FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

FOR THE EAST KERN AIRPORT 

DISTRICT LAUNCH SITE OPERATOR 

LICENSE FOR THE MOJAVE 

AIRPORT

Prepared for the

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Associate Administrator

for Commercial Space Transportation

Washington, DC 20591

February 18, 2004
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE

EAST KERN AIRPORT DISTRICT LAUNCH SITE OPERATOR LICENSE FOR 

THE MOJAVE AIRPORT

FEDERAL AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Associate 

Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST)

STATE AGENCY: East Kern Airport District (EKAD)

PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) the FAA initiated a public review and comment period of the Draft 

Environmental Assessment (EA)/Initial Study for the EKAD Launch Site Operator 

License for the Mojave Airport. A public meeting was held in Mojave, California on 

December 10, 2003 to record comments from the public. The comments were addressed 

in a Comment Response Document and in the Final EA as appropriate. 

ABSTRACT: The Final EA for the EKAD Launch Site Operator License for the 

Mojave Airport addresses the environmental impacts of the proposed action of issuing a 

launch site operator license to the EKAD for the Mojave Airport. This launch site 

operator license would be for the purpose of operating a facility to launch horizontally 

launched, suborbital rockets. In addition, the EKAD may offer other services for 

commercial launch companies at the Mojave Airport including static engine firings, 

launch vehicle manufacturing, and other testing and manufacturing activities. These 

services and other testing and manufacturing activities are unrelated to, and are not 

authorized by the Launch Site Operator License. 

Potential impacts of the proposed action on resource areas including air quality; airspace; 

biological resources; cultural resources; geology and soils; hazardous materia ls and 

hazardous waste management; land use; noise; socioeconomic impacts and 

environmental justice; transportation; visual and aesthetic resources; water resources; and 

secondary or induced impacts were considered in this EA. In addition, the following 

topics required under 1050.1 D are covered in the EA under the following sections: the 

analysis of Farmlands and DOT Act § 4(f) appears in the “Land Use” section, the 

analysis of Natural Resources and Energy and Wild and Scenic Rivers appears in the 

“Water Resources” section, and the Wetlands analysis appears in the “Biological 

Resources” section. 

Cumulative impacts from the proposed action were also considered for all of the abovementioned resource areas.

CONTACT INFORMATION: Questions regarding the proposed action and the Final 

EA for the EKAD Launch Site Operator License for the Mojave Airport; can be 

addressed to Ms. Michon Washington, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the 

Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, Suite 331/AST-100, 800 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; e-mail 

Michon.Washington@faa.gov or phone (202) 267-9305. 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
ES-1 February 2004

Executive Summary

Introduction

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

launch site operator license to the East Kern Airport District (EKAD) to operate a launch 

facility at the Mojave Airport. The FAA may also issue launch licenses to individual 

operators for launches from the Mojave Airport. 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 

for 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). Two Federal agencies are involved in this 

proposed action, the FAA as the lead agency responsible for licensing the proposed 

activities at the facility and the U.S. Air Force (USAF) as a cooperating agency. The Air 

Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC) is the host organization at Edwards Air Force Base 

(AFB) that manages the special use airspace designated as Restricted Area R-2515. The 

R-2508 Joint Policy and Planning Board (JPPB) manages other joint use airspace within 

the R-2508 Complex. The R-2508 Complex Control Board represents the JPPB in 

exercising supervisory management of the R-2508 Complex. The AFFTC and the R2508 Complex Control Board would allow the vehicles launched from the Mojave 

Airport to operate in airspace that they each manage. The AFFTC also operates the 

runway and airfield that would serve as the primary emergency landing site for the 

launches. These entities also have responsibility for the environment and assets on the 

ground, which have the potential to be affected by launches. Therefore, the FAA 

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

of NEPA analysis for this proposed action.

Issuing a launch site operator license is considered a Federal action and is subject to 

review 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 FAA will 

be the lead Federal Agency for the NEPA process and the USAF will be a cooperating 

agency on this proposed action. 

Because this proposed action would take place in California, it is also necessary for the 

requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to be met in the 

environmental analysis. The EKAD owns and operates the Mojave Airport and must 

comply with CEQA to operate a launch facility at the Mojave Airport. The EKAD will 

be the lead agency for the CEQA process. The EKAD has determined that this 

Environmental Assessment (EA) will also serve as the Initial Study for CEQA. The 

Initial Study is prepared to determine whether it is necessary to prepare an Environmental 

Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration. In this instance, EKAD determined that 
ES-2 February 2004

it was appropriate to prepare a Negative Declaration, which was adopted by the EKAD 

Board of Directors on December 16, 2003. 

Purpose and Need

The Mojave Airport would serve as an alternative location to Federal facilities or other 

commercial sites for launching horizontally launched, suborbital vehicles. The Mojave 

Airport already serves as a location to test aircraft and this would allow the EKAD to 

offer the Mojave Airport to existing customers wishing to conduct launch operations. 

These operations may include for-profit launch services. For-profit launch services may 

include tourism activities, selling merchandise flown in the vehicle, or other activities. 

These activities are consistent with the objectives of the Commercial Space Launch Act. 

Description of Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative

The EKAD has identified two types of launch vehicles, identified in this analysis as 

Concept A and Concept B, which would be typical of the vehicles that would operate 

from the Mojave Airport. The proposed action/preferred alternative would include 

launches of both Concept A and Concept B launch vehicles. The potential users of the 

launch 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 an environmental determination of the impacts 

of these launches to support subsequent licensing decisions for the launch of specific 

launch vehicles from the Mojave Airport. 

The activities included in this analysis are the launch of suborbital rockets as described in 

Concept A and Concept B, and the testing of rocket engines. The FAA does not license 

specific vehicles or the ground tests of rocket engines, only launches of vehicles and the 

operation of launch and reentry sites. The environmental impacts of the engine tests at 

the Mojave Airport are included in this document because they are related activities. 

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

including hangars and runways would be used to support proposed launch and landing 

operations at the site. Existing rocket engine test stands may also be used for static tests 

of rocket engines. Engines that are tested would be incorporated into vehicles that are 

launched from the Mojave Airport, or they would be incorporated into vehicles that are 

launched at other facilities.

The scope of this analysis considers the use of the Mojave Airport for launch of 

horizontally launched Concept A and Concept B vehicles, into suborbital trajectories and 

their landing, and static tests of engines.

Description of Alternatives and No Action

The FAA considered two alternatives to the proposed action in this EA. The first 

alternative would be to issue a launch site operator license to the EKAD for the Mojave 
ES-3 February 2004

Airport for inclusion of launch vehicles specifically fitting the description of Concept A. 

The second alternative would be to issue a launch site operator license to the EKAD for 

the Mojave Airport for inclusion of launch vehicles specifically fitting the description of 

Concept B.

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue a launch site operator license 

and there would be no commercial launches from the Mojave Airport. The EKAD would 

not be able to operate a commercial launch facility at the Mojave Airport. The Mojave 

Airport facility would continue to be available for existing aviation and testing activities. 

Under the no action alternative, there would be no change to existing conditions at the 

airport. 

Environmental Consequences

This section summarizes the conclusions of the analyses made for each of the resource 

areas considered.

Safety and Health. A hazard analysis is a necessary part of the Mission and Safety 

Review for the FAA licensing determination to assess the possible hazards associated 

with proposed ground, flight, and landing operations. Launches of Concept A and B 

vehicles from the Mojave Airport would require launch specific licenses from the FAA

and each launch applicant would be required to conduct risk analyses based on the 

proposed mission profiles. The Mission and Safety Review would consider these 

analyses, and, therefore, they will not be discussed in detail in this EA. However, 

analysis of the safety and health implications of launch related operations and activities 

that have the potential for environmental impact are considered in this EA. 

Ground operations involved in servicing and preparing the launch vehicle typically 

involve industrial activities. There are various hazards associated with these activities 

including

ß Spill/fire/explosion of propellant/fuel storage, transport, handling, and loading;

ß Traffic accidents due to increased activity on and off site; and 

ß Occupational mechanical accidents.

There would be some vapors of various propellants released from propellant 

storage/transfer operations through evaporative losses. However, such vapors would be 

vented outside and at a height that would provide adequate protection for personnel, 

buildings and the environment. Also, the total quantity of emissions would not occur as a 

large acute (short term) exposure, but would occur as a slow vapor release over a long 

period of time. There is also the concern of spills of propellants during handling and 

loading operations and subsequent fire or explosion. However, the Mojave Airport has 

established practices and procedures to handle the spills and releases of propellants. 

Increased road traffic that would result from conducting the proposed launch operations 

at the Mojave Airport would only add a few cars/trucks above existing traffic loads. 
ES-4 February 2004

However, the increase in the number of shipments of hazardous materials should not 

significantly increase the number of traffic accidents on the roadways around the Mojave 

Airport.

On-site work associated with the conduct of launch operations would be similar to that 

associated with industrial chemical operations. Exposure to mechanical accidents should 

not differ significantly from current levels for the Mojave Airport because the number of 

operations associated with the conduct of launch operations would be relatively small 

given the number of operations airport wide.

In a catastrophic accident, it would be likely that the crew would be seriously injured or 

killed. At the Airport, the on-site fire department could respond, secure the site, but 

would stay clear of the immediate area until the danger of explosions diminishes. It is 

expected that any fires resulting from a failure could be fought by the fire department. 

Additional off-site emergency response capability could also be used if necessary.

Air Quality. Under Federal law, it would be necessary to conduct a conformity analysis 

for criteria pollutants that do not meet Federal attainment standards. Eastern Kern 

County is in Federal serious non-attainment for ozone. A Federal agency cannot support 

an action (e.g., fund, license) unless the activity will conform to the EPA-approved State 

Implementation Plan for the region. This is called a conformity determination or 

analysis. A conformity analysis may involve performing air quality modeling and 

implementing measures to mitigate the air quality impacts. The Federal government is 

exempt from the requirement to perform a conformity analysis if two conditions are met. 

ß The ongoing activities do not produce emissions above the de minimis levels 

specified in the rule. 

ß The Federal action must not be considered a regionally significant action. A Federal 

action is considered regionally significant when the total emissions from the action 

equal or exceed 10 percent of the air quality control area’s emissions inventory for 

any criteria pollutant.

However, the proposed action would not increase the levels above de minimis levels and 

a Federal conformity analysis would not be triggered. None of the emissions are 

expected to expose the nearby population or sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 

concentrations. Also, the emission products should not expose the population to 

objectionable odors of types that do not already exist from airport operations (e.g., fuel 

and exhaust odors).

Airspace. No significant impacts to Mojave Airport airspace would occur as a result of 

the proposed action. The additional operations that are part of the proposed action would 

represent an increase in activity of 0.3 percent. This increase would not exceed the 

capabilities of the Mojave Airport facilities and control tower and would not result in a 

significantly higher probability of in-flight mishaps. No significant impacts to off-site 

airspace would occur as a result of the proposed action. The proposed action would 

occur almost exclusively in the R-2508 Complex. However, any flights into the 
ES-5 February 2004

R-2508 Complex that are part of the proposed action that would create a significant 

impact to military activities would be prohibited by the scheduling and controlling 

agencies. Thus, the proposed action would not result in long-term changes to military 

operations or training within restricted airspace.

Biological Resources. No development activities are planned and therefore, adverse 

effects to vegetation, including Joshua trees and creosote scrub, are not anticipated. 

Although the designated abort sites include areas where sensitive habitat and species may 

be present, the probability of emergency landings at these sites is low, and therefore 

significant impacts to vegetation found at these sites would not be anticipated. The 

proposed action would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or 

other sensitive natural community because such areas have not been identified on or near 

the airport.

The Mojave Airport has been identified as being part of an “urbanized, non-sensitive” 

area where a biological survey would not be required. The desert tortoise and Mohave 

ground squirrel, historically occurred throughout the Region of Influence (ROI) and have 

limited potential to occur almost anywhere within the ROI. If a desert tortoise or Mohave 

ground squirrel were discovered at the airport, personnel would follow appropriate U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and State of California Department of Fish and Game protocols 

to ensure their protection. The FAA contacted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

initiate informal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. After 

review of potential impacts, the FAA determined that the proposed action is not likely to 

adversely affect listed species or critical habitat and the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service 

concurred. 

The brief sonic boom noise events associated with the flight of Concept A or B vehicles 

could elicit a short-term startle response in wildlife but no long-term adverse impacts are 

expected.

Cultural Resources. Potential impacts to cultural resources would be associated generally 

with the noise produced during flights and could include physical damage to buildings, 

structures or rock features through accident or vibration, visual or audible impacts to the 

setting of cultural resources, and disturbance of traditional activities, such as religious 

ceremonies or subsistence hunting. 

The breakup of the Concept A or B vehicles during a crash and subsequent recovery 

activities could directly impact cultural resources on the ground. These resources may be 

located above or below ground and may be known or unknown resources. If falling 

debris hit specific assets on the ground, those resources would likely be destroyed. Crash 

cleanup activities could also disturb nearby resources. However, because the probability 

of a crash is extremely low, and cultural resources are widely dispersed throughout the 

region, it is unlikely that debris would impact a cultural site. If any site were discovered, 

the State Historic Preservation Office would be notified and any protocols to ensure 

protection would be followed. Based on the FAA’s review of the proposed action under 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the FAA determined that the 
ES-6 February 2004

project would have no adverse effect on historic properties. The SHPO concurred with 

the FAA’s determination and the consultation was concluded.

Geology and Soils. The breakup of Concept A or B vehicles during a crash and 

subsequent recovery activities could directly impact geology or soils. However, because 

the probability of a crash is extremely low, it is unlikely that debris or residual propellant 

would significantly impact geology or soils. The proposed action would not result in a 

loss of known mineral resources or result in the loss of availability of a locally important 

mineral resource recovery site identified in a land use plan. The proposed action would 

not change the ground surface and would have no impact on existing landslide and 

erosion risk. The Mojave Airport is outside the 100-year flood plain. 

 

Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management. For both Concept A and B 

vehicles, the primary hazardous materials used would be propellants. All propellants and 

other hazardous materials would be stored and used in compliance with regulations 

applicable to their storage and use, and already in place at Mojave Airport. No adverse 

impacts would be anticipated from these additional hazardous materials.

Land Use. No significant impacts to land use would occur as a result of the proposed 

action. The proposed action does not include any construction, additions, or 

modifications to the airport facilities that would physically divide an established 

community. Therefore, the proposed action would not result in a conflict with an 

applicable land use, habitat conservation, or natural community conservation plan.

No farmlands or agricultural use lands are located on the Mojave Airport; farmlands in 

the ROI already experience flyovers of aircraft similar in size, power, and noise level to 

those already using the Mojave Airport. The noise impacts on sensitive land uses is 

addressed in the noise analysis. The vehicles would pass over any farmland areas at an 

altitude that would have no significant impacts. No prime farmland, unique farmland, 

farmland of state importance, or general farmland would be converted to a nonagricultural use as a result of the proposed action. No conflicts with existing agricultural 

uses or Williamson contracts would occur as a result of the proposed action.

No parks or recreational facilities are located on the Mojave Airport. The proposed 

action would not result in the physical deterioration of park or recreational facilities in the 

off-site ROI. The proposed action would not require the construction or expansion of 

recreational facilities that would have an adverse effect on the environment.

Noise. No significant impacts to noise levels at the Mojave Airport would occur as a 

result of the proposed action. Approximately 1,226 jet aircraft takeoff and land at the 

Mojave Airport annually. The Mojave Airport would be exposed to a total of 4.4 minutes 

per week of additional high intensity noise level of 90 dB under the proposed action. The 

total time of additional high intensity noise levels is likely overestimated due to 

conservative assumptions of launch vehicles and launch time periods. In addition, the 

noise source would be moving and the impacts to a particular location would only be a 

fraction of the total time. 
ES-7 February 2004

The Mojave community currently experiences high noise levels from military jet takeoffs 

and landings and stationary rocket tests. Sensitive receptors in the Mojave community 

such as schools and residential areas already experience high intensity noise levels above 

90 dBA. An additional 4.4 minutes per week of high intensity noise levels would not 

cause significant impacts to sensitive receptors and would not elevate the average noise 

level above the acceptable levels of 65 CNEL or 65 Ldn. (Kern County, 2003c) 

The predicted overpressure at ground level for sonic booms produced by Concept A and 

B vehicles flying at approximately 21,341 to 24,390 meters (70,000 to 80,000 feet) above 

mean sea level would be approximately 5.86 kilograms per square meter (1.2 pounds per 

square foot). Launches from the Mojave Airport would only occur during daytime hours. 

Ten daytime sonic booms of 4.88 kilograms per square meter (1 pound per square foot) 

everyday for a year would yield an Ldn of 65 dBA. An Ldn of 65 dBA is the accepted 

level for outdoor noise levels related to transportation. The maximum overpressure 

expected from the proposed action would be greater than 4.88 kilograms per square meter 

(1 pound per square foot), but only 1.1 sonic booms per week would occur. 

This would make the impacts from the sonic booms equal to or less than the acceptable 

65 dBA level for outdoor noise levels related to transportation. In addition, the Mojave 

Airport currently experiences sonic boom noise exposure from supersonic military jets 

and supersonic Space Shuttle testing at Edwards AFB.

The noise levels in the Mojave community associated with sonic booms would be less 

than 65 dBA Ldn and less than 65 dBA CNEL. The entire Mojave community including 

sensitive receptors currently experiences sonic boom noise exposure from aircraft 

operating in the R-2508 Complex. The proposed action would not constitute a significant 

increase in noise level to the community.

Annoyance created by sonic booms is a function of boom intensity, number of booms per 

time period, attitude of the population, and the activity in which people were engaged in 

at the time of the boom. There is no precise relationship between the parameters. A 

noise study found that 10 percent of subjects exposed to 10 to 15 booms per day were 

annoyed at an overpressure of one pound per square foot and that this reached nearly 100 

percent at three pounds per square foot. However, people may be more sensitive when 

exposed to numerous booms per day, while prior experience with sonic booms (such as 

people who live on an Air Force Base) seems to lower sensitivity. Other studies indicate 

that there is a wide range in estimating percent annoyed ranging from 10 percent to 70 

percent at one pound per square foot and 55 percent to approximately 100 percent at three 

pounds per square foot. 

Socioeconomic Impacts and Environmental Justice. Since no new development would be 

required to support the proposed action, and only existing personnel would be used to 

conduct launch activities, the proposed action would not induce substantial changes in the 

population, employment, demand for housing, or infrastructure in the community of 

Mojave. Since the proposed action does not involve an influx of workers to the Mojave 

Airport, under normal launch and landing procedures, additional on- or off-site public or 
ES-8 February 2004

emergency servic es, including firefighters, security, or medical services would not be 

required. 

Since no construction activities would be required to issue a launch site operator license 

to EKAD for the Mojave Airport and only existing personnel would be used to conduct 

launch activities, the proposed action would not have an impact on the health or 

environment of minority or low-income populations located at or near the airport. Both 

Concept A and Concept B launch vehicles could cause sonic booms, which could impact 

local communities, including environmental justice groups. Noise levels generated 

during sonic booms would be short-term in nature and overall predicted noise levels 

would not exceed ambient noise levels in residential areas. 

Transportation. The Mojave Airport is located at the crossroads of major north-south and 

east-west roadways. The small number of additional passenger vehicles and delivery 

trucks anticipated as part of the proposed action would not increase traffic congestion or 

cause a decline in the Level of Service.

Visual and Aesthetic Resources. Concept A and B launch vehicles would resemble 

traditional airplanes while in flight, and the visual landscape already includes airplanes in 

flight. Both Concept A and B launch vehicles would leave visible contrails, but they 

would be similar in visual impact to contrails from existing flight operations. Because 

this area is already used for takeoffs and landings of airplanes, the visual sensitivity is 

low. The proposed action would not substantia lly degrade the existing visual character or 

quality of the site and its surroundings and would have no adverse effect on a scenic vista 

or scenic resources, as there are none in the area. 

Water Resources. No significant impacts to on-site or off-site water resources would 

occur as a result of the proposed action. The proposed action would not cause impacts to 

existing drainage patterns that would result in increased erosion, siltation, or on-site 

flooding. The proposed action would not involve the generation of additional storm 

water or of additional sources of pollutants that could be washed away during storm 

events. The existing storm water system and permit would be adequate for the proposed 

action. Because no construction or expansion to the existing facilities would occur, the 

proposed action would not substantially deplete ground water supplies either on- or offsite or interfere with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in 

aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table. In the event of a 

catastrophic accident, debris, wreckage, or unused propellant could impact drainage 

patterns, storm water flows, or ground water. But, the small size of the proposed vehicles 

and the low probability of a catastrophic event would make the impacts insignificant. 

Extensive emergency response and clean-up procedures would further reduce the 

magnitude and duration of any impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts. The proposed action would not exceed de minimis levels for 

criteria pollutants and the percent of the air quality control areas emissions inventory for 

any criteria pollutant. Total CO2 emissions from all sources in the U.S. were 5,159 

million metric tons (5,687 million tons) in 1994. The proposed action would account for 
ES-9 February 2004

an increase of only a fraction (less than 0.000002%) of these CO2 emissions. 

Consequently, the total expected CO2 emissions from the proposed action would be 

insignificant. There would be no emissions that directly affect ozone depletion. 

Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts to air quality are expected. 

Because of the volume of air traffic that utilizes this area already and the structured 

scheduling procedures in place for joint-use of the R-2508 Complex, the proposed action 

would have no significant cumulative effects on airspace.

Ten daytime sonic booms of 4.88 kilograms per square meter (1 pound per square foot) 

everyday for a year would yield an Ldn of 65 dBA. (DoD, 2002a) An Ldn of 65 dBA is 

the accepted level for outdoor noise levels rela ted to transportation. In the EA for the 

Orbital Reentry Corridor for Generic Unmanned Lifting Entry Vehicle Landing at 

Edwards AFB, the USAF considered up to 12 flights per year. Currently an average of 

two military jet aircraft take off and/or land at the Mojave Airport per day. These 

military aircraft are capable of producing sonic booms. Even in the worst case scenario, 

i.e., one launch from the Mojave Airport, one launch of the proposed generic unmanned 

lifting entry vehicle from Edwards AFB, and two jet aircraft take offs or landings from 

the Mojave Airport, there would not be more than 10 sonic booms generated per day in 

the ROI. Therefore, there would be no significant cumulative impacts to noise from the 

proposed action. 

No significant cumulative impacts to biological, cultural, geologic, mineral, visual and 

aesthetic, or water resources would occur as a result of the proposed action. No 

significant cumulative impacts would result from hazardous materials or hazardous waste 

used or produced as a result of the proposed action. No significant cumulative impacts to 

land use, socioeconomics, environmental justice, or transportation would occur as a result 

of the proposed action.

Detailed analyses of safety and related issues would be addressed in the FAA’s Mission 

and Safety Review prior to issuing a launch license. However, safety and health analyses 

of operations that have the potential for environmental impact were considered in the EA 

and were determined to have no significant cumulative impacts on the environment.

Although the proposed action would support and facilitate limited growth, it would not 

induce growth. Additionally, there would be no specific future development activities 

currently known that would be dependent on the proposed action. Therefore no 

secondary impacts are expected to result from the proposed action. 
ES-10 February 2004

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
i February 2004

Table of Contents

1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background ......................................................................................................... 5

1.2 Purpose and Need................................................................................................ 8

1.3 Public Involvement ............................................................................................. 8

1.4 Related Environmental Documentation.............................................................. 9

2. Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives................................................... 11

2.1 Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative ............................................................. 11

2.1.1 Mojave Airport.......................................................................................... 12

2.1.1.1 Ground Facilities................................................................................... 13

2.1.1.2 Decommissioning Activities................................................................. 15

2.1.2 Operations in Special Use Airspace.......................................................... 15

2.1.3 Concept A................................................................................................. 15

2.1.3.1 Description of Launch Vehicle ............................................................. 15

2.1.3.2 Description of Flight Profile ................................................................. 16

2.1.3.3 Description of Pre-Launch, Launch, and Landing Activities ............... 16

2.1.3.4 Description of Proposed Payloads ........................................................ 17

2.1.3.5 Launch Manifest ................................................................................... 17

2.1.4 Concept B.................................................................................................. 17

2.1.4.1 Description of Launch Vehicles............................................................ 17

2.1.4.2 Description of Flight Profile ................................................................. 19

2.1.4.3 Description of Pre-Launch, Launch, and Landing Activities ............... 20

2.1.4.4 Description of Proposed Payloads ........................................................ 21

2.1.4.5 Launch Manifest ................................................................................... 21

2.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action................................................................. 21

2.2.1 Alternative 1 - Concept A Only ................................................................ 22

2.2.2 Alternative 2 - Concept B Only ................................................................ 22

2.3 No Action Alternative ....................................................................................... 22

2.4 Alternatives Considered But Not Carried Forward .......................................... 22

2.4.1 Alternative Locations/Configurations within Mojave Airport ................. 22

2.4.2 Alternative Launch Vehicles..................................................................... 23

2.4.3 Alternative Missions Including Reentries................................................. 23

3. Affected Environment............................................................................................... 25

3.1 Overview of the Proposed Operational Area .................................................... 25

3.2 Air Quality ........................................................................................................ 28

3.2.1 Definition of Resource .............................................................................. 28

3.2.2 Existing Conditions................................................................................... 31

3.3 Airspace ............................................................................................................ 34

3.3.1 Definition of Resource .............................................................................. 34

3.3.2 Existing Conditions................................................................................... 36

3.4 Biological Resources......................................................................................... 40

3.4.1 Definition of Resource .............................................................................. 40

3.4.2 Existing Conditions................................................................................... 42

3.5 Cultural, Historic, and Native American Resources......................................... 48

3.5.1 Definition of Resource .............................................................................. 48
ii February 2004

3.5.2 Existing Conditions................................................................................... 49

3.6 Geology and Soils............................................................................................. 52

3.6.1 Definition of Resource .............................................................................. 52

3.6.2 Existing Conditions................................................................................... 52

3.7 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management................................ 54

3.7.1 Definition of Resource .............................................................................. 54

3.7.2 Existing Conditions................................................................................... 54

3.8 Land Use ........................................................................................................... 56

3.8.1 Definition of Resource .............................................................................. 56

3.8.2 Existing Conditions................................................................................... 57

3.9 Noise ................................................................................................................. 65

3.9.1 Definition of Resource .............................................................................. 65

3.9.2 Existing Conditions................................................................................... 66

3.10 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ..................................................... 70

3.10.1 Definition of Resource .............................................................................. 70

3.10.2 Existing Conditions................................................................................... 70

3.11 Transportation................................................................................................... 75

3.11.1 Definition of Resource .............................................................................. 75

3.11.2 Existing Conditions................................................................................... 75

3.12 Visual and Aesthetic Resources........................................................................ 76

3.12.1 Definition of Resource .............................................................................. 76

3.12.2 Existing Conditions................................................................................... 78

3.13 Water Resources ............................................................................................... 80

3.13.1 Definition of Resource .............................................................................. 80

3.13.2 Existing Conditions................................................................................... 81

4. Safety and Health...................................................................................................... 86

4.1 Existing Safety and Health Conditions ............................................................. 86

4.1.1 Airspace and Air Traffic ........................................................................... 86

4.1.2 Existing Airport Operations...................................................................... 90

4.2 Hazard Analysis Including Safety and Health Protections ............................... 92

4.2.1 Ground Operations.................................................................................... 93

4.2.1.1 Propellant Storage, Transport, Handling, and Loading Accidents ....... 94

4.2.1.2 Traffic Accidents................................................................................... 96

4.2.1.3 Occupational Mechanical Accidents..................................................... 96

4.2.2 Flight/Airspace and Landing Operations .................................................. 96

4.2.3 Catastrophic Accidents Scenarios............................................................. 98

5. Environmental Impacts........................................................................................... 105

5.1 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 105

5.1.1 Proposed Action...................................................................................... 105

5.1.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................ 115

5.1.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................ 115

5.2 Airspace .......................................................................................................... 115

5.2.1 Proposed Action...................................................................................... 116

5.2.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................ 117

5.2.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................ 117

5.3 Biological Resources....................................................................................... 117
iii February 2004

5.3.1 Proposed Action...................................................................................... 118

5.3.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................ 121

5.3.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................ 121

5.4 Cultural Resources.......................................................................................... 121

5.4.1 Proposed Action...................................................................................... 122

5.4.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................ 123

5.4.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................ 124

5.5 Geology and Soils........................................................................................... 124

5.5.1 Proposed Action...................................................................................... 124

5.5.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................ 125

5.5.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................ 126

5.6 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management.............................. 126

5.6.1 Proposed Action...................................................................................... 126

5.6.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................ 127

5.6.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................ 127

5.7 Land Use ......................................................................................................... 127

5.7.1 Proposed Action...................................................................................... 128

5.7.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................ 130

5.7.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................ 130

5.8 Noise ............................................................................................................... 131

5.8.1 Proposed Action...................................................................................... 131

5.8.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................ 139

5.8.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................ 140

5.9 Socioeconomic Impacts and Environmental Justice ....................................... 140

5.9.1 Proposed Action...................................................................................... 141

5.9.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................ 143

5.9.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................ 143

5.10 Transportation................................................................................................. 143

5.10.1 Proposed Action...................................................................................... 144

5.10.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................ 145

5.10.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................ 145

5.11 Visual and Aesthetic Resources...................................................................... 145

5.11.1 Proposed Action...................................................................................... 145

5.11.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................ 146

5.11.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................ 146

5.12 Water Resources ............................................................................................. 146

5.12.1 Proposed Action...................................................................................... 146

5.12.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................ 149

5.12.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................ 149

5.13 No Action Alternative ...................................................................................... 150

6. Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................ 151

6.1 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 151

6.1.1 Proposed Action...................................................................................... 151

6.1.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................ 152

6.1.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................ 152

6.2 Airspace .......................................................................................................... 153
iv February 2004

6.2.1 Proposed Action...................................................................................... 153

6.2.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................ 153

6.2.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................ 153

6.3 Biological Resources....................................................................................... 153

6.3.1 Proposed Action...................................................................................... 153

6.3.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................ 154

6.3.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................ 154

6.4 Cultural Resources.......................................................................................... 154

6.4.1 Proposed Action.......................................................................................... 154

6.4.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................ 154

6.4.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................ 154

6.5 Geology and Soils........................................................................................... 154

6.5.1 Proposed Action...................................................................................... 154

6.5.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................ 155

6.5.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................ 155

6.6 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management.............................. 155

6.6.1 Proposed Action...................................................................................... 155

6.6.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................ 155

6.6.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................ 155

6.7 Health and Safety............................................................................................ 155

6.7.1 Proposed Action...................................................................................... 155

6.7.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................ 156

6.7.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................ 156

6.8 Land Use ......................................................................................................... 156

6.8.1 Proposed Action...................................................................................... 156

6.8.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................ 156

6.8.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................ 157

6.9 Noise ............................................................................................................... 157

6.9.1 Proposed Action...................................................................................... 157

6.9.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................ 157

6.9.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................ 157

6.10 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ................................................... 158

6.10.1 Proposed Action...................................................................................... 158

6.10.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................ 158

6.10.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................ 158

6.11 Transportation................................................................................................. 158

6.11.1 Proposed Action...................................................................................... 158

6.11.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................ 159

6.11.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................ 159

6.12 Visual and Aesthetic Resources...................................................................... 159

6.12.1 Proposed Action...................................................................................... 159

6.12.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................ 159

6.12.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................ 159

6.13 Water Resources ............................................................................................. 159

6.13.1 Proposed Action...................................................................................... 159

6.13.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................ 160
v February 2004

6.13.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................ 160

6.14 Secondary or Induced Impacts........................................................................ 160

6.14.1 Proposed Action...................................................................................... 160

6.14.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................ 160

6.14.3 Alternative 2............................................................................................ 160

7. Glossary .................................................................................................................. 162

8. References............................................................................................................... 166

9. List of Preparers...................................................................................................... 172

10. Agencies Contacted................................................................................................ 174

11. Distribution List ..................................................................................................... 194

Appendix A.........................................................................................A-1

Appendix B.........................................................................................B-1
vi February 2004

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
vii February 2004

ACRONYMS

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

AFB Air Force Base

AFFTC Air Force Flight Test Center

AGL Above Ground Level 

ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan

ARFF Aerospace Rescue Fire Fighting

ARTCC Air Route Traffic Control Center

AST Associate Administrator for Commercial Space 

Transportation

ATC Air Traffic Control

ATCAA Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace 

AVEK Antelope Valley-East Kern

BLM Bureau of Land Management

C Celsius

CAA Clean Air Act

CARB California Air Resources Board

CCF Central Coordinating Facility

CDCA California Desert Conservation Area

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game

CDP Census Designated Place

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation 

and Liability Act

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CSLA Commercial Space Launch Act

CTN Case, Throat and Nozzle

dB Decibel

dBA A-weighted Decibel

DoD Department of Defense

DOT Department of Transportation

EA Environmental Assessment

EIR Environmental Impact Report

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EKAD East Kern Airport District

EMS Emergency Medical Services

ENA Environmental Noise Assessment

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

F Fahrenheit

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FAR Federal Aviation Regulations
viii February 2004

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FL Flight Level

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FSS Flight Safety System

H2 hydrogen

H2O water

HC hydrocarbon

HI-DESERT TRACON High Desert Terminal Radar Approach Control

HS hydrogen sulfide

HTPB hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene

IAS Indicated Air Speed

IFR Instrument Flight Rules

JPPB Joint Policy and Planning Board

KCAPCD Kern County Air Pollution Control District

Ldn Day/Night Average Sound Level

LEV Lifting Entry Vehicle

Lmax Maximum Noise Level

LOA Letter of Agreement

LOS Level of Service

LOX Liquid Oxygen

LSAIP Launch Site Accident Investigation Plan

MOA Military Operations Area

MONODS Mobile Nitrous Oxide Delivery System

MPUD Mojave Public Utility District

MSL Mean Sea Level

N2O nitrous oxide

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAS National Airspace System

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

National Register National Register of Historic Places

NAWS Naval Air Weapons Station

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFPA National Fire Protection Administration

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOX nitrogen oxides

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NTPS National Test Pilot School

OCST Office of Commercial Space Transportation

OHV Off-Highway Motor Vehicle

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Pb Lead

PCC Primary Compatibility Criteria

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

PEIS CRV Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Commercial Reentry Vehicles
ix February 2004

PEIS LL Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Licensing Launches

PIC Pilot in Command

PM Particulate Matter

ppm parts per million

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RLV Reusable Launch Vehicle

ROI Region of Influence

SEL Sound Exposure Level

SENEL Single Event Noise Exposure Level

SIP State Implementation Plan

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SOX sulfur oxides

SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures

SPORT Space Positioning Optical Radar Tracking

SR State Route

SWP State Water Project

U.S. United States

USAF United States Air Force

U.S.C. United States Code

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

VFR Visual Flight Rules

VOC Volatile Organic Compound
x February 2004

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
1 February 2004

1. Introduction

The East Kern Airport District (EKAD) manages the Mojave Airport, a general aviation 

airport located in Mojave, California, and proposes to operate a launch site for 

horizontally launched, suborbital, reusable launch vehicles (RLVs). To conduct 

commercial launch operations, the EKAD must obtain a license from the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA). Individual launch operators must also obtain a license 

from the FAA to conduct launches from licensed sites.

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

EKAD to operate a launch facility at the Mojave Airport. The FAA may also issue a 

launch license to individual operators for launches from the Mojave Airport. 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 for 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 its 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). 

Individual launch operators proposing to launch vehicle s from the Mojave Airport would 

need to apply for a launch license from the FAA. There are two types of RLV mission 

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 

approved for the mission. A mission-specific 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 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 two-year renewable term.”

Two Federal agencies are involved in the proposed action, the FAA as the lead agency 

responsible for licensing the proposed activities at the facility and the U.S. Air Force 

(USAF) as a cooperating agency. The Air Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC) is the host 

organization at Edwards AFB that manages the special use airspace designated as 

Restricted Area R-2515. The AFFTC would allow the vehicles launched from the 

Mojave Airport to operate in R-2515. 

Issuing a launch site operator license is a Federal action and is subject to review 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 FAA will be the 
2 February 2004

lead Federal Agency for the NEPA process and the USAF will be a cooperating agency 

on this proposed action. FAA Order 1050.1 D, Policies and Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts, describes the FAA’s procedures for implementing NEPA. 

Specifically, FAA Order 1050.1 D requires that the FAA decision-making process 

facilitate public involvement by including consideration of the effects of the proposed 

action and alternatives; avoidance or minimization of adverse effects attributable to the 

proposed action; and restoration and enhancement of resources, and environmental 

quality of the nation. These requirements will be considered in the FAA’s licensing 

decision. The FAA must also consider all appropriate environmental laws.

The FAA is responsible for determining the type of NEPA analysis that is appropriate for 

each project. For this proposed action, the FAA has determined that an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) is appropriate. Per FAA Order 1050.1 D, since a decision had not been 

made to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and the proposed action had 

not been classified or identified under a Categorical Exclusion, an EA was prepared. An 

EA is designed to briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining 

whether to prepare an EIS or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). If it were 

determined from the EA that the proposed action poses a major impact significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment, the responsible official would prepare a 

Draft EIS. If it were concluded that the action does not pose a major impact significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment, the responsible official would prepare a 

FONSI. 

Because this proposed action would take place in California, it is also necessary for the 

requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to be met in the 

environmental analysis. CEQA was enacted in 1970 as a system of checks and balances 

for land-use development and management decisions in California. The EKAD owns and 

operates the Mojave Airport and must comply with CEQA to operate a launch facility at 

the Mojave Airport. The EKAD will be the lead agency for the CEQA process. The

EKAD determined that the Draft EA was appropriate to serve as the Initial Study under 

CEQA. The Initial Study is prepared to determine whether it is necessary to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration. In this instance, EKAD 

determined that it was appropriate to prepare a Proposed Negative Declaration, which 

was adopted on December 16, 2003 by the EKAD Board of Directors.

The FAA will cooperate with State and local agencies to the fullest extent possible to 

reduce duplication between NEPA and CEQA requirements. According to the Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ), where State laws or local ordinances have 

environmental requirements in addition to but not in conflict with those in NEPA, Federal 

agencies will cooperate in fulfilling these requirements as well as those of Federal laws 

so that one document will comply with all applicable laws. To better integrate 

environmental analyses into State and local planning processes, analyses will discuss any 

inconsistency of a proposed action with any approved State or local plan and laws 

(whether or not federally sanctioned). Where an inconsistency exists, the environmental 

analysis should describe the extent to which the Federal agency would reconcile its 

proposed action with the plan or law.
3 February 2004

CEQA regulations state that where possible, agencies should try to prepare a combined 

CEQA EIR-NEPA EIS or CEQA Negative Declaration-NEPA FONSI to avoid 

duplication between different levels of government. State and local agencies should 

cooperate with Federal agencies to the fullest extent possible to reduce duplication 

between CEQA and NEPA. Cooperative efforts should include the following

° Planning processes,

° Environmental research and studies,

° Public hearings, and

° Environmental documents.

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

applicant must complete a policy review and approval, safety review and approval, 

payload review and determination, and a financial responsibility determination. The 

purpose of the Policy Review and Approval process is to determine whether or not the 

information in the license application presents any issues affecting U.S. national security 

or foreign policy interests, or international obligations of the U.S. The purpose of the 

Safety Review and Approval process is to determine whether an applicant can safely 

conduct the launch of the proposed launch vehicle(s) and any payload(s). The purpose of 

the Payload Review and Determination is to determine whether a license applicant or 

payload owner or operator has obtained all required licenses, authorizations, and permits. 

The purpose of the Financial Responsibility Determination is to ensure that all 

commercial licensees demonstrate financial responsibility to compensate for the 

maximum probable loss from claims by a third party for death, bodily injury, or property 

damage or loss resulting from an activity carried out under the license; and the United 

States Government against a person for damage or loss to government property resulting 

from an activity carried out under the license. All of these reviews, including the 

environmental review, must be completed prior to issuing a license. All FAA safety 

analyses would be conducted separately and would be included in the terms and 

conditions of the license. 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). 

The Role of the FAA

In 1984, the Department of Transportation (DOT) was designated as the lead agency for 

U.S. commercial launch activities by Executive Order of the President. Later that year, 

Congress enacted the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 (CSLA), as amended, 

codified at 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, Ch. 701, Commercial Space Launch Activities, which 

authorized DOT to regulate U.S. commercial launch activities. The DOT designated the 

Office of Commercial Space Transportation (OCST) within the office of the Secretary of 

Transportation, as the lead to carry out these responsibilities. Under the Executive Order 

and the CSLA, DOT OCST had dual responsibilities

1. To license and regulate all U.S. commercial launch activities to ensure that they are 

conducted safely and responsibly, and
4 February 2004

2. To promote, encourage, and facilitate the growth of the U.S. commercial space 

transportation industry.

In November 1995, as part of a reorganization of the DOT, the OCST was transferred to 

the FAA. Within the FAA, the OCST was redesignated as the Associate Administrator 

for Commercial Space Transportation with the office designation AST. In October 1998, 

Congress enlarged AST’s role in the oversight of commercial space launch activities to 

include licensing of reentries and reentry sites.

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

foreign policy interests of the 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.

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 (e.g., Vandenberg AFB in the Western Range and Cape Canaveral 

Air Station in the Eastern Range) 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 

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 provided 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. 

Although Federal launch ranges can provide services for many types of launch vehicles 

and missions, these ranges operate under detailed specifications and procedures that 

could significantly increase costs to commercial customers. Further, schedule flexibility 

could be severely limited because government launches would retain priority over 

commercial launches in any scheduling conflict. 

Launch operators wishing to use non-Federal facilities must determine whether their 

proposed operations are best suited to a private launch facility with infrastructure 

constructed for their specific operations or whether they should pursue launch operations 

at a facility where some infrastructure already exists. One example of a facility where 

some infrastructure may already exist for certain types of vehicles is an airport. If launch 

operators choose this type of site, they must consider whether it is licensed to offer 

launch services and whether their operations would be compatible with the type and 

schedule of current FAA-licensed and other airport operations. 
5 February 2004

The Role of the USAF

The AFFTC is the host organization at Edwards AFB, which is located 48 kilometers (30 

miles) east of the Mojave Airport. The AFFTC manages the special use airspace 

designated as Restricted Area R-2515 (contained within the R-2508 Complex), which 

would be the primary operating area for the vehicles launched from the Mojave Airport. 

The R-2508 Complex is comprised of MOAs, Restricted Areas, and Air Traffic Control 

Assigned Airspace (ATCAA). In addition, individual restricted areas, each with their 

own airspace manager lie within the R-2508 Complex. This collection of special use 

airspace is used by military aircraft for flight test and training activities, which are similar 

to the flight of the proposed launch vehicles. Commercial and private agencies that 

operate aircraft in the R-2508 Complex maintain appropriate Letters of Agreement 

(LOA) with both the R-2508 Complex Control Board and the AFFTC for operation in 

their respective areas. In addition, USAF aircraft use Mojave Airport for some missions. 

The AFFTC also operates the airfield, which would serve as the primary emergency 

landing site for the launches. These entities also have a responsibility for the 

environment and assets on the ground, which have the potential to be affected by 

launches. Therefore, the FAA requested and the USAF agreed to participate as a 

cooperating agency in the preparation of NEPA analysis for this proposed action. 

The Role of the R-2508 Joint Policy and Planning Board (JPPB) and the R-2508 

Complex Cont rol Board

Management of the R-2508 Complex falls under the R-2508 JPPB. The JPPB was 

founded in 1975 under direction of the Joint Logistics Commanders and approved by the 

respective Service Chiefs and the Office of Secretary of Defense. JPPB members are the 

Commanders of the Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, China Lake; the 

AFFTC, Edwards AFB; and the National Training Center, Fort Irwin. The 

R-2508 Complex Control Board is the executing agent for the JPPB and is responsible for 

supervisory management of the R-2508 Complex. It is comprised of individuals 

representing their respective JPPB Commander. The JPPB and the Complex Control 

Board exercise responsibility for joint use airspace of the R-2508 Complex. Individual 

organizations are responsible for certain individual Restricted Areas that are contained 

within the R-2508 Complex. 

The Role of the EKAD

The EKAD was formed in February 1972 for the purpose of acquiring and operating the 

Mojave Airport. In addition to being the project proponent, the EKAD is also the lead 

agency for the CEQA process. The FAA will work closely with the EKAD to minimize 

duplication between the NEPA and CEQA analyses for this action. 

1.1 Background

Under this proposed action, the FAA would issue a launch sit e operator license to the 

EKAD for the Mojave Airport. The FAA may also issue a launch license to individual 
6 February 2004

operators for launches from the Mojave Airport. The launch site operator license would 

be for the purpose of operating a facility to launch, horizontally launched, suborbital 

rockets.1 In addition, the EKAD may offer other services for commercial launch 

companies at the Mojave Airport including static engine firings, launch vehicle 

manufacturing, and other testing and manufacturing activities. These services and other 

testing and manufacturing activities are unrelated to, and are not authorized by the 

Launch Site Operator License. The function of the launch facility would be to provide a 

location to launch manned suborbital rockets and other payloads2 into suborbital 

trajectories. The issuance of a launch site operator license to EKAD does not permit 

EKAD to conduct launches, only to offer the facility and infrastructure to launch 

operators. Individual launch operators proposing to conduct launches from the Mojave 

Airport would need to obtain licenses from the FAA. 

The FAA will examine the safety and policy implications, as well as environmental 

impacts associated with the launch activities in implementing its licensing program. The 

EA only analyzes potential environmental impacts from the project. Safety and policy 

implications are analyzed in documents other than this EA. The FAA licenses launches 

and issues licenses for the operation of launch sites based on the evaluation of the safety 

of the proposed activities and their associated environmental impacts. The Region of 

Influence (ROI) for this proposed action is outlined in Figure 1-1. 

 

1

 The FAA has proposed the following definition for suborbital rocket which is being considered for 

adoption but has not yet been approved: “a rocket propelled vehicle intended for flight on a suborbital 

trajectory whose thrust is greater than its lift for the majority of the powered portion of its flight.” The 

following definition has been proposed but not approved for suborbital trajectory: “the intentional flight 

path of a launch vehicle, reentry vehicle, or any portion thereof whose vacuum instantaneous impact point 

does not leave the surface of the earth.” As defined in Corrected Copy of October 20, 2003 Notice, 68 

Federal Register 59977, incorporating changes in a Correction Notice issued October 27, 2003, 68 Federal 

Register 61241, and correcting misprints available at http://ast.faa.gov.

2

 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.
7 February 2004

Figure 1-1. Region of Influence

Source: Draft EIR/EIS for the West Mojave Plan, 2003

Upon issuance of the required FAA license, the EKAD would open the Mojave Airport to 

commercial launch operations. The first suborbital launch could occur in 2004. 

Proposed launch operations currently include launches of two types of launch vehicles. 

The first type referred to in this document as Concept A includes air-drop designs where 

two vehicles, an airplane and launch vehicle are mated together and the airplane carries 

the launch vehicle to a predetermined altitude where the launch vehicle is dropped and its

rocket engines ignite. The second type referred to in this document as Concept B

includes horizontally launched vehicles, which use rocket power to takeoff from a 

standard aviation runway. 

Launch providers would be responsible for obtaining launch licenses from the FAA to 

conduct launches at the Mojave Airport. The FAA may use the analysis in this document 

as the basis for an environmental determination of the impacts of these launches to 

support licensing decisions for the launch of specific launch vehicles from the Mojave 

Airport. In addition, launch providers would be responsible for establishing LOAs with 

the airspace managers of each special use airspace in which the vehicles would operate. 

Launch license operators would be required to document establishment of LOAs in order 

to obtain a launch license from the FAA. 

The FAA’s Licensing and Safety Requirements for Operation of a Launch Site states that 

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

launch point proposed for the launch site, at least one type of expendable or reusable 
8 February 2004

launch vehicle can be flown from the launch point 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 expendable or reusable launch 

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

safely (14 CFR 420.19(b)). It is therefore necessary for the EKAD to demonstrate that 

both Concept A and Concept B launch vehicles can be launched safely from the Mojave 

Airport. 

1.2 Purpose and Need

The Mojave Airport would serve as an alternative location to Federal facilities or other 

commercial sites for horizontally launched, suborbital vehicles. The Mojave Airport 

already provides a location to test aircraft and this would allow the EKAD to offer the 

Mojave Airport to existing customers wishing to conduct launch operations. Customers 

may use the facility to compete for prizes such as the X-Prize or to provide for-profit 

launch services. The X-Prize is described on the organization’s web site as “a 

$10,000,000 prize to jumpstart the space tourism industry through competition between 

the most talented entrepreneurs and rocket experts in the world.” (X-Prize, 2003) The 

$10 million cash prize will be awarded to the first team that

° Privately finances, builds, launches a launch vehicle, able to carry three people to 100 

kilometers (62.5 miles); 

° Returns safely to Earth; and

° Repeats the launch with the same launch vehicle within two weeks. (X-Prize, 2003) 

For-profit launch services may include tourism activities, selling merchandise flown in 

the vehicle, or other activities. These activities are consistent with the objectives of the 

CSLA. 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 to meet the demand for lower cost access to space.

For a launch site to meet the needs of launch operators, it must have adequate 

infrastructure and available airspace. Required infrastructure in this case includes a 

runway of sufficient length to accommodate horizontal launch vehicles, adequate ramp 

and hangar space, a control tower, and airspace compatible with the proposed flight 

requirements.

1.3 Public Involvement

The CEQ implementing regulations for NEPA describe the public involvement 

requirements for agencies (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. 
9 February 2004

The Draft EA/Initial Study was released for public comment on October 31, 2003. A 

Notice of Availability appeared in the Federal Register on November 6, 2003, which 

initiated the comment period under NEPA. The California Clearinghouse acknowledged 

receipt of the Draft EA/Initial Study on November 12, 2003, which initiated the 30-day 

comment period for the document under CEQA. A notice of availability of the proposal 

to adopt a Negative Declaration was released on November 5, 2003. The comment 

period for CEQA closed on December 11, 2003, and the FAA requested that all 

comments on the Draft EA/Initial Study be received no later than December 12, 2003. 

A public hearing was held on December 10, 2003 in Mojave, CA. The public hearing 

was held to solicit and record comments on the Draft EA/Initial Study. The public 

hearing consisted of a presentation by the FAA, a public comment session, and an 

informal poster session with two poster stations and representatives on hand to answer 

questions. The 20-minute FAA presentation outlined the NEPA/CEQA process, the 

proposed activities, and potential impacts to resource areas that may have been of 

particular concern to members of the community. After the presentation, the public 

comment session allowed the public to provide comments on the Draft EA/Initial Study. 

Six attendees provided oral comments; two commenters spoke on behalf of EKAD; one 

spoke on behalf of the Mojave Town Council; the remaining three were from the public. 

Four written comments were also provided by the public. The transcript of the 

proceedings is in Appendix A. In addition to the public hearing, the public was provided 

the opportunity to comment through toll-free fax and phone numbers, mail, and e-mail. 

Responses to comments are provided in Appendix B.

1.4 Related Environmental Documentation

The DOT, DoD and NASA have previously analyzed the environmental effects of 

launches and launch site operations. Other planning and site-specific documents that 

were used as references in the preparation of this EA are cited in Section 8 of this 

document as appropriate. The following NEPA and CEQA documents were used by the 

FAA in the preparation of this EA and are incorporated by reference. 

° Department of Interior. Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental 

Impact Report for the West Mojav e Plan, A Habitat Conservation Plan and 

California Desert Conservation Area Plan Amendment, May 2003.

° DoD. Final Environmental Assessment for the Orbital Reentry Corridor for Generic 

Unmanned Lifting Entry Vehicle Landing at Edwards Air Force Base, December 

2002.

° DoD. Edwards Air Force Base Digital Airport Surveillance Radar Environmental 

Assessment, June 2002. 

° DOT. Final Environmental Assessment for the Site, Launch, Reentry, and Recovery 

Operations at the Kistler Launch Facility, Nevada Test Site, April 2002.
10 February 2004

° DOT. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing Launches 

(PEIS LL), May 24, 2001. 

° DOT. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Commercial Reentry 

Vehicles (PEIS CRV), May 1992. 

° NASA. X-33 Advanced Technology Demonstrator Vehicle Program, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, September 1997.

° Kern County. Mojave Specific Plan, Draft Environment Impact Report, June 2003.

In accordance with the CEQ regulations for NEPA documents, this EA tiers from the 

PEIS LL and the PEIS CRV. 
11 February 2004

2. Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.1 Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative

The proposed action is for the FAA to issue a launch site operator license to the EKAD 

for the Mojave Airport. The FAA may also issue a launch license to individual operators 

for launches from the Mojave Airport. 14 CFR Chapter III, part 420 contains the 

requirements for obtaining and possessing a license to operate a launch site. Under the 

regulations, an applicant is required to provide the FAA with information sufficient to 

conduct environmental and policy reviews and determinations. The EKAD intends to 

operate a launch site at the Mojave Airport for commercial use by providing customers a 

site from which to launch suborbital missions using horizontally launched vehicles, and 

therefore must obtain a launch site operator license from the FAA. 

The operator of the launch site and the launch operator would need to provide 

information to support the FAA’s environmental determinations under NEPA. This 

document would provide the information and analysis required to fulfill the NEPA 

requirements for licensing a launch site operator and licensing the launch of some launch 

vehicles. Since this project must also meet the requirements of CEQA, the EKAD also 

must provide sufficient information about the proposed operations at the Mojave Airport 

to support a determination under CEQA.

The successful completion of the environmental review process does not guarantee that 

the FAA would issue a launch site operator license to the EKAD for the Mojave Airport 

or a launch license to an individual launch operator. The project must also meet all FAA 

safety, risk, and indemnification requirements. A license to operate a launch site does not 

guarantee that a launch license would be granted for any particular launch proposed for 

the site. All individual launch license applications would be subject to separate FAA 

review and licensing. 

The EKAD has identified two types of launch vehicles, identified in this analysis as 

Concept A and Concept B, which would be typical of the vehicles that would operate 

from the Mojave Airport. The proposed action/preferred alternative would include 

launches of both Concept A and Concept B launch vehicles. The potential users of the 

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

including a launch license for specific missions from the FAA. This document may be 

used as the basis for the FAA to make a determination about licensing the launches of 

some types of launch vehicles from the Mojave Airport. The FAA may use this 

document as the basis for an environmental finding that would serve as part of the 

requirements of the FAA launch licensing process for proposed launch operators at the 

Mojave Airport. Additional environmental analysis would need to be conducted for any 

activity that is not addressed in this EA or in previous environmental analyses. 

This EA addresses the overall impacts to the environment of the proposed operations 

anticipated for the five-year period encompassing the FAA’s launch site operator license 

including
12 February 2004

° Launching and landing Concept A and B launch vehicles at the Mojave Airport, and

° Testing rocket engines that would be incorporated into Concept A and B launch 

vehicles. 

The activities included in this analysis are the launch of suborbital rockets as described in 

Concept A and Concept B, and the testing of rocket engines. The FAA does not license 

the vehicle itself or the ground tests of rocket engines, only the launch of the vehicle and 

the operation of the launch site. The environmental impacts of the engine tests are 

included in this document because they are a related activity. This document may be 

used as the basis for making a determination about the environmental impacts of launches 

of individual Concept A or B launch vehicles from the Mojave Airport. 

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

including hangars and runways would be used to support launch and landing operations 

at the launch site. Existing rocket engine test stands may also be used for static tests of 

rocket engines. The engines that are tested would either be incorporated into vehicles 

that are launched at the Mojave Airport or they could be incorporated into vehicles that 

are launched at other facilities.

The scope of this analysis considers the use of the Mojave Airport and nearby special use 

airspace for launch and flight of horizontally launched Concept A and Concept B 

vehicles into suborbital trajectories. It also considers their landing and static tests of 

engines.

2.1.1 Mojave Airport

The Mojave Airport is located in the southeastern corner of Kern County, on the east side 

of the unincorporated town of Mojave, CA. The airport is owned and operated by the 

EKAD, which is a special district with an elected Board of Directors and a General 

Manager. The Mojave Airport was formerly a military base and is currently the largest 

general aviation airport in Kern County. The airport serve s as a Civilian Flight Test 

Center, the location of the National Test Pilot School (NTPS), and as a base for 

modifications of major military jets and civilian aircraft. The NTPS operates various 

aircraft types including high performance jet aircraft, single-and twin-engine propeller 

aircraft and helicopters. Numerous large air carrier jet aircraft are currently being stored 

and maintained at the Mojave Airport. Many of these aircraft are older technology 

designs, and most likely will not be flown again. However, some of the newer aircraft 

stored at the Mojave Airport, such as MD80, F100, B737-300+ and hush-kitted 727s, are 

still part of the active commercial airline/air cargo fleet and are maintained for immediate 

use. 

The Mojave Airport also includes aircraft storage and reconditioning facility and is home 

to several industrial operations, such as BAE Systems, Fiberset, Scaled Composites, 

AVTEL, XCOR, Orbital Sciences, and General Electric. No airport modifications are 

currently planned to accommodate the proposed launch of vehicles at the Mojave Airport. 
13 February 2004

2.1.1.1 Ground Facilities

The Mojave Airport comprises an area of approximately 1,214 hectares (3,000 acres) and 

makes up 9.6 percent of the total area of the town of Mojave. There is open land to the 

north and east, and industrial/commercial uses on the south side of the airport. The 

Mojave Airport with its associated airport facilities is the primary employer of the town 

of Mojave. Major facilities include the terminal and industrial area located in the 

southern portion of the airfield, hangars, offices, maintenance shop, and fuel services 

facilities. Rocket engine test stands are located in the northern portion of the airport. 

Aircraft parking capacity includes 600 tie downs and 60 T-hangars. The airport layout 

plan is shown in Figure 2-1. 

The current administrative building covers an area of approximately 557 square meters 

(6,000 square feet). There is a fenced-in area at the base of the control tower from which 

spectators can view launch activities. The spectators would be secured in this area and 

monitored by security guards during launch activities. 

The Mojave Airport consists of three runways with associated taxiways and other support 

facilities, Runway 12-30, Runway 8-26, and Runway 4-22. Runway 12-30 is 2,896 

meters (9,502 feet) long and is the primary runway for large air carrier jet and high 

performance civilian and military jet aircraft. Runway 8-26 is 2,149 meters (7,050 feet) 

long and is primarily used by general aviation jet and propeller aircraft. Runway 4-22 is 

1,202 meters (3,943 feet) long and is used by smaller general aviation propeller aircraft 

and helicopters. The runway approaches cover different land use types and are described 

as

° Runway 12 (northwest) – open land,3

° Runway 30 (southeast) – open land,

° Runway 8 (west) – some mixed residential4 and commercial development,5

° Runway 26 (east) – open land,

° Runway 4 (southwest) – residential and commercial uses; high school,6 and

° Runway 22 (northeast) – open land.

 

3

 Open land - Free of structures and other major obstacles such as walls, large trees, poles, or overhead 

wires with minimum dimensions of at least 23 meters by 91 meters (75 feet by 300 feet). (Kern County, 

2003c) 

4

 Residential Uses - Areas comprised of single-family homes, mobile homes, multi-family units, 

apartments, or condominiums. (Kern County, 2003c) 

5

 Commercial Uses - Areas comprised of offices, retail trade, service commercial, wholesale trade, 

warehousing, general manufacturing, utilities, or extractive industry. (Kern County, 2003c)

6

 High school - Areas in which the majority of occupants are children, elderly, and/or handicapped are of 

particular concern because occupants have reduced effective mobility or are unable to respond in 

emergency situations. (Kern County, 2003c) 
14 February 2004

Figure 2-1. Mojave Airport Layout Plan
15 February 2004

2.1.1.2 Decommissioning Activities

No airport modifications are currently planned to accommodate the proposed launch of 

vehicles at the Mojave Airport. If launch activities ceased at the Mojave Airport, it 

would continue existing operations as a general aviation airport. 

2.1.2 Operations in Special Use Airspace

Operations of the proposed vehicles within the R-2508 Complex would be compatible 

with the high speed, highly maneuverable flights being conducted in this airspace and 

would be conducted under LOAs with the individual vehicle operators and the managers 

of each special use airspace involved. After takeoff from the Mojave Airport, vehicles 

would enter the R-2508 Complex and R-2515 Restricted Airspace under control of either 

High Desert TRACON or Space Positioning Optical Radar Tracking (SPORT) Radar 

Control Facility located at Edwards AFB. All flights would be conducted under control 

of one of these agencies to insure appropriate integration with other aircraft operations in 

the special use airspace. 

2.1.3 Concept A

2.1.3.1 Description of Launch Vehicle

Launch vehicles included in Concept A consist of two components, a carrier aircraft and 

a mated suborbital launch vehicle. The aircraft would have turbojet engines using Jet 

A-1 fuel. Total thrust of the engines would be less than 35,600 Newtons (8,000 pounds). 

The carrier aircraft would carry the launch vehicle to the designated launch release 

altitude. The launch vehicle would use a hybrid rocket engine with nitrous oxide (N2O) 

and hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB) as propellants. The launch vehicle 

would use only suborbital trajectories and, therefore, would not reach Earth orbit. 

Concept A launch vehicles would launch and land horizontally and would not require 

runway lengths in excess of existing infrastructure at the Mojave Airport. 

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 nine meters (30 feet). The wingspan of the representative launch 

vehicle would be approximately five meters (17 feet) and its length would be 

approximately six meters (20 feet). The weight of the launch vehic le when fully fueled 

would be approximately 3,175 kilograms (7,000 pounds). 

The pilot in command (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 Airport 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. 
16 February 2004

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. 

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. 

2.1.3.2 Description of Flight Profile

The carrier aircraft and launch vehicle would takeoff horizontally from a conventional 

runway at the Mojave Airport. 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 vehicles flight trajectory). The launch vehicle 

would then descend and glide unpowered, to a horizontal landing on a conventional 

runway at the Mojave Airport.

2.1.3.3 Description of Pre-Launch, Launch, and Landing Activities

Pre-Launch. Launch operators would be required to notify Mojave Airport and the air 

traffic control tower 24 hours in advance of a planned launch. The air traffic control 

tower would notify the launch operator of other activities on the airport, resolve conflicts 

for use, and notify other authorities such as Edwards AFB and 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 crew prior to each 

launch, and would be repeated with various failure scenarios, and irregular performance 

to ensure crew readiness. 

Launch. The launch vehicle would be mated to the carrier aircraft. The aircraft, carrying 

the launch vehicle, would takeoff horizontally. 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 spent (after approximately 65 seconds of 

climbing). The vehicle would continue to coast to apogee. Apogee for Concept A 

vehicles would likely occur at approximately 100 kilometers (62.5 miles) altitude. After 

reaching apogee, the vehicle would descend with various equipment items deployed that 
17 February 2004

are designed to stabilize and decelerate the vehicle in a controlled manner during its 

descent. 

Landing. The PIC of the carrier vehicle would request authorization from the air traffic 

control tower to land at the Mojave Airport 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 Mojave Airport. 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 primary abort site at the main runway at Edwards AFB. 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. The emergency landing/abort areas 

are shown in Figure 2-2. 

2.1.3.4 Description of Proposed Payloads

There are no payloads currently planned for Concept A vehicles. 

2.1.3.5 Launch Manifest

Table 2-1 shows the number of launches proposed per year for Concept A launch 

vehicles at the Mojave Airport.7

Table 2-1. Maximum Number of Launches of Concept A Launch Vehicles Per Year

Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Maximum 

Number of 

Launches

3 6 6 6 6 6

Therefore, the total maximum number of launches of Concept A launch vehicles would 

be 33 over the five-year period. 

2.1.4 Concept B 

2.1.4.1 Description of Launch Vehicles

Launch vehicles included in Concept B would be a single component. The rocket motors 

would be turned on while the launch vehicle is on the runway at the Mojave Airport. 

 

7

 The number of launches of Concept A vehicles analyzed in this document represents the number of 

launches that Concept A companies plan to conduct each year. The actual number of launches that the 

FAA may authorize from the proposed site would have impacts equal to or less than those analyzed in this 

document. 
18 February 2004

Figure 2-2. Locations of Dry Lakes
19 February 2004

The rocket motors would use liquid oxygen (LOx) and either kerosene or alcohol. 

Concept B launch vehicles would use suborbital trajectories and, therefore, would not 

reach Earth orbit. Concept B launch vehicles would launch and land horizontally at the 

Mojave Airport. They would not require runway lengths in excess of existing 

infrastructure at the Mojave Airport. 

The wingspan of a representative vehicle would be approximately 6.7 to 9.0 meters (22 to 

30 feet) and the length of the vehicle would be approximately 5.8 to 12.2 meters (19 to 40 

feet). The weight of the vehicle when fully fueled and ready for takeoff would be 

between 1,150 and 7,500 kilograms (2,600 and 16,500 pounds). 

Concept B 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 ground crew. Very High Frequency radio would be used for 

communications. Ground and air traffic control frequencies would be used to 

communicate with Mojave Airport. 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.

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 Mojave Airport 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 undertake 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 the 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. 

2.1.4.2 Description of Flight Profile

Concept B vehicles would launch horizontally from a runway at Mojave Airport and 

would likely fly east along a steep ascent trajectory until the propellants are expended. 

These vehicles would coast unpowered along a parabolic trajectory until reaching apogee. 

They would then coast down until pullout and glide to an energy-management area 

between 10 and 160 kilometers (six and 100 miles) downrange of the Mojave Airport 

where it may be necessary to conduct a series of maneuvers to expend excess energy 

before making a descent to the Mojave Airport. Upon reaching the Mojave Airport it 

may be necessary to conduct additional maneuvers to expend excess energy before 

performing an unpowered horizontal landing. 
20 February 2004

2.1.4.3 Description of Pre-Launch, Launch, and Landing Activities

Pre-Launch. The Mojave Airport has established procedures for customers to provide 

notification for upcoming launches. Each launch operator would be required to notify 

Mojave Airport and the air traffic control tower 24 hours in advance of a planned launch. 

The air traffic control tower would notify the launch operator of other activities on the 

launch site, resolve conflicts for use, and notify other authorities such as Edwards AFB 

and 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. 

Launch. The rocket engines would be turned on and the vehicle would takeoff 

horizontally, using a flight path angle of approximately 20 to 50 degrees and fly east or, 

for some missions, north-northeast. The vehicle would use a steep ascent trajectory until 

its fuel supply is exhausted. Once the engines are turned off or propellant is exhausted, 

the vehicle would fly on a parabolic trajectory for four to 240 seconds, and coast to 

apogee. Apogee for Concept B vehicles would likely occur at altitudes between four and 

175 kilometers (13,000 and 575,000 feet) above mean sea level. After reaching apogee, 

the vehicle would glide to a pullout and energy management area, between 10 and 160 

kilometers (six and 100 miles) downrange of the Mojave Airport to expend excess energy 

before landing. It may be necessary to fly several circular patterns to expend excess 

energy before gliding back to Mojave Airport. At Mojave Airport, the vehicle may fly 

several additional circular patterns to expend excess energy. 

Landing. The PIC would notify the air traffic control tower prior to landing at the 

Mojave Airport. 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 following designated abort sites: Edwards AFB/Rogers Dry 
21 February 2004

Lake, Boron Airstrip, or for the highest performance vehicles, Baker Airstrip or China 

Lake Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS)/China Dry Lake. If the PIC cannot reach any 

of the designated abort sites, he/she would make every effort to land on one of the 

numerous regional dry lakes or in the areas northeast of North Edwards, Boron and 

California City. The dry lakes in the area that could be used include Rogers, Koehn, 

Harper, Cuddeback, Coyote, Soda, Bicycle, Silver, Leach, Searles, and China. See 

Figure 2-2 for a map of these dry lake locations. 

2.1.4.4 Description of Proposed Payloads

Payloads may include: passengers, inert collectible items, and microgravity experiments. 

The weight of these payloads would not exceed 200 kilograms (440 pounds), and they 

would not be larger than 2.2 meters tall by 1.2-meter diameter (7.2 feet tall by 4.0 feet 

diameter). The payloads would not carry stored energy or toxic, hazardous, or 

radioactive material. The payload would remain inside the vehicle at all times during the 

mission. 

2.1.4.5 Launch Manifest

Table 2-2 shows the number of launches proposed per year for Concept B launch vehicles 

at the Mojave Airport.8

Table 2-2. Maximum Number of Launches of Concept B Launch Vehicles Per Year

Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Maximum 

Number of 

Launches

0 0 10 25 30 50

Therefore, the total maximum number of launches of Concept B launch vehicles would 

be 115 over the five-year period. 

2.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

The FAA will consider two alternatives to the proposed action in this EA. The first 

alternative would be to issue a launch site operator license to the EKAD for the Mojave 

Airport for inclusion of launch vehicles specifically fitting the description of Concept A. 

The second alternative would be to issue a launch site operator license to the EKAD for 

the Mojave Airport for inclusion of launch vehicles specifically fitting the description of 

Concept B. 

 

8

 The number of launches of Concept B vehicles analyzed in this document represents the number of 

launches that Concept B companies plan to conduct each year. The actual number of launches that the 

FAA may authorize from the proposed site would have impacts equal to or less than those analyzed in this 

document.
22 February 2004

2.2.1 Alternative 1 - Concept A Only

This alternative would involve the issuance of a launch site operator license to the EKAD 

for Mojave Airport that would allow only Concept A vehicles to be launched from the 

Mojave Airport.

2.2.2 Alternative 2 - Concept B Only

This alternative would involve the issuance of a launch site operator license to the EKAD 

for Mojave Airport that would allow only Concept B vehicles to be launched from the 

Mojave Airport.

2.3 No Action Alternative

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue a launch site operator license 

and there would be no commercial launches from the Mojave Airport. The EKAD would 

not be able operate a commercial launch facility at the Mojave Airport. The Mojave 

Airport facility would continue to be available for existing aviation related activities. 

2.4 Alternatives Considered But Not Carried Forward

The alternatives discussed below were considered and eliminated from further 

consideration and analysis. 

2.4.1 Alternative Locations/Configurations within Mojave Airport

Alternative locations within the Mojave Airport were considered for the launch site in the 

northern or eastern portion of the airport. The alternative locations considered at Mojave 

Airport are shown in Figure 2-3. These alternative locations within Mojave Airport 

would require that additional changes be made to the existing infrastructure. This could 

include the construction or renovation of hangars and the construction of new runways. 

This type of construction or renovation would be cost prohibitive and would cause 

significant delays in the proposed launch schedules and, therefore, this alternative was 

eliminated from further consideration. 
23 February 2004

Figure 2-3. Approximate Locations of Alternative Locations Considered at Mojave 

Airport 

Alternative Locations 

Considered

2.4.2 Alternative Launch Vehicles

Launches of alternative launch vehicles including vertical launch vehicles and orbital 

launch vehicles were considered for use at the Mojave Airport. Launches of these launch 

vehicles would require additional infrastructure at the Mojave Airport. This could 

include the construction of a vertical launch pad or extensions to the existing runways. 

This type of construction or renovation would be cost prohibitive and would cause 

significant delays in the proposed launch schedules and, therefore, this alternative was 

eliminated from further consideration. 

2.4.3 Alternative Missions Including Reentries 

Alternative missions including reentries were considered for the Mojave Airport. The 

proposed launch site operator has not applied for a launch and reentry site operator 

license and therefore, reentries of launch vehicles launched into Earth orbit from the 
24 February 2004

Mojave Airport are not considered to be reasonably foreseeable activities within the next 

five years. The impacts of these activities will not be considered in this EA. 
25 February 2004

3. Affected Environment

3.1 Overview of the Proposed Operational Area

This section gives an overview of the proposed operational area. This area is referred to

as the ROI and is divided into on-site and off-site areas.

On Site

The Mojave Airport is located approximately 161 kilometers (100 miles) north of Los 

Angeles, CA on the western edge of the Mojave Desert (latitude/longitude is 35.059/-

118.152). (Mojave Airport, 2003a) The Mojave Airport lies within Kern County at an 

elevation of 838 meters (2,750 feet). The original Mojave Airport, constructed in 1935, 

was a general aviation facility, but was converted to a Marine Corps air base in 1942. In 

1961, the airport was returned to Kern County control, and in 1972, the Mojave Airport 

District was formed. (Mojave Airport, 2003a) The Mojave Airport District became the 

EKAD in 1974, which continues to manage the airport today. (Kern County, 2003b) 

Figures 3-1 and 3-2 show the location and layout of the Mojave Airport. 

The site covers an area of 13.2 square kilometers (5.1 square miles), and of Mojave 

Airport’s available 1,214 hectares (3,000 acres), approximately 80 hectares (200 acres) 

are developed. (Mojave Airport, 2003a) The Mojave Airport includes three runways 

(Runway 12-30, Runway 8-26, and Runway 4-22), an air control tower, engineering 

facilities, aviation fuel services, and a high bay building. (Mojave Airport, 2003a) In 

addition, the Mojave Airport has approximately 140 businesses on site that are hightechnology manufacturers and light industrial enterprises. (Mojave Airport, 2003a) 

The Mojave Airport provides runways and ramp space for a wide variety of aircraft 

including general aviation prop and turboprop aircraft, commercial airline carrier jets, 

military jets, and experimental and test pilot aircraft. (Mojave Airport, 2003a) Runway 

12-30 is 2,896 meters (9,502 feet) long and serves large airline carrier jet aircraft and 

high performance military and non-military jet aircraft. Runway 8-26 is 2,149 meters 

(7,050 feet) long and serves general aviation and propeller aircraft, but can accommodate 

larger aircraft depending on the wind conditions. Runway 4-22 is 1,202 meters (3,943 

feet) long and serves smaller propeller aircraft and helicopters. (Mojave Airport, 2003a)

In 2001, over 18,300 aircraft operations9 took place at Mojave Airport with an average of 

50 operations per day. (Kern County, 2003c) Over 93 percent of all operations at Mojave 

Airport were general aviation flights, and over 90 percent of all operations took place 

during daylight hours (7 am to 7 pm). (Kern County, 2003c) More recent data estimates 

indicate that approximately 33,800 aircraft operations occur each year. (Mojave Airport, 

2003) The airspace over the Mojave Airport is defined as Class D airspace. The Mojave 

Airport airspace is discussed in Section 3.3. (Kern County, 2003c)

 

9

 Airport operations are based on the Mojave Airport control tower count of takeoffs and landings.
26 February 2004

Figure 3-1. Map of Mojave Airport in Relation to Los Angeles, California

Source: Yahoo Maps, 2003
27 February 2004

Figure 3-2. Layout of the Mojave Airport

Source: Mojave Airport, 2003a

Off Site

The ROI would cover over 9,886 square kilometers (3,800 square miles) and would 

include portions of Kern, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino Counties. Land uses in these 

areas include residential, commercial, industrial, public facilities, state and federal, 

resource management, and undeveloped lands. (Kern County, 2003b) This area is largely 

undeveloped desert with shrub and brush vegetation. (Kern County, 2003f) The Mojave 

community immediately outside of the Mojave Airport perimeter covers approximately 

11,331 hectares (28,000 acres) and is mainly industrial, resource management, and 

undeveloped lands. (Kern County, 2003b) The ROI includes parts of Edwards AFB and

the China Lake NAWS North and South Ranges. The ROI would be primarily contained 

within an airspace area created by the DoD and the FAA called the Joint Service 

Restricted R-2508 Complex, which restricts and controls non-military air traffic. (Kern 

County, 2003c) The R-2508 complex is made up of Special Use Airspace and ATCAA. 

The off-site ROI is shown in Figure 3-3.
28 February 2004

Figure 3-3. Map of the ROI

Source: Maps.com, 2003

3.2 Air Quality

3.2.1 Definition of Resource

Air quality in a given location is usually measured in terms of the concentration of 

various air pollutants in the atmosphere. The concentration is measured against Federal 

and/or state ambient air quality standards that protect public health. Under the Federal 
29 February 2004

Clean Air Act (CAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria air pollutants: sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (including volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) as precursors), particulate matter 

with a diameter of less than 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less 

in diameter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). For these pollutants, there are primary and secondary 

NAAQS. The primary standards were established to protect the public health with an 

adequate margin of safety, while the secondary standards were intended to protect the 

public from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. These threshold 

levels were determined based on years of research on the health effects of various 

concentrations of pollutants on biological organisms. 

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has also developed state ambient air quality 

standards. The standards called California Ambient Air Quality Standards address the 

same pollutants as the Federal standards but at concentrations similar to or more stringent 

than the NAAQS. California also includes standards for some pollutants not in NAAQS 

such as visibility, sulfates, and hydrogen sulfide (HS). Table 3-1 provides the Federal 

and California air quality standards.

To further define local and regional air quality, the EPA divided the country into areas 

that achieve the NAAQS, called attainment areas, and those that do not achieve the

NAAQS, called non-attainment areas. The non-attainment and attainment classifications 

are generally based on air quality monitoring data collected at certain sites in the state. 

The criteria for non-attainment designation vary by pollutant. An area is in nonattainment for ozone if its NAAQS has been exceeded more than three discontinuous

times in three years at a single monitoring station and an area is in non-attainment for any 

other pollutant if its NAAQS has been exceeded more than once per year. Some areas 

are unclassified because insufficient data are available to characterize the area, while 

other areas are deemed maintenance areas.
30 February 2004

Table 3-1. Federal and California Ambient Air Quality Standards

California Standardsa National Standardsb

Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration Concentration 

Primaryc,d

Concentration 

Secondaryc,e

1 hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3

) 0.12 ppm (235 μg/m3) Same as primary Ozone

8 hour --- 0.08 ppm (157 μg/m3

) Same as primary

8 hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) --- Carbon monoxide 1 hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3

) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) ---

Nitrogen dioxide Annual arithmetic 

mean

--- 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3) Same as primary

1 hour 0.025 ppm (655 μg/m3

) --- ---

3 hours --- ---

0.5 ppm (1,300 

μg/m3)

24 hour 0.04 ppm (105 mg/ m3) 0.14 ppm (365μg/m3

) ---

Sulfur dioxide

Annual arithmetic 

mean

--- 0.03 ppm (80 μg/m3) ---

24 hour 50 μg/m3150 μ/m3 Same as primary Particulate matter as 

PM10

Annual (arithmetic 

mean) 20 μg/m3

50 μg/m3 Same as primary

24 hour ---- 65 μg/m3 Particulate matter as Same as primary

PM2.5 Annual arithmetic --- 15 μg/m3 Same as primary

Quarterly average --- 1.5 μg/m3 Same as primary

Lead 30-day average 1.5 μg/m3

--- ---

Visibility Reducing 

Particles 8 hour

Extinction coefficient of 

0.23 per kilometer –

visibility of 10 miles or 

more due to particles when 

relative humidity is less 

than 70 percent

--- ---

Sulfates 24 hour 25 μg/m3--- ---

Vinyl Chloride 24 hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3

) --- ---

Hydrogen sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3

) --- ---

Source: (DoD, 2002a), EPA, 2003a, and California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resource Board, 2003

a

 These standards must not be exceeded in areas where the general public has access.

b

 These standards, other than for ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages, must not be exceeded more than once 

per year. The 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal 

to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-

hour average concentration above the standard is equal to or less than one. For PM 2,5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 

percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard.

c

 Concentration is expressed in units in which it was adopted and is based on a reference temperature of 25 °C and a reference pressure 

of 760 millimeter of mercury. All air quality measurements must be corrected to a reference temperature of 25 °C and a reference 

pressure of 760 millimeter of mercury (1,013.2 millibars); parts per million (ppm) in this table refers to volume or micromoles of 

pollutant per mole of gas.

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

 Micrograms per cubic meter

g Parts per million by volume or micromoles per mole of gas

If a NAAQS standard is exceeded, the EPA requires the preparation of a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) that describes the manner in which the state will meet or attain 

the NAAQS. The SIP contains emission limitations as well as record keeping and 

reporting requirements for affected sources. As a result of the CAA Amendments, the 

requirements and compliance dates for reaching attainment are based on the severity of 

the air quality standard violation. A Federal agency cannot support an action (e.g., fund, 
31 February 2004

license) unless the activity will conform to the recent EPA-approved SIP for the region. 

This is called a conformity determination or analysis. A conformity analysis may involve 

performing air quality modeling and implementing measures to mitigate the air quality 

impacts. The Federal government is exempt from the requirement to perform a 

conformity analysis if two conditions are met: 

1. The ongoing activities do not produce emissions above the de minimis levels 

specified in the rule. Table 3-2 shows the de minimis threshold levels of various nonattainment areas. 

2. The Federal action must not be considered a regionally significant action. A Federal 

action is considered regionally significant when the total emissions from the action 

equal or exceed 10 percent of the air quality control area’s emissions inventory for 

any criteria pollutant. 

Table 3-2. De Minimis Thresholds in Non-Attainment Areas

Pollutant Degree of Non-Attainment

De minimis Level 

(metric tons/year 

(tons/year))

Serious 45 (50)

Severe 23 (25)

Extreme 9 (10)

Marginal/Moderate 

(outside ozone transport region)

45 (50 VOC)

Ozone (VOCs 

and NOx)

Marginal/Moderate 

(inside ozone transport region)

91 (100 NOx)

CO All 91 (100)

Moderate 91 (100) PM Serious 64 (70)

SO2 or NO2 All 91 (100)

Pb All 23 (25)

Source: EPA regulations 40 CFR 93.153(b)

To determine the effects of air emission sources on the ambient air concentrations, air 

quality modeling is usually conducted. The types and amounts of pollutants, the 

topography of the air basin, and the prevailing meteorological conditions are considered 

in modeling the air quality concentrations. The meteorological parameters that most

often affect pollutant dispersion are wind speed, wind direction, atmospheric stability, 

mixing height, and temperature. 

3.2.2 Existing Conditions

Climate

The Mojave Airport is located in an arid region. The climate is characterized by hot 

summers and cool winters. The region is surrounded by several mountain ranges that 
32 February 2004

greatly limit precipitation. The air quality is influenced by mountain passes that help 

transport some air pollutants into the region. Temperature data from nearby Edwards 

AFB indicate average annual precipitation of 12.4 centimeters (4.9 inches) and annual 

average temperature of 17 degrees Celsius (oC) (62 degrees Fahrenheit (oF)). For 

January, the daily mean high and low temperatures are 14 and -0.6 oC (57 and 31 oF), 

respectively. For July, the daily mean high and low temperatures are 37 and 19 oC (98 

and 66 oF), respectively. The prevailing winds are from the southwest. Winds are 

strongest in the spring and summer, and are calm during the fall and winter. 

(DoD, 2002a)

On Site

The existing aircraft operations at the Mojave Airport contribute to the condition of air 

quality in the region. Table 3-3 provides a summary of current aircraft emissions at the 

Mojave Airport. 

Table 3-3. Estimated Aircraft Emissions Annually from Mojave Airport 

Estimated Emissions in kilograms/year 

(pounds/year)

Aircraft Percent 

Use

Flights 

per year

CO NOx VOC

Sulfur 

Oxides 

(SOx)

PM

Representative 

Aircraft used 

in Calculation

Single-engine 60.6 11,090 41,853 (92,269)

101 

(222)

1,157 

(2,551)

0 0 Cessna 150

Twin-engine

18.7 3,422 51,378 

(113,268)

202 

(445)

1,785 

(3,935) 0 0

Cessna 

Skymaster

Turboprop 14 2,562 8,321 

(18,344)

953 

(2,101)

5,904 

(13,015) 209 (461) 0

Beech B99 

Arliner

Military Jet 3.9 714 10,441 (23,019)

3,524 

(7,768)

1,600 

(3,527)

473 

(1,042)

10986 

(24,219) F-4 Phantom

Airline Jet 2.8 513 13,019 (28,702)

6,897 

(15,205)

3,128 

(6,895)

761 

(1,678) 272 (600) Boeing 727

Total 18,301 125,011 (275,603)

11,676 

(25,741)

13,573 

(29,923)

1,443 

(3,181)

11,258 

(24,819)

Source: EPA, 1980 and Kern County, 2003c

There are also emissions from the tank farm, which has seven tanks containing a total of 

503,460 liters (133,000 gallons) capacity. Typically 109,000 gallons of Jet-A fuel is 

stored at the airport. According to the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures 

(SPCC) Plan for EKAD-Mojave California (EKAD, 2003), several of the tanks are above 

ground tanks permitted to store and dispense Jet-A fuel and gasoline at Mojave Airport. 

Table 3-4 outlines the tank capacity, and corresponding VOC emission rates. 
33 February 2004

Table 3-4. Maximum Estimated VOC Emissions from Above Ground Tanks at 

Mojave Airport

Tank Type Tank Capacity

liters (gallons)

VOC Emission Rates

kilograms (pounds) per day

Jet-A fuel storage and 

dispensing

113,562

(30,000)

3.58

(7.89)

Jet-A fuel storage and 

dispensing

124,919 

(33,000)

2.24

(4.93)

Aviation fuel gasoline 

storage and dispensing

45,425

(12,000)

0.17

(0.38)

Total 283,906

(75,000)

6.0

(13.2)

Annual VOC Emissions 

kilograms (pounds) -

2,185

(4,818)

Off Site

Baseline Condition. Table 3-5 provides current and estimated baseline emissions for the 

Kern County Air Pollution Control District (KCAPCD).

Table 3-5. Kern County Emissions

Baseline and Forecasted Emission Baseline (metric tons/year (tons/year))

Year VOCs NOx PM10

1990a5,463.6 (6,022.5) NA 23,177 (25,548)

1996b4,486.7 (4,945.7) 12,910.6 (14,231.3) 15,720 (17,328)c

1999b4,516.6 (4,978.6) 13,437.2 (14,811.7) NA

a

 Actual

b

 Estimated 

c

 PM10 estimated for 1994 

Source: KCAPD 1993, 1994a, 1994b, 1996, 1997, and 2000

Attainment Status. The CARB has delegated responsibility for regulating stationary 

emission sources to local air agencies. The Mojave Airport is located within the 

KCAPCD. Eastern Kern County is in Federal non-attainment (serious) and state nonattainment (moderate) for ozone. (EPA, 2003b) In an effort to reach attainment status, 

KCAPCD has developed several planning documents including the Federal Ozone 

Attainment Demonstration Plan (KCAPCD, 1994c), which have been approved by the 

EPA and included in the California Ozone SIP. The documents outline baseline and 

future regional emission inventories, mandated emission reductions, and computer 

modeling to attain the Federal ozone standard. (DoD, 2002a) Kern County has also 

developed the California Clean Air Act Kern County Ozone Air Quality Attainment Plan 

(November 15, 2000). Table 3-6 indicates the attainment status of pollutants in the 

KCAPCD (Eastern County).
34 February 2004

Table 3-6. KCAPCD (Eastern County) Attainment Status

Pollutant California Standard Federal Standard

Ozone Non-attainment (moderate) Non-attainment (serious)

CO Unclassified Unclassified

NO2 Attainment Unclassified

SO2 Attainment Unclassified

PM10 Non-attainment Unclassified

Pb Attainment Attainment

PM2.5 Not applicable Not determined10

HS Attainment Not applicable

Sulfates Attainment Not applicable

Source: California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, 2000, EPA, 2003b and Kern 

County, 2003b

The sources of pollution in eastern Kern County are not solely responsible for exceeding 

the Federal ozone standards. Ozone and ozone precursor emissions are transported from 

both the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and the South Coast Air Basin into Eastern Kern 

County. The mountains that surround Kern County channel air pollutants through the 

passes. In addition, although eastern Kern County does not have large urban centers, 

which would be sources of air pollution, it does have several Portland cement plants that 

are major NOx emission sources. The PM10 levels are primarily the result of fugitive 

dust, which is produced from high winds, dry soils and activities associated with mining, 

agriculture, and construction. (DoD, 2002a)

The CARB has operated a KCAPCD-owned ozone monitoring station at Mojave Airport 

since 1993. Table 3-7 lists peak ozone concentrations at Mojave Airport. 

Table 3-7. Peak Concentrations (ppm) of Ozone 1994-1999

Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Concentration 

(ppm) 0.122 0.121 0.124 0.121 0.124 0.121

Source: KCAPCD, 2000

3.3 Airspace

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, and is regulated by the FAA. (DoD, 

2002a) The FAA has developed specific classifications for airspace to establish limits on 

its use. These classifications include controlled and uncontrolled airspace, special use 

 

10 EPA cannot begin to implement 1997 fine particulate matter standards until the EPA and states collect 

three years of monitoring data to determine which areas are not attaining the standards. The fine particle 

monitoring network was completed in 2000. In most cases, attainment and non-attainment decisions will 

not be made until 2004-2005.
35 February 2004

airspace, military training routes, en route airways and jet routes, airports and airfields, 

and air traffic control. (DoD, 2002a)

Controlled and Uncontrolled Airspace. The FAA categorizes airspace within the U.S. as 

controlled or uncontrolled. Controlled airspace requires air traffic control (ATC) services 

for instrument flight rules (IFR) flights and for visual flight rules (VFR) flights where 

applicable. (DoD, 2002a) 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, 2003a) Table 3-8 provides 

descriptions for 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 mean sea level (MSL) and is referred to as Class 

G airspace. (DoD, 2002a) Figure 3-4 displays the controlled airspace classifications.

Table 3-8. Airspace Classification Descriptions

Classificat

ion

Controlled or 

Uncontrolled Description

Class A Controlled

Includes U.S. airspace overlying 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 (FL) 600 (18,288 meters or 60,000 

feet above MSL). Excludes Alaska, Hawaii, Santa Barbara Island, Farallon 

Island, and the airspace south of latitude 25 degrees 04 minutes 00 seconds 

North.

Class B Controlled

Ranges from the surface to 3,049 meters (10,000 feet) above 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 kilometers (5 nautical mile) radius, and an outer circle with a 19 kilometers 

(10 nautical mile) radius 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 FL600.

Class G Uncontrolled Airspace that is not classified by the FAA

Source: DoD, 2002a

Special Use Airspace. Special use airspace is 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, 2003a) Examples 

of special use airspace are alert areas, controlled firing areas, MOAs, prohibited areas, 

restricted areas, and warning areas. (DoD, 2002a)
36 February 2004

Military Training Routes. The FAA defines military training rout es as 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. En route airways and jet routes are 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, 2002a)

Airports and Airfields. Airports and airfields are terms that 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) 

ATC. The FAA defines ATC as a “service operated by appropriate authority to promote 

the safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic.” (FAA, 2003a)

3.3.2 Existing Conditions

On Site

Controlled and Uncontrolled Airspace. The Mojave Airport is classified as Class D 

airspace within an 8.0-kilometer (4.3 nautical mile) radius of the airport and from the 

surface up to 1,463 meters (4,800 feet) MSL when the control tower is in service. (LOA 

TRACON, 1996) At all other times the airspace is classified as Class G and E. (Mojave 

Airport, 2003c) 

Special Use Airspace. The Mojave Airport is located within the R-2508 Complex, which 

is jointly managed and used by the Naval Air Weapons Center, Weapons Division, China 

Lake, CA; National Training Center, Fort Irwin, CA; and Air Force Flight Test Center, 

Edwards AFB, CA. The R-2508 Complex covers approximately 51,800 square 

kilometers (20,000 square miles) extending 225 kilometers (140 miles) north to south 

from Bishop, CA to Edwards AFB and 177 kilometers (110 miles) west to east from 

Bakersfield, CA to the Nevada state line. (DoD, 2002a) The R-2508 Complex is made up 

of MOAs, Restricted Areas, and ATCAA. Figure 3-5 shows the location of the R-2508 

Complex. Aircraft activities in the R-2508 Complex are restricted due to unusual or 

unseen hazards in the area. Within the R-2508 Complex, there are several restricted area 

designations, R-2515, R-2505, R-2506, R-2524, R-2502N, and R-2502E. The air traffic 

control agency in the R-2508 Complex is the High Desert Terminal Radar Approach 

Control (HI-DESERT TRACON) except for the Bakersfield MOA, which is controlled
37 February 2004

Figure 3-4. Diagram of Controlled and Uncontrolled Airspace

15 NM

18,000’ MSL

FL 450

FL 600

J (Jet Routes)

18,000’ MSLFL450

C

D

G

14,500’ MSL

COAST

GROUND

E

A

E

Point-to-Point 

Navigation

Airport 

w/o 

operating 

control 

tower

1200’ AGL

700’ AGL

C

Mode C D

G

10 NM

30 NM

5 NM

B

VOR/ 

TACAN

10,000’ MSL

4000’ AGL

2500’ AGL

VOR Airways

Victor

“V-Routes” 

1,200’AGL17,999’MSL

C

Mode C

5 NM

G

Mode C

Airports with operating control tower

15 NM

18,000’ MSL

FL 450

FL 600

J (Jet Routes)

18,000’ MSLFL450

C

D

G

14,500’ MSL

COAST

GROUND

E

A

E

Point-to-Point 

Navigation

Airport 

w/o 

operating 

control 

tower

1200’ AGL

700’ AGL

C

Mode C D

G

10 NM

30 NM

5 NM

B

VOR/ 

TACAN

10,000’ MSL

4000’ AGL

2500’ AGL

VOR Airways

Victor

“V-Routes” 

1,200’AGL17,999’MSL

C

Mode C

5 NM

G

Mode C

Airports with operating control tower

by the Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). (DoD, 2002a) The 

Mojave Airport control tower has an LOA with HI-DESERT TRACON for coordinating 

flight activities in the R-2508 Complex. (LOA TRACON, 1996) The Mojave Airport 

control tower also has an LOA with the SPORT Radar Control Facility for coordinating 

flight activities in R-2515. (LOA SPORT, 1994) These LOAs detail the procedures and 

requirements for the Mojave Airport control tower and aircraft operating within the R2508 Complex and R-2515. The FAA issued a waiver to the EKAD in 2002 to operate 

aircraft in the R-2508 Complex for

° Speeds in excess of 463 kilometers per hour (250 knots) indicated airspeed (IAS) 

below 3,049 meters (10,000) feet MSL, and 

° Speeds in excess of 370 kilometers per hour (200 knots) IAS within Mojave Airport 

Class D airspace.

The MOAs have vertical and horizontal limits established to maintain aircraft separation

from IFR flight traffic. The Mojave Airport is located solely within the Isabella MOA. 

(Kern County, 2003c) See Figure 3-5 for a map of the MOAs. The Mojave Airport is 

not located within any warning, prohibited, restricted, or alert special use airspace. The 

R-2508 restricted airspace starts at FL200 (6,096 meters MSL [20,000 feet]) and extends 

upward. The Mojave Class D airspace only goes to 1,463 meters MSL (4,800 feet).
38 February 2004

Military Training Routes, En Route Airways, and Jet Routes. No military training routes, 

en route airways or jet routes, or airports or airfields are located within the Mojave 

Airport airspace. (DoD, 2002a)

ATC. The Mojave Airport has an air traffic control tower on site that provides VFR 

services. The control tower is in operation Monday through Friday from 7 am to 5 pm. 

(Mojave Airport, 2003a) Because the Mojave Airport is located in the R-2508 Complex, 

it maintains regular communication with HI-DESERT TRACON and SPORT to 

coordinate aircraft activities.

Off Site

Controlled and Uncontrolled Airspace. The airspace within the ROI is Class A, Class D, 

or Class E controlled airspace, unless otherwise classified as special use airspace as 

described below. Within these controlled airspaces, ATC (HI-DESERT TRACON, 

SPORT, or Los Angeles ARTCC) will provide separation services to IFR aircraft. 

(DoD, 2002a) Separation services will be provided to VFR aircraft to the extent 

practical.

Special Use Airspace. The ROI would be within the R-2508 Complex. Flight 

coordination would occur as described in the on-site restricted areas discussion. The ROI 

would include portions of the Isabella, Buckhorn, Barstow, and Panamint MOAs and the 

R-2515. See Figure 3-5 for a map of the MOAs.

Figure 3-5. Map of the R-2508 Complex

Source: Edwards AFB, 2003

Edwards AFB has a Western Approach Reentry Corridor for unmanned lifting entry 

vehicles (LEV). (DoD, 2002a) The corridor extends from the heading alignment circle at 
39 February 2004

Edwards AFB along the 250° and 290° radials and continues out to approximately 8,045 

kilometers (5,000 miles) west of Edwards AFB. (DoD, 2002a) Figure 3-6 shows the 

Edwards AFB Western Approach Reentry Corridor. At the California coastline, the 

corridor is approximately 225 kilometers (140 miles) wide. The estimated altitude of the 

LEV is 13,716 meters (45,000 feet) above MSL when the LEV is within eight kilometers 

(five miles) west of Edwards AFB. (DoD, 2002a) The ROI would include the eastern 

most tip of the Western Approach Reentry Corridor. No warning, prohibited, or alert 

special use airspace would be within the ROI.

Controlled Firing Areas. Three controlled firing areas are located in the proposed ROI. 

The northeastern most area of the ROI includes the southern tip of the China Lake 

NAWS North Range (R-2505) and the southwest portion of the NAWS South Range 

(R-2524). (Kern County, 2003c) These two ranges are within the R-2508 Complex and 

extend from the ground level to an unlimited altitude. The Trona Corridor controlled 

firing area is located between the R-2505 and R-2524 zones and extends from 914 meters 

(3,000 feet) above ground level to FL200 (6,098 meters or 20,000 feet above MSL). The 

controlled firing ranges are shown in Figure 3-5.

Military Training Routes. There are several military training routes in the R-2508 

Complex. The R-2508 Complex is VFR only and operates on a “see and avoid” basis to 

ensure aircraft separation. (DoD, 2002a) The ROI will cross several military training 

routes including IR200, IR211, IR425, IR236, VR1205, VR1206, VR1214, VR1215, 

VR1218, VR1262, and VR1265. 

En Route Airways and Jet Routes. Several en route airways and jet routes, V8-21, 

V283-587, V12, V210, V386, V442 are located within the ROI. 

Airports and Airfields. A number of public and private airports and airfields lie within or 

near the ROI. Within California from west to east, they are Rosamond, California City, 

Inyokern, Edwards AFB, Borax, China Lake NAWS, Boron, Hansen, Adelanto, Sun Hill, 

Southern California Logistics, Apple Valley, Osborne, Holiday, Rabbit, Depue, and 

Trona. (Maps.com, 2003)

ATC. The primary ATC agency for the R-2508 Complex is the HI-DESERT TRACON. 

(DoD, 2002a) The HI-DESERT TRACON controls the R-2508 Complex when the 

Complex is “Active” for military use and when some or the entire Complex is “Released” 

for joint use. At this time, the NAS has not set an upper limit to define FAA’s 

responsibilities for vehicles transitioning to and from space. However, a limit may be set 

by the NAS in 2005. (DoD, 2002a) 
40 February 2004

Figure 3-6. Map of the Western Approach Reentry Corridor

Source: DoD, 2002a

3.4 Biological Resources

3.4.1 Definition of Resource

Native or naturalized vegetation, wildlife, and the habitats in which they occur are 

collectively referred to as biological resources. Biological resources include vegetation, 

wildlife, threatened and endangered species, and environmentally sensitive habitats. Key 

laws and regulations that govern the protection of biological resources are described 

below.

Federal Endangered Species Act

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) administers the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.), which states that all Federal departments and agencies shall 

seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species. Under the Endangered 

Species Act, the Secretary of the Interior creates lists of endangered and threatened 

species. Endangered species means any plant or animal species that is in danger of 
41 February 2004

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The act defines a threatened 

species as any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Species on either of 

these lists are afforded special protection.

Sensitive species include those species identified by the USFWS as candidates for 

possible listing as threatened or endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. 

Candidate species are those for which the USFWS has obtained substantial information 

on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list the species as 

endangered or threatened.

Critical habitat for a threatened or endangered species is defined as specific areas within 

the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, which contain the 

physical or biological features essential to conservation of the species and may require 

special management considerations or protection. Critical habitat also includes specific 

areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species at the time it is listed that are 

essential to conservation of the species.

California Endangered Species Act

The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) administers the California 

Endangered Species Act. The State of California considers an endangered species one 

whose prospects of survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy. An endangered 

species is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of 

its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, 

predation, competition, or disease. A threatened species is one likely to become an 

endangered species in the near future in the absence of special protection or management 

because it is present in such small numbers throughout its range. A rare species is 

present in such small numbers throughout its range that it may become endangered if its 

present environment worsens. The CDFG considers a candidate species one formally 

under review by the department for addition to either the endangered species list or 

threatened species list.

The CDFG uses the informal designation “species of special concern” to designate some 

declining wildlife species that are rare but are not candidates for listing as threatened or 

endangered. The designation does not provide legal protection but signifies that these 

species are recognized as sensitive by the CDFG. Some of these, i.e., migratory birds, 

may be protected under other laws such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Other Federal Regulations

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (16 USC 661 et seq.), encourages all 

Federal departments and agencies to utilize their statutory and administrative authority, to 

the maximum extent practicable and consistent with each agency’s statutory 

responsibilities, to conserve and promote conservation of non-game fish and wildlife and 

their habitats.
42 February 2004

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 USC 703-712) protects most 

species of migratory birds. Specifically, the act prohibits the pursuit, hunting, taking, 

capture, possession, or killing of such species or their nests and eggs.

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668 et seq.) establishes penalties for 

the unauthorized taking, possession, selling, purchase, or transportation of bald or golden 

eagles, their nests, or their eggs. Any Federal activity that might disturb eagles requires 

consultation with the USFWS for appropriate mitigation.

Other State and Local Regulations

Under Section 2081 of the State Fish and Game Code, the CDFG may authorize 

individuals or public agencies to import, export, take, or possess, any state-listed 

endangered, threatened, or candidate species. These otherwise prohibited acts may be 

authorized through permits or memoranda of understanding if

ß The take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity,

ß Impacts of the authorized take are minimized and fully mitigated,

ß The permit is consistent with any regulations adopted pursuant to any recovery plan 

for the species, and

ß The applicant ensures adequate funding to implement the measures required by 

CDFG.

The Native Plant Protection Act includes measures to preserve, protect, and enhance rare 

and endangered native plants. The definitions of “rare and endangered” differ from those 

contained in the California Endangered Species Act. However, the list of native plants 

afforded protection pursuant to this Act includes those listed as rare and endangered 

under the California Endangered Species Act.

The West Mojave Plan aims to define a process for complying with threatened and 

endangered species laws. The plan will also provide a streamlined permitting process 

and define consistent mitigation measures and compensation obligation. 

The Mojave Specific Plan provides objectives and policies intended to protect biological 

resources. For conservation, it is essential to maintain and promote the retention of 

natural settings and use of native of adaptable vegetation. For open space, it is necessary 

to ensure that development expands without adversely impacting significant natural 

resources on lands within the Resource Management designation. The Specific Plan also 

describes implementation actions to ensure that these goals and policies are carried out in 

a timely manner. Implementation of the Mojave Specific Plan would not affect local 

policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or provisions of an adopted Habitat 

Conservation Plan or Natural Community Plan. 

3.4.2 Existing Conditions

The Mojave Airport is situated on the western portion of the Mojave Desert and consists 

largely of deve loped property. The region surrounding the airport, however, is rich in 
43 February 2004

biological diversity because of its varied vegetation communities, distinct landforms, and 

location adjacent to the Transverse Ranges, the Sierra Nevada, the Colorado Desert, and 

the Great Basin. There are no permanent, naturally occurring surface waters or open 

freshwater systems in the region. Neither the Mojave Specific Plan nor the Draft 

EIS/EIR for the West Mojave Plan identified the presence of Federally protected 

wetlands, as defined by section 404 of the Clean Water Act, at the Mojave Airport. As a 

result, jurisdictional wetlands would not be affected by the proposed activities at the 

airport.

Vegetation

The Mojave Specific Plan indicates that native vegetation formations within the planning 

area roughly follow a terrain- and soil-dependent gradient from west to east, which 

extends down slope from the Tehachapi foothills across the Mojave basin toward Rogers 

Dry Lake. The Mojave Airport and the surrounding land located east of the airport are 

generally level across the plains. 

The eastern region surrounding the Mojave Airport consists of Mojave creosote bush 

scrub, which may be intermixed with chenopod scrub formations. Creosote scrub is 

characterized by creosote bush and types of creosote scrub vary widely. On disturbed 

sites, creosote scrub is described as open, non-grassland, herbaceous vegetation that 

grows in rubbish, or on poor land, whereas in other areas, relatively intact scrub 

formations may be intermixed with other native shrub and grass species. The Mojave 

Specific Plan noted that some creosote scrub areas annually exhibit brief, dense 

wildflower displays, however, this typically occurs in areas where disturbance levels are 

low or not recent. The occurrence of creosote clonal rings may be unique to the Mojave 

creosote scrub formation, but these biological features are not formally protected, and are 

not present on the Mojave Airport property.

Joshua tree habitats dominate the western margins of the Mojave Specific Plan area and 

may be observed in western portions of the Mojave Airport region. Often Joshua trees 

are the only tree-structure plant species observed within upper Mojave Desert habitats. 

Joshua tree woodland formations, albeit rare, and mixed formations of Joshua tree and 

creosote scrub formations may occur, both of which offer a large variety of niches and 

habitats. The presence of only a few Joshua trees within a desert scrub formation is 

sufficient to provide shelter, additional food resources, shade, escape habitat for small 

vertebrates, and nesting sites for a variety of birds. There are no local policies or 

ordinances for tree preservation. 

Federally protected wetlands are not located at the Mojave Airport. The Draft EIS/EIR 

for the West Mojave Plan indicates that protection of alkali wetland communities, 

including seeps, springs, meadows and playas, is a top priority. The plan indicates that 

these sites are very likely to result in new discoveries of disjunctive and endemic species 

of rare plants.
44 February 2004

Wildlife

Potential wildlife in the Mojave Airport region includes invertebrates, reptiles, mammals, 

and migrant and local birds. Fish are not present in this area due to low rainfall (average 

thirteen centimeters [five inches] per year) and intermittent streams. The diverse 

vegetation formations in the region surrounding the Mojave Airport support wildlife at 

variable levels. Generally, habitats differ according to soil characteristics; annual plant 

diversity and density; slope and orientation to sunlight and wind; shrub cover density and 

diversity; and (where present) Joshua tree age classes and density. For example, the 

presence or absence of sensitive wildlife species such as the desert tortoise and Mohave 

ground squirrel may be determined by: soil characteristics (burrow support); groundcover 

(wind sheltering by shrubs); seasonal hydrology (flooding or ponding); and/or annual 

vegetation production (food resources). Both the desert tortoise and Mohave ground 

squirrel have historically occurred throughout the ROI and have limited potential to occur 

almost anywhere within the Mojave Specific Plan area. (Kern County, 2003b) 

In the Mojave Airport region, general wildlife habitat values are typically highest within 

intact Joshua tree woodland formations and mixed formations of Joshua tree and creosote 

scrub formations, and lowest within chenopod scrub formations that have limited shrub 

species diversity.

The Mojave Specific Plan noted that the community of Mojave might lie within a historic 

wildlife movement zone between the Tehachapi foothills and dry lake playas. Because 

habitat values change dramatically between these two areas, this alleged linkage may 

have served only a few larger, more mobile species on a direct movement basis. The 

Specific Plan assessment of wildlife movement was presumptive, however, because no 

studies of wildlife movement within the planning area were identified during literature 

searches.

Potentially Sensitive Species

The Mojave Specific Plan establishes long-term land use policies for a large planning 

area that includes the Mojave Airport. The Mojave Specific Plan identifies the Mojave 

Airport as part of an “urbanized, non-sensitive” area where a biological survey would not 

be required. These “urbanized, non-sensitive” areas have been developed, previously 

surveyed, or subject to mitigation for sensitive species. Although the Mojave Airport is 

considered an “urbanized, non-sensitive” area where a biological assessment is not 

required, this section will describe sensitive species common to the surrounding region, 

including those species observed at the airport.

The USFWS Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office is responsible for establishing lists of 

threatened and endangered species for the desert portions of Kern County. Table 3-9 

provides the species listed, proposed, or identified as candidate species that may occur in 

the ROI. 
45 February 2004

Table 3-9. Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species That May Occur in the ROI 

Common Name Federal 

Status 1

State 

Status 1 Scientific Name

Bald Eagle T E

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

California Condor* E, CH E

Gymnogyps 

californianus

Least Bell’s Vireo E E Vireo bellii pusillus

Yellow-billed Cuckoo C - Coccyzus americanus

Swainson’s Hawk - T Buteo swainsoni

Birds

Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher E -

Empidonax traillii 

extimus

California Red-legged 

Frog T - Rana aurora draytonii

Amphibians

Arroyo Toad E - Bufo californicus

Reptiles

Desert Tortoise T, CH T

Gopherus (=Xerobates) 

agassizii

Fish

Mojave Tui Chub E E Gila bicolor mohavensis

Cushenberry 

Buckwheat E -

Erigonum ovalifolium 

var. vineum

Cushenberry Milkvetch E - Astragalus albens

Kelso Creek 

Monkeyflower PE - Mimulus shevockii

Lane Mountain 

Milkvetch E - Astragalus jaegerianus

Parish’s Daisy T - Erigeron parishii

Plants

Mojave tarplant - E Hemizonia mohavensis

Mammal

Mohave Ground 

Squirrel - T

Spermophilus 

mohavensis

1

 E = Endangered, T = Threatened, CH = Critical Habitat, PE = Taxa proposed for listing as endangered, C 

= Candidate for which the Fish and Wildlife Service has on file sufficient information on the biological 

vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list as endangered or threatened.

Source: Adapted from U.S. Department of the Interior, 2003 and California Department of Fish and Game, 

2003. 

* Species with an asterisk denote species for which Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office has the lead.
46 February 2004

The Mojave Specific Plan lists potentially sensitive species in the Mojave planning area, 

which are provided in Table 3-10. Sensitive species include those classified formally 

according to Federal and state regulations and informally such as CDFG species of 

special concern. The Mojave Specific Plan also includes a biological resource 

assessment that discusses sensitive resources in greater detail.

Table 3-10. Potentially Sensitive Species in the Mojave Specific Plan Area

Species Type Common Name

Alkali mariposa lily

Barstow woolly sunflower

Desert cymopterus

Mohave tarplant

Pygmy poppy

Mojave spineflower

Plants

Sagebrush loeflingia

Invertebrates Mojave blister beetle

Desert tortoise Reptiles Rosy boa

Insectivorous bats

Mohave ground squirrel Mammals

American badger

Golden eagle

Swainson’s hawk

Ferruginous hawk

Northern harrier

Prairie falcon

Cooper’s hawk

Long-eared owl

Short-eared owl

Western burrowing owl

Loggerhead shrike

LeConte’s thrasher

Bendire’s thrasher

Birds

Virginia’s warbler

Source: Adapted from Kern County, 2003e

Both the desert tortoise and Mohave ground squirrel are agency-listed, sensitive wildlife 

species. The desert tortoise has the potential to occur almost anywhere within the 

Mojave Specific Plan area and the Mohave ground squirrel historically occurred 

throughout the community of Mojave. The presence of desert tortoise or Mohave ground 

squirrel was not reported in specific plans that were previously prepared for the Mojave 

community or recent documentation for projects west of the Antelope Valley Freeway. 

However, there is limited potential for both species to occur nearly anywhere within the 

Specific Plan area. As a result, although the Mojave Airport is considered an urbanized, 
47 February 2004

non-sensitive area, appropriate mitigation measures may be taken to ensure protection of 

both species if individuals are observed on the airport property. (Kern County 2003b)

The desert tortoise is a large, herbivorous reptile that occurs in low densities around the 

community of Mojave; primarily within creosote scrub and Joshua tree formations see 

Figure 3-7. The favored habitat for desert tortoises consists of creosote scrub with 

abundant grasses and other herbaceous vegetation, relatively well-consolidated soils, 

light terrain, and numerous small dry washes, and elevations of approximately 305 to 914 

meters (1,000 to 3,000 feet). On April 2, 1990, the desert tortoise was determined to be a 

threatened species. A final rule (59 Federal Register 5820), published February 8, 1994, 

designated desert tortoise critical habitat to identify key biological and physical needs of 

the species, key areas for recovery, and potential conservation actions.

Figure 3-7. Desert Tortoise

Source: Desert Tortoise Preservation Committee, 2003a

According to the USFWS Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, the Mohave ground 

squirrel is designated threatened by the State of California. (See Figure 3-8.) The 

Mohave ground squirrel is small, brown, and found only in the Mojave Desert. The 

species occurs in all major desert scrub habitats in the western Mojave Desert, including 

creosote scrub, saltbush (chenopod scrub), and Joshua tree woodland. The Mohave 

ground squirrel typically occupies underground burrows from July or August through 

February. Determining the status of the Mohave ground squirrel is difficult due to 

behavioral and demographic aspects of the species, as it is inactive throughout much of 

the year, and abundance as well as the period of surface activity varies from year to year. 

Critical habitat has not been designated for the Mohave ground squirrel.
48 February 2004

Figure 3-8. Mohave Ground Squirrel

Source: Desert Tortoise Preservation Committee, 2003b

3.5 Cultural, Historic, and Native American Resources

3.5.1 Definition of Resource

Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic artifacts, archaeological sites, historic 

buildings and structures, and traditional resources (such as Native American religious 

sites). Paleontological resources are fossil remains of prehistoric plant and animal 

species and may include bones, shells, leaves, and pollen. Cultural resources of 

particular concern include properties listed or eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register of Historic Places (National Register).

Only those cultural resources determined to be potentially significant under 36 CFR 60.4 

are subject to protection from adverse impacts resulting from an undertaking. To be 

considered significant, cultural resources must meet one or more of the criteria 

established by the National Park Service that would make that resource eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register. The term “eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register” includes all properties that meet the National Register listing criteria which are 

specified in Department of Interior regulations at 36 CFR 60.4. Therefore, sites not yet 

evaluated may be considered potentially eligible for the National Register and, as such, 

are afforded the same regulatory consideration as nominated properties. Whether 

prehistoric, historic, or traditional, significant cultural resources are referred to as historic 

properties.

Federal Regulations

Numerous laws and regulations require that possible impacts on cultural resources be 

considered during the planning and execution of Federal undertakings. These laws and 

regulations stipulate a process of compliance, define the responsibilities of the Federal 

agency proposing the action, and prescribe the relationship among other involved 

agencies (e.g., State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation). In addition to NEPA, the primary laws that pertain to the treatment of 

cultural resources during environmental analysis are the National Historic Preservation 

Act (16 USC 470 et seq.) especially Sections 106 and 110, the Archaeological Resources 
49 February 2004

Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC 470aa-470mm), the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC 

431), and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 USC 3001 et 

seq.).

State and Local Regulations

Section 21084 of the CEQA provides the criteria for defining a historical resource. 

Section 15064 includes the requirements for determining whether a resource is 

historically significant and meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of 

Historical Places.

The California Public Resources Code, Section 5020.4, further describes the criteria for 

inclusion in the California Register of Historic Places, evaluation of resources less than 

50 years old, and responsibilities of the State Historic Resources Commission and the 

Office of Historic Preservation. Properties on state or private lands are formally 

identified as significant by being listed in the California Register of Historic Resources or 

designated as a California Historic Landmark or California Point of Historical Interest. 

The California Register of Historic Places includes resources formally determined to be 

eligible for, or listed in, the National Register. 

The Health and Safety Code (Section 7052) establishes a felony penalty for disturbing 

human remains. The California Penal Code (Section 622.5) and California Public 

Resources Code (Section 5097.5) provide and define, respectively, “misdemeanor 

penalties for injuring or destroying objects of historical or archeological interest located 

on public or private lands.”

Some local governments also offer designation/registration programs for local properties. 

The Mojave Specific Plan establishes a policy regarding conservation of cultural 

resources.

Prior to discretionary and ministerial development of any individual project within the 

Specific Plan area, a complete search of records and literature and/or a Phase 1 

Assessment shall be conducted to identify the presence of any specific cultural resources 

and/or Native American sacred lands at the project site. Recommendations shall be 

incorporated into project approval.

These mitigation measures are required to avoid potential impacts on cultural resources 

within the Specific Plan area, which includes the Mojave Airport.

3.5.2 Existing Conditions

There are 22 sites in Kern County, 385 sites in Los Angeles County, and 52 sites in San 

Bernardino County that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, including 

sites such as the Last Chance Canyon, which has a period of significance that dates back 

as early as 9000-10999 BC. Table 3-11 shows the listed sites that are within the ROI. 

Each site’s name, location, and date added to the National Register are provided. There 

are no National Register sites located in the community of Mojave. 
50 February 2004

Table 3-11. Listed Sites for the National Register of Historic Places in the ROI

Name of Site Location Date 

Added

Burro Schmidt's Tunnel Ridgecrest 03/20/2003

Last Chance Canyon Johannesburg 12/5/1972

Rogers Dry Lake Mojave Desert 10/3/1985

Bitter Spring Archaeological Site (4-SBr-2659) Barstow 12/20/1982

Fossil Canyon Petroglyph Site Barstow 3/3/2003

Harvey House Railroad Depot Barstow 4/3/1975

Rodman Mountains Petroglyphs Archaeological District Barstow 5/10/1982

CA SBr 1008A, CA SBr 1008B, CA SBr 1008C Johannesburg 5/24/1982

Squaw Spring Archaeological District Red Mountain 7/28/1981

Blackwater Well Red Mountain 11/21/2000

Source: National Park Service, 2003a

There are 28 sites in Kern County, 148 sites in Los Angeles County, and 87 sites in San 

Bernardino County that may be currently eligible for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places. The National Park Service has determined that, of these sites, two sites 

in Kern County, eight sites in Los Angeles County, and 52 sites in San Bernardino 

County are ineligible for listing in the National Register. A Determination of Eligibility 

has not been established for three sites in Los Angeles County and 13 sites in San 

Bernardino County. Therefore, there are 26 sites in Kern County, 137 sites in Los 

Angeles County, and 21 sites in San Bernardino County that were determined by the 

National Park Service to be eligible for listing in the National Register. (National Park 

Service, 2003b)

Nearly 75 percent of those sites determined to be eligible for listing are located outside of 

the ROI. Approximately 25 percent of those sites determined to be eligible for listing 

were identified as American Indian, Archaeological, or Native American sites for which 

location information is unavailable or restricted. As a result, it is not possible to 

determine whether these archaeological sites are located within or outside the ROI in the 

analysis presented in this document. Two eligible sites in San Bernardino County are 

within the ROI, Archaeological Site No. CA-SBR-1464 and Bridge No. 54C-68 are 

located in Barstow and Victorville, respectively. (National Park Service, 2003b)

There are 42 sites located in Kern County, 101 sites located in Los Angeles County, and 

41 sites located in San Bernardino County that are designated California State Historical 

Landmarks. One landmark, the 20-Mule-Team Borax Terminus, Historic Landmark 

number 652, is located on Sierra Highway (Highway 14) in Mojave. The monument 

marks the Southern Pacific terminus for the 20-mule-team borax wagons that hauled 

borax from Death Valley to the railroad depot in Mojave from 1884 to 1889, over 165 

miles of mountain and desert trail. A round trip required 20 days. Four landmarks within 

San Bernardino County are within the ROI including: Harvey House, Mojave Road, 

Camp Cady (on the Mojave Road), and Searles Lake Borax Discovery. There are no 

other known cultural resources in the ROI that are listed on the California Inventory of 

Historic Resources or California Points of Historic Interest.
51 February 2004

The Mojave Specific Plan indicated that there are 61 cultural resources recorded within 

the planning area. A record search of the sacred lands files, however, did not indicate the 

presence of Native American cultural resources. There are no designated tribal lands 

located on the Mojave Airport property, although it was noted that Southern Paiute, 

Western Shoshone, Yokuts, and Mojave descendants are widely dispersed in the 

surrounding region.

In preparing the West Mojave Plan (2003), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

contacted eight tribal governments that might attach religious and cultural significance to 

historic properties within the West Mojave Plan area, which includes Kern County and 

several other counties. The eight tribal governments were Lone Pine Paiute Shoshone, 

Timbisha Shoshone, San Manuel Band, Morongo Band, 29 Palms Band, Fort Mojave 

Tribe, Chemehuevi Tribe, and Colorado River Indian Tribes. The West Mojave Plan 

indicated that, as a consequence of contact, no tribe or band identified religious or 

cultural significance to historic properties within the planning area.

Cultural and historic surveys were recently conducted for a 65-hectare (160-acre) area in 

the southeastern corner of the Mojave Airport. Although no important historical 

materials or features were discovered within this region, investigators were able to 

identify, map, and collect two isolated prehistoric finds. In both cases, the immediate 

area near these finds was intensely examined, but no additional artifacts were discovered. 

The two isolated finds appear to represent limited transitory use of the area by prehistoric 

groups. The cultural resources inventory also included a one-mile radius records search 

for the eastern and northern portions of the airport. The records search revealed that no 

recorded cultural resources are within the project area; there are 18 recorded cultural 

resources within a one-mile radius; and no resources within the search area are listed on 

the National or California Register, California Inventory of Historic Resources, 

California State Landmarks, or California Points of Historical Interest. (Getchell and 

Atwood, Unpublished, 2003)

A records search of the sacred lands files of the Native American Heritage Commission 

failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate 

study area. However, this does not preclude the possibility that Native American 

resources could be discovered. Native American individuals and organizations were 

contacted for additional information, but no responses were received. (Getchell and 

Atwood, Unpublished, 2003)

The unpublished cultural survey report recommended formally recording the eastern 

portion of the 20-Mule Team Road11 and an adobe homestead site as historic sites. 

Additionally, the report suggested that that the main body of Mojave Airport and the well 

and trash dumpsite located to the southeast of the drainage detention basin be designated 

as historical resources. (Getchell and Atwood, Unpublished, 2003) The 20-Mule Team 

Borax Wagon Road was determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register, 

however, specific location information, namely the city, was unavailable from the 

 

11 Only the westernmost segment of the 20-Mule Team Road is recorded as a historical site. (Unpublished 

study, 2003)
52 February 2004

National Park Service. (National Park Service, 2003b) The other sites have not been 

proposed as eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historic Places, 

or other cultural inventories.

The Voyager aircraft was designed and tested at the Mojave Airport. The Voyager was 

the first aircraft to fly around the world without refueling. Although the airport has no 

official designation commemorating this event, aircraft enthusiasts recognize the 

importance the site played in aviation history.

3.6 Geology and Soils

3.6.1 Definition of Resource

Geology and soils are those earth resources that may be adversely affected by a proposed 

action. These resources are described in terms of landforms, geology, and soil conditions 

as they could contribute to seismicity, erosion, and flooding. A geologic hazard is a 

naturally occurring or man-induced geologic condition that presents a risk or a potential 

danger to life and property. Such hazards could include phenomena such as landslides, 

flooding, ground subsistence, faulting, and earthquakes.

3.6.2 Existing Conditions

Geology 

Three major rock types or geologic complexes characterize the geologic setting in the 

region: a basement complex of igneous rocks (rocks that have solidified from a molten 

state) and metamorphic rocks (rocks created when sediments undergo crystallization due 

to heat and pressure); an intermediate complex of continental volcanic and sedimentary 

rocks; and valley fill deposits. The basement complex is of pre-Tertiary age and includes 

quartz monzonite, granite, gneiss, schist, and other igneous and metamorphic rocks. 

These rocks crop out in the highlands surrounding the playa areas, which are nearly level 

areas at the bottom of undrained desert basins, and occur beneath the unconsolidated 

deposits of the playa. The intermediate complex is of Tertiary age and includes a variety 

of sedimentary and volcanic rock types. (Dutcher and Worts, 1963, as cited in DoD, 

2002b)

Soils

The soil formations in the region are comprised of thick, unconsolidated, coarse-textured 

alluvial sediments composed of gravel, sand and silt of granitic composition. Alluvial 

sediment is sediment that is deposited by flowing water, such as in a flood plain. The 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) classifies the soils as belonging to Cajon-Arizo 

and Rosamond types. Cajon soils are described as well- to excessively-drained sands and 

gravelly loamy (composed of a mixture of sand, clay, silt, and organic matter) sands 

developed on alluvial fans and alluvial plains. Rosamond soils are very deep, nearly 

level to moderately sloping, well-drained soils produced on flood plains and in basins. 

(Kern County, 2003e)
53 February 2004

Soil limitations include high susceptibility of the sandy surface layers to soil blowing, 

shallow soil depth, low available water capacity and high potential for erosion due to 

slope and inadequate plant cover. However, these limitations are mostly controlled by 

low precipitation, low ground water and hot climate. (USDA Soil Conservation Service, 

1982)

Due to the great depth to ground water in the Mojave area, liquefaction does not present a 

major potential hazard. Liquefaction is a physical process that takes place during some 

earthquakes that may lead to building foundation failure. It occurs when clay-free soil 

deposits temporarily lose strength and behave as viscous fluids rather than solids. (Kern 

County, 2003e)

Mineral Resources

Mineral resources include quartz monzonite, granite, gneiss, schist, and other igneous and 

metamorphic rocks. (Dutcher and Worts, 1963, as cited in DoD, 2002b) Despite a rich 

mining history in this area, current mining activities are limited to borax mining through 

a surface mine in nearby Boron, California. There is also a boric acid plant on the 

premises. (Borax, 2003)

Seismicity

Mojave is located on the western edge of the Mojave Desert geomorphic province. The 

province is a large, wedge-shaped, landlocked region bounded on the southwest by the 

San Andreas fault and the Transverse Ranges; on the north and northeast by the Garlock 

fault with the associated Techachapi, El Paso, and Granite Mountains; and on the east by 

the Colorado River. (Kern County, 2003e) The two fault zones were very active in the 

Quaternary period. The San Andreas Fault zone is the more dominant of the two, with a 

known length of about 966 kilometers (600 miles) and right-lateral displacement of up to 

564 kilometers (350 miles). The Garlock Fault zone is traceable for more than 242 

kilometers (150 miles) and has left-lateral displacement. (Weston, 1986, as cited in DoD, 

2002b) The area reflects characteristics typical of basin and range tensional horst and 

graben structure, where a part of the earth’s crust between two faults is higher than the 

surrounding lands, which are depressed. This results from the tectonic “wrenching” of 

the adjacent fault system. (DoD, 2002b)

Mojave is in one of the most active and potentially dangerous seismic regions in the 

United States, falling within Seismic Zone 4 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. (Kern 

County, 2003e)

The area of Mojave near the foothills of the eastern Tehachapi Mountains is potentially 

subject to earthquake-induced landslides. The land is characterized by steep slopes (15 

percent or greater), unstable rock or soil characteristics, or other geologic evidence of 

instability. (Kern County, 2003e) 
54 February 2004

Erosion

Erosion is a natural process by which material is worn away from the earth’s surface. 

Since the soil formations in this area are comprised of unconsolidated coarse-textured 

alluvial sediments, development and construction activity have the potential to result in 

erosion of soils. 

Hydrology

The community of Mojave is subject to flash flooding. A Flood Insurance Study 

prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 1995 attributes the 

flooding problems in Mojave to poorly defined channels that can shift from one flood 

event to the next. Overflow from poorly defined channels and inadequate culverts and 

drains can lead to shallow flooding, even during low-intensity storms. (FEMA, 1995, see 

also FIRM Panels 590 and 600 of 2075, 1994) Flooding in the area is characterized 

primarily as sheet flow across the alluvial fans. (Kern County, 2003e) The Mojave 

Airport is outside the boundaries of the 100-year flood plain. 

The major source of runoff in Mojave is from the Horned Toad Hills to the northwest. 

Alluvial fans from the base of the hills funnel runoff from the watershed area toward the 

community of Mojave. (Kern County, 2003e)

3.7 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management

3.7.1 Definition of Resource

The terms hazardous material or hazardous waste include substances that, because of 

their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may 

present substantial danger to the public health, welfare, or the environment when 

released. Substances are formally defined as hazardous by the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 USC Section 

9601 et seq., as amended. Hazardous waste is further defined in 40 CFR 261.3 as any 

solid waste that possesses hazardous characteristics of extraction procedure toxicity, 

ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity, or is listed as a hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 

CFR Part 261. Transportation of hazardous materials is regulated by the DOT as 

specified in 49 CFR.

3.7.2 Existing Conditions

On Site

The highest volume hazardous materials on site are the airplane fuels. There is a bulk 

tank farm on site with seven above ground storage tanks, and a total storage capacity of 

500,000 liters (133,000 gallons). Two grades of fuel are stocked: Jet-A and 100 Low 

Lead. For the state fiscal year from July 2002 to June 2003, just under 7.6 million liters 

(just over 2 million gallons) of fuel were delivered to the airport by tank truck. 
55 February 2004

EKAD has an SPCC Plan in place that outlines operating procedures used to prevent oil 

spills. All above ground storage tanks are monitored daily for spills, and the inspections 

are formally documented. Site personnel receive formal training in fuel handling, 

monitoring, and emergency response. Tanks have hydrocarbon leak detection systems. 

The tank farm has additional security features. A six-foot security fence, with barbed 

wire, surrounds the above ground storage tanks. A security camera monitors the area and 

the security patrol, which is at Mojave 24-7 treat the area as a priority asset. Padlocks 

secure tank drains.

In the event of a spill, EKAD is ready to respond quickly. Spill response kits, which 

include barrier pads, are located throughout the tank farm. A spill response clean-up firm 

is under contract and available 24 hours, 7 days a week. Emergency contacts on EKAD 

staff have been designated. In the past, EKAD has only had minor fuel spills and none 

have been of sufficient quantity to require state or federal reporting.

In addition to Jet-A and Low Lead fuel, the following hazardous materials are used and 

stored in a storage shed on site (EKAD, 2001)

ß Unleaded gasoline

ß Diesel fuel

ß Acetylene

ß Oxygen

ß Paint

ß Waste Oil

ß Motor Oil

ß Gear Lubricant

ß Hydraulic Oil

ß Tractor Hydraulic Fluid

These materials are used in operations such as aircraft maintenance. 

Concept A and Concept B applicants are currently performing engine tests at Mojave. 

They currently use the following materials and would also use them to support launch 

operations 

ß Helium, compressed, UN1046, hazard class 2.2,

ß Kerosene, UN1223, hazard class 3,

ß Oxygen, compressed, UN1072, hazard class 2.2,

ß Oxygen, refrigerated liquid (cryogenic liquid), UN1073, hazard class 2.2,

ß Gaseous oxygen, UN1072, hazard class 2.2,

ß Nitrous oxide (liquid), UN2201, hazard class 2.2,

ß Nitrous oxide (gaseous), UN1070, hazard class 2.2, and

ß HTPB.

These hazardous materials are currently stored in appropriate storage containers in 

hangars on the Mojave Airport.
56 February 2004

Off Site

The Mojave Specific Plan did not identify any significant sources of hazardous waste or 

hazardous materials in the region.

The Mojave area has a detailed Community Response Plan, entitled the Mojave Desert 

Community Response Plan, which would be activated in the event of a threat to public 

health and safety. Such threats include hazardous materials spills, earthquakes, aircraft 

incidents (from Edwards AFB or Mojave) and other natural disasters or manmade threats. 

The plan was developed in November 2000 by the Kern County Office of Emergency 

Services, in cooperation with state and local agencies and departments, to augment the 

Kern County Emergency Plan. The plan describes procedures for emergency, 

evacuation, shelter, health, and medical operations. 

The roles and responsibilities of 26 agencies involved in disaster response are clearly 

defined and the communication plan for release of information to the public via radio and 

other media is also outlined. The Community Response Plan clearly defines the roles and 

responsibilities of disaster responders, such as the American Red Cross, California 

Highway Patrol, Kern County Fire Department, local medical facilities and school 

districts, and Waste Management Department. The Mojave Desert Area is divided into 

four subareas – the Greater Mojave Area, the Greater Rosamand Area, the Boron/North 

Edwards Area, and the Greater California City Area. For each area, locations are 

specified for command posts, staging areas, and disaster service centers. Overall, the plan 

outlines a community approach that ensures coordinated efforts for addressing 

emergencies.

The following sites are listed on the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s 

Hazardous Waste Substances Site List (Cortese List) for Mojave, California

° Products Research and Chemical Corporation,

° Commodity Refining Exchange,

° United Metal Recovery,

° Purdy Company.

° Silver Queen Junkyard, and

° Mobile Smelting. (California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2003)

3.8 Land Use

3.8.1 Definition of Resource

Land is a highly valued resource. Communities strive to implement effective land 

planning policies to balance environmental, safety, and economical concerns and at the 

same time prepare for future growth. (Kern County, 1982) Local planning departments 

designate land uses for specific areas, which describe the permitted development 

activities that are acceptable for the area (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial, etc.), 

which are adopted by Kern County Board of Supervisors. (Kern County, 1982) 
57 February 2004

Three major plans control the land use development of the Mojave community 

ß County of Kern General Plan. The General Plan sets up a framework for identifying 

community goals and for maintaining current and future land use integrity. The 

General Plan is also a vehicle for public involvement into land planning decisions. 

(Kern County, 1982) 

ß County of Kern Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The ALUCP was 

developed to establish procedures and criteria for Kern County and the incorporated 

cities to address compatibility issues when making planning decisions regarding 

airports and the land uses around them. (Kern County, 2003c) 

ß Mojave Specific Plan. The Mojave Specific Plan provides a detailed description of 

how to implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan in a manner 

appropriate to the smaller unincorporated area of the County. (Kern County, 2003b) 

3.8.2 Existing Conditions

On Site

The Mojave Airport consists of roughly 1,214 hectares (3,000 acres) of which 80 hectares 

(200 acres) are developed. The Mojave Specific Plan designates the Mojave Airport as 

service industry land use, land use code 7.2. (Kern County, 2003a) Figure 3-9 shows the 

land use designation for the Mojave Airport. The permitted uses for a service industry 

designation include “accessory uses to an airport; industrial service uses that may include 

outdoor storage or use of heavy equipment.” (Kern County, 2003b) In addition to the 

service industry land uses, the Mojave Airport is the centerpiece of the airport influence 

area. The ALUCP defines the airport influence area as “all properties on which the land 

uses could be affected by present or future aircraft operations.” (Kern County, 2003c) 

According to Kern County Zoning Map #196, the Mojave Airport is zoned M-2 PD 

(Medium Industrial, Precise Development Combining). This zoning is consistent with 

the General Plan designation of 7.2. 

Within the airport influence area, the ALUCP has established areas subject to Primary 

Compatibility Criteria (PCC). (Kern County, 2003c) These criteria were designed to 

account for the potential impacts of aircraft activity. Specifically, the criteria consider 

noise exposure, safety of people and property on the ground and in aircraft, airport 

airspace protection, and other concerns of aircraft overflight. (Kern County, 2003c) The 

criteria are broken down into five land use zones, A, B1, B2, C, and D. Each zone has 

location, safety, development, and usage specifications. (Kern County, 2003c) The PCC 

for the Mojave Airport are presented in Tables 3-12 and 3-13. All zone A areas are 

within the airport boundaries. Some portions of the zone B1 and zone C areas extend 

beyond the Mojave Airport property lines. All zone B2 and zone D areas are outside of 

the Mojave Airport property lines. (Kern County, 2003c) Figure 3-10 shows the 

locations of the criteria zones. Any proposed land uses within these areas that are 

inconsistent with the criteria are subject to review by the Kern County Planning 

Department and/or the Mojave community.
58 February 2004

Figure 3-9. Map of Land Uses for the Mojave Community

Source: Kern County, 2003b
59 February 2004

Table 3-12. PCC Locations and Elements

Maximum Densities

Zone Location1Impact Elements Residential 2

(du/ac)

Other Uses

(people/ac)3

Required 

Open Land4

A

Runway Protection 

Zone or within 

Building Restriction 

Line

• High risk

• High noise levels 0 10 All Remaining

B1

Approach/Departure 

Zone and Adjacent to 

Runway

• Substantial risk -

aircraft commonly 

below 123 meters 

(400 feet) above 

ground level (AGL) 

or within 305 meters 

(1,000 feet) of 

runway

• Substantial noise

0.1 60 30%

B2

Extended 

Approach/Departure 

Zone

• Significant risk –

aircraft commonly 

below 244 meters 

(800 feet) AGL

• Significant noise

0.5 60 30%

C

Common Traffic 

Pattern

• Limited risk –

aircraft at or below 

305 meters (1,000 

feet) AGL

• Frequent noise 

intrusion

15 150 15%

D

Other Airport 

Environs

• Negligible risk

• Potential for 

annoyance from 

overflights

No Limit No Limit No 

Requirement

1

Zones may also apply elsewhere if an airport has atypical operational procedures or specialized 

aircraft activities.

2

 Residential parcels should not contain more than the indicated number of dwelling units per 

gross acre. Clustering of units is encouraged as a means of meeting the Required Open Land 

requirements.

3

 The land use should not attract more than the indicated number of people per acre at any time. 

This figure should include all individuals who may be on the property (e.g., employees, 

customers/visitors, etc.). These densities are intended as general planning guidelines to aid in 

determining the acceptability of proposed land uses. Special short-term events related to aviation 

(e.g., air shows), as well as non-aviation special events, are exempted from the maximum density 

criteria.

4

 Open land requirements are intended to be applied with respect to the entire zone. This is 

typically accomplished initially as part of the community’s general plan or a specific plan.

Source: Kern County, 2003c
60 February 2004

Table 3-13. PCC Prohibitions and Uses

Zone Additional Criteria Examples

Prohibited Uses1

Other 

Development 

Conditions 4

Normally 

Acceptable 

Uses5

Uses Not 

Normally 

Acceptable 6

A • All structures except ones 

with location set by 

aeronautical functions

• Assemblages of people

• Objects exceeding Federal 

Aviation Regulations (FAR) 

Part 77 height limits

• Hazards to flight2

• Dedication of 

aviation easement

• Aircraft tie down 

apron

• Pastures, field 

crops, vineyards

• Automobile 

parking

• Heavy poles, 

signs, large 

trees, etc.

B1 

and 

B2

• Schools, day care centers, 

libraries

• Hospitals, nursing homes

• Highly noise-sensitive uses 

(e.g., amphitheaters)

• Storage of highly flammable 

materials 3

• Hazards to flight6

• Locate structures 

maximum distance 

from extended 

runway centerline

• Dedication of 

aviation easement

• Uses in Zone A 

• Any agricultural 

uses except ones 

attracting bird 

flocks

• Warehousing, 

truck terminals

• Two-story 

offices

• Single -family 

homes on an 

existing lot

• Residential 

subdivisions

• Intensive retail 

uses 

• Intensive 

manufacturing 

or food 

processing uses

• Offices with 

more than two 

stories

• Hotels and 

motels

C • Schools 

• Hospitals, nursing homes

• Hazards to flight6

• Dedication of 

overflight easement 

for residential uses

• Uses in Zone B

• Parks, 

playgrounds

• Most retail uses 

duplexes and 

medium-density 

apartments

• Two-story 

motels

• Large shopping 

malls

• Theaters, 

auditoriums

• Large sports 

stadiums

• Hi-rise office 

buildings with 

more than four 

stories

D • Hazards to flight6

• Deed notice 

required for 

residential 

development

• All except ones 

hazardous to 

flight

1 May be modified by airport-specific policies or decision of local governing body with appropriate 

adopted findings based upon evidence in the record.

2

 See Policy Sections 3.3

3

 Within the B1 and B2 zones, only the following flammable materials are permitted: aviation fuel, other 

aviation-related materials, and up to 2,000 gallons of nonaviation materials.

4

 These conditions do not apply to ministerial actions.

5

 These uses typically can be designed to meet the density requirements and other development conditions 

listed.

6

 These uses typically do not meet the density and other development conditions listed. They should be 

allowed only if a major community objective is served by their location in this zone and no feasible 

alternative location exists.

Source: Kern County, 2003c
61 February 2004

Figure 3-10. Map of the PCC Zones 

Source: Kern County, 2003c
62 February 2004

Agricultural Resources

No prime farmland, unique farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or general 

farmland is located on the Mojave Airport. 

Recreation

No recreational land uses are designated on the Mojave Airport.

Off Site

The off-site ROI, located to the east of the Mojave Airport, covers an area of about 9,886 

square kilometers (3,800 square miles) and includes residentia l, commercial, industrial, 

resource management, public facilities, state and Federal and undeveloped land uses. 

The area consists mainly of undeveloped brush and shrub rangeland. Portions of 

Edwards AFB and the China Lake NAWS North and South Ranges are within the ROI. 

Major population centers within the ROI are presented in Table 3-14. 

Table 3-14. Population Areas within the ROI

County City Population

Ridgecrest 24,927

California City 8,385

Mojave 3,836

Boron 2,025

North Edwards 1,227

Kern

Randsburg 77

Victorville 64,029

Hesperia 62,582

Barstow 21,119

Adelanto 18,130

Searles 1,885

San Bernardino

Johannesburg 176

Los Angeles1- -

1

 No significant Los Angeles County population areas in the ROI

The majority of the 12,555 hectares (31,000 acres) in the Mojave community lie within 

the airport influence area. A map of the Mojave community is shown in Figure 3-8. 

Approximately 9,599 hectares (23,700 acres) were designated as undeveloped or resource 

management uses in 2001. The developed areas lie primarily to the west and southwest 

of the airport and are a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, and public facilities 

land uses. The 2000 U.S. Census estimated the population of the persons living in the 

area covered by the Mojave Specific Plan at 3,323. 

As described above, portions of the PCC zones B1, B2, C, and D lie outside of the airport 

property lines but within the airport influence area.

Agricultural Resources
63 February 2004

Agricultural resources in the ROI can be classified as farmlands (e.g., cropland and 

pastureland) and grazing land. Because of low precipitation, very limited ground water 

supplies, and high temperatures the off-site ROI has few farmland areas. (USDA, 1982) 

The Mojave Specific Plan categorizes agricultural areas as resource management areas. 

(Kern County, 2003b) Approximately 3,239 hectares (8,098 acres) of resource 

management land uses are in the Mojave community. The majority of the resource 

management areas are located in the northern most and southern most areas of the 

Mojave community. (Kern County, 2003b) Few agricultural areas are located outside of 

the Mojave community. (California, 2003) These areas are typically small and are not 

considered prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance.

Grazing land allotments for cattle, sheep, and horses cover a large portion of the off-site 

ROI. The total grazing land within the ROI is approximately 850,000 hectares 

(2,125,000 acres). The allotments are classified as ephemeral, perennial, or 

ephemeral/perennial based on the type of forage available on the land. (Kern County, 

2003a) 

Recreation 

The BLM administers 1,305,550 hectares (3,263,874 acres) in the West Mojave planning 

area. The ROI lies almost entirely within the West Mojave planning area. In 1980, 

California adopted the California Desert Conservation Area Plan (CDCA). In the CDCA, 

Congress directed the BLM to develop a plan for multiple-use management of the BLM 

lands that considers environmental quality, recreational uses, rights of way, and mineral 

development. Major BLM recreation lands in the ROI include the Pacific Crest National 

Scenic Trail, the Desert Tortoise Natural Area and Watchable Wildlife Area, the Jawbone 

Off-Highway Motor Vehicle (OHV) Area, the Dove Springs OHV Area, the Spangler 

OHV Area, the Rademacher Hills Trail System, and the Trona Pinnacles National 

Landmark. (Bureau of Land Management, 2003) Conservation areas in the ROI include 

portions of the Alkali Mariposa Lily Conservation Areas, the Expanded Western Rand 

Mountains Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), the Barstow Woolly 

Sunflower Conservation Area, the North Edwards Conservation Area, Fremont-Kramer 

Desert Wildlife Management Area, Ord-Rodman Desert Wildlife Management Area, 

Bendire’s Thrasher Conservation Areas, Mojave Ground Squirrel Conservation Areas, 

Lane Mountain Milkvetch Conservation Area, Mohave Monkeyflower Conservation 

Area, and several other small ACECs. (Kern County, 2003a) Figure 3-11 shows the 

conservation areas in the off-site ROI.
64 February 2004

Figure 3-11. Map of the Conservation Areas within the ROI

Source: Kern County, 2003a
65 February 2004

3.9 Noise

3.9.1 Definition of Resource

The FAA defines noise as unwanted sound that disrupts everyday activities such as 

communication and hearing and is generally considered annoying. (FAA, 2003a) Noise 

is measured in amplitude, frequency, and duration. (Kern County, 2003d) Noise 

amplitude, or intensity, is described in units of decibels (dB) with different noises having 

different frequencies. (Kern County, 2003d) Other relevant measures of noise are: 

A-weighted decibels (dBA). Most measures of noise for community planning purposes 

use dBA units, which emphasize noises in the middle range frequencies. The emphasis is 

placed on the middle range frequencies because some noise occurs in frequencies too 

high or too low for the human ear to fully perceive. (Kern County, 2003d) 

Community noise equivalent level (CNEL). The CNEL describes the average sound 

level during a 24-hour day in dBA. For noises occurring between 7 pm and 10 pm, five 

dBA are added to the measured noise level, and for noises occurring between 10 pm and 

7 am, 10 dBA are added to the measured noise level. (Kern County, 2003d) 

Day/night average sound level (Ldn). Ldn is the average sound level during a 24-hour day. 

For noises occurring between 10 pm and 7 am, 10 dBA are added to the measured noise 

level. (Kern County, 2003d) 

Lmax is the maximum noise level in a noise event. (Kern County, 2003d) 

The State of California has established standards to regulate noise exposure in a number 

of areas including motor vehicles and motorboats, airports, freeways, and acoustical 

insulation. The standards regarding acoustical insulation (California Administrative 

Code Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4) are applicable to the ROI. (Kern 

County, 2003e) The standard requires areas exposed to noise levels of 60 dB CNEL or 

greater to achieve an annual interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL through acoustical 

insulation measures. In addition, state guidelines regulate noise exposure for land uses, 

and are measured as CNELs. For example, sensitive land uses require a CNEL of 65 dB 

for exterior areas and 45 dB for interior areas. (Kern County, 2003e) Sensitive land uses 

include residential and school areas. (Kern County, 2003e) 

The Kern County General Plan Noise Element, the Mojave Specific Plan, and the 

ALUCP are used to determine the allowable noise level standards for land uses in the 

Mojave community. The standards for transportation noise sources are 65 dB Ldn for 

exterior noise levels and 45 dB Ldn for interior noise levels for areas with sensitive land 

uses. (Kern County, 2003e) Table 3-15 shows a comparison of noise levels with 

common activities or events. For non-transportation noise sources, the allowable noise 

level is based on the distribution of noise over time. Higher intensity noises are allowed 

for shorter periods of time, and stricter standards are placed on nighttime noise because 

of increased community sensitivity. (Kern County, 2003c)
66 February 2004

Table 3-15. Comparison of Noise Levels with Common Noise Sources

dBA Overall Level Outdoor Noise Level Indoor Noise Level

120 Uncomfortably 

Loud

Military jet aircraft takeoff from aircraft 

carrier at 15 meters (50 feet) Oxygen torch

110 Turbo fan aircraft at takeoff at 61 

meters (200 feet) Rock band 

100

Very Loud

Boeing 707 or DC-8 aircraft at one 

nautical mile, 

Jet flyover at 305 meters (1,000 feet), 

Bell J-2A helicopter at 30 meters (100 

feet) 

90

Boeing 737 or DC-9 aircraft at 2 

kilometers (one nautical mile),

power lawnmower, 

Motorcycle at 8 meters (25 feet) 

Newspaper press

80

Propeller plane flyover at 305 meters 

(1,000 feet),

Diesel truck at 64 kilometers per hour 

(40 miles per hour) at (15 meters) 50 

feet

Blender,

Garbage disposal

70

Moderately 

Loud

High urban ambient sound,

Passenger car 105 kilometers per hour 

(65 miles per hour) at (8 meters) 25 feet 

(77 dB)

Radio, TV, vacuum 

cleaner 

60 Air conditioning unit at 30 meters (100 

feet) 

Dishwasher at 3 meters 

(10 feet),

Conversation

50

Quiet

Large transformers at 30 meters (100 

feet)

Dishwasher in next 

room

40 Lowest levels of urban ambient sound Small theater

Large conference room

10

Just audible Broadcast and recording 

studio

0

Threshold of 

Hearing

Source: DOT, 2002 and Modified from M.C. Branch, et al. 1970. Outdoor Noise and the Metropolitan 

Environment. Los Angeles, California, Department of City Planning, City of Los Angeles

3.9.2 Existing Conditions

On Site

Descriptions of existing noise conditions detailed in this section rely heavily on the 

County of Kern Mojave Specific Plan, the Draft EIR for the Mojave Specific Plan, and 

the Environmental Noise Assessment (ENA) and Noise Exposure Maps prepared for the 

EKAD. These documents are incorporated by reference in this EA and therefore the 

information will only be summarized in this document. 
67 February 2004

The Mojave Airport currently operates facilities that serve general aviation activities, test 

pilot training, and research and development of military and non-military jet aircraft and 

rocket engines. (Mojave Airport, 2003a) The Mojave Airport is adjacent to the Mojave 

community and has been in operation since 1935. The Mojave Airport is near the 

junction of two major trucking routes, State Route (SR) 58 and SR 14, and two railways, 

the Union Pacific Railroad and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway. (Kern 

County, 2003d)

The major source of noise at the Mojave Airport is aircraft activities. (Kern County, 

2003d) Aircraft noise exposure occurs mainly in the vicinity of the runways and taxi 

areas. The Mojave Airport has three runways, Runway 12-30, Runway 8-26, and 

Runway 4-22. Runway 12-30 serves large air carrier aircraft and high performance 

military and non-military jet aircraft. Runway 8-26 serves general aviation and propeller 

aircraft, but can accommodate larger aircraft depending on the wind conditions. Runway 

4-22 serves smaller propeller aircraft and helicopters. (Mojave Airport, 2003a) The 

Mojave Airport runways and arrival and departure routes are shown in Figures 3-12 and 

3-13. 
68 February 2004

Figure 3-12. Map of General Aircraft Arrival Flight Patterns

Source: Kern County, 2003d
69 February 2004

Figure 3-13. Map of General Aircraft Departure Flight Patterns

Source: Kern County, 2003d
70 February 2004

3.10 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

3.10.1 Definition of Resource

Socioeconomics is defined as the basic attributes and resources associated with the 

human environment, in particular population and economic activity. Socioeconomic 

resources consist of several primary elements including population, employment, and 

income. Other socioeconomic aspects that are often described may include housing and 

an overview of the local economy.

Examination of minority and low-income populations is warranted through the adoption 

of a 1994 directive commonly known as Environmental Justice, which is designed 

specifically to examine impacts to such things as human health of minority populations, 

low-income populations, and Indian tribes. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental 

Justice, CFR 7629 [1994]) requires each Federal agency to achieve environmental justice 

by addressing “disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental 

effects on minority and low-income populations.” The demographics of the affected area 

should be examined to determine whether minority populations, low-income populations, 

or Indian tribes are present in the area impacted by the proposed action. If so, a 

determination must be made whether the implementation/development of the proposed 

project may cause disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects on the minority populations or low-income populations present.

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 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 annual statistical 

poverty thresholds from the Bureau of the Census. 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.

3.10.2 Existing Conditions

Information was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau on Kern County and the Mojave 

Census Designated Place (CDP) to describe socioeconomic trends and population, 

employment, income, and housing characteristics at the county and local levels. The 

Mojave Airport is located within the Mojave CDP. For comparison purposes, national 

data are also provided.
71 February 2004

Population

The 2000 Census reported the populations of the Mojave CDP and Kern County to be 

3,836 persons and 661,645 persons, respectively. Kern County grew nearly 22 percent 

between 1990 and 2000; however, the Mojave CDP increased at less than one-tenth the 

rate observed throughout the rest of County, only two percent between 1990 and 2000. 

Population growth trends differ significantly at the County level versus the local 

community level.

Table 3-16 provides information on the races of individuals in Kern County, the Mojave 

CDP, and the United States. The percentages total more than 100 percent because 

individuals may report being of more than one race. Also, the 2000 Census reported data 

for the Hispanic and Latino race separately from the other races.

Table 3-16. Races of Individuals

Race Kern County 

(percent)

Mojave CDP 

(percent)

United States 

(percent)

White 61.6 67.5 75.1

Black or African American 6.0 5.6 12.3

American Indian or Alaska Native 1.5 1.3 0.9

Asian 3.4 2.0 3.6

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 

Islander 0.1 0.1 0.1

Some other race 23.2 18.1 5.5

Hispanic or Latino 38.4 28.3 12.5

Not Hispanic or Latino 61.6 71.7 87.5

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

As discussed previously, 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. Based on the information in Table 3-16, 

American Indian or Alaska Native groups and Hispanic or Latino groups may be 

considered minority populations in Kern County and the Mojave CDP. 

Employment

According to the 2000 Census, 55.7 percent of individuals 16 years and older (1,396 of 

2,507 total persons) were in the labor force in the Mojave CDP, compared with 56.6 

percent in Kern County. The 2000 Census reported that unemployment rates in Mojave 

and Kern County were 8.2 percent and 6.7 percent, respectively. In Mojave, the top 

industries were education, health, and social services; art, entertainment, recreation, 

accommodation, and food services; manufacturing; and transportation, warehousing, and 

utilities. In Kern County, the top industries were education, health and social services; 

agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining; retail trade; and public administration. 

As of July 8, 2003, 950 individuals were employed by businesses at the Mojave Airport.
72 February 2004

Income

In 1999, the median household income for the Mojave CDP and Kern County was 

$24,761 and $35,446, respectively. The national median household income was $41,994.

Both the Mojave CDP and Kern County are characterized as low-income areas. As 

discussed previously, when the low-income population percentage within the area of 

interest is “meaningfully greater” than the low-income population in the general 

population, the area of interest is considered to be low-income. Differences in poverty 

levels occur at the county level versus the local level, i.e., the poverty status of the 

Mojave CDP is significantly greater than that of Kern County. Table 3-17 summarizes 

the percentage of families and individuals below the poverty level in 1999 in Kern 

County, the Mojave CDP, and the United States.

Table 3-17. Poverty Status in 1999

Group Kern County 

(percent)

Mojave CDP 

(percent)

United States 

(percent)

Families 16.8 31.7 9.2

Individuals 20.8 36.2 12.4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

Housing

Over the last 10 years, housing growth in Mojave has grown at about the same rate as that 

observed throughout Kern County. Between 1990 and 2000, housing units increased 

approximately 18 percent in the Mojave CDP and approximately 17 percent in Kern 

County.

The 2000 Census reported that the Mojave CDP has 1,806 housing units, of which 22.0 

percent are vacant. Kern County has 231,564 housing units, of which only 9.9 percent 

are vacant. Housing vacancy is a significant issue in the Mojave CDP. Slow population 

growth in Mojave between 1990 and 2000 (two percent) contributed to the high vacancy 

rate. In Mojave, housing tenure within the 1,408 occupied housing units is similar 

between owners (51.8 percent) and renters (48.2 percent). In Kern County, housing 

tenure for owners and renters is 62.1 percent and 37.9 percent, respectively. The Mojave 

Specific Plan noted that more than half of housing units in the Mojave area are over 30 

years old.

In 2000, the median home value within the Mojave CDP was $56,500, and the median 

rent was $409 per month. The Mojave Specific Plan indicated that affordable housing 

costs are defined as 80 percent of the Kern County median home price, which was 

$93,300 in 2000. As a result, home prices at or below $74,640 would have been 

considered affordable in Mojave in 2000.
73 February 2004

Infrastructure

Kern County maintains 3,280 miles of highways, of which 2,200 miles have a centerline 

stripe, approximately 50,000 signs or delineators, and 80 traffic signals. The Kern 

County Roads Department oversees road construction, design, and maintenance; issuance 

of permits; and regional transportation. The Road Department, in conjunction with the 

Kern Council of Governments, is responsible for growth and transportation planning 

issues, rural public transportation planning, and development review.

The General Services Division of the Kern County Administration Office is responsible 

for supervision and control over acquisition and utilization of all telecommunications 

resources and facilities in the Kern County government. Two-way radio and microwave 

communication plays a major role in county government telecommunications. The 

largest radio systems serve the Sheriff, Fire, Emergency Medical Services, and 

Administration. Kern County’s communications system is monitored, controlled, and 

supervised 24-hours per day without operational dependence upon any common carrier.

Other Services

The Emergency Medical Services Department (EMS) is the lead agency for the 

emergency medical services system in Kern County. There are 12 hospitals and five 

ambulance providers located in Kern County. The Tehachapi Hospital is located in 

Tehachapi. The Kern County’s Sheriff’s Department is headquartered in Bakersfield; 

however, the East Area Substation Division includes a location in the community of 

Mojave.

There are 48 school districts in Kern County. The Mojave Unified School District 

includes three elementary schools, two middle schools, and two high schools. The 

schools nearest the airport are the Mojave Elementary School and Mojave High School, 

both of which are located approximately 1.4 kilometers (0.9 miles) away. In addition, 

Kern County has 28 public libraries, including the Mojave Branch Library, which is 

located approximately 3.4 kilometers (2.1 miles) from the airport. The community of 

Mojave has two parks, Mojave East Park and Mojave West Park. Mojave West Park is 

2.12 hectares (5.25 acres) and located at Douglas Avenue, but not used often by the 

public due to limited development in the surrounding area. Mojave East Park is 3.1 

hectares (7.6-acres) and located near the airport at Highway 58 and M Street. This 

facility is heavily used by both community residents and visitors and consists of a 

recreation building, baseball field, handball courts, basketball court, and play equipment. 

Figure 3-14 shows the Mojave Airport in relation to area schools, the library, and Mojave 

East Park. 
74 February 2004

Figure 3-14. Map of Mojave Schools
75 February 2004

3.11 Transportation

3.11.1 Definition of Resource

Transportation refers the capacity to move vehicles, people, and goods through the area 

of interest. Included in the affected environment are the road network, railway lines, and 

public transportation, including transit buses and commercial air service. 

3.11.2 Existing Conditions

This section details the existing road and rail networks in the Greater Mojave area.

Two State highways serve the area. SR-14, referred to as the Sierra Highway, runs 

roughly north south. Trave ling south on SR-14, one accesses the Antelope and Santa 

Clarita Valleys and Los Angeles County. To the north is the Ridgecrest Area. The 

second highway, SR-58, the Mojave-Barstow Highway, runs roughly east west. 

Tehachapi and Bakersfield are to the west; Barstow is to the east. 

In downtown Mojave, the two highways currently share the same alignment for a 

distance of approximately three kilometers (two miles). The airport is accessed from an 

off ramp of SR-58, located approximately 1.6 kilometers (one mile) west of the end of 

the shared alignment. The exit is for Airport Boulevard. The airport property is close to 

the SR-58 exit, and the majority of facilities are located approximately one mile from the 

highway. 

The realignment of SR-58, which was recently completed, is 14 kilometers (nine miles) 

long and is located east and north of the Mojave Airport. The former SR-58 was 

redesignated Business SR-58, and is located south and west of the airport. Airport access 

continues to be the Airport Boulevard exit from the redesignated Business SR-58.

According to the Mojave Specific Plan, the traffic flow within the greater Mojave area is 

generally good. In the report, existing conditions were analyzed using a level of service 

(LOS) rating to describe the amount of congestion in intersections. LOS is ranked from a 

high of LOS A, representing no limitation on movement, to a low of LOS F, representing 

high levels of congestion. Definitions of LOS designations for arterial roadways are 

found in Table 3-18. Intersections in Mojave currently ranked LOS C and LOS D during 

peak-hours, thus meeting or exceeding the County standard of LOS D. However, the 

Plan projects increased traffic and a decreased LOS in future years. Specifically, the 

levels of service along portions of the Sierra Highway are projected to be LOS E and 

LOS F during peak traffic hours.
76 February 2004

Table 3-18. Definitions of LOS Flow Conditions

Level of 

Service Flow Conditions Volume to Capacity Ratio

A Free flow operations 0 - 0.60

B Reasonably unimpeded operations at 

average travel speeds 

0.61 - 0.70

C Stable operations with more restricted 

ability to maneuver and change lanes 

0.71 - 0.80

D Small increases in flow may cause 

substantial increase in delay and 

decrease in speed 

0.81 - 0.90

E Significant delays 0.91 – 1.00

F Extremely low speeds > 1.00

Two railroad lines are in the vicinity of the Mojave Airport: the Union Pacific Railroad 

and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway. There is a railroad spur onto the 

airport property.

Kern County has a regional fixed-route bus line with service from Mojave to Bakersfield, 

Tehachapi, California City, Rosamond, Lancaster, and Palmdale. Dial-a-ride services are 

also available. The closest airports with scheduled passenger service are Bakersfield and 

Inyokern. 

3.12 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

3.12.1 Definition of Resource

Visual resources are defined as the natural and man-made features that constitute the 

aesthetic qualities of an area. Landforms, surface water, vegetation and man-made 

features are the fundamental characteristics of an area that define the visual environment 

and form the overall impression than an observer receives of an area.

The importance of visual resources and any changes in the visual character of an area are 

influenced by social considerations, including the public value placed on the area, public 

awareness of the area, and community concern for the visual resources in the area.

The visual resources of an area and any proposed changes to these resources could be 

evaluated in terms of “visual dominance” and “visual sensitivity.” Visual dominance 

describes the level of noticeability that occurs as the result of a visual change in an area. 

Visual sensitivity depends on the setting of an area. Figure 3-18 graphically displays the 

concepts of visual dominance and visual sensitivity.

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’ssetting, then the 

changes would be “visually subordinate.” A change that would compete with the visual 
77 February 2004

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.”

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 othe r hand, in 

areas of low visual sensitivity such as industrialized areas, major changes can occur 

without undue notice to observers.

Figure 3-15. Visual Dominance and Sensitivity

Context Visual Sensitivity

Intensity

Visual Dominance

High Moderate Low

Would generally be overlooked

“Not Noticeable”

Noticeable, but not detract from 

the existing dominant landscape 

features

“Visually Subordinate”

Changes compete for attention 

with other view shed features

“Visually Co-dominant”

Changes demand attention

“Visually Dominant”

Impact

 

 Not Significant Adverse, but not Significant, Significant

 significant but mitigable and unavoidable
78 February 2004

3.12.2 Existing Conditions

Aesthetics

The existing conditions at the Mojave Airport would be characterized as low visual 

sensitivity since the site is currently an industrialized area. The existing operations at the 

airport consist of industrial uses that have been in place since 1935. The airport currently 

services approximately 300 planes per day, from its three paved runways. At all times, 

many airplanes are parked at the airport, and they can be seen from SR-58 and SR-14, the 

two highways that intersect in the community of Mojave. Two rail lines also intersect in 

Mojave. 

On the airport grounds, there are over 1,214 hectares (3,000 acres) of undeveloped land 

available for industrial and aviation development. (Mojave Airport, 2003a) Figure 3-16 

shows an aerial view of the Mojave airport. As of 2001, of the nearly 12,555 hectares 

(31,000 acres) within the planning area of the Mojave Specific Plan, approximately 9,599 

hectares (23,700 acres) were either vacant, undeveloped land or classified as resources 

uses (which signifies primarily desert land uses). (Kern County, 2003e) Therefore, much 

of the area around the Mojave Airport does not have existing structures or other obvious 

man-made uses that would impact visual resources.

Current light sources at the airport include security lighting on the grounds and safety 

lighting on the runways, which are on overnight.

In the mountains adjacent to the Mojave Airport, there is a large wind farm. The 

windmills, used to harvest energy, have altered the visual aesthetics of the area adjacent 

to the airport. Figure 3-17 shows the Mojave Wind farm. 
79 February 2004

Figure 3-16. Aerial View of Mojave Airport
80 February 2004

Figure 3-17. Mojave Wind Farm

Source: Windland Inc, 2003

3.13 Water Resources

3.13.1 Definition of Resource

Water is considered to be the most important natural resource. (EPA, 2002) It is vital not 

only for human existence, but also for wildlife, agricultural, industrial, and recreational 

activities. An average family uses 985 liters (260 gallons) of water per day, and the 

United States as a whole consumes approximately 99 billion liters (26 billion gallons) per 

day. (EPA, 2002) Water is supplied by ground and surface water sources. However, 

water of high quality is needed as well. Water resources in the United States face 

contamination from pathogens, nutrients, sediment, and hazardous materials. As a result, 

the EPA, the California State Water Control Board, and the Lahontan Regional Water 

Control Board have developed standards to regulate water quality and quantity to ensure 

that water can continue to maintain its intended uses. 

This section will also discuss utility and service system infrastructure. This infrastructure 

refers to the system of public works (basic facilities, services and installations) required 

for the functioning of a county, region or organization and typically includes handling of 

and systems for potable (drinkable) water, wastewater (sewage and/or septic systems), 

solid waste, and energy (typically electrical).
81 February 2004

3.13.2 Existing Conditions

On Site 

The Mojave Desert is one of the most arid places in the United States. (Kern County, 

2003a) The average annual rainfall in the area is approximately 13 centimeters (5 inches) 

and the average annual evaporation is 29 centimeters (11 inches). (DoD, 2002a) The 

Mojave Airport is in the South Lahontan Hydrologic Region. The three main surface 

water systems that make up this unit are the Mono Lake, the Owens River, and the 

Mojave River. (Kern County, 2003b) In addition, several closed ground water basins are 

in the South Lahontan Hydrologic Region. The Mojave Airport is located in the 

Antelope Valley ground water basin. The Antelope Valley basin reaches from southeast 

Kern County to northeast Los Angeles County. (Kern County, 2003b) Figure 3-18 shows 

the South Lahontan Hydrologic Region. 

The Mojave Airport is subject to local flooding as a result of strong but short duration 

storms. (Kern County, 2003a) As a public transportation facility, the Mojave Airport was 

issued a Statewide Storm Water and Waste Discharge Requirements Permit in 1999. 

This permit was issued as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system 

(NPDES) program and is a general permit for the State of California Department of 

Transportation facilities and activities. The storm water permit allows the Mojave 

Airport to discharge waters resulting entirely from storm events. (California State Water 

Resourced Control Board, 1999) All other discharges of non-storm water are prohibited 

unless otherwise stated in the permit. The discharge “sump” is located on the south 

boundary of the airport. (Mojave Airport, 2003b) No surface water bodies are located on 

the Mojave Airport.

Off Site

The off-site ROI is located in the South Lahontan Hydrologic Region with the majority of 

it in the Antelope Valley basin. As discussed above, the majority of the water supply 

comes from ground water sources. Historically, the ground water withdrawal rates have 

exceeded the recharge rates. (Kern County, 2003a) As a result, water conservation is key 

to the continued use of the Antelope Valley basin. 

The ground water supply is recharged from precipitation that falls within the basin. (Kern 

County, 2003a) The most important features of this recharge process are alluvial fans. 

(Kern County, 2003a) Alluvial fans are areas where coarse particles and sediment have 

been deposited and are generally located near the mountains that run along the edges of a 

basin. When water from snowmelt and precipitation events flows out of the mountains 

and over the alluvial fans, the coarse particles allow rapid infiltration into the ground 

water. (Kern County, 2003a) The depth to ground water in the Mojave community 

ranges from 15 to 91 meters (50 to 300 feet) below the surface. (Kern County, 2003b) 

Ground water does not discharge to major surface water bodies in this area. It is lost to 

evapotranspiration processes. (Kern County, 2003a)
82 February 2004

Figure 3-18. Map of the South Lahontan Basin

Source: Department of Water Resources web site
83 February 2004

Playas, or dry lakebeds with flat surfaces, are another important feature found throughout 

the ROI. (Kern County, 2003a) Storm water from surrounding areas drains into the 

playas. The fine sediments and alkaline salts and minerals that are characteristic of the 

playas prevent infiltration of the runoff. The water is temporarily held in the playa until 

it evaporates. (Kern County, 2003a) Large playas found in the ROI include Rogers Dry 

Lake, Rosamond Dry Lake, Buckhorn Dry Lake, Searles Lake, Cuddeback Lake, and 

Harper Dry Lake. (DoD, 2002a; BLM, 2003) Although most of Harper Lake is dry, the 

southwest corner of the lake receives a large amount of runoff from nearby farms. The 

storm water runoff has created a marsh area that covers approximately 194 hectares (480 

acres) and supports a large waterfowl population. (BLM, 2003) 

Surface water flows are dominated by short flow paths that are usually located near the 

mountain areas. (Kern County, 2003a) Typically, these surface flow systems are less 

than a few miles in length. The only major surface flow in the ROI is the Mojave River.

The water quality throughout the ROI varie s. As a general rule, ground water found 

closer to the recharge source is less mineralized than that water found further away. 

(Kern County, 2003a) Water found at the discharge points can have high concentrations 

of sodium, potassium, chloride, sulfate, and tritium. Surface water flows resulting from 

storm events have high sediment concentrations, and water found in playas can have high 

concentrations of fine sediments due to wind forces. (Kern County, 2003a) Water 

Quality in the Mojave community is similar to that discussed in the on-site ROI.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

The following rivers are designated as wild and scenic rivers in California, American 

(Lower), American (North Fork), Big Sur, Eel, Feather, Kern, Kings, Kalmeth, Merced, 

Sespe Creek, Sisquoc, Smith, Trinity, and Tuolumne. None of the wild or scenic rivers 

designated by the National Park Service are in the Region of Influence for this project; 

therefore, impacts will not be considered in this EA.

Utility and Service System Infrastructure

The Mojave Public Utility District (MPUD) provides water supply services to the Mojave 

Airport. The MPUD operates seven ground water wells that supply 75 percent of the 

total water supply. The wells are tapped into the Chaffee and Proctor subunits of the 

Antelope Valley basin. (Kern County, 2003b) The Antelope Valley basin is recharged by 

surface runoff from the surrounding mountains. (Kern County, 2003b) The existing wells 

can supply approximately 800 to 900 million gallons of water per year. (Kern County, 

2003b) 

The other 25 percent of the water is from surface water sources and is supplied by the 

Antelope Valley-East Kern (AVEK) Water Agency. (Kern County, 2003b) AVEK 

covers a region of 5,957 square kilometers (2,300 square miles) that includes parts of Los 

Angeles County, Kern County, and Ventura County. (Kern County, 2003b) Generally, 

AVEK receives about 113,480,330 cubic meters (92,000 acre-feet) of water per year 
84 February 2004

from the State Water Project (SWP). Of that amount, AVEK distributed only 213,306 

cubic meters (172.93 acre-feet) to the MPUD. (Kern County, 2003a) This is only 43 

percent of what the MPUD requested. Increased water demands and insufficient 

distribution systems have limited the amount of surface water the SWP can provide to its 

many regional customers. (Kern County, 2003a) Future allotments of water to AVEK 

and subsequently to the MPUD are expected to remain the same or possibly decrease. In 

preparation for future shortages, the MPUD is developing an Urban Water Management 

Plan. (Kern County, 2003a) This plan will ensure a reliable water source to meet the 

growth of the MPUD during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. In addition, the MPUD 

will require any new urban development to provide evidence of service by a community 

water supply or the MPUD, continued monitoring of ground and surface water supplies, 

and development project applicants to show availability of utilities, public services, and 

adequate infrastructure for the project. (Kern County, 2003a) 

The EPA and the California EPA have established water quality standards that public 

water systems must meet. The Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board enforces 

these water supply standards. Antelope Valley’s major water quality concern for ground 

water is dissolved solids such as salts and minerals. The ground water quality in the 

wells that supply the MPUD is characterized as “generally suitable for domestic, 

irrigation, and most industrial uses.” (Kern County, 2003e) 

MPUD also provides wastewater collection and treatment services to the Mojave Airport. 

(Kern County, 2003b) The wastewater treatment system is designed to handle 2,262,000 

liters per day (600,000 gallons per day), but currently only collects and processes 

1,508,000 liters per day (400,000 gallons per day). (Kern County, 2003a) The 

wastewater collection system consists of approximately 35 kilometers (22 miles) of sewer 

lines and one pump station. The wastewater treatment system consists of 24 hectares (60 

acres) of stabilization ponds that rely on evaporation and infiltration processes for 

wastewater disposal. Urban development projects within the MPUD are required to 

obtain a “will serve” letter from the MPUD stating that the District has the capacity to 

treat the wastewater generated by the development. Septic tank systems are permitted at 

the discretion of the Kern County Environmental Health Services Department. (Kern 

County, 2003b)

The California Integrated Waste Management Act and the Integrated Waste Management 

Plan requires counties to deve lop and implement Source Reduction and Recycling 

Elements and a countywide siting element. (Kern County, 2003a) Kern County has 

begun a source reduction and recycling program including the Household Hazardous 

Waste Disposal and the Small Business Hazardous Waste Disposal programs. Kern 

County also diverts approximately 50 percent of its generated solid waste from landfill 

disposal by source reduction, recycling, and composting. (Kern County, 2003a) The 

Mojave-Rosamond Sanitary Landfill, located 8 kilometers (5 miles) south of the Mojave 

community, is a Class III facility, which accepts only non-hazardous solid wastes. (Kern 

County, 2003a) The landfill receives approximately 8,618 metric tons (9,500 tons) of 

solid waste per year and has a remaining capacity of 335,658 metric tons (370,000 tons). 

(Kern County, 2003a) The estimated date of closure for the landfill is 2013. 
85 February 2004

Southern California Edison provides electricity to the Mojave Airport and the Mojave 

community. (Kern County, 2003a) The Mojave community uses an estimated 20 

megawatts of electrical power per year. The Southern California Gas Company provides 

natural gas service to the Mojave community. (Kern County, 2003a) The high-pressure 

gas service line originates in Texas and goes through several regulator stations to convert 

the gas to medium pressure for residential, commercial, and industrial use. (Kern County, 

2003a)
86 February 2004

4. Safety and Health

4.1 Existing Safety and Health Conditions

The proposed actions and alternatives could have impacts on the safety and health of onsite workers at the Mojave Airport and the general public. The following sections 

describe the existing safety and health conditions regarding airspace and air traffic 

conditions, and operations at the Mojave Airport 

4.1.1 Airspace and Air Traffic

The FAA is charged with the overall management of airspace and has established certain 

criteria and limits for the use of various sectors of airspace. Airspace management is 

based largely on the number of aircraft that will be operating in an area, the nature of the 

operations conducted in that area and the level of safety needed to handle the air traffic 

and the nature of the aircraft activity. Any changes in airspace use can affect the safety 

and health of aircraft and persons within the airspace and reduce the airspace availability 

to other aircraft.

The operation of vehicles associated with the proposed action and alternatives that would 

operate from the Mojave Airport would originate at the airport. The operational area 

would extend from the Mojave Airport out to a 113-kilometer (70-mile) radius between 

Ridgecrest to the north and Victorville to the south. This area is almost exclusively 

contained within the R-2508 Complex. The Mojave Airport is a general aviation airport 

with a control tower operating Monday through Friday (M-F), 7 am to 5 pm. The Mojave 

Airport control tower schedules and coordinates airport operations such as takeoffs and 

landings. When the control tower is in operation, the airspace classification around the 

Mojave Airport is Class D within a 6.9-kilometer (4.3-nautical mile) radius extending 

from the surface to 1,463 meters (4,300 feet) above MSL. (Maps.com, 2003) When the 

control tower is not in operation, the airspace around the Mojave Airport is Class E and 

G. (Mojave Airport, 2003a) The FAA issued a waiver to the EKAD in 2002 for the 

operation of aircraft at Mojave Airport for 

° Speeds in excess of 463 kilometers per hour (250 knots) IAS below 3,049 meters 

(10,000) feet MSL, and 

° Speeds in excess of 370 kilometers per hour (200 knots) IAS within Mojave Airport 

Class D airspace.

The R-2508 Complex, which covers approximately 51,800 square kilometers (20,000 

square miles), is made up of Special Use Airspace and ATCAA. The basic structure of 

the R-2508 Complex airspace includes three types of airspace designated by the FAA 

through rulemakings or administrative procedures prescribed by the FAR. These three 

types of airspace include restricted areas, MOAs, and ATCAAs. There are seven 

restricted areas, 10 MOAs, and 12 ATCAAs in the R-2508 Complex. These airspace

areas can be used individually or in various combinations to accommodate a variety of 

test or training missions. The R-2508 restricted airspace extended upwards from FL200, 

which is 6,098 meters (20,000 feet) above MSL to unlimited altitude. (DoD, 2002a) The 
87 February 2004

purpose of the R-2508 Complex airspace is to confine activities, including certain types 

of test or training flight or weapons uses, to locations where they can be performed 

effectively while ensuring the greatest practical level of safety for all civil and military 

airspace users. Inside the R-2508 Complex, the DoD conducts military operations and 

training flights that require aircraft to fly at supersonic speeds, sometimes as low as 61 

meters (200 feet) above the ground. Supersonic flight is not allowed within the R-2508 

Complex outside the Supersonic corridors - Black Mountain Supersonic Corridor (FL300 

[9,144 meters or 30,000 feet MSL]) and above in the area outside of R-2515; (3,048 

meters [10,000 feet MSL]) and above west of Highway 395, and 152 meters (500 feet) 

AGL East of Highway 395; and the High Altitude Supersonic Corridor (FL300 and 

above). (Kern County, 2003) Within the R-2508 Complex, there are internal restricted 

areas. These areas include R-2502N, R-2502E, R-2505, R-2506, R-2515, and R-2524. 

(DoD, 2002a) Only R-2505, R-2506, R-2515, and R-2524 are applicable to the proposed 

action and alternatives. In addition, the R-2508 Complex includes military operations 

areas (MOAs) and ATCAA. Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1 provide information on the 

R-2508 Complex and its internal units. 
88 February 2004

Table 4-1. Restricted Airspace Units within the R-2508 Complex

Restricted 

Area

Hours of 

Operation

Effective 

Altitude

Air Traffic 

Control

R-2508 6 am-10 pm M-F

1 FL200 to 

Unlimited2

HI-DESERT 

TRACON

R-2502N Continuous Unlimited HI-DESERT 

TRACON

R-2502E Continuous Unlimited HI-DESERT 

TRACON

R-2505 Continuous Unlimited HI-DESERT 

TRACON

R-2506 Continuous

Ground level to

1,829 meters (6,000 

feet) above MSL3

HI-DESERT 

TRACON

R-2515 Continuous Unlimited SPORT

R-2524 Continuous Unlimited HI-DESERT 

TRACON

MOA

61 meters (200 feet) 

AGL to 

FL180 Barstow 4, 5

ATCAA

6 am-10 pm M-F

1

FL180 to FL6005, 6

HI-DESERT 

TRACON

MOA

61 meters (200 feet) 

AGL to 

FL180 Buckhorn 4, 5

ATCAA

6 am-10 pm M-F

1

FL180 to FL6005, 6

HI-DESERT 

TRACON

MOA

61 meters (200 feet) 

AGL to 

FL1804, 5 Isabella

ATCAA

6 am-10 pm M-F

1

FL180 to FL6005, 6

HI-DESERT 

TRACON

MOA

61 meters (200 feet) 

AGL to

 FL180 Panamint 4, 5

ATCAA

6 am-10 pm M-F

1

FL180 to FL6005, 6

HI-DESERT 

TRACON

Source: Edwards AFB, 2003; DoD, 2002a

1

 Normal operating hours are 6 am to 10 pm Monday through Friday but the Complex can be activated at 

any time.

2 FL200 is Flight Level 200 (approximately 20,000 feet or 6,098 meters above MSL).

3 MSL is mean sea level (6,000 feet above MSL is 1,829 meters above MSL).

4

 AGL is above ground level (200 feet is 61 meters).

5

 FL180 is approximately 18,000 feet above MSL or 5,488 meters above MSL.

6

 FL600 is approximately 60,000 feet above MSL or 18,293 meters above MSL.
89 February 2004

Figure 4-1. Map of the R-2508 Complex

Scheduling and air traffic control within this area are critical to ensuring aircraft safety. 

This is especially true for civilian aircraft entering the complex. The EKAD and several 

of the Mojave Airport tenants have LOAs with the R-2508 Complex scheduling and 

controlling agencies. These letters allow civil use of the R-2508 Complex under certain 

conditions. The Central Coordinating Facility (CCF) is the scheduling agency for all 

activities within the R-2508 Complex. All aircraft requesting clearance to operate within 

the R-2508 Complex must notify CCF by 4 pm local time the day prior to the planned 

flight to gain approval. For weekend or holiday flights, CCF must be notified by 4 pm 

local time the last working day prior to the flight. (LOA R-2508 Complex Control Board, 

Edwards Air Force Base and NTPS, 2002) Persons requesting civil use approval in the 

R-2508 Complex must identify all areas in which the planned activity will take place. 

Any changes in flight plans must be forwarded to CCF on a real time basis. For any civil 

aircraft planning to land at Edwards AFB permission must first be obtained from 

Edwards AFB, Airfield Management. 

Civil aircraft operating below 3,048 meters (10,000 feet) MSL are not required to contact 

ATC and would operate under “see-and-avoid” VFR. Civil aircraft operating above 

3,048 meters (10,000 feet) MSL, but below FL180 (5,486 meters [18,000 feet MSL]) 

should, but are not required to, contact ATC and shall operate VFR. Under the current 

rules of the R-2508 Complex, only those civil aircraft that have entered into an LOA and 

require operations above FL180 will be schedule as participating aircraft. The air traffic 

controlling agency in the R-2508 Complex is the HI-DESERT TRACON; however, the 

SPORT controls traffic in R-2515. (DoD, 2002a); LOA R-2508 Complex Control Board, 

Edwards Air Force Base and NTPS, 2002) All civilian pilots operating in the R-2508 

must be familiar with the requirements and procedures in the R-2508 Complex User’s 
90 February 2004

Handbook and AFFTC Instruction 11-1 “Aircrew Operations.” (DoD, 2002a) HIDESERT TRACON and the AFFTC commander can suspend or cancel clearance at 

anytime. The LOAs between the EKAD and the Mojave Airport tenants and the R-2508 

Complex do not give blanket approval for all internal restricted areas. Civil use flight 

plans must be approved by the controlling agency of each internal restricted area the 

flight will enter. (LOA R-2508 Complex Control Board, Edwards Air Force Base and 

NTPS, 2002) Pilots operating within the restricted areas are responsible for vertical and 

lateral confines of the area for which they have received clearance. Pilots must also 

operate under VFR. 

Edwards AFB operates a national range in accordance with Public Law 81-60 and DoD 

Directive 3200.11, Use, Management, and Operation of Department of Defense Major 

Range and Test Facilities. (DoD, 2002a) These regulations provide a framework for the 

operation of a national range with regard to range safety. The purpose of these 

requirements is to ensure that the launch and flight of launch vehicles pose no greater 

threat to the general public than that resulting from the overflight of conventional aircraft. 

(DoD, 2002a) Use of the Edwards AFB Range requires compliance with the operating 

rules and procedures of the range and the Range Commander. 

The ROI contains 17 public and private airports. Any flight plans that will enter the 

airspace of a surrounding airport must be coordinated with the individual airport. 

Emergency landings are coordinated with the applicable controlling agency and the 

airport at which the landing is to occur.

The very southeast portion of the ROI is outside of the R-2508 Complex. This area 

contains several en route airways used by commercial and private aircraft. The route 

with the highest operating altitude is V442 at 3,049 meters (10,000 feet) above MSL. 

4.1.2 Existing Airport Operations

Aircraft using the Mojave Airport include general aviation propeller and turbo propeller 

planes, test and experimental aircraft, commercial air carrier jets, and high performance 

military and non-military jets. The control tower communications logs for 2001 indicate 

that approximately 18,301 aircraft take-offs and landings occurred during that year. (Kern 

County, 2003c) All take-off and landing activities are conducted under VFR.

The airport manager controls the on-ground activities. The EKAD offers fuel services, 

aircraft tie down, hangar and building leases, emergency response services and security 

services. 

The Mojave Airport provides Jet A and 100 Low Lead gasoline fuel services for aircraft 

at the airport. Only EKAD personnel can conduct fuel service activities at the Mojave 

Airport (Fueling Policy). The KCAPCD issued EKAD a Permit to Operate for each of its 

fuel and gasoline storage and dispensing systems. (Kern County, 2003a) The permits 

issued by KCAPCD have operational, air quality, testing and emission limit 

requirements. The EKAD Administrative Code, Section 4-2.11 Fuel Handling, addresses 

safety measures that must be followed by EKAD personnel and customers before, during, 
91 February 2004

and after providing fuel services. In accordance with the EKAD Administrative Code, a 

fueling policy was established to address all fueling activities at the Mojave Airport. 

This policy details requirements regarding proper fueling techniques, storage of fuel and 

salvage fuel, and spill response and reporting. In addition, EKAD has an SPCC Plan for 

the operation of the above ground storage tanks used for fuel storage. The SPCC was 

developed per EPA 40 CFR Part 112 and California Health and Safety Code, Section 

25270-25270.13. (EKAD, 2003) Procedures and measures required by the SPCC include

° Security barriers and monitoring, 

° Daily visual inspections, 

° Tank drain locks,

° Employee safety and spill prevention training, 

° Spill response kits, and

° Hydrocarbon leak detection systems.

The Mojave Airport offers rental space for aircraft tie downs, storage and maintenance 

and industrial purposes. Persons leasing these spaces are required to follow all airport 

safety and health requirements of the EKAD Administrative Code, Part 4, Property. 

Safety and health requirements may include proper storage of hazardous materials and 

flammable substances, proper housekeeping in and around the rental space, performance 

of maintenance activities in designated areas and proper conduct of the lessees on airport 

grounds. (EKAD, 2001) In addition, lease agreements make reference to compliance 

with portions of Federal regulations 29 CFR Part 1910 and 40 CFR; California Code of 

Regulations Titles 8, 22, 19, 26 and 27; Kern County Health and Safety Code; Kern 

County Air Pollution Control District regulations; and California Department of 

Transportation, Division of Aeronautics regulations.

The emergency response services at Mojave Airport consist mainly of the EKAD 

Aerospace Rescue Fire Fighting (ARFF) unit. The ARFF unit is three-person fire 

department with the ability to expand to seven persons as needed. (Mojave Airport, 

August 2003c) The ARFF operates from 7 am to 5 pm Monday through Friday and on 

weekends as needed. The ARFF responds to on-site emergencies and spills of jet fuel. 

The ARFF crew is trained and qualified in fire and rescue techniques, and its response 

requirements follow the guidelines of the National Fire Protection Standard 402 and the 

USAF Defense Logistics Agency Manual 8210.1. (Mojave Airport, August 2003c) The 

ARFF goes through training and evaluation by the Government Flight Representative on 

a quarterly basis. The Kern County Fire Department, located one quarter of a mile from 

the Mojave Airport, provides 24-hour support to the ARFF. Hall Ambulance provides 

on-site, 24-hour, land-based emergency medical services, and Mercy Air provides onsite, 24-hour, air-based emergency medical services. (Mojave Airport, August 2003c) 

Edwards AFB provides additional local emergency response services via the mutual aid 

system. Edwards AFB can provide USAF ARFF crews, security forces, emergency 

medical services, and an Incident Commander. A community response plan is in place to 

communicate and coordinate emergency alerts and responses to the surrounding 

community.
92 February 2004

In the event of an accident at the Mojave Airport involving a launch vehicle, EKAD has 

developed a Launch Site Accident Investigation Plan (LSAIP). The LSAIP has detailed 

procedures for reporting, responding to, and investigating launch site accidents as defined 

by Section 420.05 of 14 CFR, Part 420. The procedures inc lude

° Immediate notification of any accident to the appropriate agencies (e.g., FAA, 

National Transportation Safety Board, Kern County Fire Department);

° Submittal of a written report detailing the date, time, location and description of the 

accident;

° Development of a pre-incident plan for all designated activities;

° Containment and minimization of the accident consequences;

° Preservation of any physical evidence;

° Establishment of site safety and security;

° Implementation of a preliminary investigation; and

° Cooperation and coordination with Federal investigators.

The Mojave Airport has a security team that provides 24-hour security services to the 

airport and its industrial park. The security team comprises 33 former Los Angeles and 

Kern County Sheriff’s Office members and firefighters. (Mojave Airport, August 2003c) 

The team rotates two-person crews to conduct patrols and monitor surveillance cameras. 

The California Highway Patrol and Kern County Sheriff’s Office, which have offices 

located adjacent to the airport, provide additional assistance on an as-needed basis. 

(Mojave Airport, 2003c) The airport also has a four-person maintenance crew that 

maintains the water, sewage, electrical and road systems as well as the airport runways, 

taxiways and structures.

Employees of the EKAD are required to comply with the EKAD Illness and Injury 

Prevention Program. (EKAD, 2001) This program was established to provide a safe and 

healthy working environment for employees. The program includes

° Installing mechanical and physical safeguards,

° Conducting safety and health inspections,

° Training all employees in proper safety and health practices,

° Providing appropriate personal protective equipment,

° Developing and enforcing safety and health rules,

° Investigating and preventing recurrence of accidents, and

° Awarding recognition and incentives for safety and health excellence.

In addition, EKAD has a controlled substance program that prohibits any employee from 

working under the influence of, possessing, or trafficking legal or illegal drugs in or on 

airport property that impair the performance of the employee.

4.2 Hazard Analysis Including Safety and Health Protections

The FAA’s Licensing and Safety Requirements for Operation of a Launch Site state that 

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

launch point proposed for the launch site, at least one type of expendable or reusable 
93 February 2004

launch vehicle can be flown from the launch point 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 expendable or reusable launch 

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

safely. (14 CFR 420.19(b)) It is therefore necessary for the EKAD to demonstrate that 

both Concept A and Concept B launch vehicles can be flown and/or launched safely from 

the Mojave Airport. 

A hazard analysis is a necessary part of the Mission and Safety Review for the FAA 

licensing determination to assess the possible hazards associated with proposed ground, 

flight, and landing operations. Launches of Concept A and B vehicles from the Mojave 

Airport would require launch specific licenses 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 nominal and non-nominal flights. The 

estimated casualty expectation cannot exceed 30 x 10-6 to receive a launch license. The 

Mission and Safety Review would consider these items, and, therefore, they will not be 

discussed in detail in this EA. However, analysis of the safety and health implications of 

launch related operations and activities that have the potential for environmental impact 

are considered in this EA. 

For over 25 years, the Mojave Airport has had general safety and health 

policies/procedures in place for handling explosive materials including rocket 

propellants. In accordance with the Mojave Airport Reusable Launch Vehicle Site 

License Application (August, 2003), EKAD would submit an explosive site plan for all 

flight/landing and ground operations for proposed Concept A and B operations. The 

EKAD would have a contingency/emergency plan for handling these materials and 

procedures for providing notification to the proper authorities in the event of an incident. 

The Kern County Fire Marshall would issue permits for use, storage, and handling of 

propellants and explosive materials, as required. Concept A and B tenants would comply 

with inventory and safety/separation requirements specifically for handling solid and 

liquid propellants. (Mojave Airport, 2003c) Examples of these requirements may include 

the Quantity Distance Separation requirements specified in NASA Explosive Safety 

Standard, NSS 1740.12 (DoD 6055.9) and the National Fire Protection Administration 

(NFPA) standards including NFPA 30 Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code. The 

Mojave Airport has developed and will implement a launch site accident investigation 

plan which would address operations of all tenants including those proposing to launch 

Concept A and B vehicles. The EKAD has a fuel policy governing safety procedures 

with which operators/tenants proposing to launch Concept A and B vehicles would need 

to comply. Also, EKAD would ensure that the operations of one operator/tenant would 

not adversely affect the operations of other operators/tenants. (Mojave Airport, 2003c)

4.2.1 Ground Operations

Ground operations involved in servicing and preparing the launch vehicle typically 

involve industrial activities. There are various hazards associated with these activities 

including
94 February 2004

° Spill/fire/explosion of propellant/fuel storage, transport, handling, and loading;

° Traffic accidents due to increased activity on and off site; and 

° Occupational mechanical accidents.

4.2.1.1 Propellant Storage, Transport, Handling, and Loading Accidents

Jet-A/Kerosene. Jet-A aviation fuel (also called kerosene) is a liquid hydrocarbon fuel. 

It is flammable and can explode if mixed with air and then ignited in a confined space. 

Jet-A/kerosene can also explode if mixed with oxidizers. Toxic products can be emitted 

from the burning Jet-A/kerosene. Unburned vapors can irritate skin, are moderately toxic 

if inhaled and can cause severe hazards if ingested. (Chemical Propulsion Information 

Agency, 1984) Concept A launch operations would require a maximum of 21,804 liters 

(5,760 gallons) of Jet-A fuel annually. Concept B launch operations would require a 

maximum of 85,172 liters (22,500 gallons) of kerosene annually to support the estimated 

50 launches per year. 

The proposed Concept A and Concept B operations would not necessitate changes to the 

existing safety and health and spill prevention/response practices for Jet-A/kerosene at 

the Mojave Airport. Such existing practices are included in the Fueling Policy for 

EKAD, the SPCC Plan, the Mojave Airport Reusable Launch Vehicle Site License 

Application, August 2003, and the ChevronTexaco Airport Dealer Quality Control 

Guide. If additional storage capacity is required to support Concept B operations, 34,826 

liter-capacity (9,200 gallons) tank trucks could be used as short-term temporary storage. 

The proposed tank trucks would be parked between existing buildings on the Mojave 

Airport within a fenced area and would meet all established explosive quantity distance 

safety requirements. The FAA in issuing specific launch licenses would evaluate any 

additional safety procedures or requirements. 

There would be some vapors released from fuel storage/transfer operations through 

evaporative losses. However, such vapors would be vented outside the building at a 

height that would provide adequate protection for personnel, buildings and the 

environment. Also, the total quantity of emissions indicated would not occur as a large 

acute (short term) exposure, but would occur as a slow vapor release over a long period 

of time. There is also the concern of spills of Jet-A/kerosene during handling and loading 

operations and subsequent fire or explosion. However, the Mojave Airport has extensive 

experience with Jet-A/kerosene and has established practices and procedures to handle 

the quantities of Jet A/kerosene needed for launch operations. 

Nitrous Oxide (N2O). N2O is a colorless, nonflammable, nontoxic gas. It is chemically 

stable at room temperature. At elevated temperatures, it decomposes into nitrogen and 

oxygen and becomes a strong oxidizing agent to support combustion. It is stored and 

shipped as a liquefied compressed gas at atmospheric temperature (70o F, 21.1o C) 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. (Chemical Propulsion Information Agency, 1984) 
95 February 2004

For Concept A operations, the maximum amount of N2O stored on-site would be 7,770 

kilograms (17,130 pounds). N2O would be delivered via refrigerated tank truck to the 

Mojave Airport. Specially designed storage tanks might be used for the N2O; one such 

design is the Mobile Nitrous Oxide Delivery System (MONODS). MONODS was 

designed and built as a portable N2O storage unit that could be used to fill a Concept A 

type launch vehicle. MONODS includes a 6,435-liter (1,700-gallon) tank, generator and 

heating/cooling unit. The storage vessel is constructed of materials that meet the 

American Society of Testing and Materials specification of SA-240-304 for stainless 

steel, meets the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code and is registered with 

the National Board of Pressure Vessels.

The refrigerated N2O is pumped into the MONODS allowing the N2O to warm to room 

temperature increasing the tank pressure. Hazards include releases during N2O transfer 

from refrigerated tanker to MONODS and transfer from MONODS to the launch vehicle. 

All the N2O tanks were designed for safety according to applicable codes (including that 

of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers). The N2O tank on the launch vehicle 

is filled and vented through the tank’s forward bulkhead to keep vapor away from the hot 

side of the tank. Also, contact between N2O and the solid rocket propellant should be 

avoided. To prevent N2O from leaking near the solid rocket propellant, the valves and 

injectors are located on a bulkhead inside the N2O tank. (FAA, 2003c) The N2O is 

loaded into the launch vehicle using an established procedure that incorporates basic 

safety checks and monitoring. (FAA, 2003c) Two-person teams should be used when 

operating a pressurized system. One team member should be equipped with selfcontained breathing apparatus. (Chemical Propulsion Information Agency, 1984) 

Additional safety precautions would be followed, these would include inspections of 

combustibles, maintaining established quantity distance relationships, and ensuring the 

availability of safety showers. 

HTPB. HTPB is a solid rocket propellant that is classified as an explosive. If ignited, the 

HTPB will continue to burn in the presence of an oxidizer. Accidental explosions are 

possible if proper handling precautions (e.g., proper separation distances) are not taken. 

For proposed Concept A launches, the maximum on-site propellant storage would be 907 

kilograms (2,000 pounds) of HTPB. (FAA, 2003c) The Mojave Airport has experience 

with solid rocket propellants like HTPB, and they have specific handling requirements 

for operations involving these propellants. (Mojave Airport, 2003c) The motor case, 

throat, and nozzle (CTN) that would be used for Concept A launch vehicles would 

contain HTPB. Additionally, the proposed action for Concept A launch operations 

includes specific vehicle design safety features. The CTN is a one-piece motor design 

that minimizes the number of possible leak paths. (FAA, 2003c)

LOx. 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 low temperatures). LOx will not burn 

by itself, but will vigorously support combustion with combustible materials. When LOx

is stored in a closed system and refrigeration is not maintained, vessel rupture may occur 

due to overpressurization. (Chemical Propulsion Information Agency, 1984) Although 
96 February 2004

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 Mojave Airport has developed procedures/policies to appropriately handle liquid 

propellants such as LOx. (Mojave Airport, 2003c) It might be necessary for operators 

proposing to conduct Concept B launch operations to develop specific LOx safety 

handling procedures given the quantities of combustibles that would need to be stored at 

the Mojave Airport to support these operations.

4.2.1.2 Traffic Accidents

The increased road traffic that would result from conduct of Concept A and B launch 

operations at the Mojave Airport would only add a few cars/trucks above existing traffic 

loads. There would be some more trucks delivering kerosene and LOx to the Mojave 

Airport particularly during the years 2006 to 2008. There may be as many as 23 

additional trucks carrying hazardous materials to the Mojave Airport per year during that 

time. This would likely represent only nine percent increase over the current annual 

hazardous materials shipments to the Mojave Airport. The increase would not be 

expected to significantly increase the number of accidents given that the Mojave Airport 

is currently working at three percent of capacity. (Mojave Airport, 2003b) Therefore, the 

increase in the number of shipments of hazardous materials should not significantly 

increase the number of traffic accidents on the roadways around the Mojave Airport. 

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.

4.2.1.3 Occupational Mechanical Accidents 

On-site work associated with the conduct of Concept A or B launch operations would be 

similar to that associated with industrial chemical operations. Exposure impacts and 

mitigation of propellant/fuel hazards were discussed above. Exposure to mechanical 

accidents should not differ significantly from current levels for the Mojave Airport 

because the number of operations associated with the conduct of Concept A and B launch 

operations would be relatively small given the number of operations airport wide.

4.2.2 Flight/Airspace and Landing Operations

A detailed flight hazard analysis will be conducted as part of a Mission and Safety 

Review under the auspices of the FAA before a determination is made on whether to 

license the proposed activities. Consequently, this section is intended to provide only a 

top-level assessment of hazards and mitigation measures. The potential hazards of 

flight/airspace and landing operations include limited airspace availability, limited airport 

operations, and nominal flight safety.
97 February 2004

Emergency Landing Facilities

Edwards AFB would be a primary abort/emergency landing site because of availability of 

a 4,572-meter (15,000-foot) paved runway, multiple dry lake bed runways, and 

experience with experimental and unusual flight vehicles. Each vehicle operator would 

be required to coordinate their safety plans with Edwards AFB prior to beginning 

operations. 

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 

certain criteria and limits for use of various sectors of airspace. Specific permission is 

required from the controlling agency to penetrate active restricted airspace areas. For 

launches of Concept A vehicles from the Mojave Airport, permission to fly in the 

restricted R-2508 Complex airspace would be requested for a maximum of 6 flights per 

year. Likewise, for Concept B launch vehicles, permission to fly in the R-2508 Complex 

airspace would need to be requested. By 2008, Concept B proposes up to 50 flights per 

year. It is possible that permission for some Concept A or B flights will be denied. The 

authority over the R-2508 Complex would consider the requests; however, the authority 

will not permit any flights that would impact existing DoD missions/operations in the 

restricted airspace. Potential users of the Mojave Airport proposing to conduct launches 

would need to modify existing Letters of Agreement with the R-2508 Complex Control 

Board and Air Force Flight Test Center (Mojave Airport, 2003c) to negotiate requests for 

permission to use restricted airspace. 

Limited Airport Operations

Expanding airport operations beyond reasonable capacities would have a detrimental 

effect on airport safety. Currently, airport operations are at three percent of capacity. 

(Mojave Airport, 2003b) The current annual flight rate at Mojave Airport is 18,301 

flights. A maximum of six additional flights per year of Concept A launch vehicles and a 

maximum of 50 additional flights per year of Concept B vehicles would not have an 

impact on the airport operations.

Nominal Flight Safety 

Multiple safety precautions would be used during nominal flights to assure safety. The 

PIC for each launch vehicle would have responsibility for flight safety decisions. 

Concept A launch operations would include a mobile ground station for mission control 

with real-time telemetry data monitoring and recording. Mission control would provide 

data and recommendations to 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. (FAA, 2003c) The vehicle has fault-tolerant life support system to ensure 
98 February 2004

that the pilot would have adequate oxygen during the mission. Mission rehearsals would 

be conducted with flight and ground support crew prior to each launch. A prelaunch 

check would examine all critical safety and high-risk systems. In the event of an 

emergency landing, the PIC would attempt to reach one of the designated emergency 

landing/abort areas. To reduce risk to nearby populations, the nominal flight ground 

track for Concept A missions was designed to avoid populated areas (see Figure 4-2). In 

the Figure, populated U.S. Census Bureau blocks that indicate the presence of one or 

more people are outlined in white lines. The average population density under the 

ground track is approximately six people per square mile. 

Concept B operations would include a System Safety Program to examine and reduce 

risk during nominal flights. The PIC would be responsible for activating the FSS. This 

may consist of a number of steps, taken by the PIC to ensure that the vehicle glides to a 

safe landing at the primary landing location at the Mojave Airport or at a designated 

emergency landing location. The PIC might activate the FSS by turning off the engine 

run switch or closing the propellant pre-valves, in both instances stopping the flow of 

propellants to the engine and thereby stopping the engine. It may also be possible for the 

PIC to vent pressure in the LOx tank or release 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 the other methods failed to cut the engine off. A 

prelaunch check would examine all critical safety and high-risk systems. In the event of 

an emergency landing, the PIC would attempt to reach one of the designated emergency 

landing/abort areas. To reduce risk to nearby populations, the nominal flight ground 

tracks for a smaller- and larger-end Concept B launch vehicle were designed to avoid 

populated areas (see Figures 4-3 and 4-4). In the Figures, populated U.S. Census Bureau 

blocks that indicate the presence of one or more people are outlined in white lines. The 

average population density under the ground track is six people per square mile. 

4.2.3 Catastrophic Accidents Scenarios

For Concept A launch vehicles during nominal flight, there is an elevated risk area due to 

the steep reentry and the pull-out from the steep reentry. If there is a loss of control, the 

vehicle could potentially crash land. Also, if the launch vehicle fails to function as 

intended soon after separation from the carrier aircraft, the launch vehicle would attempt 

a steep descent carrying hazardous materials (e.g., HTPB). In terms of impact, for a 

nominal trajectory, the ground track does not include flights over populated areas. 

However, in a catastrophic accident, it would be likely that the crew would be seriously 

injured or killed. At the airport, the on-site fire department could respond, secure the site, 

but stay clear of the immediate area until the danger of explosions is diminished. It is 

expected that any fires resulting from a failure could be fought by the fire department. 

Additional off-site emergency response capability could also be used if necessary. 

For Concept B launch vehicles, there is an elevated risk 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 would cause a rupture 

of the propellant tanks, which could result in explosion and fire. There would likely be 
99 February 2004

significant 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 would 

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 particulate matter (unburned hydrocarbons) forming a smoke 

cloud from an accident burn. None of the combustion products are considered 

significantly toxic. On- and off-site emergency response capabilities would be used as 

necessary.
101 February 2004

Figure 4-2. Concept A Nominal Ground Track Plotted Over Populations

34.85

34.95

35.05

35.15

35.25

241.6 241.7 241.8 241.9 242.0 242.1 242.2 242.3 242.4 242.5 242.6

Longitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)

Edwards AFB

California City

Rosamond

Mojave

Boron

North Edwards

Kern County

San Bernardino

 County
102 February 2004

Figure 4-3. Concept B Smaller Vehicle Nominal Ground Track Plotted Over Populations

35.00

35.02

35.04

35.06

35.08

35.10

35.12

35.14

241.7 241.8 241.8 241.9 241.9 242.0 242.0 242.1 242.1

Longitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)

California City

Mojave

Kern County
103 February 2004

Figure 4-4. Concept B Larger Vehicle Nominal Ground Track Plotted Over Populations

34.85

34.90

34.95

35.00

35.05

35.10

35.15

35.20

35.25

241.7 241.8 241.9 242.0 242.1 242.2 242.3 242.4 242.5 242.6 242.7

Longitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)

California City

Mojave

Boron

North Edwards

Edwards AFB

Rosamond

Kern County

San Bernardino 

County
104 February 2004

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
105 February 2004

5. Environmental Impacts

5.1 Air Quality

Impacts to air quality would be considered significant if they conflicted with or 

obstructed implementation of the applicable air quality plan; violated any air quality 

standard or contributed to an existing or projected violation; or cumulatively increased 

any criteria pollutant for which the region is in non-attainment under applicable Federal 

or state ambient air quality standards. Significant impacts also include exposure of 

sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or the creation of objectionable 

odors, which affect a substantial number of people. 

5.1.1 Proposed Action

Air emissions may be generated during launch/landing operations, pre- and post-launch 

ground operations, and accidents. The proposed action includes emissions from launches 

of Concept A and B vehicles. The proposed action does not include any changes to the 

physical structure of the airport (e.g., runway) or any construction activities; therefore 

there are no construction vehicles or associated emissions. The air quality at the Mojave 

Airport in Eastern Kern County is in Federal non-attainment (serious) and State nonattainment (moderate) for ozone, and state non-attainment for PM10. The proposed action 

would require a Federal conformity analysis if the air emissions exceed certain de 

minimis levels or if the total emissions are regionally significant. Emissions are 

regionally significant when the emissions from the action equal or exceed 10 percent of 

the air quality control area’s emissions inventory for any criteria pollutant. This analysis 

will consider emissions in two categories, above 914 meters (3,000 feet) and below 914 

meters (3,000 feet). The 914 meter (3,000 feet) altitude is an appropriate cutoff because 

the Federal government uses 914 meters (3,000 feet) and below for contributions of 

emissions to the ambient air quality and for de minimis calculations. (EPA, 1992)

Air Quality Impacts from Concept A Launch Operations

Air quality impacts associated with Concept A launch operations were examined in terms 

of emissions from launch/landing operations and from routine pre-launch operations.

Air Emissions from Launch/Landing Operations. Concept A launch vehicles include two 

components, a carrier aircraft and a mated suborbital launch vehicle. The aircraft would 

have turbojet engines using Jet A-1 fuel. There would be emissions from both the carrier 

aircraft and the launch vehicle components. To make emission calculations of the 

turbojet, it is assumed the aircraft would most closely resemble the T-38 Tiger aircraft 

which uses two J85-GE-5F engines. To estimate aircraft emissions, emission factors 

(e.g., pound releases per takeoff/landing cycle) found in the EPA document Compilation 

of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (EPA, 1980) for the T-38 aircraft were used. Table 5-1 

provides the total emissions for takeoff/landing based on the proposed number of flights 

of the carrier aircraft. The takeoff/landing cycle includes idle, takeoff, climb out to 914 

meters (3,000 feet), descent starting at 914 meters (3,000 feet), approach, and landing. 

(EPA, 1980) 
106 February 2004

Table 5-1. Estimated Emissions for Carrier Aircraft

During Takeoff/Landing Cycle (below 914 meters [3,000 feet])

Year Number of 

Launches

CO

kilograms 

(pounds)

NOx

kilograms 

(pounds)

Total HC1

(VOCs)

kilograms 

(pounds)

SOx

2

kilograms 

(pounds)

Particulates

kilograms 

(pounds)

2003 3

112.6 

(248.2)

1.7

(3.7)

14.2 

(31.3)

0.8

(1.9)

34

(75)

2004 6

225.1 

(496.3)

3.3

(7.3)

28.3 

(62.5)

1.7

(3.7)

68

(150)

2005 6

225.1 

(496.3)

3.3

(7.3)

28.3 

(62.5)

1.7

(3.7)

68

(150)

2006 6

225.1 

(496.3)

3.3

(7.3)

28.3 

(62.5)

1.7

(3.7)

68

(150)

2007 6

225.1 

(496.3)

3.3

(7.3)

28.3 

(62.5)

1.7

(3.7)

68

(150)

2008 6

225.1 

(496.3)

3.3

(7.3)

28.3 

(62.5)

1.7

(3.7)

68

(150)

1HC are total hydrocarbons including unburned hydrocarbons and organic pyrolysis products. For this 

study, HC will be conservatively considered VOCs so as to compare with VOC regulatory limits.

2

SOx are sulfur oxides and sulfuric acid as sulfur dioxide.

Source of emission factors: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (EPA, 1980), Vol. II, Table II-1-

9 Emission Factors per Aircraft per Landing/Takeoff Cycle-Civil Aircraft, February 1980

The emission factors used in developing Table 5-1 above are from EPA, 1980 and are 

listed in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2. Emissions (per Takeoff/Landing Cycle) for Carrier Aircraft 

(assumed to be T-38 Tiger Aircraft)

CO

kilograms 

(pounds)

NOx

kilograms 

(pounds)

Total HC

kilograms 

(pounds)

SOx

kilograms 

(pounds)

Particulates*

kilograms 

(pounds)

38 

(83)

0.55

(1.22)

4.73

(10.42)

0.28

(0.62)

11

(25)

*No particulates were specified for T-38 Tiger so it was assumed that the particulates were similar to the 

F-14 Tomcat

Emissions from the launch vehicle would occur from the combustion of N2O and HTPB. 

For each flight, there would be an estimated 1,295 kilograms (2,855 pounds) of N2O and 

228 kilograms (503 pounds) of HTPB. (FAA, 2003c) The emissions would begin at an 

altitude of between 16 to 20 kilometers (10 to 12 miles) (troposphere and beginning of 

stratosphere). Because these emissions would originate far above the applicable altitude 

(914 meters [3,000 feet]) for the Federal or California ambient air quality standards, these 

emissions are not considered against these air ambient quality standards. The emissions 

are based on the propellant emission factors in Table 5-3, which are similar to those used 

in the Navy FA-18E/F EA. These emission factors are refined because Concept A launch 
107 February 2004

Table 5-3. Estimated Weight Fractions of Emissions from N2O and HTPB

CO2 CO H2O N2

0.03 0.20 0.22 0.54

 Source: Information in U.S. Department of Navy, 1996 adapted by ICF Consulting

vehicles propose to use N2O and HTPB rather than perchlorate and HTPB as in the Navy 

EA. Thus, it was assumed that 

° N2O fully decomposes to oxygen and nitrogen, 

° The oxygen fully reacts with the hydrogen in the HTPB to form water, 

° The oxygen reacts with the carbon in HTPB to produce roughly ten times as much 

CO as CO2 (similar to FA-18E/F EA), and 

° The nitrogen is released as N2. 

To estimate the total emissions in Table 5-4, the emissions fractions were multiplied by 

the total amount of propellant used (1,523 kilograms [3,358 pounds]) and the number of 

flights expected per year.

Table 5-4. Total Propellant Emissions Annually for Concept A Launches 

Above 3,000 Feet

Year Number of 

Launches

CO2

kilograms 

(pounds)

CO

kilograms 

(pounds)

H2O

kilograms 

(pounds)

N2

kilograms 

(pounds)

2003 3

137

(302)

914

(2,015)

1,005

(2,216)

2,468

(5,440)

2004 6

274

(604)

1,828

(4,030)

2,011

(4,433)

4,935

(10,880)

2005 6

274

(604)

1,828

(4,030)

2,011

(4,433)

4,935

(10,880)

2006 6

274

(604)

1,828

(4,030) 2,011(4,433) 4,935(10,880)

2007 6

274

(604)

1,828

(4,030)

2,011

(4,433)

4,935

(10,880)

2008 6

274

(604)

1,828

(4,030)

2,011

(4,433)

4,935

(10,880)

Total 33 1,508

(3,324)

10,053

(22,163)

11,058

(24,379)

27,143

(59,840)

Source: FAA, 2003

There are also emissions from the carrier aircraft above 914 meters. Although these 

emissions were considered, it was generally assumed that aircraft emissions from the six 

Concept A flights per year would be relatively small considering the 18,301 annual 

aircraft flights from Mojave Airport. The propellant is fully expended above 914 meters 

(3,000 feet); therefore, there are no propellant combustion emissions in Concept A during 

landing.
108 February 2004

Air Emissions from Routine Launch Preparation Operations. For Concept A launch 

operations, emissions can also occur from support equipment used during ground 

operations. This could include various trucks and equipment, although there would be 

relatively few used and therefore few emissions would be expected to result from their 

use. There would also be air emissions from fueling the carrier aircraft and storage of 

additional fuels. Each flight of the carrier aircraft would consume 2,903 kilograms 

(6,400 pounds) of Jet-A fuel. (FAA, 2003c) This would equal 21,804 liters (5,760 

gallons) per year based on 1.25 liters per kilogram (0.15 gallons per pound) and 6 flights 

per year. Fuel use at the Mojave Airport during the 12-month period from July 2002 to 

June 2003 was 7,933,837 liters (2,095,898 gallons). (Mojave Airport, 2003b) An 

additional 21,804 liters (5,760 gallons) of fuel per year represents a small increase in 

annual Jet-A usage at the airport and, therefore, the emissions from storage and 

dispensing as a result of activities related to Concept A launch operations would not be 

significant.

To estimate needed deliveries of Jet-A fuel and N2O, it was assumed that 2,903 and 1,295 

kilograms (6,400 and 2,855 pounds), respectively, is needed per flight. In determining 

the number of trucks, it was assumed that each Jet-A fuel truck would carry 28,122 

kilograms (34,826 liters) (62,000 pounds [9,200 gallons]) and each N2O truck would 

carry 11,340 kilograms (11,256 liters) (25,000 pounds [3,000 gallons]). It was also 

assumed that one truck per flight is needed to bring the motor CTN containing solid 

rocket propellant (HTPB). For Concept A in 2008, approximately eight trucks would be 

needed to bring propellants to the Mojave Airport. The truck traffic would produce 

emissions as estimated in Table 5-5. It was assumed that each truck trip would be 80 

kilometers (50 miles). The emission rates were based on heavy-duty diesel powered 

vehicles traveling 30 miles per hour based on California’s emission factor model. 

(California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resource Board, 2002) The rates are 

0.81 grams/kilometer (0.05 ounces/mile), 5.02 grams/kilometer (0.28 ounces/mile), 5.16 

grams/kilometer (0.29 ounces/mile), and 0.40 grams/kilometer (0.02 ounces/mile) for 

hydrocarbons (VOCs), CO, NOx, and PM10, respectively.
109 February 2004

Table 5-5. Total Emissions Annually for Trucks to bring Kerosene, N2O, and HTPB 

for Concept A Launch Operations

Year Flights

per year

Kerosene 

Trucks

N2O 

Trucks

HTPB 

Trucks

Total 

trucks

CO

kilograms 

(pounds)

NOx

kilograms 

(pounds)

VOC

kilograms

(pounds)

PM

kilograms 

(pounds)

2003 3 1 1 3 5

2.0

(4.4)

2.1

(4.6)

0.3

(0.7)

0.2

(0.4)

2004 6 1 1 6 8

3.2

(7.1)

3.3

(7.3)

0.5

(1.1)

0.3

(0.6)

2005 6 1 1 6 8

3.2

(7.1)

3.3

(7.3)

0.5

(1.1)

0.3

0.6)

2006 6 1 1 6 8

3.2

(7.1)

3.3

(7.3)

0.5

(1.1)

0.3

(0.6)

2007 6 1 1 6 8

3.2

(7.1)

3.3

(7.3)

0.5

(1.1)

0.3

(0.6)

2008 6 1 1 6 8

3.2

(7.1)

3.3

(7.3)

0.5

(1.1)

0.3

(0.6)

Total 33 6 6 33 45 18

(40)

19

(41)

2.9

(6.4)

1.5

(3.2)

Air Quality Impacts from Concept B Launch Operations

Air quality impacts associated with Concept B launch operations were examined in terms 

of air emissions from launch/landing operations and from routine launch preparation 

operations.

Air Emissions from Launch/Landing Operations. The air emissions from Concept B 

launch operations are primarily from the rocket motor. The propellants are LOx and 

either kerosene or alcohol. For this analysis, it was assumed that kerosene would be 

used. Possible emissions would include CO, CO2, hydrogen (H2), and H2O. The 

emission weight fractions for CO, CO2, H2, and H2O are listed in Table 5-6. The only 

criteria pollutant among these is CO, and Kern County is in attainment for CO. To 

develop conservative estimates of CO, maximum CO fractions (estimated at the rocket 

nozzle) were used. During a launch, the CO emitted would be expected to oxidize fully 

to CO2 in the hot exhaust cloud; likewise, the H2 would fully oxidize to H2O.

Table 5-6. Weight Fractions of Emissions from LOx and Kerosene Propellants

CO2 CO H2 H2O

0.49 0.20 0.0042 0.30

Source: DOT, 2002

The data in Table 5-7 are only for emissions during the first 914 meters (3,000 feet) of 

flight because only these emissions are considered in the de minimis estimates associated 

with the ambient air quality standards. To calculate the emissions within the first 914 

meters (3,000 feet), several assumptions were made including:
110 February 2004

° During the years 2003 through 2005, smaller Concept B launch vehicles would be 

used and during 2006 through 2008, the larger vehicle sizes would be used. 

° The amount of propellant per launch in 2003 through 2005 would be 340 kilograms 

(750 pounds) LOx and 136 kilograms (300 pounds) kerosene. The amount of 

propellant per launch in 2006 through 2008 would be 3,402 kilograms (7,500 pounds) 

LOx and 1,361 kilograms (3,000 pounds) kerosene. (FAA, 2003)

° Flight during the first 914 meters (3,000 feet) would last approximately 30 seconds. 

° For launches between 2003 and 2005, it was assumed that all of the fuel would be 

expended in 90 seconds so the fuel expended during the first 914 meters (3,000 feet) 

of flight would be 30 seconds divided by 90 seconds times the total quantity of fuel 

(i.e., 476 kilograms [1,050 pounds]). For launches between 2006 and 2008, it was 

assumed that all of the fuel would be expended in 240 seconds of flight so the fuel 

expended during the first 914 meters (3,000 feet) flight would be 30 seconds divided 

by 240 seconds times the total quantity of propellant (i.e., 4,763 kilograms [10,500 

pounds]). 

The propellant emissions per year for each pollutant (in Table 5-7) were calculated by 

multiplying the fuel use in the first 914 meters (3,000 feet) times the weight fractions in 

Table 5-6 times the number of launches per year.

Table 5-7. Total Propellant Emissions Annually for Concept B Launches Below 

914 meters (3,000 feet)

Year Number of 

Launches

Propellant 

Use Per 

Flight 

kilograms 

(pounds)

CO2

kilograms 

(pounds)

CO

kilograms 

(pounds)

H2 

kilograms 

(pounds)

H2O

kilograms 

(pounds)

2003 0

159

(350)

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

0)

0

(0)

2004 0

159

(350)

0

(0) (0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

2005 10 159

(350)

778

(1,715)

318

(700)

6.8

(15)

476

(1,050)

2006 25 590

(1,300)

7,223

(15,925)

2,948

(6,500)

62

(137)

4,423

(9,750)

2007 30 590

(1,300)

8,668

(19,110)

3,538

(7,800)

74

(164)

5,307

(11,700)

2008 150 590

(1,300)

14,447

(31,850)

5,897

(13,000)

124

(273)

8,845

(19,500)

Total 115 -

31,116

(68,600)

12,701

(28,000)

268

(588)

19,051

(42,000)
111 February 2004

Emissions above 914 meters (3,000 feet) were also considered to determine any other 

environmental impacts (e.g., global warming, ozone depletion). Emissions listed in Table 

5-8 were estimated to result from the LOx and kerosene burned during a mission above 

914 meters (3,000 feet) (see above for descriptions of assumptions and calculations of 

propellant used above 914 meters [3,000 feet]).

Table 5-8. Total Propellant Emissions Annually for Concept B Launches Above 

914 meters (3,000 feet)

Year Number of 

Launches

Propellant 

Use Per 

Flight 

kilograms 

(pounds)

CO2

kilograms 

(pounds)

CO

kilograms 

(pounds)

H2

kilograms 

(pounds)

H2O

kilograms 

(pounds)

2003 0

318

(700)

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

()

0

(0)

2004 0

318

(700)

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

() (0)

2005 10 318

(700)

1,556

(3,430)

635

(1,400)

14

(30)

953

(2,100)

2006 25 4,173

(9,200)

51,120

(112,700)

20,865

(46,000)

438

(966)

31,298

(69,000)

2007 30 4,173

(9,200)

61,344

(135,240)

25,038

(55,200)

526

(1,159)

37,557

(82,800)

2008 50 4,173

(9,200)

102,240

(225,400)

41,730

(92,000)

876

(1,932)

62,596

(138,000)

Total 115 -

216,259

(476,770)

88,269

(194,600)

1,853

(4,086)

132,404

(291,900)

During descent and landing, no propellants are burned, thus, there are no emissions.

Air Emissions from Routine Launch Preparation Operations. Air emissions may be 

generated during fueling the launch vehicle and storage of additional fuels. For flight of 

the small and large-end vehicles, 136 kilograms (300 pounds) and 1,361 kilograms (3,000 

pounds) of kerosene, respectively, would be consumed during launch. (FAA internal 

communications, September 4, 2003) For year 2008 (the year with the greatest proposed 

use of fuel), an annual maximum of 85,163 liters (22,500 gallons) was estimated based 

on the large vehicle use of 1,361 kilograms (3,000 pounds) per flight; 50 flights per year, 

and 0.15 gallons per pound of kerosene. Currently, fuel use at Mojave Airport during the 

12-month period from July 2002 to June 2003 was 7,933,837 liters (2,095,898 gallons). 

(Mojave Airport, 2003b) An additional 85,163 liters (22,500 gallons) of fuel per year 

represents a small increase in annual kerosene (Jet-A) usage at the airport and, therefore, 

the emissions from storage and dispensing as a result of activities related to Concept B 

launch operations would not be significant. The maximum current allowable emission of 

VOCs based on the airport’s SPCC Plan (EKAD, 2003) is 2,185 kilograms (4,818 

pounds) per year. Assuming there is no additional need for above ground storage 

capacity at the Mojave Airport, it can be conservatively assumed that the emissions may 
112 February 2004

reach 2,185 kilograms (4,818 pounds) per year of VOCs. However, VOC emissions 

would not exceed the allowable standard.

Emissions from Concept B launch operations can also occur from use of ground support 

equipment, including delivery trucks, pressurization carts, air conditioner, and pickup 

trucks. It is expected that these would be relatively few in number and therefore would 

have few emissions. For delivery of kerosene and liquid oxygen, it was assumed that 

° 136 and 345 kilograms (300 and 760 pounds) of kerosene and LOx, respectively, 

would be needed per flight during years 2003-2005, 

° In years 2006-2008, additional trucks would be needed to handle the 1,361 and 3,402 

kilograms (3,000 and 7,500 pounds) of kerosene and LOx per flight, respectively, 

° Each kerosene truck would carry 28,123 kilograms (62,000 pounds) or 34,826 liters 

(9,200 gallons) and each LOx truck would carry 17,418 kilograms (38,400 pounds) or 

11,356 liters (3,000 gallons), and 

° Approximately 15 trucks in year 2008 would be needed to bring propellants to 

Mojave Airport to support the Concept B launches. 

The truck traffic would produce emissions as shown in Table 5-9. It was assumed that 

each truck trip would be 80 kilometers (50 miles). Emission rates developed for heavyduty diesel powered vehicles traveling 30 miles per hour were based on California’s 

emission factor model. (California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources 

Board, 2002) The rates are 0.81 gram/kilometer (0.05 ounce/mile), 5.02 grams/kilometer 

(0.28 ounce/mile), 5.16 grams/kilometer (0.29 ounce/mile), and 0.40 gram/kilometer 

(0.02 ounce/mile) for hydrocarbons (VOCs), CO, NOx, and PM10, respectively.

Table 5-9. Total Estimated Annual Emissions from Trucks Delivering Kerosene 

and LOx to Support Concept B Launches

Year Flight/year Kerosene 

Trucks

LOx

Trucks

Total 

Trucks

CO

kilograms 

(pounds)

NOx

kilograms 

(pounds)

VOC

kilograms 

(pounds)

PM

kilograms 

(pounds)

2003 0 0 0 0

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

2004 0 0 0 0

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

2005 10 1 1 2

0.8

(1.8) 0.8(1.8) 0.1(0.3)

0.1

(0.1)

2006 25 2 6 8

3.2

(7.1)

3.3

(7.3)

0.5

(1.1)

0.3

(0.6)

2007 30 2 7 9

3.6

(8.0)

3.7

(8.2)

0.6

(1.3)

0.3

(0.6)

2008 50 3 12 15 5.9

(13)

6.4

(14) 1.0 (2.1) 0.5(1.1)

Total 115 8 26 34 14

(30)

14

(31)

2.2

(4.9)

1.9

(2.4)
113 February 2004

Air Quality Impacts from Proposed Action (both Concepts A and B)

To determine the impacts to air quality from the proposed action, the air emissions 

estimated for Concept A and Concept B were summed. Additionally, emissions were 

estimated separately below 914 meters (3,000 feet) and above 914 meters (3,000 feet) to 

better evaluate impacts against applicable ambient air quality standards and against other 

environmental impacts that occur in upper altitudes (e.g., global warming, ozone 

depletion, etc). The proposed action would not conflict with or obstruct the 

implementation of any applicable air quality plans.

Air Emissions below 914 meters (3,000 feet). To determine the potential ambient air 

quality impacts, emissions below 914 meters (3,000 feet) were evaluated. Table 5-10 

shows the total emissions below 914 meters (3,000 feet) for this proposed action in year 

2008, the assumed worst-case year for emissions. Under Federal law, it would be 

necessary to conduct a conformity analysis for criteria pollutants that do not meet Federal 

attainment standards. Eastern Kern County is in serious non-attainment for ozone for 

Federal attainment standards. Therefore, if ozone precursors (VOC or NOx) were above 

certain de minimis levels per year, it would be necessary to conduct a conformity 

analysis. Air analyses as shown in Table 5-10 indicate that NOx and VOC emissions are 

0.01 metric tons (0.01 tons) per year and 2.2 metric tons (2.4 tons) per year respectively. 

These wound not be above the de minimis level of 45.4 metric tons (50 tons) per year. 

Also, as demonstrated in Table 5-10 the total emissions from the proposed action 

represent 0.0001 percent of the area’s emissions inventory for NOx and 0.05 percent of 

the area’s emissions inventory for VOC. These data demonstrate that the emissions are 

not regionally significant (i.e., do not equal or exceed 10 percent of regional emissions 

inventory for the air quality control area for any criteria pollutant). Based on both of 

these threshold tests, there is no need for a Federal conformity analysis. None of the 

emissions are expected to expose the nearby population or sensitive receptors to 

substantial pollutant concentrations. Also, the emission products should not expose the 

population to objectionable odors of types that do not already exist from airport 

operations (e.g., fuel and exhaust odors).
114 February 2004

Table 5-10. Air Emissions Below 914 meters (3,000 feet) from Proposed Action

in 2008 (both Concept A and B)

Emission Activities

CO2

kilograms 

(pounds)

CO

kilograms 

(pounds)

NOx

kilograms 

(pounds)

VOC

kilograms 

(pounds)

PM

kilograms 

(pounds)

H2O

kilograms 

(pounds)

SOx

kilograms

(pounds)

Launch 14,447

(31,850)

6,122

(13,496)

3.3

(7.3)

29

(63)

68

(150)

8,845

(19,500)

1.7

(3.7)

Truck -

9.1

(20)

9.5

(21)

1.5

(3.3)

0.7

(1.6) - -

Fueling - - -

1,798

(4,818) - - -

Total 14,447

(31,850)

6,131

(13,517)

13

(28)

2,215

(4,884)

69

(152)

8,845

(19,500)

1.7

(3.7)

Total metric 

tons/year (tons/year)

14.4 

(15.9)

6.2

(6.8)

0.01

(0.01)

2.2

(2.4)

0.07

(0.08)

8.9

(9.8)

0.002

(0.002)

Comparison Against Regulatory Threshold Screening Tests

Test 1 - Regulatory 

De Minimis 

Thresholds metric 

tons/year (tons/year)

- -

45.4

(50.0)

45.4

(50.0) - - -

Test 2 - Percent of 

Regional Emissions* - 5 % 0.0001% 0.05% 0.6% - -

*Percent is 100 times the emissions of NOx and VOC from proposed action divided by the regional 

inventory of emissions - data on inventory emissions are those reduced emissions since 1990 from 

KCAPCD, 2000. For CO and PM, emissions from the proposed action were compared against current 

emissions from airport operations only (see Affected Environment). Actual percent of CO and PM would 

be much less if compared against the full inventory of emissions in the region.

The General Conformity Threshold Rates for NOx and VOC for severe non-attainment 

areas is 50 tons per year. The actual emissions below 914 meters (3,000 feet) from the 

Proposed Action are 0.01 metric tons (0.01 tons) per year for NOx and 2.2 metric tons 

(2.4 tons) per year for VOC. Therefore, there would be no exceedances of the NAAQS 

from the proposed action and a NAAQS assessment is not required to evaluate for the 

potential for significant air quality impacts under NEPA. (FAA/USAF, 1997) 

Air Emissions above 914 meters (3,000 feet). To determine potential environmental 

impacts of emissions (e.g., global warming, ozone depletion, etc), emissions above 914 

meters (3,000 feet) were examined. Table 5-11 shows the total emissions above 914 

meters (3,000 feet) for the proposed action. There are no pollutants that contribute to 

ozone depletion. The greenhouse effect (or global warming) occurs when energy reradiated from the Earth is trapped by gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. Greenhouse gases 

include water vapor, CO2, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons. CO and NOx are not 

greenhouse gases, but can contribute indirectly to the greenhouse effect. The total CO2

emissions for the proposed action are approximately 103 metric tons (113 tons) in the 

assumed worst-case year 2008. In comparison, CO2 emissions in the PEIS for Licensing 

Launches (DOT, 2001) from commercial launches were estimated to be much more than 

the proposed action (approximately 4,536 metric tons per year (5,000 tons per year)). 
115 February 2004

Table 5-11. Air Emissions (pounds) Above 3,000 feet from Proposed Action

 in 2008 (both Concept A and B)

Emission Activity

CO2

kilograms 

(pounds)

CO

kilograms 

(pounds)

H2O

kilograms 

(pounds)

Launch 102,514

(226,004)

43,558

(96,030)

64,607

(142,433)

Total tons/year 51 

(113)

22

(48)

32

(71)

The CO2 emissions cited in the PEIS (DOT, 2001) were determined to be insignificant. 

Further, the CO2 emissions from all sources in the U.S. totaled 5,159 million metric tons 

(5,687 million tons) in 1994. The proposed action represents a very small fraction (less 

than 0.000002%) of these CO2 emissions. Consequently, the CO2 emissions from the 

proposed action would be insignificant.

The total water vapor generated from both Concept A and Concept B launches is 

estimated to be approximately 64 metric tons per year (71 tons per year) in 2008. In 

comparison, water vapor emissions from commercial launches were estimated the PEIS 

of commercial launches of expendable launch vehicles (DOT, 2001) to be much more 

than the proposed action (approximately 1,814 metric tons per year (2,000 tons per 

year)). The water vapor emissions in the PEIS (DOT, 2001) were determined to be 

insignificant. The total carbon-equivalent direct and indirect emissions effects in the U.S. 

were 1,665 metric tons (1,835 million tons). Water vapor would have an insignificant 

effect on global warming. 

5.1.2 Alternative 1

Since the proposed action (both Concept A and B operations) would not have significant 

air impacts, alternative 1 (Concept A operations only) would also be expected to not have 

any significant air impacts.

5.1.3 Alternative 2

Since the proposed action (both Concept A and B operations) would not have significant 

air impacts, alternative 2 (Concept B operations only) would also be expected to not have 

any significant air impacts.

5.2 Airspace

This section describes any significant impacts to airspace that might occur as a result of 

the proposed action and alternatives. A significant impact to airspace would be the 

operation of a vehicle in airspace not approved for the activity, an increase in the 

probability of an in-flight mishap, a permanent change to military training routes, an 

interference with en route airways and jet routes, or a restriction of operations at 

surrounding airports. 
116 February 2004

5.2.1 Proposed Action

On Site

No significant impacts to Mojave Airport airspace would occur as a result of the 

proposed action. The maximum number of flights in any single year would be 56 under 

the proposed action. The Mojave Airport currently averages 18,301 flights per year and 

is operating at only three percent capacity. (Kern County, 2003c) An additional 56 

operations per year would represent an increase in activity of 0.3 percent. This increase 

would not exceed the capabilities of the Mojave Airport facilities and control tower and 

would not result in a significantly higher probability of in-flight mishaps. The Mojave 

Airport currently serves aircraft similar in size and power to the proposed vehicles. Thus, 

the Mojave Airport airspace would be appropriate for the proposed action. No military 

training routes, en route airways, jet routes or surrounding airport airspaces intersect the 

Mojave Airport airspace. 

Off Site

No significant impacts to off-site airspace would occur as a result of the proposed action. 

The proposed action would occur almost exclusively in the R-2508 Complex. The 

Mojave Airport and several of its tenants have LOAs with the R-2508 Complex Control 

Board and the managers of individual restricted areas within the R-2508 Complex to 

operate within the various individual restricted areas as discussed in Sections 3.3 

Airspace and 4.1.1 Airspace and Air Traffic. A statement of authority in the LOAs 

declares that the “authority of the CCF, SPORT or TRACON, as appropriate, to approve 

or disapprove requests for entry is final.” (LOA TRACON, 1996) The frequency and 

number of flights into the R-2508 Complex by Concept A and B vehicles would be 

ultimately controlled by the CCF, HI-DESERT TRACON, and SPORT. These 

scheduling and controlling agencies would coordinate any flight plans entering the R2508 Complex using the procedures detailed in Section 4.1.1. Some short-term 

reductions in military training schedules could occur. However, any flights into the R2508 Complex that are part of the proposed action that would create a significant impact 

to military activities would be prohibited by the scheduling and controlling agencies. 

Thus, the proposed action would not result in long-term changes to military operations or 

training within restricted airspace. 

Four visual en route airways are located at the very southeastern portion of the ROI. 

(Maps.com, 2003) These flight routes are outside of the R-2508 Complex and would 

only impact Concept B flight plans. The en route airway with highest operating altitude 

is V442 at 3,049 meters (10,000 feet) above MSL. The Concept B vehicle would be at an 

altitude of at least 60,976 meters (200,000 feet) above MSL at the point of lateral 

intersection and would have sufficient vertical separation from the visual en route 

airways. No permanent changes to flight routes would result from the proposed action.

The airspace over all charted airports in the R-2508 Complex, other than the Mojave 

Airspace, extends from the surface to an altitude of 457 meters (1,500 feet) AGL. 

(Edwards AFB, 2003) The airport with the highest operating altitude outside of the R-
117 February 2004

2508 Complex but within the ROI is Southern California Logistics in Victorville, 

California. Southern California Logistics’ airspace extends from the surface to 1,646 

meters (5,400 feet) above MSL. (Edwards AFB, 2003) The flight paths and trajectories 

of the proposed action would provide sufficient vertical separation from any surrounding 

public or private airport airspaces. Any emergency landings required by Concept A or B 

vehicles at surrounding airports would cause only temporary disruptions of airport 

operations. Due to the small size of the vehicles, in the unlikely event that a catastrophic 

failure of either a Concept A or B vehicle resulted in debris falling on a surrounding 

airport, the impact would cause minimal damage and would not constitute a significant 

impact. The proposed action would not affect operations and activities at the surrounding 

airports.

5.2.2 Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would have no significant impacts on airspace. Alternative 1 would consist 

of licensing the Mojave Airport to operate a launch site for Concept A vehicles only. A 

maximum of six flights of Concept A launch vehicles would occur per year. This would 

result in a 0.03 percent increase in activity at the Mojave Airport. Alternative 1 would 

use the same R-2508 Complex scheduling protocol as the proposed action and would 

have a smaller potential impact on surrounding airports because there would be fewer 

flights. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have less impact on airspace than the proposed 

action, which was determined would not affect airspace. 

5.2.3 Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would have no significant impacts on airspace. Alternative 2 would consist 

of licensing the Mojave Airport to operate a launch site for Concept B vehicles only. A 

maximum of 50 flights of Concept B launch vehicles would occur per year. This would 

result in a 0.27 percent increase in airport activity. Alternative 2 would use the same R2508 Complex scheduling protocol as the proposed action and Alternative 1. Alternative 

2 would result in fewer flights per year than the proposed action and would have a 

smaller potential impact on surrounding airports. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have 

less impact on airspace than the proposed action, which was determined would have no 

impact on airspace.

5.3 Biological Resources

Impacts to biological resources would be considered significant if they resulted in harm, 

harassment, or destruction of any endangered, threatened, or rare species including a 

species proposed for listing, candidate species, or species considered sensitive in local or 

regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS. This would include 

interferences with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, 

migratory birds, established native resident or wildlife migration corridors, breeding 

areas, or the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The loss of a substantial number of 

individuals of any native plant or animal species that could affect abundance or diversity 

of that species beyond normal variability is also considered significant. Any impacts or 

modifications to designated critical or sensitive habitats, including riparian habitat or 
118 February 2004

other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or 

regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS, would be considered significant.

Substantial adverse effects on Federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of 

the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other 

means may be considered significant. Potential effects to biological resources also 

include conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as 

a tree preservation policy, or conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 

Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, 

regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

The Mojave Airport is located within an “urbanized, non-sensitive” area where a 

biological survey would not be required to support the proposed activities. (Kern County, 

2003b) 

5.3.1 Proposed Action

Vegetation

The proposed action would consist of launches and landings of Concept A and B launch 

vehicles from a designated runway at the Mojave Airport. The runways are routinely 

used for take-offs and landings by other aircraft, and no construction activities would be 

required to support Concept A and B launch operations. Because no development 

activities are planned, adve rse effects to vegetation, including Joshua trees and creosote 

scrub, are not anticipated.

In the unlikely event of an emergency landing, the PIC would attempt to reach the 

primary abort site at the main runway at Edwards AFB. 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. For Concept A operations, the PIC would attempt to 

reach Rogers Dry Lake (also at one time known as Muroc Dry Lake), Edwards AFB main

runway, or other appropriate airports. For Concept B operations, the PIC would attempt 

to reach Edwards AFB/Rogers Dry Lake, Boron Airstrip, or for the highest performance 

vehicles, Baker Airstrip or China Lake NAWS/China Dry Lake. If the PIC cannot reach 

any of the designated abort sites, he/she would attempt to land on one of the numerous 

regional dry lakes or in the area northeast of North Edwards, Boron and California City, 

including Rogers, Koehn, Harper, Cuddeback, Coyote, Soda, Bicycle, Silver, Leach, and 

Searles. 

Rogers Dry Lake is routinely used for regular and emergency operations and resources 

are located in areas where they are unlikely to be impacted by landing on the lakebed. 

However, some small areas on Edwards AFB have been designated as significant 

ecological areas due to their unique resources. Other sensitive habitat regions include 

Harper dry lake, a unique alkali marsh community found at few other sites in the Mojave 

Desert. Sand sheets at the east edges of playas constitute habitat for desert cymopterus 

east of Cuddeback, Rogers, and Harper dry lakes. (Kern County, 2003a) Although the 

designated abort sites include areas where sensitive habitat and species may be present in 
119 February 2004

the surrounding areas, it is unlikely that an emergency landing would occur at these sites; 

therefore significant impacts to vegetation found at these sites would not be anticipated. 

If an emergency landing is made, the dry lakes are large enough to land an aircraft 

without impacting surrounding vegetation.

While not formally protected by any agency, creosote clonal rings may be a unique 

biological feature of the Mojave creosote scrub formation. The Mojave Specific Plan 

recommended that creosote clones be identified and documented. (Kern County, 2003b) 

The proposed action would not conflict with this recommendation, or with any other local 

policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

Because Federally protected wetlands are not located at the Mojave Airport, adverse 

effects to these areas would not be anticipated. The proposed action would not have a 

substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community 

because such areas have not been identified on or near the airport.

Wildlife

The proposed action would use a designated runway at Mojave Airport for launches and 

landings of Concept A and B launch vehicles. The runways are routinely used for takeoffs and landings of other aircraft, and no construction activities would be required to 

support Concept A and B launch operations. As a result, no loss of habitat is anticipated. 

The proposed action would not conflict with the provisions of any adopted Habitat 

Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, 

regional, or state habitat conservation plans.

The Mojave Specific Plan identifies the Mojave Airport as part of an “urbanized, nonsensitive” area where a biological survey would not be required. The desert tortoise, a 

USFWS federally-listed, threatened wildlife species, and the Mohave ground squirrel, a 

California state listed threatened species, have historically occurred throughout the ROI 

and have limited potential to occur almost anywhere within the Mojave Specific Plan 

area. The Mojave Specific Plan indicated that the presence of desert tortoise individuals 

has not been reported recently. There is no critical habitat for the desert tortoise 

designated on the airport property. The USFWS has designated critical habitat for the 

desert tortoise within the ROI; however, nominal launch operations would not result in 

any impacts to designated areas of critical habitat. As a protective measure for desert 

tortoise that may be within the Mojave Airport fence, the FAA would survey the runway 

prior to take-off and landing of suborbital vehic les. (U.S. Department of the Interior, 

2004) If a desert tortoise were discovered at the airport, personnel would follow 

appropriate USFWS and CDFG protocols. The FAA contacted the USFWS to initiate 

informal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. After review of 

potential impacts, the FAA determined and the USFWS concurred, that the proposed 

action is not likely to affect listed species or critical habitat. A copy of communication 

with the USFWS is included in Section 10. 

Historically, the Mohave ground squirrel, a California state listed threatened species, 

likely occurred throughout the community of Mojave. Due to limited above ground 
120 February 2004

activity, it is difficult to assess the presence or absence of this species in Mojave. The 

Mojave Specific Plan indicated that there is limited potential for the Mohave ground 

squirrel to occur nearly anywhere within the region. (Kern County, 2003b) Although the 

Mojave Airport is located within the “urbanized, non-sensitive” area where a biological 

survey is not required, it is recommended that appropriate USFWS and CDFG protocols 

be followed if a Mohave ground squirrel were found on the site.

Because no construction activities are planned, no adverse effects, either directly or 

through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or 

special status species would not be anticipated.

The Mojave Specific Plan noted that historical wildlife movement corridors have been 

degraded by development. It is possible that mobile species may move between the 

Tehachapi foothills and dry lake playas. A biological survey to identify significant 

impacts to potential wildlife movement corridors would be required only for construction 

and development projects located in “non-urbanized, sensitive” areas. However, because 

the proposed action does not involve construction activities and the Mojave Airport is 

located within an “urbanized, non-sensitive” area, a biological survey for potential 

wildlife movement corridors in the ROI is not required. (Kern County, 2003b) The 

proposed action would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native 

resident or migratory wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory 

wildlife corridors.

The breakup of Concept A or B vehicles during a crash and subsequent recovery 

activities could directly impact biological resources on- and off-site through ground 

disturbance. Also, if falling debris hit specific species on the ground, those resources 

would likely be destroyed. However, because the probability of a crash is low, impacts to 

biological resources as a result of vehicle crash would not be anticipated.

Concept A and B launch vehicles may cause sonic booms in the region, which could 

impact wildlife. Noise levels generated during sonic booms would be short-term in 

nature and overall predicted noise levels would not exceed ambient noise levels in 

residential areas. However, there is potential for C-weighted sound exposure levels 

above the acceptable threshold for ambient conditions, which is 61 dB. (Kern County, 

2003c) The brief sonic boom noise could elicit a short-term startle response in wildlife 

but no long term adverse impacts are expected.

Concept A and B launch vehicles would fly east or north-northeast over regions of 

predominantly open land. For Concept A, the maximum number of launches would be 

six per year. Concept A launch vehicles would not fire rocket engines until the vehicle is 

approximately 15,240 meters (50,000 feet) above the ground and therefore the noise 

levels reaching the Earth’s surface would be minimal. For Concept B, the maximum 

number of launches would be 50 per year. Concept B launch vehicles would fire rocket 

engines at the Mojave Airport and therefore the noise produced at the airport from these 

vehicles would be greater than the noise produced by Concept A launch vehicles. 

However, the noise level would be within the range of noises already produced by 
121 February 2004

aircraft at the Mojave Airport and therefore the launch of the launch vehicles would not 

produce noise levels in excess of those already experienced at the airport. 

In general, these noise levels would be significantly less than those produced by existing 

aircraft in the region, would occur infrequently over the course of a year, and already

occur as part of existing activities in the region, these short-term noise impacts would be 

less than significant. (DoD, 2002a) 

The FAA requested a list of species listed, proposed, or identified as candidate species 

under the Endangered Species Act occurring in the ROI and whether critical habitat has 

been designated for these species. The USFWS provided a letter that included the 

requested list. After analyzing the proposed action and reviewing the list of species 

provided by the USFWS, the FAA determined that the proposed action would not 

adversely affect listed, proposed or species identified as candidate species, or critical 

habitat.

5.3.2 Alternative 1

The impacts to biological resources expected from Alternative 1 would be less than those 

described for the proposed action.

5.3.3 Alternative 2

The impacts to biological resources expected from Alternative 2 would be less than those 

described for the proposed action. However, because the total maximum number of 

launches of Concept B launch vehicles (50 launches per year) is significantly greater than 

Concept A launch vehicles (six launches per year), there is a greater risk of a crash 

impact to biological resources under Alternative 2 than under Alternative 1. 

Nevertheless, because the probability of a crash is still relatively low, impacts to 

biological resources in the region of influence under Alternative 2 as a result of a crash 

would not be anticipated.

5.4 Cultural Resources

Cultural resources are limited, nonrenewable resources whose potential for scientific 

research or value as a traditional resource may be easily diminished by actions that 

significantly impact the integrity of the property. Impacts to cultural resources are 

considered significant if the proposed action and alternatives result in a substantial 

change in the significance of a historic or archeological resource pursuant to Section 

15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, or disturb any human remains, including those interred 

outside of formal cemeteries.

Potential impacts to historic properties are assessed by applying the Criteria of Adverse 

Effect. As defined in 36 CFR 800.5a, “an adverse effect is found when an action may 

alter the characteristics of a historic property that qualify it for inclusion in the National 

Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, 

setting, workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse effects may include reasonably 

foreseeable effects caused by the action that may occur later in time, be farther removed 
122 February 2004

in distance, or be cumulative.” The Criteria of Adverse Effect provides a general 

framework for identifying and determining the context and intensity of potential impacts 

to other categories of cultural resources, as well, if these are present. Assessment of 

effects involving Native American or other traditional community, cultural or religious 

practices or resources requires focused consultation with the affected group. For the 

purpose of this EA, cultural resources include historic and Native American resources. 

5.4.1 Proposed Action

No airport modifications or construction activities are currently planned to accommodate 

the proposed issuance of a launch site operator license to EKAD for the Mojave Airport. 

Potential impacts to cultural resources would be associated generally with the noise 

produced during flights and could include physical damage to buildings, structures or 

rock features through accident or vibration, visual or audible impacts to the setting of 

cultural resources, and disturbance of traditional activities, such as religious ceremonies 

or subsistence hunting. Impacts to cultural resources from airspace use would most likely 

be related to alterations in setting from visual or aural disturbance, and the extremely 

remote possibility of debris falling.

The proposed action would use a designated runway at Mojave Airport for launches and 

landings of Concept A and B vehicles. The runways are routinely used for take-offs and 

landings of other aircraft and no construction activities would be required. Because there 

are no sites listed or eligible for listing on the National Register within the community of 

Mojave and no construction activities would occur as part of the proposed action, no 

adverse effects on National Register sites would be anticipated.

In the unlikely event of an emergency landing, the PIC would attempt to reach a 

designated abort site. For both Concept A and B operations, the PIC has the option to 

land at Rogers Dry Lake (Muroc Dry Lake), which is a National Historic Landmark. The

continued use of the landmark in assessing leading-edge space technology enhances its 

role in the history of technological advances in aviation and aerospace. There would be 

no adverse effects on this landmark. (DoD, 2002a) No other emergency abort sites in the 

ROI are designated cultural or historic sites.

The extent of archeological resources or potential impact to these resources cannot be 

determined without conducting a surface survey, and possibly, subsurface excavation. It 

is possible that the project area may contain unidentified cultural materials buried beneath 

the surface, which may be potentially impacted by future development. Should buried or 

otherwise hidden cultural resources be encountered at anytime on airport property, 

activities in the area of the discovery would be immediately halted and qualified 

archaeologists contacted to evaluate the find. Should any human remains be discovered 

within the project area, California law requires that there shall be no further excavation or 

disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human 

remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered is contacted 

to determine that no investigation into the cause of death is required. (Getchell and 

Atwood, Unpublished, 2003) 
123 February 2004

The breakup of the Concept A or B vehicles during a crash and subsequent recovery 

activities could directly impact cultural resources on the ground. These resources may be 

located above- or below- ground and may be known or unknown resources. If falling 

debris hit specific assets on the ground, those resources would likely be destroyed. Crash 

cleanup activities could also disturb nearby resources. However, because the probability 

of a crash is extremely low, and cultural resources are widely dispersed throughout the 

region, it is unlikely that debris would impact a cultural site. 

The maximum number of launches for Concept A and Concept B would be six and 50 per 

year, respectively. Concept A and B launch vehicles may cause sonic booms in the 

region, which could impact prehistoric and historic resources. Noise levels and 

vibrations generated during sonic booms would be short-term in nature and overall 

predicted noise levels would not exceed ambient noise levels in Mojave. However, 

vibrations from the sonic booms could disturb existing cultural and historic structures, 

especially those that are not structurally sound.

Concept A and B launch vehicles will fly east or north-northeast over regions of 

predominantly open land. Although cultural and historic sites may be located in these 

regions, they are widely dispersed, and significant vibrations from the proposed action 

are not anticipated because the vehicles would operate at altitudes high above the Earth’s 

surface. 

The proposed action would not be expected to cause a substantial adverse change in the 

significance of a historical or archeological resource; directly or indirectly destroy a 

unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; or disturb any human

remains within the ROI due to the low potential for accidents and small probability of 

vibration from sonic booms impacting widely dispersed resources. Because no cultural 

resources or Native American traditional activities have been identified on airport lands, 

adverse effects on Native American resources or disturbance of traditional activities 

would not be anticipated on airport lands. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800, the FAA requested 

the views of the SHPO on any further actions to identify historic properties or properties 

that may be listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Per the SHPO’s 

recommendations, the FAA identified information on historic properties that are listed or 

are eligible for listing on the National Historic Register of Historic Places. Based on the 

FAA’s review of the proposed action under Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, the FAA determined that the project would have no adverse effect on 

historic properties. The SHPO concurred with the FAA’s determination and the 

consultation was concluded. A copy of communication with the SHPO is included in 

Section 10.

5.4.2 Alternative 1

The impacts to cultural resources expected from Alternative 1 would be less than those 

described for the proposed action.
124 February 2004

5.4.3 Alternative 2

The impacts to cultural resources expected from Alternative 2 would be less than those 

described for the proposed action. However, because the total maximum number of 

launches of Concept B launch vehicles (50 per year) is significantly greater than Concept 

A launch vehicles (six per year), there would be greater risk of a crash impact to cultural 

resources under Alternative 2 than under Alternative 1. Nevertheless, because the 

probability of a crash is still relatively low, impacts to cultural resources in the region of 

influence under Alternative 2 as a result of a crash would not be anticipated.

5.5 Geology and Soils

Impacts to geology and soils would be considered significant if the proposed action and 

alternatives resulted in exposure of individuals or structures to potential substantial 

adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known 

earthquake fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including 

liquefaction; or landslides. Substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be considered 

significant. Location of the ROI on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would 

become unstable, that would potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral 

spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, would be significant, while location on 

expansive soil would be significant if substantial risks to life or property were expected. 

Significant impacts also include soils that are incapable of adequately supporting the use 

of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available.

Impacts to hydrology would be considered if the proposed action and alternatives 

involved construction of housing or other structures within a 100-year flood plain, 

alteration of existing drainage patterns such that erosion or surface runoff increases 

substantially, or exposure of individuals and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, 

or death involving flooding. 

5.5.1 Proposed Action 

Geology

The breakup of Concept A or B vehicles during a crash and subsequent recovery 

activities could directly impact geology. The force associated with falling debris may 

create craters. The specific impact to geology would depend on the force at which the 

debris impacts the ground. However, because the probability of a crash is extremely low, 

it is unlikely that debris or residual propellant would significantly impact geology.

Soils 

The proposed action would have less than significant impacts or no impacts on soils. In 

terms of ground clouds from the combustion of propellants, Concept A would have no 

impacts because the only emission source at the ground level would be from the carrier 

aircraft. Concept A launch vehicles would not fire rocket engines until the vehicle 

reaches 15,240 meters (50,000 feet). Concept B launch vehicles would create a ground 
125 February 2004

cloud, which would disperse as the vehicle moves along the runway. Additionally, 

Concept B launch vehicles would use a liquid propellant, which creates a ground cloud 

with fewer impacts to soils than solid propellant motors. 

The breakup of Concept A or B vehicles during a crash and subsequent recovery 

activities could directly impact soils. The force associated with falling debris might 

create craters. The specific impact to soils would depend on the force with which the 

debris impacts the ground. In addition, residual propellant in the damaged or destroyed 

launch vehicle could be absorbed by the soils affecting soil quality in the impact area. 

Because the probability of a crash would be low and cleanup of reportable quantities of 

hazardous material released required under CERCLA, debris or residual propellant would 

not be expected to significantly impact soils.

The take-offs and landings associated with the proposed action would not be located on 

unstable soil, nor would they create unstable soil. These activities would not be located 

on expansive soil and would pose no additional risk to life and property.

Mineral Resources

The proposed action would not result in a loss of known mineral resources or result in the 

loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site identified in a 

land use plan. 

Seismicity

The proposed action would have no impact on existing seismic risk, including rupture of 

a ground fault, ground shaking and ground failure, including liquefaction.

Erosion

The proposed action would not change the ground surface and would have no impact on 

existing landslide and erosion risk. 

Hydrology

Mojave has been historically subject to flash flooding. The most recent Federal Flood 

Insurance Study attributes flooding problems to poorly defined channels and obstructed 

and undersized culvert crossings. The majority of the population community of Mojave 

lies within the 100-year flood hazard plain. However, Mojave Airport is located outside 

the 100-year flood plain. Further, no construction activities are planned as part of the 

proposed action, no structures would be placed within the 100-year flood hazard map and 

thus construction activities would not impede or redirect flood flows. 

5.5.2 Alternative 1

The impacts to geology and soils expected from Alternative 1 would be less than those 

described for the proposed action.
126 February 2004

5.5.3 Alternative 2

The impacts to geology and soils expected from Alternative 2 would be less than those 

described for the proposed action.

5.6 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management

Significant impacts from hazardous materials and hazardous waste management as a 

result of the proposed action and alternatives can be defined as

ß Release during routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials in an 

accident;

ß Hazardous emissions or hazardous materials, substances, or waste handled within 

one-quarter mile of a school;

ß Location of the ROI within an airport land use plan, within two miles of a public 

airport, or in the vicinity of a private airstrip, or on a hazardous materials site as 

designated by Government Code Section 65962.5;

ß Interference with implementation of an emergency response or evacuation plan; or

ß Increased risk of loss, injury, or death involving wild land fires.

5.6.1 Proposed Action

For both Concept A and B vehicles, the primary hazardous materials used would be 

propellants. As detailed below, the propellants used for Concept A launch vehicles are 

relatively inert as they would be stored at the airport. For Concept B, the kerosene and/or 

alcohol would have similar hazardous characteristics to the jet fuel currently used at 

Mojave Airport. In addition to propellants, for both Concept A and B, it is anticipated 

that minor amounts of other hazardous materials, such as paint, oils and lubricants, and 

solvents, would be used. All fuels and other hazardous materials would be stored, and 

used, in compliance with the regulations applicable to their storage and use, and already 

in place at Mojave Airport. No adverse impacts would be anticipated from these 

additional hazardous materials.

Concept A 

Concept A launch vehicles would be fueled by a hybrid rocket motor using liquid N2O 

and solid HTPB. Jet-A fuel would be used to fuel the carrier aircraft from takeoff on the 

ground until reaching 15,240 meters (50,000 feet) where the rocket motor would be 

ignited.

To compress gaseous N2O to liquid form, a combination of elevated pressure and reduced 

temperature is needed. Specially designed storage tanks may be used for storing N2O; 

one such design is the MONODS. The MONODS is described in greater detail in 

Section 4.2.1. 

The HTPB solid propellant is manufactured and placed in a CTN motor offsite. The 

CTN would therefore arrive at the Mojave Airport fully fueled. The solid propellant is 

stable and non-reactive until ignited (e.g., combined with the oxidizer). 
127 February 2004

Concept B 

LOx and either kerosene or alcohol would be used as propellants in Concept B launch 

vehicles. Kerosene and alcohol are both interchangeable with Jet Fuel, which is already 

used without adverse impact at the Mojave Airport. LOx would be stored in dewars 

(large cooled pressurized containers, with insulation to ensure that the oxygen remains in 

liquid form). For on-site storage, Concept B operators may lease tanker trucks to park on 

site in their operations area. Use of trucks located on site would give mobility for 

fueling, and avoid the overhead costs of tank construction. The potential for accidents 

related to this type of storage would need to be considered for any future specific 

proposals to store propellants in this fashion. 

Concept B vehicles may also use either nitrogen or helium gas as control system gas. In 

the event of an engine fire, either nitrogen or helium would be released at high pressure 

into the engine to extinguish the flames. Nitrogen and helium would be stored on site in 

pressurized cylinders at the Mojave Airport.

Hazardous materials that would be used to support the operations associated with the 

proposed action are similar to materials already handled at the Mojave Airport and no 

changes in airport operations would be needed to accommodate them. For example, the 

site would not be required to apply for additional permits (e.g., under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA]). The transport, use, or disposal of hazardous 

materials would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The 

Mojave Airport is located 2.3 kilometers (1.4 miles) from the nearest school and 

therefore hazardous materials related to the proposed action would not be used within 

0.40 kilometers (0.25 miles) of an existing or proposed school. The Mojave Airport is 

not listed on the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s Hazardous Waste Substances 

Site List, and the proposed action would not cause a significant hazard to the public or 

the environment. Overall, there would be no significant impacts anticipated from 

hazardous materials use or hazardous waste management.

5.6.2 Alternative 1

The impacts from hazardous materials and hazardous waste expected from Alternative 1 

would be less than those described for the proposed action.

5.6.3 Alternative 2

The impacts from hazardous materials and hazardous waste expected from Alternative 2 

would be less than those described for the proposed action.

5.7 Land Use

Significant impacts to land use as a result of the proposed action and alternatives are 

defined as physically dividing an established community, nonconformance with land use 

plans, conversion of prime farmland, unique farmland, farmland of statewide importance 

or other farmland to non-agricultural uses, conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural 
128 February 2004

use or Williamson contracts, deterioration of recreational facilities, or conflicts with 

environmental plans, goals, permit requirements, or existing uses. 

5.7.1 Proposed Action 

On Site

No significant impacts to land uses would occur as a result of the proposed action. The 

Kern County General Plan, the Mojave Specific Plan, the West Mojave Plan, and the 

Kern County ALUCP are the applicable land use planning documents for the Mojave 

Airport. The Mojave Airport is a highly developed, urbanized, non-sensitive area, and 

habitat and nature conservation plans are not applicable to the airport. The Kern County 

ALUCP has established PCC zones within the airport influence area. The PCC zones 

were developed in the airport influence area in consideration of the current and future 

activities of the airport, and have location, safety, development, and usage specifications. 

Because the proposed action would conduct horizontal launches and landings on 

established runways of vehicles similar in size, power, and noise level to aircraft already 

using the airport, there would not be a significant change in airport activities. All land 

uses and building restrictions in the PCC zones on the Mojave Airport would be 

maintained as defined in the Kern County ALUCP. The proposed action does not include 

any construction, additions, or modifications to the airport facilities that would be 

physically divide an established community. Therefore, the proposed action would not 

result in a conflict with an applicable land use, habitat conservation, or natural 

community conservation plan. 

Agriculture Resources. No farmlands or agricultural use lands are located on the Mojave 

Airport. No prime farmland, unique farmland, farmland of state importance, or general 

farmland would be converted to a non-agricultural use as a result of the proposed action. 

No conflicts with existing agricultural uses or Williamson contracts would occur as a 

result of the proposed action. 12 

Recreation. No parks or recreational facilities are located on the Mojave Airport. The 

proposed action would not result in the physical deterioration of park or recreational 

facilities. The proposed action would not require the construction or expansion of 

recreational facilities that would have an adverse effect on the environment.

Off Site

No significant impacts to land uses in the off-site ROI would occur as a result of the 

proposed action. The applicable land use plans for the off-site ROI are the Kern County 

 

12 The California Legislature passed the Williamson Act in 1965 to preserve agricultural and open space

lands by discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion to urban uses. The Act creates an 

arrangement whereby private landowners contract with counties and cities to voluntarily restrict their land 

to agricultural and compatible open-space uses. The vehicle for these agreements is a rolling term 10-year 

contract (i.e., unless either party files a “notice of non-renewal,” the contract is automatically renewed for 

an additional year). In return, restricted parcels are assessed for property tax purposes at a rate consistent 

with their actual use, rather then potential market value. (California State Land Resource Protection, 2003)
129 February 2004

General Plan, the Mojave Specific Plan, the West Mojave Plan, and the Kern County 

ALUCP. As discussed above, no significant changes to the airport activities would 

occur. The PCC zones would be maintained in the off-site airport influence area. The 

Concept A and B launch vehicles would use Runway 12-30, which serves large airline 

carrier jet aircraft and high performance military and non-military jet aircraft. This 

runway has a northwest-southeast orientation that routes aircraft over commercial, 

industrial, and resource management land uses, as defined by the Mojave Specific Plan, 

and away from sensitive land uses in the Mojave community such as residential areas and 

school areas. Because the proposed vehicles are similar in size, power, and noise level to 

the aircraft currently using the airport, any impacts on land uses in the Mojave 

community due to the proposed action would be equal to or less than the impacts of the 

existing activities. Noise impacts on sensitive land uses are discussed in Section 5.8.1. 

The proposed action would not include any off-site construction or modification of 

existing buildings or facilities, and therefore would not physically divide any established 

communities. No conflicts with any applicable land use plans or habitat or nature 

conservation plans for the Mojave community would occur as a result of the proposed 

action. Noise issues related to land uses are discussed in detail in Section 5.8. 

Edwards AFB and China Lake NAWS conduct daily training flights in the R-2508 

Complex using high performance military jets. These jets are similar in size, power, and 

noise level to the vehicles that would be used in the proposed action. Military rules for 

overflights of populated areas within the R-2508 Complex require a vertical separation of 

914 meters (3,000 feet). The flight paths and trajectories of the Concept A and B launch 

vehicles would pass over any populated areas at an altitude well above 914 meters (3,000 

feet) AGL. In addition, Edwards AFB has been an important test flight center for the 

development of the supersonic X-vehicles and NASA’s Space Shuttle orbiter program. 

The AFFTC has also completed planning for a Western Approach Reentry corridor for 

unmanned LEVs. The LEVs would approach the Edwards AFB landing area from the 

west at supersonic speeds. While not yet used, this corridor is addressed in the 

Environmental Assessment for the Orbital Reentry Corridor for Generic Lifting Entry 

Vehicle Landing at Edwards AFB (December 2002). In the study document, the LEVs 

have been determined to not cause a significant impact on land uses in this area. Land 

use plans for the off-site ROI have been developed in consideration of these existing 

military and supersonic vehicle activities. Any impacts due to the proposed action would 

be equal to or less than the impacts from the existing military activities. The refore, no 

significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed action due to conflicts with 

environmental plans, goals, permit requirements, or existing uses. 

Agricultural Resources. No significant impacts to agricultural resources in the off-site 

ROI would occur as a result of the proposed action. Because of the low precipitation, 

scarcity of ground water, and high temperatures, the off-site ROI has few farmland areas. 

The farmland areas in the Mojave community, already experience flyovers of aircraft 

similar in size, power, and noise level. Any impacts to agricultural resources in this area 

as a result of the proposed action would be less than the existing activities. Any 

farmlands in the ROI outside of the Mojave community are small acreage areas. The 

flight paths and trajectories of the Concept A and B vehicles would place the vehicles at 

least 6,098 meters (20,000 feet) above MSL at a distance of eight kilometers (five miles) 
130 February 2004

from the Mojave Airport. The vehicles would pass over any farmland areas at an altitude 

that would have no significant impacts. The proposed action would not cause the 

conversion of prime farmlands, unique farmlands, or farmlands of statewide importance 

to other non-agriculture uses.

The proposed action would not significantly impact grazing areas in the off-site ROI. 

Overflights of grazing areas at altitudes of 6,098 meters (20,000 feet) above MSL would 

have no significant impacts on existing agricultural land use. Any impacts to farmlands 

or grazing lands from a catastrophic accident would be insignificant due to the small size 

of the vehicles and the low probability of such a catastrophic event. 

Recreation. No significant impacts to recreation areas in the off-site ROI would occur as 

a result of the proposed action. The launch of vehicles from the Mojave Airport would 

not change the existing land use and would not impact the preservation of the natural 

beauty of the countryside, public park, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, 

or historic sites as specified in Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act 

of 1966. Parks and recreational facilities in the Mojave community already experience 

flyovers of aircraft similar in size, power, and noise level to the vehicles in the proposed 

action. Saddleback Butte State Park is located within the ROI; however, Concept A and 

B vehicles would pass over any parks and recreational facilities at an altitude that would 

have no impacts on the recreational area. The proposed action would not include 

construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

Many national and state parks, recreation areas, and conservation areas are located within 

the R-2508 Complex, however no overflight restrictions exist for those areas that lie 

within the ROI. The proposed Concept A and B launch vehicles would operate at 

altitudes significantly higher than those already used by current military test and training 

aircraft. (DoD, 2003a) The proposed Concept A and B launch vehicles operations would 

attempt to avoid these areas, and any flyovers of national parks, wilderness, recreational, 

and conservation areas would be at an altitude well above 914 meters (3,000 feet) AGL. 

Impacts to recreational areas from catastrophic accidents would be insignificant due to 

the small size of the vehicles and the low probability of such an event. 

5.7.2 Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would have no significant impacts on land use. Alternative 1 would take 

place in the same ROI as the proposed action and would not involve any construction or 

expansion of facilities in the on- or off-site areas. The number of flights proposed for 

Alternative 1 would be fewer than those in the proposed action, so there would be fewer 

impacts than expected for the proposed action. 

5.7.3 Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would have no significant impacts on land use. Alternative 2 would take 

place in the same ROI as the proposed action and would not involve any construction or 

expansion of facilities in the on-site or off-site areas. The number of flights proposed for 
131 February 2004

Alternative 2 would be fewer than those in the proposed action, so there would be fewer 

impacts than expected for the proposed action.

5.8 Noise

A significant impact may be a substantial (5 dB) change in noise level even though the 

magnitude of overall noise may be within land use compatibility. A non-significant 

impact would be an unsubstantial change in noise level even though the overall 

magnitude is greater than land use compatibility standards. Applicable noise standards 

for this proposed action would include 

° State of California Building Code Part 2, Title 24 requires areas exposed to noise 

levels of 60 dB CNEL or greater to achieve an annual interior noise level of 45 dB 

CNEL through acoustical insulation measures;

° California’s Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments guidelines 

require a CNEL of 65 dB for exterior areas and 45 dB for interior areas for sensitive 

land uses; and 

° The Kern County General Plan Noise Element, the Mojave Specific Plan, and the 

Kern County ALUCP require transportation noise sources to meet a 65 dB Ldn for 

exterior noise levels and a 45 dB Ldn for interior noise levels for areas with sensitive 

land uses.

Noise levels that exceed these standards or cause a substantial increase in noise level 

would be considered significant impacts. Other significant impacts would be the 

exposure of persons to excessive groundborne vibrations or noise levels, a substantial 

permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the ROI above current levels 

without the proposed action and alternatives, and the exposure of people residing or 

working in the airport area to excessive noise levels. 

5.8.1 Proposed Action

The two launch vehicle concepts proposed for launch from the Mojave Airport use 

different launch methods. The following sections will describe the potential noise 

impacts associated with the different launch methods. Concept B launch vehicles may 

use two different types of engines. 

Concept A

Concept A would consist of a carrier vehicle and a launch vehic le. The carrier vehicle 

would be powered by two afterburning J-85-GE-5 jet engines. The launch vehicle would 

be powered by a rocket engine using N2O and HTPB. The carrier vehicle would 

transport the launch vehicle to an altitude of approximately 15,244 meters (50,000 feet) 

above MSL, and then release the launch vehicle. Once released, the launch vehicle 

would ignite its rocket engine and ascend at a maximum speed of Mach 3.5. The rocket 

engine would burnout before reaching the apogee of the flight and would coast 

unpowered to 100 kilometer (62.5 miles) above MSL. The carrier aircraft would return 

to the Mojave Airport under its own power and the launch vehicle would glide 

unpowered back to the Mojave Airport and land. 
132 February 2004

Concept B

Concept B launch vehicles would consist of a single stage rocket powered vehicle, 

powered by an engine fueled by a LOx and kerosene or alcohol mixture. The vehicle 

would takeoff from the Mojave Airport and maneuver into a steep ascent reaching 

maximum speeds of almost Mach 4 at high altitudes. The engine would fire until the 

propellant is exhausted or the engine is turned off, and the vehicle would coast to apogee 

at or above 100 kilometers (62.5 miles) above MSL. The vehicle would then glide 

unpowered back to the Mojave Airport and land.

On Site

Engine Noise. No significant impacts to noise levels at the Mojave Airport would occur 

as a result of the proposed action. Approximately 1,226 jet aircraft takeoff and land at 

the Mojave Airport annually. (Kern County, 2003e) Of that, 713 are military jet aircraft, 

such as the F-4 and the Saab Draken. High performance, afterburning jet aircraft like the 

F-4 and the Saab Draken cause high intensity single event noise levels on the Mojave 

Airport. (Kern County, 2003d) Figure 5-1 shows a 90 dBA single event noise exposure 

level (SENEL) contour that encompasses the Mojave Airport when these aircraft takeoff. 

A SENEL is the level of noise accumulated during a single noise event with reference to 

duration of one second. (Kern County, 2003d) The SENEL is an appropriate measure for 

aircraft overflights. Because the Concept A carrier vehicle is a jet aircraft, it does not 

require a license from the FAA for its operation, and test flights on the vehicle have 

already begun. The jet engines of the carrier vehicle are similar in size and power to 

other aircraft that operate at the Mojave Airport. Noise levels at the airport from the 

Concept A carrier vehicle would be less than or equal to noise levels produced by 

afterburning jet aircraft currently using the Mojave Airport. 
133 February 2004

Figure 5-1. Map with 90 dBA SENEL for High Performance Aircraft at Mojave Airport
134 February 2004

A USAF study showed that the Sound Exposure Level (SEL) for a T-38 aircraft (similar 

to the carrier aircraft for Concept A vehicles) would be 105.5 and the maximum 

A-weighted sound level for these aircraft would be 98.3 at a distance of 305 meters 

(1,000 feet). The SEL is a measure of the physical energy of the noise event which takes 

into account both intensity and duration. See Table 5-12 for the sound levels associated 

with various aircraft.

Table 5-12. SEL and Maximum A-Weighted Noise Levels for Various Aircraft

Aircraft Type Sound Exposure Level 

(SEL)

Maximum Sound Level 

(Lmax)

Jet Bomber/Tanker/Transport

B1B 123.5 118.3

B52G 121.5 113.9

B52H 112.2 105.2

C17 100.0 94.5

C5 113.5 106.3

C135B 106.6 101.9

C141 105.8 99.7

KC135A 117.8 109.1

KC135R 92.2 87.1

Other Jet Aircraft with Afterburners

F4 115.7 109.7

F14 109.7 106.4

F15 112.0 104.3

F16 106.7 101.0

F18 116.9 108.0

FB111 108.1 102.3

T38 105.5 98.3

Other Jet Aircraft without Afterburners

A6 112.3 108.3

A7 111.3 107.7

A10 96.9 93.2

C21 91.1 84.6

T1A 99.4 90.3

T37 97.7 91.0

T39 103.3 96.8

T43 100.8 94.1

Propeller Aircraft

C12 79.3 73.2

C130 90.5 83.7

P3 96.8 91.0

Source: Federal Interagency Committee on Noise, 1992

Currently, two military jets takeoff and/or land at the Mojave airport on average each 

day. The proposed action, at a maximum, would launch and land 56 flights of Concept A 
135 February 2004

and B vehicles in 2008, or an average of 1.1 launches per week. Because the launch 

vehicle fires its rocket engine on the Mojave Airport, Concept B would have the largest 

potential for noise impacts at the Airport. Concept B flight procedures would occupy the 

Mojave Airport for four minutes during launch and four minutes during landing. Because 

landings of these vehicles would be unpowered, noise levels for the landing of the launch 

vehicle would be insignificant and will not be considered in this noise analysis. The

takeoff time period includes positioning the vehicle on the runway and gaining clearance 

from the control tower prior to rocket ignition and the actual launch after rocket ignition. 

Conservative assumptions are that all launches would be Concept B vehicles, and that for 

the entire four minutes of launch time, the rocket engine is ignited. It is also assumed 

that all launches would occur during daylight hours (7 am to 7 pm). With approximately 

1.1 launches per week at four minutes per launch, the Mojave Airport would be exposed 

to a total of 4.4 minutes of additional high intensity noise level per week. The total time 

of additional high intensity noise levels is likely overestimated due to conservative 

assumptions of launch vehicles and launch time periods. In addition, the noise source 

would be moving and the impacts to a particular location would only be a fraction of the 

total time. 

The amount of noise produced by an engine is related to several factors including the 

thrust produced by the engine. The F-4 jet aircraft with afterburners used at the Mojave 

Airport has a thrust of 79,623 Newtons (17,900 pounds); this corresponds to a maximum 

A-weighted sound level of 109.7 at a distance of 305 meters (1,000 feet) (see Table 5-

12). The Concept B vehicle proposed for launch from the Mojave Airport between 2005-

2008 would have a maximum thrust of 8,010 Newtons (1,800 pounds), which is 

significantly lower than the thrust of the F-4 jets currently flown at the airport. It is 

therefore anticipated that the noise levels produced by the launch of the Concept B launch 

vehicle would be lower than the noise levels produced by aircraft already in use at the 

Mojave Airport. Because the Mojave Airport currently experiences high intensity noise 

levels due to military jet flights and stationary rocket testing, and because the additional 

high intensity noise level would be insignificant, impacts to noise levels during launches 

at the Mojave Airport would be insignificant.

Another high intensity noise source at the Mojave Airport is stationary rocket testing. 

Aerospace companies based at the Mojave Airport periodically test experimental rocket 

engines. Rocket engine tests have been conducted for both Concept A and B launch 

vehicles. A noise assessment was conducted in 2002 to measure the potential impacts of 

rocket engine tests on the Mojave community. The worst-case assumption for the 

assessment was a rocket test of a 267,000 Newtons (60,000 pound) thrust engine. (Kern 

County, 2003d) Based on the assumption that the rocket engine test stand would be 

located northeast of Runway 8-26, the A-weighted noise levels produced by a 267,000-

Newtons (60,000-pound) thrust engine were estimated to be in the range of 85-95 dBA in 

the Mojave community. The assessment found that no significant impacts would occur if 

mitigating factors such as test stand location and orientation were considered. (Kern 

County, 2003d) 
136 February 2004

Sonic Boom. When an object moves through the air, it causes pressure waves that 

displace the air to make room for the object like waves on the bow of a boat. (DoD, 

2002a) However, when the object travels at speeds faster than sound, the pressure waves 

cannot keep up. This results in a shock wave when the air in front of the object is 

displaced and again when the object passes and the air recompresses to fill the void of the 

passing object. (DoD, 2002a) The noise the shock wave creates is called a sonic boom. 

Sonic booms have no warning and are highest in intensity directly over the flight path. 

Sonic booms are measured as overpressure in kilograms per square meter (pounds per 

square foot) and can cause damage on the ground such as cracking plaster and breaking 

glass. (DoD, 2002a) A study of sonic booms found that 23 panes of glass out of 

1,000,000 would break at 4.88 kilograms per square meter (1 pound per square foot) 

when located directly perpendicular to the flight path of an aircraft moving at supersonic 

speed. (DoD, 2002a) An overpressure of 4.88 kilograms per square meter is equivalent 

to a 90.9 dBA SENEL. (DoD, 2002a) The Concept A and B launch vehicles proposed 

for launch from the Mojave Airport would reach supersonic speeds. 

Generic unmanned lifting vehicles are orbital vehicles that reenter at supersonic speed 

and land at Edwards AFB. These vehicles are similar in size to the proposed Concept A 

and B launch vehicles. The predicted overpressure for sonic booms produced by Concept 

A and B vehicles flying at approximately 21,341 to 24,390 meters (70,000 to 80,000 feet) 

above MSL would be approximately 5.86 kilograms per square meter (1.2 pounds per 

square foot) at ground level. (DoD, 2002a) The overpressure levels measured during the 

Space Shuttle flights landing at Edwards AFB were less than 9.76 kilograms per square 

meter (less than 2 pounds per squa re foot). (DoD, 2002a) Overpressure values similar to 

those predicted for the unmanned lifting vehicles would be expected for launches of 

Concept A and B vehicles from the Mojave Airport.

Launches from the Mojave Airport would only occur during daytime hours. As a 

previous DoD study has shown, the noise effects of 10 daytime sonic booms at an 

overpressure of 4.88 kilograms per square meter (1 pound per square foot) everyday for a 

year would yield an outdoor accumulated noise level equal to an Ldn of 65 dBA. (DoD, 

2002a) This result aids in defining the maximum allowance for the number of daytime 

sonic boom events per day (10 events per day) to reach the Ldn 65 dBA noise standard 

limit. This assumes the estimated sonic boom overpressure is within the same order of 

magnitude, 4.88 kilograms per square meter (1 pound per square foot), as those to be 

generated by the proposed Concept A and B vehicles. 

The Ldn of 65 dBA is the accepted outdoor noise level related to transportation that has 

been adopted by the State of California and Kern County. In addition, a CNEL noise 

standard of 65 dB, applied for sensitive land uses such as residential and school areas, is 

also a required noise standard by the local authorities. Note the Ldn is similar to CNEL. 

Both measures are the average noise level over a 24-hour period, yet each applies a 

separate variation on penalties for nighttime noises. Ldn adds a 10 dB penalty for noises 

occurring between 10 pm and 7 am the following morning. CNEL adds a 5 dB penalty to 

noises occurring between 7 pm and 10 pm and adds a 10 dB penalty to noises occurring 

between 10 pm and 7 am the following morning. (Kern County, 2003d) 
137 February 2004

However, the current proposed action would occur only during daytime hours. With no 

nighttime decibel penalties applicable, the Ldn and the CNEL measurements would be 

equivalent. As a result, an Ldn of 65 dBA for 10 daytime sonic booms per day for a year 

would be equivalent to a CNEL of 65 dBA for the proposed conditions. 

Under the proposed action, it is expected the maximum overpressures would be on the 

order of 4.88 kilograms per square meter (1 pound per square foot), yet operations would 

occur at a lower frequency number of events (only 1.1 sonic booms per week). 

Therefore, the sonic boom noise impacts of the proposed action is estimated to be below 

the accepted Ldn and CNEL 65 dBA noise limits given the approximate factor of sixtyfour times fewer expected number of sonic boom events estimated. At present, the 

Mojave Airport currently experiences sonic boom noise exposure from supersonic 

military jets and supersonic Space Shuttle testing at Edwards AFB. 

Exposure to Humans. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

regulation 1910.95 establishes a maximum noise level of 90 dBA for a continuous eighthour exposure during a working day and higher levels for shorter exposure time in the 

workplace. The relationship allows for a 5 dBA increase in sound level for a 50 percent 

reduction in exposure time. Applying this, the effect is a continuous function up to a 

limit of 115 dBA, which is generally considered the sound level at which humans will 

experience pain. Under OSHA regulation 1910.95, exposure to impulse or impact noise 

should not exceed 140 dBA peak sound pressure level. The 140 dBA level is advisory 

rather than mandatory. 

Launches are relatively short events and would be expected to occupy the airspace over 

the Mojave Airport for less than four minutes per launch. Therefore, workers at the 

airport would not be exposed to high noise levels for long periods of time due to launch 

events. In addition, the noise levels would quickly attenuate as the vehicle moves away 

from the launch point and therefore workers would not be exposed to the highest sound 

levels for all four minutes of the launch event. Personnel at the airport may be required 

to wear hearing protection to minimize their exposure to loud noises during launch 

events. 

Increases in noise levels at the Mojave Airport as a result of the proposed action would be 

insignificant. The proposed action would not expose persons to or generate noise levels 

in excess of standards established by the California State Building Code, the California 

Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments guidelines, the Kern 

County General Plan, the Mojave Specific Plan, or the Kern County ALUCP. The 

proposed action would not expose persons to or generate groundborne noise levels. The 

proposed action would not result in a substantial permanent or temporary increase in 

ambient noise levels in the Mojave Airport vicinity. 

Off Site

No significant impacts to noise levels in the off-site ROI would occur as a result of the 

proposed action. The main areas of the Mojave community are located to the east of the 

Mojave Airport. The Mojave community currently experiences high noise levels from 
138 February 2004

military jet takeoffs and landings and stationary rocket tests. Sensitive receptors in the 

Mojave community such as schools and residential areas already experience high 

intensity noise levels above 90 dBA. An additional 4.4 minutes per week of high 

intensity noise levels would not cause significant impacts to sensitive receptors and 

would not elevate the average noise level above the acceptable levels of 65 CNEL or 65 

Ldn. (Kern County, 2003c) 

The additional noise level associated with the launches of the Concept A and B vehicles 

would be an insignificant increase to the community. The noise levels in the Mojave 

community associated with sonic booms would be less than 65 dBA Ldn and less than 65 

dBA CNEL. The entire Mojave community including sensitive receptors currently 

experiences sonic boom noise exposure from air- and spacecraft landing at Edwards 

AFB. The proposed action would not constitute a significant increase in noise level to 

the community.

There are three concerns regarding sonic boom effects on humans including health, 

startle, and annoyance. To put these concerns into perspective, Table 5-13 presents 

overpressures and common noise sources. In the expected overpressure range for the 

proposed activities, 1.2 pounds per square foot, a pile driver at a construction site would 

be an equivalent noise source. 

Table 5-13. Typical Sonic Boom Overpressure Ranges and Equivalents

Overpressure (pounds per square foot) Common Equivalent

0.5 – 2 Pile driver at construction site

2 – 4 Cap gun or firecracker near ear

4 – 10 Handgun as heard at shooter’s ear

10 – 14 Fireworks display from viewing stand

Annoyance created by sonic booms is a function of boom intensity, number of booms per 

time period, attitude of the population, and the activity in which people were engaged in 

at the time of the boom. There is no precise relationship between the parameters. A 

noise study found that 10 percent of subjects exposed to 10 to 15 booms per day were 

annoyed at an overpressure of one pound per square foot and that this reached nearly 100 

percent at three pounds per square foot. However, people may be more sensitive when 

exposed to numerous booms per day, while prior experience with sonic booms (such as

people who live on an Air Force Base) seems to lower sensitivity. Other studies indicate 

that there is a wide range in estimating percent annoyed ranging from 10 percent to 70 

percent at one pound per square foot and 55 percent to approximately 100 percent at three 

pounds per square foot. 

The off-site areas of the ROI outside of the Mojave community would be almost entirely 

in the R-2508 Complex. The R-2508 Complex was developed explicitly for military 

operations involving the testing and training of supersonic aircraft and spacecraft. The 

area is exposed to regular aircraft overflight noise and sonic booms on a daily basis. 

While national and state parks, recreation areas, wilderness areas, and conservation areas 

are located within the R-2508 Complex no overflight restrictions exist for those within 
139 February 2004

the ROI. The proposed Concept A and B launch vehicles would operate at altitudes 

significantly higher than those already used by current military test and training aircraft. 

The proposed action would have no significant noise level impacts on national parks, 

wilderness areas, or populated areas in the R-2508 Complex. 

Flights operating to the southeast outside of the R-2508 Complex would be at an altitude 

of at least 60,976 meters (200,000 feet) above MSL. At this altitude, the unmanned 

lifting vehicle was predicted to create sonic boom overpressures of approximately 1.46 

kilograms per square meter (0.3 pounds per square foot) at ground level. (DoD, 2002a) 

The proposed vehicles would create similar ground level overpressures while operating at 

the same altitudes. No impacts to noise level in the areas outside of the R-2508 Complex 

would occur as a result of the proposed action. 

An EPA review of available data on noise reduction or attenuation provided by typical 

building construction indicated that average residential construction provides sound 

attenuation of approximately 15 dB with windows open and 25 dB with the windows 

closed. Houses in warm climates typically provide lower than average attenuation (12 

and 24 dB, respectively), while houses in cold climates provide greater attenuation (17 

and 27 dB, respectively). Based on the average attenuation values, an interior noise level 

of 60 dB would correspond to exterior levels of 75 dB (windows open) and 85 dB 

(windows closed). Depending on the construction materials and methods, schools and 

commercial buildings may provide greater noise attenuation, particularly with the 

windows closed. (Federal Interagency Committee on Noise, 1992) Therefore sound 

levels experienced inside buildings during launch events would be less than the noise 

experienced outside during these events. People living and working within two miles of 

the Mojave Airport would not be exposed to excessive noise levels.

No significant impacts to noise levels in off-site areas would occur as a result of the 

proposed action. The proposed action would not expose persons to or generate noise 

levels in excess of standards established by the California State Building Code, the 

California Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments guidelines, the 

Kern County General Plan, the Mojave Specific Plan, or the Kern County ALUCP. The 

proposed action would not expose persons to or generate groundborne noise levels. The 

proposed action would not result in a substantial permanent or temporary increase in 

ambient noise levels in the off-site ROI vicinity. The proposed action would not expose 

people residing or working in the area of the Mojave Airport to excessive noise levels.

5.8.2 Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would have no significant impacts on noise levels. Alternative 1 would 

consist of Concept A, which would involve a maximum of 6 flights per year. The carrier 

vehicle is of similar size and power to aircraft currently using the airport and has already 

begun test flights. Sonic boom overpressures from the launch vehicle would not occur 

below 15,244 meters (50,000 feet) above MSL. Sonic booms are an existing condition in 

the ROI and Alternative 1 would not cause a substantial inc rease in noise levels. 

Therefore, Alternative 1 would have less impact on noise levels than the proposed action.
140 February 2004

5.8.3 Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would have no significant impacts on noise levels. Alternative 2 would 

consist of Concept B, which would involve a maximum of 50 flights per year. Stationary 

rocket tests of the proposed Concept B vehicle have already taken place at the Mojave 

Airport, and the airport currently experiences high intensity noise levels from military jet 

aircraft. The maximum sonic boom overpressures from the launch vehicle would be 

approximately 5.86 kilograms per square meter (1.2 pounds per square foot). This is 

similar to overpressures from vehicles currently operating in the ROI. Sonic booms are 

an existing condition in the ROI and Alternative 2 would not cause a substantial increase 

in noise levels. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have less impact on noise levels than the 

proposed action.

5.9 Socioeconomic Impacts and Environmental Justice

Socioeconomic Impacts

Socioeconomic impacts, including impacts to population, housing, employment would be 

considered significant if they substantially altered the location and distribution of the 

population within the ROI; caused the population to exceed historic growth rates; 

decreased jobs so as to substantially raise the regional unemployment rates or reduce 

income generation; substantially affected the local housing market and vacancy rates; or 

resulted in the need for new social services and support facilities.

Infrastructure

An impact to infrastructure would be considered significant if it resulted in a change in 

the growth and transportation planning, rural public transportation planning, and 

development review of the region. 

Other Services

An impact to public and emergency services would be considered significant if it resulted 

in slower response times by fire protection services, security services, or medical 

services, or failure of these services.

Environmental Justice

The Environmental Justice Interagency Working Group, mandated by Executive Order 

12898, developed guidance for determining whether an impact to human health or the 

environment would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority 

and/or low income populations. The Working Group recommends considering the 

following six factors to the extent practicable. 

1. Whether there is or will be an impact on the natural or physical environment that 

significantly and adversely affects a minority or low-income population. Such effects 

may include ecological, cultural, human health, economic, or social impacts on 
141 February 2004

minority communities or low-income communities when those impacts are 

interrelated to impacts on the natural or physical environment. 

2. Whether environmental effects are significant and are or may be having an adverse 

impact on minority populations that appreciably exceeds or are likely to appreciably 

exceed those on the general population or other appropriate comparison group. 

3. Whether the environmental effects occur or would occur in a minority and/or lowincome population affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from 

environmental hazards. 

4. Whether the health effects, which may be measured in risks and rates, are significant, 

or above generally accepted norms. Adverse health effects may include bodily 

impairment, infirmity, illness, or death. 

5. Whether the risk or rate of hazard exposure by a minority population or low-income 

population to an environmental hazard is significant and appreciably exceed or is 

likely to appreciably exceed those on the general population or other appropriate 

comparison group. 

6. Whether health effects occur in a minority population or low-income population 

affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from environmental hazards

5.9.1 Proposed Action

Population

Since no new development would be required to support the proposed action, and only 

existing personnel would be used to conduct launch activities, the proposed action would 

not induce substantial population growth in the community of Mojave. The proposed 

action would not be expected to displace people or decrease the population in the 

community of Mojave and therefore no impacts to population are expected from the 

proposed action. 

Employment

The proposed action would not require new construction or create new employment 

positions at the Mojave Airport. The proposed action would not result in any jobs being 

eliminated at the Mojave Airport and therefore no impacts to employment are expected 

from the proposed action.

Income

The proposed action would not result in the elimination of any jobs and therefore would 

not have any negative impacts on the community of Mojave. Any increase in the number 

of people accessing Mojave as a result of the proposed action would be limited to launch 
142 February 2004

participants and launch spectators. These visitors would most likely spend only one day 

in Mojave to watch or participate in launches. It was assumed that each launch of 

Concept A and B launch vehicles would add three passenger vehicles to the area and each 

vehicle would contain one to two people. The maximum number of flights for Concept A 

would be six launches per year, which would add 18 passenger vehicles to the area per 

year. The maximum number of flights for Concept B would be 50 flights a year, which 

would add 150 passenger vehicles to the area per year. Because these visitors would only 

be spending a short amount of time in Mojave, they are not expected to impact the local 

service industry. Therefore, there would be no impact to the community of Mojave from 

the proposed action. 

Housing

The proposed action would not displace people from their existing housing or bring an 

influx of people to the region to seek housing thereby necessitating the construction of 

housing elsewhere. Since the proposed action would not result in an increase or decrease 

in the demand for housing in the region, no impacts to housing are expected from the 

proposed action. 

Infrastructure

As mentioned previously, the maximum number of flights for Concept A would add 18 

passenger vehicles to the area per year and the maximum number of flights for Concept B 

would add 150 passenger vehicles to the area per year. Existing roads could easily 

handle this level of passenger traffic and therefore additional transportation infrastructure 

would not be required. 

The proposed action and alternatives would not result in substantial adverse physical 

impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered 

government facilities, to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other 

performance objectives for any of the public services.

Other Services

Since the proposed action does not involve an influx of workers to the Mojave Airport, 

under normal launch and landing procedures, additional on- or off-site public or 

emergency services, including firefighters, security, or medical services would not be 

required. 

Environmental Justice

Since no construction activities would be required to issue a launch site operator license 

to EKAD for the Mojave Airport and only existing personnel would be used to conduct 

launch activities, the proposed action would not have an impact on the health or 

environment of minority or low-income populations located at or near the airport.
143 February 2004

Both Concept A and Concept B launch vehicles could cause sonic booms, which could 

impact local communities, including environmental justice groups. Noise levels 

generated during sonic booms would be short-term in nature and overall predicted noise 

levels would not exceed ambient noise levels in residential areas. However, there is the 

potential for C-weighted sound exposure levels above the acceptable threshold for 

ambient conditions, which is 61 dB. The brief sonic boom noise could elicit a short-term 

startle response in humans. The maximum number of launches for Concept A and 

Concept B would be six and 50 per year, respectively. 

Currently, aircrews flying within the R-2508 Complex are required to maintain a 

minimum altitude of 914 meters (3,000 feet) above ground level over populated areas 

such as small towns and recreation areas. (Edwards AFB, 2003) Concept A and B launch 

vehicles will fly east or north-northeast over regions of predominantly open land. 

Significant noise impacts by the proposed action would not be anticipated because the 

vehicles would operate at altitudes high above the Earth’s surface. Also, because these 

noise levels would be significantly less than those experienced by existing vehicles in the 

region, would occur infrequently over the course of a year, and already occur as part of 

existing activities in the region, these short-term noise impacts would be less than 

significant for environmental justice communities. (DoD, 2002a) 

5.9.2 Alternative 1

The socioeconomic and environmental justice impacts expected from Alternative 1 would 

be less than those described for the proposed action.

5.9.3 Alternative 2

The socioeconomic and environmental justice impacts expected from Alternative 2 would 

be less than those described for the proposed action.

5.10 Transportation

This section focuses on the impacts of vehicular traffic from the proposed action on the 

existing roadways. Significant impacts to transportation as a result of the proposed action 

and alternatives can be defined as 

ß Substantial increase of traffic relative to the existing traffic load and capacity of the 

street system,

ß Exceeding a level of service standard established by the county congestion 

management agency for designated roads or highways,

ß Alteration of air traffic patterns,

ß Substantial increase of hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses,

ß Inadequate emergency access or parking capacity, and

ß Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative 

transportation. 
144 February 2004

5.10.1 Proposed Action

Passenger Vehicles

Under the proposed action, no additional employees would be hired by the Mojave 

Airport, or Concept A or B companies. Any increase in the number of passenger vehicles 

accessing Mojave would be limited to launch participants and launch spectators. It was 

assumed that three vehicles would be added to the area for each launch of Concept A and 

B launch vehicles. The maximum number of flights for Concept A would be six launches 

per year, which would add 18 passenger vehicles to the area per year. The maximum 

number of flights for Concept B launches would be 50 flights a year, which would add 

150 passenger vehicles to the area per year. 

Existing access roads could easily handle this level of passenger vehicle traffic without a 

change in LOS designation or a significant change in the volume to capacity ratio. The 

proposed action would not result in inadequate emergency access or parking capacity at 

the Mojave Airport or within the Mojave community. The proposed action would not 

conflict with adopted plans, policies, or programs supporting alternative transportation.

Delivery Vehicles

Under the proposed action, additional propellants would be delivered to the Mojave 

Airport to support the flights of Concept A and B launch vehicles. For Concept A, 

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 would deliver 11,340 kilograms (25,000 pounds) of N2O to 

the Mojave Airport. Under the proposed flight schedule, the maximum number of 

launches would be six per year; therefore one delivery truck per year would supply the 

required N2O. The amount of Jet-A fuel required for one launch is 2,903 kilograms 

(6,400 pounds). Each delivery truck would deliver 28,122 kilograms (62,000 pounds) of 

Jet-A fuel to the Mojave Airport; therefore one truck a year would be needed to supply 

the required Jet-A fuel. One truck per flight would be needed to bring the motor CTN 

containing the solid propellant, HTPB, to the Mojave Airport; therefore six trucks per 

year would be needed to deliver the required HTPB. A maximum of eight delivery trucks 

would supply propellants for Concept A launch vehicles per year. Currently, the Mojave 

Airport estimates that 264 trucks deliver propellants annually. (Mojave Airport, 2003d) 

There would be no additional congestion or decline in LOS from the addition of delivery 

trucks for Concept A launches. 

Propellants for Concept B launch vehicles include LOx and kerosene or alcohol. Smaller 

Concept B vehicles would be launched in 2003 to 2008, while larger Concept B vehicles 

would be launched only in 2006 to 2008. For this analysis, the larger vehicle is used to 

estimate the worst-case scenario of additional delivery vehicles in 2006 to 2008. Thus, 

the actual number of delivery trucks needed for Concept B launches could be smaller. 

The amount of LOx required for launching the larger Concept B vehicle is 3,402 

kilograms (7,500 pounds). The amount of kerosene required for launching the larger 

Concept B vehicle is 1,361 kilograms (3,000 pounds). Each delivery truck would deliver 
145 February 2004

17,418 kilograms (38,400 pounds) of LOx or 28,123 kilograms (62,000 pounds) of 

kerosene to the Mojave Airport. Therefore 12 delivery trucks per year would be needed 

to supply the required LOx and three delivery trucks per year would be need to supply the 

required kerosene for Concept B launches. A total of 15 additional delivery trucks per 

year would be needed to support Concept B launches. Because the Mojave Airport 

currently has approximately 264 propellant delivery trucks per year, there would be no 

additional congestion or decline in LOS from the addition of delivery trucks for Concept 

B launch vehicles. 

The Mojave Airport is located at the crossroads of major north-south and east-west 

roadways. The small number of additional passenger vehicles and delivery trucks 

anticipated as part of the proposed action would not increase traffic congestion or cause a 

decline in the LOS. 

5.10.2 Alternative 1

The impacts to transportation expected from Alternative 1 would be less than those 

described for the proposed action.

5.10.3 Alternative 2

The impacts to transportation expected from Alternative 2 would be less than those 

described for the proposed action. However, because the total maximum number of 

launches of Concept B launch vehicles is greater than for Concept A launch vehicles, 

there would be a greater number of passenger vehicles and delivery vehicles associated 

with this alternative. However, this level of increased traffic is not expected to impact 

the existing LOS.

5.11 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

The proposed action can be analyzed with respect to two criteria, intensity and context. 

Intensity is measured by the estimation of visual dominance, and context is determined 

by the degree of visual sensitivity. 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; degraded the existing 

visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or created a new source of 

substantial light or glare, which affected day or nighttime views in the region.

5.11.1 Proposed Action

The proposed action would have no significant visual impacts. As described in Section 

3.12.1, impacts to visual and aesthetic resources are often considered in terms of visual 

dominance and visual sensitivity. The design of Concept A and B launch vehicles would 

resemble traditional airplanes while in flight, and the visual landscape already includes 

airplanes in flight. Furthermore, the proposed action would not create a new source of 

substantial light or glare to adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, so the 
146 February 2004

visual dominance would be “Not Noticeable.” Both Concept A and B launch vehicles 

would leave visual contrails, but they would be similar in visual impact to contrails from 

existing operations. Because this area is already used for takeoffs and landings of 

airplanes, the visual sensitivity is low. The proposed action would not substantially 

degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings and would 

have no adverse effect on a scenic vista or scenic resources, as there are none in the area. 

5.11.2 Alternative 1

The impacts to visual and aesthetic resources expected from Alternative 1 would be less 

than those described for the proposed action.

5.11.3 Alternative 2

The impacts to transportation expected from Alternative 2 would be less than those 

described for the proposed action.

5.12 Water Resources

Significant impacts to water resources as a result of the proposed action and alternatives 

can be defined as

° Violations of surface water quality standards or waste discharge requirements,

° Alteration of drainage patterns to cause significant flooding or erosion, 

° Construction or expansion of storm water drainage facilities, 

° Construction of structures within a 100-year flood plain, 

° Adverse effects on ground water quality or quantity, 

° Need for new or expanded water supply entitlements, and 

° Adverse effects on other utilities and service systems such as wastewater treatment 

and solid waste. 

5.12.1 Proposed Action

On Site

No significant impacts to on-site water resources would occur as a result of the proposed 

action. The Mojave Airport facilities would be used in their present condition and for 

their current purposes. Because no construction or expansion to the existing facilities 

would occur, the proposed action would not cause impacts to existing drainage patterns 

that would result in increased erosion, siltation, or on-site flooding. The proposed action 

would not involve the generation of additional storm water or of additional sources of 

pollutants that could be washed away during storm events. The existing storm water 

system and permit would be adequate for the proposed action. In addition, no impacts 

would result from the proposed action due to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. 

In the event of a catastrophic accident, debris and wreckage could impact drainage 

patterns or storm water flows. But, the small size of the proposed vehicles and the low 

probability of a catastrophic event would make the impacts insignificant. Extensive 
147 February 2004

emergency response and clean-up procedures would further reduce the magnitude and 

duration of any impacts. 

Because no construction or expansion to the existing facilities would occur, the proposed 

action would not substantially deplete ground water supplies either on- or off-site or 

interfere with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer 

volume or a lowering of the local ground water table. In the event of a catastrophic 

accident unspent propellant could impact ground water. However, the small size of the 

proposed vehicles and the low probability of a catastrophic event would make the 

impacts insignificant. 

Off Site

No significant impacts to off-site water resources would occur as a result of the proposed 

action. Because no construction or expansion to existing off-site facilities would occur, 

the proposed action would not cause impacts to existing drainage patterns that would 

result in increased erosion, siltation, or off-site flooding. The proposed action would not 

involve the generation of additional storm water or of additional sources of pollutants that 

could be washed away during storm events. The proposed action would not make any 

changes to the amount of impermeable surface area and would therefore have no impact 

on the existing off-site storm water system. Therefore, the capacity of the current storm 

water system would be adequate to accommodate the proposed action. In addition, no 

impacts would result from the proposed action due to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 

mudflow. In the event of a catastrophic accident, debris and wreckage could impact 

drainage patterns or storm water flows. However, the small size of the proposed 

vehicles, the low probability of a catastrophic accident, and the extensive emergency 

response and clean-up procedures in place at the airport, would make the impacts 

insignificant. 

No impacts to surface water quality would occur as a result of the proposed action. The 

proposed vehicles would operate at high altitudes above surface water bodies and would 

not impact the quality of the water bodies. In the event of a catastrophic event, if a 

vehicle or debris from the vehicle were to land in a water body, potential water quality 

impacts could occur. However, the small size of the proposed vehicles, the low 

probability of a catastrophic accident, and the small amount of surface waters in the ROI 

would make any impacts insignificant.

No impacts to ground water would occur as a result of the proposed action. Because no 

construction or expansion to existing off-site facilities would occur, the proposed action 

would not substantially deplete ground water supplies either on- or off-site or interfere 

with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a 

lowering of the local ground water table.
148 February 2004

Utility and Service System Infrastructure

No significant increases in the need for utilities and service systems would occur due to 

the proposed action. The Mojave Airport is an existing facility in the Mojave 

community. The airport’s growth and development has been anticipated in planning 

documents such as the Mojave Specific Plan and various utility Master Plans. The 

Mojave Airport currently operates at approximately three percent of the airport capacity. 

(Kern County, 2003e) The main activities at the airport include general aviation and test 

aircraft flights. Tourists visiting the Mojave Airport for reasons related to the proposed 

action would create a temporary increase in the demand for utilities and service systems 

at the facility. This temporary increase in demand would not have a noticeable impact on 

the utility infrastructure for the Mojave community. The off-site areas in the Mojave 

community are served by the same utilities and service systems as the Mojave Airport. 

No construction or expansion of off-site facilities would occur in the Mojave community, 

therefore there would be no significant increase in the demand for utilities or other 

service systems in the community. 

The Mojave Specific Plan and the MPUD Master Water Plan recognize that water 

supplies are very limited. Surface water supplied by AVEK will likely decrease in the 

future, and MPUD’s ground water wells and distribution systems are not adequate to 

meet the projected demand in 2020. (Kern County, 2003e) However, MPUD is 

developing an Urban Water Management Plan to address increasing water needs of the 

Mojave community including the Mojave Airport. This plan will help regulate urban 

development and water use to ensure a reliable water supply for the Mojave community. 

As an existing customer of the MPUD, the Mojave Airport’s growth has been anticipated 

by the Mojave Specific Plan and the Master Water Plan and will be part of the Urban 

Water Management Plan. The proposed action would not significantly impact the water 

supplies of the MPUD. Sufficient water supplies are available from existing entitlements 

in the MPUD to serve the proposed action. Additionally, the proposed action would not 

deplete ground water supplies or interfere with ground water recharge causing a net 

deficit in aquifer volume which would result in an inability to support existing or 

permitted land uses.

The MPUD wastewater treatment plant is operating at approximately 66 percent capacity. 

(Kern County, 2003e) The Mojave Specific Plan growth and development predictions 

for 2010 exceed those anticipated by the MPUD Master Sewer Plan. To mitigate this 

discrepancy, any new development projects in the Mojave community must either obtain 

a “will serve” letter from the MPUD verifying that the District will provide sewer service 

to the project or provide evidence of connection to a centralized waste treatment system. 

The Mojave Airport is an existing customer of the MPUD wastewater treatment system 

with no proposed construction or development plans. Although some short and longterm increases in wastewater generation at the Mojave Airport would result from the 

proposed action, growth and development plans have accounted for these increases. Any 

impacts on the wastewater system due to the proposed action would be insignificant. The 

proposed action would not exceed current wastewater treatment capability, require the 

construction of new wastewater treatment facilities, or require an expansion of existing 
149 February 2004

facilities. The proposed action would not increase pollution concentrations or cause 

violations of wastewater treatment requirements of the Lahontan Water Quality Control 

Board. 

Non-hazardous solid waste from the Mojave Airport is sent to the Mojave-Rosamond 

Sanitary Landfill. The Mojave-Rosamond Sanitary Landfill has remaining capacity of 

335,658 metric tons (370,000 tons) with an estimated closure date of 2013. (Kern 

County, 2003e) Other landfills in the area can serve the airport including the Tehachapi, 

the Ridgecrest, the Boron, and the Bena landfills. (Kern County, 2003e) An increase of 

solid waste generated at the Mojave Airport will occur as a result of the proposed action; 

however, the increase will not be significant. The Mojave-Rosamond Sanitary Landfill 

and other area landfills would have sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the 

proposed action solid waste disposal needs. The proposed action would comply with 

Federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Because no construction or expansion to the existing facilities would occur, the 

proposed action would not substantially interfere with electrical or natural gas services 

either on- or off-site. The proposed action would not interfere with the capacity to serve 

the proposed action’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing 

commitments. 

Utilities and service systems in the off-site ROI outside of the Mojave community would 

not be impacted by the proposed action. The proposed vehicles would operate at an 

altitude above the off-site ROI that would not impact utilities or their infrastructure. In 

the case of a catastrophic event, debris and wreckage from the vehicles could impact 

utilities or their infrastructure. However, because of the small vehicle sizes of the 

proposed action, the low probability of a catastrophic accident, and the extensive 

emergency response and clean-up procedures in place at the airport, the impacts would be 

insignificant.

5.12.2 Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would have no significant impacts on water resources. Alternative 1 would 

consist of Concept A only, which would conduct a maximum of 6 launches per year. 

Fewer launches would result in fewer visitors and tourist and less impact on water 

resources and utilities. Therefore, the impacts of Alternative 1 would be less than those 

of the proposed action.

5.12.3 Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would have no significant impacts on water resources. Alternative 2 would 

consist of Concept A only, which would conduct a maximum of 50 launches per year. 

Fewer launches would result in fewer visitors and tourist and less impact on water 

resources and utilities. Therefore, the impacts of Alternative 2 would less than those of 

the proposed action.
150 February 2004

5.13 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the FAA would not issue a launch site operator license 

to EKAD for launches of Concept A and Concept B launch vehicles from the Mojave 

Airport. No launches of Concept A or Concept B launch vehicles would take place from 

the Mojave Airport. The Airport would continue to operate as a General Aviation 

Airport.

The predicted environmental effects of the Proposed Action would not occur. The 

existing on-site and off-site conditions at the Mojave Airport would remain unchanged 

and would be as described in Section 3, Affected Environment. 
151 February 2004

6. Cumulative Impacts

6.1 Air Quality

6.1.1 Proposed Action

Cumulative air quality impacts can be localized (e.g., ambient air quality) or global (e.g., 

global warming). To examine cumulative localized air quality impacts, the EPA has 

specified several screening tests in its various regulations. The screening tests are 

1. The proposed action does not produce emissions above certain de minimis levels for 

criteria pollutants for areas that are in non-attainment for Federal ambient air quality 

standards, and 

2. The action must not be considered regionally significant. Regionally significant 

actions are ones for which the total emissions from the action equal or exceed 10 

percent of the air quality control area’s emissions inventory for any criteria pollutant.

Table 6-1 presents estimates of air emissions below 914 meters (3,000 feet) from the 

proposed action. This includes estimated emissions from the launch of the Concept A 

carrier vehicle, the launch of the Concept B vehicle, fuel-delivery trucks, and fueling 

operations. As seen in table 6-1, the proposed action would approach but would not 

exceed the thresholds for any of these tests for potential cumulative impacts. 

Cumulative impacts of emissions from launches have the potential to affect global 

warming. The total CO2 emissions for the proposed action would be approximately 103 

metric tons (113 tons) in 2008 (highest estimated launch rate). This includes emissions 

outlined in Table 6-1, in addition to emissions from the launch of Concept A and B 

vehicles above 914 meters (3,000 feet). As comparison, CO2 emissions from the PEIS of 

commercial launches of expendable launch vehicles (DOT, 2001) were estimated to be 

much more than the proposed action (approximately 4,536 metric tons per year (5,000 

tons per year)). Additionally, the cumulative impact on global warming from launches 

would be insignificant when compared to emissions from other industrial sources. Total 

CO2 emissions from all sources in the U.S. were 5,159 million metric tons (5,687 million 

tons) in 1994. The proposed action would account for only a fraction (less than 

0.000002%) of these CO2 emissions. Consequently, the total expected CO2 emissions 

from the proposed action would be insignificant. There would be no emissions that 

directly affect ozone depletion. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts to air 

quality are expected.
152 February 2004

Table 6-1. Air Emissions (pounds) Below 914 meters (3,000 feet) from Proposed 

Action in Year 2008 (both Concept A and B)

Emission 

Activities

CO2

kilograms 

(pounds)

CO

kilograms 

(pounds)

NOx

kilograms 

(pounds)

VOC

kilograms 

(pounds)

PM

kilograms 

(pounds)

H2O

kilograms 

(pounds)

SOx

kilograms 

(pounds)

 Launch

14,447 

(31,850)

6,122

(13,496)

3.3

(7.3)

29

(63)

68

(150)

8,845

(19,500)

1.7

(3.7)

 Truck -

9.1 

(20)

9.5 

(21)

1.5 

(3.3)

0.7

(1.6) - -

 Fueling - - -

2,186

(4,818) - - -

Total kilograms 

(pounds)

14,447 

(31,850)

6,131

(13,517)

13

(28)

2,215

(4,884)

69

(152)

8,845

(19,500)

1.7

(3.7)

Total metric 

tons/year 

(tons/year)

14.4

(15.9)

6.2

(6.8)

0.01

(0.01)

2.2

(2.4)

0.07

(0.08)

8.9

 (9.8)

0.002

(0.002)

Comparison Against Regulatory Threshold Screening Tests

Test 1 -

Regulatory De 

Minimis 

Thresholds 

metric 

tons/year 

(tons/year)

- -

45.4

(50.0)

45.4

(50.0) - - -

Test 2 -

Percent of 

Regional 

Emissions*

- 5 % 0.0001% 0.05% 0.6% - -

*Percent is 100 times the emissions of NOx and VOC from proposed action divided by the regional 

inventory of emissions - data on inventory emissions are those reduced emissions since 1990 from 

KCAPCD, 2000. For CO and PM, emissions from the proposed action were compared against current 

emissions from airport operations only (see Affected Environment). Actual percent of CO and PM would 

be much less if compared against the full inventory of emissions in the region.

6.1.2 Alternative 1

Because the cumulative impacts for air quality for the proposed action would be 

insignificant, the cumulative impacts for Alternative 1 (Concept A only) would also be 

insignificant.

6.1.3 Alternative 2

Because the cumulative impacts for air quality for the proposed action would be 

insignificant, the cumulative impacts for Alternative 2 (Concept B only) would also be 

insignificant.
153 February 2004

6.2 Airspace

6.2.1 Proposed Action

The proposed action would have no significant cumulative impacts on airspace. The 

proposed action would involve a total of 148 flights over five years from the Mojave 

Airport at a maximum frequency of 1.1 flights per week. This would represent only a 0.3 

percent increase in the annual activity at the Mojave Airport. The off-site impacts to 

airspace would take place primarily in the R-2508 Complex. In 2000, Edwards AFB 

estimated that a total of 11,168 landings occurred on Edwards AFB Runway 22, alone. 

(DoD, 2002a) The R-2508 Complex scheduling and controlling agencies regulate the 

flight of all aircraft in the restricted area. Aircraft without proper authorization are 

prohibited from entering the R-2508 Complex. Therefore, any proposed launches with 

potential significant impacts to the R-2508 Complex would be prevented from occurring 

by the scheduling and controlling agencies. Any flight paths that exit the R-2508 

Complex would do so at an altitude approximately 57,927 meters (190,000 feet) above 

any established en route airways. Because of the volume of air traffic that utilizes this 

area already and the structured scheduling procedures in place for joint-use of the R-2508 

Complex, the proposed action would have no significant cumulative effects on airspace.

6.2.2 Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would consist of a maximum of 33 flights over five years. The number of 

flights would be significantly less than the proposed action, thus any cumulative impacts 

would be significantly less than the proposed action.

6.2.3 Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would consist of a maximum of 115 flights over five years. The number of 

flights would be less than the proposed action, thus any cumulative impacts would be 

significantly less than the proposed action.

6.3 Biological Resources

6.3.1 Proposed Action

No significant cumulative impacts to biological resources would occur as a result of the 

proposed action. The proposed action would not include any construction or 

development on- or off-site of the Mojave Airport. As a result, no significant cumulative 

impacts to vegetation, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, migratory wildlife 

corridors, wetlands, sensitive areas, or critical habitat would be anticipated.

The maximum number of launches from Mojave Airport for both Concept A and Concept 

B would be 56 per year. The proposed action would slightly increase the number of high 

intensity noise events. Both Concept A and B launch vehicles also have the potential to 

cause sonic booms, which could impact wildlife on and off the Mojave Airport site. 

Based on the existing noise sources and intensities at the Mojave Airport and within the 

R-2508 Complex, the proposed action would have no significant cumulative impacts on 
154 February 2004

noise. This would result in no significant cumulative impacts of noise on biological 

resources.

6.3.2 Alternative 1

Because the cumulative impacts for biological resources for the proposed action would be 

insignificant, the cumulative impacts for Alternative 1 would also be insignificant.

6.3.3 Alternative 2

Because the cumulative impacts for biological resources for the proposed action would be 

insignificant, the cumulative impacts for Alternative 2 would also be insignificant.

6.4 Cultural Resources

6.4.1 Proposed Action

No significant cumulative impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the 

proposed action. The proposed action would not include any construction or 

development on or off the Mojave Airport site. Because it was determined that the 

proposed action would have no adverse effects on cultural resources, no significant 

cumulative impacts to National Register sites, California Register sites, National Historic 

Landmarks, paleontological resources, human remains, or tribal lands would be 

anticipated. 

6.4.2 Alternative 1

Because the cumulative impacts for cultural resources for the proposed action would be 

insignificant, the cumulative impacts for Alternative 1 would also be insignificant.

6.4.3 Alternative 2

Because the cumulative impacts for cultural resources for the proposed action would be 

insignificant, the cumulative impacts for Alternative 2 would also be insignificant.

6.5 Geology and Soils

6.5.1 Proposed Action

The proposed action would not entail any changes to the built environment at the Mojave 

Airport, and therefore no significant cumulative impacts are expected to geology, mineral 

resources, seismicity, erosion or hydrology. 

Concept A launch vehicles would not create a ground cloud since ignition of rocket 

engines would take place at 15,240 meters (50,000 feet), and therefore no significant 

cumulative impacts would occur to soils as a result of these launches. Launches of 

Concept B vehicles would create a ground cloud, which would be dispersed along the 

runway, and 50 such launches per year would result in additive impacts to soils. 
155 February 2004

However, Concept B vehicles use liquid propellants, which would create a ground cloud 

consisting of CO, CO2, H2, and H2O. These emissions would evaporate and dissipate in 

the environment and therefore would not result in a significant cumulative impact. 

6.5.2 Alternative 1

Because the cumulative impacts for geology and soils for the proposed action would be 

insignificant, the cumulative impacts for Alternative 1 would also be insignificant.

6.5.3 Alternative 2

Because the cumulative impacts for geology and soils for the proposed action would be 

insignificant, the cumulative impacts for Alternative 2 would also be insignificant.

6.6 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management

6.6.1 Proposed Action

No significant impacts would be expected from the use of hazardous materials to support 

Concept A and B operations. No significant cumulative impacts would be projected from 

handling hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Impacts from past use of hazardous 

materials at Mojave Airport might occur from the discovery of abandoned underground 

storage tanks or unreported releases/spills. However, under CERCLA any contamination 

from the storage tanks or in the ground would be monitored and if removal became 

necessary, CERCLA provisions would protect human health and the environment during 

cleanup. The other current uses of hazardous materials at Mojave are minimal, and 

present no impact on human health or the environment. Neither Mojave Airport nor 

other industries in the area, as specified in the Mojave Specific Plan, have plans to 

increase use of hazardous materials in the future.

6.6.2 Alternative 1

Because the cumulative impacts for hazardous materials and hazardous waste for the 

proposed action would be insignificant, the cumulative impacts for Alternative 1 would 

also be insignificant.

6.6.3 Alternative 2

Because the cumulative impacts for hazardous materials and hazardous waste for the 

proposed action would be insignificant, the cumulative impacts for Alternative 2 would 

also be insignificant.

6.7 Health and Safety

6.7.1 Proposed Action

Existing operations at the Mojave Airport include testing of new aircraft and use of 

various hazardous materials. The existing baseline shows limited risk to health and 
156 February 2004

safety. The proposed action would bring new operations and additional health and safety 

challenges. The proposed action would require additional quantities of hazardous 

materials including propellants (e.g., LOx, N2O, kerosene,) to be shipped to the Mojave 

Airport. Although the Mojave Airport has experience handling many of these materials, 

potential users of the launch site would need to have procedures, policies, and training to 

manage any additional risk posed by their proposed operations. The area around the 

Mojave Airport is already exposed to the risk associated with accidents from an airport 

that serves as a testing ground for new types of aircraft. The proposed action would 

increase the risk of accidents but the Concept A and B operators would mitigate this risk 

by avoiding populated areas. Detailed analyses of safety and related issues would be 

addressed in the FAA’s Mission and Safety Review prior to issuing a launch license. 

However, safety and health analyses of operations that have the potential for 

environmental impact were considered in the EA and were determined to have no 

significant cumulative impacts on the environment.

6.7.2 Alternative 1

Because the cumulative impacts for health and safety for the proposed action would be 

insignificant, the cumulative impacts for Alternative 1 (Concept A only) would also be 

insignificant.

6.7.3 Alternative 2

Because the cumulative impacts for health and safety for the proposed action would be 

insignificant, the cumulative impacts for Alternative 2 (Concept B only) would also be 

insignificant.

6.8 Land Use

6.8.1 Proposed Action

No significant cumulative impacts to land use would occur as a result of the proposed 

action. The proposed action would not include any construction or development 

activities on or off the Mojave Airport site. Therefore, no impacts to the PCC zones 

would occur within the airport region of influence. The vehicles would use Runway 12-

30 for proposed launch and landing activities. This runway would direct flights over 

areas designated for commercial, industrial, resource management, and open land uses. 

These land uses are compatible with the proposed activities and noise levels. The 

proposed action would not cumulatively impact agricultural and recreational resources. 

Cumulative noise impacts on sensitive land uses are discussed in Section 6.9.1.

6.8.2 Alternative 1

Because the cumulative impacts for land use for the proposed action would be 

insignificant, the cumulative impacts for Alternative 1 would also be insignificant.
157 February 2004

6.8.3 Alternative 2

Because the cumulative impacts for land use for the proposed action would be 

insignificant, the cumulative impacts for Alternative 2 would also be insignificant.

6.9 Noise

6.9.1 Proposed Action

No significant cumulative impacts to noise levels would occur as a result of the proposed 

action. Over 1,200 jet aircraft takeoff and land at the Mojave Airport annually. In 

addition, periodic stationary rocket engine tests are conducted at the airport. These 

activities generate high single event noise levels. Launches of the proposed vehicles 

would generate high single event noise levels at the Mojave Airport for an additional 4.4 

minutes per week. This additional time would not represent a significant cumulative 

impact on the noise levels at the airport. Aircraft currently operating in the R-2508 

Complex that travel at supersonic speeds include the F-15, the F-16, and the F-18. 

Previous Sonic boom tests conducted on the SR-71, which travels at Mach 2.0 to 3.0, 

found that overpressures at 19,817 to 24,390 meters (65,000 to 80,000 feet) above MSL 

were less than 4.88 kilograms per square meter (1.0 psf). Overpressures below 4.88 

kilograms per square meter (1.0 psf) rarely cause adverse effects. The proposed vehicles 

would reach comparable supersonic speeds at altitudes similar to or greater than the SR71. Cumulative noise impacts on sensitive land uses would be less than 65 dBA Ldn and 

less than 65 dBA CNEL. Ten daytime sonic booms of 4.88 kilograms per square meter 

(1 pound per square foot) everyday for a year would yield an Ldn of 65 dBA. (DoD, 

2002a) An Ldn of 65 dBA is the accepted level for outdoor noise levels related to 

transportation. In the EA for the Orbital Reentry Corridor for Generic Unmanned Lifting 

Entry Vehicle Landing at Edwards AFB, the USAF considered up to 12 flights per year. 

Currently an average of two military jet aircraft takeoff and/or land at the Mojave Airport 

per day. These military aircraft can produce sonic booms. Even in the worst case 

scenario, i.e., one launch from the Mojave Airport, one launch of the proposed 

Unmanned Lifting Entry Vehicle from Edwards AFB, and two jet aircraft takeoffs or 

landings from the Mojave Airport, there would not be more than 10 sonic booms 

generated per day in the ROI. Therefore, there would be no significant cumulative 

impacts to noise from the proposed action. Based on the current noise sources and 

intensities at the Mojave Airport and within the R-2508 Complex, the proposed action 

would have no cumulative impacts on noise.

6.9.2 Alternative 1

Because the cumulative impacts for noise for the proposed action would be insignificant, 

the cumulative impacts for Alternative 1 would also be insignificant.

6.9.3 Alternative 2

Because the cumulative impacts for noise for the proposed action would be insignificant, 

the cumulative impacts for Alternative 2 would also be insignificant.
158 February 2004

6.10 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

6.10.1 Proposed Action

No significant cumulative impacts to socioeconomics and environmental justice would 

occur as a result of the proposed action. The proposed action would not include any 

construction or development on or off the Mojave Airport site and only personnel already 

on-site would be used to conduct launch activities. As a result, no significant cumulative 

impacts to population, housing, employment, schools, infrastructure, or public and 

emergency services would be expected. The proposed action would not cause negative 

socioeconomic impacts to the region.

Air emissions may result in cumulative impacts to local communities. None of the 

emissions would be expected to expose the nearby population or sensitive receptors to 

substantial pollutant concentrations or to objectionable odors of the type that do not 

already exist from airport operations (e.g., fuel and exhaust odors). Because air 

emissions would not have significant cumulative effects on air quality, no significant 

cumulative impacts to socioeconomics and environmental justice would be expected to 

occur.

The maximum number of launches from Mojave Airport for both Concept A and Concept 

B would be 56 per year. Both Concept A and Concept B launch vehicles have the 

potential to cause sonic booms, which could impact local communities, including 

environmental justice groups. Based on the current noise sources and intensities at the 

Mojave Airport and within the R-2508 Complex, the proposed action would have no 

significant cumulative impacts on noise. This would result in no disproportionate 

impacts on economically disadvantaged or minority groups. 

6.10.2 Alternative 1

Because the cumulative impacts for socioeconomics and environmental justice for the 

proposed action would be insignificant, the cumulative impacts for Alternative 1 would 

also be insignificant.

6.10.3 Alternative 2

Because the cumulative impacts for socioeconomics and environmental justice for the 

proposed action would be insignificant, the cumulative impacts for Alternative 1 would 

also be insignificant.

6.11 Transportation

6.11.1 Proposed Action

No significant cumulative impacts would be expected to transportation systems from the 

operation of Concept A and B vehicles. The Mojave Specific Plan Draft EIR projects 

that the future LOS for portions of the Sierra Highway (between the SR-14 cutoff and the 

SR-58 cutoff, and south of the SR-58 cutoff to Purdy Avenue) would be below LOS D. 
159 February 2004

Growth in the region has been projected to lead to significant and unavoidable impacts on 

traffic congestion. The proposed action was not considered in the Mojave Specific Plan 

Draft Environmental Impact Report but would increase the number of vehicles in the 

region by a maximum of 23 delivery trucks per year. 

6.11.2 Alternative 1

For alternative 1, a maximum of eight trucks per year would be needed to deliver 

propellants for Concept A vehicles. These trucks would travel on the Sierra Highway 

that has a LOS rating of LOS E, which indicates more congestion than guidelines 

suggest. 

6.11.3 Alternative 2

For alternative 2, in the year 2008, a maximum of 15 trucks would be needed to provide 

propellant for Concept B vehicles. These trucks would travel on the Sierra Highway that 

has a LOS rating of LOS E, which indicates more congestion than guidelines suggest.

6.12 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

6.12.1 Proposed Action

The proposed action would not entail any changes to the built environment at Mojave 

Airport. It would add a maximum of 56 flights per year to the current flight schedule. 

The Mojave Airport is currently operating at three percent of capacity and the addition of 

up to 56 flights in one year would not exceed the airport’s operational abilities. The 

additional flights would not create a significant cumulative impact on visual and aesthetic 

resources. 

6.12.2 Alternative 1

Because the cumulative impacts for visual and aesthetic resources for the proposed action

would be insignificant, the cumulative impacts for Alternative 1 would also be 

insignificant.

6.12.3 Alternative 2

Because the cumulative impacts for visual and aesthetic resources for the proposed action 

would be insignificant, the cumulative impacts for Alternative 2 would also be 

insignificant.

6.13 Water Resources

6.13.1 Proposed Action

No significant cumulative impacts to water resources would occur as a result of the 

proposed action. The proposed action would not include any construction or 

development on or off the Mojave Airport site. This would result in no significant 
160 February 2004

cumulative impacts to storm water drainage paths, flooding, erosion, surface water 

bodies, or ground water resources. The Mojave Airport, in its present role as a general 

aviation airport, has been in operation since 1972, and is a long-standing customer of the 

MPUD and the Mojave-Rosamond Sanitary Landfill. Development and growth plans for 

the Mojave community and the MPUD have anticipated and accounted for increases in 

demand from the Mojave Airport for utilities and solid waste services. Therefore, any 

increases in the need for water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste handling as 

a result of the proposed action would have an insignificant impact. The proposed action

would have no significant cumulative impacts on utilities and service system 

infrastructure.

6.13.2 Alternative 1

Because the cumulative impacts for water resources for the proposed action would be 

insignificant, the cumulative impacts for Alternative 1 would also be insignificant.

6.13.3 Alternative 2

Because the cumulative impacts for water resources for the proposed action would be 

insignificant, the cumulative impacts for Alternative 2 would also be insignificant.

6.14 Secondary or Induced Impacts

CEQ defines Secondary Impact as “those that are caused by an action and are later in 

time and farther removed in distance but still foreseeable.” These impacts are induced by 

the initial action. Examples of Secondary Impacts include shifts in patterns of population 

movement and growth, public service demands, and changes in business and economic 

activity to the extent influenced by the proposed action. 

6.14.1 Proposed Action

Although the proposed action would support and facilitate limited growth, it would not 

induce growth. Additionally, there would be no specific future development activities 

currently known that would be dependent on the proposed action. Therefore no 

secondary impacts are expected to result from the proposed action. 

6.14.2 Alternative 1

Because no secondary impacts are expected for the proposed action, there would be no 

secondary impacts expected for Alternative 1. 

6.14.3 Alternative 2

Because no secondary impacts are expected for the proposed action, there would be no 

secondary impacts expected for Alternative 2.
161 February 2004

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
162 February 2004

7. Glossary

A-weighted Sound Level (dBA). A number representing the sound level that is 

frequency weighted according to a prescribed frequency response established by the 

American National Standards Institute and accounts for the response of the human ear.

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.

Ambient Air Quality Standards. Standards established on a state of Federal level, that 

define the limits for airborne concentrations of designated “criteria” pollutants (nitrogen 

dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, ozone, and lead), to protect 

public health and an adequate margin of safety (primary standards) and to protect public 

welfare, including plant and animal life, visibility, and materials (secondary standards).

Apogee. The highest point in a launch vehicle’s trajectory.

Attainment Areas. Regions that meet the EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for a criteria pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

Criteria Pollutant. A pollutant determined to be hazardous to human health and 

regulated under the EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The 1970 

amendments to the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to describe the health and welfare 

impacts of a pollutant as the “criteria” for inclusion in the regulatory regime.

Cumulative Impacts. The combined impacts resulting from all activities occurring 

concurrently at a given location.

Day-Night Average Noise Level (Ldn). Accounts for increased annoyance associated 

with nighttime noise events. An A-weighted noise equivalency for a 24-hour day that is 

calculated by adding a penalty to sound levels occurring at night. 

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 onetenth bel).

Endangered Species. A plant or animal that is in danger of extinction throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range.

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. 
163 February 2004

Geologic Hazard. A geologic hazard is a naturally occurring or man-induced geologic 

condition that presents a risk or a potential danger to life and property. Such hazards 

could include phenomena such as landslides, flooding, ground subsistence, faulting, and 

earthquakes.

Government Range. Government owned property located throughout the U.S. where 

missiles, rockets, armaments, and new aircraft designs are tested. A government range 

can include various assets to gather data and monitor and track testing operations. In 

addition, these lands may be withdrawn or restricted from public use.

Hybrid Propulsion/System/Fuels. A propulsion system that uses solid fuel and a liquid 

oxidizer, giving it the ability to throttle, shut-off, and re-start in mid-flight.

Impacts. An assessment of the meaning of changes in all attributes being studied for a 

given resource, an aggregation of all of the adverse effects, usually measured using a 

qualitative and nominally subjective technique.

Noise. Sound that is unwanted either because of its effect on humans, its effect on 

fatigue or malfunction of physical equipment, or its interference with the perception or 

detection of other sounds.

Non-Attainment Area. An area that has been designated by the EPA or the appropriate 

state air quality agency, as exceeding one or more national or state Ambient Air Quality 

Standards.

Payload. 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.

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.

Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV). An RLV, as defined in 14 CFR § 401.5, means “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.

Socioeconomics. The basic attributes and resources associated with the human 

environment, in particular population and economic activity. Socioeconomic resources 

consist of several primary elements including population, employment, and income. 

Other socioeconomic aspects that are often described may include housing and an 

overview of the local economy.

Sonic Boom. A noise caused by a shock wave that emanates from an aircraft or other 

object traveling at or above the speed of sound.
164 February 2004

Suborbital Rocket. The following definition for suborbital rocket is being considered 

for adoption by AST but has not yet been approved: “a rocket propelled vehicle intended 

for flight on a suborbital trajectory whose thrust is greater than its lift for the majority of 

the powered portion of its flight.”

Suborbital Trajectory. The following definition has been proposed for suborbital 

trajectory within AST but has not yet been approved: “the intentional flight path of a 

launch vehicle, reentry vehicle, or any portion thereof whose va cuum instantaneous 

impact point does not leave the surface of the earth.”

Telemetry. Automatic data measurements and transmission from remote sources, such 

as space vehicles, to receiving stations for recording and analysis.

Threatened Species. Plant and wildlife species likely to become endangered in the 

foreseeable future.
165 February 2004

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
166 February 2004

8. References

Borax. 2003. www.borax.com, accessed 9/10/03

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2003. 

http://www.ca.blm.gov/ridgecrest/topten.html, accessed 9/10/03. 

California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board. 2000. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm, accessed 9/8/03.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board. 2002. User Guide 

for Emission Factor Model. December, 2002.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board. 2003. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqs/aaqs2.pdf, accessed 9/10/03.

California State Water Resources Control Board. 1999. National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System Storm Water Permit No. CAS000003, Statewide Storm Water Permit 

and Waste Discharge Requirements. Department of Transportation, State of California.

California State Water Resources Control Board. 2003. 

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb6/images/maps/reg6lah.gif, accessed 9/8/03. 

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2003. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste 

and Substances Site List (Cortese List).

http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/database/Calsites/Cortese_List.cfm?county=15, accessed 9/19/03.

Chemical Propulsion Information Agency. 1984. Hazards of Chemical Rockets and 

Propellants, Volume III Liquid Propellants, September.

Department of Defense. 2002a. 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 Defense. 2002b. Digital Airport Surveillance Radar Environmental 

Assessment, Edwards Air Force Base, California, June.

Department of Transportation. 1992. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement for Commercial Reentry Vehicles (PEIS CRV), Department of Transportation, 

Office of Commercial Space Transportation, May.

Department of Transportation. 2001. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement for Licensing Launches (PEIS LL). Department of Transportation, Office of 

Commercial Space Transportation, May.
167 February 2004

Department of Transportation, 2002. Final Environmental Assessment for the Site, 

Launch, Reentry, and Recovery Operations at the Kistler Launch Facility, Nevada Test 

Site, April.

East Kern Airport District. 2001. East Kern Airport District Administrative Code.

East Kern Airport District. 2003. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan, 

July. 

Edwards AFB. 2003. Edwards Air Force Base web site, http://www.edwards.af.mil, 

http://r2508.edwards.af.mil/, http://r2508.edwards.af.mil/maj_work_areas/chap4-1.html, 

accessed 8/5/03 through 9/15/03.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions 

Factors. EPA AP-42. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Procedures for Emission Inventory 

Preparation Volume IV: Mobile Sources.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Water-Efficient Landscaping: Preventing 

Pollution and Using Resources Wisely.

Federal Aviation Administration/U.S. Air Force. 1997. Air Quality Procedures for 

Civilian Airports and Air Force Bases.

Federal Aviation Administration. 2002. Federal Aviation Administration Certificate of 

Waiver for East Kern Airport District.

Federal Aviation Administration 2003a. http://www1.faa.gov/atpubs/PCG/INDEX.HTM, 

accessed 8/30/03. 

Federal Aviation Administration. 2003b. Federal Aviation Administration, Annual 

Consolidation of Part 95 - Subchapter F, Minimum En route IFR Altitudes Over 

Particular Routes and Intersections.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1994. Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, 

Kern County, California, Unincorporated Areas, March 2, 1994.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1995. Flood Insurance Study, Kern County, 

California, Unincorporated Areas, September 6, 1995.

Getchell, Barbie S. and John E. Atwood. 2003 (Unpublished). Cultural Resources 

Inventory of the 160-acre Runway Extension Project for the East Kern Airport District in 

the Community of Mojave, Kern County, California. PAST, Inc., prepared for EKAD, 

August.
168 February 2004

Kern County Air Pollution Control District. 1993. Rate of Progress Plan.

Kern County Air Pollution Control District. 1994a. Reasonable Further Progress Plan.

Kern County Air Pollution Control District. 1994b. Attainment Demonstration Plan.

Kern County Air Pollution Control District. 1994c. Federal Ozone Attainment 

Demonstration Plan, October.

Kern County Air Pollution Control District. 1996. Emission Baseline.

Kern County Air Pollution Control District. 1997. Emission Baseline.

Kern County Air Pollution Control District. 2000. California Clean Air Act Ozone Air 

Quality Attainment Plan.

Kern County. 1982. Kern County General Plan.

Kern County. 1996. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

Kern County. 2000. California Clean Air Act Kern County Ozone Air Quality Plan, 

November.

Kern County. 2003a. Draft Environmental Impact Report and Statement for the West 

Mojave Plan: A Habitat Conservation Plan and California Desert Conservation Area 

Plan Amendment, Volume I, U.S. Department of the Interior, May.

Kern County. 2003b. County of Kern Mojave Specific Plan, Draft Environmental Impact 

Report, June.

Kern County. 2003c. County of Kern Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Amended.

Kern County. 2003d. Environmental Noise Assessment for the Civilian Flight Test 

Center Master Plan.

Kern County. 2003e. Draft Environmental Impact Report Mojave Specific Plan, Kern 

County Planning Department. June.

Kern County. 2003f. Mojave Desert Community Response Plan, Kern County Office of 

Emergency Services. 

LOA R-2508 Complex Control Board, Edwards Air Force Base and National Test Pilot 

School. 2002. Letter of Agreement between R-2508 Complex Control Board, Edwards 

Air Force Base and National Test Pilot School.

LOA SPORT. 1994. Letter of Agreement with SPORT Radar Control Facility.
169 February 2004

LOA TRACON. 1996. Letter of Agreement with High Desert Terminal Radar Approach 

Control.

LOA TRACON. 2001. Letter of Agreement with High Desert Terminal Radar Approach 

Control.

Mapquest.com. 2003. 

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?size=big&mapdata=jZ2g%2b%2fXW8V8joO

5zAvCSBjrLct7D8%2fDfTTrL6WV3ycQ4dCdYOIAi8bIF%2b6lViHffOpgAu0ncMH8

%2bMHjyetbebGb0ZABt%2bKMS%2fEEQFNa19MTz4R4VRZZZGa9bQfXJLZ5t7qe

N%2f10y84ltafGL%2bB9DNo4olkiFy8Z6MfFglSp5BzoOMt8AyHXLUH4axI5oMnZo1

A63bKoTUPRP3b3%2bakQ%2bIOq%2bGIsOQWaK1uNTkWwNYFYFbWFXGsqox7

MK70VK9MW8NytUjZbZef40iexfHKY3mM31%2bf4KSpfp, accessed 8/30/03

Maps.com. 2003. http://www.maps.com/cgi-bin/maps/aerochart.pl, accessed 8/30/03.

Mojave Airport. 2003a. http://www.mojaveairport.com/, 

http://www.mojaveairport.com/newweb/visitor.htm, 

http://www.mojaveairport.com/newweb/runways.htm, accessed from 7/29/03 through 

9/19/03. 

Mojave Airport. 2003b. Communication from Stuart Witt, August 28, 2003.

Mojave Airport. 2003c. Mojave Airport Reusable Launch Vehicle Site License 

Application, August.

Mojave Airport. 2003d. Communication from Bob Rice, September 11, 2003.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 1997. X-33 Advanced Technology 

Demonstrator Vehicle Program, Final Environmental Impact Statement, September.

National Park Service. 2003a. National Register of Historic Places, communication from 

Heather Cushman.

National Park Service. 2003b. On-line National Park Service Database, 

http://www.cr.nps.gov/places.htm, accessed 11/2/03.

University of California at Davis. 2003. 

http://icemaps.des.ucdavis.edu/icemaps2/ICEMapInit.html, accessed 9/5/03.

U.S. Bureau of Census. 2000. 2000 Census. 

http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html, accessed 9/10/03.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982. Soil Survey of Kern 

County, California, Southeastern Part.
170 February 2004

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2003. Communication from Judy Hohman, Division 

Chief/Mojave/Great Basin Deserts, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, December 8, 2003.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2004. Communication from Judy Hohman, Division 

Chief/Mojave/Great Basin Deserts, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, January 23, 2004.

U.S. Department of the Navy. 1996. Environment Assessment FA-18 E/F Hornet Store 

Separation Testing at NAS Patuxent River, June.

Windland, Inc. 2003. www.windland.com, accessed 9/10/03.

Xprize. 2003. www.xprize.org, accessed 7/28/03.

Yahoo Maps. 2003. 

http://maps.yahoo.com/py/maps.py?Pyt=Tmap&addr=&city=Mojave&state=CA&csz=M

ojave,+CA&slt=35.052376&sln=-

118.173592&zip=&country=us&&BFKey=BFCat=&BFClient=&mag=8&cs=8&name=

&desc=&off=e&poititle=&poi=&ds=g, accessed 9/8/03. 
171 February 2004

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
172 February 2004

9. List of Preparers

This list presents the primary contributors to the technical content of this EA.

Name: Michon Washington

Affiliation: FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation

Education: MS Environmental Management and Technology

Experience: Fifteen years of NEPA related Experience

Name: Deborah Shaver 

Affiliation: ICF Consulting, FAA Contractor 

Education: BS Chemistry, MS Chemistry 

Experience: Twenty-nine years of environmental assessment management experience

Name: Pam Schanel

Affiliation: ICF Consulting, FAA Contractor

Education: BA Environmental Public Policy

Experience: Seven years of environmental assessment experience

Name: Stacey Zee

Affiliation: ICF Consulting, FAA Contractor 

Education: BS Natural Resource Management, MS Environmental Policy 

Experience: Seven years of environmental assessment experience

Name: Brian Wrenn

Affiliation: ICF Consulting, FAA Contractor

Education: BS Biology

Experience: Ten years of professional environmental experience

Name: David Goldbloom-Helzner

Affiliation: ICF Consulting, FAA Contractor 

Education: BA Chemistry, BS Engineering and Policy 

Experience: Seventeen years of experience in air quality and health and safety analyses

Name: Krystina Hawryluk

Affiliation: ICF Consulting, FAA Contractor 

Education: BS Biology

Experience: Two years of environmental assessment experience

Name: Jean Hoff 

Affiliation: ICF Consulting, FAA Contractor 

Education: BA Chemistry, MS Chemistry, MBA General Management 

Experience: Eighteen years of experience in environmental, energy, and transportation 

analyses
173 February 2004

Name: Sara Eisenstat

Affiliation: ICF Consulting, FAA Contractor 

Education: BA Environmental Science and Policy

Experience: One year of environmental assessment experience

Name: Karen Northcutt

Affiliation: Northcutt and Associates, EKAD Contractor

Education: BS Political Science

Experience: Thirty-one years of land planning and development experience
174 February 2004

10. Agencies Contacted
175 February 2004
176 February 2004
177 February 2004
178 February 2004
179 February 2004
180 February 2004
181 February 2004
182 February 2004
183 February 2004
184 February 2004
185 February 2004
186 February 2004
187 February 2004
188 February 2004
189 February 2004

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
190 February 2004
191 February 2004
192 February 2004
193 February 2004
194 February 2004

11. Distribution List

State Clearinghouse

Mr. Terry Roberts

Office of Planning and Research

State Clearinghouse

1400 Tenth Street, Room 222

Sacramento, CA 95812

Libraries

Edwards AFB Base Library

95 SPTG/SVMG

5 West Yeager Blvd.

Building 2665

Edwards AFB, CA 93524-1295

Kern County Library

Boron Branch

26967 20 Mule Team Road

Boron, CA 93516

Kern County Library

California City Branch

9507 California City Boulevard

California City, CA 93505

Kern County Library

Mojave Branch

16916-1/2 Highway 14

Mojave, CA 93501

Kern County Library

Tehachapi Branch

450 West F Street

Tehachapi, CA 93561

Kern River Valley Library

7054 Lake Isabella Boulevard

Lake Isabella, CA 93240

Attn: Karen Leifeld, Branch Supervisor
195 February 2004

Kern River Valley Library

Wanda Kirk Brand (Rosamond)

3611 Rosamond Boulevard

Rosamond, CA 93560

Palmdale City Library

700 E. Palmdale Boulevard

Palmdale, CA 93550

Federal Agencies

Don L. Klima, Director Office of Federal Programs 

U.S. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 803

Washington, DC 20004

Debra Trindle

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management (ATA-9)

Military Liaison 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington DC 20591

Charles Lieber

Federal Aviation Administration

Western Pacific Region

Airspace Management Branch

1500 Aviation Boulevard

Lawndale, CA 90261

David Kessler

FAA Western Pacific Region

PO Box 92007

1500 Aviation Blvd

Hawthorne, CA 90261

Matt McMillan

FAA Office of Environment and Energy

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

Keith Dyas

Edwards Air Force Base

AFFTC/EM

1 S. Rosamond Blvd.

Edwards AFB, CA 93524
196 February 2004

Dwight Deakin

Edwards Air Force Base

AFFTC/XPX

1 S. Rosamond Blvd.

Edwards AFB, CA 93524

China Lake Naval Weapons Center

Commanding Office (83KBOOD)

Naval Air Weapons Station

China Lake, CA 93555-6001

D. Bambi Kraus

President

National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (NATHPO) 

P.O. Box 19189

Washington, DC 20036-9189

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Endangered Species Program

4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420

Arlington, VA 22203

Judy Hohman

Division Chief, Mojave Desert/Great Basin

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Ventura Field Office

2493 Portola Road, Suite B

Ventura, CA 93003

U.S. Department of Interior 

Bureau of Land Management

Ridgecrest Field Office

300 South Richmond Road

Ridgecrest, CA 93555

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region IX Office 

75 Hawthorn Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

San Joaquin Valley Branch Chief

2800 Cottage Way #W-2605

Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
197 February 2004

Congressional Delegation

U.S. Senate

The Honorable Barbara Boxer

112 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Diane Feinstein

331 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

U.S. House of Representatives

Cal Dooley – 20th District

1201 Longworth HOB

Washington, DC 20515

Devin Nunes – 21st District

1017 Longworth HOB

Washington, DC 20515

Williams M. Thomas

2208 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

State of California Officials

Governor’s Office

The Honorable Arnold Schwarzeneggar

Governor of California

State Capital Building

Sacramento, CA 95814

California State Senate

Charles Poochigian – 14th District

State Capitol, Room 5087

Sacramento, CA 95814

Dean Florez – 16th District

State Capitol, Room 4090

Sacramento, CA 95814

William J. “Pete” Knight – 17th District

State Capitol, Room 5082 

Sacramento, CA 95814
198 February 2004

California State Assembly

Nicole M. Parra – 30th District

State Capitol

P.O. Box 942849

Sacramento, CA 94249

Kevin McCarthy – 32nd District

State Capitol, Room 4116

Sacramento, CA 94249

Bill Maze – 34th District

State Capitol, Room 2002

Sacramento, CA 94249

California State Agency

David Cohen

California Department of Transportation

Division of Aeronautics

1120 N Street, MS#40

Sacramento, CA 95814

Carolyn Yee

California Department of Transportation/District 9

500 South Main Street

Bishop, CA 93514

Local Agencies

Stuart Witt, General Manager

East Kern Airport District

1434 Flight Line

Mojave, CA 93501

California City Planning

21000 Hacienda Boulevard

California City, CA 93515

City of Tehachapi

115 South Robinson Street

Tehachapi, CA 93561-1722
199 February 2004

Los Angeles County

Department of Regional Planning

320 West Temple Street, Room 1390

Los Angeles, CA 90012

San Bernardino County

Office of Planning

385 North Arrowhead Ave, 3rd Floor

San Bernardino, CA 92415

Kern County Airport

1401 Skyway Drive

Suite 220

Bakersfield, CA 93308

Kern County Air Pollution Control District

2700 M Street, Suite 302

Bakersfield, CA 93301

Kern County Administrative Officer

1115 Truxtun Avenue

Fifth Floor

Bakersfield, CA 93301

Kern County Engineering & Survey Svs/Floodplain

2700 M Street, Suite 570

Bakersfield, CA 93301

Kern County Environmental Health Services Department

2700 M Street, Suite 300

Bakersfield, CA 93301

Kern County Fire Department

2700 M Street

Bakersfield, CA 93301

Kern County Sheriff’s Department

1350 Norris Road

Bakersfield, CA 93308

Kern County Roads Department

2700 M Street, Suite 400 

Bakersfield, CA 93301
200 February 2004

Kern County Waste Management Department

2700 M Street, Suite 500

Bakersfield, CA 93301

Mojave Unified School District

3500 Douglas

Mojave, CA 93501

Kern COG

1401 19th Street

Bakersfield, CA 93301

Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency

6500 West Avenue N

Palmdale, CA 93551

Mojave Public Utility Distric t

15844 K Street

Mojave, CA 93501

National Audubon Society

711 University Ave

Sacramento, CA 95825-6708

Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee

4067 Mission Inn Avenue

Riverside, CA 92501

Native American Heritage Council of Kern County

P.O. Box 1507

Bakersfield, CA 93302

Southern California Edison Planning Department

510 S. China Lake Blvd

Ridgecrest, CA 93555

Southern California Edison Planning Department

421 West J Street

Tehachapi, CA 93561

Southern California Gas Company

1510 North Chester Avenue

Bakersfield, CA 93308
201 February 2004

Southern California Gas Company

Attn David Reed, Trans. Dept.

9400 Oakdale Avenue

Chatsworth, CA 91313-6511

Southern San Joaquin Valley

Archaeological Information Center

California State University

9001 Stockdale Highway

Bakersfield, CA 93309

Kern County Planning Department

2700 M Street, Suite 100

Bakersfield, CA 93301

Mr. Don Maben, Supervisor

2nd District, Kern County

1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fifth Floor

Bakersfield, CA 93301

Mr. Jon McQuiston, Supervisor

1st District, Kern County

1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fifth Floor

Bakersfield, CA 93301
A-1 February 2004

Appendix A. Transcript from Public Hearing, Mojave, California

 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/INITIAL STUDY

 FOR THE EAST KERN AIRPORT DISTRICT

 LAUNCH SITE OPERATOR LICENSE

 FOR THE MOJAVE AIRPORT

 PUBLIC HEARING

 DATE: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2003

 MEETING TIME: 6:00 P.M.

 MEETING PLACE: MARIAH COUNTRY INN

 MOJAVE, CALIFORNIA

 Reported By: Natalie Davies, CSR No. 12311
A-2 February 2004

 2

 1 APPEARANCES

 2

 3 

 

 4 

 5 

 6

 7 The Office of Commercial MICHON WASHINGTON

 Space Transportation Environmental Specialist

 8 at the Federal Aviation

 Administration: PATRICK HOAR

 9 Engineer with the Licensing

 and Safety Division

 10

 SHELIA HELTON-INGRAM

 11 Airspace Program Manager

 12

 13 General Public Speakers: Bill Deaver

 Aleta Jackson

 14 Dick Rutan

 Doug Jones

 15 Cathy Hansen

 Michele Behrens

 16 Dan Delong

 17

 18

 19

 20

 21

 22

 23

 24

 25

 SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES (661) 631-2904
A-3 February 2004

 3

 1 MOJAVE, CALIFORNIA;

 2 WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2003; 6:00 P.M.;

 3 MARIAH COUNTRY INN

 4

 5 MS. WASHINGTON: Good evening, everyone.

 6 And welcome to the public hearing for the

 7 Draft Environmental Assessment, EA, and Initial Study for

 8 the proposed East Kern Airport District Launch Site

 9 Operator Licence for the Mojave Airport.

 10 My name is Michon Washington, and I'm an

 11 environmental specialist in the Office of Commercial

 12 Space Transportation at the Federal Aviation

 13 Administration, the FAA.

 14 I would like to introduce Patrick Hoar, who

 15 is one of our licensing and safety engineers; and

 16 Shelia Helton-Ingram, who is our airspace and air traffic

 17 manager -- program manager.

 18 And I'd like to thank you all for coming

 19 tonight. It is our goal to provide you with an overview

 20 of the proposed activities under consideration at Mojave.

 21 Come on in.

 22 The purpose of tonight's meeting is to

 23 gather comments from you on the proposed additional use

 24 of the Mojave Airport as a facility for launching and

 25 landing reusable aerospace vehicles.

 SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES (661) 631-2904
A-4 February 2004

 4

 1 We've developed a Draft Environment

 2 Assessment for the proposed operation of the launch

 3 facility and want to incorporate your thoughts and

 4 concerns on this project in our environmental analysis.

 5 We want this to be an open and collaborative process in

 6 which you will be directly involved.

 7 Our agenda tonight is on the screen to

 8 ensure that we give you a good overview of the proposed

 9 activities and solicit your comments and thoughts. We

 10 will use the following agenda for tonight's meeting.

 11 Following this short, fifteen-minute

 12 presentation, there will be a five-minute break so we can

 13 set up a record to record public statements for anyone

 14 wishing to provide one. And there are several people who

 15 have already signed up to do so.

 16 Following the public statements, myself and

 17 the FAA staff here will be available to respond to

 18 questions regarding clarification of the information

 19 that's being presented here during the presentation.

 20 At the end of this presentation, we

 21 encourage you to give a public statement. You will be

 22 allotted five minutes to do so. In order to make sure we

 23 give everyone an opportunity to speak, anyone who is

 24 interested in providing a public statement should sign up

 25 at the registration table, which is right out in the

 SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES (661) 631-2904
A-5 February 2004

 5

 1 hallway.

 2 The purpose of this meeting, again, is to

 3 gather your comments; and, therefore, we will note all of

 4 your comments. However, we will not respond directly to

 5 questions or any issues raised at this time. If you do

 6 not wish to give an oral statement, you may fill out a

 7 written statement sheet and turn that in at the

 8 registration table, as well.

 9 To ensure that your comments are adequately

 10 considered in the Final EA, they must be received no

 11 later than December the 12th. The FAA will consider all

 12 comments, whether written or oral, in prep- -- in

 13 preparation of the Final EA.

 14 As a little background, the FAA, Associate

 15 Administrative for Commercial Space Transportation is

 16 responsible for licensing U.S. commercial launches,

 17 reentries, and the operation of launch and reentry sites.

 18 The environmental review portion of the

 19 licensing process ensures that any significant impacts of

 20 commercial space launch activities on the natural and

 21 human environment are fully considered in the

 22 decision-making process.

 23 The FAA must consider protection of the

 24 public, property, the national security, the foreign

 25 policy interests of the United States. Each applicant

 SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES (661) 631-2904
A-6 February 2004

 6

 1 proposing to launch a reusable launch vehicle from

 2 Mojave Airport will need to obtain the proper FAA

 3 license.

 4 As part of the environmental review portion

 5 of the licensing process, the FAA is responsible for

 6 preparing appropriate environmental documentation, such

 7 as Environmental Assessments and Environment Impact

 8 Statements. On this project the FAA is the lead Federal

 9 agency for preparing the environmental analysis.

 10 The U.S. Air Force operates Edwards Air

 11 Force Base, which is adjacent to the Mojave Airport.

 12 Coordination and protocols already exist to permit

 13 airplanes taking off and landing at the Mojave Airport to

 14 use the airspace over Edwards Air Force Base. In

 15 addition, the U.S. Air Force uses the Mojave Airport for

 16 missions. Edwards Air Force Base is responsible for the

 17 management of the airspace that would be used by the

 18 launch vehicles proposed to be launched from Mojave.

 19 Therefore, the FAA has requested and the

 20 Air Force has agreed to participate as a cooperating

 21 agency in the preparation of the environmental analysis

 22 for this proposed action. The East Kern Airport

 23 District, or EKAD, is the lead State agency for

 24 compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act,

 25 or CEQA.

 SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES (661) 631-2904
A-7 February 2004

 7

 1 In addition to the environmental review and

 2 determination, a launch-site operator licensed applicant

 3 must complete a policy review and approval, safety review

 4 and approval, payload review and determination, and a

 5 financial responsibility determination.

 6 The policy review and approval process

 7 determines whether the information in the license

 8 application presents any issues affecting U.S. national

 9 security or foreign policy interests.

 10 The safety review and approval process

 11 determines whether an applicant can safely conduct the

 12 launch of the proposed launch vehicle and any payload.

 13 The payload review and determination

 14 establishes whether a licensed applicant or payload owner

 15 or operator has obtained all required licenses,

 16 authorizations, and permits.

 17 The financial responsibility determination

 18 ensures that all commercial licensees demonstrate

 19 financial responsibility to compensate for maximum

 20 probable loss from claims by a third party for death,

 21 bodily injury, or property damage resulting from their

 22 launch activities.

 23 These reviews must be completed prior to

 24 issuing a launch license.

 25 Licensing launches and the operation of a

 SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES (661) 631-2904
A-8 February 2004

 8

 1 launch site is a Federal action subject to the

 2 requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, or

 3 NEPA. NEPA declares a broad commitment to protect,

 4 restore, and enhance the environment and requires that

 5 Federal agencies consider the environmental consequences

 6 of their proposed actions.

 7 The FAA determined that an EA should be

 8 prepared to evaluate the potential impacts of this

 9 proposed project because the preparation of an

 10 Environmental Impact Statement did not appear to be

 11 warranted. An EA contains a detailed analysis of

 12 environmental consequences of proposed actions and

 13 reasonable alternatives as well as cumulative impacts.

 14 Before a license can be issued, the FAA

 15 will make a decision on the proposed action. No action

 16 can be taken on the proposed project until that -- until

 17 that determination is made.

 18 Because the proposed action would take

 19 place in California, it is also necessary to meet CEQA

 20 requirements. The EKAD is the lead agency for the CEQA

 21 process.

 22 This Draft EA will serve as the

 23 Initial Study for CEQA. The Initial Study is prepared to

 24 determine whether it is necessary to prepare an

 25 Environmental Impact Report or a Negative Declaration.

 SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES (661) 631-2904
A-9 February 2004

 9

 1 In this instance, EKAD is proposing to adopt a

 2 Negative Declaration. After the public review period

 3 ends on December the 12th, public comments will be

 4 incorporated into the Final EA. EKAD will meet on

 5 December the 16th to make a decision on whether or not to

 6 adopt the Negative Declaration.

 7 The FAA has prepared the Draft EA, which

 8 was released for public review on October the 31st, 2003.

 9 The Notice of Availability and Request for Comment on the

 10 Draft EA was published in the Federal Register on

 11 November the 6th, 2003. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a

 12 Negative Declaration was also released to the public for

 13 comment to meet the CEQA requirement.

 14 The FAA is now in the process of receiving

 15 information and feedback from the public, Native American

 16 groups, nonprofit entities, Federal, State, and local

 17 agencies on the proposed action and alternatives. All

 18 comments will be addressed in the Final EA, which is

 19 expected to be released in January 2004.

 20 To ensure that all relevant issues are

 21 addressed in the Final EA, comments must be received by

 22 the FAA no later than December the 12th, 2003.

 23 After considering all comments, the FAA

 24 will make a decision on the proposed action. Once the

 25 Final EA is completed, the Executive Summary will be

 SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES (661) 631-2904
A-10 February 2004

 10

 1 mailed to people who request a copy. In addition, the

 2 Final EA will be made available electronically on CD-ROM

 3 and on the FAA website for electronic download. Paper

 4 copies of the Final EA will be available for review at

 5 your local libraries and the EKAD office located at the

 6 Mojave Airport.

 7 Please note that successful completion of

 8 the environmental review process does not guarantee that

 9 a license will be issued by the FAA. The project must

 10 still meet all FAA safety, risk, and indemnification

 11 requirements.

 12 The proposed action for this

 13 Draft EA/Initial Study is for the FAA to issue a

 14 launch-site operator license to EKAD for the Mojave

 15 Airport. The Draft EA/Initial Study addresses the

 16 overall impact to the environment of the proposed

 17 operations anticipated for the five-year period

 18 encompassing the FAA's launch site operator's license.

 19 This includes the launch of horizontally launched,

 20 suborbital reusable launch vehicles, the subsequent

 21 landing of the reusable launch vehicles, and any related

 22 activities such as static engine firing, launch vehicle

 23 manufacturing, and other testing and manufacturing

 24 activities. The Draft EA/Initial Study also addresses

 25 the impacts of the launch of two specific launch vehicle

 SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES (661) 631-2904
A-11 February 2004

 11

 1 concepts.

 2 The FAA does not license the vehicle,

 3 itself, or the ground tests of rocket engines, only the

 4 launch of the vehicle and the operation of the launch

 5 site. This EA may be used as the basis for making a

 6 determination about the environmental impacts of launches

 7 of individual proposed launch vehicles from the

 8 Mojave Airport.

 9 The EKAD has identified two types of

 10 vehicles that is presented in this analysis as Concept A

 11 and Concept B, which would be typical of the vehicles

 12 that would operate from the Mojave Airport. The proposed

 13 action/preferred alternative would include launches of

 14 both Concept A and Concept B launch vehicles.

 15 Concept A vehicles include air-drop designs

 16 where two vehicles, an airplane and a launch vehicle, are

 17 mated together. The airport carries the launch vehicle

 18 to a predetermined altitude where the launch vehicle is

 19 dropped and its rocket engines ignite.

 20 Concept B vehicles include horizontally

 21 launched vehicles that use rocket power to take off from

 22 a standard aviation runway.

 23 The Draft EA/Initial Study identifies and

 24 considers reasonable alternatives to accomplish the goals

 25 of the proposed action. The range of alternatives

 SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES (661) 631-2904
A-12 February 2004

 12

 1 considered includes: the preferred alternative, the

 2 no-action alternative, and alternatives to the proposed

 3 action.

 4 For this project the no-action alternative

 5 would be for FAA to not issue a launch-site operator

 6 license to EKAD. If the FAA were to decide to implement

 7 the no-action alternative, EKAD would not be able to

 8 operate a commercial launch facility at the Airport. The

 9 Mojave Airport would continue to be available for

 10 existing aviation-related activities.

 11 The FAA considered two alternatives to the

 12 proposed action in this Draft EA/Initial Study. The

 13 first alternative would be to issue a launch-site

 14 operator license to EKAD for the operation of a facility

 15 to launch only Concept A vehicles. The second

 16 alternative would be to issue a launch-site operator

 17 license for the operation of a facility to launch only

 18 Concept B vehicles.

 19 The Region of Influence for this project

 20 would cover approximately 3800 square miles and would

 21 include portions of Kern, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino

 22 Counties. However, the Region of Influence for any one

 23 launch from the Mojave Airport would be significantly

 24 smaller and would vary based on the proposed flight path.

 25 The Region of Influence also includes parts

 SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES (661) 631-2904
A-13 February 2004

 13

 1 of Edwards Air Force Base and China Lake Naval Air

 2 Weapons Station North and South Ranges. The Region of

 3 Influence would be primarily contained within an airspace

 4 area, created by the Department of Defense and the FAA,

 5 called the Joint Service Restricted R-2508 Complex, which

 6 restricts and controls nonmilitary air traffic.

 7 The Mojave Airport is owned and operated by

 8 EKAD, a special district with an elected Board of

 9 Directors and a General Manager. The Mojave Airport was

 10 formerly a military base and is currently the largest

 11 general aviation airport in Kern County.

 12 The airport serves as a civilian test

 13 flight center, the location of the National Test Pilot

 14 School, and as a base for modifications of military jets

 15 and civilian aircraft. The Mojave Airport also includes

 16 an aircraft storage and reconditioning facility and is

 17 home to several industrial operations, such as

 18 BAE Systems, Fiberset, Scaled Composites, AVTEL, XCOR,

 19 Orbital Sciences, and General Electric.

 20 The Mojave Airport comprises an area of

 21 approximately 3,000 acres. There is open land to the

 22 north and the east and the industrial/commercial uses on

 23 the south side of the Airport.

 24 Major facilities within the Airport include

 25 the terminal and industrial areas located in the southern

 SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES (661) 631-2904
A-14 February 2004

 14

 1 portion of the airfield, hangars, offices, maintenance

 2 shop, and fuel service facilities. Rocket engine test

 3 stands are located in the northern portion of the Airport

 4 property. Aircraft parking capacity includes

 5 600 tie-downs and 60 T-hangars. The Mojave Airport also

 6 consists of three runways with associated taxiways and

 7 other support facilities.

 8 No airport modifications are currently

 9 planned to accommodate the proposed launch of the

 10 vehicles at Mojave Airport.

 11 NEPA requires that decision-makers consider

 12 environmental issues as part of their planning process.

 13 Decision-makers must know what issues need to be

 14 addressed.

 15 The FAA examined environmental impacts

 16 associated with the proposed action and alternatives,

 17 including the no-action alternative, on the resource

 18 areas listed on the screen.

 19 As I stated previously, no construction

 20 activities are planned under the proposed action, and no

 21 additional personnel would be added to the Mojave Airport

 22 to support proposed launch operations. All resource

 23 areas were found to have no impacts. In addition, no

 24 cumulative impacts would occur as a result of the

 25 proposed action.

 SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES (661) 631-2904
A-15 February 2004

 15

 1 The slide on the screen has the same

 2 information presented in one of the posters in the back

 3 of the room. Although there were no significant impacts

 4 found to any of the resource areas as a result of the

 5 proposed action, this poster summarizes potential

 6 impacts to resource areas that may be of particular

 7 interest to members of the community. I will address

 8 these resource areas in the next few slides, including

 9 air quality, noise, safety and health, and biological

 10 resources.

 11 The proposed action would cause a small

 12 increase in air emissions at the Mojave Airport generated

 13 during launch/landing operations, ground operations, and

 14 any potential accidents; however, it would not increase

 15 levels enough to require a Federal conformity analysis.

 16 None of the emissions resulting from the

 17 proposed action would expose the community of Mojave or

 18 sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant

 19 concentrations or objectionable odors beyond those fuel

 20 and exhaust odors that are already generated from airport

 21 operations.

 22 The proposed launch activities are similar

 23 to current operations at Mojave; therefore, there would

 24 be no significant changes in current noise levels. Sonic

 25 booms may occur from the proposed launches. The noise

 SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES (661) 631-2904
A-16 February 2004

 16

 1 from sonic booms would be comparable to a pile driver at

 2 a construction site. At the maximum proposed operations

 3 level, the proposed action would only produce one

 4 additional sonic boom per week.

 5 The proposed operations would not be

 6 different from current operations at the Airport;

 7 therefore, exposure to mechanical accidents would not

 8 differ significantly from the current levels. The

 9 proposed activities would result in increased vehicle

 10 traffic from launch participants, launch spectators, and

 11 increased propellant delivery trucks traveling to

 12 Mojave Airport.

 13 However, the increase in traffic would be

 14 small, and no significant increase in accidents would be

 15 expected. There is an on-site fire department at the

 16 Mojave Airport that would respond to any accidents

 17 resulting from the proposed activity. Additional

 18 off-site emergency response capability is available, if

 19 needed.

 20 The desert tortoise and the Mojave ground

 21 squirrel, which are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

 22 Service as threatened, have historically occurred through

 23 the Region of Influence. There is no critical habitat

 24 for the species designated in the Region of Influence.

 25 Because no construction activities are planned, no

 SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES (661) 631-2904
A-17 February 2004

 17

 1 substantial adverse effects, either directly or through

 2 habitat modifications, would be expected. The launch

 3 noise and sonic booms from proposed activities may elicit

 4 a startle response in wildlife in the area; however, no

 5 significant impacts or long-term adverse effects are

 6 expected.

 7 If you would like to make written comments

 8 on the material discussed at tonight's meeting or on the

 9 Draft EA/Initial Study, please fill out one of the

 10 written comment forms and drop it off at the registration

 11 table before you leave this evening.

 12 Written comments can also be faxed,

 13 e-mailed, or mailed to the FAA at the addresses listed on

 14 the screen. These addresses are also included on the

 15 comment forms. To ensure that your comments are

 16 adequately considered in the Final EA, they must be

 17 received no later than December 12th, 2003. Finally,

 18 comments can be submitted through the FAA website.

 19 Again, comments have to be received by December the 12th.

 20 We encourage you to sign up to receive a

 21 paper copy of the Executive Summary of the Final EA, when

 22 it is available, by filling out the appropriate form at

 23 the sign-in table in the hallway. Hard copies of the

 24 Final EA, again, will be made available at community

 25 libraries and at the EKAD main office at Mojave Airport.

 SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES (661) 631-2904
A-18 February 2004

 18

 1 You may also request a CD-ROM of the

 2 Final EA or download it when it is available from the FAA

 3 website, and the website is listed on the screen.

 4 If you would like to make a public

 5 statement at tonight's meeting, we encourage you to sign

 6 up at the registration table and fill out a speaker's

 7 card. Each speaker will be given five minutes to make a

 8 statement. We will record your comments through a court

 9 reporter to ensure that we accurately capture your

 10 comments.

 11 The purpose of tonight's meeting is to

 12 collect your comments and thoughts on the proposed

 13 project; and, therefore, we will not be responding

 14 directly to your comments this evening. Oral and written

 15 comments will be given equal weight in preparing the

 16 Final EA.

 17 It is important for you to understand that

 18 no decision on this project will be made tonight. Our

 19 role is to make sure that your concerns are considered in

 20 the preparation of the Environmental -- Final

 21 Environmental Assessment. Our primary function is to

 22 listen to your suggestions and concerns firsthand.

 23 At this point we'll take a five-minute

 24 break to set up for public statements. If you have not

 25 done so, please use this time to fill out a speaker's

 SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES (661) 631-2904
A-19 February 2004

 19

 1 card at the registration table. Please also note that I

 2 and my support staff will be available to answer

 3 questions immediately following the public statements.

 4 Thank you so much for coming and thank you

 5 for your time.

 6 A short, five-minute break.

 7 (Recess taken.)

 8 MS. WASHINGTON: I would like to have our

 9 first speaker to come up, please.

 10 Mr. Bill Deaver.

 11 MR. DEAVER: I intend to set a precedent by

 12 keeping it short. My name is Bill Deaver, representing

 13 the Mojave Town Council and the Mojave Chamber of

 14 Commerce. Both of these organizations have gone on

 15 record in writing to the FAA in support of this project.

 16 I'm not going to read it tonight. A copy will be filed

 17 with the record.

 18 Thank you.

 19 MS. WASHINGTON: Thank you very much,

 20 Mr. Deaver.

 21 Our second speaker, Aleta Jackson.

 22 Oh, Aleta. I'm sorry, Aleta.

 23 MS. JACKSON: Aleta Jackson, Mojave

 24 resident. I'm also a member of the Chamber of Commerce

 25 and founder of XCOR Aerospace.

 SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES (661) 631-2904
A-20 February 2004

 20

 1 I'm in favor of this, as you might imagine,

 2 because I think not only will it keep me in beans and

 3 worms, it will be a great benefit and boom to the area

 4 and to national security.

 5 Thank you.

 6 MS. WASHINGTON: Thank you very much,

 7 Ms. Jackson.

 8 Our next speaker is Mr. Dick Rutan.

 9 MR. RUTAN: My name is Dick Rutan, and I'm

 10 a -- what am I? -- the Director of -- I've just been

 11 elected to the Board of Directors for the East Kern

 12 Airport District and a longtime resident.

 13 And my comment is -- is that I would like

 14 to -- to urge AST -- before I say that -- right -- we are

 15 on the -- this is an emerging industry, a rapidly

 16 developing, exciting industry with potential that we

 17 can't even imagine. And I would urge AST to develop an

 18 attitude of cooperation and support this industry and not

 19 bury it in bureaucratic minutia.

 20 Thank you.

 21 MS. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Mr. Rutan.

 22 Our next speaker is Doug Jones.

 23 MR. JONES: I'll decline to speak. There's

 24 nothing that I really need to say.

 25 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Well, thank you,

 SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES (661) 631-2904
A-21 February 2004

 21

 1 Mr. Jones.

 2 Our next speaker is Cathy Hansen.

 3 MS. HANSEN: I'm Cathy Hansen, resident of

 4 Mojave and on the Board of Directors for the East Kern

 5 Airport District.

 6 And I just -- this is so exciting because

 7 we're just on the edge of the future, and the very idea

 8 to become the first space port is very exciting.

 9 I know that people will say, "Aren't

 10 launches usually made out over the ocean? And you're so

 11 far inland."

 12 "Yes. That's right."

 13 And that's what makes it so exciting that

 14 the -- the spacecraft that are launched here can either

 15 launch from the ground or be dropped from another

 16 aircraft. Of course, I'm very supportive of it because

 17 we need to look to the future.

 18 I have grandchildren that will come running

 19 into the house and say, "Grandma, look what's up there."

 20 And they get very excited when they see a

 21 Burt Rutan-designed airplane. They always know it's one

 22 of Burt's airplanes. But that is the future. And I look

 23 at that excitement with these kids and think, "We need

 24 that kind of excitement as adults." So yes, I'm in favor

 25 of it.

 SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES (661) 631-2904
A-22 February 2004

 22

 1 Thank you very much for having this

 2 hearing.

 3 MS. WASHINGTON: Thank you very much,

 4 Ms. Hansen.

 5 Our next speaker is Michele Behrens.

 6 MS. BEHRENS: I yield my time to the

 7 Honorable, Mr. Dan Delong.

 8 MS. WASHINGTON: Okay. Well, then,

 9 Mr. Dan Delong, come on up.

 10 MR. DELONG: I'm Dan Delong. I've been a

 11 Mojave resident for nine years, and I think Mojave is a

 12 great place to live. The town has just lost a

 13 significant revenue source in the building of a highway

 14 bypass, and I'm looking forward to this new industry that

 15 FAA can support to bring some more jobs back to Mojave

 16 instead of drying up and blowing away.

 17 Thank you.

 18 MS. WASHINGTON: Well, this concludes our

 19 formal portion of the meeting for the evening. I'd like

 20 to, again, just thank everybody for coming out and being

 21 so enthusiastic and giving up your personal time to come

 22 out and support this project.

 23 We will be here. You can look at the

 24 posters. We'll be happy to, you know, discuss the

 25 posters with you and -- and answer any questions about

 SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES (661) 631-2904
A-23 February 2004

 23

 1 the information on the posters that we can.

 2 So thank you so much.

 3

 4 (Whereupon the public hearing was

 5 concluded.)

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

 18

 19

 20

 21

 22

 23

 24

 25

 SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES (661) 631-2904
A-24 February 2004

 24

 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

 ) ss.

 2 COUNTY of KERN )

 3

 4 I, Natalie Davies, a Certified Shorthand

 5 Reporter for the State of California, holding

 6 Certificate No. 12311, do hereby certify that I was

 7 present and reported in stenotypy all the proceedings in

 8 the foregoing-entitled matter; and I further certify that

 9 the foregoing is a full, true and correct statement of

 10 such proceedings and a full, true and correct transcript

 11 of my stenotype notes thereof.

 12

 13

 14 Dated this 23rd day of December, 2003, at

 15 California City, California.

 16

 17

 18

 19

 20

 21 ___________________________________

 Natalie Davies, CSR No. 12311

 22

 23

 24

 25

 SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES (661) 631-2904

Original Signed
B-1 February 2004

Appendix B. 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 

East Kern Airport District Launch Site Operator License for the Mojave Airport. The 

Mojave Airport would serve as an alternative location to Federal facilities or other 

commercial sites for launching horizontally launched, suborbital vehicles. The Mojave 

Airport already serves as a location to test aircraft and this would allow the EKAD to 

offer the Mojave Airport to existing customers wishing to conduct launch operations. 

These operations may include for-profit launch services. For-profit launch services may 

include tourism activities, selling merchandise flown in the vehicle, or other activities. 

These types of activities would be consistent with the objectives of the Commercial 

Space Launch Act.

Comments received regarding the Draft EA during the public comment period were 

categorized into three groups of submitters: Government Agencies, Industrial

Organizations, and Public Citizens. Comments received from cooperating agencies and 

from the FAA are not included in the Comment Response Document, but were addressed 

in the Final EA. The comments were further categorized by subject matter and were each

coded into one of the following topic areas: Safety, Miscellaneous, and Editorial. 

This appendix of the Final EA for the EKAD Launch Site Operator License for the 

Mojave Airport is divided into sections based on the source of the comment. Each 

comment is addressed individually. The text provided by the commentor was not altered 

to correct for grammatical or spelling errors. Each comment was analyzed to determine 

the key topic addressed. 
B-2 February 2004

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
B-3 February 2004

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
B-4 February 2004

1.0 Robert M. Snoddy, Kern Council of Governments 
B-5 February 2004

1.1 Comment 1 [Miscellaneous] 

On page 7, you note the proposed launches may include tourism activity, and on page 

142, launch spectators have been calculated to equal three passenger vehicles per launch. 

Given historical interest in aviation by residents of Kern County, three spectator vehicles 

per launch would appear low. On what basis was this assumption made? Were previous 

Mojave Airport events used or a study of a similar facility?

FAA Response 1: It was assumed that each launch of a Concept A or B launch 

vehicle would add three spectator vehicles to the area. This is the expected 

average number of spectator vehicles over the life of the proposed action. The 

novel nature of these launches may initially attract more than three spectator 

vehicles, but it is expected that once these launches become routine there will be 

less spectator interest. 

1.2 Comment 2 [Editorial]

On page 74, you have referred to Kern Council of Governments as Kern Council of 

Government.

FAA Response 2: The Final EA includes the requested change.

1.3 Comment 3 [Editorial]

On page 76, you state construction for a realignment of State Route (SR) 58 was 

underway. The realignment of SR 58 has been completed and is in use. 

FAA Response 3: The Final EA includes the requested change.
B-6 February 2004

2.0 Gayle J. Rosander, State of California Department of Transportation

2.1 Comment 4 [Safety] 

Although it appears that there will be no direct impacts to state transportation facilities, 

travelers could be distracted and alarmed were they to see launched rockets. Provisions 
B-7 February 2004

should be made for notification of launch possibilities in the vicinity (public education, 

signage etc.)

FAA Response 4: As stated in section 2.1.2.3, the aircraft carrying the Concept A 

launch vehicle would take off horizontally. The launch vehicle would be released 

at an altitude between 16 to 20 kilometers (10 to 12 miles), at which point the 

rocket engine would be ignited. As stated in section 2.1.3.3, the Concept B 

launch vehicle would also take off horizontally. Although the rocket engines 

would be ignited on the ground, the vehicle would still takeoff like a traditional 

airplane. As stated in section 5.11.1, the design of Concept A and B launch 

vehicles would resemble traditional airplanes while in flight. It is not expected 

that the launch of either Concept A or Concept B launch vehicles would create a 

distraction to travelers because the area is already used for horizontal takeoffs. 

Notices to Airmen would be issued prior to all launch events, which would notify 

airmen to the areas in which the launch vehicles would be operating. 
B-8 February 2004

3.0 Bill Deaver, Mojave Town Council

3.1 Comment 5 [Miscellaneous]

FAA Response 5: Thank you for your comment.
B-9 February 2004

4.0 Terry Roberts, State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and 

Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit

4.1 Comment 6 [Miscellaneous] 

FAA Response 6: Thank you for your comment. The referenced attached 

comment is included as Comment 4 in this document. 
B-10 February 2004

5.0 Oral Comment Received from Mr. Dick Rutan, East Kern Airport District

5.1 Comment 7 [Miscellaneous]

My name is Dick Rutan, and I'm a -- what am I? -- the Director of -- I've just been elected 

to the Board of Directors for the East Kern Airport District and a long time resident. And 

my comment is -- is that I would like to -- to urge AST -- before I say that -- right -- we 

are on the -- this is an emerging industry, a rapidly developing, exciting industry with 

potential that we can't even imagine. And I would urge AST to develop an attitude of 

cooperation and support this industry and not bury it in bureaucratic minutia. 

Thank you.

FAA Response 7: Thank you for your comment. 
B-11 February 2004

6.0 Oral Comment Received from Ms. Cathy Hanson, East Kern Airport District

6.1 Comment 8 [Miscellaneous]

I'm Cathy Hansen, resident of Mojave and on the Board of Directors for the East Kern 

Airport District. And I just -- this is so exciting because we're just on the edge of the 

future, and the very idea to become the first space port is very exciting. I know that 

people will say, "Aren't launches usually made out over the ocean? And you're so far 

inland." "Yes. That's right." And that's what makes it so exciting that the -- the space 

craft that are launched here can either launch from the ground or be dropped from another 

aircraft. Of course, I'm very supportive of it because we need to look to the future. I 

have grandchildren that will come running into the house and say, "Grandma, look what's 

up there." And they get very excited when they see a Burt Rutan-designed airplane. 

They always know it's one of Burt's airplanes. But that is the future. And I look at that 

excitement with these kids and think, "We need that kind of excitement as adults." So 

yes, I'm in favor of it. Thank you very much for having this hearing.

FAA Response 8: Thank you for your comment. 
B-12 February 2004

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
B-13 February 2004

INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION
B-14 February 2004

7.0 Oral Comment Received from Ms. Aleta Jackson, XCOR Founder

7.1 Comment 9 [Miscellaneous]

Aleta Jackson, Mojave resident. I'm also a member of the Chamber of Commerce and 

founder of XCOR Aerospace. I'm in favor of this, as you might imagine, because I think 

not only will it keep me in beans and worms, it will be a great benefit and boom to the 

area and to national security.

FAA Response 9: Thank you for your comment. 
B-15 February 2004

PUBLIC CITIZENS
B-16 February 2004

8.0 Mr. John Gardner

8.1 Comment 10 [Miscellaneous]

We are 100% for the proposal. 

FAA Response 10: Thank you for your comment. 
B-17 February 2004

9.0 Mrs. Patty L. Gardner

9.1 Comment 11 [Miscellaneous]

Very excited about a Space Port. It will personally help our business and the advance of 

our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.

FAA Response 11: Thank you for your comment. 
B-18 February 2004

10.0 Mr. Marvin Clague

10.1 Comment 12 [Miscellaneous]

Due to the very small number of other locations which may qualify based on nearby 

population densities, I urge that, in case of any marginal decision factors, consideration 

be given towards approval of the Mojave site. More sites, rather than fewer sites, are 

needed so that this new area of endeavor may prosper. 

FAA Response 12: Thank you for your comment. 
B-19 February 2004

11.0 Mr. Rex Moen

11.1 Comment 13 [Miscellaneous]

Access to space for commercial vehicles is extremely important to the United States. 

Please remove obstacles to the EKAD to be a Spaceport!

FAA Response 13: Thank you for your comment. 
B-20 February 2004

12.0 Oral Comment Received from Mr. Don DeLong

12.1 Comment 14 [Miscellaneous]

I'm Dan Delong. I've been a Mojave resident for nine years, and I think Mojave is a great 

place to live. The town has just lost a significant revenue source in the building of a 

highway bypass, and I'm looking forward to this new industry that FAA can support to 

bring some more jobs back to Mojave instead of drying up and blowing away. Thank 

you.

FAA Response 14: Thank you for your comment.