Title : Shelter for radio repeater-Palmer Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : January 22, 1993 File : opp93057 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: January 22, 1992 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (Shelter for VHF Local Boating Radio Repeater at Palmer Station, Antarctica) To: Files (S.7 - Environment) This Environmental Action Memorandum describes the need for, and location of, proposed actions to replace a shelter for housing the VHF Local Boating Radio Repeater at Palmer Station, Antarc- tica, during the 1991-1992 austral summer season. The Environm- ental Officer posed a set of questions relating to the proposed project, and to the potentially affected environment. These questions were responded to by Messrs. Terry Johnson and A. J. Oxton of Antarctic Support Associates, Inc. on January 14, 1992; 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 provide replacement shelter for the VHF Local Boating Radio Repeater removed from the site in question two years ago for service and modification. The modifications ulti- mately increased the size of the shelter needed to house the device and to return it to normal service. What alternatives have the Program and the contractor considered? The proposed action as well as the "no-action" alternative. The proposed activity is necessary to restore the Local Boating Coordination Radio to normal operation in its original, and most effective, location. The "no-action" alternative would leave the equipment in its present temporary, and less useful location in the station's Garage/Warehouse/Residence (GWR) Building. 2. What is the specific location of the proposed activity? The location of the tower supporting the VLPA antenna as shown on Site Plan 3801-PM/SSP-1001, Item 22 at 3-E; on the Arthur Harbor (North) side. What alternative locations have the Program and the contractor considered? The repeater is presently, and temporarily, located in the U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) storage area (operating with a temporary antenna on the GWR roof). This is the sole alternative location; for best operational antenna char- acteristics and coverage of the intended service area the equipment should, however, be located at the base of the VLPA tower. This location has relevance with respect to boating safety. 3. How would any aesthetic impacts to the area from the propos- ed activity be handled by the Program or the Contractor? The proposed structure would be at the base of, and attached to, an eighty-foot triangular tower, guyed at two levels over a base area of about 5000 square feet and supporting a large curtain antenna array stretching 145 feet to the south; it would fit the existing visual characteristics of the proposed location. 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. The proposed structure would neither be manned nor serve as the source of wastes. Any waste materials associated with its construction would be removed by the civilian contractor for appropriate disposal following USAP procedures. 5. Would the proposed activity change the traditional use(s) of the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. The site already supports related facilities. 6. Are the physical and environmental characteristics of the neighboring environment suitable for the proposed activity? If yes, explain why; if no, explain why. Yes. Refer to response to query No. 5. 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])? Yes. The proposed activity would establish a low impact, unmanned facility. Construction activities will be coupled with USAP-established waste management and disposal procedures. 8. Would the proposed activity change ambient air quality at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. The proposed activity is not expected to change air quality at the proposed site, as no sources of contaminant emissions would be present. 9. Would the proposed activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. The planned design for construction of the shelter is not expected to change either water quality of flow at the proposed site. 10. Would the proposed activity change waste generation or management at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. Waste management at the site would change only during the construction phase. As noted above, all wastes associated with construction would be removed by the civilian contractor. 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. There may be a slight increase in energy demand at the site due to the larger size of the supporting structure. 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. No. The proposed action would enhance boating safety as well as scientific studies by increasing the performance of radio equipment. The improvement to Local Boating Opera- tions safety would support increased research interests on more islands distant from Palmer Station. 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. No pollutants would be associated with the operation of the proposed facility. 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)? The specific site does not support important assemblages of antarctic wildlife; and, the proposed activity is not anticipated to affect wildlife in the area of Palmer Station. HUMAN VALUES 15. Would he proposed activity encroach upon any historical property of the site? If yes, how; if no, why. Not insofar as human or historic values are concerned. It will be a return of enhanced equipment to a location originally established at least as far back as May 1984. 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). When the site is decommissioned, all waste materials will be removed from the proposed location by the civilian support contractor for either storage or retrograde from Antarctica. Finding The primary concern of USAP in the reestablishment of the VHF Local Boating Radio Repeater is to heighten the safety of boating operations at and near Palmer Station. 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 Program are authorized to proceed with the proposed activity. Sidney Draggan Attachments Site Plan Map