· 2019-01-29 · AX1019181240DEN Acknowledgements This document is a compilation of source...

Toolik Field Station Long-Range Facilities Plan 2018

December 2018

AX1019181240DEN

Acknowledgements This document is a compilation of source information developed by subject experts, government agencies, and contractors associated with the National Science Foundation’s mission to support fundamental research at the forefront of understanding the arctic, including its human and natural components, and its global linkages. These contributors have provided content support and have granted permission to reuse photos, data, and content from previously published reports and presentations contained herein. These entities have provided collaboration and support in the development of a plan for new, sustainable infrastructure at Toolik Field Station.

Institute of Arctic Biology: The Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks (IAB) is Alaska’s principal research and educational unit for investigating high-latitude biological systems. To learn more about IAB, visit https://www.iab.uaf.edu/.

University of Alaska Fairbanks: The University of Alaska Fairbanks is an internationally respected research institute that integrates teaching, research, and public service for student education emphasizing the circumpolar North and its diverse peoples. For more information, visit http://www.uaf.edu/.

https://www.iab.uaf.edu/

http://www.uaf.edu/

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

AX1019181240DEN

This page intentionally left blank

AX1019181240DEN ES-1

Executive Summary As interest in global warming and climate change intensifies, credible, long-term scientific observations and research conducted at Toolik Field Station (TFS) will provide unique insights and answer transformative science questions regarding the rapidly changing climate of the arctic. These changes will have profound consequences for life and land use in the region and TFS offers unique access for integrated environmental monitoring and research to understand how arctic terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems will respond to these changes and how these changes will impact interrelated atmospheric and hydrological systems around the planet.

TFS will be maintained, augmented, and upgraded as a research support and infrastructure hub based on both available funding and the requirements of research awards made through the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) competitive process as well as research funded by other United States and international organizations, as appropriate. The vision includes the following objectives:

• Preserve TFS for science investigating processes and provide a workplace promoting creativeresearch and education practices.

• Continue to serve as a platform for training next generation scientists.

This Long-Range Facilities Plan (LRFP) provides a framework to transition from the current state to an upgraded station that meets the vision of the Institute of Arctic Biology, NSF, and the needs of the user community while maintaining the unique characteristics of the Alaska region for research.

This version of the LRFP was developed using planning efforts that have been developed over a period of several years initiated by onsite-specific experience and data, projected science requirements, user experiences in various regions, and solutions from other polar programs. It is intended as a “roadmap” by providing recommendations for improvements and future developments prioritized into a 4-year plan. The proposed projects are prioritized to help segregate scope, schedule, and costs into executable and fundable plans. Table ES-1 provides a list of recommended projects with identified scope and rough order of magnitude (ROM) costs and Figure ES-1 presents a project site plan layout.

The summary level schedule, provided in Section 6, depicts completion of the recommended work over a period of 48 months. The cumulative total estimated ROM cost for the projects is included in Section 7.

Significant additional work is required to expand upon the conceptual information provided herein to confirm viability, scope, costs, and schedules.

Table ES-1. Long Range Project Plan

Project Name Scope Total ROM Project Cost

12-Month

P-01: Construct ModularDormitories

Design, fabricate, transport, and construct modular housing units to provide an adequate supply of indoor sleeping spaces (28 beds) and to replace older, inefficient modular units that sleep 16 persons currently.

$690,000

P-02: Expand Waste HeatUtilidor to Dining Facility

Design and construct expansion of the waste heat utilidor from the Genset modules to the dining facility.

$200,000

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-2 AX1019181240DEN

Table ES-1. Long Range Project Plan

Project Name Scope Total ROM Project Cost

24-Month

P-01: Construct Lab 5 Design, fabricate, transport, and construct a new laboratory (Lab 5) to provide adequate lab research space.

$1,430,000

P-02: Construct EMT and Washeteria Facility

Design, fabricate, transport, and construct a new EMT and washeteria to provide sufficient space for medical personnel, showers, and restrooms for residential occupants.

$860,000

P-03: Assess ExistingFacilities and Infrastructure

Assess the existing facilities and develop a facility replacement plan.

$120,000

Total $3,300,000

Notes:

EMT = emergency medical technician

LEGEND

12-MONTH

24-MONTH

FIGURE ES-1Project MapToolik Field Station LRFP

For Planning Purposes Only 100_AX1019181240DEN

P-02

P-01

P-02

P-01

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-4 AX1019181240DEN


AX1019181240DEN III

Contents Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................. i

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... ES-1

Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... VII

1 Vision, Goals, Objectives, and Guiding Principles ................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Vision................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Goals ................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.3 Guiding Principles ............................................................................................................ 1-2 1.4 Setting Priorities – Using a Decision Matrix ..................................................................... 1-2

2 Station Overview ................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 History .............................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Background Information .................................................................................................. 2-7 2.3 General Site Observations ............................................................................................... 2-9 2.4 Climate ........................................................................................................................... 2-10

3 Planning and Design ............................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Site Development Principles ............................................................................................ 3-1

3.1.1 Functional Relationships and Land Use Zones .................................................... 3-1 3.2 Site Constraints and Opportunities.................................................................................. 3-7 3.3 Design Standards and Considerations ........................................................................... 3-11

3.3.1 Color .................................................................................................................. 3-11 3.3.2 Building Characteristics ..................................................................................... 3-12 3.3.3 Building Height and View Sheds ....................................................................... 3-12 3.3.4 Signage .............................................................................................................. 3-12 3.3.5 Screening .......................................................................................................... 3-13 3.3.6 Accessibility ....................................................................................................... 3-13

3.4 Sustainability Guiding Principles .................................................................................... 3-14 3.4.1 General Guidance: The Toolik Field Station Energy Vision ............................... 3-15 3.4.2 Promote Sustainability ...................................................................................... 3-16

4 Infrastructure and Utilities .................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Water System ................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Existing Water Supply and Distribution .............................................................. 4-1 4.1.2 Water Supply and Distribution ........................................................................... 4-2

4.2 Wastewater System ......................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.1 Existing Wastewater Handling ............................................................................ 4-2 4.2.2 Proposed Wastewater Handling ......................................................................... 4-2

4.3 Electrical Power Generation and Distribution Systems ................................................... 4-3 4.3.1 Existing Power Generation ................................................................................. 4-3 4.3.2 Proposed Power Generation .............................................................................. 4-4 4.3.3 Existing Electrical Distribution ............................................................................ 4-5 4.3.4 Proposed Electrical Distribution ......................................................................... 4-5

4.4 Mechanical Systems ......................................................................................................... 4-6 4.4.1 Existing Mechanical Systems .............................................................................. 4-6 4.4.2 Proposed Mechanical Systems ........................................................................... 4-6

4.5 Utility Corridors ................................................................................................................ 4-6 4.5.1 Existing Utility Corridors ..................................................................................... 4-6

CONTENTS

IV AX1019181240DEN

4.5.2 Proposed Utility Corridors .................................................................................. 4-6 4.6 Information Technology................................................................................................... 4-9

4.6.1 Existing Information Technology ........................................................................ 4-9 4.6.2 Proposed Information Technology ................................................................... 4-11

4.7 Access Road ................................................................................................................... 4-11 4.8 Snow Removal................................................................................................................ 4-11

5 Redevelopment Plan ........................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Reoccurring Projects ........................................................................................................ 5-2

5.1.1 Facility Sustaining and Science Support Projects ................................................ 5-2 5.2 12-Month Project Plan ..................................................................................................... 5-3

5.2.1 P-01: Construct New Modular Dormitories ........................................................ 5-35.2.2 P-02: Expand Waste Heat Distribution System to Dining Facility ....................... 5-3

5.3 24-Month Project Plan ..................................................................................................... 5-4 5.3.1 P-01: Construct New Laboratory ........................................................................ 5-45.3.2 P-02: Construct New Washeteria and EMT Facility ............................................ 5-45.3.3 P-03: Assess Existing Facilities and Infrastructure .............................................. 5-5

5.4 Other Projects Under Discussion ..................................................................................... 5-5 5.4.1 Construct Modular Dormitories.......................................................................... 5-5 5.4.2 Construct Classroom and Lecture Hall Facility ................................................... 5-6

5.5 Energy Management Plan ................................................................................................ 5-6 5.5.1 Incorporation of Renewable Energy ................................................................... 5-6

6 Schedule ............................................................................................................................. 6-1

7 Cost Estimates .................................................................................................................... 7-1

Appendixes

A Structure Inventory and History of Development B Existing Site Plan C Sample Site Development Checklist D Future Site Plan

Tables

1-1 Sample Decision-Matrix for Toolik Field Station ........................................................................... 1-3

1-2 Potential Decision Factors to Assess Toolik Field Station Long-Range Facilities Plan Actions ..... 1-4

2-1 Climate (including Wind Speed and Precipitation) at Toolik Field Station, 2008 ....................... 2-11

4-1 Toolik Field Station — Power Generation Capabilities ................................................................. 4-4

5-1 Project Plan Outlook ..................................................................................................................... 5-1

7-1 Costs for the Projects Represented in this LRFP ........................................................................... 7-1

CONTENTS

Section Page

AX1019181240DEN INSERT LEGAL ENTITY (IF APPLICABLE) V

Figures

1-1 The Planning Process .................................................................................................................... 1-1

2-1 Generalized History of Toolik Field Station ................................................................................... 2-5

2-2 BLM Leased Area ........................................................................................................................... 2-8

2-3 Location of Toolik Field Station ..................................................................................................... 2-9

2-4 Toolik Field Station User Day Totals (2006–2017) ...................................................................... 2-10

3-1 Proposed Land Use and Zoning Districts ...................................................................................... 3-2

3-2 Existing Land Use and Zoning Districts ......................................................................................... 3-3

3-3 Proposed Land Use and Zoning Districts ...................................................................................... 3-5

3-4 Toolik Field Station — Major Site Development Considerations ................................................. 3-7

3-4 Toolik Field Station — Major Site Development Considerations (continued) .............................. 3-8

3-5 Site Development Constraints ...................................................................................................... 3-9

3-6 Current Color Palette at Toolik Field Station .............................................................................. 3-11

3-7 Signs at Toolik Field Station ........................................................................................................ 3-13

3-8 Access to Facilities at Toolik Field Station................................................................................... 3-14

3-9 Sustainable Design Strategies ..................................................................................................... 3-18

4-1 Utility Corridors ............................................................................................................................. 4-7

Schedule ....................................................................................................................................... .6-36-1

https://jacobsengineering.sharepoint.com/sites/arsls/Program%20Reports/Long-Range%20Plans/Toolik%20Field%20Station/00_Main_Text/Toolik_LRFP_ver1_2018.docx#_Toc531685339

CONTENTS

VI AX1019181240DEN


AX1019181240DEN VII

Acronyms and Abbreviations °C degree(s) Celsius

°F degree(s) Fahrenheit

AK Alaska

AP access point

ARCUS Arctic Research Consortium of the United States

BLM Bureau of Land Management

comms communications

CPS CH2M HILL Polar Services

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOT Department of Transportation

EDC Environmental Data Center

EMT emergency medical technician

ft2 square feet

gal gallon(s)

Ghz gigahertz

H hour(s)

HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning

IAB Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks

IMS Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska, Fairbanks

in. inch(es)

IT information technology

kW kilowatt(s)

LAN Local Area Network

LRFP Long-Range Facilities Plan

MAB Man and Biosphere Program

MBCS meteor burst communication system

Mbps megabytes per second

mm millimeter(s)

mm millimeter(s)

NEON National Ecological Observatory Network

NSF National Science Foundation

PI Principle Investigator

RATE Research on Arctic Tundra Environments

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

VIII AX1019181240DEN

RNA Research Natural Area

ROI return on investment

ROM rough order of magnitude

Station Toolik Field Station

TFS Toolik Field Station

UACN University of Alaska Computer Network

UAF University of Alaska, Fairbanks

VAC volt(s) alternating current

WAN wide area network

yd3 cubic yard(s)

SECTION 1

AX1019181240DEN 1-1

Vision, Goals, Objectives, and Guiding Principles The mission of Toolik Field Station (TFS or the Station) is to support research and education and foster collaboration to create a greater understanding of the changing Arctic and its relationship to the world, for people now and in the future.

To be effective and cohesive, a good plan must be founded on a well-formulated vision that is universally endorsed by stakeholders. Once the vision is crafted, goals should be created to enable stakeholders to prepare actions to attain both the goals and the vision. Projects and actions not integrated with a guiding vision and accompanying goals are simply a “to do” list and not a plan.

After projects and actions are harmonized in accordance with a plan, vision, and goals, projects should be executed in a manner that provides continuous support. To this extent, a series of guiding principles is also developed in this section.

To be successful, active stakeholder involvement should be at the heart of all stages of the planning process. Throughout the process, data collection and analysis provide the foundation for all activities. Figure 1-1 outlines the planning process and illustrates the key role played by the vision, goals, and guiding principles. It also shows where each element of the planning process is addressed in the Toolik Field Station Long-Range Facilities Plan.

1.1 Vision Empowering scientists and accelerating discoveries about the Arctic that impact our changing world.

1.2 Goals • Provide modern, year-round, energy-

efficient facilities, infrastructure, andequipment.

• Operate TFS using efficient, effective, andsustainable practices.

• Provide an environment where creativeresearch and education can happen in aworkplace to which people want to return.

• Expand collection of baselineenvironmental data to enable detection oflong-term change.

• Protect the environment as a resource forresearch.

Figure 1-1. The Planning Process

A stakeholder meeting in Anchorage in May 2011 was just one of several meetings conducted during the planning process

SECTION 1–VISION, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES

1-2 AX1019181240DEN

1.3 Guiding Principles • Optimize energy performance.

• Provide a safe and healthy research workplace.

• Equalize capacity and demand.

• Prioritize new construction to replace the least efficient structures once capacity and demand havebeen equalized.

• Make all new buildings year-round-capable; a subset will be optimized for winter operations.

• Work closely with the science user community to facilitate their research and education.

Construction of a new kitchen and dining hall in 2010 promotes the goal of providing modern, year-round, energy-efficient facilities at TFS.

1.4 Setting Priorities – Using a Decision Matrix The development of the vision, goals, and guiding principles will form the nucleus of the Toolik Field Station Long-Range Facilities Plan. In the short-term, with a limitation of 175 scientists working at TFS, and with a well identified number of projects, it will be relatively easy to make decisions about project priorities. However, as the demand for new science intensifies or operations increase throughout the year and spill into winter, it may become necessary to develop a methodology to make and justify decisions about what projects can come to TFS, when they can operate, or what future projects should receive priority for limited funds. In that context, Table 1.1 provides a decision matrix. Generally, projects or actions are evaluated against a plan’s goals. However, with just five goals, it might be difficult to sufficiently stratify projects to make a decision. In that case, adding guiding principles can serve “to break ties.”


AX1019181240DEN 1-3

In this example, projects are evaluated against goals that have been weighted for this exercise. In looking at just the goals, hypothetical Project B would get the highest ranking and would therefore receive priority for funding and execution. By adding the guiding principles into the mix, the outcome could be different, as suggested by the example in which Project C receives the highest ranking.

Table 1-1. Sample Decision-Matrix for Toolik Field Station

Goal Points

Projects

A B C

Modern, year-round, energy-efficient facilities 5 5 4 4

Use efficient, effective, and sustainable practices 4 4 4 3

Provide environment where research and education happen in a workplace to which people want to return

4 3 4 4

Expand collection of baseline environmental data to enable detection of long-term change 3 3 3 2

Protect the environment as a resource for research 2 1 2 2

Total—Goals 16 17 15

Guiding Principles

Optimize energy performance 1 1 0 1

Provide a safe and healthy research workplace 1 1 1 1

Equalize capacity and demand 1 0 0 1

Prioritize new construction to replace the least efficient structures 1 1 1 1

Make all new buildings year-round-capable 1 0 1 1

Work closely with science community to facilitate research 1 1 1 1

Total—Goals and Principles 20 20 21

Table 1-2 provides a list of other variables that can be used to make rational, defensible decisions.


1-4 AX1019181240DEN

Table 1-2. Potential Decision Factors to Assess Toolik Field Station Long-Range Facilities Plan Actions Decision Factor Comment

Health and Safety Risk Will the action improve health and safety?

Code Requirements Will the action bring TFS into compliance?

Operational Efficiencies Will the action make operations more efficient?

Year-Round Operations Will the action support year-round operations?

Utilities Are utilities in place to support the action?

Science Mission Does the action directly support the science mission?

Quality of Life Will the project improve the quality of life at the Station?

Carbon Footprint Will the action reduce the Station’s carbon footprint?

Benefits How many people will benefit from the action?

Linkages Is the action needed to support other activities?

Functionality If action isn’t taken, will the facility take a step backward?

Routine Operations Is the action necessary for routine operations at TFS?

Environmental Impact Will the action have a positive impact on the environment?

Energy Efficiency Will the action improve our energy efficiency?

Reliability Will the action enhance reliability of activities at the Station?

Maintenance Can the action be maintained after it is done?

Perception Will the action have a positive public perception?

Footprint Will the action reduce the TFS’ footprint or built area?

Costs Will the action pay for itself in the short term?

Will the action pay for itself in the long term?

Will the action generate cost savings? (operational efficiency)

SECTION 2

AX1019181240DEN 2-1

Station Overview As interest in global warming and climate change intensifies, credible, long-term scientific observations and research are of paramount importance to the world as nations craft policies and base future decisions on the best information available. The climate of the Arctic is changing rapidly, and these changes will have profound consequences for life and land use in the region, consequences with global ramifications. Hence, there is an urgent need for integrated environmental monitoring and research to understand how arctic terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems will respond to these changes and how these changes will impact interrelated atmospheric and hydrological systems around the planet.

Long-term, flagship arctic observatories will play a central role in advancing this understanding through integrated, process level, multi-investigator, and multisite research and monitoring of arctic populations, communities, and ecosystems. With its strategic location and greater than 40-year history of supporting process-level research and monitoring programs, TFS is well-positioned to fulfill this role. From its beginning as a tent camp, TFS is evolving into a "flagship" station, developing into a year-round facilitywith state-of-the-art equipment. Challenges associated with this development include maintaining the integrity of the environment that TFS researchers come to study, while providing efficient and modern infrastructure to support that study. It is in this context that the TFS Long-Range Facilities Plan (LRFP) has been prepared.

2.1 History TFS was first established in 1975 to support an aquatic program that obtained baseline data on the North Slope of Alaska and inland coastal lakes and ponds as an extension of the International Biological Program. Several projects were retained and integrated as the Research on Arctic Tundra Environments (RATE) program. RATE was coordinated under a proposal funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) as part of the Man and Biosphere Program (MAB), Project 6, Impact of Human Activities on Mountain and Tundra Ecosystems. Terrestrial studies were sited at Atqasuk on the Meade River.

In June 1975, a reconnaissance team consisting of John Hobbie, Jerry Brown, Vera Alexander, Mike Miller, Pat Webber, and Phil Miller noted the deep waters of Toolik Lake and its connections to an extensive watershed selected the site for aquatic research. Later that month, a 16-foot travel trailer belonging to the University of Alaska, Fairbanks (UAF), was placed at the north end of the Toolik Lake.

In 1976, a modular unit that measured 10 feet by 50 feet was added to the site. The modular unit contained a kitchen and dining area, laboratory room, and a sleeping room. People at the camp brought their own sleeping tents. In 1978, a new kitchen and dining unit was added, and the original unit was modified into five laboratory cubicles. In 1980, a new unit measuring 10 feet by 50 feet was added as a laboratory trailer. In 1982, a unit measuring 10 feet by 40 feet was added as a laboratory and then redesigned and refurbished as a hygiene and wash-up facility. Several small, temporary wooden

Toolik Field Station

SECTION 2–STATION OVERVIEW

2-2 AX1019181240DEN

structures were added from 1976 to 1982 and used for scientific work and storage. In 1982, excluding these temporary units, there was 1,400 square feet (ft2) for laboratory use and 500 ft2 for food service.

In 1983, the Institute of Arctic Biology, UAF (IAB), one of the major research institutes of UAF, took over management of University Toolik Camp. Dave Witt served as supervisor and logistics manager for the Station, and Mike Abels was a field operations assistant at that time. The camp, located on the decommissioned Alyeska Toolik Camp airstrip near the northern shore of Toolik Lake, quickly outgrew available space. An abandoned Alyeska pad was identified on the south shore of Toolik Lake and permits from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) were applied for and issued. The University Toolik Camp moved to its current location and was officially named Toolik Field Station. As an in-kind donation to the Station for support of the fourth International Conference on Permafrost, eight Hanson WeatherPORT tents were acquired, which provided 1,920 ft2 of work and storage space. Because no funds were available for pad improvements, the modules were positioned on existing level areas.

In 1981 and 1982, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) contributed $20,000 a year for field station operations at TFS. In 1983, upgrades were supported by $30,000 from DOE and $7,000 of IAB indirect cost. Upgrades included the addition of 13 surplus modular units purchased from the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. In 1984, the Alaska State Legislature appropriated $35,000 to upgrade the wastewater collection system and kitchen. In 1985, an additional $10,000 award from UAF was used to upgrade the kitchen trailer. In 1986, NSF awarded $60,000, with a $30,000 UAF match, for upgrading the Station with a dining facility that was constructed by IAB to connect the dining trailer and kitchen trailer. This added 960 ft2 of floor space, which was redesigned as the manager’s office and space for communication and general-use computers and equipment.

TFS has grown incrementally through the addition of modules, tents, and wooden structures, many of which have been converted to different uses over the years.

In 1988, NSF awarded $74,250, with a $78,250 UAF match, for equipment and improvement of facilities. An above-ground electrical cable tray distribution system was installed from the Station generators to each building. The generators were placed inside an arctic Pac trailer to provide shelter, partial soundproofing, and a method of shipping generators to Fairbanks, Alaska, each winter for service. Other purchased equipment included a water filtration system, three snow machines, gas chromatograph, wet and dry fall collector, stereo-zoom microscope, spectrophotometer, leaf-area meter, two balances, and freeze dryer.

In 1992, NSF awarded $66,534, with a $33,266 match from UAF, to upgrade research facilities and equipment, including two Gateway 486sx computers, two WeatherPORT tents, a Centris 620 computer and printer, and an 8,000-gallon (gal) generator fuel storage tank. The upgrade also funded a survey of the Station and improvements of the interior electrical systems of the existing lab trailers and kitchen.


AX1019181240DEN 2-3

In 1993, UAF applied for a long-term lease for the approximately 2-acre pad site and a right-of-way for the Dalton Highway from BLM. Part of the application process required a development plan and schedule. The site plan, which organized the pad into designated science areas, utilities areas, and residential areas, is still generally followed.

In May 1993, NSF tasked Antarctic Support Associates to upgrade laboratories at TFS. Three modular laboratories were mobilized during the 1994 and 1995 field seasons. A modular wet lab measuring 24 feet by 60 feet was designed with running water and fume hoods to support bench-top chemistry. A dry lab measuring 24 feet by 60 feet was designed to include microscope and balance rooms, room for a gas chromatograph, and laboratory bench space. A modular winter lab measuring 20 feet by 55 feet was built that includes rooms for animal holding and surgery for research on small mammals and birds, an arctic entry, storage areas, and an outside deck. To accommodate use during winter when the main Station generator is off, a generator room with a 12-kilowatt (kW) generator was included in the module. An oil gravity feed heater and an outside fuel storage tank were also designed for the lab as a backup heat source.

In February of 1995, a workshop was attended by 35 arctic scientists, logistics experts, land managers, and representatives of indigenous people of Alaska. The result was published by the Arctic Research Consortium of the United States (ARCUS): Toolik Field Station: The Second 20 Years. The workshop attendees defined the scientific mission and goals of TFS for a 20-year period, and outlined the facility improvements, management, and funding.

Over the next 5 years, funding was solidified for facilities upgrades. The development concurred with recommendations outlined in the ARCUS report and the 1993 Development Plan and Schedule. Regulatory agencies attended TFS management meetings and gave approvals to ongoing development activities.

In 1998, NSF awarded $196,762, with a $98,381 UAF match, to the IAB for acquisition of “an arctic winter residence facility for the Toolik Field Station.” The facility was designed by Mike Abels and Brian Barnes of IAB and Steve Keller and USKH Architects to serve edge season and short-term winter use. A modular structure with redundant heating and power sources was featured in the design. The facility, which includes five two-person bedrooms, a kitchen, storage room, and an “inside out-house,” can accommodate 10 researchers. The Winter Quarters was positioned onsite in November 1998.

In 1999, NSF supported the delivery of four modular laboratories measuring 24 feet by 60 feet, which replaced five old laboratory trailers that had been fashioned out of surplus ATCO units (measuring 10 feet by 50 feet). The new module was designed to included running water, fume hoods, bench and desk stations, storage, and outside staging decks. A generator module, with two 50-kW and two 80-kW

The addition of the Winter Quarters was asignificant milestone in the development of TFS.

Purchasing scientific equipment has been critical to maintaining Toolik Field Station’s status as a world- class research facility.


2-4 AX1019181240DEN

generators sets, was installed at the Station. In 2001, with NSF support, the generator module was redesigned into two modules, each housing a 50-kW and an 80-kW generator. The north outhouse was built, and a modular bathhouse was designed and delivered. The shower module is divided into men’s and women’s sides, each with showers, sinks, and storage cubes. An intrastation local area network (LAN) was also installed.

In February 2002, a development plan was prepared to support the continued lease of the BLM property.

In 2003, NSF funded a modular dorm unit (Cotton Grass) that measured 31 feet by 81 feet. The residential design included eight two-person rooms, a men’s and women’s bathroom and shower, lounge, arctic entry, and a utility room with an internal water supply tank.

In December of 2004, under the leadership of M. Syndonia Bret-Harte and Brian Barnes, a workshop was held in San Francisco to discuss the future of TFS. The resulting report, Science Support at the Toolik field Station, Alaska: Directions for the Next 10 Years,1 provided guidance on environmental monitoring and the preservation of long-term control areas and research sites, core laboratories and scientific services, and data management, a geographical information system, and information technology (IT). Recommendations were also made about integrating education with the research at TFS.

During field season 2005, the dining hall underwent a major renovation. Upgrades were made to the roof, communication module exterior wall, walk-in cooler/freezer exterior shed, and an expanded arctic entry and hand wash sink for the dining hall were constructed. A deck/walkway from the pad to the boat dock was also constructed. Foundation and walls for the expanded shower module were started and a new wastewater tank for the kitchen was installed.

During field season 2006, an addition to the shower module was completed, a water well drilled, heated snow machine shed constructed, and a 1,000-gal bulk propane tank for the kitchen. A new modular generator shed with two 165 kW generators and control panel was procured. Two existing generator modules, a new generator module, a 1,000-gal gasoline tank, and a new 10,000-gal fuel tank were consolidated into an integrated oil spill containment. WeatherPORT tents set up to cover winter. The under-counter kitchen dishwasher was replaced with a commercial dish machine. Upgrades to the generators, switchgears, electrical distribution system, vehicle fueling system, the fuel containment system, and to the lab side access road.

1 Bret-Harte, M. Syndonia and Brian M. Barnes. 2004. Science Support at the Toolik field Station, Alaska: Directions for the Next 10 Years.Report of a workshop held in San Francisco, California from December 10-12, 2004. Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska USA. http://www.iab.uaf.edu/people/syndonia_bret-harte/publications/tfssciencevision2006iab.pdf.


AX1019181240DEN 2-5

Figure 2-1. Generalized History of Toolik Field Station


2-6 AX1019181240DEN

This page is intentionally left blank


AX1019181240DEN 2-7

During field season 2007, the LAN was upgraded into three zones. Utility culverts were installed for current and future power, water, and communication lines. A foundation was prepared for the cold storage tent. A 1,000-gal fuel tank was added to Winter Quarters. A tent to support the wheeled loader was procured. Also, in 2007, the helicopter pad was relocated, the cold storage facility was constructed, and the loader tent was erected.

During field season 2008, the cold storage tent (measuring 36 feet by 100 feet) frame was erected and covered with fabric. An interior remodel of the Environmental Data Center (EDC) and herbarium was completed.

During field season 2009, a refurbished 8,000-gal fuel tank was hooked up in the generator fuel containment area.

In 2010, a new kitchen and dining facility, made available with funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, was constructed at TFS. The building also serves as the administrative hub of the station, containing the manager’s office, meeting space, and the main telecommunication equipment for the site.

In 2014, two laboratory buildings located in Fairbanks were donated to UAF. The labs are identical, built on a steel frame base, well insulated, and suitable for winter operation in the arctic. The labs were designed as full-service wet chemistry labs, with all associated ventilation and plumbing systems including fume hoods and chemical-resistant countertops. The labs arrived onsite via flatbed trailer in August 2014. Connection to site utilities began in 2014 and completed in 2015.

Two, eight-bedroom dormitory buildings measuring 26 feet by 56 feet were procured in 2015 and positioned near the old ATCO trailers. The buildings provide additional winter-capable dormitory space.

In 2015, a new garage was constructed onsite to support winter science and provide heated maintenance space. The two garage bays are large enough to hold several trucks, snow machines, and the Caterpillar IT-28 loader. The building consolidates many functions that were previously housed in much less thermally efficient structures, which saves heating cost. A new waste heat recovery system, also installed in 2015, captures heat from the generator plant. The operating generator’s coolant is routed through heat exchangers and the resulting hot glycol solution is circulated through the three generator modules for space heating and keeping the offline generators warm. A branch circuit provides heating for the garage facility.

An additional dormitory was built in 2018, consisting of two modular buildings measuring 10 feet by 56 feet with a conjoined 7-foot-wide hallway. This winter-capable dormitory (ATCO 7 and 8) is placed near the Cottongrass dorm and can sleep 16 persons total.

TFS has developed from a 10-person tent camp into a premier arctic research laboratory and science support facility capable of supporting up to 175 researchers. Current research themes and funding levels are very dynamic and responsive to national interests in the arctic.

A full inventory list of facilities and a summarized history of development is presented in Appendix A.

2.2 Background Information TFS is located on 33.87 acres of land managed by BLM (Figure 2.2). The area surrounding the station is the Toolik Lake Area of Critical Environmental Concern and Research Natural Area (RNA). The 82,800-acre RNA is managed by BLM. Within the RNA, scientists from the United States and several foreign countries are engaged in long-term research on arctic tundra, lakes, and streams. The site of the field station is leased to UAF from BLM on a 20-year lease arrangement (BLM case file F-91037). The terms of the lease stipulate a maximum onsite population of 175 persons. In addition, the site is within the limit


2-8 AX1019181240DEN

of the North Slope Borough and the site, along with any researcher projects with infrastructure, require a permit.

Figure 2-2. BLM Leased Area

Since 1999, NSF has had a cooperative agreement with the IAB to provide funding for base operations and maintenance for the field station, thereby enabling onsite arctic-related research. The cooperative agreement provides for annual funding within a 5-year renewable contract. Brian Barnes was the lead principle investigator (PI) on the first two cooperative agreements with NSF. Syndonia Bret-Harte is the lead PI on the current (new) cooperative agreement, with Brian and Mike Abels as co-PIs on the new agreement. In addition to this cooperative agreement, NSF has a contract with CH2M HILL Polar Services (CPS) to provide logistical support for research activities in various parts of the world. This allows NSF to fund projects and upgrades at TFS through CPS. CPS performs most of the infrastructure work at TFS using its employees or, in some cases, subcontractors. CPS uses other CH2M HILL, Inc. resources to provide engineering and construction support at TFS by way of intercompany agreements. TFS employees also do a substantial amount of maintenance and some infrastructure work.

IAB owns and operates TFS. The station is in the northern foothills of the Brooks Range on the southeast shore of Toolik Lake (68 degrees 37 minutes north, 149 degrees 36 minutes west, with an elevation of 2,362 feet; Figure 2-3). This location affords access to three major physiographic provinces, including the Brooks Range, Arctic Foothills, and Arctic Coastal Plain. The Station serves as a base camp for researchers working along the Dalton Highway. TFS is located at mile 284.5, Dalton Highway. It is


AX1019181240DEN 2-9

approximately 9 miles north of Galbraith Air Field, 0.5 mile west of the Dalton Highway, and 3.8 miles west of the Alyeska Pipeline.

Figure 2-3. Location of Toolik Field Station

2.3 General Site Observations TFS provides a base to conduct research in the arctic. The Station consists of several modular laboratories, dormitories, and support buildings. The existing site layout is presented in Appendix B. The Station’s maximum population occurs during the months of June, July, and August. An average population of 90 is commonly maintained through the spring and fall months, while the minimum population fluctuates from 10 to 40 people between October and March. Figure 2-4 present the use of the station from 2006 through 2017.


2-10 AX1019181240DEN

Figure 2-4. Toolik Field Station User Day Totals (2006–2017)

The site is located near the inlet of Toolik Lake and was built on an old hard-material waste disposal site left over from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline construction. Abandoned grader blades, steel banding, and batteries can be found within the structural section of the pad, and a layer of clay has been observed near the washroom module. At this location, water often bubbles up and annual heaving and settlement of the ground is evident. The pad has generally been constructed from local non-frost-susceptible material but has been noted to drain poorly when over compacted, necessitating the use of swales and culverts in some areas of the pad. Overall, the existing system of site drainage does not appear to be an issue of concern beyond the initial spring thaw cycle.

2.4 Climate Weather as a major factor at TFS. With average monthly temperatures that are below freezing nine months of the year (only June, July, and August have average temperatures exceeding 32 degrees Fahrenheit [°F]), at best, cold weather can be an irritant and, at worst, life threatening. Table 2 shows that for five months of the year (from November through March), the average temperature was less than 0°F. Every month had at least one day with a temperature below freezing, with the coldest day of the year (-54°F) occurring in March. Four months had at least one day with a minimum temperature of -40°F.


AX1019181240DEN 2-11

Table 2-1. Climate (including Wind Speed and Precipitation) at Toolik Field Station, 2008

Temp °F Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Average -13 -9 -14 14 28 50 50 39 30 5 -2 -2

Maximum 42 33 30 46 59 75 71 59 57 21 28 41

Minimum -45 -42 -54 -25 -7 26 28 23 -2 -18 -31 -40

Temp °C Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Average -25 -23 -26 -10 -2 10 10 4 -1 -15 -19 -19

Maximum 6 1 -1 8 15 24 22 15 14 -6 -2 5

Minimum -43 -41 -48 -32 -22 -3 -2 -5 -19 -28 -35 -40

Wind Speed (meters per

second) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Average 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4

Maximum 18.1 11 10.5 13.1 9.3 12.1 11.1 9.6 10.2 9.5 10.9 18.6

Precipitation (in. followed

by mm)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Average 0.015 (0.4)

0.11 (0.3)

0.11 (0.3)

0.015 (0.4)

0.031 (0.8)

0.102 (2.6)

0.145 (3.7)

— 0.023 (0.6)

0.062 (1.6)

0.011(0.3)

0.43 (1.1)

Sunlight Hours

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

At Barrow (h) 0:00 4:05 9:20 14:13 19:44 24:00 24:00 24:00 14:45 11:03 5:52 0:00

Notes:

°C = degree(s) Celsius

h = hour(s)

in. = inch(es)

mm = millimeter(s)

Because of extreme weather, development decisions at TFS must account for climactic conditions. For example, facilities must be clustered close together to minimize weather exposure time for researchers traveling between buildings in winter. Building must be designed factoring wind directions and ensuring that development mitigates, rather than exacerbates, snow drifting. These issues will be explored in greater detail later in the LRFP, in sections of sustainability, design guidelines, and site development considerations.

In addition to temperature extremes, scientists and operators at TFS are also exposed to extremes related to daylight and darkness. With the midnight sun occurring in June, July, and August, the Station is exposed to 24 hours of daylight each day. Conversely, the sun disappears in December and January, and November and February, have merely 6 and 4 hours of sunlight a day, respectively.


2-12 AX1019181240DEN


SECTION 3

AX1019181240DEN 3-1

Planning and Design Every building has one or more activities, which are called land uses. Typical land uses include residential uses, industrial uses, laboratory, and recreational uses, to name a few. Poor siting can negatively impact quality of life, destroy sensitive habitat, result in additional or unexpected and unbudgeted costs, and adversely impact science. Therefore, before locating a facility at TFS, consideration should be given to the factors listed in the following subsections.

3.1 Site Development Principles 3.1.1 Functional Relationships and Land Use Zones Every facility houses one or more land uses. Some land uses complement another and should be located close together, while other land uses negatively impact each other and should be kept apart or buffered as shown below in Figure 3.1. There are six land use categories that are grouped into four zoning districts (residential, labs, industrial, and community support). The other two land use categories (outhouses and administrative) do not have their own zoning districts because, apart from putting administrative uses in the industrial zone, which is noncompatible, these two uses can easily be accommodated in the other zoning districts. Unlike administrative uses, outhouses can be located in the industrial zone while utility and industrial uses are not compatible with residential, labs, and administrative activities and should be separate from these functions. Also, residential facilities should be separated from the dining hall and other community-oriented functions to reduce noise for sleeping residents. The major land use incompatibility is where several industrial uses are located within the residential area. Over time, and in accordance with the development plan outlined in Section 6, these uses will be moved out of the residential area and into the proposed industrial area.

Residential land uses come in all shapes and sizes at TFS and should be remote from industrial land uses and close to community support facilities.

Industrial uses, such as the shipping center, storage, and fuel area, should be removed from both laboratory and housing areas.

Residential land uses are particularly sensitive to noise andodor and should be separated from industrial land uses.

SECTION 3–PLANNING AND DESIGN

3-2 AX1019181240DEN

The laboratories, such as the Winter Lab, Dry Lab, and Wet Lab, should be relatively close to housing and administrative areas.

Restroom and shower facilities are typically found in all homes, so the outhouses and the shower facility should be close to residential uses at TFS.

Figure 3-1. Proposed Land Use and Zoning Districts

The largest land use category in terms of the number and size of facilities, as well as the area covered by those facilities, is the laboratory land use. Because the primary purpose of TFS is science and research, this is not unexpected. The next most prominent category is residential land use, which consists of both modular and tent facilities.

Generally, residential land use is the most sensitive land use, meaning that its use is adversely impacted by noise, odors, and visual pollution. Conversely, industrial land uses are the most intrusive land uses, offering more opportunities to create noise and odors and to visually disrupt the landscape. In terms of compatibility, it is important to have community support activities close to residential development. In the harsh winter climate of Alaska, walking an extra 100 yards to a community support facility, such as the kitchen and dining room, can have a significant impact on the quality of life for residents and researchers at TFS. It is for this reason that outhouses, which are normally included in an industrial category, have a specific designation.

As projects outlined in Section 5 of the Development Plan is implemented, land uses will change over time. In general, residential land uses will expand northward, while industrial land uses will be removed from their proximity to residential uses and will be settled primarily on the north side of the entrance road. Figures 3-2 and 3-3 present the existing and proposed land uses and aggregates them into zoning districts to combine similar uses and facilities.

One area of note is designated as swing space, which is roughly located at the intersection of the four different zoning districts. This designation will permit several options. First, as facilities not identified in the Development Plan may need to be moved on a temporary basis, this area will provide space for these types of relocations. As the plan is implemented and TFS moves beyond its end-state, the swing space area can be used as an expansion area for any of the four land uses that will need extra room.

Alternatively, the space can be apportioned between several land uses that might need extra room. In short, this designation will provide flexibility to implement and modify the LRFP both during and after the planning horizon.

FIGURE 3-2Existing Land Use and Zoning DistrictsToolik Field Station LRFP

For Planning Purposes Only

To Dalton Highway

LEGEND

ADMINISTRATIVE

UTILITY / INDUSTRIAL / STORAGE

COMMUNITY SUPPORT

RESIDENTIAL

LABS

OUTHOUSES

LABORATORY AREA

INDUSTRIAL AREA

COMMUNITY SUPPORT AREA

HOUSING

FACILITIES:

ZONING DISTRICT:

103_AX1019181240DEN


3-4 AX1019181240DEN


FIGURE 3-3Proposed Land Use and Zoning DistrictsToolik Field Station LRFP


To Dalton Highway

LEGEND

ADMINISTRATIVE

UTILITY / INDUSTRIAL / STORAGE

COMMUNITY SUPPORT

RESIDENTIAL

LABS

LABORATORY AREA

INDUSTRIAL AREA

COMMUNITY SUPPORT AREA

HOUSING

FACILITIES:

ZONING DISTRICT:

SWING SPACE

OUTHOUSES

104_AX1019181240DEN


3-6 AX1019181240DEN



AX1019181240DEN 3-7

3.2 Site Constraints and Opportunities TFS has numerous site constraints, including functional relationships, topography, views, noise, and concerns with snow. While some mitigation might be possible, it would carry significant costs. Furthermore, other constraints are due to mandatory conditions and prohibitions on specific development. The most important site constraints at TFS are listed in Figure 3-4 and depicted on Figure 3-5. Prior to making the decision to locate a facility at a specific location, the site development checklist presented in Appendix C should be completed and submitted to the IAB for its review prior to construction.

Functional Relationships

Select sites that have adjacent facilities that complement the proposed development.

Topography

Select sites that do not have significant variations in elevations to control development costs.

View Shed

Sensitivity to existing views; reducing the scale of development can mitigate some visual impacts.

Noise

Land uses sensitive to noise, such as residential areas, should be located away from uses that generate noise.

Snow Removal and Drifting

Ensure that the location of facilities will not impede snow removal efforts and will not exacerbate drifting.

Figure 3-4. Toolik Field Station — Major Site Development Considerations


3-8 AX1019181240DEN

Location of Utilities Locate new development close to existing infrastructure to minimize costs and to optimize system performance.

Impacts on Research

New development should not impact sun angles or interfere with communication or research projects.

Accessibility

Site facilities adjacent to or distant from roads depending upon how much traffic they generate, including deliveries.

Expansion Capabilities

Consider the possibility of expansion and locate facilities that might grow in areas that can accommodate expansion.

Sensitive Habitat

Ensure that development does not encroach on sensitive plants or on areas that provide habitat for indigenous wildlife.

Figure 3-4. Toolik Field Station — Major Site Development Considerations (continued)

FIGURE 3-5Site Development ConstraintsToolik Field Station LRFP

LEGEND

BURIED WASTEWATER TANK

OUTHOUSE

ELECTRICAL

WATER

DIESEL CONTAINMENT

STEEP SLOPES

WEATHER STATION CLEARANCE

105_AX1019181240DEN


3-10 AX1019181240DEN



AX1019181240DEN 3-11

3.3 Design Standards and Considerations This section provides a set of design guidelines to ensure that as development occurs at TFS it will be implemented sensitively and with minimal impact on the environment.

3.3.1 Color Color can easily be used to integrate buildings into nature as well as to make them stick out like the proverbial “sore thumb.” Unless there is a safety reason to make something visually prominent at TFS, exterior colors should be muted and blend in with the whites of winter and the pale colors of summer. Figure 3-6 shows the current color character of TFS by illustrating existing facilities. The designs for the planned dorm and bungalow also include some red in the exterior scheme, for visual interest and to incorporate some of the fall tundra tones with the browns.

Green with wide, dark trim. Small, same color green stairs.

Bright green with small, light trim. Dark metal stairs and ramp.

Gray/green with light trim. Light gray wooden stairs; no ramp.

Tan/green with no trim Light brown with wide, dark trim. Off-white with small, gray trim. Dark gray metal stairs; no ramp.

Light brown with thin, dark trim. No stairs or ramp. White doors.

Dark green with wide, dark trim. Dark metal stairs and ramp.

Very light brown, with thin, dark trim. Light brown stairs; no ramp.

The current color palette for hard facilities at TFS is somewhat muted but not consistent in terms of color and trim. Different roof lines, different door colors, and different railing colors also create a disunity in design throughout TFS.

Figure 3-6. Current Color Palette at Toolik Field Station

Conversely, given the gloomy nature of winter, with long, dark nights and extremely cold temperatures that necessitate being indoors, interior colors should be vibrant, playful, and maybe even a little over the top to enliven the stark winter atmosphere at TFS. Lighting should also be carefully planned as an integral part of TFS' interior design of facilities.


3-12 AX1019181240DEN

3.3.2 Building Characteristics Building characteristics include building materials, door placement and color, roof pitch and color, trim colors, placement of windows, and the placement and color of stairs and ramps. These elements can serve to either unify or differentiate design at TFS. Examples of different styles currently on hard facilities at the Station are also presented on Figure 3-6 above. As can be seen, there are a wide variety of building characteristics at TFS. While most roof lines are flat, some buildings have pitched roofs.

Railings are of different materials and colors. Building materials consist of wood and metal. Some buildings have trim, while others do not. For those that have trim, the width is different, sometimes being small and subdued, while other times it is wide and prominent. It is recommended that future development adhere to a uniform standard for all elements.

3.3.3 Building Height and View Sheds

The Brooks Range provides a dramatic backdrop for TFS. Toolik Lake is another prominent natural feature that affords Station residents beautiful and stunning vistas into the surrounding countryside. Design guidelines should identify view sheds and, through height and location restrictions, protect these amenities.

3.3.4 Signage Signage can be regulatory, attempting to restrict behavior, informational, providing context, and can be directional, providing a navigation function. All these types of signs are found at TFS. As signs are placed to meet these functions, care should be taken to ensure that they are not overused (with a resulting “sign pollution” impact), that they are visible and readable, that they do not create safety concerns (they do not impede pedestrian or vehicular travel), and that they are durable and require little maintenance.

As these issues are addressed, it will quickly become apparent that, due to their ubiquity, signs can play a key role in creating a design harmony (or disharmony) for the overall appearance TFS. In that context, it is recommended that signs at TFS have a consistency that provides an overall design theme to the site. Figure 3-7 presents a representative sample of signs currently at TFS.

The view of the Brooks Range from TFS at midnight.


AX1019181240DEN 3-13

In general, informational signs identifying TFS facilities have a harmonious and consistent design.

The base entry sign (above)

Historical sign predating the existence of TFS (above)

Warning or safety signs are usually highlighted with a red or yellow color

Figure 3-7. Signs at Toolik Field Station

3.3.5 Screening Uncovered outdoor storage areas can create a visual blight on the environment. Ideally, to improve the aesthetics of TFS and to increase the life cycle of goods and materials stored outside, these areas should be accommodated in indoor storage facilities. Indoor storage facilities can be stand-alone facilities but, preferably, they should be included in the design of future facilities. When indoor storage facilities are not feasible, care should be taken to screen these areas from view.

3.3.6 Accessibility TFS is committed to providing facilities that are fully accessible and comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. As shown on Figure 3-8, ramps can be significant architectural features and can make a design statement, either purposefully or accidently. Standards should be developed regarding the materials, colors, railings, and layout of ramps providing access to structures.


3-14 AX1019181240DEN

Metal, dark gray, accessible (stairs and ramp). Wood, brown, not accessible.

Metal, serpentine ramp and stairs. Stairs at side entrance. Ramp leading to side entrance.

Long, straight ramp. Serpentine ramp.

Figure 3-8. Access to Facilities at Toolik Field Station

3.4 Sustainability Guiding Principles Sustainability is a guiding principle at TFS. First, TFS is in one of the most pristine, yet fragile, and rapidly changing environments in the world. Secondly, while everything is interrelated, the impacts of climate change and pollution in the arctic are probably more far-reaching than most places on earth. Finally, with its mission to conduct arctic research that has global ramifications, including climate change, it is important that TFS “walk the walk” in terms of pursuing policies that support the intent of its research. To these ends, a series of guiding principles of sustainability have been developed to guide future development at TFS.


AX1019181240DEN 3-15

3.4.1 General Guidance: The Toolik Field Station Energy Vision To remain a viable, cost-effective, and socially responsible research facility to study the arctic, the TFS energy vision serves as a guide for the future of TFS. It focuses on reducing the Station's energy and emission footprints, while still meeting the Station's requirements. Reliance on fossil fuels for electrical generation, building heat, and other operational needs is costly, and the emissions from burning fossil fuels impacts the very research the Station exists to support. To meet this goal, TFS will employ the following principles:

• Energy efficiency and conservation are the most important factors in reducing energy use and canbe a significant part of the overall goals at TFS. TFS will measure and analyze resources used tosupport the Station such as water, fuel, and electricity. This data collection will identify the largestconsumers, least efficient structures, and equipment to help prioritize improvements. In addition,TFS will educate the community about energy conservation and will implement behavioral changeswhere necessary. To further minimize the Station’s dependence on fossil fuel and reduce operatingcosts, TFS will continually analyze operations for efficiency improvements, the goal being to reducevehicle- and personnel-intensive operations.

• TFS will provide its electrical power using acombination of low emissions diesel ornatural gas power generators andrenewable energy sources. Electricalgeneration by diesel generator is aninefficient process, only garnering about 33percent of the energy for every gal of dieselburned. The remaining 66 percent is lost toheat and mechanical friction. To improveefficiency, waste heat will be captured tothe extent possible to heat structures.Renewables can be, but are not limited to,solar and wind energy. Eventually, otheradvanced energy technologies such as fuelcells may be used. Innovative pilot projectswill demonstrate the viability of renewableenergy and other advanced energytechnologies in this harsh environment.

• The Station will strive to meet the highestenergy performance guidelines for new andexisting facilities that are retrofitted andupgraded. Facilities that are deemedfunctionally obsolete, or too costly toretrofit and upgrade, will be phased out andremoved. All new and existing facilitychanges will achieve at least one of thefollowing goals, including consolidating theStation's footprint, reducing energy use percapita, conserving water, or reducing emissions.

Minimizing snow drift and orienting facilities to take advantage of passive solar heat are two elements of a sustainable development program.


3-16 AX1019181240DEN

3.4.2 Promote Sustainability Sustainable design in the development and operation of TFS is a core value and is directly linked with the Station’s goals. Because of its importance, sustainable design and operations must be an integral part of every project. This requires an integrated approach to the planning, design, and construction of facilities, with an emphasis on the long-term quality of the built environment. Projects should make extensive use of environmentally preferred products, the recovery and recycling of materials, and waste reduction. The Station will strive to conserve energy through projects that use energy-efficient, sustainable design principles, improved metering and energy management control systems, evaluation of renewable energy sources, energy-efficient equipment, and a heightened energy conservation awareness program. More specifically, TFS will be guided by the following principles.

Operations • Aggressively educate the community about

energy use and how community members cando their part to reduce TFS’ energyconsumption

• Employ recycling strategies

• Procure materials and equipment thatminimize energy use while still meetingrequirements

• Minimize the use of toxic materials andproducts

• Use materials and products made fromrecycled materials

• Use rapidly renewable materials (not finite orlong-cycle renewable)

• Reduce or eliminate trash burning using the incinerator to reduce pollution that is not compatiblewith atmospheric studies

Existing facilities • Weatherize, retrofit, and upgrade for better energy performance

• Shut down and winterize if not required for winter use

Staff and visiting scientists should use low-or zero-emission ways of moving around the Station, even during harsh conditions.


AX1019181240DEN 3-17

• Retrofit to incorporate efficient energy technologies with integrated utilities and/or energy storage,where appropriate

• Not impact climate observations and scientific research

• Install water-efficient fixtures for toilets, showerheads, and faucets

• Upgrades to incorporate energy efficient appliances and lighting

• Minimize surface runoff

• Reduce existing, or avoid new, light pollution

New facilities • Employ high-efficiency technologies such as high-performance insulation, lighting, appliances,

windows, and heating systems

• Use heating systems capable of accepting waste heat from the generators

• Incorporate integrated utilities and/or energy storage, where appropriate

• Orient buildings to minimize snow drifting and allow for efficient snow removal while takingadvantage of potential passive solar heat, lighting, and photovoltaics

• Design facilities to be easily winterized and survive extreme temperatures without damage

• Design facilities to respond to changing requirements over time

• Use natural, rapidly renewable raw materials to the extent possible while minimizing maintenance

• Use materials and products made from recycled materials

• Not impact climate observations and scientific research

• Use water-efficient fixtures for toilets, showerheads, and faucets

• Minimize surface runoff

• Minimize new light pollution

Architectural Design Strategy The architectural design strategy will employ sustainable principles that maximize building comfort and indoor air quality through the selection of low-emitting construction materials and furnishings. The design should demonstrate coordination among design disciplines to minimize post-occupancy energy usage through high-performing architectural thermal envelope and construction details, efficient mechanical and electrical systems and controls, specified energy star appliances, and durable, innovative solutions as shown in Figure 3-9.


3-18 AX1019181240DEN

Figure 3-9. Sustainable Design Strategies

SECTION 4

AX1019181240DEN 4-1

Infrastructure and Utilities The utilities and infrastructure at any site are critical to the success of the site mission. In a remote arctic environment such as TFS, the infrastructure requires specialized planning, construction, and maintenance to provide year-round support to the scientists and researchers who work and live at TFS.

This section looks at the existing infrastructure and utilities and the changes that will be needed to support the planned Station expansion. This plan recommends a phased sequence of additional infrastructure that will meet the Station’s requirements for year-round operations, while promoting the ideas of energy efficiency, reduced maintenance, reduced environmental risk, and flexibility. If met, these goals will result in cost and risk reductions. All infrastructure development will comply with the TFS energy vision, outlined in Section 3.4.

4.1 Water System 4.1.1 Existing Water Supply and

Distribution The primary source of fresh water at TFS is a well located at the northwest corner of the pad, at the shore of Toolik Lake. In 2010, a new water treatment system was constructed, capable of treating groundwater under the influence of surface water. This process includes a sediment filter, iron removal, activated granular carbon for removal of organics, two-stage giardia and cryptosporidium filtration, and parallel ultraviolet treatment for microbiological inactivation. Additional disinfection is provided by a sodium hypochlorite injection system.

In 2010, CPS began construction of an aboveground water distribution system utilizing 2-inch PEX tubing run through insulated arctic pipe, with a 2-inch supply and a 1-inch return providing a circulation loop. The constant water movement mitigates freezing potential. Currently, this water supply extends to Wet Lab, Dry Lab, the TFS dining facility, Winter Quarters, Cotton Grass, the Shower Module, and Labs 4, 6, and 7, which constitute all year-round buildings with plumbing systems. Water usage is regulated by the Station’s wastewater storage capacity and the high cost of treatment. Residents are limited to two 2-minute showers per week and one load of laundry every two weeks to reduce the amount of greywater.

Dedicated utility corridors will ensure that facilities are efficiently served with minimal disruption to daily operations.

A reliable supply of potable water is needed for day-to-day operations, as well as to meet specific research requirements.

SECTION 4–INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES

4-2 AX1019181240DEN

A summer-only reverse osmosis water treatment system was installed in the Wet Lab in 2009, Lab 2 in 2010 and in the Dry Lab in 2011.

4.1.2 Water Supply and Distribution Recommendations Short-Term

Water service piping inside the buildings will be inspected at regular intervals, especially for those buildings that are unheated during winter. Return water flow will be verified at each building and balancing valves will be adjusted as required to achieve this. Heat trace will be confirmed to be operational.

Teams will work with the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to complete the required documentation associated with the secondary lake source. Once approved for operation, Toolik Lake water will be used when the lake is unfrozen. This will extend the life of the water treatment system components.

Long-Term

Utility corridors will be constructed in accordance with the LRFP with the intent to service each planned building with a permanent treated water supply.

4.2 Wastewater System 4.2.1 Existing Wastewater Handling The Station’s wastewater infrastructure consists of a combination of gravity piping leading to storage tanks and multiple self-contained outhouse structures. Many tanks are buried, although some are above ground. When tank levels are high enough, a vacuum truck is dispatched from Deadhorse to haul wastewater back for processing in Prudhoe Bay. This method of wastewater disposal has been chosen to prevent the possibility of a nutrient-rich discharge contaminating the Toolik Lake and surrounding watershed.

New structures will be planned and designed logically, and will be grouped by function, seasonal usage, and location. These groups may be candidates for semi-centralized wastewater collection, similar to the dining facility and shower module arrangement.

Examples of logical building groups may include:

• Winter-operation facilities• Housing facilities• Laboratory row• Kitchen and dining hall and neighboring buildings

4.2.2 Proposed Wastewater Handling Holding tanks provide suitable wastewater storage for the foreseeable future. Currently there is adequate capacity based on the available pumping service. For year-round operations,

Toolik’s wastewater collection system is a series of small, independent tanks serving individual facilities and outhouses.


AX1019181240DEN 4-3

large tanks designed for continuous use are desired to prevent freezing. Each new building will be evaluated for the volume of wastewater it will generate and how it can be connected to existing tanks.

Recommendations Short-Term

Wastewater testing will be continued to confirm that wastewater is safe for disposal at the treatment plant and alternate disposal procedures will be implemented if it is not.

Long-Term

Connectivity and operational standards of the Station’s wastewater system will be improved by consolidating wastewater piping to common tanks and improving freeze protection.

Grey water recycling for flushing toilets and urinals in future facilities will be considered to reduce wastewater volumes.

Evaluate waste-to-energy technologies that generate heat and/or electricity from the incineration of waste.

4.3 Electrical Power Generation and Distribution Systems

4.3.1 Existing Power Generation The existing power generation system is a combination of diesel generators that draw from an 8,000-gal fuel tank. All are located in a recently constructed power generation and fuel storage facility at the northern end of the pad. The power generation system includes secondary containment to mitigate impacts of a potential fuel spill.

There are several different sizes of generators to accommodate varying loads while maintaining peak efficiency:

• Two prime power 165-kW generators are located in Module 1• Two prime power generators, one 90 kW and one 55 kW, are located in Module 2• One 125-kW emergency generator sits outside within a self-contained enclosure

Switchgear and generator controls located in Module 1 can run any one, or combination of, the primary generators without interruption of Station power. Transfer to the emergency 125-kW generator results in a minimal disruption to Station power.


4-4 AX1019181240DEN

Although the power generation system has a total capacity of 460 kW, the system is designed to match the size of the operating generator to the Station’s electrical demand at the time. Three-phase, 480 volts alternating current (VAC) power at 60 Hz is generated and distributed throughout the Station. The 480 VAC power is stepped down via transformers to 120/208 VAC at the D-Shacks, distribution panels, or individual buildings throughout the facility.

Details of the Station’s power generation capabilities are shown in Table 4-1.

Module 3 contains the central components of the waste heat recovery system, including system pumps, expansion tank, glycol makeup system and piping. Space is allocated for future step-up boilers for Station heat, and possible future renewable energy equipment.

Table 4-1. Toolik Field Station — Power Generation Capabilities

Station’s Power Generation Capabilities

A 55-kW John Deere generator used for prime power during light loads. The John Deere generator is in Module 2.

An 90-kW John Deere generator used for prime power for medium loads. The John Deere generator is in Module 2.

Two 165-kW Cummins generator NW units, used as needed, whenever Station power use demands it. Both generators are in Module 1.

A 125-kW Caterpillar standby generator is used only when the prime units fail. The Caterpillar generator is located outside, next to Module 3.

A 12-kW Northern Lights emergency generator is used for the Winter Quarters building. The generator is located next to the Winter Quarters.

The generator switchgear is housed with the 165-kW Cummins units in Module 1. The Cummins generator feeds the main distribution panel in the primary distribution building (D-Shack A).

4.3.2 Proposed Power Generation The existing power generation system is a critical component, meeting power demand requirements while also providing waste heat to facilities within proximity saving in diesel or electrical heating system costs. Diesel-powered generators are expected to be the primary component of the power generation infrastructure; however, renewable energy technologies can play a key role in supplementing the generators and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Viability and costs associated with power generation recommendations will be evaluated by the Energy Red Team.

Diesel generators provide power for Toolik Field Station. Three generator modules are the heart of Toolik’s stand-alone diesel powered electrical system


AX1019181240DEN 4-5

Recommendations Short-Term

1. Continue to monitor the utilization of recovered waste heat for the Garage facility. Fine tune thecontrol system parameters to minimize backup boileroperation while maintaining acceptable spacetemperatures.

2. Assess the feasibility of extending the waste heatdistribution system to serve other facilities.

3. Assess feasibility of adding exhaust manifold andstack heat recovery for the 165 kW generators.

Long-Term

1. Based on the conclusions of the assessment, extendthe waste heat recovery system to serve additionalfacilities including the Dining Facility, Cottongrassdorm, and potentially the new washeteria.

2. Evaluate renewable energy technologies for powerand heat.

4.3.3 Existing Electrical Distribution The electrical distribution system consists of three distribution buildings (D-Shack A, B, and C), buried and exposed feeders, and several outdoor strut-mounted distribution panels and transformers.

D-Shack A houses the main 480-VAC distribution panel for the Station. Power is supplied to this panelfrom a panel in Module 1 and the emergency generator. D-Shack A supplies power to D-Shacks B and C,the Cold Storage Barn and helicopter pad, fuel pits, incinerator, Garage, and Modules 2 and 3. There isample room within this building to support future expansion.

D-shack B supplies power to the west side of the Station, including the laboratory buildings, showermodule, and dining facility. It has the capability to support expansion in both 480- and 208-VAC.

D-Shack C supplies power to the east side of the Station, including the ATCO trailers, Cottongrass andWinter Quarters, meeting tent and the weatherPORT structures.

Newer feeders from D-Shack C are buried, other feeders are metal clad cable, run in cable tray across the ground or elevated along utility corridors.

4.3.4 Proposed Electrical Distribution Recommendations Short-Term

1. Continue to provide individual electrical metering for each building and consolidate meters so theyare in one of the available distribution shacks rather than in outbuildings.

Long-Term

1. Construct utility corridors based on the long-term plan and coordinate the electrical systemaccordingly. Evaluate loads and locations of distribution panels to best serve future loads.

Modifications to the existing generator modules were the first step to implementing the hydronic heating system using waste heat recovery.


4-6 AX1019181240DEN

2. Move all distribution equipment indoors or into shacks to prevent the failure of equipment in thewinter and to also allow winter work to panels if needed.

3. Design and construct additional distribution shacks as needed to support future facilities.

4.4 Mechanical Systems 4.4.1 Existing Mechanical Systems Heating and ventilation systems are a combination of hydronic (hot glycol), diesel-fired forced air furnaces, Toyo stoves, and electric unit heaters. A waste heat recovery system, installed in 2015, provides heat for the generator modules and the Garage.

Water heaters are semi-instantaneous, direct-vent Toyo units or storage-type indirect units. Hot water is recirculated within the Dining Facility, Cottongrass, and Shower Modules to mitigate freezing and maintain temperature at remote water fixtures. Much of the water supply piping is surface-mounted to keep it accessible in the event of a frozen or burst pipe.

4.4.2 Proposed Mechanical Systems Other new facilities will be designed (or modified if existing) to use zoned hydronic baseboard, unit heaters, or radiant floor heating systems. Consideration should be given to extending the waste heat distribution system to serve the Dining Facility and Cottongrass dormitory, which both have heating systems already configured to accept waste heat input. Ventilation for new and renovated buildings will be provided by heat recovery ventilator systems.

4.5 Utility Corridors Permanent utility corridors will be designed and constructed for distribution of electricity, water, waste heat, communications, and (potentially) natural gas. The corridors should not interfere with existing infrastructure, snow removal, or proposed development.

4.5.1 Existing Utility Corridors There are two utility corridors at TFS (Figure 4.1), one lying to the south of the buildings located on the southern end of the pad, and one northeast of the northern labs.

The utilities within the northern corridor consist of water and electricity distribution and are run on steel stanchions. The northern corridor extends from the Well House to Cottongrass dormitory. The southern corridor consists of electrical distribution within cable tray atop wood timbers, extending from the Dining Facility to Winter Lab. These locations work well and do not interfere with snow removal operations.

4.5.2 Proposed Utility Corridors This plan takes advantage of existing routes and would propose a new route running from the Garage to the northern corridor. The new corridor would elevate and protect existing electrical feeders, provide a path for waste heat distribution and potentially include water service to the Garage. It is also recommended that an analysis by the Energy Red Team be conducted to determine whether fuel switching to natural gas (when available) would be a feasible project.


LEGEND

EXISTING CORRIDORS

TOOLIK FIELD STATION - UTILITY CORRIDORS

FUTURE CORRIDORS

FIGURE 4-1Utility CorridorsToolik Field Station LRFP

106_AX1019181240DEN


4-8 AX1019181240DEN



AX1019181240DEN 4-9

4.6 Information Technology 4.6.1 Existing Information Technology Basic access single sideband radio was the first communication network established at TFS. Radio Broadmoor, a local Fairbanks firm, provided radio telephone patch service. From TFS a user would hail Radio Broadmoor, and if contacted, the user would make a telephone patch to the Fairbanks logistics office.

Users reversed this method if he or she wanted to call TFS; telephone to Radio Broadmoor and the user would try to hail TFS. This worked about 10 percent of the time. A more robust communication method was sending a note via the supply truck, which traveled back and forth from Fairbanks to TFS every 10 days or driving to Prudhoe Bay to make a phone call.

Part of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline project included a microwave backbone communication system from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez. Each field season, TFS management would contact Alascom, Inc. and request phone service, but management was rejected because this was an ALYESKA Pipe Line Service Company proprietary system.

As electronic mail was becoming more available in the mid-1980s, TFS installed a meteor burst communication system (MBCS) to support e-mail communication.

MBCS uses ionized meteor trails as a means of radio signal propagation. These trails exist in the 80 to 120-kilometer region of the earth’s atmosphere and reflect the radio frequency energy between twostations. The height of the trails allows over-the-horizon communication at distances up to2,000 kilometers. However, because the ionized trails exist for only short periods of time (usually from afew milliseconds to a few seconds) communication is intermittent, and high-speed digital transmissiontechniques must be used to convey the information. The system is particularly well suited for long-range, low data rate applications for both messaging and data acquisition. The MBCS base station was inAnchorage, Alaska. This base station was connected through the University of Alaska Anchorage campusvia modem to the University of Alaska Computer Network (UACN), which provided e-mail service. Forthis setup to work, TFS could only accommodate one e-mail address, [email protected]. The campmanager printed all messages on a thermal printer, and users were asked to have senders put theirname in the subject line to assist in sorting the messages.

ALASCOM went through a reorganization, which provided an opportunity for phone service on the ALYESKA backbone in the late 1980s. A 30-watt very high frequency transmitter was installed, which provided a link to the ALASCOM microwave repeater tower at Galbraith Lake. At this point, TFS had a phone and phone number. The system was initially hooked up to a fax machine for incoming communication and was available for outgoing calls.

In May 1995, a second telephone circuit was added to the station. ALASCOM supplied a Cylink box and installed a second antenna on the existing mast. The Cylink box transmitted on the 800-megahertz bandwidth to the ALASCOM microwave repeater tower at Galbraith Lake. The “Old Blue” 30-watt primary line remained a more reliable circuit because of weather interference. The Cylink, when it worked, provided a 1200 baud modem connection.

During the mid-1990s, Alyeska updated the communications system for the 800-mile pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez. The current microwave communication system controls 62 remote-gate valves, which block sections of the line should there be a rupture. That system has failed at times since the pipeline was completed in 1977. Alyeska wanted to replace it with a fiber-optic cable, which hoped would be more reliable, while offering expanded communication for other uses. Kanas Telecom was

mailto:[email protected]


4-10 AX1019181240DEN

formed to own and lay cable along the pipeline. The cable is also connected to Fairbanks and became available to commercial customers.

In the summer of 1999, NSF secured funding to bring a fiber-optic line into TFS from this pipeline cable. The fiber-optic line was spliced at the pipeline, trenched into the ground along the Dalton Highway, and laid down the access road into the Station. Initially, TFS leased T-1 bandwidth on the fiber, and the termination cabinet in the TFS communications (comms) room provided one Ethernet port for one computer. NOTE: As part of the Kanas Telecom contract to bring fiber-optic line into TFS, two fiber-optic rings were installed in the camp cable tray. This cable was removed after inspection because the installation did not meet code. PICO, which provided NSF arctic logistics at the time, contracted with SRI to design a wireless broadcast domain (intra-camp LAN) and contracted with UACN to wire Ethernet drops in each building, providing LAN hardware onsite and in Fairbanks.

The basic architecture of the network is presented from Fairbanks to Toolik. Starting at the core network gear located on the UAF, campus, copper-to-fiber is employed via a media converter. Leased fiber crosses Fairbanks, demarking the North Pole with pipeline, and pipeline fiber-optic cable is spliced south of TFS. That fiber then travels into the Station’s fiber-to-copper media converter. A bandwidth provider termination box and switch then connects to the TFS router. A switch in the TFS comms room then connects to one of four wireless access point (AP) backhaul points, which then sends the information through cable to Ethernet drops in the building. The AP in each building also provides wireless to that building.

The original TFS wireless LAN consisted of one zone served by one antenna mounted on the comms room roof. Each building had an antenna and an Orinoco AP providing point-to-point 802.11 b/g, 2.4 gigahertz (GHz), 11 megabytes per second (Mbps). Back haul from AP to the comms room was 802.11 b/g, 2.4 GHz, 11 Mbps. This configuration had each building's AP competing for the same backhaul bandwidth. Telephones in each lab were run over the LAN via Internet Protocol phones. This upgrade was completed summer 2002. Note, the architecture of the LAN was never engineered to provide wireless outside the buildings.

The second wireless upgrade occurred summer 2007. The wireless upgrade consisted of splitting the TFS LAN into three zones on different frequencies. Building point-to-point stayed the same at 802.11 b/g, 2.4 GHz, 11 Mbps. Backhaul from AP to comms room was upgraded to 802.11 a, 5 GHz, 54 Mbps.

The old AP points were end-of-life with no replacement parts available. The basic hardware upgraded to CISCO AP and new internal and external antennas. A call manager to prioritize phones over data was purchased and installed to improve quality of service. Arrangements were made to lease a second T-1 line from GCI, now providing 3 Mbps service.

Small upgrades to the LAN were completed over the next 4 years. A temporary fourth zone was added to support projects on the lake shore. Higher gain AP backhaul antennas were installed, and a packetter was installed to shape and manage bandwidth. University of Alaska Office of Information Technology, formally UACN, designed a weather map to display bandwidth usage. The winter quarters and winter lab are heated year-round, which provided heated rack room hubs for site autonomous instruments. New 48-port switches were installed in these buildings to accommodate the increased Ethernet port demand.The new dining hall provided a heated and cooled year-round home for the fiber terminal and a rack forthe TFS LAN equipment. During 2011, the University of Alaska entered into a statewide bandwidthcontract, and TFS was upgraded from a 3 Mbps to 50 Mbps wide area network (WAN) connection. In2016, reconfiguration of the existing wireless backhaul equipment was started to support a robustwireless LAN outside the buildings and was completed in 2018 for the majority of the station.


AX1019181240DEN 4-11

4.6.2 Proposed Information Technology Reconfiguration of the wireless backhaul equipment for the residential side of the station should begin to complete the wireless LAN upgrade.

4.7 Access Road TFS is accessed by a gravel access road from the Dalton Highway. Currently, the road is susceptible to excessive snow drifting in winter, which requires significant effort by TFS staff to keep the roadway passable. One of the potential infrastructure improvements is to continue adding fill material to the road surface to raise its elevation, thereby reducing snow drifting.

4.8 Snow Removal One of the critical activities during the winter season is the removal of snow from access ways and building entries. The LRFP includes designated snow storage areas. These areas have been designated to minimize the amount of effort by TFS staff, maximize access for vehicles and heavy equipment, and minimize the potential impact to utility lines and other structures that could be damaged by the operation of snow removal equipment.


4-12 AX1019181240DEN


SECTION 5

AX1019181240DEN 5-1

Redevelopment Plan TFS will evolve from its current configuration to a station aligned with the Station’s vision to support advanced science research and observation activities for the next several decades. TFS will consist of a series of new facilities arranged according to the zoning districts and available land space. The proposed projects, listed in Table 5-1, would provide critical facilities for primary needs and utilities to create an upgraded and efficient research station for research. Appendix D shows a future site plan with most of the recommended projects incorporated. In addition, a pre-review was completed by the stakeholders and their comments with responses are included in Appendix E.

Table 5-1. Project Plan Outlook Project Name Project Description Justification

12 Months

P-01: Construct Modular Dormitories Design, fabricate, transport, and construct modular housing units to provide an adequate supply of indoor sleeping spaces for up to 28 persons to replace older, inefficient modular units that sleep 16 persons.

The increasing maintenance and operations costs of the older dormitory modules make these good candidates for decommissioning and removal. Many of the repairs required to gain a few more years of service from the modules would require major reconstruction. New modular dormitories would be constructed to provide safer, more efficient facilities that would replace the functions provided by the dorms currently.

P-02: Expand Waste Heat Utilidor toDining Facility

Design and construct expansion of the waste heat utilidor from the Genset modules to the Dining Facility.

Waste heat is an energy-efficient way to provide space and domestic hot water heating to facilities that is otherwise dissipated into the air. Using waste heat to provide most of heating demands during the summer can result in significant cost savings and reduce impacts to climate change.

24 Months

P-01: Construct Lab 5 Design, fabricate, transport, and construct a new laboratory (Lab 5) to provide adequate lab research space.

As the Arctic interest continues to increase for scientific research, the need for year-round facilities also increases. Currently, only two laboratories are winter-capable. A new modular laboratory would provide safer, more efficient facilities for scientific researchers in addition to providing sufficient space for research.

SECTION 5–REDEVELOPMENT PLAN

5-2 AX1019181240DEN

Table 5-1. Project Plan Outlook Project Name Project Description Justification

P-02: Construct EMT and WasheteriaFacility

Design, fabricate, transport, and construct a new EMT and washeteria to provide sufficient space for medical personnel, showers, and restrooms for residential occupants.

There is one shower module located near the laboratories, which is not close to the residential area. Improved design can address gender diversity and provide more privacy for occupants. In addition, the EMT shack is too small and does not provide sufficient space for patient procedures. A new multifunction module would provide a more functional space for medical operations and allow station occupants to use a facility closer to their sleeping spaces.

P-03: Assess Existing Facilities and Infrastructure

Assess the existing facilities and develop a facility replacement plan.

The existing facilities are beginning to age and aging facilities are costly to maintain. Additionally, facilities in poor condition do not provide a welcoming environment for upcoming scientists. By developing a phased plan, the costs can be distributed over a period of time allowing for proper design and construction of facilities.

Independent

Energy Management Plan This phase creates a phased energy plan that would be overseen by the Energy Red Team.

This phase prioritizes efficiency upgrades, incorporates of energy storage, and increased renewable penetration into an inverter-based grid.

Note:

EMT = emergency medical technician.

5.1 Reoccurring Projects 5.1.1 Facility Sustaining and Science Support Projects Facility-sustaining activities include performing operation and maintenance activities on existing facilities and infrastructure to ensure that systems are operating safely and efficiently to maximize the life of equipment and reduce the risk of failure. Conducting operation and maintenance projects annually is critical to ensure that systems are operating safely and efficiently. These projects are often low-cost and can quickly be addressed. If equipment is not maintained properly, the life expectancy is reduced and there is a higher risk of system failure. The impact of systems not maintained correctly could be costly and potentially a life safety risk. Additionally, there is a recurring need to provide support to address the changing science needs.

This project encompasses a variety of tasks that include maintaining existing heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, water and power plants, facility envelope, along with many other low-cost maintenance-related tasks.


AX1019181240DEN 5-3

5.2 12-Month Project Plan 5.2.1 P-01: Construct New Modular Dormitories The 12-month project plan would design, fabricate, transport, and construct new modular dorms that are modern, energy-efficient, and have year-round operational capability. Currently, lodging is provided in older modular units that are past their life expectancy and show signs of extreme weather infiltration. Significant repairs would be required to continue to use these facilities as living quarters. This project would also prepare the older modular units for decommissioning eventually removing them to an offsite location. However, the old modular facilities would remain functional and in-place until the new modular units are commissioned and ready for occupancy.

A major driver for constructing new dormitories is that the weatherPORTs, which provide much of the housing for the Station, are inefficient costly to heat and maintain, and cannot be used for much of the year.

This scope would be in the request for proposal phase by end of the fiscal year 2018 and implementation is planned before the summer of 2019. It is anticipated that these will be single-story modular buildings with two mirrored units linked together. Four separate units would be used to make two separate dormitories and would provide individual rooms for a total of 28 people. The mirrored units would be linked by a fully enclosed hallway with an arctic entry vestibule at one end and all areas would be heated through electric unit heaters. In addition, this scope includes decommissioning activities for the old dormitories, which include disconnecting utilities to the building and shutting down the HVAC systems. Hazardous, flammable, or waste materials should also be removed and any salvageable materials or equipment that would be repurposed would be removed and stored appropriately.

Potential Risks if Not Completed • Increased costs for maintenance, heating, and energy of old dormitories if not replaced.

• Lack of dormitory space if facilities begin to fail.

• Occupancy discomfort and morale would decrease and could impact scientist decisions to use theStation.

5.2.2 P-02: Expand Waste Heat Distribution System to Dining Facility The waste heat distribution would include design and construction of expanding the waste heat distribution system from the generator plant to the Dining Facility. The existing waste heat recovery system collects heat rejected by the generators engine coolant and exhaust gas and distributes it throughout the generator plant facilities and the Garage for space heating. In the winter months, there is no surplus of waste heat but during summer months due to increased temperatures, electrical loads,


5-4 AX1019181240DEN

and population the generators have higher output hours that result in available excess waste heat. Waste heat provides a “free” energy resource and it is recommended that this be used to reduce reliance on diesel and electric heating costs. The waste heat to the Dining Facility would provide space and domestic hot water heating for the summer months with an option for continued use in the winter months. The Dining Facility mechanical and domestic hot water systems were previously designed for waste heat conversion and would require minimal, if any, modifications to the existing system.

This scope is conceptual and would require extension of the existing waste heat loop that currently runs from the generator modules to the Garage to the main utilidor line and on to the Dining Facility mechanical room.

Potential Risks if Not Completed • Increased costs for maintenance, heating, and energy to heat dining facility with existing system.• Increased impacts to climate change by exhausting excess waste heat to the atmosphere.• Loss of an unused resource that can be used to benefit the Station.

5.3 24-Month Project Plan 5.3.1 P-01: Construct New Laboratory The scope of this project would design, fabricate, and construct a new laboratory to provide adequate lab research that is modern, energy-efficient, and have year-round operational capability. Lab space is becoming insufficient to meet all the research needs of anticipated demand. Scientists and researchers are required to conduct activities in small lab spaces, which results in inefficient operations, at best, and contaminated research at worst. A great deal of lab space is in old, energy-inefficient facilities and tents that make operations difficult, require significant expenditures for heat, are costly to maintain, and are not operable year-round. Additionally, with the expectation that new users, such as National Ecological Observatory Network, are looking into bringing researchers to TFS, it would be difficult to accommodate these researchers without additional facilities.

This scope is designed but still at a conceptual level for a winter-capable general-purpose laboratory with an approximate building area of 3,000 ft2. The laboratory would provide office and lab space for up to 25 researchers. Components required by researchers would also be provided such as drying ovens, chemistry preparation areas, fume hoods, and storage areas. This project would require water and sewer utilities, HVAC, and domestic hot water system.

Potential Risks if Not Completed • Occupancy morale would decrease and could impact scientist decisions to use the Station.

• Increased potential to compromise quality of research.

• Occupancy discomfort and potential for lack of laboratory space if not replaced and existinglaboratories begin to fail.

5.3.2 P-02: Construct New Washeteria and EMT Facility Design, fabricate, and construct a new washeteria and emergency medical technician (EMT) facility to provide adequate laundry, shower, and restroom spaces for the dorm occupants with year-round operational capability. In addition, the facility would house a sufficient EMT space for seasonal occupancy. The existing shower module is not located near the residential area and requires occupants to travel quite a distance to perform hygiene activities. The current EMT facility is too small to meet all the medical needs. The small facility makes conducting medical operations difficult and requires the


AX1019181240DEN 5-5

technician to sleep near patients, storage is limited, and non-invasive procedures are conducted on a filling cabinet.

This scope is conceptual and requires design activities to determine required plumbing fixtures and layout of EMT space. The washeteria would provide sufficient shower and laundry systems to meet the demands of the residents. The EMT space would provide sufficient storage, a sleeping room, patient consultation room, and a procedure room. This project would require water and sewer utilities, HVAC, and domestic hot water system.

Potential Risks if Not Completed • Occupancy morale would decrease and could impact scientist decisions to use the Station.• Medical capabilities are hindered if an epidemic would occur.• Increased potential for medical procedures to be contaminated due to current space configuration.

5.3.3 P-03: Assess Existing Facilities and Infrastructure This project would assess existing facilities and infrastructure and develop a replacement plan to begin replacing facilities and infrastructure that are past their useful lives. Full facility investigations, engaging with the occupants, and exploring replacement plan options can show where the existing station is currently and determine how the upgrades can better support the years ahead. The replacement plan would provide guidance on consolidation of facilities reducing the footprint, potential space planning to defines specific zones within facilities ensuring that space is used efficiently allowing similar functions to work together effectively. Existing facilities are refurbished military trailers that were not designed for laboratory functions nor is the infrastructure capable of supporting the added power requirements that any additional science would require. The expected lifespan of modular trailers is between 20 to 30 according to vendor websites; however, the actual lifespan is dependent upon environment, design, and more. As for most of the facilities, actual ages are unknown, therefore, using the date that they were placed on-site at TFS, data shows that 16-percent of the facilities were delivered more than 20 years ago. That number increases to 66-percent within the next 10 years. However, approximately 50 facilities have unknown dates of build or delivery, so the percentages of ages could be significantly higher.

This scope is conceptual and requires significant amount of involvement from staff, researchers, and stakeholders. However, this project would provide a long-term facility and infrastructure replacement plan to begin assisting in meeting the science goals of the station.

Potential Risks if Not Completed • Occupancy morale would decrease and could impact scientist decisions to use the Station.

• Facilities could begin to fail and require expedient purchases that do not meet the needs of the station or require occupants to work in cramped spaces.

• Increased potential for research to be contaminated to combining spaces.

5.4 Other Projects Under Discussion The following projects have no timelines or current commitments. These projects require further discussion with key stakeholders.

5.4.1 Construct Modular Dormitories Depending on forecasted populations and discussion regarding weatherPORT versus hard-sided berthing, this project could provide new modular dorms that are modern, energy-efficient, and have year-round operational capability. Many dorm spaces are inadequate; much of the lodging is in tents


5-6 AX1019181240DEN

rather than in hardened facilities. This is uncomfortable, dark, cold, costly to maintain, inflexible for year-round use, and energy-inefficient. The existing tents could be stored and used when population demands require overflow sleeping spaces. It is recommended that existing designs completed from the previous dormitories that are single-story modular buildings with two mirrored units linked together be used.

5.4.2 Construct Classroom and Lecture Hall Facility Discussions revolving around this project plan would renovate or replace the existing community center into a classroom and lecture hall facility. Currently, classes are held in a WeatherPORT tent and is limited in space for larger or multiple classes. The WeatherPORT tents are summer-only facilities, which limits research classes in the winter season. The community center is constructed of wood frame construction and multiple older, inefficient modular units conjoined together. The community center was previously used as a dining facility and has areas that are not used or have laboratory activities that can be relocated.

5.5 Energy Management Plan 5.5.1 Incorporation of Renewable Energy This phase prioritizes efficiency upgrades and incorporates the use of renewable energy technologies to reduce the use of fossil fuels to meet the needs for cleaner energy to limit impact on atmospheric research along with other scientific research projects.

The science research community and stakeholders of TFS have stated a desire to move toward greater reliance on renewable energy. While technological challenges remain, the greater challenge is one of funding projects of this type, which tend to require high up-front capital investments.

Fuel costs can be volatile, making it difficult to budget costs from year to year. Using historical data, it is reasonable to expect that these costs would rise over time, claiming a greater portion of the limited operational budgets unless existing power production is augmented or replaced with renewable energy. In addition to budgetary impacts, there is a strong impetus both internally and externally to pursue renewable energy in the NSF Arctic Program. Federal agencies are continuously encouraged to adopt energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies to lower long-term operating costs and reduce environmental impacts resulting from their operations. Also, a recent blue-ribbon panel reviewing the United States Antarctic Program identified the high and rising cost of energy as a key impediment to supporting scientific research and recommended implementing renewable energy as a key strategy to overcome this problem. The Energy Red Team would manage the vision and projects associated with this phase.

SECTION 6

AX1019181240DEN 6-1

Schedule A schedule has been developed for the major projects defined in this LRFP. This schedule is based on project descriptions and scope of work as currently defined. Given the conceptual project definitions, these schedules should be considered as a guidance only that can be refined as stakeholders. Table 6-1 presents a proposed schedule for the projects represented in the LRFP.

SECTION 6–SCHEDULE

6-2 AX1019181240DEN


Activity ID Activity Name Start Finish

Long Range Facilities PlanLong Range Facilities Plan 01-Oct-18 14-Sep-21

Toolik Field StationToolik Field Station 01-Oct-18 14-Sep-21

Modular Dormitories Phase IModular Dormitories Phase I 01-Feb-19 01-Jul-19

20-1160 Modular Dormitories Phase I - Procurement 01-Feb-19* 30-Mar-19

20-1170 Modular Dormitories Phase I - Deliver 01-Apr-19 15-May-19

20-1180 Modular Dormitories Phase I - Construct 16-May-19 01-Jul-19

Expand Waste Heat Utilidor to Dining FacilityExpand Waste Heat Utilidor to Dining Facility 01-Oct-18 14-Jun-19

A24100 Expand Waste Heat Utilidor to Dining Facility - Design 01-Oct-18* 30-Jan-19

A24070 Expand Waste Heat Utilidor to Dining Facility - Procurement 31-Jan-19 30-Apr-19

A24090 Expand Waste Heat Utilidor to Dining Facility - Delivery 01-May-19 21-May-19

A24080 Expand Waste Heat Utilidor to Dining Facility - Construction 22-May-19 14-Jun-19

Laboratory 5Laboratory 5 05-Oct-20 20-Jul-21

A24140 Laboratory 5 - Design 05-Oct-20* 03-Feb-21

A24110 Laboratory 5 - Procurement 04-Feb-21* 04-May-21

A24130 Laboratory 5 - Delivery 05-May-21 25-May-21

A24120 Laboratory 5 - Construction 26-May-21 20-Jul-21

EMT and Washeteria FacilityEMT and Washeteria Facility 05-Oct-20 14-Sep-21

A24180 EMT and Washeteria Facility - Design 05-Oct-20* 03-Feb-21

A24150 EMT and Washeteria Facility - Procurement 04-Feb-21* 04-May-21

A24170 EMT and Washeteria Facility - Delivery 05-May-21 25-May-21

A24160 EMT and Washeteria Facility - Construction 21-Jul-21 14-Sep-21

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

14-Sep-21

14-Sep-21

01-Jul-19

14-Jun-19

20-Jul-21

14-Sep-21

Long Range Facilities Plan Data Date 01-Oct-18 printed - 11-Dec-18 12:34

Remaining Level of Effort

Actual Level of Effort

Actual Work

Remaining Work

Critical Remaining Work

Milestone

Summary

Long Range Facilities Plan

1 of 1

SECTION 6–SCHEDULE

6-4 AX1019181240DEN


SECTION 7

AX1019181240DEN 7-1

Cost Estimates ROM cost estimates have been developed for the major projects defined in this long-range plan. These estimates are based on project descriptions and scope of work as currently defined. Given the limited project definition and engineering, these estimates should be considered as budgetary only. Where possible, historical program costs and supplier pricing was used. Various assumptions and allowances were developed for each project and incorporated into an individual basis of estimate and summary sheet. Table 7-1 presents costs for the projects represented in the LRFP

.

Table 7-1. Costs for the Projects Represented in this LRFP Project Project Cost

12- and 24- Months

P-01: Construct Modular Dormitories $690,000

P-02: Expand Waste Heat Utilidor to Dining Facility $200,000

Total $890,000

36-Month

P-01: Construct Lab 5 $1,430,000

P-02: Construct EMT and Washeteria Facility $860,000

P-03: Assess Existing Facilities and Infrastructure $120,000

Total $2,410,000

Total $3,300,000

Note: Cost do not include markups and are unburdened.

$ = dollar(s)

SECTION 7–COST ESTIMATES

7-2 AX1019181240DEN


Appendix A Structure Inventory and History of Development

APPENDIX A

AX1019181240DEN


Project: ARSLS

Client: NSF

Date: 12/15/2018

Revision A

Structure Name Current use Season OperationsNumber of

beds Sq. footage Year Built/Delivered Notes Suggested LRFP Disposition

Laboratory #1 Laboratory Summer plus edge ‐‐ 1,500 1999 LRFP Structure: Assess long‐term feasibility.




USDA Lab #6 Laboratory Summer plus edge ‐‐ 1,200 2014 LRFP Structure: Assess long‐term feasibility.

USDA Lab #7 Laboratory Summer plus edge ‐‐ 1,200 2014 LRFP Structure: Assess long‐term feasibility.

Winter laboratory Laboratory Year round ‐‐ 860 1994 LRFP Structure: Assess long‐term feasibility.

Wet Laboratory Laboratory Summer plus edge ‐‐ 1,440 1994 LRFP Structure: Assess long‐term feasibility.

Dry Laboratory Laboratory Summer plus edge ‐‐ 1,440 1994 LRFP Structure: Assess long‐term feasibility.

Stable Isotope Laboratory Laboratory Summer only ‐‐ 176 ‐‐ LRFP Structure: Assess long‐term feasibility.

Incubation facility Laboratory Summer only ‐‐ 360 2002 LRFP Structure: Assess long‐term feasibility.

EDC/Herbarium Lab Laboratory Summer plus edge ‐‐ 320 ‐‐ LRFP Structure: Assess long‐term feasibility.

GIS Lab/Offices Laboratory Summer plus edge ‐‐ 600 1996 Refurbished trailer. LRFP Structure: Assess long‐term feasibility.

Lab Tent #5 Laboratory Summer only ‐‐ 400 ‐‐ LRFP Structure: Assess long‐term feasibility.


Lab Tent #7 (Polar Tent) Laboratory Summer only ‐‐ 420 ‐‐ Refurbished tent. LRFP Structure: Assess long‐term feasibility.




Community Center Lecture hall, computer room, storage, television room, and walk‐in freezers.

Summer plus edge ‐‐ 2,550 1986 Comprised of multiple sections including trailer modules from 1970's era, tent, and custom built wood framing.

LRFP Structure: Assess long‐term feasibility and renovate or replace into a Classroom and Lecture Hall facility.

Whalen Trailer Maintenance office and one sleeping area. Summer plus edge 1 500 ‐‐ LRFP Structure: Assess long‐term feasibility.

EMT Trailer Medical operations and one sleeping area. Summer plus edge 1 200 1984 Trailer module from 1970's era. LRFP Structure: Replace with new EMT and Washeteria facility.

Shower Module Laundry and shower spaces. Summer plus edge ‐‐ 1,040 2001 LRFP Structure: Replace with new EMT and Washeteria facility.

Tire Shop Maintenance Summer only ‐‐ 200 ‐‐

Science Workshop Science shop space and tool storage Summer only ‐‐ 500 1984 LRFP Structure: Assess long‐term feasibility.

Sauna Recreation Summer plus edge ‐‐ 288 ‐‐

Health Club Recreation Year round ‐‐ 584 2015 Upgraded in 2015Haz‐Mat Shack Hazardous materials storage Summer plus edge ‐‐ 120 ‐‐Snowmachine shop Hazardous materials storage Summer plus edge ‐‐ 200 ‐‐ repurposed to HazMat

Outhouse (Towers) Restroom facility Year round ‐‐ 65 2001

Outhouse (Meeting Tent) Restroom facility Year round ‐‐ 65 ‐‐Outhouse (Lab Side) Restroom facility Year round ‐‐ 65 ‐‐Outhouse (Dorm 7/8) Restroom facility Year round ‐‐ ~65 2018

Garage Heavy equipment maintenance Year round ‐‐ 2,646 2015

Dining Hall Galley and general station operations Year round ‐‐ 6,076 2010

Meeting Tent Group meeting space Summer plus edge ‐‐ 640 2004

Helo Coordinators Tent Helicopter coordination space Summer plus edge ‐‐ 240 ‐‐Loader Tent Loader storage Year round ‐‐ 576 ‐‐Ship/Rec WeatherPORT Shipping and receiving storage Year round ‐‐ 1,600 2008

Bike Tent Bike storage Summer only ‐‐ 240 ‐‐Residence Unit #1 ATCO Dormitories Summer plus edge 4 to 8 545 1984 LRFP Structure: Replace with new modular

dormitories in Phase I. Residence Unit #2 ATCO Dormitories Summer plus edge 4 to 8 545 1984 LRFP Structure: Replace with new modular

dormitories in Phase I. Residence Unit #3 ATCO Dormitories Summer plus edge 4 to 8 545 1984 LRFP Structure: Replace with new modular

dormitories in Phase I.

Toolik Field Station Facility Inventory

Project: ARSLS

Client: NSF

Date: 12/15/2018

Revision A

Structure Name Current use Season OperationsNumber of

beds Sq. footage Year Built/Delivered Notes Suggested LRFP Disposition

Toolik Field Station Facility Inventory

Residence Unit #4 ATCO Dormitories Summer plus edge 4 to 8 545 1984 LRFP Structure: Replace with new modular dormitories in Phase I.

Residence ATCO 5&6 (side by side) Dormitories Summer plus edge 8 to 16 1,456 2015

Residence 7&8 (side by side) Dormitories Year round 8 to 16 ~1,500 2018

Winter Quarters Dormitories Year round 5 to 10 1,440 1998 LRFP Structure: Assess long‐term feasibility. Cotton Grass Dormitories Year round 8 to 16 2,511 2003 LRFP Structure: Assess long‐term feasibility. RC#1 Portable camper sleeping space Summer plus edge 1 160 ‐‐RC#2 Portable camper sleeping space Summer plus edge 1 160 ‐‐RC#3 (Cabinx) Portable camper sleeping space Summer plus edge 1 160 ‐‐RC#4 (Coop Unit Trailer) Portable camper sleeping space Summer plus edge 1 160 ‐‐Residential WeatherPORT Tents Dormitories Summer only 27 to 120 240 to 300 ‐‐ LRFP Structure: Replace with new modular

dormitories in Phase II. CONEX ROW #1 Storage Summer plus edge ‐‐ 160 ‐‐CONEX ROW #2 Storage Summer plus edge ‐‐ 160 ‐‐CONEX ROW #3 Storage Summer plus edge ‐‐ 160 ‐‐CONEX ROW #4 Storage Summer plus edge ‐‐ 160 ‐‐CONEX ROW #5 Storage Summer plus edge ‐‐ 160 ‐‐CONEX ROW #6 Storage Summer plus edge ‐‐ 160 ‐‐CONEX ROW #7 Storage Year round ‐‐ 160 ‐‐CONEX ROW #8 Storage Year round ‐‐ 160 ‐‐CONEX Lab 5 Storage Summer plus edge ‐‐ 160 ‐‐CONEX #10 (winter lab) Storage Summer plus edge ‐‐ 160 ‐‐CONEX #11 (winter lab) Storage Summer plus edge ‐‐ 160 ‐‐CONEX Lab 4 Storage Summer plus edge ‐‐ 160 ‐‐CONEX (kanex) Storage Summer plus edge ‐‐ 160 ‐‐CONEX (kanex2) Storage Summer plus edge ‐‐ 160 ‐‐CONEX (dry‐wet lab) Storage Summer plus edge ‐‐ 160 ‐‐Tent‐Storage‐ShipRec Storage Year round ‐‐ 240 ‐‐Storage WeatherPORT #1 Storage Summer only ‐‐ 240 ‐‐Storage WeatherPORT #2 (lab 9) Storage Summer only ‐‐ 240 ‐‐Storage WeatherPORT #3 Storage Summer only ‐‐ 240 ‐‐Storage WeatherPORT #4 Storage Summer only ‐‐ 240 ‐‐Storage WeatherPORT #5 (lab2 & Lab3) Storage Summer only ‐‐ 240 ‐‐Storage WeatherPORT #6 (dry‐wet lab)) Storage Summer only ‐‐ 240 ‐‐Storage WeatherPORT #7 (lab 6) Storage Summer only ‐‐ 240 ‐‐Storage WeatherPORT #8 (lab 4) Storage Summer only ‐‐ 240 ‐‐Cold Storage Tent Storage Summer only ‐‐ 3,500 ‐‐Well house Water treatment and distribution Year round ‐‐ 275 2011

D‐Shack‐A Power distribution Year round ‐‐ 216 ‐‐D‐Shack‐B Power distribution Year round ‐‐ 216 2010

D‐Shack‐C Power distribution Year round ‐‐ ~216 ‐‐Gen Module WQ Power and waste heat generation Year round ‐‐ 12 1998

Generator Module A Power and waste heat generation Year round ‐‐ 480 2001

Generator Module B Power and waste heat generation Year round ‐‐ 480 2001

Generator Module C Power and waste heat generation Year round ‐‐ 588 2006

A-1

AX1019181240DEN

Toolik Field Station History of Development

Date Development Event Funding Source

1975 TFS established adjacent to Toolik Lake Construction Camp runway

1975 16-foot travel trailer IMS/UAF

1976 Kitchen/dining/lab/sleeping trailer (10 feet by 50 feet) IAB

1978 New kitchen/dining trailer (10 feet by 50 feet) IAB

1980 Laboratory trailer (10 feet by 50 feet) IAB

1982 Laboratory trailer (10 feet by 50 feet) IAB

1983 Station relocated to its current location

1983 13 modular units DOE/IAB

1984 Wastewater tanks State of AK

1985 Kitchen upgrade UAF

1986 Facilities and equipment upgrade. Dining room and communications equipment. NSF/UAF

1988 Facilities and equipment upgrade. Electric distribution and Arcticpac enclosure. NSF/UAF

1992 Facilities and equipment upgrade. Survey of pad, 8000 Tank. Equipment NSF/UAF

1993 Wet and Dry labs (24 feet by 60 feet); Winter lab (20 feet by 55 feet) NSF

1996 Meeting rooms/library (10 feet by 50 feet) IAB

1996 Facilities and equipment upgrade. Electric, site drainage, new phone lines, road upgrade

NSF/UAF

1998 Facilities and equipment upgrade (NSF and UAF); Winter quarters (24 feet by 60 feet)

NSF/UAF

1998 500 yd3 3/4-minus at Sag DOT IAB

1999 Four modular labs (25 feet by 60 feet) Generator module w/4 generator sets Fiber optic line Electric distribution upgrade Water treatment trailer Gravel pad material

NSF NSF NSF NSF NSF NSF

2001 North outhouse towers Intra station LAN Generator module (2nd module) Bathhouse module (10 feet by 50 feet) CONEX storage

NSF NSF NSF NSF IAB

2002 Cotton Grass NSF

2003 Dormitory built NSF

APPENDIX A

AX1019181240DEN

Date Development Event Funding Source

2006 Upgrades for first winter season Insulated waste tanks Shower module addition Generator, switchgear, electrical distribution improvements Generator module upgrade

NSF NSF NSF NSF NSF

2007 Helicopter pad Loader tent

NSF NSF

2008 Cold storage tent NSF

2010 Kitchen/dining facility NSF

2015 Garage Facility NEON/NSF

2015 Waste Heat Recovery System NEON/NSF

2015 Laboratories 6 and 7 NEON/NSF


2016/2018 Utility upgrades started and completed for fiber optic network. NSF/UAF


* Sources: Development Plan, February 2002, Toolik Field Station and Toolik Facility Upgrades Schedule, December 2016

Notes:

AK = AlaskaDOE = U.S. Department of EnergyDOT = U.S. Department of Transportation IAB = Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska, FairbanksNSF = National Science Foundation NEON = National Ecological Observatory NetworkIMS = Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska, FairbanksUAF = University of Alaska, Fairbanksyd3 = cubic yard(s)

Appendix B Existing Site Plan

APPENDIX B

AX1019181240DEN


B

D

O' 70'

�---

140'

FIRST AID STATION

210'

2

1--BRIDGE CROSSING

�TOP OF BANK / ELEVATION; 2362,90

3 4 5 6

TOOLIK FIELD STATION TOOLIK LAKE, ALASKA

NOTES

1. BASIS OF BEARING THE BASIS OF BEARING OF N39'59'58"E FOR THE EAST BOUNDARY OF THE TOOLIK FIELD STATION PARCEL WAS USED AS SHOWN ON A DRAWING PREPARED BY PDC, INC FOR FIELD WORK PERFORMED AUGUST 18-20, 1993.

2. BASIS OF VERTICAL CONTROL 1. ORIGINAL BASIS OF VERTICAL CONTROL IS FROM ELEVATIONS PROVIDED BY THE UNIVERISTY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS FOR THE CABLE TRAYS NEAR THE WET LAB AND DRY LAB STRUCTURES. 2. JULY 2015- CPS SURVEY CREW DID A GPS CONTROL POINT CALIBRATION USING THE BOUNDARY CORNERS AND INTERNAL SURVEY CONTROL POINT 101. THIS CALIBRATION FILE WAS USED FOR THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY.

3. BASIS OF HORIZONTAL CONTROL BASIS OF COORDINATES IS THE NORTHERN MONUMENT USED FOR THE BASIS OF BEARING. COORDINATES SHOWN ON TI-iE DRAWING PREPARED BY PDC, INC FOR FIELD WORK PERFORMED AUGUST 18-20, 1993 WERE USED. COORDINATES ARE REFERENCED TO THE NAD 27 (ZONE 4) DATUM AND ARE IN U.S. SURVEY FEET.

4. INTERNAL CAMP SURVEY CONTROL CONTROL POINT 101 N 5347361.32 E 554623.69 ELEV. 2389.98 FOUND 2 1 /2H ALUMINUM CAP

0 5. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 1FT. 6. DATE OF BOUNDARY SURVEY � BY PDC, INC.,

7. DATE OF TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY � BY CPS SURVEY CREW USING GPS RTK SURVEY PROCEDURES

D

ii'. <(

i:i

D

ii'. <(

z

0 ,0:: cii I �u 0::

0:: D

w

D

z

cj vs Zo

z

0 (/J

f'.= :a i!i � <( z (!) z

<I)

i::, 0 ci w

>-' 0 0:: 0:: (.)

<I) u.. a.

> > <( � w 0:: 0:

(.) u <( zw iii <I) <( z ...J 0 0: :,; ci w 0

f-'.'i 'I u a. (!) 0 :i: (.)

(/J u.. z

Cl. >- ci ...J 0 :::; j

=> 0 <( w 0:: 0 0 I <I) ;: z u <(

� � w 0 � u..

:i: � 0 (.) w z

.J .J II) (/J

-111 :'.5 J:.!:! <(

:it z z 0

...J :5 NCI) � > a.. :C.!

(/J -wD () I-...J

Uif w

en u:: ,0::

0 0 f-

AS SHOWN VERIFY SCALE

BAR IS ONE INCH ON

ORIGINAL DRAWING. 0 1"

(/J

a:, 0::

(/J a. u

DATE OCTOBER 2018 PROJ 700362 DWG C1 SHEET

TLK-C1 current.dwg October 05, 2018 - 1 :27pm

This page was intentionally left blank.

Appendix C Sample Site Development Checklist

APPENDIX C

AX1019181240DEN


APPENDIX C

AX1019181240DEN

Sample Site Development Checklist As indicated in Section 5 of the Toolik Long-Range Facilities Plan (LRFP), the location of facilities and infrastructure at Toolik Field Station (TFS) is an important part of the planning process. Although the decision to build a facility may be fundamentally sound and its phasing may be precisely integrated with the infrastructure and the goals and objectives of TFS LRFP, if a poor location is chosen, it may negate all of the benefits of the good planning preceding the location decision. As a result, new development should be measured against a site development checklist. A sample checklist is presented in Table C1. The checklist assumes that once the need for a facility has been determined, more than one site would be evaluated for its potential location. The checklist would enable comparisons to be made between alternatives and help identify an optimal location for the new development.

In the example, three sites are evaluated against 17 variables. A positive response (yes or true) is counted as one point. Negative responses (no or false) do not receive any points. The site with the highest point total is the preferred site, as measured against these variables. For greater sophistication and complexity, each of the 17 variables can be weighted. For instance, if impact on research is deemed more important than a facility's ability to expand at its proposed location, a "yes" response to research could generate two or more points.

Another aspect of a checklist could include the ability to mitigate a constraint. For instance, in the example provided in Table C1, Site 1 did not receive points for accessibility and for being adversely impacted by noise from adjacent developments. In both instances, those constraints could be mitigated or eliminated. For accessibility, a road expansion could solve the accessibility issue. Noise attenuation, or sound proofing within the facility could reduce potential noise problems. Of course, in both instances, costs would be incurred to mitigate the constraint and would need to be factored into a final decision related to site selection.

Specific elements included in the checklist encompass the following:

• Soil: Are soil conditions sufficient to enable the development to occur?

• Functional Relationships: Would the development be compatible with existing development?

• Utilities: Can the development hook into existing utilities?

• Impact to Research: Would the development adversely impact existing or future research?

• Sensitive habitat: Would the development impact sensitive flora or fauna?

• Topography: Can the development occur without significant alterations in the existing landscape?

• Snow Removal: Would the development accommodate snow removal?

• Snow Drifting: Would the placement of the facility at the location increase snow drift?

Facilities at Toolik Field Station should be sited only after evaluation of alternative locations and measured against a site development checklist.

APPENDIX C

AX1019181240DEN

• Accessibility: Does the site accommodate anticipatedtraffic flows, including possible loading and unloadingof supplies on and off trucks?

• Expansion Capability: Can the development locationaccommodate possible expansion of the facility?

• View Sheds: Would the development impact existingviews?

• Noise: Would the location of the development beimpacted by noise, or would it generate noise thatwould impact adjacent facilities?

• Disturbed Area: Is the location of the proposeddevelopment already disturbed? The objective wouldbe to build on a disturbed site as opposed to buildingon a pristine site.

• Pad: Is the development on the existing pad?

• Sustainability: Does the development comply with theStation’s sustainability guidelines?

• Wind: Would the development impact the direction orspeed of the wind in a manner that would have a negative impact on existing facilities andoperations?

• Sun: Would the development obstruct sun angles, possibly impacting heating and natural lighting forother facilities?

These pictures illustrate the importance of facility placement relative to view sheds. The photos also provide an example of mitigation. By building a one-story facility and terracing the development on the hillside below the structure, the space of a two-story structure can be provided without impacting the view.

APPENDIX C

AX1019181240DEN

Table C-1. Sample Site Development Checklist

Site Development Consideration Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Mitigation/Action

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3

Soil: Acceptable for development? Yes No Yes N/A No N/A

Functional Relationships: Compatible? Yes Yes No N/A N/A No

Existing Utilities: Can serve development? Yes No No N/A Yes — Extend

lines

Yes — Extend lines

Research: Development would have no impact on research True True False N/A N/A No

Sensitive Areas: Development would not impact sensitive areas or habitats False True True No N/A N/A

Topography: Development is not on steep slopes True True False N/A N/A Yes - Terracing

Snow Removal: Development would not impact snow removal plan True True False N/A N/A No

Snow Drifting: Development would not contribute to snow drifting False True True No N/A N/A

Accessibility: Development is accessible to trucks (if applicable) No No Yes Yes — Extend Road

Yes — Extend Road

N/A

Expansion: Site can be expanded if facility size needs to increase No Yes Yes No N/A N/A

View Sheds: Development would not impact existing views True True False N/A N/A Yes — Lower Height

Noise: Development would not be impacted by, nor impact, existing facilities False False True Yes — Sound

Proof

Yes — Sound Proof

N/A

Site Disturbance: Site is already disturbed (not pristine) Yes Yes No N/A N/A No

Existing Pad: Development is on existing pad Yes Yes No N/A N/A No

Sustainability: The development complies with LRFP Sustainability Guidelines Yes No Yes N/A No N/A

Wind: Development would not influence wind direction or speed True True False N/A N/A Yes — Lower Height

Sun: Development would not impact sun angles for other facilities or research True False True N/A Yes - N/A

Total Points 12 11 8 2 (14) 4 (15) 4 (12)

Legend: 1 Point █ 0 Points █ Not Applicable █

Notes:

LRFP = Long-Range Facilities Plan

N/A = not applicable

APPENDIX C

AX1019181240DEN


Appendix D Future Site Plan

APPENDIX D

C-4 AX1019181240DEN


B

D

O' 70'

�---

140'

FIRST AID STATION

210'

2

1--BRIDGE CROSSING

�TOP OF BANK / ELEVATION; 2362,90

3 4 5 6

TOOLIK FIELD STATION TOOLIK LAKE, ALASKA

NOTES

1. BASIS OF BEARING THE BASIS OF BEARING OF N39'59'58"E FOR THE EAST BOUNDARY OF THE TOOLIK FIELD STATION PARCEL WAS USED AS SHOWN ON A DRAWING PREPARED BY PDC, INC FOR FIELD WORK PERFORMED AUGUST 18-20, 1993.

2. BASIS OF VERTICAL CONTROL 1. ORIGINAL BASIS OF VERTICAL CONTROL IS FROM ELEVATIONS PROVIDED BY THE UNIVERISTY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS FOR THE CABLE TRAYS NEAR THE WET LAB AND DRY LAB STRUCTURES. 2. JULY 2015- CPS SURVEY CREW DID A GPS CONTROL POINT CALIBRATION USING THE BOUNDARY CORNERS AND INTERNAL SURVEY CONTROL POINT 101. THIS CALIBRATION FILE WAS USED FOR THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY.

3. BASIS OF HORIZONTAL CONTROL BASIS OF COORDINATES IS THE NORTHERN MONUMENT USED FOR THE BASIS OF BEARING. COORDINATES SHOWN ON TI-iE DRAWING PREPARED BY PDC, INC FOR FIELD WORK PERFORMED AUGUST 18-20, 1993 WERE USED. COORDINATES ARE REFERENCED TO THE NAD 27 (ZONE 4) DATUM AND ARE IN U.S. SURVEY FEET.

4. INTERNAL CAMP SURVEY CONTROL CONTROL POINT 101 N 5347361.32 E 554623.69 ELEV. 2389.98 FOUND 2 1 /2H ALUMINUM CAP

0 5. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 1FT. 6. DATE OF BOUNDARY SURVEY � BY PDC, INC.,

7. DATE OF TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY � BY CPS SURVEY CREW USING GPS RTK SURVEY PROCEDURES

D

ii'. <(

i:i

D

ii'. <(

z

0 ,0:: cii I �u 0::

0:: D

w

D

z

cj vs Zo

z

0 (/J

f'.= :a

i!i � <( z (!) z

<I)

i::, 0 ciw >-' 0 0::

0:: (.) <I)

u.. a. > > <( � w 0::

0: (.) u <( zw iii <I) <( z ...J 0

0: :,; ci

w 0 f-

'.'i 'I u a. (!) 0 :i: (.)

(/J u.. z

Cl. >- ci ...J 0 :::; j

=> 0 <( w 0:: 0 0 I <I) ;: z u <(

� � w 0 � u..

:i: � 0 (.) w z

a.. UJ

.J � I-

.J II) (/J ci5 -111 :'.5 0 J:.!:! <( UJ

:it z en 0

...JO NCI) � - a.. :C.!

(/J �o D oo::: ...J

Uif w a.. u:: UJ ,0::

(9 0 z 0

c2f-

(9 z

AS SHOWN VERIFY SCALE

BAR IS ONE INCH ON

ORIGINAL DRAWING. 0 1"

(/J

a:, 0::

(/J a. u

DATE OCTOBER 2018 PROJ 700362 DWG C1

SHEET TLK-C1 Long Range proposed.dwg October 22, 2018 • 11 :07am

fstinchc

Text Box

Community Center

fstinchc

Rectangle

fstinchc

Rectangle

fstinchc

Rectangle

This page was intentionally left blank.

CID ENTERPRISES

· 2019-01-29 · AX1019181240DEN Acknowledgements This document is a compilation of source...

Documents

Transcript of · 2019-01-29 · AX1019181240DEN Acknowledgements This document is a compilation of source...