Title : Automatic Weather Stations Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : February 18, 1993 File : opp93102 OFFICE OF POLAR PROGRAMS ENVIRONMENT SECTION 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: February 18, 1993 From: Environmental Officer, OPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (Installation, Maintenance and Removal of Automatic Weather Stations in Antarctica) To: Facilities Engineering Projects Manager, OPP Environmental Engineer, OPP Science Projects Manager, OPP Field Projects Manager, OPP Polar Oceans and Climate Program Manager Environmentalist, ASA Background This document constitutes an Environmental Action Memorandum (EAM) that describes, generically, the potential environmental effects of Automatic Weather Stations (AWSs) emplaced around the Antarctic Continent. Also, the EAM describes the need for, installation, maintenance, and removal, of AWSs in Antarctica. The Environmental Officer posed a set of questions relating to the proposed generic activity and to the potentially affected environment. Responses to these questions, based on several sources of information, were collected and interpreted by staff at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) for final evaluation by the Environmental Officer. The questions and responses are given below. The proposed action is to install, operate, service, and remove at the end of their useful lives, AWS units in Antarctica. Thirty six units were in use in Antarctica during the 1991-1992 austral research season. Installation of seven or eight more was planned during the 1992-1993 season. Each year several units are installed, moved, serviced, or decommissioned. Data collected by AWS units are used to support scientific research and antarctic operations. Satellites provide valuable information on antarctic weather patterns, but surface data are confirmed by automatic weather stations. Also, AWS units provide information used to make weather forecasts for flights within, and to and from, Antarctica. AWS units support the following types of research: Studies of barrier flow along the Antarctic Peninsula and the Transantarctic Mountains; Studies of katabatic wind flow down slope to the Adelie Coast, Reeves Glacier, and West Antarctica; Investigations of mesoscale circulation, and sensible and latent heat fluxes, on the Ross Ice Shelf; Climatology studies at Byrd, Siple, and Dome C Stations; Oceanography in the Ross Sea; and Long-term ecological research along the Antarctic Peninsula. In addition, AWS units provide meteorological information for air operations at McMurdo Station, and monitoring for possible locations for new stations, field camps, and aircraft landing sites (e.g., a landing site near Mt. Howe). AWS units consist of three-meter towers supporting instruments, antennas, and a solar panel , plus two to four plywood battery boxes placed on the surface (Figure 1). Each tower is guyed with four chains, cables, or ropes anchored in ice or rock, depending on the site. Installation or service usually requires a few hours. Removal may be more involved when units have become partially buried by drifting snow. At the South Pole, snow drifts accumulate at a rate of about 15 cm/year, but snow may accumulate more quickly at other sites. AWS units can go unattended for several years: they need service when components fail, the unit becomes buried in snow, or when the aerovane becomes bent. AWS units are powered by six, nine, or twelve lead-acid gel-cell batteries that are charged by photovoltaic panels during the austral summer. Early AWS units were powered by Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs). Removal of the RTG-powered units began in the mid-1980s because of concern for storage of radioactive materials in Antarctica. Only one RTG-powered unit remains. Located at Dome C, 74.50øS, 123.00øE, it is to be removed by either the United States Antarctic Program (USAP) or with the assistance of Exp‚ditions Polaires Fran‡aises. Batteries that fail and other trash are returned to McMurdo or Palmer for shipment out of Antarctica. Environmental Assessment Queries and Responses GENERAL 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity? In general, AWS units serve to increase knowledge of antarctic weather and climate in support of research in all areas and operations. Each AWS unit is installed, however, for a different specific purpose. What alternatives to the proposed activity have the Program and the Contractor considered? Two alternatives have been considered: 1) the proposed and preferred action; and, 2) the "no-action" alternative. Have probable impacts of all alternatives been considered by the Program and the Contractor? Please explain how. The principal impacts of AWS units occur during installation, removal and occasional service. AWS operation has only aesthetic impacts. The units are powered by lead-acid gel-cell batteries that are charged by solar photovoltaic panels. They release no pollutants, therefore, to the environment during operation. They are man-made devices that might reduce the wilderness character of sites that are otherwise undisturbed. However, they are temporary facilities. If properly removed, no trace of the unit will remain. The principal direct impacts of AWS unit emplacement are surface disturbances associated with movement of people and materials to and from, and on the site. Most AWS units are located on snow and ice surfaces. Snow and ice surfaces are regularly covered with additional snow or ablated by wind, thus returning the surface to its essentially pre-disturbance condition. In protected areas and areas that are not covered by snow or ice, disturbance of the surface is likely to be of very little import. A few AWS units are located on ice-free ground that has potential for impact. Movement of vehicles on the ground surface can result in long-term disturbance of the antarctic environment. In previously undisturbed areas, these tracks may constitute a long-term degradation of the wilderness and aesthetic values of Antarctica. Few wastes are generated during installation or repair. All wastes are regulated by USAP Safety, Environment, and Health Program Policy Memorandum 90-1. This policy requires wastes generated around McMurdo or Palmer Stations to be properly packaged, marked, and staged for transport to either McMurdo or Palmer. All human wastes generated off-station or on traverse may be deposited in a snow pit. The location, type and quantity of all waste abandoned during the activity shall be on the activity diary, the traverse diary, or the traverse map. A copy of the abandonment information shall be provided to the NSF Representative on station who shall foreword a copy to the Environmental Officer and the Safety, and Health Officer. Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how would these impacts be mitigated by the Program or the Contractor? AWS units are seldom located in protected areas, but if locating a AWS in one is proposed, a permit is needed. A separate environmental assessment of each proposed AWS unit that would affect a protected area would be included with the permit application to assure that the AWS does not conflict with the area's management requirements. Potential impacts to the wilderness and aesthetic values of Antarctica may be minimized by not locating AWS units on the ground surface, where possible. Where AWS units must be located on bare ground, impacts may be minimized by not driving vehicles across the ground surface. Over short distances it may be possible to move equipment by hand. The upper ground surface is thawed only during the austral summer. Therefore, installation of AWS units should take place only during times when the upper ground surface is frozen. Have measures to assess the indirect costs of the proposed activity been identified or considered by the Program or the Contractor? Please explain how. Installation and operation of AWS units would have indirect costs. Helicopter, Twin Otter or LC-130 support is usually required to emplace, service, and remove AWS units. Two to three personnel, in addition to the aircraft crew, are required to accomplish this task. All materials used on-site to install, repair, or decommission AWS units are removed. Any indirect impacts, therefore, are negligible. LAND USE AND PLANNING 2. Where would the proposed activity be located, specifically? AWS units are sited in many locations (Figures 2 and 3). Many are located near or within McMurdo, Amundsen-Scott South Pole, and Palmer Stations, and Williams Field. Others are located in remote areas. A generic analysis cannot identify future locations for which they will be proposed. Have alternative locations been considered by the Program or the Contractor? If yes, which are they; if no, explain why. As a generic assessment, this document has not considered alternate locations. The above discussion suggests that the only situations for which consideration of alternate locations may be important are when protected areas or the ground surface would be affected. 3. How would any aesthetic impacts to the area from the proposed activity be handled by the Program or the Contractor? AWS units could have aesthetic impact where they are located. In developed areas, the impacts would be essentially unnoticeable. In undeveloped areas, the aesthetic impact would be noticeable but temporary. The typical AWS unit remains in place for about seven years and after removal there remains little or no evidence of its presence. The aesthetic concern is for areas with exposed ground surface that may retain evidence of the vehicles used to install, service, or remove the unit. AWS units proposed for bare ground sites outside developed areas would have a site-specific environmental document prepared. If feasible methods to avoid impacts to the site cannot be found, further documentation will be required. 4. Would the proposed activity have any other indirect impacts on the environment? If yes, what are they; if no, explain why none are expected. No, AWS units do not use fuel and they are compact units. They may cause some snow drifting around themselves; but less than minor and less than transitory impacts to the environment are anticipated from their emplacement. 5. Would the proposed activity change the traditional use(s) of the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. As a small and temporary structure, AWS units would not affect traditional uses of any particular site. 6. Are the physical and environmental characteristics of the neighboring environment suitable for the proposed activity? If yes, explain why; if no, explain why. AWS units are located in places that are advantageous for the purpose of measuring weather conditions. It is unlikely, therefore, that AWS units would be proposed for sites that are unsuitable for measuring weather conditions. IMPACT AND POLLUTION POTENTIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 7. How has protection of the environment and human health from unnecessary pollution or impact been considered for the proposed 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])? Use of AWS units generates no pollution and very little waste. The largest source of pollution at AWS sites is combustion of fuel by land vehicles or aircraft used to access the site. Generally this occurs for about two hours per visit. At least three visits (installation, service, and removal) per site are required for each AWS unit. AWS units are powered by solar panel-charged batteries. The only wastes produced are the occasional battery that fails and waste materials that are produced during installation, maintenance and removal. All waste materials are removed from the site and returned to McMurdo or Palmer. Wastes are managed as required by USAP Safety, Environment and Health Program Policy Memorandum 90-1. 8. Would the proposed activity change ambient air quality at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. AWS units do not and would not change ambient air quality at sites where they are located. Air quality effects are limited to those caused by land vehicles and aircraft used to access the sites. These effects will normally be no more than two to three hours in duration. 9. Would the proposed activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why? AWS units do not affect water quality or flow. There are few drainage ways in Antarctica, and AWS units would not be located in them because meteorological stations are usually located on high ground. 10. Would the proposed activity change waste generation or management at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why? Little waste would be generated at the sites of the AWS units. The wastes generated by or for the AWS units (for example, dead batteries and construction supplies) are returned to McMurdo Station or Palmer Station for retrograde from Antarctica. 11. Would the proposed activity change energy production or demand, personnel and life support, or transportation requirements at the site? If yes, how; if no, why? No increase in energy production or demand or personnel and life support would be required at the AWS unit sites. As noted under item 4, however, the personnel and transportation requirements of installing, servicing, or removing the AWS units would result in an slight increase in support at McMurdo, Amundsen-Scott South Pole, and Palmer Stations. 12. Is the proposed activity expected to adversely affect scientific studies or locations of research interest (near and distant, in the short-term and in the long-term)? If yes, how; if no, why? AWS units are generally used to further research interests or to support operational activities. They are small devices and are located in one place for a relatively short time. Impacts on present or future research activities are unlikely. 13. Would the proposed activity generate pollutants that might affect terrestrial, marine or freshwater ecosystems within the environs of the station or inland camp? If yes, how; if no, why. No, AWS units produce no pollutants and have no adverse effects on ecosystems. The additional four person-months involved in AWS activities are a small addition to the approximately 1,000 persons stationed at McMurdo during the austral summer. 14. Does the site of the proposed activity serve as habitat for any significant assemblages of antarctic wildlife (for example, mosses or lichens, or antarctic birds or marine mammals)? Generally, AWS units have not been located near significant assemblages of antarctic plants or animals. Additional environmental analysis and documentation would be needed for locating an AWS unit near significant assemblages of plants or animals. HUMAN VALUES 15. Would the proposed activity encroach upon any historical property of the site? If yes, how; if no, why. AWS units are unlikely to encroach upon historic sites and, if located at such sites, AWS units are unlikely to have adverse effects. However, additional environmental analysis and documentation would be needed for locating an AWS unit near any historic property. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 16. What other environmental considerations may be potentially affected by the proposed activity at the proposed (or chosen) site? For example, have impacts associated with decommissioning of the activity been considered (and how). Decommissioning AWS units entails removing the units from the site (i.e., generally the units are relocated to another site). In the above, it has been assumed that all foundation and anchoring materials are removed with the unit. Finding The Environmental Officer, after reviewing the information presented above, believes that installation, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of AWS units will have less than minor and less than transitory effects on the antarctic environment. In order to assure that adverse effects to protected areas, and to wilderness or aesthetic values do not occur without proper consideration, the Environmental Officer will call for the preparation of an environmental document on each AWS unit proposed for a protected area or permafrost area. The Investigator, the Program, and the Contractor are authorized to proceed with AWS planning and emplacement as described in this document. Sidney Draggan Attachments Figures