![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Finding of No Significant Impact
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: May 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 87)]
[Notices]
[Page 26593-26598]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05my06-146]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Finding of No Significant Impact
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Finding of no significant impact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), in cooperation with
the United States Air Force (USAF), prepared an Environmental
Assessment (EA) to evaluate the Oklahoma Space Industry Development
Authority (OSIDA) proposal to operate a commercial launch facility at
the Clinton-Sherman Industrial Airpark (CSIA) located adjacent to the
town of Burns Flat, Oklahoma. The EA evaluated the potential
environmental impacts of launches of three types of horizontally
launched suborbital vehicles (Concept X, Concept Y, and Concept Z)
proposed to be launched from the CSIA. The EA also evaluated the
transfer of ownership of the CSIA from the City of Clinton to OSIDA.
After reviewing and analyzing currently available data and information
on existing conditions, project impacts, and measures to mitigate those
impacts, the FAA, Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) has
determined that issuing a launch site operator license to OSDIA for the
CSIA would not significantly affect the quality of the human
environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). The FAA also determined that the transfer of ownership of the
CSIA from Clinton, Oklahoma to OSIDA would not significantly affect the
quality of the human environment within the meaning of NEPA. Therefore
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not
required and AST is issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FAA made this determination in accordance with all applicable
environmental laws.
For a Copy of the Environmental Assessment: Visit one of the
following Internet addresses: http://www.okspaceporteis.com 
or http://ast.faa.gov, or contact Mr. Doug Graham, FAA
Environmental Specialist, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 331,
Washington, DC 20591. You may also send e-mail requests to
doug.graham@faa.gov or via telephone (202) 267-8568.
DATES: The Draft EA was released for public comment on February 3,
2006. The FAA held a public hearing on the Draft EA on March 9, 2006 in
Burns Flat, Oklahoma to collect comments from the public. All comments
received before March 13, 2006 were considered in the preparation of
the Final EA.
Proposed Action: Operation of a non-Federal launch site in the
United States, such as OSIDA's proposed operation of a launch site at
the CSIA, near Burns Flat, Oklahoma must be licensed by the FAA
pursuant to 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) 70101-70119, formerly the
Commercial Space Launch Act. Licensing the operation of a launch site
is a Federal action requiring environmental analysis by the FAA in
accordance with NEPA, 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. Upon receipt of a
complete license application, AST must determine whether to issue a
license to OSIDA to operate a launch site at the CSIA. An environmental
determination is required for the evaluation of license applications.
Individual launch operators proposing to conduct launches at the CSIA will
also need to obtain a license or permit, as appropriate, from the FAA.
The FAA is the lead Federal Agency for the NEPA process and the
USAF is a cooperating agency on the proposed action. The CSIA is an
auxiliary training location for Altus Air Force Base (AFB) and Vance
AFB. The USAF is the primary user of the CSIA for aircrew training
including landing and departures. In addition, the USAF's current and
future activities could be impacted by the use of the CSIA as a launch
site. Therefore, the FAA requested and the USAF agreed to participate
as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA.
The launch site would be located at the CSIA. No construction
activities are proposed as part of this action. Existing infrastructure
including hangars and runways would be used to support horizontal
launch and landing operations at the proposed launch site.
The OSIDA launch site operator license would be for the purpose of
operating a facility to launch horizontally launched, suborbital
reusable launch vehicles. Under the proposed action, the FAA would
issue a launch site operator license to OSIDA for the CSIA for the
purpose of operating a facility to launch horizontally launched,
suborbital vehicles. Launch providers would be responsible for
obtaining launch licenses from the FAA to conduct launches at the CSIA.
The FAA may use the analyses in the Final EA as the basis for
environmental determinations of the impacts of these launches to
support licensing decisions for the launch of specific launch vehicles
from the CSIA.
Proposed launch operations currently include launches of three
types of launch vehicles that would take off from a standard aviation
runway. The first type of launch vehicle, referred to in the EA as
Concept X, would take off using turbojet engines, ignite rocket engines
at a specified altitude, and make a powered landing using the turbojet
engines. The second type of launch
[[Page 26594]]
vehicle, referred to in the EA as Concept Y, would use rocket power to
take off, and then the vehicle would make an unpowered landing. The
third type of vehicle, referred to in the EA as Concept Z, would
involve an air-drop design where two vehicles, an airplane and launch
vehicle, are mated together. The airplane would carry the launch
vehicle to a predetermined altitude where the launch vehicle is dropped
and its rocket engines ignite. The airplane would make a powered
landing at the CSIA after separating from the launch vehicle, and the
launch vehicle would make an unpowered landing after traveling along
its trajectory. The EA addresses the overall impacts to the environment
of the proposed operations anticipated for a five-year launch site
license term to include the launch and landing of Concept X, Y, and Z
launch vehicles at the CSIA.
The FAA and USAF are involved in the proposed action. The FAA is
the lead Federal agency for the NEPA process and is responsible for
licensing and regulating OSIDA's launch operations under 49 U.S.C.
Subtitle IX-Commercial Space Transportation, ch. 701, Commercial Space
Launch Activities.
The FAA is also responsible for approving the transfer of ownership
of the CSIA.
The USAF uses the CSIA primarily as an aircrew training facility
for practicing airport landing approaches and departures, including
tactical arrivals and departures. The CSIA is an auxiliary training
location for Altus AFB and Vance AFB, both of which are located in
Oklahoma. Altus AFB operates KC-135, C-5, and C-17 aircraft at the CSIA
and Vance AFB operates T-37, T-6, T-38, and T-1 aircraft at the CSIA.
The proposed action for the EA has the potential to impact current and
future USAF operations at the CSIA. Therefore, the FAA requested and
the USAF agreed to participate as a cooperating agency in the
preparation of the EA.
The USAF prepared an Environmental Assessment (``Altus EA'') for
the C-17 Program Changes at Altus AFB and the 97th Airlift Wing
Commander signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (``Altus FONSI'')
on August 19, 2004. The Altus EA considered several possible actions,
including the possible construction of an Assault Landing Zone at the
CSIA. The Altus FONSI indicated that the USAF would pursue the proposed
action (which was to accommodate the expanded C-17 training program
without building a new Assault Landing Zone). Due to the lack of
funding and authority to buy or lease land and build the Assault
Landing Zone and the urgent need to produce more trained aircrews, the
Commander opted for the proposed action. While the USAF has stated that
the need still exists for a new Assault Landing Zone and the USAF
continues to consider potential sites, including the CSIA, there is no
reasonably foreseeable plan to locate such a facility at the CSIA.
Accordingly, the cumulative impact from the construction and use of an
Assault Landing Zone is not considered in the EA for the OSIDA
commercial launch facility at the CSIA.
Purpose and Need: The purpose of the FAA action in connection with
OSIDA's request for licensure is to ensure compliance with
international obligations of the United States (U.S.) and to protect
the public health and safety, safety of property, and national security
and foreign policy interest of the U.S. during commercial launch or
reentry activities; to encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial
space launches and reentries by the private sector; and to facilitate
the strengthening and expansion of the U.S. space transportation
infrastructure, in accordance with the requirements of the CSLAA, the
Commercial Space Transportation Competitiveness Act, Executive Order
12465, 14 CFR parts 400-450, the National Space Transportation Policy,
and the National Space Policy. The purpose of the FAA action in
connection with the proposed transfer of property from the City of
Clinton to OSIDA is to ensure that the transfer of the CSIA property is
conducted in accordance with Federal laws and regulations, including,
without limitation, applicable provisions of 49 U.S.C. Ch. 471
(Sec. Sec. 47101-47153) and 14 CFR parts 152 and 155.
Alternatives Considered: Alternatives analyzed in the EA included
(1) the proposed action, issuing a launch site operator license to
OSIDA for the operation of a launch site at the CSIA for Concept X, Y,
and Z launch vehicles, (2) issuing a launch site operator license to
OSIDA for the CSIA for Concept X and Y launch vehicles only, (3)
issuing a launch site operator license to OSIDA for the CSIA for
Concept X and Z launch vehicles only, and (4) the no action
alternative. Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue a
launch site operator license to OSIDA for launches of Concept X, Y, or
Z launch vehicles from the CSIA. No launches of Concept X, Y, or Z
launch vehicles would take place from the CSIA. The CSIA would continue
to operate as a general aviation airport and potential environmental
impacts from the proposed action would not occur.
Environmental Impacts
Safety and Health
A hazard analysis is a necessary part of the Mission and Safety
Review for the FAA licensing determination to assess the possible
hazards associated with proposed ground, flight, and landing
operations. Launches of Concept X, Y, and Z vehicles from the CSIA
would require launch specific licenses from the FAA, and each launch
applicant would be required to conduct risk analyses based on the
proposed mission profiles. The Mission and Safety Review will consider
these analyses, and, therefore, they were not discussed in detail in
the EA. However, analysis of the safety and health implications of
launch related operations and activities that have the potential for
environmental impact were considered in the EA.
Ground operations involved in servicing and preparing launch
vehicles typically involve industrial activities, which were evaluated
for potential impact on the environment. There are various hazards
associated with these activities including:
Spill/fire/explosion of propellant/fuel storage, transport,
handling, and loading; Traffic accidents due to increased activity on-
and off-site; and Occupational mechanical accidents.
There would be some vapors of various propellants released from
propellant storage/transfer operations through evaporative losses.
However, such vapors would be vented outside and at a height that would
provide adequate protection for personnel, buildings, and the
environment. Also, the total quantity of emissions would not occur as a
large acute (short-term) exposure but would occur as a slow vapor
release over a long period of time. There is also the concern of spills
of propellants during handling and loading operations and subsequent
fires or explosions. However, the CSIA has established practices and
procedures to handle the spills and releases of propellants.
Increased road traffic that would result from conducting the
proposed launch operations at the CSIA would add a few cars/trucks
above existing traffic loads. The increase in the number of shipments
of hazardous materials should not significantly increase the number of
traffic accidents on the roadways around the CSIA.
On-site work associated with the conduct of launch operations would
be similar to that associated with industrial chemical operations, and
the servicing
[[Page 26595]]
and routine maintenance of aircraft. Exposure to mechanical accidents
should not differ significantly from current levels for the CSIA
because the number of operations associated with the conduct of launch
operations would be relatively small given the number of operations
airport wide.
In a catastrophic accident, it would be likely that the crew would
be seriously injured or killed. At the CSIA, the on-site fire
department would respond and secure the site but would stay clear of
the immediate area until the danger of explosions diminishes. It is
expected that any fires resulting from a failure could be fought by the
fire department. Additional off-site emergency response capability
could also be used if necessary.
Air Quality
Air emissions may be generated during launch/landing operations,
pre- and post-launch ground operations, and accidents. The proposed
action does not include any changes to the physical structure of the
CSIA (e.g., runway) or any construction activities; therefore there are
no construction vehicles or associated emissions and no construction-
related dust or airborne particles. The air quality at the CSIA in
Washita County is in attainment for all criteria pollutants, as
designated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Furthermore, the calculated emissions that would result from the
proposed action are less than both the Federal de minimis levels and
the level of emission considered significant for Oklahoma stationary
sources per the Oklahoma air pollution control rule (Title 252). Based
on these data, there is no need for a Federal conformity analysis and
no significant impacts to air quality are anticipated.
The regional haze rule requires states to develop State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) to address visibility at designated
mandatory Class I areas. The only Class I area in Oklahoma is
approximately 80 to 97 kilometers (50 to 60 miles) southeast of the
CSIA. The Oklahoma regional haze SIP is not available yet, but the
minimal emissions of the haze-related pollutants associated with the
proposed action are expected to have a negligible impact on the
visibility at the designated Class I area.
The EA assessed the impacts of launch emissions for each
atmospheric level. The composition of exhaust emissions varies
depending in the type of propellant and propulsion system used (i.e.,
jet engine and/or rocket motors). The emissions of concern include:
Particulate Matter (PM), Nitrogen Oxides (NOX), Sulfur
Oxides (SOX), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Carbon Dioxide
(CO2), Water (H20), and Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs).
The USAF estimated current aircraft emissions at the CSIA based on
fiscal year 2002 planned aircraft operations. At the maximum launch
rate under the proposed action, an additional 54 missions per year
would occur from the CSIA. This is a 0.1 percent increase in
operations. Total emissions associated with the proposed action and
alternatives were estimated by completing the following steps:
? Estimate the emissions per launch into each layer of the
atmosphere for each type of vehicle,
? Estimate the total annual launches for each type of vehicle, and
? Multiply the number of launches by the appropriate
emissions per launch.
The jet engine emissions and rocket launch emissions were
calculated for each launch for each vehicle concept. The analysis
calculated the total emission loads per launch or reentry for 2006-2010
by vehicle concept type and each criteria pollutant. Emission loads
were calculated for the mesosphere (Concept X only), stratosphere, the
troposphere, and below 914 meters (3,000 feet), which is the EPA's
threshold altitude for considering ground-level air quality effects.
Airspace
The CSIA has the capacity to accommodate the additional operations
without substantially impacting airspace. During the years with the
highest number of launches there would be a maximum of 54 launches.
Currently there are approximately 47,200 aircraft operations per year
at the CSIA. An additional 54 launches would be an increase of 0.1
percent in operations at the CSIA. Class A, Class E, and Special use
Airspace would not be substantially impacted due to the infrequency of
launch operations and the availability of alternate routes to reroute
commercial traffic activities. Because of the relative infrequency of
launch operations, and the availability of alternate routes for
commercial traffic activities, proposed launches would not be expected
to result in the degradation of the FAA's ability to control air
traffic and provide necessary safety for flight operations in airspace.
As part of the licensing process, the FAA and OSIDA would prepare an
agreement, known as a Letter of Agreement (LOA), related to airspace
use. The LOA would address the responsibilities of all involved
entities and would serve the purpose of mitigating potential impacts to
airspace use.
Biological Resources
The noise associated with launches and landing would be less than
that associated with military aircraft. The emissions associated with
launches and landing would not impact biological resources. Threatened
and endangered species would not be impacted by the proposed action
because no federally protected species occur in the region of the CSIA.
However, previous studies indicate that the endangered whooping crane
may be found in or near the wetlands at the CSIA during its spring and
fall migration. Should the whooping crane be identified in or near the
wetlands at the CSIA, OSIDA would consult with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and implement mitigation measures. Examples include
monitoring the whooping crane during launches and landings to document
effects or scheduling launches and landings when the whooping crane is
not present.
The sonic booms generated by Concept X and Z vehicles would have
relatively small overpressures that would have minimal impacts on
wildlife and domestic animals. Studies have found that most domestic
animals and wildlife tend to become accustomed to sonic booms fairly
quickly. Because of the small number of annual launches, the relatively
small overpressure, and the fact that wildlife and domestic animals
tend to become accustomed to sonic booms, the impacts on wildlife and
domestic animals would be small.
Cultural Resources
Launches and landings would not impact cultural resources. No new
infrastructure would be constructed and the nearest historic site
listed on the National Register of Historic Places is located
approximately 13 kilometers (8 miles) northwest of the CSIA. Launches
and landings would not impact any known cultural resources or
traditions of the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribe, the Chickasaw Nation, the
Comanche Tribe, the Kiowa Tribe, or the Wichita Tribe.
Geology and Soils
Launching and landing vehicles from the CSIA would not affect the
subsurface geology or expose people or structures to seismic activity.
However, surface soils could be impacted from the deposition of exhaust
emissions from vehicle launches, residual propellant during a vehicle
crash, leaks in storage tanks or tanker trucks, or from propellant or
jet fuel spills during fueling. Concept X, Y, and Z vehicle launches
would all use fuels and propellants that would not have any substantial
impacts on geology and
[[Page 26596]]
soils. Concept X and Z vehicles would use jet engines for takeoff and
would not produce any emissions that would adversely impact surface
soils. Concept Z vehicles would use liquid propellant rocket engines
for launch, which would create a ground cloud with few impacts to
soils. Potential soil chemistry-altering emissions from launches would
be disturbed over a large area and would not pose substantial impacts.
The landing of Concept Y and Z launch vehicles would have no impact on
soils because they would land unpowered and thus would not emit any
materials that would alter the surface soils. Concept X launch vehicles
and the Concept Z carrier vehicle would land under the power of jet
engines and thus some pollutants could be deposited onto surface soils.
However, the impacts would be limited due to the low total number of
vehicle launches and the limited potential impacts of emissions
released from jet engines onto surface soils.
Impacts to soils from crash debris would not be substantial due to
the low probability of a crash and the legal requirement to clean up
any residual hazardous materials. The breakup of any of the concept
vehicles during a crash and subsequent recovery activities could
directly impact soils. The force associated with falling debris could
create impact craters, which might impact soils depending on the force
of the impact. Any residual propellant in the damaged launch vehicle
could be absorbed by soils at the impact site. Because the probability
of a crash is low, and cleanup is required under CERCLA, debris or
residual propellant would not be expected to result in substantial
contamination, erosion, or loss of topsoil.
Spills or leaks could occur during storage, transportation, or
fueling, but all activities at the CSIA would comply with applicable
Federal and State regulations, which would reduce the likelihood of
soil contamination occurring. The limited number of launches and the
procedures in place to prevent spills would limit the likelihood of
soil contamination, erosion, or soil loss.
Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management
No substantial impacts regarding hazardous materials and hazardous
waste management are anticipated because all propellants and other
hazardous materials would be handled, stored, and used in compliance
with all applicable regulations. Procedures are in place to minimize
potential impacts from spills of propellants.
The proposed action involves the use of a location with historic
soil and ground water contamination. Major remediation actions have
already been completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Due to the
remediation activities that have occurred at the site, there would be
no substantial hazardous materials and waste impacts to the environment
resulting from historic contamination.
The primary hazardous materials used in support of launch
activities at the CSIA would be propellants. Concept X and Y rocket
fuels include kerosene and/or alcohol, which have hazardous
characteristics similar to the jet fuels currently used and stored
without adverse impact at the CSIA. The main oxidizer used for Concept
X and Y vehicles is liquid oxygen (LOX), a non-toxic cryogenic liquid.
The fuel and oxidizer for Concept Z launch vehicles are solid hydroxyl-
terminated polybutadiene (HTPB) and liquid nitrous oxide
(N2O), respectively, which are relatively inert. Concept X
vehicles would make powered landings at the CSIA using turbojet
engines, which is a routine occurrence at the CSIA. The unpowered
landings of the Concept Y and Z vehicles would not require use of
propellants or other hazardous materials and would not result in
substantial impacts.
The CSIA has standard operating procedures in place to minimize the
hazard associated with transporting and storing jet fuel and
propellants. All propellant shipments would be escorted from the point
of entry into the CSIA to the designated staging or storage area.
Emergency response personnel would be on standby during these
shipments. All liquid fuel and propellants would be shipped to the CSIA
in bulk tanker trucks, which would also serve as temporary storage
containers. The HTPB solid propellant would be manufactured and loaded
into Concept Z rocket motors off-site and shipped to the CSIA. The
solid propellant is stable and non-reactive until combined with its
oxidizer and ignited. No propellants would be stored for extended
periods of time; propellant shipments would be brought in to support
launches as needed.
Fueling operations would occur at existing on-site fuel staging
areas. Temporary dikes would be provided for containment should a spill
occur, which would minimize impacts to the environment. The launch
operator would be responsible for any necessary cleanup and remediation
actions following a spill. In addition to propellants, it is
anticipated that minor amounts of other hazardous materials, such as
paint, oils, lubricants, and solvents, would be used. No adverse
impacts would be anticipated from these additional hazardous materials.
Land Use
No substantial impacts are anticipated because major land use
changes would not occur under the proposed action, and OSIDA does not
currently have plans to alter the existing land use for the Spaceport
Territory. Land use, including individual isolated, residential
structures, like those surrounding the CSIA, may be considered
compatible within the Day/Night Level 65 decibel noise contour where
the primary use of land is agricultural and adequate noise attenuation
is provided.
Although OSIDA has been granted municipal authority over the
Territory, an Advisory Council also would be involved in future
decision-making regarding land use. The Advisory Council, consisting of
elected officials of towns within the Spaceport Territory, would make
recommendations to OSIDA regarding land use and development, municipal
annexation, zoning, construction, safety regulations, and other matters
that may be relevant to land use and development. This input from
elected officials would ensure that future land use would be amenable
to those living within the ROI.
The proposed action does not require any physical or constructive
use that would impair any Section 4(f) properties. The nearest known
potential Section 4(f) property is the Washita National Wildlife
Refuge, located on Foss Lake 19 kilometers (12 miles) to the north of
the CSIA. Any impacts to the refuge would be minor and should not
substantially impair the resource.
Noise
No substantial noise impacts would be expected from jet engine
powered operations associated with Concept X and Z vehicles. Rocket
engine powered operating noise associated with Concept X and Z vehicles
may range from 60 to 70 A-weighted decibels at ground level; this is
roughly equivalent to the C-141A aircraft, and would not result in a
change in noise exposure in excess of the applicable threshold of
significance. Rocket engine launch noise from Concept Y vehicles would
range from 76 to 86 A-weighted decibels; this noise level is similar to
existing jet engine noise at the CSIA and would not be expected to
result in a change in noise exposure in excess of applicable thresholds
of significance.
Concept X vehicles would produce sonic booms that range from 1.1 to 1.9
[[Page 26597]]
pounds per square foot. Concept Y vehicles would not reach supersonic
speeds and therefore would not produce sonic booms. Concept Z vehicles
would produce sonic booms that range from 0.5 to 0.7 pounds per square
foot. Assuming up to 52 launches per year of these vehicles, the C-
weighted day/night average noise level would be less than the 61 C-
weighted day/night average noise level standard.
Concept X vehicles could land under jet power. Concept Y and Z
vehicles would glide in for landing. Landing noise would therefore
consist of Concept X jet noise, Concept Z carrier jet noise, and sonic
booms (discussed in the previous section) during vehicle descent. Noise
impacts due to vehicles landing would be lower than those associated
with takeoff. Sonic booms during vehicle descent would occur at higher
altitudes than booms occurring during ascent, and jet engine noise is
much lower during landing than during takeoff, because the engines are
throttled back.
Socioeconomic Impacts and Environmental Justice
No substantial impacts are anticipated because the proposed action
does not result in any of the following: extensive relocation of
residents where sufficient housing is not available; relocation of
community businesses that would create severe economic hardship for the
affected communities; disruption of local traffic patterns that
substantially reduce the levels of service of the roads serving the
airport and its surrounding communities; or a substantial loss in the
community tax base.
OSIDA has projected that approximately 50 on-site personnel would
be required to staff launch and landing operations. These 50 personnel
would be in addition to the 10 current employees required for normal
CSIA flight operations. Any impacts related to the new employees would
likely be beneficial, with an increased tax base and a small boost in
sales and other services offered by local area businesses.
Any temporary increase in population due to spectators would impact
the surrounding businesses and community. Because the level of impact
depends upon the exact number of spectators, it is impossible to know
the level of impacts to the surrounding businesses and communities.
However, it is unlikely that the impact would be negative. Although the
area has low population density, which usually means fewer services and
less ability to accommodate a large influx of visitors, the region is
located along a major east-west U.S. thoroughfare, and has sufficient
infrastructure and services to accommodate periodic increases in
transient populations. Therefore, the region could accommodate a fairly
large increase in population for a short time.
Minority populations, low-income communities, and children's health
would not experience disproportionate adverse impacts from the proposed
action. Based on Census data, there is no evidence of an environmental
justice population of concern living within the region of influence.
Furthermore, health and environmental impacts from the proposed action
and alternatives are not expected to exceed applicable thresholds of
significance for any impact category. Although Burns Flat has a
slightly higher percentage of children under the age of 18 as compared
to the U.S., Oklahoma, and the SWODA region, the types of effects from
the proposed action should not be disproportionate to the health and
safety of children as compared to adults.
Transportation
The limited number of launches would not result in a substantial
increase in vehicle volume due to propellant, fuel, or raw material
shipments. Road and rail systems in and around the CSIA would not
experience unacceptable increases in the ratio of volume-to-capacity.
Additional traffic management controls would minimize impacts from
tourist activity during peak years.
Within the CSIA, shipments would travel on designated roads to the
customer's location. Vehicle operations requiring crossing the main
runway have been eliminated from current planning. Entry to the CSIA
would be limited to four controlled-access gates designated for
specific purposes. This traffic flow was suggested to minimize impacts
to transportation to, from, and within CSIA.
The proposed action would result in the addition of 50 personnel
commuting to and from the site on a daily basis. This amount of
additional traffic should be accommodated by state highway OK-44;
however, additional traffic controls may be required at the
intersection of OK-44 and Sooner Drive, where personnel would enter the
site. If the addition of launch day personnel and tourist activity
significantly increases the number of people traveling to the CSIA, an
additional entrance to the CSIA could be opened to employees or
employees and the general public.
Depending on the exact number of spectators and how rapidly this
number declines with each launch, there could be substantial temporary
traffic congestion on routes to the CSIA for launches occurring early
in the operating period. However, given the limited number of launches,
and the existing capacity of the existing roads in the area, no major
or lasting impacts would be expected.
Onsite transportation could increase during landings due to
recovering and transporting the launch vehicle from the runway after
landing. However, the maximum number of launches (54) per year would
not be expected to create substantial impacts to transportation on-site.
Visual Resources
No substantial impacts to visual resources are anticipated because
the CSIA is a low visual sensitivity area and the activities under the
proposed action would not be visually dominant in the viewshed around
the CSIA.
The visual impact of most horizontal launches would be ``visually
co-dominant.'' There were approximately 47,000 aircraft operations at
the CSIA in 2003, and the general public in the area of the CSIA is
accustomed to seeing various military aircrafts performing training
maneuvers at the CSIA. Therefore, the visual presence of horizontal
launches would not be new to the area. The majority of current aircraft
operations at CSIA involve jet powered aircraft.
While Concept X and Z vehicles would be launched by jet powered
carrier vehicles, Concept Y vehicles would be launched under rocket
power. Rocket-powered launches would be a new sight in the area of the
CSIA and might attract and dominate the attention of a viewer in this
area. In these few cases the launch itself might be ``visually
dominant;'' however, the limited number of Concept Y launches (a
maximum of two per year) would mitigate any resulting impacts.
Horizontal landing activities would result in a ``visually
subordinate'' classification because of the large number of existing
touch and go operations performed by various sizes of military aircraft
on a daily basis. Both powered and unpowered landings should appear
similar to current landing activities as CSIA.
Water Resources
Wetlands and floodplains would not be impacted and no new
discharges would be released into the wetlands. The fueling and
assembly of launch vehicles may result in inadvertent spills or
releases of fuel or materials that may impact surface water and ground
water. OSIDA or the launch operator would clean up any spills and
excavate and remove any contaminated soil
[[Page 26598]]
associated with an incidental spill or release, resulting in a small
impact.
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are ``the incremental impact of the actions when
added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future action
regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes
such other actions.'' (40 CFR 1508.7) The cumulative impacts analysis
focused on those past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions that have the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts.
These actions include the cumulative effect of the proposed action/
preferred alternative as it would occur over the five-year term of the
launch site operator license, the continued use of the CSIA as a
training facility for military and general aviation aircraft, and the
proposed future use of the CSIA as a location for testing rocket
engines. The proposed action has been evaluated for cumulative impacts
on the resource areas summarized below.
Air Quality--Cumulative air quality impacts associated with the
proposed action are not anticipated, given that the CSIA is currently
in attainment for all criteria pollutants; the emissions associated
with the proposed action were estimated using worst-case assumptions;
and the increase in emissions associated with the proposed action is
relatively small. Furthermore, none of the alternatives to the proposed
action would result in higher emissions than the proposed action and
thus no cumulative air quality impacts are expected under any of these
alternatives. Potential short-term impacts of emissions from rocket
engine testing would be mitigated through proper choice of weather
conditions and/or burn times.
Airspace--Cumulative airspace impacts associated with the proposed
action are not anticipated given that coordination and scheduling
procedures would be developed with the Air Route Traffic Control Center
and military users of the CSIA.
Biological Resources--The cumulative increase in noise and
emissions would result in an adverse impact on biological resources.
The cumulative noise and emissions would result from ongoing
commercial, military, and private aviation activities, future rocket
engine testing, as well as from the proposed action. The biological
resources affected would be those that have been able to tolerate the
existing noise and emissions associated with an active airfield; therefore,
the cumulative impacts on biological resources are expected to be minor.
Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Wastes--Cumulative impacts from
hazardous materials and hazardous waste management could occur on the
portions of the CSIA with historic soil and ground water contamination.
However, substantial cumulative impacts associated with the proposed
action are not anticipated due to the extensive remediation activities
that have been completed at the site.
Health and Safety--Cumulative health and safety impacts associated
with the proposed action are not anticipated given that the risk to
human health and safety from rocket engine testing would be small and
would be limited by safety precautions in place.
Noise--Background noise at the CSIA would increase with the
increased level of activity resulting from the addition of launches and
landings. Because of the relative infrequency of launches, landings,
engine tests, and aircraft operations, the cumulative noise impacts
would be relatively small. Sonic booms from supersonic vehicles at high
altitudes would create no substantial impacts because of their
relatively low magnitude, infrequent occurrence, and occurrence over
unpopulated areas.
Socioeconomics--Cumulative socioeconomic impacts associated with
the proposed action are not anticipated given the proposed action's
small relative size to the workforce in the surrounding counties and
the minimal impacts from a population and residential living
standpoint. The beneficial cumulative socioeconomic impact could be
greater than the direct impact of the proposed action.
Transportation--Over OSIDA's five-year operating period, cumulative
transportation impacts could occur because the number of launches (and
thus, the number of shipments of propellants and other materials) would
rise from 16 in 2006 to 54 in 2010. Cumulative transportation impacts
associated with engine testing are not anticipated given the limited
number of engine tests and infrequent shipments.
Visual resources--Cumulative visual resource impacts associated
with the proposed action are not anticipated given the less than one
percent increase in flight operations out of the CSIA. The rocket-
powered launches of Concept Y vehicles would be limited to a maximum of
two per year to prevent substantial cumulative impacts on visual resources.
Water Resources--Cumulative impacts on water resources may result
from incidental spills and releases associated with aircraft
preparation, rocket engine test preparation, and launch vehicle
preparation. Such spills or releases may impact surface water and
ground water. As presented in Section 4.14, Impacts on Water Resources,
OSIDA or the proponent of the activity would clean up any spills or
releases and excavate and remove any contaminated soil associated with
an incidental spill or release resulting in a small cumulative impact.
No Action Alternative
Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue a launch
site operator license to OSIDA and there would be no commercial
launches from the CSIA. In addition, the FAA would not issue launch
licenses or permits to any operators for launches from the CSIA. The
CSIA would continue to be available for existing aviation and training
related activities. The predicted environmental effects of the Proposed
Action would not occur.
Consistency With Community Planning
This proposed action is consistent with community planning
activities for both State and local governments. Both State and local
governments have incorporated the proposed launch site operations into
their planning processes.
Determination
An analysis of the proposed action has concluded that there are no
significant short-term or long-term effects to the environment or
surrounding populations. After careful and thorough consideration of
the facts herein, the undersigned finds that the proposed Federal
action is consistent with existing national environmental policies and
objectives set forth in Section 101(a) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 and that it will not significantly affect the
quality of the human environment or otherwise include any condition
requiring consultation pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA.
Therefore, an EIS for the proposed action is not required.
Issued in Washington, DC on April 27, 2006.
Patricia Grace Smith,
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. E6-6872 Filed 5-4-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P