R-17: See R-4 and R-14. Additionally, with respect 

to the consultation process between BLM and tribal 

authorities, after a POD is received, BLM would hold 

consultations with the appropriate tribal authorities as 

part of the POD review process. The consultation 

process would identify any TCPs within the 

development area and, depending on the location of 

the development (i.e., whether it was located within 

the 5-mile buffer around a reservation boundary), 

indicate any potential impacts to ITAs or resources. If 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-55

TCPs occur within the development area, or if the 

development is within the 5-mile buffer and there is a 

potential for impacts to ITAs or resources, BLM 

would then work with the operator to avoid potential 

impacts to TCPs and ITAs or resources.

C-18: BLM has failed to provide any rationale in the 

SEIS for the proposed 5-mile buffer around Indian 

reservation lands. It is not evident whether BLM 

consulted with the tribes or they agreed that such a 

buffer is needed or wanted.

R-18: See R-3 and R-4. With respect to consultations 

with tribal authorities concerning the 5-mile buffer, 

meetings held with tribal authorities as part of the 

SEIS development process are detailed in Chapter 5. 

During a scoping meeting held at Ft. Keogh in 

September of 2005, both the Northern Cheyenne and 

Crow Tribes expressed interest in having a buffer 

around their respective reservation boundaries.

C-19: Although BLM Miles City Field Office staff 

have worked diligently on the SEIS and have made 

great efforts to include the tribe and our concerns, we 

remain steadfast that the SEIS does not entirely or 

accurately portray the effects that will be realized by 

the Northern Cheyenne people and our resources 

upon development of CBNG.

R-19: BLM appreciates the concerns expressed by 

the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and believes that every 

effort has been made to address those concerns and 

accurately describe the potential impacts that could 

result from the proposed project activities within 

Chapter 4 of the SEIS. BLM will continue to work 

with the tribe through consultations on specific PODs 

to avoid or mitigate potential impacts from proposed 

development.

C-20: The Northern Cheyenne Tribe is very 

concerned with the likelihood of its CBNG and 

groundwater resources being drained by adjacent, 

off-reservation CBNG development. BLM has a trust 

responsibility to protect the tribe's resources. We 

believe that BLM’s proposed management methods 

(i.e., the four screens outlined in Alternative H and 

relying on operators to do the analyses on trust 

resources such as air, CBNG, and groundwater) do 

not do enough to fulfill this responsibility. Another 

concern is the lack of a mitigation measure to ensure 

the necessary involvement of the tribe in the standard 

APD review and approval.

R-20: BLM believes that the use of adaptive 

management and implementation of the four resource 

screens contained in Alternative H, combined with 

tribal consultations on individual PODs, would 

provide the means to protect Indian Trust Assets and 

resources. BLM is committed to working with the 

tribe to protect its ITAs and resources through 

consultations on proposed PODs.

C-21: With respect to Chapter 3, the Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe completed a report entitled, ''The 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe and its Reservation 2002: 

A Report to the US Bureau of Land Management and 

the State of Montana Department of Natural 

Resources and Conservation.” As was the issue in 

2003, the report still is not incorporated to the extent 

necessary. Specifically, the report contains invaluable 

data and information related to how the Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe and the services provided by the 

tribe would be impacted upon development of 

CBNG. The tribe requests that BLM review its report 

again and include more data from it to better portray 

the current state of the reservation. 

R-21: The report entitled, "The Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe and its Reservation 2002: A Report to the US 

Bureau of Land Management and the State of 

Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation" is summarized in the Native American 

Concerns section of Chapter 3 under the heading of 

Northern Cheyenne Reservation. Additionally, 

readers are referred to a website where the entire 

report can either be viewed or downloaded for more 

detailed information. Within Chapter 4, potential 

impacts specific to the Northern Cheyenne Tribe are 

described for each alternative and each resource 

value.

C-22: While the DSEIS specifies a series of 

mitigation measures that are part of the preferred 

alternative for the Northern Cheyenne, we note that 

there are no comparable specific measures listed for 

the Crow Tribe.

R-22: The commenter is correct. The Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe proposed the mitigation measures 

contained within the Northern Cheyenne Mitigation 

Appendix on August 13, 2002. The Crow Tribe did 

not propose any corresponding mitigation measures; 

however, they did request that the 5-mile buffer 

provision within the Native American Concerns 

Screen be applied to the Crow Reservation boundary.

C-23: One of the big issues that the commenter is 

very concerned about is that there is no hard analysis 

on socioeconomic or cultural impacts to the Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe.

R-23: Potential social, economic, and cultural 

impacts relative to the Northern Cheyenne Tribe are 

contained within the Indian Trust and Native 

American Concerns section and Social and Economic 

Values section of Chapter 4.
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-56

C-24: The commenter is concerned that tribal culture 

is being impacted, both directly and indirectly. It is 

impacted directly in that, with development, 

developers will sometimes be unable to avoid burial 

sites and other culturally significant properties to 

tribes. This would have a direct effect on tribal 

culture.

R-24: Project-specific mitigation of sacred, historic 

TCPs, or cultural resources related to tribal interests, 

topography, and concentration of sites would be 

addressed through the consultation process with the 

Native American tribes that have an interest in the 

area being proposed for development. If sacred or 

traditional sites exist in the area, the affected tribe 

would be consulted before determining appropriate 

action or treatment. Additionally, mitigation 

measures specific to the Northern Cheyenne Tribe for 

the protection of tribal resources and cultural sites are 

contained in the Northern Cheyenne Mitigation 

Appendix.

C-25: The commenter is concerned that if BLM 

honestly took its trust responsibility seriously, it 

would have the Northern Cheyenne Tribe included in 

the SEIS, in the mitigation measures, and have a plan 

lined out in that document stating how BLM would 

work with the tribe, what BLM would do, and what 

BLM could do and would not do, and what BLM 

would be unable to do.

R-25: See R-11 and R-12. Meetings and 

consultations held with the Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

during the development of the SEIS are contained in 

Chapter 5 under the heading of Consultation and 

Coordination with Native American Tribes. In 

addition, measures to mitigate potential impacts 

specific to the Northern Cheyenne Tribe are detailed 

in the Northern Cheyenne Mitigation Appendix. 

BLM also has written policy concerning consultation 

with Native American Tribes contained within BLM 

Manual on Tribal Consultation which spells out the 

provisions that BLM should follow in coordinating 

with tribal authorities.

C-26: BLM's protections offered for the Northern 

Cheyenne's resources, by BLM's own assessment in 

the EIS, will most likely result in groundwater loss 

from the Northern Cheyenne Reservation. In order to 

protect these resources the BLM has offered a 5-mile 

buffer zone in which development of methane will 

undergo additional scrutiny in the permitting process. 

The DSEIS indicates that ground water draw-down 

may occur up to 22 miles away from a producing 

CBNG well. A 5 mile buffer is clearly not enough. 

The DSEIS also states that "CBNG development 

would threaten to drain methane resources under 

tribal lands in the planning area." BLM should 

guarantee, not speculate, that it can protect the 

draining of tribal gas and water resources, as it is part 

of BLM's trust responsibility.

R-26: See R-3 and R-4. The reference to a potential 

22-mile drawdown is from a 3D model conducted for 

the Wyodak EIS (Wyoming). It specifically calls for 

a 5-foot potential drawdown. Furthermore the 

reference cited on page 4-131 of the DSEIS is for 

Alternative B and not the Preferred Alternative (H). 

Alternative H states implementation of the BLM 

mitigation measures, coupled with the 5-mile 

monitoring proximity, would reduce the likelihood 

that any reservation groundwater resources would be 

drained from off-reservation federal CBNG activities. 

Furthermore current operations at CX range (4 years 

of extraction) indicate that drawdown of 20 feet is 

noted at a distance of 1 to 2 miles. Modeling of a 20-

foot drawdown can be accomplished with a greater 

degree of certainty than modeling a 5-foot 

drawdown, particularly in consideration of sitespecific differences in geology. For these reasons, 

and due to the uncertainty associated with modeling a 

5-foot drawdown contour, the SEIS uses the 20-foot 

drawdown contour to represent the extent that results 

from CBNG development. Based on the 3D model 

prepared for the analysis, the 20-foot contour can be 

expected to extend 4 to 5 miles from the edge of 

CBNG production.

Paleontological Resources

C-1: "The BLM APD contains guidance for notifying 

and mitigating damage to paleontological resources 

discovered during oil and gas construction activities." 

Surveys should be conducted before surface 

activities. "Surface occupancy and use is prohibited 

within designated paleontological sites." Designated 

by whom? The word “designated” should be changed 

to "known" paleontological sites. This would include 

sites known by surface owners (state, federal, or 

private) and those subject to surveys to determine 

appropriate activities and/or mitigation.

R-1: BLM has designated several ACECs within the 

Planning Area on the basis of the potential for those 

sites to contain significant paleontological resources. 

Not all known paleontological sites are considered 

significant. BLM does address the potential for 

significant paleontological finds before development 

when activity is in an area where the geology 

indicates such finds are possible.
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-57

Social and Economic Values

Comment 1 (C-1): BLM should not assume that all 

workers will come from Wyoming and will not live 

on or near a reservation. Social issues due to 

increased population on reservations (drug, alcohol, 

crime, and other socioeconomic problems) are not 

addressed.

Response (R-1): Based on discussions with the 

CBNG industry, this assumption is warranted. The 

CBNG industry in the region is based primarily out 

of Sheridan and Gillette, Wyoming. Social problems 

that come with increased population on reservations 

are discussed in the socioeconomic analysis in 

Chapter 4.

C-2: The economic impacts of adopting Alternative 

H over Alternative E are not addressed. Alternative H 

is more stringent than Alternative E and will limit 

potential economic benefit for the Powder River 

Basin and surrounding areas.

R-2: Economic impacts for Alternative H are 

addressed in the Socioeconomics section of Chapter 

4. In general, the socioeconomic effects of 

Alternative H are more similar to Alternative F than 

to Alternative E.

C-3: The DSEIS does not provide any discussion of 

the growing national demand for natural gas and the 

potential contribution of the Montana portion of the 

Powder River Basin.

R-3: The Social and Economic Values section of 

Chapter 3 provides information on current 

socioeconomic conditions within the Planning Area. 

Positive and negative socioeconomic effects from 

project-related activities are presented in the Social 

and Economic Values section of Chapter 4. Current 

natural gas supply and demand are constantly 

changing and can be obtained easily from numerous 

government websites, including the Department of 

Energy.

C-4: The DSEIS does not provide any CBNG 

employment data in Montana or any discussion about 

the various types of employment (e.g., company and 

contractors).

R-4: Employment by sector is provided in Tables 3-

30 and 3-31, with CBNG jobs included in the mining 

sector. As stated in the SEIS, the CBNG industry in 

the region is based primarily out of Sheridan and 

Gillette, Wyoming. The types of jobs are discussed in 

the Social and Economic Values section of Chapter 4, 

Social and Economic Values Assumptions.

C-5: BLM has to update the tables for employment 

by category, unemployment, and per capita personal 

income. The U.S. Department of Commerce has 

changed before, so data before 1999 are inconsistent 

categories segregating industries for employment 

data. Unemployment rates across the counties have 

fallen to unprecedented low levels within the last 7 

years. More recent unemployment data show levels 

below what is presented in the DSEIS and reflect a 

significant change in labor market conditions in the 

planning area. Per capita personal income has also 

risen.

R-5: Employment by category data within the SEIS 

was based on the most recent data available when the 

report was prepared.

C-6: The DSEIS does not incorporate information 

from the Executive Summary of the Economic 

Review of the Travel Industry in Montana, 2006 

Biennial Edition or the Montana Tourism and 

Recreation Strategy Plan 2003-2007. The DSEIS 

does not address impacts on Montana’s travel and 

tourism industry and the effects on the state’s 

economy as a result of oil and gas development 

activities.

R-6: The potential impacts on recreational 

opportunities, including tourism-related opportunities 

such as hiking, hunting, fishing, and water activities, 

within the Planning Area from project-related CBNG 

activities are presented within the Recreation section

of Chapter 4. The economic impacts resulting from 

project-related CBNG activities are presented in the 

Social and Economic Values section of Chapter 4. 

These impacts would affect both Montana residents 

and visitors. 

C-7: Lessees have a qualified right to development 

on leased lands. Phased development under 

Alternatives F, G, and H will result in a delay of 

CBNG resource development on federal leases. 

During any such delay in development, lessees’ 

federal leases will be drained, devaluing their 

property and contract rights. They will be arbitrarily 

subjected to disparate treatment based on a phased 

plan. If BLM’s decision to phase development results 

in a delayed consideration of applications, this 

decision could mature into a contract violation.

R-7: The potential for drainage of federal mineral 

due to phased federal development resulting from 

implementation of the four resource screens 

contained in Alternative H is discussed under the 

Geology and Minerals section of Chapter 4.

C-8: The DSEIS states that workers would most 

likely come from Sheridan and Gillette. Are these 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-58

workers reporting their time in Montana to the 

Department of Revenue in Montana? How much 

income taxes are these workers paying to Montana? 

How many tax dollars is Montana losing from these 

workers? These workers are also filling their fuel 

tanks in Wyoming. If they fueled in Montana, the 

state would obtain fuel tax money to maintain roads. 

Where will Montana get the money to maintain the 

roads that will be overrun with employees from 

Sheridan and Gillette?

R-8: Taxes from income and fuel would likely 

benefit both Wyoming and Montana. The state of 

Montana and counties within the Planning Area 

would also receive income from property taxes and 

royalties paid by operators. These funds would be 

available for maintenance of roads, subject to state 

and local regulations.

C-9: BLM should complete a more in-depth analysis 

of the current social state of the Northern Cheyenne 

Reservation. It should include a subsequent analysis 

of the impacts of CBNG development, similar to the 

1990 analysis for the Powder River Basin coal lease 

sale program.

R-9: As noted in the Social and Economic Values 

section of Chapter 4, the types of effects identified in 

the 1990 analysis are not expected to occur. While 

coal development employs many Montana workers, 

most the CBNG jobs would be filled by workers 

currently employed by the CBNG industry based in 

Wyoming. 

C-10: BLM should not assume that most CBNG 

workers will commute from Wyoming for the 

duration of the development, production, and 

abandonment of CBNG wells. Making this 

assumption means that impacts from any potential 

workforce relocating to Montana have not been 

considered. BLM did not adequately analyze the 

possibility of temporary living quarters, such as 

“man-camps,” recreation vehicle (RV) camps, or 

motels. This is especially relevant to the area north of 

the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, once it is 

developed.

R-10: See R-1. The potential for CBNG workers to 

use camping facilities or motels at work sites that are 

more distant from their base of operations is also 

discussed in the Social and Economic Values section

of Chapter 4.

C-11: BLM should include reports and research 

related to negative social change, such as crime and 

drug rates, associated with CBNG development in its 

analysis of social and economic values. For instance, 

a report prepared for the Sublette County, Wyoming 

Attorney's Office, titled “Sublette County Statistics 

on Drug and Crime Rates,” discusses how oil and gas 

development has affected drug and crime rates the 

last 7 to 10 years in Sublette County, Wyoming. The 

report indicated that crimes and arrests correlate 

highly to oil and gas field activity and increase with 

mineral development. These crimes and arrests 

consist of drug, burglary, domestic violence, and 

petty crimes. Drug use by oil and gas field workers is 

of particular concern. Even assuming that Sheridan, 

Wyoming, will be most affected by CBNG 

development in Montana, the regional increase in 

availability of drugs to the reservation will only 

compound the already rampant drug and alcohol 

problems on the reservation.

R-11: BLM has reviewed the crime information from 

Sublette County and does not believe it warrants a 

change in the analysis. The impacts in Sublette 

County were related to substantial population 

increases due to immigrating oil and gas workers.

BLM does not predict population increases on the 

reservation due to CBNG development. CBNG 

operators and subcontractors may have to drive 

across the Northern Cheyenne reservation to reach 

some well sites in the northern part of the Planning 

Area (Rosebud County). Although the number of 

wells to be developed north of the reservation is 

relatively small, limited traffic, noise, safety, and 

road maintenance impacts could occur. This could 

increase tribal member contact with outsiders, 

increasing the negative effects of social change 

described above. Workers commuting back to 

Sheridan on a daily basis would, however, have few 

reasons to stop on the reservation. Any workers who 

lived in temporary housing north of the reservation 

would be more likely to use facilities in Colstrip than 

on the reservation. Also see R-1 and R-10.

C-12: The EIS should address the economics, 

farming, agricultural well-being, and industry of the 

lower Tongue River.

R-12: The SEIS presents data on the potential effects 

of project-related activities on the economy and 

agricultural operations within the Planning Area in 

general. It does not emphasize the Lower Tongue 

River or other watersheds.

C-13: The DSEIS does not include a socioeconomic 

impact study.

R-13: The analysis of socioeconomic impacts is 

provided in the Social and Economic Values section

of Chapter 4. See also R-9.

C-14: The inclusion of a 5-mile buffer zone around 

the Crow and Northern Cheyenne reservations
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-59

represents a “federal taking” as these land and/or 

mineral owners would be prevented from their right 

to develop their resources and would be entitled to 

compensation.

R-14: The minerals within the 5-mile buffer zone 

around the reservations are not excluded from 

development. The inclusion of the 5-mile buffer 

around reservation boundaries within Preferred 

Alternative H provides for protection of Indian Trust 

Assets and requires operators to conduct additional 

studies and monitoring to ensure that these ITAs are 

protected before APD approval and during 

operations.

Environmental Justice

C-1: Pages 2-38 and 4-203: Under “Environmental 

justice,” Wyoming disagrees that its management of

CBNG discharges in Wyoming will create an 

environmental justice issue. All CBNG discharges in 

Wyoming and Montana must meet federal and state 

requirements. As long as those requirements are met, 

it is inconceivable that an environmental justice issue 

can occur. Reference to WYDEQ management of 

CBNG discharges in Wyoming creating 

environmental justice issues should be deleted from 

the document.

R-1: BLM believes that the language concerning the 

potential for an environmental justice issue is 

accurate.

Soils

Comment 1 (C-1): The SEIS states that there will be 

no impacts to soils. What is the basis for this and how 

was it determined? What about saline seeps?

Response 1 (R-1): The potential for impacts to soils, 

including salinization, from the discharge of CBNGproduced waters is available in the Soils section of 

Chapter 4. Additional information is found in the 

Soils Appendix and in the Soils Technical Report 

(ALL 2001a).

C-2: The SEIS states the following: "Soils with lower 

cation exchange capacity (CEC) potential would 

result in greater geochemical changes to infiltrating 

water." In the case of infiltrating produced water, the 

primary factors affecting its quality are the nature and 

extent of soluble salts naturally present in the soil and 

rock formations through which the water passes. 

R-2: CEC is one of several factors affecting 

geochemical changes to infiltrating water. This 

statement in the SEIS pertains only to the CEC 

discussion. 

C-3: It is incorrect to generalize that the soils in the 

emphasis area are generally clayey.

R-3: A description of soil classifications in the 

planning area can be found in the Soils section of 

Chapter 3, while additional information can be found 

in the Soils Appendix. The text in the SEIS states that 

soils within the Planning Area “generally range from 

loams to clays, but are principally loams to silty clay 

loams.” Soils data used in the SEIS were derived 

from the Soils Survey Geographic Database 

(SSURGO) at 

http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/ssur

go/index.html.

C-4: The SEIS statement that the saline water has a 

more persistent and detrimental effect on soil 

productivity, especially when immediate mitigation 

measures are not followed for cleanup, is misleading. 

Salinity in water does not directly impact soils; it 

simply makes it more difficult for plants to extract 

water. Also, it is unclear what immediate “mitigation 

measures” and “cleanup” mean in the statement. This 

sentence should be deleted.

R-4: The meaning of soil productivity within the 

SEIS relates to the ability of plants to thrive in the 

surrounding environment. Changes have been made 

within the Soils section of Chapter 4 under the 

heading “Alternative C – Emphasize CBNG 

Development” to avoid confusion in this statement.

C-5: When will screening guidelines begin? Where 

are the screening guidelines for soils in the EIS? 

Does the SEIS contain a soil screen for the Lower 

Tongue River and for T&Y property?

R-5: Implementation of the provisions, or guidelines, 

contained within the four resource screens that are 

part of Alternative H would begin during BLM’s 

review of an operator’s POD. MDEQ has specific 

regulations in place to address the quality of water 

discharged from CBNG operations. Therefore, a 

separate screen to address produced water discharged 

to soils was not deemed necessary.

C-6: On page 3-54, BLM discusses “managed 

irrigation” (land application and disposal activities) 

as one option available for putting water produced 

from CBNG wells to beneficial use. However, BLM 

does little to describe the factors that may make this 

option less than desirable. For example, the 

amendments added to soils so that they can tolerate 

CBNG-produced water are costly and would be 

needed on an ongoing basis. An economic analysis of 

these costs was not included. A review of a 2005 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-60

BLM-sponsored report, Soil Chemical Changes 

Resulting from Irrigation with Water Co-Produced 

with Coal Bed Natural Gas, Girusha J. Ganjegunte et 

al., provides information on the significant problems 

associated with using this wastewater as irrigation 

water.

R-6: The referenced discussion introduces managed 

irrigation as an option under water management, 

identifies the possible problems associated with using 

CBNG-produced water for LAD or irrigation, and 

addresses the need for soil amendments, as well as 

water treatment, if this method is used. Not all 

produced water is of the same quality, nor are all 

soils in the Powder River Basin the same. All crops 

do not have the same tolerances to salinity. The 

identification of this method as an option does not 

obligate any surface owner to use this method. If the 

economics of receiving produced water for 

agricultural development do not work under 

particular site-specific circumstances, other options 

could be used.

Vegetation

Comment 1 (C-1): The DSEIS does not clarify who 

will monitor roads and well sites for weed invasions.

Response 1 (R-1): The implementation of weed 

control measures will be overseen by BLM. 

C-2: The DSEIS (page 4-229) indicates that only 60 

percent of the disturbed vegetation will have to be 

covered with prescribed vegetation. In instances 

where the surrounding land cover is 100 percent 

vegetated, 60 percent will be insufficient vegetation 

cover because it leaves areas open for weed invasion. 

In other areas where the surrounding land cover is 

barren, 60 percent may be too great a coverage to 

achieve.

R-2: The Vegetation section in Chapter 4 states, 

“Reclamation work will be considered complete 

when the disturbed area is stabilized, soil erosion is 

controlled, and at least 60 percent of the disturbed 

area is covered with the prescribed vegetation.” 

Stabilization in terms of reclamation generally is 

considered a goal and may include revegetating 

disturbed areas to achieve a diverse native plant 

community, control soil erosion, control invasive 

non-native plants and noxious weeds, and establish 

wildlife habitat or forage production. A 60 percent 

vegetation cover is the short-term goal for disturbed 

areas throughout the planning area. The goal is to set 

the course for natural processes to achieve ecosystem 

restoration. For impacts on barren lands and other 

low cover types, this goal may be adjusted in the 

reclamation plan.

C-3: The DSEIS should define the differences 

between early successional species and early seral 

stage species. It should specify whether species 

referred to as early successional will be native or 

introduced and, if native, what characteristics 

separate early successional from early seral stage 

species. Alternatively, the DSEIS should use only the 

term “seral stage species” and delete the reference to 

successional species.

R-3: This sentence has been revised in the FSEIS as 

“...and the use of early and late seral stage native 

species for revegetation” to provide more clarity.

Early and late seral can be interchanged with early 

and late successional. Seral stage plant communities 

are those where one of a series of plant communities 

follows another in time within a given area. They 

consist of a mix of trees and shrubs. 

C-4: Page 2-12 includes the following statement: 

“Additionally, during reclamation activities, early 

succession plants would be used for revegetation to 

provide quick cover before noxious weeds can take 

root.” The DSEIS should specify whether the early 

succession plants used would be introduced or native 

species. Many early succession plant species are 

considered weed species.

R-4: This sentence has been revised in the FSEIS to 

reflect the use of native and non-native early 

succession plants and sterile cover crops. 

C-5: Page 3-108 includes the following statement: 

“Important shrubs include several species of 

sagebrush (Artemisia nova, A. tridentata, A. 

vaseyana, A. cana, and A. wyomingensis). 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).” Several of these species are 

misnamed. The DSEIS should be modified to state, 

“several species of sagebrush (Artemisia nova, A. 

tridentata ssp. tridentata, A. tridentata ssp. vaseyana, 

A. cana, and A. tridentata ssp. wyomingensis)” and 

either “shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia)” or 

“fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens).”

R-5: The species names used in the DSEIS are those 

that are used in the Montana Land Cover Atlas, The 

Montana Gap Analysis Project, which was the land 

classification system used for the EIS. The FSEIS has 

been updated to read “several species of sagebrush 

(Artemisia nova, A. tridentata ssp. tridentata, A. 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-61

tridentata ssp. vaseyana, A. cana, and A. tridentata

ssp. wyomingensis).” The FSEIS has also been 

revised to read “and shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia) 

or fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens).”

C-6: On page 3-108, the paragraph under Other 

Wetlands should provide scientific names for species 

or genera not previously discussed.

R-6: The FSEIS includes the scientific names for 

these and other common names on 

page 3-108. The scientific names are included in the 

Vegetation Appendix.

C-7: Page 4-233 includes the following statement: 

“When shrub and forest sites are impacted, there 

would be a loss of structure and diversity of 

vegetation using the current seeding mix.” This 

sentence should be deleted. The loss of structure and 

diversity of vegetation occurred at the time of the 

initial disturbance and is not the result of the seeding 

mix.

R-7: The referenced sentence in the SEIS is accurate. 

While the loss of vegetative structure and diversity is 

the result of the disturbance, that structure and 

diversity is not restored using the current seeding 

mix.

C-8: Page 4-230 includes the following statement: 

“MBOGC policies require the operators to minimize 

the size of the drilling pads and require complete 

restoration of the area once operations are complete” 

(Administrative Rules of Montana [ARM] 36.22). 

The ARM is more specific as to what is required to 

restore disturbed sites. Revise to state “and require 

the restoration of the area to its previous grade and 

productive capability once operations are complete” 

(ARM 36.22).

R-8: State regulations are subject to change and 

modification and are considered to be outside of 

federal actions.

C-9: Page 4-232 includes the following statement: 

“Indirect impacts, such as noxious weed invasion, 

erosion, reduced plant species diversity following 

reclamation, or lack of successful reclamation could 

also cause vegetation loss.” Reduced plant species 

diversity following reclamation and a lack of 

successful reclamation should be deleted from this 

list. The loss of vegetation occurred because of initial 

disturbance. Reclamation attempts to restore 

vegetation. If diversity following reclamation is 

lower than before disturbance, or if reclamation is 

unsuccessful, no vegetation loss has occurred in 

addition to the initial disturbance.

R-9: The sentence has been revised in the FSEIS to 

read, “Impacts, such as noxious weed invasion, 

prescribed reseeding mix and erosion, could result in 

loss of desirable vegetation.”

C-10: Page 4-233 includes the following statement: 

“... indirect impacts would include the effects of 

erosion, changes in wildlife and livestock 

distribution, unsuccessful reclamation, riparian 

community changes, and the spread of noxious 

weeds.” Riparian community changes do not have an 

indirect impact on vegetation communities and 

should be deleted from this list. The release of 

produced water into surface water can cause riparian 

community changes. The method of disposing of 

water should be listed as an impact on vegetation 

communities, rather than the resulting changes.

R-10: The sentence has been revised in the FSEIS to 

“... indirect impacts would include the effects of 

erosion, changes in wildlife and livestock 

distribution, riparian vegetation community changes, 

and the spread of noxious weeds.”

C-11: Page 4-233 includes the following statement: 

“Failure to adequately restore these acres to 

predisturbance conditions would result in a loss of 

native habitat.” Delete this sentence. The loss of 

native habitat has already occurred during initial 

disturbance. Reclamation attempts to restore 

vegetation and habitats, and no additional losses 

occur if restoration fails.

R-11: The failure to restore acres to pre-disturbance 

conditions would result in a long-term loss of native 

habitat.

C-12: Pages 4-237 and 4-241 include the following 

statement: "More roadways provide greater access 

and more potential for disturbance, poaching, or 

harassing of protected species." Poaching and 

harassing do not apply to plant species and should be 

removed from these statements.

R-12: The FSEIS has been revised to read “More 

roadways provide greater access and more potential 

for disturbance of protected species.”

C-13: Page 4-238 includes the following statement: 

"Salinity can have long-term effects on vegetation, 

including death of riparian vegetation and 

concentrations of salt in riparian soils." Death of all 

riparian vegetation will not occur. Replace with 

"including a change in riparian vegetation to more 

salt tolerant species and. ..."

R-13: The sentence has been revised in the FSEIS to: 

"Salinity can have long-term effects on vegetation, 

including changes in species composition to more 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-62

salt-tolerant species, and high concentrations of salt 

in riparian soils."

Visual Resource 

Management

Comment 1 (C-1): The SEIS includes the following 

statement on page 4-244: “Four thousand acres of 

surface mining expansion under permit consideration 

may be approved this year. This mining activity may 

affect some visual resources in those areas for the 

next 20-30 years.” The affected area covers far more 

than the 4,000 acres physically being mined. For 

example, Rosebud Battlefield State Park is 

3,052 acres, but the viewshed is estimated to be about 

11,000 acres (noted ACEC identified by MFWP and 

BLM archeologist in the 1990s). Much of the study 

area has topography similar to this state park or 

perhaps more level, extending the visual impacts of 

estimated surface mining to perhaps 14,400 acres. 

The visual effects of clearing operations for access 

road construction, site construction, drill rig 

operations, and on-site generator use will change the 

landscape line, form, color, and texture. These 

changes in aesthetics will alter the traditional use and 

ability of people to understand the events that took 

place on these lands. Many of these sites, similar to 

Rosebud Battlefield, have been preserved by private 

owners and agencies for 130 years. Mineral 

development could potentially destroy these assets in 

less than 5 years, with the impacts visible for 20 to 30 

years.

Response 1 (R-1): BLM mitigates effects to visual 

resources for site-specific proposals. See the Visual 

Resource Management and Recreation sections of 

Chapter 4.

Wildlife 

Comment 1 (C-1): An alternative should be 

developed that protects Montana's natural values, 

especially sensitive habitat for grizzly bears and other 

wildlife. There is no analysis of the road impacts or 

human-grizzly bear conflict on the survival and 

recovery of the species. BLM must provide an 

analysis using the best commercial and scientific data 

available on possible impacts to grizzlies and means 

to mitigate those impacts.

Response 1 (R-1): Alternatives B, E, and H include 

elements to protect natural resources within the 

Planning Area. Approximately 550 acres of BLMadministered estate occur within the occupied grizzly 

bear habitat. Therefore, limited impacts would be 

expected for grizzly bears. The BLM’s Biological 

Assessment to the FWS states "Garbage and other 

human refuse would be removed from drilling and 

construction sites on a daily basis in potential bear 

habitat to avoid attracting bears. Surveys for scat and 

other sign of grizzly bears in remote, sparsely roaded 

areas would be conducted prior to construction. If 

found, protocol would be established after 

consultation with FWS biologists." If a plan of 

development is submitted within grizzly bear habitat, 

specific conservation measures or protocols would be 

developed to provide additional protections.

C2: Table 1-1 indicates that the FWS’s authority 

includes the Endangered Species Act. For 

clarification, FWS also provides recommendations 

for protective measures for migratory birds in accord 

with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, *Bald and 

Golden Eagle Protection Act, Executive Orders 

11990 and 11988, CWA, Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act, and Fish and Wildlife Act.

R-2: The FSEIS has been modified to include the 

recommended language in Table 1-1.

C-3: Alternative H does not provide the same level of 

protection to crucial sage-grouse habitat as a nodevelopment alternative. There are time lags of three 

to four years involved with sage-grouse population

response to oil and gas extraction. This would allow 

significant impacts to occur before adaptive 

management has a chance to work. The pace of 

development must be slow enough to allow for 

monitoring to detect sage-grouse population level 

response before additional disturbances are allowed.

R-3: Management of sage grouse habitat has been 

modified. See Chapter 2, Alternative H under the 

Wildlife Screen.

C-4: The 20 percent surface disturbance over 20 

years (20/20) rule does not provide added protection 

for sage-grouse.

R-4: The wildlife screen for sage-grouse habitat 

management under the Preferred Alternative, 

Alternative H, has been modified. See Alternative H 

within Chapter 2.

C-5: The large amount of produced water extracted 

during CBNG extraction tends to create the right 

habitat constituents for Culex mosquitoes; therefore, 

CBNG development is likely to increase the 

incidence of West Nile virus outbreaks among sagegrouse. Any mosquito abatement program should not 

preclude use of created wetlands by other native 

species. 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-63

R-5: The SEIS acknowledges that CBNG production 

could result in increased risk of West Nile virus due 

to creation of holding ponds that could increase 

mosquito populations. The Wildlife Monitoring and 

Protection Plan (WMPP) was revised to include 

clarification that larvacides are used only in created 

holding ponds; are as environmentally sensitive as 

possible; do not accumulate in the air, soil, or water 

of a treatment site; and are not harmful to non-target 

insects. Measures to minimize mosquito populations 

in CBNG ponds are included in the WMPP. These 

BMPs are also being used on other water 

developments. The listing of these BMPs within the 

WMPP does not preclude use of other acceptable 

measures that would prove an effective element of a 

mosquito abatement program.

C-6: Full-field CBNG in the past has been 

detrimental and likely incompatible with maintenance 

of sage-grouse populations, and it is unknown what 

level of development can be withstood by sagegrouse. Loss of the Powder River Basin sage-grouse 

population could lead to demographic and genetic 

isolation of the northern population, making it more 

likely that this population would require listing under 

ESA. Sage-grouse mitigation measures need to 

address habitat on a large scale.

R-6: The wildlife screen for sage-grouse habitat 

management under the Preferred Alternative, 

Alternative H, has been modified. See Alternative H 

within Chapter 2.

C-7: Oil and gas operations negatively affect sagegrouse in all seasons, making timing restrictions 

ineffective and necessitating mitigation measures that 

effectively address sage-grouse needs in all seasons. 

Current BLM mineral lease stipulations only address 

construction impacts on wildlife. Mitigation also has 

to address the operation phase.

R-7: The wildlife screen for sage-grouse habitat 

management under the Preferred Alternative, 

Alternative H, has been modified. See Alternative H 

within Chapter 2.

C-8: Alternative H does not prevent adverse effects 

to sage-grouse within the identified crucial range. For 

adaptive management to prevent such impacts, the 

SEIS has to describe a process of monitoring and 

thresholds for guiding management decisions.

R-8: The wildlife screen for sage-grouse habitat 

management under the Preferred Alternative, 

Alternative H, has been modified. See Alternative H 

within Chapter 2.

C-9: Identification of leks to be monitored both 

inside of crucial habitats and outside of crucial 

habitats (outside of oil and gas development). It 

should be completed so that determinations can be 

made as to the adequacy of sample sizes and 

appropriateness of reference (non-developed) areas.

R-9: The wildlife screen for sage-grouse habitat 

management under the Preferred Alternative, 

Alternative H, has been modified. See Alternative H 

within Chapter 2.

C-10: Criteria have to be identified for monitoring 

data and thresholds for adaptive management actions.

R-10: Within the WMPP, under “Annual Reports and 

Meeting,” protocol requires an annual meeting by the

core team to discuss and modify, as necessary, 

proposed wildlife inventory, monitoring, and 

protection protocol for the subsequent year. See 

Monitoring Appendix.

C-11: BLM must identify mitigation circumstances 

(measures) that would allow for development if 

population is declining.

R-11: The wildlife screen under the Preferred 

Alternative, Alternative H, has been modified. See 

Alternative H within Chapter 2.

C-12: BLM should implement sage-grouse 

management elements described under Alternatives F 

or G which protect sage-grouse crucial range until it

can be demonstrated that development can occur 

without displacing the population. Outside of crucial 

sage-grouse habitat, adaptive management from 

Alternative H, along with enhanced BMPs, should be 

used to maintain habitat connectivity.

R-12: The wildlife screen for sage-grouse habitat 

management under the Preferred Alternative, 

Alternative H, has been modified. See Alternative H 

within Chapter 2.

C-13: Other sagebrush-dependent species may also 

be negatively affected by CBNG development in the 

Powder River Basin. Behavioral avoidance of roads 

indicates that the effects of project roads in oil and 

gas developments extend far from the roadbeds 

themselves and may negatively affect migratory bird 

populations. These sensitive bird species would 

benefit from a conservative approach to oil and gas 

development.

R-13: Chapter 4 of the SEIS acknowledges the 

preferred alternative will have negative effects on 

sagebrush-dependent species. BLM acknowledges 

the likelihood of impacts to some wildlife species, 

even with the use of BMPs, etc. Direct and indirect 

road-related impacts on wildlife are discussed under 

Alternative A. Chapter 2, Alternative H, discusses 

protection measures for crucial habitats, including 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-64

songbirds. In addition, elements of Alternative H 

specific to sage-grouse would offer additional 

protections for sagebrush-obligate species using 

similar habitats.

C-14: FWS supports BLM in its continued efforts to 

manage habitat for the bald eagle if the species is 

delisted, as well as the monitoring outlined in the 

WMPP. FWS encourages BLM to modify the 

monitoring plan as needed to address changing 

management needs for the species. Instead of 

continuing winter roost surveys on an annual basis, 

FWS recommends that roost surveys occur only at 

times and in years where severe winter conditions 

make roosting concentrations likely and that surveys 

occur at most every other year. FWS further 

recommends that BLM consider the entire wooded 

corridor of rivers used by wintering bald eagles be 

considered by BLM during project planning as high 

bald eagle use areas and protect them accordingly.

R-14: The WMPP was revised to reflect FWS

recommendations for monitoring. Currently, 

development is not allowed within 0.50 miles of bald 

eagle nesting habitat within riparian areas. However, 

additional conservation measures could be added at 

the POD level for specific projects based on localized 

habitat conditions or adaptive management. For roads 

and infrastructure, the operator will be required to 

demonstrate in the Project POD how proposed roads 

and infrastructure would mitigate or minimize 

impacts to affected wildlife, including bald eagles.

C-15: FWS supports the management of black-footed 

ferret habitat outlined in the WMPP. FWS should be 

notified before conducting surveys on prairie dog 

towns over 80 acres so that the need for such surveys 

can be addressed before resources are expended. 

R-15: The WMPP was modified to indicate BLM 

will notify and coordinate with FWS before 

conducting surveys on prairie dog complexes over 80 

acres.

C-16: FWS recommends no surface use or 

disturbance on prairie dog towns. Roads and 

infrastructure should be placed away from prairie dog 

towns when possible. BLM does not have to permit 

destruction of suitable prairie dog and mountain 

plover habitat simply because the agency does not 

own the surface estate. All prairie dog colonies, 

regardless of presence, absence, or suitability for 

either mountain plovers or black-footed ferrets, 

should be, at minimum, managed under no-surfaceoccupancy stipulations for oil and gas development 

and should also be excluded with a 0.25-mile buffer.

R-16: BLM oil and gas leasing decisions and lease 

stipulations, including those applicable to CBNG, 

were previously analyzed in the BLM 1992 Final Oil 

and Gas RMP/EIS Amendment. Those decisions 

were approved in the project's Record of Decision 

published in February 1994. Analyzing new or 

modified lease stipulations are therefore beyond the 

scope of this SEIS. However, additional conservation 

measures could be added at the POD level for 

specific projects based on localized habitat conditions 

or adaptive management. For roads and 

infrastructure, the operator will be required to 

demonstrate in the Project POD how proposed roads 

and infrastructure would mitigate or minimize 

impacts to affected wildlife, including prairie dogs.

C-17: With respect to restrictions contained in the 

wildlife screen, is it legal to restrain development 

until research is completed?

R-17: The management policy for sensitive species 

requires that BLM manage sage-grouse so as not to 

contribute to the species being listed under ESA. 

Much research has been completed with respect to 

sage-grouse and other wildlife within the Planning 

Area, and additional research is expected to continue. 

The concept of adaptive management allows for 

alterations based on new data, and this additional 

research will add to the knowledge base and help 

guide future decisions. Given recent research, BLM 

has elected to modify the Preferred Alternative for 

sage-grouse habitat management in Alternative H. 

See Chapter 2, Alternative H.

C-18: What is the basis for the statement "In general, 

suitable long-term sage-grouse habitat must contain a 

minimum of 1,000 contiguous acres of sagebrush and 

(be) located a minimum of 400 meters from visible 

conifers?" 

R-18: Suitable long-term, sage-grouse habitat was 

based on professional research, including GIS 

analyses that indicated grouse select habitat based on 

the amount of sagebrush habitat at the 1,000-meter 

scale and a minimum of 400 meters from visible 

conifers (Naugle 2006 [June 24]). 

C-19: While negative effects on sagebrush obligate 

species are likely, such disruption of sagebrush 

habitats will have positive effects on wildlife species 

that require more open or mixed 

sagebrush/herbaceous habitats. The prey base, which 

is known to limit raptor populations (Grant et al. 

1991), is likely to be increased with the opening up of 

the sagebrush habitat.

R-19: See changes to Preferred Alternative H, 

wildlife screen, for management of sage-grouse 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-65

habitat. Chapter 4, Wildlife, Alternative H, now 

discusses how species more closely associated with 

grassland habitats may become more common in 

some areas as sagebrush-obligate species decline 

(Knick et al. 2003). During the construction and 

production phases of the development, however, 

removed sagebrush habitat will be replaced by 

facilities and associated human disturbance and may 

compromise effective wildlife habitat until 

restoration to pre-disturbance conditions occurs.

C-20: "Restrict noise levels from production facilities 

to 49 decibels (dBA) (10 dBA above background 

noise at the lek)" (Page WMPP-13). It is not clear 

whether noise levels at all production facilities must 

be restricted to 49 dBA, or only those within a certain 

distance of an active lek. Also, there are no empirical 

data supporting this requirement.

R-20: Noise levels at all production facilities must be 

limited to 50 dBA. WDFG (2005) indicates that to 

avoid disrupting auditory displays, from March 1 

through May 15, anthropogenic sources of 

continuous or frequently intermittent noise should not 

exceed 10 dBA above natural, ambient noise 

measured at the perimeter of any occupied sagegrouse lek. From April 1 through June 30, reduce 

noise levels to 49 dBA or less within Status 1-3 

songbird breeding habitat to minimize the effects of 

continuous noise on species that rely on aural cues 

for successful breeding (Inglefinger 2001).

C-21: Tall sagebrush stands represent severe winter 

relief habitats and have to be identified to prevent 

protecting overly large areas. During severe winters 

of prolonged deep snow, there are only a few areas 

where sagebrush is tall enough to remain available to 

sage-grouse above the snow. These areas, termed 

severe winter relief habitats in a study conducted by 

Hayden-Wing Associates and the Rawlins Office of 

BLM, are described in "Vegetation and Habitat 

Analysis of Critical Wintering Areas for Greater 

Sage-Grouse" (July 2006). These severe winter relief

habitats must be identified as soon as possible to 

avoid the unnecessary protection of large areas of 

winter habitat that are not critical to sage-grouse 

survival.

R-21: Although winter range may not always be a 

limiting factor in sage-grouse populations─birds may 

be spread out over large areas during mild winters but 

clumped in less than 10 percent of the available 

habitat in severe winters (Beck 1977). Winter range 

does play an important role in population dynamics 

(Connelly et al. 2003). In Montana, protection of 

winter sagebrush habitat was reported to be important 

due to increased hen mortality during severe winters 

(Moynahan et al. 2006). In Idaho, grouse adapted to 

loss of dense sagebrush winter range by moving 1 to 

10 km to areas with greater sagebrush cover 

(Robertson 1991), thus demonstrating the importance 

of large blocks of habitat. Delineation of crucial 

winter range involves several factors, one of which 

will be presence of large blocks of tall sagebrush. 

Shorter sagebrush in areas where snow does not 

accumulate can also be important. In Colorado, Hupp 

and Braun (1989) recommend sagebrush be 

maintained in drainages and on slopes with south or 

west aspects because, during winters with deep snow 

cover, these areas would be most likely to have 

exposed sagebrush available for sage-grouse. Sagegrouse in the SEIS area are considered to be 

essentially non-migratory, meaning important 

seasonal habitats are one and the same or in close 

proximity to one another. In some areas, these crucial 

habitats have been identified. In areas where these 

crucial habitats have not been identified, they will be 

prior to APD approval. 

C-22: Existing stipulations that restrict surface 

occupancy within 0.4 km (0.25 mile) of an active lek 

are insufficient to maintain populations within 

developed oil and gas fields. Current well spacing of 

32 to 64 hectares (80 to 160 acres) appear to be 

several times greater than breeding sage-grouse 

populations can tolerate. We support using a 

minimum 1.6-km (1-mile) buffer of no surface 

occupancy around existing leks and preferably, use a 

minimum 3-km 

(1.8-mile) buffer recognizing that development 

activities within 3 km will have negative impacts on 

sage-grouse populations. Further, it is recommended 

that a 6.9-km (4-mile) buffer around leks be used to 

protect nesting and brood rearing habitat for a 

minimum of 70 percent of the nesting hens associated 

with a lek from March 1 through June 30. This 

protection should apply to both initial development 

and subsequent annual development and maintenance 

operations.

R-22: This is not a document where stipulations are 

being added. Our approach focuses on maintaining 

the functionality of crucial areas and minimizing 

disturbance in other habitats. BLM will use 

monitoring data and the wildlife screen within the 

preferred alternative to guide it in the protection of 

crucial habitat. Should data indicate the need to 

implement the suggested setbacks and restrictions, 

BLM would use Conditions of Approval and 

revisions to PODs to protect crucial habitat.

C-23: The DSEIS fails to adequately analyze how 

using CBNG-produced water for livestock will 

change distribution across these landscapes, as well 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-66

as the impacts that may result to vegetation and 

wildlife. More surface water very likely will result in 

additional fencing to manage livestock distribution; 

the effects of such additional fencing on sage-grouse 

and other wildlife are also not adequately analyzed in 

the DSEIS. BLM, in addition to stronger in-field 

stipulations, could propose extensive off-site 

mitigation where sage-grouse habitat quality is 

optimized through state-of-the-art livestock allotment 

management, herd buy-downs, or other long-term 

dedication to shrub-steppe habitat conservation.

R-23: The effects of produced water are discussed in 

the Livestock Grazing, Vegetation, and Wildlife 

sections of Chapter 4. Project-specific analyses and 

mitigation regarding how produced water will be 

handled will be evaluated in the NEPA document at 

the ADP/POD level.

C-24: CBNG development will further fragment 

prairie dog habitat, making recolonization and longterm persistence more unlikely. The FSEIS should 

include provisions to mitigate for adverse impacts on 

prairie dog colonies through establishment of large 

complexes of prairie dog towns on BLMadministered lands unaffected by CBNG 

development.

R-24: As stated in the WMPP, project activity will be 

located to avoid impacts to prairie dog colonies

determined suitable as black-footed ferret habitat.. 

Also, Table MIN-5 includes a mitigation measure to 

survey prairie dog colonies and complexes 80 acres 

or larger to determine the presence or absence of 

black-footed ferrets. The findings of this examination 

may result in some restrictions to operators’ plans.

There are no plans to consider establishment of new 

prairie dog towns.

C-25: Will the Tongue River Railroad cumulatively 

impact sage-grouse? There are no WMPP measures 

for sage-grouse except a 0.25-mile NSO and 2-mile 

April 1 to June 30 avoidance (WMPP-17, Table 2). 

Does this mean the railroad will not run in the spring 

if it passes within 2 miles of a sage-grouse lek?

R-25: The cumulative effects to sage-grouse are 

found in Chapter 4 under the heading of Conclusions 

for Alternative H. While BLM must consider and 

disclose these effects, BLM does not have the ability 

to apply protective measures to the TRR. 

C-26: The DEIS and DSEIS fail to adequately 

analyze how new roads will influence vulnerability of 

formerly inaccessible wildlife to hunter harvest.

R-26: Direct and indirect road-related impacts on 

wildlife are discussed within the Recreation and 

Wildlife sections of Chapter 4 under the heading of 

Alternative A and apply to all alternatives. These 

include impacts from increased recreational use 

(including hunting). 

C-27: This DSEIS does not provide any certainty that 

sage-grouse populations will be sustained in eastern 

Montana and northern Wyoming over the long term. 

BLM must set aside adequate areas of breeding, 

winter, and seasonal habitats to sustain large intact 

sage-grouse populations. A population goal for 

maintenance of sage-grouse in the Powder River 

Basin should be established and actions taken to 

achieve that goal by rigorous designation of critical 

habitat as is done for listed species.

R-27: The wildlife screen for sage-grouse habitat 

management under the Preferred Alternative, 

Alternative H, has been modified. See Alternative H 

within Chapter 2. The SEIS includes maps of known 

habitats likely to be important for sage-grouse and 

sets objectives for those habitats. The SEIS also 

discloses that efforts to identify additional important 

habitat will continue to work with MFWP, the state 

agency responsible for managing sage-grouse 

populations, to understand population goals. 

Designation of Critical Habitat is a requirement under 

the Endangered Species Act and does not apply to 

non-listed species.

C-28: BLM should map crucial mule deer habitat.

R-28: A map has been included in the FSEIS within 

the Wildlife section of Chapter 3.

C-29: Impacts on pronghorns should be analyzed and 

a plan developed to prevent or minimize losses.

R-29: Impacts from various CBNG-related activities, 

including roads and other infrastructure, are 

discussed in the Wildlife section of Chapter 4. Since 

the SEIS is programmatic, quantities and locations of 

site-specific impacts from development are not 

known with respect to existing pronghorn 

populations or habitat. Existing oil and gas lease 

stipulations and provisions within the SEIS include 

protective measures for big game species, including 

pronghorns. 

C-30: Development should also include taking all 

measures to reduce the potential of CBNG ponds to 

produce late summer mosquito populations that infect 

sage-grouse with West Nile Virus.

R-30: Monitoring will tell BLM what protective 

measures need to be added, removed or modified. 

See the WMPP protective measures under Sage and 

Sharp-tail grouse, Control of West Nile Virus.

C-31: The DSEIS again offers no baseline data in its 

analysis of wildlife impacts, specifically, data or 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-67

information on current population numbers, trends, 

geographic distribution, or any quantifiable 

information on the amount and quality of existing 

habitat is not presented for a single species of wildlife 

to serve as a basis for design of alternatives. 

Additionally, the list of species of concern/sensitive 

presented in Table WIL-1 does not seem to match the 

list of sensitive species from the Montana Natural 

Heritage Program.

R-31: The Wildlife section of Chapter 3 includes the 

most recent information available regarding relevant 

wildlife species populations and trends at the time the 

document was prepared. Crucial habitats for big 

game and sage-grouse have been identified across the 

planning area, based on MFWP and BLM data. 

Potential crucial habitats for other species will be 

analyzed continually throughout the planning 

process. Crucial habitats were integrated as part of 

the design criteria for alternatives. A map showing 

crucial big game habitat areas within the PRB has 

been added to the FSEIS within the Wildlife section

of Chapter 3. BLM and MFWP are and will continue 

to collect baseline and monitoring data for selected 

species of wildlife.

The potential for project-related CBNG activities to 

have an impact on these species and their habitat is 

presented within the Wildlife section of Chapter 4. 

The species listed on Table WIL-1 are those which 

have been identified as being present within the 

Planning Area. Not all of the species of concern 

listed by the Natural Heritage Program would be 

present within the Planning Area. The wildlife screen 

for sage-grouse habitat management under the 

Preferred Alternative, Alternative H, has been 

modified. See Alternative H within Chapter 2.

C-32: BMPs are voluntary, and BLM should be 

working with CBNG operators and surface owners 

regarding their voluntary implementation in crucial 

sage-grouse habitat areas where the species is 

present. The DSEIS does not acknowledge the 

surface owner's role in sage-grouse habitat protection.

R-32: BLM encourages all energy companies to 

develop and add BMPs into all of their drilling 

proposals. Because BMPs are so important for 

protecting the resources we manage as stewards of 

the public lands, the BLM can and will require 

energy companies to use appropriate BMPs, through

the use of conditions of approval if determined

necessary as part of the POD review.

C-33: The displacement criteria for sage-grouse are 

inconsistent. On page 2-21, the DSEIS provides that 

no displacement can occur. This provision should be 

deleted. On page 2-26; the DSEIS provides that 

monitoring should take place to "ensure development 

is not displacing sage-grouse to the point that a 

sustainable population is not maintained.” 

R-33: The language on page 2-21 of the DSEIS states 

that displacement of sage-grouse from crucial habitat 

areas should be avoided. This is consistent with the 

language as noted on page 2-26 of the DSEIS. The 

wildlife screen for sage-grouse habitat management 

under the Preferred Alternative, Alternative H, has 

been modified. See Alternative H within Chapter 2.

C-34: The DSEIS does not reference the report, 

"Greater Sage-Grouse Lek Counts (2000-2006) in 

and around Fidelity Exploration & Production 

Company's Coalbed Natural Gas Development Areas 

in Big Horn County, Montana and Sheridan County, 

Wyoming," prepared by Hayden-Wing Associates 

and dated September 2006. The DSEIS should also 

include the recent data collected by the Wyoming 

Game and Fish Commission on sage-grouse 

populations in Wyoming. Sage-grouse should be 

listed under "Upland Game Birds" instead of under 

"State Species of Special Concern." The DSEIS does 

not advise the reader that the sage-grouse is a game 

bird. The DSEIS should also discuss sage-grouse 

observations that have been documented at the Cedar 

Creek Anticline.

R-34: The DSEIS included information available at 

the time the document was prepared; the referenced 

document was not available before the DSEIS went 

to print. Sage-grouse is included as an Upland Game 

Bird species within the Wildlife section of Chapter 3; 

however, it is also a State Species of Special 

Concern. BLM included consideration of region-wide 

sage-grouse data in the SEIS and in formulation of 

the wildlife screen under the Preferred Alternative, 

Alternative H, but did not include data specific to the 

Cedar Creek Anticline as it is outside of the Planning 

Area. The Preferred Alternative for sage-grouse 

habitat management has been modified in Alternative 

H. See Chapter 2, Wildlife section.

C-35: Do any of the studies mentioned include nonCBNG reservoirs or impoundments? The DSEIS 

does not provide a discussion of the region-wide 

West Nile Virus epidemic in Wyoming, Colorado, 

Montana, and Idaho (non-CBNG).

R-35: A regional discussion of the effect that West 

Nile Virus has had on sage-grouse is presented within 

the Wildlife section of Chapter 3 under the heading 

of West Nile Virus. The data presented are, in part, 

for four radio-marked populations of sage-grouse in 

Wyoming, Montana, and Canada.
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-68

C-36: Page 3-123 includes the following statement: 

"In 2006, Naugle utilizing satellite imagery identified 

priority habitats for sage-grouse in the PRB. This 

information identified areas of high value sagegrouse habitat. This mapping utilized several 

components including, roughness, sagebrush 

coverage (height/abundance), and distance from 

conifers. In general, suitable long term sage-grouse 

habitat must contain a minimum of 1000 contiguous 

acres of sage brush and located a minimum of 400 

meters from visible conifers." The DSEIS fails to 

advise the reader of the accuracy of the satellite 

imagery used and that the data have not been groundtruthed. The DSEIS should address what other 

quantitative parameters were factored into the 

formulation of this conclusion.

R-36: The FSEIS was revised to describe criteria for 

the mapping data sources. Doherty et al. (2007 in 

press) found that sage-grouse selected winter sites 

that had a greater than 75 percent sagebrush cover in 

a 4-square-km area. Some areas have been ground 

truthed.

C-37: Page 3-123 includes the following statement: 

"Much of the recent research conducted by Holloran 

and Naugle, et al. focuses on the impact of CBNG 

development on male sage-grouse attendance on 

strutting grounds." Holloran did not do any research 

on CBNG development. Matt Holloran's research was 

in southwest Wyoming and mainly focused on 

natural gas development in the Jonah Field and the 

Pinedale Anticline.

R-37: The FSEIS has been revised to clarify where 

Holloran's research was conducted.

C-38: The DSEIS does not include the sage-grouse 

data that were collected for the Fidelity Exploration 

& Production Company, Montana 2002-2003 

Drilling Area, Baseline Wildlife Inventory or for the 

Fidelity Exploration & Production Company, 

Proposed Coal Creek POD, Big Horn County, 

Baseline Wildlife Inventory.

R-38: The referenced data, as well as data from other 

sources, were considered in the development of the 

DSEIS. The referenced documents are summarized 

within the Wildlife section of Chapter 3 under the 

heading of Wildlife Surveys and Monitoring Since 

the Statewide Document and are included as 

references within the Bibliography.

C-39: The Montana Board of Oil and Gas 

Conservation does not have statutory authority to 

apply sage-grouse protection standards to APDs. 

BMPs are to be voluntary and not mandatory. Does 

BLM have data that show habitat connectivity exists 

today? The section on sage-grouse habitat (page 2-

21) is poorly defined. The section does not specify 

how BLM will maintain the connectivity of sagegrouse habitat and allow for genetic diversity and 

repopulation. At this stage, BLM is committing to 

work with operators, landowners, FWS, and Montana 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks to identify BMPs and 

alternate development schemes, yet the result will be 

restricting the pace of development in crucial habitat 

areas.

R-39: MBOGC conducts environmental reviews and 

issues drilling permits for all private, state, and most 

federal lands (excluding proposals on allotted or 

tribal minerals). To provide for the mitigation of 

potential effects to sage-grouse within the Planning 

Area, BLM will work with the MBOGC to 

incorporate and encourage the use of BMPs for 

CBNG development on state and private lands. The 

BMPs would be used, as appropriate, in CBNG 

development and would be included as part of 

approved PODs. With respect to sage-grouse 

connectivity, a discussion of sage-grouse distribution 

is included in the Wildlife section of Chapter 3 under 

the heading of Sage-grouse Distribution, Habitat 

Needs, and Population Dynamics. Additionally, Map 

3-12 shows sage-grouse distribution and connectivity 

within the Planning Area, while Map 3-14 shows 

sage-grouse distribution and connectivity throughout 

Montana and Wyoming, as well as parts of North and 

South Dakota. Through the use of adaptive 

management and the implementation of BMPs, 

existing habitat and connectivity can be maintained. 

The commenter is correct in noting implementation 

of the provisions of the wildlife screen under the 

Preferred Alternative, Alternative H, would likely 

result in some CBNG development delays, 

particularly in areas where crucial habitat is present.

C-40: "The goal of the WMPP is to avoid or 

minimize impacts to wildlife and serve as a 

communication tool to foster cooperative 

relationships among the CBNG and conventional Oil 

and Gas industry (i.e., Operators), resource 

management agencies, landowners and adjacent 

Tribal Governments" (Wildlife Appendix, page 

WMPP-1). The goal of the WMPP should include the 

documentation of both beneficial and negative 

changes to the species that occur on project areas.

R-40: The WMPP has many functions; one would be 

to document changes, both positive and negative, to a 

species to guide ongoing and future actions. 

However, the goal of the WMPP is as stated, “...to 

avoid or minimize impacts to wildlife and serve as a 

communication tool....” 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-69

C-41: "Surface use is prohibited between 

April 1 - June 30 in grouse nesting habitat within 

2 miles of a known lek." (Wildlife Appendix, page 

WMPP-8). BLM is proposing to shift and expand the 

timing limitation stipulation from March 1 to June 

15. What is the basis for such change?

R-41: The wildlife screen for sage-grouse habitat 

management under the Preferred Alternative, 

Alternative H, has been modified; see Alternative H 

within Chapter 2. See the Wildlife Appendix for 

proposed changes with respect to surface use near a 

lek.

C-42: "Manage produced water to reduce the spread 

of West Nile virus within sage-grouse habitat areas. 

Implement the following impoundment construction 

techniques to eliminate water sources that support 

breeding mosquitoes" (Wildlife Appendix, page 

WMPP-8). The goal to "eliminate water sources that 

support breeding mosquitoes" is unrealistic. There are 

several natural and man-made impoundments 

(excluding CBNG-produced water impoundments) 

that contain mosquito habitat. The techniques should 

be recommended, not mandated, practices. The 

construction of the CBNG-produced water 

impoundment should take into account the surface 

owner's needs and desires. 

R-42: The WMPP includes measures aimed at 

reducing the impact of produced water on West Nile 

Virus. BLM would not eliminate all water sources, 

but would implement the use of stipulations to 

minimize the potential for CBNG impoundments to 

provide mosquito habitat. BLM would work with 

surface owners and the operators in meeting the 

needs of the surface owner where conditions allowed.

C-43: "Locate storage facilities, generators, and 

holding tanks outside the line of sight and sound of 

important sage-grouse breeding habitat" (Page 

WMPP -13). No empirical data support the 

requirement to locate storage facilities, generators, 

and holding tanks outside the line of sight and sound 

of important sage-grouse breeding habitat. Is "sagegrouse breeding habitat" the same as a sage-grouse 

lek? BLM already has a 0.25-mile, no-surfaceoccupancy stipulation protecting leks. Is this an 

additional stipulation that is being implemented 

through programmatic guidance?

R-43: The requirement is directly from the Montana 

State Sage Grouse Management Plan and 

Conservation Strategies (MSGWP 2005). The sagegrouse breeding habitat is essentially the same as the 

identified crucial sage-grouse habitats. The 

requirement for locating storage facilities, generators, 

and holding tanks outside the line of sight and sound 

of important sage-grouse breeding habitat is in 

addition to the 0.25-mile NSO stipulation for 

protecting leks.

The wildlife screen for sage-grouse habitat 

management under the Preferred Alternative, 

Alternative H, has been modified. See Alternative H 

within Chapter 2 and the Wildlife Appendix for 

proposed changes with respect to surface use near a 

lek.

C-44: Corridors undeveloped to allow for wildlife 

movement is a very good idea, but this is not phased 

development. In contrast, phased development to 

protect wildlife populations and habitat would have 

to concentrate on limiting the geographic and 

temporal scope of development in a given area in 

ways designed to leave enough habitat for species to 

coexist with development at each point in time during 

the life of the project, from drilling through 

extraction to reclamation.

R-44: BLM is aware there may be some crucial sagegrouse habitat irreversibly committed while 

monitoring and research are conducted to test the 

application of BMPs and identify new ones. The 

Preferred Alternative, Alternative H, has the 

objective of "maintaining the connectivity of sagegrouse habitat within the PRB and adjacent regions 

and maintenance of source populations for 

repopulation of areas from which displacement may 

have occurred due to CBNG development.” 

Monitoring data will be used to develop and apply 

BMPs sufficient to protect sagebrush habitat and 

sage-grouse source populations.

C-45: Regarding the definition of surface disturbance 

in crucial habitat areas (page 2-21), BLM does not 

provide any references to substantiate the 200 meters 

on both sides of main roads as a direct disturbance. 

What data did BLM use to generate this definition? 

This stipulation does not provide flexibility in road 

use, such as during construction versus during the 

production phase. Also, BLM does not account for

well maintenance activities, such as workovers or the 

pulling of pumps. BLM's statements about what 

wildlife will avoid and not avoid are not substantiated 

by any technical reference. Main arterial roads are 

not defined. It appears that BLM is trying to define 

arterial roads as roads that have a high traffic volume 

of 12 vehicles per day. Therefore, BLM would 

consider a road that has one vehicle every 

2 hours during a 24 hour day a high-traffic road.

R-45: There are numerous documents referenced in 

the Wildlife section of Chapter 3 which discusses the 

impact of roads to wildlife. Research indicates some 

wildlife species are negatively impacted by roads, 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-70

regardless of the amount of use. The wildlife screen 

for sage-grouse habitat management under the 

Preferred Alternative, Alternative H, has been 

modified. See Alternative H within Chapter 2.

C-46: Regarding the adaptive management objectives 

listed on page 2-21, how is a CBNG operator going 

to prove that operation will maintain the connectivity 

of sage-grouse habitat within the PRB and adjacent 

regions? Adjacent regions are not identified. BLM is 

putting the burden on CBNG operators to prove a 

negative. How are we to prove that our operation will 

not cause a temporary displacement? Where are the 

data that show displacement as being detrimental to 

the species? 

R-46: The wildlife screen for sage-grouse habitat 

management under the Preferred Alternative, 

Alternative H, has been modified. See Alternative H 

within Chapter 2. Operators will need to follow the 

guidelines and requirements under Alternative H and 

management Common.

Literature has been cited documenting the adverse 

effects of temporary displacement of sage grouse. 

C-47: The new sage-grouse crucial habitat 

restrictions are based upon a preliminary report from 

the University of Montana that has not been validated 

or peer-reviewed. It is irresponsible of BLM to 

implement such preliminary research when on-theground data (HWA Greater Sage-Grouse Lek Counts, 

2000, 2006) in and around Fidelity Exploration & 

Production Company's Coalbed Natural Gas 

Development Areas in Big Horn County, Montana, 

and Sheridan County, Wyoming, show that sagegrouse are still using leks within Fidelity's 

development. Holding up CBNG development until 

the completion of research to identify crucial brood, 

rearing, and nesting habitat areas does not honor an 

oil and gas lessee's valid existing rights to explore 

and develop his leases.

R-47: Interim reports were used because they were 

the information available at the time the DSEIS was 

released; since that time, the University of Montana 

report referenced has been peer-reviewed. It is not 

BLM’s intent to either delay or hold up CBNG 

development, but rather to provide a means for 

CBNG development to proceed without unacceptable 

impacts to wildlife habitat within the Planning Area. 

The agency recognizes some delay will likely occur 

within areas with crucial habitat. The Preferred 

Alternative for sage-grouse habitat management has 

been modified in Alternative H. See Chapters 2 and 4 

under the Wildlife section.

C-48: The assumption in Alternative H that CBNG 

development is to blame for any reduction in wildlife 

populations without analyzing other causes, such as 

drought or severe winters, is not borne out by 

scientific data.

R-48: The potential for project-related, CBNG 

development activities to impact wildlife is detailed 

within the Wildlife section of Chapter 4. Additional 

discussion of the potential for other factors, such as 

drought, to impact wildlife populations is contained 

in the FSEIS within the Hydrological Resources and

Wildlife sections of Chapter 3.

C-49: CBNG standard stipulations are clearly 

insufficient to prevent significant impacts to and 

ultimate depopulation of sage-grouse. Proposed well 

densities of 80 to 160 acres spacing should be 

expected to have heavy impacts on sage-grouse 

populations. BLM has not planned the location of 

wells and roads; the agency will not be able to 

analyze the direct and cumulative impacts of the 

project on sage-grouse, either on a project-wide basis

or lek by lek.

R-49: Cumulative effects are assessed in the SEIS; 

see Chapter 4. Project-specific environmental 

assessments, as well as WMPPs, are required for 

each POD. All potential impacts, direct and 

cumulative, resulting from a specific project would

be identified during the development of the project 

environmental assessment (EA).

C-50: What exactly does the BLM define as "within 

suitable mountain plover habitat?"

R-50: The WMPP, in the Wildlife Appendix, states 

that BLM, FWS, and MFWP will estimate potential 

mountain plover habitat to determine the 

presence/absence of potentially suitable mountain 

plover habitat. Additionally, within the Wildlife 

section of Chapter 3 under the heading of Mountain 

Plover it is stated that the mountain plover “prefers 

relatively flat sites with very short grass and scattered 

cactus.” Intensive grazing is beneficial for mountain 

plovers, and mountain plovers also regularly occupy 

prairie dog towns. High, arid plains and shortgrass 

prairie with blue grama-buffalo grass communities 

are the primary habitat.

C-51: BLM should undertake a detailed analysis of 

burrowing owl population numbers and trends in the 

Powder River Basin and thoroughly analyze the 

impact of the proposed plan amendment's various 

alternatives on burrowing owl population viability.

R-51: Raptor surveys conducted from 2002 to 2005 

in proposed CBNG drilling and pipeline development 

areas in Big Horn and Powder River counties 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-71

documented active burrowing owl nesting areas (see 

the Wildlife section of Chapter 3 under the heading 

of Wildlife Surveys and Monitoring Since the 

Statewide Document). BLM will continue to update 

burrowing owl population data as surveys are 

conducted and will incorporate the information into 

the WMPP.

C-52: BLM should undertake a detailed analysis of 

swift fox population numbers and trends on the 

Powder River Basin and thoroughly analyze the 

impact of the proposed plan amendment's various 

alternatives on swift fox population viability.

R-52: The swift fox is discussed within the Native 

Americans Concern section of Chapter 3 under the 

heading of Wildlife which states that the swift fox 

was “removed as a Candidate Species for Threatened 

Status by the FWS on January 8, 2001. Their 

numbers are believed to be stable, but there is still 

concern for their future.” BLM does not believe that 

additional surveys are warranted at this time. Should 

additional data become available, then BLM would 

reconsider the need for swift fox surveys.

C-53: Potential black footed ferret recovery areas 

should be ACECs.

R-53: In order to consider this for an ACEC, 

additional planning must occur.

C-54: Because prairie dogs are already stressed by 

endemic or epidemic levels of sylvatic plague, 

stronger conservation measures are needed to prevent 

impacts from activities that can, in fact, be controlled. 

This analysis has not been attempted by BLM, in 

violation of NEPA.

R-54: BLM recognizes the potential for plague to 

impact prairie dog populations. The WMPP, included 

within the Wildlife Appendix, states the following:

“Prairie dog towns on BLM lands within 0.5 miles of 

a specific project area will be identified, mapped and 

surveyed....” In addition, reference prairie dog 

colonies subject to development will be identified. 

On an annual basis, BLM and/or a BLM-approved, 

operator-financed biologist will survey, at least a 

portion of, the prairie dog colonies, including the 

reference colonies. Prairie dog populations may be

subject to population fluctuations primarily due to 

disease (plague). Therefore, efforts will be made to 

compare the data from the reference colonies with 

that obtained from the project areas, in order to 

monitor the response of prairie dog population to 

CBNG development.

C-55: The actual road avoidance zone for deer is 

much larger than 200 meters, and elk have been 

found to avoid areas within 0.6 to 1.2 miles from a 

road as a result of vehicle-related disturbance (Powell 

2003; Sawyer and Neilson 2005).

R-55: The 200 meter road requirement has changed. 

See Chapter 2, Alternative H, Wildlife Screen. One 

of the wildlife objectives is to protect wildlife species 

that rely seasonally or yearlong on crucial habitats.

C-56: Several studies have shown that elk abandon 

calving and winter ranges in response to oil field 

development. Thus, winter range areas should be 

withdrawn from the surface disturbances associated 

with oil and gas development, and leased only under 

no-surface-occupancy stipulations.

R-56: A map has been added to the FSEIS showing 

winter habitat within the Planning Area for deer, 

antelope, and elk. BLM will work with MFWP to 

gather additional data and further refine protection 

measures as necessary within any of these potential 

areas. The SEIS is not a leasing document (see 

Chapter 2, “Alternatives Considered but not 

Analyzed in Detail, “Leasing” for further discussion.)

C-57: How much of the landscape will be within 100 

meters of a road or well pad under each alternative 

resulting in habitat function losses for migratory 

birds?

R-57: A discussion of the potential impacts to 

migratory birds resulting from project-related CBNG 

activities is contained within the Wildlife section of 

Chapter 4 under the heading of Alternative A. Not all 

roads or well pads within the Planning area would be 

constructed within suitable habitat for migratory 

birds; therefore, a discussion of the number of acres 

within 100 m of a road or well pad would not provide 

usable data for assessing potential impacts. Project 

specific environmental assessments and wildlife 

monitoring and protection plans are required for each 

POD. Should an environmental assessment identify 

the potential for project-related activities to impact 

sensitive habitat for migratory birds, then measures to 

mitigate the potential impacts to that habitat would be 

outlined in the wildlife monitoring and protection 

plan.

C-58: BLM fails to provide baseline information 

about the size of the present mountain plover 

population and also fails to predict the population 

trend as a result of the project. Recent studies have 

documented mountain plover population extinction 

with oil and gas development in Utah.

R-58: There are limited data available to quantify the 

population of mountain plovers in the Project Area. 

BLM has conducted mountain plover surveys in 

various locations as described in the DSEIS, within 

the Wildlife section of Chapter 3 under the heading 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-72

of Mountain Plover, and has not found any mountain 

plovers.

C-59: Simply listing and not analyzing the 

effectiveness of mountain plover mitigation measures 

results in violation of NEPA. BLM has failed to 

provide any support or analysis of the effectiveness 

of seasonal mitigation measures for wildlife, 

including big game, despite its obligations under 

NEPA.

R-59: Mitigation measures for mountain plover 

consist of surveying development areas for potential 

nesting sites and avoiding construction and 

exploration activities in any identified nesting areas 

during the nesting period from May 1 through June 

15 to ensure potential nesting mountain plovers are 

not prevented from setting up territories as a result of 

the presence of equipment and humans. A discussion 

of mountain plover mitigation measures, including 

the rational for the mitigation measure, is included in 

the Wildlife section of Chapter 4 under the heading 

of Alternative A, Mountain Plover. The effectiveness 

of mitigation measures, including seasonal mitigation 

measures, in avoiding or minimizing impacts is 

discussed under the heading of Conclusions for each 

alternative within Chapter 4. Additionally, using 

adaptive management techniques, as outlined in the 

Preferred Alternative, Alternative H, would allow for 

monitoring and adjustment of existing and new 

mitigation measures to ensure they provide some 

level of protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

C-60: Mitigation measures must use a buffer size 

adequate to result in only minor impacts.

R-60: The buffers proposed are appropriate for 

maintaining wildlife and wildlife habitat. BLM would 

evaluate new data as it becomes available, or new 

data developed through the use of adaptive 

management, that show the need for adjusting a 

buffer to better protect wildlife or wildlife habitat.

BLM would then adjust the buffer accordingly.

C-61: Potentially disruptive activities that occur in 

sensitive habitats after construction and drilling are 

completed negate the mitigation value of seasonal 

restrictions as proposed by BLM.

R-61: The WMPP includes seasonal restrictions 

developed through consultation with MFWP and 

FWS. While not eliminating all adverse impacts that 

could occur, the seasonal restrictions do reduce the 

level of impact during the most crucial time periods. 

As stated in the WMPP, additional conservation 

measures will be incorporated through the Project 

Plan design or as conditions of approval. When 

reviewing PODs, BLM will use currently available 

information regarding effects of CBNG development 

to develop additional protective measures where 

appropriate. 

C-62: A reasonable alternative would be to place a 

moratorium on the construction of wells, roads, and 

other infrastructure for the important nesting habitat 

that occurs within 3 miles of a sage-grouse lek, or 

within 1 mile of a sharp-tailed grouse lek.

R-62: The Wildlife Screen for sage-grouse habitat 

management under the Preferred Alternative, 

Alternative H, has been modified. See Alternative H 

within Chapter 2. No development in crucial habitat 

was analyzed in Alternative F and H. the assumption 

used for the analysis ranged from no development to 

full field development.

C-63: Oil and gas development poses perhaps the 

greatest threat to sage-grouse viability in the region. 

Dr. Braun's Blueprint for Sage-grouse Conservation 

and Recovery should be implemented in the context 

of the Montana Powder River Basin CBNG SEIS 

process.

R-63: The wildlife screen for sage-grouse habitat 

management under the Preferred Alternative, 

Alternative H, has been modified. See Alternative H 

within Chapter 2.

C-64: There has been no disclosure or analysis of the 

effectiveness of mitigation measures proposed for 

sage-grouse within the planning area.

R-64: The wildlife screen for sage-grouse habitat 

management under the Preferred Alternative, 

Alternative H, has been modified. See Alternative H 

within Chapter 2.

C-65: BLM has repeatedly failed to provide any 

analysis, whether field experiments or literature 

reviews, that examines the effectiveness of the 

proposed 0.25-mile buffers where disturbance would 

be prevented. Roads and wells would still be built 

within 2 miles of sage-grouse leks and within 1 mile 

of sharp-tailed grouse leks as long as construction 

occurred outside the breeding/nesting season. This is 

the very area for which experts have recommended 

that no oil and gas facilities or infrastructure be built 

(Connelly et al. 2000).

R-65: See the Monitoring Appendix for management 

options BLM could take if a threshold is reached. 

The wildlife screen for sage-grouse habitat 

management under the Preferred Alternative, 

Alternative H, has been modified. See Alternative H 

within Chapter 2.

C-66: Mitigation measures have to allow pronghorns, 

elk, and mule deer to migrate and use their winter 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-73

ranges optimally. Such a mitigation measure would 

be allowing no surface disturbance on big game 

crucial winter range and migration corridors. BLM 

should also analyze an alternative that at least 

requires all roads within big game crucial winter 

range and migration corridors to be gated and places 

a moratorium on all human presence and vehicle 

traffic within crucial winter range and migration 

corridors between November 15 and April 30. 

R-66: The FSEIS is not a leasing document where 

stipulations are developed. See Chapter 2, 

Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed, Leasing.

Current stipulations to minimize the potential for 

impacts to big game species from project-related 

CBNG activities require no surface use of big game 

winter range areas from December 1 through March 

31 for development related activities. While not 

eliminating all adverse impacts, this seasonal 

restriction does reduce the level of potential impacts 

during the most crucial time. Additional data could 

indicate the timing of this stipulation should be 

adjusted, BLM could adjust the stipulation 

accordingly. There appears to be little to no seasonal 

migration for mule and white-tailed deer within the 

Planning Area. Should additional data be developed 

indicating migration corridors for other big game 

animals would have to be protected to avoid 

unacceptable impacts, then BLM could adjust the 

stipulation accordingly. Chapter 2 states BLM could 

require actions such as restricting use in crucial 

habitats to protect wildlife or their habitats.

C-67: BLM has provided no evidence that a road 

density of 3 miles per square mile will support big 

game (or other wildlife). The best available science 

indicates that densities must be held below 1 mile per 

square mile to maintain habitat function.

R-67: The wildlife screen for the management of 

wildlife habitat under the Preferred Alternative, 

Alternative H, has been modified. See Alternative H 

within Chapter 2.

C-68: We are concerned that "active" raptor nest sites 

are defined as only those that have been occupied 

during the past 2 years. Most raptors have multiple 

alternate nest sites that are used repeatedly within a 

nesting territory, yet it is common for a nest site to go 

unused for two or more years, only to have nesting 

use return again. BLM should analyze and present the 

monitoring data it has in its own files, compare 

presence and nest success data to proximity to wells 

and roads (which data the BLM also possesses), and 

present some conclusions on the effectiveness of 

seasonal mitigation measures by species.

R-68: The revised WMPP includes seasonal 

restrictions that were developed through consultation 

with MFWP and FWS. The criteria to determine nest 

activity was modified to seven years. The WMPP 

will monitor effectiveness of the seasonal restrictions 

around raptor nests.

C-69: BLM should establish adequate nest buffers (a 

minimum of 1 mile in diameter for all species, with 

larger buffers for ferruginous hawks) around nest 

sites, preventing all construction of developments 

(such as wells and roads) that would lead to future 

disturbance of nesting raptors through focusing 

human activities in these areas. Seasonal restrictions 

are insufficient.

R-69: BLM has implemented a 1⁄2 mile No Surface 

Occupancy stipulation around Ferruginous Hawk 

nests and timing restriction of 1⁄2 mile around all 

raptor nests. The WMPP includes buffers around 

raptor nests, based on consultation with MFWP and 

FWS. Adaptive management will provide an 

opportunity to evaluate the need to modify buffers. 

POD approval will include site-specific assessment 

of well and road placement relative to raptor nests to 

avoid continued disturbance.

C-70: The DSEIS presents no population estimates 

for sage-grouse. How many of the leks are currently 

active, how many inactive, and how many historic? 

What are the lek count data at each lek (lek count 

data should be readily available for many leks)? 

What proportion of the nationwide populations of 

these species are represented by the populations in 

the planning area? What are the lek attendance trends 

for each lek, and what current human activities are 

affecting these trends?

R-70: Data on the number of active leks surveyed 

and average male attendance at those leks is included 

within the Wildlife section of Chapter 3. In addition, 

an annual report summarizing monitoring

information, as outlined in the WMPP will track the 

status of leks in and adjacent to development. A 

discussion of sage-grouse population relevant to the 

Planning Area is also included within the Wildlife 

section of Chapter 3 under the heading of Sagegrouse Distribution, Habitat Needs, and Population 

Dynamics.

C-71: BLM has made no attempt to gather

comprehensive baseline information on nesting 

raptors throughout the planning area. 

R-71: Available data on raptors is included within 

the Wildlife section of Chapter 3 and within the 

Wildlife Appendix, Wildlife Monitoring and 

Protection Plan, and the Biological Assessment. In 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-74

addition, inventory/monitoring for raptors has been 

conducted and will continue.

C-72: It is certain that elk and pronghorn populations 

are migrating freely across the state line and the 

cumulative effects analysis is equally lacking. 

Numerous species of migratory birds (passerines and 

raptors, including BLM sensitive and threatened 

species under the Endangered Species Act [ESA]) are 

listed in the DSEIS, yet BLM makes no attempt to 

look cumulatively at the factors affecting their 

population dynamics range-wide. Both prairie dogs 

and sage-grouse found within the planning area are 

parts of a larger common population shared between 

Montana and Wyoming, yet the agency makes no 

effort to examine the impacts of development in 

Wyoming in the context of making an overall 

assessment of population viability for these species. 

R-72: Potential impacts resulting from project-related 

CBNG activities, including potential cumulative 

impacts, are discussed within the Wildlife section of 

Chapter 4. Additional analyses would be conducted 

at the site-specific POD level.

C-73: The DSEIS inappropriately abandoned a 

flexible adaptive management strategy designed to 

provide protection for wildlife without needlessly 

creating uncertainty and impeding development. 

Instead, preferred Alternative H mandates, in 

advance, blanket imposition of a set of undefined 

mitigation measures, an approach that unnecessarily 

restricts BLM's flexibility.

R-73: The wildlife screen for the management of 

wildlife habitat under the Preferred Alternative, 

Alternative H, has been modified. See Alternative H 

within Chapter 2.

C-74: Please define/explain the proposed factors that 

are included in the definition or identification of a 

crucial habitat area. Furthermore, please 

define/explain any crucial habitat areas within the 

Powder River Basin and cross-reference them with 

the oil and gas leases they affect.

R-74: Crucial habitats are defined using 

BLM/MFWP data, research findings, etc. Crucial 

habitats for sage-grouse, big game, and migratory 

songbirds include areas necessary for maintaining 

viable populations. The specific requirements 

encompass habitats for breeding, raising young, 

foraging, and wintering. Sage-grouse crucial habitat 

consists of large intact patches of sagebrush. Big 

game crucial habitat includes winter range and elk 

calving areas. Migratory bird crucial habitat includes 

sagebrush, native grassland, riparian, and wetland 

communities. CBNG development potentially 

affecting any particular crucial habitat would be 

assessed at the individual POD level. Maps showing 

crucial habitat within the planning area are contained 

within the Wildlife section of Chapter 3.

C-75: Please include detailed documentation on how 

four crucial sage-grouse habitat (page 3-124) areas 

were delineated.

R-75: Information on how crucial sage-grouse 

habitat was determined is presented within the 

Wildlife section of Chapter 3 under the heading of 

Ongoing Sage-grouse Habitat and Oil and Gas 

Research.

C-76: Please clarify/explain how BLM proposes to 

manage the sage-grouse population within the crucial 

habitat areas given the hunting of this species, 

especially in light of the recent public identification 

of these areas as crucial sage-grouse habitat.

R-76: MFWP is responsible for setting hunting 

harvests and managing the sage-grouse population. 

BLM will manage the habitat in the area in a manner 

consistent with maintaining a viable population. 

C-77: Please define/explain the process an operator 

can take (i.e., wildlife surveys, monitoring, mitigation 

measures, etc.) if an operator chooses to develop 

within a crucial sage-grouse habitat area.

R-77: The wildlife screen for the management of 

wildlife habitat under the Preferred Alternative, 

Alternative H, has been modified. See Alternative H 

within Chapter 2. In general, an operator will need to 

demonstrate how the development/ production of the 

CBNG wells could occur while still protecting 

wildlife species that rely seasonally or year-long on 

crucial habitats.

C-78: There is a concern that BLM could use the 

lack of information to prevent operators from 

exercising their lease rights until they have had time 

to collect relevant sage-grouse data before submitting 

a POD. This requirement is unwarranted because 

preliminary research, which is the foundation of this 

requirement, has not been finalized and peerreviewed. Therefore, we recommend this screen be 

eliminated or revised to accommodate the concept of 

adaptive management, whereby monitoring could be 

used to establish whether there are significant 

negative impacts during operations, as well as 

appropriate mitigation measures. 

R-78: Since the publication of the DSEIS, the 

referenced research has been peer reviewed. The 

wildlife screen for the management of sage-grouse 

habitat under the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-75

H, has been modified. See Alternative H within 

Chapter 2.

C-79: Conservation actions have to consider the 

relationship between CBNG and West Nile Virus and 

attempt to mitigate those conditions conducive to its 

spread. The commenter supports reducing the 

potential of CBNG impoundments to produce late 

summer mosquito populations that vector West Nile 

Virus. The DSEIS fails to consider groundwater 

reinjection as an alternative, which could limit some 

sources of West Nile Virus infestation.

R-79: The potential for CBNG-produced water 

managed in surface impoundments to increase the 

availability of surface water bodies, which in turn 

may increase mosquito populations within a given 

POD area, is discussed within the Wildlife section of 

Chapter 4. Mitigation measures that would be 

implemented to minimize the potential for CBNG 

surface water impoundments to serve as breeding 

grounds for mosquitoes are contained within the 

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan included in 

the Wildlife Appendix. One alternative to the surface 

management of produced water is subsurface 

injection. Subsurface injection or reinjection of 

produced water would make it unavailable for 

mosquito breeding. Subsurface injection or reinjection as a method of produced water management 

is discussed under the Hydrological Resources 

section of Chapter 4.

C-80: The DSEIS fails to address how a CBNG 

operator will prove that operation will maintain the 

connectivity of sage-grouse habitat within the PRB 

and adjacent regions. 

R-80: The wildlife screen for the management of 

sage-grouse habitat under the Preferred Alternative, 

Alternative H, has been modified. See Alternative H 

within Chapter 2.

C-81: MFWP is concerned about the 20 percent 

disturbance threshold defined in the SEIS and 

considers it inadequate to protect fish and wildlife 

populations in the project area. Research in Wyoming 

shows that impacts to wildlife from disturbed habitat 

is cumulative, and wildlife populations can be 

severely impacted at disturbance levels much less 

than 20 percent. There is no scientific justification for 

using this 20 percent threshold for limiting 

development, and more conservative thresholds are 

required (Connelly, I.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. 

Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000). Considering sage 

grouse alone and their observed level of sensitivity to 

various disturbance factors, the 20 percent threshold 

is inappropriate.

R-81: The wildlife screen for sage-grouse and muledeer habitat management under the Preferred 

Alternative, Alternative H, has been modified. See 

Alternative H within Chapter 2.

C-82: MFWP believes that a combination of 

Alternatives F, G, and H would provide the best 

opportunity to conserve fish and wildlife resources. 

R-82: BLM is tasked with developing the best 

opportunity to conserve fish and wildlife, while also 

providing an opportunity for industry to develop oil 

and gas resources. BLM has developed an alternative, 

Preferred Alternative H, which it believes achieves a 

balance between the development of CBNG, while 

providing for protection of the environment that 

supports wildlife and fish populations. The wildlife 

screen under the Preferred Alternative, Alternative H, 

has been modified. See Alternative H within Chapter 

2.

C-83: Under the development of roads, pipelines and 

other infrastructure (p. 2-24), it is stated that the 

authorized officer could approve high-voltage aerial 

power lines by application. BLM should provide 

estimates based on cost or evidence from Wyoming 

on what proportion of PODs and applications will 

request aerial powerlines. There are plans to reduce 

impacts of aerial power lines where feasible, but if 

the majority of lines constructed are aerial, negative 

impacts will be unavoidable (only in crucial sagegrouse habitat are distribution lines required to be 

buried; p. WMPP-10).

R-83: Although the authorizing office can approve 

above-ground, high-voltage, aerial power lines by 

application, the preference is for buried lines. 

Therefore, it is not implied or suggested the majority 

of lines will be aerial, resulting in negative impacts. 

The wildlife screen for sage-grouse habitat 

management under the Preferred Alternative, 

Alternative H, has been modified. See Alternative H 

within Chapter 2.

C-84: A slower pace of development in crucial 

habitat areas may be a result of insufficient long-term 

data to identify population trends. The time that 

constitutes long-term data is not defined.

R-84: The timeframe for developing a sufficient set 

of data will vary by species and area, as well as 

variations in monitoring data collected. At this time, 

BLM does not have a set timeframe to determine 

what would be sufficient or insufficient in the long 

term.

C-85: “Raptor inventories would be conducted over 

the entire Coal Bed Natural Gas project area every 5 

years by the BLM and MFWP." This document 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-76

cannot commit and does not have authority to 

commit MFWP to this. Resources within MFWP 

have not been identified at this time, and making the 

assumption that MFWP will be able to, or will agree 

to, do so is premature. In addition, no indication is 

provided for how funding or resources will be made 

available for MFWP to accomplish this.

R-85: BLM is committed to keeping MFWP 

informed about wildlife surveys and recognizes BLM 

does not have the authority to commit resources from 

MFWP to participate in conducting wildlife surveys. 

Language in the FSEIS has been modified to show 

that participation by MFWP in conducting wildlife 

surveys would be as its resources allow.

C-86: “As development schemes are identified and 

approved ongoing monitoring would be conducted to 

ensure development is not displacing sage grouse to 

the point that a sustainable population is not 

maintained." What if monitoring indicates 

development is displacing sage-grouse? 

R-86: The wildlife screen for sage-grouse habitat 

management under the Preferred Alternative, 

Alternative H, has been modified. See Alternative H 

within Chapter 2. BLM recognizes some 

displacement of sage-grouse will occur as a result of 

project-related CBNG development. The goal of 

implementing the wildlife screen is not to avoid all 

displacement of sage-grouse, but to maintain 

sustainable populations. BLM will work with state 

and federal agencies and operators to determine if the 

guidelines developed to achieve this goal are 

effective, or if additional measures are required. The 

additional measures that could be used would likely 

be site-specific and could include curtailing or 

restricting development within impacted areas.

Alternatives

Comment 1 (C-1): Phased development should 

consist of developing CBNG watershed-bywatershed to minimize utility corridors, roads, and 

the disruption they cause to agriculture and wildlife. 

Phased development watershed by watershed would 

avoid unnecessary cost and provide for more 

effective monitoring.

Response 1 (R-1): For a discussion on various 

“Phased Development” alternatives considered but 

not analyzed, see Chapter 2, “Alternatives 

Considered but not Analyzed in Detail” under 

“Phased Development (other than Alternatives F, G 

and H)”.

C-2: The proposed alternatives do not take into 

account the cumulative impacts of methane 

development on private as well as public lands. 

Significant habitat degradation could occur in 

watersheds where a large proportion of the land is in 

private ownership. The screens should involve 

landscape-level planning that includes cumulative 

effects analysis.

R-2: The SEIS includes a landscape level analysis 

that provides detailed information on cumulative 

impacts resulting from CBNG project activities 

regardless of ownership. Information on cumulative 

impacts is in Chapter 4 and the Minerals Appendix of 

the SEIS. The resource screens do not differentiate 

between impacts resulting from private, state, or 

federal development, but rather consider potential 

impacts from all development. As an example, under 

the water screen, should surface water quality 

standards be exceeded, BLM would implement 

mitigation measures on federal development to bring 

water quality back into compliance. BLM would also 

work with MDEQ to mitigate the impact from private 

or state development. As such, while BLM’s actions 

are directed to federal development, the resource 

screens consider cumulative impacts from all 

development.

C-3: Weed mapping should be conducted to provide 

a baseline and help guide the screening process.

R-3: Vegetation surveys, including for noxious 

weeds, will be conducted at the POD level on federal 

lease areas to develop baseline information before 

beginning operations.

C-4: What authority does BLM or anyone else have 

to stop CBNG development if it begins to damage the 

wildlife, water, air, noise, or any other of the 

environmental aspects that should be protected?

R-4: The Preferred Alternative, Alternative H, allows 

for CBNG development with monitoring conducted 

to evaluate if resource values are being protected. 

BLM would compare the monitoring data against the 

four resource value screens contained in Alternative 

H. BLM has the authority to implement mitigation 

measures and/or decline applications if unacceptable 

impacts to resource values are occurring.

C-5: The DSEIS does not address whether the pace 

and geographic distribution of CBNG development to 

date in Montana, or in the northern portion of the 

Powder River Basin in Wyoming, effectively 

constitutes phased development under the term's 

potential definitions. Thus, the fundamental 

distinction between the new alternatives and the 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-77

CBNG development status quo has not been 

established. 

R-5: Phased development has more than one 

definition (see R-1). The distinction between the 

alternatives is apparent when reviewing the effects of 

one alternative vs. another (for example, current 

management (Alternative A) versus the preferred 

alternative (H). The pace of CBNG development has 

been adequately addressed for each alternative; see 

the “Comparison Summary of Impacts” table at the 

end of Chapter 4 for comparisons.

C-6: The problem with phased-in development, 

based on a numeric criteria, is the sustained impact 

this will exert on the landowner/surface user, splitestate. It would be more prudent to develop each area 

as a whole. This will prevent continued disruption of 

the landowner's surface and operations that may drag 

into decades if numeric limitations are adopted. 

R-6: The Preferred Alternative, Alternative H, 

supports a phased development approach based on 

the protection of resource values using four resource 

screens. A numeric limit on development, as included 

in Alternatives F and G, is not an element of BLM’s 

Preferred Alternative.

C-7: The SEIS fails to look at phasing development 

by aquifer. This would allow one seam to be 

developed, while another is used for water disposal.

R-7: See R-1

C-8: During the alternative development phase of 

this DSEIS we asked that BLM analyze a 

geographically phased alternative in which 

designated areas of land would be developed for 

CBNG extraction through their production phase, 

then reclaimed before moving on to extract CBNG in 

another area.

R-8: See R-1.

C-9: If BLM desires a phased development approach, 

it could occur through future lease sales. This would 

allow BLM to restrict or consider establishing 

development plans confined to certain areas, within 

specific seams, at pre-determined APD approval 

rates, or with baseline monitoring in place and 

adequately evaluated based on actual results from 

preceding development. 

R-9: BLM oil and gas leasing decisions and lease 

stipulations, including those applicable to CBNG, 

were previously analyzed in the BLM 1992 Final Oil 

and Gas RMP/EIS Amendment. Those decisions 

were approved in the project’s February 1994 ROD. 

Analyzing new federal lease decisions, such as 

closing federal areas of oil and gas estate in the 

Powder River and Billings RMP areas, are therefore, 

beyond the scope of this SEIS. Also see response to 

R-1 and Chapter 2 under the Alternatives Considered 

but Not Analyzed in Detail section.

C-10: The cumulative impact analysis is not 

supported by the necessary data for BLM to select 

any of the alternatives in the SEIS.

R-10: For data used in preparation of the SEIS see

the Bibliography. Cumulative impacts resulting from 

the implementation of the proposed action are 

included throughout Chapter 4 of the SEIS. 

Additional information on cumulative impacts is 

contained in the Minerals and the Air appendices. 

The data supplied adequately describe cumulative 

impacts and allow selection of a preferred alternative, 

while recognizing that additional site-specific 

analyses will be required within a plan of 

development before project-level CBNG 

development begins.

C-11: The DSEIS does not indicate when BLM 

would apply modifications to a POD on the basis of 

using the four filters or screens proposed in 

Alternative H. Is BLM going to apply modifications 

to a POD during permitting and construction, or after 

development has commenced?

R-11: A decision flow chart outlining how and when 

the four screens would be used under the Preferred 

Alternative, Alternative H, is presented on Figure 2-1 

within Chapter 2.

C-12: One of the requirements of a POD is that 

digital project maps depicting all infrastructure 

installations necessary for the project, etc., be 

included. BLM should clarify that digital includes 

PDF files of the proposed infrastructure.

R-12: Digital refers to GIS maps or AutoCAD files.

C-13: Mandated use of transportation corridors could 

easily infringe on operator/surface owner agreements. 

R-13: BLM will take into account any difficulties 

encountered by an operator when consulting with 

adjoining operators, as well as the wishes of the 

landowner(s) and existing operator/surface owner

agreements. The intent of this provision is, to 

minimize to the extent achievable, the overall area of 

surface disturbance and the number of roads and 

utility corridors.

C-14: The SEIS states the following: "Prior to 

approving a road, the operator, landowner, the BLM, 

adjacent landowners, and adjacent gas leaseholders 

would coordinate long-term planning for roads in the 

area." What type of road is being referred to here? 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-78

R-14: BLM is referring to all roads constructed for 

the purposes of developing CBNG.

C-15: The SEIS states the following: "Low voltage 

(440-v) distribution powerlines would be buried. The 

authorized officer (AO) could approve proposed high 

voltage, aerial power lines by application. The AO 

could approve above-ground, low-voltage 

distribution power lines only if the operator could 

demonstrate that it would not be feasible or it would 

be impracticable to bury them (economic issues, 

technically impossible, etc)." The DSEIS is 

mandating the use of buried powerlines with no 

consideration of surface owner desires. 

R-15: BLM recognizes that power lines cannot 

always be buried. The intent of this requirement is to

remove power lines and poles as potential raptor 

perches and to prevent the impact that multiple power 

lines would have on the visual landscape.

C-16: Developing leases in stages could help reduce 

impacts on surface resources such as air, water, and 

wildlife. In phased development of leases, it would 

be imperative that, before moving on to the next 

phase, the prior phase of the lease that is developed 

not only be reclaimed, but actually restored to its 

fully functioning capacity to support the economic 

and ecosystem values it supported before 

development. Phased development of leases would 

also provide BLM and other agencies with an 

opportunity to gather information to use in adaptive 

management to assess the impacts of the earlier 

phase, and if advisable, change the way the next 

phase occurs to address those impacts.

R-16: See R-1 and R-9.

C-17: It must be emphasized that there is likely no

one-size-fits-all phased development alternative that 

would best protect the important resources of a given 

area within Montana’s portion of the Powder River 

Basin. For example, important wildlife populations 

such as sage-grouse may be concentrated in certain 

regions, just as the availability of receiving 

formations for the reinjection of CBNG wastewater 

will vary by location. Therefore, BLM should create 

specific management areas and implement different 

concepts of phased development to protect the 

resources as they vary from one area to another.

R-17: The Preferred Alternative provides 

management actions to address the differences 

between areas and the resource issues found within 

each area. See also R-1.

C-18: The new Preferred Alternative (Alternative H) 

must be "environmentally preferable." BLM has not 

established that Alternative H is environmentally 

preferable to Alternative E. 

R-18: In accordance with 40 CFR 1505.2(b) “Record 

of decision in cases requiring environmental impact 

statements “BLM must: “(i)dentify all alternatives 

considered by the agency in reaching its decision, 

specifying the alternative or alternatives which were 

considered to be environmentally preferable.”

A record of decision (ROD) has not yet been made. 

After the Governor’s consistency review ends, a 

ROD will be issued. When the ROD for the SEIS is 

issued, it will include a section discussing the 

“environmentally preferred alternative”.

C-19: Judge Anderson rejected almost all other 

challenges to the FEIS and ruled that “as a whole, the 

FEIS adequately considered the impacts of CBM 

development in the Powder River Basin,” Order, CV 

03-69-BLG-RWA (February 25, 2005). Therefore, 

the SEIS should be restricted to the judge’s stated 

areas of concern. However, the preferred alternative 

involves a new system of mitigation measures above 

and beyond the judge’s requirement to consider a 

phased development approach. Judge Anderson 

characterized phased development as involving 

numeric limits on wells or geographic limits on areas 

developed. The SEIS, in contrast, employs a radically 

different approach in Alternatives F, G, and H, which 

does not control development by a specified number 

of wells or defined geographical area. On the 

contrary, these alternatives would impose a 

discretionary system of mitigation measures and 

enable BLM to arbitrarily limit APD and POD 

approvals without objective standards.

R-19: Judge Anderson’s order did not restrict the 

scope of BLM’s analysis. Alternatives F and G 

analyzed phased development based on a two-tier 

system of numerical controls, involving numeric 

limits on wells annually and by watershed area. The 

watershed area numeric limits would place 

geographic limits on areas developed. The preferred 

alternative (H) supports a phased development 

approach by using adaptive management based on the 

protection of resource values using four resource 

screens. These resource screens control and provide 

for monitoring development to mitigate or reduce 

potential effects.

C-20: From a fish and wildlife habitat perspective,

restoration is equally as important as attempting to 

mitigate during development. To this end, there have 

to be further discussions in the SEIS defining the 

specific commitments that BLM will make to ensure 

that public lands are restored to an acceptable 

functioning condition. The SEIS should outline the 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-79

restoration process and BLM’s commitments to 

restoration to ensure that Montana's public lands are 

not only protected during development, but also 

restored upon termination of CBNG energy 

development activities. 

R-20: Reclamation plans are required elements of 

plans of development that each operator must submit 

for each CBNG development under the Preferred 

Alternative, Alternative H. Reclamation plans include 

measures for interim reclamation of such things as 

well pads, as well as long-term reclamation of wells 

and roads and other associated facilities.

C-21: Under Preferred Alternative H, the CBNG 

APD and project POD guidance manual says the 

following: “BMPs are voluntary yet the SEIS 

suggests they are mandatory.” BLM needs to clarify 

whether BMPs are mandatory.

R-21: The term BMP is a conceptual term 

representing the idea that BLM will be requiring 

better practices. The actual practices themselves will 

be either operator committed measures or BLM 

conditions of approval (referred to as stipulations if 

required as part of a BLM right-of-way grant). 

Practices that will be included as conditions of 

approval if they are not part of a proposed plan of 

development are specified in the description of the 

preferred alternative and in Table 2-1. In addition, 

other practices that BLM is encouraging the use of 

are included in the Wildlife Monitoring and 

Protection Plan (see Wildlife Appendix). These 

measures are identified as Programmatic Guidance 

for the Development of Project Plans in the Wildlife 

Monitoring and Protection Plan. These measures may 

also be required conditions of approval if they are not 

included in a plan of development, based on the 

review of each proposal and site specific resource 

conditions.

C-22: The decision flow chart for the preferred 

alternative does not include a path from BLM to 

MDEQ or vice versa. Yet the water screen requires 

cooperation and communication with MDEQ. BLM 

should define how this will this occur.

R-22: MDEQ is not directly involved in the decision 

process, however BLM would coordinate the agency 

on implementing mitigation or protective measures 

relating to the four resource screens under the 

Preferred Alternative, Alternative H.

C-23: “Full scale development would be allowed if 

each POD passed the four screens." These screens are 

not quantified.

R-23: BLM will use an adaptive management 

approach to implement the four resource screens. 

Under adaptive management, monitoring would be 

conducted to determine if the potential for impacts to 

resources would occur from the ongoing

development. If there is potential for impacts to

occur, BLM would work with the operators and state 

agencies to implement site-specific mitigation 

measures.

C-24: With respect to evaluating monitoring data; 

who will be responsible for this effort, and whose 

interpretation will prevail? Differences of opinion are 

inevitable. How will they be resolved in a timely 

enough manner to reduce impacts to wildlife species?

R-24: BLM will be responsible for evaluation and 

interpretation of the monitoring data via coordination 

with MFWP and FWS.

C-25: It is interesting to note that many of the BMPs 

specifically requested by the conservation community 

and the public (such as directional drilling, drilling 

multiple wells from a single pad, etc.) will 

specifically not be implemented under any action 

alternative. 

R-25: BLM does consider requiring directional 

drilling in several of the alternatives (see Chapter 2, 

alternatives B, D, and (unless exempted) alternatives 

E, F and G.) Multiple coal seams developed per well 

bore are considered in Alternatives B and D and 

simultaneous coal seam development is considered 

under alternatives B and D. See R-22 for BMP 

implementation.

C-26: Phased development will mean that, in the 

Powder River Basin, development may not proceed 

in contiguous geographic areas, but, instead, state and 

private leases will be developed before federal leases. 

Thus, multiple mobilizations of workers and 

equipment will be necessary. First, a right-of-way 

corridor will be established to service the state and 

private wells, and later these rights-of-way will be 

expanded and augmented to service the federal wells. 

Multiple mobilizations will result in additional risks 

to wildlife and additional air quality impacts. They

are particularly disruptive to surface owners because 

they create more environmental and aesthetic harms.

R-26: The comment points out reasons why some 

phased development alternatives were not considered 

in detail. See R-1. Phased development, as described 

within Preferred Alternative H, does not mean that 

state and private leases would be developed first, 

followed by development of federal leases. BLM 

anticipates the development to be concurrent with 

private and state due to the (mostly) checkerboard 

landownership pattern.
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-80

C-27: The necessary adoption of 80-acre spacing 

instead of 160-acre spacing to accommodate phased 

development translates into nearly twice the number 

of wells, roads, infrastructure, surface disruption, and 

produced water. It will also result in nearly twice the 

construction-related disturbances. For these reasons, 

BLM should reject all alternatives based on formal 

phased development, including Preferred Alternative 

H.

R-27: The plan the SEIS is supplementing (BLM 

2003) assumed 80-acre spacing for producing wells 

in Alternatives B through E. This assumption is 

carried forward in the SEIS for alternatives F through 

H. Note, the plan also assumes 160-acre spacing for 

exploration wells. Also, spacing is per coal seam, so 

in areas with three coal seams where wells are colocated on the surface, the construction-related 

disturbances are reduced by approximately twothirds.

C-28: The threshold/trigger numbers contained in the 

SEIS only require BLM to evaluate the situation to 

determine if additional APDs could or should be 

approved. The SEIS does not detail what form this 

evaluation would take or what the basis would be for 

allowing or denying additional APDs. Please provide 

an explanation/clarification of how BLM justifies the 

use of these threshold values when no significant 

difference in impact can be derived between 

Alternatives E and H.

R-28: The threshold values or triggers are identified 

in the description of Alternative H and the 

Monitoring Appendix. See the Monitoring Appendix 

under “Remedial Action Trigger” and “Management 

Options”.

C-29: The SEIS does not discuss when the four 

resource screens contained within the Preferred 

Alternative will go into effect. 

R-29: Alternative H will go into effect when the 

Record of Decision (ROD) is signed. BLM will then 

implement the plan. The ROD is anticipated to be 

signed this winter.

C-30: Alternative H may still allow for full-field 

development, which runs contrary to the purpose of 

analyzing a phased development alternative.

R-30: There are several interpretations regarding 

what constitutes “phased” development (see Chapter 

2, “Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in 

Detail”, under “Phased Development (other than 

Alternatives F, G and H)”. Less than full-field 

development was analyzed in alternatives F and G. 

While required to analyze phased development, BLM 

is not required to select phased development as the 

preferred alternative.

C-31: Numerous documents, reports, and scientific 

studies on a wide variety of resource subjects were 

available to BLM before and during preparation of 

this DSEIS; however, it appears that these data, 

updated data, and new data were not analyzed fully 

for many issues in the DSEIS.

R-31: All applicable reports were reviewed and 

information analyzed as appropriate. The documents 

are incorporated into the SEIS (see Bibliography)

C-32: The Montana and Wyoming EISs must be 

combined to assess cumulative effects.

R-32: Cumulative impacts are disclosed in resource 

sections of Chapter 4. The analysis was based on the 

combined impact of similar actions. On February 25, 

2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Montana issued an order in the Northern Plains 

Resource Council (NPRC) v. BLM, Cause No. CV 

03-69-BLG-RWA and Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. 

Norton, Cause No. CV 03-78-BLG-RWA cases 

which previously had been consolidated. In its order, 

the Court found that BLM’s decision to use two 

documents to assess cumulative impacts and similar 

actions was properly within its discretion. The 

Court’s reasons for this finding are found on pages 21 

through 27 of the February 25, 2005 Order.

C-33: Alternatives F, G, and H are deficient because 

the limits on the number of APDs approved each year 

and the percentage of disturbance on BLMadministered lands are not arbitrary and not 

substantiated by science-based analysis or evaluation. 

R-33: The cumulative limit placed on federal APDs 

would be based on 5 percent of the total number of 

state, private, and federal wells (18,225 wells) 

predicted to be drilled over 20 years (see Chapter 2 

under Alternatives F and G). The 5 percent takes the 

total number of wells (18,225) divided by 20 years, 

resulting in 5 percent per year. The 5 percent limit 

was chosen to level the pace of development over a 

20-year period and to apply a numerical limit to 

federal APD approvals. 

The FSEIS modified Alternative H, does not contain 

numeric limits, but it phases development through 

implementation of four resource screens and POD 

requirements, as well as use of adaptive management 

to define modifications or mitigation measures to 

existing operations necessary to provide for the 

protection of resources.
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-81

Monitoring

Comment 1 (C-1): Monitoring as included in the 

SEIS is unfunded at both the state and federal level.

Response 1 (R-1): Monitoring of surface water, 

groundwater, and wildlife is funded annually, has 

been ongoing for a number of years, and is conducted 

by a variety of agencies including BLM, MDEQ, 

MFWP, FWS, and USGS. CBNG operators are also 

required to conduct monitoring as part of their water 

management plans and wildlife monitoring and 

protection plans submitted with their plans of 

development. BLM recognizes that it does not have 

the authority to commit other agency resources to 

conduct monitoring.

C-2: The procedure and schedule for monitoring 

needs to be developed. BLM needs to ensure BMPs 

are being implemented by companies.

R-2: The procedure and schedule for monitoring is 

located within the Monitoring Appendix, Table 

MON-1. Also, BLM has a POD Manual that provides 

guidance to operators. (The Manual will be updated 

upon conclusion of the SEIS.)

C-3: Most of the alternatives listed in the SEIS refer 

to industry creating a wildlife monitoring plan for 

each POD. This plan has to be in compliance with 

BLM's wildlife monitoring protection plan. This plan 

includes Montana as a primary source of labor and 

information. These additional monitoring tasks and 

informational needs have not been approved within 

MFWP.

R-3: BLM is committed to keeping MFWP informed 

about wildlife surveys and recognizes that BLM does 

not have the authority to commit unfunded resources 

from MFWP to participate in conducting wildlife 

surveys.

C-4: Using the fourth order watershed unit as the 

basic monitoring unit is too broad. The ability to 

monitor direct impacts to fish, wildlife, and water 

resources at this large a scale is unlikely. Localized 

impacts can be identified to resources if requirements 

allow for such monitoring, but monitoring of the 

entire upper Tongue River Basin to determine 

changes in fisheries or terrestrial animals can only be 

generic at best. This type of information does not 

allow for required changes to be implemented by 

local operations. The area in question for phased 

development has to be reduced if monitoring is to be 

pertinent.

R-4: Monitoring at the fourth order watershed level 

is appropriate and would supply effective information 

in establishing trends. Monitoring on a smaller scale 

would be implemented should data collected indicate 

a need for more detailed information.

C-5: Well-defined thresholds and decision points for 

identifying when adaptive management actions 

would be implemented have not been described.

R-5: Threshold values or triggers for the air impact, 

water, and wildlife resource screens are described in 

the description of Alternative H in Chapter 2 and the

Monitoring Appendix. Please refer to the decision 

flow chart included as Figure 2-1 in Chapter 2 

defining how these threshold values would be used 

and implemented. Also, see the Monitoring Appendix 

under “Remedial Action Trigger” and “Management 

Options”.

Other Comments

Comment 1 (C-1): At several points in the SEIS, it is 

mentioned that MDEQ will monitor water and air 

quality. Does the SEIS address impacts to the state 

resources?

Response 1 (R-1): The SEIS addresses impacts that 

could occur for state, federal, and private resources 

from project-related CBNG activities for each 

alternative in Chapter 4.

C-2: Did BLM account for cumulative impacts 

resulting from the TRR? There's only one paragraph 

in this document that deals with the TRR. There are 

many resource impacts from that development, and I 

think we need BLM, for CBNG development, to deal 

with the reasonable foreseeable development of the 

TRR.

R-2: Cumulative impacts resulting from the 

construction of the TRR are included throughout 

Chapter 4 of the SEIS. For example, the effects to 

vegetation from the TRR are addressed within the 

Vegetation section of Chapter 4 under the heading of 

Cumulative Impacts. Additional information on the 

cumulative impacts resulting from the TRR are 

contained in the Minerals Appendix and the Air 

Quality Appendix.

C-3: Noise would be a major CBM impact on the 

ambient quiet of the region due to (but not limited to) 

increased road traffic, drilling operations, and 

compressor stations. No analysis is presented of the 

combined and cumulative increase in noise, not only 

from the construction, but also the operation, of the 

TRR should it be approved.

R-3: Potential impacts from project-related noise are 

contained within the Cultural, Lands and Realty, 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-82

Social and Economic Values, and Wildlife sections 

of Chapter 4 under the heading of Impacts from 

Management Common to All Alternatives.

C-4: Land Use. For specific properties, agricultural 

operations would be affected by CBM development, 

including, but not limited to, soil and vegetation

disturbance, disruption of pasture or field use, 

disruption of cattle movement and location, increased 

problems from fence breech or gate mismanagement, 

and potential cattle illness or death from hazardous 

materials or conditions. If these same agricultural 

operations will also be crossed by the TRR, the 

negative impacts would be compounded for the land 

owner. Additionally, any and all of the industrial 

development could and would impact recreational 

users of the area, both directly and indirectly 

(particularly cumulative impacts to wildlife 

populations). The cumulative impacts of these 

problems were not analyzed.

R-4: Potential impacts to agricultural operations from 

proposed project activities are contained in the 

Livestock and Grazing section and the Soils section

of Chapter 4. Cumulative impacts, including impacts 

from the TRR, are also contained in the Livestock 

and Grazing section of Chapter 4. Potential impacts 

to recreational and wildlife resources are discussed 

within the Recreation and Wildlife sections of 

Chapter 4. Additional information on cumulative 

impacts is contained within the Mineral Appendix. 

C-5: The planning area described in the DSEIS has 

omitted areas of Custer and Dawson counties that 

might be affected from the development of CBNG. 

The CEQ regulations state that "...the environmental 

impact statement shall succinctly describe the 

environment of the area(s) to be affected or created 

by the alternatives under consideration" (40 CFR 

§1502.15). Further, the regulations state that if an 

area that may be affected by the project extends 

beyond the project area, the entire area of potential 

effect should be included in the affected 

environment.

R-5: CBNG development activities are not expected 

in the areas of northern Custer County or Dawson 

County for the foreseeable future. Air quality and 

water quality resources in these areas may be 

indirectly affected by CBNG development in the 

Powder River Basin.

Potential impacts to air quality throughout the 

Planning Area, the state of Montana, and portions of 

surrounding states were evaluated by conducting an 

air quality model. These results are contained within 

the Air Quality and Climate section of Chapter 4, the 

Air Quality Appendix, and the Air Quality Modeling 

Technical Support Document.

The analysis conducted for the Tongue River at 

Brandenburg Bridge (USGS Station 06307830) and 

for the Yellowstone River near Sidney (USGS 

Station 06329500) are believed to be representative 

of the water quality effects that will be experienced in 

these areas. These analyses are in the Hydrological 

Resources section of Chapter 4.

C-6: The mineral leases for CBM should be 

reconsidered because these leases were sold without 

the natural resources data necessary to evaluate 

whether the impacts from development would 

significantly negatively affect those other resources. 

R-6: Analyzing decisions such as oil and gas estate is 

beyond the scope of this SEIS. See Chapter 2 of the 

SEIS, Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in 

Detail, Leasing. 

C-7: One of the rationales for the SEIS was a need to 

further expand on the cumulative impacts of 

development in the planning area and, more 

specifically, in the Powder River Basin. Although 

some consideration was given for the additional 

impacts of the TRR on wildlife (page 4-254), the

overall cumulative impacts analysis was not 

conducted. For example, the removal of the intake 

dam by the Bureau of Reclamation is as reasonable 

and foreseeable as the TRR.

R-7: The Intake Dam is outside the Powder River 

Basin. The cumulative impacts for wildlife are 

addressed in the Wildlife section of Chapter 4.

C-8: On page 6 of the Monitoring Appendix, correct 

the acronym FLMPA to FLPMA in the frequency 

and duration column for Lands and Realty.

R-8: The correction was made in the FSEIS.

C-9: BLM did not fully study the combined effects of 

coal bed methane extraction and the TRR.

R-9: Cumulative impacts resulting from the 

construction of the TRR are included throughout 

Chapter 4 of the SEIS. Additional information on the 

cumulative impacts resulting from the TRR is 

contained in the Minerals Appendix, the Air Quality 

Appendix, and the Air Quality Technical Support 

Document.

C-10: Throughout the document there is a general 

lack of literature citations to support the rationale for 

the stringent and somewhat unique restrictions being 

imposed on oil and gas operators.

R-10: Literature citations have been added to the 

FSEIS as appropriate.
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-83

C-11: The SEIS should look at using solar power for 

compressors in the lines.

R-11: The purpose and need for the document is to 

analyze the effects from CBNG development (See 

Chapter 1 under Purpose and Need). Alternative 

management, such as the use of alternative energy 

sources, to existing management must meet the 

purpose and need for completing the plan. See 

Chapter 2 in the section Alternatives not Analyzed in 

Detail – Alternative Sources of Energy for a full 

explanation.

C-12: The SEIS has to define the following terms 

and phrases: 

• Screening process

• Water screen 

• Threshold values relative to the water quality 

standards

• Regional scale monitoring

• Unacceptable impacts

• Excessive erosion 

• Develop appropriate measure 

• Appropriate mitigation measure

• No additional CBNG discharges [is that in terms 

of numbers of sites, or volume of discharge?]

R-12: The screening process, as used within the 

Preferred Alternative, Alternative H, is outlined 

within Figure 2-1 in Chapter 2. 

The water screen and threshold values relative to 

water quality standards are defined under the heading 

of Alternative H – Preferred Alternative – Multiple 

Screens within Chapter 2. 

With respect to monitoring, Table MON -1 within the 

Monitoring Appendix outlines the types of 

monitoring to be conducted and details whether the 

monitoring is area-specific or required throughout the 

entire CBNG development area.

The definition of "unacceptable" would be developed 

on the basis of site-specific conditions and water 

management provisions contained in the water 

management plans.

Excessive erosion would be any erosion that would 

have the potential to reach and affect the water 

quality of a stream or water body.

Appropriate measures or appropriate mitigation 

measures will be selected on a site-specific basis that 

will consider seasonal variations and current 

cumulative impacts in the area.

“No additional CBNG discharges” means “no 

additional untreated CBNG discharges.” Recent 

changes in MDEQ water quality standards under 

which EC and SAR have been designated as harmful 

parameters may result in MDEQ not allowing the 

untreated discharge of CBNG produced water. If 

future changes in water regulations would allow for 

the discharge of untreated CBNG produced water, 

BLM’s water screen would still be applied. 
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-84

Distribution List:

The FSEIS was distributed to the following 

individuals, business, non-governmental 

organizations, schools and libraries, tribes, federal, 

state, and local agencies, as well as legislators.

A

Carl Abbott

R. Abbott

Robert Abernethy

Kristine Abshire

Eugene Aby

Richard Acerbi

Alice Adamczyk

Miriam Adams

B. Scott Adams

Larry Adams

Dolores Adams

Scott Adams

Terry Adamson

Amy Adler

Di Agee

Tom Agnew

Tanya Aguilar

Patrick Aitchison

Deborah Albert

Jeanie Alderson

Lillian Alex

Diane & Michael Alexander

Mr. Ali Alexander

Mark Alexander

Margo Alexander

Michael, Alfano

Nancy M. Alice

Catherine & Claude Alick

John & Helene Allaire

J. Allan

Tom Allen

Don Allen

Chris Allgeier

Andrew Allwein

Torun Almer

William Almy

Joanne Alt

Edward Altenau

Allan Altner

Julie Amato

Dennis Ambruso

Richard Ames

Vince Ames

Thomas Amick

Minda Amiran

Alex Amonette

Sharon Amor

Jerry Anderberg

James Anderson

Georgiana Anderson

Eric Anderson

Linda Anderson

Jerome Anderson

Michael Anderson

Anne Anderson

Amy Anderson

Kathryn Andre

Dwayne Andrews

Rod Antablin

Craig Antrim

Yvonne Appeltans

Sheldon Aptekar

Alison Archambault

David Arellanes

Kelly Arellanes

Carroll Arkema

April Armstrong

Ron Arneson

Irene Arnold

Catherine Arnoldi-Smith

Linda Aron

Maria Arrington

Sabrina Artel

James & Alice Arthur

Dan Arthur

Richard Artley

John B. Arum

Robert Aston

Lance Astrella

John Atchico

Stephen Atherton

Roger & Paula Atkin

Dave Atlas

Roswitha Augusta

George Aulisio

Arten Avakian

Betty & Earl Aye

Milan Ayers

Zaka Azar

B

Rose Bachi

Brian Bachman

Barbara Bacom

Roy Badger

Earl & Geraldine Bahr

Jack Bailey

Michael Bailey
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-85

Helen Bailey

Arthur Bair

Jack Baker

Gary Baker

Richard Baker

Dorcas Baker, Sr.

Daniel Bakker

Larry Balaban

Lisa Balach

Leo Balcer

Jim Baldocchi

Keith Bales

Eldon Ball

B.J. Ballantyne

Ronis Ballinger

Stephen Bamford

Michelle Bandor

Anjali Banerjee

Lisa Banik

Barbara Banke

Mark Barath

Eugene Barber

Jeff Barber

Benji Bard

Cynthia Bardon

Rick Bare

John B. Barfield

Bob Barmblett

Cynthia Barnes

April Barnett

Vaughn Barnett

Albert Barney

Marsha Barnhard

Jim Barrett

James Barrington

Laura Barry

Jennifer Barst

Max Bartholomew

Gary Barton

Rick Bass

Carol Bass

James Bauder

Cynthia Bauer

John Baughman

Keith Baumerie

Daniel Baumler

Kevin Bayhouse

Scott Bayne

Dominic Bazile

Bonnie Beach

Andy Beadle

"Herbert Bearchun, Sr"

June & Terry Beartusk

Christine Beasley

Richard Beatty

Mark Beaudin

Bob Beck

Jack Becker

Darrell Becker

Mary Bedard

Sharon Bedford

Carolyn Beecher

Stephen Begley

Laura Behdjou

Richard Belgrad

Pate Belichick

Jennifer Bell

Melissa Bell 

Marcia Bellamy

Jim Bellessa

Brian Bellgraph

Charles & Donna Benesch

Mercedes Benet

Leeann Bennett

Zachary Benson

Scott Benson

Sigrid Benson

Jann Bentley

Wilma Benz

David Bequeaith

Bill Berg

Clayton Berg

Rhonda H. Berger-Valdez

Nancy Bergey

Carol Berkeley

Randy Berkman

Steve Bernbaum

Jean Berryman

Charles Bertsch

Keith Berwick

Lisa Bessasparis

Mary Beszterczei

Jay & Kim Beutler

Angela Biase

Donald Bice

Bill Bicknell

Bruce Biehl

Jerry Biekhus

Anthony Biel

Barbara Biele

Brian Bielema

Cecelia Big Bull

Robin Billau

Erin Billings

Clifford Birdinground

Wilford Birdinground

Ronald & Cheryl Birdwell

Geraldine Bish
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-86

Jodi Bishop

Marcella Bishop

Damon Bishop

Amy Bishop

Lynn Bishop

Kenn Bisonette

Norma Bixby

James Black

Edd Blackler

Judy Blackstock

Janine Blaeloch

Richard Blain

Thomas Blake

Russell Blalack

Dustin Bleizeffer

Robert Blickenstaff

Sharon Blodinger

Lucia Blohm

Mark Bloxham

Mary Bluemle

Mike Blum

Bruce Blumenshine

Amy Boatright

Wendy Bobadilla

Scott Bockness

Rosie Bodien

John Boehmke

Gary & Wilma Bogar

Howard Boggess

Jim Boggs

Nina Bohlen

Mary Bohrer

Thomas Boland

Kevin Bolembach

Kevin Bolembach

Ralph Bolick

Shirley Bollinger

Jean Bolson

David Bolster

Robert Boltje

Alida & Karl Bomblies

Larry Bonderud

Judy Bondioli

Marty Bonillas

Marliese Bonk

A Bonvouloir

Benjamin Boorman

Bev Borer

Carrie Borer

Walter Boronski

Doreen Borstock

Christopher Borton

Jackie Boucher

Marina Bouchot-Strabic

Jacob Boudewijn

James Boulware

Barbar M Kent G Bourbon

Mike Bowen

Maryellen Bowen

Dru Bower

Louise Bowles

Chad Bowman

Katherine Bowman

Alice Bowron

Jean Boyce-Smith

Arleen Boyd

Tracy Boykin

R Boyle

Emilie Boyles

Patricia Bradley

Earl Bradley

Steve Brady

John P. Brady

Otto Braided Hair

Colby Branch

Mary Lu Brandwein

Richard Brannon

Clait Braun

Susan Braunberger

Sherry Breidenthal

Gerard Breiter

Don Brelsford

Eleanor Brennan

John Brennan

Kathleen Brennan-Nash

Duane Brenneise

Michael Breshears

S.J. Breslin

Gretchen Brewer

Peter Brezny

Joel Brice

Julie Brickell

Wendy Bridges

Clayton Brillhart

Kathy Britt

Gary Broeder

Mary Brower

Cody Brown

Dorothy Brown

Dee Brown

Roy Brown

Larry Muriel Brown

Kirby Brown

Mary Brown

Mark Brown

Jay S. Brown

Jeff Brown

Heather Brown
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-87

Lloyd Brown

Aaron Browning

Roland Bruegger

Joe Brusca

Donetta Brush

Georgia Bruski

Barbara Bryan

Frank & Eleanor Bryant

Wilbur Bryson

Lisa Buck

Donnie Buckland

Ronald Buckles

Kathleen C. Buckley

George Budak

William Buell

Clara Bull Tail

Blaine Bulltail

Wales Bulltail

Charles Bumgardner

Jerry Bunch

Russell Bunge

Dru Burk

Caitlin Burke

Everett Burley

Scott Burley

Quinn Burley

Marion Burmeister

Andrew Burnett

Andrew Burnham

Leslie Modic & Martha Burns

Terry & Elvira Burns

Mary Burns

Mark Burr

John Burrie

Mark Burris

Judith Burroughs

Jenny Burt

Paul Busch

Charles Bush

Linda Butler

Edward Butler

Brian Butterick

Pat Byorth

Jamie Byrne

C

Maureen Cairns

Deborah Cake

Tracy Callow

Anton Camarota

Janet Camel

Dan & Donna Cameron

David Cameron

Patrick Cameron

Connie Cameron

Janet Cameron

Mary Campbell

Richard Campbell

James Campbell

Bonnie Campbell

Betsy Campen

Aarlene Campion

Steven Candler

Alicia Cano

Anita Canovas

Iraida Capaccio

John Caratti

Therese Carey

Dion Carey

Kristina Carey

Gregg Carlberg

Michael Carlson

Kendall Carlson

Sarah Carlson

Kirsten Carlson

Kathlin Carmean

Siobhan Carmean

Melissa Carney

Tamara Carpenito

Lulu Carpenter

Bill Carrel

Nancy Carrel

Nancy Carringer

Bob Carroll

Joyce Carroll

Glen Carroll

John Cartensen

Barbara J Carter

Chad Carter

John Caruso

Donna Carusohirst

Lynn Casella

Mike Caskey

Leslie Cassidy

Joseph Castagnola

Judith Castiano

Lynnette Cauez

Ann Cavaluzzi

Rob Caylor

Jim Cazel

Bobbie Centurion

John Chaffin

Joseph Chaiklin

Mikki Chalker

Joanna Challacombe

Bill Champion
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-88

Kristi Chapin

Terri Chapman

Kevin Chapman

Stanley Charles

Katherine Chase

Gary Chattem

David Chervek

Rosemarie Chinni

Carolyn Chlebowski

Gwynyth Chmara-Huff

John Chouinard

Carole Chowen

Wayne Christensen

Bryce Christensen

Bryce Christensen

Beverly Churchill

Elizabeth Chvilicek

Christopher Cimino

Colleen Cipriani

Dawn Clancy

Douglas Clark

Jay Clark

John Clark

Gary Clark

Ruth H. Clark

Nanette Clark

Vicki Clark

Rick Clark

Rich Clawson

Barbara Clay

Duane & Laurie Claypool

Tom Clayson

Cynthia Clayworth

C Click

Bud Clinch

Allen Clubfoots

Jerry Clymo

Buzz Cobell

Cindy Cody

Rosalba Cofer

Gerald Coffey

Daniel Cohen

Monica Cohn

Dave Colavito

Norris Cole

Norris Cole

Senator Cole

Terry Cole

Phyllis Cole

Gary Cole

"G.K. Andrew Coleman, Ii"

Christopher Coles

Michelle Colina

G Collins

Larry Collins

Tom Collins

Daniel Collins

Carol Collins

Barbara Collins

Claudia Colnar

Art Compton

Jessa Conaway

Frances Cone

Dwight Conley

Joyce Conners

Matthew B. Connolly

Henry Connor

Tom Cook

Jan Cool

Kelli Cool

Robert Coon

Jerry Cooney

Mike Cooney

Denise Corcoran

Joella Corder

Herb Corley

Pamela Corrington

Carol Cosentino

Anne Cossitt

John Coston

Albert Couch

Leonard & Jeanette Counihan

Curtis Courchene

Bill Courtney

Ross Cowman

Phillip J. Crabill

Chris Crafford

Rholene Crafford

Fred Craft

Lynn B. Craig

John Craney

Jeremy Crawford

Patrick Crile

Senator Crismor

Richard Crocker

Carolyn Crook

Louise Cross

F Crowley

Jeanne Crowley

Pat Crowther

Lynn Crozier

Janos Csoma

Dean Culwell

Cal Cumin

T Cunningham

Nancy Curriden

Jeff Curry

Dottie Curtin
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-89

Carol Curtis

Richard Cusick

Vickie Cyr

Chad Cyrus

D

Dave Dagenhart

Maureen Dahlberg

Curt & Jan Dahlgaard

Shelley Dahlgren

Jean & Floyd Dahlman

Rick Dahn

Brooks Dailey

Deborah Dales

Idajane Dalpino

Charles Dalton

Andrea & James Dalton

John Dane

William Daniel

Luke Daniel

Laura Daniel

Joan Daniels

Tom Darin

Lynda Daro-O'hare

J. Dart

Dan Dart

Kim Daschel

Jordan Dauby

N Daugherty

Connie David

Karen Davidson

Alexey Davies

Jerry & Margaret Davis

Faith Davis

Bobbie Davis

Jerry Davis

Bob Davis

Bob Davis

Andrea Davis

Susan Davis

John L. Davis

Susan Davis

Emma Davison

Douglas Day

Frederic De Pujo

Carmela De Rose

Virginia De Veas

Ed Deal

Sue Dean

Allen Dean

Patricia Decaro

Barbara Decoursey

Robert & Illa Dee

Ben Deeble

Lucy Defranco

J Degange

Donna Dehaan

Diane Dehaven

Carolyn Dejonge

Joseph Del Medico

Martha A. Del Rio

John Delemarre

Joe Delesantro

Rocco Delgiglio

Joseph Delia

Frank Delker

Helen Delome

"John Demao, Jr"

Gayle Denardis

Nicole Denardis

James & Lou Anna Denison

Estelle Denslow

Mike Denton

Kelly Denton

Hawley Desimon

Merill Deskins

Dan Dessecker

Gwen Deters

Dan Deutsch

Jennifer Devey

David Devick

Lauren Devine

Steve Devivo

Gerry & Ron Devlin

Dennis Devous

Dennis Dewald

Eileen Dey

Rainbow Di Benedetto

Hortense Dias

Martha Diaz

Cheryl Dicarlo

Erin Dickinson

Robin Diedrich

Clem Dietze

Abigail Dillen

Mary Jane Dimartino

Charles Dion

Barbara Dipipi

Marilyn Dirks

Patricia Dishman

Cynthia Dishon

Bev Dixon

Travis Dodge

Roger Doherty

Joyce Dolan

Tom Doll
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-90

Christine Dolnack

James Domino

Laurie Domler

Maria Domzalski

"A,M. Doneth"

John Donlin

Adeline Donnes

Kacey Donston

Michael Doody

Lillian Dorchak

Bright Dornblaser

Ed Dornheim

Dave & Joanne Dorwart

David Dotson

David Doubet

Janet Dougherty

Frances Douglass

Noel Dowling

Josephine Downey

John Doyle

Barbara Doyle

William Drabkin

Jenness Drake

Marc Draper

Pat Dressler

Arlene Dreste

Elizabeth Drost

Linda Drozdyk

Marie Drummond

Mandy Drysdale

Schuyler Dudley

Roseann Dudrick

"Robert B Dueben, Sr"

William Duffield

Todd & Leanne Dufner

Andrew Duke

Joanne Dullum

Paul Dumond

Sandra Dunham

Cathy Dunigan

James L. Dunn

Julian Dupuis

James Dupuis

Dwane Durant

Omer Durfee

Patsy Durham

Keith Durham

Linda Durnbaugh

Mark Durso

Norman Dyche

Cornelius Dykema

Evelyn Dymkowski

E

Maureen Eakin

Marilyn Eanet

Vicki Earle

Darlene Earnhart

Joan Earnshaw

Jack Eaton

Kathleen Eaton

Patricia Eaton

Jeff Eaves

Melynda Eby-Cox

Tom Ebzery

Susan Eckert

Sandra Eckland

Howard Edelson

Steven Edmonds

Francis Edwards

Bob Edwards

Thelma Egan

David Eggleston

Stephen Egli

Holly Eisberner-Paradzikovic

Robert Ekey

Nancy Eldridge

Gary Elenburg

Amanda Eley

Edda Eliasson

Rachel Elkins

Charles Ellenbrook

Lewis Ellingham

Claudia Elliott

Janet Ellis

Candice Ellis

Tom & Ann Emmons

Brett Emmons

Katharine Emsden

Elizabeth Ende

Gary Engineer

Chris England

Vern & Irene Engle

Robert Engle

Jon Englert

Dore Engstrom

James & Cynthia Enlow

Ted Ennis

John Ensign

Mary H. Epting

Diane & Wayne Erhart

Leroy Erickson

Mike Erickson

Shandon Erickson

Norman Erickson
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-91

Deanna Erickson

Albert Erlebacher

Jes Erling

Gregory Esteve

Donna Etheridge

Carl Etzel

Lynn Eubank

Kristi Eubanks

Bob Evans

Terry Evans

Jackie Evans-Smail

Kinney Evitt

F

Mario Facella

Eric Facinger

Tim Fagley

Vivian Fahlgren

Susan Fahringer

Judith Fahrnow

Paul Fairbrother

Brooke Fancher

Barbara Fankhauser

Kathleen Fant

Bruce Farling

John Farney

Abner Farnum

Jean Farrell

Kristyn Farris

Niki Fatout-Waltonen

Rick Fattore

Jason Faurot

Fauna June Fauth

Tsar Fedorsky

Craig Feese

Pepi Feinblatt

Joseph Feinstein

Betty Fellows

Virginia Felt

Maurice Felton

Jim Felton

Rich Felton

John Femmer

Ron Fenex

Vicki Ferguson

John Ferrari

John Ferrel

H Fevold

Kenneth & Laura Feyhl

Robbee Fian

Mark Fickert

Jim Fiddler

David Fiedler

Ed Fiedler

Cheradan Fikstad

Judith Filbert

Mike Fillinger

Oja Fin

Mark N Fink

John Finstad

Doris Fischer

Stan Fischer

Erhart Fisher

Joanne Fisher

Conrad Fisher

Edwardo Fisher

Robert Fisher

Lawrence Fisher

Meaghan Fisher

Barbara Fite

William Fitzgerald

Mark Fix

Gloria M Flamini

Robert Flansaas

Dennis Flath

Pamela Fletcher

Paul Fletcher-Mcgookin

Wayne Flick

Rick Flood

"Gloria Flora, Exec Dir"

Gina Flores-O'toole

Linda Floy

Andrea Floyd

Debra & Ted Flynn

Susan Flynn

Pamela Fogg

Jerry Fojtik

John Foley

Margaret Foley

Dan K & Jeanne Folson

Cameron Foord

J Forbes

John Ford

Brenda Ford

Mark Forman

Gary Forrester

John Forssell

Kate Forsting

Marilyn Fortune

Carl Fourstar

Donald Fowler

Walter Fowski

Adeline Fox

Terry Fox

Scott & Brenda Fradenburgh

Gerald Frank
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-92

Pat Frank

Sandra Franklin

Brad Franks

Nicholas Frederick

Linda & Paul Frederick

Reuben Freed

Larry Freeman

Carl Freeman

Charlie French

Robert Frey

Merl & Vicki Freyholtz

Barry Friedman

Deborah Friedrick

Warren Fries

H Friesema

Paula Frighetti

Ron Fristone

"Robert Fritsch, Ii"

Paul Fritz

Allyson Frye-Henderson

Arlene Fuccillo

Michelle Fuentes

Jack Fuller

Chad Fuqua

Jessie Furman

Sherrill Futrell

G

Dave Gaddy

Patsy Gaglione

Ralph Gailey

Dorothy Gallagher

Elias Gallup

Pamela & Sherald Galster

Dave Galt

Tara Gann

Yolanda Garcia

David Gardner

Genie Garfield

Stefani Garis

Linda Garl

Donald Garlit

Paul Garman

Tina Garner

Suzanne Garrett

Donald Garrity

Michael Garten

Mike Garverich

Deborah Garvey

Edward Garwin

Steve P. Gary

Arlett Garza

Roger Gaskill

Dan Gaskill

Samuel Gassel

Ivaylo Gatev

Virinda Gaub

Abhimat Gautam

Arlene Gawne

Bill & Glenn Gay

Glenn Gay

Judy Geckeler

"Edgar Gelabert, Jr"

Lisa Geldersma

Seymour Geller

Sharyn Genschmer

Allison Gentile

Michael Gentilini

Margaret George

Charlie Gephart

Duff & Marion Gerrish

Virginia Gerth

Nick Gevock

Helen Gex-Greer

Janet Ghigliotty

Alia Ghosheh

Craig Gibson

Ursula T Gibson

Kathleen Gibson

Valerie Giddy

Mark Giese

Carol Gignoux

Gary Gilardi

Steve Gilbert

Jo Gilbert

Robert Gilger

John & Polly Gill

Polly Gill

Ginger Gillin

Tom Gilmore

Ron Gilreath

Helen Gjessing

Brandon & Gilbert Glenn

Julie Glenn

Harv Gloe

Kent Glowa

Loretta Glubczynski

Thomas Glynn

Charlotte Gniazdowski

Patricia Gober

Marsha Goddard

Darrell Goebel

Fred Goebel

Murlin Goeken

Aziz Goksel

Margo Goldberg
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-93

Nick Golder

David Goldstein

Henry Goldstein

Seth Goldstein

Jody Goldstein

Matt Golik

Carmen Gonzalez

Curtis Good

Pat M Good

Doug Goosey

Gayle Gordon

Janet Gordon

Chris Gordzelik

James Gore

Dara Gorelick

Alexandra Gorman

Steve Gose

Robert Gough

Louis Goulet

John Graham

Dolores Graham

Jennifer Graham

Douglas Grann

Bryan Grant

William Grant

Dr. David C. Grant

Maria Grant

Joy Grant

John Grauman

Bob Graveline

Dan Gray

Linda Gray

Andrea Gray

Rebecca Gray

Mike Gray

Elisabeth Greco

Clair Green

Heather Greene-Beloit

Broden Greenley

Russ Greenwood

Debi Gregg

Probyn Gregory

Gabriel Grey

Bill Griffin

Cheryl Grillmeier

Charley Griswold

Ken Groff

Ed Groff

Marlene Grose

Warren Grossman

Karolyn Grotyohann

Sid & Evelyn Grovenstein

Karel Guardado

James Guenther

James Guercio

Michael Gumpert

Diane Gunter

Robert Gunther

Carol Gunthorpe

Dennis Guntzel

Valerie Gurba

Brian Gurney

Gary Gustafson

Carol Guthrie

Joe Gutkoski

Art Gutowski

Sherry Guzzi

H

Steven Haag

Roger Haas

William Hachmann

John Hafla

Marvin Hafla

Heidi Hagemeier

Jeff Hagener

Brent Haglund

Mary Hahn

John Halbert

Jerry D Haldeman

Roger Hale

Bernard Hall

Clay Hall

Christine Hall

Greg Hallsten

Richard & Constance Halstadt

Donna Hamer

Jim Hamilton

Robin Hamilton

John & Vikki Hamilton

Heather Hamilton

Douglas Hammer

Craig Hammond

Donna Hampton

James Hancock

Phyllis Hankin

Norma Hanks

Renee' Hanlin

Marian Hanson

Babah Hanson

Terry & Deborah Hanson

Bill Hanson

Patricia Harden

Joseph Hardin

Grete Harding

Donald Hardy
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-94

Nick Hardy

Diane Hargreaves

Lashanda Hargrove

Nancy & Jack Harmon

Jan Harmon

Ralph Harmon

Roger Harned

Buck Harness

Patricia Harper

Anne Harrigan

Bob Harrington

Lester Harrington

Aspen Harris

Keith Harris

Ronald Harris

Kathryn Harris

Guy Harrison

John Hart

Tonia Harvey

Brandon Haslick

Joan Hasselgren

R Haugeberg

Bob Haugland

Amy Hausman

Nancy Havell

Gegory & Dorothy Hawkins

Alan Haxton

Art Hayes

Arthur Hayes

Sandy Hays

Tom Hays

Frank He Does It

Jennifer Head

Jim Head Jr.

Mitchell Headress

Langdon Headsmith

Cheryl Heath

Laura & Jim Heck

Dale Hedlund

Joseph Hegel

Penny Hegel

Maureen Heher

Mary Heinrich

Marcia Heitz

Catherine Helfer

Russell Helgerson

Bob Hellman

Gerhard & Pat Helm

Phyllis Helmes

Dave Helvey

Patricia Helvey

Lois Hemm

Scott Hemmer

Vera Henderson

Kay Henderson

Eric Hendrickson

Cy Hentges

Chet Hepburn

Ronald Heptner

Melvin A. Jr Herlin

Charles Herringer

Jane W. Hersey

Paul Hess

Dolores Hesselbrock

Joanne Hessellink

Amanda Hessling

Paul Hickenbottom

Paul Hickman

Meg Hickman

Shirley Hickok

Ingrid Higdon

Warren High

Sandra Hild

Paul Hilgert

Troy Hill

Jenelle Hill

Carol Hilliard

Caitlin Hills

Jeneese Hilton

Christine Himes

Kathleen Himmer

Harry Hinch

Robert Hingtgen

Olivia Hipkins

Les & Donna Hirsch

Mark Hirvonen

Tashina & Terry Hiwalker

Hobie Hobart

Aaron Hobbs

Timothy Hoch

Adrienne Hochberg

Steven Hochhalter

Carol Hodges

Lawrence & Bruce Hofeldt

George Hofer

Alvin & Dena Hoff

Marily Hoffman

Michael & Judi Hoffman

Howard Hogan

Thomas Hohn

Ric Holden

Don Holland

Patricia E. Hollingsworth

Kent Holmes

Hank Holmes

Charlotte Holmes

Matthew Holmes

Judith Holmes
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-95

Laura & Brett Holmquist

Diane Holstrom

Gordon & Edith Holte

Jack Holterman

Deanna Homer

Al Homme

Barbara & Eugene Hood

Byron Hood

Sam Horn

Michael Houda

L. Houger

Jean Hough

Natalie Houghtaling

Juli House

Ken Hoversland

Jori How

Wayne Howell

Becky Howey

Brian Hoyt

Marty Hredzak

Bridget Hrica

Richard Hubacek

Tom Hubbard

E Amory Hubbard

Sandra Hubbard

William Hubber

Nancy Hubbs-Chang

Larry Huber

Floyd & Dora Huckins

Gary Huckins

Olivia Hudis

Trevor Hudson

Aileen Hughes

April Hughes

Phil Hughes

Jeane Hull

Raso Hultgren

Patrice Humke

Richard Humleker

Carol Humphrey

Jim Humphrey

Gary Huncovsky

Greg & Rachel Huncovsky

Elli P. Hunt

Wade Hunter

Margie Hunter

Roselea Huntsalong

Dana Hupp

Michael Hurd

Robert Hurly

Peter Husby

Sonya Huskey

J. Huston

Robert Hutchings

Dick Hutchinson

John Hutchison

Sonia Huttner-Perekovic

Malcolm Hutton

Stephen Hutton

Dee Hutton

Cynthia Hutton

Bonnie Hyatt-Murphy

I

Joseph & Debra Icenogle

Kirby Iler

Andrzej Imiolek

Harriet Ingram

Phyllis Inloes

Elizabeth Irwin

Bill Isaacs

Aaron Isquith

C Iverson

Megan Iverson

J

Stephanie Jackson

"John Jackson, Iii"

Alexis James-Skiloff

Betty Jamison

Michael Jandreau

William Janks Ii

Theresa Jaquess

Nihad Jarallah

Julia Jardine

Lilias Jarding

Richard Jaretsky

Michael Jefferies

Monroe Jeffery

Jon Jenkins

Robert Jenkinson

Gerry & Chuck Jennings

Steven F. & Mary C. Jennings

Pamela Jennings

Delmar Jensen

Ronald Jensen

Jerry Jimison

Harlan & Carla Jirges

"Benjamin Joannou, Jr."

Lawana John

Ella Johnsen

Bill Johnsen

Lynn Johnsen

Bob Johnson

Penny Johnson
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-96

Debra Johnson

Anthony Johnson

Jewellene Johnson

Tamara Johnson

Clair Johnson

Scott Johnson

Shannon Johnson

Marilyn Johnson

Eric Johnson

Dean Johnson

Larry Johnson

Candace Johnson

Steve Johnson

Sexangary Johnson

Clifford Johnson

Cheryl Johnson

Kim Johnson

April Johnston

James Johnston

Karen Jolliffe

Charles Jonaitis

James Jones

Bob Jones

Norma Jones

David Jones

Scott Jones

Edmund Jones

Tim Jones

Douglas Jones

Libby Jones

Emilie Jones

Rodney Jones

Leonard Jones

Vern Jordan

Michael Jordan

James Jorgensen

Randy Jorgensen

Jay & Evelyn Joseph

Terry Josephson

William & Elizabeth Josephson

Belinda Joyce

William Joyce

Michelle Juneau

K

Gilbert Kachmar

Sue Kacskos

Beth Kaeding

Norma Kafer

Becky Kallevig

Arthur Kaltenborn

Frank Kammel

Edward & Ruby Kammerer

Ken Kamon

Karen Kane

Marvin & Joann Kanenwischer

Gary Kania

Gale Kappe

Eric&Armin Karanjawala

Anthony Karlic

Ellan Karnowski

Clifford Karos

Bryan Kary

Laure Kaschube

Fred Katterman

Robert Katuna

Merrill Katz

Diana Kaye

Tim Keating

Dr. Barbara W. Keats

John Keefe

Missy Keeney-Baker

Michael Keepper

Laurie Kelley

Dawn Kelley

Warren Kellogg

Sheila Kelly

Steve Kelly

Ramona Kelly

Steve & Tunie Kembel

Marcus Kemp

Judith Kemp

Michael L. Kendall

Debra Kendrew

Del Kenitzer

William Kennedy

Ann Kennedy

Mary Kent

Haley Kenyon

Keith Kerbel

Melanie Kerber

Paul Kerman

John Kerns

Bill Kesinger

Nancy Ketrenos

Molly Kettler

Gary Kettring

Tayyaba Khokhar

Fred Kielsmeier

Martha Kiger-Nelson

Ernest Kight

Sue Kilduski

Tracy Killoy

Deanna Killsnight

Kathy Killsnight

John Kilpatrick
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-97

Ted Kiltie

Tami Kimball

Herbert Kimmel

Loren Kimmel

Peggy J. Kincaid

Sandy Kindt

Glenn Kinduell

Lillian King

Dawn King

James King

Melanie King

Cheryl Kiraly

Rachel Kirby

Dorothy Kirk

Joseph Kirk

Amber Kirkpatrick

Karla Kirmse

Stephen Kislock

Sandra Kissam

Pamela Kjono

Roy Klaudt

Karol Klein

Joe Klein

Gordon Klein

Martin Kleinsasser

Don Klempel

Leona Klerer

Judith Kleuser

Don Klima

John Klotz

Karson Kluver

Richard Knablin

Betsy R. Knight

Jack & Albert Knobloch

Jerell Knowles

Janet Koch

Inga Kocnova

Barry E. & Melanie J. Kohn

Joseph Kollar

J. Kolman

Steve Koontz

Dale Kooyman

Deanna Korda

Frank Korman

Shirley Kovar

Jay Kraeszig

Rebecca Kraimer

Gay Kramer-Dodd

Marilyn Krause

Deborah Kreis

Charlotte Kress

Alfred Kristensen

Candace Kubczak

William E. Kubow

Dennis Kubrak

Gary & Susan Kuess

Peter Kugler

Jim Kuipers

Rebecca Kuligowski

Carol Kulish

Anita Kunda

Joe Kurkowski

Mike Kurman

L

Linda Labombard

Marian Lacklen

Lucas Lackner

Leonie Lacouette

Bill Lacrosse

Danelle Laflower

Roberta Lafrance

Jennie Lafranier

Leroy Lafurge

Joan A. Lahmon

Carol Lambert

Carol Lambert

Fran Lamendola

Jim Lamon

Robert Lance

Jon Landers

Karen Landers

Landmen

Nathaniel Landon

John Lane

Earl & Sue Lane

Robert Lane

G.J. Lang

Marva Lang

Randi Langas

Dennis Lange

Cheryl Langford

Dennis Lantz

Sonee Lapadot

Jacquelynne Lapitsky

Dave Larsen

Benjamin Lash

Gura Lashlee

Jeff Laszloffy

Carylyn Later

Rande Latour

Christopher Lauing

Carole & Phil Lavigne

Dennis P. & Mary V. Law

Wendy Layden

Marcella Layden
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-98

Beatrice Lazar

Michele Learner

Al Leatherberry

R Leatherberry

Jane Leatherman-Vanfraag

Christine Leblanc

Ellen Lebowitz

Carl Lechner

Katherine & Jim Lee

Don Lee

Ray Lee

Angela Lees

Marshall Lefferts

Morris Leibovitz

Gail Lelyveld

Ralph Lenhart

Mary Leon

James Leopold

Kaila Lepage

"Joseph M. Lepak,Jr."

Jeff Lepley

Michelle Lerandeau

Mary Lerner

Peter Lesica

Elizabeth Lesica

Jim Leske

Rev & Mrs F. Richard Leslie

Michael Letendre

Michael Letendre

Evangeline Leveque

Patricia Levin

Gilda Levinson

James Lewandowski

Francesca Lewis

Rebecca Lewis

Dominic Libby

Law Library

Thomas Lieb

Laura Lieberman

David Lien

Janet Liessner

Hope Lifsey

Brandon Ligon

Pedro Lilienfeld

Francis & Vonda Limpy

Karen Linarez

Rev Conrad H & Patricia Lindeman

Goran Lindeolsson

Laura Lindley

Brenda Lindlief-Hall

Ruth Lindsey

Russell Link

David Linn

Barbara Linn

Henry Lischer

Linda Lisle Hensley

Steve Liss

Lionell Little

John Little

Robert Little

Eugene Little Coytoe

Regine Little Whiteman

Winona Littlebird

Michael Littmann

Joanne Livingston

Eileen Livingstone

Alan & Jan Lloyd

Kathy Lloyd

Nancy Lloyd

Hollis Locke

Roseanna Lohof

Marjorie Lohrer

Carol Lombard

Robert Lombardi

Doug Long

Vince Lopez

Vincent Lopez

Dennis Loreth

Ronald Loucks

David Loudenback

George Loveday

Lisa Loveless

Terri Lovins

Richard & Anne Lower

Marian Lower

Robert Lubbers

Rae Lubin

Claudia Lucas

"John Lucich, Jr"

Jeffrey Luhrs

Richard Luken

Stanley Lund

Thomas Lund

Jerry Lunde

David Lunde

Geraldine Lundstrom

Cathy Lungren

Tom Luoma

Joan Lupacchino

Sally Lydon

Jennifer Lyman

Dan Lynch

Bambi Lyninger

Sandra Lynton

Gary Lyons

Beverly Lyons

Victoria Lyons

Elizabeth Lyons-Augliera
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-99

M

Shelly Macay Dean

Stephanie Macdonald

Mike Machler

Barbara Macioroski

Wray Mackay

Keeley Mackenzie

Mary Mackenzie

Neil Maclay

Bob Macpherson

Don Madden

Jennifer Madgic

Deb Madison

Alvin Madler

Charles Madler

Charles Madler

Janyse Madsen

Diane Magnusson-Schmidt

Quannah Magpie

Doreen Mahoney

Earl Mainwaring

Chuck Makela

Max Makich

Joyce & Monte Malley

Rev. Marlena Mallner

Mary Malloy

Shari Malloy

Todd Mandeville

Linda Manion

Lisa Mankin

Alita Mantels

James Mantz

Cynthia Marble

Sally March

Suzanne Maresca

Don Margeson

Ben Margolis

Martin Margolis

O Markle

Candiss Markowsky

Ray Marman

Kris Marohn

Sandy Marquardt

Michael Marquardt

Tony Marra

David Marrocco

Matthew Marrocco

Wendy Marshall

David Marshall

Linda Marshall

Michael Marshall

John Martin

Kelly Martin

Nelly Martinez

Gabrielle Martin-Neff

Roberta Martinoni

David Martoccia

Christopher Masciangelo

Monte Mason

Sara Mast

James Mast

Robert Matejka

Fred Mathes

Susan Mathiascheck

Marty Mathieson

Mary Ann Mattaliano

Bill Matthews

Bruce E. Matthews

Michael Mavrovouniotis

Emanuel Mayer

Mary Mayes

Katie Mays

Kathryn Mazaika

Jay Mcaninch

Herb Mccamish

Charles Mccarthy

Debbie Mccarthy

Kim Mccartney

Chris Mccarty

Jack Mcclain

Michael Mcclary

Michael Mccleery

Julie Mcclelland

Jimmy Mcclure

Leslie Mccollom

Susan Mcconnell

Dan Mccormack

Mindy J. Mccormack

Melissa Mccoy

Jamie Mcculloch

Bob Mccurdy

Tiffany Mcdaniel

Michael Mcdaniel

Susan Mcdonald

Marsha Mceachern

Toby Mcelravey

Nancy Mcelroy

Liz Mcfarland

Jacob Mcgee

Ann C. Mcgill

Kevin Mcgowan

Patty Mcgrath

Matthew Mcguire

Dave Mcilnay

Francis Mcinnis

J. Mcintyre
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-100

Kaitlyn Mckee

James Mckeny

Tom Mckerlick

Billannematt Shari Mckinney

Nancy Mclachlin

Andrew Mclain

Margarita Mclean

Kathi R. Mcmahon

Harry Mcnally

Joann Mcneill

Elizabeth Mcpherson

Clint Mcrae

Wally Mcrae

Doug Mcrae

Clint Mcrae

Wallace Mcrae

Doug Mcrae

Clint Mcrae

Leonard Mcsweyn

Wanda Medicine Horse

Chris Mehl

Siddharth Mehrotra

Laurent Meillier

David Mellinger

Elizabeth Mello

Kathleen Mello-Nelson

Paul Mellor

Janis Melum

Denny Mengel

Janet Laker Merritt

Kevin Metz

Marc Meyer

Charlotte Meyer

Charles Meyers

Pete Miceli

John Michael

Christine Michaels

Christine Miche

Barbara Michelman

Matthew Michenzi

Joanna Midtlyng

Alexandra Miehlbradt

Sandy Mier

Stanley Mikulka

John Milisenda

David Miller

Marvin Miller

Barbara Miller

Stephanie Miller

Rob Miller

Jacqueline Miller

Ronald Miller

Nakoshi Miller

Lynn Miller

Mark Miller

Derrill Miller

Donna Miller

David Milligan

Bill Milton

Allen Minear

Gerry Minick

J Mitchell

Brent Mitchell

Tamara Mitchell

Jack Mixell

Jeanne Miyasak

Bob Model

Randy Moe

York Moehlenkamp

Steven Moffatt

Irene Moffett

Marlin Mogan

Craig Mohr

Kathleen Molatch

John Molenar

Bertil Moller

F Molsberry

Dick & Millie Molstad

Robert Molthen

Erik Molzar

Rex & Susan Mongold

John Monks

Joseph Montalban

Linda Moody

Marlene Moon

John Moore

Sharon Moore

Thomas Moore

Tim Moore

Linda Moore

Thomas Moore

Markl Moreland

Diane Morency

Patricia Morgan

Daniel Morin

Dennis Morley

Connie Morris

Connie Morris

Barbara Morris

Hilarie Morris

John Morrison

Gary Morrison

Adrienne Morse

Bob & Julie Morton

Ernest Morton

Claire Moseley

Jim Mosher

Patricia Moss
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-101

Hilda Moss

Mike Mottice

Robert Motz

Mike Moulett

Esn Mountain

Amber Muckerman

Johanna Mueller

K. Muench

Roger Muggli

Van Mullen

Martha Muller

Cindy Mullet

Diane Mullins

Joseph Multhauf

Elisabeth Mundel

Mary Murgo

David Murnion

Karla Murphy

Brian Murphy

Margaret Murphy

David Murphy

Fred Murray

Angela Murray

Michael Murrin

Margaret Muscatello

Bill & Judy Musgrave

Ilof Musich

Tom Myers

Cathy Myers

Richard Myers

Colou Myers

David Mykel

Amy Myran

Jon Mysse

N

Ellen Naegeli

Robert Nance

Catherine Nance

Carol Narick

Maurita Nations

Chris Nauman

Gerald Navratil

Gaylynn Neal

Keith & Janet Neault

George Nell

Ken Nelson

Diana Nelson

Brian Nelson

Charles Nemec

Gerald Nenninger

Paulette Neshiem

Delmar Nesper

Cheryl Neuenkirk

Leon Newell

David Newell

Zack Newman

W Nicholls

Wade Nichols

Sandi Nichols

Stanley Nicholson

Patricia Nickles

Michael Nicklin

Linda Nield

Melinda Nielsen

Bill Nierstedt

R Nikolaisen

James Nimmo

Joe Nistler

Bill Noble

William Nolan

Sherril Nolan

Greg Nolen

Dave Nomsen

Lucy Norris

Keeta Norris-Cox

Nancy Norsby

Mary Northabbott

Nancy Norvell

Jeremy Not Afraid

Michael Noth

Russell Novkov

Jack Novosel

O

Benjamin Oas

Ray Ober

Robin O'brien

Stanley E & Karin Ochs

Sarah O'day

Bruce Odelberg

R.G. Odom

Maureen O'donoghue

Doug Oellermann

Personnel Officer

Audra Ogden

Philip & Kathy Ogle

Sam Ohlson

Denise Ohly

Allan Oines

Patricia Oja

Elaine O'kennedy

Jeffery Okerman

Walter Old Elk
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-102

Latonna Old Elk

Michaela Oldfield

Alan Olsen

A Olson

Jane Olson

Nancy A. Olson

Victoria Olson-Cook

"Gene Onacko, Jr"

Rick Oncken

Tammy O'neill

Erin O'neill

Cynthia Opderbeck

Theresa Oppelt

David Orbe

Paul Orbuch

Taylor Orr

Rob Orr

Sam Ortenberg

Marilyn Ortt

A. Osborne-Smith

Rod Ost

Tom Ostendorf

Joan Ostrozny

Katherine O'sullivan

Loren Otoole

Veanne Otto

Ida Owen

Linda Owen

Mary Owens

P

Timothy Padalino

Mary Padmos

Patrick Padovan

Julia Page

John Page

Diane Palacio

Terry Palmer

Michael Palmer

Giancarlo Panagia

Heather Pankhurst

Diane Pannella

Maria Pannenbacker

Todd Parfitt

Anthony Parisi

Mary Park

Randall Parker

Jennie Parker

J.T. Parker

Brian Parks

Jean Parks

John Parodi

Leslie Parrish

Lyle Partin

Rick Patterson

Traci Patterson

Scott Patti

Vickie Patton

Claudia Payne

Charles B. Payne

Andrew Payne

Michael Pearigen

Gabriel Pearson

Moriah Peck

Darrell Peck

John Pekruhn

Ron Pelham

Nathaniel Pelton

James Akers Pence

Joseph Pendry

Marsha Penner

Bob Pennock

Karen Pensis

John Pepper

Sharon Peralta

Anita Pereira

Dominic Perello

Frances Perillo

Pamela Pernot

Edward Perot

Charlene Perry

Susan Perry

Jeff Perry

Bobbie Peter

Larry Peterman

Jody Peters

"Howard Peters, Jr"

Todd Petersen

Brad Peterson

Renee Peterson

Gary Peterson

Sandy Peterson

Karrin Peterson

Zara Petkovic

Linda Petrulias

Ned Pettit

Karin Pettross

C Pezzarossi

Nezka Pfeifer

Janice & Dan Pfeiffer

Ellen Pfister

Jim Phelps

James Phelps

James Phelps

Newell & Andre Philbrick

Jeffrey Phillips
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-103

Christine Phillips

Lexine Phillips

Cynthia & Mr. Paul Phillips

Charles D Phillips

Tom Pick

M. Pickard

Brian Pickering

Pat Pickren

Pat Pierson

M. Pietrowski

John Pikolcz

Steve Pilcher

George Pilgrim

Seidel Pine

Doug Pineo

Ron Pipa

Tara Piper

Leroy Pirie

David Pirrung

John F Pistilli

Jade Pisut

Terry Pitt

Laura Pitt Taylor

Vincent Pittignano

Barbara Pitts

Dundees Place

Mardell Plainfeather

Michelle Plotnik

Gina Pockrandt

Robert & Sonja Poe

Stephen Pohl

Barbara Poland

Kenneth Polanski

Shiva Polefka

Rosalie Popick

Cherry Porten

F Porter

Sean Porter

Horatio & Liz Potter

Steve Potts

Melonie Potts

Evelyn Potts

Dan Powell

Jeanne Powell

Thomas Power

Brenda Powers-Morrow

David Pratt

Joseph Prchal

Webb President

Dorothy & Dwight Preston

Susan Preston

Debbie Pretty Paint

Lynn Marie Price

Carol Price

Edward Price

Thomas J. Price

Jack Prichard

Susan & Dave Priest

Noelle Prince

Lauri Provencher

Oakey Pruett

Christine Puckett

Jeanne Puerta

Terry Punt

Debbie Purvis

Q

Franklin Quan

Elissa Querze

Paul Quinn

Cherokee Quintana

David Quist

R

Carolyn Raasch

Melvin Rabe

Joyce Raby

Chip Raches

Sandra Rachlis

Sharon Racusin

Kelly Radue

John Rafferty

Yoshaany Rahm

Michael Rall

Patricia Ramos

Billie Ramsey

Paul Rana

D. Fitz Randolph

Debbie Rankin

Wayne Ransbottom

Chad Ransom

J R & Pat Rasmussen

Tim & Mary Rasmussen

Dot Rasmussen

Maria Rasmussen

Philip Ratcliff

Clifford Joe Raty

Jorg & Anke Raue

Harriet Rauenzhan

Kellie Rau-Rodricks

Terri Rauscher

Wyndy Rausenberger

Phyllis Ray

Ashley Raymond

Guy Raymond
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-104

Callie Real Bird

Andra Rebar

Susan Recce

Mark Reed

Tim Reed

Steve & Deb Regele

Representative Rehberg

Theresa Reiff

K. Reifke

Peter Reilly

Rita Reilly

Michael Reiner

Andrew Reisse

Joan Renne

Jackie & James Renner

Polly Rex

Susan Reynolds

Ronda Reynolds

Brett Rhinesmith

Carol Rhoads

"Robert Rhodes, Iii"

Debra Ricci

Liz Ricci

Nathan A & Janet Rice

George & Jenny Rice

Calvin Rice

Eldon Rice

Rick Rice

Gloria Rich

Don Richardson

John Richardson

Don Richardson

Mauna Richardson

Willis Richardson

Gail Richens

Tom Richmond

Renee Richmond

Robert E & Tomi Rickels

Gloria Rico

Kelley Rico

Sherry Riddell

Stephanie Rider

Beth Riggs

Donna Riley

John Riley

Sue Riley

Tom Riley

Ray Ring

Charles & Emily Ringer

Jennifer Ripman

Robin & Tom Ritman

Raymond Rittal

Andrew Ritter

Felicia Ritz

Nicole Rivette

Raymond Rizor

Alice Roach

Andrea Roady

Linda Roady

Richard Roan

Clay Roark

Kathy Robbins

Crystal Robe

R Roberts

Dwight Roberts

Richard & Janet Roberts

Laura Roberts

Cliff Roberts

Les Roberts

Altine Roberts

Roberrta Roberts

Gordon Robertson

James & Ernie Robinson

Jim Robinson

Saliane Robinson

Donna Robinson

Paula Robinson

Jessica Rocheleau

Arthur Rochester

Phil Rockey

Brent Rocks

Joseph Rodgers

Sally Rodibaugh

Alisha Rodrigues

Joe Rodriguez

Ramcey Rodriguez

Keith Roebuck

Linda Roehrig

Ray Roerick

Brian Rogers

Ralph Rogers

Cynthia Rogers

Charles Rohrer

Walter Rolf

Jean Roll

Frank Rollefsen

Alan Rolston

Eugene Romanski

William Roney

Lucille & Peter Ronning

John Rooney

Samantha Rosa-Re

Ramon Rosas

Leslie Rose

Henry & Susan Rosenfeld

Timothy Rosser

G M & Marge Rossetter

Charles Roth
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-105

Shelley Rothwell

William Rothwell

Mark Roundstone

Claudia J. Rousseau

Tim Rowe

Ray Rowe

Carolyn K. Rowker

Linda Rowlett

Jerry Roy

Jane Roybal

Robbie Rubly-Burggraff

Ralph Rucker

Tom Rudholm

Patricia Rudner

Kim Rudnick

Kathleen Rueppel

Anita Ruiz

Dorothy Rummel

Mary Rumph

Florence Running Wolf

Karin Rupp

Paul Rusanowski

Mark Rush

Mary Russell

Majel Russell

Nikki Russell

Robert Russell

Paul Russell

Thomas Ryan

Anne Ryan

Valerie Ryan

Hope Ryden

Becky Rye

S

Frank Sabatini

Shelley Sadler

Rodney Sager

Jeanne Saint-Amour

Julie Salas

Josephine Salata

Jon Salmon

Gwendolyn & George Salner

Natalie Saltiel

Mark Salvo

Butch & Louann Samuelson

Gaye Samuelson

Michele Samuelson

Hugh Sanborn

Keith Sanborn

"Daniel Sanchez,Sr."

Rob & Mary Sand

Stephanie Sandel

Michael Sanders

Linda Sanders

Sally Sanders

Nancy Sanderson

Joel Sanguinetti

Ronald Sannes

Ron Santi

H. Santmire

Marc Santora

Dana Saporito

Robert Sapp

Kimberly Sarner

Shawn Sartorius

Steven Sasaki

Maryann Sattler

Greg Satz

Carol Scallan

Ken Scalzone

Nancy Scarangella

Robin Schaef

Maryanne Schafer

Ed Schaffer

Lana Schaffer

Lisa Scharin

Mike Schauer

Stephen Schenck

Steven Schey

John Schieffelbein

Brenda Schilf

Jeff Schinkten

Mike Schlegel

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich

William Schlesinger

Karen Schlesser

Jane Schluter-Amitsis

Vivian Schmidt

Judy Schmitt

Thomas Schneider

Ken Schneider

Elizabeth H. Schneider

S.M. Schneidmiller

Jon Schnelle

Peter Schoanmaker

Karen Schock

Marilyn Scholler

Crystal Schooley

Stephen Schreck

Katrina Schreiber

Stephen Schroeder

Franklin Schroeter

Gayle Schuett

Martin Schuettpelz

Roberta Schultz
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-106

James Schultz

J Schumacher

Miles Schumacher

Doris Schumann

Tina Schvejda

Mike Schwab

Rocklin Schwagler

Jim Schwall

David Schwarz

Don Schwarz

Marian Schwarzenbach

William Schwarzkoph

Ft. Collins Science Center

Vanessa Scoles

Robert Scott

David Scott

Marcheta Scott

Terry Scott

Donna Scramling

Matt Secrist

Katherine M. Seekins

Bill Seerup

Jeffrey Segal

Sandra Seibert

Keith Seifert

Janet Seiler

Becky Seitz

Miroslava Sekaric

Susan Selbin

Kanti Selig

Ian Sellars

Clyde Selvidge

Nuna Seminole

Todd Senescall

John Senrud

Jan Sensibaugh

Robert Serenbetz

Jessica Serna

Addison Sessions

Ronald Seymour

Carolyn Shafer

Jim Shaffer

John Shaffer

Jim Shaffer

Beryl Shahan

Laura Shallbetter

Bill Shanks

Aletta & Randy Shannon

Shelia Shapiro

Sima Shapiro

Herbert Sharbono

Arlo & Darlene Share

Michelle Sharp

Jay Shaw

Lucy Shaw

Sandy Shay

June Shea

Joseph & Linda Sheader

Elizabeth M. Shelton

Mike Shenk

Jeffery Shenot

Warren Shepard

Don Shepherd

William Sherman

Charles Sherwood

Jim Shields

Scott Shiflett

Robert Shippee

Hayley Shirk

Ibolya Shirley

Linda Shivery

Herb Shoemaker

Laura Sholtz

Norm & Irene Shorb

Karen Eric Annie Shores

Daniel Shosky

Danielle Shotgunn

Katheryn Shoulderblade

Kavita Shourie

Christina Shriver

Duane Shrout

Joy Shue

Dawn Shue

James Shuta

Colleen & Larry Sibelman

Josie Siefken

Lisa Siegert-Free

Toni Siegrist

Shareen Siegrist

Dorothea Sierra

Dimitri Sifers

Lance Sigismond

Lynn Sigordson

Wade Sikorski

Sybil Sim

Amy Simeister

Kendrick Simila

Patricia Simmons

Shawn Simonson

Leah Simpson

Laurene Sims

Sally Ann Sims

Eve Sims

"Ronald Sims,D.D."

Jd Sitter

Don Skaar

Laura Skaer

Paul Skerl
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-107

Geoff Skews

Sarah Skigen

Gail Skinner-Brassard

Olga Skorapa

Stephen Skrainka

Deb Skudney

Jerry Skyles

Michael Sladek

Mike Sloan

Rachael Slusher

Holly Small

Thomas & Beatrice Small

David Small

Gail Small

Betty Smay

A.C. Smid

Steve Smilack

Ted Smiley

Jack Smith

Annick Smith

Roger & Grace Smith

Keith Smith

Judy Smith

Kelley Smith

T.O. Smith

Michael Smith

Gene Smith

Doug Smith

Michael Smith

Michael Smith

Tina Smith

Malcolm Smith

David Smith

Edward Smith

M.L. Smith

Jewell Smith

Jean Smith

Arthur P Smith

James Smith

Bill Smith

Jordana Smith

Gray Smith

Jill Smith-Tornabene

Henry Smoke

Patrick Smyth

Diana Smythe

Karla Snedigar

Paul Sneed

Mary Snider

Robert Sniegowski

James E. Snodgrass

Lynne Snowden

Stephen Snyder

Nancy Snyder

Stephen Snyder

John Snyder

Julie Soglio

Dave Sollman

Alan Somers

Ronald Sorenson

Ed Sousa

Alonzo & Clarice Spang

Marissa Spang

Jon Spar

Nancy Spatola

Lisa A Spencer

John Spengler

Beverly Spiker

Teresa Springer

George Stadnik

Clay Stafford

J. Stagner

Elizabeth Stahel

Patricia Standring

Jack Stanford

Steve Stanhope

Bob Stanhope

Ruth Stankewitz

Missy Stansell

Harold Stanton

Johanna Staples

Catherine Starnes

Sandra Starr

Governor Of State Of Montana

Capitol Station

Darlene Statz

Mary Staudinger

David Stauffer

David Staunton

Timothy Stebler

John Steele

Shawna Steeley

Rick Stefanic

Will Stefanov

Fred Steiber

Ellen Stein

Sharon Steinhofer

Bill Stephan

Sue Stephens

Matt Stephens

Melissa Frost & Tim Stevens

Jadene Stevens

Don Stewart

Zane Stiffler

Randy Stockdale

Suzanne Stockton

Jim Stoltz

Rose Stoneberg
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-108

Rick Story

Alan Stout

Lloyd Stradley

Barbara Stratton

Jean Stril

Debra Strini

J Stroh

Sylvester & Ruby Strom

Karen Strum

Michael Studnicka

Richard & Rosemary Stuker

Jon Sturtevant

Diane Stuver

Joanna Suchman

Richard Sudduth

Kevin Sulitz

Gerald Sullivan

Michael Sullivan

Diane Sullivan

James Swaney

Marti Swanson

Maryjane Sweet

Mary Sweet

Corey Swenson

Marlene Swisher

Bruce Switzer

Lavon Switzer

Robert Sylvester

Joan Szalacinski

Marilynn Szydlowski

T

Kenneth Tabachnick

Christopher Tache

Peggy Tagesen

Cindy Takaht

Paul Takessian

Ron & Twila Jo Talcott

"Jacob Tall Bull, Jr."

Renee & Paul Targosz

Bryan Tarter

Dorthy Tarter

B. Tate

Suzanne Tate

Thomas Taylor

Margaret Taylor

Lila Taylor

Watty & Lila Taylor

Heather & Colin Taylor

Knealon Teague

Dennis R.M Teall-Fleming

Eric Teela

Simon Teolis

John Terry

Sondra Teske

H Teter

Brian Tetreault

Herb Thackeray

Byron Thayer

June Thayer

Eva Theodosiadis

Richard Thomas

Deb Thomas

Robert Thomas

Sheila A. Thomas

Toni Thomas

Suzanne Thomason

Carol Thomasson

Wayne Thompson

Beth Thompson

Scott Thompson

Karen Thompson

Sheila Thompson

Don Thomsen

John Thomson

Gray Thornton

Norman Thornton

Anthony Three Fingers

Alan Three Irons

Debra Thurlo

Steve & Sue Tibbetts

Elizabeth Tighe

Arthur & Terresa Tilleman

E.J. Tillman

Janet Tillotson

Heather Tittle

Nancy Todd

Casey Tofte

Tom Tolleson

George Tolleson

Deborah Tomas

Bonnie Tomassetti

Gregg Tomlinson

William J. Toner

Anne Tooley

Marcos Torres

Jim Torske

Dianna Torson

David Towberman

Tom Towe

Eileen Trainor

Bill Tramp

Ray Traub

Noel Traver

Elaine Treadwell

David Tribble
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-109

Jim Tripp

Sandra Troff

Jack Trope

Emilie Tropiano

Brenda Troup

Thomas Troyk

Evonne Trumble

Pat Tucker

Amanda Tucker

Donna Tucker

Jack Tuholske

Ellie Turgeon

Frank Turkot

Donna Turman

William Turner

Ardelle Tuxen

Larry Tveit

Hubert Two Leggins

Danielle Two Two

Janneke Twombly

U

Dale Uetrecht

Antoinette Uffner

Matt & Jeanette Uland

Duane Ulrich

Lowell Underhill

Roger Underhill

Stacey Upton

Robin Urban

V

Rick Vaccaro

Leslie Vaculik

Sabra Valdick

Richard Valencia

Stephen & Christine Valentine

Len Vallender

"Frederick H. Van Doorninck, Jr"

Kelle Van Ness

Paul Van Steenberghe

Willy Van Strasten

Wayne Van Voast

Kirk Vandenberghe

Wendy Vandergrift

Steven Vanfossen

Barbara Vanhanken

Renee Vankuren

Donald Vanouse

Mathias Vanthiel

Garry Vanwart

Meg Varhalmi

Bob Varner

Richard Vary

Karen Vasily

N. Andrew Vaughn

George Vaught

Jordan Veatch-Goffi

Lisa Marie Vegas

Debbie Velitz

Lucy Venable

Sherri Venezia

Gael Venn

Judith & Raymond Vershum

Earl Veskerna

Doris Vician

Katherine Vickers

Alicia Vilbaum-Fiedler

Beverly Villinger

Verlyn Vincent

Kurt Vogelman

Kathleen Voigt

Martha Vojtko

Tassilo Von Kock

Bill & Marilyn Voorhies

Hal Vosen

W

Diane Wachowski

James Wachter

Reed Wacker

Susan Wade

Dan Wadley

Raymond Wager

George Wagner

Robbin Wagner

Cheryl Wagner

Douglas Wagoner

Emily Wagoner

Jonathan Waldo

Bob Waldron

Lynn Walker

Scott Walker

Lee Walker

Jean Walker

Joan Walker

Cynthia Walker

Ronald Walker

Joseph Walksalong

William Walksalong

Stephanie & Ken Wallace

Stephen Wallace

Gale Wallach
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-110

Donna Walters

Richard Waltner

William F. Walton

Cherie Wambeke

Mike Wamboldt

Sara Wangler

Bernt Ward

Martin J. Ward

Kirk Waren

Fred Warner

Barbara Warner

Madelyn Warren

Victor Warren

Chris Watenpool

Gary Watkins

Daniel Watson

William Watt

William Watt

Russ Watts

Jon Watts

Lynn M. Waugh

Susan Weasea

Ted & Yvonne Weaver

Matt Weaver

Shad Weber

Gunn Weber

H Webster

Steven Webster

Jeff Webster

Joel Webster

Rose Wedlund

Joe Weigand

Sherm Weimer

Sandy Weiss

Irene Welch

Christine Welch-Galvan

Walter Weldon

Jeremy Wells

Laurine Welnick

Darlene Welsh

John Welton

James Wempner

Tina Wener

Carl Weniger

Daniel R Wentworth

W. Alan Wentz

J Werner

Jeffrey Wertkin

Elsa West

Glenda West

Kevin Westcott

Shirley Westerlund

Robert & Mary Whalen

Shirley Whalen

John Wheaton

Judith Wheeler

Roy Wheeler

Sandi Wheeler

James Wheelock

Alan Whetton

Dukh Niwaran Whipp

Dorothy Whipple

Ken Whitaker

Debra Whitaker

Kathleen White

Judy White

Richard White

Anne Julie White

Fred White Wolf

"Fred White Wolf, Jr"

"James Whitman, Sr."

A. Wicht

Chuck Wideman

C Wideman

Elsa Wiebe

Rachel Wieland

Glenn Wielenga

Pamela Wienskovich

Mike Wigen

Susanne & Jeff Wilbur

Ralph Wilkerson

Robert Wilkes

Patrick Wilkinson

Arthur Wilkinson

Barry Noon Will Clements

Dorothy & Gerald Willems

Thomas Williams

Bob Williams

Katherine Williams

Dale & Janie Williams

Paul Williams

Bruce Williams

Eric Williams

Steve Williams

Thomas Williams

Sally Williams

Nicole Williams

Jackie Williamson

Beverly Willson

Stan Wilmoth

Garth Wilson

Bill Wilson

Dick & Connie Wilson

Wes Wilson

Dick Wilson

Janet Wilson

Sheila Wimer

William Wing
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-111

Dean Winkelmann

Janet Winner

Erica Winston

Pete Wipf

Terry Wisner

Robert Withington

Gary & Dorthy Witteman

George Wittemyer

Don Woerner

Cheryl Woerner

Valorie Wolcott-Mendelson

Stacy Wolf

Bernard Wolf

Tom Wolfe

Rebecca Wolfe

John Wolford

Esther Wolk

Traci Woller

Brian Wood

Patricia Wood

Laura Woodard

Charlene Woodcock

Mary Wood-Constableconstable

Marcia Woolman

Ralph Woolsey

Ed Workman

Peter Wright

Huron Wright-Campbell

George Wuerthner

Celine Wyatt

Bryan Wyberg

Lisa Wyzlic

Y

Andrea Yakovakis

Jackie Yamanaka

Jenn Yamate

Roger Yandell

Ethan Yankowitz

David Yarger

Mary Yaskin

Paul Yates

Tony Yates

Tracy Yates

E Yegen

Paul Yeska

Jerry Yester

Kay Yeuell

Janet Yochmowitz

Mel Yost

Wayne Yost

Leona & Glenn Young

Denzil Young

Mary Young

John Young

Sandy Young

Mary Ellen Young

John Youngbear

Melissa Yovanov

Z

Susan Zalon

Bettie Zamastil

Ron Zamorski

Dennis Zander

Richard Zander

Thomas Zelka

Suzanne Zeller

Katherine Zembko

Philip Zeng

Nancy Jean Zerkas

Carol Zeroual

George Zgela

J Zimmerman

Duane Zimmerman

Regine Zimmerman

Kate Zirpolo

Judith Zivanovic

Leo Zwemke

Sandra M. Zwingelberg

Businesses

Adventure Women, Inc.

Air Resource Specialist, Inc.

AK Drilling

ALL Consulting

Amoco Corporation

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation

Applied Hydrology Associates

Apsalooka Energy

Associated Press

Astrella Rice PC

Ballard Petroleum Holdings LLC

Barrel Mountaineering

Bear Trust International

Beartooth Oil & Gas

Berco Resources, Inc.

Bice Ranch

Big Horn Well Service

Big Sky Coal Company

Bill Barrett Corporation

Billings Gazette
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-112

Bjork Lindley Danielson and Little PC

BKS Environmental Associates, Inc.

Blackfeet Oil and Gas

Blackstone Energy

Bones Brothers Ranch

Bowen Gas Corporation

Bowers Oil Gas Exploration, Inc.

Bozeman Daily Chornicle

Brelsford Engineering, Inc.

Brinkerhoff Company

Brown & Caldwell

BTA Oil Producers

Buck Mountain Ranch

Burlington Northern Railroad

Burlington Resources

Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co.

Campen Consultants

Camwest II LP

Caribou Company

Casper Tribune

Cedar Hills Ranch

CH2M Hill

Citation Oil & Gas Corporation

Clementine Ranch

Cline Production Co.

CMS Energy

CNX Land

Coal Creek Mining Co.

Consol Energy, Inc.

Continental Resources, Inc.

Cowry Enterprises, Ltd.

Crowley Law Firm

DJ Engineering, PLLC

D.A. Davison & Co.

Dahlman Ranch Inc.

Davis Graham & Stubbs

Decker Coal Co.

Devon Energy

DTM Consulting, Inc.

EB Ranch

Elenburg Exploration, Inc.

Emit Tech

Empire Oil Co.

Encore Operating LP

Energy Laboratories, Inc.

Englert Land Company, LLC

Ensign Oil & Gas

ENSR

Environmental Adventure Co.

Exodus Inc.

Felton Angus Ranches, Inc.

Fidelity Exploration & Production Company

FL Ranch

Flathead Wildlife, Inc.

Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & co., Inc.

Frisbee Moore & Olson

Fulton Fuel Co.

G.B. Coolidge, Inc.

GEI Consultants, Inc.

Golder Ranch

Gordon Cattle Company

Grafix Studio

Grand Resources, Ltd.

Great Plains Rain Forest

Great Plains Resources, Inc.

Green Mountain Angus

Grouse Inc.

Hallmark Ventures, Inc.

Hancock Enterprises

Hardrock Oil Company

Harrington Bibler

Hawley Oil Co.

Hayden-Wing Associates

Headington Oil Company

Hidden Valley Ranch

Highgrove Associates

Holland Hart

Holmes Ranch

Hydro Geoscience

Hydro Solutions

Industrial and Energy Mining

Infinity Exploration

Inman Real Estate

Integrated Weed Services

Interstate Diesel

J Burns Brown Operating, Co.

J M Huber Corporation

JA Rohn Consulting

Jireh Consulting

Johnson Geophysical

Jordan Ranches

JTL Group Inc.

Keesun Corp

Kennecott Energy Company

Kingsherwood Oil Co.

Klabzuba Oil Gas Inc.

Knife River Coal Mining Company

Koch

Kummerfeld Construction Co.
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-113

KXGN – Montana East News

Larsland Water Disposal

Lee State Bureau

Letec

Livingston Enterprise

Luff Exploration Co.

Luther Appraisal Services

Macum Energy Inc.

Marathon Oil Company

McRae Henry Ltd

MDU Resources Group, Inc.

Mercury Exploration Co.

Miles City Star

Miller Cattle Company

Minerals Diversified Services

Missouri River Royalty Corp.

Montalban Oil & Gas Operating

Montana Dakota Utilities Co.

Montana Power

Montana Heartland LLC

Morrisonmaierle Inc.

Mountain Pacific General, Inc.

MSE Technology Applications Inc.

Muller Ranch

Murphy Exploration and Production Co.

Nance Petroleum Corporation

Natural Resource Group, Inc.

NE Montana Land Mineral Assoc. Inc.

Nicklin Earth Water

North Western Energy

Northern Industrial Hygiene Inc.

Northern Montana Oil Gas

Northern Oil Production, Inc.

Northern Wyoming Systems

Northland Industrial Specialties

Natural Resources Consulting Engineers, Inc.

NRG Associates

Ocean Energy, Inc.

Oilgener

P R Ranch Realty

Panther Creek Resources, LLC

Patton-Boggs LLP

Peabody Natural Gas LLC

Pennaco Energy Inc.

Peral Development Co.

Permitco, Inc.

Permits West, Inc.

Petro Eng. Management Corp.

Petroleum Information Corp.

Philbrick DK Ranch

Pinnacle Corporation

Pinnacle Gas Resources, Inc.

PM Coal Company

Portage Environmental, Inc.

Powder River Gas, LLC

Powder River Co, Extension Service

Preston Reynolds Co., Inc.

Pumps Plus

Quaneco LLC

Ranck Oil Co.

Ranger Review

Rim Operating, Inc.

Rimrock Oil Co.

Richie Exploration, Inc.

Robert Hawkins, Inc.

Rocker Six Cattle Co.

Rocky Mountain Journal

Rosebud Power Plant

S Bar B Ranch

Safari Club International

Sands Oil Co.

Savant Resources

Shane Creek Ranch

Shell Exploration & Production Co.

Sheridan County News

Silver Bow Ranch

Slawson Exploration Co., Inc.

Smith Smith Apparel, Inc.

Soap Creek Association, Inc.

Southern Land Office

Spring Creek Coal Company

St. Oil Company

Stauffer Bury Inc.

Stillwater Co. News

Stillwater Land Company

Summit Lighthouse

T Triangle Ranch Inc.

T Y Irrigation

Tarter Family Trust

The Gallatin Group

The Geosolutions Group LLC

The Helding and Schure Families

The Shipley Group Inc.

Thr Bar Ranch

Tom Brown, Inc.

Tomahawk Oil Co.

Tongue River Farm

Tongue River Railroad

Town & Country Club
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-114

Trident Coal Company

True Oil LLC

V Bar C Cattle Co.

Valley Nursery

WBI Holdings Inc.

Wesco Resources Inc.

Westech Environmental Services

Western Energy Company

Western Environmental Law Center

Westmoreland Resources, Inc.

Whitney Creek Ranch

Williams Companies

Williams Production RMT Company

Williams Sons

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co.

Williston Basin Pipeline Co.

Williston Projects, Inc.

Willys Petroleum

Yellowstone Public Radio

Ziontz, Chestnut, Varnell, Berley & Solnim

Non-Governmental Organizations

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

American Fisheries Society

American Fisheries Society – Montana Chapter

American Lands Alliance

American Sportfishing Association

Archery Trade Association

Association for Preservation of American Wildlife

Association on American Indian Affairs

Association for the Advancement of Indian 

Resources

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Bear Creek Council

Billings Rod & Gun Club

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Boone and Crockett Club of America

Bridger Canyon Property Association

Campfire Club of America

Citizens for Resource Development

Coalition for Peace and Justice

Colstrip Area Association of Business

Congressional Sportmen’s Foundation

Conservation Force

Cottonwood Resource Council

Custer Resource Alliance

Custer Rod and Gun Club

Dallas Safari Club

Defenders of Wildlife

Delta Waterfowl Foundation

Ducks Unlimited

Earth Justice

Environmental Defense

Flathead Audubon Society

Foundation for North American Wild Sheep

Frontier Heritage Alliance

Greater Yellowstone Coalition

High Country Citizen Alliance

Houston Safari Club

Institute for Wildlife Protection

Izaak Walton League of America

Martinsdale Colony

Medicine Wheel Coalition

Montana Association of Conservation Districts

Montana Association of Counties

Montana Association of Oil Gas & Coal Counties

Montana Association of Petroleum

Montana Audubon Council

Montana Bowhunters Association

Montana Coal Council

Montana Coalbed Natural Gas Alliance

Montana Council of Trout Unlimited

Montana Environmental Information Center

Montana Farm Bureau Federation

Montana Farmers Union

Montana Grain Growers Association

Montana Native Plant Society

Montana Natural Heritage Program

Montana Outfitters & Guides Association

Montana Parks Association

Montana Petroleum Association

Montana Public Lands Council

Montana River Association

Montana Wilderness Association Eastern Wildlands 

Chapter

Montana Wildlife Federation

National Assembly of Sportsmen’s Caucuses

National Parks Conservation Asociation

National Rifle Asociation of America

National Shooting Sports Foundation

National Trappers Association

National Trust for Historic Preservation
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-115

National Wild Turkey Federation

National Wildlife Federation

National Wildlife Society

Native Action

Natural Resources Committee

New Jersey Chapter – Sierra Club

North American Bear Foundation

North American Grouse Partnership

Northern Plains Resource Council

Northwest Mining Association

Orion – The Hunters Institute

Petroleum Association of Wyoming

Pheasants Forever

Pope and Young Club

Powder River Basin Resource Council

Public at Large

Public Lands Access Association

Public Lands Advocacy

Public Lands Foundation

Quails Unlimited

Quality Deer Management Association

Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Rocky Mountain Environmental Denfense

Rosebud Protective Association

Ruffed Grouse Society

San Juan Citizens Alliance

Sand County Foundation

Sierra Club Billings Office

Society for Species Management

Southeastern Montana Sportsmen Association

Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ 

Institute

Stillwater Protective Association

Sustainable Obtainable SOL

Texas Wildlife Association

The Environmental Services Network

The Institute for Environmental and Natural 

Resources

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

The Wildlife Society

Tongue River Water Users Association

US Sportsmen’s Alliance

Water Watch

Western Governors Association

Western Land Exchange Project

Western Organization of Resource Council

Whitetail’s Unlimited

Wildlife Forever

Wildlife Management Institute

Womens’ Voices for the Earth

Wyoming Outdoor Council

Yellowstone County Green Party

Yellowstone Valley Audubon Society

Schools and Libraries

AG Research Center

Big Horn County Library

Colorado State University Library

CSU – Dept. of Fish Wildlife Biology 

Columbus University – Dept. of Env. Science

Harvard School of Public Health

Henry Malley Memorial Library

Little Big Horn College

Montana Bureau of Mines Geology

Montana Power Law Library

Montana State University

Montana Tech Geophysics Department

Montana Tech Library

MSU Billings

MSU Billings Environmental Studies Program

MSU – Fisheries Laboratory

Nicholas School of Environmental Earth Science

Northwestern University – Env. Policy Program

Oberlin College, Dept. of Psychology

Peter Yegen Jr. Yellowstone Co. Museum

Rocky Mountain College

Saint Labre Mission

Montana State Library

University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources

University of Montana, Flathead Lake Bio. Station

Tribes

Arapaho Business Council

Crow Tribe

Crow Tribal Chairman

Crow Tribal Contracts Office

Crow Tribal Council

Crow Tribe Cultural Commission

Crow Tribe - Elk River Law Office

Crow Tribe Energy Commission

Crow Tribal EPA

Crow Tribe Legal Department

Crow Tribe Office of Natural Resources

Eastern Shoshone Business Council

Fort Peck Tribes
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-116

Fort Peck Tribal - Minerals

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe

Northern Arapaho Business Council

Northern Cheyenne Chamber of Cmmerce

Northern Cheyenne Crazy Dog Society

Northern Cheyenne Tribe - Chair

Northern Cheyenne Tribe- Health

Northern Cheyenne Tribe - President

Northern Cheyenne Tribe - TERO

Northern Cheyenne Tribe – Dept of Natural 

Resources

Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council

Federal Agencies

Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

BIA – Northern Cheyenne Agency

Bureau of Land Management 

BLM Billings Field Office, Montana

BLM Buffalo Field Office, Wyoming

BLM Cody Field Office, Wyoming

BLM Eastern Montana Resource Advisory Council 

BLM Great Falls Field Office, Montana

BLM Havre Field Office, Montana

BLM New Mexico State Office

BLM Montana State Office

BLM Oregon State Office

BLM Wyoming State Office

Bureau of Reclamation

Department of Agriculture

Department of Energy

DOE – National Energy Technology Laboratory

Department of the Interior

Department of the Interior – Protest Coordinator

Department of the Interior - Solicitors Office

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

National Parks Service 

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers

USDA Farm Service Agency

USDA Forest Service (USFS) Regional Office

USDA Fort Keogh Research Station 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services

USEPA Region 8

USEPA Region 8 Library Serials

USEPA Region 8 Montana Office

US Fish and Wildlife Service

USFS Ashland Ranger District

USFS Custer National Forest

U.S. Geological Survey

State Agencies

Honorable Governor Brian Schweitzer

Montana Board of Oil & Gas Conservation

Montana Chamber of Commerce

Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Montana DEQ - Coal & Uranium Board

Montana Department of Natural Resources & 

Conservation

Montana DNRC Southeastern Land Office

Montana DNRC Water Resources Division

Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks

Montana Department of Transportation

Montana Environmental Quality Council

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks

Montana Secretary State

Montana State Historical Preservation Office

Oregon State Fisheries

State Auditor Office

Washington Department of Ecology

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Wyoming Department of Cmmerce

Wyoming Office of Surface Mining

Local Agencies

Big Horn Conservation District

Big Horn County Commissioners

Big Horn Planning Board

Billings Chamber of Commerce

Bridger Canyon Fire Hall

Broadus Chamber of Commerce

Carbon County Commissioners

Carter County Commissioners

Carter County Conservation District

Custer Fallon County Farm Bureau

Gallatin County Planning Department

Golden Valley County Commissioners

Hardin Chamber of Commerce

Liberty County Conservation

Musselshell County Commissioners

Park County Commissioners

Park County Environmental Council

Powder River County Commissioners

Powder River Conservation District

Rosebud County Conservation District

Rosebud County Commissioners

Rosebud County Extension Agent

Rosebud County Weed District

Sheridan Chamber of Commerce

Sheridan County Commissioners

Sheridan County Planning

Town of Broadus
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

Distribution List (continued)

5-117

Treasure County Commissioners

Yellowstone County Commissioners

Yellowstone County Weed Supervisor

Legislators

Congressional Delegation

U.S. Senator Max Baucus

U.S. Senator John Tester

U.S. Representative Dennis Rehberg

State Legislators

Senators

District 20 – Keith Bales

District 21 – Gerald Pease

District 22 – Lane Larson

District 23 – Kelly Gebhardt

District 24 – Kim Gillan

District 25 – Roy Brown

District 26 – Lynda Moss

District 27 – Corey Stapleton

District 28 – Jeff Essmann

District 29 – Daniel McGee

District 30 – Robert Story

District 31 – John Esp

District 32 – Larry Jent

District 33 – Bob Hawks

District 34 – Joe Balyeat

District 35 – Gary Perry

District 42 – Helena

Representatives

District 39 - Carol Lambert

District 40 – Bill McChesney

District 41 – Norma Bixby

District 42 – Veronica Small-Eastman

District 43 – Duane Ankney

District 44 – William Glaser

District 45 – Alan Olsen

District 46 – Ken Peterson

District 47 – Dennis Himmelberger

District 48 – Wanda Grinde

District 49 – Kendall Van Dyk

District 50 – Tom McGillvray

District 51 – Robyn Driscoll

District 52 – Arlene Becker

District 53 – Elsie Arntzen

District 54 – Gary Branae

District 55 – Michael Lange

District 56 – Ernie Dutton

District 57 – Penny Morgan

District 58 – Krayton Kerns

District 59 – Scott Boggio

District 60 – John Ross

District 61 – Bruce Malcolm

District 62 – Bob Ebinger

District 63 – Jennifer Pomnichowski

District 64 – Franke Wilmer

District 65 – Brady Wiseman

District 66 – Mike Phillips

District 67 – John Sinrud

District 68 – Scott Sales

District 69 – Jack Wells

District 70 – Roger Koopman

District 83 – Harry Klock
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

5-118

List of Preparers

This section lists those responsible for preparation of 

the FSEIS. See the List of Preparers in Chapter 5 of 

the Statewide Document for those responsible for 

preparing the portions of the DSEIS that were not 

changed from the Statewide Document (i.e., 

unshaded text).

BLM Management Team

M. Elaine Raper: Field Office Manager, Miles City 

Field Office, Miles City, Montana

Theresa Hanley: Acting Field Manager, Miles City 

Field Office (August 2006-January 2007), Miles 

City, Montana

Dave McIlnay: Field Office Manager, Miles City 

Field Office (January 2002- August 2006), Miles 

City, Montana

Sandra Brooks: Field Office Manager, Billings 

Field Office (to May 2007), Billings, Montana

Jim Sparks: Field Office Manager, Billings Field 

Office, Billings, Montana 

Mary Bloom: Project Manager, Miles City Field 

Office, Miles City, Montana

Kathy Bockness: Contracting Officer’s 

Representative, Technical Coordinator, Miles City 

Field Office, Miles City, Montana

Jim Albano: State Office Fluid Minerals NEPA 

Coordinator, Montana State Office, Billings, 

Montana

Jim Beaver: State Office Planning Coordinator, 

Montana State Office, Billings, Montana

David Overcast: Fire Management Officer, Miles 

City Field Office, Miles City, Montana

Linda Reder: Administrative Officer, Miles City 

Field Office, Miles City, Montana

Todd Yeager: Assistant Field Manager, Renewable 

Resources, Miles City Field Office, Miles City, 

Montana

BLM Interdisciplinary Core Team

Mark Jacobsen: Public Affairs, Miles City Field 

Office, Miles City, Montana

Dale Tribby: Lead Wildlife Biologist, Miles City 

Field Office, Miles City, Montana

Dan Benoit: Geologist, Miles City Field Office, Miles 

City, Montana

Andrew Bobst: Hydrologist, Miles City Field Office, 

Miles City, Montana

David Breisch: Mineral Resource Specialist, Miles City 

Field Office, Miles City, Montana

Shane Findlay: Mineral Resource Specialist, Miles City 

Field Office, Miles City, Montana

Chuck Laakso: Petroleum Engineer, Minerals, Miles 

City Field Office, Miles City, Montana

Kent Undlin: Wildlife Biologist, Threatened and 

Endangered Species, Miles City Field Office, Miles City, 

Montana

BLM Interdisciplinary Support Team

Dawn Doran: Rangeland Management Specialist,

Livestock Grazing, Miles City Field Office, Miles City, 

Montana

Edward Hughes: Economist, Montana State Office, 

Billings, Montana

Doug Melton: Archeologist, Miles City Field Office, 

Miles City, Montana

Joe Platz: Fish Biologist, Miles City Field Office, Miles 

City, Montana

Joan Trent: Sociologist, Montana State Office, Billings, 

Montana

Brenda Witkowski: Natural Resource Specialist, 

(Weeds), Miles City Field Office, Miles City, Montana

BLM Coordination Support and

Review

Montana State Office, Miles City Field Office, Billings 

Field Office and BLM Wyoming staffs:

Division of Lands and Renewable Resources

Division of Mineral Resources

Division of Administration
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

List of Preparers (continued)

5-119

Consultant Team

Consulting Management Staff

Dave Bockelmann: Project Manager, ALL 

Consulting, Edwardsville, Illinois

Jon W. Seekins: SEIS Task Leader, ALL Consulting, 

Tulsa, Oklahoma

Margaret Spence: SEIS Task Leader, Parametrix, 

Inc., Bellevue, Washington

Consulting Technical Staff

Roy Arthur: Websites, ALL Consulting, Tulsa, 

Oklahoma

Brian Bohm: Hazardous Materials, ALL Consulting, 

St. Louis, Missouri

Greg Casey, P.E.: Engineering, ALL Consulting, 

Houston, Texas

Karen Cantillon: Public Involvement, Parametrix, 

Inc., Bellevue, Washington

David Epperly, Ph.D., P.E.: Soils, ALL Consulting, 

Tulsa, Oklahoma

Jim Glassley: GIS, Parametrix, Inc., Bellevue, 

Washington

Julie Grialou: Wildlife, Parametrix, Inc., Bellevue, 

Washington

Pam Gunther: Lands, Realty, Utilities, Parametrix, 

Inc., Bellevue, Washington

Rebecca Hanna: Paleontological Resources, 

ACRCS, Billings, Montana

Susan Harris: Air Quality, ALL Consulting, St. 

Louis, Missouri

Erika Harris: Social and Economic Values, 

Parametrix, Inc., Bellevue, Washington

Bruce G. Langhus, Ph.D., CPG: Fluid Minerals, 

Water Resources, ALL Consulting, Tulsa, Oklahoma

Gary Maynard, AICP: Social and Economic 

Values, Parametrix, Inc., Bellevue, Washington

Dennis McGirr: Coal, Other Mineral Resources, 

Environmental Solutions, Inc., Gillette, Wyoming

John McLearan: Websites, ALL Consulting, Tulsa, 

Oklahoma

Jeff Meyer: Livestock Grazing, Vegetation, Parametrix, 

Inc., Bellevue, Washington

Sharon Schmiege: Special Management Designations, 

ALL Consulting, Tulsa, Oklahoma

Bob Sullivan: Fisheries Management, Parametrix, Inc., 

Bellevue, Washington

J. Randy Walsh: Fire Management, Forestry/Timber, 

ENSR, Ft. Collins, Colorado

Susan Wessman: Recreation, Visual Resource 

Management, Parametrix, Inc., Bellevue, Washington

Jason Veale: GIS, ALL Consulting, Tulsa, Oklahoma

David Winter: Wetlands, Riparian Zones, ALL 

Consulting, St. Louis, Missouri

Official Cooperating Agencies

The following tribes and agencies are Cooperating 

Agencies who helped prepare the FSEIS.

Tribal

• Crow Tribe of Montana

• Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule 

Reservation, South Dakota

Federal

• Bureau of Indian Affairs, Rocky Mountain Regional 

Office

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

• U.S. Department of Energy

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII

State

• Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation

• Montana Department of Environmental Quality

County

• Big Horn County

• Carbon County

• Golden Valley County

• Musselshell County

• Powder River County 

• Rosebud County

• Treasure County

• Yellowstone County
CHAPTER 5

Consultation and Coordination

List of Preparers (continued)

5-120

Invited Cooperators

The following tribes and agencies chose not to 

become cooperating agencies in the preparation of 

the SEIS/Amendment.

Tribes

• Fort Peck (Assiniboine and Sioux)

• Northern Cheyenne

• Blackfeet

• Standing Rock Sioux

• Rosebud Sioux

• Pine Ridge Sioux

• Northern Arapahoe

• Fort Belknap (Assiniboine and Gros Ventre)

• Eastern Shoshone

• Chippewa-Cree

• Cheyenne River Sioux

• Rocky Boys 

Federal

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• U.S. Forest Service, Custer National Forest

State

• Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation

• Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks

County

• Carter County

• Custer County

• Stillwater County

• Sweet Grass County

• Wheatland County