Title : Soil sample for balloon flight Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : July 29, 1992 File : opp93070 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: July 29, 1992 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (Collection of Soil Sample for Long-Duration Antarctic/Mars Calibration Balloon Flight) To: Manager, Polar Aeronomy and Astrophysics Program, DPP Files (S.7 - Environment) This Environmental Action Memorandum (EAM) describes the need for collection of an antarctic soil sample in support of the Long- Duration Antarctic/Mars Calibration Balloon (LAMB) Flight Project (S-146). The collection is scheduled during the 1992-1993 season, near McMurdo Station, Antarctica. The Environmental Officer posed a set of questions to the project's leader, Dr. S. W. Squyres, relating to the proposed project, and to the potentially affected environment. These questions were responded to on July 10, 1992; 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 acquire the soil sample required for the LAMB balloon flight. What alternatives to the proposed activity have the Investigator, the Program and the Contractor considered? The alternatives considered were: þ the "no-action" alternative; þ collection of indigenous antarctic soil in the vicinity of McMurdo Station (the preferred alternative); and þ collection of soil outside of Antarctica and shipment of this soil to Antarctica. Have probable impacts of all alternatives been considered by the Investigator, the Program and the Contractor? Please explain how. Yes. Shipment of a soil sample to Antarctica would entail substantial logistic effort and operational cost. Moreover, it would raise considerable environmental concerns associated with the importation of a large foreign soil sample, probably from a tropical climate to the Antarctic Continent. Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how would these impacts be mitigated by the Investigator, the Program or the Contractor? The proposed activity would require removal of about one cubic meter of gravel from a moraine. The environmental impact of this is anticipated to be sufficiently small to preclude the need for such mitigation as returning the collection area to its original aspect. 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. Indirect costs associated with the activity or any necessary mitigation are expected to be negligible. LAND USE AND PLANNING 2. Where would the proposed activity be located, specifically? The prime site for sample acquisition is a gravelly moraine deposit just west of Castle Rock on Hut Point Peninsula, several kilometers from McMurdo Station. Have alternative locations been considered by the Investigator, the Program or the Contractor? If yes, which are they; if no, explain why. Yes. A total of eight sites has been considered, all within a few kilometers of McMurdo station. Of these, two are considered potential backup sites. One of these is on the east side of Observation Hill, and the other is immediately uphill from the CosRay Observatory. Should the Observation Hill backup collection site be used, no collections would be made within the vicinity of Antarctic Historic Monument # 20 on Observation Hill (i.e., the Cross in Memory of Scott's Party). 3. How would any aesthetic impacts to the area from the proposed activity be handled by the Program or the Contractor? Rather than digging a small, deep hole, the soil would be acquired by removing a thin layer from over a larger area. This would create both a minimal aesthetic impact and would minimize the moisture content of the acquired sample (i.e., dry soil is required for flight). 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 only additional impacts will be those normally produced by a small field party operating at an antarctic site for a period of several hours. All materials taken to the site would be removed after the sample has been acquired. Any indirect impacts are expected to be negligible. 5. Would the proposed activity change the traditional use(s) of the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. There are no traditional uses of the chosen site. 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. The site itself is rich in gravel of the composition required for the LAMB flight, and the surrounding environ- ment is a snowfield. 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 only potential source of pollution would be the Spryte vehicle that would be driven to the site and used to carry the soil sample back to McMurdo Station. The vehicle would be checked out prior to the activity to assure that it is in proper working condition and not subject to unexpected fluid leaks. 8. Would the proposed activity change ambient air quality at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. The only activities planned are driving a Spryte vehicle to and from the site and digging with shovels at the site by a small field crew. 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 involve removal of only about one cubic meter of soil, digging to a depth of less than a few tens of centimeters. 10. Would the proposed activity change waste generation or management at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. There would be no waste generation or waste management requirements at the chosen site. 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. No. Normally there are no activities at the chosen site. 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 volume of material that would be removed is a negligible fraction of the total volume of the moraine. 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. The only potential pollutants are fluids from the Spryte vehicle, and as noted above the vehicle would be checked out for proper operation prior to the activity. 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 substrate at the chosen site may support some small number of algae, mosses, lichens, or cryptoendolithic microorganisms; however, no important assemblage of such organisms is known for this site. HUMAN VALUES: 15. Would the proposed activity encroach upon any historical property of the site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. The chosen site has no designated historical properties. 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). There appear to be no other potential impacts associated with this collection effort. 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. There are recognized science support benefits associated with completion of the proposed project. The Investigator and the civilian support contractor are authorized to proceed with the proposed activity. Sidney Draggan cc: S.W. Squyres, Cornell University (S-146)