The National Science Foundation (NSF) has prepared an Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE) and an Environmental Assessment (EA), a combined environmental document, for the construction of a 17.7 m² laboratory and an 8.9 m² generator shack at the New Harbor camp site in the Taylor Valley, Antarctica. Based on the analyses in the environmental document (IEE/EA), NSF Office of Polar Programs (OPP) has determined the proposed action, implementation of Alternative A, is not a major federal action, within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, nor is the action one which would have greater than minor or transitory effect on the Antarctic environment, within the meaning of NSF's implementing regulations for the Environmental Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty (45 CFR 641). Therefore, an environmental impact statement and/or comprehensive environmental evaluation will not be prepared.

The selected alternative, A, involves the construction of two buildings at the New Harbor camp site. A new laboratory would be constructed to allow investigators to conduct on-site analyses away from the galley where the current lab is located. This would alleviate potential health and safety concerns associated with storing and using chemicals in the same area where food is stored, prepared, and consumed. There will be no increase in personnel using the site. Construction of the new generator shack would protect essential equipment from damage by the elements and provide greater protection to the environment from fuel spills and leaks by providing a level of containment greater than what currently exists.

When the two new buildings have reached the upper limit of their estimated design life of 10 years, they will be dismantled and removed from Antarctica. Continued use of the facilities would require appropriate environmental evaluation and decision documentation, considering the condition of the facility and needs.

The proposed action in consistent with the NSF's efforts to promote scientific investigations while protecting the natural environment and ensuring a safe and healthful work environment for the investigating field party using the site.

Mr. Erick Chiang June 24, 1994
Manager of Polar Operations
Office of Polar Programs
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, Virginia 22230

This environmental document is prepared to evaluate the environmental effects of a decision to construct a new dedicated laboratory building and generator shack at the New Harbor camp in the Taylor Valley, Antarctica. The expected life of the two temporary structures would be five to ten years. New Harbor is a semi-permanent camp at Explorer's Cove (77^o34' S, 163^o35' E) currently used by Science Event Number 043 (S-043) (See attached map for location). The site also has a food and fuel cache to be used by either the U.S. Antarctic Program or the New Zealand Antarctic Program in cases of emergency. S-043 is a six-member field team that is studying indigenous foraminiferan protozoa in the shallow waters of McMurdo Sound, especially in Explorer's Cove. The camp is in use from early October to mid-December.

The camp consists of a 4.9 m x 8.5 m galley Jamesway connected to a 4.9 m x 5.1 m berthing Jamesway by a 2.4 m x 2.4 m breezeway. A 1.2 m x 2.4 m storage shed is also located near the Jamesways.

Currently, the kitchen and the breezeway of the double Jamesway are being used for laboratory space. Although this has been the situation for a number of years without incident, it does pose a health and safety concern when laboratory chemicals are in such close proximity to food stocks and where food is prepared and consumed.

The work currently underway by the S-043 group would be better served by the addition of a new laboratory building and generator shack. The new lab would add 17.7 m² of dedicated space where work can be conducted away from the galley. Addition of an 8.9 m² generator building would protect the investment in equipment and offer an enclosed space to contain possible fuel/oil drips or spills and reduce noise.

Four alternatives were considered:

In this alternative, the existing laboratory space, which consists of a long counter in the breezeway of the double Jamesway, would be removed, and the equipment and supplies would be relocated to the new 2.4 m x 7.3 m lab building which will sit approximately 9.2 m to 12.2 m to the north of the Jamesways (see attached drawing). Establishment of a dedicated laboratory building would remove from the galley and living spaces the process of conducting experiments. This would alleviate some of the safety and sanitary concerns of the present arrangement.

The addition of a 2.4 m x 3.7 m unheated generator building would also be another step towards efficient reorganization of camp space (see attached drawing). Currently, a generator sits on the ground with a vented box for protection. A 6 kw generator was destroyed early in the 1993-1994 season during a wind storm when sand was forced into the air intakes of the engine while running. Additionally, the camp does not have any dedicated Gurdy pumps. These items are spread around the inside and outside of the Jamesways which offer no containment of small drips and spills and pose health and safety risks.

Other camps located in the Dry Valleys have generator shacks to enable on-site winter storage of generators. They also provide storage space for flammable and hazardous items away from the living spaces, improving camp safety. The proposed generator shack at the New Harbor camp site would serve the same needs. It would also reduce the amount of equipment that has to be transported back and forth to McMurdo by helicopter at the beginning and end of the summer field season.

The two additional buildings have already been prefabricated in McMurdo and used in other project locations. Availability of aircraft during the 1993-94 austral summer season enabled the laboratory building to be flown out to New Harbor and staged for erection to the west of the camp Jamesways. The generator building is staged on the science support construction cargo lines at McMurdo Station and can be transported to the New Harbor camp in one trip by helicopter or as part of a traverse across the seasonal sea ice. The transportation of the genset would involve another helicopter flight or additional space on the traverse. Three hours of flying time is estimated if the genset and building are transported by helicopter.

An on-site construction crew of four people would assemble the two structures in three to four days during the 1994-95 season camp opening.

The exact location of the structures within the immediate area of the existing camp will be established on-site such that a relatively level area requiring minimal site preparation can be selected. The buildings will sit on 5.1 cm x 25.4 cm footers on the ground and will require little or no leveling to install. Any minor site preparation would be completed by hand held shovels. No motorized earth moving equipment is required.

In this alternative, ongoing research would continue to be supported by the existing camp and the current procedure of providing a seasonal generator. There would continue to be a threat of environmental damage from fuel/oil spills with the current generator configuration and damage to the generator from exposure to the elements. Experiments would continue to be performed in the living and eating spaces inside the Jamesways.

In this alternative, the dedicated laboratory would be the only structure added to the camp layout. This would be the minimal acceptable action. It would address the safety issues involved in the execution of experiments in the living spaces but would do nothing to alleviate the potential for spills associated with using the generator or damage to equipment due to exposure to the elements.

In this alternative, the unheated generator shack would be the only structure added to the camp layout. While this would solve the specific problems incurred by the current seasonal generator procedure, it is viewed as a less than optimal change in the camp facilities. Laboratory experiments would still be conducted within the galley space.

Alternative A would increase fuel use above current levels. The current camp uses approximately thirty 208-liter drums of diesel fuel per season for both power and heating. Heated space would be increase by 25% above current heated floor space. If the new laboratory building uses energy on the same area basis as the existing camp, an additional eight 208-liter drums of fuel would be required per season.

Energy use for field activities and logistical support in all alternatives would be similar to historic use rates. It is anticipated that incremental energy requirements for operating tools, cooking, and heating during the construction of the two new structures in Alternative A would not require a significant increase in fuel use above the amount routinely used to support ongoing scientific studies. However, some fuel savings for logistical support may be realized in future years under Alternative A, as less equipment would need to be flown in from McMurdo at camp opening and flown out at camp closing due to the ability to accommodate winter storage.

Alternative D would require the same level of fuel use as that currently used; thirty 208-liter drums per season for camp operations. As noted in the description of Alternative D, a new building would merely be constructed around the genset. The generator configuration would not change.

In Alternatives A, C, and D, short-term effects would occur in the 1994-95 season during the construction of either or both new buildings. Waste generation, fuel use, and other minor impacts associated with human presence would increase temporarily during construction while up to four additional personnel were at the site.

Indirect effects of the upgrade of the New Harbor camp would include moderate, short-term increases in noise from generators, electric tools, and helicopters; waste heat from stoves and generators; exhaust from stoves, generators, and helicopters. It is expected that any impact on the neighboring environment will be negligible.

In Alternatives B and D, scientists will have to continue working in a substandard laboratory space. None of the issues of performing scientific analyses in the living spaces will be resolved.

The effects of Alternatives A, C, and D are very similar and pose no adverse long-term effects to the environment. The use of fuel in each of the alternatives and the consumption of building materials in Alternatives A, C, and D are irreversible and irretrievable commitments of natural resources. However, these uses are very minor. No effect on the Antarctic environment is irreversible or long lasting. Further, there is no irretrievable commitment of Antarctic resources in any of the alternatives.

Other investigations are on-going in the Dry Valleys. During the 1993-1994 season, 11 separate scientific projects were supported by the NSF. Each project consists of five to seven people bringing the entire estimated number of people working in the Dry Valleys to 75. There are no known or anticipated adverse cumulative effects from the camp facilities or the small teams of investigators. However, potential effects of requests for new projects will be investigated, when and if, such proposals are made. The possible effects of projects initiated by other nations will also be considered when necessary.

In the evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed action, several mitigating measures were identified to reduce environmental impacts. These measures are required for implementation of any of the alternatives under consideration and have proven effective in past project implementation. Note that measures that refer to construction of facilities are applicable only to Alternatives A, C and D.

A. Waste production and disposal

Approximately one large tri-wall box (109 cm x 109 cm x 94 cm or 1.12 cubic meters) of construction debris will be generated on-site. All waste would be collected, packaged, and retrograded to McMurdo Station.

B. Protection of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems

No effluent would be discharged on-site in any alternative. In Alternatives A, C, and D, the new buildings would be located a sufficient distance from the ocean shore and local drainage streams to prevent any disturbance of these waters. There is negligible precipitation at New Harbor, so the placement of buildings on the level areas in camp will not affect water drainage.

C. Air pollution and noise

Minor amounts of air pollutants are released by helicopters, heaters, generators, and stoves. Air pollutants readily disperse in the atmosphere. Noise and air pollutants are relatively small, localized sources and represent a negligible impact on the local or regional environment.

D. Decommissioning of facilities

In each alternative, if the structures are no longer usable at the end of their 5- to 10-year design life, or if a decision is made by NSF to cease supporting the New Harbor site, structures would be disassembled and retrograded to McMurdo Station. Use of the structures after a 10-year period would depend upon identified needs, the condition of the structures, and the results of a separate environmental evaluation to continue using these facilities to support the New Harbor site. All facilities allow for a relatively simple decommissioning process. The camp location after decommissioning would reveal minor leveling of the ground. Wind would very quickly erase evidence of the camp. No debris would be left on-site.