Having a very many number of pipelines all over the country, Iran is one of the countries consists of various ecosystems with variable degrees of fragility and robusticity as well as geographical conditions. This study presents a state-of-the-art method to estimate environmental risks of pipelines by recommending rational equations including FES, URAS, SRS, RRS, DRS, LURS and IRS as well as FRS to calculate the risks. This study was carried out by a relative semi-quantitative approach based on land uses and HVAs (High-Value Areas). GIS as a tool was used to create proper maps regarding the environmental risks, land uses and distances. The main logic for using the formulas was the distance-based approaches and ESI as well as intersections. Summarizing the results of the study, a risk geographical map based on the ESIs and final risk score (FRS) was created. The study results showed that the most sensitive and so of high risk area would be an area comprising of mangrove forests located in the pipeline neighborhood. Also, salty lands were the most robust land use units in the case of pipeline failure circumstances. Besides, using a state-of-the-art method, it showed that mapping the risks of pipelines out with the applied method is of more reliability and convenience as well as relative comprehensiveness in comparison to present non-holistic methods for assessing the environmental risks of pipelines. The focus of the present study is "assessment" than that of "management". It is suggested that new policies are to be implemented to reduce the negative effects of the pipeline that has not yet been constructed completely, {"references":["http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents.","1. Anonymous. Pollution Probe, Clean Air, Clean Water,\nEnvironmental Risk Assessment, Environmental Concepts and Tools.\nFive Winds International. 2004. Page 1. Available online at:\nhttp://www.fivewinds.com/uploadedfiles_shared/EnvironmentalRiskAss\nessment040127.pdf. (Last accessed Jan. 2010).","Schiller Helmut, Carlo Van Bernem, Hansjörg L. Krasemann.\nAutomated Classification Of An Environmental Sensitivity Index.\nEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment. 110: 291-299. 2005. DOI:\n10.1007/s10661-005-8041-8","Mok Kang Sang. A sensitivity analysis of the Korean composite\nenvironmental index. Ecological Economics 43: 159-174. 2002.","U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric\nAdministration (NOAA-s National Ocean Service) Office of Response\nand Restoration. Anonymous Report on Environmental Sensitivity\nIndex. 2008: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov","U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric\nAdministration (NOAA-s National Ocean Service) Office of Response\nand Restoration. Environmental Sensitivity Index Mapping. October\n2008: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov","Muhlbauer, W. Kent. Pipeline Risk Management Manual: Ideas,\nTechniques, and Resources. 422pp. Burlington: Elsevier Inc. 2004.","Stansbeny, R. R. Usually Sensitive Areas: A Definition for Pipeline\nOperators. Presented at API Pipeline Conference, Environmental\nSession, Dallas, TX, 1995.","U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric\nAdministration. Code of Federal Regulations. Guidance for Facility and\nVessel Response Plans Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive Environments.\n59(60). March 29, 1994.\n[10] Morgan, B. The Importance of Realistic Representation of Design\nFeatures in the Risk Assessment of High- Pressure Gas Pipelines.\nPresented at Pipeline Reliability Conference, Houston, TX, September,\n1995.\n[11] Hadid M., H. Afra. Sensitivity analysis of site effects on response\nspectra of Pipelines. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 20:\n249-260. 2000.\n[12] Brazier, A.M. & R.L. Greenwood. Geographic information systems: a\nconsistent approach to land use planning decisions around hazardous\ninstallations. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 61: 355-361. 1998.\n[13] A. Belluck David and L. Benjamin Sally (Eds.). A Practical Guide to\nUnderstanding, Managing, and Reviewing Environmental Risk\nAssessment Reports. Florida: Lewis Publishers. 2001.\n[14] Ramesh Babu J., Subramanian R. Chetan Birajdar. Risk associated with\ncross country Natural Gas pipeline- IORS. 2009.\nhttp://www.cholarisk.com/\n[15] Huges, D., Assessing the Future: Water Utility Infrastructure\nManagement, American Water Works Association, Chap. 13. 2002.\n[16] King, K.F.S. Agroforestry And The Utilisation Of Fragile Ecosystems.\nForest Ecology and Management, 2: 161-168. 1979.\n[17] Francis, Andrew, Alan Edwards, Richard Espinera, Jane Haswell, Mike\nBilo, David Carter. Weighted expectation: a new risk-based method for\nassessing land use development proposals in the vicinity of major\nhazards. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 12: 379-\n390. 1999.\n[18] Nansingh Permanand & Shari Jurawan. Spill Science & Technology\nBulletin, Environmental Sensitivity of a Tropical Coastline (Trinidad,\nWest Indies) to Oil Spills. 5(2): 161-172.1999.\n[19] Wieczorek Arthur, Dimas Dias-Brito, Joao CarlosMapping oil spill\nenvironmental sensitivity in Cardoso Island State Park and surroundings\nareas, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Ocean & Coastal Management 50: 872-886.\n2007.\n[20] M. Rey Benayas Jose, Enrique de la Monta├▒a. Identifying areas of highvalue\nvertebrate diversity for strengthening conservation. Biological\nConservation 114: 357-370. 2003.\n[21] Datta. T.K. Seismic response of buried pipelines: a state-of-the-art\nreview. Nuclear Engineering and Design. 192: 271-284. 1999.\n[22] Svoray Tal, Pua Bar (Kutiel), Tsafra Bannet .Urban land-use allocation\nin a Mediterranean ecotone: Habitat Heterogeneity Model incorporated\nin a GIS using a multi-criteria mechanism. Landscape and Urban\nPlanning 72: 337-351. 2005.\n[23] Fontaine F., B. Debray, O. Salvi.; I. Linkov Et Al. (Eds.). Managing\nCritical Infrastructure Risks. Chapter 4: Protection Of Hazardous\nInstallations And Critical Infrastructures - Complementarity Of Safety\nAnd Security Approaches, Application Of The Aramis Methodology.\n65-78. Springer. 2007."]}