this page left intentionally blank · 2015). therefore, the proposed action considers one new...
TRANSCRIPT
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Final Environmental Assessment for Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the
DragonFly Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, McGregor, Texas
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), lead; National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
cooperating agency.
ABSTRACT: This Final Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the potential environmental impacts of
FAA’s Proposed Action of issuing an experimental permit to Space Exploration Technologies Corp.
(SpaceX) for operation of the DragonFly reusable launch vehicle (RLV) at the McGregor test site, in
McGregor, Texas. This Final EA evaluates the potential impacts of the operation of the DragonFly RLV as
well as construction of a launch pad.
Potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative analyzed in detail
in this Final EA include impacts to air quality; noise and compatible land use; Department of
Transportation Act: Section 4(f); historical, architectural, archaeological, and cultural resources; fish,
wildlife, and plants; water quality (surface waters, groundwater, wetlands, and floodplains); natural
resources and energy supply; hazardous materials, pollution prevention, and solid waste; light emissions
and visual impacts; and socioeconomics, environmental justice, and children’s environmental health
risks and safety risks. Potential cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative
are also addressed in this Final EA.
PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended (NEPA; 42 United States Code 4321, et seq.), Council on Environmental Quality NEPA
implementing regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1500 to 1508), and FAA Order 1050.1E,
Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Change 1, the FAA published a Notice of Availability of
the Draft EA in the Federal Register on May 21, 2014, which started a 30‐day public review and
comment period. A Notice of Availability of the Draft EA was also published in The McGregor Mirror on
May 22, 2014. The FAA mailed copies of the Draft EA to the following agencies:
• The State Historic Preservation Officer – Texas Historical Commission
• The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
• The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
An electronic version of the Draft EA was also made available on the FAA website. In addition, the FAA
printed and mailed a copy of the Draft EA to the McGinley Memorial Library, located at 317 Main Street,
McGregor, Texas 76657.
Interested parties were invited to submit comments on environmental issues and concerns. The public
comment period ended on June 20, 2014. The FAA received letters from the U.S. Department of Interior,
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma. No substantive changes were
made to this Final EA.
[INSERT FFONSI]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Office of Commercial Space Transportation; Finding of No Significant Impact
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
ACTION: Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
SUMMARY: The FAA prepared the attached Final Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 4321‐4347 (as
amended), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations, 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500 to 1508, FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures, to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of Space Exploration Technologies Corp.
(SpaceX) conducting suborbital launches and landings of the DragonFly reusable launch vehicle (RLV) at
the McGregor, Texas test site located in McLennan and Coryell counties. To conduct these operations,
SpaceX must obtain an experimental permit from the FAA.
After reviewing and analyzing currently available data and information on existing conditions and the
potential impacts of the Proposed Action as compared with the No Action Alternative, the FAA has
determined that the Proposed Action would not significantly impact the quality of the human
environment. Therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required, and the
FAA is issuing this FONSI. The FAA made this determination in accordance with all applicable
environmental laws. The Final EA is incorporated by reference in this FONSI.
FOR A COPY OF THE EA OR FONSI: Visit the following internet address:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/review/permits or
contact Daniel Czelusniak, Office of Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Ave., SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20591; e‐mail [email protected]; or
phone (202) 267‐5924.
PURPOSE AND NEED: SpaceX’s purpose of applying for an experimental permit from the FAA is for
SpaceX to test the capability of the DragonFly RLV to execute precision landings on land. SpaceX’s need
for the experimental permit is to conduct tests to further develop the capability for the Dragon capsule
to land, so that it can be reused. One of SpaceX’s goals is to reduce the cost of access to space. Being
able to reuse the Dragon capsule would help meet this goal by eliminating the costs associated with
building another capsule.
The purpose of the FAA’s Proposed Action in connection with SpaceX’s application for an experimental
permit is to fulfill the FAA responsibilities under the Commercial Space Launch Act, 51 U.S.C. Subtitle V,
Ch. 509, §§ 50901‐50923, for oversight of experimental permit activities. The Proposed Action would be
consistent with the objectives of the Commercial Space Launch Act.
The need for the FAA action of issuing an experimental permit results from the statutory direction from
Congress under the Commercial Space Launch Act to protect the public health and safety, safety of
property, and national security and foreign policy interest of the U.S. and to encourage, facilitate, and
promote commercial space launch activities by the private sector in order to strengthen and expand U.S.
space transportation infrastructure. The FAA expects to receive an application for an experimental
permit from SpaceX to conduct launch operations of the DragonFly RLV at the McGregor test site. The
FAA must review the application and determine whether to issue the experimental permit.
PROPOSED ACTION: The Proposed Action is for the FAA to issue an experimental permit to SpaceX,
which would authorize SpaceX to conduct suborbital launches and landings of the DragonFly RLV from
the McGregor test site in McGregor, Texas. To support the DragonFly RLV activities under the
experimental permit, SpaceX would construct a 40 foot by 40 foot launch pad. Therefore, the Proposed
Action analyzed in the Final EA includes the activities that would be authorized by the experimental
permit (i.e., the operation of the launch vehicle) as well as the construction of the launch pad.
Under the FAA experimental permit program (implemented by 14 CFR Part 437), the FAA issues
experimental permits to commercial launch operators for the operation of developmental reusable
suborbital rockets on suborbital trajectories. Under the Proposed Action, the experimental permit would
be valid for one year and would authorize an unlimited number of launches. The FAA could renew the
experimental permit if requested, in writing, by SpaceX at least 60 days before the permit expires.
SpaceX anticipates that the DragonFly RLV program would require up to 2 years to complete (2014 –
2015). Therefore, the Proposed Action considers one new permit and one potential permit renewal. A
maximum of 30 annual operations are proposed in each year of operation.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: Alternatives analyzed in the Final EA include the Proposed Action and the
No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the FAA would not issue an experimental permit
to SpaceX for the operation of the DragonFly RLV at the McGregor test site. Existing SpaceX activities
would continue at the McGregor test site, which include engine testing for the Falcon 9 launch vehicle.
Please refer to Section 2.2 of the Final EA for a brief discussion of existing activities at the McGregor test
site. The FAA and SpaceX determined there were no other reasonable alternatives to be evaluated in the
Final EA.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The potential environmental impacts from the No Action Alternative and
the Proposed Action were evaluated in the attached Final EA for each of the environmental impact
categories identified in FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures.
Chapter 3, Section 3.0, of the Final EA identifies those environmental impact categories that are not
analyzed in detail, explaining why the Proposed Action would have no potential effect on those impact
categories. Those categories are: Coastal Resources, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Farmlands, and Secondary
(Induced) Impacts.
Chapter 4 of the Final EA provides detailed evaluations of the environmental consequences of each
Alternative for each of the remaining environmental impact categories (including the construction‐
related impacts in each category) and documents the finding that the Proposed Action would have no
significant impact on the human environment. A summary of the documented findings for each impact
category follows:
Air Quality, Final EA Section 4.1. Air pollutant emissions that would result from the Proposed
Action would not result in exceedence of any National Ambient Air Quality Standard.
Therefore, the FAA has determined there would be no significant air quality impacts.
Noise and Compatible Land Use, Final EA Section 4.2 and Appendix A. Noise associated with
the construction of the proposed concrete launch pad as well as the operation of the
DragonFly RLV would be compatible with the existing land use on the site. Adjacent land use is
agricultural, which is not considered a noise‐sensitive area. In addition, SpaceX has an existing
agreement with the Charles Graham Cattle Company regarding use of respective parcels of
land on days when rocket/engine tests are scheduled. The noise levels in residential areas in
the City of McGregor and Oglesby are not compatible with existing land uses under the
existing condition. The Proposed Action would have only minimal effects as compared to the
No Action Alternative. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not result in significant
compatible land use impacts.
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, Final EA Section 4.3. The FAA has
determined that operations under the Proposed Action would be expected to produce a
negligible increase in noise compared to the No Action Alternative. The DragonFly RLV would
be visible from the historic properties in the Area of Potential Effects during each launch, but
the annual operations would be intermittent and of short duration and similar in scope and
magnitude to current SpaceX testing operations. Therefore, impacts from operations under
the Proposed Action on Section 4(f) historic sites would be de minimis. There would be no
actual or constructive use of any Section 4(f) property within the region of influence of the
Proposed Action and, therefore, no significant impacts.
Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources, Final EA Section 4.4. In
accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and in consultation with
the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer, the FAA has determined that the Proposed
Action would have no effect on historic properties. THC concurred with this finding of no
effect on April 7, 2014. In consultation with the Comanche Nation of Oklahoma and the
Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma, the FAA has determined that the Proposed Action would not
affect any cultural resources. See Final EA Section 3.4. Therefore, the FAA has determined that
there would be no significant impacts in this category.
Fish, Wildlife, and Plants, Final EA Section 4.5. The FAA has determined that the Proposed
Action would not result in significant impacts to biological resources. Based on the very rare
occurrence of whooping cranes within the operational area of the McGregor test site and with
the implementation of the whooping crane monitoring plan, the FAA has determined that the
Proposed Action would have no effect on the whooping crane. In a June 16, 2014 letter from
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) to FAA, regarding their review of the Draft EA,
TPWD supported the implementation of the monitoring plan to help minimize the potential
for impacts to migrating whooping cranes from project activities.
Water Quality, Final EA Section 4.6. No construction would occur within a floodplain, so there
would be no impacts to floodplains. The FAA has determined that the Proposed Action would
not result in any significant impacts to surface waters, groundwater, or wetlands; Best
Management Practices would be implemented to prevent construction‐related impacts. In the
event of a launch failure, potential impacts to water quality would be minimized through
emergency response and clean‐up procedures.
Natural Resources and Energy Supply, Final EA Section 4.7. The FAA has determined that there
would be no significant impacts to natural resources and energy supply as a result of the
Proposed Action.
Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste, Final EA Section 4.8.
Implementation and operation of the Proposed Action would comply with all applicable
Federal, State, and local regulations regarding hazardous materials, hazardous waste
management, solid waste, and pollution prevention. Therefore, no significant impacts are
expected.
Light Emissions and Visual Impacts, Final EA Section 4.9. The Proposed Action would not
substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
The FAA has determined that the Proposed Action would not significantly impact light
emissions or visual resources.
Socioeconomics, Children’s Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, and Environmental
Justice, Final EA Section 4.10. The Proposed Action would result in minimal changes in
population, housing, income, and employment; therefore, the FAA has determined that the
Proposed Action would result in no significant socioeconomic impacts. Since the Proposed
Action would not result in environmental impacts that would adversely affect any population,
the FAA has determined that there would be no disproportionately high or adverse impacts to
children’s environmental health and safety. Similarly, and in accordance with Executive Order
12898, the FAA has determined that there would be no disproportionately high or adverse
impacts to low income or minority populations.
Please refer to Chapter 4 of the Final EA for a full discussion of the determination for each
environmental impact category.
Chapter 5 of the Final EA provides an analysis of the potential cumulative impacts of the Proposed
Action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The FAA has
determined that the Proposed Action would not result in significant cumulative impacts in any
environmental impact category or with regard to greenhouse gas emissions.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Final Enviro
Issuing an
Table of Co
1.0 Int
1.1
1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.3
1.4
2.0 Pro
2.1
2.1.1
Pro
Fli
2.1.2
2.2
2.3
3.0 Af
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.4
3.5
3.5.1
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.6
3.6.1
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
ontents
troduction .....
Background ..
Federal Agenc
Role of the
Role of NAS
Purpose and N
Public Involve
oposed Action
Proposed Acti
DragonFly R
oposed Operat
ght Profile .....
DragonFly L
No Action Alte
Alternatives C
fected Environ
Air Quality ....
National Am
Hazardous
Stationary S
Greenhous
Noise and Com
Noise Metr
Noise Crite
Compatible
Department o
Public Park
Significant
Historical, Arc
Fish, Wildlife,
Vegetation
Wildlife .....
Special‐Stat
Water Quality
Surface Wa
ment
Permit to Spac
......................
.......................
cy Involvement
FAA ...............
SA ...................
Need ...............
ment ..............
n and Alternati
ion ..................
RLV .................
tions ...............
.......................
Launch Pad ....
ernative ..........
Considered but
nment ............
.......................
mbient Air Qua
Air Pollutants
Source Permitt
e Gases ..........
mpatible Land
rics ..................
ria ..................
e Land Use ......
of Transportati
s, Recreation A
Historic Sites ..
chitectural, Arc
and Plants .....
......................
.......................
tus Species .....
y ......................
aters (Non‐wet
ceX for Operati
TABLE
.....................
.......................
t ......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
ives ...............
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
t Not Carried Fo
.....................
.......................
ality Standards
.......................
ting .................
.......................
Use ................
.......................
.......................
.......................
on Act, Section
Areas, and Ref
.......................
chaeological, a
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
tlands Surface
ion of the Drag
i
E OF CONTENT
.....................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.....................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
orward ...........
.....................
.......................
s ......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
n 4(f) ..............
uges ...............
.......................
nd Cultural Re
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
Waters) .........
gonFly Vehicle
TS
.....................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.....................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.....................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
sources ..........
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
at the McGreg
......................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
......................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
......................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
exas
t 2014
.... 1‐1
.... 1‐1
.... 1‐4
.... 1‐4
.... 1‐4
.... 1‐5
.... 1‐5
.... 2‐1
.... 2‐1
.... 2‐2
.... 2‐4
.... 2‐5
.... 2‐6
.... 2‐6
.... 2‐7
.... 3‐1
.... 3‐1
.... 3‐2
.... 3‐3
.... 3‐4
.... 3‐4
.... 3‐4
.... 3‐5
.... 3‐5
.... 3‐7
.. 3‐12
.. 3‐12
.. 3‐12
.. 3‐13
.. 3‐16
.. 3‐16
.. 3‐16
.. 3‐16
.. 3‐18
.. 3‐19
Final Enviro
Issuing an
Table of Co
3.6.2
3.6.3
3.6.4
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.10.
3.10.
3.10.
3.10.
4.0 En
4.1
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.2
4.2.1
Co
4.2.2
4.3
4.3.1
Pu
Sig
4.3.2
4.4
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.5
4.5.1
Ve
W
Sp
4.5.2
4.6
4.6.1
Su
Gr
W
Flo
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
ontents
Groundwat
Wetlands ..
Floodplains
Natural Resou
Hazardous Ma
Light Emission
Socioeconomi
Populati1
Income a2
Environm3
Children4
nvironmental C
Air Quality ....
Proposed A
No Action A
Noise and Com
Proposed A
ompatible Land
No Action A
Department o
Proposed A
ublic Parks, Rec
gnificant Histor
No Action A
Historical, Arc
Proposed A
No Action A
Fish, Wildlife,
Proposed A
egetation ........
ildlife .............
pecial‐Status Sp
No Action A
Water Quality
Proposed A
rface Waters (
roundwater ....
etlands ..........
oodplains .......
ment
Permit to Spac
ter ..................
.......................
s ......................
urces and Energ
aterials, Polluti
ns and Visual Im
ics, Environme
on and Housin
and Employme
mental Justice
’s Environmen
Consequences
.......................
Action..............
Alternative .....
mpatible Land
Action..............
d Use ...............
Alternative .....
of Transportati
Action..............
creation Areas,
ric Sites ..........
Alternative .....
chitectural, Arc
Action..............
Alternative .....
and Plants .....
Action..............
.......................
.......................
pecies .............
Alternative .....
y ......................
Action..............
(Non‐wetlands
.......................
.......................
.......................
ceX for Operati
.......................
.......................
.......................
gy Supply .......
ion Prevention
mpacts ............
ental Justice, Ch
ng ....................
ent ..................
.......................
ntal Health Risk
.....................
.......................
.......................
.......................
Use ................
.......................
.......................
.......................
on: Section 4(f
.......................
, and Refuges .
.......................
.......................
chaeological, a
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
s Surface Wate
.......................
.......................
.......................
ion of the Drag
ii
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
n, and Solid Wa
.......................
hildren’s Envir
.......................
.......................
.......................
ks and Safety R
.....................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
f) ....................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
nd Cultural Re
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
rs) ..................
.......................
.......................
.......................
gonFly Vehicle
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
aste ................
.......................
onmental Hea
.......................
.......................
.......................
Risks ................
.....................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
sources ..........
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
at the McGreg
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
lth Risks and S
........................
........................
........................
........................
......................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
Safety Risks .....
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
exas
t 2014
.. 3‐19
.. 3‐21
.. 3‐21
.. 3‐21
.. 3‐22
.. 3‐23
.. 3‐24
.. 3‐25
.. 3‐25
.. 3‐26
.. 3‐27
.... 4‐1
.... 4‐1
.... 4‐1
.... 4‐3
.... 4‐3
.... 4‐3
.... 4‐6
.... 4‐6
.... 4‐6
.... 4‐6
.... 4‐6
.... 4‐7
.... 4‐7
.... 4‐7
.... 4‐7
.... 4‐8
.... 4‐8
.... 4‐8
.... 4‐8
.... 4‐8
.... 4‐9
.... 4‐9
.. 4‐10
.. 4‐10
.. 4‐10
.. 4‐10
.. 4‐11
.. 4‐11
Final Enviro
Issuing an
Table of Co
4.6.2
4.7
4.7.1
4.7.2
4.8
4.8.1
4.8.2
4.9
4.9.1
4.9.2
4.10
4.10.
Po
Inc
En
Ch
4.10.
5.0 Cu
5.1
5.2
6.0 Lis
7.0 RE
Appendix A
Appendix B
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
ontents
No Action A
Natural Resou
Proposed A
No Action A
Hazardous Ma
Proposed A
No Action A
Light Emission
Proposed A
No Action A
Socioeconomi
Propose1
opulation and H
come and Emp
nvironmental Ju
hildren’s Enviro
No Actio2
umulative Impa
Air Quality ....
Noise ............
st of Preparers
EFERENCES .....
A – Noise ........
B – Agency Coo
ment
Permit to Spac
Alternative .....
urces and Energ
Action..............
Alternative .....
aterials, Polluti
Action..............
Alternative .....
ns and Visual Im
Action..............
Alternative .....
ics, Environme
d Action .........
Housing ..........
ployment ........
ustice .............
onmental Healt
on Alternative .
acts ...............
.......................
.......................
s and Contribu
......................
.......................
ordination ......
ceX for Operati
.......................
gy Supply .......
.......................
.......................
ion Prevention
.......................
.......................
mpacts ............
.......................
.......................
ental Justice, Ch
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
th and Safety R
.......................
.....................
.......................
.......................
tors ...............
.....................
APPEN
.......................
.......................
ion of the Drag
iii
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
n, and Solid Wa
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
hildren’s Envir
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
Risks ...............
.......................
.....................
.......................
.......................
.....................
.....................
DICES
.......................
.......................
gonFly Vehicle
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
aste ................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
onmental Hea
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.....................
.......................
.......................
.....................
.....................
.......................
.......................
at the McGreg
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
lth Risks and S
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
......................
........................
........................
......................
......................
........................
........................
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
Safety Risks .....
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
......................
.......................
.......................
......................
......................
.......................
.......................
exas
t 2014
.. 4‐11
.. 4‐11
.. 4‐11
.. 4‐12
.. 4‐12
.. 4‐12
.. 4‐13
.. 4‐13
.. 4‐13
.. 4‐13
.. 4‐14
.. 4‐14
.. 4‐14
.. 4‐14
.. 4‐15
.. 4‐15
.. 4‐15
.... 5‐1
.... 5‐1
.... 5‐2
.... 6‐1
.... 7‐1
.... A‐1
.... B‐1
Final Environmental Assessment
Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the DragonFly Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas
Table of Contents iv August 2014
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1‐1. Regional Location of McGregor, Texas ................................................................................................... 1‐2
Exhibit 1‐2. McGregor Test Site ................................................................................................................................. 1‐3
Exhibit 2‐1. Existing Grasshopper Launch Pad and DragonRider Test Area............................................................... 2‐3
Exhibit 3.2‐1. A‐Weighted Sound Levels from Typical Sources ................................................................................. 3‐6
Exhibit 3.2‐2. Existing Noise Contours ....................................................................................................................... 3‐8
Exhibit 3.2‐3. Existing Zoning Within and Adjacent to the McGregor Test Site....................................................... 3‐10
Exhibit 3.4‐1. Historic Resources within the Area of Potential Effects .................................................................... 3‐15
Exhibit 3.6.1. Surface Water in the Vicinity of the McGregor Test Site ................................................................... 3‐20
Exhibit 4.2‐1. No Action Alternative and Proposed Action Noise Contours .............................................................. 4‐5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1‐1. Proposed Annual Operations of the DragonFly RLV .............................................................................. 2‐1
Table 3.1‐1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................................................................ 3‐2
Table 3.2‐1. Land Use Compatibility with Annual Day‐Night Average Sound Levels (DNL) ..................................... 3‐11
Table 3.3‐1. Section 4(f) Public Parks, Recreation Areas, and Refuges in the Vicinity of the McGregor Test Site .. 3‐12
Table 3.4‐1. NRHP‐Listed or ‐Eligible Architectural Resources in the APE ............................................................... 3‐14
Table 3.5‐1. Federally and State‐Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Potentially Occurring within McLennan
and Coryell Counties ................................................................................................................................................ 3‐17
Table 3.7‐1. Utilities Suppliers for McGregor Test Site ............................................................................................ 3‐21
Table 3.10‐1. Current Population and Housing Data in the Region of Influence ..................................................... 3‐25
Table 3.10‐2. Income, Poverty, and Employment Data in the Region of Influence, 2007‐2011 ............................. 3‐26
Table 3.10‐3. Environmental Justice Statistics for the Region of Influence, 2012 estimate (% of population) ...... 3‐27
Table 3.10‐4. Schools Near the McGregor Test Site ................................................................................................ 3‐27
Table 4.1‐1. Estimated Construction Emissions for Launch Pad in Tons ................................................................... 4‐1
Table 4.1‐2. Estimated Annual Operation Emissions in Tons per Year (2014 and 2015) ........................................... 4‐2
Table 4.2‐1. Summary of Total Contours Acreage by Scenario (Proposed Action) ................................................... 4‐4
Table 5.1‐1. Comparison of Proposed Action GHG Emissions to U.S. 2011 GHG Emissions1 .................................... 5‐2
Final Environmental Assessment
Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the DragonFly Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas
Acronyms and Abbreviations v August 2014
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AGL above ground level APE Area of Potential Effects AST Office of Commercial Space Transportation BMPs Best Management Practices CAA Clean Air Act CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO carbon monoxide CTYRA Central Texas Youth Rodeo Association CWA Clean Water Act dB decibel dBA A‐weighted decibels DNL day‐night average noise level DOT Department of Transportation EA Environmental Assessment EO Executive Order EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act F9R Falcon 9R FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency ft feet ft2 square feet
HAPs Hazardous Air Pollutants ISD Independent School District GAO Government Accountability Office GCD Groundwater Conservation Districts GHG greenhouse gases kW‐hr kilowatt‐hour lb pound lbf pounds force Lmax maximum sound level LOX liquid oxygen MEDC McGregor Economic Development Corporation mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
MMH monomethylhydrazine MSATs Mobile Source Air Toxics NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRHP National Register of Historic Places NSR New Source Review NTO nitrogen tetroxide NWI National Wetlands Inventory NWIRP Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant O3 ozone ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RLV Reusable Launch Vehicle ROI Region of Influence RP‐1 refined petroleum SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SEL Sound Exposure Level SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer TAC Texas Administrative Code TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality THC Texas Historical Commission TPDES Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department TSD treatment, storage and disposal U.S. United States U.S.C. United States Code USCB United States Census Bureau USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
Final Environmental Assessment
Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the DragonFly Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas
Acronyms and Abbreviations vi August 2014
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Final Enviro
Issuing an
1.0 Introdu
1.0 INTRO
Space Exp
the Drago
Coryell co
experime
Transport
Commerc
Issuing an
under the
FAA has
Environm
Parts 150
to evaluat
Section 2
developm
The succe
issue an e
financial r
required
document
Backg1.1
Since 200
leased are
depicted
support b
of proper
was the s
surrounde
Areas L a
informatio
experime
the McGr
and addit
Grasshop
Permit to
Since obta
launches
the Grass
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
uction
ODUCTION
ploration Tech
onFly reusabl
ounties (Exhi
ntal permit
tation as des
cial Space Lau
n experiment
e National En
prepared th
ental Quality
0 to 1508), a
te the potent
.1). The Natio
ment of this EA
essful comple
experimental
responsibility
for future Sp
tation.
ground
03, SpaceX ha
ea has grown
in Exhibit 1‐
buildings, as w
ty (approxim
site of a Nava
ed by agricult
nd M to test
on on SpaceX
ntal permit t
regor test site
tional suppo
per operation
SpaceX for O
aining the ex
and landings
hopper RLV t
ment
Permit to Spac
hnologies Co
e launch veh
bits 1‐1 and
from the Fe
scribed in 51
nch Act of 20
tal permit is
vironmental
is Draft Envi
y (CEQ) NEPA
nd FAA Orde
tial environm
onal Aeronau
A.
etion of the e
permit to Sp
y requiremen
paceX‐propos
as leased an
n from appro
‐2, SpaceX le
well as stands
ately 9,700 a
al Weapons I
tural land (Ag
t engines tha
X’s existing ac
o SpaceX to
e. To support
rt infrastruct
ns was analyz
Operation of t
perimental p
s of the Grass
est program
ceX for Operati
rp. (SpaceX) p
hicle (RLV) at
1‐2). To con
ederal Aviati
1 United Sta
011.
considered a
Policy Act of
ironmental A
A implement
r 1050.1E, En
ental impacts
utics and Spac
nvironmenta
paceX. The P
ts per 14 CFR
sed activities
engine test s
ximately 250
eases Areas
s to conduct
cres) that wa
ndustrial Res
g 1, Ag 2, and
at are used in
ctivities at the
conduct subo
t Grasshoppe
ture. The ac
zed in the Fin
the Grasshopp
ermit from th
shopper RLV
was renewed
ion of the Drag
1‐1
proposes to c
the McGrego
nduct this exp
on Administ
tes Code (U
a major Fede
f 1969, as am
Assessment (
ting regulatio
nvironmental
s of activities
ce Administra
l review proc
roposed Acti
R Part 400. A
not addresse
site in McGre
0 acres in 200
L and M, w
engine testin
as previously
serve Plant (N
d Ag 3) as dep
n SpaceX laun
e McGregor te
orbital launch
r operations,
tion of issui
al Environme
per Vehicle a
he FAA, Space
at the McGr
d by the FAA i
gonFly Vehicle
conduct subo
or, Texas test
perimental te
tration (FAA)
.S.C.) Subtitl
eral action su
mended (NEPA
EA) in accor
ons (40 Code
Impacts: Pol
associated w
ation (NASA)
cess does not
on also must
Additional env
ed in this EA
egor, Texas fr
03 to approxi
which include
ng. The test s
owned by th
NWIRP) from
picted in Exh
nch vehicles
est site). In O
hes and landi
, SpaceX cons
ng an exper
ental Assessm
at the McGreg
eX has condu
regor test site
in September
at the McGreg
orbital launch
t site located
esting, Space
) Office of C
e V, ch. 509
ubject to env
A; 42 U.S.C. 4
rdance with
e of Federal
licies and Pro
with FAA’s Pro
is a coopera
t guarantee th
t meet all FA
vironmental a
A or in previo
rom the City
mately 1,000
s administra
site is a portio
e United Stat
m 1966 to 199
ibit 1‐2. Curr
(see Section
October 2012,
ings of the G
structed a co
rimental perm
ment for Issuin
gor Test Site,
ucted nine su
e. The experi
r 2013.
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
hes and landin
d in McLenna
eX must obta
Commercial S
9, § 50906 o
ironmental re
4321, et seq.
NEPA, Counc
Regulations
ocedures, Cha
oposed Action
ating agency i
hat the FAA w
AA safety, risk
analyses wou
ous environm
of McGregor
0 acres in 201
tive, storage
on of a larger
tes (U.S.) Nav
95. The test s
ently, SpaceX
2.2 for addi
, the FAA issu
rasshopper R
oncrete launc
mit to Space
ng an Experim
Texas (FAA 2
ccessful subo
imental perm
exas
t 2014
ngs of
n and
ain an
Space
of the
eview
). The
cil on
[CFR]
ange 1
n (see
in the
would
k, and
uld be
mental
r. The
13. As
e, and
r area
vy and
site is
X uses
tional
ued an
RLV at
h pad
eX for
mental
2011).
orbital
mit for
Final Enviro
Issuing an
1.0 Introdu
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
uction
ment
Permit to Spac
Exhibit 1
ceX for Operati
1‐1. Regional
ion of the Drag
1‐2
Location of M
gonFly Vehicle
McGregor, Te
at the McGreg
exas
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
exas
t 2014
F
I
1
Final Environmental A
Issuing an Experim
1.0 Introduction
Assessment
ental Permit to SpaaceX for Operation of the DragonFly V
Exhibit 1‐2
Vehicle at the McG
1‐3
2. McGregor Test
Gregor Test Site, Tex
t Site
exas
August 2014
Final Enviro
Issuing an
1.0 Introdu
In additio
Grasshop
and the F
Therefore
do not inc
Feder1.2
1.2.1
The FAA
operation
Commerc
U.S.C. Sub
the safety
during co
facilitate,
The FAA h
• P
fo
• En
se
• En
co
th
se
• Fa
in
d
th
The decis
under NE
permittin
1.2.2
NASA pro
reusable
reusable s
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
uction
on, SpaceX re
per vehicle. T
F9R test prog
e, the baselin
clude the Gra
ral Agency Inv
Role of the F
licenses and
n of non‐Fed
cial Expendab
btitle V, ch. 5
y of property
ommercial la
and promote
has the respo
romote econ
or peaceful pu
ncourage the
ervices by
o simplif
o facilita
nsure that th
ommercial la
hose operatio
ecurity and fo
acilitate the
ncluding the
evelopment
he full range o
ion for the FA
PA. The FAA
g commercia
Role of NASA
ovides specia
suborbital ro
suborbital tra
ment
Permit to Spac
eceived an ex
The F9R test
grams would
e conditions
sshopper RLV
volvement
FAA
d regulates U
deral launch
ble Launch Ve
509, §§ 50901
y while prote
unch and re
e commercial
nsibility, und
omic growth
urposes
e U.S. private
fying and exp
ating and enc
he Secretary o
unch and ree
ons, and prot
oreign policy
strengthenin
enhanceme
of reentry sit
of U.S. space‐
AA to issue an
is responsibl
l launch vehic
A
l expertise w
ockets, which
ansportation
ceX for Operati
xperimental
program con
be complete
(refer to Sect
V and F9R tes
U.S. commer
and reentry
ehicle Activiti
1‐50923). The
ecting the na
eentry opera
space launch
er the Comm
and entrepr
e sector to pr
pediting the is
ouraging the
of Transporta
entry operati
tects the pub
interests of th
ng and expa
ent of U.S.
tes, with Fed
‐related activ
n experiment
le for analyzi
cles.
with respect
h are intende
industry. NA
ion of the Drag
1‐4
permit for th
nsists of 10 la
ed prior to th
tion 2.2, No A
st program op
cial space la
sites, as au
ies, and the
e FAA’s missio
ational secur
tions. In add
hes and reent
mercial Space
reneurial acti
rovide launch
ssuance and t
use of gover
ation provide
ions, issue an
blic health a
he U.S.
nsion of the
launch sites
deral, State, a
ities.
tal permit to S
ng the poten
to potential
ed to help fo
SA’s partners
gonFly Vehicle
he Falcon 9R
aunches at M
he implemen
Action Alterna
perations.
aunch and re
uthorized by
Commercial
on is to ensu
ity and forei
dition, the F
tries.
Launch Act, t
ivity through
h vehicles, re
transfer of co
nment‐devel
es oversight a
nd transfer co
nd safety, sa
e U.S. space
s and launc
and private s
SpaceX is con
ntial environm
environmen
oster the de
ships with co
at the McGreg
R (F9R), whic
McGregor. The
tation of the
ative) for the
eentry activit
Executive O
Space Launc
re public hea
gn policy int
FAA is direct
to do the follo
use of the s
eentry vehicle
ommercial lice
oped space t
and coordinat
ommercial lic
afety of prop
transportati
ch‐site suppo
sector involve
nsidered a ma
mental impac
tal impacts f
evelopment o
mmercial sup
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
h is similar t
e Grasshoppe
e Proposed A
analysis in th
ty, as well a
Order (EO) 1
ch Act of 201
alth and safet
terests of the
ted to encou
owing:
pace environ
es, and assoc
enses, and
echnology
tes the condu
censes autho
perty, and na
ion infrastru
ort facilities,
ement, to su
ajor Federal a
cts associated
from operati
of the comm
ppliers and p
exas
t 2014
to the
er RLV
Action.
his EA
as the
12465,
11 (51
ty and
e U.S.
urage,
nment
ciated
uct of
orizing
tional
cture,
, and
upport
action
d with
on of
mercial
rivate
Final Enviro
Issuing an
1.0 Introdu
enterprise
developm
Purpo1.3
SpaceX’s
capability
experime
so that it
reuse the
another c
The purpo
permit is
Ch. 509, §
consisten
The need
Congress
property,
promote c
space tra
permit fro
FAA must
Public1.4
In accord
1500 to 1
FAA publi
started a
published
following
Th
Th
Th
Th
An electro
printed an
McGregor
Interested
comment
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
uction
es are expan
ment of this EA
ose and Need
purpose of
y of the Dra
ntal permit is
can be reuse
e Dragon caps
capsule.
ose of the FA
to fulfill the
§§ 50901‐509
t with the ob
for the FAA
under the C
and nationa
commercial s
nsportation
om SpaceX to
t review the a
c Involvemen
ance with N
1508), and FA
ished a Notic
30‐day publi
d in The McG
agencies:
he State Histo
he Texas Com
he Texas Park
he U.S. Fish a
onic version o
nd mailed a c
r, Texas 7665
d parties wer
t period ende
ment
Permit to Spac
ding and for
A.
d
applying for
agonFly RLV
s to conduct t
ed. One of Sp
sule would h
AA’s Proposed
FAA responsi
923, for overs
jectives of th
action of issu
Commercial S
l security and
space launch
infrastructur
o conduct lau
application an
nt
EPA, Council
AA Order 105
ce of Availabi
ic review and
Gregor Mirror
oric Preservat
mmission on E
ks and Wildlif
and Wildlife S
of the Draft E
copy of the Dr
7.
re invited to s
d on June 20,
ceX for Operati
these reaso
an experim
to execute
tests to furth
paceX’s goals
help meet thi
d Action in co
bilities under
sight of exper
e Commercia
uing an exper
Space Launch
d foreign pol
activities by t
e. The FAA
unch operatio
nd determine
on Environm
0.1E, Environ
ility of the D
d comment p
r on May 22
tion Officer –
Environmenta
fe Departmen
ervice
EA was also m
raft EA to the
submit comm
, 2014. The FA
ion of the Drag
1‐5
ns, NASA req
ental permit
precision la
er develop th
s is to reduce
s goal by elim
onnection wit
r the Comme
rimental perm
al Space Laun
imental perm
Act to prot
icy interest o
the private se
expects to r
ons of the Dr
whether to is
mental Qualit
nmental Impa
raft EA in the
period. A Not
2, 2014. The
– Texas Histor
al Quality
nt
made availab
e McGinley M
ments on env
AA received l
gonFly Vehicle
quested to b
t from the F
andings on
he capability
e the cost of
minating the
th SpaceX’s a
ercial Space La
mit activities.
ch Act.
mit results fro
ect the publ
of the U.S. an
ector in order
eceive an ap
ragonFly RLV
ssue the expe
ty NEPA imp
acts: Policies
e Federal Reg
tice of Availa
FAA mailed
rical Commiss
ble on the FAA
Memorial Libra
vironmental is
letters from t
at the McGreg
be a cooperat
FAA is for Sp
land. Space
for the Drago
access to sp
costs associ
application fo
aunch Act, 51
The Propose
om the statut
ic health and
nd to encoura
r to strengthe
pplication for
at the McGr
erimental per
plementing re
and Procedu
gister on Ma
ability of the
copies of th
sion
A website. In
ary, located a
ssues and co
the U.S. Depa
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
ting agency i
paceX to tes
X’s need fo
on capsule to
pace. Being ab
ated with bu
or an experim
1 U.S.C. Subt
ed Action wou
tory direction
d safety, safe
age, facilitate
en and expan
r an experim
egor test site
rmit.
egulations (40
ures, Change
ay 21, 2014, w
Draft EA wa
he Draft EA t
n addition, the
at 317 Main S
ncerns. The p
artment of Int
exas
t 2014
in the
st the
r the
o land,
ble to
uilding
mental
itle V,
uld be
n from
ety of
e, and
d U.S.
mental
e. The
0 CFR
1, the
which
s also
to the
e FAA
Street,
public
terior,
Final Environmental Assessment
Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the DragonFly Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas
1.0 Introduction 1‐6 August 2014
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma (see Appendix B, Agency
Coordination). No substantive changes were made to this Final EA.
Final Enviro
Issuing an
2.0 Propos
2.0 PROP
Propo2.1
The Propo
which wo
the McG
experime
Action an
permit (i.e
Under th
experime
suborbita
be valid f
experime
SpaceX an
2015). Th
Although
estimate
coordinat
conducted
maximum
operation
multiple l
of 7:00 a.
SpaceX is
McGregor
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
sed Action and
POSED ACTIO
osed Action
osed Action (
ould authorize
regor test s
ntal permit, S
nalyzed in thi
e., the operat
e FAA exper
ntal permits
l rockets on s
or one year a
ntal permit i
nticipates tha
erefore, the P
an experime
the number
tion with Spa
d under any
m of 30 annua
n types (see
aunches per
m. and 10:00
Ta
Operatio
Propulsive As
Full Propulsiv
Propulsive AsHopping
Full Propulsiv
s currently c
r test site: th
ment
Permit to Spac
Alternatives
N AND ALTER
(preferred alt
e SpaceX to c
ite in McGr
SpaceX would
is Final EA in
tion of the lau
rimental per
to commerc
suborbital tra
and would au
if requested,
at the Dragon
Proposed Act
ental permit
of launches
aceX has assu
one experim
al operations
Table 2.1‐1)
day and pote
0 p.m.
able 2.1‐1. Pr
on Type
ssist
ve Landing
ssist
ve Hopping
onsidering tw
he existing Gr
ceX for Operati
RNATIVES
ternative) is f
conduct subo
egor, Texas.
d construct a
ncludes the a
unch vehicle)
mit program
cial launch o
jectories. Un
uthorize an u
in writing, b
nFly RLV pro
tion considers
would autho
s in order to
umed a certa
mental perm
are proposed
). This estim
ential launch
oposed Annu
Drop the RLV f10,000 ft, depSuperDraco enseconds
Drop the RLV f10,000 ft and (no parachute
RLV takes off fparachutes; en
RLV takes off fpropulsive (no25 seconds
wo locations
rasshopper la
ion of the Drag
2‐1
for the FAA t
orbital launch
To support
40 foot (ft) b
ctivities that
as well as th
m (implement
operators for
der the Propo
unlimited num
by SpaceX at
gram would
s one new pe
orize an unli
analyze pot
ain number o
it for the Dr
d in each year
mation is a m
failures. All
ual Operation
Descripti
from a helicoploy parachutesngines; engine
from a helicopland only withe); engines wou
from launch pangines would f
from launch pao parachute); e
s for the Dra
aunch pad an
gonFly Vehicle
to issue an e
hes and landi
t the Dragon
by 40 ft launc
t would be a
e constructio
ted by 14 C
the operatio
osed Action,
mber of launc
t least 60 da
require up to
rmit and one
mited numb
tential enviro
of annual lau
ragonFly RLV
r of operation
maximum nu
operations w
ns of the Drag
ion
pter from up tos and land withs would fire fo
pter from up to SuperDraco euld fire for 5 se
ad and lands wfire for 25 seco
ad, hovers, andengines would
Total Ope
agonFly RLV
nd the Drago
at the McGreg
experimental
ngs of the Dr
nFly RLV act
h pad. Theref
uthorized by
on of the laun
CFR Part 437
on of develo
the experime
ches. The FAA
ays before th
o 2 years to
e potential pe
ber of launch
onmental im
unch operati
V at the McG
n, distributed
mber and co
would occur b
gonFly RLV A
Ope
o h or 5
o engines econds
with onds
d lands fire for
erations
launch oper
onRider test a
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
permit to Sp
ragonFly RLV
tivities unde
fore, the Prop
y the experim
nch pad.
7), the FAA i
opmental reu
ental permit w
A could renew
he permit ex
complete (2
ermit renewal
hes, the FAA
pacts. The F
ons that cou
Gregor test s
d between the
onsiders pot
between the
Annual erations
2
2
8
18
30
rations withi
area. If opera
exas
t 2014
paceX,
V from
er the
posed
mental
issues
usable
would
w the
xpires.
014 –
l.
must
AA in
uld be
ite. A
e four
tential
hours
n the
ations
Final Enviro
Issuing an
2.0 Propos
would occ
(see Exhib
depicted
2.1.1
The Drago
during a D
consists o
thermal p
structures
tanks, pre
self‐conta
SuperDra
It is also d
with fast s
The Drago
base widt
aluminum
The prop
monomet
amount o
discussed
The Drag
load of a
loads wo
Section 2
test type)
The parac
mortars.
order to p
parachute
compone
main para
main para
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
sed Action and
cur at the Dra
bit 2‐1). The
in Exhibit 1‐2
DragonFly R
onFly RLV is t
DragonFly op
of a welded
protection sy
s including ei
essurant tank
ained quadra
co engine use
designed to s
shut‐off and l
onFly RLV we
th of 13 ft. Ea
m bracket. Thi
ulsion system
thylhydrazine
of propellant f
further in S
onFly RLV ha
pproximately
uld be differ
.1.1.1 for fur
.
chute system
A drogue is a
pull a larger p
e. Each of th
nts except th
achutes fill th
achutes has a
ment
Permit to Spac
Alternatives
agonRider tes
proposed op
.
LV
the Dragon c
peration) and
aluminum p
ystem suppo
ght SuperDra
ks, parachute
ants with ind
es a fuel‐cent
seal off both
limited prope
eighs approx
ach pair of Su
s bracket is c
m uses a nitr
e (MMH) pro
for each type
Section 2.1.1
as a maximu
y 400 gallons
rent dependi
rther discussi
m consists of
a small parac
parachute. Th
e two drogue
he main para
he volume be
n area of app
ceX for Operati
st area, const
perating area
capsule with a
up to four s
pressure ves
ort structure,
aco engines (t
system, and
dependent s
tered injector
fuel and oxid
ellant “dribble
imately 14,00
uperDraco en
onnected to
ogen tetroxid
opellant comb
e of operation
1.1, Proposed
um operation
; however, th
ng on the te
on on propel
two dual init
chute that de
e mortar is a
e parachutes
achutes are m
etween two r
proximately 1
ion of the Drag
2‐2
ruction of a 4
a would be co
an integrated
steel landing
sel, primary
, and a nos
two in each o
necessary av
sets of prop
r to provide a
dizer from th
e” volumes.
00 pounds (l
ngines (eight
the pressure
de (NTO) and
bination. The
n varies and is
d Operations
nal propellant
he propellant
est type (see
llant loads by
tiated drogue
eploys first in
low velocity
has an area
mounted on
radial bulkhea
10,935 ft2.
gonFly Vehicle
40 ft by 40 ft
onsidered th
d trunk (whic
legs. The Dra
heat shield
econe. This
of the four m
vionics. The p
ellant tanks
appropriate p
he combustio
bs) un‐fueled
total engines
vessel with t
d
e
s
s.
t
t
e
y
e
n
explosive tha
a of approxim
the outside
ads below th
at the McGreg
launch pad w
e entire McG
ch may or ma
agon capsule
support stru
structure su
odules [quad
propulsion sys
for system
erformance f
n chamber, e
d, with a heig
s) are mounte
three mounts
at is fired to r
mately 452 sq
of the forwa
e side hatch.
Dragon CapsIntegrated
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
would be nece
Gregor test s
ay not be atta
primary stru
ucture, back
upports seco
drants]), prop
stem include
redundancy
for the applic
enabling oper
ght of 17 ft
ed to a mono
s.
release the d
quare feet (ft
ard bulkhead
Each of the
sule with d Trunk
exas
t 2014
essary
site as
ached
ucture
shell
ndary
pellant
s four
y. The
ation.
ration
and a
olithic
rogue
t2). All
d. The
three
F
I
2
Final Environmental A
Issuing an Experim
2.0 Proposed Actio
Assessment
ental Permit to Spa
on and Alternatives
aceX for Operation
s
Exhibit 2‐1. Exi
of the DragonFly V
isting Grasshopp
Vehicle at the McG
2‐3
per Launch Pad an
Gregor Test Site, Tex
nd DragonRider T
exas
Test Area
August 2014
Final Environmental Assessment
Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the DragonFly Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2‐4 August 2014
Deployment of the parachutes system begins with both drogue mortars firing simultaneously through
blowout panels (each panel weighs 8 lbs and is approximately 2 ft by 2ft). The panels would then fall to
the ground within the proposed operating area.
Proposed Operations
As discussed above, the DragonFly RLV test program is expected to be conducted under an experimental
permit and would consist of up to 30 annual operations, distributed between four types of operations
(see Table 2.1‐1). Multiple test operations could occur each day between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
10:00 p.m., and would be consistent with SpaceX’s lease with the City of McGregor. For example, the
terms of the lease prohibit SpaceX from conducting engine tests between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and
7:00 a.m. The DragonFly RLV would be unmanned during all launch operations. However, 10 additional
staff would be located at the McGregor test site to support DragonFly RLV operations.
Pre‐flight and Post‐flight Activities
Pre‐flight and post‐flight activities would be similar for each test type. Pre‐flight activities include
preparing the DragonFly RLV for launch and providing ground operations support for launch and landing.
The DragonFly RLV would be transported by truck or tractor‐trailer from its storage location at the
McGregor test site to the launch pad. Similarly, trucks would be used to transport the propellants from
the propellant storage area to the launch pad.
Standard safety precautions, such as clearing the area of unnecessary personnel and ignition (including
spark) sources, would be implemented. The DragonFly RLV would be fueled with the appropriate
amount of propellant for the proposed test type (see Section 2.1.1.2 – 2.1.1.5 below for a description of
test types). In the event of a spill or release, propellant‐loading operations would be halted. Any spills
would be cleaned up according to the SpaceX’s Spill Response Procedures for the McGregor test site.
Following the propellant transfer, the propellant‐loading equipment would be removed from the launch
area.
During preparations for launch, the electrical and mechanical connections of the DragonFly RLV would
be inspected, and flight control diagnostics and health checks would be completed to ensure proper
operation of electrical systems and moving parts. The DragonFly RLV would initiate its formal launch
sequence (i.e., ignition of its propulsion system) after all preparation and pre‐flight operations were
completed.
Post‐flight activities include DragonFly RLV landing and safing1. During a nominal launch, the vehicle
would land either back on the launch pad or in a predetermined targeted site within the operating area
in the vicinity of launch pad. Safing activities would begin upon completion of all launch and landing
1 Safing refers to shutting down the launch vehicle and ensuring the vehicle is in a safe condition before transporting the vehicle
to its storage facility.
Final Environmental Assessment
Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the DragonFly Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2‐5 August 2014
activities and engine shutdown. The propellant lines would be drained into a suitable container. A
ground crew would perform and supervise all pre‐flight, flight, and landing operations and would be
familiar with the operating protocol for the specific test type.
Flight Profile
Flight profile refers to the take‐off (or drop), flight, and landing of the launch vehicle. The flight profile
for each operation type is discussed below.
Propulsive Assist
For the propulsive assist test, a helicopter (an Erickson E‐model or equivalent) would arrive at the
McGregor test site from Waco Regional Airport. The DragonFly RLV would then be tethered to the
helicopter using a cable. A maximum of 300 gallons of propellant would be loaded into the DragonFly
RLV for this test. The helicopter would take off with the DragonFly RLV attached and reach an altitude
up to 10,000 ft. Once at that altitude, the DragonFly RLV would be released from the tether and three
main parachutes would be deployed. The engines would not fire until the vehicle descends to
approximately 98 ft above ground level (AGL). The engines would fire for approximately 5 seconds, and
the RLV would make a powered landing. This type of operation would last approximately 30 minutes
from helicopter take‐off to DragonFly RLV landing.
The test would be designed so that almost all fuel on board is used prior to landing. All fuel valves would
shut automatically and retain any residual fuel in the capsule.
Full Propulsive Landing
For the full propulsive landing test, a helicopter (an Erickson E‐model or equivalent) would arrive at the
McGregor test site from Waco Regional Airport. The DragonFly RLV would then be tethered to the
helicopter. A maximum of 300 gallons of propellant would be loaded into the DragonFly RLV for this
test. The helicopter would take off with the DragonFly RLV attached and reach an altitude up to 10,000
ft. Once at that altitude, the DragonFly RLV would be released from the tether. There would be a period
of free fall and then the engines would fire for approximately 5 seconds and the RLV would make a
powered landing. This type of operation would last approximately 30 minutes from helicopter take‐off
to DragonFly RLV landing.
Propulsive Assist Hopping
Approximately 400 gallons of propellant would be loaded into the DragonFly RLV for this test. During a
propulsive assisted hop test, the DragonFly RLV would launch from a launch pad and ascend to
approximately 7,000 ft AGL (firing engines for 12.5 seconds). Two parachutes would be deployed for the
descent, the engines would fire for 12.5 seconds, and the RLV would make a powered landing on the
launch pad. This operation would last approximately 60 seconds.
Final Enviro
Issuing an
2.0 Propos
Full Propu
Approxim
full prop
approxim
throttle d
RLV woul
seconds.
2.1.2
In order t
would co
approxim
proposed
infrastruc
end of a
construct
yards) of
trucks in b
The propo
DragonRid
No Ac2.2
Under the
operation
the McGr
approxim
an expen
refined p
approxim
engines, w
occurs on
currently
conductin
DragonRid
minutes p
NEPA req
effects of
serves as
not satisfy
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
sed Action and
ulsive Hoppin
mately 400 ga
ulsive hop t
ately 7,000 f
down in order
d make a po
DragonFly La
to support th
nstruct a co
ately 0.32 mi
launch pad
cture (i.e., the
n existing ac
ing on black
concrete, wh
batches of 9 c
osed launch p
der test area.
ction Alterna
e No Action
n of the Drag
regor test site
ately five Me
dable launch
petroleum (R
ately 62,000
with each M
n the tripod st
uses hypergo
ng hypergolic
der test area
per year.
uires agencie
f not taking a
a baseline to
y the purpose
ment
Permit to Spac
Alternatives
g
llons of prop
test, the Dr
ft AGL (firing
r to descend
owered landi
aunch Pad
e proposed a
ncrete launc
ile north of th
location wa
e tripod test
ccess road a
clay. The lau
hich would b
cubic yards. C
pad would be
.
tive
Alternative, t
onFly RLV at
e, which inclu
erlin‐1D tests
vehicle that
P‐1), and liq
gallons of LO
erlin‐1D engi
tand located
olic propellan
testing in an
a for the Su
es to consider
ction with th
o compare th
e and need fo
ceX for Operati
ellant would
ragonFly RLV
g engines for
(firing engine
ng on the la
activities of th
h pad. The p
he Grasshopp
as based on
stand) and th
and would b
unch pad wo
be supplied to
Construction
e connected
the FAA wou
the McGrego
ude engine t
per week as w
t uses highly
quid oxygen
OX and 38,00
ine producing
at the site (s
nts at the McG
enclosed vac
uperDraco en
r a “no action
e effects of t
he impacts of
or the Propos
ion of the Drag
2‐6
be loaded in
V would lau
approximate
es for an add
aunch pad. T
he DragonFly
proposed lau
per launch pa
the separati
he control ce
be built to c
uld require a
o the McGre
of the launch
to existing in
uld not issue
or test site. E
esting for the
well as six Fa
refined kero
(LOX) for pr
0 gallons of R
g 146,000 po
see Exhibit 2‐
Gregor site, s
cuum chamb
ngine develo
n” alternative
the action alt
f the Propose
ed Action as s
gonFly Vehicle
nto the Drago
unch from a
ely 12.5 seco
itional appro
his operation
y RLV under a
unch pad wo
ad (see Exhib
ion distance
enter. The pa
comply with
approximatel
gor test site
h pad would b
nfrastructure
an experime
Existing Space
e Falcon 9 la
lcon 9 Stage
sene, also kn
ropellants. St
RP‐1. Stage 1
ounds of thru
1 for general
specifically at
er. Open air t
pments for
e in their NEP
ternative(s). T
ed Action. Th
stated above
at the McGreg
onFly RLV for
a launch pad
onds). The en
oximate 12. 5
n would last
an experimen
ould be 40 ft
it 2‐1 for gen
from SpaceX
ad would be c
Texas code
y 24,003 cub
by approxim
be expected t
(i.e., water a
ental permit
eX activities
aunch vehicle
1 tests per ye
nown as rock
tage 1 of th
1 is powered
ust. The Falco
l location). Ad
t the Dragon
testing is also
a total of a
PA analyses an
Thus, the No
he No Action
e in Section 1.
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
this test. Du
d and ascen
ngines would
seconds), an
approximate
tal permit, Sp
t by 40 ft lo
neral location
X’s existing
constructed a
requirement
bic feet (889
mately 99 con
to take 1–2 w
and electric) a
to SpaceX fo
would contin
e. SpaceX ave
ear. The Falco
ket propellant
he Falcon 9
by nine Merl
on 9 stage te
dditionally, Sp
Decon area,
o conducted a
pproximately
nd to compar
Action Altern
Alternative w
.2.
exas
t 2014
ring a
nd to
d then
nd the
ely 60
paceX
ocated
). The
major
at the
ts for
cubic
ncrete
weeks.
at the
or the
nue at
erages
on 9 is
t‐1 or
holds
lin‐1D
esting
paceX
when
at the
y four
re the
native
would
Final Enviro
Issuing an
2.0 Propos
Altern2.3
In conjun
the Drago
considera
Sp
Sp
Sp
p
Th
Th
Th
Therefore
alternativ
site.
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
sed Action and
natives Consi
ction with Sp
onFly RLV. H
ation:
paceX’s curre
paceX’s ongo
paceX’s exist
rogram,
he previously
he general un
he general “u
e, there are
ve is to condu
ment
Permit to Spac
Alternatives
idered but No
paceX, the FA
However, due
ent operation
ing engine te
ing launch pa
y disturbed en
ninhabited or
uncrowded” a
no other re
uct suborbital
ceX for Operati
ot Carried Fo
AA considered
e to the foll
al McGregor
esting at McG
ad and infrast
nvironment o
r sparse popu
airspace over
easonable alt
launches an
ion of the Drag
2‐7
rward
d assessing a
owing reaso
test site and
regor test sit
tructure that
of the McGreg
lation surrou
the McGrego
ternatives to
d landings of
gonFly Vehicle
alternative sit
ons, alternati
lease with th
e,
t are available
gor test site,
unding the Mc
or test site.
o be evaluat
f the DragonF
at the McGreg
tes to conduc
ve sites wer
he City of McG
e to support
cGregor test s
ted in this E
Fly RLV from
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
ct test launch
re dismissed
Gregor,
the propose
site, and
EA. The pref
the McGrego
exas
t 2014
hes of
from
d test
ferred
or test
Final Environmental Assessment
Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the DragonFly Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2‐8 August 2014
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Final Enviro
Issuing an
3.0 Affecte
3.0 AFFEC
This Chap
Proposed
The level
resources
The envir
(ROI). Eac
section.
Resource
This EA d
the reaso
Air Qu3.1
The Earth
ionospher
defined a
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
ed Environmen
CTED ENVIRO
pter provides
Action, as re
of detail prov
s (40 CFR §150
ronment pote
ch resource a
s Not Analyze
oes not analy
ns explained
Coastal Re
coastal res
Wild and
Wild and S
operationa
the Saline
Scenic Rive
Nationwid
in Hood C
approxima
Farmlands
importanc
project. P
McGregor
urban use
Policy Act
Secondary
induced o
movement
personnel
response t
dismissed.
uality
h’s atmosphe
re. For the p
s at or below
ment
Permit to Spac
nt
ONMENT
s a descriptio
equired by C
vided in this C
02.15).
entially affect
rea discussed
ed in Detail
yze potential
below:
esources – Pr
sources are n
Scenic Rivers
Scenic Rivers
al activities w
Bayou in Lou
er System 20
e Rivers Inve
County and
ately 64 miles
s – There are
ce as defined
revious coor
test site ind
s, and are no
(FAA 2011).
y (Induced) I
or secondary
t and growth
would not p
to the direct
.
re consists o
urposes of th
w 3,000 ft AG
ceX for Operati
on of the en
EQ regulation
Chapter is com
ted by the Pr
d in this chap
impacts to t
roposed cons
ot present.
s – There are
s Act, located
would occur. T
uisiana, over 3
13). Similarly
ntory (NRI) w
the Brazos
s north and 62
e no prime o
by the Farml
rdination wit
dicated that s
ot prime or u
mpacts – Th
impacts to s
, public servic
produce a m
t effect (refer
of four main l
his EA, the d
GL, which the
ion of the Drag
3‐1
nvironmental
ns for implem
mmensurate
roposed Actio
pter has a dist
he following
struction and
e no designat
d within the M
The closest fe
300 miles from
y, there are no
within or near
River on the
2 miles west
or unique fa
land Protecti
h the Natura
soils at the M
unique farmla
e Proposed A
surrounding
ce demands,
easurable rip
r to Section
layers: the tr
discussion of
U.S. Environ
gonFly Vehicle
resources t
menting NEPA
with the imp
on is referred
tinct ROI, wh
environment
d operating a
ted wild or s
McGregor tes
ederally desig
m the McGre
o rivers listed
r the McGreg
e western ed
of the McGre
rmlands or f
on Policy Act
al Resources
McGregor tes
ands as defin
Action would
communities
and econom
pple effect o
4.10). Theref
roposphere, s
air quality w
nmental Prote
at the McGreg
hat would b
A (40 CFR Pa
portance of th
d to as the R
ich is further
tal resource
reas are loca
scenic rivers,
st site where
gnated Wild a
egor test site (
d on the Natio
gor test site. T
dge of Lamp
egor Test site,
farmland of s
t that would
s Conservatio
st site are “p
ed by the Fa
d not involve
s, such as sh
ic activity. Th
of spending a
fore, this imp
stratosphere,
within the low
ection Agenc
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
e affected b
rts 1500 to 1
he impact on
Region of Influ
r described in
areas in deta
ated inland, w
as defined b
e constructio
and Scenic Ri
(National Wil
onal Park Ser
The Colorado
pasas County
, respectively
statewide or
be affected b
on Service fo
rior converte
rmland Prote
e the potenti
hifts in popu
he influx of 10
and re‐spend
pact category
, mesosphere
wer troposph
cy (EPA) accep
exas
t 2014
by the
1508).
these
uence
n each
ail, for
where
by the
n and
iver is
d and
rvices’
River
y, are
y.
r local
by the
or the
ed” to
ection
ial for
lation
0 new
ing in
y was
e, and
ere is
pts as
Final Enviro
Issuing an
3.0 Affecte
the nomin
level amb
from ope
ground‐le
of air dire
the mixin
mesosphe
the Drago
decrease
temperat
from spon
The propo
two count
(refer to E
3.1.1
Under the
Part 50)
represent
safety, to
establishe
annual av
Commissi
are prese
CP
Carbon m
Lead
Nitrogen
PM10
PM2.5
Ozone
Sulfur dio
Source: (EPANotes: mg/m
partsparti
EPA desig
attainmen
through F
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
ed Environmen
nal height of
bient air qual
rations at or
evel concentra
ectly above th
g height, abo
ere, and iono
onfly is 10,00
with altitude
ure begins to
ntaneously ris
osed operatio
ties, McLenna
Exhibit 2‐1).
National Am
e Clean Air A
for specific p
t the maximu
protect pub
ed for polluta
verages) are
on on Enviro
nted in Table
Criteria Pollutant
monoxide
dioxide
oxide
A 2012) m3 = milligrams per million; Piculate matter
gnates areas
nt for any NA
Federal, State
ment
Permit to Spac
nt
f the atmosph
ity under the
above 3,000
ations. The m
he Earth that
ove which the
osphere are n
00 ft AGL, wh
e in the atmo
o increase w
sing past the
on of the Dra
an and Corye
mbient Air Qu
Act, the EPA e
pollutants of
um levels of p
lic health and
ants contribut
established
nmental Qua
e 3.1‐1.
Table 3.1‐1
Ave
Rolling 3
(arithm
(arithm
s per cubic mePM10 = particul2.5 microns or
having air qu
AAQS is based
e and/or loca
ceX for Operati
here mixing l
e Clean Air A
ft AGL would
mixing layer (s
is relatively
e free tropos
not relevant f
hich lies with
osphere up to
ith altitude a
mixing heigh
agon RLV wou
ell. Therefore,
uality Standar
established N
concern, wh
pollution that
d welfare. Sh
ting to acute
for pollutan
ality (TCEQ), O
1. National Am
eraging Time
8‐hour1‐hour
3‐month averaAnnualmetic average)1‐hour24‐hourAnnualmetic average)24‐hour8‐hour3‐hour1‐hour
eter; µg/m3 = mate matter lessr less in diame
uality within t
d on the eva
l monitoring
ion of the Drag
3‐2
layer in asses
Act (CAA) (EPA
d occur, thes
sometimes re
well mixed. T
sphere extend
for this analy
hin the tropo
o the mixing
and creates a
t (Visconti 20
uld occur in M
, the ROI for a
rds
National Ambi
hich are refe
are consider
hort‐term sta
health effect
nts contribut
Office of Air,
mbient Air Q
Prim
9 ppm35 pp
ge 0
)
1
) 1
0
micrograms pers than or equater
the NAAQS a
luation of am
networks. Th
gonFly Vehicle
ssing contrib
A 1992). Alth
e emissions w
eferred to as t
This layer ext
ds up to the
ysis because t
sphere. Typic
height. How
an inversion
001).
McGregor, Te
air quality is
ient Air Qual
erred to as c
red acceptab
ndards (1‐, 3
ts, while long
ting to chro
adopted the
Quality Standa
ary Standards
m (10 mg/m3)pm (40 mg/m3)0.15 µg/m3
53 ppb
100 ppb150 µg/m3
12.0 µg/m3
35 µg/m3
0.075 ppmNone75 ppb
r cubic meter; al to 10 micron
s being in “a
mbient air qu
here are two
at the McGreg
utions of em
hough launch
would not re
the boundary
tends to a he
tropopause.
the maximum
cally, temper
ever, at the
which preve
exas which is
McLennan an
ity Standards
criteria pollut
le, with an ad
3‐, 8‐, and 24
g‐term standa
nic health e
EPA‐establish
ards
Secon
)Sam
Sam
Sam
1
SamSam
ppb = parts pes in diameter;
ttainment.” T
ality monitor
o TCEQ monit
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
missions to gro
vehicle emis
sult in appre
y layer) is the
eight referred
The stratosp
m flight altitu
rature and de
mixing heigh
nts a parcel
located in pa
nd Coryell cou
s (NAAQS) (4
tants. The N
dequate mar
‐hour period
ards (quarterl
effects. The
hed NAAQS, w
ndary Standard
None
me as Primary
me as Primary
None me as Primary
15.0 µg/m3
me as Primaryme as Primary0.5 ppmNone
er billion; ppm PM2.5 = fine
The designati
ring data coll
oring sites lo
exas
t 2014
ound‐
ssions
ciable
e layer
to as
phere,
ude of
ensity
t, the
of air
arts of
unties
0 CFR
AAQS
gin of
s) are
ly and
Texas
which
ds
=
ion of
lected
ocated
Final Enviro
Issuing an
3.0 Affecte
in McLen
collects m
Texas. Th
temperat
for all reg
above th
exceedan
are in att
apply and
Stationary
fueling, a
include su
test site o
operation
equipmen
more than
air quality
TCEQ crit
250 tons
tons per y
3.1.2
In additio
Hazardou
control te
HAPs emi
emitted fr
other ser
Rule, whic
of these
benzene,
a second
first rule a
The rule a
2007).
MSATs wo
equipmen
emission
produce n
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
ed Environmen
nan County i
meteorologica
his site colle
ure, wind, an
gulated criter
e old 24‐hou
ce that woul
tainment for
d is not addre
y point sourc
nd other poin
upport equipm
operates und
n of five rock
nt at the McG
n a de minim
y permit, are
eria including
per year of C
year of PM10,
Hazardous A
on to the amb
s Air Pollutan
echnologies (4
tted from mo
rom highway
ious health a
ch identified
MSATs comp
1,3 butadien
Mobile Sourc
and provided
also identified
ould be the p
nt used durin
controls. Con
negligible am
ment
Permit to Spac
nt
n the Waco a
al data only. T
ects data on
nd solar radia
ia pollutants.
ur NAAQS o
d require des
NAAQS, the
ssed in this EA
ces of air em
nt sources su
ment, comme
der a TCEQ a
ket engine te
Gregor test si
is level of em
e not major s
g emissions l
CO or nitroge
and 10 tons p
Air Pollutants
bient air qual
nts (HAPs). Th
40 CFR Parts 6
obile sources
vehicles and
and environm
21 compoun
pounds were
e, formaldeh
ce Air Toxics
additional re
d several eng
primary HAPs
ng constructio
nstruction eq
mbient HAPs i
ceX for Operati
area. One is
The second sit
carbon mo
ation (TCEQ 2
. Although th
f 15 µg/m3
signation as n
CAA General
A.
missions at the
uch as genera
ercial transpo
air quality pe
est stands, fi
te. It is a Per
missions but d
sources as de
imits. To mee
en oxides, 25
per year of PM
s
lity standards
he National E
61 and 63). T
s are called M
non‐road eq
mental effects
ds as being H
identified as
yde, acrolein
Rule in Febru
ecommendati
gine emission
s emitted by
on of the lau
uipment wou
n a localized
ion of the Drag
3‐3
located at th
te (CAMS 103
noxide, nitro
2013). McLen
here have bee
for PM2.5, th
nonattainmen
l Conformity
e McGregor
ators and sto
ort vehicles, a
rmit (TCEQ 2
ive new fuel
mit by Rule,
o not require
efined by the
et these limit
tons per yea
M2.5.
s for criteria
mission Stan
he majority o
Mobile Source
uipment that
s. In 2001, E
HAPs that req
s having the
, acetaldehyd
uary 2007, wh
ions of compo
n certification
mobile sourc
unch pad wo
uld be operat
area. Opera
gonFly Vehicle
he Waco Reg
37) is located
ogen oxides,
nnan and Cor
en instances
he area has
nt. Because M
Rule (40 CFR
test site incl
rage tanks. M
and personal
2007). This p
storage tan
which TCEQ
e a standard (
e U.S. Clean A
ts the facility
ar of SO2 or v
pollutants, n
dards regulat
of HAPs are vo
e Air Toxics (M
t are known o
PA issued its
quired regulat
greatest infl
de, and diese
hich generall
ounds having
n standards th
ces during co
ould likely va
ted for appro
ational equipm
at the McGreg
gional Airport
on Mazanec
ozone, PM2
ryell counties
of exceedanc
not establis
McLennan an
R Part 93, Su
ude launch v
Mobile source
motor vehic
permit covers
nks, and asso
issues to faci
(i.e., New Sou
Air Act, and
y’s emissions
volatile organ
ational stand
te 188 HAPs
olatile organi
MSATs). MSA
or suspected
s first Mobile
tion (EPA 200
luence on he
l particulate m
y supported
g the greatest
hat must be i
nstruction an
ry in age and
ximately two
ment, includi
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
t (CAMS 5010
Road in Elm
2.5, sulfur dio
are in attain
ce (at CAMS
shed a patte
nd Coryell cou
ubpart B) doe
vehicle proce
es of air emis
les. The McG
s construction
ociated piping
lities that pro
urce Review)
that meet se
must be less
nic compound
dards also exi
based on ava
c compounds
Ts are compo
to cause can
e Source Air T
01). A subset
ealth and inc
matter. EPA i
the findings
t impact on h
implemented
nd operations
d have a ran
o weeks and w
ing vehicles d
exas
t 2014
0) and
Mott,
oxide,
nment
1037)
ern of
unties
es not
essing,
ssions
Gregor
n and
g and
oduce
TCEQ
everal
s than
ds, 15
ist for
ailable
s.
ounds
cer or
Toxics
of six
cluded
ssued
in the
ealth.
d (EPA
s. The
nge of
would
driven
Final Enviro
Issuing an
3.0 Affecte
by commu
also prod
analysis.
3.1.3
There are
the air qu
3.1.4
Greenhou
from natu
temperat
climate ch
conseque
Although
GHGs and
Additiona
change an
Research
of U.S. c
contribute
other ind
generatio
emissions
(Melrose
the affect
associated
in Section
SpaceX cu
testing in
for the Su
2.2 for ad
Noise3.2
Noise is
activities.
response
and is inf
setting, ti
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
ed Environmen
uters, is antic
uce negligibl
Stationary S
e no stationar
ality regulatio
Greenhouse
use Gases (GH
ural processe
ure over the
hange associa
ences across t
not required
d climate und
ally, in Februa
nd GHG emiss
has shown th
ontributions,
es about 3 pe
ustrial source
on (41 percen
s from aircra
2010). Clima
ted environm
d with the Pr
n 5.0.
urrently uses
an enclosed
uperDraco en
ditional infor
e and Compat
considered u
Although ex
to noise is a
fluenced by t
me of day, ty
ment
Permit to Spac
nt
cipated to be
e ambient H
ource Permit
ry sources ass
ons for statio
e Gases
HGs) are gas
es and human
e past centur
ated with this
the globe.
d by FAA Ord
der NEPA, as
ary 2010, the
sions (CEQ 20
here is a dire
the Govern
ercent of tot
es including t
nt) (GAO 200
aft account f
ate change re
ment is the glo
oposed Actio
s hypergolic p
vacuum cham
gine develop
rmation on Sp
tible Land Us
unwanted or
xposure to v
nnoyance. Th
the type of n
ype of activity
ceX for Operati
primarily new
APs. Therefo
tting
sociated with
onary sources
emissions th
n activities. S
y due to an
s global warm
er 1050.1E, t
documented
CEQ issued d
010).
ct correlation
nment Accou
al carbon dio
the remainde
9). The Inter
or roughly 3
esulting from
obal climate (
on and the im
propellants a
mber. Open a
ments for a t
paceX’s existi
e
r annoying s
very high noi
he response o
noise, perceiv
y during which
ion of the Drag
3‐4
wer equipme
ore, MSATs e
h implementin
apply.
hat trap heat
Scientific evid
increase in G
ming is expect
the FAA has d
in a memor
raft NEPA gu
n between fu
ntability Offi
oxide emissio
er of the tra
national Civil
3 percent of
GHG emissio
(EPA 2009a).
mpact analysis
at the Dragon
air testing is a
total of appro
ng activities a
sound that in
ise levels can
of different i
ved importan
h the noise oc
gonFly Vehicle
nt that gener
missions are
ng the Propos
t in the atmo
dence indicat
GHG emissio
ed to produc
developed in
andum dated
idance for co
el combustio
ice (GAO) re
ons, according
nsportation s
l Aviation Or
all anthropo
ons is a cumu
Discussion o
s can be foun
n Decon area
also conducte
oximately fou
at the McGre
nterferes wit
n cause hear
ndividuals to
nce of the no
ccurs, and se
at the McGreg
rate lower em
not conside
sed Action. T
osphere. Thes
tes a trend of
ons from hum
ce negative ec
terim guidan
d January 12,
onsidering the
on and GHG e
eports that "
g to EPA data
sector (20 pe
ganization es
ogenic GHG
ulative globa
f the estimat
d in cumulati
a, when cond
ed at the Dra
r minutes pe
egor test site)
th or disrup
ring loss, the
o similar noise
oise, its appr
nsitivity of th
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
missions and w
red further i
Therefore, no
se emissions
f increasing g
man activities
conomic and
nce for consid
, 2012 (FAA 2
e effects of cl
emissions. In t
"domestic av
a," compared
ercent) and p
stimates that
emissions glo
l phenomeno
ted GHG emis
ive impact an
ducting hype
gonRider test
r year (see Se
.
ts normal h
e principal h
e events is di
opriateness i
he individual.
exas
t 2014
would
n this
one of
occur
global
s. The
social
dering
2012).
imate
terms
viation
d with
power
t GHG
obally
on, so
ssions
nalysis
ergolic
t area
ection
uman
uman
iverse
in the
Final Enviro
Issuing an
3.0 Affecte
The ROI f
that could
Action.
3.2.1
The decib
launch) to
sound, as
the period
to correla
several n
measure
equally w
to low‐pit
Exhibit 3.2
(e.g., air c
some per
during an
taken ove
The day‐n
Exposure
period. SE
represent
a 24‐hour
penalty is
3.2.2
FAA Orde
the DNL m
2 A noise s
noise sens
recreation
sites.
3 There are
the Nation
Activities c
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
ed Environmen
or noise inclu
d be impacte
Noise Metric
bel (dB) is a
o a reference
s the human e
d of exposure
ate the frequ
noise frequen
is the ‘A‐we
well, these me
tched and hi
2‐1 provides
conditioner, v
riod of time.
event like a
er extended p
night average
Level (SEL), w
EL provides a
t the sound le
r annual ave
applied to D
Noise Criteri
er 1050.1E, Ch
metric to dete
sensitive area i
sitive areas in
al areas (inclu
e other Federa
nal Institute for
conducted und
ment
Permit to Spac
nt
udes the McG
ed by noise f
cs
ratio that co
e pressure (i.e
ear perceives
e to the noise
ency charact
ncy weighting
eighted scale
easures are a
igh‐pitched s
a chart of A‐w
vacuum clean
Other source
vehicle pass‐
periods of tim
e noise leve
which is the m
a cumulative
evel heard at
rage day. To
NL for nightti
ia
hange 1, requ
ermine if sign
is an area whe
nclude residen
uding areas wi
al agency noise
r Occupational
der the Propose
ceX for Operati
Gregor test si
from constru
mpares the s
e., the quiete
s it. These inc
e, and change
eristics from
g measures
.’ Since the
djusted or w
sounds. This
weighted sou
ner) are cont
es (e.g., autom
by. Other sou
e.
l (DNL) is a
magnitude of
noise exposu
any given tim
account for
ime events (1
uires the FAA
ificant impac
ere noise inter
ntial, educatio
ith wilderness
e standards th
l Safety and He
ed Action wou
ion of the Drag
3‐5
te and the ar
uction and lau
sound pressu
est sound tha
clude the act
s or fluctuati
typical noise
have been
human ear c
eighted to co
adjusted uni
und levels from
tinuous sound
mobile, heav
unds (e.g., ur
cumulative
a sound and
ure of the en
me. Typically,
increased hu
10:00 p.m. to
A to assess no
ts would occu
rferes with nor
onal, health, a
s characteristic
hat pertain to
ealth and the O
ld be in compl
gonFly Vehicle
rea in the imm
unch‐related
ure of the so
at can be hea
ual level of n
ons in noise l
e sources to
developed. T
cannot perce
ompensate fo
t is known a
m typical noi
ds that maint
vy truck) are t
ban daytime,
noise metric
its duration,
ntire acoustic
, DNL values
uman sensiti
7:00 a.m.).
oise impacts
ur3.
rmal activities
and religious
cs), wildlife re
hearing conse
Occupational S
iance with the
at the McGreg
mediate vicin
activities un
ound source
rd). A numbe
noise, the freq
levels during
the perceptio
The most co
eive all pitch
or the human
as the A‐weig
se sources. S
tain a consta
the maximum
, urban nightt
c that accoun
of all noise e
event, but it
are expresse
vity to noise
on noise sen
associated wit
structures an
efuges, and cu
rvation (e.g., t
Safety and Hea
ese standards.
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
nity of the tes
nder the Prop
of interest (e
er of factors
quencies invo
exposure. In
on of human
ommon frequ
hes or freque
n lack of sens
ghted dB, or
ome noise so
ant sound lev
m sound prod
time) are ave
nts for the S
events in a 24
t does not di
d as the leve
at night, a 1
nsitive areas2
th its use. Nor
nd sites, and
ultural and his
those establish
alth Administra
exas
t 2014
st site
posed
e.g., a
affect
olved,
order
ears,
uency
encies
sitivity
r dBA.
ources
vel for
duced
erages
Sound
4‐hour
rectly
l over
10 dB
using
rmally,
parks,
torical
hed by
ation).
Final Enviro
Issuing an
3.0 Affecte
Source Note: d
Noise con
communit
computer
impact wo
1.5 dBA o
same time
The McG
residentia
located a
to the no
Other no
rural/agri
waste ma
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
ed Environmen
es: Derived from dBA = A‐weighte
E
ntour maps
ty. Noise con
r model. FAA
ould occur if
or more at D
e period.
regor test si
al communiti
pproximately
orthwest. The
oise sources
cultural setti
nagement tru
ment
Permit to Spac
nt
Harris 1979 anded decibel
Exhibit 3.2‐1.
of noise met
ntours depict
A Order 1050
the action ca
NL 65 dBA n
ite is a relat
es to the pro
y 5 miles to th
e McGregor t
at or near
ng, including
ucks).
ceX for Operati
d Federal Interag
A‐Weighted
trics are use
the area wit
0.1E, Change
auses noise s
oise exposur
tively isolated
oposed launc
he northeast,
est site is loc
the McGre
farm machin
ion of the Drag
3‐6
gency Committe
Sound Levels
ed to assess
hin which a c
1, guidance
ensitive area
re when com
d facility, sur
ch and landin
, and the City
cated in a sm
egor test sit
nery, automo
gonFly Vehicle
ee on Aviation N
s from Typica
the noise le
certain noise
on noise ind
as to experien
pared to the
rrounded by
ng pad locati
y of Oglesby,
mall industrial
te include so
obiles, trains,
at the McGreg
oise (FICAN) 199
al Sources
evel and imp
level occurs,
dicates that
nce an increa
e existing con
agricultural
ions are the
located app
l park in the
ources that
and comme
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
97.
act of noise
, as predicted
a significant
ase in noise o
nditions withi
land. The c
City of McGr
roximately 3
City of McGr
are typical
rcial vehicles
exas
t 2014
on a
d by a
noise
of DNL
in the
losest
regor,
miles
regor.
to a
(e.g.,
Final Enviro
Issuing an
3.0 Affecte
Noise sen
located ap
miles to
adjacent
Powder C
The neare
SpaceX cu
site. An a
approxim
test site.
simultane
periods o
test site.
Based on
noise con
City of M
McGregor
3.2.3
Land uses
local zon
developm
designate
compatib
SpaceX ha
operation
engine te
the test si
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
ed Environmen
nsitive areas
pproximately
the northeas
to McGrego
Company, loca
est residence
urrently cond
average sing
ately 138 dB
SpaceX also
eously for up
f time to app
the existing
ntour extends
cGregor and
r test site.
Compatible
s are frequen
ing and ord
ment can oc
ed or environm
le with the ou
as leased the
ns on the site
sting; the Gra
ite is also leas
ment
Permit to Spac
nt
near the pr
y 3.4 miles to
st. In additio
r Elementary
ated approxim
is approxima
ducts approx
gle engine te
A within the
o conducts si
p to 180 seco
proximately 1
engine test n
s approximate
Oglesby (see
Land Use
ntly regulated
inances. The
cur, ensure
mentally sens
utdoor noise
McGregor te
include adm
asshopper RL
sed for livesto
ceX for Operati
roposed laun
the northwes
on, a new pr
y and McGre
mately 2.8 mi
ately 1.3 miles
imately five
est lasts app
test site bou
ix Falcon 9 S
onds. These i
148 dBA at th
noise levels a
ely four miles
e Exhibit 3.2‐2
d by manage
ese plans an
consistency
sitive uses. Co
environment
est site from t
inistrative se
LV launch pad
ock grazing, w
ion of the Drag
3‐7
nch and land
st, and McGre
imary schoo
egor High Sch
iles from the
s from the pr
Merlin‐1D en
roximately 1
undary and a
Stage 1 tests
infrequent St
he test site an
and durations
s from the te
2). The exhib
ement plans,
nd regulation
with surro
ompatible lan
t at the locati
the McGrego
rvices, storag
d; and Falcon
which is coord
gonFly Vehicle
ding pad loca
egor High Sch
l (grades K‐1
hool. The clo
proposed lau
roposed launc
ngine tests p
100 seconds
approximately
s a year, co
tage 1 tests
nd approxima
s described a
est site and in
bit represents
land use pla
ns are design
ounding land
nd use means
on.
or Industrial P
ge, and suppo
n 9 tripod test
dinated with
at the McGreg
ations includ
hool, located
1st grade) is
osest busines
unch and land
ch and landin
per week at t
and produce
y 97 dBA wit
nsisting of n
increase nois
ately 107 dBA
above, the ex
ncludes resid
s the existing
ans, compreh
ned to iden
d uses, and
s the use of th
Park since 200
ort buildings;
t stand. The v
launch and te
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
e Oglesby Sc
approximate
being constr
ss is the Cro
ding pad loca
ng pad locatio
the McGrego
es noise leve
thin 3 miles o
nine engines
se levels for
A 3 miles from
xisting DNL 65
ential areas
g noise level o
hensive plans
tify where f
protect spe
he land is nor
03. Current Sp
stands to co
vacant land w
esting activiti
exas
t 2014
chool,
ely 4.5
ructed
osslink
ations.
ons.
or test
els of
of the
firing
short
m the
5 dBA
in the
of the
s, and
future
ecially
rmally
paceX
nduct
within
es.
F
I
3
Final Environmental A
Issuing an Experim
3.0 Affected Enviro
Assessment
ental Permit to Spa
onment
aceX for Operation of the DragonFly V
Exhibit 3.2‐2.
Vehicle at the McG
3‐8
. Existing Noise C
Gregor Test Site, Tex
Contours
exas
August 2014
Final Environmental Assessment
Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the DragonFly Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas
3.0 Affected Environment 3‐9 August 2014
The McGregor test site is located within the 9,700 acre McGregor Industrial Park, which is the
redeveloped McGregor NWIRP (EPA 2009b). The NWIRP was closed in 1995 and ownership was
transferred to the City of McGregor in 1996 for development into an industrial park. In addition to
SpaceX, other commercial/ industrial tenants of the industrial park include, but are not limited to, a
rodeo arena, C3 Communications, Ferguson Plumbing Company, General Micrographics, In Situ Forms,
and McLennan County Electrical Cooperative (EPA 2009b; MDEC 2013). The zoning designation of land
within the McGregor Industrial Park is heavy industrial (City of McGregor 2003).
With the exception of the activities at the Industrial Park described above, the primary land use
surrounding the McGregor test site is agricultural and undeveloped. Exhibit 3.2‐3 shows the existing
zoning within and adjacent to the McGregor test site as designated by the City of McGregor (City of
McGregor 2003). The nearest town to the test site is Oglesby, three 3 miles to the northwest. The City of
McGregor is five 5 miles northeast of the test site.
Table 3.2‐1 depicts acceptable land use compatibility associated with annual DNL. According to Table
3.2‐1, residential areas in the City of McGregor and Oglesby that are already exposed to 65 DNL or
greater are incompatible for residential use.
Final Enviro
Issuing an
3.0 Affecte
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
ed Environmen
Exhibit 3
ment
Permit to Spac
nt
.2‐3. Existing
ceX for Operati
g Zoning With
ion of the Drag
3‐10
hin and Adjac
gonFly Vehicle
cent to the M
at the McGreg
McGregor Test
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
t Site
exas
t 2014
Source: City of McG
regor 2003
Final Environmental Assessment
Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the DragonFly Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas
3.0 Affected Environment 3‐11 August 2014
Table 3.2‐1. Land Use Compatibility with Annual Day‐Night Average Sound Levels (DNL) Yearly DNL Sound Level (decibels)
Land Use <65 65‐70 70‐75 75‐80 80‐85 >85Residential Residential, other than mobile homes and transient lodgings Y N1 N1 N N NMobile home parks Y N N N N NTransient lodgings Y N1 N1 N1 N NPublic Use
Schools Y N1 N1 N N NHospitals, nursing homes Y 25 30 N N NChurches, auditoriums, and concert halls Y 25 30 N N NGovernment Services Y Y 25 30 N NTransportation Y Y Y2 Y3 Y4 Y4
Parking Y Y Y2 Y3 Y4 NCommercial Use Offices, business and professional Y Y 25 30 N NWholesale and retail‐building materials, hardware, and farm equipment Y Y Y2 Y3 Y4 NRetail Trade, general Y Y 25 30 N NUtilities Y Y Y2 Y3 Y4 NCommunication Y Y 25 30 N NManufacturing and Production Manufacturing, general Y Y Y2 Y3 Y4 NPhotographic and Optical Y Y 25 30 N NAgricultural (except livestock) and forestry Y Y6 Y7 Y8 Y8 Y8
Livestock farming and breeding Y Y6 Y7 N N NMining and fishing, resource production extraction Y Y Y Y Y YRecreational Outdoor sports arenas and spectator sports Y Y5 Y5 N N NOutdoor music shells, amphitheaters Y N N N N NNature exhibits and zoos Y Y N N N NAmusements, parks, resorts, and camps Y Y Y N N NGolf courses, riding stables and water recreation Y Y 25 30 N NSource: 14 CFR Part 150, Appendix A, Table 1. The designations contained in this table do not constitute a Federal determination that any use of land covered by the program is acceptable or unacceptable under Federal, State, or local law. The responsibility for determining the acceptable and permissible land uses and the relationship between specific properties and specific noise contours rests with the local authorities. FAA determinations under part 150 are not intended to substitute federally determined land uses for those determined to be appropriate by local authorities in response to locally determined needs and values in achieving noise compatible land uses.
Key to Table 3.2‐1 Y (YES) – Land use and related structures compatible without restrictions. N (NO) – Land use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited. NLR – Noise Level Reduction (outdoor to indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise attenuation into the design and construction of the structure. 25,30 or 35 – Land use and related structures generally compatible; measures to achieve NLR of 25, 30, or 35 dB must be incorporated into design and construction of structure. 1Where the community determines that residential or school uses must be allowed, measures to achieve outdoor to indoor Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of at least 25 dB and 30 dB should be incorporated into building codes and be considered in individual approvals. Normal residential construction can be expected to provide a NLR of 20 dB, thus, the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10, or 15 dB over standard instructions. 2Measures to achieve NLR of 25 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas or where the normal noise level is low. 3Measures to achieve NLR of 30 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas or where the normal noise level is low. 4Measures to achieve NLR of 35 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas or where the normal noise level is low. 5Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed. 6Residential buildings require an NLR of 25. 7Residential buildings require an NLR of 30. 8Residential buildings not permitted.
Final Enviro
Issuing an
3.0 Affecte
Depa3.3
The FAA m
Act (49 U
wildlife o
on the N
individual
to these p
be protec
In accorda
that requ
unless no
project in
propertie
(see Secti
3.3.1
Public par
the Depar
1. Seven
recreation
3.3.2
The ROI f
Potential
Preservat
contour d
or eligible
historical,
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
ed Environmen
rtment of Tra
must conside
U.S.C. § 303(c
r waterfowl r
National Reg
ls own parks,
properties, ev
cted under Se
ance with the
ires the use o
o feasible and
cludes all po
s is the area e
on 4.2.1, Exh
Public Parks
rks, recreatio
rtment of Tra
parks and on
n area, or refu
Table 3.3‐1.
Amsler Park
Iron Bridge N
Bewley Park
Bluebonnet P
Kasting Park
Legacy Park
Mother Neff S
Oglesby Park
Significant H
for NRHP‐list
Effects (APE
ion Act (NHP
determined d
e for listing, i
, architectura
ment
Permit to Spac
nt
ansportation
er land use im
c)). Section 4
refuges, or an
gister of Hist
recreational
ven if such are
ction 4(f) wh
e FAA Order
of any Section
d prudent alt
ssible plannin
encompassed
ibit 4.2‐1).
, Recreation
n areas, and
ansportation A
ne Wildlife M
uge is Oglesb
Section 4(f)
Prop
ational Wildlife
Park
State Park
Historic Sites
ed or eligible
E) defined fo
PA). The FAA
uring noise m
n the NRHP w
al, archaeolog
ceX for Operati
Act, Section
mpacts under
4(f) propertie
ny publicly or
toric Places
areas, or wi
eas are open
en it is locate
1050.1E, Cha
n 4(f) propert
ternative exis
ng to minimiz
d by the DNL
Areas, and R
refuges that
Act (49 U.S.C
anagement A
y Park which
Public Parks,of the M
perty
e Managemen
e resources p
or cultural r
defined the A
modeling (refe
within the RO
gical, and cult
ion of the Drag
3‐12
4(f)
Section 4(f)
es include pu
r privately ow
(NRHP). Wh
ldlife and wa
to the public
ed on long‐ter
ange 1, the FA
ty determined
sts to the us
ze harm resu
65 dBA noise
Refuges
may be cons
. § 303(c)), an
Area lay with
is 2.3 miles f
Recreation AcGregor Test
t Area
protected un
resources un
APE as the a
er to Section
OI. Sections 3
ural resource
gonFly Vehicle
of the Depar
ublicly owned
wned historic
hen private
terfowl refug
c. However, a
rm leased pu
AA will not a
d by the offic
e of such lan
lting from th
e contour det
idered Sectio
nd located in
in 6 miles of
from the test
Areas, and Ret Site
Dista
5.1 Miles No
5.5 Miles So
4.5 Miles No
4.1 Miles No
5.6 Miles No
5.1 Miles No
4.3 Miles So
2.3 Miles No
nder Section
nder Section
rea encompa
3.4). There a
.4 and 4.4 pr
es.
at the McGreg
rtment of Tra
d parks, recr
site listed or
institutions,
ges, Section 4
a privately ow
blic land or a
pprove any p
cials having ju
nd and such
e use. The R
ermined duri
on 4(f) proper
n the ROI are
the test site
site.
efuges in the
ance/ Directio
ortheast
outh
ortheast
ortheast
ortheast
ortheast
outh
orthwest
4(f) is identi
106 of the
assed by the
are 14 historic
rovide furthe
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
ansportation
reation areas
r eligible for
organization
4(f) does not
wned property
public easem
program or p
urisdiction the
program, an
ROI for Sectio
ing noise mod
rties, as defin
listed in Tabl
. The closest
Vicinity
on
cal to the Ar
National Hi
DNL 65 dBA
c properties l
r discussion o
exas
t 2014
(DOT)
s, and
listing
ns, or
apply
y may
ment.
roject
ereof,
nd the
on 4(f)
deling
ned by
e 3.3‐
park,
rea of
istoric
noise
listed,
of the
Final Enviro
Issuing an
3.0 Affecte
Histo3.4
Cultural r
landscape
Section 10
on proper
with the
listed or e
for the Sta
In accorda
has deter
archaeolo
ROI for t
determine
Appendix
area with
A review
revealed
none of th
There are
interests
Oklahoma
Agency Co
designate
Coordinat
The APE
majority o
Navy in 1
governme
complete
to be eligi
the 14 ind
and one h
1998, the
Programm
Federal o
historic a
Rehabilita
NRHP‐elig
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
ed Environmen
rical, Archite
resources inc
es, or objects
06 of the NH
rties listed or
State Histori
eligible for list
ate of Texas.
ance with 36
mined an AP
ogical resourc
his resource
ed during no
B, Agency Co
in the APE wh
of the Texas
that there a
hem are in or
e no known T
in McLennan
a and the To
oordination).
ed historical o
tion). No resp
includes 14
of these resou
1942 as a m
ent to the C
d. As a result
ible for inclus
dividual resou
historic distric
e U.S. Navy, T
matic Agreem
wnership. Th
architectural
ation, and TH
gible resource
ment
Permit to Spac
nt
ctural, Archa
clude prehisto
s having histo
PA requires a
eligible for li
c Preservatio
ting in the NR
CFR 800.4(a)
E in consider
ces as a result
area, is def
ise modeling
oordination).
here ground d
s Historic Sit
re numerous
r near the are
Traditional Cu
and Coryell
nkawa Tribe
On May 23,
or cultural sit
ponse was re
previously do
urces were pa
military ordna
City of McGre
t of the surve
sion in the NR
urces have be
ct from the fo
THC, City of M
ment (PA) to
e PA include
properties i
HC review of
es.
ceX for Operati
aeological, an
oric and histo
orical, archite
a Federal age
sting in the N
on Officer (SH
RHP. The Texa
)(1), an APE n
ation of both
t of impleme
fined as the
(Appendix A
Effects to arc
disturbance w
tes Atlas, the
s previously r
ea of the prop
ultural Proper
counties hav
of Oklahoma
2014, the To
tes have been
ceived from t
ocumented a
art of the for
nce plant. P
egor, a surv
ey, 14 individ
RHP (U.S. Nav
een demolish
ormer NWIRP
McGregor, an
mitigate the
s deed coven
n accordanc
any undertak
ion of the Drag
3‐13
nd Cultural Re
oric archaeo
ectural, archa
ency to consid
NRHP. Compli
HPO) if there
as Historical C
needs to be es
h potential dir
nting the Pro
area encom
). The THC co
chaeological r
would occur f
e NRHP onlin
recorded arc
posed launch
rties identifie
e been ident
a. The FAA co
nkawa Tribe
n identified in
the Comanch
architectural
mer NWIRP, w
Prior to the t
ey of the pl
dual resource
vy 1998). How
hed. Therefor
P that were de
nd Advisory C
e adverse eff
nants requirin
ce with the
king that has
gonFly Vehicle
esources
logical sites,
eological, cu
der the effect
iance with Se
e is a potenti
Commission (
stablished fo
rect and indir
oposed Action
passed by th
oncurred with
resources, ho
from installat
ne database,
haeological s
pad.
ed within the
tified. They in
onsulted with
of Oklahoma
n the project
e Nation of O
resources (T
which was or
transfer of t
lant’s extant
s and one his
wever, since t
re, the APE in
etermined el
Council on Hi
fect of the tr
ng the preser
Secretary of
s the potentia
at the McGreg
buildings, di
ltural, or scie
ts of its unde
ection 106 req
ial effect to
(THC) serves
r the Propose
rect effects to
n. The APE, a
he DNL 65 d
h this APE on
owever, woul
tion of the co
and other a
sites within t
APE; howeve
nclude the Co
h these tribes
a responded t
t area (see A
Oklahoma.
Table 3.4‐1; E
riginally const
he property
buildings an
storic district
the survey’s c
ncludes 10 in
igible for listi
istoric Preser
ransfer of th
rvation and m
f the Interio
al to affect th
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
istricts, struc
entific import
ertaking (or a
quires consult
historic prop
as the SHPO
ed Action. Th
o architectura
lso considere
dBA noise co
n April 7, 2014
d be limited t
ncrete launch
available reso
the APE; how
er, two tribes
omanche Nat
s (see Appen
that no speci
ppendix B, A
Exhibit 3.4‐1)
tructed by th
from the Fe
nd structures
t were determ
completion, fo
ndividual reso
ing in the NR
rvation execu
e property o
maintenance o
or’s Standard
he integrity o
exas
t 2014
tures,
tance.
ction)
tation
erties
office
e FAA
al and
ed the
ontour
4 (see
to the
h pad.
ources
wever,
s with
ion of
dix B,
fically
gency
). The
e U.S.
ederal
s was
mined
our of
ources
HP. In
uted a
out of
of the
ds for
of the
Final Environmental Assessment
Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the DragonFly Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas
3.0 Affected Environment 3‐14 August 2014
The other historic properties in the APE include one NRHP‐listed resource and two Recorded Texas
Historic Landmarks. The Brown‐Mann House in McGregor was listed in the NRHP in 1987 for its
architectural significance as an intact Colonial Revival and Queen Anne‐style residence with a
Sullivanesque‐style embellishment rare for domestic architecture in Texas. The Glenn and Mary
Gulledge Crain House in McGregor and the First Methodist Church of Oglesby are Recorded Texas
Historic Landmarks, which are designated by the THC for properties that are at least 50 years old,
historically and architectural significant, and possess architectural integrity. The Crain House is a rare
example in Texas of a Shingle‐style residence, and the First Methodist Church of Oglesby is a Queen
Anne‐style church dating to 1912.
Table 3.4‐1. NRHP‐Listed or ‐Eligible Architectural Resources in the APE Resource Name Description Historic Status
Building 105 Telephone exchange NRHP Eligible
Building 106 Administrative office NRHP Eligible
Building 300 Police and fire station NRHP Eligible
Building 404 Propulsion system laboratory NRHP Eligible
Building 601 General storage NRHP Eligible
Building 602 Line office and first aid NRHP Eligible
Building 603 Change and power house NRHP Eligible
Building 2301 Well house #1 NRHP Eligible
Building 2308 Pump house NRHP Eligible
Building 2309 Spare pump house NRHP Eligible
High Explosives Magazine Historic District
64 ammunition storage magazines (Buildings 8001 through 8064)
NRHP Eligible
Brown‐Mann House 1890s Colonial Revival/Queen Anne‐style residence with Sullivanesque influence
NRHP Listed
Crain, Glenn and Mary Gulledge House
Circa 1892 Shingle‐style residence Recorded Texas Historic Landmark
First Methodist Church of Oglesby 1912 Queen Anne‐style church Recorded Texas Historic Landmark
F
I
3
Final Environmental A
Issuing an Experim
3.0 Affected Enviro
Assessment
ental Permit to Spa
onment
aceX for Operation
Exhibit 3.4‐1
of the DragonFly V
1. Historic Resour
Vehicle at the McG
3‐15
rces within the A
Gregor Test Site, Tex
Area of Potential
exas
Effects
August 2014
Final Enviro
Issuing an
3.0 Affecte
Fish, W3.5
Biological
associatio
defined a
animal (H
Although
resources
on specie
importanc
McGregor
McGregor
noise mod
3.5.1
The McGr
Prairies E
approxim
grassland
been sha
species w
species (T
Vegetated
generally
grazing do
3.5.2
Wildlife re
species gr
include b
(Sylvilagu
streams in
3.5.3
A species
of its ran
foreseeab
amendme
and plant
administe
of the ESA
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
ed Environmen
Wildlife, and
resources i
ons are referr
as the resour
all et al. 1997
the existen
s also provide
es or vegetati
ce, or are pro
r test site as
r test site an
deling (see Se
Vegetation
regor test sit
cological Reg
ately 26,000
s punctuated
ped by agric
with annual g
Texas Parks an
d areas at th
include Berm
o not have sig
Wildlife
esources incl
roups such a
bobwhite qua
s floridanus)
n the area, id
Special‐Statu
is considered
nge. Threaten
ble future. Th
ents require t
ts, and critica
ers the ESA an
A requires al
ment
Permit to Spac
nt
Plants
include plant
red to as vege
ces and cond
7).
nce and pres
e aesthetic, re
on types tha
otected unde
depicted in E
nd the area e
ection 4.2, Ex
te is located
gion. The Cro
0 acres. The
d by high, na
cultural pract
grass and for
nd Wildlife De
e McGregor
muda grass, n
gnificant amo
ude mammal
s mollusks or
ail (Colinus v
, and whitet
entified in Se
us Species
d endangered
ned species a
e Endangere
the conservat
al habitats in
nd designate
l Federal age
ceX for Operati
t and anima
etation and a
ditions prese
servation of
ecreational, a
t are importa
r Federal or S
xhibit 1‐2. Th
encompassed
hibit 4.2‐1).
within the La
oss Timbers a
e Lampasas
arrow, and w
tices such as
b species. W
epartment [T
test site con
ative grasses
ounts of wood
ls, reptiles, am
r insects. Com
virginianus), m
tail deer (Od
ection 3.6.1, W
d if it is in da
are defined a
d Species Act
tion of federa
n which they
s critical hab
ncies to cons
ion of the Drag
3‐16
al species an
animal specie
nt in an area
biological r
nd socioecon
ant to the fu
State law or s
he ROI for wil
d by the DNL
ampasas Cut
and Prairies
Cut Plain su
wooded mesa
livestock an
Woody vegeta
TPWD] 2011a)
nsist of range
and live oaks
dy vegetation
mphibians, bi
mmon specie
mourning do
docoileus virg
Water Resour
nger of extin
as those tha
t (ESA) of 197
ally listed thre
are found. T
itat for each
sult with the
gonFly Vehicle
nd the habit
es are referre
a that suppo
resources are
nomic values t
nction of the
statute. The
ldlife and spe
L 65 dBA noi
Plain sub‐re
Ecological Re
ub‐region ge
a‐like divides
nd farming o
ation often co
).
elands and m
s. The areas o
n (FAA 2011).
irds, and som
es that are ex
ove (Zenaida
ginianus). Fis
rces (FAA 201
ction through
at are likely t
73 (16 U.S.C.
eatened and
The U.S. Fish
species prote
USFWS, as a
at the McGreg
tats where
ed to as wildl
rts the existe
e intrinsicall
to society. Th
e ecosystem,
ROI for veget
ecial‐status sp
ise contour d
egion of the C
egion of Nort
enerally cons
. Vegetation
operations by
onsists of liv
mowed indust
of the test sit
metimes inver
xpected to be
macroura),
sh may be f
11).
hout all or a s
to become e
§1531 et seq
endangered
h and Wildlife
ected under
applicable, be
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
they occur.
ife. Habitat c
ence of a pla
y valuable,
his analysis fo
of special so
tation include
pecies include
determined d
Cross Timber
th‐central Te
sists of exte
in the regio
y reducing hi
ve oak and ju
trial areas. Sp
te subject to a
rtebrate spec
e found in th
eastern cott
found in the
significant am
endangered i
q.) and subseq
species of an
e Service (US
the ESA. Sect
efore initiatin
exas
t 2014
Plant
an be
ant or
these
ocuses
ocietal
es the
es the
during
rs and
exas is
ensive
n has
istoric
uniper
pecies
active
cies or
he ROI
ontail
local
mount
n the
quent
nimals
SFWS)
tion 7
ng any
Final Environmental Assessment
Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the DragonFly Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas
3.0 Affected Environment 3‐17 August 2014
action that may affect a listed species or designated critical habitat. Candidate species, which may be
proposed for listing as threatened or endangered in the future, are not provided any statutory
protection under the ESA.
The Texas legislature authorized the TPWD to establish a list of threatened and endangered plant and
animal species, and to protect the species. TPWD regulations prohibit the taking, possession,
transportation, or sale of any of the animal species designated by State law as endangered or
threatened without a permit. Texas laws and regulations prohibit commerce in threatened and
endangered plants and the collection of listed plant species from public land without a permit issued by
TPWD.
Table 3.5‐1 lists the Federal and State‐listed threatened or endangered wildlife species potentially
occurring in McLennan and Coryell counties. There are three federally listed endangered species, nine
State‐listed threatened species, and five State‐listed endangered species that potentially occur in
McLennan and Coryell counties.
Table 3.5‐1. Federally and State‐Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Potentially Occurring within McLennan and Coryell Counties
Common name (Scientific name)Status
State Federal
Reptiles Timber/canebrake rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) T ‐ Texas horned lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum) T ‐ Birds Golden‐cheeked warbler (Setophaga chrysoparia) E E Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) T ‐ Whooping crane (Grus Americana) E E Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)1 T ‐ Black‐capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla)2 E E Wood stork (Mycteria americana)3 T ‐ White‐faced ibis (Plegadis chihi)3 T ‐ Interior least tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos)3 E ‐ Mammals Red wolf (Canis rufus) E ‐ Mollusks Smooth pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis) T ‐ False spike mussel (Quadrula mitchelli) T ‐ Texas fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon) T ‐ Sources: TPWD 2011b, c; USFWS 2013 a, b.Notes: E = Endangered, T = Threatened. 1Bald and golden eagles are protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which is administered by the USFWS. The Act prohibits unauthorized capture, purchase, or transportation of the birds, their nests, or their eggs. Any action that might disturb these species requires a permit from the USFWS. 2Listed only in Coryell County 3Listed only in McLennan County
The potential for occurrence of any of the listed species in Table 3.5‐1 within the ROI for the Proposed
Action is unlikely due to the absence of suitable habitat, ongoing agricultural activities, maintenance
(e.g. mowing), and existing industrial and operational activities. In addition, coordination with the
USFWS in 2011 for the Final Environmental Assessment for Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for
Final Enviro
Issuing an
3.0 Affecte
Operation
federally
However,
Experimen
Texas ind
whooping
this corrid
lake edge
on the M
habitat. H
coordinat
Wate3.6
Water re
Rivers. Su
subsurfac
lowland a
lowland a
an annua
and are n
that addr
Fish and W
(EO) 1199
The TCEQ
regulatory
TCEQ adm
Legislatur
and Wild
areas, and
purpose o
exist or m
level thro
Groundwa
District (M
Texas Pol
At the loc
3, Section
National
communit
County, a
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
ed Environmen
n of the Gras
listed species
coordinatio
ntal Permit t
dicated that
g cranes for m
dor. Suitable
s, small pond
McGregor test
However, the
ted with TPW
r Quality
sources inclu
urface water
ce water tha
areas covered
areas located
l basis. As sta
not evaluated
ess water res
Wildlife Coor
90, Protection
Q has the re
y programs.
ministers bot
re has author
life Departm
d initiate the
of managing
may exist in th
ough GCDs.
ater Conserv
McLennan Co
lutant Discha
cal level, the
ns 22‐19 to 2
Flood Insur
ties that par
re all particip
ment
Permit to Spac
nt
sshopper Veh
s known to oc
n with the T
to SpaceX for
the test site
migration; 95
whooping cr
ds, marshes, a
t site, as des
e whooping c
D regarding t
ude surface
s include str
t occupies t
d with shallow
adjacent to
ated in Sectio
d in this analy
sources. At th
dination Act;
n of Wetlands
esponsibility
As the State
th State and
rized the TCEQ
ent (TPWD)
creation of G
the State’s g
he future. Th
The propos
ation District
unty).TCEQ is
arge Eliminati
McGregor, Te
22‐110, regula
rance Progra
rticipate in th
pating commu
ceX for Operati
hicle at the M
ccur in the RO
TPWD in the
r Operation
e is located
5 percent of w
rane migrato
and some suit
scribed in Se
crane has nev
the Proposed
waters, grou
reams, rivers
he space be
w and somet
bodies of wa
on 3.0, Wild a
ysis. There a
he Federal lev
Rivers and H
s; and EO 119
for the maj
e lead agency
federally m
Q, the Texas
to study, ide
Groundwater
roundwater r
he primary ma
sed project
(Coryell Cou
s also respon
ion System (T
exas ‐ Code o
ates floodpla
am regulates
he program.
unities in the
ion of the Drag
3‐18
McGregor Te
OI.
e 2011 Final
of the Grass
near the cen
whooping cra
ory stop‐over
table rivers (T
ection 3.6.1 b
ver been obs
Action (see A
undwater, w
, lakes, pond
tween sand,
times tempor
ater in which
and Scenic Ri
re several Fe
vel the Clean
Harbors Act; W
988, Floodplai
ority of the
y for water re
mandated (as
Water Develo
entify and de
Conservation
resources in
anagement o
falls within
nty) and (2) S
sible for adm
TPDES) to reg
of Ordinances
ins within th
s developme
The City of
program.
gonFly Vehicle
est Site, Texa
Environmen
hopper Vehic
nter of a 20
ane sightings
habitat inclu
TPWD 2011c)
below, that m
served at the
Appendix B, A
etlands, floo
ds, estuaries,
, clay, and r
rary or interm
the ordinary
iver resource
ederal, State
Water Act (C
Wild and Sce
in Manageme
State’s env
esources and
mentioned
opment Boar
elineate prior
n Districts (GC
areas where
of groundwate
two separa
Southern Trin
ministering th
gulate dischar
s, Part II, Cha
he City of Mc
ent in mapp
McGregor, M
at the McGreg
as indicated
ntal Assessme
cle at the M
00 mile‐wide
s during migr
udes shallow
). Four small
may provide
e McGregor
Agency Coord
odplains, and
, and oceans
ock formatio
mittent wate
y high water
es are not pre
and local law
CWA); Safe D
enic Rivers Ac
ent.
vironmental w
environmen
above) prog
rd (TWDB), an
rity groundw
CDs) within th
critical grou
er in Texas is
ate GCDs: (
nity Groundw
e program an
rges of pollut
apter 22, Arti
cGregor, Texa
ped 100‐yea
McLennan Co
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
that there a
ent for Issuin
McGregor Test
corridor use
ation occur w
w wetlands su
ponds are lo
suitable sto
test site. The
dination).
d Wild and S
s. Groundwa
ons. Wetland
rs. Floodplain
level fluctuat
esent in the r
ws and regula
Drinking Wate
ct; Executive
water quality
tal protection
grams. The
nd the Texas
water manage
hose areas, fo
ndwater prob
s found at the
1) Middle T
water Conserv
nd has create
tants (TCEQ 2
cle II. Division
as. In addition
ar floodplain
ounty, and C
exas
t 2014
re no
ng an
t Site,
ed by
within
uch as
ocated
pover
e FAA
Scenic
ater is
ds are
ns are
tes on
region
ations
er Act;
Order
y and
n, the
Texas
Parks
ement
or the
blems
e local
Trinity
vation
ed the
2012).
n 1 to
n, the
ns for
Coryell
Final Enviro
Issuing an
3.0 Affecte
3.6.1
The ROI f
Basque R
Basque R
(McFarlan
River are
intermitte
to be pote
launch pa
Exhibit 3.6
as impair
305(b) an
Existing a
stormwat
2010 and
3.6.2
The ROI f
Aquifer, w
Aquifer is
aquifer de
McGregor
TCEQ app
availabilit
Aquifer g
decline, b
2011). No
Resource
closure in
groundwa
site. Rem
2023. Sam
that cont
Facilities
developm
for Reuse
environm
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
ed Environmen
Surface Wa
for surface w
River Subwate
River flow int
nd and Houck
located on
ent, and deve
entially man‐
ad, and two a
6‐1 depicts th
red waters in
d 303(d) (TCE
activities at t
ter discharge
is currently a
Groundwate
for groundwa
which is one
s potable bu
epth. It is use
r test site is in
plies this de
ty and qualit
generally exce
but the rate h
o EPA designa
Conservation
n the 1990s d
ater on north
ediation of th
mpling results
aminants are
Engineering
ment as the M
,” indicating t
ent for the an
ment
Permit to Spac
nt
aters (Non‐we
waters is the
ershed within
to Waco Lak
k 1999). Four
the McGrego
elops into a p
made: two ar
are in the nor
he locations o
n the 2012 T
EQ 2012).
he test site o
(Permit #TX
active (FAA 20
er
ater is the M
of the most
t considered
ed by munici
n an area tha
esignation to
ty issues to t
eeded the re
as slowed ov
ted Sole Sour
n and Recove
documented c
ern side of th
he groundwa
s from ground
e not migratin
Command [N
McGregor Indu
that the reme
nticipated use
ceX for Operati
etlands Surfa
McGregor te
n the larger
ke, which is
ponds and a
or test site.
perennial stre
re located in t
rthern portion
of the stream
exas Integrat
operate unde
R050000 issu
011).
cGregor test
t extensive a
hard; with
palities as we
t has been de
o aquifers th
the region. H
echarge rate
er the past de
rce Aquifers a
ery Act (RCRA
contaminatio
he test site an
ter at off‐site
dwater wells
ng into the e
NAVFAC] 2007
ustrial Park, E
ediated cond
e (EPA 2009b
ion of the Drag
3‐19
ace Waters)
est site. The
Basque Rive
located app
stream that
The portion
eam after it f
the southern
n of the site,
s and ponds.
ted Report o
er a TPDES m
ued July 22, 2
site. The Mc
and most uti
dissolved so
ell as irrigatio
esignated as P
hat have dec
Historically, g
of the aquif
ecade due to
are found at t
A) investigatio
n of groundw
nd the wester
e properties i
in the immed
existing launc
7, U.S. Navy
EPA had desig
itions of the
b).
gonFly Vehicle
McGregor te
r Watershed
roximately 1
forms the he
of the strea
flows off‐site
portion of th
northeast of
No surface w
of Surface W
multi‐sector g
2011). The p
cGregor test
ilized in Texa
lids, sulfate,
on, livestock,
Priority Grou
clining levels
groundwater
fer. Water le
changes in w
the McGrego
ons conducte
water and soi
rn side in a p
is ongoing an
diate area of t
ch pad areas
2001; U.S. N
gnated the N
site are prote
at the McGreg
est site is loc
d. Surface wa
13 miles nort
eadwaters of
am on the s
(FAA 2011).
he site, east o
f the Falcon 9
waters locate
ater Quality
general storm
ermit was iss
site is locate
as. Groundwa
and chloride
and domest
ndwater Man
s that can p
withdrawals
evels in the a
water sources
or test site.
ed as part of
il. Perchlorate
lume migrati
nd expected t
the existing la
from neighb
Navy 2008; FA
NWIRP McGre
ective of hum
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
cated in the
aters of the
theast of the
f the South Ba
ite is classifi
The ponds a
of the Grassho
9 tripod test s
d on‐site are
for CWA Sec
mwater perm
sued Novemb
ed over the T
ater in the T
es increasing
tic consumers
nagement Are
pose groundw
s from the T
aquifer are s
s (TWDB 2013
the NWIRP f
e was identif
ng southward
to be complet
aunch pad ind
oring areas (
AA 2011). Pr
egor site as “R
man health an
exas
t 2014
South
South
e site
asque
ed as
ppear
opper
stand.
listed
ctions
mit for
ber 3,
Trinity
Trinity
g with
s. The
ea 10.
water
Trinity
still in
3; FAA
acility
fied in
d, off‐
ted in
dicate
(Naval
rior to
Ready
nd the
F
I
3
Final Environmental A
Issuing an Experim
3.0 Affected Enviro
Assessment
ental Permit to Spa
onment
aceX for Operation
Exhibit 3.6.1
of the DragonFly V
. Surface Water
Vehicle at the McG
3‐20
in the Vicinity of
Gregor Test Site, Tex
f the McGregor T
exas
Test Site
August 2014
Final Enviro
Issuing an
3.0 Affecte
3.6.3
The ROI f
boundary
(USFWS 2
southern
3.6.4
The Fede
floodplain
waters fro
chance of
being floo
The ROI f
There are
located in
associated
These floo
Natur3.7
As an im
consumpt
acknowle
use of na
encourage
principles
sustainab
EO
EO
EO
The ROI f
site. Exist
from a 10
fighting fi
Electric
Potable
Source:
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
ed Environmen
Wetlands
or wetlands i
y of the McG
2013c). One
portion of th
Floodplains
ral Emergenc
ns. Federal c
om any sourc
f being inund
oded during a
for floodplain
e approximat
n the southe
d with a trib
odplains are o
ral Resources
mpact categor
tion of natu
dges that the
atural resour
e the develo
s of sustainab
le use of natu
O 13123, Gre
O 13423, Stre
O 13514, Fed
for natural re
ing energy an
0,000 gallon t
res (SpaceX 2
Utility
city/ Natural Ga
e Water Distrib
SpaceX 2013.
ment
Permit to Spac
nt
is the McGre
Gregor test s
area is north
e site, southe
cy Manageme
ode identifie
ce” (44 CFR Pa
dated in a one
a one‐year pe
ns is the Mc
ely 44.92 acr
east portion
utary to Stat
outside of the
s and Energy
ry, natural re
ural resourc
ere are no spe
rces and ene
opment of f
bility. The fo
ural resource
eening the Go
engthening Fe
deral Leadersh
esources and
nd water cons
tank would a
2013).
Table 3.7‐
as H
bution C
ceX for Operati
gor test site.
site are ident
heast of the
east of the ex
ent Agency (F
es floodplains
art 59). 100‐y
e‐year period
riod.
Gregor test s
res of 100‐ye
of the opera
ion Creek loc
e area of pote
Supply
esources and
es and use
ecific Federal
ergy supply,
acilities that
llowing regu
s and energy
overnment th
ederal Enviro
hip in Environ
energy supp
sumption at t
lso be used t
‐1. Utilities Su
Pro
Hudson Energy
City of McGreg
ion of the Drag
3‐21
Two areas o
tified on the
Falcon 9 trip
xisting Grassh
FEMA) mainta
s as “any lan
year floodplai
d. 500‐year fl
site. Exhibit
ear floodplain
ating area an
cated in the
ential launch
d energy sup
of energy
l requirement
it also emph
exemplify t
lations provid
:
rough Efficien
nmental, Ene
nmental, Ener
ly includes th
the McGrego
to occasional
uppliers for M
ovider
y Services, LLC
gor water main
gonFly Vehicle
of freshwater
e National W
pod test stan
opper Pad (E
ains data ide
nd area susc
ins are furthe
oodplains ha
3.6‐1 identifi
ns associated
nd approxima
southwest co
pad construc
pply provides
supplies. W
ts in place to
hasizes that
the highest
de guidance
nt Energy Ma
ergy, and Tran
rgy, and Econ
he immediate
r test site is p
ly wash the l
McGregor Tes
2.4 millio
ns 1.5 millio
at the McGreg
emergent w
Wetlands Inve
nd. The seco
Exhibit 3.6‐1).
ntifying 100‐
eptible to be
er defined as
ave a 0.2 perc
ies floodplain
d with the So
ately 2.34 ac
orner of the
ction.
s an evaluat
Whereas FAA
o regulate the
it is the pol
standards of
to Federal a
anagement;
nsportation M
nomic Perform
e vicinity of t
presented in T
aunch area a
st Site
Annual Utility
on kilowatt‐ho
on gallons
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
wetlands with
entory (NWI)
ond area is o
‐year and 500
eing inundate
having a 1 pe
cent probabi
ns within the
outh Bosque
cres of flood
site (FEMA 2
ion of a pro
A Order 10
e consumptio
icy of the FA
f design incl
agencies rega
Management
mance.
the McGrego
Table 3.7‐1. W
and is availab
y Usage
our (kW‐hr)
exas
t 2014
in the
) map
on the
0‐year
ed by
ercent
lity of
e ROI.
River
plains
2013).
oject’s
050.1E
n and
AA to
uding
arding
; and
or test
Water
ble for
Final Enviro
Issuing an
3.0 Affecte
Hazar3.8
Analysis o
solid wast
Po
p
Po
o
p
Po
p
W
e
lik
The hand
various le
importanc
Liability A
(SARA) a
generatio
consultati
(excluding
contained
The TCEQ
the Texas
Departme
The ROI fo
immediat
generated
McGregor
support e
currently
2.2 for a
testing oc
Existing o
maintena
include ac
batteries.
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
ed Environmen
rdous Materi
of the presen
te includes an
otential to e
hases of the p
otential haza
peration of
rocedures;
otential to i
roposed proj
Waste stream
nvironmenta
kely receive t
ling and disp
evels ranging
ce to the FAA
Act (CERCLA),
nd the Com
on, treatmen
ion with nat
g petroleum
d in 49 CFR pa
Q enforces Sta
Administrati
ent is respons
or hazardous
te vicinity th
d; or spills/re
r test site ha
existing opera
uses and sto
dditional info
ccurs in an en
operations pr
nce at a rat
cetone, oily
Hazardous
ment
Permit to Spac
nt
als, Pollution
ce, handling,
n evaluation o
encounter ex
project;
ardous mater
the propose
nterfere with
ect site or in
s that would
l resources, a
the wastes.
posal of haza
g from the F
A are RCRA a
, as amended
mmunity Envi
nt, storage,
tural resource
) into the
arts 171 throu
ate laws and
ive Code [30 T
sible for enfo
materials, po
hat could be
eleases that
as the capaci
ations related
res hypergoli
ormation on
closed vacuu
roduce hazar
te of approxi
rages, paint
waste gener
ceX for Operati
n Prevention,
, storage, and
of the followi
xisting hazard
rials that co
ed facilities,
h any ongoin
the immediat
d be generat
and the impa
rdous materi
Federal level
nd the Comp
d by the Sup
ronmental R
and disposa
es trustees a
environment
ugh 180.
rules pertain
TAC], Chapte
rcing State an
ollution preve
affected by
may occur a
ity to store 2
d to the Falco
ic propellants
SpaceX’s ex
m chamber a
rdous waste
imately 10,00
wastes, hype
rated at the
ion of the Drag
3‐22
and Solid W
d disposal of
ng:
dous materia
uld be trans
and applic
ng remediati
te vicinity; an
ted by the p
acts on waste
ials, chemica
to the loca
prehensive En
perfund Ame
Response Fac
al (TSD) of
and cleanup
t. The Fede
ning to munic
r 330 and Ch
nd City regula
ention, and s
y the materi
as a result of
260,000 gallo
on 9 and Gra
s (NTO and M
xisting activit
at the Dragon
at the McGr
00 pounds a
ergol waste (
McGregor t
gonFly Vehicle
Waste
hazardous m
als during th
sported and
able pollutio
ion of existin
nd
project, poten
e handling an
ls, substance
l level. The
nvironmental
endments and
cilitation Act
hazardous w
of any relea
ral Hazardou
cipal hazardou
apter 335). T
ations for gen
olid waste is
ials transpor
f implement
ons of LOX a
asshopper RL
MMH) at the M
ies at the M
nRider test are
regor test sit
annually. Haz
water mixed
test site is r
at the McGreg
materials, haz
he constructi
used during
on preventio
ng contamin
ntial for the
nd disposal fa
es, and waste
two Federal
Response, C
d Reauthoriz
t of 1992. R
wastes. CER
ase of a haz
us Materials
us and solid w
The City of Mc
neral sanitatio
the McGrego
rted, stored,
ing the Prop
nd 102,000 g
LV testing. Ad
McGregor tes
McGregor test
ea.
te through e
zardous wast
with MMH
removed and
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
ardous waste
on and oper
construction
on strategies
ated sites, a
wastes to im
acilities that w
es are govern
statutes of
Compensation
zation Act of
RCRA govern
CLA provide
zardous subs
s Regulation
wastes (Title
cGregor Sanit
on.
or test site an
and used; w
posed Action.
gallons of RP
dditionally, Sp
st site (see Se
t site). Hype
engine testing
tes generated
or NTO), oils
d managed b
exas
t 2014
e, and
ration
n and
s and
at the
mpact
would
ned at
most
n, and
1986
s the
es for
stance
s are
30 of
tation
nd the
waste
.. The
P‐1 to
paceX
ection
ergolic
g and
d can
s, and
by an
Final Enviro
Issuing an
3.0 Affecte
independ
disposal o
Hazardou
site. Prev
munitions
During th
investigat
and soils o
petroleum
actions is
of the te
groundwa
migrating
Navy 200
that the r
anticipate
Solid, non
contracto
stored on
off dump
cardboard
Light 3.9
As an imp
associated
For the p
landscape
areas ma
generally
The ROI f
miles from
visual sen
noise and
park. Exis
stand, and
at the Mc
pads, and
McGregor
vicinity.
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
ed Environmen
ent contracto
of hazardous w
s materials w
vious NWIRP
s grade and f
is time, wast
tions conduct
on the site. T
m products, a
provided in S
est site (EPA
ater wells in t
g into the exis
8; FAA 2011)
remediated c
ed use (EPA 2
n‐hazardous w
or and dispos
‐site in 2‐cub
psters which
d, plastic, and
Emissions an
pact category
d with a proje
purposes of t
es from whic
y be parks,
considered le
for light emis
m which facil
nsitivity due to
d flames on‐s
sting structur
d associated
cGregor test
d buildings lo
r Industrial P
ment
Permit to Spac
nt
or and taken
wastes curren
were used as
operations a
fertilizer grad
te explosives,
ted in the 199
he contamina
nd perchlora
Section 3.6. A
A 2009b; FA
the immediat
sting launch p
). EPA has de
onditions of t
009b).
wastes produ
ed of in the
bic yard dump
are emptied
d food contain
nd Visual Imp
y, light emiss
ect would an
his analysis,
h individuals
coastlines, w
ess visually se
sions and vis
ities, lighting
o the existing
site, and indu
es on the tes
tower which
site consist
ocated at the
Park around t
ceX for Operati
to a permitt
ntly occurs at
part of histor
at the site c
de ammonium
propellants,
90s for closur
ants of conce
te. A descript
A remediation
AA 2011; NA
te area of the
pad areas from
esignated the
the site are p
uced by oper
City of Waco
psters that ar
as needed.
ners (FAA 201
pacts
sions and visu
noy or interfe
visual and ae
develop the
wilderness are
ensitive.
sual impacts
, and operati
g industrial ac
ustrial and co
st site include
is 235 ft high
of safety ligh
site. Various
the test site,
ion of the Drag
3‐23
ted landfill fo
t the McGreg
ric operation
consisted of
m nitrate, an
solvents, an
re of the NWI
ern included in
tion of the gr
n and capping
AVFAC 2007;
e existing lau
m neighborin
e NWIRP McG
protective of
rations at the
o landfill. Pri
e emptied th
Typical solid
11).
ual resources
ere with activ
esthetic reso
ir perception
eas, or recre
is the McGre
ions would be
ctivities such
ommercial bu
e the Grassh
h and can be
hting and nig
s light indust
, limiting the
gonFly Vehicle
or treatment
or test site (F
s of the NWI
manufacturin
nd production
d solid waste
IRP detected
ndustrial solv
roundwater c
g area for soil
U.S. Navy
nch pad indic
g areas (NAV
Gregor site as
human healt
e test site ar
or to collecti
hree times pe
wastes gene
s provide an
vities of peop
ources are de
ns of an area
eation areas;
egor test site
e visible. The
as engine an
usinesses loc
opper RLV la
seen for seve
ghttime secur
trial operatio
e sensitive vi
at the McGreg
and disposal
FAA 2011).
RP prior to S
ng shells and
n of compon
es were store
contaminatio
vents, energe
contaminatio
s is located o
2001). Samp
cate that con
VFAC 2007; U.
s “Ready for
th and the en
e collected b
ion, non‐haza
r week, or in
erated at the
evaluation o
ple in the vicin
efined as man
. Examples o
industrial o
and the vicin
e ROI is consi
d rocket test
ated through
aunch pad, Fa
eral miles. Ex
rity lighting a
ons are locate
sual resource
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
l. No treatme
paceX lease o
d airplane bo
ents for wea
ed on the site
on of groundw
etics, heavy m
n and remed
n the wester
pling results
ntaminants ar
.S. Navy 2001
Reuse,” indic
nvironment fo
by an indepen
ardous waste
30‐cubic yard
e test site in
of whether lig
nity of the pr
n‐made or na
of visually sen
r urban area
nity within se
dered to hav
ting which pro
hout the indu
alcon 9 tripod
isting light so
at the test st
ed throughou
e receptors i
exas
t 2014
ent or
of the
ombs,
apons.
e. Site
water
metals,
iation
n side
from
re not
1; U.S.
cating
or the
ndent
es are
d roll‐
nclude
ghting
roject.
atural
nsitive
as are
everal
ve low
oduce
ustrial
d test
ources
tands,
ut the
in the
Final Enviro
Issuing an
3.0 Affecte
3.10
The CEQ
comprehe
that envir
themselve
or physic
effects on
and resou
and housi
EO 12898
Populatio
identifyin
environm
populatio
to Addres
reinforced
complianc
incorpora
EO 13045
agencies
dispropor
such as: c
children e
adults; ch
able to pr
safety fea
Affected
categorie
• Po• In• En• C
The ROI f
McGregor
which dir
Action’s c
geograph
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
ed Environmen
SocioeconomRisks
NEPA imple
ensively to in
ronment” (40
es to require
al environme
n the human
urces associa
ing.
8, Federal Ac
ns, directs ea
g and addre
ental effects
ons.” Subsequ
ss Environmen
d the direct
ce with EO 12
ating the goals
5, Protection
to identify d
rtionately mo
children’s neu
eat more food
hildren’s beha
rotect themse
atures.
environment
s:
opulation andncome, Povernvironmentahildren’s Env
for the socio
r in McLenna
rect and seco
construction
ic region for c
ment
Permit to Spac
nt
mics, Environ
ementing reg
nclude the na
0 CFR §1508.
preparation
ent effects a
environmen
ted with the
tions to Add
ach Federal ag
essing, as ap
of its progra
uent Orders a
ntal Justice in
tives outlined
2898 and NEP
s of EO 12898
of Children
disproportion
ore environm
urological, dig
d, drink more
avior patterns
elves; and ch
descriptions
d Housing rty, and Emplol Justice ironmental H
economics a
n County, an
ondary or ind
and operatio
comparative
ceX for Operati
nmental Justic
gulations stat
atural and ph
14). This mea
of an environ
re interrelate
nt (40 CFR §1
human envi
ress Environm
gency to “ma
ppropriate, d
ams, policies,
at the State a
n Minority Pop
d in EO 128
PA, also deve
8 into the NEP
from Environ
nately high a
ental health
gestive, immu
e fluids, and
s may make t
ildren’s size a
s in this Secti
oyment
Health and Saf
nalysis is Mc
nd the City of
direct effects
on are likely
analysis.
ion of the Drag
3‐24
ce, Children’s
te that the h
hysical enviro
ans that econ
nmental analy
ed, then the
1508.14). Soc
ronment, par
mental Justic
ake achieving
disproportiona
, and activitie
nd Federal le
pulations and
898. CEQ, w
loped guideli
PA process.
nmental Heal
and adverse
and safety r
unological, an
breath more
hem more su
and weight m
ion are categ
fety
Lennan Coun
f Oglesby in C
on socioeco
to occur. The
gonFly Vehicle
s Environmen
human envir
onment and t
nomic or soc
ysis. When ec
e environmen
cioeconomics
rticularly pop
ce in Minority
environmen
ately high a
es on minorit
evel, including
d Low‐Income
which overse
ines (CEQ 199
lth Risks and
impacts to
risks than adu
nd other bod
air in propor
usceptible to
may diminish
gorized accor
nty, Coryell C
Coryell Count
onomic variab
e State of Te
at the McGreg
ntal Health R
ronment “sha
the relationsh
cial effects ar
conomic and
ntal analysis
s describes th
pulation, emp
y Populations
tal justice pa
nd adverse
ty population
g DOT Order
e Populations
ees the Fede
97) to assist F
d Safety Risks
children. Ch
ults because
ily systems a
rtion to their
accidents bec
their protect
rding to the f
County, the c
y. This ROI in
bles arising fr
exas and the
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
Risks and Safe
all be interp
hip of people
re not intend
social and na
will discuss
he basic attri
ployment, inc
s and Low In
rt of its missi
human heal
ns and low in
5610.2(a), Ac
s (DOT 2012),
eral governm
Federal agenc
s, requires Fe
hildren may
of various fa
re still develo
r body weight
cause they ar
tion from sta
following res
cities of Waco
ncludes the a
rom the Prop
e U.S. serve a
exas
t 2014
ety
preted
e with
ed by
atural
these
ibutes
come,
ncome
ion by
lth or
ncome
ctions
, have
ment’s
cies in
ederal
suffer
actors
oping;
t than
re less
ndard
ource
o and
rea in
posed
as the
Final Enviro
Issuing an
3.0 Affecte
The ROI f
the ROI
McLennan
represent
construct
for compa
3.10.1
Table 3.1
vicinity of
are locate
city in the
Oglesby w
Based on
than Cory
the U.S. (8
Waco wit
vacant ho
higher pe
percentag
Jurisd
United St
Texas
McLenna
Coryell Co
City of M
City of Og
City of WSource: USNote: 1USC
3.10.2
Table 3.10
2007 and
McGregor
and McLe
the State
counties i
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
ed Environmen
for environm
for the socio
n and Coryel
t the popula
ion and oper
arative analys
Population a
0‐1 summari
f the McGreg
ed in McLenn
e vicinity of t
which has less
the 2012 da
yell County (7
87.4 people p
th a relatively
ousing units)
ercentage of
ge than the U
Table 3.1
diction T(
tates
n County
ounty
cGregor
glesby1
Waco SCB 2013a. CB 2010 Demog
Income and
0‐2 summariz
d 2011. Med
r, Oglesby, an
ennan County
e of Texas an
in the ROI. Og
ment
Permit to Spac
nt
ental justice
oeconomic a
l counties, re
ated area m
ration of the
sis.
and Housing
izes U.S. Cen
or test site at
nan County; O
the test site,
s than 500 res
ata, McLenna
71.7 people p
per square mi
y lower perce
and the U.S
vacant hou
.S. (USCB 201
0‐1. Current
Total Populatio(2012 estimate
313,914,040
26,059,203
238,707
77,231
5,029
484
127,018
raphic Data (USC
Employment
zes U.S. Censu
dian househo
nd Waco are
y also have a
nd United St
glesby has th
ceX for Operati
and children
analysis and
espectively. C
most likely t
Proposed Act
nsus Bureau
t the local, co
Oglesby is loc
with 2012 da
sidents.
n County (22
er square mil
ile). 2010 dat
entage of vac
S. (11.4 vacan
sing units co
12; USCB 201
Population a
on e)
Area(square m
3,531,90
261,231
1,037.
1,052.
21.42
0.5
88.96
CB 2012).
t
us Bureau inc
old and per
lower than t
higher portio
tates. The un
e lowest une
ion of the Drag
3‐25
n’s environme
specifically
Census Tracts
to experienc
tion. The Sta
(USCB) data
ounty, and St
cated in Cory
ata showing
26.5 people p
le), the State
ta shows McL
cant housing
nt housing un
ompared to
3a).
nd Housing D
a miles)
PoDensisqu
05.43
1.71
10
07
2
6 1
come and em
capita incom
the State of
on of the pop
nemploymen
employment (
gonFly Vehicle
ental health a
includes Cen
s 101.01 and
ce any pote
te of Texas s
for populati
tate level. The
yell County. M
approximate
per square m
of Texas (96
Lennan Count
units than th
nits). In 2010
the whole S
Data in the Re
opulation ity (person/ uare mile)
87.4
96.3
226.5
71.7
232.8
968
1,402.9
mployment da
me for McLe
Texas and U
pulation livin
t percentage
(2.6 percent)
at the McGreg
and safety ri
nsus Tracts 1
39 are asses
ntial impact
serves as the
ion and hous
e Cities of W
McGregor is t
ly 5,000 resid
mile) is more d
.3 people per
ty, Coryell Co
he State of Te
0, the City o
State of Texa
egion of InfluTotal
Housing Units (2010)1
131,704,730
9,977,436
95,124
25,178
1,966
207
51,452
ata for the tim
ennan County
nited States.
g below the
e varies amo
and Waco ha
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
sks is the sam
101.01 and
ssed because
ts caused by
geographic r
sing trends i
aco and McG
the second la
dents, follow
densely popu
r square mile
unty, Oglesby
exas (10.6 pe
f McGregor
as but is a
uence
Vacant HouUnits (perce
total)
11.4
10.6
8.7
10.5
11.1
9.2
9.8
me period bet
y, Coryell Co
Waco, McGr
poverty leve
ong the citie
ad the highes
exas
t 2014
me as
39 in
e they
y the
region
n the
Gregor
argest
wed by
ulated
), and
y, and
ercent
had a
lower
using ent of
tween
ounty,
regor,
l than
s and
st (9.1
Final Enviro
Issuing an
3.0 Affecte
percent).
percentag
Tab
Jurisdic
United Stat
Texas
McLennan
Coryell Cou
City of McG
City of Ogle
City of WacSource: USC
3.10.3
For the pu
Black or A
races, or
(CEQ 199
populatio
affected a
or appro
5610.2(a)
While not
identifiab
compariso
Table 3.1
Black/Afri
of minori
Oglesby,
percentag
ROI is als
potentiall
percentag
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
ed Environmen
McLennan C
ge of unemplo
le 3.10‐2. Inc
ction H
tes
County
unty
Gregor
esby
co CB 2013b.
Environmen
urpose of this
African Ameri
as being of H
97). The CEQ
on of the affe
area is meani
priate unit o
, as “any rea
t defined by t
le” are inte
on. The geogr
0‐3 shows th
ican America
ity and Hisp
Waco, Cens
ge points) tha
so not mean
y affected ar
ge of minority
ment
Permit to Spac
nt
County (7.2 p
oyment than
come, PovertyMedian
Household Income
$52,762
$50,920
$41,656
$48,920
$37,356
$44,375
$31,971
tal Justice
s evaluation,
ican, Asian or
Hispanic or La
Q identifies th
ected area ex
ngfully greate
of geographi
adily identifia
the CEQ, for t
rpreted to b
raphic region
he poverty le
n) and Hispa
anic populat
us Tract 39
an the State o
ningfully grea
rea would no
y populations
ceX for Operati
percent), City
Texas or the
y, and Emplo
Per Capita Income
$27,915
$25,548
$21,630
$19,218
$16,649
$20,296
$18,185
minority refe
r Pacific Islan
atino origin. P
hese groups
xceeds 50 pe
er than the m
ical analysis.
ble group of
the purposes
be 20 perce
for comparis
vel and the p
nic populatio
tions in McLe
and Census
of Texas. The
ater for thes
ot be conside
s.
ion of the Drag
3‐26
y of McGrego
United State
oyment Data PopulatioPoverty(Percen
14.
17.
21.
14.
25.
9.1
30.
ers to people
nder, America
Persons of His
as minority
ercent or (2)
minority popu
A low‐inco
low‐income
of this EA, th
entage points
son in this an
percentage o
on in the ROI
ennan Count
Tract 101.0
e percentage
se areas wh
ered an envir
gonFly Vehicle
or (6.6 perce
es (USCB 2013
in the Regionon Below y Level ntage)
TooL
.3 1
.0
.7
.1
.5
1
.1
who identifi
an Indian or A
spanic and La
populations
the minority
ulation percen
me populati
persons who
he terms “mea
s greater th
alysis is the S
of total mino
(USCB 2012;
ty, Coryell C
01 are not m
e of families li
en compare
ronmental ju
at the McGreg
ent), and Ogl
3b).
n of Influenceotal Number of People in Labor Force
156,456,694
12,285,284
113,049
34,273
2,000
193
57,364
ed themselve
Alaska Native
atino origin m
when eithe
y population
ntage in the g
ion is define
o live in geog
aningfully gre
han the geog
State of Texas
rity populatio
; USCB 2013b
County, the C
meaningfully
iving below p
d to the Sta
ustice popula
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
lesby had a
e, 2007‐2011Percent of
ForceUnemplo
8.7
7.3
7.2
9.3
6.6
2.6
9.1
es in the Cens
e, other non‐W
may be of any
r (1) the min
percentage i
general popu
ed by DOT
graphic proxim
eater” and “re
graphic regio
s.
on (predomin
b). The perce
City of McGr
greater (ov
poverty level
ate of Texas
tion based o
exas
t 2014
lower
Labor
oyed
sus as
White
y race
nority
in the
lation
Order
mity.”
eadily
on of
nately
ntage
regor,
er 20
in the
s. The
on the
Final Enviro
Issuing an
3.0 Affecte
Ta
United Sta
Texas
McLennan
Coryell Co
City of Mc
City of Og
City of Wa
Census Tra
Census TraSources: USCNotes: aMino
Whit
3.10.4
Table 3.1
capacity.
[ISD] 2013
the easte
holds you
Fridays, a
2013‐201
Industrial
listed in T
facilities,
McGregor
Ogles
McG
McG
McG
McG
Isbill Sourc
Note:
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
ed Environmen
able 3.10‐3. E
Jurisdictio
ates
n County
ounty
cGregor
lesby
aco
act 101.01 ‐ C
act 39 ‐McLenCB 2012; USCB 2ority is defined ate races. bTotal p
Children’s En
10‐4 summar
The nearest s
3; McGregor
rn side of the
uth rodeo ev
nd Saturdays
4 CTYRA sea
Park betwee
Table 3.3‐1, t
playgrounds
r test site.
Sch
sby School
regor Prep Hig
regor High Sch
regor Primary
regor (T.H. Jen
Junior High Scce: Oglesby Inde
McGregor In 1This primary scMcGregor Hig
ment
Permit to Spac
nt
Environmenta
on
Coryell County
nnan County 2013b. as: Black or Africpercent Hispanic
nvironmenta
izes the loca
school is 3.5
ISD 2013). Th
e McGregor In
ents multiple
s starting at 6
ason consists
en August 20
hat are likely
, or other p
Table 3.1
hool
gh School
hool
School1
nkins) Elementa
chool pendent School dependent Schochool is currentlgh Schools.
ceX for Operati
al Justice Stat(% o
White
72.4
70.4
69.8
70.3
68.3
87.0
59.2
y 95.2
87.2
can American, Ac/Latino origin m
al Health Risk
ations of sch
miles northw
he Central Tex
ndustrial Park
e times per y
6:00 p.m. on
of thirteen
013 and Apri
y to be freque
places where
10‐4. SchoolsApprDir
ary
District 2013 ool District 2013ly under constru
ion of the Drag
3‐27
tistics for thef population)
Total Minority
27.6
29.6
30.2
29.7
31.7
13.0
40.8
4.8
12.8
Asian or Pacific Imay be of any ra
s and Safety
hools within
west of the te
xas Youth Rod
k, approximat
year. The rod
Thursdays an
three‐day ev
l 2014 (CTYR
ented by chil
e children ar
s Near the Mcroximate Distaection from Te
3.5 miles NW
4.0 miles N
4.5 miles N
4.5 miles N
4.5 miles N
4.5 miles N
3 uction and is adja
gonFly Vehicle
e Region of In)
ya Hisp
Latino
1
3
2
1
3
1
2
9
1
slander, Americace and is report
Risks
the ROI, dis
est site (Ogles
deo Associati
tely 3 miles n
deo events ar
nd Fridays, an
vents held at
RA 2013). The
ldren. There
re concentrat
cGregor Testance and est Site
W
E
E
E
E
E
acent to the cur
at the McGreg
nfluence, 201
anic or o Originb
16.9
38.2
24.4
17.0
37.1
18.8
29.6
9.2
17.9
can Indian or Alated separately.
stance from
sby Independ
ion (CTYRA) A
northeast of t
re typically h
nd 7:00 p.m.
t their arena
ere are eight
are no other
ted within t
t Site
Number of
17
2
40
30
59
40
rrent McGregor
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
12 estimate
Families BelPoverty Lev
10.5
13.2
15.1
12.4
21.4
8.9
22.2
7.6
13.0
aska Native, oth
the test site
ent School D
Arena is locat
the site. The
held on Thurs
on Saturdays
at the McG
t parks in the
r schools, day
he vicinity o
f Students
74
2
04
00
95
01
Elementary and
exas
t 2014
low vel
er non‐
e, and
District
ted on
arena
sdays,
s. The
Gregor
e ROI,
ycares
of the
Final Environmental Assessment
Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the DragonFly Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas
3.0 Affected Environment 3‐28 August 2014
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Final Enviro
Issuing an
4.0 Environ
4.0 ENVIR
This chap
that coul
analyses
Action Al
indirect im
The analy
categorie
significan
Air Qu4.1
Potential
and propo
this new
implemen
more of t
4.1.1
Construct
launching
where the
itself. The
number o
emissions
2010). On
Total cons
Co
Not
Air pollut
significant
The propo
and 2015
operation
miles, or
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
nmental Conse
RONMENTAL
ter presents
d result from
presented in
ternative for
mpacts of con
ysis in this
s, found in A
ce of impacts
uality
impacts to a
osed operatio
launch pad
ntation of any
he NAAQS fo
Proposed Ac
tion under th
g and landing
e concrete lau
e constructio
of workers. C
s factors and
n road trucks
struction emi
TableVolatile Organic ompounds
0.01 tes: PM10 = p
matter 2.1 rounded
ant emission
t impact on lo
osed DragonF
. In addition,
ns. It is assum
24 miles per
ment
Permit to Spac
equences
L CONSEQUEN
an analysis of
m implement
this chapter
r each enviro
nstruction and
chapter con
Appendix A of
s, and describ
air quality cou
ons of up to 3
for the pe
y of the altern
r any of the t
ction
he Proposed
g the Dragon
unch pad wo
on is not exp
onstruction e
equipment p
are also incl
issions are pr
e 4.1‐1. Estim
Nitrogen Oxides
0.03 particulate matt.5 microns or lesd values less tha
s generated
ocal or region
Fly RLV test la
up to 10 sta
med that the
r day roundtr
ceX for Operati
NCES
f the potentia
tation of the
compares th
onmental re
d operations
nsiders FAA’s
f FAA Order 1
bes the FAA’s
uld result fro
30 annual sub
riod 2014 –
natives would
ime frames a
Action would
nFly RLV. Con
uld be poure
pected to last
emissions we
productivity d
uded and em
esented in Ta
ated Constru
CarbonMonoxi
0.09ter less than orss in diameter. n 0.01
by constructi
nal air quality
aunch schedu
aff would be
average one
rip. Commute
ion of the Drag
4‐1
al impacts up
e Proposed A
he Proposed
source area
are considere
s guidance o
1050.1E, whic
significance t
om the propo
borbital launc
2015. Signi
d directly or i
analyzed.
d be limited
nstruction ac
d, the laying
t for more t
re calculated
data from Na
missions are b
able 4.1‐1.
uction Emissio
n de
SulfDiox
0.0r equal to 10 m
ion activities
.
ule involves a
located at th
e‐way comm
er emissions
gonFly Vehicle
pon various co
Action. To ev
Action descr
presented i
ed in the EA.
on the analy
ch includes a
thresholds.
osed construc
ches and land
ificant air qu
indirectly res
to a 1,600 ft
ctivities woul
of a gravel ba
han 10 days
d using EPA’s
tional Estima
based on EPA
ons for Launc
fur xide
001
microns in diame
would be ve
a maximum o
e McGregor
ute distance
were calcula
at the McGreg
omponents o
valuate pote
ribed in Chap
n Chapter 3
ysis of envir
a description
ction of a 1,6
dings of the D
uality impact
ult in the exc
t2 concrete p
ld involve ex
ase, and the
and would
NONROAD m
ator (Craftsm
A’s MOVES m
ch Pad in Ton
PM10
0.001
eter; PM2.5 = fi
ery small and
of 30 launche
test site to s
for each wo
ated using EP
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
of the environ
ntial impacts
pter 2 with th
. Both direc
ronmental im
of how to an
600 ft2 launc
DragonFly RLV
ts would oc
ceedance of o
pad to be use
xcavating the
pouring of th
involve a mi
model (EPA 2
an Book Com
model (EPA 20
ns
PM2.5
0.001
ne particulate
would not h
es per year in
upport the te
orker would
PA’s MOVES m
exas
t 2014
nment
s, the
he No
t and
mpact
nalyze
h pad
V from
cur if
one or
ed for
e area
he pad
inimal
010a)
mpany
010b).
have a
2014
esting
be 12
model
Final Environmental Assessment
Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the DragonFly Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas
4.0 Environmental Consequences 4‐2 August 2014
(EPA 2010b). Due to the small number of staff required to support the operation and the short commute
required, the air emissions associated with commuting are minor.
Pre‐flight activities include preparing the DragonFly RLV for launch and providing ground operations
support for launch and landing. The DragonFly RLV would be transported by truck or tractor‐trailer from
its storage location at the McGregor test site to the launch pad, which would involve the limited use of
the vehicle over a very short distance. Similarly, two trucks would be used to transport the propellants
from the propellant storage area to the launch pad. SpaceX operations currently occurring at the
McGregor test site already use the hypergolic propellants MMH and NTO. Transport and loading of the
propellants would utilize the same equipment and protocols that are currently in place for engine
testing using these propellants. Because of the small size of the launch vehicle, closed system used for
fueling, and modest fuel volume consumed per flight, minimal emissions would be generated from the
routine pre‐flight activities, and these were not quantified. The use of these propellants for DragonFly
RLV testing may result in a small number of increased deliveries from the supplier to the propellant
storage location, but these emissions are minimal and were not quantified.
Emissions associated with the operations would be generated by the combustion of the NTO/MMH
propellant and the combustion of fuel by the helicopter that would raise the DragonFly RLV up to 10,000
ft AGL for release. The primary combustion products of the propellants MMH and NTO used in the
DragonFly RLV are nitrogen gas and water (Stuetzer 2013, Haas 1984); therefore, there are no significant
criteria pollutants or GHG emissions associated with the operation of the DragonFly RLV.
The use of a helicopter four times a year would generate minimal pollutant emissions. Information on
the emission factors for the H‐47 Chinook, which uses two turboshaft engines of similar horsepower as
the ones used on the Erickson S‐64E, were used to estimate the helicopter emissions. Helicopter
operations include taking off and landing from Waco Regional Airport, traveling to the SpaceX facility in
McGregor Texas, which is approximately 16 miles away, and attaching and lifting the DragonFly RLV to
3,000 ft AGL, which is the vertical threshold for assessing ground‐level pollutant impacts.
The total annual operational emissions, which include the helicopter operations and annual commuter
emissions for 10 additional SpaceX staff, are presented in Table 4.1‐2 and represent the estimates for
each of the two years of testing (2014 and 2015).
Table 4.1‐2. Estimated Annual Operation Emissions in Tons per Year (2014 and 2015) Volatile Organic
Compounds
Nitrogen Oxides
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Dioxide
PM10 PM2.5
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.001 0.01 0.01
Notes: PM10 = particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter. 1 rounded value less than 0.01
Operational air emissions are very small and would not have a significant impact on local or regional air
quality.
Final Enviro
Issuing an
4.0 Environ
4.1.2
Under the
operation
launch pa
the addit
Alternativ
alternativ
Noise4.2
4.2.1
Under the
and oper
noise wou
the Drago
of pieces
example,
noise leve
hours, ad
construct
The noise
propulsive
described
and 10:00
within the
1). The Dr
maximum
force (lbf)
A represe
four diffe
although
correspon
extended
(i.e., the
Appendix
A helicopt
assist and
year. The
the Drago
10,000 ft
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
nmental Conse
No Action A
e No Action
n of the Drag
ad at the Drag
tional emissi
ve would resu
ve.
e and Compat
Proposed Ac
e Proposed A
ations. Const
uld be genera
onRider area.
of construct
the typical m
el is relativel
dverse effect
ion activities
e analysis as
e assist, full
d in Table 2.1
0 p.m. SpaceX
e McGregor t
ragonFly is pr
m thrust of 16
) (15,325 lbf p
entative opera
rent operatio
two of the f
nding trajecto
burn time a
maximum no
A.
ter would rel
d full propulsi
helicopter w
onFly RLV. T
. The helicop
ment
Permit to Spac
equences
lternative
Alternative, t
gonFly RLV a
gonRider test
on of any a
ult in less air e
tible Land Us
ction
Action, poten
truction of th
ated by const
Noise levels
tion equipme
maximum nois
y low and b
ts from con
would not be
sumes a pro
propulsive l
‐1. All operat
X is currently
test site: the
ropelled by e
6,400 lbf indi
per engine) to
ation type wa
on types. The
four operatio
ory follows
and increased
oise scenario
lease the Dra
ve landing op
would travel 1
he helicopte
pter would h
ceX for Operati
the FAA wou
t the McGre
t area would
air pollutants
emissions. Th
e
tial noise im
he launch pa
truction equip
at a given re
ent being op
se level of an
ecause the c
nstruction no
e significant.
oposed maxim
anding, prop
tions would o
y considering
Grasshopper
eight SuperDr
vidually, the
o maintain sta
as developed
representati
on types incl
a straight ve
d maximum a
). For furthe
agonFly RLV f
perations. The
16 miles from
r would then
over for a fe
ion of the Drag
4‐3
uld not issue
gor test site
not occur. Th
s. Compared
here would be
pacts could o
ad would be
pment during
eceptor locat
perated and
n excavator at
construction
oise would
mum of 30 a
pulsive assist
occur from a
one of two
r launch pad o
raco engines.
vehicle’s ma
ability.
to account fo
ive operation
ude only lan
ertical traject
altitude to e
r discussion
rom up to 10
ese operation
m Waco Regio
n lift the Dra
ew seconds b
gonFly Vehicle
an experime
. In addition
he No Action
to the Pro
e no impact t
occur from p
expected to
g construction
tion would de
the receptor
t 50 ft would
noise would
not be likel
annual Drago
t hopping, an
single pad b
possible loca
or the Drago
Although a S
aximum thrus
or all the bas
n type include
dings. The re
tory from its
nsure a high
of the noise
0,000 ft abov
ns are propos
onal Airport t
agonFly RLV
before releas
at the McGreg
ental permit
, constructio
Alternative w
oposed Actio
o regional air
roposed con
o take 1–2 w
n of the conc
epend on the
r’s distance f
be approxim
be tempora
y. Noise fro
onFly operat
nd full propu
between the h
ations for Dra
nRider test a
SuperDraco e
st is limited t
ic componen
es both a take
epresentative
s pad origin,
ly conservati
modeling pa
e the ground
sed to occur o
o the launch
and ascend
sing the RLV
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
to SpaceX fo
on of the con
would not res
n, the No A
r quality unde
struction act
weeks. Interm
crete launch p
e type and nu
from the site
mately 77 dBA
ry during da
om the prop
tions consisti
ulsive hoppin
hours of 7:00
agonFly opera
area (see Exhi
engine can re
to 122,600 po
ts of the prop
eoff and a lan
e operation t
, and includ
ive noise est
arameters ref
d during prop
only four time
pad and teth
to approxim
. These helic
exas
t 2014
or the
ncrete
sult in
Action
er this
ivities
mittent
pad at
umber
e. For
A. This
ytime
posed
ing of
ng, as
0 a.m.
ations
ibit 2‐
each a
ounds
posed
nding,
type’s
es an
imate
fer to
ulsive
es per
her to
mately
copter
Final Environmental Assessment
Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the DragonFly Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas
4.0 Environmental Consequences 4‐4 August 2014
operations would generate noise, which may be noticeable in the surrounding area. The contribution of
helicopter noise to the overall noise would be negligible because the duration, level, and tempo of the
helicopter noise is significantly lower than the DragonFly RLV. Therefore, the impact would be minor and
was not included within the modeled representative operational type.
Noise levels generated by the DragonFly RLV were estimated to be approximately 116 dBA 0.3 miles
from the launch pad and approximately 81 dBA 3 miles from the launch pad. The combination of the
existing operations and the proposed DragonFly operations results in the DNL contours shown in Exhibit
4.2‐1.
A significant noise impact is one in which the “proposed action will cause noise sensitive areas to
experience an increase in noise of DNL 1.5 dBA or more at or above DNL 65 dBA noise exposure when
compared to the no action alternative for the same timeframe.” The additional noise associated with
the proposed DragonFly operations produces less than a tenth of a dBA DNL difference. As shown in
Table 4.2‐1, the Proposed Action’s DNL 65 dBA contour area is predicted to increase approximately 0.01
percent over the No Action Alternative which equates to less than 4 acres. The 4 acres do not include
any additional sensitive noise receptors.
Table 4.2‐1. Summary of Total Contours Acreage by Scenario (Proposed Action)
Contour No Action Alternative
Grasshopper Pad Dragon Rider Site
Level Acres
Proposed Action Acres
+Acres1 Percent Increase Proposed Action Acres
+Acres % Increase
65 dBA 32691 32695 4 0.01 32694 3 0.01
70 dBA 18241 18244 3 0.02 18243 2 0.01
75 dBA 10729 10731 2 0.02 10731 2 0.02
80 dBA 5090 5093 3 0.06 5091 1 0.02
85 dBA 2476 2480 4 0.16 2478 2 0.08 Note: 1Increase in land acres within the contour over the No Action Alternative noise condition.
F
I
4
Final Environmental A
Issuing an Experim
4.0 Environmental
Assessment
ental Permit to Spa
Consequences
aceX for Operation
Exhibit 4.2‐1. N
of the DragonFly V
No Action Alterna
Vehicle at the McG
4‐5
ative and Propos
Gregor Test Site, Tex
sed Action Noise
exas
Contours
August 2014
Final Enviro
Issuing an
4.0 Environ
Compatib
The Propo
This cons
Proposed
Proposed
Park and
changes t
Projected
McGregor
of McGre
the Falcon
pad as we
site. Adja
Section 3
regarding
levels in r
under the
Alternativ
4.2.2
Under the
operation
launch pa
Section 2
Alternativ
compatib
Depa4.3
4.3.1
Public Par
The FAA m
4(f) evalu
waterfow
attributes
recreation
belonging
Proposed
refuges. T
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
nmental Conse
ble Land Use
osed Action i
struction wo
Action wou
Action is con
vicinity. The
o land use pr
noise conto
r test site lies
gor 2003). Th
n 9 Stage 1. T
ell as the ope
acent land us
.2. In additio
g use of respe
esidential are
e existing con
ve. Therefore,
No Action A
e No Action
n of the Drag
ad at the Dra
.2 would con
ve would res
le land use un
rtment of Tra
Proposed Ac
rks, Recreatio
must assess i
ation is requi
wl refuges, is
s of the publ
n area, and th
g to public pa
Action woul
The nearest w
ment
Permit to Spac
equences
includes the
uld be consi
uld primarily
nsistent with
vicinity of th
ractices or zon
urs are comp
s within the C
he McGregor
Therefore, no
ration of the
se is agricult
on, SpaceX ha
ective parcels
eas in the City
dition. The P
, the Propose
lternative
Alternative, t
gonFly RLV a
agonRider te
tinue at the M
ult in less no
nder this alte
ansportation
ction
on Areas, and
if land use im
ired. A de min
defined as a
ic resource. T
here would b
arks or recrea
d not result i
wildlife manag
ceX for Operati
construction
istent with t
rely on exis
existing land
he industrial
ning would ha
pared to exist
City of McGre
test site is cu
oise associate
DragonFly RL
tural, which
as an existing
s of land on d
y of McGrego
roposed Actio
ed Action wou
the FAA wou
t the McGre
st area woul
McGregor tes
oise. There w
rnative.
: Section 4(f)
d Refuges
mpacts to Sec
nimis impact
an impact th
The McGrego
be no physica
ation areas as
in the physic
gement area i
ion of the Drag
4‐6
of a concret
the current
ting infrastru
d use and zon
park is zone
ave to occur f
ting land use
gor’s industri
urrently used
d with the co
LV would be c
is not consid
g agreement
days when ro
or and Oglesb
on would hav
uld not result
uld not issue
gor test site
ld not occur.
st site. Comp
would be no
ction 4(f) prop
on public par
hat will not a
or test site is
l use, direct t
s a result of t
al use, direct
is 5.5 miles fr
gonFly Vehicle
te launch pad
land use. Op
ucture within
ning designati
ed by the city
for initiation
s for determ
ial park and i
to conduct e
onstruction of
compatible w
dered a nois
t with the Ch
cket/engine t
by are not com
ve only minim
t in significant
an experime
. In addition
. Existing Spa
pared to the P
adverse effe
perties are e
rks, recreatio
adversely aff
s 2.3 miles fr
taking, or tem
he Proposed
t taking, or te
rom the test s
at the McGreg
d at the Drag
perations as
n the McGre
ions at the M
y as “heavy
of the Propo
ining compat
s zoned “hea
ngine testing
f the propose
with the existi
se‐sensitive a
harles Graham
tests are sch
mpatible with
mal effects ab
t compatible
ental permit
, constructio
aceX activitie
Proposed Act
cts related to
ither de mini
on areas, and
fect the activ
rom the near
mporary occu
Action. Impl
emporary occ
site.
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
gonRider test
sociated wit
egor test site
McGregor Indu
industrial” an
sed Action.
tible land use
vy industrial”
g, including te
ed concrete la
ng land use o
area as defin
m Cattle Com
eduled. The
h existing land
bove the No A
land use imp
to SpaceX fo
on of the con
es, as describ
tion, the No A
o noise level
imis or if a Se
public wildlif
vities, feature
rest public pa
upancy of pro
ementation o
cupancy of w
exas
t 2014
area.
h the
e. The
ustrial
nd no
e. The
” (City
ests of
aunch
on the
ned in
mpany
noise
d uses
Action
pacts.
or the
ncrete
bed in
Action
s and
ection
fe and
es, or
ark or
operty
of the
wildlife
Final Enviro
Issuing an
4.0 Environ
Because s
with pote
4(f) prope
levels tha
are alread
other noi
RLV launc
difference
Changes i
impacts o
Draft EA a
Coordinat
Appendix
Significan
Implemen
occupanc
the neare
Construct
significant
substantia
the Propo
Action Alt
each laun
and magn
Proposed
reviewed
4.3.2
Under the
operation
launch pa
the McGr
noise and
propertie
Histo4.4
4.4.1
The APE,
Proposed
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
nmental Conse
significant inc
ential to incre
erty. As desc
t would be o
dy exposed t
se sources (e
ches would p
e between th
n noise cond
on Section 4(f
and concurre
tion). A deta
A of this EA.
nt Historic Sit
ntation of the
y of historic s
est historic pro
tive use of Se
tly and intro
ally impair th
osed Action w
ternative. Th
ch, but the a
nitude to cur
Action on S
the Draft EA
No Action A
e No Action
n of the Drag
ad at the Dra
egor test site
d thus less im
s under this a
rical, Archite
Proposed Ac
as defined in
Action, a ne
ment
Permit to Spac
equences
creases in no
ease noise lev
cribed in Sec
utside of the
to audible no
e.g., trains). A
produce less
he No Action
itions at 4(f) p
f) properties
d with this de
iled analysis
es
e Proposed Ac
sites. The loca
operty.
ction 4(f) pro
oduced visua
he value of th
would be exp
e DragonFly
nnual operat
rrent SpaceX
Section 4(f) h
and concurre
lternative
Alternative, t
gonFly RLV a
gonRider tes
e. Compared t
pact on Secti
alternative.
ctural, Archa
ction
n Section 3.4
ew concrete
ceX for Operati
oise levels ca
vels significan
tion 4.1.2 ab
test site, pot
oise from cur
As discussed i
than a tent
Alternative a
properties wo
would be de
etermination
of noise an
ction would n
ation of the p
operties would
al elements
e historic pro
pected to pro
RLV would b
tions would b
testing ope
historic sites
ed with this d
the FAA wou
t the McGre
st area would
to the Propos
ion 4(f) prope
aeological, an
4, includes 14
launch pad
ion of the Drag
4‐7
n impair the
ntly may be c
bove, Dragon
tentially at Se
rrent SpaceX
in Section 4.2
th of a dB d
and Proposed
ould not be s
e minimis. Th
in a letter da
nd associated
not result in t
proposed laun
d occur if the
that would
operties. As d
oduce a neglig
be visible from
be intermitten
rations. Ther
would be de
determination
uld not issue
gor test site
d not occur. E
sed Action, th
erties. There
nd Cultural Re
4 NRHP‐listed
would be co
gonFly Vehicle
value of a 4
considered a
nFly RLV test
ection 4(f) pr
activities (as
2, the noise l
difference fro
d Action DNL
ignificant; the
he Departmen
ated June 13,
d impacts are
the physical u
nch pad is app
e proposed op
significantly
described in S
gible increase
m the histori
nt and of sho
refore, impac
e minimis. Th
n in a letter d
an experime
. In addition
Existing Space
he No Action
would be no
esources
d or eligible h
onstructed in
at the McGreg
4(f) property,
“constructive
launches m
operties. How
s described in
evel associat
om current o
L contours of
erefore, pote
nt of the Inte
, 2014 (see A
e included in
use, direct tak
proximately 0
perations incr
y alter the u
Section 4.4.1,
e in noise co
ic properties
rt duration a
cts from ope
he Departme
ated June 13,
ental permit
, constructio
eX activities
Alternative w
o adverse effe
historical res
the DragonR
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
, proposed ac
e use” of a Se
ay generate
wever, these
n Section 2.2
ed with Drag
operations, w
f less than 4 a
ential noise‐re
erior reviewe
Appendix B, A
n Section 4.2
king, or temp
0.75 of a mile
reased noise
use, characte
, operations u
mpared to th
in the APE d
nd similar in
erations unde
ent of the In
, 2014.
to SpaceX fo
on of the con
would contin
would result i
ects to Sectio
ources. Unde
Rider test ar
exas
t 2014
ctions
ection
noise
areas
2) and
gonFly
with a
acres.
elated
ed the
gency
2 and
porary
e from
levels
er, or
under
he No
during
scope
er the
terior
or the
ncrete
nue at
n less
on 4(f)
er the
ea, in
Final Enviro
Issuing an
4.0 Environ
proximity
archaeolo
from cons
result in
DragonFly
majority
operation
Operation
was rece
significant
be no eff
this findin
4.4.2
Under the
operation
the McGr
the prote
Proposed
would be
Fish, W4.5
4.5.1
Vegetatio
The Prop
DragonRid
mowed i
vegetatio
During a
predeterm
site subje
Proposed
Wildlife
The poten
is no anti
bodies are
Impacts t
the McGr
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
nmental Conse
y to the exis
ogical resourc
struction und
a negligible
y RLV would
of the launc
ns each year, t
ns under the
ntly develop
t physical fea
ects to histo
ng of no effec
No Action A
e No Action
n of the Drag
regor test site
ective covena
Action, the
no effect to h
Wildlife, and
Proposed Ac
on
posed Action
der test area
ndustrial lan
n.
nominal lau
mined targete
ect to active
Action would
ntial construc
icipated perm
e in the vicini
o wildlife fro
egor test site
ment
Permit to Spac
equences
sting Grassh
ces in this are
der the Propo
increase in
be visible fr
ch and landin
two propulsiv
Proposed Act
ed and used
atures or cha
ric properties
ct on April 7, 2
lternative
Alternative, t
onFly RLV at
e. As a lessee
ants and oth
No Action A
historic prope
Plants
ction
includes po
a and the G
nd (see Secti
unch, the Dr
ed site within
grazing do
d not result in
ction of a new
manent displa
ty of the pote
om DragonFly
e such as star
ceX for Operati
opper launc
ea. Therefore
osed Action.
noise (refer
rom the histo
ng operation
ve assist and
tion would oc
d for suborb
racteristics o
s from imple
2014 (refer to
the FAA wou
the McGrego
e of the city‐o
her applicabl
Alternative w
erties under t
otential const
rasshopper l
ion 3.5.1 for
ragonFly RLV
n the operatin
not have sig
n significant i
w launch pad
acement of w
ential launch
y RLV launch
rtling and flus
ion of the Drag
4‐8
h pad. Ther
e, there woul
The launches
to Section 4
oric propertie
s would last
two full prop
ccur intermitt
bital testing,
of any of the
mentation of
o Appendix B,
uld not issue
or test site. E
owned prope
le stipulation
ould result i
this alternativ
truction of a
aunch pad a
r further des
V would land
ng area in the
gnificant amo
mpacts to veg
would not ha
wildlife prese
pad, aquatic
operations w
shing of birds
gonFly Vehicle
re are no k
d be no direc
s and landing
4.2, Noise an
es in the AP
t only one m
pulsive landin
tently and fo
and as such
historic prop
f the Propose
, Agency Coor
an experime
Existing Space
erty, SpaceX w
ns identified
n less impac
ve.
a new 1,600
are previousl
scription), co
d either back
e vicinity of la
ounts of woo
getation.
ave impacts o
ent at the M
species wou
would be sim
s and other w
at the McGreg
known NRHP
ct effects to
gs of the Dra
nd Compatibl
E during eac
minute each.
gs, would las
or a short dur
h, would not
perties. There
ed Action. TH
rdination).
ental permit
eX activities
would contin
in the PA.
ct on cultura
0 ft2 launch
y disturbed
onstruction w
k on the lau
aunch pad. Th
ody vegetatio
on terrestrial
cGregor test
ld not be imp
milar to existin
wildlife during
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
P‐listed or e
historic prop
agonFly RLV w
le Land Use)
ch launch, bu
Only four o
t 30 minutes
ation at a site
t alter any o
efore, there w
HC concurred
to SpaceX fo
would contin
ue to comply
Compared to
l resources. T
pad. Becaus
and are cur
would not im
unch pad or
he areas of th
on; therefore
wildlife, and
site. As no
pacted.
ng disturbanc
g test launche
exas
t 2014
ligible
erties
would
). The
ut the
of the
each.
e that
of the
would
d with
or the
nue at
y with
o the
There
e the
rently
mpact
r in a
e test
e, the
there
water
ces at
es and
Final Enviro
Issuing an
4.0 Environ
landings.
annually,
4.2 above
would not
Special‐St
As discus
Assessme
McGregor
Under the
north of t
occur in t
direct effe
The launc
noise leve
surroundi
only one m
the Propo
already us
Previous
whooping
developed
the whoo
migration
permit, p
currently
activities
monitorin
TPWD to
monitorin
cranes fro
designate
TPWD, an
Based on
site and w
the Propo
4.5.2
Under the
operation
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
nmental Conse
Based on the
overall impa
e, there would
t significantly
tatus Species
ssed in Sect
ent for Issuing
r Test Site, Te
e Proposed A
the existing G
the ROI are k
ects to listed
ches and land
els associate
ing area durin
minute each.
osed Action w
sed for subor
coordination
g cranes with
d a whooping
oping cranes’
n (approximat
otential stop
monitored fo
during the
ng would also
FAA regardin
ng plan descr
om project ac
ed monitoring
nd cease activ
the very rare
with the imple
osed Action w
No Action A
e No Action
n of the Drag
ment
Permit to Spac
equences
e relative infr
cts to region
d be no signif
y impact wildl
s
ion 3.5, coo
g an Experime
exas indicated
Action, a new
rasshopper R
known to oc
species from
dings of the D
with the No
ng each laun
Only four of
would occur
rbital testing.
with TPWD
hin the test s
g crane monit
northern mig
tely mid‐Sept
p‐over habitat
or the presen
fall and spr
o be conducte
g their review
ribed above
ctivities (App
g sites, if who
vities covered
e occurrence
ementation o
would have no
lternative
Alternative, t
onFly RLV at
ceX for Operati
requency of D
nal wildlife po
ficant noise im
life.
ordination w
ental Permit t
d that there a
w concrete lau
RLV launch pa
cur at the pr
construction
DragonFly RLV
o Action Alte
ch, but the m
the annual o
intermittentl
indicated tha
ite (TPWD 20
toring plan to
gration (appr
ember throu
t located wit
nce of whoop
ring migratio
ed by SpaceX
w of the Draft
to help mini
pendix B). Alt
ooping cranes
d under the e
of whooping
of the whoop
o effect on the
the FAA wou
the McGrego
ion of the Drag
4‐9
DragonFly RLV
opulations ar
mpacts from
ith the USFW
to SpaceX for
are no federa
unch pad wou
ad. None of th
roposed laun
n activities ass
V would resul
ernative. The
majority of th
operations wo
ly and for a
at there may
011c). In res
o be impleme
roximately lat
gh late Decem
thin the oper
ping cranes a
n periods. S
for DragonFl
t EA, TPWD st
imize the po
hough whoo
s are observe
experimental
cranes within
ping crane mo
e whooping c
uld not issue
or test site. E
gonFly Vehicle
V test launch
re not anticip
operations. T
WS in 2011
Operation of
ally listed spe
uld be constr
he State‐listed
nch pad site.
sociated with
lt in a negligi
DragonFly R
he launch and
ould last 30 m
short duratio
be suitable s
sponse to TPW
nted when op
te March thr
mber). Under
rational area
pproximately
Similarly, as
ly operations
tated support
otential for im
ping cranes h
ed, SpaceX mu
permits unti
n the operati
onitoring plan
crane.
an experime
Existing Space
at the McGreg
hes, approxim
pated. As di
Therefore, th
1 for the Fin
f the Grasshop
cies known to
ructed approx
d species tha
Therefore, t
h the Propose
ble increase
RLV would be
d landing ope
minutes each.
on at a site,
stop‐over ha
WD recomm
perations are
rough early Ju
r the existing
of the McG
y 1‐2 hours p
appropriate,
s. In a June 16
t for the impl
mpacts to m
have not bee
ust notify the
il the cranes
ional area of
n, the FAA ha
ental permit
eX activities
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
mately 30 lau
scussed in Se
e Proposed A
nal Environm
pper Vehicle a
o occur in the
ximately 0.32
t have potent
here would b
ed Action.
in noise abov
e visible from
erations woul
. Operations u
which is cur
bitat for mig
endations, Sp
e conducted d
une) and sou
FAA experim
regor test sit
prior to condu
, whooping
6, 2014 letter
lementation o
igrating who
en observed a
e FAA, USFWS
have left the
the McGrego
as determined
to SpaceX fo
would contin
exas
t 2014
nches
ection
Action
mental
at the
e ROI.
2 mile
tial to
be no
ve the
m the
ld last
under
rently
rating
paceX
during
uthern
mental
te are
ucting
crane
r from
of the
ooping
at the
S, and
area.
or test
d that
or the
nue at
Final Enviro
Issuing an
4.0 Environ
the McGr
impact on
alternativ
Wate4.6
4.6.1
Surface W
Construct
preparatio
launch pa
be requir
soils or p
Practices
into desig
surfaces o
wetlands
However,
Although
impacts w
minimal s
prevent re
Groundw
Construct
underlyin
significant
groundwa
activities
accidenta
would be
surface a
groundwa
Water fo
McGregor
be anticip
operation
SpaceX S
groundwa
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
nmental Conse
egor test site
n biological r
ve.
r Quality
Proposed Ac
Waters (Non‐w
tion activities
on for constr
ad would not
ed because t
pollutants fro
(BMPs) such
gn and const
of the launch
and other s
the Propose
the probabi
would be min
surface wate
eleases, no ad
water
tion activities
g geology an
t quantities
ater if spills o
would follow
l releases of
carefully sto
associated w
ater recharge
r the McGre
r water plant
pated to signi
ns for the Pro
Spill Respons
ater resource
ment
Permit to Spac
equences
e. Compared t
resources. Th
ction
wetlands Sur
s related to t
ructing of a 1
result in dire
the construct
om being ca
as sediment
ruction. Duri
pad could po
surface wate
d Action wou
ility is low, a
nimized and
ers present w
dverse impac
s associated
nd affect the
of groundwa
r leaks occur.
w SpaceX’s S
f pollution su
ored and han
with the pot
e capabilities w
egor test site
t. Water dem
ficantly incre
oposed Actio
se Procedure
s.
ceX for Operati
to the Propos
here would b
rface Waters)
he Proposed
,600 ft2 launc
ect impacts to
tion of the pa
rried off‐site
t traps, silt fe
ng project op
otentially con
ers. Typical p
uld not substa
a launch fail
mitigated by
within the op
cts to surface
with the lau
Trinity Aqui
ater. Constru
. Storage and
Spill Respons
ubstances fro
ndled and spi
ential launch
would occur.
e is supplied
and for oper
ease existing g
n are curren
e. Therefore,
ion of the Drag
4‐10
sed Action, th
be no adverse
)
Action woul
ch pad at the
o surface wat
ad would dist
e in stormwa
ences, straw
perations, sto
nvey stormwa
pollutants co
antially alter s
ure could po
emergency
perations are
waters are ex
unch pad wo
fer. Construc
ction vehicle
d handling of c
se Procedure
om construct
ills cleaned u
h pad would
via pipeline
rations of the
groundwater
tly stored at
, spills wou
gonFly Vehicle
he No Action
e effects to b
ld include ex
e DragonRide
ers. A TPDES
turb less tha
ater runoff, t
bales, or fib
ormwater dis
ater with low
uld include s
stormwater r
otentially im
response and
ea, and mana
xpected as a
ould not req
ction of the
es and mach
chemicals an
e, which wou
tion equipme
up immediate
d be minim
e from a gro
e Proposed Ac
demand. Pro
the test site
ld not be e
at the McGreg
Alternative w
biological res
cavating, gra
r test area. C
construction
n 1 acre. To
the use of B
er rolls woul
scharges from
levels of poll
sediment an
unoff pattern
pact surface
d clean‐up p
agement pra
result of the
uire blasting
launch pad w
inery could
d fuel used d
uld minimize
ent. All cons
ely. The incre
mal; therefore
oundwater w
ction is minim
opellants that
e, and are ma
expected to
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
would result i
sources unde
ding, and fill
Construction o
n permit wou
prevent distu
Best Manage
d be incorpo
m new imper
lutants to adj
d petrochem
ns.
waters. Pot
rocedures. D
actices in pla
Proposed Ac
g that would
would not re
potentially im
during constru
the potenti
struction mat
ease in imper
e, no impac
well at the C
mal and woul
t would be us
anaged as pe
enter or im
exas
t 2014
n less
er this
ing in
of the
ld not
urbed
ement
orated
rvious
jacent
micals.
tential
Due to
ace to
tion.
alter
equire
mpact
uction
al for
terials
rvious
cts to
ity of
ld not
sed in
er the
mpact
Final Enviro
Issuing an
4.0 Environ
Ongoing
originatin
indicated
the propo
granted t
condition
2009b).
In the eve
would be
groundwa
Wetlands
Two area
the propo
wetlands
BMPs wo
potential
Therefore
Floodplai
There are
located in
100‐year
McGregor
BMPs wo
would als
floodplain
mitigated
floodplain
4.6.2
Under the
operation
the McGr
impact on
Natur4.7
4.7.1
Expansion
of a 1,60
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
nmental Conse
groundwater
g from form
that contam
osed launch
the former
s of the site a
ent of a launc
minimized b
ater from the
s
s of emergen
osed location
from polluta
ould be imple
impacts to w
e, no adverse
ns
e approximat
n the southea
floodplains a
r test site. Th
uld be imple
so be implem
ns. If a launc
and minimiz
ns are expecte
No Action A
e No Action
n of the Drag
egor test site
n water resou
ral Resources
Proposed Ac
n of the exist
00 ft2 launch
ment
Permit to Spac
equences
r remediation
mer NWIRP s
inated groun
pad locations
NWIRP site
are protectiv
ch failure (for
by emergency
Proposed Ac
nt wetlands a
for launch pa
ants and sedi
emented. In t
wetlands wou
impacts to w
ely 44.92 acr
ast portion o
associated w
hese floodpla
mented duri
mented to pre
ch failure do
zed through e
ed from the P
lternative
Alternative, t
onFly RLV at
e. Compared t
urces. There w
s and Energy
ction
ing facilities b
pad, and is
ceX for Operati
n projects ar
site uses, as
dwater does
s or propose
a “Ready fo
e of human h
r which the p
y response an
ction are not e
re located on
ad constructi
ment carried
the event of
uld be minim
wetlands are e
res of 100‐ye
of the McGre
ith a tributa
ins are outsid
ng design an
event any rel
es occur dur
emergency re
Proposed Act
the FAA wou
the McGrego
to the Propos
would be no a
Supply
based on the
s not expecte
ion of the Drag
4‐11
e occurring i
described in
not underlay
d constructio
or Reuse” de
health and th
probability is
nd clean‐up p
expected.
n the McGreg
on. To minim
d in stormwat
a launch fai
mized by eme
expected to o
ear floodplain
gor test site
ry to Station
de of the are
d constructio
eases or con
ring operatio
esponse and c
ion.
uld not issue
or test site. E
sed Action, th
adverse effect
Proposed Ac
ed to signific
gonFly Vehicle
in nearby ar
n Section 3.
y or originate
on area (EPA
esignation in
he environme
low), any pot
procedures.
gor test site,
mize the occur
ter runoff fro
lure (for whi
ergency respo
occur as a resu
ns associated
boundary an
n Creek in th
ea of the prop
on to preven
ntaminants fr
ons, potentia
clean‐up proc
an experime
Existing Space
he No Action
ts to water re
ction is limite
cantly increa
at the McGreg
reas because
6. Investigat
from the are
A 2009b). Add
ndicating tha
ent for the an
tential impac
Therefore, a
but no wetla
rrence of sho
om the propo
ich the proba
onse and clea
ult of the Pro
d with the So
nd approxima
he southwest
posed launch
t impacts to
rom operatio
l floodplain
cedures. No a
ental permit
eX activities
Alternative w
esources und
ed to the pote
ase demand
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
of contamin
ions by the
eas associated
ditionally, EP
t the remed
nticipated use
cts to groundw
adverse impa
ands are locat
ort‐term impa
osed constru
ability is low
an‐up proced
oposed Action
outh Bosque
ately 2.34 ac
tern corner o
pad constru
floodplains.
ns from impa
impacts wou
adverse impa
to SpaceX fo
would contin
would result i
er this altern
ential constru
or use of na
exas
t 2014
nation
Navy
d with
A has
diated
e (EPA
water
cts to
ted at
acts to
ction,
), any
dures.
n.
River
res of
of the
ction.
BMPs
acting
uld be
cts to
or the
nue at
n less
ative.
uction
atural
Final Enviro
Issuing an
4.0 Environ
resources
of additio
The plann
fuels and
construct
and relat
launch pa
resources
4.7.2
Under the
operation
the McGr
impact on
and energ
Hazar4.8
4.8.1
Solid was
associated
expected
would be
The Drago
materials
would be
materials
hazardou
CFR §420
Appropria
hazardou
Response
hazards t
Emergenc
Response
D), and Sa
Remediat
the site.
Sections 3
for launch
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
nmental Conse
s and energy.
onal energy, w
ned test launc
d propellants
ion and main
ively minima
ad is construc
s or energy su
No Action A
e No Action
n of the Drag
egor test site
n natural reso
gy supply und
rdous Materi
Proposed Ac
ste is likely t
d with the Pr
to be a sign
managed and
onFly RLV pro
. NTO and M
e shipped to
associated w
s materials a
.67 for liquid
ate engineeri
s materials o
Procedures
to employees
cy Response
Plan (29 CFR
anitary Sewer
tion for groun
Remediation
3.6 and 4.6, i
h pad constru
ment
Permit to Spac
equences
Launches of
which would b
ches of the RL
s as describ
ntenance was
al amounts o
cted. The Pro
upply.
lternative
Alternative, t
onFly RLV at
e. Compared t
ources and en
der this altern
als, Pollution
ction
to be produ
oposed Actio
nificant increa
d disposed of
opulsion syste
MMH are cur
the McGrego
with engine m
nd wastes wo
propellants.
ng and admi
or wastes. Sp
for the McG
s and the en
Plan fulfill th
R Part 1910.12
r Accidental R
ndwater and s
n is also ong
investigations
uction are not
ceX for Operati
f the DragonF
be provided v
LV would use
bed in Sectio
shing of the l
f concrete a
oposed Actio
the FAA wou
the McGrego
to the Propos
nergy supply.
native.
n Prevention,
ced during t
on. The amou
ase over cur
f according to
em uses a pro
rrently used
or test site in
maintenance a
ould be store
inistrative co
paceX has ad
regor test sit
nvironment.
he requireme
20(q)), RCRA
Release Preve
soil contamin
going for gro
s indicate tha
t contaminat
ion of the Drag
4‐12
Fly RLV are ex
via existing ut
e a propellant
on 2.1.1 wo
aunch pad w
nd other nat
n is not expe
uld not issue
or test site. E
sed Action, th
There would
and Solid W
the potentia
nt of solid wa
rent levels p
o existing prac
opellant mixt
and stored o
n DOT‐certifie
are also used
ed and used in
ontrols would
dopted a Che
te to be follo
The policies
nts of the Ha
Hazardous W
ention Plan.
nation origina
oundwater a
at groundwat
ed. EPA has g
gonFly Vehicle
xpected to re
tilities at the t
t mixture of N
ould be met
would consum
tural resourc
ected to have
an experime
Existing Space
he No Action
d be no adve
Waste
l launch pad
aste produced
produced by
ctices describ
ture of NTO a
on‐site for te
ed tanker tru
and stored o
n compliance
d be impleme
emical Emerg
owed in the e
and proced
azardous Wa
Waste Conting
ting from pri
t neighborin
ter and soils
granted the f
at the McGreg
equire approx
test site.
NTO and MMH
t without d
me water from
ces would be
e significant
ental permit
eX activities
Alternative w
rse effects to
d constructio
d by the Prop
site activitie
bed in Section
and MMH, wh
esting purpos
ucks. Oils, ba
on‐site. Prope
e with Federa
ented to avo
gency Respo
event of a re
ures outlined
ste Operatio
gency Plan (40
or NWIRP use
ng properties
underlying th
former NWIR
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
ximately 50 k
H. The deman
ifficulty. Pot
m the water
e consumed
impact on na
to SpaceX fo
would contin
would result i
o natural reso
on and opera
posed Action
s. All solid w
n 3.8.
hich are haza
ses. All prop
atteries, and
ellants, oils, a
al regulations
oid releases o
nse Plan and
elease to min
d in the Che
ns and Emerg
0 CFR 265, Su
es has occurr
s. As describ
he areas prop
P site a “Read
exas
t 2014
kW‐hr
nd for
tential
truck,
if the
atural
or the
nue at
n less
ources
ations
is not
wastes
rdous
pellant
other
and all
at 14
of any
d Spill
nimize
emical
gency
ubpart
red on
bed in
posed
dy for
Final Enviro
Issuing an
4.0 Environ
Reuse” de
and the
expected
Proposed
hazardou
no advers
4.8.2
Under the
operation
the McGr
impact as
adverse e
alternativ
Light 4.9
4.9.1
The McGr
past testi
current la
the test s
released o
planned.
emissions
RLV, F9R,
seen from
during ea
Visual imp
firing wou
The Propo
pad woul
would no
degrade t
not expec
4.9.2
Under the
operation
the McGr
light emis
visual reso
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
nmental Conse
esignation ind
environment
to have any
Action wou
s materials, h
se impacts are
No Action A
e No Action
n of the Drag
egor test site
ssociated with
effects relate
ve.
Emissions an
Proposed Ac
regor test sit
ng of the Gra
aunch operat
site, up to 30
or launched f
The DragonF
s would be sm
and Falcon 9
m the nearby
ch test. Light
pacts from D
uld be of shor
osed Action m
d be consiste
ot be a signif
the existing v
cted to signifi
No Action A
e No Action
n of the Drag
egor test site
ssions and vi
ources under
ment
Permit to Spac
equences
dicating that
t for the ant
adverse impa
uld comply w
hazardous wa
e expected.
lternative
Alternative, t
onFly RLV at
e. Compared t
h hazardous
ed to hazard
nd Visual Imp
ction
e is located i
asshopper RLV
ions, Dragon
0 times per ye
from a launch
Fly RLV would
maller in visu
9 engine test
cities of McG
t emissions fr
ragonFly RLV
rt duration an
may require t
ent with exist
ficant impact
visual charact
cantly impact
lternative
Alternative, t
onFly RLV at
e. Compared t
sual impacts
r this alternat
ceX for Operati
the remediat
ticipated use
act due to pa
with all appl
aste manage
the FAA wou
the McGrego
to the Propos
materials, po
dous materia
pacts
n an operatio
V, the F9R, an
Fly launches
ear. The Drag
h pad, depend
d emit a com
al impact com
ts. Although
regor and Og
rom engine fi
operations w
nd launches w
the construct
ting structure
t to visual re
er or quality
t light emissio
the FAA wou
the McGrego
to the Propos
. There woul
ive.
ion of the Drag
4‐13
ted condition
e (EPA 2009b
ast contamina
licable Feder
ment, solid w
uld not issue
or test site. E
sed Action, th
ollution preve
als, pollution
onal industria
nd current te
and landings
gonFly RLV w
ding on whic
mbustion light
mpared to lig
DragonFly RL
glesby, engine
ring would be
would be sho
would be relat
ion of a launc
es and landsc
esources. The
of the site a
ons or visual r
uld not issue
or test site. E
sed Action, th
ld be no adv
gonFly Vehicle
ns of the site a
b). Therefore
ation. Implem
ral, State, an
waste, and po
an experime
Existing Space
he No Action
ention, and s
n prevention
al park, and t
esting of the F
s would be v
would be take
h type of test
t source (flam
ght emissions
LV launches m
e firing would
e more visibl
ort‐term and i
tively infrequ
ch pad. Poten
ape of the te
e Proposed A
nd its surrou
resources.
an experime
Existing Space
he No Action
verse effects
at the McGreg
are protectiv
e, the Propo
mentation an
nd local regu
ollution prev
ental permit
eX activities
Alternative w
solid waste. T
, and solid
the test site o
Falcon 9 engi
visible for sev
en to a speci
t described in
me) as engine
s produced by
might have t
d only occur f
e during nigh
infrequent, b
uent at a rate
ntial construc
est site and in
Action would
ndings. The P
ental permit
eX activities
Alternative w
related to lig
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
e of human h
osed Action i
d operation o
ulations rega
vention. There
to SpaceX fo
would contin
would result i
There would
waste unde
operations in
ines. Similar t
veral miles ar
fied elevatio
n Section 2.1
es fire. These
y the Grassho
he potential
for 5 to 25 se
ht time opera
because the e
of 30 annual
ction of the la
ndustrial park
d not substan
Proposed Act
to SpaceX fo
would contin
would result i
ght emission
exas
t 2014
health
is not
of the
arding
efore,
or the
nue at
n less
be no
r this
nclude
to the
round
n and
.1.2 is
e light
opper
to be
conds
ations.
engine
ly.
aunch
k, and
ntially
tion is
or the
nue at
n less
s and
Final Enviro
Issuing an
4.0 Environ
4.10
This soci
expenditu
employm
Socioecon
beneficial
growth m
This analy
populatio
dispropor
was an inc
4.10.1
Populatio
The Propo
duration
permanen
10 worke
of approx
there wou
The City
McLennan
The avail
household
employee
Construct
construct
There wo
Action. Ad
Income a
The Propo
would rep
slight incr
increased
spent on c
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
nmental Conse
SocioeconomRisks
ioeconomic
ures. The a
ent, income,
nomic impact
l in terms of g
management is
ysis also iden
ons are ident
rtionately affe
creased dispr
Proposed Ac
on and Housin
osed Action w
of the 2‐ye
ntly to the RO
rs would be a
ximately 26 p
uld be no sign
of McGregor
n counties ha
able housing
ds that may
es moving into
tion of the lau
ion companie
uld be no adv
dditionally, th
nd Employme
osed Action w
present less t
rease in emp
earnings wo
consumer go
ment
Permit to Spac
equences
mics, Environ
analysis foc
ssessment e
and housing
ts, particularl
gains in jobs,
ssues such as
ntifies poten
tified where
ect minority
roportionate
ction
ng
would require
ear program
OI. Using an a
accompanied
people would
nificant impac
r has a highe
ave a minimu
g units are
move into th
o the ROI wo
unch pad for
es and is not
verse impact
here would be
ent
would require
han one perc
ployment wou
ould be paid t
ods and servi
ceX for Operati
nmental Justic
cuses on po
examines ho
characteristic
ly impacts su
expenditure
s demands fo
tial environm
high and a
or low‐incom
environment
e the addition
. Under a
average ROI
d by approxim
d represent le
cts to short‐ o
er percentage
um of 8.7 per
adequate to
he ROI. There
uld be a mino
the Proposed
expected to r
s to supply a
e no impacts
e the addition
cent of the ex
uld translate
to taxes, and
ices in the RO
ion of the Drag
4‐14
ce, Children’s
otential incr
ow the Pro
cs in the ROI.
uch as those
s, tax revenu
r housing and
mental justice
adverse hum
me population
tal health or s
n of 10 new e
maximum sc
household si
mately 16 fam
ess than 0.01
or long‐term p
e of available
rcent availab
accommoda
efore, the use
or beneficial i
d Action, if ne
require new c
nd demand f
to short‐ or l
n of 10 new e
xisting ROI em
into an incre
some would
OI.
gonFly Vehicle
s Environmen
reases in em
oposed Actio
being evalua
ues, etc., and
d community
e issues. Imp
man health o
ns. Impacts to
safety risk to
employees to
cenario, all
ze of 2.60 (U
mily members
1 percent of t
population tr
e housing co
ble housing u
ate the cons
e of vacant h
impact to hou
ecessary, wou
construction
for local hous
ong‐term pop
employees to
mployment ra
ease in earni
d be saved an
at the McGreg
ntal Health R
mployment
on would a
ated in this E
potentially a
services.
pacts to env
or environme
o children wo
children.
o the McGreg
new person
USCB 2012; U
s. The total p
the ROI popu
rends.
ompared to T
nits (USCB 20
servative est
housing units
using.
uld be contra
workers to m
sing as a resu
pulation tren
o the McGreg
ate (USCB 201
ings in the R
nd invested, b
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
Risks and Safe
and constru
affect popul
EA, may be m
adverse in ter
ironmental j
ental effects
ould occur if
gor test site fo
nnel would
USCB 2013a),
opulation inc
ulation. There
Texas. Corye
012; USCB 20
timate of 10
s by potentia
acted through
move into the
ult of the Prop
ds.
gor test site, w
13b). Howeve
OI. Some of
but most wou
exas
t 2014
ety
uction
ation,
mixed:
rms of
ustice
s may
there
or the
move
these
crease
efore,
ll and
013a).
0 new
l new
h local
area.
posed
which
er, the
these
uld be
Final Enviro
Issuing an
4.0 Environ
Although
retail, foo
increase i
in these in
Construct
construct
construct
expected
would be
Therefore
employm
Additiona
construct
they wou
Environm
Impacts t
low‐incom
environm
As discus
environm
Order 561
or minorit
Children’s
Impacts t
and adve
children.
miles from
document
environm
emissions
related to
impacts fr
high or ad
4.10.2
Under the
operation
the McGr
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
nmental Conse
limited, this
od, and serv
n direct emp
ndirect jobs, a
tion of a lau
ion spending
ion spending
that addition
e expected t
e, constructi
ent trends.
al taxes woul
ion spending
ld be minor d
mental Justice
to environme
me populatio
ental conseq
sed in Sectio
ental justice
10.2. Therefo
ty population
s Environmen
o children’s e
erse environm
There are fiv
m the propos
t indicate t
ental safety
s standards.
o the Propos
rom noise or
dverse impact
No Action A
e No Action
n of the Drag
egor test site
ment
Permit to Spac
equences
spending ma
ices, resultin
ployment, the
and would no
unch pad m
g would sup
. Given the re
nal constructi
that most of
on spending
d accrue to
and slight in
due to the sm
e
ental justice p
ons in the
quences resul
on 3.10, there
populations
re, there wou
ns and thus no
ntal Health an
environmenta
mental cons
ve schools, eig
sed launch pa
hat the Pro
and health.
The Air Qua
ed Action wo
air pollution
ts to children
lternative
Alternative, t
onFly RLV at
e. Compared t
ceX for Operati
ay indirectly s
ng in a mino
e Proposed Ac
ot be expecte
may be requ
pport direct
elatively mino
ion workers w
f the induce
g would not
Federal, Stat
ncrease in em
all size of the
populations a
affected env
ting from the
e are no Cen
based on inc
uld be no disp
o adverse env
nd Safety Ris
al health and
equences re
ght parks, an
ad location.
oposed Actio
Coryell and
ality analyses
ould not cau
are expected
’s environme
the FAA wou
the McGrego
to the Propos
ion of the Drag
4‐15
support exist
r economic
ction would b
ed to generate
ired to supp
construction
or amount of
would move i
ed jobs woul
t be expect
e, and local
mployment. Th
e construction
are evaluated
vironment a
e project to d
nsus Tracts th
come or dem
proportionate
vironmental j
sks
d safety are e
sulting from
d the CTYRA
Noise impact
on would ha
McLennan c
s summarized
use emissions
d, the Propos
ental health o
uld not issue
or test site. E
sed Action, th
gonFly Vehicle
ing jobs and
benefit. Give
be expected t
e associated p
port the Pro
jobs and o
f new constru
into the ROI f
ld be filled
ted to signi
governments
hese impacts
n project and
d in terms of
and the pot
disproportion
hat are consi
mographics as
ely high and a
justice impact
evaluated in t
m the project
youth rodeo
ts analyses d
ave no sign
counties are
d in Section
s to exceed N
sed Action wo
or safety.
an experime
Existing Space
he No Action
at the McGreg
income in th
en the less t
to support a
population in
oposed Actio
other related
uction require
for the const
by unemplo
ificantly affe
s as a result
s would be be
scale of hirin
f the presenc
tential for h
nately affect t
idered minor
s defined by
adverse impa
ts.
terms of the
t to disprop
o arena locate
iscussed in S
nificant impa
in attainmen
4.1 indicate
NAAQS. Beca
ould not pose
ental permit
eX activities
Alternative w
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
he ROI econo
than 0.01 pe
negligible inc
n‐migration.
on. The prop
jobs induce
ed, it would n
ruction. Furth
yed ROI wo
ect populatio
of the increa
eneficial; how
ng.
ce of minorit
high and ad
these popula
rity or low‐in
the CEQ and
acts on low‐in
potential fo
portionately
ed between 3
Sections 4.2 o
acts on child
nt for NAAQS
es that opera
ause no signi
e disproporti
to SpaceX fo
would contin
would result i
exas
t 2014
my in
ercent
crease
posed
ed by
not be
her, it
orkers.
on or
ase in
wever,
y and
dverse
ations.
ncome
d DOT
ncome
r high
affect
3 to 5
of this
dren’s
S and
ations
ficant
onate
or the
nue at
n less
Final Environmental Assessment
Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the DragonFly Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas
4.0 Environmental Consequences 4‐16 August 2014
impact related to socioeconomics, environmental justice, and children’s environmental health and
safety. There would be no adverse effects to these environmental impact categories under this
alternative.
Final Enviro
Issuing an
5.0 Cumula
5.0 CUMU
Cumulativ
The i
added
(Fede
The CEQ
and simila
Additiona
Environm
terms of
Therefore
immediat
actions, in
Past, pres
SpaceX pr
testing. P
operation
rodeo are
industrial
park, incl
capacity t
construct
The Propo
therefore
present, a
or surrou
therefore
Air Qu5.1
As discuss
in criteria
testing op
open air f
years. The
NTO, are
planned e
notable cu
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
ative Impacts
ULATIVE IMP
ve impacts ar
mpact on th
d to other pa
eral or non‐Fe
regulations fu
ar actions in t
ally, the CEQ
ental Policy A
its ability to
e, a cumulativ
te area of the
n order to cap
sent, and rea
rograms for G
ast and pres
ns at the Park
ena, and agr
park. Reaso
uding the po
to house an
ed adjacent t
osed Action d
, there would
and reasonab
nding area. T
, these resou
uality
sed in Section
a pollutant em
perations, Spa
for a maximu
e normal com
primarily nitr
emissions sou
umulative air
ment
Permit to Spac
PACTS
e defined by
e environme
ast, present, a
ederal) or per
urther requir
the same doc
Q further e
Act that “eac
accommodat
ve effects ana
e Proposed Ac
pture these a
asonably fore
Grasshopper
ent actions a
k including pip
ricultural pra
onably forese
otential futur
operation w
to McGregor
does not impa
d be no cum
bly foreseeabl
The Proposed
rce areas are
n 4.1.2, the D
missions in th
aceX has beg
m total of fo
mbustion pro
rogen gas and
urces were id
r quality impa
ceX for Operati
the CEQ in 40
ent which res
and reasonab
son undertak
e that NEPA
ument (40 CF
xplained in
ch resource,
te additional
alysis normal
ction, and a t
dditional effe
eseeable futu
RLV test pro
at the McGre
pe and plumb
ctices/cattle
eeable future
re lease of th
with approxim
Elementary S
act natural, c
ulative impac
le future proj
Action is exp
e the focus of
DragonFly RLV
he vicinity of
gun an engine
our minutes p
oducts that re
d water that w
dentified in th
acts.
ion of the Drag
5‐1
0 CFR §1508.7
sults from th
bly foreseeab
kes such othe
environment
FR 1508.25).
Considering
ecosystem a
effects, base
lly would enc
ime frame, in
ects.
ure actions a
ogram and Fa
egor Industria
bing supply d
grazing on u
actions incl
he largest bu
mately 500 e
School and is
ultural, or so
cts to these
ects at the M
pected to hav
the cumulati
V testing oper
the McGrego
e test progra
per year, and
esult from th
would have n
he vicinity of
gonFly Vehicle
7 as:
he increment
ble future act
r actions.
tal analyses a
Cumulative
nd human co
ed on its own
compass geog
ncluding past
at McGregor
alcon 9 Stage
al Park and v
distribution, C
undeveloped
ude further
uilding at the
employees. A
scheduled to
cioeconomic
resources wh
McGregor test
ve the most i
ive impacts a
rations would
or test site. A
m where the
may have no
he combustio
no effect on a
the McGrego
at the McGreg
tal impact of
ions regardle
address conn
e Effects un
ommunity mu
n time and sp
graphic boun
actions and f
r test site inc
1 engine tes
vicinity includ
C3 Communic
portions of
development
e industrial p
A new prima
o be open by A
resources ev
hen combine
t site, McGreg
mpact on air
nalysis.
d result in a v
As part of the
ey fire hyperg
o open air tes
on of the hyp
air quality. N
or test site th
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
f the action
ess of what a
ected, cumul
der the Na
ust be analyz
pace parame
ndaries beyon
foreseeable f
clude the on
sting, plus th
de the comm
cations, the C
the test site
t at the indu
ark which ha
ry school is
August 2014.
valuated in th
d with other
gor Industrial
quality and n
very small inc
eir ongoing e
golic propella
sting at all in
pergols, MMH
o other exist
hat would pro
exas
t 2014
when
gency
lative,
tional
zed in
eters.”
nd the
future
ngoing
e F9R
mercial
CTYRA
e and
ustrial
as the
being
his EA;
r past,
Park,
noise;
crease
engine
nts in
some
H and
ing or
oduce
Final Enviro
Issuing an
5.0 Cumula
Currently,
emissions
to determ
Annual GH
carbon di
estimated
total GHG
Ta
Annual O
U.S. 2011Note: 1 EPA
The smal
global wa
atmosphe
sources, c
change. A
specific im
Noise5.2
The noise
to the typ
test progr
complete
conjunctio
the surrou
nmental Assessm
Experimental P
ative Impacts
, there are
s stemming fr
mine what lev
HG emissions
ioxide emissi
d carbon diox
G emissions ge
able 5.1‐1. Co
Alternat
perational Emi
Total GHG EmA 2013b
l quantity of
arming that
ere’s concent
contribute in
At present, n
mpacts (if any
e
e generated fr
pes of noise
ram and the
before the
on with past,
unding area,
ment
Permit to Spac
no formally
rom Proposed
el of propose
s associated w
ions, and the
xide emission
enerated by t
omparison of
tive
issions
missions
f GHG emissi
would lead t
ration of GHG
crementally t
o practical m
y) that this inc
rom DragonF
routinely gen
F9R test pro
DragonFly R
present, and
no significant
ceX for Operati
adopted or
d Actions. Fo
ed emissions w
with the prop
ese are comp
s from the Pr
the United Sta
Proposed Ac
Metri
ions from th
to climate ch
Gs, and, in co
to the globa
methodology
crement of w
ly launch ope
nerated at th
ogram would
RLV operatio
d reasonably
t impacts wou
ion of the Drag
5‐2
r published
rmulating suc
would substa
posed operati
pared to U.S
roposed Actio
ates in 2011.
ction GHG Em
c Tons CO2 per
9.67
6,708.3 x 106
e Proposed A
hanges. How
ombination w
l warming th
exists that w
arming would
erations woul
he McGregor
not be addit
ns begin. W
foreseeable f
uld be expect
gonFly Vehicle
NEPA thresh
ch thresholds
antially contri
ons in each y
S. 2011 GHG
on essentially
missions to U.
r Year Perc
Action alone
wever, these
with past and
hat produces
would enable
d produce loc
d be 30 times
test site. No
tive because
When the Pro
future action
ted.
at the McGreg
holds of sign
s is problema
bute to globa
year of testing
emissions in
y represent z
S. 2011 GHG
cent of U.S. 20
1.44 X
e would not
emissions w
future emiss
the adverse
e meaningful
cally or globa
s annually an
oise from the
those test p
oposed Actio
s at the McG
gor Test Site, Te
Augus
nificance for
atic, as it is di
al climate cha
g are compos
n Table 5.1‐1
ero percent o
Emissions1
11 GHG Emiss
X 10 ‐7
cause appre
would increas
ions from all
effects of cl
estimation o
lly.
d would be s
e Grasshoppe
rograms wou
on is combin
regor test sit
exas
t 2014
GHG
fficult
ange.
sed of
1. The
of the
ions
ciable
se the
other
imate
of the
imilar
er RLV
uld be
ed in
te and
Final Environmental Assessment
Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the DragonFly Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas
6.0 List of Preparers and Contributors 6‐1 August 2014
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
Government Preparers
Daniel Czelusniak Affiliation: FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation Education: BS Environmental Management, Juris Doctorate Experience: 14 years of environmental impact assessment experience
Stacey Zee Affiliation: FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation Education BS Natural Resource Management, MS Environmental Policy Experience: 18 years of environmental impact assessment experience
Cardno TEC, Inc.
Abigail Shoff, GIS Analyst B.S. Geography, Geographical Information Systems Years of Experience: 3
Cristina Ailes, Environmental Analyst B.S. Biology, Ecology and Environmental Science B.A. International Studies Years of Experience: 6
Jaclyn Johnson, Environmental Planner, Project Manager B.S. Ecology Years of Experience: 14
Kathleen Hall, Project QA/QC Director, Senior Environmental Planner B.A. Earth and Environmental Science Years of Experience: 16
Kathleen Riek, Senior Environmental Planner B.S. Biology Years of Experience: 25
Lesley Hamilton, Senior Environmental Scientist B.A. Chemistry Years of Experience: 25
Lori Thursby, Senior Architectural Historian M.A.H. Master of Architectural History Years of Experience: 18
Blue Ridge Research and Consulting, LLC
Alex Salton, Engineer M.S. Mechanical Engineering
Years of Experience: 4
Final Environmental Assessment
Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the DragonFly Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas
6.0 List of Preparers and Contributors 6‐2 August 2014
Michael James, Senior Principal Engineer M.S. Mechanical Engineering Years of Experience: 14
Final Environmental Assessment
Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the DragonFly Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas
7.0 References 7‐1 August 2014
7.0 REFERENCES
CEQ. 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act. December 10. http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/resources/policy/ej_guidance_nepa_ceq1297.pdf. Accessed November 13, 2013.
CEQ. 2010. Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies, Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. February 18, 2010.
City of McGregor. 2003. City of McGregor, Texas Official Zoning Map. Adopted by City Council on August 11, 2003. http://www.mcgregor‐texas.com/city.html. Accessed on November 13, 2013.
Craftsman Book Company. 2010. National Estimator.
CTYRA. 2013. Central Texas Youth Rodeo Association 2013‐2014 Rodeo Schedule. http://www.ctyra.com/Schedule.htm. Accessed November 11, 2013.
DOT. 2012. DOT Order 5610.2(a), Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low‐Income Populations. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental_justice/ej_at_dot/order_56102a/index.cfm. Accessed May 1, 2013.
EPA .1982. Guidelines for Noise Impact Analysis. EPA 550/9‐82‐105. Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, DC. April.
EPA. 1992. Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation Volume IV: Mobile Sources. EPA420‐R‐92‐009. December.
EPA. 2001. Control of Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources; Final Rule. Federal Register 66:17230‐17273.
EPA. 2007. Control of Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources; Final Rule. Federal Register 72:8428‐8570.
EPA. 2008. United Stated Code Title 42, Chapter 85, Subchapter I, Part A, Section 7412, Hazardous Air Pollutants.
EPA. 2009a. Technical Support Document for Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Washington, DC. December 7. http://www.epa.gov/climate change/Downloads/endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdf. Accessed 27 June, 2012.
EPA. 2009b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office with Region 6 Federal Facilities Section: Innovative Cleanup Leads to Navy’s First EPA Ready for Reuse Determination, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plan – McGregor. EPA‐505‐F‐09‐014. November.
EPA. 2010a. Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling – Compression‐Ignition. July.
EPA. 2010b. Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES). August.
EPA. 2012. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. Last updated December 14, 2012. Accessed November 11, 2013.
EPA. 2013a. Regional Vulnerability Assessment Program: Definitions. http://amethyst.epa.gov/revatoolkit/Definitions.jsp#L. Accessed on January 31, 2013.
Final Environmental Assessment
Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the DragonFly Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas
7.0 References 7‐2 August 2014
EPA. 2013b. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990‐2011. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html. Accessed April 4, 2013.
FAA. 2011. Final Environmental Assessment for Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the Grasshopper Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas. November.
FAA. 2012. FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, Guidance Memo #3, Considering Greenhouse Gases and Climate Under the national Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Interim Guidance. January 12, 2012.Feingold, L., Harris, C., and. Gierke , H. v. 1994. "Community Annoyance and Sleep Disturbance: Updated Criteria for Assessing the Impacts of General Transportation Noise on People"," Noise Control Engineering Journal, vol. 42, pp. 25‐30, January ‐ February.
FEMA. Zone A. http://www.fema.gov/floodplain‐management/zone. Accessed January 30, 2013.
FICAN. 1997. Effects of Aviation Noise on Awakenings from Sleep. June.
GAO. 2009. Aviation and Climate Change. GAO‐09‐554. Report to Congressional Committees. http://www.gao.gov/new/items/d09554.pdf. Accessed July 9, 2012.
Haas, W.R. and Prince, S. 1984. Atmospheric Dispersion of Hypergolic Liquid Rocket Fuels, (Volume 1 of II), pages 6 and 7. November
Hall, L.S., P.R. Krausman, and M.L. Morrison. 1997. The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173‐182.
Harris, C.M. 1979. Handbook of Noise Control. McGraw‐Hill Book Co., New York, NY.
McFarland, A.M.S., and Hauck, L. 1999. Existing nutrient sources and contributions to the Bosque River watershed. Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research report prepared for USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Clean Rivers. http://compost.tamu.edu/docs/TIAER99Report.pdf. Accessed on August 17, 2011.
McGregor Independent School District. 2013. Information regarding 2013‐2014 school year enrollment. Personal Communication with Gretchen Logan, Public Education Management System District Coordinator via phone to Cristina Ailes, Environmental Analyst, Cardno TEC, Charlottesville, VA. November 12.
MDEC. 2013. McGregor Economic Development Corporation Industrial Park, Area L. http://www.mcgregor‐texas.com/ecodev/areal.htm. Accessed November 2, 2013.
Melrose, A. 2010. European ATM and Climate Adaptation: A Scoping Study. Pages 195‐198 in ICAO Environmental Report 2010 – Chapter 6: Adaptation. http://legacy.icao.int/icao/en.env2010/Pubs/EnvReport2010/ICAO EnvReport10‐Ch6 en.pdf. Accessed 9 July 2012.
National Wild and Scenic River System. 2013. Designated Rivers: Texas.
http://www.rivers.gov/rivers/texas.php. Accessed October 4, 2012.
NAVFAC. 2007. Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Perchlorate Remediation and Property Transfer
Success at a Closing Federal Facility Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant. McGregor, Texas. 2007
Region 4 EPA – DoD – States Environmental Conference. June 20.
Oglesby Independent School District. 2013. Information regarding 2013‐2014 school year enrollment.
Personal Communication with Kay Martin, Registrar via phone to Cristina Ailes, Environmental
Analyst, Cardno TEC, Charlottesville, VA. November 12.
Final Environmental Assessment
Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the DragonFly Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas
7.0 References 7‐3 August 2014
Schultz T. 1978. "Synthesis of Social Surveys on Noise Annoyance," Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, pp. 377‐405, August.
SpaceX. 2013. Use of existing water storage tank at McGregor test site. Personal communication,
between S. Davis, Chief Engineer, SpaceX, via email to J. Johnson, Associate/Environmental Planner,
Cardno TEC, Annapolis, MD. November 26.
Stuetzer, R.G., et al. 2013. Optical Spectroscopy on the Hypergolic MMH/NTO Combustion in Spacecraft
Propulsion, Figure 1, page 2. Technical paper for the proceedings of the 5th European Conference
for Aeronautics and Space Sciences. July.
TCEQ. 2012. An Introduction to the Texas Surface Water Standards.
http://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/standards/WQ_standards_intro.html. Accessed January
22, 2013.
TCEQ. 2013. Texas Air Monitoring Information System (TAMIS).
http://www5.tceq.state.tx.us/tamis/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.welcome. Accessed November 11,
2013.
TPWD. 2011a. Annotated County Lists of Rare Species: Coryell County. Accessed at
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/gis/ris/es/ES_Reports.aspx?county=Coryell on November 7, 2013. Last
updated October 10, 2011.
TPWD. 2011b. Annotated County Lists of Rare Species: McLennan County.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/gis/ris/es/ES_Reports.aspx?county=McLennan. Last updated October
10, 2011. Accessed November 7, 2013.
TPWD. 2011c. Correspondence with J. Wicker of TPWD. Re: Draft and Final Environmental Assessments
for Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the Grasshopper Vehicle at the
McGregor Test Site, Coryell county, Texas. November 29, 2011.
TPWD. 2013. Cross Timbers and Prairies Ecological Region.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/habitats/cross_timbers/ecoregions/cross_timbers.pht
ml. Accessed November 6, 2013.
TWDB 2013. Trinity Aquifer. http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/aquifer/majors/trinity.asp.
Accessed November 7, 2013.
USCB. 2012. United States Census Bureau. 2010 Demographic Profile Data, Table DP‐1, Profile of
General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010. http://factfinder2.census.gov. Accessed
September 25, 2012.
USCB. 2013a. United States Census Bureau. State and County QuickFacts.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html. Last updated June 27, 2013
Final Environmental Assessment
Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the DragonFly Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas
7.0 References 7‐4 August 2014
USCB. 2013b. United States Census Bureau. 2007‐2011 American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates,
Table DP03, Selected Economic Characteristics. http://factfinder2.census.gov. Accessed November
8, 2013.
USFWS. 2013a. Ecological Services, Southwest Region: Species Lists.
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ES_Lists_Main. Last updated March 19, 2013. Accessed April 16,
2013.
USFWS. 2013b. Species Profile: Golden‐cheeked Warbler (Dendroica chysoparia).
http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B07W. Last updated 2
August.
USFWS. 2013c. National Wetlands Inventory. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/State‐
Downloads.html. Accessed November 7, 2013.
U.S. Navy. 1998. Environmental Assessment: Disposal or Retention of the Naval Weapons Industrial
Reserve Plant (NWIRP) McGregor, Texas. November.
U.S. Navy. 2001. Finding of Suitability to Transfer and Environmental Baseline Survey to Transfer – Area L
Parcel NWIRP McGregor. Naval Facilities Engineering Command. North Charleston, South Carolina.
May. Pgs. 94
U.S. Navy 2008. Environmental Restoration Program Progress Report. Chief of Naval Operations.
Environmental Readiness Division. Pgs. 40.
https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/portal/page/portal/navfac/navfac_ww_pp/navfac_nfesc_pp/environ
mental/erb/resourceerb/don_er_pr2008.pdf. Accessed August 31, 2011.
Visconti, G. 2001. Fundamentals of Physics and Chemistry of the Atmosphere. Springer‐Verlag, Berlin.
APPENDICES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Final Environmental Assessment
Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the Dragon Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas
Appendix A A-1 August 2014
Appendix A
Noise
Final Environmental Assessment
Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the Dragon Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas
Appendix A A-2 August 2014
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Blue
Final
NoiIssuSpaDraSiteNove
Prepared
Cardno TE
Jaclyn Joh
275 West
Annapolis
Prepared
Michael Ja
Alexandri
Micah Do
Contract
90128‐28
BRRC Rep
BRRC 13‐1
eRidg
lRepor
seStuingaceXfagonFe,Texmber1
for:
EC, Inc.
hnson
Street, Suite
s, MD 21401
by:
ames, M.S.
a Salton, M.S
wning, Ph.D.
Number:
556
port Number:
18
geRes
rt
tudyanExforOFlyVexas12th,20
110
S.
:
search
inSuxperiOperaehicl
013(R2
Blue Ri
29 N M
Ashevi
(o) 828
(f) 831‐
www.B
hand
upporimenationleat
2014)
idge Research
Market St, Suit
lle NC 28801
8‐252‐2209
‐603‐8321
BlueRidgeRes
dCons
rtofntalPofthMcGr
h and Consult
te 700
earch.com
sultin
theEPermheregor
ting, LLC
ng,LL
EAfomitto
rTes
C
or
st
Appendix A A-3 August 2014
Noise Stu
Operation
BlueRidge
TableoTable of F
Table of T
Acronyms
1 Intro
2 Nois
2.1
3 Acou
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
4 Spac
4.1
4.2
4.3
5 Resu
6 Sum
7 Wor
dy in Support
n of the Drago
eResearchand
ofContenFigures ..........
Tables ...........
s and Abbrevi
oduction .......
e Metrics .....
Day‐Night‐Le
ustic Modelin
Rocket Sourc
1 Sound P
2 Source
Atmospheric
1 Geomet
2 Atmosp
3 Doppler
Ground Inter
1 Ground
2 Receive
ceX McGregor
Test Facility
Baseline Inpu
Proposed Ac
ults ................
mary ............
ks Cited ........
t of the EA fo
onFly Vehicle
dConsulting,LL
nts.....................
.....................
iations ..........
.....................
.....................
evel (DNL) .....
g Methodolo
ce noise Char
Power ...........
Directivity ....
c Propagation
tric Spreading
pheric Absorp
r Effect .........
rference: Rec
Interference
ed Noise ........
r Test Facility
Description a
ut Parameter
tion Input Pa
.....................
.....................
.....................
r Issuing an E
at McGregor
LC–29NMark
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
gy .................
racterization .
.....................
.....................
n ....................
g ...................
tion ..............
.....................
ception ..........
e ....................
.....................
.....................
and Operating
rs ...................
rameters ......
.....................
.....................
.....................
Experimental
r Test Site, TX
ketSt,Suite70
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
g Areas ..........
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
Permit to Spa
X – Nov. 2013
00,AshevilleNC
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
aceX for
3 (R2014)
C28801–(828
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
8)252‐2209
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
2
....... 3
....... 3
....... 4
....... 5
....... 5
....... 5
....... 6
....... 6
....... 6
....... 6
....... 7
....... 7
....... 7
....... 7
....... 7
....... 7
....... 7
....... 7
....... 7
....... 8
..... 11
..... 15
..... 18
..... 18
Appendix A A-4 August 2014
Noise Stu
Operation
BlueRidge
TableoFigure 1. S
Figure 2. 2
Figure 3. S
Figure 4. S
Figure 5. D
Figure 6.
the Grass
Figure 7.
the Drago
TableoTable 1. M
Table 2. S
Table 3. V
Table 4. E
Table 5. D
Table 6. S
dy in Support
n of the Drago
eResearchand
ofFiguresSpaceX Test F
2014 Baseline
SpaceX’s Drag
SuperDraco E
DragonFly Re
2014 Combin
hopper Pad .
2014 Combin
on Rider Site .
ofTablesMcGregor Fac
ummary of B
Vehicle Param
Engine Param
DragonFly Pro
ummary of to
t of the EA fo
onFly Vehicle
dConsulting,LL
sFacility in McG
e DNL Noise C
gonFly Capsu
Engine at Full
epresentative
ned Baseline
.....................
ned Baseline
.....................
cility Test Area
Baseline Oper
meters Utilized
eters Utilized
oposed Opera
otal contour a
r Issuing an E
at McGregor
LC–29NMark
Gregor, TX ....
Contours (as P
le(Photos Co
Throttle (Pho
Trajectory ...
and Propose
.....................
and Propose
.....................
a Locations ...
ations ...........
d In Acoustic
d in Acoustic M
ations ............
acreage by sc
Experimental
r Test Site, TX
ketSt,Suite70
......................
Presented in
urtesy of Spa
oto Courtesy
......................
ed Action DN
......................
ed Action DN
......................
......................
......................
Modeling .....
Modeling ......
......................
cenario ..........
Permit to Spa
X – Nov. 2013
00,AshevilleNC
.....................
the 2011 EA)
aceX) .............
of SpaceX) ...
.....................
L Contours, w
.....................
L Contours, w
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
aceX for
3 (R2014)
C28801–(828
.....................
). ...................
.....................
.....................
.....................
with DragonF
.....................
with DragonF
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
8)252‐2209
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
Fly Operating
......................
Fly Operating
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
3
....... 8
..... 10
..... 11
..... 12
..... 13
g from
..... 16
g from
..... 17
....... 8
....... 9
..... 11
..... 12
..... 13
..... 15
Appendix A A-5 August 2014
Noise Stu
Operation
BlueRidge
AcronyBRRC
dB
dBA
DNL
DSM‐1
EA
FAA
ft
kg
lbf
lbm
m
N
NEPA
RLV
RSRM
sec
SEL
SpaceX
μPa
dy in Support
n of the Drago
eResearchand
ymsandA
t of the EA fo
onFly Vehicle
dConsulting,LL
AbbreviatBlue Ridge
Decibel
A‐weighted
Day‐Night A
Distributed
Environme
Federal Avi
Foot/Feet
Kilogram
Pound Forc
Pound Mas
Meters
Newton
National En
Reusable La
Reusable So
Second
Sound Expo
Space Explo
Micropasca
r Issuing an E
at McGregor
LC–29NMark
tionsResearch and
d Decibel Leve
Average Soun
d Source Meth
ntal Assessm
iation Admini
ce
ss
nvironmental
aunch Vehicle
olid Rocket M
osure Level
oration Techn
al
Experimental
r Test Site, TX
ketSt,Suite70
d Consulting,
el
nd Level
hod 1
ent
istration
Policy Act
e
Motor
nologies Corp
Permit to Spa
X – Nov. 2013
00,AshevilleNC
LLC
p.
aceX for
3 (R2014)
C28801–(8288)252‐2209 4Appendix A A-6 August 2014
Noise Stu
Operation
BlueRidge
1 IntrSpace Ex
reusable
DragonFly
continue
Administr
assessme
performe
operation
The issua
review un
[U.S.C.] §4
Order 105
is one in w
of DNL 1.
alternativ
Section 2)
This noise
summariz
methodol
Section 5
notable fi
2 NoiNoise is a
are consid
with fligh
communit
requires a
sound is m
The noise
generated
conducted
divided by
2.1 DaThe feder
vicinity of
Ldn), exp
dy in Support
n of the Drago
eResearchand
roductionploration Te
launch vehicl
y’s vertical l
through 20
ration (FAA)
nt of the p
d to suppor
ns at its McGr
nce of an exp
nder the Natio
4321, et seq.
50.1E, Change
which the “p
.5 dB[A] or m
ve for the sam
).
e study desc
zes the noise
logy of the n
presents the
ndings of this
iseMetricany unwanted
dered noise.
ht operations
ties, rocket n
a general und
measured.
e environmen
d by engine t
d during an a
y the number
ay‐Night‐Lrally accepted
f flight operat
ressed as de
t of the EA fo
onFly Vehicle
dConsulting,LL
nchnologies C
e (RLV) at its
anding capab
15. SpaceX
to conduct t
proposed ope
rt SpaceX in
regor test faci
perimental pe
onal Environm
). The noise i
e 1, Environm
roposed actio
more at or ab
me timeframe
cribes the en
e metrics di
noise model;
e noise mod
s noise study.
csd sound. Sou
Noise repres
s and testing
noise is readily
derstanding o
nt at SpaceX’s
testing for th
average annu
r of days in a
evel(DNLd noise metric
tions is the D
cibels (dB). D
r Issuing an E
at McGregor
LC–29NMark
Corp. (SpaceX
s test facility
bility. These
must obtain
hese tests. A
erational no
n obtaining a
ility.
ermit license
mental Policy
impact of the
mental Impact
on will cause
bove DNL 65
e.” Where DN
nvironmental
iscussed thro
Section 4 d
eling results.
.
nds that inte
sents one of
g. Although
y identifiable
of how sound
s McGregor te
he Falcon 9 la
al day, which
year.
L)c used for ass
Day‐Night Ave
DNL is an ave
Experimental
r Test Site, TX
ketSt,Suite70
X) is propos
in McGregor,
tests are c
n an experim
As part of th
ise impacts.
an experime
is considered
y Act (NEPA) o
e proposed fu
ts: Policies an
noise sensiti
dB[A] noise e
NL is defined
noise associ
oughout this
describes the
. A summary
erfere with no
the most co
many other
e based on its
d affects peo
est facility is
aunch vehicle
h is defined b
sessing long‐t
erage Sound L
erage sound
Permit to Spa
X – Nov. 2013
00,AshevilleNC
ing experime
, TX. SpaceX
urrently sche
mental perm
is permitting
This report
ental permit
d a Federal a
of 1969 as am
uture actions
nd Procedures
ive areas to e
exposure wh
as the Day‐N
iated with th
s report; Sec
acoustic mo
y is provided
ormal activiti
ontentious en
r sources of
s uniqueness.
ople and the
normally com
e. In this stud
y the total an
term noise ex
Level (DNL) (w
level generat
aceX for
3 (R2014)
C28801–(828
ental testing
intends to co
eduled to be
mit from the
g process, the
t documents
for the pro
action subject
mended (42 U
is evaluated
s [1]. A signif
experience an
hen compared
Night Average
he proposed
ction 3 desc
odeling input
in Section 6
ies or the na
nvironmental
noise are p
An assessme
natural envir
mposed of tim
dy, these op
nnual test an
xposures in c
which is some
ted by all flig
8)252‐2209
g of its Drag
onduct tests o
egin in 2014
Federal Av
e FAA requir
s the noise
oposed Drag
t to environm
United States
based on th
ficant noise im
n increase in
d to the no a
e Sound Leve
action. Sect
cribes the ge
t parameters
6 to documen
tural environ
l issues assoc
present in to
ent of rocket
ronment, and
me‐varying so
erations wou
d flight opera
communities
etimes denot
ght testing‐re
5
gonFly
of the
4 and
viation
res an
study
gonFly
mental
Code
e FAA
mpact
noise
action
el (see
tion 2
eneral
s; and
nt the
nment
ciated
oday's
noise
d how
ounds
uld be
ations
in the
ted by
elated
Appendix A A-7 August 2014
Noise Stu
Operation
BlueRidge
operation
adding a
calculatin
period fro
lower bac
has been
especially
DNL emp
of a noise
human he
range from
3 AcoThe majo
exhaust,
propellan
Launch V
assessme
different
character
described
3.1 Ro
3.1.1 SoEldred’s D
model de
the engin
using Gu
equivalen
total thru
nozzle exi
3.1.2 SoRocket no
the sound
Constellat
the reusa
frequenci
analysis.
dy in Support
n of the Drago
eResearchand
ns during an
10 dB pena
g DNL are th
om 2200 to 0
ckground sou
found to pro
y aircraft nois
loys A‐weight
e event to rep
earing ranges
m 500 to 5,00
ousticMority of the no
interacting w
ts. The noise
Vehicle Acous
nt, rocket n
facets of ro
ization, atmo
d in the follow
ocketSour
oundPowerDistributed So
termines the
e/motor’s ac
est’s variabl
nt engines, th
st [6]. Theref
it with an equ
ourceDirecoise is highly
d pressure ob
tion Program
ble solid roc
es and angles
t of the EA fo
onFly Vehicle
dConsulting,LL
average 24‐h
lty. It is imp
e following: d
0700 hours t
nd levels and
ovide the best
e [2] [3] [4] [5
ted sound lev
present the w
s from about
00 Hz. Outsid
delingMeoise generate
with the atm
e levels gene
stic Simulatio
oise modelin
ocket noise.
ospheric prop
wing discussio
rcenoiseC
rource Method
launch vehic
oustic efficie
e acoustic e
he engines ca
fore, the set o
uivalent total
ctivitydirective me
bserved will d
m has made s
ket motor (R
s than previo
r Issuing an E
at McGregor
LC–29NMark
hour period w
ortant to no
daytime is th
he following
d greater com
t measure of
5].
vels. “A‐weig
way in which
t 20 Hz to ab
e of this rang
ethodologed by a rocke
mosphere alo
erated from c
on Model (RU
ng is compos
Rocket noise
pagation, and
on.
Characteri
d 1 (DSM‐1)
cle’s total sou
ncy. The acou
efficiency [7]
n be modele
of distributed
sound powe
eaning the ac
depend on th
ignificant im
SRM) [8]. Th
usly available
Experimental
r Test Site, TX
ketSt,Suite70
with sound le
ote that the
he period from
morning. Th
mmunity sens
long‐term co
hted” denote
a human wit
bout 20,000 H
ge, human he
gyet launch/lan
ong the ent
commercial s
UMBLE), dev
sed of vario
e modeling i
d reception.
ization
[6] is utilized
und power ba
ustic efficienc
. For launch
d as a single
sources are
r and range o
coustic powe
he angle from
provements
e RSRM direc
e data. These
Permit to Spa
X – Nov. 2013
00,AshevilleNC
evels of night
daytime and
m 0700 to 22
he 10 dB pena
sitivity to nois
ommunity rea
es the adjust
h average he
Hz. Human he
aring acuity d
nding is creat
tire plume, a
space launch
veloped by B
us physical c
nvolves thre
Components
for the sourc
ased on its to
cy of the rock
h vehicles w
engine with
modeled as a
of frequencies
r is concentr
m the source t
in determinin
ctivity indice
updated dire
aceX for
3 (R2014)
C28801–(828
ttime noise e
d nighttime d
200 hours, an
alty accounts
se during nig
action to tran
ment of the f
earing senses
earing is bes
diminishes.
ted by the ro
and combust
vehicles are
BRRC. For env
components
ee basic aspe
s with each o
ce characteri
tal thrust, ex
ket engine/m
with multiple
an effective
a compact sou
s.
ated in speci
to the receiv
ng launch ve
s incorporate
ectivity indice
8)252‐2209
events adjust
definitions us
nd nighttime
s for the gen
httime hours
nsportation n
frequency co
the noise. N
t in the frequ
ocket plume,
tion noise o
predicted b
vironmental
used to des
ects: noise s
of these area
zation. The D
xhaust‐velocit
motor was mo
e tightly clus
exit diamete
urce located a
ific directions
ver. NASA’s P
ehicle directiv
e a larger ran
es are used fo
6
ed by
sed in
is the
nerally
s. DNL
oises,
ontent
ormal
uency
or jet
of the
y The
noise
scribe
ource
as are
DSM‐1
ty and
odeled
stered
er and
at the
s, and
roject
vity of
nge of
or this
Appendix A A-8 August 2014
Noise Stu
Operation
BlueRidge
3.2 At
3.2.1 GAs sound
increases,
3.2.2 AAs sound
through
relationsh
humidity.
(R2004). F
pressure a
3.2.3 DThe Dopp
source. D
of the sou
lower, th
un‐weight
are accou
3.3 Gr
3.3.1 GSound pr
receiver.
of a direc
model acc
on a rece
temperat
3.3.2 RCombinin
evaluated
that locat
proposed
4 Spa
4.1 TeSpaceX’s t
The prop
dy in Support
n of the Drago
eResearchand
mospheri
GeometricSp propagates
, the intensity
Atmospheric propagates
vibrational e
hip among fr
Atmospheri
For environm
are used to ca
DopplerEffepler Effect is d
uring a rocke
und as the dis
e A‐Weightin
ted overall so
nted for equa
roundInte
GroundInterropagation us
However, sou
ct wave (sour
counts for the
iver when es
ure on the di
ReceivedNoig these sep
d at a receive
tion. Noise is
DragonFly R
aceXMcGr
estFacilitytest facility is
osed operati
t of the EA fo
onFly Vehicle
dConsulting,LL
cPropaga
preadingaway from
y of the sound
cAbsorptionthrough the
excitation. Th
requency, pro
c absorption
ental modeli
alculate the m
ctdefined as the
et launch, an
stance and sp
ng filtering o
ound levels,
ally.
erference:
rferencesing NASA SP
und propagat
rce to receive
e attenuation
stimating the
rect and refle
iseparate compo
r location. Th
calculated o
LV operations
regorTes
yDescriptis located in M
ng area inclu
r Issuing an E
at McGregor
LC–29NMark
ation
the source,
d decreases.
ne atmosphere
he level of
opagation dis
n is calculate
ng, average m
median absor
e change in fr
observer on
peed from the
n the spectru
the Doppler
Reception
P‐8072 resul
tion near the
er) and a refle
n of sound by
received noi
ected wave, a
onents, the
he noise from
ver a grid of
s.
stFacility
ionandOpMcGregor, TX
udes: Area L/
Experimental
r Test Site, TX
ketSt,Suite70
it is spread
This effect is
e, air molecu
atmospheric
stance, temp
ed using form
monthly temp
rption conditi
requency of a
the ground w
e source to re
um results in
Effect has no
n
ts in the pre
e ground is m
ected wave (
y the ground
ise. To accou
atmospheric t
received no
these events
points to ass
y
peratingAstraddling th
/M/E (SpaceX
Permit to Spa
X – Nov. 2013
00,AshevilleNC
over an eve
called the inv
ules absorb s
c absorption
perature, bar
mulae found
peratures, rel
ons at a give
a wave for an
will hear a do
eceiver incre
n a decrease
o impact on t
ediction of a
most accurate
(source to gro
[9, 10] by inc
nt for the ra
turbulence ha
oise levels fr
s is combined
sess the nois
Arease border of M
X owned), Ag
aceX for
3 (R2014)
C28801–(828
r‐increasing
verse square
some of the
is controlle
ometric pres
in ANSI sta
lative humidi
n location.
observer mo
ownward shif
ase. As the fr
d A‐weighted
the levels sin
a free‐field s
ly modeled a
ound to rece
cluding the ef
ndom fluctua
as also been i
rom individu
d to calculate
e over the en
McLennan an
g 1/2 (based
8)252‐2209
area. As this
law.
acoustical e
ed by a com
ssure, and re
andard S1.26
ty, and barom
oving relative
ft in the frequ
requency is sh
d sound leve
nce all freque
ound level a
as the combin
iver). The aco
ffect of the gr
ations of win
ncluded [9].
al events ca
e the DNL valu
ntire region o
d Coryell cou
on conversa
7
s area
nergy
mplex
elative
‐1995
metric
e to its
uency
hifted
el. For
encies
at the
nation
oustic
round
d and
an be
ues at
of the
unties.
ations
Appendix A A-9 August 2014
Noise Stu
Operation
BlueRidge
between
facility co
Grasshop
presented
Figure 1. S
Table 1. M
4.2 BaThe existi
vehicle. S
tests (pow
Reusable
initiation
dy in Support
n of the Drago
eResearchand
SpaceX and H
ontains three
per Pad, as
d in Table 1.
SpaceX Test F
McGregor Fac
aselineInpng noise env
SpaceX condu
wered by nin
(F9‐R) first s
of the Drago
t of the EA fo
onFly Vehicle
dConsulting,LL
Huffman), an
e test areas,
shown in Fig
Facility in Mc
cility Test Are
Test A
Falcon
Sta
Grasshop
DragonR
putParamironment at t
ucts approxim
ne Merlin‐1C
stage firings a
nFly program
r Issuing an E
at McGregor
LC–29NMark
nd Ag 3 (base
, the Falcon
gure 1. The
cGregor, TX
ea Locations
Areas
9 Test
and 3
pper Pad 3
Rider Site 3
metersthe McGrego
mately five M
C engines) pe
are temporar
m. Therefore,
Experimental
r Test Site, TX
ketSt,Suite70
ed on convers
9 Tripod T
longitude an
Latitude
1°23’55.41” N
1°23’17.17” N
1°23’33.69” N
r test site inc
Merlin‐1D test
er year [11].
ry projects an
when the Dr
Permit to Spa
X – Nov. 2013
00,AshevilleNC
sations betwe
Test Stand, t
nd latitude lo
Longitud
97°27’44.6
97°28’08.5
97°28’11.8
cludes engine
ts per week a
The Grassho
nd will be co
ragonFly prog
aceX for
3 (R2014)
C28801–(828
een SpaceX a
the DragonR
ocations of t
de
67” W
58” W
83” W
e testing for th
as well as six
opper RLV te
ompleted bef
gram is sched
8)252‐2209
and THC). Th
ider Site and
the test area
he Falcon 9 la
x Falcon 9 St
ests and Falc
fore the sche
duled to begin
8
e test
d the
as are
aunch
tage 1
con 9
eduled
n, the
Appendix A A-10 August 2014
Noise Stu
Operation
BlueRidge
baseline c
2, all of w
reason, th
F9R oper
Figure 2 s
noise con
have not
Table 2. S
dy in Support
n of the Drago
eResearchand
conditions wi
which occur du
he baseline n
ations, are e
shows the ba
ntours were g
been made a
Summary of B
Op
Merlin‐1D
Falcon 9 S
t of the EA fo
onFly Vehicle
dConsulting,LL
ll only includ
uring the aco
noise contour
equivalent to
aseline conto
generated to
vailable.
Baseline Oper
peration Type
D Tests
Stage 1 Tests
r Issuing an E
at McGregor
LC–29NMark
e engine test
oustic day (07
rs presented
o the baselin
urs, generate
approximate
rations
App
Experimental
r Test Site, TX
ketSt,Suite70
ting for the F
700 to 2200) f
in the 2011
e noise envi
ed based on
e the contou
Operation
proximately 5 p
6 per yea
Permit to Spa
X – Nov. 2013
00,AshevilleNC
alcon 9 launc
from the Falc
EA, which ex
ironment pro
Exhibit 3‐5 fr
urs shown in
ns
per week
ar
aceX for
3 (R2014)
C28801–(828
ch vehicle as
con 9 Tripod t
xclude all Gra
oposed for t
rom the 2011
Exhibit 3‐5,
Duration of Ev
100 second
180 second
8)252‐2209
described in
test stand. Fo
asshopper RLV
his current e
1 EA [11]. Ba
as the digita
vent
ds
ds
9
Table
or this
V and
effort.
seline
al files
Appendix A A-11 August 2014
N
O
F
Noise Study in Su
Operation of the
Figure 2. 2014 Ba
upport of the EA f
DragonFly Vehic
BlueRidge
aseline DNL Noise
for Issuing an Exp
le at McGregor T
ResearchandCon
e Contours (as Pr
perimental Permit
Test Site, TX ‐ Nov
nsulting,LLC–29N
resented in the 2
t to SpaceX for
vember 2013 (Dra
NMarketSt,Suite7
2011 EA).
aft)
700,AshevilleNC28801–(828)252‐‐2209 10
Appendix A A-12 August 2014
Noise Stu
Operation
BlueRidge
4.3 PrThe Prop
facility in
DragonFly
integrated
designed
presented
Figure 3. S
Table 3. V
V
V
T
The Drago
SuperDra
is limited
single eng
Section 3.
paramete
efficiency
model [7]
dy in Support
n of the Drago
eResearchand
roposedAcosed Action
McGregor,
y’s vertical la
d trunk and f
to deliver bo
d in Table 3.
SpaceX’s Dra
Vehicle Param
Vehicle Param
Vehicle Manuf
Height with Tr
Diameter
Total Payload
onFly is prope
co engine can
to 122,600 lb
gine with an
. Table 4 pr
ers are assum
y of the Supe
, is 0.3% base
t of the EA fo
onFly Vehicle
dConsulting,LL
ctionInpuinvolves con
TX. The pur
nding capabi
four steel lan
th cargo and
agonFly Capsu
meters Utilize
meters
facturer
runk
Mass
elled by eight
n reach a max
bf (15,325 lbf
effective exi
resents the e
ed to remain
erDraco engi
ed on the tota
r Issuing an E
at McGregor
LC–29NMark
utParametducting expe
rpose of the
lity. The Drag
nding legs. Th
people to or
ule(Photos Co
ed In Acoustic
DragonFly
Space Explor
7.2 m (23.6 f
3.7 m (12.0 f
Launch: 6,00
t SuperDraco
ximum thrust
f per engine)
t diameter, a
engine input
n constant ove
ne, which w
al mechanica
Experimental
r Test Site, TX
ketSt,Suite70
terserimental test
program, sc
gonFlyis the
he Dragon ca
rbiting destina
ourtesy of Sp
c Modeling
ration Technol
ft)
ft)
00 kg (13,228 lb
engines (Figu
t of 16,400 lb
to maintain
as per the ac
parameters
er the power
as calculated
l power of th
Permit to Spa
X – Nov. 2013
00,AshevilleNC
ting of the D
cheduled to
Dragon capsu
apsule is “a f
ations” [12].
paceX)
ogies (SpaceX)
bs), Return: 3,
ure 4), manuf
bf individually
stability. The
coustic mode
utilized in
ed duration o
d using Gues
e engine.
aceX for
3 (R2014)
C28801–(828
DragonFly RLV
begin in 20
ule, shown in
free‐flying, re
The vehicle’s
)
000 kg (6,614
factured by S
y, the vehicle’
four engines
eling methodo
the acoustic
of the flight e
st’s variable a
8)252‐2209
V at SpaceX’
14, is to tes
n Figure 3, wi
eusable space
s size and wei
lbs)
SpaceX. Altho
’s maximum t
s are modeled
ology describ
c modeling. T
event. The aco
acoustic effic
11
s test
st the
ith an
ecraft
ight is
ough a
thrust
d as a
bed in
These
oustic
ciency
Appendix A A-13 August 2014
Noise Stu
Operation
BlueRidge
Figure 4. S
Table 4. E
Engin
Engin
Numb
Nozzl
Prope
Exhau
Thrus
Mass
Acou
Four diffe
of thirty a
types, wit
DragonFly
the Drago
Table 1 an
dy in Support
n of the Drago
eResearchand
SuperDraco E
Engine Param
ne Model:
ne Manufactur
ber of Engines
le Exit Diamete
ellant
ust Velocity
st (S.L.)
s Flow Rate
stic Efficiency
erent test typ
annual opera
th all operati
y operations
onFly tests w
nd Figure 1).
t of the EA fo
onFly Vehicle
dConsulting,LL
Engine at Full
meters Utilized
Supe
rer Space
s 8
er 20 cm
Hype
2,300
68,16*Althindivlbf pe
31 kg
0.3%
es would be
ations are exp
ions occurrin
would occur
within the Mc
r Issuing an E
at McGregor
LC–29NMark
l Throttle (Ph
d in Acoustic
erDraco
eX
m (8.0 in)
ergolic
0 m/s (7,546 ft
69 N (15,325 lbhough a SuperDidually, the veher engine) to m
g/s (68.5 lbm/s
conducted as
pected in eac
g during the
from a singl
Gregor Test
Experimental
r Test Site, TX
ketSt,Suite70
hoto Courtesy
Modeling
t/s)
bf)*Draco engine chicle’s maximumaintain stabili
s)
s part of the p
ch year of op
acoustic day
e pad. Space
Site: the Gra
Permit to Spa
X – Nov. 2013
00,AshevilleNC
y of SpaceX)
can reach a maum thrust is limity.
program, as d
peration, dist
y between th
eX is currently
asshopper Pa
aceX for
3 (R2014)
C28801–(828
aximum thrust mited to 122,60
detailed in Ta
tributed betw
he hours of 0
y considering
d or the Dra
8)252‐2209
of 16,400 lbf 00 lbf (15,325
able 5. A max
ween the fou
0700 and 220
g two location
gonRider Site
12
imum
ur test
00. All
ns for
e (see
Appendix A A-14 August 2014
Noise Stu
Operation
BlueRidge
Table 5. D
Opera
1 Propu
2 Full Pr
3 Propu
4 Full Pr
As an init
account f
includes b
landings.
increased
louder tha
propagati
surface.
Figure 5.
dy in Support
n of the Drago
eResearchand
DragonFly Pro
tion Type
lsive Assist
ropulsive Land
lsive Assist Ho
ropulsive Hopp
tial assessme
for all the ba
both a takeof
The represen
maximum a
an expected)
ion is calculat
DragonFly Re
t of the EA fo
onFly Vehicle
dConsulting,LL
oposed Opera
De
Dr
wi
ing Dr
Su
opping Ta
en
ping Ta
sec
ent, a represe
asic compone
ff and landing
ntative test t
ltitude to en
. Figure 5 dis
ted assuming
epresentative
r Issuing an E
at McGregor
LC–29NMark
ations
escription
rop from helico
th SuperDraco
rop from helico
perDracos, en
ke off from pa
ngines fire for 2
ke off from pa
conds.
entative test
ents of the f
g portion, alth
type’s corresp
nsure a highly
splays the rep
g a receiver he
e Trajectory
Experimental
r Test Site, TX
ketSt,Suite70
opter from up t
os, engines fire
opter from up t
gines fire for 5
d, land with pa
25 seconds.
d, hover, and l
type was de
four differen
hough two of
ponding traje
y conservativ
presentative t
eight of five f
Permit to Spa
X – Nov. 2013
00,AshevilleNC
to 10,000 ft, d
for 5 seconds
to 10,000 ft, la
5 seconds.
arachutes, and
land propulsiv
eveloped dur
nt test types.
f the four tes
ectory includ
ve noise estim
trajectory alt
feet along wi
aceX for
3 (R2014)
C28801–(828
eploy parachu
.
and only with
d land propulsi
e, engines fire
Total O
ing discussio
. The repres
st types inclu
es an extend
mate (i.e. mo
itude with re
th a homoge
8)252‐2209
A
tes, land
ve,
for 25
Operations
ns with Spac
entative test
de only prop
ded burn tim
odel results w
espect to time
eneous soft gr
13
Annual
Ops
2
2
8
18
30
ceX to
t type
ulsive
e and
will be
e. The
round
Appendix A A-15 August 2014
Noise Stu
Operation
BlueRidge
Several as
Th
Th
th
Th
th
A
fo
ap
ap
10
co
Fo
ti
b
sh
in
Although
utilizing th
dy in Support
n of the Drago
eResearchand
ssumptions w
he SpaceX Dr
he DragonFly
hrust equaling
hrust is assu
hrottled down
tmospheric a
or each mont
ppropriate v
ppropriate v
01.325 kPa b
onditions of t
or modeling p
me. In practi
urn time spe
hould accoun
n an overestim
there are va
he representa
t of the EA fo
onFly Vehicle
dConsulting,LL
were made to
ragonFly follo
y RLV’s eight
g the sum of
umed constan
n for most of
absorption is
th (obtained f
alues to rep
values in the
barometric p
the atmosphe
purposes, tak
ce, the vehic
cified withou
nt for any sign
mation of the
riations betw
ative trajecto
r Issuing an E
at McGregor
LC–29NMark
utilize the ap
ws a straight
SuperDraco
its individual
nt over the
the event;
modeled usin
from the Nat
present the
e case of M
ressure. The
ere and not th
keoff and land
cle would phy
ut running ou
nificant differ
noise produc
ween the test
ory detailed a
Experimental
r Test Site, TX
ketSt,Suite70
pproach outlin
vertical traje
engines are
thrusts (15,3
duration of
ng the daily a
ional Weathe
nominal aco
McGregor, TX
ese values re
he average w
ding portions
ysically not b
ut of fuel. The
ences betwee
ced by either
t types, for si
bove.
Permit to Spa
X – Nov. 2013
00,AshevilleNC
ned above:
ectory from it
modeled as
325 lbf * 8 = 1
the event, a
average temp
er Service Fo
oustic absorp
X are 63.5°F
epresent the
eather condit
are identical
e able to ma
e conservativ
en the two p
r the takeoff o
implicity, all
aceX for
3 (R2014)
C28801–(828
ts pad origin;
a compact s
122,600 lbf);
although in p
peratures and
recast Office)
ption for the
F, 69% relat
e nominal ac
tions for the
l in maximum
aintain maxim
ve nature of t
ortions of the
or the landing
30 operation
8)252‐2209
ource with a
practice it w
d relative hum
) to determin
e given year
ive humidity
coustic absor
area; and
m altitude and
mum thrust fo
these compo
e event, and
g.
ns will be mo
14
a total
will be
midity
ne the
r. The
y and
rption
d burn
or the
onents
result
odeled
Appendix A A-16 August 2014
Noise Stu
Operation
BlueRidge
5 ResUtilizing t
estimated
values we
Proposed
the existi
DNL conto
areas to e
when com
The addit
dB differe
minimal, a
noise resu
Table 6. S
Contou
Level
65 dBA
70 dBA
75 dBA
80 dBA
85 dBA
The prop
baseline a
from the
Action Alt
dy in Support
n of the Drago
eResearchand
sultsthe operation
d DNL values
ere then com
Action of the
ng baseline o
ours. A signif
experience an
mpared to the
ional noise as
ence. As suc
as exemplifie
ults in less tha
Summary of t
r Baselin
Acres
A 326
A 182
A 107
A 50
A 24
osed action
and proposed
graphics pro
ternative.
t of the EA fo
onFly Vehicle
dConsulting,LL
nal paramete
for the prop
bined with th
e DragonFly i
operations an
ficant noise im
n increase in n
e no action alt
ssociated wit
ch, the differ
ed by the tota
an a 0.2% inc
total contour
ne
Acres
691 32695
241 18244
729 10731
090 5093
476 2480
DNL contour
d action DNL
ovided. It sho
r Issuing an E
at McGregor
LC–29NMark
ers described
posed Dragon
he baseline D
includes oper
nd the propo
mpact is one
noise of DNL
ternative for
th the propos
rence betwee
al acreage of e
rease to the B
acreage by s
Grasshoppe
+Acres
4
3
2
3
4
rs are shown
contours is b
ould be note
Experimental
r Test Site, TX
ketSt,Suite70
in Section 4
nFly RLV oper
DNL values to
rations at two
osed DragonF
in which the
1.5 dBA or m
the same tim
sed DragonFly
en the basel
each of the co
Baseline DNL
scenario
r Pad
% Increase
0.01%
0.02%
0.02%
0.06%
0.16%
in Figure 6
between less
ed that the b
Permit to Spa
X – Nov. 2013
00,AshevilleNC
4, BRRC’s roc
rations at the
generate the
o separate la
Fly operations
“proposed a
more at or abo
meframe.”
y operations
line and pro
ontours prese
contours.
D
Acres +
32694
18243
10731
5091
2478
and Figure 7
than one an
baseline DNL
aceX for
3 (R2014)
C28801–(828
ket noise mo
e McGregor F
e affected no
unch pads. T
s result in th
action will cau
ove DNL 65 d
produces les
posed action
ented in Tabl
Dragon Rider S
+Acres %
3
2
2
1
2
7. The differe
nd fifty feet a
L values also
8)252‐2209
odel produce
Facility. These
ise exposures
The combinat
e proposed a
use noise sen
BA noise exp
s than a tent
n DNL conto
e 6. The addi
Site
% Increase
0.01%
0.01%
0.02%
0.02%
0.08%
ence betwee
and is indisce
represent th
15
ed the
e DNL
s. The
ion of
action
nsitive
posure
h of a
urs is
tional
en the
rnible
he No
Appendix A A-17 August 2014
N
O
F
Noise Study in su
Operation of the
Figure 6. 2014 Co
pport of the EA f
DragonFly Vehic
BlueRidge
ombined Baseline
for Issuing an Exp
le at McGregor T
eResearchandCon
e and Proposed A
perimental Permit
Test Site, TX – Nov
nsulting,LLC–29N
Action DNL Conto
t to SpaceX for
v. 2013 (R 2014)
NMarketSt,Suite7
ours, with Drago
700,AshevilleNC2
onFly Operating f
28801–(828)252‐
from the Grassho
‐2209
opper Pad
16
Appendix A A-18 August 2014
N
O
F
Noise Study in su
Operation of the
Figure 7. 2014 Co
pport of the EA f
DragonFly Vehic
BlueRidge
ombined Baseline
for Issuing an Exp
le at McGregor T
eResearchandCon
e and Proposed A
perimental Permit
Test Site, TX – Nov
nsulting,LLC–29N
Action DNL Conto
t to SpaceX for
v. 2013 (R 2014)
NMarketSt,Suite7
ours, with Drago
700,AshevilleNC2
onFly Operating f
28801–(828)252‐
from the Dragon
‐2209
Rider Site
17
Appendix A A-19 August 2014
Noise Stu
Operation
BlueRidge
6 SumThis noise
operation
the FAA O
impact is
noise of D
alternativ
DragonFly
to the No
Works Cit
[1] Fede
Proce
[2] Fede
Use P
[3] Fede
Noise
[4] US En
105 a
[5] Ame
Proce
Desc
[6] K. Eld
Adm
[7] S. H.
1964
[8] J. Ha
15th
2009
[9] C. Ch
Socie
dy in support
n of the Drago
eResearchand
mmarye analysis sup
ns at its McGr
Order 1050.1E
one in which
DNL 1.5 dBA o
ve for the sam
y RLV operati
Action Altern
ted
ral Aviation A
edures," Mar
ral Interagen
Planning and
ral Interagen
e Analysis Issu
nvironmenta
and #PB82‐21
rican Nationa
edures for D
riptors for De
dred, "Acoust
inistration, 19
Guest, "Aco
4.
ynes and J. R
AIAA/CEAS A
9.
hessel, "Prop
ety of America
t of the EA fo
onFly Vehicle
dConsulting,LL
pports SpaceX
regor test faci
E, Change 1, E
the “propos
or more at or
me timeframe
ons result in
native.
Administratio
ch 2006.
ncy Committe
Control," Aug
ncy Committe
ues," August
l Protection A
19205," April
al Standards
Description a
etermination
tic Loads Gen
971.
oustic Efficien
R. Kenny, "M
Aeroacoustics
agation of n
a, vol. 62, no.
r Issuing an E
at McGregor
LC–29NMark
X in obtaining
ility. The nois
Environmenta
ed action wil
r above DNL
e.” The comb
less than a te
on Order 105
e on Urban N
gust 1980.
ee on Noise
1992.
Agency (EPA),
1982.
Institute, Inc
and Measure
of Compatibl
nerated By th
ncy Trends fo
Modifications
s Conference
oise along a
. 4, pp. 825‐8
xperimental
r Test Site, TX
ketSt,Suite70
an experime
se impact of t
al Impacts: Po
l cause noise
65 dBA noise
ination of the
enth of a dB c
0.1E CHG 1,
oise (FICUN),
(FICON), "F
, "Guidelines
c. (ANSI), "A
ement of En
le Land Use, A
he Propulsion
or High Thrus
to the NASA
e (30th AIAA
finite imped
34, 1977.
Permit to Spa
X – Nov. 2013
00,AshevilleNC
ental permit f
the proposed
olicies and Pro
sensitive are
e exposure wh
e existing bas
change to the
"SUBJ: Enviro
, "Guidelines
ederal Agenc
for Noise Im
American Nat
nvironmental
ANSI S12.9/Pa
n Systems," N
st Boosters,"
A SP‐8072 Dis
Aeroacoustic
dance bound
aceX for
3 (R 2014)
C28801–(828
for the propo
action was e
ocedures [1].
eas to experie
hen compare
seline operat
e DNL contou
onmental Im
for Consider
cy Review of
mpac Analysis,
tional Standa
Sound, Par
art 5‐1998 (R
National Aero
" NASA TN D
stributed Sou
cs Conference
ary," Journal
8)252‐2209
sed DragonFl
evaluated bas
A significant
ence an incre
ed to the no a
ions and prop
rs when com
pacts: Policie
ring Noise in
f Selected A
, Report 550/
ard Quantitie
rt 5: Sound
R 2003)," 2003
onautics and S
D‐1999, MSFC
rce Method
e), Miami, Fl
l of the Acou
18
ly RLV
ed on
noise
ase in
action
posed
pared
es and
Land‐
Airport
/9‐82‐
s and
Level
3.
Space
C, July
II," in
orida,
ustical
Appendix A A-20 August 2014
Noise Stu
Operation
BlueRidge
[10] T. Em
acou
1244
[11] "Envi
Grass
[12] Space
http:
dy in support
n of the Drago
eResearchand
mbleton, J. Pi
stical measu
4, 1983.
ironmental A
shopper Vehi
e Explor
//www.space
t of the EA fo
onFly Vehicle
dConsulting,LL
iercy and G.
rements," Jo
Assessment fo
icle at the Mc
ration Te
ex.com/drago
r Issuing an E
at McGregor
LC–29NMark
Daigie, "Effe
urnal of the
or Issuing an
cGregor Test S
echnologies,
on.
xperimental
r Test Site, TX
ketSt,Suite70
ective flow re
Acoustical So
n Experiment
Site, Texas," N
"Dragon
Permit to Spa
X – Nov. 2013
00,AshevilleNC
esistivity of g
ociety of Ame
tal Permit to
November 20
n," 2013
aceX for
3 (R 2014)
C28801–(828
ground surfac
erica, vol. 74
o SpaceX for
011.
3. [Onlin
8)252‐2209
ces determin
4, no. 4, pp.
Operation o
ne]. Avai
19
ed by
1239‐
of hte
ilable:
Appendix A A-21 August 2014
Appendix A A-22 August 2014
Final Environmental Assessment
Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the Dragon Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas
Appendix B B-1 August 2014
Appendix B
Agency Coordination
Final Environmental Assessment
Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the Dragon Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas
Appendix B B-2 August 2014
Table of Contents
FAA Correspondence to Texas Historical Commission and Texas Historical Commission Concurrence ... B-3
FAA Correspondence to Comanche Nation of Oklahoma ....................................................................... B-10
FAA Correspondence to Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma ............................................................................. B-17
Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Response to FAA ........................................................................................ B-24
FAA Correspondence to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department .............................................................. B-25
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Response to FAA.......................................................................... B-31
U.S. Department of the Interior Response to FAA ................................................................................... B-35
Appendix B B-3 August 2014
Appendix B B-4 August 2014
Appendix B B-5 August 2014
Appendix B B-6 August 2014
Appendix B B-7 August 2014
Appendix B B-8 August 2014
Appendix B B-9 August 2014
Appendix B B-10 August 2014
Appendix B B-11 August 2014
Appendix B B-12 August 2014
Appendix B B-13 August 2014
Appendix B B-14 August 2014
Appendix B B-15 August 2014
Appendix B B-16 August 2014
Appendix B B-17 August 2014
Appendix B B-18 August 2014
Appendix B B-19 August 2014
Appendix B B-20 August 2014
Appendix B B-21 August 2014
Appendix B B-22 August 2014
Appendix B B-23 August 2014
Appendix B B-24 August 2014
Appendix B B-25 August 2014
Appendix B B-26 August 2014
Appendix B B-27 August 2014
Appendix B B-28 August 2014
Appendix B B-29 August 2014
Appendix B B-30 August 2014
Appendix B B-31 August 2014
Appendix B B-32 August 2014
Appendix B B-33 August 2014
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix B B-34 August 2014
United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 1001 Indian School Road NW, Suite 348
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104 ER 14/0323 File 9043.1
June 13, 2014 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY Mr. Daniel Czelusniak Office of Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue SW, Suite 325 Washington, DC 20591 Dear Mr. Czelusniak: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation for the Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the DragonFly Vehicle, McGregor Test Site, located in Coryell and McLennan counties, Texas. The Department of the Interior (DOI) has reviewed the document, and hereby submits the following. SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION COMMENTS The Department appreciates that you have coordinated with various agencies regarding this project and the development of the Section 4(f) Evaluation. We encourage continued coordination with these agencies and tribes throughout the life of this project. We acknowledge that this project will not have adverse effects to historic properties under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and there is a de minimis impact on section 4(f) properties. Following our review of the Section 4(f) Evaluation, we concur that there is no feasible or prudent alternative to the Preferred Alternative selected in the document, and that all measures have been taken to minimize harm to these resources. We appreciate the opportunity to review this document. For question regarding the Section 4(f) Evaluation comments please contact David Hurd of the National Park Service at 303.987.6705. Sincerely,
Stephen R. Spencer
Regional Environmental Officer
Appendix B B-35 August 2014
