DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS
OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT
202/357-7766

 

MEMORANDUM

Date: October 20, 1992

From: Environmental Officer, DPP

Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (Use of a Remotely-Operated Vehicle at Lake Hoare, Dry Valleys, Antarctica )

To: Manager, Polar Biology and Medicine Program, DPP
Staff Associate, Polar Biology and medicine Program, DPP
Environmental Engineer, DPP
Environmentalist, ASA

This Environmental Action Memorandum describes the need for, and location of, proposed actions to operate, and communicate with, an underwater remotely-operated vehicle. The Environmental Officer posed a set of questions relating to the planning for the proposed action, and to the potentially affected environment. These questions were responded to by the Principal Investigator for Project S-042, Robert A. Wharton; the questions and responses are shown below:

Environmental Assessment Queries and Responses

GENERAL

  1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity?

  2.  

     What alternatives to the proposed activity have the Investigator and the Program considered?
     

    Have the probable impacts of all alternatives been considered by the Investigator and the Program? Please explain how.

    Yes, the approach adopted aims at minimizing some impacts characteristic of research programs studying dry valley lakes (e.g., minimizing emissions from power generation).

    Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how would these impacts be mitigated by the Investigator, the Program or the Contractor?

    Potential impacts would be handled following USAP policies and procedures currently in place, such as waste management protocols for separating, containing, and retrograding wastes from field camp sites.

    Have measures to assess the indirect costs of the proposed activity been identified or considered by the Investigator, the Program or the Contractor? Please explain how.

    Yes, the Solar Power System developed by the National Aeronautic and Space Administration contains methods for collecting data relative to power consumption. Comparisons of overall costs of SPS vs. standard USAP power generation are feasible - but not part of current study.

    LAND USE AND PLANNING

  3. Where would the proposed activity be located, specifically?
  4. Have alternative locations been considered by the Investigator? If yes, which are they, if no, explain why?

    Yes, Lake Bonney, Lake Fryxell, Lake Vanda, Lake Joyce, and Lake Miers.

  5. How would any aesthetic impacts to the area from the proposed activity be handled by the Investigator, the Program or the Contractor?
  6. The project at Lake Hoare would reduce both noise and air pollution associated with standard power generation techniques - that is gas or diesel generators.

  7. Would the proposed activity have any other indirect impacts on the environment? If yes, what are they; if no, explain why none are expected.
  8. Generation of wastes (e.g. food, human, domestic and laboratory wastes). Also, there would be the generation of heat for melting access holes in the lake.

  9. Would the proposed activity change the traditional use(s) of the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why?
  10. No, other than use of the SPS and the vision system on underwater vehicle, S-042's activities are the traditional use of chosen site.

  11. Are the physical and environmental characteristics of the neighboring environment suitable for the proposed activity? If yes, explain why; if no, explain why.
  12. Yes, Canada Glacier near Lake Hoare Hut provides the field camp's water supply (ice melted on preway in hut). Lake ice is sufficiently thick to provide working surface for underwater investigations.

    IMPACT AND POLLUTION POTENTIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

  13. How has protection of the environment and human health from unnecessary pollution or impact been considered for the proposed activity (includes such considerations as pollution abatement or mitigation, and waste management [e.g., of noise, dust, fuel loss, disposition of one-time-use materials, construction wastes])?
  14. Disposition of wastes would follow required protocols promulgated by USAP. Noise pollution would be minimal due to use of SPS for camp's supply of electricity.

  15. Would the proposed activity change ambient air quality at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why?
  16. No, in fact the SPS would lessen substantially the requirement for gas or diesel generators typical of other dry valley field camps.

  17. Would the proposed activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why?
  18. No, underwater vehicle operations and scuba operations have no effluent except the diver's air supply exhaust. Diver exhaust air is a negligible input to the gas balance of the lake.

  19. Would the proposed activity change waste generation or management at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why?
  20. Yes, it would lessen waste generation and management due to use of SPS for field camp power.

  21. Would the proposed activity change energy production or demand, personnel and life support, or transportation requirements at the site? If yes, how; if no, why?
  22. Yes, the SPS would change camp life for the better (e.g., there would be no generator noise or exhaust at the camp). Project S-042 would run all power consumers (i.e., radios, fans, computers, and microwave ovens) at its field hut using solar power.

  23. Is the proposed activity expected to adversely affect scientific studies or locations of research interest (near and distant, in the short-term and in the long-term)? If yes, how; if no, why?
  24. No, telepresence activity, scuba diving, and the SPS system all would have minimal impacts on environment and would have negligible impact on present and future scientific studies at Lake Hoare.

  25. Would the proposed activity generate pollutants that might affect terrestrial, marine, or freshwater ecosystems within the environs of the station or inland camp? If yes, how; if no, why?
  26. No, pollutants are limited to normal camp wastes that would be retrograded to McMurdo following USAP requirements.

  27. Does the site of the proposed activity serve as a habitat for any significant assemblages of Antarctic wildlife (for example, mosses or lichens, or antarctic birds or marine mammals)?
  28. Yes, Lake Hoare--as all such lakes in the McMurdo Dry Valleys--are scientifically valuable microbial ecosystems. Every effort should be made to minimize the adverse impact on these systems. An effort should also be made to document the distribution of microbes in these systems as a baseline for studying change in the future.

    HUMAN VALUES

  29. Would the proposed activity encroach upon any historical property of the site? If yes, how; if no, why?
  30. No, the site was studied briefly in the 1960s by New Zealanders; and, the site has been studied in more depth during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s by USAP-supported research teams.

    OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

  31. What other environmental considerations may be potentially affected by the proposed activity at the proposed (or chosen) site? For example, have impacts associated with decommissioning of the activity been considered (and how)?
  32. Wastes would be contained and retrograded to McMurdo following USAP requirements. Scientific telepresence equipment would be returned to the U.S. via McMurdo. The Solar Power System would remain in storage boxes at the field camp over winter for use during the 1993-1994 austral summer research season.

FINDING

From the information presented in the Environmental Action Memorandum, the Environmental Officer believes that the proposed activities will have less than minor and less than transitory effects, if any, on the environment of the Dry Valleys. The Investigator is authorized to proceed with the activity.

Sidney Draggan

cc: R.A. Wharton


Go to: MCM Dry Valley environmental issues MCM LTER home page