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 134 square meters of support facilities for a long-range ecological research project in the Dry Valleys of 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 a greater than minor or transitory effect on the Antarctic environment within the meaning of the NSF's implementing regulations for the Environmental Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty (45 CFR 641). Therefore, an environmental impact statement and/or a comprehensive environmental evaluation will not be prepared.

The proposed action involves the construction of facilities to support a long-term ecological research (LTER) project in Taylor Valley of the Dry Valleys, Antarctica. The LTER project is designed to study fundamental ecological relationships and is one of a series of LTER's located in various ecological settings, including one other in Antarctica, Palmer Station, in the Antarctic peninsula. The LTER project could be more efficiently implemented and up to seven field scientists could be added to the current austral summer field party of eight, if the small field camp of four structures (52 square meters) at Lake Hoare is removed and replaced with a new camp of seven structures (134 square meters). The LTER project can be implemented without the replacement of existing facilities. However, the rate of project implementation cannot be increased above current projections without additional facilities at the Lake Hoare site.

The seven replacement buildings would be prefabricated in McMurdo and would be delivered by helicopters (estimated 30 hours of flying). An on-site construction crew of six people would assemble the structures in three to four weeks during the 1993-94 field season. Minor site preparation would be completed by hand-held shovels and does not require motorized equipment. At the project conclusion, the structures would be removed.

Four alternatives were considered.

Alternative A. In this alternative, the existing camp which is one 4.88 x 7.32m Jamesway, one small wooden laboratory, and two small wooden structures; would be removed and replaced with seven prefabricated structures. The replacement structures are: three laboratories, approximately 3.66m x 4.88m each; one living/cooking structure, 4.88m x 12.3m; one generator building, 2.44m x 3.66m, with a 12 KW and 6 KW generator; an uninsulated storage/waste facility, 2.44m x 3.66m; and one propane-fired latrine, 1.22m x 2.13m. Total available space for support functions of the camp would increase from 52 to 134 square meters (heated space would increase from 42 to 113 square meters). In this, as in all alternatives, logistical support for scientists would be provided by helicopter to the site for initial start up, party relocation, resupply, and end-of-season camp closing.

Energy efficiency of the heated structures would be improved over standard design practices through passive solar heat and solar power for space heating. The structures would have highly insulated walls constructed from structural foam core panels with an R-value of 22. In addition, he structures would be modified to withstand extreme wind velocities, up to an estimated 89 meters per second.

Alternative B (no action). In this alternative, the existing camp would remain for its projected useable life of two to three years and would not be replaced. Research support would be provided from other camps. The structures would not be removed after they were no longer useable. This alternative is presented to display the environmental effects of taking no action. It is not implementable. NSF policy and regulation requires the removal of a camp after the termination of a project.

Alternative C. In this alternative, the existing camp structures would be used until they were flooded or became unsafe; they would be then removed as required by NFS-OPP policy. If the structures became flooded and gripped by ice, removal could be difficult. Some analyses would have to be done in the Crary Science and Engineering Center in McMurdo, rather than at the field location.

Alternative D. This alternative is the same as Alternative A, with one exception. The 60-square meter living/cooking structure would not be provided. Elimination of the structure would require all sleeping arrangements to be in tents and cooking to be conducted in one or more of the support structures. Without the structure, it would be difficult to conduct field activities during WINFLY, a period of late winter/early spring field studies.

1. Energy Use. Alternative A, the selected alternative, would increase fuel use above current levels. The current camp uses approximately 2080 liters of diesel fuel (ten, 208-liter drums) per season, a majority of which is used for heating. The new structures in Alternative A are estimated to require 4160 to 5200 liters of diesel fuel. Energy use for field activities and logistical support in Alternative A is similar to that of previous uses. However, it is likely that total energy needs can be reduced through improvements in the organization and implementation of research activities made possible by improved facilities. The Principal Investigators could plan more efficient field logistics and support functions than was possible in the cramped facilities.
2. Wind Damage. New, prefabricated structures would be able to withstand consistent winds expected at the site reducing the likelihood of wind tearing off pieces of the structures and blowing debris over a large area in the Taylor Valley. Debris, from the old structures, could remain visible and mobile for decades in the extremely arid and often windy environment. In addition to an unsightly appearance, wind blown debris poses a hazard to personnel.
3. Short-Term Effects. Effects would occur in the 1993-94 season from the construction of the replacement structures. Waste generation would increase temporarily during construction. All waste would be collected, packaged, and retrograded to McMurdo.

Indirect effects of the LTER project include noise from generators, jiffy drills, and helicopters; waste heat from stoves and generators; exhaust from stoves, generators, and helicopters; and the removal of ice and/or water for camp use. In Taylor Valley, much of the neighboring environment is extremely steep terrain and will not be visited by field scientists. Thus, impact on the neighboring environment will be negligible.

No effluent would be discharged on-site. The camp would be located a sufficient distance form Lake Hoare and small feeder streams to prevent any disturbance of these waters. Only negligible amounts of ice or water will be removed from nearby glaciers, streams, or lakes for camp use.

4. Long-Term Effects: Environmental data collection and experiments in the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are designed to minimize the impact on the environment, requiring the same measurements to be obtained from a specific site each year. Data reliability dictates that the selected site remain constant from year-to-year. The impact of long-term experiments which require an initial modification of the environment; for example, placing of shading screens over stream beds, stream diversion, and tracer experiments are expected to be minimal and will have no lasting effect on the local or regional environment.

There are no adverse long-term effects on the environment. The use of fuel and the consumption of building materials are irreversible and irretrievable commitments of natural resources. However, these uses are minor. No action on the Antarctic environment is irreversible or long lasting. Further, there is no irretrievable commitment of Antarctic resources.

5. Cumulative Impacts: Other investigations are ongoing in the Dry Valleys. Field camps at Lakes Bonney and Fryxell are used each year and follow the same environmental protection measures as described for the Lake Hoare site. There are no known or anticipated adverse cumulative effects from the camp facilities or from the small teams of investigators. Impacts are not anticipated to be detrimental. Requests for new projects in the Dry Valleys may conflict in research design, logistics, or environmental standards. These potential effects 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.
6. Mitigating Measures: In the evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed action, several mitigating measures were identified to reduce environmental impacts. These measures, listed in the environmental document, are required and have proven effective in past projects.

Dr. Cornelius W. Sullivan
Director, Office of Polar Programs
National Science Foundation

Date: November 4, 1993