WILDLIFE APPENDIX

WILDLIFE APPENDIX

WIL-1

WILDLIFE APPENDIX

This appendix contains a series of tables cited in 

Chapter 3 of the SEIS Wildlife section. Following 

those tables is the CBNG Programmatic Wildlife 

Monitoring and Protection Plan developed by the 

BLM for the Statewide Document and updated for 

the SEIS.

This appendix also contains a copy of the Biological 

Assessment as prepared for the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Biological 

Assessment has as attachments the BLM’s letter 

formally requesting a list of threatened and 

endangered species from the USFWS and initiating

consultation for the SEIS process under Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The letter from 

USFWS responding to the BLM’s request is included

as well as a memorandum from USFWS explaining 

that concurrence from them is not required when a no 

effects determination is made by the BLM.
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

WIL-2

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

WIL-3

TABLE WIL-1

WILDLIFE SPECIES OF CONCERN

Common Name Scientific Name

Occurrence in CBNG Planning Area 

(by county)1

Additional Information

MT BLM USFS Suitable Habitat

Mammals

Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus All except Wheatland and Sweet Grass S2 S S Arid areas with rocky outcrops, dry forests, riparian 

forests, and ponderosa pine low slope forests in southcentral Montana (UM).

Townsend’s bigeared batCorynorhinus 

(Plecotus) townsendii

All S2 S S Arid scrub and pine forest, uses caves, snags, old mines 

and buildings the Custer and Gallatin National Forests 

(NM).

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum Golden Valley, Musselshell, 

Yellowstone, Big Horn, Carbon

S2 S S Various habitats in south-central Montana from open 

coniferous to pastureland.

Northern myotis Myotis septentrionalis Not known to occur in CBNG planning 

area, but distribution not well-known.

S2S3 S Mixed and coniferous forests with small woodland pools 

and streams, in clearings (NM). Lower Missouri River.

Long-legged 

myotis2

Myotis volans All S4 S Forests and woodlands.

Long-eared 

myotis2

Myotis evotis All S4 S Forests and woodlands. Also, rocky areas.

Fringed myotis2 Myotis thysanodes Wheatland S3 S Shrublands, sagebrush-grassland, pine and Douglas-fir 

forests and woodlands and adjacent riparian forests.

White-tailed 

prairie dog

Cynomys leucurus Carbon S1 S S Grasslands and plains.

Black-tailed 

prairie dog

Cynomys ludovicianus All S3 S S Short-grass and mixed-grass prairie in the east of the 

110th meridian Fort Belknap Reservation, and Crow 

Reservation.

North American 

wolverine

Gulo gulo luscus Wheatland, Sweet Grass, Stillwater, 

Carbon

S3 S S Mature and old-growth fir, pine and larch forests, alpine 

shrub, talus, and riparian cottonwoods.

Fisher Martes pennanti Sweet Grass, Stillwater, Carbon S3 S S Forests with mixed habitat, several structural classes, 

edges and riparian areas.
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

WIL-4

TABLE WIL-1

WILDLIFE SPECIES OF CONCERN

Common Name Scientific Name

Occurrence in CBNG Planning Area 

(by county)1

Additional Information

MT BLM USFS Suitable Habitat

Northern bog 

lemming

Synaptomys borealis Not known to occur in CBNG planning 

area, but distribution not well-known.

S2 - S Damp pastures, tundra, cool bogs, peatlands, marshes, 

or moist meadows.

Herptiles

Boreal/Western 

toad

Bufo boreas Wheatland, Sweet Grass, Stillwater, 

Carbon

S2 S S Breeding ponds, summer range, and overwinter refugia 

within lodgepole pine or spruce-fir forests.

Great Plains 

toad2

Bufo cognatus All except Carbon S2 S Coulees and sagebrush-grasslands. Breeds in glacial 

potholes, stock reservoirs, and irrigation ditches.

Plains spadefoot2 Spea bombifrons All S3 S Sagebrush and grasslands with loose soils, usually near 

temporary or permanent water.

Wood frog Rana sylvatica None known in CBNG planning area, 

but distribution not well-known.

S Temporary ponds, lakes, and streams with adjacent 

forests or brush with damp litter.

Northern leopard 

frog

Rana pipiens All S3 S Streams, ponds, lakes, wet prairies, and other bodies of 

water, frequently moving into grassy, herbaceous fields

or forest borders some distance from permanent water.

Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentiana All except Wheatland, Sweet Grass, 

Golden Valley, and Musselshell

S3 S Shallow, mud-bottomed backwaters and ponds with lush 

aquatic vegetation.

Spiny softshell Trionyx spiniferus Custer, Rosebud, Big Horn, Treasure, 

Yellowstone, Musselshell, Golden 

Valley, Wheatland (Yellowstone River 

and some tributaries; Musselshell River)

S3 S Rivers, backwaters, lakes, and ponds with sand or mud 

areas for digging nests. Missouri and Yellowstone 

Rivers

Short-horned 

lizard2

Phrynosoma hernendesi All S3 S Short-grass prairie and sagebrush areas, especially 

south-facing slopes, rocky rims of coulees, and shale 

outcrops.

Milk snake2 Lampropeltis 

triangulum

All except Carter, Sweet Grass, 

Wheatland, and Golden Valley

S2 S S Grasslands, sagebrush, and Ponderosa pine savannah. 

Also, edges of agricultural fields.
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

WIL-5

TABLE WIL-1

WILDLIFE SPECIES OF CONCERN

Common Name Scientific Name

Occurrence in CBNG Planning Area 

(by county)1

Additional Information

MT BLM USFS Suitable Habitat

Western hognosed snake2Heterodon nasicus All S2 S S Arid areas, farmlands, floodplains, grasslands, and 

sagebrush with well-drained, sandy soils.

Birds

Common loon2 Gavia immer Wheatland, Golden Valley, Sweet Grass, 

Stillwater, Carbon, Yellowstone, Big 

Horn

S2B S S Lakes that are at least 13 acres in size and over 5000 feet in 

elevation. Also, generally require nursery areas that are 

sheltered, shallow coves with abundant small fish and 

insects.

Trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator Sweet Grass S2B S S Shallow freshwater marshes, ponds, lakes, and slowmoving rivers with both submerged and emergent 

vegetation.

Franklin’s gull

2 Larus pipixcan Rosebud, Yellowstone, Carbon, 

Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Wheatland, 

Golden Valley, Musselshell

S3B S Large, relatively permanent prairie marsh complexes.

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi Golden Valley, Musselshell, Stillwater, 

Yellowstone, Carbon

S1B S Freshwater wetlands (marshes, ponds, swamps) with 

islands of emergent vegetation.

Black tern2 Chlidonias niger Carter, Custer, Musselshell, 

Yellowstone, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, 

Golden Valley, Wheatland

S3B S Breeds in wetlands, marshes, prairie potholes, and small 

ponds; also, on islands.

Harlequin duck Histrionicus 

histrionicus

Carbon, Stillwater, Sweet Grass S2B S S Summer on mountain streams and rivers, nest on the 

ground near water's edge or in the hollows of dead trees.

Long-billed 

curlew

Numenius americanus Wheatland, Golden Valley, Musselshell, 

Sweet Grass, Stillwater, Yellowstone, 

Big Horn, Carbon

S2B S S Open grasslands and prairies, often near water.

Willet2 Catoptrophorus 

semipalmatus

All except Treasure and Custer S5B S Open, dry areas and sandy flats; usually, near lakes or 

marshes.

Wilson’s 

phalarope2

Phalaropus tricolor All except Treasure S4B S Marshy borders of lakes and ponds. Also, flooded fields 

in spring.
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

WIL-6

TABLE WIL-1

WILDLIFE SPECIES OF CONCERN

Common Name Scientific Name

Occurrence in CBNG Planning Area 

(by county)1

Additional Information

MT BLM USFS Suitable Habitat

Golden eagle2 Aquila chrysaetos All S4 S Nests on cliffs and in large trees. Hunts over grasslands, 

sagebrush, and open woodlands.

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni All S3B S Shrub-steppe, prairie with scattered trees, or open 

woodlands.

Ferruginous 

hawk

Buteo regalis All S2B S - Undisturbed plains or shrub-steppe with relatively 

unbroken terrain and scattered trees, rocks, or treed 

creek bottoms.

Northern 

goshawk

Accipiter gentilis All S3 S S Coniferous, deciduous, and mixed forests with a high 

density of large, old trees and high overstory canopy.

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia Rosebud, Wheatland, Golden Valley, 

Musselshell, Sweet Grass, Stillwater, 

Yellowstone, Carbon

S2B S S Burrows made by prairie dogs or badgers in rangeland 

and prairie areas.

Great gray owl Strix nebulosa Wheatland, Sweet Grass, Stillwater, 

Carbon

S3 S Dense, often moist, forests, with openings for hunting.

Three-toed 

woodpecker

Picoides tridactylus Wheatland, Sweet Grass, Stillwater, 

Carbon

S3S4 S Pine-dominated mature forests and burned areas in early 

successional stages.

Red-headed 

woodpecker2

Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus

All S3B S Riparian forests along major rivers; also, savannahs and 

large burns.

Black-backed 

woodpecker

Picoides articusi Custer, Powder River S2 S S Coniferous forests, especially early post-fire habitat

Sprague’s pipit2 Anthus spragueii All except Big Horn and Powder River S2B S S Grasslands.

Pygmy nuthatch2 Sitta pygmaea All S4 S Primarily Ponderosa pine forests. Also, stands of other 

pines, Douglas-fir, western larch, and aspen.

Blue-gray 

gnatcatcher

Polioptila caerulea Carbon S1B S S Juniper and limber pine in the Pryor Mountains of 

south-central Montana.
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

WIL-7

TABLE WIL-1

WILDLIFE SPECIES OF CONCERN

Common Name Scientific Name

Occurrence in CBNG Planning Area 

(by county)1

Additional Information

MT BLM USFS Suitable Habitat

Sage thrasher2 Oreoscoptes montanus All except Carter S3B S Sagebrush; rocky canyons in arid areas.

Loggerhead 

shrike

Lanius ludovicianus All S3B S S Edge habitat with open country, thinly wooded or 

scrubby land with clearings, meadows, and aspen stands 

bordering dense, ungrazed or lightly grazed grassland.

Sage sparrow Amphispiza belli Not documented within the past 10 years 

in CBNG planning area, but range not 

well-known.

S1S3B S Sagebrush.

Baird’s sparrow Ammodramus bairdii All except Treasure, Big Horn, and 

Musselshell

S2B S S Open tall to mixed grass areas with mixture of mostly 

native prairie grasses and forbs.

Brewer’s 

sparrow2

Spizella breweri All S2B S Sagebrush and grasslands.

Le Conte’s 

sparrow2

Ammodramus leconteii Yellowstone, Big Horn S1S2B S Wet or irrigated meadows.

Chestnut-collared 

longspur2

Calcarius ornatus All except Treasure and Big Horn S3B S Short-grass prairie/grasslands.

McCown’s 

longspur2

Calcarius mccownii All except Big Horn S2B S Grasslands, pastures, and agricultural areas.

Dickcissel Spiza americana Powder River, Rosebud, Treasure S1S2B S Hayfields, pastures, weedy fallow fields, and the weedy 

margins of ditches and roadsides

Fish

Yellowstone 

Cutthroat Trout

Oncorhynchus clarki 

bouvieri

Western Counties S2 S S Mountain lakes and streams with varying habitat 

structures and water velocities.

Blue sucker Cycleptus elongatus Eastern Counties S2S3 S Deep water of large rivers and reservoirs with low 

turbidity and swift current.
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

WIL-8

TABLE WIL-1

WILDLIFE SPECIES OF CONCERN

Common Name Scientific Name

Occurrence in CBNG Planning Area 

(by county)1

Additional Information

MT BLM USFS Suitable Habitat

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula Eastern Counties S1S2 S Historically found in calm, open waters of large rivers in 

the Mississippi River drainage as far north as the 

Missouri River in Montana.

Pearl dace Semotilus/Margariscus 

margarita

Unknown within the CBNG Planning 

Area, but documented in the 

Yellowstone River just downstream of 

the CBNG Planning Area (Wibaux and 

Dawson counties)

S2 S Cool or cold water lakes, bog ponds, creeks, and springs

Sauger Sander canadensis All Counties S2 S Larger turbid rivers and the muddy shallows of lakes 

and reservoirs.

Sturgeon chub Macrhybopsis gilida Eastern Counties S2 S S Turbid water with moderate to strong currents.

Northern 

redbelly dace X 

Finescale dace3

Phoxinus eos X 

Phoxinus neogaeus

Western Counties S3 S Boggy lakes, creeks, and ponds, often with cool, dark, 

tea-colored water.

1 Represents updated information (relative to the Statewide Document) on known or expected species’ occurrence based on FWP species’ range maps (Montana Animal Field Guide, http://fwp.state.mt.us/fieldguide). 2 Classified as state “S1”, BLM sensitive, and/or USFS sensitive after completion of the Statewide Document. 3 Hybrid, always female.

NI = no information. 

S = sensitive.

S1= critically imperiled in the state. 

S2 = vulnerable to extinction. 

S3 = rare or restricted in range. 

S4 = uncommon, but not rare; usually widespread.

S5 = common, widespread, and abundant.

B = breeding status of a migratory species (rank refers to the breeding population of the species in Montana).
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

WIL-9

TABLE WIL-2

AQUATIC RESOURCES CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR DRAINAGES AND REPRESENTATIVE TRIBUTARIES IN THE BILLINGS 

AND POWDER RIVER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AREAS AND IN PARK, GALLATIN, AND BLAINE COUNTIES1

Location and Drainage

Length

(miles)2 Aesthetics3

Fisheries 

Management4 Fisheries Resource Value5

Number of Fish 

Species Present

Dewatering Problem 

Identified?6

Billings Resource Management Area

Yellowstone River West of Billings

(River Mile [RM] 360.2 – 554.1)

194 National renown, clean stream and natural 

setting, stream and area fair

23

Downstream Section (RM 360.2 – 472.9) 113 Warm/cool 

water

Outstanding, high, substantial 22 Periodic

Upstream Section (RM 472.9 – 554.1) 81 Trout Outstanding 14 No

Boulder River (RM 0.0 – 65.2) 65 Natural beauty, pristine Trout Outstanding, high, substantial 9 Chronic

Stillwater River (RM 0.0 – 60.0) 60 Natural beauty, clean stream and natural setting Trout Outstanding, high, substantial 9 No

Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone

Downstream Section

(RM 0.0 – 41.7)

42 Stream and area fair Trout Substantial 18 Periodic

Upstream Section

(RM 41.7 – 70.9)

29 Clean stream and natural setting Trout Substantial 15 Chronic

Yellowstone River East of Billings

(RM 294.5 – 360.2)

66 Clean stream and natural setting, stream and 

area fair 

Warm/cool 

water and nontrout

High 28 Periodic

Bighorn River

Downstream Section

(RM 0.0 – 42.3)

42 Stream and area fair Trout High 30 Periodic

Little Bighorn River

(RM 0.0 – 118.5)

119 Natural beauty, clean stream and natural setting Trout Moderate 15 No

Upstream Section (RM 42.3 – 84.7) 42 National renown Trout Outstanding 20 No

Musselshell River (RM 107.9 – 341.9) 234 Clean stream and natural setting, stream and 

area fair

Trout High, substantial 30 Chronic, Periodic

Careless Creek (RM 0.0 – 55.6) 56 Clean stream and natural setting, stream and 

area fair

Trout Substantial, moderate, limited 14 Chronic
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

WIL-10

TABLE WIL-2

AQUATIC RESOURCES CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR DRAINAGES AND REPRESENTATIVE TRIBUTARIES IN THE BILLINGS 

AND POWDER RIVER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AREAS AND IN PARK, GALLATIN, AND BLAINE COUNTIES1

Location and Drainage

Length

(miles)2 Aesthetics3

Fisheries 

Management4 Fisheries Resource Value5

Number of Fish 

Species Present

Dewatering Problem 

Identified?6

Powder River Resource Management Area

Yellowstone River (RM 147.0 – 294.5) 140 Clean stream and natural setting Non-trout Outstanding, High 47 No

Rosebud Creek (RM 0.0 – 207.6) 208 Stream and area fair Undesignated High, substantial 20 No

Tongue River

Downstream Section

(RM 0.0 – 93.3)

93 Clean stream and natural setting, stream and 

area fair

Trout High, substantial 37 Chronic, Periodic

Pumpkin Creek

(RM 0.0 -171.1)

171 Clean stream and natural setting, stream and 

area fair

Non-trout Substantial, moderate, limited 23 No

Upstream Section

(RM 93.3 – 217.5)

124 Clean stream and natural setting Trout High 30 Periodic

Otter Creek (RM 0.0 – 103.3) 103 Stream and area fair Undesignated Substantial, moderate 24 No

Hanging Woman Creek

(RM 0.0 – 47.9)

48 Clean stream and natural setting Undesignated Substantial, moderate 26 No

Powder River

Downstream Section

(RM 18.4 – 144.5)

126 Low Non-trout High 27 Chronic

Mizpah Creek

(RM 0.0 – 149.7)

150 Low, clean stream and natural setting Non-trout Moderate, limited 19 No

Little Powder River

(RM 0.0 – 71.6)

72 Stream and area fair Non-trout Substantial 20 No

Upstream Section

(RM 144.5 – 220.2)

76 Low, natural and pristine beauty Non-trout High 24 Chronic

Little Missouri River (RM 422.4 – 528.4) 103 Clean stream and natural setting Non-trout High 19 No

1Information derived from the Montana Natural Resource Information System on the Internet at http://nris.state.mt.us/wis/mris1.html (downloaded September 29, 2005). Multiple values for a resource characteristic 

indicate river reach differences within a given drainage. 

2Estimated length of drainage within the Resource Management Area or county (based on river miles from NRIS 2005).

3Aesthetics ratings in descending order are: national renown; natural and pristine beauty with some development; clean stream and natural setting; stream and area fair; and low (NRIS 2001).

4Categories of fisheries management are: trout; non-trout; warm/cool water; and undesignated.

5Fisheries resource values ratings in descending order are: outstanding; high; substantial; moderate; and limited.

6Dewatering indicates a reduction in streamflow beyond the point where stream habitat is adequate for fish and usually occurs during the irrigation season (July through September). Periodic dewatering indicates a 

significant problem in drought or water-short years, and chronic dewatering indicates a significant problem in virtually all years.
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

WIL-11

TABLE WIL-3

COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF FISH SPECIES PRESENT IN MAJOR DRAINAGES 

ND REPRESENTATIVE TRIBUTARIES IN THE BILLINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AREA1

Common Name Scientific Name

Yellowstone 

River West 

of Billings

Boulder 

River

Stillwater 

River

Clarks Fork of the 

Yellowstone

Yellowstone 

River East of 

Billings

Bighorn River

Little 

Bighorn 

River

Musselshell 

River

Careless 

Creek

Downstream 

Section

Upstream 

Section

Downstream 

Section

Upstream 

Section

Goldeye Hiodon alasoides A, C, R A U A A A, C, R C

Lake chub Couesius plumbeus R C R R R A

Common carp2 Cyprinus carpio C, R R U C C C U C U

Western silvery/plains 

minnow

Hybognathus 

argyritis/placitus

R R C R A, C, R

Brassy minnow Hybognathus 

hankinsoni

U R U

Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides C, R R C R R A, C, R

Sand shiner Notropis stramineus A, R

Northern 

redbelly/finescale dace

Phoxinus 

eos/neogaeus

R R

Northern redbelly dace Phoxinus eos R R

Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas R U C, R R

Flathead chub Platygobio gracilis C U A, C C U C A

Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae C, R C A, C, R C C A C A, C U - A

River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio R C C C R U - U

Longnose sucker Catostomus 

catostomus

A, C A C, R A, C C C A A C - C

White sucker Catostomus 

commersoni

C A, R A A C A A C A, C, U A, C

Mountain sucker Catostomus 

platyrhynchus

A, U, R C C, R C A A C C U C C

Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus R R R R

Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus R R
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

WIL-12

TABLE WIL-3

COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF FISH SPECIES PRESENT IN MAJOR DRAINAGES 

ND REPRESENTATIVE TRIBUTARIES IN THE BILLINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AREA1

Common Name Scientific Name

Yellowstone 

River West 

of Billings

Boulder 

River

Stillwater 

River

Clarks Fork of the 

Yellowstone

Yellowstone 

River East of 

Billings

Bighorn River

Little 

Bighorn 

River

Musselshell 

River

Careless 

Creek

Downstream 

Section

Upstream 

Section

Downstream 

Section

Upstream 

Section

Brook stickleback Culaea inconstans U

Shorthead redhorse Moxostoma 

macrolepidotum

A, C, R R A C C, R U - C

Black bullhead2 Ameiurus melas R R R

Yellow bullhead2 Ameiurus natalis U

Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus C, R R A C R C A, C, R

Stonecat Noturus flavus R C C R R

Northern pike2 Esox lucius R - R R

Yellowstone cutthroat 

trout

Oncorhynchus clarki 

bouvieri

C, R R C - C

Rainbow trout2 Oncorhynchus mykiss C C, R A, C, R R R U C A, C C I

Mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni A, R A A, C, R C A U R C C C, R

Brown trout2 Salmo trutta C, R A A, C, R R R U R A, C C C, R

Brook trout2 Salvelinus fontinalis R A, R C, R C

Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus R

Burbot Lota lota C, R C U C C C, R I

Plains killifish Fundulus zebrinus R

Mottled sculpin Cottus bairdi A, C, U C R A, C

Green sunfish2 Lepomis cyanellus R R R, I

Smallmouth bass2 Micropterus dolomieu C R R C C, R
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

WIL-13

TABLE WIL-3

COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF FISH SPECIES PRESENT IN MAJOR DRAINAGES 

ND REPRESENTATIVE TRIBUTARIES IN THE BILLINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AREA1

Common Name Scientific Name

Yellowstone 

River West 

of Billings

Boulder 

River

Stillwater 

River

Clarks Fork of the 

Yellowstone

Yellowstone 

River East of 

Billings

Bighorn River

Little 

Bighorn 

River

Musselshell 

River

Careless 

Creek

Downstream 

Section

Upstream 

Section

Downstream 

Section

Upstream 

Section

Largemouth bass2 Micropterus salmoides R I

Black crappie2 Pomoxis 

nigromaculatus

I I I

Yellow perch2 Perca flavescens R R -

Sauger Stizostedion canadense R - R R R C, R

Walleye2 Stizostedion vitreum R R R R

Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens R R R

1Information derived from the Montana Natural Resource Information System on the Internet at http://nris.state.mt.us/wis/mris1.html (downloaded September 29, 2005). Multiple values for relative abundance indicate 

variation among river reaches and/or study results within a given drainage. Relative abundance: A = abundant; C = common; U = uncommon; R = rare; I = incidental; P = present. 

2Indicates species is not native.
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

WIL-14

TABLE WIL-4

COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF FISH SPECIES PRESENT IN MAJOR DRAINAGES 

AND REPRESENTATIVE TRIBUTARIES IN THE POWDER RIVER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AREA1

Common Name Scientific Name

Yellowstone 

River

Rosebud 

Creek

Tongue River

Pumpkin 

Creek

Powder River

Little 

Powder 

River

Little 

Missouri 

River

Downstream 

Section

Upstream 

Section

Downstream 

Section

Upstream 

Section

Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus R U

Shovelnose sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus A A A A

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula C R

Goldeye Hiodon alasoides A R A R C C C R

Lake chub Couesius plumbeus R R C, R U U C

Common carp2 Cyprinus carpio C C U C C, R R R R R

Western silvery minnow Hybognathus argyritis C U U U U

Western silvery/plains minnow Hybognathus 

argyritis/placitus

U U C A A A -

Western plains minnow Hybognathus placitus R U U U C R C

Brassy minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni R - U C R R U

Sturgeon chub Macrhybopsis gelida U, R R C C

Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius U U

Golden shiner2 Notemigonus crysoleucas U C

Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides C U U

Sand shiner Notropis stramineus R U C R R A A

Northern redbelley/finescale dace Phoxinus eos/neogaeus R

Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas C R U A, C U A C

Flathead chub Platygobio gracilis A A A A C, R A A R A

Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae R C U C, R R C C, R R C
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

WIL-15

TABLE WIL-4

COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF FISH SPECIES PRESENT IN MAJOR DRAINAGES 

AND REPRESENTATIVE TRIBUTARIES IN THE POWDER RIVER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AREA1

Common Name Scientific Name

Yellowstone 

River

Rosebud 

Creek

Tongue River

Pumpkin 

Creek

Powder River

Little 

Powder 

River

Little 

Missouri 

River

Downstream 

Section

Upstream 

Section

Downstream 

Section

Upstream 

Section

Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus R U R, U U R R R C

River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio C R C C R R R C R

Longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus C R C A, C

White sucker Catostomus commersoni C C C A C, R U R C

Mountain sucker Catostomus platyrhynchus A, R R R C R

Blue sucker Cycleptus elongatus R R

Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus C, R R C

Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus C, R R

Shorthead redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum A A A A, C C, R R C, R C A

Black bullhead2 Ameiurus melas R R R R U R

Yellow bullhead2 Ameiurus natalis R R R

Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus A C A C C, R C C, R C C

Stonecat Noturus flavus C R C C R R R R U

Northern pike2 Esox lucius R C U R

Rainbow trout2 Oncorhynchus mykiss R R R R

Mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni R - R

Brown trout2 Salmo trutta R R R R

Brook trout2 Salvelinus fontinalis R R R

Burbot Lota lota C C R R R

Plains killifish Fundulus zebrinus U R
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

WIL-16

TABLE WIL-4

COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF FISH SPECIES PRESENT IN MAJOR DRAINAGES 

AND REPRESENTATIVE TRIBUTARIES IN THE POWDER RIVER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AREA1

Common Name Scientific Name

Yellowstone 

River

Rosebud 

Creek

Tongue River

Pumpkin 

Creek

Powder River

Little 

Powder 

River

Little 

Missouri 

River

Downstream 

Section

Upstream 

Section

Downstream 

Section

Upstream 

Section

Rock bass2 Ambloplites rupestris R R C

Green sunfish2 Lepomis cyanellus R R R R R R R

Pumpkinseed2 Lepomis gibbosus R, I R R R U

Goldfish Carassius auratus R

Smallmouth bass2 Micropterus dolomieu C, R C, R C

Largemouth bass2 Micropterus salmoides R

White crappie2 Pomoxis annularis R R U R R

Black crappie2 Pomoxis nigromaculatus R, I U R

Yellow perch2 Perca flavescens R - R

Sauger Stizostedion canadense C, R C C C R A A, R R

Walleye2 Stizostedion vitreum C, R R C, R C R R

Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens R U

1Information derived from the Montana Natural Resource Information System on the Internet at http://nris.state.mt.us/wis/mris1.html (downloaded September 29, 2005). Multiple values for relative abundance indicate 

variation among river reaches and/or study results within a given drainage. Relative abundance: A = abundant; C = common; U = uncommon; R = rare; I = incidental; P = present.

2Indicates species is not native.
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

CBNG Programmatic Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

for the

Statewide Final Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement

and

Proposed Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource 

Management Plans
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1

PLAN PURPOSE...............................................................................................................1

AREA AND OBJECTIVES ..............................................................................................1

IMPLEMENTATION PROTOCOL ...............................................................................2

ANNUAL REPORTS AND MEETINGS ........................................................................2

ANNUAL INVENTORY AND MONITORING.............................................................3

Raptors (Including Bald Eagle and Burrowing Owl) ..............................................3

Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Other Species of Concern ......................5

Black-footed Ferret ..................................................................................................5

Black-tailed and White-tailed Prairie Dog...............................................................5

Mountain Plover.......................................................................................................5

Gray Wolf ................................................................................................................6

Sage-Grouse.............................................................................................................6

Big Game .................................................................................................................6

General Wildlife.......................................................................................................7

Aquatic Species........................................................................................................7

PROTECTION MEASURES ...........................................................................................7

Lease stipulation ......................................................................................................7

Raptors.........................................................................................................8

Big Game .....................................................................................................8

Elk Parturition Range...................................................................................8

Bighorn Sheep – Powder River Breaks .......................................................8

Sage and Sharptail Grouse ...........................................................................8

Prairie Dog Towns and Associated Black-footed Ferret Habitat.................9

Interior Least Tern .....................................................................................10

Terms and Conditions from Section 7 Consultation..................................10

All Species.................................................................................................10

Bald Eagle..................................................................................................10

Mountain Plover.........................................................................................12

Programmatic Guidance for the Development of Project Plans............................13

REFERENCES: ...............................................................................................................20

TABLES

1 Summary of General Wildlife Reporting, Inventory, and Monitoring, CBNG Development; Powder 

River and Billings Resource Management Plans, CBNG Amendment (2002)...................................16

2 Summary of APD/ROW Survey and Protection Measures, CBNG Development within the Powder 

River and Billings Resource Management Plans................................................................................18

3 Additional Wildlife Inventory and Monitoring Measures On and Adjacent to Areas with High Levels 

of Development (4 Locations/Section), Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans, 

CBNG Amendment (2001)....................................................................................... 19
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP - ii

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP-1

INTRODUCTION

This Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan (WMPP) was prepared in conjunction with the Statewide Oil and Gas 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) (BLM 2001 Montana DEIS) and Amendment of the Powder River 

and Billings Resource Management Plans (RMPs). The DEIS and Amendment addresses future exploration for and 

development of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and state of Montana (state) managed coal bed natural gas 

(CBNG) resources and conventional oil and gas resources. The planning area excludes those lands administered by 

the Forest Service, the Crow, Northern Cheyenne, and other Indian lands. The WMPP will be implemented on 

federal lands, including split estate, in cooperation with state agencies, federal agencies, tribal representatives, 

Operators, and landowners. If owners and managers of state and private mineral development are willing to

incorporate this guidance into management of their CBNG activities, they may become a partner by entering into a 

Cooperative Agreement. 

A variety of planning issues related to wildlife were identified during preparation of the DEIS. 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. Because this plan addresses a large geographic area 

composed of diverse wildlife habitats and unique situations, it must be programmatic in nature. However, the need 

to provide management recommendations and guidance to conserve species and habitats remains. Regional or site 

specific monitoring and protection plans which follow the guidance provided in this programmatic document will be 

required as part of each CBNG Project Plan. Implementation of this plan during the course of project development 

and operations should promote wildlife conservation and allow land managers and project personnel to maintain 

wildlife populations and productivity levels simultaneously with the development of natural oil and gas resources.

PLAN PURPOSE

Oil and gas leasing decisions and lease stipulations were previously analyzed in the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) 1992 Final Oil and Gas RMP/EIS Amendment (BLM 1992). Wildlife stipulations attached to leases offer 

protective measures: 1) for certain species, 2) during a particular time period, or 3) within a specific area. These 

stipulations may not address other concerns related to special status species or water/habitat related issues caused by 

direct and indirect impacts from CBNG exploration and development. Because it is purely speculative to predict 

how all wildlife will react or how development will proceed, it is difficult to develop prescriptive mitigation 

standards across the entire planning area. Even though BLM has some adaptive management strategies in place 

(e.g., conditions of approval and compliance inspections), these mechanisms do not give us the information 

necessary to understand cause and effect relationships across a landscape. Therefore, the purpose of this Plan is to 

acquire baseline wildlife information, monitor populations, and assess stipulations for effectiveness. The WMPP 

will facilitate our ability to pinpoint problems (including the evaluation of other contributing factors), design Project 

Plans which include conservation for declining species, monitor the effectiveness of decisions, and make 

recommendations to adjust management to address specific situations.

AREA AND OBJECTIVES

The WMPP document is the framework for wildlife monitoring and protection across the Powder River and Billings 

Resource Management Plan areas (approximately 6.5 million acres) and provides a template for regional and/or 

project specific WMPP development. The BLM, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (MFWP), and United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) will work cooperatively to implement portions of the WMPP over the planning area. 

There are two basic layers of analysis, the Plan of Development (POD), and the Powder River Basin in Montana. 

As energy development begins, POD specific WMPPs, following the same template as this document, 

will be written in cooperation with other agencies, Operators, landowners and other interests. The POD analysis 

will include wildlife impacts from the POD area, and also the cumulative impacts from other PODs (including those 

of other companies) as well as other activities in the area. The objectives of the program are to:
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP - 2

• Establish a framework for cooperation among agencies, Operators, landowners, Tribal Governments and 

interest groups;

• Provide a process for data collection, data management and reporting ;

• Determine needs for inventory, monitoring and protection measures;

• Provide guidance and recommendations for the conservation of wildlife species;

• Establish protocols for biological clearances of Special Status Species;

• Meet the terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion;

• Determine if management practices to conserve wildlife species and habitat in lease stipulations and 

conservation measures contained in the BLM Record of Decision, CBNG Project Plans or Oil and Gas 

APDs are meeting specified objectives;

• Develop recommendations to adjust management actions based on field observations and monitoring.

Implementation of the WMPP will begin with the issuance of the Record of Decision and will remain in effect for 

the life of the project (approximately 25 years). Guidance for the conservation of special status species will be 

incorporated into the “Project Plan of Development Preparation Guide.” Signatories on an Interagency Cooperative 

Agreement will serve as the “Steering Committee (Interagency Working Group).” A “Core Team” (i.e., agency 

biologists) will oversee the implementation of the programmatic elements of the WMPP. As energy development is 

initiated within the Montana portion of the Powder River Basin, Operator funded biologists, approved by the BLM,

will write area-specific monitoring and protection plans. These plans will be reviewed by the BLM resource 

specialists for completeness and content. 

The programmatic template will undergo an annual review, at least initially, for effectiveness. A major review will 

be conducted every 5 years, or as determined by members of the Core Team, Wildlife, and Aquatic Task Groups. 

The various cooperators will meet annually (or more often as needed) to evaluate the progress of the various POD 

inventory and monitoring efforts. 

IMPLEMENTATION PROTOCOL

This section provides preliminary wildlife inventory, monitoring, and protection protocol. Required actions for 

inventory, monitoring and protection vary by species and development intensity. In areas of development with > 1

well location per section, additional actions in Table 3 become applicable. Standard protocol for Application for 

Permit to Drill (APD) and right-of-way (ROW) application field reviews are provided in Table 2. Alternative 

measures and protocols will be developed as determined by Core Team members in response to specific needs 

identified in annual reports. This document provides methods for a number of wildlife species/categories. 

Additional species/categories may be added based on needs identified in annual wildlife reports. The wildlife 

species/categories for which specific inventory, monitoring, and protection procedures will be applied were 

developed based on input provided by the public, other agencies, and the BLM during preparation of the DEIS. 

Considerable efforts will be required by agency and operator personnel for plan implementation. Many of the 

annually proposed agency data collection activities are consistent with current agency activities. Additionally, 

agency cost-sharing approaches will be considered such that public demands and statutory directives are achieved. 

ANNUAL REPORTS AND MEETINGS

State and federal agencies will cooperate to implement the programmatic elements of inventory, monitoring and 

protection actions associated with CBNG development in the Powder River and Billings Resource Management 

Plan areas. The Montana participants in the Interagency Working Group will oversee implementation across the 

planning area and summarize information from work achieved in various PODs. 

During project development (i.e., 25 years), to include habitat restoration or rehabilitation efforts, Operators will 

annually provide an updated inventory and description of all existing project features (i.e., location, size, and 

associated level of human activity at each feature), as well as those tentatively proposed for development during the 

next 12 months. These data will be coupled with annual wildlife inventory, monitoring, and protection data 
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP-3

obtained for the previous year and included in annual reports. Annual reports will be prepared by the BLM. Annual 

wildlife inventory, monitoring, and protection data gathered by parties other than the BLM (e.g., Operators, MFWP) 

should provide data/summaries to the BLM using current format standards. Upon receipt of this information, annual 

reports will be completed in draft form by the BLM and submitted to the Operators, FWS, MFWP, and other parties. 

A 1-day meeting of the Core Team will be organized by the BLM and held in early December of each year to 

discuss and modify, as necessary, proposed wildlife inventory, monitoring, and protection protocol for the 

subsequent year. Additional meetings will be scheduled as necessary.

Discussions regarding annual Operator-specific financing and personnel requirements will occur at these meetings. 

A formula for determining these requirements will be developed at the first year’s meeting (i.e., size of 

development, anticipated impacts, amount of public land, etc.). A protocol regarding how to accommodate 

previously unidentified development sites will also be determined during the annual meeting. Final decisions will 

be made by the BLM based on the input of all affected parties.

A final annual report will be issued by BLM to all potentially affected individuals and groups by early February of 

each year. Annual reports will summarize annual wildlife inventory and monitoring results, note any trends across 

years, identify and assess protection measures implemented during past years, specify monitoring and protection 

measures proposed for the upcoming year, and recommend modifications to the existing WMPP based on the 

effectiveness and/or ineffectiveness of past years (i.e., identification of additional species/categories to be 

monitored). Where possible, data presented in reports will be used to identify potential correlations between 

development and wildlife productivity and/or abundance. The BLM will be the custodian of the data and stored in 

BLM’s Geographic Information System (GIS) for retrieval, and planning unless otherwise agreed to by BLM, 

MFWP and FWS. Raw data collected each year will be provided to other management agencies (e.g., USFWS, 

MFWP) at the request of these agencies. In addition, sources of potential disturbance to wildlife will be identified, 

where practical (e.g., development activities, weather conditions, etc.). Inventory and monitoring data will be 

shared on a timely basis by all cooperating agencies.

Additional reports may be prepared in any year, as necessary, to comply with other relevant wildlife laws, rules, and 

regulations (e.g., black-footed ferret survey reports, mountain plover, sage grouse lek counts and bald eagle habitat 

loss reports).

ANNUAL INVENTORY AND MONITORING

This document outlines the inventory and monitoring protocol for a number of selected wildlife species/categories. 

Protocol will be unchanged except as authorized by the BLM or specified in this plan. Additional wildlife 

species/categories and associated surveys may be added or wildlife species/categories and surveys may be omitted in 

future years, depending on the results presented in the coordinated review of annual wildlife reports. MFWP will be 

contacted during the coordination of survey and other data acquisition phases. Opportunistic wildlife observations 

may be made throughout the year by agency and Operator personnel. 

The frequency of inventory and monitoring will be dependent upon the level of development. In general, inventory 

and monitoring frequency will increase with increased levels of development. The level of effort should also be 

determined by species presence and development projection. Inventory and monitoring results may lead to further 

currently unidentifiable studies (i.e., cause and effect). The following sections identify the level of effort required 

by the WMPP. Site and species-specific surveys will continue to be conducted in association with APD and ROW 

application or CBNG project field reviews.

Raptors (Including Bald Eagle and Burrowing Owl)

Raptor inventories will be conducted over the entire CBNG project area every 5 years by BLM and MFWP with 

financial assistance being provide by proponents. In potentially affected areas, baseline inventory should be 

conducted prior to the commencement of development to determine the location of raptor nests/territories and their 

activity status by the BLM, with Operator financial assistance. These inventories should be repeated every 5 years 

(in areas with 1 or less well locations/section) thereafter for the Life-of-the-Project (LOP) to monitor trends in 

habitat use. These surveys may be implemented aerially or from the ground. Operators may provide financial 

assistance for some work. Data collected during the surveys (both inventory and monitoring) will be recorded on 

BLM approved data sheets and entered into the BLM GIS database. Standardized, recommended wildlife survey 

protocols are identified in “Wildlife Survey Protocol for Coal Bed Natural Gas Development, Powder River Basin 
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP - 4

Wildlife Taskforce” and/or as referenced in this appendix. BLM should be contacted prior to commencement of 

wildlife surveys to insure proper survey protocols are being utilized.

Nest productivity monitoring will be conducted by the BLM or a BLM approved biologist. Active nests located 

within 1 mile of project-related disturbance areas will be monitored between March 1 and mid-July to determine 

nesting success (i.e., number of nestlings/fledglings per nest). These surveys generally will be conducted from the 

ground. However, some nests may be difficult to observe from the ground due to steep and rugged topography and 

may require aerial surveys. Operators may provide financial assistance for aircraft rental as necessary. Attempts 

will be made to determine the cause of any documented nest failure (e.g., abandonment, predation).

Additional raptor nest activity and productivity monitoring measures will be applied in areas with development (i.e., 

areas with > 1 well locations/section) on and within 1 mile of the project area. Inventory/monitoring efforts in these 

areas, as well as selected undeveloped reference areas will be conducted annually during April and May, followed 

by nest productivity monitoring. Site and species-specific nest inventories will also continue to be conducted as 

necessary in association with all APD and ROW application field reviews. 

All raptor nest/productivity surveys will be conducted using procedures that minimize potential adverse effects to 

nesting raptors. Specific survey protocol for reducing detrimental effects are listed in Grier and Fyfe (1987) and 

Call (1978) and include the following:

• Nest visits will be delayed for as long as possible during the nesting season.

• Nests will be approached cautiously, and their status (i.e., number of nestling/fledglings) will be 

determined from a distance with binoculars or a spotting scope.

• Nests will be approached tangentially and in an obvious manner to avoid startling adults.

• Nests will not be visited during adverse weather conditions (e.g., extreme cold, precipitation events, windy 

periods, or during the hottest part of the day).

• Visits will be kept as brief as possible.

• Inventories will be coordinated by the BLM.

• The number of nest visits in any year will be kept to a minimum.

Ferruginous Hawk: Timing of surveys is very important in documenting the territory, occupancy, success and 

productivity of ferruginous hawk populations. The accepted survey and monitoring guidelines for ferruginous hawk 

are taken from the Survey and Monitoring Guidelines for Ferruginous Hawks in Montana, 1995.

Bald Eagle: Inventory and monitoring protocol for the bald eagle will be as described for raptors, with the following 

additions. Operators will indicate the presence of eagle habitat (nesting, foraging, roosting, winter) as previously 

defined, on their application. Prior to CBNG development or construction, surveys of the wooded riparian corridors 

within 1.0 mile of a project area will be conducted in the winter and/or spring by BLM biologists and/or BLMapproved biologists to determine the occurrence of winter bald eagle roost sites/territories. Surveys will be 

conducted from daybreak to 2 hours after sunrise and/or from 2 hours before sunset to 1 hour after sunset by fixedwing aircraft. Follow-up ground surveys, if necessary, will be conducted during the same time frame. Surveys will 

be at least 7 days apart. The location, activity, number, and age class (immature, mature) of any bald eagles 

observed will be recorded. If a roost or suspected roost is identified, BLM, FWS, and MFWP will be notified and a 

GPS record of the roost/suspected roost will be obtained and entered into the BLM GIS database. There will be No 

Surface Occupancy within 0.5 miles of any identified bald eagle roost site/territories.

Nest productivity will be conducted by the BLM or a BLM-approved biologist on and within 1 mile of the project 

area. Active nests located within one mile of project-related disturbance areas (well sites, pipelines, roads, 

compressor stations, and other infrastructure) will be monitored on an annual basis between March 1 and mid-July 

to determine nesting success (i.e., number of nestlings/fledglings per nest).

Burrowing owl: Operators should indicate the presence of prairie dog towns on their application. The presence of 

sensitive habitat does not indicate burrowing owls are present. It does, however, alert the company and BLM a field 

review and surveys may be required to process the permit or initiate action. In association with APD and ROW 

application field reviews, prairie dog colonies within 0.5 miles of a proposed project or any other suitable habitat 

within a .5 mile radius area, will be surveyed for western burrowing owls by BLM biologists or a BLM-approved 

Operator-financed biologist twice yearly from June through August to determine the presence/absence of nesting 

owls. Efforts will be made to determine reproductive success (no. of fledglings/nest).
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP-5

Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Other Species of Concern

Operators must identify and map the presence of cottonwood riparian, herbaceous riparian or wet meadows, 

permanent water or wetlands, prairie dog towns, or rock outcrops, ridges or knolls on their application. The 

presence of sensitive habitat may not indicate a species is present. It does, however, alert the company and BLM a 

field review and surveys may be required to process the permit or initiate action. The level of effort associated with 

the inventory and monitoring required for threatened, endangered, candidate, and other species of concern 

(TEC&SC) will be commensurate with established protocol for the potentially affected species. Methodologies and 

results of these surveys will be included in annual reports or provided in separate supplemental reports. As 

TEC&SC species are added to or withdrawn from FWS and/or BLM lists, appropriate modifications will be 

incorporated to this plan and specified in annual reports.

TEC&SC data collected during the surveys will be provided only as necessary to those requiring the data for 

specific management and/or project development needs. Site- and species-specific TEC&SC surveys will continue 

to be conducted as necessary in association with all APD and ROW application field reviews. Data will be collected 

on BLM approved data sheets and entered into the BLM GIS database.

Black-footed Ferret

Operators should indicate the presence of prairie dog towns on their application. The presence of sensitive habitat 

does not necessarily indicate suitable black-footed ferret habitat is present. It does, however, alert the company and 

BLM that a field review and surveys may be required to process the permit or initiate action. BLM biologists and/or 

BLM-approved Operator-financed biologists will determine the presence/absence of prairie dog colonies within 0.5 

miles of proposed activity during APD and ROW application field reviews. Prairie dog colonies on the area will be 

mapped to determine overall size following the approved methodology. Colony acreage will be determined using 

GIS applications. Colonies that meet FWS size criteria as potential black-footed ferret habitat (USFWS 1989) will 

be surveyed to determine active burrow density using the methods described by Biggins et al. (1993) or other BLMand FWS-approved methodology.

Project activity will be located to avoid impacts to prairie dog colonies that meet FWS criteria as black-footed ferret 

habitat (FWS 1989). If avoidance is not possible, all colonies meeting the FWS size criteria and any colonies for 

which density estimates are not obtained will be surveyed for black-footed ferrets by an operator-financed, FWScertified surveyor prior to, but no more than 1 year in advance of disturbance to these colonies. Black-footed ferret 

surveys will be conducted in accordance with FWS guidelines (FWS 1989) and will be conducted on a site-specific 

basis, depending on the areas proposed for disturbance in a given year as specified in the annual report. If a blackfooted ferret or its sign is found during a survey, all development activity would be subject to recommendations 

from the Montana Black-footed Ferret Survey Guidelines, Draft Managing Oil and Gas Activities in Prairie Dog 

Ecosystems with Potential for Black-footed ferret Reintroduction and re-initiation of Section 7 Consultation with 

FWS.

Black-tailed and White-tailed Prairie Dog

The BLM will determine the acreage of occupied black-tailed and/or white-tailed prairie dog habitat within suitable 

mountain plover habitat on federally managed surface acres and federal mineral estate lands. Further, a reasonable 

effort should be made to estimate actual impacts, including habitat loss, CBNG development will have on occupied 

black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog acres within suitable mountain plover habitat over the entire project area.

Prairie dog towns on BLM lands within 0.5 miles of a specific project area will be identified, mapped, and surveyed 

as described in the black-footed ferret section. On an annual basis, the BLM and/or a BLM-approved Operatorfinanced biologist will survey, at least a portion of, the prairie dog colonies, including the reference colonies. Prairie 

dog populations are subject to drastic 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 populations to CBNG development.

Mountain Plover 

Surface use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of active mountain plover nest sites. Disturbance to prairie dog towns will 

be avoided where possible. Any active prairie dog town occupied by mountain plover will have Controlled Surface 

Use between April 1 and July 31, which may be reduced to Controlled Surface Use within 1/4 mile of an active nest, 
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP - 6

once nesting has been confirmed. An exception may be granted by the authorized officer after the BLM consults 

with the FWS on a case-by-case basis and the operator agrees to adhere to the new operational constraints.

On federally managed surface acres, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie greater than 80 acres in size within suitable 

mountain plover habitat will have a no surface use stipulation from May 1 through June 15. Prior to permit 

approval, habitat suitability will be determined. The BLM, FWS and MFWP will estimate potential mountain 

plover habitat across the CBNG area using a predictive habitat model. Over the next 5 years, information will be 

refined by field validation using most current FWS mountain plover survey guidelines (FWS 2002c) to determine 

the presence/absence of potentially suitable mountain plover habitat. In areas of suitable mountain plover habitat, 

surveys will be conducted prior to ground disturbance activities by the BLM or a BLM-approved Operator biologist,

using the FWS protocol at the project area, plus a 0.5 mile buffer. Efforts will be made to identify mountain plover 

nesting areas not subject to CBNG development, to be used as reference sites. Comparisons will be made of the 

trends in mountain plover nesting occupancy between these reference areas and areas experiencing CBNG 

development.

The BLM shall monitor loss of mountain plover habitat associated with all portions of this action (operators will 

indicate the presence of prairie dog towns or other mountain plover habitat indicators on their application). Suitable

mountain plover habitat has been defined under ‘critical habitat’ for the mountain plover in FWS’ Statewide 

Biological Opinion. The actual measurement of disturbed habitat will be the responsibility of the BLM or their 

agent (consultant, contractor, etc) with a written summary provided to the FWS’ Montana Field Office, upon project 

completion or immediately, if the anticipated impact area is exceeded.

Gray Wolf

According to the Biological Assessment for Coalbed Methane Production in Montana, state lands and counties 

(Gallatin and Park Counties) bordering Yellowstone National Park would be surveyed in the spring for wolves, 

occupied dens, or scat prior to development. These surveys could be conducted from the air or from the ground. 

Areas in which wolves are observed would continue to be surveyed annually until reintroduction objectives are met. 

Efforts will be made to compare production and/or occupancy trends in wolf populations in these areas to a 

reference population in order to gain more reliable information regarding the response of wolves to CBNG

development.

Sage-Grouse

BLM and MFWP will conduct sage grouse lek inventories over the CBNG project area every 5 years to determine 

lek locations. Surveys of different areas may occur during different years with the intent the high potential CBNG 

project areas will be covered at least once every 5 years. Inventories and protocol will be consistent with the 

Montana Sage Grouse Conservation Plan, coordinated by the BLM and MFWP. In areas with development, aerial 

inventories will be conducted annually on affected sections, 3 mile buffers, and selected undeveloped reference 

areas. Surveys may be conducted aerially or on the ground, as deemed appropriate by the BLM and MFWP. 

Operator may provide financial assistance.

Reference leks are leks located in similar habitat and within close proximity to areas currently being developed. 

These “reference leks” will be identified by BLM and MFWP.

Aerial surveys will be used for determining lek locations. BLM, MFWP or BLM-approved Operator-financed 

biologist will monitor sage-grouse lek attendance within 3 miles of areas having development such that all leks on 

these areas are surveyed at least once every 3 years. Data collected during these surveys will be recorded on BLM 

and MFWP approved data sheets and entered into the approved database. An effort should also be made to compare 

trends of the number of males/lek to reference leks.

Sage-grouse winter use surveys of suitable winter habitat within 3 miles of a project area will be coordinated by the 

BLM and implemented by the BLM and/or MFWP during November through February as deemed appropriate by 

these agencies, and results will be provided in interim and/or annual reports. Historical information of winter sagegrouse locations will be useful in focusing efforts in areas suspected of providing winter habitat. Sage-grouse winter 

habitat use surveys will be conducted when suitable conditions exist.

Big Game

Elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, and pronghorn are the common big game species that occur within parts or all of 

the CBNG planning area. BLM and/or MFWP will collect annual big game seasonal habitat use data and make it 

available to Operators, Tribes and landowners. Big game use of seasonal habitats is highly dependent upon a 
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP-7

combination of environmental factors including terrain, forage quality and snow depth. Therefore, it is difficult to 

attribute changes in habitat use to a single factor. Comparisons in trends between big game seasonal habitat 

reference areas and seasonal habitats associated with CBNG development may provide some insight into the 

response of big game to CBNG development.

General Wildlife

Wildlife mortality observed in pits will be documented, reported to the BLM and FWS, and measures will be taken 

to prevent future mortality. If the dead animals are birds, they will be collected and kept for identification by 

someone with an appropriate salvage permit. Also, the pits would need to be “spot checked” by appropriate BLM or 

FWS personnel in insure compliance. In no cases would operators or other workers be allowed to be in possession of 

migratory bird carcasses. Well field access roads and other roads with project-related traffic increases will be 

monitored for wildlife mortality so that specific mitigation can be designed and implemented as deemed necessary 

by BLM, in consultation with MFWP. 

Aquatic Species

Baseline aquatic inventories will be conducted in potentially affected areas by BLM and MFWP with Operator 

financial assistance, prior to development, in an effort to determine occurrence, abundance, and population diversity 

of the aquatic community. These inventories should be repeated as necessary in selected intermittent/perennial 

streams associated with produced water discharge, as well as selected intermittent/perennial streams associated with 

no produced water discharge (control sample site).

Natural fluctuations in species occurrence, abundance, and population diversity will be determined by comparing 

changes in control sample sites to baseline inventories. Changes in occurrence, abundance, and population diversity 

of the aquatic community in streams associated with produced water discharge may then be possible by comparing 

to the natural fluctuations.

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.

Aquatic groups to be inventoried and monitored will include:

-Benthic macroinvertebrates - Determine population diversity using Hess/kick net sampling protocol to 

measure species abundance and establish a diversity index.

-Amphibians and aquatic reptiles - Determine population diversity and abundance utilizing sampling 

methodologies being developed for prairie species.

-Non-game fish - Determine population diversity using electrofishing and seining.

-Algae (periphyton) – Determine population diversity.

PROTECTION MEASURES

Wildlife protection measures have been put in place through lease stipulations. The following sections from the 

FWS’ Biological Opinion describe stipulations or mitigation that restrict activities through lease agreements or 

terms and conditions to reduce the likelihood of “take” of a federally listed species. For all stipulations and 

mitigation measures that include protection of specific habitats (e.g., sage-grouse winter habitat), identification of 

the specific habitat areas will be based on the best available science. This may include BLM surveys or information 

from other sources. For example, researchers at the University of Montana and Montana State University are 

developing sage-grouse habitat models that should provide better information on sage-grouse habitat areas than is 

currently available.

Lease stipulation

The lease stipulations were approved in the 1994 BLM Oil and Gas EIS. These are mandatory measures or actions 

developed as a result of wildlife research and input from agencies and Operators. Avoidance of important breeding, 

nesting, and seasonal habitats is the primary protection measure that will reduce the possibility of CBNG and Oil 

and Gas development having an impact on wildlife populations, productivity, or habitat use. Additional 

conservation measures will be incorporated through the Project Plan design or as Conditions of Approval. Data 
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP - 8

collected during monitoring efforts and analyzed will be used to determine the appropriateness and the effectiveness 

of these measures throughout the CBNG project area. Based on the results of the monitoring data, these measures 

will be reviewed by the Core Team. As monitoring data are collected over time, it is likely some protection 

measures will be added, while others will be modified or removed in cooperation with other agencies and the Core 

Team. All changes in these protection measures will be reported, with a justification for the change, in annual 

reports. A RMP amendment may be required depending on the recommended change.

“Waivers” A lease stipulation may be waived by the Authorized Officer (AO) if a determination is made by the 

BLM, in consultation with MFWP and/or FWS, that the proposed action will not adversely affect the species in 

question.

“Exceptions” to protection measure may be granted by the AO, in coordination with FWS for T&E species and 

MFWP, if the Operator submits a plan that demonstrates impacts from the proposed action will not be significant, or 

can be adequately mitigated.

“Modifications” may be made by the AO if it is determined portions of the area do not include habitat protected by 

the stipulation.

Raptors

From March 1 – August 1, all surface disturbing activities are prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of active raptor nest sites 

except ferruginous hawk, bald eagle and peregrine falcon nest sites. For ferruginous hawks and bald eagles, no 

surface occupancy or use will be allowed within 1⁄2 mile of known active nest sites. No surface occupancy or use is 

authorized within 1 mile of identified peregrine falcon nests. Active raptor nests are defined as those used within 

the last two years.

Big Game

Surface use is prohibited to avoid disturbance of white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, pronghorn antelope, moose, and 

bighorn sheep during the winter use season, December 1 - March 31. This stipulation does not apply to the 

operation and maintenance of production facilities.

Elk Parturition Range

In order to protect identified elk parturition range, surface use is prohibited from April 1 to June 15 within 

established spring calving range. This protection measure does not apply to the operation and maintenance of 

production facilities.

Bighorn Sheep – Powder River Breaks

No surface occupancy or use is allowed in the designated Powder River Bighorn Sheep Range. In crucial winter 

range outside of the designated area, surface use is prohibited from December 1 to March 31.

Sage and Sharptailed Grouse

Lek sites

In order to minimize impacts to sharptailed and sage-grouse leks, surface occupancy within 1⁄4 mile of leks is 

prohibited. The measure may be waived if the AO, in coordination with MFWP, determines the entire leasehold can 

be occupied without adversely affecting grouse lek sites, or if the lek sites within 1⁄4 mile of the leasehold have not 

been attended for 5 consecutive years.

Nesting area

Surface use is prohibited between March 1 – June 15 in grouse nesting habitat within 2 miles of a known lek. This 

measure does not apply to the operation and maintenance of production facilities. This measure will be 

implemented to protect sharptailed and sage-grouse nesting habitat from disturbance during spring and early 

summer in order to maximize annual production of young, and to minimize disturbance to nesting activities adjacent 

to nesting sites for the long-term maintenance of grouse populations in the area.
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP-9

Winter range

Surface use is prohibited from December 1 through March 31 within designated crucial winter range to protect sagegrouse from disturbance during winter season use.

Control of West Nile Virus

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:

• Overbuild the size of ponds to accommodate a greater volume of water than is discharged. This will result 

in non-vegetated and muddy shorelines that breeding mosquitoes avoid.

• Build steep shorelines to reduce shallow water and aquatic vegetation around the perimeter of 

impoundments. Construction of steep shorelines also will increase wave action that deters mosquito 

production. Use of this construction technique could be harmful to certain wildlife species such as birds, 

and would require consideration on a cases by case scenario.

• Maintain the water level below rooted vegetation for a muddy shoreline that is unfavorable habitat for 

mosquito larvae. Rooted vegetation includes both aquatic and upland vegetative types. Always avoid 

flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low lying areas.

• Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down slope seepage or overflow. Seepage and overflow 

results in down-grade accumulation of vegetated shallow water areas that support breeding mosquitoes.

• Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond with crushed rock, or use a horizontal pipe to 

discharge inflow directly into existing open water, thus precluding shallow surface inflow and 

accumulation of sediment that promotes aquatic vegetation.

• Line the overflow spillway with crushed rock, and construct the spillway with steep sides to preclude the 

accumulation of shallow water and vegetation.

• Fence pond site to restrict access by livestock and other wild ungulates that trample and disturb shorelines, 

enrich sediments with manure and create hoof print pockets of water that are attractive to breeding 

mosquitoes.

• The following measures will also be employed for impoundments storing produced water:

• Use adulticides to target adult mosquito populations and larvicides to control the hatching of mosquito 

larvae, using approved pesticides and utilizing licensed applicators with a PUP.

• Introduce native fish species, such as fathead minnow or sand shiner, that would feed on mosquito larvae.

• Use electric, solar, or wind-powered fountains or aerators, which would create a ripple disturbance in the 

water surface and dissuade mosquitoes from laying eggs. This would also have the added effect of aerating 

the water to support a fish population and help prevent against winter fish die-off.

• Use a vertical discharge pipe in the center of the impoundment to create a ripple effect and aerate the water 

to support a fish population.

Prairie Dog Towns and Associated Black-footed Ferret Habitat

Prior to surface-disturbing activities, prairie dog colonies and complexes 80 acres or more in size and containing at 

least 5 burrows per acre will be examined to determine the presence or absence of black-footed ferrets. The findings 

of this examination may result in some restrictions to the operator’s plans or may even preclude use and occupancy. 

The lessee or operator may, at their own option, conduct an examination on the leased lands to determine if blackfooted ferrets are present if the proposed activity would have an adverse effect or if the area can be block cleared. 

This examination must be done by, or under the supervision of, a qualified resource specialist approved by the BLM. 

An acceptable report must be provided documenting the presence or absence of black-footed ferrets and identifying 

the anticipated effects of the proposed action on the black-footed ferret and its habitat. This stipulation does not 

apply to the operation and maintenance of production facilities.
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP - 10

Interior Least Tern

The interior least tern is listed as an endangered species under the ESA. Birds occupy sandbars and graveled islands 

in eastern Montana and along the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers. Surface occupancy and will be prohibited 

within 1/4 mile of wetlands identified as interior least tern habitat.

Terms and Conditions from Section 7 Consultation

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of Section 9 of the Act, the Bureau must comply with the following 

terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures described and outlined in the 

Biological Opinion. These terms and conditions are nondiscretionary.

All Species

In the event wildlife species (dead or injured) are located during construction and operation, the FWS’ Billings SubOffice of the Montana Field Office (406-247-7366) and Law Enforcement Office (406-247-7355) will be notified 

within 24 hours. If the dead animals are birds, they will be collected and kept for identification by someone with an 

appropriate salvage permit. Also, the pits would need to be “spot checked” by appropriate BLM or FWS personnel 

in insure compliance. In no cases would operators or other workers be allowed to be in possession of migratory bird 

carcasses. The action agency must provide for monitoring the actual number of individuals taken. Because of 

difficulty in identification, all small birds found dead should be stored in a freezer for the FWS to identify.

• The Bureau shall monitor all loss of bald eagle (nesting, potential nesting and roost sites) and suitable 

mountain plover habitat associated with all actions covered under the Montana Statewide Draft Oil and 

Gas EIS and Amendment of the Powder River and Billings RMPs and ROD. Bald eagle nesting, potential 

nesting and roost sites, and suitable mountain plover habitat have been defined under ‘habitat use’ and 

critical habitat’ respectively, for each species in the Biological Opinion. The actual measurement of 

disturbed habitat can be the responsibility of the BLM or their agent (consultant, contractor, etc), with a 

written summary provided to the FWS’ Montana Field Office upon project completion. The report will 

include the location and acres of habitat loss, field survey reports, what stipulations were applied, and a 

record of any variance granted to timing and/or spatial buffers. The monitoring of habitat loss for these 

species will commence from the date the Record of Decision (ROD) is signed. The actual measurement of 

disturbed habitat can be the responsibility of the Bureau’s agent (consultant, contractor, etc.) with a written 

summary provided to the FWS’ Montana Field Office semi-annually, or immediately if the Bureau 

determines the action (i.e. Application for Permit to Drill (APD), pipeline, compressor station) will 

adversely affect a listed species. It is the responsibility of the Bureau to ensure the semi-annual reports are 

complete and filed with the FWS in a timely manner. The semi-annual report will include field survey 

reports for endangered, threatened, proposed and candidate species for all actions covered under the 

Montana Statewide Draft Oil and Gas EIS and Amendment of the Powder River and Billings RMPs and 

ROD. The semi-annual reports will include all actions completed under this BO up to 30 days prior to the 

reporting date. The first report will be due 6 months from the signing of the ROD and on the anniversary 

date of the signing of the ROD. Reporting will continue for the life of the project.

• As outlined in the guidance and conservation measures in the CBNG Programmatic Wildlife Monitoring 

and Protection Plan for the Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Amendment of the 

Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans, “All new roads required for the proposed project 

will be appropriately constructed, improved, maintained, and signed to minimize potential wildlife/vehicle 

collisions. Appropriate speed limits will be adhered to on all project area roads, and Operators will advise 

employees and contractors regarding these speed limits.” 

Bald Eagle

• The Bureau shall require implementation of all conservation measures/mitigation measures identified in the 

Biological Assessment prepared for the project and dated October 2006 and wildlife inventory, monitoring, 

and protection protocol identified in the WMPP. The Bureau shall monitor for compliance with the 

measures and protocol. These are as follows:

• The appropriate standard seasonal or year-long stipulations for raptors or no surface occupancy for bald 

eagles as identified in the Billings Resource Management Plan (BLM 1983), Powder River Resource 
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP-11

Management Plan (BLM 1984), and Oil and Gas Resource Management Plan/ EIS Amendment (BLM 

1992) will be applied. This includes No Surface Occupancy within 1⁄2 mile of nests active in the last 7 

years and 1⁄2 mile of roost sites.

• Inventory and monitoring protocol for the bald eagle will be as described for raptors, with the following 

additions. Operators will indicate the presence of eagle habitat as previously defined, on their application. 

Prior to CBNG development or construction, surveys of the wooded riparian corridors within 1.0 mile of a 

project area will be conducted in the winter and/or spring by BLM biologists and/or BLM-approved 

biologists to determine the occurrence of winter bald eagle roosts. Surveys will be conducted from 

daybreak to 2 hours after sunrise and/or from 2 hours before sunset to 1 hour after sunset by aircraft. 

Follow-up ground surveys, if necessary, will be conducted during the same time frame. Surveys will be at 

least 7 days apart. The location, activity, number, and age class (immature, mature) of any bald eagles 

observed will be recorded and if a roost or suspected roost is identified, BLM, FWS, and MFWP will be 

notified and a GPS record of the roost/suspected roost will be entered into the approved database. No 

Surface Occupancy will be applied within 0.5 miles of any identified bald eagle roost sites.

• Nest productivity will be conducted by the BLM or a BLM approved biologist in areas with development 

(i.e., areas with greater than 1 well locations/section) and within 1 mile of the project area. Active nests 

located within one mile of project-related disturbance areas will be monitored between March 1 and midJuly to determine nesting success (i.e., number of nestlings/fledglings per nest).

• No new above-ground power line should be constructed within 1⁄2 mile of an active eagle nest or nest 

occupied within the recent past. No surface occupancy or use is allowed within 0.5 miles of known bald 

eagle nest sites which have been active within the past 7 years. All other actions will be consistent with the 

Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan - July 1994. 

• Power lines will be built to standards identified by the Power Line Interaction Committee (2006) to 

minimize electrocution potential. The FWS has more specific recommendations that reaffirm and 

compliment those presented in the Suggested Practices. It should be noted these measures vary in their 

effectiveness to minimize mortality, and may be modified as they are tested. Local habitat conditions 

should be considered in their use. The FWS does not endorse any specific product that can be used to 

prevent and/or minimize mortality, however, we are providing a list of Major Manufacturers of Products to 

Reduce Animal Interactions on Electrical Utility Facilities.

New Distribution Lines and Facilities

The following represents areas where the raptor protection measures will be applied when designing new 

distribution line construction:

1.1 Bury distribution lines where feasible.

1.2 Raptor-safe structures (e.g., with increased conductor-conductor spacing) are to be used (i.e., 

minimum 60" for bald eagles would cover all species). 

1.3 Equipment installations (overhead service transformers, capacitors, reclosers, etc.) are to be made 

raptor safe (e.g., by insulating the bushing conductor terminations and by using covered jumper 

conductors).

1.4 Jumper conductor installations (e.g., corner, tap structures, etc) are to be made raptor safe by using 

covered jumpers or providing adequate separation.

1.5 Employ covers for arrestors and cutouts.

1.6 Lines should avoid high avian use areas such as wetlands, prairie dog towns, and grouse leks. If 

not avoidable, use anti-perching devices to discourage perching in sensitive habitats such as 

grouse leks, prairie dog towns and wetlands to decrease predation and decrease loss of avian 

predators to electrocution.

Modification of Existing Facilities

Raptor protection measures to be applied when retrofitting existing distribution lines in an effort to reduce raptor 

mortality. Problem structures may include dead ends, tap or junction poles, transformers, reclosers and capacitor 

banks or other structures with less than 60" between conductors or a conductor and ground. The following 

modifications will be made:

2.1 Cover exposed jumpers.
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP - 12

2.3 Gap any pole top ground wires.

2.4 Isolate grounded guy wires by installing insulating link.

2.5 On transformers, install insulated bushing covers, covered jumpers, cutout covers and arrestor 

covers.

2.6 When raptor mortalities occur on existing lines and structures, raptor protection measures are to be 

applied (e.g., modify for raptor-safe construction, install perches, perching deterrents, nesting 

platforms, nest deterrent devices, etc).

2.7 Use anti-perching devices to discourage perching in sensitive habitats such as 

grouse leks, prairie dog towns and wetlands to decrease predation, and decrease loss of avian 

predators to electrocution.

2.8 In areas where midspan collisions are a problem, install effective line-marking devices. All 

transmission lines that span streams and rivers or in known or discovered raptor migration areas,

should maintain proper spacing and have markers installed.

These additional standards to minimize migratory bird mortalities associated with utility transmission lines, will be 

incorporated into the Terms and Conditions for all APDs and stipulations for Right-Of-Way applications.

Mountain Plover

• The Bureau shall require implementation of the conservation measures for mountain plover as identified in 

the Biological Assessment dated October 2006, and wildlife inventory, monitoring, and protection protocol 

addressed in the WMPP. The Bureau shall monitor for compliance with the measures and protocol. These 

are as follows:

• Surface use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of active mountain plover nest sites. Disturbance to prairie dog 

towns will be avoided where possible. Any active prairie dog town occupied by mountain plovers will 

have a Controlled Surface Use stipulation applied between April 1 and July 31. This area may be reduced 

to No Surface Use within 1/4 mile of an active nest, once nesting has been confirmed. An exception may 

be granted by the authorized officer after the BLM consults with the FWS and the operator agrees to adhere 

to the new operational constraints.

• Due to the declining status of mountain plover in the analysis area and the need to retain the most important 

and limited nesting habitat, all active prairie dog colonies on federal surface within suitable mountain 

plover habitat will have No Surface Occupancy (NSO) applied. This NSO may be modified through an 

amendment to this biological opinion after analysis of impacts to this preferred nesting habitat is 

completed.

• BLM will determine the acreage of occupied black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog habitat within 

suitable mountain plover habitat on federally managed surface and mineral estate lands. Further, a 

reasonable effort should be made to estimate the actual impacts, including habitat loss, CBNG development 

will have on occupied black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog acres within suitable mountain plover 

habitat over the entire project area. The BLM, FWS, and cooperators will develop a survey protocol that 

may include prioritization of subsets of the project area to be analyzed. Based on the results of such 

analysis, NSO on active prairie dog habitat within suitable mountain plover habitat may be modified 

utilizing an amendment to the biological opinion.

• Prior to permit approval, habitat suitability will be determined. The BLM, FWS and MFWP will estimate 

potential mountain plover habitat across the CBNG area using a predictive habitat model. Over the next 5 

years, information will be refined by field validation using most current FWS mountain plover survey 

guidelines (FWS 2002c) to determine the presence/absence of potentially suitable mountain plover habitat. 

In areas of suitable mountain plover habitat, surveys will be conducted prior to ground disturbance 

activities by the BLM or a BLM-approved biologist using the FWS protocol at a specific project area plus a 

0.5 mile buffer. Efforts will be made to identify mountain plover nesting areas not subject to CBNG 

development as reference sites. Comparisons will be made of the trends in mountain plover nesting 

occupancy between these reference areas and areas experiencing CBNG development.

• BLM shall monitor all loss of mountain plover habitat associated with this action (operators will indicate 

the presence of prairie dog towns or other mountain plover habitat indicators on their application). Suitable 

mountain plover habitat has been defined under ‘critical habitat’ for the mountain plover in the Biological 

Opinion. The actual measurement of disturbed habitat can be the responsibility of the BLM, their agent 
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP-13

(consultant, contractor, etc) with a written summary provided to the FWS’ Montana Field Office upon 

completion, or immediately if the anticipated impact area is exceeded relative to the estimated surface 

disturbances defined in the SEIS.

• If suitable mountain plover habitat is present, surveys for nesting mountain plovers will be conducted prior 

to ground disturbance activities, if ground disturbing activities are anticipated to occur between April 10 

and July 10. Disturbance occurring outside this period is permitted, but any loss of mountain plover 

suitable habitat must be documented. Sites must be surveyed 3 times between the April 10 and July 10 

period, with each survey separated by at least 14 days. The earlier date will facilitate detection of earlybreeding plovers. A disturbance-free buffer zone of 1/4 mile will be established around all mountain plover 

nesting locations between April 1 and July 31. If an active nest is found in the survey area, the planned 

activity should be delayed 37 days, or seven days post-hatching. If a brood of flightless chicks is observed, 

activities should be delayed at least seven days (FWS 2002). Exceptions and/or waiver to stipulations can 

be made by the BLM, through consultation with the FWS.

• Roads will be located outside of nesting plover habitat where possible. Apply mitigation measures to 

reduce mountain plover mortality caused by increased vehicle traffic. Construct speed bumps, use signing 

or post speed limits as necessary, to reduce vehicle speeds near mountain plover habitat.

• Creation of hunting perches will be minimized within 1⁄2 mile of occupied nesting areas. Utilize perch 

inhibitors (perch guards) to deter predator use.

• Native seed mixes will be used to re-establish short grass vegetation during reclamation.

• There will be No Surface Occupancy of ancillary facilities (e.g., compressor stations, processing plants) 

within 1⁄2 mile of known nesting areas. Variance may be granted after consultation with the FWS.

• In habitat known to be occupied by mountain plover, no dogs will be permitted at work sites to reduce the 

potential for harassment of plovers.

• The FWS will provide operators and the BLM educational material illustrating and describing the mountain 

plover, its habitat needs, life history, threats, and development activities that may lead to incidental take of 

eggs, chicks, or adults. This information will be required to be posted in common areas and circulated in a 

memorandum among all employees and service providers.

Programmatic Guidance for the Development of Project Plans

Guidance for developing Project Plans and/or conservation measures applied as Conditions of Approval provide a 

full range of practicable means to avoid or minimize harm to wildlife species or their habitats. Operators will 

minimize impacts to wildlife by incorporating applicable WMPP programmatic guidance into Project Plans. Not all 

measures may apply to each site-specific development area and means to reduce harm are not limited to those 

identified in the WMPP. This guidance may change over time if new Conservation Strategies become available for 

Special Status Species or monitoring indicates the measure is not effective or unnecessary. 

BLM and MFWP will work together to collect baseline information about wildlife and sensitive habitats possibly 

containing special status species. During the project development phase, Operators will identify potentially 

sensitive habitats and coordinate with BLM to determine which species or habitats are of concern within or adjacent 

to the project area. In areas where required site-specific wildlife inventories have not been completed, Operators 

and BLM will work cooperatively to achieve this. BLM’s responsibilities under NEPA and ESA essentially are the 

same on split estate as they are with federal surface. BLM and Operators will seek input from the private surface 

owner to include conservation measures in split estate situations.

The following guidance and conservation measures are considered “features” or project “design criteria” to be used 

during Project Plan preparation. The design of projects can incorporate conservation needs for wildlife species or 

measures can be added as “Conditions of Approval.” These types of conservation actions offer flexibility for local 

situations and help minimize or eliminate impacts to the species of interest.

1. Use the best available information for siting structures (e.g., storage facilities, generators and holding 

tanks) outside of the zone of impact in important wildlife breeding, brood-rearing and winter habitat based 

on the following considerations.

a. size of the structure(s),
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP - 14

b. level/type of anticipated disturbance

c. life of the operation, and

d. extent to which impacts would be minimized by topography.

2. Concentrate energy-related facilities when practicable.

3. Encourage development in incremental stages to stagger disturbance; design schedules that include longterm strategies to localize disturbance and recovery within established zones over a staggered time frame.

4. Prioritize areas relative to their need for protection, ranging from complete protection to moderate to high 

levels of energy development.

5. Develop a comprehensive Project Plan prior to POD or full field development activities to minimize road 

densities.

6. To reduce additional surface disturbance, existing roads and two-tracks on and adjacent to the CBNG

project area will be used to the extent possible and will be upgraded as necessary.

7. Minimize stream channel disturbances and related sediment problems during construction of road and 

installation of stream crossing structures. Do not place erodible material into stream channels. Remove 

stockpiled material from high water zones. Locate temporary construction bypass roads in locations where 

the stream course will have minimal disturbance. Time construction activities to protect fisheries and water 

quality.

8. Design stream-crossings for adequate passage of fish (if potential exists), minimize impacts on water 

quality, and at a minimum, the 25-year frequency runoff. Consider oversized pipe when debris loading 

may pose problems. Ensure sizing provides adequate length to allow for depth of road fill.

9. Use corridors to the maximum extent possible: roads, power, gas and water lines should use the same 

corridor whenever possible.

10. Avoid, where possible, locating roads in crucial sage grouse breeding, nesting and wintering areas and 

mountain plover habitats. Develop roads utilizing topography, vegetative cover, site distance, etc. to 

effectively protect identified wildlife habitats. 

11. Conduct all road and stream crossing construction and maintenance activities in accordance with Agency 

approved mitigation measures and BMPs.

12. Utilize remote monitoring technologies whenever possible to reduce site visits thereby reducing wildlife 

disturbance and mortalities.

13. All new roads required for the proposed project will be appropriately constructed, improved, maintained, 

and signed to minimize potential wildlife/vehicle collisions and facilitate wildlife movement through the 

project area. Appropriate speed limits will be adhered to on all project area roads, and Operators will 

advise employees and contractors regarding these speed limits.

14. Road closures may be implemented during crucial periods (e.g., extreme winter conditions, and 

calving/fawning seasons). Personnel will be advised to minimize stopping and exiting their vehicles in big 

game winter range.

15. Roads no longer required for operations or other uses will be reclaimed if required by the surface owner or 

surface management agency. Reclamation will be conducted as soon as practical.

16. Operator personnel and contractors will use existing state and county roads and approved access routes, 

unless an exception is authorized by the surface management agency.

17. Use minimal surface disturbance to install roads and pipelines and reclaim sites of abandoned wells to 

restore native plant communities.

18. Reclamation of disturbed areas will be initiated as soon as practical. Native species will be used in the 

reclamation of important wildlife habitat. Wildlife habitat needs will be considered during seed mix 

formulation.

19. Locate storage facilities, generators, and holding tanks outside the line of sight and sound of important 

sage-grouse breeding habitat.

20. Minimize ground disturbance in sagebrush stands with documented use by sage-grouse: 

(a) breeding habitat – the lek and associated sagebrush;

(b) nesting habitat – sagebrush within 4 miles of a lek; and

(c) wintering habitat – sagebrush with documented winter use by sage-grouse.

21. Site new power lines and pipelines in disturbed areas wherever possible; remove overhead powerlines 

when use is complete.

22. Minimize the number of new overhead power lines in sage-grouse or mountain plover habitat. Use the best 

available information for siting powerlines in important sage-grouse breeding, brood-rearing, and winter 

habitat. Bury lines in sage-grouse and mountain plover habitat, when feasible.

23. Restrict timing for powerline installation to prevent disturbance during critical sage-grouse periods 

(breeding March 1 – June 15; winter December 1 –March 31).
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP-15

24. If above ground powerline siting is required within 2 miles of important sage-grouse breeding, broodrearing, and winter habitat, emphasize options for preventing raptor perch sites utilizing Avian Powerline 

Action Committee 2006 guidelines.

25. Encourage monitoring of avian mortalities by entering into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with 

FWS and the state agencies to establish procedures and policies to be employed by the parties to lessen 

industry’s liability concerns about the “take” of migratory birds. 

26. Remove unneeded structures and associated infrastructure when project is completed.

27. Restrict maintenance and related activities in sage-grouse breeding/nesting complexes; 15 March -15 June, 

between the hours of 4:00-8:00 am and 7:00-10:00 pm. 

28. Restrict noise levels from production facilities to 49 decibels (10 dBa above background noise at the lek).

29. Restrict use of heavy equipment that exceeds 49 dBa within 2 miles of a lek from 4-8am and 7-10pm 

during April 1 – June 30.

30. Protect, to the extent possible, natural springs from disturbance or degradation.

31. Design and manage produced water storage impoundments so as not to degrade or inundate sage-grouse 

leks, nesting sites and wintering sites, prairie dog towns or other Special Status Species habitats.

32. CBNG produced water should not be stored in shallow, closed impoundments or playas. Impoundments 

designed as flow through systems will lessen the likelihood selenium will bioaccumulate to levels 

adversely affecting other wildlife.

33. Develop offsite mitigation strategies in situations where fragmentation or degradation of Special Status 

Species habitat is unavoidable.

34. Protect reserve, workover, and production pits potentially hazardous to wildlife by netting and/or fencing as 

directed by the BLM to prevent wildlife access and minimize the potential for migratory bird mortality.

35. Reduce potential increases in poaching through employee and contractor education regarding wildlife laws. 

Operators should report violations to BLM and MFWP.

36. Operator employees and their contractors will be discouraged from possessing firearms while working.

Measures 3, 4, 20, 21, 24, 25, 29, and 30 were added for the SEIS/Amendment from the Management Plan and 

Conservation Strategies for sage-grouse in Montana (Montana Sage Grouse Work Group 2005).
Wildlife Monitoring and Protection 

WILDLIFE APPENDIX

WMPP - 16

Table 1. Summary of General Wildlife Reporting, Inventory, and Monitoring, CBNG Development; Powder River and Billings Resource Management 

Plans, CBNG Amendment (2002)

Action Dates Responsible Entity

Plans of development for outcoming years, showing general 

location of proposed development

Annually Team (BLM, USFWS, MFWP, Operators)

Annual reports summarizing findings and presenting necessary 

protection measures

Annually BLM with reviews MFWP, USFWS, Operators, 

and other interested parties

Meeting to finalize future year’s inventory, monitoring, and 

protection measures

Annually BLM with participation by USFWS, MFWP, 

Operators, and other interested parties

Inventory and Monitoring

Big game use monitoring When Applicable MFWP with BLM assistance

Determine mountain plover habitat suitability Prior to permit approval BLM & operator assistance

In areas of suitable mountain plover habitat, conduct nest 

surveys in project area, plus a .5 mile buffer

Prior to ground disturbing activities BLM & operator assistance

In areas of suitable mountain plover habitat, map active blacktailed prairie dog colonies on federal mineral estate.

Prior to permit approval BLM & operator assistance

Active prairie dog colonies within .5 mile of a specific project 

area will be identified, mapped and surveyed

Prior to permit approval BLM with MFWP & operator assistance

Raptor nest inventories (POD areas plus 1 mile buffer; 

burrowing owls excluded)

Every 5 years during April and May but prior to 

permit approval

BLM with MFWP & operator assistance

In areas with potential bald eagle winter roost sites/territories, 

conduct surveys within one mile of project area

Prior to ground disturbing activities BLM & operator assistance

Conduct bald eagle nest inventories within .5 miles buffer of 

project area

Between March 1 and mid July BLM & operator assistance

Monitor productivity at active bald eagle nests within one mile 

of project-related disturbance

Between March 1 and mid July BLM & operator assistance

Raptor next productivity monitoring at active nests within one

mile of project disturbance area

Annually March to mid-July BLM with MFWP & operator assistance

Sage-grouse lek inventories (project area plus two mile buffer) Every 5 years BLM with MFWP & operator assistance
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection 

WMPP - 17

Action Dates Responsible Entity

Inventory and Monitoring (continued)

Sage-grouse lek attendance monitoring on and within 2 miles of 

the RMU

Annually BLM with MFWP & operator assistance will visit 

selected leks each year so that all leks will be 

visited annually

Threatened, Endangered & Sensitive species 

inventory/monitoring within selected CBNG development areas 

When Applicable BLM with MFWP & operator assistance

Other wildlife species inventory/monitoring within selected 

CBNG development areas 

When Applicable BLM with MFWP & operator assistance
WILDLIFE APPENDI

X

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection 

WMPP - 18

Table 2. Summary of APD/ROW Survey and Protection Measures, CBNG Development within the Powder River and Billings 

Resource Management Plans

Protection Measure Dates

Bald eagle nest surveys within 0.5 mile of project area Yearlong

Bald eagle nest avoidance within 0.5 mile of active nests No Surface Use or Occupancy

Bald Eagle Winter Roost surveys within 1 mile of project area December 1 to April 1

Bald Eagle Winter Roost avoidance within 0.5 miles of roost site No Surface Use or Occupancy

Black-footed ferret surveys Prairie dog colonies > 80 acres

Mountain plover surveys within 0.5 miles of project area May 1 to June 15

Active prairie dog colonies on federal surface in mountain plover habitat BLM & operator assistance

Mountain plover nest/brood avoidance within .25 miles of project area April 1 to July 31

Peregrine falcon nest avoidance within 1 mile of active nest No Surface Use or Occupancy

Threatened, Endangered & Sensitive species surveys As necessary

Threatened, Endangered & Sensitive species avoidance As necessary

Big game crucial winter range avoidance December 1 – March 31

Elk Parturition Range avoidance April 1 – June 15

Big Horn Sheep – Powder River Breaks No Surface Use or Occupancy

Prairie dog colony mapping and burrow density determinations Yearlong

Raptor next survey/inventory within 0.5 miles of project area Yearlong

Raptor nest avoidance within 0.5 miles of active nests March 1 – August 1

Sage-grouse nesting habitat avoidance on areas within 2.0 miles of a lek April 1 – June 30

Sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse lek avoidance within 0.25 miles of a lek No Surface Use or Occupancy

Sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat avoidance on areas within 0.5 mi. of a lek March 1 – June 15

Western burrowing owl surveys (prairie dog colonies within 0.5 miles of disturbance) June – August

General wildlife avoidance/protection As necessary
WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection 

WMPP - 19

Table 3. Additional Wildlife Inventory and Monitoring Measures On and Adjacent to Areas with High Levels of Development (4 

Locations/Section), Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans, CBNG Amendment (2001)

Action Dates Responsible Entity

Raptor nest inventory/monitoring on areas with 

development, plus a 1-mile buffer.

Annually during April and Mary BLM surveyor with Operator-provided financial 

assistance

Raptor productivity monitoring 

on areas with development, plus a 1-mile buffer.

Annually during March-July BLM surveyor with Operator-provided financial 

assistance for BLM volunteer support

Selected TEC&SC inventory/monitoring on 

suitable habitats in areas with development, plus 

a 1-mile buffer 

Annually during spring and summer BLM or Operator-financed BLM-approved 

biologist

Collect baseline information for benthic 

macroinvertebrates, amphibians and aquatic 

reptiles, algae and non-game fish. Monitor 

changes on selected streams

Baseline 1 – 2 years prior and annually 

over the life of the project

BLM surveyor with Operator-provided financial 

assistance

Sage-grouse lek inventory on areas of 

development plus a 2-mile buffer and selected 

undeveloped comparison areas

Every 5 years, mid-March to mid-May BLM surveyor with Operator-provided financial 

assistance

Sage-grouse lek attendance monitoring on areas 

of development plus a 2-mile buffer and selected 

undeveloped comparison areas

Annually, mid-March to mid-May Each known lek will be visited at least once 

annually by the BLM and/or Operator-financed 

BLM-approved biologist; subsequent visits will 

occur at BLM-selected leks by the BLM, and/or 

Operator-financed BLM-approved biologist

Others studies on areas with development and 

selected undeveloped comparison areas

USFWS and/or BLMA with Operator- and other 

party-provided financial assistance
WMPP - 20

REFERENCES:

Atkinson, E. C. 1995. Survey and monitoring 

guidelines for ferruginous hawks in Montana. 

USDI, Bureau of land Management and Montana 

Fish Wildlife and Parks. 42pp.

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 1994.

Mitigating bird collisions with power lines” The 

state of the art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute, 

Washington, D.C. 78pp. +append

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 2006.

Suggested practices for avian protection on 

power lines: The state of the art in 2006. Edison 

Electric Institute and California Electric 

Commission, Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, 

CA. 207pp. 

Biggins, D.E., B.J. Miller, L.R. Hanebury, B. 

Oakleaf, A.H. Farmer. 1993. A technique for 

evaluating black-footed ferret habitat. Pp 73-87 

In Proceedings of the Symposium on the 

Management of Prairie Dog Complexes for the 

Reintroduction of the Black-footed Ferret. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

Call, M. W. 1978. Nesting habitats and surveying 

techniques for common western raptors. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Technical Note No. 316. 115pp.

Grier, J.W., and R.W. Fyfe. 1987. Preventing 

research and management disturbance. Pages 

173-182 In B.A.G. Pendleton, B.A. Milsap, 

K.W. Kline, and D.M. Bird editors. Raptor 

management techniques. Institute of Wildlife 

Research, National Wildlife Federation, 

Scientific and Technical Series No. 10 420 pp.

Montana Sage-grouse Work Group. 2005.

Management Plan and Conservation Strategies 

for Sage-grouse in Montana – Final. Revised 

February 1, 2005.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1983.

Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

Resources Management Plan, Billings Resource 

Area. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management. November 1983. BLM-MTES-84-002-4410.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1984.

Powder River Resource Area, Resource 

Management Plan, Miles City District, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, December 

1984, United States Department of Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Miles City District 

Office, BLM-MT-ES-85-0014410.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1992.

Final Oil and Gas RMP/EIS Amendment for the 

Billings, Powder River and South Dakota 

Resource Areas. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Miles City 

District.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Black-footed 

ferret survey guidelines for compliance with the 

Endangered Species Act. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Denver Colorado, and Albuquerque, 

New Mexico (April 1989). 10pp. +append

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002c. Mountain 

Plover survey guideline. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Denver, Colorado. 7pp.
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT for

COAL BED Natural Gas PRODUCTION

IN MONTANA

Prepared for 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

Miles City and 

Billings field Offices

October 2006

Julie A. Grialou

Wildlife Biologist

Bob Sullivan

Fisheries Biologist

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Project Location........................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................ 5

2.3 Construction Techniques ............................................................................................. 5

3.0 DATA COLLECTION AND ASSESSMENT ...................................................................... 7

3.1 Literature Studies......................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Survey Methodologies................................................................................................. 7

3.2.2 MAMMALS.........................................................................................7

3.2.3 BIRDS..................................................................................................7

4.0 PROJECT CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 8

4.1 Mammals ..................................................................................................................... 8

4.1.1 BLACK-FOOTED FERRET (MUSTELA NIGRIPES) .............................8

4.1.2 CANADA LYNX (LYNX CANADENSIS)...............................................9

4.1.3 GRAY WOLF (CANIS LUPUS)...........................................................10

4.1.4 GRIZZLY BEAR (URSUS ARCTOS HORRIBILIS)...............................11

4.2 Birds........................................................................................................................... 13

4.2.1 BALD EAGLE (HALIAEETUS LEUCOCEPHALUS) ...........................13

4.2.2 INTERIOR LEAST TERN (STERNA ANTILLARUM ATHALASSOS) ....14

4.2.3 WHOOPING CRANE (GRUS AMERICANA)........................................14

4.3 Fish............................................................................................................................. 15

4.3.1 PALLID STURGEON (SCAPHIRHYNCHUS ALBUS)..........................15

4.3.2 MONTANA ARCTIC GRAYLING (THYMALLUS ARCTICUS 

Montanus).......................................................................................... 16

LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................... 18

List of Tables

TABLE 1 FEDERALLY-LISTED THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND PROPOSED 

FOR LISTING SPECIES ............................................................................................ 2

TABLE 2 ESTIMATES OF LAND AREA THAT WILL BE DIRECTLY DISTURBED 

BY THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE..........................................................................5

List of Maps

MAP 1: CBNG DEVELOPMENT BASED ON REASONABLE FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT 

SCENARIO ..................................................................................................................................6

MAP 2: CBNG PLANNING AREA AND THE YELLOWSTONE GRIZZLY BEAR RECOVERY 

ZONE..........................................................................................................................................12

List of Attachments

A CORRESPONDENCE WITH USFWS

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

1

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR COAL BED NATURAL 

GAS PRODUCTION IN MONTANA

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Miles City 

and Billings Field Offices, Montana, are proposing 

changes in the coal bed natural gas (CBNG) 

development program. The Powder River and Billings 

Resource Management Plans (RMPs), as amended by 

BLM's 1994 Oil and Gas Amendment of the Billings, 

Powder River, and South Dakota Resource Management 

Plans, support conventional oil and gas development and 

limited CBNG exploration and development. The BLM 

proposes to amend the Billings and Powder River RMPs 

to address increased interest in CBNG in these RMP 

areas. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was 

completed in 2003 to evaluate impacts arising from 

implementation of the amended RMPs. As a result of 

lawsuits filed against the BLM’s Record of Decision 

(ROD), the U.S. District Court issued orders, dated 

February 25, 2005, and April 5, 2005, requiring the BLM 

to 1) prepare a Supplemental EIS (SEIS) to evaluate a 

phased development alternative for CBNG production, 2) 

include the proposed Tongue River Railroad in the 

cumulative impact analysis, and 3) analyze the 

effectiveness of water well mitigation agreements. An 

SEIS/Amendment is being prepared to further evaluate 

impacts from implementation of the amended RMPs in 

light of the issues identified by the U.S. District Court.

The oil and gas industry is experiencing growing interest 

and predicts further interest in the exploration and 

development of CBNG because of increasing energy 

demands and efforts to find alternative energy sources. 

Increased CBNG development would result in a major 

federal action with potential to significantly affect the 

environment. This Biological Assessment (BA) was 

compiled to consider the potential impacts on federally 

listed and proposed threatened and endangered (T&E) 

species from proposed changes to levels of CBNG 

exploration and development in Montana. The BLM is 

the lead agency for this BA. Designated cooperators—

those who have signed a memorandum of understanding 

with the BLM—are the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA), Montana Department of Environmental 

Quality (MDEQ), Montana Board of Oil and Gas 

Conservation (MBOGC), Crow Tribe of Montana,

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and the following counties: 

Big Horn, Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Powder 

River, Rosebud, Treasure, and Yellowstone. The 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe has also collaborated on the 

development of this SEIS/Amendment.

This BA is being prepared pursuant to Section 7(c) of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), as 

required under the ESA, provided a list of federal 

endangered, threatened, and proposed threatened and 

endangered species that may be present in the Planning

Area (Table 1 and Appendix A). Eight federally listed 

threatened, endangered, and proposed for listing wildlife

species potentially occur in the Planning Area. The list 

provided by the USFWS did not include any plant 

species. Under the ESA, the BLM must ensure that 

activities instigated under this action do not jeopardize 

the continued existence of any threatened, endangered, or 

proposed for listing species. The USFWS must concur 

that the BLM’s actions will not jeopardize a listed 

species. One candidate species may also potentially be 

found in the project area. Although not subject to the 

extensive procedural provisions of the ESA, the USFWS 

encourages that no action be taken that could impact 

candidate species and contribute to the need to list the 

species. 

Project Plans of Development (PODs) will be developed 

and approved using the programmatic guidance outlined 

in the Preferred Alternative, including the Wildlife 

Monitoring and Protection Plan (Wildlife Appendix of 

Draft SEIS/Amendment). Additional monitoring 

guidance support can be found in the Monitoring, 

Vegetation, and Mineral Appendices of the Draft 

SEIS/Amendment. PODs will include baseline inventory 

in areas where wildlife inventory has not been 

completed. Operators will be required to submit a Project 

POD demonstrating how their project design minimizes 

or mitigates impacts to surface resources and meets 

objectives for wildlife. Both the Preferred Alternative 

and the Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan involve

a cooperative approach, which incorporates adaptive 

environmental management principles and establishes a 

framework encouraging industry, landowners, and 

agencies to work together constructively to incorporate 

conservation measures into CBNG development. All 

CBNG development will follow the programmatic 

guidance to address wildlife concerns, and each 

individual Project POD will include a site-specific 

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan which includes 

mitigation measures specific to species or local habitats. 

Over the life of the CBNG project, these plans offer 

some assurances that management will be adapted to 

address site-specific situations.
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

2

TABLE 1

FEDERALLY-LISTED THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND PROPOSED FOR LISTING SPECIES

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat in Montana Federal 

Status

Listed Species

Whooping crane Grus americana Wetlands, croplands; transient statewide. E

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Forested riparian areas throughout the state T

Interior least tern Sterna antillarum 

athalassos

Sandbars and islands in eastern Montana and 

along the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers. 

E

Gray wolf Canis lupus Adapted to many habitats, need large 

ungulate prey base and freedom from human 

influence.

E/XN

Canada lynx Felis lynx canadensis Montane spruce/fir forest in western 

Montana.

T

Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes Prairie dog complexes in eastern Montana E/XN

Grizzly bear Ursus arctos horribilis Alpine/subalpine coniferous forest in western 

Montana.

T

Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus Bottom dwelling fish of the Missouri and 

Yellowstone Rivers

E

Candidate Species

Montana Arctic 

grayling

Thymallus arcticus Fluvial populations in the cold-water, 

mountain reaches of the Upper Missouri 

River, and dispersed streams in SW Montana.

C

T=threatened; E=endangered; E/XN= endangered/non-essential, experimental; C=candidate.
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

3

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Three action alternatives plus a No Action 

Alternative and a Preferred Alternative were 

originally proposed in the 2003 Final EIS 

(Alternatives A through E). The SEIS/Amendment

has proposed two additional action alternatives that 

consider phased development, as well as a new 

Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative 

discussed in this BA was selected based on an 

analysis of impacts for all alternatives.

Exploration and development of CBNG resources on 

BLM, state, or fee minerals are allowed subject to 

agency decisions, lease stipulations, permit 

requirements, and surface owner agreements. Under 

the Preferred Alternative, operators would be 

required to submit a Project POD outlining the 

proposed federal well development of an area when 

requesting CBNG well densities greater than 1 well 

per 640 acres. The Project POD would be developed 

in consultation with the affected surface owner(s), 

tribes, other affected parties, and other involved 

permitting agencies. All shallow coal seams would 

have vertical wells installed; for deeper coal seams,

the operator would drill directionally or demonstrate 

in the Project POD for agency consideration why 

directional drilling is not needed or feasible. 

Operators would develop single or multiple coal 

seams per their Project PODs; however, there would 

be only one well bore per coal seam per designated 

spacing restriction. Operators would also be required 

to demonstrate in their Project PODs how impacts to 

surface resources, such as wildlife, would be 

minimized or mitigated.

Protection of hydrological resources was one of the 

most critical concerns addressed during the 

development of the Final EIS and SEIS/Amendment, 

receiving significant analysis with regards to various 

options for the management of water produced with 

CBNG development. In light of those analyses, the 

Preferred Alternative combines management options 

so that no degradation of water quality would be 

allowed in any watershed. The hierarchy for water 

management options requires beneficial use as the 

first priority, followed by the operator's choice as 

outlined in a Water Management Plan, which must be 

submitted as part of the federal Project POD. A 

Water Management Plan would be required for 

exploratory wells, and for each Project POD. 

Management options available include injection, 

treatment, impoundment, discharge, or other 

operator-proposed methods, provided they are 

addressed in the Water Management Plan and 

approved by the appropriate agency. Impoundments 

proposed as part of the Water Management Plan 

would be designed and located to minimize or

mitigate impacts to soil, water, vegetation, and 

channel stability. No discharge of produced water 

(treated or untreated) would be allowed into the 

watershed unless the operator has an approved 

Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(MPDES) permit and can demonstrate in the Water 

Management Plan how discharge could occur in 

accordance with water quality laws without 

damaging the watershed. The Preferred Alternative 

also includes a water screen to further protect the 

quality of water within individual 4th order 

watersheds. The water screen requires that the 

cumulative volume of untreated CBNG produced 

water that could be discharged to surface waters 

would be limited to 10 percent of the 7Q10 flow. The 

allowable volume of discharged water would be 

calculated cumulatively based on permitted outfalls. 

If the cumulative 10 percent of 7Q10 limit was 

already used, within a watershed, the proposed 

discharge from federal APDs would need to be 

managed by other practices. This limit is based on the 

amount of discharge allowed under an MPDES 

permit without exceeding Montana non-degradation 

criteria. 

The air quality objectives for the proposed action 

include maximizing the number of wells connected to 

each compressor and requiring natural gas-fired 

engines for compressors and generators, except in 

areas with sensitive resources, including people, 

where noise is an issue. In those areas, the decibel 

level would be required to be no greater than 50 

decibels measured at a distance of one-quarter mile 

from the compressor. This may require installation of 

an electrical booster at these locations.

Transportation corridors would be required for 

utilities, roads, and pipelines with existing 

disturbances used where possible. The operator will 

also address in the Project POD how the surface 

owner was consulted for input into the location of 

roads, pipelines, and utility line routes. For 

powerlines, the operator will demonstrate in the 

Project POD how the proposal for power distribution 

would mitigate or minimize impacts to affected 

wildlife. For example, the operator may propose that 

all or a portion of the powerlines be buried and any 

aboveground lines be designed following raptor-safe 

specifications. When wells are abandoned, the 

associated oil and gas roads would remain open or be 
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

4

closed at the surface owner's discretion. If the roads 

where requested to be closed they would be 

rehabilitated. This includes leaving BLM and state 

roads open, if access is desirable. 

As with current management, there would be no 

buffer zone for CBNG production around active coal 

mines (Montana State Office Instruction 

Memorandum No. 2000-053, June 1, 2000, No 

Surface Occupancy Stipulations). 

To help protect wildlife species other than sagegrouse that rely either seasonally or fully on 

sagebrush habitats (such as mule deer and migratory 

song birds; i.e. Brewer's sparrow and sage sparrow), 

the BLM would limit the amount of disturbance in

such crucial habitat (e.g., the crucial brood 

rearing/breeding/wintering habitat) on its 

administered surface or on private surface overlying 

federal minerals. Crucial habitat polygons would be 

identified within each proposed POD during project 

application development. Annual monitoring of sage 

grouse leks near CBNG development and at reference 

locations will be used to assess the need for 

additional management actions to prevent impacts. A 

negative change in sage-grouse males on the CBNG 

leks may result in changes in management. Ongoing 

research and monitoring in the Powder River Basin 

might cause the BLM to modify the threshold 

percentage for via adaptive management or 

mitigation.

To protect sage-grouse, the BLM would place 

conditions on development within crucial sagegrouse habitat areas. For any development to occur in 

these crucial habitat areas, there must be a high 

likelihood that the development will not displace the 

sage-grouse from the habitat areas. This condition 

may lead to significantly different development 

approaches within the crucial sage-grouse habitat 

areas, which could include low intensity 

development, widely-spaced well locations, and other 

options. For sage-grouse, the following threshold 

would be used to initiate management change as a 

result of monitoring:

• A 25 percent or more decline of male sagegrouse attendance on leks within two miles 

of CBNG development in crucial sagegrouse habitat in comparison to control leks. 

Similarly, if populations remain comparable 

with the control leks or increase over a five 

year monitoring period, management of 

development may be modified to be less 

restrictive

For proposed federal CBNG development within 5 

miles of the Northern Cheyenne and Crow Indian 

Reservations, the BLM, in consultation with the 

tribes, would require site-specific groundwater and 

air analyses. These analyses would be submitted as 

part of the operator’s POD submissions. The 

operator’s analyses must demonstrate that the overall 

POD would be protective of Indian Trust, 

groundwater, CBNG, and air quality. If the analysis 

indicated that unacceptable levels of impairment to 

these resources would occur and could not be 

mitigated in consultation with the tribes, the BLM 

would not approve the APDs. The BLM might

require operator(s) to install groundwater monitoring 

wells and air monitoring stations between the 

development area and the reservations to confirm the 

initial findings of the analyses. Modeling and 

monitoring groundwater would also provide critical 

data to determine if CBNG resources were being 

affected.

This BA addresses environmental impacts from 

implementation of the Preferred Alternative.

2.1 Project Location

The project is located across south-central and 

southeastern Montana. This area includes parts of 

thirteen counties: Carter, Powder River, Custer, 

Rosebud, Treasure, Wheatland, Sweet Grass, 

Stillwater, Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, 

Yellowstone, and Big Horn. 

Because of the extensive area covered, Map 1 is 

provided instead of legal descriptions.

The planning area shown in Map 1 is defined as the 

area where oil and gas decisions will be made by the

BLM. The BLM's planning area is the oil and gas 

estate administered by the BLM in the Powder River 

and Billings RMP areas. The planning area excludes 

those lands administered by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service (USFS), the 

Crow Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, and other 

Indian lands.

For ease of reference, the Billings and Powder River 

RMP areas are collectively referred to in this

document as the BLM CBNG Planning Area. This 

13-county area is where there is CBNG development 

interest.

The Powder River RMP area encompasses the 

southeastern corner of Montana, including Powder 

River, Carter, and Treasure counties, and portions of 

Big Horn, Custer, and Rosebud counties. The Powder 

River RMP area comprises approximately 1,080,675 
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

5

acres of federally managed surface and 4,103,700 

acres of federal mineral estate.

The Billings RMP area comprises the south-central 

portion of Montana consisting of Carbon, Golden 

Valley, Musselshell, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, 

Wheatland, and Yellowstone counties and the 

remaining portion of Big Horn County. The Billings 

RMP area comprises approximately 425,336 acres of 

federally managed surface and 906,084 acres of 

federal mineral estate.

Adjacent to the Planning Area, other major land 

holdings include the Crow and Northern Cheyenne 

Indian Reservations, the Custer National Forest, 

portions of Yellowstone National Park, the Big Horn 

Canyon National Recreational Area, the Burlington 

Northern and Santa Fe Railroad, and the Fort Keogh 

Agricultural Experiment Station. The total surface 

area of the CBNG Planning Area (all owners) 

exceeds 21.9 million acres.

2.2 Purpose and Need

The purpose of the project is to provide direction and 

analysis for CBNG exploration and development on 

the Powder River and Billings RMP areas.

The oil and gas analysis in current BLM planning 

documents did not predict as many wells. A BA to 

establish the impacts to federally listed species is 

needed to analyze the effects from increased CBNG 

and oil and gas development.

2.3 Construction Techniques

Each well project has four phases: exploration, 

development, operation, and shutdown. Once a well 

is in place, it is expected to operate for 20 years 

before abandonment. The BA focuses on the first two 

phases, exploration and development. These lead to 

the operation phase, once the well is in place. 

During development, 3.25 acres are likely to be 

disturbed for each well for exploration, construction, 

and drilling operations. Table 2 shows the land area 

that would be directly disturbed by CBNG 

development and the expected length of road and 

utility corridors. Under the Preferred Alternative, the 

use of transportation corridors to consolidate the 

placement of roads and utilities and minimize surface 

disturbance is required. It is also required that 

existing roads be used and utility corridors follow 

those existing roads if they are available. When 

exploratory construction begins on a site, the 

exploratory well will take about 3 to 5 days to drill, 

with 2 to 3 extra days to complete for CBNG if the 

site is developed. During the exploratory phase, 

wildlife species will be disturbed by the presence of 

bulldozers, drilling equipment, and other machinery. 

The short-term disturbance effect of the exploratory 

phase will end with either abandonment or 

continuation to the development stage if the well site 

is suitable for production. If the site is abandoned 

after exploration, the site will take approximately 5 

years to attain preconstruction vegetative canopy 

cover values. Reclamation of the site with vegetation 

will be undertaken, but restoration to pre-project 

conditions is not planned.

Development disturbance will begin if exploration 

results in estimates of suitable levels of production. 

This and operational disturbance should be 

considered long-term because of the permanent 

placement of the pad. The materials source for roads 

would be located as close as possible to each project 

site, but no specific sources have been identified at 

this time.

TABLE 2

ESTIMATES OF LAND AREA THAT WILL BE DIRECTLY DISTURBED BY THE PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE

Area 

Disturbed 

per Well 

(acres)

Length of 

Road per 

Well 

(miles)

Length of 

Utility 

Corridor per 

Well 

(miles)

Total 

Number of 

Wells Drilled

Total Area 

Disturbed 

(acres)

Total Length 

of CBNG

Roads 

(miles)

Total Length 

of Utility 

Corridors

3.25 0.237 0.734 18,225 59,045 6,662 20,623
6

Map 1: CBNG Development Based on Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

7

3.0 DATA COLLECTION AND 

ASSESSMENT

Appropriate federal and state agencies were contacted 

to obtain information on specific habitats and areas 

within the project area where listed species may 

potentially occur. Research literature was reviewed 

for listed species. Biologists with knowledge of the 

area were interviewed before assessing impacts that 

could result from project implementation. Impacts 

would be considered significant if implementation of 

the Preferred Alternative would adversely affect any 

listed or proposed species, including destruction of 

occupied habitat or "taking" (harm, harassment, 

pursuit, injury, or kill) of federally listed wildlife or 

plant species. 

3.1 Literature Studies

A literature search was conducted to determine 

habitat requirements for each listed species. Habitat 

requirements for listed species were then compared to 

terrestrial vegetation communities in the project area 

to determine the potential for occurrence of listed 

species. If suitable habitat was present, a literature 

search was completed to determine if existing sitespecific or regional data on the species were 

available. The broad geographic area covered by this 

BA means that every species listed has some 

potential habitat within the proposed project's 

boundary.

3.2 Survey Methodologies

No specific surveys were conducted for this BA. 

Therefore, it is essential that clearance surveys be 

conducted on a site-by-site basis before CBNG 

exploration begins. Site clearances and field survey 

methodologies differ according to the species of 

interest.

3.2.2 MAMMALS

Four threatened, endangered, or proposed

mammalian species potentially occur in the project 

area (Table 1). Two of the species, the black-footed 

ferret and gray wolf, are listed as experimental 

populations for specific regions within the state of 

Montana. Specific surveys need not be conducted for 

the gray wolf or the Canada lynx because of the 

unlikely possibility of actually observing these 

species even if they are present. Instead, 

reconnaissance-level surveys for signs of these 

species (scat and tracks) will be included with other 

biological surveys at individual project sites. In 

addition, in habitats with higher potential for these 

animals, specific transects will be put in place and 

checked for scat. If found, hair and track traps for 

lynx and grizzly bears will be used to determine 

positive presence. If wolves are suspected, taped 

howling reconnaissance surveys will be employed to 

ascertain whether these species are using the area for

denning.

3.2.3 BIRDS

One threatened and two endangered bird species are 

known to or could occur in the project area. Specific 

surveys would include nesting surveys and winter 

foraging surveys. Consultation with local wildlife 

biologists will precede all exploratory CBNG 

activities within 1.6 miles of any waterway. This 

consultation will result in obtaining nesting and 

winter foraging information for bald eagles that may 

be impacted by CBNG activities. If nesting sites are 

known to occur within this radius of the proposed 

CBNG site or sites, a biologist will be retained to 

survey specifically for this species for the duration of 

both the exploration and development phases in that 

locale. If the proposed CBNG site is found to be 

within a nesting or winter foraging area, CBNG work 

will be halted until the nest is no longer active or 

until winter has passed and the foraging eagles have 

migrated. BLM leasing stipulations pertaining to bald 

eagles apply and will be implemented.

Interior least terns are colonial nesting waterbirds that 

seldom swim, spending much of their time on the 

wing (Hubbard 1978). Therefore, clearance surveys 

that search for flying birds or nesting colonies will be 

done in appropriate habitats, sand bar river areas, or 

nearby sand pits, in the spring by a qualified biologist 

prior to exploration and well development. 

Because whooping cranes are rare migrants in the 

planning area vicinity and do not nest or winter in the 

area, surveys for these birds will not be conducted.
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

8

4.0 PROJECT CONDITIONS

This section discusses habitat requirements and 

distributions of species listed or proposed for listing 

by the USFWS as endangered or threatened, the 

status of the species or habitat within the project area, 

potential impacts from project implementation, 

conservation actions, and an impact determination. 

Habitat requirements and distribution data were 

obtained from Federal Register (FR) listing notices, 

conversations with federal and state biologists, and 

other published and unpublished research data.

4.1 Mammals

4.1.1 BLACK-FOOTED FERRET 

(MUSTELA NIGRIPES)

4.1.1.1 Habitat

This species was listed as endangered March 11, 

1967, and is currently listed as 

endangered/experimental, non-essential in Montana.

Historically, black-footed ferrets inhabited grassland 

plains (shortgrass and midgrass prairies) surrounded 

by mountain basins up to 3,250 meters (10,500 feet) 

in elevation (USFWS 1998). This species is always 

found in association with another grassland species, 

the prairie dog (Cynomys spp.; Burt and 

Grossenheider 1980, Cahalane 1954). Prairie dogs 

are the principle food of the black-footed ferret, and 

prairie dog burrows provide the ferret's principle 

shelter. Research has found that the black-footed 

ferret is more than just associated with the prairie

dog, but is truly obligate and dependent upon this 

rodent for its survival as a species (Anderson et al. 

1986, Biggins et al. 1986, Clark 1989, Forrest et al. 

1988, Henderson et al. 1974, Hillman 1968, Miller et 

al. 1996). Data suggest that a ferret needs a prairie 

dog colony of at least 12.5 hectares (31.3 acres) to 

survive for a year and a minimum of 50 hectares (125 

acres) to raise a litter (Caughley and Gunn 1996). 

Ferret range is coincident with that of prairie dogs 

(Anderson et al. 1986). There is no documentation of 

black-footed ferrets breeding outside of prairie dog 

colonies. Specimen records of black-footed ferrets 

are available from ranges of three species of prairie 

dogs: black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys 

ludovicianus), white-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys 

leucurus), and Gunnison's prairie dog (Cynomys 

gunnisoni; Anderson et al. 1986). 

Major causes for the decline in this species are longterm prairie dog control efforts, the loss of habitat as 

a result of destruction of original grasslands, and 

canine distemper (Frey and Yates 1996). Recovery 

plans were approved in June 1978 and August 1988. 

These included captive breeding and release to 

protected habitats in the wild.

4.1.1.2 Distribution

Historically, this species' range included New 

Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Kansas, 

Oklahoma, Texas, Wyoming, Nebraska, Montana, 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Alberta, and 

Saskatchewan. It was decimated from all of its 

former range, and distribution is now limited to 

introduced populations in Arizona, Wyoming, 

Montana, and South Dakota (USFWS 1998). 

Reintroduction efforts have been concentrated in 

these four states because they still have protected 

areas with large prairie dog colonies. Although the 

Wyoming effort has been hampered by disease 

problems, the other three states have shown some 

success (USFWS 1996). Reintroduction efforts began 

in 1991 in Wyoming, 1994 in Montana and South 

Dakota, and 1996 in Arizona. 

4.1.1.3 Status in the Project Area

Based on surveys conducted to date, black-footed 

ferrets are not known to occur in the project area. 

However, one of the potential black-footed ferret 

reintroduction sites recommended by the Montana 

Black-Footed Ferret Coordinating Committee is 

located within the project area in Custer County. If a 

proposal is made by the USFWS and the Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) to 

reintroduce the black-footed ferret in this area,

further coordination to avoid impacts will be 

required.

4.1.1.4 Project Impact

Black-footed ferrets are exclusively found associated 

with their main prey species: prairie dogs. Prairie 

dogs are found throughout the project area. Any 

activity affecting prairie dog colonies has the 

potential to impact the ferret. 

4.1.1.5 Conservation Measures

Two BLM leasing stipulations address black-footed 

ferret concerns. The first states that exploration in 

prairie dog colonies within potential black-footed 

ferret reintroduction areas comply with the Draft 

Guidelines for Oil and Gas Activities in Prairie Dog 

Ecosystems Managed for Black-footed Ferret 

Recovery (USFWS 1990). Compliance with these 

guidelines is required, and they specify that 
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

9

conditions of approval depend on the type and 

duration of the proposed activity, proximity to 

occupied ferret habitat, and other site-specific 

conditions. Exceptions or waivers of this stipulation 

may be granted if the Montana Black-Footed Ferret 

Coordination Committee determines the proposed 

activity would have no adverse impacts on ferret 

reintroduction or recovery. The second stipulation 

requires all prairie dog colonies or complexes greater 

than 80 acres in size be surveyed for black-footed 

ferret absence or presence through consultation with 

the FWS, prior to ground disturbance. The results of 

the survey determine whether restrictions or denial of 

use are appropriate for the site. Both of these 

stipulations will be implemented under the proposed 

action.

4.1.1.6 Determination

Provided strict adherence to BLM leasing 

stipulations, the proposed action will result in a "may 

affect, not likely to adversely affect" situation for

black-footed ferrets. 

4.1.2 CANADA LYNX (LYNX 

CANADENSIS)

4.1.2.1 Habitat

This species was listed as threatened on March 24, 

2000. In the contiguous United States, the 

distribution of the lynx is associated with the 

southern boreal forest, comprised of subalpine 

coniferous forest in the West, and primarily mixed 

coniferous/deciduous forest in the East (Aubry et al. 

1999); whereas in Canada and Alaska, lynx inhabit 

the classic boreal forest ecosystem known as the taiga 

(McCord and Cardoza 1982, Quinn and Parker 1987, 

McKelvey et al. 1999). Within these general forest 

types, lynx are most likely to persist in areas that 

receive deep snow, for which the lynx is highly 

adapted (Ruggiero et al. 1999). 

According to the USFS (1993), lynx require three 

primary habitat components: 

1. Foraging habitat (15- to 35-year-old lodgepole 

pine (Pinus contorta) to support snowshoe hare, 

the primary food source, and provide hunting 

cover).

2. Denning sites with patches of spruce and fir 

greater than 200 years old and generally smaller 

than 5 acres.

3. Dispersal and travel cover that is variable in 

vegetative composition and structure. 

Abundance of snowshoe hare is the limiting factor 

for lynx. The hare is limited by the availability of 

winter habitat that includes early successional 

lodgepole pine with trees at least 6 feet tall. 

4.1.2.2 Distribution

In the western United States, lynx historically 

occurred in the Cascades Range of Washington and 

Oregon; and the Rocky Mountain Range in Montana, 

Wyoming, Idaho, eastern Washington, eastern 

Oregon, northern Utah, and Colorado (McCord and 

Cardoza 1982, Quinn and Parker 1987). 

4.1.2.3 Status in the Project Area

The range of lynx includes portions of four counties 

within the project area: Wheatland, Sweet Grass, 

Stillwater, and Carbon (MFWP 2006). Within this 

area, lynx are expected to occur within suitable 

subalpine coniferous forests and moist Douglas fir 

forests, especially those areas with dense, old growth 

providing lynx forage and denning areas, as well as 

young, dense forested stands providing lynx forage. 

The project area does not contain areas proposed by 

USFWS as critical lynx habitat (USFWS 2005a).

4.1.2.4 Project Impact

Although possible, exploration and development of 

CBNG are not expected to occur in higher elevation 

forests providing lynx habitat. If exploration or 

associated roads or utility lines were constructed 

within lynx habitat, the animals could be impacted by 

habitat loss and by disturbance.

4.1.2.5 Conservation Measures

Any drilling pads or other construction areas (e.g., 

road and utility line construction) located in suitable

high elevation forested areas, especially areas with 

populations of hares or rabbits, would be surveyed 

prior to ground disturbance for scat and individuals 

following established protocols. If found, the site 

would be avoided and surrounded by a buffer zone as 

recommended by USFWS biologists.

4.1.2.6 Determination

Implementation of conservation measures will result 

in a "may affect, not likely to adversely affect” 

situation for Canada lynx.
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

10

4.1.3 GRAY WOLF (CANIS LUPUS)

4.1.3.1 Habitat

This species was listed as endangered on March 11, 

1967, and is currently listed as 

endangered/experimental, non-essential in Montana. 

However, USFWS has recently concluded that 

delisting gray wolves in the Northern Rocky 

Mountains may be warranted (USFWS 2005b). The 

gray wolf can be found in any area, within their 

current range, that supports populations of hoofed 

mammals (ungulates), its major food source. 

4.1.3.2 Distribution

The wolf was considered extirpated from the western 

portion of the conterminous United States by about 

1930. The gray wolf is native to most of North 

America north of Mexico City, except for the 

southeastern United States, where a similar species, 

the red wolf (Canis rufus), was found. The gray wolf 

occupied nearly every area in North America that 

supported populations of hoofed mammals 

(ungulates). The gray wolf occurred historically in 

the northern Rocky Mountains, including 

mountainous portions of Wyoming, Montana, and 

Idaho. For 50 years prior to 1986, no detection of 

wolf reproduction was found in the Rocky Mountain 

portion of the United States. 

A revised recovery plan for the Northern Rocky 

Mountain states (Montana, Wyoming, Idaho) was 

approved by USFWS in 1987 (USFWS 1987). It 

identified a recovered wolf population as being at 

least 10 breeding pairs of wolves, for 3 consecutive 

years, in each of three recovery areas (Central Idaho, 

Greater Yellowstone, and Northwestern Montana). A 

population of this size would be comprised of about 

300 wolves. The plan recommended natural recovery 

in Montana and Idaho. The plan recommended use of 

ESA section 10(j) authority to reintroduce 

experimental wolves. By establishing a nonessential 

experimental population, more liberal management 

practices could be implemented to address potential 

negative impacts or concerns regarding the 

reintroduction. The final EIS was filed with the EPA

on May 4, 1994, and the notice of availability was 

published on May 9, 1994. The EIS considered five 

alternatives: 1) Reintroduction of Wolves Designated 

as Experimental; 2) Natural Recovery (No Action); 

3) No Wolves; 4) Wolf Management Committee 

Recommendations; and 5) Reintroduction of Wolves 

Designated as Non-experimental. After careful 

review, the USFWS proposed to reintroduce 

nonessential experimental gray wolves in 

Yellowstone Park and central Idaho. Wolves in the 

third recovery area, the Northwest Montana Recovery 

Area encompassing northwest Montana and the Idaho 

Panhandle, are covered fully by the ESA as 

endangered species. Under the Experimental 

Population Final Rule guidelines from 1994, 35 

wolves were introduced into central Idaho and 66 

wolves were introduced into Yellowstone National 

Park in 1995 and 1996. 

In recent years, wolves in the Northern Rocky 

Mountain states have continued to increase in 

distribution and numbers, and recovery criteria have 

been met for removing Northern Rocky Mountain 

wolves from the Endangered Species list (USFWS et 

al. 2005). Estimates of wolf numbers at the end of 

2004 were 452 wolves in the Central Idaho Recovery 

Area, 324 wolves in the Greater Yellowstone 

Recovery Area, and 59 in the Northwest Montana 

Recovery Area.

4.1.3.3 Status in the Project Area

Wolves in the project area vicinity are part of the

experimental population originally introduced into 

Yellowstone Park. The most recent Rocky Mountain 

Wolf Recovery Annual Report estimates the 

population size of the experimental wolf population 

in southern Montana at 94 wolves (USFWS et al.

2005). The range of the Moccasin Lake, Phantom 

Lake, Red Lodge, and Beartooth wolf packs occur 

within, or partially within, the project area (USFWS 

et al. 2005). There are no active wolf den or 

rendezvous sites known to occur within the project 

area. However, the Red Lodge pack likely has a den 

site somewhere in the Red Lodge vicinity (Trapp, 

personal. comm. 2006).

4.1.3.4 Potential Impact

Roads and the presence of humans would increase 

the threat from shooting, either intentionally or 

accidentally (if mistaken for a coyote). The density of 

roads in occupied wolf areas could force wolves from 

occupied areas and could increase stress on wolves 

and result in the loss of some individuals. 

4.1.3.5 Conservation Measures

Prior to construction on project area lands in counties 

where wolves are most likely to occur (Carbon, 

Stillwater, and Sweet Grass counties currently, with 

potential for additional counties in the future if 

wolves expand their range), surveys would include 

specific searches for this animal, occupied dens, or 

scat. If wolves or other wolf indicators were found, 

USFWS would be consulted and proper protocols 
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

11

followed. Likely protocols include providing buffers 

around wolf den and rendezvous sites and limiting 

road density in areas of occupied wolf habitat.

4.1.3.6 Determination

Implementation of conservation measures will result 

in a "not likely to jeopardize" situation for this 

experimental/non-essential gray wolf population.

4.1.4 GRIZZLY BEAR (URSUS 

ARCTOS HORRIBILIS)

4.1.4.1 Habitat

This species was listed as endangered on March 11, 

1967. This status was changed to threatened on July 

28, 1975. On November 11, 2000, the USFWS listed 

some populations in Montana and Idaho as 

experimental to facilitate restoration to designated 

recovery areas. On June 20, 2001, Interior Secretary 

Gale Norton rescinded the plans for restoration and 

withdrew a plan to reintroduce grizzly bears into the 

Bitterroot ecosystem of Idaho and Montana. Current 

status for this species is threatened, although the 

Yellowstone distinct population segment (DPS) of 

grizzly bears has been proposed for delisting 

(USFWS 2005c).

The grizzly (or brown) bear was once found in a wide 

variety of habitats including open prairie, brushlands, 

riparian woodlands, and semidesert scrub. Most 

populations require vast areas of suitable habitat to 

prosper. They forage for wild fruits; nuts; bulbs; 

roots; insect larvae in logs; and carcasses of elk, deer, 

and cattle (Graham 1978, Mealey 1975, Schleyer

1983). This species is common only in habitats where 

food is abundant and concentrated, including whitebark pine, berries, and salmon or cutthroat runs, and 

where conflicts with humans are minimal (Reinhart 

1990, Podruzny 1999). Research indicates it is 

important to maintain areas where grizzly bears can 

forage for a 24- to 48-hour period secure from human 

disturbance (Gibeau et al. 1996).

Winter dens are dug in north-facing slopes or more 

often at the base of large trees in areas away from 

humans in late fall or winter after snow has begun to 

fall (Crowed and Crowed 1972, Jonkel 1980, Judd et 

al. 1986, Vroom et al. 1980).

4.1.4.2 Distribution

This species once lived in a variety of habitats across 

most of North America. Grizzly bears now occupy 

only 2 percent of their original range in the lower 48 

states in remote wilderness areas in Idaho, Montana, 

Wyoming, Alaska, and Washington. 

4.1.4.3 Status in the Project Area

The current range of grizzly bears extends into the 

southwestern portion of the project area (Map 2). 

These bears are part of the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

DPS. On November 15, 2005, the USFWS 

announced this DPS is a recovered population, no 

longer meeting the ESA’s definition of threatened or 

endangered, and consequently, the USFWS proposed 

to delist this DPS (USFWS 2005c). The Yellowstone 

grizzly bear DPS increased from estimates as low as 

136 individuals when listed in 1975 to more than 580 

animals as of 2004. The population has been 

increasing since the mid 1990s and is increasing at 4 

to 7 percent per year. The range of this population 

also has increased dramatically as evidenced by the 

48-percent increase in occupied habitat since the 

1970s (USFWS 2005c).

None of the areas that may potentially be developed 

for CBNG occur within the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

recovery zone, and approximately 550 acres of BLMadministered coal or oil/gas/coal estate occur within 

occupied grizzly bear habitat outside the recovery 

zone (Map 2).

4.1.4.4 Potential Impact

Roads and the presence of humans would increase 

the risk of human-bear interactions, which 

occasionally end in the death of the grizzly bear. The 

increase in density of roads in occupied grizzly bear 

areas could force the bears from these areas and 

could increase stress on the bears, resulting in the 

potential loss or reduced fecundity of some 

individuals.

4.1.4.5 Conservation Measures

Garbage and other human refuse will be removed 

from drilling and construction sites 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 USFWS biologists.

4.1.4.6 Determination

Implementation of conservation measures will result 

in a "may affect, not likely to adversely affect” 

situation for grizzly bears.
12

Map 2: CBNG PLANNING AREA AND THE YELLOWSTONE GRIZZLY BEAR RECOVERY ZONE
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

13

4.2 Birds

4.2.1 BALD EAGLE (HALIAEETUS 

LEUCOCEPHALUS)

4.2.1.1 Habitat

This species was reclassified from endangered to 

threatened, because of recovery status, on July 12, 

1995. Due to continued recovery and increase in 

population size, the USFWS proposed the bald eagle 

be delisted (USFWS 1999).

Bald eagles concentrate in and around areas of open 

water where waterfowl and fish are available. They 

prefer solitude; late-successional forests; shorelines 

adjacent to open water; a large prey base for 

successful brood rearing; and large, mature tree for 

nesting and resting (Fisher et al. 1998). 

4.2.1.2 Distribution

The bald eagle ranges throughout much of North 

America, nesting on both coasts from Florida to Baja 

California, Mexico in the south, and from Labrador 

to the western Aleutian Islands, Alaska in the north. 

An estimated one-quarter to one-half million bald 

eagles lived on the North American continent before 

the first Europeans arrived. Nationwide bald eagle 

surveys, conducted in 1973 and 1974 by the USFWS, 

other cooperating agencies, and conservation 

organizations, revealed that the eagle population 

throughout the lower 48 states was declining. A 

partial survey conducted by the National Audubon 

Society in 1963 reported on 417 active nests in the 

lower 48 states, with an average of 0.59 young 

produced per nest. Surveys coordinated by USFWS 

in 1974 resulted in a population estimate of 

791 occupied breeding areas for the lower 48 states. 

The USFWS estimated that the breeding population 

exceeded 5,748 occupied breeding areas in 1998. The 

bald eagle population has essentially doubled every 7 

to 8 years during the past 30 years. 

4.2.1.3 Status in the Project Area

Bald eagles nest along all the major rivers within the 

project area. These watersheds provide important 

habitat during spring and fall migrations, as well as 

during the winter months. Bald eagles have been 

expanding their nesting territories throughout southcentral and southeastern Montana (Flath 1991).

4.2.1.4 Project Impact

Bald eagles are sensitive to human presence. 

Disturbance to foraging, resting, roosting, or 

migrating eagles is possible through surface use in 

other areas not addressed by stipulations. Stipulations

listed in the introduction of the Wildlife section 

(Chapter 4 Wildlife) in the Powder River and Billings 

Amendment to the RMPs and SEIS, including no 

surface use or occupancy within 0.5 mile of nests 

active in the last 7 years and within riparian area 

nesting habitat. It is assumed these stipulations would

prevent eagles from abandoning traditional nesting 

sites in the project area, but periodic or complete 

abandonment of non-nesting habitat may occur 

depending on the level of human use and noise. 

Removal of large trees in wintering areas, 

particularly at established roost sites, could also 

displace bald eagles by removing perch and roost 

sites.

Regarding oil and gas infrastructure, above-ground 

transmission facilities will not likely result in the 

death of bald eagles from electrocution because of 

proper design and construction requirements. Utility 

lines and motor vehicles do however pose strike 

hazards for bald eagles, especially near perennial 

rivers and water bodies that support fish and 

waterfowl. For powerlines, the operator will 

demonstrate in the Project POD how the proposal for 

power distribution would mitigate or minimize 

impacts to affected wildlife. For example, the 

operator may propose that all or a portion of the 

powerlines be buried and any aboveground lines be 

designed following raptor-safe specifications.

Additionally, for each proposed CBNG development, 

operators will document in the Project POD the 

surface owner consultation process and input 

received for the location of roads, pipelines, and 

utility line routes. 

4.2.1.5 Conservation Measures

Prior to CBNG development or construction, a 

wildlife biologist will survey the construction zone 

within a 1.0-mile width for bald eagles and bald eagle 

nests. Surface occupancy and use will be prohibited 

within 0.5 mile of any identified nest or riparian 

nesting habitat. Surveys for bald eagle winter roost 

sites will be conducted during winter/spring along 

wooded riparian corridors within 1.0 mile of 

proposed CBNG development. Surface occupancy 

will be prohibited within 0.5 mile of any identified 

bald eagle roost site. Specifications to minimize the 

effects of roads, pipelines, and utility line routes on 

bald eagles are described in Section 4.2.1.4.
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

14

4.2.1.6 Determination

Implementation of the conservation measures will 

result in "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" 

situation for bald eagles.

4.2.2 INTERIOR LEAST TERN 

(STERNA ANTILLARUM 

ATHALASSOS)

4.2.2.1 Habitat

This species was listed as endangered on May 28, 

1985.

The occurrence of breeding least terns is localized 

and depends upon the presence of dry, exposed sand 

bars and favorable river flows that support desired 

forage fish and that also isolate the sand bars from 

the river banks. Characteristic riverine nesting sites 

are dry, flat, sparsely vegetated sand and gravel bars 

within a wide, unobstructed, water-filled river 

channel (Ziewitz et al. 1992). The sand at a nesting 

site must be mostly clear of vegetation, and water 

levels low enough for nests to remain dry. Nests are 

initiated only after spring and early summer flows 

recede and dry areas on sand bars are exposed, 

usually on higher elevations away from the water's 

edge. Artificially created nesting sites, such as sand 

and gravel pits, dredge islands, reservoir shorelines 

and power plant ash disposal areas, also are used 

occasionally as well (Kirsch 1996).

4.2.2.2 Distribution

The interior least tern is migratory and historically 

bred along the Mississippi, Red, and Rio Grande 

River systems and rivers of central Texas. The 

breeding range extended from Texas to Montana and 

from eastern Colorado and New Mexico to southern 

Indiana. It included the Red, Missouri, Arkansas, 

Mississippi, Ohio, and Rio Grande river systems. The 

interior least tern continues to breed in most of the 

aforementioned river systems, although its 

distribution generally is restricted to less altered river 

segments (USFWS 2006a).

4.2.2.3 Status in the Project Area

The least tern is known to nest in the project area and 

also occasionally may pass through the area during 

spring and fall migration. Its habitat in the project 

area includes graveled islands in the lower 

Yellowstone River (Fisher et al. 1998).

4.2.2.4 Project Impact

This species is susceptible to disturbance during the 

nesting period. It is highly vulnerable to changes in 

water levels during the nesting period.

4.2.2.5 Conservation Measures

Potential habitat near drilling and construction sites 

will be identified and appropriate surveys will be 

conducted for this species. Surface occupancy and 

use will be prohibited within 0.25 mile of wetlands 

identified as providing interior least tern nesting 

habitat. Occupied wetlands and water levels will be 

protected in all phases of drilling and construction 

and no discharge into occupied wetlands will be 

permitted.

4.2.2.6 Determination

With strict adherence to survey protocols, stipulations 

and conservation measures, the proposed action will 

have "no effect" on interior least terns.

4.2.3 WHOOPING CRANE (GRUS 

AMERICANA)

4.2.3.1 Habitat

The whooping crane was first listed as endangered on 

March 11, 1967, and the listing was “grandfathered” 

into the ESA. Whooping cranes nest in marshy areas 

among bulrushes, cattails, and sedges that provide 

protection from predators as well as food (USFWS

2006b). During the nesting season, the birds feed and 

roost in wetlands and upland grain fields, where they 

associate with ducks, geese, and sandhill cranes. 

Whooping cranes use a variety of habitats during 

migration, including croplands for feeding and large 

palustrine (marshy) wetlands and riverine habitats for 

roosting. About 9,000 hectares of salt flats in the

Aransas National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and 

adjacent islands comprise the principal winter 

grounds. 

4.2.3.2 Distribution

Wild populations of whooping cranes utilize the 

Texas Gulf coast, including Aransas NWR, Texas, 

and Bosque del Apache NWR, New Mexico, and 

migration and staging areas through northeastern 

Montana, the western half of North Dakota, central 

South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and east-central 

Texas (USFWS 2006b). In addition, a non-migratory 

whooping crane population resides in Florida 

(USFWS 2006b). For the past 20 years, observations 
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

15

in Montana have been restricted to the northeast 

corner of the state (MFWP 2006). The birds observed 

in this area represent occasional migrants traveling 

through from the Aransas population on journey to 

the breeding grounds in Alberta and the Northwest 

Territories. As of January 2005, the wild population 

of whooping cranes was estimated at approximately 

300 individuals (USFWS 2005d). 

4.2.3.3 Status in the Project Area

Whooping cranes have not been sighted within the 

project area within the past 20 years (MFWP 2006). 

Any birds that may use the area would only occur as 

transients passing through the area during migration.

4.2.3.4 Project Impact

Whooping cranes are very occasional migrants in 

southeast and south central Montana, and there are no 

known stop-over habitats within the project area. As 

migrants, whooping cranes would only be affected by 

very tall structures, such as large transmission lines 

and towers, communication towers and guy-wires, 

and similar structures which represent potentials for 

in-flight collisions. There are no such tall structures 

proposed in this project.

4.2.3.5 Conservation Measures

There are no ancillary structures and facilities 

proposed in the project area which would present a 

potential for in-flight collision for whooping cranes. 

The on-site electric distribution lines are all relatively 

low, and many lines will be buried to further reduce 

the potential for collision.

4.2.3.6 Determination

Implementation of the conservation measures would 

result in “no effect” to whooping cranes.

4.3 Fish

4.3.1 PALLID STURGEON 

(SCAPHIRHYNCHUS ALBUS)

4.3.1.1 Habitat

This species was listed as endangered on September 

6, 1990 (55 FR 36641). They are found in large rivers 

with high turbidity and a natural flow with rocky or 

sandy substrates (Forbes and Richardson 1905). They 

evolved in large rivers with high turbidity and a 

natural hydrograph that included spring flooding and 

other high runoff events. Preferred habitat has a 

diversity of depths and velocities formed by braided 

channels, sandbars, islands, sand flats and gravel bars 

(Erickson 1992, Gilbraith et al. 1988). Pallid sturgeon 

are usually found now in deeper holes below 

sandbars and in riverine reaches of reservoirs 

(Kallemeyn 1983, Erickson 1992, Clancey 1991). 

4.3.1.2 Distribution

Historically, pallid sturgeon were found in the 

Missouri River from Fort Benton, Montana, to St. 

Louis, Missouri; in the Mississippi River from above 

St. Louis to the Gulf of Mexico; in the lower reaches 

of other large tributaries, such as the Yellowstone, 

Platte, Kansas, Ohio, Arkansas, Red, and Sunflower 

Rivers; and in the first 60 miles of the Atchafalaya 

River (Bailey and Cross 1954, Kallemeyn 1983).

4.3.1.3 Status in the Project Area

Historically in Montana, pallid sturgeon occupied 

reaches of the Missouri River from Fort Benton 

downstream and in the Yellowstone River from about 

Forsyth (river mile 183) to the Missouri River 

(USFWS 1993, Montana Natural Resource 

Information System 2005). Natural water flow and 

natural flooding events have been changed by 

channel developments and hydroelectric projects. 

These changes, coupled with pollution and fishing, 

are believed to be the main reason for the decline in 

this species. There are two pallid sturgeon recovery

priority management areas (RPMAs) in Montana, 

with one (RPMA 1) located upstream of Fort Peck 

Dam on the Missouri River, and the other (RPMA 2) 

including the Missouri River reach downstream of 

Fort Peck Dam and the lower Yellowstone River 

(upstream to the mouth of the Tongue River). Thus, 

portions of the Project Area occur in RPMA 2. While 

the lower Yellowstone River is believed to support 

relatively high survival of hatchery-reared pallid 

sturgeon, no known recruitment has occurred in the 

Yellowstone River for at least 30 years. Thus this 

species will likely be extirpated from this area by 

2018 (Jaeger et al. 2005).

4.3.1.4 Project Impact

There could be minimal, temporary effects through 

construction of stream crossings and erosion 

generated by construction activities. The proposed 

action contains requirements designed to protect 

hydrologic resources by combining management 

options of CBNG-produced water so that no 

degradation of water quality would be allowed in any 

watershed. CBNG operators would be required to 

develop a Water Management Plan as part of their 
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

16

overall Project POD that describes how impacts on 

surface resources would be minimized or mitigated, 

and how a discharge (if proposed by the operator) 

could occur without damaging the watershed—in 

accordance with a required and approved NPDES 

Permit and water quality laws. Stipulations 

prohibiting surface occupancy or use of water bodies, 

floodplains of major rivers, riparian areas, and steep 

slopes would further avoid impacts. These measures 

would avoid water quality impacts to the pallid 

sturgeon. In addition, release of adequate quality 

water from production may improve habitat that has 

been degraded through water withdrawals.

The Water Management Plans would also establish 

site-specific thresholds for the volume of untreated 

produced water that could be discharged to surface 

waters from federal CBNG wells. These requirements 

would be in addition to the surface water quality and 

discharge volume limitations stipulated in the 

Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(MPDES) discharge process. The total allowable 

untreated discharge volume would be based on 10

percent of the 7Q10 flow rate, unless specific surface 

water quality monitoring is conducted upstream and 

downstream of the particular outfall. If monitoring 

indicates that water quality thresholds would be 

exceeded, no further untreated discharge would be 

allowed, regardless of the total discharge volume to 

the water body. MDPES water quality and quantity 

monitoring data and reports are available on the 

Montana BLM CBNG monitoring website 

(http://www.blm.gov/mt/fo/miles_city_field 

_office/cbng/monitoring.html).

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.

4.3.1.5 Conservation Measures

There are no specific conservation measures 

identified; however, the BLM will develop, include, 

and enforce appropriate mitigation measures for 

aquatic resources, including pallid sturgeon, during 

the site-specific, plan-approval stage. Measures to 

further avoid or reduce impacts in addition to those 

included at the plan-approval stage may be 

recommended. The state will apply additional 

mitigation measures on a case-by-case basis through 

the use of field rules.

4.3.1.6 Determination

If conservation measures are implemented, this 

project "may affect but is not likely to adversely 

affect” pallid sturgeon.

4.3.2 MONTANA ARCTIC 

GRAYLING (THYMALLUS 

ARCTICUS Montanus)

4.3.2.1 Habitat

This species is currently a candidate for listing under 

the ESA. On October 2, 1991, a petition requested 

that the "fluvial Arctic grayling" be listed as an 

endangered species throughout its historic range in 

the lower 48 states. The petitioners stated that the 

decline of the fluvial Arctic grayling was a result of 

many factors, including habitat degradation from

domestic livestock grazing and stream diversions for 

irrigation, competition with non-native trout species, 

and past over-harvesting by anglers. Additionally, the 

petition stated that much of the annual recruitment is 

lost in irrigation ditches.

4.3.2.2 Distribution

Historically, the fluvial Arctic grayling DPS occurred 

throughout the streams and rivers of the upper 

Missouri River drainage, above Great Falls Montana 

(USFWS 2005e). However, the current distribution is 

estimated to represent about 5 percent of this historic 

range. While the lake-dwelling form is fairly 

common in 30 or more lakes across the western half 

of the state, the native fluvial or river-dwelling 

population is believed restricted to the upper Big 

Hole River. 

4.3.2.3 Status in the Project Area

In Montana, Arctic grayling are generally found at 

relatively high and cold headwater locations. Within 

the project area these locations include headwaters in 

the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River. However, 

studies by the MFWP show that the relative 

abundance of grayling in this area is "rare" (Montana 

Natural Resource Information System 2005). 

4.3.2.4 Project Impact

There could be minimal, temporary effects through 

construction of stream crossings and erosion 

generated by construction activities. The proposed 

action contains requirements designed to protect 

hydrologic resources by combining management 
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

17

options of CBNG-produced water so that no 

degradation of water quality would be allowed in any 

watershed. CBNG operators would be required to 

develop a Water Management Plan as part of their 

overall Project POD that describes how impacts on 

surface resources would be minimized or mitigated, 

and how a discharge (if proposed by the operator) 

could occur without damaging the watershed—in 

accordance with a required and approved NPDES 

Permit and water quality laws. Stipulations 

prohibiting surface occupancy or use of water bodies, 

floodplains, riparian areas, and steep slopes would 

further avoid impacts. These measures would avoid 

water quality impacts to the Arctic grayling. In 

addition, release of adequate quality water from 

production may improve habitat that has been 

degraded through water withdrawals.

The Water Management Plans would also establish 

site-specific thresholds for the volume of untreated 

produced water that could be discharged to surface 

waters from federal CBNG wells. These requirements 

would be in addition to the surface water quality and 

discharge volume limitations stipulated in the 

MPDES discharge process. The total allowable 

untreated discharge volume would be based on 10

percent of the 7Q10 flow rate, unless specific surface 

water quality monitoring is conducted upstream and 

downstream of the particular outfall. If monitoring 

indicates that water quality thresholds would be 

exceeded, no further untreated discharge would be 

allowed, regardless of the total discharge volume to 

the water body. MPDES water quality and quantity 

monitoring data and reports are available on the 

Montana BLM CBNG monitoring website 

(http://www.blm.gov/mt/fo/miles_city_field 

_office/cbng/monitoring.html).

Long-term effects on Arctic grayling 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 Arctic grayling.

4.3.2.5 Conservation Measures

There are no specific conservation measures 

identified; however, the BLM will develop, include, 

and enforce appropriate mitigation measures for 

aquatic resources, including Arctic grayling, during 

the site-specific, plan-approval stage. Measures to 

further avoid or reduce impacts in addition to those 

included at the plan-approval stage may be 

recommended. The state will apply additional 

mitigation measures on a case-by-case basis through 

the use of field rules.

4.3.2.6 Determination

As this species is not expected to occupy areas where 

CBNG activities are likely to occur, along with the 

implementation of appropriate best management 

practices (BMPs) and conservation measures, the 

proposed action is not “likely to significantly affect 

Arctic grayling populations, individuals, or their 

suitable habitat.”
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

18

LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, E., S.C. Forrest, T.W. Clark, and L. 

Richardson. 1986. Paleobiology, 

biogeography, and systematics of the blackfooted ferret, Mustela nigripes (Audubon 

and Bachman), 1851. Great Basin Naturalist 

Memoirs 8:11-62.

Aubry, K. B., G. M. Koehler, and J. R. Squires. 1999. 

Ecology of Canada lynx in southern boreal 

forests. In Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. 

W. Buskirk, et al., tech. eds. The scientific 

basis for lynx conservation in the contiguous 

United States. Gen. Tech. Rpt. RMRS-GTR30. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Bailey, R.M., and F.B. Cross. 1954. River sturgeons 

of the American genus Scaphirhynchus: 

Characters, distribution, and synonymy. Pap. 

Mich. Acad. Sci., Arts, and Letters 39:169-

208. 

Biggins, D.E., M.H. Schroeder, S.C. Forrest, and L. 

Richardson. 1986. Activity of radio-tagged 

black-footed ferrets. Great Basin Naturalist 

Memoirs 8:135-140.

Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1980. Peterson 

field guides: mammals. Houghton-Mifflin, 

New York, NY. 289 pp.

Cahalane, V.H. 1954. Status of the black-footed 

ferret. Journal of Mammalogy 35:418-424.

Caughley, G. & A. Gunn (ed). 1996. Conservation 

Biology in Theory and Practice. Blackwell 

Science, Cambridge, MA. 459 pp.

Clancey, P. 1991. Fort Peck pallid sturgeon study. 

Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Omaha, Nebraska, by Montana Dept. of 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 

Clark, T.W. 1989. Conservation biology of the blackfooted ferret, Mustela nigripes. Wildlife 

Preservation Trust Special Report #3. 

Wildlife Preservation Trust International, 

Philadelphia, PA. 175 pp.

Crowed, F.C. Jr., and J.J. Crowed. 1972. Grizzly bear 

prehibernation and denning activities as 

determined by radiotracking. Wildl. Mongr. 

32. 25 pp.

Erickson, J.D. 1992. Habitat selection and movement 

of pallid sturgeon in Lake Sharpe, South 

Dakota. M.S. Thesis, South Dakota State 

University, Brookings, SD. 

Fisher, F.B., J.C. Winne, M.M. Thornton, T.P. Tady, 

Z. Ma, M.M. Hart, and R.L. Redmond. 

1998. Montana land cover atlas. 

Unpublished report. Montana Cooperative 

Wildlife Research Unit. University of 

Montana, Missoula. viii +50 pp.

Flath, D.L. 1991. Species of special interest or 

concern (draft report). Montana Dept. of 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

Forbes, S.A., and R.E. Richardson. 1905. On a new 

shovelnose sturgeon from the Mississippi 

River. Bulletin Illinois State Lab. Nat. Hist. 

7:37-44. 

Forrest, S.C., D.E. Biggins, L. Richardson, T.W.

Clark, T.M. Campbell, K.A. Fagerstone, and 

E.T. Thorne. 1988. Population attributes for 

black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) at 

Meeteetse, Wyoming, 1981-1985. Journal of 

Mammalogy 69:261-273.

Frey, J.K and T.L. Yates. 1996. Mammalian diversity 

in New Mexico. New Mexico Journal of 

Science 36:4-37. 

Gibeau, M., S. Herrero, J. Kansas and B. Benn. 1996. 

Grizzly bear populations and habitat status 

in Banff National Park: A report to the Banff 

Bow-Valley Task Force. 61 pp. 

Gilbraith, D. M., M. J. Schwalbach & C. R. Berry. 

1988. Preliminary report on the status of the 

pallid sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus albus, a 

candidate endangered species. Department 

of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, South 

Dakota State University, Brookings, South 

Dakota. 76 pp. 

Graham, D. C. 1978. Grizzly bear distribution, use of 

habitats, food habits and habitat 

characterization in Pelican and Hayden 

Valleys, Yellowstone National Park. M.S. 

Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman. 

88 pp. 

Henderson, F.R., P.F. Springer, and R. Adrian. 1974. 

The black-footed ferret in South Dakota. 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish 

and Parks. Tech. Bull. 4. 37 pp.

Hillman, C.N. 1968. Field observations of blackfooted ferrets in South Dakota. Transactions 
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

19

of the North American Wildlife and Natural 

Resources Conference 33:433-443.

Hubbard, J.P. 1978. Revised checklist of the birds of 

New Mexico. New Mexico Ornithological 

Society Publication No. 6.

Jaeger, M., G. Jordan, and S. Camp. 2005. 

Assessment of the suitability of the 

Yellowstone River for pallid sturgeon 

restoration efforts. Annual report for 2004, 

Upper Basin Pallid Sturgeon Workgroup, 

Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 

Helena, MT.

Jonkel, C. 1980. Black, brown (brizzly), and polar 

bears. Pages 227-248 In Big Game of North 

America, Ecology and Management. 

Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pa.

Judd, S.L., R.R. Knight, and B.M. Blanchard. 1986. 

Denning of grizzly bears in the Yellowstone 

National Park Area. International Conf. Bear 

Res. and Manage. 6:111-117.

Kallemeyn, L. 1983. Status of the pallid sturgeon. 

Fisheries 8(1):3-9. 

Kirsch, E.M. 1996. Habitat selection and productivity 

of least terns on the Lower Platte River, 

Nebraska. Wildlife Monograph # 132. 48 

pp.

McCord, C. M. and J. E. Cardoza. 1982. Bobcat and 

lynx. In J. A. Chapman and G. A. 

Feldhamer, eds. Wild mammals of North 

America biology, management, and 

economics. Johns Hopkins University Press, 

Baltimore, MD.

McKelvey, K. S., K. B. Aubry, and Y. K. Ortega. 

1999. History and distribution of lynx in the 

contiguous United States. In Ruggiero, L. F., 

K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, et al., tech. eds. 

The scientific basis for lynx conservation in 

the contiguous United States. Gen. Tech. 

Rpt. RMRS-GTR-30. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station.

Mealey, S. P. 1975. The natural food habits of freeranging grizzly bear in Yellowstone 

National Park, 1973-74. M.S. Thesis, 

Montana State University, Bozeman. 158pp. 

Mech, L.D. 1989. Wolf population survival in an area 

of high road density. American Midlands 

Naturalist 121:387-389.

MFWP: See Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

Miller, B., R.P. Reading, and S. Forrest. 1996. Prairie 

night: black-footed ferrets and the recovery 

of endangered species. Smithsonian 

Institution Press. Washington and London. 

254 pp.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2001. Web site 

accessed on February 19, 2001. 

http://www.fwp.state.mt.us/wildlife/endange

red/ferret.htm.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2006. Montana 

animal field guide. Web site accessed on 

April 5, 2006.

http://fwp.state.mt.us/fieldguide.

Montana Natural Resource Information System. 

2005. Montana Natural Resource 

Information System database accessed on 

September 30, 2005. 

http://maps2.nris.state.mt.us/WIS/MFISH.

Podruzny, S. R. 1999. Grizzly bear use of whitebark 

pine habitats in the Washburn Range. M.S. 

Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman. 

60 pp. 

Quinn, N. W. S. and G. Parker. 1987. Lynx. In M. 

Novak, J. A. Barber, M. E. Obbard, and B. 

Malloch, eds. Wild furbearer management 

and conservation in North America. Ontario 

Ministry of Natural Resources.

Reinhart, D. 1990. Grizzly bear habitat use on 

cutthroat trout spawning streams in 

tributaries of Yellowstone Lake. M.S. 

Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman. 

128 pp. 

Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. 

Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. 

R. Squires. 1999. The scientific basis for 

lynx conservation: qualified insights. In 

Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk,

et al., tech. eds. The scientific basis for lynx 

conservation in the contiguous United 

States. Gen. Tech. Rpt. RMRS-GTR-30. 

Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station.

Schleyer, B. 1983. Activity patterns of grizzly bears 

in the Yellowstone ecosystem and their 

reproductive behavior, predation and the use 

of carrion. M.S. Thesis, Montana State 

University, Bozeman. 130 pp. 
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

20

Trapp, J. 2006. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

biologist. Phone conversation with Larry 

Apple, BLM, April 7, 2006.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Northern 

Rocky Mountain wolf recovery plan. 

Denver, Colorado. 119 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Guidelines for 

oil and gas activities in prairie dog 

ecosystems managed for black-footed ferret 

recovery (draft). Denver, Colorado.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Final recovery 

plan for the pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus 

albus). Denver, Colorado. 55 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. In: News 

Release: August 20, 1996, Gober P. and S. 

Rose. More endangered black-footed ferrets 

born in the wild in Montana and South 

Dakota. Lakewood, CO. 

http://www.r6.fws.gov/pressrel/96-53.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Threatened and 

endangered species of New Mexico. 

Ecological Services Field Office, 

Albuquerque, NM. 93 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Proposed rule 

to remove the bald eagle in the lower 48 

States from the list of endangered and 

threatened wildlife. Federal Register 

64(128): 36453-36464. July 6, 1999.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005a. Proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

contiguous United States distinct population 

segment of the Canada lynx; proposed rule. 

Federal Register 70(216): 68294-68328. 

November 9, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005b. Federal 

Register 70(206):61770-61775. 90-day 

findings on petitions to establish the 

Northern Rocky Mountain distinct 

population segment of gray wolf (Canis 

lupus) and to remove the gray wolf in the 

Northern Rocky Mountain distinct 

population segment from the list of 

endangered and threatened species. 

November 18, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005c. Federal 

Register 70(221):69854-69884. Designating

the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 

population of grizzly bears as a distinct 

population segment; removing the 

Yellowstone distinct population segment 

from the federal list of endangered and 

threatened wildlife. November 17, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005d. Federal 

Register 70(7):1902-1903. Notice of 

availability of the draft revised recovery 

plan for the whooping crane. January 11, 

2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005e. Endangered 

and threatened wildlife and plants; review of 

native species that are candidates or 

proposed for listing as endangered or 

threatened; annual notice of findings on 

resubmitted petitions; annual description of 

progress on listing actions; proposed rule. 

Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 90.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006a. Least tern. 

Web site accessed on April 5, 2006.

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/life_histories/B07N

.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006b. Whooping 

crane. Web site accessed on April 5, 2006. 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/life_histories/B003.

html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Nez Perce Tribe, 

National Park Service, Montana Fish, 

Wildlife and Parks, Idaho Fish and Game, 

and USDA Wildlife Services. 2005. Rocky 

Mountain wolf recovery 2004 annual report. 

D. Boyd (ed.). Helena, Montana.

USFS: See USDA Forest Service.

USFWS: See U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

USDA Forest Service. 1993. Draft supplemental 

environmental impact statement on 

management of habitat for late-successional 

and old-growth related species within the 

range of the northern spotted owl. Appendix 

A: forest ecosystem management: an 

ecological, economic, and social assessment.

Vroom, G.W., S. Herrero, and R.T. Ogilvie. 1980. 

The ecology of winter den sites of grizzly 

bears in Banff National Park, Alberta. Int. 

Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 4:321-330.

Ziewitz, J.W., J.G. Sidle and J.J. Dinan. 1992. 

Habitat conservation for nesting least terns 

and piping plovers on the Platte River, 

Nebraska. Prairie Naturalist 24:1-20.
Attachment A

Correspondence with USFWS
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
September 15, 2005

R. Mark Wilson

Field Supervisor

USFWS – Ecological Services

100 North Park, Suite 320

Helena, Montana 59601

Re: BLM project notification and request for species

Dear Mr. Wilson: 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Miles City Field Office, is preparing a Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas EIS and Amendment of 

the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans. Parametrix, Inc. is a contractor for this 

project.

This letter is to request an updated list of threatened and endangered species, pursuant to Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), that should be addressed in the Biological Assessment associated with 

this SEIS. The planning area for SEIS is located in southeastern and south-central Montana, including 

Powder River, Treasure, Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Wheatland, 

Yellowstone, and Big Horn counties, as well as portions of Carter, Custer, and Rosebud counties. A 

figure indicating the SEIS planning area is attached. 

If you have any questions, please contact me at 509-996-2402 or jgrialou@parametrix.com.

Thank you,

Julie Grialou

Wildlife Biologist

Parametrix
This Page Intentionally Left Blank



This Page Intentionally Left Blank
 United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Miles City Field Office

111 Garryowen Road

Miles City, Montana 59301

http://www.mt.blm.gov/mcfo 1310 CBMP

November 20, 2006

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

R. Mark Wilson

Field Supervisor

USFWS - Ecological Services

100 North Park, Suite 320

Helena, Montana 59601

Dear Mr. Wilson:

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Miles City and Billings Field Offices have prepared the 

"Supplement to the Final Montana Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and 

Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans" (SEIS). The SEIS primarily 

addresses alternatives for phased coal bed natural gas development in southeastern and south-central 

Montana. A copy has been enclosed for your review.

Pursuant to BLM's responsibility under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and in 

accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations 50 Part 407.12, we are forwarding a copy of the 

"Biological Assessment for Coal Bed Natural Gas Production in Montana" for your 90-day review.

Shaded areas in the Biological Assessment indicate changes and additions made as a result of 

supplementing the original EIS. We have found that there would be "no effect" to Canada lynx, gray wolf, 

grizzly bear, interior least tern and the warm spring zaitzevian riffle beetle. We have also determined a 

"may effect, but not likely to adversely impact" finding for the Ute ladies-tresses orchid, black-footed 

ferret, mountain plover, bald eagle, pallid sturgeon and Montana arctic grayling. The black-tailed prairie 

dog and sage-grouse are discussed but no finding is made as they are not threatened, endangered or 

candidate species.

Please respond whether or not you concur with the findings of the Biological Assessment. If changes are 

made between the Draft SEIS and the Final SEIS that would have an effect on threatened or endangered 

species other than those described in the draft, the BLM will reinitiate consultation with you.

We appreciate the input already provided to us by Shawn Sartorius and look forward to working with you 

and your staff to complete consultation for this plan.
Please contact Dale Tribby, Assistant Field Manager, Renewable Resources, in the Miles City Field 

Office at (406) 233-2812 if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Theresa M. Hanley

Field Manager

2 Enclosures

 1-Draft SEIS

 2-Biological Assessment

cc: Jay Parks, MT010

 Shawn Sartorius, USFWS