1

COALBED METHANE (CBM) IN MONTANA: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

A WHITE PAPER

By

Jack A. Stanford

stanford@selway.umt.edu

And

F. Richard Hauer

rhauer@selway.umt.edu

Flathead Lake Biological Station

Division of Biological Sciences

The University of Montana

Polson, MT 59860-9659

Phone: 406-982-3301

Fax: 406-982-3201

February 4, 2003
2

COALBED METHANE (CBM) IN MONTANA: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

INTRODUCTION

Herein CBM refers to the extraction and commercial distribution of methane from 

subsurface coal deposits. CBM is occurring or possible over large landscapes in New 

Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming and Montana where multiple coal seams are distributed 

between other bedrock formations like a layer cake usually at depths less than 1,000 feet.

When ground water contained in the coal is pumped out via drilled wells, the 

pressure is changed within the deposit, freeing the methane gas. Usual CBM 

development involves 1–3 wells and associated roads and pipelines per each 80 acres of 

surface area above the coal layers. Electric water pumping stations, water disposal 

systems (storage ponds or water pipes to the rivers) and large gas-powered compressors 

are dispersed among the 80 acre parcels.

CBM is controversial because:

• CBM is a nonrenewable natural resource that is in private and public (mostly 

Bureau of Land Management) or Tribal (Northern Cheyenne, Crow) ownership in 

Montana.

• Ownership of CBM and other minerals often is legally severed from surface 

(land) ownership, creating conflict over land use change.

• CBM extraction entails significant surface modification (land use change) for 

roads, pipelines, wells and gas concentration facilities, which has secondary 

effects such as substantially increased noise, dust and access in addition to effects 

on local social structures associated with incursion of a new or different 

workforce.

• CBM extraction requires removal (pumping and disposal) of huge quantities of 

water, often containing very high ion (especially sodium) concentrations, from the 

coal seams in order to collect the gas.

• CBM reserves in Montana are small compared to very deep reservoirs of gas in 

Alberta and elsewhere. Montana CBM reserves will be depleted within a decade 

or so of full development. Nonetheless, CBM represents significant potential 

income for Montana and owners of the minerals and land.

CBM commercial value in relation to cost of production, especially as influenced 

by environmental mitigation required by government or the courts will ultimately 

determine when and to what extent CBM development occurs in Montana. To clarify 

costs and benefits and bolster pros and cons of CBM development, including short and 

long-term environmental impacts and potential mitigation procedures, lengthy studies and 

environmental impact studies have been done (see Box A). As is all too common with 

complex environmental issues, a tangle of facts, statutes and sentiments constrain CBM 

problem identification and resolution.
3

We were asked by Montana legislators to examine the issues and available data in

an ecological context and provide a white paper to the State Legislature during the 2003 

session. We visited the CBM areas in Montana and Wyoming, discussed issues and data 

with staff, scientists and consultants 

from the CBM industry, various 

universities, Tribes, State and 

Federal agencies and several 

nongovernment organizations 

(NGOs). We obtained and read as 

many germane documents as we 

could find.

In this white paper, we focus 

on the land use change and water 

quality issues associated with CBM 

because our professional expertise is 

in ecology and limnology. We did 

not consider social or direct 

economic impacts, nor did we 

conclude whether full, partial or no 

CBM development is in the best 

interest of Montana. Our goal with 

this white paper is to frame the 

ecological issues related to 

development of CBM in Montana, 

especially the relative risk of water 

pollution in relation to discharge 

and treatment technologies. We 

conclude with an ecosystem-based 

decision process that can be used by 

government to untangle CBM in 

Montana.

THE MONTANA CBM AREA

The Powder and Tongue River Basins contain the most accessible CBM deposits 

in Montana. The area is a large geosyncline with coal deposits dipped toward the center, 

most at depths less than 1,000 feet sandwiched between shales and sandstones. These are 

traditional farming and ranching lands with considerable wildlife value. CBM 

development in Montana currently is limited to a small area near the Tongue River close 

to Decker, Montana. However, the headwaters of the Tongue and Powder rivers are in 

Wyoming where CBM extraction is more advanced.

Ecologically the area is dry short grass prairie and ponderosa pine steppe. The 

few streams and rivers are warm in summer and are much more turbid and salty 

compared to mountain rivers of western Montana. They contain the biota of the Missouri 

River system, including many nonnative species such as carp. Some fishes and 

Box A. The information base.

A large number of agency, tribal and industry reports 

contain data and interpretations about Coalbed Methane (CBM) 

in the Powder and Tongue River Basins of Montana and 

Wyoming. Few of these reports are peer-reviewed scientific 

papers.

ß Locations and geology of coal deposits and associated 

groundwater conditions have been especially well 

documented by the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology 

of Montana Tech of The University of Montana.

ß Surfacewater discharge and chemistry has been 

documented at various sites along the Tongue and Powder 

Rivers by the US Geological Survey.

ß The CBM industry has funded a number of studies 

concerning ways to condition local soils to allow use of high 

sodium water from the gas production process to irrigate 

crops. A very few and mostly nonquantitative analyses of 

potential impacts on current condition of terrestrial and 

riverine biota are available.

ß The US Bureau of Land Management has conducted a 

Federal environmental impact study (EIS) as part of its 

responsibility for management of public lands.

ß The Section 300 series of the Federal Clean Water Act 

applies to potential water pollution associated with CBM, 

along with Montana statutes pertaining to nondegradation 

and constitutional right of a “clean and healthful 

environment.”

ß The Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ) has regulatory responsibility for the State; 

whereas the Environmental Protection Agency wields 

Federal authority. Both agencies have conducted analyses 

of CBM impacts and the MDEQ has proposed regulatory 

standards based on analysis of impacts of CBM water on 

agricultural soils.

ß The US Fish and Wildlife Service may become involved if 

CBM is shown to impact organisms listed under the 

Federal Endangered Species Act, and apparently, a few 

candidate species may exist in the Montana CBM area.
4

invertebrates are potential endangered species candidates. Wildlife is abundant and 

adapted to open range and some species, such as sage grouse, are becoming relatively 

rare owing to loss of habitat. Because most of the CBM area remains open range, it 

functions as a reserve for short grass prairie wildlife and plants. Scarcity of surface 

waters is an important natural feature of this landscape. Springs from perched aquifers 

are rare and many tributary streams are ephemeral, flowing only during wet periods. 

Water for livestock is often limited and for many years people have tapped ground water 

in the coal beds with wells for livestock and domestic use. Irrigation water from the main 

stem Tongue and Powder Rivers sustains much of the farming. Water diversion from the 

rivers is substantial and base flows on dry years are little more than a trickle.

The Powder River is inclusively a prairie river with lowland headwaters in salty 

shale formations; whereas the Tongue is a mountain river with headwaters in the hard 

rocks (granitic) of the Big Horn Mountains. Hence, the two rivers differ by an order of 

magnitude in salt content (compare illustrations in Figure 1), which is key to CBM 

development. The Tongue is more dilute and therefore, more easily degraded by inflow 

of high sodium CBM water. However, in the Powder, inflows of additional salts from 

CBM exacerbate the naturally high salt load. Indeed, Montana water quality regulators 

have been concerned about salt pollution from Wyoming CBM activities degrading water 

in the Montana portions of the rivers. Threshold or exceedance (numeric) criteria have 

been established through negotiation between Montana and Wyoming regulators. But, 

such criteria are difficult to enforce because the stochiometry of the salt ions is not 

completely coherent with discharge. That is, the relative contribution of ions such as 

calcium, sodium, magnesium, sulfate and chloride, which make up most of the dissolved 

solids loads, do not change proportionally as flow in the river varies (i.e., note the 

extreme variance in salt content with discharge in Figure 1). Thus a numeric standard for 

sodium may not ensure protection of water quality. How to regulate discharge of CBM 

waters into these rivers remains largely unresolved in Montana except in the context of 

the demonstration sites.

LAND USE CHANGE ASSOCIATED WITH CBM DEVELOPMENT

According to the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for CBM in 

Montana, as many as 20,000 wells may be operational in Montana to bring the accessible 

coal seams to full development. This translates to local densities of one or more wells 

per 40 acres, with associated roads, well pads, pipelines, generating and gas concentration 

stations and disposal ponds, if the practices we observed in Wyoming and Colorado and 

at the Montana demonstration sites are followed.

Therefore, considerable landscape modification clearly will occur (e.g., see 

Figure 2). It would be possible to actually quantify the total disturbed areas in recently 

developed CBM fields using spatially explicit analysis of contrasts in before and after 

photos as in Figure 2. However, substantial land use change is obvious. Of course, 

disturbance can be minimized with careful advance planning and reseeding of pipeline 

routes and many of the access roads. Reseeding with native grasses is an aggressive 

practice by industry to reduce erosion and invasion by weeds, but effectiveness is not 

routinely measured as far as we could determine. Nonetheless, we observed weed free 
5

reseeded native grasses actively growing on pipeline routes and road berms in the 

Montana demonstration sites.

Discharge (cfs)

Na (mg/L)

Ca (mg/L)

Mg (mg/L)

Powder River at Arvada

Maximum Na + Ca + Mg = 1669 mg/L

1

10

100

1000

10000

Oct-73Oct-74Oct-75Oct-76Oct-77Oct-78Oct-79Oct-80Oct-81Oct-82Oct-83Oct-84Oct-85Oct-86Oct-87Oct-88Oct-89Oct-90Oct-91Oct-92Oct-93Oct-94

1

10

100

1000

10000

Oct-75Oct-76Oct-77Oct-78Oct-79Oct-80Oct-81Oct-82Oct-83Oct-84Oct-85Oct-86Oct-87Oct-88Oct-89Oct-90Oct-91Oct-92Oct-93Oct-94

Discharge (cfs)

Na (mg/L)

Ca (mg/L)

Mg (mg/L)

Tongue River below Decker Dam

Maximum Na + Ca + Mg = 197 mg/L

Figure 1. Discharge (cubic feet per second) and Sodium (Na), Calcium (Ca) and Magnesium 

(Mg) concentrations (mg/liter) in the Powder River at Arvada, Wyoming and in the Tongue 

River below Decker Dam near Decker, Montana, during the two decades preceding coalbed 

methane development in either Wyoming or Montana.
6

Documented effects of CBM development on wildlife are sparse and certainly not 

specific to Montana. But there is a large body of scientific literature showing mostly 

negative trends for native biota directly associated with increased access, noise and 

human contact in previously unroaded or minimally roaded areas. This underscores the 

likely negative influence this development will have in the context of this region as a 

fairly intact and very large grassland steppe ecosystem. However, we emphasize that 

significant moderation may occur in the long term, if animals are not harassed. Simply, 

most wild animals get used to human incursions as long as the habitat is in good shape 

and harassment is prevented. Moreover, there have never been any restrictions on access 

other than in the context of private property in this area of Montana and wildlife 

populations for the most part seem robust.

Nonetheless, land use change should be predicted using remote sensing tools 

discussed below and actual changes carefully documented. As well, better studies of 

wildlife dynamics should be designed and undertaken prior to development to better 

understand how to make CBM and wildlife get along if development does proceed. 

Figure 2. Photos of CBM gas field 

before (1996) and after (2001) CBM 

development. This site is located on 

the Wyoming side of the Tongue 

River and illustrates the change in 

land cover and use as CBM wells, 

compressors, pipelines, access 

roads and storage ponds are

constructed.
7

Influences on livestock probably are less problematic, except as relates to change in 

forage availability. In general, forage is not likely to be greater after development, at 

least in the short term and synergistic effects linked to extreme precipitation variation 

observed in the last decade may occur. Again, this should be much more clearly 

considered and documented.

THE CBM WATER PROBLEM: A LOT OF WATER WITH HIGH DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONTENT, 

ESPECIALLY SODIUM

The quality of ground water that will be pumped to the surface by CBM varies 

across the landscape. As noted above, CBM water has been used for years in households 

and livestock tanks after degassing the methane. This water does not contain toxic 

compounds. Indeed, a recent court decision stated that unaltered CBM ground water is 

not a pollutant in the context of the Clean Water Act and does not require a discharge 

permit. This decision currently is in appeal. Regardless, CBM water has very high 

sodium content. Sodium reacts with natural clays to produce greasy soil when wet and a 

hard pan when dry, which impairs or prevents plant growth. We observed areas with 

little or no plant growth where CBM water has been spread, although there apparently are 

not a lot of these places. The petroleum industry has a long history of dealing with salty 

water, mainly by reinjection deep into the ground or by containing the water carefully in 

sealed ponds.

The quantity of this high sodium ground water to be dealt with is huge. Each 

CBM well will produce 2.5–10 gallons of water per minute, according to the EIS and 

based on the Montana demonstration sites. Simple extrapolation to 20,000 wells 

producing water and gas at full field development means that 110–450 cubic feet per 

second of CBM water has to go somewhere. To be fair, not all wells will operate at the 

same time and effluent will be generated over a large area. Nonetheless, the estimated 

potential volume of CBM water flow from the gas fields exceeds the base flow of both 

the Tongue and Powder Rivers (see Figure 1). To put this in another context, consider 

that a range cow consumes about 16 gallons of water per day and requires 20–50 acres of 

range land for grazing per year in this dry area of Montana.

Ground water in the coal seams has dissolved solids concentrations that vastly 

exceed values of natural surface runoff shown in Figure 1. Translated to values of 

electrical conductivity (EC) and sodium adsorption ratios (SAR), the EIS predicts that 

water produced during CBM development has an EC value of 2,200 μS/cm and a SAR 

value of 40. These values, especially the SAR values, are well above almost all of the 

existing instream values ever recorded. Such water cannot be used to irrigate crops 

unless desalinized or substantially diluted or unless the soils are treated with a 

combination of gypsum and/or acid to counteract the clay-sodium interaction that causes 

the soil particles to disassociate and thereby changing soil structure adversely for plant 

growth. The conclusion is that direct discharge to the rivers of that much CBM water 

will change the chemistry of the rivers to the extent that use by native biota and by farms 

could be impaired.
8

What can be done about the CBM water, then? Industry currently is trying to 

contain CBM water in ponds (Figure 2) and limit direct discharges into the rivers. Ponds 

are expensive to build and cover a lot of space that ultimately will be useless salt pans 

when methane extraction is exhausted and the ponds evaporated. The pond beds will be 

high salt sources for decades if allowed to contact surface runoff. Dams may fail or leak. 

CBM water in some of the ponds (referred to as percolation ponds) is intentionally 

allowed to percolate downward into subsurface formations as a disposal process. But the 

ultimate flow pathways for this water is not necessarily back into the coal seams, 

especially if the water encounters shallow impervious formations. Uncertainty is high as 

to where this water will go. Industry also is conducting experiments to dilute or treat 

soils to allow irrigation with CBM water, but results so far are not promising in a 

commercial farming context.

Why not reinject the water into depleted coal seams or other subsurface 

formations as is usually done? Clearly this would solve one of the biggest problems with 

CBM. The answer we got consistently is that it is cheaper to build ponds or discharge the 

water directly into the streams and rivers. Moreover, most of the subsurface strata are 

impervious shales that are not amenable to reinjection. Ideally, one would start at the 

highest elevation coal seam, dewater it and then sequentially develop lower elevation 

sites, backfilling the water to the degassed deposit.

Reverse osmosis treatment (desalinization) could be applied to strip the salts

thereby producing water suitable for all uses, but this also is expensive and the striped 

and greatly concentrated salts have to be dealt with.

Industry of course is interested in direct discharge to the streams owing to 

expedience and least cost. However, the volumes of water and concentrations of sodium 

and other ions described above would very likely be harmful to river biota and ecological 

processes as well as harm irrigated agricultural lands. The salient issue is whether there 

are reasonable limits that can be applied to control or regulate such discharges. The 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality has proposed numerical criteria or 

standard thresholds (Table 1), based primarily on use of the water for irrigation as 

opposed to standards for both river biota and irrigation. The process of deriving these 

standards included consideration of soil types and ability of soils to withstand additional 

salinity, particularly as measured by EC and SAR. It also included compromise between 

CBM industry’s desire to minimize disposal costs and concerns on the part of irrigators 

that river water be consistently suitable for irrigation. The standards (Table 1) would 

allow both Tongue and Powder rivers and Rosebud Creek to be loaded with salts to the 

point that the high end of the current variability (see Figure 1) could be maintained by 

CBM discharges. In other words, these standards allow significant salt loading over 

existing conditions.

The main take home point from all of this is that based on the current science, 

predicting the short- or long-term consequences, if any, on irrigation supplies or riverine 

ecosystem functions and biota is decidedly uncertain. Moreover, as noted above, current 

water quality statutes may not specify that discharge permits are required at all. In short, 

dealing with CBM water in a documented, sound fashion, short of reinjection, is fraught 
9

with scientific uncertainty. Erring on the side of expedience could produce impacts that 

could last for decades, if not permanently change the existing environmental condition.

 

Table 1. Numeric standards for discharge of CBM water into various water bodies 

of the CBM area in Montana proposed by the Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality (EC = electrical conductivity- as μS/cm, SAR = sodium 

absorption ratio, all values are monthly means)

Location, parameter* Proposed 

Standard

Tongue River main stem:

EC irrigation season 1,000

SAR irrigation season 3.5

EC nonirrigation season 2,000

SAR nonirrigation season 5.0

Powder and Little Powder River main 

stems:

EC irrigation season 2,000

SAR irrigation season 5.0

EC nonirrigation season 2,500

SAR nonirrigation season 7.5

Rosebud Creek main stem:

EC irrigation season 1,000

SAR irrigation season 3.5

EC nonirrigation season 2,000

SAR nonirrigation season 5.0

Tributaries & other surface waters in above basins:

EC irrigation season 500

SAR irrigation season 5.0

EC nonirrigation season 500

SAR nonirrigation season 5.0

* In all rule proposals irrigation season is from March 2-Oct 31, nonirrigation from Nov 1 

to March 1.

AN ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT – ECOSYSTEM APPROACH TO THE CBM WATER ISSUE

Many people would like to have CBM development in Montana as long as there 

are no costly and lasting environmental problems. The path to such a goal clearly is a 

tangled one. An iterative process integrating stakeholder concerns with the best available 

science, composed of focused research, monitoring and evaluation of effects, is required 

to resolve uncertainties if CBM moves ahead in Montana. In Figure 3, we offer an 

adaptive, ecosystem framework for accomplishing the goal. Note this process allows for 
10

the goal to be changed if it becomes too costly in either economic or environmental 

terms. Our focus herein is on the CBM water issue. But, this framework can be used to 

resolve any issue.

With respect to the water issue, the process currently is stuck at the Management 

Implementation step in Figure 3. Here is how to get beyond the mud hole.

We summarized above the array of mechanisms the CBM industry is using to 

dispose of the ground water brought to the surface for the extraction of methane gas from 

the coalbed seams. In Figure 4, we have ordered the uncertainties and environmental risk 

associated with these mechanisms from the least risk (top) to the highest risk (bottom) 

with respect to potential degradation to the surface freshwater environments in the 

Montana CBM area. This “Decision Tree” is a hierarchical sequence of linear logic for 

assessing the various alternatives for dealing with the potentially vast quantity of salty 

CBM water. In each case, a specific mechanism of disposing of the water must have an 

approach to achieve nondegradation of the surface freshwater environments. In Figure 4, 

we provide some suggested approaches to nondegradation for each mechanism.

Figure 3. General protocol 

for ecosystem 

management (flow 

diagram at left) as applied 

to Montana CBM (blue 

boxes on right). This is 

not an EIS process. It is 

an adaptive process that 

must continue for the life 

of the project because new 

information may change 

outcomes at any level. 

Complete rationale for this 

approach is given in the 

1996 issue of the journal 

Ecological Applications 

6(3): 741-744.

Synthesize

Knowledge Base

Define the

Ecosystem

Identify Goals

Develop

Management

Strategy

Implement

Management

Strategy

Conduct Research

(Basic Science and

Monitoring)

Action (Management)

Public Science

Knowledge and Information

Reports and Databases

Montana - Wyoming

CBM Area

Maintain Ecological

Integrity and Healthful

Environment

?

 (see Figure 4)

?

Discharge Permits?

Comprehensive

Environmental

Monitoring

(see Figure 4)
11

These may be modified as the process moves forward. Finally, to verify nondegradation 

and to be able to make informed adaptive management decisions, each mechanism and 

risk reduction approach to water disposal must have a corresponding research and 

monitoring plan. 

An array of research and monitoring tools exist that could be put to good use to 

resolve uncertainties for water and other CBM issues (Box B). For example, land use 

change in many different contexts (wildlife, water quality, soil condition) can be 

evaluated for the entire CBM area using new remote sensing tools. Models and advanced 

computing tools are available to assess cumulative effects and may be improved by local 

INJECTION

DOMESTIC USE

LIVESTOCK USE

SEALED HOLDING

PONDS

IRRIGATION

PERCOLATION

PONDS

CENTRAL

TREATMENT

DISCHARGE TO

SURFACE WATER

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

H2O reinjection into CB

seams within historical

variation of distribution

and conditions

H2O volume, use and

disposal/treatment within

normal patterns,

conditions and variation

H2O contained in hard

structure tanks. No

discharge outside normal

livestock activity

No grndwtr discharge

Numeric stds of pond size

and frequency

Post-CBM amelioration

H2O use within irr BMPs

No signf change in soil

chemistry or properties

Discharge to deep gndwtr

YES

H2O treated in central

water treatment facility

Use of treated water

reenters decision tree

H2Oquantity:numeric or

variance standards

H2O quality: numeric or

nat. variance standards

Ecological Integrity of

stream and river systems

maintained

Mechanism Approach Monitoring

Monitoring wells to

confirm injection and

H2O quantity and quality

Regular inspection to

assure compliance

Regular inspection to

assure compliance

Groundwater wells within

and below gradient to

assure no leaching or

loss to groundwaters

Groundwater wells within

and below gradient to

assure no leaching or

loss to groundwaters

Groundwater wells within

and below gradient to

assure leaching to deep

groundwaters

Treated waters from

treatment facility reenters

decision tree as water is

disposed

H2Oquantity: Site Q data

and hydrol/ppt modeling

H2O quality: test solutes

w/in QA/QC and risk freq

Ecological Integrity: eval

ecol struct/func assessmnt

with field and Remote

Sensing tools. See Box B

NO

INCREASING UNCERTAINTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISK

Re-enter

 Decision Tree

Discharge to deep grndwtr

Numeric stds of pond size

and frequency

Post-CBM amelioration

Figure 4. Adaptive management Decision Tree illustrating increasing uncertainty and environmental risk

associated with the disposal or treatment of CBM ground water. “Mechanisms” refer to sequential

decision boxes associated with the various common methods of CBM water disposal. “Approaches” refers

to a possible approach or limitation to risk. “Monitoring” highlights a possible monitoring alternative.
12

determinations of cause and effect (e.g., details of soil responses to various sodium 

levels). Without a robust research component, the iterative process idealized in Figure 3 

will tilt toward litigation and the courts as the problem solver.

Box B. Monitoring and Assessment Tool Box

• Satellite Imagery to assess and model landscape change

• Monitor and model precipitation and hydrologic discharge of entire basins

• Nano-sensors for continuous in-stream monitoring of H2O chemistry

• Ecological assessment of Ecosystem Integrity

• Hyperspectral Airborne Remote Sensing and Habitat Analysis

Numerous satellites, such as Land-sat and EOS, produce an array of remotely

sensed data that are readily available. Digital imagery permits monitoring and

modeling of land use, vegetation cover, landscape change, and other important

parameters that will be affected by CBM development. Assessment and modeling of

landscape change would permit Montanans to make informed decisions in an

adaptive management context.

There are sophisticated models of regional climate and hydrologic discharge with

datasets ready-to-go for Montana. Water quantity and quality are central issues in

the CBM development for Montana. Assessment and modeling of water coming into

and passing through the CBM basins is critical to understanding and evaluating CBM

development effects on Montana’s environment

Recent development of nano-sensors for water chemistry now permit continuous

monitoring of the parameters of greatest concern to Montanans in the development

of CBM. Scientists are no longer relegated to only spot sampling. Montana’s

agricultural and ecological interests could be well served by this new technology.

Significant advances in biological and functional assessment permit rapid evaluation

of species and processes in the natural environment. Assessment is based on a

Tiered Aquatic Life Use model developed cooperatively with the US EPA. These

evaluation and modeling approaches facilitate direct assessment of aquatic

populations and communities such as fish and food webs.

Recent developments in airborne hyperspectral imagery now permit detailed

evaluation of change in aquatic and riparian habitats. Montana now has the

capability of assessing river processes and habitats along entire stream and river

corridors at resolutions of 1 square meter.

These are examples of environmental monitoring and evaluation tools

used routinely by FLBS and other scientists in Montana, in the Pacific NW,

and around the globe. For details, contact Flathead Lake Biological

Station of The University of Montana.
13

CONCLUSION

CBM is especially problematic in that gas production will benefit Montana 

economically, but at the same time considerable uncertainty exists about lasting 

environmental impacts of full field development, especially with respect to land use 

change and water quality.

The water problem could most simply be solved by reinjection. If reinjection is 

not an economical option, the issue of what to do with the water becomes complex. 

Ponding and direct discharge both have potentially very long lasting ramifications. Using 

our decision tree (Figure 4) hopefully will help better quantify the various alternatives. 

In any case, it is critical that a robust monitoring plan be implemented to ensure that the 

existing water quality is maintained. Loading the rivers with CBM salt water to the 

current limit of maximum variation will not sustain water quality, biota or agricultural 

use.

Land use change must occur in order to extract the gas. Minimizing impacts on 

wildlife and other attributes of the current natural character of the area will require 

implementation of best management practices (BMPs) for installation and operation of 

the gas fields. No uniformly accepted BMPs exist for CBM activities as far as we know. 

A decision tree for field development (e.g., road and pipeline restoration, access, noise), 

similar to what we have derived for water disposal could lead to a robust set of BMPs.

Finally, more insightful and independent research to determine environmental 

problems and solutions must be conducted to reduce uncertainties. Key questions such as 

access and noise effects on wildlife, effectiveness of native vegetation restoration in 

disturbed areas and influences of CBM water on river biota and farm soils requires robust 

experimental designs. This work should be peer reviewed and published in the scientific 

literature as a credibility check.

Who will pay for these activities? Certainly State, Federal and Tribal 

governments must be involved in monitoring and evaluation. But, ultimately it seems the 

producers of the gas should pay for environmental safe guards and clean up that may 

eventuate over the life of the project. A permitting and bonding system that is robust and 

fair could accomplish this, if it is implemented in an adaptive ecosystem management 

framework (Figure 3).