Title : Phas II-clean-up of East Base Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : December 31, 1991 File : opp93053 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: December 31, 1991 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (Phase II of Cultural Resource Assessment and Site Cleanup of East Base, Stonington Island, Antarctic Peninsula) To: (Files S.7 - Environment) Director, Arctic Social Science Program, DPP Manager, Ocean Projects, DPP Environmental Engineer, DPP REFS: Environmental Action Memorandum (Cultural Resource Assessment and Site Cleanup of East Base) Dated March 27, 1991. U.S. National Park Service. 1991a. Draft Report. East Base Historic Monument, Stonington Island, Antarctic Peninsula. Part I: A Guide for Manage- ment. C. H. Spude and R. L. Spude (eds.). Washing- ton, DC. 24pp. U.S. National Park Service. 1991b. Draft Report. East Base Historic Monument, Stonington Island, Antarctic Peninsula. Part II: Description of the Cultural Resources and Recommendations. C. H. Spude and R. L. Spude (eds.). Washington, DC. 143pp. This Environmental Action Memorandum describes the need for, and location of, the second phase of a U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) project to cleanup wastes and to preserve historical resources at East Base (designated an Historic Monument under the Antarctic Treaty in 1989) during the 1991-1992 austral summer season. The project is being accomplished with the cooperation of the U.S. National Park Service (USNPS). The Environmental Officer posed a set of questions relating to the proposed second phase of the project, and to the potentially affected environment. These questions were responded to by the Director of the Division's Arctic Social Science Program and by the civilian support contractor's Environmentalist between October 23, 1991 and December 12, 1991; the questions and responses are shown below: Environmental Assessment Queries and Responses GENERAL 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity? The removal of unnecessary wastes, materials and debris as well as the conduct of a cultural resource assessment (with attendant documentation). The intent is to preserve the historic values of the site with selected restoration of existing buildings at East Base. The purposes are examined in greater detail in the above noted draft U.S. National Park Service (1991a, and 1991b) reports. What alternatives have the Programs and the contractor considered? Alternatives considered were: 1) the proposed cleanup and resource assessment; 2) the proposed cleanup and resource assessment to be undertaken at a later date; and, 3) the no-action alternative. Have the probable impacts of all alternatives been considered? The probable environmental impacts of Alternatives 1 and 2 are likely to be both minor and transitory in nature; in fact, the environmental benefits of cleanup under both of these alternatives outweigh the potential environ- mental impacts. There would be potential for environ- mental impacts as well as for risks to safety and human health should the no-action alternative be adopted. For example, tourists visiting the area or vandals plundering the site for historic materials could be injured by debris or abandoned chemical substances. The USAP and the USNPS believe that it is prudent and responsible to complete the project at the earliest feasible date; Alternative 1, therefore, has been proposed. Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how would these impacts be mitigated The effort has been divided into two carefully planned phases involving early site value assessment, risk consideration and hazard investigation, and logistic planning. Hazardous or toxic materials have been identified to the extent possible and measures have been factored into the effort to mitigate foreseeable consequences to safety, health and the environment. Have measures to assess the indirect costs of the proposed activity been identified or considered? Yes, indirect costs associated with logistic operations in the Antarctic Peninsula have been considered. LAND USE AND PLANNING 2. What is the specific location of the proposed activity? East Base, Stonington Island, Marguerite Bay, the Antarctic Peninsula (68ø 11' S; 67ø 00' W). See Map I. What alternative locations have the Programs and the contractor considered? Not applicable. 3. Will aesthetic impacts of the activity be handled? If so, how? Yes. The intent of the proposed activity is to improve the aesthetics, safety and environmental compatibility of the area. To accomplish this, existing wastes, trash and debris having no historic value would be removed, buildings would be repaired and some moderate landscaping would be completed. Will the activity have any other indirect impacts on the environment? Yes. Since the primary objective of the proposed action is to preserve the station for historic purposes, not all trash and debris would be removed from the site as they may have historic significance. USNPS staff have sug- gested that former dump sites with significant historic value be covered with local aggregate to improve the site's appearance and to preserve the sites for future study. This would require scraping of earth fill mater- ial in one area and moving to another where it would be spread out on the surface (Map II). This action is not meant to hide anything, but rather to preserve the area and restrict access, to visiting tourists, to materials located there. The process of scraping aggregate in one area and moving it to another presents a secondary environmental impact. It is intended that the source area for this material be reconstructed upon obtaining the required amount of aggregate. It is not known at this time how much material will be required. 4. Will the activity change the traditional use of the chosen site? The site is not currently in use by the United States. It is not anticipated that the proposed activity would change the traditional use of the site (as a designated Antarctic Historic Monument). 5. Are the physical or environmental characteristics of the land suitable for the activity? Yes. POLLUTION POTENTIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 6. Has protection of the environment and human health from unnecessary pollution been considered for the 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])? Yes. Any waste generated by personnel on site would be removed according to USAP requirements by the civilian support contractor. Waste, trash or debris left at the site by previous expeditions and having no historic value would be removed (Map III). Any known hazardous materials found at the site would be properly labeled, packaged and transported to Palmer Station. Unknown materials suspected of being hazardous would be sampled and the samples transported to the United States for laboratory analysis. The unknown materials would be stored and secured at the site for removal at a later date, following analytic characterization. Human waste left from previous expeditions would not be removed at this time due to personnel safety and health considerations. As many of the containers (i.e., cans, boxes) exposed and on the surface of the site's waste pile would be removed as is possible without posing safety and health hazards. Personnel performing this clean up would receive personal protection training as required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and would be provided with the appropriate equipment. One area near the old "machine shop" is stained from what is suspected to be petroleum products. It has been suggested that this area be covered with locally gathered aggregate for aesthetic reasons. However, the extent of contamination should be determined, and a study of the feasibility of cleaning up the area should be conducted prior to consider- ing such an action. Any requirements for fuel on site, such as heaters or mechanical equipment, would be managed through allowing only the amount required for a 24-hour period on site. The remainder would be kept on the support vessel. 7. Will the activity change ambient air quality at the site? No. 8. Will the activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the site? No. 9. Will the activity change waste generation or management at the site? No. 10. Will the activity change energy production or demand, personnel and life support, or transportation requirements at the site? Only during the period of phase 2 work would such needs increase. 11. Is the activity expected to adversely affect scientific studies or locations of research interest (near and distant, short-term and long-term)? No. In fact, the proposed work would document and preserve the scientific potential of the site. Environmental remedi- ation would leave the site in a more environmentally- compatible state (Map IV). 12. Will the activity generate pollutants that might affect terrestrial, marine or freshwater ecosystems within the environs of the station or inland camp? No. 13. Does the site of the activity serve as habitat for any significant assemblages of Antarctic wildlife? Yes. Skuas nest in an area near the site of the proposed activity. Every effort would be taken by personnel working at the site not to disturb nesting skua pairs pursuant to the regulations imposed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. Although the site does not serve as a breeding ground, penguins and seals do visit the area periodically. Again, efforts would be made not to disturb visiting antarctic birds or mammals. HUMAN VALUES 14. Will the activity encroach upon any historical property of the site? Yes. The activity is intended to clean up, repair and preserve the buildings and environs of East Base, as it is of historical value. 15. What other environmental concerns are potentially affected by the activity at the site? The intent of the activity at East Base is to clean up, stabilize and mark the area as an historic site. USAP has proposed that Antarctic Support Associates, Inc. to proceed with planning for the clean up of the base, under the advisement of the USNPS (charged with the protection of the historical value of the site). Establishing an historic site would possibly attract more tourists to the area, however. This would, to a degree, change the traditional use of the site. Periodic monitoring of the site would be prudent in the future to assess environmental and structural damage to the area caused by increased visits by tourists. Finding The Environmental Officer, after reviewing the information presented above, believes that the proposed activity poses neither potentially minor nor transitory impacts to the antarctic environment. The proposed work should, in fact, have environmental benefits and clearly signal the commitment of USAP to wise antarctic environmental stewardship. The Programs and the contractor are authorized to proceed with the proposed activity. Sidney Draggan Attachments Map I (Location of East Base) Map II (Cleanup Plan) Map III (Location of Hazardous Wastes) Map IV (Archeological Recovery Plan) cc: C. H. and R. L. Spude, USNPS