and a pipeline should not be built along the Mackenzie Valley at this time. The Board therefore denies the application of Foothills Pipe Lines Ltd.

(2) For the reasons stated in (1), the Board also denies the applications of Westcoast Transmission Company Limited and Alberta Gas Trunk Line (Canada) Limited for certificates for facilities which would interconnect with those of Foothills.

(3) The CAGPL project is based on incompatible time constraints; on the one hand the urgent need to connect Alaska gas to United States markets and on the other, the need for more time to resolve socioeconomic concerns before a pipeline could be built in the Mackenzie Valley.

(4) The Prime Route proposed by CAGPL from the Alaska-Yukon border to Tununuk Junction, including the Cross-Delta segment, is environmentally unacceptable to the Board, as is the alternative Interior Route.

(5) For the reasons stated in (3) and (4), the Board denies the application of CAGPL.

(6) The Foothills (Yukon) project generally offers the preferred route for transporting Alaska gas to markets in the lower 48 States. However, the Board believes certain changes to the project as applied for are desirable in the Canadian public interest.

(7) The Board is prepared to issue certificates of public convenience and necessity for the various pipeline segments of the Foothills (Yukon) project subject to conditions. The Board is recommending to the Governor in Council, however, that approval be withheld until the following have been accomplished:

(i) That appropriate amendments to existing applications have been filed with the issuance of the certificates in the names of subsidiary companies of Foothills (Yukon) for the segments of the project in northern British Columbia, Alberta and southeastern British Columbia. Fifty-one percent of the voting shares in each of the subsidiary companies would be owned by Foothills (Yukon) and 49 percent in each by Westcoast, Alberta Gas Trunk Line and ANG (or Westcoast, if not aceptable to ANG), respectively.

(ii) That agreements have been entered into by Foothills (Yukon) with the Government of Canada whereby Foothills (Yukon) or any successor, would undertake the following:

(a) to conduct feasibility studies with respect to the construction of a gas pipeline of no less than 30-inch diameter from the Mackenzie Delta parallel to the Dempster Highway connecting Delta gas to the Foothills (Yukon) system near Dawson City, Yukon, and on or before 1 July 1979 make an application to the National Energy Board for a certificate of public convenience and necessity for such pipeline;

(b) to agree to provide capacity in the main 48-inch diameter pipeline from the point of connection of the Dempster lateral to such point or points on the 48-inch diameter system in Canada deemed necessary to effect delivery of Delta gas to southern Canadian markets, such capacity to be provided by 1 January 1984 or such later date as deemed necessary by the government; and

(c) to provide payment upon the request of the Government of Canada of a sum of money which would be used by the government to pay for socio-economic indirect costs of the pipeline project north of the 60th parallel incurred during a period expiring two years after leave had been granted by the Board to open the pipeline. The Board recommended that the obligation be limited to $200 million.

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ALASKA GAS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS BY THE COUNCIL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

Since the discovery of large oil and natural gas reserves in the Prudhoe Bay fields in Alaska, several routes have been proposed to transport this gas to the lower 48 states.

A North Slope/MacKenzie Valley corridor, sponsored by Alaskan Arctic Gas Company, would traverse Alaska's North Slope, cross into Canada at the MacKenzie River Delta, and run south along the river and hence into the Midwest; a western leg would transport gas to the western states.

An Alaska LNG route proposed by the El Paso Alaska Company would follow the oil pipeline to a new terminal site on Prince William Sound where the gas would be liquefied and shipped by tanker to southern California.

The Fairbanks Alternative corridor sponsored by the Alcan Pipeline Company would parallel the existing oil pipeline as far as Fairbanks and then follow the Alcan Highway through Canada. Some of the gas would be routed to the West Coast via a western leg, and most would go through Alberta and Saskatchewan to U.S. markets in the Midwest and the East.

All three corridors were analyzed in the environmental impact statement process of the Department of the Interior and the Federal Power Commission.

Recognizing an urgent national need for additional natural gas supplies, the Congress enacted the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act of 1976 to provide the means for a sound and expeditious decision. by the President and the Congress on which, if any, transportation system should be built. To avoid the delays of possible litigation, the Act precludes judicial review of the environmental impact statements required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under Section 6(d) of the Alaska Gas Act, the Council on Environmental Quality is directed to present to the President its views on the legal and factual sufficiency of the impact statements and on other environmental matters that we consider relevant. CEQ is also directed to provide members of the public with an opportunity to present oral and written data, views, and arguments on the impact statements. A total of four days of public hearings were held in Anchorage and Washington, D.C., with written and oral testimony submitted by over 70 persons and organizations representing a wide spectrum of interests. These hearings were extremely informative and helpful to the Council in reaching its conclusions.

VIEWS OF THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Sufficiency of the Environmental Impact Statements

Because of the magnitude of the competing proposals and the abbreviated schedule for decisionmaking under the Alaska Gas Act, the decision at hand is to select a particular gas transportation route. It is the sufficiency of the environmental impact statements for this limited purpose that is considered here-not their sufficiency for determining precise alignments, facility locations, and other site-specific data.

After careful review of the impact statements and testimony submitted at our hearings, we have concluded that:

Although they have shortcomings, the environmental impact statements are legally and factually sufficient under the National Environmental Policy Act for purposes of selecting the corridor and basic technology for a gas transportation system. Indeed, the NEPA process led directly to the development of the Fairbanks Alternative, the corridor that we believe to be environmentally preferable, as noted below.

Although the impact statements provide the information necessary to select a corridor and the basic technology for a gas transportation system, they lack the data required for specific decisions concerning route alignments, project designs, mitigation measures, and facility siting. NEPA requires a continuous review of environmental factors and alternatives by agencies with authority over the approved gas transportation system. Environmental assessments, EIS supplements, or new impact statements may be required, depending upon the significance of impacts and the degree to which they have already been treated. Major design, engineering, or other site-specific decisions that follow the selection of a corridor and technology must be considered in one of these types of NEPA analyses.

Environmental Impacts of Alternative Corridors

The impact statements and other public documents provide a wealth of information on the environmental impacts of each of the three corridors. Altogether, they permit a fair comparison of the significant environmental impacts that we believe are most relevant to the decision before the President and the Congress. We found that: The North Slope/MacKenzie Valley corridor is the most environmentally destructive of the three routes being considered. Intrusion into the wilderness stretching from the Canning River in Alaska to the MacKenzie Delta in Canada would be massively disruptive. We disagree strongly with the Federal Power Commission's conclusion that this corridor is environmentally acceptable.

This corridor would pass through parts of Alaska and Canada that are now hardly affected by industrial man's influence: Of its 195 miles in Alaska, 135 miles would cross the narrow coastal plain of the 8.9million acre Arctic National Wildlife Range Established to preserve unique wildlife, wilderness, and recreational values, the Range stands out at the last unspoiled area of its kind in the entire Northern Hemisphere.

The proposed North Slope/MacKenzie Valley pipeline would cut an east-west corridor across this unmarred landscape, requiring new port facilities, airstrips, helipads, gravel borrow areas and compressor stations as well. Although the land loss seems insubstantial when

compared to the total Range, the harm likely to occur to wildlife and wilderness values there is vastly out of proportion to acreage figures.

The litany of measures proposed to protect the Range from pipeline construction is a testimony to scientific, technological, and management ingenuity. The applicant proposes to build that portion of the pipeline entirely in one winter, using only snow roads that vanish with the spring melt. We are skeptical about whether it could be done. The risks of failure are impressive and their consequences irremedial. Experience suggests that economic pressure to complete such a pipeline on schedule would not yield to the onset of spring and the wildlife that might stand in the way.

We must also note the widespread concern that such a gas line could invite an oil line and perhaps a permanent road, so as eventually to become a permanent corridor. A gas line across the Arctic Range and Northern Yukon to the MacKenzie Delta would invite the exploration of oil and gas that may well exist within the Range or in the Beaufort Sea. The future of the Arctic Range must lie in the permanent dedication of this rich and unique area to wilderness. This is also the conclusion of the State of Alaska and every environmental organization appearing at our hearings.

The wilderness and wildlife values of the Range, along with the pipeline route, also extend into Canada, to the MacKenzie Delta. Natives there, who constitute the majority of the population in the Northern Arctic, have vigorously opposed any pipeline either across the North Slope or up the MacKenzie River, fearing its effects on their way of life and its interference with their land claims settlement. Canadian Justice Thomas Berger, who investigated the social and environmental impacts of this route for the Canadian government, recommended that to protect these people and the environment on which they depend, no pipeline be built across the North Slope.

The Fairbanks Alternative corridor would largely follow existing transportation corridors, with no large-scale intrusion into wilderness areas or destruction of wilderness values. We find, in agreement with the Federal Power Commission, that it is the most environmentally acceptable of the three corridors.

But some of its environmental risks are still unknown. The preliminary state of the design effort suggests substantial uncertainty about fundamental concepts. Measures to deal with frost heave, thaw settlement, and summer construction, for example, are only roughly sketched. Still to be developed is site-specific information, such as stream crossings and additional workpad construction mileage.

On the other hand, it appears that the gas line could be safely constructed relatively near the oil pipeline across the existing workpad. The existing haul road along the oil pipeline would also be used, as would many of the existing campsites and other facilities. Further advantages can result from the availability of information on the geology, soils, stream characteristics, and wildlife, all of which would aid in controlling impacts of the Fairbanks Alternative as far as Delta Junction, where it would depart from the oil pipeline.

Social and growth impacts of both the Fairbanks Alternative and the Alaska LNG route will obviously be greater in Alaska than those. of the North Slope/MacKenzie Valley corridor. Although no accurate measures of these impacts have been made, the Alyeska experi