DOCSLIB.ORG

Report of the United States Antarctic Inspection

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report of the United States Antarctic Inspection Report of the United States Antarctic Inspection February 2 to February 16, 2001 Team Report OF THE INSPECTION CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE VII OF THE ANTARCTIC TREATY AND ARTICLE XIV OF THE PROTOCOL UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE Table of Contents Introduction . 3 Summary of Findings . 5 Recommendations . 9 Arctowski Station . 11 Ferraz Station . 19 Vernadsky Station . 24 Juan Carlos I Station . 30 St. Kliment Ohridski . 37 Bellinghausen . 42 Frei . 48 Great Wall . 59 Artigas . 64 King Sejong . 68 Jubany . 73 Antarctic Cruise Map . A-1 The U.S. Inspection Team near Palmer Station - 2 - PART I Introduction “1. In order to promote the objectives research and scientific information. The Treaty and ensure the observance of the also provided a framework for environmental provisions of the present Treaty, each protection of the Antarctic region. Over the Contracting Party….shall have the years, the Consultative Meetings adopted right to designate observers to carry agreed measures and recommendations to out any inspection provided for by elaborate and enhance environmental the present Article... protection, and in Madrid in 1991, the Parties 2. Each observer designated in adopted the Protocol on Environmental accordance with the provisions of Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. Article XIV this Article shall have complete of the Protocol addresses inspections. This was freedom of access at any time to any the first U.S. inspection since the entry into and all areas of Antarctica. force of the Madrid Protocol in 1998. 3. All areas of Antarctica including all The United States has regularly exercised stations and equipment within those its right of inspection, and in 2001 sent its areas, and all ships and aircraft at eleventh U.S. Antarctic Treaty Inspection points of discharge or embarking Team, coinciding with the 40th anniversary of cargoes or personnel in Antarctica, the entry into force of the Treaty. The last U.S. shall be open at all times to inspection had been conducted in 1995. The inspection by any official designated Antarctic Treaty has been signed by 44 in accordance with paragraph 1 of countries, 27 of which were conducting this Article…”, research on the continent, thus entitling them to the status of Consultative Party with the right to Article VII, The Antarctic Treaty name inspectors. The 2001 U.S. Inspection Team consisted Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty and its of ten U.S. nationals designated by the U.S. provision for the right to inspect was precedent Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs in setting in international diplomacy and has been accordance with Article VII of the Treaty. The a cornerstone of the Treaty. It established the members of the team, whose names were right of all Parties to conduct on-site communicated to all Parties to the Treaty by unannounced inspections of all installations and diplomatic note of December 28, 2000, were: facilities in Antarctica, in order to monitor compliance and ensure observance of all of the Mr. Raymond Arnaudo Treaty’s provisions. Signed by the United Department of State States and eleven other countries in 1959, the Treaty reserved Antarctica as an area Ms. Katherine Biggs exclusively for peaceful purposes. It prohibited Environmental Protection Agency all military activities, including the testing of weapons, the explosion of nuclear materials Mr. Evan T. Bloom and the storage or disposal of radioactive Department of State waste. The Treaty guaranteed freedom of scientific research, including the sharing of - 3 - LCDR Douglas A. Boerman, USN following eleven sites: Arctowski (Poland), Department of State Ferraz (Brazil), Vernadsky (Ukraine), Juan Carlos I (Spain), St. Kliment Ohridsky CDR George Dupree, USCG (Bulgaria), Frei and Escudero (Chile), Artigas United States Coast Guard (Uruguay), Jubany (Argentina), Great Wall (China), Bellingshausen (Russia), and King Mr. Bernard Link Sejong (Republic of Korea). The team Department of State departed the Treaty area on February 13, 2001. Due to the ship’s schedule it was necessary Mr. David Lopez to plan on conducting two inspections on most Environmental Protection Agency of the days available. The itinerary and route of the inspection are shown in Annex A. Dr. Polly Penhale National Science Foundation Acknowledgements Mr. Alexander Sutherland A number of individuals and organizations National Science Foundation contributed to the success of this inspection and their efforts were greatly appreciated. The Mr. Peter B. Ward inspection would not have been possible U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service without the logistical and administrative support of the office of Polar Programs in the Mr. Arnaudo served as the leader of the National Science Foundation, under the Inspection Team. Evan Bloom and Douglas leadership of Dr. Karl Erb. Captain Warren Boerman were the deputy team leaders. Team Sanamo, Mr. Randy Sliester and the rest crew members were provided with letters of of the Laurence M. Gould willingly appointment and identification cards for the accomodated every request for support. The inspection. Agencias Universales S.A. (AGUNSA) team including Mr Jimmy Videla, Ms. Ximena Mancilla, and Mr. German Videl handled logistic concerns while the team was ashore in Chile. Mr. Ron Nugent and all the staff at Palmer Station provided an enlightening tour of the station and surrounding islands. Most importantly, the managers and personnel of the inspected stations extended overwhelming courtesy and hospitality to the members of the U.S. Inspection Team. Figure 1-1: Inspection Team boarding Zodiac with LAURENCE M. GOULD in background The Inspection Team arrived in the Antarctic Treaty area on February 5, having departed Punta Arenas on February 1, 2001 on the National Science Foundation vessel Laurence M. Gould. The team inspected the - 4 - PART II Summary of Findings General All stations reported a high degree of cooperation with scientists from other Antarctic The Inspection Team was welcomed and Treaty parties and joint programs were in treated cordially at each of the eleven stations evidence at most stations. Several stations visited. All areas were open to inspection upon related this to the high degree of intense request. The team found a high degree of concentration fostered by the isolation of the environmental awareness and understanding of posts, but also, significantly, the cooperative the obligations of the Treaty and the Protocol. climate of Antarctica. All stations had contacts with other stations and scientists of other Arms or Military Activities Treaty countries. Scientists at the stations often provided No arms violations, storage or disposal of educational lectures to all assigned personnel hazardous or radioactive materials, or activities on topics such as conservation, protection of with military implications were observed. All flora and fauna under the Antarctic Treaty and stations observed appeared to be in compliance the Protocol, and recommendations for with the provisions of the Treaty reserving avoiding interference with wildlife. Antarctica exclusively for peaceful purposes. Inspection procedures Science All station managers and personnel were The level of science interdisciplinary and receptive and gracious to the Inspection Team. extremely high and included various Most station managers acknowledged the cooperative projects between countries. usefulness of the inspection process, especially Most stations supported a multi- as a tool to improve their station operations. In disciplinary research program with an emphasis this context, several managers requested a copy on research in the local area and on of the final inspection report noting that they oceanographic research cruises in the Antarctic had not seen previous reports. Station Peninsula region. Collectively, research was managers and personnel often view the conducted in the fields of atmospheric sciences, inspection process as an opportunity to assess geology and geophysics, biological and their station management plan and to use the ecosystem studies, oceanography, meteorology, information to identify any areas that could use archaeology, cartography, chemistry and improvement. Electronic distribution of physics. There was an emphasis on inspection reports would ensure broader environmental monitoring at some of the distribution. stations, with studies including measurements Three countries had completed a checklist of air quality, water quality, trace metal prior to the Inspection Team’s arrival, which concentrations in terrestrial and marine was extremely helpful to the team. It was also organisms, and impact of humans on of great value to station personnel in that it populations of birds or mammals. provided a means of self-assessment to determine whether the station was in - 5 - compliance with the provisions of the Treaty requirements in the aftermath of emergency and Protocol. The team noted, however, the situations, such as spills, fire, and shipwrecks, value of the inspection itself as a means of as stated in Article 15 or for environmental verifying the reported information. impact assessments in Article 8 and Annex I. It was possible that officials within the home Awareness and knowledge of obligations government were assigned responsibility for the reporting requirements, but some station The awareness of the need for personnel were unaware of the requirements for environmental protection was extremely high such reporting. and station operations and personnel reflected a strong commitment
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Explorer's Gazette
    EEXXPPLLOORREERR’’SS GGAAZZEETTTTEE Published Quarterly in Pensacola, Florida USA for the Old Antarctic Explorers Association Uniting All OAEs in Perpetuating the Memory of United States Involvement in Antarctica Volume 18, Issue 4 Old Antarctic Explorers Association, Inc Oct-Dec 2018 Photo by Jack Green The first C-17 of the summer season delivers researchers and support staff to McMurdo Station after a two-week weather delay. Science Bouncing Back From A Delayed Start By Mike Lucibella The first flights from Christchurch to McMurdo were he first planes of the 2018-2019 Summer Season originally scheduled for 1 October, but throughout early Ttouched down at McMurdo Station’s Phoenix October, a series of low-pressure systems parked over the Airfield at 3 pm in the afternoon on 16 October after region and brought days of bad weather, blowing snow more than two weeks of weather delays, the longest and poor visibility. postponement of season-opening in recent memory. Jessie L. Crain, the Antarctic research support Delays of up to a few days are common for manager in the Office of Polar Programs at the National researchers and support staff flying to McMurdo Station, Science Foundation (NSF), said that it is too soon yet to Antarctica from Christchurch, New Zealand. However, a say definitively what the effects of the delay will be on fifteen-day flight hiatus is very unusual. the science program. Continued on page 4 E X P L O R E R ‘ S G A Z E T T E V O L U M E 18, I S S U E 4 O C T D E C 2 0 1 8 P R E S I D E N T ’ S C O R N E R Ed Hamblin—OAEA President TO ALL OAEs—I hope you all had a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year holiday.
    [Show full text]
  • Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute” Russian Antarctic Expedition
    FEDERAL SERVICE OF RUSSIA FOR HYDROMETEOROLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING State Institution “Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute” Russian Antarctic Expedition QUARTERLY BULLETIN ʋ2 (51) April - June 2010 STATE OF ANTARCTIC ENVIRONMENT Operational data of Russian Antarctic stations St. Petersburg 2010 FEDERAL SERVICE OF RUSSIA FOR HYDROMETEOROLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING State Institution “Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute” Russian Antarctic Expedition QUARTERLY BULLETIN ʋ2 (51) April - June 2010 STATE OF ANTARCTIC ENVIRONMENT Operational data of Russian Antarctic stations Edited by V.V. Lukin St. Petersburg 2010 Editor-in-Chief - M.O. Krichak (Russian Antarctic Expedition –RAE) Authors and contributors Section 1 M. O. Krichak (RAE), Section 2 Ye. I. Aleksandrov (Department of Meteorology) Section 3 G. Ye. Ryabkov (Department of Long-Range Weather Forecasting) Section 4 A. I. Korotkov (Department of Ice Regime and Forecasting) Section 5 Ye. Ye. Sibir (Department of Meteorology) Section 6 I. V. Moskvin, Yu.G.Turbin (Department of Geophysics) Section 7 V. V. Lukin (RAE) Section 8 B. R. Mavlyudov (RAS IG) Section 9 V. L. Martyanov (RAE) Translated by I.I. Solovieva http://www.aari.aq/, Antarctic Research and Russian Antarctic Expedition, Reports and Glossaries, Quarterly Bulletin. Acknowledgements: Russian Antarctic Expedition is grateful to all AARI staff for participation and help in preparing this Bulletin. For more information about the contents of this publication, please, contact Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute of Roshydromet Russian Antarctic Expedition Bering St., 38, St. Petersburg 199397 Russia Phone: (812) 352 15 41; 337 31 04 Fax: (812) 337 31 86 E-mail: [email protected] CONTENTS PREFACE……………………….…………………………………….………………………….1 1. DATA OF AEROMETEOROLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS AT THE RUSSIAN ANTARCTIC STATIONS…………………………………….…………………………3 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Office of Polar Programs
    DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SURFACE TRAVERSE CAPABILITIES IN ANTARCTICA COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION DRAFT (15 January 2004) FINAL (30 August 2004) National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, Virginia 22230 DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SURFACE TRAVERSE CAPABILITIES IN ANTARCTICA FINAL COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Purpose.......................................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation (CEE) Process .......................................................1-1 1.3 Document Organization .............................................................................................................1-2 2.0 BACKGROUND OF SURFACE TRAVERSES IN ANTARCTICA..................................2-1 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Re-supply Traverses...................................................................................................................2-1 2.3 Scientific Traverses and Surface-Based Surveys .......................................................................2-5 3.0 ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................................3-1
    [Show full text]
  • Responses of Antarctic Tundra Ecosystem to Climate Change and Human Activity
    PAPERS on GLOBAL CHANGE, 17, 43–52, 2010 DOI: 10.2478/v10190-010-0004-4 RESPONSES OF ANTARCTIC TUNDRA ECOSYSTEM TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND HUMAN ACTIVITY MARIA OLECH Institute of Botany, Jagiellonian University, Kopernika 27, 31-501 Cracow, Poland, Department of Antarctic Biology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Ustrzycka 10/12, 02-141 Warsaw, Poland e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT: Over the last couple of years the Antarctic Peninsula region has been one of the fastest warming regions on the Earth. Rapidly proceeding deglaciation uncovers new areas for colonisation and formation of Antarctic tundra communities. The most evi- dent dynamics, i.e. changes in both biodiversity and structure of tundra communities, are observed in the forefi elds of retreating glaciers. This paper presents examples of changes in biodiversity and in the direction and rate of succession changes taking place due to climate warming compounded by synanthropization in the maritime Antarctic. KEY WORDS: Antarctic, climate change, colonisation, tundra ecosystem, bio- diversity, alien species. INTRODUCTION Development of vegetation in the Antarctic is limited to ice-free surfaces of the land, which account for only a few percent (2–5%) of the total area. The Antarctic tundra ecosystem is mainly made up of cryptogams, i.e. lichens, bryophytes, algae and fungi, while at the same time it is extremely defi cient in vascular plants, of which only two species are found: a grass Deschampsia antarctica Desv. (Poace- ae) and Colobanthus quitensis (Kunth). Bartl. (Caryophyllaceae). Occurrence of both species is limited to the climatically favourable sites in the maritime Antarctic (Olech 2002).
    [Show full text]
  • A NEWS BULLETIN Published Quarterly by the NEW ZEALAND ANTARCTIC SOCIETY (INC)
    A NEWS BULLETIN published quarterly by the NEW ZEALAND ANTARCTIC SOCIETY (INC) An English-born Post Office technician, Robin Hodgson, wearing a borrowed kilt, plays his pipes to huskies on the sea ice below Scott Base. So far he has had a cool response to his music from his New Zealand colleagues, and a noisy reception f r o m a l l 2 0 h u s k i e s . , „ _ . Antarctic Division photo Registered at Post Ollice Headquarters. Wellington. New Zealand, as a magazine. II '1.7 ^ I -!^I*"JTr -.*><\\>! »7^7 mm SOUTH GEORGIA, SOUTH SANDWICH Is- . C I R C L E / SOUTH ORKNEY Is x \ /o Orcadas arg Sanae s a Noydiazarevskaya ussr FALKLAND Is /6Signyl.uK , .60"W / SOUTH AMERICA tf Borga / S A A - S O U T H « A WEDDELL SHETLAND^fU / I s / Halley Bav3 MINING MAU0 LAN0 ENOERBY J /SEA uk'/COATS Ld / LAND T> ANTARCTIC ••?l\W Dr^hnaya^^General Belgrano arg / V ^ M a w s o n \ MAC ROBERTSON LAND\ '■ aust \ /PENINSULA' *\4- (see map betowi jrV^ Sobldl ARG 90-w {■ — Siple USA j. Amundsen-Scott / queen MARY LAND {Mirny ELLSWORTH" LAND 1, 1 1 °Vostok ussr MARIE BYRD L LAND WILKES LAND ouiiiv_. , ROSS|NZJ Y/lnda^Z / SEA I#V/VICTORIA .TERRE , **•»./ LAND \ /"AOELIE-V Leningradskaya .V USSR,-'' \ --- — -"'BALLENYIj ANTARCTIC PENINSULA 1 Tenitnte Matianzo arg 2 Esptrarua arg 3 Almirarrta Brown arc 4PttrtlAHG 5 Otcipcion arg 6 Vtcecomodoro Marambio arg * ANTARCTICA 7 Arturo Prat chile 8 Bernardo O'Higgins chile 1000 Miles 9 Prasid«fTtB Frei chile s 1000 Kilometres 10 Stonington I.
    [Show full text]
  • Land-Based Tourism in Antarctica
    IP (number) Agenda Item: CEP 7b, ATCM 10 Presented by: ASOC Original: English Land-Based Tourism in Antarctica 1 IP (number) Summary This paper examines the interface between commercial land based tourism and the use of national program infrastructure, as well as recent developments in land-based tourism. Eight Parties responded to a questionnaire distributed by ASOC at ATCMs XXXI and XXXII. None of the respondents reported providing any support to tourism other than free basic hospitality, and most respondents explicitly opposed the notion of Parties being involved in tourism operations. Based on these responses it is apparent that some Parties have identified two locations where commercial land based tourism takes place using infrastructure from National Antarctic Programs. All land-based tourism operations rely directly or indirectly on some form of state support, including permits, use of runways, and use of facilities and terrain adjacent to research stations. The continued improvement of land-based facilities such as runways and camps, and the broad array of land activities now available to tourists, indicate that land-based tourism is growing. If no actions are taken soon, land-based tourism may well become consolidated as a major activity in a few years. 1. Overview In 2008 ASOC submitted to XXXI ATCM IP 41, A decade of Antarctic tourism: Status, change, and actions needed. Among other issues relevant to Antarctic tourism, ASOC’s IP 41 discussed the interface between commercial land-based tourism and the activities of national Antarctic programs. The paper remarked on a disturbing lack of clarity with regard to aspects of land-based tourism – what an IAATO representative described aptly as “fogginess”.1 ASOC’s IP 41 included a table listing several facilities used to support land- based tourism, some of which were private commercial facilities and other facilities of National Antarctic programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Memoria Antártica Nacional Campaña Antártica 2014-2015 Santiago Diciembre De 2015 Presentación Del Ministro De Relaciones Exteriores
    Memoria Antártica Nacional Campaña Antártica 2014-2015 Santiago Diciembre de 2015 Presentación del Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores Sr. Heraldo Muñoz Valenzuela El 16 de diciembre de 2014, el Consejo de Política Antártica, que tengo el honor de presidir, reunido en Punta Arenas, entregó un mandato a las instituciones antárticas nacionales para la elaboración de una Memoria Antártica Nacional. El documento que presentamos, compilación inédita de las tareas que se desarrollan anualmente en ese continente, da cumplimiento a dicho mandato. El quehacer antártico nacional involucra a un amplio espectro de instituciones, las que destinan personas y recursos a la ejecución de las tareas que nuestra legislación les confiere. Cada una de estas entidades cumple un papel fundamental en el logro de los objetivos establecidos en la Política Antártica Nacional, documento rector de nuestros trabajos. El Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, en su rol de coordinador de la Política Antártica Nacional, ha enfatizado la difusión hacia la ciudadanía de la labor que las instituciones nacionales realizan en ese continente. Junto con describir de manera general las perspectivas que se abren para los intereses nacionales en este ámbito, este documento resalta los profundos vínculos históricos, geográficos y políticos que desde los inicios de nuestra historia patria nos unen con la Antártica. Al presentar esta primera Memoria Anual, es oportuno recordar el destacado papel de Chile durante las negociaciones del Tratado Antártico, instrumento internacional que cumplirá 55 años de vigencia en 2016, a través de sus delegados Marcial Mora, Enrique Gallardo y Julio Escudero; así como durante la evolución de las cuestiones antárticas en el ámbito multilateral, gracias a figuras como Oscar Pinochet de la Barra y Jorge Berguño.
    [Show full text]
  • Seabirds of Human Settlements in Antarctica: a Case Study of the Mirny Station
    CZECH POLAR REPORTS 11 (1): 98-113, 2021 Seabirds of human settlements in Antarctica: A case study of the Mirny Station Sergey Golubev Papanin Institute for Biology of Inland Waters, Russian Academy of Sciences, Borok, Nekouzskii raion, Yaroslavl oblast, 152742, Russia Abstract Antarctica is free of urbanisation, however, 40 year-round and 32 seasonal Antarctic stations operate there. The effects of such human settlements on Antarctic wildlife are insufficiently studied. The main aim of this study was to determine the organization of the bird population of the Mirny Station. The birds were observed on the coast of the Davis Sea in the Mirny (East Antarctica) from January 8, 2012 to January 7, 2013 and from January 9, 2015 to January 9, 2016. The observations were carried out mainly on the Radio and Komsomolsky nunataks (an area of about 0.5 km²). The duration of observations varied from 1 to 8 hours per day. From 1956 to 2016, 13 non-breeding bird species (orders Sphenisciformes, Procellariiformes, Charadriiformes) were recorded in the Mirny. The South polar skuas (Catharacta maccormicki) and Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) form the basis of the bird population. South polar skuas are most frequently recorded at the station. Less common are Brown skuas (Catharacta antarctica lonnbergi) and Adélie penguins. Adélie penguins, Wilson's storm petrels (Oceanites oceanicus), South polar and Brown skuas are seasonal residents, the other species are visitors. Adélie penguins, Emperor (Aptenodytes forsteri), Macaroni (Eudyptes chrysolophus) and Chinstrap penguins (Pygoscelis antarctica), Wilson's storm petrels, South polar and Brown skuas interacted with the station environment, using it for com- fortable behavior, feeding, molting, shelter from bad weather conditions, and possible breeding.
    [Show full text]
  • Antarctic Primer
    Antarctic Primer By Nigel Sitwell, Tom Ritchie & Gary Miller By Nigel Sitwell, Tom Ritchie & Gary Miller Designed by: Olivia Young, Aurora Expeditions October 2018 Cover image © I.Tortosa Morgan Suite 12, Level 2 35 Buckingham Street Surry Hills, Sydney NSW 2010, Australia To anyone who goes to the Antarctic, there is a tremendous appeal, an unparalleled combination of grandeur, beauty, vastness, loneliness, and malevolence —all of which sound terribly melodramatic — but which truly convey the actual feeling of Antarctica. Where else in the world are all of these descriptions really true? —Captain T.L.M. Sunter, ‘The Antarctic Century Newsletter ANTARCTIC PRIMER 2018 | 3 CONTENTS I. CONSERVING ANTARCTICA Guidance for Visitors to the Antarctic Antarctica’s Historic Heritage South Georgia Biosecurity II. THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT Antarctica The Southern Ocean The Continent Climate Atmospheric Phenomena The Ozone Hole Climate Change Sea Ice The Antarctic Ice Cap Icebergs A Short Glossary of Ice Terms III. THE BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT Life in Antarctica Adapting to the Cold The Kingdom of Krill IV. THE WILDLIFE Antarctic Squids Antarctic Fishes Antarctic Birds Antarctic Seals Antarctic Whales 4 AURORA EXPEDITIONS | Pioneering expedition travel to the heart of nature. CONTENTS V. EXPLORERS AND SCIENTISTS The Exploration of Antarctica The Antarctic Treaty VI. PLACES YOU MAY VISIT South Shetland Islands Antarctic Peninsula Weddell Sea South Orkney Islands South Georgia The Falkland Islands South Sandwich Islands The Historic Ross Sea Sector Commonwealth Bay VII. FURTHER READING VIII. WILDLIFE CHECKLISTS ANTARCTIC PRIMER 2018 | 5 Adélie penguins in the Antarctic Peninsula I. CONSERVING ANTARCTICA Antarctica is the largest wilderness area on earth, a place that must be preserved in its present, virtually pristine state.
    [Show full text]
  • Nsf.Gov OPP: Report of the U.S. Antarctic Program Blue Ribbon
    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MORE AND BETTER SCIENCE IN ANTARCTICA THROUGH INCREASED A LOGISTICAL EFFECTIVENESS Report of the U.S. Antarctic Program Blue Ribbon Panel Washington, D.C. July 23, 2012 This booklet summarizes the report of the U.S. Antarctic Program Blue Ribbon Panel, More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness. The report was completed at the request of the White House office of science and Technology Policy and the National Science Foundation. Copies of the full report may be obtained from David Friscic at [email protected] (phone: 703-292-8030). An electronic copy of the report may be downloaded from http://www.nsf.gov/ od/opp/usap_special_review/usap_brp/rpt/index.jsp. Cover art by Zina Deretsky. Front and back inside covers showing McMurdo’s Dry Valleys in Antarctica provided by Craig Dorman. CONTENTS Introduction ............................................ 1 The Panel ............................................... 2 Overall Assessment ................................. 3 U.S. Facilities in Antarctica ....................... 4 The Environmental Challenge .................... 7 Uncertainties in Logistics Planning ............. 8 Activities of Other Nations ....................... 9 Economic Considerations ....................... 10 Major Issues ......................................... 11 Single-Point Failure Modes ..................... 17 Recommendations ................................. 18 Concluding Observations ....................... 21 U.S. ANTARCTIC PROGRAM BLUE RIBBON PANEL WASHINGTON,
    [Show full text]
  • MEMBER COUNTRY: Russia National Report to SCAR for Year: 2008-09 Activity Contact Name Address Telephone Fax Email Web Site
    MEMBER COUNTRY: Russia National Report to SCAR for year: 2008-09 Activity Contact Name Address Telephone Fax Email web site National SCAR Committee SCAR Delegates Russian National Committee on Antarctic Research Institute of Geography, Staromonetny per.29, 1) Delegate V.M.Kotlyakov 109017 Moskow, Russia 74,959,590,032 74,959,590,033 [email protected] Russian National Committee on Antarctic Research Institute of Geography, Staromonetny per.29, 2) Alternate Delegate M.Yu.Moskalev-sky 109017 Moskow, Russia 74,959,590,032 74,959,590,033 [email protected] Standing Scientific Groups Life Sciences Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Nakhimovsky prosp.36, Delegate Melnikov Igor 117852 Moscow, Russia 74951292018 74951245983 [email protected] www.paiceh.ru Geosciences VNIIOkeangeologia, Angliysky Ave, 1, Leitchenkov 190121 St.Petersburg, Delegate German Russia 78123123551 78127141470 [email protected] Physical Sciences Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute Ul.Beringa, 38, Klepikov 199226 St.Petersburg, 78123522827 Delegate Aleksander Russia 78123520226 78123522688 [email protected] www.aari.aq 1 Activity Contact Name Address Telephone Fax Email web site Scientific Research Program ACE None AGCS Delegate Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute Ul.Beringa, 38, Klepikov 199226 St.Petersburg, 1) Aleksander Russia 78123520226 78123522688 [email protected] www.aari.ru Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute Ul.Beringa, 38, 199226 St.Petersburg, 2) LagunVictor Russia 78123522950 78123522688 [email protected] www.aari.aq EBA None ICESTAR
    [Show full text]
  • List of Place-Names in Antarctica Introduced by Poland in 1978-1990
    POLISH POLAR RESEARCH 13 3-4 273-302 1992 List of place-names in Antarctica introduced by Poland in 1978-1990 The place-names listed here in alphabetical order, have been introduced to the areas of King George Island and parts of Nelson Island (West Antarctica), and the surroundings of A. B. Dobrowolski Station at Bunger Hills (East Antarctica) as the result of Polish activities in these regions during the period of 1977-1990. The place-names connected with the activities of the Polish H. Arctowski Station have been* published by Birkenmajer (1980, 1984) and Tokarski (1981). Some of them were used on the Polish maps: 1:50,000 Admiralty Bay and 1:5,000 Lions Rump. The sheet reference is to the maps 1:200,000 scale, British Antarctic Territory, South Shetland Islands, published in 1968: King George Island (sheet W 62 58) and Bridgeman Island (Sheet W 62 56). The place-names connected with the activities of the Polish A. B. Dobrowolski Station have been published by Battke (1985) and used on the map 1:5,000 Antarctic Territory — Bunger Oasis. Agat Point. 6211'30" S, 58'26" W (King George Island) Small basaltic promontory with numerous agates (hence the name), immediately north of Staszek Cove. Admiralty Bay. Sheet W 62 58. Polish name: Przylądek Agat (Birkenmajer, 1980) Ambona. 62"09'30" S, 58°29' W (King George Island) Small rock ledge, 85 m a. s. 1. {ambona, Pol. = pulpit), above Arctowski Station, Admiralty Bay, Sheet W 62 58 (Birkenmajer, 1980). Andrzej Ridge. 62"02' S, 58° 13' W (King George Island) Ridge in Rose Peak massif, Arctowski Mountains.
    [Show full text]