Title : Support of Long-Term Ecological Research Project Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : November 4, 1993 File : opp94008 National Science Foundation Office Of Polar Programs FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT AND NOT GREATER THAN MINOR OR TRANSITORY IMPACT Replacement of Facilities to Support a Long-Term Ecological Research Project in The McMurdo Dry Valleys, Antarctica SUMMARY: 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. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION: 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. ALTERNATIVES: Four alternatives were considered. Alternative A. In this alternative, the existing camp which is one 4.88m 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, the 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. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 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 Alternatives 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 from 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. /s/ Cornelius W. Sullivan November 4, 1993 Dr. Cornelius W. Sullivan Date Director, Office of Polar Programs National Science Foundation REPLACEMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT A LONG-TERM ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH PROJECT IN THE McMURDO DRY VALLEYS, ANTARCTICA NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION OFFICE OF POLAR PROGRAMS WASHINGTON, D.C. OCTOBER 20, 1993 I. Introduction This environmental document is prepared to evaluate the environmental effects of a decision to construct replacement facilities for a long-term ecological research (LTER) project in Taylor Valley of the Dry Valleys, Antarctica. The LTER project could be more easily implemented with the addition of up to seven field scientists to a current austral summer field party of eight. An increase in the size of the field party requires the replacement of a small field camp of four structures (52 square meters) with a new camp of up to seven structures (134 square meters). The document is an Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE) as called for in the National Science Foundation's (NSF's) implementing regulations for international cooperation in the protection of the Antarctic environment (45 CFR 641). In addition, this document is an Environmental Assessment (EA) as described in the implementing regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as described in 40 CFR 1500-1508. The description of the proposed action, alternatives, environmental effects of alternatives, and consultations with others is provided to aid agency decisionmaking and inform and involve interested citizens. II. Purpose and Need The National Science Foundation (NSF) has established a LTER project which is designed to study fundamental ecological relationships. This research project is one of a series of LTER's located in various unique ecological settings, including one other in Antarctica, Palmer Station, in the Antarctic peninsula. The Dry Valleys LTER project is focused on the study of the structure and function of lacustrine and terrestrial ecosystems in an extremely arid and cold environment. The McMurdo Dry Valleys are among the most extreme deserts in the world. The perennially ice-covered lakes, ephemeral streams, and extensive areas of soil within the valleys are subject to low temperatures, very limited precipitation, and salt accumulation. The biological systems are relatively simple, with no vascular plants or vertebrates and very few insects. Trophic interactions and biogeochemical nutrient cycles are largely limited to microbial populations and micro-invertebrates. Species diversity and abundance are low. Despite this simplicity, complex interactions among species and between biological and physical/chemical environments exist in the lakes, streams and soils. The effects of an extreme environment coupled with the general simplicity of ecosystem structure makes the Dry Valleys an ideal location to study the basic ecological principles. Furthermore, the long-term nature of the program allows for an in-depth assessment of the effects of global change in Antarctica. The NSF proposes to improve remote facilities which are used to conduct field studies. The current field camp is in the Taylor Valley, southern Victoria Land, Antarctica (77oS 162oE) on the southeast shore of Lake Hoare (see map, Attachment I). The level of Lake Hoare is rising an average of 9.0 cm per year. The camp, constructed in 1979, may be flooded within two to three years and is cramped, though adequate to serve up to eight field scientists. Field camps at Lakes Fryxell and Bonney in Taylor Valley are also available to support LTER activities. These field camps have been used for scientific research for approximately ten years and will be considered for replacement or removal as current projects are completed and others are considered for funding. The LTER project does not change the traditional uses of the camps for nearby scientific investigations. In the consideration of the proposal to replace the existing field camp, two important environmental concerns were identified by staff and scientists. These concerns are: Total energy use by the LTER project; and Wind damage to facilities; Alternatives, described below, aid in the evaluation of environmental effects of the proposed action and assist in the search for improvements (alternative actions and mitigating measures) in the initial proposal. III. Alternatives In the consideration of the proposed action, four alternatives were considered: Alternative A Remove the existing field camp and replace with seven structures. Alternative B No action. Continue ongoing studies which use the existing field camp and do not replace or remove the existing field camp when it becomes unusable; Alternative C Continue ongoing field studies and remove the existing camp when it is no longer usable. Alternative D Remove the existing field camp and replace by constructing only six of the requested seven structures, eliminating a proposed 60-square meter living/cooking structure. Alternative A In this alternative, the existing camp which is one 4.88m x 7.32m Jamesway, one small wooden laboratory, and two small wooden structures would be removed and replaced with seven prefabricated structures (Attachments II and III). The replacement structures are: three laboratories, approximately 3.66m x 4.88m each; one living/cooking structure, 4.88m x 12.2m; 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). The increase in available work space allows seven more scientists to work at the site than can now be accommodated. In this alternative, as in all the others, 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, the structures would be modified to withstand extreme wind velocities, up to an estimated 89 meters per second. 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. Interior finishing is anticipated to be completed in the 1994-95 field season. 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 which requires minimal site preparation can be selected. The buildings sit on cribbing on the ground and require little land leveling to install. Minor site preparation would be completed by hand-held shovels. No motorized earth moving equipment is required. At the conclusion of the project, the structures would be removed. Future use of the structures depends upon identified needs, condition of the structures, and the results of environmental evaluation of a decision to support scientific investigations requiring the Lake Hoare site. Alternative B (no action). In this alternative, on-going research would continue to be supported by the existing camp. After the structures became unusable due to deterioration, they would remain on-site. This alternative is presented as a baseline to display environmental effects. It is not an implementable alternative. NSF policy and regulations require the camp to be removed at the conclusion of its use. Alternative C. In this alternative, the existing camp structures would be used until they were flooded or became unsafe; they would be then removed. Removal could be difficult, if the structures became flooded and griped by ice. As in Alternative B, the current structures can accommodate a field team of eight people, but the existing laboratory cannot accommodate the proposed scientific analyses. Analyses would be done in the Crary Science and Engineering Center in McMurdo. The LTER project would have to schedule scientists to use the site such that no more than eight people were using the facilities at one time. Alternative D. This alternative is the same as Alternative A, except the 60-square meter living/cooking structure would not be provided. Elimination of the structure would require scientists to sleep in tents and cook in one or more of the support structures. Under this alternative, it would be difficult to conduct field activities during WINFLY, a period of late winter/early spring field studies. IV. Environmental Effects 1. Energy Use: Alternative A would increase fuel use above current levels. The current camp uses approximately ten liter- drums(liter-drums) of diesel fuel per season, a majority of which is used for heating. Although the overall effectiveness of new energy efficient structures is not known, it is estimated that the new structures in Alternative A will require 20-25 liter- drums of diesel fuel. Heated floor space is increased by 2.67 times above current heated floor space. If the replacement buildings used energy on the same area basis as the existing camp, energy needs would be 27 liter-drums per season in Alternative A. The relative efficiency of fuel use will be evaluated to assess performance. Energy use for field activities and logistical support in Alternatives A and D 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. No estimates in total energy savings are presented here. Field results will assess this effect. It is anticipated that construction of new structures and removal of the existing camp in Alternatives A and D would not require a significant use of energy resources above those currently dedicated to the support of ongoing scientific studies. The total fuel requirements for Alternative D are less than those of Alternative A due to the deletion of 60 square meters of heated space. Diesel fuel use for the new structures in Alternative D is anticipated to be from 10 to 13 liter-drums per season. Alternative B would require the same amount of fuel as that currently used, 10 208-liter drums per season, for camp operations. As noted in the description of Alternative B, the structures would be used until they were no longer safe or serviceable. After the camp was no longer usable, total energy use may slightly increase if other camps in the Dry Valleys were used to support scientists conducting studies in Taylor Valley. In Alternative C, the number of scientists using the site would be the same as in Alternative B. Energy use would be the same as in Alternative B. 2. Wind Damage: Damage to structures could occur in each Alternative. In Alternative A and D, the new, prefabricated structures would be able to withstand high and persistent winds expected at the site. The buildings are designed and constructed to remain in place for at least ten years. In Alternatives B and C, wind could tear off pieces of the structures which would be blown over a large area in the Taylor Valley. Debris 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 who may be in the area. Debris would be collected as discovered by field personnel and retrograded to McMurdo. In Alternative B, the potential for creating wind blown debris is much higher than in other alternatives because the structures would be allowed to disintegrate and would not be disassembled and transported to McMurdo for retrograde. The environmental effects of important concerns are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Comparison of the Environmental Effects of Important Concerns Among Alternatives. ALTERNATIVES IMPORTANT CONCERNS ENERGY USE HEATING-- POTENTIAL WIND DIESEL FUEL LITER- DAMAGE AND DEBRIS RISK-- DRUMS /SEASON RATING A. Remove old 20 to 25 Low likelihood structures and of damage and replace with low risk from eight new blowing debris structures B. No Action, 10 High No new likelihood of structures and damage and no removal of moderate risk old structures from blowing debris C. No new 10 Moderate structures and likelihood of remove old damage and structures minor risk from blowing debris D. Remove old 10 to 12 Low likelihood structures and of damage and replace with low risk from seven new blowing debris structures 3. Short-Term Effects: In Alternatives A and D, short-term 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. Very little construction debris would be produced on-site, approximately one large tri-wall box (109cm x 109cm x 94cm or 1.12 cubic meters). 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. The neighboring environment includes areas of exposed rock and glacial ice. In Taylor Valley, much of the neighboring environment is extremely steep terrain and will not be visited by field scientists. It is expected that any impact on the neighboring environment will be negligible. No effluent would be discharged on-site in any alternative. In Alternatives A and D, the camp would be located a sufficient distance from Lake Hoare and small feeder streams to prevent any disturbance of these waters. There is negligible precipitation at Lake Hoare, so level areas created for buildings would not affect water drainage or patterns of snow drifts. Negligible amounts of ice or water will be removed from nearby glaciers, streams, or lakes for camp use. Stream flow monitoring will have a inconsequential effect on water quality or flow. SCUBA diving in lakes, planned for the 1994-95 season in each alternative, will introduce diver exhaust which has a negligible effect on water quality. In Alternative B and C, scientists would have to conduct research in an overcrowded, cramped work environment until the structures became unusable. Use of the structures by eight scientists, as projected in Alternatives B and C, has proven to be adequate over the last few years. However, as noted in the description of Alternative C, scientists, in both Alternatives B and C, would have to make arrangements to conduct some needed work at sites other than Lake Hoare. After the termination of the use of the structures in Alternatives B and C, logistical support would have to be provided from distant or temporary facilities, either of which would be less desirable and more costly to administer than conducting research supported on-site. 4. Long-Term Effects: In each alternative, LTER environmental data collection and experiments in the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems of the Dry Valleys would be obtained for at least six years, the funding period for the LTER project. These experiments are designed to minimize the impact on the environment. The goal of the LTER project stresses minimal impact to the environment being investigated by requiring that the same measurements be obtained from a specific site each year. Data reliability dictates that the selected site remain constant from year-to-year. The impacts 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. Construction of replacement facilities in Alternatives A and D will provide safe and adequate support for the life of the LTER project, precluding the need for future construction or lengthy transport of personnel to study sites. In Alternatives B and C, long-term impacts are anticipated to be greater than in Alternative A and D. Because the structures at Lake Hoare may degrade within a short time and it is reasonable to assume that U.S. or foreign investigators may want to initiate studies in the Dry Valleys, it can be anticipated that some important research studies would have to be postponed or eliminated or researchers would have to travel greater distances to complete field studies. The effects of Alternative A and D are very similar and pose no adverse long-term effects on the environment. The use of fuel in each of the alternatives and the consumption of building materials in Alternatives A and D 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 in any of the alternatives. 5. Cumulative Impacts: Other investigations are ongoing in the Dry Valleys. During the 1993-94 season, 11 separate scientific projects are supported by NSF. Each of these projects is funded for two to three years. Research topics include Quaternary geology, biogeochemical cycles in freshwater lakes, aerial photography and mapping, physical and chemical weathering, and measurements of seismic activity. An estimated 75 people will be actively engaged in scientific studies and support activities each year during the austral summer months. Scientific study teams are composed of five to seven people who live in tents and traverse nearby areas on foot. Teams require occasional helicopter support when moving their camps within the 4800 square kilometers of the Dry Valleys. The 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 the small teams of investigators. Impacts are not anticipated to be detrimental. However, as noted in the discussion on the possible effects of the LTER project on the initiation of future scientific studies, 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 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 and D. A. Waste production and disposal a. Scientific studies: Waste generation in each alternative is similar in type and amount to that produced by past uses at the site. The addition of up to seven scientist does not require additional mitigating measures for waste disposal. Solid and liquid wastes are limited to field camp and laboratory wastes, all are retrograded to McMurdo. Disposition of wastes, including pollution abatement, follow standard protocols for separating and managing waste set by the U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) and Antarctic Support Associates (ASA). Secondary containment systems are placed beneath fuel reservoirs (fuel would be stored in a small, 378-to 946-liter tank, and in liter-drums). Drip pans are installed under generators. b. Construction and decommission of facilities Prefabrication and painting of new structures would be completed at McMurdo to reduce the number of on-site construction workers and reduce the possibility of paint spills. The camp would utilize a gray water evaporator for wastewater reduction. All stationary fuel reservoirs would have secondary containment devices. Small, mobile solar power generators would be used for applications such as radios, lap top computers, and fans. Most of the waste from the proposed construction of the replacement camp would be generated in McMurdo during prefabrication. Prefabrication at McMurdo would generate between one and one-half milvan (one milvan is 6.10m x 2.44m x 2.44m or 36.3 cubic meters) of construction debris. Aesthetic impacts associated with construction would be reduced through careful clearing of construction debris. The site would be maintained by project personnel to preserve a clean, uncluttered appearance and avoid the launching of debris missiles should wind velocities increase. The camp would be designed to blend into the surrounding area by using dark exterior colors which also retain more long wave solar radiation than lighter colored structures, thus improving solar heating. In each alternative, except B, at the end of the research or when structures were no longer usable, each would be disassembled and retrograded to McMurdo. The new building design in Alternative A and D allows for a relatively simple decommissioning process. The panels would be disassembled and retrograded to McMurdo. The camp location after decommissioning would reveal minor leveling of the ground. Wind would eventually erase evidence of the camp. No debris would be left on-site, expect for Alternative B which is the no action alternative. B. Protection of ice and water Research at the lakes require melting and drilling ice holes. The Contractor's Mechanical Equipment Center in McMurdo has made a number of improvements to ice hole melting and drilling equipment, which uses propylene glycol, to reduce the potential for spills. These improvements include replacing hoses and improving the containment of any drilling fluids which may spill. Chemical spills will be cleaned up and pollutants prevented from entering lakes. C. Protection of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems The terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in the Dry Valleys contain significant assemblages of microorganisms (i.e., bacteria, yeasts, algae, mosses, lichens, and nematodes) which are of scientific interest. Every effort will be made to minimize the adverse impact upon these communities. The LTER project in Alternatives A, C, and D will establish a baseline of information on the distribution of organisms within communities which will be extremely important for assessing the impacts of research and possible environmental changes at the site. No changes in population distribution, abundance or productivity of any of the species is expected in any of the alternatives. There are no endangered or threatened species in the Dry Valleys. The environmental monitoring program initiated by the LTER program in Alternative A, C, and D will provide additional information on the Dry Valleys environment that will be used in future projects or decisions to continue the LTER project. Fuel spills are possible. However, any spills would be cleaned according to Office of Polar Programs Field Camp Oil Spill Response Guidebook. D. Air Pollution and Noise Minor amounts of air pollutants are released by helicopters, heaters, generators and stoves. Because there is negligible precipitation, air pollutants readily disperse in the atmosphere. Each source of air pollutants is equipped with standard air and noise abatement devices. Noise and air pollutants are highly localized and represent a negligible impact on the local or regional environment. VI. Consultation with Others: Ms. Carol Andrews Environmental Engineer, Antarctic Support Associates (ASA) Mr. Dave Bresnahan Systems Manager, Office of Polar Progarms (OPP) Mr. Erick Chiang Manager, Polar Operations Section, OPP Mr. Robert S. Cunningham Manager, NEPA Compliance, OPP Dr. Jane Dionne Acting Environmental Officer, OPP Ms. Anita Eisenstadt Office of General Counsel, NSF Ms. Deana Fenton Materials Control Specialist, ASA Dr. Dennis Peacock Science Section Head, OPP Dr. Polly A. Penhale Program Manager, Polar Biology and Medicine (PBOM), OPP Mr. Terry Johnson Environmental manager, ASA Mr. Craig Martin Director Engineering, ASA Dr. Carol Roberts Deputy Director, OPP Mr. John Sherve Senior Construction Coordinator, ASA Mr. Simon Stephenson Science Projects Manager, OPP Dr. Neil Swanberg Associate Program Manager, PBOM, OPP Dr. Robert Wharton Principle Investigator