CHAPTER 1 

Purpose of and Need for Action 

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 

Introduction
 

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

the state of Montana jointly prepared the Montana 

Final Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact 

Statement and Proposed Amendment of the Powder 

River and Billings Resource Management Plans 

(Statewide Document). The Statewide Document 

consisted of an analysis of the environmental impacts 

associated with the exploration and development of oil 

and gas resources, including coal bed natural gas 

(CBNG) in the Powder River and Billings Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) areas. The BLM Record of 

Decision (ROD) for the Statewide Document, approved 

on April 30, 2003, amended the Powder River and 

Billings RMPs to change existing land use decisions 

regarding development of oil and gas resources, 

including CBNG exploration and development. 

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

U.S. District Court issued orders, dated 

February 25, 2005, and April 5, 2005, that required 

BLM to 1) prepare a supplemental environmental 

impact statement (SEIS) to evaluate a phased 

development alternative for CBNG production, 2) 

include the proposed Tongue River Railroad (TRR) in 

the cumulative impact analysis and 3) analyze the 

effectiveness of water well mitigation agreements. 

This Final SEIS (FSEIS) provides additional 

information and analyses regarding the topics 

identified by the U.S. District Court. The additional 

information supplements information in the Statewide 

Document with new information that is relevant to the 

purpose and need of the SEIS. This FSEIS has been 

prepared according to the National Environmental 

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

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

(FLPMA), as amended. It considers the three topics 

identified above at a programmatic planning level. 

Permits for proposed individual drilling and 

development activities will require site-specific NEPA 

review. 

Additionally, this FSEIS updates the Statewide 

Document with new information and reflects any 

changes in policies, regulations, or activities since that 

document was approved. Summaries of monitoring 

data and the results of studies completed since the 

Statewide Document was finalized have been 

incorporated to update the public. These additions can 

be found in Chapter 3 under the individual resource 

topics, as well as in appropriate appendices. 

Cooperating agencies assisting in the preparation of 

this FSEIS include the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Department of Energy (DOE), Bureau 

of Indian Affairs (BIA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE), Montana Department of Environmental 

Quality (MDEQ), Montana Board of Oil and Gas 

Conservation (MBOGC), Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, 

Crow Tribe and the following counties: Big Horn, 

Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Powder River, 

Rosebud, Treasure, and Yellowstone. The Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe has also commented on the 

development of this FSEIS. 

Conformance with the BLM 

Land Use Plans 

The Billings RMP was approved through a ROD issued 

by BLM September 28, 1984. The Powder River RMP 

was approved through a ROD issued by BLM on 

March 15, 1985. BLM’s 1994 Oil and Gas Amendment 

of the Billings, Powder River, and South Dakota RMPs 

amended these RMPs. The decisions made in the 

RMPs allow for a certain level of conventional oil and 

gas development on federal leases, support limited 

CBNG exploration and development, but do not 

include analysis for full-scale CBNG development: 

“The [1992] Reasonably Foreseeable Development [RFD] 

projections can accommodate the drilling of test wells 

and initial small-scale development of CBM (sic). The 

extension of the nonconventional fuels tax credit for 

What has Changed in Chapter 1 

Since the Draft SEIS (DSEIS)? 

Chapter 1 has been edited for the FSEIS so that the shaded 

text is consistent with the unshaded text in tense and 

conventionality. The purpose and need language for the 

FSEIS remains the same in Chapter 1, and throughout the 

FSEIS, to reflect that the state of Montana is not a co-lead for 

the FSEIS. While the Planning Area for the 2003 Statewide 

Document was the entire state; the BLM Planning Area for 

this FSEIS comprises the Billings and Powder River RMP 

areas only. Planning criteria presented in Chapter 1 have 

been updated to reflect a completed FSEIS. Note, text from 

the Statewide Document remains in this report (unshaded 

text) to provide background and context for the updated text 

(shaded) FSEIS. 

1-1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1 

Purpose of and Need for Action 

wells drilled before December 31, 1993, should 

generate some activity in the Planning Area. This 

amendment does not contain either a hydrologic 

analysis of the RFD area or an environmental study 

of the impacts of building major pipeline systems. In 

order for development to occur on federal oil and gas 

lands, an additional environmental document tied to 

this amendment would be required” (BLM 1992). 

The Statewide Document and this FSEIS will amend 

the Billings and Powder River RMPs for the 

management of federal oil and gas resources, including 

CBNG development. 

The Planning Area 

The Planning Area for the FSEIS encompasses BLMadministered lands and minerals in the Powder River 

and Billings RMP areas (Map 1-1). The Planning Area 

excludes those lands administered by other agencies 

such as the Forest Service; and sovereign tribal 

governments, such as the Crow Tribe of Indians, and 

the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. Indian allotted lands are 

also excluded from the Planning Area. BLM will make 

oil and gas decisions based on the Statewide Document 

and this FSEIS for the oil and gas estate it administers 

within the Powder River and Billings RMP areas. 

The Powder River RMP Area encompasses the 

southeastern corner of Montana, including Powder 

River and Treasure counties, and portions of Big Horn, 

Carter, Custer, and Rosebud counties. The Powder 

River RMP area comprises approximately 

1,080,675 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 the Northern 

Cheyenne, Indian reservations, the Custer National 

Forest, the Big Horn Canyon National Recreational 

Area, the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad, 

and the Fort Keogh Agricultural Experiment Station. 

Purpose of and Need for

Action 

BLM and the state of Montana were co-leads for 

preparation of the Statewide Document. BLM is 

responsible for managing federally owned oil and gas 

resources. For BLM, the purpose of the Statewide 

Document was to analyze impacts from oil and gas 

activity, including CBNG exploration, production, 

development, and reclamation in the Powder River and 

Billings RMP areas. The FSEIS was used to analyze 

options for BLM to change its planning decision by 

considering oil and gas management options, including 

mitigating measures that will help address the 

environmental and social impacts related to CBNG 

activities. 

The analysis in the Statewide Document focused on oil 

and gas development issues not covered in the Billings 

and Powder River RMPs, as amended by the 1994 

Miles City Oil & Gas EIS/Amendment, such as water 

management from CBNG production and full field 

CBNG development. The alternatives provided a range 

of management options for amending the RMPs. The 

preferred alternative (Alternative E) was BLM’s 

proposed and selected RMP amendment. 

For the state of Montana, the purpose of the Statewide 

Document was to support the state’s development of a 

program to address CBNG exploration, development, 

production, and reclamation in Montana. The FSEIS, in 

part, responded to the stipulation and settlement 

agreement, dated June 19, 2000, resulting from a 

lawsuit brought by the Northern Plains Resource 

Council challenging MBOGC in the Montana First 

Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County. 

BLM published the original Notice of Intent for the 

Statewide Document in the Federal Register on 

December 19, 2000. BLM published the Notice of 

Availability in the Federal Register on 

January 17, 2003. Immediately following approval of 

the ROD on April 30, 2003, several lawsuits were filed 

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

U.S. District Court issued orders, dated 

February 25, 2005, and April 5, 2005, that required 

BLM to prepare an SEIS to evaluate a phased 

development alternative for CBNG production. The 

U.S. District Court also advised BLM to include the 

proposed TRR in the cumulative impact analysis and to 

analyze the effectiveness of water well mitigation 

agreements. This FSEIS addresses the three topics 

identified by the U.S. District Court. For the evaluation 

of CBNG phased development, this document analyzes 

1-2 
1-3
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1 

Purpose of and Need for Action 

social impacts of phased development alternatives 

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

cooperating agencies, and public scoping comments. 

These phased development alternatives, coupled with 

the alternatives presented in the Statewide Document, 

provide a range of management options for amending 

the Powder River and Billings RMPs to address CBNG 

development. This SEIS updates the description of the 

Affected Environment (Chapter 3) and the 

Environmental Consequences (Chapter 4) presented in 

the Statewide Document with relevant new 

information. The FSEIS impact analysis in Chapter 4 

also includes the cumulative impacts from the proposed 

TRR and addresses the effectiveness of water well 

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

Montana Code Annotated (MCA). 

Planning Criteria 

Introduction 

Planning criteria are the constraints or ground rules 

used by the BLM to guide and direct the development 

of a RMP. Planning criteria guide the resource 

specialists in the collection and use of inventory 

information, and in analyzing the management 

situation, defining and analyzing the alternatives, and 

selecting the Preferred Alternative. 

Planning criteria have been developed for the FSEIS. 

They ensure that the plan is tailored to the identified 

issues, and unnecessary data collection and analyses 

are avoided. Planning criteria are based on applicable 

laws and regulations; agency guidance; and results of 

consultation and coordination with the public, other 

federal, state, and local agencies, and Native American 

tribes. 

Overall Considerations
 

1. The FSEIS supplements the Statewide Document. 

As a supplement to the Statewide Document, the 

FSEIS references the Oil and Gas Final EIS and 

Proposed Amendment of the Billings, Powder 

River and South Dakota RMPs, Wyodak Coal Bed 

Methane Project Final EIS, and Board of Oil and 

Gas Conservation Oil and Gas Drilling and 

Production in Montana EIS. 

2.	 The FSEIS is in compliance with the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), NEPA, 

and all other applicable laws. 

3.	 The FSEIS incorporates the requirements of BLM 

Handbook H-1624-1, Planning for Fluid Minerals, 

when considering a phased development 

alternative. 

4. The format for the FSEIS follows the format from 

the Statewide Document. 

5.	 The FSEIS has been prepared by an 

interdisciplinary team with specialists for 

recreation, fisheries, economics, sociology, 

archaeology, air quality, wildlife, hydrology, 

botany, soils, realty, minerals, and range 

management. 

6.	 The Planning Area for BLM is the 

BLM-administered oil and gas estate in 

Wheatland, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Sweet 

Grass, Stillwater, Yellowstone, Carbon, Big Horn, 

Treasure, Powder River, and portions of Carter, 

Custer, and Rosebud counties. The Planning Area 

excludes those lands administered by other 

agencies (for example, Forest Service or Indian 

reservations). 

7.	 The analysis area is any land that may be affected, 

regardless of ownership. 

8.	 Data acquisition consists of projecting and 

compiling existing data, supplemented with data 

collected and acquired via research conducted 

since the Statewide Document was issued, data not 

available for the Statewide Document analyses, 

and appropriate literature search. 

9.	 The SEIS considers and analyzes the effects from 

CBNG phased development; the cumulative 

effects from CBNG production, including from the 

proposed TRR; and a discussion on how private 

water well mitigation agreements will help 

alleviate the impacts from groundwater drawdown 

and methane migration. 

10. The alternatives chosen will be economically and 

technically feasible. Those alternatives, or 

components of those alternatives, found not to be 

economically or technically feasible or viable will 

be dropped from or modified for consideration in 

the range of alternatives. 

11. Scoping for the FSEIS helped define phased 

development, and the alternative(s) chosen are 

reasonable, achievable, and measurable. The 

theme for the alternative(s) considered follows 

those in the Statewide Document. Those 

alternatives, or components of those alternatives, 

found not to be reasonable, achievable, and/or 

measurable have been considered and dropped 

from further analysis. 

12. Assumptions for the analyses, including the 

reasonably foreseeable development scenario and 

the reasonably foreseeable future actions from the 

Statewide Document are carried forward in the 

1-4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FSEIS. Cumulative projects evaluated are carried 

forward with one known exception: the discussion 

was modified to include the cumulative effects 

from the proposed TRR. 

13. The management and mitigation measures 

instituted since the Statewide Document ROD was 

signed are carried forward as features of the 

phased development alternatives in the FSEIS. 

14. Native American consultation and coordination 

with the Crow and Northern Cheyenne Indian 

tribes located within the Planning Area as well as 

the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe have taken place in 

accordance with BLM Handbook 8120, Guidelines 

for Conducting Tribal Consultations. The intent of 

consultation and coordination is to ensure that 

tribal needs, and those of any other affected tribes, 

are considered and that BLM fulfills its trust 

responsibilities. Consultation is government-togovernment between BLM and the tribes. 

15. Interagency consultation occurs as necessary to 

comply with regulations, rules, and BLM policy. 

16. New decisions in the ROD that are based on the 

FSEIS are intended to be compatible with existing 

plans and policies of adjacent local, state, tribal, 

and federal agencies, as long as the adjacent 

jurisdictional decisions conform with the legal 

mandates for management of public lands. 

17. Any new decision or new mitigation measures 

required by the FSEIS must be enforceable, 

reasonable, achievable, and measurable and have 

to lend themselves to monitoring. 

18. Current management guidance will be expanded to 

reflect recent resource regulations and guidelines 

pertaining to oil and gas operations. 

19. To the extent practicable, this document will be 

consistent with adjoining Forest Service lands and 

leases. 

20. Decisions will comply with Rangeland Health 

Standards. 

21. A biological assessment will be prepared based on 

the preferred alternative and submitted to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service for its review and 

subsequent letter of concurrence. 

Roles and Agency 

Responsibilities 

Several federal agencies, sovereign tribal governments, 

and state agencies, as well as local county 

CHAPTER 1 

Purpose of and Need for Action 

governments, were involved in the development and 

preparation of this FSEIS. Cooperating agencies 

include the BIA, DOE, EPA, USACE, MDEQ, 

MBOGC, and the following counties: Big Horn, 

Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Powder River, 

Rosebud, Treasure, and Yellowstone. The Crow Tribe 

of Indians and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe signed 

Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with BLM to 

participate as cooperating agencies. The Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe also helped to prepare the FSEIS. 

BLM has the responsibility and the authority for 

preparation of the FSEIS. 

The cooperating agencies and collaborators’ roles were 

to participate in the review process of all technical 

reports and the preliminary draft SEIS. These agencies 

and tribal governments also attended numerous 

meetings both public and project-specific to discuss 

and enumerate concerns and comments. 

Bureau of Land Management 

The BLM’s authority and decisions, related to oil and 

gas development in the Planning Area are limited to the 

agency’s stewardship, resource conservation, and 

resource protection responsibilities for federal lands 

and minerals. As conservator of the federal surface and 

mineral estate, the BLM has responsibility for ensuring 

that the federal mineral resource is conserved (not 

wasted) and is developed in a safe and environmentally 

sound manner. 

Drilling oil and gas exploration and production wells 

on lands where mineral rights are administered by the 

federal government must be conducted under an 

approved Application for Permit to Drill (APD) issued 

by the BLM. In considering whether to approve 

applications for permit to drill and other lease 

activities, the BLM must consider the possible impacts 

from typical exploration and development activities, 

and cumulative environmental effects, to ensure 

compliance with NEPA. This FSEIS, in combination 

with the Statewide Document, was prepared to meet 

those requirements. As part of the permit process, 

BLM requires that adequate bond coverage is in place 

prior to approval of drilling activity on federal 

minerals. 

Much of the Planning Area contains lands known as 

“split estate.” These are lands where the surface 

ownership is different from the mineral ownership. 

Management of federal oil and gas on these lands is 

somewhat different from management on lands where 

both surface and mineral ownership is federal. On split 

estate lands where surface ownership is private, and 

BLM administers the minerals, BLM places necessary 

restrictions and requirements on permitted activities 

1-5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1 

Purpose of and Need for Action 

and works in cooperation with the surface owner. BLM 

has established policies for the management of federal 

oil and gas resources under the following statutes: 

FLPMA, NEPA, National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), and Endangered Species Act (ESA) (see 

BLM 1992, under “Split Estate” for more information). 

Regulatory areas where the BLM has shared 

responsibilities or consultation requirements with other 

federal or state agencies include the following: 

•	 Oil and gas drilling—FLPMA of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 

1701 et seq. as amended (Public Law [PL] 94-579), 

and the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, 

(PL 93-153). This is a shared responsibility with the 

MBOGC. 

•	 Activities that would impact waters of the U.S. from 

the discharge of produced waters—BLM must 

comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA) as 

provided by Sections 313 and 401 of the CWA, 

Section 313, 33 U.S.C. 1323. The National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and 

401 certifications are issued by the State of Montana 

for actions involving the discharge of water from 

point sources on non-Indian lands. For actions 

involving the discharge of water from point sources, 

BLM works with MDEQ on private and public lands, 

and with EPA on Indian lands. The BLM will not 

allow for the discharge of produced waters until 

approval is given by the State or EPA. 

•	 Activities disturbing more than 1 acre (stormwater 

permitting) - BLM must comply with Section 402 of 

the CWA, and with the Montana Water Quality Act 

(WQA) (Administrative Rules of Montana [ARM], 

Title 17, Chapter 30, Subchapter 11). For actions 

involving the disturbance of more than 1 acre, BLM 

works with MDEQ on private and public lands, and 

with EPA on Indian lands. The BLM will not allow 

for the discharge of produced waters until approval is 

given by the State or EPA. 

•	 Activities that would impact waters of the U.S. from 

the placement of fill materials—The U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers and BLM have shared 

responsibility in Montana for dredge and fill permits 

associated with CBNG activities under Section 404, 

General Permit No. 404. This covers activities that 

impact waters of the U.S. as a result of placing fill in 

either waters of the U.S. or jurisdictional wetlands. 

See 33 CFR Part 320 and 40 CFR Part 230–Section 

404(b)(1) Guidelines for the Specification or 

Disposal Sites for Dredged and Fill Materials. 

•	 Special status species of plants or animals—ESA, 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq. This is a shared responsibility 

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

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP). 

•	 Cultural or historical resources—NHPA, 16 U.S.C. 

470. BLM is required to consult with the Montana 

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 

in accordance with regulations found at 36 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) 800 or through alternative 

procedures as specified through Programmatic 

Agreements. The BLM in Montana operates under a 

National Programmatic Agreement and a state-wide 

Protocol to meet its requirements under the NHPA. 

•	 Air Quality Impacts - FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1701 et 

seq.) and the Clean Air Act (CAA; 42 U.S.C 7401 et 

seq.) as amended, require that BLM assure the 

actions it conducts or authorizes (including oil and 

gas development) comply with all applicable local, 

state, tribal, and federal air quality laws, regulations, 

standards, increments, and implementation plans. 

Local, state, and tribal requirements may be more 

(but not less) stringent than federal requirements. The 

implementation of federal requirements is delegated 

to local, state, or tribal regulatory authorities, under 

EPA oversight. 

•	 Surface water diversions, stream channel 

modifications, construction of new reservoirs, 

reservoir supply, or dam modifications to existing 

reservoirs, Montana Dam Safety Act, 85-15-207 

(dams greater than 50 acre-feet). This is a shared 

responsibility with the MDEQ Water Resources. 

•	 Oil and gas well spacing—Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) between BLM and the 

MBOGC concerning Oil and Gas Well Spacing/Well 

Location Jurisdiction, and the Montana Oil and Gas 

Conservation Act, Statute 82-11-201, Establishment 

of Well Spacing Units. This is a shared responsibility 

with the MBOGC. 

•	 Consultation with Tribal Governments—Under 

Executive Order 13175, BLM will provide a 

meaningful opportunity for input by tribal officials 

where the action would have tribal implications. The 

Executive Order reflects the federal government’s 

trust responsibility to federally recognized Indian 

tribes. Pursuant to this trust responsibility, the federal 

government establishes regular and meaningful 

consultation and collaboration with tribes on a 

government-to-government basis when federal 

activities may affect Indian tribes. 

Protecting the U.S. Government and Indian lessors 

from loss of royalty as a result of oil and gas drainage 

is a prime responsibility of BLM. Under the terms of 

both federal and Indian leases, the lessee has the 

1-6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1 

Purpose of and Need for Action 

obligation to protect the leased land from drainage by 

drilling and producing any well(s) that is necessary to 

protect the lease from drainage or in lieu thereof and 

with the consent of the authorized officer, by paying 

compensatory royalty. Drainage analysis, on the basis 

of a production screen or other criteria, is required by 

BLM’s Drainage Protection Guidelines. Federal leases 

determined to be in danger of drainage are subject to 

geologic, engineering, and economic analyses in order 

to define the presence and magnitude of drained 

reserves. 

The geologic analysis is a comprehensive examination 

of the lithologic, structural, and stratigraphic 

components of the subject reservoir to determine 

whether drainage is geologically possible. The subject 

reservoir is mapped to define its limits and physical 

characteristics using all available data. Differences 

between the BLM’s independent geologic analysis and 

the lessee’s geologic analysis, if submitted, are 

discussed and reconciled in the final report. The report 

describes in detail how the geology affects drainage in 

the subject area. 

The reservoir engineering/economic analysis is the 

final examination of the reservoir performance, 

production history, and economic determinants to 

determine whether drainage is occurring or has 

occurred and whether an economic protection well 

could have been drilled. The BLM would evaluate any 

data submitted by the lessee and resolve or explain any 

significant differences. The BLM analyses will 

determine the measures necessary to mitigate the 

effects of drainage of hydrocarbons ranging from a 

mineral owner’s demand to drill a protection well to 

holding the lessee liable for the value of drained 

resource. 

Exploration and production wastes include produced 

water, oilfield production fluids (including drilling 

muds and fracture fluid flowback), crude oil and 

condensate, and contaminated soils. Produced water is 

managed under Onshore Order 7 (Disposal of Produced 

Water). Drilling muds, and fracture fluids are generally 

authorized for disposal by underground injection in 

Class II Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells 

under regulations of the MBOGC, or the EPA on tribal 

lands. Small, uneconomical quantities of crude oil 

and/or condensate, when wasted, are typically collected 

and sold to a waste oil recycler. Soils contaminated 

with exploration and production wastes can be 

disposed in a Subtitle D (nonhazardous) landfill, or 

may be treated onsite with the approval of the 

appropriate regulatory authority and surface lessee. 

Drilling mud is exempt from both the Hazardous Waste 

Program (ARM 16.44.304(2)(c), and the Montana 

Hazardous Waste Act. Drilling mud that contains less 

than 15,000 total dissolved solids (TDS) can be 

disposed of onsite with the landowner’s permission. 

State of Montana 

State agencies that have authority over oil and gas 

activities include the Montana Department of Natural 

Resources and Conservation (DNRC) and MDEQ. The 

DNRC has two divisions involved in oil and gas 

development. These divisions are the Oil and Gas 

Conservation Division—also known as the MBOGC, 

and the Trust Land Management Division (TLMD). 

The MBOGC is the lead agency for regulating oil and 

gas development in Montana. The Board’s 

responsibilities include issuing drilling permits, 

classifying wells, establishing well spacing units and 

land pooling orders, inspecting drilling, production, 

and seismic operations, investigating complaints, 

conducting engineering studies, establishing bonding 

requirements, and collecting and maintaining well data 

and production information. It also administers the 

federal Underground Injection Control Program for 

Class II injection or disposal wells in Montana to 

protect underground sources of drinking water. 

Additional regulatory areas where the State of Montana 

has responsibility are managed by state agencies that 

have jurisdiction over some aspects of the oil and gas 

drilling and production. These agencies are the DNRC 

and MDEQ. The MFWP and the SHPO serve in 

advisory roles though they have no regulatory 

authority. Each of these agency’s roles and 

responsibilities are discussed below. 

Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation 

As a result of the 1995 legislative Natural Resource 

Agency reorganization, the “new” DNRC was formed. 

It combined the majority of programs from the old 

Departments of State Lands and Natural Resources and 

Conservation. Programs of the reorganized DNRC 

include: the MBOGC, TLMD, Reserved Water Rights 

Compact Commission, Forestry Division, Conservation 

and Resource Development Division, and Water 

Resources Division. 

The DNRC is responsible for sustaining and improving 

the benefits derived from water, soil, and rangeland, 

managing the State of Montana’s trust land resources, 

protecting Montana’s natural resources through 

regulation and partnerships with federal, state, and 

local agencies, promoting conservation of oil and gas 

and preventing their waste through the regulation of 

exploration and production, and managing and 

assisting in the management of several grant and loan 

1-7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1 

Purpose of and Need for Action 

programs. Sections addressing the responsibilities of 

the MBOGC, TLMD, and Water Resources Division as 

they pertain to oil and gas development follow this 

discussion. 

Montana Board of Oil and Gas 

Conservation 

The MBOGC is the lead state agency for regulating oil 

and gas development in Montana. It is a quasi-judicial 

body that is attached to the DNRC for administrative 

purposes. The law is quite specific regarding some of 

the MBOGC’s makeup: 

The board consists of seven members, three of 

whom shall be from the oil and gas industry 

and have had at least 3 years experience in 

the production of oil and gas, and two of 

whom shall be landowners residing in oil- or 

gas-producing counties of the state but not 

actively associated with the oil and gas 

industry, but one of the two landowners shall 

be one who owns the mineral rights with the 

surface and the other shall be one who does 

not own the mineral rights (MCA Section 

2-15-3303). 

Additionally, one must be an attorney. All members are 

appointed to 4-year terms by the governor—four 

members (the majority) when he or she takes office, 

the others, 2 years later. 

MBOGC’s regulatory action serves three primary 

purposes: (1) to prevent waste of oil and gas resources, 

(2) to conserve oil and gas by encouraging maximum 

efficient recovery of the resource, and (3) to protect the 

correlative rights of the mineral owners, that is, the 

right of each owner to recover its fair share of the oil 

and gas underlying its lands. MBOGC also seeks to 

prevent oil and gas operations from harming nearby 

land or underground resources. Since 1993, MBOGC 

has performed the certification required for companies 

to receive tax incentives available for horizontal wells 

and enhanced recovery projects. 

The MBOGC was established in 1953 with the passage 

of the Montana Oil and Gas Conservation Act 

(82-11-101, et seq., Montana Code Annotated [MCA]). 

Under Montana law, no oil or gas exploration, 

development, production, or disposal well may be 

drilled until a bond has been posted and MBOGC 

issues a drilling permit. This requirement applies to all 

private, state, and most federal lands, but excludes 

proposals on allotted or tribal minerals. In November 

1987, MBOGC and the BLM signed a cooperative 

agreement to coordinate their decisions regarding 

permits to drill. Under this agreement, MBOGC 

accepts for the record all permits to drill for federal oil 

and gas minerals in Montana. 

The powers and duties of MBOGC in regulating oil 

and gas activities are defined in 82-11-111, MCA. 

MBOGC is charged with determining whether a waste 

of resources is existing or imminent. Based on their 

determination, MBOGC can take measures to prevent 

contamination of or damage to surrounding land and 

underground strata caused by drilling operations and 

production. These measures include, but are not limited 

to, regulating the disposal of produced salt water and 

the disposal of oil field wastes. The MBOGC 

regulations are located in Title 36, Chapter 22, of the 

Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM). 

In 1989, the MBOGC prepared a programmatic EIS to 

assist in determining how to incorporate any necessary 

environmental review into its rules and permitting 

process in an effort to come into compliance with 

Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). The 

programmatic EIS presented various alternatives for 

addressing environmental reviews during the 

permitting process. From these alternatives, MBOGC 

has adopted an environmental review process for 

permitting wells. 

In conducting environmental reviews for new permits, 

MBOGC works with other state agencies that may 

become involved in the process. MBOGC was a colead agency on the 2003 statewide document, and 

signed its own ROD. The statewide document was 

prepared to assist in the review process and to meet the 

requirements of both MEPA and NEPA for CBNG 

development. The 2003 statewide document continues 

to serve this function for MBOGC. 

Trust Land Management Division 

The TLMD is responsible for managing the surface and 

mineral resources of forest, grazing, agricultural, and 

other classified state trust lands to produce revenue for 

the benefit of Montana’s public schools and other 

endowed institutions. The TLMD manages more than 

5.1 million acres of surface acreage and in excess of 

6.3 million acres of mineral acreage. 

The TLMD is divided into four bureaus: the Minerals 

Management Bureau, Agriculture and Grazing 

Management Bureau, Forest Management Bureau, and 

Special Uses Management Bureau. 

The TLMD administers mineral leases on its school 

trust land mineral estate and, as a courtesy, other state 

agency’s mineral estate. Leasing procedures will not 

change because of management alternatives. It should 

be noted that the TLMD is responsible for management 

of surface and mineral acreage, while some other 

1-8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1 

Purpose of and Need for Action 

agencies perform in more of a regulatory role. The 

TLMD must comply with MEPA. MEPA is required 

for state-proposed actions. The process is implemented 

both at the leasing stage and for proposed plans of 

operation (drilling plans). For plans of operation, it is 

conducted by the area offices. Information, 

management restrictions, and environmental 

documents are then forwarded to the Minerals 

Management Bureau for approval. The Minerals 

Management Bureau then notifies operators of their 

decision to approve or disapprove. 

Water Resources Division 

The Water Resources Division is responsible for 

various programs coupled with the development, uses, 

and protection of Montana’s water. It oversees the 

state-owned water resource projects, water rights, and 

water reservoirs. Its activities include centralized water 

rights record keeping, state water planning, floodplain 

management, dam safety, drought planning, and 

interstate coordination of water issues. The division 

provides administrative support to the Board of Water 

Well Contractors, a board that licenses well drillers and 

establishes minimum well construction standards. 

Through the state water planning process, the division 

also guides the development of the state water plan and 

statewide water policies and laws. The state water plan is 

a progressive, collaborative, and citizen-based process 

for improving the management of the state’s water 

resources. Other responsibilities include staffing the 

Drought Advisory Committee and coordinating drought 

responses, assisting in the planning and developing of 

water storage projects, analyzing the effects of proposed 

new water uses on existing water rights, protecting 

Montana’s water from interstate, regional, and 

international threats, responding to federal laws and 

actions that potentially affect Montana’s water, and 

providing water resource education to Montanans 

through the Montana Watercourse. 

The division helped draft the Powder River Basin 

Controlled Groundwater Area Final Order that was 

signed by the DNRC director on December 15, 1999. A 

copy of the order is contained in Appendix A of the 

Water Resources Technical Report (ALL 2001b) 

prepared for this EIS. The order is intended to protect 

existing water users from impacts of CBNG 

development. The order recommends monitoring and 

reporting standards, establishes a Technical Advisory 

Committee, and calls for the implementation of 

mitigation agreements between surface owners and 

CBNG operators. The Technical Advisory Committee 

makes recommendations to the MBOGC regarding 

specific site monitoring and reporting requirements. The 

MBOGC has enforcement authority over monitoring and 

reporting requirements for continuing CBNG operations 

as established in the Boards’ Order 99-99, 

CBM Operating Standards. These requirements have 

Establishing 

been codified into the MCA as 85-11-175, MCA. 

Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality 

MDEQ has two divisions directly or indirectly involved 

with oil and gas development: Permitting and Compliance, 

and Planning, Prevention, and Assistance. The following 

are brief descriptions of the role of each division: 

•	 The Permitting and Compliance Division is in charge 

of permit issuance and compliance monitoring for 

projects relating to air, water, public water supplies, 

solid and hazardous waste, subdivisions, motor 

vehicle recycling, open cut, hard rock, coal and 

uranium mines, and applicable facilities under the 

Major Facility Siting Act. Nearly all permits and 

authorizations issued by MDEQ are handled through 

this division. 

•	 The Planning, Prevention, and Assistance Division is 

involved with planning, policy, and standards 

development relating to air quality State 

Implementation Plans, water quality, non-point 

source management, groundwater protection, and 

solid waste management. 

MDEQ administers MEPA, Montana’s Hazardous 

Waste Management Act, Clean Air Act, the Solid 

Waste Management Act, Water Quality Act, Major 

Facility Siting Act, and the Montana Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (MPDES) permitting 

process. The Water Protection Bureau (WPB) issues 

wastewater discharge permits under the MPDES permit 

program pursuant to the 75-5-402, MCA of the 

Montana Water Quality Act (WQA) and Sections 402 

and 303 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). 

MDEQ is responsible for investigating the 

environmental impacts associated with continued oil 

and gas activities in accordance with MEPA and the 

EIS process. MDEQ was a co-lead agency on the 2003 

statewide document, and signed its own ROD. 

MDEQ has delegated responsibility under the Federal 

Clean Water Act (P.L. 92-500) and Montana Water 

Quality Act (75-5-101, et seq.) to monitor and assess 

the quality of Montana surface waters for toxic and 

conventional pollutants, to prepare plans to control 

pollution, to assess water quality conditions and trends, 

to report them to the EPA and Congress, and to identify 

impaired or threatened stream segments and lakes. 

Furthermore, the state must provide a program for the 

prevention, abatement, and control of water pollution. 

The CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations require 

1-9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1 

Purpose of and Need for Action 

that discharges with the potential to cause or contribute 

to water quality standards excursions be subject to 

water quality based effluent limitations as stringent as 

necessary to meet water quality standards. Recent 

amendments to the Montana Water Quality Act (MCA 

75-5-702, effective May 1997) require the Department 

to consider all currently available data when making 

water quality assessments, including information or 

data obtained from federal, state, and local agencies, 

private entities, or individuals with an interest in water 

quality protection. 

The MDEQ is also responsible for issuing federal 

CWA Section 401 certification for activities that are 

licensed or permitted by a federal agency and may 

result in a discharge to state waters. The Department 

has adopted administrative rules for the issuance of 

CWA Section 401 certifications at Title 17, Chapter 

30, Subchapter 1 ARM, pursuant to ARM 

17.30.105(2)(b). 

The MDEQ also administers the MPDES Storm Water 

Discharge Permitting Program. Owners/operators of 

Coal Bed Methane exploration, production, processing, 

or treatment operations, or of associated transmission 

facilities, are exempt from needing coverage under the 

MDEQ’s MPDES “General Permit for Storm Water 

Discharges Associated with Mining and with Oil & 

Gas Activities.” The permit is contingent on the 

discharge being composed entirely of storm water that 

has not come into contact with, or been contaminated 

by contact with, any overburden, raw material, 

intermediate products, finished products, byproducts, 

or waste products located on the site. If there has been 

a reportable quantity release, coverage is required 

under the general permit. 

Construction activities associated with CBNG 

operations are subject to potentially requiring coverage 

under the MDEQ’s MPDES “General Permit for Storm 

Water Discharges Associated with Construction 

Activity.” A storm water permit may be required when 

the area of total construction-related disturbance 

exceeds 1 acre. Permit coverage is obtained by 

submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) package, including 

a completed NOI form, Storm Water Pollution 

Prevention Plan, and fee before the proposed 

construction start date. The determination of whether 

MPDES General Permit coverage for construction is 

required, or if more than one NOI is necessary under 

the General Permit, is based on the discharge(s) of 

storm water runoff to surface water, the acreage of 

disturbance(s) resulting from construction activity, 

proximity of construction-related disturbance to surface 

water, overall time period of construction, contractor(s) 

performing the construction activity, and number of 

drainage basins or receiving waterbodies. When areas 

with construction-related disturbance have been 

stabilized, permit coverage under the General Permit 

may be terminated. 

MDEQ–Air & Waste Management Bureau (AWM) 

also has delegated responsibilities under the federal 

Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.) that requires 

the State to operate an approved ambient air quality 

monitoring network for the purpose of evaluating 

compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS), to report air quality monitoring 

information to the EPA, and to prepare plans for 

controlling air pollution. Additionally, the state is 

required under the Clean Air Act of Montana 

(75-2-101, et seq.) to provide a coordinated statewide 

program of air pollution prevention, abatement, and 

control. When actual locations and operational 

requirements for gas compression facilities (CBNG 

development) are determined, permit applications 

would be submitted to MDEQ-AWM. At that time, 

additional site-specific, air quality analyses, such as the 

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis 

or Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

increment analysis, may be performed. 

Potential decisions to be made by the Air Resources 

Management Bureau of the MDEQ include making 

determinations as to whether a Montana Air Quality 

Permit would be required for the proposed activities. 

However, the ARM, Title 17, Chapter 8, Subchapter 7 

– Permit, Construction and Operation of Air 

Contaminant Sources, specifically exempts certain 

activities from the requirement to obtain a Montana Air 

Quality Permit (MAQP). ARM 17.8.744(1)(b) exempts 

mobile emitting units, including motor vehicles, 

aircraft, and other such self-propelled vehicles from 

obtaining a MAQP. In addition, ARM 17.8.744(1)(i) 

exempts drilling rig stationary engines and turbines that 

do not have the potential to emit more than 100 tons 

per year of any regulated pollutant and that do not 

operate in any single location for more than 12 months 

from obtaining a MAQP. 

Any future development, such as the placement of 

compressor engines or turbines, would also require a 

permit determination from MDEQ. ARM 17.8.743 

requires that a person may not construct, install, 

modify, or operate a new facility or emitting unit upon 

which construction was commenced, or that was 

installed after November 23, 1968, that is not 

specifically excluded under ARM 17.8.744, and that 

has the potential to emit more than 25 tons per year of 

any regulated airborne pollutant, other than lead, 

without first obtaining a MAQP. 

1-10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 

MFWP is responsible for the conservation and 

associated management of the fish, wildlife, parks, and 

recreational resources of Montana. This department 

advises other agencies of wildlife concerns. 

MFWP will be involved, as needed and as agreed upon, 

in the inventory and monitoring of fish and wildlife 

species, review of plans of development (PODs), 

participation on the core team associated with 

implementation of the Wildlife Monitoring and 

Protection Plan (WMPP), and in providing general 

oversight on issues related to fish and wildlife or their 

habitats. 

State Historic Preservation Office 

Under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

as amended, states were given certain responsibilities. 

These responsibilities have been assigned to the SHPO, 

which is a program within the Montana Historical 

Society. The SHPO provides assistance in the 

following areas: the identification and listing of 

properties on the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP), historic building maintenance and 

rehabilitation, archaeological sites and research, tax 

incentives for preservation, community surveys, the 

PLACES program (Peoples, Lands, and Cultural 

Environments), National Register Signs, local 

government and grant assistance, preservation 

education, and state and federal agency responsibilities. 

The SHPO provides information regarding the 

procedures that state and federal agencies must follow 

to consider historic and archaeological resources in 

their activities and programs. 

BLM in Montana coordinates its preservation activities 

with the Montana SHPO through a formal protocol 

implementing BLM’s National Programmatic 

Agreement for Cultural Resources (BLM 1997b). 

Tribal Governments 

The following two sections address the roles and 

responsibilities of the Crow Tribe of Indians and the 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe as they relate to the 

development of CBNG on and around their reservations. 

Crow Tribe of Indians 

The Crow Tribe’s territorial jurisdiction as 

administered by the General Council extends to all 

lands within the exterior boundaries of the Crow Indian 

Reservation. The Crow Tribal Court has civil 

jurisdiction over all persons who reside, enter, or 

transact business within the reservation including nonCHAPTER 1 

Purpose of and Need for Action 

Indian activities on private lands within the reservation 

that may directly impact reservation lands or tribal 

welfare. The Crow Tribe’s Constitution (Crow Tribe, 

2001) tasks the Executive Branch with management 

and development of natural resources pending final 

approval of the Legislative Branch for any mineral 

agreement. 

Within the context of resource utilization, the Crow 

Tribe’s Natural Resources and Environmental 

Departments may establish codes and set standards 

under federal statutes or inherent tribal authority for 

regulating activities that affect the tribal resources and 

environmental conditions. The Crow Tribe is in the 

process of developing and implementing several 

environmental and land use planning codes, including a 

tribal environmental policy act, water quality act, and 

cultural resource protection act. 

The tribe has developed Draft Water Quality Standards 

and Draft Air Quality Standards, which will govern all 

development actions once these requirements are 

officially enacted. All mineral leasing and permitting 

for development, exploration, and right-of-way (ROW) 

authorization on Tribal or Allotted lands, is subject to 

federal approval and 25 CFR regulations enforced 

through BIA and BLM procedures. 

The 1984 EPA Indian Policy acknowledges tribal 

governments as the primary parties for setting 

standards, making environmental policy decisions, and 

managing reservation programs consistent with agency 

standards and regulations. The EPA will assist 

interested tribal governments in developing programs 

and in assuming regulatory responsibility for 

reservation lands. Until the Crow Tribe is granted 

formal primacy for these delegated programs, the EPA 

will retain management and enforcement 

responsibilities. 

The Crow Tribe continues to plan for development of 

its CBNG and coal resources within the reservation and 

the Planning Area. 

The Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

The Northern Cheyenne Tribal government is structured 

by a Constitution and By-laws endorsed by the tribe and 

approved by the Secretary of the Interior in 1936. The 

Northern Cheyenne amended their Constitution in 1960 

and in 1996 to address changes in their governmental 

structure. The Northern Cheyenne Government is 

organized into three branches, an executive branch, a 

legislative branch, and a judicial branch. 

The Executive Branch oversees a series of boards, 

commissions and programs, some of which deal with the 

regulation and control of natural resources. Through 

1-11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1 

Purpose of and Need for Action 

these boards and programs, the Executive Branch 

administers federal contracts and grants, and conforms to 

federal standards for environmental quality. 

The Legislative Branch (Tribal Council) has the power 

to negotiate with the federal, state, and local 

governments, approve or prevent the sale, disposition, 

or lease of tribal lands including oil and gas, eminent 

domain, and protect and preserve tribal natural 

resources. The Tribal Council also has economic 

powers such as the right to engage in any business that 

might further the economic interests of the tribe or to 

carry out other economic activities that are not 

inconsistent with their constitution. 

The Judicial Branch has the power to review the 

constitutionality of ordinances adopted by the Tribal 

Council, including mineral leases. 

The Northern Cheyenne Tribe has redesignated their 

lands under the CAA as a PSD Class I area. The 

allowable incremental impacts within PSD Class I 

areas are very limited. The CAA directs the EPA to 

promulgate the Tribal Authority Rule, establishing 

tribal jurisdiction over air emission sources on both 

trust and private lands within the exterior boundaries of 

tribal lands. The Northern Cheyenne are currently in 

the process of developing a tribal Implementation Plan, 

to submit a “Treatment as State” application to the 

EPA. Requesting that the Tribe be treated in the same 

manner as a state under the CAA will allow them to 

participate in Section 105 grants and have formal 

recognition as an affected “state” when permits are 

written for sources within 50 miles of tribal lands. 

The Northern Cheyenne Tribe has a formal water code 

that the Secretary of the Interior approved on 

October 9, 2001. The Northern Cheyenne Water 

Resource Administrator manages tribal water resources 

on the reservation including, but not limited to, storage 

water in the Tongue River and Big Horn Reservoirs. 

The Natural Resources Board serves as the Water 

Board. The board provides oversight for 

implementation of the code and permitting process to 

account for beneficial use of the tribe’s water. The 

water code is enforceable for all activities affecting 

tribal waters on the reservation. 

On April 29, 2002, the Tribe submitted an application 

under Section 518 of the CWA for “Treatment as a 

State” (TAS). This was done to administer the CWA 

Section 303(c) water quality standards and CWA 

Section 401 water quality certification programs. On 

December 2, 2003, the tribe supplemented its 

application. EPA approved the Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe’s application for TAS on August 11, 2006. 

On June 4, 2002, the Tribal Council adopted tribal 

water quality standards which became effective on 

July 15, 2002. On April 21, 2005, the tribe held public 

hearings to take comments on the updated water 

quality standards. Tribal staff is currently preparing a 

final, updated standards package for consideration by 

the Tribal Council. After approval by the Tribal 

Council, the new standards will be submitted to EPA 

for review and approval pursuant to CWA Section 

303(c). 

A complete explanation of the Draft Standards can be 

found in the Northern Cheyenne portion of the Native 

American section of Chapter 3. 

Other Federal Agencies 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Under Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. Section 

1342, and 40 CFR Parts 122-125, EPA has authorized 

the state of Montana to issue National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for 

discharges of pollutants from point sources into waters 

of the U.S. located in Montana, excluding Indian 

country as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151. EPA retains an 

oversight and partnership role in state NPDES 

programs. As described in 40 CFR Part 123, Subpart C, 

EPA reviews proposed state NPDES permits for 

compliance with CWA requirements. For discharges in 

Indian country (a term that is defined in 40 CFR 

Section 122), EPA has direct implementation authority 

for issuing NPDES permits. The following sections of 

the CWA also apply: 

•	 CWA Section 401, 33 U.S.C. Section 1341, and 40 

CFR Part 121. These provisions describe EPA’s role 

in addressing certain discharges in one state that may 

affect the quality of water within any other state. This 

role is particularly important due to the difference in 

surface water quality standards developed by 

Montana and Wyoming. 

•	 CWA Section 518, 33 U.S.C. Section 1377, and 40 

CFR Part 131.8. In June of 1999, the Crow Tribe 

submitted a draft application to EPA to administer a 

water quality standards program. The Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe submitted a draft application to EPA 

to administer water quality standards in January of 

2001. 

•	 CWA Section 303 (c). This section requires states 

and authorized Indian tribes to submit new or revised 

water quality standards to EPA for review. EPA 

reviews and approves or disapproves the submitted 

standards. If EPA determines that any standard is not 

consistent with the requirements of the Act, EPA 

1-12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1 

Purpose of and Need for Action 

notifies the state or authorized tribe and specifies the 

changes needed. If needed changes are not adopted, 

EPA is to promptly propose and promulgate a federal 

standard. NPDES permits must include limits as 

stringent as necessary to meet water quality standards 

(40 CFR 122.44). When waters are monitored and 

assessed, the data are compared to the water quality 

standards to determine whether the water is impaired 

and whether discharges have the reasonable potential 

to cause or contribute to such impairments. 

•	 CWA Section 303(d), 33 U.S.C. Section 1313(d) 

and 40 CFR Part 130. These provisions require 

states to identify waters that need Total Maximum 

Daily Loads (TMDLs) standards and to establish 

TMDLs for them, with an oversight and partnership 

role for EPA. Currently, EPA and the State of 

Montana are subject to a court order that prohibits 

NPDES permits for new or increased discharges into 

any water body that has been listed as needing any 

TMDLs standards until all necessary TMDLs 

standards are established for a particular water quality 

limited segment (U.S. District Court 2000). TMDLs 

for the Tongue River, Powder River, and Rosebud 

Creek are in development (see 

http://www.deq.state.mt.us/wqinfo/TMDL/TonguePo 

wderRosebudTMDL.asp). 

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) also applies to 

CBNG projects, specifically, 42 U.S.C. Section 300f, et 

seq., particularly 42 U.S.C. Sections 1421 et seq., and 

40 CFR Parts 144-147 regarding UIC. Should 

produced water from CBNG operations be injected into 

the ground, UIC permits may be necessary. EPA and 

the states administer UIC programs to protect 

underground sources of drinking water. EPA 

administers the programs for Class V UIC wells in the 

State of Montana and for all classes of UIC wells on 

Indian lands in Montana. EPA has approved Montana’s 

program for administering the UIC program for Class 

II wells. EPA retains an oversight and partnership role 

with the state for these programs. EPA’s approvals of 

the state's authority to administer these programs do 

not extend to Indian country. 

EPA also administers Section 309 of the CAA, 

42 U.S.C. Section 7609. This provision calls for EPA 

to review and comment on the environmental impact of 

major federal actions to which the NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 

Section 4332(2)(C), applies. 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BIA is responsible for the approval of any lease, 

agreement, permit, or document that could encumber 

lands and minerals owned by either tribes or allottees. 

Title to these resources is held by the U.S. Government 

in trust. As such, agreements or arrangements, 

involving the trust assets that tribes or allottees make 

are not binding until they have been approved by the 

trustee. The agency that has been authorized to act as 

the trustee to keep the resources from being harmed or 

alienated is the BIA. 

Within the Crow Reservation, there are approximately 

1,497,000 acres of trust land out of the 2,282,000 total 

acres within the boundary. The Northern Cheyenne 

Reservation is composed of 444,000 acres within the 

external boundary. Of that amount, 442,000 acres are 

held in trust. (Land Titles and Records Office, BIA, 

Rocky Mountain Regional Office 1994). 

The BIA intends to adopt the SEIS for future decisions 

it may have to make on hydrocarbon exploration and 

production with an emphasis on CBNG involving trust 

minerals. Such decisions relate to approval of leases, 

agreements, easements and/or ROW associated with 

exploration and production. The BIA will rely on the 

reasonably foreseeable development estimates and 

cumulative impact analysis anticipated for the region. 

The science and analysis components of the document 

may be incorporated in future BIA NEPA compliance 

documents. 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Fossil Energy 

The Office of Fossil Energy is charged with enhancing 

the U.S.’ economic and energy security through the 

following actions: 

•	 Managing and performing energy-related research 

that promotes the efficient and environmentally 

sound production and use of fossil fuels. 

•	 Partnering with industry and others to advance clean 

and efficient fossil energy technologies toward 

commercialization. 

•	 Managing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to reduce 

vulnerability to economic, national security, and 

foreign policy consequences of supply interruptions. 

•	 Supporting the development of information and 

policy options that benefit the public by ensuring 

access to adequate supplies of affordable and clean 

energy. 

Office of Fossil Energy—Oil and Gas 

Program 

The primary mission is to assure that fossil energy 

resources can meet increasing demand for affordable 

energy without compromising the quality of life for 

future generations. This program has been at the 

1-13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1 

Purpose of and Need for Action 

forefront of research to advance fossil energy 

exploration, supply, and end-use technologies. 

The Oil and Gas programs include the following: 

•	 Natural Gas Technologies. Pursuing advances in 

exploration and production, infrastructure reliability, 

and technologies including fuel cells and gas turbines 

systems. 

•	 Oil Technology. Enhancing the efficiency of oil 

exploration, recovery, and processing while 

improving environmental quality. 

•	 Gas Energy Systems Dynamics. Activities will lead 

to the development of the next generation of gas 

turbines, fuel cells, coupled turbine-fuel cell systems, 

and reciprocating engines, and lay the foundation for 

new gas utilization technologies. 

•	 Ultra Clean Fuels. Developing enabling science for 

the production of ultra-clean and affordable fuels 

from fossil resources for high-efficiency 

transportation systems. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

The legislative origins of USACE’s permitting 

program are the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1890 

(superseded) and 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401, et seq.). 

Various sections establish permit requirements to 

prevent unauthorized obstruction or alteration of any 

navigable water of the United States. The most 

frequently exercised authority is contained in 

Section 10 (33 U.S.C. 403), which covers construction, 

excavation, or deposition of materials in, over, or under 

such waters, or any work that would affect the course, 

location, condition, or capacity of those waters. The 

authority is granted to the Secretary of the Army. Other 

permit authorities in the Act are Section 9 for dams and 

dikes, Section 13 for refuse disposal and Section 14 for 

temporary occupation of work built by the United 

States. Various pieces of legislation have modified 

these authorities, but have not removed them. 

In 1972, amendments to the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act added what is commonly called Section 

404 authority (33 U.S.C. 1344) to the program. The 

Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 

Engineers, is authorized to issue permits, after notice 

and opportunity for public hearings, for the discharge 

of dredged or fill material into waters of the United 

States at specified disposal sites. Selection of such sites 

must be in accordance with 404(b)(1) Guidelines 

developed by EPA in conjunction with the Secretary of 

the Army. The discharge of all other pollutants into 

waters of the United States is regulated under Section 

402 of the Act, which supersedes the Section 13 

permitting authority mentioned above. The Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act was further amended in 

1977; it was given the common name “Clean Water 

Act” and was again amended in 1987 to modify 

criminal and civil penalty provisions and to add an 

administrative penalty provision. 

The purpose of the Section 404 program is to ensure 

that the physical, biological, and chemical quality of 

U.S. water is protected from irresponsible and 

unregulated discharges of dredged or fill material that 

could permanently alter or destroy the valuable 

resource. 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires that 

approval be obtained before discharging dredged or fill 

material into the waters of the United States. Typical 

activities requiring Section 404 permits are as follows: 

• Depositing of fill or dredged material in 

waters of the U.S. or adjacent wetlands 

• Site development fill for residential, 

commercial, or recreational developments 

• Construction of revetments, groins, 

breakwaters, levees, dams, dikes, and weirs 

• Placement of riprap and road fills 

The Secretary of the Army has delegated most of these 

permit authorities (with the specific exception of 

Section 9) to the Chief of Engineers and that 

individual’s authorized representatives. Any person, 

firm, or agency (including federal, state, and local 

government agencies) planning to work in, dump, or 

place dredged fill in waters of the United States must 

first obtain a permit from the Corps of Engineers. 

Permits, licenses, variances, or similar authorizations 

may also be required by other federal, state, and local 

statutes. Waters of the United States include essentially 

all surface waters such as all navigable waters and their 

tributaries, all interstate waters and their tributaries, all 

wetlands adjacent to these waters, and all 

impoundments of these waters. 

Agency Permits and Reviews 

Table 1-1 shows the agencies and applicable permits or 

reviews potentially required for oil and gas operations 

on federal minerals. Table 1-2 is a matrix showing the 

permittable activity and the responsible agency issuing 

a permit or approval. 

1-14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1 

Purpose of and Need for Action 

TABLE 1-1 

APPLICABLE PERMITS/REVIEWS FOR OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES 

Agency Review/Permit/Approval 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Approval of PODs, APDs and Sundry Notices (SNs) on federal leases. 

Approval or issuance of ROW on federal surface. 

Review all applicable Federal, State and local laws, rules, regulations and 

permits for Federal mineral development, found below. 

Approval of Communitization Agreements and Federal Unit Agreements. 

BLM determines need for inventory and, if necessary, mitigation to meets its 

obligations under the NHPA, Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), other Federal Preservation Laws, Regulations, 

Executive Orders, and Departmental and Bureau Policies. BLM’s cultural 

resource requirements for CBNG projects are found in the Cultural Resources 

Appendix (Appendix E) of the BLM 2003 POD Guidance Manual. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) and Executive Order 13007 

acknowledges the rights of Native Americans to practice traditional religion, 

have access to and protect religious sites, and possess sacred objects. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act—regulates the discharge of dredged or fill 

material into waters of the U.S.; Section 404 permit. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Review under ESA including the issuance of Biological Opinions or Letters of 

Concurrence. The Service also provides recommendations for protective 

measures for migratory birds in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

(MBTA), Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), Executive Orders 

11990 and 11988, CWA, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), and the 

Fish and Wildlife Act (FWA). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) 

Regulates Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class V injection 

program/UIC Permit. 

Regulates all classes of underground injection wells and all point source 

discharge to streams for any source located in Indian country. 

ESA review for NPDES permits, TMDLs and Water Quality Standards (WQS) 

on state and tribal lands. 

Clean Air Act (CAA)—(42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.) Air quality permitting for air 

pollutant emitting sources within the exterior boundaries of tribal lands. 

404 enforcement under the CWA for dredge and fill activities. 

401 Discharge certification under the CWA on tribal lands and certain 

discharges in one state that may affect the quality of water within any other 

state. 

518 under the CWA for approval or disapproval of Tribal Water Quality 

Standards. 

Section 303(d) of the CWA regarding EPA’s oversight and partnership role 

with states to identify streams that do not meet the CWA objectives by 

establishing TMDLs for such streams. 

1-15 
 

 

CHAPTER 1 

Purpose of and Need for Action 

TABLE 1-1 

APPLICABLE PERMITS/REVIEWS FOR OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES 

Agency	 Review/Permit/Approval 

Montana Department of Environmental Administers MEPA (75-1-101, MCA). 

Quality (MDEQ) Clean Air Act of Montana (75-2-101 et seq., MCA)(ARM 17.8). Air quality
 

permitting for air pollutants emitting sources outside the exterior boundaries of
 

tribal lands.
 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Waste Disposal—
 

Hazardous Waste Management Act (75-10-401, MCA ARM 17.53.101).
 

Solid Waste Management Act (75-10-201, MCA) (ARM 17.50.501).
 

Water Quality Act (75-5-401 through 405, MCA).
 

Montana Surface WQS (ARM 17.30.601 et seq.).
 

401 Discharge Certification under the CWA.
 

Montana Nondegradation Rules (ARM 17.30.701 et seq.).
 

Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MPDES)
 

(ARM 17.30.1201-1426).
 

Certificate of environmental compatibility—Major Facility Siting Act (75-20­

101, MCA).
 

Montana Groundwater Pollution Control System (MGWPCS) (ARM
 

17.30.100 et seq.). 

Montana State Historic Preservation Office Review under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) regarding 

(SHPO) identification and evaluation of cultural/historic resources. 

County Weed Districts Review for control and prevention of noxious weed infestations under the 

Noxious Weed Control Law (7-22-2101, MCA). 

Local Conservation District Montana Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act (310 Permit). 

Rosebud County	 Rosebud Conservation District’s Land Use Ordinance 1 for Coal Bed Methane 

Produced Water—This ordinance addresses the following major points: 

reclamation bond for CBNG impoundments, beneficial use permit required to 

produce water, required lining of CBNG impoundments, required monitoring 

of CBNG managed irrigation sites, and required surface owner consent for 

placement of impoundments and managed irrigation areas. 

Montana Department of Natural Resources See descriptions for individual bureaus and divisions listed below. 

and Conservation (DNRC) 

Trust Land Management Division (TLMD)	 Approval of activities on state trust surface and mineral estate (subsurface) 

lands; issuing land use licenses, easements, and mineral leases; conducting 

land exchanges; manages grazing permits. 

Minerals Management Bureau (MMB)	 Responsible for leasing, permitting, and managing mineral leasing program. 

Water Resources Division, Water Rights Permit to allow beneficial use of groundwater and surface water. (85-2-310 to 

Bureau 312, MCA). 

Permitting of reservoirs with storage capacities over 50 acre-feet. 

Montana Board of Oil and Gas Commission Approval of state drilling permits on state and private leases (APDs). (ARM 

(MBOGC)	 36.22) (82-11-111, MCA). 

Oversee UIC program for Class II wells (ARM 36.22.1401)(82-11-101, 

MCA). 

RCRA-exempt Solid Waste Disposal (ARM 36.22.1105). 

Surface Restoration (ARM 36.22.1307). 

1-16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1 

Purpose of and Need for Action 

TABLE 1-2 

PERMITTABLE ACTIVITIES FOR CBNG DEVELOPMENT 

Permittable Activity Federal Agencies State Agencies 

Drilling on a Federal Lease 

Right-of-Ways (ROW) 

Building a Gas Compressor 

Station on a Federal lease 

Construction (>1 acre) 

Discharge of Dredged or Fill 

Material 

Hazardous Waste Disposal 

Drilling Mud and other Solid 

Waste Disposal 

Disposal of Produced Water 

Injection 

BLM - Approval of APDs and SNs on 

Federal leases. (3162.3-1, Onshore Oil and 

Gas order No. 1) 

USACE - 404 General permit if access 

roads cross perennial streams 

FWS - Review of EA/EIS for Biological 

Opinion 

BLM - Approval of ROWs on BLMadministered surface lands 

EPA - Clean Air Act (CAA)—(42 U.S.C. 

7401, et seq.) Air Quality Permits within 

the exterior boundaries of tribal lands 

BLM - Approval when facility is located on 

BLM administered surface 

BLM - Approval when activity is located 

on BLM administered surface, including 

private surface over federal minerals. 

USACE – discharge of dredged or fill 

material into waters of the U.S.; Section 

404 permit 

BLM - Approval via APD or SN for federal 

actions 

EPA - Underground Injection Control 

(UIC) Class V Permits for wells on both 

Federal and State lands. UIC Class II and V 

Permits for Indian Reservations 

BLM - Permit under Onshore Order No. 7 

for water from federal wells 

MBOGC - Federal APD (for record 

purposes only) 

SHPO - Review under the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 

regarding protection of cultural/historic 

resources 

DNRC/TLMD - Approval of ROWs on 

State Trust lands 

Surface Owner - Agreement of ROWs 

under Surface Owner Agreement 

SHPO - Review under the NHPA 

SHPO - Review under the NHPA 

MDEQ - Permit Determination ARM 

17.8.743 

DNRC - Approval on State Trust Lands 

MBOGC - Approval on private surface via 

approved drilling permit 

MDEQ - General Storm Water Permit 

(Administrative Rules of Montana [ARM] 

17.30.11, >1 acre) 

MDEQ - MPDES General Discharge 

permit 

MDEQ - 401 Discharge Certification under
 

the CWA and Montana Nondegradation 

Rules (ARM 17.30.701 et seq.)
 

MDEQ – RCRA Waste Disposal—
 

Hazardous Waste Management Act (75-10­

401, MCA (ARM 17.53.101)
 

MBOGC - RCRA-exempt Solid Waste
 

Disposal (ARM 36.22.1105)
 

MDEQ - Solid Waste Management Act
 

(75-10-201, MCA) (ARM 17.50.501)
 

MBOGC - Oversee UIC program for Class
 

II wells (ARM 36.22.1401)(82-11-101,
 

MCA)
 

1-17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1 

Purpose of and Need for Action 

TABLE 1-2 

PERMITTABLE ACTIVITIES FOR CBNG DEVELOPMENT 

Permittable Activity Federal Agencies	 State Agencies 

Infiltration Pit MBOGC - Infiltration Pit Permit for 

for water from federal wells construction and operation 

MDEQ - Montana Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (MPDES) Permit 

(ARM 17.30.1301 – 1426) ) and 401 

certification for on-drainage pits 

BLM - Permit under Onshore Order No. 7 

MDEQ - Groundwater discharge permit 

Evaporation/Storage Pit 

Discharge to Surface 

Waters (Treated or 

Untreated) 

Beneficial Use 

BLM - Permit under Onshore Order No. 7 

for water from federal wells 

EPA - Oversight on NPDES permits and 

401 certifications issued under CWA. On 

tribal lands, issues NPDES permits and 401 

certifications 

BLM - Permit under Onshore Order No. 7 

for water from federal wells 

BLM - Permit under Onshore Order No. 7 

for water from federal wells 

MBOGC - Earthen Pit or Pond Permit for 

the construction and operation 

MDEQ - MPDES Permit and 401 

certification for on-drainage pits. 

MDEQ - MPDES Permit and 401 

certification 

DNRC/Water Resources Division/Water 

Rights Bureau - Issue water rights to allow 

beneficial use of groundwater and surface 

water (85-2-310 to 312, MCA) 

Issues
 

Statewide Document
 

This section presents planning issues identified through 

the public scoping process held in January 2000 and 

the BLM and state planning activities. The issues 

raised were in relation to CBNG development and were 

included in the initial Statewide Document. 

Air Quality and Climate 

•	 Reduction in visibility occurring to the Northern 

Cheyenne Indian Reservation PSD Class I airshed 

from emissions 

•	 Air quality impacts from oil- and gas-related 

activities 

•	 Dust and emissions associated with road and drill pad 

construction, drilling operations, production, and 

compression 

•	 Creation or release of harmful gases (hydrogen 

sulfide) and venting 

•	 Consistency with the air quality model currently 

being developed for the Powder River EIS through 

the BLM Buffalo Field Office, Wyoming 

•	 Release of greenhouse gases and effect on global 

warming 

•	 Changes in ambient air quality and how this relates to 

objectives for minimizing regional haze based on the 

“Regional Haze Rule” 

•	 Changes in climate associated with CBNG 

development 

Cultural Resources 

•	 Avoidance of direct and indirect disturbances to 

cultural resources may precipitate the development of 

targeted inventory and evaluation strategies in the 

planning stages of field development 

•	 Impacts on the qualities of a cultural resource site 

affecting its eligibility for the NRHP 

•	 Increased access for oil and gas exploration and 

development may result in inadvertent, indirect, and 

cumulative effects to cultural resources 

1-18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Identification of specific districts or localities in 

which oil and gas development may be incompatible 

with existing cultural values 

•	 Identification of areas of critical environmental 

concern 

Geology and Minerals 

•	 Re-establish hydrologic balance and functionality 

after CBNG development so that adjacent or nearby 

coal companies can recover their bonds and 

determine effects on aquifer reconstruction in coal 

mine areas 

•	 Discharge of CBNG -produced waters could affect 

new coal mines if entering the mine permit 

boundaries 

•	 Effects on oil and gas development from other 

resource protection measures 

•	 Loss of methane resource because of venting from 

coal mines 

•	 Drainage of methane from federal minerals from 

offsetting state and private wells 

•	 Quantity of methane recovered 

•	 Effect of over-pumping CBNG water on gas 

recovery 

•	 Subsurface coal fires 

•	 Potential loss of coal production due to CBNG 

development 

Hazardous Materials and Waste 

Management 

•	 Use of hazardous materials and potential for misuse 

as a part of CBNG development 

Hydrology 

Groundwater 

•	 Produced water quality and appropriate beneficial 

reuses 

•	 Drawdown of aquifers and drying up of natural 

springs due to CBNG production 

•	 Appropriate water management alternatives 

•	 Water quality impacts 

•	 Water rights conflicts 

CHAPTER 1 

Purpose of and Need for Action 

•	 Changes in pumping rate and cumulative drawdown 

due to CBNG development 

•	 Impacts on down- and up-gradient water resources in 

both confined and unconfined aquifers 

•	 Long-term effects of CBNG pumping on aquifer 

recharge and groundwater resources 

•	 Effects on DNRC established Powder River Basin 

Controlled Groundwater Area 

•	 Shallow (Class V) and deep (Class II) injection of 

produced water opportunities 

Surface Water 

•	 Effect of high sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) and 

increased flow rates on eroding stream channels 

•	 Impacts on water quality from produced water 

•	 Impacts on biota from water quality changes 

•	 MPDES discharge analysis for CBNG -produced 

waters 

•	 Cumulative impacts on water quality and quantity 

•	 Impacts on irrigated cropland 

Indian Trust Resources and Native 

American Concerns 

•	 Unique Native American concerns and social impact 

on Native Americans 

•	 The effects of discharged water on agriculture, 

fishing, hunting, and gathering of native and sacred 

plants as they relate to traditional values held by the 

tribes 

•	 Protection of Indian trust assets with regard to 

resource drainage and reduction of usable assets 

•	 Water quality preservation agreement with the 

Northern Cheyenne 

•	 Effects to reservation PSD Class I area classification 

and nonattainment area 

•	 Impacts on sites with traditional cultural importance 

to Native Americans in areas on and adjoining the 

reservations 

•	 Increased use of public facilities and services on 

reservations 

•	 Cultural and socioeconomic impacts on tribal 

members associated with CBNG development 

1-19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1 

Purpose of and Need for Action 

Lands and Realty 

•	 Construction effects from drilling, roads, pipelines, 

and water disposal facilities 

•	 Infrastructure needed to accommodate CBNG 

development would require numerous road, 

powerline, and pipeline ROWs 

Livestock Grazing 

•	 Impacts on grazing lands from discharge of high 

salinity water 

•	 Effects on livestock and ranching operations from the 

increased availability of water 

•	 Displacement of grazing lands from the development 

of CBNG well pads and loss of natural forage 

•	 Change in vegetative communities to more salttolerant species that are generally not preferred by 

livestock 

Paleontological Resources 

•	 Impacts from vandalism and unpermitted collectors 

as a result of increased access to remote areas 

•	 Impacts on paleontological localities from oil and gas 

development 

Recreation 

•	 Effects on hiking, hunting, and other recreational 

activities from CBNG development 

•	 Displacement and disturbance of wildlife and habitat 

will affect hunting, hiking, and other recreational 

activities 

Social and Economic Values 

•	 Increased levels of background noise and what noise 

mitigation would be conducted 

•	 Impacts on social service agencies and local 

economics from increased population 

•	 Decreased land values 

•	 Escalated real estate prices 

•	 Agricultural job loss 

•	 Economic effect on local communities, including 

potential increased wage income, lower 

unemployment, increased local business, and 

potential costs of a “boom and bust” scenario 

•	 Cost to residents from potential CBNG production 

affects on springs, livestock watering, and domestic 

water 

•	 Social structure impacts through direct impacts on the 

local economy 

•	 Revenue associated with the amount of methane 

recovered 

•	 Tax revenue to local, state, and federal entities 

•	 Effects on local economies and lifestyle from 

royalties to the state and federal government 

•	 Royalties to local landowners who own mineral 

rights and surface disturbance payments to 

landowners who do not own mineral rights 

•	 Lack of royalties or tax revenues available for Tribes 

from non-Indian oil and gas leases. 

•	 Benefits from more abundant clean energy 

•	 Effect from Wyoming CBNG development 

(cumulative) 

•	 Economics of mitigation strategies 

•	 Socioeconomic effect from lowering the water table 

•	 Quantity of economical oil and gas resources and 

market implications 

•	 Effects to agricultural productivity from SAR levels 

•	 Effects to agriculture from air, soil, and water 

contamination 

•	 Private surface owner notification prior to work 

•	 Mechanism needed for land owner input on drilling, 

and leasing and mineral estate issues 

Environmental Justice 

•	 Make distributive justice analysis part of the public 

comment and decision process 

•	 Northern Cheyenne Tribal Government’s reliance on 

operator lease fees from tribal ranchers and irrigators 

operating on private and reservation lands 

Soils 

•	 High sodium effects: dispersion of soil colloids, 

reduced water infiltration, vegetative composition 

and population changes, mud pits and bogs, change 

in crop production yields, and changes in crops 

grown because of salinity tolerance levels 

•	 Effects on soils from surface discharge flow changes: 

erosion on stream banks and in ephemeral drainages 

1-20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1 

Purpose of and Need for Action 

if these are the discharge points (increased erosion 

where dispersion occurs) 

•	 Effects on irrigated soils: changes in salt content in 

soil profile, changes in salt composition, saline seeps 

downgradient from irrigated soils, dispersion of soil 

colloids (reduction of soil permeability and increased 

erosion), and changes to micro-organism populations 

and composition 

•	 Development effects: disturbance during drilling at 

pads (exposure to wind and water erosion), and road 

development (loss of soil used to develop road beds, 

and packing soil in undeveloped roads, leading to 

wind erosion) 

•	 Effects on irrigation and crop management practices: 

addition of additional water for leaching fraction, 

potential for water logging soils, modification of 

irrigation systems, change in cropping equipment, 

and effects on crops 

•	 Effects from land subsidence and disturbance 

Vegetation 

•	 Effect of surface discharge of high sodium or SAR 

water on native vegetation species that are salt 

intolerant, as well as on streamside vegetation 

•	 Change in vegetative communities to more salttolerant species 

•	 Loss of surface vegetation from construction 

•	 Invasion of exotic and noxious plant species in 

disturbed areas 

•	 Loss of plant productivity from development 

•	 Protection of grasslands within the Powder River 

Basin 

•	 Agricultural land withdrawal for CBNG production 

Special Status Species 

•	 Mitigation measures or avoidance needed to manage 

and protect candidate and sensitive species 

•	 Loss of threatened and endangered species from 

development 

Visual Resource Management 

•	 Visual degradation from construction of production 

facilities, roads, powerlines, and pipelines 

•	 Visual pollution 

Wilderness Study Areas 

•	 Effects on wilderness study areas from CBNG 

exploration and development 

Wildlife 

•	 Impacts from infrastructure development and 

increased human disturbance on wildlife habitat 

availability, quality and integrity, escape habitat, and 

management plans of MFWP 

•	 Fragmentation of wildlife habitat 

•	 Effects from water availability, quality, and quantity 

•	 Loss of animals from hazards to the habitat, such as 

vehicles, equipment, and increased human access 

•	 Effects on major waterways, such as the Tongue and 

Powder rivers, and to aquatic ecosystems, including 

fisheries 

•	 Effect on migration patterns 

•	 Change in vegetative communities to species that are 

generally not preferred by wildlife 

•	 Effects from increased noise levels 

•	 Effects from powerlines 

SEIS 

The following issues were identified during the public 

scoping process held in August and September 2005. 

The issues raised were in relation to CBNG phased 

development. These issues have been expressed in the 

form of questions. 

Air Quality/Climate 

• How will air quality, including visibility, be 

protected and mitigated, especially when 

considering all existing and proposed sources 

within the region? Concerns include general air 

quality, visibility, and potential adverse effects to 

public health from cumulative emissions of fine 

particles and fine particle precursors. 

• How will air quality, including visibility, be 

protected within the Northern Cheyenne Indian 

Reservation airshed and other Class I airsheds? 

• How will impacts on water chemistry be prevented 

in high altitude lakes with little acid neutralizing 

capacity? 

1-21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1 

Purpose of and Need for Action 

• How will potential for fires from the migration of 

methane be avoided? 

• What additional impacts will the TRR have on 

regional air quality? 

Cultural Resources
 

•	 How will culturally important springs and other 

traditional cultural properties be affected and 

protected? These include all traditional cultural 

properties identified by the Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe as important such as the Rosebud and Wolf 

Mountains Battlefield sites and Northern 

Cheyenne Homestead sites in the Tongue River 

Valley. 

•	 What traditional cultural properties in the RMP 

areas may be affected by CBNG development, and 

how will they be managed? 

Native American Concerns
 

•	 How will unique environmental, social, economic, 

and cultural impacts to Native Americans be 

addressed by phased development? 

•	 How will phased development provide an 

economic base to benefit tribal members, while not 

leading to another boom-and-bust cycle? 

• How will subsistence hunting, fishing, and 

gathering be affected and protected? 

• How will phased development help BLM to fulfill 

its Native American treaty trust obligations? 

• How will phased development provide protection 

to tribal reserved water rights? 

•	 How will phased development include 

coordination and consultation with tribal 

representatives? 

Oil and Gas 

•	 How will phased development be structured to 

address the national supply and demand situation 

and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign energy 

resources? 

• How will RMP or landscape-scale effects be 

addressed by phased development? 

• How will lease stipulations be used to mitigate for 

effects from phased development? 

•	 How will phased development be structured to 

minimize infrastructure development (to reduce 

both costs and impacts), including coordination 

with neighboring landowners? 

• How will reclamation and restoration be addressed 

by phased development? 

Phased Development
 

• How will phased development be planned to 

account for and protect other resources? 

•	 How will resource impacts from development and 

other CBNG activities be evaluated and addressed 

throughout the implementation of phased 

development? 

•	 How will phased development minimize 

fluctuations in populations, air quality impacts, 

overburdening of infrastructure and services, and 

increases in secondary development? 

•	 How will drainage of federal gas resources and 

impacts to federal lessees be addressed or affected 

by phased development? 

•	 What phased development implementation 

strategy or strategies will be included 

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

seam], timing, or number of wells)? 

•	 Will more than one phased development 

alternative be addressed in the 

FSEIS/Amendment? 

•	 How will phased development reduce impacts, 

improve mitigation options, or protect multiple-use 

of resources? 

Socioeconomics 

• How will social and cultural changes be addressed 

by phased development? Specific concerns include 

infrastructure and service costs borne by state, 

local, and tribal governments, increased 

population, social pathologies (crime, alcoholism, 

drug use, etc.), and environmental exploitation. 

• How will revenues (income lessees and state and 

local taxes) be affected by phased development, 

and how will these effects differ for reservation 

and off-reservation communities? 

• How will phased development affect jobs, job 

security, local economy, and farming and ranching 

activities, and how will these effects differ for 

reservation and off-reservation communities? 

1-22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1 

Purpose of and Need for Action 

Vegetation
 

•	 How will phased development address impacts to 

and reclamation of sagebrush steppe and grassland 

ecosystems? 

•	 How will phased development account for the 

relatively slow vegetative response to changes in 

groundwater or surface water characteristics? 

• How will phased development address the spread 

of non-native species in affected areas? 

•	 How will phased development affect medicinal 

and ceremonial native plants important to Native 

Americans? 

Water Resources 

• How will produced water be managed by phased 

development? 

•	 How will groundwater impacts be addressed by 

phased development? Concerns include 

groundwater drawdown in area or neighboring 

aquifers, effects on drinking water and stock 

watering wells, natural springs, and approved 

water rights. 

•	 How will phased development address surface 

water effects and mitigation? Concerns include the 

consequences of changing surface water quality 

and transforming ephemeral or intermittent 

streams into perennial water bodies. 

•	 How will effects from development outside the 

Planning Area be addressed by phased 

development? 

•	 How will water well mitigation agreements 

mitigate the effects of aquifer drawdown and 

methane migration? 

• How will phased development affect surface and 

groundwater quality? 

Wildlife
 

•	 How will phased development address impacts on 

wildlife (particularly fish and other aquatic 

species) and habitat from changes to water 

quality? 

•	 How will phased development address impacts 

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

ecosystem scale) on terrestrial wildlife species 

(and associated habitats), including song birds, 

burrowing owls, and bald eagles, but especially 

sage-grouse and prairie dogs? Particular concerns 

included habitat fragmentation and cumulative 

effects from development outside the Planning 

Area (especially the Wyoming PRB) and the 

ability to assign and quantify impacts from various 

anthropogenic influences. 

•	 How will phased development address potential 

effects on big game and other subsistence wildlife 

populations relative to tribal hunting and fishing 

rights? 

•	 How will phased development affect ESA-listed or 

potentially listed species? 

Data Gaps 

The FSEIS planning process will incorporate relevant 

new data collected since the spring of 2002 to update 

information presented in the Statewide Document, as 

needed, to meet the requirements of the Court’s 

decision. BLM will incorporate these new data to 

address the topics identified by the Court and during 

public scoping, evaluate project effects from phased 

development alternatives, and analyze significant new 

environmental information relevant to environmental 

concerns and having bearing on alternatives or their 

impacts. 

1-23