DOCSLIB.ORG

Development Pressures on the Antarctic Wilderness

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Development Pressures on the Antarctic Wilderness XXVIII ATCM – IP May 2004 Original: English Agenda Items 3 (Operation of the CEP) and 4a (General Matters) DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES ON THE ANTARCTIC WILDERNESS Submitted to the XXVIII ATCM by the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES ON THE ANTARCTIC WILDERNESS 1. Introduction In 2004 the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) tabled information paper ATCM XXVII IP 094 “Are new stations justified?”. The paper highlighted proposals for the construction of no less than five new Antarctic stations in the context of at least 73 established stations (whether full year or summer only), maintained by 26 States already operating in the Antarctic Treaty Area. The paper considered what was driving the new station activity in Antarctica, whether or not it was necessary or desirable, and what alternatives there might be to building yet more stations. Whilst IP 094 focused on new station proposals, it noted that there were other significant infrastructure projects underway in Antarctica, which included substantial upgrades of existing national stations, the development of air links to various locations in Antarctica and related runways, and an ice road to the South Pole. Since then, ASOC has become aware of additional proposals for infrastructure projects. This paper updates ASOC’s ATCM XXVII IP 094 to include most infrastructure projects planned or currently underway in Antarctica as of April 2005, and discusses their contribution to cumulative impacts. The criteria used to select these projects are: 1. The project’s environmental impact is potentially “more than minor or transitory”; 2. The project results in a development of infrastructure that is significant in the Antarctic context; 3. The project takes place in parts of Antarctica that are essentially virgin or pristine,1 which condition will change irreversibly as a result of the project; and/or 4. The project enhances access to remote areas of Antarctica. It should be noted that ASOC is not a priori opposed to any of the development activities mentioned here – although we have reservations about the motivations for some of them, and the effectiveness of the EIA process followed in others. 1 By this is meant areas that were previously remote and where no substantive infrastructure has previously stood. 2 2. Overview of the projects ASOC has compiled a list of 17 infrastructure projects planned or already underway (Table 1). 2 Appendix 1 provides additional information on each project. TABLE 1 – SUMMARY OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS Country Type of project Australia 1. Airlink development B elgium 2. New station, summer only – capacity 20 China 3. New station C onsortium of 11 states3 4. Airlink development (DROMLAN Project) Czech Republic 5. New station, summer only – capacity 15 E stonia 6. New station, summer only – capacity 6 F rance-Italy 7. Upgrading station to year round (Concordia) Germany 8. Rebuilding station (Neumayer) G roup of four states4 9. Stratigraphic drilling (ANDRILL Program) India 10. New station, initially summer only, eventually year round N orway 11. Upgrading station to year round (Troll) 12. Blue ice runway Russia 13. Subglacial lake research (Lake Vostok) South Korea 14. New station U nited Kingdom 15. Rebuilding station (Halley) U nited States of America 16. Surface traverse McMurdo Sound-South Pole 17. Construction of neutrino telescope (Ice Cube Project) Ea ch of the projects listed here meets one or more of the criteria listed above. The projects fall into four categories: (i) new station construction; (ii) upgrade of existing stations; (iii) development of inter- and intra-continental transportation links and (iv) large-scale research projects (Fig 1). Eighteen Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs) are undertaking 15 of these projects. Two Non Consultative Parties (NCPs) are carrying out the remaining two projects. Most ATCPs – but 2 ASOC is aware of additional projects for which there is not yet official confirmation to Antarctic Treaty states and which are not discussed in this paper. 3 Belgium, Finland, Germany, India, Japan, The Netherlands, Norway, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. 4 Germany, Italy, New Zealand and USA. 3 not all of them – have legislation implementing the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty and its Annexes, in accordance to their respective legal systems. ASOC’s understanding is that the process of acceding to the Protocol is underway in both NCPs. Fig. 1 - Number and type of infrastructure projects 6 4 4 2 Upgrading New station Transportation Research station link project An EIA under the Protocol has been prepared and submitted to the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP) for at least ten of the projects.5 Of these, nine have been Comprehensive Environmental Evaluations (CEEs), of which at least three reached the final stage, and one an Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE) (Fig. 2). (Of course, it is not mandatory to submit IEEs to the CEP, merely an annual list of those prepared.) Fig. 2 - Infrastructure projects and EIAs 1 1 5 1 4 2 2 Upgrading New station Transportation Research station link project No EIAs IEEs CEEs 5 According to listing of IEEs and CEEs submitted since 1987, last updated September 2004, available at www.cep.aq (accessed April 2005). 4 At least five of the projects, including subglacial lake research, will take place partly or fully in essentially pristine sites. Since ATCM XXVII, at least seven of these projects have started, and two have apparently been completed. Most of the projects are due to be completed by 2007 or earlier. At least four of the projects are explicitly linked to the International Polar Year (IPY) 2007-08, and the IPY may have influenced the timing of the other projects. 3. Contribution of science and associated logistics to cumulative impacts The present trend of Antarctic research appears to be towards growing infrastructure development in remote and/or pristine areas. Each of the infrastructure development project listed here may be worthwhile in is own right, but in connection with other past, present and foreseeable future Antarctic activities they have the potential to cause significant cumulative impacts on the Antarctic environment and on the intrinsic value of Antarctica that the Protocol seeks to protect. The projects described here will take place in the lead up period to the IPY 2007-08. During the period between March 2007 and March 2009 the IPY is expected to be an “intensive burst of internationally coordinated … scientific research”6 at the polar regions, bringing together international and interdisciplinary cooperation, with the goals of “develop[ing] … new logistical capabilities”, and “leav[ing] a legacy of observing sites , facilities and systems to support ongoing polar research and monitoring”. By April 2005, 261 “Expressions of Intent” for Antarc tic research during the IPY 2007-2008 had been submitted to the IPY Planning Group. As per the request of the Planning Group, research projects requiring substantial logistical support were registered at this early stage. As a result, the current list of Antarctic projects proposed for IPY includes large-scale projects such as traverses, deep ice core drilling and subglacial lake exploration – some of which are listed here. The IPY Planning Group has specified that IPY projects should “follow guidelines, as appropriate, to be ethically and environmentally sensitive”7 and “maximize effective utilization of available logistical assets, as appropriate”8. Environmental considerations are not among the criteria that the 6 Executive Summary of “A Framework for the International Polar Year 2007 -2008” produced by the ICSU IPY 2007 -2008 Planning Group, November 2004. 7 Clause 8, Section 1.6 of “A Framework for the International Polar Year 2007 -2008”. 8 Clause 9, Section 1.6 of “A Framework for the International Polar Year 2007-2008”. 5 Planning Group uses to identify research projects for IPY endorsement.9 They appear to be only desirable characteristics of IPY projects. Thus, the environmental considerations for IPY- related projects and other projects taking place simultaneously are left to the standard EIA process under the Protocol, with EIAs produced by individual Parties and discussed, as appropriate, at the meetings of the Committee for Environmental Protection. Generally speaking the focus of this process are individual projects and EIAs. In view of the expanding human activities in the Antarctic, on the one hand, and current Antarctic EIA practise, on the other hand, ASOC wonders whether or not anybody is looking at the cumulative impact of the activities being planned for the lead up period to the IPY, and those of the IPY itself. The environmental impact assessments required under Arts. 3 and 8, and Annex I of the Protocol require the consideration of cumulative impacts. In most of the EIAs prepared for the projects examined in this document greater emphasis has been placed on the direct impact of the development project itself, and lesser emphasis on the cumulative and downstream impacts of the new facilities. Recent intersessional work has resulted in some progress in improving cumulative impacts assessment, mainly on understanding that a greater information exchange that hitherto is required among all operators. However, to a considerable extent the assessment and monitoring of cumulative impacts remains as elusive as ever. The projects examined in this document raise several key issues from the perspective of cumulative impacts: - At a local scale there is the cumulative effect of the proposed activities on the sites in which they occur, when combined with past, present and foreseeable future activities at those sites. - At an Antarctic-wide scale – and particularly for those developments taking place in remote areas – the progressive encroachment on a vast but ultimately finite wilderness is another form of cumulative impact. In addition, the expansion of scientific infrastructure should not been considered in isolation but in the broader context of expanding Antarctic activities not related to scientific research, such as commercial activities.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Station Sharing in Antarctica
    IP 94 Agenda Item: ATCM 7, ATCM 10, ATCM 11, ATCM 14, CEP 5, CEP 6b, CEP 9 Presented by: ASOC Original: English Station Sharing in Antarctica 1 IP 94 Station Sharing in Antarctica Information Paper Submitted by ASOC to the XXIX ATCM (CEP Agenda Items 5, 6 and 9, ATCM Agenda Items 7, 10, 11 and 14) I. Introduction and overview As of 2005 there were at least 45 permanent stations in the Antarctic being operated by 18 countries, of which 37 were used as year-round stations.i Although there are a few examples of states sharing scientific facilities (see Appendix 1), for the most part the practice of individual states building and operating their own facilities, under their own flags, persists. This seems to be rooted in the idea that in order to become a full Antarctic Treaty Consultative Party (ATCP), one has to build a station to show seriousness of scientific purpose, although formally the ATCPs have clarified that this is not the case. The scientific mission and international scientific cooperation is nominally at the heart of the ATS,ii and through SCAR the region has a long-established scientific coordination body. It therefore seems surprising that half a century after the adoption of this remarkable Antarctic regime, we still see no truly international stations. The ‘national sovereign approach’ continues to be the principal driver of new stations. Because new stations are likely to involve relatively large impacts in areas that most likely to be near pristine, ASOC submits that this approach should be changed. In considering environmental impact analyses of proposed new station construction, the Committee on Environmental Protection (CEP) presently does not have a mandate to take into account opportunities for sharing facilities (as an alternative that would reduce impacts).
    [Show full text]
  • Download (Pdf, 236
    Science in the Snow Appendix 1 SCAR Members Full members (31) (Associate Membership) Full Membership Argentina 3 February 1958 Australia 3 February 1958 Belgium 3 February 1958 Chile 3 February 1958 France 3 February 1958 Japan 3 February 1958 New Zealand 3 February 1958 Norway 3 February 1958 Russia (assumed representation of USSR) 3 February 1958 South Africa 3 February 1958 United Kingdom 3 February 1958 United States of America 3 February 1958 Germany (formerly DDR and BRD individually) 22 May 1978 Poland 22 May 1978 India 1 October 1984 Brazil 1 October 1984 China 23 June 1986 Sweden (24 March 1987) 12 September 1988 Italy (19 May 1987) 12 September 1988 Uruguay (29 July 1987) 12 September 1988 Spain (15 January 1987) 23 July 1990 The Netherlands (20 May 1987) 23 July 1990 Korea, Republic of (18 December 1987) 23 July 1990 Finland (1 July 1988) 23 July 1990 Ecuador (12 September 1988) 15 June 1992 Canada (5 September 1994) 27 July 1998 Peru (14 April 1987) 22 July 2002 Switzerland (16 June 1987) 4 October 2004 Bulgaria (5 March 1995) 17 July 2006 Ukraine (5 September 1994) 17 July 2006 Malaysia (4 October 2004) 14 July 2008 Associate Members (12) Pakistan 15 June 1992 Denmark 17 July 2006 Portugal 17 July 2006 Romania 14 July 2008 261 Appendices Monaco 9 August 2010 Venezuela 23 July 2012 Czech Republic 1 September 2014 Iran 1 September 2014 Austria 29 August 2016 Colombia (rejoined) 29 August 2016 Thailand 29 August 2016 Turkey 29 August 2016 Former Associate Members (2) Colombia 23 July 1990 withdrew 3 July 1995 Estonia 15 June
    [Show full text]
  • Frozen Politics on a Thawing Continent
    FROZEN POLITICS ON A THAWING CONTINENT A Political Ecology Approach to Understanding Science and its Relationship to Neocolonial and Capitalist Processes in Antarctica MANON KATRINA BURBIDGE LUND UNIVERSITY MSc Human Ecology: Culture, Power and Sustainability (2 years) Supervisor: Alf Hornborg Department of Human Geography 30 ECTS Spring 2019 Abstract Despite possessing a unique relationship between humankind and the environment, and its occupation of a large proportion of the planet’s surface area, Antarctica is markedly absent from literature produced within the disciplines of human and political ecology. With no states or indigenous peoples, Antarctica is instead governed by a conglomeration of states as part of the Antarctic Treaty System, which places high values upon scientific research, peace and conservation. By connecting political ecology with neocolonial, world-systems and politically-situated science perspectives, this research addressed the question of how neocolonialism and the prospects of capital accumulation are legitimised by scientific research in Antarctica, as a result of science’s privileged position in the Treaty. Three methods were applied, namely GIS, critical-political content analysis and semi-structured interviews, which were then triangulated to create an overall case study. These methods explored the intersections between Antarctic power structures, the spatial patterns of the built environment and the discourses of six national scientific programmes, complemented by insights from eight expert interviews. This thesis constitutes an important contribution to the fields of human and political ecology, firstly by intersecting it with critical Antarctic studies, something which has not previously been attempted, but also by expanding the application of a world-systems perspective to a continent very rarely included in this field’s academia.
    [Show full text]
  • Atmospheric Ozone Above Troll Station, Antarctica Observed by a Ground Based Microwave Radiometer
    Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 6, 105–115, 2014 Earth System www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/6/105/2014/ Science doi:10.5194/essd-6-105-2014 © Author(s) 2014. CC Attribution 3.0 License. Open Access Open Data Atmospheric ozone above Troll station, Antarctica observed by a ground based microwave radiometer M. Daae1,2, C. Straub1,3, P. J. Espy1,2, and D. A. Newnham4 1Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Physics, Trondheim, Norway 2Birkeland Centre for Space Science, Bergen, Norway 3Institute of Applied Physics, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland 4British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK Correspondence to: M. Daae ([email protected]) Received: 6 August 2013 – Published in Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss.: 5 September 2013 Revised: 11 February 2014 – Accepted: 16 February 2014 – Published: 21 March 2014 Abstract. This paper describes the stratospheric and mesospheric ozone profiles retrieved from spectral mea- surements of the 249.96 GHz O3 line, using the British Antarctic Survey’s ground-based Microwave Radiome- ter at Troll (BAS-MRT), Antarctica (72◦010 S, 02◦320 E, 62◦ Mlat). The instrument operated at Troll from February 2008 through January 2010, and hourly averaged spectra were used to retrieve approximately 20 ozone profiles per day. The ozone profiles cover the pressure range from 3 hPa to 0.02 hPa (approximately 38 to 72 km) which includes the topside of the stratospheric ozone layer and the peak of the tertiary maximum. Comparing the retrieved ozone volume mixing ratio (vmr) values to Aura/MLS and SD-WACCM shows no significant bias to within the instrumental uncertainties.
    [Show full text]
  • Brominated Flame Retardants in Antarctic Air in the Vicinity of Two All-Year Research Stations
    atmosphere Article Brominated Flame Retardants in Antarctic Air in the Vicinity of Two All-Year Research Stations Susan Maria Bengtson Nash 1,*, Seanan Wild 1, Sara Broomhall 2 and Pernilla Bohlin-Nizzetto 3 1 The Southern Ocean Persistent Organic Pollutants Program (SOPOPP), Centre for Planetary Health and Food Security, Griffith University, Nathan 4111, Australia; [email protected] 2 Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Emerging Contaminants Section, Canberra 2601, Australia; [email protected] 3 Norwegian Institute for Air Research, NO-2027 Kjeller, Norway; [email protected] * Correspondence: s.bengtsonnash@griffith.edu.au Abstract: Continuous atmospheric sampling was conducted between 2010–2015 at Casey station in Wilkes Land, Antarctica, and throughout 2013 at Troll Station in Dronning Maud Land, Antarctica. Sample extracts were analyzed for polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and the naturally converted brominated compound, 2,4,6-Tribromoanisole, to explore regional profiles. This represents the first report of seasonal resolution of PBDEs in the Antarctic atmosphere, and we describe con- spicuous differences in the ambient atmospheric concentrations of brominated compounds observed between the two stations. Notably, levels of BDE-47 detected at Troll station were higher than those previously detected in the Antarctic or Southern Ocean region, with a maximum concentration of 7800 fg/m3. Elevated levels of penta-formulation PBDE congeners at Troll coincided with local building activities and subsided in the months following completion of activities. The latter provides important information for managers of National Antarctic Programs for preventing the release of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic substances in Antarctica. Citation: Bengtson Nash, S.M.; Wild, S.; Broomhall, S.; Bohlin-Nizzetto, P.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness and Aesthetic Values of Antarctica
    Wilderness and Aesthetic Values of Antarctica Abstract Antarctica is the least inhabited region in the world and has therefore had the least influence from human activities and, unlike the majority of the Earth’s continents and oceans, can still be considered as mostly wilderness. As every visitor to Antarctica knows, its landscapes are exceptionally beautiful. It was the recognition of the importance of these characteristics that resulted in their protection being included in the Madrid Protocol. Both wilderness and aesthetic values can be impaired by human activities in a variety of ways with the severity varying from negligible to severe, according to the type Protocol on Environmental Protec tion to the Antarctic Trea ty - of activity and its duration, spatial extent and intensity. A map of infrastructure and major travel routes the "M adrid Protocol" in Antarctica will be the first step in visually representing where wilderness and aesthetic values Article 3[1] may be impacted. It is hoped that this will stimulate further discussion on how to describe, acknowledge, The protection of the Antarctic environment and dependent an d associated ecosystems and the intrinsic value of Antarctica, understand and further protect the wilderness and aesthetic values of Antarctica. including its wilderness and aesthetic values and its value as an area for the conduct of scientific research, in particular research essential to understanding the global environment, shall be fundamental considerations in the planning and condu ct of all activities
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Environmental Evaluation
    Initial Environmental Evaluation Construction and operation of Troll Runway Norwegian Polar Institute November 2002 Table of Contents 1 Summary ........................................................................................3 2 Introduction....................................................................................4 2.1 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................. 4 2.2 PURPOSE AND NEED ..................................................................................................... 5 3 Description of activity (including alternatives)...............................7 3.1 LOCATION AND LAYOUT OF RUNWAY.......................................................................... 7 3.2 PREPARATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE RUNWAY................................................. 11 3.3 OPERATION OF THE RUNWAY.................................................................................... 12 3.4 RUNWAY FACILITIES ................................................................................................. 14 3.5 ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES........................................................................................... 14 3.6 TIMEFRAME............................................................................................................... 16 4 Description of the environment ....................................................17 4.1 THE ENVIRONMENT AT THE SITE...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • GPS Observations for Ice Sheet History (GOFISH)
    GPS Observations for Ice Sheet History (GOFISH) WASA/ABOA and SVEA stations, East Antarctica December 2001-January 2002 Dan Zwartz, Michiel Helsen Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research Utrecht University, The Netherlands Contents List of acronyms 2 Map of Dronning Maud Land, East Antarctica 3 Introduction 4 GPS Observations for Ice Sheet History (GOFISH) Travel itinerary 5 Expedition timetable 8 GPS geodesy Snow sample programme 12 Glacial geology 18 Weather Stations Maintenance 19 Acknowledgements 20 References 21 Front cover. View on Scharffenbergbotnen in the Heimefrontfjella, near the Swedish field station Svea, East Antarctica (photo by M. Helsen). 1 List of acronyms ABL Atmospheric Boundary Layer AWS Automatic Weather Station CIO Centre for Isotope Research (Groningen University) DML Dronning Maud Land ENABLE EPICA-Netherlands Atmospheric Boundary Layer Experiment EPICA European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica GISP Greenland Ice Sheet Project GPS Global Positioning System GRIP Greenland Ice Coring Project GTS Global Telecommunication System GOFISH GPS Observations for Ice Sheet History HM Height Meter (stand-alone sonic height ranger) IMAU Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research (Utrecht University) m asl Meters above mean sea level KNMI Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute NWO Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research SL (Atmospheric) Surface Layer (lowest 10% of the ABL) VU Free University of Amsterdam w.e. water equivalents 2 Map of Dronning Maud Land, East Antarctica 10°5°0°5°10° 69° FIMFIMBUL
    [Show full text]
  • FINAL Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation (CEE) for the Upgrading of the Norwegian Summer Station Troll in Dronning Maud Land, Antarctica, to Permanent Station
    FINAL Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation (CEE) for the upgrading of the Norwegian summer station Troll in Dronning Maud Land, Antarctica, to permanent station. The Norwegian Polar Institute is Norway’s main institution for research, monitoring and topographic mapping in Norwegian polar regions. The institute also advises Norwegian authorities on matters concerning polar environmental management. Norwegian Polar Institute 2004 Preface The Norwegian Polar Institute (NPI) prepared a draft Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation (Draft CEE) for the upgrading of the Norwegian summer station Troll in Dronning Maud Land, Antarctica, to permanent station. The Draft CEE was submitted to the Ministry of Environment (MoE) in January 2004. The Draft CEE was then made publicly available according to the provisions of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (Environmental Protocol) as confirmed in the national regulations pertaining to the protection of the environment in Antarctica (Antarctic Regulations). The Draft CEE was made available on the NPI website (www.npolar.no) from February 2004. The Parties to the Antarctic Treaty were notified about the Draft CEE and made aware of its website location through diplomatic notice (dated 23.01.04), satisfying the provisions of Article 3 (3) of Annex I of the Environmental Protocol. The NPI received comments on the Draft CEE from Australia and Germany. The comments are attached as Appendix 9 to this final version of the CEE (Final CEE). The suggestions and concerns raised in these comments are addressed in the present document. All modifications are in italics with corresponding footnotes on the originators of the particular comment. The Draft CEE was furthermore submitted to the CEP Chair for CEP’s consideration in accordance with Article 3 (4) of Annex I of the Environmental Protocol.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded 09/26/21 02:59 AM UTC 138 WEATHER and FORECASTING VOLUME 15
    VOLUME 15 WEATHER AND FORECASTING APRIL 2000 Utilization of Automatic Weather Station Data for Forecasting High Wind Speeds at Pegasus Runway, Antarctica R. E. HOLMES AND C. R. STEARNS Space Science and Engineering Center, University of WisconsinÐMadison, Madison, Wisconsin G. A. WEIDNER AND L. M. KELLER Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of WisconsinÐMadison, Madison, Wisconsin (Manuscript received 14 December 1998, in ®nal form 20 September 1999) ABSTRACT Reduced visibility due to blowing snow can severely hinder aircraft operations in the Antarctic. Wind speeds in excess of approximately 7±13 m s21 can result in blowing snow. The ability to forecast high wind speed events can improve the safety and ef®ciency of aircraft activities. The placement of automatic weather stations to the south (upstream) of the Pegasus Runway, and other air®elds near McMurdo Station, Antarctica, can provide the forecaster the information needed to make short-term (3±6 h) forecasts of high wind speeds, de®ned in this study to be greater than 15 m s21. Automatic weather station (AWS) data were investigated for the period of 1 January 1991 through 31 December 1996, and 109 events were found that had high wind speeds at the Pegasus North AWS site. Data from other selected AWS sites were examined for precursors to these high wind speed events. A temperature increase was generally observed at most sites before such an event commenced. Increases in the temperature difference between the Pegasus North AWS and the Minna Bluff AWS and increasing pressure differences between other AWS sites were also common features present before the wind speed began to increase at the Pegasus North site.
    [Show full text]
  • II. Expedition Dates
    Information Exchange Under United States Antarctic Activities Articles III and VII(5) of the Activities Planned for 2003- 2004 ANTARCTIC TREATY II. Expedition Dates II. Expedition Dates Section II of the 2003-2004 season plan includes information concerning vessel and aircraft operations along with estimated dates of expeditions and other significant events. Winfly Activities Annual augmentation of the U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) begins with austral winter flights (WINFLY), departing Christchurch, New Zealand, and arriving McMurdo Station, Antarctica, about 20 August 2003. The aircraft will carry scientists and support personnel to start early pre-summer projects, to augment maintenance personnel, and to prepare skiways and ice runways at McMurdo Station. This will involve 3 U.S. Air Force C-17 flights and will increase station population from the winter-over level of about 154 to a transition level of about 580 (285 personnel expected to deploy at WINFLY). Mainbody Activities Austral summer activities will be initiated on 30 September 2003 with wheeled aircraft operations between Christchurch, New Zealand and the sea-ice runways at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. This will involve approximately 21 C-141 flights, 11 C-17 flights and 4 C-5 flights of transport aircraft of the U.S. Air Force Air Mobility Command (AMC), and 15 flights by C-130 transport aircraft of the Royal New Zealand Air Force. The sea- ice runway operations will cease about mid December 2003. Williams Field will open for the ski-equipped LC-130 aircrafts and at the same time approximately 2 days pass the Ice Runway closure, Pegasus Blue Ice Runway will be open for wheeled aircraft from Christchurch to McMurdo.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Construction and Operation of a Gravel Runway in the Area of Mario Zucchelli Station, Terra Nova Bay, Victoria Land, Antarctica
    ATCM XXXIX, CEP XIX, Santiago 2016 Annex A to the WP presented by Italy Draft Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation Proposed construction and operation of a gravel runway in the area of Mario Zucchelli Station, Terra Nova Bay, Victoria Land, Antarctica January 2016 Rev. 0 (INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) TABLE OF CONTENTS Non-technical summary ...................................................................................................................... i I Introduction ........................................................................................................................ i II Need of Proposed Activities .............................................................................................. ii III Site selection and alternatives .......................................................................................... iii IV Description of the Proposed Activity ............................................................................... iv V Initial Environmental Reference State .............................................................................. v VI Identification and Prediction of Environmental Impact, Mitigation Measures of the Proposed Activities .......................................................................................................... vi VII Environmental Impact Monitoring Plan ........................................................................... ix VIII Gaps in Knowledge and Uncertainties ............................................................................. ix
    [Show full text]