Title : Rock Splitting-USAP project S-015 Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : December 15, 1992 File : opp93094 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: December 15, 1992 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (Rock Splitting for USAP Project S-015) To: Safety and Health Officer, DPP Facilities Engineering Projects Manager, DPP Environmental Engineer, DPP Manager, Field Projects, DPP Manager, Science Projects, DPP Environmentalist, ASA This Environmental Action Memorandum describes the need for, and location of, proposed actions to support research being conducted by U.S. Antarctic Program Project S-015. The Environmental Officer posed a set of questions relating to the proposed actions, and to the potentially affected environment. These questions were responded to by Antarctic Support Associates, Inc.'s (ASA) Environmental Engineer, Carol Andrews; Lead Explosives Handler, Q. Rhoton; and by Project S-015 Principal Investigator, Dr. E. I. Friedmann, on December 14, 1992; the questions and responses are shown below: Environmental Assessment Queries and Responses GENERAL 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity? Project S-015 has requested that the Contractor break open one large rock using explosives to expose an undisturbed surface at a depth of 1 to 1.25 meters within porous sandstone rock. Samples are to be taken from the newly exposed surface and analyzed for organic substances to determine to what depth within the rock organic substances produced by microorganisms are transported. What alternatives to the proposed activity have the Investigator, the Program and the Contractor considered? Three alternatives to the proposed activity have been considered. The first alternative would be to try to split the rock using a Cobra drill (a hand-held, gas-powered drill) and a spade bit. This alternative was not selected as it may not supply an undisturbed rock face as required to obtain the desired samples. The second alternative considered would use a "wedge and feather" to wedge the rock apart. Although this may work with certain types of rock, it is not expected to work well for splitting sandstone. The third alternative is the "no-action" alternative. No action would prevent fulfillment of the research objectives of S-015. Have probable impacts of all alternatives been considered by the Investigator, the Program and the Contractor? Please explain how. The proposed activity, would break the rock using between 4.5 and 13.5 kilograms of AN-60 dynamite placed in holes within the rock created using a Cobra drill. The explosion would occur in the rock and would not create blasting debris or dust. Noise generated by blasting would be minimal. The broken rock would be left in place, with the exception of the small quantity of rock samples collected for analysis. The probable impacts of the proposed alternative are expected to be limited to an indiscernible change in the physical nature of a small area. Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how would these impacts be mitigated by the Investigator, the Program or the Contractor? No such impacts are expected. Have measures to assess the indirect costs of the proposed activity been identified or considered by the Investigator, the Program or the Contractor? Please explain how. The proposed blasting work would be performed by the Contractor's Explosives Handler and an assistant. The cost of helicopter hours would be charged to the grantee. LAND USE AND PLANNING 2. Where would the proposed activity be located, specifically? Two potential locations are still under consideration. S-015 intends to choose one of the two sites on 14 December 1992. The first choice of sites is located in the Western part of the Olympus Range in the southern cirque between Mount Dido and Mount Electra. The second site is the Battleship Promontory located in the Convoy Range. Have alternative locations been considered by the Investigator, the Program or the Contractor? If yes, which are they; if no, explain why. Yes. As noted above, two sites are still under consideration. 3. How would any aesthetic impacts to the area from the proposed activity be handled by the Investigator, the Program or the Contractor? The chosen area would be left in a natural state. The Contractor and researchers working in the area would take care not to disturb the area unnecessarily. The broken rock left after blasting would be expected to look natural, similar to rock cracked naturally by freezing and thawing except for the presence of the split bore hole. 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 such indirect impacts are expected. No hazardous waste would be produced by sample collection or processing. All unused explosives would be removed from the site. 5. Would the proposed activity change the traditional use(s) of the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. The proposed blasting would be a one-time activity. 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. There is no wildlife in the area which may be disturbed by the proposed activity. The site would be chosen for its physical suitability for the proposed research activity. 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])? The proposed activity has been limited to breaking one large rock. A larger area would not be unnecessarily impacted. 8. Would the proposed activity change ambient air quality at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. The proposed activity would not create an on going source of air emissions such as dust, combustion by-products, or volatile compound emissions. A very small amount of combustion products would be released by blasting. 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 activity would not generate water pollutants or change drainage patterns. 10. Would the proposed activity change waste generation or management at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. Any unused explosives would be removed from the area. 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. One or two additional helicopter flights may be required to deliver the explosives and explosives handlers to the site. No permanent changes to energy demand, personnel or trans- portation would result. 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. S-015 communicates frequently with S-175, another group working in the area, and would notify them of the proposed activity. The proposed sites are not located within a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Battleship Promontory has been proposed as an SSSI by E.I. Friedmann. 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. The activity would not generate adverse levels of any water or airborne pollutants. 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)? Yes. The proposed sites provide habitat for cryptoendo- litihic microorganisms such as those being studied by S-015. HUMAN VALUES 15. Would the proposed activity encroach upon any historical property of the site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. None of the proposed sites possess historical 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). The site would be left in as natural a condition as is feasible. The activity does not involve constructing any structures, therefore, decommissioning will not be required. Finding The Environmental Officer, after reviewing the information presented above, believes that the proposed actions will pose less than minor and less than transitory impacts to the environment. The Investigator and Contractor are authorized to proceed with the proposed actions. Sidney Draggan