environmental assessment of antarctic research

Environmental assessment of Antarctic research

The consequences tend to be localized, affecting the research program itself rather than native ecosystems

Charles E. Myers Nat iona l Science Foundation Division of Polar Programs

Washington , D .C . 20550 Roger F. Hatcher Richard C. Tucker Natalie S. Waugh Dames & Moore

Bethesda , M d . 2001 4

The only major activity that takes place on the Antarctic continent is the scientific research conducted by the United States and a dozen other nations. The United States Antarctic Research Program, funded and man- aged by the Nationai Science Foun-

668 Environmental Science & Technology

dation (NSF), is an expeditionary program on the continent of Antarc- tica and aboard ships in the oceans of the region.

The N S F recently deemed it important to assess the environmental impact of this activity. Although at the time the assessment began there were no legal requirements for it, the Pres- ident has since issued an executive order requiring many U.S.-run foreign programs to file environmental impact statements.

The U S . has also accepted and en- acted into law many of the approxi- mately 60 conservation and environmental protection measures adopted by parties to the international Ant- arctic Treaty, which provides the framework for Antarctic research.

The environmental impacts discussed here apply only to the U S . program, though many of the impacts can be generalized and extended to predict the effects of programs which may take place i,n Antarctica in the future, such as mineral exploration and exploitation, commercial activities, and extensive land-based tourism. Such activities are not taking place now, however.

Support activities Over half of the potentially signifi-

cant environmental effects are associated with support activities: fuel handling and storage, solid waste disposal, sanitary waste disposal, and construction, operation, and mainte- nance of stations and field camps.

0013-936X/80/0914-0668$01.00/0 @ 1980 American Chemical Society

Core sampling (aboue). Ice core f r o m Dome C is placed in a shipping con- tainer Under the ice (aboue le f t ) . Investigators diving in Lake Hoare to study and sample algal mats on the lake bottom Field camp ( l e f t ) The base of operations f o r a study o f t h e geologic history of the Darwin Glacier

The U S . maintains four year-round stations, McMurdo, Palmer, Siple, and Amundsen-Scott South Pole, along with a varying number of temporary field camps established during the southern summer and a research ves- sel, RV Hero. Transportation of personnel and supplies within Antarctica is largely by air.

Every year, some 2000 tons of cargo and food and 5 000 000 gallons of petroleum products are brought in to Antarctica (90% of it by ship), and only a small portion is ever removed. Everything else remains as buildings, machines, solid wastes, particulate matter, and gases.

Solid wastes are disposed of by burial in ice holes at South Pole and Siple Stations, or by burial in landfill. Antarctic soil and aquatic communities a re easily affected by sanitary waste disposal. In addition to adding nutrients to the environment, waste disposal adds foreign chemicals and organisms to the soil and water. The addition of foreign organisms limits the usefulness of affected areas as sites for future study of native communities. In environmentally sensitive areas, human wastes are now packaged and returned to the stations for disposal.

The 5 000 000 gallons of petroleum products taken annually to Antarctica are used to heat shelters, generate electricity, distill water, and power motors ranging from small portable electric generators to large jet engines. Most fuels used in Antarctica are un- leaded. A few automobiles and trucks use regular gasoline that contains lead.

The main products of burning these fuels are heat, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, hydrocarbons, and particles. Wherever the products are emitted, they increase background concentrations in the air and become incorporated into the seas, ice, snow, and soils of Antarctica. Because concentrations of combustion products are low, the addition of these materials to to the environment affects only certain research projects.

Not all of the oil transported to Antarctica is burned, however. When diesel fuel is used as a drill fluid, local contamination of soil, ice, or water results. A large oil spill could also be produced by the penetration of a hy- drocarbon layer during scientific drilling operations. The probability 'of this occurring is extremely low, however.

The impacts of routine oil spills vary considerably with amounts and loca- tions. At McMurdo Station, such spills will have relatively little additional impact on a local environment-on the scale of a few square miles-that has been subjected to some pollution for 20 years. At South Pole and Siple Sta- tions, as well as ice-bound field camps, oil spills will cause local contamination of the ice and a loss of volatile hydrocarbons to the air, but these are not serious effects. Oil spills in ice-free land areas and marine environments are, however, potentially significant.

Due to the vast size of the southern ocean, even a relatively large oil spill at sea is not likely to have catastrophic effects on the marine ecosystem as a whole. Local effects, though, could be severe. Penguins are particularly sus- ceptible to hazards of oil spills because they are dependent upon their feathers for insulation. Thus a large oil spill in an open ocean area where penguins are feeding or a t a near-shore area adja- cent to the penguin rookery would have severe impacts on local populations.

By their very presence, people introduce bacteria, fungi, and viruses into the Antarctic environment. Fur- thermore, their implements-air-

Volume 14, Number 6, June 1980 669

Highlights of the 16/9-80 US. Antarctic Research Program

More than 300 investigators traveled to Antarctica last season (October 1979- March 1980) to conduct about 80 science projects.

Geological studies centered on the Ells- worth Mountains, a rugged chain located about 2000 km from McMurdo Station, between the ice plateau of West Antarctica and the Ronne and Filchner Ice Shelves. The highest mountains in Antarctica, the Eiisworths reach elevations of 5100 m. Geologists are interested in the Ellsworths because they represent a bridge between the geologically older shield areas of East Antarctica and the younger province of West Antarctica. Because the Ellsworths OCCUT precisely at the dividing line between the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Ronne Ice Shelf, glacial geologists find the region useful for monitoring i6e recessions and advances in the Weddell Sea area.

Ellsworth Camp was open for six weeks beginning in mid-December. During that period, geoiogists obtained samples of

Atlantlc Owan

Arctowski (Poland)

fossil flora and fauna particularly from the top of the Precambrian and base of the Cambrian sedlmentary beds. They examined the evolution of landforms in the Ells- worth Mountains and charted the sequence of major structural geologic events there. Data gained this season may clarify the history of this portion of Antarctica as well as its tectonic relationship to the Ant- arctic Peninsula area.

Glacial geologists tested the hypothesis that during glacial periods the West Ant- arctic Ice Sheet expands to the edge of the continental shelves in the Ross and Weddell Seas and that during interglacials the ice sheet retreats to about its present position and maintains large ice shelves. During particularly warm interglacials-the last was 124 000 years ago-they think the West Antarctic Ice Sheet loses its ice shelves and collapses rapidly. They looked at traces of the ice sheet left nearly 300 m above the current ice surface to test the theory about the collapse during the last interglacial period.

The meteorite search which has proved so successful in the past two seasons continued this time in the Ellsworth Moun- tains, as well as in new areas on the East

Antarctic ice Sheet near the McMwdo Sound region. Once again, researchers looked for areas where ablation has un- covered meteorites long buried In the ice. As in the past, the meteorites wwe handled carefully to keep them from contaminatim and to preserve their scientific value.

Elsewhere In Antarctica, scientists continued to examine how human beings and other life forms adapt to Antarctic conditions. One medical doctor studied the surprisingly persistent shedding of parain- fluenza virus by persons isolated at South Pole Station throughout the winter. Other investigators studied the synthesis of proteins in certain Antarctic fishes: one of them, a glycoprotein, enables the fish to survive in ice-laden seawater. The researchers examined the synthesis and molecubr structure of this glycoprotein and other plasma proteins and the way specific levels of the antifreeze are maintained in fishes at different temperatures. The goal was not only to determine the structures of these glycoproteins and the processes involved in their synthesis, but to describe protein synthesis in general . Such a de- scription is important because protein synthesis is one of the most fundamental

c .

N 0 a-

Kilometers

r' ' - . < \...A .' , : ' . , d m o n t d'Uwille (France)

w r a d s k a y a (U.S.S. R .) 180"


planes, trucks, food, and garbage- introduce seeds and spores of higher forms of life. Because of the severity of the climate, most of these forms of life are not capable of growing or repro- ducing in Antarctica. They do persist, however, and by freeze-drying, many remain viable and become part of the Antarctic biota. This has not had biological or visible impact on the continent, its lakes, or oceans. Nevertheless, it causes a measurable change in the natural populations.

Scientific activities Among the scientific activities,

geological and biological research a re responsible for the greatest number of potentially serious environmental impacts.

Radioisotopes are used as tracers, to measure productivity, and to power remote weather stations. Although the concentrations of the isotopes used do not pose a threat to living organisms, their use does have an impact. The di- rect application of isotopes to the water, soil, or ice, and the accidental loss of these compounds from experi- ments not designed to release them to the environment, result in radioactive concentrations far above background levels. Already it has been suggested that Lake Vanda, one of the largest dry valley lakes in southern Victoria Land, may contain enough carbon- 14 left by prior investigations so that accurate carbon dating of its waters is not pos- sible.

Another impact to be considered is the effect of transporting materials from the environment back to the United States for additional analysis. Materials removed include rocks, ice cores, soil samples, paleontological samples (fossils), meteorites, and certain biota collected by investigators in their respective disciplines. Only three of these are likely to cause a measurable impact by their absence-certain biota (seals), fossils, and meteorites.

Antarctic seals are a long-lived species that have a fairly low repro- duction rate. They may breed initially between 3 and 7 years of age, and then have one pup every other year. Because of the large number of seals in Ant- arctica, biological sampling associated with the U.S. program does not have a continent-wide impact. However, in some areas where other perturbations are occurring, seals lost to extensive sampling programs may contribute to a slight temporary decline in local populations.

The current approach to fossil and meteorite collection is to remove most of the objects of interest that can be found in a study area. The fossils and

meteorites are then taken to the United States or other nations for future study. This approach reduces the richness of these areas for future paleontological and meteorological study.

The net effect The potentially significant impacts

discussed above are all known to occur. Only their importance is debatable. From the list of potentially significant impacts, we believe only a few are truly significant and even these are very localized. There are no data to suggest that the program is having any impact on Antarctica on a continental scale, nor are ecosystems being affected. Most of the significant impacts of the program represent the impact of the program on itself; that is, in the process of studying the environment, the program alters parts of the environment so that further study of them is limited or proscribed.

The areas most affected are soils, rocks, lakes and ponds, terrestrial biological communities, and glacial ice and snow. Although they account for only 2% of the area of Antarctica, ex- posed rocks and soils are found pri- marily in coastal areas that are acces- sible to human activity. Impacts on soils and soil communities and on glacial ice and snow are of great persis- tence. The fragile terrestrial biota are particularly vulnerable to impacts.

On the other hand, some parts of the Antarctic environment are relatively unaffected by the U S . program. These areas include the atmosphere, the marine ecosystem, and the ice sheet.

Alternatives Every environmental assessment

addresses alternatives to the proposed action and measures to mitigate ad- verse impacts. Alternatives evaluated in the impact statement on the U S . Antarctic Program represented a spectrum of major choices, from the “no program” alternative to increasing the size of the program.

The “no program” alternative con- sisted of discontinuing and dismantling the U S . Antarctic Program. This was rejected because it would require the reversal of the President’s decision that the United States be committed to maintaining an active and influential presence in Antarctica.

Both significant reductions and in- creases in the level of the program were considered. These involved reducing or increasing the numbers of support personnel, scientists, scientific disciplines, and stations. A significant re- duction in the program was rejected because this alternative, like the “no

Volume 14, Number 6 , June 1980 671

program” alternative, would not most affected by the presence of re- Some of the other measures under maintain an active and influential search activities could be allowed first consideration by the National Science presence in Antarctica. An increased access to new sites. These disciplines Foundation include alternative waste program might have additional posi- are usually geochemistry, microbiol- disposal methods, increased e..viron- tive or negative impacts on the envi- ogy, and soil studies. mental education for program partic- ronment, but any major increase would A variation of this approach would ipants and visitors to Antarctica, and be undertaken only after a careful as- be to divide a site or region by the support of research projects to assess sessment of benefits to be derived compared to the increased ‘costs and environmental impacts.

Another alternative considered was to modify the way scientific research is conducted in Antarctica. Research sites would be evaluated as to their total research potential, and disciplines

various disciplines. The objectcve of this would be the same as ordering the sequence of studies, but would be more flexible in that multidisciplinary research groups could visit new areas without waiting their turn. This variation has already been utilized to some extent in Antarctica.

selected impacts to the antarctic ecosystem. A continuing program of construction and redevelopment of U.S. stations will result in an upgrad- ing of buildings, and a group of facili- ties more in harmony with the natural environment.

Additional reading “ U S . Antarctic Program Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement,” National Science Foundation, July 1979. “ U S . Antarctic Program Final Environ- mental Impact Statement,” National Science Foundation, in press. Antarctic Journal of the United States, National Science Foundation, September 1979.

Charles E. Myers ( I ) has management responsibilities f o r environmental programs and interagency and international research coordination f o r the Division of Polar Programs, National Science Foun- dation. He came to the Foundation f r o m the US. Environmental Protection Agency. Richard C. Tucker ( r ) is an associate of Dames & Moore with responsibilities f o r water quality planning, environmental impact analysis, river basin and regional planning studies, and land development planning. He has held positions with the National Water Commission, the US. Army Corps of Engineers, and several consulting f irms.

Natalie Waugh ( I ) is a technical writer and project manager f o r Dames & Moore in Phoenix, Ariz. Her current j ob is assistant project manager on the Central Arizona Water Control Study. Roger F. Hatcher ( r ) was recently ap- pointed senior research associate with the Virginia Water Resources Research Cen- ter in Blacksburg, Va. He has spent the last f ive years with Dames & Moore working on aarious enuironmental impact analyses.

CIRCLE 5 ON READER SERVICE CARD


environmental assessment of antarctic research

Documents