Title : Constrctn. of Bird Blind, Palmer Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : December 30, 1991 File : opp93050 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: December 30, 1991 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (Construction of a Bird Blind for S-013, Near Palmer Station Antarctica) To: (Files S.7 - Environment) Manager, Polar Biology and Medicine Program, DPP Manager, Ocean Projects, DPP This Environmental Action Memorandum describes the need for, and location of, a temporary bird blind in line with data collection for S-013. 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 and by Dr. W. Fraser 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? The purpose of the activity is to construct a data collection unit (bird blind) to obtain data on South Polar Skuas for S-013. The structure would be a small (4'x 4'x 6') wooden structure. What alternatives has the contractor considered? There are none, other than collection of data without the assistance of a blind-like structure. This would cause more disturbance of the targeted population than the proposed activity. Have probable impacts of all alternatives been considered? Please explain how. Yes. Data collection without the use of the proposed structure would require observation from a considerable distance in order not to disturb the skua population. This is unacceptable. Close observation would disturb the population and result in inaccurate data. The proposed structure will allow close observation without disturbing the population resulting in more accurate data. Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how would these impacts be mitigated? There are no expected impacts with the proposed alternative. Have measures to assess the indirect costs of the proposed activity been identified or considered? Please explain how. No. LAND USE AND PLANNING 2. What is the specific location of the proposed activity? Shortcut Island near Palmer Station, Antarctica. What alternative locations has the contractor and the investigator considered? None. The skua population of interest is located on this island. 3. How will aesthetic impacts to the area be handled? There are none expected. The structure will be hidden from view. 4. Will the activity have any other indirect impacts on the environment? No. 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. Similar structures have been in use at Palmer Station since 1974 without any impacts on the wildlife, plants or other ecological components. 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])? None are expected. Any construction related debris or waste will be returned to Palmer Station for appropriate processing. 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? No. 12. Is the activity expected to adversely affect scientific studies or locations of research interest (near and distant, short-term and long-term)? No. The proposed action is an effort to improve scientific research, and, in so doing, reduce the impact of this research on the local wildlife. 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)? Yes, South Polar Skuas, which is the species of interest in this study. 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. 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 and investigator are authorized to proceed with the proposed activity. Sidney Draggan Attachments Map cc: OPS / PSS Files for S-013 Dr. W. Fraser, S-013