Table Of ContentBLM/A K/ST-98/001 +6760+31 OADO
Department of the lnterior
Bureau of Land Management
PROCEEDINGS OF THE TESHEKPUK LAKE AREA
CARIBOUIWATERFOWL IMPACTS ANALYSIS
WORKSHOP
On Reserve MAY 21-22, 1997
FAIRBANKS, ALASKA
QL
696
.AS
T47
1997
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
TESHEKPUK LAKE AREA
CARffiOU/WATERFOWL IMPACTS ANALYSIS WORKSHOP
MAY 21-22, 1997
FAIRBANKS, ALASKA
Edited by
DAVID A. YOKEL
Bureau of Land Management
Northem District -
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OFFICE
1150 University Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709-3899
i
Table of Contents
Introduction
Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 1
Scope ...................................................................................................... , ........................... 1
Format ................................................................................................................................ 1
Agenda ................................................................................................................................ 1
Attendees ........................................................................................................................· . ... 3
Preliminary Information ................................................................................................................ 3
Overview of Caribou Use ................................................................................................... 3
Overview ofWaterfowl Use ............................................................................................... 4
Oilfield Design Options and Wildlife Mitigation ............................................................... 4
Proceedings of the Waterfowl Panel .............................................................................................. 7
Review of Current Knowledge ........................................................................................... 7
Development of Stipulations .............................................................................................. 9
Draft Waterfowl Stipulations ............................................................................................ 12
Proceedings of the Caribou Panel ............................................................................................... 13
Review of Current Knowledge ......................................................................................... 13
Development of Stipulations ............................................................................................ 18
Draft Caribou Stipulations ................................................................................................ 21
Group Review and Synthesis of Stipulations ............................................................................... 22
Review of Stipulations ........................................................................................ :. ........... 22
Residual Impacts .............................................................................................................. 23
Buffer Widths for Goose Molt ing Lakes .......................................................................... 24
Development of Combined Set of Stipulations ................................................................ 24
Final Workshop Stipulations ....................................... ., ..................................... ~ .............. 24 ·
Suggested References ............................................................. ., .................................................... 28
Appendix A, Teshekpuk Lake Area Development Questions.., .................................................... 29
Appendix B, Molting Geese in the Teshekpuk Lake Area
and Migratory Birds of the Arctic Coastal Plain ......... ., .................................................... 31
Figures
Figure 1. Geographie Scope ofWorkshop ........................................................................................ 2
Figure 2. Goose Molting Area ......................................................................................................... 8
Figure 3. Preferred Goose Feeding Habitat ................................................................................... 11
Figure 4. Caribou Calving and Summer Use Area ........................................................................ 14
Figure 5. Crucial Movement Corridors for Caribou ...................................................................... 19
Figure 6. Buffers Around Goose Molt ing Lakes ........................................................................... 25
ii
Introduction The second phase of the workshop was limited to
Purpose agency personnel, indicated as panelists in the list
on page 3. In addition to the invited workshop
The Bureau of Land Management held the participants, a letter was sent to varions otganiza-·
Teshekpuk Lake Area Impacts Analysis Workshop ti ons with relevant interests. The letter requested
on May 21 and 22, 1997, to prov ide BLM with information addressing the questions in Appendix
guidance for developing a package of stipulations A, or information related to wildlife interactions
for an environmental impact statement alternative with North Slope oil developments that would be
that would allow oil and gas leasing in the pertinent to lthe development of mitigation mea
Teshekpuk Lake area (Figure 1). BLM wanted the sures. No responses were received. The draft
invited panelists to identify the conditions under proceedings of the workshop were distributed to
which development could be al1owed "in a panelists for review. This fmal edition of the
manner which will assure the maximum protec proceedings will be included in BLM's administra
tion of such surface values to the extent consistent tive record.
with the [Naval Petroleum Reserves Production
Act of 1976]." There were two constraints on Agenda
discussion at this meeting: the results must allow
economically viable oil development, but with May21:
protection for caribou and waterfowl. I. Overview of Caribou and Wateifowl Use of
Teshekpuk Lake Area
Scope Two brief presentations
• Review options for "reduced-impact oil fields." . II. Explore Options for Reduced-impact Oil Fields
• Review existing information pertaining to the Presentation by industry representatives
response of waterfowl and caribou to oil and gas (ARCO), addressing topics such as minimally
development. staffed oil fields, remote control of production
• Formulate a realistic development alternative facilities, bUiried vs. above-ground pipelines,
that minimizes impacts to waterfowl and roadless oil fields, minimal air traffic, etc. Discuss
caribou. advantages and disadvantages of varions develop
• Evaluate the likely residual impacts to water ment options.
fowl and caribou, under the alternative formu
lated above. III. Apply the Prudhoe Bay Experience to the
Teshekpuk Lake Area
Format Waterfowl and caribou panels meet separately.
Invited biologists assist in interpreting recent work
The workshop bad facilitators to help meet the on disturbance of birds and caribou, and studies
goals in the short time allowed. The panels emanating from the existing North Slope oil fields.
consisted of agency representatives with knowl The goal is to define the extent to which studies in
edge in waterfowl or caribou biology, wildlife the existing oil fields can be used as a model for
interactions with North Slope oil and gas activi Teshekpuk Lake.
ties, or oil field development. Panel members
reviewed relevant studies prior to the workshop. May 22 (panelists only ):
Representatives from the oil and gas industry, as IV. Formulate Stipulations for Teshekpuk Lake
weil as invited nonagency biologists, provided Area
background information in an initial information Waterfowl and caribou panels meet separately.
gathering phase. Based on the development options presented
1
Geographie scope of workshop
Be~
llpol?r
se~
Figure 1. Geographie scope of workshop.
2
earlier, panelists formulate a set of conditions on Mark Myers, ADNR (petroleum development
oil field construction and operations that would specialist, waterfowl panelist)
maximize protection of waterfowl and caribou, Joseph Dygas, BLM (petroleum development
without precluding oil and gas development. specialist, caribou panelist)
Jim Craig, MMS (petroleum development
V. Synthesis specialist, waterfowl panelist)
Waterfowl and caribou panels meet together to Dick Roberts, MMS (observer)
identîfy conflicts between their respective mitiga Don Hansen, MMS (caribou panelist)
tion plans. Panelists attempt to formulate a unified Marie Crosley, ADNR (observer)
approach to mitigation for both waterfowl and Dick Mylius, ADNR (observer)
caribou. Residual impacts and environmental risks Pam Rogers, ADNR (observer)
of the mitigation plan(s) are assessed. Bill Van Dyke, ADNR (petroleum development
specialist, caribou panelist)
(Note: The workgroup was not completely Declan Troy, TERA (invited biologist, water
successful in accomplishing all of this aggressive fowl)
agenda during the two days allowed. Follow-up Steve Murphy, ABR (invited biologist, water-
meetings involving a subset of attendees were fowl)
needed on May 28 and June 2 to flesh out one of Craig George, NSB (caribou panelist)
the waterfowl stipulations and to merge the two Ken Whitten, ADF&G (caribou panelist)
sets of stipulations.) Jack Winters, ADF&G (waterfowl panelist)
Phyllis Casey, MMS (observer)
Attendees Frank Wendling, MMS ( waterfowl panelist)
Roger Siglin, Northem Alaska Environmental
Dave Yokel, BLM (workshop organizer, caribou Center (observer)
panel ist) Robert Suydam, NSB (waterfowl panelist)
Herb Brownell, BLM (facilitator) Eric Taylor, UAF (invited biologist, waterfowl)
Susan Will, BLM (facilitator)
Ryan Lance, ARCO (invited speaker) Preliminary·Information
Mike Joyce, ARCO (invited speaker)
Sharon Wilson, BLM (notetaker) Overview of Caribou Use
Sue Mitchell, Inkworks (notetaker)
Philip Martin, USFWS (waterfowl panelist) Ken Whitten of ADFG presented information on
Joel Hubbard, MMS (waterfowl panelist) caribou in the Teshekpuk Lake and Prudhoe Bay
Anne Morkill, BLM (waterfowl panelist) areas. A berd is defined as having a consistent
Tom Rothe, ADF&G (waterfowl panelist) calving area, and the Teshekpuk Lake Herd (TLH)
Geoff Carroll, ADF&G (caribou panel ist) is more consistent than others. When first recog
Dick Shideler, ADF&G (caribou panelist) nized as a distinct herd, it was estîmated at 4,000 to
Brian Lawhead, ABR (invited biologist, caribou) 6,000 animais and was 25,000 at last count. There
Brad Griffith, USGS-BRD (caribou panelist) is a fairly high level of harvest.
Alan Brackney, USFWS (waterfowl panelist) As regards potential development in the area, the
Karen Bollinger, USGS-BRD (speaker, waterfowl) only berd for which we have data is the Central
Gene Terland, BLM (observer) Arctic Herd (CAH). Its population was similar to
Jim Docker, BLM (observer) the TLH when oil was discovered. It increased
Curt Wilson, BLM (observer) rapidly to a peak of 23,000 in 1992, but in contrast
Mike Kunz, BLM (observer) to the TLH, it declined to 18,000 by 1995. The first
Johanna Munson, State of AK (observer) signs of impacts from earliest construction were
3
that few cows with young calves were spending percent of the molting geese in the area. There are
any time next to roads. The CAH calving grounds, a few breeders, but most are either failed breeders
between the Colville and Canning Rivers, are or nonbreeders.
spread out over a greater area than the calving Ail species use the area northeast ofTeshekpuk
grounds of the TLH. Lake, with Canada geese and brant sharing several
There are two separate calving concentration of their highest-use lakes. Brant tend to occur in
areas: one at Kuparuk and Milne Point, and one at larger flocks on fewer lakes. Variation is high
Canning River. The road to Milne Point went among years, and the survey is only conducted on
through the western calving area. Cows avoided one day each July during the peak of molt for all
the road by one to three miles. As development species. On average, eight lakes support 50 percent
increased and there were more facilities, there was of the brant; one lake is used by over 3,000. The
less use of the area for calving and calving cows molt period lasts for about a month and then goose
moved south and west. Midsummer movements distribution changes. Geese tend to move to coastal
through the area persisted, but caribou have not areas before leaving the Teshekpuk Lake area
passed freely. Collared caribou from the western entirely.
area were in worse physical condition in faU than Brant are an international concem and this area
those from where there was no development. AU is of high international importance. Birds molting
decline in population has taken place in the portion in the Teshekpuk Lake area come from Russia,
of the CAR from the developed, western area. In Alaska and Canada, and winter in Mexico. This
summary, there is no proof of oil field impacts on area is unique on the North Slope, having large
herd productivity, but there is at least reason for lakes with adjacent meadows, escape cover, and
concern. Many of the Prudhoe Bay/Kuparuk good forage availability.
developments were designed 15-25 years ago;
future development may not be the same. But there Oilfield Design Options and Wildlife Mitigation
is a correlation between the extent of surface
structures and caribou activities. Mike Joyce, an ARCO biologist, and Ryan
Lance, an ARCO engineer, provided their perspec
Overview ofWaterfowl Use tive of what practices might be used to protect
wildlife while still allowing development.
Karen Bollinger of USGS-BRD presented data The greatest problem for caribou is stress from
on molting geese in the Teshekpuk Lake Special traffic, which has caused aU the changes in CAR
Area (Appendix B). The survey area encompassed distribution. This can be mitigated when designing
199 lakes and Smith Bay, with data for 15 years the layout of an oïl field and by monitoring caribou
from 1982 to 1996. Total number of geese varied movement and stopping traffic when caribou are
from 19,000 to 68,000 with an average of 38,000. near the road and about to cross. An oil field in
Molting geese are few in number outside the NPR-A would not be the size ofKuparuk and they
survey area. The four species present are Canada expect this should work, although there are no data
goose, Pacifie black brant, white-fronted goose and to test this mitigation.
snow goose. The total number of ali geese using During the three .. week calving season, there is
the area over 15 years indicates an increasing avoidance of roads with tra:ffic. Sorne calving still
trend, primarily due to an increase in white-fronted occurs in the Kuparuk oil field, but the bulk of
geese. Of the total Pacifie black brant population calving has shifted to the south and west. Follow
worldwide, up to 22 percent molt in this area. ing calving, caribou are present on the coastal plain
Snow geese are few, usually less than 500. On during the insect season. Before there were gravel
average, brant comprise about 46 percent, Canada pads, caribou went to river bars to avoid insects;
geese 34 percent and white-fronted geese 19 now they use the gravel pads. Caribou are not
4
bothered by the presence of a drill rig, the gravel rehabilitated if moisture and nutrient cycles are
pads, or the pipe. If pipes are built a minimum of properly addressed. The effects of seeding and
five feet above ground and separated from roads, fertilizing last only two to three years. With the
they aren't a problem for caribou during insect addition oftopsoil and grasses a long-term, sus
season. tained vegetative cover can be produced. However,
The current assumption is that sales-oïl pipelines it's a monoculture and slows down the invasion of
from NPR-A would not have associated roads, but natural pioneer species. There is a benefit in not
this would have to be decided on a case-by-case developing a monoculture; ARCO has gone to
basis. Prudhoe and Kuparuk are giant oïl fields; seeding with partial application rates and transplant
there's less than a one percent chance of finding plugs or seed from natural plants. This provides a
one ofthat size in northeastem NPR-A. Eventually more rapid progression to the diverse vegetative
there could be a threshold number or size of oil community desired.
fields when roads to the oilfields are less distur Collection and disposai of food waste in a way
bance than the alternatives. In the short term, it is that attracts predators to camp locations can also
believed roads won't be needed. Rather than using stress bird nesting activity. Trash is currently
surface vehicles, pipeline spill monitoring can be placed in dumpsters, transported to landfills, or
done daily using forward-looking radar (FLR) incinerated. This provides access to food by
from airplanes and detection systems on the line. predators. There are pilot studies on composting at
The FLR can operate from any altitude, if there are the mess hall in self-enclosed vessels. Composting
no clouds. One trade-off of having no road is that a may be the norm at future camps that will be
large-aircraft runway is required in case of a weil smaller--50 to 100 people as opposed to thousands
blow-out A jet operation would not be necessary, at Kuparuk.
but for oil spill response the capability to land a (The remaining discussion was directed to
Herc is required. questions in Appendix A that had not already been
Another trade-off is that more space is needed to addressed.)
store equipment that can be brought in only during In regard to the question of oil field design and
the winter. Finally, oil field crews change at least what level of on-site processing would be needed,
once a week. Between that and air transport of the size of the oil field at Prudhoe requires six
supplies, maybe one flight a day would be needed. dedicated processing facilities. The Alpine oil
For birds, the problem is noise and commotion, field, which is more representative of the potential
which can also be mitigated. ARCO monitors opportunites in NPR-A, has these same functions
tundra swan nests, which are a prime indicator for and everything else on two pads. Pads in NPR-A
long-term information because swans are most would average 8-10 acres each. Considering the
sensitive to noise and commotion. Swan numbers tradeoffs, it's best to keep processing close to the
have risen rather dramatically in the last three to wells because multiphase lines have a higher
five years and nesting densities are comparable to probabilty of spill.
historicallevels. ARCO has classified habitat into It is hard to predict what type of oil field support
21 types, and with Geographical Information infrastructure would be required in NPR-A. It can
System software they can better estimate where probably be done a lot more efficiently than
birds may concentrate during seasonal events and Deadhorse. As rouch as it can, ARCO would try to
therefore where facilities should be sited to mini avoid another Deadhorse in NPR-A.
mize noise and commotion. Two to three years before starting up oil field
ARCO has also been conducting site rehabilita development there would be a lot of activity that
tion experiments. NPR-A doesn't have the quality usually occurs during winter. One option for access
of gravel as found in Prudhoe/Kuparuk; the grain is building a dock into the Beaufort Sea and
size is smaller. Even thick gravel fill can be barging equipment from Prudhoe or Kuparuk, but
5
tradeoffs exist. Is a dock better than a seasonal ice oil reservoir with the drill.
road? Are year-round ice pads possible? If so, how In general, ARCO wouldn't allow public access
much refrigeration is required? Is there another set to oilfield facilities, but would allow Native
of environmental problems? subsistence access.
How different drainages would be crossed On the question of whether industry would
depends on their characteristics. ARCO will try to consider sharing seismic data, fromARCO's
cross the Colville by drilling undemeath. They perspective that would be a big hurdle. Those data
contemplate trenching in other places, but not in are considered a key competitive aspect of the
the Colville. Each drainage bas its own set of business.
considerations. In terms of levels of operations, Alpine will be
How feasible is horizontal directional drilling? radically different from Kuparuk; it will have only
There is a distinction between horizontal drilling minimal staff. The technology is not quite there yet
and extended-reach drilling. Bach is feasible given to have unmanned sites. Starting in 1998 atAlpine,
the right situation. Alpine would have required there will be a lot of activity for two years in
three or four drill sites in the past; now extended winter, with hundreds of people needed then. There
reach drilling will require only two sites. The would be no impact on animais living there in
current record is a reach-to-depth ratio of 4:1. The summer except for drilling. Normal operating
shallower the oil, the less the reach. mode would need 20 to 40 people.
ls an oil field without roads connecting pads The economies of completely stopping opera
feasible? It's technically feasible but not an appro tions for two to three months are prohibitive in
priate tradeoff due to the increased need for local these small fields. A drill rig is not conducive to
air traffic. With roads, helicopters would be needed shutting down in mid-weil, tior would it be eco
only for spill response. nomie to plan the ddlling schedule to stop drilling
The tradeoff in elevating pipeline eight feet vs. for two months. There' s more to it than just
five feet is more expense. Different equipment is shutting down for two months and not getting two
needed for construction after about six feet. The wells drilled. It's dependent on the need to keep the
extra three feet makes a significant difference in reservoir in balance. Recovery from the field as a
the equipment needed, and thus in costs, but it whole could be reduced. The optimum would be
doesn't make a big difference to caribou. The continuons drilling activity for four or more years.
terrain goes up and down but the pipeline doesn't During critical time periods ARCO can try to
since rapid topographical changes in the pipe are reduce the number of people. However, ongoing
undesirable, so over 60 percent of the line is weil operations are different. If ARCO can figure out
above five feet above the terrain. how to run with five people rather than 25, it will.
Buried pipelines may be feasible and cost In summary: 1) Complete shut down for the
effective, but burial clearly disrupts the tundra. caribou/goose critical period is not economical.
Also, future needs may change, causing the need to People will be present at ali times, with a daily
dig up and rebury. But foremost is the concem for commute if their worksite is on a different pad than
thaw and freeze of pennafrost. Crude oil is hot, the camp. 2) Remote operation is not yet techni
and you have to insulate heavily or place the pipe cally feasible but bas potential for the future. 3) It
in thaw-stable rock. Pipe can be buried in the road, is not economically feasible to suspend drilling
but it's very expensive and bad from a spill and during that period, but minimal staffmg and
leak perspective. Also culvert drainage is a diffi reduced access can be accomplished.
culty.
Existing DEW-line sites would be given priority
for new facilities if they' re properly located.
However, there is a technicallimit to reaching the
6
but people on foot frighten the geese quit e a bit In
Proceedings of the Waterfowl Group two brood-rearing areas, one near high traffic and
one near low traffic, the high-traffic-area geese
Review of Current Knowledge reacted less, perhaps suggesting habituation to
consistent traffic over time. It may be safe to
Molting geese are flightless and more sensitive assume that humans on foot and helicopter traffic
to disturbance than during other periods. The are the two most disruptive of anthropogenic
Teshekpuk Lake area has been traditionally used factors to molting geese.
by molting and breeding geese for thousands of Culverts may be a high priority problem, if they
years (Figure 2). The primary needs of molting cause flooding of an entire goose colony . Indirect
geese there are protection from disturbance, effects such as hunter access can be much greater
available and adequate food supply within close than direct effects, to which birds can habituate.
proxirnity to escape habitat, low predator density, Birds become more wary during nesting. During
and escape habitat (open water, ice floes). Factors faU staging for migration, distribution is more
that cause disturbance of waterfow1 are predators related to food than to disturbance.
(including foxes), aircraft overflights, humans on During work on four species of geese, Steve
foot, vehicle traffic, noise and commotion. Factors Murphy ranked disturbance using three criteria:
that may affect the availability of an adequate food severity of reaction, duration of response, and
supply are changing water levels in lakes, develop distance moved. Over five years, he looked at
ments which restrict goose access to food, habitat humans on foot, nonpredators, avian predators,
loss, contaminants, previous grazing by geese or ground predators (fox), and aircraft. He investi
caribou, nutrient cycling, weather, and overpopula gated the distance at which disturbance seems to
tion from lack of predation. Factors that limit drop off. Failed breeders and nonbreeders may
escape habitat are weather (influence on ice), respond differently, for example, nonbreeders may
topography, hydrology, habitat loss, lake levels spend more energy to get away because they're not
(thaw cycle, drainage, modified hydrology, etc.), tied down by a brood.
disturbance, access/proximity (escape bas to be Studies by Eric Taylor looked at changes in brant
near to feeding areas ), channelization or drainage body mass, protein levels, and lipid levels from
patterns (connection of lakes to each other), size of arrivai to departure on the molting grounds. There
habitat unit, and proximity of lakes to each other. was a significant protein deficit and decrease in
Predator populations are affected by availability of lipids. Brant may select the Teshekpuk area as
lemmings and other alternative prey species, much for lack of disturbance as for available
garbage, supplemental food, human harvest, nutrition. In fact, the nutrition available may not be
arti:ficial nesting habitats, number of geese, and optimum. Brant molting nearTeshekpuk are
disease. Traditional use oflakes by geese may be primarily from the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta.
influenced by habitat modification, population Almost alllipids are lost during the molt period,
size, frequency of disturbance, and distribution down to about two percent. The geese also incur a
changes. protein deficit during that time.
There are not enough data to say definitively Would geese from the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta
which of the above factors is a higher priority for react differently than birds boin and raised at
molting geese, or how sorne may be related to oil Prudhoe, where there's already disturbance? Geese
field development. The Prudhoe Bay studies react strongly to any disturbance, and there may be
funded by ARCO provided data on 400 to 500 a critical time while choosing a place to molt when
birds, but these may not apply to the thousands of disturbance will cause geese to move elsewhere.
birds at Teshekpuk. A couple of studies have Sorne restrictions could be placed on oilfield
indicated that land traffic per se was not a problem, work during summer to reduce pressure on geese
7
