Kindermann p95-98 are pretty close to the line in question, with c2-c4 or Bg2 inserted instead of Nbd2. So it's useful for black to be aware of the idea Nd2-c4 as a reply to the e5 dxe5 Nfd7 idea, but it's just a little trap. 

One idea against this line without c2-c4 could perhaps be something like 5.-Nc6 6.b5 Na5; however I don't see anything wrong with Beim's and Heidrich's 5.-0-0; both games look rather 'normal for the Leningrad', and both were drawn despite that white were higher rated in both games. 

That white hasn't repeated the position after 6.Nbd2 suggests that there are bigger worries for black than this...

That particular moveorder is not covered in Beims book. One of the weaknesses of the book is that many sidelines are not sufficiently covered or not covered at all! That said i think the book is nevertheless very good. Compared to many other openings leningrad is not as severly tested by Gm games and many variations is hardly forced.

Back to the line in question : Beim cover a very similar line, but where white play Bg2  early. I cant say i do fully understand the deeper subleties of this change in moveorder. But after 
1 d4 f5 2 g3 Nf6 3 Nf3 g6 4 b4 Bg7 5 Bb2 d6 6 Nbd2 0-0 7 c4 it seems to me  black has at least two reasonable replies

a) 7...e5 as played in Dautov-Beim. This is the sharpest response, and seems logical to me to open the cente while white kingside is not fully developped. And now Nc4 is not possible!

b) 7...c6 More solid approach. Keeping flexible. If now 8 Bg2 Na6! leading the white queen to b3 rather than c2. This line seems to transpose to a book line.

However 

c) The typical 7 ...Qe8 might be inaccurate here