Prepared by: 

ALL Consulting 

Montana Board of

Oil and Gas Conservation

COAL BED METHANE PRIMER

New Source of Natural Gas–Environmental Implications 

Background and 

Development in the 

Rocky Mountain West 

February 2004 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Energy 

National Petroleum Technology Office
i CBM Primer December 2003 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was funded by a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) office of Fossil Energy Grant under the National 

Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) program “Development of Technologies and Capabilities for Developing 

Coal, Oil, and Gas Energy Resources”. The project was developed under the Oil and Gas Environmental: Upstream

Area-of-Interest. This study was conducted by ALL Consulting (ALL), and the Montana Board of Oil and Gas 

Conservation (MBOGC). The contractor’s effort was overseen by NETL’s, National Petroleum Technology Office 

located in Tulsa Oklahoma. The National Petroleum Technology Office project manager for this effort was Mr. John 

Ford. The Department also wishes to extends its appreciation to those companies operating in the Powder River, San 

Juan, Raton and Unita basins, and staff of the Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, and the 

Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, Utah and Wyoming State agencies who provided the technical input and assistance 

that enable DOE to improve the scope and quality of the analysis. We also wish to thank Ms. Viola Schatzinger for 

her detailed editorial review, comments, and suggestions on this document. 

DE-FG26-02NT15380
ii CBM Primer December 2003 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COAL BED METHANE PRIMER - New Source of Natural Gas - Environmental Implications

Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................................................1 

WHAT IS CBM? - How is it formed, where does it come from, and how is it developed?

CBM - the Basics................................................................................................................................................................................5 

Coal Formation ..............................................................................................................................................................................5 

Coal Classification .........................................................................................................................................................................6 

Rank ...............................................................................................................................................................................................6 

What is CBM? ....................................................................................................................................................................................7 

Where Does CBM Come from?..........................................................................................................................................................8 

What Controls CBM Production? .......................................................................................................................................................9 

Cleat (Fracture) Development......................................................................................................................................................10 

Natural Gas Migration..................................................................................................................................................................11 

CBM Background.............................................................................................................................................................................11 

How is CBM Produced? ...................................................................................................................................................................12 

Western Soft Coals.......................................................................................................................................................................12 

Eastern Hard Coals.......................................................................................................................................................................14 

How Does CBM Compare to Conventional Natural Gas?................................................................................................................14 

Enhanced Production ...................................................................................................................................................................17 

Compression.................................................................................................................................................................................17 

Where are CBM Resources Located? ...............................................................................................................................................17 

How do the Western CBM Basins Compare?...................................................................................................................................18 

The San Juan Basin ......................................................................................................................................................................19 

The Powder River Basin ..............................................................................................................................................................20 

The Raton Basin...........................................................................................................................................................................21 

The Unita Basin ...........................................................................................................................................................................21 

Other Basins......................................................................................................................................................................................22 

The Future Role of CBM in the U.S. Energy Policy.........................................................................................................................24 

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK - Federal, State and Local Regulations Governing CBM Development across the West

Federal Regulations ..........................................................................................................................................................................27 

Land Use Plans.............................................................................................................................................................................28 

NEPA and the EIS Process ..........................................................................................................................................................29 

Leasing.........................................................................................................................................................................................30 

Development ................................................................................................................................................................................31 

Laws Governing Water ................................................................................................................................................................32 

Laws Governing Air.....................................................................................................................................................................33 

Endangered Species Act...............................................................................................................................................................34 

Antiquities Act .............................................................................................................................................................................34 

National Historic Preservation Act ..............................................................................................................................................35 

Tribal Resources ..........................................................................................................................................................................35 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act.....................................................................................................................................35 

Split Estates..................................................................................................................................................................................35 

State Regulations ..............................................................................................................................................................................36 

State Water Laws ..............................................................................................................................................................................37 

COLORADO WATER LAW..............................................................................................................................................................39 

MONTANA WATER LAW ...............................................................................................................................................................39 

NEW MEXICO WATER LAW ..........................................................................................................................................................40 

UTAH WATER LAW.......................................................................................................................................................................40 

WYOMING WATER LAW ...............................................................................................................................................................41 

Local Regulations .............................................................................................................................................................................41 
iii CBM Primer December 2003 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(CONTINUED)

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/MITIGATION - Typical Environmental Impacts vs Mitigation Measures

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................................43 

Beneficial Use...................................................................................................................................................................................44 

Resources of Concern .......................................................................................................................................................................44 

Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................................................................44 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources .....................................................................................................................46 

Geology and Minerals..................................................................................................................................................................47 

Hydrological Resources ...............................................................................................................................................................48 

Lands and Realty..........................................................................................................................................................................49 

Livestock Grazing........................................................................................................................................................................50 

Recreation ....................................................................................................................................................................................50 

Social and Economic Values........................................................................................................................................................51 

Soils .............................................................................................................................................................................................51 

Solid and Hazardous Wastes........................................................................................................................................................53 

Visual Resource Management .....................................................................................................................................................53 

Wilderness Study Areas...............................................................................................................................................................54 

Wildlife and Vegetation...............................................................................................................................................................54 

Noxious Weeds ............................................................................................................................................................................57 

Aquatic Resources .......................................................................................................................................................................58 

Project Planning................................................................................................................................................................................58 

Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................................................60 

TABLES

TABLE 1–COAL RESERVES BY STATE ................................................................................................................................................ 8 

TABLE 2–COMPARISON OF PRODUCING CBM BASINS IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION ............................................................. 19 

TABLE 3–SPLIT ESTATES ................................................................................................................................................................. 36 

FIGURES

Figure 1 - Major Coal Basins within the Conterminous United States by Coal Rank ........................................................................ 5

Figure 2 - Sedimentation and the formation of coal ........................................................................................................................... 6 

Figure 3 - Composition Changes with Coal Rank .............................................................................................................................. 7 

Figure 4 - Coal Bed Matrix illustrating gas surrounding the coal bound by water and rock .............................................................. 8 

Figure 5 - Coal Maturation Chart........................................................................................................................................................ 9 

Figure 6 - CBM Production Relationship to Hydrostatic Pressure ................................................................................................... 10 

Figure 7 - Coal Cleat Orientation...................................................................................................................................................... 10 

Figure 8 - Methane Migration Pathways........................................................................................................................................... 11 

Figure 9 - CBM Wellbore Diagram.................................................................................................................................................. 12 

Figure 10 - Production Plot, Powder River Basin - Production History ........................................................................................... 13 

Figure 11 - CBM Drilling Example Vertical .................................................................................................................................... 14 

Figure 12 - CBM Drilling Example Horizontal ................................................................................................................................ 15 

Figure 13 - Typical CBM Well Construction Diagram .................................................................................................................... 16 

Figure 14 - Production of Gas – Coal bed vs Conventional Reservoir ............................................................................................. 16 

Figure 15 - Rocky Mountain Region Coal Basins and Estimated CBM Reserves ........................................................................... 18 

Figure 16 - General location map and coal rank map of the San Juan Basin.................................................................................... 19 

Figure 17 - General location map and coal rank map of the Powder River Basin ............................................................................ 20 

Figure 18 - General location map and coal rank map of the Raton Basin ........................................................................................ 21 

Figure 19 - General location map and coal rank map of the Uinta Basin ......................................................................................... 22 

Figure 20 - General location map of eastern coal basins .................................................................................................................. 23 

Figure 21 - Natural Gas Production, Consumption, and Imports...................................................................................................... 24 

Figure 22 - BLM RMP Areas for the States of Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico ........................................ 28 

Figure 23 - Class I Areas as designated by the CAA........................................................................................................................ 45 
iv CBM Primer December 2003 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

APD Application for Permit to Drill 

ARM Administrative Rules of Montana 

BACT Best Available Control Technology 

BCF billion cubic feet 

bgs below ground surface 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

BMP Best Management Practice 

BTU British thermal unit 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBM coal bed methane 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CFS cubic feet per second 

CH4 methane 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

COA Condition of Approval 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EO Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FLM Federal land managers 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

FR Federal Register 

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI) 

gpm gallons per minute 

MBOGC Montana Board of Oil & Gas Conservation 

MCA Montana Code Annotated 

MCF thousand cubic feet 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 
v CBM Primer December 2003 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

(CONTINUED)

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOX oxides of nitrogen 

NOA Notice of Availability 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPS National Park Service (USDI) 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NSO no surface occupancy 

POD Plan of Development 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 

RFFA Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

RFD Reasonably Foreseeable Development 

RMP Resource Management Plan 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROW right-of-way 

SAR Sodium Adsorption Ratio 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SN Sundary Notice 

SO2 sulfer dioxide 

T&E Threatened and Endangered 

TCF trillion cubic feet 

TDS total dissolved solids 

UIC underground injection control 

U.S. United States 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USDI U.S. Department of the Interior 

USFS U.S. Forest Service (USDA) 

VRM visual resource management 

WMP Water Management Plan 

WQS water quality standards 

WSA Wilderness Study Area

ATTACHMENTS

DEFINITIONS.............................................................................................................................................................................D-1

REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................................................................R-1
vi CBM Primer December 2003 
1 CBM Primer December 2003 

COAL BED METHANE PRIMER

New Source of Natural Gas - Environmental Implications

INTRODUCTION

uring the second half of the 1990s Coal Bed Methane (CBM) 

production increased dramatically to represent a significant new 

source of natural gas for many Western states. Matching these 

soaring production rates during this period was a heightened public 

awareness of environmental concerns. These concerns have created a 

significant growth in public involvement, which has generated thousands of 

comments resulting in the inconsistent prioritization of concerns and 

resources protection efforts. The accelerating interest in CBM development 

coupled with growth in public involvement has prompted the creation of this 

CBM Primer. 

The Primer is designed to serve as a summary document, which introduces 

and encapsulates information pertinent to the development of CBM. The 

discussions focus on coal deposits, methane as a naturally formed gas, split 

mineral ownership, development techniques, operational issues, producing 

methods, applicable regulatory frameworks, land and resource management, 

mitigation measures, preparation of project plans, data availability, Indian 

Trust issues and relevant environmental technologies. 

An important aspect of this CBM Primer involves the sharing of information 

with a broad array of stakeholders, including land and mineral owners, 

regulators, conservationists, tribal governments, special interest groups, and 

numerous others that could be affected by the development of CBM within 

their vicinity. Perhaps the most crucial aspect of successfully developing 

CBM resources and instituting appropriate environmental protection 

measures is public awareness, information sharing, and acceptance. 

The current image of CBM that exists is dependent on the stakeholders’ 

perspective of energy development versus environmental protection. There is 

significant diversity in the view points expressed by nearly all stakeholders, 

including industry, government, special interest groups, and land owners. 

The primer is designed to serve as an accessory to public discussions that 

will contribute to policy making decisions by examining the current CBM 

development practices throughout the Western U.S. and by discussing 

mitigation measures and more environmentally friendly development 

methods from various CBM areas.

D

“America must have an

energy policy that

plans for the future,

but meets the needs of

today.

 I believe we can

develop our natural

resources and protect

our environment.”

-President George W. Bush
2 CBM Primer December 2003 

The Primer sections focus on the following areas: 

Section 1 – What is CBM? How is it formed? Where does it come from? 

How is it developed? This section provides the backdrop and circumstances 

for outlining the issues encompassing CBM formation and production, 

including coal seams and how they originate; the general location of CBM 

basins in the United States; the various development techniques, operational 

issues and production methods used based on regional conditions; and the 

position CBM serves in meeting our current and future national energy 

requirements. 

Section 2 – Regulatory framework. This section addresses federal, state and 

local regulations governing the development of CBM across the west; 

analyzes existing regulations guiding CBM development, including 

regionally specific Plan of Development variances; identifies federal land 

and resource management practices, Indian Trust Issues, surface owner 

agreements and local land uses per region; and the state oil and gas programs 

including typical lease stipulations and field rules. 

Section 3 – Best Management Practices and Mitigation. Section three 

identifies the typical environmental effects associated with CBM 

development in the west and the mitigation measures employed to address 

these effects. Focus is on the results of production and distribution affecting 

natural resources to local populations, and the tension between opposing land 

uses and land users. Vital to this discussion are the potential effects of CBM 

extraction on water quality and quantity, and the numerous mitigation 

measures employed to control and eliminate these effects. 

Coal bed methane is a clean-burning energy 

source well suited as a fuel for production of 

electricity, residential and commercial 

heating, and as a vehicle fuel. CBM 

currently supplies approximately eight 

percent of the nation’s natural gas 

production, and is an important facet of the 

nation’s energy mix. United States CBM 

production grew by 13 percent in 2001 to 

1.562 Trillion cubic feet (Tcf). (EIA 2001).

CBM will become more important as the 

demand for natural gas increases, and the 

focus on domestic production is heightened 

due to the deregulation of electricity and the 

tension over international energy supplies. 

As illustrated in the figure on the left, 

natural gas consumption is outpacing 

production. However, CBM production has 

the potential to significantly reduce this gap, 

if development can continue to increase at 

the rates observed between 1998 and 2001. 

The extraordinarily dramatic growth of 

CBM development has created 

comprehensive challenges for communities 
3 CBM Primer December 2003 

Agricultural irrigation in Wyoming 

throughout the Rocky Mountain region. The development of CBM 

infrastructure including construction of utility right-of-ways, pipelines, 

new roads, compressor stations, water conveyance and storage systems, 

and other facilities have affected rural communities.

Another issue responsible for many disputes is split estates - land owners 

who hold only surface rights may have government agencies such as the 

BLM or State Trust Land departments leasing the subsurface mineral 

rights to one or many development companies. CBM development plans 

can be opposed by many farmers, ranchers, hunting and fishing 

outfitters, environmentalists, recreational users, homeowners, and others 

who use the land for their specific purposes. Increases in exhaust gases 

and noise levels have also created strife between residents and the CBM 

industry. 

Beyond the land use disputes and affecting nearly all Rocky Mountain 

citizens are the concerns associated with produced water from CBM 

development. CBM produced water has the potential to affect 

groundwater quantity and quality. Coal seam aquifers may have 

competing water rights and be diminished as CBM production increases. 

Surface water quality could be altered by mineral-laden discharge, and 

agricultural productivity of soils could be reduced by irrigating with 

altered surface water. Riparian ecosystems may be negatively affected by 

the release of large quantities of produced water. Some produced water, 

on the other hand, has the potential to be a prized source of fresh water in 

many arid regions. 

The development of CBM throughout the Rocky Mountain Region is a 

major issue facing citizens, special interest groups, federal land 

management agencies, state governments, Tribal governments, county 

commissions, and energy companies. The major challenge is obtaining a 

balance between the development of this important resource and 

environmental protection while maintaining the local culture. This can be 

done by sharing the responsibilities for governing the development by 

federal, state, Tribal and local governments. These governments have 

varying and often competing interests and responsibilities for regulating 

CBM production. The coordination between these agencies will be 

essential to the balance and will ultimately influence the pace of 

development. 

It is envisioned the Primer will be used by a variety of stakeholders to 

present a consistent and complete synopsis of the key issues involved 

with CBM. This primer is intended to add focus to the public discussion 

and policy making for CBM development by offering a comprehensive, 

user-friendly overview that clarifies what CBM is and how it is 

produced, analyzes and evaluates the knowledge gained from various 

CBM developments throughout the Rocky Mountains, provides options 

for addressing conflicts, and improves policies that regulate CBM 

development. This primer also recognizes lessons-learned from different 

basins and various environmental groups and producers that could 

resolve similar challenges posed by development in other areas. 
4 CBM Primer December 2003 
5 CBM Primer December 2003 

WHAT IS CBM?

How is it formed, where does it come from, and how is it developed? 

CBM - THE BASICS

oal Bed Methane (CBM) is an important facet 

of the nation’s energy mix. While currently 

supplying approximately eight percent of the 

nation’s natural gas, CBM is expected to increase in 

importance (EIA 2001). Natural gas is a clean-burning 

energy source well suited as a boiler fuel, vehicle fuel, 

and for heating residences as well as large structures. 

CBM is a non-conventional hydrocarbon resource that 

fundamentally differs in its accumulation processes 

and production technology when compared to 

conventional natural gas resources. The following 

paragraphs detail the formation of coal and CBM. 

Coal Formation 

Coal is a sedimentary rock that had its origin on the 

surface of the earth as an accumulation of inorganic 

and organic debris. Major coal basins across the 

United States are depicted in Figure 1 below. Coal is 

predominantly made up of organic plant material, in 

particular ancient wood, leaves, stems, twigs, seeds, 

spores, pollen, and other parts of aquatic and land 

plants. When the debris first begins to pile up it is 

termed peat; the earth’s crust subsides, and more 

sediments are piled on top of the organic material, 

causing it to sink ever deeper into the sedimentary 

layer. 

C

Figure 1 

Major Coal Basins within the Contiguous United States by Coal Rank 
6 CBM Primer December 2003 

Layers of peat may be separated by clay and sand 

deposited during times of flood or other breaks in the 

accumulation cycle. As the peat accumulates, organic 

processes begin to break the plant debris down, both 

physically and chemically. 

Physically, small insects, worms, and fungi break the 

fragments into smaller pieces. As the peat solidifies, 

the small fragments formed are termed macerals, and 

can be identified microscopically as coming from plant 

products. At the same time, the peat is squeezed by 

overlying material, driving out its water content and 

compacting the plant debris into rock. 

Chemically, the plant material is slowly converted into 

simpler organic compounds ever richer in carbon. 

These combined processes are called sedimentation, 

and are illustrated in Figure 2. After sedimentation, the 

peat is buried deeper while pressure and heat build up. 

It is the heat and pressure that slowly transforms the 

peat into coal through the process of maturation. To 

generate one foot of coal it took approximately five 

feet of raw organic material. 

Figure 2 

Sedimentation and the formation of coal 

Coals are deposited over a narrow range of 

sedimentary environments, such as swamps or bogs. In 

all cases the fresh, organic plant material needs to be 

buried quickly and protected from oxidation. In order 

for the organic matter to be preserved, the plant debris 

must accumulate in a local area of restricted oxygen 

supply. 

Coal Classification 

There are two main recognized ways to classify coal – 

by rank or by grade. Coal rank is a measure of the 

degree of coalification or heat content and coal grade 

is a measure of the coal purity. For the purposes of the 

Primer, Rank will be used to describe coal and it’s 

relationship to methane production. 

Rank 

The degree of coalification or metamorphosis 

undergone by a coal, as it matures from peat to 

anthracite, has a significant bearing on its physical and 

chemical characteristics, and is referred to as the 'rank' 

of the coal. The major ranks of coal from lowest to 

highest are lignite, sub-bituminous, bituminous, semianthracite and anthracite. The higher the coal rank the 

higher the temperature and pressure of coal formation. 

The higher coal ranks have a greater percent of carbon. 

As moisture and volatiles are driven off during coal 

maturation carbon is left behind. With an increase in 

carbon content there is also an increase in the heat 

content of the coal. 

The earth’s crust exhibits an average geothermal 

gradient of about 1.5° F for every 100 feet of burial 

depth. As coal seams are depressed ever-deeper into 

the earth under accumulating sediments, much of the 

water and volatile matter are driven away, leaving 

behind the fixed carbon as well as residual amounts of 

ash, sulfur, and tiny amounts of a few assorted trace 

elements. The extent of this de-volatilization varies 

according to the deepest depth of ultimate burial, 

resulting in a continuous series of coal grades 

according to the relative percentages of fixed carbon 

they contain. 

Lignite is the lowest rank of coal and is characterized 

as browner and softer. Lignites have a high oxygen 

content (up to 30 percent), a 

relatively low fixed carbon 

content (20-35 percent), and a 

high moisture content (30-70 

percent) (WCI). Lignite is found in 

great quantities in the United 

States in the Gulf Coast Basin and 

the Williston Basin. Lignite is not particularly efficient 

in producing energy per mass of fuel. These coals are 

also susceptible to spontaneous combustion. 

Sub-bituminous coals usually appear dull black and 

waxy. Sub-bituminous coals have 

a fixed carbon content between 35 

to 45 percent and a moisture 

content of up to 10 percent. These 

coals are frequently used for 

electrical generation and are found 
7 CBM Primer December 2003 

Figure 3 

Composition Changes with Coal Rank 

throughout the west in the Black Mesa, Bighorn, 

Denver, Greater Green River, North Central Montana, 

Powder River, San Juan and Wind River basins (WCI).

Bituminous coals are dense black solids, frequently 

containing bands with brilliant colors. The carbon 

content of these coals ranges from 45 to 80 percent 

and the water content from 1.5 to 7 percent (WCI).

Major deposits of bituminous coals are found in the 

central United States in the Appalachian, Arkoma, 

Black Warrior, Cherokee, Forest 

City, Illinois, Maverick, 

Michigan, Raton and 

Southwestern basins. The coals 

are well suited for the production 

of metallurgical coke, power 

generation, cement making, and to 

provide heat and steam in industry. 

Because of their higher fixed carbon content and lower 

moisture content, bituminous coals contain more 

energy per pound than sub-bituminous coals, which in 

turn contain more energy than lignite coal. In the U.S., 

this heat energy is typically expressed as BTU's 

(British Thermal Units) per pound. A typical pound of 

bituminous coal will yield about 10,500 to 12,000 

BTU's of energy. Figure 3 illustrates the composition 

changes associated with coal rank. 

Anthracite is dense, hard and shiny and defined as 

having more than 86% fixed carbon and less than 14% 

volatile matter on a dry, mineral-matter-free basis. The 

rank is divided into semi-anthracite, anthracite, and 

meta-anthracite groups on the basis of increasing fixed 

carbon and decreasing volatile matter. Anthracite coals 

are relatively uncommon representing less than 1% of 

all world coal reserves. The high carbon and energy 

content coupled with being a relatively hard material 

and clean burning makes anthracite a desired product. 

The value-added anthracite products are used in 

carbon filtration water purification and space heating. 

Anthracite is also used as a reductant in metallurgical 

processing, pulverized coal injection for steel making, 

in cooking and heating briquettes, and as fuel used in 

the manufacture of cement and generation of 

electricity. 

WHAT IS CBM? 

Coal Bed Methane is naturally occurring methane 

(CH4) with small amounts of other hydrocarbon and 

non-hydrocarbon gases contained in coal seams as a 

result of chemical and physical processes. It is often 

produced at shallow depths through a bore-hole that 

allows gas and large volumes of water with variable 

quality to be produced. Shallow aquifers, if present, 

need to be protected but in the Rocky Mountain 

Region, the producing coal bed is often a source of 

water for both livestock and human consumption. 

CBM resources represent valuable volumes of natural 

gas within and outside of areas of conventional oil & 

gas production. Many coal mining areas currently 

support CBM production; other areas containing coal 

resources are expected to produce significant volumes 

of natural gas in the near future.

CBM is intimately associated with coal seams that 

represent both the source and reservoir. Significant 

reserves of coal underlie approximately 13% of the 

U.S. landmass as shown in Figure 1. Coals have an 

immense amount of surface area and can hold 

enormous quantities of methane. Since coal seams 

have large internal surfaces, they can store on the 

order of six to seven times more gas than the 

equivalent volume of rock in a conventional gas 

reservoir (USGS 1997). CBM exists in the coal in three 

basic states: as free gas; as gas dissolved in the water 

in coal; and as gas “adsorped” on the solid surface of 

the coal. 

Coal varies considerably in terms of its chemical 

composition, its permeability, and other 

characteristics. Some kinds of organic matter are more 

suited to produce CBM than are others. Permeability is 

a key characteristic, since the coal seam must allow 

the gas to move once the water pressure is reduced. 
8 CBM Primer December 2003 

Figure 4 

Coal Bed Matrix illustrating gas surrounding the coal 

bound by water and rock

Gas molecules adhere to the surface of the coal. Most 

of the CBM is stored within the molecular structure of 

the coal; some is stored in the fractures or cleats of the 

coal or dissolved in the water trapped in the fractures. 

Methane attaches to the surface areas of coal and 

throughout fractures, and is held in place by water 

pressure as shown in Figure 4. When the water is 

released, the gas flows through the fractures into a 

well bore or migrates to the surface.

Coals can generally generate more gas than they can 

absorb and store. Basins that contain between 500 to 

600 standard cubic feet (SCF) of methane per ton are 

considered to be “very favorable for commercial 

production,” as long as there is sufficient reservoir 

permeability and rate of desorption (Murry, 1993). 

Desorption is the process by which coals frees 

methane when the hydrostatic pressure is reduced. 

Some coals have generated more than 8,000 SCF of 

methane per ton of coal. The most productive coals are 

saturated with gas, fractured and highly permeable 

(Cook NRLC, 2002). 

Worldwide, coal is present in most sedimentary basins 

that are Devonian to Tertiary in age. Coal deposits in 

the Eastern and Central U.S. are Paleozoic in age 

(Mississippian and Pennsylvanian) and in the Western 

U.S. and Gulf Coast the coals are younger (Cretaceous 

and Tertiary) in age. This diversity of age has given 

rise to two different types of CBM basins. The eastern 

hard coals are higher rank and thinner. They contain 

less water within the coal seam and require fracture 

enhancement to increase the productivity. The water 

contained within the coals is typically low quality, 

which does not lend itself to many beneficial uses. The 

western soft coals are lower in rank but very thick. 

These coals contain vast amounts of water that 

requires removal to initiate production. The produced 

water is typically high to medium quality water that 

lends itself to many beneficial uses. Table 1 provides a 

summary of the coal reserves across the U.S. 

Source: COAL: Ancient Gift Serving Modern Man; American Coal Foundation, 2002 

WHERE DOES CBM COME FROM?

CBM is generated either through chemical reactions or 

bacterial action. Chemical action occurs over time as 

heat and pressure are applied to coal in a sedimentary 

basin. This is referred to as thermogenic production. 

Bacteria that obtain nutrition from coal produce 

methane as a by-product in a method referred to as 

biogenic. The gas in higher rank coals is a result of 

thermogenic production as heat and pressure transform 

organic material in the coal. Gas in lower rank coals 

Table 1 

Coal Reserves by State 

State Tons (billions) Percent of U.S. 

Montana 120 25.4 

Illinois 78 16.5 

Wyoming 68 14.4 

West Virginia 37 8.0 

Kentucky 30 6.3 

Pennsylvania 29 6.1 

Ohio 19 4.0 

Colorado 17 3.6 

Texas 13 2.7 

Indiana 10 2.1 

Other States 51 10.9 

Total Coal 

Reserves 472 100.0 
9 CBM Primer December 2003 

Peat

Lignite

SubBituminous

High 

Volatile

Bituminous

Med 

Volatile

Bituminous

Low 

Volatile

Bituminous 

SemiAnthracite

Anthracite

Ethane 

Plus 

(C2+)

Biogenic

Methane (C1)

Thermogenic 

Methane (C1)

CO2

Nitrogen

Expelled 

Water

RO

0.40

0.50

2.0

1.50

1.10

Figure 5 

Coal Maturation Chart

results from the decomposition of organic matter by 

bacteria.

Typically, the deeper the coal bed, the less the volume 

of water in the fractures, but the more saline the water 

becomes. The volume of gas typically increases; with 

coal rank, how far underground the coal bed is located, 

and the reservoir pressure (USGS 2000). Natural 

desorption occurs when the fracture system releases 

water, the adsorptive capacity of the coal is exceeded, 

pressure falls, and the gas trapped in the coal matrix 

begins to desorb and move to the empty spaces in the 

fracture system. The gas remains stored in the fracture 

system or in nearby non-coal reservoirs until it is 

extracted.

As coals mature from peat to anthracite, the associated 

fluids transform as well. Low rank peat and lignite 

have high porosities, high water content, and produce 

low temperature biogenic methane and few other 

fluids. As coals mature into bituminous types, water is 

expelled, porosity decreases, and biogenic methane 

formation decreases, because temperatures rise above 

the most favorable range for bacteria. At the same 

time, heat breaks down complex organic compounds 

to release methane and heavier hydrocarbons (ethane 

and higher). Inorganic gases may also be generated by 

the thermal breakdown of coals. 

As the coal matures to anthracite, less methane is 

generated and little porosity or water remains in the 

matrix. The chart below (Figure 5) lists the steps in the 

maturation of coal from peat to anthracite and the fluid 

generated and expelled during the maturation process. 

Peat, largely unaltered plant debris, and lignite 

(“brown coal”) can give rise to biogenic methane, 

produced by methanogenic bacteria. Minor production 

of CBM has been reported from lignite in North 

Dakota and Louisiana. CBM production in most of the 

Western U.S. comes from sub-bituminous and 

bituminous coals. CBM in the Eastern U.S. originates 

in higher rank coals.

WHAT CONTROLS CBM PRODUCTION?

CBM production potential is a product of several 

factors that vary from basin to basin – fracture 

permeability, development, gas migration, coal 

maturation, coal distribution, geologic structure, CBM 

completion options, hydrostatic pressure and produced 

water management. In most areas, naturally developed 

fracture networks are the most sought after areas for 

CBM development. Areas where geologic structures 

and localized faulting have occurred tend to induce 

natural fracturing, which increases the production 

pathways within the coal seam. This natural fracturing 

reduces the cost of bringing the producing wells on 

line.

Most coals contain methane, but it cannot be 

economically produced without open 

fractures present to provide the pathways 

for the desorbed gas to migrate to the 

well. As long as the pressure exerted by 

the water table is greater than that of the 

coal the methane remains trapped in the 

coal bed matrix. Coal cleats and fractures 

are usually saturated with water, and 

therefore the hydrostatic pressure in the 

coal seam must be lowered before the gas 

will migrate. 

Lowering the hydrostatic pressure in the 

coal seam accelerates the desorption 

process. CBM wells initially produce 

water primarily; gas production 

eventually increases, and as it does water 

production declines. Some wells do not 

produce any water and begin producing 

gas immediately, depending on the nature 

of the fracture system. Once the gas is 

released, it is usually free of any impurities; is of 
10 CBM Primer December 2003 

Figure 7 

Coal Cleat Orientation 

Figure 6 

CBM Production Relationship to Hydrostatic Pressure 

sufficient quality and can be easily prepared for 

pipeline delivery. 

Some coals may never produce methane if the 

hydrostatic pressure cannot be efficiently lowered. 

Some coal seams may produce gas, but are too deep to 

economically drill. CBM wells are typically no more 

than 5000’ in depth, although some deeper wells have 

been drilled. Figure 6 illustrates the relationship 

between hydrostatic pressure, coal seam depth and 

well location. 

Cleat (Fracture) Development 

Coal contains porosity but very little matrix 

permeability. In order for fluids to be produced out of 

coal seams into a well-bore, the coal must possess a 

system of secondary permeability such as fractures. 

Fractures allow water, and natural gas to migrate from 

matrix porosity toward the producing well. Cleat is the 

term used for the network of natural fractures that 

form in coal seams as part of the maturation of coal. 

Cleats form as the result of coal dehydration, local and 

regional stresses, and unloading of overburden. Cleats 

largely control the directional permeability of coals 

and therefore are highly important for CBM 

exploitation through well placement and spacing. 

Two orthogonal sets of cleats develop in coals 

perpendicular to bedding. The face cleats are the 

dominant set that are more continuous and more 

laterally extensive; face cleats form parallel to 

maximum compressive stress and perpendicular to 

fold axes of the coal bed. The butt cleats are secondary 

and can be seen to terminate against face cleats. Butt 

cleats are strain-release fractures that form parallel to 

fold axes. Figure 7 shows 

the cleat orientation. 

Cleat spacing is related to 

rank, bed thickness, 

maceral composition, and 

ash content. Coals with 

well-developed cleat sets 

are brittle reflecting 

fracture density. In 

general, cleats are more 

tightly spaced with 

increasing coal rank. 

Average cleat spacing 

values for three coal 

grades include: subbituminous (2-15 cm), 

high-volatile bituminous 

(0.3-2 cm), and mediumto low-volatile bituminous 

(<1 cm) (Cardott, 2001). Cleat 

spacing is tighter in thin 

coals, in vitrinite-rich 

coals, and in low-ash 

coals.
11 CBM Primer December 2003 

Figure 8 

Methane Migration Pathways

Natural Gas Migration 

In coal seams, most gas is absorbed by the 

microscopic laminations and micropores within coal 

macerals. As hydrostatic pressure is decreased by 

water production, gas desorbs and moves into the cleat 

system where it begins to flow towards the producing 

well, as diagrammed in Figure 8. 

Natural gas can also migrate through more widespread fracture sets related to faults and tectonic 

jointing. Faults can persist over several miles and are 

related to geologic movement and structure, and can 

enhance the migration pathways for the methane in the 

subsurface.

Coals can be analyzed for adsorbed gas content using 

standardized techniques that mechanically pulverize 

the core samples. The gas content figures range from 

several hundred standard cubic feet (scf) per ton to less 

than 50 scf per ton of coal. The test results cannot be 

directly equated with ultimate recoverable CBM 

reserves since not all the gas can be desorbed and 

produced from the coal. Methane content values in 

producing basins range from around 800 scf per ton in 

Oklahoma, to 450 scf per ton in the San Juan Basin, 

and to an average of 40 scf per ton in the Powder 

River Basin.

CBM BACKGROUND 

CBM development has its roots in the coal mining 

industry. Attempts to develop marketable CBM began 

in the United States in the 1970s, as a result of the U.S. 

Bureau of Mines’ efforts to improve mine safety by 

extracting methane in advance of mining operations. 

As recently as 1982, CBM production in the United 

States was practically non-existent. In 1983, the Gas 

Research Institute commenced field investigations that 

motivated the expansion of CBM recovery. At the end 

of 1983, annual CBM production was nearly 6 Bcf 

(billion cubic feet) from about 165 wells. By 1994, it 

had grown to 85.1 Bcf from more than 6,000 wells, 

and by 1999, there were 14,000 wells producing 

roughly 1,252 Bcf. 

In 1980, Congress enacted a tax credit to promote 

domestic production from alternative sources, 

including CBM. Known as the Section 29 tax credit 

(section 29 of the 1980 Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax 

Act), the requirement has two limits: the gas needs to 

be sold to an unconnected group, and the tax credit can 

only be applied to wells brought on line before Dec 31, 

1992. The credit, valued at $3 barrel of oil or Btu 

equivalent, ended on December 31, 2000, however the 

tax credit was modified and extended in both the 

House and Senate energy bills that the two chambers 

passed in 2001 and 2002, respectively. The greatest 

increase in development, however, didn’t begin until 

approximately 1988. This was due to the 1980 tax 

incentives being put in place by the Congress coupled 

with improved production techniques. 

Currently, there are thousands of CBM wells in the 

United States, and active exploration, development, 

and/or production is being carried out in Alabama, 

Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, 

Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, 

New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, 

Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and 

Wyoming. To date almost 88 percent of the United 

States total CBM production is from the Rocky 

Mountain region encompassing Colorado, Montana, 

New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming (EIA 2001)

The San Juan Basin in Northern New Mexico and 

Southern Colorado has contributed the most to CBM 

production and is the most extensively developed 

basin in the region. Exploration and development 

began in the late 1980s and quickly grew throughout 

the 1990s. Production is nearing its peak in the basin, 

but companies are trying to maintain recovery with 

new production enhancement methods and reduced 

well spacing. 

The Powder River Basin in eastern Wyoming and 

southeastern Montana is currently the fastest growing 
12 CBM Primer December 2003 

Figure 9 

CBM Wellbore Diagram--Open-hole Completion 

Example from Powder River Basin 

basin for CBM development. In 1997 there were 360 

wells producing 54 million cubic feet (MMcf) of 

gas/day, by the end of 2002, 935 MMcf/day was being 

produced from 10,991 wells. During the past 12 

months an additional 5400 Applications for Permit to 

Drill (APDs) have been submitted (http://wdogcc.state.wy.us 

April 2003). Significant CBM resources in the Rocky 

Mountains have also been identified in the Raton 

Basin in central Colorado, the Piceance Basin in 

northwestern Colorado, the Unita Basin in Eastern 

Utah, Kaiparowits Plateau Basin in Southern Utah, 

Hanna-Carbon Basin in south-central Wyoming and 

the Greater Green River Basin in southwestern 

Wyoming. 

It has been estimated that the Rocky Mountain basins 

contain as much as 595 Trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of 

CBM, (GTI 2000). The technically recoverable amount 

may currently be less than one quarter of that volume, 

but with improved methods and enhanced recovery 

techniques CBM in the Rocky Mountains will remain 

an important source of natural gas. 

CBM production continues to advance across North 

America as operators develop new techniques for 

drilling and producing coal seams of different rank and 

quality. It is anticipated that production will only 

increase as the demand for natural gas continues to 

increase.

HOW IS CBM PRODUCED?

CBM wells are completed in several ways, depending 

upon the type of coal in the basin and fluid content. 

Each type of coal (sub-bituminous to bituminous) 

offers production options that are different due to the 

inherent natural fracturing and competency of the coal 

seams. The sub-bituminous coals are 

softer and less competent than the 

higher rank low-volatile bituminous 

coals, and therefore are typically 

completed and produced using more 

conventional vertical well bores. The 

more competent higher rank coals lend 

themselves to completions using 

horizontal as well as vertical well bores. 

Western Soft Coals 

The coals found mostly in the Western 

U.S. are frequently sub-bituminous in 

rank and although competent enough to 

be completed and produced open-hole, 

they are often too soft to allow the use 

of horizontal wellbores with any major 

success to date. Figure 9 provides a 

typical well completion for CBM 

production wells in the Western U.S. 

The well is drilled to the top of the 

target coal seam and production casing 

is set and cemented back to surface. The 

coal seam is then drilled-out and underreamed to open up more coal face to 

production. The borehole and coal face 

are then cleaned with a slug of 

formation water pumped at a high rate 

(water-flush). In areas where the cleat or 

natural fracture system is not fully 

developed, the coal may be artificially 

fractured using a low-pressure water 

fracture treatment. 
13 CBM Primer December 2003 

Three CBM wells finished with surface enclosures in the 

Powder River Basin 

These shallow wells are 

typically drilled with a 

small mobile rig mounted 

on a truck. For example, 

most wells in the Powder 

River basin are drilled in 

under a week and have a 

residual foot print of 

approximately 1⁄4 acre. 

Spacing between wells is 

currently 80 acres in the 

Powder River Basin but 

can be as much as 320 

acres (San Juan Basin) 

depending on the coal bed 

characteristics. 

Once the well is 

completed, a submersible 

pump is run into the well 

on production tubing to 

pump the water from the 

coal seam. By removing the water from the coal seam 

the formation water pressure is reduced and the 

methane is desorbed (released) from the coal, thus 

initiating production. The methane flows up both the 

casing and tubing of the well and is sent via pipe to a 

gas/water separator at the compression station. The 

methane is then compressed for shipment to the sales 

pipeline. In most western soft coal areas only one coal 

seam is produced in each well. 

Attempts at producing more than one coal seam per 

well have been mostly unsuccessful due to the inherent 

problem of lowering the water level in each coal seam 

independent of each other. Size constraints of the 

production equipment and use of submersible pumps 

make the use of dual completion complicated and 

expensive. With CBM production wells typically 

being so shallow, it is less expensive and less 

complicated to drill wells into each coal seam 

independently than to use dual or triple completion 

well systems. 

As water is pumped off the coal aquifer, increasing 

amounts of methane are produced from the CBM 

wells. This relationship is shown in the production plot 

(Figure 10). The plot uses data obtained from the CX 

ranch in the Montana portion of the Powder River 

Basin. The plot details the field-wide average water 

and gas production over time from the date of first 

production. As can be seen, the water production is 

very high during the initial stages of production, but 

declines as more wells are installed and the hydrostatic 

pressure is lowered in the coal seam. As the 

hydrostatic pressure is lowered, the gas production 

increases as new fractures are desorbed and more 

methane is released. 

Figure 10 

Production Plot, Powder River Basin - Production History 
14 CBM Primer December 2003 

Eastern Hard Coals 

The coals found in the eastern portions of the U.S. are 

often higher rank medium to low volatile bituminous 

coals. While these coals are very competent and can be 

completed open hole, these coals are often drilled and 

cased to total depth. Wells are then perforated and 

stimulated to remove damage caused by drilling and to 

enhance fracturing near the wellbore. However, many 

of the eastern coals do not have significant water to be 

removed from the coal to initiate methane production. 

As such, several coal seams are often perforated in a 

single bore-hole. Figure 11 provides an example of 

vertical well bore completed in multiple coal seams. 

Eastern hard coals are often exploited 

by way of horizontal drain-holes from a 

single bore-hole. Each individual well 

may have up to 3,500-feet of lateral 

extent within a single coal seam. 

Several laterals can be drilled from a 

single wellbore to exploit several seams 

or to take advantage of several cleat 

(fracture) trends. Each leg would not 

necessarily be horizontal but would 

closely follow the dip of the individual 

seam. Many of the coal seams are often 

less than five-feet thick, requiring the 

drilling contractor to exercise great care 

in steering the drill bit. Figure 12 

illustrates an example of this method. 

Operators in Alabama, Arkansas, and 

Oklahoma have made use of horizontal 

laterals to enhance CBM production. 

The production of CBM from eastern 

coals is similar to the western coals 

except for the use of horizontal well 

bores and the extensive use of fracturing 

to enhance production. With the coals 

being of higher rank, the methane 

content per ton of coal is typically 

higher, but requires in many areas 

additional enhancement to the natural 

fracture content to maximize 

production. Production rates of CBM 

depend upon local gas content of the 

coal, local permeability of the coals, 

hydrostatic pressure in the coal seam 

aquifer, completion techniques, and 

production techniques. 

HOW DOES CBM COMPARE TO CONVENTIONAL NATURAL 

GAS?

Methane is the chief component of natural gas, and 

CBM can be used in very much the same way as 

conventional gas. Conventional gas is formed in 

limestone and shale formations; pressure and 

temperature unite to transform organic matter into 

hydrocarbons over time, similar to thermogenic 

production in deeper coals. Natural gas migrates 

upward until trapped by a geologic barrier or fault and 

remains in this reservoir until it is discovered and 

drilled, or released by some natural means. 

Conventional gas wells are typically 4,000 to 12,000 

Figure 11 

CBM Drilling Example 

Vertical Wellbore Example from Cherokee Basin, Kansas 
15 CBM Primer December 2003 

Figure 12 

CBM Drilling Example 

Horizontal Wellbore Example from Arkoma Basin 

feet deep and extract gas from sandstone and shale 

formations (PRCBMIC, 2002). The location and extent of 

conventional gas typically requires exploratory drilling 

since the location of reservoirs is not apparent from the 

surface (Cullicott et al., 2002). Coal bed wells are generally 

considered shallow and range from 400 to 1,500 feet 

in the Powder River basin but can be as deep as 5,000 

feet in some basins. 

CBM is occasionally compared to another 

unconventional gas—“tight” gas—which is found at 

deeper depths and in low permeability sandstones. 

Companies often use hydraulic fracturing, injecting 

fluid into the rock formation to cause cracking in 

anticipation of releasing gas from tight sands (Kelly, 

2001). Fracturing is also used in some CBM seams to 

increase production, as previously explained. CBM 

differs from conventional natural gas in other 

important ways. CBM is held in an adsorbed form on 

the surface of the coal; reservoir pressure must be 

reduced before CBM can be produced 

in significant quantities; and water is 

typically present in the reservoir and is 

usually co-produced with the CBM 

(Fidelity, 2002). 

The economic feasibility of CBM 

compared to conventional natural gas 

is typically affected by four primary 

variables: the production cost, the rate 

of gas production, hub price, and 

economies of scale (Boyer, 1999).

Most CBM wells are shallow (less 

than 5,000 feet) and can be constructed 

in a short amount of time resulting in 

low to moderate well costs in 

comparison to conventional natural 

gas.

The volume and rate of gas production 

from CBM wells may fluctuate 

significantly unlike conventional gas, 

which is often more consistent once 

tapped. Minimum or low gas CBM 

producers yield about 50 thousand 

cubic feet (mcf) per day; high yield 

wells produce as much as 5 MMcf per 

day (Williams, 2001).

The location of the CBM production field with respect 

to the regional or interstate transmission pipelines also 

affects the economics of CBM development. The gas 

hub price, minus production and transportation costs, 

equal the wellhead net back price. In some areas, the 

transportation costs may be as much as the wellhead 

net back price. 

The economy of scale refers to the number of wells or 

field size that has to be reached in order for the 

company to make a profit. Costs affecting the 

economic viability of CBM developments include 

compression, gas treatment, geologic and engineering 

services, transmission of gas and field operations. The 

minimum number of wells or volume of gas produced 

for a feasible project therefore depends on a diversity 

of issues.

Conventional natural gas wells produce large volumes 

of gas initially and then taper off over time as water 

production steadily increases; the exact opposite is true 

for CBM production. As previously mentioned CBM 

wells produce large volumes of water during the initial 

lowering of the hydrostatic pressure, and as the 
16 CBM Primer December 2003 

Figure 13 

Typical CBM Well Construction Diagram 

Powder River Basin, Montana 

Figure 14 

Production of Gas – Coal bed vs Conventional Reservoir 

quantities of produced water decline the gas 

production increases. This is a result of lowering the 

hydrostatic pressure of the coal seam and allowing 

more gas to escape along the fractures and open cleats. 

Furthermore, conventional gas wells do not need to 

normally utilize artificial lift until the end of the well 

life, when pumps are sometimes installed to remove 

water if a well is incapable of lifting the water to the 

surface on its own. CBM wells on the other hand have 

submersible pumps installed initially and remove 

water for a number of years before peak production is 

reached, see Figure 13 which depicts a typical Powder 

River CBM well construction. In most cases towards 

the end of the CBM life cycle the submersible pumps 

can be turned off and gas will flow freely from the 

well even though most of the water remains in the coal 

seam (PRCBMIC, 2002). 

The production curve will depend on several factors 

including the field geology, well spacing, permeability 

of the reservoir, initial reservoir hydrostatic pressure, 

production techniques, and water saturation. In some 

basins, such as the San Juan Basin peak gas production 

can be reached in as little as two or more years (AAPG, 

BP Seminar, 2001). The relationship between peak gas 

production and production time is a function of the 

reservoir’s permeability and well density. The lower 

the reservoir permeability the longer time it takes to 

reach peak gas production, or the more wells are 

needed to reach peak production sooner.

Typically, CBM wells produce less gas than 

conventional wells, therefore the cost to dispose of the 

production water is a significant expense compared to 

that of conventional development. Also, unlike 

conventional gas wells CBM wells are not shut off in 

reaction to falling gas prices; since the coal seam may 

refill with water, operators don’t alter production rates 

in response to price fluctuations. Figure 14 compares 

CBM development to conventional natural gas 

development with regards to the quantities of water 

produced over the life of the wells.

Another important characteristic affecting the 

economics of CBM development is the comparatively 

brief production time wells actually produce gas. 

Wells vary in production duration depending on a 
17 CBM Primer December 2003 

Typical sales compressor facility in the Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming 

variety of factors. Conventional gas wells can produce 

from a few years to over 50 years. Well duration is 

affected by technology and as advances are made, 

reserves are recovered more quickly, which reduces 

the expected well life. Current estimates for the life of 

a CBM well vary from 5 to 15 years. CBM wells in the 

Wyoming portion of the Powder River Basin are 

estimated at only 7–10 years (BLM, 2003a), while the 

Montana portion of the same basin was estimated at 

10–20 years (BLM, 2003b). Other basins have shown 

some longer production times, however it is generally 

feared by the public that basins may be relatively 

quickly pumped and then abandoned. 

Enhanced Production 

The CBM industry is exploring new methods of 

enhancing gas production from older fields that have 

produced for more than 10 years. Several companies 

are experimenting with the injection of nitrogen (N) 

and carbon dioxide (CO2) into the coal bed to displace 

methane along the coal face cleats. Generally, the N 

and/or CO2 molecules replace the methane molecules 

within the cleats at a ratio of approximately 4 to 1 

(Schoeling, 2002). This forced gas exchange has resulted in 

elevated methane production rates as compared to just 

lowering the hydrostatic pressure. Injection of 

nitrogen, usually generated by manufactured gas 

plants, reduces the partial pressure and therefore the 

concentration of methane in the coals in the fracture 

system. Even though the partial pressure is reduced, 

the total pressure is generally constant (depending on 

whether or not the seams hydrostatic pressure is being 

lowered) and the fluids maintain head that drives 

liquids to the production wells. It is theorized that 

nitrogen injection affects methane production from the 

coal seam via inert gas stripping and sorption 

displacement. Coals can replace 25% to 50% of their 

methane storage capacity with nitrogen. 

This enhanced production method has a beneficial side 

effect—the sequestering of CO2. Carbon dioxide is a 

common by-product of many industrial processes and 

is considered a green house gas. The sequestering of 

CO2 lowers the amount available to be exhausted to 

the atmosphere and helps the United States meet its 

goal for reduced CO2 emissions. Laboratory studies 

indicate that coal adsorbs nearly twice as much 

volume of CO2 as methane. There are some concerns, 

however, that injection of CO2 into mineable coals 

presents a safety hazard, as the mines are required to 

have a limit of 3% CO2 by volume in the mine air. One 

potential method for reducing CO2 levels in the mine 

air is to use a mixture of CO2 and other gases, such as 

nitrogen. Studies indicate that for each volume of 

nitrogen that is injected, two volumes of methane are 

produced (Schoeling 2002). There is growing interest in 

mixed nitrogen/CO2 injection for two reasons: there 

may be a synergy of production mechanisms, and its 

use would result in the lowering of CO2 levels in the 

mine air (EPA 2002a). More research is needed in this 

arena, but preliminary results are promising for both 

CBM production and CO2 sequestering. 

Compression 

Gas produced from CBM wells requires dehydration to 

remove the water vapor in the gas, and is usually 

compressed 2 to 3 times before it reaches the sales 

line. CBM leaves the wellhead at relatively low 

pressures that range from 2 to 5 pounds per square 

inch/gauge (psig) (Fidelity 2003). The CBM first passes 

through a field compressor unit, typically a rotary 

screw compressor that will increase the gas to 70-80 

psig. At this pressure the gas flows through a gathering 

system on its way to the sales compressor. The sales 

compressor boosts the pressure to approximately 1200 

psig. Following this stage the CBM in the sales line is 

transported locally or regionally to end-user sites, 

which are metered. It is important to note that as a 

CBM field matures, the CBM may contain increased 

levels of CO2 that needs to be removed prior to being 

transported to market (Fidelity, 2003). Gas processing 

plants installed on the pipelines typically in 

conjunction with sales compressors treat the natural 

gas and remove the CO2 and water vapor.

WHERE ARE CBM RESOURCES LOCATED?

The majority of CBM development has been 

conducted in the West, South, and, to a smaller degree, 
18 CBM Primer December 2003 

Figure 15 

Rocky Mountain Region Coal Basins and Estimated CBM Reserves 

Source: Nelson 2000 

the Midwest. Figure 15 identifies the major CBM 

basins in the Rocky Mountain region. 

To date approximately 56 percent of CBM production 

in the United States has come from the Rocky 

Mountain region. The four principal basins responsible 

for this include the Powder River, Raton, San Juan, 

and Uinta. Potential development is being considered 

for the Piceance and Denver basins in Colorado and 

for the Greater Green River basin in Wyoming. These 

basins may contain as much as 200 Tcf of recoverable 

CBM, representing approximately 50 to 80 percent of 

the estimated recoverable CBM in the United States. 

In addition to those basins another 1,000 Tcf of 

methane may also be located in Alaska (Lang 2000). It’s 

important to recognize that estimates differ greatly, 

based on conflicting hypothesis’s and differences 

between proven reserves and those that are 

economically or technically recoverable. 

HOW DO THE WESTERN CBM BASINS COMPARE?

The major producing CBM basins in the Rocky 

Mountain region include the San Juan, Raton, Uinta, 

and the Powder River Basin. Potential or initial 

development is being considered for the Piceance, 

Green River, and Denver basins. 

Each coal basin is different and poses its 

own unique set of development criteria 

and exploration challenges. Due to these 

differences, developments in various 

basins cause distinct changes to the 

surrounding communities and ecosystems. 

Some basins have been produced for many 

years and are nearing their peak while 

others are in the initial stages of 

development and some have still yet to be 

considered. Some basins produce good 

quality water that can be used for a variety 

of beneficial uses including irrigation, dust 

control, livestock watering, wetlands 

construction, wildlife source ponds, and 

even human consumption (ALL 2003), while

other basins have poor quality water that 

must be managed for proper disposal. The 

common factor among CBM basins in the 

Rocky Mountains is that they each have 

unique characteristics. Operators take a 

long hard look at the various basins 

regional geology, coal types and 

characteristics, existing infrastructure, 

surrounding ecosystems and production 

potential before any investments are 

contemplated. New technologies are being 

advanced each year, which make some 

seemingly non-profitable basins more 

economic as differences are evaluated 

time and again. Table 2 summarizes the 

key characteristics of producing CBM 

basins in the Rocky Mountain Region of 

the United States. 
19 CBM Primer December 2003 

Figure 16 

General location map and coal rank map of the San 

Juan Basin 

The San Juan Basin 

The San Juan Basin covers an area of about 7,500 

square miles located near the Four Corners region of 

Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Utah (Figure 16). 

The basin measures roughly 100 miles in length in the 

north-south direction and 90 miles in width. 

The foremost coal-bearing unit in the basin is known 

as the Fruitland formation. CBM production occurs 

predominantly in coals of the Fruitland Formation, 

however, some CBM is held in the underlying and 

adjacent Pictured Cliffs sandstone, and numerous 

wells are completed in both zones. Individual coalbeds 

of the Fruitland Formation average from 20 to over 40 

feet thick. The total net thickness of the coal beds 

ranges from 20 to over 80 feet across the basin. 

The waters in parts of the Fruitland Formation usually 

contains less than 10,000 mg/L TDS. In the northern 

half of the formation, most water contains less than 

3,000 mg/L, and wells near the outcrop produce water 

that contains less than 500 mg/L. 

Typical CBM wells in the San Juan Basin range from 

550 to 4,000 feet in depth, and about 2,550 such wells 

are currently operating (COGCC and NM OCD, 2001). The 

San Juan Basin is the most productive CBM basin in 

North America. CBM production in the basin averages 

about 800 Mscf per day per well (Stevens et al., 1996).

Table 2 

Comparison of Producing CBM Basins in the Rocky Mountain Region 

Basin San Juan Raton Uinta Powder River 

State Location NM, CO NM, CO UT WY, MT 

Drilling Method Air Percussion Air Percussion Air Percussion Air-Water 

Completion Methods Cased Hole 

Perforate/Multistage 

Cased Hole 

Perforate/Multistage 

N2 Foam/Sand 

Cased Hole 

Perforate/Multistage 

X-Link/Sand

Open-hole 

Under-ream 

Producing Wells 2,550 694 558 10,358 

Primary Water Disposal 

Methods Injection Deep Injection Deep Injection Surface Discharge, 

Beneficial Use 

Water Lift Method Rod Pump Progressive Cavity and 

Rod Pump Rod Pump Electric Pump 

Average water Production 

per well 25 Bbl/day 266 Bbl/day 215 Bbl/Day 400 Bbl/day 

Coal Rank Sub-bituminous high-volatile bituminous high-volatile bituminous Sub-bituminous 

Well Depth (feet) 550-4000 bsl 400-4000 bsl 2000-7000 bsl 200-2500 bsl 

Net Coal Thickness 20-80 feet 10-40 feet 10-40 feet 75 feet 

Gas Content 350-450 scf/ton 50-400 scf/ton 250-400 scf/ton 30 scf/ton 

Well Spacing 320-160 acres 160 acres 160 acres 80 acres 

Average Well Cost $275,000 $330,000 $375,000 $75,000 

Average Well Reserves 10 Bcf 1.8 Bcf 1.5 Bcf 0.4 Bcf 

Average Well Gas 

Production Rate 800 Mscf/day 300 Mscf/day 625 Mscf/day 180 Mscf/day 

Bbl, Barrel (42 gallons), bsl – below surface level 

Sources: PTTC Rockies 2000, GTI 2000, EPA 2002, USGS 2000, CO, NM, WY, MT Oil and Gas Commissions, Williams 2001, 
20 CBM Primer December 2003 

Figure 17 

General location map and coal rank map of the 

Powder River Basin

Production began in the late 1980s and rapidly 

expanded through the 1990s but is no longer 

increasing. Companies are attempting to maintain 

production by focusing on enlarging gathering 

facilities, upgrading production equipment, installing 

pumping units and wellhead compression, recavitating 

producing wells, experimenting with secondary 

recovery efforts, and downspacing from 320-acre units 

to 160 acre spacing. 

In 2000, the San Juan Basin produced 0.78 Tcf of gas, 

representing 4% of total U.S. natural gas production 

and 80% of the nation’s CBM production. The BLM’s 

recently completed EIS predicts that 12,500 new oil, 

gas, and CBM wells will be drilled in the San Juan 

Basin over the next 20 years. Infill drilling—drilling 

wells on reduced spacing requirements, at every 160 

acres rather than 320 acres—has already begun. 

The Powder River Basin 

The Powder River Basin is located in northeastern 

Wyoming and southeastern Montana (Figure 17). The 

basin covers an area of approximately 25,800 square 

miles, of which approximately 75% is in Wyoming. 

Fifty percent of the Powder River basin is believed to 

have the potential for CBM production. 

Coal beds in this region intermingle at varying depths 

with sandstones and shale. The majority of the 

productive coal zones range from 150 feet to 1,850 

feet below ground (Randall, 1991). The uppermost 

formation is the Wasatch Formation, extending from 

land surface to 1,000 feet deep. Most of the coal seams 

in the Wasatch Formation are continuous, but thin (six 

feet or less). The Fort Union Formation lies directly 

below the Wasatch Formation and can be as thick as 

3,000 feet. The coal beds in Fort Union formation are 

usually more plentiful in the upper portion, named the 

Tongue River member. This member is normally 

1,500 to 1,800 feet thick, of which a net total of 350 

feet of coal can be found in various seams. The 

thickest of the individual coal seams is over 150 feet 

thick. CBM production is primarily from the Fort 

Union rather than the overlying Wasatch. 

The Fort Union Formation supplies municipal water to 

the city of Gillette, WY and is the same formation that 

contains the coals that are developed for CBM. The 

coal beds contain and transmit more water than the 

sandstones. The sandstones and coal beds are both 

used for the production of water and the production of 

CBM. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) levels in the 

water produced from these coal beds meet the water 

quality criteria for drinking water. 

The Powder River Basin is the fastest growing CBM 

area in the United States. The huge coal deposits 

contain enormous amounts of methane gas due to their 

unusual thickness as evident in the amount of coal 

produced from this region. The low gas content per ton 

and low pressure were initially seen as barriers to 

development. The first wells drilled and completed 

produced massive volumes of water but little gas. As 

companies altered their drilling to more shallow wells, 

production increased. The low drilling costs, the short 

completion time and the relatively good quality of 

water coupled with inexpensive water management i.e. 

surface discharge encouraged development. 

The BLM in Montana and Wyoming issued their Final 

EISs for the Powder River Basin in January 2003, and 

they anticipate combined activity of upwards of 
21 CBM Primer December 2003 

Figure 18 

General location map and coal rank map of the Raton Basin

60,000 new wells and accompanying roads, pipelines, 

and electrical utilities, and compressors in the basin. 

Currently, there are approximately 14,000 producing 

wells in the Powder River Basin, mainly in the 

Wyoming portion. 

The Raton Basin 

The Raton Basin is the southern most Laramide basin 

in the Rockies and covers about 2,200 square miles 

along the Colorado-New Mexico border (Figure 18). 

The basin extends 80 miles north to south and as much 

as 50 miles east to west (Stevens et al., 1992). It is an 

elongate asymmetric syncline, 20,000 to 25,000 feet 

thick in the deepest part. 

Coal beds occur in the Upper Cretaceous Vermejo and 

Paleocene Raton formations at depths from outcrop to 

more than 4,000 ft. Vermejo coal beds are lenticular 

and fairly continuous, with net coal thickness of 10 to 

40 ft. Raton coals generally are thinner and less 

continuous. Most of the coal in the basin is highvolatile bituminous in rank. Measured gas contents 

range from less than 50 scf/ton to more than 400 

scf/ton.

The coal seams of the Vermejo and Raton formations 

developed for methane production also contain water 

that meets the federal water quality criteria for 

drinking water. The underlying Trinidad Sandstone 

and other sandstone beds within the Vermejo and 

Raton formations, as well as intrusive dikes and sills, 

also contain water of sufficient quality to meet the 

drinking water quality criteria. 

Methane resources for the basin have been estimated 

at approximately 10.2 Tcf contained in the Vermejo 

and Raton formations (Stevens et al., 1992). It was reported 

recently that the average CBM production rate of wells 

in the Raton Basin was close to 300 Mcf per day, and 

annual production in 2000 was 30.8 Bcf (GTI, 2002).

The Unita Basin 

The majority of the Uinta Basin is contained within 

Utah, with a small segment of the basin lying in 

northwestern Colorado (Figure 19). The basin covers 

approximately 14,450 square miles (Quarterly Review, 

August 1993). Stratigraphically the Uinta Basin is 

adjacent to the Piceance Basin of Colorado, but is 

structurally separated from it by the Douglas Creek 

Arch, an uplift near the state line. It is 

bordered on the West by the San Rafael Swell 

and Uncompahgre Uplift and on the north by 

the Uinta Mountains.

Significant down-warping of the basin 

occurred during the Late Creatceous and 

Eocene (Laramide) timeframe. Coal beds in 

the Uinta Basin occur in the Mesaverde 

Group, however the majority of development 

activity targets the high-volatile bituminous 

coals in the Ferron Sandstone member of the 

Mancos Shale. A 80-mile-long, 12-mile-wide, 

“Corridor” paralleling the thickest 

development (10 to 40 ft) of Ferron coal 

seams has been identified by the Utah 

Geological Survey. (UGS 1997) 

Sandstone is interbedded with the Ferron coals 

and forms a segment of clastic sediment 150 

to 750 feet thick. The Ferron Sandstone coals 

range in depth from 1,000 to over 7,000 feet 

below surface level (Garrison et al., 1997). The 

Blackhawk Formation comprises coal seams 

interbedded with sandstone in combination with 

shale and siltstone. Wells drilled in the Blackhawk 
22 CBM Primer December 2003 

Figure 19 

General location map and coal rank map of the 

Uinta Basin

Formation coals are finished at 4,200 to 4,400 feet 

below the surface (Gloyn and Sommer, 1993). 

The Blackhawk Formation and the Ferron coals of the 

Uinta Basin have water that meets the National 

Primary Drinking Water (NPDW) criteria. 

Groundwater from the Blackhawk Formation taken at 

the Castlegate Field contains a TDS level below the 

federal drinking water standard of 10,000 mg/L. 

Castlegate Field coal beds have published TDS levels 

of 5,000 mg/L in production waters indicating that the 

methane gas wells in this portion of the basin are 

located in an aquifer that meets the NPDW standard 

(EPA 2002b).

Full scale exploration within the Uinta Basin began in 

the 1990s (Quarterly Review, 1993). The CBM potential of 

the Uinta Basin was estimated by the Utah Geological 

Survey in the early 1990s to be between 8 Tcf and 10 

Tcf (Gloyn and Sommer, 1993). Total production was 75.7 

Bcf in 2000 (GTI, 2002). The Ferron coals at the north 

end of the corridor, primarily in River Gas Utah’s 

Drunkards Wash Unit, have produced more than 200 

Bcf of methane with daily production of 260 MMcfd 

from 470 wells (EPA 2002b).

OTHER BASINS

The other major basins in the Rocky Mountain region 

which have tremendous potential to produce vast 

amounts of CBM are the Denver, Greater Green River, 

and Piceance basins. These basins are currently being 

investigated by numerous development companies and 

it is anticipated that several federal EISs will be 

conducted in the next few years (DOI 2003).

The majority of the Denver Basin lies in the east 

central region of Colorado and contains an estimated 2 

Tcf of CBM (Figure 15). Development has been 

delayed by a deficiency in the data regarding the 

extent of the CBM resource and the disposition of the 

gas reservoirs. The two main coal formations are 

enclosed by four Denver basin aquifers, 

presenting concerns about the degree to which 

the aquifers and coals are linked hydraulically 

and to what extent CBM development would 

have on the groundwater resources (Wray & 

Koening, 2001).

CBM resources in the Greater Green River 

Basin of Colorado and Wyoming have been 

estimated at upwards of 314 Tcf (GTI 2001). A 

sizable portion of CBM resource is located at 

depths less than 6,000 feet. (Kaiser et al., 1995).

Some exploration and limited development of 

CBM occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s. 

Colorado Oil and Gas Commission records 

indicate that approximately 31 Bcf of CBM was 

produced in Moffat County during 1995 (COGCC 

web site, 2001). There appears to be no commercial 

production at present. Development of CBM in 

the basin has lagged due to the current limited 

economic viability. The degree to which the 

lowering of the hydrostatic pressure is required in 

most wells has been the chief restraining factor, 

compounded by the depth of the coal zone and the 

relatively low CBM recovery potential. Recently, 

permits for new gas wells have been issued indicating 

that there may be some continued interest in this area 

(COGCC, web site 2001).

The Piceance Basin is located within the state of 

Colorado in the northwest corner of the state (Figure 

15). The depth to the CBM bearing coal zone (CameoWheeler-Fairfield) is about 6,000 feet. Two-thirds of 

the CBM occurs in coals deeper than 5,000 feet 

making the Piceance Basin one of the deepest CBM 

areas in the U.S. (Quarterly Review, August 1993). Due to the 

depth of the coals the permeability is reduced, thereby 
23 CBM Primer December 2003 

Figure 20 

General location map of eastern coal basins 

Source: Nelson 2000

increasing the difficulty of extraction. This has 

hindered CBM development in the basin. However, 

the Cameo-Wheeler-Fairfield coal zone in the basin is 

estimated to contain between 80 and 136 Tcf of CBM 

(Tyler et al., 1998). Total CBM production was 1.2 Bcf in 

2000 (GTI, 2002).

Basins of interest outside the Rockies (Figure 20) 

include Black Warrior Basin in Alabama; the Central 

Appalachian Coal Basin located across parts of 

Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia; the 

Northern Appalachian Coal Basin in Pennsylvania, 

West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, and Maryland; the 

Western Interior Coal Region which encompasses the 

areas of six states Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, 

Missouri, Nebraska, and Iowa; and coal basins in 

Alaska.

Of these the Black Warrior Basin has been the most 

productive. To date there has been nearly 4,000 wells 

permitted in Alabama (GTI, 2002). These wells produce 

an average of about 300 Mcf per day per well (Hewitt, 

1984; McFall et al., 1986; Schraufnagel, 1993). It has been 

estimated that the Black Warrior Basin produces 

roughly 100 Bcf of gas annually, which is about 20 

percent of Alabama’s gas production from all methods 

(Pashin and Hinkle 1997).

The Central Appalachian basin has seen recent 

development in the Nora Field in southwestern 

Virginia. The Nora Field had over 250 CBM wells 

drilled in 2000. Approximately 2,500 new CBM wells 

were drilled last year within Buchanan County, 

southwestern Virginia (Wilson, 2001). The State of 

Virginia reportedly produced 72 Bcf of CBM in 2000 

(Wilson, 2001). The Gas Technology Institute reports that 

basin-wide CBM production 

stood at 52.9 Bcf in 2000 

(GTI, 2002).

CBM has been produced in 

commercial quantities from 

the Pittsburgh coal bed of 

the Northern Appalachian 

Coal Basin since 1932 

(Lyons, 1997). As of 1993 at 

least 20 wells have been in 

continuous production in 

southern Indiana County, 

Pennsylvania (Quarterly Review, 

1993). CBM production 

development in the 

Northern Appalachian Basin 

has lagged, however, due to 

insufficient reservoir 

knowledge, inadequate well 

completion techniques, and 

CBM ownership issues 

revolving around whether 

the gas is owned by the 

mineral owner or the oil and 

gas owner (Zebrowitz et al., 1991). 

This issue is discussed in 

detail in the Regulatory Framework section. Discharge 

of produced waters has also proven to be problematic 

(Lyons, 1997) for current and would-be CBM field 

operators in the Northern Appalachian Coal Basin. 

Total CBM production stood at 1.41 Bcf in 2000 (GTI, 

2002). 
24 CBM Primer December 2003 

Figure 21 

Natural Gas Production, Consumption, and Imports 

Source: Mariner-Volpe, 2000

The Western Interior Coal Region comprises three 

coal basins that include the Arkoma, the Cherokee, 

and the Forest City basins. As of March 2000, there 

were 377 CBM wells in the Arkoma Basin of Eastern 

Oklahoma, ranging in depth from 589 to 3,726 feet 

(Oklahoma Geological Survey website, 2002). The Arkoma basin 

contains an estimated 1.58 to 3.55 Tcf of gas reserves 

contained primarily in the Hartshorne coals (Quarterly 

Review, 1993). In the Cherokee Basin, unknown amounts 

of CBM gas have been produced as conventional 

natural gas for over 50 years (Quarterly Review, 1993).

Targeted CBM production increased in the late 1980s, 

and at least 232 CBM wells had been completed as of 

January 1993 (Quarterly Review, 1993). The Cherokee Basin 

contains an estimated 1.38 MMcf of gas per square 

mile basin-wide (Stoeckinger and Brady, 1989) in the targeted 

Mulky, Weir-Pittsburg, and Riverton coal seams of the 

Cherokee Group (Quarterly Review, 1993). Nearly 10 Tcf of 

gas is located in eastern Kansas alone (PTTC, 1999). The 

Forest City Basin was relatively unexplored in 1993, 

with about ten coal bed wells concentrated in 

Atchison, Jefferson, Miami, Leavenworth, and 

Franklin Counties, Kansas (Quarterly Review, 1993). The 

Forest City Basin contains an estimated 1.0 TCF of inplace gas (Nelson, 1999). For the entire region, CBM 

production was 6.5 Bcf in 2000 (GTI, 2002).

Additionally, Alaska has nearly as much coal as the 

entire continental U.S. Investigations have indicated 

that coals in Northern Alaska’s Bristol Bay Basin, the 

Colville Basin, and the Yukon Basin of the Alaskan 

Peninsula have the highest CBM production potential 

(PTTC 2000).

THE FUTURE ROLE OF CBM IN THE U.S. ENERGY POLICY

Natural gas currently provides 24 percent of the 

energy needs of the U.S. and CBM comprises 8 

percent of the natural gas domestically extracted (EIA 

2001). The United States produces the majority (85%) 

of the gas it consumes and imports the remainder from 

Canada. The average U.S. family uses about 45,000 

cubic feet of natural gas per year consuming 4.4 Tcf of 

natural gas to meet the nation’s residential needs 

annually (NEP 2001).

By the year 2020, the Energy Information 

Administration projects the United States will need 

nearly 50 percent more natural gas to meet demand. 

While the resource base that supplies today’s natural 

gas is immense, conventional production in the U.S. is 

expected to reach a peak in 2015, see Figure 21. The 

demand for natural gas will almost certainly continue 

to increase, widening the gap with domestic 

production. Consequently, the U.S. will progressively 

rely on imports of natural gas from Canada, and 

imports of liquified natural gas from producers across 

the globe (NEP 2001). Additionally, the nation will look 

for natural gas from unconventional resources, such as 

CBM.

Many CBM basins are found in environmentally 

sensitive areas that increasingly require the use of less 

intrusive technologies. New technologies are being 

engineered to decrease both the environmental effects 

and the economic costs of CBM exploration and 

development. These new technologies like horizontal 

drilling and enhanced recovery through CO2 or N2

injection technology permit greater exactness and 

significantly reduce surface disturbing activities. 

Natural gas, including CBM has been assigned a major 

role in the current administration’s energy policy. The 

Bush administration’s National Energy Policy 

emphasizes escalating domestic sources of fossil fuels, 

in fact 35 specific recommendations were made that 

address increasing supplies of fossil fuels. The 

recommendations include opening new lands or 

redefining federal lands for increased exploration, 

streamlining the permitting process, reducing the 

regulatory burden, and expanding the nation’s energy 

related infrastructure. The energy challenge presented 

can be summarized as follows: Even if the U.S. can 

improve energy efficiency there will still be a need for 
25 CBM Primer December 2003 

more energy supplies. The future projected shortfall 

between supply and demand can be made up in only a 

few ways: improve energy efficiency, import more 

energy; increase domestic energy supply or utilize a 

combination of these methods (PTTC 2000).

Economically, the most important long-term challenge 

relating to natural gas is the ability to maintain the 

price in the face of ever increasing demand tied to 

limited supplies (DOE 2002). If supplies cannot be 

maintained, elevated natural gas prices such as 

experienced in 2000 could become a common 

problem. Elevated natural gas prices could have an 

impact on electricity prices, home heating bills, and 

the cost of industrial production. To meet this longterm challenge, the U.S. natural gas industry needs to 

increase production and invest in the natural gas 

pipeline network and infrastructure (NEP 2001).

It is evident in the National Energy Plan that the Bush 

administration recognizes that short-term increases in 

natural gas production will come from non-traditional 

sources in the Rocky Mountain Region such as CBM. 

The increased reliance on Rocky Mountain CBM 

production coupled with the national energy policy 

recommendations to open more federal land to 

exploration, expedite permitting and reduce regulatory 

hurdles can only mean that the Rocky Mountain States 

will be at the center of the national energy policy 

debates. These changes and their associated 

implications could result in energy development 

clashes with other closely held western values such as, 

preservation of wild lands, protection of ecoystems 

and wildlife habitat, recreational and aesthetic 

interests, and traditional lifestyles. Conflicts will be 

unavoidable as people across the Rocky Mountains 

have intensely opposed opinions about what should be 

done on public lands. 

Weathered landscape with exposed Fort Union Formation, Powder River Basin, Montana 
26 CBM Primer December 2003 
27 CBM Primer December 2003 

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Federal, State and Local Regulations Governing CBM Development across the West 

umerous regulations designed to control 

conventional natural gas development can and 

do apply to CBM exploration and production. 

However, due to the differences in produced water 

volumes and quality, well spacing, and utility 

infrastructure, specific CBM regulations have been 

drafted by federal, state and local agencies to meet 

various concerns. This section provides an overview of 

the current regulations and discusses some case 

histories regarding CBM development. 

FEDERAL REGULATIONS

CBM ownership has been a point of contention since 

the early 1900s; questions regarding its status as part 

of the coal estate or as part of the natural gas resource 

is still under debate in some Eastern states. However, 

CBM originating in federally held coal deposits may 

be explored for and extracted under either a fee or 

Federal oil and gas lease, depending on the non-coal 

minerals ownership. This determination was made by 

the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) solicitor, after 

examining the relevant Federal statutes. The 

determination states that U.S. reservations of coal do 

not include the CBM. However, Federal reservations 

of gas do include the CBM found in coal deposits. The 

CBM is therefore disposable as a gas under Section 17 

of the Mineral Leasing Act (DOI 1981). As a result where 

the coal and oil and gas are federally owned, Federal 

oil and gas lease regulations cover the CBM. CBM 

operations and production under a Federal lease are 

subject to the regulations governing conventional oil 

and gas drilling and production operations (Cohen et. al. 

1984).

The Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) of 1920 was 

determined in 1981 by the DOI solicitor to refer only 

to gas or natural gas, without excluding CBM (DOI 

1981). Additionally, the standard Federal oil and gas 

lease allows the lessee to drill for, extract, and dispose 

of any oil and gas, except helium. Therefore, since 

1981 CBM gas has been developed under the oil and 

gas leasing provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act. 

The DOI Solicitor also concluded that the coal leasing 

requirements of the MLA do not grant the coal lessee 

the right to extract minerals associated with coal (Kemp 

and Peterson 1988). The Solicitor clarified that the 

requirements do not authorize a coal lessee to extract 

CBM, other than the venting of gas required to 

maintain a safe working atmosphere. It was also 

pointed out in the determination that the oil and gas 

lease holder does not have the right to extract the 

CBM utilizing a method that would harm the coal 

deposit or generate hazardous conditions for later coal 

mining operations. In conclusion, the Solicitor 

affirmed that the rights of an oil and gas lessee would 

be restricted to the rights not previously granted to the 

coal lessee (Kemp and Peterson 1988).

Since this determination was made the MLA has 

provided the framework for authorization and 

management of CBM operations on federal lands. The 

MLA serves as the umbrella regulation for all Federal 

agency policies regarding fluid minerals development. 

BLM and U.S. Forest Service managed lands and 

other lands owned by the U.S. are available for CBM 

production under the MLA. BLM manages the 

majority of the federal mineral estate and is the 

primary agency responsible for developing and 

implementing land management plans. BLM’s 

management of federal lands is also governed by the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

addresses the procedures required to evaluate impacts 

on federal lands. Activity in national forests follows 

the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), which 

guides development operations. However, before 

drilling can take place on fee or federal lands 

numerous documents must be drafted and decisions 

made, including revisions to land use plans, leasing 

determinations, Environmental Assessments or Impact 

Statements, Surface Owner Agreements, Plans of 

Development (POD), and Applications for Permit to 

Drill (APD). Several of these steps require public 

involvement and have provisions for public feedback. 

N
28 CBM Primer December 2003 

Figure 22 

BLM RMP Areas for the 

States of Montana, 

Wyoming, Utah, 

Colorado, and New 

Mexico 

Source: BLM website, 2003

Land Use Plans 

The BLM and Forest Service 

maintain Land Use 

Management plans for all 

property under their 

jurisdiction. These plans known 

as Resource Management Plans 

(RMPs) or Land and Resource 

Management Plans (LRMPs), 

respectively, are the principal 

documents used to govern the 

development of mineral 

extraction on federal lands 

including CBM. BLM RMPs 

are developed following the 

requirements of section 202 of 

FLPMA. Forest Service LRMPs 

are drafted in accordance with 

NFMA. Land Use Plans 

typically include discussions of 

expected land uses, such as 

livestock grazing, wilderness 

study areas, and mineral 

extraction. Opening areas to 

activities addressed in the plans 

usually requires conducting an 

Environmental Assessment 

(EA) or Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) following the 

requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). Figure 22 shows the 

BLM RMP areas for the Rocky 

Mountain States, each area has 

a land use plan which addresses 

the specific development 

actions within their boundaries. 

The figure also shows shadows 

of the coal basins.

In a formal EIS process, the 

lead agency must state the 

“reasonably foreseeable 

development” (RFD) scenario 

that is anticipated from allowing 

lands to be developed. The EIS 

addresses impacts to the land 

based on the agency’s 

prediction as to where and how 

development will occur. 
29 CBM Primer December 2003 

Photograph of typical CBM well head in Wyoming with pronghorn antilope 

(Antilocapra Americana)

Typically, agencies provide alternatives, which can be 

compared with one another to assess the impact 

potential of various approaches. CBM development 

has been very rapid in the Rocky Mountain region and 

most existing RMPs/LRMPs did not foresee or address 

the impacts from this level of CBM development. 

Recent EISs have been completed for the Southern Ute 

Tribe in the San Juan Basin and for the States of 

Montana and Wyoming. Additionally, several CBM 

related EISs and/or RMP/LRMP updates are planned 

for USFS and BLM areas throughout the Rockies in 

the coming year. 

NEPA and the EIS 

Process

The National 

Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

requires all federal 

agencies to conduct 

an EA or EIS when 

proposed actions 

may have an impact 

on man’s 

environment. EIS’ 

have recently been 

conducted for 

actions such as 

CBM development 

throughout a RMP 

area or when lands 

are opened to 

previously 

unconsidered oil 

and gas leasing activities. EAs are conducted for new 

development scenarios proposed within areas covered 

by an EIS, unless the proposed action was not 

adequately addressed in the original EIS or land use 

plan. NEPA affects leasing decisions, although it is 

often contested whether an EIS or an environmental 

assessment is appropriate. Federal courts have issued 

contradictory rulings on the issue. 

The EIS process considers the proposed action 

whether it is leasing or development, and attempts to 

quantify the impacts under various alternatives for 

several natural resources. A typical EIS may address 

impacts to the following: air quality, cultural 

resources, environmental justice issues, geology and 

minerals, hydrology (surface- and ground-water), 

Indian Trust assets, lands and realty, livestock grazing, 

noise, paleontological resources, recreational 

opportunities, social and economic values, soils, 

vegetation, visual quality, wilderness study areas, and 

wildlife. Mitigation is then applied via standard lease 

stipulations or other measures such as agency 

guidelines or by imposing new mitigation measures to 

the alternative approaches. It is important to note that 

the EIS process is not designed to eliminate all impacts 

from the proposed action but to quantify the residual 

impacts so a balanced decision can be made with 

regards to the proposed action.

Following the impact analysis a comparison of the 

alternatives is 

conducted using 

residual impacts 

(impacts after 

mitigation). By 

comparing residual 

impacts from various 

different alternatives, 

decision makers can 

assess the various 

components of each 

alternative and either 

choose one or develop 

a different approach 

based on portions of 

the analyzed 

alternatives. When a 

decision is made it is 

drafted in a document 

referred to as the 

Record of Decision 

(ROD), which is used to update the RMP/LRMP with 

the addressed changes (CEQ 2002).

During the EIS process the public is provided several 

opportunities to state their concerns and help design 

the scope of the impact analysis. Usually, the lead 

federal agency will hold public scoping meetings 

throughout the area that will be affected by the 

proposed action. The public scoping meetings are the 

first opportunity for citizens to express their concerns 

with the proposed action and to request impact 

analysis for various resources. This is also the 

appropriate time for citizens and special interest 

groups to provide the lead federal agency with data 

and special reports to be included in the impact 

analysis. The purpose of these meetings is to gather 

information regarding issues the public is particularly 
30 CBM Primer December 2003 

Photograph of CBM well cluster CX Ranch Montana

concerned with, and to exchange information with the 

public for project clarification. After all the scoping 

meetings are held the public scoping comments are 

entered into a database where they can be grouped by 

topic and analyzed. A scoping report detailing the 

public concerns is typically issued and the impact 

analysis is designed to encompass all the applicable 

concerns.

It is possible for some concerns to be outside the scope 

of the intended EIS and therefore not considered in the 

analysis. For example, if the proposed action addresses 

a resource development scenario i.e. gas, and the 

public comment requests that a particular area be 

excluded from leasing, this may not be possible to 

analyze under the current development EIS. Typically, 

a leasing EIS is conducted prior to determining which 

lands will be developed for which resources or 

multiple resources. If a leasing EIS has been 

conducted and a particular area was designed for gas 

development it would not be appropriate to revisit that 

determination when a gas development action is 

proposed.

The next opportunity the public has to comment is 

typically at the Draft EIS stage, unless supporting 

technical reports have been conducted. Supporting 

technical reports are issued in draft form and the 

public is provided an opportunity to review the 

findings and submit comments. Regarding the Draft 

EIS, there is a 90-day public review period built in for 

EIS’ which will result in a management plan 

amendment. Anyone who requests a copy of the Draft 

EIS is provided one, and has until the deadline to 

submit comments. These comments are grouped by 

topic, and similar comments are paraphrased into a 

public concern statement (PCS). A PCS can cause 

various actions to be taken, the most common of 

which is a reanalysis of a portion of the EIS; a 

clarification added to a specific section; an explanation 

regarding where information can be found or why the 

PCS is not relevant to the analysis. In either case, all 

PCSs are specifically addressed in the Final EIS and 

all citizens who submitted comments are typically 

listed.

Once the Draft EIS has been modified based on public 

feedback a Final EIS is issued. A 30-day protest period 

is generally incorporated into this process to allow the 

public a final opportunity to express their concerns 

with the proposed action. Following the protest period 

a ROD is issued, effectively changing the land use 

plan and adopting the preferred alternative or a 

combination of actions derived from the various 

alternatives.

Leasing 

Leases issued on federal 

land are competitively 

bid in accordance with 

the Federal Onshore Oil 

and Gas Leasing 

Reform Act 

(FOOGLRA) of 1987. 

Federal environmental 

laws are generally 

incorporated into 

standard lease terms. 

However, lease terms 

may be augmented with 

additional mitigation 

measures to minimize 

specific foreseen 

impacts (FOOGLRA 1987).

These added mitigation 

measures can include 

special or supplemental 

stipulations suggested 

by State or local 
31 CBM Primer December 2003 

Typical truck mounted drill rig used for shallow CBM wells 

governments. Standard lease terms provide the lessee 

the right to access the leased land to explore, drill, and 

extract oil and gas resources beneath the surface.

Leasing decisions can be disputed in court and are 

often challenged by special interest groups. If the lead 

federal agency fails to conduct adequate 

environmental analysis before issuing leases a court 

decision could bring a halt to the proposed 

development. In fact, this very scenario was recently 

played out in the spring of 2002 in Wyoming. The 

Wyoming Outdoor and Powder River Basin Resource 

Councils challenged three BLM issued CBM leases as 

being based on inadequate environmental data (IBLA 

2002). The Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) 

found that the two BLM reports that the agency based 

their leasing decisions on were not sufficient to 

provide the necessary pre-leasing NEPA analysis (IBLA 

2002). The decision effectively stopped existing leasing, 

and questioned whether the analysis process the BLM 

follows is adequate for the thousands of anticipated 

new leases. Consequently, the Wyoming BLM could 

not depend on those documents to fulfill its 

commitments under NEPA. The Wyoming BLM 

issued a new CBM Final EIS in February 2003 to 

clarify the issues. 

Development 

Before a gas developer can drill an exploration well or 

develop a field an Application for Permit to Drill 

(APD) must be submitted along with a Plan of 

Development (POD). Exploration and development of 

CBM resources on BLM minerals are allowed subject 

to agency decisions, lease stipulations, permit 

requirements, and surface owner agreements. In the 

newly issued Montana and Wyoming RODs operators 

are required to submit a POD outlining the proposed 

development of an area (BLM 2003a./b.). PODs are 

required when the development spacing proposed is 

tighter than 1 well per 640 acres. The PODs are to be 

developed in consultation with affected Tribes, 

affected surface owner(s), and other involved 

permitting agencies. 

A step-by-step guideline for preparation of the POD 

was recently issued by the Buffalo, WY and Miles 

City, MT BLM offices, respectively (Breisch 2003). PODs 

are required to be submitted in draft form so that they 

can be reviewed and any changes made prior to 

allowing surface disturbing activities. Key components 

to a PODs include: 

 An APD (form 3160-3) for each federal well 

in the project area 

 An application for permit form for all state 

and private wells 

 A list of all other permitting agencies involved 

in the project and the point-of-contact for each 

office

 A list of all existing wells in the project area, 

including monitoring wells 

 Maps showing proposed roads, compressor 

stations, pipelines, powerlines, CBM well 

locations, all existing wells, current and 

proposed monitoring wells, surface ownership, 

mineral ownership, surface features, and 

existing structures

 Master drilling and surface use information as 

required by Onshore Order No. 1 (for BLM 

lands)
32 CBM Primer December 2003 

Photograph of typical CBM wells co-located with 

injection well, Wyoming 

 A Reclamation Plan for surface disturbance 

 A wildlife monitoring plan demonstrating how 

the project will meet the needs of the BLM 

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan 

(WMPP) for BLM lands 

 A Water Management Plan for the project area 

 Surface owner agreements, including water 

well agreements (or notice that the Surface 

Owner Damage and Disruption Compensation 

Act applies and surface owner agreements are 

pending settlement or court action) 

 A list of all potentially affected surface owners 

within the project area 

 A cultural resource plan addressing 

identification of strategies commensurate with 

the level of the proposed development 

 BLM also requires compliance with Onshore 

Oil and Gas Order Number 7 (Disposal of 

produced water) 

Draft PODs are used by the lead federal agency to 

analyze the local cumulative effects of a proposed 

development project, and to evaluate ways to further 

reduce these effects such as requiring companies to 

consider alternative beneficial uses of production 

water in the case of CBM development (Laakso 2003). A 

team of interdisciplinary professionals comprised of 

land planners, environmental scientists, geologists, 

biologists, archaeologists, hydrologists, wildlife 

specialists, cultural specialists, engineers and others 

evaluate the PODs, perform on-site inspections, and 

conduct field monitoring (Bloom 2003). Onsite 

inspections conducted by the lead agencies personnel 

may activate alterations of the APD or conditions of 

approval. Prior to approving the APD, the lead agency 

will also verify that the required performance bond is 

in place. 

Laws Governing Water 

The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1987, as amended, 

establishes objectives to restore and maintain the 

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the 

Nation’s Water. In accordance with the CWA, CBM 

extraction is controlled by water quality standards so 

that designated uses of water are protected. Standards 

include both numerical and narrative descriptions. 

Numerical standards are directed at controlling the 

daily pollutant discharges from point sources to ensure 

that total pollution levels are not exceeded. Numerical 

standards usually take the form of pollution limits or 

total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). Currently most 

Rocky Mountain States are still in the process of 

developing their TMDLs as per EPA Region VIII 

requirements (EPA 2001). Narrative standards are 

typically written to prevent the degradation of current 

water quality and protect established uses of the 

surface water (MDEQ 2002).

CBM developers must determine what they are going 

to do with their excess production water and at that 

point various other water laws apply. For example, if 

they decide to discharge produced water into the 

surface waters of the state they will have to obtain a 

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit from EPA. State Water Quality 

Standards and effluent volume limits will be applied to 

the NPDES permit, however at present there are no 

scientifically established effluent standards for CBM 

discharges. To ensure that State Water Quality 

Standards are not violated the permits will have 

effluent limitations attached. 

In the Powder River Basin the BLM chose to draft two 

EISs because of the differences between Montana and 

Wyoming state law and various other reasons (BLM 2003 

a./b.). In Wyoming, for example CBM produced water 

is not regulated by numeric standards, WDEQ simply 

requires that CBM produced water does not degrade 

designated uses of surface water. Montana, on the 

other hand, has numeric standards for some 

constituents in produced water and therefore Wyoming 

operators are required to comply with Montana 

regulations since they are downstream. The two states 

have negotiated an 18-month interim memorandum of 

cooperation (expires in early 2004) intended to protect 

the quality of the downstream watersheds (BLM 2001).

Often irrigated agriculture is the most sensitive 
33 CBM Primer December 2003 

beneficial use for surface waters and therefore 

downstream water quality standards are based on 

vegetation changes. 

The Clean Water Act requires applicants to obtain a 

certification stating that their activities will comply 

with the Clean Water Act. The certificate is issued 

from the state where the discharge originates. 

Requirements initiated by the state become part of the 

federal permit and are enforced by either the BLM or 

Forest Service. Additionally, operators must receive a 

404 permit the Corps of Engineers anytime they 

dispose of or deposit fill into the waters of the U.S. 

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act requires 

federal land managers to comply with all Federal, 

State, and Local requirements, administrative 

authorities, process, and sanctions regarding the 

control and abatement of water pollution in the same 

manner and to the same extent as any 

nongovernmental entity. The BLM requires all 

operators to obtain appropriate water handling, 

discharge and injection permits prior to submitting 

their Application for Permit to Drill (APD). 

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is designed to 

make the nation’s waters “drinkable” as well as 

“swimmable”. Amendments in 1996 established a 

direct connection between safe drinking water and 

watershed protection and management. The SDWA 

regulates the re-injection of produced water from 

CBM production. Underground injection is permitted 

under various well classes depending on the quality of 

the injectate and the zone where the fluid is injected: 

Part C of the SDWA attempts to protect underground 

sources of drinking water by requiring permits for all 

underground injection of liquids. There are five classes 

of injection wells under these regulations, the majority 

of CBM produced water is injected via Class II wells. 

Class II wells handle liquids that are produced as a byproduct of oil and gas operations or are used in 

enhanced recovery. 

The EPA conducted a study of the environmental risks 

to underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) 

when hydraulic fracturing is used to enhance CBM 

recovery. The study was prompted by complaints that 

CBM development has altered water quality in some 

drinking wells. The goal of EPA’s nationwide 

hydraulic fracturing study was to determine if a threat 

exists to public health, as a result of aquifer 

contamination from the narrow practice of hydraulic 

fracturing, as it relates to CBM wells, and if so, is high 

enough to warrant further study (EPA 2002b). The process 

of hydraulic fracturing involves forcing fluids under 

pressure into subsurface cracks utilizing the wellbore 

tubulars, treated fluids and surface pumps to form 

pathways for the natural gas and water to reach the 

well.

EPA’s final report published in October 2002 states 

that they reviewed claimed incidents of drinking water 

well contamination and found no confirmed cases, 

despite the thousands of fracturing events that have 

been conducted on CBM wells during the past decade. 

EPA also assessed the theoretical potential for 

hydraulic fracturing to contaminate drinking water 

wells. Two potential scenarios by which hydraulic 

fracturing may effect aquifer water quality were 

evaluated: (1) the injection of fracturing fluids directly 

into a aquifer, and (2) the creation of a hydraulic 

communication through a confining layer between the 

target coal bed formation and adjacent aquifer. EPA’s 

determination is that the threat of contaminating 

drinking water supplies by CBM hydraulic fracturing 

activities is low. Studies have found no observed 

breach of confining layers from hydraulically-created 

fractures, consistent with theoretical understanding of 

fracturing behavior (EPA 2002b).

Laws Governing Air 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1990, as amended, 

requires Federal agencies to comply with all Federal, 

state, and local requirements regarding the control and 

abatement of air pollution. This includes abiding by 

requirements of the State Implementation Plans. 

Potential changes in ambient air quality from CBM 

activities, such as reduced visibility, air quality 

emissions, dust emissions, harmful gases, and changes 

in climate are evaluated in the BLM EISs. 

Photograph of typical CBM field compressor station 
34 CBM Primer December 2003 

Air pollution emissions are limited by local, state, 

tribal and federal air quality regulations, standards, and 

implementation plans established under the CAA. 

These rules are administered by the State via 

Environmental Quality Departments and the EPA. Air 

quality regulations require certain proposed new, or 

modified existing, air pollutant emission sources 

(including CBM compression facilities) to undergo a 

permitting review before their construction can begin. 

Therefore, the applicable air quality regulatory 

agencies have the primary authority and responsibility 

to review permit applications and to require emission 

permits, fees and control devices, prior to construction 

and/or operation. 

In addition, the U.S. Congress (through the CAA 

Section 116) authorizes local, state, and tribal air 

quality regulatory agencies to establish air pollution 

control requirements more (but not less) stringent than 

federal requirements. Site-specific air quality analysis 

would be performed, and additional emission control 

measures, including a best available control 

technology (BACT) analysis and determination, may 

be required by the applicable air quality regulatory 

agencies to ensure protection of air quality resources. 

Also, under the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act (FLPMA) and the CAA, BLM cannot authorize 

any activity that does not conform to all applicable 

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

regulations, standards, and implementation plans. 

The significance criteria for potential air quality 

changes include local, state, tribal, and federally 

enforced legal requirements to ensure that air pollutant 

concentrations remain within specific allowable levels. 

These requirements include the National and State 

Ambient Air Quality Standards, which set maximum 

limits for several air pollutants, and PSD increments, 

which limit the incremental increase of NO2, SO2, and 

PM10 concentrations above legally defined baseline 

levels. Where legal limits have not been established, 

the BLM uses the best available scientific information 

to identify thresholds of significant adverse impacts. 

Endangered Species Act 

As required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) of 1973, the BLM and Forest Service must 

prepare and submit a Biological Assessment to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The biological 

assessment defines the potential impacts to threatened 

and endangered species as a result of management 

actions proposed in the RMP/EIS. Perceived impacts 

to threatened and endangered species are required to 

be mitigated or management actions altered to reduce 

impacts. 

In addition to complying with the ESA and consulting 

with the FWS, lead agencies often develop Wildlife 

Monitoring and Protect Plans (WMPP) which outline 

the steps they will take to ensure threatened and 

endangered species as well as candidate species are 

protected (BLM 2003b). WMPP may also require 

operators to conduct periodic surveys for various plant 

and animal species and alter their operations if 

observations indicate increased impacts (BLM 2003b).

Photograph of endangered Ute ladies-tresses orchid, 

Spiranthes diluvialis (Photograph provided by BLM) 

Antiquities Act 

The Antiquities Act of 1906 protects cultural resources 

on Federal lands and authorizes the President to 

designate National Monuments on Federal Lands. The 

BLM EISs completed for CBM development in 

Montana and Wyoming have requirements for the 

POD to include provision for a cultural resource plan 

addressing identification strategies commensurate with 

the level of the proposed development (for BLM 

lands) (BLM 2003a./b.). Developers are required to use a 

qualified archeologist to conduct a study of their 

proposed CBM field and identify any cultural 

resources present. The survey finds are incorporated in 

the APD and reviewed prior to issuing permission to 

drill. The identification and protection of these 
35 CBM Primer December 2003 

Rock art near Blackleaf Canyon, Montana 

important sites meets the requirements of the 

Antiquities Act. 

National Historic Preservation Act 

Lead federal agencies must complete the process for 

considering the effects of the development action on 

historic properties as required by Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The area 

of potential effect has to be reviewed and all existing 

inventory data scrutinized, historic properties 

identified also need to be reviewed, and interested 

parties consulted. Consultation under Section 106 of 

the NHPA for CBM development is usually required 

with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP), affected Tribes and other interested parties 

(Federal Register, 1983).

BLM has a National Programmatic Agreement in 

place with most Western state SHPOs and the ACHP. 

The agreement states that there would be no new 

disturbance of historic properties not previously 

considered, and outlines survey procedures to be 

followed for all new oil and gas developments. 

Tribal Resources 

The Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 and the 

Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 govern the 

development of CBM on tribal lands. A dual legal 

system of federal and tribal laws control energy 

development on tribal lands. The Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA) is required under these acts to authorize 

energy leases. NEPA regulations also apply to any 

energy development decisions made for Tribe lands. 

Under certain federal laws such as the CWA and 

CAA, qualifying tribes can obtain states status and 

draft more stringent environmental laws. The Tribes 

are also responsible for enforcement and may regulate 

their lands in areas not covered by federal laws or 

programs (BOR 1994).

Indian lands can also be owned by individual Indians 

pursuant to Federal statute or treaty providing for the 

distribution of tribal property in severalty or pursuant 

to the General Allotment Act of 1887. An allotted 

parcel of land may be owned by the United States in 

trust for an individual Indian (trust allotment) or 

owned by the individual subject to certain restrictions. 

Allotted Indian lands may be leased for the 

development of oil and gas (25 CFR 214.2 – 212.6) 

and other minerals pursuant to the Indian Leasing Act 

of 1909 or the Indian Mineral Development Act of 

1982. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) 

was passed as a joint resolution of Congress. The 

resolution states that it shall be the policy of the 

United States to protect and preserve for the American 

Indian the inherent right of freedom to believe, express 

and exercise their traditional religions, to use sacred 

objects and to worship through ceremonies and ritual. 

Federal agencies comply with this Act by consulting 

with and considering the views of American Indians 

when proposed land uses might conflict with 

traditional American Indian religious beliefs or 

practices. The Act does not require that land uses be 

denied, if it conflicts with such religious beliefs or 

practices.

Split Estates 

Many federally administered minerals, including oil 

and gas rights, underlie privately owned surface. In 

addition, in many Western states, federally 

administered surface lands greatly exceed private and 

state lands. Furthermore, Western states, recognize 

separate ownership of surface and subsurface (or 

mineral) estates and the unique private property rights 

connected with each. Often, different parties own the 

surface and the subsurface. This is commonly referred 

to as “split estate” or "severed minerals". The 

ownership differences are commonly the result of the 

U.S. government reserving minerals when the lands 

were originally patented, or may be the outcome of a 

decision by a previous landowner to separately sell or 

lease the subsurface mineral interest. In the area of 

emphasis in the Western U.S., the federal government 
36 CBM Primer December 2003 

frequently withheld mineral interests on homestead 

land, which resulted in large areas of CBM plays in 

split estate. 

A mineral estate provides property rights to selected 

natural resources lying on or below the earth's surface. 

A transfer of the mineral estate may be accomplished 

without transfer of the surface estate. For example, a 

landowner may sell or lease the rights to natural gas or 

oil found under the surface to an oil company. Later, 

the same landowner can sell the surface to a purchaser 

and reserve the rights to all coal that may be found 

under the land. After these 

transactions, three parties 

have ownership interests in 

this piece of real estate: (1) 

the oil company owns the oil 

and gas; (2) the seller owns 

the coal; and (3) the 

purchaser owns the surface. 

An easement is a property 

interest that one party has in 

land owned by another, 

entitling the holder of the 

easement to use the other's 

land. Easements are typically 

in writing, usually in the 

form of a separate document 

or by a reservation in a deed. 

Thus, an easement is an 

interest in land rather than a 

mere contractual agreement. 

When easements are 

properly created and 

recorded they are transferred 

with a land sale and remain 

in effect.

A right-of-way is a type of easement conveying the 

right or privilege, acquired through accepted usage or 

by contract, to pass over, through or under a 

designated portion of the property of another. A rightof-way may be either private, as in an access easement 

given a neighbor, or public, as in the right of the public 

to use the highways. For example, a gas company 

might send its agents to meet with landowners and 

negotiate the purchase of rights-of-ways or easements 

for a pipeline. Under Federal law, the mineral estate is 

dominant (Straube and Holland, 2003), therefore surface 

owners cannot deny access to developers, but may 

demand compensation for that access. In many states 

the oil and gas or CBM operator is required to obtain a 

Surface Use and Damage Agreement with the land 

owner or owners. Due to the senior estate, the holder 

of CBM interests can obtain access to the property by 

way of court action if the CBM operator has shown 

good faith in attempting to make an agreement with 

the land owner and been denied. Surface access may 

include drilling site, pits, roads, and pipelines. 

Split ownership is a common phenomenon. Fifty-eight 

million acres of privately owned property are split 

estates where the federal government owns some or all 

of the mineral estate. That is 

6 million more acres than are 

contained in the State of 

Kansas and represents 1/8 of 

all privately owned land in 

the U.S. The federal 

government owns mineral 

rights to 744 million acres, 

equivalent to 29 percent of 

all the land of the U.S. Most 

of the split estates are located 

in the Western U.S. and 

many overlap prime CBM 

locations, see table 3. 

STATE REGULATIONS

State oil and gas 

commissions and boards 

were created out of 

conservation statutes and 

were intended to oversee oil 

and gas operations by 

establishing drilling units 

and providing well permit 

regulations. Oil and Gas 

commissions/boards were commonly established to 

maintain a level playing field for all owners to pursue 

oil and gas production, to prevent the waste of oil and 

gas resources, and to prevent the drilling of 

unnecessary wells. The responsibilities of the boards 

have changed as production has matured to include the 

regulation of drilling, casing, plugging and 

abandonment of wells and in some States the 

administration of the Underground Injection Control 

Program. Additionally, some boards may be tasked 

with protecting the rights of surface owners. The 

different Rocky Mountain state boards involved in 

overseeing CBM development are charged with 

varying statutory provisions: 

Tables 3 

SPLIT ESTATES -The BLM manages (controls) 

subsurface acreage of privately owned land as 

follows:

State Acreage 

Arkansas 1 in 9 acres 

California 1 in 19 acres

Colorado 1 in 6 acres

Idaho 1 in 4 acres 

Montana 1 in 5 acres

New Mexico 1 in 4 acres

North Dakota 1 in 8 acres

Oregon 1 in 14 acres

South Dakota 1 in 24 acres

Utah 1 in 11 acres

Wyoming 1 in 2 1⁄4 acres

AK, NE, NV, OK, WA and Eastern states AL, FL, IL, IN, IO, KS, 

LA, MI, MN, MS, MO, OH, WI. Split estates total 920,000 acres, 

representing small to very small fractions of privately owned land. 

Source: http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls02/pls1-3_02.pdf
37 CBM Primer December 2003 

CBM Well produced water discharge point, Powder River 

Basin, Wyoming 

Colorado: the role of the Colorado Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission (COGCC) is to promote 

production and prevent and/or encourage the 

mitigation of adverse environmental impacts. The 

COGCC was originally created to foster, encourage, 

and promote the development, production, and 

utilization of oil and gas, however, in 1994 its mandate 

was expanded to include the prevention and mitigation 

of significant adverse environmental impacts on any 

air, water, soil, or biological resource resulting from 

oil and gas operations. The 1994 mandate also called 

for the COGCC to investigate, prevent, monitor, or 

mitigate conditions that threaten to cause, or that 

actually cause, a significant adverse environmental 

impact (Colo. Rev. Stat.)

Montana: Montana passed the Montana Oil and Gas 

Conservation Act in 1953 establishing the Board of 

Oil and Gas Conservation (MBOGC). The act 

authorizes the MBOGC to require a drilling permit 

before any oil or gas exploration, development, 

production, or disposal well may be drilled. MBOGC’s 

mandate includes the prevention of oil and gas 

resource waste, encouragement of the efficient 

recovery of oil and gas, and the protection of owner’s 

rights to recover their share of the resource. The 

MBOGC oversees the Underground Injection Control 

Class II program for oil and gas production water. The 

MBOGC also issues field rules and guidelines to 

prevent contamination of or damage to the 

environment caused by drilling operations. The State 

of Montana also has a State environmental policy act 

similar to NEPA which requires its state agencies to 

complete environmental analyses prior to approving 

management actions (Mt. Admin. Code Annotated).

New Mexico: The Energy, Minerals and Natural 

Resources Department of New Mexico contains the 

Oil Conservation Division and the Oil Conservation 

Commission. The Commission and Division regulate 

the conservation of oil and gas and handling and 

disposal of wastes generated by oil and gas operations. 

They also establish guidelines and field rules for the 

protection of public health and the environment (N.M. 

Stat. Ann.).

Utah: There are two agencies in Utah which govern 

the testing, spacing, drilling, completing, locating, 

operating, producing, and plugging of wells as well as 

the disposal of salt water and field wastes. These 

agencies are the Board of Oil, Gas and Mining and the 

Division of Oil, Gas and Mining. The Board has set 

rules requiring operators to “take all reasonable 

precautions to avoid polluting lands, streams, 

reservoirs, natural drainage ways, and underground 

water”. The Board also attempts to encourage the 

development of surface use agreements with 

landowners but has not adopted statewide standards 

for reclamation (Utah Admin Code). The division serves in 

a technical and administrative capacity with regards to 

well development. 

Wyoming: The Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation 

Commission (WOGCC) regulates the drilling, casing, 

spacing and plugging of wells, it also requires 

operators to furnish a reasonable bond for plugging 

each dry or abandoned well. The WOGCC also 

monitors well performance throughout the state and 

regulates the production, as well as the perforating and 

chemical treatment of wells, disposal of production 

water and drilling fluids, and the protection and 

conservation of underground water. The WOGCC has 

a responsibility to encourage the development of 

natural gas and to prevent the waste of this resource. 

According to WOGCC rules the operator cannot 

pollute streams, ground-water, or unreasonably 

damage or occupy the surface. The WOGCC is also 

tasked with keeping natural gas from polluting or 

damaging crops, vegetation, livestock, or wildlife. 

(WOGCC Rules) 

STATE WATER LAWS

Of particular concern regarding CBM produced water 

is its affects on water rights. Water rights are governed 

under the prior appropriation approach to water law in 

all the Rocky Mountain States. The prior appropriation 
38 CBM Primer December 2003 

CBM produced water being aerated in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming

approach refers to the creation of water rights by usage 

or diversion, for a beneficial purpose, thus, ownership 

of land does not guarantee ownership of water. Prior 

appropriation primarily refers to surface waters; 

groundwater that is produced generally is not subject 

to appropriation, but belongs to those who produce it, 

unless otherwise specified. The key stipulations of 

prior appropriation fall under the general categories as 

follows:

 Purpose

 Date

 Quantity 

 Beneficial Use 

 Acquisition

 Transfer

Purpose – The 

purpose for 

appropriating waters 

does not need to be 

for riparian lands; 

waters may be 

diverted to any 

location and do not 

need to be used in the 

watershed from 

which they are drawn. 

A practical means of 

diverting the water 

which is both direct 

and efficient is 

generally required. 

Date - The water 

right priority date is 

established based on 

the date of the original appropriation. Right-holders 

are either senior or junior to other right holders 

depending on the date of their appropriation. The 

oldest or senior water right is guaranteed conveyance 

of the full right; junior right-holders are permitted to 

obtain water from the remaining available source only 

after senior rights-holders have withdrawn their water. 

Upstream junior right-holders are required to allow 

adequate amounts of water to flow past their capture 

points to meet downstream senior rights. 

Seniors are not permitted to reduce the volume of 

water available for juniors. This may restrict the 

senior’s ability to transfer their rights, change 

diversion, purpose, or place of use. A large portion of 

water in the west is diverted for agriculture and 

typically about half is returned to the hydrologic cycle. 

The return flow may have been “called” by other rightholders, and therefore senior right-holders are not 

permitted to adversely affect the return flow; junior 

right-holders should receive their full appropriation 

based on the stream conditions that existed when they 

established their right. 

Quantity - A water right is the volume put to a 

recognized beneficial use; there are no restrictions to 

the quantity of water used as long as it is reasonable 

for the intended use. Most state statutes, however, 

stipulate that right-holders must show via records that 

the water appropriated is put to a beneficial use and 

not misspent. 

Use/Non-use - 

Beneficial use is 

generally defined as 

agricultural, irrigation, 

commercial, domestic, 

industrial, municipal, 

mining, hydropower 

production, recreation, 

stockwatering and 

fisheries, wildlife and 

wetlands maintenance. 

Conservation of 

environmental and 

visual resources have 

also recently been 

included as beneficial 

use. Beneficial uses are 

not ranked and one does 

not outweigh another, 

therefore, junior claims 

can not displace a senior right by stating their use is 

more beneficial. However, right-holders can lose their 

appropriation if their diversion method or purpose is 

determined wasteful. Restrictions are also placed on 

the use of water for environmental protection and 

recreational uses by the public trust doctrine. 

Acquisition – Recognition of a water right is generally 

accepted when an appropriator obtains a permit or 

ruling from the appropriate state engineering office or 

is acknowledged by a court that the water is being 

used for a beneficial purpose. The majority of Western 

states require rights-holders to apply for a permit. 
39 CBM Primer December 2003 

Unlined water retention/infiltration pond being filled, Powder 

River Basin, Wyoming 

Unlined water retention/infiltration pond being filled, Powder 

River Basin, Wyoming 

Generally the appropriator must notify all affected 

parties, construct a diversion facility within a specified 

time period, and put the water to beneficial use. If 

these requirements are met a hearing is held to review 

the criteria and establish the right. 

Colorado uses a water court system to decide rights, 

instead of issuing permits. Seniority is recognized 

when the appropriator puts the water to beneficial use, 

and makes a physical demonstration of the intent to 

divert the water.

Colorado also allows water to be reserved for future 

use under a “conditional decree”. The right is 

established on the date of the decree, however, 

appropriators need to prove that there is a significant 

likelihood that the project will be finished within a 

evenhanded timeframe. The court must also, decide if 

there is enough water available for the proposed 

diversion.

Water rights obtained through use, may be forfeited by 

non-use. Forfeiture can occur when there is non-use 

for a specific time-period or if the diversion is not 

constructed in time, but in either case does not require 

the appropriator to intentionally abandon the water 

right. Abandonment, on the other hand, can be 

initiated by the right-holder if they intend to surrender 

the water right.

Transfer - Water rights can be transferred to new land 

owners when land is sold, but does not have to be if 

the right-holder specifically reserves those rights. 

Furthermore, water rights may be transferred 

separately from the land if allowed by state law. 

COLORADO WATER LAW

Colorado water law does not require operators to 

obtain a permit from the state engineer’s office when 

producing or withdrawing non-tributary water except 

when that water is intended for beneficial use. If 

produced water is going to be used for a beneficial 

purpose, the state engineer needs to ascertain whether 

the use will cause a “material injury to the vested 

water rights of others” (Co. Rev. Stat.). If material injury is 

anticipated, the permit needs to include mitigation 

measures to protect the other right holders. It is 

important to note that a lowering of the hydrostatic 

pressure in an aquifer or reduction in groundwater 

level is not deemed a material injury. (Colo. Rev. Stat.)

Produced water falls under the Colorado Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission’s (COGCC) definition of 

“exploration and production waste.” The COGCC 

jurisdiction over produced water is covered in Rule 

907 which addresses the management and disposal of 

“E&P” waste. The rule includes various disposal 

options such as evaporation, infiltration, reinjection, 

commercial disposal, reuse and discharge into state 

waters. Evaporation and infiltration must take place in 

a permitted pit either lined or unlined and the produced 

water needs to be treated prior to reaching the pit to 

eliminate crude oil and condensate. Reinjection needs 

to be accomplished via a permitted Class II well. 

Commercial disposal may include dust control through 

road-spreading. Reuse generally refers to enhanced 

recovery or drilling but in both cases it must meet the 

water quality standards. Permits are required for all of 

these options. Additionally, the rule includes a 

provision which allows the surface owner to use the 

water as an alternative domestic water supply that 

cannot be traded or sold. 

MONTANA WATER LAW

The Montana statutes directly address CBM wells and 

specifically protects groundwater from being wasted. 

However, under certain scenarios, including 

management, discharge, or reinjection of CBM water, 

the production and use of groundwater is not 

considered a waste. Currently CBM operators are 

given three choices for produced water management; 

(1) beneficial use, such as irrigation, stock water, dust 

control, wetlands protection, etc., (2) reinject via a 

permitted Class II injection well, or (3) discharge into 

surface waters of the state provided a NPDES permit is 

obtained. CBM operators are required to have a Water 

Management Plan for their project area, surface owner 

agreements, including water well agreements and a list 
40 CBM Primer December 2003 

CBM well head equipped with radio monitoring system and field irrigation in 

background, Wyoming 

of all potentially affected surface owners within the 

project area. Under the water well agreements the 

operators must replace any affected wells or offer 

other mitigation measures to avoid impacts to existing 

groundwater users (Mt. Admin. Code Annotated).

Montana law also recognizes the designation of 

controlled groundwater areas; areas where 

groundwater withdrawals exceed or are likely to 

exceed the recharge rate of the aquifers. Operators in 

these areas must obtain a permit in order to withdraw 

and appropriate water. The permit application needs to 

demonstrate that the water withdrawn is available, that 

existing uses will not be impacted, and that all 

produced water will be beneficially used. 

NEW MEXICO WATER LAW

Waters used for drilling, mining, or prospecting 

operations intended to discover or develop natural 

resources in the state are classified as beneficial. 

Under certain circumstances mine operators need to 

obtain permits to withdraw these waters. Aquifers at 

2,500 feet below ground surface that contain nonpotable water are outside the jurisdiction of the state 

engineer and do not require a permit to be produced. 

Most CBM wells in New Mexico are completed below 

2,500 feet in non-potable aquifers, and therefore are 

not required to be permitted by the state engineer. 

Water produced or used in connection with drilling for 

or production of oil and gas falls under the authority of 

the Oil Conservation Division of the Energy, Minerals 

and Natural Resources Department. The division 

regulates the subsurface and surface discharge of 

producted water with the intention of protecting fresh 

water sources. All groundwater with a background 

concentration of 10,000 mg/l or less of Total 

Dissolved Solids (TDS) is protected and reserved for 

beneficial use. The injection of produced water into 

subsurface reservoirs is also regulated by the Division. 

New Mexico law also has requirements fashioned to 

safeguard existing water rights during mineral 

development throughout the state. Under New 

Mexico’s Mine Dewatering Act, any operator who 

desires to acquire water for a beneficial use or to 

dewater a mine has the opportunity to replace the 

waters of existing users which may be impacted (N.M. 

ST. ANN a. The cost to restore the water is solely the 

operators’ liability, who must submit an application 

with the state engineer to replace water. Although, an 

operator may make an appropriation of water under 

this act, merely dewatering a mine does not create 

water rights for the applicant. The state engineer may 

only approve an application under this statute if he is 

satisfied that the water restoration plan will provide 

sufficient waters to the affected parties. Before the 

water restoration plan is approved the state engineer 

considers the following issues; characteristics of the 

aquifer, present withdrawals on the aquifer and their 

collective effects on water levels and water quality, the 

impact of the mine dewatering on the aquifer, and the 

present and future withdrawal from, recharge to and 

storage of water in the aquifer (N.M. ST. ANN b).

UTAH WATER LAW

The Utah Board and Division of Oil, 

Gas and Mining has jurisdiction over 

byproduct water even though there is a 

groundwater appropriations system in 

place the state. The state engineer may 

under certain circumstances issue a 

temporary water right to put byproduct 

water resulting from mining 

development to a beneficial use. 

However, this can only happen after the 

water has been diverted from its original 

underground source. An assortment of 

rules has been developed by the 

Division to control the disposal of “salt 

water and oil field wastes,” (Utah Admin. 

Code a) this includes CBM water. 

Produced water can be placed in lined 

pits, or unlined pits provided it does not 
41 CBM Primer December 2003 

have a TDS content higher than the groundwater, that 

could be affected or contain other unacceptable 

components such as oil, grease, heavy metals, 

chlorides, sulfates, aromatic hydrocarbons or pH 

outside of an acceptable range (Utah Admin. Code b). If all, 

or a considerable part of the produced water is being 

used for beneficial purposes unlined pits may be used 

provided an analysis of the water has been preformed 

and indicates that it can be used for those purposes. 

Finally, unlined pits may also be used when the 

quantity of produced water is less than five barrels per 

day. Operators may also choose to inject the produced 

water into Class II injection wells under the state UIC 

program (Utah Admin. Code c).

WYOMING WATER LAW

Wyoming water regulations address byproduct water 

appropriations; however they do not apply to CBM 

produced water. The state engineer has jurisdiction 

over CBM produced water, and operators therefore are 

required to obtain a permit for groundwater 

appropriation. The Wyoming water law states that 

applications to acquire groundwater “shall be granted 

as a matter of purpose, if the proposed use is beneficial 

and, if the state engineer finds that the proposed means 

of diversion and construction are adequate” (WY. Stat. a).

If the state engineer finds that the application would 

not be in the public’s best water interest he may deny 

it (WY. Stat. b). Wyoming water law outlines beneficial 

uses by preference. 

The importance assigned to putting appropriated 

groundwater to a beneficial use and preventing waste 

created problems for the initial CBM applicants. On 

the early versions of “Application for Permit to 

Appropriate Ground Water” (WY. Stat. c) forms, 

applicants were required to identify which beneficial 

use would be used. CBM operators routinely checked 

the “miscellaneous” box and explained that the water 

was used to produce CBM. Revised forms now have a 

box for CBM produced water. The Wyoming State 

Engineer has determined that a beneficial use is the 

production of water in conjunction with the production 

of the CBM. 

LOCAL REGULATIONS

CBM development has been subject to county 

regulation in some areas while it has been contested in 

others. Some counties have placed regulations on 

operations which require special use, building, and 

road permits; establish visual requirements and 

address noxious weeds. La Plata and Las Animas 

Counties in Colorado have ratified regulations that 

restrict noise levels, establish air and water quality 

standards, address vibration and odor levels, institute 

access requirements, define visual impacts, require fire 

protection, and attempt to mitigate impacts to wildlife 

and public safety. Disagreements have transpired 

between the county and state officials and between the 

county and developers. 

La Plata County was the first to adopt regulations 

regarding CBM development in 1991. These 

regulations were contested by several gas companies 

claiming that they were superceded by state and/or 

federal laws. The county was sued by the industry and 

the court upheld the county’s authority. The county 

then issued new regulations in 1995, stating that 

surface owners must be given an opportunity to 

determine the specific sites where drilling and road 

construction could take place. The county was again 

sued, and this time the court found in favor of industry 

and struck down the regulations (Bryner, 2002). County 

officials explained that their objective is to tackle the 

impacts of CBM development on local communities 

and not to inhibit production. 

Counties in other states may have broad regulations 

that effect CBM development, but have not developed 

specific regulations for CBM development. In 

Montana, local regulations are permitted if they 

guarantee actual use of resources. In New Mexico, 

counties can adopt regulations provided they address 

traditional issues currently within the jurisdiction of 

county government. In Utah, counties are prohibited 

from drafting regulations relating to state law, 

especially where the oil and gas board has exclusive 

authority. However it is foreseeable that Utah counties 

can regulate noise, appearance, traffic, and 

compatibility with surrounding activity. 

In Wyoming, counties can not prevent the use of land 

for the extraction or production of mineral resources. 

Five Wyoming counties along with the State and two 

conservation districts have signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) designed to coordinate the flow 

of information and provide consistency between 

agencies. These counties have hired a CBM 

coordinator to help resolve any problems. The 

coordinator has attempted to maintain regulatory 

consistency across the Powder River Basin. 
42 CBM Primer December 2003 
43 CBM Primer December 2003 

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/MITIGATION

Typical Environmental Impacts vs Mitigation Measures 

his section addresses the typical environmental 

effects associated with CBM development in 

the west and the mitigation measures employed 

to address these effects. Focus is on the influences 

from production and distribution affecting natural 

resources and local populations and the tension 

between opposing land uses and users. Vital to this 

discussion are the potential affects of CBM extraction 

on water quality and quantity, and the numerous 

mitigation measures employed to control and eliminate 

these concerns. 

INTRODUCTION

Environmental resources altered from present-day 

conditions by CBM production practices have caused 

concern for federal, state, and local regulatory 

agencies; land and resource managers; industry; 

landowners; and the general public. Along with rising 

public awareness and more stringent regulations, 

increased pressure has been placed on those involved 

in the CBM industry to develop methodologies to 

accurately define specific areas of environmental risk 

as well as develop Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

and mitigation strategies to aid in minimizing and 

alleviating these risks. As a result, development of 

fundamentally sound BMP’s and mitigation strategies 

that facilitate resource development in an effective, 

timely, and environmentally sensitive manner, have 

become increasingly important. 

BMPs are defined as techniques, procedures, and 

sustainable strategic plans which are generally site 

specific, economically feasible, and are used to guide, 

or may be applied to, management actions to aid in 

achieving desired outcomes. Implementation of BMPs 

can be used to reduce adverse environmental effects or 

enhance beneficial effects resulting from CBM 

operations. Typically, available management options 

for BMPs are dictated by site-specific characteristics 

such as, land and mineral ownership, geologic and 

hydrologic conditions (including depth of coal seams), 

soil types, local and regional wildlife issues, etc., and 

project objectives and applicable regulations. In any 

case, effective use of BMPs can assure at a minimum, 

a basic level of maintainable environmental protection 

in a cost efficient manner. Although BMPs are often 

derived from Federal, State, or local standards, BMPs 

by definition do not constitute regulations and 

therefore, should only be considered as a guidance tool 

for protecting foreseeable affects to resources. 

Mitigation measures are closely associated with BMPs 

and are best described as techniques, procedures, and 

sustainable strategic practices which are implemented 

upon formulation of environmentally sound BMPs. 

Mitigation measures, in all cases, are site specific and 

will vary depending on the type of disturbance, the 

degree of the disturbance, and the requirements of 

landowners or other involved parties. These practices 

are often implemented in phases or in a practical 

chronological order to ensure that the disturbances of a 

specific phase of a project is linked with the 

appropriate measures so as to maximize the efficiency 

and effectiveness of the mitigation (EPA, 2002c). As with 

BMPs, the objective(s) of mitigation measures are to 

aid or alleviate the consequence to various resources 

resulting from CBM project operations. 

Effective use of BMPs necessitates careful planning 

and coordination with federal and state agencies, as 

well as between operators and landowners. From a 

functional perspective, successful mitigation are 

development of preventative or beneficial plans, that 

when implemented, maximize the number and 

magnitude of protected resources. As an example, 

immediately reseeding bare soils during construction 

activities or after a project’s completion can help 

minimize erosion events that may occur during 

seasonal flooding. This practice can also aid in the 

reclamation of native vegetation, help prevent 

infestation of noxious weeds, reduce dust control 

issues, provide additional lands for livestock grazing, 

T
44 CBM Primer December 2003 

provide suitable habitat and food resources for certain 

wildlife species, and control sediment run-off to 

nearby water systems. With this cost effective and 

flexible approach, the quantity and quality of protected 

resources can be enhanced to meet or exceed 

expectations of affected landowners, resource 

managers, or public agencies. 

To further augment the effectiveness of BMPs, many 

employers are now providing mitigation specific 

training to employees. The training opportunities 

assure that employees are proficient in contemporary, 

as well as traditional techniques, which include; dust 

and noise control, hazardous waste reduction, seeding, 

and construction “footprint” minimization. With this 

approach and minimal investment employers can help 

protect vulnerable resources while at the same time, 

maintain a high level of project efficiency. 

There are many aspects of CBM exploration and 

development that present unique challenges to 

resource managers, landowners, and State and Federal 

agencies. BMPs and mitigation measures specific to 

the CBM industry have been developed, as an 

example, by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

the Montana Board of Oil & Gas Conservation 

(MBOGC), and others to identify resource issues, 

provide guidance for potential mitigation strategies, 

and to further enhance related beneficial uses. Within 

these documents implementations of measures to 

mitigate effects are generally presented as a procedure 

that is based on industry or activity related issues 

specific to the CBM industry that may negatively 

affect or potentially enhance individual resources. 

The discussion below redirects this approach by 

focusing on resource specific issues, as well as 

resource-specific mitigation strategies that can or are 

required to be implemented to minimize disturbances 

to these resources. It is hoped this approach will help 

better define and clarify CBM related resource issues 

in a manner that will benefit landowners, operators, 

and federal or state agencies. This concise discussion 

should not be considered exhaustive since additional 

measures may also be identified during CBM 

development or in the NEPA process. 

BENEFICIAL USE

During the production of CBM, groundwater is 

extracted from coal seam aquifers to facilitate the 

release of methane gas trapped under hydrostatic 

pressure. Development of new CBM fields typically 

generate large volumes of water that may represent an 

opportunity for operators to provide themselves, the 

landowner, and nearby industry with water that does 

not result in the waste of this resource. The ability of a 

CBM operator to provide CBM produced water for 

uses by industry, landowners, or other parties, can 

provide unique and substantial benefits. 

The water produced from CBM wells varies from very 

high quality (meeting state and federal drinking water 

standards) to low quality, essentially unusable (with 

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] concentration up to 

180,000 parts per million). Currently, the management 

of CBM produced water is conducted using various 

water management practices depending on the quality 

of the produced water. In areas where the produced 

water is relatively fresh, the produced water is handled 

by a wide range of activities including direct 

discharge, storage in impoundments, livestock 

watering, irrigation, and dust control. In areas where 

the water quality is not suitable for direct use, 

operators use various treatments prior to discharge, 

and/or injection wells to dispose of the fluids. 

The use of CBM produced water for beneficial use 

represents a flexible and valuable approach to utilizing 

an important resource by providing benefits to 

operators, land owners, and in some cases the general 

public. The quality of the produced water, the 

surrounding environmental setting, operator and 

landowner needs, and pertinent regulations, will often 

dictate the water’s designated use. In most cases 

certain aspects of development can benefit either by 

practical resolution or by satisfying public requests or 

needs. Beneficial uses for CBM produced water have 

been integrated into the resource discussion, when 

applicable, to provide the reader with a practical 

understanding of this mitigation approach. For more 

information on beneficial uses for CBM produced 

water refer to: CBM Produced Water: Management 

and Beneficial Use Alternatives, GWPRF, 2003, in 

cooperation with BLM and the Department of Energy 

(http://www.all-llc.com/CBM/BU/index.htm).

RESOURCES OF CONCERN

Air Quality 

The 1990 Clean Air Act is a federal law that 

establishes nationwide limits on how much of a 

pollutant can be in the air. This ensures that all 

Americans have the same basic health and 

environmental protection with respect to the air they 
45 CBM Primer December 2003 

Figure 23 

Class I Areas in the Rocky 

Mountain region as 

designated by the CAA 

breathe. Under this Act, states are responsible for 

implementing the law; since pollution control 

problems often require special understanding of local 

industries, geography, housing patterns, 

etc. The law allows individual states to 

require more stringent pollution 

controls, but does not allow for weaker 

pollution regulations. Figure 23 shows 

the Class I areas in the Rocky Mountain 

region as designated by the Clean Air 

Act. Class I areas are generally major 

parks and wilderness areas over 6,000 

acres, where pristine air quality and 

scenic vistas are integral features. 

Excessive air emissions resulting from 

CBM development will vary for any 

region since pollutant transport is 

affected by the magnitude and 

distribution of pollutant emissions, as 

well as local topography and 

meteorology. Although air quality 

changes from the CBM industry can be 

localized and short-term in duration, 

appropriate mitigation could eliminate 

potential long-term air quality affects 

and conciliate concerns raised by 

involved parties. Fugitive dust and 

exhaust from construction activities, 

along with air pollutants emitted during 

operation, (compression) may be 

expected to cause some air quality 

changes.

Dust from construction activities and 

standard travel of personnel and 

equipment over unpaved roads has the 

potential to alter air quality and create a 

nuisance to those traveling or living in 

these areas. The use of high quality 

CBM produced water (low SAR) for 

dust control offers multiple benefits 

from an environmental viewpoint, 

including the prevention of air quality 

concerns and the loss of surface soils. 

Possible applications of produced water 

for dust control include use on lease 

roads, other unpaved roads in the 

development area, and various 

construction sites where surface 

disturbances due to CBM development exist. 

Applying seed or re-vegetating bare soil areas is 
46 CBM Primer December 2003 

Native American Petroglyphs, Utah 

another successful measure that is used to minimize 

dust emissions, as well as to protect soils, and reduce 

erosion. The benefit of re-seeding bare areas far out 

ways management and monitoring costs and should be 

looked on as a necessity, rather than an option. This 

measure not only aids in the reduction of fugitive dust 

emissions, but facilitates the health and abundance of 

native vegetation, helps prevent the infestation of 

noxious weeds, may provide additional lands for 

livestock grazing and wildlife habitat and, can control 

sediment run-off to nearby water systems resulting 

from erosion. 

Compressor engine emissions are another source of air 

pollution commonly associate with CBM 

development. Emissions from compressor engines 

would have an appropriate level of control determined 

by the applicable air quality regulatory agencies during 

a mandatory preconstruction permit process. Some of 

the measure employed to control emissions may 

include, limiting the number of field compressors, 

requiring the use of electric-powered compressors or 

the use of Best Available Control Technology to 

reduce the NOx emission rate. 

As with any BMP, site specific conditions will dictate 

which BMP strategy is best suited to address and 

mitigate potential air quality changes. Common 

practices that could be applied to a BMP program to 

control air quality issues are listed below. 

x Avoidance of surface construction on soils 

susceptible to wind erosion 

x Use of dust inhibitors as necessary on unpaved 

collector, local, and resource roads to minimize 

fugitive dust emissions 

x Install pollution control equipment on field and 

sales compressors 

x Install catalytic converters on heavy machinery 

to minimize air pollutants 

x Avoid specific geographic locations susceptible 

to excessive winds 

x Use soil erosion control techniques when bare 

ground is temporarily or permanently exposed 

x Enclose painting operations, consistent with 

local air quality operations 

x Properly store materials that are normally used 

in repair such as paints and solvents.

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources 

Cultural resources are best described as material 

remains of, or the locations of past human activities, 

including sites of traditional cultural importance to 

both past and contemporary Native American 

communities. The existence of cultural resources 

within a specific location is determined through 

examination of existing records, field surveys, and 

subsurface testing of areas that are proposed for 

disturbance on federal and state lands. Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 

requires an inventory of cultural resources if federal 

involvement is present either in terms of surface or 

mineral estate, federal funds, federal grant, or federal 

license. The BLM has also identified survey standards 

that must include approved plans for avoidance when 

resources are discovered. In addition, State Historical 

Preservation Offices (SHPO) maintain a register of all 

identified sites, as well as all sites that are listed or 

eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP). 

Unidentified cultural resources could potentially be 

affected by surface and subsurface activities that 

involve the use of heavy equipment (road construction, 

well drilling, pad construction, pipeline and utility 

placement, etc.) that ultimately change the natural 

landscape of an area. As such, the most sensible and 

preventative measure to protect this resource is to 

properly identify historic or pre-historic locations and 

more importantly, to avoid or relocate project facilities 

in these areas when feasible a point which is enforced 

by Federal mandate. Federal and state laws require the 

performance of surveys prior to the commencement of 
47 CBM Primer December 2003 

Aquatic fossils 

Photograph provided by The Fossil Conservancy 

construction or other surface disturbing activities as 

well as prohibit land usage when an area is designated 

for conservation use, public use, or sociocultural use. 

In the rare event when exploratory or development 

procedures unearth previously undiscovered resources, 

enforceable mitigation would require that work be 

stopped in the area of discovery until an evaluation can 

be preformed. If appropriate, consultations would be 

conducted with the SHPO, tribal historic preservation 

officer and/or Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation. Appropriate and responsible action 

would be determined by these agencies and 

coordinated with operators and/or landowners. 

In most cases, instruction on procedures to follow in 

case previously unknown archeological resources are 

uncovered during construction would constitute an 

important element of the BMP. This may include; 

informing operators of the penalties for illegally 

collecting artifacts or intentionally damaging 

archeological sites or historic properties, instruction on 

rehabilitation of buildings or structures, minimizing 

equipment traffic, and restricting placement of 

equipment and material staging areas near known 

archeological resources (National Park Service, 2002).

Paleontologic resources consist of fossil-bearing rock 

formations containing information that can be 

interpreted to provide a further understanding about 

any given location’s past. 

Surface occupancy is prohibited within paleontological 

sites on BLM project lands unless it can be 

demonstrated that the paleontological resource values 

can be protected, or undesirable disturbances can be 

mitigated. BLM provides guidelines for notifying and 

mitigating damage to paleontological resources 

discovered during oil and gas construction activities. 

Limitations include restricted use of explosives for 

geophysical exploration, monitoring requirements, and 

work stoppages for discovered damaged resources. As 

with Cultural Resources, investigative surveys to 

identify this resources and/or avoidance are typically 

considered the most effective mitigation to prevent 

damage. 

Geology and Minerals 

As stated earlier in this document, it is important to 

recognize that geology and mineral resources are 

directly associated with coal deposits. CBM gas is 

generated within the coal deposits under both 

thermogenic (heat-driven) and biogenic (microbedriven) conditions. The magnitude of the CBM 

resource is determined by coal type and volume; and 

the location of coal seams, which coincide with the 

location of CBM resources. Existing BLM regulations 

allow for the production of CBM, but dictate that 

development be conducted in a manner that conserves 

these other resources present so they are not wasted. 

The selection of an appropriate BMP to minimize 

alterations to these resources will depend greatly on 

local site conditions, but will usually consist of a 

collection of practices. Well spacing and field rules are 

established to maintain the integrity of surface 

formations while at the same time aiding in the 

efficient production of hydrocarbons. Drilling and 

completion practices, such as steel casing and 

cementing, stabilize the well bore dramatically and 

reduce the opportunity for hydrocarbon migration. In 

addition, certain operator practices can reduce surface 

disturbances as well. Sharing access roads, flowline 

routes, and utility line routes minimize surface 

disturbances and in certain circumstances, constructing 

multiple well pads and production facilities on the 

same pad can be implemented to consolidate work 

disturbing operations. 

BMPs with a hydrologic component (e.g., storage 

ponds or impoundments) can directly affect geologic 

resources and require planning. When designed 

properly, however, they can be utilized to help control 
48 CBM Primer December 2003 

soil erosion and sedimentation ocurring from rainfall 

events, as well as provide benificial use. State 

engineering offices or related agencies often provide 

specific construction guidelines for impoundments. 

These guidelines can dictate preventative elements in 

their design that may include topographic restrictions 

(slope), water rights permitting requirements, and 

specific benificial use limitations. As an example of 

benefical use, the Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality considers CBM produced 

water to be unaltered State water and therefore; does 

not require permitting if the water meets certain water 

quality standards. Under a current proposal, this high 

quality water could be used specifically for livestock 

or wildlife watering and would have minimum impact 

to geological or mineral resources. 

Reclamation practices to re-establish local landscapes 

are considered an integral (and BLM required) BMP 

component during the production and abandonment 

phases of CBM development. In most cases operators, 

along with landowners should discuss development 

and reclamation plans to reach a common agreement. 

This process ensures that acceptable guidelines and 

objectives are met to satisfy regulatory stipulations, as 

well as provide suitable guarantees for the landowner. 

From a functional and aesthetic perspective, re-seeding 

disturbed areas, such as well pad locations or road 

systems, restores the visual appearance of any 

disturbed location, and resolves or prevents local 

erosion and climatic, i.e., dust control issues. “No 

Surface Occupancy” stipulations could also be utilized 

on new oil and gas leases, which are issued for lands 

that have existing coal leases to prevent additional 

disturbance.

Hydrological Resources 

CBM production can produce large volumes of water 

that can affect both ground and surface water when the 

quality of the water is low. Generally, water quality in 

a certain watershed will vary, but in many cases is 

dependent on the volume and season. During times of 

high flow, streams receive large volumes of runoff 

water; while during times of base-flow, streams 

receive little runoff and are supplied primarily by 

groundwater. High-flow periods correspond to the 

seasonal influx of relatively high-quality, low-Sodium 

Absorption Ratio (SAR) surface water typically 

associated with spring snow-melt and early summer 

rains. Base-flow periods correspond to periods of 

scarce surface water during the winter when streams 

are fed only by the influx of lower quality, high-SAR 

groundwater from shallow aquifers. 

When groundcover is broken it exposes soil to wind 

and water erosion, leading to suspended sediment 

being deposited in bodies of surface water. Artificial 

impoundments can cause water infiltration into the soil 

and migration into surface water, and accidental 

releases of wastes can migrate into water bodies. 

These issues are of particular importance to residents. 

As a result, implementation of water management 

alternatives is in the forefront of CBM development. 

Current protection of hydrological resources primarily 

focus on maintaining beneficial uses for the produced 

water; although water well, and spring mitigation 

agreements are often used to facilitate the replacement 

of groundwater lost to drawdown. 

New technologies or strategies for CBM produced 

water are continually being developed and are 

responsible for reshaping the way landowners and 

operators think about beneficial use and resource 

protection. Current water management strategies 

include using the water for certain job specific needs, 

such as dust control, or to supplement other water 

related activities, including irrigation, impoundments, 

livestock watering, industrial use, and in some cases, 

potable water use. 

In areas where there are distinct wet and dry seasons, 

during the wet seasons water is abundant in both 

surface streams and groundwater supplies. However, 

water supplies are often depleted during the dry season 

CBM Supplied Impoundment, Powder River Basin, Montana 
49 CBM Primer December 2003 

Alluvium

Clay Stone

Clay Stone

Sand Stone

River

Berm

Pond

Coal

Coal

Clay Stone

Figure 24 

Off-Channel Impoundment 

Schematic Diagram of Off-Channel Pond

leaving a demand upon water supplies at this time. In 

these areas, water is captured from surface streams and 

other sources, then stored in permeable aquifers for 

use during the dry season to ensure that this resource is 

not wasted. The storage of produced water for future 

use could be accomplished through the use of a proven 

technology, Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR). In 

the case of CBM, large quantities of produced water 

could be stored in depleted aquifers or coal seams 

where gas has been depleted. ASR provides water 

storage at lower cost than traditional surface storage 

methods while functioning in a manner similar to a 

traditional surface reservoir. 

Another management option for produced water is 

impoundment use. The impoundment of CBM water is 

the placement of water produced during operations at 

the surface in a pit or pond. There are a variety of 

ways in which operators can impound produced water 

at the surface. Impoundments can be constructed on or 

off channel, and the regulatory authority in some states 

varies based on whether the impoundments are off or 

on channel. See Figure 24 for a schematic diagram of 

an off-channel impoundment. The impoundment of 

produced water can be used as part of a water 

management plan to provide a variety of disposal 

options and benefits to both the lease operator and 

landowners. The options depend on site-specific 

conditions such as, the quality of produced water, soil 

type, current and future land use, and certain terrain 

factors. Under the right set of regulatory conditions, 

including water right and NPDES requirements, CBM 

supplied water could be used to sustain fish ponds, 

wildlife watering facilities, small recreational ponds, 

and utilized in retention ponds to restore depleted 

aquifers.

The impoundment of water can be performed in any 

area where there is sufficient construction space. In 

areas with limited rainfall or drought conditions, 

impoundments could be used to recharge groundwater 

in shallow alluvial and coal seam aquifers to provide 

livestock and wildlife water or for the storage of water 

prior to irrigation. Impoundments can be constructed 

to provide a single management option or a 

combination of management options including: 

livestock and wildlife watering from wetlands, 

fisheries and recreational ponds, recharge and 

evaporation ponds or other combinations. 

Lands and Realty 

Potential land use issues resulting from CBM 

development primarily consist of conflicts between 

conventional oil and gas activities and other uses of 

property, such as agriculture, residences, State lands, 

and coal mines. New realty authorizations for major 

gathering lines, major transportation lines, and power 

lines, for example, affect rights-of-way (ROWs) and 

land segmenting. The development of oil and gas 

resources affects agricultural production by taking 

land out of production, and by potential soil 

contamination from drilling and production. Soil 

contamination could result in loss of vegetation, 

reduced crop yields, or reduced acreage available for 

livestock grazing. 

Proper surface selection and facility arrangement 

minimizes and mitigates surface conflicts and avoids 

unnecessary surface uses that would require additional 

reclamation, special operating procedures, or other 

restrictions that could be avoided. Geo-referenced 

spatial data depicting proposed facility locations, well 

locations, roads, pipelines, power lines, impoundments 

etc., is currently being utilized to mitigate potential 

surface conflicts. Locations in areas with a potential 

for high surface run-off, with increased erosion 

potential or in the flood plain of surface drainages 

could dramatically alter lands and thus, mitigation 

efforts. Avoidance of steep slopes, unstable soils, and 

locations that block or restrict natural drainages are 

successful tactics being implemented by operators to 

reduce surface alterations.
50 CBM Primer December 2003 

Recycled Tire Stock Tank, Designed for Livestock Use

Another surface related issue involves removal of 

native vegetation, particularly in those areas where 

vegetation will be difficult to re-establish. Bare soils 

are susceptible to erosion and as a consequence, can 

lead to sediment build-up in local water systems, or 

result in negative alteration to the pre-existing 

topography. In situations where vegetative removal is 

necessary, reseeding should be performed immediately 

after development or when possible, during operations, 

to aid in the reclamation process and halt future 

surface disturbances. BLM provides seeding guidance 

when disturbances of this nature occur on federal lands 

(see Wildlife and Vegetation). 

Livestock Grazing 

CBM development only requires a small area for 

equipment, i.e., well pads and compressor stations, and 

therefore is relatively compatible with the foraging 

characteristics of livestock. Some changes to 

rangeland are expected however, and can be 

compensated for by appropriate mitigation. Loss of 

vegetation for livestock grazing, the disruption to 

livestock management practices, and loss of grazing 

capacity from construction of well pads and roads are 

some of the expected disruptions. Mitigation strategies 

that affect livestock grazing are often the result of 

coordination between the landowner and operator and 

serve to provide basic, sustainable practices which can 

help protect cattle, sheep, horses, and associated 

structures, such as watering ponds or fences. 

The availability of produced water from CBM 

activities would allow for, especially in arid regions, 

additional lands that could be utilized for grazing. 

There are estimates that, on average, cattle consume 

11.5 gallons of water per day. Governmental standards 

for livestock water are less restrictive than potable 

water and would allow for the use of lesser quality 

CBM water for this purpose. Early coordination and 

cooperation between area CBM operators, landowners, 

and local ranchers on the potential uses of produced 

water could prove beneficial for involved parties. This 

practice is currently being implemented in portions of 

Montana through the use of stock tanks made from old 

heavy equipment tires such as the one depicted in the 

photo here. In some cases, ranchers would be 

responsible for obtaining water rights for such use of 

produced water. 

The following list provides additional BMPs that can 

help protect livestock and their rangeland: 

x Repair or replace damaged or displaced 

facilities such as fences or gates according to 

landowner requirements. 

x Minimize project-related construction 

equipment and vehicle movement except on 

specific access roads to avoid disturbance of 

grazing land. 

x Clearly define stipulations and responsibility 

for fence, gate, and cattle guard maintenance 

and for noxious weed control and incorporate 

into the planning process. 

x Develop a reclamation plan for all areas that 

have been disturbed during production, and 

specify techniques for reclamation of well 

pads, pipeline rights-of-way, and roads. 

x Locate facilities to avoid or minimize changes 

to livestock waters. 

Recreation 

Recreational areas are a vital component for 

communities nationwide and require close 

management to assure their protection. CBM related 

surface disturbances involving the use of heavy 

equipment for road construction or well drilling 

constitute a potential risk to this resource by changing 

the natural landscape. These types of construction 

activities could affect hiking, fishing, hunting, etc, as 

well as infringe on the solitude and rural 

characteristics of the area. Other activities such as 

increased travel, and vandalism resulting from access 

improvements, wildlife displacement, and increased 

erosion could also potentially affect recreational areas. 
51 CBM Primer December 2003 

Revegetation of brine site using salt resistant prairie grasses 

To prevent these potential disturbances to the extent 

possible, BLM has established stipulations that protect 

recreation areas. Specifically BLM has established 

such stipulations in areas receiving concentrated 

public use and in areas with reservoirs containing fish. 

Many states have also established stipulations for 

protection of recreation areas including prohibiting 

activity near streams, ponds, lakes, or other water 

facilities. Other possible mitigation strategies include 

coordinating the timing of exploration activities to 

minimize conflicts during peak periods of use. 

The availability and volume of CBM produced water 

could be managed in a way to supplement, or in arid 

regions, create recreational opportunities for nearby 

communities. According to the second national water 

assessment by the U.S. Water Research Council, less 

than one-fourth of the surface waters in the 

Continental U.S. are accessible and useable for 

recreation because of pollution or other restrictions 

(Harney, undated). The construction of artificial lakes 

supplied by produced water could potentially have 

widespread use depending primarily on available 

lands, water volume and quality. Many areas of the 

country are overwhelmed with overcrowded or limited 

recreational facilities as a result of overpopulation and 

urban encroachment. The development of artificial 

lakes could provide additional recreational 

opportunities within these areas, while at the same 

time promoting community involvement and habitat 

improvement. In colder climates artificial lakes could 

also provide ice fishing or ice skating opportunities. 

The addition of a large water body to an ecological 

community could provide additional habitat for 

resident and migratory birds, including waterfowl, and 

possibly provide resting and nesting sites for raptors 

(Bryan et al, 1996). An increase of waterfowl populations in 

the area could help support the local hunting 

community and potentially deter illegal hunting due to 

limited population sizes. The lake would effectively 

function as a watering pond or wetland system, 

potentially increasing wildlife ranges and populations 

resulting in an increase to the overall dynamics of the 

local ecosystem. 

Social and Economic Values 

The effects of CBM development on the socioeconomics of any community is a dynamic issue 

which will differ at the community and individual 

level. Influences to social conditions would include 

changes in employment and population, changes in the 

services provided by governments, the effects of 

drilling and related activities on rural lifestyles in the 

project area, changes in levels of traffic, noise, visual 

resource alterations, and psychological stress levels; 

and the effects of population change on local housing, 

schools, and services. 

Options to mitigate economic concerns will typically 

be performed as a case-by-case procedure, since 

varying aspects of this resource are often difficult to 

predict or are intrinsically linked with other resources 

or primary community industry(s). The most 

pragmatic solution would be to resolve issues by 

evoking public participation to determine appropriate 

minimization strategies or more importantly, 

approaches to maximize community benefits. 

Meetings to instruct and inform the public of proposed 

actions are one way to accomplish this task. 

Soils

Changes to soils and the ensuing consequences have 

been well documented with regards to the oil and gas 

industry and as a result, many preventative and 

economically feasible measures have been developed 

to deal with these chnages. Changes to soils from 

CBM activities could occur from various facets of 

exploration, construction, operation, and abandonment 

processes. These changes include soil compaction 

under disturbed areas, such as well sites and lease 

access roads, soil erosion in disturbed areas, and 

chemical influences from spills of liquids. Some 

changes are unavoidable, such as those resulting from 

the construction of well sites. Short-term disturbances 

occur typically during construction phases, including 
52 CBM Primer December 2003 

reclamation of construction sites. 

A healthy soil can absorb storm water, filter sediment, 

and reduce irrigation and fertilizer needs (Field and 

Engel, 2003). Changes to soils resulting from CBM 

related practices can affect multiple resources and as 

such, justifies serious consideration when devising 

appropriate management practices. In general, soil 

erosion is a gradual process that occurs when the 

actions of water, wind, and other factors deteriorate 

the land into an unproductive and in some cases, 

hazardous state. Application of BMPs to control such 

problems is dependent on proper evaluation and 

planning, and may include considerations such as, 

organic matter content and nutrient levels, mulching, 

topography, soil testing, and native plantings. 

An example of an effective BMP to control erosion is 

to keep water from accumulating on road surfaces. 

Fast-moving water can easily erode soil from road 

surfaces and ditches, but can be controlled by 

dispersing runoff into vegetation and ground litter (Iowa 

Department of Natural Resources, undated). Roads can be 

designed to keep the surface dry, while at the same 

time maintaining a certain level of structural integrity. 

In-sloped roads should contain adequate drainage, 

whereas out-sloped roads, which are less expensive to 

construct and maintain, should be designed for 

moderate gradients and stable soils (Iowa Department of 

Natural Resources, undated).

Soil changes have been well documented allowing for 

development of many preventative measures. The list 

below provides some of these measures. 

x Vegetation will be removed only when 

necessary 

x Drill seeds into the ground 

x Reduce timber cutting 

x Control increases in turbidity and suspended 

sediments to the maximum extent practical by 

using berms, dykes or impoundments 

x Areas with steep topography will be developed 

in accordance with the BLM Gold Book (USDI and 

USDA 1989) requirements 

x Federal leases with slopes in excess of 30 

percent will be required to obtain approval for 

occupancy from the BLM based on mitigation of 

erosion, surface productivity after remediation, 

and mitigation to surface water quality 

x Riparian zones will be protected by federal lease 

stipulations and permit mitigation measures 

x In areas of construction, topsoil will be 

stockpiled separately from other material, and be 

reused in reclamation of the disturbed areas 

x Surface owners or surface lessee will be 

consulted regarding the location of new roads 

and facilities related to oil and gas lease 

operations

x Unused portions of the drill location will have 

topsoil spread over it and reseeded 

x Construction activities will be restricted during 

wet or muddy conditions 

x If groundwater is encountered in shallow or near 

shallow surface materials during drilling, all 

onsite fluid pits will be lined 

x During road and utility construction, surface 

soils will be stockpiled adjacent to the sides of 

the cuts and fills 

x Stream crossings will be designed to minimize 

soil disturbances and impede stream flow 

x Erosion control measures will be maintained and 

continued until adequate vegetation cover is reestablished.

Mulching as a Best Management Practice to Reduce Soil Erosion 

and Infestation of Noxious Weeds 

Photograph provided by Libby Y. Field and Bernard A. Engel 
53 CBM Primer December 2003 

Visual Resource Management Class I area near Bozeman, Montana 

Solid and Hazardous Wastes 

In general, hazardous waste is a material or 

combination of hazardous materials that are no longer 

useable and are regulated by the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). 

RCRA hazardous materials programs are designed to 

protect public health and environmental resources 

from improper disposal or releases of regulated 

materials. These programs assure future hazardous 

substance risks, costs, and liabilities on public lands 

are minimized. On Federal lands BLM is responsible 

for all releases of hazardous materials and requires 

notification of all hazardous materials to be used or 

transported on public land. Typical solid waste 

generated by drilling related procedures are considered 

RCRA-exempt waste and can be disposed of in local 

landfills. The largest volume of exempt waste 

generated from drilling activities are drilling mud and 

cuttings. Classified RCRA waste, such as paints would 

be disposed of in accordance with applicable 

regulations.

Waste minimization on CBM 

development sites is limited 

because waste volumes are 

primarily a function of activity, 

age, and state of depletion of a 

producing site (American Petroleum 

Industry, 1989). Nevertheless, 

mitigation planning will include 

proven practices to reduce waste to 

the extent practical. The mitigation 

of solid and hazardous waste 

consists primarily of disposing of 

all wastes according to federal and 

state regulations. Other mitigation 

activities include leak detection or 

monitoring system for hydraulic 

and lubricating systems, 

construction of secondary 

containments, and drilling mud 

retention ponds. The mitigation of 

accidental spills and releases 

involves the clean up and reporting of all spills in 

accordance with an approved Spill Prevention Control 

and Countermeasures Plan and any applicable state 

regulations. In addition site clearance surveys should 

be conducted prior to surface disturbance 

commencement. 

Visual Resource Management 

Visual resources are visual features that include 

landform, water, vegetation, color, adjacent scenery, 

uniqueness or rarity, structures, and other man-made 

features. Alterations resulting from oil and gas 

exploration and production activities occur locally on a 

case-by-case basis as native vegetation is disturbed 

and small structures are erected. Exploration may 

involve minor visual changes from clearing operations 

for access to exploratory sites. The majority of these 

changes result from access road construction, site 

construction, drill rig operations, and on-site generator 

use. Short-term visual changes occur where 

construction and drilling equipment are visually 

evident to observers. Long-term alterations may occur 

from construction of roads and pads, installation of 

facilities and equipment, vegetation removal, and 

change in vegetation communities. These could 

produce changes in landscape line, form, color, and 

texture.

The USDA Forest Service recognizes special 

management zones surrounding riparian resources. For 

example, the Superior National Forest in Minnesota 

designates a 200- to 300-foot forest buffer, which is 

managed to optimize riparian resource values (Jaakko 

Pöyry Consulting, Inc., 1993). This management option can 

easily be applied to visual resources and in specific 
54 CBM Primer December 2003 

situations, coupled together with riparian or 

recreational resources to consolidate management 

efforts. Retaining a visual timber buffer could help 

isolate CBM-specific visual impairments such as, 

compressor stations or well pads, from local 

communities, highway travelers, and nearby 

recreational areas. Proper identification of timberlands 

play an important role in implementing this strategy. 

Due to the associated low costs and the flexibility of 

this strategy, successful implementation is often 

feasible.

Federally authorized projects undergo a visual 

assessment to comply with aesthetic requirements. 

Typically, sensitive areas include residential areas, 

recreation sites, historical sites, significant landmarks 

or topographic features, or any areas where existing 

visual quality is valued. Measures to minimize 

disturbance include designing compressor stations to 

blend into the background, landscaping options, and 

painting to camouflage the above ground equipment. 

Power lines and pipelines can be placed underground 

and wellheads camouflaged with landscaping or 

vegetation. Facilities on BLM lands require ample 

screening from highways or camouflage to retain basic 

elements of form, line, color and texture of the 

landscape.

Wilderness Study Areas 

To the extent practical, BLM leasing restrictions are 

designed to protect Wilderness Study Areas (WSA). 

As such, the most reasonable practices to minimize 

disturbance is avoidance. BLM has implemented this 

type of strategy by identifying WSA policies that 

prohibit leasing of these lands for resource extraction. 

Such policies can be supplemented by collaborative 

partnerships among federal and state government 

agencies, local governments, business communities, 

volunteers, user groups, educational institutions, and 

individuals in the private sector to achieve 

management objectives and implement these 

guidelines (BLM, 2000).

Wildlife and Vegetation 

Stipulations to perform wildlife surveys to assure 

responsible actions are taken to protect listed species 

associated with lands owned by the federal 

government and/or with projects which involve federal 

participation is an important element of any wildlife 

BMP. These stipulations are mandatory for federally 

owned (split-estates) or federally funded projects. (It 

should be noted that management practices, as well as 

identification of stipulations, for split-estates are the 

responsibility of the BLM.) If development practices 

occur on private lands, landowners, along with 

operators, are not bound by these same stipulations 

from a legal perspective even though they are still 

considered accountable for actions affecting state or 

federally listed species. Wildlife regulations are 

complex and will vary depending on geographic 

location, state and federal involvement, land-usage, 

and species distribution. In any case, wildlife surveys 

are a critical component of any mitigation strategy as 

they help identify listed species and alert operators and 

landowners of areas or habitats which should be 

avoided.

Wildlife surveys and inventories are used to identify 

fish and/or wildlife populations, their habitats, and 

other associated parameters such as home ranges, 

biodiversity values, and habitat usage. The inventory 

and monitoring of the abundance and distribution of 

wildlife species are essential in addressing 

development disturbances that pose threats to the 

effective and sustained management for protected, as 

well as common species. Monitoring programs provide 

the basis for formulation of adaptive wildlife 

management plans that document mitigation objectives 

and outline how each is to be implemented. 

Management issues relating to degree of human 

disturbance, conservation, management constraints, 

local communities’ interests, and development are 

influenced by the resource availability and abundance 

over time. 

A comprehensive biota database ensures that the full 

ranges of species utilizing the project area are 

identified as well as the time of year in which they are 

Black-footed Ferret 

Mustela nigripes (Photograph provided by BLM)
55 CBM Primer December 2003 

Raptor Safe Utility Pole 

Photograph provided by the Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department

most likely present. This information can then be 

extrapolated and used as a strategy tool by wildlife 

biologists or resource managers to predict the degree 

of change(s) for specific species. With this inventory 

strategy, proper identification of fish, wildlife, and 

botanical species in the area will help those involved 

identity species-specific critical resources and plan for 

appropriate mitigation. 

CBM development triggers Section 7 and/or Section 9 

of the Endangered Species Act if environmental 

alterations are planned and if those alterations will 

pose as a potential threat to endangered species and 

their habitat. Section 7 of the Act directs federal 

agencies to mange projects in a manner that will not 

jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or 

modify their critical habitat during any federally 

authorized project. Section 9 identifies prohibited 

actions and outlines litigation authority for the FWS. 

Prohibited actions defined in this Section are extensive 

and require review to insure planning strategies are 

consistent with the law. In addition, identified 

sensitive species on federal lands are protected under 

the BLM Sensitive Species Policy (BLM Manual 6849).

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not 

applicable to project related actions taking place solely 

on private lands. However, under Section 9 of the Act, 

operators or land owners still need to assure prohibited 

violations defined in this section are avoided, that is, in 

general, negative or deleterious disturbances to listed 

species. From a regulatory perspective, actions on 

private lands do not require performance of wildlife 

inventories, but as stated above, disturbances to 

threatened or endangered species could trigger Section 

9 of the act, and subsequent law enforcement penalties 

from the FWS. To avoid such situations, the FWS 

service recommends incorporating wildlife inventory 

requirements into mitigations plans or at a minimum, 

assuming listed species inhabit the area. 

In some cases, exemptions to Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act may apply if the FWS 

establishes “reasonable mitigation and enhancement 

measures, including, but not limited to, live 

propagation, transplantation, and habitat acquisition 

and improvement, as are necessary and appropriate to 

minimize the adverse effects of the agency action upon 

the endangered species, threatened species, or critical 

habitat concerned.” This point alone establishes the 

importance of developing efficient and sustainable 

BMPs.

Practices to minimize alterations to habitat or natural 

activities can be very challenging and in some cases 

overwhelming, since the dynamics of any environment 

will vary from region to region, and as is often the 

case, will change over time. In any case however, 

wildlife management options are directly related to 

project-specific procedures and the findings of wildlife 

surveys. It is therefore, the responsibility of operators 

(and landowners) to submit work plans prior to the 

initiation of project activities to assure proper planning 

and if applicable, subsequent mitigation. Provided 

below is a listing of potential mitigation measures that 

could be used in a project plan to minimize 

disturbances to wildlife and their habitats. This list 

should not be considered all inclusive as wildlife 

mitigation measures are generally species specific and 

are continually being revised as more information is 

collected.

x No surface occupancy or use within 0.5 miles of 

known nests or riparian nesting habitat to 

minimize disturbances to nesting bald eagles. 

x Surveys should be made for all prairie dog 

towns within the roadway corridor and pad sites. 

If prairie dog colonies or several of the other 

indicators are found, FWS survey protocol for 

mountain plover should be followed. 

Construction activities should be avoided during 
56 CBM Primer December 2003 

Wetland system initial planting, June 2000, Marathon Oil 

Company, Powder River Basin, Wyoming 

Same planting area as above, August 2001, Marathon Oil 

Company, Powder River Basin, Wyoming 

breeding periods to allow nesting mountain 

plovers to establish territories. 

x Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 

1/4 mile of wetlands used by nesting interior 

least tern during exploration. This stipulation 

would minimize disturbances to interior least 

tern.

x Construction of facilities or roadways that will 

disturb migration routes of terrestrial wildlife 

species should be avoided, unless construction 

activities can be scheduled in a manner to 

minimize disturbance. 

x Overhead electric lines can threaten birds such 

as raptors or waterfowl and may impair visual 

resources. Buried electric lines can prevent such 

incidents and be as cost effective as polemounted lines when utility corridors are utilized. 

In situations where pole-mounted lines are the 

only feasible or best option, the use of raptor 

safe poles should be incorporated into the 

mitigation strategy. 

x Remote monitoring of field data can help reduce 

traffic volume and the possibility of wildlife 

collisions. This type of monitoring will also 

decrease habitat defragmentation and sediment 

load to nearby water systems resulting from 

erosion.

x Use existing water structures including, 

reservoirs, impoundments, or stock ponds to 

dispose of water. This action will help avoid 

unnecessary disturbances to other areas, while 

possibly benefiting landowners or wildlife. 

Impoundments could be used as wildlife 

watering ponds or used for recreational or fish 

ponds by the local landowner. 

x Construction of roadways in natural settings can 

affect multiple resources including wildlife. 

Reclamation of roads to pre-existing conditions 

upon completion of the project should be clearly 

defined within the project plan. 

As a beneficial use, non-treated CBM produced water 

is currently being used to sustain privately owned 

fishponds in some states, including Wyoming. Water 

quality levels have been sufficient to support healthy 

populations of rainbow trout, blue gill, small-mouth 

bass, etc. The State of Wyoming discontinued fish 

stocking programs in certain ponds due to a general 

lack of available water needed to sustain the system. 

CBM produced waters are now being beneficially used 

to supplement these ponds, allowing for continuation 

of the State’s stocking program. 

Disturbances to native vegetation resulting from CBM 

activities will require a case by case evaluation to 

determine strategies to minimize the effected area. In 

general, pockets of vegetation will be lost to roads and 

drill sites, as well as other construction related 

procedures. Proper mitigation strategies will be based 

on area vegetative inventories to determine the 

presence of threatened, endangered, and regional 

sensitive species.

As directed by BLM or survey findings, operator plans 

should be adjusted as appropriate to avoid disturbances 

to federally listed species or state species of concern. 
57 CBM Primer December 2003 

Sensitive habitats including wetlands and some 

riparian areas are also protected from direct 

disturbance under current stipulations on BLM land 

that restrict surface occupancy. In such cases riparian 

vegetation or other sensitive habitats should be 

avoided. When drilling sites are located in or at the 

head of drainages, drill sites and access roads may add 

sediment to streams and wetlands. Channel 

degradation may also occur. Heavy sediment loads or 

severe degradation would affect riparian vegetation. 

Roads and facilities are supposed to avoid sensitive 

areas "to the extent practicable."

When CBM development and operation practices 

result in the disturbance of existing non-protected 

vegetation and plant communities the potential exists 

for the loss of overall grazing/wildlife forage 

productivity, erosion, and introduction of noxious 

weeds. To help minimize disturbances to native 

vegetation operators are required to reduce the size of 

the drilling pads and to immediately restore the area 

once operations are complete or out-of-use. In 

situations that include unavoidable disturbances to 

common vegetation, proper mitigation can be applied 

to identify and re-introduce native species where 

necessary, to re-establish a local distribution, and to 

plant selected species that are determined to be 

valuable and successful in the area being restored. 

Other measures identified by BLM for specific 

protection of vegetation include: 

x Where riparian areas and special habitat types 

have the potential to be inundated with water on 

a continuous basis. Measures will be taken to 

prevent continual inundation. 

x Where water crossings cannot be avoided, 

crossings will be constructed perpendicular to 

wetland/riparian areas, where practical.For 

power lines, the minimum number of poles 

necessary to cross the area will be used. 

x Wetland areas will be disturbed only during dry 

conditions or when the ground is frozen during 

the winter. 

x No waste material will be deposited below high 

water lines in riparian areas, flood plains, or in 

natural drainage ways. 

x Drilling mud pits will be located outside of 

riparian areas, wetlands, and floodplains, where 

practical.

x Reclamation of disturbed wetland/riparian areas 

will begin immediately after project activities 

are complete. 

Noxious Weeds 

Infestations of noxious weeds can occur in CBM 

development areas and require careful consideration 

on a site by site basis. Weeds can be transported and 

spread from vehicles, persons, and by other 

construction and reclamation materials. In some case 

native vegetation is unable to compete with exotic 

species and could lead to their elimination in a given 

local area. Mitigation, when properly applied, can help 

eliminate this problem, as well as sustain healthy 

native populations. To help assure the success of 

mitigation to control noxious weeds, BLM has 

identified certain protocols and practices that are 

required on federally involved projects in their 

Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP). Identified 

measures include: Prompt reseeding, cleaning of 

equipment prior to on-site delivery, minimization of 

soil disturbances, use of weed free mulch and hay, use 

of livestock to control outbreaks of certain weeds, use 

of BLM approved herbicides, and weed control 

instruction.

In general, the success of a mitigation or BMP 

vegetation program will be measured by how closely 

the revitalized area resembles, in both appearance and 

functionality, its original state. As directed by BLM, 

re-establishment of vegetation is considered complete 

when the disturbed area is stabilized, soil erosion is 

controlled, and at least 60 percent of the disturbed 

surface is covered with the prescribed vegetation. On 

private lands, restoration efforts will be directed by 

Dalmatian Toadflax (Linaria genistifolia ssp. dalmatica)is 

scattered throughout northern and western U.S. Photograph

provide by BLM
58 CBM Primer December 2003 

Tongue River, Powder River Basin, Montana

landowner stipulations resulting from operator and 

landowner coordination.

Aquatic Resources 

CBM exploration, production, and abandonment 

activities could disturb aquatic resources in a number 

of ways. The likelihood of these disturbances 

occurring depends on the exact nature, location, and 

timing of CBM activities; the proximity of CBM 

activities to water bodies and the presence of sensitive 

species and/or sensitive life stages in these water 

bodies; and the nature of stipulations and mitigation 

measures that should be implemented to minimize, 

avoid, or mitigate the potential disturbances. These 

include direct removal of habitat, habitat degradation 

from sedimentation, altered spawning and seasonal 

migration because of stream obstructions, direct loss 

of fish from accidental spills or pipeline ruptures 

releasing toxic substances, increased legal harvests of 

fish because of increased human access, and reduced 

stream flow because of removing water for drilling 

activities.

BLM has stipulations for federally involved projects 

that avoid or minimize disturbances to biological 

resources and hydrological features resulting from 

CBM exploration, production, and abandonment 

activities (BLM, 1992). Stipulations related to aquatic 

resources include a prohibition on the surface 

occupancy or use of water bodies and streams, within 

the 100-year floodplains for major rivers, and riparian 

areas. In addition, surface occupancy and use is 

prohibited within 1/4 mile of designated reservoirs 

with fisheries to protect the fisheries and recreational 

values of reservoirs. Surface occupancy is also 

prohibited on slopes exceeding 30 degrees to prevent 

excessive soil erosion, slope failure, and mass wasting, 

all of which would contribute increased sediment to 

drainages that may affect aquatic resources (BLM, 1992).

Stream channel monitoring for erosion, degradation, 

and riparian health is required by BLM on an annual 

basis, which includes surveying stream reach’s above 

all CBM discharges and several stream reaches below 

CBM discharges. When avoidance of stream channel 

alteration is not feasible, BLM also requires recontouring and stabilization of the channels. 

Additional mitigation measures associated with 

aquatic resources, some of which are directed at 

special status species, include considerations of the 

location and timing of stream crossings as they relate 

to spawning periods and habitat, minimization or 

avoidance of in-channel activities to reduce the 

potential for habitat loss, the development of Spill 

Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plans to deal 

with accidental spills, control of storm water pollutant 

run-off, and various measures to prevent eroded 

materials from entering drainages. 

PROJECT PLANNING

As stated above, there are many aspects of the CBM 

industry that are unique and different from the 

conventional oil and gas industry. Also, given the fact 

that each project will present distinctive circumstances 

and challenges for resource managers or operators, it 

becomes imperative to systematically evaluate the 

situation prior to proposing or implementing BMPs in 

a project plan. A successful project plan will include 

BMPs and mitigation strategies aimed at minimizing 

environmental disturbances, while at the same time 

maintaining overall site productivity. Achieving 

effective use of BMPs requires consideration of lease 

stipulations, pre-planning, NEPA requirements, 

identification of permitting issues, monitoring, and 

implementation. 

Lease stipulations consist of specific measures that are 

incorporated into a mineral lease and are intended to 

avoid potential effects on resources and land uses from 

oil and gas operations, including CBM. Lease 

stipulations can include provisions for, and constraints 

on, such things as site clearances, occupancy, and 

timing restrictions. Lease stipulations should be 

identified and agreed upon at the time of the lease 
59 CBM Primer December 2003 

signing before conducting exploration, production, and 

abandonment activities. 

Depending on the situation, pre-planning for BMPs 

may occur before, during, or after CBM exploration 

activities. The success (or lack there of) of exploratory 

“findings” in many cases would contribute to the 

scheduling or initiation of a pre-planning program. In 

either case however, good planning is the best tool for 

effective implementation of BMPs. The pre-planning 

process should consider BMPs or mitigation strategies 

that are flexible, enforceable, have a preventative 

ability, and as stated earlier, can be implemented in 

phases.

Phase implementation for a particular aspect of the 

project should assure specific operations are paired up 

with the appropriate mitigation measures so as to 

maximize the effectiveness of any specific mitigation 

(EPA, 2002). This type of planning strategy should also 

ensure smooth implementation of the subsequent 

phases of work. Considering that the primary purpose 

of a BMP or mitigation measure is not only to resolve 

problems which may arise upon project initiation, but 

to prevent environmental problems before they occur, 

successful BMPs should be readily adapted to changes 

resulting from unforeseeable changes to a particular 

project (EPA, 2002). A flexible strategy can also prevent 

unnecessary delay due to further changes in the work 

environment. Lastly, a successful BMP should be 

easily enforceable. Operators should ask such 

questions as; What type of measure will be used? 

Where will the measure be implemented? and Why is 

the measure necessary? Sound and practical answers to 

these questions will aid operators in reducing concerns 

from the regulatory community, landowners, and 

citizens groups. 

Planning efforts should begin with a thorough 

evaluation of the surface proposed for CBM 

development. Selection of the proper surface may help 

minimize and mitigate surface conflicts and avoid 

unnecessary surface uses that could require additional 

reclamation, special operating procedures, or other 

restrictions that could be avoided. At this time 

consideration also needs to be given to the proximity 

to schools, residences and other public areas, visual 

alterations, erosion potential, wildlife habit, and the 

improvements and structures of the landowner/surface 

lessee. 

In addition operators should consider avoiding 

surfaces with steep slopes, unstable soils, and locations 

that block or restrict natural drainages during the preplanning phase. Care should also be taken to disturb 

the minimum amount of native vegetation as possible, 

particularly in those areas where vegetation will be 

difficult to re-establish. Locations in areas with a 

potential for high surface run-off, with increased 

erosion potential or in the flood plain of surface 

drainages could dramatically increase maintenance 

costs and mitigation efforts, as well as create 

additional safety concerns. An exploration site that has 

a low slope, soils with low erosion potential, and a site 

that can be readily re-vegetated benefits the operator 

by reducing the costs of compliance with storm water 

discharge permits and associated well and road site 

remediation. 

Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act 

requires Federal agencies to incorporate environmental 

considerations in their planning and decision-making 

process through a systematic interdisciplinary 

approach. Specifically, Federal agencies are to assess 

the environmental effects of, and alternatives to major 

federal actions significantly affecting the environment. 

Actions are classified into one of three categories and 

include: Categorically Excluded, Finding of No 

Significant Impact (as identified by an Environmental 

Assessment), and Finding of Significant Impact (as 

identified in an Environmental Impact Statement and 

Record of Decision). 

Under this Act, Environmental Impact Statements 

(EIS) are developed to identify and evaluate the 

severity of project specific environmental disturbances 

that may result from CBM development practices. 

Identification of existing environmental conditions and 

potential disturbances will help those involved identify 

appropriate mitigation for site-specific impacts. 

Typically, resources evaluated in the EIS include: 

x Environmental quality, including air, water, 

soils

x Social and socioeconomic conditions 

x Natural resources, including fish, wildlife, and 

plants

x Endangered and threatened species 

x Historical and cultural resources, including 

archeological materials 
60 CBM Primer December 2003 

x Initial assessment for any hazardous, toxic, or 

radiological wastes 

The number and complexity of applicable permit 

requirements and water right issues that can apply to 

CBM operations can be overwhelming, but are critical 

to the successful implementation of BMPs and 

mitigation strategies. Permit requirements can and will 

vary for any given state or region. Coupled with the 

discretionary practices agencies can exercise when 

applying their programs, it becomes essential for 

operators and landowners to have a thorough 

understanding of these requirements to allow for 

informed decisions as they relate to identifying and 

implementing site specific BMPs. Operators, 

landowners, or other entities involved in the CBM 

industry should contact their appropriate state 

authority for additional information. It should also be 

noted that permitting requirements within the CBM 

industry are continually being modified or new 

requirements are being drafted. 

CONCLUSION

Not all BMPs or mitigation measures will be 

appropriate for any given resource and proper 

implementation will vary by the region, topography, 

climate, reclamation objectives, landowner 

stipulations, applicable regulations, and development 

characteristics. Established mitigation plans will 

require amendment when there are significant changes 

in design, construction, and operation or maintenance 

practices. Since operational and development 

conditions will likely change over time, developing 

monitoring plans for these changes will help faciltitae 

necessary adjustments to BMP programs. 

The focus of many monitoring plans is to conduct an 

overall evaluation of the potential effects of CBM 

development and to track the changes that occur as 

CBM fields mature, and gas production declines and 

eventually ends. The end result of monitoring will 

allow those involved to determine if measures are 

achieving their intended environmental objectives, as 

well as to identify any further disturbances caused by 

the mitigation measures themselves (EPA, 2002).

Effective monitoring can also provide a means for 

developing improved analytical procedures for future 

analysis and improving mitigation measures. 

Standards for monitoring resources such as air quality, 

water, wildlife, and surface disturbances historically 

have been well documented, and serve as a baseline 

for monitoring. 

BMPs should not be thought of as a rigid set of 

guidelines that are mandatory for reduction of 

disturbances, but as an adaptive and concise 

management tool which can facilitate enhancement, as 

well as protection, for multiple resource use. 

Unfortunately, there is no one measure with a “fix all” 

quality. Rather, BMPs represent an intricate web of 

methodologies and practices resulting from careful 

planning and coordination that are used to accomplish 

pre-determined objectives. BMPs must be 

incorporated into the final design plan for any CBM 

construction project to help assure the success of the 

project, as well as the protection of the environment. 
DEFINITIONS 

 D-1 

DEFINITIONS

AIR QUALITY. Air quality is based on the amount of 

pollutants emitted into the atmosphere and the dispersion 

potential of an area to dilute those pollutants. 

ALKALINITY. The quantity and kinds of compounds 

present in water that collectively shift the pH to the alkaline 

side of neutrality. See salinity.

ALLUVIUM. General term for debris deposited by streams 

on river beds, floodplains, and alluvial fans, especially 

deposits brought down during a flood. Applies to stream 

deposits of recent time. Does not include below water 

sediments of seas and lakes. 

ANNULUS OR ANNULAR SPACE. The space around a 

pipe in a wellbore, the outer wall of which may be the wall 

of either the borehole or the casing. 

AQUIFER. A body of rock that is sufficiently permeable to 

conduct groundwater and to yield economically significant 

quantities of water to wells and springs. 

APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DRILL, DEEPEN 

OR PLUG BACK (APD). The Department of Interior 

application permit form to authorize oil and gas drilling 

activities on federal land or the state application form for 

similar purposes. 

AREA OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONCERN. An area that needs special management 

attention to preserve historic, cultural, or scenic values; to 

protect fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems 

or processes; or to protect life and provide safety from 

natural hazards. 

ARTESIAN. Groundwater with sufficient pressure to flow 

without pumping. 

BASIN. A closed geologic structure in which the beds dip 

toward the center; the youngest rocks are at the center of a 

basin and are partly or completely ringed by progressively 

older rocks. 

BEDROCK. The solid, unweathered rock underlying soils. 

BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 

(BACT). The best available air pollution control technology 

for a given emission source, considering environmental 

benefits, economic and energy costs, as defined by the 

applicable air quality regulatory authority. 

BIOGENIC. Produced by living organisms or biological 

processes. 

BITUMINOUS. The most abundant rank of coal 

(synonymous with soft coal). It is dark brown to black and 

burns with a smoky flame. 

BRACKISH WATER. Water that contains relatively 

moderate concentrations of any soluble salts. Brackish water 

is saltier than fresh water but not as salty as salt water or 

brine water. 

BRINE. Water containing relatively large concentrations of 

dissolved salts, particularly sodium chloride. Brine has 

higher salt concentrations than ordinary ocean water. 

BUFFER ZONE. 

1. An area between two different land uses that is 

intended to resist, absorb or otherwise preclude 

developments or intrusions between the two use areas. 

2. A strip of undisturbed vegetation that retards the flow 

of runoff water, causing deposition of transported 

sediment and reducing sedimentation in the receiving 

stream. 

CASING. Steel pipe placed in a well and cemented in place 

to prevent the earth from collapsing and to isolate water, gas 

and oil from the original formations. 

CAVITATION. The formation of an undercut in a mineral 

formation by means of mechanical forces, such as those 

resulting from rotation of a special drill bit at the base of a 

well.

CHANNEL INTEGRITY (STABILITY). A relative term 

describing erosion or movement of the channel walls or 

bottom because of water flow. 

CLAYEY. A soil containing more than 35 percent clay. The 

textural classes are sandy clay, silty clay, clay, clay loam, 

and silty clay loam. 

CLEAN AIR ACT. Public Law 84-159, established 

July 14, 1955, and amended numerous times since. The 

Clean Air Act: establishes federal standards for air 

pollutants emitted from stationary and mobile sources; 

authorizes states, tribes and local agencies to regulate 

polluting emissions; requires those agencies to improve air 

quality in areas of the country which do not meet federal 

standards; and to prevent significant deterioration in areas 

where air quality is cleaner than those standards. The Act 

also requires that all federal activities (either direct or 

authorized) comply with applicable local, state, tribal and 

federal air quality laws, statutes, regulations, standards and 

implementation plans. In addition, before these activities 

can take place in non-attainment or maintenance areas, the 
DEFINITIONS 

D-2 

federal agencies must conduct a Conformity Analysis (and 

possible Determination) demonstrating the proposed activity 

will comply with all applicable air quality requirements. 

CLOSED MUD SYSTEM. A drill mud system that reuses 

or reclaims all the drilling fluid used. Oil-based mud 

systems are often closed mud systems.

COAL BED METHANE. A clean-burning natural gas 

found deep inside and around coal seams. The gas has an 

affinity to coal and is held in place by pressure from 

groundwater. Coalbed methane is produced by drilling a 

wellbore into the coal seam(s), pumping out large volumes 

of groundwater to reduce the hydrostatic pressure and allow 

the gas to flow. 

COALIFICATION. Compression and hardening over 

long periods of time, the processes by which coal is formed 

from plant materials. 

COLLUVIAL. Loose, incoherent geological deposits at the 

bottom of a slope or cliff, having fallen from above. 

COMMUNITIZATION. The pooling of mineral acreages 

based on the spacing for a well or wells set by the state or 

BLM.

COMPACTION. The process of packing firmly and 

closely together; the state of being so packed; for example, 

mechanical compaction of soil by livestock or vehicular 

activity. Soil compaction results from particles being 

pressed together so that the volume of the soil is reduced. It 

is influenced by the physical properties of the soil, moisture 

content, and the type and amount of compactive effort. 

COMPLETION. The activities and methods to prepare a 

well for production. Includes installation of equipment for 

production from a gas well. 

CONDITION OF APPROVAL (COA). Conditions or 

provisions (requirements) under which an Application for a 

Permit to Drill or a Sundry Notice is approved. 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE (CSU). Use or 

occupancy is allowed (unless restricted by another 

stipulation), but identified resource values require special 

operational constraints that may modify the lease rights. 

CSU is used for operating guidance, not as a substitute for 

the NSO or Timing stipulations. 

CONVEYANCE LOSS. The percentage reduction in water 

volume between the time it is discharged to the surface and 

the time it reaches a perennial stream. This reduction in 

volume is due to the processes of infiltration and 

evaporation. 

CORRIDOR. A strip of land through which one or more 

existing or potential facilities may be located. 

CRUCIAL WINTER RANGE. That portion of the winter 

range on which a wildlife species is dependent for survival 

during periods of heaviest snow cover. 

CULTURAL RESOURCE. A term that includes items of 

historical, archaeological, or architectural items; a remnant 

of human activity. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT. The impact on the 

environment that results from the positive or negative 

impacts of an action when added to other past, present, and 

reasonable foreseeable future actions, regardless of what 

agency or person performed such action(s). 

DEEPER COAL SEAM. Designates a coal seam that is 

deep enough that it can be drilled to at a directional angle 

from a well pad in one spacing unit to another spacing unit. 

This avoids the need for constructing additional roads and 

well pads. The exact depth that the term “deeper” applies to 

is relative and will vary according to field spacing 

requirements and local geology. 

DEVELOPMENT WELL. A well drilled in proven 

territory (usually within 1 mile of an existing production 

well).

DESORBED. To remove (an absorbed or adsorbed 

substance) from.

DISPOSAL WELL. A well into which produced water 

from other wells is injected into an underground formation 

for disposal. 

DRAINAGE (GEOMORPHIC). A collective term for all 

the water bodies by which a region is drained; or, all the 

water features shown on a map. 

DRAINAGE (OIL AND GAS). The uncompensated loss 

of hydrocarbons from Federal, Indian tribal or Indianallotted mineral lands from wells on adjacent nonjurisdictional lands or jurisdictional lands with lower 

participation, allocation, royalty rate, or distribution of 

funds, resulting in revenue losses to the Federal or Indian 

lessors. 

DRILL DIRECTIONALLY. The technique of drilling at 

an angle from a location at the surface to a different 

subsurface location at a specific target depth. 

DRILL RIG. The mast, drawworks, and attendant surface 

equipment of a drilling or workover unit. 

DRY HOLE. Any well incapable of producing oil or gas in 

commercial quantities. A dry hole may produce water, gas 

or even oil, but not enough to justify production. 

ECOSYSTEM. A biological community, together with its 

nonliving environment, forming an interacting system 

inhabiting an identifiable space. 
DEFINITIONS 

D-3 

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY. A measure of the 

ability of a formation and the fluids present in it to conduct 

an electrical current. For shallow formations and coals, the 

conductivity is generally related to the soluble salts present 

in the formation fluid. 

EMISSION. Air pollution discharge into the atmosphere, 

usually specified by mass per unit time. 

ENDANGERED SPECIES. Those species of plants or 

animals classified by the Secretary of the Interior or the 

Secretary of Commerce as endangered pursuant to Section 4 

of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. See 

also Threatened and Endangered Species. 

ENHANCED RECOVERY. The use of artificial means to 

increase the amount of hydrocarbons that can be recovered 

from a reservoir. A reservoir depleted by normal extraction 

practices usually can be restored to production by secondary 

or tertiary methods of enhanced recovery. 

EXPLORATION. The process of identifying a potential 

subsurface geologic target and the active drilling of a 

borehole designed to assess the coalbed methane potential. 

See also development.

EXPLORATION WELL. A well drilled in an area where 

there is no oil or gas production. Same as a “wildcat” well. 

FAULT. A fracture surface in rocks along which movement 

of rock on one side has occurred relative to rock on the 

other side. 

FLOODPLAIN. The relatively flat area or lowlands 

adjoining a body of standing or flowing water that has been 

or might be covered by floodwater. 

FLOW LINE. A small diameter pipeline that generally 

connects a well to the initial processing facility. 

FORMATION (GEOLOGIC). A rock body 

distinguishable from other rock bodies and useful for 

mapping or description. Formations may be combined into 

groups or subdivided into members. 

FUGITIVE DUST. Airborne particles emitted from any 

source other than through a controllable stack or vent. 

GEOMORPHIC. Pertaining to the form of the earth or its 

surface features. 

GROUND COVER. Vegetation, mulch, litter, or rocks. 

GROUNDWATER. Subsurface water that is in the zone of 

saturation. The top surface of the groundwater is the “water 

table.” Source of water for wells, seepage, and springs. 

HABITAT. In wildlife management, the major elements of 

habitat are considered to be food, water, cover, and living 

space.

HAZARDOUS WASTE. (A) Any substance designated 

pursuant to section 311(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act. (B) Any element, compound, 

mixture, solution, or substance designated pursuant to 

section 102 of this Act. (C) Any hazardous waste having the 

characteristics identified under or listed pursuant to section 

3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (but not including any 

waste the regulation of which under the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act has been suspended by Act of Congress.) 

(D) Any toxic pollutant listed under section 307(a) of the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act. (E) Any hazardous air 

pollutant listed under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. 

(F) Any imminently hazardous chemical substance or 

mixture with respect to which the Administrator has taken 

action pursuant to section 7 of the Toxic Substances Control 

Act. The term does not include petroleum, including crude 

oil or any fraction thereof which is not otherwise 

specifically listed or designated as a hazardous substance 

under subparagraphs (A) through (F) of this paragraph, and 

the term does not include natural gas, natural gas liquids, 

liquefied natural gas, or synthetic gas usable for fuel (or 

mixtures of natural gas and such synthetic gas). 

HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE. relating to fluids at rest or 

to the pressures they exert or transmit; "hydrostatic 

pressure"

INFILTRATION. The flow of a fluid into a solid 

substance through pores or small openings; specifically, the 

movement of water into soil or porous rock. 

INJECTION WELL. A well used to inject fluids into an 

underground formation either for enhanced recovery or 

disposal. 

INTERMITTENT STREAM. A stream that flows most of 

the time but occasionally is dry or reduced to pool stage 

when losses from evaporation or seepage exceed the 

available streamflow. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUNDS. 

Federal revenues generated by a tax on federal off-shore oil 

and gas development through the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act; used to acquire highly desirable 

lands for the United States by the various governmental 

agencies. 

LEASABLE MINERALS. Federal minerals subject to 

lease under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, 

and supplemented. Includes minerals, such as oil, gas, coal, 

geothermal, tar sands, oil shale, potassium, phosphate, 

sodium, asphaltic materials. 

LEASE.

1. A legal document that conveys to an operator the 

right to drill for oil and gas. 
DEFINITIONS 

D-4 

2. The tract of land, on which a lease has been obtained, 

where producing wells and production equipment are 

located.

LEASE NOTICE. Provides more detailed information 

concerning limitations that already exist in law, lease terms, 

regulations, or operational orders. A lease notice also 

addresses special items the lessee should consider when 

planning operations, but does not impose new or additional 

restrictions. Lease notices attached to leases should not be 

confused with NTLs (Notices to Lessees). 

LEK. A traditional breeding area for grouse species where 

territorial males display and establish dominance. 

LIGNITE. A brownish-black coal that is intermediate 

between peat and subbituminous coal. 

LOAMY. Soil that is intermediate in texture and properties 

between sandy and clayey soils. Textural classes are sandy 

loam, fine sandy loam, very fine sandy loam, loam, silt 

loam, sandy clay loam, and clay loam with clay content 

between 18 and 35 percent. 

LOCALITY. The area where paleontologic material is 

discovered. 

LOCATABLE MINERALS. Minerals or materials subject 

to disposal and development through the Mining Law of 

1872 (as amended). Generally includes metallic minerals 

such as gold and silver and other materials not subject to 

lease or sale. 

MACERALS. the small fragments formed in peat and coal, 

and can be identified microscopically as coming from plant 

products.

MINERAL MATERIALS. Widespread deposits of 

common clay, sand, gravel, or stone that are not subject to 

disposal under the 1872 Mining Law, as amended. 

MITIGATION MEASURES. Methods or procedures 

developed for the purpose of reducing or lessening the 

impacts of an action. 

MONITORING. Specific studies that evaluate the 

effectiveness of actions taken toward achieving 

management objectives. 

NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 

OR NAAQS. The allowable concentrations of air 

pollutants in the air specified by the federal government. 

The air quality standards are divided into primary standards 

(based on air quality criteria and allowing an adequate 

margin of safety requisite to protect the public health) and 

secondary standards (based on air quality criteria and 

allowing an adequate margin of safety to protect the public 

welfare from any unknown or expected adverse effects of 

air pollutants). 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY. Use or occupancy of the 

land surface for fluid mineral exploration or development is 

prohibited to protect identified resource values. 

NOTICE TO LESSEES (NTL). The NTL is a written 

notice issued by the Authorized Officer. NTLs implement 

regulations and operating orders, and serve as instructions 

on specific item(s) of importance within a State, District, or 

Area. 

PARTICULATE MATTER. A particle of soil or liquid 

matter (e.g., soot, dust, aerosols, fumes and mist). 

PERENNIAL STREAM. A permanent stream that flows 9 

months or more out of the year. 

PERMEABILITY. The ease with which gases, liquids or 

plant roots pass through a layer of soil. Accepted as a 

measure of this property is the rate at which soil transmits 

water while saturated, and may imply how well water passes 

through the least permeable soil layer. 

PERFORATING. Penetrating the well casing to open the 

reservoir to the surface. 

pH. A measure of acidity or alkalinity. A solution with a pH 

of 7 is neutral, pH greater than 7 (to 14) is alkaline, and a 

pH less than 7 (to 0) is acidic. 

PARTS PER MILLION (PPM). A measurement to 

identify the amount of particulates in air or water. 

POD. Describes the general location of a series of wells that 

tap individual coal seams within a single spacing unit. For 

example, within the Powder River Basin, three coal seams 

are layered beneath the surface. On the surface, an operator 

may drill three separate wells to different depths to tap these 

individual seams. The wells may be located within 20 feet 

of each other, representing a pod of wells. 

POROSITY. The ratio of the volume of all the pores in a 

material to the volume of the whole.

PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION 

OR PSD. A regulatory program under the Clean Air Act 

(Public Law 84-159, as amended) to limit air quality 

degradation in areas currently achieving the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards. The PSD program 

established air quality classes in which differing amounts of 

additional air pollution is allowed above a legally defined 

baseline level. Almost any additional air pollution would be 

considered significant in PSD Class I areas (certain large 

national parks and wilderness areas in existence on August 

7, 1977, and specific Tribal lands redesignated since then). 

PSD Class II areas allow that deterioration associated with 

moderate, well-controlled growth (most of the country). 

Class I. An area that allows only minimal degradation 

above “baseline.” The Clean Air Act designated 
DEFINITIONS 

D-5 

existing national parks over 6,000 acres and national 

wilderness areas over 5,000 acres in existence on 

August 7, 1977, as mandatory Federal Class I Areas. 

These areas also have special visibility protection. In 

addition, four tribal governments have redesignated 

their lands as Class I Areas. 

Class II. An area that allows moderate degradation 

above “baseline.” Most of the United States (outside 

nonattainment areas) is Class II. 

Class III. Any area that allows the maximum amount 

of degradation above “baseline.” Although the U.S. 

Congress allows air quality regulatory agencies to 

redesignate Class II lands to Class III, none have been 

designated.

PRODUCED WATER. Water produced from oil and gas 

wells.

RAPTOR. Bird of prey with sharp talons and strongly 

curved beaks (hawks, falcons, owls, and eagles). 

RECLAMATION. Rehabilitation of a disturbed area to 

make it acceptable for designated uses. This normally 

involves regrading, replacement of topsoil, revegetation, and 

other work necessary to restore it for use. 

RESERVE PIT. 

1. Usually an excavated pit that may be lined with 

plastic, that holds drill cuttings and waste mud. 

2. Term for the pit that holds the drilling mud. 

RIGHT-OF-WAY GRANT. A document authorizing a 

nonpossessory, nonexclusive right to use federal lands for 

the limited purpose of construction, operation, maintenance, 

and termination of a pipeline, road, or powerline. 

RILL. Small, conspicuous water channel or rivulet that 

concentrates runoff; usually less than 6 inches deep. 

RIPARIAN/WETLAND AREA. An area of land directly 

influenced by permanent water. It has visible vegetation or 

physical characteristics reflective of permanent water 

influence. Lakeshores, streams and permanent springs are 

typical riparian areas. Excluded are such sites as ephemeral 

streams or washes that do not exhibit the presence of 

vegetation dependent upon free water in the soil. 

ROAD. A vehicle route that has either been improved and 

maintained by mechanical means to ensure relatively regular 

and continuous use, or been established where vehicle travel 

has created two parallel tracks lacking vegetation. 

SALINITY. A measure of the salts dissolved in water. See 

alkalinity.

SEDIMENT. Soil, rock particles and organic or other 

debris carried from one place to another by wind, water, 

gravity, ice, or other geologic agent. 

SEDIMENTARY ROCK. A layered rock resulting from 

the consolidation of sediment, such as shale, sandstone, and 

limestone. 

SEISMIC OPERATIONS. Use of explosive or mechanical 

thumpers to generate shock waves that can be read by 

special equipment to give clues to subsurface conditions. 

SHALLOW COAL SEAM. Those coal seams that are too 

shallow to drill to directionally given the area geology and 

spacing limitations. 

SHUT IN. To close the valves on a well so it ceases 

production. 

SODIUM ABSORPTION RATIO. An expression of 

relative activity of sodium ions in exchange reactions with 

soil, indicating the sodium or alkali hazard to soil. It is a 

particularly important measure in waters used for irrigation 

purposes. 

SODIUM-AFFECTED SOIL. A nontechnical term for 

sodic soil (also called alkali soil) that contains sufficient 

sodium to interfere with the growth of most crop plants and 

in which the exchangeable sodium percentage is 15 or 

higher. It is also a generic way of describing nonsalinealkali soil or saline-alkali soil. 

SOLID WASTE. Any solid, semi-solid, liquid, or 

contained gaseous material that is intended for disposal. 

SPACING UNIT. The number of acres that one oil or gas 

well will efficiently drain. The state oil and gas 

commissions typically establish the size of spacing units for 

each oil and gas field. 

SPECIES OF SPECIAL INTEREST OR CONCERN. 

Animals not yet listed as endangered or threatened but that 

are undergoing status review by a federal or state agency. 

This may include animals whose populations could become 

extinct by any major habitat change. A species that is 

particularly sensitive to some external disturbance factors. 

SPLIT ESTATE. Surface and minerals of a given area in 

different ownerships. Frequently, the surface is privatelyowned while the minerals are federally or state-owned. 

STIPULATION. A condition or requirement attached to a 

lease or contract, usually dealing with protection of the 

environment, or recovery of a mineral. 

SUBBITUMINOUS. A black coal, intermediate in rank 

between lignite and bituminous coal. Distinguished from 

lignite by higher carbon and lower moisture content. 
DEFINITIONS 

D-6 

SULFUR DIOXIDE OR SO2. A colorless gas formed 

when sulfur oxidizes, often as a result of burning trace 

amounts of sulfur in fossil fuels. 

THERMOGENIC. Generation or production of heat, 

especially by physiological processes.

TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS). The dry weight of 

dissolved material, organic and inorganic, contained in 

water and usually expressed as parts per million (ppm). 

TRANSMISSION LINE. A large diameter pipeline 

through which oil or gas moves off lease after being sold. 

TURBIDITY. An interference to the passage of light 

through water due to insoluble particles of soil, organic 

material, micro-organisms, and other materials. 

UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL 

PROGRAM. A program administered by the 

Environmental Protection Agency, primacy State, or Indian 

Tribe under the Safe Drinking Act to ensure that subsurface 

emplacement of fluids does not endanger underground 

sources of drinking water. 

UNITIZATION. Pooling of mineral acreages proposed by 

a company to facilitate the efficient development of a 

reservoir based on geology and reservoir characteristics of a 

producing formation or formations. 

VIEWSHED. Landscape that can be directly seen under 

favorable atmospheric conditions, from a viewpoint or along 

a transportation corridor. 

VITRINITE. A kind of naturally occurring glass which is 

very hard.

WATER QUALITY. The chemical, physical, and 

biological characteristics of water with respect to its 

suitability for a particular use. 

WATERSHED. All lands which are enclosed by a 

continuous hydrologic drainage divide and lie upslope from 

a specified point on a stream. 

WELL COMPLETION. See completion.

WELL LIFE. For the purposes of this plan the well life is 

defined as from the time the well is drilled until the final 

abandonment of the well is approved. 

WETLANDS. Permanently wet or intermittently flooded 

areas where the water table (fresh, saline, or brackish) is at, 

near, or above the soil surface for extended intervals; where 

hydric wet soil conditions are normally exhibited, and where 

water depths generally do not exceed two meters. 

WILDERNESS STUDY AREA (WSA). An area determined to have wilderness characteristics. WSAs are 

submitted to the President and Congress for wilderness 

designation. These areas are an interim designation, valid 

until either designated as wilderness or released to multipleuse management. 

WORKOVER. To perform one or more remedial 

operations on a producing or injection well to increase 

production. Deepening, plugging back, pulling, and 

resetting the liner are examples of workover operations. 
REFERENCES

 R-1 

REFERENCES

ALL

2001a. Soils Technical Report, Montana statewide oil 

and gas environmental impact statement and 

amendment of the Powder River and Billings 

resource management plans. Prepared for the 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, Miles City Field Office. 

ALL Consulting, Tulsa, OK. 

ALL

2001b. Water Resources Technical Report, Montana 

statewide oil and gas environmental impact 

statement and amendment of the Powder River 

and Billings resource management plans. 

Prepared for the U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Miles 

City Field Office. ALL Consulting, Tulsa, OK. 

ALL

2003. Handbook on Coal Bed Methane Produced 

Water: Management and Beneficial Use 

Alternatives, Prepared for the U.S. Department 

of Energy, National Petroleum Technology 

Office. ALL Consulting, Tulsa, OK.

American Petroleum Industry. 

1989. API Environmental Guidance Document: 

Onshore Solid Waste Management in 

Exploration and Production Operations. First 

Edition, Jan. 15, 1989. 

Applied Hydrology Associates 

2001. Cumulative Impacts of Coal Bed Methane 

Development on Water Quality in the Powder 

and Little Powder Rivers. August 16, 2001. 

BIA

 See U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs.

BLM

 See USDI Bureau of Land Management. 

Bloom, M. 

2003. Personal communication between Jon W. 

Seekins and Ms. Bloom of the Miles City 

BLM Field Office, April 2003. 

Breisch, D. 

2003. Personal communication between Jon W. 

Seekins and Mr. Breisch of the Miles City 

BLM Field Office, April 2003. 

Boyer, Charles M. II, and A. Kuusraa, 

1999 “Economic and Parametric Analysis of 

Coalbed Methane” AAPG. 

Bryan, A.L., Jr., T.M. Murphy, K.L. Bildstein, I.L. 

Brosbin, Jr., and J.J. Mayer. 

1996. Use of Reservoirs and Other Artificial 

Impoundments by Bald Eagles in South 

Carolina. In Raptors in Human Landscapes, 

edited by D.M. Bird, D.E. Varland, and J.J. 

Negro. London Academic Press. P. 287-298. 

Campen, E. and J. R. Gruber 

1991. Coal and Coalbed Methane Resources of 

Montana, Rocky Mountain Association of 

Geologists. 

Cardott, B.J., 

2001, Open-File Report 2-2001, Oklahoma coalbedmethane workshop 2001: Introduction to Coal 

as Gas Source Rock and Reservoir: p. 1-27. 

CEQ 2002 

Coal Bed Methane Coordination Group 

2000. CMS Energy Presentation, Coal Bed Methane 

Coordination Group, October 18, 2000. 

Cohen, Farnell and Thompson, 

1984 Legal and Regulatory Aspects of Coal-bed Gas 

Development, University of Alabama School 

of Mines and Energy Development, July.

COGCC - Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation 

Commission 

2001 Webpage database for production http://oilgas.state.Co.us 

COGCC 

Rules, Exploration and Waste Management, 

§ 907(c)(1)., § 907(c)(2)., § 907(c)(3)., § 

907(c)(4) 

Colorado Revised Statutes 

§ 34-60-103(4.5)., § 34-60-106(2)(d)., § 34-

60-124(4)., § 37-90-137(7)(a)., § 37-90-

137(7)(b).,: 

Cook, Lance 

2002 “Geology of CBM in Wyoming,” NRLC CBM 

conference, April 4–5, 2002. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

2002. CEQ NEPAnet: Guidance for preparing 

documents under the National Environmental 

Policy Act. http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/ nepa/

nepanet.htm. Executive Office of the 
REFERENCES

R-2 

President, Washington, D.C. <September 10, 

2002>. 

Cullicott, C., C. Dunmire, J. Brown, C. Calwell,

2002 Ecos Consulting, Coalbed Methane in the San 

Juan Basin of Colorado and New Mexico.

DOI

See U.S. Department of Interior 

Energy Information Administration 

2001. U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Natural Gas 

Liquids Reserves 2001 Annual Report, 

EPA

See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FOOGLRA 

1987. Federal Ohshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform 

Act, 36 CFR 228.107. 

Federal Register 

1983. Volume 48, Number 41, Department of 

Interior Part III. National Registry of Natural 

Landmarks, National Park Service, Public 

Notice. pp-8682-8704. March 1, 1983. 

Fidelity 

2002. Personal Communication with Mr. Bruce 

Williams of Fidelity Exploration and 

Production Company, Regarding CBM 

production and the use of CBM produced 

water, August 2002. 

Fidelity 

2003. Personal Communication with Mr. Bruce 

Williams of Fidelity Exploration and 

Production Company, Regarding CBM 

compression in the PRB, May 2003. 

Field, Libby, Y., and Benard A Engel. 

2003. Best Management Practices for Soil Erosion. 

Agricultural Engineering. Purdue University. 

HTML Translation by David Koller. 

http://abe.www.ecn.purdue.edu/~agen521/epa

dir/erosion/main_menu.html

FWS

 See USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Garrison, J. R., Jr., T. C. V. van den Bergh, C. E. 

 Barker, D. E. Tabet, 

1997. Depositional sequence stratigraphy and 

architecture of the Cretaceous Ferron 

Sandstone; implications for coal and coalbed 

methane resources; a field excursion. 

Gloyn, R. W. and S. N. Sommer, 

1993. Exploration for coalbed methane gains 

momentum in Uinta Basin. Utah Geological 

Survey, Oil & Gas Journal, Exploration, pp. 

73-76, May 31, 1993. 

GRI (Gas Research Institute). 

2000. Coalbed Methane Potential of the U.S. Rocky 

Mountain Region, 3pp. 

http://www.gri.org/pub/content/nov/20001109/

144821/gtfall2000-art01.htm 

GTI - Gas Technology Institute. 

2001. E&P Services, Coalbed Methane Alert, 

Monthly Newsletter, April 

GTI - Gas Technology Institute. 

2002. Website - Drilling and Production Statistics for 

Major US Coalbed Methane and Gas Shale 

Reservoirs. http://www.gastechnology.org 

Harney, A.L. 

Undated. US Department of Commerce. Reviving 

the Urban Waterfront. 

Hewitt, J.L. 

1984. Geologic overview, coal, and coalbed methane 

resources of the Warrior Basin, Alabama and 

Mississippi; Coalbed methane resources of the 

United States. AAPG Studies in Geology No. 

17, pp.73-104. 

Interior Board of Land Appeals 

2002. The Department of Interior Board of Land 

Appeals (IBLA), Preliminary Decision, 

Appeal filed by the Wyoming Outdoor 

Council (WOC) and the Powder River Basin 

Resource Council (PRBRC), October. 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 

Undated. Forestry Best Management Practices. 

Appendix C: Woodland Roads. Bureau of 

Forestry.

http://www.state.ia.us/forestry/bmps12.htm.

Jaakko Pöyry Consulting, Inc.,

1993. Recreation and Aesthetic Resources. A 

Technical Paper for a Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement on Timber Harvesting and 

Forest Management in Minnesota. Prepared 

for, the Minnesota Environmental Quality 

Board. 

Kaiser W. R., Tyler, R., Scott A. R., Hamilton D. S., and 

 Ambrose W. A., 

1995. Geologic and Hydrologic Assessment of 

Natural Gas from Coal; Greater Green River, 

Piceance, Powder River, and Raton basins, 

Western United States. Report of 
REFERENCES

R-3 

Investigations, Bureau of Economic Geology, 

University of Texas at Austin. 

Kelly, Andrew 

2001 “Rockies Seen as Key to U.S. Natural Gas 

Growth,” Reuters (October 25, 2001) 

Kemp J. H. and Peterson K.M. 

1988. Coal-Bed Gas Development in the San Juan 

Basin: A Primer for the Lawyer and Landman, 

Geology and Coalbed Methane Resources: 

Northern San Juan Basin 257-280, (8) 1988, 

Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists. 

Laakso, C. 

2003. Personal communication between Jon W. 

Seekins and Mr. Laakso of the Miles City 

BLM Field Office, April 2003. 

Lang, K., 

2000 “Coalbed Methane Trends”, Hart Energy 

Publications, excerpts in the PTTC Network 

news, 2nd Quarter 2000. 

Lyons, P. C. 

1997. Central-Northern Appalachian Coalbed 

Methane Flow Grows. Oil & Gas July 7, 1997, 

pp. 76-79. 

MBOGC 

 See Montana Board of Oil and Gas 

Conservation. 

McFall, K.S., D. E. Wicks, and V. A. Kuuskraa, 

1986. A geological assessment of natural gas from 

coal seams in the Warrior Basin, Alabama. 

Washington, D.C., Lewin and Associates, Gas 

Research Institute Report 5084-214-1066. 

Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation 

1999. Montana Board of Oil and Gas Annual 

Review, Oil and Gas Conservation Division, 

Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation. 

Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation 

2000. Activity review—annual review for the year 

1999, Montana Bureau of Oil and Gas 

Conservation. 

Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation 

2001a. Montana Bureau of Oil and Gas Database, 

April 2001. 

Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation

2001b. CX Ranch second quarter production records, 

June 2001. 

Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation. 

2002. Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation 

database, June 2002. 

Montana Administrative Code Annotated 

§ 75-1-201., § 82-11-101., § 85-2-505(e)., § 

85-2-506., § 85-2-508., § 85-2-521. 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

2001c. Water Quality White Paper, Powder River 

Basin Water Quality Criteria, October, 2001. 

National Energy Policy 

2001. Reliable, Affordable, Environmentally Sound 

Energy for America’s Future, Web site 

www.whitehouse.gov/energy, May 

National Park Service.

2002. Resources Building Environmental 

Assessment. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Olympic National Park-Washington. 

Nelson, C. R. 

1999. Changing perceptions regarding the size and 

production potential of coalbed methane 

resources. Gas Research Institute, June 1999. 

Nelson, C. R. 

2000. “Coalbed methane potential of the U.S. Rocky 

Mountain Region.” GasTips. Fall 200. 6(3)4-

12. 

New Mexico Statutes Annotated 

§ 70-2-12., § 72-12-1., §72-12A-2., §72-12A4., §72-12A-5A., § 72-12A-7C., § 72-12A-8., 

§ 72-12-25. 

NMOCD – New Mexico Oil Conservation Division 

2001 New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural 

Resources Department – OCD Webpage, 

Development RBDMS 

http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/ocd/ 

Oklahoma Geological Survey

2001. Website http://www.ou.edu/special/ogs-pttc 

Pashin, J.C. and Hinkle, F. 

1997. Coalbed Methane in Alabama. Geological 

Survey of Alabama Circular 192, 71pp. 
REFERENCES

R-4 

PRCBMIC – Powder River CBM Information Council 

2002. Coalbed Methane Development Information, 

Brochure 

PTTC

1999. Coal bed methane potential in Eastern Kansas, 

PTTC Newsletter, Web site - 

http://www.kgs.ukans.edu/ERC/PTTC/98New

s/q99-1-2.html 

PTTC

2000. Coal bed methane strategraphic traps in the 

ferron coals of east-central Utah, PTTC Rocky 

Mountain Newsletter, September. 

Quarterly Review. 

1993. Coalbed methane – state of the industry. 

Methane from Coal Seams Technology, 

August, 1993. 

Randall, A.G. 

1991. Shallow tertiary gas production, Powder River 

Basin, Wyoming. The Coalbed Methane, May 

13-16, 1991. 

Schoeling, L., and M.McGovern 

2002 CO2-Enhanced Coalbed Methane Recovery in 

the Allison Unit, San Juan Basin, Kinder 

Morgan CO2 Company, LP. and, Burlington 

Resources Inc.

Schraufnagel, R.A. 

1993. Coalbed methane production. Chapter 15 of 

AAPG Studies in Geology 38, pp. 341-361. 

Stevens, S., T.E. Lombardi, B.S. Kelso and J.M. Coates, 

1992 A geologic assessment of natural gas from 

coal seams in the Raton and Vermejo 

Formations, Raton Basin. GRI Topical Report 

92/0345, 84 pp. 

Stevens, S., Kuuskraa, J.A., and Schraufnagel, R.A. 

1996. Technology spurs growth of U.S. coalbed 

methane. Oil and Gas Journal, pp. 56-63 

(January). 

Stoeckenger and Brady.

1989. Coalbed methane potential in eastern Kansas. 

http://www.kgs.ukans.edu/ERC/PTTC/98New

s/q99-102.html (2001). 

Straube, M. and M. Holland, 

2003. “A Conflict Assessment of Split Estate Issues 

and a Model Agreement Approach to 

Resolving Conflicts Over Coalbed Methane 

Development in the Powder River Basin”, 

U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict 

Resolution, March 14, 2003. 

Tyler, R., Scott, A. R. and Kaiser, W. R. 

1998. Defining coalbed methane exploration 

fairways: An example from the Piceance 

Basin, Rocky Mountain Foreland. Western 

United States, Conference Document, March 

23-25. http://georef.cos.com/cgibin/getRec?un=2001-012340 

UGS – Utah Geological Survey 

1997 Ferron Sandstone Project Moves to Reservoir 

Simulation Stage. 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

1994. Indian Trust Asset Policy and NEPA 

Implementing Procedures, Questions and 

Answers about the Policy and Procedures. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Reclamation. August 31, 1994. 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

2003. Website – Environmental Impact Statements 

pending updates and reviews, 

http://www.ideasec.nbc.gov 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

1981 Ownership of and Right to Extract Coal-bed 

Gas in Federal Coal Deposits (M-36935) 

(Memorandum of the Solicitor to the Secretary 

of the Department of the Interior) (May 12, 

1981) 88 I.D. 538.

U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture 

1989. Surface Operating Standards for Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development, USDOI BLM 

and USDA Forest Service, Third Edition, 

January 1989 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 

1992. Final Oil and Gas RMP/EIS Amendment for 

the Billings, Powder River and South Dakota 

Resource Areas. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Miles 

City District. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 

2000. Coos Bay District Record of Decision and 

Resource Management Plan. U.S. Department 

of the Interior. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 

2001. Montana and Wyoming Powder River Interim 

Water Quality Criteria Memorandum of 

Cooperation, September. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 

2003a. Final Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Project 

Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed 
REFERENCES

R-5 

Amendment of the Powder River and Billings 

Resource Management Plans. Miles City Field 

Office. Miles City, MT., January 2003 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 

2003b. Montana Final Statewide Oil and Gas 

Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed 

Plan Amendment. Buffalo Field Office. 

Buffalo, WY., January 2003 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

2001. Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water 

Quality Management, Region VIII Total 

Maximum Daily Load. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

2002a. Enhanced CBM Recovery - Advanced 

Resources International under Contract 68-W00-094. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

2002b. DRAFT Evaluation of Impacts to 

Underground Sources of Drinking Water by 

Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane 

Reservoirs, Office of Water, EPA 816-D-02-

006, August

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

2002c. Flexibility and Enforceability of Mitigation 

Measures Proposed in an Environmental 

Impact Assessment Report. Environmental 

Impact Assessment Ordinance, Cap.499 

Guidance Note. EIAO Guidance Note No. 

3/2002.

U.S. Geological Survey 

1997. Energy Resource Surveys Program, USGS 

Fact sheet FS-019-97, “Coalbed Methane—An 

Untapped EnergyResources and an 

Environmental Concern”. 

U.S. Geological Survey 

2000. Coal bed methane: potential and concerns, 

USGS Fact Sheet, FS-123-00, October. 

USGS 

See U.S. Geological Survey. 

Utah Administrative Code 

R649-5-2., R649-9-1.1., R649-9-3.1 to 3.2., 

R649-9-4.2. to 4.4. 

Williams, B. 

2001. Personal communication between 

Mr. Williams/ V.P., Redstone and Dr. Langhus/

ALL-LLC. March 23, 2001. 

Wilson, R. 

2001. Director, Virginia Division of Gas & Oil, 

Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy, 

Personal Communication with Dr. Langhus, 

February 

WOGCC

2003. Coal Bed Methane Production Statistics, 

WOGCC web site 

<<http://wogcc.state.wy.us/>>, April, 2003. 

WCI - World Coal Institute 

2001 Coal-Power for ProgressA 

Wray, L. L., and Koening, N. V. 

2001. The Coalbed Methane Potential in the Upper 

Cretaceous to Early Tertiary Laramie and 

Denver Formations, Denver Basin, Colorado. 

Colorado Geological Survey, Open-File 

Report 01/17, 2001. 

Wyoming Statutes 

§ 41-3-102(b), § 41-3-903, 41-3-904, § 41-3-

905, 41-3-906, § 41-3-931. 

Zebrowitz, M. J., J. R. Kelafant, and C. M. Boyer, 

1991. Reservoir characterization and production 

potential of the coal seams in Northern and 

Central Appalachian Basins. Proceedings of 

the 1991 Coalbed Methane Symposium, The 

University of Alabama/Tuscaloosa, May 13-

16, 1991.