HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA4171Chapter X
Region 6, Alaska
Known as Region 6, Alaska acquired its regional status within the
Fish and Wildlife Service shortly after World War II. The regional
headquarters were in Juneau, the capital city. Alaska kept its
status as a separate region until 1962 when its regional functions
were transferred to the regional office in Portland, Oregon, and it
became a part of the BSFW's Pacific Region.
The early conservation history of Alaska is interesting. With no
pretense at being other than fragmentary, some of that history's
highlights are mentioned herein in the belief that they may throw
some light on the current role of the BSFW in its river basin studies
operations. They have largely been abridged from Jenks .Cameron's
1929 book on.the Bureau of Biological Survey.
The initial interest of the U.S. Government in the fish and wildlife
resources of Alaska after the Territory was acquired by the United
States from Russia in 1867 for $7,200,000 lay in the fur seals, con-
sidered at the time to be the most valuable source of revenue. They
were at once placed under protective legislation •. It was not long
thereafter, however, when it was recognized that the fisheries were
more valuable and the need became manifest that the salmon fisheries
needed protection as well.
Supervision of the salmon fisheries, as of the seals, was at first
given to the Treasury Department. Later, in 1903, it was transfer-
red to the Department of Commerce and Labor, to b~ administered by
the Bureau of Fisheries. By 1908, that Bureau had three agents in
the field, checking on the methods used for catching salmon, prepar-
ing and marketing them, enforcing existing laws, and handling re-
lated activities. The function was called the Alaska Salmon-Inspection
Servi~Ef· There vrere problems. Quoting from Hugh M. Smith's paper of
1908:'!1
"The protection of the Alaska salmon fisheries has been a
difficult problem. The unheard-of-magnitude of the resources
invited a corresponding recklessness and improvidence. As
the canning industry developed, every device that could be
used for wholesale capture of fish was put into operation,
International Fisheries Congress, by Hugh M. Smith, Bureau of Fish-
eries, Govt. Printing office, Wash., D.C., 1908, pp. 47-49.
' 501
1 J
and gradually all of the favorite streams of the salmon be-
came so blocked with seines, gill nets, traps, and barricades
that but a small proportion of the fish could find passage to
the spa1ming grounds, and the future supply was thus most seri-
ously endangered. The Alaskan aborigines likewise conducted
their fishing in a very destructive l·rey, often placing impass-
able barriers in streams up which salmon were running, and, ·
through ignorance or indifference, leaving the obstructions
in place after the full supply of fish had been secured. It
was soon apparent that the laws and regulations were inade-
quate to meet the special conditions prevailing, and were of
such a nature as to make their enforcement very difficult.
11 In 1903 a special commission was appointed to make exhaustive
study of the natural history of the Salmons of Alaska and to
submit recommendations for an improved regulation of the fish-
eries. AB a result a neo,.r code of law·s is now in effect and
promises to prevent the threatened decline in these enormous
industries. With increased restrictions as to fishing methods,
obstructions in streams, close seasons, etc., the Department
of Commerce and Labor is empmrered to set aside any streams as
spawning preserves whenever such course shall be desirable,
all fishing in such w~cers to be prohibited. A license tax is
required on all salmon products; from the payment of this tax,
hmrever, all canning and salting establishments are exempted
upon condition of their returning young salmon to the streams
in the ratio of 1,000 fry to every 10 cases of salmon canned.
Three private hatcheries, representing extensive canning in-
terests, were in operation in 1907 and liberated a total of
119,000,000 young fish. The Government itself has undertaken
extensive hatchery work, having:·now in operation a station at
Yes Lake established in 1905 and one at Afognak Bay just com-
pleted. In the two years of its operations the Yes Bey hat-
chery has produced and liberated over 61,000,000 salmon flJr.
11The seal and salmon fisheries have hitherto overshadowed all
other aquatic resources in Alaska, not only in commercial
value but in revenue to the Government. The rental from the
fur-seal islands alone has more than repaid the purchase price
of the Territory, and the tax derived from the salmon fisheries
now amounts to about $90,000 a year. Some long-neglected pro-
ducts are gradually coming into -i:m:portance, however, and the
cod, halibut, and herring fisheries especially have undergone
remarkable development in the last few years . Since it bE!-
came a part of the United States, Alaska has yielded fishery
products amounting in value to $158,ooo,ooo, of which about
$49,000,000 was derived from fur seals, $86,ooo,ooo from sal-
mon, and the remaining $23,000,000 from all other aquatic.
502
..... -···--.-·n
-J1
products. The stun paid by the United States to Russia for
the Territory of .Alaska ·was only $7,200,000."
According to Jenks Cameron, the Bureau of Biological Survey likewise
became involved in .Alaska at a comparatively early date. He recounts
that Mr. Edward H. Harriman of Ne1-r York organized and financed an
elaborate scientific expedition to the Terri tory i~ 1the summer of 1899
and that the Survey participated in it by request .b It also parti-
cipated in the same expedition in 1900. In 1899 the Survey also made
a reconnaisance stirvey of the entire Yukon River. Succeeding years
found that agency making faunal surveys along the .Alaskan spurs of
the Rocky Mountains, in the upper ancl middle Yukon, about the base
of the .Alaskan Peninsula, and among some of the southeastern .Alaskan
islands. These investigatiorill were biological explorations, concerned
with the identification of species and their habitats, studying life
histories, making zonal maps, and collecting related data. Such work
in .Alaska i-Tas an extension of similar work being performed in the
United States, notably in the Western States. Today, such surveys
probably i-TOuld be called baseline reports .
In those early territorial days, market hunting was flourishing in
.Alaska and there was a great connnerce in the carcasses of deer, moun-
tain sheep, moose, and bears and in skins and trophies.· Concern over
such wanton practices mounted with sportsmen. At the behest of their
organizations and esp~ciallywith the Boone and Crockett Club, a move-
ment began that resulted in the passage of the Act of June .-(, 1902
(32 Stat. 327). It was a game protective statute that established
seasons, bag limits, hunting restrictions, and the usual features of
such acts. The Boone and Crockett Club of course had a membership of
il~luential and wealthy sportsmen and their voices were heard.
Thanks to the cooperation of the Treasury Department, the law did stop
the shipping out of game, hides, and trophies by the wholesale. But
with no active warden force, its effect upon such abuses as killing
out of season, wasting game, et cetera, long connni tted in .Alaska, was
negligible.
It was an unpopular lai-r in the Territory and stirred up a great deal
of bitter feeling. .Alaskans believed they were being discriminated
against, especially in the matter of permits to ship trophies, in
favor of the i-Tealthy sportsmen from the continental United States who
invaded the Territory in considerable numbers each year. Most of them
went to the Kenai Peninsula after the giant moose found there. In the
interest of perpetuating the Kenai moose end other game of the region.
the Department of .Agriculture through the Biological Survey began to
restrict the issuance of permits for the shipment of trophies from the
Kenai country. Though efforts were m.ade .. to administer this feature of
1/ Bureau of Biological Survey, Its History, Activities, and Organiza-
tion, by Jenks Cameron, ·Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Md., 1929, p.35.
503
··.
the law· with impartiality, lUaskans wanted "home rule" in the grant-
ing of perm:its. Therefore, lvith full approval of the Survey and of
the sportsmen's organizations -vrhich had worked for the passage of the
1902 law, that law vras radically amended and enlarged by the Act of
May 11, 1908 (35 Stat. 102). It gave the territorial Governor the
right to issue licenses, which were required both for hunting and ex-
porting instead of the former permits. He also acquired the right to
name wardens and prescribe ·rules and regulations. The old permit
system continued to apply to hunting for scientific collecting and to
exporting of specimens for propagation, exhibition, or scientific pur-
poses, the permits in all cases being issued by the Secretary of Agri-
culture. Game matters continued to be administered under the 1908
amendment until 1925.
Some other developments had occurred in the early days of the Territory.
In 1879 the Treasury Department had jurisdiction over the Pribilof
Islands in the Bering Sea for the better protection of the great seal
herds there. By the Act of March 3) 1879 (20 Stat. 383), Congress
gave the Secretary of the Treasury the right to lease llli.1.ds that were
unoccupied and unprcd ucti ve. Thus in 1882, that Secretary began to
lease a number of small islands off the southern coast of Alaska for
the propagation of foxes.
When the statute creating the Department of Labor and Commerce was
enacted in 1903 (32 Stat. 825, 829), the authority of the Treapury
Department to protect the seals and lease islands for fox raising,
though the foxes ran wild at the time and were merely trapped, 1vent
to the ne-vr Department of Labor and Commerce and hence to the Bureau
of Fisheries. Thereby, that bureau inherited the authority for hand-
ling fur seals and inferentially all fur-bearing animals as well.
That jurisdictional difficulty between the Bureau of Fisheries and
the Bureau of Biological Survey arose is not surprising. The root of
the problem lay in the laws under vrhich the two bureaus operated)
basically in the functions that were inherited from the earliest days
of American jurisdiction of the territory.
On that aspect and the related complications involving the Department
of the Interior, then responsible for the territof~al gover1unent in
Alaska, Jenks Cameron had the following to offer:;0 .
"Meantime the act of April 21, 1910 (36 Stat. L., 326, 327),
providing for the protection of the fur seals of Alaska, and
!I Ibid., pp. 114, 115.
504
I1
for other purposes, had been passed. This act made some sub-
stantial changes in the fur-seal protective procedure, but
the fur-bearing animal situation· was left practically as it
had been, save that the jurisdiction with regard thereto was
in the Depaxtment of Commerce and Labor instead of in the
Treasury. In 1910, therefore, the wild life jUrisdiction in
Alaska was a s ome~;.;hat scattered affair. The Department of
the Interior, through the territorial government of Alaska,
divided the jurisdiction as to the game phases of it with the
Department of Agriculture, represented in the premises by the
Biological Survey. The fur-bearing part of it was held by
the Department of Connnerce and Labor, through the Bureau of
Fisheries. The result l·ras an awkward division of authority.
"This fact vras soon recognized by the Bureau of Fisheries,
and, when sentiment began d.eveloping for a readjustment,
that Bureau interposed no objections. In fact in their
annual reports for 1919 both the Secretary of Commerce and
the Commissioner of Fisheries expressed the desire that
jurisdiction over land fur-bearing animals be transferred
to the Biological Survey. A bill vras introduced in Congress
in 1917 providing for the transfer, but nothing came of it.
"Finally, however, the unsatisfactory situation was largely,
but not entirely, cured by the act of May 31, 1920 (41 Stat.
L., 694, 716), which transferred all powers and duties with
regard to all land fur-bearing animals in Alaska to the Sec-
retary of fl~riculture; and transferred to the Secretary of
Commerce all povrers and duties vri th regard to walruses and
sea lions, which the game laws of 1902 and 1908 had placed,
rather incongruously, with the Secretary of Agriculture.
Along with this readjustment went the leasing rights for
fox-farming purposes of those twelve 'certain islands' off
the coast of southern Alaska, which the Secretary of the
Treasury had acquired back in the eighties. These islands
were mostly in the Semidi, Chugach, and Shumagin groups.
It d.evelo:ped after the 1920 transfer that two of them nO!tT
lay within the boundaries of the Chugach National Forest,
so those t'YTO were transferred to the Forest Service in
order that its jurisdiction might be complete, and thac
their leasing for fox propagation might be handled by the·
authority logically situated therefor. Already for several
years the Forest Service had been leasing islands for this
purpose which lay 'Yrithin the two Alaskan natiol1al forests,
1mder its system of special use permits.
505
11The improvement brought about by this legislation was that
vrhereas before its passage fur-bearing animal jurisdiction
and game animal jurisdiction had been absolutely separated,
departmentally, they were now only partially separated. ·The
Biological Survey now had full land fur-bearing animal juris-
diction and -under the jUBt.:.mentioned 1908 amendment -full
game jurisdiction, subject to the 'home rule' device which
put the granting of licenses in the hands of the Governor of
Alaska together -.;-lith the control of the game warden service.
This was undoubtedly a great improvement over the statUB ex-
isting prior to the law's passage, but that it contained the
seeds of discord scarcely needs to.be pointed out. Land fur-
bearing animal protection was ncn-r to be administered entirely
by one authority, the Biological Survey of the Department of
Agriculture; and game animal protection, almost entirely by
another, the territorial government of Alaska, under the De-
partment of the Interior. 11
In a footnote blq.ring on the readjUBtment between the two bureaus,
Cameron stated::Y
11Early in 1915 a joint cormnittee of the t-vro departments con-
cerned was appointed to devise a plan to simplify the admin-
j_stration of the Aleutian Islands Bird Reservation in Alaska,
which had been created by executive order two years before,
with respect to fur farming therein. The reservation itself·
was under the Survey, but the fur-bearing animal administra-
tion thereof under the Bureau of Fisheries of the Department
of Comn~rce. It reported that such a distribution of author-
ity was unvrise and should be adjusted to conform to the func-
tions and equipment of the two departments. Both departments
conc1..1rred in the recommendation. See Department of ll.gricul-
ture, Annual Report, 1915, p. 36.11
Another event, leading finally to better orSJ:(jr in the administration
of Alaska's wildlife, may merit mentioning.~ Reino.eer had been in-
traduced into Alaska from Siberia in 1892 to furnish the Alaskan
Eskimos with a profitable operation. Between 1892 and 1902, 1,280
of the animals were imported, the original herds being established
around Teller on the Seward Peninsula.· By 1920 the original impor-
tations had increased to 200,000 animals,. not counting about 100,000
that had been killed for food and clothinge.
~ Ibid., D· 115.
?} Ibid._, pp. 116-119~
506
r
I
.Jl
The original intention had been that the experiment should be f'or
the benef'it of' the Eskimos alone. But the Bureau of' Education,
which had brought the reindeer over, also brought in some Laps f'rom
northern Norway to teach the Eskimos in reindeer handling. The Laps
acquired some small bunchesoof' the aniiDals f'or their own in the f'orm
of' bonuses granted them f'rom the increase to retain their interest."
In time, some of' them sold of'f' their holdings to other white men vrho
had seen the possibilities of' reindeer raising in a territory capa-
ble of' grazing 3-4 million animals.
So the Bureau of' Biological Survey -vras corrmrtssioned in 1920 to review
the situation. Dr. E.W. Nelson, Chief' of' the Survey, made a trip to
Alaska in 1920. "'AB a result of' his visit, a lt:(ooratory was set up at
Unalakleet to study parasites and diseases of' reindeer, grazing re-
quirements, f'orage plants, and methods of' herding. The experiment
station was moved to Nome in 1922, and to Fairbanks in 1925 so that
the research could be conducted in coo:peration 1vith the Alaska .Agri-
cultural College (now the University of' Alaska) aild the Alaskan
Railroad.
Demand f'or straightening out the divided -vrildlif'e authority kept
mounting. So on his return f'rom his reindeer visit, Dr. Nelson
draf'ted a new law providing f'or the administration of' both the game
and the land f'ur-bearing resources by the same authority. The draf't
was studied and criticized intensively by Alaskans and such organiza-
tions as the Boone and Crockett Club, the Camp Fire Club of' America,
the American Game ABsociation, and the National ABsociation of' Audu-
bon Societies.
A measure evolved that was satisf'actory to practically all paxties.
The result was the :passage on JanUar'IJ 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 739), of' the
"Act to establish an Alaska Game Conunission to protect game animals,
land f'ur-bearing animals, and birds, in Alaska, and f'or other purposes. 11
It became best known f'or its short title as the "Alaska Grone Law. 11
In brief', the Bureau of' Biological Survey, acting f'or the Secretary of'
Agriculture, was put in the position of' the Governor of' Alaska under the
1908 law, thus concentrating in it all Alaskan wildlif'e authority re-
garding game and f'ur animals ; Steps were taken to end the anomalous
situation created by the existing dual warden f'orce. One f'orce, known
as the United States game wardens, acting under one chief' Alaska game
warden, was created to enforce game laws and f'ur-bearing animals alike.
It is interesting to note in this connection that under the 1908 law,
the Governor of' Alaska appointed wardens within the Territory and that
the Bureau of' Biological Survey, af'ter the 1920 readjustment with the
507
Bureau of Fisheries, had a fur warden force of one chief and about
a dozen deputies, having supplanted a s omevrhat similar f'ur warden
force that had been maintained prior to 1920 by the Bureau of Fish-
eries.
The 1925 law provided for a five-man Commission, one member of which
··. 1.S the chief Alaskan representative of the Survey and, ex-officio,
the Commission r s executive officer and fiscal agent. The law -vras
hailed as a model game act. It established unity of control as to
all forms of Alaskan land-1-rildlife under the Biological Survey vrhile
recognizing the Alaskan passion for home rule. Seals, sea lions,
vralruses, et cetera, continued to remain under the jurisdiction of
the Bureau of Fisheries, and with some changes in recent times con~
tinue to remain so under its descendant agency, the National Marine
Fisheries Service.
As mentioned, the point in touching briefly on the historical divided
jurisdiction of wildlife in Alaska is to identify some of the tradi-·
tional roots of the Bureau of Fisheries and the Bureau of Biological
Survey. In the view of the writer, such roots had a bearing on sub-
sequent events related to. the function that came to be known as river
basin studies.
Early investigations in Alaska as elsevrhere with respect to the effects
of hydroelectric power projects on fish resources 1-rere conducted by the
Bureau of Fisheries. The Federal Power Commission, an independent re-
gulatory agency, came into being under the Federal Povrer Act of June 10;
1920 (41 Stat. 1073). Having the authority to issue licenses to appli-
cants f'or hydropower projects, it also had the povrer under its organic
law to require applicants to provide fishways to enable migrating f'ish
to get around obstructing dams • To do so, the Commission reques.ted
the Bureau of Fisheries to supply its views on applications. The Bureau's
functions -vrere advisory in nature; it had no power to insist that its
recommendations were carried out.
In Alaska, a substantial number of such applications vrere reviewed over
the early years by the Bureau of' Fisheries. Most of the proposals seem
.to have been of a minor nature and since they interposed no difficulties,
were approved out of' hand. An· example of the handling of' such applica-
tions appears in the annual report of the U.S. Commissioner of Fisheries11 for fiscal year 1933 under the hew:Ung 11-later-Power Projects in Alaska11 ;:!::/ .
y Report of the U.S. Commissioner ·of Fisheries to the Secretary of'
Commerce f'or the Fiscal Year 1933, Govt. Printing Office, Wash.,
n.c.,.1934, p. 21.
5o8
11Eight a:pplications for licenses for minor povrer projects in
Alaska were referred to· the Bureau by the FederaJ. Power Com-
mission for report as to whether any special conditions for
the protection of' migratory fish should be included in the
licenses, if' issued. These applications -vrere for projects
located at the following places: (l) and (2) Baranof River,
within Tongass National Forest; (3) an unnamed stream at
Ward Cove, Revillagigedo Island; (4) Hanley Creek, McCluxe
Bay; (5) Sahlin Creek, Sheep Bay; (6) San Juan Lake and Creek,
Evans Bay, Evans Island; (7) Stevens Creek, Orca. Inlet; and
(8) an unnamed stream on the west shore of' Upper Trail Lake,
within Chugach National Forest.
11 Upon the basis of' information from field agents of' the Bureau
the Conrrnission was notified -vrith respect to each case that the
stream in question was not a spavming ground for salmon, and
that therefore the Bureau had no objection to the utilization
of' the waters for power development."
Other annual reports of' the U.S. Commissioner of' Fisheries provided
similar summaries of' investigations of' nunor power projects by the
Bureau of Fisheries. There may have been some isolated ca$eS of'
major as well as minor projects that called for f'ishvrays but the
references available to the writer do not so indicate. The major
interest in big hydropower proposals in the early 1920's and 1930's
were centered in the Pacific Northwest in Washington and Oregon,
and also in California.
During the early post-World War II years, _when the river basin studies
activities were taking on a new and broader dimension in the United
States, the chief' concern of' the Fish and Hildlif'e Service in water-
resource projects in Al~ska seemed to have centered on hydropower
projects, the licenses on many of' which 1-rere up for renewal. Bud
Elkins was chief' of' Federal aid activities in the Fish and Wildlife
Service regional office in Juneau during the late 1940's and re-
counted his early experiences Ylith Federal Power Commission license
applications. With no river bas.in studies staff', whoever had some
knowledge of' a particular stream where a renewal of' a license or a new
license was in the making, that party was drafted to lend his knowledge
to the situation and assist in drafting a letter report to the Federal
Power Commis.sion.
A personal interview with Urban D. (Pete) Nelson, who _was in the Federal
Aid Division with Bud Elkins and had a hand in the early river basin
studies .activities at the time, corroborates Bud's account of' the early
days in J'uneau. Nmr retired and living in Juneau, Pete was the last
regional director of' the Bureau of' Sport Fisheries & Wildlife before the
509
• r r r r·"·----· -·· •• -~~
Alaska regional office of that Bureau was abolished in 1962. Not
long after his retirement in the late 1960's, Pete for ~ short time
became the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, a
position equivalent to that of director of other similar State fish
and game agencies.
The first full-time river basin studies employee of the Fish and Wild-
life Service in Alaska was Melvin A. (Mel) Monson. He was an aquatic
biologist with the Minnesota Conservation Department in 1944-48, prior
to engaging as a commercial fisherman first in Wisconsin and then in
Alaska. Giving up commercial fishing in September 1950, he became an
engineering aid and photographer for the Bureau of Reclamation on the
Eklutna Project, a hydroelectric. power proposal to supply power to
the cities of Anchorage and Palmer and the outlying districts.
An early shot in the arm for Anchorage came in 1935 when 200 families
from the drought-stricken midwestern United States were transported to
Alaska in the nearby :t.-Jatanuska Valley by the Government-directed JUaska
Rural Rehabilitation Corporation. With the War years, thousands of
workers were rushed north to undertake new defense projects.
Anchorage flourished. .And as it continued to grow, its dema.YJ.ds for
electric power kept mounting. The Government's response, through the
Bureau of Reclamation, was the E'Alutna Project the surveys for which
were made in mid-1948. Construction started in April 1951 and was com-
pleted in J1me 1955. It diverts water from Eklutna Lake through a
4.5-mile 9-foot diameter tunnel to a penstock which conveys water to
the powerplant at the base of a mountain on Knik Arm, an inlet to the
sea close to Anchorage.
Because other proj~cts in Alaska were in the making, there was stirring
in the Central Office of the Fish and Wildlife Service to establish a
full-fledged river basin studies office-in the Territory where the in-
vestigations of water-resource projects could be centered. One 9f those
projects was Reclamation's proposal for 19 potential dams for hydropower
purposes on the Susitna River, which drains south-central Alaska and
empties into Cook InletJ a few miles west of Anchorage. In accordance
with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1946, Reclamation asked
the Juneau regional office of the Fish and Wildlife Service to review
the proposal for its effects on fish and-wildlife.
It was felt by _.the Service 1 s regional people in Juneau that they had no:-
body on hand to do justice to the review. At the behest of Bud Elkins,
the Service asked for the services of Mel Monson who was a trained bio-
logist and had some experience with Reclamation by 'virtue of his employ-
ment with that agency. Consequently, Mel went to the Service on a spe-
cial assignment in 1952 to review and report on the Susitna River propo-
sal. Mel's endeavors resulted in a Service report entitled, 11 A Prelimi-
nary Report on Fi.shand :Wildlife Resources in Relation to the Susitna
:River Basin Plan, 1972. n-
510
·'
I1
That special asstg:nment of Mel's developed into a permanent associa-
tion with the Service for Mel was chosen to establish the new and
first river basin studies Alaska field office in Anchorage in July
1952. Perhaps typical of the Fish and Wildlife Service in those days,
he was initially offered a transfer to the Service at the same grade
he held with Reclamation, a GS-7. He declined. The Ser1.rlce finally
agreed to raise him to a GS-9, whereupon he agreed to the transfer.
The writer well recalls the opening of the Anchorage field office . He·
had returned to Billings from Sacramento in July· 1951. \-.fith the opening
of the new Anchorage field office in July 1952, Rudolph Dieffenbach,
heading u;p what vras then kn01m as the Office of River Basin Studies,
called the writer on the long-distance phone and asked him if he would
be willing to go to Anchorage for two or three months and. assist in getting
the office established. The \-Triter had just contracted f'or having a new
home built in Billings and was watching it grovr -vrith anticipation. But he
was wil:).ing to ·go to Anchorage for the detail. He had once before missed
going to Alaska, it could have been in 1931 or 1932, when he was offered
a job cruising timber with the Forest Serv·ice out of Ketchikan. He looked
forward to that experience between college years. His disappointment was
keen when a wire on.the eve of his departure notified him that the anti-
cipated appropriation fell through and the hiring could not be made.
Here, twenty years laterJ was another opportunity to visit Alaska, if for
but a short time of a fevr weeks. But in his telephone call Dief cautioned
that funds were tight and that the Anchorage detail to get Mel and one
or t-vro others on his staff started, might, it just might have to be can-
celled. It was. A week or two later Dief called again, saying that be-
cause funds were lean for the ensuing fiscal year the writer's anticipa-
ted detail of assisting the new Anchorage field office would have to be
abandoned. It was strike two on visitmng Alaska.
Gordon W. Watson left the Billings field office in November 1952, initially
dti ving alone to Anchorage, to join :!YJel Mons on's lean staff as a wildlife
biologist. Gordon for long had a yen to go to Alaska, J118king his desiJ;"es
kn01m to the Central Office wheri he attended the Interior Department 1 s
management training course in Washington, D.-C., somewhat earlier. In his
zeal to go to Alaska, he committed himself to go laterally, with no raise
in.grade.
In discussing his move with the writer in Billings, the latter suggested
to Gordon that he should ask for a grad.e raise. His response was that he
had committed himself to go as a GS-7 wildlife biologist.. Well, he hadn't
departed yet: He pondered the suggestion, finally wrote the Central
Office that he had reconsidered and believed the move warranted a grade
raise to a GS-9. There was some grtnnbling in the Central. Office but the
511
grade raise was granted and Gordon took off. He was grateful for the
cou...'l1.sel. In those days, grades were not what they are today and a
GS -9 -vras not to be ignored. In Gordon 1 s w·ords, his new grade conrrnand-
ed respect by his :peers in other Federal agencies.
The Anchorage field office was an out:post in those days. Yet, all
river basin studies work in Alaska was :processed out of that office.
The regional office of the Fish and"Wildlife Service was in the ca:pital
city of Juneau · 500 miles to the southeast and there was no regional
supervisor to give the operation guidance. In a real sense, Mel Monson,
Gordon Watson, and a typist, the total complement of :personnel of the
Anchorage field office in those early days, were on their mm.
The situation of one small river basin studies field office in Alaska
obtained until 1956 when Mel moved to Jm1eau and established a new field
office there. Gordon Watson became the field office supervisor in
Anchorage, succeeding Mel. Gordon then obtained the services of Jack
Lentfer and Don Thurston. The field office in Juneau started u:p -vrith
Mel, -vrho then acquired the services of Robert W. McVey, Dale R. Evans,
and one typist.
The Fish and 1-Tildlife Act of August 8, 1956, broke u:p the Fish and 1-Tild-
life Service into a Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife, as mentioned earlier. Much of the fish and wild-
life activity in Alaska of course :pertained to connnercial fisheries, es-
pecially the important anadro:rn.ous Salmons. Moreover, the historic respon-
sibilities for managing the fur seals of the Pribilof Islands, and the
walruses, sea otters, and other marine mammals went to the ne-vr Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries. Remaining -vrith the Bureau of S:port Fisheries and
Wildlife were such activities as grone law enforcement, Federal aid in
vrildlife restoration, wildlife refuge management, and :predator and rodent
control. Important though such activities 1-rere, the loss of the fish-
eries responsibilities and of marine mronmals left the new Bureau of S:port
Fisheries and Wildlife in a relatively -vreakened :position.
The question arose as to what to do with river basin studies. Its func-
tion crossed over into both of the two new bureaus. The im:pact of water-
resource :projects on the fisheries that became the responsibility of the
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries a:p:peared to be more important than the im-
:pact on wildlife resources. It was thus decided by the :powers in control
of mfti~ing such decisions that the river basin studies function should be
housed in its entirety in the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. And so it
came about that unlike the river basin studies in the Uni-t;ed States which
remained in the Bureau of S:port Fisheries and Wildlife, that function in
territorial Alaska vrer.t to the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. As in the
case of the Columbia River fisheries :program, the funds for the river
basin studies operation were obtained by the Bureau of S:port Fisheries
and Wildlife in its budget requests and transferred to the Bureau of
5J2.
I1
Commercial Fisheries. The arrangement was in ~~eping with Reorgani-
zation Memorandum No. 20 of September 8, 1959.~
While in charge of the field office in Juneau, which covered all of
southeas·bern .Alaska, Mel Monson also performed in the capacity as
staff advisor to the regional director of the Bureau of Commercial ·
Fisheries.
Paralleling the regional river basin studies organizations of the Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife in the United States, the Bureau of Com-
mercial Fisheries regional office in Juneau decided to establish a re-
gional supervisor's position. Gordon Watson, the supervisor of the
Anchorage field office got the post and moved into the new position in
October 1961. He was succeeded in the Anchorage field position by
Charles D. Evans, who ha4 earlier for about ten years worked in river
basin studies out of the Minneapolis regional office.
Gordon Watson held the regional supervisor's job in Juneau to August
1965, when he went back to school, to the University of Michigan, .to
work on his doctor's degree. In August 1967, he spent some time in the
Central Office of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries vrorking on prograros
and budgets, following vrhich he resumed his studies at the University of
Michigan. In mid-June 1970, he became the first director of the Anchor-
age krea Office of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, a position
somewhat analogous to a regional director's position in the Lrnver 48
States.
Mel Monson transferred to the Central Office's river basin studies oper-
ation in October 1961. Prior to his departure, he concentrated on re-
gional office activities whereas Robert McVey served as supervisor of
the· Juneau field office operation.. Mel returned to Juneau in January
1967 to become the regional supervisor of river basin studies with the
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.
Jack Lentfer left the RBS operation in Anchorage in January 1964 and. was
succeeded by Ray Morris 1-rho transferred from the Juneau :field office.
Dale Evans moved to Anchorage for a short time, then on to Fairbanks where
he stayed through 1964. Dale moved back to Juneau in 1965. Bob McVey
left Juneau for Washington_, D.c., in January 1966, and a foreign assign-
ment. When Mel returned to Juneau in 1967, the staff consisted of Dale
Evans and a secretary; in Anchorage, there were Charles Evans, Don Thurston,
and a stenographer. With Mel, the total RBS operation in 1967 thus con-
sisted of four professionals and two typists.
y See Exhibit 26, A:ppendix •.
513
With the transfer of the Bureau of Co~nercial·Fisheries to the Depart-
ment of Corrnnerce under the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration and renamed the National Marine Fisheries Service on
July 9, :).970, the river basin studies function in Alaska -vrent to the
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Mel Monson then moved to Anchor-
age as regional supervisor.of the operation under Gordon Watson who, as
noted, became the first area director of the n~r office. In January 1971,
Don Orcutt transferred to Anchorage, to become Mel's assistant regional
supervisor. He came from the Boise field office of the NMFS Columbia
River fisheries program. Don retired from Government service in the
spring of 1973.
There were other developments in Alaska during the years mentioned above.
Alaska lost its territorial status -vrith the passage of the Jl~aska State-
hood Act of 1958 and became the 49th State of the Union. In becoming a
State, it acquired some of the functions held by the Fish and Wildlife
Service. A newly formed Alaska Department of Fish and Gw.e was estab-
lished and began functioning.
As a consequence, the regional office of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife in Juneau became still weaker and, in terms of personnel,
considerably smaller. Justifying the retention of a regional office for
reduced activities became increasingly difficult. As a result, 1962 saw
the abolishment of the remnant of a once much larger regional office and
the transfer of its functions to the regional office at Portland, Oregon.
There is no regional office of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wild-
life in Alaska today. Something resembling a regional office was ini-
tiated in July 1970 in .Anchorage and called an area office. Currently,
many of its administrative fQDctions of a housekeeping nature, covering
personnel actions, contracts, fiscal matters, et cetera, still remain
with the Portland regional office. Only time will tell whether the-
Anchorage area office will develop into a full-fledged regional office
of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and 1-Tildlife.
When the river basin studies f~mction was transferred from the Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries to the BSFW in Anchorage in J~liy 1970, the river
basin studies enr_ployees were given the option of staying with lvhat be-
came the Nations~ Marine Fisheries Service or transferring to the Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. It was a difficult decision for some.
As indicated, Mel Monson moved to Anchorage. The river basin studies
field office stayed in Junea.u but no longer was responsible to the .
National Marine Fisheries Service office next door; it became responsible
to the Anchorage area office. Waine E. Oien, a biologist with the Juneau
field office, took over as supervisor of its operation. Waine had earlier
worked in the Portland, Oregon, river basin studies field office, and
later, in the Spokane, Washington, field operation prior to transferring
to Juneau.
514
One professional who decided to stay ·with the National Marine Fisheries
Service was Dale R. Evans. His stenographer also elected to stay. Dale
joined the river basin studies staff in 1959 vrhen it was lodged in the
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Dale had wide exposure in Alaska, vrork-
ing on potential hydropower sites of the Bureau of Reclamation and Corps
of Engineers, and applicants for Federal Power Connnission preliminary
permits and licenses. With. Mel's leaving for Anchorage in 1970, Dale
became to all intents and purposes a regional supervisor of river basin
studies with the National Marine Fisheries Service, except that the.
function within that agency became known as a division of vrater-resource.
projects and Dale's title became that of a regional coordinator for such
projects.
When the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries left the Department of the In-
terior and went to the Department of Commerce in July 1970, in an orga-
nizational sense it severed all past ties with its former sister agency,
the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. It was nmr independent of
Interior ·and past policies and dictums of that department no longer ob-
tained.·· But though it lost the river basin studies function in name,
it did not do so in fact. Because of its involvement in anadromous and
commercial fisheries of Alaska, a great responsibility indeed, it co~ld
not very well afford to ignore water-resource projects in their effects
on its sphere of responsibilities, particularly in Alaska's importre1t
estuarine zone. It had no choice but to set up a river basin studies
function of its own.
In Alaska today, as elsewhere, the National -Marine Fisheries Service
prepares its own re~orts on selective water-resotiTce projects and parti-
cularly so on navigation permits, the applicants for which are compelled
by law to obtain them from the Corps of Engineer~. before going ahead 1-rith
any proposals, whatever their nature, in the navigable waters of the
United States. The regional office of the National Marine Fisheries
Service in Juneau collaborates closely with the Bureau of Sport Fisher-
ies and Wildlife. Af'ter all, river basin studies biologists in Alaska
at one time were one family in the same agency and the organizational
convolutions of Government, though they have to be reckoned with, do
not inhibit professionals from working together in a common cause. Per-
haps the pity is·that such dedicated people have to be divided.
Waine E. bien is .currently the supervisor of the Juneau river basin
studies field office. He· has a small staff. m.s office occupies space.
in the Federal Building~
Charles Evans, supervisor of the Anchorage field office following
Gordon Watson's departure for Juneau in 1961, held that position until
December 1971 following which he joined the Sea Grant program of the
University of Alaska. Working with scientists of other disciplines,
in August 1972 he was working on an atlas of the resources of the Gulf
515
of Alaska. He >vas succeeded in the Anchorage field office by
Donald B. Thurston, present su:pervisor of that field unit. Don
joined the RES o:peration at the field office A.nchorage, Alaska, as
a fishery research biologist in January 1957. He was acting super-
visor of ·that office for awhile prior to becoming supervisor in May
1973. Earlier work with the TITS included summer work at Yellowstone
National Pa.rk in 1950. Don also w·orked for a short time for the Utah
Game and Fish Commission and for the Nevada Fish and Game Commission
from the fall of 1951 to December 1956. Starting in October 1950, he
also had experience as an oceanographer with the U.S. Navy follo-vring
which he went to Nevada.
Robert McVey left the river basin studies operation but stayed. with
the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. He is currently the assistant
regional director of the National Marine Fisheries Service in that
city.
The small A11chorage office handles w~ter-resource :projects and
related activities in western Alaska above the coastal town of Yakutat,
just about -vrhere the panhandle joins the Alaska pan. Southeastern
Alaska below Yakutat is the area .of responsibility of the Juneau field
office. It covers the .Alaska panhandle proper., the sounds, straits,
and islands of the Alexander Archipelago, and the drainages of the main-
land emptying into the sea below Yakutat.
Alaska appears to be a world of its own. Its rich natural resources,
including its fish and wildlife, have long commanded the respect and
interest of various Government agencies, diverse organizations, and
private individuals. While pockets of wilderness arid of frontier
living exist in the lower 48 States, Alaska still has vast areas that
have never been exploited or developed. If in spite of the airplane
a last frontier of any size still exists in the United States, it has
to be in Alaska.
Yet, this largest State of the United States with a land area of 586,000
square miles and a shoreline of an unbelievable 33,000 miles, with its
astonishing treasure trove of mineral resources, timber, and fish and
wildlife, is undergoing change. Unlike the slow change that lrlstori-
cally followed explor~tion in the Lower 48 States, Alaska since World
War II has literally gone from the dogsled era to that of the airplane.
In so doing, it may be overlooking the need to pause and take stock of
the direction it is taking. The misfortune may in not reckoning
with the cost of developing its natural bounty.
The stirrings of growth and development of Alaska in the post-World
War II years, largely centered on hydroelectric proposals for harnes-
sing Alaska's rivers, spurred the interest of river basin studies bio-
logists on the effects of such development on fish and wildlife. A
. 516
\:{l
case in point was the expressed joint interest of the American Alumi-
num Company of America and the Canadian Frobisher 1vith Ventures,· Ltd.,
in high dams on the upper Yllicon River in Yukon Territory, Canada.
Though the project was expected to be located almost entirely within
Canada, American salmon resources would be affected. Since informa-
tion on the fishery resources of the remote area were limited, FWS
people began gathering preliminary information and compiling it.
:IYlel Monson supervised their efforts. They contacted members of the
· Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Department of Fisheries,
the YQ~On Territorial Game Commission, Fish and Wildlife Service
people, and various residents of the small towns in Yukon Territory
who displayed interest in the work and provided background information.
The preliminary plan of Frobisher with Ventures, Ltd., called for a
140-foot dam on the Yukon River near Whitehorse, diverting its dammed
waters through tunnels into lakes and a creek thence into the Taku
-vratershed on the west side of the Coast Range -vrhere powerhouse facili-
ties would be located. Also called for was a dam on one of two alter-
nate sites on the main stem of the Yukon belo~r Whitehorse. Either site
-vrould have called for a dam at least 160 feet in height. Its function
would have been that of a control structure to assure navigation on the
river below vThitehorse.
The preliminary plan proposed by the Aluminum Company of America called
for a dam at Miles Canyon on the Yukon River above Whitehorse. The
diversion of its reservoir -vraters was to have been by means of a tunnel
through the coastal mountain range to generating units located at tide-
water on the Taiya River near Skagvray.
Investigation in the upper Yukon Basin entailed two major phases, one
on the ground in May of 1955 to obtain general information on the mag-
nitude, distribution, and time of arrival of salmon runs. The second
phase was an aerial survey during the latter part of August of 1955 to
determine spawning areas and the numbers of saL~on utilizing them.
The effort resulted in an assessment of the salmon runs in Canada,
greater in magnittne in the Teslin River watershed .than in the YQ~On
River above the confluence of the Truchini River. Limited though the
data were, they were indicative of -vrhat was learned that sunnner of
1955. They we;!i'Ef su:rmnarized in a report of April 1956, revised in
December 1957 .~
Progress Report No. I, A Special Report on the Salmon Resources
of the Upper Yukon River Basin (above Carmacks), Yukon Territory,
Canada, Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, Alaska, Apro 1956,
Revised Dec. 1957, 26 pp.
517
n
The specter of additional hydroelectric power development in the
Yukon River in Alaska spurred ad.ditional studies covering the entire
Yukon Basin. And so sub~Ejquent reports were issued in 1957 on the
Yukon River Basin properY j in 1958 on the Upper YukglJ River B~in
bet1-reen Eagle, Alaska, and Carmacks, Yukon Terri ~9ri=f ; and another
in 1957 on the Lower Yukon River below~ Marshall.lt
All of these reports were of a preliminary nature, assessments as it
were to bring together as much information as could be collected in
limited time. They vrere pioneering river basin studies reports to
gather· as much knO\-rledge as possible from whatever sources and pull it
together between covers. Some of the data were collected on the ground
but other sources of information were tapped including fish canneries,
biologists whatever their agency or divisional affiliation, aircraft
pilots, past reports of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, bulletins of the
American Museum of Natural Histm'Y, and other literature. All avail-
able statistics were utilized and sifted to pick out relevant data to
identify the importance of fish and wildlife in the economy of the
basin.
Some idea of the size of the Yukon River Basin can be gleaned from
the fact that it covers 330,000 square rnles, about 6o,ooo square miles
larger than the State of Texas. About· half of the basin lie·s in Alaska,
the balance in Yukon Territory and British ColUmbia. The Yukon River
itself flows 2,300 miles from its origin. About 1,300 miles of it are
in Alaska, the balance in Canada .. It is one of the great rivers of the
North American continent, the fifth largest after the Mississippi,
:Mackenzie, St. Lavrrence, and Columbia.
Cddly enough, the Yukon River originates within 30 miles of the Pacific
Ocean, in the region northeast of Haines and Skagtva;y. From its origin
in lakes on the east side of the Coast Range in Canada, it flows north-
westerly in a big arc vrith its apex at Fort Yukon just above the Arctic
Circle and continues on a southwesterly course before it empties into
Progress Report No. II, General Information Relative to the Fish
and Wildlife Resources of the Yukon River Basin, Fish and "Tild-
life Service, Juneau, Alaska, Nov. 1957, 48 pp.
Progress Report No. III, Fishery Resources· of the Upper Yukon
River Basin Betvreen Eagle, Alaska, and Carmacks, Yukon Territory,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, . Alaska, .Jan. 1958.
Progress Report No. N, Fish ·and \-lildlife Resources of the Lower
Yukon River (Marshall to Mouth), Fish and Wildlife Service, ·
Juneau, Alaska, Feb. 1957, 33 pp.
518
...
the Bering Sea. It has nine major tributaries in Alaska and ~our
in Canada. In size o~ flow, it resembles the Columbia River o~ the
Pacific Northwest.
The basin is sparsely populated. Not counting its guessed at military
population of 35,000 at air bases and other installations in the Fair-
banks area, in 1950 it had but around 14,000 resident inhabitants.
About two-thirds were in Fairbanks, the rest in smaller towns many of
which were native villages that had less than 200 people in a village.
From the Canadian border to Marshall, the population was largely
Indian, of Athabaskan stock. Dmmstream from Marshall, a native
village about 75 miles above the river's mouth, Eskimos -vrere the domi-
nant native population. The Ym(on RBS report of November 1957 indica-
ted that one of the most primitive cultures rema1.ning in Alaska was
found from the Ylli(on River Delta south to the Kuskokwim River.
The tempo of fish and wildlife studies within the Yukon Basin increased
as the Rampart Canyon proposal came to the fore. The Senate Public
Works Committee passed a resolution on April 24, 1959, requesting the
Corps of Engineers to investigate and report on that project. In turn,
on March 14, 1962, the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the
Interior signed an agreement which dealt with the division of respon-
sibilities between Interior and the .Arrrry in certain areas in Alaska.
The agreement provided for the Corps to continue its studies ru1d com-
plete its report on Rampart, with Interior's report on the marketing
of the project power and the project's effect on all nat~cal resources
to be completed prior to any recommendations for authorization of the
project.
The Department of the Interior had been assessing the hydroelectric
power potentials and their marketing feasibility of the project as
well as its anticipated effects on natural resources for nearly five
years prior to its agreement with the Corps in 1962. A big concern
was in the project's effects on fish and wildlife.
The effort that went into the Rampart Canyon Dam study o~ the project's
fish and wildlife aspects -vras an all-out endeavor on the part of the
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and the Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries. J~s synthesis is reflected in the 1964 joint report of the
two bureaus .Y
y A Report on Fish and Wildlife Resources Affected by Rampart Dam
and Reservoir Project, Yukon River, Alaska, a joint report by
the Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife and the Bureau of Com-
mercial Fisheries, Juneau, Alaska, April 28, 1964, 13 pp., with
Substantiating Report, 122 pp.
519
A good idea o~ the magnitude o~ the project, located in central
Alaska on the Arctic Circle and 750 miles up from the Yukon Riverts
mouth, can be had ~rom the ~ollovring brie~ descri!Jiiion taken from
the Interior Depa~tment's summary report of 1967:~
"The Rampart Project is one o~ the great hydroelectric poten-
tialities of North America and the largest ever studied in the
United States in terms of power production and rese~roir size ,
and capacity. However, it would be remote from any present
major power markets and would adversely affect fish and ;;.rild-
li~e resources of national ru1d international concern. It
would be located in the largest State in the Union, which has
the smallest population.
"As shown on Plate 1, the reservoir would be located on the
Yukon River on the Arctic Circle, where extremes of cold
weather prevail and present developments are at a minimum.
11The project would create a reservoir with a water s~ace
area of about 10,600 square miles, a maximum length of about
280 miles, and a· maximum width of about 80 miles. The reser-
voir would inundate the Yukon Flats, the unique and self-
perpetuating ecosystem which occupies the major part of the
reservoir area.
11 The proposed project would have an installed capacity of
5,040,000 kilowatts and would produce firm energy estimated
by the Corps of Engineers at 34.2 billion kilowatt-hours ·
annually. The latter is equal to roughly 50 times the pre-
sent energy requirements of all utility systems in the State
of Ale$ka. The construction costs of the dam, reservoir, and
powerplant proposed by the Corps of Engineers (exclusive of
any fish and wildli~e measures) would total about $1,222 million
on the basis of January 1967 prices. This includes about $13
million for navigation transshipment facilities at the dam, and
y Alaska Natural Resources and the Rampart Project, a Memorandum
to Secretary of the Department of the Army Stanley R. Resor
from the Secretary of the Department of the Interior Ste1-rart L.
Udall, June 15, 1967, 2 pp.; A Joint Memorandum to the Secretary
of the Interior from his Assistant Secretaries for Water and Power
Development, Mineral Resources, Fish and Wildlife and Parks, and
Public Land Ivfanagement, June 1, 1967, 8 pp.; and a Summary Report,
U.S. Department of the Interior, 1~4 pp., Govt. Printing Office,
Wash., D.c., 1947.
520
J1
about $2 million for recreation facilities. The construc-
tion costs of the fish and iorildlife mitigation measures
proposed by the Fish and Wildlffe Service would total about
$63~· million on the basis of January 1967 prices. The con-
struction costs of the transmission systems considered to
deliver the project povrer to the potential load centers were
estimated by the Bureau of Reclamation on the basis of Jan-
uary 1967 prices to range between $692 million and $1,802
million, dependent upon the povrer ma.t'kets assumed."
The 1964 fish and wildlife report referred to above was one of several
prepared by Interior agencies on natural resources. Following the
agreement with the Corps in March 1962, a task force of the Interior
agencies in Alaska was activated in December 1962 through the chairman
of Interior's Alaska Field Committee to accomplish the Rampart studies
provided for in the Corps-Interior agreement. Commensut'ate with their
responsibilities, the Interior agencies produced their reports working
closely-with appropriate Federal and State agencies. Reclamation in
turn agreed to prepare the overall report and incorporate the contri-
butions of the other agencies. Copies of the field report entitled
11Field Report -Rampart Project, Alaska -Market for Power and Effect
of Project on Natural Resources -January 1965" went to appropriate
agencies, public bodies, organizations, interests, and individuals.
Full briefings vrere held with Governor William E. Egan and his staff
and others like the directors of Yukon Power for America. The Interior
Department also furnished copies of the report to the .AJ..aska Congress-
ional delegation and others.
The political powers in Alaska as well as the State's boosters were
greatly disappointed over Interior's recommendation that Rampart Dam
should not be built. The project was viewed by those who espoused
grovrth as one that would give the new State of Alaska a much-needed
economic shot in the arm by creating a great number of jobs and thus
catalyzing the economy. Of. course, Uncle Sam would have to pick up
the tab, to the tune of $2 billion or.so.
Two fundamental reasons emerged for Interior's negative view of the
project: (1) lack of an adequate power market and (2) the loss of fish
and wildlife resources. In this paper, we are essentially concerned
with the latter, .so a few more thoughts on that subject may be germane.
The joint Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and Bureau of Com-
mercial Fisheries report of 1964 analyzed the project's effects very
well. It was a fine report indeed, having gone th~ough a number of
drafts and reviews before the final copy was released. Gordon W.
Watson had a strong hand in fashioning the .study and subsequent re-
port. Among the report's highlights, it pointed out the importance
521
I1
of the Yukon River upstrea~ drainage in contributing significantly
to the fisheries at the mouth of the Yukon as 1-rell as providing
subsistence for people, namely natives, resicling along the tribu-
taries both in the State of Alaska and in Yukon Territory. The
report pointed out the average an...11ual combined catch of chinook,
chum, and coho salmon from the Yukon River approximated Soo,ooo
fish. With the project in operation, the dam 1-rould block salmon
spa~-Tning runs and would totally destroy the subsistence and com-
mercial fisheries above the dam. It was estiwated that the aver-
age combined annual fisheries of the Yukon River system would be
reduced by almost 50 percent.
An account of some of the field studies is found in a supplem~qting
report of March 1962, by Murray L. Hayes and HowardS. Sears.!/ The
studies on migrating salmon were cond.ucted out of the BCF's river basin
studies office at Fairbanks though the Corps of Engineers field camp
30 miles downriver f;r-om the village of Rampart was used to trap and
tag salmon. A second field camp was established at Sixr~le Island
about five miles downstream from Rampart. Tag recoveries were made
at that site.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game conducted a similar tagging
program near the mouth of the Yukon River. That department also
conducted utilization surveys over the enti:ce length of the Yukon
River in Alaska.
Routine logistic support was supplied by scheduled aircraft to the
villages of Rampart and Tanana and by charter aircraft to the dam site.
Heavy equipment, materials and fuel 1-rere transported by commercial
barge or river boat. In addition to making their facilities below-
Rampart available to BCF, the Corps of Engineers furnished transpor-
tation to Fairbanks by helicopter for crew and equipment at the close
of the season when ice conditions halted operation of boats and light
aircraft.
Personnel of the Canadian Department of Fisheries provided help in re-
covering tags and supplying information on Yukon River salmon runs in
Canada. Arrangements to collect tags and pay rewards of one dollar per
tag were made with storekeepers at Rampart, Stevens Village, and Beaver,
with the :postmistress at Fort Yukon and the field crews of the BSFW at
y Adult Salmon Migrations Through Rampart Canyon on the Yukon
River, A Preliminary Report, by Murray L. Hayes and Howard S.
Sears, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Biological Laboratory,
Auke Bay, Alaska, Mar. 1962, 14 pp.
522
the srune location; -vrith a field crew from the University of .A~aska
in the Circle-Eagle area; with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at
Old Crow, Teslin, and Carmacks; with the Canadian Department of Fish-
eries at Whitehorse, Dawson, and other points in Yukon Territory; and
with the Alaska Department of Fish and. Game below Tanana.
The purpose of the study was to estimate the total number of salmon
that migrated upstream beyond the Rampart dam site and to. gather
other data related to the subsistence and conrrnercial fisheries of
the Yukon River. The subsistence fishery vras that done by natives
in taking fish for purposes other than for sale or barter and inclu-
ded the taking of fish for dried dog food.
The above report by the Auke Bay Biological Laboratory biologists is
but one example of the efforts made to obtain information and relate it
to the potential effects of Rampart Dam. There were of course other
studies to collect data of one sort and another for the same purpose.
The joint BSFW-BCF report of 1964 pointed out that some striking changes
were in the offing for wildlife if the project were built, especially so
in the case of waterfmrl. Somevrhat more than 36,000 lakes and ponds
totaling 760, 000 acres vrere contained in the 10, 500 square miles of the
impoundment area. The interspersion of such ponds and lakes with land
areas made a vraterfowl production unit of 7 million acres. The Yukon
Flats, as the impoundment area was known, provided prime waterfowl
habitat that was heavily used from the breakup in April until the
freezeup in October. Migrant vraterfowl used the Flats for resting and
feed.ing though the greatest importance of the area was for nesting,
with about 2.4 million acres being regarded as high-density breeding
habitat.
It was esti1nated that the half million breeding ducks raising young in
the Yukon Flats represented 1.6 percent of the total continental breed-
ing population which averaged 32 million birds annually for the period
1950-62, inclusive, and further, that the area produced annually 1.5
million ducks, 12,500 geese, and 10,000 little brmm cranes to the four
major waterfowl flyways of the continent. In terms of hunting, the
waterfowl produced on the Yukon Flats were estimated as supplying an
annual average of 300,000 man-days of duck hunting and 25,000 man-days
of goose hunting in the United States and Canada. Inevitably, construc-
tion and operation of the project would completely destroy the valuable
and unique vraterfovrl production area of the Yukon Flats.
Big game singled out for attention in the report 1-rere moose, caribou,
black bears, and grizzly bears. Moose alone were estimated at 5,000
animals, a low figure for an area calculated to be able to sustain
12,500 animals. Somewhat over 300 of these animals were taken annually,
largely by the natives of the Indian villages within the impoundment
areao Moose supplemented the salmon which was the mainstay of their
523
\
I
subsistence. With the project, all of the big-game habitat in the area
would be destroyedo The inhabi·tants of course wouJ.d have to be reloca-
ted and become more dependent than ever on the Federal Government.
Fur animal habitat also would go by the wayside v-rith a loss of 41,000
pelts taken annually, mostly of martens, wolverines, lynxes, snowshoe
hares, red foxes o fur take was 7 percent of the entire Alaska fur
harvesto It also featured in the Indian economy of the villageso Eradi-
cated from the area too would be willow ptarmigan and several species
of grouseo
Attention was given in the report to remedial measures if the project
were built, initially of pilot facilities and studies to learn of the
feasibility of bringing migrating salmon around a d.am estimated by the
Corps to be 530 feet high with a top length of 4,700 feeto Nothing in
the line of fishways of such magnitude had ever been attempted. ·Thoughts
also were given to acquiring and developing some waterfmrl areaso But
the best of all meast~es that could be conceived at the time would still
not compensate fully for the anticipated losses. Further, the· costs
appeared prohibitiveo
The recommendations of the joint BS:BW -BCF report of 196~-were as follows:
"(1) That Rampart Canyon Darn and Reservoir project not be auth-
orized for constructiona
"(2) That, if construction of the project is authorized, the.
following recommendations be included in such authorization:
(a) Additional detailed studies of fish and wildlife re-
sources be conducted, as necessary, after the project is
authorized, in accordance with Section 2 of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act; and that such reasonable modi-
fications be made in the authorized project facilities as
may be agreed upon by the Secretary of the Interior and .
the Secretary of the Army, for the conservation, improve-
ment, and development of these resourceso
(b) Project funds in the amount of $80o5 million for
studies and construction of pilot facilities and $la5
million for annual operation and waintenance of these
facilities be made available to the Secretary of the Int-
erior at the of authorization for development of the
most effective means and measures for the mitigation of
fish and losseso
(c) Project funds in the amount of $500 million for capi-
tal expenditures be authorized for appropriation to the
Secretary of the Interior, as required, for the ultimate
524
n
implementation of measures to mitigate losses to
fish and wildlife resources, and that $10 million be
made available annually during the life of the project
for the operation and maintena...YJ.ce of these measures."
It was said that the fish and wildlife report raised some cries of
anguish with some of the proponents of what surely would have been the
biggest boondoggle in the history of public works projects in the United
States; also, that it resulted in demands in some Alaskan political
quarters for the ouster of one or more of the biologists guilty of doing
what was no more than the job for which they were hired.
The potential destruction of the unique ecosystem of the Yukon Flats
attracted w'id.e attention nationally. Interior's field report of 1965·
was reviewed by representatives of the University of Michigan as a part
of a study of the ecological and economic consequences of the Rampart
Project undertaken under a July 1964 grant by the Natural Resources
Council of America. Such study included a review of the findings of
the Corps of Engineers on the project as welL The Michigan team re-
commended against the project.
Early in 1965, the Department of the Interior requested the assistance
of the National Academy of Sciences to review the fish and wildlife
findings of its field report which earlier had been circulated to all
concerned, following which an Interior task force was appointed to re-
vie-vr the report and consider the comments and findings made by the public.
The National Academy of Sciences transmitted its findings to the Secre-
tary of the I~~erior in a report of November 1, 1965. It found, among
other things :Y
"L The Yukon Flats, with its rivers, vast net-vrork of marshes,
and lakes and potholes, is one of the finest fish, wildlife,
big game, and s:mall game prod.uction areas in North America.
"2. Construction of the Rampart dam would destroy the producti-
vity of the Yukon Flats in renewable resources, and leave in its
stead a huge wind-s1:-rept lake, an unsatisfactory habitat for
wildlife.
"3. If Rampart dam is constructed, individual aniw.als might sur-
vive flooding of the reservoir area, but the likelihood that
populations of animals would survive is extremely doubtful.
other habitats to w'hich these populations might migrate are al-
ready supporting all the life forms they can support.
"4. Construction of the RaJil}?art dam would result in the des-
truction of the valuable up-river salmon stocks. On the other
----------------------
Alaska Natural Resources and the Rampart Project, U.S~ Dept.
of the Interior, Summary Report, :p. 7, 1967.
525
n
hand, the Committee is not convinced that the four proposals
for mitigation of the fishery effects of the Rampart dam are
feasible, and, if feasible, that they would be successful.
"5o The Yukon Flats presently contributes more than one million
waterfmrl annually to the continental duck popule;tion. The
proposed waterfmrl mitigation measures 1-rould be almost prohibi-
tively expensive and would ultimately contribute less than a
third of the present waterfmrl production. The reservoir would
not provide suitable nesting habitats, marshes, ru1d shallow
water areas because of its relatively steep banks, rising waters
as the reservoir filling, and later, because of wave action
and ice push.
11 6. Big game, small game, and various fur-bearing animals would
also disappear. Mitigation measures for resident game popula-
tions are not feasible.
"7. It seems inconceivable that serious thought is given to the
investment of more than $650 million to support mitigation pro-
grams ,.rhose feasibility and likelihood of success cau only be
regarded as extremely problematical. There is need for thorough
comparative evaluatian of the benefits from both the
situation and those reasonably to be expected from the proposed
impoundment. ·
118. Construction of the dam would destroy a highly :Productive
area ,.rhich is presently benefiting the whole of North .America
at no cost. 11
The vast network of marshes, lakes, and potholes of the Yukon Flats, with
their interspersed land areas, must be seen to be appreciated. The writer
has seen the potholes and marshes of much of northeastern Montana, the
Dakotas, and \-Testern Minnesota, and quite a bit of the more extensive simi-
lar waterfowl habitat of the Canadian Provinces to the north. He appre-
ciates their nature and importance as waterfmrl breeding, resting, and ·
migrating grounds for the waterfmrl that live, reproduce, and traverse the
flyways. Without making any adverse comparisons, he has _never seen any-
thing on a square-mile basis comparable to what he observed .vrhile flying
over the Yt*on Flats.
When finally the opportunity came in August 1972 to visit Alaska, he was
very pleased to be able to fly over the Flats ·on a flight that took hini
from Fairbanks to Fort Yukon and on dmm the Yukon River to the Rampart
Dam site. For sheer numbers of ponds, lakes and marshes stretching from
one horizon to another, he had never seen anything quite like them. Fly-
ing fairly lmr, literally thousands of ponds and small lak.es of every
526
n
conceivable size and shape in close proximity to each·other·were ob-
servedo If ever there was a vraterfowl paradise, the Flats had to be
ito A number of moose likewise were observed before'the Aleutian Goose,
the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife rebuilt and more powerful
amphibian Grumman goose, landed at Fort Yukon. To have destroyed that
vast ecosystem of marshes and flats with a reservoir approximating the
size of Lal~e Erie vrould have been a travesty on one of the finest handi-
vrorks of nature. '
It may well have been that the lack of a market for the power generated
by Rampart Dam was the determining factor for opposing the construction
of the monstrous project. Certainly Alaska could have used but a frac-
tion of it and transmitting it to the American Northwest as contemplated
by some was much too expensive to justify. Years of experience working
on water-resource projects, however, creates the suspicion that fish and
wildlife losses alone would not have killed the project. The writer is
equally convinced that the collective voice of the Bureau of Sport Fish-
eries and Wildlife and the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries alone would
not have deterred the promoters from achieving their desired ends. The
Michiga.11. study and that of the National Research Council Committee of
the National Academy of Sciences were assists that could not be mini-
mizedo But whatever the roles of the voices that vrere raised in the
democratic process of being heard, the Department of the Interior said
no and a signal victory was scored by the two bureaus for collecting the
facts and underscoring the effects of a project that at best had but a
tenuous economic justification.
It has been the history of many water~resource projects that they
simply o.o not die. By late 1973, rumblings were heard in some
Alaskan quarters to revive the Rarapart Project. Whether the move
1rill gather enough momentum to acquire the requisite political muscle
to the project authorized and appropriated remains to be deter-
mined. The current energy crisis no doubt has ~evived the talk for
the project. And if in future years studies reveal there is a market
for the pmrer, vrhat then?
There·were other projects that occupied the attention of the small
Alaskan contingent of biologists concerned with water-resource develop-
mentso One such was the proposal of the town of Wrangell, in south-
eastern Alaska, desiring to replace its existing diesel generator facil-
ities by a three-stage development of (1) a dam 40 feet high at the out-
let of Kunk Lal~e, 3,500 feet of penstock from the dam to the pmrerhouse.
of Kunk Creek with a turbine and generator, and 6,000 feet of submarine
transmission cable to Wrangell Island; (2) two diversion channels each
3,000 feet long, and (3) a 1,800-foot tunnel tappi:tg Anita Lake and con-
necting with another penstock to a powerhouse. The entire development
proposed was on Etolin Island.
527
~l
The study of the area entailed gillnetting the fish in Kunk Lake and
Anita Lake, learning something of the cutthroat trout and the :pink chum
salmon inhabiting waters affected by the project. No information was
available from other sources so the river basin studies biologists had
to develop their own data. The project proposal, for 1-rhich a prelimi-
nary permit was issued by the Federal Power Commission on Februa~y 29,
1956, entailed no great involvemento The pr~ject was not opposed and
the 1958 report merely detailed the effects.Y The rea,son for mention-
ing the project at all is to illustrate that it was but one example of
the many relatively small hydropower proposals on which river basin
studies biologis-ts had to investigate and supply their views to the
Federal Power Commission.
It is interesting to note that the Forest Service listed some 200 sites
in southeastern Alaska as suitable for hydroelectric development. The
anticipation was that many of the sites -vrould eventually be developed to
supply power for increased domestic and industrial needs~ Certainly
there was nothing wrong in such site designations. They were in keeping
with the many uses national forests servedo But it was equally impor-
tant whenever an applicant became interested in a preliminary permit or
license under the Federal Power Commission regulations that the Bureau
of Fisheries (prior to 19~-0), or the Fish and Wildlife Service (from
1940-56), or the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (after 1956), and finally
the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and the National Marine Fish-
eries Service (after 1970) had their look-sees and report to the Commis-
sion on what was involved.
There were of course .more involved water-resource projects than small
hydroelectric power developments. A case in point was the lowgrade
magnetite development possibility in southeastern Alaska about 20 miles
north of Haineso The iron-bearing deposits were in an alluvial fan near
the Chilkat and Klehini Rivers. The Columbia Iron Mining Company was
considering diversion of the Chilkat River from its present loc~tion into
an artificial channel to provide a tailings disposal area of s:L"'C square
miles. Since the Chilkat Basin had valuable fish and l·rildlife resources,
what would the effect of the proposal be?
The obvious answer was to find outo So the Bureau of Commercial Fish-
eries in 1958 proceeded to do soo It will be recalled that the river
basin studies activity by that time was under the aegis of that bureauo
!( Progress Report on the Fish and Wildlife Resources of Km1k and
Anita Basins, Etolin Island, Territo~J of .Alaska, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Juneau, Alaska, Augo 1958, 24 pp.
528
· The study called for a d.etermination of' the timing, extent, and loca-
tion of' anadromous fish Spalining; the location of' significant rearing
areas of' the salmonid fishes; and determining the s:port fishing and
hunting efforts a11d their :potentials in the Chilkat Basin.
The :primary survey method in this case 1vas to examine the tributaries
and sloughs of' the Chilk.at River on foot. An airboat was chartered
and :proved useful in the extremely shallow waters of the u:p:per Chilkat
Basin and finally aircraft was used to get in and. sa:m:ple by seine and
gill net the fish :po:pulations of' Chilkat Lake. Catches of' fish by the
natives were checked daily and. local residents \vere interviewed. for in-
formation on s:port fishing and hunting.
The findings of' thi~1 initial study were incor:porated in a :progress re-
port in March 1960.~ Its essential finding was to the effect that the
six square miles desired for. tailings included. the most im:portant chum
salmon spawning area in the ChiJ~at River Basin~ The location was unique
in that it was an area of' groundwater u:pwelling. Due to the im:portance
of' the area, it was recommended in a letter-ty:pe re:port to the Columbia
Iron Mining Com:pany that alternate dis:posal sites be selected., As a
result, the company delineated three alternate sites.
Through it's Branch of.River Basin Studies, the Bureau of' Commercial Fish-
eries scheduled a continuation of' the 1959 studies with special em:phasis
on the alternate sites. this additional effort, data on s:pawning
escapements, the commercial fishery, the personal-use fishery at the
native village of' KJ:ulcvran above Haines., and the data oii. big game in the
basin, were collected in cooperation with the newly established. Alaska
Department of' Fish and Game. The entire o:peration was typical in many
respects of' the kind of' effort river basin studies biologists in Alaska
were called upon to :perform.,
Close to the tw·o major :population centers of' Anchorage and Fairbaxucs as
it is, the Susitna River and its hydropower :potentials continued tore-
ceive attention from the Bureau of' Reclamation. Of' the many :potential
dam sites singled out for s:pecial attention werethe Devil Canyon Dam
and the Denali Dam, lumped together under the title of the Devil Canyon
Project, located about midway between Anchorage and Fairbanks.
The Devil Canyon Dam, at river mile 13~·, would be the site where the
pm-rer would be generated" The Denali Dam would be higher above on the
y Fish and Wildlife Resources in Relation to the Proposed
Diversion of' the Chilkat River, Bureau of' Commercial
Fisheries, Juneau, Alaska, Maro 1960, 38 p:p.,
529
Susitna, at river mile 248. The reservoir formed by this upper dam
would provide for water storage and regulation of flows to be utilized
downstream at the Devil Canyon site.
The findings and recommendations of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries
and Bure~~ of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife appeared in their joint report
of 1960.~ The findings were that big game, small game, fur animals,
and both resident and anadromous fish would be affected by the project.
With the inundation of 61,000 acres of land, some good moose range would
be lost. Some concern also was indicated for the loss of the Nelchina
caribou wintering range although the movement patterns of such animals
were such that the thought was expressed that they would not be seriously
affected by project development and operation.
As usual with such projects, there were unknowns. The effects of the
alteration of stream flows and temperature patterns were bound to have
effects on the fish but the extent of such effects could only be specu-
lated. Recomrnendations were made for minimum water releases during the
period of dam construction and initial power filling and during power
operation.
Somewhat unusual for Alaska rivers, the Susitna apparently had no .salmon
migrating through or above Devil Canyon. While there were no falls or
other physical barriers above the lower dam site and resident species like
grayling, whitefish, burbot, lake trout, and a fe-vr others were found in
the drainages of the tributary streams above, the absence of salmon was
attributed to what was termed a 11hydraulic block," the high -vrater velo-
cities for several river miles within the narrow Devil Canyon.
The good fish habitat for which concern was felt because of the altered
regimen of the river due to the dams was below the Devil Canyon dam site
where in varying abundance king, red, pink, chum and coho salmon were
found in the tributaries. Rainbow trout, grayling, lake trout, Dolly
Varden char and burbot were also found in the clear tributary streams
below the dam site. The commercial fishery was in Cook Inlet where the
wholesale salmon case pack averaged over $7.3 million annually for the
10 years preceding 1960. The Susitna River was believed to contribute
38 percent or abour $2,744,000 of the annual value of the pack.
Like so many rivers in Alaska, the Susitna River is seasonally silt-lad.en
throughout its entire course. The condition is due to its glacial orlgln.
The river characteristically has a high rate of discharge from May to
y A Detailed Report on Fish and Wildlife. Resources Affected
by the Devil Canyon Project, Alaska, Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries, Juneau, ft~aska, May 2, 1960, 26 pp.
530
11
September and lovr flows from October through April. The high dis charges
are caused by snm-rmelt, rainfall, and glacial melt. The silt-laden con-
dition obtains during the warmer summer months. During the colder months
when the snow and glacial melt ceases, the river becomes clear. In the
upper basin, which is predominantly mountainous, the valleys of the river
and its tributaries have a thick fill of glacial moraines and gravels.
A number of clear stream6, however, do empty into the tributaries of the
Susitna. Many are feeder streams that drain clear-vrater lakes.
In 1965, a report on the Vee Project was prepared by the river basin
studies biologists of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.· Vee Canyon lies
between the Devil Canyon Dam and Denali Dam sites. The proposed dam was
viewed as a third stage in the power development of the Susitna River. A
fourth unit, the Watana, was also thought of for the Susitna.
Close to the most populated section of Alaska, the Susitna is bound to be
developed for hydropower to meet the needs of the Railbelt Area, that
section of Alaska served by the Alaska Railroad which runs between Anchor-
age and Fairbanks. The studies of the Susitna proposals are examples of
studies made where no significant fish and wildlife problems appear to
be involved; yet, if the d.a,:ms are built, inevitable habitat changes will
take place.
Interesting is the fact that the newly formed Alaska Department of Fish
and Game was asked to concur with and did so in the Devil Canyon Project
report of May 2, 1960. In seeking such concurrence, the Alaska river
basin studies operation in that respect was paralleling that in the Lower
48 States where it was the practice to obtain concurrence of the counter-
part State fish and game departments and .. in so doing demonstrate the unity
of views of both the Federal and State conservation agencies concerned.
Petroleum development in Alaska has also raised its share of questions
regarding its meru1ing for fish and wildlife. The 1967 Department of the
Interior report. on the Rampart Projer·t; gave the follovring thumbnail sketch
of oil activities in the 49th State:~
"Petroleum has become a permanent Alaskan industry and is expected
to be Alaska's major industry for decades in the future. Trans-
portation facilities for crude oil and markets for natural gas to
a great extent will determine development.
''Within the past ten years, since the discovery of the first Alas-_·
kan commercial oil well, natural gas is heating the city of
Alaska Natural Resolrrces and the Rampart Project, Summary Report,
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1967, p. 9.
531
Anchorage, and is being utilized for ~ower generation; a
refinery :processing Alaskan crude oil is :producing heating
oils and jet fuels for its transport; work is under way on
the construction of the State's first petrochemical :plant;
:pipelines are beginning to lace the Cook Inlet Basin area
showing some indication of the future :potential of the inlet;
and a formal contract has been signed for a gas-liquefaction
:project involving a 3-year construction :program to export
liquefied natural gas to Japan.
"The Cook Inlet area is novr regarded as one of the more impor-
tant offshore :petroleum :production sites in the vrorld. Within
the past year, there has been no let-u:p in the intensity and
variety of :petroleum development in Alaska. Continued explora-
tion success, coupled -vri th recent advancements in offshore tech-
nology, has encouraged the search for :petroleum that is expected
to convert the region into a major :producer of hydrocarbons.
"Outside the Inlet, the industry is actively seeking :petroleum
on the North Slope and· on the Alaskan Peninsula. Seismic -vrork
is continuing in broad areas of the Bristol Bay and the Gulf of
Alaska.
"At the beginning of 1966, Alaska's :proved :petroleum reserves
estimated by American Petroleum Institute and American Gas
Association were as follows:
Oil Reserves
(barrels)
159,767,000
Gas Reserves
(million cubic feet)
1,985,325
"Reported reserves by definition are conservative and are not
indicative of the :potential of future :production.
"In 1966 Alaska contained 5 ·oil fields, but only 3 -the Sw-anson
River, Middle Ground Shoal (Cook Inlet), and Trading Be,y (Cook
Inlet) -:produced oil. Approximately 75 :percent of the State's
daily oil :production originated from the Swanson River Field.
There are 10 gas fields. All but the East Umiat Field are lo-
cated in the Cook Inlet area. Three fields, Kenai, Swanson
River and Sterling, were the only gas :producers."
There is of course another side of the coin. Revealing is the exchange
of correspondence in 1968 between Secretary of the Interior Stewart L.
Udall and :Mr. Harry Morrison, Vice-President and General Manager of the
Western Oil and Gas Association. As a result of the findings and appre-
hensions of the biologists of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and
532
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife regarding oil operations in the
Cook Inlet area of_~aska, Secretary Udall wrote Mro Morrison a letter
on March 27, 1968.~ In it he outlined the concern occasioned by the
recurring series of pollution incidents in Cook Inlet and the possibil-
ity of similar incidents occurring during the forthcoming exploratory
and development programs in the G~ of Alaska and Bristol Bay. Mr.
Morrison replied on April 1, 1968.g{
The exchange merits attention since it points up not only the nature of
the problem but the attitude of the petroleum people in coping with it.
Press releases were issued by both sides on April 1, 1968, stating essen-
tially vhat was in the exchange of letters. In a sense, such releases
were invitations to acquaint the public I·Ti th the two vievpoints. Mel
Monson, then with the river basin studies operation of the Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries, and JaJlles G. King, waterfowl biologist vrith the
Bureau of Fisheries and Wildlife, collaborated in drafting the enclo-
sure Secretary Udall ~ent to Mr. Morrison.
In a speech in the latter part of July 1968 at Kodiak, Alask~, Regional
Director Harry L. Rietze of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries at Juneau
gave a talk at the meeting of the American Fisher~~s Advisory Committee
on the "Potential of Alaska's Fishery Resources. "1/ The committee served
at the time as a sounding board and counsel to the Secretary of the Inter-
ior on fishery matters. It no doubt does so today to the Secretary of the
Department of Commerce.
Among the many items covered in his talk, H~:gry had the following to say
regarding the petroleum industry in Alaska:~
"Environmental alteration: I would like to briefly mention one
other serious problem confronting sustained fishery development
in Alaska.
"He have talked about the huge potential of fishery resources
in Alaska. Alaska has other resources such as petroleum,
y See Exhibit 55, Appendix.
g/ See Exhibit 56, Appendix.
· 1/ Harry L. Rietze 's Presentation on the Potential of .Alaska's
Fishery Resources, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, News-
letter No. 9, Sept. 13, 1968, 16 pp.
~ Ibid., p. 15
533
I
minerals, and timber, which are also being developed. In
some cases, these developments may alter the environment of val-
uable species of fish and wildlife.
1 ~ithin the past several years, the petroleum industry in Alaska
has enjoyed a phenomenal growth. In a short span of time, Alaska
has risen to the eight0 ranking state in petroleum production.
Within the past few days, a new strike along the Arctic Slope has
been billed in the newspapers as the largest oil field in the '
world.
11The recent spectacular grmrth in oil has not been without inci-
dent. In the past 2 years, nearly 100 incidents of oil and re-
lated pollution have occurred. in Cook Inlet with an unknmm
amount of damage to salmon, crabs, shrimp, clams, waterfowl,
and marine mammals.
11 Undeveloped petroleum fields lie offshore on much of the Conti-
nental Shelf that is rich in fish, shellfish, marine mammals,
and waterfowl. It is absolutely essential that the petrolewn
industry and the fishery and wildlife managers sit down together
and plan a rational development that will ensure adequate protec-
tion for wildlife and fish and their environment.11
The oil strike referred' to on the Arctic Slope was of course one of the
biggest news items of 1968. Atlantic ·Richfield Company announced on
July 18 of that year the discovery of rich oil reserves 150 miles east
of Point Barrow on the Alaskan Arctic Coast at Prudhoe Bay on the Beau-
fort Sea. The find precipitated. a burst of oil and gas exploration
activity unparalleled in the Arctic.
A consortium was formed, named the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company,
owned by Amerada Hess Corporation, ARCO Pipeline Company, British Petrol-
eum Pipe Line Corporation, Humble Pipe Line Company, Mobile Pipe Line
Company, Phillips Petroleum Company, and Union Oil of California. The
acknowledged ownership is in the control of three parent companies which
have found the most North Slope oil: Atlantic Richfield Company, British
Petroleum Company Limited, .and the St!llldard. Oil Company of Ne-vr Jersey.
The consortium formulated a plan, earlier known as the Trans-Alaska Pipe-
line System (TAPS or TAP for short), for bringing out the oil by means
of a pipeline 48 inches in diameter which would run from Prudhoe Bay to.
its terminus at the ice-free port of Valdez on Prince William Sound in
the Gulf of Alaska. It would be 789 miles long. From Valdez, the oil
would be shipped by tankers to ports in the United 3tates with some going
to Japan. An unprecedented undertaking for sheer magni tu,le on all counts,
the pipeline would cross treeless tundra underlain with permafrost, barren
glaciated mountain passes, plateaus, and meandering river valleys.
534
n
With the involvement of so much Federal land, notably that under the
jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, it was of course
necessary for the oil companies to obtain the proper permits from the
Department of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management on
the lands of the public domain and the Department of Agriculture on
the Chugach National Forest ~n the vicinity of Valdez. Therein the
Government had something to say about how the work should be conducted.
Recognizing the implications of the development and further exploration
as well as drilling on the Arctic Coast, the location of the pipeline,
and the development of terminal facilities for transshipment to the
Lower 48 and elsewhere, Interior asked its component bureaus to make a
study so that appropriate stipulations could be incorporated into the
rights-of-way. The idea was not to oppose the pipeline and related
activities but to safeguard affected natural resources as much as pos-
sible. ·
It fell to the river basin stud.ies people of the Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries to head the investigation and come up with a report. Their
findings were incorporated in a report of March 1970.1/ Understandably,
such biologists could hardly tackle the job alone. For help they drew
upon the maxine biologists of the BCF, especially tl1e fine staff at the
Auke Bay Biological Laboratory on the outskirts of Juneau; BSFW biolo-
gists whatever their calling including some from the Lower 48 States;
Alaska Department of Fish and. Game personnel; and whoever might contri-
bute in any way. But the responsibility for pulling all the informa-
tion together lay with the river basin studies people.
The joint 1970 report of the two bureaus was a signal document in its
description of the topography and biota of Prudhoe Bay, the 789-mile·
route of the pipeline, and the wBrine tankship terminal site near Val-
dez on Prince William Sound. Field work began in the latter part of
1969 and was completed in mid-September. The biologists involved also
cooperated closely with the Bureau of Land Management in the prepara-
tion and review of stipulations designed to protect the ecology of the
terrain and the fish and wildlife resources •.
The field wox~ consisted of surveys by automobile, light airplane, heli-
copter, boat, and on foot. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game also
participated in the field work. Thus, all of the directly affected sites
were examined, no small task when the size of the State of Alaska is con-
sTdered.
1/ A Reconnaisance Report on the Impact on Fish and Wildlife Resources
of the North Slope Oil Development, The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System,
and the Marine Terminal Sites, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries,
Juneau, Alaska, Mar. 1970, 57 pp.
535
The effects of :past activities on. the natural environment of the North
Slope were already apparent at the time of the field investigations in
1969. Oil barrels were scattered all up and down the Arctic Coast,
creating an eyesore and a :pollution hazard. Many of course were the
result of military operations related to Dewline activities, the watch
that was :posted by the United States to alert the country in the event
the Russians launched some missiles over the top of the world. Trash
was heaped in diverse areas' and the area was tracked up by equipment.
The surface layer of the tundra that insulates the :permafrost was de-
stroyed in countless locations and the widespread subsidence, deep
ditches, and new drainage :patterns, even draining some lakes, were quite
evident. The Interior Department's stipulations currently restrict off-
road movements of vehicles but how well the oil :people will abide by the
rules remains to be seen.
The Arctic Coast in the vicinity of Prudhoe Bay, and :particularly to the
west in the Colville River region and farther on, is a :plain dotted with
an immense number of :ponds, lagoons, and braided streams emptying into
the Beaufort Sea. It is a fragile environment, an area that receives but
a sparse amount of precipitation a year, around four or five inches. It
can be termed an Arctic desert, a description that to a layman might
appear to be a contradiction of terms. It is a region rich in birds and
mammals. The description of th~1 region's fauna, brief though it is, from
the 1970 report is interesting:!!
"Extensive flocks of sea ducks, geese, and, brant migrate along the
coast of the Beaufort Sea (:plate 2). · Black brant and, thousands of
sea ducks have been observed molting along the coast, while whis-
tling swans and flocks of molting Canada geese and :pintail·ducks
occur in river deltas and coastal lagoons. Old squaws are the most
abundant ducks that breed and summer along the coast and may nwnber
100,000 birds. Large numbers of eiders, :predominantly the common
eider, also nest along the coast and on coastal islands. other
bird.s are numerous; about 100 species have been listed for the Arc-
tic coastal :plain alone.
"Marine mammals are abundant, including :polar bear, four species of
seals, beluga -vrhales, right whales, killer whales, narwhals, and
rorquals.
"The discussion of upland species that occur on the northern end
of the :pipeline is applicable here also.
y Ibid.' pp. 30' -31.
536
"Marine fish populations along the Alaska coast of the Beau-
fort Sea are probably small, but the invertebrate fauna has
been reported as remarkably abundant in the vicinity of Point
Barrow, but may be more sparse eastwards. The only commercial
fishery in the area at present is a small one for char and white-
fish at the mouth of the Colville River. Commercial fishing is
unlikely to expand greatly although Eskimos at Point Barrow fish
for their own use for cod and smelt through the ice and in the
summer for char and whitefish at stream mouths. Except at Barrow·
and the Colville River, the Beaufort Sea coast has been largely
uninhabited for the past few decades, and the small fishery re-
sources have been largely unharvested. With the increase in
human pop~ation on the North Slope, however, the Arctic char
may become an important sport fish in waters near populated
areas."
The upland species referred to, including the larger mammals, and the
fish of the streams a!9ng the pipeline route on the North Slope, were
described as follows:~
"Rivers and estuaries such as the Sagavanirktok are the first
waters of the Arctic Coast to open up in spring, and until other
waters become ice-free,.they are the resting habitat of thousands
of ducks, geese, and shore birds. The rest of the Sagavanirktok
River is of limited value to waterfowl. Most nesting in this area
takes place in thaw lakes adjacent to the rivers.
"The Sagavanirktok and Atigun River portion of the route lies
between the ranges of the Arctic and Porcupine River caribou herds,
which are estimated at 200,000 and 100,000 animals, respectively.
No definite migratory movements of caribou have been defined in·
the area of the pipeline, and animals observed there are generally
in scattered small bands. Atigun Pass itself is a passageway for
some·. north-south caribou movements. A few moose are found north
of the Brooks Range, mainly along streams where willows provide_
winter browse; animals occas.ionally occur along the upper Sagava-
nirktok River.
"Grizzly bears are distributed sparsely on the North Slope; they
are most frequently found along streanlli of the highlands and
become scarce along the coast. Wolves are relatively abundant and·
!I Ibid., pp. 13, 16, 18.
537
are usually f'ound in association with caribou. The vrolverine
is frequently observed also. The apparent high density of' some
of' the large mammals. such as wolverine may, however, result
partly f'rom their conspicuousness in the open terrain of' the
Arctic tundra.
"Below Galbraith Lake, the Atigun River f'lows through a narrow
canyon, one side of which is considered important habitat for
Dall sheep.
"The Sagavanirktok and Atigun Rivers have considerable sport fish
potential. Arctic char f'rom six to eight pounds can be taken in
July and August from the mouth of the Sagavanirktok to the mouth
of the Atigun River at Galbraith Lake. Arctic char smolts are
found in the Atigun River, indicating that it is a spawning
stream. The Sagavanirktok River and many of its tributary
streams and lakes more than 10 feet deep appear to contain gray-
ling. The Sagavanirktok also contains whitefish and burbot •. The
presence of burbot and of Arctic char smolts two years old with
no evidence of having been to sea indicates the Sagavanirktok is
probably an overwintering stream and may be important to seasonal
populations of other streams.
"Galbraith lake is large and clear a..'1d surrounded on t:h.ree sides
by mountains. This scenic setting gives it a high potential as
a recreational area. Lake trout are found in the lake but the
slow growth rate, typical of Arctic waters, probably limits the
productivity of this fishery."
The description of' the pipeline route itself is worth quoting:~
11 The route the pipeline will follow north of the crest of the
Brooks Range stands in marked contrast to the remainder of the
route. Soils there are permanently frozen except for a thin
layer which thaws in summer. The terrain graduates from ice-
worn coast (plates l and 2) to f'lat coastal plains with undevel-
oped surface drainage (plate 3) on to rolling foothills cut by
braided streams and dotted with small lakes (plate 4), and to the
mountains of the Brooks Range (plate 5).
11 Mean daily minimum temperatures range from -22°F. on the coast
to -l6°F. inlandj annual precipitation ranges from about four
!I Ibid., pp. 7-10.
538
inches at Point Barrow on the coast to about eight inches in
the foothills. Grasses, mosses, lichens, and low woody plants
vegetate the tundra of the coastal plain, and willows and alder
begin to appear along stream courses as the elevation increases.
Balsam poplar grows along the larger streams in the foothills.
"The permanently frozen grmmd, or permafrost) ranges in thick-
ness from a few to several hundred feet. Removal of the insu-
lating cover of tundra vegetation exposes this frozen layer to
the summer's sun, and the effects of melting and erosion may
cause irreversible changes in the ecologic balance of the Arctic.
"The Brooks Range is largely treeless, and its expanses of bare
rock clearly show its glacial past. Although its highest peaks
are less than 10,000 feet above sea level, its rugged topography
has made it a barrier between the North Slope and the populated
regions of interior Alaska. The pipeline route follows headwater
drainages of Galbraith Lake and the Sagavanirktok River, passes
through the mountains at Atigun Pass (plate 6), and continues
down the Dietrich River, a tributary of the Koyukuk system.
"From the southern foothills of the Brooks Range, across the
interior highlands to the coast at William Sound, the
Yukon and Tanana Rivers are the principal drainages crossed
(plates 7-12). Except in these river valleys and the passes
through the Alaska Range and the Chugach Mountains, the topo-
graphy consists of rolling, well-vegetated hills and craggy
mountains that extend above timberline. The climate is dry in
summer, and most of the annual precipitation comes with fall
rains and winter snow.
"The Yukon and Tanana valleys and the lower drainages of tribu-
tary streams are generally broad. and flat and are dotted with
innumerable ponds and lakes, many of which are old sloughs and
oxbows of meandering river channels. Even the highlands and
plateaus of the interior are plentifully endowed with standing
water. ·Aquatic grasses and forbs are thus abundant in spite of
the moderately low rainfall.
"The ecologic change from the Gulkana River basin through the
Chugach Mountains (plates 13-14) to the Pacific Coast at Valdez
(plate 15) is abrupt. In a relatively few miles the pipeline
route goes from the spruce-birch-aspen interior forest, through
the rugged, glacially eroded passes of the coastal mountains, to
dense Sitka spruce-alder forest at tidewater at the head of Valdez
Arm. A breakdown of the extent and proportionate distribution.of
the major vegetation types along the pipeline route from the crest
of the Brooks Range south to Valdez is shown in Table 1. Vegeta-
tion types were not surveyed north of the Brooks Range.
539
Jl
Table 1. Distribution of vegetation types
from crest of Brooks Range to Valdez
Vegetation Type Miles
White spruce forest 40.5
Black spruce forest 164.5
Broadleaf forest (aspen, birch and
balsam popl<:lX) 54.5
Mixed conifers and broadleaf forest 71.0
All shrub types 185.0
Tussock upland meadow 40.5
Tussock wet bog 28.0
Recent burns 9·5
Other 3lo0
624o5
Percent
6.5
26.3
8.7
11.4
29.6
6.5
4.5
1.5
5o0
lOOoO
"The pipeline route between the Brooks Range and the Chugach
Mountains traverses an area of discontinuous, or sporadic perma-
frost. Permafrost temperatures here are generally close to 32° F.
and often are so near the thaw point that even a slight disturbance
of insulating cover will cause massive degradation. This area also
has extremes in air temperature and recorded ranges are as much as
1760 F. Differences in soil moisture conditions and exposure to
solar radiation cause marked variation in vegetationo"
In its analysis of the possible effects of the pipeline on fish and wild-
life resources, the report examined its entire length and attempted to
assess in rather cryptic terms, as befits a reconnaisance report, what
might be involved.-It discussed the known composition of fish life in the
many rivers that might be affected, the big game, the fur animals, and the
other forms of wildlife that undoubtedly would be affected in one degree
or another. It stressed the importance of Prince William Sound on which
the Port of Valdez, the terminus of the pipeline is located, pointing out
that the terminus would be adjacent to one of the most important cornnercial
fisheries of Alaska where all five species of Pacific salmon were found.
Deep concern was expressed over the effects of the oil development, with
its construction activities and inevitable human involvement, on the ec~
logy of affected areas and on the fish and wildlife resources. Under. a
heading of Anticipated and Possible Problems, the following appeared:!/
!I Ibid., pp. 34, 35.
540
I
"Construction and operation of the pipeline, access roads, and
borrow areas could cause a number of problems. These include
erosion and siltation, creation of barriers to fish movements,
physical damage to spawning areas or fish, entrapment of fish,
thermal pollution, disturbance of wildlife, interference with
big game migrations, interference with local movements and en-
trapment of animals in areas of melting permafrost, increase in
fish and wildlife harvest, and problems resulting from improper
disposal of sewage and solid waste. Last, and certainly of great-
est potential impact are the effects of oil pollution.
"Some of the effects listed above, such as erosion, may be tempo-
rarily severe, but can be minimized and limited to the actual
period of construction. other factors, such as increase in human
population, will be continuing in nature, and may in the long run
.have greater impact.
"Most of these potential effects have been recognized in the sti-
pulations for construction of the pipeline prepared by the U.S.
Department of the Interior and the Federal Task Force on Alaskan
Oil Development, with participation by State agencies. ~ruch of
the pipeline and the northern production area, however, are on
lands belonging to the State of Alaska. The State's program of
adoption and implementation of these or similar stipulations is
not yet clear. The new State land-use regulations, however, are
intended to provide adequate protection for these lands."
The report discussed all such anticipated and possible problems rather
fully. On the subl~ct of oil pollution, with reference to the pipeline,
the report stated:~
"Oil pollution --Some of. the problems discussed above are transi-
tory, can be minimized, or will heal with time; others are long-
term and will require constant care. None, however, approach in
importance the potential problems created by the crude oil carried
in the pipe.
"Personnel of TAPS have reported that 1mder ideal functioning of
communications.and mechanical equipment, flow of oil could be shut
off three minutes after a break is detected. The designed capa-
city of the line is reported to be about 2,000,000 barrels per day,
thus, more than 4,000 barrels of oil .would escape during the mini-.
mum time required to shut off the flow at pumping stations. TAPS
y Ibid.' pp. 42-44.
541
I
believes, however, that a com~lete ru~ture of the line is unlikely
unless a major earthqu!3-ke were to occur.
"Plans available at this time call for valves, at unspecified in-
tervals, to ~rotect stream crossings and other areas particularly
susce~tible to damage from oil ~ollution. These valves would be
shut-down mechanically by ~um~ing station ~ersonnel traveling by
helico~er. The time required for shutdown could vary from less
than an hour under good conditions to several days under adverse
weather conditions. A ~i~eline 48 inches in diameter could contain
nearly 12,000 barrels ~er milee Depending on the slo~e of the line,
the distance between a valve and the break, and the time required to
close. the valve, a certain ~ortion of 12,000 barrels ~er mile could
be s~illed.
11 Although the ef'fects of crude oil on birds are fairly well known,
its toxic ~ro~erties with res~ect to other animals and their habi-
tats are only ~tly understoodo ef'fects of a major s~ill,
on land or water, in winter or sunnner, though difficult
to ~redict, would be disastrous. The other effects of this ~ro
ject on fish and wildlife discussed above are generally understood
through ex~erience with other construction activities, but we have
no ex~erience with oil s~ills of the magnitude that would be ~os
sible with this ~rojecta Any s~ill along the ~i~eline route vrould
be in a major watershed and could affect lands and waters for great
distances downstream.·
"The frequency and effect of s~ills can ~robably best be minimized
through (1) a~~lication of standards of design that em~hasize s~ill
~revention, even though they w&y be more rigid than those established
on the basis of economics; (2) ~rovision of adequate shutdown f'acili-
ties; (3) maintenance of crews and equi~ment for immediate and com-
~lete cleanu~ of s~ills; and (4) an intensive surveillance and s~ill-
detection ~rogram." · ·
With to the ~otential ~llution in the ~roduction area on_~he Beau-
fort Sea, at the oil discovery site, the report went on to state:Y
11 0il ~ollution --This is the most significant factor affecting
fish and wildlife ~o~ulations and habitats. Not only will the
numerous feeder pi~elines have a ~otential for ~ollution, but the
y Ibid.' pp .. 48' 49.
drilling of wells and production of oil from them has a high
potential for leaks·, spills, and even blOW"outs. Fuel will be
handled and stored under adverse conditions where safety pre-
cautions are more likely to be bypassed. Small refineries or
topping plants, one of which is alrea~y located at Prudhoe Bay,
will add to the potential for pollution. Tankships or other
vessels loading and unloading at a northern terminal may also
spill oil.
"Such fish and wildlife as are not eliminated or driven away by
other factors will be under continual threat from oil pollution.
Foremost will be ducks and other birds, which are highly tolerant
of human activity and will nest in the area, but are particularly
vulnerable to oil pollution. Concentrations of waterfowl along
the Arctic Coast are temporarily immobilized during the molting
period and would be unable to escape an oil spill. Other birds
migrating tbro:Igh the area could become contaminatedm Caribou
and other wildli~e s~cies could suffer loss of habitat.
11Spills from these operations can be minimized by the follOW"ing
practices: (1) application of standards for oil storage and hand-
ling procedures that exceed current practice, (2) provision of
adequate shutdOW'n facilities, (3) maintenance of crews and equip-
ment for immediate and complete cleanup, (4) intensive surveil~
lance and spill detection programs, and (5) prevention of any dis-
charge' from ships in Arctic waters."
The reference to tankships loading and unloading at a northern·terminal
and spilling oil into Arctic waters had to do with the possibility of an
Arctic shipping terminal. Fresh in the ~nds of the report vrriters at
.the time was the successful navigation of the Northwest Passage by the
Manhattan, the super-tanker. Consequently, their report considered the
possibility.of establishing a terminus near the oil development fields
at Prudhoe Bay.
Similarly on the subject of oil pollution, and with regard t£1the termi-
nus at Valdez on Prince William Sound, the report commented:=t
"Oil ;pollution --The capacity of the pipeline will be about two
million barrels per day, and the terminal is expected to store a
10-day supply. This ·large amount of oil will create an unprece-
dented potential for oil pollution in Port Valdez , Valdez Arm,
11 Ibid., pp. 52, 53.
and all of Prince William Sound. Forty-four million gallons
per day of ballast water could also be brought in by tankers
and require treatment at the terminalo Experiences in Cook
Inlet, Alaska, and some reported elsewhere, indicate that oil
pollution can be expected at tankship terminals.
"The effects of oil pollution on a w.arine environment are not
completely knawna ·However, juvenile salmon de]end heavily on
intertidal food sources and could be affected, even if they
were not in the area of a spill when it occurred. The effect of
oil on intertidal salmon spawning is uriknawn but could be severe.
If persistent oil slicks occurred in Port Valdez, the sport fish-
ery would certainly be damaged. Oil pollution could also inhibit
spawning in the intertidal zone of Prince William Sound.
"Direct effects on marine fish, bird, and maJlllrlal life of a major
oil spill would be expected to be severe. Sea otters are parti-
cularly vulnerable to the effects of oil on their fur •. Waterfowl
and other sea birds often die from even small amounts on their
feathers. An oil spill or oily ballast washed ashore on the
Copper River Delta could have disastrous effects on important
waterfowl concentrations and the utilization of razor clam
beaches.
'Winds and currents that would affect the distribution of oil
are not well known in Prince William Sound. In Valdez Arm and
Port Valdez, however, prevailing winds would tend to move oil
toward the head of the bay in summer and seaward the rest of the
year.
11Glacial tributaries contribute nruch silt to the sound and some
of the oil will undoubtedly adhere to silt particles and sink.
If it becomes a part of the benthic sediments in this manner, it
may not be susceptible to oxidation and with the low temperatures
in the area, oily materials would probably be persistent.
"Even vTi th the greatest precautions and the use of all known spill
prevention and cleanup techniques, some alteration of the relatively
undisturbed environment of Prince William Sound must be eX]ected.
A gradual degradation of the environment from chronic pollution
·could become severe without being detected if background studies
are not made to provide a yc.l;'dstick for measuring change. 11
A sunmary of the potential problems resulting from the construction and
operation of the pipeline, as well as the terminal and production areas,
544
_n
was sunrrnarized under the following three headings:Y
Problems Associated with Construction and Maintenance
"These problems include erosion and siltation, barriers to f'ish
·movements, physical damage to spawning areas and fish, and entrap-
ment of' f'ish. They can be highly significant in certain areas,
particularly the Atigun and Sagavanirktok Rivers with their poten-
tial sport fishery, the clear-water grayling streams north of the
Yukon River, the sport fisheries of' the Chatanika, Chena, and Salcha
Rivers, the Summit Lake-Gulkana River region with its sockeye salmon
habitat and recreational resources, the Little Tonsina River with
its king salmon spawning and recreational use, the Lowe .River with
its salmon spawning grounds, ~nd Port Valdez with its coho salmon
sport fishery.
"A certain amo.mt of siltation is a part of the natural process of
spring breakup in much of Alaska. Even normally clear grayling
streams carry a load of silt during periods of high flows, but the
gravel bottoms remain clean. In general, the solution is to assure
.that siltation is reduced to a minimum and controlled, in its time
of occurrence where timing j_s critical to a fish and vrildlife re-
source.
11 Pipeline stipUlations of the Department of the Interior, or equi-
valent controls on State of Alaska or U.S. Forest Service lands
should, if properly administered, minimiz·e damage from construction
activities and reduce it to a short-term acceptable level.
Chronic Problems Associated with Permanent Change
"Longer term chronic problems associated with the project include
disturbance of wildlife, interference with big game migrations,
entrapment and interference with local movements of animals, in-
creased harvest, s~rage and solid waste disposal, and thermal pol-
lution. With the exception of the latter, which probably will not
be significant, these factors could exert considerable impact and
will require continued effort to control. For instance, the pipe-
line could cause major alterations of caribou migrations and could
exert a long-lasting adverse effect on their range by restricting
movements of animals. Disturbance and hunting pressure will have
perw~nent effects on intolerant species and on those which are of
most interest to man, such as grizzly and brown bears, wolves,
y Ibid.' p:p. 54-57.
·wolverines, Dall sheep and :peregrine falcons. The harvest of
these animals can be controlled by regulations and enforcement,
but harassment, such as by individuals in aircraft viewing and
photographing them, would probably cause them to leave areas
of intense human activity.
"Even though problems of sewage disposal in Arctic areas may
be solved, disposal of garbage and litter will be more difficult
to control, and continued adverse effects on bears and foxes
around garbage pits can be ex:pected. Continued effort will be
required to dispose of the accumulation already present and to
prevent further accumulation.
Potential for Oil Pollution
"The greatest danger of this project to fish and wildlife resources
and their environment is posed by the following: Transportation of
tvo million barrels per day of crude oil through 800 miles of main
pipeline; a maze of feeder lines, pumps and. valves on the North
Slo:pe, as well as a possible loading terminal; transshipment and
handling of two million barrels per day of oil and storage of as
much as 20 million barrels at the Valdez terminal; and the opera-
tion of a fleet of tankships of uncertain registry capable of
carrying two million barrels of oil per day through Prince William
Sound. Experience indicates that engineering and housekeeping
practices that will prevent oil pollution from these numerous oper-
ations have not been put into practice.
''Wherever leaks, breaks, or spills occur, they 1-1ill affect impor-
tant drainages --the Beaufort Sea, the Sagavanirktok River system,
the Yukon River System, the Cop:per River system, Prince William
Sound, and the Gulf of Alaska, where most offloading of ballast
vater at sea vill probably be done. A major spill, even though it
might occur on an insignificant creek, on a drainage such as the
Yukon system could cause lasting damage to important fish resources,
waterfowl and their habitat, and important vinter moose range in
the river bottoms. We can only speculate at this time on the long
range effects that various levels of chronic oil pollution might
have on ecosystems such as the intertidal zone of Valdez Arm. 11
In flying over the route of the proposed pipeline in the Gulkana River
and Copper River drainages in the Aleutian Goose on August 12, 1972, Mel
Monson pointed out to the writer some of the more important sockeye sal-
mon spawning areas. Also pointed out vas a proposed somewhat altered
route of a f81-1 miles, to avoid disturbing important spawning stretches of
river. The rerouting vas recoll.lillended by the biologists who studied the
routeo The oil companies turned thumbs down on the suggestion, advancing
the argument that the rerouted stretch might cost $4 or $5 million more.
546
Yet, out of an estimated cost of perhaps $2 billion or more, an addi-
tional cost of $5 million would amount to but a quarter of one percent,
2. 5 mills on the dollar. With their pious statements of environmental
concern, one cannot help but wonder how sincere some of the oil companies
are.
Under the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969, the oil develop-
ment and its pipeline called for an environmental impact statement. In
March 1972, the Department of the Interior made public its Final Environ-
mental Impact Statement on the application for the right-of-way. The
statement, consisting of a massive six-volume report together with a
three-volume analysis of the economic and security aspects of the propo-
sal, was delivered in accordance with law to the Council on Environmental
Qualityo Publication of the statement and accompanying documents cli-
maxed three years study by Interior. An indication of the involvements
relat~~ thereto can be found in the Interior press release of March 20, 1972.~ Inputs to the statement were of course provided by the Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Service.
By this time, the conservationists of various national organizations were
duly aroused. Pleas were entered in the courts to hold up on the construc-
tion of the pipeline. A Federal court found that by law the Department
of the Interior was limited to issuing a right-of-way not to exceed 50 feet
in width. The consortium wanted a width of 150 feet. The court ruled that
Congress should amend the law to permit Interior to grant that width. The
Congress did so in July 1973, 1-rith both houses approving by substantial
margins. The bill vras signed by the President on November 16, 1973~ Con-
gress then set a deadline for suits testing the constitutionality of the
legislation. No such suits were filed~
A court injunction barring the projec·t after the expiration of the dead-
line was lifted by U.S. District Judge George Hart in Washington, D.c.,
and Secretary of the Interior Rogers C Morton on January 23, 1974,
signed the long-awaited permit for the pipeline the cost of which, accord-
ing to one late estimate as reported in the press, would be $5 billion.
Officials of the Alyeska Pipeline-Service Company, which 1fill build and
operate the line, were reported to have handed Secretary Morton a check
for $12.15 million to pay for environmental studies in connection 1vith the
construction. fl~ of late January 1974, the oil people still needed a per-
mit from the State of Alaska covering its own lands. But its granting
seemed to be a foregone conclusion.
Y See Exhibit 57, Appendix.
I
With the signing of the Interior permit for the trans-Alaska pipeline,
the BSFW contemplates that it will have a 14-man pipeline monitoring
team. By the end of January 1974, LeRoy Sowl of the RBS staff at
Anchorage attended two meetings with representatives of the ':Sureau· of ...
Land Management, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (..ADF&G) to coordinate the inter-agency
monitoring team expected to include about 30 persons. In January 1974,
LeRoy and some of his staff also provided the Federal Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) -vrith information to assist EPA set the level of oil
discharge required for Alyeska's ballast treatment plant at Valdez. Also
in January, Don Ross of the Fairbanks RBS field office joined the U.S.
Geological Survey, BLM, and ..ADF&G on a British Petroleum-sponsored field
trip to assess the environmental impact of a proposed test well to be
drilled by the oil company on the North Slope. From all indications,
RBS biologists are entering a new phase of activity now that the oil
pipeline is going in.
As may be noted, the arguments pro and con since the 1968 oil strike at
Prudhoe Bay went through a distillation that lasted years before a deci-
sion was reached. In the meantime, the 48-inch pipe remained stacked at
Valdez. It would take a book to do justice to the history of one of the
most controversial environmental issues of modern times.
Alaskans by and large have been for the pipeline. Much resentment was
shown in local quarters over the medd.lers in the Lower 48. Stickers .
appeared on cars giving vent to local feelings~ There was even some
nonsense peddled about seceding from the Uniono There is no question
that the royalties and other income to the State of Alaska will prove a
fine assist to a State that is in rather poor economic straits, one that
since its admission to the Union is still dependent in large measure for
its economic health on Federal largesse.
There were many factors that went into the decision to go ahead -vrith the
pipeline. The growing dependence of the United States on foreign oil and
the gasoline shortages of the summer of 1973, culminating. in the cutoff
of Arabian oil imports into the United States following the Arab-Israeli
War of October 1973, undoubtedly were major considerations. Yet, some
nagging questions remain. Would it have been environmentally less 'dama-
ging if the pipeline were routed through Canada and on to the Midwest,
close to centers of demand? An interesting paper on the subject was
written in 1973 by Dr. Charles J. Cicchetti, visiting associate professor
of economics and eny~ronmental studies at the University of Wisconsin, .
Madison, Wisconsin.!r
His opening statement was as follows:
!( The Wrong Route, by Dro Charles J. Cicchetti, Environment,
Vol. 15, Noo 5, June 1973, St. Louis, Mo., pp. 4-13.
548
n
"Attempts to balance·the economic benefits of the Alaskan oil
field in Prudhoe Bay against the environmental costs of getting
the oil to market are handicapped by heavy emphasis on the Trans-
Alaska Pipeline (TAP) as opposed to overland pipeline routes
through Canada. This stems largely from the fact :that the TAP is
pr.eferred by the oil companies developing the Alaskan fields. A
major reason for this preference, as will be explained, is that
the TAP until recently appeared to offer the oil companies consi-
derably greater profit potential than the Canadian routes. Re-
cent changes in government oil import regulations have nulli-
fied the profit advantage, however. Yet so entrenched has the
TAP route proposal become, and so urgent has Alaskan oil develop-·
ment been viewed by the companies, that the developers continue
to press for the Alaskan route even though the Canadian pipeline
would, in fact, yield more profits for them, produce more tax
benefits for Alaska and the federal government, deliver oil where
it is most needed in the U.S., and probably do less damage to
the environment."
He went on to add:
"To .summarize briefly what follows, a Trans-Canadian Pipeline
(TCP) would be subject to fewer environmental stresses, wollid
avoid ocean pollution associated with port and terminal facili-
ties which are a part of the TAP system, and would be a more
logical trunk pipeline for combined oil and gas developments in
Alaska and Canada. In addition, the Canadian pipeline would
deliver oil to U.S. markets east of the Rocky Mountains, which
are in short supply, rather than to the West Coast loThere over-
supply caused by input from the TAP eventually will produce a
misallocation of natural resources. Furthermore, utilization
of the Trans-Canadian as opposed to the Trans-Alaskan line
would mean a present value of up to $1 billion more in oil tax
revenue for the state of Alaska, probable lower costs to oil
consumers east of the Rockies, and a present value of up to $5
billion more in net profit to the oil companies before corporate
income taxes. The higher corporate income taxes loTOuld, in turn,
add more to the U.S. federal treasury.
"If Alaska, Canada, the U.S., the oil consuming public, the oil
companies, and the environment all stand to gain from the Trans-
Canadian line, why have the oil companies steadfastly focused
their plans on the Trans -Alaskan route? A number of reasons were
given publicly, particularly the desirability of a line completely
on U.S. soil to circumvent possible political difficulties with
Canada. But there were far more compelling reasons for companies
to favor the TAP: Despite the apparent economic disadvantages, the
companies planned. the distribution of TAP oil in a way that would
ingeniously take advantage of complex U.S. laws regarding the
' I
. n
I I
import, export, and ocean transport of oil. The laws were designed
in large part to give domestic oil producers and u.s. merchant ship-
pers advantages in the U.S. oil market. Companies vrith trading in-
terests in the Alaskan oil, hmrever, planned to seek u.s. Presiden-
tial support for an elaborate scheme (to be explained later) that
was proposed in 1970 which would have enabled them to play off
Alaskan oil exports against imports to Japan, thereby reaping a
profit even larger than would be obtained by using the seemingly
advantageious TCP.11
Dr. Cicchetti then compared the Trans-Alaskan and Trans-Canadian pipeline
systems. His wording appears worth quoting:
"A brief description of the Trans-Alaskan and Trans-Canadian
systems provides a comparison between their market potentials
and environmental problems. The route (TAP), which is currently
proposed by the consortium of oil companies, would move the oil
in a north-south direction across Alaska, crossing two major
mountain ranges and, in its southern half, the most earthquake-
prone region in North America (Figure 1). The pipeline would
terminate in the port city of Valdez, Alaska, where storage and
ter~nal facilities would be constructed to service the oil for
ocean shipment to final markets.
"The Trans-Canadian Pipeline actually is a misnomer, since seg-
ments of the line would cross part of·Alaska before proceeding
to the southeast across Canada. Several alternative TCP routes
have been proposed, as seen in Figure 1. One alternative would
be a pipeline from the North Slope to the Canadian city of Ed-
monton, follmving the natural corridor of the"Mackenzie River.
Actually, there are ti-ro routes which have been proposed for the
Mackenzie Valley, labeled TCP-lA and -IB in Figure 1. A~other
alternative would follow the TAP route to the Alaskan city of
Fairbanks, then the man-made corridor of the Alaska Highway,. and,
in some portions, previous pipeline routes, to the Canadian city
of Edmonton. This route is labeled TCP-II in Figure 1. The all-
land TCP pipeline alternatives would link up with existing lines
from Edmonton to the U.S. Midwest and perhaps even the Pacific
Northwest.
"Either the TAP or the TCP obviously would cross long stretches
of land, and ruptures or settling of the pipelines along any of
the routes would lead to serious environmental problems (see 'The
Long Pipe,' Environment, September 1970). The pipeline itself
might interfere 1-:i th migrations of caribou. A route 1-rhich would
minimize damage could be chosen, but some environmental damage
is inevitable. other alternatives such as air or rail transport
have been suggested, but much debate over their economic and
550 .
I
environmental characteristics seem£ to indicate that a pipe-
line will inevitably be the system used. The experiment to
test ocean transport through the Northwest Passage, from the
Atlantic to the Pacific, utilizing the specially outfitted
tanker Manhattan, produced difficult technical and legal prob-
lems that also make the overland route more attractive. Another
alternative, of course, is to cap the oil fields of the Alaskan
North Slope as a reserve-for some future need~ This would prevent
all immediate environmental hazards, but in terms of any benefit-
cost analysis, it would mean that those environmental impacts
would be assigned a value in excess of the economic and resource
allocation benefits to be obtained by immediate use of the oil.
While such a comparison should have preceded the current debate,
it did not. Accordingly, the following discussion will concen-
trate on the current controversy over the best route.
"Among the pipeline alternatives, there are some clear-cut dif-
ferences in potential environmental difficulties. The TCP routes
cross a far less rugged terrain as well as avoid the zone of most
intense earthquake activity along the southern leg of the TAP from
Fairbanks to Valdez. Fragile soil conditions imposed by perma-
frost (a permanently frozen layer of soil or subsoil) are most
extensive along the TAP route but do exist on the Trans-Canadian
courses as well, particularly along TCP-lA, the line that follows
the Arctic Ocean coastline, then the Mackenzie River channel.
TCP-II, the southernmost Trans-Canadian route, passes through less
permafrost than the other TCP routes. Since TCP-II follows the
Alaska Highway from Fairbanks, physical effects of the pipeline on
permafrost probably would be minimal from that city to Edmonton.
"Perhaps the most notable difference between the TAP and the TCP
environmental impacts would be in marine pollution. Key to the
TAP system is the ocean link between the city of Valdez on Prince
William Sound and terminal facilities at Puget Sound or at Los
Angeles. Oil transfer and tanker operations along this route
would produce chronic, low-level oil contamination as well as
probable major discharges resulting from tanker accidents. The
hazards of navigation near Valdez and Puget Sound include many
islands, frequent fog, violent winds, and high waves. These
problems would have to be negotiated by large tankers that have
had an unfortunate safety record in the past ten years (see
'Horizon to Horizon,' Environment, March 1971). Shipment of oil
to Japan and to the Caribbean, according to plans discussed
earlier, for marketing oil not needed on the West Coast would
greatly increase the areas affected by the marine pollution. If
tankers associated with greater pollution were utilized and more
oil terminal operations were involved, the level of marine pollu-
tion i-TOuld increase.
551
I
"Although the Trans-Canadian routes present much less of a
direct threat, there are nonetheless potential problems.
TCP-lA passes close to the coast of the Arctic Ocean as ~ell
as across. many rivers flowing into that ocean. Pn oil leak
from the pipeline thUP could be carried into the sea~ Fur-
thermore, if TCP oil were piped from Edmonton to Seattle in
Puget Sound, then shipped by ocean to Los Angeles or San Fran-
cisco, ocean pollution.would result as it would in that portion
of the TAP system. Although the TCP Seattle-California arrange-
ment has been suggested by TAP proponents, the Edmonton-Chicago
pipeline to the Midwe~t would produce far greater profit, and so
it is much more likely to be selected by the oil companies if the
companies are forced to accept an all-land system."
He then described the natural gas problem:
"In addition to these overt environmental considerations, there
is a related point that has regrettably had little attention.
The natural gas that will be released from the oil wells in
Prudhoe Bay most probably will be piped to market, since Alaskan
lavr now forbids flaring (burning) it. This means that developers
must plan for still another pipeline across the North. The most
likely route for the gas line would be across Canada to the ~lid
west for the following reasons: (l) it is a cheaper system, since
it avoids the expensive liquification that wouJ.d be necessary if
tanker transport were usedj (2) many of the same companies have
found vast gas fields in Canada and need a transport systemj and
(3) the gas market in the Mid:vrest is far larger than on the West
Coast.
"The natural gas pipeline will not present the imminent environ-
mental hazards inherent in pipes carrying hot crude oil, but there
will be considerable environmental disruption in securing over-
land rights-of-way for the gas line. Since this disruption appears
to be an inevitable, overlooked, environmentally significant coqt
of the North Slope development, it can be argued that the cost
could best be minimized by combining oil and gas pipelines in one
Trans -Canadian corridor to Edmonton. This would do away vTi th the
need for one pipeline route to Valdez for oil (the TAP plan) and
another route through Canada for natural gas. The combined cor-
ridor through Canada would also better serve transport of oil and
gas from the Canadian Northwest Territories. The various pipeline_
developments thus might be combined into a northwestern petroleum
transport corridor.
·"A number of these considerations are weighed in a comparative
analysis of the alternative routes in the environmental impact
statement on the TAP prepared by the U.S. Department of the In-
terior. The department concluded: 'No single generalized route
552
appears to be superior in all Lenvironmental~ respects ·to any
other. 1
"However, the department concluded. that, first, the TAP was
superior to the Trans -Alaskan-Canadian routes 'only from the
standpoint of_ its impact on the abiotic, or nonliving, envi-
ronment. This differe?ce oceurred because the TAP right-of-
way would occupy less land than the TCP route. Department of
the Interior analysts pointed out that this advantage was lost"
if a natural gas pipeline -vrere to be considered as part of the
Arctic development plan, since the gas pipeline would require a
right-of-way in addition.to.that for the TAP, resulting in a vast.
increase in land exposed to environmental problems related to
development of North Slope oil. Second, the department concluded
that from the standpoint of the impact on the overall biotic en-
vironment, TCP-lA was superior. Third, the department concluded
that from the standpoint of the unavoidable impact upon 'socio-
economic systems, ••• recreation, aesthetic, wilderness, communi-
ties, and native culture and substance,' the TCP-lA route was
superior. Fourth, the department concluded that routes TCP-IB
and TCP-II would probably have the least impact on the marine
environment. F~om the standpoint of risk, or threatened envi-
ronrnental impact, the Department of the Interior concluded that
both the TCP routes were superior to the TAP from the viewpoint
of both the terrestrial and nErine environments. Since the TAP
is environmentally inferior, its economic advantages will be ex-
amined next to deternune the social tradeoffs that are necessary
to select the optimal route."
In his economic analysis, Dr. Cicchetti stated:
"An interested person who attempts to keep track of the various
p1ililic estimates of the cost of a Trans-Canadian pipeline will
probably have a difficult time of it. Estimates of construction
costs ranging from $1 billion to $7 billion may be found by re-
viewing the public statements and writings of various oil com-
panies and public officials in both Canada and the U.S.
"It should be noted that all TCP routes avoid the necessary ex-
penditures for terminal and marine facilities that are included
in the TAP estimates above. Using the same costs per mile as
TAP, the capital costs of crude oil pipeline from the North Slope.
to Edmonton down the Mackenzie Valley range between $2 billion and
$2.75 billion in 1971 U.S. dollars. Beyond that it is often pre-
sumed that it mny take two years longer to put a Canadian route
into operation than it would the TAP. This can be accounted for
by further discounting against the proposed flow rate •
. 553
I
· "The second component of costs, after capital costs, is the
operating cost per barrel of crude oil. This has been estimated
by the three major North Slope companies for the North Slope-
Edmonton-Chicago system operating at 2 million barrels per day
to be approximately $0.30 per barrel. This operating cost may
be broken down into costs of $0.174, $0.126, and $Oo065 per
barrel for the North Slope to Edmonton, Edmonton to Chicago,
and Edmonton to Puget Sound, respectively."
He then proceeded to make his comparative analyses, using flow rates,
various other factors, and market needs of the Midwest and East Coast
as opposed to those of the West Coast. He concluded that the cost com-
parisons between TAP and TCP-I were inconclusive and so he went to the
subject of profits. He found that there were economic advantages of the
Trans-Canadian systems, but that profits were tied to an import-for-export
plan under the Mandatory Oil Import Quota Program, a Federal requirement
that, until the President changed the system on April 18, 1973, dictated
permissible quantity of oil imports according to a complex formula. The
plan would have made it very profitable to sell the excess Alaskan oil
to Japan, which needs large amounts of petroleum. The oil would be shipped.
in tankers from Valdez to Japan, using foreign and hence cheaper tankers.
The exporters would then be allowed to import an equal amount of foreign
oil to the East Coast, again in foreign tankerso In brief, the import-
for-export plan would have allowed oil companies to import a foreign·
barrel of oil on the East Coast for every barrel of oil exported from
Alaska to Japan.
The preferred tax treatments afforded the oil companies, higher prices
obtainable on the East Coast, juggling quotas, selling or swapping oil
through subsidiaries, refining in the Virgin Islands, all such manipula-
tions were attributed to the oil companies in rooting for the Trans-
Alaska pipeline route, according to Dr. Cicchetti. That route was cal-
culated to bring as much as 50 cents per barrel more for North Slope
oil as opposed to the most favorable Trans-Canadian route.
Interestingly, as facts began to. emerge, Alaska moved to protect itself
against loss of revenue from the marketing schemes and passed a law to
the effect that the posted price of oil in Alaska would be used to cal-
culate taxes regardless where the oil is marketed. The law is being
challenged by the oil companies who would prefer to use the $2.01 per
barrel word-price in their manipulations. The lmv world price vrould
yield Alaska only 10 cents per barrel, some 35 cents per barrel less
than if the oil companies sold -the Alaskan oil in California at prices
much higher than the world price. Under the Alaskc law, oil companies
cannot use transportation costs and low market prices elsewhere to re-
duce their tax obligations. The main concern in Alaska of course has
been the most rapid development possible in order to gain immediate tax
554
revenue and to provide employment to ease a chronically high employ-
ment rate.
Dr. Cicchetti closed his paper by stating:
"To summarize, the TAP system is in:f'erior to the Trans-
Canadian route in a number of respects. First, the over-
land route through Canada is environmentally superior,.
though by no means·environroentally harmless -it avoids the
roost serious earthquake and avalanche propleros in southern
Alaska and vrill not contribute directly to ocean pollution
since tankers will noi be· usedo Furthermore, TCP-I or TCP-II
would utilize existing rights-of-way over part of the distance
rather than all new construction as would TAP. The interpro-
vincial pipeline, which now carries oil from Edmonton to eastern
Canada and the Midwest, could be incorporated into the TCP to
carry North Slope oil to Chicago. The pipeline could be exten-
d.ed from Chicago to the East Coast without loss of profits, be-
cause the higher East Coast prices would offset added construc-
tion and transportation costs. Finally, the Department of the
Interior conceded that a joint oil and gas transportation system
through Canada would be environmentally superior to an arrange-
ment requiring an oil pipeline through Alaska and a gas line
through Canada, as probably would be the case if the TAP were
built.
"A Trans-Canadian system would supply the U.S. markets most in
need of oil at costs that would be of greatest benefit to the
public and, seemingly, to the oil companies. It was only when
the companies' profit motive alone was considered under the now
defunctMandatory Oil Import Quota Program that the TAP had the
edge -and. then only if arbitrary, though legal, manipulations
were mad.e to take advantage of U.S. laws that are at least osten-
sibly designed to benefit more than just the oil companies. The
only rew~ining justification for the TAP is the cash flow problem
of two American and one British oil companies;· it hardly seems
wise to let this one factor dominate a major decision of this type.
"To close, I would like to quote from the final two paragraphs of
my basic report written for Resources for the Future:
'It is not surprising that the possibility of a Trans-
Canadian pipeline for Alaskan oil has never been thor-
oughly explored with the Canadian government -although
there is every sign that Canadian officials are receptive
to such a proposal. After all, this alternative has been
resisted by both the oil men and ~he Department of the
Interioi7 and has suffered in comparisons with TAP because
555
I
I1
too little has been known about its economic and environ-
mental merits.
'No one analyst can produce all the answers needed to re-
solve the controversy over Alaskan oil, particularly when
so many variables and unquantifiable factors are involved
•••• But it is my hope that the merits of TCP alternatives
will receive further consideration before a final -perhaps
irreversible -decision ends the controversy over TAP. The
consequences of a TAP-taru~er system for transporting Alaskan
oil could haunt an entire continent for many years to come.
Even ~he Department of the Interio£7 acknowledged this in
its environmental impact statement: "Because of the scale
and nature of the project, the impact would occur on abiotic,.
biotic, and socioeconomic components of the human environ-
ment far beyond the relatively small part ••• of Alaska that
would be occupied by the pipeline and. oilfield~ ru 11 · ·
In the light of the Congressional desire to go ahead with the Trans-
Alaska pipeline, Dr. Cicchetti's hope that the alternatives to that route,
namely the Trans-Canadian routes, receive further consideration before a
final, perhaps irreversible decision is wsde, has been dashed. Perhaps
time, and only time, will tell whether the right d.ecision -vras made.
The writer is no economist and has no way of assessing Dr. Cicchetti's
paper. He presents it as a viewpoint of one not solely concerned with
ecological considerations.
An interesting asid.e on the heat generated in some quarters on the Trans-
Alaska pipeline appeared in the Albuguergue Journal, Albuquerque, New
Mexico, on Friday, June 8, 1973. In a syndicated column under the title .
"Alaskan Pipeline is Delayed Again," James J. Kilpatrick wrote:
"WASHINGTON. A group of Midwestern legislators, pressing for·re-
gional advantage at the expense of national needs, has managed
once more to delay construction of the trans-Alaskan pipeline.
The project is bogged down in committee, and faces a bruising
fight when it reaches the floor.
"The story is one long chronicle of frustration. If construction
of this pipeline had been started three years ago, when its prospec-
tive build.ers were ready to go, the nation might now be benefiting.
from one to two million barrels of oil per day. We would be signi-
ficantly less dependent upon supplies from the Middle East. Our
balance of payments would not be quite so dangerously out of kilter.
At least $2 billion could have been saved in construction costs.
"All this is vrhat might have been. Much of the exasperating delay
has resulted from the opposition of the eco-freaks, those conserva-
tionist zealots whose frenzy carries them, like the Jesus freaks,
556
L
beyond dedication to obsession. Their spokesmen have conjured
, up damage to the migratory habits of the caribou; they have ex-
pounded pathetically upon the harm that a four-foot-pipeline
would do to hundreds of thousands of square miles of tundra; ·
they have raised vague fears of earthquakes, melting ice, oil
spills, and harm to polar bears, fish, and. to 320 species of
arctic birdso
11 I do not mean to challenge the sincerity of these conservation-
ists. It is their judgment and their sense of priorities that
compel a blunt rejoinder: The United States urgently needs Alaska's
North Slope oil. We have to have it. Further delays cannot be
condoned.
"Yet further delays are in prospect. On Feb. 9, the U.S" Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia. enjoined construction of the
pipeline on a single point: The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 limits
rights-of-way on Federal lands to 25 feet on either side of a
pipeline. The proposed line from the North Slope to Valdez would
have required 70 to 75 feet on either side at certain points. It
is puzzling, in retrospect, that this obstacle was not comprehen-
ded and resolved long ago.
"On Feb. 21, less than two weeks after the court ruling, Alaska's
Senators Mike Gravel and Ted Stevens introduced a bill to over-·
come the objection. They proposed to cut all the red tape in a
single blow, by declaring that the bulky environmental impact
statement, long ago supplied by the Department of the Interior,
filled all requirements of law. Similar lation was offered
in the House.
nwe are now into June, and.· nothing has happened. Instead, the old
alternative of a trans-Canadian route has been revived. Senators
Walter Mondale of Minnesota, Adlai Stevenson of Illinois, and Birch
Bayh of Indiana are insisting that the Canada plan be studied anevr.
On the House side, John B. Anderson of Illinois is blandly urging
that an Alaskan route not be 'cannonaded' into law.
'~illiamE. Simon, deputy secretary of the Treasury, demolished
these arguments in a recent statement. Building a Canadian line,
he said, 'would delay receipt of vitally needed Alaska crude oil
from three to five years • 1 The Canadian line would be much
longer; it would have to cross 12 major rivers; it would cost
twice as much; it could not be built without prolonged negotia-
tions with Ottawa, in which the Canadians understandably would
insist upon protecting their own d.omestic concerns.
"The Nixon administration many times has cited the 'urgent neces-
sity' for building the trans-Alaskan line. The state's spokesmen
557
I
in Congress, who know and love their wilderness area, have
-pleaded for prompt action. Every national interest, it seems
to me, demands that we get on with this job -and get on with
it now."
Mr. Kilpatrick stated that he does "not mean to challenge the sincerity
of these conservationists." One cannot help but wonder, however, how
much he contributes to the situation by labelling them "eco-freaks"
whose "frenzy carries them, like the Jesus freaks, beyond faith or
fanaticism, beyond dedication to obsession." He dismisses damage to
migrating herd.s of caribou as having been "conjured", fear of earth-
quakes and oil spills as "vague", and so on. Well-, this is a free
country. And because it is, he is entitled to the exercise of poetic
license as with no constraint he grinds out grist for his column. Pre-
sumably, like the eco-freaks, he is sincere, too.
There can be no rationale against the development of Alaskan oil, whether
at Prudhoe Bay, other points inland, or on the great continental shelf
off the coast of Alaska. Until other forms of energy can replace some
of the demands made on oil, the demand. for it will continue to mount.
The basic problem lies not in opposing oil development in Alaska but
in safeguarding the environment to the greatest possible extent. That
the environment must suffer to some degree is inevitable. To keep the
expected damages within reasonable bounds, without callously ignoring
the greater potential dangers and taking all appropriate measures to in-
sure against accidents, therein lies the artistry of preserving the
Alaskan environment and its dependent fish and wildlife resources. Per-
haps at this point in time it is too much to expect of a frontier state
like Alaska. Perhaps in its yen for growth and economic development,
it must go through the historical phase of environmental disregard that
marked the growth and economic flexing of so many of the Lower 48. If
so, it will be a pity.
The writer was most impressed with the quantitative evidence being col-
lected by Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife biologists on the bird
life, notably waterfowl, of the Arctic wetlands bordering the Beaufort
Sea in the vicinity of the oil development and exploration in Prudhoe
Bay; also, of similar studies of the great concentrations of avian marine
species of Prince William Sound. The patrols, the counts on the ground,
by boat, by air, the numerous transects, and the computerization. of data,
have already produced a mass of information without parallel. LeRoy v.f.
Sawl, chief of RBS special studies outlined the studies to the writer ip
Anchorage in August 1972. Their scope and coverage was impressive.
LeRoy Sawl joined the Division of River Basin Studj_es in Anchorage, Alaska,
in June 1970 to become the coordinator for the BSFW study of the trans-
Alaska oil pipeline. Initially, there were two pipeline project studies,
one in the BSFW and the other in BCF. When RBS activities in Alaska were
transferred in 1970 from the BCF to the BSFW, there was no real need to
maintain two separate projects. By late 1970 it became evident that the
558
_n
trans-Alaska pipeline would be delayed and that the two studies would
neither be funded nor staffed at the levels. programed by the two sister
agencies. Consequently, 1971 saw the pipeline study consolidated as a
single project study in the BSFW and LeRoy was placed in charge of it.
LeRoy Sowl 's previous experience with the BSFW >vas with the Wildlife
Refuges Division, having started in October 1958 on the Lower Souris
Nati anal Wildlife Refuge (now known as the J. Clark Salyer Refuge) in
North Dakota. In December 1959, he was transferred to the Upper Miss-
issippi Refuge as a district manager at Lansing, Iowa, remaining there
until July 1964. He then returned to North Dakota as supervisor of the
Crosby wetlands acquisition office. In July 1970, LeRoy went on to
Anchorage to serve on the staff of the associate refuge supervisor for
Alaska as one of two wildlife biologists assigned to Amchitka Island in
the Aleutian chain of islands. The two were rotated monthly, each moni-
toring the Atomic Energy Commission activities on Amchitka for a month
and then performing staff duties in the Anchorage refuge office for a
mbnth.
It was the experience on Amchitka Island that brought LeRoy into the
Division of River Basin Studies. Yet, as early as 1960, he was being
exposed to the activities of the Division when with the Division of
Wildlife Refuges he worked with the Corps of Engineers on the Mississippi
River with such activities as maintenance dredging of navigation channels
and the control of docks, piers, and houseboat moorages. Prior to joining
the BSF'\--1 in 1958, LeRoy also worked with the Minnesota Division of Fish
and Game as a seasonal biologist aide doing lake and stream surveys. Such
work was done during the summers of 1955-1957.
On his visit to Alaska in August 1972, the writer was also informed of the
studies going on to test the reaction of caribou to simulated pipeline~, .
A report on the subject was completed and released the following yearo~
The pipeline of course will not be the sole intrusion into the Alaska land-
scape. Road systems, oil drill rigs and pads, airstrips, construction
ca~, and other related. activities all will invade the territory of the
caribouo Research is under way by the .Alaska Cooperative Wildlife Research
Unit, funded by moneys made available by the BSFW, to find some answers to
1( The Reactions of Barren-Ground Caribou (Rangifer tarandus granti)
to Simulated Pipeline Crossing Structures at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska,
by Kenneth P. Child, Alaska Cooperative Wildlife Unit, Univ. of
Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, June 30, 1973, 49 pp.
559.
(,
n
the questions ~osed by oil development and trans~ort. But for the
moment, it may be of interest to touch briefly on the ~i~lin~ and its.
ef£:ects on the movements of caribou, abridged herein from Kenneth P.
Child ' s re~ort.
The Prudhoe Bay oilfield is_ situated within the historic range of caribou.
The area is im~ortant summer range, insect-relief habitat and calving
grounds for a small ~o~ulation of a~~roximately 3,000 animals using·the
area. .The oil field area also is characterized by occasional large scale
and intermittent movements .of thousands of caribou. Such movements usually
coincide with major ~o~ulatiori shifts between the Arc~.ic and Porcu~ine
caribou herds, to the west and east, res~ctively. The area has also been
known to over-winter caribou. The numbers have varied over the years but
in the winter of 1959, S.T. Olson, in a Federal aid in wildlife job com-
~letion re~ort, estimated that the Central Arctic wintered 150,000 animals,
30 ~ercent of which were located coastally near the Sagavanirktok River,
on the east side of the Prudhoe Bay area.
To d.etermine the effects of the ~i~line on caribou movements, Alyeska
Pi~eline Service Com~any (ALPS) constructed a two-dimensional barrier
10,200 feet in length out of four-foot snowfencing, elevated 20 inches
above ground ori 10-foot s~ruce ~oles, with burla~ sacking sta~led on the
east side of the fence, to make an o~tical ~arrier similar to the ~ro~osed
~i~eline. Two gravel ramps and four under~asses were included in the
design. The ramps were 75 and 100 feet in·length with 2:1 side slo~es and
aligned with the axis of the fence. Three of the under~asses were 100 feet
long ~roviding ground clearances of awroximately 7 feet 8 inchesj a fourth,
150 feet long, ~rovided a 4-foot clearance above the ground. To give a
three-dimensional illusion at the und.erpasses, two s~ans of snowfencing
were used. Observations were made from a 14-foot tower a~~roximately 50
feet from the fence and ~ositioned equidistantly from the ram~s.
In 1972, the ramps 1vere modified as were the under~asses. The ram~s were
reconstructed equal in length with 5:1 slo~es, and the underpasses increased
in length to 200 feet. At two of the under~asses, the snowfencing and bur-
la~ sacking were re~laced by 32-inch galvanized culverting to remove ~ossible
bias in the results due to movement of the burla~ by the wind.
In 1971, British Petroleum Alaska, Inc., concerned with the impact of feeder
~i~elines on caribou movements through the Prudhoe Bay oj_lfield.s, construc-
ted a ~i~eline simulation of 3,600 feet using 24-inch culverting sus~n~ed
and anchored for 3,000 feet on water-filled drums. The remaining 600 feet
were raised on various t~es of ~ilings to ~rovide a ground clearance from
4 to 8 feet. To intcrce~t and channel movements of animals toward thefu'
structure from the north, a cable with fluorescent flagging was strung from
the north end of the ~i~eline eastward 900 yards on oil drums. A 14-foot
observational tower was constructed adjacent to the simulation on the gravel
service road.
To facilitate behavioral observations and permit mapping of summer
movements of caribou through the Prudhoe Bay oil field; caribou groups .
we~e aerially ?prayed with commercial fabric dyes.
A brief summary of the findings of Kenneth P. Child's report indicates
that the majority of caribou showed a tendency to avoid the structures;
crossing of caribou groups over the pipelines was correlated with size
and composition of the group and sex of group leadership;· individual
animals crossed the pipeline more frequently than groups of caribou;
ramps appeared to be a bet~er method to facilitate crossings than under-
passes which were generally avoided.
For a fuller understanding of the details and involvements of the study,
the reader of course must peruse the report, which also gives recommen-
dations on the location and details of construction of the actual pipe-
line its elf.
Recognizing that the Prudhoe Bay study of caribou reaction to man-made
barriers was dependent on caribou cooperation, something that could not
be guaranteed, it was proposed in early 1971 that the semi-domesticated
model reindeer herd at Nome be used to test the reaction of reindeer to
a simulated pipeline.
Consequently, in October 1971, a cooperative agreement was entered into
between the Alaska Department of Fish and. Game, Bureau of Land Management,
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and vTildlife, Bureau of Indian Affairs and the
Alaska Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit for the accomplishment of the
proposed test. River basin studies personnel participated for the ·BSFW.
These studies were conducted during the summer and fall of 1972 and vrere
scheduled for completion in 1973. Tentative conclusions in 1972 were
that reindeer preferred to avoid the test barrier much as the caribou
did at Prudhoe Bay.
Not much has been said thus far about Corps of Engineers activities. Its·
Alaska district engineer's office in Anchorage was established in April·
1946 although Corps activities in Alaska go back to 1911. l~y compara-
tively small projects have been completed by the Corps, such as harbor
deepening at coastal ports, navigation channeling, and small flood con-
trol projects around some of the tmms. In contrast to the huge hydro-
electric power projects in the Lower 48, the only hydropower project being
built by the Corps in Alaska is the Snettisham Project 28 air miles sou~h
east of Juneau. There are of course many military installations that vrere
planned and constructed by the Corps for the Army and Air Force, but the
concern of RBS biolocists essentially has been witb civil works.
The Chena River Project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of
1968 to construct flood control works above Fairbanks to protect that city
561 .
I
and the nearby military installation from flooding. Dams on the Chena
River and the Little Chena River were called for as were 22 ~les of
dikes, five·miles of levee, and interior drainage facilities. Total
cost was estimated at $119 million, no small amount' as such projects go,
with $116 million as the Federal share.
The firpt report of the river basin studies people of the BCF to the
District Engineer at Anchorage was dated October 13, 1967,· in response
to a Corps inquiry for BC~ views on the Corps survey report. BCF called
its response a detailed report though understandably it was somewhat
speculative in nature. It stressed the importance of the salmon runs of
the Chena River. It toyed with the possibility of a salmon spawning
channel, a salmon incubating channel, and a grayling hatchery. It gave
the usual statistics regarding fish and wildlife, covering commercial
and sporting aspects, and recommended such basic measures as unrestricted
public access around the reservoirs for hunting and fishing, conducting
detailed biological studies of salmon, grayling, and other fish species
over a four-year period prior to construction and a similar study after
construction. Releases of water were asked for as well as construction
of an experimental salmon incubation channel. There were other consider-
ations.
The Corps of Engineers changed its plans, a·common occurrence in project
planning. So on August 2, 1971, the now new National Marine Fisheries
Service issued its report; and on August 9; 1971, the Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife at Anchorage issued its report. They were compa-
tible reJ_:orts since in spite of going to separate Departments, the two
agencies cooperated closely and coordinated their views.
The two reports of August 1972 reflected the changes, the major one being
the discarding of the earlier dam proposal on the Chena River at m~ile 28
and relocating it 10 miles downstream with two pools separated by a low
rock-faced overflow sill, and retaining the Little Chena River detention
dam and the Tanana-Chena levees.
Since the new. proposal would not destroy the chum salmon spawning areas
that would have been destroyed had the earlier plan jelled, changed re-
commendations were in order. So the NMFS report stressed the need for
fish passage facilities, scrapping the idea of a hatchery but asking for
more studies and flexibility in project planning and construction. The
BSFW report paralleled the NMFS report. It also stressed the importanc~
of fish passage facilities and suggested that the Corps work closely with
the BSFW, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and NMFS in the develop-
ment of detailed plans so that fish and wildlife m:Lght receive adequate
consideration during the planning, construction, and operational stages
of the project; also, that adequate funding for future needed studies be
provided by the Corps of Engineers.
I
What stands out in this situation is that there were reports by two
Federal conservation agencies where once upon a time there would have
been one and, further, the two agencies worked closely together in
spite of their complete dismemberment. The inherent seeds of discord
did not germinate.
In conjunction with this project, on August 30, 1971, the NMFS sent the
district engineer of the Corps a proposal for a salmon propagation o
facility, largely an enhancement feature, and asked for $20,000 for
consultative services to design and operate a salmon fry propagation
unit designed by its Auke Bay Fisheries Laboratory. It would entail an
adequate water source, enclosed insulated space for incubators, facili-
ties for trapping and holding adults, facilities for washing, grading,
and storing gravel, and holding ponds for limited feeding of king salmon
fry and chum salmon fry. The fry propagation unit was based on a similar
successful unit for pink salmon in operation by the Laboratory on Auke
Creek near Juneau that was constructed in 1971. The Auke Creek unit
during its first year of operation had yielded fry at better than a_
5 to 1 advantage over natural spavming. At this writing, it is not clear
what the unit would cost nor how the Corps reacted to the proposal. It
does show, however, the thoughtfulness and ingenuity of the NMFS fisheries
biologists in suggesting measures to maintain salmon runs under altered
project conditions.
An increasing activity of the Corps pertains to the issuance of permits
for all sorts of activities in navigable waters in accordance with Sec. 10
of the River and Harbor Act of 1899. With more growth in sight for Alaska
and the resultant demands for more development of all kinds, Corps acti-
vity is bound to increase.·
One of the recommendations of the four Assistant Secretaries of the Inte-.
r~or to their Secretary on June 1, 1967, in their report on the Rampart-_
Project, was that the Interior Department establish an Alaska Power Ad-
ministration (APA) to promote the development and utilization of the water,
power, and related resources of Alaska. On June 16, 1967, the Alaska
Power Ad.ministration vras established as a separate bureau of Interior,
headquartered at Juneau. It replaced the Bureau of Reclamation, taking
over that bureau's functions. Thus it took over the operation of the
Eklutna hydropower plant near Anchorage and launched other power studies
and activities related to Alaska's growth. When the Snettisham power
project near Juneau is completed, the first generator having been sche~u
led to go into commercial service in December 1972, the Alaska Power Ad-
ministration will operate the project and market its power.
An idea of the APA's activities can be gleaned from its annual reports
to the Secretary of the Interior. They tell of the Alaska Water Study,
a regional study handled by a committee of 30 State and Federal agency
representatives. The study was one of those broad framework studies
that blanketed the nation. It was a product of the Water Resources
Planning Act of 1965 which established the Water Resources Council.
That Council requested Interior to make the study and the Secretary
designated the APA to be the lead agency. Like other comparable studies,·
it was broad in scope covering programs of other agencies in addition to
the primary objective of preparing a comprehensive multiple-purpose plan
for the best use of Alaska's immense water and related land uses.
APA inherited irrigation studies from Reclamation and in February 1970
completed a joint study team report on the development and irrigation of
new lands in the Matanuska Valley. In December 1971, a similar study team
completed a report on the irrigation potentials in the Tanana River Valley;.
an area the size of Pennsylvania. AJ3 one result, according to PJ?A, ·a;
large new area of good land had been identified with a view to development.
The APA is quite involved in studies of hydropbwer potentials with Canada
in the Yukon-Taiya Project in the upper Yukon River drainage. The pro-
posal involves raising some lakes on the Yukon Plateau in Canada by con-·
struction of a dam at Miles Canyon just upstream from Whitehorse. It
would then back water into Lindeman Lake, also in Canada but close to the
divide that is the boundary between Canada and the United States, and then.
delivering the water into Alaska by a 17-mile tunnel under the Coast Range
for a 2,000-foot drop into an underground powerhouse which would dis-
charge into the lower reaches of the Taiya River near Skagway.
Like the Bureau of Reclamation before it, APA' is involved in many joint
activities like reviewing over 200 waterpower sites now reserved on the
public lands for revocation and release of the land for other uses. It
assesses the granting of transmission line rights-of-way across Federal
lands, comments on proposed licensing of hydroelectric projects by the
Federal Power Commission, and works on a host of other interwoven Federal-
State activities. But power studies and activities seem to be its prime
·concern. AJ3 such, it reflects the Federal Government 1 s interest in the
growth and development of Alaska.
In turn, all such studies and activities are of interest to the NMFS and
BSFVT since the interrelationships of fish and wildlife resources are in-
extricably tied to the land and water on which they are dependent.
Of particular concern to the two agencies are coastal activities and th~ir
effects on the biota. Logging operations in southeastern Alaska, for ex-
ample, pose problems. The inlets and bays are used for making··and· storing
rafts of floating logs before towing them to the l'tri lls, a logical way of
transporting them. Yet, there is widespread concern and speculation by
fishermen and conservationists that log-dumping and long-term log storage
in protected bays may be harmful to the marine fauna, especially crabs,
that inhabit such areas.
564
I
Underwater observations by the Auke Bay Biological Laboratory biologists
revealed that large amounts of bark, wood, and other debris on the bottom
were having deleterious effects on the crabs, shrimps, clams, snails,
sea anemones, and other species present in those areas. In 1970, seven
such areas were examined by biologists with scuba diving equipment. Ob-
served was such junk as old cables, bundle straps, cast iron stoves,·
engine headgaskets, bottles, sunken logs, and deep layers of rotting
bark, twigs, chips, and silt. The animals seen in such dump areas were
markedly less abundant on the outfall of the underwater dumps. Much of
the decomposing material was black and foul and obviously anaerobic.
Some of the dumping sites were used for five years and more, where many
millions of board feet had been dumped from the clear-cutting operations. ··
More studies were indicated, to gauge the fuller·effect of such logging
garbage areas on marine life. The BSFW also proposed additional studies.
to collect data as to which bays were the more important fish and wild-
life producers.
The Yukon-Taiya Project mentioned above also called for a study of-the
physical, chemical, and biological properties of the Upper Lynn Canal,
the inside passage route leading to Sk~ray, to learn what the effects
might be as a result of the project's infusion of massive quantities of
fresh water into a saltwater environment. Here again, the Auke Bay Bio-
logical Laboratory proposed a three-year study prior to possible con-
struction involving a three-man crew and a minimum of three scientists
aboard a research vessel for 60 days each year.
AP the Rampart Dam received its big play, the Yukon-Taiya project drop-
ped into the background. With the failure of Rampart, the Yukon-Taiya
proposal is being revived. As with all such large projects, it would be
built in stages. The total energy output of 235 billion kilowatthours
a year would exceed that of Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River. The
estimated cost of the project would. be around $2 billion. The power
would serve mining interests in the Haines-Skagway area. Extra power
would intertie with the British Columbia transmission system, with sur-
plus power tying in with the existing West Coast power system. Ultimately,
power also would go to Anchorage and Fairbanks. To assess the effects of
the huge proposal on fish and wildlife will take some doing, to say the
least. The project raises a host of questions. The answers will not
come easily.
Power from a proposed hyd.ropower project near Port Stettisham might be
used by the Marcona Corpor-ation in developing the iron ore deposits near
that port. The plan is to pelletize the ore and ship it to Japan for
further processing. The operation in Alaska might very well involve
taconite tailings and wash water being dumped into the nearby coastal
waters. So another involved FPC license might need close scrutiny.
Another development in the offing that may well involve permits from the
Forest Service, Corps of Engineers, and the Federal Power Commission is
Jl
the proposal by U.S. PlYI'rood-Champion Papers, Inc., to build a pulp
mill at Berners Bay, about 40 miles north of Juneau. The Forest Service
sold a large block of timber to the company and the pulp mill is in the
offing. It will be the job of the BSFW river basin studies field office
in Juneau to evaluate the effects of the mill and submit letter reports
to licensors and the licensee evaluating the proposal and develop appro-
priate recommendations to save or at least minimize the effects of the
mill operation on the salmon, herring, smelt, bottomfish and shellfish
of the affected waters. Moose have been established in the area and
there are large populations of seals, sea lions, ducks, and bald eagles
occupying Berners Bay at various times of the year. The NMFS no doubt
will also prepare its own report, now that it is an independent agency
in the Department of Commerce.
The Mitsubishi International Corporation has recently taken over the
lease of the Klukwan iron ore deposit agreement with the ICLukwan
Village Council. The deposit is an alluvial fan on the Chilkat River
20 miles northwest of Haines. The mill for the 20-year project could
produce 1,600 tons of iron concentrates a day from about 14,000 tons of
ore. Low cost power from the Yukon-Taiya project would enhance the
economic potential of the mill but the project is also feasible with
power generation by low grade fuel .oil. Large power shovels would load
200-ton trucks and haul the ore to the processing mill, where screening,
crushing, washing and magnetic separati·on would take place. Crushed to
the consistency of powder, the concentrate·would be mixed with water to
be pumped through a 12-inch pipeline to Haines. At tidewater, the slurry
would be dewatered and the concentrates made into pellets by mixing with
bentonite clay. The pelletized concentrates would be hardened in a curing
kiln and shipped by freighter to Japan for reduction to pig iron.
What has all of this to do with fish and wildlife? The Chilkat River
supports one of the most important runs of chum salmon in southeast Alaska.
Pink, chinook, sockeye, and coho salmon also migrate up the river. The
project calls for removing some ore from the river channel, thus necessi-
tating diversion of the river. Wildlife in the Chilkat River environs
include black bears, brown bears, moose, mountain goats, beavers) minks,
and otters. Waterfowl also use the area during spring and fall migra-
tions. Thousands of eagles use the area during spring and fall migra-
tions. Some of the eagles nest in the tall trees along the river. The
river basin studies job, if the project goes forward, will be to evaluate
its effects on fish and wildlife resources. The BSFW, the NMFS, and the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game will all have some input into the
assessment. Recommendations will be all important.
On a leg of a plane flight in Southeastern AlaskaJ the writer flew up
the Lynn Canal from Juneau on August 18, 1972. He was much impressed with
the grandeur of the mountains and glaciers around Auke Bay and on both
566.
IT
sides of the Lynn Canal, the last segment of the Inside Passage from
.Juneau to Haines. He had a good view of the braided Chilkat River near
its mouth and its mountain-flanked valley above. Recognizing that de-
velopment surely will come to areas like the Chilkat River Basin, he
could not help but wonder what portions of Alaska might remain unscathed.
Alaska's exposed land mass is big. As mentioned, its 580,000 square miles
makes the State about one-fifth as large as the total Lower 48 States.
Its coastline is a winding 33,000 miles and represents 56 percent of the
total United States coastline. · With its adjacent outer continental shelf
of 550,000 square miles, 56 percent of that entire shelf of the United
States, the coastal zone is undoubtedly the most productive habitat for
finfish and shellfish, marine birds, and marine mammals on the North Ameri-
can Continento Its proximal islands and shorelines likewise teem with
birds and mammals.
Some idea of the importance of the coastal fisheries can be had from the
estimated average annual firs~ wholesale values of the salmon and shell-
fish packs of recent years. The statistics were prepared by the NMFS.
The salmon in Bristol Bay averaged $21 million, \vith a peak value of
$54 million in 1965. Cook Inlet's salmon pack averaged $15 million a
year and its shellfish pack, king crab, Dungeness crab, and shrimp,
around $1.5 million. The Gulf of Alaska, where Japanese and Russian
fishermen were taking so many ocean perch, had an annual pack of $20
million and a shellfish pack of around $25 million, also consisting of
king crab, Dungeness crab, and shrimp. What the sport fishing value of
the coastal fisheries might be can only be surmised though. it j_s growing
every year, especially in Southeastern Alaska.
The fact that as high as 1,200 foreign fishing vessels a year visit the
Alaskan fishing waters is a measure of the importance attached to such
waters by Japan, the Soviet Union, Canada, and more recently South Korea.
This influx of foreign fishermen is causing concern to the American fish-
ing industry, beset as it is with high labor costs, relative isolation,
and distance from the larger markets. Improved air and sea transportation,
technological advances in catching, handling, processing, and transporting
fish are helping to alleviate the situation though problems still remain.
There are many wheels within wheels in the economics related to the com-
mercial fishing industry. But there appears to be a need for some pro-
tection against foreign over-exploitation of the eastern Bering Sea ground-
fish stocks, the Pacific ocean perch stocks in the Gulf of Alaska, and ~he
Bristol Bay red. salmon and other salmon stocks originating on the coast of
western Alaska. Such international conventions as the North Pacific Fish-
eries Convention, the Halibut Convention, the Continental Shelf Convention,
and the Fur Seal Convention have resulted in major conservation measures
benefitting salmon, halibut, crabs, fur seals, and other species. Needed,
hrnvever, is some mechanism, international or otherwise, to assure that the
resources in inter~<:J.tional waters are harvested rationally, with an
eye to the future.1f
For the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to do a good job of managing
the Statets important fisheries, there is of course need for more biolo-
gical knowledge. That department must know how many animals can safely
be taken without harming the breeding stock. In essence, the knowledge
is necessary for managing such renewable resources on a sustained yield
basis. ·
Suffice it to say at this point that the Alaska coastal zone with its
fine bays and estuaries and fiords is an immense source of wealth. It
contributes the major share of the value of the fisheries in Alaska
which with tne freshwater species is estimated by the NMFS to have a
value of over $200 million dollars annually, half of which goes to the
fishermen.
The coastal zone of course is the home of many marine mammals and millions
of birds. A partial enumeration of the more important animals frequenting
that zone would include mammoth stocks of salmon, king crab, tanner crab,
Dungeness crab, shrimp, halibut, herring, ocean perch, pollock, flounder,
sole, and other fish species. The mammals include the fur seal, sea otter,
sea lion, polar bear, walrus, and hair seal. Beluga whales and porpoises
use the coastal waters at least seasonally. The array of bird life which
uses the zone for breeding, resting, and migrating covers a great variety
of colonial marine birds, waterfowl, and shorebirds. The coastal environ-
ment of the islands and mainland of the irregular coastline harbors
stocks of big game like the great bears, giant moose, caribou, deer, and
on slopes virtually rising out of the sea, mountain sheep and mountain
goats. Grouse, ptarmigan, and other birds, normally looked upon as inland
birds~are also found in the coastal zone of Alaska where the life zones
are in close juxtaposition to each other. Even such species of fish com-
monly referred to as freshwater varieties, namely chars, whitefish, shee-
fish, lake trout, pike, and grayling, are found close to or within waters
that, depending on definition, are part of or are influenced by the
coastal zone.
Development of oil resources is vital.to the economic well-being of Alaska
and thus to the United States. But it is equally apparent that the fish
and wildlife resources of the coastal areas are equally vital to the eco-·
nomic well-being of the 49th State.
~ Harry L. Rietze's Presentation on the Potential of Alaska's
Fishery Resources, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, News-
letter No. 9, Sept. 13, 1968, pp. 11, 12.
568.
The fact that Alaska today is on the threshold of becoming a major
supplier of petroleum is the cause of uneasiness with the knowledge-
able scientists of the NMFS and BSFW. They do not question the need
for developing the oil resources of Alaska. What disturbs them is
how the development will progress. It is for this reason that both
agencies seek more knowledge of its effects on fish and wildlife re-
sources,
Production from the North Slope alone, where the reserves are estimated ·
at 15 billion barrels, could cause a tenfold increase over the state's .
present annual production rates by 1980. The North Slope is one of at .·
least seven major petroleum provinces identified in Alaska and there
are indications that an equal number of offshore areas may be even more
productive.
In terms of its effects on the environment, the oil business to date has
simply been a dirty business. There is no other way to describe it. ·No
oil port has been able to avoid spillage during loading and unloading
and the history of oil development and transportation indicates that oil
spills and discharges in oil ports and their vicinity have been very
common. Moreover, the often encountered high winds and rough seas, the
low temperatures, and the poor visibility in Prince William Sound and
other Alaskan waters are bound to increase the potential for accidents.
The National Marine Fisheries Service has looked into the problem of oil
spill incidents and has learned that 85 percent occur Ydthin 50 miles of
a port and that one-tenth of one percent of the total oil carried has
been lost during shipment. Applying such figures to the terminus at
Valdez and vicinity indicates a potential spillage of 620,000 barrels
a year that may be polluting Prince William Sound. Effluent from de-
ballasting would add more.
And what about accidents that giant oil tankers may have transporting
the 2,ooo,ooo barrels of crude oil a day from Valdez to other ports? Much
publicity was given to the Torrey Canyon disaster off the coast of Eng-
land a few years ago when that tanker went aground and polluted so much
of the coastal environment. Several books have been vrritten about that
incident and the footage devoted to it in the newspapers covered untold
hundreds of feet of print. There have been other similar if less publi-
cized incidents. And witness the recent oil pollution from wells off
the coast of California near Santa Barbara. The potential for biological
damage from oil accidents in Alaskan waters is infinitely greater than ·
on the shores of England or California.
The BSFW has already performed some aerial censuses of avian. life in the
Bristol Bay area, the staging and feeding grounds of millions of birds.
What is needed is a more intensive program of study for t.he entire Bay
for both avian and mammalian species. Planes and boats must be used to
gather the datao It is a matter of deep concern to the entire Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, not to the river basin studies people alone.
The National Marine Fisheries Service has accumulated an astonishing
amount of knowledge of the marine life of Alaska. Yet there are gaps.
That bureau, too, seeks more knowledge of the coastal zone, oriented to
the possible effects of oil exploration in that zone and the nearby con-
tinental shelf where the Federal Government is issuing leases covering
the exploration and development of oil and gas resources.
The biological consequences of oil pollution on marine life can be· de-
termined only through bioassay laboratory tests and field studies of the
biota of the areas involved. Maps of the organism communities are needed,
as are the effects of oil pollutants on the organisms themselves. Pro-
bably the best approach to carrying on such research is by means of a
continuing program of a small group of scientists with technical compe-
tence for sophisticated physiological and biochemical research. Yet,
funds for anything resembling adequate research are lacking.
The BSFW in Alaska is faced with a similar dilemma and like the NMFS has
had to come up with answers on a "fire-fighting" basiso How, for example,
can BSFW biologists respond to requests for comments on the Bureau of
Land Management oil leases for drilling on the Alaskan Peninsula without
adequate knowledge of the potential effects of such exploration on the
fish and wildlife affected? How, under the present state of knowledge,
can they do more than generalize?
Accustomed as they are to dealing with more measurable entities-, engi-
neers associated with water-resource projects and related activities
often are perplexed because biologists cannot produce quantitative and
positive assessments of effects of their doings. But how does a biolo-
gist come up with the specific effects of an oil spill or oil blowout
on marine species, or the hundred and one other effects like the evils
of hydrocarbons on plankton and other forms of life at the pyramidal
base of marine food chains? Is biological knowledge simply a quantum of
data from which ready answers can be plucked anytime a disaster or evil
influence strikes a biotic community? And what about the chronic and
additive effects of terminal port operations and the low-level but con-
stant pollution of giant oil tankers daily furrowing the waters of the
coastal zone as they transport their cargoes to other ports? Even with
the best of research, there undoubtedly will be no absolute answers.
But the gaps can be narrowed as the horizon of unknowns is pushed back.
Seismic exploration, on the sea and on the land, in itself poses prob-
lems. One survey technique of the oil companies in the Beaufort Sea in
the Prudhoe Bey area during the season of heavy ice cover from January
570
. \
to April involves the detonation of explosive charges in the seabed or
in the water colUID11 beneath the ice. There is virtually no informa-
tion on the effect of such underwater explosions on arctic marine orga-
nisms. Even more basic is the lack of knowledge on the organisms that
are present during the winter period in the area of exploration. The
NMFS would to find out, initially with a small-scale study, using
divers equipped with scuba-diving equipment.
As an indirect effect, the mere ingress of seismic-oriented vehicles
poses problems. On his August 1972 f'lights in Alaska, the. route of
some of' the vehicles was pointed out to the writer. The disregard of'
the exploration parties for the environment they invaded was only too
evident. The fragile tundra was tracked up, crisscrossed by gouged
trails that had no regard f'or the terrain. And where higher vegetation
was involved as along stream courses, the wanton and careless swamping
out of roads was equally evident.
Perhaps it is too much to expect operators of oil exploration vehicles
to demonstrate a sense of propriety and discretion when they wander
over the tundra at will or f'olla-w water courses slashing their wey with
reckless abandon. Altogether too of'ten in the past, they have littered
their routes during winter crossings with tangles of' logs and debris
in fine salmon and greyling streams.. Failure to remove such obstruc-
tions have created barriers to the movement of f'ish not to mention the
siltation damage that follo-wed in the wake of' such improvised stream
crossings.
Then, too, there are procedural difficulties within the Department of .
the Interior in coping with such work, as indicated in the memorandum
of' February 12, 1972, to the Df~ector of the BSFW f'rom Area Director
Gordon W. Watson at Anchorageo=t At the least, such differences between
bureaus ref'lect differing philosophies, and perhaps traditions, whose
origins have roots in the.distant past.
Perhaps seismic exploration of the sea will be accompanied by the same
why-care attitude f'or the consequences of the actions as has been the
case with the doughty and rugged oil people in their land explorations.
Why should they care about their environmental transgressions? Yet
there is need f'or caring about what happens to the biota of the coastal
zone as such environmental invasions and the succeeding well drillings
take place on the continental shelf' of the Beaufort, Chukchi, and Bering
Seas, the Gulf of' Alaska, and their beys and sounds and estuaries.
Both the BSFW and the NMFS have outlined research programs for gathering
important information relevant to oil exploration and development on
land and sea. With the current constraints on Federal f'unding, the two
bureaus are in competition with each other and with other Federal agencies
1/ See Exhibit 58, Appendix.
571.
for pieces, however small, of the overall funding pie. Therefore, how
much money can. be earmarked for what surely has to be an important
facet of natural resource conservation remains to be seen.
Interesting in this connection are the NMFS studies of Prince William
Sound, related to the terminus of the Trans-Alaska pipeline at Valdez.
The studies began in fiscal year 1970 and were financed in large mea-
sure by ~ransfer funds from the BSFW, in accordance with the la~~ para-
graph of Reorganization Memorandum No. 20 of September 8, '1959.11 Such
funds of course were augmented by NMFS funds. By September 1972, the
NMFS estimated that the studies were about· 50 percent completeo How
the efforts were to be financed beyond fiscal year 1973 was not clear.
Some idea of the involvement of such studies can be obtained from the
NMFS regional director's me~9randum.of September 11, 1972, to the BSFW
area director at Anchorage.=t .
The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was signed into law by Presi-
dent Nixon on December 18, 1971. It set up a framework for settle-
ment of the aboriginal land claims of Alaska's estimated 90,000 Eskimos,
Indians, and Aleutso Highly involved, the law was many years in the
makingo
At the time of the Act's passage, 375 million acres or 97 percent of
· Alaska, were still under Federal management o · The 1958 Statehood Act
gave the State of Alaska the right to choose some 103 million acres to
help support itself financially. The unresolved issue of Native claims
delayed the selection of lands by the State. Consequently, only about
5 million acres changed hands to 1968, when a freeze order was imposed
by the Federal Government to hold State selection in abeyance tintil the
Native claims issue_was settled by legislationo
The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act opened the wa;y for the State to
go ahead with its selections. However, the Act provided for-a selection
by the Natives of 40 million acres and a cash settlement of -$962.5
million, to be paid over a perioi of years. The selections are to be
completed by December 1975.
The Act also gave the Secretary of the Interior nine months to withdraw
from other uses up to 80 million acres deemed suitable as additions to
the national park, national forest, national wildlife refuge, and national
wild and scenic rivers systems.
!/ See Exhibit 26, AppendiXo
?} __ See Exhibit 59, Appendixo ·
572
There were many safeguards and clauses included in the Act to insure
that the Natives, 55,000 of whom live .in Alaska, would benefit by the
settlement. Twelve regional corporations overseeing-the financial
end .of the transactions were stipulated by the Act, as were Village
corporations. Too long and detailed to examine fully herein, the Act
in essence provided~for land use planning of unprecedented magnitude.
Ey December 1973, the Secretary of the Interior announced his recommen-
dations to retain the 80 million plus acres mentioned above. With some
late acreage and boundary adjustments, the original 80 million was ex-
ceeded somewhat. The selections carne after studies were made by the
respective agencies concerned. ·The Interior team, known as the Alaska
Planning Group, was headed by a good friend, T.R. (Ted) Swem. One-
·time employee of the Colorado Game and Fish Co.m:mission in pre-World
War II years, Ted was for years a recreational specialist with the
Bureau of Reclamation regional office in Denver. He collaborated
closely with the Missouri River Basin Studies biologists in the prep-
~ation of reservo~r management plana on Reclamation reservoirs. . .
There is of course no point in speculating what the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act way mean to water-resource development. The basic pur-
pose of the Act is to arrive at a fair and just settlen~nt of all claims
by Natives in Alaska, based on their land claims, and to accomplish the
settlement rapidly, with maximum participation by Natives affecting
their rights and property. It will take many years before the Act's
provisions are effectuated. But there can he no doubt that economic
development will be spurred by the Act, on both the lands going to the
State and those going to the Natives. It's no more than a normal course
of events and certainly so far as the Natives and State are concerned,
long overdue. The hope is that such development will be wise, with care-
ful exploitation of all natural resources. The knowledge and techniques
are available.
It is the writer's view that neither the NMFS nor the BSFW in Alaska
are adequately financed to do a reasonable job of coping with water-
resource projects and related activities. As of December 1973, the
total complement of BSFW river basin studies people in Alaska consisted
of 17 people, 13 biologists and four stenographic or clerical ladies.
The regional supervisor in the Anchorage area office was without an ·
assistant, his regional staff consisting of himself and a stenographer.
The Western Alaska field office at Anchorage had four people, three
biologists and an administrative clerk. A new field office was estab-
lished recently in Fairbanks, attached to the Anchorage field office.
It had but one fishery biologist. The Southeastern Alaska field office
at Juneau had four biologists and one clerk-stenogra:Qher. The special
studies contingent working on the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline had four
biologists and one clerk-typist. A BSFW pipeline monitoring team is in
573
the making, but it will have its hands full checking on the construc-
tion of that huge oil transport system.
The total BSFW' complement of people in Alaska, to handle all of the
Bureau's diverse responsibilities, is about 100 people. There, as
elsewhere, the BSFW is over-connnitted. The sa:me situation holds true
for the river basin studies function with its 13 professionals. As
an organizational unit trying to keep abreast of water-related and
other activities assigned to its operation, the river basin studies·
function in Alaska is scraping bottom.
By the very nature of the involvements of personnel in the Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife in Alaska, the distinctions between divi-
sions appear to be more blurred than they are in the Lower 48 States.
While such organizational units have their prime duties defined, their
personnel may be and often are called upon to assist in performing
tasks quite apart from those defined in their respective position
descriptions. The situation stems from the inherent nature of the
relatively small number of Bureau personnel in a huge State that is
one-fifth as large as the total area of the Lower 48 ..
River basin studies personnel in Alaska aptly illustrate the point.
In the Lower 48, they busy themselves preeminently with water-resource
projects or water-related activities. It was not always so but it is
generally true todayo In Alaska, hawever, such activities as seismic
explorations for oil, oil pipelines, highway construction, and other
activities not directly related to water resources, all fall under the
river basin studies function ..
In its discharge of water-resource projects and related activities, the
National Marine Fisheries Service is no better off. At the end of the
calendar year of 1973, its Water Resources Division had but eight people,
consisting of five professional biologists and three ladies in steno-
graphic or clerical capacities. The regional office had a chief, a
stenographer, and a clerk-typist. Its Southeast field office, also
based in Juneau had three fishery biologists.. Its newly established
Anchorage field office had but one biologist and a clerk-typist. Plans
called for filling a position of biological oceanographer at the re-
gional level, to handle environmental impact assessments of Alaskan
petroleum developments; obtaining the services of a clerk-typist for
the Southeast field office; filling a fishery biologist vacancy at the
Anchorage field office; and the hiring of about five biologists to make
up an environmental moni taring team to work on the Trans -Alaska pipe-
line.
The writer's hat is off to the river basin studies people of the BSFW
and the NMFS in Alaska. He has a high regard for all of the dedicated
employees of both bureaus and particularly so for the handful of people
directly involved in water-resource activities.
574
I
/
With so much at stake in growing Alaska, it would appear that both
agencies would examine their priorities to see what is involved with
water development and uses, before it is too late. It may be that the
eruptive influences of growth and development in that fish and wildlife
storehouse of the North cannot be stemmed or modified to any reasonable
degree. But with so much at stake, it seems that a reexamination of
priorities within both agencies is warranted.
On December 5, 1973, the RES Staff in Alaska consisted of:
Area Office, Anchorage, Alaska
Monson, Melvin A.
Jacks on, Phyllis
Regional Supervisor
Secretary {Steno.)
Western Alaska Field Office, Anchor~
Thurston, Donald B.
Seidl, James A.
Boughton, Leonard A.
Copeland, Barbara J.
Supervisor
Fish & Wildlife Biologist
Wildlife Biologist
Administrative Clerk
Interior Alaska Field Office, FairbruL~S
Ross, Donald E. Fishery Biologist
SEecial Studies (Pipeline), Anchorage
Bowl, leRoy W.
Netsch, Norval F.
Haddock, J. Larry
Bergman, Robert D~
Eggen, Beverly F.
Supervisor
~ishery Biologist
Wildlife Biologist (Airplane Pilot)
Wildlife Biologist
Clerk-Typist
Southeastern Alaska Field Office, Juneau
Oien, Waine E.
Montgomery, Donald T.
Berg, Ronald J.
Conant, Bruce
Ciraulo, Marlene
575
Supervisor
Fishery Biologist
Fishery Biologist
Fishery Biologist
Clerk-Stenographer
: '
' \~
After this chapter was written, an article in the Albuquerque Journal
dated January 25, 1974, caught the writer's eye. Its bold~type heading, .·.
"Canada Considering Arctic Railway ,n read as follo-ws:
"TORONTO (UPI) -The sudden need for oil to replace supplies
curtailed by Arab nations has given strong impetus to demands
in Canada for construction of the world's most_northerly rail-
way.
11 The railway, as envisaged by experts and supported by the
state-owned Canadian National Railways, would run fro:in an
existing railhead on the shores of Great Slave Lake in the
Northwest Territories more than 1200 miles to the resource-
rich Canadian shores of the Arctic Ocean.
"A further spur of 180 miles ~t the northern end would extend
it to Prudhoe Bay on Alaska's North Shore, now established as
one of th~ biggest remaining sources of oil in North America.
"The Canadian government has been considering the railway
among several proposed alternative methods of moving the oil
south and the suggestion for a railway is winning strong
support for a number of reasons despite the impending con-
struction of the Trans-Alaska Pipelineo
"One concern is for the environmento Canadians have become
worried about the effects which exploitation of their northern
natural resources could have on land, wildlife and people.
The MacKenzie River Valley, along most of which a railway or
pipeline would pass, is the home of caribou, bear and many
other furred animals, and the nesting ground of millions of
geese, swans and other birds.
11 Most of the route also would be over permafrost, frozen soil
which thaws and erodes rapidly when its thin covering layer of
soil and vegetation is removed - a spade hole can turn into an
eight-foot-deep trench within a few hours, and very little is
known about the possible effects of thawing on a large scale.
11For these reasons a proposal for a $6 billion natural gas
pipeline along much the same route has already run into strong
opposition, although it seems inevitable the Canadian govern-
ment will approve an application for the gas pipeline, as the
shortage of energy mounts in North America, within the next
year.
576
·:
".A study made by the Canall.ian Institute of' Guided Ground
Transport at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont., and
Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh, said a railway
has a number of' benefits over a pipeline for transportation
of' Arctic oil.
11 0il flo-wing through a pipe would thaw the permaf'rost because
the oil, unlike natural gas, would have to·be transmitted at
a temperature well above freezing point. The study also points
out that the area has frequent earth tremors, which pose more
problems :!:'or a pipeline than for a railway track.
11The railway advocates are at their weakest point in dealing
--with possible damage to wildlife. But it is on economic
grounds that they are making their biggest pitch. They esti-
mate building the Arctic track would cost $1.5 billion; more
than 40 bridges -vrould have to be built, including t-...ro of
three-quarters of a mile each across the MacKenzie River.
11 To haul 2 million barrels of oil a day (the amount envisaged
by a pipeline) would require 20 trains a day, each of 168
insulated tank cars hauled by five locomotives. The system
would require 11,000 tank cars in all and the cost of the
rolling stock would be $433 million."
The portents are unmistakable. The winds of change are accelerating
in the Far North.
577
\
\\
'.
' /~J. . '
I
I
' I
. J
I i
.I
'
J
\j
,_...,
I
I .
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Bureau o~ Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
A HISTORY OF
RIVER BASIN STUDIES
Volume II of III
John L. Sy:pulski
Albuquerque, New Mexico
June 30, 1974
re
fz3
~o?
;11Y v-z_