FWS/OBS- 78/70 October 1978 Fish and Wildlife Protect;on in the Planningand Construction of the Trans-AlaskaOil Pipeline by Thomas A. Morehouse, Robert A. Childers, and Linda E. Leask Institute of Social and Economic Research University of Alaska Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau Project Officers Performed for Norval Netsch Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior 1011 E. Tudor Road Washington, D.C. 20240 Anchorage, Alaska 99507 This study was conducted as Sumner A. Dole part of the Federal I nteragency Office of Biological Services Energy-Environment Research Fish and Wildlife Service and Development Program, U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20240 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock Number 024-010·00470-3 ii Foreword The discovery of huge oil deposits on Alaska's North Slope in 1968 resulted in immediate planning for rapid transport of oil to U.S. markets. Concurrent with consideration of alternative means for moving the oil, including preliminary design of a proposed pipeline, an aroused general public demanded earnest governmental evaluation of the environmental impacts of the project. This growing awareness and concern was reflected in the passage of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act requiring an Environmental Impact Statement on any proposal for major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. These developments set the stage for subsequent court battles and Congressional actions. Many agencies representing various interests of the Federal Government, the State of Alaska, the private sector, as well as numerous individuals concerned with conservation of fish, wildlife and the environment, expressed frequently differing viewpoints and contributed a variety of recommendations. For most parties, the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline project-one of the largest and most costly ever to be undertaken-entailed a new set of parameters and required novel analyses and approaches. Nonetheless, important decisions were reached regarding authorities, responsibilities, organizational structures, and relationships among govern­ ment agencies, and between government and private industry. From the outset of the project, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recognized the unique opportunity it offered to gain insight into the complex developmental process characteristic of such an enterprise. From the beginning and throughout the process the Service conducted studies to help minimize the environmental impacts of construction of the pipeline. Among these, the present report, Fish and Wildlife Pmtection in the Planning and Construction of the Tmns-Alaska Oil Pipeline, focuses on fish and wildlife protection issues in the course of planning, establishing, and conducting monitoring activities. In addition, it explores the rationale behind the decisionmaking process and offers recommendations for improved environ­ mental management in future cases. The principal usefulness of the study comes from the guidance it offers for the conduct of future projects requiring similar monitoring efforts, such as the Arctic Gas Pipeline, or any other large scale enterprise in Alaska and elsewhere. As a study of significant environmental management issues, it will be of interest to a variety of users, including government agencies, private industry, resource managers, the environmental community, and the academic community. LynnJ:~ . Greenwal Direct U.S. l~~~Fis Wildlife Service iii Acknowledgements We are indebted to many people for their cooperation and support in prepar­ ing this study. Norval Netsch and Sumner Dole of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service served as their agency's project officers for the study contract; they consistently supported the independence of our research while providing en­ couragement and assistance. Morris J. Turner, acting authorized officer of the Alaska Pipeline Office, helped assure the cooperation of APO central office and field staffs and per­ sonally contributed valuable information. State pipeline coordinator Charles Champion was similarly cooperative to the extent of our more limited work on the state's pipeline surveillance organization. We particularly want to thank Julius Rockwell, APO-Joint Fish and Wildlife Advisory Team fisheries biologist, for helping to guide us through some of the intricacies of his professional field. Jewell Darr of APO's administrative staff graciously and efficiently accommodated our rather extensive requests for file materials. James Hemming, federal coordinator, and Allan Carson, state supervisor, of the Joint Fish and Wildlife Advisory Team made it possible for us to look closely at JFW AT's experience. They and their JFW AT colleagues provided much critical information and many insights, and we are extremely grateful to them and to their support staff. We want finally to thank our institute colleagues-particularly Michael Scott and. Arlon Tussing-for their suggestions and interest in the project; Susan Yates for organizing the administrative support necessary to our work; and Marjorie Matlock for the care and patience with which she typed the vari­ ous drafts of our manuscript. IV Table of Contents Page List of Figures . v Executive Summary . vii Part 1-Introduction . 1 Chapter I-Introduction . 3 Chapter II-Pipeline Construction and Surveillance . 7 Part 2-Pre-Permit Phase . 15 Chapter III-Policy Development: An Overview ...... ! • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 17 Chapter IV-Pipeline Planning . 27 Part 3-Construction Phase . 41 Chapter V-Government Surveillance Organization and Policy . 43 Chapter VI-Government Surveillance Operations . 55 Chapter VII-Stream Crossings and Big Game Crossings . 71 Part 4-Conclusions and Recommendations . 85 Chapter VIII-Conclusions and Recommendations . 87 Appendixes . 93 Appendix A: Selected Portions of Stipulations . 95 Appendix B: The Jurisdictions of the Federal and State Governments Over the Construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, by H. Clifton Eames, Jr. 98 Appendix C: Chapman and Sheep Creeks Crossing Histories .......... 107 Appendix D: Analysis of the Costs of Delay in the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline Project, by Michael J. Scott ............................ 115 List of Interviews . 123 References Cited ...................................................... 127 List of Figures Figure 1-Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline Route . 8 Figure 2-Government Surveillance Organizatioh . 38 Figure 3-Alaska Pipeline Office Organization Chart . 45 Figure 4-Joint Fish and Wildlife Advisory Team Organization Chart . 49 V Disclaimer The opinions, findings. conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarilv reflect the views of the Office of Biolog1cal Services. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the federal government. vi Executive Summary Scope and Purposes led to the establishment of JFWAT and deter­ mined its place within the larger government Stretching from the Arctic Ocean 800 miles surveillance system. Second, it examines how the south to Prince William Sound, the trans-Alaska surveillance system worked during the construc­ oil pipeline crosses hundreds of fish streams and tion period, concentrating on fish and wildlife habitats and migration routes of dozens of species protection activities. This is not an assessment of of animals and birds. How these fish and wildlife the environmental impacts of the trans-Alaska along the route were to be protected during pipe­ pipeline, but rather an examination of how the or­ line construction was a question State of Alaska ganization that was ultimately established to pro­ and U.S. government agencies began considering tect fish and wildlife worked during construction in 1969, when a group of oil companies proposed and what factors influenced its effectiveness. The to build the pipeline which would carry oil from report looks primarily at involvement of federal the recently-discovered Prudhoe Bay field. agencies in the pipeline planning and construc­ By 1974, when work on the pipeline system be­ tion processes, but also includes some discussion gan, the federal and state governments had estab­ of state planning and surveillance activities. lished environmental and technical standards the pipeline builders agreed to meet and had set 11p Planning Period: 1969-1973 separate surveillance organizations to oversee After a group of oil companies applied for fed­ construction along the route crossing about 550 eral approval to build a pipeline spanning all four miles of federal and 250 miles of state land. These of Alaska's major physiographic regions, three organizations-the federal Alaska Pipeline Office and the State Pipeline Coordinator's Office-were mountain ranges, and several earthquake faults, intended to concentrate, as much as possible, re­ national environmental organizations initiated a sponsibilities of various government agencies for court suit that held up the start of construction regulating projects affecting public land and until after the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authoriza­ thus to increase efficiency of government pipeline tion Act was passed in late 1973. During this four­ surveillance. year delay, government pipeline planning and Although forming separate surveillance agen­ policy making was dominated by two basic cies, the State of Alaska