[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22479-22483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-11054]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Finding of No Significant Impact

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Finding of no significant impact.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 22480]]

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) prepared an 
Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate Kistler Aerospace 
Corporation's proposal to construct and operate commercial launch and 
reentry/recovery facilities at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) on land 
withdrawn from the public domain for use by the U.S. Department of 
Energy (DOE). After reviewing and analyzing available data and 
information on existing conditions, project impacts, and measures to 
mitigate those impacts, the FAA, Associate Administrator for Commercial 
Space Transportation (AST) has determined that licensing the proposed 
launch and reentry activities is not ``a major Federal action that 
would significantly affect the quality of the human environment within 
the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969.'' 
Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 
is not required and AST is issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact 
(FONSI).

FOR A COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT 
IMPACT REGARDING KISTLER AEROSPACE CORPORATION LAUNCH/REENTRY 
OPERATIONS CONTACT: Ms. Michon Washington, Office of the Associate 
Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, Space Systems 
Development Division, Suite 331/AST-100, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, 
Washington, DC 20591; phone (202) 267-9305; or refer to the following 
Internet address: http://ast.faa.gov.

DATES: In accordance with NEPA, the FAA initiated a 30-day public 
review and comment period of the Draft EA for the Site, Launch, Reentry 
and Recovery Operations at the Kistler Launch Facility. A public 
meeting was held in Las Vegas, Nevada on May 2, 2000, to record written 
and verbal comments from the public. The comments were addressed in a 
Comment Response Document and in the Final EA where appropriate.
    Proposed Action: Kistler Aerospace Corporation (Kistler) proposes 
to conduct launch and reentry/recovery operations at the NTS. The 
operations would include pre-flight processing activities, launch/
flight operations, and landing operations. Kistler proposes to 
construct a base of operations consisting of a private launch site 
(including a vehicle processing facility) for its exclusive use, a 
payload processing facility, and a vehicle reentry, landing, and 
recovery area. Because licensing launch and reentry operations is 
considered to be a major Federal action subject to the requirements of 
NEPA (Public Law 91-190), as amended, 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 
4321, et seq., FAA must assess the potential environmental impacts of 
an applicant's proposed action.
    Kistler intends to use a fleet of five K-1 vehicles at a maximum 
flight rate of 52 launches per year, once the system is fully 
operational, to deploy payloads into low earth orbit. The K-1 vehicle 
is designed as a two-stage fully reusable launch vehicle made up of a 
Launch Assist Platform (LAP) and an Orbital Vehicle (OV). Both stages 
are fueled by liquid oxygen (LOX) and kerosene (RP-1), with the LAP 
using start cartridges containing a small amount of solid propellant to 
initiate the fuel flow. The K-1 is designed to require less pre-flight 
and post-flight processing and to minimize electronic, hydraulic, and 
fuel line connections/disconnections between flights. The K-1 would be 
the only launch vehicle used at the Kistler NTS facilities. The 
analysis in the Environmental Assessment is based on Kistler's 
conceptual engineering designs.
    The Kistler facilities would be sited on the NTS, on land that is 
withdrawn from the public domain for use by the Department of Energy 
(DOE). The NTS is primarily an industrial area that previously hosted 
extensive nuclear tests. The NTS is bordered by the Nevada Test and 
Training Range (also known as the Nellis Air Force Range) on the north, 
east, and west sides and by Bureau of Land Management lands on the 
south and southwest. This is the site of frequent military aircraft 
training flights. Therefore, the NTS and surrounding communities are 
accustomed to land use for flight-testing purposes. The use of the NTS 
by Kistler for the purpose of launching and reentering launch vehicles 
is consistent with community planning activities in the areas around 
the NTS.
    The FAA and the DOE are directly involved in the proposed action. 
The FAA is the lead federal agency for the NEPA process and is 
responsible for licensing and regulating Kistler's launch and reentry 
operations under 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX'Commercial Space Transportation, 
ch. 701, Commercial Space Launch Activities, 49 U.S.C. 70101-10121. The 
DOE is a cooperating agency for the NEPA process and will provide land 
and certain infrastructure to the Nevada Test Site Development 
Corporation (NTSDC). The NTSDC issued a subpermit to Kistler for 
Kistler's use of the site. The DOE prepared a Final Environmental 
Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the 
State of Nevada August 1996 (NTS EIS), in which it evaluated the 
implementation of a combination of alternatives including expanded use, 
no action, and alternative uses, i.e., non-defense and private 
endeavors, for the NTS. The DOE issued a Record of Decision (ROD) on 
December 9, 1996, in which it specifically identified Kistler as an 
example of a potential private use at the NTS. In accordance with 
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, this EA 
incorporates by reference the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement for Licensing Launches (AST, 2001), the Final Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement for Commercial Reentry Vehicles (PEIS 
Reentry Vehicles) (AST 1992), and the NTS EIS (DOE 1996).
    No Action: Under the No Action Alternative, Kistler would not 
propose to conduct launch/reentry operations at the NTS, and the FAA 
would not issue a license for Kistler to conduct launch or reentry 
operations. Kistler would not construct its launch facilities nor would 
it launch commercial satellites from the NTS.

Environmental Impacts

Air Quality

    Air emissions would result from the construction activities, 
launch, flight, and reentry operations. Fugitive dust, particulate 
matter, and engine exhaust concentrations created during construction 
activities are estimated to be less than federal or state standards. 
Maximum concentrations of PM10 produced during construction averaged 
over 24 hours should not exceed 135 micrograms/cubic meter, which is 
below the national and Nevada State standard of 150 micrograms/cubic 
meter. This maximum concentration would occur in a controlled area and 
thus would not pose hazards to the public or to on-site personnel. 
Carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 
emissions from vehicle and equipment exhaust during construction were 
all estimated to be much less than federal or state standards and 
therefore would pose little to no impact on the environment.
    Emissions from the K-1 launch vehicle would include those from the 
start cartridges (i.e., CO and hydrogen chloride [HCl]) and those from 
the K-1 engines during the launch (primarily CO2, H2O and CO). The 2.14 
kilograms (kg) of HCl produced during one launch would be dispersed 
over a large area and would have little impact on air quality. Total CO 
emissions from a single launch include about three (3) kg from start 
cartridges, 8,179 kg from

[[Page 22481]]

liftoff through the first 500 meters of the atmosphere, and 35,124 kg 
in the troposphere (500 meters to 20 kilometers). These estimated 
emissions from the K-1 were compared to those of the Titan IIIE/
Centaur. Titan IIIE/Centaur emissions are well documented. The K-1 CO 
emissions are estimated to be less than 50 percent of those generated 
by the Titan IIIE/Centaur. CO emissions are also expected to be much 
less than the six parts per million (ppm) Nevada standard for sites 
above 1,524 meters and less than the national standard of nine ppm. 
Thus, CO emissions are not expected to adversely affect air quality.
    In the upper atmosphere beginning at about 20 kilometers, H2O and 
CO2 may be considered potential pollutants due to their low natural 
concentration and possible influence on the Earth's heat balance. Upper 
atmospheric emissions from the Kistler vehicle were compared to those 
of the Titan IIIE/Centaur. The K-1 would produce more CO2 than the 
Titan IIIE/Centaur in the upper atmosphere, about 71 percent more in 
the stratosphere, and 109 percent more in the mesosphere and 
thermosphere. The K-1 would produce less H2O in the upper atmosphere 
than the Titan IIIE/Centaur despite the fact that in the stratosphere 
the K-1 produces 33 percent more H2O than the Titan IIIE/Centaur. The 
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing Launches 
states that launch activities appear to be many orders of magnitude 
below those that would be expected to produce detectable changes in the 
upper atmosphere. Therefore, launches of the K-1 should have minimal 
impacts on the upper atmosphere.
    The operation and maintenance of the vehicle processing facility 
and launch site would generate additional air emissions. Fugitive dust 
air emissions could also occur from vacuuming operations performed on 
the LAP and OV between launches. However, this amount would be 
negligible and below the PM10 standards established for Nevada. Impacts 
to air quality from the proposed activities are expected to be 
insignificant.

Noise

    Noise impacts would occur during construction, launch of the 
vehicle, and vehicle reentry. Construction activities and traffic noise 
would temporarily increase the ambient noise levels. Workers would wear 
protective hearing equipment in accordance with Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, when appropriate. The general 
public would not be in the immediate vicinity of the construction site. 
The closest public access is more than 32 km from the payload 
processing facility and launch site and more than 24 km from the 
landing and recovery area. At a distance of 24 km, noise levels are 
predicted to be less than 40 dBA, which would not be detectable under 
normal daytime background noise levels. Therefore, adverse impacts to 
the general public and construction workers as a result of construction 
noise are not expected.
    Noise impacts during launches consist of the reusable launch 
vehicle's engine noise. Workers at the vehicle processing facility 
would be required to wear hearing protection devices for the first 18 
seconds of launch during which time noise levels would be around 90 
dBA. The predicted sound levels are well within occupational operating 
parameters for facility work and are all below 77 dBA for all offsite 
locations. No offsite locations would experience significant impacts 
due to launch sound levels.
    Sonic booms would be generated during the vehicle ascent and the 
reentry stages descent to the landing and recovery area. Sonic boom 
levels generated under the flight paths would resemble distant thunder 
or, at most, a fireworks display and have no significant impact on 
surrounding communities. In the relatively small area where a focused 
boom occurs, individuals will experience a sudden and noticeable, but 
not harmful, overpressure equivalent to that felt inside a car when the 
door is slammed shut.

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

    The proposed action is expected to create an average of 85 direct 
full-time jobs and 28 direct part-time jobs during construction and 90 
direct full-time and 28 direct part-time jobs during normal operation. 
Of the total projected increase in workers, the majority is expected to 
live in the Las Vegas, Clark County area. Beneficial economic impacts 
of the proposed action may result from the added diversification of the 
regional economy and an expanded use of NTS resources. No negative 
socioeconomic effects on the region are expected as a result of the 
proposed action. In addition, no disproportionate effects on 
economically disadvantaged or minority groups are anticipated as a 
result of the proposed action.

Visual Resources

    Visual resources are analyzed with respect to intensity and 
context. Kistler actions are classified as either ``not noticeable'' or 
``visually subordinate'' and would take place in an area of moderate 
visual sensitivity. Kistler construction activities would not be 
visible by the general public. The visual impact of each launch would 
last less than five minutes. The area near the launch site has a 
substantial level of aircraft flight operations, many of which produce 
visible contrails not unlike those that would be formed by the K-1's 
engines. Upon reentry, the LAP and OV would be unpowered and would not 
produce a visual contrail. Thus, there are no expected impacts to 
visual resources.

Biological Resources

Vegetation

    Construction of the proposed Kistler facilities would result in 
clearing vegetation from a total of over 671 acres. The total loss of 
vegetation, for the Kistler facilities would represent only about 0.008 
percent of the total area of the Artemesia Type vegetation on the NTS. 
Because this plant community type is common both on the NTS and 
throughout the Great Basin, the anticipated loss would represent only a 
small portion of this habitat type and would not adversely affect local 
or regional diversity of plants and plant communities.
    Ground based operations at the vehicle processing facility and 
launch site would not affect vegetation. Buildings or pavement would 
cover both operational areas. The landing/recovery area would be 
impacted but would be permitted to re-vegetate naturally with 
herbaceous vegetation. Woody vegetation that could damage the landing 
bags on the K-1 vehicle would be selectively removed on a periodic 
basis.
    Vegetation may be damaged or destroyed by high temperature exhaust 
gases produced by launching the K-1. A NASA study reported that a 
deposition of more than one gram per square meter of chloride is 
necessary to cause serious damage to many plant species. The K-1 launch 
vehicle would deposit about 0.009 grams per square meter over an area 
of 250,000 square meters or 0.468 grams per square meter per year based 
on an assumed maximum 52 annual launches. Therefore, adverse impacts to 
vegetation from HCl deposition are expected to be negligible.

Wildlife

    Potential impacts to wildlife could be produced by construction-
related activities such as noise, human presence, clearing, and grading 
and by

[[Page 22482]]

operations-related phenomena, including launch noise, sonic booms, and 
vehicle launch emissions. Construction related impacts to wildlife 
could result in a permanent loss of available habitat and possible 
degradation of adjacent habitat due to an increase in noise and human 
activity. This habitat loss would not be expected to adversely affect 
the local or regional diversity of animal species or populations.
    Day-to-day operations around the payload processing facility and 
launch site would not extend beyond the developed areas and would be 
expected to cause only minor disturbance to animals inhabiting the 
area. Although the Kistler facilities would be located outside of the 
range of the desert tortoise, the proposed project could impact this 
species. The desert tortoise is listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service. The NTS EIS assessed the potential mortality of 
desert tortoises resulting from expanding the use of the NTS. The level 
of traffic resulting from Kistler's construction and operations 
activities would not exceed the levels anticipated in the NTS EIS and 
so, would not result in any unanticipated increase in threat to the 
desert tortoise population on the NTS. Kistler-related workers would 
receive the same desert tortoise training required of all NTS workers.
    Noise generated by vehicle launches on the NTS, including sonic 
booms, could cause a startle response and temporary hearing impairment 
to birds and mammals. These impacts are not expected to affect the 
viability or diversity of wildlife in the region. Wildlife is not 
expected to be adversely affected by Kistler launch/reentry operations.

Water Resources

    The only perennial surface water in the vicinity of the proposed 
Kistler facilities is the man-made pond located between the payload 
processing facility and the launch site. Construction of the proposed 
facilities would not affect the quantity or quality of the water in 
this pond. Residues from processing and launch operations would be 
eliminated using existing drainage systems. Evaporation exceeds 
precipitation in the area, so there would be little downward migration 
of water from the surface. Therefore, it is not likely that any of 
Kistler's activities could affect groundwater quality. Spills of fuel 
or other materials used on-site during daily operations would be 
contained and cleaned up and any residue properly disposed. Therefore, 
no adverse impacts to surface and groundwater are expected from the 
proposed launch/reentry operations.

Geology and Soils

    The majority of Kistler's facilities would be constructed on the 
ground surface or near surface. Channels and berms would be constructed 
to minimize soil erosion caused by water around the landing/recovery 
area. Operation of the Kistler facilities would not affect subsurface 
geological media but could affect surface soils due to compaction from 
vehicle traffic and/or deposition of exhaust material. However, this 
impact is expected to be minor. Surface soils may show a slight 
increase in pH, which could have a minor beneficial effect on 
vegetation by increasing the availability of some plant nutrients.

Cultural and Native American Resources

    A cultural resources reconnaissance of the proposed payload 
processing facility did not identify any historic properties; however, 
a reconnaissance of the proposed launch site and landing/recovery site 
identified two such sites. The first site is a previously recorded 
historic property that has been the subject of two previous data 
recovery efforts. The second site was previously undiscovered. A data 
recovery plan was prepared to avoid adverse impacts to the previously 
undiscovered site. The Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 
approved the plan and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 
(ACHP) concurred. The data recovery plan was implemented and completed 
and impacts to the site have been mitigated. It was also determined 
that additional data recovery efforts on the previously discovered site 
would not yield new significant information or contribute to the 
existing archaeological information already recorded from the site 
through the previous data recovery efforts (Nevada State SHPO September 
23, 1997) (ACHP October 1, 1997).
    To ensure that Native American concerns are considered and data 
recovery is conducted in a culturally sensitive manner, representatives 
of the Owens Valley Paiutes, Western Shoshones, and Southern Paiutes 
were invited to participate in all phases of data recovery. A Rapid 
Cultural Assessment was conducted of the proposed payload processing 
facility and launch site. The Rapid Cultural Assessment team 
recommended a number of measures to mitigate impacts to traditional 
cultural values connected to the area. Those recommendations were 
evaluated and implemented, as appropriate. The DOE, FAA, and 
Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations (CGTO) met to discuss 
potential impacts expected from the proposed Kistler project and the 
possibility of implementing appropriate mitigation measures. As a 
result, the DOE and FAA will implement the following mitigation 
measures prior to Kistler initiating operations (1) Preparation of a 
Rapid Cultural Assessment for the landing/recovery site, and (2) 
Permission for Tribal Elders to visit both the launch and landing/
recovery sites. These measures will be undertaken with the involvement 
of Kistler, DOE, FAA, and the CGTO. Activities would be conducted in 
accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 
of 1966.

Transportation

    Additional on-site and off-site traffic generated by the Kistler 
activities is expected to be minimal. Existing on-site roads could 
accommodate additional traffic. Traffic on off-site roads would 
increase but would have almost no impact on traffic flow. The closing 
of two paved roads on the NTS during launch and reentry activities for 
approximately one hour per launch would be a temporary disruption to 
on-site traffic.

Safety and Health

    Worker health and safety issues arise primarily from accidents 
during construction, decontamination, decommissioning, and maintenance 
activities as well as from explosions, fires, or spills. Generally, the 
impact would be limited to workers within the vicinity of the accident. 
For hazardous operations including launch, workers would be located at 
safe distances in case of a catastrophic event.
    Only accidents during K-1 flight have the potential to affect the 
public because of the remote and restricted location of the proposed 
Kistler operations. As part of the licensing process, FAA must 
determine whether K-1 operations pose unacceptable risks to public 
health and safety and not license operations that do so. Substantial 
hazards and risk are inherent in the operation of launch and reentry 
vehicles, and therefore, all reasonable precautions would be taken to 
minimize risk to public safety, health, and property. The flight ascent 
profile is designed to minimize risk to the public. A detailed flight 
hazard analysis will be conducted as part of a Safety Review under the 
auspices of the FAA before a determination is made regarding licensing. 
No significant impacts are expected to health and safety from the

[[Page 22483]]

proposed Kistler operations on the NTS. The extent of the impacts on 
public health and safety on and off the NTS will be addressed in the 
required FAA Safety Review prior to issuance of a launch and reentry 
license.

Airspace

    At no time does the launch vehicle enter airspace controlled by the 
FAA for general and commercial aviation. Most proposed Kistler flights 
stay within NTS or Nevada Test and Training Range airspace; however, 
certain launch trajectories require flight outside restricted airspace 
and above FAA controlled airspace. On these missions, vehicle altitude 
remains greater than 45,000 meters (150,000 feet) in airspace not used 
by general or commercial aviation.
    The nearest air traffic route used by civil aviation that is over-
flown by the K-1 during launch would be Jet Route 80-58 (J80-58), 
between Wilson Creek and Tonopah, Nevada. Upon reentry, the nearest air 
traffic route is J92 between Beatty and Boulder City, Nevada. Because 
of the large horizontal and altitude separation distances, the nearest 
civil air traffic route structure would not be affected, and any 
potential impacts would be negligible.

Cumulative Impacts

    The proposed action was evaluated for cumulative impacts on air 
quality, noise, socioeconomic, biological resources, cultural and 
Native American resources, transportation, and health and safety. In 
researching cumulative projects, the Department of Energy, Nevada 
Operations Office and the U.S. Air Force were contacted. The assessment 
of foreseeable future actions is based on information presented in the 
NTS EIS. No cumulative impacts are expected as a result of the proposed 
Kistler facilities and operations.

Other Alternatives

    Prior to selecting the NTS as its preferred launch location, 
Kistler explored alternatives throughout the United States. Kistler 
considered the California Spaceport, Spaceport Florida Authority's 
Launch Complex 46, and the proposed Southwest Regional Spaceport. The 
coastal locations were eliminated from consideration due to 
restrictions on the launch azimuths that could be used from that 
location. The Southwest Regional Spaceport was not selected as the 
preferred site because the NTS offered a more flexible range 
environment that is important to commercial operations.

No Action Alternative

    Under the No Action Alternative, the FAA would not issue a license 
for Kistler to conduct launch and reentry operations from the NTS. The 
General Use Permit between DOE and the NTSDC would continue to exist 
but the subpermit between the NTSDC and Kistler would be void. 
Predicted environmental impacts of the proposed launch and reentry 
activities would not occur and the proposed project area would not be 
altered as a result of Kistler-related activities.

Consultation Activities

    Seventeen tribes and organizations with ties to the NTS have 
aligned together to form the Consolidated Group of Tribes and 
Organizations. The Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations 
members prepared an American Indian assessment document to express 
their opinions and provide comments on the Environmental Assessment. A 
preliminary draft of the American Indian assessment document was 
submitted to members of the American Indian Writers Subgroup, the DOE, 
the NTSDC, and the FAA on August 31, 2000.
    Following a review of the document, the DOE requested that a 
meeting between representatives of the American Indian Writers 
Subgroups, DOE, and FAA be held to discuss the document and revise the 
text for inclusion in the Kistler Environmental Assessment.
    There are various locations where the Environmental Assessment 
contradicts or controverts Native American comments regarding 
environmental impacts. The data presented in the Environmental 
Assessment are supported by scientific findings whereas the Native 
American comments are not accompanied by any evidence to support 
assertions of environmental damage. Therefore these comments, while 
considered by the FAA in developing the Final Environmental Assessment, 
are not specifically included in the body of the document but are 
included in full as an appendix to the document. In addition, the CGTO 
was provided with an extended comment period and individual meetings 
were held between the CGTO, the DOE, and the FAA.

Determination

    An analysis of the proposed action has concluded that there are no 
significant short-term or long-term effects to the environment or 
surrounding populations. After careful and thorough consideration of 
the facts contained herein, the undersigned finds that the proposed 
Federal action is consistent with existing national environmental 
policies and objectives as set forth in Section 101(a) of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and that it will not 
significantly affect the quality of the human environment or otherwise 
include any condition requiring consultation pursuant to Section 102 
(2) (C) of NEPA. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement for the 
proposed action is not required.

    Dated: April 29, 2002.
Patricia G. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, 
Washington, DC.
[FR Doc. 02-11054 Filed 5-2-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P