Record of Decision for the Final Supplement Record of Decision for the Final Supplement

to the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas to the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas

Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Statement and

Proposed Amendment of the Powder Proposed Amendment of the Powder

River and Billings Resource Management River and Billings Resource Management

Plans

December 2008 

Record of Decision 

BLM

Miles City Field Office 
The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for the stewardship of our public lands. It is 

committed to manage, protect, and improve these lands in a manner to serve the needs of the 

American people for all times. Management is based on the principles of multiple use and 

sustained yield of our nation’s resources within a framework of environmental responsibility and 

scientific technology. These resources include recreation; rangelands; timber; minerals; 

watershed; fish and wildlife; wilderness; air; and scenic, scientific, and cultural values. 

BLM/MT/PL-09/001 
United States Department of the Interior 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Montana State Office 

5001 Southgate Drive 

Billings, Montana 59101-4669
 

IN REPLY TO: 1610 http://www.blm.gov/mt
 

http://www.blm.gov/mt/milescity_seis/
 

December 30, 2008 

Dear Reader: 

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has 

prepared the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas 

Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource 

Management Plans (SEIS). The ROD approves BLM‘s proposed decisions in the Final SEIS. 

The ROD is a result of U.S. District Court issued orders, dated February 25, 2005, and April 5, 2005, 

requiring BLM to prepare a Supplemental EIS to evaluate a phased development alternative for coal bed 

natural gas production. 

BLM consulted with the Montana Governor on the FSEIS. The Governor‘s review did not result in 

substantive changes to the plan amendment. 

The ROD serves as the Department of Interior‘s decision to be implemented by the BLM. Since the ROD 

contains no implementation decisions, no further administrative remedies are available. Additional 

project-level NEPA analyses will be conducted prior to BLM‘s approval of individual and project 

proposals, and subsequent on-the-ground implementation. 

There are a limited number of hard-copy books available upon request. If you would like a book, or have 

any questions, please contact the BLM Miles City Field Office at (406) 233-2800. 

Sincerely, 

Gene R. Terland 

State Director, Montana/Dakotas 

RECORD OF DECISION
 

MONTANA STATEWIDE OIL AND GAS
 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
 

AND
 

AMENDMENT OF THE
 

POWDER RIVER AND BILLINGS 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS
 

Prepared by:
 

United States Department of the Interior
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Miles City Field Office
 

Miles City, Montana
 

Cooperating Agencies: Bureau of Indian Affairs; Crow Tribe; Department of Energy; Environmental
 

Protection Agency; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe; Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation; Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and Big Horn, Carbon, Golden 

Valley, Musselshell, Powder River, Rosebud, Treasure, and Yellowstone counties, Montana
 

Approved by: Date: December 30, 2008 

Assistant Secretary Land and Minerals Management
 

Department of the Interior
 

_________________________________________ 

C. Stephen Allred 

Record of Decision
 

Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas 

Environmental Impact Statement and Amendment of the Powder River and Billings 

Resource Management Plans
 

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Type of Action: Administrative 

Jurisdiction (Planning Area): The planning area encompasses BLM-administered lands and minerals in the 

Powder River Resource Management Plan (RMP) area - Powder River, Carter, and Treasure counties and portions 

of Big Horn, Custer and Rosebud counties; and the Billings RMP area - Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, 

Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Wheatland, and Yellowstone counties and the remaining portion of Big Horn County. The 

planning area contains about 1,506,011 acres of federally managed surface, and 5,009,784 acres of federal mineral 

estate. 

Abstract: As a result of lawsuits, the U.S. District Court issued orders, dated February 25, 2005, and April 5, 2005, 

that required the BLM to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to evaluate a phased 

development alternative for coal bed natural gas (CBNG) production. The U.S. District Court‘s February 25, 2005, 

order also advised the BLM to include the proposed Tongue River Railroad in the cumulative impact analysis and 

analyze the effectiveness of water well mitigation agreements. 

Alternative H is the Approved Alternative. The Approved Alternative provides a comprehensive framework for 

managing oil and gas resources on public lands in the planning area. This alternative amends the Powder River and 

Billings RMPs and provides for CBNG exploration and development while minimizing impacts on environmental 

resources. 

Further information regarding this ROD is available via the contact below or at the BLM website 

(http://www.blm.gov/eis/mt/milescity_seis/). 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Miles City Field Office
 

111 Garryowen Road
 

Miles City, MT 59301
 

Telephone (406) 233-2800
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS.................................................................................................. iv
 

RECORD OF DECISION.......................................................................................................................... 1
 

DECISION............................................................................................................................................... 1
 

ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................................... 1
 

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ..................................................................... 2
 

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................................. 2
 

MITIGATION ......................................................................................................................................... 3
 

Air Quality.......................................................................................................................................... 3
 

Cultural Resources.............................................................................................................................. 3
 

Fire .................................................................................................................................................... 3
 

Hydrology........................................................................................................................................... 3
 

Indian Trust and Other Interests ......................................................................................................... 3
 

Lands and Realty ................................................................................................................................ 3
 

Livestock Grazing .............................................................................................................................. 3
 

Paleontology....................................................................................................................................... 3
 

Recreation........................................................................................................................................... 3
 

Solid and Hazardous Waste................................................................................................................ 4
 

Soils.................................................................................................................................................... 4
 

Vegetation........................................................................................................................................... 4
 

Visual Resource Management............................................................................................................ 4
 

Wilderness Study Areas ..................................................................................................................... 5
 

Wildlife and Aquatics ......................................................................................................................... 5
 

MONITORING........................................................................................................................................ 5
 

Land Use Plan Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 5
 

Project Monitoring.............................................................................................................................. 5
 

Resource Monitoring.......................................................................................................................... 5
 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ..................................................................................................................... 5
 

Tribal Consultation............................................................................................................................. 6
 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Consultation...................................................................................... 6
 

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT .................................................. 7
 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 7
 

ISSUES.................................................................................................................................................... 7
 

Issues Identified for the Statewide Document.................................................................................... 7
 

Issues Identified for the SEIS ........................................................................................................... 12
 

Issues or Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail ....................................................... 14
 

PLANNING CRITERIA ....................................................................................................................... 16
 

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 16
 

Overall Considerations ..................................................................................................................... 16
 

WHAT’S BEING AMENDED IN THE POWDER RIVER AND BILLINGS RMPs ......................... 17
 

TOC-i 
General Management........................................................................................................................ 17
 

APPROVED ALTERNATIVE H MANAGEMENT............................................................................ 18
 

Screens to be Applied....................................................................................................................... 20
 

Water Screen .................................................................................................................................... 20
 

Wildlife Screen................................................................................................................................. 20
 

All Wildlife Species ......................................................................................................................... 20
 

Native American Concerns Screen ................................................................................................... 22
 

Air Quality Impact Screen................................................................................................................ 23
 

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES .............. 24
 

POD Requirements........................................................................................................................... 24
 

Wells and Well Pads......................................................................................................................... 24
 

Coal Mines........................................................................................................................................ 24
 

Roads, Pipelines and Other Infrastructure........................................................................................ 24
 

Produced Water Management .......................................................................................................... 25
 

Wildlife Monitoring Program and Mitigation Measures .................................................................. 25
 

CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE POLICIES, PLANS AND PROGRAMS.............................. 27
 

Achieving Air and Water Quality Program Requirements............................................................... 27
 

Interagency Work Group (IWG) ...................................................................................................... 27
 

ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND REGULATORY PROCESS...................................................... 27
 

STATE OF MONTANA ....................................................................................................................... 29
 

Air Quality Program ......................................................................................................................... 29
 

Water Quality Program..................................................................................................................... 30
 

BLM ....................................................................................................................................................... 30
 

Steps to Obtain Approval to Drill..................................................................................................... 30
 

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A.............................................................................................................................................. 1
 

APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................................................. 1
 

APPENDIX C.............................................................................................................................................. 1
 

TOC-ii 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
 

7Q10 Statistical measure for the lowest flow 

expected for a continuous 7-day period in 

10 years 

APD Application for Permit to Drill 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP Best Management Practice 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBNG Coal Bed Natural Gas 

COA Condition of Approval 

DNRC Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation 

DSEIS Draft Supplemental EIS 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act 

FSEIS Final Supplemental EIS 

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service 

IWG 

MBOGC 

MDEQ 

MFWP 

MPDES 

NEPA 

POD 

RMP 

ROD 

ROW 

SEIS 

TMDL 

UIC 

WMPP 

Interagency Work Group 

Montana Board of Oil and Gas 

Conservation 

Montana Department of Environmental 

Quality 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

Montana Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Plan of Development 

Resource Management Plan 

Record of Decision 

Right-of-Way 

Supplemental EIS 

Total Maximum Daily Load 

Underground Injection Control 

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection 

Plan 

RECORD OF DECISION
 

DECISION 

The decision is hereby made to approve Alternative H 

and all Appendixes from the Bureau of Land 

Management‘s (BLM‘s) 2008 Final Supplement to the 

Montana Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental 

Impact Statement and Proposed Amendment of the 

Powder River and Billings Resource Management 

Plans (FSEIS). The FSEIS was prepared under the 

regulations implementing the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA) (43 Code of Federal 

Regulations [CFR] Part 1600) and the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The decision 

applies to BLM-administered lands and minerals only. 

The BLM is responsible for implementation of the 

Record of Decision (ROD). 

ALTERNATIVES 

The following eight management alternatives were 

considered in the development of the FSEIS: The No 

Action Alternative (Existing coal bed natural gas 

[CBNG] Management) and seven action alternatives for 

managing oil and gas resources—specifically CBNG 

exploration and production—throughout the Planning 

Area. 

Alternative A -the ―no action‖ alternative. Under 

existing management, APDs for CBNG wells would 

be approved on a case-by-case basis only in specific 

geographic areas where little or no CBNG data is 

available. The APDs would only authorize the drilling 

and testing of wells and associated construction 

activities. CBNG production would not be authorized 

nor would the operator be allowed to discharge waters 

into state or U.S. streams or drainages. All current 

leasing stipulations regulating mitigation measures 

would be applied to new leases and enforced on 

current leases. 

Alternative B – BLM would review and approve 

CBNG activities with an emphasis on the natural and 

cultural resources. Certain mitigation measures would 

be implemented to minimize environmental impacts 

including: generators and compressors would have to 

be powered by natural gas-fired engines; water from 

producing wells would be injected into a different 

aquifer with the same or lesser quality water; colocation by spacing unit, of single-seam development 

wells on the same well pad would be required; and 

roads to wells and compressor sites would be limited 

to single lane width with turnouts. 

Alternative C – BLM would review and approve 

CBNG activities with an emphasis on facilitating 

production of CBNG. BLM would use the least 

restrictive mitigation measures to minimize or 

eliminate adverse impacts to other resources. 

Operators could use diesel engines with Best Available 

Control Technology to reduce emissions. Roads and 

utility corridors would be positioned to use existing 

disturbances as much as possible and operators would 

not be required to drill directional or horizontal CBNG 

wells. Furthermore, water management would be 

based on a combination of beneficial use and surface 

discharge. 

Alternative D – BLM would review and approve 

CBNG activities while maintaining existing land uses 

and protecting downstream water consumers. The 

number of wells connected to each compressor would 

be maximized to reduce the overall number of field 

compressors required. All produced water (depending 

on water quality) would be treated prior to surface 

discharge or pumping into holding facilities such as 

impoundments, pits, and ponds. Transportation of 

treated water for discharge would be via a constructed 

drainage system or pipeline to the nearest perennial 

watercourse if possible. Use of CBNG-related roads 

would be limited to industry, and enforcement would 

be increased through the use of additional fences and 

gates to reduce public access and overuse. In addition, 

wildlife surveys would be conducted prior to the 

approval of APDs. 

Alternative E – This alternative provides 

management options to facilitate CBNG exploration 

and development while sustaining resource and social 

values, and existing land uses. Exploration and 

development of CBNG resources on BLM minerals 

are subject to agency decisions, lease stipulations, 

permit requirements, and surface owner agreements. 

Operators would be required to submit a project Plan 

of Development (POD) outlining the proposed 

development of an area when requesting CBNG well 

densities greater than 1 well per 640 acres. The project 

POD would be developed in consultation with the 

affected tribes, affected surface owner(s), and other 

involved permitting agencies. Alternative E combines 

water management options so that there would be no 

unnecessary or undue degradation as defined by the 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ) of water quality allowed in any watershed. 

Alternative F – Under this alternative, development 

of CBNG on federal leases in the Billings and Powder 

River Resource Management Plan (RMP) areas would 

1 
be done in a phased manner through restrictions 

imposed by BLM. BLM would limit the number of 

federal APDs approved each year cumulatively (both 

state and federal APDs combined) and in each fourth 

order watershed. BLM would also limit the percentage 

of disturbance on BLM surface or on private surface 

overlying federal minerals within each identified 

crucial habitat area. Finally, BLM would place a limit 

on the volume of untreated water discharged to surface 

waters from federal CBNG wells within each fourth 

order watershed. The cumulative limit placed on 

federal APDs would be based on 5 percent (910 wells) 

of the total number of state, private, and federal wells 

(18,225 wells) predicted to be drilled in the Planning 

Area. 

Alternative G – Under this alternative, development 

of CBNG on federal leases in the Billings and Powder 

River RMP areas would be done following the same 

management actions as described under Alternative F; 

however, development would be limited to the low 

range of predicted wells (6,470) from the reasonably 

foreseeable development scenario. 

Alternative H – BLM‘s approved alternative. 

Development in the Billings and Powder River RMP 

areas would be done in a phased manner through 

restrictions imposed by BLM. 

The phased approach is intended to reduce the overall 

cumulative impacts to any resource by managing the pace 

and place as well as the density and intensity of federal 

CBNG development. In addition to the standard POD 

review, four evaluation screens for water, wildlife, Native 

American concerns, and air would be applied. The 

screens would be used when reviewing proposals to 

identify impacts, develop mitigation measures and guide 

the decision making process. The process BLM would 

follow when reviewing PODs involves reviewing the 

POD, making permit decisions, monitoring and assessing 

impacts and adjusting operations, mitigation measures, 

and thresholds. Thresholds would be adjusted when 

monitoring data justify a change. 

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE 

Alternative A, the no action alternative, is the 

environmentally preferred alternative [40 CFR 1505.2 

(b)]. Only a limited number of wells could be approved 

resulting in fewer impacts than the other alternatives 

analyzed. Although Alternative A would result in fewer 

impacts, the alternative does not provide for the continued 

use of public minerals for oil and gas development 

consistent with FLPMA, the Energy Policy Development 

Group recommendations, and Executive Order 13212. 

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS 

The ROD fully complies with BLM‘s multiple use 

mission while considering and providing for responsible 

development of important oil and gas resources as 

described in the FLPMA. 

The ROD considers the use and protection of the 

resources managed by BLM, including important energy 

and natural resources present in the planning area. While 

the ROD supports the development of oil and gas 

resources, it also includes the application of mitigation 

measures to minimize or avoid impacts to resources or 

land uses from oil and gas activities and to prevent 

unnecessary or undue degradation. In addition to the 

mitigation measures, existing lease stipulations may be 

applied to protect critical resource values. Other 

protective measures, such as COAs, may be required at 

the APD stage to mitigate site-specific impacts. 

The ROD takes into account statutory and national policy 

considerations. The analyses in the FSEIS were based on 

evaluation of the Powder River and Billings RMP areas 

for oil and gas development, identifying sensitive natural 

and cultural resources, evaluating the effects of surface 

disturbance to these resources and identifying successful 

protection measures. The constraints placed on oil and 

gas development were reviewed in light of resource 

protection and where possible, major conflicts were 

resolved to provide a balance between protection of 

sensitive resources, and sound practices for development 

of oil and gas resources. The decision was also based on 

input from the public, industry, and other federal and state 

agencies. Through the review process, many practicable 

methods to reduce environmental harm were incorporated 

into the FSEIS and carried forward in this ROD. 

Impacts anticipated from future actions taken in 

accordance with the approved plan are acceptable for 

the following reasons: 1) as the nation's largest land 

manager, the Department of the Interior, through the 

BLM, plays a major role in implementing the National 

Energy Policy; 2) the National Energy Policy 

promotes the production of reliable, affordable and 

environmentally clean energy; 3) among the Nation's 

most pressing concerns is to reduce our reliance on 

foreign oil and gas while protecting the environment; 

4) BLM-administered lands contain world-class 

energy and mineral resources, vital to the national 

interest; 5) the vast energy and mineral resources under 

BLM's jurisdiction places the agency in the key role of 

ensuring an adequate supply of energy necessary for 

the safety and security of our families, our 

communities and our nation; 6) CBNG is available on 

public lands and BLM has a multiple use mission 

under FLPMA; 7) the approved decision is an 

environmentally sound alternative; and 8) the 

2 
approved alternative complies with all applicable laws 

and regulations. 

MITIGATION 

The following mitigation measures are being adopted 

into the ROD and will be applied. These represent 

practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental 

harm from the approved decision. 

Air Quality 

Roads and well locations constructed on soils susceptible 

to wind erosion will be appropriately designed to reduce 

the amount of fugitive dust generated by traffic or other 

activities. Dust inhibitors (i.e., surfacing materials, nonsaline dust suppressants, water, etc.) will be used as 

necessary on unpaved collector, local, and resource roads, 

which present a fugitive dust problem. To further reduce 

fugitive dust, operators will establish and enforce speed 

limits (i.e., 15 mph) on all project-required roads in and 

adjacent to the project area. 

Potential emission reduction measures (USDI BLM 

1999d) are available to further limit the oxides of 

nitrogen and other pollutant emissions. The 

appropriate level of control will be determined and 

required by the applicable air quality regulatory 

agencies during the preconstruction permit process. 

Visibility impacts will be mitigated by reducing 

emissions of particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in 

diameter, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide through 

implementation of the air quality screen. 

Cultural Resources 

Cultural resource reviews or surveys will be conducted as 

required prior to the approval of permits and 

commencement of construction or other surface 

disturbing activities authorized by BLM. Guidance for 

application of this requirement can be found in NTLMSO-85-1. 

Results of cultural resource surveys will be presented as 

part of the permit review or approval process. Decisions 

regarding relocation of proposed access roads or well 

pads, data recovery, and excavation will be made to 

protect the cultural or historical sites. 

Fire 

Operators are required to comply with BLM-imposed 

conditions during times of high fire danger. Such 

conditions may include restrictions on types of activities 

allowed, hours of operation, and requirements for 

maintaining certain fire suppression equipment at the 

work site. Operators must maintain a current fire 

suppression plan. 

Hydrology 

Water well and spring mitigation agreements will be used 

to facilitate the replacement of groundwater that may be 

lost to drawdown. Replacement water may require supply 

from offsite sources. 

Indian Trust and Other Interests 

The tribes will be invited to participate in the IWG 

responsible for developing and recommending the 

monitoring and mitigation measures needed for each 

agency to ensure its actions achieve compliance with 

applicable air and water quality standards across 

jurisdictional boundaries. Mitigation measures for 

potential impacts to the Northern Cheyenne Tribe trust 

resources and other interests are included in the ROD 

Appendix B. 

Lands and Realty 

Corridors will be required for placement of roads, 

pipelines, and utility lines in a common area of 

disturbance wherever possible. 

Livestock Grazing 

Damaged gates and fences will be repaired or replaced 

according to landowner requirements at the operator‘s 

expense. When working on or near grazing lands, projectrelated construction equipment and vehicle movement 

will be minimized to avoid disturbance of grazing lands. 

Responsibilities for fence, gate, and cattle guard 

maintenance and noxious weed control will be defined in 

APDs, BLM approvals, or right-of-way (ROW) grants. 

Facilities will be placed to avoid or minimize impacts on 

livestock water. 

Paleontology 

BLM APD COAs provide guidance for notifying BLM 

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 resources. 

Recreation 

Exploration activities will be coordinated for timing to 

minimize conflicts during peak use periods. 

3 
Solid and Hazardous Waste 

Site clearance surveys will be conducted prior to surface 

disturbance commencement. Solid and hazardous wastes 

generated as a result of oil and gas lease operations will 

be disposed of in a manner and at a site approved by the 

appropriate regulating agency. 

Soils 

Areas with steep topography will be developed in 

accordance with the BLM Gold Book (United States 

Department of the Interior and United States Department 

of Agriculture 2006) requirements. Lease roads and 

constructed facilities will be located in accordance with 

the approved APD. In areas of construction, topsoil will 

be stockpiled separately from other material, and be 

reused in reclamation of the disturbed areas. Unused 

portions of the producing well site will have topsoil 

spread over it and will be reseeded. 

Construction activities will be restricted during wet or 

muddy conditions and will be designed following BMPs 

to control erosion and sedimentation. If porous subsurface 

materials are encountered during pit construction, all 

onsite fluid pits will be lined. During road and utility 

ROW construction, surface soils will be stockpiled 

adjacent to the cuts and fills. 

Stream crossings will be designed to minimize impacts 

and not impede stream flow. Erosion control measures 

will be maintained and continued until adequate 

vegetation cover (as defined by BLM on a case-by-case 

basis) is reestablished. Vegetation will be removed only 

when necessary. Water bars will be constructed on slopes 

of 3:1 or steeper. 

Erosion control and site restoration measures will be 

initiated as soon as a particular area is no longer needed 

for exploration, production, staging, or access. Disturbed 

areas will be recontoured to provide proper drainage. 

Topsoil piles may be required to be seeded following the 

BLM seeding policy. 

Displaced farmland, whether in crop production or not, 

will be reclaimed to original soil productivity through 

adoption of standard reclamation procedures. 

Vegetation 

It is the responsibility of the operator to develop a noxious 

weed prevention plan outlining ways to control noxious 

weeds on lands disturbed in association with oil and gas 

lease operations. Lease-associated weed control strategies 

are to be coordinated with any involved surface owners 

and local weed control boards. A pesticide-use proposal 

must be reviewed and approved by BLM prior to any 

herbicide application on lands disturbed by federal oil and 

gas lease operations. A pesticide application record must 

be made within 24 hours after completion of application 

of herbicides. Additional measures may be required to 

prevent the spread of noxious weeds. 

The noxious weed prevention plan must include measures 

to prevent the spread of weed seeds from any vehicles 

and equipment traveling from or prior to mobilizing it to, 

the project area. 

Disturbed areas resulting from any construction will be 

seeded in accordance with the BLM seeding policy 

(USDI BLM, 1999c) or surface owner‘s requirements. 

Depending on surface ownership, seeding is usually 

required during the fall or spring. 

Should the reseeding of sagebrush be required, different 

seeding times and techniques will be required. To the 

extent practicable, vegetation will be preserved and 

protected from construction operations and equipment 

except where clearing operations are required to conduct 

oil and gas operations, such as for roads, well pads, 

pipelines, power lines, utility lines, and structures. 

Clearing of vegetation will be restricted to the minimum 

area needed for construction and equipment. 

To the maximum extent practicable, all maintenance 

yards, field offices, and staging areas will be arranged to 

minimize disturbance to trees, shrubs, and other native 

vegetation and situated to avoid disturbance to important 

vegetative species, such as sagebrush. 

Cuts and fills for new roads will be sloped to minimize 

erosion and to facilitate revegetation. Riparian zones will 

be protected by federal lease stipulations and permit 

mitigation measures. The BLM seeding policy will be 

followed for all reclamation and reseeding activities. 

During reclamation activities, early succession plants will 

be used for revegetation to provide a fast growing cover 

crop to minimize and compete against noxious weeds. 

Operator reclamation plans will be developed in 

consultation with the surface owner. Reclaimed areas 

reseeded with native species will require a certified weedfree seed mix. The seed mix used on private surface will 

be developed in consultation with the surface owner. 

Successful revegetation will usually require at least two 

growing seasons to ensure a self-sustaining stand of 

seeded species. 

Visual Resource Management 

Camouflage of all wellheads on federal surface in Class II 

Visual Resource Management Areas will be required to 

preserve the viewshed. Camouflage will consist of paint 

chosen to blend in with the background and placement of 

wellheads to reduce visual intrusions. 

4 
Wilderness Study Areas 

Laws and regulations established to protect Wilderness 

Study Areas prohibit leasing of these lands for resource 

extraction. Existing oil and gas leases in Wilderness 

Study Areas will be developed in accordance with the 

BLM policy for interim management of lands under 

wilderness review. 

Wildlife and Aquatics 

Temporary and permanent access roads will be avoided 

on south-facing slopes within designated crucial big game 

winter range, where practicable. 

The planting of grasses, forbs, trees, or shrubs beneficial 

to wildlife will follow the BLM seeding policy. When 

needed, BLM will require installation of erosion and 

sedimentation control measures, such as riprap, erosion 

mats, mulch, bales, dikes or water bars. Riprap material 

and placement must be approved by the appropriate 

agency. 

All above-ground electrical poles and lines will be raptorproofed to avoid electrocution following the criteria and 

outlined in the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 

(2006). 

Activities such as stream crossings that could directly 

impact sensitive or protected fish species will be 

undertaken during non-spawning periods for these 

species. In the unlikely event that multiple, sensitive, or 

protected fish species with back-to-back spawning 

periods are present in the same stream reach, one of the 

following options will be exercised: selecting a nearby, 

alternative stream crossing site that does not provide 

suitable spawning habitat for the fish species of concern; 

using a nearby, existing stream crossing over the channel 

to avoid instream disturbances; or using shore-based 

equipment to position and extend the pipeline or other 

item (e.g., temporary bridge) across the stream, thereby 

avoiding in-channel activities. 

MONITORING 

This section describes the monitoring that will be 

conducted during implementation of the decision. 

Land Use Plan Monitoring 

Land use plan monitoring will be conducted by BLM. 

The BLM will monitor the plan to 1) ensure 

compliance with decisions; 2) measure the 

effectiveness or success of decisions; and 3) evaluate 

the validity of decisions. 

Project Monitoring 

At the project level, inspections will consist of 

physical onsite examination of oil and gas operations, 

disturbance areas, verification sampling at water 

quality monitoring points, environmental sampling and 

analysis of produced water, evaluation of construction 

and reclamation techniques and results. Inspections 

will be conducted more frequently during periods of 

intense activity, in areas of critical or sensitive 

resources, or where problems have been noted and 

corrective measures are being implemented. 

Resource Monitoring 

For each resource, a series of items will be monitored (see 

Appendix C of the ROD). Each item is evaluated by 

location, technique for data gathering, unit of measure, 

and frequency and duration of data gathering. When a 

duration is not specified, the duration is for the next 

20 years. The monitoring plan states the event that will be 

evaluated and lists the key resources that will be 

monitored. If an adverse impact can be corrected by a 

management action within the scope of this plan, the 

change will be implemented. If the adverse impact can be 

corrected only by a management action that is outside the 

scope of this plan, the Billings (USDI BLM, 1983a) or 

Powder River (USDI BLM, 1985) RMPs will be 

formally amended. 

The Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation (DNRC) Technical Advisory Committee 

for the Powder River Basin Controlled Groundwater Area 

has proposed a groundwater monitoring plan for CBNG 

development. The monitoring recommendations are 

incorporated into the monitoring table. For a complete 

copy of that plan, see the FSEIS (BLM, 2008). Much of 

this plan has been adopted and put in place (see reports at 

http://www.mt.blm.gov/mcfo/cbng/CBNGMonitoring.htm). 

The BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the 

State of Montana have developed a Wildlife Monitoring 

and Protection Plan (WMPP, see ROD Appendix A). 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

The FSEIS was prepared by an interdisciplinary team of 

specialists from the BLM‘s Miles City and Billings field 

offices, and the BLM Montana State Office. 

Preparation of the document began in August 2005. The 

BLM solicited comments from agencies and the public 

using a variety of tools to announce the beginning of the 

SEIS process. Public participation activities included 

public scoping meetings, informal meetings, SEIS 

website information, and newsletters. Biweekly 

5 
teleconference calls were also hosted by the BLM to 

provide ongoing communication with cooperating 

agencies and collaborators. 

The BLM prepared a public participation plan to guide 

project management and team efforts to develop the SEIS 

and to ensure public involvement during the entire SEIS 

preparation process. During the scoping for and 

preparation of the Draft SEIS (DSEIS), formal and 

informal public input was solicited. 

The 30-day scoping period began with the Federal 

Register Notice of Intent published on August 5, 2005 

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

and the availability of planning criteria were 

announced in a legal notice, newspaper 

advertisements, and media releases. During the 

scoping period, the BLM received written comments 

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

Public scoping meetings were held in four towns within 

the Planning Area. Total attendance was 126 people, with 

some people attending more than one meeting. 

More than 500 comments were submitted during the 

scoping meetings and in written communications. Many 

comments were received in several categories, including 

air quality, oil and gas, phased development, water 

resources, and wildlife. 

Following the public scoping period, the BLM held an 

alternative development meeting with cooperating 

agencies and other collaborators on September 21, 2005, 

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

phased development alternative was developed and 

distributed to the cooperating agencies and collaborators 

for comment. Based on cooperating agency and other 

collaborator comments, and further consideration of 

scoping comments, the BLM revised the alternative. 

The revised phased development alternative was then 

summarized in an October 2005 project newsletter. More 

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

parties. The phased development alternative presented in 

the newsletter was based on the proposed high range of 

development identified in the original Reasonably 

Foreseeable Development report. In response to several 

comments received as a result of the newsletter, the BLM 

developed a second phased development alternative 

based on the low range of predicted development. 

On November 9, 2005, another meeting was held in 

Miles City with cooperating agencies and other 

collaborators. Both the high and low range phased 

development alternatives were presented for discussion 

and feedback. As a result of this meeting, the two 

alternatives were refined. 

On February 2, 2007, a Notice of Availability was 

published in the Federal Register announcing the 

availability of the DSEIS and beginning a 90-day 

public comment period which ended on May 2, 2007. 

Approximately 1510 copies of the DSEIS were 

distributed to the public for comment. Additionally, a 

copy was posted on the BLM-Miles City Field Office 

SEIS website for downloading by the public. 

Public meetings were held at five locations within the 

Planning Area to gather comments on and answer 

questions concerning the DSEIS. The meetings were 

attended by a total of 161 members of the public. 

Comments were received both in writing and orally. 

The Federal Register Notice of Availability 

announcing the release of a Supplemental Air Quality 

Analysis for the DSEIS was published December 12, 

2007. A public meeting was held at Miles City, 

Montana on February 20, 2008. The meeting was 

attended by 12 members of the public. Comments 

were received both in writing and orally. The 90-day 

public comment period for the air supplement ended 

on March 13, 2008. 

The Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals 

Management, in the Department of the Interior is the 

responsible official for the land use plan amendment. As 

such, the FSEIS/Amendment was not subject to 

administrative review (protest) under the BLM or 

Departmental regulations (43 CFR 1610.5-2). FLPMA 

and its implementing regulations provide land use 

planning authority to the Secretary, as delegated to the 

Assistant Secretary. 

Tribal Consultation 

The BLM has consulted with the Crow Tribe of Indians, 

the Northern Cheyenne and the Lower Brule Sioux tribal 

governments throughout the preparation of the SEIS. A 

chronology of the consultation process with Native 

American Tribes is in Chapter 5 of the FSEIS. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Consultation 

As required by Section 7 of the ESA of 1973, the BLM 

prepared and submitted a biological assessment to the 

FWS. The document defined potential impacts on 

threatened and endangered species as a result of 

management actions proposed in the FSEIS. A letter 

received March 25, 2007, from the FWS states: 

―The Service concurs with your determination that the 

proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect the grizzly bear, bald eagle, pallid sturgeon, blackfooted ferret, least tern, and Canada lynx. Formal 

consultation is not required at this time.‖ A copy of the 

letter is included in the Wildlife Appendix of the FSEIS. 

6 
APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
 

AMENDMENT
 

INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this document is to amend the RMPs 

by analyzing federal CBNG phased development in 

accordance with the U.S. District Court‘s directive for 

supplementing the BLM 2003 Final Montana 

Statewide Oil and Gas EIS and Proposed Amendment 

of the Powder River and Billings RMPs (Statewide 

Document). 

In 2003, the BLM and the state of Montana jointly 

prepared the Statewide Document. The Statewide 

Document consisted of an analysis of the environmental 

impacts associated with the exploration and development 

of oil and gas resources, including CBNG in the Powder 

River and Billings RMP areas. The BLM ROD for the 

Statewide Document was approved on April 30, 2003 

(USDI BLM, 2003g). 

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

U.S. District Court issued orders, dated February 25, 

2005, and April 5, 2005, that required BLM to prepare 

an SEIS to evaluate a phased development alternative 

for CBNG production. The U.S. District Court also 

advised the BLM to include the proposed Tongue 

River Railroad in the cumulative impact analysis and 

analyze the effectiveness of water well mitigation 

agreements. This FSEIS provides additional 

information and analyses regarding the topics 

identified by the U.S. District Court. Additionally, this 

FSEIS updates the Statewide Document with new 

information and reflects any changes in policies, 

regulations, or activities since that document was 

approved. 

Several federal agencies, sovereign tribal governments, 

and state agencies, as well as local county governments, 

were involved in the development and preparation of this 

FSEIS. Cooperating agencies include the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, Department of Energy, EPA, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, MDEQ, MBOGC, and the following 

counties: Big Horn, Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, 

Powder River, Rosebud, Treasure, and Yellowstone. The 

Crow Tribe of Indians and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe 

signed Memoranda of Understanding with BLM to 

participate as cooperating agencies. The Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe also helped to prepare the FSEIS. 

The planning area for the ROD applies to BLM 

administered lands and minerals in the Powder River and 

Billings RMP areas (Map 1-1). The Powder River RMP 

Area encompasses the southeastern corner of Montana, 

including Powder River and Treasure counties, and 

portions of Big Horn, Carter, Custer, and Rosebud 

counties (approximately 1,080,675 acres of federally 

managed surface and 4,103,700 acres of federal mineral 

estate). The Billings RMP Area comprises the southcentral portion of Montana consisting of Carbon, Golden 

Valley, Musselshell, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Wheatland, 

and Yellowstone counties and the remaining portion of 

Big Horn County (approximately 425,336 acres of 

federally managed surface and 906,084 acres of federal 

mineral estate). 

In May 2001, the President‘s National Energy Policy 

Development Group issued recommendations for 

developing and implementing a comprehensive long-term 

strategy to promote dependable, affordable, and 

environmentally sound energy for the future. At the same 

time the President issued Executive Order 13212, 

―Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects‖ in which 

agencies are ordered to ―...take other actions as necessary 

to accelerate the completion of such projects, while 

maintaining safety, public health, and environmental 

protections.‖ 

The FLPMA [43 USC 1701.102 (a) (7)] directs BLM to 

manage public lands ―in a manner which recognizes the 

Nation‘s need for domestic sources of minerals, food, 

timber and fiber from the public lands including 

implementation of the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 

1970 (84 Stat. 1876, 30 U.S.C. 21a) as it pertains to the 

public lands...‖ 

The use of public lands and federal mineral estate for 

the development of reliable domestic sources of energy 

is consistent with the recommendations of the Energy 

Policy Development Group, Executive Order 13212, 

and FLPMA. The FSEIS was used to analyze options 

for BLM to change its planning decision by 

considering oil and gas management options, including 

mitigating measures, that will help address the 

environmental and social impacts related to CBNG 

activities. 

ISSUES 

Issues Identified for the Statewide 

Document 

This section presents planning issues identified 

through the public scoping process held in January 

2000 and the BLM and state planning activities. The 

issues raised were in relation to 

7 
8
 
CBNG development and were included in the initial 

Statewide Document. 

Air Quality and Climate 

Reduction in visibility as a result of emission 

increases impacting the Northern Cheyenne Indian 

Reservation Class I area 

Air quality impacts from oil- and gas-related 

activities 

Dust and emissions associated with road and drill 

pad construction, drilling operations, production, 

and compression 

Creation or release of harmful gases (hydrogen 

sulfide) and venting 

Consistency with the air quality model currently 

being developed for the Powder River EIS through 

the BLM Buffalo Field Office, Wyoming 

Release of greenhouse gases and effect on global 

warming 

Changes in ambient air quality and how this relates 

to objectives for minimizing regional haze based on 

the ―Regional Haze Rule‖ 

Changes in climate associated with CBNG 

development 

Cultural Resources 

Avoidance of direct and indirect disturbances to 

cultural resources may precipitate the development 

of targeted inventory and evaluation strategies in 

the planning stages of field development 

Impacts on the qualities of a cultural resource site 

affecting its eligibility for the National Register of 

Historic Places 

Increased access for oil and gas exploration and 

development may result in inadvertent, indirect, 

and cumulative effects to cultural resources 

Identification of specific districts or localities in 

which oil and gas development may be 

incompatible with existing cultural values 

Identification of areas of critical environmental 

concern 

Geology and Minerals 

Re-establish hydrologic balance and functionality 

after CBNG development so that adjacent or 

nearby coal companies can recover their bonds and 

determine effects on aquifer reconstruction in coal 

mine areas 

Discharge of CBNG-produced waters could affect 

new coal mines if entering the mine permit 

boundaries 

Effects on oil and gas development from other 

resource protection measures 

Loss of methane resource because of venting from 

coal mines 

Drainage of methane from federal minerals from 

offsetting state and private wells 

Quantity of methane recovered 

Effect of over-pumping CBNG water on gas 

recovery 

Subsurface coal fires 

Potential loss of coal production due to CBNG 

development 

Hazardous Materials and Waste 

Management 

Use of hazardous materials and potential for misuse 

as a part of CBNG development 

Hydrology 

Groundwater 

Produced water quality and appropriate beneficial 

reuses 

Drawdown of aquifers and drying up of natural 

springs due to CBNG production 

Appropriate water management alternatives 

Water quality impacts 

Water rights conflicts 

Changes in pumping rate and cumulative 

drawdown due to CBNG development 

Impacts on down- and up-gradient water resources 

in both confined and unconfined aquifers 

Long-term effects of CBNG pumping on aquifer 

recharge and groundwater resources 

Effects on DNRC established Powder River Basin 

Controlled Groundwater Area 

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

produced water opportunities 

9 
Surface Water 

Effect of high sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) and 

increased flow rates on eroding stream channels 

Impacts on water quality from produced water 

Impacts on biota from water quality changes 

Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(MPDES) discharge analysis for CBNG-produced 

waters 

Cumulative impacts on water quality and quantity 

Impacts on irrigated cropland 

Indian Trust Resources and Native American 

Concerns 

Unique Native American concerns and social 

impact on Native Americans 

The effects of discharged water on agriculture, 

fishing, hunting, and gathering of native and sacred 

plants as they relate to traditional values held by the 

tribes 

Protection of Indian trust assets with regard to 

resource drainage and reduction of usable assets 

Water quality preservation agreement with the 

Northern Cheyenne 

Effects to reservation Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Class I area classification and 

nonattainment area 

Impacts on sites with traditional cultural 

importance to Native Americans in areas on and 

adjoining the reservations 

Increased use of public facilities and services on 

reservations 

Cultural and socioeconomic impacts on tribal 

members associated with CBNG development 

Lands and Realty 

Construction effects from drilling, roads, pipelines, 

and water disposal facilities 

Infrastructure needed to accommodate CBNG 

development would require numerous road, power 

line, and pipeline ROWs 

Livestock Grazing 

Impacts on grazing lands from discharge of high 

salinity water 

Effects on livestock and ranching operations from 

the increased availability of water 

Displacement of grazing lands from the 

development of CBNG well pads and loss of 

natural forage 

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

livestock 

Paleontological Resources 

Impacts from vandalism and unpermitted collectors 

as a result of increased access to remote areas 

Impacts on paleontological localities from oil and 

gas development 

Recreation 

Effects on hiking, hunting, and other recreational 

activities from CBNG development 

Displacement and disturbance of wildlife and 

habitat will affect hunting, hiking, and other 

recreational activities 

Social and Economic Values 

Increased levels of background noise and what 

noise mitigation would be conducted 

Impacts on social service agencies and local 

economics from increased population 

Decreased land values 

Escalated real estate prices 

Agricultural job loss 

Economic effect on local communities, including 

potential increased wage income, lower 

unemployment, increased local business, and 

potential costs of a ―boom and bust‖ scenario 

Cost to residents from potential CBNG production 

affects on springs, livestock watering, and domestic 

water 

Social structure impacts through direct impacts on 

the local economy 

Revenue associated with the amount of methane 

recovered 

Tax revenue to local, state, and federal entities 

Effects on local economies and lifestyle from 

royalties to the state and federal government 

10 
Royalties to local landowners who own mineral 

rights and surface disturbance payments to 

landowners who do not own mineral rights 

Lack of royalties or tax revenues available for 

Tribes from non-Indian oil and gas leases. 

Benefits from more abundant clean energy 

Effect from Wyoming CBNG development 

(cumulative) 

Economics of mitigation strategies 

Socioeconomic effect from lowering the water 

table 

Quantity of economical oil and gas resources and 

market implications 

Effects to agricultural productivity from sodium 

adsorption ratio (SAR) levels 

Effects to agriculture from air, soil, and water 

contamination 

Private surface owner notification prior to work 

Mechanism needed for land owner input on 

drilling, and leasing and mineral estate issues 

Environmental Justice 

Make distributive justice analysis part of the public 

comment and decision process 

Northern Cheyenne Tribal Government‘s reliance 

on operator lease fees from tribal ranchers and 

irrigators operating on private and reservation lands 

Soils 

High sodium effects: dispersion of soil colloids, 

reduced water infiltration, vegetative composition 

and population changes, mud pits and bogs, change 

in crop production yields, and changes in crops 

grown because of salinity tolerance levels 

Effects on soils from surface discharge flow 

changes: erosion on stream banks and in ephemeral 

drainages if these are the discharge points 

(increased erosion where dispersion occurs) 

Effects on irrigated soils: changes in salt content in 

soil profile, changes in salt composition, saline 

seeps downgradient from irrigated soils, dispersion 

of soil colloids (reduction of soil permeability and 

increased erosion), and changes to micro-organism 

populations and composition 

Development effects: disturbance during drilling at 

pads (exposure to wind and water erosion), and 

road development (loss of soil used to develop road 

beds, and packing soil in undeveloped roads, 

leading to wind erosion) 

Effects on irrigation and crop management 

practices: addition of additional water for leaching 

fraction, potential for water logging soils, 

modification of irrigation systems, change in 

cropping equipment, and effects on crops 

Effects from land subsidence and disturbance 

Vegetation 

Effect of surface discharge of high sodium or SAR 

water on native vegetation species that are salt 

intolerant, as well as on streamside vegetation 

Change in vegetative communities to more salttolerant species 

Loss of surface vegetation from construction 

Invasion of exotic and noxious plant species in 

disturbed areas 

Loss of plant productivity from development 

Protection of grasslands within the Powder River 

Basin 

Agricultural land withdrawal for CBNG production 

Special Status Species 

Mitigation measures or avoidance needed to 

manage and protect candidate and sensitive species 

Loss of threatened and endangered species from 

development 

Visual Resource Management 

Visual degradation from construction of production 

facilities, roads, powerlines, and pipelines 

Visual pollution 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Effects on wilderness study areas from CBNG 

exploration and development 

Wildlife 

Impacts from infrastructure development, including 

powerlines, and increased human disturbance on 

wildlife habitat availability, quality and integrity, 

11 
escape habitat, and management plans of Montana 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks ( MFWP) 

Fragmentation of wildlife habitat 

Effects from water availability, quality, and 

quantity 

Loss of animals from hazards to the habitat, such as 

vehicles, equipment, and increased human access 

Effects on major waterways, such as the Tongue 

and Powder rivers, and to aquatic ecosystems, 

including fisheries 

Effect on migration patterns 

Change in vegetative communities to species that 

are generally not preferred by wildlife 

Effects from increased noise levels 

Issues Identified for the SEIS 

The following issues were identified during the 

public scoping process held in August and September 

2005. The issues raised were in relation to CBNG 

phased development. These issues have been 

expressed in the form of questions. 

Air Quality/Climate 

How will air quality, including visibility, be 

protected and mitigated, especially when 

considering all existing and proposed sources 

within the region? Concerns include general air 

quality, visibility, and potential adverse effects to 

public health from cumulative emissions of fine 

particles and fine particle precursors. 

How will air quality, including visibility, be 

protected within the Northern Cheyenne Indian 

Reservation airshed and other Class I airsheds? 

How will impacts on water chemistry be 

prevented in high altitude lakes with little acid 

neutralizing capacity? 

How will potential for fires from the migration 

of methane be avoided? 

What additional impacts will the Tongue River 

Railroad have on regional air quality? 

Cultural Resources 

How will culturally important springs and other 

traditional cultural properties be affected and 

protected? These include all traditional cultural 

properties identified by the Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe as important such as the Rosebud and Wolf 

Mountains Battlefield sites and Northern 

Cheyenne Homestead sites in the Tongue River 

Valley. 

What traditional cultural properties in the RMP 

areas may be affected by CBNG development, 

and how will they be managed? 

Native American Concerns 

How will unique environmental, social, 

economic, and cultural impacts to Native 

Americans be addressed by phased 

development? 

How will phased development provide an 

economic base to benefit tribal members, while 

not leading to another boom-and-bust cycle? 

How will subsistence hunting, fishing, and 

gathering be affected and protected? 

How will phased development help BLM to 

fulfill its Native American treaty trust 

obligations? 

How will phased development provide 

protection to tribal reserved water rights? 

How will phased development include 

coordination and consultation with tribal 

representatives? 

Oil and Gas 

How will phased development be structured to 

address the national supply and demand situation 

and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign energy 

resources? 

How will RMP or landscape-scale effects be 

addressed by phased development? 

How will lease stipulations be used to mitigate 

for effects from phased development? 

How will phased development be structured to 

minimize infrastructure development (to reduce 

both costs and impacts), including coordination 

with neighboring landowners? 

How will reclamation and restoration be 

addressed by phased development?
 

Phased Development 

How will phased development be planned to 

account for and protect other resources? 

12 
How will resource impacts from development 

and other CBNG activities be evaluated and 

addressed throughout the implementation of 

phased development? 

How will phased development minimize 

fluctuations in populations, air quality impacts, 

overburdening of infrastructure and services, and 

increases in secondary development? 

How will drainage of federal gas resources and 

impacts to federal lessees be addressed or 

affected by phased development? 

Socioeconomics 

How will social and cultural changes be 

addressed by phased development? Specific 

concerns include infrastructure and service costs 

borne by state, local, and tribal governments, 

increased population, social pathologies (crime, 

alcoholism, drug use, etc.), and environmental 

exploitation. 

How will revenues (income lessees and state and 

local taxes) be affected by phased development, 

and how will these effects differ for reservation 

and off-reservation communities? 

How will phased development affect jobs, job 

security, local economy, and farming and 

ranching activities, and how will these effects 

differ for reservation and off-reservation 

communities? 

Vegetation 

How will phased development address impacts 

to and reclamation of sagebrush steppe and 

grassland ecosystems? 

How will phased development account for the 

relatively slow vegetative response to changes in 

groundwater or surface water characteristics? 

How will phased development address the spread 

of non-native species in affected areas? 

How will phased development affect medicinal 

and ceremonial native plants important to Native 

Americans? 

Water Resources 

How will produced water be managed by phased 

development? 

How will groundwater impacts be addressed by 

phased development? Concerns include 

What phased development implementation 

strategy or strategies will be included 

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

coal seam], timing, or number of wells)? 

Will more than one phased development 

alternative be addressed in the FSEIS? 

How will phased development reduce impacts, 

improve mitigation options, or protect multipleuse of resources? 

groundwater drawdown in area or neighboring 

aquifers, effects on drinking water and stock 

watering wells, natural springs, and approved 

water rights. 

How will phased development address surface 

water effects and mitigation? Concerns include 

the consequences of changing surface water 

quality and transforming ephemeral or 

intermittent streams into perennial water bodies. 

How will effects from development outside the 

Planning Area be addressed by phased 

development? 

How will water well mitigation agreements 

mitigate the effects of aquifer drawdown and 

methane migration? 

How will phased development affect surface and 

groundwater quality? 

Wildlife 

How will phased development address impacts 

on wildlife (particularly fish and other aquatic 

species) and habitat from changes to water 

quality? 

How will phased development address impacts 

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

ecosystem scale) on terrestrial wildlife species 

(and associated habitats), including song birds, 

burrowing owls, and bald eagles, but especially 

sage-grouse and prairie dogs? Particular 

concerns included habitat fragmentation and 

cumulative effects from development outside the 

Planning Area (especially the Wyoming Powder 

River Basin) and the ability to assign and 

quantify impacts from various anthropogenic 

influences. 

How will phased development address potential 

effects on big game and other subsistence 

wildlife populations relative to tribal hunting and 

fishing rights? 

13 
How will phased development affect ESA-listed 

or potentially listed species? 

Issues or Alternatives Considered But Not 

Analyzed in Detail 

The issues and alternatives below were considered but 

were not analyzed in detail because of technical, legal, or 

other constraints. 

Leasing 

BLM oil and gas leasing decisions and lease 

stipulations, including those applicable to CBNG, were 

previously analyzed in the BLM 1992 Final Oil and 

Gas RMP/EIS Amendment (BLM 1992). Those 

decisions were approved in the project‘s ROD 

published in February 1994. During that process, the 

public was invited and encouraged to participate. 

Analyzing new federal lease decisions, such as closing 

federal areas of oil and gas estate in the Powder River 

and Billings RMP areas, are therefore beyond the 

scope of this plan. The existing lease stipulations 

approved in the 1994 ROD continue to be applicable 

to all CBNG development and have been included in 

Table MIN-5 of the FSEIS Minerals Appendix. CBNG 

is part of the oil and gas estate. Existing oil and gas 

leases include the right to explore and develop CBNG. 

Issuing separate leases for conventional oil and gas and 

separate leases for CBNG would require a regulatory 

change. 

The purpose of the SEIS was to amend the RMPs by 

analyzing federal CBNG phased development in 

accordance with the U.S. District Court‘s directive for 

supplementing the BLM 2003 Final Montana 

Statewide Oil and Gas EIS and Proposed Amendment 

of the Powder River and Billings RMPs (Statewide 

Document). The SEIS analyzed alternatives including 

different levels of producing CBNG wells between the 

low range in Alternative A to the high range in 

alternatives E, F and H. The SEIS also analyzed 

different mitigation measures or restrictions that BLM 

can impose as requirements with approved permits. In 

addition, Alternatives F, G and H allowed analysis of 

phased mechanisms that BLM can use to affect the 

pace and place of CBNG development on federal 

leases, as well as the density and intensity of 

cumulative CBNG development. Mitigation measures 

and a process to evaluate projects to determine if 

restrictions are necessary to alter the pace or place of 

federal development are included in alternatives F, G 

and H (the Preferred Alternative). The evaluation 

would be conducted during the permit review process 

and during the production phase. 

Bonding 

Establishing bond amounts specifically for CBNG 

development activities that cover the full cost of 

CBNG development was not analyzed in detail. The 

MBOGC and BLM regulations set minimum 

amounts of bonding required before approving 

drilling permits. The regulations allow agencies to 

raise the bond amount required depending on such 

factors as the number and type of wells, type and 

amount of reclamation necessary and operator 

history. Bond increases cannot exceed the total of 

estimated costs of plugging and reclamation for 

reclamation bonds, or the amount of uncollected 

royalties due and monies owed because of 

outstanding violations for lease bonds. 

Omega Alternative 

The Omega Alternative to drill a large-diameter well 

through the coals and from the base of that shaft to 

directionally drill upward into the various coal seams 

in a circular pattern is an experimental technology not 

yet proven for CBNG. If this technology becomes 

viable for CBNG extraction in the future, further 

consideration would be given to it. 

Alternate Sources of Energy 

The purpose of the FSEIS was to consider federal 

CBNG phased development. Considering alternate 

sources of energy such as wind power and fuel cells 

was therefore beyond the scope of the FSEIS. 

Re-Injection of Produced Water into the 

Same Aquifer Alternative 

Re-injection of produced formation water is an 

accepted practice in conventional oil fields, but its use 

in CBNG fields would be counterproductive if the 

produced water was re-injected or could migrate into 

the CBNG producing formation. In conventional oil 

fields, operators have re-injected produced water since 

the 1920s to help maintain reservoir energy and to 

increase ultimate production efficiency, or to move oil 

preferentially to producing wells. When produced 

water is re-injected, original reservoir pressures are 

maintained; this can significantly increase the 

percentage of original oil in place that is produced 

before the field‘s economic limit is reached (Thomas 

et al. 1987). Re-injection can also sweep oil out of the 

reservoir toward producing wells in a waterflood, also 

increasing production efficiency. In these scenarios, 

water production is neither desired nor absolutely 

necessary; it is a nuisance that can be minimized with 

standard engineering practice. In the history of many 

14 
oil fields, oil is produced water-free for months or even 

years before water is seen in producing wells. 

In CBNG production, formation water must be 

produced before reservoir pressures are sufficiently 

reduced for the adsorbed methane to be liberated. 

Water production is unavoidable and pre-requisite to 

CBNG production. As water is produced from the coal 

seam, the pressure in the seam is reduced. Research by 

the BLM‘s Casper, Wyoming, Field Office suggests 

that methane production begins after 20 percent of the 

virgin reservoir pressure is depleted; significant 

production does not begin until 40 percent of the 

pressure is depleted (Crockett and Meyer 2001). Work 

by Jones et al. (1992) corroborates this relationship. If 

methane production is directly related to depletion of 

reservoir pressure, then re-injection of produced water 

within the confines of the CBNG field will directly 

result in the decrease of methane production. Reinjection of CBNG-produced water into the producing 

formation is not a reasonable option for management 

of produced water. When and if this technology 

becomes viable, a more detailed analysis would be 

conducted for further consideration. 

It would be reasonable to inject produced water into 

non-productive coal seams that were geologically 

separated from the CBNG field. Separation could be 

the result of faulting or erosion, isolating coals in the 

injection area even from stratigraphically equivalent 

productive coal seams in the CBNG field. Under 

Alternative B the injection of produced water into 

either non-productive coal seams or aquifers with 

water of lesser quality is analyzed. This type of 

injection results in preservation of the produced water 

resource, whether of high or low quality. The permit 

process could mitigate impacts to groundwater so that 

the quality of the injected water is matched to the 

quality of the formation water in the prospective 

injection zone. 

Recently there have been discussions suggesting the 

mandatory injection of all CBNG-produced water. In 

fact, a petition was forwarded to the Montana Board of 

Environmental Review for consideration of this topic. 

In preparation of this board debate, a report entitled the 

―Potential Effects to Ground Water Systems Resulting 

from Subsurface Injection of CBM Production Water‖ 

was drafted by the Montana Bureau of Mines and 

Geology (Wheaton and Reddish 2005). The report 

states that, overall, the approach of injecting water into 

Fort Union Formation aquifers of the Powder River 

Basin has not been widely tested. Areas where 

favorable conditions exist appear to be limited to 

approximately 9 percent of the total area. Mandating 

injection does not mean it is technically feasible, 

regardless of economics. In some areas that have 

suitable aquifers, injection may be technically and 

economically feasible, as well as a means of 

conserving the water resource. Injection cannot, 

however, be regarded as appropriate in all settings. 

Further, mandated injection may force the use of the 

deeper Madison Group geologic formation that has 

water of lower quality than the CBNG produced water. 

If CBNG produced water was injected into the 

Madison formation, the quality of the water might 

make it unsuitable for beneficial uses without 

treatment. 

Phased Development (other than 

Alternatives F, G and H) 

Comments received during the public scoping period 

varied substantially in their interpretation of what 

constitutes ―phased development.‖ While BLM has 

analyzed phased development under alternatives F, G 

and H, several proposed elements of phasing were not 

analyzed in detail. Those proposed elements and 

BLM‘s rationale for not analyzing them in detail are 

addressed below. 

Fully develop one area while resting others. 

Subsequent development occurs as earlier areas 

are completed and restored. 

While BLM could authorize development for one 

watershed or specific area at a time, the purpose would 

be defeated by state and private development occurring 

in all areas or specific areas, which is not controlled by 

BLM actions. In the FSEIS, Table Min-1 in the 

Minerals Appendix indicates that more than one half 

of the wells projected in the Reasonably Foreseeable 

Development scenario would be state approved (9700 

state approved to 8400 federal approved). The BLM 

does not control the approval or drilling of the state 

and private wells. This is illustrated by the number of 

state and private wells that have been drilled while the 

BLM was preparing the Statewide Plan (BLM 2003) 

and the SEIS (as of January 2008, approximately 950 

CBNG wells have been developed under state 

authorization in Big Horn County, the most active 

CBNG county in the planning area). In addition, BLM 

has contacted the MBOGC in regard to CBNG 

management. They state: 

"The Board of Oil and Gas has no underlying 

statutory authority to direct the development of 

oil and gas resources; those resources are 

managed by their owners. The Board does have a 

statutory mandate to prevent the drilling of 

unnecessary wells, prevent economic and 

physical waste, and protect the correlative rights 

of competing mineral owners by establishing 

well location and set-back rules, and reservoir 

15 
spacing rules. We do not envision the 

implementation of a management technique that 

would be less protective of competing property 

rights and more likely to result in waste of 

natural gas, and the drilling of unnecessary 

wells." 

Based on the projection of the number and location of 

wells, the mixed mineral ownership, and the statutory 

authority of the Montana Board of Oil and Gas 

Conservation it is reasonable to assume that 

development of state and private wells would not 

conform to specific areas identified for the 

development of federal wells. Therefore, it is not 

reasonable to fully develop one area while resting 

others followed by subsequent development in other 

specific areas when initial development areas are 

completed, because limiting state and private 

development to specific areas is not achievable. 

Areas where CBNG development cannot avoid 

creating significant environmental impacts 

should be identified and closed to leasing. Those 

areas that require lease stipulations in order to 

reduce environmental impacts to an acceptable 

level should also be identified. 

The rationale for not analyzing oil and gas leasing is 

provided in this section (see "Leasing" above). The 

Preferred Alternative (H) uses adaptive management to 

help prevent significant effects. The Monitoring Plan 

in the ROD Appendix C identifies resources to be 

monitored and BLM's management options should a 

threshold be met. 

Consider a phased development alternative that 

allows for the development of only certain coal 

seams at a time. When the initial zones have 

been depleted, produced water from other coal 

seams, developed in subsequent development 

phases could be re-injected into these depleted 

coal seams by converting the original wells into 

reinjection wells. 

The rationale for not analyzing reinjecting produced 

water into the same aquifer is addressed in this section 

(see "Re-Injection of Produced Water into the Same 

Aquifer" above. 

Stop issuing drilling permits during construction 

phases of other projects to reduce the effects of 

impacts associated with the other projects. 

Much of the development occurring in Montana occurs 

in a phased manner. Practical constraints, especially 

infrastructure to get the product out and state and 

federal permitting requirements all dictate industry‘s 

proposed development occur in phases. 

PLANNING CRITERIA 

Introduction 

Planning criteria are the constraints or ground rules 

used by the BLM to guide and direct the development 

of the RMP. Planning criteria guide the resource 

specialists in the collection and use of inventory 

information, and in analyzing the management 

situation, defining and analyzing the alternatives, and 

selecting the Preferred Alternative. Planning criteria 

have been developed for the SEIS. They ensure that 

the plan is tailored to the identified issues, and 

unnecessary data collection and analyses are avoided. 

Planning criteria are based on applicable laws and 

regulations; agency guidance; and results of 

consultation and coordination with the public, other 

federal, state, and local agencies, and Native American 

tribes. 

Overall Considerations 

1.	 The FSEIS supplements the Statewide 

Document. As a supplement to the Statewide 

Document, the FSEIS references the Oil and 

Gas Final EIS and Proposed Amendment of 

the Billings, Powder River and South 

Dakota RMPs, Wyodak Coal Bed Methane 

Project Final EIS, and Board of Oil and Gas 

Conservation Oil and Gas Drilling and 

Production in Montana EIS. 

2.	 The FSEIS is in compliance with the 

FLPMA, NEPA, and all other applicable 

laws. 

3.	 The FSEIS incorporates the requirements of 

BLM Handbook H-1624-1, Planning for 

Fluid Minerals, when considering a phased 

development alternative. 

4.	 The format for the FSEIS follows the format 

from the Statewide Document. 

5.	 The FSEIS has been prepared by an 

interdisciplinary team with specialists for 

recreation, fisheries, economics, sociology, 

archaeology, air quality, wildlife, hydrology, 

botany, soils, realty, minerals, and range 

management. 

6.	 The Planning Area for BLM is the BLMadministered oil and gas estate in 

Wheatland, Golden Valley, Musselshell, 

Sweet Grass, Stillwater, Yellowstone, 

Carbon, Big Horn, Treasure, Powder River, 

and portions of Carter, Custer, and Rosebud 

counties. The Planning Area excludes those 

16 
lands administered by other agencies (for 

example, Forest Service or Indian 

reservations). 

7.	 The analysis area is any land that may be 

affected, regardless of ownership. 

8.	 Data acquisition consists of projecting and 

compiling existing data, supplemented with 

data collected and acquired via research 

conducted since the Statewide Document 

was issued, data not available for the 

Statewide Document analyses, and 

appropriate literature search. 

9.	 The SEIS considers and analyzes the effects 

from CBNG phased development; the 

cumulative effects from CBNG production, 

including from the proposed Tongue River 

Railroad; and a discussion on how private 

water well mitigation agreements will help 

alleviate the impacts from groundwater 

drawdown and methane migration. 

10.	 The alternatives chosen will be 

economically and technically feasible. 

Those alternatives, or components of those 

alternatives, found not to be economically or 

technically feasible or viable will be 

dropped from or modified for consideration 

in the range of alternatives. 

11.	 Scoping for the FSEIS helped define phased 

development, and the alternative(s) chosen 

are reasonable, achievable, and measurable. 

The theme for the alternative(s) considered 

follows those in the Statewide Document. 

Those alternatives, or components of those 

alternatives, found not to be reasonable, 

achievable, and/or measurable have been 

considered and dropped from further 

analysis. 

12.	 Assumptions for the analyses, including the 

reasonably foreseeable development 

scenario and the reasonably foreseeable 

future actions from the Statewide Document 

are carried forward in the FSEIS. 

Cumulative projects evaluated are carried 

forward with one known exception: the 

discussion was modified to include the 

cumulative effects from the proposed 

Tongue River Railroad. 

13.	 The management and mitigation measures 

instituted since the Statewide Document 

ROD was signed are carried forward as 

features of the phased development 

alternatives in the FSEIS. 

14.	 Native American consultation and 

coordination with the Crow and Northern 

Cheyenne Indian tribes located within the 

Planning Area as well as the Lower Brule 

Sioux Tribe have taken place in accordance 

with BLM Handbook 8120 (USDI BLM, 

2004c) Guidelines for Conducting Tribal 

Consultations. The intent of consultation and 

coordination is to ensure that tribal needs, and 

those of any other affected tribes, are 

considered and that BLM fulfills its trust 

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

15.	 Interagency consultation occurs as necessary 

to comply with regulations, rules, and BLM 

policy. 

16.	 New decisions in the ROD that are based on 

the FSEIS are intended to be compatible 

with existing plans and policies of adjacent 

local, state, tribal, and federal agencies, as 

long as the adjacent jurisdictional decisions 

conform with the legal mandates for 

management of public lands. 

17.	 Any new decision or new mitigation 

measures required by the FSEIS must be 

enforceable, reasonable, achievable, and 

measurable and have to lend themselves to 

monitoring. 

18.	 Current management guidance will be 

expanded to reflect recent resource 

regulations and guidelines pertaining to oil 

and gas operations. 

19.	 To the extent practicable, this document will 

be consistent with adjoining Forest Service 

lands and leases. 

20.	 Decisions will comply with Rangeland 

Health Standards. 

21.	 A biological assessment will be prepared 

based on the preferred alternative and 

submitted to the FWS. 

WHAT’S BEING AMENDED IN THE 

POWDER RIVER AND BILLINGS 

RMPs 

General Management 

The BLM has responsibility for managing the federally 

owned oil and gas estate. After lease issuance, oil and gas 

operations may occur with an approved permit. The 

operator must file an Application for Permit to Drill 

(APD) or Sundry Notice that must comply with (1) lease 

17 
stipulations; (2) onshore oil and gas orders; and (3) 

regulations and laws. Upon application approval, the 

proposed drilling and associated operations can begin. 

The steps required to obtain approval to drill and conduct 

surface operations are summarized in Appendix A of the 

1992 Final Oil and Gas RMP/EIS Amendment and in the 

Minerals Appendix of the BLM‘s Big Dry RMP (USDI 

BLM, 1995). 

Oil and gas operators on federal leases must submit 

certification that a surface use agreement has been 

reached with surface owners of split estate lands. These 

are lands involving private surface overlying federal 

minerals. 

BLM does not consider an APD or sundry notice 

complete until the federal lessee or operator has 

certified that an agreement with the surface owner 

exists, and the lessee or operator complies with 

Onshore Oil and Gas Order 1 (USDI BLM, 2007). 

Compliance with Onshore Oil and Gas Order 1 

requires the federal mineral lessee or operator to enter 

into good-faith negotiations with the private surface 

owner to reach an agreement for protection of surface 

resources and reclamation of disturbed areas, or 

payment in lieu thereof, to compensate the surface 

owner for loss of crops or grazing and damages to 

tangible improvements, if any. If such an agreement 

between the surface owner and lessee or operator 

cannot be reached, a bond is required to protect against 

covered damages in the absence of an agreement. 

The Stockraising Homestead Act of December 29, 1916 

(43 U.S.C. 299) and regulations at 43 CFR 3814.1(c) 

clearly limit covered damages to grazing and associated 

tangible improvements. Onshore Oil and Gas Order 1 

states that compensation is based on the law that reserved 

the mineral estate. It also states the amount of such a bond 

must be a minimum of $1,000 and be sufficient to: 1) pay 

for loss or damages; or 2) otherwise comply with the 

provisions of the law that reserved the mineral estate. 

Under requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the 

FLPMA, any activity the BLM authorizes (including oil 

and gas development) must comply with all applicable 

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

standards, increments and implementation plans. 

Therefore, land use authorizations will specify that 

operating conditions (i.e., air pollutant emissions limits, 

control measures, effective stack heights, etc.) must be 

consistent with the applicable air regulatory agency‘s 

requirements. 

Current regulations set minimum amounts (financial) of 

bonding required. BLM may require an increase to any 

bond (43 CFR 3104.5b), whenever it is determined the 

operator poses a risk due to factors including, but not 

limited to, the number and type of wells, type and amount 

of reclamation necessary and operator history. The 

increase in bond amount can be to any level BLM 

specifies, but it cannot exceed the total amount of 

uncollected royalties due, monies owed because of 

outstanding violations and estimated well plugging and 

reclamation costs. 

CBNG development has the potential to impact 

groundwater by decreasing the pressure within the coal 

aquifers (drawdown). As such, it is the subject of 

Montana Code Annotated 82-11-175, which was enacted 

by the Montana Legislature in 2003 and the Montana 

Board of Oil and Gas Conservation (MBOGC) Order 99-

99 (as revised by MBOGC Order 151-2008). This order 

describes the authorities that pertain to CBNG 

development. A copy of the order is included as an 

appendix to the Water Resources Technical Report (ALL 

2001b). The order outlines water rights issues, mitigation, 

monitoring plans and jurisdiction. 

Montana Code Annotated 82-11-175 requires that CBNG 

operators offer a reasonable mitigation agreement to each 

appropriator of water who holds an appropriation right or 

a permit to appropriate groundwater. This requirement is 

in effect if the point of diversion is within 1 mile of the 

CBNG well, or 0.5 mile of a water source that is 

adversely affected by the coal bed natural gas well. 

Mitigation agreements must address the reduction or 

loss of water resources and must provide for prompt 

supplementation or replacement of water from any 

natural spring or water well adversely affected by the 

coal bed natural gas well. 

For development of federal minerals, BLM will require 

operators to certify that water well mitigation agreements 

for the proposed federal wells have been offered in 

accordance with Montana Code Annotated 81-22-175. 

These water mitigation agreements will also have to 

contain language addressing how an operator will 

respond to water wells being rendered unusable or unsafe 

due to methane migration and how health- and safetyrelated impacts will be monitored and mitigated. 

The existing lease stipulations approved in the 1994 ROD 

continue to be applicable to all CBNG development and 

have been included in Table MIN-5 of the FSEIS 

Minerals Appendix. 

APPROVED ALTERNATIVE H 

MANAGEMENT 

Development in the Billings and Powder River RMP 

areas will be done in a phased manner through restrictions 

and mitigation imposed by BLM. 

Figure 1 illustrates the process BLM will follow when 

reviewing PODs. This process involves reviewing the 

POD, making a permit decision, monitoring and assessing 

18 
FIGURE 1 - Decision Flow Chart 

Operator Submits Plan of 

Development (POD) 

BLM requires significant 

information for appropriate 

analyses. 

Will POD 

exceed 

screening 

thresholds? 

Attach Mitigation to POD 

POD Modifications 

Conditions of Approval 

Mitigation Measures 

Voluntary Mitigation 

No 

Approve POD 

No 

Modify Production Operations 

Production Suspensions 

Limiting Water Discharges 

Retrofit Compressor Motors 

Stakeholder Recommended Measures 

Or 

Conduct Consultation 

Tribes 

State Historic Preservation Office 

U.S. Fish Wildlife Service 

Prepare 

Environmental 

Analysis 

No 

Yes 

Ongoing 

quantification of 

cumulative impacts 

and evaluation of 

thresholds 

Screen PODS against 

Resource Specific Thresholds1 

Air Quality 

Wildlife 

Water Quality/Quantity 

5-mile Reservation Buffer 

Adjust 

Thresholds 

and Apply 

new BMPs 

Are 

modifications 

needed? 

Are 

modifications 

needed to 

operations or 

thresholds? 

Yes 

Yes 

Return to Operator 

1 Thresholds are displayed in Appendix C. 

19
 
impacts and adjusting operations, implementing 

mitigation measures and reviewing thresholds. As part of 

the POD review, evaluation screens for water, wildlife, 

Native American concerns and air will be applied. 

Thresholds will be adjusted when monitoring data 

justifies a change (e.g. see "sage-grouse" in the ROD 

Appendix C and the WMPP in the ROD Appendix A.) 

If slower development rates (fewer wells approved and 

drilled each year) result from the use of these screens, the 

overall time required for extraction of the CBNG 

resources may be extended. If monitoring data indicate 

impacts to resources are being mitigated, the pace of 

development may continue or increase. 

Screens to be Applied 

Four evaluation screens will be used when reviewing 

proposals to identify impacts, develop mitigation 

measures and guide the decision making process. 

Water Screen 

BLM recognizes the MDEQ has the lead role in 

managing water resources. BLM will coordinate all water 

monitoring efforts with MDEQ. While Onshore Order 7 

reinforces BLM's approval authority for produced water 

disposal, it does not provide BLM with primacy for the 

management of water within the State of Montana. 

Therefore, BLM will apply the water quality screen in 

close coordination and under the lead of MDEQ. Close 

coordination will avoid duplication of effort and ensure 

each agency fulfills its roles relative to resource 

management. 

If proposed untreated discharges within a watershed are 

projected to exceed 10 percent of the 7Q10 flow, BLM 

will coordinate with MDEQ to prepare an annual 

cumulative surface water monitoring report for that 

watershed. The 7Q10 is a statistical measure for the 

lowest flow expected for a continuous 7-day period in 10 

years. This report will incorporate the U.S. Geological 

Survey and Discharge Monitoring Report data, and other 

acceptable data collected within that watershed and 

evaluate the data against the applicable surface water 

quality standards. The United States Geological Survey 

collects data on a wide variety of parameters and 

Discharge Monitoring Reports are required for discharges 

to surface waters under MPDES permits. MDEQ 

determines the parameters reported in Discharge 

Monitoring Reports. If the results of analysis indicate 

CBNG discharges have the potential to cause 

exceedances of surface water quality standards, BLM will 

coordinate with MDEQ to develop appropriate mitigation 

measures to prevent exceedances. 

In addition, if surface water monitoring indicates 

permitted levels of CBNG discharge would have a 

potential to cause water quality standards to be exceeded, 

no future untreated discharge of CBNG water will be 

allowed from federal wells unless the regional surface 

water monitoring stations above and below the proposed 

discharge are active. If CBNG discharges cause surface 

water quality standards or land health standards (i.e., 

excessive erosion) to be exceeded, even if discharges do 

not exceed the 10 percent of 7Q10 threshold, no 

additional CBNG discharges will be allowed from federal 

wells upstream of the exceedances. Previously approved 

water management plans will be modified if monitoring 

indicates unacceptable impacts are occurring. Surface 

water monitoring requirements are detailed in the ROD 

Appendix C. 

Wildlife Screen 

To meet the objectives of conserving wildlife habitat and 

the sagebrush steppe/mixed grass prairie complex in the 

FSEIS planning area, BLM will implement adaptive 

management based on available science and monitoring 

information. BLM will require BMP measures and 

alternative development schemes as permit COAs. See 

the WMPP in the ROD Appendix A for the current list of 

specific COAs and BMPs. BLM will work with CBNG 

operators, surface owners, Native American tribes, the 

FWS and MFWP to identify any additional protection 

measures necessary. On split estate lands, BLM 

recognizes that achieving the objectives of this alternative 

will require cooperation with surface owners. 

All Wildlife Species 

Data on potentially impacted wildlife habitat will be 

provided before, or in association with, the operator's 

POD. The POD will clearly identify how development 

activities will be designed to minimize impacts to wildlife 

habitat and maintain wildlife populations within the 

proposed POD area. 

To help protect wildlife species that rely seasonally or 

year-long on crucial habitats (e.g., mule deer, pronghorns, 

sage-grouse, other sagebrush obligates), BLM will 

manage disturbance in such crucial habitats (e.g., crucial 

brood rearing, breeding and wintering habitat) where 

federal mineral ownership occurs. Crucial habitat for 

additional species, particularly Tier 1 species identified in 

the Montana Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Strategy 

(MFWP, 2005d), may be identified and existing crucial 

habitats may be modified based on additional habitat 

monitoring surveys, wildlife population surveys and other 

information provided by industry, BLM and MFWP. 

With more information, the crucial areas may be 

modified or new areas identified. If crucial habitats are 

20 
identified for species not presently addressed in this plan, 

additional environmental analysis and planning may be 

necessary. 

Monitoring is described in the WMPP (including the 

defined methodology, responsibility and frequency). To 

use adaptive management and make meaningful 

determinations on the impact of development on wildlife 

habitat, up to 10 years of monitoring may be needed (see 

ROD appendices A and C). If science and monitoring 

indicate changes in development practices are warranted, 

these changes will be coordinated with MFWP. 

BLM‘s management actions will be designed to affect the 

location and timing, as well as the density and intensity, 

of CBNG activities. Management may be modified if 

science and/or monitoring data indicate a change in 

wildlife species populations within crucial habitats on or 

adjacent to POD areas. For example, authorizations will 

not be given, or the pace of development will be 

restricted, in crucial habitat areas that approach or exceed 

population change thresholds. Other examples of 

management actions BLM could impose include 

reducing the number of seasonal and/or yearlong 

authorized vehicle trips in existing areas of development, 

securing road access to limit vehicles not associated with 

development, and modifying reclamation requirements 

for disturbed sites. If the population trend is downward, 

but has not yet reached the threshold, interim changes in 

management could occur. Similarly, if populations 

remain consistent with adjacent trend areas or increase, 

development may be less restricted, or the pace of 

development could be increased. Other factors such as 

wildfire, agricultural practices, recreational activities, and 

disease will also be considered in determining the 

management for crucial habitat areas. 

For mule deer and pronghorn habitat, the following 

thresholds will be used to initiate change: 

A 30 percent or more decline (based on MFWP 

adaptive harvest thresholds) in mule deer or 

pronghorn populations over a 3-year period 

relative to baseline and/or adjacent populations. 

Similarly, if populations remained consistent 

with adjacent trend areas or increase, 

development may be less restricted. 

These population thresholds, as well as population 

thresholds for other species, may be modified or 

established prior to POD approval based on relevant 

science, as well as suggestions from agency partners, such 

as MFWP and FWS. 

Sage-Grouse Habitat 

The general approach described in the All Wildlife 

Species section will also apply to sage-grouse habitat. 

Additionally, BLM will manage sage-grouse habitat to
 

meet the following objectives:
 

Maintain the connectivity of habitats.
 

Manage habitat to maintain healthy sage grouse 

populations to serve as source populations. 

In crucial habitat areas, maintain sage-grouse 

habitat so that population trends follow the 

general magnitude of decline or increase on 

control leks. Changes in management of future 

development will occur if male attendance on 

leks within two miles of CBNG development 

declines by 25 percent over a 5-year increment. 

Changes may also be made if lesser declines 

occur in a period of less than 5 years, when 

compared with predetermined control leks. 

Management actions will include not authorizing 

or limiting the number of federal well sites, 

roads, and infrastructure and not authorizing or 

restricting the timing of operations conducted on 

federal leases. Similarly, if populations remain 

comparable with the control leks or increase over 

a 5-year monitoring period, management of 

development may be modified to be less 

restrictive, or the pace of development may be 

increased. 

These thresholds could be further refined before POD 

approval based on monitoring, relevant science, as 

well as suggestions from agency partners such as 

MFWP and FWS. 

When development is proposed within crucial sagegrouse habitat, BLM will rely on science, 

professional judgment and monitoring data to 

determine the acceptable level of disturbance. 

The objectives for crucial sage-grouse habitat will be to 

maintain sage-grouse populations on the northern end of 

the Powder River Basin, permit genetic exchange with 

other populations, and ensure source populations will 

remain available for areas where sage-grouse may have 

been reduced or displaced due to CBNG development or 

other factors. 

Sage-grouse habitat (leks, nesting, brood rearing and 

wintering) outside the crucial sage-grouse habitat 

boundaries will be managed to maintain connectivity by 

reducing habitat fragmentation. Management will focus 

on minimizing disturbance on seasonal habitats. BMPs 

will be used to minimize surface disturbance and these 

measures may be the basis for COAs. If management 

actions, COAs and/or BMPs are insufficient or overly 

restrictive, BLM will make the needed changes in order 

to maintain sage-grouse populations. Science and 

monitoring data will provide the basis for formulating 

21 
alternative development scenarios and decisions will be 

coordinated with MFWP. 

To meet the objectives for sage-grouse habitat 

management, PODs will have to demonstrate specific 

actions to conserve sage-grouse. Actual placement of 

wells will depend on the operator's ability to outline a 

strategy where effects to sage-grouse will be minimized 

and where sage-grouse will not be displaced from any of 

the crucial habitat as a result of these actions. The 

following examples illustrate the types of measures that 

should be developed and included in the PODs: 

Within 1 mile of a lek, surface disturbance 

proposals will be sited to meet objectives for 

sage-grouse habitat management, including: 

avoid the loss of sagebrush, especially in linear 

routes (roads, flowlines and buried powerlines); 

avoid installation of perching structures; and 

keep noise disturbance levels at leks to less than 

10 decibels above background noise on active 

leks. Special attention will be paid to proposals 

that will result in increased human presence, 

opportunities for increased predation, or loss of 

nesting and brood rearing habitat and function. 

This will not necessarily translate into no 

development within 1 mile of a lek, but will 

suggest special attention should be paid to 

features resulting in increased human presence, 

opportunities for increased predation, and loss of 

nesting and brood rearing habitat and function. 

Proposals for storage ponds or produced water 

discharge into vegetated drainages in summer 

sage-grouse habitat will be designed to minimize 

the potential for outbreaks of West Nile Virus. 

The operator will be required to map and avoid 

seasonal habitats when proposing placement of 

infrastructure. 

Crucial habitat areas have been identified in only a 

portion of the ROD planning area. BLM will continue to 

identify crucial habitat areas as necessary. New areas will 

be managed per this section. As research and monitoring 

continue, BLM and partners may develop new COAs and 

BMPs to supplement those already contained in the 

WMPP and other BLM publications. 

Native American Concerns Screen 

The Crow and Northern Cheyenne tribes consider 

groundwater and air to be critical resources for their tribal 

health and welfare. Tribal CBNG is an Indian trust asset. 

Groundwater is used on the reservations for stock 

watering and drinking water supplies. The tribes highly 

value air resources, as well. In response to these concerns, 

BLM will require federal lease operators to protect 

groundwater, CBNG, and air quality. 

As development proceeds, BLM will monitor the effects 

to air, water and other resources of concern to the Native 

American tribes. BLM will approve additional APDs 

only if available monitoring and evaluation of new 

proposals indicate effects will not exceed state or federal 

regulatory standards and are not substantially greater than 

those anticipated in the FSEIS (see Table MON-1 in the 

ROD Appendix C.) 

For proposed federal CBNG development within 5 

miles of the Northern Cheyenne and Crow 

reservations, BLM, in consultation with the tribes, 

will require site-specific groundwater and air 

analyses (see ROD Appendix B – ―Northern 

Cheyenne Mitigation‖ for details). These analyses 

will be submitted as part of the operator‘s POD 

submissions. The operator‘s analyses must 

demonstrate that development associated with the 

proposed POD will be protective of Indian trust 

assets (groundwater and CBNG) and air quality. 

BLM could disapprove additional CBNG APDs if 

available monitoring and modeling of new proposals 

indicate effects that violate state or federal regulatory 

standards. In such cases BLM will first consider 

mitigation measures that will reduce impacts so that 

actions will comply with such standards. If 

implementation-level analyses, conducted in 

coordination with the State of Montana, indicate that 

unacceptable levels of impairment to these resources 

will occur and could not be mitigated, BLM could 

disapprove the APDs. Unacceptable levels of 

impairment to the resources will be determined by 

BLM in consultation with the affected tribe(s), as 

appropriate. BLM may require operator(s) to install 

groundwater monitoring wells and air monitoring 

stations between the development area and the 

reservations to confirm the initial findings of the 

analyses. Modeling and monitoring groundwater will 

also provide critical data to determine if CBNG or 

other resources are being affected. 

BLM will consult with affected tribes on individual PODs 

to identify areas of religious and cultural concern and/or 

traditional cultural properties. Special consideration will 

be provided when the operator‘s proposed actions are 

near identified traditional cultural properties such as the 

Rosebud Battlefield, the Wolf Mountain Battlefield, 

Weatherman Draw, and Sacrifice Cliff. Consultation 

could result in the development of mitigation measures 

which offset impacts to traditional cultural properties 

and/or places of religious or cultural concern. 

22 
Air Quality Impact Screen 

MDEQ has permitting authority over emission sources. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 

permitting authority in the adjacent areas of Indian 

Country. BLM will conduct an annual review of available 

monitoring data collected in designated Class I areas 

(Northern Cheyenne Reservation) and federally mandated 

Class I areas (wilderness areas) within the Montana 

portion of the Powder River Basin. 

In addition, MDEQ has agreed to complete an annual 

cumulative air quality impact model to track air quality 

impacts of CBNG development, including relevant 

CBNG development in Wyoming. The MDEQ will 

use the current EPA-approved method depending on 

the size of the area being analyzed, such as AERMOD 

or CALPUFF. The MDEQ requires all major sources 

(>25 tons/year) and all oxides of nitrogen emitting 

sources, in counties which make up the CBNG 

development area, to perform near-field air quality 

modeling. An evaluation of potential cumulative 

effects for each proposed air quality permit is also 

required (see description of Additional Air Quality 

Modeling Studies in Chapter 3 of the FSEIS). 

If observed effects and modeled impacts completed for 

the annual review by MDEQ show state or federal 

regulatory standards or applicable thresholds for air 

quality related values will be exceeded, BLM will require 

additional mitigation measures on development. BLM 

could disapprove additional CBNG APDs if available 

monitoring and air modeling of new proposals indicate 

effects that violate state or federal regulatory standards. In 

such cases BLM will first consider mitigation measures 

that will reduce impacts so that actions will comply with 

such standards. 

To minimize potential air impacts from CBNG 

operations, the number of wells connected to each 

compressor will be maximized and natural-gas-fired or 

electrical compressors or generators will be required. 

When compressors or generators are located close to 

noise sensitive areas (such as occupied residences or sage 

grouse strutting grounds), a maximum noise level of 50 

decibels measured 0.25 miles from the compressor will 

be required, except at sage-grouse leks. At sage-grouse 

leks, no more than 10 decibels above background 

measured at the lek will be required. 

To reduce dust, operators of federal leases will have to 

post and enforce speed limits for their employees and 

contractors. Operators will work with local government to 

use dust suppression techniques on roads. 

Given the potential for the level of development to vary, 

BLM and MDEQ will perform additional visibility 

modeling to better assess the visibility impacts as 

development proceeds (e.g., when exploration programs 

help define the limits of development within the Montana 

portion of the Powder River Basin). The potential for 

project wells to impact visibility is due to emissions of 

sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen from compressor 

engines. The total potential for emissions of oxides of 

nitrogen from compressor engines is based on 

horsepower requirements, which for the high-end 

development scenario of 18,225 project wells drilled will 

be 297,680 horsepower. The visibility modeling will be 

performed when horsepower requirements for CBNG 

wells in the Montana portion of the Powder River Basin 

exceed 133,956. Current modeling results indicate 0 days 

of visibility impacts will occur on the Class I Northern 

Cheyenne area up to a horsepower level of 148,840. 

BLM has selected 90% of this value as the visibility 

screening threshold to ensure appropriate actions can be 

taken in time to mitigate visibility impacts, if needed. The 

Class I Northern Cheyenne area was selected as the 

―trigger Class I area‖ due to its proximity to the CBNG 

development, and the sensitivity to CBNG development 

of this Class I area when compared to other Class I areas 

in the region. 

The visibility modeling effort will provide an updated 

prediction for future impacts, and assumptions will be 

verified or modified to properly characterize actual 

conditions and technological changes. The conditions that 

may change or become more certain as development 

proceeds include: 

the total number and type of wells (type – single 

zone completion vs. multi-zone or commingled 

completions); 

the pace of development; 

Best Available Control Technology and the effect 

on compressor emission rates; 

compressor locations; 

Compressor to well ratios; and 

limits of high development potential. 

If the subsequent modeling work indicates unacceptable 

impacts will occur at a future point in the Powder River 

Basin development, the modeling work will then include 

mitigation scenarios that will investigate mitigation 

measures. Mitigation efforts will focus on compressor 

motors and the extent of operating compressors because it 

appears that gas-fired compressor motors account for 

approximately 90% of the overall project emissions and 

visibility impacts. 

23 
STANDARD OPERATING 

PROCEDURES AND BEST 

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

BMPs will be used, as appropriate, in CBNG 

development. BMP guidance is found in the Western 

Governors' Association April 2006 ―Coal Bed 

Methane Best Management Practices,‖ the ―Surface 

Operating Standards for Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development, Fourth Edition‖ (Gold Book) and 

BLM's national web site at http://www.blm.gov/bmp. 

The EPA has also developed BMPs for the prevention 

of methane emissions. These are known as the Gas 

STAR BMPs. The Gas STAR BMP guidance is found 

at http://www.epa.gov/gasstar. 

In addition to applying BMPs, CBNG operators will 

submit a project POD outlining the proposed 

development of an area when requesting CBNG well 

densities greater than one well per 640 acres. The project 

POD will be drafted in consultation with the affected 

tribes, affected surface owner(s), and permitting agencies. 

POD Requirements 

The operator is responsible for submitting a complete 

project POD consisting of the following. See the POD 

Manual (BLM 2003f) online at 

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

e/cbng.html for a full description of each POD 

component. 

Master Drilling Plan 

Master Surface Use Plan 

Water Management Plan with evaluation of water 

management options 

Cultural Resource Inventory Plan or completed 

inventory 

Wildlife Monitoring and Mitigation Plan 

Reclamation Plan for surface disturbance 

Digital project maps depicting all infrastructure 

installations necessary for the project, etc. 

APD (Form 3160-3) for each federal well 

List of all permitting agencies involved 

Certification of surface use agreements 

Certification that water well mitigation agreements 

have been offered 

A cover letter naming the project area and 

requesting approval 

A list of all known existing wells in the project 

area, including monitoring wells 

A list of all potentially affected surface owners 

within the project area 

Any additional information required by the rules of 

MBOGC 

Individual well APDs (those located at one well per 640 

acres) will be accepted and processed without a project 

POD in accordance with requirements of Onshore Order 

1. A project POD will be required before processing and 

approving APDs for multiple wells from an operator in 

the same geographic area. BLM will complete processing 

the project POD and individual APDs once they are 

technically and administratively complete and have met 

all BLM requirements. 

The operator is responsible for implementing the 

approved PODs and individual well APDs. 

On-site inspections will be conducted at the proposed 

federal well sites and associated infrastructure before any 

ground-disturbing actions are approved. 

PODs that include development within the crucial sagegrouse habitat areas must include information that clearly 

demonstrates how the proposal will not displace sagegrouse from this habitat. This information will be based 

on recent research and science, monitoring data, and may 

also include alternative development schemes within 

these habitat areas. 

Wells and Well Pads 

CBNG well spacing rules are set by the MBOGC on state 

and private lands. The process for spacing on federal 

lands is described in a Memorandum of Understanding 

between BLM and MBOGC. The MBOGC, however, 

has no authority on Indian lands. A well pad may contain 

multiple wells (one well per coal seam), or a single well 

could produce from multiple seams. Wells may be 

directionally or vertically drilled, depending on the 

surface location and desired bottomhole location. 

Coal Mines 

There will be no buffer zone excluding CBNG production 

around active coal mines (BLM, 2006). BLM advocates 

the extraction of oil and gas resource, including methane, 

before mining and promotes the development of multiple 

mineral resources. 

Roads, Pipelines and Other 

Infrastructure 

Corridors are required for placement of roads, pipelines, 

and utility lines in a common area of disturbance, 

wherever possible. Proposed roads, pipeline routes and 

utility line routes, will be located to follow existing routes, 

or areas of previous surface disturbance, or to minimize 

disturbance to important habitats, where possible. In the 

POD, the operator will also address how the surface 

owner, BLM, and adjacent oil and gas operators and 

24 
infrastructure companies were consulted for input into the 

location of roads, pipelines, and utility line routes. 

There will be minimal road construction. Before 

approving a road, the operator, surface landowner, BLM 

and adjacent landowners and gas leaseholders will 

coordinate long-term planning for roads in the area. 

Discussions with affected parties will take place to help 

meet the transportation corridor requirement to minimize 

new roads. 

Low-voltage (440-v) distribution powerlines will be 

buried. The authorized officer will approve aboveground, low-voltage distribution powerlines only if the 

operator can demonstrate it will not be feasible or will be 

impractical to bury them (technically impossible, etc.). 

The authorized officer can approve proposed highvoltage, aerial powerlines by application. All aerial 

powerlines will be constructed according to the Avian 

Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) Guidelines, 

2006. 

Produced Water Management 

A water management plan will be required for 

exploratory wells and for each project POD. The water 

management plan will be submitted with the APD(s). The 

water management plan must comply with all federal, 

state and local laws and regulations, including the CAA, 

the Montana Water Quality Act, and Onshore Order 7. 

The water management plan must be prepared in 

accordance with the Miles City CBNG POD Guidebook. 

The basic elements of a water management plan include 

the following: 

Water quality data for the produced water 

A copy of any needed discharge or injection 

permit(s) or applications for such permits 

Applications for unlined impoundments proposed 

as part of the Water Management Plan that must 

demonstrate that the infiltration of water will not 

degrade the quality of surface or subsurface waters 

in the area (Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 7, 

Section III.D.2.) 

A water balance projection showing the anticipated 

rate of water production over time, the proposed 

water management practices (preferably beneficial 

uses) and the amount of water that will be managed 

by each of the practices over time 

The operator will have to list the water management 

options available and provide a brief rationale for using or 

not using each method. At a minimum, the following will 

have to be addressed: injection; treatment; surface 

discharge; the use of infiltration, storage, or evaporation 

pits or reservoirs; and beneficial uses, such as wildlife and 

livestock watering, dust control and managed irrigation. 

Wildlife Monitoring Program and 

Mitigation Measures 

On BLM-administered lands, impacts to wildlife will be 

monitored and addressed following procedures in the 

WMPP, in addition to applying mitigating measures that 

are part of the standard APD review and approval 

process. Impacts to wildlife, including those species on 

public lands and adjacent to reservations, will be 

monitored and addressed in accordance with the WMPP 

(see ROD Appendix A). 

Bald Eagles 

If a dead or injured bald eagle is located during 

construction or operation, the FWS Montana Field 

Office (406-449-5225) or the Billings Suboffice 

(406-247-7366) and the Service‘s Law 

Enforcement Office (406-247-7355) must be 

notified within 24 hours or by the end of the next 

working day. 

The WMPP (ROD Appendix A) of the Powder 

River and Billings RMPs will be implemented. 

Surveys for active bald eagle nests and winter roost 

sites will be conducted before APD approval. 

Surveys will be conducted within a 1.0 mile radius 

of proposed development for bald eagles and their 

nests and within a 1-mile radius for roosts. If the 

proposed CBNG site is found to be within a nesting 

or winter foraging area, CBNG related activities 

will be halted until the nest is no longer active or 

until winter has passed and the foraging eagles have 

migrated. 

The BLM leasing stipulations pertaining to bald 

eagles will apply and be implemented. This 

includes no surface occupancy within 0.5 mile of 

nests active within the past 7 years and within 

0.5 mile of roost sites. 

Raptor inventories including bald eagles, will be 

conducted over the entire CBNG project area every 

5 years by BLM, MFWP, or by a BLM-approved 

biologist. 

Nest productivity surveys will be conducted by 

BLM or a BLM-approved biologist in areas with 

one or more well locations per section and within 

1 mile of the project area. Active nests within 

1 mile of project-related disturbance areas will be 

monitored between March 1 and mid-July to 

determine nesting success (i.e., number of nestlings 

or fledglings per nest). 

A seasonal, minimum-disturbance-free buffer zone 

of 0.5 mile will be established for all bald eagle 

25 
nest sites (February 15 to August 15). These spatial 

and timing restrictions may be adjusted based on 

site-specific criteria with written approval from 

FWS. 

Signing, speed limits, or speed bumps will be 

placed on all project access roads to reduce 

mortality caused by vehicle traffic. 

Mountain Plover 

If a dead or injured mountain plover is located 

during construction or operation, the FWS Montana 

Field Office (406- 449-5225) or the Billings 

Suboffice (406-247-7367) and the Service's Law 

Enforcement Office (406-247- 7355) must be 

notified within 24 hours or by the end of the next 

working day. 

Per FWS, listing the mountain plover under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) is not warranted 

at this time. BLM will continue monitoring to 

help prevent the need to list the bird in the future. 

FWS will provide operators and BLM with 

educational material illustrating and describing the 

mountain plover, its habitat needs, life history, 

threats and gas development activities that may 

lead to the incidental taking of eggs, chicks, or 

adults. These materials will be provided with the 

requirement they be posted in common areas, 

circulated in a memorandum, and discussed among 

employees and service providers. 

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

suitable mountain plover habitat on federally 

managed surface and mineral estate lands. Further, 

a reasonable effort should be made to estimate the 

actual impacts, including habitat loss, that CBNG 

development will have on occupied black-tailed 

and white-tailed prairie dog acres within suitable 

mountain plover habitat over the entire project area. 

The BLM, FWS and cooperators will develop a 

survey protocol that may include prioritization of 

subsets of the project area to be analyzed. 

In areas of suitable mountain plover habitat, 

surveys will be conducted by BLM or by a BLMapproved biologist using the FWS protocol at a 

specific project area, plus a 0.5 mile buffer. Efforts 

will be made to identify mountain plover nesting 

areas not subject to CBNG development to be used 

as reference sites. Comparisons will be made of the 

trends in mountain plover nesting occupancy 

between these reference areas and areas 

experiencing CBNG development. 

Surveys for nesting mountain plovers will be 

conducted by appropriately trained personnel if 

ground-disturbing activities are anticipated to occur 

between April 10 and July 10. A disturbance-free 

buffer zone of 0.25-mile will be established around 

all mountain plover nesting locations between April 

1 and July 31. 

No ground-disturbing activities will occur in 

suitable nesting habitat before surveys are 

conducted in compliance with FWS‘s Mountain 

Plover Survey Guidelines (FWS 2002c or more 

recent version, FSEIS Wildlife Appendix and 

Biological Assessment), regardless of the timing of 

the disturbance. The amount and nature of grounddisturbing activity must be limited in identified 

mountain plover nesting areas to avoid the 

abandonment of these areas. 

Sage-grouse 

A BLM, MFWP or a BLM-approved biologist will 

conduct sage-grouse lek inventories over the 

CBNG project area with high potential for 

development every five years. Surveys of different 

areas may occur during different years, with the 

high potential CBNG project areas surveyed at 

least every five years. Inventories and protocol will 

be consistent with the Montana Sage Grouse 

Conservation Plan, coordinated by the BLM and 

MFWP. In areas of development, aerial or ground 

inventories will be conducted annually on affected 

sections, two mile buffers, and selected 

undeveloped reference areas. Surveys may be 

conducted aerially or on the ground, as deemed 

appropriate by the BLM and MFWP. Operator may 

provide financial assistance. 

Reference leks are leks located in similar habitat 

and within close proximity to areas currently being 

developed. These ―reference leks‖ will be 

identified by BLM and MFWP. 

Aerial or ground surveys will be used for 

determining lek locations. A BLM, MFWP or a 

BLM-approved biologist will monitor sage-grouse 

lek attendance within two miles of areas of 

development, such that all leks on these areas are 

surveyed annually. Data collected during these 

surveys will be recorded on BLM and MFWP 

approved data sheets and entered into the approved 

database. The number of males/lek in areas of 

development will be compared to reference leks. 

Sage-grouse winter use surveys of suitable 

winter habitat within two miles of a project area 

will be coordinated by the BLM and conducted 

26 
from November through February as deemed 

appropriate by these agencies. Results will be 

provided in interim and/or annual reports. 

Historical information of winter sage-grouse 

locations will be useful in focusing efforts in 

areas suspected of providing winter habitat. 

Big Game 

Elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer and pronghorn are 

the common big game species that occur within 

parts or all of the CBNG planning area. Annual big 

game seasonal habitat use data will be collected and 

made available to operators, tribes and landowners. 

Big game use of seasonal habitats is highly 

dependent upon a combination of environmental 

factors including terrain, forage quality, and snow 

depth. Therefore, it is difficult to attribute changes 

in habitat use to a single factor. Comparisons in 

trends between big game seasonal habitat reference 

areas and seasonal habitats associated with CBNG 

development may provide some insight into the 

response of big game to CBNG development. 

CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE 

POLICIES, PLANS AND PROGRAMS 

The BLM‘s planning regulations require RMPs to be 

―consistent with officially approved or adopted 

resource related plans, and the policies and programs 

contained therein, of other federal agencies, state and 

local governments, and Indian Tribes, so long as the 

guidance and resource management plans are also 

consistent with the purposes, polices and programs 

applicable to public lands...‖ (43 CFR 1610.3-2). 

Federal, state and local agencies and tribal councils 

were requested to review the SEIS and to inform the 

BLM of any inconsistencies. 

The Governor of Montana responded to BLM via a 

letter dated December 22, 2008. The State identified 

―areas of potential conflict‖ between the FSEIS and 

the State of Montana‘s policies and procedures. 

BLM‘s response and the ROD clarify how the areas of 

concern are addressed. 

Based on these reviews, it is concluded that 

Alternative H is fully consistent with all applicable 

policies, plans and programs of other federal agencies, 

state and local governments and tribes. If it is 

determined through monitoring or other means that 

such policies, plans, or programs are not being met, 

this decision will be modified to bring it into 

compliance. 

Achieving Air and Water Quality 

Program Requirements 

Oil and gas, including CBNG, exploration and 

development on BLM-managed lands must comply 

with the federal and state Clean Air and Clean Water 

acts. Responsibility for permitting and enforcement of 

the federal Clean Air and Clean Water acts has been 

delegated to the MDEQ. In addition, the state has its 

own air quality and water quality protective 

requirements. 

Review and approval of CBNG APDs, or PODs, by 

BLM will be coordinated with the MDEQ in order to 

ensure that operating requirements needed to comply 

with any air and water quality standards are 

implemented. BLM will also work with the MBOGC, 

EPA, tribes, and other surface management agencies to 

address concerns over impacts to air and water quality 

in their respective jurisdictions. 

Interagency Work Group (IWG) 

The BLM will continue to work with the EPA, 

National Park Service, Forest Service, and other 

federal, state, and tribal authorities via the IWG for 

CBNG development in the Powder River Basin. The 

working group is responsible for developing and 

recommending the monitoring and mitigation 

measures needed for each agency to ensure its actions 

achieve compliance with applicable air and water 

quality standards across jurisdictional boundaries. In 

order to ensure consistency, the IWG will also 

coordinate with other work groups established to 

address CBNG development in Wyoming. 

The IWG will, of necessity, depend on the regulatory 

and management policies of the MDEQ as the agency 

with air and water quality primacy. Each agency 

within the working group will maintain its regulatory 

authorities throughout the process. 

ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND 

REGULATORY PROCESS 

Several federal agencies, sovereign tribal governments, 

and state agencies, as well as local county 

governments, were involved in the development and 

preparation of the FSEIS. Cooperating agencies 

include the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of 

Energy, EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MDEQ, 

MBOGC, and the following counties: Big Horn, 

Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Powder River, 

Rosebud, Treasure, and Yellowstone. The Crow Tribe 

of Indians and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe signed 

Memoranda of Understanding with BLM to participate 

27 
as cooperating agencies. The Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

also helped to prepare the SEIS. BLM has the 

responsibility and the authority for preparation of the 

SEIS. 

The cooperating agencies‘ and collaborators‘ roles 

were to participate in the review process of all 

technical reports and the preliminary draft and final 

SEIS. These agencies and tribal governments also 

attended numerous meetings both public and projectspecific to discuss and enumerate concerns and 

comments. 

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

gas development in the planning area are limited to the 

agency‘s stewardship, resource conservation, and 

resource protection responsibilities for federal lands 

and minerals. As conservator of the federal surface and 

mineral estate, the BLM has responsibility for ensuring 

that the federal mineral resource is conserved (not 

wasted) and is developed in a safe and 

environmentally sound manner. 

Drilling oil and gas exploration and production wells 

on lands where mineral rights are administered by the 

federal government must be conducted under an 

approved APD issued by the BLM. In considering 

whether to approve applications for a permit to drill 

and other lease activities, the BLM must consider the 

possible impacts from typical exploration and 

development activities, and cumulative environmental 

effects, to ensure compliance with NEPA. The SEIS, 

in combination with the Statewide Document, was 

prepared to meet those requirements. As part of the 

permit process, BLM requires that adequate bond 

coverage is in place prior to approval of drilling 

activity on federal minerals. 

Much of the planning area contains lands known as 

―split estate.‖ These are lands where the surface 

ownership is different from the mineral ownership. 

Management of federal oil and gas on these lands is 

somewhat different from management on lands where 

both surface and mineral ownership are federal. On 

split estate lands where surface ownership is private, 

and BLM administers the minerals, BLM places 

necessary restrictions and requirements on permitted 

activities and works in cooperation with the surface 

owner. BLM has established policies for the 

management of federal oil and gas resources under the 

following statutes: FLPMA, NEPA, National Historic 

Preservation Act, and ESA (see BLM 1992, under 

―Split Estate‖ for more information). 

Regulatory areas where the BLM has shared 

responsibilities or consultation requirements with other 

federal or state agencies include the following: 

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

1701 et seq. as amended (Public Law 94-579), and 

the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, 

(Public Law 93-153). This is a shared responsibility 

with the MBOGC. 

Activities that would impact waters of the U.S. 

from the discharge of produced waters—BLM 

must comply with the Clean Water Act as provided 

by Sections 313 (33 U.S.C. 1323) and 401 (33 

U.S.C. 1341). The National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System permits and 401 certifications 

are issued by the State of Montana for actions 

involving the discharge of water from point sources 

on non-Indian lands. For actions involving the 

discharge of water from point sources, BLM works 

with MDEQ on private and public lands, and with 

EPA on Indian lands. The BLM will not allow for 

the discharge of produced waters until approval is 

given by the state or EPA. 

Activities disturbing more than 1 acre (stormwater 

permitting)— The lessees must comply with 

Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, and with the 

Montana Water Quality Act (Administrative Rules 

of Montana, Title 17, Chapter 30, Subchapter 11). 

For actions involving the disturbance of more than 

1 acre, BLM works with MDEQ on private and 

public lands, and with EPA on Indian lands. The 

BLM will not allow for the discharge of produced 

waters until approval is given by the state or EPA. 

Activities that would impact waters of the U.S. 

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

Army Corps of Engineers has the responsibility in 

Montana for dredge and fill permits associated with 

CBNG activities under Section 404, General Permit 

No. 404. This covers activities that impact waters 

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

of the U.S. or jurisdictional wetlands. See 33 CFR 

Part 320 and 40 CFR Part 230–Section 404(b)(1) 

Guidelines for the Specification or Disposal Sites 

for Dredged and Fill Materials. 

Special status species of plants or animals—ESA, 

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

with the FWS and MFWP. 

Cultural or historical resources—National Historic 

Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470. BLM is required 

to consult with the Montana State Historic 

Preservation Office and Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation in accordance with 

regulations found at 36 CFR 800 or through 

alternative procedures as specified through 

Programmatic Agreements. The BLM in Montana 

operates under a National Programmatic 

Agreement and a state-wide Protocol to meet its 

28 
requirements under the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 

Air Quality Impacts—The CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401 et 

seq.) as amended, requires that BLM comply with 

all applicable local, state, and federal air quality 

laws, regulations, standards, increments, and 

implementation plans regarding property under its 

jurisdiction or activities in which it engages (42 

U.S.C. 7418). Local, state, and tribal requirements 

may be more (but not less) stringent than federal 

requirements. The implementation of federal 

requirements for non-reservation lands in Montana 

is delegated to the MDEQ. EPA regulates air 

quality on Indian reservations in Montana. The 

BLM meets its obligations under the CAA by 

requiring operators on federal leases to obtain all 

applicable emissions permits and to comply with all 

applicable air quality regulations, implementation 

plans, and standards. See also 43 U.S.C. 1732(c). 

Surface water diversions, stream channel 

modifications, construction of new reservoirs, 

reservoir supply, or dam modifications to existing 

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

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

responsibility with the Montana Department of 

Natural Resources and Conservation, Water 

Resources. 

Oil and gas well spacing—Memorandum of 

Understanding between BLM and the MBOGC 

concerning Oil and Gas Well Spacing/Well 

Location Jurisdiction, and the Montana Oil and Gas 

Conservation Act, Statute 82-11-201, 

Establishment of Well Spacing Units. This is a 

shared responsibility with the MBOGC. 

Consultation with Tribal Governments—Under 

Executive Order 13175, BLM will provide a 

meaningful opportunity for input by tribal officials 

where the action would have tribal implications. 

The Executive Order reflects the federal 

government‘s trust responsibility to federally 

recognized Indian tribes. Pursuant to this trust 

responsibility, the federal government establishes 

regular and meaningful consultation and 

collaboration with tribes on a government-togovernment basis when federal activities may 

affect Indian tribes. 

STATE OF MONTANA 

Air Quality Program 

The MDEQ has delegated responsibilities under the 

federal CAA that requires the state to operate an 

approved ambient air quality monitoring network for 

the purpose of evaluating compliance with the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards, to report air 

quality monitoring information to EPA, and to prepare 

plans for controlling air pollution. Under the CAA of 

Montana, the state is required to provide a coordinated 

statewide program of air pollution prevention, 

abatement and control. 

Regulatory Processes 

For Prevention of Significant Deterioration of air 

quality, modeled and monitored results for particulate 

matter less than 10 microns in diameter and nitrogen 

dioxide will be evaluated against the Class I and Class 

II increments to determine if additional mitigation is 

required. 

When specific locations and operation requirements 

for gas compression facilities associated with CBNG 

development are determined, permit applications will 

be submitted to MDEQ. At that time, additional sitespecific air quality analyses may be performed, such as 

Best Available Control Technology analyses and 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration increment 

analysis. 

The air quality permitting process will be used by 

MDEQ to analyze emission sources at the project level 

for CBNG activities and to develop necessary 

mitigating measures. BLM will require operators to 

obtain all necessary state air quality permits for lease 

operations on BLM-administered lands. 

BLM will take appropriate enforcement action against 

operators upon finding a violation of an approved 

federal APD or Sundry Notice. MDEQ, however, will 

have the responsibility of enforcing its regulations and 

terms of its permits. 

State Agreements and Policies 

The air quality monitoring and analysis will be 

conducted across the Powder River Basin. The IWG 

will be the forum to determine the need for specific 

agreements between the states of Wyoming and 

Montana, EPA and the tribes, to facilitate regional 

monitoring, analysis and mitigation. 

The BLM will participate in the IWG to consider 

management options over time in response to new air 

information. This process will include development of 

monitoring plans to track regional cumulative impacts 

to air quality and the establishment of programmatic 

mitigation at predetermined action levels, as 

determined appropriate by the state and EPA. 

29 
Water Quality Program 

State Roles and Responsibilities 

The MDEQ has the responsibility under the federal 

Clean Water Act and the Montana Water Quality Act 

to monitor and assess the quality of Montana surface 

waters for pollutants, to prepare plans to control 

pollution, to assess water quality conditions and trends, 

to report then to EPA and Congress, and to identify 

impaired or threatened stream segments and lakes. 

Furthermore, the state administers a program for 

prevention, abatement, and control of water pollution 

by issuing MPDES permits. 

The Montana Board of Environmental Review (Board) 

adopted standards for electrical conductivity and 

sodium adsorption ratio for Powder River Basin 

streams in 2003. On March 23, 2006 the Board 

amended portions of ARM 17.30.670, the electrical 

conductivity and sodium adsorption ratio standards 

pertaining to the non-degradation category. This 

ruling changed electrical conductivity and sodium 

adsorption ratio to "harmful parameters", which 

modified the non-degradation non-significance criteria. 

Both of these revisions were subsequently approved by 

the EPA. Therefore they have Clean Water Act 

standing and water management strategies approved 

by the Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality are subject to these standards at the state line. 

In accordance with Section 303(d) of the federal Clean 

Water Act the MDEQ has prepared a list of impaired 

or threatened waters. This ―303(d)‖ list identified 

lakes, rivers and streams that are not meeting water 

quality standards and establishes priorities for Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development. The 

surface waters likely to be affected by CBNG 

development are located in the state‘s Tongue, Powder 

and Rosebud TMDL planning areas. The TMDLs for 

these areas are underway. 

Regulatory Processes 

When site-specific CBNG development proposals are 

submitted to BLM, the operator must include a Water 

Management Plan that describes how produced water 

would be managed to meet state water quality 

requirements. Operators are responsible for obtaining 

any necessary permits from MDEQ for management, 

treatment, or discharge of produced water. 

The MPDES permitting process will be used by 

MDEQ to analyze discharges at the project level for 

CBNG activities and to develop necessary permit 

conditions. Operations that would violate state water 

quality requirements will not be permitted by BLM. 

BLM will require operators to obtain all necessary 

state water quality permits or authorizations, reviews 

in lieu of permit when one is not required, or 

certifications for federal lease operations. These state 

permits or authorizations, reviews and certifications 

will provide documentation of compliance with state 

water quality requirements. 

State Agreements and Policies 

The IWG is the forum to determine the need for 

specific agreements between the states, the tribes, EPA 

and the surface management agencies to facilitate 

regional monitoring, analysis and mitigation. The IWG 

will also review existing agreements and make 

recommendations regarding their continuation or 

revision. While BLM will participate in the IWG, the 

development of a final agreement between Wyoming 

and Montana is primarily a state function. 

The BLM will participate in the IWG to consider 

management options in response to new water quality 

information. This process will include development of 

monitoring plans to track regional cumulative impacts 

to water quality and the establishment of programmatic 

mitigation at predetermined action levels as 

determined appropriate by the state and EPA. BLM 

will also participate in the IWG to address 

development of TMDLs for the state‘s Tongue and 

Powder rivers and Rosebud Creek TMDL planning 

areas. 

BLM 

Steps to Obtain Approval to Drill 

The BLM has responsibility for managing the 

federally owned oil and gas estate. After lease 

issuance, operations may be conducted consistent with 

an approved permit. Proposed drilling and associated 

activities must be approved before beginning 

operations. The operator must file an APD or Sundry 

Notice that complies with (1) lease stipulations; (2) 

onshore oil and gas orders; and (3) regulations and 

laws. All actions must also be consistent with the 

Powder River and Billings RMPs, unless requiring 

such consistency would causes a breach of existing 

lease rights. In such a case, an amendment to the 

RMP(s) will be necessary. The steps required to obtain 

approval to drill and conduct surface operations are as 

follows: 

Before drilling an oil or gas well on federal 

minerals, a Notice of Staking or APD must be 

filed by the lessee or operator for approval with 

the appropriate BLM office. The Notice of 

Staking notifies BLM that a proposed well site 

30 
has been staked and signals the need for a site 

inspection. Filing of the Notice of Staking starts 

the required 30 day public posting period. 

An APD must be submitted following submission 

of the Notice of Staking. The APD includes the 

proposed drilling and surface use plans, maps, 

statement of bond coverage, operator statements 

of certification, and a water management plan. 

An APD can be submitted without filing a Notice of 

Staking, in which case the posting of the APD begins 

the 30 day public posting period. 

During the 30 day public posting period, BLM 

conducts a site inspection, reviews the APD for 

completeness and accuracy, and conducts an 

environmental analysis of the proposal including 

coordination with other applicable permitting agencies. 

When the proposed action is on privately owned 

surface, BLM invites the surface owner to attend the 

site inspection and to provide information or 

requirements that can be used in the environmental 

analysis. BLM's review also includes coordination 

with the MBOGC to determine if the proposed well 

location conforms to state well spacing rules or if a 

spacing exception needs to be approved by MBOGC. 

BLM notifies the State Historic Preservation Office 

about the results of cultural and historic resource 

surveys conducted for the proposal. BLM also consults 

with other state agencies, such as MDEQ, if actions 

proposed in the APD would require permits issued by 

MDEQ. BLM processes the APD after completion of 

the environmental analysis and evaluating if the APD 

requirements have been fulfilled. The operator is 

required to demonstrate that a surface use agreement 

was offered to the surface owner to protect against 

losses or that an adequate bond has been secured. 

Before approving full-field development of CBNG on 

federal minerals, a POD must be filed by the lessee or 

operator for approval with the appropriate BLM office. 

BLM will work with other agencies that have authority 

for permitting proposed activities in the review of the 

POD. BLM and MBOGC will develop procedures to 

coordinate the review and approval of PODs that 

involve federal, state and private minerals. 

The POD must depict the proposed location of well 

sites, access roads and production facilities. The POD 

must include a water management plan, a wildlife 

monitoring and mitigation plan and cultural resource 

inventory plan along with an APD for each proposed 

federal well which will be posted for the 30 day public 

review period. The water management plan will be 

approved in consultation with the affected surface 

owner. See the discussion on the POD review process 

under ―Decision‖ at the beginning of the ROD. 

If the proposed action may affect Tribal resources, 

BLM will consult with the Tribe. BLM will consult 

with MBOGC about well spacing rules during the 

POD review process. BLM will also consult with 

MBOGC if the operator proposes disposal of produced 

water into pits under the jurisdiction of MBOGC, 

needs a UIC permit issued by MBOGC and when an 

operator needs to offer a mitigation agreement in 

accordance with MBOGC Order 151-2008 and 

Montana Code Annotated 82-11-175. If the operator 

needs a UIC permit issued by EPA, BLM will consult 

with EPA during the POD review process. 

BLM will consult and coordinate with MDEQ when 

air emissions and water discharge or land application 

permits issued by MDEQ are needed. BLM will also 

consult with DNRC when a permit is needed for 

beneficial use of groundwater and surface water. 

Coordination will also occur with County Weed 

Districts to ensure proposed weed control plans 

comply with laws and regulations. BLM will make 

decisions for the APDs after completion of the 

environmental analysis and evaluating if the APD 

requirements have been fulfilled, and will make 

decisions for the POD activities for which BLM has 

authority after completion of the environmental 

analysis process and evaluating if the POD 

requirements have been fulfilled. 

31 
This page intentionally left blank 

32
 
APPENDIX A 

WILDLIFE MONITORING AND PROTECTION PLAN 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 5 

PLAN PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................................ 5 

AREA AND OBJECTIVES........................................................................................................................ 5 

IMPLEMENTATION PROTOCOL......................................................................................................... 6 

ANNUAL REPORTS AND MEETINGS.................................................................................................. 6 

ANNUAL INVENTORY AND MONITORING ...................................................................................... 7 

Raptors (Including Bald Eagle and Burrowing Owl)............................................................................... 7 

Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Other Species of Concern....................................................... 8 

Black-footed Ferret .................................................................................................................................. 9 

Black-tailed and White-tailed Prairie Dog............................................................................................... 9 

Mountain Plover....................................................................................................................................... 9 

Gray Wolf............................................................................................................................................... 10 

Sage-Grouse ........................................................................................................................................... 10 

Big Game ............................................................................................................................................... 10 

General Wildlife..................................................................................................................................... 10 

Aquatic Species...................................................................................................................................... 10 

PROTECTION MEASURES................................................................................................................... 11 

Lease stipulation..................................................................................................................................... 11 

Raptors .............................................................................................................................................. 11 

Big Game .......................................................................................................................................... 12 

Elk Parturition Range........................................................................................................................ 12 

Bighorn Sheep – Powder River Breaks............................................................................................. 12 

Sage and Sharptail Grouse ................................................................................................................ 12 

Prairie Dog Towns and Associated Black-footed Ferret Habitat...................................................... 13 

Interior Least Tern ............................................................................................................................ 13 

Terms and Conditions from Section 7 Consultation......................................................................... 13 

All Species ........................................................................................................................................ 13 

Bald Eagle......................................................................................................................................... 14 

Mountain Plover................................................................................................................................ 15 

Programmatic Guidance for the Development of Project Plans............................................................. 16 

REFERENCES:......................................................................................................................................... 23 

TABLES 

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

River and Billings Resource Management Plans, CBNG Amendment (2002)...................................19
 

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

River and Billings Resource Management Plans ................................................................................21
 

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

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

CBNG Amendment (2001)....................................................................................... 22
 

INTRODUCTION 

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

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans 

(RMPs) (BLM, 2001). The DEIS and Amendment addresses future exploration for and development of BLM and state of 

Montana (state) managed CBNG resources and conventional oil and gas resources. The planning area excludes those lands 

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

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

and landowners. If owners and managers of state and private mineral development are willing to incorporate this guidance 

into management of their CBNG activities, they may become a partner by entering into a Cooperative Agreement. 

A variety of planning issues related to wildlife were identified during preparation of the DEIS. The goal of the WMPP is to 

avoid or minimize impacts to wildlife and serve as a communication tool to foster cooperative relationships among the 

CBNG and conventional oil and gas industry (i.e., operators), resource management agencies, landowners and adjacent tribal 

governments. Because this plan addresses a large geographic area composed of diverse wildlife habitats and unique 

situations, it must be programmatic in nature. However, the need to provide management recommendations and guidance to 

conserve species and habitats remains. Regional or site specific monitoring and protection plans which follow the guidance 

provided in this programmatic document will be required as part of each CBNG Project Plan. Implementation of this plan 

during the course of project development and operations should promote wildlife conservation and allow land managers and 

project personnel to maintain wildlife populations and productivity levels simultaneously with the development of natural oil 

and gas resources. 

PLAN PURPOSE 

Oil and gas leasing decisions and lease stipulations were previously analyzed in the BLM 1992 Final Oil and Gas RMP/EIS 

Amendment (BLM 1992). Wildlife stipulations attached to leases offer protective measures: 1) for certain species, 2) during a 

particular time period, or 3) within a specific area. These stipulations may not address other concerns related to special status 

species or water/habitat related issues caused by direct and indirect impacts from CBNG exploration and development. 

Because it is purely speculative to predict how all wildlife will react or how development will proceed, it is difficult to 

develop prescriptive mitigation standards across the entire planning area. Even though BLM has some adaptive management 

strategies in place (e.g., COAs and compliance inspections), these mechanisms do not give us the information necessary to 

understand cause and effect relationships across a landscape. Therefore, the purpose of this plan is to acquire baseline 

wildlife information, monitor populations, and assess stipulations for effectiveness. The WMPP will facilitate our ability to 

pinpoint problems (including the evaluation of other contributing factors), design project plans which include conservation 

for declining species, monitor the effectiveness of decisions, and make recommendations to adjust management to address 

specific situations. 

AREA AND OBJECTIVES 

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

areas (approximately 6.5 million acres) and provides a template for regional and/or project specific WMPP development. The 

BLM, MFWP, and FWS will work cooperatively to implement portions of the WMPP over the planning area. There are two 

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

As energy development begins, POD specific WMPPs, following the same template as this document, will be written in 

cooperation with other agencies, operators, landowners and other interests. The POD analysis will include wildlife impacts 

from the POD area, and also the cumulative impacts from other PODs (including those of other companies) as well as other 

activities in the area. The objectives of the program are to: 

Establish a framework for cooperation among agencies, operators, landowners, tribal governments and interest groups; 

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

Determine needs for inventory, monitoring and protection measures; 

Provide guidance and recommendations for the conservation of wildlife species; 

Establish protocols for biological clearances of Special Status Species; 

Meet the terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion; 

A-1 
Determine if management practices to conserve wildlife species and habitat in lease stipulations and conservation measures 

contained in the BLM Record of Decision, CBNG Project Plans or Oil and Gas APDs are meeting specified objectives; 

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

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

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

―Project Plan of Development Preparation Guide.‖ Signatories on an Interagency Cooperative Agreement will serve as the 

―Steering Committee (Interagency Working Group).” A ―Core Team” (i.e., agency biologists) will oversee the 

implementation of the programmatic elements of the WMPP. As energy development is initiated within the Montana portion 

of the Powder River Basin, operator-funded biologists, approved by the BLM, will write area-specific monitoring and 

protection plans. These plans will be reviewed by the BLM resource specialists for completeness and content. 

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

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

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

monitoring efforts. 

IMPLEMENTATION PROTOCOL 

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

monitoring and protection vary by species and development intensity. In areas of development with greater than 1 well 

location per section, additional actions in Table 3 become applicable. Standard protocol for APD and right-of-way (ROW) 

application field reviews are provided in Table 2. Alternative measures and protocols will be developed as determined by 

Core Team members in response to specific needs identified in annual reports. This document provides methods for a number 

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

reports. The wildlife species/categories for which specific inventory, monitoring, and protection procedures will be applied 

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

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

proposed agency data collection activities are consistent with current agency activities. Additionally, agency cost-sharing 

approaches will be considered such that public demands and statutory directives are achieved. 

ANNUAL REPORTS AND MEETINGS 

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

actions associated with CBNG development in the Powder River and Billings RMP areas. The Montana participants in the 

Interagency Working Group will oversee implementation across the planning area and summarize information from work 

achieved in various PODs. 

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

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

human activity at each feature), as well as those tentatively proposed for development during the next 12 months. These data 

will be coupled with annual wildlife inventory, monitoring, and protection data obtained for the previous year and included in 

annual reports. Annual reports will be prepared by the BLM. Annual wildlife inventory, monitoring, and protection data 

gathered by parties other than the BLM (e.g., operators, MFWP) should provide data/summaries to the BLM using current 

format standards. Upon receipt of this information, annual reports will be completed in draft form by the BLM and submitted 

to the operators, FWS, MFWP, and other parties. A one-day meeting of the Core Team will be organized by the BLM and 

held in early December of each year to discuss and modify, as necessary, proposed wildlife inventory, monitoring, and 

protection protocol for the subsequent year. Additional meetings will be scheduled as necessary. 

Discussions regarding annual operator-specific financing and personnel requirements will occur at these meetings. A formula 

for determining these requirements will be developed at the first year‘s meeting (i.e., size of development, anticipated 

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

will also be determined during the annual meeting. Final decisions will be made by the BLM based on the input of all 

affected parties. 

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

Annual reports will summarize annual wildlife inventory and monitoring results, note any trends across years, identify and 

assess protection measures implemented during past years, specify monitoring and protection measures proposed for the 

A-2 
upcoming year, and recommend modifications to the existing WMPP based on the effectiveness and/or ineffectiveness of 

past years (i.e., identification of additional species/categories to be monitored). Where possible, data presented in reports will 

be used to identify potential correlations between development and wildlife productivity and/or abundance. The BLM will be 

the custodian of the data and stored in BLM‘s Geographic Information System (GIS) for retrieval and planning unless 

otherwise agreed to by BLM, MFWP and FWS. Raw data collected each year will be provided to other management agencies 

(e.g., FWS, MFWP) at the request of these agencies. In addition, sources of potential disturbance to wildlife will be 

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

shared on a timely basis by all cooperating agencies. 

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

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

reports). 

ANNUAL INVENTORY AND MONITORING 

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

will be unchanged except as authorized by the BLM or specified in this plan. Additional wildlife species/categories and 

associated surveys may be added or wildlife species/categories and surveys may be omitted in future years, depending on the 

results presented in the coordinated review of annual wildlife reports. MFWP will be contacted during the coordination of 

survey and other data acquisition phases. Opportunistic wildlife observations may be made throughout the year by agency 

and operator personnel. 

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

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

species presence and development projection. Inventory and monitoring results may lead to further currently unidentifiable 

studies (i.e., cause and effect). The following sections identify the level of effort required by the WMPP. Site and speciesspecific surveys will continue to be conducted in association with APD and ROW application or CBNG project field reviews. 

RAPTORS (INCLUDING BALD EAGLE AND BURROWING OWL) 

Raptor inventories will be conducted over the entire CBNG project area every 5 years with financial assistance being 

provided by proponents. In potentially affected areas, baseline inventory should be conducted prior to the commencement of 

development to determine the location of raptor nests/territories and their activity status by the BLM, with operator financial 

assistance. These inventories should be repeated every 5 years (in areas with 1 or less well locations/section) thereafter for 

the Life-of-the-Project (LOP) to monitor trends in habitat use. These surveys may be implemented aerially or from the 

ground. Operators may provide financial assistance for some work. Data collected during the surveys (both inventory and 

monitoring) will be recorded on BLM approved data sheets and entered into the BLM GIS database. Standardized, 

recommended wildlife survey protocols are identified in ―Wildlife Survey Protocol for Coal Bed Natural Gas Development, 

Powder River Basin Wildlife Taskforce‖ and/or as referenced in this appendix. BLM should be contacted prior to 

commencement of wildlife surveys to insure proper survey protocols are being utilized. 

Nest productivity monitoring will be conducted by the BLM or a BLM-approved biologist. Active nests located within 1 mile 

of project-related disturbance areas will be monitored between March 1 and mid-July to determine nesting success (i.e., 

number of nestlings/fledglings per nest). These surveys generally will be conducted from the ground. However, some nests 

may be difficult to observe from the ground due to steep and rugged topography and may require aerial surveys. Operators 

may provide financial assistance for aircraft rental as necessary. Attempts will be made to determine the cause of any 

documented nest failure (e.g., abandonment, predation). 

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

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

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

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

association with all APD and ROW application field reviews. 

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

raptors. Specific survey protocol for reducing detrimental effects are listed in Grier and Fyfe (1987) and Call (1978) and 

include the following: 

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

A-3 
Nests will be approached cautiously, and their status (i.e., number of nestling/fledglings) will be determined from a distance 

with binoculars or a spotting scope. 

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

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

the hottest part of the day). 

Visits will be kept as brief as possible. 

Inventories will be coordinated by the BLM. 

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

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

of ferruginous hawk populations. The accepted survey and monitoring guidelines for ferruginous hawk are taken from the 

Survey and Monitoring Guidelines for Ferruginous Hawks in Montana, 1995. 

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

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

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

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

the occurrence of winter bald eagle roost sites/territories. Surveys will be conducted from daybreak to 2 hours after sunrise 

and/or from 2 hours before sunset to 1 hour after sunset by fixed-wing aircraft. Follow-up ground surveys, if necessary, will 

be conducted during the same time frame. Surveys will be at least 7 days apart. The location, activity, number, and age class 

(immature, mature) of any bald eagles observed will be recorded. If a roost or suspected roost is identified, BLM, FWS, and 

MFWP will be notified and a GPS record of the roost/suspected roost will be obtained and entered into the BLM GIS 

database. There will be No Surface Occupancy within 0.5 miles of any identified bald eagle roost site/territories. 

Nest productivity will be conducted by the BLM or a BLM-approved biologist in areas with one or more well locations per 

section and within 1 mile of the project area. Active nests located within one mile of project-related disturbance areas (well 

sites, pipelines, roads, compressor stations, and other infrastructure) will be monitored on an annual basis between March 1 

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

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

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

surveys may be required to process the permit or initiate action. In association with APD and ROW application field reviews, 

prairie dog colonies within 0.5 miles of a proposed project or any other suitable habitat within a 0.5 mile radius area, will be 

surveyed for western burrowing owls by BLM biologists or a BLM-approved operator-financed biologist twice yearly from 

June through August to determine the presence/absence of nesting owls. Efforts will be made to determine reproductive 

success (no. of fledglings/nest). 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, CANDIDATE, AND OTHER SPECIES OF CONCERN 

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

or wetlands, prairie dog towns, or rock outcrops, ridges or knolls on their application. The presence of sensitive habitat may 

not indicate a species is present. It does, however, alert the company and BLM that a field review and surveys may be 

required to process the permit or initiate action. The level of effort associated with the inventory and monitoring required for 

threatened, endangered, candidate, and other species of concern (TEC&SC) will be commensurate with established protocol 

for the potentially affected species. Methodologies and results of these surveys will be included in annual reports or provided 

in separate supplemental reports. As TEC&SC species are added to or withdrawn from FWS and/or BLM lists, appropriate 

modifications will be incorporated to this plan and specified in annual reports. 

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

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

necessary in association with all APD and ROW application field reviews. Data will be collected on BLM approved data 

sheets and entered into the BLM GIS database. 

A-4 
Black-footed Ferret 

Operators should indicate the presence of prairie dog towns on their application. The presence of sensitive habitat does not 

necessarily indicate suitable black-footed ferret habitat is present. It does, however, alert the company and BLM that a field 

review and surveys may be required to process the permit or initiate action. BLM biologists and/or BLM-approved operatorfinanced biologists will determine the presence/absence of prairie dog colonies within 0.5 miles of proposed activity during 

APD and ROW application field reviews. Prairie dog colonies on the area will be mapped to determine overall size following 

the approved methodology. Colony acreage will be determined using GIS applications. Colonies that meet FWS size criteria 

as potential black-footed ferret habitat (FWS 1989) will be surveyed to determine active burrow density using the methods 

described by Biggins et al. (1993) or other BLM- and FWS-approved methodology. 

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

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

estimates are not obtained will be surveyed for black-footed ferrets by an operator-financed, FWS-certified surveyor prior to, 

but no more than 1 year in advance of disturbance to these colonies. Black-footed ferret surveys will be conducted in 

accordance with FWS guidelines (FWS 1989) and will be conducted on a site-specific basis, depending on the areas proposed 

for disturbance in a given year as specified in the annual report. If a black-footed ferret or its sign is found during a survey, 

all development activity would be subject to recommendations from the Montana Black-footed Ferret Survey Guidelines, 

Draft Managing Oil and Gas Activities in Prairie Dog Ecosystems with Potential for Black-footed ferret Reintroduction and 

re-initiation of Section 7 Consultation with FWS. 

Black-tailed and White-tailed Prairie Dog 

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

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

made to estimate actual impacts, including habitat loss, CBNG development will have on occupied black-tailed and whitetailed prairie dog acres within suitable mountain plover habitat over the entire project area. 

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

described in the black-footed ferret section. On an annual basis, the BLM and/or a BLM-approved operator-financed 

biologist will survey, at least a portion of, the prairie dog colonies, including the reference colonies. Prairie dog populations 

are subject to drastic population fluctuations primarily due to disease (plague). Therefore, efforts will be made to compare the 

data from the reference colonies with that obtained from the project areas, in order to monitor the response of prairie dog 

populations to CBNG development. 

Mountain Plover 

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

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

April 1 and July 31, which may be reduced to Controlled Surface Use within 1/4 mile of an active nest, once nesting has been 

confirmed. An exception may be granted by the authorized officer after the BLM consults with the FWS on a case-by-case 

basis and the operator agrees to adhere to the new operational constraints. 

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

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

habitat suitability will be determined. The BLM, FWS and MFWP will estimate potential mountain plover habitat across the 

CBNG area using a predictive habitat model. Over the next 5 years, information will be refined by field validation using most 

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

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

activities by the BLM or a BLM-approved operator biologist, using the FWS protocol at the project area, plus a 0.5 mile 

buffer. Efforts will be made to identify mountain plover nesting areas not subject to CBNG development, to be used as 

reference sites. Comparisons will be made of the trends in mountain plover nesting occupancy between these reference areas 

and areas experiencing CBNG development. 

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

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

habitat has been defined under  ̳critical habitat‘ for the mountain plover in FWS‘ Statewide Biological Opinion. The actual 

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

A-5 
written summary provided to the FWS‘ Montana Field Office, upon project completion or immediately, if the anticipated 

impact area is exceeded. 

Gray Wolf 

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

Park counties) bordering Yellowstone National Park would be surveyed in the spring for wolves, occupied dens, or scat prior 

to development. These surveys could be conducted from the air or from the ground. Areas in which wolves are observed 

would continue to be surveyed annually until reintroduction objectives are met. Efforts will be made to compare production 

and/or occupancy trends in wolf populations in these areas to a reference population in order to gain more reliable 

information regarding the response of wolves to CBNG development. 

Sage-Grouse 

Sage grouse lek inventories will be conducted over the CBNG project area every 5 years to determine lek locations. Surveys 

of different areas may occur during different years with the intent the high potential CBNG project areas will be covered at 

least once every 5 years. Inventories and protocol will be consistent with the Montana Sage Grouse Conservation Plan, 

coordinated by the BLM and MFWP. In areas with development, aerial inventories will be conducted annually on affected 

sections, 3 mile buffers, and selected undeveloped reference areas. Surveys may be conducted aerially or on the ground, as 

deemed appropriate by the BLM and MFWP. Operator may provide financial assistance. 

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

―reference leks‖ will be identified by BLM and MFWP. 

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

monitor sage-grouse lek attendance within 3 miles of areas having development such that all leks on these areas are surveyed 

at least once every 3 years. Data collected during these surveys will be recorded on BLM and MFWP approved data sheets 

and entered into the approved database. An effort should also be made to compare trends of the number of males/lek to 

reference leks. 

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

implemented during November through February as deemed appropriate by these agencies, and results will be provided in 

interim and/or annual reports. Historical information of winter sage-grouse locations will be useful in focusing efforts in 

areas suspected of providing winter habitat. Sage-grouse winter habitat use surveys will be conducted when suitable 

conditions exist. 

BIG GAME 

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

planning area. Annual big game seasonal habitat use data will be collected and made available to operators, Tribes and 

landowners. Big game use of seasonal habitats is highly dependent upon a combination of environmental factors including 

terrain, forage quality and snow depth. Therefore, it is difficult to attribute changes in habitat use to a single factor. 

Comparisons in trends between big game seasonal habitat reference areas and seasonal habitats associated with CBNG 

development may provide some insight into the response of big game to CBNG development. 

GENERAL WILDLIFE 

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

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

appropriate salvage permit. Also, the pits would need to be ―spot checked‖ by appropriate BLM or FWS personnel in insure 

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

field access roads and other roads with project-related traffic increases will be monitored for wildlife mortality so that 

specific mitigation can be designed and implemented as deemed necessary by BLM, in consultation with MFWP. 

AQUATIC SPECIES 

Baseline aquatic inventories will be conducted in potentially affected areas with operator financial assistance, prior to 

development, in an effort to determine occurrence, abundance, and population diversity of the aquatic community. These 

inventories should be repeated as necessary in selected intermittent/perennial streams associated with produced water 

A-6 
discharge, as well as selected intermittent/perennial streams associated with no produced water discharge (control sample 

site). 

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

control sample sites to baseline inventories. Changes in occurrence, abundance, and population diversity of the aquatic 

community in streams associated with produced water discharge may then be possible by comparing to the natural 

fluctuations. 

Detection of a retraction in the range of a species, a downward trend in abundance, or reduced population diversity in systems 

with produced water discharge shall warrant a review of Project Plans and possible recommendations for adjustment of 

management to address the specific problems. 

Aquatic groups to be inventoried and monitored will include: 

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

species abundance and establish a diversity index. 

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

being developed for prairie species. 

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

-Algae (periphyton) – Determine population diversity. 

PROTECTION MEASURES 

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

Biological Opinion describe stipulations or mitigation that restrict activities through lease agreements or terms and conditions 

to reduce the likelihood of ―take‖ of a federally listed species. For all stipulations and mitigation measures that include 

protection of specific habitats (e.g., sage-grouse winter habitat), identification of the specific habitat areas will be based on 

the best available science. This may include BLM surveys or information from other sources. For example, researchers at the 

University of Montana and Montana State University are developing sage-grouse habitat models that should provide better 

information on sage-grouse habitat areas than is currently available. 

Lease Stipulations and Mitigation Measures 

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

as a result of wildlife research and input from agencies and operators. Avoidance of important breeding, nesting, and seasonal 

habitats is the primary protection measure that will reduce the possibility of CBNG and Oil and Gas development having an 

impact on wildlife populations, productivity, or habitat use. Additional conservation measures will be incorporated through 

the Project Plan design or as Conditions of Approval. Data collected during monitoring efforts and analyzed will be used to 

determine the appropriateness and the effectiveness of these measures throughout the CBNG project area. Based on the 

results of the monitoring data, these measures will be reviewed by the Core Team. As monitoring data are collected over 

time, it is likely some protection measures will be added, while others will be modified or removed in cooperation with other 

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

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

“Waivers” A lease stipulation may be waived by the Authorized Officer if a determination is made by the BLM, in 

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

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

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

be adequately mitigated. 

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

protected by the stipulation. 

Raptors 

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

ferruginous hawk, bald eagle and peregrine falcon nest sites. For ferruginous hawks and bald eagles, no surface occupancy or 

A-7 
use will be allowed within 1⁄2 mile of known active nest sites. No surface occupancy or use is authorized within 1 mile of 

identified peregrine falcon nests. Active raptor nests are defined as those used within the last two years. 

Big Game 

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

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

of production facilities. 

Elk Parturition Range 

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

calving range. This protection measure does not apply to the operation and maintenance of production facilities. 

Bighorn Sheep – Powder River Breaks 

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

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

Sage and Sharptailed Grouse 

Lek sites 

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

measure may be waived if the authorized officer, in coordination with MFWP, determines the entire leasehold can be 

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

for 5 consecutive years. 

Nesting area 

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

not apply to the operation and maintenance of production facilities. This measure will be implemented to protect sharptailed 

and sage-grouse nesting habitat from disturbance during spring and early summer in order to maximize annual production of 

young, and to minimize disturbance to nesting activities adjacent to nesting sites for the long-term maintenance of grouse 

populations in the area. 

Winter range 

Surface use is prohibited from December 1 through March 31 within designated crucial winter range to protect sage-grouse 

from disturbance during winter season use. 

Control of West Nile Virus 

Manage produced water to reduce the spread of West Nile virus within sage-grouse habitat areas. Implement the following 

impoundment construction techniques to eliminate water sources that support breeding mosquitoes: 

Overbuild the size of ponds to accommodate a greater volume of water than is discharged. This will result in non-vegetated and 

muddy shorelines that breeding mosquitoes avoid. 

Build steep shorelines to reduce shallow water and aquatic vegetation around the perimeter of impoundments. Construction of 

steep shorelines also will increase wave action that deters mosquito production. Use of this construction technique could be 

harmful to certain wildlife species such as birds, and would require consideration on a case-by-case basis. 

Maintain the water level below rooted vegetation for a muddy shoreline that is unfavorable habitat for mosquito larvae. Rooted 

vegetation includes both aquatic and upland vegetative types. Always avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low 

lying areas. 

Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down slope seepage or overflow. Seepage and overflow results in down-grade 

accumulation of vegetated shallow water areas that support breeding mosquitoes. 

A-8 
Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond with crushed rock, or use a horizontal pipe to discharge inflow 

directly into existing open water, thus precluding shallow surface inflow and accumulation of sediment that promotes aquatic 

vegetation. 

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

shallow water and vegetation. 

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

with manure and create hoof print pockets of water that are attractive to breeding mosquitoes. 

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

Use adulticides to target adult mosquito populations and larvicides to control the hatching of mosquito larvae, using approved 

pesticides and utilizing licensed applicators with a PUP. 

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

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

dissuade mosquitoes from laying eggs. This would also have the added effect of aerating the water to support a fish population 

and help prevent against winter fish die-off. 

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

population. 

Prairie Dog Towns and Associated Black-footed Ferret Habitat 

Prior to surface-disturbing activities, prairie dog colonies and complexes 80 acres or more in size and containing at least 5 

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

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

The lessee or operator may, at their own option, conduct an examination on the leased lands to determine if black-footed 

ferrets are present if the proposed activity would have an adverse effect or if the area can be block cleared. This examination 

must be done by, or under the supervision of, a qualified resource specialist approved by the BLM. An acceptable report must 

be provided documenting the presence or absence of black-footed ferrets and identifying the anticipated effects of the 

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

production facilities. 

Interior Least Tern 

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

eastern Montana and along the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers. Surface occupancy and will be prohibited within 1/4 mile 

of wetlands identified as interior least tern habitat. 

Terms and Conditions from Section 7 Consultation 

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

conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures described and outlined in the Biological Opinion. These 

terms and conditions are nondiscretionary. 

All Species 

In the event wildlife species (dead or injured) are located during construction and operation, the FWS‘ Billings Sub-Office of 

the Montana Field Office (406-247-7366) and Law Enforcement Office (406-247-7355) will be notified within 24 hours. If 

the dead animals are birds, they will be collected and kept for identification by someone with an appropriate salvage permit. 

Also, the pits would need to be ―spot checked‖ by appropriate BLM or FWS personnel in insure compliance. In no cases 

would operators or other workers be allowed to be in possession of migratory bird carcasses. The action agency must provide 

for monitoring the actual number of individuals taken. Because of difficulty in identification, all small birds found dead 

should be stored in a freezer for the FWS to identify. 

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

associated with all actions covered under the Montana Statewide Draft Oil and Gas EIS and Amendment of the Powder River and 

A-9 
Billings RMPs and ROD. Bald eagle nesting, potential nesting and roost sites, and suitable mountain plover habitat have been 

defined under  ̳habitat use‘ and critical habitat‘ respectively, for each species in the Biological Opinion. The actual measurement of 

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

to the FWS‘ Montana Field Office upon project completion. The report will include the location and acres of habitat loss, field 

survey reports, what stipulations were applied, and a record of any variance granted to timing and/or spatial buffers. The monitoring 

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

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

FWS‘ Montana Field Office semi-annually, or immediately if the Bureau determines the action (i.e. APD, pipeline, compressor 

station) will adversely affect a listed species. It is the responsibility of the Bureau to ensure the semi-annual reports are complete and 

filed with the FWS in a timely manner. The semi-annual report will include field survey reports for endangered, threatened, 

proposed and candidate species for all actions covered under the Montana Statewide Draft Oil and Gas EIS and Amendment of the 

Powder River and Billings RMPs and ROD. The semi-annual reports will include all actions completed under this Biological 

Opinion up to 30 days prior to the reporting date. The first report will be due 6 months from the signing of the ROD and on the 

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

As outlined in the guidance and conservation measures in the WMPP for the Statewide Oil and Gas EIS and Amendment of the 

Powder River and Billings RMPs, ―All new roads required for the proposed project will be appropriately constructed, improved, 

maintained, and signed to minimize potential wildlife/vehicle collisions. Appropriate speed limits will be adhered to on all project 

area roads, and operators will advise employees and contractors regarding these speed limits.‖ 

Bald Eagle 

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

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

identified in the WMPP. The Bureau shall monitor for compliance with the measures and protocol. They are as follows: 

The appropriate standard seasonal or year-long stipulations for raptors or no surface occupancy for bald eagles as identified in 

the Billings RMP (BLM 1983), Powder River RMP (BLM 1984), and Oil and Gas RMP/EIS Amendment (BLM 1992) will be 

applied. This includes No Surface Occupancy within 1⁄2 mile of nests active in the last 7 years and 1⁄2 mile of roost sites. 

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

will indicate the presence of eagle habitat as previously defined, on their application. Prior to CBNG development or 

construction, surveys of the wooded riparian corridors within 1.0 mile of a project area will be conducted in the winter and/or 

spring by BLM biologists and/or BLM-approved biologists to determine the occurrence of winter bald eagle roosts. Surveys 

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

Follow-up ground surveys, if necessary, will be conducted during the same time frame. Surveys will be at least 7 days apart. 

The location, activity, number, and age class (immature, mature) of any bald eagles observed will be recorded and if a roost or 

suspected roost is identified, BLM, FWS, and MFWP will be notified and a GPS record of the roost/suspected roost will be 

entered into the approved database. No Surface Occupancy will be applied within 0.5 miles of any identified bald eagle roost 

sites. 

Nest productivity will be conducted by the BLM or a BLM approved biologist in areas with development (i.e., areas with 

greater than 1 well locations/section) and within 1 mile of the project area. Active nests located within one mile of projectrelated disturbance areas will be monitored between March 1 and mid-July to determine nesting success (i.e., number of 

nestlings/fledglings per nest). 

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

recent past. No surface occupancy or use is allowed within 0.5 miles of known bald eagle nest sites which have been active 

within the past 7 years. All other actions will be consistent with the Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan - July 1994. 

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

potential. The FWS has more specific recommendations that reaffirm and complement those presented in the Suggested 

Practices. It should be noted these measures vary in their effectiveness to minimize mortality, and may be modified as they are 

tested. Local habitat conditions should be considered in their use. The FWS does not endorse any specific product that can be 

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

Animal Interactions on Electrical Utility Facilities. 

A-10 
New Distribution Lines and Facilities 

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

construction: 

1.1	 Bury distribution lines where feasible. 

1.2	 Raptor-safe structures (e.g., with increased conductor-conductor spacing) are to be used (i.e., minimum 60" 

for bald eagles would cover all species). 

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

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

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

jumpers or providing adequate separation. 

1.5	 Employ covers for arrestors and cutouts. 

1.6	 Lines should avoid high avian use areas such as wetlands, prairie dog towns, and grouse leks. If not 

avoidable, use anti-perching devices to discourage perching in sensitive habitats such as grouse leks, prairie 

dog towns and wetlands to decrease predation and decrease loss of avian predators to electrocution. 

Modification of Existing Facilities 

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

Problem structures may include dead ends, tap or junction poles, transformers, reclosers and capacitor banks or other 

structures with less than 60" between conductors or a conductor and ground. The following modifications will be made: 

2.1	 Cover exposed jumpers. 

2.3	 Gap any pole top ground wires. 

2.4	 Isolate grounded guy wires by installing insulating link. 

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

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

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

deterrent devices, etc). 

2.7	 Use anti-perching devices to discourage perching in sensitive habitats such as grouse leks, prairie dog 

towns and wetlands to decrease predation, and decrease loss of avian predators to electrocution. 

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

lines that span streams and rivers or in known or discovered raptor migration areas, should maintain proper 

spacing and have markers installed. 

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

incorporated into the Terms and Conditions for all APDs and stipulations for ROW applications. 

Mountain Plover 

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

Assessment dated October 2006, and the wildlife inventory, monitoring, and protection protocol addressed in the WMPP. The 

Bureau shall monitor for compliance with the measures and protocol. They are as follows: 

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

where possible. Any active prairie dog town occupied by mountain plovers will have a Controlled Surface Use stipulation 

applied between April 1 and July 31. This area may be reduced to No Surface Use within 1/4 mile of an active nest once 

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

the operator agrees to adhere to the new operational constraints. 

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

habitat, all active prairie dog colonies on federal surface within suitable mountain plover habitat will have No Surface 

Occupancy applied. This No Surface Occupancy may be modified through an amendment to the biological opinion after 

analysis of impacts to this preferred nesting habitat is completed. 

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

habitat on federally managed surface and mineral estate lands. Further, a reasonable effort should be made to estimate the 

actual impacts, including habitat loss, CBNG development will have on occupied black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog 

A-11 
acres within suitable mountain plover habitat over the entire project area. The BLM, FWS, and cooperators will develop a 

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

analysis, No Surface Occupancy on active prairie dog habitat within suitable mountain plover habitat may be modified utilizing 

an amendment to the biological opinion. 

Prior to permit approval, habitat suitability will be determined. The BLM, FWS or MFWP will estimate potential mountain 

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

field validation using most current FWS mountain plover survey guidelines (FWS 2002c) to determine the presence/absence of 

potentially suitable mountain plover habitat. In areas of suitable mountain plover habitat, surveys will be conducted prior to 

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

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

sites. Comparisons will be made of the trends in mountain plover nesting occupancy between these reference areas and areas 

experiencing CBNG development. 

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

dog towns or other mountain plover habitat indicators on their application). Suitable mountain plover habitat has been defined 

under  ̳critical habitat‘ for the mountain plover in the Biological Opinion. The actual measurement of disturbed habitat can be 

the responsibility of the BLM, its agent (consultant, contractor, etc) with a written summary provided to the FWS‘ Montana 

Field Office upon completion or immediately if the anticipated impact area is exceeded relative to the estimated surface 

disturbances defined in the SEIS. 

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

disturbance activities, if ground disturbing activities are anticipated to occur between April 10 and July 10. Disturbance 

occurring outside this period is permitted, but any loss of mountain plover suitable habitat must be documented. Sites must be 

surveyed 3 times between the April 10 and July 10 period, with each survey separated by at least 14 days. The earlier date will 

facilitate detection of early-breeding plovers. A disturbance-free buffer zone of 1/4 mile will be established around all 

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

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

delayed at least seven days (FWS 2002). Exceptions and/or waiver to stipulations can be made by the BLM through 

consultation with the FWS. 

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

mortality caused by increased vehicle traffic. Construct speed bumps, use signing or post speed limits as necessary to reduce 

vehicle speeds near mountain plover habitat. 

Creation of hunting perches will be minimized within 1⁄2 mile of occupied nesting areas. Utilize perch inhibitors (perch guards) 

to deter predator use. 

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

There will be No Surface Occupancy of ancillary facilities (e.g., compressor stations, processing plants) within 1⁄2 mile of 

known nesting areas. Variance may be granted after consultation with the FWS. 

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

harassment of plovers. 

The FWS will provide operators and the BLM with educational material illustrating and describing the mountain plover, its 

habitat needs, life history, threats, and development activities that may lead to incidental take of eggs, chicks, or adults. This 

information will be required to be posted in common areas and circulated in a memorandum among all employees and service 

providers. 

Programmatic Guidance for the Development of Project Plans 

Guidance for developing Project Plans and/or conservation measures applied as COAs provide a full range of practicable 

means to avoid or minimize harm to wildlife species or their habitats. Operators will minimize impacts to wildlife by 

incorporating applicable WMPP programmatic guidance into project plans. Not all measures may apply to each site-specific 

development area and means to reduce harm are not limited to those identified in the WMPP. This guidance may change over 

time if new conservation strategies become available for Special Status Species or if monitoring indicates the measure is not 

effective or unnecessary. 

A-12 
BLM and MFWP will work together to collect baseline information about wildlife and sensitive habitats possibly containing 

special status species. During the project development phase, operators will identify potentially sensitive habitats and 

coordinate with BLM to determine which species or habitats are of concern within or adjacent to the project area. In areas 

where required site-specific wildlife inventories have not been completed, operators and BLM will work cooperatively to 

achieve this. BLM‘s responsibilities under NEPA and ESA essentially are the same on split estate as they are with federal 

surface. BLM and operators will seek input from the private surface owner to include conservation measures in split estate 

situations. 

The following guidance and conservation measures are considered ―features‖ or project ―design criteria‖ to be used during 

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

added as COAs. These types of conservation actions offer flexibility for local situations and help minimize or eliminate 

impacts to the species of interest. 

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

the zone of impact in important wildlife breeding, brood-rearing and winter habitat based on the following 

considerations: 

a.	 size of the structure(s), 

b.	 level/type of anticipated disturbance 

c.	 life of the operation, and 

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

2.	 Concentrate energy-related facilities when practicable. 

3.	 Encourage development in incremental stages to stagger disturbance; design schedules that include long-term 

strategies to localize disturbance and recovery within established zones over a staggered time frame. 

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

energy development. 

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

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

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

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

stream crossing structures. Do not place erodible material into stream channels. Remove stockpiled material from 

high water zones. Locate temporary construction bypass roads in locations where the stream course will have 

minimal disturbance. Time construction activities to protect fisheries and water quality. 

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

a minimum, the 25-year frequency runoff. Consider oversized pipe when debris loading may pose problems. Ensure 

sizing provides adequate length to allow for depth of road fill. 

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

whenever possible. 

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

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

identified wildlife habitats. 

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

mitigation measures and BMPs. 

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

and mortalities. 

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

to minimize potential wildlife/vehicle collisions and facilitate wildlife movement through the project area. 

Appropriate speed limits will be adhered to on all project area roads, and operators will advise employees and 

contractors regarding these speed limits. 

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

seasons). Personnel will be advised to minimize stopping and exiting their vehicles in big game winter range. 

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

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

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

exception is authorized by the surface management agency. 

17.	 Use minimal surface disturbance to install roads and pipelines. Reclaim sites of abandoned wells to restore native 

plant communities. 

A-13 
18.	 Reclamation of disturbed areas will be initiated as soon as practical. Native species will be used in the reclamation 

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

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

breeding habitat. 

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

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

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

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

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

complete. 

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

information for siting powerlines in important sage-grouse breeding, brood-rearing, and winter habitat. Bury lines in 

sage-grouse and mountain plover habitat, when feasible. 

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

1 – June 15; winter December 1 –March 31). 

24.	 If above ground powerline siting is required within 2 miles of important sage-grouse breeding, brood-rearing, and 

winter habitat, emphasize options for preventing raptor perch sites utilizing Avian Powerline Action Committee 

2006 guidelines. 

25.	 Encourage monitoring of avian mortalities by entering into a Memorandum of Understanding with FWS and the 

state agencies to establish procedures and policies to be employed by the parties to lessen industry‘s liability 

concerns about the ―take‖ of migratory birds. 

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

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

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

28.	 Restrict noise levels from production facilities to 50 decibels (10 dBa above background noise at the lek). 

29.	 Restrict use of heavy equipment that exceeds 50 dBa within 2 miles of a lek from 4-8am and 7-10pm during April 1 

– June 30. 

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

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

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

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

flow through systems will lessen the likelihood selenium will bioaccumulate to levels adversely affecting other 

wildlife. 

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

habitat is unavoidable. 

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

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

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

Operators should report violations to BLM and MFWP.
 

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

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

Strategies for sage-grouse in Montana (Montana Sage Grouse Work Group 2005). 

A-14 
Table 1. Summary of General Wildlife Reporting, Inventory, and Monitoring, CBNG Development; Powder River and 

Billings Resource Management Plans, CBNG Amendment (2002) 

Action Dates Responsible Entity 

Plans of development for outcoming years, showing general Annually Team (BLM, FWS, MFWP, operators) 

location of proposed development 

Annual reports summarizing findings and presenting necessary Annually BLM with reviews MFWP, FWS, operators, and 

protection measures other interested parties 

Meeting to finalize future year‘s inventory, monitoring, and Annually BLM with participation by FWS, MFWP, 

protection measures operators, and other interested parties 

Inventory and Monitoring 

Big game use monitoring When Applicable BLM with assistance 

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

In areas of suitable mountain plover habitat, conduct nest Prior to ground disturbing activities BLM & operator assistance 

surveys in project area, plus a .5 mile buffer 

In areas of suitable mountain plover habitat, map active black- Prior to permit approval BLM & operator assistance 

tailed prairie dog colonies on federal mineral estate. 

Active prairie dog colonies within .5 mile of a specific project Prior to permit approval BLM with operator assistance 

area will be identified, mapped and surveyed 

Raptor nest inventories (POD areas plus 1 mile buffer; Every 5 years during April and May but prior to BLM with operator assistance 

burrowing owls excluded) permit approval 

In areas with potential bald eagle winter roost sites/territories, Prior to ground disturbing activities BLM & operator assistance 

conduct surveys within one mile of project area 

Conduct bald eagle nest inventories within one mile buffer of Between March 1 and mid-July BLM & operator assistance 

project area 

Monitor productivity at active bald eagle nests within one mile Between March 1 and mid-July BLM & operator assistance 

of project-related disturbance 

Raptor next productivity monitoring at active nests within one Annually March to mid-July BLM with operator assistance 

mile of project disturbance area 

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

Sage-grouse lek attendance monitoring on and within 2 miles of Annually BLM with operator assistance will visit selected 

the POD boundary leks each year so that all leks will be visited 

annually 

Threatened, Endangered & Sensitive species When Applicable BLM with operator assistance 

inventory/monitoring within selected CBNG development areas 

Other wildlife species inventory/monitoring within selected When Applicable BLM with operator assistance 

CBNG development areas 

A-15 
Table 2. Summary of APD/ROW Survey and Protection Measures, CBNG Development within the Powder 

River and Billings Resource Management Plans 

A-16 

Protection Measure Dates 

Bald eagle nest surveys within 1 mile of project area Yearlong 

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

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

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

Black-footed ferret surveys Prairie dog colonies > 80 acres 

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

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

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

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

Threatened, Endangered & Sensitive species surveys As necessary 

Threatened, Endangered & Sensitive species avoidance As necessary 

Big game crucial winter range avoidance December 1 – March 31 

Elk Parturition Range avoidance April 1 – June 15 

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

Prairie dog colony mapping and burrow density determinations Yearlong 

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

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

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

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

Sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat avoidance on areas within 2 miles of a lek March 1 – June 15 

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

General wildlife avoidance/protection As necessary 
Table 3. Additional Wildlife Inventory and Monitoring Measures On and Adjacent to Areas with High Levels 

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

Amendment (2001) 

Action Dates Responsible Entity 

A-17 

Raptor nest inventory/monitoring on areas 

with development, plus a 1-mile buffer. 

Raptor productivity monitoring 

on areas with development, plus a 1-mile 

buffer. 

Selected TEC&SC inventory/monitoring on 

suitable habitats in areas with development, 

plus a 1-mile buffer 

Collect baseline information for benthic 

macroinvertebrates, amphibians and aquatic 

reptiles, algae and non-game fish. Monitor 

changes on selected streams 

Sage-grouse lek inventory on areas of 

development plus a 2-mile buffer and 

selected undeveloped comparison areas 

Sage-grouse lek attendance monitoring on 

areas of development plus a 2-mile buffer 

and selected undeveloped comparison areas 

Others studies on areas with development 

and selected undeveloped comparison areas 

Annually during April and Mary 

Annually during March-July 

Annually during spring and summer 

Baseline 1 – 2 years prior and 

annually over the life of the project 

Every 5 years, mid-March to midMay 

Annually, mid-March to mid-May 

BLM surveyor with operator-provided 

financial assistance 

BLM surveyor with operator-provided 

financial assistance for BLM volunteer 

support 

BLM or operator-financed BLM-approved 

biologist 

BLM surveyor with operator-provided 

financial assistance 

BLM surveyor with operator-provided 

financial assistance 

Each known lek will be visited at least once 

annually by the BLM and/or operatorfinanced BLM-approved biologist; 

subsequent visits will occur at BLM-selected 

leks by the BLM, and/or operator-financed 

BLM-approved biologist 

FWS and/or BLM with operator- and other 

party-provided financial assistance 
REFERENCES: 

Atkinson, E. C. 1995. Survey and monitoring guidelines for ferruginous hawks in Montana. USDI, Bureau of land 

Management and Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. 42pp. 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 1994. Mitigating bird collisions with power lines‖ The state of the art in 

1994. Edison Electric Institute, Washington, D.C. 78pp. +append 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 2006. Suggested practices for avian protection on power lines: The state 

of the art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute and California Electric Commission, Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, 

CA. 207pp. 

Biggins, D.E., B.J. Miller, L.R. Hanebury, B. Oakleaf, A.H. Farmer. 1993. A technique for evaluating blackfooted ferret habitat. Pp 73-87 In Proceedings of the Symposium on the Management of Prairie Dog Complexes for the 

Reintroduction of the Black-footed Ferret. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Call, M. W. 1978. Nesting habitats and surveying techniques for common western raptors. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Technical Note No. 316. 115pp. 

Grier, J.W., and R.W. Fyfe. 1987. Preventing research and management disturbance. Pages 173-182 In B.A.G. 

Pendleton, B.A. Milsap, K.W. Kline, and D.M. Bird editors. Raptor management techniques. Institute of Wildlife 

Research, National Wildlife Federation, Scientific and Technical Series No. 10 420 pp. 

Montana Sage-grouse Work Group. 2005. Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage-grouse in 

Montana – Final. Revised February 1, 2005. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1983. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Resources Management Plan, Billings Resource Area. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. November 1983. BLM-MT-ES-84-002-4410. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1984. 

Powder River Resource Area, Resource Management Plan, Miles City District, Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

December 1984, United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Miles City District Office, BLMMT-ES-85-0014410. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1992. 

Final Oil and Gas RMP/EIS Amendment for the Billings, Powder River and South Dakota Resource Areas. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Miles City District. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Black-footed ferret survey guidelines for compliance with the Endangered 

Species Act. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Colorado, and Albuquerque, New Mexico (April 1989). 10pp. 

+append 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002c. Mountain Plover survey guideline. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, 

Colorado. 7pp. 

A-18 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 

A-19
 
APPENDIX B
 

NORTHERN CHEYENNE MITIGATION APPENDIX 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
NORTHERN CHEYENNE MITIGATION
 

BLM will use the following mitigation actions to protect Northern Cheyenne Tribal trust resources or to protect 

other area resource values of importance to the Tribe. These mitigating measures will be imposed on operators at the 

APD approval stage of development as needed on a case-by-case basis. The mitigation measures will only be 

applied on those lands or minerals where BLM has authority. 

Air - Operators will be required to provide the information necessary for BLM to conduct an analysis of air quality 

impacts for all relevant parameters when submitting their exploration APDs or field development project plans. 

BLM will use the information to determine the individual and cumulative impact on the Reservation‘s air quality; 

disclose the analysis results in the appropriate NEPA document; and consult with the Tribe when the analysis shows 

impacts from a specific drilling or development proposal. 

Approval of exploration APDs and field development plans will include an analysis of the individual and cumulative 

impacts to air quality and be conditioned to prevent violations of applicable air quality laws, regulations, and 

standards. Mitigating measures may include surfacing roads and well locations; applying dust suppressants; 

requiring operators to develop and enforce speed limits on project roads; minimizing construction of roads; requiring 

use of natural gas-fired and electric compressors; and optimizing the number of wells connected to one compressor. 

Operators in the vicinity of the Reservation may be required to restrict the timing or location of CBNG development 

if monitoring or modeling by the air quality regulatory authority finds their CBNG development is causing or 

threatening to cause non-compliance with applicable local, state, tribal, and federal air quality laws, regulations, 

standards, and implementation plans. 

Cultural - Operators will be required to include review of Northern Cheyenne homestead records and evaluation for 

homesteads in the cultural resource surveys where land records indicate Northern Cheyenne homesteading activity. 

Specific measures to mitigate impacts to these homesteads will be developed at the APD approval phase. 

A review of land and mineral ownership maps indicate that one homestead location listed in Appendix C of BLM‘s 

2002 Ethnographic Report may be located on an area open to fluid mineral leasing. The location is on private 

surface and federal minerals. Prior to any land disturbing activity permitted by the BLM in this location, and with 

landowner permission, BLM will work with the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and the operator to develop the 

requirements for inventorying, recording, and evaluating the homestead site. 

Operators will be required to consult with the Northern Cheyenne Cultural Commission to determine the location of 

any important hunting, fishing, and plant gathering sites. APD approvals would include measures to avoid impacts 

to these resources using standard terms and conditions. 

Operators will be required to inventory BLM-administered lands for traditional plant gathering sites around the 

proposed drilling locations. APD approvals may include avoidance or timing restrictions to prevent impacts to 

identified important hunting, fishing and plant gathering sites. 

Operators will be required to conduct a plant inventory on BLM-administered lands proposed for disturbance near 

Poker Jim Butte. Impacts on medicinal and ceremonial plant gathering areas could then be mitigated using standard 

terms and conditions. 

Operators will be required to inventory all springs supplied by the coal seam producing CBNG within the 

anticipated drawdown radius of their proposed operation. 

The Northern Cheyenne Cultural Commission will be consulted about the appropriate mitigation if culturally 

significant springs are located within the anticipated drawdown radius of the operator's proposed development. 

Operators may be required to avoid impacting culturally significant springs as part of the mitigation plan developed 

under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Operators could be required to monitor the condition of culturally significant springs where there is the potential for 

production activities to impact the springs. This requirement will be triggered by the results of the site specific 

hydrologic evaluation associated with the APD approval. 

Operators must modify federal CBNG production if monitoring data shows production is affecting culturally 

important springs. Operators must implement mitigating measures that will maintain the spring flow prior to 

resuming full production. 

B-1 
Operators will be required to have a discovery plan as part of their POD. The discovery plan would include 

suspension of operations and notification requirements for state, private, and federal lands in the event human 

remains are discovered during project construction. 

Should human remains be discovered during construction the county coroner shall be called and briefed on the 

circumstances of the discovery and all construction activities shall be stopped in the immediate vicinity of the 

human remains. A reasonable good faith effort shall then be made to identify whether the remains are Native 

American or belong to another ethic group. In all cases the remains shall be treated with respect and dignity. If the 

remains are Native American and located on federal lands BLM shall consult with the appropriate Native American 

tribe(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Native American Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). If on 

state and private lands BLM shall follow the procedures identified in the Human Skeletal Remains and Burial Site 

Protection Act, a Montana statute. 

The BLM will further consult with the affected tribe(s) on the appropriate distance between the project and the 

gravesite. 

BLM will share data with the Northern Cheyenne's THPO from cultural resource investigations associated with 

CBNG development. This information could then be used for tribal educational and outreach efforts. 

When tribally affiliated properties would be affected by CBNG developments, BLM may require monitoring to be 

conducted by a tribal monitor. Under most normal circumstances, cultural resource work does not require a monitor. 

Avoidance is BLM's standard policy for not adversely affecting historic properties. All cultural properties that 

cannot be avoided by construction activities will be evaluated for their eligibility to the National Register of Historic 

Places. BLM will consult with the Northern Cheyenne Tribe when properties are evaluated as Traditional Cultural 

Properties. 

BLM's report standards are found in the BLM's 8100 Manual and Handbooks and are augmented by current 

professional standards. When reports contain data that would be of interest to the Tribe or the public, BLM may 

require the operator's consulting archaeologist to prepare a public narrative of their work. 

BLM will provide the Tribe a copy of BLM‘s annual cultural resources report, which will summarize CBNG related 

cultural resource activities. 

CBNG - The interests of the Tribe will be considered prior to authorization of federal production that may 

potentially drain Reservation CBNG resources. In establishing well spacing on federal lands, protection against 

drainage of Reservation CBNG resources will be a priority. If monitoring or reservoir modeling indicates drainage 

of CBNG resources is occurring, the BLM will enter negotiations with the operator and the Tribe to protect the 

rights of the Tribe. BLM requirements could include reducing production rates, shutting in the well, establishing 

communitization agreements, or requiring the operator to pay compensatory royalty. 

BLM will use its existing regulations (43 CFR 3160) to require operators to provide the production data and analysis 

needed for BLM to determine if drainage of Reservation CBNG is occurring. 

Operators will be required to provide an analysis prior to field development in areas of potential drainage of 

Reservation CBNG resources. In this analysis, operators must demonstrate that CBNG production is not likely to 

drain Reservation CBNG resources. 

Specific evaluations will be required for CBNG wells drilled in areas that could potentially drain Reservation 

CBNG. Such evaluations would include modeling of CBNG reservoirs to calculate the potential for drainage of 

Reservation CBNG. All evaluations would be made available to the Tribe. 

Operators may be required to provide updated information for reservoir modeling during production in order to 

monitor the potential for drainage of CBNG resources from the Reservation. 

The BLM will work with the MBOGC under its existing Memorandum of Understanding to protect Tribal resources 

that may be affected by state or private permits or establishment of CBNG spacing units adjacent to Tribal 

resources. In order to protect the rights of the Tribe, the BLM will represent the Tribe at MBOGC hearings that set 

spacing units for the production of CBNG resources, including state and private lands. 

Vegetation - The operator will be responsible for the training of employees in noxious weed awareness and 

prevention. Training would be one required component of the operator's noxious weed prevention plans. 

B-2 
Water - The 14-mile buffer zone proposed by the Northern Cheyenne Tribe would not be applied. This buffer zone 

is based on a theoretical maximum drawdown radius assuming uniform geologic and hydrologic conditions in a 2D 

model. Groundwater modeling that accounts for geologic faults, irregularities, and vertical leakage was prepared for 

the Final EIS. The modeling predicts a drawdown radius of 4 to 5 miles (in the Hanging Woman Creek drainage). 

These results more accurately represent anticipated site conditions and are consistent with the DNRC, Water 

Resources Division, Technical Advisory Committee recommended minimum of 3-miles. 

To protect Reservation groundwater the operator will be required to conduct geologic and hydrologic evaluations for 

CBNG production wells to be located in areas that may have hydrologic connectivity with Reservation groundwater. 

Groundwater modeling that accounts for geologic faults, irregularities, and vertical leakage was prepared for the 

Final EIS. The modeling predicts a drawdown radius of 4 to 5 miles. When the site-specific studies determine there 

will be an effect to Reservation groundwater, the operator must develop and apply measures to prevent the impact of 

groundwater withdrawal and monitor the effectiveness of such measures. 

The Powder River Basin Controlled Groundwater Area standards will be enforced by BLM on federal leases. In 

addition, the BLM, as a member of the technical advisory committee administered by the DNRC Water 

Management Division, would make recommendations to the MBOGC on the Tribe's behalf regarding monitoring 

requirements and mitigation of impacts. 

BLM will require operators to modify federal CBNG production if monitoring shows production is affecting 

groundwater on the Reservation. BLM requirements could include reducing production rates, shutting in the well, or 

requiring the operator to provide compensation to the Tribe. The operator must mitigate the impact of groundwater 

withdrawal prior to resuming full production. 

For CBNG wells located in aquifers with hydrologic connectivity to Reservation groundwater, the operator will be 

required to conduct a geologic and hydrologic evaluation prior to field development that identifies the potential for 

CBNG production to affect Reservation groundwater resources. 

CBNG PODs must include measures to prevent the impact of CBNG production on Reservation groundwater. 

Where there is a potential for affecting Reservation groundwater, monitoring plans would be developed by the 

operator and approved by BLM in consultation with the Tribe. When determined necessary by BLM, operators will 

be required to install monitoring wells to verify the effect of CBNG production on Reservation groundwater 

resources. Monitoring wells placed on the Reservation would be subject to approval by the Tribal government. All 

results of groundwater monitoring would become public information. 

Specific operator monitoring plans must include a hydrologic evaluation; describe the well location(s), aquifer(s) 

monitored, parameters monitored, baseline data acquisition, and response actions to adverse monitoring results. 

Operators will be required to monitor the impact of CBNG production on groundwater throughout the well life and 

after closure, if necessary. 

BLM may approve CBNG production upon completion of the geologic and hydrologic evaluation, and installation 

and equipping of any required monitoring wells. 

Operators may be required to expand their monitoring plans as production continues if a decline in Reservation 

groundwater levels occurs that is attributable to their operations. 

BLM will not approve produced water management applications until any necessary state, EPA, or Tribal permits 

required for water management actions are obtained. 

Wildlife - The results of the WMPP will be used to adjust COAs at the APD stage. This includes measures needed 

to protect Reservation wildlife from the impacts of CBNG development. 

B-3 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 

B-4
 
APPENDIX C
 

RESOURCE MONITORING 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
TABLE MON - 1
 

Unit of Frequency and Remedial Action Management 

Element Item Location Technique Measure Duration Trigger Options 

C-1 

Gaseous and area-wide air quality modeling and μg/m3 and parts hourly to 24 hr predicted or measured 

particulate critical ambient air samples per million samples as per exceedances of 

air pollutants concentrations as standards National Ambient Air 

(μg/m3) Quality Standards 

and/or Prevention of 

Significant 

Deterioration 

increments by MDEQ 

AIR QUALITY 

Gaseous and Birney/Broadus area ambient air samples μg/m3 and parts hourly to 24 hr before expanded 

particulate critical per million samples as per development activity 

air pollutants concentrations as standards 

(μg/m3) 

Gaseous and area-wide emission inventory lbs/hr and tons/yr annually continuous 

particulate critical 

air pollutants 

Cumulative area-wide tracking horsepower continuous when horsepower 

compressor requirements for CBNG 

horsepower wells in the Montana 

portion of the Powder 

River Basin exceed 

133,956 

implement additional 

emission controls or 

operating limits 

implement additional 

emission controls or 

operating limits 

require submittal of 

annual reports 

subsequent visibility 

modeling; if it indicates 

unacceptable impacts 

would occur at a future 

point in the Powder 

River Basin 

development, the 

modeling work would 

include mitigation 

scenarios 

CLIMATE Climate areas affected by 

land disturbance 

RAWS or COOP Stations bulk precipitation daily during the 

growing season 

extremes affecting 

revegetation operations 

CULTURAL 

RESOURCES 

Area of Critical 

Environmental 

Concern (ACECs) 

area-wide site inspection site, surrounding 

area 

annually any noticeable trend 

indicating increased 

disturbance—natural or 

human-caused 

increase frequency of 

monitoring to ensure 

ACEC values are not 

being impaired 

C-1 
TABLE MON - 1
 

Unit of Frequency and Remedial Action Management 

Element Item Location Technique Measure Duration Trigger Options 

CULTURAL 20% of National CBNG emphasis site inspection site, surrounding annually impacts to sites from halt activity affecting 

RESOURCES 

(continued) 

Register eligible 

sites 

area area unauthorized uses 

affecting qualities that 

make sites eligible for 

eligible sites. Increase 

monitoring of nearby 

eligible sites. Evaluate 

listing on National damage to sites. 

Register of Historic 

Places 

random sample of CBNG emphasis site inspection site, surrounding annually any noticeable trend increase frequency and 

50 sites area area indicating increased number of sites 

disturbance—natural or monitored if sites are 

human-caused being impacted by 

CBNG-related 

activities. Evaluate 

damage to sites. 

HYDROLOGY surface water Regionally at the as determined by the IWG as determined by as determined by the exceedance of any report exceedances to 

quality and monitoring stations the IWG IWG parameter above MDEQ, who will 

quantity identified by the applicable surface water determine cause, and 

IWG (see 2005 quality standards, or the take appropriate actions 

report in the ROD 

Appendix C.) 

identified BLM 

thresholds If monitoring indicates 

that BLM thresholds 

have been met or 

exceeded, untreated 

discharge of CBNG 

water from federal well 

will no longer be 

allowed upstream from 

that station. Previous 

approvals may be 

modified. 

C-2 
TABLE MON - 1
 

Element Item Location Technique 

Unit of 

Measure 

Frequency and 

Duration 

Remedial Action 

Trigger 

Management 

Options 

groundwater 

drawdown 

regionally at 

locations determined 

by the IWG (see 

Technical Advisory 

Committee report 

later in this 

monitoring wells would be 

finished in bedrock units; 

especially coal seams 

expected to be developed 

for CBNG. 

depth to water 

reported in 

hundredths of feet 

depth to water 

measurements will 

be made 

approximately 

monthly to establish 

an initial baseline. 

a 20-foot decrease in 

static water level from 

seasonally adjusted 

mean static water level 

(determined from 

baseline data) 

if falling water levels 

are determined to be 

caused by CBNG 

activity, operators m

offer water well 

mitigation agreemen

ust 

ts 

Appendix.) Measurements will 

be made 

to all landowners wit

water sources in the 

h 

approximately ea 

quarterly thereafter, 

unless a greater 

frequency is 

determined to be 

defined drawdown ar

(20 feet or greater 

drawdown) of their 

development. 

Hydrologic barriers, 

necessary. 

Monitoring will 

continue until at least 

such as injection wel

may be an option in 

some cases to preven

ls, 

t 

80% recovery of 

static water level has 

drainage of Native 

American gas and water 

been achieved resources. 

groundwater 

quality and 

quantity 

alluvial groundwater 

would be monitored 

in stream valleys 

topographically 

down gradient from 

CBNG surface 

discharge points 

monitoring wells would be 

finished in the alluvium. 

Depth to water 

measurements and water 

quality parameters, 

including but not limited to 

pH, EC, water temperature, 

common ions (Na, Mg, Ca, 

K, HCO3, CI, SO4), and 

would be obtained. 

standard 

quantitative 

measurements of 

water quality and 

static water level 

(mg/l, °C, μS/cm, 

and hundredths of 

feet) 

depth to water 

measurements will 

be made 

approximately 

monthly to establish 

an initial baseline. 

Depth to water will 

then be collected 

approximately 

quarterly thereafter. 

Water quality 

samples will be 

taken approximately 

annually, unless 

more frequent 

monitoring is 

needed. Monitoring 

will continue until at 

A change in 

groundwater chemistry 

that affects its class of 

use 

Rise in static 

groundwater levels of 

5-feet or more that may 

cause impacts at the 

ground surface 

if impacts are 

determined to result 

from CBNG 

development, direct 

discharge of CBNG 

water into waterways

the watershed may be 

discontinued until 

modified Water 

Management Plans a

submitted and approved 

 in 

re 

least 80% recovery 

of static water level 

has been achieved 

HYDROLOGY 

(continued) 

C-3 
TABLE MON - 1
 

Unit of Frequency and Remedial Action Management 

Element Item Location Technique Measure Duration Trigger Options 

HYDROLOGY groundwater operators will install a monitoring well will be depth to water wells will be gauged a rise of 1-foot or more Any change in class of 

(continued) quality and 

quantity 

monitoring wells 

adjacent to 

installed within the first 

permeable unit and within 

(feet to water 

reported in 

monthly for the first 

year and quarterly 

in static water levels 

above seasonally 

use will be reported to 

MDEQ. Operators may 

impoundments the first groundwater hundredths of thereafter unless a adjusted mean water be required to install 

encountered, up to 50 feet feet). Water rise is observed. If a levels or a change in the additional monitoring 

total depth, to determine quality samples rise is observed class of use in the wells further 

effectiveness of infiltration will be collected if monitoring will be groundwater downgradient, or 

or if evaporation basins are rises in monthly. Water discharge into 

leaking groundwater are quality samples will impoundments may be 

a water quality sample of 

the first groundwater (if 

encountered) will be 

collected to determine class 

of use. 

observed or if 

water is observed 

in a previously 

dry zone. 

be collected 

quarterly while water 

levels are 1 foot or 

more above baseline. 

Monitoring will 

continue at least until 

required to cease until a 

revised Water 

Management Plan is 

submitted and approved 

the end of CBNG 

water discharge into 

the impoundment 

springs a network of springs spring discharge and water discharge (cfs), Field measurement a 50% decrease in if decreased spring 

which are quality parameters, pH, EC (μS/cm), of discharge, pH, spring discharge below discharges or water 

determined to be fed including but not limited to and water EC, and water seasonally adjusted quality are determined 

by the regional flow pH, EC, water temperature, temperature (°C) temperature will be mean (determined in the to result from CBNG 

system will be common ions (Na, Mg, Ca, will be determined determined first 3 years), or a activity, operators must 

identified along coal K, HCO3, CI, SO4), will be in the field. approximately significant change in offer spring mitigation 

outcrops in the determined from existing Standard quarterly. An initial water quality that agreements to 

CBNG development springs quantitative water quality sample affects its beneficial use landowners who use the 

area measurements of will be collected; spring. If impacted 

water quality also additional samples spring is identified as 

will be used will be analyzed if important wildlife 

(mg/l) substantial changes habitat, adaptive 

in the field management practices 

parameters are will be used at the 

observed. landscape level to 

improve spring 

ecosystems. Hydrologic 

barriers, such as 

injection wells, may be 

an option in some cases 

to prevent drainage of 

Native American gas 

and water resources. 

C-4 
TABLE MON - 1
 

Unit of Frequency and Remedial Action Management 

Element Item Location Technique Measure Duration Trigger Options 

INDIAN TRUST groundwater adjacent to the 

Northern Cheyenne 

and Crow 

reservations 

sampling of dedicated 

monitoring wells in the 

zones of extraction and 

zones above and below the 

expected activity—wells are 

to be placed in the affected 

areas to areas unaffected by 

management activities 

standard 

quantitative 

measurements of 

water quality— 

measurement of 

depth in feet 

field measurements 6 

times yearly prior to 

production activities, 

continue throughout 

the activity period 

and for the duration 

of 95% of the 

recovery of 

pre-development 

conditions 

where site-specific 

studies show a potential 

to affect Reservation 

groundwater, the Tribe 

would be consulted as 

to appropriate 

protection measures and 

if continuous 

monitoring shows a 

drawdown of 

groundwater that is 

attributed to CBNG 

BLM would require the 

operators to modify 

federal CBNG 

production. Mitigation 

options include 

reducing production 

rates, shutting in the 

well or wells, 

establishing a 

hydrologic barrier, or 

providing compensation 

to the affected Tribe. 

production 

monitoring wells will be 

established near the mouth 

of streams that contain 

alluvium 

measurements of 

depth in feet 

water level 

measurements will 

be taken monthly 

prior to production 

activity and during 

the development -

water quality 

measurements will 

a 20% rise in the water 

table above its 

seasonally adjusted 

elevation, or a 2 unit 

increase in the SAR 

value 

Discontinuance of 

CBNG evaporative 

ponds in that watershed, 

or require ponds to be 

lined 

be taken 4 times per 

year 

natural gas area-wide drainage evaluation radius of drainage as needed gas drainage where 

radius of drainage 

affects Indian Minerals 

a communitization 

agreement, requiring 

operators to reduce 

production rates, shut-in 

wells, change spacing, 

or establish a 

hydrologic barrier to 

protect the Indian 

minerals from drainage 

C-5 
TABLE MON - 1
 

Unit of Frequency and Remedial Action Management 

Element Item Location Technique Measure Duration Trigger Options 

ROWs area-wide site inspection ROW	 minimum of once nonuse of ROW or require compliance with 

during or for violation of ROW grant ROW grant stipulations 

LANDS AND 

REALTY construction within 2 stipulations with possible 

years of issuance for suspension and/or 

MLA reviews and termination for 

within 5 years of noncompliance or 

issuance for FLPMA nonuse 

reviews; then in the 

20th year after 

issuance and every 

10 years thereafter 

C-6 

Geophysical area-wide line or area inspection 

Notice of Intent 

MINERALS 

Oil and Gas 

Geophysical area-wide line or area inspection 

Notice of 

Completion 

APD area-wide site inspection 

Sundry Notice area-wide site inspection 

operations minimum of once violation of regulations, require operator to 

conducted in during operations change from approved follow Notice of Intent 

compliance with Notice of Intent, 

Notice of Intent unnecessary or undue 

degradation 

operations minimum of once violation of regulations, require operator to 

conducted in during plugging, change from approved correct violation 

compliance with once after Notice of Completion 

Notice of reclamation unnecessary or undue 

Completion degradation 

operations minimum of once violation of regulations, issue an incidence of 

conducted in and as necessary change from approved noncompliance with 

compliance with APD timeframe to correct or 

APD shut-in drilling 

operations 

operations as necessary violation of regulations, issue an incidence of 

conducted in change from approved noncompliance with 

compliance with Sundry Notice timeframe to correct 

Sundry Notice unnecessary or undue 

degradation 
TABLE MON - 1
 

Unit of Frequency and Remedial Action Management 

Element Item Location Technique Measure Duration Trigger Options 

MINERALS 

Oil and Gas 

natural gas area-wide drainage evaluation radius of drainage as needed if gas drainage is 

occurring, there would 

be a communitization 

certified letter to lessee 

requiring protection, 

compensation royalty, 

(continued) agreement, drilling of 

protective wells on 

relinquishment 

federal lands, or 

different spacing, to 

protect the federal 

minerals from drainage 

produced water area-wide site inspection operations minimum of once violation of regulations, issue an INC with 

disposal conducted in annually or as change from approved timeframe to correct or 

compliance with necessary permit, unnecessary or shut-in operations 

permit undue degradation 

spill area-wide site inspection area cleaned up, minimum of once violation of regulations, issue an INC and 

reclaimed after event and as change from approved operator cleanup 

necessary permit, unnecessary or required 

undue degradation 

plugged, area-wide site inspection operations minimum of once violation of regulations, issue an INC correction 

abandoned wells conducted in during operations change from approved required 

compliance with permit, unnecessary or 

permit undue degradation 

abandoned well area-wide site inspection operations minimum of once violation of regulations, issue an INC/certified 

reclamation conducted in and as necessary change from approved letter requiring proper 

compliance with until reclamation permit, unnecessary or operator rehabilitation 

permit complete undue degradation 

C-7 
TABLE MON - 1
 

Unit of Frequency and Remedial Action Management 

Element Item Location Technique Measure Duration Trigger Options 

PALEONTOLOGY significant area-wide inspection of area disturbed degradation once yearly loss or damage to closure of areas 

paleontological caused by human significant fossil surrounding site to 

localities, ACECs or natural resources prevent further 

activities that lead disturbance to 

to loss of significant fossil 

significant fossil resources 

resources 

C-8 

RECREATION general recreation 

use 

concentrated 

recreation use 

area-wide with area inspections to look for site condition biannual (June and user conflicts, resource avoid location of oil and 

emphasis on vandalism, resource abuse, October); degradation, or safety gas facilities in 

dispersed use of and install photo points photograph annually hazards undeveloped recreation 

undeveloped sites having 

recreation sites concentrated use, and 

coordinate timing of 

exploration activities to 

minimize conflicts 

during peak periods of 

use 

special recreation 

management areas, 

sites with recreation 

facilities 

visitor registration, traffic 

counters estimates, photo 

points 

visitor days, site 

condition 

visitor registration 

boxes, counters 

checked once 

monthly at the 

minimum, weekly or 

biweekly during 

heavy use periods, 

photograph annually 

increased visitor use per 

year or sustained use 

that requires additional 

or improved facilities 

avoid location of oil 

and gas facilities in 

developed recreation 

sites having 

concentrated use, and 

coordinate timing of 

exploration activities to 

minimize conflicts 

during periods of use 

area-wide 

commercial, 

competitive activities 

administrative review, site 

inspection for complexes 

with permit stipulations 

permit 

stipulations, 

resource condition 

success of 

reclamation 

on site during 

competitive events, 

periodic site 

inspection for 

commercial 

irreparable resource 

damage, compromise of 

visitor safety, recreation 

experience 

avoid location of oil 

and gas facilities in 

areas where know 

commercially permitted 

recreation activities are 

operations, 

administrative 

review annually 

occurring and 

coordinate timing of 

exploration activities to 

minimize conflicts 

during peak periods of 

use 
TABLE MON - 1
 

Unit of Frequency and Remedial Action Management 

Element Item Location Technique Measure Duration Trigger Options 

SOILS soil erosion, 

uplands 

area-wide where 

management 

activities are 

occurring or 

expected to occur 

visual observation and 

surveyed erosion pins 

soil loss in tons 

per acre 

site will be visually 

examined quarterly. 

Where erosion is 

deemed excessive, 

measurements of site 

characteristics will 

visual evidence of rill, 

gully, or sheet erosion. 

Loss of soil exceeding 

10 tons per acre 

report exceedance to 

BLM, MDEQ, or EPA. 

If caused by CBNG 

discharge or activities, 

enforcement action will 

be taken. 

be taken to 

determine rate of soil 

loss. 

soil erosion, 

streambank, and 

floodplain 

area-wide along 

rivers and tributaries 

where management 

activities are 

occurring or 

expected to occur 

visual observation and 

surveyed erosion pins 

area effected in 

square feet or 

acres 

site will be visually 

examined quarterly. 

Where streambank 

erosion is deemed 

excessive, 

measurements of site 

characteristics will 

a 10% increase in 

streambank loss 

report exceedance to 

BLM, MDEQ, or EPA. 

If caused by CBNG 

discharge or activities, 

enforcement action will 

be taken. 

be taken to 

determine soil loss. 

soil salinization area-wide where 

management 

activities are 

occurring or 

expected to occur 

visual observation, 

measurement of soil 

characteristics such as pH, 

EC, SAR 

area effected in 

square feet or 

acres 

site will be visually 

examined quarterly. 

Where salinity levels 

show an increase 

because of 

vegetation or soil 

effects, 

a 20% increase in 

conductivity levels 

report exceedance to 

BLM, MDEQ, or EPA. 

If caused by CBNG 

discharge or activities, 

enforcement action will 

be taken. 

measurements of site 

characteristics will 

be taken to 

determine salinity 

levels. 

compaction areas affected by 

extraction activities 

penetrometer or visual 

inspection 

pounds per square 

inch 

1 to 2 times yearly 10% increase in density limit or block access to 

compacted sites 

C-9 
TABLE MON - 1
 

Unit of Frequency and Remedial Action Management 

Element Item Location Technique Measure Duration Trigger Options 

VEGETATION 

ecological status areas affected by 

disturbance through 

the pre-production, 

production, postproduction processes 

ecological site method in 

key areas 

composition, 

production 

compared to 

potential natural 

community for 

each site 

pre-development 

ecological status 

baseline data 

status is reduced by 

15% or a drop in class 

ecological site integrity 

will be altered to 

increase status of 

ecological site index by 

15% or an increase in 

ecological class 

trend areas affected by 

disturbance through 

the pre-production, 

production, postproduction processes 

any suitable methods as 

described in TR 4400-4 or 

the National Range 

Handbook 

apply to the 

technique 

selected, may 

include number of 

individuals per 

unit area, percent 

cover, percent 

frequency, or 

percent species 

composition 

every 3 to 5 years 

after the collection of 

ecological status 

baseline data 

a change in the 

direction of trend away 

from management 

measure 

implementation of 

action put forth to 

mitigate reduction of 

ecological status using 

techniques listed in 

monitoring appendix 

for vegetative trend 

Noxious Weeds trend areas affected by 

disturbance through 

the pre-production, 

production, postproduction processes 

Montana Noxious Weed 

Standards 

acres, plants per 

square feet, 

species 

yearly (through post 

production 

reclamation) 

10% increase beyond 

objectives for the 

area/new species 

occurrence or 

infestation 

operators will be 

required to contain and 

suppress noxious 

weeds. Conservation 

measures will be 

required in noxious 

weed sites to decrease 

population of noxious 

weeds and increase 

population of native 

plant community 

C-10 
TABLE MON - 1
 

Unit of Frequency and Remedial Action Management 

Element Item Location Technique Measure Duration Trigger Options 

Riparian/ 

Wetlands 

condition, trend, 

age class 

structure, 

any federal action 

(including split 

estate) 

photo plot, estimate key 

areas by sight inspection, 

Cole Browse Method, Key 

percent species 

composition, 

percent in each 

based on activity 

plan schedule- a 

minimum of once 

trend away from 

objective or when no 

improvement occurs, in 

oil and gas operators 

will be required to alter 

activities in order to 

streambank Forage Method, other age class, percent every 5 years unsatisfactory habitat provide environmental 

alteration methods found in Technical utilization, height, condition/functioning at factors for increasing 

References (TR4400-3, percent of the risk with downward functionality or habitat 

TR4400-4, TR4400-7, streambank trend conditions of the 

TR1737-3, TR1737-8, streams/wetlands. Oil 

TR1737-9) including and gas operators may 

MRWA (Montana Riparian be required to develop 

Wetland Association) replacement wetlands in 

Riparian Inventory for areas order to compensate for 

not previously inventoried overall loss of wetlands 

MRWA PFC on inventory according to Section 

areas 404 of Clean Water 

Act. 

Special Status and 

Threatened and 

Endangered (T&E) 

condition areas affected by 

disturbance through 

the pre-production, 

production, postMontana Natural Heritage 

Program and visual 

inspection 

presence and 

condition 

once during the 

growing season, at a 

minimum 

downward trend in 

plant condition caused 

by oil and gas activities 

oil and gas operators 

will be required to alter 

their activities in order 

to benefit 

Plant Species production processes environmental factors 

required by special 

status or T&E plant 

species 

C-11 

WILDLIFE (see also Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan in Appendix A) 

Aquatic Biological 

Diversity 

(flora/fauna) 

population 

diversity 

intermittent/perennia 

l streams associated 

with produced water 

discharge 

stream sampling diversity index every 3 years downward trend overall 

stream biological 

diversity 

reduction or elimination 

of untreated produced 

water into drainage or 

watershed 

Big Game seasonal habitat 

use 

project area plus 1-

mile buffer 

air/ground field inspection occupancy annually downward trend in 

habitat occupancy 

caused by oil and gas 

activity 

extension of timing 

stipulations or COAs, 

off-site habitat 

management or 

enhancement 
TABLE MON - 1
 

Unit of Frequency and Remedial Action Management 

Element Item Location Technique Measure Duration Trigger Options 

occupancy	 prairie dog towns ground inspection occupancy determined on a 

larger than 80 acres site-specific basis 

located within 0.5 in coordination 

mile of proposed with FWS 

activity 

Black-footed Ferret 

active nest	 specific project area ground inspection occupancy twice yearly (June 

locations	 plus 0.5-mile buffer to August) 

(within active prairie 

dog town) 

Burrowing Owl 

occupancy Billings RMP area air/ground field surveys number of sitings	 annually until 

reintroduction 

objectives are met 

Grey Wolf 

occupancy	 project area plus ground observations occupancy periodically 

0.25-mile buffer Migratory Nongame Birds 

habitat decline or 

prairie dog fatalities 

caused by oil and gas 

activities - occupancy 

of black-footed ferrets 

would be managed in a 

Black-Footed Ferret 

Management Plan 

human-caused 

disturbance to owls 

related to oil and gas 

activities such as 

vandalism and 

harassment 

1- to 3-year downward 

trend in production or 

occupancy 

documented fatalities 

caused by oil and gas 

activities 

no incidental take; 

reinitiate consultation if 

new information shows 

black-footed ferrets 

may be effected 

extension of timing 

and/or increase of 

distance from nest; 

stipulations or COAs 

no incidental take; 

reinitiate consultation if 

new information shows 

it may be effected 

refinements in 

infrastructure planning 

(project plans), 

implementation of 

travel corridors, 

enhanced reclamation 

standards, and off-site 

habitat management or 

enhancement 

C-12 
TABLE MON - 1
 

Element Item Location Technique 

Unit of 

Measure 

Frequency and 

Duration 

Remedial Action 

Trigger 

Management 

Options 

Mountain Plover active nest 

locations 

specific project area 

plus 0.5-mile buffer 

ground inspection occupancy twice yearly (April 

15 to June 30) 

human-caused 

disturbance to mountain 

BLM received an 

exemption from the 

(within areas less plovers related to oil prohibitions of Section 

than 4-inch average and gas activities such 9 of ESA regarding take 

vegetation height and as vandalism and by agreeing to terms 

prairie dog towns) harassment and conditions in 

biological opinion 

(BO). Incidental take of 

habitat and individuals 

allowed up to level 

stated in BO. Take must 

be monitored. 

Reinitiation of Section 

7 will occur before 

allowable take is 

exceeded. 

Prairie Dog active prairie dog 

colony 

specific project area 

plus 0.5-mile buffer 

air/ground inspection occupancy annually documented prairie dog 

fatalities caused by oil 

establishment of no 

surface occupancy 

and gas activities zones and/or 

establishment of timing 

restrictions within 

prairie dog towns 

Raptors active nest 

locations 

project area plus 1-

mile buffer 

air/ground field inspection number of nests every 3 years downward trend in 

occupancy 

extension of timing 

and/or increase in 

(excluding distance from nest; 

burrowing owls) stipulations or COAs 

raptor active nests within 1- air/ground field inspection nest success/failure annually downward trend in nest extension of timing 

productivity mile of project species productivity success, overall and/or increase in 

(including disturbance plus 1- productivity distance from nest; 

Burrowing owl) mile buffer stipulations or COAs 

raptor project area air/ground field inspection nest success/failure every 5 years information used as extension of timing 

productivity- species productivity support to determine and/or increase in 

selected downward trend distance from nest; 

undeveloped stipulations or COAs 

comparison area 

C-13 
TABLE MON - 1
 

Element Item Location Technique 

Unit of 

Measure 

Frequency and 

Duration 

Remedial Action 

Trigger 

Management 

Options 

WILDLIFE 

(continued) 

Sage Grouse sage grouse 

lek location 

CBNG overall 

project area 

aerial field inspection number, location of 

leks 

every 5 years downward trend in 

habitat occupancy 

extension of timing 

and/or increase in 

distance from lek; 

stipulations or COAs

off-site habitat 

; 

sage grouse 

lek attendance 

specific project 

development areas 

plus 2-mile buffer 

air/ground field inspection number of 

males/lek 

annually downward trend in lek 

attendance 

(compared to control 

LEK) 

management/mitigation 

extension of timing 

and/or increase in 

distance from lek; 

stipulations or COAs

off-site habitat 

management/mitigation 

; 

sage grouse 

winter habitat 

project area plus 2 

mi. buffer 

air/ground field inspection occupancy annually downward trend in 

habitat occupancy or 

quality caused by oil 

and gas activities 

extension of timing 

and/or increase in 

distance from lek; 

stipulations or COAs

off-site habitat 

; 

Special Status 

Species (BLM and 

Montana Natural 

Heritage Program 

lists) 

occupancy specific project area 

plus 1-mile buffer 

ground field inspection occupancy annually at a 

minimum via 

species habitat 

requirements 

downward trend in 

habitat occupancy or 

quality caused by oil 

and gas activities 

management/mitigation 

establishment of timi

and/or distance from 

breeding area throug

stipulations or COAs 

h 

ng 

Threatened, 

Endangered and 

Proposed Species 

other than 

previously 

described 

occupancy, 

productivity 

CBNG overall 

project area 

air/ground field inspection occupancy determined on a 

site-specific basis 

in coordination 

with FWS 

habitat decline or 

fatalities caused by oil 

and gas activities; 

occupancy of species 

would be managed in a 

site-specific 

Management Plan 

reinitiate section and 

consultation with FWS 

C-14 
C-15
 
C-16
 
C-17
 
C-18
 
C-19
 
C-20
 
C-21
 
REGIONAL-SCALE MONITORING OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS 

OF COAL BED METHANE DEVELOPMENT ON WATER
 

RESOURCES
 

Prepared by the Technical Advisory Committee for the Powder River Basin Controlled Groundwater Area 

INTRODUCTION 

Coal bed natural gas (CBNG) is released from coal seams by pumping groundwater from coal seams to lower 

ground water pressures. The coal seams targeted for CBNG development in the Powder River Basin constitute 

important regional aquifers that provide water for domestic, livestock, agricultural, and industrial uses. 

Consequently, CBNG production will probably affect existing water uses in the Powder River Basin, although the 

extent and magnitude of effects are difficult to predict. 

The Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation (MBOGC) requires, through its Order No. 99-99, that CBNG 

producers submit field development plans that include groundwater characterization and monitoring. In addition to 

complying with existing MBOGC rules for wildcat gas wells, CBNG producers are required to describe baseline 

hydrologic conditions, to inventory existing wells and springs, to offer water mitigation agreements to existing water 

users, and to monitor water production and shut-in water pressures within coal bed methane fields. Water mitigation 

agreements must be offered for a minimum of one-half mile (expanded to one mile in Mont. Code Ann. 85-2-521) 

from CBNG fields or greater distances if effects extend father. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

requires monitoring under permits for Class V injection wells used to re-inject water produced during CBNG 

production. Specific requirements of Class V injection permits may include monitoring of injection pressure, 

injection rate and total volume at injection wells, and ground water elevations in monitoring wells. 

There are no clear regulatory requirements for monitoring effects to ground water levels or spring flows outside the 

one-mile minimum specified by MBOGC or the area affected by Class V injection wells. Groundwater monitoring 

conducted by CBNG producers within and near CBNG fields, as required by MBOGC or the U.S. EPA, will not 

reveal broad regional effects. Therefore, regional-scale monitoring needs to be conducted outside areas of potential 

CBNG development to allow potential effects to be evaluated before, during, and after the period of CBNG 

production. In addition, the spacing of monitoring sites and the frequency of monitoring needs to be sufficient to 

distinguish potential effects attributed to CBNG development from potential effects attributed to other water users, 

and from ambient/seasonal variations in ground water levels and spring flows. 

The purpose of this document is to establish design criteria for a regional-scale monitoring program intended to 

detect potential effects of CBNG development on existing water uses. The objectives of the regional scale 

monitoring program are to characterize baseline hydrologic conditions, detect changes in ground water levels and 

flows from springs attributable to CBNG development, and verify recovery of ground water levels after CBNG 

development ends. Regional-scale monitoring of wells and springs is intended to augment and compliment fieldscale monitoring established under MBOGC Order No. 99-99 or EPA UIC Class V injection well permits. 

Criteria for selecting locations and spacing for monitoring sites, consisting of wells and springs, and monitoring 

practices are proposed here to ensure that long-term monitoring is sufficiently comprehensive to detect effects that 

CBNG development might have on ground-water systems. Priorities are proposed to coordinate monitoring with the 

pace of development and the need to evaluate potential effects, and recommendations are presented for 

implementing monitoring and managing monitoring data. The criteria and monitoring recommendations described 

below are not meant as rigid rules, but rather are intended to guide qualified personnel in selecting monitoring 

locations and implementing monitoring that meet the objectives stated above. 

The BLM, at its discretion, will administer the regional-scale monitoring program, while operators will be 

responsible for all in-field monitoring. The BLM has a commitment to maintaining the water monitoring of the PRB 

region, similar to their continued (25+ years) funding of the MBMG for coal mine water monitoring. The BLM will 

also partner with operators for in-field monitoring when federal gas is produced. 

C-22 
CRITERIA AND MONITORING PRACTICES 

The portion of the Powder River Basin underlain by coals of the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation 

is generally considered to have potential for CBNG development. Within this area, however, CBNG is less likely to 

be developed from coal seams with limited thickness and ambient ground water pressures; conditions that indicate 

limited potential for gas production. These areas, located primarily within 2 to 5 miles of coal outcrops, should be 

targeted for monitoring wells. 

The Anderson-Dietz, Canyon, Wall, and Knobloch are the four primary coal seams within the Tongue River 

Member (Map 1). Separate monitoring sites located within 5 miles of the outcrops of each of these coal zones are 

proposed. Clusters of wells will be completed in different coal zones where outcrop areas overlap and, where 

present, springs will be monitored near each monitoring site. Monitoring wells will need to be completed in alluvial 

aquifers, in areas where water from CBNG production is discharged to surface impoundments, or in selected 

sandstone aquifers within coal outcrop areas or CBNG fields (when not required by MBOGC or the U.S. EPA). 

Springs that are current, historical, or potential sources of water but located away from established monitoring sites 

may also be monitored. 

The focus of overall monitoring of the potential effects of CBNG development will change as CBNG fields mature, 

and gas production declines and eventually ends. Monitoring performed by CBNG operators that is required by 

MBOGC or the U.S. EPA, will gradually be discontinued as portions and eventually all of fields are played out. 

Abandoned producing wells or monitoring wells within CBNG fields should be incorporated into the regional 

monitoring program as field mature, in order to effectively monitor post-production groundwater recovery in 

affected areas. 

The need for detailed information, and the cost of installing monitoring wells and monitoring ground water-levels 

and spring flows, will need to be balanced to determine the ultimate spacing between monitoring sites. At a 

minimum, one monitoring site will be located in every township that lies within 5 miles of the outcrop of a targeted 

coal. The ultimate spacing of monitoring sites might be greater, depending on site-specific conditions such as 

thickness of coal zone and importance of coal or sandstone aquifers, and priorities for monitoring outlined below. 

Monitoring wells may be newly constructed wells, existing monitoring or water supply wells, or abandoned or 

transferred CBNG production wells. Ground-water levels in monitoring wells and flows of springs will need to be 

measured monthly to obtain a sufficient data record to characterize patterns of seasonal changes in ground-water 

level or spring flows, before the wells or springs can be effected by CBNG development. Typically two to three 

years of monitoring record is desirable. Monitoring frequency should be reduced once a sufficient record of baseline 

conditions is established. 

PRIORITIES 

The following priorities are proposed for initiating monitoring and selecting monitoring well density and frequency, 

to ensure that a regional ground water monitoring program is established in advance of anticipated CBNG 

development and before potential effects of CBNG development can occur. 

Sequence of CBNG development—Areas most likely to be affected by CBNG development first are the highest 

priority for initiating monitoring. CBNG development is expected to focus initially on the Anderson-Dietz coal 

zone and, therefore, monitoring near its outcrop should begin first. Records of exploration wells, pipeline plans, 

and identification of prospective coal zones can provide more specific information regarding the sequence of 

CBNG development. 

Extent of water use—Areas where water from coal-beds is heavily used are high priorities for monitoring. 

Within the general area of the Anderson-Dietz outcrop, areas of concentrated water use, such as the headwaters 

of Otter Creek, will need immediate and more intensive monitoring. 

Proximity to political boundaries—Monitoring should be established along political boundaries, specifically the 

Montana-Wyoming border and reservation boundaries, in order to detect potential effects from areas outside the 

regional monitoring network. 

Sensitivity or hydrogeologic setting—More intensive monitoring will be necessary where faulting or complex 

stratigraphy result in complex hydrogeologic settings. 

C-23 
Existing monitoring networks—Monitoring should be re-established at monitoring wells near operating coal 

mines and coal mining prospects studied in the past. New monitoring well construction should focus on areas 

where wells are not available. 

Land or mineral ownership—Monitoring should be conducted at sites with stable land and/or mineral 

ownership. For example, federally owned land, or other land with long-term access easements provide more 

reliable long-term access for monitoring. 

IMPLEMENTATION AND DATA MANAGEMENT 

An important goal of the proposed regional monitoring program is to ensure that all monitoring data collected are 

made readily accessible to the public. The regional monitoring program can, and probably will, be conducted by 

more than one agency, with funding from various sources. However, one agency or interagency will need to 

coordinate or review all regional monitoring activities in order to assure that monitoring occurs where needed and to 

prevent duplication. Data from field-scale monitoring pursuant to MBOGC Order 99-99 and EPA UIC Class V 

injection well permits will need to be managed similarly. A further responsibility of the lead agency or group should 

be to ensure that regional- and field-scale monitoring data are compiled and made available to the public in the 

Ground-Water Information Center (GWIC) and the National Resource Information Systems (NRIS). 

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 

A regional-scale monitoring program is necessary to characterize baseline hydrologic conditions, to detect potential 

effects resulting from CBNG development, and to verify recovery of ground water levels after the period of CBNG 

development. The following constitutes the main elements of a regional-scale monitoring program that should 

accomplish these objectives: 

Monitoring is needed to augment and compliment field-scale monitoring established under MBOGC Order No. 

99-99 and EPA UIC Class V injection permits. 

Groundwater levels need to be measured in wells in coals and overlying or underlying sandstone aquifers at 

locations near coal outcrops outside of areas of prospective CBNG development. 

Groundwater levels need to be measured in wells in alluvial aquifers in areas where water CBNG production is 

discharged to surface impoundments, or selected sandstone aquifers within CBNG fields. 

Flows from springs need to be monitored when they are near well monitoring sites or if they are important 

water sources. 

Groundwater levels need to be measured in abandoned or transferred CBNG wells as CBNG fields mature. 

Monitoring sites need to be located in every township near coal outcrops at a minimum. 

Groundwater levels in wells and flows from springs need to be measured monthly to characterize ambient 

seasonal patterns. 

Monitoring sites need to be established to ensure that the regional monitoring program is implemented in 

advance of localized CBNG development and, consequently, that potential effects can be detected. 

One oversight agency or interagency group responsible for collecting and compiling comprehensive and 

consistent data should implement the proposed regional monitoring program. 

Monitoring data need to be compiled and made available to the public through GWIC and NRIS. 

C-24 
C-25