Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR NEW INFRASTRUCTURE IN SUPPORT OF SPACEPORT ACTIVITIES AT CECIL AIRPORT

This environmental assessment becomes a federal document when evaluated, signed and dated by the responsible Federal Aviation Administration official.

Responsible FAA Official:

______

Date:

______

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR NEW INFRASTRUCTURE IN SUPPORT OF SPACEPORT ACTIVITIES AT CECIL AIRPORT

DRAFT RS&H No.: September 2015 201-2275-031 Jacksonville, FL

Prepared by RS&H, Inc. at the direction of the Jacksonville Aviation Authority TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1-1 1.1 Background ...... 1-2 1.1.1 JAA Spaceport Proposal ...... 1-2 1.2 Cecil Airport/Cecil Spaceport Background ...... 1-4 1.2.1 Airport ...... 1-4 1.2.2 2009 Final Environmental Assessment and 2015 Written Re-evaluation Environmental Assessment ...... 1-4 1.2.3 Spaceport Master Plan ...... 1-7 1.2.4 RLV Operator at VQQ ...... 1-7 1.2.5 Cecil Airport/Cecil Spaceport Existing Facilities ...... 1-7 1.3 FAA Roles ...... 1-9 1.3.1 Launch Site Operator License ...... 1-11 1.3.2 Airport Layout Plan...... 1-12 1.3.3 Letter of Agreement...... 1-12 1.4 NEPA Process ...... 1-13 1.5 Purpose and Need ...... 1-13 1.5.1 FAA’s Purpose and Need ...... 1-13 1.5.2 The JAA’s Purpose and Need ...... 1-14 1.6 Agency and Public Involvement ...... 1-14 1.6.1 Early Notification Letters ...... 1-14 1.6.2 Draft EA Notification and Distribution ...... 1-15 1.7 Other Environmental Requirements ...... 1-15 Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 2-1 2.1 Proposed Action ...... 2-2 2.1.1 Detail Descriptions of the Proposed Action ...... 2-4 2.1.2 RLV Ground Operations ...... 2-6 2.2 Alternatives Considered and evaluated ...... 2-8 2.2.1 Evaluation Criteria ...... 2-8 2.2.2 Alternatives Evaluation ...... 2-9 2.2.3 Alternatives Carried Forward for Environmental Analysis ...... 2-20 Chapter 3 Affected Environment ...... 3-1 3.1 Air Quality ...... 3-5 3.2 Climate ...... 3-6 3.3 Coastal Resources ...... 3-6

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport i TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.4 Fish, Wildlife, and Plants ...... 3-7 3.4.1 Habitat within the Limits of Disturbance ...... 3-8 3.4.2 Plants within the Limits of Disturbance ...... 3-8 3.4.3 Wildlife within the Limits of Disturbance ...... 3-10 3.5 Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste ...... 3-13 3.5.1 Hazardous Materials ...... 3-14 3.5.2 Pollution Prevention ...... 3-14 3.5.3 Solid Waste ...... 3-15 3.6 Historic, Architectural, Archeological and Cultural Resources ...... 3-15 3.7 Light Emissions and Visual Resources ...... 3-15 3.7.1 Light Emissions ...... 3-15 3.7.2 Visual Resources ...... 3-15 3.8 Natural Resources, Energy Supplies, and Sustainable design ...... 3-16 3.8.1 Natural Resources ...... 3-16 3.8.2 Energy Supplies ...... 3-16 3.8.3 Sustainable Design ...... 3-16 3.9 Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks ...... 3-16 3.9.1 Socioeconomics ...... 3-16 3.9.2 Environmental Justice ...... 3-16 3.9.3 Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks ...... 3-17 3.10 Water Quality ...... 3-17 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences ...... 4-1 4.1 Air quality ...... 4-2 4.1.1 Significance Thresholds ...... 4-2 4.1.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 4-2 4.2 Climate ...... 4-3 4.2.1 Significance Thresholds ...... 4-3 4.2.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 4-3 4.3 Coastal Resources ...... 4-4 4.3.1 Significance Thresholds ...... 4-4 4.3.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 4-4 4.4 Construction Impacts ...... 4-5 4.4.1 Significance Threshold ...... 4-5 4.4.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 4-5 4.5 Fish, Wildlife, and Plants ...... 4-7

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.5.1 Significance Threshold ...... 4-8 4.5.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 4-8 4.6 Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste ...... 4-10 4.6.1 Significance Threshold ...... 4-10 4.6.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 4-11 4.7 Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources ...... 4-12 4.7.1 Significance Threshold ...... 4-13 4.7.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 4-13 4.8 Light Emissions and Visual Resources ...... 4-13 4.8.1 Significance Threshold ...... 4-13 4.8.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 4-14 4.9 Natural Resources, Engergy Supplies, and Sustainable design ...... 4-15 4.9.1 Significance Threshold ...... 4-15 4.9.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 4-15 4.10 Secondary (Induced) Impacts ...... 4-16 4.10.1 Significance Threshold ...... 4-17 4.10.2 Environmental Consequences...... 4-17 4.11 Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks ...... 4-18 4.11.1 Significance Thresholds ...... 4-18 4.11.2 Environmental Consequences...... 4-18 4.12 Water Quality ...... 4-19 4.12.1 Significance Threshold ...... 4-19 4.12.2 Environmental Consequences...... 4-20 Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts ...... 5-1 5.1 Past Projects ...... 5-2 5.2 Present Projects ...... 5-3 5.3 Reasonably Foreseeable future Projects ...... 5-3 5.4 Environmental Consequences ...... 5-3 5.4.1 Air Quality ...... 5-4 5.4.2 Climate ...... 5-4 5.4.3 Coastal Resources ...... 5-4 5.4.4 Construction Impacts ...... 5-5 5.4.5 Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources ...... 5-5 5.4.6 Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste ...... 5-5 5.4.7 Light Emissions and Visual Resources ...... 5-5 5.4.8 Natural Resources, Energy Supply, and Sustainable Design ...... 5-6

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.4.9 Secondary (Induced) Impacts ...... 5-6 5.4.10 Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks ...... 5-6 5.4.11 Water Quality ...... 5-7 Chapter 6 References ...... 6-1 Chapter 7 List of Preparers ...... 7-1 7.1 Lead Agency ...... 7-2 7.2 Principal Preparers ...... 7-2 7.2.1 Jacksonville Aviation Authority ...... 7-2 7.2.2 RS&H, Inc...... 7-2 7.2.3 Environmental Resource Solutions, Inc...... 7-4 Appendix A Supporting Document...... A-1 Appendix B Early Notification and Coordination...... B-1 Appendix C Fish, Wildlife, and Plants...... C-1 Appendix D Air Quality...... D-1

LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Alternative OLA Locations Analysis Summary ...... 2-20 Table 2-2 Alternative Spaceport Facility Locations Analysis Summary ...... 2-21 Table 3-1 Listed Wildlife Species in Duval County ...... 3-10 Table 3-2 Wildlife Observations within the Limits of Disturbance ...... 3-12 Table 4-1 Proposed Action Construction-Related Emissions Inventory (Tons per year) ...... 4-6 Table 4-2 Habitat Impacts by Acre ...... 4-10

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Cecil Airport Location ...... 1-5 Figure 1-2 Airport Overview ...... 1-8 Figure 1-3 Existing Spaceport Facilities ...... 1-10 Figure 2-1 Proposed Action ...... 2-3 Figure 2-2 Alternative OLA Locations Overview ...... 2-11 Figure 2-3 Alternative Spaceport Facility Locations Overview ...... 2-13 Figure 2-4 Alternative A ...... 2-14 Figure 2-5 Alternative B ...... 2-16 Figure 2-6 Alternative C (Proposed Action) ...... 2-17 Figure 2-7 Alternative D...... 2-19 Figure 3-1 Project Study Area ...... 3-3 Figure 3-2 Limits of Disturbance ...... 3-4 Figure 3-3 Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System within the Limits of Disturbance ...... 3-9 Figure 4-1 Habitat Affected by the Proposed Action ...... 4-9

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport iv INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 1-1 INTRODUCTION

The Jacksonville Aviation Authority (JAA), as the owner and operator of the Cecil Airport/Cecil Spaceport, has prepared this Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for proposed development of commercial space launch facilities. The Cecil Spaceport is co-located with Cecil Airport (VQQ or Airport) in the City of Jacksonville/Duval County Florida. This chapter provides background information about JAA’s proposal for the construction and operation of commercial space launch facilities at VQQ, existing facilities, JAA planning documents, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) roles, NEPA process, Purpose and Need, and the Agency and Public Involvement.

1.1 BACKGROUND A license to operate a launch site authorizes a licensee to offer its launch site to a launch operator for each launch point, launch vehicle type, and weight class identified in the license application and upon which the licensing determination is based. Issuance of a license to operate a launch site does not relieve a licensee of its obligation to comply with any other laws or regulations, nor does it confer any proprietary, property, or exclusive rights in the use of airspace or outer space (14 CFR § 420.41). A launch site operator license remains in effect for five years from the date of issuance unless surrendered, suspended, or revoked before the expiration of the term and is renewable upon application by the licensee (14 CFR § 420.43).

The FAA issued the JAA a launch site operator license for VQQ in 2010 and renewed the license in 2015 for five years (2015-2020) (JAA, 2015). The JAA’s launch site operator license (LSO #09-012) allows the JAA to offer the airport to reusable launch vehicle (RLV) operators for their use. The FAA issues separate licenses for the launch of RLVs. Commercial space launch vehicle operators will have to obtain individual launch licenses from the FAA before launching from VQQ. Additional information regarding the JAA’s launch site operator license is provided in Section 1.2.

1.1.1 JAA Spaceport Proposal The JAA’s 2012 Cecil Spaceport Master Plan (2012 Spaceport Master Plan) focuses on the benefits of grouping spaceport activities in an area of the airport that minimizes conflicts with aeronautical and non- aeronautical activities, adds operational efficiency, and provides a unified spaceport environment (JAA, 2012a). Since the JAA obtained a launch site operator license, RLV operators have expressed interest in dedicated spaceport facilities at VQQ. The JAA is proposing to construct dedicated commercial space launch facilities as well as to relocate designated spaceport-related areas at VQQ that will minimize conflicts with aviation activities and accommodate future RLV launches based on the 2012 Spaceport Master Plan goals and RLV operator interest.

The JAA proposes the following actions in order to minimize conflicts between spaceport activities and aeronautical/non-aeronautical activities, add operational efficiency, and provide a unified spaceport environment: » Proposed Hangar Development » Future Apron » Future Taxiway B2 » Future OLA/Passenger Loading Area

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 1-2 INTRODUCTION

o 1,250’ Inhabited Building Distance (IBD) o 750’ Public Transit Route Distance (PTRD) » Future Primary Oxidizer Storage Area (100’ IBD/ILD) » Future Liquid Propellant Loading (ILD 50’, IBD 100’) » Future Solid Rocket Motor Storage Bunker » Oxidizer Transportation Route » Support Facilities and Infrastructure (utility connections, FAA compliant dry stormwater system, Airport fencing)

Section 1.3.2 and Chapter 2 of this EA provide additional information regarding the proposed spaceport facilities and designated areas.

The JAA’s launch site operator license includes an Explosive Site Plan.1 An Explosive Site Plan is a scaled map that shows the location of explosive hazard facilities at a launch site and is submitted for review as part of an airport’s Airport Layout Plan (ALP) update if a launch site is located on an airport (FAA, 2014b). FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) approves the Explosive Site Plan as part of the licensing process. The Airport’s existing Explosive Site Plan identifies an OLA, an Inhabited Building Distance (IBD) radius of 1,250 feet, and a Public Traffic Route Distance (PTR) radius of 750 feet on the approach end of Runway 18L.2 The Airport’s existing OLA location requires that both Runway 18L-36R and Runway 18R-36L be closed, up to approximately 30 minutes (operator dependent), during RLV loading of oxidizer. There are no existing inhabited buildings within the existing OLA’s IBD.

An important goal of the 2012 Spaceport Master Plan was to identify an OLA location that would avoid the FAA’s requirements to close runways, or evacuate uninvolved members of the public within inhabited buildings within the IBD, during oxidizer loading operations. Relocating the OLA requires a modification of the JAA’s launch site operator license to include an update to the Explosive Site Plan. The proposed OLA is to be located approximately 3,000 feet east of the Runway 27R threshold and 300 feet north of the Runway 9L-27R runway object free area (ROFA). An RLV operator could use the proposed OLA without

1 14 CFR 420.63 Explosive siting. (a) Except as otherwise provided by paragraph (b) of this section, a licensee must ensure the configuration of the launch site follows its explosive site plan, and the licensee's explosive site plan complies with the requirements of §§420.65 through 420.70. The Explosive Site Plan must include: (1) a scaled map that shows the location of all explosive hazard facilities at the launch site and that shows actual and minimal allowable distances between each explosive hazard facility and all other explosive hazard facilities, each public traffic route, and each public area, including the launch site boundary; (2) a list of the maximum quantity of energetic liquids, solid propellants and other explosives to be located at each explosive hazard facility, including explosive class and division; (3) a description of each activity to be conducted at each explosive hazard facility; and (4) An explosive site map using a scale sufficient to show whether distances and structural relationships satisfy the requirements of this part. 2 Per 14 CFR 420.63(a)(1), the launch site operator license requires identification of the locations of all hazard facilities. The Oxidizer Loading Area (OLA) is an area where concentrated oxidizer is added to a fueled vehicle, thereby creating an explosive hazard. Under 14 CFR 420.67, separation distances apply when this occurs, and Inhabited Building Distance (IBD) and Public Traffic Route Distance (PTRD) restrictions become active. The IBD requires members of the uninvolved public to leave surrounding facilities of a specified distance. For the JAA launch site operator license, the IBD maximum distance is 1,250 feet from the OLA. The PTRD is defined as the minimum distance permitted between a public highway or railroad line and an explosive hazard facility. For the JAA launch site operator license the PTRD distance is a radius of 750 feet from the OLA.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 1-3 INTRODUCTION impeding the use of Runways 18L-36R and 18R-36L by other aircraft. There are no existing inhabited buildings within the proposed OLA’s IBD. Section 2.1.1 provides additional information regarding the proposed OLA.

The JAA’s proposal for dedicated spaceport facilities and relocation of the OLA are subject to environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as amended (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] §4321 et seq). The FAA will determine whether the EA satisfies applicable environmental statutes and regulations and whether any significant environmental impacts may result from the proposed actions.

Subsequent to FAA’s environmental finding of the proposed actions analyzed in this EA, the FAA’s Federal actions would include approval of an update to the VQQ ALP depicting the dedicated spaceport facilities analyzed in this EA and approval of a modification of the JAA’s launch site operator license to include an update to the Explosive Site Plan. Section 2.1 of this EA provides additional information regarding the updated VQQ ALP and the updated Explosive Site Plan.

1.2 CECIL AIRPORT/CECIL SPACEPORT BACKGROUND

1.2.1 Airport VQQ is one of four airports that the JAA owns and operates in the City of Jacksonville/Duval County, Florida. VQQ encompasses approximately 6,100 acres in the southwestern corner of Duval County. The FAA classifies VQQ as a general aviation airport in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS).

The location of the Cecil Airport/Cecil Spaceport is shown on Figure 1-1. VQQ is approximately 15 miles southwest of the center of downtown Jacksonville, 30 miles west of the Atlantic Ocean, and 13 miles west of the St. Johns River. Major roads around VQQ include Normandy Boulevard, 103rd Street and Cecil Commerce Center Parkway. VQQ is approximately 22 miles southwest of Jacksonville International Airport (JAX), five miles southwest of Herlong Recreational Airport (HEG), and 23 miles southwest of Craig Municipal Airport (CRG).

1.2.2 2009 Final Environmental Assessment and 2015 Written Re-evaluation Environmental Assessment The FAA’s 2009 Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for Jacksonville Aviation Authority Launch Site Operator License at Cecil Field, Florida (2009 Final EA) analyzed the JAA’s proposal to offer VQQ as a commercial space launch site. The proposed federal action was the issuance of a launch site operator license to JAA. The federal action allowed the JAA to offer VQQ for piloted launches of RLVs. The FAA will require potential RLV operators to conduct separate NEPA analysis and obtain a separate launch vehicle operator license prior to conducting launch operations at VQQ.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 1-4 INTRODUCTION

FIGURE 1-1 CECIL AIRPORT LOCATION

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 1-5 INTRODUCTION

The 2009 Final EA examined the JAA’s proposal to offer the launch site to launch operators for two types of horizontal, piloted RLVs, referred to as Concept X and Concept Z RLVs. The 2009 Final EA considered a maximum of 48 annual launches of the Concept X RLV and 4 annual launches of the Concept Z RLV. The Concept X RLV is a dual-propulsion RLV. The Concept X RLV would take off from Runway 18L-36R using jet power and fly to the Offshore Warning Area (OWA), approximately 60 miles offshore, at an altitude of approximately 40,000 to 55,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Once the RLV reaches the OWA, rocket engines would ignite and the RLV would ascend until it reached an apogee of approximately 62 miles (330,000 feet MSL). Upon completion of its mission, the Concept X RLV would return for a horizontal landing on Runway 18L-36R by either restarting its jet engines or by gliding. As clarified in the 2015 Written Re-evaluation EA (2015 WREA), the Concept Z RLV is a two-part launch system consisting of a reusable carrier aircraft and a reusable piloted rocket or an expendable rocket. The carrier aircraft is powered by jet engines and designed/modified to carry the launch vehicle. The RLV would take off from Runway 18L-36R using jet power and fly to the OWA approximately 60 miles offshore, at an altitude of approximately 40,000 to 55,000 feet MSL. The two components would detach and the rocket engine of the launch vehicle would be ignited. The carrier aircraft would fly back to the Airport and land under jet engine power. The launch vehicle, which can be either suborbital or orbital, would complete its mission profile and either return for a horizontal landing on Runway 18L-36R by gliding or is expended approximately 100 miles east of the continental U.S., over the Atlantic Ocean. The RLVs would land on Runway 18L-36R. The 2009 Final EA did not include construction or modification to VQQ. Launches were to be conducted using existing infrastructure. The FAA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on June 25, 2009, and a launch site operator license to the JAA on January 11, 2010. The FAA approved the JAA’s launch site operator license for the years 2010-2015.

The FAA conducted a 2015 WREA of the 2009 Final EA in 2015 for the renewal of the JAA’s launch site operator license. The renewal authorized the JAA to continue to offer the Airport for the operation of RLVs for the years 2015-2020. The RLVs considered for operation at the Airport did not change (specifically Concept X and Concept Z RLVs) nor did the number of approved annual launches (48 for the Concept X RLV and 4 for the Concept Z RLV).

The 2015 WREA noted that some of the common propellants used by Concept X and Concept Z RLVs changed since the 2009 EA. Fuels that could be used in current RLV designs include rocket propellant-1 (RP-1), Jet-A fuel, ammonium perchlorate composite propellants (APCP), hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB), and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS). Oxidizers include nitrous oxide (N2O). The 2015 WREA noted that the 2009 EA did not include an analysis of the use or storage of ABS or APCP at VQQ, and these propellants were not defined in the VQQ 2010 Explosive Site Plan. However, because the use of these fuels is operator specific, the potential impacts of using or storing ABS or APCP would be analyzed in separate NEPA documentation associated with a launch vehicle operator license.

The FAA concluded in the 2015 WREA that the renewal of a launch site operator license to the JAA for the continued operation of the Airport as a commercial space launch site from 2015-2020 conforms to the prior environmental documentation, that the data contained in the 2009 EA remained substantially valid, that there are no significant environmental changes, and that all pertinent conditions and requirements of the prior approval have been met or will be met. The FAA renewed the JAA’s launch site operator license for five years (2015 – 2020) on January 6, 2015.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 1-6 INTRODUCTION

1.2.3 Spaceport Master Plan The 2012 Spaceport Master Plan describes a strategic plan to provide the ability for VQQ to meet the anticipated demands of operators of horizontal RLVs capable of delivering people, goods, and/or small satellites into a suborbital or orbital trajectory. The 2012 Spaceport Master Plan described: (1) the basic elements of the spaceport; (2) the long-term business and operational needs of the spaceport; and (3) the future infrastructure requirements of the spaceport. The 2012 Spaceport Master Plan discussed the benefits of grouping spaceport activities in an area of the Airport that minimizes conflicts with aeronautical and non-aeronautical activities and provides a unified spaceport environment.

As Section 1.1.1 notes, an important goal of the 2012 Spaceport Master Plan was to identify an OLA location that avoids the FAA’s requirement to close runways during oxidizer loading operations and that would prevent the need to evacuate buildings within the IBD during oxidizer loading operations and subsequent taxi/tow to the RLV takeoff position.3 A primary focus of the 2012 Spaceport Master Plan was to develop a spaceport operating plan that ensures the setback requirements for the vehicles when fully loaded with oxidizer and fuel and is compatible with all other existing and planned activities and development at Cecil Airport.

1.2.4 RLV Operator at VQQ Generation Orbit is an existing tenant at VQQ that shares hangar space with another tenant. Generation Orbit is conducting test flights of the carrier vehicle (a Lear).4 Generation Orbit is currently operating carrier vehicles at the Airport and plans to operate horizontal RLVs at VQQ in the near future (Olds, 2013). Generation Orbit must conduct NEPA analysis and obtain an FAA launch vehicle operator license prior to conducting suborbital and orbital launches at VQQ. Generation Orbit signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the JAA in December 2013 to conduct horizontal RLV launches at the Airport (JAA, 2013) and is in discussion with the JAA regarding the leasing of spaceport facilities that would be shared with other potential launch operators (see Appendix A).

1.2.5 Cecil Airport/Cecil Spaceport Existing Facilities VQQ has four active runways (Figure 1-2). Runway 18L-36R and Runway 18R-36L are oriented in a north/south direction and Runways 9L-27R and 9R-27L are oriented in an east/west direction. Runway 18L-36R is the primary runway at the Airport and is 12,504 feet long by 200 feet wide; Runway 18R-36L is 8,003 feet long by 200 feet wide; Runway 9L-27R is 4,439 feet long by 200 feet wide; and Runway 9R-27L is 8,003 feet long by 200 feet wide. The JAA’s launch site operator license approves the use of Runway 18L-36R for RLV horizontal launches and landings. The airfield’s existing taxiways provide access to and between the runways. Taxiways A and B are the primary parallel taxiways.

3 Per FAA memorandum issued on July 24, 2013 (Legal Interpretation of Questions Associated with 14 CFR Part 420), a RLV is not an explosive hazard facility. Part 420 does not apply to a horizontal RLV when rolling down the runway at a commercial launch site. Once the RLV is loaded with oxidizer at the OLA and Air Traffic Control clears the RLV for takeoff, the IBD and PTRD are no longer active. 4 The carrier aircraft is powered by jet engines and designed and/or modified to carry the RLV to a safe location and high altitude (approximately 40,000 ft MSL), where the two components detach and the rocket engine of the RLV is ignited.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 1-7 INTRODUCTION

FIGURE 1-2 AIRPORT OVERVIEW

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 1-8 INTRODUCTION

Several taxiway connectors connect the parallel taxiways to the runways and apron areas. The JAA uses a series of service roads around the airfield for maintenance and service operations. These service roads are used to access navigational aid equipment, perform ground maintenance operations, inspect perimeter fences, and maintain airfield security. The Airport supports a mix of aircraft operations. These include air taxi/commuter aircraft, general aviation aircraft, and military aircraft. The Airport had 95,794 operations in 2013 (FAA, 2015a).

As Figure 1-2 shows, the JAA has developed the northwest quadrant of the Airport for aviation use. Airport tenants occupy all of the existing hangar space in this area. Some vacant areas in the northwest section of the Airport are under lease. Other areas in this section are not developable due to environmental contamination.5 The northeast quadrant of Cecil Airport is planned for future aviation and non-aviation use, and includes a planned third parallel runway, areas for commercial and industrial land uses, and infrastructure improvements (e.g., on-Airport access roads). The southeast quadrant is planned for future general aviation development. . A majority of the southwest quadrant of the Airport property is reserved for conservation measures (i.e., portion of Cecil Field Natural and Recreation Corridor Preservation Area and gopher tortoise recipient site).

Since acquiring an FAA launch site operator license in 2010 and renewal in 2015, the JAA has planned, managed, and promoted Cecil Airport as a dual-use facility (airport and spaceport). The FAA approved the JAA’s launch site operator license using existing VQQ facilities and designating areas on the airfield to accommodate future RLV launches. Figure 1-3 shows the existing spaceport facilities and designated areas.

The Airport has a full-service Fixed Based Operator (FBO), Jacksonville JetPort, which provides a variety of airport and aircraft services to tenant and transient aircraft including aircraft fueling, maintenance, and other line services. The Jacksonville Fire and Rescue Department provides aircraft rescue and firefighting services to the Airport 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Air Traffic Control (ATCT) is operated under the FAA Contract Tower Program. An Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) is located on the airfield and provides meteorological information to the ATCT and national airport weather reporting system. Other tenants include, but are not limited to, Generation Orbit, Boeing, Army National Guard, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Coast Guard.

1.3 FAA ROLES Upon environmental approval of the Proposed Action, the FAA would approve changes to the VQQ ALP depicting the dedicated spaceport facilities and approve a modification of the JAA’s launch site operator license to include an update to the Explosive Site Plan.

5 The contamination is due to fuel tank leaks and the presence of other hazardous materials that occurred before the United States Navy transferred the former naval air station to the JAA in 1999. The environmental contamination site is being monitored and has Land Use Controls (LUC) restrictions, to control and limit the activity that can occur in this area. An annual LUC inspection is performed within this area to ensure that the LUCs are maintained.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 1-9 POTENTIAL RLV STORAGE/PROCESSING/ HTPB FUEL STORAGE BLDG 860,14

OPS CENTER, PAX HOLDING, MEDIA MINIMUM ALLOWABLE SEPARATION DISTANCES CENTER BLDG 880 ILD ILD EXPLOSIVE HAZARD AREA IBD/PTRD INCOMPATIBLE COMPATIBLE SPACEPORT USE, TEMPORARY OXIDIZER STORAGE AREA - PRIMARY 100' 100' 50' TEMPORARY RLV STORAGE TEMPORARY OXIDIZER STORAGE AREA - AUXILIARY 100' 100' 50' OXIDIZER STORAGE LIQUID FUEL LIQUID FUEL STORAGE AREA 50' 100' 5' AREA TRANSPORTATION HTPB FUEL STORAGE AREA N/A 100' N/A EXPLOSIVE RLV PROCESSING BUILDINGS N/A 100' N/A (PRIMARY)(TOSA) ROUTE SITE PLAN LIQUID FUEL LOADING AREA 50' 100' 5' LIQUID FUEL OXIDIZER LOADING AREA 1,250' / 750' 559' N/A STORAGE AREA RUNWAY 9L-27R PAX LOADING AREA 1,250' / 750' 559' N/A RUNWAY 9R-27L RLV OPERATING AREA 1,250 / 750' 559' N/A TAXIWAY B

OXIDIZER TRANSPORTATION ROUTE LIQUID FUEL

ARFF FACILITY TAXIWAY C LOADING AREA ADMIN BLDG 82

TEMPORARY OXIDIZER CLOSEST INHABITED PUBLIC ACCESS BUILDING (1800'-0") FENCE LINE STORAGE AREA (SPACEPORT BOUNDARY) (AUXILIARY)(TOSA) OXIDIZER TAXIWAY D TRANSPORTATION

TAXIWAY A ROUTE

RUNWAY 18R-36L 750' PUBLIC TRAFFIC ROUTE

RUNWAY 18L-36R DISTANCE (PTRD)

CLOSEST PUBLIC 1,250' INHABITED ACCESS (993'-0") RLV BUILDING DISTANCE (IBD) AREA PROPERTY LINE OXIDIZER LOADING AREA PAX LOADING AREA Figure 1-3 CLOSEST PUBLIC EXISTING TRAFFIC ROUTE SPACEPORT (2530'-0") FACILITIES

750' 0 750' 1,500' INTRODUCTION

The FAA’s approval of changes to the VQQ ALP and approval of a modification of the JAA’s launch site operator license to include an update to the Explosive Site Plan are considered Federal actions under NEPA. Therefore, the FAA is responsible for analyzing the potential environmental impacts associated with each aspect of the Proposed Action.

As these are connected federal actions, the potential environmental impacts of both are analyzed in this EA. The FAA is the lead federal agency and is preparing this EA in accordance with NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508); FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures; and FAA Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions.

The FAA licenses and regulates U.S. commercial space launch and reentry activity, as well as the operation of non-federal launch and reentry sites, as authorized by Executive Order (EO) 12465, Commercial Expendable Launch Vehicle Activities, and the Commercial Space Launch Act of 2011 (51 U.S.C. Subtitle V, Chapter 509, §§ 50901-50923). It is a mission of the FAA to ensure public health and safety and the safety of property while protecting the national security and foreign policy interests of the U.S. during commercial launch and reentry operations. In addition, the FAA is directed to encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial space launches and reentries.

The FAA has the responsibility, under the Commercial Space Launch Act, to do the following: » Promote economic growth and entrepreneurial activity through use of the space environment for peaceful purposes. » Encourage the U.S. private sector to provide launch vehicles, reentry vehicles, and associated services by simplifying and expediting the issuance and transfer of commercial licenses and by facilitating and encouraging the use of government-developed space technology. » Ensure that the Secretary of Transportation provides oversight and coordinates the conduct of commercial launch and reentry operations, issues and transfers commercial licenses authorizing those operations, and protects public health and safety, safety of property, and national security and foreign policy interests of the U.S. » Facilitate the strengthening and expansion of the U.S. space transportation infrastructure, including the enhancement of U.S. launch sites and launch-site support facilities, and the development of reentry sites, with federal, state, and private sector involvement, to support the full range of U.S. space related activities.

1.3.1 Launch Site Operator License A license to operate a launch site authorizes a licensee to offer its launch site to a launch vehicle operator for each launch point, launch vehicle type, and weight class identified in the licenses application and upon which the licensing determination is based. Issuance of a license to operate a launch site does not relieve a licensee of its obligation to comply with any other laws or regulations, nor does it confer any proprietary, property, or exclusive rights in the use of airspace or outer space (14 CFR §420.41). A launch site operator license remains in effect for five years from the date of issuance unless the license is

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 1-11 INTRODUCTION surrendered, suspended, or revoked before the expiration of the term. The license is renewable upon application by the licensee (14 CFR §420.43). The JAA obtained a launch site operator license for the Airport in 2010. The FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) renewed the JAA’s launch site operator license in 2015 for another five-year period (2015-2020). Subsequent to FAA’s environmental approval of the EA, FAA AST would approve a modification of the JAA’s launch site operator license to include an update to the Explosive Site Plan.

1.3.2 Airport Layout Plan The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 directs the Secretary of Transportation to maintain a plan (i.e., an ALP) for developing public use airports (49 U.S.C. Chapter 471). An ALP is an FAA-approved plan that depicts both existing facilities and planned development for an airport and is required by statute to be up-to-date [49 U.S.C. § 47107(a)(16)]. The Office of Airports within the FAA is responsible for ensuring the national airport system is safe, efficient, and environmentally responsible while meeting the needs of the traveling public. The ALP serves as a critical planning tool that depicts both existing facilities and planned future development for an airport.

The dedicated spaceport facilities analyzed in this EA and shown on the VQQ ALP include the following: » Proposed Hangar Development » Future Apron » Future Taxiway B2 » Future OLA/Passenger Loading Area o 1,250’ IBD o 750’ PTRD » Future Primary Oxidizer Storage Area (100’ IBD/ILD) » Future Liquid Propellant Loading (ILD 50’, IBD 100’) » Future Solid Rocket Motor Storage Bunker » Oxidizer Transportation Route » Support Facilities and Infrastructure (utility connections, FAA compliant dry stormwater system, Airport fencing)

As part of the ALP review process, the FAA Office of Airports (ARP) initiates coordination of airspace studies with the FAA Air Traffic Organization (ATO); circulates the ALP to other FAA offices and divisions for review and comment; and coordinates with the airport sponsor to resolve outstanding issues. Subsequent to FAA’s environmental approval of the EA, FAA ARP would approve an update to the VQQ ALP depicting the dedicated spaceport facilities analyzed in this EA.

1.3.3 Letter of Agreement As part of the launch site operator license application process, the JAA negotiated and entered into a Letter of Agreement (LOA) to accommodate the flight parameters of future RLVs launching from Cecil Spaceport. Effective October 1, 2009, the LOA between the Jacksonville Center (ZJX), Miami Center (ZMA), Jacksonville Approach Control (JAX), Cecil ATC Tower (VQQ TWR), Fleet Area Control and Surveillance

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 1-12 INTRODUCTION

Facility Jacksonville (FACSFACJAX), and the Jacksonville Aviation Authority (JAA)/Cecil Spaceport Operations Office (CSOO) provides procedures for the coordination of airspace regarding licensed launch operations into the National Airspace System from Cecil Spaceport. The LOA does not cover ATC procedures for the actual launching of any RLV. Future additions to this LOA, or in separate documentation, as necessary, will describe the ATC procedures for launching of an RLV from Cecil Spaceport.

The FAA AST, the FAA ATO, affected military air traffic control agencies, and airspace users such as airlines and private pilots coordinated an RLV operating area. JAA’s launch site operator license and 2009 Final EA contains conceptual RLV routes from Cecil Spaceport to the RLV operating area. Coordination with the FAA Office of Air Traffic (ATO) resulted in the identification of a flight corridor such that a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) would describe Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) 24 hours prior to a scheduled launch of an RLV from Cecil Spaceport.

According to the 2009 Final EA and FAA FONSI (signed June 25, 2009), the future operation of RLVs at VQQ would not significantly affect airspace.

1.4 NEPA PROCESS The purpose of NEPA is to ensure full disclosure and consideration of environmental information in federal agency decision-making. NEPA serves to inform the public of potential impacts of, and alternatives to, a proposed federal action before decisions are made and actions are taken.

This EA evaluates the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that may result from the Proposed Action described in Chapter 2. The Proposed Action must meet all FAA safety, risk, and financial responsibility requirements per 14 CFR Part 400 and not adversely affect the safety, utility, or efficiency of the Airport per 49 USC § 47107(a)(16).

1.5 PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose and need provides the foundation for identifying reasonable alternatives to a Proposed Action. According to FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, Paragraph 405(c), the Purpose and Need identifies the problem facing the proponent (i.e., the “need” for the action), the proposed solution to the problem (i.e., the “purpose” of the action), and the proposed timeframe for implementing the action.

1.5.1 FAA’s Purpose and Need The Purpose and Need for the FAA ARP federal action (ALP approval) is to ensure that proposed development does not adversely affect the safety, utility, or efficiency of VQQ. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 47107(a)(16), the FAA Administrator (under authority delegated from the Secretary of Transportation) must approve any revisions or modifications to an ALP before a revision or modification takes effect.

The Purpose and Need for the FAA AST’s federal action (approval of modification to launch site operator license) is to fulfill the FAA’s responsibilities under the Commercial Space Launch Act to protect public health and safety, safety of property, and national security and foreign policy interests of the United

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 1-13 INTRODUCTION

Stated. FAA AST encourages, facilitates, and promotes private sector commercial space launch and reentry activities that will strengthen and expand U.S. space transportation infrastructure.

1.5.2 The JAA’s Purpose and Need The JAA’s purpose and need for the Proposed Action includes minimizing conflicts between spaceport activities and aeronautical/non-aeronautical activities, improving operational efficiency, and providing for unified spaceport facilities. The JAA’s proposed action would enhance the compatibility of airport and spaceport operations at VQQ by minimizing conflicts between spaceport and aeronautical/non- aeronautical activities. The JAA’s grouping of commercial space transportation facilities in unified areas of the airport would increase operational efficiency and assist the JAA in meeting existing demand for dedicated commercial space transportation facilities at the Airport. Potential RLV operators have expressed the need for dedicated facilities during discussions with the JAA. Appendix A contains a supporting document that describes site-specific requests from a prospective RLV operator about preliminary and conceptual facility layouts and project parameters.

1.5.2.1 Enhance the compatibility of airport and spaceport operations The Airport’s existing OLA location requires that both Runway 18L-36R and Runway 18R-36L be closed to aviation operations, up to approximately 30 minutes (operator dependent) 50 times a year, during RLV loading of oxidizer. By relocating the OLA, an RLV operator could use an OLA without impeding use of Runways 18L-36R or 18R-36L by other aircraft. The JAA proposes to relocate the existing OLA in order to not impede on the use of Runways 18L-36R or 18R-36L by other aircraft. Relocating the OLA would enhance the compatibility of airport and spaceport operations by minimizing conflicts between spaceport and aeronautical operations and activities.

1.5.2.2 Group commercial space transportation facilities/designated areas Existing spaceport facilities at VQQ are currently located in areas of the Airport that have been substantially developed for aviation use. The JAA’s 2012 Spaceport Master Plan described the benefits of grouping spaceport activities in an area of the Airport that would minimize conflicts with aeronautical and non-aeronautical activities, add operational efficiency, and provide for a unified spaceport environment. Grouping spaceport facilities in a designated area can reduce RLV taxi time and minimize runway crossings. Minimizing runway crossings reduces the potential for runway incursions. The JAA’s proposal to group commercial spaceport facilities in designated areas would result in a more operationally efficient unified area for commercial space transportation activities at the Airport.

1.6 AGENCY AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Agency consultation and coordination were conducted to obtain meaningful input regarding the Proposed Action and its potential environmental impacts.

1.6.1 Early Notification Letters An early notification letter was distributed to various federal, state, and local agencies and Native American tribes on January 21, 2015, announcing the JAA’s Proposed Action to construct dedicated spaceport facilities.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 1-14 INTRODUCTION

The early notification letter was initiated to: » provide the agencies with information about the Proposed Action; » inform the agencies who may have an interest in the Proposed Action; » inform the agencies whom the Proposed Action may affect; » obtain feedback from those agencies about the Proposed Action; and » provide the agencies an opportunity for early comments.

The early notification letter is located in Appendix B-1, along with a list of the agencies contacted. During the early notification process, the following agencies provided comments: » Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Clearinghouse; and » St. Johns River Water Management District.

The response letters from agencies are located in Appendix B-2.

1.6.2 Draft EA Notification and Distribution In accordance with NEPA, CEQ Regulations, FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, and FAA Order 5050.4B, the FAA has initiated a public review and comment period for this Draft EA. Interested parties are invited to review the Draft EA during normal business hours at the Airport (13365 Aeronautical Circle Jacksonville, FL 32221, (904) 573-1611) and the FAA Orlando Airport District Office ( FAA ORL/ADO) (5950 Hazeltine National Drive #400, Orlando, FL 32822, (407) 812-6331). An electronic version of the Draft EA is available on the JAA website (www.flyjacksonville.com).

The JAA invites interested agencies, organizations, Native American tribes, and members of the public to submit comments on all aspects of this Draft EA. Comments should be as specific as possible and clearly state concerns or recommendations related to the issues addressed in this Draft EA. All comments on this Draft EA will be considered by the FAA during the preparation of Final EA. Comments or questions on the Draft EA can be addressed to the Jacksonville Aviation Authority, Attn. Mr. Todd Lindner, CM, IAP, 14201 Pecan Park Road, Jacksonville, Florida 32218 or submitted by email to [email protected]. Comments on the Draft EA, in writing, will need to be submitted 30 days from the date of publication of the Notice of Availability.

1.7 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS Additional environmental permits and requirements may include the following: » an Environmental Resource Permit from the St. Johns River Water Management District; » a Nationwide Permit No. 7 from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); » a City of Jacksonville 10-Set Review (also referred to as the Civil Review Plan); » a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for construction; and » a City of Jacksonville Site Work Permit.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 1-15 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 2-1 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes the facilities and designated areas of the Proposed Action (including a description of RLV ground operations) at VQQ and provides a description and evaluation of reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action.

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action includes the following designated spaceport facilities and is depicted on Figure 2-1. » Proposed Hangar Development - 46,000 square feet.; RLV storage, assembly, and processing; hybrid rocket motor casings containing solid fuel (e.g., ABS, HTPB) can be stored in the proposed hangar » Future Concrete Apron - 200 feet by 300 feet; adjacent to proposed hangar » Future Asphalt Taxiway B2 - 200 feet by 75 feet taxiway; provides direct access to Taxiway B » Future OLA/Passenger Loading Area – approximately 3,000 feet east of Runway 27R’s threshold o 1,250’ IBD o 750’ PTRD » Future Primary Oxidizer Storage Area (100’ IBD/ILD) – located on the western portion of the proposed apron; » Future Liquid Propellant Loading (ILD 50’, IBD 100’) – located on proposed concrete apron » Future Solid Rocket Motor Storage Bunker - modified use of existing on-Airport storage bunkers for storage of solid rocket motors » Oxidizer Transportation Route – designated oxidizer transportation route » Support Facilities and Infrastructure- utility connections, FAA compliant dry stormwater system, secure Airport fencing

Note that Figure 2-1 shows other future aviation and spaceport related facilities (i.e., future Taxiway E, future liquid fuel storage area, and approach roadway phase 2) that are not part of the Proposed Action. These future facilities would be analyzed under separate NEPA documentation.

The proposed hangar, apron, taxiway, and relocation of the OLA change the locations of spaceport- related actions at the Airport that were analyzed in the 2009 Final EA and subsequent 2015 WREA. For comparison purposes, the Proposed Action in the 2009 Final EA/2015 WREA was for the FAA to issue a launch site operator license to the JAA to operate a commercial space launch site at the Airport.6

6 The 2015 WREA analyzed the renewal of the JAA’s existing launch site operator license.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 2-2 EXISTING RLV STORAGE/ Š PROCESSING PRIMARY OXIDIZER 10748 Deerwood Park Blvd. S. STORAGE AREA (TOSA) Jacksonville, Florida 32256-0597 www.rsandh.com

PUBLIC ACCESS RUNWAY 9L-27R FENCE LINE RUNWAY 9R-27L TAXIWAY B

EXISTING LIQUID FUEL ARFF FACILITY STORAGE AREA (IBD-50'/ILD -100') ADMIN TAXIWAY C BLDG 82 EXISTING-LIQUID FUEL LOADING AREA

OXIDIZER TRANSPORTATION ROUTE TAXIWAY D

TAXIWAY A 103RD STREET EXISTING-TEMPORARY OXIDIZER STORAGE AREA RUNWAY 18R-36L SECONDARY (100' IBD/ILD) RUNWAY 18L-36R EXISTING PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVED

FUTURE 1,250' INHABITED BUILDING TAXIWAY E DISTANCE (IBD) 1250' 750' PROPERTY LINE 750' PUBLIC TRAFFIC TAXIWAY E (LAUNCH SITE ROUTE DISTANCE (PTRD) EXTENSION TAXIWAY E1 BOUNDARY) SEE DETAILED VIEW APPROACH ROADWAY PHASE 1

FUTURE OXIDIZER APPROACH ROADWAY LOADING AREA/ PHASE 2 PASSENGER LOADING AREA PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

The types of RLVs approved by the 2009 Final EA/2015 WREA for launch and reentry at the Airport are the Concept X and Concept Z RLVs. Approved spaceport activities would use existing Airport infrastructure. The Proposed Action in this EA, when compared to the approved action in the 2009 Final EA, would change the location of the following spaceport activities: » assembling the various RLV components; » conducting checkout activities; » loading the propellants into the RLV; » loading the pilot, passengers, and other payload; and » towing or moving the RLV to the proper launch or takeoff location.

Compared to the 2009 Final EA, the Proposed Action analyzed in this EA would not change: » the number or type of RLV launches that could occur at the Airport under the JAA’s existing launch site operator license, the launch location (i.e., Runway 18L-36R); » departing the Airport as an aircraft, igniting rocket engines once the RLV has reach a designated area of the Atlantic Ocean; » collecting any debris from the runway prior to RV landing; » recovering and transporting the RLV from the runway after landing; » airspace agreements for RLV launches; or » transporting the RLV, RLV components, or propellants to the Airport via road, rail, air, or a combination of these methods.

2.1.1 Detail Descriptions of the Proposed Action Figure 2-1 shows proposed infrastructure and dedicated spaceport facilities for the Proposed Action. The proposed infrastructure (e.g. new hangar, apron, and taxiway) is comparable to existing Airport hangars and facilities. The following subsections describe the proposed facilities/designated areas in more detail. Section 2.1.2 describes the RLV operation from the hangar to takeoff and landing at the Airport.

2.1.1.1 Proposed Hangar for RLV Storage, Assembly, and Maintenance The proposed hangar is to be located near the northeast intersection of Runways 18L-36R and 9L-27R. The proposed hangar would be 46,000 square feet and would be constructed adjacent to the proposed apron. RLV(s) would be assembled and stored in the proposed hangar, rather than in an existing shared hangar in the northwest quadrant of the Airport.

Due to the inert nature of solid fuel, potentially as many as ten hybrid rocket motor casings containing solid fuel (e.g., ABS, HTPB) could be stored in the proposed hangar rather than the existing HTPB storage area. The quantities and types of solid fuel stored in the hangar would be operator dependent. The NEPA documentation associated with an RLV operator’s launch vehicle operator license would specify and analyze the quantities and types of these fuels for RLV launches.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 2-4 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1.1.2 Future Concrete Apron The proposed concrete apron is approximately 200 feet by 300 feet. The concrete apron would be designed and constructed with pavement strength to accommodate Aircraft Design Group V aircraft. The RLV would roll out of the proposed hangar onto the apron and receive Jet-A fuel to top off the fuel tanks at the liquid propellant loading area. Jet-A fuel would be delivered to the RLV in accordance with the Airport’s existing fuel delivery process for fueling conventional aircraft.

Oxidizers (e.g., N2O, LOX) would be brought in by tanker trucks on an as-needed basis (i.e., prior to an RLV operation), and would be dependent on the RLV operator. Tanker trucks would temporarily park at the designated primary oxidizer storage area on the proposed apron and bring oxidizer to the RLV during loading/unloading for flights at the OLA.

2.1.1.3 Future B2 Connector Taxiway Proposed connector Taxiway B2 would connect the proposed apron and Taxiway B. Connector Taxiway B2 would be composed of asphalt and would meet Taxiway Design Group IV standards with Aircraft Design Group V separation distances.

2.1.1.4 Relocated OLA The proposed OLA would be approximately 3,000 feet east of Runway 27R’s threshold. It would be positioned 300 feet north of the runway object free area (ROFA) for Runway 9L-27R, 368 feet south of the Taxiway B taxiway object free area (TOFA) and 355 feet west of the Taxiway B-1 TOFA. Arriving and departing aircraft at the Airport would continue to use all available runways.

The relocation of the OLA allows for the continued use of Runways 18L-36R and 18R-36L by other aircraft during RLV activities at the OLA. Additionally, the OLA provides the FAA required separation distances under the spaceport licensing requirements described in 14 CFR Part 420. An IBD setback is associated with the existing OLA at the Airport. The IBD setback around the proposed OLA at the Airport is 1,250 feet. During the loading of oxidizer, the IBD requires all uninvolved members of the public to vacate the area and any buildings within that setback. There are no existing buildings within the IBD of the proposed OLA. A small portion of the hangar development area, as proposed, would be located within the proposed OLA’s IBD. However as noted earlier, the IBD reflects the Public Area Distance as defined in 14 CFR Part 420.5 and no members of the uninvolved public would be present with the proposed hangar development when the OLA is active.

Oxidizer loading operations are more hazardous than the aviation fuel loading operations for the following reasons: » The RLV already contains aviation fuel; therefore, adding an oxidizer is considered a hazard. » A common oxidizer, LOX, is cryogenic and requires unique handling and equipment.

» N2O is stored at high pressure at room temperature and requires special loading equipment.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 2-5 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Loading and securing passengers (if applicable) onto the RLV would occur at the OLA. The designated oxidizer transportation route is the path that tanker trucks with oxidizer would travel from the future primary oxidizer storage area on the proposed apron to the OLA.

2.1.1.5 Supporting Facilities Supporting facilities associated with the Proposed Action include: » modification of the use of existing storage bunkers for the storage of solid rocket motors; » removal of approximately 1,400 linear feet of existing Airport secure fencing and replacement with approximately 1,400 linear feet of Airport secure fencing; » construction of a stormwater treatment basin (e.g., FAA compliant basin(s) to collect rainfall runoff from new impervious surfaces associated with the Proposed Action); and, » utility connections

The existing liquid fuel (e.g., RP-1 and Jet-A fuel) storage areas would remain in the same locations.

2.1.2 RLV Ground Operations As previously described, the Proposed Action would change the location of the RLV storage, select propellant storage, and the OLA. Therefore, the ground operations of RLVs (e.g., pre-flight and post-flight) would change from the areas analyzed in the 2009 Final EA and 2015 WREA. The following paragraphs describe how the Proposed Action changes the ground operations associated with RLVs.

2.1.2.1 Pre-Flight Activities This section describes the general pre-flight activities associated with the Concept X and Z RLVs that would change due to the Proposed Action. The 2009 Final EA and 2015 WREA analyzed pre-flight activities from a hangar and propellant storage located in the northwest quadrant of the Airport. Additionally, the OLA analyzed in the 2009 Final EA and 2015 WREA was located at the northern end of Runway 18L-36R. The Proposed Action would move all flight preparation activities to the proposed hangar/apron location and the proposed OLA location (see Figure 2-1).

Propellant Loading – Aircraft on the airfield would not experience interruptions during RLV propellant loading operations with the Proposed Action. Examples of RLV propellant loading scenarios are described in the following paragraphs. However, the types of propellants used are ultimately operator-dependent (e.g., an RLV operator may not require the use of RP-1). » Concept X RLV: The Concept X RLV would roll out of the proposed hangar and receive Jet-A fuel to top off the fuel tanks. Jet-A fuel would be delivered to the RLV at the hangar in accordance with the Airport’s existing fuel delivery process for fueling conventional aircraft. At this point, there would be no oxidizer on board the RLV. Other aircraft operating on the airfield would be required to maintain a 50-foot distance from the RLV, similar to conventional aircraft operating practices.

When Jet-A fueling is complete, RP-1 fuel would be loaded onto the RLV. Similar to the delivery of Jet-A fuel, RP-1 fuel would be delivered to the RLV at the hangar in accordance with the

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 2-6 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Airport’s existing fuel delivery process for fueling conventional aircraft. At this point, other aircraft would be required to maintain a 50-foot distance from the RLV.

The RLV would taxi south on new Taxiway B2 to reach Taxiway B, then east on Taxiway B, and south on Taxiway B1 to access the OLA. Refer to Section 2.1.1 for the proposed location of the OLA. The Concept X RLV would be met by a LOX tanker truck and any required portable filtering and pumping equipment at the OLA. This would require all other aircraft to maintain a safe distance from the RLV. While the LOX tanker truck is in transit to and from the RLV, the tanker truck is required to maintain a 100-foot intraline distance from all aircraft.7 The LOX truck and portable equipment would return to the designated temporary oxidizer storage area on the proposed apron. In the event of inclement weather, the RLV would be de-fueled and removed from the airfield, and the launch would be cancelled.

» Concept Z RLV: The Concept Z RLV would follow similar operational and safety procedures as Concept X RLV, except this vehicle would roll out of its hangar with the solid fuel installed. The vehicle would receive Jet-A fuel in the apron area to top off the fuel tanks. Also, instead of LOX

being added, this vehicle could require the loading of N2O at the OLA.

Pilot, Passenger, and Payload Loading – The RLV pilot would board the RLV at the proposed hangar/apron area, prior to the RLV taxiing to the OLA. After the oxidizer is loaded and safety checks are complete, passengers are loaded onto the RLV at the proposed OLA. Procedures for passenger loading include: » arrival/departure of any necessary vehicle ingress/egress aids (stairs, ladders); » docking/undocking of ingress/egress aids to vehicle; » arrival/departure of the passenger-carrying vehicle; » loading of passengers; » securing of passenger cabin; » final vehicle pre-flight checks; and » presentation of passenger safety and emergency procedures.

Payload would be added to the RLV at the proposed hangar/apron area or the proposed OLA. The location for adding payload is operator dependent and would be analyzed in the RLV operator’s launch vehicle operator license.

Runway Access - Once the RLV is loaded with oxidizer and passengers (if applicable) at the OLA and the support equipment and personnel have safely left the OLA, the RLV would taxi or be towed to the end of Runway 18L for an immediate southerly departure. From the proposed OLA, the RLV would taxi or be towed north on Taxiway B1, west on Taxiway B, north on Taxiway A, and east on Taxiway A1 to reach the end of Runway 18L.

7 According to 14 CFR 420, the intraline distance is the minimum distance permitted between any two explosive hazard facilities.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 2-7 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

All RLV flight activities (i.e., takeoff, flight path, landing) would be the same as those analyzed in the 2009 Final EA and 2015 WREA.

2.1.2.2 Post-Flight Activities Post-flight activities would occur in the same manner as described in the 2009 Final EA and 2015 WREA. However, these activities would occur in different locations due to the Proposed Action of this EA. Rather than occurring at the existing OLA or hangar in the northwest quadrant of the airfield, post-flight activities would occur at the proposed OLA or at the proposed hangar.

For normal launches, all of the oxidizer would be consumed during the RLV powered flight. In the event the oxidizer is not completely consumed or released, the RLV would be moved to an area with an established safety clear zone (i.e., proposed OLA). The remaining oxidizer and fuel would be removed onto a tanker truck, which would return to the designated temporary oxidizer storage area on the proposed apron or leave the Airport, in accordance with safety procedures developed as part of the JAA’s existing launch site operator license. After safety checks of the RLV are completed, post-flight activities would also include: » transporting the RLV from the runway to the proposed hangar (either by ground service equipment or under power); » passenger and pilot deplaning; and » post-flight checkouts and inspections.

2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND EVALUATED NEPA, the CEQ regulations, and FAA Orders 1050.1E, Change 1 and 5050.4B require an analysis of alternatives that satisfy the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action. This serves as a basis for the comparison of alternatives and may prompt the selection of an alternative that has fewer environmental effects. In addition, NEPA requires agencies to consider a “no action” alternative in their NEPA analyses and to compare the effects of not taking action with the effects of the action alternative(s).

The JAA does not plan to seek a launch site operator license for other airports that it owns and operates. As a result, this EA does not consider the Proposed Action at other JAA airport locations.

2.2.1 Evaluation Criteria As Section 1.5 describes, the JAA’s Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action is to: (1) enhance the compatibility of airport and spaceport operations and (2) group commercial space transportation facilities/designated areas. Section 1.5 discusses the FAA’s Purpose and Need to ensure that the proposed development does not adversely affect the safety, utility, or efficiency of the Airport and promotes space development in accordance with the Commercial Space Launch Act.

2.2.1.1 Enhance the Compatibility of Airport and Spaceport Operations by Relocating the OLA This criterion considers the enhancement of the compatibility of Airport and spaceport operations by allowing aviation operations to continue during the loading of oxidizer onto an RLV. The Airport’s existing OLA location requires that both Runway 18L-36R and Runway 18R-36L be closed to aviation operations,

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 2-8 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES up to approximately 30 minutes (operator dependent) 50 times a year, during RLV loading of oxidizer. A second consideration in this criterion is avoiding impacts to existing and planned development within the OLA’s IBD, which requires the evacuation of uninvolved members of the public within inhabited buildings in the IBD during oxidizer loading activities.

2.2.1.2 Group Commercial Space Transportation Facilities and Designated Areas This criterion considers grouping spaceport facilities in designated areas of the Airport to minimize conflicts between aeronautical and non-aeronautical activities. The criterion analyzes RLV movements on the airfield as a result of the location of the proposed development, specifically the distance the RLV would have to travel to the proposed OLA (efficiency of operations) and the number of times the RLV would cross an active runway (safety of operations). The FAA considers runway incursions8 serious safety issues (FAA, 2012). FAA addresses this concern through various airfield design requirements, air traffic control requirements, and standard operating procedures for pilots. These methods include safe runway crossing activities. The FAA encourages airport sponsors to minimize runway crossings in order to minimize the potential for runway incursions. This criterion considers reducing the number of RLV runway crossings as a way to enhance the airfield’s operational safety.

2.2.1.3 Additional Infrastructure to Support Spaceport Facilities This criterion quantifies the additional infrastructure, such as taxiways and access roads, needed in support of spaceport facilities. Additional infrastructure can potentially increase design and construction costs. Spaceport facility locations requiring less support infrastructure are considered more practicable or reasonable when compared to locations with greater support infrastructure.

2.2.1.4 Potential Wetland Impacts This criterion considers a location’s potential wetland impacts. Although this is not the only environmental indicator, wetland impacts is one of the special purpose laws that a NEPA document analyzes. Executive Order (EO) 11990, Protection of Wetlands, states that federal agencies (e.g., the FAA) should avoid, to the greatest extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands, and should avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. Impacts should only be allowed if there is no practicable alternative to a proposed action, and when a proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands. The analysis evaluates each of the alternative locations based on the approximate acreage of wetlands potentially impacted. Alternative locations having lesser wetland impacts are considered more practicable or reasonable when compared to those with greater wetland impacts.

2.2.2 Alternatives Evaluation The JAA’s 2012 Spaceport Master Plan considered four potential OLA locations (1, 2, 3, and 4) and four potential spaceport facility locations (A, B, C, and D).

8 According to the FAA, a runway incursion is any occurrence at an [airport] involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle, or person on a protected area of a surface designated for the landing and takeoff of aircraft.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 2-9 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.2.2.1 Alternative OLA Locations The 2012 Spaceport Master Plan assessed four alternative OLA locations (1, 2, 3, and 4) (see Figure 2-2). The alternative OLA locations were originally assessed in the Spaceport Master Plan for their impact on aircraft operations, building occupancy, emergency egress and operator convenience, and vehicle traffic. FAA regulations regarding when the IBD is active have changed since the time of the 2012 Spaceport Master Plan. Therefore, some of the analysis included in the 2012 Spaceport Master Plan is no longer applicable (i.e., activation of the IBD during RLV taxiing) and is not applicable in this alternatives analysis. This alternatives analysis uses the criterion described in Section 2.2.1.1.

Alternative 1 – Alternative 1 is located at the north end of the partial extension of Taxiway E. The ALP shows this area as planned for future aviation use. The FAA FONSI for the 2012 Cecil Airport Northern Development EA environmentally approved the development of hangars and apron in the northeastern portion of the Airport’s property adjacent to Taxiway E.

Enhance the Compatibility of Airport and Spaceport Operations by Relocating the OLA: The location of Alternative 1 OLA would not affect airfield operations on Runways 18L-36R and 18R-36L. However, when oxidizer activities occur at this location, and the IBD becomes active, the uninvolved members of the public within buildings, located in the IBD safety distance of 1,250 feet, would be required to leave the IBD. This temporary evacuation of uninvolved members of the public would occur for up to approximately 30 minutes (operator dependent) 50 times a year. The loading of oxidizer at Alternative 1 OLA is not compatible with the Airport’s planned aviation development. Therefore, relocation of the existing OLA to the Alternative 1 location would not enhance the compatibility of airport and spaceport operations.

Alternative 2 – Alternative 2 OLA is south of the midpoint of the partial Taxiway E extension. Similar to Alternative 1 OLA, the JAA plans show this area planned for future aviation use (i.e., aviation hangars and apron).

Enhance the Compatibility of Airport and Spaceport Operations by Relocating the OLA: Similar to the Alternative 1 OLA location, Alternative 2 OLA would not affect airfield operations on Runways 18L-36R and 18R-36L. However, as with Alternative 1 OLA, when oxidizer activities occur at this location, and the IBD becomes active, the uninvolved members of the public in buildings located in the IBD would be required to leave. This temporary evacuation of persons would occur for up to approximately 30 minutes (operator dependent) 50 times a year. The loading of oxidizer at Alternative 2 OLA is not compatible with the Airport’s planned aviation development. Therefore, relocation of the existing OLA to the Alternative 2 location would not enhance the compatibility of airport and spaceport operations.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 2-10 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE 2-2 ALTERNATIVE OLA LOCATIONS OVERVIEW

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 2-11 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 3 – Alternative 3 OLA is on Runway 18L-36R, at the intersection with Taxiway A3.

Enhance the Compatibility of Airport and Spaceport Operations by Relocating the OLA: Similar to the existing OLA at the end of Runway 18L-36R, this alternative would require the closure both Runway 18L- 36R and Runway 18R-36L to aviation operations, up to approximately 30 minutes (operator dependent) 50 times a year, during RLV loading of oxidizer. The IBD associated with the Alternative 3 OLA location would not limit the JAA’s future planned aviation development. However, due to the Alternative 3 OLA location on the Runway 18L-36R, Alternative 3 would not enhance the compatibility of airport and spaceport operations.

Alternative 4 (Proposed Action) – Alternative 4 OLA (Proposed Action) is located adjacent to Taxiway B1, on concrete pavement where Runway 9L-27R previously ended.

Enhance the Compatibility of Airport and Spaceport Operations by Relocating the OLA: Use of the Alternative 4 OLA would not affect airfield operations on Runways 18L-36R and 18R-36L during oxidizer loading activities. The Alternative 4 OLA location would not limit the JAA’s planned aviation development.

Given the analysis and recommendations in the 2012 Spaceport Master Plan, and recent planning initiatives, the Alternative 4 OLA location would enhance the compatibility of Airport and spaceport operations compared to Alternative 1, 2, or 3 OLA locations.

2.2.2.2 Alternative Spaceport Facility Locations Spaceport facility alternative locations A, B, C (Proposed Action), and D (see Figure 2-3) would all use the relocated OLA proposed as part of the Proposed Action (OLA Alternative 4), and include, at a minimum, the construction of a connector taxiway, apron, and hangar. All spaceport facility alternative locations are located east of Runway 18L-36R.

Alternative A – Alternative A is located east of Runway 18L-36R, northeast of the former intersection of Runway 18-36R with Runway 9L-27R (see Figure 2-4).

Group Commercial Space Transportation Facilities and Designated Areas: RLVs would need to travel approximately two miles from the Alternative A location to the OLA. From the Alternative A location, the RLV would taxi north on Taxiway E, taxi west on Taxiway A2 (which requires crossing Runways 18L-36R and 18R-36L), taxi south on Taxiway A, and taxi east on Taxiway B (which requires crossing Runways 18R- 36L and 18L-36R again) to the OLA where propellants would be loaded. The RLV would then taxi back to the north end of Runway 18L-36R using Taxiway B, Taxiway A, and Taxiway A1 for a southerly takeoff. In total, the RLV would have to cross an active runway seven times to and from the OLA, increasing the potential for runway incursions.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 2-12 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE 2-3 ALTERNATIVE SPACEPORT FACILITY LOCATIONS OVERVIEW

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 2-13 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE 2-4 ALTERNATIVE A

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 2-14 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Additional Infrastructure to Support Spaceport Facilities: For Alternative A, the JAA would need to extend Taxiway E (by approximately 1,200 feet) and construct Taxiway A2 (approximately 450 feet) to prevent direct access to Runway 18L-36R. The JAA would also have to construct a 3,000-foot roadway to provide employee, passenger, and/or equipment access to the hangar at the Alternative A location.

Potential Wetland Impacts: Alternative A’s location would directly impact approximately two acres of wetlands.

Alternative B – Alternative B is located at the northern end of the Taxiway E extension, near 103rd Street (see Figure 2-5).

Group Commercial Space Transportation Facilities and Designated Areas: RLVs would have to travel approximately 2½ miles from the Alternative B location to reach the OLA. From Alternative B, the RLV would taxi south on Taxiway E, taxi west on Taxiway E1 and Taxiway A-1 (which requires crossing the north ends of Runways 18L-36R and 18R-36L), taxi south on Taxiway A, and taxi east on Taxiway B (which requires crossing Runways 18R-36L and 18L-36R again) to the OLA where propellants would be loaded. The RLV would then taxi back to the north end of Runway 18L-36R using Taxiway B, Taxiway A, and Taxiway A1 for a southerly takeoff. In total, the RLV would have to cross an active runway seven times to and from the OLA, increasing the potential for runway incursions at the Airport.

Additional Infrastructure to Support Spaceport Facilities: As part of Alternative B, the JAA would have to construct an approximately 800 linear-foot roadway to provide employee, passenger, and/or equipment access to the Alternative B site.

Potential Wetland Impacts: Alternative B’s location would not directly impact wetlands.

Alternative C (Proposed Action) – Alternative C (the Proposed Action) is located in the northeast corner of the Runway 18L-36R and Runway 9L-27R intersection (see Figure 2-6).

Group Commercial Space Transportation Facilities and Designated Areas: Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative C (Proposed Action) is located closest to the OLA. An RLV would have to travel approximately ½ mile from the Alternative C location to the OLA. From the Alternative C location, an RLV would taxi south on the connector taxiway, then taxi east on Taxiway B to the OLA where propellants would be loaded. The RLV would then taxi to the north end of Runway 18L-36R using Taxiway B, Taxiway A, and Taxiway A1 for a southerly departure. Alternative C location would require the RLV to cross an active runway three times, reducing the potential for runway incursions compared to the other Alternatives.

Additional Infrastructure to Support Spaceport Facilities: The JAA would not need to construct additional support infrastructure.

Potential Wetland Impacts: Alternative C’s location would not directly impact wetlands.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 2-15 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE 2-5 ALTERNATIVE B

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 2-16 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE 2-6 ALTERNATIVE C (PROPOSED ACTION)

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 2-17 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Alternative D – Alternative D is located near the southeast corner of the Runway 18L-36R and Runway 9R- 27L intersection (see Figure 2-7).

Group Commercial Space Transportation Facilities and Designated Areas: RLVs would have to travel approximately 1¾ miles the Alternative D location to reach the OLA. From the Alternative D location, an RLV would taxi west on the connector taxiway, north on a segment of Taxiway E, west on Taxiway A4 (which requires crossing Runways 18L-36R and 18R-36L), north on Taxiway A (which requires crossing Runways 9R-27L and 9L-27R), and east on Taxiway B (which requires crossing Runways 18R-36L and 18L- 36R again) to the OLA where propellants would be loaded. The RLV would then taxi to the north end of Runway 18L-36R using Taxiway B, Taxiway A, and Taxiway A1 for a southerly departure. In total, the RLV would have to cross an active runway nine times, increasing the potential for runway incursions.

Additional Infrastructure to Support Spaceport Facilities: The JAA would have to extend Taxiway E (by approximately 1,000 feet) and Taxiway A4 (by approximately 450 feet) to prevent direct access from the Alternative D location to Runway 18L-36R, in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A. Additionally, the JAA would have to construct an approximately 600- foot roadway to provide employee, passenger, and/or equipment access to the hangar at the Alternative D location.

Potential Wetland Impacts: Alternative D’s location would directly impact approximately one acre of wetland.

2.2.2.3 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the JAA would not relocate the OLA or construct proposed spaceport infrastructure (i.e., apron, taxiway, hangar). An RLV operator(s) at the Airport would continue to use the existing OLA (on the approach end of Runway 18L) and existing approved spaceport facilities. The Explosive Site Plan would not be modified.

The Airport’s existing OLA location requires that both Runway 18L-36R and Runway 18R-36L be closed to aviation operations, up to approximately 30 minutes (operator dependent) 50 times a year, during RLV loading of oxidizer. The existing spaceport facilities would continue to be located in areas designated for aviation use.

The No Action Alternative, required by 40 CFR 1502.14(d), serves as a baseline to compare the impacts of the Proposed Action and any reasonable alternatives considered.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 2-18 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE 2-7 ALTERNATIVE D

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 2-19 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.2.3 Alternatives Carried Forward for Environmental Analysis Tables 2-1 and 2-2 provide a summary of the results of the alternative OLA and spaceport facility analyses. As Section 2.2.2.3 describes, the No Action Alternative serves as a baseline for determining the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and is carried forward in this EA.

Based on the evaluation of OLA alternatives, Alternative 4 would allow for the use of the Runways 18L-36R and 18R-36L and would not impede on the existing and future development at the Airport. Therefore, Alternative 4 is the only alternative OLA location that is carried forward for environmental analysis in this EA (see Chapter 4 of this EA).

TABLE 2-1 ALTERNATIVE OLA LOCATIONS ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Alternative OLA Locations

Alternative 4 Alternative Criteria Alternative Alternative Alternative (Proposed 1 2 3 Action)

Allows Use of Enhance the Runways 18L-36R Yes Yes No Yes Compatibility of & 18R-36L Airport and Spaceport Compatible with existing and Operations by No No Yes Yes Relocating the OLA planned development Source: RS&H, 2015

From the Alternative C spaceport facility location, a RLV would travel the least distance to the OLA and would have the fewest total runway crossings. The Alternative C location requires no additional support infrastructure. Additionally, Alternative C’s location would not directly impact wetlands. Alternative C (Proposed Action) is the only alternative spaceport facility location that is carried forward for environmental analysis in this EA (see Chapter 4 of this EA).

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 2-20 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 2-2 ALTERNATIVE SPACEPORT FACILITY LOCATIONS ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Alternative Spaceport Facility Locations Alternative Alternative Criteria Alternative Alternative C Alternative A B (Proposed D Action) Distance from OLA Group 2 miles 2½ miles ½ mile 1¾ miles (approximate) commercial space Number of transportation times the RLV facilities and would cross an designated 7 7 3 9 active runway areas to and from the OLA Taxiway E & Taxiway E & connector connector Taxiway A2 800 linear- Taxiway A4 Additional Support extension, feet of None extension, Infrastructure & 3,000 roadway & 600 linear-feet linear-feet of roadway of roadway Potential Wetland Impacts 2 acres 0 0 1 acre (approximate acreage) Source: RS&H, 2015

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 2-21 AFFECTED ENVIRONM ENT

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 3-1 AFFECTED ENVIRONM ENT

This chapter describes the existing physical, natural, and human environment within potentially affected geographic area.9 This information establishes a baseline for use in determining the potential impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative.

The potentially affected geographic area, or project study area, encompasses the areas subject to potential impacts of the Proposed Action (see Figure 3-1). The project study area includes the physical limits of disturbance, OLA and PTRD and IBD, and the route an RLV(s) would use to access the OLA and Runway 18L-36R.10 Figure 3-2 provides a detailed view of the limits of disturbance where ground disturbing activities associated with the Proposed Action would occur. The project study area encompasses areas adequate to address potential environmental impact categories as described in FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, Appendix A.

This chapter describes only those environmental resources the Proposed Action has the potential to affect. Those environmental resources include the following: » Air Quality (Section 3.1) » Climate (Section 3.2)11 » Coastal Resources (Section 3.3) » Fish, Wildlife, and Plants (Section 3.4) » Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste (Section 3.5) » Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources (Section 3.6) » Light Emissions and Visual Resources (Section 3.7) » Natural Resources and Energy Supplies (Section 3.8) » Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks (Section 3.9) » Water Quality (Section 3.10)

The Proposed Project would not affect the following environmental resources: » U.S. Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f) Resources – There are no publicly-owned wildlife and/or recreational areas, historic resources (see Section 3.6) or lands purchased with Land and Water Conservation Funds (Section 6(f) resources) within the project study area.

9 The physical environment refers to the geographic overview, air quality and climate, water resources, floodplains, and soils. The natural environment refers to biotic communities, threatened and endangered species, and wetlands. The human environment refers to land use and local governments, Section 4(f) properties, historical and archaeological resources, noise, and socioeconomics. 10 The PTRD and IBD are temporary designated areas which become effective when oxidizer is loading, or loaded, on to the RLV along with liquid propellant. These are temporary conditions based on RLV activities at the OLA and are not areas where ground disturbing activities would occur. 11 Climate is added to this EA as part of a January 12, 2013 FAA memorandum entitled, “Considering Greenhouse Gases and Climate Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Interim Guidance.”

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 3-2 AFFECTED ENVIRONM ENT

FIGURE 3-1 PROJECT STUDY AREA

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 3-3 AFFECTED ENVIRONM ENT

FIGURE 3-2 LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 3-4 AFFECTED ENVIRONM ENT

» Compatible Land Use –The Proposed Action is to be constructed on Airport property and would not affect local comprehensive plans or zoning. The compatibility of existing and planned land uses in the vicinity of an airport is usually associated with the extent of an airport’s noise impacts. The 2009 EA found that there would be no significant noise impacts as a result of issuing a launch site operator license to the JAA. The Proposed Action would not change the number or type of existing and future aviation operations at VQQ, or change the number or type of RLV launches analyzed in the 2009 EA and authorized under the JAA’s Launch Site Operator License. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not affect the noise environment at VQQ and thus a similar conclusion is drawn with respect to compatible land use. » Farmland –According to the Soil Survey of City of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, there are three soil types within the project study area: Arents, nearly level; Evergreen-Wesconnett complex, depressional; and Sapelo fine sand (NRCS, 1998). The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) does not consider these soils prime or unique farmlands of state and/or local significance. » Floodplains –According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map, there are no floodplains within the project study area. » Noise - The 2009 EA found that there would be no significant noise impacts as a result of issuing a launch site operator license to the JAA. The Proposed Action would not change the number or type of existing and future aviation operations at VQQ, or change the number or type of RLV launches analyzed in the 2009 EA and authorized under the JAA’s Launch Site Operator License. The Proposed Action would have no effect on the noise environment at VQQ. Temporary noise impacts due to construction of spaceport facilities are analyzed in Section 4.4. » Wetlands –There are no wetlands within the project study area. This determination is based on wetland delineations, pursuant to the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual (and subsequent updates) and the SJRWMD methodologies (SJRWMD Permit #70452-72 and USACE permit # SAJ- 2008-1502), » Wild and Scenic Rivers –The closest wild river area designated under the National Wild and Scenic River System is the Wekiva River, located approximately 60 miles southeast of the project study area. There are no National Rivers Inventory (NRI) segments within Duval County.

Chapter 4 discusses the Proposed Action’s potential to result in construction and secondary (induced) impacts to environmental resources.

3.1 AIR QUALITY The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in order to protect the public health and environmental welfare. The USEPA has identified the following six criteria air pollutants for which NAAQS are applicable: carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). EPA calls these pollutants "criteria" air pollutants because it regulates them by developing human health-based and/or environmentally-based criteria (science-based guidelines) for setting permissible levels (USEPA, 2012).

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 3-5 AFFECTED ENVIRONM ENT

The USEPA has three classifications for areas regarding their ability or inability to meet the NAAQS. Nonattainment areas are geographic areas that are in violation of one or more NAAQS. Attainment areas are geographic areas where concentrations of the criteria pollutants are below (i.e., within) the NAAQS. Lastly, maintenance areas are geographic areas with prior nonattainment status that have since transitioned to attainment.

The project study area is located in Duval County, which is an attainment area for all National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

3.2 CLIMATE Research has shown there is a direct correlation between fuel combustion and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In terms of U.S. contributions, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reports that "domestic aviation contributes about three percent of total CO2 emissions, according to USEPA data," compared with other industrial sources, including the remainder of the transportation sector (20 percent) and power generation (41 percent) (GAO, 2009). The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) estimates that GHG emissions from aircraft account for roughly three percent of all anthropogenic GHG emissions globally (Melrose, 2010). Climate change due to GHG emissions is a global phenomenon, so the affected environment is the global climate (USEPA, 2009).

The scientific community is continuing efforts to better understand the impact of aviation emissions on the global atmosphere. The FAA is leading and participating in a number of initiatives intended to clarify the role that commercial aviation plays in GHG emissions and climate. The FAA, with support from the U.S. Global Change Research Program and its participating federal agencies (e.g., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USEPA, and U.S. Department of Energy), has developed the Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative in an effort to advance scientific understanding of regional and global climate impacts from aircraft emissions. The FAA also funds the Partnership for Air Transportation Noise & Emissions Reduction Center of Excellence research initiative to quantify the effects of aircraft exhaust and contrails on global and U.S. climate and atmospheric composition. The ICAO is examining similar research topics at the international level (Maurice & Lee, 2007).

3.3 COASTAL RESOURCES The entire state of Florida is located within a coastal zone. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Office of Intergovernmental Programs, Florida State Clearinghouse (FSC) coordinates the review of Federal actions in the State of Florida for consistency with the Florida Coastal Management Program. The FSC will make a determination of the Proposed Project’s consistency with Florida’s Coastal Management Program (CMP) based on information contained in the EA.

The Proposed Action will not affect areas designated within the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS), The project study area is not located within the CBRS as delineated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Official CBRS maps.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 3-6 AFFECTED ENVIRONM ENT

3.4 FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANTS Relevant federal laws, regulations, and EO12 that protect biotic communities include the following: » Airport and Airways Development Act (49 U.S.C. §47106(c)(B)); » Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. §1531-1544); » Essential Fish Habitat Requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended by Sustainable Fisheries Act [16 U.S.C. § 1855 (b)(2)]; » Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. § 661, et. seq.); » EO 13112, Invasive Species (64 FR 6183); » Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. § 703-712); and » Presidential Memorandum on Environmentally and Economically Beneficial Landscape Practices on Federally Landscaped Grounds (60 FR 40837).

The following regulations implement the federal acts that protect biotic communities:13 » 50 CFR Part 402 provides instructions on federal agency consultation with the USFWS. This also provides instructions on preparing biological assessments to determine project-related effects on federally-listed endangered and threatened species. 50 CFR 600.920 requires federal agencies approving or funding federal actions that may affect essential fish habitat to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). » 50 CFR Parts 10 and 10.13 discuss the taking and protection of the listed migratory birds.

A review of existing environmental documentation, compiled data from available natural resource databases, and vegetation and wildlife field reconnaissance (performed on January 22, 2015), identifies the existing habitats and species within the project study area.

In general, the habitat within the project study area consists of uplands (e.g., herbaceous dry prairie, shrub and brushland, pine flatwoods), wetlands, and upland cut ditches. Vegetated areas within the project study area range from sparse vegetation (e.g., grass and shrubs) to dense trees. A majority of the project study area has been previously cleared of vegetation in order to provide safe operations at the Airport. Given the diverse habitat, various types of plants and wildlife may occur within the project study area.

Due to the nature of the Proposed Action (i.e., construction and relocation of spaceport-related facilities such as the OLA), there is only the potential for direct impacts to fish, wildlife, and plants (as Chapter 4 further describes). Therefore, the following sections provide in-depth details of the habitat, plants, and wildlife within the limits of disturbance.

12 Due to the number of federal laws and EOs applicable to the Proposed Action, this section presents only the legal citations or references for those requirements in lieu of summarizing their requirements. See FAA Order 1050.1E, Appendix A for more information. 13 Note there are no regulations implementing the FWCA. Section 662 of the Act requires federal agencies to coordinate with USFWS when an action would affect a waterway. Coordination instructions provided for under 50 CFR Part 402.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 3-7 AFFECTED ENVIRONM ENT

3.4.1 Habitat within the Limits of Disturbance The limits of disturbance area consists primarily of upland habitats with the exception of a portion of an upland-cut ditch along the northern boundary of the limits of disturbance. Land use/land cover types within the limits of disturbance has been classified using the Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT) Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS). Figure 3-3 shows the approximate locations of these communities within the limits of disturbance. The following paragraphs further describe the four FLUCFCS identified within the limits of disturbance.

3.4.1.1 Uplands Herbaceous Dry Prairie (FLUCFS Code 310) - Herbaceous dry prairie encompasses the majority of the limits of disturbance (10.52 acres). This area consists of cleared upland areas, which the JAA regularly maintains per FAA recommendations in association with the existing air operations area and runway safety areas. This 10.52-acre area is primarily vegetated by low-lying species such as saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), wiregrass (Aristida stricta), blackberry (Rubus spp.), runner oak (Quercus elliottii), and shiny blueberry (Vaccinium myrsinites). Additionally, a few sparse, mature slash pines (Pinus elliottii) are located within this habitat.

Shrub and Brushland (FLUCFCS Code 320) – Shrub and brushland are located in the north central portion of the limits of disturbance (2.05 acres). Dominant vegetation includes grapevine (Vitis spp.), saw palmetto, slash pine, and gallberry (Ilex glabra). There are also a few sparse red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) and silver bay (Magnolia virginiana) located within this habitat.

Pine Flatwoods (FLUCFCS Code 411) – The pine flatwoods are located in the northern portion of the limits of disturbance (1.35 acres). Dominant vegetation includes slash pine, saw palmetto, and gallberry.

3.4.1.2 Other Surface Waters Upland Cut Ditches (FLUCFCS Code 511) – An upland cut ditch is located along the northern boundary of the limits of disturbance (0.19 acre). The banks of the ditch are dominated by wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) and broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus) with scattered sun dews (Drosera spp.). The ditch is approximately 65 percent open water habitat. Emergent species within the ditch include bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) and common rush (Juncus spp.). This ditch provides stormwater conveyance from the surrounding area, and the JAA regularly maintains the ditch to ensure efficient drainage.

3.4.2 Plants within the Limits of Disturbance Numerous plant species (ground cover, shrub, and trees) exist in the habitat types. There are 50 special status (one federally listed and 49 state-listed) plant species with the potential to occur in Duval County (see Appendix C for a list of these species).

The “likelihood of occurrence” of these species within the limits of disturbance was determined through literature review, habitat requirements of species, and field reconnaissance. Within the limits of disturbance, the likelihood of occurrence for the 50 special status plant species was determined to be low due to lack of suitable habitat, no previous records of these species on Airport property, and no visual observations of these species during field reconnaissance.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 3-8 AFFECTED ENVIRONM ENT

FIGURE 3-3 FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM WITHIN THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 3-9 AFFECTED ENVIRONM ENT

3.4.3 Wildlife within the Limits of Disturbance State-listed species are designated under Florida’s State Endangered Species Act, FL ST § 379.2291 - 379.231. Rules and regulations related to the state-listed species are in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 68A-27. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, designates federally-listed species. There are 33 special status wildlife species documented to occur in Duval County (see Table 3-1). Of the 33 special status species, 19 are state-listed and 14 are federally-listed. Table 3-1 also provides a likelihood of occurrence for listed species within the limits of disturbance. The likelihood of occurrence was determined through literature review, habitat requirements of species, and field reconnaissance. For this analysis, only species with a moderate or high likelihood of occurrence are evaluated further.

TABLE 3-1 LISTED WILDLIFE SPECIES IN DUVAL COUNTY

Likelihood of

Scientific Name Common Name State Status Federal Status Occurrence Fish

Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon Endangered Endangered Low

Acipenser oxyrinchus Low Atlantic strurgeon Special Concern Not Listed oxyrinchus

Reptiles and Amphibians

Florida flatwoods Low Ambystoma cingulatum Threatened Threatened salamander

Rana capito Gopher frog Special Concern Not Listed Low

Alligator mississippiensis American alligator Threatened/a/ Threatened/a/ Low

Caretta caretta Loggerhead Threatened Threatened Low

Chelonia mydas Green turtle Endangered Endangered Low

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback Endangered Endangered Low

Drymarchon couperi Eastern indigo snake Threatened Threatened Low

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise Threatened Candidate Moderate

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s ridley Endangered Endangered Low

Pituophis melanoleucus Low Florida pine snake Special Concern Not Listed mugitus

Birds

Egretta ticolor Tricolored heron Special Concern Not Listed Moderate

Egretta thula Snowy egret Special Concern Not Listed Moderate

Egretta caerulea Little blue heron Special Concern Not Listed Moderate

Eudocimus albus White ibis Special Concern Not Listed Moderate

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 3-10 AFFECTED ENVIRONM ENT

TABLE 3-1 CONTINUED LISTED WILDLIFE SPECIES IN DUVAL COUNTY

Likelihood of

Scientific Name Common Name State Status Federal Status Occurrence Birds Continued

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered Endangered Low

Aramus guarauna Limpkin Special Concern Not Listed Low

Athene cunicularia floridana Florida burrowing owl Special Concern Not Listed Low

Mycteria americana Wood stork Threatened Threatened Moderate

Haematopus palliatus American oyster catcher Special Concern Not Listed Low

Grus canadensis pratensis Florida sandhill crane Threatened Not Listed Moderate

Sterna antillarium Least tern Threatened Not Listed Low

Charadrius melodus Piping plover Threatened Threatened Low

Rynchops niger Black skimmer Special Concern Not Listed Low

Pelecanus occidentalis Brown pelican Special Concern Not Listed Low

Falco sparverius paulus Southeastern Threatened Not Listed Moderate American kestrel

Cistothorus palustris griseus Worthington's marsh wren Special Concern Not Listed Low

Mammals

Eubalaena glacialis North Atlantic right whale Endangered Endangered Low

Sciurus niger shermani Sherman’s fox squirrel Special Concern Not Listed Low

Trichechus manatus Manatee Endangered Endangered Low

Crayfish

Procambarus pictus Black Creek crayfish Special Concern Not Listed Low /a/ Threatened due to similarity of appearance to a species that is federally-listed. Source: Florida Natural Area Inventory, 2015; ERS 2015

Of the 33 listed species in Table 3-1, there are eight listed species with a moderate potential to occur in the limits of disturbance: one reptile and seven avian species. Appendix C provides a more in-depth description of the species with a moderate likelihood of occurrence. Biologists did not observe any of the species with a moderate likelihood of occurrence within the limits of disturbance during a field reconnaissance on January 22, 2015. As Appendix C describes, the closest Florida Natural Areas Inventory 1 (FNAI)-documented gopher tortoise occurrence is approximately 1 /3 miles south of the proposed hangar and apron area. Additionally, no federally or state protected avian species were observed within the limits of disturbance during the January 2015 field reconnaissance. According to USFWS data, the closest wood stork nesting colony is approximately 18 miles northeast of the limits of disturbance. See Table 3-2 for a list of wildlife observations within the limits of disturbance.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 3-11 AFFECTED ENVIRONM ENT

Birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 USC Sections 703-711) may be attracted to a variety of habitats within the limits of disturbance. There is also the potential for common bird species, such as those listed in Table 3-2, to be attracted to the habitats within the limits of disturbance.

In combination with the MBTA, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act provides protection to the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). There are numerous active and inactive bald eagle nests documented in Duval County. The closest active eagle nest is more than six miles west of the limits of disturbance, which is beyond regulatory limits for potential impacts to nesting sites.14 Although bald eagles have been observed near the Airport, no bald eagles were observed during the field reconnaissance.

The habitat in the limits of disturbance can potentially support native and non-native wildlife species commonly found in the area. Table 3-2 provides a list of wildlife or evidence of wildlife within the limits of disturbance observed during field reconnaissance on January 22, 2015.

TABLE 3-2 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE

Scientific Name Common Name Comments Mammals

Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer Tracks observed

Canis latrans Coyote Scat observed

Dasypus novemcinctus Nine-banded armadillo Burrow observed

Birds

Pipilo erythrophthalmus Eastern towhee Direct observation

Setophaga palmarum Palm warbler Direct observation

Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike Direct observation

Sayornis phoebe Eastern phoebe Direct observation

Setophaga coronata Yellow-rumped warbler Direct observation

Cathartes aura Turkey vulture Flying over the site

Melospiza melodia Song sparrow Direct observation

Dumetella carolinensis Gray catbird Vocalizing

Tachycineta bicolor Tree swallow Flying over the site

Melanerpes carolinus Red-bellied woodpecker Direct observation

14 Visit https://public.myfwc.com/FWRI/EagleNests/nestlocator.aspx for information on nest locations. Coordination with FWS is required if an eagle nest is found within 660 feet of any proposed work.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 3-12 AFFECTED ENVIRONM ENT

TABLE 3-2 CONTINUED WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE

Scientific Name Common Name Comments Fish

Observed in aquatic habitat Gambusia sp Mosquito fish (upland cut ditch) Source: ERS, 2015

3.5 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, POLLUTION PREVENTION, AND SOLID WASTE Applicable federal requirements15 used to assess hazardous waste effects include: » Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. § 9601); » Oil Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. § 2701); » Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. § 2601-2692); » Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. § 6901 et. seq.); » Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et. seq.); » EO 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards (43 FR 47707); » EO 12856, Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements (58 FR 41981); and » EO 12580, Superfund Implementation (52 FR 2923).

Generally, the terms "hazardous wastes," "hazardous substances," and "hazardous materials" are associated with industrial wastes, petroleum products, dangerous goods, or other contaminants. In a regulatory context, these terms have very precise and technical meanings: » Hazardous Wastes: Subpart C of the RCRA defines this term. Hazardous wastes (sometimes called characteristic wastes) are solid wastes that are ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic. Examples include waste oil, mercury, lead, or battery acid. In addition, Subpart D of RCRA contains a list of specific types of solid wastes that the EPA has deemed hazardous (sometimes called listed wastes). Examples include degreasing solvents, petroleum refining waste, or pharmaceutical waste. » Hazardous Substances: Section 101(14) of the CERCLA defines this term broadly. It includes hazardous wastes, hazardous air pollutants, or hazardous substances designated as such under the CWA and TSCA, and elements, compounds, mixtures, solutions, or substances listed in 40 CFR Part 302 that pose substantial harm to human health or environmental resources. Pursuant to CERCLA, hazardous substances do not include any petroleum or natural gas substances and materials. Examples include ammonia, bromine, chlorine, or sodium cyanide.

15 Note that due to the number of federal laws and EOs applicable to the Proposed Action, this Section presents only the legal citations or references for those requirements in lieu of summarizing their requirements. Please see FAA’s Desk Reference, Chapter 10, Section 2, for more information on these requirements.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 3-13 AFFECTED ENVIRONM ENT

» Hazardous Materials: According to 49 CFR Part 172, hazardous materials are any substances commercially transported that pose unreasonable risk to public health, safety, and property. These substances include hazardous wastes and hazardous substances as well as petroleum and natural gas substances and materials. As a result, hazardous materials represent hazardous wastes and substances. Examples include household batteries, gasoline, or fertilizers.

The following subsections describe the existing conditions of the project study area as they relate to hazardous materials, pollution prevention, and solid waste.

3.5.1 Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials are not currently stored within the project study area. The JAA has existing policies and procedures for handling, disposing of, and cleaning up hazardous materials, chemicals, and other substances, including jet fuel. These policies and procedures are outlined in the Cecil Airport Emergency Response Plan (JAA, 2014a). The JAA has developed a Spill Response Procedure. The purpose of the Spill Response Procedure is to supplement the Airport Emergency Response Plan and Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan to establish the roles and responsibilities for spill response on Airport property (JAA, 2012b).

Additionally, a Cecil Spaceport Emergency Response Plan has been developed by the JAA. The JAA has submitted the plan to the FAA AST for its review.16 This plan includes the JAA’s plans for action should a spaceport-related emergency situation arise (e.g., hazardous materials spill) at the Airport, as it relates to RLV activities.

LOX, N2O, and RP-1 are delivered to the Airport on an as-needed basis by tanker truck (see Section 2.1.2). Under the JAA’s existing launch site operator license, oxidizers are delivered to the Airport on an as- needed basis and can be stored at the primary oxidizer storage area and at appropriate distances from one another in accordance with provisions set forth 14 CFR Part 420 License to Operate a Launch Site.17 HTPB and/or nylon can be stored in the RLV storage/processing building.

Propellant loading and unloading operations for RLVs take place in the designated OLA. Fueling operations take place under the provisions of the Airport’s SPCC Plan. The risk of hazardous material releases due to leaking tanker trucks, delivery lines, or other infrastructure is limited by proper handling practices, in compliance with 14 CFR § 420.65 and 14 CFR § 420.67 for solid and liquid fuels, respectively.

3.5.2 Pollution Prevention The JAA has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for industrial activities at the Airport. This permit requires the JAA to maintain a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and SPCC plan for the Airport property. As described in Section 3.5.1, the JAA has various plans and

16 The emergency response plan is not required as part of the JAA’s launch site operator license. The JAA is developing this plan voluntarily. 17 The FAA has approved the siting of propellants related to RLV operations during the launch site operator license application and renewal (including 2009 Final EA and WREA 2015).

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 3-14 AFFECTED ENVIRONM ENT procedures in place to address potential spills at the Airport. These include measures to minimize the impacts of potentially contaminated stormwater on receiving bodies.

3.5.3 Solid Waste The City of Jacksonville Solid Waste Division is responsible for managing solid waste at the Airport. The City of Jacksonville’s landfill is the Trail Ridge Landfill, approximately 15 miles northwest of the Airport. The landfill receives approximately 2,500-3,000 tons of waste daily (Waste Management, 2015).

3.6 HISTORIC, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES For purposes of this EA, historic, archaeological, and cultural resources are historic resources, persons, and events that are significant in the areas of architecture, archaeology, Florida history and traditional culture as recorded by the Florida Division of Historical Resources as Florida historical markers, or resources that are on or eligible for listing on the NRHP. NRHP properties are nationally important due to their significant and respective roles in American history, prehistory, architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture.

The closest Florida historical marker, approximately 10 miles south of the project study area, is the Fort Heilman historical marker (Division of Historical Resources, 2015). According to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the closest NRHP-listed resource is the William Clarke Estate, approximately 10 miles southeast of the Proposed Action. The 1998 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Disposal and Reuse of Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Jacksonville, Florida cultural resource assessment study (CRAS) indicates there are no recorded historic properties (including archaeological and cultural resources) at the Airport (Department of the Navy, 1998).

3.7 LIGHT EMISSIONS AND VISUAL RESOURCES The following subsections describe the existing conditions of the project study area as they relate to light emissions and visual resources.

3.7.1 Light Emissions Lighting at the Airport is associated with Airport buildings, streetlights, Airport beacon, taxiway lighting, runway lighting, and approach lighting. There are no light emissions from the portion of the project study area encompassing the proposed development, as this area is undeveloped. The portion of the project study area that encompasses the OLA has light emissions in the form of airfield lighting.

3.7.2 Visual Resources The areas west and south of the limits of disturbance are cleared and occupied by Airport facilities (e.g., runways, taxiways, aviation and non-aviation related buildings). The areas north and east of the limits of disturbance are cleared and undeveloped, with some heavily vegetated areas (e.g. pine trees). The area around the portion of the project study area at the eastern end of Runway 9L-27R is cleared for safety reasons (i.e., takeoff and landing of aircraft). The area around the portion of the project study area in the western side of the Airport has vegetation (e.g., trees and shrubs), except to the north, where the land has been cleared.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 3-15 AFFECTED ENVIRONM ENT

3.8 NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY SUPPLIES, AND SUSTAINABLE DESIGN It is FAA policy, consistent with CEQ NEPA implementing regulations, to encourage the development of facilities that exemplify the highest standards of design, including the principles of sustainability. These high standards should apply to the conservation of energy and other resources. The following subsections describe the existing conditions of the project study area as they relate to natural resources, energy supplies, and sustainable design.

3.8.1 Natural Resources There are various natural resources in and around the Airport property. Natural resources include wetlands, water, soils, trees, and other vegetation at the Airport. As described in this chapter, the portion of the project study area that encompasses the proposed development contains various habitats and vegetation.

3.8.2 Energy Supplies The Jacksonville Electric Authority provides energy services to the Airport. The JAA has an excess of 2,600 megawatts of installed generating capacity at the Airport. Aside from electrical use, Airport operations also require the use of energy supplies in the form of fuel. Currently, there is no use of energy supplies in the project study area.

3.8.3 Sustainable Design The JAA encourages the use of sustainable design in building projects and the application of the practices of the U.S. Green Building Council’s program for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. For the past three years, the JAA has focused its sustainability program to reduce energy and water use, as well as the production of solid waste. These measures are tracked by the JAA staff and are documented within an annual report.

3.9 SOCIOECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CHILDREN’S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS The following subsections describe the project study area’s existing conditions in the U.S. Census Bureau Census Tract as they relate to socioeconomics, environmental justice, and children’s environmental health and safety risks.

3.9.1 Socioeconomics Among other requirements, Section 101(a) of NEPA describes the policy of the federal government is to create and maintain conditions that fulfill the social needs of present and future American generations. There are more than 1,100 employees at the Airport, including the JAA employees and tenant employees. The population in the U.S. Census tract where the project study area is located increased by approximately eight percent between 2000 and 2010 (USEPA, 2015).

3.9.2 Environmental Justice EO 12898 requires federal agencies to analyze project effects relative to low-income and minority populations. Environmental justice analysis considers the potential of a proposed action and alternatives

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 3-16 AFFECTED ENVIRONM ENT to cause disproportionate and adverse effects on low-income or minority populations. The analysis of environmental justice impacts and associated mitigation ensures that no low-income or minority population bears a disproportionate burden of effects resulting from the implementation of a preferred alternative.

The project study area is entirely on Airport property and does not include low-income or minority populations. Approximately 15 percent of the population in the U.S. Census Bureau Census Tract where the project study area is located is below the poverty level (USEPA, 2015). Additionally, approximately 15 percent of the population within this U.S. Census Bureau Census Tract are classified as minorities.

3.9.3 Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks EO 13045 requires federal agencies to make child protection a high priority because children may be more susceptible to environmental effects than adults. For the purpose of this analysis, children are considered less than 18 years of age.

Bishop John J. Snyder High School and Enterprise Learning Academy Elementary School are the closest schools to the project study area, approximately three miles northeast and three miles southeast, respectively. Approximately 25 percent of the population in the U.S. Census Bureau Census Tract where the project study area is within is 18 years old or younger (USEPA, 2015).

3.10 WATER QUALITY Several laws and EOs address and regulate federal airport activities and their effects on water quality. The following list are the laws most applicable to airport projects: » Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the CWA (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et. seq.); » CWA, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) (33 U.S.C. § 2701); » Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (SDWA) (42 U.S.C. § 300(f)); and » FWCA (16 U.S.C. § 661 et. seq.).

Most surface water in Duval County comes from rainfall, except for a small amount of inflow from Baker County, west of Duval County. The project study area is in the St. Johns River Basin. From west to east, streams near the project study area include Yellow Water Creek, Rowel Creek, and Sal Taylor Creek.

Drainage at the Airport consists of sheet flow across areas of low topographic relief, combined with low- order streams and canals. The eastern part of the Airport drains into Sal Taylor Creek. Stormwater from the central part of the Airport drains into Rowel Creek, which flows into Sal Taylor Creek. Sal Taylor Creek then flows west into Yellow Water Creek, which flows southward and joins Black Creek approximately 1½ miles south of the Airport boundary. None of the drainage from the Airport flows into Outstanding Florida Waters or Outstanding Natural Resource Waters, as designated under the Clean Water Act. Ground water units below the Airport include the surficial aquifer system, the intermediate aquifer system, and the Floridian aquifer system.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 3-17 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES

CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 4-1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES

This chapter discusses the reasonably foreseeable environmental consequences of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative in comparative form.

Per FAA Order 1050.1E, the environmental consequences section shall, for each alternative, include considerations of the following effects (40 CFR 1508.8(a): direct effects and their significance (40 CFR 1508.8 (a)); indirect effects and their significance (1508.8(b). The following sections describe the potential direct and indirect effects and their significance for the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative: » Air Quality (Section 4.1) » Climate (Section 4.2) » Coastal Resources (Section 4.3) » Construction Impacts (Section 4.4) » Fish, Wildlife & Plants (Section 4.5) » Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste (Section 4.6) » Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources (Section 4.7) » Light Emissions and Visual Resources (Section 4.8) » Natural Resources and Energy Supplies (Section 4.9) » Secondary (Induced) Impacts (Section 4.10) » Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks (Section 4.11) » Water Quality (Section 4.12)

Cumulative effects and their significance are discussed in Chapter 5.

4.1 AIR QUALITY This section describes the potential effects of the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action on air quality.

4.1.1 Significance Thresholds Potentially significant air quality impacts associated with an FAA project or action would be demonstrated if a project or action would lead to pollutant concentrations that would violate one or more of the NAAQS for any of the time periods analyzed.

4.1.2 Environmental Consequences This EA uses the requirements of the regulations protecting air quality described in FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, Appendix A, Section 2 in order to assess the potential environmental impacts.

4.1.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, construction and operation of the infrastructure to support spaceport related operations and relocation of the existing OLA would not occur. RLV companies would continue to

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 4-2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES conduct operations from existing shared hangar space and the OLA located at the end of Runway 18L- 36R. There would be no additional impacts to air quality.

4.1.2.2 Proposed Action The Proposed Action in this EA includes the construction of infrastructure in support of commercial space transportation activities at the Airport and changes the location where specific propellants associated with RLV operations may be stored and loaded. The Proposed Action for this EA would not increase operations (aviation or commercial space transportation) at the Airport. The change in RLV taxiing patterns from the proposed hangar to the OLA and end of Runway 18L-36R for takeoff would not significantly increase emissions. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not significantly impact air quality at and around the Airport. See Section 4.4 for an analysis of the temporary air quality impacts due to the construction of spaceport facilities.

4.2 CLIMATE This section describes the potential effects of the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action on the Earth’s climate.

4.2.1 Significance Thresholds While there is no significance threshold for aviation-related GHG emissions, the projected increase in GHG emissions from the Proposed Action is discussed in the context of national and global GHG emissions from all sources (FAA, 2012).

4.2.2 Environmental Consequences Although there are no federal standards for aviation-related GHG emissions, it is well established that GHG emissions can affect climate. The CEQ has indicated that climate should be considered in NEPA analyses (FAA, 2012). As noted by CEQ, "it is not currently useful for the NEPA analysis to attempt to link specific climatological changes, or the environmental impacts thereof, to the particular project or emissions; as such direct linkage is difficult to isolate and to understand" (CEQ, 2010). Aviation has been calculated to contribute approximately three percent of global CO2 emissions; however, this contribution may grow to five percent by 2050.

4.2.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, construction and operation of the infrastructure to support spaceport related operations and relocation of the existing OLA would not occur. RLV companies would continue to conduct operations from existing shared hangar space and the OLA located at the end of Runway 18L- 36R. There would be no additional impacts to climate.

4.2.2.2 Proposed Action The Proposed Action in this EA includes the construction of infrastructure in support of commercial space transportation activities at the Airport and changes the location where specific propellants associated with RLV operations may be stored and loaded. The Proposed Action for this EA would not increase operations (aviation or commercial space transportation) at the Airport. Therefore, the potential impacts to climate

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 4-3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES from RLV operations remains the same as analyzed in the 2009 Final EA and 2015 WREA. Compared to the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action’s operations would not have a significant effect on climate.

4.3 COASTAL RESOURCES This section describes the potential impacts of the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action on coastal resources. As Section 3.3 describes, the entire State of Florida is located within the coastal zone. This section does not discuss the requirements of the CBRA because the project study area for the Proposed Action does not include land within a CBRS (see Section 3.3).

4.3.1 Significance Thresholds FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1 does not provide a significance threshold; however, it does provide a number of factors to consider when determining the severity and context of a project’s unavoidable coastal zone effects. Those factors include: » the project proponent’s determination that a proposed action is consistent with the applicable CZMP; » the responsible state agency’s finding regarding a project proponent’s consistency determination; and » a proposal to change a project so it is consistent with the CZMP.

4.3.2 Environmental Consequences This EA uses the requirements of the regulations protecting coastal zone resources described in FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, Appendix A, Section 3 in order to assess the potential environmental impacts.

4.3.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, construction and operation of the infrastructure to support spaceport related operations and relocation of the existing OLA would not occur. RLV companies would continue to conduct operations from existing shared hangar space and the OLA located at the end of Runway 18L- 36R. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would not affect coastal resources.

4.3.2.2 Proposed Action The Proposed Action in this EA includes the construction of infrastructure in support of commercial space transportation activities at the Airport and changes the location where specific propellants associated with RLV launches may be stored and loaded. The Proposed Action would be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP). The project would not adversely affect coastal resources, create plans to direct future agency actions, propose rulemaking that alters uses of the coastal zone that are inconsistent with the Program, or involve Outer Continental Shelf leases.

Early coordination efforts with the FDEP indicated that the state has no objections to the proposed federal action. The state will review the Draft EA for compliance with the FCMP. See Appendix B-2 for the FDEP’s letter. Compared to the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not significantly affect coastal resources.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 4-4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES

4.4 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS Construction activities, although short-term in duration, have the potential to cause adverse environmental impacts. Construction-related air quality emissions, noise, changes in surface traffic density and flow, water quality degradation, soil erosion, habitat loss, use of natural resources and energy, and exposure of workers to hazardous materials are examples of such effects. This section describes the potential construction impacts of the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action.

4.4.1 Significance Threshold A significant impact is considered to occur when the severity of construction impacts cannot be mitigated below the FAA threshold levels. This EA uses the significance thresholds in FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, Appendix A that apply to each environmental resource construction may impact.

4.4.2 Environmental Consequences The following subsections describe the potential construction impacts resulting from the implementation of the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action.

4.4.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, construction of the infrastructure to support spaceport related operations and relocation of the existing OLA would not occur. RLV companies would continue to conduct operations from existing shared hangar space and the OLA located at the end of Runway 18L- 36R. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would not result in construction impacts.

4.4.2.2 Proposed Action Construction equipment and vehicle operations, clearing and grading, paving, and other construction activities for the Proposed Action would have temporary and minor effects on air quality, hazardous materials and solid waste, natural resources and energy supplies, noise, socioeconomics, and water quality. Construction of the Proposed Action may also result in short-term secondary (induced) impacts. The selected contractor would conduct construction activities in accordance with FAA AC 150/5370-10G, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports, and provisions set forth in permits required for the construction of the Proposed Action (e.g., NPDES permit).

Air Quality – Construction activities associated with the Proposed Action would result in emissions and dust. This EA includes a construction emission inventory to determine if the Proposed Action would have a significant impact on criteria pollutant concentrations as outlined in the NAAQS. This EA quantifies the reasonably foreseeable emissions resulting from the Proposed Action as part of the construction emission inventory.

The construction equipment, vehicle mix, trip distances, and assumed travel speeds for material delivery, dump truck usage, and worker commute vehicles were put into the ACRP Airport Construction Emission Inventory Tool (ACEIT). Table 4-1 shows a summary of the results from the ACEIT over the entire duration of construction activities in total tons of emissions. Results, calculations, assumptions, and emission factors used in these calculations are in Appendix D.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 4-5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES

TABLE 4-1 PROPOSED ACTION CONSTRUCTION-RELATED EMISSIONS INVENTORY (TONS PER YEAR)

Source CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 VOC Non-road Equipment 2.59 6.18 0.02 0.39 0.36 0.75 On-road Equipment and Vehicles 6.01 0.80 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.43 Fugitive Dust 0.21 0.01 0 0.37 -- 3.28 De Minimis 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total 8.81 6.99 0.03 0.78 0.38 4.46 Source: RS&H, 2015

The selected contractor could implement the following controls in an effort to reduce emissions from construction equipment: » regular maintenance of construction equipment; » prohibit the idling of construction vehicles for longer than five minutes; » stabilize construction road entrances; or » stabilize vehicle staging areas.

Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste – Construction of the Proposed Action would result in a temporary increase of on-Airport hazardous material storage. This would predominately occur in the form of diesel fuel, which is necessary for the operation of construction equipment. The selected contractor would manage hazardous materials from construction activities in accordance with existing Airport regulations and standard operating procedures (SOPs). Construction activities would temporarily increase the amount of solid waste in the form of construction waste (e.g., clearing of vegetation). The selected contractor would manage solid waste from construction activities in accordance with existing Airport regulations and SOPs. Compared to the No Action Alternative, construction of the Proposed Action would not significantly affect hazardous materials or solid waste.

Natural Resources and Energy Supplies – Construction of the Proposed Action would result in temporary increased usage of natural resources. Construction activities associated with the Proposed Action would include the use of aggregate, sub-base materials, and building materials. Construction of the Proposed Action would not require large volumes of materials. Construction of the Proposed Action would result in temporary increased usage of energy supplies. Trucks and construction equipment would consume fuels, lubricants, and hydraulic fluids as needed for construction purposes. These energy sources are not rare or in short supply.

Noise – Construction of the Proposed Action would result in temporary increases to the ambient noise levels near ground disturbing activities. Earthwork and site preparation would cause temporary noise generation. Noise levels would vary depending on the nature of construction activities and the type/model of equipment in use. Given the distance of the nearest residential areas (over one mile southeast of the project study area) and the presence of vegetative buffers (i.e., dense trees), temporary noise generated during construction would not significantly affect noise sensitive land uses. Additionally, construction is not likely to occur at night when surrounding areas may be more sensitive to noise.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 4-6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES

Compared to the No Action Alternative, construction of the Proposed Action would not result in significant noise impacts to noise sensitive land uses (e.g., residential areas).

Secondary (Induced) Impacts – Construction of the Proposed Action could result in the short-term, construction-related employment of local contractors. However, this increase would not be significant and would only be for the duration of construction activities associated with the Proposed Action (approximately four to five months to construct the taxiway and apron pavements). Construction of the Proposed Action would not affect the local area’s demand for public services (e.g., fire, police, or emergency services).

Socioeconomics – Construction-related traffic would cause minor, localized traffic disruptions to 103rd Street and Aviation Avenue. The traffic disruption would be temporary, relatively minor, and would not permanently degrade the Level of Service of those or other local roadways.

Water Quality – Construction of the Proposed Action has the potential to cause temporary water quality impacts. Rain events could result in stormwater runoff that could contain pollutants associated with construction activities. These pollutants may include sediments from clearing and grubbing activities and/or fuels, lubricants, and solvents from the maintenance and operation of construction equipment. However, implementation of water-related best management practices (BMPs) through construction permit conditions would prevent a significant impact to groundwater resources and would not cause health issues. The use of BMPs, permitting requirements, and sustainable measures during construction activities would minimize temporary, construction-related water quality impacts. These could include, but are not limited to, the use of: » straw bale barriers; » silt fences; » sediment traps; » sandbag barriers; or » check dams.

The JAA would obtain an environmental resource permit (ERP) from the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) prior to the start of construction. The JAA would also be responsible for ensuring that the requirements of the City of Jacksonville Environmental Protection Board Rule 3.604 Erosion and Sediment Control are met during all construction activities. See Appendix B-2 for the letters from the SJRWMD and City of Jacksonville. Compared to the No Action Alternative, construction of the Proposed Action would not significantly impact water quality.

4.5 FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANTS This section describes the potential effects of the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action on fish, wildlife, and plants.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 4-7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES

4.5.1 Significance Threshold significant impact would occur if the USFWS (or National Marine Fisheries Service) determined the project would be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a federally listed species or would result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. For non-listed species, the FAA considers population dynamics and sustainability (e.g., reproductive success rates, natural mortality rates, non-natural mortality, and minimum population levels required for population maintenance) when considering the potential for significant impacts.

4.5.2 Environmental Consequences The following considerations were made in determining the potential impact of the Proposed Action on biological resources and populations of threatened and endangered species: » proximity of unique or high-value habitats including wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, and ecologically critical or important areas; » potential for the action to adversely affect an endangered or threatened species, or its habitat, in particular federally designated critical habitat; and » regulatory requirements and applicable federal, state, and local laws governing the conservation and protection of threatened and endangered species.

4.5.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, construction and operation of the infrastructure to support spaceport related operations and relocation of the existing OLA would not occur. RLV companies would continue to conduct operations from existing shared hangar space and the OLA located at the end of Runway 18L- 36R. The No Action Alternative would not affect fish, wildlife, or plants.

4.5.2.2 Proposed Action The Proposed Action in this EA includes the construction of infrastructure in support of commercial space transportation activities at the Airport and changes the location where specific propellants associated with RLV launches may be stored and loaded. As described in Chapter 2, implementation of the Proposed Action includes the construction of a hangar, apron, taxiway, and the designation of an OLA.

The construction of the Proposed Action would disturb approximately 8.47 acres of habitat (see Figure 4- 1). The remaining 5.53 acres have been disturbed due to routine maintenance activities. Table 4-2 provides the amount of impact per habitat type. Impacted upland habitats are not unique, rare, or protected. These habitats are common on and around the Airport. Section 4.12 provides a more in-depth discussion regarding impacted surface waters, which the USACE and SJRWMD regulate.

During construction activities, plants would be removed from the limits of disturbance where the proposed hangar, apron, taxiway, and associated support facilities (e.g., stormwater treatment) are located. As discussed in Section 3.4.2, there is potential for 50 special status plant species to occur in Duval County. However, all of these species have a low likelihood of occurrence within the project study area. Therefore, it is unlikely that any special status plants would be affected due to implementation of the Proposed Action.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 4-8 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES

FIGURE 4-1 HABITAT AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED ACTION

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 4-9 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES

TABLE 4-2 HABITAT IMPACTS BY ACRE

FLUCFCS Code FLUCFCS Acres Impacted Uplands 310 Herbaceous dry prairie 6.70 320 Shrub and brushland 1.62 411 Pine flatwoods 0.14 Surface Waters 511 Upland cut ditches 0.01 Total acres of impact 8.47 Source: ERS, 2015

During construction activities, direct mortality to individual animals could occur as a result of excavation and grading. As Section 3.4.3 and Appendix C describe, federally- or state-protected wildlife were not observed within the construction area. In the unlikely event that the selected contractor encounters a gopher tortoise or a gopher tortoise burrow in the project study area during construction, the JAA would immediately initiate FWC coordination and permitting. The Proposed Action is not likely to affect gopher tortoises because of the implementation of this measure.

Relating to avian species, as Section 3.4.3 and Appendix C describe, according to USFWS data, federally and state protected avian species, as well as species protected by the MBTA, were not observed in the proposed hangar and apron area. The closest wood stork nesting colony is approximately 18 miles northeast of the proposed hangar and apron area. Wildlife biologists would conduct pre-construction surveys to determine the presence of active avian species nests in the construction footprint. The selected contractor would avoid direct impacts to birds or active nests during construction to avoid impacts on any species the MBTA protects. Therefore, avian species would not be affected by construction of the Proposed Action.

Compared to the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not have a significant impact on plants and wildlife.

4.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, POLLUTION PREVENTION, AND SOLID WASTE This section describes the potential impacts of the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action on hazardous materials, pollution, and solid waste.

4.6.1 Significance Threshold FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, Appendix A.10, states that additional analysis of the potential for significant impacts, beyond the information that is disclosed in this EA (see Section 3.5), generally “is needed only if problems are anticipated with respect to meeting the applicable local, State, Tribal, or Federal laws and regulations on hazardous or solid waste management.” Moreover, actions that involve a property on or eligible for the National Priorities List (NPL) are significant. If no such issues are anticipated, there would typically be no significant impacts in this category. More specifically, the following factors may indicate a significance impact with regard to hazardous materials and hazardous wastes.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 4-10 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES

» If a proposed action or reasonable alternative involves a property on or eligible for the NPL,18 the FAA recommends that any NEPA document disclose presence of contamination within the boundaries of the entire NPL site to help the decision maker determine if there are areas within the site that are not contaminated. » If an airport would have difficulty meeting applicable federal or state laws and regulations addressing hazardous wastes or hazardous materials, then the FAA recommends that any NEPA document disclose that difficulty to help the decision maker determine if extraordinary measures are necessary to mitigate project-related disturbances of contaminates that would endanger the health and/or safety of citizens (e.g., connecting the project area to a new water supply or moving local residents to avoid contamination). » If there is an unresolved issue regarding hazardous materials, the FAA recommends that any NEPA document discuss how a proposed action or reasonable alternative would affect a site known or suspected to be contaminated to inform the decision maker that the effects of the contamination are not fully understood, but corrective actions may be needed.

4.6.2 Environmental Consequences This EA uses previous NEPA documentation for the Airport and the USEPA NEPAssist online tool to determine potential hazardous materials in the project study area.

The JAA’s Cecil Spaceport Emergency Response Plan (currently in draft form) would be applicable to both the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action. This plan includes the JAA’s plans for action should a spaceport-related emergency situation arise (e.g., hazardous materials spill) at the Airport, as it relates to RLV activities.

In order to determine potential impacts to the project study area, this EA analyzes the potential increase in hazardous materials and waste at the Airport under the Proposed Action. This EA also analyzes how those materials and wastes would be handled and stored at the Airport. This methodology is consistent with the requirements of FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, Appendix A.10.

4.6.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, construction and operation of the infrastructure to support spaceport related operations and relocation of the existing OLA would not occur. RLV companies would continue to conduct operations from existing shared hangar space and the OLA located at the end of Runway 18L- 36R. The No Action Alternative would not affect hazardous materials, pollution prevention, or solid waste at the Airport.

18 The National Priorities List (NPL) is the list of areas throughout the United States and its territories that have had releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The NPL’s primary purpose is to guide the EPA in determining those sites warranting further investigation.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 4-11 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES

4.6.2.2 Proposed Action The Proposed Action in this EA includes the construction of infrastructure in support of commercial space transportation activities at the Airport and changes the location where specific propellants associated with RLV launches may be stored and loaded (as described in the following subsections). The following subsections describe the potential impacts of the Proposed Action to hazardous materials, pollution prevention, and solid waste at the Airport.

Hazardous Materials – Implementation of the Proposed Action would not occur in an area of known contamination or affect the status and/or remediation of hazardous sites. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not directly or indirectly affect hazardous sites at the Airport.

The Proposed Action would not change the type or quantity of hazardous materials stored at the Airport. Under the Proposed Action, the temporary storage of oxidizer (that is delivered to the Airport on an as- needed basis for RLV launches) would be at the proposed apron, rather than the existing oxidizer storage areas. The temporary storage of oxidizer would remain in compliance with the provisions set forth 14 CFR Part 420 License to Operate a Launch Site. Hybrid rocket motor casings containing solid fuels would be stored in the proposed hangar or existing bunker rather than the existing designated storage buildings in the northwest quadrant of the Airport.19 Due to the inert nature of solid fuels, these materials do not pose any risk of a hazardous release.

Compared to the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not significantly affect hazardous materials at the Airport.

Pollution Prevention – Implementation of the Proposed Action would not affect pollution prevention efforts at the Airport. As with existing Airport aviation activities, the activities associated with RLV launches would operate under the Airport’s NPDES permit, which ensures that appropriate pollution control measures are in place. The JAA would also ensure that the Proposed Action is included in the Airport’s SWPPP and SPCC. Compared to the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not significantly affect pollution prevention at the Airport.

Solid Waste –Implementation of the Proposed Action would not significantly increase solid waste produced at the Airport. Compared to the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not significantly affect solid waste at the Airport.

4.7 HISTORICAL, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES This section describes the potential effects of the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action on historic, architectural, archaeological, and cultural resources.

19 Additionally, the exact quantity of these fuels is operator dependent and would be analyzed by an RLV operator that wants to operate from the Airport in their separate launch licenses application and associated NEPA documentation.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 4-12 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES

4.7.1 Significance Threshold FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, Appendix A.11, Section 11.3, states an adverse effect does not automatically trigger a significant impact (36 CFR 800.8(a)) and preparation of an EIS. Instead, FAA, after consulting with the SHPO and other interested parties, determines the level of effect and if that effect warrants preparation of an EIS.

4.7.2 Environmental Consequences The NRHP and Florida Division of Historic Resources Interactive Map were utilized to determine historic resources near the project study area. The proximity of these resources to ground disturbing activities were analyzed to determine potential impacts.

4.7.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, construction and operation of the infrastructure to support spaceport related operations and relocation of the existing OLA would not occur. RLV companies would continue to conduct operations from existing shared hangar space and the OLA located at the end of Runway 18L- 36R. The No Action Alternative would not affect historic, architectural, archeological, or cultural resources.

4.7.2.2 Proposed Action The Proposed Action in this EA includes the construction of infrastructure in support of commercial space transportation activities at the Airport and changes the location where specific propellants associated with RLV launches may be stored and loaded. As described in Chapter 2, implementation of the Proposed Action includes the construction of a hangar, apron, taxiway, and the designation of an OLA.

The resources described in Section 3.6 do not have a direct line of site to the Proposed Action; therefore, the Proposed Action would not directly or indirectly affect historic properties. In the unlikely event that prehistoric or historic artifacts that could be associated with Native American, early European, or American settlement are encountered at any time within the project study area, the selected contractor would cease all activities involving subsurface disturbance in the immediate vicinity of the discovery. The JAA would contact the Division of Historical Resources and State Historic Preservation Officer and project activities would not resume without verbal and/or written authorization. Additionally, in the unlikely event that unmarked human remains are encountered during construction activities, all work would stop immediately and the proper authorities would be notified in accordance with Section 872.05, Florida Statutes.

4.8 LIGHT EMISSIONS AND VISUAL RESOURCES This section describes the potential impacts of the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action on light emissions and visual resources.

4.8.1 Significance Threshold There are no special purpose laws identifying significance thresholds for light emissions or visual effects. Evaluation of potential light emission effects is in terms of potential for human annoyance. FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, requires the FAA consider the extent to which any lighting associated with a proposed

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 4-13 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES action would create an annoyance among residents near a proposed action or interfere with normal activities.

Potential aesthetic effects of an action are generally assessed to the extent that the development contrasts with a No Action Alternative environmental setting and whether a jurisdictional agency considers this contrast objectionable. For this EA, visual effects resulting from constructing the Proposed Action include physical changes to the visual qualities of the project study area, including landforms, vegetation, and water surfaces.

4.8.2 Environmental Consequences Airport facilities are illuminated by various types of lighting that can impact light-sensitive land uses in the vicinity an airport.

The potential for adverse light emissions and visual effects of the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action were qualitatively evaluated to determine the extent of light emissions. Airport-related light emissions are considered to have a notable impact only if light is directed towards a residential area. Impacts from lighting associated with the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action were determined by evaluating the individual lighting systems to be developed at the Airport and assessing distance, light angle, and intensity as they relate to the surrounding light-sensitive land uses.

This effort provided a way to identify potential new sources of lighting, glare, and visual effects on light- sensitive land uses that could result in annoyance to local residents.

4.8.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, construction and operation of the infrastructure to support spaceport related operations and relocation of the existing OLA would not occur. RLV companies would continue to conduct operations from existing shared hangar space and the OLA located at the end of Runway 18L- 36R. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would not change the Airport’s light emissions or the view shed of the surrounding area.

4.8.2.2 Proposed Action The Proposed Action in this EA includes the construction of infrastructure in support of commercial space transportation activities at the Airport and changes the location where specific propellants associated with RLV launches may be stored and loaded. As described in Chapter 2, implementation of the Proposed Action includes the construction of a hangar, apron, taxiway, and the designation of an OLA. The Proposed Action would have more light emissions and differ visually compared to the No Action Alternative; however, these would not represent substantial differences, as the following sections describe.

Light Emissions – The development of the Proposed Action would require lighting for safety and security reasons and would represent new sources of light emissions. Lighting for the hangar would illuminate the interior and exterior of the hangar and would be similar to angled, directional lighting used at existing hangars. Additionally, lighting used for the apron area would be similar to lighting used for existing aprons at the Airport. The closest light-sensitive area (i.e., residential area) is approximately 1½ miles

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 4-14 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES southeast of the proposed hangar and apron area. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not significantly affect light sensitive areas.

Visual Effects – The Proposed Action involves the construction and operation of additional infrastructure at the Airport. The Proposed Action would be similar to existing infrastructure and buildings at the Airport. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not represent a significant visual impact compared to the No Action Alternative.

4.9 NATURAL RESOURCES, ENGERGY SUPPLIES, AND SUSTAINABLE DESIGN This section describes the potential impacts of the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action on natural resource and energy supplies. This section also describes the sustainable design features that the Proposed Action could include.

4.9.1 Significance Threshold A project requiring natural resource or energy supplies that would exceed supplies would likely cause a significant impact on natural resources or energy supplies.

4.9.2 Environmental Consequences FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, Appendix A, Section 13.2a notes that FAA NEPA documents must examine natural resource and energy usages only when an action “…involves a need for unusual materials or those in short supply.” Although Section 13.2a notes these instances are rare, examples of this would be: » an airport terminal that would use large volumes of water to serve passenger needs; or » runway construction that would require large volumes of concrete that would strain local or regional concrete supplies.

Aerial photographs and USGS Topographic 7.5 Minute Series Quadrangles for the project study area and coordination with the JAA were used to determine if any natural sources of mineral or energy resources would be impacted by the Proposed Action. The volumes of jet fuel or aviation fuel for projects involving changes in airside operations was examined to determine how those changes would alter existing jet fuel demands and supplies.

Common industry information related to sustainable design and sustainable practices was reviewed to describe measures to reduce the potential landside development demands on natural resource and energy supplies. Useful references, recognized by the FAA include: » he Airports Cooperative Research Program Synthesis 10, Airport Sustainability Practices; and » Sustainable Aviation Guidance Alliance (SAGA) Database.

4.9.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the construction and operation of infrastructure to support spaceport related operations and relocation of the existing OLA would not occur. RLV companies would continue to conduct operations from existing shared hangar space and the OLA located at the end of Runway 18L-

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 4-15 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES

36R. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would not significantly affect natural resources or energy supplies.

4.9.2.2 Proposed Action The Proposed Action in this EA includes the construction of infrastructure in support of commercial space transportation activities at the Airport and changes the location where specific propellants associated with RLV launches may be stored and loaded. The following subsections further describe the Proposed Action’s potential impacts to natural resources and energy and the potential for sustainable design.

Natural Resources – Operation of the Proposed Action would increase the use of natural resources at the Airport primarily in the form of water use (see Section 4.8). Compared to the No Action Alternative, this increase in natural resource use would not be significant.

Energy Supplies –The Proposed Action would increase the Airport’s electricity consumption because of the new hangar and associated development; however, this would not have a significant impact on local electricity supplies. The fuels and oxidizers would be the same under the Proposed Action as the No Action Alternative. Therefore, compared to the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not significantly increase the Airport’s energy use.

Sustainable Design – The hangar associated with the Proposed Action could be designed to operate more energy efficiently than similar existing facilities at the Airport. The design phase of the Proposed Action could consider sustainable design elements. The selected contractor may use sustainable design elements suggested in the ACRP Synthesis 10 Airport Sustainability Practices (ACRP, 2008) and the Sustainable Aviation Guidance Alliance for the operation of the Proposed Action.

Compared to the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not significantly impact natural resources or energy supplies.

4.10 SECONDARY (INDUCED) IMPACTS This section describes the potential secondary (induced) impacts related to implementation of the No Action Alternative or Proposed Action.

Airport development projects may cause some level of secondary effects. Those effects may be beneficial or adverse. Examples of beneficial effects include: » buying construction and operating supplies from local vendors; » providing local artists on-airport areas to display their works; or » offering permanent and part-time jobs to local citizens.

Examples of adverse effects include: » placing excessive demands on local emergency, school, or police services due to sudden influxes of transient workers; or » causing changes in population patterns that reduce local tax bases.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 4-16 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES

4.10.1 Significance Threshold Development often involves the potential for induced or secondary impacts on surrounding communities. When such potential exists, the EA shall describe in general terms such factors. Examples include: shifts in patterns of population movement and growth; public service demands; and changes in business and economic activity to the extent influenced by the airport development. Induced impacts will normally not be significant except where there are also significant impacts in other categories, especially noise, land use, or direct social impacts.

Economic impacts that measure the effects of airport development on the local economy can be characterized as direct, indirect, or induced impacts. Direct impacts are those realized on-site at the airport that directly relate to construction and operations. Indirect impacts are those created by the multiplier or “ripple” effect of spending and result from successive rounds of spending by employees at both direct and indirect facilities. Induced impacts are the secondary changes in the economy that result from airport development.

4.10.2 Environmental Consequences In order to assess potential secondary (induced) impacts, this EA uses information obtained from an RLV operator. This information is for planning purposes only.

4.10.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, construction and operation of the infrastructure to support spaceport- related operations and relocation of the existing OLA would not occur. RLV companies would continue to conduct operations from existing shared hangar space and the OLA located at the end of Runway 18L- 36R.

4.10.2.2 Proposed Action The Proposed Action in this EA includes the construction of infrastructure in support of commercial space transportation activities at the Airport and changes the location where specific propellants associated with RLV launches may be stored and loaded.

The Proposed Action would not disrupt, divide, or relocate residences. The Proposed Action would not affect public service demands or result in shifts in patterns of population movement or growth. The JAA would incorporate the public service demands for the Proposed Action in the Airport’s overall management (e.g., emergency response, SPCC plan, potable water, wastewater/sewer, and other utilities). One RLV operator estimates that their operations at the Airport could provide a direct economic impact of greater than $750,000, with a potential to result in $3,000,000 annually into the region’s economy (see Appendix A for supporting documentation). This increase in economic base for the region is considered a positive impact. Ultimately, the secondary (induced) impact of an RLV operator at the Airport is dependent on an RLV operator acquiring a launch vehicle license and the type of launches they conduct.20

20 An RLV operator that wants to conduct RLV launches at the Airport must apply for and obtain a launch vehicle operator license, which is separate from the JAA’s existing launch site operator license. The RLV operator’s launch vehicle operator license would include separate NEPA documentation, which would include an analysis of secondary (induced) impacts.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 4-17 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES

Compared to the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not have significant secondary (induced) impacts. However, the Proposed Action could result in an economic benefit to the region compared to the No Action Alternative.

4.11 SOCIOECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CHILDREN’S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS This section describes the potential impacts of the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action on socioeconomics, environmental justice, and children’s health and safety risks.

4.11.1 Significance Thresholds The following sections describe the significance thresholds used to determine potential socioeconomic, environmental justice, and children’s health and safety risk impacts.

4.11.1.1 Socioeconomics Factors to be considered in determining whether an action would result in significant socioeconomic impacts include the following: » Would the action result in extensive relocation, with replacement housing unavailable? » Would the action result in extensive relocation of community businesses, causing severe economic hardship for the affected communities? » Would the action result in disruption of local traffic patterns, substantially reducing the Level of Service of those roads serving the Airport and surrounding area? or » Would the action result in a substantial loss in the tax base of the community?

4.11.1.2 Environmental Justice FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1 defines a significant impact as one that may occur when an action would cause disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on low-income or minority populations. Additionally, USDOT Order 5610.2(a) defines disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations as an adverse effect that: » is “predominately borne by a minority population and/or low-income population, or » will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the non- minority population and/or non-low-income population.”

4.11.1.3 Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks An action resulting in disproportionate health and safety risks to children indicates a significant impact.

4.11.2 Environmental Consequences

4.11.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, construction and operation of the infrastructure to support spaceport- related operations and relocation of the existing OLA would not occur. RLV companies would continue to conduct operations from existing shared hangar space and the OLA located at the end of Runway 18L-

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 4-18 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES

36R. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to socioeconomics, environmental justice, and/or children’s environmental health and safety risks.

4.11.2.2 Proposed Action The Proposed Action in this EA includes the construction of infrastructure in support of commercial space transportation activities at the Airport and changes the location where specific propellants associated with RLV launches may be stored and loaded. The following subsections describe the potential socioeconomic, environmental justice, and children’s health and safety risks that could result from implementation of the Proposed Action.

Socioeconomics – The Proposed Action would occur entirely on Airport property and would not require the relocation of residents and/or businesses. Additionally, the Proposed Action would not disrupt local traffic patterns or result in a substantial loss in community tax base. Compared to the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not have a significant socioeconomic affect.

Environmental Justice – As described throughout this chapter, the Proposed Action would not have significant impacts to any environmental resource category. The Proposed Action and project study area occur entirely on Airport property. The minor impacts associated with the construction of the Proposed Action would not disproportionately affect minority and/or low-income populations. Compared to the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not disproportionately affect minority and/or low-income populations.

Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks – According to the Florida Department of Public Health (FDPH), the primary children’s health concern statewide is asthma and related lung disorders. Potential direct or indirect impacts to children’s environmental health and safety may result from impacts to air quality, hazardous materials, noise, and water quality. The Proposed Action would not cause significant air quality or climate, see Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.4 respectively. The Proposed Action would occur entirely on Airport property and would not create hazards in areas that children use (e.g., schools, playgrounds, etc.). The Proposed Action would not result in a significant noise impact (see Section 4.4). As Section 4.12 describes, the Proposed Action would not significantly impact water quality in the area. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not cause an elevated risk related to the health or safety concerns for children. Compared to the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not disproportionately affect children’s environmental health and safety.

4.12 WATER QUALITY This section describes the potential impacts of the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action on water quality.

4.12.1 Significance Threshold A significant water quality effect may occur if the EA and early consultation: » show there is a potential to exceed water quality standards; » identify water quality effects that cannot be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated; or

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 4-19 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES

» indicate difficulties in obtaining required permits.

4.12.2 Environmental Consequences The potential impacts to water quality were assessed based on the location, preliminary design plans, and intended function of the Proposed Action. The proposed disturbed areas and new impervious areas for the Proposed Action were analyzed to evaluate the short-term construction impacts to surface waters. Possible impacts to groundwater recharge/discharge areas were investigated. Increases to potable water consumption and domestic wastewater treatment were also considered in regard to potential direct impacts.

4.12.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, construction and operation of the infrastructure to support spaceport- related operations and relocation of the existing OLA would not occur. RLV companies would continue to conduct operations from existing shared hangar space and the OLA located at the end of Runway 18L- 36R. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would not affect the area’s water quality.

4.12.2.2 Proposed Action The Proposed Action in this EA includes the construction of infrastructure in support of commercial space transportation activities at the Airport and changes the location where specific propellants associated with RLV launches may be stored and loaded.

The Proposed Action would increase the impervious surface on Airport property by approximately three acres. However, the Proposed Action includes the construction of a stormwater treatment swale to meet the Proposed Action’s stormwater detention and treatment requirements. The stormwater pond would meet the requirements of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Statewide Airport Stormwater Study BMP Manual, dated April 2013, and FAA design criteria in AC 150/5200-33B to avoid attracting wildlife hazardous to aviation.

As listed in the City of Jacksonville’s letter, the JAA would obtain a permit for the stormwater treatment swale from the City of Jacksonville’s Environmental Quality Division (see Attachment B-2 for the City of Jacksonville’s letter). The JAA would also maintain compliance with the requirements of the City of Jacksonville Ordinance Code, Chapter 754, Stormwater Management Utility Code, Part 2, Violations and Prohibited Activities. The Proposed Action would not adversely impact the City of Jacksonville Stormwater Management System or cause or contribute to violations of state water quality standards.

The Proposed Action’s potential impact on potable water supplies or local wastewater treatment facilities would not be significant. Compared to the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not significantly affect water quality.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 4-20 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

CHAPTER 5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 5-1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts are defined by CEQ in 40 CFR §1508.7 as, “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions.”

CEQ regulations further require that NEPA analyses address connected, cumulative, and similar actions in the same document. CEQ explains in Considering Cumulative Effects under NEPA that “each resource, ecosystem and human community must be analyzed in terms of its ability to accommodate additional impacts, based on its own time and space parameters.” Therefore, a cumulative impacts analysis would normally encompass geographic boundaries beyond the immediate area of the Proposed Action, and a time frame, including past and foreseeable future actions, in order to capture these additional potential impacts.

For this EA, spatial and temporal boundaries were delineated to determine the areas and projects within those areas that the cumulative analysis would address. The spatial boundary for this cumulative analysis is within one mile of the Proposed Action. Projects described in following sections include those that had or have the potential to affect the environmental resources analyzed in this EA. For this EA, past actions include those that have occurred within the past three years and present actions currently underway. Reasonably foreseeable future actions include those planned to occur in the next five years. Reasonably foreseeable future actions are those that have been developed with enough specificity to provide meaningful information to a decision maker and the interested public.

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions described in the following sections were researched using federal, state, and local agency websites.

5.1 PAST PROJECTS Projects that have occurred within one mile of the portion of the project study area encompassing the proposed development components of the Proposed Action in the last three years include: » construction of a 30,000-square-foot corporate maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) hangar in the northwest quadrant of the Airport; » construction of a 131,000-square-foot MRO hangar in the northwest quadrant of the Airport; » construction of a 15,000-square-foot fixed base operator (FBO) hangar in the northwest quadrant of the Airport; » construction of a 14,500-square-foot hangar, including office space, in the northwest quadrant of the Airport; » improvements to the Airport’s airfield drainage; » improvements to the Airport’s wildlife/perimeter/security fence; and » renewal of the JAA’s existing launch site operator license to allow the JAA to offer Cecil Airport/Spaceport to RLV operators.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 5-2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

According to NEPA documentation for the past projects, none of the past projects resulted in a significant impacts.

5.2 PRESENT PROJECTS Projects that are currently underway within one mile of the portion of the project study area encompassing the proposed development components of the Proposed Action include: » construction of on-Airport airside (extension of Taxiway E1 and a portion of E), landside (proposed aviation hangars), and surface transportation improvements (Approach Road Phase 1) in the northwest and northeast quadrants of the Airport property.

This ongoing project at the Airport was analyzed in the 2012 “Final Focused EA for the Northern Development Areas.” The Final Focused EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) determined that these present projects had no significant environmental impacts (FAA, 2012a).

5.3 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE PROJECTS Projects that could occur in the next five years within one mile of the portion of the project study area encompassing the proposed development components of the Proposed Action include: » construction of Approach Road Phase 2 associated with future aviation development in the northeast quadrant of the Airport; » construction of spaceport-related support facilities (e.g., liquid fuel storage area, visitor center); » relocation of the Airport’s ATCT; » construction of parallel Taxiway E; » removal of Runway 9L-27R pavement associated with the threshold displacement; » the JAA’s proposal to offer the Airport to Concept Y21 RLV operators; » Potential RLV operators’ (e.g., Generation Orbit, Concept Y RLV operator) applications for launch licenses22 from the FAA for launches at the Airport; and » industrial development associated with Alliance Florida at Cecil Commerce Center west of the Airport property on the former naval base.

Section 5.4 cumulatively assesses the reasonably foreseeable future projects and potential environmental impacts with the Proposed Action.

5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The following subsections describe the environmental resource categories that the Proposed Action and past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would impact cumulatively. As discussed below,

21 The Concept Y RLV is a single-propulsion RLV that ignites its rocket engines while on the ground and takes off horizontally from a runway. This RLV is under rocket power until engine cutoff during ascent of its suborbital trajectory. Upon completion of its launch profile, it returns gliding unpowered for a horizontal landing. 22 Applications for a vehicle operator license would include an environmental analysis of the RLV proposed for operation.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 5-3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS implementation of the Proposed Action when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would result in less than significant cumulative impacts

5.4.1 Air Quality The Proposed Action would not significantly affect air quality. Review of available information for past and present projects did not reveal any significant impacts to air quality. The reasonably foreseeable future projects may result in increases to emissions during construction and operation. The previously listed on- Airport projects are not anticipated to significantly increase aviation operations and, therefore, are not likely to significantly affect air quality. The quantity or types of emissions associated with the reasonably foreseeable future off-Airport industrial development are not known at this time. However, it can be reasonably assumed that if the industrial development is a source of significant emissions, the developer would be responsible for obtaining applicable air quality permits to minimize potential impacts. Overall, the cumulative impact of the Proposed Action on air quality, when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not be significant.

5.4.2 Climate The cumulative impact of the Proposed Action on the global climate when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is not currently scientifically predictable. Aviation has been calculated to contribute approximately 3 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions; this contribution may grow to 5 percent by 2050. Actions are underway within the U.S. and by other nations to reduce aviation’s contribution through such measures as new aircraft technologies to reduce emissions and improve fuel efficiency, renewable alternative fuels with lower carbon footprints, more efficient air traffic management, market-based measures, and environmental regulations including an aircraft CO2 standard. The U.S. has ambitious goals to achieve carbon-neutral growth for aviation by 2020 compared to a 2005 baseline, and to gain absolute reductions in GHG emissions by 2050. At present, there are no calculations of the extent to which measures individually or cumulatively may affect aviation’s CO2 emissions. Moreover, there are large uncertainties regarding aviation’s impact on climate. The FAA, with support from the U.S. Global Change Research Program and its participating federal agencies (e.g., NASA, NOAA, EPA, and DOE), has developed the Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI) in an effort to advance scientific understanding of regional and global climate impacts of aircraft emissions, with quantified uncertainties for current and projected aviation scenarios under changing atmospheric conditions (Brown, 2010).

5.4.3 Coastal Resources The Proposed Action would be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the FCMP. On a project-by-project basis, the FDEP determines if a project is consistent with the FCMP during the environmental permitting process. The cumulative projects are not anticipated to adversely affect coastal resources, create plans to direct future agency actions, or propose rulemaking that alters uses of the coastal zone that are inconsistent with the FCMP. Therefore, the Proposed Action in addition to past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, are not anticipated to significantly impact coastal resources.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 5-4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

5.4.4 Construction Impacts The Proposed Action’s construction related impacts would be temporary and would not result in any permanent significant impacts to environmental resources. The Proposed Action and previously described cumulative projects require permits for construction activities. These permits typically include BMPs to reduce potential environmental impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Action in addition to past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, are not anticipated to cause significant environmental impacts due to construction activities.

5.4.5 Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources The Proposed Action would not affect historic, architectural, archaeological, or cultural resources. Review of available information for past and present projects did not reveal any significant impacts to historic, architectural, archaeological, or cultural resources. Reasonably foreseeable future projects at the Airport are unlikely to directly affect historic, architectural, archaeological, or cultural resources. Should there be a potential for indirect impacts (e.g., noise), coordination with the Florida Division of Historic Resources would occur on a project-by-project basis, as part of the NEPA documentation, in order to determine potential indirect effects. Potential direct and indirect effects to these resources from the reasonably foreseeable future off-Airport industrial development is not known at this time. Section 106 does not apply to non-federal projects. However, based on preliminary analysis, there are no NRHP-listed historic properties in the area proposed for development. It is unknown if archaeological surveys have been conducted in the area. Because the Proposed Action would not affect historic, architectural, archaeological, or cultural resources, there would be no cumulative effect to these resources when considered with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

5.4.6 Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste The Proposed Action would not significantly impact hazardous materials or solid waste. Review of available information for past and present projects did not reveal any significant impacts to hazardous materials and solid waste. Reasonably foreseeable future projects could potentially include facilities that store or handle hazardous materials or include the construction and operation of fueling facilities. However, those projects would be required to follow federal, state, and local rules and regulations regarding the handling, storage, and use of hazardous materials. Additionally, projects at the Airport have been and/or would be included under the JAA’s NPDES permit for the Airport. The JAA would amend, if needed, the procedures for managing solid waste at the Airport should the amount of solid waste generated exceed what can be currently managed. Therefore, the Proposed Action in addition to past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are not anticipated to cause significant cumulative impacts regarding hazardous materials or solid waste.

5.4.7 Light Emissions and Visual Resources The Proposed Action would result in more light emissions and additional visual effects at the Airport. However, these impacts are not considered substantial. The cumulative projects would require lighting for safety and security reasons. Lighting for the ATCT and spaceport-related support facilities would illuminate the interior and exterior of the facilities. Additionally, lighting used for the roadway would be similar to lighting used for existing access roads at the Airport. The Alliance Florida project would result in lighting of the industrial facilities for safety and security reasons. Lighting for all of the cumulative projects

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 5-5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS would be angled and directional towards the ground. The cumulative projects and the Proposed Action are similar to existing infrastructure and buildings at the Airport and adjacent industrial areas. Visual effects would not be substantially different. Therefore, the Proposed Action in addition to past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, are not anticipated to cause significant cumulative impacts due to light emissions or visual effects.

5.4.8 Natural Resources, Energy Supply, and Sustainable Design Operation of the Proposed Action would increase water and electrical use at the airport. The Proposed Action would not significantly impact natural resources or energy supplies. The cumulative projects would also increase the use of natural resources, particularly energy demand related with the industrial development. The reasonably foreseeable future on-Airport actions that have development components could include sustainable design elements, similar to the Proposed Action. Sustainable design elements may also be used in the reasonably foreseeable industrial development. Therefore, the Proposed Action in addition to past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, are not anticipated to cause significant cumulative impacts to natural resources, energy supply.

5.4.9 Secondary (Induced) Impacts The Proposed Action could provide a direct economic impact of greater than $750,000, with a potential to result in $3,000,000 annually into the region’s economy. However, this potential impact is not considered substantial. The aviation-related development at the Airport (e.g., hangars) and industrial development around the Airport may bring more businesses into the area, thereby increasing the number of employees working in the area. The potential increase in employees due to future development is not known at this time because it would be dependent on the types of companies that move into the area. However, the area is expected to have sufficient housing to meet the needs of new employees that may move to the area. Additionally, the City of Jacksonville manages growth in a manner that ensures there are sufficient public utilities and services (e.g., water, power, police and fire services). Therefore, the Proposed Action in addition to past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, are not anticipated to cause significant secondary (induced) impacts.

5.4.10 Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks The Proposed Action would not result in socioeconomic impacts, disproportionately affect minority or low-income populations, or affect children’s environmental health or safety. The past and present projects previously described did not result in significant socioeconomic impacts, environmental justice impacts, or impacts to children’s environmental health or safety. Similarly, reasonably foreseeable future projects on- Airport property are not anticipated to result in significant effects to those categories because they would occur primarily on-Airport property and are not likely to result in significant effects. Based on preliminary information, the reasonably foreseeable future industrial development is not anticipated to include the relocation of residents and/or businesses, disproportionately affect minority or low-income populations, or significantly affect children’s environmental health and safety. Therefore, the Proposed Action in addition to past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, are not anticipated to cause significant socioeconomic impacts, significant disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations, or significantly impact children’s environmental health and safety.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 5-6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

5.4.11 Water Quality The Proposed Action would increase impervious surface at the Airport, the use of potable water, and use of local wastewater treatment facilities. These potential impacts are not considered significant. The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would increase the amount of impervious surface in the area, which would increase the amount of stormwater runoff. These projects may also involve the removal of trees and other vegetation, which may increase the potential for erosion and sedimentation. The projects occurring or planned to occur at the Airport would include FAA-compliant, on Airport drainage improvements and stormwater treatments, as necessary. Similarly, off-Airport projects would address drainage needs and erosion concerns on a project-by-project basis. Therefore, the Proposed Action in addition to past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, are not anticipated to cause significant water quality impacts.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 5-7 REFERENCES

CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 6-1 REFERENCES

14 CFR 400, Basis and Scope.

14 CFR 420, License to Operate a Launch Site.

14 CFR 420.41, License to Operate a Launch Site – General.

14 CFR 420.65, Separation Distance Requirements for Handling Division 1.1 and 1.3 Explosives.

14 CFR 420.67, Separation Distance Requirements for Handling Incompatible Energetic Liquids that are co- located.

14 CFR 420.43, Duration.

40 CFR 1500-1508, Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA.

50 CFR 10, General Provisions.

50 CFR 402, Interagency Cooperation – Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended.

43 FR 47707 (1978), EO 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards.

52 FR 2923 (1987), EO 12580, Superfund Implementation.

58 FR 41981 (1993), EO 12856, Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements.

60 FR 40837 (1994), Presidential Memorandum on Environmentally and Economically Beneficial Landscape Practices on Federally Landscaped Grounds.

64 FR 6183 (1999), EO 13112, Invasive Species.

15 U.S.C. § 2601-2692 (1976), Toxic Substances Control Act.

16 U.S.C. § 661 et. seq. (1934), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.

16 U.S.C. § 703-712 (1918), Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

16 U.S.C. § 1531-1544, Endangered Species Act.

16 U.S.C. § 1855(b)(2) (1996), Sustainable Fisheries Act.

33 U.S.C. § 1251 et. seq. (1972), Clean Water Act.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 6-2 REFERENCES

33 U.S.C. § 2701 (1990), Oil Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.

42 U.S.C. § 300(f) (1974), Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended.

42 U.S.C. § 1252 et. seq. (1990), Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

42 U.S.C. § 6901 et. seq. (1976), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

42 U.S.C. § 9601, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

49 U.S.C. Chapter 471, Airport Development.

49 U.S.C. § 47107(a)(16), Grant Assurance No. 29.

49 U.S.C. § 47106(c)(B), Environmental Requirements.

51 U.S.C. § 50901-50923 (1984), Commercial Space Launch Act.

ACRP (2008). Synthesis 10: Airport Sustainability Practices, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/acrp_syn_010.pdf

Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants Institute for Systematic Botany (2015). Duval County, http://www.florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/, accessed January 2015.

Brown, 2010. Nathan Brown, et. al. The U.S. Strategy for Tackling Aviation Climate Impacts, 27th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, 2010.

CEQ (2010), Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/Consideration_of_Effects_of_GHG_Draft_NEPA_Guidance_FINAL_021820 10.pdf.

Chantlett, E. T. (1973), Environmental Protection, McGraw-Hill Book Co. New York.

Department of the Navy (1998). Final Environmental Impact Statement, Disposal and Reuse of Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Jacksonville, Florida, pp. 3-128 – 3-130, http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA358322, accessed January 2015.

Diemer, J. (1992). Gopher Tortoise, Gopherus polyphemus in Moler, P.E., ed. “Rare and endangered biota of Florida.” Amphibians and Reptiles, 3, 123-127.

Division of Historical Resources (2015). Florida Historical Marker Interactive Map, http://apps.flheritage.com/markers/map/, accessed August 2015.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 6-3 REFERENCES

EO 12465, 3 CFR 163 (1984). Commercial Expendable Launch Vehicle Activities.

FAA (2006a). Order 1050.1E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, March 20, 2006.

FAA (2006b). Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions, April 28, 2006.

FAA (2009a), Airport Compliance Manual, Order 5190,6B, Chapter 20, pg. 20-2, http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders/compliance_5190_6/, accessed May 2015.

FAA (2009b). Final Environmental Assessment for Jacksonville Aviation Authority Launch Site Operator License at Cecil Field, Florida.

FAA (2010). Runway Incursion Avoidance, https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/media/pdf/PHAK%20-%20Appendix%201%20- %20April%202012.pdf, accessed February 2015.

FAA (2012). 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.

FAA (2012a). Final Focused EA for the Northern Development Areas, Federal Aviation Administration, November 9, 2012.

FAA (2014a). Final Environmental Assessment for the Midland International Air and Space Port, City of Midland, Midland County, Texas http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/Midland_Final_EA_and_FONSI.pdf

FAA (2014b). Memorandum: Proposed Commercial Space Facilities and Operations at Federally-Obligated or Part 139 Airports, October 20, 2014.

FAA (2015a). FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF). Cecil Airport. http://aspm.faa.gov/apowtaf/, accessed February 2015.

FAA (2015b). Written Re-evaluation EA for the Final Environmental Assessment for Jacksonville Aviation Authority Launch Site Operator License at Cecil Field, Florida. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (2015). Jennings State Forest, http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisions-Offices/Florida-Forest-Service/Our-Forests/State- Forests/Jennings-State-Forest, accessed January 2015.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2015). Branan Field Wildlife and Environmental Area, http://myfwc.com/viewing/recreation/wmas/lead/branan-field/, accessed January 2015.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 6-4 REFERENCES

FWC (2015). Gopher Tortoise Permits, Recipient Site, http://myfwc.com/license/wildlife/gopher-tortoise- permits/recipient-site/, accessed May 2015.

GAO (2009), Report to Congressional Committees, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09554.pdf

JAA (2012a). Cecil Spaceport Master Plan, March 2012.

JAA (2012b). JAA Spill Response Procedures Manual, February 2012.

JAA (2013), Memorandum of Understanding between Jacksonville Aviation Authority and Generation Orbit Launch Services, Inc., December 18, 2013

JAA (2014a). Cecil Airport Emergency Plan, October 2014.

JAA (2014b). Cecil Spaceport Draft Emergency Response Plan, September 2014.

JAA (2015), JAA Launch Site Operator License, January 11, 2010; Renewal of JAA Launch Site Operator License, January 6, 2015. The JAA launch site operator license, LSO 09-012, can be accessed online at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/Cecil%20Web.pdf.

Kahl, M.P., Jr. (1964). Food Ecology of the Wood Stork (Mycteria Americana) in Florida. Ecological Monographs, 34(2), 97-117.

Maurice, Lourdes Q. & Lee, David S. (2007), Final Report of the Interactional Civil Aviation Organization Committee on Aviation and Environmental Protection Workshop, Chapter 5: Aviation Impacts on Climate, http://www.icao.int/icaonetlcnfrstlCAEP/CAEP SG_20082/docs/Caep8_SG2_ WPI0.pdf.

Melrose, Alan (2010), European ATM and Climate Adaptation: A Scoping Study, ICAO Environmental Report.

NRCS (1998). Soil Survey of City of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/florida/jacksonvilleFL1998/jacksonvilleFL1998.pdf, accessed January 2015.

Olds, Ph.D., PE, John R., (2013) Letter from Generation Orbit to Bernard McShea, Vice President, Business Development, Space Florida. October 26, 2013

Rodgers, J.A., Jr., Wenner, A.S, & Schwikert, S.T. (1988). “The use and function of green nest material by wood storks.” The Wilson Bulletin, 100(3), 411-423.

Waste Management (2015). Trail Ridge Landfill, http://trailridgelandfill.wm.com/index.jsp, accessed February 2015.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 6-5 REFERENCES

USEPA (2009), Technical Support Document for Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act 2-3, http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html.

USEPA (2012), What are the Six Common air Pollutants, http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/, accessed October 2014.

USEPA (2015). NEPAssist, http://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/nepamap.aspx?action=searchloc&wherestr=cecil%20field%2C%20 FL, accessed February 2015.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 6-6 LIST OF PREPARERS

CHAPTER 7 LIST OF PREPARERS

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 7-1 LIST OF PREPARERS

7.1 LEAD AGENCY The FAA is the lead agency for the preparation of this EA. Responsibility for review and approval of this EA rests with the FAA. The following FAA staff members were involved in the preparation of this EA:

Virginia Lane Position: Environmental Protection Specialist, Orlando Airports District Office

Stacey Zee Position: Environmental Specialist, Office of Commercial Space Transportation

7.2 PRINCIPAL PREPARERS

7.2.1 Jacksonville Aviation Authority Todd Lindner Position: Senior Manager, Aviation Planning and Spaceport Development

David Dunkley Position: Planning, Grants and Environmental Administrator

Kelly Dollarhide Position: Cecil Airport Manager

7.2.2 RS&H, Inc. David Alberts Position: Project Manager, Southeast Region Environmental Service Group Leader Education: Bachelor of Arts in Geography, University of South Florida, 1997 Experience: Mr. Alberts has 18 years of NEPA related experience. He has managed and prepared federal environmental impact statements (EISs), EAs, and documented categorical exclusions, as well as state environmental documents for a variety of major air carrier and general aviation airports and spaceports throughout the U.S.

Natalie Heath, AICP Position: Environmental Planner Education: Master of Science in Urban and Regional Planning, Florida State University, 2012; Bachelor of Science in Environmental Studies and Political Science, Florida State University, 2010 Experience: Mrs. Heath has experience conducting NEPA research, analysis, and documentation for commercial and general aviation airports nationwide. She also has experience with the use of Geographic Information System (GIS).

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 7-2 LIST OF PREPARERS

Edward Melisky Position: Senior Environmental Planner Education: Master of Science in Fisheries Biology, 1980; Bachelor of Science in Biology, 1974 Experience: Mr. Melisky has 40 years of NEPA experience, with 25 years directly related to major air carrier and general aviation airport projects throughout the United States. He has written EISs, EAs, and documented categorical exclusions for airport and other infrastructure projects and has authored guidance on preparing those documents.

Nick Kozlik, LEED Green Associate Position: Environmental Planner Education: Bachelor of Science in Environmental Studies, Florida State University, 2009; Certification in Urban and Regional Planning, Florida State University, 2009 Experience: Mr. Kozlik has experience conducting NEPA research and preparing NEPA and California Environmental Quality Act documents. He has experience preparing documents and graphics using GIS for both categorical exclusions and EAs.

Ken Ibold, AICP, CNU-A Position: Senior Aviation Planner Education: Master of Science in Transportation and Urban Systems, North Dakota State University, 2014; Bachelor of Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1983 Experience: Mr. Ibold is an aviation planner responsible for the execution of aviation planning efforts, including safety management systems, FAA-licensed commercial spaceport, airport master plans, feasibility studies, Capital Improvement Program development, and airport layout plans.

Julie Barrow Position: Environmental Planner Education: Master of Science in Environmental Science, Alaska Pacific University, 2003; Bachelor of Science in Wildlife Conservation Biology, Arizona State University, 2000 Experience: Mrs. Barrow has over five years of aviation environmental planning experience and has completed numerous environmental studies and documents for commercial and general airports nationwide. Mrs. Barrow also created the FAA’s Sustainable Master Plan Pilot Program and authored the program’s interim guidance.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 7-3 LIST OF PREPARERS

7.2.3 Environmental Resource Solutions, Inc. Kim Allerton Position: President and Senior Environmental Scientist Education: Bachelor of Science in Biology, Roanoke College, 1990 Experience: Ms. Allerton has over 23 years of experience and has completed numerous environmental studies, documents, and permits. Ms. Allerton’s experience includes EIS and EA preparation following NEPA guidelines, project development and environment studies, development of regional impact evaluations, preliminary site investigations, wetlands delineations, permitting and mitigation, water quality and benthic investigation, habitat and wildlife assessment, and endangered species assessments.

Sarah Brammell Position: Southwest Florida Regional Director and Senior Environmental Scientist Education: Master of Public Administration (Environmental Policy), Florida Gulf Coast University, 2007; Bachelor of Art in Biology, Susquehanna University, 1996 Experience: Ms. Brammell has over 15 years of experience and has managed and prepared multiple NEPA documents under FAA regulations and guidance. Ms. Brammell’s experience includes managing EAs and categorical exclusion documentation, wildlife studies, aquatic and terrestrial resource studies, and has previous experience as an environmental manager for a medium-hub commercial service airport and a general aviation airport. Ms. Brammell is also an FAA Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist.

Amy Reed

Position: Wildlife Biologist/Environmental Scientist Education: Bachelor of Science in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, 2007 Experience: Ms. Reed has 7 years of experience and provides biological support services for numerous environmental documents and permits. Ms. Reed’s expertise includes wildlife surveys, listed species documentation and permitting, wetland and vegetative community mapping, and habitat assessments. Ms. Reed is also an FAA Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport 7-4 SUPPORTING DOCUMENT

APPENDIX A SUPPORTING DOCUMENT

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport A-1

October 26, 2013

Mr. Bernard (Bernie) McShea Vice President, Business Development Space Florida 505 Odyssey Way, Suite 300 Exploration Park, FL 32953

Dear Mr. McShea:

Pursuant to your letter of August 27, Generation Orbit would like to initiate discussions with your office leading to a preliminary economic impact agreement associated with our planned small satellite launch operations at Cecil Spaceport in Jacksonville.

Generation Orbit plans to operate our suborbital GOLauncher 1 and orbital GOLauncher 2 space launch systems from the existing FAA-licensed facility at Cecil. Both GOLauncher systems are horizontal launch, horizontal return configurations utilizing a Gulfstream carrier aircraft. The small associated rocket stages are expendable. Initial flight tests will begin in early 2014. Suborbital operations will begin in early 2015, and orbital launch operations will begin in late 2016. We expect to reach full operational capability for 25+ flights per year by 2019.

Our intent is to gradually increase our footprint in Jacksonville starting with a small field office in 2014 and moving toward basing our Operations staff in Jacksonville as our pace of flight operations increases. Generation Orbit is working with Mr. Todd Lindner at Cecil to establish the proper balance of actual GO-badged employees vs. contract personnel from existing service organizations at Cecil to meet our company’s growing needs.

Staffing Plan:

Please use the following information as our current best estimate of employment needs.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019+ GO Managerial Staff 1 1 2 2 2 GO Ops Engineering Staff 1 2 2 2 2 2 GO Technicians 1 3 2 3 5 5 Local Technician Personnel* 6 6 10 10 15 15 Total Staffing Profile 8 12 15 17 24 24

* - Local technician personnel includes subcontracts to existing service companies at Cecil for integration, receiving, transportation, checkout, fueling, and launch support services.

Generation Orbit Launch Services, Inc. 1040 Crown Pointe Pkwy, Suite 950 | Atlanta, GA 30338-4741 www.golauncher.com | [email protected] | 1+404.991.2210 Facilities Plan:

Generation Orbit plans to lease a small office space at Cecil to house our dedicated operations staff. In addition, we will lease as-needed hanger space sufficient to conduct payload integration, rocket integration, and G-III aircraft pre-flight storage. Manufactured rockets will arrive at Cecil for integration with the G-III aircraft, but will be produced elsewhere. Estimates for office space and hanger space are listed below.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019+ Office Space (RSF) 150 350 1,500 1,500 5,000 5,000 Temporary Hanger Space (SF) 15,000 15,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 Total Space Profile 15,150 15,350 26,500 26,500 26,500 26,500

Temporary hanger space will be leased on an as-needed basis (i.e. during pre-flight and flight operations). We expect to make this hanger space lease more permanent as our launch operations justify that decision.

We are in discussions with Mr. Lindner regarding additional facilities such as a launch control center (control room), tower upgrades, ordnance storage bunkers, and mobile telemetry/range equipment. We do not expect to be the only customer for those shared facilities, so our working assumption is that the costs will be paid by the local airport authority, not by GO.

I am eager to work with you and your staff to place an economic value on the overall impact of our operations in Jacksonville. Our preliminary analysis suggests a direct impact of $750,000 - $900,000 in direct GO staff salaries input to Jacksonville’s economy annually. Subcontractor awards to existing Cecil service businesses and lease of local office and hanger space could add another $1,000,000 to our direct impact. Assuming a 1.5X to 2X multiple for indirect and ripple impacts, Generation’s value to Jacksonville could easily be over three million dollars of total impact annually.

Sincerely,

John R. Olds, Ph.D., PE Chief Executive Officer 1+404.991.2215 (direct) [email protected]

Generation Orbit Launch Services, Inc. (GO) 1040 Crown Pointe Pkwy, Suite 950 Atlanta, GA 30338-4741

Generation Orbit Launch Services, Inc. 1040 Crown Pointe Pkwy, Suite 950 | Atlanta, GA 30338-4741 www.golauncher.com | [email protected] | 1+404.991.2210 EARLY NOTIFICATION A ND COORDINATION

APPENDIX B EARLY NOTIFICATION AND COORDINATION

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport B-1 EARLY NOTIFICATION A ND COORDINATION

APPENDIX B-1 EARLY NOTIFICATION LETTER

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport B-2

10748 Deerwood Park Boulevard S O 904-256-2500 Jacksonville, Florida 32256 F 904-256-2501 rsandh.com

February 25, 2015

ATTN: 1234 Your Street, Suite ABC City, State 12345

RE: Cecil Airport – Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities

Dear ,

The Jacksonville Airport Authority (JAA) is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for approval by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to develop new infrastructure in support of spaceport activities at Cecil Airport. The airport location and project location are shown in Figure 1. Cecil Airport is located in the southwest portion of Duval County, Florida and is owned and operated by the JAA. The project site is located within Section 23, Township 3S and Range 24E.

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and FAA Orders 1050.1E, Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts and 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions of Airport Actions, the EA will analyze the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Action. As shown Figure 2, the Proposed Action would entail the following interrelated project components: » design and construct an eastside apron measuring 200 feet by 300 feet; » design and construct a taxiway measuring 75 feet in width, connecting the eastside apron and Taxiway ‘B’ in order to provide immediate airfield access to the spaceport facility; » design and construct a hangar measuring approximately 25,000-square-feet and associated utilities; » design and construct support facilities and infrastructure (e.g., FAA compliant dry stormwater pond); and » design and construct on-Airport fencing.

RS&H, Inc. FL Cert. Nos. AAC001886•IB26000956•LCC000210

rsandh.com

On behalf of the JAA, we are sending you this early notification packet to: 1. advise your Agency of the preparation of the EA; 2. request any relevant information that your agency may have regarding the project site or environs; and 3. solicit early comments regarding potential environmental, social, and economic issues for consideration during the preparation of the EA.

Figure 1 and Figure 2 depicting the project location, project site, and existing facilities with the location of the Proposed Action are enclosed.

You may send any information and comments to me via email at [email protected] or to the address provided at the top of this letter. We would appreciate your prompt response within 30 days.

On behalf of the JAA, we would like to thank you for your interest in this project and look forward to working with you as we prepare the EA. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding Proposed Action or EA, please do not hesitate to contact me at (904) 256-2469.

Sincerely,

David Alberts Southeast Region Environmental Service Group Leader RS&H, Inc.

Page 2 of 2 0 105 Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet 1 inch = 2,500 feet

Sources: Esri, 2015; RS&H, 2015

Legend

Cecil Airport Project Study Area

Figure 1 Project Location Sources: Esri, 2015; RS&H, 2015 0 100 200 400 Feet Legend 1 inch = 200 feet Apron Stormwater Pond Taxiway Security Fence Hangar Project Study Area

Figure 2 Proposed Action

Early Coordination Mailing List Cecil Airport Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities

FEDERAL AGENCIES 4070 Boulevard Center Drive, Suite 201 Jacksonville, FL 32207-2823 USEPA Mr. Heinz Mueller NOAA-NMFS NEPA Coordinator Attn. NEPA Coordination Region 4 S.E. Region Office U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Marine Fisheries Service 61 Forsyth Street National Oceanic and Atmospheric Atlanta, GA 30303 Administration 263 13th Avenue North USFWS St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Mr. John Milio North Florida Ecological Services Office STATE AGENCIES U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200 FDEP Jacksonville, FL 32256 Ms. Lauren Milligan Florida Department of Environmental Protection FEMA Office of Intergovernmental Programs Ms. Stephanie Madson 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., MS 47 Regional Environmental Officer Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Region 4 Federal Emergency Management Agency FL SHPO 3003 Chamblee Tucker Road Mr. Robert F. Bendus Atlanta, GA 30341 Department of State Historical Resources Division DOI R.A. Gray Building Ms. Joyce A. Stanley 500 South Bronough Street, Room 418 Regional Environmental Protection Specialist Tallahassee, Florida Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance U.S. Department of the Interior FFWCC 75 Spring Street, S.W., Suite 1144 Mr. Chris Wynn, Regional Director Atlanta, GA 30303 North Central Region Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation USDA Commission Mr. Al Oliver 3377 E. U.S. Highway 90 District Conservationist Lake City, FL 32055 Lake City Service Center Natural Resources and Conservation Service FNAI 2304 SW Main Blvd. Mr. Gary Knight, Director Lake City, FL 32025 Florida Natural Areas Inventory 1018 Thomasville Road, Suite 200-C USACE Tallahassee, FL 32303 Attn. NEPA Coordination North Florida Area Office United States Army Corps of Engineers

LOCAL AGENCIES Poarch Band of Creek Indians Stephanie A. Bryan Duval County/City of Jacksonville Tribal Chair Ms. Kimberly Scott, M.P.A. Poarch Band of Creek Indians Director 5811 Jack Springs Road Regulatory Compliance Department Atmore, AL 36502 City of Jacksonville 214 Hogan Street, N., 5th Floor Mr. Robert Thrower Jacksonville, FL 32202 Acting Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Poarch Band of Creek Indians St. Johns Water Management District 5811 Jack Springs Road Mr. David Miracle Atmore, AL 36502 Director Jacksonville Service Center Seminole Tribe of Florida St. Johns Water Management District Mr. James E. Billie 7775 Baymeadows Way, Suite 102 Chairman Jacksonville, FL 32256 Seminole Tribe of Florida 6300 Stirling Road Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida Hollywood, FL 33024 Mr. Colley Billie Chairman Paul N. Backhouse, Ph.D. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida Acting Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Tamiami Station Tribal Historic Preservation Office P.O. Box 440021 30290 Josie Billie Highway Miami, FL 33144 PMB 1004 Clewiston, FL 33440 Mr. Fred Dayhoff Section 106 and NAGPRA Coordinator Anne H. Mullins, MCRP Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida Compliance Review Supervisor HC 61 Tribal Historic Preservation Office SR Box 68 Old loop Road 30290 Josie Billie Highway Ochopee, FL 34141 PMB 1004 Clewiston, FL 33440 Muscogee (Creek) Nation Mr. George Tiger Seminole Nation of Oklahoma Principal Chief Mr. Leonard M. Harjo Muscogee (Creek) Nation Principal Chief Office of the Administration Seminole Nation of Oklahoma P.O. Box 580 P.O. Box 1498 Okmulgee, OK 74447 Wewoka, OK 74884

Emman Spain (email) Ms. Natalie Harjo Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Muscogee (Creek) Nation Cultural Preservation Seminole Nation of Oklahoma P.O. Box 580 P.O. Box 1498 Okmulgee, OK 74447 Wewoka, OK 74884

EARLY NOTIFICATION AND COORDINATION

APPENDIX B-2 AGENCY RESPONSE LETTERS

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport B-9 Alberts, David

From: Milligan, Lauren Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 3:40 PM To: Alberts, David Cc: Deschapelles, Natalie Subject: RE: Cecil Airport - EA for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities- early coordination letter - State Clearance

Mr. David E. Alberts Southeast Region Environmental Service Group Leader RS&H, Inc. 10748 Deerwood Park Blvd South Jacksonville, FL 32256-0597

RE: Federal Aviation Administration – Scoping Notice – New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport – Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. SAI # FL201501217165

Dear David:

Florida State Clearinghouse staff has reviewed the referenced FAA scoping notice under the following authorities: Presidential Executive Order 12372; § 403.061(42), Florida Statutes; the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1451-1464, as amended; and the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347, as amended.

Staff notes that the proposed construction activities will require the issuance of an environmental resource permit (ERP) from the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) for onsite stormwater management. Further inquiries concerning the state’s permitting requirements should be directed to the SJRWMD’s ERP Program staff in the Jacksonville Service Center at (904) 730-6270.

Based on the information contained in the notice and minimal project impacts, at this stage, the state has no objections to the proposed federal action. The state’s continued concurrence will be based on the activity’s compliance with Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP) authorities, including federal and state monitoring of the activity to ensure its continued conformance, and the adequate resolution of any issues identified during subsequent reviews. The state’s final concurrence of the project’s consistency with the FCMP will be determined during the environmental permitting process, in accordance with Section 373.428, Florida Statutes.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this public notice. Should you have any questions or need further assistance, please don’t hesitate to contact me at (850) 245-2170 or [email protected].

Yours sincerely,

Lauren P. Milligan

Lauren P. Milligan, Coordinator Florida State Clearinghouse Florida Department of Environmental Protection

1 3900 Commonwealth Blvd, M.S. 47 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 ph. (850) 245-2170 fax (850) 245-2190 [email protected]

From: Alberts, David [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:56 AM To: Milligan, Lauren Cc: Deschapelles, Natalie Subject: Cecil Airport - EA for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities- early coordination letter

Ms. Milligan,

On behalf of the Jacksonville Aviation Authority, I am sending you an early coordination letter for the Cecil Airport Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities. The early coordination letter is attached to this email. Please feel free to call or email me if you have questions regarding this project.

Sincerely,

David

David E. Alberts Southeast Region Environmental Service Group Leader 10748 Deerwood Park Blvd South Jacksonville, FL 32256-0597 Phone: 904-256-2469 / Fax: 800-464-4358 [email protected]

Visit our website at www.rsandh.com Connect with RS&H on Facebook Twitter LinkedIn

______

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlo ok prevented automatic download of this picture from the In ternet. Dep Customer Survey

2 January 28, 2015

RS&H 10748 Deerwood Park Blvd. S. Jacksonville, FL 32256

ATTN: Mr. David Alberts

RE: Cecil Airport - Spaceport Activities Permit No. 70452-78 (Please reference permit and item numbers on all correspondence.)

Dear Mr. Alberts:

Thank you for your submittal to our agency dated January 23, 2014. The work being proposed at Cecil Commerce Center will require an Environmental Resource Permit from our office. We have in fact begun preliminary design review off the clock with engineers from RS&H to that end. Outside of the typical permit review process and associated requirements there are no other anticipated environmental issues for consideration with respect to this agency that I would suggest at this time.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey A. Reindl Professional Engineer

cc: RIM

RICK SCOTT KEN DETZNER Governor Secretary of State

Mr. David Alberts February 16, 2015 RS&H, Inc 10748 Deerwood Park Boulevard South Jacksonville, Florida 32256

RE: DHR Project File No.: 2015-0259, Received by DHR: January 20, 2015 and February 9, 2015 Project: Cecil Airport Proposed Infrastrudure in Support rif Spac-eportAttivities County: Duval

Dear Mr. Alberts:

This office reviewed the referenced project for possible effects on historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register ifHistoric Places. The review was conducted in accordance with the National Environmental Poliry Ad (NEPA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Pmervation Act rif 1966, as amended, and its implementing regulations in 36 CPR Part 800: Protection rifHistorit· Properties.

Based on the information provided, it is the opinion of this office that the proposed undertaking is not likely to have an effect on historic properties, provided that the agency includes the following plan in the case of fortuitous finds or unexpected discoveries during ground disturbing activities within the project area. This project should include the following special conditions regarding activities on the property:

• If prehistoric or historic artifacts, such as pottery or ceramics, projectile points, dugout canoes, metal implements, historic building materials, or any other physical remains that could be associated with Native American, early European, or American settlement are encountered at any time within the project site area, the permitted project shall cease all activities involving subsurface disturbance in the immediate vicinity of the discovery. The applicant shall contact this office and project activities shall not resume without verbal and/ or written authorization.

• In the event that unmarked human remains are·encounten:d during permitted activities, all work shall stop immediately and the proper authorities notified in accordance with Section 872.05, Florida Statutes.

If you have any questions, please contact Christopher Hunt, RPA, Historic Sites Specialist, by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 850.245.6333 or 800.847.7278.

Sincerely /j.----·------1'~~.(-:.;· ) :.,,~;~ ,'Bin:;::, ~y_; y ,~ ' Division of Historical Resources & State Historic Preservation Officer

Division of Historical Resources R.A. Gray Building • 500 South Bronough Street• Tallahassee, Florida 32399 850.245.6300 • 850.245.6436 (Fax) dos.mytlorida.com Promoting Florida's History and Culture VivaFlorida.org WW\Y. l'lhorltu.~ .oom Alberts, David

From: Long, Melissa Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 4:28 PM To: Alberts, David Subject: RE: Cecil Airport - Environmental Assessment

Mr. Albert – The Environmental Quality Division staff looked over the information you submitted and have the following comments/concerns.

(1.) The proposed project will include construction work. The Jacksonville Airport Authority (JAA) is responsible for ensuring that the requirements of City of Jacksonville Environmental Protection Board Rule 3.604 Erosion and Sediment Control are met during all construction activities. (2.) JAA should contact the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Northeast District Office, the St. Johns River Water Management District and the United States Army Corps of Engineers for information regarding permits that must be applied for and obtained through those agencies. (3.) From the limited information provided, it appears that the new construction work may include a new wastewater collection/transmission system (WWCTS) or the modification of an existing WWCTS. This work would require a permit issued through Environmental Quality Division(EQD). (4.) The proposed project must not adversely impact the City of Jacksonville Stormwater Management System. JAA is responsible for maintaining compliance with the requirements of Chapter 754, Stormwater Management Utility Code, Part 2, Violations and Prohibited Activities, City of Jacksonville ordinance Code. There are surface waters in the vicinity of the project property, and the applicant is responsible for ensuring that the work does not cause or contribute to violations of state water quality standards. (5.) A query of COJ’s C.A.R.E. System finds that there are no known current or historical water well issues at this location. This address/parcel location (Fig 2) part of Re #002249 0005 is not located within any known Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA). Query of Technical Services Risk Prediction Model finds (1) one item of interest at this proposed site on the Cecil Field complex. It is identified as a DCHD Dumpsite known as USA Naval Air Base AKA: Cecil Field NAS with Id #D258. It is to be noted that numerous contamination (fuel oil and waste oil pits) site lie due west and along the flight line. Please note the Risk Prediction Model is not complete for Duval County or all inclusive for all contamination issues. (6.) The Groundwater Resource Section has no files/records that indicate that there are wells at the location noted on figure 2. However, there are numerous monitoring well site located along the flight line and due west at the hanger complexes. The Groundwater Resource Section well inventory is not complete for Duval County. Any information provided must be field checked by the requesting party for reliability. Potable and floridan aquifer water well information is also maintained by the Duval County Health Department (DCHD) and the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). (7.) Potential Air Issues would include Fugitive dust and Noise from construction activity.

1 If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us directly and we’ll do our best to answer or provide guidance. Thank you and I again apologize for my delay.

Melissa M. Long, PE Division Chief Environmental Quality Division 214 N. Hogan Street, 5th Floor Jacksonville, FL 32202 O: (904) 255-7101

From: Long, Melissa Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 12:23 PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: Cecil Airport - Environmental Assessment

Mr. Alberts – I do apologize. I thought I had responded to your inquiry to Ms. Kimberly Scott already and it just occurred to me that I had not forwarded the information that we gathered onto you. I do have some information for you that I will forward to you as soon as I get back into the office this afternoon.

Melissa M. Long, PE Division Chief Environmental Quality Division 214 N. Hogan Street, 5th Floor Jacksonville, FL 32202 O: (904) 255-7101

2 February 25, 2015

David Alberts Southeast Region Environmental Service Group Leader Florida Fish RS&H and Wildlife I 0748 Deerwood Park Boulevard South Conservation Jacksonville, FL 32256 Commission [email protected]

Commissioners Richard A. Corbett RE: Cecil Airport - Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Chairman Tampa Spaceport Activities, Duval County Brian Yablonski Vice Chairman Tallahassee Dear Mr. Alberts: Ronald M. Bergeron Fort Lauderdale Richard Hanas Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) staffhas reviewed the Oviedo above-referenced project in accordance with your request for early comments in support Aliese P. "Liesa· Priddy Immokalee of your preparation of an Environmental Assessment. The proposed project includes the Bo Rivard design and construction of an eastside apron, taxiway, hanger and supporting Panama City infrastructure to provide airfield access for future spaceport activities. Charles W. Roberts Ill Tallahassee At this time, we do not have any comments to submit for your consideration. The information you provided was comprehensive and sufficient regarding potential impacts Executive Staff to fish and wildlife resources at this time. Nick Wiley Executive Director We appreciate the opportunity to engage in the early stages of project development and Eric Sutton Assistant Executive Director review and look forward to providing additional technical assistance throughout the Jennifer Fitzwater future permitting phases of the project. If you need any further assistance, please do not Chief of Staff hesitate to contact Jane Chabre either by phone at (850) 410-5367 or by email at [email protected]. If you have questions regarding the Office of the technical content of our review, please contact Eugene Kelly at (386) 758-0525 or by Executive Director email at [email protected]. Nick Wiley Executive Director Sincerely, (850) 487-3796 (850) 921·5786 FAX

Managing fish and wildlife resources for their long-term well-being and the benefit Jennifer D. Goff of people. Land Use Planning Program Administrator Office of Conservation Planning Services

620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee. Florida jdglemk 32399·1600 ENV I Voice: (850) 488-4676 Cecil Airport EA Spaceport Activities_20584_022515

Hearing/speech-impaired: (800) 955-8771 (T) (800) 955·8770 (V)

MyFWC.com Alberts, David

From: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 2:38 PM To: Alberts, David Subject: FW: Cecil Spaceport Development.

Meant to send this to you last week. I also received a phone call from Mr. Fred Dayhoff, Section 106 and NAGPRA Coordinator, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, that they have no concerns regarding the proposed project. However if anything is discovered they request that all construction cease and appropriate Federal and state procedures for contacting them be initiated.

From: Emman Spain [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:29 PM To: Lane, Virginia (FAA) Subject: Cecil Spaceport Development.

Dear Ms. Lane, The Muscogee4 (Creek) Nation has received notice of the Jacksonville Airport Authority’s preparation of an Environmental Assessment for FAA approval to develop Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at the Cecil Airport, Duval County, Florida. At this time the Muscogee Nation is unaware of any culturally significant sites within the project area that may be impacted by this project. Thank you.

Emman Spain, THPO Cultural Preservation Office Muscogee (Creek) Nation P. O. Box 580 Okmulgee, OK 74447 [email protected] (918) 732-7678

1 FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANTS

APPENDIX C FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANTS

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport C-1 FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANTS

C.1 LISTED PLANT SPECIES IN DUVAL COUNTY As Section 3.4 of the Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport (the EA) describes, there are 50 special status plant species with the potential to occur in Duval County. Table C-1 lists these plant species.

TABLE C-1 LISTED PLANT SPECIES IN DUVAL COUNTY

Scientific Name Common Name State Status Federal Status

Agrimonia incisa Incised Agrimony Threatened Not Listed

Asarum arifolium Wild Ginger Threatened Not Listed

Asclepias viridula Southern Milkweed Threatened Not Listed

Balduina atropurpurea Purpledisk Honeycombhead Endangered Not Listed

Calopogon multiflorus Manyflowered Grasspink Threatened Not Listed

Calycanthus floridus Eastern Sweetshrub Endangered Not Listed

Calydorea caelestina Bartram’s Ixia Endangered Not Listed

Carex chapmannii Chapman’s Sedge Threatened Not Listed

Centrosema arenicola Pineland Butterfly Pea Endangered Not Listed

Cheilanthes microphylla Southern Lip Fern Endangered Not Listed

Ctenium floridanum Florida Toothachegrass Endangered Not Listed

Drosera intermedia Water Sundew Threatened Not Listed

Forestiera godfreyi Godfrey’s Swampprivet Endangered Not Listed

Gonolobus suberosus Angularfruit Milkvine Threatened Not Listed

Habenaria nivea Snowy Orchid Threatened Not Listed

Hexalectris spicata Spiked Crested Coralroot Endangered Not Listed

Isoetes appalachiana Appalachian Quillwort Endangered Not Listed

Lilium catesbaei Catesby’s Lily; Pine Lily Threatened Not Listed

Listera australis Southern Twayblade Threatened Not Listed

Litsea aestivalis Pondspice Endangered Not Listed

Lobelia cardinalis Cardinalflower Threatened Not Listed

Matelea flavidula Yellow Carolina Milkvine Endangered Not Listed

Matelea floridana Florida Milkvine Endangered Not Listed

Opuntia stricta Erect Pricklypear Threatened Not Listed

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport C-2 FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANTS

TABLE C-1 CONTINUED LISTED PLANT SPECIES IN DUVAL COUNTY

Scientific Name Common Name State Status Federal Status

Orbexilum virgatum Pineland Leatherroot Endangered Not Listed

Pecluma plumula Plume Polypody Endangered Not Listed

Pecluma ptilota var. bourgeauana Comb Polypody Endangered Not Listed

Peperomia humilis Low Peperomia Endangered Not Listed

Pinguicula caerulea Blueflower Butterwort Threatened Not Listed

Pinguicula lutea Yellow Butterwort Threatened Not Listed

Platanthera blephariglottis var. conspicua White Fringed Orchid Threatened Not Listed

Platanthera ciliaris Yellow Fringed Orchid Threatened Not Listed

Platanthera cristata Crested Yellow Orchid Threatened Not Listed

Platanthera flava Southern Tubercled Orchid Threatened Not Listed

Platanthera integra Orange Reinorchid Endangered Not Listed

Pogonia bifaria Fernald’s Pogonia Endangered Not Listed

Pogonia divaricata Rosebud Orchid Endangered Not Listed

Pogonia ophioglossoides Rose Pogonia Threatened Not Listed

Pteroglossaspis ecristata Giant Orchid Threatened Not Listed

Pycnanthemum floridanum Florida Mountainmint Threatened Not Listed

Ruellia noctiflora Nightflowering Wild Petunia Endangered Not Listed

Sarracenia minor Hooded Pitcherplant Threatened Not Listed

Schoenolirion croceum Yellow Sunnybell Endangered Not Listed

Schwalbea americana Chaffseed Endangered Endangered

Spiranthes brevilabris Texas Ladiestresses Endangered Not Listed

Spiranthes longilabris Longlip Ladiestresses Threatened Not Listed

Spiranthes lucayana Florida Keys Ladiestresses Endangered Not Listed

Verbesina heterophylla Diverseleaf Crownbeard Endangered Not Listed

Zephyranthes atamasca Rainlilly Threatened Not Listed

Zephyranthes atamasca var. treatiae Treat’s Zephyrlily Threatened Not Listed Source: Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants Institute for Systematic Botany, 2015

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport C-3 FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANTS

C.2 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES WITH A MODERATE TO HIGH LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURANCE WITHIN THE PROJECT STUDY AREA Section 3.4 of the EA lists the species with a potential to occur in the project study area. The following sections provide a more in-depth description of the species with a moderate “likelihood of occurrence” within the project study area. There are no species with a high “likelihood of occurrence” within the project study area.

C.2.1 Gopher Tortoise The gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) is listed as a candidate species by U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and therefore, is not currently afforded protection under ESA. However, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) lists the gopher tortoise as a threatened species. The gopher tortoise is a large tortoise that excavates deep burrows. It requires well-drained loose soil to burrow, adequate low-growing herbs to eat, and open sunlit sites for nesting. The tortoise often lives in areas of longleaf pine-xerophytic oak woodlands, but it is also known to inhabit sand pine scrub, coastal strands, live oak hammocks, dry prairies, pine flatwoods, and mixed hardwood-pine communities (Diemer, 1992). Gopher tortoise burrows are home to a number of commensal species that depend on the microhabitat to survive Florida’s weather extremes. No gopher tortoise burrows were found within the project study area during an inspection of 100% of potential suitable habitat on January 22, 2015. The closest Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI)-documented gopher tortoise occurrence is approximately 1.3 miles south of the project area (see Figure C-1).

C.2.2 Tricolored Heron, Snowy Egret, Little Blue Heron, and White Ibis The FWC lists the tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor), snowy egret (Egretta thula), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), and white ibis (Eudocimus albus) as species of special concern. These medium sized wading birds typically forage in shallow freshwater wetland areas, manmade ditches, and some in brackish and tidal areas. These birds generally construct their nests in woody vegetation and commonly nests in mixed- species colonies. Although these wading bird species have been observed at the Airport, no nests or individuals were observed within the project study area during field reconnaissance.

C.2.3 Wood Stork The USFWS lists the wood stork (Mycteria americana) as threatened and is afforded protection under the ESA. The wood stork is a wetland dependent wading bird that lives in areas containing woody vegetation over standing water, preferably in cypress trees or mangroves (Rodgers, 1988). The wood stork ranges across the state, except for the western half of the panhandle. It feeds in areas of calm and clear water that is between two and 16 inches deep (Kahl, 1964). The wood stork requires areas that have long hydro- periods, which allow its prey to reproduce, followed by droughts, which concentrate its prey into small pools making it easier to catch. The USFWS designates Core Foraging Areas (CFA) for each documented wood stork colony by region. Duval County is within the north Florida region, which includes a 13-mile radius of the colony location.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport C-4 FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANTS

FIGURE C-1 WILDLIFE OBSERVED WITHIN FIVE MILES OF THE PROJECT STUDY AREA

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport C-5 FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANTS

All wetlands within the 13-mile radius are considered suitable foraging areas for wood storks. See Figure C-2 for the 13-mile radius around the project study area. According to USFWS data, the closest wood stork nesting colony is approximately 18 miles northeast of the project study area. Although wood storks have been occasionally documented passing by the airport, they have not been recorded roosting or nesting on the airfield.

C.3 FLORIDA SANDHILL CRANE The FWC lists the Florida sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pratensis) as threatened. Florida sandhill cranes nest in shallow, emergent palustrine wetlands. Core nesting territories within home ranges vary from approximately 300 acres to 625 acres and are aggressively defended from other cranes (Grus spp.). They feed in a variety of open, upland habitats, mostly prairies, but also human-manipulated habitats such as sod farms, ranchlands, pastures, golf courses, airports, and suburban subdivisions. Although sandhill cranes have been observed on the airport and passing by, no sandhill crane nests or individuals were observed within the project study area during field reconnaissance.

C.4 SOUTHEASTERN AMERICAN KESTREL The FSC lists the Southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius Paulus) as threatened. It is a falcon that ranges through most of central and northern Florida. The kestrel is the smallest raptor in the United States, at about the size of a mourning dove. It uses cavities in trees, excavated by other species of birds, for its nest. The kestrel hunts in open areas such as fields and pastures and will avoid forested areas, as foraging success decreases in forests. Southeastern American kestrels have been observed occasionally on the Airport and in the vicinity. However, none were observed in the project study area during field reconnaissance.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport C-6 FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANTS

FIGURE C-2 WADING BIRD ROOKERY LOCATIONS WITHIN 13 MILES OF THE PROJECT STUDY AREA

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport C-7 AIR QUALITY

APPENDIX D AIR QUALITY

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport D-1 AIR QUALITY

D.1 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY This Appendix contains data and assumptions used to conduct the air quality analysis for construction of the Proposed Action. This air quality analysis quantifies pollutants identified by the United Stated Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as criteria pollutants. These pollutants include: carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs, which are O3 precursors), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), two different types of particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and lead (Pb). Lead emissions were not calculated as part of this inventory because leaded fuels would not be used during construction activities.

D.2 METHODOLOGY AND ALTERNATIVES EXAMINED This section discusses the procedural methodology involved in determining air quality impacts as a result of the Proposed Action. Two scenarios were considered as part of this analysis, the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative scenario represents baseline conditions with no construction activities. The Proposed Action would involve the following project components at the Airport: » construction of a perimeter fence for security; » construction of a concrete apron to accommodate the new hangar and associated aircraft; » construction of an aircraft hangar to accommodate aircraft; » construction of a stormwater detention basin to accommodate an increase in storm water runoff; and » construction of a connector taxiway for airfield access.

D.2.1 Construction Emissions Methodology Construction emissions are quantified in part through the use of the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Airport Construction Emission Inventory Tool (ACEIT). The following components of construction activities were used to model construction emissions: » linear feet of fencing; » square feet of concrete apron; » square feet and height of the proposed aircraft hangar; » capacity and dimensions of the stormwater detention basin; » square feet of taxiway; and » cost estimates for each of the project components

Construction-related emissions can originate from several sources on or off a construction site. These sources can include heavy equipment (delivery trucks, dozers, backhoes, graders, rollers); particulate matter from site preparation, clearing, movement along unpaved areas, and construction workers commuting to and from the project site. Construction emissions include, but are not restricted to estimation on the basis of construction duration, construction type, materials used, estimated cost of construction, number, type, duration, and intensity of construction equipment usage, vehicle miles traveled, ambient meteorological conditions, fuel type used, and anticipated quantity of materials

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport D-2 AIR QUALITY consumed. Data and assumptions regarding each particular construction schedule examined as part of this EA can be found within this appendix.

D.3 IMPACT ASSESSMENT Once a model representing the Proposed Action is prepared and emissions are quantified, they are presented and compared against baseline and significance thresholds pursuant to FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. The results of the impact assessment analysis can be found in Section 4.4.2.1 and the previously mentioned assumptions can be found within the following pages of this appendix.

Environmental Assessment for New Infrastructure in Support of Spaceport Activities at Cecil Airport D-3 EMISSIONS INVENTORY - SUMMARY

Total Emissions by Year Units for Non-Greenhouse Gases Emission: Short Ton Units for Greenhouse Gases (CO2, CH4, and N2O) Emission: Metric Ton

Year CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 VOC CO2 CH4 N2O 2016 8.813133319 6.994651898 0.035249934 0.775370532 0.376886996 4.457354834 2682.64176 0.184799564 0.010907091

Total Emissions by Source Categories Units for Non-Greenhouse Gases Emission: Short Ton Units for Greenhouse Gases Emission: Metric Ton

Year Emission Source CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 VOC CO2 CH4 N2O 2016 NonRoad 2.588269484 6.181262292 0.022062472 0.391373091 0.360063244 0.75191103 1993.016816 -- -- 2016 OnRoad 6.011600834 0.800086946 0.010736793 0.017821599 0.016823752 0.428688564 689.6249444 0.184799564 0.010907 2016 Fugitive 0.213263 0.01330266 0.00245067 0.366175841 -- 3.27675524 ------2016 TOTAL 8.813133319 6.994651898 0.035249934 0.775370532 0.376886996 4.457354834 2682.64176 0.184799564 0.010907