Persons experienced in the EIS process interacted effectively at each phase and had more influence than usual over the final outcome of the effort.

Figure 6 compares the traditional EIS format with the prototype format of the Pronghorn EIS. The Pronghorn format consists of Part A, Statement of Environmental Impact (31 pages), and Part B, Supporting Analysis and Data (122 pages). Part A is a summary intended for decisionmakers and others who are primarily interested in the salient features and conclusions of the EIS. Part B contains the detailed technical descriptions and analyses of the proposed action, the alternatives to the proposed action, and the impacts for planners and technical reviewers and others of similar needs.

Other significant features of the Pronghorn EIS format are as follows:

• Proposed action.-This section combines two formerly separate treatments, one addressing the applicants' proposal and the other addressing the mitigating measures that would be enforced by governmental authority.

• Mitigating measures.-The standard chapter on this subject, dealing with special measures to reduce

impacts, was eliminated. Measures that will be expressly required are included in the description of the proposal that is then analyzed for impacts. Measures subject to the decisionmaker's discretionary authority are included in the section on alternatives. This eliminates confusion as to the status of individual mitigating measures. It also avoids a previous practice of analyzing impacts before considering required mitigations; this produced unrealistic conclusions. Description of the environment.-The standard chapter on this subject was eliminated, and necessary background information has been redistributed among other sections. CEQ's guidelines had called for such information only as needed to understand the proposal, its alternatives, and their impacts. This chapter had accounted for 42 percent of the total pages in five recent EIS's prepared by the Survey. It appeared to be the object of most complaints about sheer volume and encyclopedic detail.

Effectiveness of reclamation.-A separate section was established for this subject. Reclamation, a composite of various impacts and mitigating

CEQ's proposed regulations were published on June 9, 1978,1 shortly before the Pronghorn statement went to press and did not apply to Pronghorn EIS. The format provisions of those proposed regulations had no direct effect upon the Pronghorn EIS format. Nevertheless, overall objectives of the two appeared to be compatible and were the subject of informal discussion between CEQ and the Geological Survey prior to June 9. Preliminary analyses indicate that the format developed for the Pronghorn EIS would require the following principal adjustments for compliance with CEQ regulations based on the June 9 proposal: (1) expansion of the introduction to Part A into a 5- to 15-page summary of the statement, (2) inclusion of the alternatives in the description of the proposed action and the impact analysis, (3) restoration of a section on description of the environment, and (4) possible elimination of the separate section on the effectiveness of reclamation.

From the in-house preparation experience, the findings of the team that prepared the Pronghorn statement are best expressed by an official of the Bureau of Land Management, which cooperated in the effort and provided staff for the preparation team:

"The entire team found the new format superior to
the traditional ES format. The writers consistently felt
much more comfortable with the new format for several
important reasons:

1. Although new, it was much clearer and easier to
understand than the traditional format.

2. It was more direct and, therefore, did not contain
the redundancies in writing that are often required in
the traditional format.

3. The amount of writing time required under the new
format was sharply reduced. This meant two things:
first, it freed the writer to spend more time on the
quality rather than the quantity of his or her writing.
Secondly, it meant that the total length of the project
was of a more reasonable duration which made it
easier to sustain interest and momentum in the project.
This added up to the writer's being able to produce
a better product in less time, under more reasonable
time schedules, both per section and for the project
overall."

This prototype effort per se was aimed primarily ings in time or cost. However, as described in the at product improvement and not specifically at savquotation above, the preliminary draft preparation phase was markedly shortened. This is the most manpower-intensive phase of all, hence, the most costly per unit of time. Savings here were balanced by extended planning and review phases in the case of this initial effort, but it is likely that planning and review could be shortened if the prototype format became routine. This might result in some overall savings in time and cost for future EIS's.

In summary, the Pronghorn EIS prototype has gained wide acceptance among users and reviewers as being more responsive than previous EIS's to their various needs; and it makes possible a more efficient and expeditious preparation process. Further evaluation is needed, specifically in its use in final decisionmaking and in its compliance with CEQ regulations. Results of the study and analysis effort that led to this prototype are expected to be beneficial in further efforts to improve the EIS preparation process.

INTRODUCTION

Nowhere are the environmental sins of summer more immediately apparent or those of winter emerge so promptly and visibly with the snowmelt of spring than on the treeless tundra. The tundra of Alaska's North Slope, from the crest of the Brooks Range northward to the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas (fig. 7), is a major challenge to the engineer who has a job to do and who must, in some degree, disrupt the en

Tractor train tows sled-mounted living facilities over winter trails. Large low-ground-pressure tires and sled runners have little effect on the frozen snow-covered ground. Photograph by Robert Mallahan.

vironment and to all who insist upon its protection. Nowhere is it more evident that known environmentally compatible engineering practices provide the greatest economy and environmental protection and that the best of protection demands them. Compatibility is achievable in most respects, but it remains lamentable that absolute protection occurs only through no exploration and that any exploration leaves its mark.

On June 1, 1977, the U.S. Geological Survey became responsible for the management of a large petroleum exploration program in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA), which is located on the North Slope. With this role came the responsibility and the commitment to achieve the exploration goals with the fewest possible adverse effects on environmental values of all selected areas of operation. As will be seen, degradation of local scenic qualities in essentially wilderness country is the least avoidable and most enduring environmental heritage of exploration. There is no satisfactory solution for this effect, only cosmetic procedures which may blur but not eliminate the small and widely scattered blemishes on the natural scene.

Present knowledge of correct protection procedures accrues from the experience of all circumpolar countries with lands within the Arctic (Canada, Greenland, Norway, the United States, and the U.S.S.R.). Much of this knowledge, however, has evolved within NPRA (formerly the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4); many Geological Survey personnel were involved, some of whom still provide their expertise for today's exploration program.

Two major developments historically impacted the Reserve. First, the Department of the Navy Oil Exploration of 1944 to 1953 was accomplished with little understanding of environmental protection yet provided the training and experience for today's arctic operations. By present environmental standards, inexcusable errors were made-bulldozed trails became canals, thin gravel roads subsided, heated buildings sagged, and the litter of exploration was carelessly left in place, ultimately to demonstrate the slowness of arctic decay and corrosion to eliminate eyesores.