Title : Palmer Automatic Weather Station Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : December 06, 1991 File : opp93040 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: December 6, 1991 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (Palmer Automatic Weather Station) To: Files (S.7 - Environment) This Environmental Action Memorandum describes the need for, and location of, an automatic weather station. 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 civilian contractor's Environment- alist and Dr. William Fraser on October 24, 1991; the questions and responses are shown below: Environmental Assessment Queries and Responses LAND USE AND PLANNING 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity? To install a remote weather station for monitoring important weather parameters for the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) program. This station consists of a 10-foot stand with wind, temperature, and irradiance sensors located on top. What alternatives has the contractor considered? This is an automatic data collection device similar to ones in use at other locations on the Antarctic Peninsula. These devices not only collect comparable data, but provide ready access to the databases through easy-to use-formats and satellite links. The only other alternative is manual collection of these data, which negates many of the features found to be desirable in the system being considered. 2. What is the specific location of the proposed activity? The automatic weather station is to be placed on a rock 10 meters northwest of the current benchmark and navigation flag at the end of Bonaparte Point. What alternative locations has the contractor considered? This location was selected because it is central to LTER sampling activities, has the desired topographic features for mounting the weather tower and is easily accessible for year-round servicing. Compared to other Palmer sites, it will also undoubtedly minimize any impacts to antarctic wildlife, plants, and environmental processes. 3. How have potential aesthetic impacts to the area been considered? If there are such impacts how will they be mitigated? Currently there is a stake with a red flag marking a benchmark at the end of Bonaparte Point that serves as a crude navigational indicator to the entrance to Arthur Harbor. The proposed weather tower will be aesthetically more pleasing and functionally more useful as a safe navigational indicator. Will the activity have any other indirect impacts on the environment? No. 4. Will the activity change the traditional use of the chosen site? No. 5. Are the physical or environmental characteristics of the land suitable for the activity? Yes. POLLUTION CONTROL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 6. 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 environmental pollution is expected to be associated with this activity. 7. Will the activity change ambient air quality at the site? No. 8. Will the activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the site? No. 9. Will the activity change waste generation or management at the site? No. 10. Will the activity change energy production or demand, personnel and life support, or transportation requirements at the site? No. 11. Is the activity expected to adversely affect scientific studies or locations of research interest (near and distant, short-term and long-term)? No. On the contrary, it will, for the first time in Palmer's history, provide a reliable weather record which will be available to any science group that requests it. 12. Will the activity generate pollutants that might affect terrestrial, marine or freshwater ecosystems within the environs of the proposed action? No. 13. Does the site of the activity serve as habitat for any significant assemblages of Antarctic wildlife? No. The closest significant assemblage of wildlife is nearly one kilometer away from the proposed activity at a location already protected from disturbance by regulations in effect at Palmer Station. HUMAN VALUES 14. Will the activity encroach upon any historical property of the site? No. 15. What other environmental concerns are potentially affected by the activity at the site? None. Finding The Environmental Officer, after reviewing the information presented above, believes that the proposed activity poses neither minor nor transitory impacts to the antarctic environ- ment. Permission is granted to proceed with the activity. Sidney Draggan cc: Environmental Engineer, DPP Manager, Polar Biology and Medicine Program, DPP Dr. William Fraser