Title : Robot Operations, Mt. Erebus Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : December 02, 1992 File : opp93092 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: December 2, 1992 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (Robot Operations, Mount Erebus) To: Manager, Science Projects, DPP Manager, Field Projects, DPP Environmental Engineer, DPP Environmentalist, ASA This Environmental Action Memorandum describes the need for, and location of, proposed actions to conduct vulcanism investigations using a robotic drone within the crater of Mount Erebus, Ross Island, Antarctica. The Environmental Officer posed a set of questions relating to the proposed project, and to the poten- tially affected environment. These questions were responded to by Dr. Philip Kyle of U.S. Antarctic Program Science Project S-081 on November 23, 1992; the questions and responses are shown below: GENERAL 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity? Collection of volcanic gases within the crater of Mount Erebus using a robotic drone. What alternatives to the proposed activity has the Investigator considered? Three alternatives were considered: 1) the "no-action" alternative; 2) human collection of the gases; and 3) the proposed and preferred alternative of using a robot. Have probable impacts of all alternatives been considered by the Investigator? Please explain how. The first two alternatives were viewed as unacceptable and potential impacts from them were not considered. The potential impacts of the third alternative are primarily aesthetic in nature: 1) residual tracks on the ground surface where the robot would ascend and descend the outside of the crater and 2) if the robot became inoperable and was abandoned inside the crater, it could be considered trash. Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how would these impacts be mitigated by the Investigator? The feasible, potential aesthetic impacts noted above were not considered of an adverse nature and would not require mitigation. Have measures to assess the indirect costs of the proposed activity been identified or considered by the Investigator? Please explain how. Indirect costs have not been considered. LAND USE AND PLANNING 2. Where would the proposed activity be located, specifically? Within the crater area of Mount Erebus. Have alternative locations been considered by the Investigator? If yes, which are they; if no, explain why. No, the location is the specific target for the investigative activity: the only active volcano in Antarctica. 3. How would any aesthetic impacts to the area from the proposed activity be handled by the Investigator? Two possible impacts are 1) tracks on the ground where the robot ascended and descended the outside of the crater and 2) if the robot was written off and abandoned inside the crater. The extent and magnitude of these impacts are considered negligible. 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 indirect impacts are recognized at this time. 5. Would the proposed activity change the traditional use(s) of the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. Change is neither recognized nor anticipated. The site is being used for volcanic observations. This experiment is just a more sophisticated version. 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 location is an active volcano, the only possible site for the work. Although impact is anticipated to be vanishingly slight, it is geologically reasonable that such impact would be covered over by future volcanic 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])? No impact on human health is anticipated. Environmental impact is likely to be non-existent. 8. Would the proposed activity change ambient air quality at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No, the only impact would be exhaust from generator motors. This would be trivial when compared with the volcanic gases emitted by Mount Erebus. 9. Would the proposed activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No, there is no water quality or flow drainage. 10. Would the proposed activity change waste generation or management at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No, the only waste generation is that associated with normal living and working of field personnel. All solid waste would be returned to McMurdo for disposal. 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. The project would require greater helicopter support. 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. 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 pollutants would be generated. 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)? No. HUMAN VALUES: 15. Would the proposed activity encroach upon any historical property of the site? If yes, how; if no, why. No, there is no 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). None are anticipated. 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 within or near Mount Erebus. There are recognized benefits to continued support of high quality science from the proposed action. The Investigator and the Program are authorized to proceed with the proposed activity. Sidney Draggan