GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 695 

Environmental Impact Analysis: 

The Example of the Proposed 

Trans-Alaska Pipeline 

Environmental Impact Analysis: 

The Example of the Proposed 

Trans-Alaska Pipeline 

By David A. Brew 

G E 0 L 0 G I C A L 5 U R V E Y C I R C U L A R 695 

1974 
United States Department of the Interior 

ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary 

Geological Survey 

V. E. McKelvey, Director 

Free on application to the U.S. Geological Survey, National Center, Reston, Va. 22092 
CONTENTS 

Page 

Plbstract ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 

Introduction -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 

Proposed trans-1\laska pipeline ________________________ ____________________________ ____ 2 

Reasons for analyzing environmental impact in the Plrctic and other regions ______________ 2 

Environmental impact analysis of the trans-Pllaska and trans-1\laska-Canada 

pipeline systems ---------------------------------------------------------------- 5 

Environment____________________________________________________________________ 6 

Impacting project----------------------------- ____ ------------------------------- 6 

Identification of impacting effects _________________ ------------------------------- 8 

Impact linkage information ___________________ _ _ _ _ ______________ _________________ 9 

Analysts and the analysis _________________________ ------------------------------- 9 

Coordination and communication _________________ ------------------------------- 10 

Guidelines----------------------------------- ___ -------------------------------- 10 

Main types of impact predicted by the analysis ------------------------------------------ 11 

1\nalysis and comparison of alternatives ------------------------------------------------ 13 

Conclusion ____________________________________________________________________________ 15 

References cited ____________ _____ ________ _ ______________ _ _____________ _ _______________ 16 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

Page 

FIGURE 1. Generalized physiographic map of Pllaska showing route of proposed oil-pipeline system ___________ ________ 3 

2. Conceptual diagram showing components and development of environmental impact analysis _____________ 5 

3. Map of Pllaska and northwestern Canada showing alternate routes for transporting North Slope oil ________ 7 

III 

Environmental Impact Analysis: the Example of the 

Proposed Trans-Alaska Pipeline 

By David A. Brew 

ABSTRACT 

The environmental impact analysis made as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for the proposed 

trans-Alaska pipeline included consideration of the (1) technologically complex and geographically extensive proposed 

project, (2) extremely different physical environments across 

Alaska along the proposed route and elsewhere in Alaska and 

in Canada along alternative routes, (3) socioeconomic environment of the State of Alaska, and (4) a wide variety of alternatives. 

The analysis was designed specifically to fit the project and 

environment that would be affected. The environment was 

divided into two general parts-natural physical systems and 

superposed socioeconomic systems-and those parts were 

further divided into discipline-oriented systems or components 

that were studied and analyzed by scientists of the appropriate 

discipline. Particular attention was given to potential feedback 

loops in the impact network and to linkages between the 

project's impacting effects and the environment. 

The results of the analysis as reported in the final environmental impact statement were that both unavoidable and 

threatened environmental impacts would result from construction, operation, and maintenance ofthe proposed pipeline system and the developments related to it. The principal unavoidable effects would be (1) disturbances of terrain, fish and wildlife habitat, and human environs, (2) the results of the discharge of effluent from the tanker-ballast-treatment facility 

into Port Valdez and of some indeterminate amount of oil 

released into the ocean from tank-cleaning operations at sea, 

and (3) the results associated with increased human pressures 

of all kinds on the environment. Other unavoidable effects 

would be those related to increase of State and Native Corporation revenues, accelerated cultural change ofthe Native population, and extraction of the oil and gas resource. The main 

threatened environmental effects would all be related to unintentional oil loss from the pipeline, from tankers, or in the oil 

field. Oil losses from the pipeline could be caused by direct or 

indirect effects of earthquakes, destructive sea waves, slope 

failure caused by natural or artificial processes, thaw-plug 

instability (in permafrost), differential settlement of permafrost terrain, and bed scour and bank erosion at stream crossings. Oil loss from tankers could be caused by accidents during 

transfer operations at Valdez and at destination ports and by 

casualties involving tankers and other ships. 

Comparison of alternative routes and transportation systems and of their environmental impacts provided information 

which indicates to the author that one corridor containing both 

1 

oil and gas pipelines would have less environmental impact 

than would separate corridors. Considering also the threat to 

the marine environment that any tanker system would impose 

and the threat that zones of high earthquake frequency and 

magnitude would impose on pipelines, it is apparent to the 

author that environmental impact and cost would be least for a 

single-corridor on-land route that avoided earthquake zones. 

The alternative trans-Alaska-Canada routes would meet these 

criteria. 

The decisions ofthe U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. 

Congress, and the President of the United States in favor of the 

proposed trans-Alaska pipeline system indicate the relative 

weight given by the decision makers in balancing the importance of potential environmental consequences against the advantages to be derived from rapid resource development. 

INTRODUCTION 

The precedents that have been and will be set by 

the proposed oil-pipeline system and soon-to-be 

proposed gas-pipeline system in Alaska will have 

far-reaching implications for petroleum development in the arctic parts of the Western and possibly the Eastern Hemisphere. Some of the most 

important precedents will concern the acquisition, 

analysis, and use of environmental data. The 

Alaskan example is of interest to all groups involved in arctic resource development because it 

provides information on predicted environmental 

impacts and on the methods used in arriving at the 

predictions. 

This paper represents an attempt on the part of 

the author to summarize pertinent elements of the 

experience derived from the preparation of a complex environmental analysis for the benefit of 

others concerned in similar endeavors. 

The purposes of this paper are (1) to describe the 

reasons for analyzing environmental impact and 

discuss (a) the implications of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of the United 

States and of similar laws in other countries to 

governmental and industrial decision-making 

processes, (b) the economic and public interest factors in the industrial decision-making process, and 
(c) the basic need to develop ways of minimizing 

the environmental costs that mankind must pay 

now and in the future; ( 2) to describe the general 

methodology needed to analyze environmental 

impact rigorously and objectively; (3) to describe 

in some detail how this methodology was applied 

to the proposed trans-Alaska pipeline and related 

systems; ( 4) to describe the main types of impact 

predicted from that analysis; (5) to examine the 

alternatives to the proposed pipeline; and (6) to 

analyze briefly from the author's viewpoint the 

approval of the proposed trans-Alaska oil-pipeline 

system as an example of the degree to which environmental considerations influenced the 

decision-making process. 

It is difficult to discuss these points disinterestedly, without advocating one view or another, 

because many of the issues and factors are politically sensitive and subject to opposing interpretations when differing value frameworks are used. 

Nevertheless, because the lessons to be learned 

from the Alaskan pipeline example are important, 

the author has attempted to examine the 

ramifications of the impact analysis and of the 

decision deliberately and objectively. 

This circular is modified from a paper prepared 

for presentation to the Fifth International Congress of the Fondation Francaise dtEtudes Nordiques (Brew and Gryc, 1974). The interested 

reader is referred to that paper for a more complete 

discussion of the analysis of the government's decision (point 6, above). 

PROPOSED TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE 

The Secretary of the Interior of the United 

States has granted a permit to the Alyeska 

Pipeline Service Company for a 48-inch oilpipeline right-of-way across Federal land in 

Alaska between a point south of Prudhoe Bay on 

the North Slope and Port Valdez, an arm of Prince 

William Sound, on the south coast (fig. 1). The 

company will design, construct, operate, and 

maintain the pipeline system. 

The pipeline will be about 789 miles (1,270 km) 

long, some 641 miles (1,030 km) of which will be 

across Federal land. The pipeline system will also 

include pump stations, campsites for use during 

construction, airfields for use during both construction and operation of the pipeline, a communication system, lateral access roads, and pits 

or quarries for construction materials. The marine 

terminal site on Port Valdez will consist of a tank 

farm, dock, and related facilities. Prior to con2 

struction of the pipeline north ofthe Yukon River, 

a road will be built for access and the movement of 

equipment, materials, and personnel during construction. This road, which is proposed to become 

part of the State of Alaska highway system, will be 

about 361 miles (580 km) long. 

Construction of the proposed pipeline system 

will result in three additional significant developments not directly included in the pipeline 

application: (1) an oil field complex at Prudhoe Bay 

on the North Slope, (2) a probable gas transportation system, and (3) a marine tanker system 

operating between Port Valdez, Alaska, and various destination ports. 

The pipeline and its related developments will 

constitute a complex engineering system that will 

result in changes in the existing abiotic, biotic, 

and social and economic systems of Alaska and 

adjacent areas. In addition, the pipeline system 

will affect the economics of energy use and the 

strategy of energy supply in the United States. 

The phrase ((environmental impact" has gained 

general use in denoting changes that would occur 

in existing systems if a proposed course of action 

were to be adopted. 

REASONS FOR ANALYZING 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

IN THE ARCTIC AND OTHER REGIONS 

There are philosophical, economic, social, and 

legal reasons for attempting to analyze environmental impact in the Arctic and elsewhere. These 

different reasons are linked together in a complicated way, but the social reasons (those pertaining 

to the physical well-being of humans and their 

surroundings) have been dominant and have in 

some countries led to legal requirements. 

People have only recently realized that some of 

the effects of the industrial revolution are potentially severely detrimental to the life support system that must sustain present and future generations. The natural environment, as contrasted 

with the social and economic environment that 

man creates, is particularly susceptible to damaging stresses. 

Many now believe that the greatest long-term 

benefits of health and enjoyment are possible only 

if the natural environment is maintained in a condition as close as possible to that existent before 

the world population explosion and industrial revolution. If people are to work toward this goal, then 

it is necessary to strive systematically to repair 

the damage already done to the natural environ-
w 

68 0 170° 168 " 162" 158 ° 154 " 150° 146 ° 14 r 138 ° 134 " 130" 68 0 

6 4 ' 

60' 

56' 

.. 0 0 ?~ 

170° 

\ 

.\1 

,. \" 

~~ · 

"" 

"' 

/ 

' 

v ·' 

,.... . .//ff~~ VQ ;: 

..... - . 1?/b!il 

~~,-., ... 

166 ° 162" 

r· 

p A c 

174 ° 

& 

~ .. 

<Zll 

158 ° 154 <> !50' 

]>' c 

178° 

rJi Q~o 0 

' .· 14 6" 

() (' E; .4 .\· 

178" 1 74 ° 

EXPLANATION 

High rugged mountains 

(Summits more than 5000 feet) 

Low mountains, 

-

plateaus, and highlands 

of generally rolling topography 

(Summit 1000-5000 fee t) 

Plains and lowlands 

(Generally less than 1000 feet) 

Boundary between major physiographic 

divisions 

0 50 100 150 M I LES 

0 50 100 150 KILOMETERS 

L__L__j__J 

, •• ,•""' ., .~ {7 

~~ ;:,, .... .;J?.q/ZP" 

52' 

14 2" 138' 134 <> 130' 

FIGURE 1.-Route of proposed oil-pipeline system .. Modified from Wahrhaftig (1964, pl. 1). 

64. 

60' 

56' 
ment and to avoid or minimize damage from current and future human development. 

The Arctic is as yet practically untouched by 

modern industrial society, and detrimental effects 

can and should be avoided. If humans are to develop the resources of the Arctic, then they must 

choose from all the methods of exploration, extraction, and transportation available those that will 

cause the least environmental damage. The choice 

must therefore be based on predictions of the consequences to the environment of the various alternative methods. Environmental impact analysis is 

the process by which these predictions are made. 

In addition to these social and philosophical 

reasons, industry has imposed on itself reasons for 

predictive analysis relating to the economic advantages of safe operation and of minimization of 

capital construction and of operating and maintenance costs. These analyses have for many years 

been an element in decision making by the 

pipeline and other industries, but it is now becoming clear that there are economic and social advantages in demonstrating that industry has a proper 

and positive concern for the environment and in 

particular for the effects that petroleum development, petroleum transportation, and their complex interactions have on the many facets of the 

environment. As the people of the United States 

continue to become more environmentally conscious, it will be advantageous for the oil industry 

to establish and maintain a position of positive 

environmental consciousness and action. 

In the United States the legal requirements for 

analyzing environmental impact are contained in 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) of 

19691 . The primary purpose of the United States 

Congress for that enactment was to establish a 

Federal policy in favor of protecting and restoring 

the environment. The wording of the act is such 

that all aspects of man's surroundings are the subject of Federal concern, and the intent is to make 

environmental considerations a real part of the 

governmental decision-making process. 

The United States' NEPA contains strong directives to Federal agencies to follow this new policy. 

One section ((authorizes and directs that, to the 

fullest extent possible * * * the policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States shall be 

interpreted and administered in accordance with" 

the policy of the act. Another section of the act 

directs agencies to give ((appropriate considera1 42 United States Code 4332. 

4 

tion" to environmental values in all decisions. 

Other sections relate to existing Federal agency 

policies and other aspects of environmental impact 

analysis and consideration in Federal authorizations of different types. Yet another section of the 

act establishes that Federal agencies must predict 

the environmental effects of proposed actions and 

of their alternatives and describe them in an ((environmental impact statement" at an appropriate 

time in the decision-making process so that environmental considerations can be an actual part 

of that decision-making process. The environmental impact statement (U.S. Federal Task Force on 

Alaskan Oil Development, 1972) on the proposed 

trans-Alaska pipeline which provides the background for this paper was prepared in compliance 

with that section of NEPA. 

Although Canada does not have an act comparable to the NEPA ofthe United States, it is clear 

that the intentions of the Canadian Government 

are similar to those of the United States Government in requiring that environmental considerations shall be a part of resource development in 

arctic regions and that legal requirements will be 

imposed on any applicants who propose pipeline 

construction and operation in the Canadian Arctic. Those requirements will include specific points 

considering the preservation and protection of the 

environment; therefore, the analysis of the environmental impact of any proposed pipeline system in northern Canada will be required. 

There are of course both in the United States 

and in Canada many other laws and regulations 

which pertain to the construction and operation of 

pipeline systems. They are only indirectly related 

to the analysis of environmental impact and are 

incorporated in all planning and design of pipeline 

projects for the Arctic. 

European countries do not yet have the legal 

requirements for pipeline systems based on exclusively environmental factors like those just discussed for the United States and Canada. 

Nevertheless, there are governmental regulations 

regarding the design, construction, and operation 

of pipelines, and those regulations are indirectly 

related to environmental considerations. The different governmental procedures, regulations, and 

national codes now existing in Western Europe 

have been examined in a paper by Watkins (1971). 

It is impossible from the author's vantage point in 

the United States to comment on whether environmental impact analysis requirements are 
likely to become a part of pipeline regulations in 

Western Europe in the near future. Also, it is not 

known to the author whether environmental impact analysis of pipeline systems has been practiced or is being practiced in the Soviet Union 

(Pryde, 1972). 

Although increased attention is being given environmental questions in Europe (Verguese, 

1972), the impression is that environmental impact analysis as discussed in this paper has not 

been practiced in other parts of the world. 

A broader and more important reason for 

analyzing environmental impact transcends 

specific legal requirements. People appreciate now 

as never before that they exist on an earth that has 

finite limits and tolerances. In the present century 

laymen and scientists alike have recognized many 

symptoms of environmental perturbation that 

cause concern. These symptoms, and the technical 

prediction abilities now available, can be used to 

demonstrate that people can inadvertently and 

adversely affect their total environment. If people 

are to continue to enjoy a healthy existence on 

earth, those effects must be minimized. The costs 

of minimizing must themselves also be minimized 

and must be assigned economically as well as socially. 

Environmental impact analysis is a process that 

uses existing information, existing symptoms, and 

prediction techniques to forecast what environmental impact effects will be. The control of adverse environmental impact effects must be based 

on the best information available, and the best 

information available is obtained through environmental impact analysis. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 

OF THE TRANS-ALASKA AND 

TRANS-ALASKA-CANADA 

PIPELINE SYSTEMS 

The components that are essential in an environmental impact analysis (and the interactions 

between them) are well illustrated in the example 

of the proposed trans-Alaska pipeline system and 

its related developments. Environmental impact 

analysis requires interrelating several components: analytical method, baseline environmental 

data, impact linkage data, impacting project data, 

analysts, and coordination (fig. 2). To be applicable 

to geographically large, technologically complex, 

and environmentally sensitive projects, the 

analytical method should be formulated for the 

specific environmental situation and proposed 

5 

Impacting Impact Baseline COMPONENTS project linkage environmental Analysts 

information information information 

I I 

Coordination 

and 

communication 

Jlmpa~ting I 

proJect 

/ ~ Environmental 

r----- impact 

predictions 

l• Baseline Impact 

environment linkages 

PROCESSES 

Environmental impact analysis 

Environmental 

impact PRODUCT statement 

Information 

PURPOSE for 

decision makers 

FIGURE 2.-Components and development of environmental 

impact analysis. 

project at hand. The general case methodology requires (1) systematic description of the environment including identification and classification of 

its sensitive elements, (2) systematic description 

of the project that would be doing the impacting 

including identification and classification af the 

impacting factors inherent in it, (3) systematic 

accumulation of information related to linkages 

between impacting factors and the environment, 

( 4) analysis of the interrelationships between the 

sensitive environmental elements and the impacting factors (including indirect and secondary 

feedback-type relations), (5) prediction of the net 

effects of those relations, and (6) preparation of an 

environmental impact report describing the results of the impact analysis. All these components 

and requirements were successfully included in 

the analysis of the proposed trans-Alaska pipeline. 

The actual analysis was made by a task force of 

resource scientists who were assigned the roles of 

impact analysts for specific resource topics or disciplines. 

The environmental component and the impacting effects information just referred to could be 

combined to form an information matrix of specific 

design for the analysis of the impact of the pro-
posed trans-Alaska pipeline and appurtenant systems. Needless to say, the matrix would be complicated and cumbersome, but it would synoptically 

depict in simplified fashion which impacting effects would impact on which environmental systems or components of those systems. In this regard, it is pertinent to comment on the approach to 

environmental impact analysis that is contained 

in U.S. Geological Survey Circular 645 (Leopold 

and others, 1971). As discussed later under 

~~Guidelines," the methodology used in the transAlaska pipeline analysis rigorously excluded 

value judgments throughout the process until 

such judgments were unavoidable; then alternative value framework judgments were presented. 

The approach described in Circular 645 is quite 

different in that it presents a nonspecific design 

approach to impact analysis and in that it admittedly ~!portrays many value judgments" (p. 1 ). It 

was released as a ~~preliminary effort to fill an 

interim need" (p. III). The nonspecific design described in that circular may be applicable to manY.: 

environmental impact situations in which the 

magnitude and complexity of both the impacting 

project and of the environmental framework are 

relatively limited, but it is not well suited to a 

project with the geographic, ecologic, and engineering complexities of the proposed transAlaska pipeline system. 

ENVIRONMENT 

For the purpose of a comprehensive impact 

analysis, the environment must be defined and 

environmental baseline data must be gathered for 

the total human environment. The total human 

environment consists of both the biotic and abiotic 

natural physical systems and the various 

superimposed socioeconomic systems that are related to people and to their use of the natural 

physical systems. 

Systematic description of the existing environment for impact analysis purposes should accomplish several related purposes: (1) It should inform 

the reader of the larger environmental framework 

and ecosystems within which the impact would 

occur; (2) it should afford the preparer the opportunity to look at a particular topic with the impact 

potential in mind and to identify sensitive components; (3) it should establish the limitations of the 

information framework and the degree to which 

the environmental factors can be quantified; and 

( 4) it should provide reference to more detailed 

information if it is available. 

6 

In accomplishing these purposes for the analysis 

of the proposed trans-Alaska pipeline, a task force 

of experts on different environmental topics developed and compiled descriptive baseline information for the proposed pipeline route from 

Prudhoe Bay to Port Valdez, the marine tanker 

route from Port Valdez to west-coast ports, and the 

hypothetical pipeline routes from Prudhoe Bay 

across Alaska into Canada (fig. 3). These experts 

were drawn from several Federal agencies including the U.S. Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic Survey, the 

Environmental Data Service, the U.S. Corps of 

Engineers, the U.S. Geological Survey, the 

Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the 

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, the National Park Service, and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service. Other baseline data were obtained from the Institute of Social, Economic, and 

Government Research at the University of 

Alaska, the Education Systems Resources Corporation of Arlington, Va., and several departments 

of the State of Alaska government. 

Topics considered under natural physical systems for the environment of the proposed pipeline 

were physiography and geology, climate, air quality, water resources, vegetation, insects, fish and 

wildlife, and wilderness; topics considered under 

superposed socioeconomic systems were land use, 

population and labor force, the Alaskan Native 

community, composition of income and employment in Alaska, prices and costs, the oil and gas 

industry in Alaska, mining, fisheries, agriculture, 

forestry, electrical power systems, and transportation. For the proposed marine tanker transportation route, topics considered under natural physical systems were coastline and marine geology, 

climate and weather, physical oceanography, 

chemical oceanography, marine vegetation, 

biological oceanography, marine mammals, terrestrial mammals, and birds;. under superposed 

socioeconomic systems the topics were fisheries, 

recreation, and marine transportation. 

IMPACTING PROJECT 

To evaluate the impact on the environment, the 

analysts must know what will cause it, how it will 

occur, and what it will be in both its primary and 

secondary manifestations. To facilitate analysis 

the project that will cause the impact should be 

presented systematically in a project description 

which has already been reviewed for technical 
176° 174° 170° 166° 162° 158° 154° 150° 146° 142° 138° 134° 130° 

ALTERNATE ROUTES FOR TRANSPORTING 

NORTH SLOPE OIL 

Proposed trans-Alaska pipeline 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 The Alaska Railroad 

+++++++ Alaska Railroad extension 

-****** Trans-Canada resource railroad route 

000000000000 

Trans-Canada corridor 

Marine transportation route 

Pipeline route to southern Alaska ports 

Overland pipeline route to western Alaska ports 

Offshore pipeline route to western Alaska ports 

FIGURE 3.-Alaska and northwestern Canada showing alternate routes for transporting North Slope oil. 

68° 

64° 

60° 

56° 

52° 

adequacy, agreement with specifications, and conformance with good environmental practice. 

For the proposed trans-Alaska pipeline project, 

the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company prepared 

two project descriptions, one covering the proposed 

pipeline system and related structures and one 

covering the proposed tanker transport system 

that would connect the terminus of the pipeline 

with destination ports. The descriptions were reviewed by ad hoc review groups, and the results of 

7 
those reviews transmitted to the impact analysts 

and to the company. Following receipt of those 

reviews, Alyeska provided supplementary project 

description material which was also used by the 

impact analysts. The State of Alaska in cooperation with the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company 

prepared a description of the probable physical 

developments that would occur in the oil-field 

area. 

Inasmuch as no proposal describing a specific 

gas transportation system had been received by 

the Department of the Interior, it was not certain 

what route or type of system would eventually be 

proposed. Accordingly, it was necessary to 

evaluate the impact of four hypothetical gaspipeline routes: (1) Prudhoe Bay along the Arctic 

Slope to near the Mackenzie River Delta and on to 

Fort McPherson and south to Edmonton, (2) 

Prudhoe Bay across the Brooks Range to Fort 

McPherson and south to Edmonton, (3) Prudhoe 

Bay to Port Valdez along the route proposed for the 

Alyeska oil-pipeline system, and (4) Prudhoe Bay 

to Big Delta and east to Edmonton. 

IDENTIFICATION OF IMPACTING EFFECTS 

Just as systematic examination and description 

of the environment is needed to identify sensitive 

environmental components, systematic·examination of the impacting project is needed to identify, 

classify, and quantify as much as possible its impacting effects. The review and evaluation of the 

project description should attempt to classify those 

effects in terms of their predictability: some effects 

will be unavoidable and therefore predictable; 

others will be probabilistic and therefore predictable only statistically, perhaps by comparison with 

performance records from similar projects. The 

evaluation should also classify the impacting effects by their time of occurrence, by whether they 

are direct or indirect, and by whether they are 

primary, secondary, or tertiary. 

The project descriptions of the proposed transAlaska pipeline system and associated developments were analyzed to identify and classify the 

impacting effects that would modify the existing 

environment. In all cases the unavoidable impact 

effects were differentiated from the threatened 

environmental impact effects (defined as effects 

with a probability of occurrence ofless than 1 ). The 

effects during the construction, operation, and 

postoperation phases were differentiated from 

each other, as were direct and indirect effects. This 

was done first for primary impacting effects, and a 

8 

similar process was carried out for secondary impacting effects; where applicable, tertiary impacting effects were also considered. 

Within this complicated framework of distribution of effects were considered such primary and 

secondary effects as those listed subsequently. 

Primary and secondary impacting effects associated 

with proposed trans-Alaska hot-oil pipeline, Arctic gas 

pipelines, and proposed tanker system 

A. Primary effects associated with arctic pipelines: 

1. Disturbance of ground 

2. Disturbance of water (including treated effluent discharge into water) 

3. Disturbance of air (including waste discharged to 

air and noise) 

4. Disturbance of vegetation 

5. Solid waste accumulation 

6. Commitment of physical space to pipeline system 

and construction activities 

7. Increased employment 

8. Increased utilization of invested capital 

9. Disturbance of fish and wildlife 

10. Barrier effects on fish and wildlife 

11. Scenery modification (including erosional effects) 

12. Wilderness intrusion 

13. Heat transmitted to or from the ground 

14. Heat transmitted to or from water 

15. Heat transmitted to or from air 

16. Heat to or from vegetation 

17. Moisture to air 

18. Moisture to vegetation 

19. Extraction of oil and gas 

20. Bypassed sewage to water 

21. Man-caused fires 

22. Accidents that would amplify unavoidable impact 

effects 

23. Small oil losses to the ground, water, and vegetation 

24. Oil spills affecting marine waters 

25. Oil spills affecting freshwater lakes and drainages 

26. Oil spills affecting ground and vegetation 

27. Oil spills affecting any combination of the foregoing 

B. Secondary effects associated with arctic pipelines: 

1. Thermokarst development 

2. Physical habitat loss for wildlife 

3. Restriction of wildlife movements 

4. Effects on sports, subsistence, and commercial 

fisheries 

5. Effects on recreational resources 

6. Changes in population, economy, and demands on 

public services in various communities, including 

Native communities, and in Native populations 

and economies 

7. Development of ice fog and its effect on transportation 

8. Effects on mineral resource exploration 

C. Primary effects associated with tanker system: 

1. Treated ballast water into Port Valdez 

2. Vessel frequency in Port Valdez, Prince William 

Sound, open ocean, Puget Sound, San Francisco 

Bay, southern California waters, and other ports 

3. Oil spills in any of those places 
D. Secondary effects associated with tanker system: 

1. Effects on sports and commercial fisheries 

2. Effects on recreational resources 

3. Effects on population in Valdez and other communities 

IMPACT LINKAGE INFORMATION 

In addition to the baseline environmental and 

project impact effect data, it is necessary to compile data that pertain to the linkages or paths 

between and within various kinds of impacting 

effects and the various environmental topics. The 

linkages are of many kinds and types. They include all the information needed to actually predict an environmental impact other than the 

baseline environmental information and project 

information. 

The following example drawn from the Alaska 

pipeline impact analysis illustrates what is meant 

by linkage data: Baseline information is available 

on the distribution of salmon and herring (at various life stages) in time and space in the Port 

Valdez-Valdez Arm area adjacent to Prince William Sound. Project information provided by 

Alyeska Pipeline Service Company indicates an 

estimated 2.4 to 26 barrels of oil per day would be 

introduced from a ballast-treatment facility into 

the waters of Port Valdez at a point 100 feet beneath the surface in a concentration intended not 

tn exceed 10 parts per million. The linkage data 

are those needed to define the spatial and temporal 

paths that the effluent will take in the dynamic 

hydroenvironment, the changes it will cause en 

route in the water's chemical and physical properties, and the effects that the changed water will 

have on any given salmon or herring resource 

population at a specific time and place. Linkage 

data therefore in this case depend on hydrographic 

information that is properly part of the baseline 

environment description and also include knowledge of how different concentrations of different 

hydrocarbons in the water affect the fish population at different life stages. 

In the analytical process related to the transAlaska pipeline proposal, the compilation of linkage data accompanied compilation of the baseline 

environmental data and was included both with 

the baseline data and with the impact analysis 

results. Where there were conflicting data, the 

analysts considered all in making the analysis and 

preparing the results of their analysis. 

The limitations on the impact linkage data were 

the greatest problem encountered in the impact 

9 

analysis. In many cases the complicated pathways 

and linkages that would exist between the project 

and the environment have not yet been studied to 

the point that predictions can be made with 

confidence. In such cases the analysts simply 

stated that rigorous prediction was not possible. 

ANALYSTS AND THE ANALYSIS 

Proper execution of an environmental impact 

analysis depends in a major way on the impartiality of the analysts. Regardless of the actual process 

used, including the use of predictive mathematical 

or simulation models, the analytical process is 

sensitive to the abilities a-nd interests of those 

responsible for evaluating the interaction of the 

impacting project and the environment. At the 

present time the state of the art is such that the 

actual prediction process is likely to involve subjective steps requiring the judgment of the 

analyst. 

Unfortunately, the educational traditions and 

occupational roles of scientists and technicians do 

not prepare them for dispassionate analysis of the 

type required. Resource scientists typically acquire and maintain strong conservation or development biases that reflect the customary work 

of their disciplines. Engineers and technicians 

normally adhere to strong developmental biases. 

The environmental impact analyst, to arrive at a 

predi'ction of impact, must discard prior conviction 

in favor of careful, thorough, systematic,. and objective evaluation. 

An example illustrates the problem. A government ornithologist responsible for research on endangered bird species and for enforcement of laws 

and regulations designed to protect them is given 

the task of objectively evaluating what will happen to those species if certain endangering transportation developments occur. He immediately 

faces conflict because the evaluation involves acceptance (for analytical purposes) of events which 

he has opposed for his entire career. An equally 

valid hypothetical example can be constructed 

using a development-oriented mining engineer 

faced with demonstrating sincere concern for the 

environment in evaluating the effect of an openpit mine on the nesting area of an endangered 

species. 

The impact analysis of the proposed transAlaska pipeline was made by resource scientists 

who had been given guidance regarding the 

analysts' proper function. As they proceeded to 

determine the type and extent of environmental 
impact that would occur in their respective fields, 

they were urged to be as rigorous and objective as 

possible and to utilize fully all available information. There undoubtedly were minor problems in 

the impact analysis of the proposed pipeline that 

arose from conflicts the analysts felt between the 

bias of traditional roles and the impartiality required in impact analysis. 

COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATION 

Coordination and communication compose the 

last essential component in environmental impact 

analysis. Coordination is needed to insure that all 

topics are handled in the same systematic way by 

all the analysts. Because of the intricate way in 

which an impacting project can produce reaction 

chains of impact effects, it is extremely important 

that preliminary results of analyses be communicated rapidly and fully from one analyst to 

another. This communication is facilitated by the 

awareness of all analysts that the results of others 

may have a direct effect on the analysis that they 

themselves are making. Careful attention is required to devise a system that provides this communication and that also generates the kind of 

information needed at the proper time for use of 

others involved in the analytical process. 

Coordination within the impact analysis task 

force for the proposed trans-Alaska pipeline was 

accomplished by a core group of five persons including the chairman. Members of the core group 

worked closely in providing guidance and information to the individual analysts. 

A principal effort was to insure that developments from one analysis that might bear on 

another were communicated rapidly; the draft 

material was circulated completely, insofar as 

possible, to all analysts, and all suggestions made 

by other analysts, the chairman, and the core 

group were considered before preparing the final 

draft of the impact statement. This procedure of 

replicate internal review results in a final report 

whose parts are the work of individual analysts 

and not the work or interpretation of the task force 

chairman or the core group. 

GUIDELINES 

Environmental impact analysis requires both 

philosophical and technical/analytical guidelines. 

If an analysis and the report of the analysis are to 

be scientifically, technically, and legally defensible, they must be prepared to the highest standards of objective scientific inquiry. Any attempts 

to bias the results of an environmental impact 

10 

analysis cannot escape the notice of careful 

evaluators of the results. 

Inclusion of objective environmental impact 

analysis information in any complex decision 

framework adds one more element that possibly 

conflicts with other elements in the framework. 

The decision makers of today are (or should be) 

prepared to evaluate such conflicting elements by 

applying their values in such a way as to produce a 

politically, socially, economically, and environmentally just decision. If an impact analysis is to 

provide this objective information to the decision 

makers, then the analysts and the analytical process should function in the traditional scientific 

way. 

The technical and analytical guidelines established for any impact analysis should reflect these 

philosophical points. They should place a high degree of responsibility on the individual analyst for 

the assembly and compilation of pertinent environmental material and for the understanding 

of pertinent impacting effects. Similar responsibility exists for preparation of an objective report 

concerning the results of the impact analysis. 

Specific guidelines given to the analysts should 

facilitate preparation of their material in format 

compatible with that required by any existing 

laws and suitable for use in communicating with 

other analysts during the environmental impact 

analysis process. 

A specific guideline worth emphasizing is that, 

insofar as is possible, value-judgment factors 

should be omitted from environmental impact 

analysis; when omission is impossible the specific 

value framework used should be specified. This is 

the only way of assuring that the values exercised 

in the decision are the values of the decision makers rather than the values of those who prepared 

the environmental impact statement. A related 

guideline of utmost importance to the impact 

analysis process is for the analysts to recognize 

fully and completely that they are not to decide the 

issue. 

This discussion of environmental impact 

analysis would be incomplete without mention of 

the extremely critical relation between the impact 

analysis and the Hdecision point." Stated otherwise, what type and scope of environmental 

analysis can and should be made at the different 

"decision points" in the overall decision-making 

process that accompanies evolution of a project? 

The information available about a pipeline or any 
other project varies with time, from a relatively 

low level in the conceptual stage to a high level in 

the final construction and operation stages. Depending on the project, its location, the types of 

impacts possible, and other factors, the pertinent 

environmental information may or may not follow 

a similar path. The determination that the available environmental information is adequate in 

scope and quantity to constitute an element in the 

decision process depends mainly on the value 

framework of those responsible for the decision. As 

environmental awareness and conscience develop, 

certain critical elements of environmental information should become acknowledged as requirements for just decisions, in the same way that 

predicted cost and profit data are now universally 

accepted as critical factors in the analysis of 

economic feasibility. 

In the case of the proposed trans-Alaska 

pipeline, policymakers in the Department of the 

Interior decided that the available environmental 

information was adequate for impact analysis. 

This was determined before the environmental 

data had been compiled, and it is therefore questionable to what extent the amount of environmental data actually available influenced the decision to proceed. In retrospect, however, the 

baseline environmental information available at 

the start of the impact analysis was approximately 

comparable in quantity and quality to data available on the proposed pipeline project. 

In several ways the completion of the impact 

analysis of the proposed trans-Alaska pipeline 

represents a successful endeavor. Because there 

was no precedent for the analysis, it was necessary 

to design the procedures to be used, find and assemble the people to work on it, and establish the 

philosophical and technical guidelines that would 

result in a scientifically sound product. The 

methods used in the analysis and in the preparation of the report were rigorous and objective, the 

analytical group was independent of exterior 

influence, and the results are a milestone in the 

developing science of environmental impact 

analysis. 

MAIN TYPES OF IMPACT PREDICTED BY 

THE ANALYSIS 

The analysis indicated that environmental impact would result from (1) the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed oil-pipeline 

system, including the accompanying highway 

north of the Yukon River, and of a gas transporta11 

tion system of some kind, (2) from oil field development, and (3) from the operation of the proposed marine tanker system. Because of the scale 

and nature of the project, the impact would occur 

on abiotic, biotic, and socioeconomic components of, 

the human environment far beyond the relatively 

small area (940 sq. mi. out of 572,000 sq. mi. of 

land area) of Alaska that would be occupied by the 

oil-pipeline system and the oil field. The impact 

paths between the project itself and the affected 

parts of the environment would be of varying complexity and length and would involve linkage factors that are not all well known. 

Of the impact effects that would occur, some, 

like those associated with wilderness intrusion 

and public access north of the Yukon River, could 

be considered either beneficial or adverse depending on the value framework used. Some of the 

effects on socioeconomic parts of the environment 

would be classified as beneficial by most persons. 

Most of the other impact effects would in some way 

alter the existing environment in a way that was 

not demonstrably beneficial and would in that 

sense be adverse. Such effects would occur both on 

natural physical systems and on the superposed 

socioeconomic systems. 

Some impact effects are unavoidable and can be 

evaluated with a degree of certainty. Others could 

result from the occurrence of a threatened event of 

some kind which would impact the oil or gas 

transportation systems. These threatened impact 

effects cannot be evaluated with comparable certainty. 

The principal unavoidable effects would be (1) 

disturbances of terrain, fish and wildlife habitat, 

and human environs during construction, operation, and maintenance of the oil pipeline, the 

highway north of the Yukon River, the oil field, 

and the gas pipeline that would probably follow, 

(2) the effects of the discharge of effluent from the 

tanker-ballast-treatment facility into Port Valdez 

and of some indeterminate amount of oil released 

into the ocean from tank-cleaning operations at 

sea, and (3) effects associated with increased 

human pressures of all kinds on the environment. 

Other unavoidable effects would be those related 

to increased State and Native corporation revenues, accelerated cultural change of the Native 

population, and extraction of the oil and gas resource. 

Changes in stable terrain caused by construction and maintenance procedures could produce 
rapid and unexpected effects, including slope failure, modification of surface drainage, accelerated 

erosion and deposition, and other disturbances as 

a result of the permafrost thawing that would follow destruction of the natural insulating properties of the tundra. Placement of gravel pads and 

berms would especially affect surface drainage. 

The excavation ofborrow materials and placement 

of the pipeline ditch in and near flood plains and 

streambeds would also cause changes in stream 

erosion and deposition. About 83 million cubic 

yards of construction material, mostly gravel, 

would be required for the oil pipeline. The general 

noise, commotion, and destruction of local habitat 

could cause many species of wildlife to leave an 

area amounting to about 60 square miles. 

Socioeconomic effects during construction 

would include accelerated inflation, increased 

pressures on existing communities for accomodations and public services, and job opportunities for 

perhaps 25,000 persons at peak times (including 

multiplier effects); unemployment in Alaska, 

however, would continue to be relatively high. 

The main disturbances during operation would 

be (1) thawing in permafrost leading to possible 

foundation instability and differential settlement, 

(2) some barrier effects of aboveground oil-pipeline 

sections on large mammal (especially caribou) 

migrations in the Brooks Range, Arctic Coastal 

Plain, and Copper River Basin areas, and similar 

effects of any aboveground sections of gas pipeline 

that would eventually be built, and (3) adverse but 

unquantifiable effects on the marine ecosystem of 

Port Valdez and perhaps Valdez Arm and Prince 

William Sound proper from the discharge of an 

estimated 2.4 to 26 barrels of oil per day from the 

ballast-treatment facility and on the marine 

ecosystem in general from discharge of an indeterminate amount of oil from tank-cleaning operations at sea. These last effects would in turn affect 

the fishing industry to some unquantifiable extent. 

Other main operational effects would include (1) 

the gradual conversion of about 880 square miles 

of the North Slope wildlife habitat to an area with 

widely spaced drilling pads, roads, pipelines, and 

other structures, with the accompanying adverse 

effects on the tundra ecosystem, (2) the many diverse effects on wilderness, recreational resources 

(including hunting and fishing), and general 

land-use .patterns that would result from increased public access to the now relatively inac12 

cessible region north of the Yukon River, (3) acceleration of the cultural change process that is already underway among Alaskan Natives and 

some adverse modification of local Native 

subsistence-resource base as a result of secondary 

effects, and ( 4) additional state revenues of about 

$300 million per year and subsequent expenditure 

of those revenues for public works and activities 

throughout Alaska. Immediately after the end of 

construction, unemployment would probably increase. 

The main threatened environmental effects 

would all be related to unintentional oil loss from 

the pipeline, from tankers, or in the oil field. Oil 

losses from the pipeline could be caused by direct 

or indirect effects of earthquakes, destructive sea 

waves, slope failure caused by natural or artificial 

processes, thaw-plug instability (in permafrost), 

differential settlement of permafrost terrain, and 

bed scour and bank erosion at stream crossings. 

Any of these processes could occur at some place 

along the route of the proposed pipeline. Oil loss 

from tankers could be caused by accidents during 

transfer operations at Valdez and at destination 

ports like Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay, and' 

Los Angeles, and by tanker or ship casualties resulting from collision, grounding, ramming, or 

other causes along the tanker routes. 

The potential oil loss from pipeline failure cannot be evaluated because of the many variables 

involved, but perfect no-spill performance would 

be unlikely during the lifetime of the pipeline. 

Various models of oil loss from the tanker system 

indicate that an average of 1.6 to 6.0 barrels per 

day could be lost from the whole system during 

transfer operations and an average of 384 barrels 

per day or about 140,000 barrels per ~~average" 

year could be lost from tanker casualties. This 

modeled loss would occur in incidents of undetermined size at unknown intervals and at unknown 

locations. This is considered to be a maximum or 

~~worst case" casualty discharge volume. 

Oil spilled from the pipeline as a consequence of 

one of the threats mentioned could, depending on 

location, volume, time of year, and other factors, 

result in adverse effects on all the biota involved. 

Not all the linkages and impact paths are known, 

but vegetation, waterfowl, and freshwater 

fisheries could all be affected and then affect Native subsistence use to an unquantifiable extent. 

Oil spilled in tanker casualties or transfer operations would affect the marine ecosystem to an 
extent that would be determined by many variable 

factors. The salmon and other fishery resources of 

Prince William Sound would be especially vulnerable to such spills. Over the long term, however, 

persistent low-level discharge from the ballasttreatment facility and tank-cleaning operations at 

sea could have a greater adverse effect than shortlived larger spills. 

The probable eventual construction and 

maintenance of a gas pipeline would, if it were not 

in the oil-pipeline corridor, result in a separate 

corridor with many of the same effects described 

for the proposed oil-pipeline corridor. Those effects 

and those impacts on the environment would be in 

addition to those predicted for the proposed oilpipeline system. 

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON 

OF ALTERNATIVES 

The environmental impact analysis also included consideration of various alternatives to the 

oil transportation system proposed. The three 

main types of alternatives examined were those 

available to the Secretary of the Interior, those 

concerning alternative routes and transportation 

systems, and those concerning energy and policy 

alternatives .. The information regarding energy 

and policy alternatives was compiled and prepared 

by a special task force made up of representatives 

of various Federal agencies. 

The alternatives considered available to the 

Secretary of the Interior were granting the permits that had been applied for, denying the permits, or deferring any action. The environmental 

impact implications of those different actions were 

examined. 

Alternative routes and systems for the transportation of oil included (1) pipelines from Prudhoe 

Bay to other ice-free ports in southern Alaska such 

as Redoubt Bay, Whittier, Seward, and Haines, (2) 

marine transportation systems including icebreaking and subsurface tankers, (3) both offshore 

and overland pipelines to terminal ports on the 

Bering Sea, (4) trans-Alaska-Canada pipelines to 

Edmonton including coastal offshore and onshore 

routes to the Mackenzie River Delta, routes inland 

across the eastern Brooks Range to Fort McPherson, and routes across the central Brooks Range 

(along the proposed oil-pipeline route) to Fairbanks, Big Delta, and east along Alaska Highway, 

(5) railroad and highway transportation modes including an Alaska railroad extension from 

Prudhoe Bay to a southern Alaska port and a new 

13 

trans-Alaska-Canada railroad route and highway 

system, and (6) other oil transportation schemes 

including land, sea, air, and in other energy forms 

(fig. 3). Some of the alternate oil-pipeline routes 

that were considered and analyzed are, as noted 

previously, the same as those routes considered 

and analyzed for gas pipelines. 

The energy and policy alternatives examined 

were (1) reduction in demand, (2) increased oil 

imports to the United States, (3) additional production from outer continental shelf and onshore 

areas, (4) modification of natural gas pricing, (5) 

nuclear stimulation of natural gas reservoirs, (6) 

increased use of coal as solid fuel and as source for 

synthetic fuels, (7) nuclear fuel, (8) synthetic 

sources, oil shale, tar sands, coal, (9) geothermal 

power, (10) hydroelectric power, and (11) exotic 

energy sources and improved efficiency systems. 

The analysis of the environmental impact of the 

alternative trans-Alaska-Canada route and other 

routes provided information that was used for a 

comparison between those routes and the proposed 

trans-Alaska route. This comparison resulted in 

relative ranking of important impact effects for all 

the routes. The comparison process included (1) 

identification of combinations of routes and modes 

of transportation, (2) identification of specific unavoidable impact effects taking into account the 

abundance and vulnerability of the resources involved, the length of the route along which they 

would be affected, and the impact factors that 

would probably be involved, (3) identification of 

specific major threatened impact factors, and (4) 

ranking the different routes against each other on 

an arbitrary relative-magnitude scale. In the 

comparison no attempt was made to imply absolute magnitude or to weight any impacts or impact 

factors in relation to each other. 

For the terrestrial environment the unavoidable environmental impacts that were compared 

included terrain disruption related to oil pipeline, 

terrain disruption related to terminal, construction material requirements, induced terrain disruption, physical space commitment, surface- and 

ground-water effects, air-quality effects, vegetation and habitat disruption, and effects on 

fisheries, on wildlife including birds, on recreation 

and esthetics, on wilderness, on communities, and 

on Native culture and subsistence. For the marine 

environment the unavoidable impacts considered 

included effects on Alaskan terminal port waters, 

destination port waters, fisheries, and wildlife in-
eluding birds. The threatened environmental impact factors that were compared for the terrestrial 

environment included seismic risk to the pipeline, 

seismic risk to the terminal, permafrost degradation, slope failure, flooding risk, and, for the 

marine environment, tanker casualties and oiltransfer operations. 

Synthesis of the material included in the comparison of the different routes and transportation 

modes resulted in several conclusions which were 

reported in the final environmental impact statement: (1) No single generalized oil-pipeline route 

appeared to be superior in all respects to any other; 

(2) in comparing the unavoidable impacts upon the 

terrestrial abiotic systems, it appeared that all the 

trans-Alaska routes would have less impact than 

the trans-Alaska-Canada routes; (3) in comparing 

the unavoidable impacts upon various terrestrial 

biotic systems, it appeared that the trans-Alaska 

route to a Bering Sea port would probably have the 

least impact and the trans-Alaska-Canada coastal 

route the next lowest impact; (4) in comparing the 

unavoidable impacts upon socioeconomic systems, 

it emerged that the trans-Alaska-Bering Sea port 

route would probably have the least impact and 

the trans-Alaska-Canada coastal route would be 

next; (5) in comparing unavoidable impacts on the 

marine environment, all the trans-AlaskaCanada routes would have less impact than the 

trans-Alaska routes; (6) in comparing the threatened environmental impact factors for the terrestrial environment, the trans-Alaska-Canada 

coastal and inland routes were found to pose the 

least threat; and (7) comparing the threatened environmental impact factors for the marine environment, the trans-Alaska-Canada routes would 

be lowest because no direct marine transportation 

of oil would be involved. 

It should be kept in mind that different levels of 

information were available for the proposed 

Alyeska Pipeline Service Company oil-pipeline 

system, for the alternate oil transportation systems and routes, and for gas transportation systems and routes. This difference affected the 

analysis and therefore all the comparisons. 

The information in the environmental impact 

statement and in related documents released as a 

result of legal action after the final statement established that one of the important environmental 

questions involved comparison of an overland 

one-corridor oil- plus gas-pipeline transportation 

system through Alaska and Canada with a twocorridor system involving an oil pipeline through 

Alaska connecting to a tanker route and a gas 

pipeline through Alaska and Canada. Although 

this question was not considered in detail in the 

final environmental impact statement, the author 

believes it is important to reiterate here the pertinent.facts available during the final decision process and the conclusions he drew from that information. It is emphasized that different conclusions 

could be (and were) drawn from the same information by other parties and persons. 

Any combination of overland pipeline plus 

tanker systems or of tanker systems alone would 

impose the threat of oil pollution on the marine 

environment. The most important causes would be 

contamination resulting from intentional oil discharge from a ballast-treatment facility and from 

possible tank-cleaning operations at sea and from 

unintentional oil loss during transfer operations 

and from oil-tanker casualties. LNG (Liquefied 

Natural Gas) tanker systems would impose some 

threat of unintentional gas loss resulting from 

ship casualties. If LNG tankers were operating 

from the same ports as the oil tankers, they would 

contribute to increased vessel density and thereby 

indirectly to oil-tanker casualty frequency. 

14 

Overland gas- and oil-pipeline systems would 

impose the threat of environmental impact from 

rupture and unintentional loss of oil or gas. The 

most likely cause of rupture would be earthquakes 

and their attendant ground effects. The most 

likely impact from gas-pipeline rupture would be 

fire that could spread into areas adjacent to the 

pipeline. The most likely effect of oil-pipeline rupture would be oil lost onto the land and into lakes 

and streams and the various secondary effects that 

such loss would cause. 

Any overland oil- and gas-pipeline systems 

would intrude the wilderness and would utilize 

physical space for the pipeline alinement as well 

as for camps, pump stations, airfields, and so forth; 

the accompanying roads would provide access 

along the pipeline corridors. Access would bring 

with it increased recreational opportunity and increased human pressures on the wilderness resources. 

A combination of oil and gas pipelines in one 

corridor (not necessarily on a single or contiguous 

rights-of-way) would localize and restrict these effects and thus require less space, cause less wilderness intrusion, provide less access, have less 

effect on fish and wildlife habitat, and probably 
have less overall effect on the migration of large 

animals. 

Based on these considerations and without 

specifying one or another corridor or transportation mode, it is the author's opinion that one corridor containing both oil and gas pipelines would 

have less environmental impact and thus incur 

less environmental cost than would separate corridors. 

Considering (1) the threat to the marine environment that any tanker system would impose, (2) 

the threat that zones of high earthquake frequency and magnitude would impose on pipelines, 

and (3) the apparent lesser environmental impact 

of a single corridor as compared with two corridors, 

it is the author's opinion that environmental impact and cost would be least for a gas- and oiltransportation system that (1) avoided the marine 

environment, (2) avoided earthquake zones, and 

(3) placed both oil and gas pipelines in one corridor. The onland trans-Alaska-Canada routes to 

Fort McPherson and through the Mackenzie Valley to Edmonton would meet these criteria for 

minimizing environmental impact and would, 

from that point of view, be preferable. Of the possible onland routes, the inland route across the 

Brooks Range between Prudhoe Bay and Fort 

McPherson appears on some grounds to cause the 

least overall adverse environmental impact. 

These conclusions of the author are subject to 

one additional qualification. To reach market 

areas, any solely overland oil and gas transportation system ending near Edmonton would have to 

be extended beyond the geographic limits that 

were set for the environmental impact analysis 

and would thus entail additional environmental 

impact. The extended construction and operation 

would, however, be entirely in areas now 

traversed by oil and gas pipelines and no unusual 

problems would be encountered nor would any 

new transportation corridors be created. 

As noted earlier, other conclusions are possible, 

and indeed the official conclusion of the U.S. Department of the Interior and of the U.S. Congress 

was that the environmental costs of a transAlaska-Canada hot-oil pipeline would be approximately the same as those of the proposed transAlaska hot-oil pipeline. 

CONCLUSION 

To this point this paper has been concerned 

mainly with the scientific and analytical aspects of 

environmental impact analysis and with the impact analysis of the proposed trans-Alaska oil 

pipeline and its alternatives. This final section 

examines some human and political aspects of this 

previously discussed material. 

The scientist involved in environmental impact 

analysis should use the same standards and practices that he uses in scientific work. He is not only 

responsible for using the best available information and using it in the best possible way, but also 

for making sure that no personal biases enter the 

analytical procedure. By keeping impact analysis 

entirely scientific, it is possible to produce information which provides an objective input to the 

decision process. 

Nevertheless, it is likely that almost all e~­

vironmental impact analysis will be conducted in 

situations which are influenced by external pressures. These pressures lead to the imposition of 

time constraints and to requirements that the 

analysis be made without significant amounts of 

additional information that would normally be acquired through extensive research. Although the 

involved scientist will be affected by these pressures, he will not be absolved of the responsibility 

of conducting the analysis in a rigorous scientific 

fashion. 

The coordination of an environmental impact 

analysis and the communication of the results to 

the decision makers will necessarily involve scientists who are in a supervisory role. The external 

political and economic factors which often are a 

major part of the decision makers value 

framework are likely to be brought to bear directly 

on those scientists. They therefore have the responsibilities of (1) maintaining the scientific 

standards of the analytical group against any external pressures and (2) communicating the results of the environmental impact analysis effectively to the decision makers. More and more scientists will have these responsibilities in the future as the world's decision makers require more 

and better scientific input on questions of critical 

environmental significance. 

15 

The way in which the United States Government received and used the environmental information of the trans-Alaska pipeline impact 

analysis is a most important part of this story. The 

results of the analysis were provided to the decision makers in the written final environmental 

impact statement and in discussions between the 

policy makers and the core group of the task force 

that made the impact analysis. Clear documenta-
tion of how the results of the environmental impact analysis and other pertinent information 

were used in the decision is contained in a 

document2 released on May 11, 1972, by the Department of the Interior. This document notes that 

the major considerations involved in the decision 

on the proposal were ( 1) United States energy and 

crude oil posture, (2) national security aspects, (3) 

choice of market for North Slope oil, (4) the proposal for the trans-Alaska pipeline, (5) alternative 

methods of transporting North Slope oil, and (6) 

further deferral of action. Brew and Gryc (197 4) 

analyzed the document in relation to the information contained in the final environmental impact 

statement. 

The decision document concludes that the environmental consequences of either a transAlaska or trans-Alaska-Canada oil-pipeline route 

are acceptable when weighed against the advantages to be derived from the construction. The Department of the Interior concluded that the 

Alyeska proposal was acceptable. Similar conclusions are contained in the testimony of Secretary 

of Interior Morton before the Joint Economic 

Committee of Congress (U.S. Congress, 1972). 

The conflict between environmental values and 

resource development values that the transAlaska pipeline exemplifies demonstrates the continuing need for research on impact analysis and 

for environmental impact analysis as an essential 

2 "Applications for pipeline right-of-way and ancillary land uses, Prudhoe Bay to 

Valdez, Alaska," and "Application by State of Alaska for right-of-way for 

highway-Statement of reasons for approval." U.S. Dept. Interior, Office of Communications, Washington, D.C., May 11, 1972. 

16 

early component in industrial and governmental 

decision making and also demonstrates that the 

scientist can and must interact with the engineer 

and with those in decision-making roles if the critical human goal of compatibility of environmental 

and resource-developmental factors is to be 

achieved. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Brew, D. A., and Gryc, George, 1974, The analysis of impact of 

oil- and gas-pipeline systems on the Alaskan Arctic environment: Internat. Cong. Fondation Francaise 

d'Etudes Nordiques "Arctic oil and gas-problems and 

possibilities," 5th, Le Havre May 2-5, 1973, Proc. (in 

press). 

Leopold, L. B., Clarke, F. E., Hanshaw, B. B., and Balsley, J. R., 

1971, A procedure for evaluating environmental impact: 

U.S. Geol. Survey Circ. 645, 13 p. 

Pryde, P.R., 1972, The quest for environmental quality in the 

USSR: Am. Scientist, v. 60, p. 739-7 45. 

U.S. Congress, 1972, Natural gas regulation and the transAlaska pipeline-Hearings before the Joint Economic 

Committee, June 7, 8, 9, and 22,1972: Washington, U.S. 

Govt. Printing Office. 

U.S. Federal Task Force on Alaskan Oil Development, 1972, 

Final environmental impact statement, proposed 

trans-Alaska pipeline (6 volumes): U.S. Dept. Interior 

interagency rept.; available from the Natl. Tech. Inf. 

Service, U.S. Dept. Commerce, Springfield, Va., 22151, 

NTIS PB-206921. 

Verguese, Dominique, 1972, Europe and the environmentCooperation a distant prospect: Science, v. 178, p. 

381-383. 

Wahrhaftig, Clyde, 1964, Physiographic divisions of Alaska: 

U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 482, 52 p. 

Watkins, R. E., 1971, The influence of governmental regulations on the design, construction, and operation of 

pipelines in western Europe: Am. Petroleum Inst., 22d 

Ann. Pipeline Conf., Dallas, Tex., Apr. 2&-28, 1971. 

{:.(GPO 792-!167