Title : Shelter for Seismological Instrmnts. Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : December 30, 1991 File : opp93049 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: December 30, 1991 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (Shelter for Seismological Instruments for S-091, Near Palmer Station, Antarctica) To: (Files S.7 - Environment) Manager, Polar Earth Sciences Program, DPP Manager, Ocean Projects, DPP This Environmental Action Memorandum describes the need for, and location of, a shelter to house seismological instrumentation for the S-091 project near Palmer Station, Antarctica. The Environmental Officer posed a set of questions relating to the proposed project, and to the potentially affected environment. These questions were responded to by the civilian support contractor's Environmentalist, its Manager for Palmer Station, and by Dr. Gary Holcomb (Principal Investigator for S-091) on October 7, 1991; the questions and responses are shown below: Environmental Assessment Queries and Responses GENERAL 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity? Provide a shelter to house seismological instrumentation for S-091. What alternatives has the contractor considered? The no-action alternative (i.e., to do nothing) and the proposed alternative to construct the shelter. Have probable impacts of all alternatives been considered? Please explain how. The probable impacts of the proposed action have been considered in this Environmental Action Memorandum. Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how would these impacts be mitigated? The chosen alternative is expected to have only minor and transitory effects, if any, on the antarctic environment. Have measures to assess the indirect costs of the proposed activity been identified or considered? Please explain how. No measures of the indirect costs of the proposed activity have been identified or considered. LAND USE AND PLANNING 2. What is the specific location of the proposed activity? The immediate vicinity of Palmer Station. The structure will be located over an existing concrete antenna base beneath an existing antenna. What alternative locations has the contractor considered? Other sites in the immediate vicinity. However, all would require considerable preparation work resulting in increased potential for environmental disturbance than would the proposed site. 3. How will aesthetic impacts to the area be handled? The area will be cleared of any resultant construction debris and maintained in an orderly and waste-free manner by the civilian contractor and the science field team. 4. Will the activity have any other indirect impacts on the environment? None are expected. 5. Will the activity change the traditional use of the chosen site? No. 6. Are the physical or environmental characteristics of the land suitable for the activity? Yes. POLLUTION POTENTIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 7. Has protection of the environment and human health from unnecessary pollution been considered for the activity (includes such considerations as pollution abatement or mitigation, and waste management [e.g., of noise, dust, fuel loss, disposition of one-time-use materials, construction wastes])? Yes. No personnel will be housed at the site. All construction debris will be removed and arrangements will be made for proper disposal. 8. Will the activity change ambient air quality at the site? No. 9. Will the activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the site? No. 10. Will the activity change waste generation or management at the site? No. 11. Will the activity change energy production or demand, personnel and life support, or transportation requirements at the site? There will be a small increase in energy demand to operate equipment housed there. 12. Is the activity expected to adversely affect scientific studies or locations of research interest (near and distant, short-term and long-term)? No. 13. Will the activity generate pollutants that might affect terrestrial, marine or freshwater ecosystems within the environs of the station or inland camp? No. 14. Does the site of the activity serve as habitat for any significant assemblages of Antarctic wildlife (for example, mosses, lichens, antarctic birds or marine animals)? No. HUMAN VALUES 15. Will the activity encroach upon any historical property of the site? No. 16. What other environmental concerns are potentially affected by the activity at the site? For example, have impacts associated with decommissioning of the activity been considered (and how)? None have been identified or are expected. Finding The Environmental Officer, after reviewing the information presented above, believes that the proposed activity poses neither potentially minor nor transitory impacts to the antarctic environment. The contractor is authorized to proceed with the proposed activity. Sidney Draggan Attachments Map cc: OPS / PSS Files for S-091 Dr. Gary Holcomb, S-091