MINERALS APPENDIX

MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-1

MINERALS APPENDIX

Introduction

The Minerals Appendix contains a discussion of coal 

bed natural gas (CBNG) in the planning area,

conventional oil and gas production trends, the 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFD), 

and a description of the cumulative effects projects 

evaluated for this study. 

Coal Bed Natural Gas

CBNG is a product of the transformation of plant 

material into coal; large volumes of methane are 

produced as coal matures due to heat of burial and the 

action of naturally occurring microbes. This methanerich gas is adsorbed and stored on internal surfaces 

within the coal. The pressure of fluids (mostly 

formation water) in the coal reservoir keeps the 

methane adsorbed onto the coal. When meteoric waters 

encounter the methane-rich coals, bacteria act upon the 

coals and their entrained fluids to produce more 

methane (PTTC 2000). This biogenic methane-rich gas 

is also adsorbed onto the coal surfaces. Thermogenic 

methane can be differentiated from biogenic methane 

by the ratios of their stable carbon isotopes, that is, the 

ratio of C12 to C13 compared to a standard such as the 

PeeDee belemnite, a fossil marine mollusk (Coplen 

1994). Methane with relative enrichment of C12 is 

indicative of low-temperature, biogenic gas; the heavier 

C13 isotope is enriched in the high-temperature gas. 

Both forms of methane have been reported in CBNG

reservoirs (USGS 2000). 

Coalbed gas reservoirs, because of their fine-grained 

nature, are able to hold six or seven times as much gas 

as conventional sand or carbonate reservoirs (USGS 

2000), a factor that has made CBNG a desirable 

resource. Methane produced from coal beds is an 

unconventional hydrocarbon resource that has 

undergone rapid nationwide development in the past 

fifteen years (Nelson 2000). The Powder River Basin is 

estimated to contain approximately 39 trillion cubic 

feet [TCF] total gas in place (Hill et al. 2000)—

approximately 10 percent of which is in Montana. The 

methane is contained in the Tertiary-age Fort Union 

Formation coal beds. Under initial reservoir conditions, 

the coal is under virgin hydrostatic pressure, which 

confines the coal and holds in the methane. Pumping 

water from the coal reduces hydrostatic pressure in the 

aquifer. The methane releases from the coal and moves 

through the natural cleat of the coal toward producing 

boreholes.

CBNG in Montana is currently produced only at the 

CX Ranch field in Big Horn County on the western 

edge of the Powder River Basin. During the first year 

of production, 1999, the field produced 204,433 MCF 

of natural gas. The subsequent year, 2000, the field 

produced 3.49 billion cubic feet (BCF) of natural gas 

(MBOGC 2001b). For 2004, the CX Ranch field 

produced 12.24 BCF of natural gas (MBOGC On-Line 

Data).

CBNG is prospective in the RMP areas that are the 

subject of this SEIS. In the Billings RMP area, the Bull 

Mountains Basin contains Fort Union Formation coals 

that may be similar to the Powder River Basin coals. 

CBNG resources are subject to the same drainage 

issues as conventional oil and gas resources. It is 

assumed that a single CBNG well will drain those 

resources in a single coal seam across 80 acres. Sitespecific CBNG drainage may, however, be different 

and needs to be monitored to protect federal and Indian 

lands. 

A study prepared at the request of Congress under a 

provision of the 2000 Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act (EPCA) was completed in 2002 by BLM, USGS, 

USFS, and the DOEs Office of Fossil Fuels and Energy 

Information Administration (EIA). The EPCA 

inventory, published in 2003 in both hardcopy and on 

CDs, provides estimates of undiscovered technically 

recoverable resources and proven reserves of oil and 

gas beneath five basins including the Powder River 

Basin (EPCA, 2003). The estimate of CBNG for the 

Powder River Basin (USGS Digital Data Series DDS69-C, 2004) raised the technically recoverable amount 

of CBNG from 1.1 trillion cubic feet to 14.3 trillion 

cubic feet. The increase is accounted for by better data. 

Over the past 10 years, industry has drilled thousands 

of new wells, and information from these wells has 

provide a much better geologic definition of the 

unconventional oil and gas plays in the basin. In 1995 

there were only two or three coal beds that were 

generating gas; but by 2004 it was found that other,

deeper coal bed seams were generating more gas (ibid). 

The coal beds where CBNG is being produced in the 

Powder River Basin contain low-rank coal. 

Of the 14.3 TCF estimated recoverable CBNG, the 

USGS estimates 5.0 TCF in Montana and 9.3 TCF in 

the Wyoming portion of the PRB.

In preparing this SEIS/Amendment, the updated EPCA 

estimate was considered for evaluation and alteration of 

the RFD. However, upon recognition of the original 
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-2

method used to estimate the reasonable foreseeable 

development, it was noted that all possible CBNG wells 

over the next 20 years were accounted for, based on gas 

quantity per ton of coal present and potential drainage 

spacing. Therefore, considering the spacing (1 well/80-

acre/coal seam), and the duration of the well life, it was 

felt that all known coal with the potential for CBNG 

production was accounted for and thus the gas present 

could be reached and extracted. No revision to the 

original number of CBNG wells predicted is necessary 

or was made.

Furthermore, the federal coal beneath the Custer 

National Forest was considered in the original RFD,

and the EPCA estimate did not provide any new 

information with regards to the potential leasing or 

development of CBNG on the forest. Therefore, the 

original estimate for the Custer National Forest was not 

revised. Additionally the Ashland Ranger District has 

not completed an official RFD for the Custer National 

Forest nor has there been a leasing EIS proposed or 

scheduled for these minerals. Therefore, the existing 

estimate is adequate for the foreseeable future.

Conventional Oil and Gas Production 

Trends 

Montana’s oil production for 1999 was down by 

approximately 8 percent (from 16.61 million barrels of 

oil [mmbo] to 15.27 mmbo) from 1998. The oil 

production trend has been in place since 1984 when oil 

production began to decrease because of commodity 

prices. Due to increases in commodity prices, the rapid 

expansion of horizontal drilling, and improvements in 

secondary and tertiary recovery techniques, this 

downward trend started to reverse itself in 2000, and by 

the end of 2004 production had increased to 24.7 

mmbo. Natural gas production increased by 

approximately 3 percent (59.7 BCF to 61.6 BCF) 

during 1998. Natural gas production has shown gradual 

increases in yearly production with an annual 

production for 2004 of 97.96 BCF (MBOGC On-Line 

Data). Drilling within the state for conventional oil and 

gas increased by approximately 55 percent from 1998 

to 1999. Conventional oil and gas activity increased by 

approximately 27.2 percent from 2003 to 2004.

Horizontal well completions continue to be popular in 

the state. In 1999, the Montana Board of Oil and Gas 

Conservation (MBOGC) gave approval for seven new 

horizontal wells and two horizontal re-completions of 

existing vertical wells. For 2004, the MBOGC 

approved 205 horizontal wells and 48 horizontal 

recompletions of existing vertical wells. In 1999, BLM 

approved four new horizontal wells and one horizontal 

recompletion. In 2000, BLM approved 13 new 

horizontal wells and 16 recompletions. In 2004, BLM 

approved 35 new horizontal wells and 36 

recompletions as horizontal wells.

Figures MIN-1 and MIN-2 were constructed using the 

latest data available from the production files of the 

MBOGC. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-3

Figure MIN-1

Figure MIN-2

Billings RMP Area Production Trends

0

250000

500000

750000

1000000

1250000

1500000

1750000

2000000

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

Oil (Bbls)

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Gas (Bcf)

Gas

Oil

Powder Rive RMP Area Production Trends

0

250000

500000

750000

1000000

1250000

1500000

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

Oil (Bbls)

-1

1.5

4

6.5

9

11.5

14

Gas (Bcf)

Oil

Gas

Powder River RMP Area Production Trends
MINERAL APPENDIX

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-4

REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO

Introduction

The Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) 

scenario for the SEIS predicts oil and gas development 

for the Powder River Resource Management Plan 

(RMP) area and the Billings RMP area. The RFD 

projects drilling of both conventional and CBNG wells, 

numbers of pipelines, and compressors needed for 

production of CBNG wells. 

For the purpose of the analysis, the RFD will address 

potential CBNG development of the Crow and 

Northern Cheyenne reservations and the Ashland 

Ranger District of the U.S. Forest Service. This does 

not imply or indicate the BLM is making decisions 

about the reservations or the Forest Service. The 

predictions are made so that all potential cumulative 

impacts are analyzed.

Predictions for exploration and development of coal 

bed natural gas (CBNG) and conventional oil and gas 

in the RFD are based on: the BLM RMPs for the areas; 

coal information from the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS); other referenced sources; expressions of 

interest; and projections from the oil and gas industry 

(Oct 18, 2000, CBNG Coordination meeting).

Coal Bed Natural Gas

To project CBNG exploration and development, the 

areal extent of certain coals and the rank of coals in the 

study areas were considered. Areas of sub-bituminous 

to bituminous were considered as the most likely to be 

explored and developed in Montana, although 

exploration and development has occurred mainly in 

sub-bituminous coal in the Wyoming portion of the 

Powder River Basin (Basin). The USGS produced a 

map showing the areas of coal, by rank, for the United 

States (see Map MIN-1). This information indicates 

sub-bituminous and bituminous coals in many parts of 

the study area. Powder River, Rosebud, Custer, and Big 

Horn counties contain the northern part of the Basin, 

which extends north from Wyoming. Musselshell 

County has mostly sub-bituminous coal. Carbon 

County has an extension of the Big Horn Basin coal, 

which is ranked as bituminous coal. The projection of 

methane gas estimated to be produced from coal beds 

in Montana range from a low of 1 TCF (Crockett 2001-

PRB est -RMG, Casper) to a high of 17.7 TCF 

(estimated based on figures from Nelson 2000). This 

and other information for Montana is used to predict 

where CBNG exploration is most likely to occur in the 

planning area. The RFD predicts the number of CBNG

wells that would be drilled and completed during the 

next 20 years. 

Conventional Oil and Gas

Historical drilling activity and oil and gas price 

projections were used to project conventional oil and 

gas development for the RMPs. The RFD scenario 

describes a somewhat different level of activity than the 

scenario found in the BLM Final Oil and Gas 

RMP/EIS Amendment issued in 1992. This is primarily 

because of the use of a different span for historical 

drilling activity. The 1992 amendment used the span 

from 1973 to 1988 in forecasting future activity. This 

document uses a total period of 80 years for historical 

drilling activity to forecast future development. This 

led to a slight difference in the level of drilling activity 

forecast.

Approximately 200 to 800 wells would be drilled in the 

Powder River RMP area. Approximately 250 to 

975 wells would be drilled in the Billings RMP area. A 

total of 450 to 1,775 wells could be drilled in 20 years. 

A total of 37,233 oil and gas wells have been drilled in 

Montana as of the 2003 FEIS (Petroleum Information 

Corp, 2001). This is an average of approximately 450 

wells drilled per year statewide. From 1995 through 

2004 the conventional wells drilled in the state ranged 

from 209 to 565 (MBOGC On-Line Data).

Coal Areas of Montana

The USGS produced a map showing the areas of coal 

in Montana. The RMPs also include maps that indicate 

areas of coal occurrence. The coal volume for each 

county was used to determine the number of potential 

CBNG wells that could be drilled. The values for 

volumes of coal in each county came from the BLM 

RMPs for the area, study papers, or estimates based on 

coal thickness, and acres of identified coal fields in the 

county. The coal volumes are based upon all coal beds, 

not just ones that are likely to be developed because of 

their thickness, depth, and extent. In all cases the 

volumes are estimates rather than exact figures. The 

coal volume in tons was multiplied by a range of 

estimates of recoverable methane per ton (USGS 

Professional Report 1625A, 1998 and Flores, et al. 

2001) and then divided by an estimate of the gas 

production per well from CMS Energy's, October 18, 

2000, presentation in Miles City (CMS 2000). The 

amount of gas to be produced per well (0.3 BCF per 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-5

well) would be used as the lowest economic limit. This 

resulted in a range of wells that may be drilled over the 

next 20 years. The coal volume data came mostly from 

the Powder River and the Billings RMPs, supplemented 

by information from USGS and Gas Technology 

Institute (GTI) papers (Nelson 2000). 

Coal resources in the Powder River Basin are in the 

Paleocene Fort Union Formation. About half of the 

estimated 39 trillion cubic feet of in-place CBNG

resource is recoverable. Less than half the coal 

resources occur in the Montana portion of the Basin. 

These sub-bituminous coals have low concentrations of 

gas per unit volume (Choate et al. 1984). However, 

because of the immense total coal thickness that 

reaches 170 feet in some areas in Montana (Campen 

1990), vast quantities of CBNG may be present.

Gas Well Spacing

The MBOGC establishes the spacing of gas wells. 

Spacing for wildcat wells is 640 acres per well for each 

producing formation. MBOGC has the authority to 

change the well spacing to provide for maximum 

efficiency and recovery of gas reserves. Well spacing is 

usually changed after MBOGC has reviewed geologic, 

engineering and economic data provided by lease 

operators. The MBOGC then establishes the boundaries

for a producing gas field. The planning area includes 

only one CBNG field and numerous conventional gas 

fields. When a field is discovered, the exploration 

company would appear before MBOGC to request 

permanent spacing for the production. Based upon 

current CBNG well spacing in Wyoming and Montana, 

spacing would probably range from one well per 

80 acres to one well per 40 acres for CBNG

production. The spacing in the CX field is four wells 

per coal bed per 160 acres. Because of the number of 

coals in the CX field, this could result in as many as 16 

wells per 160 acres or potentially 64 wells per 

640 acres. The well density has not reached this level at 

present and because of the faulting, splitting, and 

joining of the coals and absence of the coals in some 

sections this is not likely to happen. CBNG is produced 

from three coal seams in the CX field. Each well 

produces methane from a single coal seam; however, in 

the future, wells may be designed to produce from 

multiple coal seams. This would decrease the number 

of wells required for production in the CX field. 

Oil Well Spacing

The MBOGC also sets the spacing of oil wells. The 

spacing for an oil well in the state of Montana is based 

on the depth of the well. For well depth of 0 to 

6,000 feet, the statewide spacing is one well per 

40 acres; for well depth of 6,001 feet to 11,000 feet, it 

would be one well per 160 acres; finally, for well depth 

of more than 11,001 feet, it would be one well per 

320 acres. MBOGC has the authority to change the 

well spacing to provide for maximum efficiency and 

recovery of gas reserves. Well spacing is usually 

changed after MBOGC has reviewed geologic, 

engineering, and economic data provided by lease 

operators. The MBOGC then establishes the boundaries

for the producing oil field. There are numerous fields 

within the planning area.

Areas of Disturbance

CBNG

Surface disturbance for a typical CBNG well includes 

0.25 acres for the well pad and 0.75 acres for the access 

road for a total of 1 acre disturbed for drilling 

operations. Part of the well pad area is reclaimed for 

production operations, and the entire area of 

disturbance is reclaimed when the well is plugged and 

abandoned.

Conventional

Surface disturbance for a typical conventional shallow 

gas well (less than 2,000 feet deep) includes 0.5 acres 

for the well pad and a 2-mile bladed road for a total of 

1 acre disturbed for drilling operations. Part of the well 

pad area is reclaimed for production operations, and the 

entire area of disturbance is reclaimed when the well is 

plugged and abandoned. 

Surface disturbance for a typical shallow oil well (less 

than 5,000 feet deep) includes 2 acres for the well pad 

and 1.5 acres for a 1-mile bladed road for a total of 

3.5 acres disturbed for drilling operations. Surface 

disturbance for a typical deep oil well (from 5,000 to 

12,000 feet deep) includes 4 acres for the well pad and 

1.5 acres for a 1-mile bladed road, for a total of 

5.5 acres disturbed for drilling operations. Part of the 

well pad area is reclaimed for production operations, 

and the entire area of disturbance is reclaimed when the 

well is plugged and abandoned. 

General Assumptions

• All numbers were rounded to the nearest 

significant number.

• The number of BLM-administered wells will be 

based on the BLM-administered oil and gas 

acreage in the county. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-6

• 80 percent of Big Horn County is in the Billings 

RMP area.

Occurrence Potential

The text in this section discusses the oil and gas 

occurrence potential for each county.

Big Horn County

CBNG

The southeastern and eastern portion of the county 

contains approximately 28,700 million tons of subbituminous coal (Powder River RMP). The area 

includes one CBNG field (CX Ranch).

Conventional

The county has nine oil and gas fields, including four 

oil fields, one conventional gas field at Toluca, and an 

inactive gas field at Hardin. The oil and gas fields in 

Big Horn County produce from the Ft. Union, Shannon, 

Amsden, Madison, and Tensleep formations. 

Production has occurred from the Frontier formation 

(Hardin Gas field). A total of 844 wells have been 

drilled to date, of which 172 have been drilled on the 

Crow Reservation. One gas sales line runs through the 

north portion of Big Horn County, but none on the 

Crow Reservation.

Carbon County

CBNG

Carbon County includes the Silvertip, Bear Creek, 

Bridger and the Joliet-Fromberg coal fields. The coal 

ranges from Ft Union to Eagle coal and is of subbituminous to bituminous nature. The volume of coal is 

estimated at approximately 760 million tons. The 

estimate of the gas content of the coals for subbituminous will be the same as the coals in the Powder 

River basin. The estimate for the bituminous coals for 

the RFD will be from 200 to 450 standard cubic feet 

(SCF)/ton. 

Conventional 

Carbon County includes 18 identified gas and oil fields. 

The wells produce from the Frontier, PhosporiaTensleep, Judith River, Claggett, Eagle, and Greybull 

formations. A total 735 wells have been drilled to date 

in this county (Dwights well data).

Carter County

CBNG

Bituminous or sub-bituminous coals have not been 

identified in Carter County. The only coal is of lignite 

rank, which is not considered to have a potential to 

produce methane in economic quantities.

Conventional

Carter County includes the Bell Creek, Southeast Bell 

Creek, and Repeat oil fields, as well as two gas fields 

near Hammond. They produce from the Muddy and 

Red River formations. There have been 434 wells 

drilled to date in this county. 

Custer County

CBNG

The Powder River RMP estimated 1.3 billion tons of 

sub-bituminous coal is located within Custer County. 

The coal occurs in the southern and southwestern 

portion of the county. 

Conventional 

The Liscom Creek and Pumpkin Creek fields are 

located in Custer County. Gas in these fields is 

produced from the Shannon formation. These fields 

have a small sales line in place.

Golden Valley County

CBNG

Although there is some coal shown for Golden Valley 

County, there are no volumes estimated. The coal that 

is shown is of the sub-bituminous rank.

Conventional 

Two oil and two gas fields have been identified in this 

county, and 124 wells have been drilled to date. The 

wells have produced from the Cat Creek, Lakota, 

Niobrara, Frontier, Heath, and Tyler formations.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-7

Musselshell County

CBNG

The RMP estimated 646.6 million tons of subbituminous coal in the county. These Ft. Union coals 

are located in the Bull Mountain Basin.

Conventional

Thirty-five fields have been identified in Musselshell 

County, and 1,415 wells have been drilled to date. The 

wells have produced from the Amsden, Cat Creek, 

Morrison, Heath, and Tyler formations.

Powder River County

CBNG

Based on information from the RMP, there are 

27 billion tons of sub-bituminous coal in the county. 

The coal is located mostly in the western half of the 

county.

Conventional 

The county has seven oil and gas fields, including Bell 

Creek, which is the second-largest producing field in 

Montana (based on cumulative production). The 

Shannon and Muddy formations are productive in the 

county, and 1,249 wells have been drilled to date. 

Rosebud County

CBNG

Rosebud County contains 11.3 billion tons of subbituminous coal. The coal is located in the southern and 

eastern portion of the county.

Conventional 

Rosebud County has 18 identified oil and gas fields 

producing from the Tyler formation, and 1,147 wells 

have been drilled to date.

Stillwater County

CBNG

There is one identified bituminous coal field 

(Stillwater) in the county and it is estimated to have 

475 million tons of Eagle formation coal. The coal is 

estimated to contain a much higher gas content per ton 

than the Powder River sub-bituminous coals. The 

county has three gas transmission lines running through 

the north half of the county.

Conventional 

The county has 11 identified oil and gas fields. The 

producing formations are the Frontier, Eagle, Claggett, 

Cat Creek, Morrison, and Virgelle. There have been 

367 conventional wells drilled to date in the county.

Sweet Grass County

CBNG

There are no known coal reserves in the county. 

However, there are gas transmission lines through the 

center and running southeast and northeast in the 

county.

Conventional 

One identified field—a six-shooter dome—is in Sweet 

Grass County. This is the Sixshooter Dome. The 

productive formations in the county are the Eagle and 

Lakota. There have been 82 conventional wells drilled 

to date.

Treasure County

CBNG

The RMP's coal estimates for the county from the RMP 

are 100 million tons. A gas transmission line runs 

through the southeastern part of the county.

Conventional 

There are no identified oil and gas fields in the county 

and no productive formations have been identified; 

however, 32 conventional wells have been drilled to 

date.

Wheatland County

CBNG

No coal has been identified in Wheatland County. A 

gas transmission line runs through the eastern part of 

the county.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-8

Conventional 

One oil and gas field—Mud Creek—has been 

identified in the county. The Amsden formation is 

productive, and 60 conventional wells have been drilled

to date in the county.

Yellowstone County

CBNG

Some 590 million tons of coal have been identified in 

the county. There are four gas transmission lines in the 

southern part of the county.

Conventional 

Six oil and gas fields are identified in the county, and 

425 conventional wells have been drilled to date. The 

productive formations that have been identified are the 

Mosser Sand, Amsden, and Dakota.

Reasonably Foreseeable 

Future Actions

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (RFFA) 

address the potential developments that may occur 

within other jurisdictions that fall within the Billings 

and Powder River resource management areas. The 

same general assumptions and source data used for 

developing the RFD are applicable.

Crow Reservation

CBNG

There has been 16.1 billion tons of coal identified on 

the Crow Reservation. 

Conventional 

The reservation includes the Soap Creek, Lodge Grass, 

Gray Blanket, and Ash Creek oil and gas fields. There 

have been 172 conventional wells drilled to date on the 

reservation. Production occurs from the Shannon, 

Tensleep, Amsden and Madison formations within the 

reservation. 

Northern Cheyenne Reservation

CBNG

Based upon limited data, it is estimated that 16.3 billion 

tons of sub-bituminous coal lie within the reservation. 

The coal is believed to underlie most or all of the 

reservation. 

Conventional 

The reservation does not have any known oil or gas 

fields. Twenty conventional wells have been drilled to 

date.

Ashland District, U.S. Forest 

Service

CBNG

Tertiary Ft. Union coal is believed to underlie most or 

all of the Ashland Forest.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Reasonably Foreseeable Development—Alternative A

MIN-9

REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT—

ALTERNATIVE A

CBNG

A general assumption used for this alternative for 

CBNG wells is that the number of townships of 

potential development in each county would be limited 

to areas where coal has been identified. Additionally, 

other assumptions were used for Alternative A for 

CBNG wells. These include:

• CBNG drilling would only be allowed where there 

was a need for additional data (townships where no 

CBNG wells had been drilled by any company).

• CBNG drilling would occur but there would be no 

production (from federal wells). That is, the 

permits would be for drilling and production 

testing but no commercial production (with 

associated infrastructure).

• No permanent pipelines, power-lines, or any 

production facilities would be installed at any of 

the federal CBNG wells.

• There would be no discharge of produced water 

allowed from any of the federal CBNG wells.

• For a high number, four wells per township were 

assumed; for the low number, one well per 

township was assumed. 

• It was assumed that the number of townships in 

each county would be limited to areas where coal 

has been identified.

BLM-Administered

An estimated 400 acres based on 400 CBNG wells 

would be disturbed during exploratory drilling 

operations (0.25 acre per location and 0.75 acre per 

access road) which is the number of wells predicted to 

be drilled during the 20-year analysis period. The total 

number of acres could be reduced if more than one 

methane well is drilled on the well pad—as is the 

pattern in the CX Field.

State-Administered

Existing Management Assumptions

There will be 325 CBNG wells permitted for the 

Redstone project area in Big Horn County. Of these, 

only 250 will be allowed to produce and 75 will be for 

exploration only. Two hundred CBNG exploration 

wells will be permitted for the rest of the state.

Conventional Oil and Gas

The RFD scenario from the Oil and Gas Amendment

contains projections for the number of wells and acres 

disturbed in each producing region. The disturbance for 

each well is based on the typical depth of wells for an 

area. Shallow wells generally disturb fewer acres. 

Tables 4.1 through 4.4 in the Oil and Gas Amendment

show totals for the planning area and each resource 

area. The assumptions for conventional oil and gas in 

this alternative are as follows:

• The unconstrained number of wells comes from the 

Oil and Gas Amendment RFD scenario.

• The constrained number of wells is derived from 

the resource analysis for wells foregone in No 

Surface Occupancy areas.

• The average acreage figure (total acres/total wells) 

for the resource area was used to estimate federal 

acres disturbed.

• The RFD projections have a 20-year life.

• A more detailed description of information for the 

assumptions is contained in the Oil and Gas 

Amendment in Chapter 4, Social Economic 

Conditions (BLM 1992), and in Appendix C.

BLM-Administered

The number of acres disturbed during drilling 

operations would be 1,342 acres based on 400 wells, 

which is the number of wells predicted to be drilled 

during the 20-year analysis period. 

State of Montana

The number of acres disturbed during drilling 

operations would be 4,551 acres based on 891 new 

wells predicted for the 20-year analysis period in the 

Powder River and Billings RMP areas. The RFD for 

the State of Montana for conventional wells under this 

alternative is the same as Alternatives B, C, D, E, F, G 

and H.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Reasonably Foreseeable Development—Alternative A

MIN-10

Development Potential

The development potential for federal oil and gas in 

each county is described in the text that follows.

Big Horn County

CBNG

Based on the review of unexplored coal areas in Big 

Horn County, there would be 20 to 64 exploration wells 

drilled on minerals under BLM jurisdiction. 

Approximately 16 to 44 of these wells would have 

production potential and 4 to 20 wells would be drilled 

and abandoned. The only disturbance would be for the 

access road and well pad.

Conventional

The county has potential for five to 30 additional wells 

to be drilled on minerals under BLM jurisdiction in the 

next 20 years, based on historical drilling rates.

Carbon County

CBNG

Based on the unexplored coal areas in the county, the 

BLM could permit the drilling of approximately 24 to 

72 wells under this alternative. Sixteen to 48 of these 

wells would have the potential to be productive, and 

8 to 24 wells will be drilled and abandoned. There 

would be no pipelines or production facilities for these 

wells. The only disturbance would be for the access 

road and well pad.

Conventional

Carbon County has potential for 10 to 45 additional 

wells to be drilled on minerals under BLM jurisdiction 

in the next 20 years, based on historical drilling rates.

Carter County

CBNG

No CBNG wells are projected to be drilled under this 

alternative in the county.

Conventional

The county has potential for 1 to 6 additional wells to 

be drilled on minerals under BLM jurisdiction in the 

next 20 years, based on historical drilling rates.

Custer County

CBNG

Based on the unexplored coal areas in the county, the 

BLM could permit the drilling of from 20 to 64 wells 

under this alternative. Sixteen to 44 of these wells 

would have the potential to be productive; and four to 

20 wells will be drilled and abandoned. There would be 

no pipelines or production facilities for these wells. The 

only disturbance would be for the access road and well 

pad.

Conventional

The county has potential for one to three additional 

wells to be drilled on minerals under BLM jurisdiction 

in the next 20 years, based on historical drilling rates.

Golden Valley County

CBNG

No CBNG wells are projected to be drilled in this 

county on minerals under BLM jurisdiction with this 

alternative.

Conventional

The county has potential for one to six additional wells 

to be drilled on minerals under BLM jurisdiction in the 

next 20 years, based on historical drilling rates.

Musselshell County

CBNG

Based on the unexplored coal areas in the county, the 

BLM could permit the drilling of 10 to 40 wells under 

this alternative. From eight to 30 of these wells would 

have the potential to be productive, and two to 10 wells 

will be drilled and abandoned. There would be no 

pipelines or production facilities for these wells. The 

only disturbance would be for the access road and well 

pad.

Conventional

The county has potential for 20 to 90 additional wells 

to be drilled on minerals under BLM jurisdiction in the 

next 20 years, based on historical drilling rates.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Reasonably Foreseeable Development—Alternative A

MIN-11

Powder River County

CBNG

Based on the unexplored coal areas in the county, the 

BLM could permit the drilling of from 20 to 80 wells 

under this alternative. Sixteen to 60 of these wells 

would have the potential to be productive, and four to 

20 wells will be drilled and abandoned. There would be 

no pipelines or production facilities for these wells. The

only disturbance would be for the access road and well 

pad.

Conventional

The county has potential for one to three additional 

wells to be drilled on minerals under BLM jurisdiction 

in the next 20 years, based on historical drilling rates.

Rosebud County

CBNG

Based on the unexplored coal areas in the county, the 

BLM could permit the drilling of 12 to 48 wells under 

this alternative. Eight to 32 of these wells would have 

the potential to be productive, and four to 16 wells will 

be drilled and abandoned. There would be no pipelines 

or production facilities for these wells. The only 

disturbance would be for the access road and well pad.

Conventional

The county has potential for 10 to 40 additional wells 

to be drilled on minerals under BLM jurisdiction in the 

next 20 years, based on historical drilling rates.

Stillwater County

CBNG

Based on the unexplored coal areas in the county, the 

BLM could permit the drilling of six to 24 wells under 

this alternative. Four to 18 of these wells would have 

the potential to be productive, and two to six wells will 

be drilled and abandoned. There would be no pipelines 

or production facilities for these wells. The only 

disturbance would be for the access road and well pad.

Conventional

The county has potential for three to 12 additional 

wells to be drilled on minerals under BLM jurisdiction 

in the next 20 years, based on historical drilling rates.

Sweet Grass County

CBNG

Based on the lack of known coal reserves in the county, 

no CBNG wells are expected under this alternative. 

Conventional

The county has potential for one to six additional wells 

to be drilled on minerals under BLM jurisdiction in the 

next 20 years, based on historical drilling rates.

Treasure County

CBNG

Based on the unexplored coal areas in Treasure County, 

the BLM could permit the drilling of two to four wells 

under this alternative. Up to two of these wells would 

have the potential to be productive, and up to two wells 

will be drilled and abandoned. There would be no 

pipelines or production facilities for these wells. The 

only disturbance would be for the access road and well 

pad.

Conventional

The county has potential for one to three additional 

wells to be drilled on minerals under BLM jurisdiction 

in the next 20 years, based on historical drilling rates.

Wheatland County

CBNG

There are no CBNG wells projected to be drilled on 

minerals under BLM jurisdiction in the county.

Conventional

The county has potential for one to three additional 

wells to be drilled on minerals under BLM jurisdiction 

in the next 20 years, based on historical drilling rates.

Yellowstone County

CBNG

Based on the unexplored coal areas in the county, the 

BLM could permit the drilling of two to six wells under 

this alternative. Up to three of these wells would have 

the potential to be productive, and up to three wells will 

be drilled and abandoned. There would be no pipelines 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Reasonably Foreseeable Development—Alternative A

MIN-12

or production facilities for these wells. The only 

disturbance would be for the access road and well pad.

Conventional

The county has potential for five to 15 additional wells 

to be drilled on minerals under BLM jurisdiction in the 

next 20 years, based on historical drilling rates.

RFD Conclusion 

CBNG

During the life of the plan, it is estimated that the 

number of CBNG exploration wells that may be drilled 

throughout the two RMP areas would range from a low 

of 110 wells to a high of 400 wells on BLMadministered minerals. CBNG drilling would be 

allowed but there would be no production (from federal 

wells). This means the permits would be for drilling 

and testing but no production. There would be no 

pipelines or power-lines or any production facilities 

installed at any of the federal CBNG wells. There 

would be no discharge of produced water allowed from 

any of the federal CBNG wells. This would result in 

approximately 400 acres of disturbance for the 400 

wells (0.25 acre/location and 0.75 acre/access road).

State development under this scenario would include 

previously approved CBNG wells at the CX Ranch and 

additional exploration wells. The CX Ranch could drill 

up to 325 wells, of which 250 could be developed for 

production. An additional 200 exploration well permits 

would be issued to operators to investigate the 

likelihood of CBNG development throughout the state. 

Powder River RMP Area

During the life of the plan, it is estimated that the 

number of CBNG wells that may be drilled in the 

Powder River RMP area would range from a low of 60 

wells to a high of 240 wells on BLM-administered 

minerals. CBNG drilling would be allowed but there 

would be no production (from federal wells). This 

means the permits would be for drilling and testing but 

no production. There would be no pipelines or powerlines or any production facilities installed at any of the 

federal CBNG wells. There would be no discharge of 

produced water allowed from any of the federal CBNG

wells. This would result in approximately 240 acres of 

disturbance for the 240 wells (0.25 acre/location and 

0.75 acre/access road).

Billings RMP Area

During the life of the plan, it is estimated that the 

number of CBNG wells that may be drilled throughout 

the Billings RMP area would range from a low of 50 

wells to a high of 160 wells on BLM-administered 

minerals. CBNG drilling would be allowed but there 

would be no production from Federal wells. This means 

the permits would be for drilling and testing but no 

production. There would be no pipelines, power-lines, 

or any production facilities installed at any of the 

federal CBNG wells. There would be no discharge of 

produced water allowed from any of the federal CBNG

wells. This would result in approximately 160 acres of 

disturbance for the 160 wells (0.25 acre/location and 

0.75 acre/access road).

Conventional Oil and Gas

Based on the Assumptions listed at the beginning of 

this section, the number of conventional oil and gas 

wells that could be drilled on BLM administered 

minerals would range from a low of 60 to a high of 

260 wells. No estimates of disturbance were made for 

conventional wells.

Powder River RMP Area

The RFD estimates that 15 to 60 of these wells would 

be drilled on minerals under BLM jurisdiction. Most of 

these wells would be drilled in or near the existing 

fields.

Billings RMP Area

The RFD estimates that 45 to 200 conventional wells 

are to be drilled on minerals under BLM jurisdiction. 

Most of these wells would be drilled in or near the 

existing fields.

Reasonably Foreseeable 

Future Actions—

Alternative A

The RFFA predictions for Alternative A were 

developed using the same general assumptions as the 

RFD.

Forest Service—Administered

Currently, the Custer National Forest, Ashland Ranger 

District, is not open for oil and gas leasing. Alternative 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Reasonably Foreseeable Development—Alternative A

MIN-13

A assumes that similar management would continue, no 

leases would be issued, and no wells drilled.

Crow Reservation

CBNG

Although there is a considerable amount of known coal 

reserves on the reservation, it is assumed that the Crow 

Tribe of Indians would not develop any CBNG under 

this alternative. 

Conventional 

The Reservation has potential fourteen to twenty 

additional wells to be drilled on Tribal minerals in the 

next 20 years, based on historical drilling rates.

Northern Cheyenne Reservation

CBNG

Although there is a considerable amount of known coal 

reserves on the reservation, it is assumed that the 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe would not develop any 

CBNG under this alternative. 

Conventional

Based on historical drilling rates it would appear that 

no conventional oil or gas wells would be developed on 

the reservation under this alternative.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Reasonably Foreseeable Development—Alternatives B, C, D, E, F, G, & H

MIN-14

REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT—

Alternatives B, C, D, E, F, G and H

Assumptions

CBNG

The following assumptions were used to calculate the 

number of wells to be drilled, the number of in-field 

compressors, and the number of sales compressors 

required:

• The coal volume for each county was taken from 

published sources such as the RMPs. For the 

RMPs, all tonnages are based on in-place coal with 

development potential defined as beds 5 feet thick 

or greater, with a 15:l or less stripping ratio, and 

500 feet of overburden or less. This gives a greater 

tonnage than actual limits currently used by the 

mining industry in the area, where stripping limits 

seldom exceed 200 feet of overburden or a ratio 

of 6:l. Tonnage calculations are based on 

1,770 tons/acre-foot. For the Northern Cheyenne 

Reservation, the coal volumes from the USGS and 

U.S. Bureau of Mines reports are based on very 

limited data. The coal volumes for the Crow 

Reservation from the USGS and U.S. Bureau of 

Mines report were based on more extensive data. 

The coal tonnages in the RMPs include strippable 

coal, which may or may not contain producible 

methane in economic quantities

• The gas content per ton used to calculate the 

quantity of gas from sub-bituminous coal was 

74 standard cubic feet per ton (SCF/ton) and came 

from studies by the USGS (Professional Paper 

1625-A). The gas content for bituminous coal used 

to calculate the quantity was (450 SCF/ton) and 

came from a paper by Campen and Gruber (1991).

• The spacing for the CBNG wells would be one 

well per 80 acres per coal seam. The spacing was 

assumed after discussions with the MBOGC, as 

well as our understanding that Wyoming will be 

using this spacing (as a general rule) for CBNG

wells.

• Three coal seams would be developed per 80 

acres. Another way of saying this is there would be 

three wells per pad in each 80 acres.

• One field compressor would service 24 CBNG

wells. The area of disturbance would be 0.5 acres.

• One sales compressor could handle 10 field 

compressors. The area of disturbance would be 

0.5 acres.

• Each CBNG well would produce .3 BCF of gas.

• Where the wells would be located in the counties 

was based on either the Montana Coal Occurrences 

from the USGS open file report OF 96-92, the 

RMPs, or information from the U.S. Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA).

• No predictions were made based on distances to 

coal outcrops, thickness of individual coal seams, 

or thickness of overburden to coals. This 

information will be used by companies to place 

individual wells.

• The coal in each county did not include the coal on 

the Indian reservation in that specific county. The 

coal (from USGS and U.S. Bureau of Mines 

reports) on each Indian reservation resulted in a 

number of wells being drilled on each reservation.

• The RFD assumed that areas of lignite would not 

have economic production of methane so no wells 

were forecasted in those areas. We are not aware 

of any companies or individuals that are currently 

pursuing the testing of lignite for gas. With the 

present technology, it is unlikely that industry will 

be able to produce commercial amounts of gas 

from lignite within Montana, for the reasonably 

foreseeable future.

• The number of CBNG producing wells in each 

county would be approximately 90 percent of the 

total CBNG wells projected for that county. 

• The number of CBNG dry holes would be 

approximately 10 percent of the total CBNG wells 

projected for that county. 

• A 0.5-mile gathering line would be buried from the 

CBNG well to the field compressor. The width of 

disturbance would be 15 feet. Multiple flowlines 

would be laid in the same trench from a well pad 

with more than one CBNG well. Whenever 

possible, these lines would be placed in the access 

road to the wells. This would result in 0.9 acres of 

disturbance per line. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Reasonably Foreseeable Development—Alternatives B, C, D, E, F, G, & H

MIN-15

• There would then be steel lines going from each 

gathering field compressor to the sales compressor. 

There would be 2 miles of these steel lines per 

field compressor. The width of disturbance would 

be 25 feet. This would result in 6 acres of 

disturbance per line.

• The lines would go from the sales compressor to 

the sales lines. These would be high-pressure steel 

lines. There would be no more than 60 miles of 

these high-pressure steel lines per county. The 

width of disturbance would be 25 feet. This would 

result in 3 acres of disturbance per mile of sales 

line.

• The estimates for CBNG wells did not take into 

account variations in topography, which could 

have a significant impact to actual placement and 

numbers of wells.

• The rate of development for 20 years was based on 

the industry projection of October 18, 2000. The 

projected rate is shown in Figure MIN-4. The rate 

of abandonment is presented in Figure MIN-5 for 

the expanded development alternatives and in 

Figure MIN-6 for the phased development 

alternatives.

• For purposes of planning, the State of Montana 

would consider other counties, such as Blaine, 

Gallatin, or Park, which may have coal resources. 

Conventional Wells

• Wells drilled to date in each county were taken 

from Dwights well data.

• The number of wells drilled to date was divided by 

80 years, which is an approximation of how long 

exploration has been ongoing.

− This number was multiplied by one quarter 

(.25), then multiplied by 20 years for the low 

estimate of drilling for the next 20 years.

− The number was multiplied by 20 years to 

calculate a high level of drilling for the next 

20 years.

• The wells drilled on each reservation were counted 

in the total for each county.

• The percentage of dry holes for each county is 

based on the overall historical percentage of nonproducing wells (71 percent), compared to the total 

wells drilled per county.

• The acres disturbed per well will be the same as 

shown in alternative A.

Development Potential

The development potential for CBNG and conventional 

wells for all owners is described in the text that follows.

Big Horn County

CBNG

Based on the volume of coal in these areas, Big Horn 

County could support from 2,500 to 7,000 CBNG

wells. Approximately, half of these wells (1,250 to 

3,500) would be drilled on minerals under BLM 

jurisdiction. Producing CBNG wells would range from 

2,200 to 6,300 wells. Most of the wells in Big Horn 

County would be in the southeastern portion of the 

county. There would be from 100 to 250 field 

compressors. The number of sales compressors 

estimated for Big Horn County would be from 10 to 25. 

This level of production would require gathering and 

sales lines to be constructed. From 1,450 to 4,200 miles 

of plastic, low-pressure gathering lines would be 

needed. These lines would be laid in the travel routes to 

the wells and follow the roads to the field compressors. 

From 200 to 500 miles of low-pressure steel lines 

would be laid from the field compressors to the sales 

compressors. No more than 60 miles of sales lines 

would be laid to the main transmission lines. The sales 

lines would probably go north toward the main WBI 

pipeline or south to main lines in Wyoming.

Conventional

The county has potential for 50 to 200 additional wells 

to be drilled in the next 20 years, based on historical 

drilling rates. From 3 to 15 of these wells would be 

drilled on minerals under BLM jurisdiction. 

Carbon County

CBNG

The coal in Carbon County varies from Tertiary Ft. 

Union (sub-bituminous) to the Cretaceous Eagle 

(bituminous). The Eagle coal can contain more gas per 

ton than the Ft. Union coals. Based on the coal volumes 

and gas content, 150 to 400 wells could be drilled. 

Thirty to 60 of these wells would be drilled on minerals 

under BLM jurisdiction. From 135 to 360 producing 

CBNG wells mostly would be located near the 

identified coal fields. The number of wells would 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Reasonably Foreseeable Development—Alternatives B, C, D, E, F, G, & H

MIN-16

require from five to 15 field compressors and one to 

two sales compressors. Ninety to 240 miles of plastic, 

low-pressure gathering lines would be needed. These 

lines would be laid in the travel routes to the wells and 

would follow the roads to the field compressors. Ten to 

30 miles of low-pressure steel lines would be laid from 

the field compressors to the sales compressors. There 

would be no more than 60 miles of sales lines laid to 

the main transmission lines. 

Conventional 

Based on historical drilling, it is estimated that 50 to 

200 wells would be drilled in the next 20 years. From 

10 to 40 of these wells would be drilled on minerals 

under BLM jurisdiction. Some of these would be 

wildcat wells, but the majority would probably be 

associated with the existing fields.

Carter County

CBNG

CBNG wells are not predicted to be drilled in Carter 

County because of the nonexistence of bituminous or 

sub-bituminous coals.

Conventional

Based on historical drilling rates, we anticipate 25 to 

100 wells to be drilled in the next 20 years. Ten to 40 

of these wells would be drilled on minerals under BLM 

jurisdiction.

Custer County

CBNG

Based on the estimated quantity of coal, 100 to 

300 wells will need to be drilled; of these, 90 to 

270 would be producing wells. The CBNG

development would occur in the southwestern corner of 

the county. Twenty to 70 of these wells would be 

drilled on minerals under BLM jurisdiction. This many 

wells would require from five to 10 field compressors 

and one to two sales compressors. Additional pipelines 

would have to be built. Sixty to 180 miles of plastic, 

low-pressure gathering lines would be needed. These 

lines would be laid in the travel routes to the wells and 

follow the roads to the field compressors. Ten to 

20 miles of low-pressure steel lines would be laid from 

the field compressors to the sales compressors. No 

more than 60 miles of sales lines would be laid to the 

main transmission lines. 

Conventional

Based on historical drilling rates, we estimate from 

15 to 60 wells will be drilled in the next 20 years. Five 

to 15 of these wells would need to be drilled on 

minerals under BLM jurisdiction.

Golden Valley County

CBNG

No CBNG wells are anticipated to be drilled in Golden 

Valley County.

Conventional

Based on historical drilling activity, it is anticipated 

that 10 to 30 wells would be drilled in the county over 

the next 20 years. Most of these will probably be near 

the existing fields. One or two of these wells would be 

drilled on minerals under BLM jurisdiction.

Musselshell County

CBNG

Based on the estimates of coal in the county, it is 

projected that 60 to 150 wells would be drilled, and of 

these, there would be from 50 to 140 producing wells. 

Five to 20 of these wells would be drilled on minerals 

under BLM jurisdiction. These wells would require 

from two to five in-field compressors and one sales 

compressor. No gas sales lines run through the county. 

Thirty to 100 miles of plastic, low-pressure gathering 

lines would be needed. These lines would be laid in the 

travel routes to the wells and follow the roads to the 

field compressors. Five to 10 miles of low-pressure 

steel lines would be laid from the field compressors to 

the sales compressors. No more than 60 miles of sales 

lines would be laid to the main transmission lines. 

Conventional

It is estimated that 100 to 350 wells will be drilled in 

the county in the next 20 years. Ten to 40 of these wells 

would be drilled on minerals under BLM jurisdiction.

Powder River County

CBNG

Based on the coals present in Powder River County, it 

is estimated that 2,300 to 6,700 CBNG wells could be 

drilled. From 1,150 to 3,350 of these wells would be 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Reasonably Foreseeable Development—Alternatives B, C, D, E, F, G, & H

MIN-17

drilled on minerals under BLM jurisdiction. There 

would be 2,070 to 6,030 producing CBNG wells, which 

would require 100 to 250 field compressors, and 10 to 

25 sales compressors. There is a transmission line in 

the southeastern part of the county but more pipelines 

would have to be built to gather and transport the 

potential gas that could be produced from this many 

wells. From 1,380 to 4,000 miles of plastic, lowpressure gathering lines would be needed. These lines 

would be laid in the travel routes to the wells and 

follow the roads to the field compressors. Two hundred 

to 500 miles of low-pressure steel lines would be laid 

from the field compressors to the sales compressors. 

There would be no more than 60 miles of sales lines 

laid to the main transmission lines. 

Conventional

Based on historical drilling rates, it is anticipated that 

80 to 300 conventional wells would need to be drilled 

in the county over the next 20 years. Thirty to 100 of 

these wells would be drilled on minerals under BLM 

jurisdiction.

Rosebud County

CBNG

Based on the coal estimates for Rosebud County, the 

RFD projects 1,000 to 2,800 CBNG wells will be 

drilled. From 500 to 1,400 of these wells would be 

drilled on minerals under BLM jurisdiction. There 

would be from 900 to 2,500 producing CBNG wells, 

which would require approximately 40 to 100 field 

compressors and from five to 10 sales compressors. 

From 600 to 1650 miles of plastic, low-pressure 

gathering lines would be needed. These lines would be 

laid in the travel routes to the wells and follow the 

roads to the field compressors. Eighty to 200 miles of 

low-pressure steel lines would be laid from the field 

compressors to the sales compressors, and there would 

be no more than 60 miles of sales lines laid to the main 

transmission lines. There is one gas sales line that runs 

through the county south of Forsyth. The CBNG

development would occur in the southern and eastern 

half of the county.

Conventional

Based on historical drilling rates in the county, the RFD 

projects 50 to 300 wells to be drilled over the next 

20 years. Five to 50 of these wells would be drilled on 

minerals under BLM jurisdiction.

Stillwater County

CBNG

The RFD projects 300 to 700 CBNG wells to be drilled 

in the county. Fifteen to 35 of these wells would be 

drilled on minerals under BLM jurisdiction. These 

would most likely be drilled in the vicinity of the 

existing coal field. From 270 to 630 would be 

producing CBNG wells. This would require 10 to 

25 field compressors and one to three sales 

compressors. One hundred and eighty to 420 miles of 

plastic, low-pressure gathering lines would be needed. 

These lines would be laid in the travel routes to the 

wells and follow the roads to the field compressors. 

Twenty to 50 miles of low-pressure steel lines would be 

laid from the field compressors to the sales 

compressors. No more than 30 miles of sales lines 

would be laid to the main transmission lines.

Conventional

Based on historical drilling rates, the RFD projects 

25 to 100 conventional wells will be drilled in the next 

20 years. Two to 5 of these wells would be drilled on 

minerals under BLM jurisdiction.

Sweet Grass County

CBNG

There are no known coal reserves in the county and 

therefore, no CBNG wells are anticipated for Sweet 

Grass County. 

Conventional

Based on historical drilling rates, the RFD projects that

five to 20 conventional wells will be drilled in the next 

20 years. Up to 1 of these wells would be drilled on 

minerals under BLM jurisdiction.

Treasure County

CBNG

Based on the estimated coal volume in this county, the 

RFD projects that 10 to 25 CBNG wells could be 

drilled. One to 2 of these wells would be drilled on 

minerals under BLM jurisdiction. There would be eight 

to 22 producing CBNG wells, which would require 1 to 

2 in-field compressors and 1 sales compressor. Five to 

15 miles of plastic, low-pressure gathering lines would 

be needed. These lines would be laid in the travel 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Reasonably Foreseeable Development—Alternatives B, C, D, E, F, G, & H

MIN-18

routes to the wells and would follow the roads to the 

field compressors. One to 2 miles of low-pressure steel 

lines would be laid from the field compressors to the 

sales compressors. No more than 10 miles of sales lines 

would be laid to the main transmission lines. 

Conventional

Based on historical drilling rates, the RFD projects one 

to 10 conventional wells will be drilled in the next 

20 years. None of these wells would be drilled on 

minerals under BLM jurisdiction.

Wheatland County

CBNG

No CBNG wells are projected to be drilled in 

Wheatland County.

Conventional

Based on historical drilling rates, the RFD projects five 

to 15 conventional wells will be drilled in the next 

20 years. None of these wells would be drilled on 

minerals under BLM jurisdiction.

Yellowstone County

CBNG

Based on the identified coal, there could be from 50 to 

150 CBNG wells drilled in the next 20 years. One to 

10 of these wells would be drilled on minerals under 

BLM jurisdiction. There would be 40 to 140 producing 

CBNG wells in the county, which would require from 

two to five field compressors and one sales compressor. 

Twenty five to 90 miles of plastic, low-pressure 

gathering lines would be needed. These lines would be 

laid in the travel routes to the wells and would follow 

the roads to the field compressors. Five to 10 miles of 

low-pressure steel lines would be laid from the field 

compressors to the sales compressors. No more than 10 

miles of sales lines would be laid to the main 

transmission lines. 

Conventional

Based on historical drilling in the county, there could 

be from 25 to 100 wells drilled in the county in the next 

20 years. None of these wells would be drilled on 

minerals under BLM jurisdiction.

RFD Conclusion 

CBNG

During the life of the plan, it is estimated that the 

number of CBNG wells that may be drilled throughout 

the Powder River and Billings RMP Planning Areas

would range from a low of 6,470 to a high of 18,225—

of which 2,975 to 8,450 would be drilled on BLMadministered minerals. There would be from 5,800 to 

16,400 producing CBNG wells, of which 2,500 to 

7,500 would be BLM administered. For a graphical 

presentation of these predictions, refer to Map 4-1 in 

Chapter 4 of this EIS. Table MIN-1 at the end of this 

section presents the RFD Expanded Development 

Scenario in numerical form.

These wells would require 250 to 700 field 

compressors, and 25 to 70 sales compressors. From 

3,900 to 11,200 miles of plastic, low-pressure gathering 

lines would be needed. These lines would be laid in the 

travel routes to the wells and would follow the roads to 

the field compressors. Five hundred to 1,400 miles of 

low-pressure steel lines would be laid from the field 

compressors to the sales compressors, and 

approximately 480 miles of sales lines would be laid to 

the main transmission lines. This would result in 

22,500 to 74,000 acres of disturbance. 

Powder River RMP Area

During the next 20 years, it is estimated that the 

number of CBNG wells that may be drilled throughout 

the Powder River RMP area, would range from a low 

of 5,400 to a high of 15,600. The number of wells 

drilled each year would range from 200 to 1,100. There 

also would be 4,800 to 13,400 producing CBNG wells, 

which would require 200 to 550 field compressors and 

20 to 55 sales compressors. From 3,200 to 8,900 miles 

of plastic, low-pressure gathering lines would be 

needed. These lines would be laid in the travel routes to 

the wells and would follow the roads to the field 

compressors. From 400 to 1,100 miles of low-pressure 

steel lines would be laid from the field compressors to 

the sales compressors. Approximately 290 miles of 

sales lines would be laid to the main transmission lines. 

This would result in 24,400 to 73,600 acres of 

disturbance. 

Billings RMP Area

During the next 20 years, it is estimated that the 

number of CBNG wells that may be drilled throughout 

the Billings RMP area, would range from 1,100 to 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Reasonably Foreseeable Development—Alternatives B, C, D, E, F, G, & H

MIN-19

2,600. There would be 100 to 2,350 producing CBNG

wells, which would require 5 to 100 field compressors 

and 1 to 10 sales compressors. One hundred to 1,600 

miles of plastic, low-pressure gathering lines needed. 

These lines would be laid in the travel routes to the 

wells and would follow the roads to the field 

compressors. From 10 to 200 miles of low-pressure 

steel lines would be laid from the field compressors to 

the sales compressors. Approximately 170 miles of 

sales lines would be laid to the main transmission lines. 

This would result in 350 to 18,400 acres of disturbance. 

Conventional Oil and Gas

Based on the assumptions listed at the beginning of this 

section, the number of conventional oil and gas wells 

that could be drilled would range from 450 to 1,775. 

The number of wells drilled each year would range 

from two to seven in each of the 13 counties if the wells 

were distributed equally among the counties. No 

estimates of disturbance were made for conventional 

wells.

Powder River RMP Area

The RFD estimates that 200 to 800 conventional wells 

would be drilled in the next 20 years in the Powder 

River RMP area. Seventy to 300 of these wells would 

be drilled on minerals under BLM jurisdiction. Most of 

these wells would be drilled in or near the existing 

fields.

Billings RMP Area

The RFD estimates that 250 to 975 conventional wells 

would be drilled in the next 20 years in the Billings 

RMP area. Twenty-five to 100 of these wells would be 

drilled on minerals under BLM jurisdiction. Most of 

these wells would be drilled in or near the existing 

fields.

Reasonably Foreseeable 

Future Actions—

Alternatives B, C, D, E, F, G, 

and H

The RFFA predictions for Alternative B, C, D, E, F, G

and H were developed using the same general 

assumptions as the RFD. However, the coal tonnages 

for the Indian reservations are based on the thickest 

coals (coals over 20 feet thick).

Development Potential

The development potential for CBNG and conventional 

wells for all owners on the Crow Reservation, Northern 

Cheyenne Reservation and the Custer National Forest is 

described in the text that follows.

Ashland District, U.S. Forest 

Service

CBNG

Coal resources are primarily concentrated in the 

southern portion of the district. Otter Creek and the 

Tongue River drainages have eroded or exposed many 

of the coal zones. Based on the coal resources, the 

RFFA predicts that approximately 200 wells may be 

drilled over 20 years. This would result in 

approximately 400 acres of long-term disturbance.

Crow Reservation

CBNG

Based on the identified coal resources within the 

reservation, 1,400 to 4,000 CBNG wells could be 

drilled; of these, 1,300 to 3,600 would be producing 

wells. The wells would probably be located in the 

eastern portion of the Crow Reservation. This would 

require from 50 to 150 field compressors and from five 

to 15 sales compressors. Eight hundred to 2,400 miles 

of plastic, low-pressure gathering lines would be 

needed. These lines would be laid in the travel routes to 

the wells and would follow the roads to the field 

compressors. One hundred to 300 miles of low-pressure 

steel lines would be laid from the field compressors to 

the sales compressors. No more than 60 miles of sales 

lines would be laid to the main transmission lines. This 

would result in 7,000 to 12,000 acres of disturbance.

Conventional

Based on historical drilling rates, 10 to 50 conventional 

wells could be drilled in the next 20 years.

Northern Cheyenne Reservation

CBNG

Based on coal resources, 1,400 to 4,000 CBNG wells 

could be drilled on the reservation; of these, there 

would be 1,300 to 3,600 producing wells. The wells 

would most likely be located along the southern 

boarder of the reservation and extend from the western 

to the eastern boundaries. This would require 50 to 150 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Reasonably Foreseeable Development—Alternatives B, C, D, E, F, G, & H

MIN-20

field compressors, and from five to 15 sales 

compressors. Eight hundred to 2,400 miles of plastic, 

low-pressure gathering lines would be needed. These 

lines would be laid in the travel routes to the wells and 

would follow the roads to the field compressors. From 

100 to 300 miles of low-pressure steel lines would be 

laid from the field compressors to the sales 

compressors. There would be no more than 60 miles of 

sales lines laid to the main transmission lines. This 

would result in 7,000 to 12,000 acres of disturbance. 

Conventional

Based on historical drilling rates, one to five 

conventional wells could be drilled on the reservation 

in the next 20 years.
MIN-21
Reasonably Foreseeable Development

MINERALS APPENDIX

—Alternatives B, C, D, E, F, G, & H

MIN-22

Figure MIN-4

Rate of Development

CBNG wells

02468

10

12

14

123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Year

Percent of Total

APD Annual Limit Set at 5% 

of the Projected Wells for 

Alternatives F and G
MINERALS APPENDIX

Reasonably Foreseeable Development—Alternatives B, C, D, E, 

F, G, & H

MIN-23

Figure MIN-5

Rate of Abandonment of CBNG Wells

Alternatives B, C, D, and E

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Year of Development

Percentage of Total

1) Wells will be drilled over a 20 year period.

2) Wells may have a productive life of 20 years.

3) A well drilled in the 20th year with a productive life of 20 years would be plugged in the 40th year.

4) Initially (years 1-5) some wells will be P&A (1%-2%) while defining the productive areas this accounts for increased dry holes.

5) During years 6-10 most of the wells drilled will be productive.

6) After 10 years some wells will start to be P&A due to declining production.

7) The majority of the abandonment will occur in the last few years, as field production declines to uneconomic.

8) After 40 years all wells will be P&A.
Reasonably Foreseeable Development

MINERALS APPENDIX

—Alternatives B, C, D, E, F, G, & H

MIN-24

Figure MIN-6 

Rate of Abandonment of CBNG Wells 

Alternatives F & G

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

147 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43

Year of Development

Percentage of 

Total
MIN-25

MINERALS APPENDIX

Reasonably Foreseeable Development—Alternatives B, C, D, E, 

F, G, & H

TABLE MIN-1

RFD/RFFA NUMERICAL PREDICTIONS FOR EXPANDED CBNG DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO

Total Drilled Production Dry Holes/Exploration

Acreage Overlying 

Coal Occurrences 

County Expanded State BLM Expanded State BLM Expanded State BLM Acres

Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD)

Big Horn 7,000 3,500 3,500 6,300 3,150 3,150 700 350 350 524,738

Carbon 400 320 80 360 288 72 40 32 8 448,000

Carter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Custer 300 230 70 270 207 63 30 23 7 418,000

Golden Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Musselshell 150 130 20 135 117 18 15 13 2 764,000

Powder River 6,700 3,350 3,350 6,030 3,015 3,015 670 335 335 713,500

Rosebud 2,800 1,400 1,400 2,520 1,260 1,260 280 140 140 1,005,500

Stillwater 700 665 35 630 599 32 70 67 4 65,500

Sweetgrass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Treasure 25 24 1 23 22 1 3 2 0 153,500

Wheatland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Yellowstone 150 140 10 135 126 9 15 14 1 678,000

Total RFD 18,225 9,759 8,466 16,401 8,782 7,619 1,821 975 847 4,770,738
MIN-26

Reasonably Foreseeable DevelopmentMINERALS APPENDIX

—Alternatives B, C, D, E, 

F, G, & H

TABLE MIN-1

RFD/RFFA NUMERICAL PREDICTIONS FOR EXPANDED CBNG DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO

Total Drilled Production Dry Holes/Exploration

Acreage Overlying 

Coal Occurrences 

County Expanded State BLM Expanded State BLM Expanded State BLM Acres

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (RFFA)

Northern Cheyenne 4,000 0 0 3,600 0 0 400 0 0 445,000

Crow 4,000 0 0 3,600 0 0 400 0 0 332,000

Forest Service 200 0 0 180 0 0 20 0 0 501,500

Total RFFA 8,200 0 0 7,380 0 0 820 0 0 1,278,500

Total RFD and RFFA 26,425 9,759 8,466 23,781 8,782 7,619 2,641 975 847 6,049,238

Powder River RMP 15,635 7,899 7,716 14,071 7,109 6,944 1,563 790 772 2,726,033

Billings RMP 2,590 1,860 750 2,330 1,673 675 258 185 75 2,044,705

RFD Totals 18,225 9,759 8,466 16,401 8,782 7,619 1,821 975 847 4,770,738

Big Horn County Drilled Production Dry Holes

Powder River RMP 83.00% 5810 5229 581

Billings RMP 17.00% 1190 1071 119

Note: Percentages indicate portion of Big Horn county overlying known coal occurrence within each RMP excluding the Crow Reservation lands.

Note: The adjustment of numbers in Table MIN-1 is due to the SEIS Planning Area consisting of the Billings and Powder River RMP Areas which do not include Park, Gallatin, 

and Blaine Counties which were included in the 2003 Statewide FEIS.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Cumulative Projects Evaluated

MIN-27

CUMULATIVE PROJECTS EVALUATED

Compliance with the National Environmental 

Protection Act (NEPA) requires analysis of cumulative 

effects for each alternative. Cumulative effects on the 

environment are those that result from the incremental 

impacts of an alternative when added to the other past, 

present and reasonably anticipated future actions, 

regardless of who undertakes those actions. In 

analyzing cumulative effects from this project, it will be 

important to understand the incremental impacts from 

other past, present, and future actions planned for the 

RMP areas. However, not every project can be 

included in the analysis or the result could become 

cumbersome; thus, providing decision makers with 

extraneous information. Therefore, the importance of 

scoping cannot be overstressed because it provides the 

initial opportunity to identify boundaries for a 

meaningful analysis. The cumulative effects study 

approach is defined by discussing the Study Area 

Delineation (spatial boundary); past, present, and future 

projects that meet a minimum criteria of magnitude as 

to add to the cumulative effect and time frame for the 

analysis and is discussed in the conclusions section of 

each alternative.

Study Area Delineation

The planning area for BLM is the Billings RMP area 

(10,791,964 acres) and the Powder River RMP area 

(8,567,125 acres). Acre estimates are for all land within 

the RMP’s regardless of ownership, federal, state or 

private. 

The planning area proposed for the supplemental

environmental impact statement (SEIS) RMP is 

exceptionally large and limits the type of analyses that 

can be included in the subject analysis. It is important 

to note that the objective of the cumulative analysis is 

not to perform the perfect analysis, but to select 

projects that would be appropriate to the subject 

analysis and aid in the selection of a preferred 

alternative. With this in mind, the objective is not to 

make an attempt to choose all projects throughout the 

entire state of Montana that might add to the 

cumulative effect of the BLM’s action. This extreme is 

simply not practical; however, if the thought is more 

focused, cumulative impact analysis could be chosen on 

a practical level. Cumulative impacts that might affect 

other resources are not considered as regionally 

extensive, the projects/activities to consider may be 

different. For example, groundwater impacts would be 

limited to the general area of CBNG production. This 

would also be the case with soils, agriculture and 

grazing, cultural and paleontological resources, 

geology and minerals, Indian trust assets, 

socioeconomics, and others. Other than air quality 

related impacts (including visual) and surface and 

ground water influences from Wyoming CBNG

development, BLM believes the proposed study area is 

appropriate for this plan and is consistent with other 

BLM plans. Using this approach, combined with the 

general knowledge of the area, consideration of a study 

area that is essentially the Powder River Basin is 

appropriate. We are, however, limited to some extent in 

what can be considered and must strive to choose those 

areas and projects and activities that are truly 

applicable to the process. 

As such, the cumulative analysis for this SEIS will 

emphasize impacts from oil and gas industry-related 

projects within the project study area and appropriate 

adjacent areas, depending on the resource being 

analyzed. The cumulative analysis also considered 

impacts from the largest foreseeable non-oil and gas 

industry developments. Activities and projects of 

sufficient magnitude that may result in cumulative 

impacts to the environment include natural gas and oil 

production; surface coal mining; railroads; highways; 

water storage reservoirs; power plants; potential 

wildfires; and effects from CBNG development in 

Wyoming, the Ashland Ranger District and on the 

Crow and Northern Cheyenne reservations. Map 

MIN-2 indicates the locations of projects included in 

the cumulative effects analysis. 

A discussion of each project or type included in the 

cumulative effects analysis follows.

Natural Gas and Oil Production

Impacts from conventional natural gas and oil 

production are addressed in the Impacts from

Management Common to All Alternatives discussion 

under the individual resource topic section of the 

Impacts From Management Specific to Each Resource 

and Alternative. The impacts from conventional oil and 

gas development are consistent with the BLM’s 1994 

Final Oil and Gas EIS RMP Plan Amendment to the 

Billings, Powder River, and South Dakota RMPs, and 

the state’s 1989 Oil and Gas Drilling and Production 

in Montana Final EIS. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Cumulative Projects Evaluated

MIN-28
MINERALS APPENDIX

Cumulative Projects Evaluated

MIN-29

Surface Coal Mining

Several mines are present in and around the CBNG

planning area. They include operating mines, mines 

undergoing expansion, reclamation of older mines, and 

future planned mines. Mines that are generally located 

within the Powder River Basin and have a potential to 

add to the cumulative impact include the Spring Creek, 

Decker, Big Sky, Rosebud, and Absaloka. These mines 

are located in three general areas: the Spring Creek and 

Decker mines are in southeast portion of Big Horn 

County just east of the Crow Reservation; the Absaloka 

mine is located just outside the northeastern corner of 

the Crow Reservation in Big Horn County; and the 

Rosebud and Big Sky mines are located near Colstrip, 

Montana, just north of the Northern Cheyenne 

Reservation. Table MIN-2 shows the annual production 

(2004) of each mine in the planning area along with 

environmental data for permitted acres, disturbed acres, 

and backfilled and re-topsoiled acres.

In addition to the quantities identified in the 

Table MIN-2, the BLM has been conducting a coal 

screening to identify additional lands that may be 

suitable for leasing over the next 20 years. Currently,

the study has identified lands immediately adjacent to 

the existing mines. These newly-identified potential 

lease areas amount to approximately 16,000 acres. 

Approximately 41,810 acres remain to be disturbed by 

mining operations during the next 20 years. This 

estimate is based on current activities and foreseen 

future developments.

Based on the analysis conducted for this study, it is 

estimated that the current (2003) production of 36.1 

mmtpy of coal in the Montana PRB study area would 

increase to 56.0 mmtpy under the lower production 

scenario and to 83.0 mmtpy under the upper production 

scenario by 2020. Production at currently operating 

mines is projected to continue throughout the study 

period. In addition, three potential new developments 

(i.e., P&M Ash Creek Mine, Otter Creek Mine, and

Kinsey Mine) have been identified in the Montana PRB 

study area. Under the lower production scenario, it is 

projected that production at the P&M Ash Creek Mine 

would be initiated by 2010; the Otter Creek and Kinsey 

mines would not be developed. Under the upper 

production scenario, it is projected that production 

would be initiated by 2010 at both the Otter Creek and 

P&M Ash Creek mines and by 2015 at the Kinsey 

Mine. Development of these mines would be dependent 

on markets for the coal and may be tied to development 

of infrastructure including the Tongue River Railroad 

and/or power plants. It is assumed that development of 

the Otter Creek Mine would require construction of 

Tongue River Rail Company’s (TRRC’s) proposed 

Tongue River Railroad and a power plant near Miles 

City, Montana. However, at this time, no application 

has been filed for a new power plant at this location. It 

is assumed that the Kinsey Mine would be developed in 

response to construction of a mine-mouth power plant; 

however, an application for a new power plant at this 

location has not been filed at this time.

Surface water quality within the vicinity of the coal 

mines is impacted by increased sediment load resulting 

from increased erosion during mining. This is mitigated 

by the use of sediment settling ponds and the vegetating 

of overburden and topsoil storage areas. The discharge 

of groundwater pumped from mine pits may also affect 

surface water depending on the quality of groundwater 

within the mine vicinity and the quantity of 

groundwater discharged. Much of the groundwater 

pumped from the mine pits is stored and used to control 

dust on roads, truck and train car loading areas, and the 

mine face. In some instances, mining activities require 

the diversion of streams or drainage areas that are 

within the area to be mined. Approximate original 

topography, including stream channels and drainage 

areas, are restored during mine reclamation activities. 

All mines are required to monitor their discharges and 

obtain Montana Pollution Discharge Elimination 

System permits. The majority of discharges are related 

to storm responses with the exception of the Decker 

mines, which has a permit for a regular discharge of 4.5 

cubic feet per second into the Tongue River. 

Impacts to groundwater resources resulting from 

surface coal mine activities are usually related to 

drawdown and quality issues from backfilled spoils. 

Coal beds are among the most dependable and utilized 

aquifers in
MINERALS APPENDIX

Cumulative Projects Evaluated

MIN-30

TABLE MIN-2

SURFACE MINES WITHIN THE CBNG PLANNING AREA

Mine

Annual 

Production 2004

(Short Tons)1

Permitted 

Surface Acres

Disturbed 

Acres

Backfilled and 

Re-topsoiled 

Acres

Spring Creek 12,068,328 6,700 3,000 550

Decker (North/West and East) 8,241,467 11,400 6,921 1,966

Big Sky (Area A&B) 2,850,000 8,100 3,600 2,600

Rosebud (Areas A, B, C, D, and E) 12,664,823 26,400 15,255 6,969

Absaloka 6,474,339 5,400 3,714 2,563

Total 42,298,957 58,300 32,490 14,648

Note: This table shows the cumulative disturbances and reclamation efforts associated with each of the surface mining operations within the 

CBNG planning area. 1

Energy Information Administration, Annual Coal Report, 2004, DOE/EIA-0584(2004) (Washington, DC, September 2005).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table9.html

eastern Montana, because of their fracture-related 

transmissivity and lateral continuity. Adjacent portions 

of these aquifers discharge water into the mining pit, 

which requires that it be pumped-off resulting in the 

lowering of the water levels within aquifers adjacent to 

the mine. The area affected and the distance from the 

mine affected depends on the particular aquifer 

characteristics of the area, presence of faults, rates of 

surface water and precipitation recharge, and other 

factors, and will vary depending on the location of the 

mine. Groundwater wells, springs, and surface streams 

within the area can be impacted by the lowered water 

levels. Those located nearest the mine experience the 

greatest impact. In the mining areas near Colstrip and 

Decker, coal aquifers have shown drawdown as much 

as 75 feet and a radius of impact up to 4 miles 

(Wheaton and Metesh 2001). The resulting total area of 

groundwater impact from coal mines is calculated to be 

366,000 acres. The rate at which water levels recover 

varies between mining regions, but normally requires 

more than 20 years (Wheaton and Van Voast 1998). 

Overburden replaced in the mine pits during 

reclamation is approximately inverted from its original 

orientation. The mineral content of these near-surface 

unsaturated and weathered rock layers used in typical 

overburden affect the groundwater quality within the 

area of the reclaimed mines. The resulting poor water 

quality is present for many years after mining is 

completed. Elevated levels of sodium, magnesium, 

calcium, bicarbonate, chlorides, and sulfates are 

possible, as well as increased total dissolved solids 

(TDS). Dissolution of these salts causes increases in 

TDS concentrations in the spoils aquifers that have 

been observed at levels 50 percent to 200 percent 

greater than the adjacent bedrock aquifers (Wheaton 

and Van Voast 1998). With time, some sites return to 

pre-mining quality; however, the impacts to water 

quality may be everlasting at other sites where soluble 

salts are continuously generated by weathering and 

oxidation. 

Coal Mine Impacts on Air Quality 

Coal mines have an effect on air quality within the 

region surrounding the surface operations. Air pollutant 

emissions data are available for five surface coal mines 

within the planning area; three are in Big Horn County 

(Absaloka, Spring Creek, and Decker mines), and two 

are in Rosebud County (Big Sky and Rosebud mines). 

Table MIN-3 shows the average air pollutant emissions 

from the mines within the planning area. Volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) shown in the table would 

also include any fugitive methane vented from the 

mines. Future impacts also would be realized from 

opening new mines, expanding existing mines, and 

installing power generation plants at existing coal 

mines. Wyoming mines would also have an effect on 

Montana’s air quality. Emission sources for these mines 

as considered in the air quality model have been 

included in the Air Model Appendix.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Cumulative Projects Evaluated

MIN-31

TABLE MIN-3

AVERAGE AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM SURFACE MINES WITHIN THE PLANNING 

AREA (TONS/YEAR)

Source PM101 CO2 NO2

3 SO24 VOCs5

Existing Coal Mines (5)—Avg/Mine 412.1 323.4 290.2 56.5 18.8

Notes: This table summarizes the impacts to air quality from surface mining sources within the planning area (MDEQ—1999 Air Quality 

Monitoring Data). Values were obtained from 1999 Toxic Release Inventory for the State of Montana.

1PM10—Particulate matter that is less than or equal to 10 microns in size.

2CO—Carbon monoxide

3NO2—Nitrous oxides

4SO2—Sulfur dioxide

5VOCs—Volatile organic compounds

Highways

There are no current proposals for new highways within 

the CBNG planning area. It is assumed that several 

secondary highways, state routes, and county roads will 

undergo some form of repair, resurfacing, widening, or 

extension during the course of CBNG development. 

Currently, a list of proposed road improvements within 

the CBNG planning area is not available for analysis 

and quantification. These activities, however, would 

subject the adjacent lands to impacts associated with 

linear construction and surface disturbances. For the 

purposes of this analysis, we are assuming that 250 

miles of existing road would be improved over the next 

20 years.

Water Storage Reservoirs

The Tongue River flows about 100 miles from its 

headwaters in Wyoming’s Bighorn Mountains to the 

Tongue River Reservoir. The reservoir is 

approximately 8 miles long and 1 mile wide, with an 

average depth of 20 feet, and was completed in 1940. 

Water leaving the north end of the reservoir flows 

about 190 miles, northeasterly, until it reaches its 

confluence with the Yellowstone River at Miles City. 

The reservoir was enlarged in 1999, at the request of 

the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation 

(DNRC), Northern Cheyenne Tribe, and the U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation. The enlargement included the 

reconstruction of the dam and disturbance of 157 acres. 

The disturbance included aggregate mining, roads, 

staging areas, and railroad layout areas, some of which 

have been reclaimed. As a result of the enlargement, 

the reservoir capacity was increased by 13,000 acrefeet, the surface water level raised by 4 feet, and the 

surface area expanded by some 400 acres to nearly 

3,615 acres.

Power Generation Plants

Five existing power generation plants are located 

within the CBNG planning area, and all are coal-fired. 

Four are located in Rosebud County near the coal mine 

area and one is located in Billings. The resource area 

most affected by the burning of coal to produce

electrical power is air quality. Air quality data from all 

five power generation plants are available. Table MIN4 summarizes the impacts to air quality from these 

plants within the planning area, according to the 

MDEQ 1999 Air Quality Monitoring Data.

Hardin Generating Station

The Hardin Generating Station has been permitted, 

constructed, and is operating as a direct combustion 

facility. The 116-megawatt coal-fired plant was 

retrofitted into an existing manufacturing facility, 

resulting in reduced surface disturbances and no new 

power lines were needed to move the power. The air 

quality permit was issued to Rocky Mountain Power for 

the Hardin Generating Station, however, the project 

ownership has changed hands, and is now backed by 

MDU Resources Group, an affiliate of the MontanaDakota Utilities. The permit was issued by the Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality in December 

2004.

Coal to fuel the plants comes from the nearby Absaloka 

coal mine operated by Westmoreland. The power plant 

will burn an estimated 650,000 tons annually. The 

electricity was contracted by a subsidiary of BC Hydro 

of Vancouver, British Columbia, the third-largest 

electrical utility in Canada. 
MINERAL APPENDIX

Cumulative Projects Evaluated

MIN-32

A good source of water comes from the Bighorn River 

which flows nearby but there is zero discharge of water 

back into the river as the plant was designed with a 

closed internal system. The Hardin project is the first 

plant in the state to install technology to control 

mercury emissions and will be "state of the art” in 

pollution control. The technology the plant employs 

will be a test site for mercury controls during its first 

three years of operation. Before the three-year period 

expires, the company must install a technology known 

as activated carbon injection or a similar technology 

approved by the Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

Additional information regarding the Hardin 

Generating Station, such as estimated emission levels, 

is available in the Air Quality appendix.

Roundup Power Plant

Another power plant project considered in the air 

quality analysis is the Roundup project proposed by the 

Bull Mountain Development Company, No. 1, LLC 

(Bull Mountain). They propose to build a coal-fired

electricity generation plant, called the Roundup Power 

Project, and related facilities on a 208-acre site about 

13 miles south-southeast of Roundup, Montana, in 

Musselshell County. The plant would consist of two 

steam turbine generating units each burning pulverized 

coal. The nominal generation capacity would be 780 

megawatts.

The boilers would be fueled with coal from the nearby 

Bull Mountain Mine. Coal would be transported from 

the mine to the power plant via a 4,000- foot-long 

conveyor. Power generated by the plant would be 

transmitted via a 28.2- mile 161kV transmission 

system, consisting of three circuits, to the Broadview 

Substation. Boiler water would be supplied by wells 

drilled into the Madison Formation.

In January, 2003, the DEQ issued a Clean Air Act 

permit to Bull Mountain Development Corp. for this 

new plant. However, on July 13, 2005, the DEQ 

informed Bull Mountain Development Corp. that their 

air quality permit had expired and a new one must be 

obtained before construction of the power plants can 

proceed. The DEQ has offered to extend the permit, if 

the corporation agrees to additional stipulations for 

toxic air emissions.

A coal-fired power plant proposed for east of Great 

Falls by Southern Montana Electric Generation and 

Transmission Cooperative received a draft air-quality 

permit from the DEQ. The city of Great Falls joined 

five rural electric cooperatives in proposing the 

Highwood Generating Station. The technology planned 

at the Highwood plant is called circulating fluidized 

bed combustion. The new technology produces less 

mercury, sulfur dioxide and other toxic emissions. The 

plant would generate 250 megawatts and is scheduled 

to be built by 2008 on a site 8 miles east on the south 

side of the Missouri River. The plant will burn

approximately 1,100,000 tons of coal yearly.

Other power plants maybe envisioned due to the 

electrical industry’s deregulation and the increased 

demand nation wide. Some of these plants may find it 

advantageous to locate in Montana near a source of 

coal or natural gas; however, no new plants were 

presented to the DEQ for permitting at the time of the 

2003 Statewide FEIS.

Wildfires

The BLM Fire Management Program suppresses 

wildfires and uses prescribed fires to achieve land 

management objectives. Nationally, 63 percent of 

wildfires are caused by lighting and the remaining 

37 percent by human activities. The average wildfire 

consumes approximately 370 acres, but the acreage can 

more than double in severe years that have drought, 

high winds, or above normal lightning.

Prescribed fires are carefully planned to remove old, 

woody vegetation, prepare areas for reseeding, or 

reduce the natural accumulation of dead vegetation. 

They make room for growth of more nourishing forage 

for livestock and wildlife, and are often designed to 

burn a mosaic pattern, leaving patches to serve as cover 

for some wildlife species. The average prescribed fire 

covers 150 acres of land. Based on previous RMPs, it is

estimated that 25 wildfires would occur per year in the 

planning area. The fires would range in size from 

1/4 acre to 1,000 acres. Surface disturbances caused

from fire lines would average 3 acres per fire or a total 

of 75 acres per year.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Cumulative Projects Evaluated

MIN-33

TABLE MIN-4

AVERAGE AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM FIVE MAJOR SOURCES WITHIN THE PLANNING

AREA

(TONS/YEAR)

Source PM101 CO2 NO2

3 SO24 VOCs5

Existing Power Plants (5)—Avg/Plant 1534.1 578.9 7977.1 5339.4 69.8

Note: Values were obtained from the EPA Critical Air Pollutants 2001 for the State of Montana.

http://www.epa.gov/air/data/emcatbar.html?st~MT~Montana

1PM10—Particulate matter that is less than or equal to 10 microns in size

2CO—Carbon monoxide

3NO2—Nitrous oxides

4SO2—Sulfur dioxide

5VOCs—Volatile organic compounds

Wyoming CBNG Production

CBNG production in Wyoming is concentrated in the 

Powder River Basin. CBNG resources of the Powder 

River Basin are more extensively developed in 

Wyoming than in Montana. Most of the surface area of 

the basin is located in Wyoming, with 92 percent of the 

coal volume located in the Powder River basin lying 

within Wyoming (Ellis et al., 1999a). The CBNG

development in Wyoming has the potential to impact 

water resources in Montana through the drawdown of 

groundwater within coal seam aquifers that extend from 

Wyoming north into Montana and by the discharge of 

CBNG-produced waters in Wyoming to surface waters 

that flow north into Montana. The potential magnitude 

of the impact to Montana water resources from 

Wyoming CBNG production is tied to the RFD of 

CBNG in Wyoming. Projections for the RFD of CBNG

in the Wyoming portion of the Powder River basin 

adjacent to Montana have been the subject of recent 

BLM reports. 

CBNG development in Wyoming has the potential to 

cause substantial impacts in Montana to surface water 

quality and groundwater resources. The Wyoming DEQ 

and the Montana DEQ have adopted an interim 

memorandum of cooperation on limiting discharge to 

watersheds that extend into Montana, the probability of 

future agreements is tentative. 

The Coalbed Methane Project Final EIS (Wyodak EIS)

(BLM 1999b) projected 6,000 CBNG wells in the 

Buffalo Field Office Area. The water model, done as 

part of the EIS, estimated an average production rate of 

12 gpm per CBNG well. This level of development was 

estimated to result in an increase of approximately 

1.1 percent (452 cfs to 457 cfs) in the average flow 

volume of the Powder River at Moorhead, Montana 

(BLM 1999b), and an increase of approximately 

50 percent (22 cfs to 33 cfs) in the average flow 

volume in the Little Powder River at the Weston 

station, which is located approximately 20 miles south 

of the Wyoming/Montana border. These increases are 

based on yearly averages. However, during low-flow 

periods, the Powder River flow volume could be 

increased by more than 800 percent as a result of the 

discharge of CBNG-produced waters. Flow volumes in 

the Little Powder River would consist entirely of 

discharged CBNG-produced waters (BLM 2001b). 

The quality of CBNG produced water from individual 

wells in the Wyoming portion of the PRB shows 

considerable variability (Rice et al, 2000); water quality

parameters such as SAR vary from approximately 5 to 

over 30 and TDS varies from approximately 250 

million gallons per liter (mg/L) to more than 2000 

mg/L. Watershed averages in Wyoming also show 

variation (BLM, 1999b.); water quality parameters such 

as SAR vary from an average of 17 in the Powder River 

Watershed to 9 in the Little Powder River watershed. 

As CBNG development continues in Wyoming, these 

average water quality parameter values may change. 

Surface water quality would be affected by CBNG

water discharge, with yearly average SAR values 

increasing from 4.0 to 4.1 in the Powder River and 

from 6.0 to 7.5 in the Little Powder River. Impact to 

the quality of water within the Powder River during 

low-flow periods is expected to increase water quality 

concentrations for compounds common to CBNG

produced water, including increases in the SAR from 

values that could be as low as 1 up to approximately 

17. During low-flow periods in the Little Powder River, 

SAR is expected to increase from approximately 6.5 to 

an estimated value of approximately 9. The Wyoming 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Cumulative Projects Evaluated

MIN-34

EIS (BLM, 1999b.) did not address potential impacts to 

the Tongue River from discharge of CBNG-produced 

waters within Wyoming. However, it is expected that 

impacts of similar magnitude to those predicted for the 

Powder and Little Powder could occur.

Following the release of the Wyodak EIS (BLM 

1999b), the BLM has reassessed the RFD for the 

Wyoming portion of the Powder River Basin and has 

issued a new RFD (BLM 2001a). This more recent 

reasonably foreseeable development study by the BLM 

indicates that the total number of CBNG wells in the 

Wyoming portion of the Powder River Basin may 

approach 50,000 wells (BLM 2001a). This level of 

development represents an increase of more than 

8 times the number of CBNG wells included in the 

1999 Wyodak EIS, and if realized, could have a 

corresponding increase in impact on the quantity and 

quality of surface water in Montana's Powder River 

Basin watersheds in terms of annual average measures 

and especially during periods of low-flow or base-flow. 

However, actual impacts will be dependant upon the

manner in which discharges are managed with respect 

to CBNG development in Wyoming.

Rivers within the Wyoming portion of the PRB show 

considerable seasonal variation in terms of flow volume 

and water quality. The flow volume in the Powder 

River ranges from a maximum of 1,400 cubic feet per 

second (cfs) to a minimum of 0.5 cfs. Water quality 

also varies because flow volume contains varying 

amounts of meteoric water added to the base-flow 

contributed by groundwater. If CBNG water discharge 

rates are essentially constant throughout the year, 

resultant flows in the river would vary depending upon 

the ratio of CBNG discharge to natural river flow. 

Impacts to the Powder River would include a 9 percent 

increase in the annual average flow volume (450 cfs to 

500 cfs), as well as an increase in the annual average 

SAR value to 5.2. Impacts during natural low-flow 

periods, however, would cause the river to flow at rates 

70 times normal with SAR values in excess of 17. 

Annual average flow within the Little Powder River 

with the impact of CBNG discharge water is 

extrapolated to increase from 22 cfs to 92 cfs and a 

resultant SAR of 9. Depending on how CBNGdischarges are managed in Wyoming, these flow rates 

and water qualities could be maintained during 

traditionally low-flow periods when the river is 

normally often dry.

Impacts to the Tongue River drainage are not included 

in the Wyodak EIS, however, impacts to surface water 

quantity and quality resulting from the increase in the 

number of CBNG wells and the resultant increase in the 

volume of CBNG water discharged in Wyoming are 

possible. The Upper Tongue River watershed is 

currently the site of CBNG production and it is 

expected that more development would occur. Impacts 

to the Tongue River in Montana are expected to be 

commensurate with impacts to the Powder and Little 

Powder Rivers by Wyoming CBNG production. These 

impacts would result in increases in surface water 

quantity and decreases in quality. This could result in 

3 to 5 times more water entering Montana and an 

increase in SAR from 0.7 to 5. This is important 

because Tongue River water quality is the highest in 

the PRB and the river feeds the Tongue River 

Reservoir.

Groundwater resources in Montana could also be 

impacted from CBNG production in Wyoming. CBNGproducing wells in northern Wyoming would cause a 

drawdown of coal aquifers on adjacent land, with 

groundwater drawdown possibly extending northward 

into Montana. Groundwater computer modeling for the 

Wyodak EIS indicates that the 5-foot drawdown level 

could extend up to 18 miles from the edge of 

production, given a 12-gpm per well rate of water 

withdrawal (BLM 1999b). The modeling values are 

based on assumptions made regarding the known 

geology of the Wyoming portion of the basin, which 

field data has shown to differ from the Montana portion 

of the basin. The Wyoming coal seams that have been 

developed are deeper and thicker than the seams in 

Montana. In addition, the 12-gpm water production 

value for the state was a “snap-shot” derived from 

current production data at a single point (1997) early in 

the life of the PRB CBNG play. The 20-year average 

rate of 2.5 gpm for Montana was derived from carefully 

organized data from a single CBNG field considering 

production trends with time. Nonetheless, both the 

12 gpm and the 2.5 gpm rates are projections that may 

need to be monitored and refined over time as CBNG

development proceeds. Given these groundwater 

modeling results and related assumptions, if CBNG

fields were located in Wyoming adjacent to the border 

with Montana, this could affect groundwater levels for 

a distance of up to 18 miles into Montana, assuming the 

parameters used in the Wyoming computer model are 

applicable to this area of Montana. Drawdown impacts 

of this magnitude would result in impacts to private 

lands, the Crow Indian Reservation, state-owned lands, 

and federal lands controlled by BLM.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Cumulative Projects Evaluated

MIN-35

CBNG Development on Indian 

Reservations and the Ashland 

Ranger District

The development of CBNG resources on the Crow and 

Northern Cheyenne reservations and on the Ashland 

Ranger District is assumed to take place during the next 

20 years and is therefore included in the cumulative 

effects analysis. The RFD estimated that 1,400 to 

4,000 wells could be developed on each reservation 

and 50 to 200 wells on the Ashland Ranger District. 

The impacts associated with this development would be 

similar to the impacts described within each of the 

resource topics per alternative and adjusted for 

magnitude. Of course, the land disturbances, wildlife, 

cultural and paleontological, visual, social economic, 

recreational, air quality, soils, and special status species 

impacts described for those resources would be 

experienced on the reservations and on the Ranger 

District. The surface and groundwater quality impacts 

would be felt on the reservations and on the District but 

they would also contribute to changes in the watersheds 

into which the flow.

Tongue River Railroad

The Surface Transportation Board has published a 

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Tongue River Railroad Company’s (TRRC) 

proposed rail line construction in Custer, Rosebud and 

Big Horn Counties, Montana. The document 

specifically analyzes the proposed 17.3 mile “Western 

Alignment” route, which had been preceded by two 

related applications that were considered and approved 

by the Board in 1986 and 1996, respectively. The 

proposed Western 

Alignment is an alternative route for the southernmost 

portion of the 41-mile Ashland to Decker alignment; 

known as the Four Mile Creek Alternative. The 

proposed Western Alignment bypasses the Four Mile 

Creek alignment, which is generally located from the 

Birney Road (Hwy 566) and the Tongue River Canyon 

junction, running west to Hwy 314, then south to the 

Decker Mine. The Western Alignment would continue 

south along the Tongue River on the ridge, but 

paralleling the river and ending around the Spring 

Creek Mine area. 

The Tongue River Railroad is a proposal to build a new 

rail system to support trains hauling coal along the 

Tongue River from Miles City to Decker, Montana. 

The TRRC was authorized to begin construction of the 

117-mile railroad in 1996 by the Surface 

Transportation Board. Operations were scheduled to 

begin in 2001 but construction has not commenced and 

no projected start date is available. The rail system, if 

built, would consist of several spur lines connected to 

individual coal mines throughout the CBNG emphasis 

area. The total system would measure approximately 

150 miles. Assuming an average 200-foot wide rightof-way, an estimated 3,600 acres would be disturbed by 

construction and operation activities within the 

planning areas. 

The construction of this rail system would create 

numerous potential impacts, including socioeconomic 

issues for local towns along the route, alteration to 

ranch and grazing lands, reductions in air quality, 

impediments to Native American cultural sites, 

increased erosion along the Tongue River riparian 

areas, increased sedimentation loading in the Tongue 

River, introduction of noxious weeds, and increased 

obstructions to wildlife habitat. Specific impacts would 

be similar to impacts from other surface disturbing 

activities and emission sources. Details of potential 

impacts can be found in the EIS and SEIS prepared by 

the Surface Transportation Board. Mitigation measures 

would be included with agency permits.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Agency-Approved Natural Resource Mitigation Measures

MIN-36

Land Management Agency-Approved Natural Resource 

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures are restrictions on lease 

operations, which are intended to minimize or avoid 

impacts to resources or land uses from oil and gas 

activities. The mitigation measures listed in 

Table MIN-5 would be applied to permits, leases or 

approvals granted by the land management agency. The 

list is not all inclusive, but presents the mitigation 

measures most often used in the planning area. The 

wording of the mitigation measure may be modified or 

additional measures may be developed to address 

specific conditions. Mitigation measures would be 

included as appropriate to address site-specific 

concerns during all phases of CBNG development. 

TABLE MIN-5

MITIGATION MEASURES THAT WOULD BE APPLIED

AS APPROPRIATE TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS

Mitigation Measure BLM TLMD

Disturbed areas resulting from any construction will be seeded following the BLM 

seeding policy, state guidance or surface owner’s requirements. Depending on 

surface ownership seeding is usually required during the fall or late spring.

X

To the extent practicable, vegetation will be preserved and protected from 

construction operations and equipment except where clearing operations are required 

to conduct oil and gas operations, such as for roads, well pads, pipelines, power 

lines, utility lines, and structures. Clearing of vegetation will be restricted to the 

minimum area needed for construction and equipment.

X

Temporary and permanent access roads will be avoided on south-facing slopes 

within big game winter range, where practicable. X

To the maximum extent practicable, all maintenance yards, field offices, and staging 

areas will be arranged to minimize disturbance to trees, shrubs, and other native 

vegetation.

X

Topsoil removed by construction activities will be stockpiled for reclamation. 

Sensitive habitat areas will not be used for topsoil storage. X

The planting of grasses, forbs, trees, or shrubs beneficial to wildlife will follow the 

BLM seeding policy. When needed, BLM will require installation of erosion and 

sedimentation control measures, such as riprap, erosion mats, mulch, bales, dikes or 

water bars. Riprap material and placement must be approved by the appropriate 

agency.

X

Erosion control and site restoration measures will be initiated as soon as a particular 

area is no longer needed for exploration, production, staging, or access. Disturbed 

areas will be recontoured to provide proper drainage.

X

Topsoil piles may be required to be seeded following the BLM seeding policy. X

All above-ground electrical poles and lines will be raptor-proofed to avoid 

electrocution following the criteria and outlined in the Avian Power Line Interaction 

Committee (APLIC) (1994) and APLIC (1996). (APLIC 1994. Mitigating Bird 

Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute, 

Washington D.C. 78 pp.; APLIC 1996. Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on 

Power Lines. Edison Electric Institute. Washington, D.C. 128 pp.).

X
MINERALS APPENDIX

Agency-Approved Natural Resource Mitigation Measures

MIN-37

TABLE MIN-5

MITIGATION MEASURES THAT WOULD BE APPLIED

AS APPROPRIATE TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS

Mitigation Measure BLM TLMD

Conduct three nesting habitat surveys for mountain plover in suitable habitat between 

May 1 and June 15. Surface use may be deleted in accordance with 43 CFR 

3101.1-2.

X

The Surface Management Agency is responsible for assuring that the leased lands are 

examined to determine if cultural resources are present and to specify mitigation 

measures. Guidance for application of this requirement can be found in NTL-MSO85-1.

X

Cuts and fills for new roads will be sloped to prevent erosion and to facilitate 

revegetation. X

It is the responsibility of the operator to control noxious weeds on lands disturbed in 

association with oil and gas lease operations. Lease-associated weed control 

strategies, when required by BLM, are to be coordinated with any involved surface 

owners and local weed control boards. A pesticide-use proposal must be prepared, 

and reviewed and approved by BLM prior to any herbicide application on lands 

disturbed by federal oil and gas lease operations. A pesticide application record must 

be within 24 hours after completion of application of herbicides. Additional 

measures may be required to prevent the spread of noxious weeds.

X

Activities such as stream crossings that could directly impact sensitive or protected 

fish species will be undertaken during non-spawning periods for these species. In the 

unlikely event that multiple, sensitive, or protected fish species with back-to-back 

spawning periods are present in the same stream reach, one of the following options 

will be exercised. These options include selecting a nearby, alternative stream 

crossing site that does not provide suitable spawning habitat for the fish species of 

concern; using a nearby, existing stream crossing over the channel to avoid instream 

disturbances; or using shore-based equipment to position and extend the pipeline or 

other item (e.g., temporary bridge) across the stream, thereby avoiding in-channel 

activities.

X

Operators must develop a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures plan to deal 

with accidental spills, the plan would include the strategic placement of berms and 

dikes.

X

The road ditches would be flat bottomed and “V” ditches would not be allowed. 

Place water turn outs where appropriate to lessen the water impacts upon the ditches. X
MINERALS APPENDIX

Agency-Approved Natural Resource Mitigation Measures

MIN-38

TABLE MIN-5

MITIGATION MEASURES THAT WOULD BE APPLIED

AS APPROPRIATE TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS

Mitigation Measure BLM TLMD

Prior to surface disturbance on slopes over 30 percent, an engineering/reclamation plan 

must be approved by the authorized officer. Such plan must demonstrate how the 

following will be accomplished:

• Site productivity will be restored.

• Surface runoff will be adequately controlled.

• Off-site areas will be protected from accelerated erosion, such as rilling, 

gullying, piping, and mass wasting.

• Water quality and quantity will be in conformance with state and Federal 

water quality laws.

• Surface-disturbing activities will not be conducted during extended wet 

periods.

• Construction will not be allowed when soils are frozen.

X

Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within existing coal leases with approved 

mining plans. X

Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within riparian areas, 100-year flood plains 

of major rivers, and on water bodies and streams. X

Surface use is prohibited from December 1 to March 31 within crucial winter range 

for wildlife. This stipulation does not apply to the operation and maintenance of 

production facilities.

X

Surface use is prohibited from April 1 to June 15 within established spring calving 

range for elk. This stipulation does not apply to the operation and maintenance of 

production facilities.

X

Surface occupancy is prohibited in the designated Bighorn Sheep Range. X

Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of grouse leks. X

Surface use is prohibited from March 1 to June 15 in grouse nesting habitat within 

2 miles of a lek. This stipulation does not apply to the operation and maintenance of 

production facilities.

X

Surface use is prohibited from March 1 – August 1, within 1⁄2 mile of raptor nest sites 

which have been active within the past 2 years. This stipulation does not apply to the 

operation and maintenance of production facilities.

X

Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of designated reservoirs and 

fisheries. X

The “Draft Guidelines for Oil and Gas Activities in Prairie Dog Ecosystems 

Managed for Black-footed ferret Recovery” (FWS, 1990) will be used as appropriate 

to develop site-specific conditions of approval to protect black-footed ferret 

reintroduction and recovery. Specific conditions of approval will depend on type and 

duration of proposed activity, proximity to occupied ferret habitat, and other sitespecific conditions.

X
MINERALS APPENDIX

Agency-Approved Natural Resource Mitigation Measures

MIN-39

TABLE MIN-5

MITIGATION MEASURES THAT WOULD BE APPLIED

AS APPROPRIATE TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS

Mitigation Measure BLM TLMD

Prior to surface disturbance, prairie dog colonies and complexes 80 acres or more in 

size will be examined to determine the absence or presence of black-footed ferrets. 

The findings of this examination may result in some restrictions to the operator’s 

plans or may even preclude use and occupancy that would be in violation of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. The lessee or operator may, at their own 

option, conduct an examination on the leased lands to determine if black-footed 

ferrets are present, or if the proposed activity would have an adverse effect, or if the 

area can be cleared. This examination must be done by or under the supervision of a 

qualified resource specialist approved by the Surface Management Agency (SMA). 

An acceptable report must be provided to the SMA documenting the presence or 

absence of black-footed ferrets and identifying the anticipated effects of the proposed 

action on the black-footed ferret and its habitat. This stipulation does not apply to the 

operation and maintenance of production facilities.

X

Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of known bald eagle nest sites 

which have been active within the past 7 years and within bald eagle nesting habitat 

in riparian areas.

X

Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1 mile of identified peregrine falcon 

nesting sites. X

Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of known ferruginous hawk 

nest sites which have been active within the past 2 years. X

Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of wetlands identified as 

piping plover habitat. X

Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of wetlands identified as 

interior least tern habitat. X

Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within sites or areas designated for 

conservation use, public use, or sociocultural use. X

Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within designated paleontological sites. X

Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within developed recreation areas and 

undeveloped recreation areas receiving concentrated public use. X

All surface-disturbing activities, semipermanent and permanent facilities in VRM 

Class II, areas may require special design, including location, painting, and 

camouflage, to blend with the natural surroundings and meet the visual quality 

objectives for the area.

X

Geophysical exploration for oil and gas will not be allowed in the East Pryor 

Mountains, and Petroglyph Canyon areas of the Billings RMP area. X

Geophysical exploration for oil and gas will be allowed on designated roads and 

trails with restrictions in the Battle Butte, Finger Buttes, and Reynolds Battlefield 

areas of the Powder River RMP area.

X
MINERALS APPENDIX

Agency-Approved Natural Resource Mitigation Measures

MIN-40

TABLE MIN-5

MITIGATION MEASURES THAT WOULD BE APPLIED

AS APPROPRIATE TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS

Mitigation Measure BLM TLMD

Underground explosives for geophysical exploration for oil and gas exploration will 

not be allowed in the Bridger Fossil area of the Billings RMP area. Other 

geophysical exploration methods for oil and gas will be allowed at Bridger Fossil if 

the method will not damage the paleontology resource. If monitoring indicates fossil 

damage as a result of geophysical activity, it will no longer be allowed.

X

Geophysical exploration for oil and gas will not be allowed on the significant cultural 

resource sites of the Castle Butte and Stark Site areas of the Billings RMP area. 

Geophysical exploration will be allowed (surface methods and vibroseis) in the 

remainder of the ACEC.

X

In the sensitive plant areas of the Meeteetse Spires of the Billings RMP area, 

geophysical exploration for oil and gas will not be allowed by any method. On the 

remaining area of the Meeteetse Spires, geophysical exploration will be accessed by 

air only. Exploration will be shot holes and above-ground shots. Vibroseis will not be

allowed.

X

Lessee shall notify and obtain approval from the Department’s Trust Land

Management Division (TLMD) prior to constructing well pads, roads, power lines, 

and related facilities that may require surface disturbance on the tract. Lessee shall 

comply with any mitigation measures stipulated in TLMD's approval. 

X

Prior to the drilling of any well, lessee shall send one copy of the well prognosis, 

including Form 22 "Application for Permit" to the Department’s Trust Land 

Management Division (TLMD). After a well is drilled and completed, lessee shall 

send one copy of all logs run, Form 4A "Completion Report", and geologic report to 

TLMD. A copy of Form 2 "Sundry Notice and Report of Wells" or other appropriate 

Board of Oil and Gas Conservation form shall be sent to TLMD whenever any 

subsequent change in well status or operator, is intended or has occurred. Lessee 

shall also notify and obtain approval from the TLMD prior to plugging a well on the 

lease premises.

X

Issuance of this lease in no way commits the Land Board to approval of coal bed 

natural gas production on this lease. Any coal bed natural gas extraction wells would 

require subsequent review and approval by the board.

X

The TLMD will complete an initial review for cultural resources and, where 

applicable, paleontological resources of the area intended for disturbance and may 

require a resources inventory. Based on the results of the inventory, the TLMD may 

restrict surface activity for the purpose of protecting significant resources located on 

the lease premises.

X

The lessee shall be responsible for controlling any noxious weeds introduced by 

Lessee`s activity on State-owned land and shall prevent or eradicate the spread of those 

noxious weeds onto land adjoining the lease premises.

X

The lessee is responsible to pay for all damages, including penalties and charges 

assessed by the USDA-CFSA on CRP lands, as a result of drilling and production on the 

tract. All damages will be assessed by and paid directly to the TLMD. X
MINERALS APPENDIX

Agency-Approved Natural Resource Mitigation Measures

MIN-41

TABLE MIN-5

MITIGATION MEASURES THAT WOULD BE APPLIED

AS APPROPRIATE TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS

Mitigation Measure BLM TLMD

This lease includes areas that may be environmentally sensitive. Therefore, if the 

lessee intends to conduct any activities on the lease premises, the lessee shall submit 

to TLMD one copy of an Operating Plan or Amendment to an existing Operating 

Plan, describing in detail the proposed activities. No activities shall occur on the tract 

until the Operating Plan or Amendments have been approved in writing by the 

Director of the Department. TLMD shall review the Operating Plan or Amendment 

and notify the lessee if the Plan or Amendment is approved or disapproved.

X

After an opportunity for an informal hearing with the lessee, surface activity may be 

denied or restricted on all or portions of any tract if the Director determines in writing 

that the proposed surface activity will be detrimental to trust resources and therefore not 

in the best interests of the trust.

X

This tract contains navigable river beds. No surface occupancy is allowed within the bed 

of the navigable river, abandoned channels, or on islands and accretions. In addition, 

upon completion of a successful well, where river title is disputed, the lessee will file an 

interpleader action under Rule 22, M.R.Civ.P. in the Montana District Court in which 

the leased lands are located for all acreage within the lease in which the title is disputed. 

The lessee shall name all potential royalty claimants as defendants.

X

Lessee must contact the owner of the surface in writing at least 30 days prior to any 

surface activity. A copy of the correspondence shall be sent to TLMD.

X

No surface occupancy shall be allowed on this tract unless otherwise approved in writing

by the Director of DNRC. 

X

No surface occupancy shall be allowed on any portion of this tract which is indicated as 

right-of-way on the official highway plans on file at the Department of Transportation in 

Helena, Montana without prior written approval from TLMD. 

X

It is the opinion of the TLMD that drainage is occurring on the land described in this 

lease and that if a well is not drilled within two years after this lease is issued the 

department will consider cancellation of the lease for failure to drill an offset well.

X

Prior to the cutting or removal of timber on these tracts for exploration or development 

related activities, the lessee shall acquire the approval of the appropriate TLMD area 

office.

X

To protect wildlife during periods important to their survival, surface occupancy or 

other activity shall be restricted from (date) through (date) of each year unless 

otherwise authorized in writing by the TLMD. Dates are determined on a case-bycase basis depending on the applicable species. 

X

Potential wildlife conflicts have been identified for this tract. The TLMD will contact 

the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks office in the area for advice on 

alleviating any possible conflicts caused by lessee's proposed activities. Additional 

mitigation measures may be required.

X
MINERALS APPENDIX

Agency-Approved Natural Resource Mitigation Measures

MIN-42

TABLE MIN-5

MITIGATION MEASURES THAT WOULD BE APPLIED

AS APPROPRIATE TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS

Mitigation Measure BLM TLMD

Potential wildlife conflicts have been identified for this tract. The TLMD will contact 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office in the area for advice on alleviating any 

possible conflicts caused by lessee's proposed activities. Additional mitigation measures 

may be required.

X

Wildlife species of concern have been identified on or near this tract. A survey in areas 

of proposed activity may be required prior to disturbance. Identified species will be 

avoided, unless otherwise authorized by the TLMD. Additional mitigation measures may

also be required.

X

Any activity within 1/8 mile of the river, flood plain, or lake/reservoir on or adjacent to 

this tract must be approved in writing by the TLMD prior to commencement. No surface 

occupancy is allowed within the bed of the river, abandoned channels, the bed of the 

lake/reservoir, or on islands and accretions associated with the river or lake/reservoir.

X

No activity shall be allowed within 100 feet of any perennial or seasonal stream, pond, 

lake, prairie pothole, wetland, spring, reservoir, well, aqueduct, irrigation ditch, canal, or 

related facilities without prior approval of the TLMD.

X

Due to unstable soil conditions on this tract and/or steep topography, surface use may be 

restricted or denied. Seismic activity may be restricted to poltershots.

X

Due to existing surface uses (such as center pivots, wheel lines, etc.) development on 

this tract may be restricted.

X

Plant species of concern have been identified on or near this tract. A vegetation survey 

in areas of proposed activity will be required prior to disturbance. Identified rare plant 

species will be avoided, unless otherwise authorized by the TLMD.

X

A critical weed problem exists on this tract. Additional mitigation measures will be 

required to prevent further spread of noxious weeds. The department may require such 

measures as power washing of vehicles, car pooling, timing restrictions for seismic, etc. 

to facilitate this prevention.

X

This tract contains biological weed-control sites which must be avoided unless otherwise 

authorized by TLMD.

X

No surface occupancy of the cemetery site is permitted without written approval of 

TLMD.

X

Wooded areas on this tract will be avoided unless otherwise authorized by the 

TLMD. X