Title : Earth Fill Materials-McMurdo Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : December 01, 1992 File : opp93091 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: December 1, 1992 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (Collection of Earth Fill Materials at McMurdo Station During the 1992-1993 Season) To: Safety and Health Officer, DPP Facilities Engineering Projects Manager, DPP Environmental Engineer, DPP Associate Manager (DOD), DPP Commander, Naval Support Force Antarctica Environmentalist, ASA REFs: Safety, Environment and Health Program Policy Memorandum 90-2. October 1, 1990. Authorization and Reporting Procedures for, Gathering and Use of Fill and Associated Activity, at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. Environmental Action Memorandum (Blasting for, and Placement of, Fill Rock at McMurdo Station, Antarctica During the 1990-91 Season), October 2, 1990. Memorandum, Subject: Review of "Environmental Assessment for Collection (and Placement) of Earth Fill Material." November 17, 1990. Environmental Action Memorandum (Construction of Secondary Containment Around McMurdo Station's Bulk Fuel Storage Tanks), October 13, 1992. Initial Environmental Evaluation for the Proposed Replacement, Operation, and Decommissioning of Ice Wharves at McMurdo Station, Antarctica, May 23, 1992. Environmental Action Memorandum (Improvements to Scott Base Road), September 15, 1992. This Environmental Action Memorandum describes the need for, and location of, proposed actions to collect earth fill materials from borrow areas in the vicinity of McMurdo Station, Antarctica during the 1992-1993 austral summer season. 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, C. Andrews; Fleet Supervisor, C. Hanson; Construction Coordinator, J. Rafal; and Director of Engineering, C. Martin on November 20, 1992. Back- ground information about the proposed actions as well as the questions and responses are shown below: Background The U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) has developed a policy, and implementing procedures, to minimize the potential environmental and aesthetic impacts associated with gathering of local fill. The policy recognizes that the collection and use of local antarctic fill materials for use in construction and other purposes poses potential environmental and aesthetic impacts and may be controversial. Nonetheless, the USAP recognizes that there is a genuine need for such material in construction and other purposes and believes that the collection and use of this natural antarctic resource can be managed with the goal of minimizing such impacts. The policy's goal is being achieved through: 1) a system for considering, authorizing and reporting all instances of fill gathering (including such activities as use of explosives to facilitate fill gathering, and grading); 2) evaluation and utilization of other materials, approaches or technologies that can lead to minimization of fill gathering; and, 3) collection and maintenance of information on collection of fill and associated activities at McMurdo Station. This Environmental Action Memorandum (EAM) is intended to document how requirements of the policy are being met in light of the need for fill material at McMurdo Station during the 1992-93 season. Many of the specific proposed uses of fill material have been addressed in extant Environmental Action Memoranda (see References above). Environmental Assessment Queries and Responses GENERAL 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity? The purpose of the activity is to collect fill material for use in various projects in and around McMurdo Station. Fill is to be collected by three methods: 1) scraping the top few centimeters at a time from the ground surface within an approved area to collect small rock (fines), 2) blasting and screening rock in a quarrying area to collect larger rock and fines, and 3) picking up existing large, loose rocks, in a third area. The projects requiring fill material are listed in Table 1 along with the quantity of fill required by each project. In particular, collection of loose rock in the rock gathering area shown on the attached site plan is proposed to provide high-strength rock for use at the sewer outfall quay to reduce annual erosion and maintenance of the quay. What alternatives to the proposed activity have the Program and the Contractor considered? Alternatives considered include the proposed activity, do nothing, and alternative methods for generating some or all of the fill material, such as generating fines by blasting and crushing rather than dragging ground and hillside surfaces. Have probable impacts of all alternatives been considered by the Program and the Contractor? Please explain how. Yes. The potential impacts of the proposed alternative include: 1) Generation of such air pollutants as dust (i.e., particulate matter) and products of combustion during blasting, scraping, transport, and placement of fill; 2) Noise generation due to blasting and heavy vehicle traffic; 3) Alteration of natural or current land formations; this includes both the physical topography and the appearance, since the color of recently exposed rock differs from previously exposed rock. Assuming the area where fines are gathered covers roughly 4.8 hectares, an average of 15 centimeters (depth) of material would be removed. Assuming general fill (i.e., no grade specification) is generated by blasting, and the blasting area covers 0.2 hectares, approximately 3.3 meters of material would be removed by blasting. 4) Potential personnel safety impacts relating to blasting and working with heavy equipment on a steep slope (in some cases vehicles have lost traction and slid for a distance down a hill being worked); 5) Scraping for fines, an activity that requires heavy vehicles to work for extended periods on a slope such that the engine is not properly lubricated, generally increases the amount of vehicle maintenance required; and 6) Stray rocks thrown during blasting have the potential to cause harm to people or structures (e.g., puncture nearby fuel lines or tanks). The impacts of generating all fill material by blasting, crushing and screening have also been considered. This alternative (a quarrying and crushing system) would eliminate the need to scrape for fines. The impacts of fill collection would be more localized to one, smaller area (a quarry). Under this alternative, impacts numbered 4 and 5 above (relating to use of heavy vehicles on a slope) would be alleviated. However, there are a number of impacts specific to operating crushing equipment. These include significant noise and dust generation as well as safety issues. Noise could be mitigated by placing the crushing equipment in a location where a natural earth barrier would minimize noise impacts outside the immediate area. The capital cost of purchasing rock crushing equipment relative to the benefits must also be considered. If no action is taken (i.e., no fill is collected), the projects listed in Table 1 could not be completed as designed or proposed. In many or all cases the projects could not be accomplished if local fill is not provided. Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how would these impacts be mitigated by the Program or the Contractor? The impacts would be mitigated as follows: 1) The Contractor has minimized the amount of fill required for various projects, and would continue to search for alternatives that minimize fill requirements. For example, the Contractor considered using retaining walls to form portions of the secondary containment berms around existing bulk fuel storage tanks. The size of the bulk fuel tank berms would contain 110% of the tank capacity, but are not unnecessarily large. The fines used for road surfacing, known as grey fines, have been selected because of their resistance to erosion (see Environmental Action Memorandum dated January 10, 1991). Also, some fill material that may be generated by proposed road work would be reused in other locations; 2) Dust generation would be minimized by using water where feasible to suppress dust emissions; 3) Emission of combustion products and noise due to vehicles would be minimized by maintaining vehicles in good operating condition; 4) The impact of altering natural land formations would be mitigated by regrading the blasting and scraping areas to as close to a natural topography as possible. This would be done at the end of the 1992-93 austral summer season in the scraping area. The blasting area would be restored to natural appearing slopes after it has been determined that the site would no longer be used as a quarry. 5) Personnel safety concerns would be addressed by following applicable Institute of Makers of Explosives and U.S. Department of Transportation regulations for blasting. Personnel using vehicles would be required to adhere to safe vehicle operating procedures. In addition to the specific actions listed above, environmental monitoring information related to bio- logical, chemical and physical parameters that may be indicative of fill gathering impacts would be collected as required by USAP's policy memorandum noted above. Such monitoring would include measurements gathered from the ambient air quality monitoring system installed by Idaho National Engineering Laboratories (T-325). Also, the Contractor's Safety Environment and Health Division personnel would review the potential to collect information regarding impacts by assessing soil samples from areas where fill is collected as proposed during the 1992-93 season, areas disturbed by earth moving in past years, and undisturbed areas. The Crary Science and Engineering Center's Environmental Monitoring and Enforcement Laboratory would be used as appropriate for these purposes. The Contractor has established a computerized database for recording information regarding fill collection and placement activities during the 1992-93 season. Informa- tion recorded will include the date, quantity of fill moved, source location, and project. Have measures to assess the indirect costs of the proposed activity been identified or considered by the Program or the Contractor? Please explain how. Yes. As noted above the proposed activity requires considerable use of vehicles, sometimes under unusually harsh conditions (e.g., working on the hill, transporting maximum weight loads). This causes an increase in vehicle maintenance hours and decreases the amount of vehicle life available for other work. However, fill gathering is an activity that occurs annually and has been factored into the vehicle planning and purchasing process. The Contractor believes, therefore, that the need to obtain fill material justifies these indirect costs. LAND USE AND PLANNING 2. Where would the proposed activity be located, specifically? See attached site plan. Fines (roughly 7,600 cubic meters) would be produced by scraping two previously-approved areas: 1) on the hillside north of "downtown" McMurdo Station, east of cables running up the hill, and 2) the grey fines collection area on top of the hill. These areas have been used for this purpose for a number of years and are NSF-approved areas for scraping for fines. General fill of various sizes would be collected by blasting in the area (i.e., Blast Site #1) across from Fortress Rocks that has been approved for such use. Material would be excavated by drilling and blasting a variable burden and spacing pattern in the blasting area. The Contractor would use 0.11 to 0.26 kilograms of explosives per cubic meter, depending on the type of material and how deep the excavation goes. In addition, the Contractor proposes to pick up loose rock from an area along the base of the hill behind the closed Fortress Rocks Dump, below the NSFA Transmitter Site. The second attached McMurdo site plan shows a large area within which a relatively small quantity (roughly 38 cubic meters) of loose rock would be picked up. Neither blasting nor scraping is planned in this area. The loose rock is released from the steep upper part of the hill by freeze-thaw action and rolls to the lower portion of the hill where it sets on the rock or snow surface. This solid rock, to be used along the edge of the quay, is expected to resist erosion better than most rock obtained from the quarry, much of which consists of clods of frozen stones rather than solid rock. Have alternative locations been considered by the Program or the Contractor? If yes, which are they; if no, explain why. Yes. The following locations have been considered: 1) Scott Base transition area is known to be a good source of strong rock (geologically a tight-grain basalt). This site is considered politically (due to proximity to Scott Base) and logistically (haul distances) undesirable; 2) The area near the old water plant on Observation Hill also contains a tight-grain basalt. This site has been used by the Naval Support Force Antarctica (NSFA) in past years as a large source of fill material produced by blasting. This site was rejected for aesthetic (i.e., visibility from town), historical, and political reasons (i.e., proximity to Scott Base); 3) The area behind Fortress Rocks former dump site and below the NSFA Transmitter Site has been previously used for gathering fill material. Collection of loose rock material from this area is proposed. Use of a portion of the area as a quarrying site using blasting, however, was considered and rejected because the rock quality may not be suitable; and 4) Importing fill material from outside Antarctica is cost prohibitive due to transport costs and cost of complying with the requirement that all non- indigenous "soil" be sterilized prior to importation into Antarctica. 3. How would any aesthetic impacts to the area from the proposed activity be handled by the Program or the Contractor? Aesthetics relating to fill collection would be addressed by regrading the collection areas to a natural appearance at the end of the summer season or after fill collection activities have been completed in the area as noted above. In addition, fines would be scraped in areas that are not visible from town before the more highly visible areas are used, if necessary. 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. Dust emissions may impact the solar radiation absorptive properties of ice- or snow-covered areas where the dust settles. This darkening of the surface increases melting rates during the austral summer season, thus altering the natural state of the ice or snow field. As a result an increase in the rate of erosion in surface water drainage ways may occur. If the melt water passes through areas impacted by previous fuels spills or dumping, pollutant transport via surface water to McMurdo Sound may occur. However, dust emissions occur naturally. The impact of dust caused by human activities on snow and ice fields relative to the impact of naturally occurring dust is currently unknown. Ambient air quality data now being collected by T-325 (Idaho National Engineering Laboratories), that includes particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM-10), will provide some information regarding the amount of dust generated by McMurdo Station activities relative to background levels. 5. Would the proposed activity change the traditional use(s) of the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. All of the proposed fill collection areas have been used for that purpose in previous years. 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. All of the fill collection areas are distant from "downtown" McMurdo Station. Fill collection in areas of high population activity would be inappropriate. The blasting area does border the Arrival Heights road, which is used occasionally each day. However, the Arrival Heights road would be blocked during blasting activities. The slope of the fines collection area does make collection more difficult, as discussed in the response to the second question under #1 above. The environmental characteristics of the fill collection and placement areas are suitable as these areas have been previously disturbed and are do not serve as wildlife habitat. The majority of locations where fill is to be placed are also remote from town. Some work would occur for short time periods on roads in the main town area. Since these roads are used very frequently by heavy vehicle traffic the fill placement activities are not expected to change normal conditions in these areas. 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 steps identified above to mitigate the impacts of the proposed activity are intended to protect human health and the environment. Many of the projects for which fill is required are being undertaken to achieve USAP environmental protection initiatives, for example the bulk fuel tank berms and the Fortress Rocks Recycling Area. Use of a particular source of fines for road maintenance has decreased the rate of erosion of the roads. Consequently the amount of fines required for road maintenance has decreased. The proposed activity only requires fuel to operate the heavy equipment. Proper vehicle maintenance is followed which enhances fuel efficiency of the vehicles. Any fuel spills that occur would be reported to the Fire Station and cleaned up in accordance with station spill countermeasures procedures. The proposed activity does not require import of materials, one-time-use or otherwise. 8. Would the proposed activity change ambient air quality at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. Yes. During fill collection, transport, and placement some dust would be generated and vehicles would emit pollutants associated with fossil fuel combustion. The activity would not establish an ongoing source of air emissions. 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 fill gathering activities would be conducted so as to follow the existing contours of the land and therefore would not change drainage patterns. The impacts of fill placement on drainage have been or will be discussed in project-specific Environmental Action Memoranda. 10. Would the proposed activity change waste generation or management at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. The proposed activity would not produce solid, liquid or hazardous waste other than empty explosives boxes (approximately 10 boxes per 1000 cubic yards of fill generated by blasting). 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. Fill gathering, transport, and placement will all be done by Contractor personnel who are already on site. Energy in the form of fuel will be required to operate equipment. Since the proposed activity occurs annually the required trans- portation, labor time, fuel, and life support has been included in the Contractor's annual planning. 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. Fill gathering activities occur an adequate distance from locations of research interest to prevent impacts. The Explosives Handler is required to notify station personnel through the National Science Foundation Representative of planned blasting activities in accordance with explosives use policy. 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. Limited amounts of air pollutants would be produced, as identified in response to Question Number 8 above. However, these pollutants are identical to pollutants caused by other frequently-occurring station activities (e.g., cargo trans- port), and are not expected to impact ecosystems beyond the impact caused by existing station activities. 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. The blasting and fines collection areas have been disturbed by fill collection in recent years and do not serve as wildlife habitat. Skuas do frequent the proposed rock gathering area. Bones and bird droppings are visible on the ground. The bones likely came from food waste taken by skuas from the Fortress Rocks Dump when it was open. On November 24, 1992, the Contractor's Environmental Engineer observed two skua birds sitting in the rock gathering area, but they did not exhibit defensive behavior characteristic of skuas protecting nesting grounds. HUMAN VALUES 15. Would he proposed activity encroach upon any historical property of the site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. None of the proposed areas for fill gathering or placement are listed on the Ross Island register of 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). With the exception of fill material placed below the water line at the sewer outfall quay, all fill material uses may be regraded to a natural state as part of decommissioning if required. Fill used to cover the ice wharf would be removed for reuse the following year. Finding The Environmental Officer, after reviewing the information presented above, believes that the proposed activities associated with the collection of earth fill materials during the 1992-1993 season poses neither potentially minor nor transitory impacts to the environment near McMurdo Station. As noted in the Background Section, the U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) has a policy, and procedures, to minimize impacts associated with gathering of local fill. The goals of the policy continue to be adhered to as evidenced by the information in this Environmental Action Memorandum. During the 1990-1991 season, Deborah Schnell, Field Engineer with Antarctic Support Associates reported that some earth fill materials obtained at McMurdo Station, Antarctica are often unsuitable as aggregate for construction and maintenance pro- jects. Much of that material consists of poorly graded cinders that tend to ravel off the surface once in place. That required unacceptable, repeated applications to maintain suitable surfaces for various projects. Ms. Schnell identified a fill collection area that contains aggregate more suitable for McMurdo Station's construction and maintenance projects. The aggregate at this area is well-graded, and when wetted, exhibits a cementing quality, setting up as a hard surface and requiring less frequent replacement. These characteristics made the aggregate more suitable for use as repeated applications would be reduced. For this type of awareness and action that responsibly upheld the environmental protection goals of the U.S. Antarctic Program, Ms. Schnell received the U.S. Antarctic Program Environmental Awareness Commendation for the 1990-1991 Season. The civilian and military contractors are authorized to proceed with the proposed activity as described in the Environmental Action Memorandum. Sidney Draggan Attachments Table 1 Site Plan Maps TABLE 1 Summary of Fill Quantity Requirements for 1992-1993 [Quantities in cubic meters] 12.7-25.4 cm Fines No Grade Spec. Project Outfall Quay 114 380 Ice Pier 3572 Road Maintenance 1520 Human Waste Disposal Facility. 9.12 Bulk Tank Berms and Pads 1976(< 3.81 cm) 7904 Fortress Rocks Recycling Area 760 TOTALS 114 7837.12 8284