Commercial Space

Transportation

Masten Space Systems

Environmental Assessment

August 2006

HQ-030206.INDD

Commercial Space

Transportation

 

This page intentionally left blank.
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Introduction 

Under the proposed action, the FAA would issue experimental permits to Masten Space Systems 

for test flights of its XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 reusable suborbital rockets. The FAA would 

issue a separate experimental permit for each suborbital rocket design. The decision to issue 

experimental permits for launch and reentries of reusable suborbital rockets by the FAA is 

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

environmental impacts associated with permitting proposed launches and reentries as required by 

NEPA. 

For the purposes of this EA, the FAA examined the environmental impacts associated with the 

launch activities of the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 reusable suborbital rockets to make an 

informed decision on whether to issue experimental permits to Masten Space Systems. If in the 

future Masten Space Systems develops plans to conduct launch activities in a manner not 

authorized by the experimental permit(s), it would have to apply to the FAA for modification of 

the permit. Application for modification to the experimental permit also would be mandatory if 

any representation contained in the permit application that is material to public health and safety 

or the safety of property, is no longer accurate or complete. 

Purpose and Need

The purpose of the proposed action is for Masten Space Systems to test its XA0.1, XA0.2, and 

XL0.1 reusable suborbital rockets. The company’s intent is to use the initial tests of the XA0.1 

and XA0.2 rockets to further refine the construction, propulsion, and flight control 

software/hardware technology of the XL0.1 rocket in preparation for the X Prize Cup 

competition and NASA’s Lunar Lander Challenge competition. The XL0.1 rocket would be 

used to demonstrate reusable vertical takeoff and vertical landing technologies for a lunar lander. 

This action is necessary for Masten Space Systems to test its reusable suborbital rockets and the 

associated technologies in preparation for the X Prize Cup competition, which is scheduled for 

October 2006 at the Las Cruces International Airport in Las Cruces, New Mexico. 

Description of the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative 

The proposed action is for the FAA to issue experimental permits to Masten Space Systems for 

test flights of its XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 reusable suborbital rockets at the Mojave Airport in 

Mojave, California. The FAA would issue a separate permit for each suborbital rocket design. 

The permits would cover launch and landing activities at the primary site shown in Exhibit 2-1. 

The proposed action includes the construction of two concrete launch pads at the primary site 

that measure 3 meters by 3 meters (10 feet by 10 feet) each. 

Pre-flight activities would consist of suborbital rocket positioning, flight control diagnostics 

checks, and propellant loading. Flight tests would consist of vertical launch, lateral travel, and 

vertical landing. Tests conducted at the Mojave Airport would not rise above 152 meters 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 ES-2 

(500 feet). The longest of these tests would last approximately 107 seconds at 100 percent 

throttle or 179 seconds at 60 percent throttle. The powered duration of the flight would be no 

more than 150 seconds; most tests would occur for no more than 60 seconds. Landing activities 

would include shut down of flight control systems and purges of remaining pressurants and 

propellants. 

An experimental permit authorizes an unlimited number of launches and landings for a particular 

reusable suborbital rocket design within a one-year period; however, Masten Space Systems has 

indicated that it would conduct the majority of its operations during a two-month period 

culminating in the X Prize Cup competition scheduled for October 2006. Therefore, this EA 

analyzes a maximum number of 50 test flights occurring during a proposed two-month period of 

operations. 

Description of Alternatives and No Action 

The FAA specifically identified two alternatives to the proposed action, which are considered in 

this EA. Under alternative 1, concrete launch/landing pad construction and flight test operations 

would occur at the secondary pad location site as shown in Exhibit 2-1. The same activities 

would occur as described for the proposed action. This EA conservatively assumes that all 50 

flight tests would be conducted using the largest of the three suborbital rockets (see Section 

2.1.2), thus the FAA did not specifically analyze alternatives and impacts associated with issuing 

a subset of experimental permits for a mix of rockets (e.g., permit one or two, but not all, of the 

reusable suborbital rockets types) because the impacts would be within the range analyzed and 

expected to produce fewer impacts. However, the FAA may decide to issue experimental 

permits to only a subset of Masten's proposed reusable suborbital rockets. 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue experimental permits to Masten Space 

Systems, and there would be no flight tests of its XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 suborbital rockets at 

the proposed site. The Mojave Airport would continue its current services as a general aviation 

airport and commercial launch site. Masten Space Systems would not be able to test the XA0.1, 

XA0.2, and XL0.1 reusable suborbital rockets and the associated technologies in preparation for 

the X Prize Cup competition from this location. 

Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Alternatives 

Analysis Methodology 

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

potential environmental effects of the proposed action, with focus on key issues. The resource 

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

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

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

The Region of Influence (ROI), which describes a region that comprises the area that could be 

affected by the proposed action or alternatives, was also considered. The environmental 

consequences associated with the proposed action, alternative 1, and the no action alternative, 

were analyzed within the ROI. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 ES-3 

Environmental Impacts 

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

presents a summary of the impacts on each resource area. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 

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

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternative 1 No A

Air Resources 

Launch operations would result in carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, and ground support operations would result in CO, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter emissions. Eastern Kern County is in non-attainment for ozone for NAAQS standards; however, air analyses show that there would be no exceedances of the NAAQS from the proposed action and a NAAQS assessment would not be required to evaluate the potential for significant air quality impacts under NEPA. Emissions would not be regionally significant (i.e., would not equal or exceed 10 percent of regional emissions inventory for the air quality control area for any criteria pollutant) and would not require a Federal conformity analysis. 

Under alternative 1, test flight operations would occur at the secondary site at Mojave Airport as shown in Exhibit 2-1. All activities would occur as described for the proposed action, and impacts on air quality would be the same as those discussed for the proposed action. 

Undealternnot ispermiSysteof the XL0.would Airpono im

Airspace 

Masten would need to coordinate with the Mojave Air Traffic Control Tower for their proposed operations. Tests conducted at the Mojave Airport would not reach heights above 152 meters (500 feet) and would occur entirely within Class E airspace. The increase in low altitude flights would not exceed the capabilities of the Mojave Air Traffic Control Tower and would not result in a significantly higher probability of in-flight mishaps. No military training routes, en route airways, jet routes or surrounding airport airspaces intersect the Mojave Airport airspace. Therefore, the proposed action would not significantly impact airspace activities. 

Under alternative 1, test flight operations would occur at the secondary site at Mojave Airport as shown in Exhibit 2-1. All activities would occur as described for the proposed action, and impacts on airspace would be the same as those discussed for the proposed action. 

Undealternnot ispermiSysteof the XL0.would Airpono chairspa
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternative 1 No A

Biological Resources 

No federally protected wetlands, riparian habitat, or other ecologically critical areas are located at the Mojave Airport; therefore no adverse effects on these areas would occur. The habitat that would be lost due to launch/landing pad construction is similar to other habitat in the area and the wildlife species that would be displaced by the activities would be able to relocate to these areas. A maximum of 50 test flights would result in infrequent short-term increases in emissions and noise as compared to existing flight operations in the region; thus impacts on biological resources would not be significant. Two state/federally protected threatened species, the Mohave ground squirrel and desert tortoise, have limited potential to occur at the Mojave Airport. If observed on the airport property, personnel would follow appropriate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) protocol. The FAA has an agreement with USFWS to conduct visual surveys of launch and landing areas prior to test flight activities as a protective measure for desert tortoises that may be within the Mojave Airport fence. 

Under alternative 1, test flight operations would occur at the secondary site at Mojave Airport as shown in Exhibit 2-1. All activities would occur as described for the proposed action, and impacts on biological resources would be the same as those discussed for the proposed action. 

Undealternnot ispermiSysteof the XL0.would Airpono imresou

Cultural Resources 

The FAA reviewed the proposed action in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and determined that this project would have no adverse effect on historic properties. No sites that are eligible or that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) exist within the Mojave Airport property, and the proposed action would not affect any sites that may be potentially eligible. No sites on the California list of State Historical Landmarks occur within the Mojave Airport, thus the proposed action would have no adverse impact on state historical resources. Because no notable Tribal cultural resources are located at the airport, adverse effects on Tribal cultural resources would not be anticipated. 

Under alternative 1, test flight operations would occur at the secondary site at Mojave Airport as shown in Exhibit 2-1. All activities would occur as described for the proposed action, and impacts on cultural resources would be the same as those discussed for the proposed action. 

Undealternnot ispermiSysteof the XL0.would Airpono imresou
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternative 1 No A

Geology and Soils 

Impacts to geology and surface soils could occur from launch pad construction, deposition of exhaust emissions from vehicle launches, deposition of residual propellant during a vehicle crash, or from spills during propellant loading. Construction would disturb 18.6 square meters (200 square feet) of ground, but the 

small size of the disturbance and the use of best management practices would mitigate any substantial erosion or loss of topsoil. The limited number of launches and the airport’s spill response plan would limit the likelihood of soil contamination or impacts on geology. Therefore, the proposed tests would not result in substantial contamination, erosion or loss of topsoil nor 

cause impacts on geology. 

Under alternative 1, test flight operations would occur at the secondary site at Mojave Airport as shown in Exhibit 2-1. All activities would occur as described for the proposed action, and impacts on geology and soils would be the same as those discussed for the proposed action. 

Undealternnot ispermiSysteof the XL0.would Airpono imsoils. 

Hazardous Materials and Waste 

Propellants would be shipped to the Mojave Airport on an asneeded basis and would not be stored at the site for extended periods of time. Propellant loading operations would occur at a designated staging area. If a spill occurs, Masten would conform to the Mojave Airport’s spill prevention control plan, which would minimize impacts to the environment. All propellants and other hazardous materials would be handled, stored, and used in compliance with all applicable regulations. Hazardous materials that would be used for the proposed action are similar to materials already handled at the Mojave Airport. The transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with operations under the proposed action would not pose a substantial hazard to the public or the environment. On site waste management capacity at the Mojave Airport is adequate to manage the quantity of hazardous waste generated by the proposed action. Masten Space Systems would adhere to standard hazardous waste management procedures that would serve to minimize releases and ensure treatment and disposal in accordance with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations and other applicable regulations. 

Under alternative 1, test flight operations would occur at the secondary site at Mojave Airport as shown in Exhibit 2-1. All activities would occur as described for the proposed action, and impacts of hazardous materials and hazardous waste management would be the same as those discussed for the proposed action. 

Undealternnot ispermiSysteof the XL0.would Airpono imhazarhazarmana
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternative 1 No A

Health and Safety 

Trained ground crew personnel would follow established standard operating procedures during propellant loading in accordance with all applicable safety regulations. Additional propellant deliveries should not materially increase the number of traffic accidents on the roadways in and around the Mojave Airport. All hazardous materials transportation would meet applicable Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations to minimize potential releases, fires, and explosions. During launch operations, Masten Space Systems would verify that all ground crew personnel and members of the public are outside of the designated safety clear zone before and during each launch. Potential health and safety impacts could occur in the unlikely event of a failure during the takeoff, mid-flight, or landing phase; however, the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 are unmanned reusable suborbital rockets and no flight personnel would be onboard the rocket. Because of these established safety mitigation measures, no significant health and safety impacts are expected. 

Under alternative 1, test flight operations would occur at the secondary site at Mojave Airport as shown in Exhibit 2-1. All activities would occur as described for the proposed action, and impacts on health and safety would be the same as those discussed for the proposed action. 

Undealternnot ispermiSysteof the XL0.would Airpono imsafety
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternative 1 No A

Land Use 

The proposed suborbital rocket testing would take place in land use zone B1, and the proposed action meets acceptable use criteria for that zone. Although vertical launches and landings are not currently conducted at Mojave Airport, the suborbital rockets are smaller, less powerful, and are expected to produce less noise than the horizontally launched vehicles that have been previously analyzed and launched from the airport. Runway 22 may need to be closed during suborbital rocket testing, but the airport would not be shut down. Therefore, there would not be a significant change in airport activities under the proposed action. All land uses and building restrictions in the primary compatibility criteria zones on the Mojave Airport would be maintained as defined in the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). 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 parks, recreational facilities, or Section 4(f) resources are located within the Mojave Airport property, and thus no impacts on these land uses and resources would be expected. 

Under alternative 1, test flight operations would occur at the secondary site at Mojave Airport as shown in Exhibit 2-1. All activities would occur as described for the proposed action, and impacts on land use would be the same as those discussed for the proposed action. 

Undealternnot ispermiSysteof the XL0.would at the would 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternative 1 No A

Noise 

It is anticipated that the noise levels produced by the launch of the XL0.1 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 engine testing, and because the additional noise level would be much lower than existing noises, impacts on noise levels during launches at the Mojave Airport 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 result in a significant permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise at or near the Mojave Airport. 

Under alternative 1, test flight operations would occur at the secondary site at Mojave Airport as shown in Exhibit 2-1. All activities would occur as described for the proposed action, and impacts on ambient noise levels would be the same as those discussed for the proposed action. 

Undealternnot ispermiSysteof the XL0.would Airpono chlevels

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 

Because no new development would be required to support the proposed action and existing personnel would be used to conduct suborbital rocket testing, it would not induce significant population growth in the Mojave census-designated place. Because the proposed action would occur entirely on airport property, no disruption to local businesses would be expected. No jobs would be created or eliminated as a result of the proposed action; therefore no impacts to employment or housing demand would be expected. Short-term noise impacts associated with 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. Effects from the proposed action are not concentrated in an area that might contain proportionally more children; thus the impacts of the proposed action on children’s health and safety should not be disproportionate as defined under Executive Order 13045. 

Under alternative 1, test flight operations would occur at the secondary site at Mojave Airport as shown in Exhibit 2-1. All activities would occur as described for the proposed action, and impacts on socioeconomics, environmental justice, and children’s health would be the same as those discussed for the proposed action 

Undealternnot ispermiSysteof the XL0.would would currenMojaThereno imsocioenvirochildr
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternative 1 No A

Transportation 

The increased road traffic that would result from transporting propellants, equipment and personnel to and from the proposed launch site would only add a few vehicles to existing traffic loads on Business SR-58. Currently, the Mojave Airport receives approximately 264 deliveries annually. (FAA, 2004) Activities under the proposed action would increase the number of deliveries by only a few shipments. The small number of additional passenger vehicles and delivery trucks anticipated as part of the proposed action would not materially increase the number of traffic accidents, increase traffic congestion, or cause a decline in the level of service of local roadways. 

Under alternative 1, test flight operations would occur at the secondary site at Mojave Airport as shown in Exhibit 2-1. All activities would occur as described for the proposed action, and impacts on transportation would be the same as those discussed for the proposed action. 

Undealternnot ispermiSysteof the XL0.would Airpono imtransp

Visual Resources 

The construction of two concrete pads under the proposed action would be similar to existing airport infrastructure and would not significantly alter the current visual landscape. Vertically oriented rocket-powered flight tests might attract and dominate the attention of a viewer in this area when compared to the horizontally launched rockets and aircraft currently in operation at the airport. In these few cases the launch itself might be “visually dominant”; however, the relatively small number of flight tests (a maximum of 50 over a two-month period) and the temporary nature of the visual change (a maximum flight time of three minutes per test) would mitigate any resulting impacts. In addition, the Mojave Airport, as an active airport and industrial site, is a low visual sensitivity area; thus the resulting impact rating for “visually dominant” intensity ratings would be adverse but not significant. Masten Space Systems has not proposed any nighttime operations at this time. 

Under alternative 1, test flight operations would occur at the secondary site at Mojave Airport as shown in Exhibit 2-1. All activities would occur as described for the proposed action, and impacts on visual resources would be the same as those discussed for the proposed action. 

Undealternnot ispermiSysteof the XL0.would Airpono imresou
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternative 1 No A

Water Resources 

Surface water bodies, wetlands, and wild and scenic rivers are not present at the Mojave Airport; therefore these resources would not be adversely impacted by proposed test flight operations. No significant impacts to ground water quality would be expected from accidental releases of propellants into the environment because they are non-toxic and rapidly biodegradable. The proposed action would not substantially deplete ground water supplies or result in any contaminant releases that would cause violations of local, state, or Federal water quality requirements. The existing storm water system and permit would be adequate for the proposed action. The Mojave Airport is not located within the 100-year flood plain or California’s coastal zone as defined in the state Coastal Zone Management Plan. The proposed action is not required to conform to the California Coastal Zone Management Plan. 

Under alternative 1, test flight operations would occur at the secondary site at Mojave Airport as shown in Exhibit 2-1. All activities would occur as described for the proposed action, and impacts on water resources would be the same as those discussed for the proposed action. 

Undealternnot ispermiSysteof the XL0.would Airpono imresou
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 ES-12 

Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Alternatives 

Cumulative impacts are “the incremental impact of the actions when added to other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or 

person undertakes such other actions.” (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1508.7) The 

cumulative impacts analysis for this EA focuses on those past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions that have the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts. These 

actions include 

 Ongoing commercial, military, and private aviation activities at the Mojave Airport, 

 Activities described as part of the proposed action, and 

 A series of up to 65 tethered flight tests of the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 reusable suborbital 

rockets. Tethered flight tests would involve the use of equipment to prevent the vehicle from 

rising above 2.1 meters (7 feet) and rocket engine firings of up to 3 minutes. These types of 

tests would not require a license or permit from the FAA. 

The proposed action has been evaluated for cumulative impacts on air quality, airspace, 

biological resources, hazardous materials, health and safety, noise, transportation, visual 

resources, and water resources. The results of this evaluation are summarized below. 

 Air Quality - The launch of up to 50 vertically launched suborbital vehicles in 2006 in 

conjunction with other aircraft operations and tethered tests at the Mojave Airport, would not 

result in emissions considered regionally significant or in excess of specific de minimis levels 

for criteria pollutants under the General Conformity Regulations (40 CFR 150 et seq.) for 

areas that are in non-attainment for Federal ambient air quality standards. Analyses of 

emissions from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions show that there 

would be no exceedances of the NAAQS for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, a NAAQS 

assessment would not be required to evaluate the potential for significant air quality impacts 

under NEPA. In addition, the cumulative impact on global warming from launches account 

for only a fraction of total U.S. CO2 emissions and would be insignificant when compared to 

emissions from other industrial sources. 

 Airspace - Cumulative airspace impacts associated with the proposed action are not 

anticipated given that coordination and scheduling procedures would be developed with the 

Mojave Airport Air Traffic Control Tower. In addition, the increase in flight activity at the 

Mojave Airport would be less than one percent, with all activities occurring below 152 

meters (500 feet). 

 Biological Resources - The cumulative noise and emissions resulting from ongoing 

commercial, military, and private aviation activities; a series of up to 65 tethered flight tests; 

and the proposed action could adversely impact biological resources. However, there are 

limited biological resources found in the ROI and those that would be affected have been 

able to tolerate the existing noise and emissions associated with an active airport. The loss of 

18.6 square meters (200 square feet) of potential wildlife habitat from the construction of two 

concrete pads would not be significant because the area supports minimal plant and wildlife 

species and is very similar to the surrounding area. Protective mitigation measures are in 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 ES-13 

place for the federally-listed, threatened desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii); therefore, 

significant cumulative impacts on threatened and endangered species are not anticipated. 

 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Wastes - Cumulative impacts from hazardous 

materials and hazardous waste management could occur as a result of increased quantities of 

propellants and hazardous materials necessary to support ongoing commercial, military, and 

private aviation activities, a series of up to 65 tethered flight tests, and the proposed action. 

Propellants and other hazardous materials would be handled, stored, and used in compliance 

with all applicable regulations, which would minimize releases and associated environmental 

impacts. The activities considered in the cumulative impacts analysis would increase the 

amount of hazardous waste generated on site; however, on site waste management capacity is 

adequate to manage this amount of waste and Masten Space Systems would not exceed the 

regulatory limit of a conditionally exempt small quantity generator. No significant 

cumulative impacts would result from the use of hazardous materials and hazardous waste 

management. 

 Health and Safety - Cumulative impacts on health and safety could occur as a result of the 

increase in the quantity of propellants handled and in the number of both tethered flight tests 

and permitted launches conducted at the Mojave Airport. Because all operations would 

follow established safety procedures, no significant cumulative impacts on health and safety 

are expected. 

 Noise - Background noise at the Mojave Airport would increase with the increased level of 

activity from the tethered flight tests and permitted launches of the XA0.1, XA0.2, and 

XL0.1 reusable suborbital rockets. During flight tests, the noise levels could potentially be 

very high, but because these test flights would occur over a two-month period and would be 

of short duration (a maximum burn time of 3 minutes), the overall impacts would be 

relatively small. The impacts of flight tests would be relatively small when compared to the 

existing high intensity noise levels due to military jet flights and stationary rocket engine 

testing at the Mojave Airport. There are no noise sensitive receptors or areas within the ROI 

at the Mojave Airport. Therefore no significant cumulative noise impacts are expected. 

 Transportation - Cumulative impacts on transportation could occur as a result of the 

increase in road traffic that would result from transporting equipment and personnel in 

support of ongoing aviation activities, the proposed action, and the tethered flight tests. The 

combined increase resulting from these activities would only add a few vehicles to the 

existing traffic load on Business SR-58. No more than two additional passenger vehicles and 

eight delivery trucks would be anticipated as part of the proposed action and tethered flight 

tests. This small number of vehicles would not materially increase the number of traffic 

accidents, increase traffic congestion, or cause a decline in the level of service of local 

roadways; therefore no significant cumulative impacts are expected. 

 Visual resources - The construction of two concrete pads under the proposed action would 

be similar to existing airport infrastructure and would not significantly alter the current visual 

landscape. Tethered flight tests and permitted launches may attract and dominate the 

attention of a viewer in this area. However, due to the tests’ low altitude, limited number 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 ES-14 

over a two-month period, and short duration (a maximum burn time of 3 minutes), no 

significant cumulative impacts on visual resources are expected. 

 Water Resources - Cumulative impacts on water resources may result from incidental spills 

and releases associated with aircraft, launch vehicle, and reusable suborbital rocket 

preparation and propellant loading activities. Masten Space Systems would operate using 

established spill prevention procedures and would be responsible for the clean up any of 

spills or releases associated with the proposed action and tethered flight tests, resulting in a 

small cumulative impact.
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 i 

Table of Contents 

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

 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.........................................................iv 

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

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

1.2 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................ 1-3 

1.3 Public Involvement .............................................................................................. 1-3 

1.4 Related Environmental Documentation...............................................................1-3 

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

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

2.1.1 Site Location ......................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1.2 Reusable Suborbital Rocket Description .............................................. 2-3 

2.1.3 Launch Activities..................................................................................2-5 

2.2 No Action Alternative..........................................................................................2-7 

2.3 Alternative 1.........................................................................................................2-7 

2.4 Alternative Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study..............................2-7 

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

3.1 Modifications at the Mojave Airport ................................................................... 3-1 

3.2 Existing Conditions..............................................................................................3-1 

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................... 4-1 

4.1 Overview..............................................................................................................4-1 

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

4.1.2 Proposed Action....................................................................................4-1 

4.1.3 Alternative 1..........................................................................................4-1 

4.1.4 No Action Alternative...........................................................................4-1 

4.2 Air Quality ...........................................................................................................4-2 

4.2.1 Approach to Analysis............................................................................4-2 

4.2.2 Air Quality Impacts from Launches .....................................................4-2 

4.2.3 Air Quality Impacts from Ground Operations......................................4-3 

4.2.4 Air Quality Impacts from Proposed Action..........................................4-4 

4.2.5 Alternative 1..........................................................................................4-6 

4.2.6 No Action Alternative...........................................................................4-7 

4.3 Airspace ...............................................................................................................4-7 

4.3.1 Approach to Analysis............................................................................4-7 

4.3.2 Proposed Action....................................................................................4-7 

4.3.3 Alternative 1..........................................................................................4-8 

4.3.4 No Action Alternative...........................................................................4-8 

4.4 Biological Resources ...........................................................................................4-8 

4.4.1 Approach to Analysis............................................................................4-8 

4.4.2 Proposed Action....................................................................................4-9 

4.4.3 Alternative 1........................................................................................4-10 

4.4.4 No Action Alternative.........................................................................4-10 

4.5 Cultural Resources.............................................................................................4-10 

4.5.1 Approach to Analysis..........................................................................4-10 

4.5.2 Proposed Action..................................................................................4-10 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 ii 

4.5.3 Alternative 1........................................................................................4-11 

4.5.4 No Action Alternative.........................................................................4-11 

4.6 Geology and Soils..............................................................................................4-11 

4.6.1 Approach to Analysis..........................................................................4-11 

4.6.2 Proposed Action..................................................................................4-11 

4.6.3 Alternative 1........................................................................................4-12 

4.6.4 No Action Alternative.........................................................................4-12 

4.7 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management.................................4-12 

4.7.1 Approach to Analysis..........................................................................4-12 

4.7.2 Proposed Action..................................................................................4-13 

4.7.3 Alternative 1........................................................................................4-14 

4.7.4 No Action Alternative.........................................................................4-14 

4.8 Health and Safety...............................................................................................4-14 

4.8.1 Approach to Analysis..........................................................................4-14 

4.8.2 Proposed Action..................................................................................4-14 

4.8.3 Alternative 1........................................................................................4-15 

4.8.4 No Action Alternative.........................................................................4-15 

4.9 Land Use ............................................................................................................ 4-16 

4.9.1 Approach to Analysis..........................................................................4-16 

4.9.2 Proposed Action..................................................................................4-16 

4.9.3 Alternative 1........................................................................................4-17 

4.9.4 No Action Alternative.........................................................................4-17 

4.10 Noise .................................................................................................................. 4-17 

4.10.1 Approach to Analysis..........................................................................4-17 

4.10.2 Proposed Action..................................................................................4-18 

4.10.3 Alternative 1........................................................................................4-19 

4.10.4 No Action Alternative.........................................................................4-19 

4.11 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice......................................................4-19 

4.11.1 Approach to Analysis..........................................................................4-19 

4.11.2 Proposed Action..................................................................................4-19 

4.11.3 Alternative 1........................................................................................4-20 

4.11.4 No Action Alternative.........................................................................4-20 

4.12 Transportation.................................................................................................... 4-21 

4.12.1 Approach to Analysis..........................................................................4-21 

4.12.2 Proposed Action..................................................................................4-21 

4.12.3 Alternative 1........................................................................................4-21 

4.12.4 No Action Alternative.........................................................................4-22 

4.13 Visual Resources................................................................................................4-22 

4.13.1 Approach to Analysis..........................................................................4-22 

4.13.2 Proposed Action..................................................................................4-23 

4.13.3 Alternative 1........................................................................................4-24 

4.13.4 No Action Alternative.........................................................................4-24 

4.14 Water Resources ................................................................................................4-24 

4.14.1 Approach to Analysis..........................................................................4-24 

4.14.2 Proposed Action..................................................................................4-24 

4.14.3 Alternative 1........................................................................................4-25 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 iii 

4.14.4 No Action Alternative.........................................................................4-25 

5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS............................................................................................. 5-1 

5.1 Air Quality ...........................................................................................................5-1 

5.2 Airspace ...............................................................................................................5-3 

5.3 Biology................................................................................................................. 5-3

5.4 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Wastes.......................................................5-3 

5.5 Health and Safety.................................................................................................5-3 

5.6 Noise .................................................................................................................... 5-4 

5.7 Transportation...................................................................................................... 5-4 

5.8 Visual Resources..................................................................................................5-4 

5.9 Water Resources ..................................................................................................5-4 

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

7 AGENCY CONSULTATION......................................................................................... 7-1 

8 SECONDARY OR INDUCED IMPACTS ..................................................................... 8-1 

9 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................... 9-1 

10 DISTRIBUTION LIST.................................................................................................. 10-1 

11 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 11-1

 

Table of Exhibits 

 

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

 ....................................................................................................................... ES-4 

Exhibit 2-1. Proposed Location of Vertically Launched Suborbital Rocket Testing at Mojave 

Airport............................................................................................................... 2-3 

Exhibit 2-2. Picture of Vertically Launched Suborbital Rocket ........................................... 2-4 

Exhibit 2-3. Engine Sizes for Proposed Reusable Suborbital Rockets.................................2-5 

Exhibit 2-4. Summary of Maximum Test Parameters for XL0.1 Suborbital Rocket ...........2-6 

Exhibit 3-1. Summary of Existing Conditions at the Mojave Airport..................................3-2 

Exhibit 4-1. Weight Fractions of Emissions from LOX and Isopropyl Alcohol Propellants4-2 

Exhibit 4-2. Total Emissions Estimated for Suborbital Rocket Launches in 2006...............4-3 

Exhibit 4-3. Total Estimated Annual Emissions from Trucks Delivering Propellants to 

Mojave Airport to Support Suborbital Rocket Launches .................................4-4 

Exhibit 4-4. Total Estimated Emissions from Delivery Trucks Required for Construction of 

Two Concrete Pads ........................................................................................... 4-4 

Exhibit 4-5. Air Emissions below 914 meters (3,000 feet) from the Proposed Action in 2006 

 ........................................................................................................................... 4-6

Exhibit 4-6. Determination of Impact Based on Visual Dominance and Visual Sensitivity..... 

 ......................................................................................................................... 4-23 

Exhibit 5-1. Cumulative Air Emissions below 914 Meters (3,000 Feet) Including the 

Proposed Action in 2006, kilograms (pounds) .................................................5-2 
 

This page intentionally left blank.
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 iv 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan 

AST Office of Commercial Space Transportation 

CDP Census- Designated Place 

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level 

CO Carbon monoxide 

CO2 Carbon dioxide 

CSLAA Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 

dB Decibels 

DoD Department of Defense 

DOT Department of Transportation 

EKAD East Kern Airport District

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act 

H2 Hydrogen 

H2O Water 

kg/hr kilograms per hour

Ldn Day-night average sound level 

LOX Liquid oxygen 

MSL Mean Sea Level 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

National Register National Register of Historic Places 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NOTAM Notice to Airmen 

NOX Nitrogen oxides 

NPL National Priorities List 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

PCC Primary Compatibility Criteria 

PM Paticulate Matter 

PM10 PM with diameter 10 microns or less 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROI Region of Influence 

SOX Sulfur oxides 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds 
 

This page intentionally left blank.
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 1-1

1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal action and is subject to review as required by NEPA. 

1.1 Background 

Masten Space Systems, a Santa Clara, California based aerospace company, proposes to conduct 

experimental flight tests of its XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 reusable suborbital rockets over the 

course of one year. This would include a series of low altitude test flights from the Mojave 

Airport in Mojave, California. The XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 reusable suborbital rockets would 

launch and land in a vertical orientation and would use liquid oxygen (LOX) and isopropyl 

alcohol as propellants. The proposed launch area is located at an active airport and spaceport 

with an existing launch site operator license. The potential environmental impacts of operating a 

launch site at the Mojave Airport in Mojave, California were analyzed in the 2004 Final 

Environmental Assessment (EA) for the East Kern Airport District (EKAD) Launch Site 

Operator License for the Mojave Airport, which is available on AST’s website at: 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/comp_coop.htm. A paper copy is available at the East Kern Airport 

District office at the Mojave Airport.1

The test flights would entail the suborbital rocket launching to a low altitude height for a period 

of 5 to 150 seconds before descent. Some of these tests would include an in-flight engine 

shutdown for a predetermined period of time, followed by an in-flight engine restart to conduct a 

slow rate of descent and an autonomous suborbital rocket landing. 

Masten Space Systems also proposes to conduct a series of tethered flight tests that would 

involve the use of equipment to prevent the vehicle from reaching a specific altitude. These 

types of tests do not require a license or permit from the FAA; therefore these activities are not 

included in the scope of the proposed action. These activities are considered as part of the 

potential cumulative impacts resulting from the action. 

 

1 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) imposes environmental analysis requirements for public 

agencies that directly undertake, support, or grant any type of permit or license for projects that may impact the 

environment in California. The February 2004 EA included a CEQA analysis because the East Kern Airport District 

(EKAD), a local public agency, was planning to undertake an activity which qualified as a project under CEQA (i.e., 

applying for a launch site operator license). The proposed action is for FAA to issue experimental permits to 

Masten Space Systems to conduct tests of reusable suborbital rockets at the Mojave Airport. EKAD would issue a 

lease to Masten triggering state CEQA requirements; however the Federal action does not involve any state agency 

activities. Thus this EA will be completed under FAA NEPA implementing regulations and EKAD will be the lead 

state agency responsible for compliance with all applicable CEQA requirements. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 1-2

Under the proposed action, the FAA would issue experimental permits to Masten Space Systems 

for test flights of its XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 reusable suborbital rockets. The FAA would 

issue an experimental permit for each suborbital rocket design. The decision to issue 

experimental permits for launch and reentries of reusable suborbital rockets by the FAA is 

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

environmental impacts associated with permitting proposed launches and reentries as required by 

NEPA. 

Under Title 49 U.S.C., Subtitle IX, Sections 70101-70121, Commercial Space Launch Activities 

Act, the FAA oversees, licenses, and regulates both launches and reentries of launch and reentry 

vehicles, and the operation of launch and reentry sites when carried out by U.S. citizens or within 

the United States. (49 U.S.C. 70104, 70105) Chapter 701 directs the FAA to exercise this 

responsibility consistent with public health and safety, safety of property, and the national 

security and foreign policy interests of the United States, and to encourage, facilitate, and 

promote commercial space launch and reentry by the private sector. (49 U.S.C. 70103, 70105) 

The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 (CSLAA) promotes the development 

of the emerging commercial space flight industry and makes the FAA responsible for regulating 

private human space flight under Chapter 701. The CSLAA establishes an experimental permit 

regime for reusable suborbital launch vehicles. Congress directed that experimental permits 

could be issued for the following purposes: 

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

techniques; 

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

 Crew training prior to obtaining a license for a launch or reentry using the design of the 

launch vehicle for which the permit would be issued. 

The CSLAA’s creation of an experimental permit regime provides the FAA with an alternative 

mechanism to regulate the launch and reentry of reusable suborbital rockets. For the purposes 

of this EA, the FAA examined the environmental impacts associated with the launch activities of 

the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 reusable suborbital rockets to make an informed decision on 

whether to issue experimental permits to Masten Space Systems. 

Testing of launch vehicles has historically been conducted at Federal launch ranges operated by 

the Department of Defense (DoD) or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA). 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 safety requirements to 

protect the public from the risks associated with launch and reentry activities. 

If in the future Masten Space Systems develops plans to conduct launch activities in a manner 

not authorized by the experimental permit, it would have to apply to the FAA for modification of 

the permit. Application for modification to the experimental permit also would be mandatory if 

any representation contained in the permit application that is material to public health and safety 

or the safety of property, is no longer accurate or complete. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 1-3

1.2 Purpose and Need 

The purpose of the proposed action is for Masten Space Systems to test its XA0.1, XA0.2, and 

XL0.1 reusable suborbital rockets. The company’s intent is to use the initial tests of the XA0.1 

and XA0.2 rockets to further refine the construction, propulsion, and flight control 

software/hardware technology of the XL0.1 rocket in preparation for the X Prize Cup 

competition and NASA’s Lunar Lander Challenge competition. The XL0.1 rocket would be 

used to demonstrate reusable vertical takeoff and vertical landing technologies for a lunar lander. 

This action is necessary for Masten Space Systems to test its reusable suborbital rockets and the 

associated technologies in preparation for the X Prize Cup competition, which is scheduled for 

October 2006 at the Las Cruces International Airport in Las Cruces, New Mexico. 

1.3 Public Involvement 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing regulations for NEPA describe the 

public involvement requirements for agencies. (40 CFR 1506.6) This EA and FONSI for the 

Masten Space Systems experimental permits were released to the public in August 2006. The 

availability of this EA was published in the Antelope Valley Press newspaper, the Bakersfield 

Californian newspaper, and the Aerotech News and Review trade journal. All requests for 

additional information or copies of the EA and FONSI should be submitted to Ms. Stacey M. 

Zee, FAA Environmental Specialist, Office of Commercial Space Transportation, 

800 Independence Ave SW, Suite 331, Washington, DC 20591; fax (202) 267-5463. All 

requests should reference “Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment.” 

1.4 Related Environmental Documentation 

The CEQ NEPA implementing regulations state that agencies shall incorporate material by 

reference when the effect will be to cut down on bulk without impeding agency and public 

review of the action. The incorporated material must be cited in the statement and its content 

briefly described. The February 2004 EA describes the site location and the affected 

environment in detail. These descriptions have not changed as a result of the proposed action 

and therefore, much of the discussion of the site and the discussion on the affected environment 

are incorporated by reference from the February 2004 EA and are summarized in this EA as 

appropriate. Other analyses that were used to develop the February 2004 EA can be found in the 

references for this EA. The list of documents incorporated by reference includes the following: 

 Department of Transportation. Final Environmental Assessment for the East Kern Airport 

District Launch Site Operator License for the Mojave Airport, February 2004. 

 Department of Transportation. Finding of No Significant Impact and Record of Decision, 

Extend Runway 12/30 and Parallel Taxiway A, for Mojave Airport, May 2005. 

 Department of Transportation. Final Environmental Assessment/Initial Study for the 3,000-

Foot Extension of Runway 12/30 at the Mojave Airport, May 2005. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 1-4

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

Programmatic EIS for Licensing Launches and the Programmatic EIS for Horizontal Launch and 

Reentry of Reentry Vehicles. 

 Department of Transportation. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Licensing Launches (PEIS LL), May 24, 2001. (Available at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/comp_coop.htm#COMPLIANCE) 

 Department of Transportation. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles, December 2005. (Available at 

http://ast.faa.gov/files/pdf/Final_FAA_PEIS_Dec_05.pdf) 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

2-1 

2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative 

The proposed action is for the FAA to issue experimental permits to Masten Space Systems for 

test flights of its XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 reusable suborbital rockets at the Mojave Airport in 

Mojave, California. The FAA would issue a separate permit for each suborbital rocket design, 

which would cover launch and landing activities at the Mojave Airport site. The permits would 

have to be modified to cover proposed operations at the Las Cruces International Airport for the 

X Prize Cup event.2 This EA is intended to provide the information and analysis required to 

fulfill the NEPA requirements for the FAA to make a determination to prepare an EIS or a 

FONSI regarding the issuance of separate experimental permits for launches of the XA0.1, 

XA0.2, and XL0.1 reusable suborbital rockets. The completion of the environmental review 

process does not guarantee that the FAA would issue experimental permits to Masten Space 

Systems. The project also must meet all FAA safety, risk, and operational area hazard 

containment requirements. 

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

anticipated for the one-year period encompassing the duration of an experimental permit. The 

activities included in this analysis are launching and landing the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 

reusable suborbital rockets at the Mojave Airport in Mojave, California. This EA conservatively 

assumes that all 50 flight-tests would be conducted using the largest of the three suborbital 

rockets (see Section 2.1.2). Therefore, FAA did not specifically analyze the impacts associated 

with issuing a subset of experimental permits for a mix of rockets (e.g., permit one or two, but 

not all, of the reusable suborbital rockets types) because the impacts would be within the range 

analyzed and expected to produce fewer impacts. However, the FAA may decide to issue 

experimental permits to only a subset of Masten's proposed reusable suborbital rockets. 

The following subsections provide background and description of the proposed action/preferred 

alternative, including proposed site location, rocket concept, and pre-flight, flight, and landing 

activities. Other sections in this chapter describe the no action alternative and alternatives 

considered but eliminated from detailed study. 

2.1.1 Site Location 

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

side of the unincorporated town of Mojave. The existing site conditions at the Mojave Airport 

are substantially the same as described in the February 2004 EA; therefore, the site description is 

incorporated by reference and this EA focuses on the aspects of the site that have changed since 

2004. 

Since February 2004 the East Kern Airport District proposed to extend runway 12/30 and 

parallel taxiway A. The potential environmental impacts of the runway extensions were 

 

2

 The environmental impacts of launch and reentry activities of the Masten Space Systems reusable suborbital 

rockets at the Las Cruces International Airport are being analyzed in the X Prize Cup EA. When completed, the EA 

will be available on the AST’s website. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

2-2 

analyzed in the Final Environmental Assessment Initial Study for 3,000-foot Extension of 

Runway 12/30 At Mojave Airport. (FAA, 2005) The FAA issued a FONSI/Record of Decision 

for the proposed modifications on May 27, 2005. The EA analyzed the extension of Runway 

12/30 296 meters (970 feet) to the north and 618 meters (2,028 feet) to the south to a total of 

3,810 meters (12,500 feet) long and 61 meters (200 feet) wide. The EA also analyzed the 

extension of Parallel taxiway A to 3,658 meters (12,000 feet) long by 23 meters (75 feet) wide. 

At the time of the publication of this EA, the construction was still underway and expected to be 

completed in July 2006. 

 

The test launches and landings of the vertically launched suborbital rockets would occur on two 

concrete pads that measure 3 meters by 3 meters (10 feet by 10 feet) each. The East Kern 

Airport District would either construct new concrete pads or place temporary concrete slabs on 

the ground during flight tests. As a conservative estimate, this EA assumes the concrete pads 

would have to be constructed, as opposed to temporary pads of the same size being brought in 

and laid down on the ground. Exhibit 2-1 presents the proposed location where the pads would 

be constructed, which is identified by a green box labeled the primary site. All necessary 

equipment and materials including the rockets and propellants would be transported by tank 

truck to and from the launch site as part of the proposed operations. Concrete for construction of 

the pads would be transported via standard concrete trucks. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

2-3 

Exhibit 2-1. Proposed Location of Vertically Launched Suborbital Rocket Testing at 

Mojave Airport 

2.1.2 Reusable Suborbital Rocket Description 

Under the proposed action, three separate vertically launched suborbital rockets, the XA0.1, 

XA0.2, and XL0.1, would be tested at the Mojave Airport. Each suborbital rocket would consist 

of a payload, avionics system, LOX tank, isopropyl alcohol tank, nitrogen tank and vernier 

module. The payload would consist of metal sheets or blocks. Ground equipment would be 

needed to support the launch and landing of the suborbital rockets. Exhibit 2-2 shows a picture 

of a vertically launched suborbital rocket. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

2-4 

Exhibit 2-2. Picture of Vertically Launched Suborbital Rocket 

The XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 suborbital rockets range in size based on the number and size of 

the engines. A phased approach is being proposed to test these suborbital rockets, from smallest 

first to largest last. For the purpose of this analysis, this EA assumes 50 flight tests would be 

conducted and that all 50 tests would be performed using the largest of the three suborbital 

rockets proposed. The XL0.1 would be the largest of the three vehicles. Using the XL0.1 as the 

basis for the analysis bounds the potential impacts of the smaller vehicles. This allows for a 

conservative analysis of the potential impacts associated with the testing and operation of the 

Masten suborbital rockets from the proposed site.

 

The XL0.1 would have eight 2,224 Newton (500 pounds-force) engines. The propulsion system 

would consist of 270 kilograms (595 pounds) of isopropyl alcohol and 445 kilograms (981 

pounds) of LOX. The XL0.1 would be 2.3 meters (7.6 feet) tall by 1.7 meters (5.5 feet) in 

diameter and its gross weight would be 1,451 kilograms (3,200 pounds) with payload and 

propellants. The medium size suborbital rocket (XA0.2) would have eight 2,224 Newton (500 

pounds-force) engines with 59 kilograms (131 pounds) of isopropyl alcohol and 86 kilograms 

(190 pounds) of LOX. The smallest suborbital rocket (XA0.1) would have four 2,224 Newton 

(500 pounds-force) engines with 59 kilograms (131 pounds) of isopropyl alcohol and 86 

kilograms (190 pounds) of LOX. Exhibit 2-3 presents a summary of the engine sizes for the 

proposed suborbital rockets. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

2-5 

Exhibit 2-3. Engine Sizes for Proposed Reusable Suborbital Rockets

Suborbital 

Rockets 

Number 

of 

Engines 

Thrust 

Newtons 

(poundsforce) 

Liquid Oxygen 

Tank Size 

kilograms (pounds) 

Isopropyl Alcohol 

Tank Size 

kilograms 

(pounds) 

XA0.1 4 2,224 (500) 86.3 (190) 59.5 (131) 

XA0.2 8 2,224 (500) 86.3 (190) 59.5 (131) 

XL0.1 8 2,224 (500) 445 (981) 270 (595) 

Testing would require the use of ground-based equipment to support the launch. Dollies and a 

forklift and/or crane would be needed to transfer the suborbital rocket from the transporter 

(typically a truck) to the launch pad. Two tank trucks would be used to transport and store the 

propellants. Six standard concrete trucks would be used to transport the concrete for 

constructing the two pads. Propellant loading of the suborbital rocket would occur at the launch 

pad and would require various plumbing and pumps. Other containers may be needed such as 

208-liter (55-gallon) fuel drums, bottles of pressurized inert gases such as helium or nitrogen, or 

liquid nitrogen bottles. Test support equipment would be limited to laptop computers and radio 

transceivers. 

2.1.3 Launch Activities 

An experimental permit authorizes an unlimited number of launches and reentries for a particular 

reusable suborbital rocket design within a one-year period; however, Masten Space Systems has 

indicated that it would conduct the majority of its operations during a two-month period 

culminating in the X Prize Cup competition scheduled to be held in October 2006. Therefore, 

this EA analyzes a maximum number of 50 test flights occurring during a proposed two-month 

period of operations. 

Masten Space Systems has also proposed a preliminary series of tethered tests to ensure proper 

functioning of the suborbital rockets before the start of the two-month period of test flights. The 

tethered tests are not included as part of this proposed action because an experimental permit is 

not required to conduct these tests. 

2.1.3.1 Pre-Flight Activities 

The concrete launch and landing pads would be constructed as part of pre-flight activities. The 

pads would each measure 3 meters by 3 meters (10 feet by 10 feet). Six tank trucks would be 

used to transport the concrete. One tank truck of isopropyl alcohol and one tank truck of LOX 

would be used to transport and store the propellants at Mojave Airport. The suborbital rockets 

would be assembled in a standard industrial building, and then transported to the launch pad. 

The suborbital rocket would be removed from the transporter and positioned at the launch pad 

using dollies, a forklift and/or crane. The suborbital rocket would be inspected for loosened 

electrical or mechanical connections or other damage. Flight control diagnostics and health 

checks would be run to ensure proper operation of electrical systems and moving parts. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

2-6 

Propellants for the suborbital rocket would be loaded at the launch pad in the following order: 

isopropyl alcohol, pressurants, and LOX. Following transfer, the loading equipment would be 

removed from the area. Standard safety precautions would be followed such as clearing the area 

of unnecessary personnel and ignition (including spark) sources. In the event of a spill, 

propellant-loading operations would be halted until the spill is properly cleaned up and has no 

reasonable chance of creating an explosion or combustion hazard during further operations. The 

Mojave Airport would not be shut down during the testing activities, which would occur during 

the daytime. However, runway 22 may be closed and a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) for 

restrictions on runway 22 would be issued. 

2.1.3.2 Flight Activities 

A ground crew trained in the operations protocol specific to the location and the mission would 

conduct test flight operations. Because the Masten suborbital rockets would be unmanned, there 

would be no flight personnel onboard the rocket. 

Tests would consist of vertical launch, lateral travel, and vertical landing. Tests conducted at the 

Mojave Airport would not rise above 152 meters (500 feet) and would remain under the control 

of the Mojave Airport Control Tower. The longest of these tests would last approximately 107 

seconds at 100 percent throttle or 179 seconds at 60 percent throttle. The powered duration of 

the flight would be no more than 150 seconds; most tests would occur for no more than 60 

seconds. Exhibit 2-4 presents a summary of the maximum test parameters that were used in the 

analysis for this EA. 

Exhibit 2-4. Summary of Maximum Test Parameters for XL0.1 Suborbital Rocket

Suborbital 

Rocket

Number 

of Tests 

Total 

Impulse 

Powered 

Duration 

Overall 

Duration 

Projected 

Altitude 

XL0.1 50 

Up to 195 

kilogramseconds 

(430 poundseconds) 

Up to 150 

seconds 

Up to 179 

seconds 

Up to 152 

meters 

(500 feet) 

The local fire department and emergency medical services would be available during flight 

operations. All personnel involved with flight operations would be equipped with personal 

protective equipment and communications equipment. 

2.1.3.3 Landing Activities 

The XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 reusable suborbital rockets would be designed to make powered, 

vertical landings. The suborbital rocket would touch down on its legs and flight control systems 

that are unnecessary to vehicle recovery would be shut down. Any remaining LOX would be 

flash boiled and vented and the LOX system purged. Next, the isopropyl alcohol system would 

be drained into a suitable container and its systems purged. Finally, the remaining pressurants 

would be vented to the atmosphere prior to moving the rocket to its transport vehicle. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

2-7 

2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue experimental permits to Masten Space 

Systems and there would be no permitted flight tests of the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 reusable 

suborbital rockets at the Mojave Airport. The Mojave Airport would continue its current 

services as a general aviation airport and a launch site for horizontally launched suborbital 

rockets. Masten Space Systems would not be able to conduct permitted launches of the XA0.1, 

XA0.2, and XL0.1 reusable suborbital rockets and the associated technologies in preparation for 

the X Prize Cup competition from this location. 

2.3 Alternative 1 

Under alternative 1, the test launches for the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 reusable suborbital 

rockets would occur at Mojave Airport from an area identified in Exhibit 2-1 as a green box 

labeled the secondary site. All other activities would remain the same as those discussed for the 

proposed action. 

2.4 Alternative Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 

An alternative location within the Mojave Airport was considered as the launch site for the 

XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 reusable suborbital rockets. Exhibit 2-1 shows the alternative site in 

an unlabeled green box near the runway. The site was eliminated from detailed study because of 

its close proximity to the runway. For safety and logistical purposes, this site is not optimal for 

test launches. Therefore, this site will not be considered any further in this document. 
 

This page intentionally left blank.
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

3-1 

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

The existing environmental conditions at the Mojave Airport are substantially the same since the 

publication of the February 2004 EA; therefore, the discussion on the affected environment is 

incorporated by reference. The February 2004 EA is available on AST’s website at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/comp_coop.htm. Section 3.1 describes the modifications to the Mojave 

Airport since February 2004, and Section 3.2 provides a summary of existing conditions in the 

region of influence (ROI) where the Masten Space Systems’ action is proposed to occur. 

The information provided serves as a baseline from which to identify and evaluate environmental 

changes resulting from the proposed action and alternatives. The affected environment is 

discussed in terms of 13 resource areas: air quality, airspace, biological resources, cultural 

resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials and hazardous waste, health and safety, land 

use, noise, socioeconomics and environmental justice, transportation, visual resources, and water 

resources. 

3.1 Modifications at the Mojave Airport 

This section describes the two modifications that have occurred at the Mojave Airport since the 

publication of the February 2004 EA. Extension of the existing runway 12/30 and parallel 

taxiway A was described in the Final Environmental Assessment Initial Study for 3,000-foot 

Extension of Runway 12/30 At Mojave Airport. (FAA, 2005) The FAA issued a FONSI/ROD for 

these changes at the Mojave Airport on May 27, 2005. Runway 12/30 is being extended to 296 

meters (970 feet) to the north and 618 meters (2,028 feet) to the south to a total of 3,810 meters 

(12,500 feet) long and 61 meters (200 feet) wide. Parallel taxiway A is being extended to 3,658 

meters (12,000 feet) long by 23 meters (75 feet) wide. At the time of the publication of this EA, 

the construction was still underway and expected to be completed in 

July 2006. 

3.2 Existing Conditions 

This section provides a summary of existing environmental conditions at the Mojave Airport as 

described in Chapter 3 of the February 2004 EA. For this analysis, the FAA determined that the 

ROI for each resource area would be limited to the Mojave Airport property boundaries. This 

determination was based on the fact that all proposed activities would occur at low altitudes 

within the airport property and under control of the Mojave Airport control tower. Exhibit 3-1 

presents the definition and existing conditions of each of the 13 resource areas in terms of this 

specific ROI. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

Exhibit 3-1. Summary of Existing Conditions at the Mojave Airport

Resource Area Definition of Resource Existing Conditions 

Air Resources 

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. 

The existing aircraft operations and tank farm at thcontribute to the condition of air quality in the regiAirport is located within the Kern County Air PollIn 2004, the District reported the following pollutalevels in tons per year: 34,168 carbon monoxide (oxides (NOX), 8,406 Volatile Organic Compounds 

Particulate Matter (PM), and 1,460 sulfur oxides (S

County is in Federal non-attainment (subpart 1) an(moderate) for ozone. The sources of pollution in are not solely responsible for exceeding the FederaOzone and ozone precursor emissions are transporJoaquin Valley Air Basin and the South Coast Air County. Several Portland cement plants in the area 

emission sources. The PM10 levels are primarily th

which is produced from high winds, dry soils and awith mining, agriculture, and construction. 

Airspace 

The FAA categorizes airspace within the U.S. as controlled or uncontrolled. Controlled airspace requires air traffic control services. 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. 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. Other classifications include special use airspace, military training routes, en route airways and jet routes, airports and airfields, and air traffic control. 

The Mojave Airport is classified as Class D airspa8.0-kilometer (4.3-nautical mile) radius of the airplevel up to 1,463 meters (4,800 feet) MSL when thservice. At all other times the airspace is classified Mojave Airport has an Air Traffic Control Tower oVisual Flight Rules services. The Mojave Airport 2508 Complex, which is airspace made up of Milit

Restricted Areas, and Air Traffic Control Assigned 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

Resource Area Definition of Resource Existing Conditions 

Biological Resources 

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. Threatened and endangered species are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) and the California Endangered Species Act. 

The Mojave Airport is situated on the western portDesert and consists largely of developed property wresources. The Mojave Specific Plan identifies the of an “urbanized, non-sensitive” area that has been 

surveyed, or subject to mitigation for sensitive spe

permanent, naturally occurring surface waters or Fwetlands at the Mojave Airport. Creosote clonal riMojave creosote scrub formation, are not present oproperty. The desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) 

threatened species in the region and may occur at t

Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic artifacts, archaeological sites, historic buildings and structures, and traditional resources (such as Native American religious sites or traditional cultural properties). 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). 

There are 22 sites in Kern County that are listed in of Historic Places (National Register) and 26 sites eligible for listing in the National Register; howevare located within the ROI. Several Native Americ

historic or cultural significance to lands in the area including the Lone Pine Paiute Shoshone, Timbish

Manuel Band, Morongo Band, 29 Palms Band, For

Chemehuevi Tribe, Colorado River Indian Tribes, 

Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada. A 2003 culreport suggested a historical resource designation fMojave Airport and the well and trash dumpsite lothe drainage detention basin. However, these sites 

proposed as eligible for listing on the National or CHistoric Places, or other cultural inventories. 

Geology and Soils 

Geology and soils are earth resources that 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 maninduced 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. 

The geology in the area consists generally of pre-T

rock types, including sedimentary, igneous, and msoil formations in the region are comprised of thickcoarse-textured alluvial sediments composed of grgranitic composition. Mojave is in one of the mosdangerous seismic regions in the United States, falZone 4 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. The csubject to flash flooding, but the Mojave Airport is of the 100-year flood plain. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

Resource Area Definition of Resource Existing Conditions 

Hazardous Materials and Waste 

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 Department of Transportation (DOT) as specified in 49 CFR. 

The largest quantities of hazardous materials at the airplane fuels. There is a bulk tank farm on site wi

storage tanks and a total storage capacity of 500,00gallons). Two grades of fuel are stocked: Jet-A anthe state fiscal year from July 2002 to June 2003, lliters (just over 2 million gallons) of fuel were delitank truck. All above ground storage tanks are mo

and the inspections are formally documented. Site formal training in fuel handling, monitoring, and eTanks have hydrocarbon leak detection systems. S

which include barrier pads, are located throughout response clean-up firm is under contract and availaweek. A limited number of other hazardous materials are operations such as aircraft maintenance and rocket hazardous materials are currently stored in approprin hangars on the Mojave Airport. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

Resource Area Definition of Resource Existing Conditions 

Health and Safety 

Health and safety considerations include any 

activities, occurrences, or operations that have the potential to affect the well-being, safety, or health of workers or members of the general public. A safety analysis is included as part of the licensing process and therefore, this analysis only considers health and safety issues as they pertain to the assessment of environmental impacts. 

For over 25 years, the Mojave Airport has had genpolicies and procedures in place for handling exploincluding rocket propellants. The Airport maintainfor all flight/landing and ground operations for prooperations and has a contingency/emergency plan materials and procedures for providing notification authorities in the event of an incident. The Kern Cissues permits for use, storage, and handling of promaterials, as required. Launch operators would coand safety/separation requirements specifically for liquid propellants. The Mojave Airport has a launcinvestigation plan that addresses operations of all ltenants and ensures that the operations of one operadversely affect the operations of other operators/talso has a fuel policy governing safety procedures operators and tenants need to comply. 

Land Use 

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.). Federal protection is afforded to Section 4(f) resources, which include publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance, or land from an historic site of national, state, or local significance as determined by the officials having jurisdiction. Prime, unique, and important farmlands are designated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) using the definitions set forth under the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). 

The three major plans that control the land use devcommunity are the County of Kern General Plan, tAirport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), anPlan. According to Kern County Zoning Map #19zoned M-2 PD (Medium Industrial, Precise Develowhich is consistent with the Mojave General Plan industry land use. Within the airport influence areland use zones, A, B1, B2, C, and D. Each zone hdevelopment, and usage specification. Mojave Airfarmland, unique farmland, farmland of statewide farmland, or designated recreational land uses. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

Resource Area Definition of Resource Existing Conditions 

Noise 

The FAA defines noise as unwanted sound that disrupts everyday activities such as communication and hearing and is generally considered annoying. Noise is measured in amplitude, frequency, and duration. Noise amplitude, or intensity, can be described in units of decibels (dB) with different noises having different frequencies. 

The Mojave Airport currently operates facilities thaviation activities, test pilot training, and research military and non-military jet aircraft and rocket ensource of noise at the Mojave Airport is aircraft ac2003d) Aircraft noise exposure occurs mainly in trunways (Runway 12-30, Runway 8-26, and Runwareas. There are no noise sensitive receptors or arethe Mojave Airport. 

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 

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. Environmental justice is defined as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Children’s health refers to the assessment of environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. 

The 2000 Census reported the population of the M

Designated Place (CDP) to be 3,836 persons, with only two percent between 1990 and 2000. Potentiapopulations may be present in the Mojave CDP beNative American or Alaska Native populations and 

Hispanic origin are “meaningfully greater” when cand U.S, populations. Additionally, the Mojave Cpercentage of the population living below the povethe annual statistical poverty threshold, as defined Environmental Quality, when compared to the stat

The 2000 Census reported a higher percentage of cage of 5 and 18 years within the Mojave CDP whenationwide distribution of the population by age. WState of California, the Mojave CDP has only a sliof children under age 5 and has a slightly lower peunder age 18. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

Resource Area Definition of Resource Existing Conditions 

Transportation 

Transportation refers to 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. 

The airport is accessed from an off ramp of SR-581.6 kilometers (1 mile) west of the end of the shareis for Airport Boulevard. The airport property is cand the majority of facilities are located approxima

mile) from the highway. The realignment of SR-58completed, is 14 kilometers (9 miles) long and is lothe Mojave Airport. The former SR-58 was redesiand is located south and west of the airport. Airpobe the Airport Boulevard exit from the redesignateTwo railroad lines are in the vicinity of the Mojave Pacific Railroad and the Burlington Northern and SThere is a railroad spur onto the airport property. 

Visual Resources 

Visual resources can be described as any naturally occurring or man-made feature that contributes to the aesthetic value of an area. Areas such as coastlines, national parks, and recreation or wilderness areas are usually considered to have high visual sensitivity. Heavily industrialized urban areas tend to be the areas of the lowest visual sensitivity. 

The Mojave Airport would be characterized as low because the site is currently an industrialized area. 

operations at the airport consist of industrial uses tsince 1935. The airport currently services approxiday from its three paved runways. At all times, maat the airport, and they can be seen from SR-58 and highways that intersect in the community of Mojav

intersect in Mojave. On the airport grounds, there 

(3,000 acres) of undeveloped land available for inddevelopment. Current light sources at the airport ion the grounds and safety lighting on the runways, overnight. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

Resource Area Definition of Resource Existing Conditions 

Water Resources 

Water resources include surface water features including lakes, rivers, wetlands, and floodplains, as well as ground water resources (aquifers). 

The Mojave Airport is located in the South Lahontwithin the Mojave Desert, one of the most arid plaNo surface water bodies are located on the Mojave Airport is located in the Antelope Valley ground wreaches from southeast Kern County to northeast LThe majority of the water supply comes from grouare recharged from precipitation that falls within ththe ground water withdrawal rates have exceeded twater conservation is a key issue. The Mojave Airflooding as a result of strong but short duration stostorm water permit to allow discharges resulting enevents. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 4-1 

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

This section describes the environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives 

on the existing natural and human environments within the ROI. This section analyzes and 

compares the potential environmental impacts from the proposed action, alternative 1, and the no 

action alternative. 

4.1 Overview 

4.1.1 Approach to Analysis 

This impact analysis discusses the impacts of implementing the proposed action or alternative 1 

as compared to the no action alternative. Impacts on each resource area are compared to the 

significance thresholds described in Appendix A of FAA Order 1050.1E to determine whether 

the applicable thresholds would be exceeded by the implementation of the proposed action or 

alternatives. 

4.1.2 Proposed Action 

The proposed action is for the FAA to issue experimental permits to Masten Space Systems for 

test flights of its XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 reusable suborbital rockets at the Mojave Airport in 

Mojave, California. The FAA would issue a separate experimental permit for each rocket 

design. The permits would cover launch and landing activities at the Mojave Airport at the 

primary site shown in Exhibit 2-1. 

4.1.3 Alternative 1 

Under alternative 1, FAA would issue experimental permits for the same test flight operations as 

described in the proposed action; however, the activities would occur at the secondary site 

launch/landing pads location as shown in Exhibit 2-1. The same activities would occur as 

described for the proposed action. 

4.1.4 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue experimental permits to Masten Space 

Systems, and there would be no permitted test flights of its XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 suborbital 

rockets at the proposed site. The Mojave Airport would continue its current services as a general 

aviation airport and a commercial launch site. Masten Space Systems would not be able to 

conduct permitted test flights of the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 reusable suborbital rockets and 

the associated technologies at this location in preparation for the X Prize Cup competition. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 4-2 

4.2 Air Quality 

4.2.1 Approach to Analysis 

Air emissions would be generated during launch/landing operations and pre- and post-flight 

ground operations. This analysis considers emissions below 914 meters (3,000 feet) because the 

proposed vehicles would not exceed that altitude. In addition, this altitude is an appropriate 

cutoff because Federal regulations use 914 meters (3,000 feet) and below for determining 

contributions of emissions to the ambient air quality and for de minimis calculations. The air 

quality at the Mojave Airport in Eastern Kern County is in Federal non-attainment (subpart 1) 

and state non-attainment (moderate) for ozone, and state non-attainment for particulate matter 

(PM) with a diameter 10 microns or less (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. 

4.2.2 Air Quality Impacts from Launches 

Air quality impacts associated with vertically launched suborbital rocket launch operations were 

examined in terms of air emissions from launch/landing operations and from routine launch 

preparation operations. The air emissions from launch operations are from the rocket motor 

firing and all occur in the troposphere. The propellants are LOX and isopropyl alcohol. Possible 

emissions would include CO, carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrogen (H2), and H2O. 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. The emission weight fractions for CO2 and H2O are listed in 

Exhibit 4-1. The only criteria pollutant emitted from the rockets would be CO, and Kern County 

is in attainment for CO. Because all CO would fully oxidize in the troposphere, emissions from 

the rockets are not expected to increase atmospheric levels of CO; however as a conservative 

estimate, the mass of CO2 produced from the emissions is also compared to the de minimis level 

for CO below. 

Exhibit 4-1. Weight Fractions of Emissions from LOX and Isopropyl Alcohol Propellants

CO2 CO H2 H2O 

0.65 -- -- 0.35 

 Source: Calculated assuming a complete stoichiometric burn 

The vertical launch vehicle tests would include vertical launch, lateral travel, and vertical 

landing. The vehicle would not rise above 152 meters (500 feet) during the testing, and therefore 

all emissions would be in the troposphere. The longest of these tests would last approximately 

107 seconds at 100 percent throttle or 179 seconds at 60 percent throttle. The powered duration 

of the flight would be no more than 150 seconds; most tests would occur for no more than 60 

seconds. To calculate the emissions during the flight, several assumptions were made. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 4-3 

 There are three proposed vertically launched suborbital rockets that range in size and number 

of engines. For the purpose of this analysis, it was assumed that all 50 tests in 2006 would be 

performed with the largest of the three suborbital rockets. 

 The propulsion system would consist of 270 kilograms (595 pounds) of isopropyl alcohol 

and 445 kilograms (981 pounds) of LOX. 

 All of the propellants would be expended during the 107-second flight. 

The total emissions for an assumed 50 suborbital rocket launches in 2006 (see Exhibit 4-2) were 

estimated as the product of the propellant use during flight (all in the troposphere) and the weight 

fractions in Exhibit 4-1. 

Exhibit 4-2. Total Emissions Estimated for Suborbital Rocket Launches in 2006

Year Number of 

Launchesa

Propellant Use Per 

Flight 

kilograms 

(pounds) 

CO2 Emissions

kilograms 

(pounds) 

H2O Emissions 

kilograms 

(pounds) 

2006 50 715 

(1,576) 

23,238 

(51,230) 

12,513 

(27,585) a

Entire flight path is below 914 meters (3,000 feet) 

4.2.3 Air Quality Impacts from Ground Operations 

Emissions from vertically launched suborbital rocket launch operations can also occur from use 

of ground support equipment. It is expected that there would be a relatively small number of 

these and therefore would have few emissions. For delivery of the propellants, it was assumed 

that 

 270 kilograms (595 pounds) isopropyl alcohol and 445 kilograms (981 pounds) of LOX 

would be needed per flight in 2006; 

 Each isopropyl alcohol 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 

 Based on these values, two trucks in 2006 would be needed to bring propellants to Mojave 

Airport to support the proposed suborbital launches. 

The truck traffic would produce emissions as shown in Exhibit 4-3. It was assumed that each 

truck trip would be 80 kilometers (50 miles). Emission rates developed for heavy-duty diesel 

powered vehicles traveling 48 kilometers (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) for hydrocarbons (Volatile Organic 

Compounds [VOCs]), 5.02 grams/kilometer (0.28 ounce/mile) for CO, 5.16 grams/kilometer 

(0.29 ounce/mile) for NOX, and 0.40 gram/kilometer (0.02 ounce/mile) for PM10. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 4-4 

Exhibit 4-3. Total Estimated Annual Emissions from Trucks Delivering Propellants to 

Mojave Airport to Support Suborbital Rocket Launches

Year Flights/year IPA 

Trucks 

LOX 

Trucks 

Total 

Trucks 

CO 

kilograms 

(pounds)

NOX

kilograms 

(pounds) 

VOC 

kilograms 

(pounds)

PM10

kilograms 

(pounds)

2006 50 1 1 2 0.80 

(1.8) 

0.83 

(1.8) 

0.13 

(0.29) 

0.064 

(0.14) 

Two concrete pads, each measuring 3 meters by 3 meters (10 feet by 10 feet) and approximately 

20 centimeters (8 inches) thick, would be constructed for the proposed launches/landings. The 

only significant air quality impacts associated with the construction of these pads would be 

emissions from cement trucks. These pads will require approximately 46 cubic meters (60 cubic 

yards) of concrete, approximately six concrete trucks loads.3

 It was conservatively assumed that 

all six trucks would be operating for 10 hours during construction of the launch pads. The 

emission factors in kilograms per hour (kg/hr) and total estimated emissions from these vehicles 

are summarized in Exhibit 4-4. Fugitive dust emissions from the construction of these pads are 

expected to be minimal because the pads would be small and require a relatively short 

construction period. Therefore no further analysis of emissions from the pad construction was 

performed. 

Exhibit 4-4. Total Estimated Emissions from Delivery Trucks Required for Construction 

of Two Concrete Pads 

Trucks Hours CO 

(kg/hr)a

VOC 

(kg/hr) a

NOX

(kg/hr) a

SOX

(kg/hr) a

CO 

kilograms 

(pounds)

VOC 

kilograms 

(pounds) 

NOX

kilograms 

(pounds)

SOX

kilograms 

(pounds)

6 10 0.81 0.08 1.89 0.20 49 

(108) 

5 

(11) 

113 

(249) 

12 

(26) 

Source: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42), Volume II - Cement trucks were classified as off 

highway trucks 

4.2.4 Air Quality Impacts from Proposed Action 

Exhibit 4-5 shows the total emissions below 914 meters (3,000 feet) for this proposed action in 

year 2006. Under Federal law, it is necessary to conduct a conformity analysis for criteria 

pollutants that do not meet Federal attainment standards. Eastern Kern County is in nonattainment for ozone for Federal attainment standards. Therefore, if ozone precursors (VOCs or 

NOX) were above certain de minimis levels per year, it would be necessary to conduct a 

conformity analysis. Air analyses as shown in Exhibit 4-5 indicate that NOX and VOC emissions 

would be 0.1 metric tons (0.1 tons) per year and 0.005 metric tons (0.006 tons) per year, 

respectively. These would not be above the de minimis level of 91 metric tons (100 tons) per 

year. Therefore, there would be no exceedances of the NAAQS from the proposed action and a 

NAAQS assessment is not required to evaluate the potential for significant air quality impacts 

 

3

 Concrete trucks typically have a capacity of 7-8 cubic meters (9-11 cubic yards) (Source: National Ready Mixed 

Concrete Association, “Ready Mix Concrete.” Accessed at: http://www.nrmca.org/aboutconcrete/howdelivered.asp) 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 4-5 

under NEPA. (FAA/USAF, 1997) Also, although the Mojave facility is located in an attainment 

area for other criteria pollutants, Exhibit 4-5 shows that total emissions from launch and truck 

operations are well below the de minimis annual emission levels for NAAQS non-attainment 

areas for all criteria pollutants. As explained in Section 4.1.1, all CO emissions from the 

launches were assumed to oxidize fully to CO2. However, to provide a conservative estimate of 

possible CO increase in the troposphere if all CO did not oxidize, the mass of CO2 emitted from 

the launches was added to the CO mass from truck emissions from Exhibit 4-5 for a total of 23.2 

metric tons (25.6 tons). This value is still well below the 91 metric ton (100 ton) de minimis 

level for CO. 

As demonstrated in Exhibit 4-5 the total emissions from the proposed action represent much less 

than 10 percent of the area’s emissions inventory for CO, NOX, VOCs, and PM. 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 existing airport 

operations (e.g., propellant, fuel and exhaust odors). 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 4-6 

Exhibit 4-5. Air Emissions below 914 meters (3,000 feet) from the Proposed Action in 2006

Emission Activities CO2 CO NOX

a VOCa PM H2O SOX

Launch, kilograms (pounds) 23,238

(51,230) -- -- -- -- 12,513 (27,585) -- 

Ground Operations,

kilograms (pounds) -- 50 (110) 

114 

(251) 

5.1 

(11) 

0.064 

(0.14) -- 12 (26) 

Total, kilograms (pounds) 23,238

(51,230)

50 

(110) 

114 

(251) 

5.1 

(11) 

0.064 

(0.14) 

12,513 

(27,585)

12 

(26) 

Total, metric tons/year 

(tons/year) 

23.2 

(25.6) 

0.05 

(0.06) 

0.1 

(0.1) 

0.005 

(0.006) 

0.0001 

(0.0001) 

12.5 

(13.8) 

0.01 

(0.01) 

Comparison Against Regulatory Threshold Screening Tests 

Test 1 - Regulatory De Minimis Thresholds, metric tons/year (tons/year)b

de minimis level – all 

non-attainment zones (for 

NOX and VOC outside 

transport region) 

-- 91 

(100) 

91 

(100) 

91 

 (100) -- -- 91 (100) 

de minimis level – all 

non-attainment zones (inside 

ozone transport region)

-- -- 91 

(100) 

45 

(50) -- -- -- 

de minimis level – moderate 

non-attainment zones -- -- -- -- 91 (100) -- -- 

de minimis level – serious 

non-attainment zones -- -- 45 (50) 

45 

(50) 

64 

(70) -- -- 

de minimis level – severe 

non-attainment zones -- -- 23 (25) 

23 

(25) -- -- -- 

de minimis level – extreme 

non-attainment zones -- -- 9 (10) 

9 

(10) -- -- -- 

Test 2 – Percent of Regional Emissionsc

Kern County Air District 

2004 emissions -- 1.6E-4 % 9.2E-4 % 6.7E-5 % 4.0E-7% -- -- 

a NOX and VOCs are not criteria pollutants, but are controlled under criteria pollutant standards because they lead 

to the formation of ozone (i.e., they are ozone precursors). 

b

All regulatory de minimis levels are shown here; however the area is not in attainment only for NOX and VOC 

under subpart 1, which designates 91 metric tons/year for each as the de minimis level. c Percent is 100 times the activities divided by the regional inventory of emissions for the Kern County Air District 

for 2004. The air district emissions were available from the California Air Resource Board (CARB, 2005). Total 

organic gas emissions are presented at VOC regional emissions. 

4.2.5 Alternative 1 

Under alternative 1, test flight operations would occur at the secondary site at Mojave Airport as 

shown in Exhibit 2-1. All activities would occur as described for the proposed action, and 

impacts to air quality would be the same as under the proposed action. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 4-7 

4.2.6 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue permits to Masten Space Systems. No 

test launches of the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 suborbital rockets would occur at the Mojave 

Airport, and there would be no impacts on air quality.

4.3 Airspace 

4.3.1 Approach to Analysis 

This airspace analysis addresses movement of aircraft and launch vehicles within the regional 

airspace of the operational area. Impacts on airspace are assessed with respect to the potential to 

cause disruption or congestion. Impacts on air traffic are analyzed to determine whether they 

lead to flight operations that could not be accommodated within established operational 

procedures and flight patterns. The impacts are assessed to determine whether the activities 

associated with the proposed suborbital launch degrade the FAA’s ability to control air traffic 

near the proposed operational area or provide necessary safety during flight operations. 

4.3.2 Proposed Action 

If a flight takes place within Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace, or within the 

boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport, the FAA requires 

that applicants complete an agreement with the responsible Air Traffic Control Tower as part of 

the permitting process. Furthermore, the speed and ascent angle for rocket launches are 

substantially different than for an aircraft; therefore additional FAA safety analyses and real time 

tracking of position and velocity are required to ensure safe operation in the National Airspace 

System. Masten would need to coordinate with the Mojave Tower for their proposed operations 

within the designated airspace. 

No significant impacts to Mojave Airport airspace would occur as a result of the proposed action. 

Under the proposed action, a maximum of 50 launches would be conducted in the two months 

prior to the X Prize Cup in October 2006. As of 2003, the Mojave Airport averaged 18,301 

flights per year and was operating at only three percent capacity. (FAA, 2004) Although the 

number of flights at the Mojave Airport has increased since 2003, the airport still operates at a 

fraction of maximum capacity. An additional 50 launches per year would represent an increase 

in activity of less than one percent. 

Furthermore, tests conducted at the Mojave Airport would not rise above 152 meters (500 feet), 

and would occur entirely within Class E airspace. The longest of these tests would last 

approximately 107 seconds at 100 percent throttle or 179 seconds at 60 percent throttle. The 

increase in low altitude flights would not exceed the capabilities of the Mojave Air Traffic 

Control Tower and would not result in a significantly higher probability of in-flight mishaps. No 

military training routes, en route airways, jet routes or surrounding airport airspaces intersect the 

Mojave Airport airspace. Therefore, the proposed action would not significantly change airspace 

activities. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 4-8 

4.3.3 Alternative 1 

Under alternative 1, test flight operations would occur at the secondary site at Mojave Airport as 

shown in Exhibit 2-1. All activities would occur as described for the proposed action, and 

impacts on airspace would be the same as those discussed for the proposed action. 

4.3.4 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue permits to Masten Space Systems. No 

test launches of the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 suborbital rockets would occur at the Mojave 

Airport, and there would be no impacts on airspace. 

4.4 Biological Resources 

4.4.1 Approach to Analysis 

The FAA evaluated the severity of an impact to biological resources by considering a variety of 

factors to aid in defining the severity of impact, including the following: 

 Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to wetlands, wild and scenic 

rivers, or ecologically critical areas, 

 The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or 

its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

and

 Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, state, or local law or requirements 

imposed for biological resources. 

Impacts on 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 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) or U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (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 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. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 4-9 

4.4.2 Proposed Action 

Activities under the proposed action that could potentially impact biological resources include 

launch pad construction and a maximum of 50 launches of suborbital rockets. No federally 

protected wetlands or other ecologically critical areas are located at the Mojave Airport; 

therefore adverse effects to these areas would not occur. 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. 

Launch and landing activities would occur on two concrete pads, each covering a 3 meters by 3 

meters (10 feet by 10 feet) area at the Mojave Airport. This habitat supports a minimal number 

of wildlife and plant species. The habitat that would be lost due to pad construction activities is 

similar to other habitat in the area and the wildlife species that would be displaced by the 

activities would be able to relocate to these areas. 

Noise during test flights may startle wildlife and temporarily disrupt their activities (e.g., 

feeding/foraging, breeding, or resting). However, emissions and noise levels from the proposed 

action would be significantly less than those produced by existing aircraft in the region. A 

maximum of 50 test flights would result in infrequent short-term increases in emissions and 

noise as compared to existing flight operations in the region, and thus impacts on biological 

resources would not be significant. 

The Mohave ground squirrel (Spermophilus mohavensis), a California state-listed threatened 

species, has historically occurred throughout the community of Mojave. There have been no 

documented occurrences of this species at the Mojave Airport and the airport property does not 

contain designated critical habitat. (FAA, 2004) The preferred habitats of the Mohave ground 

squirrel—creosote scrub, saltbush, and/or Joshua tree woodland—do not occur within the airport 

property. If individuals are observed on the airport property, personnel would follow appropriate 

USFWS and CDFG protocol. Due to the urbanized nature of the site, limited potential for 

species occurrence and compliance with USFWS and CDFG protocol, no adverse effects on the 

Mohave ground squirrel are anticipated. 

The desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), a USFWS federally-listed, threatened wildlife species, 

has limited potential to occur at the Mojave Airport. Critical habitat for the tortoise has been 

designated in portions of Kern County, but not within the airport property. (FAA, 2004) As the 

result of consultation for the February 2004 EA, the USFWS requested that the FAA conduct 

visual surveys of the runway prior to take-off and landing of suborbital vehicles as a protective 

measure for desert tortoise that may be within the Mojave Airport fence. If a desert tortoise were 

discovered at the airport, personnel would follow appropriate USFWS and CDFG protocols. On 

May 31, 2006, the FAA contacted the USFWS to propose the same protective measure for the 

desert tortoise under the proposed action in this EA. Visual surveys of the launch and landing 

area would be conducted prior to test flights. 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 Appendix 

A of this EA. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 4-10 

4.4.3 Alternative 1 

Under alternative 1, test flight operations would occur at the secondary site at Mojave Airport as 

shown in Exhibit 2-1. All activities would occur as described for the proposed action, and 

impacts on biological resources would be the same as those discussed for the proposed action. 

4.4.4 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue a permit to Masten Space Systems. No 

test launches of the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 suborbital rockets would occur at the Mojave 

Airport, and there would be no impacts on biological resources. 

4.5 Cultural Resources 

4.5.1 Approach to Analysis 

The FAA considered the following factors when evaluating the severity of impacts from the 

proposed action and alternatives on cultural resources: 

 Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural 

resources; 

 The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or 

objects listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register or may cause loss or 

destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources; and 

 Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, state, or local law or requirements 

imposed for cultural resources. 

4.5.2 Proposed Action 

The FAA reviewed the proposed action in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act and determined that this project would have no adverse effect on historic 

properties. No sites that are eligible or that are listed on the National Register exist within the 

Mojave Airport property, and the proposed action would not affect any sites that may be 

potentially eligible. The FAA made this determination based on the fact that no cultural 

resources within the airport property meet the criteria of 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1). If cultural 

resources were identified during the construction of the launch and landing pads, appropriate 

authorities would be contacted and construction would cease. 

There are 21 sites listed on the National Register for Kern County, California. (NRHP, 2006) 

Because there are no sites listed or eligible for listing on the National Register within the 

community of Mojave, and because all activities associated with the proposed action would 

occur within the airport property, no adverse effects on National Register sites would be 

anticipated. The California list of State Historical Landmarks identifies 42 sites in Kern County. 

(California Resources Agency, 2006) Because none of the listed sites occur within the Mojave 

Airport, the proposed action would have no adverse impact on state historical resources. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 4-11 

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. A 

search of the Native American Consultation Database and previous environmental assessments 

of Kern County yielded several Native American tribes that may attach historic or cultural 

significance to lands in the area of the Mojave Airport. (National Park Service, 2006; FAA, 

2004) These tribes include the Lone Pine Paiute Shoshone, Timbisha Shoshone, San Manuel 

Band, Morongo Band, 29 Palms Band, Fort Mojave Tribe, Chemehuevi Tribe, Colorado River 

Indian Tribes, and Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada. Because no notable 

Tribal cultural resources are located at the airport, adverse effects on Tribal cultural resources 

would not be anticipated. 

4.5.3 Alternative 1 

Under alternative 1, test flight operations would occur at the secondary site at Mojave Airport as 

shown in Exhibit 2-1. All activities would occur as described for the proposed action, and 

impacts on cultural resources would be the same as those discussed for the proposed action. 

4.5.4 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue permits to Masten Space Systems. No 

test launches of the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 suborbital rockets would occur at the Mojave 

Airport, and there would be no impacts on cultural resources. 

4.6 Geology and Soils 

4.6.1 Approach to Analysis 

Impacts on 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. 

4.6.2 Proposed Action 

Activities under the proposed action that could potentially impact geology and soils include 

launch pad construction and the use of hazardous materials. Launch and landing activities would 

occur on two concrete pads measuring 3 meters by 3 meters (10 feet by 10 feet) at Mojave 

Airport. The terrain in the proposed operational area is flat and the construction activities would 

not alter existing drainage patterns. No significant impacts from erosion, loss of topsoil, or 

sediment runoff would be anticipated. Best management practices would be used to minimize 

any erosion or sediment changes from the construction of the concrete launch and landing pads. 

Operations under the proposed action would involve the use of hazardous materials with the 

potential for leaks and spills (e.g., propellants, lubricants, solvents). The risk of contamination 

from these hazardous materials would be properly addressed (as outlined in Section 4.7) and 

therefore would not be expected to exceed the applicable threshold of significance. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 4-12 

The proposed action would not affect the subsurface geology of the area, and would not result in 

exposure of individuals or structures to potential adverse effects from seismic activity, but has 

the potential to impact surface soils. These impacts would occur from deposition of exhaust 

emissions from vehicle launches, from deposition of residual propellant during a vehicle crash, 

or from propellant spills during propellant loading. 

The deposition of exhaust emissions during vehicle launch would not result in substantial 

contamination, erosion, or loss of topsoil. The LOX/isopropyl alcohol propellants would not 

result in substantial contamination, erosion, or loss of topsoil. The breakup of the XA0.1, 

XA0.2, or XL0.1 suborbital rockets during a crash and subsequent recovery activities could 

directly impact soils. The force associated with falling debris could create impact craters, which, 

depending on the force of the impact, might impact soils. In addition, any residual propellant in 

the damaged launch vehicle could be absorbed by soils at the impact site, affecting overall soil 

quality. In the event of an accident, Masten would implement the Mojave Airport’s launch site 

accident investigation plan. Because the probability of a crash would be very low and the 

cleanup of reportable quantities of hazardous materials released is required under CERCLA, 

debris or residual propellant would not be expected to result in substantial contamination, erosion 

or loss of topsoil. 

Launches would require shipments of propellants, temporary storage of those propellants, and 

transfer to the launch vehicles. There is a potential for leaks or spills during any of these 

operations, but the limited number of launches and the Mojave Airport’s Spill Prevention 

Control and Countermeasures Plan would limit the likelihood of soil contamination. In 

substantial quantities this would cause the surface soil to become contaminated. However, 

launch activities would comply with all applicable Federal and state regulations governing 

propellant storage and waste disposal, which would reduce the likelihood of soil contamination 

occurring. Therefore, the impacts on soil would not result in substantial contamination, erosion 

or loss of topsoil. 

4.6.3 Alternative 1 

Under alternative 1, test flight operations would occur at the secondary site at Mojave Airport as 

shown in Exhibit 2-1. All activities would occur as described for the proposed action, and 

impacts on geology and soils would be the same as those discussed for the proposed action. 

4.6.4 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue permits to Masten Space Systems. No 

test launches of the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 suborbital rockets would occur at the Mojave 

Airport, and there would be no impacts on geology and soils.

4.7 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management 

4.7.1 Approach to Analysis 

Through FAA Order 1050.1 E, the FAA has determined that a proposed action would have 

significant impacts from hazardous materials and hazardous waste if 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 4-13 

 The action would not meet the applicable local, state, Tribal, or Federal laws and regulations 

on hazardous waste management, or 

 The action would involve property listed or potentially listed on the National Priorities List 

(NPL) established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in accordance with 

CERCLA [42 U.S.C. 9601-9675]. 

If the action must involve NPL or otherwise contaminated properties, the FAA allows for 

mitigating impacts to levels below significance through actions such as siting on “clean” grounds 

within the boundary of the NPL site, or enacting procedures to minimize contaminant releases 

and hazardous materials exposure. 

4.7.2 Proposed Action 

The primary hazardous materials used in support of test flights at the proposed launch site would 

be propellants. The XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 reusable suborbital rockets are fueled by 

isopropyl alcohol, a non-toxic liquid alcohol fuel, with hazardous characteristics similar to the jet 

fuels currently used and stored without adverse impact at the Mojave Airport. The rockets’ 

oxidizer is LOX, a non-toxic cryogenic liquid. Fuel and oxidizer would be kept in separate, 

secured containers during transport using two separate tank trucks. Propellants would be shipped 

to the Mojave Airport on an as-needed basis. Propellants would be stored at the proposed launch 

site, but not for extended periods of time.

Propellant loading operations would occur at the launch pad. Should a spill occur, Masten would 

implement the Mojave Airport’s spill prevention control plan, which would minimize impacts to 

the environment. Masten Space Systems personnel would be responsible for any necessary 

cleanup and remediation actions following a spill. 

In addition to propellants, it is anticipated that minor amounts of other hazardous materials, such 

as oils, lubricants, and solvents, would be used. No adverse impacts would be anticipated from 

these additional hazardous materials. All propellants and other hazardous materials would be 

handled, stored, and used in compliance with all applicable regulations. Hazardous materials 

that would be used under the proposed action are similar to materials already handled at the 

Mojave Airport. The transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with 

operations under the proposed action would not pose a substantial hazard to the public or the 

environment. 

Hazardous wastes generated under the proposed action include remaining isopropyl alcohol not 

consumed during launch and landing operations. The amount of remaining isopropyl alcohol for 

the maximum of 50 flight tests is not expected to exceed the regulatory limit of a conditionally 

exempt small quantity generator. To qualify as a small quantity generator, a business must 

generate less than 102 liters (27 gallons) or 100 kilograms (220 pounds) of hazardous waste per 

month. (Kern County Waste Management Department, 2006) The isopropyl alcohol waste 

would be treated and disposed of in accordance with RCRA regulations and other applicable 

regulations at the Kern County Special Waste Facility Eastern Region located at the Mojave 

Airport. On site waste management capacity at the Mojave Airport is adequate to manage this 

amount of waste and adherence to standard hazardous waste management procedures would 

minimize releases. Therefore, impacts associated with hazardous waste management would not 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 4-14 

be significant. The proposed launch site would not involve property listed or potentially listed 

on the NPL. Overall, there would be no significant impacts anticipated from hazardous material 

use or hazardous waste management that would exceed the threshold of significance described in 

FAA Order 1050.1E, Appendix A, Section 10. 

4.7.3 Alternative 1 

Under alternative 1, test flight operations would occur at the secondary site at Mojave Airport as 

shown in Exhibit 2-1. All activities would occur as described for the proposed action, and 

impacts from hazardous materials and hazardous waste management would be the same as 

discussed for the proposed action. 

4.7.4 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue permits to Masten Space Systems. No 

test launches of the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 suborbital rockets would occur at the Mojave 

Airport, and there would be no impacts from hazardous materials and hazardous waste 

management. 

4.8 Health and Safety 

4.8.1 Approach to Analysis 

Public safety impacts of Masten Space Systems’ activities at the Mojave Airport are assessed to 

determine if launch operations personnel or members of the general public are substantially 

endangered as a result of these activities. 

As described in FAA’s Guidelines for Experimental Permits for Reusable Suborbital Rockets, 

experimental permit applicants are required to perform a hazard analysis that identifies and 

characterizes each of the hazards and assesses the risk to public health and safety and safety of 

property resulting from each permitted flight. A hazard analysis is a necessary part of the 

Mission and Safety Review for the FAA experimental permit determination to assess the 

possible hazards associated with proposed launch and landing operations. The FAA is in the 

process of developing a regulation to address experimental permits, and permit applicants would 

be required to meet the safety standards established by the FAA. Because this will be addressed 

in the Mission and Safety Review it is not discussed in detail in this EA. However, analyses of 

the safety and health implications of launch and landing-related operations and activities that 

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

4.8.2 Proposed Action 

Potential health and safety impacts under the proposed action could result from propellant 

management, propellant loading operations, and test flights of the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 

suborbital rockets. Management activities include the transport, handling, storage and potential 

disposal of propellants. Potential accidents during any of these activities could present impacts 

to health and safety including traffic accidents due to transportation activity on and off the site 

and exposure to propellants during loading operations. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 4-15 

The road traffic that would result from transporting equipment and personnel to and from the 

proposed launch site would only add a few vehicles above existing traffic loads. Six trucks 

would be required to transport the concrete pad materials to the proposed site and for the 

suborbital rockets, and two trucks would be required to transport and store propellants. 

Currently, the Mojave Airport receives about 264 deliveries of propellants annually. (FAA, 

2004) Additional deliveries under the proposed action represent only a slight increase in traffic 

and should not materially increase the number of traffic accidents on the roadways in and around 

the Mojave Airport. 

All transport of hazardous materials and hazardous waste 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 

transportation 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. 

No significant health and safety impacts are expected from propellant management. Trained 

ground crew personnel would follow established standard operating procedures during propellant 

loading operations in accordance with all applicable safety regulations including OSHA 29 CFR 

1910.106, Flammable and Combustible Liquids. Spills of hazardous materials would be handled 

by trained ground crew personnel following the airport’s standard containment and cleanup 

protocol. Emergency response would be available should it be necessary during a hazardous 

material incident. 

No significant health and safety impacts from test flight operations would be expected given that 

existing operations are conducted remotely from a safe distance away from the proposed launch 

site. Masten Space Systems has established a safety clear zone designed to contain potential 

adverse effects of a failed launch operation and would verify that all ground crew personnel and 

members of the public are outside of the safety clear zone before and during each launch. 

Emergency response and the local fire department would be on standby during each launch to 

respond to accidents or fires. Potential health and safety impacts could occur in the unlikely 

event of a failure during the takeoff, mid-flight, or landing phase; however, the XA0.1, XA0.2, 

and XL0.1 are unmanned reusable suborbital rockets and no flight personnel would be onboard. 

Because of these established safety mitigation measures, no significant health and safety impacts 

are expected. 

4.8.3 Alternative 1 

Under alternative 1, test flight operations would occur at the secondary site at Mojave Airport as 

shown in Exhibit 2-1. All activities would occur as described for the proposed action, and 

impacts on health and safety would be the same as those discussed for the proposed action. 

4.8.4 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue permits to Masten Space Systems. No 

test launches of the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 suborbital rockets would occur at the Mojave 

Airport, and there would be no impacts on health and safety. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 4-16 

4.9 Land Use 

4.9.1 Approach to Analysis

FAA Order 1050.1E requires assessment of land use impacts in terms of compatible land use and 

noise-sensitive areas. The compatibility of existing and planned land uses in the vicinity of an 

airport is usually associated with the extent of the airport’s noise impacts. Actions that result in a 

change in the number of aircraft operations, air traffic changes, or new approaches are examples 

of activities that can alter aviation-related noise impacts and affect land uses subjected to those 

impacts. Generally, if the noise analysis concludes that there are no changes in noise exposure 

that exceed the applicable thresholds of significance, a similar conclusion usually may be drawn 

with respect to compatible land use. Land use impacts are described in terms of the launch and 

landing activities under the proposed action and the establishment of a safety clear zone. 

Land use impacts also are analyzed in terms of unique and sensitive properties protected under 

Section 4(f) of the DOT Act (recodified as 49 U.S.C. 303). FAA Order 1050.1E states that a 

significant impact to Section 4(f) property exists if the proposed action either involves more than 

a minimal physical use of a Section 4(f) property or is deemed a “constructive use” substantially 

impairing the 4(f) property, and mitigation measures do not eliminate or reduce the effects of the 

use below the threshold of significance (e.g., by replacement of a neighborhood park). 

4.9.2 Proposed Action 

No significant impacts on 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 Primary 

Compatibility Criteria (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. 

The proposed suborbital rocket testing would take place in land use zone B1, and the proposed 

action meets acceptable use criteria for that zone. Although vertical launches and landings are 

not typically conducted at Mojave Airport, the suborbital rockets are equal to or less than the 

airport’s typical horizontally launched vehicles in size, power, and noise. Runway 22 may need 

to be closed during suborbital rocket testing, but the airport would not be shut down. Therefore, 

there would not be a significant change in airport activities under the proposed action. 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 major 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. 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 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 4-17 

Williamson contracts would occur as a result of the proposed action.4 No parks, recreational 

facilities, or Section 4(f) resources are located within the Mojave Airport property, and thus no 

impacts to these land uses and resources would be expected. 

4.9.3 Alternative 1

Under alternative 1, test flight operations would occur at the secondary site at Mojave Airport as 

shown in Exhibit 2-1. All activities would occur as described for the proposed action, and 

impacts on land use would be the same as those discussed for the proposed action. 

4.9.4 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue permits to Masten Space Systems. No 

test launches of the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 suborbital rockets would occur, and land use at 

the Mojave Airport would not change. 

4.10 Noise 

4.10.1 Approach to Analysis

This analysis addresses potential noise impacts that might occur as a result of launching and 

landing XL0.1, XA0.1, and XA0.2 suborbital rockets. Because the XL0.1 is the largest of these 

rockets and has the potential to produce the most noise, the noise analysis is based on a launch 

manifest of all XL0.1 rockets to conduct a conservative analysis of impacts. The XL0.1 

suborbital rocket’s engines would be ignited on the ground; therefore, the analysis of rocket 

engine noise associated with this type of vehicle begins while the vehicle is still on the ground.

A significant impact would be a substantial (5 dB) permanent or temporary increase in noise 

level even though the magnitude of overall noise may be within land use compatibility, the 

exposure of people residing or working in the airport area to excessive noise levels, or noise 

levels that exceed the following applicable noise standards: 

 State of California Building Code Part 2, Title 24 requires areas exposed to noise levels of 60 

dB community noise equivalent level (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 yearly day-night 

 

4 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 openspace 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. 

(FAA, 2004) 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 4-18 

average sound level (Ldn) for exterior noise levels and a 45 dB Ldn for interior noise levels for 

areas with sensitive land uses. 

A non-significant impact would be an insubstantial change in noise level even though the overall 

magnitude is greater than land use compatibility standards. 

4.10.2 Proposed Action

The launch and landing of XL0.1 suborbital rocket would not cause a significant impact to noise 

levels in the ROI. The XL0.1 would have eight 2,224 Newtons (500 pounds-force) engines. The 

propulsion system would consist of 270 kilograms (595 pounds) of isopropyl alcohol and 445 

kilograms (981 pounds) of LOX. Tests conducted at the Mojave Airport would not rise above 

152 meters (500 feet). The longest of these tests would last approximately 107 seconds at 100 

percent throttle or 179 seconds at 60 percent throttle. The powered duration of the flight would 

be no more than 150 seconds; most tests would occur for no more than 60 seconds. 

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 (an average of three to four per day). (FAA, 2004) 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 at the Mojave Airport. (FAA, 

2004) 

The suborbital rockets that would be tested will be much smaller and much quieter than the F-4 

or other aircraft taking off and landing at the Mojave Airport. Furthermore, the frequency of the 

launches would be low. The proposed action, at a maximum, would launch and land 50 XL0.1 

suborbital rockets in 2006 over a two month period, or an average of five to six launches per 

week. XL0.1 flight tests would last 179 seconds at most. Conservative assumptions are that for 

the entire three minutes, the rocket engine is ignited. It is also assumed that all launches would 

occur during daylight hours (7 AM to 7 PM). With approximately five to six launches per week 

at three minutes per launch, the Mojave Airport would be exposed to a total of 16.5 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. 

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 dB at a distance of 305 meters (1,000 feet). (FAA, 2004) The XL0.1 vehicle 

proposed for launch from the Mojave Airport in 2006 would have a maximum thrust of 8,896 

Newtons (2,000 pounds), which is significantly lower than the thrust of the F-4 jets and other 

aircraft currently operating at the airport. It is therefore anticipated that the noise levels 

produced by the launch of the XL0.1 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, the additional 

noise level would be much lower than existing noises and there are no noise sensitive receptors 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 4-19 

or areas within the ROI at the Mojave Airport, impacts to noise levels during launches at the 

Mojave Airport 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 result in a significant 

permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the Mojave Airport vicinity. 

4.10.3 Alternative 1

Under alternative 1, test flight operations would occur at the secondary site at Mojave Airport as 

shown in Exhibit 2-1. All activities would occur as described under the proposed action, and 

impacts on ambient noise levels would be the same as those discussed for the proposed action. 

4.10.4 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue permits to Masten Space Systems. No 

test launches of the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 suborbital rockets would occur at the Mojave 

Airport, and there would be no change in existing noise levels. 

4.11 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 

4.11.1 Approach to Analysis 

According to FAA Order 1050.1E, this analysis must consider the impacts on socioeconomics 

and environmental justice, as well as disproportionate impacts on children’s health and safety. 

As previously discussed in Section 3.11, the ROI for this analysis is the Mojave CDP even 

though effects on socioeconomics and environmental justice should not extend beyond the 

proposed operational area. This analysis will be divided into socioeconomics, environmental 

justice, and children’s health for the proposed action and no action alternative. This analysis 

compares the potential impacts to the significance thresholds in FAA Order 1050.1E. 

4.11.2 Proposed Action 

It has been determined that the proposed action does not have any substantial impacts on 

socioeconomics, as defined by FAA Order 1050.1E. This means that the proposed action does 

not result in any of the following: 

 Extensive relocation of residents where sufficient housing is not available, 

 Relocation of community businesses that would create severe economic hardship for the 

affected communities, 

 Disruption of local traffic patterns that substantially reduce the levels of service of the roads 

serving the airport and its surrounding communities, or 

 A substantial loss in the community tax base. 

The proposed action does not create disproportionately high adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. Further, the proposed action does 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 4-20 

not result in disproportionate health and safety risks to children. The remaining subsections will 

discuss in more detail why the proposed action does not exceed the thresholds of significance 

applicable to socioeconomics, environmental justice, or children’s health. 

4.11.2.1 Socioeconomics 

Since no new development would be required to support the proposed action and existing 

personnel would be used to conduct suborbital rocket testing, it would not induce significant 

population growth in the Mojave CDP. Because the proposed site is on airport land, no business 

or residents would be displaced so no decrease in population would be expected and no 

disruption to local businesses would be expected. No impacts on employment are expected 

because no jobs would be created or eliminated as a result of the proposed action; and therefore, 

no increase or decrease in the demand for housing would be expected. 

4.11.2.2 Environmental Justice 

Because 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. Noise levels generated during suborbital rocket launches would be 

short-term in nature and overall predicted noise levels would not exceed ambient noise levels in 

residential areas. Because these noise levels would be significantly less than those generated 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. 

4.11.2.3 Children’s Health 

Effects from the proposed action are not concentrated in an area that might contain 

proportionally more children. The percentage of children under 18 in the Mojave CDP is greater 

than the percentage throughout the U.S., but less than the percentage in California. Although the 

Mojave CDP has a higher percentage of children under age five than the U.S. or California, any 

effects from the proposed action should not disproportionately impact the health and safety of 

children as compared to adults. Therefore, the impacts of the proposed action on children’s 

health and safety should not be disproportionate as defined under EO 13045. 

4.11.3 Alternative 1 

Under alternative 1, test flight operations would occur at the secondary site at Mojave Airport as 

shown in Exhibit 2-1. All activities would occur as described under the proposed action, and 

impacts on socioeconomics, environmental justice, and children’s health would be the same as 

those discussed for the proposed action. 

4.11.4 No Action Alternative

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue permits to Masten Space Systems. No 

test launches of the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 suborbital rockets would occur, and there would 

be no change in current activities at the Mojave Airport. Therefore, there would be no impacts 

on socioeconomics, environmental justice, or children’s health. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 4-21 

4.12 Transportation 

4.12.1 Approach to Analysis 

The analysis of transportation impacts addresses ground traffic entering and leaving the Mojave 

Airport area. Impacts on transportation are assessed with respect to the potential to cause 

disruption or congestion of transportation patterns. This disruption can be in the form of 

deterioration of existing levels of service or a reduction in the existing level of transportation 

safety. Impacts on ground transportation and capacity levels would be significant if the ratio of 

volume-to-capacity experienced unacceptable increases, which in turn led to congestion of the 

road systems around the Mojave Airport. 

4.12.2 Proposed Action 

Activities associated with the proposed action that could impact ground transportation around the 

Mojave Airport include transporting personnel, propellants, and the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 

reusable suborbital rockets and associated components to the proposed launch site. The 

proposed action does not call for the use of the Mojave Airport rail spur; therefore, no impacts on 

rail transportation are anticipated. 

The increased road traffic that would result from transporting equipment and personnel to and 

from the proposed launch site would only add a few vehicles above existing traffic loads on 

Business SR-58. Six trucks would be required to transport the concrete pad materials to the 

proposed site and the suborbital rockets, and two tank trucks would be required to transport and 

store propellants. Currently, the Mojave Airport receives approximately 264 deliveries annually. 

(FAA, 2004) Activities under the proposed action would only increase the number of deliveries 

by small amount. In addition, transport of equipment and personnel would be limited to twomonth operational period, which would result in a relatively infrequent and insignificant increase 

in number of vehicles on local roads at any given time. 

The Mojave Airport is located at the crossroads of major north/south and east/west roadways and 

existing access roads could easily handle this level of vehicle traffic without a change in level of 

service 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. No 

more than two additional passenger vehicles and eight delivery trucks would be anticipated as 

part of the proposed action, and this would not materially increase the number of traffic 

accidents, increase traffic congestion, or cause a decline in the level of service of local roadways. 

Overall, no significant transportation impacts would be expected. 

4.12.3 Alternative 1 

Under alternative 1, test flight operations would occur at the secondary site at Mojave Airport as 

shown in Exhibit 2-1. All activities would occur as described for the proposed action, and 

impacts on transportation would be the same as those discussed for the proposed action. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 4-22 

4.12.4 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue permits to Masten Space Systems. No 

test launches of the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 suborbital rockets would occur at the Mojave 

Airport, and there would be no impact on transportation. 

4.13 Visual Resources 

4.13.1 Approach to Analysis 

As directed by FAA Order 1050.1E, the FAA must consider potential impacts from light 

emissions and visual impacts from the proposed action. As part of light emissions, the FAA 

considers the extent to which any lighting would create an annoyance or interfere with normal 

activities. Visual or aesthetic impacts are more difficult to determine because of the subjectivity 

involved. Impacts on visual and aesthetic resources would be considered significant if the 

proposed action and alternatives resulted in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; 

damaged scenic resources, such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state 

scenic highway; or degraded the existing visual character or quality of the site and its 

surroundings. 

In general, impacts to visual resources would result if a significant change occurred in the natural 

or man-made features contributing to the aesthetic value of the area surrounding the proposed 

launch site. The proposed action can be analyzed with respect to intensity and context. Intensity 

is measured by the estimation of visual dominance, and context is determined by the degree of 

visual sensitivity. Exhibit 4-6 graphically displays the concepts of intensity and context. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 4-23 

Exhibit 4-6. Determination of Impact Based on Visual Dominance and Visual Sensitivity 

Would generally be overlooked 

" Not Noticeable" 

Noticeable, but not detract from the 

exisitng dominant landscape features 

" Visually Subordinate" 

Changes compete for attention with 

other viewshed features 

" Visually co-dominant" 

Changes demand attention 

" Visually dominant" 

Impact Determination 

Not Significant Adverse, but not 

significant 

Significant, 

but mitigable 

Significant 

and unavoidable 

High Low Moderate 

Intensity 

Visual Dominance 

Context 

Visual Sensitivity 

 

4.13.2 Proposed Action 

If members of the general public happen to be in the area during the proposed testing, the rocketpowered launches would be similar to the current visual setting but might attract and dominate 

the attention of a viewer in this area because of the vertical operation and characteristics of the 

rockets when compared to the horizontally launched aircraft and rockets currently in operation at 

the airport. In these few cases the launch itself might be “visually dominant”; however, the 

relatively small number of test flights of the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 suborbital rockets (a 

maximum of 50 over a two-month period) and the temporary nature of the visual change (a 

maximum flight time of 3 minutes) would mitigate any resulting impacts. In addition, the 

Mojave Airport, as an active airport and industrial site, is a low visual sensitivity area, and so the 

resulting impact rating for “visually dominant” intensity ratings would be adverse, but not 

significant. 

Launches would not create any impacts unless they occur during nighttime hours. If a launch 

occurs during nighttime hours, the launch itself would be visually dominant and mitigation 

measures might be required to shield viewers in the area from light generated as a result of the 

launch. Masten Space Systems has not proposed any nighttime operations at this time. If night 

launches were proposed in the future they would be analyzed in a separate environmental 

analysis. 

The new concrete launch and landing pads would blend with the current active industrial nature 

of the site and would not cause any visual resource impacts. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 4-24 

4.13.3 Alternative 1 

Under alternative 1, test flight operations would occur at the secondary site at Mojave Airport as 

shown in Exhibit 2-1. All activities would occur as described for the proposed action, and 

impacts on visual resources would be the same as those discussed for the proposed action. 

4.13.4 No Action Alternative

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue permits to Masten Space Systems. No 

test launches of the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 suborbital rockets would occur at the Mojave 

Airport, and there would be no impact on visual resources. 

4.14 Water Resources 

4.14.1 Approach to Analysis

The FAA considered the following factors to aid in defining the severity of impact from the 

proposed action and alternatives on water resources: 

 The degree to which the action may adversely affect water quality and supply, wetlands, or 

wild and scenic rivers, 

 Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, state, or local law or requirements 

imposed for water resources, 

 The degree to which the action may encroach on floodplains and cause deterioration of 

natural and beneficial floodplain values, and 

 Whether the action is consistent with the applicable state’s Coastal Zone Management Plan. 

4.14.2 Proposed Action 

Potential impacts to ground water resources could occur as a result of accidental spills or leaks of 

propellants during onsite fueling and purging operations. Isopropyl alcohol rapidly biodegrades 

in both soil and water environments. (HSDB, 2005) Any accidental releases of isopropyl alcohol 

into the environment would not be expected to persist or migrate from soils to ground water; 

therefore, no significant impacts on ground water quality would be expected. LOX is a nontoxic cryogenic liquid that evaporates if not kept at an extremely low temperature, so any 

accidental release of LOX would evaporate and not impact ground water. 

In the event of a catastrophic accident, unspent propellants could be released into the 

environment, and debris and wreckage could impact drainage patterns or storm water flows. 

But, the small size of the proposed suborbital rockets 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. 

Activities under the proposed action would not use significant amounts of ground water. The 

proposed action would not substantially deplete ground water supplies 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; therefore, no significant impacts on ground water supply are anticipated. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 4-25 

Activities under the proposed action would not result in any contaminant releases that would 

cause violations of local, state, or Federal water quality requirements. The existing storm water 

system and permit would be adequate for the proposed action. In addition, surface water bodies, 

wetlands, and wild and scenic rivers are not present at the Mojave Airport; therefore, there would 

be no impacts to these resource areas. 

The Mojave Airport is located outside the 100-year flood hazard plain. Under the proposed 

action, no structures that may impede or redirect flood flows would be placed within the 

100-year floodplain and therefore, no significant impacts on floodplains would be expected. The 

Mojave Airport is also located in the interior of the state and not within California’s coastal zone 

as defined in the state Coastal Zone Management Plan. Thus, the proposed action is not required 

to conform to the California Coastal Zone Management Plan. 

Sediment runoff into surface waters from the construction of the concrete launch and landing 

pads would be minimized using best management practices. 

4.14.3 Alternative 1 

Under alternative 1, test flight operations would occur at the secondary site at Mojave Airport as 

shown in Exhibit 2-1. All activities would occur as described for the proposed action, and 

impacts on water resources would be the same as those discussed for the proposed action. 

4.14.4 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue permits to Masten Space Systems. No 

test launches of the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 suborbital rockets would occur at the Mojave 

Airport, and there would be no impacts on water resources. 
 

This page intentionally left blank.
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 5-1 

5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Cumulative impacts are “the incremental impact of the actions when added to other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future action regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or 

person undertakes such other actions.” (40 CFR 1508.7) The cumulative impacts analysis for 

this EA focuses on those past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that have the 

potential to contribute to cumulative impacts. These actions include: 

 Ongoing commercial, military, and private aviation activities at the Mojave Airport, 

 Activities described under the proposed action, and 

 A series of up to 65 tethered flight tests of the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 reusable suborbital 

rockets. Tethered flight tests would involve the use of equipment to prevent the vehicle from 

rising above 2.1 meters (7 feet) and rocket engine firings of up to 3 minutes. These types of 

tests would not require a license or permit from the FAA. 

The proposed action has been evaluated for cumulative impacts on air quality, airspace, 

biological resources, hazardous materials, health and safety, noise, transportation, visual 

resources, and water resources. The results of this evaluation are presented below. 

5.1 Air Quality 

To examine cumulative localized air quality impacts, the U.S. EPA has specified 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. 

To determine the potential cumulative impacts to ambient air quality, emissions below 914 

meters (3,000 feet) were evaluated. Exhibit 5-1 includes estimated emissions from current 

airport operations, the launch of the vertically launched suborbital rockets, tethered test flights of 

the vertically launched suborbital rockets, propellant and concrete delivery trucks, and propellant 

loading operations at the Mojave Airport. Emissions from 65 tethered tests flights and their 

associated truck emissions were calculated using the same method as presented in Section 4.1.1 

and 4.1.2 for the flights included in the proposed action. For each tethered test flight, the rocket 

engines would be fired for a maximum of 3 minutes, and the rocket would be tied down so that it 

could not rise more than 2.1 meters (7 feet). It was assumed that all the propellant would be 

burned during these test flights and two trucks would be required to bring the propellant for the 

65 tethered flights. 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 5-2 

Exhibit 5-1. Cumulative Air Emissions below 914 Meters (3,000 Feet) Including the 

Proposed Action in 2006, kilograms (pounds)

Emission Activities CO NOX VOC PM SOX

Existing Aircraft Operations 

Total Emissions from Aircraft 

Operations at Mojave Airport 

125,011 

(275,603)

11,676 

(25,741) 

13,573 

(29,923) 

11,258 

(24,819) 

1,443 

(3,181) 

Total Emissions from Aircraft 

Fueling Operations (Jet-A fuel and 

aviation fuel gasoline storage and 

dispensing) at Mojave Airport 

- - 2,186 

(4,818) - - 

Proposed Action 

Suborbital Rocket Test Flights 

(50) - - - - - 

Delivery Trucks for Suborbital 

Rocket Propellants (2) 

0.80 

(1.8) 

0.83 

(1.82) 

0.13 

(0.29) 

0.064 

(0.14) -- 

Concrete Delivery Trucks for 

Launch Pad Construction (6) 

49 

(108) 

5 

(11) 

113 

(249) - 12 (26) 

Cumulative Actions

Tethered Test Flights (65) - - - - - 

Delivery Trucks for Tethered Test 

Flight Propellants (2) 

0.80 

(1.8) 

0.83 

(1.82) 

0.13 

(0.29) 

0.064 

(0.14) - 

Total 125,013 

(275,606)

11,678 

(25,745) 

15,759 

(34,743) 

11,258 

(24,820) 

1,443 

(3,181) 

Total 

metric tons/year (tons/year) 

125.0 

(137.8) 

11.7 

(12.9) 

15.8 

(17.4) 

11.3 

(12.4) 

1.5 

(1.6) 

De minimis Threshold 

Requirements 

metric tons/year (tons/year) 

91 

(100) 

91 

(100) 

Percent of Regional Emissions* 0.4% 0.09% 0.2% 0.07% 0.1% 

*Percent is 100 times the emissions of CO, NOX, VOC, PM, and SOX from activities divided by the regional 

inventory of emissions in 2004 for the Kern County Air District (CARB, 2005) 

As seen in Exhibit 5-1, the launch of up to 50 vertically launched suborbital vehicles in 2006 in 

conjunction with other aircraft operations and tethered test flights at the Mojave Airport, would 

not exceed either of the two screening tests described above for potential cumulative impacts. 

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

Cumulative impacts of emissions from launches have the potential to affect global warming. 

The total CO2 emissions for the proposed action and the tethered test flights would be 

approximately 53,450 kilograms (117,830 pounds) in 2006. The cumulative impact on global 

warming from launches would be insignificant when compared to emissions from other 

industrial sources. In 2004, CO2 emissions from both energy consumption and industrial 

processes totaled 5,973 million metric tons (6,584 million tons). (EIA, 2006) The proposed 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 5-3 

action would account for only a fraction (less than 1 x 10-6 percent) 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 on air quality are expected. 

5.2 Airspace

Cumulative airspace impacts associated with the proposed action are not anticipated given that 

coordination and scheduling procedures would be developed with the Mojave Airport Air Traffic 

Control Tower. In addition, the increase in flight activity at the Mojave Airport would be less 

than one percent, with all activities occurring below 152 meters (500 feet) for permitted launches 

and below 2.1 meters (7 feet) for tethered flight tests. 

5.3 Biology 

No significant cumulative impacts on biological resources would occur as a result of the 

proposed action. The loss of 18.6 square meters (200 square feet) of potential wildlife habitat 

from the construction of two concrete pads would not be significant because the area supports 

minimal plant and wildlife species and is very similar to the surrounding area. The cumulative 

noise and emissions increases resulting from ongoing aviation activities, the proposed action, and 

the tethered flight tests could result in an adverse impact on biological resources. However, the 

biological resources affected would be those that have already been able to tolerate the existing 

noise and emissions associated with the active airport. Protective mitigation measures are in 

place for the federally listed, threatened desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii); therefore significant 

cumulative impacts on threatened and endangered species are not anticipated. 

5.4 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Wastes 

Cumulative impacts from hazardous materials use could occur as a result of a combined increase 

in the quantity of propellants necessary to support ongoing commercial, military, and private 

aviation activities, up to 65 tethered flight tests, and up to 50 flight tests under the proposed 

action. However, propellants in support of tethered flight tests and permitted launches would be 

shipped to the Mojave Airport on an as-needed basis and would not be stored at the proposed 

launch site for extended periods of time. If a spill were to occur, Masten Space Systems would 

conform to the Mojave Airport’s spill prevention control plan, which would minimize impacts on 

the environment. All propellants and other hazardous materials would be handled, stored, and 

used in compliance with all applicable regulations, which would serve to minimize releases and 

associated environmental impacts. The activities considered under the cumulative impacts 

analysis would increase the amount of hazardous waste generated on site; however, on site waste 

management capacity is adequate to manage this amount of waste and Masten Space Systems 

would not exceed the regulatory limit of a conditionally exempt small quantity generator. No 

significant cumulative impacts would result from the use of hazardous materials and hazardous 

waste management. 

5.5 Health and Safety 

Cumulative impacts on health and safety could occur as a result of the increase in the quantity of 

propellants handled and in the number of both tethered flight tests and permitted launches 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 5-4 

conducted at the Mojave Airport. Trained ground crew personnel would follow established 

standard operating procedures during propellant handling and loading operations in accordance 

with all applicable safety regulations. Tethered flight tests would follow all the same public and 

worker safety protocol as permitted launches; therefore impacts would similar to those described 

in Section 4.8.2. Because all operations would follow established safety procedures, no 

significant cumulative impacts on health and safety are expected. 

5.6 Noise 

Background noise at the Mojave Airport would increase with the increased level of activity from 

the tethered flight tests and permitted launches of the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 reusable 

suborbital rockets. During flight tests, the noise levels could potentially be very high, but 

because there would be at most 65 tethered flight tests and 50 permitted launches over the course 

of two months and the short duration (a maximum burn time of 3 minutes) of these events, the 

overall impacts within the noise environment of the active airport would be relatively small. The 

impacts of flight tests would be relatively small when compared to the existing high intensity 

noise levels due to military jet flights and stationary rocket engine testing at the Mojave Airport; 

therefore no significant cumulative noise impacts are expected. 

5.7 Transportation 

Cumulative impacts to transportation could occur as a result of the increase in road traffic that 

would result from transporting equipment and personnel in support of ongoing aviation 

activities, the proposed action, and the tethered flight tests. The combined increase resulting 

from these activities would only add a few vehicles above existing traffic loads on Business 

SR-58. No more than two additional passenger vehicles and eight delivery trucks would be 

anticipated as part of the proposed action, and the two vehicles required for tethered flight tests 

would not materially increase the number of traffic accidents, increase traffic congestion, or 

cause a decline in the level of service of local roadways; therefore, no significant cumulative 

impacts are expected. 

5.8 Visual Resources 

The construction of two concrete pads under the proposed action would be similar to existing 

airport infrastructure and would not significantly alter the current visual landscape. Tethered 

flight tests and permitted launches of the XA0.1, XA0.2, and XL0.1 reusable suborbital rockets 

may attract and dominate the attention of a viewer in this area because of the vertical operation 

and characteristics of the rockets when compared to the horizontally launched aircraft and 

rockets currently in operation at the airport. However, the flight tests would not rise above 2.1 

meters (7 feet) for tethered tests and 152 meters (500 feet) for permitted launches. Due to the 

tests’ low altitude, limited number, and short duration (a maximum burn time of 3 minutes), no 

significant cumulative impacts on visual resources are expected. 

5.9 Water Resources 

Cumulative impacts to water resources may result from incidental spills and releases associated 

with aircraft, launch vehicle, and reusable suborbital rocket preparation and propellant loading 

activities. Masten Space Systems would operate according to established spill prevention 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 5-5 

procedures and would be responsible for the clean up any of spills or releases associated with the 

proposed action and tethered flight tests; resulting in a small cumulative impact. 
 

This page intentionally left blank.
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

 6-1 

6 MITIGATION MEASURES 

Mitigation measures are actions that may be implemented to prevent or reduce the environmental 

consequences of the activities considered in an EA or EIS. No significant environmental impacts 

would be expected from the proposed action; therefore, mitigation measures would not be 

necessary for resource areas, except potentially for biological resources. 

Biological Resources 

As the result of informal consultation for the February 2004 EA, the USFWS requested that the 

FAA conduct visual surveys of the runway prior to take-off and landing of suborbital vehicles as 

a protective measure for a desert tortoise that may be within the Mojave Airport fence. If a 

desert tortoise were discovered at the airport, personnel would follow appropriate USFWS and 

CDFG protocols. On May 31, 2006, the FAA contacted the USFWS to propose the same 

protective measure for the desert tortoise under the proposed action. Visual surveys of the 

launch pad would be conducted prior to test flights. 
 

This page intentionally left blank.
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

7-1

7 AGENCY CONSULTATION 

Ms. Judy Hohman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was contacted on May 31, 2006. See 

Appendix A for a copy of the letter. 

Mr. Milford Wayne Donaldson, California State Historic Preservation Officer, was contacted on 

June 6, 2006. See Appendix A 
 

This page intentionally left blank.
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

8-1

8 SECONDARY OR INDUCED IMPACTS 

The CEQ defines secondary impacts as “those that are caused by an action and are later in time 

and farther removed, but still foreseeable.” Some development projects pose the potential for 

secondary or induced impacts on the surrounding areas. A secondary or induced impact would 

exist when a proposed project causes a shift in population growth, public service requirements, 

or changes in local or regional economic activity that are influenced by the changes produced by 

implementing the proposed action. 

Issuing experimental permits to Masten Space Systems for test flights of its XA0.1, XA0.2, and 

XL0.1 reusable suborbital rockets at the Mojave Airport in Mojave, California would not induce 

or limit population growth, economic activity, or public service requirements. Additionally, 

there are no known specific future actions that would be dependent on the proposed action. 

Therefore, no secondary or induced impacts are expected to result form the proposed action. 
 

This page intentionally left blank.
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

9-1

9 LIST OF PREPARERS 

This list presents the primary contributors to the technical content of this EA. 

Government Preparers 

Name: Stacey M. Zee 

Affiliation: FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation 

Education: BS Natural Resource Management, MS Environmental Policy 

Experience: Ten years of NEPA related experience 

Contractor Preparers 

Name: Deborah K. Shaver 

Affiliation: ICF International, FAA Contractor 

Education: BS Chemistry, MS Chemistry 

Experience: Thirty-two years of environmental assessment management experience 

Name: Brenda Girod 

Affiliation: ICF International, FAA Contractor 

Education: BA Personnel Administration, BS Journalism 

Experience: Sixteen years environmental program management experience 

Name: Patrick Flight 

Affiliation: ICF International, FAA Contractor 

Education: BS Biology 

Experience: One year of environmental analysis experience 

Name: Lesley Jantarasami 

Affiliation: ICF International, FAA Contractor 

Education: BA Environmental Science and Policy 

Experience: Three years of environmental analysis experience 

Name: Laura MacNeil 

Affiliation: ICF International, FAA Contractor 

Education: BS Biology 

Experience: Three years of environmental analysis experience 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

9-2

Name: Rebecca Murphy 

Affiliation: ICF International, FAA Contractor 

Education: M.E., Biological and Environmental Engineering; B.S. Agricultural and 

Biological Engineering 

Experience: Three years of air quality and risk assessment experience 

Name: Pam Schanel 

Affiliation: ICF International, FAA Contractor 

Education: BA Environmental Public Policy 

Experience: Eight years of NEPA environmental assessment experience 

Name: Hova Woods 

Affiliation: ICF International, FAA Contractor 

Education: BS Finance, MPA Environmental Management 

Experience: Six years of environmental assessment experience 
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

10-1

10 DISTRIBUTION LIST 

Federal Agencies 

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. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region IX Office 

75 Hawthorn Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105

Milford Wayne Donaldson 

California State Historic Preservation Officer

P.O. Box 94296 

Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 

Libraries 

Edwards Air Force Base Library 

95 SPTG/SVMG 

5 West Yeager Boulevard 

Building 2665 

Edwards Air Force Base, CA 93524-1295 

Kern County Library 

Mojave Branch 

16916-1/2 Highway 14 

Mojave, CA 93501 

Local Agency 

Stuart Witt, General Manager 

East Kern Airport District 

1434 Flight Line 

Mojave, CA 93501 
 

This page intentionally left blank.
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

11-1

11 REFERENCES 

California Resources Agency, 2006. California Environmental Resources Evaluation System 

[web application]. http://ceres.ca.gov/geo_area/counties/lists/landmarks_county.html accessed 

May 4, 2006. 

Energy Information Administration, 2006. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 

2004: Executive Summary. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/summary/carbon.html, 

accessed May 25, 2006. 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2004. Final Environmental Assessment for the East 

Kern Airport District Launch Site Operator License for the Mojave Airport. February 18. 

Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB), 2005. “Isopropanol: Environmental Fate.” 

Hazardous Substances Data Bank, National Library of Medicine. June 24. 

Kern County Waste Management Department, 2006. “Kern County Special Waste Facility 

Business Hazardous Waste Program.” 

http://www.co.kern.ca.us/wmd/Services/Hazardous/smallbiz/smallbiz.html, accessed May 25, 

2006. 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 2006. National Register Information System [web 

application]. http://www.nr.nps.gov/nrloc1.htm, accessed May 4, 2006. 

National Park Service (NPS), 2006. Native American Consultation Database [web application]. 

http://web.cast.uark.edu/other/nps/nacd/, accessed May 4, 2006. 
 

This page intentionally left blank.
Masten Space Systems Environmental Assessment 

A-1

APPENDIX A AGENCY CONSULTATION LETTERS