HQ019505.indd

Federal Aviation

Administration

Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Commercial Space Transportation

Final Environmental

Assessment for the

Oklahoma Spaceport

 May 2006

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Introduction 

Under the proposed action, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would issue a launch site 

operator license to the Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority (OSIDA). In addition, 

as part of the proposed action, the FAA would approve the transfer of ownership of the ClintonSherman Industrial Airpark (CSIA) from the City of Clinton, Oklahoma to OSIDA. OSIDA 

proposes to operate a launch facility at the CSIA located adjacent to the town of Burns Flat, 

Oklahoma. The CSIA is a public use airport currently used by both military and civilian aircraft 

primarily as a training facility. To operate a commercial launch facility, OSIDA must obtain a 

license from the FAA, Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST). Individual launch 

operators proposing to conduct launches at the CSIA must also obtain a license or permit, as 

appropriate from the FAA. 

A launch site operator license remains in effect for five years from the date of issuance unless 

surrendered, suspended, or revoked before the expiration of the term and is renewable upon 

application by the licensee. (14 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 420.43) A license to operate 

a launch site authorizes a licensee to offer its launch site to a launch operator for each launch 

point that can accommodate the type and weight class of launch vehicle identified in the license 

application, and upon which the licensing determination is based. Issuance of a license to 

operate a launch site does not relieve a licensee of the obligation to comply with any other laws 

or regulations, nor does it confer any proprietary, property, or exclusive right in the use of 

airspace or outer space. 

(14 CFR 420.41) 

The decision to license or permit a commercial launch or the operation of a commercial launch 

site by the FAA is considered a major Federal action; consequently, the FAA is responsible for 

analyzing the environmental impacts associated with licensing or permitting proposed 

commercial launches or proposed commercial launch sites as required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (Public Law 91-190), as amended, 42 United States 

Code (U.S.C.) § 4321, et seq. The land transfer of ownership from the City of Clinton to the 

CSIA is of a type of action that the FAA has found, based on past experience with similar 

actions, does not normally require an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) because it does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the 

human environment. Accordingly, this type of action is normally categorically excluded. 

However, because the land transfer is interrelated with the decision to license the operation of a 

commercial launch site, this EA addresses both requirements. 

The FAA is the lead Federal Agency for the NEPA process and the United States (U.S.) Air 

Force (USAF) is a cooperating agency on this 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 yet undefined future activities could be impacted by the use of the CSIA as a launch 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 ES-2 

site. Therefore, the FAA requested and the USAF agreed to participate as a cooperating agency 

in the preparation of this EA.1

Purpose and Need

The CSIA would serve as an alternative location to Federal facilities or other commercial sites 

for launching horizontally-launched, suborbital vehicles. The proposed action would allow 

OSIDA to offer the CSIA to customers wishing to conduct launch operations. Customers 

operating under a launch license may use the facility to provide for-profit launch services 

including tourism activities. Customers operating under an experimental permit may use the 

facility to conduct research, development, and testing of reusable launch vehicles (RLVs). These 

activities are consistent with the objectives of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act 

of 20042 (CSLAA) and AST’s mission to encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial launch 

and reentry activities by the private sector. Given the increasing demand for lower cost access to 

space, commercial launch site operators have begun to develop proposals to offer launch sites 

not collocated with Federal facilities or operated by the Department of Defense (DoD) or the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The proposed action is needed to meet 

this demand. 

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 (§§ 47101-47153) and 14 CFR Parts 152 and 155. 

Public Involvement 

On October 23, 2002, the FAA issued a Notice of Intent in the FR (67 FR 65169) announcing the 

intent to prepare an EIS and conduct public scoping meetings. Two scoping meetings were held 

in November 2002 to request input from the public on concerns regarding the proposed activities 

as well as to gather information and knowledge of issues relevant to analyzing the environmental 

 

1

 The FAA published a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for this proposed project in 

the Federal Register (FR) (67 FR 65169) on October 23, 2002. However, OSIDA has since determined that their 

proposed action consists of only a subset of the activities that were originally proposed in the Notice of Intent. 

Therefore, the FAA reconsidered the scope of the analysis required to support the proposed action and alternatives 

and determined that an EA would more appropriately address the environmental consequences of the proposed 

action and alternatives. On October 7, 2005, the FAA issued a notice in the FR announcing that the proposed action 

would be addressed in an EA. 

2

 Formerly the Commercial Space Launch Act, see 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, Chapter 701 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 ES-3 

impacts associated with the proposed action. The scoping meetings were held at the Western 

Technology Center, Burns Flat, Oklahoma on November 13, 2002 and at the Metro Technology 

Center, Springlake Campus, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on November 14, 2002. The comments 

and concerns raised by the public have been incorporated into this document, as appropriate. 

The FAA reconsidered the scope of the analysis required to support the proposed action and 

alternatives and determined that an EA would more appropriately address the environmental 

consequences of the proposed action and alternatives. On October 7, 2005, the FAA issued a 

notice in the FR announcing that the proposed action would be addressed in an EA. 

The Notice of Availability of the Draft EA was announced in the Federal Register on February 3, 

2006 (71 FR 5901). This notice initiated the beginning of the Draft EA public comment period, 

which ended on March 13, 2006. 

The FAA held a public hearing to request comments on the Draft EA on March 9, 2006 at the 

Western Technology Center in Burns Flat, Oklahoma. Five persons provided oral comments, 

and one person submitted a written comment. In addition, comments on the Draft EA were 

accepted via fax, mail, and e-mail. All comments on the Draft EA were taken into consideration 

when preparing this Final EA. Specific responses to comments are provided in Appendix C of 

this document. 

Description of the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative 

OSIDA has identified three types of launch vehicles, identified in this EA as Concept X, Y, and 

Z, which are typical of the vehicles that would operate from the CSIA. The proposed action 

includes launches and landings of all three Concept launch vehicles. The potential users of the 

site would be responsible for obtaining any necessary permits or approvals including a launch 

license from the FAA for specific missions. The FAA may use the analysis in this document as 

the basis for making a determination on whether to prepare an EIS or a Finding of No Significant 

Impact regarding the issuance of a launch site operator license and the licensing or permitting of 

the launch of certain types of launch vehicles and the transfer of ownership of the CSIA. 

The activities included in this analysis are those associated with launches and landings of 

Concept X, Y, and Z launch vehicles at the CSIA. The FAA does not license vehicles, only the 

operation of vehicles, launch sites, and reentry sites. 

The CSIA has been proposed as a location to support static rocket engine testing. In addition to 

becoming a launch site, OSIDA may offer the CSIA as a location to test these types of rocket 

engines. Rocket engines would be tested using a mobile trailer tied down to the test area. 

Rocket engines that are tested at the CSIA would consist of Rocketdyne 88 or similar engines 

and would either be incorporated into vehicles that are launched at the CSIA or at other facilities. 

No construction activities are proposed as part of the proposed action. Existing infrastructure 

including buildings, hangars, and runways would be used to support proposed launch and 

landing operations at the site. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 ES-4 

The scope of this analysis is limited to the five-year period supporting the launch site operator 

license that would be issued by the FAA and considers the use of the CSIA for launching and 

landing horizontally-launched Concept X, Y, and Z vehicles into suborbital trajectories. Under 

the proposed action, the CSIA would continue to operate as a general aviation airport. 

Description of Alternatives and No Action 

The FAA identified two alternatives to the proposed action, which are considered in this EA. 

The first alternative would involve the issuance of a launch site operator license to OSIDA for 

the CSIA that would allow only Concept X and Y vehicles to be launched from the CSIA. The 

FAA has proposed this alternative because OSIDA holds Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) 

with companies proposing to launch Concept X and Y vehicles, but not with companies 

proposing to launch Concept Z vehicles. 

The second alternative would involve the issuance of a launch site operator license to OSIDA for 

the CSIA that would allow only Concept X and Z vehicles to be launched from the CSIA. The 

FAA has proposed this alternative because the issuance of a license to OSIDA to operate a 

launch facility to launch Concept X and Z vehicles may reduce the amount of rocket emissions 

that reach the ground and reduce the amount of noise experienced on the ground during launches. 

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. 

Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Alternatives 

Analysis Methodology 

Thirteen resource areas were considered to provide a context for understanding and assessing the 

potential environmental effects of the proposed action, with attention focused on key issues. The 

resource areas considered included air quality, airspace, biological resources, cultural resources, 

geology and soils, hazardous materials and hazardous waste, health and safety, land use, noise, 

socioeconomics and environmental justice, transportation, visual resources, and water resources. 

For each resource area discussed in this EA, the Region of Influence (ROI) was determined. The 

ROI describes a region for each resource area that comprises the area that could be affected by 

the proposed action or alternatives. The environmental consequences associated with the 

proposed action, alternatives 1 and 2, and the no action alternative, were analyzed for the 

appropriate ROI for each resource area. 

Environmental Impacts 

Exhibit ES-1, Summary of Environmental Impacts from the Proposed Action and Alternatives, 

presents a summary of the impacts on each resource area. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 

Exhibit ES-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts from the Proposed Action and Alternati

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

Air Quality The total annual nitrogen oxides (NOX) (26 

kilograms), sulfur oxides (SOX) (11 

kilograms), carbon monoxide (CO) (1,962 kilograms), particulate matter (PM) (572 kilograms), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (213 kilograms) emissions from all RLVs are less than both the de minimislevels set by the Environmental Protection Agency and the level of emission considered significant for Oklahoma stationary sources. No hazardous air pollutants or ozonedepleting chemicals would be emitted. The minimal emissions of the haze-related pollutants associated with the proposed action are expected to have a negligible impact on visibility at the designated Class I area located 80 to 97 kilometers (50 to 60 miles) southeast of the CSIA. Carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) emissions 

would not substantially affect global warming because they would contribute only a small fraction of the total U.S. annual emissions of greenhouse gases. 

The elimination of Concept Z vehicles under alternative 1 would result in a reduction in total emissions as compared to the proposed action. The overall impacts on air quality would be the same or less than those presented under the proposed action. 

The elimination of Concept Y vehicles under alternative 2 would result in a reduction in CO2, H2O, 

and hydrogen (H2) 

emissions. The overall impacts on air quality would be the same or less than those presented under the proposed action. 

Natab
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 

Exhibit ES-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts from the Proposed Action and Alternati

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

Airspace The CSIA has the capacity to accommodate 

the additional operations without substantially impacting airspace. 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 degradation of the FAA’s ability to control air traffic and provide necessary safety for flight operations in the airspace. 

The impacts would be slightly less than those for the proposed action due to the reduced number of total launches. 

The impacts would be slightly less than those for the proposed action due to the reduced number of total launches. 

Natwi

Biological Resources 

The noise associated with launches and landings would be less than that associated with military aircraft. The emissions associated with launches and landings would not impact biological resources. Threatened and endangered species would not be impacted by the proposed action. If threatened or endangered species are identified in the area, OSIDA would consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and implement mitigation measures. 

The launch and landing of Concept X vehicles would not impact biological resources. The launch and landing of Concept Y vehicles would have the same impacts as those presented under the proposed action. 

The launch and landing of Concept X and Z vehicles would not impact biological resources. 

Natrb
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 

Exhibit ES-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts from the Proposed Action and Alternati

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

Cultural Resources 

Launches and landings would not impact cultural resources. No new infrastructure would be constructed and the nearest historic site listed in the National Register of Historic Places is located approximately 13 kilometers (8 miles) northwest of CSIA. (National Register, 2005) 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. 

The impacts would be the same as those for the proposed action. 

The impacts would be the same as those for the proposed action. 

Natrb
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 

Exhibit ES-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts from the Proposed Action and Alternati

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

Geology and Soils 

Concept X, Y, and Z vehicle launches would all use fuels and propellants that would not have any substantial impacts on geology and soils. Potential soil chemistry-altering emissions from launches would be distributed over a large area and would not pose substantial impacts. The limited number of launches and the procedures in place to prevent spills would limit the likelihood of soil contamination, erosion, or soil loss. Impacts to soils from crash debris would not be substantial due to the low probability of a crash and the legal requirement to cleanup any residual hazardous materials. In addition, the proposed action would not result in exposure of individuals or structures to potential adverse effects from seismic activity or substantial erosion or loss of topsoil. 

The impacts would be the same as those for the proposed action. 

The impacts would be the same as those for the proposed action. 

Natsi

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 impacts from hazardous materials and hazardous waste management would be slightly less than that of the proposed action due to the reduced number of propellants that would be required for operations. 

The impacts from hazardous materials and hazardous waste management would be slightly less than that of the proposed action due to the reduced number of propellants that would be required for operations. 

Natmwi
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 

Exhibit ES-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts from the Proposed Action and Alternati

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

Health and Safety 

The health and safety conditions associated with the proposed action would not result in substantial health and safety impacts. Existing safety procedures and regulations would be followed in the transport, handling, and management of propellants/industrial chemicals to prevent any harmful exposure. Flight safety procedures will be addressed in the Mission and Safety Review. 

The impacts would be the same as those for the proposed action. 

The impacts would be the same as those for the proposed action. 

Natsi

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 (DNL) 65 decibel (dB) noise contour where the primary use of land is agricultural and adequate noise attenuation is provided. The proposed action does not require any physical or constructive use that would impair any Section 4(f) properties. 

The impacts would be the same as those for the proposed action. 

The impacts would be the same as those for the proposed action. 

Nooui
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 

Exhibit ES-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts from the Proposed Action and Alternati

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

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 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. 

The impacts would be the same as those for the proposed action. 

The impacts would be the same as those for the proposed action. 

Natwi
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 

Exhibit ES-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts from the Proposed Action and Alternati

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

Socioeconomics 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. Minority populations, low-income communities, and children’s health would not experience disproportionate adverse impacts from the proposed action. 

The impacts would be the same as those for the proposed action. 

The impacts would be the same as those for the proposed action. 

Natsceaci

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. 

The impacts would be the same as those for the proposed action. 

The impacts would be the same as those for the proposed action. 

Natitn
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 

Exhibit ES-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts from the Proposed Action and Alternati

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

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 impacts would be the same as those for the proposed action. 

The impacts would be less than those for the proposed action. 

Natrb

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 associated with an incidental spill or release, resulting in a small impact. 

The impacts would be slightly less than for the proposed action, because there would be fewer vehicle preparations and less of a chance for accidental spills or releases. 

The impacts would be slightly less than for the proposed action, because there would be fewer vehicle preparations and less of a chance for accidental spills or releases. 

Natrb
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 ES-13 

Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Alternatives 

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 for 

this EA focuses 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 air quality, airspace, 

biological resources, hazardous materials, health and safety, noise, socioeconomic impacts, 

transportation, visual resources, and water resources. The results of this evaluation are 

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 (ARTCC) and military users of the CSIA. 

 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 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 ES-14 

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 at 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. 

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. 

Mitigation Measures 

The mitigation measures presented in Exhibit ES-2 may be implemented as directed by any 

license, permit, or related documentation issued by the FAA for this proposed action. 

Exhibit ES-2. Mitigation Measures 

Resource Area Mitigation Measures 

Air Quality  Minimization of unnecessary traffic to, from, and within the CSIA 

Airspace  Surveying the potentially affected airspace prior to launches to ensure 

no potential conflicts 

 Scheduling the affected airspace prior to launches to minimize potential 

conflicts 

Biological 

Resources 

 Should the whooping crane be identified in or near the wetlands at 

CSIA, OSIDA would consult with USFWS, and implement mitigation 

measures to ensure that the activities at the CSIA would not be likely to 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 ES-15 

Resource Area Mitigation Measures 

adversely affect the whooping crane. Potential mitigation measures 

may include monitoring the whooping crane during launch and landing 

or rocket engine testing activities to document the impacts, or 

scheduling launches and landings when the whooping crane is not 

present. 

Hazardous 

Materials/Waste 

Management 

 Use of spill prevention, containment, and control measures while 

transporting equipment and materials 

 Use of impermeable ground cover and spill containment berms when 

conducting fueling operations 

 Bulk hazardous materials (e.g., 210 liter [55 gallon] drums of antifreeze, hydraulic fluid, compressed welding gases) would be stored in 

approved containers that meet National Fire Protection Association 

industrial fire protection codes and required containment systems. 

 Spill response materials (e.g., sorbents, drain covers, mops, brooms, 

shovels, drum repair materials and tools, warning signs and tapes, and 

personal protective equipment) would be readily available for use in the 

event of an unplanned release. 

 Storage of hazardous materials would be in protected and controlled 

areas designed to comply with site-specific spill prevention, control, 

and countermeasures plans. 

 Hazardous materials would be inspected before accepting a shipment 

(e.g., to validate container integrity and expiration date). 

 Hazardous materials would be purchased in appropriately sized 

containers (e.g., if the material is used by the can, it would be purchased 

by the can rather than in bulk sized containers). 

 Purchasing excess hazardous materials would be avoided. 

 Hazardous material containers would be appropriately labeled. 

 Containerization of waste to prevent discharges 

 Prevention of litter 

 Controlling access to waste by wildlife 

Health and 

Safety 

 Prevention of access to hazardous operations areas by non-essential 

personnel 

 Follow safety and health procedures and regulations 

Transportation  Shipping and delivery of vehicles, vehicle components, and propellant 

would be conducted under routine procedures in accordance with 

applicable FAA and Department of Transportation safety standards to 

minimize possible impacts to transportation. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 ES-16 

Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Maintenance and Enhancement of 

the Environment 

Short-term uses of the environment are considered those that occur over a period of less than the 

life of the proposed action. Conversely, long-term uses of the environment include those impacts 

that would persist for a period of five years or the life of the proposed action. 

Short-term commitments of the proposed action would include labor, capital, and fossil fuels that 

result directly from renovation of facilities to accommodate potential tenants and vehicle 

assembly prior to launch at the proposed Oklahoma Spaceport. 

From the long-term perspective, the increased utilization of the CSIA would enhance the local 

and regional economies through new business development. Economic growth in Southwestern 

Oklahoma is an important vision for OSIDA. Increased activity would also provide increased 

revenue for improving and maintaining the aging infrastructure of the CSIA. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 

Irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments are related to the use of nonrenewable 

resources and the effects that use of these resources may have on future generations. The use or 

destruction of specific resources (e.g., energy and minerals) that cannot be replaced within a 

reasonable time frame is termed an irreversible resource commitment of that resource. 

The proposed action would not be expected to result in the loss of threatened or endangered 

species or cultural resources such as archaeological or historic sites. 

The proposed action would result in an increased use of aviation fuel and other propellants 

required by the RLVs, as well as miscellaneous fuels required by supporting ground vehicles 

such as tanker trucks. Additionally, raw materials may be required for the assembly of vehicles 

or vehicle components, or the renovation of facilities at the CSIA. Energy would also be 

irreversibly and irretrievably committed to the proposed action. Facilities would utilize natural 

gas or electricity in support of operations. 

Adverse Environmental Effects That Cannot Be Avoided 

In general, most known adverse effects resulting from implementation of the proposed action 

would be mitigated through project planning and design measures, consultation with appropriate 

agencies, and the use of Best Management Practices. As a result, most potential adverse effects 

would be avoided and those that cannot be avoided would not be expected to result in a 

substantial impact to the environment. 

Adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided include short-term noises that may startle 

or otherwise impact wildlife; the release of small amount of pollutants to the atmosphere; and 

minor increased generation of hazardous waste at the CSIA. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 ES-17 

Consultation with appropriate agencies and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures 

would help to minimize potential impacts. 

Secondary or Induced Impacts 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines secondary impacts as “those that are 

caused by an action and are later in time and farther removed in distance but still foreseeable.” 

Some development projects pose the potential for induced or secondary impacts on the 

surrounding areas. A secondary or induced impact would exist when a proposed project causes a 

shift in population growth, public service requirements, or changes in local or regional economic 

activity that are influenced by the changes produced by implementing the proposed action. 

Issuing a launch site operator license to OSIDA for the operation of a launch and landing site at 

the CSIA would not result in substantial induced impacts. Although the proposed action would 

support and facilitate limited growth, it would not induce growth. Additionally, there are no 

known specific future development activities that would be dependent on the proposed action. 

Therefore, no secondary impacts are expected to result from the proposed action or alternatives 

analyzed in this EA. The use of the CSIA by launch operators conducting launches and landings 

of Concept X, Y, and Z vehicles would not result in substantial induced impacts. 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 i 

Table of Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................ES-1 

ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS............................................................ix 

1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED.......................................................... 1-1 

1.1 Background.......................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.2 Federal Agency Involvement............................................................................... 1-3 

1.2.1 Role of the FAA....................................................................................... 1-3 

1.2.2 Role of the USAF..................................................................................... 1-4 

1.3 Site Operator and Launch Operator Involvement................................................ 1-5 

1.3.1 Site Operator - OSIDA............................................................................. 1-5 

1.3.2 Launch Operator ...................................................................................... 1-5 

1.4 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................ 1-6 

1.5 Public Involvement .............................................................................................. 1-7 

1.6 Related Environmental Documentation............................................................... 1-8 

2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ........................... 2-1 

2.1 Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative................................................................ 2-1 

2.1.1 OSIDA ..................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1.2 CSIA ........................................................................................................ 2-2 

2.1.3 Proposed Activities .................................................................................. 2-6 

2.1.4 Launch Vehicle Concepts ...................................................................... 2-11 

2.1.5 Propellant Storage.................................................................................. 2-19 

2.2 Potential Future Activities ................................................................................. 2-19 

2.2.1 Launches to and Reentries from Orbital Trajectories............................ 2-19 

2.2.2 Construction Activities .......................................................................... 2-19 

2.2.3 Manufacturing Activities ....................................................................... 2-20 

2.3 Alternatives to the Proposed Action .................................................................. 2-20 

2.3.1 Alternative 1 – Concept X and Y Vehicles Only................................... 2-20 

2.3.2 Alternative 2 – Concept X and Z Vehicles Only ................................... 2-21 

2.4 No Action Alternative........................................................................................ 2-21 

2.5 Alternatives Considered But Not Carried Forward ........................................... 2-21 

2.5.1 Alternative Launch Operations.............................................................. 2-21 

2.5.2 Alternative Locations within Oklahoma................................................ 2-22 

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT....................................................................................... 3-1 

3.1 Overview of Proposed Operational Area............................................................. 3-1 

3.1.1 Onsite Region of Influence ...................................................................... 3-1 

3.1.2 Offsite Region of Influence ..................................................................... 3-5 

3.1.3 Climate..................................................................................................... 3-5 

3.2 Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 3-5 

3.2.1 Definition of Resource............................................................................. 3-5 

3.2.2 Region of Influence................................................................................ 3-10 

3.2.3 Existing Conditions................................................................................ 3-11 

3.3 Airspace ............................................................................................................. 3-12 

3.3.1 Definition of Resource........................................................................... 3-12 

3.3.2 Region of Influence................................................................................ 3-14 

3.3.3 Existing Conditions................................................................................ 3-15 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 ii 

3.4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................... 3-15 

3.4.1 Definition of Resource........................................................................... 3-15 

3.4.2 Region of Influence................................................................................ 3-16 

3.4.3 Existing Conditions................................................................................ 3-16 

3.5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................. 3-19 

3.5.1 Definition of Resource........................................................................... 3-19 

3.5.2 Region of Influence................................................................................ 3-19 

3.5.3 Existing Conditions................................................................................ 3-19 

3.6 Geology and Soils.............................................................................................. 3-20 

3.6.1 Definition of Resource........................................................................... 3-20 

3.6.2 Region of Influence................................................................................ 3-20 

3.6.3 Existing Conditions................................................................................ 3-20 

3.7 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management................................. 3-24 

3.7.1 Definition of Resource........................................................................... 3-24 

3.7.2 Region of Influence................................................................................ 3-24 

3.7.3 Existing Conditions................................................................................ 3-24 

3.8 Health and Safety............................................................................................... 3-28 

3.8.1 Definition of Resource........................................................................... 3-28 

3.8.2 Region of Influence................................................................................ 3-28 

3.8.3 Existing Conditions................................................................................ 3-28 

3.9 Land Use ............................................................................................................ 3-29 

3.9.1 Definition of Resource........................................................................... 3-29 

3.9.2 Region of Influence................................................................................ 3-30 

3.9.3 Existing Conditions................................................................................ 3-30 

3.10 Noise .................................................................................................................. 3-34 

3.10.1 Definition of Resource........................................................................... 3-34 

3.10.2 Region of Influence................................................................................ 3-35 

3.10.3 Existing Conditions................................................................................ 3-35 

3.11 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice...................................................... 3-37 

3.11.1 Definition of Resource........................................................................... 3-37 

3.11.2 Region of Influence................................................................................ 3-38 

3.11.3 Existing Conditions................................................................................ 3-38 

3.12 Transportation.................................................................................................... 3-43 

3.12.1 Definition of Resource........................................................................... 3-43 

3.12.2 Region of Influence................................................................................ 3-43 

3.12.3 Existing Conditions................................................................................ 3-43 

3.13 Visual Resources................................................................................................ 3-45 

3.13.1 Definition of Resource........................................................................... 3-45 

3.13.2 Region of Influence................................................................................ 3-46 

3.13.3 Existing Conditions................................................................................ 3-46 

3.14 Water Resources ................................................................................................ 3-49 

3.14.1 Definition of Resource........................................................................... 3-49 

3.14.2 Region of Influence................................................................................ 3-49 

3.14.3 Existing Conditions................................................................................ 3-49 

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES... 4-1 

4.1 Analysis methodology ......................................................................................... 4-1 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 iii 

4.1.1 Approach to Analysis............................................................................... 4-1 

4.1.2 Proposed Action – Launching and Landing Concept X, Y, and Z Launch 

Vehicles at the CSIA................................................................................ 4-1 

4.1.3 Alternative 1 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Y Launch 

Vehicles at the CSIA................................................................................ 4-2 

4.1.4 Alternative 2 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Z Launch Vehicles 

at the CSIA............................................................................................... 4-3 

4.1.5 No Action Alternative.............................................................................. 4-3 

4.2 Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 4-3 

4.2.1 Approach to Analysis............................................................................... 4-3 

4.2.2 Proposed Action....................................................................................... 4-4 

4.2.3 Alternative 1........................................................................................... 4-11 

4.2.4 Alternative 2........................................................................................... 4-11 

4.2.5 No Action Alternative............................................................................ 4-12 

4.3 Airspace ............................................................................................................. 4-12 

4.3.1 Approach to Analysis............................................................................. 4-12 

4.3.2 Proposed Action – Launching and Landing Concept X, Y, and Z Launch 

Vehicles at the CSIA.............................................................................. 4-13 

4.3.3 Alternative 1 - Launching and Landing Concept X and Y Launch Vehicles 

at the CSIA............................................................................................. 4-18 

4.3.4 Alternative 2 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Z Launch Vehicles 

at the CSIA............................................................................................. 4-18 

4.3.5 No Action Alternative............................................................................ 4-18 

4.4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................... 4-18 

4.4.1 Approach to Analysis............................................................................. 4-18 

4.4.2 Proposed Action– Launching and Landing Concept X, Y, and Z Launch 

Vehicles from the CSIA......................................................................... 4-19 

4.4.3 Alternative 1 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Y Launch 

Vehicles.................................................................................................. 4-20 

4.4.4 Alternative 2 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Z Launch 

4.4.5 Vehicles.................................................................................................. 4-20 

4.4.5 No Action Alternative............................................................................ 4-20 

4.5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................. 4-20 

4.5.1 Approach to Analysis............................................................................. 4-20 

4.5.2 Proposed Action – Launching and Landing Concept X, Y, and Z Launch 

Vehicles from the CSIA......................................................................... 4-21 

4.5.3 Alternative 1 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Y Vehicles .... 4-22 

4.5.4 Alternative 2 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Z Vehicles..... 4-22 

4.5.5 No Action Alternative............................................................................ 4-22 

4.6 Geology and Soils.............................................................................................. 4-22 

4.6.1 Approach to Analysis............................................................................. 4-22 

4.6.2 Proposed Action – Launching and Landing Concept X, Y, and Z Launch 

Vehicles from the CSIA......................................................................... 4-22 

4.6.3 Alternative 1 - Launching and Landing Concept X and Y Launch Vehicles 

at the CSIA............................................................................................. 4-24 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 iv 

4.6.4 Alternative 2 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Z Launch Vehicles 

at the CSIA............................................................................................. 4-24 

4.6.5 No Action Alternative............................................................................ 4-24 

4.7 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management................................. 4-25 

4.7.1 Approach to Analysis............................................................................. 4-25 

4.7.2 Proposed Action – Launching and Landing Concept X, Y, and Z Launch 

Vehicles at the CSIA.............................................................................. 4-25 

4.7.3 Alternative 1 - Launching and Landing Concept X and Y Launch Vehicles 

at the CSIA............................................................................................. 4-26 

4.7.4 Alternative 2 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Z Launch Vehicles 

at the CSIA............................................................................................. 4-27 

4.7.5 No Action Alternative............................................................................ 4-27 

4.8 Health and Safety............................................................................................... 4-27 

4.8.1 Approach to Analysis............................................................................. 4-27 

4.8.2 Proposed Action – Launching and Landing Concept X, Y, and Z Launch 

Vehicles at the CSIA.............................................................................. 4-27 

4.8.3 Alternative 1 - Launching and Landing Concept X and Y Launch Vehicles 

at the CSIA............................................................................................. 4-33 

4.8.4 Alternative 2 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Z Launch Vehicles 

at the CSIA............................................................................................. 4-34 

4.8.5 No Action Alternative............................................................................ 4-34 

4.9 Land Use ............................................................................................................ 4-35 

4.9.1 Approach to Analysis............................................................................. 4-35 

4.9.2 Proposed Action – Launching and Landing Concept X, Y, and Z Launch 

Vehicles at the CSIA.............................................................................. 4-35 

4.9.3 Alternative 1 - Launching and Landing Concept X and Y Launch Vehicles 

at the CSIA............................................................................................. 4-37 

4.9.4 Alternative 2 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Z Launch Vehicles 

at the CSIA............................................................................................. 4-37 

4.9.5 No Action Alternative............................................................................ 4-37 

4.10 Noise .................................................................................................................. 4-37 

4.10.1 Approach to Analysis............................................................................. 4-37 

4.10.2 Proposed Action – Launching and Landing Concept X, Y, and Z Launch 

Vehicles at the CSIA.............................................................................. 4-39 

4.10.3 Alternative 1 - Launching and Landing Concept X and Y Launch Vehicles 

at the CSIA............................................................................................. 4-42 

4.10.4 Alternative 2 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Z Launch Vehicles 

at the CSIA............................................................................................. 4-43 

4.10.5 No Action Alternative............................................................................ 4-43 

4.11 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice...................................................... 4-43 

4.11.1 Approach to Analysis............................................................................. 4-43 

4.11.2 Proposed Action – Launching and Landing Concept X, Y, and Z Launch 

Vehicles at the CSIA.............................................................................. 4-43 

4.11.3 Alternative 1 - Launching and Landing Concept X and Y Launch Vehicles 

at the CSIA............................................................................................. 4-46 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 v 

4.11.4 Alternative 2 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Z Launch Vehicles 

at the CSIA............................................................................................. 4-46 

4.11.5 No Action Alternative............................................................................ 4-46 

4.12 Transportation.................................................................................................... 4-47 

4.12.1 Approach to Analysis............................................................................. 4-47 

4.12.2 Proposed Action – Launching and Landing Concept X, Y, and Z Launch 

Vehicles at the CSIA.............................................................................. 4-47 

4.12.3 Alternative 1 - Launching and Landing Concept X and Y Launch Vehicles 

at the CSIA............................................................................................. 4-50 

4.12.4 Alternative 2 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Z Launch Vehicles 

at the CSIA............................................................................................. 4-51 

4.12.5 No Action Alternative............................................................................ 4-51 

4.13 Visual Resources................................................................................................ 4-51 

4.13.1 Approach to Analysis............................................................................. 4-51 

4.13.2 Proposed Action – Launching and Landing Concept X, Y, and Z Launch 

Vehicles at the CSIA.............................................................................. 4-52 

4.13.3 Alternative 1 - Launching and Landing Concept X and Y Launch Vehicles 

at the CSIA............................................................................................. 4-53 

4.13.4 Alternative 2 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Z Launch Vehicles 

at the CSIA............................................................................................. 4-53 

4.13.5 No Action Alternative............................................................................ 4-53 

4.14 Water Resources ................................................................................................ 4-53 

4.14.1 Approach to Analysis............................................................................. 4-53 

4.14.2 Proposed Action – Launching and Landing Concept X, Y, and Z Launch 

Vehicles.................................................................................................. 4-54 

4.14.3 Alternative 1 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Y Launch 

Vehicles.................................................................................................. 4-54 

4.14.4. Alternative 2 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Z Launch 

4.14.5. Vehicles................................................................................................. 4-54 

4.14.5 No Action Alternative............................................................................ 4-54 

5 POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES .. 5-1 

5.1 Analysis Methodology......................................................................................... 5-1 

5.2 Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 5-2 

5.2.1 Impacts of Testing Rocket Engines ......................................................... 5-2 

5.2.2 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 5-3 

5.3 Airspace ............................................................................................................... 5-5

5.3.1 Impacts of Testing Rocket Engines ......................................................... 5-5 

5.3.2 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 5-5 

5.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................... 5-5 

5.4.1 Impacts of Testing Rocket Engines ......................................................... 5-5 

5.4.2 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 5-5 

5.5 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste ........................................................ 5-6 

5.5.1 Impacts of Testing Rocket Engines ......................................................... 5-6 

5.5.2 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 5-6 

5.6 Health and Safety................................................................................................. 5-6 

5.6.1 Impacts of Testing Rocket Engines ......................................................... 5-6 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 vi 

5.6.2 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 5-6 

5.7 Noise .................................................................................................................... 5-6 

5.7.1 Impacts of Testing Rocket Engines ......................................................... 5-6 

5.7.2 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 5-7 

5.8 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice........................................................ 5-7 

5.8.1 Impacts of Testing Rocket Engines ......................................................... 5-7 

5.8.2 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 5-8 

5.9 Transportation Impacts ........................................................................................ 5-8 

5.9.1 Impacts of Testing Rocket Engines ......................................................... 5-8 

5.9.2 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 5-8 

5.10 Visual Resources.................................................................................................. 5-9 

5.10.1 Impacts of Testing Rocket Engines ......................................................... 5-9 

5.10.2 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 5-9 

5.11 Water Resources .................................................................................................. 5-9 

5.11.1 Impacts of Testing Rocket Engines ......................................................... 5-9 

5.11.2 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 5-9 

6 MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................................................................... 6-1 

6.1 Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 6-1 

6.2 Airspace ............................................................................................................... 6-1 

6.3 Biological Resources ........................................................................................... 6-1 

6.4 Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................ 6-1 

6.5 Waste Management.............................................................................................. 6-2 

6.6 Health and Safety................................................................................................. 6-2 

6.7 Transportation...................................................................................................... 6-2 

7 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM 

MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT...................... 7-1 

8 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES ........ 8-1 

9 ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED ........... 9-1 

10 SECONDARY OR INDUCED IMPACTS ................................................................... 10-1 

11 LIST OF PREPARERS.................................................................................................. 11-1 

12 GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................. 12-1 

13 AGENCIES CONTACTED........................................................................................... 13-1 

14 EA DISTRIBUTION ..................................................................................................... 14-1 

15 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 15-1

APPENDIX A EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED ACTION AND 

ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................... A-1

A.1 Methodology for Determining Per Launch/Reentry Emissions Loads in Various 

Atmospheric Layers............................................................................................ A-1 

A.1.1 Proposed Action and Alternative Activity Emissions ............................ A-2 

A.2 Methodology for Calculating Cumulative Emissions Loads in Various 

Atmospheric Layers............................................................................................ A-5 

A.2.1 Estimated Annual Emission Loads below 914 meters (3,000 feet)........ A-6 

A.2.2 Estimated Annual Emission Loads to the Troposphere.......................... A-8 

A.2.3 Estimated Annual Emission Loads to the Stratosphere ........................ A-10 

A.2.4 Estimated Annual Emission Loads to the Mesosphere......................... A-11 

A.2.5 Estimated Annual Emission Loads to the Ionosphere .......................... A-12 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 vii 

A.3 Methodology for Calculating Emissions Loads from Rocket Engine Tests..... A-12 

APPENDIX B POTENTIAL ACCIDENT SCENARIOS...............................................B-1

B.1 Accidents During Ignition....................................................................................B-1 

B.2 Accident During Vehicle Ascent or Descent.......................................................B-2 

B.2.1 Mechanical, Electrical, or Computer Failure...........................................B-2 

B.2.2 Midair Explosion .....................................................................................B-2 

B.2.3 Accident during Landing .........................................................................B-3 

B.3 Accidental Release of Propellant or Hazardous Substances................................B-3 

APPENDIX C RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ...............................................................C-1

C.1 Ms. Cindy Schneberger, Private Citizen..............................................................C-2 

C.1.1 Comment Document E001.......................................................................C-2 

C.1.2 Comment Document E002.......................................................................C-3 

C.2 Mr. Robert Brooks, Oklahoma Archeological Survey.........................................C-4 

C.2.1 Comment M001-1....................................................................................C-4 

C.3 Mr. Fred Nahwooksy, Comanche Tribe ..............................................................C-5 

C.3.1 Comment M002-1....................................................................................C-5 

C.4 Ms. Stephanie Krouter, Oklahoma Conservation Commission...........................C-6 

C.4.1 Comment M003-1....................................................................................C-6 

C.5 Ms. Heidi Williams, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)................C-8 

C.5.1 Comment M004-1....................................................................................C-9 

C.5.2 Comment M004-2..................................................................................C-10 

C.5.3 Comment M004-3..................................................................................C-10 

C.5.4 Comment M004-4..................................................................................C-11 

C.5.5 Comment M004-5..................................................................................C-11 

C.5.6 Comment M004-6..................................................................................C-12 

C.6 Mr. Gary Morgan...............................................................................................C-13 

C.6.1 Comment PHW001 .................................................................................C-13 

C.7 Ms. Cindy Schneberger........................................................................................C-14 

C.7.1 Comment PHO001-1 .............................................................................C-14 

C.7.2 Comment PHO0001-2............................................................................C-14 

C.8 Senator Gilmer Capps........................................................................................C-16 

C.8.1 Comment PHO002.................................................................................C-16 

C.9 Mr. Bill Khourie..................................................................................................C-18 

C.9.1 Comment PHO003 .................................................................................C-18 

C.10 Mr. Ken McGill.................................................................................................C-19 

C.10.1 Comment PHO004.................................................................................C-19 

C.11 Mr. John Herrington..........................................................................................C-20 

C.11.1 Comment PHO005.................................................................................C-20 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 viii 

Table of Exhibits 

Exhibit ES-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts from the Proposed Action and 

 Alternatives........................................................................................................ES-5 

Exhibit ES-2. Mitigation Measures.........................................................................................ES-14 

Exhibit 2-1. Location of the Oklahoma Spaceport Territory................................................... 2-3 

Exhibit 2-2. Existing Hangar at CSIA ..................................................................................... 2-4 

Exhibit 2-3. Existing Facilities at the CSIA............................................................................. 2-5 

Exhibit 2-4. Proposed Facilities for the CSIA ......................................................................... 2-8 

Exhibit 2-5. Proposed Northwest Corridor for the CSIA......................................................... 2-9 

Exhibit 2-6. Proposed Southwest Operational Corridor ........................................................ 2-10 

Exhibit 2-7. Representative Concept X Vehicle .................................................................... 2-11 

Exhibit 2-8. Maximum Number of Launches of Concept X Launch Vehicles Per Year ...... 2-13 

Exhibit 2-9. Representative Concept Y Launch Vehicle ....................................................... 2-13 

Exhibit 2-10. Maximum Number of Launches of Concept Y Launch Vehicles Per Year ...... 2-15 

Exhibit 2-11. Representative Concept Z Launch Vehicle........................................................ 2-16 

Exhibit 2-12. Maximum Number of Launches of Concept Z Launch Vehicles Per Year....... 2-18 

Exhibit 2-13. Summary of Launch Vehicle Concepts Proposed for Launch from the CSIA.. 2-18 

Exhibit 2-14. Summary of Available Resources at Various Launch Site Locations............... 2-22 

Exhibit 3-1. Aerial View of the CSIA...................................................................................... 3-2

Exhibit 3-2. Aerial View of the CSIA in Operation as the Clinton Naval Air Station............ 3-3 

Exhibit 3-3. View along Ramp Area at CSIA in Operation as Clinton-Sherman AFB........... 3-3 

Exhibit 3-4. Overlay of Clinton Naval Air Station, Clinton-Sherman AFB, and CSIA.......... 3-4 

Exhibit 3-5. Altitude Range for Atmospheric Layers.............................................................. 3-6 

Exhibit 3-6. Federal and Oklahoma Ambient Air Quality Standards...................................... 3-9 

Exhibit 3-7. Emission Rate Increases Considered “Significant” for PSD Regulations......... 3-12 

Exhibit 3-8. U.S. Airspace Classification .............................................................................. 3-13 

Exhibit 3-9. Wildlife Potentially Present at CSIA ................................................................. 3-17 

Exhibit 3-10. Herndon Map Displaying Oil and Gas Wells at the CSIA ................................ 3-23 

Exhibit 3-11. Summary of Remediation Actions at the CSIA................................................. 3-27 

Exhibit 3-12. Fire and Rescue Department at CSIA................................................................ 3-29 

Exhibit 3-13. Oklahoma Spaceport Territory .......................................................................... 3-30 

Exhibit 3-14. Current DNL Contours at the CSIA................................................................... 3-36 

Exhibit 3-15. Acres of Land and Population within Noise Contours at the CSIA .................. 3-37 

Exhibit 3-16. Population and Population Density, 2000.......................................................... 3-39 

Exhibit 3-17. Education Profile of Populations Over the Age of 25, 2000 ............................. 3-39 

Exhibit 3-18. General Economic and Housing Profile of the Population................................ 3-40 

Exhibit 3-19. Unemployment Rates, 2000............................................................................... 3-40 

Exhibit 3-20. Percent of Population Employed by Occupation, 2000..................................... 3-41 

Exhibit 3-21. Percentage of Total Population by Census Category, 2000............................... 3-42 

Exhibit 3-22. Percentage of Population of Hispanic or Latino Origin (any race), 2000 ......... 3-42 

Exhibit 3-23. Percentage of Individuals below Poverty Level in the Region.......................... 3-42 

Exhibit 3-24. Distribution of Population by Age, in percent of persons, 2000 ....................... 3-43 

Exhibit 3-25. Rail Spur in Warehouse Area of CSIA.............................................................. 3-45 

Exhibit 3-26. View from the CSIA Looking to the West ........................................................ 3-47 

Exhibit 3-27. View from Outside the CSIA Looking East at the Runway and Structures ...... 3-47 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 ix 

Exhibit 3-28. Surface Drainage Area East of Runway ............................................................ 3-48 

Exhibit 3-29. Building 208 in Warehouse Area....................................................................... 3-48 

Exhibit 3-30. CSIA and Vicinity Map Showing Ridgeline ..................................................... 3-50 

Exhibit 4-1. Maximum Number of Launches Under the Proposed Action from the CSIA for 

2006-2010 ............................................................................................................ 4-2 

Exhibit 4-2. Maximum Number of Launches under Alternative 1 from the CSIA for 2006-

2010...................................................................................................................... 4-3 

Exhibit 4-3. Maximum Number of Launches under Alternative 2 from the CSIA for 2006-

2010...................................................................................................................... 4-3 

Exhibit 4-4. Estimated Air Emissions for Aircraft Operations at the CSIA Based on Fiscal 

Year 2002 Planned Aircraft Operations............................................................... 4-5 

Exhibit 4-5. Operations at the CSIA for Fiscal Year 2001 ...................................................... 4-5 

Exhibit 4-6. Estimated Emissions below 914 meters (3,000 feet) per RLV Flight Based on 

Vehicle Type, Kilograms (Tons) ......................................................................... 4-6 

Exhibit 4-7. Estimated Annual Emissions below 914 meters (3,000 feet) for Proposed Action, 

Kilograms (Tons)................................................................................................. 4-6 

Exhibit 4-8. Comparison Emission Rates, Kilograms (Tons).................................................. 4-7 

Exhibit 4-9. Estimated Emissions in Stratosphere by LV Launch Based on Vehicle Type, 

Kilograms (Tons)................................................................................................. 4-8 

Exhibit 4-10. Estimated Annual Emissions in the Stratosphere for Proposed Action, Kilograms 

(Tons)................................................................................................................... 4-9 

Exhibit 4-11. Distance from the CSIA to MOAs..................................................................... 4-16 

Exhibit 4-12. Relation between Noise Level Metrics DNL, CDNL, and Annoyance............. 4-39 

Exhibit 4-13. Estimated Sonic Boom Peak Overpressure and CDNL..................................... 4-42 

Exhibit 4-14. Delivery Routes at the CSIA.............................................................................. 4-49 

Exhibit 4-15. Determination of Impact Based on Visual Dominance and Visual Sensitivity. 4-52 

Exhibit 5-1. Estimated Annual Emissions to the Troposphere from Rocket Engine Testing.. 5-3 

Exhibit 5-2. Comparison of Baseline Aircraft and Proposed Static Engine Test Emissions with 

Projected Emissions Associated with the Proposed Action................................. 5-4 

Exhibit 5-3. Estimated Rocket Engine Test Noise Levels....................................................... 5-7 

Exhibit A-1. Altitude Range for Various Atmospheric Layers ............................................... A-1 

Exhibit A-2. Overview of Launch Vehicle Types ................................................................... A-3 

Exhibit A-3. Jet Engine Emissions per Take Off/Landing Cycle (below 914 meters [3,000 

feet]).................................................................................................................... A-3 

Exhibit A-4. Estimated Propellant Consumption by Atmospheric Layer................................ A-4 

Exhibit A-5. Emission Weight Fractions for LOX/Kerosene Rocket Propellant Emissions... A-4 

Exhibit A-6. Emission Weight Fractions for N2O/HTPB Rocket Propellant Emissions......... A-4 

Exhibit A-7. Total Emission Loads per Launch or Reentry for Proposed Action and 

Alternatives, by Vehicle...................................................................................... A-4 

Exhibit A-8. Vehicle Launches Associated with the Proposed Action and Alternatives, 2006-

2010..................................................................................................................... A-5 

Exhibit A-9. Estimated Annual PM Emission Loads below 914 meters (3,000 feet) ............. A-6 

Exhibit A-10. Estimated Annual NOX Emission Loads below 914 meters (3,000 feet) ........... A-6 

Exhibit A-11. Estimated Annual SOX Emission Loads below 914 meters (3,000 feet)............ A-6 

Exhibit A-12. Estimated Annual CO Emission Loads below 914 meters (3,000 feet) ............. A-6 

Exhibit A-13. Estimated Annual CO2 Emission Loads below 914 meters (3,000 feet) ............ A-7 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 x 

Exhibit A-14. Estimated Annual H2O Emission Loads below 914 meters (3,000 feet)............ A-7 

Exhibit A-15. Estimated Annual VOC Emission Loads below 914 meters (3,000 feet)........... A-7 

Exhibit A-16. Estimated Annual H2 Emission Loads below 914 meters (3,000 feet)............... A-7 

Exhibit A-17. Estimated Annual PM Emission Loads to the Troposphere ............................... A-8 

Exhibit A-18. Estimated Annual NOX Emission Loads to the Troposphere ............................. A-8 

Exhibit A-19. Estimated Annual SOX Emission Loads to the Troposphere.............................. A-8 

Exhibit A-20. Estimated Annual CO Emission Loads to the Troposphere ............................... A-8 

Exhibit A-21. Estimated Annual CO2 Emission Loads to the Troposphere.............................. A-9 

Exhibit A-22. Estimated Annual H2O Emission Loads to the Troposphere.............................. A-9 

Exhibit A-23. Estimated Annual VOC Emission Loads to the Troposphere ............................ A-9 

Exhibit A-24. Estimated Annual H2 Emission Loads to the Troposphere................................. A-9 

Exhibit A-25. Estimated Annual CO Emission Loads to the Stratosphere.............................. A-10 

Exhibit A-26. Estimated Annual CO2 Emission Loads to the Stratosphere ............................ A-10 

Exhibit A-27. Estimated Annual H2O Emission Loads to the Stratosphere............................ A-10 

Exhibit A-28. Estimated Annual H2 Emission Loads to the Stratosphere............................... A-11 

Exhibit A-29. Estimated Annual CO Emission Loads to the Mesosphere .............................. A-11 

Exhibit A-30. Estimated Annual CO2 Emission Loads to the Mesosphere............................. A-11 

Exhibit A-31. Estimated Annual H2O Emission Loads to the Mesosphere............................. A-12 

Exhibit A-32. Estimated Annual H2 Emission Loads to the Mesosphere................................ A-12 

Exhibit A-33. Total Emissions Per Rocket Engine Test.......................................................... A-13 

Exhibit A-34. Estimated Annual Emissions to the Troposphere From Rocket 

 Engine Testing .................................................................................................. A-13 

Exhibit C-1. Summary of the Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment ................C-1 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 xi 

ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS 

ADT Average Daily Traffic 

AFB Air Force Base 

AGL Above Ground Level 

AQCR Air Quality Control Regions 

Ar Argon 

ARP Office of Airports 

ARTCC Air Route Traffic Control Center 

AST Office of Commercial Space Transportation 

BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CO Carbon monoxide 

CO2 Carbon dioxide 

CSLAA Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act 

CSIA Clinton-Sherman Industrial Airpark 

dB Decibel 

DERP Defense Environmental Restoration Program 

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality 

DNL Day Night Level 

DoD Department of Defense 

DOT Department of Transportation 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EO Executive Order 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FBO Fixed Base Operator 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

FR Federal Register 

FSS Flight Safety System 

FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites 

GPS Global Positioning System 

H2 Hydrogen 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant 

HCl Hydrogen Chloride 

He Helium 

HTPB Hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene 

IFR Instrument Flight Rules 

IIP Instantaneous Impact Point 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 xii 

LOA Letter of Agreement 

LOX Liquid oxygen 

mg/m3 Milligrams per cubic meter 

μg/ m3 Micrograms per cubic meter 

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level 

MOA Military Operations Area 

MODA Midwestern Oklahoma Development Authority 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MSL Mean Sea Level 

N2 Molecular Nitrogen 

N2O Nitrous oxide 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAS National Airspace System 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NH3 Ammonia 

NO Nitric oxide 

NO2 Nitrogen dioxide 

NOX Nitrogen oxides 

NOTAMs Notices to Airmen 

NPL National Priorities List 

National Register National Register of Historical Places 

O Oxygen 

O2 Molecular Oxygen 

O3 Ozone 

OAS Oklahoma Archaeological Survey 

ODEQ Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 

OHP Oklahoma Highway Patrol 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Act 

OSIDA Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority 

Pb Lead 

PIC Pilot in Command 

PM Particulate Matter 

ppm Parts per million 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

psf Pounds per Square Foot 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RLV Reusable Launch Vehicle 

ROI Region of Influence 

RP-1 Rocket Propellant-1 

SAC Strategic Air Command 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SEL Sound Exposure Level 

SO2 Sulfur dioxide 

SPCC Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 xiii 

SWODA Southwestern Oklahoma Development Authority 

TCE Trichloroethylene 

TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act 

UP Union Pacific 

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 

USAF United States Air Force 

U.S. United States 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

UV Ultraviolet 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 

VFR Visual Flight Rules
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 1-1 

1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as amended (42 United States Code 

[U.S.C.] 4321, et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for 

Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-

1508), and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: 

Policies and Procedures, direct FAA lead agency officials to consider the environmental 

consequences when planning for, authorizing, and approving Federal actions. When the FAA 

Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) issues a license or permit, it is considered a 

Federal action and is subject to review as required by NEPA. When the FAA approves the 

transfer of ownership of an airport, it is also subject to NEPA review. The FAA is responsible 

for determining the extent of NEPA analysis that is appropriate. For this proposed action, the 

FAA has determined that an Environmental Assessment (EA) is appropriate.3 An EA is a 

concise public document which briefly provides sufficient evidence for determining whether to 

prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) or a finding of no significant impact (FONSI), 

aids compliance with NEPA when no EIS is necessary, and facilitates preparation of an EIS 

when one is necessary. An EA contains an analysis of environmental consequences of a 

proposed action and reasonable alternatives (including no action), cumulative impacts, and 

mitigation actions. The FAA is the lead Federal agency for this NEPA process and the U.S. Air 

Force (USAF) is a cooperating agency for this proposed action. 

1.1 Background 

OSIDA, a state agency, proposes to develop and operate a commercial launch site at the CSIA 

located adjacent to the town of Burns Flat, Oklahoma. The City of Clinton, Oklahoma currently 

owns the CSIA. According to State law, ownership of the land would have to be transferred to 

OSIDA before the land could be developed using state funds. Additionally, the City of Clinton 

has been given approval from the FAA Office of Airports (ARP) for the land transfer of the 

CSIA to OSIDA upon completion of the EA with a FONSI. The CSIA is currently used by both 

military and civilian aircraft primarily as a training facility. To operate a commercial launch 

facility, OSIDA must obtain a license from the FAA AST. Individual launch operators 

proposing to conduct launches at the CSIA must also obtain a license or permit, as appropriate, 

from the FAA. 

Under the proposed action, the FAA would issue a launch site operator license for OSIDA to 

operate a launch facility at the CSIA and approve the land transfer of the CSIA. A license to 

operate a launch site authorizes a licensee to offer its launch site to a launch operator for each 

 

3

 The FAA published a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for this proposed project in 

the Federal Register (FR) (67 FR 65169) on October 23, 2002. However, OSIDA has since determined that their 

proposed action consists of only a subset of the activities that were originally proposed in the Notice of Intent. 

Therefore, the FAA reconsidered the scope of the analysis required to support the proposed action and alternatives 

and determined that an EA would more appropriately address the environmental consequences of the proposed 

action and alternatives. The original Notice of Intent included vertical and horizontal launches into orbital and 

suborbital trajectories, construction of facilities, ground activities, pre-flight and payload preparation, launch, 

reentry, landing/recovery, and vehicle manufacturing. On October 7, 2005, the FAA issued a notice in the FR 

announcing that the proposed action would be addressed in an EA. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 1-2 

launch point, launch vehicle type, and weight class identified in the license application and upon 

which the licensing determination is based. A launch site operator license remains in effect for 

five years from the date of issuance unless surrendered, suspended, or revoked before the 

expiration of the term and is renewable upon application by the licensee. (14 CFR § 420.43) 

Issuance of a license to operate a launch site does not relieve a licensee of its obligation to 

comply with any other laws or regulations, nor does it confer any proprietary, property, or 

exclusive rights in the use of airspace or outer space. (14 CFR § 420.41) 

In addition to the NEPA environmental review and determination, a launch site operator license 

applicant must complete a Safety Review and Approval, including an Explosive Site Plan, 

Accident Investigation Plan, and Launch Corridor Analysis. The Explosive Site Plan ensures the 

launch site configuration is in accordance with the distance requirements for locating explosive 

hazard facilities. The Accident Investigation Plan contains the licensee’s procedures for 

reporting, responding to, and investigating launch site accidents. The Launch Corridor Analysis 

defines the flight corridors in which debris from a non-nominal flight would be expected to 

impact. Air Traffic Airspace Management at the FAA must assess the proposed action in terms 

of potential impacts to the FAA airspace management to ensure safe and efficient operation of 

the National Airspace System (NAS). 

As part of this proposed action, the FAA would approve the transfer of ownership of the CSIA 

from the City of Clinton, Oklahoma, to OSIDA. The CSIA would continue to operate as a 

general aviation airport following the transfer of ownership. 

Under the proposed action, the FAA also may issue launch licenses or permits to individual 

operators for launches from the CSIA. Individual operators proposing to launch vehicles from 

the CSIA would need to apply for a launch license or permit from the FAA. The vehicles 

proposed to be launched at the CSIA would be horizontally launched reusable launch vehicles 

(RLVs) using suborbital trajectories. In this document, RLVs are launch vehicles that have 

stages or components that can return to Earth and be recovered or reused. A suborbital rocket is 

a vehicle, rocket-propelled in whole or in part, intended for flight on a suborbital trajectory, and 

the thrust of which is greater than its lift for the majority of the rocket-powered portion of its 

ascent. (49 U.S.C. § 70102(19)) Suborbital trajectory is the intentional flight path of a launch 

vehicle, reentry vehicle, or any portion thereof whose vacuum instantaneous impact point (IIP)4

does not leave the surface of the Earth. The vehicles proposed to be launched at the CSIA may 

carry space flight participants,5

 scientific experiments or other payloads.6 

There are two types of RLV licenses described in 14 CFR § 431.3. “A mission-specific license 

authorizing an RLV mission authorizes a licensee to launch and reenter, or otherwise land, one 

model or type of RLV from a launch site approved for the mission to a reentry site or other 

location authorized for the mission. A mission-specific license authorizing an RLV mission may 

 

4

 The IIP of a launch vehicle is the projected impact point on Earth where the vehicle would land if its engines stop 

or where vehicle debris, in the event of failure and break-up, would land. The notion of a “vacuum” IIP reflects the 

absence of atmospheric effects in performing the IIP calculation. If the vacuum IIP never leaves the Earth’s surface, 

the vehicle would not achieve Earth orbit and would therefore be on a suborbital trajectory. 5

 ‘Space flight participant’ means an individual who is not crew, carried within a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle. 6

 For purposes of this document, the payload is the item that an aircraft or rocket carries over and above what is 

necessary for the operation of the vehicle in flight. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 1-3 

authorize more than one RLV mission and identifies each flight of an RLV authorized under the 

license. A licensee’s authorization to conduct RLV missions terminates upon completion of all 

activities authorized by the license or the expiration date stated in the reentry license, whichever 

comes first. An operator license for RLV missions authorizes a licensee to launch and reenter, or 

otherwise land, any of a designated family of RLVs within authorized parameters, including 

launch sites and trajectories, transporting specified classes of payloads to any reentry site or 

other location designated in the license. An operator license for RLV missions is valid for a twoyear renewable term.” 

In some instances it may be appropriate for the FAA to issue experimental permits to companies 

to conduct operations from the CSIA. The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 

(CSLAA) gave the FAA the authority to issue experimental permits. These permits are for 

launches and reentries of reusable suborbital rockets. The purpose of the experimental permit 

regime is to reduce the regulatory burden on developers of RLVs during a launch vehicle’s 

development phase. An experimental permit is limited to reusable suborbital rockets flown for 

the following purposes: 

 Research and development to test new design concepts, new equipment, or new operating 

techniques; 

 Showing compliance with requirements as part of the process for obtaining a license; or 

 Crew training before obtaining a license for a launch using the design of the rocket for which 

the permit would be issued. (49 U.S.C. § 70105a(d)) 

Currently, the FAA issues experimental permits on a case-by-case basis. To that end, the FAA 

developed Guidelines for Experimental Permits for Reusable Suborbital Rockets, May 2005, to 

assist applicants and the FAA pending a final rulemaking implementing experimental permits. 

1.2 Federal Agency Involvement 

Two Federal agencies are involved in this proposed action, the FAA and the USAF. Within the 

FAA, AST is responsible for issuing a launch site operator license and any launch licenses or 

permits, as appropriate; and the Airports Division is responsible for approving the land transfer 

of the CSIA from the City of Clinton to OSIDA. The USAF is the primary user of the CSIA for 

aircrew training including landing and departures. In addition, the USAF’s current and yet 

undefined future activities could be impacted by the use of the CSIA as a launch site. 

1.2.1 Role of the FAA 

AST’s mission is to ensure protection of the public, property, and national security and foreign 

policy interests of the United States (U.S.) during a commercial launch or reentry activity and to 

encourage, facilitate, and promote U.S. commercial space transportation. AST’s mission is 

accomplished through both the regulation of commercial space launch and reentry activities and 

the promotion of industry growth. Low-cost, reliable access to space is the foundation on which 

many other commercial and strategic applications of space technology are based. The benefits 

and spin-offs from these technologies contribute to almost every aspect of the ability of the U.S. 

to remain at the forefront of world technology development and economic prosperity. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 1-4 

The CSLAA promotes the development of the emerging commercial space flight industry and 

makes the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the FAA responsible for regulating 

commercial human space flight under 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, Ch. 701. The CSLAA requires a 

phased approach to regulating human space flight; that is, regulatory standards governing human 

space flight must evolve as the industry matures. The CSLAA requires that the FAA: (1) issue 

guidance or advisory circulars to guide the implementation of the CSLAA as soon as practical; 

(2) issue proposed regulations that include those relating to crew, spaceflight participants, and 

permits for launch or reentry of reusable suborbital rockets not later than December 23, 2005; 

and (3) issue final regulations not later than June 23, 2006. 

Commercial launch companies have historically based their launch operations at Federal launch 

ranges operated by the Department of Defense (DoD) or the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). Until the development of commercial launch sites, Federal launch 

ranges provided commercial launch operators with facilities and launch support, including flight 

and range safety services. To enable and encourage the development and use of launch sites that 

are not operated or collocated with and not supported by a Federal launch range, the FAA 

established regulations for launches and reentries occurring from non-Federal launch sites (see 

14 CFR Parts 401, 417, and 420). These regulations also provide licensed launch site operators 

with licensing and safety requirements to protect the public from the risks associated with launch 

and reentry activities at licensed sites. The decision to license a commercial launch or the 

operation of a commercial launch site by the FAA is considered a major Federal action; 

consequently, the FAA is responsible for analyzing the environmental impacts associated with 

licensing proposed commercial launches or proposed commercial launch sites. 

The FAA ARP is responsible for approving the transfer of ownership of the CSIA from the City 

to Clinton, Oklahoma to OSIDA. This land transfer is a type of action that the FAA has found, 

based on past experience with similar actions, does not normally require an EA or EIS because it 

does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. 

Accordingly, this type of action is normally categorically excluded. However, because the land 

transfer is interrelated with the decision to license operation of a commercial launch site, this EA 

addresses the requirements of both FAA AST and FAA ARP. 

1.2.2 Role of the USAF 

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 Air Force Base (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 this EA has the 

potential to impact current and yet undefined future USAF operations at the CSIA. Therefore, 

the FAA requested and the USAF agreed to participate as a cooperating agency in the 

preparation of this EA. 

The USAF prepared an EA for the C-17 Program Changes at Altus AFB and the 97th Airlift 

Wing Commander signed a FONSI on August 19, 2004. The EA considered several possible 

actions including the possible construction of an Assault Landing Zone at the CSIA. The FONSI 

indicated that the USAF would pursue the proposed action, which was to accommodate the 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 1-5 

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 this EA. 

1.3 Site Operator and Launch Operator Involvement 

1.3.1 Site Operator - OSIDA 

The launch site operator license would be for the purpose of operating a facility to launch RLVs 

horizontally on suborbital trajectories. The launch facility may be used to launch manned 

vehicles or vehicles containing other payloads. 

It is reasonably foreseeable that rocket engine testing would occur at the CSIA. Rocket engine 

testing is not covered under a launch site operator license; therefore, the impacts of this related 

activity are considered in the cumulative impacts section of this document. 

The issuance of a launch site operator license would not permit OSIDA to conduct launches, 

only to offer the facility and infrastructure to launch operators. Individual launch operators 

proposing to conduct launches from the CSIA would need to obtain licenses or permits from the 

FAA. Launch providers would be responsible for ensuring that they have coordinated with the 

proper authorities regarding airspace usage. In addition, the City of Clinton, Oklahoma has 

received approval from the FAA ARP for the land transfer of the CSIA to OSIDA upon 

completion of the EA with a FONSI. 

To gain approval to operate a launch site, an applicant shall demonstrate that for each launch 

point proposed for the launch site, at least one type of launch vehicle can be flown from the 

launch site safely. (14 CFR Part 420.19(a)) If an applicant proposes to have more than one type 

of launch vehicle flown from a launch point, the applicant shall demonstrate that each type of 

launch vehicle planned to be flown from the launch point can be flown safely from the launch 

point. (14 CFR § 420.19(b)) OSIDA intends to offer the site for the launch of several classes of 

RLVs. Therefore, it is necessary for OSIDA to demonstrate that each type of RLV proposed for 

launch from the CSIA can be launched safely. 

Upon issuance of the required FAA license, OSIDA would open the CSIA to commercial launch 

operations; OSIDA plans to offer the site for horizontal suborbital launches in 2006. 

Descriptions of the various launch vehicle concepts proposed for launch from the CSIA are 

included in Section 2.1.4. 

1.3.2 Launch Operator 

Launch operators would be responsible for obtaining launch licenses or permits from the FAA to 

conduct launches at the CSIA. In instances where the proposed vehicle designs are similar to or 

the same as those discussed in this EA, the FAA may use the analysis in this document as the 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 1-6 

basis for an environmental determination of the impacts of launches. This environmental 

determination could be used to support licensing or permitting decisions for the launch of 

specific launch vehicles from the CSIA. 

1.4 Purpose and Need 

The purpose of the proposed action is to offer the CSIA as an alternative location to Federal 

facilities or other commercial sites for horizontal launches of RLVs using suborbital trajectories. 

The proposed action would allow OSIDA to offer the CSIA to customers wishing to conduct 

launch operations. Customers operating under a launch license may use the facility to provide 

for-profit launch services including tourism activities. Customers operating under an 

experimental permit may use the facility to conduct research, development, and testing of RLVs. 

These activities are consistent with the objectives of the CSLAA of 20047 and AST’s mission to 

encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial launch and reentry activities by the private sector. 

The purpose of the FAA action in connection with OSIDA’s request for licensure is to ensure 

compliance with international obligations of the 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 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 (§§ 47101-47153) and 14 CFR Parts 152 and 155. 

The proposed action is needed to meet the demand for lower cost access to space. Given the 

infrastructure and development costs associated with constructing launch facilities, the Federal 

government has been the owner/operator or has leased/sold unused or excess infrastructure and 

provided expertise to commercial launch operators for the majority of commercial launches. 

However, with the increasing demand for access to space, commercial launch site operators have 

begun to develop proposals to offer launch sites not collocated with Federal facilities or operated 

by the DoD and NASA. 

The FAA action is necessary in connection with OSIDA’s request for licensure because the 

Secretary of Transportation has assigned the FAA AST responsibility, under the CSLAA and 

Executive Order 12465, for oversight of commercial space launch activities, including licensing 

of launch and reentry sites. The FAA action is necessary in connection with the proposed 

property transfer from Clinton to OSIDA, because the Secretary of Transportation is charged 

with responsibility for deciding whether a proposed transfer of any interest in Federal property 

for public airport purposes is consistent with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 47151, and for 

ensuring compliance with an instrument conveying such an interest. 

 

7

 Formerly the Commercial Space Launch Act, see 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, Chapter 701 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 1-7 

1.5 Public Involvement 

The CEQ implementing regulations for NEPA describe public involvement requirements (see 40 

CFR § 1506.6). Public participation in the NEPA process not only provides for and encourages 

open communication between the FAA and the public, but also promotes better decision-making. 

On October 23, 2002, the FAA issued a Notice of Intent in the FR (67 FR 65169) announcing the 

intent to prepare an EIS and conduct public scoping meetings. During scoping, the FAA invited 

the participation of Federal, state, and local agencies, Native American tribes, environmental 

groups, organizations, citizens, and other interested parties to assist in determining the scope and 

significant issues to be evaluated in this effort. 

Two scoping meetings were held in November 2002 to request input from the public on concerns 

regarding the proposed activities as well as to gather information and knowledge of issues 

relevant to analyzing the environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. The 

scoping meetings provided the public with an opportunity to learn more about the proposed 

project. The scoping meetings were held at the Western Technology Center, Burns Flat, 

Oklahoma on November 13, 2002 and at the Metro Technology Center, Springlake Campus, 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on November 14, 2002. The scoping meetings consisted of a 

presentation by the FAA, a public comment session, and an information poster session with 

representatives on hand to answer questions. The FAA presentation outlined the NEPA process, 

the proposed activities, and the role of public involvement in the NEPA process. The public 

involvement materials presented at these meetings can be reviewed and downloaded at the 

following Internet address http://www.okspaceporteis.com. 

Five attendees provided oral comments at the scoping meetings. Two attendees spoke on behalf 

of OSIDA; the remaining three speakers were from the general public. Twelve written 

comments were also provided by the public during the scoping comment period. The majority of 

comments received were related to the benefits that additional activities at the CSIA could bring 

to the area, including the creation of jobs and economic growth and development in western 

Oklahoma. Concerns raised by the public included noise impacts to cattle, noise at night, sonic 

booms, potential water pollution, potential loss of land for the establishment of a safety zone, and 

storage of explosives and propellants at the CSIA. In addition to the scoping meetings, the 

public was provided the opportunity to comment via phone and fax numbers, mail, and e-mail. 

The comments and concerns raised by the public have been incorporated into this document, as 

appropriate. 

The original Notice of Intent included vertical and horizontal launches into orbital and suborbital 

trajectories, construction of facilities, ground activities, pre-flight and payload preparation, 

launch, reentry, landing/recovery, and vehicle manufacturing. OSIDA has since determined that 

their proposed action consists of only a subset of the activities that were originally proposed in 

the Notice of Intent. Therefore, the FAA reconsidered the scope of the analysis required to 

support the proposed action and alternatives and determined that an EA would more 

appropriately address the environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives. 

On October 7, 2005, the FAA issued a notice in the FR announcing that the proposed action 

would be addressed in an EA. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 1-8 

The FAA held a public hearing to request comments on the Draft EA. The public hearing was 

held on March 9, 2006 at the Western Technology Center in Burns Flat, Oklahoma. All public 

comments received during the public comment period, including those received at the public 

hearing, were considered as appropriate in this Final EA. The meeting on the Draft EA consisted 

of a presentation by the FAA, a public comment session, and an information poster session with 

representatives on hand to answer questions. The FAA presentation outlined the NEPA process, 

the proposed activities, and the role of public involvement in the NEPA process. The public 

involvement materials presented at the meeting can be reviewed and downloaded at the 

following Internet address http://www.okspaceporteis.com. 

Five attendees provided oral comments at the scoping meeting. Two attendees spoke on behalf 

of OSIDA; one on behalf of Rocketplane; one was an elected official; and one speaker was from 

the general public. Six written comments were also provided by the public during the Draft EA 

comment period – two of which were received via e-mail and four via regular mail. The 

majority of comments received were related to the benefits that additional activities at the CSIA 

could bring to the area, including the creation of jobs and economic growth and development in 

western Oklahoma. A concern raised by the public was whether or not private individuals who 

own land that falls within the Spaceport Territory would receive fair market value in the event 

the land is purchased, in addition to concerns about the Spaceport’s potential impact to housing 

values and mineral rights. Other concerns included potential spills and their impacts on surface 

water and ground water, and the impacts on general aviation operations and the National 

Airspace System (NAS). In addition to the public meeting on the Draft EA, the public was 

provided the opportunity to comment via fax, mail, and e-mail. The comments and concerns 

raised by the public have been incorporated into this document, as appropriate. Specific 

responses to comments are available in Appendix C. 

1.6 Related Environmental Documentation 

The CEQ NEPA implementing regulations state that agencies shall incorporate material by 

reference when the effect will be to cut down on bulk without impeding agency and public 

review of the action. The incorporated material must be cited in the statement and its content 

briefly described. The DOT, NASA, and USAF have previously analyzed the environmental 

effects of launches, launch site operations, and activities at the CSIA that are hereby incorporated 

by reference. Other planning and site-specific documents that were used as references in the 

preparation of this EA are cited as appropriate. The following NEPA documents were used by 

the FAA in the preparation of this EA and are incorporated by reference. 

 DOT. Final Environmental Assessment for the East Kern Airport District Launch Site 

Operator License for the Mojave Airport, February 2004. 

 DOT. Final Environmental Assessment for the Site, Launch, Reentry, and Recovery 

Operations at the Kistler Launch Facility, Nevada Test Site, April 2002. 

 Department of the Air Force. Final Environmental Assessment for C-17 Program Changes 

for Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma, July 2004. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 1-9 

 Department of the Air Force. Proposed Acquisition of Real Estate Interests for Altus Air 

Force Base, March 1998. 

 Department of the Air Force. Environmental Assessment for Specialized Undergraduate 

Pilot Training for Vance Air Force Base, Oklahoma, February 1997. 

 Department of the Air Force. Final Environmental Assessment of Slow Routes and 

Instrument Routes for Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma, February 1996. 

In accordance with CEQ NEPA implementing regulations, this EA tiers from the following 

programmatic documents: 

 DOT. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing Launches, 

May 2001. 

 DOT. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Horizontal Launch and 

Reentry of Reentry Vehicles, January 2006. 

“Tiering refers to the coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact statements 

(such as national program or policy statements) with subsequent narrower statements or 

environmental analyses (such as statements) incorporating by reference the general discussions 

and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the statement subsequently prepared.” (40 CFR 

§ 1508.28) This EA summarizes the relevant analyses from the PEIS for Licensing Launches 

and the PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles and concentrates on issues 

that are specific to this action. 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 2-1 

2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative 

The proposed action/preferred alternative is for the FAA to issue a launch site operator license to 

OSIDA for the CSIA. The FAA may also issue launch licenses or permits to individual 

operators for launches from the CSIA. OSIDA intends to operate a launch site at the CSIA by 

providing customers a site from which to conduct horizontal launches of RLVs using suborbital 

trajectories. The requirements for obtaining and possessing a license to operate a launch site are 

contained in 14 CFR Chapter III, part 420. Under the regulations, a license applicant is required 

to provide the FAA with information sufficient to conduct environmental and policy reviews and 

determinations. 

This EA is intended to provide the information and analysis required to fulfill the NEPA 

requirements for the FAA to make a determination to prepare an EIS or FONSI regarding the 

issuance of a launch site operator license and the licensing or permitting of the launch of certain 

types of launch vehicles, and the transfer of ownership of the CSIA. 

The completion of the environmental review process does not guarantee that the FAA would 

issue a launch site operator license to OSIDA for the CSIA. The project must also meet all FAA 

safety, risk, and indemnification requirements. In addition, a license to operate a launch site 

does not guarantee that a launch license or permit would be granted for any particular launch 

proposed from the site. All individual launch license and permit applications would be subject to 

separate FAA review. 

OSIDA has identified three types of horizontally launched RLVs that are considered typical of 

those vehicles proposed to be launched from the CSIA. These vehicles are identified in this 

analysis as Concept X, Concept Y, and Concept Z. Descriptions of these vehicles are provided 

in Section 2.1.4. The proposed action/preferred alternative would include the operation of a 

launch site to support launches of all three types of vehicles. 

The following subsections provide background and description of the proposed action/preferred 

alternative, alternatives to the proposed action, and the no action alternative. 

2.1.1 OSIDA 

OSIDA, the launch site operator license applicant, is a State agency created by the Oklahoma 

legislature in 1999 through Senate Bill 720. The Space Industry Tax Incentive Act (Senate Bill 

719) encourages commercial aerospace development in the State through tax credits. OSIDA’s 

mission is to create a launch facility in southwest Oklahoma, attract space industry to the State, 

enhance economic development of the State, and encourage space-related technology in the state 

school system at all levels. OSIDA has a seven member volunteer board of directors appointed 

by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. The Executive Director oversees agency 

operations. OSIDA has entered into memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with various 

interested parties who wish to conduct commercial launches of RLVs and participate in 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 2-2 

aerospace related activities in Oklahoma. OSIDA identified the CSIA as the preferred location 

for the launch facility and named the proposed site the “Oklahoma Spaceport.” 

2.1.2 CSIA 

The CSIA is located approximately 160 kilometers (100 miles) west of Oklahoma City and 11 

kilometers (7 miles) south of Interstate 40. The 1,090-hectare (2,700-acre) site is owned by the 

City of Clinton and is included within a 435-square kilometer (168-square mile) area designated 

by the Oklahoma state legislature as a Spaceport Territory.8

 Exhibit 2-1 shows the location of 

the Spaceport Territory in relation to the CSIA. 

In 1942 the DoD purchased over 2,000 hectares (5,000 acres) to develop the Clinton Naval Air 

Station. The facility was used primarily as a training facility for pilots. Training operations 

ceased at the facility in 1946 and the land and infrastructure were acquired by the City of 

Clinton. At that time, the facility was renamed the Clinton-Sherman Airport and began operation 

as an industrial airpark. In 1955, approximately 1,090 hectares (2,700 acres) of the site were 

transferred to the USAF for use as a Strategic Air Command (SAC) fighter and bomber base. 

This portion of the facility was renamed the Clinton-Sherman AFB. Numerous facilities, 

including 900 housing units and a new runway were constructed at the base. Between 1955 and 

1964, an additional 1,660 hectares (4,101 acres) of surrounding land were acquired through 

purchases and easements. (Benham Group, 1995) 

During the 1960s, military operations were de-emphasized and the Clinton-Sherman AFB was 

formally closed on December 31, 1969. The USAF maintained the facility until the property was 

deeded back to the City of Clinton on June 25, 1971. At that time the former AFB was renamed 

the Clinton-Sherman Industrial Airpark. The housing units were purchased by the Midwestern 

Oklahoma Development Authority (MODA) and were sold in the late 1970s. In 1993, the City 

of Clinton leased the CSIA to Southwestern Oklahoma Development Authority (SWODA) to 

manage and maintain the facility. (Benham Group, 1995) The City of Clinton currently owns the 

CSIA, and OSIDA must obtain a formal land transfer to develop the land. This land transfer 

would need to be approved by FAA ARP following completion of this EA. 

 

8

 This Spaceport Territory was designated to provide a launch pad and a geographic area contiguous to a launch 

facility that would be used to protect the surrounding areas from health and safety hazards as a result of the 

operation of the launch facility. In addition to establishing the Territory, the Legislature also established a Spaceport 

Territory Advisory Council made up of a member of the Washita County Commissioners and the Mayors of Burns 

Flat and Canute. Their authority includes setting zoning, collecting fees, ownership of utilities and roads, and the 

power to condemn up to 10 hectares (25 acres) of land in the territory. See Section 3.9.3.1, for more detail on the 

Spaceport Territory. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 2-3 

Exhibit 2-1. Location of the Oklahoma Spaceport Territory 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 2-4 

2.1.2.1 Existing Facilities 

The CSIA has several existing buildings and hangars that could be used by potential customers. 

The Spaceport Operation Center would be located in Building 501, which is located at the corner 

of C Avenue and 4th Street. This facility was previously used for computer science classes and 

currently houses OSIDA’s administrative offices. This facility is equipped with power, phone, 

and fiber optic capabilities to meet OSIDA’s needs for administrative and operational purposes. 

OSIDA would have direct communication with the control tower during launch operations and 

would keep a staff member in the control tower during launch operations. The control tower is 

equipped with an auxiliary generator to provide continuous communication. OSIDA also would 

have two-way battery powered communication between the control tower and the control center 

in the event of a power failure. 

The CSIA includes six hangars, ranging in size from about 1,579 to 3,066 square meters (17,000 

to 33,000 square feet) (see Exhibit 2-2) and a fueling building measuring 557 square meters 

(6,000 square feet). A vacant manufacturing facility is also available. 

Exhibit 2-2. Existing Hangar at CSIA 

Source: SWODA, 2005 

Exhibit 2-3 shows the existing facilities at the CSIA. The CSIA has two runways. The main 

runway, designated 17R/35L, is about 4,115 meters (13,500 feet) long and 91 meters (300 feet) 

wide. A smaller parallel runway, designated 17L/35R, is about 1,585 meters (5,200 feet) long 

and 46 meters (150 feet) wide and is marked on the parallel taxiway and into the ramp area. 

General aviation aircraft use the smaller runway and USAF aircraft primarily use the main 

runway. (SWODA, 2005) 

The Airpark is connected with the Farmrail railroad by a spur that joins the main line about 11 

kilometers (7 miles) southeast of the Airpark. The rail spur may require inspection and 

evaluation prior to use. 

 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 2-5 

Exhibit 2-3. Existing Facilities at the CSIA 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 2-6 

2.1.2.2 Current Uses 

In 2003, there were approximately 47,000 aircraft operations conducted at the CSIA. Most of 

these were military operations, with Vance AFB accounting for roughly 24,000, Altus AFB for 

about 16,000, and other military installations accounting for 1,600. The remaining operations 

consisted of civilian operations, overflights of the airport, and instrument approaches. 

The military conducts takeoffs and landings and transition training, which includes normal and 

emergency visual and instrument approaches and landings. Training may also include missed 

approaches, low approaches, touch-and-gos, refused landings, and full stop landings. 

It is reasonably foreseeable that static rocket engine testing would occur at the CSIA. OSIDA 

may continue to offer the CSIA as a location to test these types of engines. Rocket engines 

would be tested using a mobile trailer tied down to the test area. During tests, the mobile trailer 

would be located near Building 44 at the CSIA. Rocket engines that are tested at the CSIA 

would either be incorporated into vehicles that are launched at the CSIA or they could be 

incorporated into vehicles that are launched at other facilities. 

The rocket engines tested at the CSIA would consist of Rocketdyne 88 and similar engines that 

use liquid oxygen (LOX) and Rocket Propellant-1 (RP-1) as propellants. A maximum of 16 tests 

could be conducted per year at the CSIA with each test lasting up to 100 seconds. The largest of 

these tests could require up to approximately 5,761 kilograms (12,700 pounds) of LOX and 

2,404 kilograms (5,300 pounds) of RP-1, per test. The smallest tests could require 

approximately 204 kilograms (450 pounds) of LOX and 86 kilograms (190 pounds) of RP-1, per 

test. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that all 16 annual engine tests would be 

the largest types of tests and therefore, this analysis considers the worst case scenario. While not 

a part of the licensing process, the testing of rocket engines is considered as part of the 

cumulative impacts discussion for this EA. 

2.1.2.3 Decommissioning Activities 

Decommissioning would occur if launch activities were approved and conducted at the site and 

OSIDA eventually decided to stop operating the CSIA as a launch site. If launch activities 

ceased at the CSIA, the site would continue existing operations as a general aviation airport and 

USAF training facility. In addition, depending on the terms of the transfer agreement, it is 

possible that if launch activities ceased at the CSIA, the land would be returned to the City of 

Clinton. The specific terms of this return of the site would be determined as part of the land 

transfer agreement and are outside the scope of this EA.

2.1.3 Proposed Activities 

This EA addresses the overall impacts to the environment of the proposed operations anticipated 

for the five-year period supporting the launch site operator license issued by the FAA. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 2-7 

Therefore, the activities analyzed in the proposed action are those associated with the launching 

and landing Concept X, Y, and Z launch vehicles at the CSIA, as follows:9

 

 Transporting the vehicle, vehicle components, and propellants to the CSIA via road, rail, air, 

or a combination of the three methods; 

 Assembling the various vehicle components; 

 Conducting ground-based tests and checkout activities; 

 Loading the pilot, passengers, and/or other payload; 

 Fueling the launch vehicle; 

 Towing or moving the launch vehicle to the proper launch or takeoff location; 

 Igniting the rocket motors; 

 Collecting any debris from the runway prior to vehicle landing; and 

 Recovering and transporting the launch vehicle from the runway after landing. 

The FAA issues licenses or permits for the operation of the vehicles and the launch site. The 

proposed activities would not include any construction at the CSIA. Exhibit 2-4 shows the 

proposed locations for various activities at the CSIA including the operations control center, fuel 

holding area, fuel loading area, oxidizer storage area, and oxidizer and passenger loading areas. 

Horizontally launched vehicles may use rocket engines, turbojet engines, or jet powered assist 

vehicles during takeoff. These vehicles would takeoff and land horizontally from the runway at 

the CSIA. Vehicles landing at the CSIA may use powered or unpowered methods. The various 

types of vehicles proposed to be launched from the CSIA are described in Section 2.1.4. The 

launch vehicle and any assist aircraft would both be piloted. The launch vehicle operators would 

be required to comply with the FAA’s current version of the Guidelines for Commercial 

Suborbital Reusable Launch Vehicle Operations with Flight Crew. Because some of the vehicles 

may also carry fare paying passengers the FAA’s current version of the Guidelines for 

Commercial Suborbital Reusable Launch Vehicle Operations with Space Flight Participants

may also apply. 

 

There are two launch and landing corridors proposed to be used from the CSIA. The primary 

corridor would use the airspace to the northwest of the CSIA and the alternate corridor would use 

the airspace to the southwest. Exhibits 2-5 and 2-6 show the two proposed operating corridors 

for the CSIA. All launch-related activity would occur within the designated corridors. The 

amount of area used would depend on the specific mission. Prior to launches from the CSIA, the 

launch operator would be responsible for complying with all applicable FAA licensing or 

permitting requirements, including any required calculations regarding expected casualties. The 

FAA would consider safety concerns as part of the mission and safety analysis prior to making a 

decision about issuing a launch site operator license to OSIDA or a launch license or permit to a 

launch operator. 

 

9

 The specific activities associated with launching and landing each type of concept vehicle are described in Section 

2.1.4. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 

Exhibit 2-4. Proposed Facilities for the CSIA 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 2-9 

Exhibit 2-5. Proposed Northwest Corridor for the CSIA 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 2-10 

Exhibit 2-6. Proposed Southwest Operational Corridor 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 2-11 

2.1.4 Launch Vehicle Concepts 

OSIDA has identified three types of suborbital horizontally launched RLVs that are considered 

typical of the vehicles that would operate from the CSIA. The potential users of the launch site 

would be responsible for obtaining any necessary permits or approvals including a launch license 

or permit for specific missions from the FAA. This EA may be used as the basis for the FAA to 

make a determination about licensing or permitting the launches of some types of launch 

vehicles from the CSIA. Launch vehicles proposed to be launched from the CSIA would only 

use suborbital trajectories and therefore, would not repeatedly orbit the Earth. Launch vehicles 

would launch and land horizontally and would not require runway lengths in excess of existing 

infrastructure at the CSIA. 

2.1.4.1 Concept X 

Description of Launch Vehicle 

Launch vehicles included in Concept X would be a single component. The vehicle would have 

two turbojet engines using Jet-A fuel (kerosene) and two rocket engines using kerosene and LOX 

as propellants. Total thrust of the engines would be 266,893 Newtons (60,000 pounds force). 

The wingspan of the representative vehicle would be approximately 8 meters (25 feet) and its 

length would be approximately 14 meters (45 feet). The weight of the launch vehicle when fully 

fueled would be approximately 8,410 kilograms (18,500 pounds) base line. Exhibit 2-7 shows a 

representative Concept X launch vehicle. 

Exhibit 2-7. Representative Concept X Vehicle 

Description of Flight Profile 

Concept X launch vehicles would take off horizontally under turbojet power from the main 

runway at the CSIA. Concept X vehicles require a runway length of 2,438 meters (8,000 feet) 

for takeoff. Following takeoff, the vehicle would ascend to an altitude from 5,490 to 9,140 

meters (18,000 to 30,000 feet) where rocket engines on the vehicle would be ignited. The launch 

vehicle would climb under rocket power until the rocket propellants are consumed or the rocket 

engines are turned off. The vehicle would glide unpowered along a parabolic trajectory until 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 2-12 

reaching apogee (the highest point in the flight trajectory). The launch vehicle would then 

descend. Turbojet engines would be restarted at a specific altitude and the vehicle would fly to a 

powered, horizontal landing at the CSIA. 

Pre-Launch Activities 

Launch operators would be required to notify OSIDA two weeks in advance of a planned launch. 

OSIDA would coordinate all operations with the control tower chief. The control tower chief 

and the Spaceport Manager would notify the launch operator of other activities on the airport, 

resolve conflicts for use, and notify other appropriate airspace scheduling agencies. Mission 

rehearsals would be conducted with all flight and ground support crews prior to each launch, and 

would be repeated with various failure scenarios, and irregular performance to ensure crew 

readiness. 

Launch Activities

At an altitude between 5,490 and 9,140 meters (18,000 and 30,000 feet) turbojet engines would 

be turned off and rocket engines would be ignited. The launch vehicle would use a flight path 

angle of approximately 72 degrees until propellant is consumed or rocket engines are turned off. 

The vehicle would continue to coast to apogee. Apogee for Concept X vehicles would likely 

occur at approximately 106 kilometers (66 miles) altitude. After reaching apogee, the vehicle 

would descend to an altitude of between 6 and 8 kilometers (4 and 5 miles) where turbojet 

engines would be restarted. 

Landing Activities 

The pilot in command (PIC) of the launch vehicle would request authorization from the air 

traffic control to land at the CSIA. The vehicle would make a powered horizontal landing on the 

designated runway. In the unlikely event of an emergency landing, the PIC would attempt to 

reach the closest potential abort site. Potential abort sites for trajectories along the northwest 

corridor could include existing airports in Oklahoma and Texas including: 

 Elk City, Oklahoma 

 West Woodward, Oklahoma 

 Gage, Oklahoma 

 Higgins, Texas 

 Follett, Texas 

 Canadian, Texas 

 Perryton, Texas 

 Liberal, Texas 

 Miami, Texas 

However, any airport within range with a runway of at least 1,219 meters (4,000 feet) would be a 

candidate for an emergency landing location. Because Concept X launch vehicles would not be 

launched within the proposed southwest corridor, no abort sites have been identified in this area. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 2-13 

Launch Manifest 

Exhibit 2-8 shows the number of launches proposed per year for Concept X launch vehicles at 

the CSIA. The total maximum number of launches of Concept X launch vehicles would be 144 

over the five-year period. 

Exhibit 2-8. Maximum Number of Launches of Concept X Launch Vehicles Per Year 

Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Maximum 

Number of 

Launches 

12 12 24 48 48 

2.1.4.2 Concept Y 

Description of Launch Vehicles 

Launch vehicles included in Concept Y would be a single component. The rocket engine would 

be turned on while the launch vehicle is on the runway at the CSIA. The rocket engine would 

use LOX and either kerosene or alcohol as propellants. The wingspan of the representative 

vehicles would be approximately 8 meters (27 feet) and the length of the vehicle would be 

approximately 6 meters (19 feet). The weight of the vehicle when fully fueled and ready for 

takeoff would be approximately 1,150 kilograms (2,600 pounds). Exhibit 2-9 shows a 

representative Concept Y launch vehicle. 

 

Exhibit 2-9. Representative Concept Y Launch Vehicle 

Concept Y launch vehicles would be piloted and the PIC would have cockpit displays capable of 

monitoring the status of the vehicle. Communication would be possible between the PIC and the 

ground crew. Very High Frequency radio would be used for communications. Ground and air 

traffic control frequencies would be used to communicate with the CSIA. In some instances, it 

may be necessary to use a dedicated frequency for in-company communications. In all instances, 

safety information would be relayed to all relevant participants. The PIC would be familiar with 

high performance aircraft, aerobatic flight, glide flight, and unpowered landing. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 2-14 

The PIC would be responsible for activating the Flight Safety System (FSS). This may consist 

of a number of steps, which would be undertaken by the PIC to ensure that the vehicle glides to a 

safe landing at the primary landing location at the CSIA or at a designated emergency landing 

location. The steps that a PIC might take to activate the FSS would include turning off the 

engine run switch or closing the propellant pre-valves, in both instances stopping the flow of 

propellant to the engine and thereby stopping the engine. It may also be possible for the PIC to 

take steps to vent pressure in the LOX tank or dump the LOX, which would also cause the 

engines to stop working. This process, however, may take up to a minute to complete and 

therefore would be used only if other methods failed to cut the engine off. The vehicle would 

carry a fault-tolerant life support system to ensure that the pilot has adequate oxygen during the 

mission. 

Description of Flight Profile 

Concept Y vehicles would launch horizontally from a runway at the CSIA and would fly 

northwest or southwest along a steep ascent trajectory until the propellants are expended or 

rocket engines are turned off. The vehicles would coast unpowered along a parabolic trajectory 

until reaching apogee. They would then coast down until pullout and glide to a descent to the 

CSIA. Upon reaching the CSIA it may be necessary to conduct additional maneuvers to expend 

excess energy before performing an unpowered horizontal landing. 

Pre-Launch Activities 

OSIDA has established procedures for customers to provide notification for upcoming launches. 

Each launch operator would be required to notify OSIDA two weeks in advance of a planned 

launch. OSIDA would coordinate all operations with the control tower chief. The spaceport 

manager would notify the launch operator of other activities on the airport, resolve conflicts for 

use, and notify other appropriate airspace scheduling agencies. In addition, each operator would 

be required to comply with scheduling procedures for the individual special use airspace to be 

used. 

Pre-launch activities would include a mission readiness review in which a series of tests would 

be conducted on vehicle systems, engine systems, and mission procedures. These tests would be 

conducted until the vehicle consistently passes all mission requirements. The vehicle would then 

be fueled and would undergo a pre-launch check. 

The pre-launch check would be conducted in a fashion similar to conventional aircraft. An 

engineer would check all safety-critical and high-risk systems with the PIC, checking off each 

system or component as ready for takeoff. The PIC, mission conductor, and crew chief each 

have the duty and authority to abort or delay the launch at any time, if he/she feels that an unsafe 

or hazardous launch condition exists. Prior to launch, a brief test of the engines and ignition 

system may be conducted. This would involve firing each engine for a short duration to verify 

proper ignition and shutoff. After completing the pre-launch and engine check the launch 

vehicle would be moved to the launch location, by towing or pushing the vehicle to the 

appropriate location. Communication with the air traffic control tower would be confirmed and 

the PIC would confirm the previous authorization for the launch and landing. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 2-15 

Launch Activities 

The rocket engines would be turned on and the vehicle would take off horizontally, using a flight 

path angle of approximately 20 to 50 degrees and fly northwest or southwest. The vehicle would 

use a steep ascent trajectory until its propellant supply is exhausted or engines are turned off. 

The vehicle would continue on a parabolic trajectory for 4 to 240 seconds, and coast to apogee. 

Apogee for Concept Y vehicles would likely occur at approximately 4,000 meters altitude 

(13,000 feet) above mean sea level (MSL). After reaching apogee, the vehicle would glide to a 

pullout and energy management area, approximately 10 kilometers (6 miles) downrange of the 

CSIA to expend excess energy before landing. It may be necessary to fly several circular 

patterns to expend excess energy before gliding back to the CSIA. At the CSIA, the vehicle may 

fly several additional circular patterns to expend excess energy. 

Landing Activities 

The PIC would announce his intentions to land on the control tower frequency prior to landing at 

the spaceport. The vehicle would make an unpowered horizontal landing on the designated 

runway. In the unlikely event of an emergency landing, the PIC would attempt to reach one of 

the potential abort sites. Because of the relatively short downrange distance traveled by Concept 

Y vehicles, the abort site would be the CSIA. 

. 

Launch Manifest 

 

Exhibit 2-10 shows the number of launches proposed per year for Concept Y launch vehicles at 

the CSIA. The total maximum number of launches of Concept Y launch vehicles would be 10 

over the five-year period. 

Exhibit 2-10. Maximum Number of Launches of Concept Y Launch Vehicles Per Year 

Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Maximum 

Number of 

Launches 

2 2 2 2 2 

2.1.4.3 Concept Z 

Description of Launch Vehicle 

Launch vehicles included in Concept Z consist of two components, a carrier aircraft and a mated 

suborbital launch vehicle. The aircraft would have turbojet engines using Jet-A fuel. Total 

thrust of the engines would be less than 35,600 Newtons (8,000 pounds force). The carrier 

aircraft would carry the launch vehicle to the designated launch release altitude. The launch 

vehicle could use a hybrid rocket engine with nitrous oxide (N2O) and hydroxyl-terminated 

polybutadiene (HTPB) as propellants. The launch vehicle would use only suborbital trajectories. 

Concept Z launch vehicles would launch and land horizontally and would not require runway 

lengths in excess of existing infrastructure at the CSIA. Exhibit 2-11 shows one representative 

Concept Z launch vehicle. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 2-16 

Exhibit 2-11. Representative Concept Z Launch Vehicle 

The carrier aircraft and launch vehicle would both be piloted. The wingspan of the 

representative carrier aircraft would be approximately 25 meters (82 feet) and its length would be 

approximately 9 meters (30 feet). The wingspan of the representative launch vehicle would be 

approximately 5 meters (17 feet) and its length would be approximately 6 meters (20 feet). The 

weight of the launch vehicle when fully fueled would be approximately 3,175 kilograms (7,000 

pounds). 

The PIC would have cockpit displays monitoring the status of the vehicle. Communication 

between the PIC and ground crew would be accomplished by standard aircraft-band Very High 

Frequency radio. The PIC would also be equipped with a “hot mike” (live microphone) audio on 

the video telemetry downlink for communications between the PIC and the ground crew. A 

mobile ground station within the CSIA property would be set up during flight tests for data 

monitoring and recording flight parameters. The vehicle’s avionic displays would be duplicated 

on a Mission Control monitor. 

The PIC would be responsible for flight safety decisions. Mission control would provide data 

and recommendations and would direct abort if parameters exceed normal mission operating 

limits. The PIC would also be responsible for shutting down the rocket motor burn system if 

parameters exceed normal mission limits. The vehicle propulsion system would also contain an 

internal automatic-shutdown mode should system critical operating parameters be exceeded. 

The PIC may release N2O during both nominal and non-nominal missions. During nominal 

missions 45 kilograms (100 pounds) of N2O would be released at altitudes between 54,864 and 

36,576 meters (180,000 and 120,000 feet). 

A small oxygen bottle would be carried in the cabin of the carrier aircraft and launch vehicle to 

maintain oxygen levels for the pilots. Carbon dioxide (CO2) would be scrubbed by an absorber 

system. Humidity in the cabin would be controlled by passing air through the absorber system to 

remove water vapor. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 2-17 

Description of Flight Profile 

The carrier aircraft and launch vehicle would take off horizontally from the CSIA. The aircraft 

would ascend to an altitude from 16 to 20 kilometers (10 to 12 miles) and the launch vehicle 

would be released from the carrier aircraft. Rocket engines on the launch vehicle would be fired 

as the aircraft pulls away. The carrier aircraft would make a powered horizontal landing on the 

designated runway after releasing the launch vehicle. The launch vehicle would climb until 

propellants are consumed. The vehicle would glide unpowered along a parabolic trajectory until 

reaching apogee (the highest point in the vehicle’s flight trajectory). The launch vehicle would 

then descend and glide unpowered, to a horizontal landing at the CSIA. 

Pre-Launch Activities 

Launch operators would be required to notify OSIDA two weeks in advance of a planned launch. 

OSIDA would coordinate all operations with the control tower chief. The control tower chief 

and the Spaceport Manager would notify the launch operator of other activities on the airport, 

resolve conflicts for use, and notify other appropriate airspace scheduling agencies. In addition, 

each operator would be required to comply with scheduling procedures for the individual special 

use airspace to be used. Mission rehearsals would be conducted with all flight and ground 

support crews prior to each launch, and would be repeated with various failure scenarios and 

irregular performance to ensure crew readiness. 

Launch Activities 

The launch vehicle would be mated to the carrier aircraft. The aircraft, carrying the launch 

vehicle, would take off horizontally from the runway. The launch vehicle would be released 

from an altitude between 16 to 20 kilometers (10 to 12 miles) and the rocket engine on the 

launch vehicle would be ignited. The launch vehicle would use a flight path angle of 

approximately 85 degrees until propellant is consumed (after approximately 65 seconds of 

climbing). The vehicle would continue to coast to apogee. Apogee for Concept Z vehicles 

would likely occur at approximately 100 kilometers (62.5 miles) altitude. After reaching apogee, 

the vehicle would descend in a controlled manner. 

Landing Activities 

The PIC of the carrier vehicle would request authorization from the air traffic control tower to 

land at the CSIA after releasing the launch vehicle. The carrier aircraft would make a powered 

horizontal landing on the designated runway. The PIC of the launch vehicle would request 

authorization from the air traffic control tower to land at the CSIA. The vehicle would make an 

unpowered horizontal landing on the designated runway. In the unlikely event of an emergency 

landing, the PIC would attempt to reach the potential abort sites. Potential abort sites for 

trajectories along the northwest corridor could include existing airports in Oklahoma and Texas 

including 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 2-18 

 Elk City, Oklahoma 

 West Woodward, Oklahoma 

 Gage, Oklahoma 

 Higgins, Texas 

 Follett, Texas 

 Canadian, Texas 

 Perryton, Texas 

 Liberal, Texas 

 Miami, Texas 

However, any airport within gliding range with a runway of at least 1,219 meters (4,000 feet) 

would be a candidate for an emergency landing location. Because Concept Z launch vehicles 

would not be launched within the proposed southwest corridor, no abort sites have been 

identified in this area. 

Launch Manifest 

Exhibit 2-12 shows the number of launches proposed per year for Concept Z launch vehicles at 

the CSIA. The total maximum number of launches of Concept Z launch vehicles would be 15 

over the five-year period. 

Exhibit 2-12. Maximum Number of Launches of Concept Z Launch Vehicles Per Year 

Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Maximum 

Number of 

Launches 

2 2 3 4 4 

2.1.4.4 Summary of Launch Vehicle Concepts 

The different launch vehicle concepts proposed for launch from the CSIA are summarized in 

Exhibit 2-13. 

Exhibit 2-13. Summary of Launch Vehicle Concepts Proposed for Launch from the CSIA 

Concept X Concept Y Concept Z 

Ignition Source at 

Ground Jet Power Rocket Power Jet Power (Assist Aircraft) 

Launch Vehicle 

Propellant Type 

Kerosene (RP-1) or 

Alcohol and LOX 

Kerosene or 

Alcohol and LOX N2O and HTPB 

Use of Assist 

Aircraft No No Yes 

Landing Type Powered Unpowered Unpowered10

 

10 The assist aircraft would have a powered landing, only the launch vehicle would land unpowered. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 2-19 

2.1.5 Propellant Storage 

As a result of the proposed action both liquid and solid propellants could be stored temporarily at 

the CSIA. These propellants could include: jet fuel, RP-1, alcohol, LOX, N2O, and HTPB.11 

The staging area for fuels would be located on an existing 19 square meter (200 square foot) 

concrete pad located north of the Fixed Base Operator building and water tank, Building 106. 

The oxidizer staging area would be located on an existing concrete pad contiguous with Building 

285 near Apron Road number 6. The staging areas would be located outside of the quantity 

distance area for the flight vehicles. All facilities that contain explosive hazards would be 

equipped with lightening protection systems. 

2.2 Potential Future Activities 

Potential future activities that could be considered by OSIDA include launches to orbital 

trajectories, reentries from orbit, construction activities to support recreation facilities or an 

administration complex, and manufacturing activities. Each potential future activity is described 

below. However, these activities are not mature enough for analysis in this EA. They are 

described here to present the current vision for the CSIA. As OSIDA’s planning progresses, if 

these activities are deemed to be reasonably foreseeable, it would be necessary for OSIDA to 

request a modification to their launch site operator license for the new proposed activities. It 

also would be necessary to consider the environmental impacts of those activities at that time. 

2.2.1 Launches to and Reentries from Orbital Trajectories 

In the future, OSIDA may offer the CSIA to customers launching payloads into prescribed orbits 

for commercial and government customers. OSIDA may also offer the CSIA to customers 

reentering vehicles or payloads from Earth orbit or outer space. Reentry, as defined in 14 CFR 

401.5, means “to return or attempt to return, purposefully, a reentry vehicle and its payload, if 

any, from Earth orbit or from outer space to Earth. The term reenter; reentry includes activities 

conducted in Earth orbit or outer space to determine reentry readiness and that are critical to 

ensuring public health and safety and the safety of property during reentry flight. The term 

‘reenter; reentry’ also includes activities conducted on the ground after the vehicle lands on the 

Earth, to ensure the reentry vehicle does not pose a threat to public health and safety or the safety 

of property.” OSIDA may offer the CSIA for reentries of vehicles returning from Earth orbit or 

outer space for vehicles launched from a location other than the CSIA. Should future activities 

at the CSIA expand to include orbital launches and reentries, the FAA would need to consider 

licensing reentry activities. 

2.2.2 Construction Activities 

Construction could occur at the CSIA to support a more complex commercial base of operations 

including buildings such as vehicle processing facilities or a permanent rocket engine test cell. 

 

11 N2O and HTPB are not explosive or flammable unless combined in a rocket motor. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 2-20 

As other companies become interested in locating at the CSIA, additional facilities may be 

constructed within the proposed launch facility. OSIDA may propose to develop a 7-hectare 

(17-acre) area as an administration complex to create an industrial space park complex. A 420-

square meter (4,500-square feet) visitor’s complex within the southwest corner of the 

administration complex could be developed. The grassy area north of the control tower could be 

utilized as a viewing area for launch activities. A security fence could be added to the area and 

access to the area could be monitored by security guards during launch activities. 

A 12-hectare (30-acre) complex could be developed to serve as a hangar and facility for 

assembling aircraft. This complex could also include training facilities for space tourism 

passengers. Training facilities at the CSIA could include a centrifuge and other unspecified 

facilities along the apron. Other proposals include development of recreation facilities in the 

area of the existing golf course including a small hotel, a driving range, an amusement park and 

additional golf course holes. 

OSIDA also may construct a permanent rocket engine test cell at the CSIA to test rocket engines. 

The engines that would be tested could be incorporated into vehicles that are launched at the 

CSIA or in vehicles launched at other facilities. 

2.2.3 Manufacturing Activities 

In the future, OSIDA may decide to offer the CSIA to users who wish to manufacture some of 

the components of the vehicles and their propulsion systems on site. A vacant manufacturing 

facility located at the CSIA was recently remodeled and could potentially be available to a 

manufacturer in the future. The existing manufacturing facility is located near the control tower 

and hangars. If manufacturing activities became a viable consideration in the future, OSDIA 

would be required to comply with all applicable laws and regulations pertaining to this type of 

activity. 

2.3 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

The FAA identified two alternatives to the proposed action, which are considered in this EA. 

2.3.1 Alternative 1 – Concept X and Y Vehicles Only 

This alternative would involve the issuance of a launch site operator license to OSIDA for the 

CSIA that would allow only the launch of Concept X and Y vehicles from the CSIA. This 

alternative could also include the issuance of a launch license or permit to a potential Concept X 

or Y launch operator for launches from the CSIA. Concept Z vehicles currently exist and have 

been licensed by the FAA to operate from other facilities, thus it is reasonably foreseeable that 

these vehicles could operate from the CSIA in the five year timeframe discussed in this analysis. 

However, OSIDA does not currently have an MOU with any company proposing to launch 

Concept Z vehicles. Because OSIDA holds MOUs with companies proposing to launch Concept 

X and Y vehicles, the FAA has proposed this alternative to consider the issuance of a launch site 

operator license to OSIDA for the CSIA that would allow Concept X and Y vehicles to be 

launched from the CSIA. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 2-21 

2.3.2 Alternative 2 – Concept X and Z Vehicles Only 

This alternative would involve the issuance of a launch site operator license to OSIDA for the 

CSIA that would allow only Concept X and Z vehicles to be launched from the CSIA. This 

alternative could also include the issuance of a launch license or permit to a potential Concept X 

or Z launch operator for launches from the CSIA. The proposed Concept Y vehicles would take 

off from the runway at the CSIA under rocket power, while Concept X and Z vehicles propose to 

fire rocket engines at an altitude of at least 5,490 meters (18,000 feet). The FAA has proposed 

this alternative because the issuance of a license to OSIDA to operate a launch facility to launch 

Concept X and Z vehicles may reduce the amount of rocket emissions that reach the ground and 

reduce the amount of noise experienced on the ground during launches. 

2.4 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. 

2.5 Alternatives Considered But Not Carried Forward 

The alternatives discussed below were considered and eliminated from further analysis. 

2.5.1 Alternative Launch Operations 

Alternative launch operations were considered for the CSIA, including the following operations. 

2.5.1.1 Vertical Launch Vehicles 

The OSIDA board of directors met in June 2004 and decided not to pursue vertical launches 

from the CSIA at this time. The board decided to focus their development and marketing efforts 

on horizontally launched RLVs using suborbital trajectories. If in the future OSIDA decides to 

consider vertical launches from the CSIA, a supplemental environmental analysis would need to 

be conducted. 

2.5.1.2 Horizontally Launched RLVs Using Aerial Fueling 

Horizontally launched RLVs using aerial fueling would take off under jet engine power from a 

conventional runway. At a designated altitude (typically between 6,100 and 15,240 meters 

[20,000 and 50,000 feet] above MSL), a tanker airplane would transfer liquid propellants to the 

launch vehicle. The tanker airplane would disengage after the propellants are transferred and the 

launch vehicle would ignite its rocket engines once the tanker airplane cleared the area. Both the 

tanker aircraft and the launch vehicle would return and land under jet power. Although launch 

vehicles based on this concept have been proposed, they are in a less mature stage of 

development than the three vehicle concepts described in Section 2.1.4. The production and 

launch of this vehicle concept is not reasonably foreseeable within the five-year timeframe of 

this EA and therefore is not analyzed in this document. If in the future this vehicle concept 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 2-22 

becomes ready for analysis, it would be necessary to prepare a separate environmental analysis 

to assess potential impacts. 

2.5.1.3 Vehicles Launched from Other Sites and Landing at the CSIA 

Although launch vehicle operators have proposed to develop launch vehicles that would launch 

from one location and land in another location, the development of these vehicles is not 

considered reasonably foreseeable within the five-year timeframe for this EA. Therefore, this 

vehicle concept is not considered in this EA. If in the future this vehicle concept becomes ready 

for analysis, it would be necessary to prepare a supplemental environmental analysis. 

2.5.2 Alternative Locations within Oklahoma 

Alternative locations within the state of Oklahoma were considered for the establishment of a 

launch site. Because OSIDA is a state agency, possible locations were limited to Oklahoma. 

The alternative sites include Sayre Municipal Airport, Sayre, Oklahoma; Frederick Municipal 

Airport, Frederick, Oklahoma; and Hobart Municipal Airport, Hobart, Oklahoma. 

For a launch site to meet the needs of the operators of the proposed vehicle concepts, it must 

have adequate infrastructure and available airspace. Required infrastructure in this case includes 

a runway length to accommodate takeoff/launch of horizontal launch vehicles (at least 2,438 

meters [8,000 feet]) and airspace suitable for the proposed flight requirements. Exhibit 2-14 

summarizes the available infrastructure and airspace at the alternative launch site locations. 

Exhibit 2-14. Summary of Available Resources at Various Launch Site Locations 

Infrastructure Launch Site Locations 

and Airspace CSIA Sayre Hobart Frederick 

Runway 

Length in 

meters (feet) 

Main 4,115 

(13,500) 

Supplemental 

1,585 (5,200) 

Main 1,529 

(5,017) 

Main 1,613 

(5,293) 

Supplemental 

1,613 (5,293) 

Main 1,829 

(6,000) 

Supplemental 

1,463 (4,800) 

Airspace No airspace 

restrictions 

Hollis Military 

Operating Area 

Adjacent to 

Washita, 

Shepard, and 

Hollis Military 

Operating Area 

Hollis Military 

Operating Area

Source: AirNav,2005

All four locations have runways; however, only the CSIA has a runway of at least 2,438 meters 

(8,000 feet) needed to accommodate takeoff of Concept X launch vehicles. All four locations 

have sufficient runway lengths (1,219 meters [4,000 feet]) to accommodate an emergency 

landing or abort of Concept X, Y or Z vehicles. Airspace requirements for specific vehicles 

would need to be determined on a case-by-case basis; however, it is possible that the restricted 

airspace over Sayre, Hobart, and Frederick would pose additional challenges for potential launch 

operators. Because the CSIA possesses the resources and infrastructure needed to support 

Concept X, Y, and Z vehicles it has been identified as the preferred alternative. Sayre, Hobart, 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 2-23 

and Frederick Municipal Airports may in the future identify specific launch vehicle concepts or 

specific launch operators for which their facility possesses the resources and infrastructure 

necessary to support the proposed operations. The use of any of these three sites to support 

launch operations would require separate environmental analyses. 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-1 

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

This section describes the environmental characteristics that may be affected by the proposed 

action and alternatives. The information provided serves as a baseline from which to identify 

and evaluate environmental changes resulting from the proposed action and alternatives. To 

provide this baseline the affected environment is briefly described and those resource areas with 

a potential for concern are described in greater detail. 

The affected environment is discussed in terms of 13 resource areas: air quality, airspace, 

biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials and hazardous 

waste, health and safety, land use, noise, socioeconomics and environmental justice, 

transportation, visual and aesthetic resources, and water resources. 

3.1 Overview of Proposed Operational Area 

This section provides an overview of the proposed operational area. This includes a description 

of the onsite and offsite areas in the region where the action is proposed to occur. In this section, 

the onsite area refers to the CSIA and the offsite area refers to the surrounding areas. 

The exact boundary of the region of influence (ROI) is dependent upon the resource area. Some 

resources may be affected up to 48 or 64 kilometers (30 or 40 miles) from the CSIA boundary, 

while effects on others may only reach a few miles. For example, the socioeconomic and 

environmental justice ROIs extend to all eight counties in the SWODA area, while the land use 

ROI encompasses only the CSIA, the town of Burns Flat, and parts of Washita County. This 

section presents an overview and historical perspective of the onsite CSIA area and the 

surrounding region. The specific ROI for each resource area will be discussed following the 

definition of the resource and will form the boundary for considering the existing condition and 

environmental impacts. 

3.1.1 Onsite Region of Influence 

The CSIA is located in the northwest portion of Washita County, Oklahoma, adjacent to the 

town of Burns Flat and about 165 kilometers (102 miles) west of Oklahoma City. The CSIA 

currently operates as an industrial airpark and encompasses approximately 1,092 hectares (2,700 

acres). The aerial photograph shown in Exhibit 3-1 was taken in June 2001 from an area 

southwest of the CSIA looking toward the northeast. The large runway and ramp area can be 

seen in the photograph. Most of the existing structures are located to the northeast (upper right) 

of the large ramp area. Existing structures include hangars, warehouses, and a manufacturing 

facility, all of which are currently vacant. A nearby farmhouse can be seen in the southwest 

corner (bottom left) of the photograph. Several other farmhouses are located to the west, south, 

and southeast of the facility. Also visible in the photograph is the agricultural land in the area 

surrounding the CSIA. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-2 

Exhibit 3-1. Aerial View of the CSIA 

During World War II (WWII), the current site of the CSIA was a U.S. Navy base called the 

Clinton Naval Air Station, encompassing approximately 2,072 hectares (5,120 acres). The 

facility was used for pilot training and developing and testing remotely piloted aircraft. Exhibit 

3-2 shows the facility during this time period. The aerial photograph was taken from northwest 

of the facility looking toward the southeast. The horizontal runway farthest from the camera is 

in the same location as the current 4,115-meter (13,500-foot) runway at the CSIA. Three large 

hangars can also be seen in the southern portion (upper left) of the photograph. The hangar 

structures no longer exist; however, the concrete pads are still intact. The control tower is the 

only remaining structure from this time period. 

Following WWII, ownership of the facility was transferred from the War Assets Administration 

to the City of Clinton. The Sherman Iron Works leased a portion of the facility and began 

salvaging and smelting parts from surplus combat aircraft at the site. The facility was renamed 

the Clinton-Sherman Airport and operated as a municipal airpark between 1946 and 1955. As 

seen in Exhibit 3-2 below, thousands of surplus aircraft were brought to the facility to be 

decommissioned following WWII. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-3 

Exhibit 3-2. Aerial View of the CSIA in Operation as the Clinton Naval Air Station 

The land was deeded to the USAF in 1955 and the facility became the Clinton-Sherman AFB. 

The AFB became an operational base for SAC fighters and bombers during the Cold War era. 

According to the SAC Master Plan Report, the AFB was home to the 70th Bombardment Wing, 

the 902nd Air Refueling Squadron, unspecified miscellaneous administrative aircraft authorized 

by the 70th Combat Support Group, and approximately 3,000 military and 300 civilian 

personnel. 

Most of the current infrastructure at the CSIA is a 

result of additions and improvements made by the 

USAF beginning in 1955. In 1969 the facility was 

deeded back to the City of Clinton and has operated 

as an industrial airpark since. Several structures 

have been removed due to dilapidation, the 

presence of asbestos and diminished activities at the 

site. Exhibit 3-3 shows the CSIA during its 

operation as the Clinton-Sherman AFB, and Exhibit 

3-4 illustrates the approximate boundaries of the 

Clinton Naval Air Station, the Clinton-Sherman 

AFB, and the CSIA. 

Exhibit 3-3. View along Ramp Area at CSIA in Operation as Clinton-Sherman AFB 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-4 

Exhibit 3-4. Overlay of Clinton Naval Air Station, Clinton-Sherman AFB, and CSIA 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-5 

3.1.2 Offsite Region of Influence 

As seen in Exhibit 3-1, the CSIA is surrounded on all sides by farming and agricultural land and 

is adjacent to Oklahoma State Highway 44. As noted in Section 3.1.1, the CSIA is adjacent to 

the town of Burns Flat. The major population centers closest to Burns Flat are Elk City, which is 

located to the west about 33 kilometers (21 miles), and Clinton, which is located to the northeast 

about 32 kilometers (20 miles). 

3.1.3 Climate 

Washita County has generally hot summers and mild to very cool winters. The average 

temperature is 4 degrees Celsius (4o

C) [40 degrees Fahrenheit (40oF)] in the winter and 27oC 

(81o

F) in the summer. The mean annual temperature for Washita County is 15.2oC (59.3oF) and 

the mean annual precipitation is 78 centimeters (30.8 inches). (OCS, 2002a) 

About 46 centimeters (18 inches) or 69 percent of the annual precipitation falls during the 

growing season, which is April through September. (OCS, 2002a) Thunderstorms occur, on 

average, about 45 days each year in southwestern Oklahoma. (OCS, 2002b) Late spring and 

early summer are the peak seasons for these storms, averaging about eight thunderstorms per 

month. (OCS, 2002b) The average annual snowfall in this region is between 15 and 23 

centimeters (6 and 9 inches). (OCS, 2002a) 

Annual average relative humidity is approximately 65 percent. (OCS, 2002b) March and April 

are the windiest months, with prevailing winds from the south to southwest in far western 

Oklahoma. (OCS, 2002b) Dust storms sometimes occur in spring when strong winds blow over 

dry, unprotected soils. Ice storms, floods, droughts, and tornadoes are a threat in almost any part 

of Oklahoma. Oklahoma averages 54 tornadoes per year, 15 of them rating F2 or higher on the 

Fujita scale. (OCS, 2002b) An F2 tornado is considered a significant tornado with wind speeds 

between 181 and 251 kilometers per hour (113 and 157 miles per hour). Washita County 

averages 39 tornadoes per year, most of which occur between late March and mid-June. (OCS, 

2002a) 

3.2 Air Quality 

3.2.1 Definition of Resource 

3.2.1.1 Atmospheric Layers 

The Earth’s atmosphere consists of four main layers (i.e., troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, 

and ionosphere) that are separated by narrow transition zones. Each layer is characterized by 

altitude, temperature, structure, density, composition, and degree of ionization (i.e., the positive 

or negative electric charge associated with each layer). Exhibit 3-5 shows the altitude ranges 

associated with the atmospheric layers. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-6 

Exhibit 3-5. Altitude Range for Atmospheric Layers 

Source: ICF Kaiser, 1998 

More than 99 percent of the total atmospheric mass is concentrated within 40 kilometers (25 

miles) of the Earth’s surface. The upper boundary at which gases disperse into space lies at an 

altitude of approximately 1,000 kilometers (621 miles) above sea level. (NASA, 2003) The 

higher layers of the atmosphere, which consist of the mesosphere and ionosphere, differ 

significantly in composition from the lower regions and also contain a significant proportion of 

ionized (electrically charged) gas atoms and molecules. (Space Science Division, Naval 

Research Laboratory, 2003) The following subsections describe each layer of the atmosphere in 

terms of approximate altitude, temperature, air density, and air composition. 

Troposphere 

The troposphere is the lowest level of the atmosphere extending from the Earth’s surface to 

approximately 8 to 16 kilometers (5 to 10 miles) in height. For the purposes of this EA, the 

discussion of air quality within the troposphere presents the conditions that occur at or below 914 

meters (3,000 feet) above ground surface. The 914 meters (3,000 feet) above ground surface is 

appropriate for evaluating air quality impacts in the troposphere because the Federal government 

(Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]) uses that altitude to assess contributions of emissions 

to the ambient air quality and for the de minimis calculations under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

(EPA, 1992) 

Stratosphere 

The stratosphere is the second major layer of the atmosphere and occupies the region from 10 to 

50 kilometers (6 to 31 miles) above the Earth’s surface. The two potential air quality impacts of 

concern in the stratosphere are global warming and ozone depletion. Global warming refers to 

long-term fluctuations in temperature, precipitation, wind, and other elements of the Earth’s 

climate system. Atmospheric gases affect the Earth’s surface temperature by absorbing solar 

radiation that is reflected by the Earth’s surface back into space. The concentration of these 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-7 

gases, known as “greenhouse gases,” is increasing as a result of human activities. (EPA, 2001) 

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most significant greenhouse gas resulting from human activity, 

which represented approximately 84 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in 2001. 

Ozone present in the atmosphere shields the Earth from harmful levels of ultraviolet (UV) 

radiation by absorbing part of the UV rays emitted by the sun. Excess levels of UV radiation can 

result in adverse human health effects ranging from sunburn to skin cancer and immune 

deficiencies. Most of the UV-shielding ozone layer over the Earth’s surface is contained within 

the stratosphere. (Note that this protective ozone is different from ground-level or tropospheric 

ozone, which can result in harmful effects to humans and the environment via direct exposure.) 

Stratospheric ozone can be destroyed through chemical and photochemical reactions. As a 

result, the presence of pollutants that are key components of these reactions (especially chlorine) 

can result in ozone depletion. The presence of particulate matter (PM) may affect stratospheric 

ozone; however, the exact impact of PM on ozone depletion is unclear. 

Mesosphere 

The mesosphere is located between 50 and 80 kilometers (31 to 50 miles) above the Earth’s 

surface. The mesosphere is the coldest layer of the atmosphere with the temperature decreasing 

as the altitude increases. The coldest temperatures at the mesopause (the upper boundary of the 

mesosphere) can reach -100°C (-148°F). (Manchester Metropolitan University, 2000) In the 

mesosphere, objects entering the Earth’s atmosphere begin to heat up due to friction with air 

molecules. (Encyclopedia of the Environment, 2006) Ozone and water (H2O) are found in 

negligible concentrations in this layer. The air composition in this layer is made up of lighter 

gases that are stratified according to their molecular weight due to gravitational separation. 

(NASA, 2003) Because air density is negligible, objects tend to move at high speeds. 

 

Ionosphere 

The ionosphere (also known as the thermosphere) is located above the mesosphere and begins 

between 80 and 105 kilometers (50 to 65 miles) above the Earth’s surface and is considered to 

extend upwards to 2,000 kilometers (1,243 miles), though it has no well-defined upper boundary. 

(Lutgens, 1995) The ionosphere accounts for only a fraction of the atmosphere’s mass as gas 

molecules are extremely sparse in this layer. The ionosphere is noted for its concentration of 

ions and free electrons. Gases such as Helium (He), argon (Ar), oxygen (O), molecular oxygen 

(O2), CO2, atomic Nitrogen (N), nitric oxide (NO), and molecular nitrogen (N2) absorb solar 

radiation passing through the ionosphere and are split into ions and free electrons. (University of 

Leicester, 2004) The level of ionization depends on sunspot activity, season, geographic 

location, and the gas being ionized. (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

[NOAA], 2004) 

3.2.1.2 Regulations 

The following subsections present a discussion of the pollutants regulated under the CAA 

(ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants, air toxics [hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)], 

and regional haze). 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-8 

Criteria Pollutants 

The primary Federal legislation that addresses air quality is the CAA of 1970 (as amended in 

1977 and 1990). The purpose of the CAA is to preserve air quality and to protect public health 

and welfare. Under the authority of the CAA and amendments, EPA established a set of 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide 

(CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), PM with diameter 10 microns or less (PM10) and 2.5 

microns or less (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). The NAAQS established “primary” 

standards to protect public health and “secondary” standards designed to protect the public 

welfare by addressing the effects of air pollution on vegetation, soil, materials, visibility, and 

other aspects of the general welfare. Oklahoma has also developed state ambient air quality 

standards similar to the NAAQS. Oklahoma’s ambient air quality standards are presented in the 

Oklahoma Administrative Code, Title 252, Chapter 100. (OAC 252:100) 

Concentrations of criteria air pollutants in ambient air are used to determine ambient air quality 

in the U.S. by comparing them to the maximum allowable airborne concentrations specific in the 

applicable air quality standards for these pollutants. Exhibit 3-6 summarizes the Federal and 

Oklahoma ambient air quality standards. 

The CAA requires the adoption of NAAQS to protect the public health, safety, and welfare from 

known or anticipated effects of criteria air pollutants. According to EPA guidelines, an area with 

air quality better than the NAAQS is designated as being in attainment, while areas that currently 

have or have had worse air quality are classified as nonattainment or maintenance areas, 

respectively. Pollutants in an area may be designated as unclassified when data are lacking for 

EPA to form a basis of attainment status. Air quality monitors are used to determine compliance 

with the NAAQS and to evaluate the impact of pollution control strategies. EPA uses the 

monitoring results to designate areas into the following categories. 

1. Nonattainment Areas – Locations where measured concentrations exceed the NAAQS. 

Areas designated as nonattainment for ozone are classified as marginal, moderate, serious, 

severe, extreme, or Section 185A (previously called transitional). Areas designated as 

nonattainment for PM or CO are classified as moderate or serious. 

2. Maintenance Areas – Previously designated nonattainment areas that have been 

redesignated because they have demonstrated compliance with the NAAQS for a period of 

time. 

3. Attainment Areas – The areas of the country in which ambient pollutant concentrations 

have always been in compliance with the NAAQS, or have been redesignated after a number 

of years as a maintenance area. 

4. Unclassifiable – Areas where no ambient monitoring record exists. Most of the areas are 

rural, remote areas and are assumed to be in attainment. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-9 

Exhibit 3-6. Federal and Oklahoma Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Oklahoma 

Standardsa National Standardsb

Pollutant Average Time 

Concentration Primaryc,d Secondaryc,e

O3

1 hour 

235 microgramsg

per cubic meter 

(μg/m3

) (0.12 parts 

per million [ppm])f

235 μg/m3

(0.12 ppm) 

Same as 

primary 

8 hours 

10 milligramsh per 

cubic meter 

(mg/m3

) (9 ppm) 

10 mg/m3

(9 ppm) 

Same as 

primary CO 

1 hour 40 mg/m3

(35 ppm) 

40 mg/m3

(35 ppm) 

Same as 

primary 

NO2

Annual 

Arithmetic Mean 

100 μg/m3

(0.053 ppm) 

100 μg/m3

(0.053 ppm) 

Same as 

primary 

Annual 

Arithmetic Mean 

80 μg/m3

(0.03 ppm) 

80 μg/m3

(0.03 ppm) 

Same as 

primary 

24 hours 365 μg/m3

(0.14 ppm) 

365 μg/m3

(0.14 ppm) 

1,300 μg/m3

(0.5 ppm) SO2

3 hours None 1,300 μg/m3

(0.5 ppm) 

Same as 

primary 

Annual arithmetic 

Mean 50 μg/m3

 50 μg/m3 Same as 

primary PM10

24 hours 150 μg/m3

 150 μg/m3 Same as 

primary 

Annual arithmetic 

Mean None 15 μg/m3 Same as 

primary PM2.5

24 hours None 65 μg/m3 Same as 

primary 

Pb Quarterly 

Arithmetic Mean 1.5 μg/m3

 1.5 μg/m3 Same as 

primary 

a

 These standards must not be exceeded in areas, external of buildings, where the general public has access. b

 These standards, other than for ozone and those based on annual averages, must not be exceeded more than 

once per year. The ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 

maximum hourly average concentration above the standard is equal to or less than one. 

c

 Concentration is expressed first in the units in which it was adopted and is based on a reference temperature 

of 25°C (77°F) and a reference pressure of 760 millimeters (30 inches) of mercury. All measurements of air 

quality must be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C (77o

F) and a reference pressure of 760 

millimeters (30 inches) of mercury; parts per million (ppm) in this table refers to ppm by volume or 

micromoles of pollutant per mole of air. 

d

 National primary standards are the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to 

protect the public health. 

e

 National secondary standards are the levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any 

known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. 

f Parts per million by volume or micromoles per mole of gas 

g

 Micrograms = 10-6 grams h

 Milligrams = 10-3 grams 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-10 

The official list of nonattainment areas and a description of their boundaries can be found in the 

Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 81) and pertinent Federal Register notices. EPA 

maintains an unofficial list on the Internet at http://www.eps.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ondex.html. 

For areas that are designated nonattainment, the CAA establishes levels and timetables for each 

region to achieve attainment of the NAAQS. States must prepare a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP), which documents how the region will reach its attainment levels by the required date. The 

SIP includes inventories of emissions within the area and establishes emissions budgets that are 

designed to bring the area into compliance with the NAAQS. In maintenance areas, the SIP 

documents how the State intends to maintain compliance with NAAQS. 

In addition, any proposed Federal action (such as the proposed licensing of a launch facility) in a 

nonattainment or maintenance area must be demonstrated to meet the requirements of the 

General Conformity Rule (40 CFR 51, 40 CFR 93). This rule mandates that the Federal 

government not engage, support, or provide financial assistance for licensing or permitting, or 

approve any activity not conforming to an approved SIP. 

Air Toxics 

In addition to the NAAQS, the CAA also authorizes EPA to regulate emissions of HAPs, also 

known as toxic air pollutants or air toxics. HAPs are pollutants that cause or may cause cancer 

or other serious health effects, such as reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse 

environmental and ecological effects. EPA is required to control 188 HAPs; a complete list of 

these HAPs can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/orig189.html. Two HAPs, hydrogen 

chloride (HCl) and chlorine (Cl) are sometimes components of rocket engine emissions, 

depending on the propellant type. 

Regional Haze 

Under the regional haze rule (64 Fed. Reg. 35714, dated July 1, 1999), States are required to 

develop SIPs to address visibility at designated mandatory Class I areas, including 156 

designated national parks, wilderness areas, and wildlife refuges. General features of the 

regional haze rule are that States are required to prepare an emissions inventory of haze-related 

pollutants (i.e., volatile organic compounds [VOCs], nitrogen oxides [NOX], SO2, PM10, PM2.5, 

and ammonia [NH3]) from all sources in constituent counties. Most States will develop their 

regional haze SIP in conjunction with their PM2.5 SIP over the next several years. 

3.2.2 Region of Influence 

Identifying the ROI for air quality assessment requires knowledge of the pollutant types, source 

emission rates and release parameters, the proximity relationships of project emission sources to 

other emission sources, and local and regional meteorological conditions. For inert pollutants 

(i.e., all pollutants other than ozone and its precursors), the ROI is generally limited to an area 

extending no more than a few kilometers downwind from the source. The ROI for ozone may 

extend much further downwind than the ROI for inert pollutants; however, as the project area has 

no heavy industry and very few automobiles, tropospheric ozone and its precursors are not 

expected to be of concern. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-11 

The ROI for launch activities is a circular area with a 5-kilometer (3.1-mile) radius centered on 

the launch site. This ROI distance was determined using a Gaussian air dispersion model to 

predict the distance from the facility where the highest concentration of launch emissions could 

occur (1.25 kilometer [0.8 mile]) and then conservatively assuming the ROI is four times this 

distance. 

3.2.3 Existing Conditions 

The following sections discuss air quality in the ROI in terms of compliance with standards and 

regulations. 

3.2.3.1 Compliance with Air Quality Standards 

The U.S. is divided into Air Quality Control Regions (AQCR), which because of common 

meteorological, industrial and/or socioeconomic factors are considered single units for air 

pollution. The CSIA is located in the Southwestern Oklahoma AQCR 189. This area has been 

designated as unclassifiable/attainment for all NAAQS. (40 CFR Part 81.337) The nearest 

nonattainment area is the Metropolitan Dallas-Fort Worth Intrastate AQCR 215, located 

approximately 360 kilometers (224 miles) southeast of the CSIA in north central Texas, which is 

classified as serious non-attainment for ozone. (40 CFR 81.344) 

3.2.3.2 Compliance with Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

PSD is a regulation incorporated in the CAA that limits increases of pollutants in clean air areas 

even though ambient air quality standards are being met. The CAA area classification scheme 

for PSD establishes three classes of geographic areas and applies increments of different 

stringency to each class. Class I areas include parks and wilderness areas, Class II areas are 

those in attainment or unclassified, and Class III areas are those in nonattainment. 

Entities planning construction or modification of a facility that is in an attainment area may be 

subject to PSD regulations if classified as a “major” source or “major” modification. A new 

source is considered major if it is one of 28 specifically designated industrial categories and has 

the potential to emit more than 91 metric tons (100 tons) per year of a regulated pollutant. If the 

new source is not one of the designated industrial categories, it is considered major if it has the 

potential to emit more than 227 metric tons (250 tons) per year of a regulated pollutant. A 

modification is considered major if it occurs at an existing major source and causes emission 

increases of regulated pollutants above “significant” emission rate levels defined in the 

regulations (and summarized in Exhibit 3-7). Major sources must obtain a PSD permit from the 

state prior to either building a new facility or introducing modifications. (40 CFR 52.21) 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-12 

Exhibit 3-7. Emission Rate Increases Considered “Significant” for PSD Regulations 

Pollutant

PSD Significant Emission 

Rate 

(tons per year)

NOX 40

CO 100

VOC 40

Particulate Matter 25

PM10 15 

SO2 40

Sulfuric Acid Mist 7

Pb 0.6

Source: 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i) 

The CSIA is located in a PSD Class II area. The nearest PSD Class I Area to the CSIA is the 

Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area located approximately 75 kilometers (46 miles) to the 

south. The nearest PSD Class III area is Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas, located approximately 360 

kilometers (224 miles) southeast of CSIA. 

Emissions of pollutants from current CSIA operations are below Federal and state permitting 

requirements. The nearest air quality monitoring stations are located in Lawton, Oklahoma, 

approximately 106 kilometers (66 miles) to the southeast, and Clinton, Oklahoma, approximately 

26 kilometers (16 miles) to the northeast. 

3.3 Airspace 

The following sections describe the types and uses of airspace and how they are controlled, the 

ROI for the proposed action, and the existing airspace environment within the ROI. 

3.3.1 Definition of Resource 

Airspace is the defined space above a nation, which is under its jurisdiction. Airspace is limited 

horizontally, vertically, and temporally. The FAA designs and manages the NAS based on 

guidelines from the Federal Aviation Regulations. The FAA has developed specific 

classifications for airspace to establish limits on its use. These classifications include Controlled, 

Uncontrolled, and Special Use airspace; military training routes; en route airways and jet routes; 

airports and airfields; and air traffic control. The types of airspace are dictated by the number 

and type of aircraft that are predicted to use the airspace, the complexity of the aircraft’s 

movements, the nature of the operations conducted within the airspace, the required level of 

safety, and the level of national and public interest in the airspace. The FAA manages 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-13 

commercial and general aviation activity within the airspace and the military, with FAA 

oversight, manages military aviation activity within Special Use and Other airspace. 

3.3.1.1 Controlled and Uncontrolled Airspace 

Controlled airspace requires air traffic control services for instrument flight rules (IFR) flights 

and for visual flight rules (VFR) flights where applicable. (DoD, 2002) Operators of aircraft 

within controlled airspace are subject to specific pilot qualifications, operating rules, and 

equipment requirements. Controlled airspace can be classified as Class A, B, C, D, or E. (FAA, 

2005) Exhibit 3-8 provides descriptions of the airspace classifications. Uncontrolled airspace is 

for aircraft operating under VFR and is not classified by the FAA. Uncontrolled airspace can 

extend up to 4,420 meters (14,500 feet) above MSL and is referred to as Class G airspace. (DoD, 

2002) 

Exhibit 3-8. U.S. Airspace Classification 

Classification Controlled or 

Uncontrolled Description 

Class A Controlled 

Includes U.S. airspace over the waters within 22 

kilometers (12 nautical miles) of the coast of the 48 

contiguous states from 5,486 meters (18,000 feet) 

above MSL up to and including flight level 600 

(18,288 meters or 60,000 feet MSL). Excludes 

Alaska, Hawaii, Santa Barbara Island, Farallon Island, 

and the airspace south of latitude 25 degrees 04 

minutes 00 seconds North. Aircraft must be equipped 

with two-way radio capable of maintaining 

communications with air traffic control. All aircraft 

must receive appropriate air traffic control clearance 

and operate under IFR unless otherwise authorized. 

Class B Controlled 

Ranges from the surface to 3,049 meters (10,000 feet) 

MSL surrounding the nation’s busiest airports in 

terms of IFR operations or passenger enplanements. 

Individually tailored and consists of a surface area and 

two or more layers, and is designed to contain all 

published instrument procedures once an aircraft 

enters the airspace. 

Class C Controlled 

Ranges from the surface to 1,220 meters (4,000 feet) 

above the airport elevation and surrounding those 

airports that have an operational control tower, that 

are serviced by a radar approach control, and that 

have a certain number of IFR operations or passenger 

enplanements. Usually consists of a surface area with 

a 9 kilometer (5 nautical mile) radius, and an outer 

circle with a 19 kilometer (10 nautical mile) radius 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-14 

Classification Controlled or 

Uncontrolled Description 

that extends from 366 meters (1,200 feet) to 1,220 

meters (4,000 feet) above the airport elevation. 

Class D Controlled 

Ranges from the surface to 762 meters (2,500 feet) 

above the airport elevation and surrounding those 

airports that have an operational control tower. 

Individually tailored, and when instrument procedures 

are published, the airspace will normally be designed 

to contain the procedures. 

Class E Controlled 

Generally defined as any controlled airspace that is 

not Class A, B, C, or D and includes uncontrolled 

airspace above flight level 60. 

Class G Uncontrolled Airspace that is not classified by the FAA. 

Source: DoD, 2002 

3.3.1.2 Other Airspace Uses 

 Special Use Airspace - airspace where limitations are placed upon aircraft “activities 

because of their nature and/or wherein limitations may be imposed upon aircraft operations 

that are not a part of those activities.” (FAA, 2005) Examples of Special Use airspace are 

alert areas, controlled firing areas, Military Operating Areas, prohibited areas, restricted 

areas, and warning areas. (DoD, 2002) 

 Military Training Routes - airspace “of defined vertical and lateral dimensions established 

for the conduct of military flight training at airspeeds in excess of 250 knots (287 miles per 

hour).” (FAA, 2003a) 

 En route Airways and Jet Routes - established IFR flight paths used by commercial and 

private aircraft. However, the FAA is gradually allowing pilots to develop their own flight 

plans that follow more efficient and economic routes. (DoD, 2002) 

 Airports and Airfields - describe “an area on land or water that is used or intended to be 

used for the landing and takeoff of aircraft and includes its buildings and facilities.” (FAA, 

2003a) 

 3.3.2 Region of Influence 

The ROI includes the airspace over the CSIA and airspace within the northwest and southwest 

corridors where the vehicles proposed to be launched from the CSIA would operate. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-15 

3.3.3 Existing Conditions 

3.3.3.1 En Route Airways and Jet Routes 

Civilian aircraft flying within the NAS must follow designated airways, which are an invisible 

three-dimensional network of routes throughout controlled airspace. Two fixed airway systems 

have been established for air navigation: low-altitude Victor Routes (V-Routes) and highaltitude Jet Routes (J-Routes). V-Routes run from 213 meters (700 feet) Above Ground Level 

(AGL) up to but not including 5,486 meters (18,000 feet) MSL and serve general aviation and 

smaller commuter flights flying within these altitudes. J-Routes run from 5,486 meters (18,000 

feet) above MSL to flight level 450 and serve commercial aircraft frequently traveling between 

major airports. There are a total of 33 en route V-Routes and 26 J-Routes that transect the 

airspace within the proposed Oklahoma Spaceport airspace of interest. 

3.3.3.2 Air Traffic Control 

Air traffic control is the service provided by the appropriate authority to promote the safe, 

orderly, and expeditious flow of air traffic. (FAA, 2005) Current CSIA operations fall within the 

Fort Worth Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC), which controls en route IFR traffic 

between terminal areas and provides limited services to VFR traffic. The airspace of interest, 

with respect to this proposed action, falls principally within the boundaries of the Kansas City 

and Fort Worth ARTCCs, with the exception of the far northwestern corner of the airspace 

within the Denver ARTCC boundary and the western/southwestern airspace within the 

Albuquerque ARTCC boundary. Special Use airspace remains under the control of the 

respective using agency when in use, but may be released to the controlling agency when 

inactive for use by all air traffic. The CSIA Control Tower or the appropriate ARTCC would 

provide aircraft separation and safety advisories within Class A and B airspace, separation 

service to aircraft (operating under IFR), and to the extent practicable, traffic advisories to those 

aircraft operating under VFR. There is currently no defined upper altitude limit for the airspace 

of interest to the proposed Oklahoma Spaceport, but as part of the licensing process it would be 

necessary to prepare the appropriate airspace agreements to clearly define how vehicles 

launching and landing at the CSIA would be accommodated. 

3.4 Biological Resources 

3.4.1 Definition of Resource 

Biological resources include the vegetation and wildlife that make up the ecosystem of the 

affected environment. Protected and regulated elements of the flora and fauna include 

 State- and federally-listed threatened and endangered species and their designated critical 

habitat, 

 Migratory Birds, and 

 Invasive Species. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-16 

Because the location of the proposed action is in the western central portion of Oklahoma, 

regulations regarding essential fish habitat and marine mammals would not apply for the 

proposed action. 

3.4.2 Region of Influence 

The ROI would include areas downwind of the runway where launch emissions would likely 

drift, and areas where the noise levels associated with the activities under the proposed action 

would exceed the current noise profile for the aircraft operations at CSIA. 

3.4.3 Existing Conditions 

The CSIA is situated in an ecological region identified as the North American Grasslands 

(Samson, et al, 1998, 2000) and is included within a sub-region of the North American 

Grasslands described as the Bluestem-grama prairie. (Samson, et al, 1998, 2000) Most of the 

western half of the State of Oklahoma lies within the Bluestem-grama prairie. This sub-region is 

named for the most dominant prairie grass types (Andropogon spp. and Bouteloua spp.) in the 

area. 

This area comprises the majority of the continental North American native grasslands, and is 

characterized as one of the most biologically productive of all ecological communities. (Samson, 

et al, 1998, 2000) High productivity in this region is attributed to high retention of nutrients, 

efficient biological recycling, and a structure that supports a vast array of animal and plant life. 

3.4.3.1 Vegetation 

The undeveloped portions of the CSIA comprise approximately 32 percent of the land, and are 

relatively flat and covered with primarily non-native grasses and agricultural crops. The 

developed areas, approximately 65 percent of the land, include commercial and residential 

building, the airport runways, roads, driveways, parking lots, and buildings. The remaining three 

percent of the land is made up of open water and ditches. Numerous windrows of deciduous 

trees are located at the CSIA as well as grouped plantings around the developed areas. (United 

States Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], 1999) Vegetation surrounding the CSIA is generally 

composed of a combination of man-made landscapes, agricultural land, and prairie. The two 

most common grass species occurring in prairie areas include bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) 

and weeping love grass (Eragrostis spp.). Ornamental trees and shrubs are located at CSIA. 

Trees are sparsely located throughout western Oklahoma, but typically occur near surface 

drainage features or along fence lines on agricultural lands. Frequently occurring types of 

woody vegetation in Washita County include elm (Ulmus spp.), cedar (Juniperus spp.), dogwood 

(Cornus florida), oak (Quercus spp.), walnut (Juglans spp.), and cottonwood (Populus spp.). 

Thick riparian vegetation and a limited number of small trees exist around the rim of Base Lake, 

and a small narrow wetland occurs at the confluences of the two south-trending ditches north of 

Base Lake. (USACE, 1999) Emergent vegetation and a tight cluster of deciduous trees are 

associated with this small narrow wetland, and submergent and emergent wetland vegetation are 

located along and within the tributaries of Little Elk Creek and in Base Lake, located along the 

eastern portion of the CSIA. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-17 

Invasive species of concern on the rangelands that occur in and around the CSIA include: Sericea 

lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), eastern red cedar, (Juniperus virginiana) bull thistle (Cirsium 

vulgare), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), Scotch thistle (Onopordium acanthium), distaff thistle 

(Carthamus lanatus), and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). 

3.4.3.2 Wildlife 

Numerous migratory birds and small foraging mammals have been identified during site visits to 

the CSIA. Small mammals use the site despite the ongoing aircraft operations, approximately 

129 operations per day. Up to 87 percent of the operations involve military aircraft, which 

include the C-5 Galaxy transport plane. Large amounts of open space and diverse habitats at the 

CSIA likely contribute to the success of the wildlife on site. Skunks, foxes, rabbits, squirrels, 

and coyotes are the most commonly sighted mammals at the CSIA. Livestock including cattle 

can be found on farmlands near the CSIA. The Washita National Wildlife Refuge is located on 

Lake Foss approximately 18 kilometers (11 miles) north of the CSIA. (USACE, 1999) 

Exhibit 3-9, lists the wildlife that has been or may be found utilizing the habitats present at 

CSIA. 

Exhibit 3-9. Wildlife Potentially Present at CSIA 

Avian 

Harris’ sparrow Ferruginous hawk1 Great tailed grackle 

American kestrel Red-winged blackbird Barn owlb

Eastern meadowlark Northern harrier American tree sparrow 

Merlin Yellow-headed blackbird Loggerhead shrikeb

Western meadowlark Red-tailed hawk Chipping sparrow 

Prairie falcona Common grackle Common night hawk 

Brewer’s blackbird Swainson’s hawkb Clay colored sparrowc

Mourning dove Dickcissel Northern bobwhite quail 

Field sparrow Scissor-tailed flycatcher Grasshopper sparrow 

Eastern kingbird Western kingbird Lark sparrow 

Northern mockingbird Savannah sparrow Brown thrasher 

Song sparrow Sprague’s pipit Eastern bluebird 

Vesper sparrow White-crowned sparrow Buff-breasted sandpiperc

American goldfinch Killdeer Blue grosbeak 

Black-bellied ploverc Horned lark Lesser golden-ploverc

Lark bunting Upland sandpiper Chestnut-collared longspur 

Double-crested cormorant Lapland longspur Whooping craned 12 

Mammal 

Desert shrewb Thirteen-lined ground squirrel Deer mouse 

Black-tailed prairie dogb Northern grasshopper mouse Eastern cotton tail 

 

12 The whooping crane was first listed on March 11, 1967. It is currently designated as Endangered in the Entire, 

except where listed as an experimental population within the area covered by the listing. The species is known to 

occur in Oklahoma. A recovery plan has been developed for this species and critical habitat has been designated. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-18 

Plains harvest mouse Black tailed jackrabbit Prairie vole 

Nine-banded armadillo Hisbid cotton rat Opossum 

Ord’s kangaroo rat Striped skunk Plains pocket gopher 

Coyote Western big-eared batb 

Amphibian 

Tiger salamander Couch’s spadefoot toad Great plains toad 

Northern cricket frog Western narrow-mouthed toad Red spotted toad 

Texas toad Woodhouse’s toad 

Reptile 

Ornate box turtle Great plains rat snake Earless lizard b

Plains hognose snake Texas horned lizardb Prairie kingsnake 

Southern prairie snake Prairie lined racerunner Black-headed snake 

Prairie ringneck snake Blind snake Texas longnosed snakeb

Bullsnake Common garter snake Western plains garter snake 

Fish 

Gizzard shad Longear sunfish Black bullhead 

Orange-spotted sunfish Channel catfish White crappie 

Orangethroated darter Emerald shiner Plains killifish 

Golden shiner Brook silverside Bullhead minnow 

Largemouth bass Fathead minnow Bluegill 

Source: modified from USACE, 1999 

Notes: a State species of special concern, Category 1 

b

 State species of special concern, Category 2 

c

 Migrant, fall and spring 

d

 Possible migrant, fall and spring

Some of species listed in Exhibit 3-9 are unlikely to be present at CSIA due to the lack of 

appropriate habitat (e.g., the loggerhead shrike) or due to focused eradication efforts (i.e., the 

black-tailed prairie dog). The state-listed species of special concern that may occur on the CSIA 

because of the presence of suitable habitat include 

 Barn owl, 

 Ferruginous hawk, 

 Prairie falcon, 

 Swainson’s hawk, 

 Desert shrew, 

 Earless lizard, 

 Texas horned lizard, and 

 Texas longnosed snake. (USACE, 1999) 

The Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) is the only species of concern (Species of Special 

Concern) listed for Washita County. Previous studies indicate that other species of concern, 

including the Texas horned lizard, earless lizard, western big-eared bat, Swainson’s hawk, and 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-19 

the loggerhead shrike may be present. (Benham Group, 1995 as cited in Department of the Air 

Force, 2002) Species of Special Concern are those where current evidence indicates the species 

is especially vulnerable to local extinction because of a limited range, low population or other 

factors. The other state-listed species of special concern listed in Exhibit 3-9 are unlikely to be 

present at CSIA due to the lack of suitable habitat. 

3.4.3.3 Threatened or Endangered Species 

The Oklahoma Natural Heritage database does not contain any records of occurrences of state or 

federally-listed rare, threatened, or endangered species occurring at CSIA. The Final Remedial 

Investigation report prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers found that there were no 

federally protected species possibly occurring in the region of the site [CSIA]. (USACE, 1999) 

Previous studies indicate that the endangered whooping crane may be found in or near the 

wetlands at CSIA during its spring and fall migration. (Department of the Air Force, 2004) 

3.5 Cultural Resources 

3.5.1 Definition of Resource 

Cultural resources include “historic properties” as defined in the National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA), as districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects included in or eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places (National Register). In addition, cultural resources include 

Native American Resources (sacred sites and traditional cultural properties). 

3.5.2 Region of Influence 

For the purpose of this EA and in accordance with (36 CFR § 800.16), which defines the concept 

of “area of potential effect” below, the ROI has been defined as the boundary of the CSIA. 

(d) Area of potential effects means the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking 

may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if 

any such properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and 

nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the 

undertaking. 

3.5.3 Existing Conditions 

Much of the CSIA has been previously disturbed by historical activities of the U.S. Navy, and 

USAF. According to the Oklahoma Archaeological Survey (OAS), there are no previously 

recorded prehistoric or early historic archeological sites or homesteads within the CSIA 

boundary. The CSIA Master Plan states that there are several (not identified) archeological sites 

in the vicinity of the CSIA. (Benham Group, 1996) The OAS advises that there are both 

prehistoric and early historic archeological sites in the surrounding area, the nearest of which is 

approximately 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) from the north boundary of the CSIA. 

There are no buildings or structures at the CSIA listed on the National Register; however, the air 

traffic control tower and attached administration building exhibit characteristics that may make 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-20 

them eligible for listing on the National Register. To date, no formal nomination process has 

been initiated. A total of seven historic sites are listed on the National Register in Washita 

County, with the nearest historic site located approximately 13 kilometers (8 miles) northwest of 

the CSIA in Canute, Oklahoma. (National Register, 2005) 

 

The CSIA is located within the Cheyenne-Arapaho Nation. The FAA has identified seven 

American Indian tribes that may be affected by the proposed action. 

 Wichita 

 Apache 

 Caddo 

 Kiowa 

 Comanche 

 Cheyenne-Arapaho 

 Chickasaw 

As of August 1, 2005, FAA has received confirmation from one Indian tribe, the Wichita, that 

the proposed action would not affect any of their interests. 

3.6 Geology and Soils 

3.6.1 Definition of Resource 

The geology of a particular area can be described as the physical nature and history of the earth, 

the composition of the rocks from which it is composed, and the changes in which it has 

undergone or is undergoing. Soils are defined as that earth material which has been modified 

and acted upon by physical, chemical, and biological agents so as to be able to support rooted 

plants. 

3.6.2 Region of Influence 

The ROI would include the geology and soils located within the boundary of the CSIA. The ROI 

is confined to the boundary of the CSIA because the operation of a launch site at the CSIA is not 

expected to result in impacts that would impact geology and soils outside of the launch area. 

3.6.3 Existing Conditions 

3.6.3.1 Geology 

The CSIA is located near the central axis of the Anadarko Basin geologic province. In geologic 

terms, a basin is a broad tract of land characterized by a bowl shaped depression where the rocks 

are all tilted towards a common center. The Anadarko Basin, the deepest basin in the 

Continental United States, is bounded by a series of uplift areas: to the south by the WichitaCriner Uplift, to the east by the Nemaha Uplift, to the north by the Central Kansas Uplift and to 

the west by the Cimarron Arch. The basin is asymmetrical and covers an area of about 129,500 

square kilometers (50,000 square miles), including almost all of western Oklahoma. (Henry, 

1995) 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-21 

Generally, the geology of the basin is characterized by layers of sedimentary rocks of varying 

thickness (as much as 12,000 meters [39,370 feet] at their deepest) overlaying igneous basement 

rocks. The sedimentary rocks consist predominantly of sandstones, limestones and shales and 

range in age from Cambrian (540 to 510 million years old) to Permian (300 to 250 million years 

old). The igneous rocks consist of rhyolites and granites and range in age from the pre-Cambrian 

(about 700 to 540 million years old) to the Cambrian. (Henry, 1995)

3.6.3.2 Topography of the CSIA 

The topography at the CSIA ranges from nearly level to smoothly sloping uplands. The surface 

elevations at the CSIA vary from approximately 572 meters (1,875 feet) above MSL in the 

southeastern portion of the site to 590 meters (1,937 feet) above MSL in the northwestern 

portion. (USGS, 1990) 

3.6.3.3 Geology of the CSIA 

The geologic units exposed at the surface in the vicinity of the CSIA consist of Permian age 

sedimentary rocks and quaternary age (modern) alluvium deposits. The Permian age 

sedimentary units include the Cloud Chief Formation, which is a reddish brown shale with 

interbedded siltstone and sandstone that is about 122 meters (400 feet) thick; the Doxey Shale, 

which is a reddish-brown shale and siltstone that is about 48 meters (190 feet) thick; the Elk City 

Sandstone, which is a reddish-brown, fine-grained sandstone with minor silt and clay that is 

about 56 meters (185 feet) thick; and the Rush Springs Formation, which is a fine-grained 

sandstone with dolomite and gypsum beds that is about 91 meters (300 feet) thick. (Heran, 2003) 

The quaternary alluvium deposits in the CSIA study area consist mainly of alluvial and terrace 

deposits that range in thickness up to about 52 meters (170 feet). These deposits are mostly 

stream related and are discussed in the following soils section. 

3.6.3.4 Soils 

The soils within the CSIA fall within the Grandfield-Dill-Quinan general soils unit. (USACE, 

1999) The soils within this unit are characterized as deep to shallow, nearly-level to rolling, 

well-drained loamy soils that formed from the weathering of weakly consolidated sandstone. 

The specific soils located within the CSIA consist of the Altus and Granfield Soils, Dill-Quinan 

Complex, Grandfield fine sandy loam, Obaro silty clay loam, St. Paul silt loam, and the 

Woodward–Clairemont complex. 

The Altus and Grandfield soils (zero to one percent slopes) are deep, well-drained, nearly level 

soils found on upland areas. The map unit consists of approximately 60 percent Altus soils, 35 

percent Grandfield soils and five percent Dill soils. The Altus soils are high in natural fertility 

and in organic matter content. Runoff of these soils is very slow, and permeability is moderate. 

The Grandfield soils are medium in organic matter content and in natural fertility. Permeability 

of these soils is moderate and runoff is very slow. The Dill fine sandy loam is medium in natural 

fertility and organic matter. The permeability of these soils is moderately rapid and the runoff is 

medium. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-22 

The Dill-Quinan complex (three to five percent slopes) consists of moderately deep and shallow, 

well drained, gently sloping soils found on upland areas. The slopes are smooth and convex in 

shape. The Quinan fine sandy loam is calcareous (composed of calcium carbonate) throughout 

with low natural fertility and organic content. The permeability of these soils is moderately 

rapid, the runoff is rapid and the available water capacity is low. The natural fertility and the 

organic matter content of Obaro silty clay loam are high. The permeability is moderate and the 

runoff is medium. The natural fertility and organic matter content of St. Paul silt loam is high. 

The permeability of these soils is moderately slow and the runoff is medium. 

The Woodward–Clairemont complex consists mainly of moderately deep and deep, well-drained 

soils located in narrow drainage ways that cut into smoother upland areas. Slopes range from 

zero to 45 percent through these drainage areas. The Woodward loam makes up approximately 

66 percent of the mapped areas. The natural fertility and organic content of Woodward loam is 

medium. The permeability is moderate. The runoff and the available water capacity of these 

soils are medium. The natural fertility of Clairemont silt loam is high and the permeability is 

moderate. 

3.6.3.5 Mineral Resources 

The Anadarko basin is a prolific producer of both oil and natural gas. The CSIA is situated 

within the Burns Flat oil field. The Elk City oil field is located to the west and to the south is the 

Dill City gas field. (Benham Group, 1996) Several of the oil and gas wells are located on the 

CSIA and surrounding area. Exhibit 3-10 depicts a Herndon Map (September 2, 2002), which 

depicts the locations of oil and gas wells on and in the vicinity of the CSIA in Township 10 

North, Range 19 West, Washita County, Oklahoma. The map indicates that four wells have been 

drilled on the surface area of the CSIA (north west quarter of Section 9, the south west quarter of 

Section 14, the northeast quarter of Section 15, and the southwest quarter of Section 15 [depicted 

as a dry hole]). Four wells with surface locations in quarter sections adjoining the CSIA to the 

east and south have been directionally drilled under the CSIA (north east quarter of Section 22 

[two locations], the south east quarter of Section 22, and the north east quarter of Section 27). 

The oil and gas production from these wells is derived predominantly from formations associated 

with what is commonly referred to as the Granite-Wash. The depths of production range from 

approximately 2,517 meters (8,257 feet) below sea level to 3,677 meters (12,064 feet) below sea 

level. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-23 

Exhibit 3-10. Herndon Map Displaying Oil and Gas Wells at the CSIA 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-24 

3.6.3.6 Seismicity 

The ROI is not characterized as a particularly seismically active area. Between 1974 and 2003, 

17 earthquakes were recorded in Oklahoma, which accounts for less than 0.1 percent of the total 

earthquakes recorded in the U.S. during this time period. (United States Geological Survey 

[USGS], 2005) In particular, between 1990 and 2001 there were no recorded seismic activities 

in the ROI. (USGS, 2003a) The closest substantial fault to the CSIA is the Meers Fault which 

has two sections that are located in Oklahoma in Comanche and Kiowa counties. (USGS, 2003b) 

Because of the potential for activity along the Meers Fault, earthquake hazard and damage 

reduction information has been incorporated into the Oklahoma Strategic All-Hazards Mitigation 

Plan. (Central U.S. Earthquake Consortium, 2005) However, because the potential of seismic 

activity in the ROI is unlikely, this topic will not be further addressed in the consideration of 

environmental consequences. 

3.7 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management 

3.7.1 Definition of Resource 

Hazardous wastes are defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Section 

1004(5) as “a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, 

concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may (a) cause, or significantly 

contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating 

reversible illness or (b) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the 

environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed.” 

While the definition refers to “solids”, it has been interpreted to include semisolids, liquids, and 

contained gases. (Wentz, 1989) Hazardous waste is further defined in 40 CFR 261.3 as any solid 

waste that possesses hazardous characteristics of toxicity, ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity, 

or is listed as a hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261. 

Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are also encompassed within the definition of 

hazardous substances as identified in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. Sections 9601-9675) and the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. Sections 2601-2671). The Hazardous Materials 

Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. Section 1801, Parts 172-173) regulates the transportation of 

hazardous materials. (Legal Information Institute, 2005) 

3.7.2 Region of Influence 

The ROI for potential impacts from Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management is 

the entire CSIA, including launch and support facilities. 

3.7.3 Existing Conditions 

3.7.3.1 Current Site Operations 

Management of hazardous waste must comply with RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and 

Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. (42 U.S.C. Section 6901-6992) The State of Oklahoma 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-25 

possesses regulatory authority delegated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to 

require that hazardous waste be handled, stored, transported, disposed, or recycled in compliance 

with applicable regulations. The State’s hazardous waste management regulations are 

promulgated by the Oklahoma Hazardous Waste Management Act, 27A O.S.§ 2-7-101 et seq., 

the Hazardous Waste Fund Act, 27A O.S. § 2-7-301 et seq., the Oklahoma Hazardous Waste 

Reduction Program, 27A O.S. § 2-11-201 et seq., and the Recycling, Reuse and Source 

Reduction Incentive Act, 27A O.S. § 2-11-301 et seq. (Oklahoma Department of Environmental 

Quality [DEQ], 2004) 

The CSIA stores Jet-A and 100-octane low lead aviation gasoline in aboveground storage tanks 

that have been installed and are maintained in compliance with appropriate local, State, and 

Federal standards and regulatory requirements. Total storage capacity is 37,854 liters (10,000 

gallons). A number of hazardous materials are used and stored onsite at the CSIA for general 

operations such as aircraft maintenance, including 

 Unleaded gasoline, 

 Diesel fuel, 

 Acetylene, 

 Oxygen, 

 Paint, 

 Waste oil, 

 Motor oil, 

 Gear lubricant, 

 Hydraulic oil, and 

 Tractor hydraulic fluid. 

The following hazardous materials would be used and stored onsite in support of engine testing 

at the CSIA. 

 Kerosene, UN1223, hazard class 3 

 Oxygen, refrigerated liquid (cryogenic liquid), UN1073, hazard class 2.2 

The following hazardous materials would also be used and stored onsite in support of launch 

activities at the CSIA. 

 Helium, compressed, UN1046, hazard class 2.2 

 Gaseous oxygen, UN1072, hazard class 2.2 

 Nitrous oxide (liquid), UN2201, hazard class 2.2 

 Nitrous oxide (gaseous), UN1070, hazard class 2.2 

 HTPB 

The only hazardous waste generated annually at the CSIA is approximately 757 liters (200 

gallons) of used motor oil. The oil is transported offsite by a licensed vendor. There are no 

permitted hazardous waste storage facilities at the CSIA. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-26 

Standard operating procedures have been established for hazardous waste operations, which 

include controls to protect personnel and the environment during operations involving hazardous 

materials. The CSIA follows directives on the applicable Material Safety Data Sheets and Rightto-Know directives for any hazardous materials/waste with which employees come in contact. 

The Clinton-Sherman Fire Department has developed a set of Tactical Guidelines for Fuel Spill 

Procedures, which establishes responsibility, outlines personnel duties, and provides resources 

and guidelines for use in the control, clean-up, and emergency response for spills or releases. 

(Clinton-Sherman Fire Department, 2003) 

3.7.3.2 Historic Site Operations 

Releases and disposal of hazardous substances and petroleum products occurred historically at 

the CSIA as a result of USAF and U.S. Navy activities. Maintenance and operational activities 

often resulted in the release of wastes at both the point of activity and in several landfills; 

however, most releases occurred prior to the passage of environmental statutes and regulations, 

and occurred using practices that were acceptable at the time. The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) investigated the CSIA in early 1990 to determine its eligibility for funding 

under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) Formerly Used Defense Sites 

(FUDS). Site surveys concluded that existing contamination was a result of DoD activities and 

that the CSIA was eligible for cleanup under DERP-FUDS. (USACE, 1998) 

USACE performed several remedial investigations, a feasibility study, and a human health and 

environmental risk assessment during the mid to late 1990s to characterize the existing 

contamination and determine remedial actions that are protective of human health and the 

environment. (USACE, 1998) Some preliminary environmental restoration work was also 

completed at this time. USACE began long-term monitoring of ground water and removal of 

contaminated soil in March 2001. (Oklahoma DEQ, 2001a) A summary of major remediation 

actions conducted at the CSIA is found in Exhibit 3-11 below. 

Three Superfund sites were identified in proximity to the Clinton-Sherman Industrial Airpark. 

These sites include Burns Flat City Dump, Flight System Inc., and the Old Clinton-Sherman 

Airport. None of the three sites were listed on the National Priorities List and all three have been 

classified by the EPA as “no further remedial action planned.” The last listing of activity at each 

of the three sites occurred as follows: Burns Flat City Dump, 1980; Flight System Inc., 1981; 

and Old Clinton-Sherman Airport, 1986. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-27 

Exhibit 3-11. Summary of Remediation Actions at the CSIA 

Remediation Action Description of Action Issue 

Building Demolition and 

Debris Removal 

Six abandoned buildings at the 

CSIA were demolished. 

The buildings were considered 

safety hazards. 

Petroleum Storage Tank 

Leakage Evaluation and 

Removal 

26 underground storage tanks, 4 

aboveground storage tanks, 2 

miles of transfer pipeline, 2 

pump stations, and 4 fuel transfer 

stations were removed. Fuelcontaminated soil was removed 

and replaced with clean soil. 

Leaks from underground and 

aboveground storage tanks 

were contributing to soil 

contamination. 

Ordnance and Explosive 

Waste Identification and 

Removal 

Site surveys did not reveal the 

presence of ordnance or 

explosive materials. No further 

action was recommended. 

Ordnance and explosive 

wastes were suspected in 

former ammunition bunkers, a 

detonation pit, and a machine 

gun target area. 

Creation of an Alternate 

Water Supply 

In coordination with several local 

and regional agencies, 6 new 

wells and a water treatment plant 

were installed on a property 

owned by the City of Clinton. 

An additional system was 

constructed to pump potable 

water from the City of Clinton 

water treatment plant located at 

Clinton Lake through an existing 

pipeline to the CSIA water tank. 

In December 1989, the 

Oklahoma State Department 

of Health closed three water 

supply wells when 

trichloroethylene (TCE) 

solvent contamination was 

found in the well water. 

Another well was closed due 

to its petroleum odor. Three 

other wells were restricted to 

use only during times of peak 

demand. Due to the shortage 

of water, USACE was 

authorized to address the loss 

of water supplied to CSIA. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-28 

Remediation Action Description of Action Issue 

Soil and Water 

Contamination Study 

and Cleanup 

Samples from 112 ground water 

monitoring wells, surface water, 

sediment, and surface and 

subsurface soils were collected 

and analyzed. Contaminated 

soils were excavated to a depth 

of 0.46 meters (1.5 feet) and 

removed. USACE is conducting 

monitored natural attenuation for 

ground water until remediation 

goals are achieved. Systematic 

monitoring is also used to track 

any migration of ground water 

contamination. 

Soil and water contamination 

was suspected in 4 landfills, 

the base lake, a hangar 

maintenance area, a fuel yard, 

and a fire training area. 

VOCs, base-neutral/acidextractable organics, and 

metals were identified in soils. 

VOCs, metals, and total 

petroleum hydrocarbons 

(TPH) were identified in 

ground water. 

3.8 Health and Safety 

3.8.1 Definition of Resource 

Health and safety includes consideration of any activities, occurrences, or operations that have 

the potential to affect the well-being, safety, or health of workers or members of the general 

public. A safety analysis is included as part of the licensing process and therefore, this analysis 

only considers health and safety as it pertains to the assessment of environmental impacts. 

3.8.2 Region of Influence 

The ROI for health and safety of workers includes the immediate work areas, launch facilities, 

and support sites located at the CSIA. The ROI for public safety includes locations outside the 

CSIA that may have the potential to be impacted by the proposed action, such as the safety 

hazard area under the vehicle’s flight path. 

3.8.3 Existing Conditions 

Currently at the CSIA, all National Fire Protection Association, Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration and applicable state and Federal guidelines for health and safety are followed. 

Compliance with these regulations is the responsibility of SWODA; however, OSIDA would 

evaluate flight hazards and conduct safety reviews for vehicles launched from the proposed 

Oklahoma Spaceport. 

Health and safety requirements at the CSIA include industrial hygiene and ground safety. 

Industrial hygiene is the joint responsibility of the facility operator (SWODA for CSIA airport 

operations) and contractor safety departments. Responsibilities include monitoring contract and 

base worker exposure to workplace chemicals and physical hazards, hearing and respiratory 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-29 

protection, medical monitoring of contractor and base workers subject to chemical exposures, 

and oversight of all hazardous or potentially hazardous operations. 

Ground safety includes protection from hazardous situations and hazardous materials. If 

personal protective equipment must be used, a general description of the equipment must be 

provided along with the hazardous qualities of the material, and data showing compliance with 

allowable limits for airborne vapors for workplace, workplace emergencies, and public 

exposures. 

As the airpark manager, SWODA conducts regular safety inspections at the CSIA and has 

established standard operating procedures to meet occupational and system safety requirements. 

The CSIA has an onsite fire department and emergency response capabilities that could be 

available during launches. Exhibit 3-12 shows the fire and rescue facility at the CSIA. 

Exhibit 3-12. Fire and Rescue Department at CSIA 

3.9 Land Use 

3.9.1 Definition of Resource 

The EPA defines land use as “the way land is developed and used in terms of the kinds of 

anthropogenic activities that occur (e.g., agriculture, residential areas, and industrial areas).” 

(EPA, 2005a) Land use is a critical element in understanding the context in which the proposed 

action will occur. 

The FAA must also consider impacts under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation 

Act. Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act was re-codified and renumbered as 

Section 303(c) of 49 U.S.C., and provides that the Secretary of Transportation will not approve 

any program or project that requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, 

recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance, or land from 

an historic site of national, state, or local significance as determined by the officials having 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-30 

jurisdiction. These provisions apply unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the 

land use and the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the use. 

3.9.2 Region of Influence 

For the purposes of describing land use in this EA, the ROI for land use includes the Spaceport 

Territory as defined below, which encompasses the CSIA, the town of Burns Flat, and other parts 

of Washita County 

3.9.3 Existing Conditions 

3.9.3.1 Oklahoma Spaceport Territory 

In 1999, Oklahoma State Senate Bill 720 (SB 720) created OSIDA and also established the 

Oklahoma Spaceport Territory. (Oklahoma State Senate, 1999) The geographical area of the 

territory is located within the limits of Washita County and includes the communities of Burns 

Flat, Foss, and Canute. A map depicting the boundaries of the Spaceport Territory is provided in 

Exhibit 3-13. 

Exhibit 3-13. Oklahoma Spaceport Territory 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-31 

The Spaceport Territory was designed to provide a launch pad and a geographic area contiguous 

to a spaceport. This geographic area would be used to protect the surrounding area from health 

and safety hazards as a result of the operation of the spaceport. OSIDA was given municipal 

authority within the Spaceport Territory, as well as the authority to establish specific 

development criteria for any space industry development within the Territory. The OSIDA 

Board of Directors may regulate development within the Spaceport Territory. The Board may 

increase or decrease the geographical limits of the Spaceport Territory upon written consent of 

the simple majority of all land owners included within the existing territory, or by vote of a 

majority of landowners in the area to be annexed or excluded. However, there are currently no 

plans to adjust the geographical location or the size of the Spaceport Territory as designated by 

SB 720. 

Pursuant to Section 12 of SB 720, the Spaceport Territory Advisory Council was founded in 

early 2002 to assist and advise OSIDA with respect to the establishment, operation, and 

maintenance of facilities within the Spaceport Territory. The Advisory Council is composed of a 

Washita County Commissioner, the Mayor of Burns Flat, and the Mayor of Canute. The 

Advisory Council may also 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. There are currently no plans for additional 

development related to the proposed launch operations within the Spaceport Territory. 

Neither OSIDA nor the Advisory Council will have superseding power over any existing 

municipality or other body of government within the Spaceport Territory. 

3.9.3.2 CSIA 

As described in Section 3.1, the CSIA is located in the northwest portion of Washita County, 

Oklahoma, adjacent to the town of Burns Flat and about 165 kilometers (102 miles) west of 

Oklahoma City. The CSIA encompasses an area of approximately 1,092 hectares (2,700 acres) 

and measures approximately 4 kilometers (2.4 miles) from east to west, and 5.7 kilometers (3.5 

miles) from north to south at its widest points. 

The title to the CSIA is currently owned by the City of Clinton. The FAA Airports Southwest 

Region is responsible for reviewing and approving any transfer of operating responsibility for 

federally obligated airports within the Southwest Region. Following completion of this EA, 

FAA Airports will make a decision regarding the transfer of the CSIA to OSIDA. The Region’s 

review and approval of the proposed transfer is dependent in part upon the determination made 

from this environmental analysis. The transfer in ownership in the CSIA from the City of 

Clinton to OSIDA would occur at such a time that the Final EA has been completed with a 

FONSI. 

The 1996 CSIA Master Plan defined seven categories of land use at the site. All land uses 

identified in the master plan still apply with the exception of residential.13 However, the amount 

of land associated with each land use category has changed since the 1996 report. Therefore, the 

 

13 All barracks on site have been demolished and there are currently no plans to construct permanent residences at 

the CSIA. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-32 

figures identifying the total amount of land area for each land use have been updated for the 

purposes of this EA. The current land use of the CSIA can be broken down into the following 

categories and approximate values. 

 Open Space, 791 hectares (1,956 acres) – This type of land use includes four subcategories 

defined below. 

• Vacant: land that has never contained buildings or structures. 

• Vacant/previously used: land that once contained structures that have since been 

demolished (e.g., former fuel unloading area, hangars, barracks).

• Restricted safety: runway safety areas and object-free areas.

• Environmentally constrained: areas located adjacent to the runways, taxiways, and 

landfills. 

 Airfield Pavement, 100 hectares (248 acres) – This category covers runways, taxiways, 

aprons, and runway overruns.

 Industrial, 96 hectares (238 acres) – This category of land use includes fuel storage, airport 

maintenance facilities, warehouses, storage facilities, manufacturing facilities, utility 

facilities, munitions storage, firing ranges, and shops. The Oklahoma Highway Patrol (OHP) 

emergency vehicle operation located at the north end of the site is also included in this 

category. Some industrial land uses include activities that require them to be separated from 

other uses. The munitions storage area is vacant and no longer used, but due to prior usage 

and the construction of the facilities, it remains classified as industrial.

 Outdoor Recreation, 89 hectares (221 acres) – This type of area includes picnic areas, ball 

fields, and a nine-hole golf course. The various picnic areas and ball fields are not frequently 

used; however, the golf course is an active facility and utilized daily.

 Aircraft Operations/Maintenance, 12 hectares (29 acres) – This category includes areas 

along the flight line such as hangars, the control tower, the crash and rescue unit, the 

maintenance facility, and the fixed base operator (FBO). Currently, all hangars at the CSIA 

are vacant. 

 Administrative, 3 hectares (8 acres) – This category of land use includes offices and 

medical-related service facilities.

Although OSIDA developed a Preliminary Land Use Plan in October 2001, the plan was 

conceptual and will most likely not be implemented. Therefore, the plan is not discussed in this 

EA because it is not reasonably foreseeable that this plan will be used. 

3.9.3.3 Burns Flat and Other Areas Surrounding the CSIA 

Land use in Burns Flat is managed by comprehensive city planning and zoning. (Oklahoma 

Department of Commerce, 2001) 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-33 

Agricultural activities dominate the land use in the general area of the CSIA. In Washita County 

in 2001, there were over 80,937 hectares (200,000 acres) of crops that were planted and 

harvested. The majority of these crops were winter wheat, with smaller amounts of rye, 

sorghum, and soybeans. (National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2001) 

3.9.3.4 Section 4(f) 

The Federal statute that governs impacts on any publicly owned land is commonly known as the 

DOT Act, Section 4(f) provisions, although it was recodified and renumbered as Section 303(c) 

of 49 U.S.C. This order continues to refer to Section 4(f) because it would create needless 

confusion to do otherwise; the policies Section 4(f) engendered are widely referred to as “Section 

4(f)” matters. Appendix A of FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures, summarizes the following about Section 4(f) of the DOT Act: 

The Secretary of Transportation will not approve any program or project that 

requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or 

wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance or land from 

an historic site of national, State, or local significance as determined by the 

officials having jurisdiction thereof, unless no feasible and prudent alternative 

exists to the use of such land and such program, and the project includes all 

possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the use. 

The FAA shall not approve any program or project which requires the use of any 

publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl 

refuge of national, State, or local significance as determined by the Federal, State, 

or local officials having jurisdiction thereof, or any land from an historic site of 

national, State, or local significance as so determined by such officials unless (1) 

no feasible and prudent alternative exists to the use of such land, and (2) such 

program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such park, recreation 

areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic sites resulting from such use. In 

carrying out the national policy, the FAA shall cooperate and consult with the 

Secretaries of the Interiors, Housing and Urban Development, and Agriculture, 

and with the States regarding potential impacts on such resources. 

Several state and local recreational areas that might be considered Section 4(f) resources are 

located in the vicinity of the CSIA. Nearby outdoor recreation areas include the Washita 

National Wildlife Refuge, located on Foss Lake 19 kilometers (12 miles) to the north; the Black 

Kettle National Grassland, located 39 kilometers (24 miles) to the northwest; and the Quartz 

Mountain Resort located in the Altus-Lugart Wildlife Management Area 43 kilometers (27 

miles) to the south. Numerous other lakes, state parks, and municipal parks are located within an 

80-kilometer (50-mile) radius of the CSIA. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-34 

3.10 Noise 

3.10.1 Definition of Resource 

Noise is often defined as unwanted or annoying sound that is typically associated with human 

activity. Most sound does not consist of a single frequency, but rather a mixture of frequencies, 

with each frequency differing in sound level. 

The amplitude of sound is described in a unit called decibels (dB). Decibels are measured on a 

logarithmic scale as the range of sound pressures encountered by human ears covers a very broad 

range, from the approximate human threshold of hearing 0.00002 Pascals to the approximate 

human threshold of pain at 200 Pascals (a 10 million fold range). The dB scale simplifies this 

range of sound pressures to a scale of 0 to 140 dB and allows the measurement of sound to be 

more easily understood. Although not exactly analogous, the decibel scale is similar to the 

commonly used earthquake Richter scale. As such, a 120 dB sound is not twice the amplitude of 

a 60 dB sound, but a 1,000-fold increase. In most cases, adding two identical sound sources 

would increase the decibel level by three dB (100 dB plus 100 dB equals 103 dB). 

Noise sources can be continuous (e.g., constant noise from traffic on a busy street or refrigeration 

units) or transient (e.g., passing noise from a jet overflight or an explosion). Noise sources can 

also have a broad range of frequency content (pitch), which can be rather nondescript, such as 

noise from traffic, or can be very specific and readily identifiable, such as a whistle or a car 

alarm. 

There are many methods for quantifying noise, depending on the potential impacts in question 

and on the type of noise. One useful noise measurement technique is to determine the increase in 

background noise levels by use of the one-hour average sound level, abbreviated Leq1H. The 

degree to which a new potentially intrusive sound can cause a noise impact is dependent in part 

on how much it increases the background noise levels. Leq measurements can also be specified 

for other time periods such as 8 or 24-hour periods. The Leq1H is usually A-weighted unless 

specified otherwise. A-weighting is a standard filter used in acoustics that approximates human 

hearing and in some cases is the most appropriate weighting filter when investigating the impacts 

of noise on wildlife as well as humans. 

Another useful metric is the Day Night Level (DNL), which is the average sound level over an 

entire day (Leq24H), with 10 dB added between 10 PM and 7 AM to account for the increased 

annoyance of noise during these hours. 

The most common acoustical metrics used to describe transient noises, such as a rocket launch, 

aircraft overflight, or a sonic boom, are sound exposure level (SEL), maximum fast sound level 

(Lmax), peak level (Peak), and unweighted peak level. 

SEL is the total sound energy in a sound event if that event could be compressed into one 

second. In essence, SEL is an average sound level that is condensed into one second. This 

provides a normalized metric, so that two different noise events can be compared to each other. 

SEL can be reported with A-weighting or other weightings such as unweighted or C-weighted. 

Unweighted is the total amount of sound with no weighting applied. C-weighting approximates 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-35 

human response to loud, usually transient sounds, such as a sonic boom or gunshot, and in some 

cases may be a better predictor of animal response to loud sounds. 

The Lmax, usually with A-weighting applied, is the greatest sound level reached during a sound 

event with a time weighting applied to the calculation. The time weighting causes the sound 

levels to be influenced by sounds that most recently occurred. The “fast” in “maximum fast 

sound level,” refers to specific exponential moving average time weighting with a time constant 

of 1/8 of a second. As this metric does not average the sound over a period of time like the Leq 

measurements it is a good indicator of the loudest level the sound reaches. 

The Peak sound level is the greatest instantaneous sound level reached during a sound event. 

Peak levels can also have various frequency weightings applied to them. Peak levels, though 

useful in some cases, can often be misleading. It can occur that a single peak in a complex 

waveform can be substantially greater than the majority of a sound event. Peak levels should 

always be presented along with one or more of the metrics described above to better describe the 

sound event. Unweighted peak sound level is simply the Peak sound level with no frequency 

weighting applied. 

3.10.2 Region of Influence 

Because sonic booms could be generated from launch vehicles exceeding the speed of sound, the 

ROI includes areas where these sonic booms could impact. For this proposed action, these areas 

could include portions of Oklahoma and the Texas Panhandle. 

3.10.3 Existing Conditions 

The primary existing noise sources at the CSIA are the various operations associated with an 

airfield. Background noise levels include sound from wind, rain, livestock, farming activities, 

traffic, and wildlife. 

Persons and various biological resources that may be subject to stress and/or interference from 

noise are referred to as noise sensitive receptors. They may include residential communities and 

transient lodging (i.e., hotels and motels), hospitals, special care facilities, public or private 

educational facilities, libraries, parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas. Adjacent to the 

CSIA to the east are primarily single-family private residences and a school and further east, the 

town of Burns Flat. To the north, west, and south are pasture/farmland and remote farm 

residences. 

Responses of wildlife to noise vary based on the type of noise and its characteristics (e.g., 

amplitude, rise time, duration, and frequency content), the species of wildlife, hearing capability, 

location, habitat type, current activity of the animal, sex and age, previous experience with noise 

exposure and condition of the animal. (Manci, et al., 1988) Potential physiological impacts from 

noise can range from short term mild impacts, such as an increase in heart rate or small 

temporary changes in hearing to more damaging impacts such as permanent changes in hearing, 

metabolism and hormone balance to long term severe impacts such as chronic distress that is 

harmful to the health of wildlife species and their reproductive fitness. Potential behavioral 

impacts from noise also range greatly from minor responses including small changes in current 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-36 

behavior such as a ‘heads up’ response to more severe responses such as panic and escape flight 

responses that might result in physiological damage (falling, trampling, crashing, piling etc.). 

Behavioral responses of wildlife to noise can accompany physiological responses as well. 

 

The existing 65 DNL contour at the CSIA has been previously delineated and includes 

approximately 4,804 hectares (11,871 acres) on and around the CSIA. Exhibit 3-14 shows the 

current DNL contours at the CSIA. 

Exhibit 3-14. Current DNL Contours at the CSIA 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-37 

Exhibit 3-15 shows the acres of land covered in each of the noise contours as well as the 

population living in each noise contour. Instantaneous sound pressure levels have been 

calculated to be between 86 to 122 dB at discrete receptors within the DNL 65 dB contour. 

(Department of the Air Force, 2002) As described in Section 3.9.3.3, the majority of the land use 

around the CSIA is agricultural with some industry and residential uses located in Burns Flat. 

One single family house is located immediately to the north of the CSIA, approximately 2,000 

feet to the northwest of the end of runway 17R. Residential structures are located in the Air 

Installation Compatible Use Zone clear zones and the accident potential zones. Noise complaints 

have not been identified as a problem for the facility. 

Exhibit 3-15. Acres of Land and Population within Noise Contours at the CSIA 

DNL Noise 

Contour (dBA) Acres of Land Population 

65-70 3,382 38 

70-75 1,472 8 

75-80 292 3 

>80 452 0 

Source: Department of the Air Force, 1998b as cited in Department of the Air Force, 2002 

No current activities at CSIA generate sonic booms. Except for the prohibition of nuisance 

noise, neither the state of Oklahoma nor local governments have established specific numerical 

environmental noise standards. 

3.11 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 

This section describes the existing socioeconomic and environmental conditions of the areas in 

the vicinity of the CSIA, including the town of Burns Flat, Oklahoma. Issues addressed in this 

section include demographics, employment/labor force, environmental justice, and children’s 

health. 

3.11.1 Definition of Resource 

Socioeconomics is defined as the basic attributes and resources associated with the human 

environment, in particular societal and economic activity. Socioeconomic resources are 

described in terms of an area’s population, housing, demographics, employment, and income. 

Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless 

of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Executive Order (EO) 12898, 

entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations, tasks Federal agencies to make achieving environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse public health or 

environmental effects of programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income 

populations. The CEQ defined “minority” to consist of the following groups: Black/African 

American, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska Native, 

and Hispanic populations (regardless of race). The Interagency Federal Working Group on 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-38 

Environmental Justice guidance states that a minority population may be present in an area if the 

minority population percentage in the area of interest is “meaningfully greater” than the minority 

population in the general population. The CEQ defined low-income populations as those 

identified with the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the U.S. Census Bureau. The 

accepted rationale in determining what constitutes a low-income population is similar to minority 

populations, in that when the low-income population percentage within the area of interest is 

“meaningfully greater” than the low-income population in the general population, the community 

in question is considered to be low-income. 

EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, directs 

Federal agencies, as appropriate and consistent with the agency’s mission, to make it a high 

priority to identify and assess environmental health risks and safety risks that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

3.11.2 Region of Influence 

For the purposes of socioeconomics and environmental justice in this EA, the ROI includes not 

only the town of Burns Flat but the entire SWODA area, which encompasses a 48 to 64 

kilometer (30 to 40 mile) radius of the CSIA. The SWODA region covers eight counties and 

approximately 18,200 square kilometers (7,030 square miles) in the southwestern section of 

Oklahoma. 

3.11.3 Existing Conditions 

Because the immediate area surrounding the CSIA is lacking the resources such as skilled 

laborers and commercial services to support the proposed action, this EA focuses on the entire 

SWODA area. The following eight counties are included in the SWODA region: Beckham, 

Custer, Greer, Harmon, Jackson, Kiowa, Roger Mills, and Washita. SWODA serves 46 cities 

and towns and 10 conservation districts in its geographical area. 

This section briefly describes the socioeconomic characteristics of the SWODA region compared 

to those of the State of Oklahoma and the entire U.S. In some instances, SWODA is compared 

with Washita County and Burns Flat because the CSIA is located in Washita County and the 

town of Burns Flat is the closest population center. (See Exhibit 3-13 in the Land Use section). 

Data characterized in this section includes population and population density; education; 

economics and housing; employment and labor force; demographic information as it relates to 

environmental justice; and age distribution as it relates to children’s health, 

3.11.3.1 Population and Population Density 

According to Census 2000 data, the SWODA region is home to a total population of 108,990, 

which is 3.2 percent of Oklahoma’s total population. SWODA’s average population density is 

six persons per square kilometer (15.5 persons per square mile). Exhibit 3-16 below presents the 

population and population density figures from the 2000 U.S. Census. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-39 

Exhibit 3-16. Population and Population Density, 2000 

Geographic Area Population Population Density, persons 

per square kilometer (mile) 

United States 281,421,906 30.7 (79.6) 

Oklahoma 3,450,654 19.4 (50.3) 

SWODA Region 108,990 6 (15.5) 

Washita County 11,508 4.4 (11.5) 

Burns Flat 1,782 764.5 (1,980) 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 

3.11.3.2 Education 

Exhibit 3-17 depicts the educational profile of people 25 years and older as reported in the 2000 

U.S. Census. The data for the SWODA region generally follow the same trend as state and 

national percentages. However, a slightly lower percentage of the SWODA population holds a 

Bachelor’s degree, and a greater percentage of the SWODA population did not complete high 

school. 

Exhibit 3-17. Education Profile of Populations Over the Age of 25, 2000 

Education Completed U.S. Oklahoma SWODA 

Region 

Washita 

County 

Burns 

Flat 

Not completing high 

school 19.6% 19.4% 23.5% 20.2% 14.8% 

High school graduate, 

including equivalency 28.6% 31.5% 34.4% 39.1% 37.4% 

Some college, no degree 21% 23.4% 21.6% 22.2% 26.3% 

Associate degree 6.3% 5.4% 4.6% 3.4% 6.1% 

Bachelor’s degree 15.5% 13.5% 10.4% 10.4% 10.7% 

Graduate or professional 

degree 8.9% 6.8% 5.5% 4.7% 4.8% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 

Numbers may not total to 100 due to rounding. 

3.11.3.3 Economics and Housing 

Exhibit 3-18 presents a comparison of some economic and housing characteristics obtained from 

Census 2000 data. The information indicates that the SWODA region has a lower median 

household income and per capita income than the U.S., Oklahoma, Washita County, and Burns 

Flat. Additionally, SWODA has a higher percentage of its population living in poverty. 

SWODA’s homeownership rate is slightly higher than that of the U.S. and Oklahoma, while the 

median value of owner-occupied housing units is significantly lower than that of Oklahoma and 

the U.S. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-40 

Exhibit 3-18. General Economic and Housing Profile of the Population 

Economic Characteristics U.S. Oklahoma SWODA 

Region 

Washita 

County 

Burns 

Flat 

Median Household Income 

(1999) $41,994 $33,400 $27,564 $29,562 $32,530

Per Capita Income (1999) $21,587 $17,646 $14,953 $15,528 $14,350

Percent of Individuals living 

below poverty (1999) 12.4% 14.7% 17.9% 15.5% 15.6% 

Total number of housing 

units (2002) 115,904,641 1,541,518 49,951 5,455 622 

Homeownership rate (2000) 66.2% 68.4% 72% 74.7% 56.3% 

Median value of owneroccupied housing units 

(2000) 

$119,600 $70,700 $44,100 $39,800 $41,300

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 

Note: The 2000 Census reports provided data from various years, as indicated in the first column of the 

table. 

3.11.3.4 Employment and Labor Force 

Currently, there are seven tenants leasing facilities at the CSIA including a restaurant, SWODA, 

OSIDA, OHP, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), an FBO, and a 

medical clinic. Some vacant facilities are occasionally leased on a monthly basis for storage. 

The potential labor force for the proposed Oklahoma Spaceport is assumed to include the 

population living within the ROI. Therefore, the potential labor force is approximated by the 

population living within the SWODA region, which encompasses a 48 to 64 kilometer (30 to 40 

mile) radius of the CSIA and 108,990 people. 

Exhibit 3-19 presents the unemployment statistics according to the 2000 U.S. Census. The data 

show that the unemployment rate in the SWODA region is below the state and national averages. 

Exhibit 3-19. Unemployment Rates, 2000 

Geographic Area Unemployment Rate

U.S. 3.7 % 

Oklahoma 3.3 % 

SWODA Region 2.9 % 

Washita County 2.3% 

Burns Flat 3.4% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 

Exhibit 3-20 identifies the percentage breakdown of the labor categories in which people are 

employed. The SWODA region appears to be similar to the national and state occupational 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-41 

Exhibit 3-20. Percent of Population Employed by Occupation, 2000 

Occupations U.S. Oklahoma SWODA 

Region 

Washita 

County 

Burns 

Flat 

Management, Professional, 

and Related 33.6% 30.3% 30.3% 30.2% 25.7% 

Service 14.9% 15.5% 18.2% 16.3% 22.8% 

Sales and Office 26.7% 26.6% 21.8% 20.4% 20.3% 

Farming, Forestry, and 

Fishing 0.7% 0.9% 3.2% 3% 0.5% 

Construction, Extraction, and 

Maintenance 9.4% 11.3% 12.9% 13.3% 17.8% 

Production, Transportation, 

and Material Moving 14.6% 15.4% 13.7% 16.8% 12.8% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 

Numbers may not total to 100 due to rounding. 

profiles. The only exception is that SWODA has a slightly higher percentage of its population 

working in the farming, forestry, and fishing category. 

The town of Burns Flat is located within Washita County. The total labor force in Washita 

County was comprised of 4,759 people in 2000. Major employers include Burns Flat Public 

Schools, Western Technology Center, and Halliburton Services. (Oklahoma Department of 

Commerce, 2001) In 2001, the SWODA region had a total of 2,777 private non-farm business 

establishments with 27,276 paid employees. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000) When compared to the 

state of Oklahoma, this is about three percent of its non-farm business establishments. 

3.11.3.5 Executive Order 12898 and Environmental Justice 

As described in Section 3.11.1, the EO entitled, Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, mandates that Federal agencies 

identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of programs on minority and low-income populations. 

The 2000 U.S. Census allowed people to choose between one of seven racial categories, as 

shown in Exhibit 3-21. Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin can be of any race, and are 

therefore presented separately in Exhibit 3-22. As seen in the exhibits, minority racial 

populations represent approximately 16.7 percent of the SWODA Region. Regardless of racial 

category, 9.3 percent of the population is of Hispanic or Latino origin. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-42 

Exhibit 3-21. Percentage of Total Population by Census Category, 2000 

Census Category United 

States Oklahoma Burns Flat Washita County 

SWODA 

Region 

White 75.1% 76.2% 88.6% 92.3% 83.3% 

Black or African 

American 12.3% 7.6% 1.3% 0.4% 5.1% 

American Indian or 

Alaska Natives 0.9% 7.9% 3.9% 3% 3.6% 

Asian 3.6% 1.4% 0.9% 0.3% 0.5% 

Native Hawaiian 

and Other Pacific 

Islander 

0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0% 0.04% 

Other 5.5% 2.4% 2.8% 2.2% 5.1% 

Persons reporting 2 

or more races 

2.4% 4.5% 2.3% 1.8% 2.5% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 

Numbers may not total to 100 due to rounding. 

Exhibit 3-22. Percentage of Population of Hispanic or Latino Origin (any race), 2000 

Geographic Area Percentage of Individuals 

of Hispanic or Latino Origin 

Burns Flat 6 % 

Washita County 4.5 % 

SWODA Region 9.3 % 

Oklahoma 5.2% 

U.S. 12.5% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 

Using Census 2000 data, Exhibit 3-23 identifies the percentage of individuals living below the 

poverty level for Burns Flat, Washita County, the SWODA Region, Oklahoma, and the U.S. 

Exhibit 3-23. Percentage of Individuals below Poverty Level in the Region 

Geographic Area Percentage of Individuals 

Below Poverty Level 

Burns Flat 15.6 % 

Washita County 15.5 % 

SWODA Region 17.9 % 

Oklahoma 14.7% 

U.S. 12.4% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-43 

3.11.3.6 Executive Order 13045 and Children’s Health 

As described in Section 3.11.1, the EO entitled Protection of Children from Environmental 

Health Risks and Safety Risks requires that Federal agencies identify and assess environmental 

health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children as a result of the 

implementation of Federal policies, programs, activities, and standards. 

The nearest public school to the CSIA is Will Rogers Elementary School. Will Rogers is located 

along State Highway 44 adjacent to the housing area northeast of the CSIA. The Western 

Technology Center, Burns Flat Campus, is located on Sooner Drive and adjoins a portion of the 

eastern boundary of CSIA. 

Exhibit 3-24 below summarizes the distribution of the population by age. The data show that the 

SWODA region has a slightly smaller percentage of children under the age of 5 and 18 years 

when compared to the U.S., Oklahoma, Washita County, and the town of Burns Flat. 

Exhibit 3-24. Distribution of Population by Age, in percent of persons, 2000 

Age Category U.S. Oklahoma SWODA 

Region 

Washita 

County Burns Flat 

Under 5 years 6.8% 6.8% 6.1% 6.1% 8.8% 

Under 18 years 25.7% 25.9% 24.7% 26.3% 34.3% 

19 to 44 years 33.1% 31.9% 29.7 26.6% 29% 

45 to 64 years 22% 22.2% 22% 22.2% 19.8% 

65 and older 12.4% 13.2% 17.5% 18.8% 8.1% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 

3.12 Transportation 

3.12.1 Definition of Resource 

Transportation as a resource can be described as the means, accessibility, and ease in which to 

move goods, personnel, and equipment to and from a given area. Transportation resources 

currently available to the CSIA include road, air, and train access. 

3.12.2 Region of Influence 

The ROI for transportation includes the CSIA itself as well as any other major transportation 

routes servicing the CSIA or the vicinity. 

3.12.3 Existing Conditions 

3.12.3.1 Accessibility by Road 

The CSIA is located adjacent to state Highway 44 (OK-44), a two lane highway, approximately 

11 kilometers (7 miles) south of Interstate 40 (I-40), a transcontinental interstate highway. 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma is the nearest major city and is located approximately 167 kilometers 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-44 

(102 miles) east of the CSIA and can be accessed by I-40. The City of Amarillo, Texas is 

located approximately 274 kilometers (170 miles) west of the CSIA and is also accessible by 

I-40. 

There are several other major roadways in the vicinity of the CSIA that allow for easy access to 

and from the CSIA. Major routes include U.S. Highway 183, located approximately 16 

kilometers (10 miles) east of the CSIA and U.S. Highway 283 (US-283) located approximately 

42 kilometers (26 miles) west of the CSIA; both highways run north/south. Vehicular traffic 

uses US-283 as the major route from I-40 to Altus, Oklahoma. State Highway 152 (OK-152) is a 

major east/west artery and is located approximately 2.5 kilometers (1.5 miles) south of the 

southernmost boundary of the CSIA. According to the Clinton-Sherman Industrial Airpark 

Master Plan, the traffic volume along OK-44 is relatively low with an average daily traffic 

(ADT) in 1993 of 1,800 to 2,000 vehicles between I-40 and OK-152. (Benham, 1996) In 

comparison, the ADT for I-40 at the OK-44 interchange was 14,000 in 1993. (Benham, 1996) 

The CSIA is accessible from OK-44 via Webb Street and Sooner Avenue. The current main 

entrance for the CSIA is located at the intersection of Sooner Drive and OK-44. This 

intersection is equipped with a traffic signal and signage for the CSIA. Sooner Drive also 

provides access to SWODA, the Western Technology Center, and the adjacent residential 

community. The north and south boundaries of the airpark are adjacent to section line roads, 

which are maintained by Washita County. The CSIA property west of the runway can be 

accessed from the northern section line road; however, this gate is locked and not currently 

utilized. The asphalt roads inside the CSIA are generally in good condition although access to 

the roads on the west side is restricted due to emergency vehicle operations by the OHP. 

3.12.3.2 Accessibility by Air 

The CSIA offers complete flight services and two north/south runways for both public and 

military uses and can handle all manner of aircraft. The functional runway includes 

approximately 4,115 meters (13,500 feet) of runway with overruns, and can accommodate any 

aircraft. The runway is routinely used for operations including the Lockheed C-5, the military’s 

largest aircraft. An average of 129 aircraft operations occur at CSIA daily. Of these, 87 percent 

are military and 13 percent are transient general aviation. (AirNav, 2005) A control tower, 

emergency response unit, and an FBO lie adjacent to the flight line. Although there is abundant 

storage capacity, there are currently no aircraft based at the CSIA. 

3.12.3.3 Accessibility by Rail 

The CSIA has access to the Farmrail railroad via an 11-kilometer (7-mile) spur. Farmrail is a 

regional railroad operating in western Oklahoma. Based in Clinton, Oklahoma, Farmrail 

provides both scheduled and as-needed freight service to 29 rural communities in Oklahoma. 

The rail spur with service to Burns Flat is currently owned by the City of Clinton and connects to 

the Farmrail at the Burns Flat Junction north of Dill City. The rail line enters the CSIA near 

Webb Street and travels west along Webb Street terminating at 11th Street. The rail spur 

provides access to warehouse and manufacturing facilities, which are equipped with loading 

docks. Although there is no scheduled rail service to the CSIA, the spur provides the 

infrastructure needed to access cross-country railroads. Farmrail services connect with the major 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-45 

western railroads Union Pacific (UP) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF). (Farm Rail 

Systems Inc, 2003) 

A representative from Farmrail rates the condition of the spur between fair and poor and noted 

that many of the railroad ties are very old. The spur is in suitable condition for transporting light 

or non-hazardous loads; however, prior to any significant usage, the rail spur into the CSIA 

would require a full inspection and perhaps some maintenance to ensure safe operations. 

Farmrail currently uses approximately three kilometers (two miles) of the spur near the Burns 

Flat Junction for storage of rail cars. The entire rail spur was most recently used to move a CSIA 

tenant from the warehouses in 2002. Exhibit 3-25 shows the rail spur in the warehouse area of 

the CSIA. 

Exhibit 3-25. Rail Spur in Warehouse Area of CSIA 

3.13 Visual Resources 

3.13.1 Definition of Resource 

Visual resources can be described as any naturally occurring or man-made feature that 

contributes to the aesthetic value of an area. 

Proposed changes to visual resources can be assessed in terms of ‘visual dominance’ and ‘visual 

sensitivity.’ Visual dominance describes noticeable physical changes within an area. The 

magnitude of visual dominance varies depending on the degree of change in an area. Visual 

sensitivity can be attributed to a particular setting and the desire to maintain the current visual 

resources of the viewshed. Areas such as coastlines, national parks, and recreation or wilderness 

areas are usually considered to have high visual sensitivity. Heavily industrialized urban areas 

tend to be the areas of the lowest visual sensitivity. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-46 

When evaluating visual impact the ability of the general public to view the area where the 

proposed action or change to the visual resource would occur must also be taken into 

consideration. 

3.13.1.1 Visual Dominance 

Proposed changes in the character of an area can be defined in terms of visual dominance. For 

example, if the users of the area would overlook the changes to the area’s setting, then the 

changes would be “not noticeable.” If the changes would be noticeable but would be dominated 

by other features in the area’s setting, then the changes would be “visually subordinate.” A 

change that would compete with the visual character of an area is “visually co-dominant.” 

Finally, a change that would detract from the character of the setting and would demand attention 

is “visually dominant.” 

3.13.1.2 Visual Sensitivity 

Visual sensitivity depends on the particular setting in which the proposed action is to occur. 

Areas such as coastlines, national parks, recreation areas, and wilderness areas are areas of high 

visual sensitivity. In these areas, viewers tend to be aware of even very small changes in the 

visual environment. On the other hand, in areas of low visual sensitivity, such as industrialized 

areas, major changes can occur without unduly annoying observers. 

3.13.2 Region of Influence 

The ROI for visual resources includes the CSIA as well as an area 24 kilometers (15 miles) on 

either side of the CSIA. This will account for seldom seen areas near the airpark as well as areas 

from which the CSIA will be included within the viewshed14. 

3.13.3 Existing Conditions 

Agricultural areas and sparsely occurring trees compose the landscape in the general area of the 

CSIA. Prairie grasses proliferate in open areas not used for agriculture. The topography in the 

broader geographic region is mildly undulating with the occasional presence of landforms 

resembling small mesas, or plateaus. The landscape surrounding the town of Burns Flat and the 

CSIA appears relatively level. The topography in the western portion of the CSIA is also 

relatively level without much elevation change or visual interest. Exhibit 3-26 shows the view 

from the CSIA looking to the west. Exhibit 3-27 shows the view from areas to the west of the 

CSIA looking east towards the CSIA runway and structures. 

 

14 Viewshed generally refers to the area that is visible from a particular point of view. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-47 

Exhibit 3-26. View from the CSIA Looking to the West 

Exhibit 3-27. View from Outside the CSIA Looking East at the Runway and Structures 

Topography in the eastern portion of the CSIA exhibits slightly more variation due to the 

presence of several intermittent stream channels, which funnel surface water towards Base Lake. 

Exhibit 3-28 shows the surface drainage area east of the runway. The presence of persistent and 

intermittent surface water on the eastern portion of the site contributes to a more diverse plant 

population including larger trees and dense wetland areas. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-48 

Exhibit 3-28. Surface Drainage Area East of Runway 

Many of the structures at the CSIA appear to be in good physical condition, but in need of 

exterior cosmetic improvements. Several structures, including two hangars and one 

manufacturing facility, have been recently remodeled and appear to be in excellent condition 

both structurally and aesthetically. The warehouse area is the area most notably in need of 

improvements. Vegetation is unkempt and overgrown along the rail spur, and the four large 

warehouse facilities appear to have dilapidated roofs and facades. Exhibit 3-29 illustrates the 

general appearance of the warehouse area. 

 

Exhibit 3-29. Building 208 in Warehouse Area 

Source: SWODA, 2005 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-49 

3.14 Water Resources 

3.14.1 Definition of Resource 

Water resources include surface water features including lakes, rivers, wetlands, and floodplains, 

as well as ground water resources (aquifers). A description of the various water features is 

followed by a description of the water quality associated with the feature. 

3.14.2 Region of Influence 

The ROI includes the water resources located at the CSIA, as well the ground water aquifer from 

which the CSIA would draw its water. The ROI may also include offsite resources based on 

deposition of particulate emissions. 

3.14.3 Existing Conditions 

3.14.3.1 Surface Water 

Meteorological data obtained from the Oklahoma Climatological Survey for the period from 

1950 to 1995 indicate that Washita County has an average annual precipitation of 72.1 

centimeters (28.4 inches). (USACE, 1999) Most precipitation never becomes surface runoff, 

because a large percentage of the precipitation is intercepted by evaporation and vegetation or is 

stored in local depressions. The average annual surface runoff at the CSIA varies from three to 

four centimeters (1.0 to 1.5 inches) per year. (USGS, 1976) 

A ridgeline is present that traverses the northern portion of the runway in an east-west direction, 

and the surface waters south of the ridgeline flow in a south to southeastern direction into Base 

Lake or a nearby ditch (see Exhibit 3-30). Both the lake and the ditch discharge into the 

headwaters of Little Elk Creek. Little Elk Creek flows south-southeast into Lake Hobart also 

known as Rocky Lake. Lake Hobart is located in Kiowa County and is formed by a dam on 

Little Elk Creek. Lake Hobart empties into Little Elk Creek, which flows into Elk Creek. Elk 

Creek flows into the North Fork of the Red River and eventually into the Red River. (Benham 

Group, 1996 and USGS, 1990) The North Fork of the Red River is listed on Oklahoma’s 303(d) 

list as a water body that does not meet its designated water quality standards. The North Fork of 

the Red River is impaired with metals (selenium), pathogens, turbidity, chlorides, and total 

dissolved solids, with no potential sources. (EPA, 2005b) 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-50 

Exhibit 3-30. CSIA and Vicinity Map Showing Ridgeline 

Surface waters north of the ridgeline flow toward Monument Creek, Sand Creek, and other 

unnamed tributaries of Turkey Creek in a north and northeasterly direction. Turkey Creek 

eventually flows into the Washita River. (Benham Group, 1996 and USGS, 1990) The Washita 

River is listed on Oklahoma’s 303(d) list as a water body that does not meet its designated water 

quality standards. The Washita River is impaired with pathogens and turbidity, with no potential 

sources. (EPA, 2005b) 

Little Elk Creek, North Fork Red River, and Washita River 

Little Elk Creek, the North Fork Red River, and the Washita River are acceptable for use as a 

public and private water supply and are categorized as ‘primary body contact.’ Under the Fish 

and Wildlife Propagation category, these water bodies are subcategorized as warm water aquatic 

communities. (OWRB, 2002) The Red River is acceptable for use as a public, private, and 

emergency water supply and is categorized as primary body contact. Under the Fish and 

Wildlife Propagation category, the Red River is subcategorized as warm water aquatic 

community. (OWRB, 2002) Turkey Creek is subcategorized under the Fish and Wildlife 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-51 

Propagation as a warm water aquatic community. This creek is categorized as primary body 

contact. (OWRB, 2002) 

Base Lake 

The water quality of Base Lake has been influenced by past activities at the CSIA. Sediment and 

surface water samples collected in 1994 detected toluene, vinyl chloride, TPH, and mercury in 

the sediment, and TCE and acetone in the surface water. Acetone is a common contaminant 

introduced by laboratories during sample analysis. Subsequent investigations detected a wider 

range of VOCs and metals in surface water and sediments in the Base Lake and surrounding 

drainage ditches. 

Other Surface Water 

The city of Burns Flat operates an onsite wastewater treatment plant, which includes two current 

treatment lagoons, with a third lagoon under construction. The wastewater treatment lagoons are 

5.84 hectares (14.42 acres) in size. The current wastewater treatment plant includes rock-reed 

filters and aeration lagoons that treat wastewaters prior to discharge. The third treatment lagoon 

that is under construction is designed to increase the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant 

and improve treatment technology. 

3.14.3.2 Floodplains 

Washita County participates in the National Flood Insurance Program; the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) has not published any Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for 

CSIA or the surrounding area. However, FEMA has approved a CSIA floodplain map prepared 

by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board. Floodplains are located along the tributaries of Little 

Elk River and Base Lake. 

3.14.3.3 Wetlands 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory Map indicates that 

the wetlands on the CSIA are concentrated along the tributaries of Little Elk Creek and include 

the Base Lake. Because the wetlands are hydraulically connected to waters of the U.S., the 

wetlands associated with the tributaries, Little Elk Creek, and Base Lake are jurisdictional 

wetlands. All of the wetlands situated on the CSIA are classified as part of the Palustrine (P) 

system. The wetlands associated with the tributaries and with Little Elk Creek are classified as 

PF01A, meaning that they are a Palustrine Forested (F) Broad-Leaved Deciduous (01) wetland 

that is temporarily flooded (A). 

Base Lake was created by a man-made barrier designed to obstruct the inflow of surface water. 

Base Lake covers an area of two hectares (six acres) and has a storage capacity of 102,381 cubic 

meters (83 acre-feet) (Oklahoma Water Atlas, May 1990). Base Lake has a wetlands 

classification of PUBHh, or Palustrine (P), Unconsolidated Bottom (non-vegetated class) (UB), 

Permanently Flooded (H), and diked/impounded (h). The edges of the tributaries have a 

wetlands classification of PUSCH, or Palustrine (P), Unconsolidated Shore (US), Seasonally 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 3-52 

Flooded (C), and Permanently Flooded (H). No formal wetland delineation has been performed 

on the wetlands on and adjacent to the CSIA. 

3.14.3.4 Ground Water 

The Elk City Sandstone is the major aquifer in the vicinity of the CSIA. There are three sources 

of ground water at the CSIA - the Elk City Sandstone, the shallow soils above the Elk City 

Sandstone less than 12 meters (40 feet) below ground surface, and the Doxy Shale. The ground 

water gradient in the Elk City Sandstone is 0.0091 ft/ft to the southeast, the ground water 

gradient in the shallow source is 0.0048 ft/ft to the southeast, and ground water flow in the Doxy 

Shale is 0.0039 ft/ft to the south. The shallow source is not used for potable water supply. 

(USACE, 1999) 

Of the 18 water supply wells on the CSIA, six wells (10, 108, 253, 424, 460, and 462) are 

actively used wells. Seven wells have been capped, two wells were taken out of service due to 

mechanical and odor issues and three wells were removed from service because of the detection 

of elevated concentrations of TCE. Of the six active wells, well 424 serves as the primary source 

of water. Use of wells 108, 253, and 462 is limited to peak usage periods due to the presence of 

TCE in concentrations below the maximum contaminant level (MCL). 

The depth to ground water in the wells ranges from approximately 2 to 11 meters (8 to 36 feet) 

below ground surface, and the average depth of the water wells is approximately 49 meters (160 

feet). Wells producing from the Elk City Sandstone in the area of the CSIA yield between 227 

and 757 liters per minute (60 and 200 gallons per minute). 

Six additional water wells were drilled offsite to restore the supply of water lost because of the 

excessive TCE concentrations in some onsite wells. The additional wells are located in the City 

of Clinton well field northeast of the CSIA and were drilled to a depth of approximately 37 

meters (120 feet) below ground surface. These wells have a combined yield of 379 to 568 liters 

per minute (100 to 150 gallons per minute). (USACE, 1999) 

Ground Water Investigations and Remediation 

Ground water contamination has occurred at the CSIA from historical military operations at the 

site. Solvents, metals, and organics have been identified and have resulted in the abandonment 

of several water wells. A summary of the nature and extent of ground water contamination 

identified during Phases I, II, and III of the remedial investigations conducted at the CSIA is 

contained in the Final Data Evaluation Document in Support of the Remedial Investigation at the 

Clinton-Sherman Industrial Airpark, ENSERCH Environmental Corporation, 1994 and the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers Final Remedial Investigation Report Clinton-Sherman Industrial 

Airpark Burns Flat, Oklahoma, ENSR Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation, January 

1999. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-1 

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 

This section describes the environmental consequences of the proposed alternatives on the 

existing natural and human environments of the CSIA and surrounding areas. This section 

analyzes and compares the potential environmental impacts from four alternatives including the 

no action alternative. The alternatives considered include the proposed action/preferred 

alternative, alternative 1, alternative 2, and the no action alternative. 

The proposed action includes launching and landing Concept X, Y, and Z launch vehicles at the 

CSIA. Alternative 1 includes launching and landing only Concept X and Y launch vehicles. 

Alternative 2 includes launching and landing only Concept X and Z launch vehicles. The no 

action alternative includes no commercial launches from the CSIA and would consist of 

continued use of the CSIA for aviation and training-related activities and proposed future static 

engine testing. 

4.1 Analysis methodology 

4.1.1 Approach to Analysis 

This analysis discusses the impacts of implementing the proposed action and alternatives as 

compared to the no action alternative. Impacts to each resource area are compared to the 

significance thresholds described in Appendix A of FAA Order 1050.1E to determine whether 

the applicable thresholds would be exceeded by the implementation of the proposed action or 

alternatives. In addition, impacts from the proposed activities are evaluated to determine 

whether they would prohibit or significantly hinder the continuation of current operations at the 

CSIA, including general aviation activities and military training activities, as well as proposed 

future rocket engine testing activities. 

4.1.2 Proposed Action – Launching and Landing Concept X, Y, and Z Launch 

Vehicles at the CSIA 

The CSIA is currently a fully operational general aviation airport. In addition rocket engine 

testing activities have been proposed for the CSIA. The CSIA would continue to operate as a 

general aviation airport if launch and landing activities were to be initiated. The current 

operations would not change appreciably as a result of launch and landing activities at the CSIA. 

Horizontal launch and landing activities would result in a slight increase in the number of annual 

flight operations at the CSIA. 

During fiscal year 2003, approximately 47,000 operations were conducted at the CSIA. Of 

these, about 5,400 civilian aircraft operations were conducted, and there were approximately 

1,090 overflights of the airport. The majority of the aircraft operations were military, with 

Vance AFB accounting for approximately 24,000 operations, Altus AFB 16,000 operations, and 

other military 1,600 operations. In addition to landings and takeoffs, the military also conducts 

transition training that consists of normal and emergency visual and instrument approaches and 

landings. The training may include missed approaches, low approaches, touch-and-gos, refused 

landings, and full stop landings. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-2 

Under the proposed action the maximum number of annual launches from the CSIA would be 

54. The maximum number of launches for each vehicle concept is shown in Exhibit 4-1. 

Exhibit 4-1. Maximum Number of Launches Under the Proposed Action from the CSIA 

for 2006-2010 

Vehicle 

Concept 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total 

Concept X 12 12 24 48 48 144 

Concept Y 2 2 2 2 2 10 

Concept Z 2 2 3 4 4 15 

Total 16 16 29 54 54 169 

4.1.2.1 Impacts of Launches 

For purposes of this analysis, launching Concept X, Y, and Z vehicles would consist of 

 Transporting the vehicle, vehicle components, and propellants to the CSIA via road, rail, air, 

or a combination of the three methods; 

 Assembling the various vehicle components; 

 Conducting ground-based tests and checkout activities; 

 Loading the pilot, passengers, and/or other payload; 

 Fueling the launch vehicle; 

 Towing or moving the launch vehicle to the proper launch or takeoff location; and 

 Igniting the rocket motors. 

All launches and landings would be made during daylight hours, and under VFR flight 

conditions. The proposed launches from the CSIA would increase from a maximum of 16 

operations in 2006 to a maximum of 54 operations in 2010. As the number of launches increases 

over time, OSIDA may require additional coordination with various resource management 

agencies to ensure that applicable mitigation measures are in place. 

4.1.2.2 Impacts of Landing 

For purposes of this analysis, landing Concept X, Y, and Z vehicles would consist of the 

following activities: 

 Collecting any debris from the runway prior to vehicle landing, and 

 Recovering and transporting the launch vehicle from the runway after landing. 

4.1.3 Alternative 1 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Y Launch Vehicles at 

the CSIA 

Under alternative 1, only Concept X and Y launch vehicles would be launched from the CSIA. 

This alternative would include fewer launches than the proposed action with a maximum of 14 

launches occurring in 2006 and a maximum of 50 launches occurring in 2010. The specific 

activities associated with launching these vehicles would be as described in Section 4.1.2.1 and 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-3 

the activities associated with landing these vehicles would be as described in Section 4.1.2.2. 

The maximum number of launches under alternative 1 is shown in Exhibit 4-2. 

Exhibit 4-2. Maximum Number of Launches under Alternative 1 from the CSIA 

for 2006-2010 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total 

Concept X 12 12 24 48 48 144 

Concept Y 2 2 2 2 2 10 

Total 14 14 26 50 50 154 

4.1.4 Alternative 2 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Z Launch Vehicles at 

the CSIA 

Under alternative 2, only Concept X and Z vehicles would be launched from the CSIA. This 

alternative would include fewer launches than the proposed action with a maximum of 14 

launches occurring in 2006 and a maximum of 52 launches occurring in 2010. In addition, 

because both Concept X and Z launch vehicles ignite rocket engines after reaching a 

predetermined altitude in excess of 914 meters (3,000 feet), rocket emissions would not be 

expected to impact ground level air quality. The specific activities associated with launches of 

these vehicles would be as described in Section 4.1.2.1 and the activities associated with landing 

these vehicles would be as described in Section 4.1.2.2. The maximum number of launches 

under alternative 2 is shown in Exhibit 4-3. 

Exhibit 4-3. Maximum Number of Launches under Alternative 2 from the CSIA 

for 2006-2010 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total 

Concept X 12 12 24 48 48 144 

Concept Z 2 2 3 4 4 15 

Total 14 14 27 52 52 159 

4.1.5 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 launches from CSIA. OSIDA would not be able operate a launch 

facility at the proposed location at CSIA. The CSIA facility would continue to offer its aviation 

related activities and in the future may host rocket engine tests. 

4.2 Air Quality 

4.2.1 Approach to Analysis 

This section addresses the potential impact on air quality of operating the proposed vehicle 

concepts at the CSIA. Impacts on air quality are assessed with respect to the potential to cause a 

significant deterioration in the air quality surrounding CSIA in excess of the threshold of 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-4 

significance described in FAA Order 1050.1E, Appendix A, Section 2. Potential air quality 

impacts may be caused by vehicle launches and landings at the CSIA. 

The composition of exhaust emissions from launches and landings varies depending on the type 

of propellant and the type of propulsion systems used (i.e., jet engine and/or rocket motors). Of 

the chemical species that are generated by emissions during launches and landings from the 

vehicles proposed for use at the CSIA, the emissions of concern include PM, NOX, SOX, CO, 

CO2, H2O, and VOCs. Emissions of the other main exhaust products are either negligible or 

would not have an adverse impact on any layer of the atmosphere. 

Within the proposed action and alternatives, impacts of launch emissions are assessed for each 

atmospheric level. Beginning at ground level, tropospheric effects are considered. Effects in the 

stratosphere, mesosphere, and ionosphere are also considered. 

4.2.2 Proposed Action 

The impacts related to the proposed action are discussed within the framework of impacts from 

launches and impacts from landings. Within the impacts of launches, Section 4.2.2.1, impacts to 

the troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, and ionosphere are discussed. The impacts to the 

troposphere include a discussion of criteria pollutants, air toxics and regional haze. Impacts 

within the stratosphere include global warming and ozone depletion. The impacts of landings, 

Section 4.2.2.2, are discussed based on concept vehicle type and heat-dissipating effects. 

4.2.2.1 Impact of Launch 

Troposphere 

Impacts on the troposphere from the proposed launches would be a result of engine exhaust 

during takeoff, ascent, and landing through the troposphere. The current aircraft emissions at 

OSIDA, as estimated by the USAF, are found in Exhibit 4-4. As shown in Exhibit 4-5, the 

USAF operations are the dominant component in current annual emissions from the CSIA. 

The CSIA is in attainment for all criteria pollutants under the CAA. Therefore, the air quality is 

generally good. At the maximum launch rate under the proposed action, an additional 54 

missions per year would occur from CSIA. This is a 0.1 percent increase in operations. 

Assuming emissions from an RLV launch are similar to those of a general aviation or military 

aircraft, this would result in approximately 0.1 percent increase in air emissions. Because of the 

small number of vehicle launch operations relative to commercial or military aircraft as shown in 

Exhibit 4-5, the increase in emissions as a result of the launch operations is expected to be 

minimal. Despite the likelihood that emissions from the proposed launches will be quite small, 

emission rates of the various pollutants of potential concern were estimated for the proposed 

action and each alternative. Results are presented in the sections below. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-5 

Exhibit 4-4. Estimated Air Emissions for Aircraft Operations at the CSIA Based on Fiscal 

Year 2002 Planned Aircraft Operations 

Estimated Annual Emissions 

(Kilograms per year [tons per year])b Emission Sourcea

CO VOC NOX SO2

Based Aircraft 

C-5 9,625 

(10.61) 

771 

(0.85) 

92,996 

(102.51) 

2,858 

(3.15) 

C-141 19,232 

(21.20) 

14,742 

(16.25) 

11,304 

(12.46) 

789 

(0.87) 

KC-135R 17,618 

(46.43) 

5,915 

(6.52) 

144,759 

(159.57) 

4,046 

(4.46) 

C-17 17,618 

(19.42) 

1,569 

(1.73) 

103,401 

(113.98) 

3,012 

(3.32) 

Subtotal 88,596 

(97.66) 

22,988 

(25.34) 

352,459 

(388.52) 

10,705 

(11.80) 

Total All Other Aircraft 39,453 

(43.49) 

3,384 

(3.73) 

18,806 

(20.73) 

1,197 

(1.32) 

TOTAL EMISSIONS 128,040 

(141.14) 

26,372 

(29.07) 

371,265 

(409.25) 

11,902 

(13.12) 

 a Emissions data were not available for maintenance and fueling operations b Emissions estimated using Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) Version 3.2 

 Source: Department of the Air Force, 2002

Exhibit 4-5. Operations at the CSIA for Fiscal Year 2001 

Types of Aircraft FY 2001 

Operations 

Percent of 

Total 

Itinerants 

General Aviation 3,067 6.5% 

Military 4,381 9.3% 

Local 

General Aviation 2,786 5.9% 

Military 36,977 78.3% 

Total Operations 47,211 100% 

 Source: CSIA Tower, 2002. 

Under the proposed action, any impacts on the troposphere would be a result of jet engine 

emissions (Concept X vehicles), carrier aircraft jet engine emissions (Concept Z vehicles), and 

emissions generated by the ignition of rocket motors in the troposphere (Concept Y vehicles). 

Other potential impacts on the troposphere could result from accidents on the launch pad or 

during flight. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-6 

The projected annual emissions from RLVs below 914 meters (3,000 feet) of the specific 

pollutants of concern from 2006 through 2010 were calculated by estimating the emissions 

below 914 meters (3,000 feet) per flight for each vehicle type, multiplying these emissions by the 

estimated annual flights for each vehicle type, and then summing across all vehicle types. 

Exhibit 4-6 presents the emissions below 914 meters (3,000 feet) per flight for each of the three 

vehicle types considered. Exhibit 4-7 presents the projected annual emissions for all proposed 

RLVs below 914 meters (3,000 feet). The 914-meter (3,000-feet) altitude is appropriate for 

evaluating impacts in the troposphere because the Federal government uses 914 meters and 

below to assess contributions of emissions to the ambient air quality and for the de minimis

calculations under the CAA. (EPA, 1992) Detailed descriptions of the different vehicle types 

and the estimated number of annual launches of each vehicle type are provided in Section 2. The 

methodology used to estimate the per flight and total emissions to the troposphere is provided in 

Appendix A. 

Exhibit 4-6. Estimated Emissions below 914 meters (3,000 feet) per RLV Flight Based on 

Vehicle Type, Kilograms (Tons) 

Vehicle Emission Loads per Flight, Kilograms (Tons) 

PM NOX SOX CO CO2 H2O VOC H2

*

Concept X 11 

(0.01) 

0.5 

(0.0005) 

0.2 

(0.0003) 

38 

(0.04) - - 4.0 (0.004) - 

Concept Y - - - - 478 

(0.5) 

179 

(0.2) - 2.5 (0.003)

Concept Z 11 

(0.01) 

0.6 

(0.0007) 

0.3 

(0.0003) 

38 

(0.04) - - 5.2 (0.006) - 

* Hydrogen (H2) 

Exhibit 4-7. Estimated Annual Emissions below 914 meters (3,000 feet) for Proposed 

Action, Kilograms (Tons) 

Year Emission Loads for All Proposed Action Flights, Kilograms (Tons) 

PM NOX SOX CO CO2 H2O VOC H2

2006 154 

(0.2) 

7 

(0.008) 

3 

(0.003) 

528 

(0.6) 

957 

(1) 

357 

(0.4) 

58 

(0.06) 

5 

(0.006)

2007 154 

(0.2) 

7 

(0.008) 

3 

(0.003) 

528 

(0.6) 

957 

(1) 

357 

(0.4) 

58 

(0.06) 

5 

(0.006)

2008 297 

(0.3) 

14 

(0.02) 

6 

(0.006) 

1019 

(1) 

957 

(1) 

357 

(0.4) 

112 

(0.1) 

5 

(0.006)

2009 572 

(0.6) 

26 

(0.03) 

11 

(0.01) 

1962 

(2) 

957 

(1) 

357 

(0.4) 

213 

(0.2) 

5 

(0.006)

2010 572 

(0.6) 

26 

(0.03) 

11 

(0.01) 

1962 

(2) 

957 

(1) 

357 

(0.4) 

213 

(0.2) 

5 

(0.006)
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-7 

Criteria Pollutants 

EPA has set national air quality standards for six common pollutants, referred to as “criteria” 

pollutants. These criteria pollutants include ozone, PM, CO, NO2, SO2, and Pb. If the CSIA was 

in non-attainment for any one of these pollutants, a conformity analysis would be required if the 

emissions of the pollutant exceeded the applicable de minimis levels on an annual basis. CSIA is 

in attainment for all criteria pollutants; therefore these rules do not apply. However, the 

emissions can be compared to the de minimis levels to determine if the emissions have the 

potential to have a negative impact on air quality in the troposphere. In addition to comparison 

to the de minimis levels, the calculated annual emission rates for the proposed action (Exhibit 

4-7) can be compared to emission rate increments listed in the Oklahoma air pollution control 

rule (Oklahoma DEQ, 2004b) as “significant” increases in emissions from major stationary 

sources. Comparing RLV emissions to these standards is conservative because RLVs are not 

stationary sources and would likely result in fewer potential impacts due to the distribution of 

emissions over a larger area at much lower concentrations; however, comparing the results to 

emissions that are considered significant by Oklahoma provides an additional measure of the 

potential impact of the proposed action. Both the de minimis levels for areas in serious nonattainment (the worst type of non-attainment status) and the significant net emission increases for 

stationary sources in Oklahoma are presented in Exhibit 4-8 for comparison to the RLV 

emissions. 

Exhibit 4-8. Comparison Emission Rates, Kilograms (Tons) 

Standard of Comparison PM NOX

a NO2 SOX CO VOCa

Non-attainment area 

de minimis levelb

63,640 

(70) 

9,072 

(10) 

90,910 

(100) 

90,910 

(100) 

90,718 

(100) 

9,072 

(10) 

Significant emission from 

major stationary sourcec

13,608 

(15) 

36,287 

(40) n/a 36,287 (40) 

90,718 

(100) 

36,287 

(40) 

a NOX and VOCs are not criteria pollutants, but are controlled under criteria pollutant standards because they 

lead to the formation of ozone (i.e., they are ozone precursors).

b Nonattainment de minimis levels are for serious non-attainment zones. c Significant emission levels are from the Oklahoma Air Rule (Oklahoma DEQ, 2004b) and represent the level 

considered significant as a net emissions increase. 

Overall, the calculated emissions that would result from the proposed action (Exhibit 4-7) are 

less than both the de minimis levels and the level of emission considered significant for 

Oklahoma stationary sources. In the years with the highest emissions under the proposed action, 

the total annual NOX (26 kilograms), SOX (11 kilograms), CO (1,962 kilograms), PM (572 

kilograms), and VOC (213 kilograms) emissions from all RLVs are substantially below the de 

minimis and “significant” emission levels. Furthermore, even the maximum NOX emissions 

(part of which is NO2) under the proposed action of 26 kilograms would be substantially below 

the de minimis level of 90,910 kilograms per year for an area in non-attainment. This 

comparison shows that the emissions of all criteria air pollutants (and associated precursor 

pollutants) associated with the proposed action would not result in an impact on ambient air 

quality in excess of the threshold of significance described in FAA Order 1050.1E, Appendix A, 

Section 2. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-8 

Air Toxics 

HCl and Cl are considered air toxics (i.e., HAPs) and are sometimes components of rocket 

engine emissions, depending on the propellant type. None of the proposed launch vehicles use 

propellants that would result in emissions of these pollutants; thus no HCl or Cl would be 

emitted to the troposphere from these launches. 

Regional Haze 

The regional haze rule (64 FR 35714, dated July 1, 1999) requires states to develop SIPs to 

address visibility at designated mandatory Class I areas, including 156 designated national parks, 

wilderness areas, and wildlife refuges. General features of the regional haze rule are that all 

states are required to prepare an emissions inventory of all haze-related pollutants (i.e., VOC, 

NOX, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and NH3) from all sources in all constituent counties. Most states will 

develop their regional haze SIP in conjunction with their PM2.5 SIP over the next several years. 

The Wichita Mountains Wilderness area is the only Class I area in Oklahoma and is 

approximately 80 to 97 kilometers (50 to 60 miles) southeast of the CSIA. The 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. 

Stratosphere 

Under the proposed action, the potential impacts to the stratosphere include global warming 

(from emissions of greenhouse gases) and depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer. Total 

emissions to the stratosphere per launch are presented in Exhibit 4-9 and are calculated as 

described in Appendix A. Estimated annual emissions to the stratosphere (across all vehicle 

types) from the proposed action are presented in Exhibit 4-10. 

Exhibit 4-9. Estimated Emissions in Stratosphere by LV Launch Based on Vehicle Type, 

Kilograms (Tons) 

Vehicle Emission Loads per Launch/Reentry, Kilograms (Tons) 

PM NOX SOX CO CO2 H2O VOC H2

Concept X - - - 648 

(0.7) 

1,589 

(1.8) 

973 

(1.1) - 13.6 (0.01) 

Concept Y - - - 516 

(0.6) 

1,264 

(1.4) 

774 

(0.9) - 10.8 (0.01) 

Concept Z - - - 305 

(0.3) 

46 

(0.05) 

335 

(0.4) - - 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-9 

Exhibit 4-10. Estimated Annual Emissions in the Stratosphere for Proposed Action, 

Kilograms (Tons) 

Year Emission Loads for All Proposed Action Flights, Kilograms (Tons) 

PM NOX SOX CO CO2 H2O VOC H2

2006 0 0 0 9422 

(10) 

21,682 

(23) 

13,889 

(15) 0 185 (0.2) 

2007 0 0 0 9422 

(10) 

21,682 

(23) 

13,889 

(15) 0 185 (0.2) 

2008 0 0 0 17,507 

(19) 

40,790 

(45) 

25,896 

(29) 0 348 (0.4) 

2009 0 0 0 33,374 

(37) 

78,959 

 (87) 

49,573 

(55) 0 674 (0.7) 

2010 0 0 0 33,374 

(37) 

78,959 

 (87) 

49,573 

(55) 0 674 (0.7) 

Global Warming 

Under the proposed action, the potential launch emissions that may affect global warming 

directly as greenhouse gases are CO2 and H2O. The potential for these emissions to affect global 

warming was assessed by comparing the estimated annual launch emissions of each pollutant to 

the stratosphere (see Exhibit 4-9) to the annual emissions from all U.S. sources of these 

pollutants. Although all of the launches considered here are from one location, the stratospheric 

emissions are compared to nationwide emissions because the impacts of launch emissions in the 

stratosphere are no longer local impacts. The estimated launch emissions of CO2 to the 

stratosphere for the period 2006 to 2010 would range from 23 to 87 tons annually. By 

comparison, the total annual CO2 emissions from all U.S. sources for 1999 were over 6,100 

million tons. (EPA, 2001) The incremental contribution of launch emissions from the proposed 

action would be an extremely small fraction (less than 2 x 10-6 percent) of the nationwide 

emissions, which would result in a negligible impact on global warming. The RLV emissions of 

H2O would also have an insignificant effect on global warming due to the preponderance of 

other natural and anthropogenic sources of H2O. CO, a photochemically important pollutant that 

can influence the creation and destruction of greenhouse gases, also would be present in 

horizontal RLV emissions. Contributions from launch emissions of these pollutants to the 

atmospheric burden, however, would be extremely small relative to U.S. annual emissions (over 

100 billion kilograms of CO) for 2000. (EPA, 2004) There are no NOX emissions into the 

stratosphere from the proposed action, so there can be no negative impact on greenhouse gases 

from its emission. 

Ozone Depletion 

Under the proposed action, there would be no emissions to the stratosphere of HCl, Cl, PM, or 

NOX, which are the primary chemicals of concern for ozone depletion. Due to the vehicles 

selected for use at the CSIA, increased ozone depletion due to these emissions is not a concern. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-10 

Mesosphere 

Under the proposed and alternative actions, negligible impacts on the mesosphere would occur 

during normal launches. The mesosphere is a relatively narrow band of the atmosphere that 

rockets tend to pass through fairly quickly. For launches and reentries under the proposed 

action, the amount of rocket emissions in this layer would be extremely small. Launches under 

the alternative actions would have even less potential impact. Furthermore, substantial impacts 

in the mesosphere associated with the compounds emitted by RLVs are not known to exist. For 

these reasons, emissions from the proposed action and alternatives should have no impact on the 

mesosphere. 

Ionosphere 

The vehicles selected for possible use at CSIA do not have any emissions within the ionosphere 

because the selected vehicles are not powered at this altitude. All three of the RLVs considered 

in the proposed action are expected to be coasting unpowered in the ionosphere (approximately 

80 to 1,000 kilometers [50 to 621 miles] above the Earth’s surface. (See Section 2.1.4 for the 

Flight Profiles of each vehicle.) Therefore, emissions from the proposed action and alternatives 

should have no impact on the ionosphere. 

4.2.2.2 Impact of Landing 

The potential air quality impacts from landing consist of the effects associated with heat 

dissipation during reentry and the ground-level impacts associated with reentry emissions. This 

section evaluates both of these types of impacts for the proposed action. 

Heat Dissipating Effects 

During landing from altitudes above 80 kilometers (50 miles), some of the launch vehicles 

considered propose using ablative material to protect some surfaces that would be exposed to 

high heat during landing operations. The ablative materials are typically a honeycomb base, 

consisting of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen with a filler material comprised of 

materials such as calcium, silicon, and sodium. The carbon char and polymer binder fibers 

produced by the ablative material during reentry could potentially increase particulate loading in 

the atmosphere along the landing trajectory. However, because of the small quantity of 

particulates and the dispersion properties of the atmosphere, no adverse atmospheric effects are 

expected based on the projected level of commercial activity at the proposed site. (U.S. DOT, 

1992) 

Some of the launch vehicles considered propose using radiative thermal protection systems, 

designed to radiate heat back to the atmosphere until an equilibrium temperature is reached. 

They must be able to stand extremely high temperatures without melting. Radiative heat shields 

are self-contained and generally do not introduce substances into the atmosphere; no adverse 

effects have been identified from the ceramic tiles used on parts of the Space Shuttle. Thus, 

radiative thermal protection systems on suborbital RLVs are not expected to cause any adverse 

atmosphere impacts. (U.S. DOT, 1992) 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-11 

Ground-level Impacts of Landing - Concept X Vehicles 

Concept X vehicles use jet engines during their powered landing and thus have the potential to 

generate emissions that may have ground-level impacts. However, these emissions are very 

small and were included in the launch emission estimates presented in Section 4.2.2.1. 

Therefore, because no adverse impacts are expected from the launch emissions, no adverse 

impacts are expected from landing emissions of Concept X vehicles. 

Ground-level Impacts of Landing - Concept Y Vehicles 

Concept Y vehicles use an unpowered return and thus generate no emissions during landing. 

Therefore, there are no expected adverse impacts from Concept Y vehicles during landing. 

Ground-level Impacts of Landing - Concept Z Vehicles 

Concept Z vehicles consist of a carrier vehicle and a launch vehicle. The launch vehicle uses 

unpowered return and thus generates no emissions during landing. The carrier vehicle uses jet 

engines during its return and landing and has the potential to generate emissions that may have 

ground-level impacts. As was the case for Concept X vehicles, these emissions were included in 

the launch emission estimates in Section 4.2.2.1. Therefore, because there were no expected 

adverse impacts from the launch emissions of Concept Z vehicles, there are also no expected 

adverse impacts from landing emissions of Concept Z carrier vehicles. 

4.2.3 Alternative 1 

4.2.3.1 Troposphere 

Under alternative 1, there would be no Concept Z vehicles. This would result in a reduction in 

emissions in the troposphere (between zero and 20 percent reduction in total emissions, on 

average) associated with the proposed action. Thus, the overall impacts on air quality in the 

troposphere from alternative 1 would be the same or less than those presented for the proposed 

action. 

4.2.3.2 Stratosphere 

Under alternative 1, the emissions of CO, CO2, and H2O would decrease by as much as 7 

percent, and there would be no additional chemical emissions compared to the proposed action. 

Thus, the overall impacts on air quality in the stratosphere from alternative 1 would be the same 

or less than that presented for the proposed action. 

4.2.4 Alternative 2 

4.2.4.1 Troposphere 

Under alternative 2, there would be no Concept Y vehicles. Because Concept Y is the only 

vehicle in the proposed action with rocket emissions in the troposphere, alternative 2 would 

eliminate the CO2, H2O, and H2 emissions to the troposphere associated with the proposed 

action. However, these are not pollutants of concern in the troposphere and all other emissions 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-12 

to the troposphere would remain under this alternative. Thus, the overall impacts on air quality 

in the troposphere from alternative 2 would be the same as for the proposed action. 

4.2.4.2 Stratosphere 

Under alternative 2, the emissions of CO, CO2, H2O, and H2 would decrease (by as much as 12 

percent), and there would be no additional chemical emissions compared to the proposed action. 

Thus, the overall impacts on air quality in the stratosphere from alternative 2 would be the same 

or less than that presented for the proposed action. 

4.2.5 No Action Alternative 

4.2.5.1 Troposphere 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue a launch site operator license to 

OSIDA and there would be no launches from the CSIA; therefore, there would be no additional 

emissions to the troposphere. Air quality in the troposphere would not be impacted by 

implementation of the no action alternative. 

4.2.5.1 Stratosphere 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue a launch site operator license to 

OSIDA and there would be no launches from the CSIA; therefore, there would be no addition or 

removal of emissions to the stratosphere. Air quality in the stratosphere would not be impacted 

by implementation of the no action alternative. 

4.3 Airspace 

4.3.1 Approach to Analysis 

This airspace analysis addresses movement of aircraft and launch vehicles within the regional 

airspace of the CSIA. Impacts on airspace are assessed with respect to the potential to cause 

disruption or congestion. Impacts on air traffic are analyzed to determine whether they lead to 

flight operations that could not be accommodated within established operational procedures and 

flight patterns. The impacts are assessed to determine whether the activities associated with the 

CSIA degrade the FAA’s ability to control air traffic near the CSIA or provide necessary safety 

during flight operations. 

 

This analysis focuses on flights in Class A airspace between 5,500 and 18,300 meters (18,000 

and 60,000 feet) MSL, Class E airspace between the ground level and 5,500 meters (18,000 feet), 

and Special Use airspace. Activities above 18,300 meters (60,000 feet) would not conflict with 

commercial aircraft as their typical operating altitudes are between 13,700 and 18,300 meters 

(45,000 and 60,000 feet). Therefore, there would be no impact on commercial flight operations 

as a result of proposed launch activities occurring above 18,300 meters (60,000 feet). 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-13 

4.3.2 Proposed Action – Launching and Landing Concept X, Y, and Z Launch 

Vehicles at the CSIA 

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. This LOA would address the 

responsibilities of all involved entities and would serve the purpose of mitigating potential 

impacts to airspace use described in Sections 4.3.2.1 and 4.3.2.2. 

4.3.2.1 Impacts from Launches 

The activities associated with launches of Concept X, Y, and Z vehicles are as described in 

Section 4.1.2.1. The impacts of these activities are described below. 

Transporting the vehicle and vehicle components to the CSIA could have the potential to impact 

airspace if this activity were accomplished using aircraft.15 However, because of the relatively 

small number of aircraft operations that would be needed to transport vehicles and vehicle 

components and the availability of airspace in the area, there would be no appreciable 

degradation of the FAA’s ability to control air traffic and provide necessary safety resulting from 

the transportation of vehicles or vehicle components via aircraft. 

Assembly of the vehicle and vehicle components; ground-based tests (including checkout); 

passenger, crew, and cargo loading; fueling; and towing or moving the launch vehicle on the 

runway would not impact 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 at the CSIA per year. An 

additional 54 launches per year would cause an increase of 0.1 percent in operations at the CSIA. 

The CSIA has the capacity to accommodate the additional operations without appreciably 

degrading the FAA’s ability to control air traffic in the region or air traffic flow at the CSIA, or 

to provide necessary safety during flight operations. In addition, launch activity would be timed 

to correspond with times of low aircraft activity at the CSIA. This will serve to further minimize 

potential impact to existing aircraft operations at the CSIA and within the region. 

The remainder of this analysis focuses on potential impacts to specific types of airspace from 

igniting the rocket motors and the subsequent flight of the vehicles. 

Low Altitude Class E Airspace 

Concept X and Z vehicles would take off from the CSIA under jet power. Concept X vehicles 

would use jet engines on the vehicle itself and Concept Z vehicles would use a carrier aircraft 

operating under jet power. Because these vehicles would take off in a manner similar to or the 

same as other airplanes using the CSIA, they would receive clearance from the CSIA tower and 

follow standard operating procedures. Once outside of the control of the CSIA tower, the 

vehicle would be in radio contact with the relevant ARTCC and operate in the NAS as outlined 

in the LOA. The flight plan and proposed flight corridor would have been coordinated with the 

 

15 Propellants would be shipped to the CSIA via road. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-14 

respective ARTCC so that proper procedures are followed for use of the NAS. The individual 

flight path used during any one mission would be contained within the northwest or southwest 

corridors established for use by OSIDA. The launch vehicle would ascend and enter high 

altitude airspace at 5,500 meters (18,000 feet). Once flight missions have been specified with 

greater detail, OSIDA would work with the ARTCCs to determine the clearance needs of the 

proposed trajectories. 

Concept Y vehicles would take off from the CSIA under rocket power. Because this type of 

activity is different than other aircraft taking off from the CSIA, special consideration needs to 

be given to airspace coordination. These launch vehicles may not operate as aircraft when 

commencing operations at the CSIA. If the flight characteristics are substantially similar to that 

of an aircraft, it is possible that the coordination with the appropriate ARTCC would be similar 

to that conducted for Concept X and Z vehicles. If the flight characteristics of Concept Y 

vehicles, including speed and ascent angle, are substantially different than an aircraft, additional 

procedures would be required by the ARTCC to ensure safe operation in the NAS. This 

coordination with the ARTCC would be part of the safety analysis completed by the FAA prior 

to issuance of a license or permit to conduct launches of Concept Y vehicles at the CSIA. 

High Altitude Class A Airspace 

 

Concept X vehicles would turn off jet engines and ignite rocket engines when the vehicle has 

reached a predetermined location and altitude. Concept Z vehicles would be released from their 

carrier aircraft and rocket engines would be ignited when the vehicles reach a predetermined 

location and altitude. The specific location and altitude for both of these events would be 

coordinated with the appropriate ARTCC. This coordination would be conducted prior to launch 

to ensure that no other aircraft would be operating in the vicinity of the launch vehicle 

operations. As described above, the launch of Concept Y vehicles would require coordination 

with the ARTCC to ensure that the rocket launch activities that are initiated at ground level are 

conducted at times and along trajectories that would not conflict with other aircraft operating in 

the vicinity. 

The launch operations would consist of a maximum of 54 launches per year. This would require 

coordinating an average of 4.5 launches per month with the appropriate ARTCC to ensure that 

no other aircraft would interfere with proposed launch operations. The OSIDA would work 

closely with the ARTCC to determine how airspace corridors (as identified in Exhibits 2-5 and 

2-6) should be scheduled to permit launches of the proposed launch vehicles while minimizing 

interference with jet routes and victor routes in the vicinity of the CSIA. Notices to Airmen 

(NOTAMs) would be issued to inform pilots of planned launch activities. 

The northwest and southwest airspace corridors proposed to be used for the CSIA were chosen to 

minimize the number of jet routes affected while providing enough airspace for launch vehicles 

to have flexibility in their mission characteristics. Jet routes that cross the airspace corridors are 

J26, J28, J98, J8, J20, and J52. Based on proposed launch vehicle mission characteristics, 

commercial traffic in this area would need to fly at a designated altitude or use alternate jet 

routes outside of proposed launch corridors during launch operations. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-15 

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 

degradation of the FAA’s ability to control air traffic and provide necessary safety for flight 

operations in high altitude airspace. 

Special Use Airspace 

The Special Use airspace in the vicinity of the CSIA includes three Military Operation Areas 

(MOAs): Vance 1A, Hollis, and Washita. Exhibit 4-11 shows the distance from the CSIA to the 

MOAs. The Washita MOA is located south of the CSIA and no flights are anticipated to pass 

through this airspace. The Vance 1A MOA is located north of CSIA and no flights are 

anticipated to pass through their airspace because the ceiling for the MOA is 5,500 meters 

(18,000 feet) and all proposed flights would travel above this ceiling. The Hollis MOA is 

located to the southwest of the CSIA. Launches using the southwest corridor may pass through 

this airspace. As part of the licensing process, the FAA would work with OSIDA to coordinate 

airspace and airport use with the ARTCC and with the users of the CSIA, including the USAF. 

Because all launches would be properly coordinated and airspace use agreements adhered to, no 

impacts to special use airspace are expected as a result of this proposed action. There are no 

anticipated impacts to special use airspace for launches from the CSIA. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-16 

Exhibit 4-11. Distance from the CSIA to MOAs 

4.3.2.2 Impacts from Landing 

The activities associated with landing a Concept X, Y, or Z vehicle would be as described in 

Section 4.1.2.2. Collecting debris from the runway after launch and recovering and transporting 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-17 

the vehicle after landing would not impact airspace. Therefore, this analysis focuses on the 

impacts of the launch vehicle after it descends to 18,300 meters (60,000 feet) and begins to 

operate within the FAA’s controlled airspace system and adhere to the FAA’s rules and 

regulations for operating within the NAS. 

High Altitude Class A and Low Altitude Class E Airspace 

Similar to the launch phase, a descending launch vehicle would pass through several designated 

jet routes and victor routes before landing at the CSIA. Once a launch vehicle has descended 

below 18,300 meters (60,000 feet) the vehicle would travel through both Class A and E airspace. 

The descent would be planned and coordinated with the ARTCC prior to the launch to ensure 

that other aircraft operating in the region would not be impacted. During descent, the lower level 

victor routes in the vicinity of the CSIA could be impacted. However, the planned landing 

trajectory would be announced in NOTAMs, to preclude conflicts with any other aircraft 

operating in the area, including aircraft operating under VFR. 

It is anticipated that airspace closures for flight missions from the CSIA would require a 

maximum of 2.5 to 3 hours of airspace closure. Assuming that this represents a worst case 

scenario in terms of airspace closure time, this would close the airspace at the CSIA for less than 

2 percent of the available time. Because of the capacity at the CSIA and efforts to conduct 

launches during off-peak airspace use, this would not represent a substantial impact on airspace 

availability at the CSIA. The specific amount of airspace closure time required for each mission 

would be developed in conjunction with OSIDA, ARTCC, and the launch operator to ensure 

flights would not appreciably impact airspace availability for the existing aircraft activities at the 

CSIA. Each mission trajectory would need to have specific jet route closures detailed and 

coordinated through the ARTCC. 

For launch missions where unpowered returns are planned, the RLVs would not be able to loiter, 

divert, or go around. In these situations, scheduling discussions with ARTCC would need to 

accommodate fairly restrictive airspace closure requirements to allow sufficient time for the 

RLV to land at the CSIA. Alternatively, RLVs with powered aircraft type landings may be more 

flexible in their flight paths prior to landing at the CSIA. 

Because of the infrequency of the launch operations, and the ability to reroute or provide 

alternative flight options, no degradation of the FAA’s ability to control air traffic and provide 

necessary safety for flight operations in the affected airspace would be expected to result from 

landing Concept X, Y, or Z vehicles at the CSIA. 

Special Use Airspace 

The Washita MOA is located south of the CSIA and no flights are anticipated to pass through 

this airspace. The Vance 1A MOA is located north of the CSIA and no flights are anticipated to 

pass through this airspace because the ceiling for the MOA is 6,100 meters (18,000 feet) and all 

proposed landing activities would travel above this ceiling when crossing the MOA. The Hollis 

MOA is located to the southwest of the CSIA. Launches and landings using the southwest 

corridor may pass through this airspace. However, because all landings would be properly 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-18 

coordinated and airspace use agreements adhered to, no impacts to special use airspace are 

expected as a result of this proposed action. There would be no impacts to special use airspace 

from landing Concept X, Y, or Z vehicles at the CSIA. 

In the case of an aborted flight or requirement to land at another airfield in an emergency, RLVs 

may have to descend into the MOA. Planning for this type of scenario, would be coordinated 

with the various DoD entities as well as the ARTCC prior to launch. 

4.3.3 Alternative 1 - Launching and Landing Concept X and Y Launch Vehicles at 

the CSIA 

The activities associated with launching and landing Concept X and Y vehicles would be the 

same as those described for the proposed action. However, fewer total launches would occur 

because there would be no launches of Concept Z vehicles. 

Because launches and landings of Concept X and Y vehicles would occur under this alternative, 

there would be more aircraft operating in the airspace at and around the CSIA than under the no 

action alternative. However, the impacts of this alternative would be less than those expected for 

the proposed action because there would be no launches of Concept Z vehicles from the CSIA. 

4.3.4 Alternative 2 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Z Launch Vehicles at 

the CSIA 

Fewer activities would be associated with launching and landing Concept X and Z vehicles than 

those described for the proposed action. Because both Concept X and Z vehicles function as 

aircraft when taking off from the CSIA, the additional consultation with the ARTCC required for 

Concept Y vehicles that take off using rocket power would not be required under this alternative. 

Because launches and landings of Concept X and Z vehicles would occur under this alternative, 

there would be more aircraft operating in the airspace at and around the CSIA than under the no 

action alternative. However, the impacts of this alternative would be less than those expected for 

the proposed action because there would be no launches of Concept Y vehicles from the CSIA. 

4.3.5 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 launches from the CSIA. The OSIDA would not be able operate 

a launch facility at the proposed location at the CSIA. The CSIA facility would continue to offer 

its aviation related activities, and there would be no change in airspace activities. 

4.4 Biological Resources 

4.4.1 Approach to Analysis 

The FAA evaluated the severity of an impact to biological resources, by considering a variety of 

factors to aid in defining the severity of impact, including the following: 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-19 

 Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to wetlands, wild and scenic 

rivers, or ecologically critical areas, 

 The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or 

its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

and

 Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, state, or local law or requirements 

imposed for biological resources. 

4.4.2 Proposed Action– Launching and Landing Concept X, Y, and Z Launch 

Vehicles from the CSIA 

The launch and landing of Concept X and Z vehicles would not notably impact biological 

resources. Concept X and Z vehicles would be jet powered vehicles during takeoff and would 

either glide or land under jet power, which would not represent a change over the current 

military, commercial, and private aviation activities that occur at CSIA. 

The launch and landing of Concept Y vehicles, which would be powered by rocket engines from 

takeoff, would not impact biological resources. The noise associated with the takeoff and 

landing would be less than that associated with the daily military aircraft takeoffs and landings. 

The primary emissions from Concept Y vehicles would include CO2 and H2O (vapor) and 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. (USACE, 1999) However, previous 

studies indicate that the endangered whooping crane may be found in or near the wetlands at 

CSIA during its spring and fall migration. (Department of the Air Force, 2004) Should the 

whooping crane be identified in or near the wetlands at CSIA, OSIDA would consult with 

USFWS, and implement mitigation measures to ensure that the launch and landing activities 

would not be likely to adversely affect the whooping crane. Potential mitigation measures may 

include monitoring the whooping crane during launches and landings to document the affects or 

scheduling launches and landings when the whooping crane is not present. 

The FAA reviewed the potential impacts associated with the proposed action in light of the 

findings of the 2002 EIS for Proposed Airfield Repairs, Improvements, and Adjustments to 

Aircrew Training for Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma, as well as the lack of suitable migration 

stopover habitat for the whooping crane at the CSIA. Based on this information, and the fact that 

no known listed or other special-status plant or wildlife species occur on or near the CSIA, the 

FAA has determined that issuing a launch site operator license to OSIDA and approving the 

transfer of ownership of the CSIA from the City of Clinton, Oklahoma to OSIDA would not 

affect listed or candidate species or critical habitat. The FAA determined that formal 

consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act was not warranted for these 

activities. The FAA contacted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to request comments and/or 

concurrence on this determination. In March 2006, the USFWS notified the FAA that they 

concurred with their determination and no additional consultation was necessary. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-20 

4.4.2.1 Impacts from Launch 

The flight of Concept X and Z vehicles may generate sonic booms. Concept Y vehicles would 

not exceed the speed of sound and would not generate sonic booms. Sonic booms have been 

found to affect both wildlife and domestic animals. (U.S. Air Force, Engineering and Services 

Center; and U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1988) As presented in 

Section 4.10, Noise, 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. The first sonic booms may initiate a startle response or heighten alertness; however, 

studies have found that most domestic animals and wildlife tend to become accustomed to the 

sonic booms fairly quickly. (U.S. Air Force, Engineering and Services Center; and U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1988) 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. 

4.4.2.2 Impacts from Landing 

The impacts from landing would be the same as those described in Section 4.4.2.

4.4.3 Alternative 1 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Y Launch Vehicles 

The launch and landing of Concept X vehicles would not notably impact biological resources. 

Concept X vehicles would be jet powered vehicles during takeoff and would land under jet 

power, which would not represent a change over the current military, commercial, and private 

aviation activities that occur at CSIA. 

The launch and landing of Concept Y vehicles would have the same impacts as those presented 

under the proposed action. 

4.4.4 Alternative 2 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Z Launch Vehicles 

The launch and landing of Concept X and Z vehicles would not notably impact biological 

resources. Concept X and Z vehicles would be jet powered during takeoff and would either glide 

or land under jet power, which would not represent a change in the current military, commercial, 

and private aviation activities that occur at the CSIA. 

4.4.5 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, there would be no additional impacts on biological resources. 

Commercial, military, and private aviation activities would continue at CSIA. 

4.5 Cultural Resources 

4.5.1 Approach to Analysis 

The FAA considered the following factors when evaluating the severity of impacts from the 

proposed action and alternatives to cultural resources: 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-21 

 Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural 

resources; 

 The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or 

objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause 

loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources; and 

 Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, state, or local law or requirements 

imposed for cultural resources. 

4.5.2 Proposed Action – Launching and Landing Concept X, Y, and Z Launch 

Vehicles from the CSIA 

The FAA reviewed the proposed action in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act and determined that this project would have no adverse effect on historic 

properties. No sites that are eligible or that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places 

exist within the Area of Potential Effect, and the proposed action would not affect the site that 

may be potentially eligible. The FAA made this determination based on the fact that no cultural 

resources within the Area of Potential Effect meet the criteria of 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1). The FAA 

requested the State Historic Preservation Officer’s comments and/or concurrence on the 

determination that the proposed action would not affect historic properties or other cultural 

resources. In October 2005 the State Historic Preservation Officer notified the FAA that they 

concurred with the FAA’s determination. 

4.5.2.1 Impacts from Launch 

The launches of Concept X, Y, and Z vehicles would not impact cultural resources. No new 

infrastructure would be constructed and the nearest historic site listed in the National Register is 

located approximately 13 kilometers (8 miles) northwest of CSIA. (National Register, 2005) 

In addition, the launch of Concept X, Y, and Z vehicles 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. 

4.5.2.2 Impacts from Landing 

Landings of Concept X, Y, and Z vehicles would not impact cultural resources. No new 

infrastructure would be constructed and the nearest historic site listed in the National Register is 

located approximately 13 kilometers (8 miles) northwest of CSIA. (National Register, 2005) 

Although the vehicles may operate in the airspace over the historic site, their operation would not 

impact the site. 

In addition, the landing of Concept X, Y, and Z vehicles 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. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-22 

4.5.3 Alternative 1 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Y Vehicles 

The launch and landing of Concept X and Y vehicles would have the same impacts as those 

presented for the proposed action. 

4.5.4 Alternative 2 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Z Vehicles 

The launch and landing of Concept X and Z vehicles would have the same impacts as those 

presented for the proposed action. 

4.5.5 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, there would be no additional impacts on cultural resources. 

Commercial, military, and private aviation activities would continue at CSIA. 

4.6 Geology and Soils 

4.6.1 Approach to Analysis 

Potential impacts to geological resources at the CSIA are addressed below. Operations 

associated with the proposed action, alternative 1, alternative 2, and the no action alternative 

were analyzed with regard to their potential for impacts to the geological resources and soils at 

the CSIA. Impacts on geology and soils were addressed to determine whether the proposed 

action and alternatives could result in exposure of individuals or structures to potential 

substantial adverse effects, including structural damage or loss and personal injury or death from 

strong seismic activity, or could result in substantial erosion of loss of topsoil. Historical 

environmental investigations of the CSIA from the USACE DERP-FUDS program were 

analyzed to identify and quantify areas of historical contamination and resource characteristics. 

Regional geological data and regional soils data were obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) and Natural Resources Conservation Service, respectively. 

The proposed action does not include any construction activities that would disturb soils. 

However, operations would involve the use of hazardous materials (e.g., propellants, lubricants, 

solvents) and generation of wastes. The risk of contamination from these hazardous materials 

would be properly addressed as outlined in Section 4.7 and therefore would not be expected to 

exceed the applicable threshold of significance. 

4.6.2 Proposed Action – Launching and Landing Concept X, Y, and Z Launch 

Vehicles from the CSIA 

4.6.2.1 Impacts from Launch 

Launching vehicles from the CSIA would not affect the subsurface geology of the area, and 

would not result in exposure of individuals or structures to potential adverse effects from seismic 

activity, but has the potential to impact surface soils. These impacts would occur from 

deposition of exhaust emissions from vehicle launches, from deposition of residual propellant 

during a vehicle crash, from leaks in storage tanks or tanker trucks, or from propellant and jet 

fuel spills during fueling. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-23 

The deposition of exhaust emissions during vehicle launch would not result in substantial 

contamination, erosion or loss of topsoil. Concept X, Y, and Z vehicle launches would all use 

propellants that would not result in substantial contamination, erosion or loss of topsoil. Concept 

X and Z vehicles would use jet engines for takeoff from the CSIA and would not produce any 

emissions that would adversely impact surface soils. Concept Y vehicles would use liquid 

propellant rocket engines for launch, which would create a ground cloud with few impacts to 

soils. 

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, depending on the force of the impact, might impact soils. In addition, any residual 

propellant in the damaged launch vehicle could be absorbed by soils at the impact site, affecting 

overall soil quality. Because the probability of a crash would be very low and the cleanup of 

reportable quantities of hazardous materials released is required under CERCLA, debris or 

residual propellant would not be expected to result in substantial contamination, erosion or loss 

of topsoil. 

Vehicle launches of any of the three types of launch vehicles would require shipments to the 

CSIA of rocket propellants, temporary storage of those propellants (only enough material would 

be shipped to meet immediate launch needs), and transfer to the launch vehicles. There is a 

potential for leaks or spills during any of these operations, but the limited number of launches 

and the procedures in place to prevent and clean up spills would limit the likelihood of soil 

contamination. In addition, vehicle launches of Concept X and Z launch vehicles would require 

jet fuel storage, transportation of fuels from storage tanks to the launch vehicle, and fueling. 

During any of these three operations it would be possible for fuel to leak or spill onto the surface 

soils of the study area. In substantial quantities this would cause the surface soil to become 

contaminated. However, launch activities at the CSIA would comply with all applicable Federal 

and state regulations governing fuel storage and waste disposal, which would reduce the 

likelihood of soil contamination occurring. Therefore, the impacts to soil would not result in 

substantial contamination, erosion or loss of topsoil. 

4.6.2.2 Impacts from Landing 

The impacts to surface soils from landing vehicles at CSIA would be limited to emissions 

deposition and hazardous materials deposition from vehicle accidents. Concept X vehicles and 

the Concept Z carrier vehicle would land under the power of jet engines and thus some pollutants 

would be deposited onto surface soils. However, the impacts would be limited due to both the 

low total number of vehicle launches and the limited potential impact of emissions released from 

jet engines onto surface soils. Concept Y and Z launch vehicles would have no impact on soils. 

These vehicles would land unpowered and thus would not emit any materials that would alter 

surface soils. 

The impacts from a crash that occurs during vehicle landing would be the same as those 

discussed in Section 4.6.2.1, Impacts from Launch. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-24 

4.6.3 Alternative 1 - Launching and Landing Concept X and Y Launch Vehicles at 

the CSIA 

Under alternative 1, there would not be any impacts from the launch or landing of Concept X or 

Y launch vehicles. During launch and landing, Concept X vehicles would use twin turbojet 

engines which would not produce any emissions that would impact soils. Rocket engines 

utilizing LOX and kerosene as propellants would be ignited mid-flight and would not be 

expected produce any emissions that would impact soils. During launch, Concept Y vehicles 

would use rocket motors fueled by liquid propellant that would not be expected to produce any 

emissions that would impact soils. During landing, Concept Y vehicles would glide back to the 

CSIA unpowered and would not produce any potential adverse impacts to soils. 

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, depending on the force of the impact, might impact soils. In addition, any residual 

propellant in the damaged launch vehicle could be absorbed by soils at the impact site, affecting 

overall soil quality. Because the probability of a crash would be very low and cleanup of 

reportable quantities of hazardous materials released is required under CERCLA, debris or 

residual propellant would not be expected to result in substantial contamination, erosion or loss 

of topsoil. 

4.6.4 Alternative 2 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Z Launch Vehicles at 

the CSIA 

Under alternative 2, there would not be any impacts from launching or landing Concept X or Z 

launch vehicles. During launch and landing, both Concept X and Z launch vehicles would use 

twin turbojet engines which would not produce any emissions that would impact soils. Concept 

X vehicles would use rocket engines with LOX and kerosene as propellants and Concept Z 

vehicles would use rocket engines with N2O and HTPB. Both types of engines would be ignited 

mid-flight and would not be expected to produce any emissions that would impact soils. 

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, depending on the force of the impact, might impact soils. In addition, any residual 

propellant in the damaged launch vehicle could be absorbed by soils at the impact site, affecting 

overall soil quality. Because the probability of a crash would be very low and cleanup of 

reportable quantities of hazardous materials released is required under CERCLA, debris or 

residual propellant would not be expected to result in substantial contamination, erosion or loss 

of topsoil. 

4.6.5 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 launches from the CSIA. The OSIDA would not be able operate 

a launch facility at the proposed location at the CSIA. The CSIA facility would continue to offer 

its aviation related activities, and there would be no impact to geology or soils. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-25 

4.7 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management 

4.7.1 Approach to Analysis 

Through FAA Order 1050.1 E, the FAA has determined that a proposed action would have 

significant impacts from hazardous materials and hazardous waste if: 

 The action would not meet the applicable local, state, Tribal, or Federal laws and regulations 

on hazardous waste management, or 

 The action would involve property listed or potentially listed on the National Priorities List 

(NPL) established by the EPA in accordance with Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act [42 U.S.C. 9601-9675]. 

If the action must involve NPL or otherwise contaminated properties, the FAA allows for 

mitigating impacts to levels below significance through actions such as siting on “clean” grounds 

within the boundary of the NPL site, or enacting procedures to minimize contaminant releases 

and hazardous materials exposure. 

4.7.2 Proposed Action – Launching and Landing Concept X, Y, and Z Launch 

Vehicles at the CSIA 

The proposed action involves the use of a location with historic soil and ground water 

contamination; however, major remediation actions have already been completed by the 

USACE. These actions accounted for future use of the CSIA and were performed to the extent 

that worker exposure to historic contaminants at the site would be negligible. 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. 

All launch operators proposing to use the CSIA would be responsible for complying with 

applicable local, state, Tribal, or Federal laws and regulations when conducting operations 

involving hazardous materials and waste. Certain operations with the potential for hazardous 

materials and waste impacts to the environment are described in more detail in the following 

subsections, which discuss the launching and landing of Concept X, Y, and Z launch vehicles at 

the CSIA. 

4.7.2.1 Impacts of Launch 

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 similar 

hazardous characteristics 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 LOX, a non-toxic cryogenic 

liquid. The fuel and oxidizer for Concept Z launch vehicles are solid HTPB and liquid nitrous 

oxide (N2O), respectively, which are relatively inert. 

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 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-26 

response personnel would be on standby during these shipments. All liquid fuel and propellants 

would be shipped to the CSIA in bulk tanker trucks, each with a capacity of approximately 

15,142 liters (4,000 gallons), which would also serve as temporary storage containers. The 

HTPB solid propellant would be manufactured and loaded into Concept Z rocket motors offsite 

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 onsite 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. The OSIDA would maintain a current inventory of 

all hazardous materials being stored and used within the CSIA boundaries by type, quantity, and 

location. All propellants and other hazardous materials would be handled, stored, and used in 

compliance with all applicable regulations. Hazardous materials that would be used under the 

proposed action are similar to materials already handled at the CSIA. The transport, use, or 

disposal of hazardous materials associated with CSIA operations under the proposed action 

would not pose a substantial hazard to the public or the environment. The CSIA is not a 

regulated hazardous waste generator under RCRA, but would comply with all existing and future 

requirements for the operation of the proposed launch facility. Overall, there would be no 

significant impacts anticipated from hazardous material use or hazardous waste management 

which would exceed the threshold of significance described in FAA Order 1050.1E, Appendix 

A, Section 10. 

4.7.2.2 Impacts of Landing 

The powered or unpowered landings of Concept X, Y, and Z vehicles under the proposed action 

would not result in impacts to hazardous materials or hazardous waste management in excess of 

the applicable threshold of significance. 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. 

4.7.3 Alternative 1 - Launching and Landing Concept X and Y Launch Vehicles at 

the CSIA 

Under alternative 1, the launching and landing of Concept Z vehicles would not occur and liquid 

N2O and HTPB would not be handled, used or stored at the CSIA. The impacts from hazardous 

materials and hazardous waste management would be slightly less than that of the proposed 

action due to the reduced number of propellants that would be required for operations. All other 

impacts would be the same. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-27 

4.7.4 Alternative 2 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Z Launch Vehicles at 

the CSIA 

Under alternative 2, the launching and landing of Concept Y vehicles would not occur, resulting 

in less use of kerosene and/or alcohol and LOX at the CSIA. The impacts from hazardous 

materials and hazardous waste management would be slightly less than that of the proposed 

action due to the reduced amount of propellants that would be required for operations. All other 

impacts would be the same. 

4.7.5 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 launches from the CSIA. The OSIDA would not be able operate 

a launch facility at the proposed location at the CSIA. The CSIA facility would continue to offer 

its aviation related activities, and there would be no impact associated with hazardous materials 

and waste. 

4.8 Health and Safety 

4.8.1 Approach to Analysis 

Public safety impacts of OSIDA’s activities at the CSIA are assessed to determine if onsite 

workers or members of the general public are substantially endangered as a result of these 

activities. 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 launch and 

landing operations. Launches of Concept X, Y, and Z vehicles from the CSIA would require 

launch-specific licenses or permits from the FAA and each launch applicant would be required to 

conduct a risk analysis. Potential launch operators would estimate the casualty expectation 

associated with their proposed flight corridors or impact dispersion areas (if in a populated area) 

for all flights. The estimated casualty expectation cannot exceed 0.00003 (30 x 10-6) to receive a 

launch license. The FAA is in the process of developing a regulation to address Experimental 

Permits, and permit applicants would be required to meet the safety standards established by the 

FAA. Because this will be addressed in the Mission and Safety Review it is not discussed in 

detail in this EA. However, analyses of the safety and health implications of launch-related 

operations and activities that have the potential for environmental impact are considered in this 

EA. 

4.8.2 Proposed Action – Launching and Landing Concept X, Y, and Z Launch 

Vehicles at the CSIA 

The proposed action could have impacts on the safety and health of onsite workers at the CSIA 

and the general public. The following sections describe the impacts from the various activities 

associated with the proposed action. 

Proper compliance with the applicable laws and regulations related to the launch and landing 

activities outlined in Sections 4.1.2.1 and 4.1.2.2 would minimize the potential for health and 

safety impacts related to the proposed action. The OSIDA would implement an integrated 

program to manage safety and environmental protection objectives for operation of a commercial 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-28 

launch and landing site. This would include implementation of safety plans as necessary to 

protect workers during potentially hazardous activities. This would be accomplished through 

land use planning, range clearing (airspace closures, road closures, public evacuations), and 

public notifications during launch and landing. 

The proposed action would not impede or adversely affect the existing contamination or clean up 

activities at the CSIA. All areas of contamination have been studied in the USACE work on the 

DERP-FUDS, and numerous maps and reports have been generated that provide the nature and 

extent of past contamination at the CSIA. 

4.8.2.1 Impacts of Launch 

Launching vehicles from the CSIA would require a number of activities that would have 

potential impacts on health and safety including the management of propellants and fuels 

required for launches of Concept X, Y, and Z vehicles. Management activities include the 

transport, handling, storage and potential disposal of propellants and fuels. Potential accidents 

during any of these activities could present impacts to health and safety including increased 

traffic accidents due to increased transportation activity on and off the site; occupational 

mechanical accidents; and exposure to propellants during transport, while being stored at the 

CSIA, or while being handled during fueling. There are also implications for human health and 

safety in the operation of all three of the launch vehicle concepts. 

Propellant Management 

Storing, transporting, handling, and loading propellants can lead to fire and explosion hazards. 

Concept X launch vehicles would use Jet-A aviation fuel to fuel their turbojet engines and a 

combination of LOX and kerosene RP-1 or alcohol to power their rocket engines. Concept Y 

launch vehicles would use a combination of LOX and kerosene, or alcohol to power their rocket 

engines. Concept Z launch vehicles would use Jet-A aviation fuel to power the carrier aircraft’s 

turbojet engines and a combination of nitrous oxide and HTPB to power the launch vehicle’s 

hybrid rocket motor. 

Management of these hazardous propellants would be the responsibility of each individual 

launch operator. OSIDA would develop a tracking system that would handle the purchase, 

transport, and temporary storage of the propellants. Spills of hazardous materials would be 

covered by a Hazardous Materials Response Plan, which ensures that adequate and appropriate 

guidance, policies, and protocols regarding hazardous material incidents and associated 

emergency response would be available to all CSIA personnel. 

All individuals or organizations at the CSIA would be responsible for complying with all 

applicable regulations and plans regarding hazardous waste, and applicable regulations regarding 

the temporary accumulation of waste at the site. 

The hazards associated with each of these propellants and fuels are discussed below. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-29 

Jet-A Aviation Fuel and Kerosene 

Jet-A aviation fuel and kerosene are liquid hydrocarbon fuels that are flammable and can explode 

if mixed with air and then ignited in a confined space. Jet-A and kerosene can also react 

explosively if combined with oxidizers. Toxic products can be emitted from the burning Jet-A 

and kerosene. Unburned vapors can irritate skin, can be moderately toxic if inhaled, and can 

cause severe hazards if ingested. (Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, 2006a) 

Approximately 37,854 liters (10,000 gallons) of jet engine fuel are stored onsite in above ground 

storage tanks. 

The proposed Concept X and Z operations would not necessitate changes to the existing safety 

and health and spill prevention/response practices for Jet-A and kerosene at the CSIA. The 

CSIA does not have an official Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) plan; 

however, all appropriate state and Federal guidelines would be followed. The CSIA fire 

department has first response capabilities should a spill occur and the Oklahoma Department of 

Environmental Quality (DEQ) maintains an office onsite to facilitate follow-up response 

activities. In issuing specific launch licenses, the FAA would evaluate any additional safety 

procedures or requirements. 

There would be some vapors released from fuel storage or transfer operations through 

evaporative losses. However, such vapors would be released in small quantities and dissipate in 

the air after being released. There is also the concern of spills of Jet-A and kerosene during 

handling and loading operations and subsequent fire or explosion. However, Jet-A fuel and 

kerosene have been used at the CSIA to support aircraft operations and practices and procedures 

for safely handling the quantities of Jet-A fuel and kerosene needed for launch operations have 

been established. 

Liquid Oxygen 

Rocket grade LOX is a light-blue transparent liquid that can be used as an oxidizer. It is stored 

as a cryogenic liquid (i.e., it is stored at extremely low temperatures). The LOX will not burn by 

itself, but will vigorously support combustion when in contact with combustible materials. 

When LOX is stored in a closed system and refrigeration is not maintained, vessel rupture may 

occur due to over-pressurization. (Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, 1997) 

The LOX would be stored in specially-designed tanker trucks that would meet all applicable 

health and safety requirements and would only be onsite temporarily. Although LOX would not 

pose toxic risks, it would require special handling precautions. Workers must be equipped with 

protective equipment designed to prevent contact with the eyes or skin, and vapors must be kept 

away from sources of ignition and flammable materials. The LOX also would be used at the 

CSIA during static rocket engine tests. All appropriate safety and handling procedures would be 

followed. 

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 

N2O is a colorless, nonflammable, nontoxic gas that is chemically stable at room temperature. 

At elevated temperatures, it decomposes into nitrogen and oxygen and becomes a strong 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-30 

oxidizing agent to support combustion. It is stored and shipped as a liquefied compressed gas at 

atmospheric temperature (21°C [70°F]) or as a refrigerated liquid. Although non-toxic, N2O 

poses danger as an asphyxiant. It can also be explosive if it comes in contact with combustible 

materials or if the storage cylinders are exposed to external heating. (Canadian Centre for 

Occupational Health and Safety, 2006b) 

For Concept Z vehicle operations, N2O would be delivered via refrigerated tanker truck to the 

CSIA and would be stored onsite only temporarily in the tanker trucks. Transfer of N2O from 

the refrigerated tanker to the launch vehicle is potentially hazardous and could result in the 

release of N2O. All the N2O tanks would be designed to comply with applicable codes 

(including that of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers). The N2O tank on Concept Z 

launch vehicles would be filled and vented through the tank’s forward bulkhead to keep vapor 

away from the hot side of the tank. 

Hydroxyl-terminated Polybutadiene (HTPB) 

HTPB is a hydrocarbon used as the fuel (with an oxidizer such as N2O) in a hybrid rocket motor 

as used in Concept Z launch vehicles. If ignited, the HTPB will continue to burn in the presence 

of an oxidizer. Accidental fires and explosions are possible if proper handling precautions (e.g., 

proper securing of ignition sources) are not taken when both the HTPB and oxidizer are loaded 

on the vehicle. The HTPB would be loaded in motor casings at an offsite location and would be 

transported in accordance with all applicable health and safety requirements. Therefore, 

potential impacts to health and safety would be minimized. 

Traffic Accidents

The increased road traffic that would result from launches and landings of Concept X, Y, and Z 

vehicles would only add a few cars/trucks above existing traffic loads. There would be an 

increase in the trucks delivering kerosene, LOX, and N2O to the CSIA particularly during peak 

launch years. However, given the small number of launches, this would likely represent only a 

small increase in material shipments to the CSIA. The increase in the number of shipments of 

hazardous materials should not materially increase the number of traffic accidents on the 

roadways around the CSIA. 

All transport of hazardous materials would be in DOT approved packages and containers. The 

shipments would meet the DOT requirements including packaging design, marking, labeling, and 

placarding for shipment over public roadways. All hazardous materials transport would meet 

DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations, 49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, and 177. 

These DOT requirements are intended to minimize potential releases, fires, and explosions. 

Occupational Mechanical Accidents 

Onsite work associated with the conduct of Concept X, Y, and Z launches would be similar to 

that associated with industrial chemical operations. Exposure impacts and mitigation of 

propellant/fuel hazards were discussed above. All operations at the CSIA would comply with 

Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA) standards. Exposure to mechanical accidents 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-31 

would not differ materially from current levels for the CSIA because the number of operations 

associated with the conduct of Concept X, Y, and Z launch operations would be relatively small 

given the number of operations CSIA-wide. 

Flight/Airspace and Emergency Landing Operations 

A detailed flight hazard analysis will be conducted as part of a Mission and Safety 

Review by the FAA before a determination is made on whether to issue a license. The potential 

hazards of flight/airspace and emergency landing operations include limited airspace availability, 

limited airport operations, and flight safety. 

Emergency Landing Facilities 

In the unlikely event of an emergency landing, the PIC would attempt to reach the closest 

potential abort site. There are numerous potential emergency landing sites along the northwest 

and southwest flight corridors. Potential abort sites for trajectories along the northwest corridor 

could include existing airports in Oklahoma and Texas such as 

 Elk City, Oklahoma, 

 West Woodward, Oklahoma, 

 Gage, Oklahoma, 

 Higgins, Texas, 

 Follett, Texas, 

 Canadian, Texas, 

 Perryton, Texas, 

 Liberal, Texas, and 

 Miami, Texas. 

Potential abort sites for trajectories along the southwest corridor could include existing airports 

in Oklahoma and Texas such as 

 Elk City, Oklahoma, 

 Sayre, Oklahoma, 

 Mangum, Oklahoma, 

 Wellington, Texas, and 

 Clarendon, Texas. 

However, any airport within range with a runway of at least 1,219 meters (4,000 feet) would be a 

candidate for an emergency landing location. 

Limited Airspace Availability 

Changes in airspace use can impact flight safety or limit airspace availability to other users. The 

FAA is charged with overall management of airspace and has established criteria and limits for 

use of various sectors of airspace. Section 4.3 of this document considers the potential impacts 

to airspace. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-32 

Flight Safety 

Multiple safety precautions would be used during flights to assure safety. Safety standards for 

each launch vehicle would be developed as part of the FAA’s required Mission and Safety 

Review process. All safety standards would ensure that the expected average number of 

casualties from falling debris generated during a worst-case scenario accident does not exceed 

0.00003 (30 x 10-6). All three vehicle concepts would have the ability to vent potentially harmful 

propellants in an emergency. This would minimize the risk to the pilot, crew, and surrounding 

public. Concept X vehicles would vent LOX through the engine nozzle during nominal and nonnominal launches. Should there be a need to vent LOX while in flight, this would most likely 

occur at a minimum altitude of 1,067 meters (3,500 feet). Should the need arise to vent LOX 

while on the ground, approximately 100 percent of the LOX would be vented through the engine 

nozzle at a designated point on the concrete parking ramp. There is a specific area on the 

extreme southernmost point of the 38-hectare (93-acre) concrete ramp designated for LOX 

venting if it should be required for any reason. 

For Concept Y vehicles, an FSS has been developed to limit safety risks. The pilot would be 

responsible for activating the FSS. It would allow the pilot to turn off the engine or close 

propellant pre-valves, as well as vent or dump LOX in an emergency. For Concept Z vehicles, 

the pilot would be responsible for flight safety decisions. The pilot would be responsible for 

shutting down the rocket motor in an emergency. The vehicle propulsion system would contain 

an internal automatic shutdown mode should critical system operating parameters be exceeded. 

The pilot would also be responsible for venting any excess N2O that remains in the tank during 

descent. This would ensure that the N2O and residual HTPB would not mix, minimizing the 

likelihood of an explosion. 

Catastrophic Accident Scenarios 

The risk of catastrophic accidents will be discussed in detail in the Accident Investigation Plan as 

part of the FAA’s Safety Review and Approval process. All launch vehicles would be subject to 

a launch evaluation to evaluate the risks of launch from the CSIA. This evaluation would 

analyze the consequences of failure (and corresponding probability of occurrence); the vehicle 

trajectory under failure modes; the vehicle casualty area and casualty expectations (given the 

population areas along the flight path and trajectory); and launch hazards. Generally speaking, 

launch hazards can be divided into meteorological hazards and system failures. Meteorological 

hazards consist of lightning, wind and other hazards that must be considered before launch. 

System failures consist of a breakdown in the flight systems on board the launch vehicle and can 

broadly include propulsion and guidance failures. Propulsion failures occur when the vehicle 

experiences a loss of thrust or a catastrophic failure of the propulsion system. Guidance failures 

occur when a loss of control of the vehicle occurs. For launch vehicles under the proposed 

action, guidance failures would be limited because all the vehicles are pilot controlled and would 

be flown more like airplanes than guided rockets. Any system failure could lead to a 

catastrophic accident during vehicle launch, ascent or descent. An overview of the accident risks 

associated with launching each vehicle type is discussed below. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-33 

For Concept X launch vehicles, the likelihood of a catastrophic accident would be minimal. 

During vehicle launch, the aircraft would take off under the power of jet engines and the 

probability of failure would be considered no greater than a normal plane taking off. There is an 

elevated likelihood of accident when the launch vehicle switches from jet engines to the rocket 

engine. If the rocket engine fails to ignite, the vehicle would return to jet engines and abort the 

flight. In the event of a catastrophic failure (e.g., an explosion), the overall risk to human health 

and safety would be minimized because the switch to rocket power would be at altitude and any 

debris would be dispersed in the atmosphere. 

For Concept Y launch vehicles, there is an elevated hazard area for catastrophic accidents at the 

end of the runway if there is a failure of the vehicle during the rocket-powered takeoff. The 

vehicle may not have enough energy to make an emergency landing and therefore, the vehicle 

may crash off the runway. Such an accident could cause a rupture of the propellant tanks, which 

could result in explosion and fire. There would likely be substantial damage and heat in the 

immediate vicinity of the crash. There are no known populated areas in the vicinity of the 

takeoff area and no impacts would be expected to populated areas from an explosion. However, 

it would be expected that the crew could be seriously injured or killed. Emissions from the open 

burn of LOX and kerosene would produce similar products to those of a launch engine burn 

including CO, CO2, and water (H2O). There may be more PM (unburned hydrocarbons) forming 

a smoke cloud from an accident burn. None of the combustion products are considered highly 

toxic. Onsite and offsite emergency response capabilities would be used as necessary. 

For Concept Z launch vehicles during nominal flight, there is an elevated probability of accident 

due to the coupling of the launch vehicle with the carrier aircraft. If the launch vehicle fails to 

function as intended soon after separation from the carrier aircraft, the launch vehicle would 

attempt a steep descent, dump its N2O, and land at an abort site. In terms of impact, for a 

nominal trajectory, the ground track would be limited in terms of flight over populated areas. In 

a catastrophic accident, it would be likely that the crew would be seriously injured or killed. At 

the CSIA, the onsite fire department could respond and secure the site. It is expected that any 

fires resulting from a failed launch could be addressed by the fire department. Additional offsite 

emergency response capability could also be used if necessary. 

4.8.2.2 Impacts of Landing 

The hazards of landing vehicles at the CSIA would not include any additional impacts not 

previously discussed in the Impacts of Launch section. The main impact to human health and 

safety would be from a catastrophic accident. The probability of a catastrophic accident is the 

same as discussed in Section 4.8.2.1, Impacts of Launch; however, the potential areas on the 

ground that would be impacted by an accident are different based upon the projected flight paths 

of a vehicle returning to the CSIA along the northwest or southwest corridors. 

4.8.3 Alternative 1 - Launching and Landing Concept X and Y Launch Vehicles at 

the CSIA 

Under alternative 1, there would be minimal impacts from launching or landing Concept X or Y 

launch vehicles. The risks to human health and safety would be minimized through launch 

safety planning. All safety standards would ensure that the expected average number of 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-34 

casualties from falling debris generated during a worst-case scenario accident does not exceed 

0.00003 (30 x 10-6). Both vehicle types would have the ability to vent propellants in an 

emergency to minimize the risk to flight crews, on the ground personnel, and the general public. 

Concept X vehicles would vent LOX through the engine nozzle during nominal and non-nominal 

launches. Should there be a need to vent LOX while in flight, it would most likely occur at a 

minimum altitude of 1,067 meters (3,500 feet). In the event of a need to vent LOX while on the 

ground, approximately 100 percent of the LOX would be vented through the engine nozzle at a 

designated point on the concrete parking ramp. There is a specific area on the extreme 

southernmost point of the 38-hectare (93-acre) concrete ramp designated for LOX venting if it 

should be required for any reason. 

For Concept Y vehicles, an FSS has been developed to limit health and safety risks. The pilot 

would be responsible for activating the FSS. It would allow the pilot to turn off the engine or 

close propellant pre-valves, as well as vent or dump LOX in an emergency. 

4.8.4 Alternative 2 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Z Launch Vehicles at 

the CSIA 

Under alternative 2, there would be minimal impacts for the launch or landing of Concept X and 

Z launch vehicles. The risks to human health and safety would be minimized through launch 

safety planning. All safety standards would ensure that the expected average number of 

casualties from falling debris generated during a worst-case scenario accident does not exceed 

0.00003 (30 x 10-6). Both vehicle types would have the ability to vent propellants in the case of 

an emergency to minimize the risk to flight crews, on the ground personnel, and the general 

public. 

Concept X vehicles would have the means to vent LOX through the engine nozzle during 

nominal and non-nominal launches. Should there be a need to vent LOX while in flight, it would 

most likely occur at a minimum altitude of 1,067 meters (3,500 feet). In the event of a need to 

vent LOX while on the ground, approximately 100 percent of the LOX would be vented through 

the engine nozzle at a designated point on the concrete parking ramp. There is a specific area on 

the extreme southernmost point of the 38-hectare (93-acre) concrete ramp designated for LOX 

venting if it should be required for any reason. 

For Concept Z vehicles, the pilot would be responsible for flight safety decisions. The pilot 

would be responsible for shutting down rocket motor burns in an emergency. The vehicle 

propulsion system would contain an internal automatic shutdown mode should system critical 

operating parameters be exceeded. The pilot would also be responsible for venting any excess 

N2O that remains in the tank during descent. This would ensure that the N2O and remaining 

HTPB would not mix, minimizing the likelihood of a fire or explosion. 

4.8.5 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 launches from the CSIA. The OSIDA would not be able to 

operate a launch facility at the proposed location at the CSIA. The CSIA facility would continue 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-35 

to offer its aviation related activities, and there would be no impact to health and safety from 

launches. 

4.9 Land Use 

4.9.1 Approach to Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E requires assessment of land use impacts in terms of compatible land use and 

noise-sensitive areas. The compatibility of existing and planned land uses in the vicinity of an 

airport is usually associated with the extent of the airport’s noise impacts. Actions which result 

in a change in the number of aircraft operations, air traffic changes, or new approaches are 

examples of activities that can alter aviation-related noise impacts and affect land uses subjected 

to those impacts. Generally, if the noise analysis concludes that there are no changes in noise 

exposure which exceed the applicable thresholds of significance, a similar conclusion usually 

may be drawn with respect to compatible land use. Individual, isolated, residential structures, 

like those surrounding the CSIA, may be considered compatible within the 65 DNL 65 dB noise 

contour where the primary use of land is agricultural and adequate noise attenuation is provided. 

For this analysis, land use impacts are discussed within the ROI, which includes the Spaceport 

Territory as defined in Section 3.9.3.1 and encompassing the CSIA, the town of Burns Flat, and 

other parts of Washita County. As shown in Exhibit 3-14, the ROI covers a much larger area 

than the DNL 65 dB noise contour. Section 4.10 contains a more detailed discussion of the noise 

impacts. Land use impacts are described in terms of the launch and landing activities associated 

with the proposed action and alternatives. 

Land use impacts also are analyzed in terms of unique and sensitive properties protected under 

Section 4(f) of the DOT Act (recodified as 49 U.S.C. 303). The FAA’s Part 150 guidelines 

require this consideration, and FAA Order 1050.1E states that a significant impact to Section 4(f) 

property exists if the proposed action either involves more than a minimal physical use of a 

Section 4(f) property or is deemed a “constructive use” substantially impairing the 4(f) property, 

and mitigation measures do not eliminate or reduce the effects of the use below the threshold of 

significance (e.g., by replacement of a neighborhood park). 

4.9.2 Proposed Action – Launching and Landing Concept X, Y, and Z Launch 

Vehicles at the CSIA 

Operation of a commercial launch site would not adversely impact the land use of the ROI. The 

existing land use of the ROI, as described in Section 3.9, is compatible with the proposed action. 

No major changes to land use would need to occur to accommodate the proposed action, and 

OSIDA does not currently have plans to alter the existing land use for the Spaceport Territory. 

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. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-36 

OSIDA does not anticipate the need for new structures under the proposed action because several 

vacant facilities could be used for the proposed activities. Many of the available facilities are in 

good condition and could be remodeled or renovated for a variety of uses. Due to the large 

amount of available space, OSIDA does not plan to construct any new facilities within the next 

five years. However, should existing facilities not meet the needs of a potential client, a 

specialized facility may need to be constructed. This type of activity would be analyzed in 

separate environmental analyses as appropriate. 

The proposed action for this EA has the potential to impact current and undefined future USAF 

operations at the CSIA. The USAF considered the CSIA as a site for an Assault Landing Zone 

for Altus AFB, which is located approximately 88 kilometers (55 miles) from the CSIA. This 

action was evaluated in an EA for the C-17 Program Changes at Altus AFB. The EA analyzed 

several possible actions, including the possible construction of an Assault Landing Zone at the 

CSIA. The EA resulted in a FONSI, signed on August 19, 2004, indicating that the USAF would 

not pursue the alternative that would entail building a new Assault Landing Zone. However, the 

need still exists for a new Assault Landing Zone, and the USAF continues to consider potential 

sites, including the CSIA. Regardless of what the Air Force decides to do in the future, the 

proposed action would not materially affect any decisions related to a new Assault Landing 

Zone. 

The proposed action does not require any physical or constructive use that would impair any 

Section 4(f) properties. Because the activities associated with the proposed action are not 

expected to use or impair any Section 4(f) properties, there would be no impacts to Section 4(f) 

lands. 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. 

4.9.2.1 Impact of Launches 

The surrounding agricultural lands to the north, west, and south of the CSIA would continue to 

provide a relatively open, low-density buffer for launch activities. However, the authorities 

granted to OSIDA by the State of Oklahoma include the ability to temporarily evacuate residents 

within the Spaceport Territory if launch or landing operations warrant such an action. OSIDA 

does not anticipate evacuations under the current plans for the CSIA; however, this right would 

be exercised if necessary to protect public health and safety. Although recurring evacuations are 

unlikely, if they occur, it could discourage commercial and residential development within the 

Spaceport Territory. 

New infrastructure would not be needed to support the launches of the Concept X, Y, and Z 

vehicles. The existing infrastructure is capable of supporting all launch activities. 

Noise from the launches should not result in a change in noise exposure in excess of the 

applicable threshold of significance within the DNL 65 dB contour (see Section 4.10). Most of 

this land is either part of the CSIA or agricultural land. Any residential or commercial land use 

is sparse. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-37 

4.9.2.2 Impact of Landing 

The impacts of landing are similar to those of launches, as discussed above in Section 4.9.2.1. 

4.9.3 Alternative 1 - Launching and Landing Concept X and Y Launch Vehicles at 

the CSIA 

The impacts of alternative 1 are similar those under the proposed action. Using only Concept X 

and Y launch vehicles should not result in any different impacts to land use. 

4.9.4 Alternative 2 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Z Launch Vehicles at 

the CSIA 

The impacts of alternative 2 are similar those under the proposed action. Using only Concept X 

and Z launch vehicles should not result in any different impacts to land use. 

4.9.5 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 launches from the CSIA. The CSIA facility would continue to 

offer its aviation related activities, and there would be no different impact to land use. 

4.10 Noise 

4.10.1 Approach to Analysis 

This analysis addresses potential noise impacts that might occur as a result of launching and 

landing Concept X, Y, and Z vehicles and the sonic booms associated with the supersonic flight 

of Concept X and Z vehicles. Sonic boom noise impacts are assessed with respect to the 

potential for causing structural damage, hearing damage, and annoyance. 

4.10.1.1 Jet Engine Noise 

Jet engine noise associated with military aircraft currently exists at the CSIA. As discussed in 

Section 4.1.2, approximately 41,300 of the 47,200 total operations conducted at the CSIA during 

fiscal year 2003 were military operations. Instantaneous sound pressure levels have been 

calculated between 86 to 122 dB at discrete receptors within the DNL 65 dB contour at the 

CSIA. (Department of the Air Force, 2002) Sound pressure levels from jet engines associated 

with launch vehicles (Concept X and Z) would be similar to this range. Jet engine noise is 

analyzed in this document for Concept X and Z vehicles. 

4.10.1.2 Rocket Engine Noise 

For this analysis, rocket engine noise was assumed to begin at one of two times. Concept X and 

Z vehicles are lifted to altitude using jet engines before rocket engines are ignited; therefore, 

rocket engine noise for these two types of vehicles begins when the vehicle is already at a 

considerable height above the ground. Concept Y vehicles ignite rocket engines on the ground; 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-38 

therefore, the rocket engine noise associated with this type of vehicle begins while the vehicle is 

still on the ground. Rocket engine noise is analyzed for all vehicle concepts. 

4.10.1.3 Sonic booms 

When an object travels through the atmosphere faster than the speed of sound (Mach 1) a sonic 

boom is generated. The sonic boom is generated as the object pushes aside air molecules with 

great force and subsequently forms a shockwave. This shockwave propagates away from the 

object, and depending on various factors including the shape and trajectory of the vehicle and 

meteorological conditions, it can propagate and impinge on the Earth. Since sonic booms can 

occur during ascent and descent, the location of the sonic boom footprints on the ground would 

vary depending on the exact location of the vehicle relative to the ground at Mach 1 or greater. 

In the event that the sonic boom impinges on an observer, the observer would hear a noise 

comparable to a single or two closely-spaced cannon shots. 

Sonic booms are typically quantified in pounds per square foot (psf) of peak overpressure. 

Overpressure refers to the pressure caused by the sonic boom above air pressure at ground level. 

Another important aspect of sonic booms is their rise time (10 to 90 percent of the peak), which 

is the time it takes for the sonic boom to reach its peak overpressure. 

Peak overpressures for sonic booms from launch vehicles from Vandenberg AFB have been 

measured and ranged from approximately one to two psf (128 to 134 dB). Similar levels have 

been measured for sonic booms from the Space Shuttle approaching Edwards AFB. Higher peak 

overpressures have been measured from low altitude flights and focused sonic booms created by 

certain aircraft maneuvers. A nine psf sonic boom was measured for the Titan IV from 

Vandenberg AFB, and low altitude supersonic aircraft have generated sonic booms with peak 

overpressures ranging between 20 and 144 psf. None of the activities proposed for the CSIA 

would result in sonic booms of this magnitude. No low altitude supersonic flights are anticipated 

as a result of the proposed action or alternatives. Sonic booms associated with launch activities 

would occur at high altitudes where sonic boom noise would dissipate substantially because of 

distance attenuation, i.e., because of the large distance between the noise source and the observer 

on the ground. Further, the proposed launch vehicles are much smaller than those cited in the 

previous examples and sonic booms generally decrease in magnitude for smaller vehicles. 

For this analysis, because only Concept X and Z vehicles reach supersonic speeds, only these 

two vehicle concepts have the potential to produce sonic booms. Therefore, this analysis 

considers the impacts from the production of sonic booms from Concept X and Z vehicles. 

Structural Damage 

A sonic boom can cause building damage, in terms of glass breakage and other effects, if the 

magnitude is great enough. However, in most cases, the potential for sonic booms to damage 

structures is extremely small. At one psf, the probability of a window breaking ranges from one 

in a billion (Sutherland, 1990) to one in a million (Hershey, 1976) depending on the composition 

of the glass. At 10 psf, the probability of breakage ranges from one in a hundred to one in a 

thousand. (Haber, 1989) 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-39 

Hearing Damage 

Tests conducted in 1968 at Tonapah, Nevada showed that sonic booms with overpressures from 

50 to 144 psf did not create hearing loss to the exposed people. Tests on subjects exposed to 

simulated air bag noise at peak levels as high as 80 psf showed that temporary changes in 

hearing were mainly caused by high-frequency noise, not the low frequencies found in sonic 

booms. (Sommer, 1973) 

Annoyance 

Lower magnitude sonic booms may not cause damage, but can be annoying and can be evaluated 

by established human annoyance criteria. The DNL is the noise metric used by most Federal and 

state agencies to assess noise impacts and has been found to be the best noise metric for 

predicting human annoyance. DNL is a function of the number of noise events per day and is 

typically calculated on a annual average basis. For impulsive sounds such as sonic booms, it has 

been found that impact correlates well with C-weighted DNL (CDNL). C-weighting emphasizes 

low-frequency sound and excludes sound energy below 25 Hertz and above 10,000 Hertz. 

Exhibit 4-12 shows the relation between noise level metrics DNL, CDNL, and annoyance. 

(Finegold, 1994) (National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, 1981) 

Exhibit 4-12. Relation between Noise Level Metrics DNL, CDNL, and Annoyance

DNL 

(dBA) 

CDNL 

(dBC) 

Average Percent 

Population Highly 

Annoyed 

55 52 3.3 

60 57 6.5 

65 61 12.3 

70 65 22.1 

75 69 36.5 

The EPA has established an annual average DNL of 55 dB as a level that protects public health 

and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. (EPA, 1974) However, the FAA, as well as 

many other agencies, uses 65 DNL as the dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable 

noise levels. Therefore, 61 CDNL would be the appropriate threshold for evaluating sonic boom 

impact. 

4.10.2 Proposed Action – Launching and Landing Concept X, Y, and Z Launch 

Vehicles at the CSIA 

Noise produced by launches and landings at the CSIA would consist primarily of jet engine or 

rocket noise during the subsonic takeoff, flight, and landing; launch noise during the rocketpropelled flight of the launch vehicle; and sonic booms generated from the supersonic flight of 

the launch vehicle during the ascent and descent. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-40 

4.10.2.1 Impacts from Launch 

Jet Engine Noise – Concept X and Z 

The noise generated from the jet engines used for takeoffs and landings of Concept X and Z 

vehicles is similar to the noise produced by similar sized commercial or military aircraft during 

take-off. Currently C-5, T-1, T-37, T-38, C-130, KC-135R, F-18, and helicopter flights occur on 

a regular basis at the CSIA. With a maximum of 52 launches per year of Concept X and Z 

vehicles, the noise impacts of the jet engines from these vehicles would be minimal compared to 

the approximately 47,200 flight operations per year currently occurring at the CSIA. Unless the 

frequency of launch operations approached several thousand per year, the current noise contours 

at the CSIA would not change substantially. 

The loudest noise for jet aircraft would consist of the carrier aircraft used for transporting 

Concept Z vehicles to the appropriate altitude for launch. These types of aircraft could produce 

noise similar to the USAF T-38, which currently takes off from the CSIA. 

The area around the CSIA has been exposed to aviation noise for over 50 years as a result of the 

operations at the airport. The additional noise sources from proposed horizontal launches would 

be similar to noise generated by large military aircraft currently using the CSIA. The jet engines 

used would be commercially available models, and would not require any modifications that 

would substantially increase their noise output. As long as launch frequency is limited to a 

maximum of 52 launches per year of Concept X and Z vehicles, the noise generated by their jet 

engines would not be different enough from current noise sources to result in noise exposure in 

excess of applicable thresholds of significance. 

Rocket Engine Noise – Concept X and Z 

Concept X and Z vehicles may ignite rocket engines at altitudes as low as 6,100 meters (20,000 

feet). At this altitude, using a simple rocket engine noise model and assuming 267,000 Newtons 

(60,000 pounds) of thrust, noise levels reaching the ground would range from 85 to 95 dB (unweighted). A-weighted sound pressure levels are expected to be approximately 20 to 25 dB less 

than the un-weighted levels as rocket launch noise is primarily low frequency noise (below 

approximately 200 Hertz, which is attenuated by applying A-weighting). For this example, Aweighted sound pressure levels would range from 65 to 75 dBA. These instantaneous sound 

pressure levels are lower than those caused by military aircraft activity. As the vehicle rocket 

engines ignite and the vehicle climbs in altitude, noise levels reaching the ground would become 

quieter as the distance from the vehicle to the ground increases. The rocket engines would fire 

for approximately 175 to 180 seconds; however, the rocket launch noise may not be audible for 

that entire time because the increasing distance between the rocket and observers would diminish 

the launch noise. 

 

Rocket Engine Noise – Concept Y 

Concept Y vehicles would have rocket ignition at takeoff and a glide landing. These vehicles 

would use a LOX/kerosene rocket engine, with a thrust of 8,200 Newtons (1,800 pounds). 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-41 

Concept Y vehicles would take off using their rocket engines for all their propulsion needs. At a 

distance of 305 meters (1,000 feet) from the vehicle as it takes off, noise levels would range from 

76 to 86 dBA. While the character of the rocket engine noise would be different from existing 

military jet engine noise, the noise levels would be similar. Concept Y vehicles would be 

relatively small, and therefore the thrust and resulting noise levels would be lower than those 

generated by a larger rocket engine. 

As the rocket engines ignite and the vehicle climbs in altitude, noise levels reaching the ground 

would decrease as the distance from the vehicle to the ground increases. Due to the 

unsubstantial noise levels at the ground level, the short duration of noise exposure and infrequent 

occurrence, the noise of the Concept Y vehicle and its rocket engine would not be expected to 

result in a change in noise exposure in excess of applicable thresholds of significance. 

Sonic Booms – Concept X and Z Vehicles 

 

Suborbital trajectories for Concept X and Z vehicles were analyzed using NASA sonic boom 

prediction methods (Carlson, 1978) to determine the peak amplitude of the sonic booms 

generated for Concept X and Z vehicles utilizing the CSIA and the surrounding airspace. These 

trajectories included two corridors from the CSIA, in the northwest and southwest directions. 

The shape and geometry of Concept X and Z vehicles are considerably different as well as the 

altitudes at which sonic booms would occur, so the sonic boom signatures would be different for 

each vehicle. 

The Concept X vehicle would reach Mach 1 at 9,144 meters (30,000 feet), at which point a sonic 

boom would occur. The vehicle’s velocity would continue to increase, and then decrease near 

the apogee of the trajectory. Near the apogee at 99,670 meters (327,000 feet), the vehicle would 

slow to a velocity less than Mach 1, and then increase in velocity during descent to exceed Mach 

1. At such high altitudes a sonic boom would occur, but the atmosphere is rarefied at this 

altitude so there would be no substantial shock wave formed. Substantial distance attenuation 

would also occur at this high altitude. The vehicle would produce a sonic boom until it slowed 

below Mach 1, at approximately 16,459 meters (54,000) feet. This sonic boom would have a 

lower magnitude than the one generated during ascent because of greater distance attenuation. 

The Concept Z vehicle would exceed Mach 1 at 15,545 meters (51,000 feet), continue to increase 

in velocity until engine shutdown, and then slow to less than Mach 1 at 97,231 meters (319,000 

feet). During descent, it would then exceed Mach 1 again at 97,231 meters (319,000 feet) with 

no appreciable sonic boom. The vehicle’s velocity would decrease to below Mach 1 at 23,774 

meters (78,000 feet). Consequently, the highest magnitude sonic boom would be generated 

during ascent, at 15,545 meters (51,000 feet). 

The sonic boom predictions were determined from modeling performed for the northwest and 

southwest corridors. The sonic booms’ footprint size and location, and signature (waveform 

shape) including peak overpressures and rise times, are dependent on many factors including 

vehicle trajectory, maneuvering occurring during supersonic flight, and meteorological 

conditions during the flight. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-42 

Exhibit 4-13 shows estimated sonic boom peak overpressure and resulting CDNL, assuming 52 

launches per year for Concept X and Z vehicles. These sonic booms would occur within the 

northwest and southwest corridors. 

Exhibit 4-13. Estimated Sonic Boom Peak Overpressure and CDNL 

Vehicle 

Peak 

Overpressure 

(psf) 

CDNL 

(dBC) 

Concept X 1.1 to 1.9 45 to 49 

Concept Z 0.5 to 0.7 38 to 41 

Because these CDNL values are lower than 61 CDNL, there would be no noise impact associated 

with sonic booms for Concept X and Z vehicles which would exceed the applicable thresholds of 

significance. The areas within the northwest and southwest corridors are sparsely populated; 

however, sonic booms would likely be audible in certain populated areas within the ROI. 

4.10.2.2 Impact from Landing 

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. 

Because jet and rocket noise contributions would be small compared with existing jet noise, and 

sonic boom impacts would be minor, there would be no noise impact associated with Concept X, 

Y, or Z vehicles which would exceed the applicable thresholds of significance. 

Jet Engine Noise – Concept X 

As discussed in Section 4.10.2.1, Concept X jet engine noise contributions would be small 

compared with existing military jet noise. 

Glide Landing Noise – Concept Y and Z 

Noise associated with gliding vehicles would be insignificant. However, the jet aircraft carrier 

vehicle for Concept Z would produce jet noise upon landing, which would be minor compared 

with existing military jet noise. 

4.10.3 Alternative 1 - Launching and Landing Concept X and Y Launch Vehicles at 

the CSIA 

The maximum number of launches would be reduced from 54 to 50 per year, which would not 

make a substantial difference in the projected noise impacts. Because fewer launches and 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-43 

landings would occur under alternative 1 than under the proposed action, the expected noise 

impacts from alternative 1 would be less than those for the proposed action. 

4.10.4 Alternative 2 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Z Launch Vehicles at 

the CSIA 

Under alternative 2, the rocket engine noise at takeoff would not be of concern because the 

Concept Y vehicle would not be used. The maximum number of launches per year would be 

decreased from 54 to 52, which would not make a substantial difference in the projected noise 

impacts. Because fewer launches and landings would occur under alternative 2, the expected 

noise impacts from alternative 2 would be less than those for the proposed action. 

4.10.5 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 launches from the CSIA. OSIDA would not operate a launch 

facility at the proposed location at the CSIA. The CSIA facility would continue to offer 

aviation-related and rocket engine testing activities, and there would be no change in existing 

noise levels. 

4.11 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 

4.11.1 Approach to Analysis 

According to FAA Order 1050.1E, this analysis must consider the impacts on socioeconomics 

and environmental justice, as well as disproportionate impacts on children’s health and safety. 

As previously discussed in Section 3.11.2, the ROI for this analysis includes not only the town of 

Burns Flat but the entire SWODA area, which encompasses a radius of about 48 to 64 kilometers 

(30 to 40 miles) surrounding the CSIA. Each portion of this analysis will be divided into 

socioeconomics, environmental justice, and children’s health for the proposed action and 

alternatives. This analysis compares the potential impacts to the significance thresholds in FAA 

Order 1050.1E. 

4.11.2 Proposed Action – Launching and Landing Concept X, Y, and Z Launch 

Vehicles at the CSIA 

It has been determined that the proposed action does not have any substantial impacts to 

socioeconomics, as defined by FAA Order 1050.1E. This means that 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. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-44 

The proposed action does not create disproportionately high adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. Further, the proposed action does 

not result in disproportionate health and safety risks to children. 

The remaining subsections of Section 4.11 will discuss in more detail why the proposed action 

and alternatives do not exceed the thresholds of significance applicable to socioeconomics, 

environmental justice, or children’s health. In fact, the only impacts would likely be the positive 

impacts on socioeconomics within the ROI, as discussed below. 

4.11.2.1 Impact of Launches 

Socioeconomics 

OSIDA has projected that approximately 50 onsite personnel would be required to staff launch 

and landing operations. These 50 jobs would include 45 skilled and five unskilled laborers. The 

skilled workers would perform engineering tasks and would include vehicle technicians. The 

unskilled workers would conduct maintenance, upkeep, and security tasks for the spaceport. Of 

these 50 new jobs, approximately 25 would be hired from within the State of Oklahoma, and 25 

would be brought in from other parts of the U.S. The assumption about where the employees 

will originate is based on the small population living in the SWODA region (see Exhibit 3-16) 

and the lower levels of education in the SWODA region when compared with the State of 

Oklahoma and the U.S. (see Exhibit 3-17) 

These 50 personnel would be in addition to the 10 current employees required for normal CSIA 

flight operations. Current staff includes on-call fire and rescue personnel, control tower 

personnel, the airpark manager, and an administrative assistant. Over time, the number of 

employees needed is not expected to increase or decrease. A sudden increase of the population 

could cause stress on the local school system or the existing town infrastructure. However, it is 

unlikely that 50 new employees would create a surge in the population large enough to adversely 

affect any parts of the ROI or surrounding areas. 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. 

Economic incentives are provided for new business start-ups in ‘Former Indian Lands’ of 

Oklahoma, which includes the CSIA. According to the Post 1865 Map of Indian Lands used by 

the Internal Revenue Service, the CSIA and surrounding lands were formerly Cheyenne-Arapaho 

lands. Being located on former Indian Lands allows a business to accelerate depreciation by 40 

percent on any expenditure for capital assets. This typically increases non-cash expenditures, 

and increases gross funds flow for a company according to the Oklahoma Department of 

Commerce. This tax credit is unique to Oklahoma and has recently been re-instituted through 

2007. Additionally, any employer who hires a Native American or the spouse of a Native 

American is eligible for up to $4,500 in tax credits. 

A temporary increase in population could result due to spectators who travel to the CSIA to 

watch launches. Because it is impossible to know exactly how many individuals will show up 

for each launch, the FAA assumes that a worst case scenario would be equal to the number of 

spectators who showed up for the launch of a commercial RLV from the Mojave airport. During 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-45 

a recent launch (June 2004) the community of Mojave estimated that 11,000 spectators traveled 

to the Mojave Airport to view the launch. (MSNBC, 2004) The Mojave numbers represent a 

worst case scenario because the actual spectator attendance may vary significantly based on a 

number of factors, including but not limited to the following: 

 Mojave has a much larger population within easy driving distance (e.g., Los Angeles and 

surrounding communities), 

 The X Prize flights were highly publicized and public attendance was actively sought, and 

 There will be a great many more flights at CSIA to spread out the attendance of spectators 

over time. 

Any temporary increase in population would impact the surrounding businesses and community. 

Spectators would need to use businesses such as gas stations and restaurants, and possibly hotels 

and surrounding public areas like parks for camping. 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. As 

detailed in Section 3.11, the population density in the SWODA region is very low when 

compared to the rest of the U.S. Although an area with low population density usually has 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. 

Environmental Justice 

As detailed in Section 3.11, the SWODA region, Washita County, and Burns Flat all have a 

greater percentage of the population living below the poverty level than both the U.S. and the 

State of Oklahoma (see Exhibit 3-23). The SWODA region, Washita County, and Burns Flat 

have a lower percentage of minority racial populations than both the U.S. and Oklahoma (see 

Exhibit 3-21). In the SWODA region, Burns Flat, and Washita County, the percentage of Native 

Americans is greater than the U.S. as a whole, but is only about half of the percentage of the 

State of Oklahoma (see Exhibit 3-21). The percentage of persons of Hispanic or Latino origin is 

slightly higher in the SWODA region than in Oklahoma; however, the SWODA region’s 

percentage is still lower than the U.S. average (see Exhibit 3-22). Based on these Census data 

(detailed in Section 3.11), there is no evidence of an environmental justice population of concern 

living within the ROI. Furthermore, health and environmental impacts from the proposed action 

and alternatives are not expected to exceed applicable thresholds of significance for any impact 

category. 

Children’s Health 

Effects from the proposed action are not concentrated in areas that might contain proportionally 

more children, like schools. 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 (see Exhibit 3-24). Therefore, impacts of the proposed action on 

children’s health and safety should not be disproportionate as defined under EO 13045. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-46 

4.11.2.2 Impact of Landing 

Socioeconomics 

The impacts of landing are the same as those of launches, as discussed above in Section 4.11.2.1. 

Therefore, no impacts associated with a temporary increase in tourist populations are expected. 

Environmental Justice 

The impacts of landing are similar to those of launches, as discussed above in Section 4.11.2.1. 

Children’s Health 

The impacts of landing are similar to those of launches, as discussed above in Section 4.11.2.1. 

4.11.3 Alternative 1 - Launching and Landing Concept X and Y Launch Vehicles at 

the CSIA 

The impacts of alternative 1 are similar to those for the proposed action. Using only Concept X 

and Y launch vehicles should not result in any different impacts to environmental justice or 

children’s health. For socioeconomics, the only difference would be the number of personnel 

required. Instead of 50 employees, the FAA assumes there would be 45 workers under 

alternative 1 (41 skilled and four unskilled). This would result in slightly fewer positive impacts 

to the tax base and sales or other services offered by local area businesses. 

4.11.4 Alternative 2 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Z Launch Vehicles at 

the CSIA 

The impacts of alternative 2 are similar to those for the proposed action. Using only Concept X 

and Z launch vehicles should not result in any different impacts to environmental justice or 

children’s health. For socioeconomics, the only difference would be the number of personnel 

required. Instead of 50 employees, FAA assumes there will be 47 workers under alternative 1 

(42 skilled and five unskilled). This would result in slightly fewer positive impacts to the tax 

base and sales or other services offered by local area businesses. 

4.11.5 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 launches from CSIA. The CSIA facility would continue to offer 

its aviation related activities, and there would be no change in airspace activities. The current 

number of employees (10) would not change if the proposed action is not implemented. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-47 

4.12 Transportation 

4.12.1 Approach to Analysis 

The analysis of transportation impacts addresses ground and air traffic within the geographic 

area of the CSIA. Impacts on transportation are assessed with respect to the potential to cause 

disruption or congestion of transportation patterns. This disruption can be in the form of 

deterioration of existing levels of service or a reduction in the existing level of transportation 

safety. 

Impacts on ground transportation and capacity levels would be significant if the ratio of volumeto-capacity experienced unacceptable increases, which in turn led to congestion of the road and 

rail systems in and around the CSIA. 

Impacts on air traffic would be significant if the proposed action leads to an increase in flight 

operations that could not be accommodated within established operational procedures and flight 

patterns. The impact would be significant if OSIDA’s flight activities degrade the FAA’s ability 

to control air traffic near the CSIA or provide necessary safety of flight services. 

4.12.2 Proposed Action – Launching and Landing Concept X, Y, and Z Launch 

Vehicles at the CSIA 

Activities associated with the proposed action that could impact rail, road, or air transportation to 

and from the CSIA include transporting vehicles, vehicle components, propellants, and fuel to 

the CSIA for launches. 

There is sparse rail transportation into the CSIA, although there is an existing rail spur. Raw 

materials, fuels, propellants, and other vehicle components may be shipped to the CSIA via rail 

as a part of the proposed action; however, a large demand for incoming rail shipments is not 

anticipated in the reasonably foreseeable future. Depending on the nature and frequency of rail 

shipments, the rail spur would require varying levels of upgrade to protect public health and 

safety. OSIDA would consult with Farmrail about any necessary upgrades to the rail spur once 

specifics on the rail shipments have been confirmed. 

It is anticipated that propellants would be delivered to the CSIA by truck. I-40 and OK-44 

provide easy access to OSIDA and would allow propellants to be shipped to the CSIA via truck. 

All flight vehicle assemblies, subassemblies, support equipment, cargo, and fuel would enter the 

CSIA on 2nd Street on County Road E1140. All shipments of propellants and high-pressure 

gases will be routed via OK-44 and also enter the CSIA on 2nd Street on County Road E1140, 

and then travel to the assigned areas over designated non-public roadways. The high-pressure 

gases may be shipped in cylinders for low volume use in operating locations or by tube trailers 

for off-loading to a centrally located gas tube bank receiver/storage area. The CSIA will 

establish and maintain a high-pressure gas storage/receiver area for cylinders and tube trailers. 

All liquid aviation fuel and propellants would be shipped to the CSIA in bulk tanker trucks, each 

with a capacity of approximately 15,142 liters (4,000 gallons), which would serve as temporary 

storage containers. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-48 

Propellants for Concept X launch vehicles include LOX and RP-1. The amount of LOX required 

for launching a Concept X vehicle was estimated to be approximately 5,761 kilograms (12,700 

pounds). The amount of RP-1 required for each launch was estimated to be approximately 2,404 

kilograms (5,300 pounds). Each LOX delivery truck could deliver up to 15,785 kilograms 

(34,800 pounds) of LOX and each RP-1 delivery truck could deliver approximately 28,123 

kilograms (62,000 pounds) of RP-1 to the CSIA. Therefore, in the years with the highest launch 

rate of Concept X vehicles, 18 trucks would be required to supply the LOX and four trucks 

would be required to supply the RP-1. However, these shipments would be relatively infrequent 

and result in an insignificant increase in the number of vehicles on local roads including OK-44 

and I-40. These 22 additional delivery trucks per year would not materially impact 

transportation to, from, or within the CSIA. 

Propellants for Concept Y launch vehicles include LOX and kerosene, or alcohol. The amount 

of LOX required for launching a Concept Y vehicle is approximately 340 kilograms (750 

pounds). The amount of kerosene required for launching a Concept Y vehicle is approximately 

136 kilograms (300 pounds). Each delivery truck could deliver up to 15,785 kilograms (34,800 

pounds) of LOX and each RP-1 delivery truck could deliver approximately 28,123 kilograms 

(62,000 pounds) of kerosene to the CSIA. Therefore, one delivery truck per year would be 

needed to supply the required LOX and one delivery truck per year would be needed to supply 

the required kerosene for Concept Y launches. These two additional delivery trucks per year 

would not materially impact transportation to, from, or within the CSIA. 

For Concept Z vehicles, propellants would consist of N2O and HTPB for the launch vehicle and 

Jet-A fuel for the carrier vehicle. The amount of N2O required for one launch is 1,295 kilograms 

(2,855 pounds). Each delivery truck could deliver up to 11,340 kilograms (25,000 pounds) of 

N2O. Under the proposed flight schedule, the maximum number of launches would be four per 

year; therefore, one delivery truck per year would supply the required N2O. The amount of Jet-A 

fuel required for the carrier vehicle for one launch is 2,903 kilograms (6,400 pounds). Each 

delivery truck would deliver 28,123 kilograms (62,000 pounds) of Jet-A fuel; therefore, one 

truck per year would be needed to supply the required Jet-A fuel. One truck per launch would be 

needed to bring the motor containing the solid propellant, HTPB; therefore, at most four trucks 

per year would be needed to deliver the required HTPB.16 A maximum of six delivery trucks per 

year would supply propellants for Concept Z launch vehicles, which would not materially impact 

transportation. 

Due to the limited number of launches, propellant shipments would be infrequent and would not 

result in a material increase in the number of vehicles on local roads including OK-44 and 

I-40. 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. Again, the limited number of launches would not result in a substantial increase in 

vehicle volume within the CSIA due to propellant, fuel, or raw material shipments. Exhibit 4-14 

provides additional details on the delivery routes within the CSIA. 

 

16 The HTPB would be loaded into the rocket motor at an offsite location. The HTPB would be encased in the 

motor when it arrives at the CSIA. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-49 

Exhibit 4-14. Delivery Routes at the CSIA 

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. Gate A would be the General Access Gate located just west of 2nd Street at the 

main entrance. This gate would be controlled by CSIA Security personnel during normal 

operating hours and would provide general access for authorized personnel and vehicles. Gate B 

would be located at the intersection of 2nd Street and the Country Road on the north side of the 

CSIA. This gate would be used for delivery of fuels to the fuel staging area and would be 

manned by a security guard during CSIA operations. This gate would not be used for personnel 

or public access during CSIA operations. Gate C would be located on County Road E1140 on 

the northwest side of the CSIA and would be used for access to the proposed engine test area 

only. Gate D would be located on 2nd street and Apron Road 6 on the southeast side of the 

CSIA. This gate would be used for the delivery of oxidizers to the oxidizer staging area. 

Activities associated with the proposed action are not anticipated to substantially increase air 

traffic in the reasonably foreseeable future. The potential impacts on airspace are discussed in 

Section 4.3 of this EA. 

4.12.2.1 Impact of Launch 

Operational activities associated with horizontal launch and landing could impact onsite and 

offsite transportation. Impacts could result from an increase in ground traffic to and from the 

Gate A 

Gate B 

Gate C 

Gate D
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-50 

CSIA and from the addition of launch site personnel or tourists to the area. OK-44 is the main 

arterial providing access to the CSIA and is currently a two-lane road. OK-44 and the 

intersection at Sooner Drive could become congested at times of high traffic volume. 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 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. As described in Section 4.11, it was expected that up to a 

maximum of 11,000 spectators could attend each launch. (MSNBC, 2004) Assuming four 

people per passenger vehicle, this would be a total of 2,750 passenger vehicles per launch. 

However, these numbers would be expected to rapidly decline and taper to approximately less 

than 100 spectators per launch as launches become more routine occurrences. According to the 

Clinton-Sherman Industrial Airpark Master Plan, traffic volume averaged 1,800 to 2,000 vehicles 

on OK-44 between I-40 and OK-152 in 1993 and averaged 14,000 vehicles daily on I-40 at the 

OK-44 interchange. (Benham, 1996) 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 launches due to towing or moving the launch vehicle 

to the proper launch or takeoff location. However, the maximum number of launches (54) per 

year would not be expected to create any substantial impacts to transportation onsite. 

A substantial increase in air traffic from launch activity is not anticipated in the reasonably 

foreseeable future. 

4.12.2.2 Impact of Landing 

Impacts from landing should be similar to those for launch. Again, if substantial temporary 

traffic congestion occurs at the intersection of OK-44 and Sooner Drive, an additional entrance 

to the CSIA could be opened. 

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 onsite. 

A substantial increase in air traffic from landing activity is not anticipated in the reasonably 

foreseeable future. 

4.12.3 Alternative 1 - Launching and Landing Concept X and Y Launch Vehicles at 

the CSIA 

Launching and landing Concept X and Y vehicles at the CSIA would have the same impacts on 

transportation as the proposed action. Launching only Concept X and Y vehicles would not 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-51 

impact the transportation of additional employees or materials to the site. See Section 4.12.2 for 

potential impacts associated with transportation under the proposed action. Because alternative 1 

would result in fewer employees commuting to and from the CSIA than the proposed action (45 

instead of 50) and because there would be fewer launches and landings each year, the impact on 

transportation would be slightly less. 

4.12.4 Alternative 2 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Z Launch Vehicles at 

the CSIA 

Launching and landing Concept X and Y Launch Vehicles at the CSIA would have the same 

impacts on transportation as the proposed action. Launching only Concept X and Y vehicles 

would not impact the transportation of additional employees or materials, such as propellant or 

manufacturing equipment to the site. See Section 4.12.2 for potential impacts associated with 

transportation under the proposed action. Because alternative 2 would result in fewer employees 

than the proposed action (47 instead of 50) and because there would be fewer launches and 

landings each year, the impact on transportation would be slightly less. As compared to 

alternative 1, alternative 2 would result in a slightly higher number of employees commuting to 

and from the CSIA and a slightly higher number of annual launches and landings. Therefore, the 

impacts associated with alternative 2 would be slightly higher than those associated with 

alternative 1. 

4.12.5 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 launches from the CSIA. The OSIDA would not be able operate 

a launch facility at the proposed location at CSIA. The CSIA facility would continue to offer its 

aviation related activities, and there would be no additional impacts to transportation. 

4.13 Visual Resources 

4.13.1 Approach to Analysis 

As directed by FAA Order 1050.1E, the FAA must consider potential impacts from light 

emissions and visual impacts from the proposed action. As part of light emissions, the FAA 

considers the extent to which any lighting would create an annoyance or interfere with normal 

activities. Visual or aesthetic impacts are more difficult to determine because of the subjectivity 

involved. Impacts to visual and aesthetic resources would be considered significant if the 

proposed action and alternatives resulted in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; 

damaged scenic resources, such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state 

scenic highway; or degraded the existing visual character or quality of the site and its 

surroundings. 

In general, impacts to visual resources would result if a significant change occurred in the natural 

or man-made features contributing to the aesthetic value of the CSIA. The proposed action can 

be analyzed with respect to intensity and context. Intensity is measured by the estimation of 

visual dominance, and context is determined by the degree of visual sensitivity. Exhibit 4-15 

graphically displays the concepts of intensity and context. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-52 

Exhibit 4-15. Determination of Impact Based on Visual Dominance and Visual Sensitivity 

Would generally be overlooked 

" Not Noticeable" 

Noticeable, but not detract from the 

exisitng dominant landscape features 

" Visually Subordinate" 

Changes compete for attention with 

other viewshed features 

" Visually co-dominant" 

Changes demand attention 

" Visually dominant" 

Impact Determination 

Not Significant Adverse, but not 

significant 

Significant, 

but mitigable 

Significant 

and unavoidable 

High Low Moderate 

Intensity 

Visual Dominance 

Context 

Visual Sensitivity 

 

The setting of the CSIA is characteristic of the smooth uplands within the Central Rolling Red 

Plains physiographic area. These upland areas are typically dominated by level plains and 

generally do not include areas of substantial visual sensitivity. 

4.13.2 Proposed Action – Launching and Landing Concept X, Y, and Z Launch 

Vehicles at the CSIA 

4.13.2.1 Impact of Launch 

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. Jet powered 

takeoffs, however, are more common to the area and would be “visually co-dominant.” In 

addition, because the CSIA is a “low” visual sensitivity area, the resulting impact rating for both 

“visually dominant” and “visually co-dominant” intensity ratings would be adverse, but not 

substantial. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-53 

Launches would not create any impacts unless they occur during nighttime hours. If a launch 

occurs during nighttime hours, the launch itself would be visually dominant for all vehicle 

concepts. In such a case, mitigation measures might be required to shield viewers in the area 

from light generated as a result of the launch. At this time all launches are anticipated to occur 

during daytime hours. If night launches were proposed in the future they would need to be 

analyzed in separate environmental analyses. 

4.13.2.2 Impact of Landing 

Horizontal landing activities would result in a “visually subordinate” classification, due to 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. 

4.13.3 Alternative 1 - Launching and Landing Concept X and Y Launch Vehicles at 

the CSIA 

Impacts to visual resources resulting from alternative 1 would be the same as impacts to visual 

resources associated with the proposed action, as discussed in Section 4.13.2. 

4.13.4 Alternative 2 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Z Launch Vehicles at 

the CSIA 

Impacts to visual resources from alternative 2 would be less than the impacts associated with the 

proposed action. The elimination of Concept Y vehicles means that no launches would occur 

from ground level at the CSIA under this alternative. See Section 4.13.2 for a description of the 

impacts to visual resources from the proposed action. 

4.13.5 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 launches from the CSIA. The OSIDA would not be able operate 

a launch facility at the proposed location at the CSIA. The CSIA facility would continue to offer 

its aviation-related activities, and there would be no change in visual impacts. 

4.14 Water Resources 

4.14.1 Approach to Analysis 

The FAA considered the following factors to aid in defining the severity of impact from the 

proposed action and alternatives to water resources: 

 The degree to which the action may adversely affect wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or 

ecologically critical areas; and 

 Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, state, or local law or requirements 

imposed for water resources. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 4-54 

4.14.2 Proposed Action – Launching and Landing Concept X, Y, and Z Launch 

Vehicles 

The following sections present the impacts associated with the proposed action, alternative 1, 

alternative 2, and the no action alternative. Implementation of any alternative, including the 

proposed action, would have no impact on the ongoing ground water investigation and 

remediation efforts at CSIA. Wetlands and floodplains would not be impacted as no new 

infrastructure would be constructed and no new discharges would be released into the wetlands. 

4.14.2.1 Impact of Launch 

The vehicle preparation activities (i.e., fueling and assembly) associated with Concept X, Y, and 

Z 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 associated with an incidental spill or release, resulting in a 

small impact. 

4.14.2.2 Impact of Landing 

The impacts associated with landing would be the same as described in Section 4.14.2.1. 

4.14.3 Alternative 1 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Y Launch Vehicles 

The launch and landing of Concept X and Y vehicles would have slightly fewer impacts than 

those presented for the proposed action, because with one less concept vehicle, there would be 

fewer vehicle preparations and fewer chances for accidental spills or releases. 

4.14.4 Alternative 2 – Launching and Landing Concept X and Z Launch Vehicles 

The launch and landing of Concept X and Z vehicles would have slightly fewer impacts than 

those presented under the proposed action, because with one less concept vehicle, there would be 

fewer vehicle preparations and fewer chances for accidental spills or releases. 

4.14.5 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, there would be no additional impacts on water resources. 

Commercial, military, and private aviation activities would continue at CSIA. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 5-1 

5 POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 

A cumulative impact is “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) This cumulative impact analysis only 

analyzes those resource areas that have the potential for cumulative impacts. The proposed 

action has been evaluated for cumulative impacts on air quality, airspace, biological resources, 

hazardous materials, health and safety, noise, socioeconomic impacts, transportation, visual 

resources, and water resources. 

5.1 Analysis Methodology 

In researching cumulative projects, OSIDA and the USAF were contacted. The following were 

identified based on information from these contacts: 

 Impacts occurring as a result of the proposed action over the five-year term of the launch site 

operator license, 

 Proposed future use of the CSIA as a location to test rocket engines using a mobile trailer, 

and 

 Continued use of the CSIA as a training facility for military and general aviation aircraft. 

For purposes of this analysis, activities associated with testing rocket engines include 

 Transporting the mobile test trailer to the test location near Building 33, 

 Securing the trailer to the existing tie down pins, 

 Securing the rocket engine to the test stand, 

 Fueling the rocket engine, 

 Igniting the rocket engine, 

 Removing the engine and any debris following the test, and 

 Transporting the trailer to the appropriate storage location. 

Although other actions have been previously proposed that would have contributed to cumulative 

impacts, they are not currently considered “reasonably foreseeable” future actions within the 

timeframe of this analysis. This includes the proposed use of the CSIA as a location to build an 

Assault Landing Zone to support C-17 aircraft training (as discussed in Section 4.9 Land Use) 

and the proposed use of the CSIA for conducting manufacturing and testing activities for 

experimental aircraft. 

The USAF prepared an EA of the C-17 Program Changes at Altus AFB and the 97th Airlift 

Wing Commander signed a FONSI on August 19, 2004. The EA considered several possible 

actions including the possible construction of an Assault Landing Zone at the CSIA. The 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 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 5-2 

continues to consider potential sites, including the CSIA, there is currently no reasonably 

foreseeable plan to locate such a facility at the CSIA. 

In the past, one aviation-related firm had expressed an interest in conducting operations at the 

CSIA, which would possibly include manufacturing, research and development, test flights and 

general flights from CSIA. These proposed activities would have included development of 

industrial space for manufacturing and testing adjacent to or accessible to the runways at the 

CSIA. However, these plans were determined not to be reasonably foreseeable within the 

timeframe of this analysis and therefore, are not considered as part of the cumulative impacts 

analysis. 

The cumulative impacts analysis for this EA focuses 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 reasonably foreseeable 

future use of the CSIA as a location for testing rocket engines. The impacts of the proposed 

action are presented in Section 4 of this EA and the impacts of using the CSIA for military and 

general aviation aircraft activities have been analyzed in previous environmental documentation 

including those listed in Section 1.6. The impacts associated with rocket engine testing at the 

CSIA have not been analyzed in previous environmental documentation; therefore, the impacts 

of rocket engine testing are briefly described as part of this cumulative impacts analysis. 

The cumulative impacts were analyzed for the resource areas with potential impacts. The 

following sections discuss the potential cumulative impacts for this project. 

5.2 Air Quality 

5.2.1 Impacts of Testing Rocket Engines 

40 CFR Part 63, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source 

Categories, Subpart PPPPP, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Engine Test Cells/Stands, establishes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) for engine test cells/stands located at major sources of HAP emissions. Subpart 

PPPPP establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the 

emission restrictions contained in this NESHAP. Subpart PPPPP defines engine test cells/stands 

to mean any apparatus used for testing uninstalled stationary or uninstalled mobile (motive) 

engines. This includes rocket engines that are not installed in, or an integrated part of, the final 

product (i.e., launch vehicle). The owner/operator of an engine test cell/stand must determine 

applicability of the requirements as described in 40 CFR § 63.1 and follow notification 

instructions as applicable in 40 CFR § 63.9. The full text of the rule is available at the following 

Internet link http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/permitting/airperm/opd/63/63hmpg.htm. 

The air emissions from the use of a rocket engine test cell to fire an engine are similar to the air 

emissions from launching the vehicle. The testing program for an engine typically requires 

frequent firings of the engine for short intervals, with a few longer firing intervals for the 

anticipated full duration of the rocket engine firing. The shorter firing intervals produce smaller 

amounts of air emissions; therefore, this analysis focuses on the full burn test scenario. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 5-3 

For the full burn test of a rocket engine, all rocket engine emissions are generated in a localized 

area, in contrast to a launch where the emissions would be spread over a larger area due to the 

motion of the vehicle. Worst-case emissions were estimated for 16 tests per year of a 

LOX/kerosene-powered rocket engine with a maximum thrust of approximately 222,400 

Newtons (50,000 pounds force) and total fuel usage of approximately 8,100 kilograms (9 tons) 

per test. The emissions calculations are presented in Appendix A. The estimated annual 

emissions between 2006 and 2010 are presented in Exhibit 5-1. 

Exhibit 5-1. Estimated Annual Emissions to the Troposphere from Rocket Engine Testing 

Emission Loads for All Proposed Action 

Year Rocket Engine Tests Kilograms (Pounds) 

CO2 CO H2 H2O 

2006 63,783 

(140,617) 

26,034 

(57,395) 

547 

(1,206) 

39,051 

(86,093) 

2007 63,783 

(140,617) 

26,034 

(57,395) 

547 

(1,206) 

39,051 

(86,093) 

2008 63,783 

(140,617) 

26,034 

(57,395) 

547 

(1,206) 

39,051 

(86,093) 

2009 63,783 

(140,617) 

26,034 

(57,395) 

547 

(1,206) 

39,051 

(86,093) 

2010 63,783 

(140,617) 

26,034 

(57,395) 

547 

(1,206) 

39,051 

(86,093) 

The calculated emissions from rocket engine testing that would occur at the CSIA were 

compared to both the de minimis level and the level of emissions considered significant for 

Oklahoma stationary sources (both levels are 90,718 kilograms [100 tons]). The only pollutant 

emitted from these tests with either a de minimis level or significant Oklahoma emission level is 

CO, and the worst-case CO emissions from these tests are less than one-third of these levels. 

Any potential short-term impacts of these emissions could be mitigated through proper choice of 

weather conditions and/or burn times. To ensure air emissions do not move off the CSIA 

property in hazardous or dangerous concentrations, strict requirements exist for testing of rocket 

engines. These may include air monitoring, weather monitoring, limiting use of rocket engine 

firing to specific atmospheric conditions, limiting duration and or frequency of test, or imposing 

additional mitigation procedures dependent on the specific test condition. 

5.2.2 Cumulative Impacts 

The CSIA is in attainment for all criteria pollutants under the CAA. Therefore, the air quality is 

generally good. Under the proposed action, there is the potential for additional emissions from 

launch vehicles and other launch-related sources (specifically, fuel delivery trucks and spectator 

vehicles). Exhibit 5-2 summarizes the total estimated emissions likely to impact the local area17 

 

17 All emissions below 914 meters (3,000 feet) were assumed to have the potential to impact the local area 

surrounding the facility. This altitude is appropriate for evaluating impacts in the local area because the Federal 

government uses 914 meters (3,000 feet) and below to assess contributions of emissions to the ambient air quality 

and for the de minimis calculations under the CAA. (EPA, 1992) 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 5-4 

Exhibit 5-2. Comparison of Baseline Aircraft and Proposed Static Engine Test Emissions 

with Projected Emissions Associated with the Proposed Action

Estimated Annual Emissions, Metrics Tons (Tons)

CO VOC NOX SO2

Baseline Aircraft and Proposed Static Engine Test Emissions 

Existing aircraft operations 128 

(141) 

26 

(29) 

371 

(409) 

12 

(13) 

Static engine tests 26 

(29) 

- - - 

Total Non-proposed Action Emissions 154 

(170) 

26 

(29) 

371 

(409) 

12 

(13) 

Proposed Action 

Concept X, Y, and Z 

vehicle emissions 

2 

(2) 

1 

(1) 

< 1 

(< 1) 

< 1 

(< 1) 

Fuel delivery truck emissions < 1 

(< 1) 

< 1 

(< 1) 

< 1 

(< 1) 

- 

Spectator vehicle emissions 7 

(8) 

1 

(1) 

5 

(6) 

- 

Total Proposed Action 

Emissions 

9 

(10) 

2 

(2) 

6 

(6) 

< 1 

(< 1) 

Cumulative Emissions 163 

(180) 

28 

(31) 

377 

(416) 

12 

(13) 

for current CSIA activities and activities associated with the proposed action. The baseline 

emissions and emissions associated with the proposed action were estimated as described in 

Section 4.2. For the purposes of the cumulative impacts assessment, it was conservatively 

assumed that the annual emissions for each type of activity are equivalent to those for the year 

between 2006 and 2010 with highest emissions (i.e., 2010 for launch vehicle emissions and fuel 

delivery truck emissions, and the year with the highest expected spectator vehicle emissions). 

The activities associated with the proposed action are conservatively estimated to result in a six 

percent increase in CO emissions, an eight percent increase in VOC emissions, a two percent 

increase in NOX emissions, and a negligible (less than one percent) increase in SO2 emissions. 

Given that (1) CSIA is currently in attainment for all criteria pollutants, (2) the emissions 

associated with the proposed action were estimated using worst-case assumptions, and (3) the 

increase in emissions associated with the proposed action is relatively small, there are unlikely to 

be any cumulative air quality impacts associated with the proposed action. 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. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 5-5 

5.3 Airspace 

5.3.1 Impacts of Testing Rocket Engines 

The proposed placement of the mobile trailer near Building 44 during static rocket engine tests 

would not result in impacts to airspace. Rocket engine tests would last no longer than 100 

seconds (less than 2 minutes) and would be located such that no impacts to aircraft or launch 

vehicles taking off or landing at the CSIA would be expected. In addition, a maximum of 16 

tests would occur per year, therefore, even if aircraft traffic needed to be stopped during engine 

tests this would constitute a disruption in traffic patterns at the CSIA for no more than 1,600 

seconds (27 minutes) per year. 

5.3.2 Cumulative Impacts 

Once coordination and scheduling procedures have been developed with the ARTCC and the 

military users, the long-term cumulative impacts associated with existing aircraft operations, 

continuation of static rocket engine testing, and launches and landings of Concept X, Y, and Z 

vehicles at the CSIA would not result in degradation of the FAA’s ability to control air traffic 

and provide necessary safety for flight operations. 

5.4 Biological Resources 

5.4.1 Impacts of Testing Rocket Engines 

The increased noise and emissions associated with testing rocket engines could have a negative 

impact on biological resources. Previous studies indicated that the endangered whooping crane 

may be found in or near the wetlands at the CSIA during its spring and fall migration. 

(Department of the Air Force, 2004) If the whooping crane could be negatively impacted by the 

rocket engine testing at the CSIA, OSIDA would consult with USFWS, and implement 

mitigation measures to ensure that the rocket engine testing activities would not be likely to 

adversely affect the whooping crane. Potential mitigation measures may include monitoring the 

whooping crane during rocket engine tests to document the impacts, or scheduling tests when the 

whooping crane is not present. 

5.4.2 Cumulative Impacts 

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. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 5-6 

5.5 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste 

5.5.1 Impacts of Testing Rocket Engines 

The primary hazardous materials associated with the testing of rocket engines are RP-1 and 

LOX. The use of LOX would have the same impacts as those described in Section 4.7.1.1. RP-1 

is a highly flammable hydrocarbon fuel similar to the commercial jet fuel currently used and 

stored without adverse impact at the CSIA. RP-1 is handled according to the same safety and 

spill prevention procedures as jet fuel and would not resulted in material impacts to the 

environment. 

5.5.2 Cumulative Impacts 

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 are not anticipated due to the extensive remediation activities that 

have been completed at the site. 

5.6 Health and Safety 

5.6.1 Impacts of Testing Rocket Engines 

The potential impacts of testing rocket engines on the ground at the CSIA include the risk of 

exposure to toxic emissions produced from burning propellants and the risk of a rocket engine 

exploding during a test. Because workers and the general public would be excluded from the 

blast danger area around the mobile test cell during testing, no impacts to health and safety 

would be expected to occur. All workers would be required to stay out of this area during 

testing. Overall, the risk to human health and safety from rocket engine testing would be small 

and limited by adherence to safety precautions. 

5.6.2 Cumulative Impacts 

No cumulative health and safety impacts are expected from the proposed operations at the CSIA. 

The extent of the impacts on public health and safety would be addressed in the required FAA 

Safety Review prior to issuance of a launch site operator license. 

5.7 Noise 

5.7.1 Impacts of Testing Rocket Engines 

The noise level from testing rocket engines would be substantially higher than rocket launch 

noise because the thrust of the engines proposed to be tested at the CSIA is substantially greater 

than the thrust of the Concept Y vehicle engines for which data was presented in Section 4.10. 

The Concept Y vehicle is the only vehicle proposed to be launched from the CSIA that would 

rely on rocket engine power for takeoff. The maximum thrust of rocket engines proposed to be 

tested at the CSIA is up to 224,190 Newtons (50,400 pounds force), whereas the thrust of the 

Concept Y vehicle would be 8,007 Newtons (1,800 pounds force). 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 5-7 

The rocket engines would be tested up to 16 times per year for durations of up to 100 seconds 

per test. Based on a thrust of 224,190 Newtons (50,400 pounds force), Exhibit 5-3 shows the 

estimated noise levels as a function of distance from the rocket engine test stand. These noise 

levels are expressed in terms of instantaneous sound pressure level and cannot be directly 

compared with the existing CSIA airport noise contours, which are expressed in terms of annual 

DNL. However, because of the short duration of these tests and small number of tests per year, 

the noise impact would be small compared with existing military aircraft noise. 

Exhibit 5-3. Estimated Rocket Engine Test Noise Levels 

Distance from Test Engine 

kilometers (miles) 

Unweighted Sound Pressure 

Level (dB) 

Sound Pressure 

Level (dBA) 

1.6 (1) 96 76 

3.2 (2) 90 70 

4.8 (3) 86 66 

6.4 (4) 84 64 

8.0 (5) 82 62 

5.7.2 Cumulative Impacts 

Background noise at the CSIA would increase with the increased level of activity from the 

addition of launches and landings. During launches, rocket engine tests, and aircraft operations, 

the noise levels could potentially be very high, but because of the relative infrequency of these 

events, the overall impacts would be relatively small. The impacts of rocket launches would be 

relatively small when compared to the existing airport-generated noise and rocket engine testing 

noise. Sonic booms from supersonic vehicles at high altitudes would create minor impacts 

because of their relatively low magnitude, relatively infrequent occurrence, and occurrence over 

sparsely populated areas. Consequently, cumulative noise impacts due to the proposed action 

would not exceed thresholds of significance applicable to noise. 

5.8 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 

5.8.1 Impacts of Testing Rocket Engines 

The rocket test cell would not require personnel in addition to the 50 new employees described in 

Section 4.11. Instead, between five and seven of those 50 employees would conduct the 

operations of the rocket engine testing. Therefore, the rocket engine testing would cause no 

additional or cumulative impacts on socioeconomics. 

No environmental justice impacts would occur as a result of the engine test cell. All impacts 

would be confined to the immediate area in the CSIA, where there are no residential populations 

or low-income or minority communities. 

No disproportionate impacts from the engine test cell would be placed on children’s health and 

safety. All impacts have been confined to the immediate area in the CSIA, and no children are 

expected to be on or near the site. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 5-8 

5.8.2 Cumulative Impacts 

Contributions of the proposed action to cumulative socioeconomic impacts would be additive. 

Given the proposed action’s small relative size to the workforce in the surrounding counties, the 

impacts would be minimal from a population and residential living standpoint. The impacts for 

the local economy in Burns Flat, Oklahoma could be considered as starting a beneficial 

economic “chain reaction.” With more activity and better capabilities at the CSIA, additional 

firms may be attracted to operating at the CSIA. The beneficial cumulative socioeconomic 

impact could be greater than the direct impact of the proposed action. 

No disproportionate negative impacts are anticipated on socioeconomics, environmental justice, 

or children’s health. 

5.9 Transportation Impacts 

5.9.1 Impacts of Testing Rocket Engines 

Onsite transportation would increase during rocket engine testing due to transporting the mobile 

test trailer to the test location near Building 33, and transporting the trailer to the appropriate 

storage location after the test is complete. However, with a maximum of 16 annual engine tests, 

no material impacts to onsite transportation would occur as a result of rocket engine testing. 

Additional offsite road closures are not anticipated for continued rocket engine testing activities. 

Rocket engines tested at the CSIA would consist of Rocketdyne 88 engines that use LOX and 

RP-1 as propellants. At most, each test could require up to approximately 5,761 kilograms 

(12,700 pounds) of LOX and 2,404 kilograms (5,300 pounds) of RP-1. Assuming that a 

maximum of 16 engine tests occur per year, 91,716 kilograms (202,200 pounds) of LOX and 

38,465 kilograms (84,800 pounds) of RP-1 would need to be delivered to the CSIA for rocket 

engine testing. If they are delivered in 15,142-liter (4,000-gallon) tanks as planned, six trucks 

per year would be needed to deliver the LOX, and four trucks per year would be needed to 

deliver the RP-1. Due to the limited number of engine tests, shipments would be infrequent and 

would result in an immaterial increase in the number of vehicles on local roads including OK-44 

and I-40. This combined with the proposed action and current aircraft operations at the CSIA 

would not result in substantial impacts to transportation. 

5.9.2 Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts to transportation systems would be possible as a result of the proposed 

action 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 use of the CSIA for testing 

rocket engines. The main entrance to the CSIA is accessible from Highway 44 (OK-44) which 

runs parallel to and is easily accessed from I-40. Over OSIDA’s five-year operating period, the 

number of launches would rise from 16 in 2006 to 54 in 2010. However, the existing capacity on 

the surrounding roads would be able to accommodate the proposed action and the existing traffic 

flow. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 5-9 

5.10 Visual Resources 

5.10.1 Impacts of Testing Rocket Engines 

The mobile rocket engine test cell would be located in an area that is not easily or commonly 

viewed from public vantage points. In addition, the trailer would only be located in the test 

location for the duration of the test activities, when not in use it would be stored in the storage 

area and would not impact visual resources. Thus, the visual intensity of testing rocket engines 

falls into the “not noticeable” category. This combined with the proposed action and current 

aircraft operations at the CSIA would not result in impacts from light emissions or substantial 

adverse effects to visual or aesthetic resources. As is the case at other test locations, rocket 

engine firings would only occur when meteorological conditions support the dispersal of exhaust 

emissions. Therefore, the exhaust plume would not be expected to be sustained for long periods 

of time. No impacts to visual resources or to visibility would be expected as a result of rocket 

engine testing. 

5.10.2 Cumulative Impacts 

The proposed action would not entail any changes to the built environment at the CSIA. A 

maximum of 54 launches per year would be added to the current flight schedule. Because there 

is currently an average of 47,000 aircraft operations conducted at the CSIA per year, the 

proposed action would only increase these operations by 0.1 percent. Casual observers within 

viewing range of launches at the CSIA may not be able to distinguish Concept X and Z vehicles, 

which are launched by jet powered carrier vehicles, from the current aircraft operations at the 

CSIA that involve jet powered aircraft. Concept Y vehicles would be launched using rocket 

power, which has not been used before at the CSIA. However, the maximum of two Concept Y 

launches per year combined with existing aircraft operations would not result in substantial 

cumulative impacts on visual resources. 

5.11 Water Resources 

5.11.1 Impacts of Testing Rocket Engines 

The impacts associated with testing rocket engines would result from accidental spills and 

releases of propellants during fueling procedures. These spills or releases may impact surface or 

ground water at the CSIA. As presented in Section 4.14, Impacts on Water Resources, OSIDA 

or the launch proponent would be required to clean up any spills or releases and excavate and 

remove any contaminated soil. All applicable requirements regarding spill prevention would be 

used when conducting fueling activities prior to engine testing. 

5.11.2 Cumulative Impacts 

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. 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 6-1 

6 MITIGATION MEASURES 

The following mitigation measures may be implemented as directed by any license, permit or 

related documentation issued by the FAA for this proposed action. 

6.1 Air Quality 

 Minimization of unnecessary traffic to, from, and within the CSIA. 

 Use of personal protection equipment and implementing appropriate procedures. 

6.2 Airspace 

 Surveying the potentially affected airspace prior to launches to ensure there are no 

potential conflicts. 

 Compliance with the procedures outlined in the LOA. 

6.3 Biological Resources 

 Should the whooping crane be identified in or near the wetlands at CSIA, OSIDA would 

consult with USFWS, and implement mitigation measures to ensure that the activities at 

the CSIA would not be likely to adversely affect the whooping crane. Potential 

mitigation measures may include monitoring the whooping crane during launch and 

landing or rocket engine testing activities to document the impacts, or scheduling 

launches and landings when the whooping crane is not present. 

6.4 Hazardous Materials 

 Spill prevention, containment, and control measures would be used while transporting 

equipment and materials. 

 Impermeable ground cover and spill containment berms would be used when conducting 

fueling operations. 

 Bulk hazardous materials (e.g., 210 liter [55 gallon] drums of anti-freeze, hydraulic fluid, 

compressed welding gases) would be stored in approved containers that meet National 

Fire Protection Association industrial fire protection codes and required containment 

systems. 

 Spill response materials (e.g., sorbents, drain covers, mops, brooms, shovels, drum repair 

materials and tools, warning signs and tapes, and personal protective equipment) would 

be readily available for use in the event of an unplanned release. 

 Storage of hazardous materials would be in protected and controlled areas designed to 

comply with site-specific spill prevention, control, and countermeasures plans. 

 Hazardous materials would be inspected before accepting a shipment (e.g., to validate 

container integrity and expiration date). 

 Hazardous materials would be purchased in appropriately sized containers (e.g., if the 

material is used by the can, it would be purchased by the can rather than in bulk sized 

containers). 

 Purchasing excess hazardous materials would be avoided. 

 Hazardous material containers would be appropriately labeled. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 6-2 

6.5 Waste Management 

 Waste would be containerization to prevent discharges. 

 Litter would be prevented. 

 Access to waste by wildlife would be controlled. 

6.6 Health and Safety 

 Access would be prevented to hazardous operations areas by non-essential personnel. 

6.7 Transportation 

 Shipping and delivery of vehicles, vehicle components, and propellant would be 

conducted under routine procedures in accordance with applicable FAA and DOT safety 

standards to minimize possible impacts to transportation. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 7-1 

7 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM 

MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

Short-term uses of the environment are considered those that occur over a period of less than the 

life of the proposed action. Conversely, long-term uses of the environment include those impacts 

that would persist for a period of five years or the life of the proposed action. 

Short-term commitments of the proposed action would include labor, capital, and fossil fuels that 

result directly from renovation of facilities to accommodate potential tenants and vehicle 

assembly prior to launch at the proposed Oklahoma Spaceport. 

From the long-term perspective, the increased utilization of the CSIA would enhance the local 

and regional economies through new business development. Economic growth in Southwestern 

Oklahoma is an important vision for OSIDA. Increased activity would also provide increased 

revenue for improving and maintaining the aging infrastructure of the CSIA. 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 8-1 

8 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 

Irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments are related to the use of nonrenewable 

resources and the effects that use of these resources may have on future generations. The use or 

destruction of specific resources (e.g., energy and minerals) that cannot be replaced within a 

reasonable time frame is termed an irreversible resource commitment of that resource. 

The proposed action would not be expected to result in the loss of threatened or endangered 

species or cultural resources such as archaeological or historic sites. 

The proposed action would result in an increased use of aviation fuel and other propellants 

required by the RLVs, and miscellaneous fuels required by supporting ground vehicles such as 

tanker trucks. Additionally, raw materials may be required for the assembly of vehicles or 

vehicle components, or the renovation of facilities at the CSIA. Energy would also be 

irreversibly and irretrievably committed to the proposed action. Facilities would utilize natural 

gas or electricity in support of operations. 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 9-1 

9 ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED 

In general, most known adverse effects resulting from implementation of the proposed action 

would be mitigated through project planning and design measures, consultation with appropriate 

agencies, and the use of Best Management Practices. As a result, most potential adverse effects 

would be avoided and those that cannot be avoided would not be expected to result in an impact 

to the environment which would exceed applicable thresholds of significance. 

Adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided include short-term noises that may startle 

and otherwise impact wildlife; the release of small amounts of pollutants to the atmosphere; and 

minor increased generation of hazardous waste at the CSIA. Consultation with appropriate 

agencies and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures would help to minimize 

potential impacts. 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 10-1 

10 SECONDARY OR INDUCED IMPACTS 

The CEQ defines secondary impacts as “those that are caused by an action and are later in time 

and farther removed in distance but still foreseeable.” Some development projects pose the 

potential for induced or secondary impacts on the surrounding areas. A secondary or induced 

impact would exist when a proposed project causes a shift in population growth, public service 

requirements, or changes in local or regional economic activity that are influenced by the 

changes produced by implementing the proposed action. 

Issuing a launch site operator license to OSIDA for the operation of a launch and landing site at 

the CSIA would not result in substantial induced impacts. Although the proposed action would 

support and facilitate limited growth, it would not induce growth. Additionally, there are no 

known specific future development activities that would be dependent on the proposed action. 

Therefore, no secondary impacts are expected to result from the proposed action or alternatives 

analyzed in this EA. The use of the CSIA by launch operators conducting launches and landings 

of Concept X, Y, and Z vehicles would not result in substantial induced impacts. 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 11-1 

11 LIST OF PREPARERS 

This list presents the primary contributors to the technical content of this EA. 

Government Preparers 

Name: Douglas W. Graham 

Affiliation: FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation 

Education: BS Mechanical/Aerospace Engineering, MBA 

Experience: Twenty-seven years of experience in software, aerospace and environmental 

program management 

Name: Michon Washington 

Affiliation: FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation 

Education: MS Environmental Management and Technology 

Experience: Fifteen years of NEPA related experience 

Name: Stacey Zee 

Affiliation: FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation 

Education: BS Natural Resource Management, MS Environmental Policy 

Experience: Nine years of environmental assessment experience

Contractor Preparers 

Name: Deborah K. Shaver 

Affiliation: ICF Consulting, FAA Contractor 

Education: BS Chemistry, MS Chemistry 

Experience: Thirty-one years of environmental assessment management experience

Name: David Coate 

Affiliation: ICF Consulting, FAA Contractor 

Education: BA Mathematics, BA Chemistry, BA Physics, MS Energy Technology 

Experience: Twenty-seven years of experience in acoustics 

Name: Lesley Jantarasami 

Affiliation: ICF Consulting, FAA Contractor 

Education: BA Environmental Science and Policy 

Experience: Two years of environmental analysis experience 

Name: Mark Lee 

Affiliation: ICF Consulting, FAA Contractor 

Education: BSPH Environmental Science, MS Environmental Science 

Experience: Nine years in environmental modeling and risk assessment 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 11-2 

Name: Laura MacNeil 

Affiliation: ICF Consulting, FAA Contractor 

Education: BS Biology 

Experience: Two years of environmental analysis experience 

Name: Pam Schanel 

Affiliation: ICF Consulting, FAA Contractor 

Education: BA Environmental Public Policy 

Experience: Eight years of NEPA environmental assessment experience 

Name: Todd Stribley 

Affiliation: ICF Consulting, FAA Contractor 

Education: BS Biology, MS Biology (in progress) 

Experience: Twelve years of environmental assessment experience 

Name: Adam Teepe 

Affiliation: ICF Consulting, FAA Contractor 

Education: BS Environmental Geology, MESM Environmental Science and Management 

Experience: One year of NEPA consulting experience 

Name: Hova Woods 

Affiliation: ICF Consulting, FAA Contractor 

Education: BS Finance, MPA Environmental Management 

Experience: Five years of environmental assessment experience 

Name: John Pitcher 

Affiliation: SRS Technologies, OSIDA Contractor 

Education: BS Chemical Engineering, MBA General Management 

Experience: Sixteen years of experience in environmental, energy, and chemical analyses 

Name: Carrie Fingeret 

Affiliation: SRS Technologies, OSIDA Contractor 

Education: BA Geography 

Experience: Three years of GIS analysis 

Name: Ryan Heitz 

Affiliation: SRS Technologies, OSIDA Contractor 

Education: BA Environmental Sciences, MS Environmental Sciences 

Experience: Six years of GIS analysis 

Name: Erik Berg 

Affiliation: SRS Technologies, OSIDA Contractor 

Education: BS Physics 

Experience: Six years of noise analysis 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 11-3 

Name: Ken Senour 

Affiliation: C.H. Guernsey & Company, OSIDA Contractor 

Education: BS Biology/Geography 

Experience: Thirty years experience in environmental analyses and NEPA planning 

Name: Jimmie Hammontree 

Affiliation: C.H. Guernsey & Company, OSIDA Contractor 

Education: BS Environmental Design 

Experience: Seven years experience in environmental planning and environmental design 

Name: Carey Miller 

Affiliation: C.H. Guernsey & Company, OSIDA Contractor 

Education: BS Mathematics, BS Geology 

Experience: Twenty-five years experience in environmental analyses and regulatory 

compliance 

Name: Angela Riddles 

Affiliation: C.H. Guernsey & Company, OSIDA Contractor 

Education: BS Environmental Health and Safety 

Experience: Two years experience in environmental analyses and safety 

Name: John Satterfield 

Affiliation: C.H. Guernsey & Company, OSIDA Contractor 

Education: BS Environmental Science 

Experience: Ten years experience in environmental analyses and industrial hygiene 

Name: Trey Palmer 

Affiliation: C.H. Guernsey & Company, OSIDA Contractor 

Education: BS Biology 

Experience: Fifteen years experience in environmental analyses and regulatory compliance 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 12-1 

12 GLOSSARY 

airspace Airspace is the defined space above a nation, which is under its 

jurisdiction. Airspace is limited horizontally, vertically, and 

temporally, and is regulated by the FAA. 

apogee The highest point in a launch vehicle’s trajectory.

apron A defined area intended to accommodate aircraft for loading or 

unloading passengers or cargo, refueling, parking, or maintenance. 

aquifer Underground layers of rock, sand, or gravel that contain water. 

centrifuge A device that rotates at various speeds about a fixed, central point. 

It can separate liquids from solids or liquids of different densities 

by using the centrifugal force resulting from its rotation. 

cryogenic liquid Liquefied gases kept at extremely low temperatures. 

cumulative impacts The combined impacts resulting from all activities occurring 

concurrently at a given location. 

day night level (DNL) The average sound level over an entire day with 10 dB added 

between 10 PM and 7 AM to account for the increased annoyance 

caused by noise during these hours. 

decibels (dB) A unit for describing the ratio of two powers or intensities, or the 

ratio of a power to a reference power. In measurement of sound 

intensity, the pressure of the reference sound is usually taken as 2 x 

10-4 dyne per square centimeter (equal to one-tenth bel). 

endangered species A plant or animal that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

energy management area A designated zone downrange from a landing area where concept 

vehicles may conduct a series of maneuvers to expend excess 

energy before landing. 

flight corridor An area on the Earth’s surface estimated to contain the hazardous 

debris from nominal flight of a launch vehicle, and non-nominal 

flight of a launch vehicle assuming a perfectly functioning flight 

termination system or other flight safety system. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 12-2 

Flight Safety System (FSS) Flight safety system means the system that provides a means of 

control during flight for preventing a launch vehicle and any 

component, including any payload, from reaching any populated 

area in the event of a launch vehicle failure. 

gypsum An evaporite (class of sedimentary minerals and sedimentary rocks 

that form by precipitation from evaporating aqueous fluid) deposit 

composed of hydrous calcium sulfate. 

impacts An assessment of the meaning of changes in all attributes being 

studies for a given resource, an aggregation of all of the adverse 

effects, usually measured using a qualitative and nominally 

subjective technique. 

instantaneous impact point An impact point that follows thrust termination of a launch point 

(IIP) vehicle. IIP may be calculated with or without atmospheric 

drag effects. 

instrument flight rule Rules that govern the procedures for conducting flights (IFR) 

 under Instrument Meteorological Conditions. “Less than 

1000 ft per 3 statute miles.” 

igneous rock Rocks derived from molten material such as magma. 

ionosphere The part of the earth’s upper atmosphere which is sufficiently 

ionized by solar UV radiation so that the concentration of free 

electrons affects the propagation of radio waves: its base is at 

about 70 or 80 kilometers and it extends to an indefinite height.

jet routes (J-Routes) High-altitude routes designated to indicate frequently used routes, 

from 18,000 ft MSL to FL 450. 

launch To place or try to place a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle and any 

payload from Earth – (a) in a suborbital trajectory; (b) in Earth 

orbit in outer space; or (c) otherwise in outer space, including 

activities involved in the preparation of a launch vehicle or payload 

for launch, when those activities take place at a launch site in the 

United States. 

launch operator A person who conducts or who will conduct the launch of a launch 

vehicle and any payload. 

launch point A point on the Earth from which the flight of a launch vehicle 

begins, and is defined by the point’s geodetic latitude, longitude 

and height on an ellipsoidal Earth model. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 12-3 

launch site The location on Earth from which a launch takes place as defined 

in a license (the Secretary issues or transfers under this chapter) 

and necessary facilities at that location. 

launch site operator A license granted by the FAA to OSIDA that would 

license authorize OSIDA to conduct launches from CSIA, within a range 

of launch parameters of specific launch vehicles, transporting 

specific classes of payload. The launch vehicles must meet all 

FAA safety, risk, and indemnification requirements. In addition, 

the grant of a license to operate a launch site does not guarantee 

that a launch license will be granted for any particular launch 

proposed for the site. All launches will be subject to separate FAA 

review and licensing 

launch vehicle A vehicle built to operate in, or place a payload in, outer space or a 

suborbital rocket. 

loam A soil consisting of a friable mixture of varying proportions of 

clay, silt, and sand.

mesosphere The atmospheric shell between about 45-55 kilometers and 80-85 

kilometers, extending from the top of the stratosphere to the 

mesopause; characterized by a temperature that generally 

decreases with altitude.

mission-specific license A mission-specific license authorizing an RLV mission authorizes 

a licensee to launch and reenter, or otherwise land, one model or 

type of RLV from a launch site approved for the mission to a 

reentry site or other location approved for the mission. A missionspecific license authorizing an RLV mission may authorize more 

than one RLV mission and identifies each flight of an RLV 

authorized under the license. A licensee’s authorization to conduct 

RLV missions terminates upon completion of all activities 

authorized by the license or the expiration date stated in the reentry 

license, whichever occurs first. 

National Airspace System The common network of U.S. airspace; air navigation 

(NAS) facilities, equipment and services, airports or landing areas.
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 12-4 

nominal In reference to launch vehicle performance, trajectory, or stage 

impact point, a launch vehicle flight where all launch vehicle 

aerodynamic parameters are as expected, all vehicle internal and 

external systems perform as planned, and there are no external 

perturbing influences (e.g., winds) other than atmospheric drag and 

gravity. 

operation of a launch site The conduct of approved safety operations at a permanent site to 

support the launching of vehicles and payloads. 

operator license An operator license for RLV missions authorizes a licensee to 

launch and reenter, or otherwise land, any of a designated family 

of RLVs within authorized parameters, including launch sites and 

trajectories, transporting specified classes of payloads to any 

reentry site or other location designated in the license. An operator 

license for RLV missions is valid for a two-year renewable term. 

oxidizer A substance such as chlorate, perchlorate, permanganate, peroxide, 

nitrate, oxide, or the like that yields oxygen readily to support the 

combustion of organic matter, powdered metals, and other 

flammable material. 

ozone The tri-atomic form of oxygen, comprising approximately one part 

in three million of all of the gases in the atmosphere. Ozone is the 

primary atmospheric absorber of UV-B radiation. 

payload The material carried by a vehicle over and above what is necessary 

for its operation. 

propellants Balanced mixture of fuels and oxidizers designed to produce large 

volumes of hot gases at controlled, predetermined rates, once the 

burning reaction is initiated. 

public People or property that are not involved in supporting a licensed 

launch, and includes those people and property that may be located 

within the boundary of a launch site, such as visitors, any 

individual providing goods or services not related to launch 

processing or flight, and any other launch operator and its 

personnel. 

reentry Returning or attempting to return, purposefully, a reentry vehicle 

and its payload, if any, from Earth orbit or from outer space to 

Earth. A reentry will not occur from a suborbital launch, and the 

terminology used in this document for the return of a suborbital 

vehicle to CSIA is “land.” 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 12-5 

reusable launch vehicle A launch vehicle that is designed to return to Earth substantially 

intact and therefore may be launched more than one time or that 

contains vehicle stages that may be recovered by a launch operator 

for future use in the operation of a substantially similar launch 

vehicle. 

rhyolite A light-colored, very fine-grained or glassy volcanic rock similar 

chemically to granite, often containing small quartz and feldspar 

crystals dispersed in a glassy white, green, or pink groundmass. 

sedimentary rock Rocks formed from pre-existing rocks or pieces of once-living 

organisms that are deposited on the Earth’s surface often in 

distinctive layers. 

stratosphere The layer of the Earth’s atmosphere 20 to 50 kilometers (12 to 31 

miles) above the surface; where ozone forms. 

suborbital flight A flight involving less than one orbit of the Earth. 

sonic boom Sound, resembling an explosion, produced when a shock wave 

formed the noise of an aircraft or launch vehicle traveling at 

supersonic speed reaches the ground. 

threatened species Plant and wildlife species likely to become endangered in the 

foreseeable future. 

touch and go An operation by an aircraft that lands and departs on a runway 

without stopping or exiting the runway. 

trajectory The path described by an object moving through space.

troposphere The portion of the atmosphere from the earth’s surface to the 

tropopause, that is, the lowest 10 to 20 kilometers of the 

atmosphere. 

very high frequency (VHF) Radio transmissions that occur in the 30 - 300 MHz band and are 

commonly used for air-to-ground communication. 

victor routes (V-routes) Network of low-altitude airways serving commercial 

aircraft operations up to 18,000 ft MSL, from 1200 ft AGL to 

17,999 ft MSL. 

viewshed The area visible from a particular point of view. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 12-6 

visual flight rules (VFR) “See and Avoid.” Rules governing the procedures for conducting 

flights under Visual Meteorological Conditions. “Equal to or 

greater than” 1000 ft ceiling per 3 statute miles.
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 13-1 

13 AGENCIES CONTACTED 

Federal Agencies 

Ms. Mary Lou Drywater 

Field Station Mgr. 

Bureau of Land Management 

221 N. Service Road 

Moore, OK 73160-4946 

Commander 

Second Coast Guard District 

1430 Olive Street 

St. Louis, MO 63103 

Mr. Rob Lawrence 

Chief 

Office of Planning & Coordination (6EN-XP) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1445 Ross Ave., Ste. 1200 

Dallas, TX 75202-2733 

Regional Impact Coordinator 

Health and Human Services 

1200 Main Tower Bldg. 

Dallas, TX 75202 

Mr. David Steele 

Chief, Planning Division 

Tulsa Corps of Engineers 

1645 S. 101 East Avenue 

Tulsa, OK 74128-4629 

Mr. Merritt Youngdeer 

Area Director 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Muskogee Area Office 

United States Courthouse, Rm. 311 

Muskogee, OK 74401 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 13-2 

Mr. L.W. Collier, Jr. 

Area Director 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Anadarko Office Area 

United States Courthouse 

Anadarko, OK 73005 

Assistant Secretary 

Program Policy 

Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street 

Washington, DC 20240 

Mr. Jerry Brabander 

Field Supervisor 

Division of Ecological Service 

United States Fish & Wildlife Service 

22 S. Houston, Ste. A 

Tulsa, OK 74127 

Mr. M. Darrel Dominick 

State Conservationist 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service 

100 USDA, Ste. 206 

Stillwater, OK 74074-2655 

Mr. Larry Walkoviak 

Area Manager 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Oklahoma-Texas Office 

300 E. 8th Street, Rm. 801 

Austin, TX 78701-3225 

Mr. W. Laurence Doxsey 

Environmental Officer 

Dept. of Housing & Urban Development 

800 Dolorosa St. 

San Antonio, TX 78207-4563 

Mr. Ed Shellenberger 

National Park Service 

P.O. Box 728 

Santa Fe, NM 87504-0728 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 13-3 

Mr. Glen Sekavec 

SW Regional Environmental Officer 

Dept. of the Interior 

P.O. Box 649 

Albuquerque, NM 87103 

Mr. Cliff Williams 

US Air Force 

2601 Mealham Blvd. 

Ft. Worth, TX 76137 

Mr. James Weslowski 

97 AMW/PA 

100 Inez Blvd, Suite 2 

Altus AFB, OK 73523-5047 

Mr. Ron Voorhees 

Contractor 

HQ AETC/CEVN 

266 F Street West 

Randolph AFB, TX 78150-4319 

State and Local Government Agencies 

Mr. Michael Schmidt 

Deputy Director 

Oklahoma Corporation Commission 

P.O. Box 52000 

2102 N. Lincoln Blvd. 

Oklahoma City, OK 73152-2000 

Ms. Margaret Graham 

Environmental Review Coordinator 

Dept. of Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 1677 

Oklahoma City, OK 73101-1677 

Mr. Bob Blackburn 

State Preservation Officer 

Oklahoma Historical Society 

2704 Villa Prom - Shepard Mall 

Oklahoma City, OK 73107-2441 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 13-4 

Mr. Russell Perry 

Secretary of Commerce 

Oklahoma Dept. of Commerce 

P.O. Box 26980 

Oklahoma City, OK 73126-0980 

Mr. Greg Duffy 

Director 

Dept. of Wildlife Conservation 

P.O. Box 53465 

Oklahoma City, OK 73152-3465 

Mr. Brian Griffin 

Secretary of Environment 

Office of the Secretary of the Environment 

3800 N. Classen Blvd. 

Oklahoma City, OK 73118 

Mr. Mike Thralls 

Executive Director 

Oklahoma Conservation Commission 

2800 N. Lincoln Blvd., Ste. 160 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

Mr. Charles Mankin 

Director 

Oklahoma Geological Survey 

100 E. Boyd, Rm. 131 

Norman, OK 73019-0628 

Dr. Robert Brooks 

Oklahoma Archeological Survey 

111 E. Chesapeake, Bldg. 134 

Norman, OK 73019-5111 

Ms. Sandy Garrett 

State Superintendent of Public Instruction 

State Board of Education 

2500 N. Lincoln Blvd. 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4599 

Ms. Jane Jayroe 

Director 

Oklahoma Tourism & Recreation Dept. 

15 N. Robinson Ave., Ste. 100 

Oklahoma City, OK 73102 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 13-5 

Mr. Tom Kemp 

Chairman 

Oklahoma Tax Commission 

2501 N. Lincoln Blvd. 

Oklahoma City, OK 73194 

Mr. Herschel Crowe 

Secretary of Transportation 

200 NE 21st St. 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

Mr. Steve Finnell 

District 3 Commissioner 

Washita County 

P.O. Box 380 

Cordell, OK 73632 

Mr. David Root 

Mayor 

P.O. Box 220 

Canute, OK 73626 

Mr. Gary Gorshing 

Executive Director 

SWODA 

P.O. Box 569 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Ms. Kathy Carlisle 

President 

Burns Flat Chamber of Commerce 

P.O. Box 549 

Burns Flat, OK 73624-0068 

Mr. Tom Ryan 

Mayor 

P.O. Box 410 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Clinton Chamber of Commerce 

101 S. Fourth Street 

Clinton, OK 73601 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 13-6 

Mr. Lynn Norman 

Mayor 

P.O. Box 1177 

Clinton, OK 73601 

Elk City Chamber of Commerce 

P.O. Box 972 

Elk City, OK 73648 

Ms. Teresa Mullican 

Mayor 

P.O. Box 1100 

Elk City, OK 73648 

Ms. Diane Green 

President 

Sayre Chamber of Commerce 

P.O. Box 474 

Sayre, OK 73662 

Mr. Jack Ivestor 

Mayor 

102 W. Main Street 

Sayre, OK 73661-3302 

Frederick Chamber of Commerce 

105 S. Main St. 

Frederick, OK 

Senator Tom Coburn 

172 Russell Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

Senator James Inhofe 

453 Russell Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

Representative John Sullivan 

114 Cannon House Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20515 

Representative Dan Boren 

216 Cannon House Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20515 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 13-7 

Representative Tom Cole 

236 Cannon House Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20515 

Representative Ernest Istook 

2404 Rayburn House Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20515 

Representative Frank Lucas 

2342 Rayburn House Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20515 

Senator Gilmer Capps 

District 26 

2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Rm. 424-A 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

Senator Robert Kerr 

District 38 

2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Rm. 423 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

Representative Ryan McMullen 

District 55 

2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Rom 321 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

Representative David Braddock 

District 52 

2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Rm. 544 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

Representative James Covey 

District 57 

2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Rm. 509 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

Representative Purcy Walker 

District 60 

2300 N. Lincoln Blvd, Rm. 541 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

Ms. Erin Wright 

Oklahoma Aeronautics Commission 

200 NE 21st Street 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 13-8 

Native American Groups 

Mr. Alonzo Chalepah 

Chairman 

Apache Tribe 

P.O. Box 1220 

Anadarko, OK 73005 

Ms. LaRue Parker 

Chairman 

Caddo Tribe 

P.O. Box 487 

Binger, OK 73009 

Mr. Robert Tabor 

Chariman 

Cheyenne – Arapaho Tribe 

P.O. Box 38 

Concho, OK 73022 

Ms. Renee Hood 

Chickasaw Nation 

P.O. Box 1548 

Ada, OK 74821 

Mr. Johnny Wauquay 

Chairman 

Comanche Tribe 

P.O. 908 

Lawton, OK 73502 

Mr. Jimmy Arterberry 

HP Officer 

Comanche Tribe 

P.O. 908 

Lawton, OK 73502 

Mr. Clifford McKenzie 

Chairman 

Kiowa Tribe 

P.O. Box 369 

Carnegie, OK 73015 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 13-9 

Mr. Gary McAdams 

President 

Wichita Tribe Oklahoma 

P.O. Box 729 

Anadarko, OK 73005 

Mr. Damon Dunbar 

Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribe 

P.O. Box 38 

Concho, OK 73022 

Industry Affiliated 

Ms. Donna Martin 

Design First, Inc. 

3723 E. 64th Place 

Tulsa, OK 74136 

Mr. Jim Shirazi 

Environmental Consultants 

2604 Shady Tree Lane 

Edmond, OK 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 14-1 

14 EA DISTRIBUTION 

Federal Agencies 

Horst Greczmiel 

Associate Director for NEPA Oversight 

Council on Environmental Quality 

722 Jackson Place, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20503-0002 

Allen R. Dedrick 

Associate Deputy Administrator 

Department of Agriculture 

Natural Resources and Sustainable Agricultural Systems 

5601 Sunnyside Avenue 

Beltsville, MD 20705-5140 

Jack Bush 

Senior Planner/NEPA Program Manager 

Department of Air Force 

Crystal Gateway One 

1235 Jefferson Davis Highway 

Suite 1000 

Arlington, VA 22202 

Kurt Ettenger 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

Transportation Security Administration 

701 South 12th Street, SW 

Arlington, VA 22202-4220 

Robert Burt 

Director, Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

Department of Labor 

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20210-0002 

Camille Mittelholtz 

Environmental Policies Team Leader 

Department of Transportation 

400 7th Street, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20590-0001 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 14-2 

Charlene D. Vaughn 

Assistant Director for Federal Program Development 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20004 

Anne Norton Miller 

Director, Office of Federal Activities 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W./Ariel Rios Building 

Washington, DC 20460 

Kenneth Kumor 

NEPA Coordinator 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

300 E Street, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20546 

Pat Carter 

NEPA Coordinator 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

4401 North Fairfax Drive 

Arlington, VA 22203 

Ms. Mary Lou Drywater 

Field Station Manager. 

Bureau of Land Management 

221 North Service Road 

Moore, OK 73160-4946 

Mr. Rob Lawrence 

Chief 

Office of Planning & Coordination (6EN-XP) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1445 Ross Ave., Ste. 1200 

Dallas, TX 75202-2733 

Director Ray Martinez 

Health and Human Services 

1200 Main Tower Building 

Dallas, TX 75202 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 14-3 

Mr. David Steele 

Chief, Planning Division 

Tulsa Corps of Engineers 

1645 South 101 East Avenue 

Tulsa, OK 74128-4629 

Mr. Merritt Youngdeer 

Area Director 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Muskogee Area Office 

United States Courthouse, Rm. 311 

Muskogee, OK 74401 

Mr. L.W. Collier, Jr. 

Area Director 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Anadarko Office Area 

United States Courthouse 

Anadarko, OK 73005 

Assistant Secretary 

Program Policy 

Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street 

Washington, DC 20240 

Mr. Jerry Brabander 

Field Supervisor 

Division of Ecological Service 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

22 South Houston, Suite A 

Tulsa, OK 74127 

Mr. M. Darrel Dominick 

State Conservationist 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service 

100 USDA, Suite 206 

Stillwater, OK 74074-2655 

Mr. Mark Trevino 

Area Manager 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Oklahoma-Texas Office 

5316 Highway 290 West, Suite 510 

Austin, TX 78735-8931 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 14-4 

Mr. W. Laurence Doxsey 

Environmental Officer 

Departmernt of Housing and Urban Development 

800 Dolorosa Street 

San Antonio, TX 78207-4563 

Mr. Ed Shellenberger 

National Park Service 

P.O. Box 728 

Santa Fe, NM 87504-0728 

Mr. Geoffrey Haskett 

SW Deputy Regional Director 

Department of the Interior 

500 Gold Avenue SW 

P.O. Box 649 

Albuquerque, NM 87102 

Mr. Cliff Williams 

U.S. Air Force 

2601 Mealham Blvd. 

Ft. Worth, TX 76137 

Mr. Ron Voorhees 

Contractor 

HQ AETC/A7CVI 

266 F Street West 

Randolph AFB, TX 78150-4319 

Mr. James Bellon 

97 CES/CEV 

401 L Avenue 

Altus AFB, OK 78235-5344 

Mr. James Weslowski 

97 AMW/PA 

100 Inez Boulevard, Suite 2 

Altus AFB, OK 73523-5047 

Mr. Mark Buthman 

Dyncorp Civil Engineering Environmental Management 

140 Channel Street, Suite 231 

Vance AFB, OK 73705-5623 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 14-5 

State and Local Agencies 

Mr. Bill Khourie 

Executive Director 

Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority 

501 Sooner Drive 

P.O. Box 689 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Mr. Charles Wallis 

Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office 

Section 106 

2704 Villa Prom, Shepherd Mall 

Oklahoma City, OK 73107 

Mr. Jeff Cloud 

Chairman 

Oklahoma Corporation Commission 

P.O. Box 52000 

2101 North Lincoln Boulevard 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

Ms. Margaret Graham 

Environmental Review Coordinator 

Department of Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 1677 

Oklahoma City, OK 73101-1677 

Mr. Bob Blackburn 

State Preservation Officer 

Oklahoma Historical Society 

2704 Villa Prom, Shepard Mall 

Oklahoma City, OK 73107-2441 

Ms. Kathy Taylor 

Secretary of Commerce and Tourism 

Oklahoma Dept. of Commerce 

P.O. Box 26980 

Oklahoma City, OK 73126-0980 

Mr. Greg Duffy 

Director 

Dept. of Wildlife Conservation 

P.O. Box 53465 

Oklahoma City, OK 73152-3465 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 14-6 

Mr. Miles Tolbert 

Secretary of Environment 

Office of the Secretary of the Environment 

3800 North Classen Boulevard 

Oklahoma City, OK 73118 

Mr. Mike Thralls 

Executive Director 

Oklahoma Conservation Commission 

2800 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 160 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

Mr. Charles Mankin 

Director 

Oklahoma Geological Survey 

100 East Boyd, Room 131 

Norman, OK 73019-0628 

Dr. Robert Brooks 

Oklahoma Archeological Survey 

111 East Chesapeake, Building 134 

Norman, OK 73019-5111 

Ms. Sandy Garrett 

State Superintendent of Public Instruction 

State Department of Education 

2500 North Lincoln Boulevard 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4599 

Mr. George Nigh 

Interim Executive Director 

Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Dept. 

120 North Robinson, 6th Floor 

Oklahoma City, OK 73102 

Mr. Tom Kemp 

Chairman 

Oklahoma Tax Commission 

2501 North Lincoln Boulevard 

Oklahoma City, OK 73194 

Mr. Phil Tomlinson 

Secretary of Transportation 

200 Northeast 21st Street 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 14-7 

Mr. Steve Fennel 

Commissioner 

Washita County 

P.O. Box 380 

Cordell, OK 73632 

Mr. David Root 

Mayor 

P.O. Box 220 

Canute, OK 73626 

Mr. Gary Gorshing 

Executive Director 

SWODA 

P.O. Box 569 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Ms. Kathy Carlisle 

President 

Burns Flat Chamber of Commerce 

P.O. Box 78 

Burns Flat, OK 73624-0068 

Mr. Tom Ryan 

Mayor 

P.O. Box 410 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Erin Adams 

President 

Clinton Chamber of Commerce 

101 South 4th Street 

Clinton, OK 73601 

Lynn Norman 

Mayor 

415 West Gary Blvd. 

Clinton, OK 73601 

Elk City Chamber of Commerce 

P.O. Box 972 

Elk City, OK 73648 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 14-8 

Ms. Teresa Mullican 

Mayor 

120 South Jefferson 

Elk City, OK 73644 

Ms. Nancy Sanders 

President 

Sayre Chamber of Commerce 

P.O. Box 474 

Sayre, OK 73662 

Mr. Jack Ivestor 

Mayor 

102 West Main Street 

Sayre, OK 73661-3302 

Chamber of Commerce 

105 South Main Street 

Frederick, OK 73542 

Senator Tom Coburn 

172 Russel Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Senator James Inhofe 

453 Russel Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Representative Dan Boren 

216 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Representative Tom Cole 

236 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Representative Ernest Istook 

2404 Rayburn House Office Building. 

Washington, DC 20515 

Representative Frank Lucas 

2342 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 14-9 

Representative John Sullivan 

114 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Senator Gilmer Capps 

District 26 

2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Room 424-A 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

Senator Robert Kerr 

District 38 

2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Room 412-A 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

Representative Ryan McMullen 

District 55 

2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Room 331 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

Representative David Braddock 

District 52 

2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Room 537B 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

Representative James Covey 

District 57 

2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Room 301 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

Representative Purcy Walker 

District 60 

2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Room 301 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

Mr. Victor Bird 

Director 

Oklahoma Aeronautics Commission 

3700 North Classen Boulevard 

Suite 240 

Oklahoma City, OK 73118 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 14-10 

Native American Tribes 

Mr. Alonzo Chalepah 

Chairman 

Apache Tribe 

P.O. Box 1220 

Anadarko, OK 73005 

Libraries 

Clinton Public Library 

721 Frisco Ave 

Clinton, OK 73601 

Elk City Carnegie Library 

221 West Broadway 

Elk City, OK 73644 

Oklahoma City Public Library 

Downtown Branch 

131 Dean McGee Ave 

Oklahoma City, OK 73102 

Southwestern Oklahoma Development Authority 

P.O. Box 509 

Building 420 

Sooner Drive 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Public 

Sam Dinkin 

Austin, TX 78746 

JC Barlow 

McAlester, OK 74501 

Mr. Jess Parker 

Dill City, OK 73641 

Ms. LaRue Parker 

Binger, OK 73009 

Mr. Robert Tabor 

Concho, OK 73022 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 14-11 

Mr. Bill Anoatubby 

Ada, OK 74821 

Mr. Johnny Wauquay 

Lawton, OK 73502 

Mr. Jimmy Arterberry 

Lawton, OK 73502 

Mr. Clifford McKenzie 

Carnegie, OK 73015 

Mr. Gary McAdams 

Anadarko, OK 73005 

Mr. Don Rudolph 

Clinton, OK 73601 

Mr. John Adams 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Mr. Shawn Adams 

Foss, OK 73647 

Mr. J.D. Browning 

Foss, OK 73647 

Mr. Bill Bookout 

Dill City, OK 73641 

Ms. Doris Baker 

Oklahoma City, OK 73120 

Mr. Tommy Wall 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Ms. Rhonda Kamphaus-Belcher 

Elk City, OK 73644 

Ms. Mamie Davis 

Dill City, OK 73641 

Mr. Eddie Edler 

Canute, OK 73626 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 14-12 

Mr. Edward Flies 

Foss, OK 73647 

Mr. Lonnie Freels 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Mr. Steve Finnell 

Canute, OK 73626 

Mr. E.S. Greteman 

Canute, OK 73626 

Mr. Mike Finnell 

Canute, OK 73626 

Mr. Steve Gilbert 

Canute, OK 73626 

Mrs. Eddie Greteman 

Elk City, OK 73644 

Mr. Mandell Greteman, Jr. 

Elk City, OK 73644 

Ms. Carol Murray 

Foss, OK 73647 

Mr. Leslie Hinds 

Dill City, OK 73641 

Mr. Frank Hohnke 

Foss, OK 73647 

Mr. Norbert Hoffman 

Weatherford, OK 73096 

Mr. Carl Kennemer 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Ms. Mildred Johnson 

Tulsa, OK 74105 

Mr. Steve Kennemer 

Dill City, OK 73641 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 14-13 

Mr. Bernard Kilhoffer 

Dill City, OK 73641 

Mr. Mark Kilhoffer 

Dill City, OK 73641 

Mr. Paul Kamphaus 

Canute, OK 73626 

Mr. Mike Kamphaus 

Granite, OK 73547 

Mr. Steve Kellogg 

Dill City, OK 73641 

Mr. Frank Loftiss 

Dill City, OK 73641 

Mr. Elvin Leverton 

Dill City, OK 73641 

Mr. Jeff Loftis 

Dill City, OK 73641 

Mr. Leo McLaughlin 

Clinton, OK 73601 

Mr. Jimmie Moore 

Dill City, OK 73641 

Ms. Joyce Mandrell 

Jay, OK 74346 

Ms. Nancy McPherson 

Naples, FL 34109 

Mr. Jim Newberry 

Foss, OK 73647 

Mr. Luther Newman 

Clinton, OK 73601 

Ms. Juanita Nagel 

Fulton, TX 78358 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 14-14 

Mrs. Clyde Price 

Foss, OK 73647 

Mr. Johnny Powers 

Dill City, OK 73641 

Ms. Catherine Potter 

Elk City, OK 73644 

Mr. Ronnie Ramsey 

Dill City, OK 73641 

Mrs. A.J. Schneberger 

Foss, OK 73647 

Mr. Leo Strobel 

Foss, OK 73641 

Mr. J.C. Sullivan 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Mr. Gelene Schreck 

Canute, OK 73626 

Mr. Jerry Sullivan 

Bethany, OK 73008 

Mr. Dennis Schneberger 

Foss, OK 73647 

Mr. Patrick Schneberger 

Foss, OK 73647 

Ms. Marie Stamm 

Foss, OK 73647 

S.T. Spradlin 

Coweta, OK 74429 

Mr. Mark Strobel 

Foss, OK 73647 

Mr. Joe Walters 

Foss, OK 73647 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 14-15 

Ms. Vernie Walters 

Foss, OK 73647 

Mr. Tommy Williams 

Dill City, OK 73641 

Ms. Audrey Williams 

Foss, OK 73647 

Mr. Leon Williams 

Dill City, OK 73641 

Mr. Cliff Williams 

Ft. Worth, TX 76137 

Mr. Chris Williams 

Stillwater, OK 

Mr. John Parrish 

Sayre, OK 73662 

Ms. Ann Marcy 

Clinton, OK 73601 

Ms. Cheryl Adams 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Mr. Larry Beletter 

Elk City, OK 73644 

Ms. Mary Ellen Williams 

Canute, OK 

Mr. Doug Schones 

Canute, OK 73626 

Mr. Alfred Van Fosser 

Foss, OK 

Mr. Grayson Bottom 

City Manager 

Clinton, OK 73601 

Mr. Gary Martin 

Elk City, OK 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 14-16 

Mr. Richard Williams 

Canute, OK 

Mr. Lou Sims 

Hobart, OK 

Mr. Robert Sutton 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Mr. Mike Harris 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Mr. Greg Camp 

Altus Airport 

Altus, OK 73521 

Mr. Chip Eeds 

SEL 

Elk City, OK 73648 

Mr. Jimmie Hammontree 

Norman, OK 73072 

Ms. Ashley Luttmer 

Canute, OK 73626 

Mr. Matt Luttmer 

Canute, OK 73626 

Mr. Louis Sims 

OSIDA 

Hobart, OK 73651 

Richard and Mary Ellen Williams 

Canute, OK 73626 

Mr. Douglas Winters 

Altus, OK 73521 

Ms. Dee Daughtery-Vail 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Mr. Dennis Greteman 

Foss, OK 73647 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 14-17 

Mr. J.W. Hinds 

Elk City, OK 73644 

Ms. Rebecca Henderson 

Oklahoma City, OK 73132 

Mr. Hubert Kamphaus 

Foss, OK 73647 

Mr. Larry Kamphaus 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Mr. Jimmy Piercey 

Dill City, OK 73641 

Mr. Eldred Schneberger 

Foss, OK 73647 

Mr. J.D. Schneberger 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Mr. Jeff Schneberger 

Canute, OK 73626 

Mr. Chris Schneberger 

Foss, OK 73647 

Mr. Donald Schneberger 

Foss, OK 73647 

Raydel Schneberger 

Dill City, OK 73641 

Mr. Donald Stamm 

Foss, OK 73647 

Mr. Leo Walters 

Foss, OK 73647 

Mr. Tommy Wall 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Ms. Lynda Speller 

Oklahoma City, OK 73111 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 14-18 

Mr. Jim Shirazi 

Edmond, OK 73013-5645

Mr. Galen Robinson 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Mr. Gary Morgan 

Burns Flat, OK 73624-0052 

Mr. Jeff Loftiss 

Dill City, OK 73641-0151 

Ms. Betty Hudgens 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Mr. Ryan McMullen 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Mr. Bill Bolechaln 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Mr. Jamie Parrish 

Weatherford, OK 73096 

Mr. Larry McConnell 

Elk City, OK 73644 

Ms. Linda Jones 

Cordell, OK 75632 

Mr. Gene Orsock 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Mr. Ronald Morgan 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Mr. Jeff Headrick 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Mr. Mike Kiser 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Mr. Tysen Smith 

Weatherford, OK 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 14-19 

Mr. Jerry Lee 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Ms. Kristyn Long 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Mr. Bill Bolechala 

City Council 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Mr. Danny Davis 

Elk City, OK 73644 

Mr. John Herrington 

Rocketplane 

Oklahoma City, OK 73159 

Mr. Duane Manuel 

Burns Flat Town Board 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Mr. Jim Metz 

Town of Burns Flat 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Mr. Gary Morgan 

Burns Flat, OK 73624 

Fred and Zela Schneberger 

Foss, OK 73647 

Mr. Steven Bonneau 

Vance Airspace 

Vance AFB, OK 73705 

Mr. Phillip Korman 

Altus AFB Legal Office 

Altus, OK 73521 

Ms. Mary Schneberger 

Foss, OK 73647
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 15-1 

15 REFERENCES 

AirNav, 2005. “Clinton Sherman Airport.” http://www.airnav.com/airport/CSM, accessed April 

7th, 2005. 

Benham Group, 1995. Clinton-Sherman Industrial Airpark Master Plan: Site Evaluation and 

Development Forecasts, April. 

Benham Group Roberts/Shornick & Associates NBBJ, 1996. Clinton-Sherman Industrial 

Airpark Master Plan. Prepared for the City of Clinton, OK. February. 

Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, 1997. “Cryogenic Liquids and their 

Hazards.” http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/cryogenic/cryogen1.html accessed on 

March 15, 2006. Last updated on November 27, 1997. 

Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, 2006a. CHEMINFO: Chemical Profiles 

Created by CCOHS: Jet A Fuel. 

http://www.intox.org/databank/documents/chemical/jetfuel/cie768.htm accessed on March 15, 

2006. 

Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, 2006b. CHEMINFO: Chemical Profiles 

Created by CCOHS: Nitrous Oxide Gas. 

http://intox.org/databank/documents/chemical/nitrusox/cie407.htm accessed on 

March 15, 2006. 

Carlson, Harry W., 1978. Simplified Sonic-Boom Prediction. NASA TP-1122. 

Central U.S. Earthquake Consortium, 2005. “UCSEC Associate Earthquake Program 

Managers.” http://www.cusec.org/progmgr/manager_ok.htm accessed January 3, 2006. 

Clinton-Sherman Fire Department, 2003. Fire Protection: Tactical Guidelines for Fuel Spill 

Procedures. August. 

CSIA Tower, 2002. Record of Flight Operations for 2001-2002, Data received from Clinton 

Sherman Control Tower personnel. 

Department of the Air Force, 1996. Final Environmental Assessment of Slow Routes and 

Instrument Routes for Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma. February.

Department of the Air Force, 1997. Environmental Assessment for Specialized Undergraduate 

Pilot Training for Vance Air Force Base, Oklahoma. February.

Department of the Air Force, 1998a. Proposed Acquisition of Real Estate Interests for Altus Air 

Force Base, Oklahoma. March. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 15-2 

Department of the Air Force, 1998b. 1997 Air Emissions Inventory Report for Altus AFB, 

Oklahoma Air Education and Training Command, Headquarters. As cited in Department of the 

Air Force, 2002.

Department of the Air Force, 2002. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Airfield 

Repairs, Improvements, and Adjustments to Aircrew Training for Altus Air Force Base, 

Oklahoma. 97th Air Mobility Wing, Air Education and Training Command. May. 

Department of the Air Force, 2004. Final Environmental Assessment for C-17 Program Changes 

for Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma. July. 

Department of Defense, 2002. Final Environmental Assessment for the Orbital Reentry 

Corridor for Generic Unmanned Lifting Entry Vehicle Landing at Edwards Air Force Base, 

Edwards Air Force Base, California, December. 

Department of Transportation, 1992. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Commercial Reentry Vehicles. Office of Commercial Space Transportation, Washington. May. 

Department of Transportation, 2001. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Licensing Launches. Office of the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space 

Transportation. May 24. 

Department of Transportation, 2002. Final Environmental Assessment for the Site, Launch, 

Reentry and Recovery Operations at the Kistler Launch Facility, Nevada Test Site (NTS). Office 

of the Associated Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation. April 30. 

Department of Transportation, 2004. Final Environmental Assessment for the Eastern Kern 

Airport District Launch Site Operator License for the Mojave Airport. Office of the Associate 

Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation. February. 

Department of Transportation, 2006. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles. Office of Commercial Space 

Transportation. January. 

Emissions and Dispersion Modeling Systems (EDMS), 2004. EDMS V. 4.12 studies CAK 2004 

Existing and TGO LTOs 2004. Landrum and Brown. 

ENSERCH Environmental Corporation, 1994. Final Data Evaluation Document in Support of 

the Remedial Investigation at the Clinton-Sherman Industrial Airpark. 

EPA, 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Health and 

Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. 

EPA, 1980. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Vol. II, Table II-1-9, Emission 

Factors per Aircraft per Landing/Take off Cycle - Civil Aircraft. February. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 15-3 

EPA, 1992. Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation Volume IV: Mobile Sources. 

EPA, 2001. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–1999. Office of 

Atmospheric Programs. EPA 236-R-01-001. April. 

EPA, 2004. Air Trends, Six Principal Air Pollutants. http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/sixpoll.html,

accessed November 2004. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS). 

EPA, 2005a. Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment Glossary. 

http://www.epa.gov/maia/html/glossary.html#l accessed on March 31, 2005. Last updated 

March 4, 2005. 

EPA, 2005b. Total Maximum Daily Loads, Listed Water Information. 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/pls/tmdl/enviro.control?p_list_id=OK311500010020&p_cycle=2002 and 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/pls/tmdl/enviro.control?p_list_id=OK310840010010&p_cycle=2002

Farm Rail Systems Inc, 2003. “Company History.” 

http://www.farmrail.com/Company_History.htm, accessed April 7th, 2005. 

Federal Aviation Administration, 2005. http://www.faa.gov.atpubs/PCG/introduction.htm, 

accessed August 2005. 

Finegold, L.S., C.S. Harris, and H.E. von Gierke, 1994. Community Annoyance and Sleep 

Disturbance: Updated Criteria for Assessing the Impacts of General Transportation Noise on 

People. Noise Control Engineering Journal, Volume 42, Number 1, pp. 25-30 January-February. 

Haber, J. and D. Nakaki, 1989. Sonic Boom Damage to Conventional Structures. HSD-TR-89-

001. April. 

Henry, Mitchell and Hester, Timothy, 1995. Anadarko Basin Province (058). 

http://certmapper.cr.usgs.gov/data/noga95/prov58/text/prov58.pdf 

Heran, William; Green, Gregory; and, Stoeser, Douglas, 2003. A Digital Geologic Map 

Database for the State of Oklahoma.

Hershey, R.L., and Higgins, T.H., 1976. Statistical Model of Sonic Boom Structural Damage, 

FAA-RD-76-87, July. 

ICF Kaiser, 1998. Beal Aerospace Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Launch Facilities 

and Operations on Sombrero Island, BWI. October. 

Kephart, J.F., Taylor, A.J. and Martin, D.L., The Aerospace Corporation, 2005. Section 3: 

Preliminary Hazard Analysis for the Oklahoma Spaceport, Aerospace Report No. ATR5005(5086)-3. May 11, 2005. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 15-4 

Kephart, J.F., Taylor, A.J. and Martin, D.L., The Aerospace Corporation, 2005. Section 5: 

Security and Access Control Plan for the Oklahoma Spaceport, Aerospace Report No. ATR5005(5086)-5. June 23 2005. 

Legal Information Institute, 2005. US Code Collection. 

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/6903.html, accessed April 5, 2005. 

Lutgens, Frederick K., and Tarbuck, Edward, 1995. The Atmosphere: An Introduction to 

Meteorology. 6th ed. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. pp. 17-22. 

Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU), 2000. Atmosphere, Climate, and Environment: 

Information Programme: Encyclopedia of the Atmospheric Environment. MMU, Internet 

Publication, Accessed March, 2004. 

http://www.doc.mmu.ac.uk/aric/eae/Atmosphere/Older/Troposphere.html 

Manci, K.M., Gladwin, D.N., Villella, R. and M.G. Cavendish, 1988. Effects or aircraft noise 

and sonic booms on domestic animals and wildlife: A literature synthesis. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. National Ecology Research Center, Ft. Collins, CO NERC-88, 29.88 pp. 

MSNBC, 2004. Private Rocket Ship Breaks Space Barrier. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5261571/, accessed July 19, 2004. 

National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2001. MapStats: Field Crops in 2001, Washita County 

Oklahoma. http://www.fedstats.gov/cgi-bin/mapstats/AgLookup?40149, accessed March 31, 

2005. 

NASA, 2003. “Atmospheric and Chemistry Data & Resources.” NASA, Internet Publication. 

http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/CAMPAIGN_DOCS/ATM_CHEM/atmospheric_structure.html 

accessed May 4, 2004. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2004. National Geophysical Data 

Center (NGDC), “Introduction to the Ionosphere.” NOAA, Internet Publication, Accessed May 

5, 2004. http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/IONO/ionointro.html 

National Register of Historic Places (National Register). 2005. National Register of Historic 

Places, Oklahoma, Washita County. 

http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/OK/Washita/state.html 

National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, 1981. CHABA, Assessment of 

Community Noise response to High-Energy Impulsive Sounds, Report of Working Group 84, 

Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Bio Mechanics, Assembly of Behavioral and Social 

Sciences. 

Oklahoma Climatological Survey, 2002a. “Normals and Extremes.” 

http://climate.ocs.ou.edu/normals_extremes.html, accessed April 4, 2005. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 15-5 

Oklahoma Climatological Survey, 2002b. “Oklahoma’s Climate: An Overview.” 

http://www.srcc.lsu.edu/southernClimate/atlas/okdescription, accessed April 4, 2005. 

Oklahoma Department of Commerce, 2001. “About Burns Flat.” http://www.burnsflatok.com/about.htm, accessed March 31, 2005. Last updated December 7, 2001. 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, 2001. Land Protection 

Report. Volume 2, Number 1. Land Protection Division. January to December. 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, 2004a. “Oklahoma DEQ Rules, Regulations, 

and Legal Information: 252:205 Hazardous Waste Management.” 

http://www.deq.state.ok.us/rules/205.pdf , accessed April 5, 2005. 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, 2004b. Title 252. Department of 

Environmental Quality Chapter 100. Air Pollution Control. 

<http://www.deq.state.ok.us/rules/100.pdf> 

Oklahoma Geological Survey in cooperation with the United States Geological Survey, 1976. 

Reconnaissance of the Water Resources of the Clinton Quadrangle West-Central Oklahoma. 

Oklahoma State Senate, 1999. Legislative Summary: A Review of the First Session of the 47th

Legislature – 1999. Final Report. 

http://www.oksenate.gov/publications/legislative_summary/LegisRevu99.dir/LegisRevu99_Inde

x.html, accessed on April 4, 2005. 

Oklahoma Water Resources Board. May 1990. Oklahoma Water Atlas, Publication 135. 

Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 2002. Oklahoma’s Water Quality Standards. 

http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/wqslibrary/ok/ok_6_chap45.pdf, accessed 

August 2005. 

Samson, Fred B., Fritz L. Knopf, and Wayne R. Ostlie. 1998, 2000. Grasslands. As cited in M. 

J. Mac, P. A. Opler, C.E. Puckett Haecker, and P. D. Doran, eds. Status and Trends of the 

Nation’s Biological Resources, Vol. 2. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center Online. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resources/2000/grlands/grlands.htm (Version 

21JAN2000). 

Sommer, H.C., and C.W., Nixon, 1973. Primary Components of Simulated Air Bag Noise and 

their Relative Effects on Human Hearing, ARML-TR-73-52 Wright Patterson Air Force Base, 

Ohio, November. 

South Western Oklahoma Development Authority (SWODA), 2005. “Clinton-Sherman 

Industrial Airpark.” http://www.swoda.org/airpark.htm, accessed April 7th, 2005. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 15-6 

Space Science Division, Naval Research Laboratory, 2003. “Introduction to Upper Atmospheric 

Science.” U.S. Navy, Internet Publication. http://spacescience.nrl.navy.mil/introupatmsci.html, 

accessed May 5, 2004. 

Sutherland, L.C., 1990. Effects on Sonic Boom on Structures, Lecture 3 of Sonic Boom: 

Prediction and Effects, AIAA Short Course, October. 

U.S. Air Force, Engineering and Services Center; and U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 1988. Effects of Aircraft Noise and Sonic Booms on Domestic Animals and 

Wildlife: A Literature Synthesis. NERC 88/29; AFESC TR 88.14. June. 

http://www.nonoise.org/library/animals/litsyn.htm#3.1.1%20Domestic%20Livestock 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1998. “Status Update: Environmental Studies 

and Cleanup Actions at the Formerly Used Defense Site Clinton-Sherman Industrial Airpark, 

Washita County, Oklahoma.” USACE, Tulsa District. 

http://www.swt.usace.army.mil/WWWattachments/1998-09%20ClintonSherman.pdf, accessed 

April 5, 2005. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1999. Clinton-Sherman Industrial Airpark, Final 

Remedial Investigation Report, COE 0373.DOC. January. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/2000census/poppvstat00.html 

United States Geological Survey, 1990. Dill City 7.5 Minute Quadrangle. 

United States Geological Survey, 2003a. “1990-2001 Seismicity of Oklahoma.” 

http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/states/oklahoma/oklahoma_seismicity.html, accessed 

January 3, 2006. 

United States Geological Survey, 2003b. “Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United 

States – Meers Fault, Southwestern Oklahoma.” 

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/qfaults/eusa/sokla.html, accessed January 3, 2006. 

United States Geological Survey, 2005. “Top Earthquake States.” 

http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/states/top_states.html, accessed January 3, 2006. 

University of Leicester, “Ionospheric Physics,” http://ion.le.ac.uk/ionosphere/ionosphere.html, 

Accessed March 2004. 

Wentz, Charles A., 1989. Hazardous Waste Management. McGraw Hill, New York; 

Second Ed. (1995). 

Encyclopedia of the Environment, 2006. "Mesosphere." Accessed at: 

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Atmosphere/Older/Mesosphere.html on April 11, 2006. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 A-1 

APPENDIX A 

EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED ACTION AND 

ALTERNATIVES 

This appendix identifies the emissions/afterburning products from various propellants used 

in launch and landing activities associated with the proposed action and alternatives. 

Section A.1 discusses the methodology used to determine per launch emission loads in the 

various atmospheric layers and provides the estimated per launch emissions. The 

methodology used to estimate cumulative emission loads associated with launches, as well 

as the estimates themselves, are provided in Section A.2. Section A.3 describes the 

methodology used to estimate emission loads from proposed rocket engine tests and 

provides the estimated emissions for these tests. 

A.1 Methodology for Determining Per Launch/Reentry Emissions Loads in 

Various Atmospheric Layers 

The four principal layers in the Earth’s atmosphere are the troposphere, stratosphere, 

mesosphere, and ionosphere. They are generally defined by temperature, structure, density, 

composition, and degree of ionization. (DOT, 1992) The approximate altitude of these 

layers is provided in Exhibit A-1. The troposphere is the turbulent weather region 

containing 75 percent of the total mass of the Earth’s atmosphere. The troposphere is 

critical because any rocket emission can potentially increase ambient pollution in the air or 

can deposit to Earth. The stratosphere contains a critical ozone layer that protects the 

Earth’s surface from UV radiation. Both the stratosphere and the troposphere are of most 

concern when considering greenhouse gases and global warming. This analysis is also 

interested in the portion of the troposphere below 914 meters (3,000 feet) because this is 

the altitude range to which ambient air quality standards apply. 

Exhibit A-1. Altitude Range for Various Atmospheric Layers 

Troposphere Stratosphere Mesosphere Ionosphere 

Altitude Range In 

Kilometers (Miles) 

Surface to 10 

(6.2) 

10 to 50 

(6.2 to 31) 

50 to 80 

(31 to 50) 

80 to 1,000 

(50 to 621) 

Launch vehicles used to transport payloads or passengers into space will be propelled 

through several layers of the atmosphere including the troposphere, stratosphere, 

mesosphere, and ionosphere. The load of the emissions in each of these atmospheric layers 

depends on the stage firing, the engine type, type of fuel, burn rate of fuel, and residence 

time in the atmospheric layer. This methodology focuses on the tropospheric and the 

stratospheric layers that are generally viewed with greater environmental concern. 

Total emissions associated with the proposed action and alternatives were estimated by 

completing the following steps: 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 A-2 

 Estimating the emissions per launch into each layer of the atmosphere for each type of 

vehicle, 

 Estimating the total annual launches for each type of vehicle, and 

 Multiplying the number of launches by the appropriate emissions per launch. 

The following sections describe the methodologies used to complete these steps for both 

the proposed action and alternatives. 

A.1.1 Proposed Action and Alternative Activity Emissions 

This EA considers three types (or concepts) of horizontally launched launch vehicles. 

Concept X vehicles would take off from a runway under jet power and would ignite rocket 

engines at a specified altitude. Concept Y vehicles would take off from a runway under 

rocket power. Concept Z vehicles would take off from a runway while mated to a jetpowered assist aircraft and would ignite rocket engines at a specified altitude after being 

released from the assist aircraft. For Concept X and Concept Z vehicles, the emissions 

generated by jet engines were calculated separately from rocket emissions, as described 

below. 

The characteristics of these vehicles were developed from launch data provided on the XPrize website (http://www.xprize.com) and from other publicly available data on LV 

characteristics. A brief overview of each of these vehicles is provided in Exhibit A-2. 

Jet Engine Launch Emissions 

To estimate jet engine emissions per launch for each vehicle, emission factors (e.g., amount 

of releases per take off/landing cycle) were selected based on the type and number of 

engines being used. Exhibit A-3 provides the total emissions below 914 meters (3,000 

feet) per take off/landing cycle18 for each vehicle type. Emissions from jet engines would 

also occur above 914 meters (3,000 feet). However, jet engine emissions above 914 meters 

(3,000 feet) from the fairly limited number of Concept X and Concept Z flights and jetpowered reentries would be very small relative to the number of annual jet aircraft flights 

in the U.S., and therefore these emissions are not included in the overall emission 

estimates. Exhibit A-7 provides the total emissions per launch, including both jet engine 

and rocket emissions, to each layer of the atmosphere for each vehicle type included in this 

analysis. 

 

18 The take off/landing cycle includes idle, take off, climb out to 914 meters (3,000 feet), descent starting at 

914 meters (3,000 feet), approach, and landing. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 A-3 

Exhibit A-2. Overview of Launch Vehicle Types 

Vehicle Rocket Propellant 

Type Notes 

Concept X LOX/Kerosene 

Jet engine ignited for lift off; rocket engine ignited 

at approximately 6,096 meters (20,000 feet); jet 

engines stop at 24,384 meters (80,000 feet) and 

rocket engines stop at 45,720 meters (150,000 

feet); reentry powered by reigniting jet engines 

Concept Y LOX/Kerosene 

Rocket engine ignited for lift off; no jet engine; 

rocket engines stop at 60,960 meters (200,000 

feet); un-powered reentry 

Concept Z N2O/HTPB 

Jet-powered carrier vehicle; rocket ignited at 

15,240 meters (50,000 feet) and burns 

approximately one minute; un-powered reentry 

Exhibit A-3. Jet Engine Emissions per Take Off/Landing Cycle (below 914 meters 

[3,000 feet]) 

Emissions, kilograms (pounds) Vehicle 

CO NOX VOC SOX PM 

Source

Concept X 38 

(83) 

0.48 

(1.1) 

4.0 

(8.8) 

0.17 

(0.37) 

11 

(24) a 

Concept Z 38 

(83) 

0.55 

(1.2) 

5.2 

(12) 

0.28 

(0.62) 

11 

(24) b 

a

 CO, NOX, VOC, SOX for Learjet 25c (EDMS, 2004); no PM emissions were specified for Learjet 25c 

so it was assumed that the particulates were similar to F-14 Tomcat (EPA, 1980). 

b

 CO, NOX, VOC, SOX for T-38 Tiger (EPA, 1980); no PM emissions were specified for T-38 Tiger so it 

was assumed that the particulates were similar to F-14 Tomcat (EPA, 1980). 

Rocket Launch Emissions 

To estimate rocket emissions per launch for each vehicle, the propellant consumed in each 

atmospheric layer was estimated and then multiplied by fuel-specific emission weight 

fractions for each pollutant. The propellant consumed in each atmospheric layer for each 

vehicle type was estimated using available data on the total fuel used by that vehicle type 

and the percentage of time spent in each layer. When vehicle-specific data were not 

available, data for a similar vehicle were used. The propellant type and estimated 

propellant consumption in each atmospheric layer for each vehicle type are provided in 

Exhibit A-4. Exhibits A-5 and A-6 present the emission weight fractions for the three 

rocket propellant types used in the LVs being evaluated in this EA. The estimated 

emissions per launch (from both rockets and jet engines) for each vehicle are presented in 

Exhibit A-7. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 A-4 

Exhibit A-4. Estimated Propellant Consumption by Atmospheric Layer

Rocket Propellant Consumption, kilograms (pounds)

Vehicle 

Rocket 

Propellantl 

Type 

< 914 meters 

(3,000 feet) 

Troposphere Stratosphere Mesosphere Ionosphere

Concept X LOX/ 

Kerosene - 432 (952) 

3,242 

(7,147) - - 

Concept Y LOX/ 

Kerosene 

595 

(1,312) 

1,191 

(2,626) 

2,580 

(5,688) 

992 

(2,187) - 

Concept Z N2O/HTPB - - 1,523 

(3,358) - - 

Exhibit A-5. Emission Weight Fractions for LOX/Kerosene Rocket Propellant 

Emissions 

CO2 CO H2 H2O 

0.49 0.20 0.0042 0.30 

 Source: U.S. DOT, 2002 

Exhibit A-6. Emission Weight Fractions for N2O/HTPB Rocket Propellant Emissions 

CO2 CO N2 H2O 

0.03 0.20 0.54 0.22 

Source: U.S. DOT, 2001 

Exhibit A-7. Total Emission Loads per Launch or Reentry for Proposed Action and 

Alternatives, by Vehicle 

Vehicle Emission Loads per Launch/Reentry (kilograms [pounds]) 

PM NOX SOX CO CO2 H2O VOC H2

Below 914 meters (3,000 feet)

Concept X 11 

(24.2) 1 (2.2) 

0.2 

(0.44) 38 (83.8) - - 4 (8.8) - 

Concept Y - - - -

a 478 

(1.054) 

179 

(394.6) - 

3 

(6.6) 

Concept Z 11 

(24.2) 1 (2.2) 

0.3 

(0.66) 38 (83.8) - - 5 (11) - 

Troposphere 

Concept X 11 

(24.2) 1 (2.2) 

0.2 

(0.44) 

124 

(273.4) 

212 

(467.4) 

130 

(286.6) 4 (8.8) 

2 

(4.4) 

Concept Y - - - -a

958 

(2,112) 

357 

(787) - 5 (11)

Concept Z 11 

(24.2) 1 (2.2) 

0.3 

(0.33) 38 (83.8) - - 5 (11) - 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 A-5 

Vehicle Emission Loads per Launch/Reentry (kilograms [pounds]) 

PM NOX SOX CO CO2 H2O VOC H2

Stratosphere 

Concept X - - - 

648 

(1,428.6) 

1,589 

(3,503) 

973 

(2,145) - 

14 

(30.9)

Concept Y - - - 

516 

(1,137.6) 

1,264 

(2,786.6)

774 

(1,706) - 

11 

(24.3)

Concept Z 

- - - 305 (672) 

46 

(101.4) 

335 

(738.5) - - 

Mesosphere 

Concept X - - - - - - - - 

Concept Y - - - 

199 

(438.7) 

486 

(1,071.5)

298 

(657) - 

4 

(8.8) 

Concept Z - - - - - - - - 

Ionosphere 

Concept X - - - - - - - - 

Concept Y - - - - - - - - 

Concept Z - - - - - - - - 

a

 It is assumed that all CO emissions into the troposphere are instantaneously converted to CO2. 

A.2 Methodology for Calculating Cumulative Emissions Loads in Various 

Atmospheric Layers 

To calculate the cumulative emission loads to each atmospheric layer, the per launch 

emissions estimates for launches associated with the proposed action and alternatives were 

multiplied by the launch estimates for each type of vehicle. The estimated numbers of 

launches are provided in Exhibit A-8. 

For the proposed action, the estimated annual emission loads for each vehicle type and 

pollutant of interest were calculated for 2006 to 2010. Emission loads below 914 meters 

(3,000 feet) are presented in Exhibits A-9 through A-16; emission loads to the troposphere 

are presented in Exhibits A-17 through A-24; emission loads to the stratosphere are 

presented in Exhibits A-25 through A-28; and emission loads to the mesosphere are 

presented in Exhibits A-29 through A-32. 

Exhibit A-8. Vehicle Launches Associated with the Proposed Action and Alternatives, 

2006-2010 

Vehicle 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Concept X 12 12 24 48 48 

Concept Y 2 2 2 2 2 

Concept Z 2 2 3 4 4 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 A-6 

A.2.1 Estimated Annual Emission Loads below 914 meters (3,000 feet) 

Exhibit A-9. Estimated Annual PM Emission Loads below 914 meters (3,000 feet) 

PM Emission Loads (kilograms [pounds]) 

Vehicle 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Concept X 132 (291) 132 (291) 264 (582) 528 (1,164) 528 (1,164) 

Concept Y - - - - - 

Concept Z 22 (48.5) 22 (48.5) 33 (72.7) 44 (97) 44 (97) 

Exhibit A-10. Estimated Annual NOX Emission Loads below 914 meters (3,000 feet)

NOX Emission Loads (kilograms) 

Vehicle 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Concept X 6 (13.2) 6 (13.2) 12 (26.4) 24 (52.9) 24 (52.9) 

Concept Y - - - - - 

Concept Z 1 (2.2) 1 (2.2) 2 (4.4) 2 (4.4) 2 (4.4) 

Exhibit A-11. Estimated Annual SOX Emission Loads below 914 meters (3,000 feet) 

SOX Emission Loads (kilograms [pounds]) 

Vehicle 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Concept X 2 (4.4) 2 (4.4) 5 (11) 10 (22) 10 (22) 

Concept Y - - - - - 

Concept Z 1 (2.2) 1 (2.2) 1 (2.2) 1 (2.2) 1 (2.2) 

Exhibit A-12. Estimated Annual CO Emission Loads below 914 meters (3,000 feet) 

CO Emission Loads (kilograms [pounds]) 

Vehicle 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Concept X 452 (996.5) 452 (996.5) 905 (1,995) 1,810 (3,990) 1,810 (3,990)

Concept Y - - - - - 

Concept Z 76 (167.5) 76 (167.5) 114 (251) 152 (335) 152 (335) 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 A-7 

Exhibit A-13. Estimated Annual CO2 Emission Loads below 914 meters (3,000 feet) 

CO2 Emission Loads (kilograms [pounds]) Vehicle 2006 2007 2008 2009 

2010 

Concept X - - - - - 

Concept Y 957 (2,110) 957 (2,110) 957 (2,110) 957 (2,110) 957 (2,110)

Concept Z - - - - - 

Exhibit A-14. Estimated Annual H2O Emission Loads below 914 meters (3,000 feet) 

H2O Emission Loads (kilograms [pounds]) 

Vehicle 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Concept X - - - - - 

Concept Y 357 (787) 357 (787) 357 (787) 357 (787) 357 (787) 

Concept Z - - - - - 

Exhibit A-15. Estimated Annual VOC Emission Loads below 914 meters (3,000 feet) 

VOC Emission Loads (kilograms [pounds]) 

Vehicle 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Concept X 48 (105.8) 48 (105.8) 96 (211.6) 192 (423.3) 192 (423.3) 

Concept Y - - - - - 

Concept Z 10 (22) 10 (22) 16 (35.3) 21 (46.3) 21 (46.3) 

Exhibit A-16. Estimated Annual H2 Emission Loads below 914 meters (3,000 feet) 

H2 Emission Loads (kilograms [pounds]) 

Vehicle 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Concept X - - - - - 

Concept Y 5 (11) 5 (11) 5 (11) 5 (11) 5 (11) 

Concept Z - - - - - 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 A-8 

A.2.2 Estimated Annual Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

Exhibit A-17. Estimated Annual PM Emission Loads to the Troposphere

PM Emission Loads (kilograms [pounds]) 

Vehicle 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Concept X 132 (291) 132 (291) 264 (582) 528 (1,164) 528 (1,164) 

Concept Y - - - - - 

Concept Z 22 (48.5) 22 (48.5) 33 (72.8) 44 (97) 44 (97) 

Exhibit A-18. Estimated Annual NOX Emission Loads to the Troposphere

NOX Emission Loads (kilograms [pounds]) 

Vehicle 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Concept X 6 (13.2) 6 (13.2) 12 (26.4) 24 (52.9) 24 (52.9) 

Concept Y - - - - - 

Concept Z 1 (2.2) 1 (2.2) 2 (4.4) 2 (4.4) 2 (4.4) 

Exhibit A-19. Estimated Annual SOX Emission Loads to the Troposphere

SOX Emission Loads (kilograms [pounds]) 

Vehicle 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Concept X 2 (4.4) 2 (2.2) 5 (11) 10 (22) 10 (22) 

Concept Y - - - - - 

Concept Z 1 (2.2) 1 (2.2) 1 (2.2) 1 (2.2) 1 (2.2) 

Exhibit A-20. Estimated Annual CO Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

CO Emission Loads (kilograms [pounds]) 

Vehicle 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Concept X 

1,489 

(675.4) 

1,489 

(675.4) 

2,978 

(6,565) 

5,956 

(13,130) 

5,956 

(13,130) 

Concept Y - - - - - 

Concept Z 76 (167.6) 76 (167.6) 114 251.3) 152 (335) 152 (335) 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 A-9 

Exhibit A-21. Estimated Annual CO2 Emission Loads to the Troposphere

CO2 Emission Loads (kilograms [pounds]) 

Vehicle 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Concept X 

2,542 

(5,604) 

2,542 

(5,604) 

5,083 

(11,206) 

10,166 

(22,412) 

10,166 

(22,412) 

Concept Y 

1,915 

(4,221.8) 

1,915 

(4,221.8)

1,915 

(4,221.8)

1,915 

(4,221.8) 

1,915 

(4,221.8) 

Concept Z - - - - - 

Exhibit A-22. Estimated Annual H2O Emission Loads to the Troposphere

H2O Emission Loads (kilograms [pounds]) 

Vehicle 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Concept X 

1,556 

(3,430) 

1,556 

(3,430) 

3,113 

(6,863) 

6,226 

(13,726) 

6,226 

(13,726) 

Concept Y 

 714 

(1,574) 

714 

(1,574) 

714 

(1,574) 

714 

(1,574) 

714 

(1,574) 

Concept Z - - - - - 

Exhibit A-23. Estimated Annual VOC Emission Loads to the Troposphere

VOC Emission Loads (kilograms [pounds]) 

Vehicle 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Concept X 48 (105.8) 48 (105.8) 96 (211.6) 192 (423.3) 192 (423.3) 

Concept Y - - - - - 

Concept Z 10 (22) 10 (22) 16 (35.3) 21 (46.3) 21 (46.3) 

Exhibit A-24. Estimated Annual H2 Emission Loads to the Troposphere

H2 Emission Loads (kilograms [pounds]) 

Vehicle 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Concept X 22 (48.5) 22 (48.5) 43 (94.8) 86 (189.6) 86 (189.6) 

Concept Y 10 (22) 10 (22) 10 (22) 10 (22) 10 (22) 

Concept Z - - - - - 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 A-10 

A.2.3 Estimated Annual Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

Exhibits of emission loads for the following compounds are not included in this section 

because under the proposed action, the vehicles’ emissions will not affect the stratosphere. 

 PM 

 NOX

 SOX

 VOC 

Exhibit A-25. Estimated Annual CO Emission Loads to the Stratosphere

CO Emission Loads (kilograms [pounds]) 

Vehicle 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Concept X 

7,781 

(17,154) 

7,781 

(17,154) 

15,561 

(34,306) 

31,123 

(68,614.5)

31,123 

(68,614.5) 

Concept Y 

1,032 

(2,275) 

1,032 

(2,275) 

1,032 

(2,275) 

1,032 

(2,275) 

1,032 

(2,275) 

Concept Z 

609 

(1,342.6) 

609 

(1,342.6)

914 

(2,015) 

1,218 

2,685) 

1,218 

(2,685) 

Exhibit A-26. Estimated Annual CO2 Emission Loads to the Stratosphere

CO2 Emission Loads (kilograms [pounds]) 

Vehicle 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Concept X 

19,062 

(42,025) 

19,062 

(42,025) 

38,124 

(84,049) 

76,248 

(168,098) 

76,248 

(168,098) 

Concept Y 

2,528 

(5,573) 

2,528 

(5,573) 

2,528 

(5,573) 

2,528 

(5,573) 

2,528 

(5,573) 

Concept Z 91 (200.6) 91 (200.6) 137 (302) 183 (403.5) 183 (403.5) 

Exhibit A-27. Estimated Annual H2O Emission Loads to the Stratosphere

H2O Emission Loads (kilograms [pounds]) 

Vehicle 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Concept X 

11,671 

(25,730) 

11,671 

(25,730)

23,342 

(51,460) 

46,685 

(102,923)

46,685 

(102,923) 

Concept Y 

1,548 

(3,413) 

1,548 

(3,413) 

1,548 

(3,413) 

1,548 

(3,413) 

1,548 

(3,413) 

Concept Z 

670 

((1,477) 

670 

(1,477) 

1,005 

(2,216) 

1,340 

(2,954) 

1,340 

(2,954) 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 A-11 

Exhibit A-28. Estimated Annual H2 Emission Loads to the Stratosphere

H2 Emission Loads (kilograms [pounds]) 

Vehicle 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Concept X 163 (359) 163 (359)

326 

(718.7) 

653 

(1,439.6)

653 

(1,439.6) 

Concept Y 22 (48.5) 22 (48.5) 22 (48.5) 22 (48.5) 22 (48.5) 

Concept Z - - - - - 

A.2.4 Estimated Annual Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

Exhibits of emission loads for the following compounds are not included in this section 

because under the proposed action, the vehicles’ emissions will not affect the mesosphere. 

 PM 

 NOX

 SOX

 VOC 

Exhibit A-29. Estimated Annual CO Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

CO Emission Loads (kilograms [pounds]) 

Vehicle 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Concept X - - - - - 

Concept Y 397 (875) 397 (875) 397 (875) 397 (875) 397 (875) 

Concept Z - - - - - 

Exhibit A-30. Estimated Annual CO2 Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

CO2 Emission Loads (kilograms [pounds]) 

Vehicle 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Concept X - - - - - 

Concept Y 

972 

(2,143) 

972 

(2,143) 

972 

(2,143) 

972 

(2,143) 

972 

(2,143) 

Concept Z - - - - - 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 A-12 

Exhibit A-31. Estimated Annual H2O Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

H2O Emission Loads (kilograms [pounds]) 

Vehicle 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Concept X - - - - - 

Concept Y 

595 

(1,312) 

595 

(1,312) 

595 

(1,312) 

595 

(1,312) 

595 

(1,312) 

Concept Z - - - - - 

Exhibit A-32. Estimated Annual H2 Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

H2 Emission Loads (kilograms [pounds]) 

Vehicle 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Concept X - - - - - 

Concept Y 8 (17.6) 8 (17.6) 8 (17.6) 8 (17.6) 8 (17.6) 

Concept Z - - - - - 

A.2.5 Estimated Annual Emission Loads to the Ionosphere 

Under the proposed action, none of the vehicles’ emissions will affect the ionosphere. 

Thus, no exhibits of emission loads for all compounds studied are included. 

A.3 Methodology for Calculating Emissions Loads from Rocket Engine Tests 

The emission loads associated with rocket engine tests were calculated by first estimating 

the amount of propellant used for each test. Then, these propellant amounts were 

multiplied by the appropriate propellant-specific emission weight fraction to estimate the 

per test emissions. Finally, the per test emissions estimate was multiplied by the estimated 

number of annual launches to calculate the annual emissions associated with rocket engine 

tests. 

The rocket engine tests were assumed to be performed using a LOX/kerosene engine with a 

maximum thrust of 224,190 Newtons (50,400 pounds force). The worst-case (i.e., highest 

emission) rocket engine test was assumed to consume approximately 8,136 kilograms 

(17,936 pounds) of LOX/RP-1. Using the LOX/kerosene emission weight fractions from 

Exhibit A-5, the worst-case, per test emissions were calculated (see Exhibit A-33). 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 A-13 

Exhibit A-33. Total Emissions Per Rocket Engine Test 

Emission Loads (kilograms [pounds]) 

CO2 CO H2 H2O 

Worst-case 

Emissions per Test 

3,986 

(8,787.6)

1,627 

(3,587) 

34 

(75) 

2,441 

(5,381.5) 

It was assumed that 16 of these tests would be performed annually. The resulting emission 

loads from rocket engine tests from 2006 through 2010 are presented in Exhibit A-34. 

Exhibit A-34. Estimated Annual Emissions to the Troposphere from Rocket Engine 

Testing 

Emission Loads for All Proposed Rocket Engine Tests (kilograms [pounds]) Year 

CO2 CO H2 H2O 

2006 63,783 (140,617) 26,034 (57,395) 547 (1,206) 39,051 (86,093) 

2007 63,783 (140,617) 26,034 (57,395) 547 (1,206) 39,051 (86,093) 

2008 63,783 (140,617) 26,034 (57,395) 547 (1,206) 39,051 (86,093) 

2009 63,783 (140,617) 26,034 (57,395) 547 (1,206) 39,051 (86,093) 

2010 63,783 (140,617) 26,034 (57,395) 547 (1,206) 39,051 (86,093) 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 A-14 

APPENDIX A References 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1992. Environmental Impact Statement for 

Commercial Reentry Vehicles. Washington. May. 

U.S. DOT, 2002. Final Environmental Assessment for the Site, Launch, Reentry, and 

Recovery Operations at the Kistler Launch Facility, Nevada Test Site. April. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 B-1 

APPENDIX B 

POTENTIAL ACCIDENT SCENARIOS 

This appendix presents various accident scenarios and their associated impacts resulting from the 

activities considered in this EA. The appendix discusses methods and regulations, including 

safety criteria used by the FAA in licensing decisions for preventing and mitigating threats to 

public health, public safety, property, and the environment. The discussion of these topics serves 

as a roadmap for the additional, mission-specific analyses a licensee applicant must carry out 

before receiving a license from the FAA to conduct a launch or reentry. 

B.1 Accidents During Ignition 

Accidents during launch usually occur after the ignition of the launch vehicle’s propulsion 

system. For the activities considered in this EA the ignition of a launch vehicle’s propulsion 

system may take place in the air, on the ground or from an air-based launch platform (e.g., 

released from support aircraft). An explosion immediately after ignition of the launch vehicle 

propulsion system potentially represents the worst type of accident scenario because the launch 

vehicle contains the maximum amount of propellant it would carry throughout its mission, 

culminating in the greatest explosion possible. Debris and fragments from the explosion may be 

blown a significant distance from the ignition area. The distance this debris and fragments travel 

would depend on the amount and type of propellant aboard and the atmospheric conditions (e.g., 

wind speed, humidity levels, temperature, etc.) at the location of the explosion. A large smoke 

plume would rise (or fall depending on the altitude at which the accident occurred) and drift in a 

downwind direction, along with particulates, potentially affecting surrounding areas. Although 

air quality would be the environmental resource predominantly affected, the extent of the impact 

depends upon atmospheric conditions and the surrounding areas. See Section 4.2 for a 

discussion of impacts on the atmosphere from the proposed action. 

To protect public health and safety, launch site personnel are sheltered at a safe distance from the 

launch area and are therefore protected from an explosion. The exact distance is determined by 

FAA regulation 14 CFR § 420.21 and Range Safety personnel. FAA regulation 14 CFR § 

420.21 governs the licensing of commercial launch vehicles and requires licensees to calculate 

the debris dispersion radius from within the flight corridor given particular accident scenarios. 

OSIDA, pursuant to regulation 14 CFR § 415.35, must demonstrate that for each launch the 

expected average number of casualties from falling debris generated during a worst-case scenario 

accident does not exceed 0.00003 (30 x 10-6). The process requires a probability and 

consequence assessment of all reasonably foreseeable hazardous events (e.g., inclement weather) 

and systems failures. These probabilities are incorporated into the flight corridor selection 

process, which helps minimize the risk to public health, safety, and property by ensuring flight 

paths intersect minimally populated areas. 

For an air-based launch platform, an accident occurring in the initial 10 seconds after release 

from the carrier aircraft could likely expose the carrier aircraft to fragments, potentially causing 

an emergency landing, crash, or subsequent explosion. An air explosion of one or both the 

launch vehicle and carrier aircraft would send emissions into the ambient air similar to a groundbased launch accident. However, an explosion would disperse debris and fragments over a far 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 B-2 

greater area than a ground-based explosion. As stated, FAA regulations require a licensee to 

define a flight corridor for horizontal launch that minimizes the risk of falling debris to public 

health and/or property. 

B.2 Accident During Vehicle Ascent or Descent 

Vehicle ascent is defined as the period after the initial rocket engine is ignited when a launch 

vehicle is under power and rising through the atmosphere. Vehicle descent occurs after a launch 

vehicle reenters the atmosphere and is moving downward through the atmosphere in either a 

powered or unpowered landing approach. Accidents that may occur during vehicle ascent or 

descent include mechanical, electrical, or computer failures; fuel releases; or mid-air explosions, 

defined as an explosion during ascent or descent. FAA regulation 14 CFR § 431.45 requires 

launch vehicle licensees to prepare a comprehensive emergency response plan, part of which 

includes a method for notifying local officials as far in advance as possible in the event of an 

offsite or unplanned landing. 

B.2.1 Mechanical, Electrical, or Computer Failure 

Although redundant engineering of key electrical and mechanical systems aid in preventing a 

midair computer or mechanical failure, licensees, under FAA guidance, must present methods of 

mitigating the impacts of a system failure during ascent or descent. In the event of a mechanical 

or systems failure, an emergency landing at an alternate or unforeseen landing site may be 

necessary. Alternate landing sites should be chosen before launch during the development of the 

flight corridor. Real-time tracking and monitoring of the launch vehicle’s location using Global 

Positioning Systems (GPS), along with communication with FAA air traffic controllers, enables 

the determination of an IIP (the point at which the launch vehicle or pieces of it would land in 

the event of a failure). 

Launch vehicles retain the capability of terminating engines and aborting mission objectives in 

the event that a problem arises. In case of engine failure, a launch vehicle may be equipped with 

a variety of safety mechanisms that allow an operator to guide the vehicle without engine power 

to an alternate landing site to prevent the launch vehicle and its payload from reaching any 

populated or protected areas. Launch vehicles may also be equipped with safety devices such as 

parachutes that provide a soft landing in the event of an emergency. 

Should all safety mechanisms fail to prevent an uncontrolled landing, remaining fuels may 

ignite, resulting in a cascading fuel explosion on the ground. During ascent, spacecrafts contain 

greater amounts of fuels than they hold during descent. Therefore, failures that occur during 

ascent that result in uncontrolled landings will create larger explosions than crashes that occur 

during descent. 

B.2.2 Midair Explosion 

FAA regulation 14 CFR § 420.23 requires commercial launch licensees to design a flight 

corridor for the launch vehicle that minimizes risk to public health, safety, and property. Risk is 

minimized by ensuring the flight corridor traverses only sparsely populated areas and, in the 

event of a midair explosion, the debris dispersion radius falls within the flight corridor. Before a 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 B-3 

flight corridor is approved by FAA, calculated risk estimates for public endangerment from 

falling debris and associated impacts must meet risk tolerance criteria for public endangerment 

pursuant to FAA regulations 14 CFR § 417.227 and 14 CFR § 420.25. If the risk level exceeds a 

certain threshold value, the launch is not authorized. 

The extent of a mid-air explosion would depend on the amount of fuel the launch vehicle is 

carrying at the time of explosion, a factor relative to the amount of time that had elapsed after 

initial launch. An explosion can potentially emit large amounts of emissions, debris, and 

fragments into the air which would disperse within the flight corridor. 

B.2.3 Accident during Landing 

FAA regulations require operators and mission control personnel to monitor and verify the status 

of safety-critical systems before enabling reentry flights to assure the vehicle can reenter safely 

to Earth. Should an anomaly cause an explosion during landing, the ramifications would depend 

on the assembly methods of the vehicle. Falling debris would likely remain within the flight 

corridor, thereby minimizing impacts to public safety, health, property, or the environment. 

Propellants would be incinerated during reentry. 

Launch vehicles retain the capability of terminating engines and aborting mission objectives in 

the event that a problem arises. In case of engine failure, a launch vehicle may be equipped with 

a variety of safety mechanisms that allow an operator to guide the vehicle without engine power 

to an alternate landing site to prevent the launch vehicle and its payload from reaching any 

populated or protected area. Launch vehicles may also be equipped with safety devices such as 

parachutes that provide a soft landing in the event of an emergency. 

B.3 Accidental Release of Propellant or Hazardous Substances 

Accidental spills must be reported to the National Response Center within 24 hours if 

propellants/fuels, oxidizers, and associated materials or other hazardous materials as defined in 

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) § 

101(14) (42 U.S.C. 9601.101(14)) are present on-board the launch vehicle and are spilled in 

volumes greater than the Reportable Quantities established by EPA under CERCLA. Spill 

cleanup shall then be performed in accordance with the procedures defined in the National 

Contingency Plan (outlined in regulation 40 CFR § 300). 

In the event that the launch vehicle releases any extremely hazardous substances (listed in 40 

CFR Part 355), it may also be necessary to notify the State Emergency Response Commission 

and the Local Emergency Planning Committee established under the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act. (EPCRA, 40 CFR §355) 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 C-1 

APPENDIX C 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

In accordance with NEPA and the implementing regulations of CEQ (40 CFR 1500- 

1508) the FAA initiated a public review and comment period for the Draft EA for the Oklahoma 

Spaceport. Twelve comment documents were received during the Draft EA comment period. 

Comment documents received from cooperating agencies and from other lines of business within 

the FAA are not included in this appendix, but were addressed in the Final EA where 

appropriate. 

Several of the comment documents contained more than one comment. Therefore, in this 

appendix the FAA has reproduced the full text of each comment document as provided by the 

commenter. No changes were made to the comment document to correct for grammatical or 

spelling errors. Where appropriate, specific comments within the comment document have been 

identified and reproduced to allow for a specific response by the FAA. 

Exhibit C-1 below provides a summary of the comment documents received during the comment 

period for the Draft EA. The FAA’s responses to these comments appear in the order the 

comment documents are listed in this exhibit. Individual comments are denoted by a dash and 

the comment number, i.e., M004-1 is the first comment within comment document M004. 

Exhibit C-1. Summary of the Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment 

Name Organization Comment Method Date 

Authored 

Comment 

Number 

Ms. Cindy 

Schneberger Private Citizen E-mail 2/12/2006 E001 

Ms. Cindy 

Schneberger Private Citizen E-mail 2/19/2006 E002 

Mr. Robert 

Brooks 

Oklahoma 

Archaeological 

Survey, The University 

of Oklahoma 

Mail 2/7/2006 M001 

Mr. Fred 

Nahwooksy Comanche Tribe Mail 2/21/2006 M002 

Ms. Stephanie 

Krouter 

Oklahoma 

Conservation 

Commission 

Mail 2/13/2006 M003 

Ms. Heidi 

Williams 

Aircraft Owners and 

Pilots Association 

(AOPA) 

Mail 3/8/2006 M004 

Mr. Gary 

Morgan Private Citizen 

Written comment 

received at public 

hearing 

3/9/2006 PHW001 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 C-2 

Name Organization Comment Method Date 

Authored 

Comment 

Number 

Ms. Cindy 

Schneberger Private Citizen 

Oral comment 

received at public 

hearing 

3/9/2006 PHO001 

Senator Gilmer 

Capps Oklahoma State Senate 

Oral comment 

received at public 

hearing 

3/9/2006 PHO002 

Mr. Bill 

Khourie 

Oklahoma Space 

Industry Development 

Authority (OSIDA) 

Oral comment 

received at public 

hearing 

3/9/2006 PHO003 

Mr. Ken 

McGill OSIDA 

Oral comment 

received at public 

hearing 

3/9/2006 PHO004 

Mr. John 

Herrington Rocketplane 

Oral comment 

received at public 

hearing 

3/9/2006 PHO005 

C.1 Ms. Cindy Schneberger, Private Citizen 

C.1.1 Comment Document E001 

Mr. Graham, My name is Cindy Schneberger, about a week ago my husband Chris and I 

received a copy of your Environmental Assessment Draft. We were curious as to why only a 

few people in our area received these books. Some of our neighbors did however receive a disc. 

Could you tell me why only a selected few people have received any type of information about 

your plans on the studies you conducted. Thank you, Cindy Schneberger 

FAA Response to Comment Document E001: The FAA placed an announcement that 

the Draft EA was available for public review and comment in the Federal Register on 

February 3, 2006. More than 150 copies of the Draft EA were produced and distributed. 

Copies were sent to Federal, state, and local agencies who have an interest in this 

proposed project. In addition, copies were sent to those individuals who had indicated 

that they wanted to receive a copy. The FAA received requests for the document starting 

in 2002, when the scoping period began and scoping meetings were held in Burns Flat 

and Oklahoma City. It is likely that you and some of your neighbors requested to receive 

a copy of the document during one of these meetings. To allow for everyone in the 

region to view the document, copies were sent to local public libraries. In addition, the 

Draft EA is available on the project website (www.okspaceporteis.com) and the FAA 

website (http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/comp_coop.htm). The FAA’s public involvement efforts 

are detailed in Section 1.5 of this document. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 C-3 

C.1.2 Comment Document E002 

Could you please tell me why only a very few people like myself received a copy of the 

Environmental Assessment Draft? Thank You Cindy Schneberger 

FAA Response to Comment Document E002: See FAA Response to Comment 

Document E001 above. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 C-4 

C.2 Mr. Robert Brooks, Oklahoma Archeological Survey 

C.2.1 Comment M001-1 

I concur with the assessment that this action will not bring about an effect to cultural resources 

and no treatment measures for nearby archeological and Historic properties nearby are warranted 

at this time. 

FAA Response to Comment M001-1: Thank you for your comment. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 C-5 

C.3 Mr. Fred Nahwooksy, Comanche Tribe 

C.3.1 Comment M002-1 

At this time, the Comanche Nation has no immediate concerns or issues regarding the project; 

however, please keep us informed of the project progress. We also would like to receive any 

archeological reports and findings for the project. 

FAA Response to Comment M002-1: The FAA has included your organization in the 

mailing of the Final EA and will include you in any future mailings if they occur. The 

FAA also will forward you any archeological reports or findings if they become 

available. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 C-6 

C.4 Ms. Stephanie Krouter, Oklahoma Conservation Commission 

C.4.1 Comment M003-1 

The Oklahoma Conservation Commission (OCC) has concerns with the ‘spills or releases of fuel 

or materials that may impact surface water and ground water.’ OCC supports mitigation 

activities to account for this. OCC recommends that special preventative measures be taken 

when preparing aircrafts, testing rocket engines, and preparing launch vehicles so incidental 

spills and releases will not occur. If a spill or release occurs, immediate clean up will need to 

take place. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 C-7 

FAA Response to Comment M003-1: The FAA understands that spills and releases at 

the CSIA would need to be cleaned up immediately. OSIDA or the launch operator 

would be responsible for cleaning up spills, this may include the excavation, removal, 

and proper disposal of any contaminated soil associated with an incidental spill or 

release. As stated in Section 3.7.3.1 of the EA, “The CSIA fire department has developed 

a set of Tactical Guidelines for Fuel Spill Procedures, which establishes responsibility, 

outlines personnel duties, and provides resources and guidelines for use in the control, 

clean-up, and emergency response for spills or releases.” Section 4.7.2.1 of the EA 

describes some of the measures that would be used to contain spills including the use of 

temporary dikes when fueling the vehicles. Finally, Section 6.4 and Exhibit ES-2 of the 

EA discuss mitigation measures that would be used for spill prevention, containment, and 

control. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 C-8 

C.5 Ms. Heidi Williams, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 C-9 

C.5.1 Comment M004-1 

AOPA recognizes the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has a congressional mandate to 

ensure that commercial space launches provide a sufficient level of safety for all users of the 

NAS. However, this mandate does not justify or require temporary or permanent flight 

restrictions. 

FAA Response to Comment M004-1: As stated by the commenter the FAA has a 

congressional mandate to ensure protection of the public, property, and the national 

security and foreign policy interests of the U.S. during a commercial launch or re-entry 

activity and to encourage, facilitate, and promote U.S. commercial space transportation. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 C-10 

To fulfill this mission, the FAA determines what actions are necessary during 

commercial launches to ensure an adequate margin of safety. These actions may include 

temporary or in some instances permanent flight restrictions. As stated in the EA, the 

FAA anticipates that this proposed action and the limited number of launches associated 

with it would only require temporary flight restrictions.

C.5.2 Comment M004-2 

AOPA encourages the FAA to form a working group to examine ways in which commercial 

space transportation can occur seamlessly within the NAS. Considering a majority of the 

proposed launch vehicles will simply be altered versions of certified aircraft, the FAA should 

reasonably be able to provide standard separation services for non-participating aircraft. 

FAA Response M004-2: All launch activities occurring at the CSIA would need to be 

conducted in accordance with established airspace agreements and in coordination with 

the ATRCC. Therefore, the FAA will be able to effectively ensure that commercial space 

transportation can occur within the NAS without the need to establish a workgroup. The 

FAA has staff dedicated to addressing all airspace issues of commercial space launches 

as well as general aviation. The FAA plans to provide separation services for nonparticipating aircraft under their control. For aircraft not under the direct control of Air 

Traffic Control, appropriate Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) will be issued to advise them 

of any potential hazardous operations. 

C.5.3 Comment M004-3 

AOPA is very concerned the draft EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport does not adequately assess 

the impacts that commercial space launches from Burns Flat will have on general aviation flight 

operations. While a number of potential impacts are identified in the draft EA, the study does 

not reveal how those impacts will affect general aviation flight operations at CSM or within the 

State of Oklahoma. For example, page 4-13 says “transporting the vehicle and vehicle 

components to the CSIA could have the potential to impact airspace if this activity were 

accomplished using aircraft.” The draft EA provides no subsequent explanation on how often 

this operation is expected to occur, what impacts this will have on the NAS and airspace users or 

how the FAA will mitigate the impacts. 

FAA Response to Comment M004-3: The remainder of the paragraph on page 

4-13 states “However, because of the relatively small number of aircraft operations that 

would be needed to transport vehicles and vehicle components and the availability of 

airspace in the area, there would be no appreciable degradation of the FAA’s ability to 

control air traffic and provide necessary safety resulting from the transportation of 

vehicles or vehicle components via aircraft.” This infrequent type of aircraft operations 

should not be any different from that of a military cargo aircraft that lands at the CSIA. 

As stated in the EA, the FAA will work to mitigate impacts to airspace by coordinating 

flight and landing times so that they do not interfere with general aviation or other airport 

operations at the CSIA. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 C-11 

C.5.4 Comment M004-4 

In addition, the draft EA mentions temporary flight restrictions may be implemented during 

launches and recoveries from the Oklahoma Spaceport, but does not address the impacts 

associated with those restrictions. 

FAA Response to Comment M004-4: The EA states that it is anticipated that airspace 

closures for flight missions from the CSIA would require a maximum of 2.5 to 3 hours of 

airspace closure. Assuming that this represents a worst case scenario in terms of airspace 

closure time, this would close the airspace at the CSIA for less than 2 percent of the 

available time. Because of the capacity at the CSIA and efforts to conduct launches 

during off-peak airspace use, this would not represent a substantial impact on airspace 

availability at the CSIA. The specific amount of airspace closure time required for each 

mission would be developed in conjunction with OSIDA, ARTCC, and the launch 

operator to ensure flights would not appreciably impact airspace availability for the 

existing aircraft activities at the CSIA. Each mission trajectory would need to have 

specific jet route closures detailed and coordinated through the ARTCC. The FAA would 

implement these temporary airspace closures to ensure the safety of the uninvolved 

public. 

C.5.5 Comment M004-5 

According to the draft EA, the launch corridors have been designed around jet routes, but there is 

no analysis of the impacts to Victor Airways or popular Visual Flight Rules (VFR) transition 

routes associated with the launch. The northwest and southwest corridors that have been 

proposed for the commercial space launches have the potential to impact over 16 Victor Airways 

and restrict all east-west transitions through the State of Oklahoma when coupled with the 

surrounding special-use airspace. These corridors are by de facto, large airspace restrictions that 

potentially prohibit access to the rest of the NAS for aircraft based in and around the proposed 

Oklahoma Spaceport. A complete assessment of the impacts on all airspace routes, both VFR 

and Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) routes, must be incorporated in the final EA before full 

consideration is given to the establishment of the commercial spaceport at CSM. 

FAA Response to Comment M004-5: The EA states that “The descent [of a launch 

vehicle] would be planned and coordinated with the ARTCC prior to the launch to ensure 

that other aircraft operating in the region would not be impacted. During descent, the 

lower level victor routes in the vicinity of the CSIA could be impacted. However, the 

planned landing trajectory would be announced in NOTAMs, to preclude conflicts with 

any other aircraft operating in the area, including aircraft operating under VFR. In 

addition, as stated above, the temporary closures would, at a maximum, affect the 

airspace for no more than two percent of the available time. The EA also notes that 

efforts would be made to schedule the up to 54 annual launches at times when the 

airspace is not heavily used to further mitigate possible impacts to other users. As 

required, the EA provides an analysis that is commensurate with the potential for impact 

resulting from the proposed action and reasonable alternatives. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 C-12 

C.5.6 Comment M004-6 

AOPA contends that the large amount of ambiguity that exists in the draft EA must be 

eliminated, and the FAA must fully examine the impacts of the proposed spaceport establishment 

on general aviation operations. In the draft EA, the FAA does not assume to even know the 

anticipated flight mission at the Oklahoma Spaceport (described on page 4-14). The full impact 

to the NAS cannot be analyzed without detailed knowledge and an explanation of the anticipated 

launch mission. 

FAA Response to Comment M004-6: The purpose of this document is to analyze the 

environmental impacts of issuing a launch site operator license to OSIDA for the CSIA. 

Flight mission details for specific flights are not required for issuing a launch site 

operator license. The proposed flights at the CSIA would fall within the scope of 

Concept X, Y and Z launch vehicles as outlined in Section 2.1.4 in the EA. In addition, 

the FAA has determined a maximum number of launches that would be allowed to occur 

from the facility in any given year. These up to 54 annual launches would require 

temporary closures of the airspace representing less than two percent of the available 

time. The FAA would further mitigate the impact of launch activities on other airspace 

users by coordinating and scheduling launch activities during times of off-peak airspace 

use. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 C-13 

C.6 Mr. Gary Morgan 

C.6.1 Comment PHW001 

FAA Response to Comment PHW001: Thank you for your comment. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 C-14 

C.7 Ms. Cindy Schneberger 

C.7.1 Comment PHO001-1 

You know, a lot of people have a lot of questions that they don’t ever get answered. And the one 

thing that concerned me is like the territory called the Spaceport Territory. And of course, my 

home’s in that. And a lot of them wonder what you can do for that? 

Now, is this Spaceport Territory, is that the land, the air, or what is that? 

FAA Response to Comment PHO0001-1: The Spaceport Territory is a geographic land 

area designed to provide a launch pad and area contiguous to a spaceport. This 

geographic area would be used to protect the surrounding area from health and safety 

hazards as a result of the operation of the spaceport. The OSIDA Board of Directors was 

given the authority to regulate development within the Spaceport Territory. The Board 

may increase or decrease the geographical limits of the Spaceport Territory upon written 

consent of the simple majority of all land owners included within the existing territory, or 

by vote of a majority of landowners in the area to be annexed or excluded. The proposed 

action being considered in this EA did not consider the need for a launch pad or an area 

contiguous to a spaceport because only horizontal launches were anticipated to occur 

from the proposed location. 

C.7.2 Comment PHO0001-2 

And then, also like the statistics of how much the value of our homes and minerals and things 

listed in the book, that concerns me because I paid a lot more for my home that what’s listed. 

And I know that you put this up and you can always say, well, now, when I come in there I can 

just take it for nothing. 

But that’s just concerns that I’m saying for the people that live in this area. And, you know, I 

would just like to have some of those questions answered about, you know, the territory and 

where you got your statistics for the value of land and property and homes? 

FAA Response to Comment PHO001-2: Determining the property values of private land 

within the Spaceport Territory is outside of the scope of this EA. As noted in the EA, the 

Spaceport Territory was designated by the Oklahoma State legislature, not the FAA. The 

EA states that “This Spaceport Territory was designated to provide a launch pad and a 

geographic area contiguous to a launch facility that would be used to protect the 

surrounding areas from health and safety hazards as a result of the operation of the launch 

facility. In addition to establishing the Territory, the Legislature also established a 

Spaceport Territory Advisory Council made up of a member of the Washita County 

Commissioners and the Mayors of Burns Flat and Canute. Their authority includes 

setting zoning, collecting fees, ownership of utilities and roads, and the power to 

condemn up to 10 hectares (25 acres) of land in the territory. Section 3.9.3.1 provides 

more detail on the Spaceport Territory.” 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 C-15 

The purchase of private land within the Spaceport Territory was not considered necessary 

as a result of this proposed action. The types of activities proposed to be conducted at the 

CSIA would not warrant the creation of a larger safety barrier than already exists at the 

CSIA. If the scope of the proposed action changes to includes different types of activities 

at the CSIA in the future, the FAA would evaluate the potential environmental impacts of 

those actions. However, details specific to the purchase price of land in the future or the 

property value of that land would be outside the scope of the FAA’s purview. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 C-16 

C.8 Senator Gilmer Capps 

C.8.1 Comment PHO002 

I didn’t know I was going to be first. 

Well, first of all, I’m State Senator Gilmer Capps, and I’ve been in the Senate for 36 – this is my 

36th year and I’ve been in Clinton-Sherman Industrial Park in my district here since I’ve been in 

office. In fact, I was elected about two or three years after the base went out. 

But I am very excited about this project. We have tried to get industry to come in to the ClintonSherman for a number of years. We’ve had some that have come in but not many of them that 

would relate to the air travel or the Aerospace Industry for sure. 

As most of you know, we became involved when it looked like the Federal Building and the 

Lockheed-Martin and Boeing and the rest of them was working on a deal which would be the 

new space vehicle which was called Victory Star [sic.] I went out on that a couple of times and 

we looked at Victory Star [sic.] and we have some slides to look at and they wanted it to be a site 

and we qualified there. 

They wanted it to be in a sparsely populated area. We don’t like it that we are but we are in a 

sparsely populated area. An within, you know, my 36 years, I’ve feel like this is the only 

industry we can get to take advantage of those things I just mentioned. And our whole purpose 

is to teach young people and work with them and make sure they’re home and in Oklahoma. 

Now, you people we have an outstanding company. In fact, I have had two or three companies – 

14 companies looked at Clinton-Sherman. We’ve had about three companies in Oklahoma. 

Optic Planes is probably the leading one. And I went up to Guthrie at the airport today. Of 

course, they are working on their vehicle. And we are leading the other states. And I had the 

chance to be in New Mexico recently and they was fearful that we would be giving them 

competition. And our statement to them was, well, we want to work with you because we are 

going to need Spaceports in New Mexico and Oklahoma so we can go back and forth and John 

can fly the vehicle from one Spaceport to the other. It’s just very existing bit it’s real. 

A lot of people have had trouble saying, it’s not going to happen. But let me tell you what, I 

have traveled this United States probably at the expense of you taxpayers, but let me tell you 

what, I have met a lot of interesting people in the space industry and they love Oklahoma. You 

have to get out of the state or almost out of the United States to find out what Oklahoma has. 

Japan has found out about us, they love us. And I tell you what, it’s just one of the best things 

I’ve seen in my 36 years. 

Mr. Graham, I appreciate you working with us. I was in the FAA office with Patricia Graysmith 

[sic.] on 9-11, remember that day? That’s where I was when the plane hit the Pentagon in D.C. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 C-17 

It looks good and we appreciate all of the help that the FAA has given us and, people, let’s just 

make it happen. Thank you. 

FAA Response to Comment PHO002: Thank you for your comment. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 C-18 

C.9 Mr. Bill Khourie 

C.9.1 Comment PHO003 

Good evening and thank you all for being here this evening. We’ve waited a long time for this 

meeting to happen. We’ve been working several years to make this come to this point and time, 

not only to help Oklahoma prosper, Western Oklahoma, our young people, the Aerospace 

Industry, we are bringing attention to Oklahoma at a point in time where it’s not only national 

but it’s global. 

I’m excited about this and on many different occasions I’ve have people ask me is this really 

going to happen? Yes, it’s really going to happen. It’s going to happen with your assistance. 

We’re excited about it. We’ve got a group of board members and a chairman that have worked 

extremely hard and have gone way above and beyond the call of duty to make sure that we 

stayed focused on our mission and that we are able to obtain the goals that we are setting out to 

attain. Over to your left, our Chairman Ken McGill, next to him Don Rodolf, Mr. Joe King, Mr. 

Sims from Hobart, Phil Clever, Todd Russ. 

They’ve worked very diligently on behalf of this agency and the State of Oklahoma and for you 

so that hopefully we can bring high-tech industry to Oklahoma and provide opportunities for our 

young people. 

FAA Response to Comment PHO003: Thank you for your comment. 

 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 C-19 

C.10 Mr. Ken McGill 

C.10.1 Comment PHO004 

A transcript copy of this statement was not available. Mr. McGill expressed support of the 

proposed spaceport on behalf of OSIDA and gave an update on OSIDA’s vision and proposed 

schedule for the spaceport. 

FAA Response to Comment PHO004: Thank you for your comment. 
Final EA for the Oklahoma Spaceport 

 C-20 

C.11 Mr. John Herrington 

C.11.1 Comment PHO005 

A transcript copy of this statement was not available. Mr. Herrington expressed support of the 

proposed spaceport on behalf of Rocketplane and gave a statement on his professional 

experience and Rocketplane’s proposed operations at the CSIA. 

FAA Response to Comment PHO005: Thank you for your comment.