DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES OPERATIONS AREA
ON
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER

Prepared for
Space Exploration Technologies Corporation
Hawthorne, California
and
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Kennedy Space Center, Florida
Prepared by
Integrated Mission Support Services
Kennedy Space Center, Florida
April 11, 2018

 SpaceX Operations Area EA

Executive Summary
Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA),
with NASA as Lead Agency, to evaluate the potential environmental impacts resulting from operations and
construction associated with development of a SpaceX Operations Area on John F. Kennedy Space Center
(KSC). Federal agencies are required to consider environmental consequences resulting from their actions.
This is in accordance with regulatory mandates including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
of 1969, as amended (Title 42 of the United States Code [U.S.C.] 4321 - 4347), the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]
parts 1500-1508), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) regulations for implementing
NEPA (14 CFR Subpart 1216.3), and the NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) for Implementing NEPA
and Executive Order (EO) 12114 (NPR 8580.1). As SpaceX and NASA are considering development on
the federal property of KSC, this EA is necessary to support agency compliance with NEPA and related
federal and state environmental regulations.

Purpose and Need
The purpose of this action is to develop a site that supports the multiple requirements of SpaceX in its
pursuit of a complete local, efficient, and reusable launch vehicle program. With launch and landing sites
already operational at KSC and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), this action would provide a
location for booster and fairing processing and storage, and a launch and landing control center. The action
would be partial fulfillment of the United States (U.S.) expectation of more affordable transportation,
exploration, development, and use of space. The Space Transportation section of the National Space
Transportation Policy of 2013 addressed the commercial launch sector, stating that “assuring reliable and
affordable access to space through U.S. space transportation capabilities is fundamental to achieving
National Space Policy goals”.
This action is needed in order to increase the effective and cost efficient operation of space flight by
providing Space X with facilities to support staff in planning, processing, and operating launches as part of
their current returnable, re-usable space vehicles program (Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy), which is already
in place at launch complexes on KSC and CCAFS. The proposed site on Roberts Road offers a location
close to multiple SpaceX operations. In order for the U.S. to be competitive, the cost and frequency of
launches needs to keep pace with world demand which necessarily includes reusing booster stage vehicles.
From NASA’s perspective, the action is to develop and implement an Enhanced Use Lease (EUL) for the
Roberts Road property on KSC. Commercial use of KSC real property supports NASA’s mandate to
encourage the fullest commercial use of space, supports the goals of the National Aeronautics and Space
Act, and advances the National Space Policy that federal agencies shall ensure that U.S. Government space
technology and infrastructure is made available for commercial use on a reimbursable, noninterference, and
equitable basis. The need for the Proposed Action also aligns with NASA’s Space Act Agreement (SAA)
and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Commercial Space Transportation’s mission,
which is to support the U.S. goal of encouraging activities by the private sector to strengthen and expand
U.S. space transportation infrastructure.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Executive Summary
ii

 SpaceX Operations Area EA

Proposed Action
SpaceX proposes to develop a site for booster and fairing processing and storage, a new launch and landing
control center and a rocket garden at KSC. These facilities will support the growing Falcon 9 and Falcon
Heavy launch manifests at Launch Complex (LC) -39A and LC-40. SpaceX has plans to refurbish Area 59
on CCAFS, formerly used for satellite processing, as a site for Dragon processing.
SpaceX estimates there may be up to ten events per year for a Falcon Heavy launch, and up to 63 landings
(54 Falcon 9 single core landings and nine Falcon Heavy triple core landings) at the current CCAFS landing
site or on the SpaceX drone ship.
This Roberts Road site would require approximately 27 hectares (ha) (67 acres [ac]) of land for proposed
facility development. Roberts Road and A Avenue would be paved to provide access on the south and
north sides. A conceptual site plan is provided in Section 2 (Figure 2-1). SpaceX requires the booster and
fairing processing and storage facility immediately to support a growing launch manifest and enable reuse.
In the future, additional facilities may be required for manifest support or new launch vehicle specifications.
However, at this time, the scope of future needs has not been defined and these facilities are not in planned
development.
The purpose of the Proposed Action from NASA’s perspective is to enable improved access to KSC's space
launch and test operation capabilities by commercial and other non-NASA users, and to advance NASA’s
mission by fostering a commercial space launch and services industry. NASA’s action is to develop and
implement an EUL for the Roberts Road property. Commercial use of KSC real property supports NASA’s
mandate to encourage the fullest commercial use of space and helps ensure that U.S. Government space
technology and infrastructure is made available for commercial use on a reimbursable, noninterference, and
equitable basis. This action also furthers the goals of KSC long-term planning initiatives, NASA
programmatic objectives, and ultimately increases American competitiveness in commercial space. The
proposed SpaceX site would be a direct fulfillment of the KSC Master Plan to “foster and support the fullest
commercial use of space”.

No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the EUL for the KSC property would not occur. The SpaceX Roberts
Road Operations Area would not be built. SpaceX’s ability to fully meet the National Space Transportation
Policy goals of providing low cost reliable access to and from space would be negatively affected.

Summary of Potential Environmental Effects
This EA considered the following 14 resource areas to provide a context for understanding the potential
environmental effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives: land use/visual resources, noise, biological
resources, cultural resources, air quality, climate, hazardous materials/hazardous waste (includes solid
waste and pollution prevention), water resources, geology and soils, transportation, utilities, health and
safety, socioeconomics, and environmental justice.
The environmental consequences associated with the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative were
analyzed for the appropriate Region of Influence (ROI) for each resource area. The following table presents
a summary of the resources considered and the potential impacts on those resources. The descriptions
include both construction and operations related tasks associated with this Proposed Action.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Executive Summary
iii

 SpaceX Operations Area EA

Table E-1. Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts from the Proposed Action and the No
Action Alternative
Resource Area
Potential Environmental Impact from Proposed Action
Land Use/Visual
Resources

The SpaceX Roberts Road Operations Area would require a land use change from
Renewable Energy to Assembly, Testing and Processing. The site is currently managed
by USFWS and would be removed from Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge
(MINWR) oversight. The land would no longer be available for controlled burning
operations and MINWR would have to consider site activities in future prescribed burn
plans and coordinate for management of adjacent lands to ensure operations at the
proposed facilities would not be negatively impacted. The change in land use
designation and removal from MINWR would result in a moderate impact.
The impact of the Proposed Action to visual resources would be moderate. The
proposed site is outside of the public access area with exception of Visitor Complex
tour buses and visitors during launch viewing events. Though the SpaceX Operations
Area would require some construction and modifications to roads and utilities, these
additions would be consistent with existing infrastructure and not cause a significant
impact to the area. The Proposed Action is also consistent with the Florida Coastal
Management Plan and would result in no significant impact to the coastal zone.

Noise

There would be minimal impacts from noise levels during construction and operations
activities. Minimal impact over the long-term would occur at the SpaceX Operations
Area on Roberts Road as this site is currently an undeveloped abandoned agricultural
area. These operations would be consistent with ongoing and historic processes at KSC.
The workforce would be protected from undue noise impacts by the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) safety practices in place at KSC.
Noise generated during construction activities of the Proposed Action would potentially
have discernable, but temporary effects on wildlife occurring nearby. Most wildlife
occurring close to noise sources would be free to move away or find shelter (e.g.,
burrows); therefore, the impacts would be expected to be minimal. There would be no
impacts to typical noise levels from normal daily operations experienced currently by
communities adjacent to KSC property.

Biological
Resources

For the SpaceX Roberts Road site, the impacts would be minimal. The majority of the
habitat is highly disturbed and comprised of non-native species. Loss of the small
acreage of natural habitat (hardwood hammock) would not have significant impact. A
potential wildlife consequence would be loss of eastern indigo snake habitat, which
would be small and expected to have minimal impact. The height of the proposed
Launch and Landing Control Center might have possible impact to migratory birds in
terms of potential collisions. Mitigation to reduce bird collisions will be addressed in
the final design and will comply with all FAA obstruction and marking guidelines.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Executive Summary
iv

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
Resource Area

Potential Environmental Impact from Proposed Action

Cultural Resources No impacts are expected to any cultural resources from the proposed action.

Air Quality

Normal construction-related and operational air emissions from the Proposed Action
would be of minimal and short duration impact to air quality in the region. KSC and
Brevard County are classified as an attainment area and the operational emissions
represent an extremely small percentage of the Brevard County regional emissions.
Temporary increases in local vehicle use, and construction and land clearing equipment
would be insignificant and these fugitive emissions would not be substantial enough to
change National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS) attainment status.

Climate and
Climate
Change/Sea Level
Rise

There would be no impact on the current regional climate from construction and
operations. Based upon the expected annual mean direct emissions of greenhouse gasses
of well under 25,000 metric tons (mt), there would be minimal impact from the Proposed
Action on the global climate.

Hazardous
Materials/
Hazardous Waste

Hazardous materials and solid and hazardous wastes are managed and controlled in
accordance with federal and state regulations. KSC has established plans and procedures
to implement these regulations. During construction and operation phases, SpaceX
would implement standard hazardous material and hazardous waste handling to prevent
impact to the environment. Pollution Prevention best management practices (BMPs)
would be used to minimize potential impacts to the environment through the reduction
of hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Hazardous materials such as propellants,
chemicals, and other hazardous material payload components would be transported to
the facilities in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (DOT)
regulations. Continued implementation of existing material and waste management and
handling procedures currently used during the operation of similar facilities would limit
or eliminate the potential for impacts. Therefore, there would be minimal impacts to the
environment.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Executive Summary
v

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
Resource Area
Water Resources

Potential Environmental Impact from Proposed Action
The addition of impervious surfaces would reduce the area available for rainwater
percolation into the soil and less water would be available for recharging the local
surficial aquifer and groundwater; runoff into low-lying areas would increase.
Mitigation through stormwater management could reduce these impacts. However,
extreme rainfall events associated with tropical systems would likely exceed the capacity
of most stormwater systems, and some runoff could be transported off-site. Stormwater
management systems would be built to treat runoff from new impervious surfaces. An
Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) would be obtained from the St. Johns River
Water Management District (SJRWMD). BMPs such as silt fences and turbidity
barriers, and construction of stormwater management systems would reduce groundwater
quality impacts to a minimal amount. Moderate impacts to surface water quality during
land disturbances associated with construction would also be lessened with the
implementation of BMPs.

Geology and Soils There are no unique geologic features of exceptional interest or mineral resources within
the project area. Overall impacts would be considered none to geology and minimal to
soils.
Transportation

While there would be more vehicle and truck traffic during the construction period, it
would not cause significant impacts to KSC traffic or roadways. While some roadways
at KSC will experience an increase in traffic for new employees and spacecraft
component transport, operational traffic would not cause a significant impact. The
Proposed Action is not expected to have appreciable changes in the overall traffic volume
at KSC, however, some components could affect the level of service at intersections or
roadways both on and off the facility. Overall transportation impacts are classified as
moderate due to increased traffic on roadways, potential temporary road closures, and
proposed improvements to Roberts Road, A Avenue, and State Road 3.

Utilities

Impacts to electricity, natural gas, communications, wastewater, and solid waste
infrastructure at KSC would be minimal to moderate. A feasibility study is under way
to quantify electric and wastewater impacts and review mitigation options. Potential
moderate impacts could result from industrial wastewater discharges but would be
lessened through acquiring proper permits and following permit conditions. Some
utilities ducts would need to be laid and tie-ins established, but additional demands on
these services would be readily absorbed. Water supply impacts during construction
would also be minimal since potable water resources are available at or near proposed
site. Impacts to water supply and treatment to support on site operations are classified
as minimal.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Executive Summary
vi

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
Resource Area

Potential Environmental Impact from Proposed Action

Health and Safety

SpaceX would follow all KSC and OSHA regulations during construction activities and
no significant impact to health and safety of workers would be expected. Similarly, all
current health and safety local, state, and federal procedures would be followed during
operations, and no significant impact to health and safety of workers would be expected.
The severity of an unplanned event is unlikely to increase. While the probability of an
accidental release would increase due to increased activities and quantity of materials,
best management practices would ensure the increase in risk is minimal, with the
probability of a major spill kept to a minimum.

Socioeconomics

The SpaceX Roberts Road development would cause a positive impact to the local
economy from direct labor use and from indirect material and consulting purchasing.

Environmental
Justice

There would be no impacts to Environmental Justice communities.

Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are defined by the CEQ in 40 CFR §1508.7 as impacts on the environment which result
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.
The CEQ regulations further require that NEPA environmental analyses address connected, cumulative,
and similar actions in the same document (40 CFR 1508.25). The cumulative impact analysis for this EA
focuses on the incremental interaction the Proposed Action may have with other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions, and evaluates cumulative impacts potentially resulting from these
interactions. The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions at KSC, CCAFS, and Port
Canaveral focus on constructing facilities and improving transportation modes, spacecraft processing and
launch, the cruise and cargo industry, and their cumulative impacts. The Proposed Action combined with
current and future actions would result in moderate cumulative effects to land use, visual resources, water
resources, and utilities. Implementation of the Proposed Action would not likely cause any significant
cumulative impacts to the remaining local resource areas evaluated.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Executive Summary
vii

 SpaceX Operations Area EA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... ii
Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................................... ii
Proposed Action ....................................................................................................................................... iii
No Action Alternative .............................................................................................................................. iii
Summary of Potential Environmental Effects .......................................................................................... iii
Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................................................ vii
Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... xiv
1.0 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ............................................................................................ 1
1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Location and Background ................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Purpose and Need for Action .............................................................................................................. 5
1.4 Structure and Scope of the Environmental Assessment ...................................................................... 5
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 7
2.1 Introduction and Background.............................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Description of Proposed Action .......................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Proposed Action Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 8
2.4 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Consideration ................................................ 9
2.4.1 Schwartz Road ............................................................................................................................. 9
2.4.2 HMF Area .................................................................................................................................... 9
2.4.3 Fluid Services Road ..................................................................................................................... 9
2.4.4 SLF Area .................................................................................................................................... 10
2.4.5 Other .......................................................................................................................................... 10
2.5 Description of the No Action Alternative ......................................................................................... 10
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ................................................................... 14
3.1 Land Use/Visual Resources .............................................................................................................. 15
3.1.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 15
3.1.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................... 18
3.2 Noise ................................................................................................................................................. 19
3.2.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 19
3.2.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................... 20
3.3 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................ 21
3.3.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 21
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Table of Contents
viii

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
3.3.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................... 23
3.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................ 23
3.4.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 24
3.4.2. Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................... 24
3.5 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................ 24
3.5.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 24
3.5.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................... 27
3.6 Climate .............................................................................................................................................. 28
3.6.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 28
3.6.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................... 28
3.7 Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste ............................................................................................ 29
3.7.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 29
3.7.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................... 31
3.8 Water Resources ............................................................................................................................... 31
3.8.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 31
3.8.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................... 33
3.9 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................. 36
3.9.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 36
3.9.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................... 37
3.10 Transportation ................................................................................................................................. 37
3.10.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................. 37
3.10.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................. 39
3.11 Utilities............................................................................................................................................ 39
3.11.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................. 41
3.11.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................. 43
3.12 Health and Safety ............................................................................................................................ 43
3.12.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................. 43
3.12.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................. 44
3.13 Socioeconomics .............................................................................................................................. 45
3.13.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................. 45
3.13.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................. 45
3.14 Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................................... 46
4.0 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 47
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Table of Contents
ix

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
4.1 Projects Considered for Potential Cumulative Effects ...................................................................... 47
4.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................. 51
4.2.1 Land Use .................................................................................................................................... 52
4.2.2 Noise .......................................................................................................................................... 52
4.2.3 Biological Resources.................................................................................................................. 52
4.2.4 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................. 52
4.2.5 Climate ....................................................................................................................................... 53
4.2.6 Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste ..................................................................................... 53
4.2.7 Water Resources ........................................................................................................................ 53
4.2.8 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................................... 54
4.2.9 Transportation ............................................................................................................................ 54
4.2.10 Utilities ..................................................................................................................................... 54
4.2.11 Health and Safety ..................................................................................................................... 54
4.2.12 Socioeconomics ....................................................................................................................... 54
5.0 List of Preparers and Contributors ........................................................................................................ 55
6.0 Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................................... 56
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... ii
Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................................... ii
Proposed Action ....................................................................................................................................... iii
No Action Alternative .............................................................................................................................. iii
Summary of Potential Environmental Effects .......................................................................................... iii
Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................................................ vii
Acronyms and Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... xii
1.0 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ............................................................................................ 1
1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Location and Background ................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Purpose and Need for Action .............................................................................................................. 5
1.4 Structure and Scope of the Environmental Assessment ...................................................................... 5
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 7
2.1 Introduction and Background.............................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Description of Proposed Action .......................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Proposed Action Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 8
2.4 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Consideration ................................................ 9
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Table of Contents
x

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
2.4.1 Schwartz Road ............................................................................................................................. 9
2.4.2 HMF Area .................................................................................................................................... 9
2.4.3 Fluid Services Road ..................................................................................................................... 9
2.4.4 SLF Area .................................................................................................................................... 10
2.4.5 Other .......................................................................................................................................... 10
2.5 Description of the No Action Alternative ......................................................................................... 10
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ................................................................... 14
3.1 Land Use/Visual Resources .............................................................................................................. 15
3.1.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 15
3.1.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................... 18
3.2 Noise ................................................................................................................................................. 19
3.2.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 19
3.2.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................... 20
3.3 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................ 21
3.3.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 21
3.3.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................... 23
3.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................ 23
3.4.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 24
3.4.2. Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................... 24
3.5 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................ 24
3.5.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 24
3.5.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................... 27
3.6 Climate .............................................................................................................................................. 28
3.6.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 28
3.6.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................... 28
3.7 Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste ............................................................................................ 29
3.7.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 29
3.7.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................... 31
3.8 Water Resources ............................................................................................................................... 31
3.8.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 31
3.8.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................... 33
3.9 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................. 36
3.9.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 36
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Table of Contents
xi

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
3.9.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................... 37
3.10 Transportation ................................................................................................................................. 37
3.10.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................. 37
3.10.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................. 39
3.11 Utilities............................................................................................................................................ 39
3.11.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................. 41
3.11.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................. 43
3.12 Health and Safety ............................................................................................................................ 43
3.12.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................. 43
3.12.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................. 44
3.13 Socioeconomics .............................................................................................................................. 45
3.13.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................. 45
3.13.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................. 45
3.14 Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................................... 46
4.0 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 47
4.1 Projects Considered for Potential Cumulative Effects ...................................................................... 47
4.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................. 51
4.2.1 Land Use .................................................................................................................................... 52
4.2.2 Noise .......................................................................................................................................... 52
4.2.3 Biological Resources.................................................................................................................. 52
4.2.4 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................. 52
4.2.5 Climate ....................................................................................................................................... 53
4.2.6 Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste ..................................................................................... 53
4.2.7 Water Resources ........................................................................................................................ 53
4.2.8 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................................... 54
4.2.9 Transportation ............................................................................................................................ 54
4.2.10 Utilities ..................................................................................................................................... 54
4.2.11 Health and Safety ..................................................................................................................... 54
4.2.12 Socioeconomics ....................................................................................................................... 54
5.0 List of Preparers and Contributors ........................................................................................................ 55
6.0 Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................................... 56

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Table of Contents
xii

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Proposed SpaceX Operations Area Location on KSC ....................................................... 3
Figure 1-2. Proposed Space X KSC Operations Area along Roberts Road ......................................... 4
Figure 2-1. SpaceX KSC Operations Area on Roberts Road Conceptual Site Plan .......................... 11
Figure 2-2. Graphic Rendering of the Proposed Launch and Landing Control Center ...................... 12
Figure 2-3. Conceptual SpaceX Hangar for Falcon Maintenance and Storage .................................. 12
Figure 2-4. Additional KSC Sites Considered for the SpaceX Operations Area. .............................. 13
Figure 3-1. SpaceX Transportation Routes on KSC and CCAFS ...................................................... 38
Figure 3-2. Existing Utilities in Vicinity of the SpaceX Roberts Road Site ...................................... 40
List of Tables
Table 3-1. Existing and Proposed Future Land Uses at KSC. ............................................................ 16
Table 3-2. Typical Noise Sources and Levels .................................................................................... 20
Table 3-3. Various Habitat Types Present in the Roberts Road Site .................................................. 22
Table 3-4. State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................ 26
Table 3-5. KSC History of Actual Annual Emissions (tons per year) ............................................... 26
Table 3-6. General Site-Specific Impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality Associated with
Construction and Operations of Roads and Facilities .......................................................................... 35
Table 5-1. Preparers of EA ................................................................................................................. 55
Table 5-2. Contributors of Information for EA .................................................................................. 55

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Table of Contents
xiii

 SpaceX Operations Area EA

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ac
AFSPC
AOC
BMP
C
CCAFS
CEQ
CFR
cm
CNS
CO
CO2
COC
CS
CZMA
dB
dBA
DOT
EA
EO
EPA
ERD
ERP
EUL
F
FAA
FAC
FDEP
FEMA
FIRM
FPL
ft
ft2
F.S.
gal
GPS
GSDO
ha
HAP
HMF
ICRMP
IM
in
IPA
IRL
ISS
km
KSC

acres
Air Force Space Command
Area of Concern
Best Management Practice
Celsius
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station
Council on Environmental Quality
Code of Federal Regulations
centimeters
Canaveral National Seashore
Carbon monoxide
Carbon dioxide
Constituents of Concern
Confirmatory Sampling
Coastal Zone Management Act
decibels
A weighted sound pressure level
Department of Transportation
Environmental Assessment
Executive Order
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Resources Document
Environmental Resource Permit
Enhanced Use Lease
Fahrenheit
Federal Aviation Administration
Florida Administrative Code
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps
Florida Power and Light
feet
square feet
Florida Statute
gallon
Global Positioning System
Ground Systems Development and
Operations
hectares
Hazardous Air Pollutants
Hypergol Maintenance Facility
Integrated Cultural Resource
Management Plan
Interim Measure
inches
Isopropyl alcohol
Indian River Lagoon
International Space Station
kilometers
John F. Kennedy Space Center

l
lbs
LC
LOX
LUC
LZ-1
MHz
m
m2
mi
MINWR
mph
mt
NAAQS
NASA
NEPA
NFA
NO2
NOAA
NOx
NPDES
NPR
NPS
NRO
OFW
OSHA
Pb
PCB
PEIS
PM10
PM2.5
PRL
QD
RCRA
RF
ROI
SAA
SCS
SJRWMD
SLF
SO2
SpaceX
SPCC

liter
pounds
Launch Complex
liquid oxygen
Land Use Control
Landing Zone 1
megahertz
meters
square meters
miles
Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge
miles per hour
metric tons
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
National Environmental Policy Act
No Further Action
nitrogen dioxide
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
nitrogen oxide
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
NASA Procedural Requirement
National Park Service
National Reconnaissance Office
Outstanding Florida Waters
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
lead
polychlorinated biphenyl
Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement
particulate matter less than or equal to
10 microns in diameter
particulate matter less than or equal to
2.5 microns in diameter
Potential Release Location
quantity distance
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
radio frequency
Region of Influence
Space Act Agreement
Soil Conservation Service
St. Johns River Water Management
District
Shuttle Landing Facility
sulfur dioxide
Space Exploration Technologies
Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasures

______________________________________________________________________________
Acronyms and Abbreviations

xiv

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
SWMU
TMDL
UDMH
µg/m3
U.S.
USAF
U.S.C.
USFWS
UST
VAB
VOC
WWTF
VOC
WWTF

Solid Waste Management Unit
Total Maximum Daily Loads
unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine
micrograms per liter
United States
United States Air Force
United States Code
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
underground storage tank
Vehicle Assembly Building
Volatile Organic Compounds
Waste Water Treatment Facility
Volatile Organic Compounds
Waste Water Treatment Facility

______________________________________________________________________________
Acronyms and Abbreviations

xv

 SpaceX Operations Area EA

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
1.1 Introduction
A proposed plan is under evaluation in this Environmental Assessment (EA) for the development and
operation of a Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) site on John F. Kennedy Space Center
(KSC) in central Florida. This would include a launch and landing control center, a booster and spacecraft
fairing processing and storage facility, a rocket garden, and utilities yard. Federal agencies are required to
consider environmental consequences resulting from their actions. This is in accordance with regulatory
mandates including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (Title 42 of the
United States Code [U.S.C.] 4321 - 4347), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for
implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 1500-1508), National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) regulations for implementing NEPA (14 CFR Subpart 1216.3), and the
NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) for Implementing NEPA and Executive Order (EO) 12114 (NPR
8580.1. As SpaceX and NASA are considering SpaceX’s plan to develop a site for SpaceX operations at
KSC via execution of an Enhanced Use Lease (EUL), this EA is necessary to support NASA compliance
with NEPA, as well as related federal and state environmental regulations.

1.2 Location and Background
NASA was created in 1958 to lead the nation’s civilian space exploration and aeronautical technology
development activities. In 1962, NASA began acquiring property to be used as a base for launch operations
in support of the Manned Lunar Landing Program. A Launch Operations Center, later known as KSC, was
established in Merritt Island, Florida. KSC is situated along the east coast of central Florida approximately
242 kilometers (km) (150 miles [mi]) south of Jacksonville, 322 km (200 mi) north of Miami, and 64 km
(40 mi) east of Orlando (Figure 1-1). KSC is located within Brevard and Volusia counties and is comprised
of approximately 57,400 hectares (ha) (142,000 acres [ac]). Today, NASA continues to operate KSC as
the nation’s primary federal spaceport for government and commercial access to space. NASA at KSC was
responsible for ground processing, launch, and landing activities for the Space Shuttle Program which was
retired in 2011. NASA is furthermore engaged in developing new capabilities to implement future space
programs and the development of the commercial space industry, including support of Exploration Park,
Starfighter Aerospace, race car engine testing on the Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF) runway, and Zero-G
Corporation flights. NASA encourages the use of KSC property by other governmental agencies,
commercial space and related industries, and universities through EULs and Space Act Agreements
(SAAs). Property agreements at KSC include the Florida Power and Light (FPL) photovoltaic facilities,
Boeing’s use of the former Orbiter Processing Facility 3 for manufacturing and testing of the CST-100
Starliner, the Blue Origin Manufacturing Facility in Exploration Park, and the Commercial Space Launch
Act agreement with SpaceX for processing and launch of their Falcon vehicles at Launch Complex (LC)39A.
The Proposed Action would support the NASA goal of encouraging activities by the private sector to
strengthen and expand U.S. space transportation infrastructure. It would provide greater mission capability
to support the International Space Station (ISS) and commercial enterprises for both the United States Air
Force (USAF) and NASA. The Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the KSC Master
Plan, completed in November 2016, describes the current environmental setting and long range planning
______________________________________________________________________________
Section 1: Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

1

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
(2012-2032) for KSC and provides significant supporting material for this EA. Programmatic NEPA
documents are broad in scope and may be followed by more site- or action-specific documents as
appropriate. This is referred to as tiering, with the broader document on top and the more focused
documents below it. The KSC PEIS was prepared to evaluate potential environmental impacts from centerwide KSC operations, activities, and facilities; consider scenarios for repurposing existing facilities;
reorganize management of KSC and its land resources; and continue partnerships with government
organizations and commercial entities. SpaceX, with NASA as the lead federal agency, has prepared this
EA as a document tiered from the KSC PEIS, focusing on development of an east coast site in support of
cargo and crew missions to the ISS and deep space.
This EA was prepared by SpaceX as the proponent of the proposed action; NASA is the lead federal agency,
in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). As the landowner, NASA is responsible
for managing areas on KSC for space-related development and operations. The USFWS manages KSC
land not specifically used for space-related operations, as the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge
(MINWR).
KSC provides oversight for current non-NASA space and technology development use of its property, and
would be responsible for establishing and coordinating appropriate use agreements and operating
procedures for those activities outlined in the Proposed Action. The various components of the Proposed
Action are described in detail in Section 2. The general vicinity and potential locations for the activities on
KSC are shown in Figures 1-1.

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 1: Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

2

 SpaceX Operations Area EA

Figure 1-1. Proposed SpaceX Operations Area Location on KSC
______________________________________________________________________________
Section 1: Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

3

 SpaceX Operations Area EA

Figure 1-2. Proposed Space X KSC Operations Area along Roberts Road
______________________________________________________________________________
Section 1: Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

4

 SpaceX Operations Area EA

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of the Proposed Action, development of the SpaceX Roberts Road site, is to expand SpaceX
operations as needed to meet the increasing demands of its national and international commercial and
government customers. This action also furthers the goals of KSC long-term planning initiatives, NASA
programmatic objectives, and ultimately increases American competitiveness in commercial space. The
proposed SpaceX development would be a direct fulfillment of the KSC Master Plan to “foster and support
the fullest commercial use of space”. The majority of launches contracted with SpaceX through 2020 are
for commercial, non-government customers, thus providing for the intended diverse, multi-user KSC
spaceport. SpaceX has a solid commercial manifest, ensuring that the Proposed Action is realistic and
feasible.
SpaceX has a broad customer base and diverse sources of committed revenue. There are over 70 missions
on its manifest from commercial and government customers in the U.S. and countries around the world,
representing more than $10 billion under contract. Commercial customers include leading satellite
operators such as Société Européenne des Satellites and Iridium; government customers include NASA,
USAF, the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), and a number of foreign governments. In the 2013 to
2018 time period, SpaceX launches represent more than 94% of the commercial geosynchronous transfer
orbit (GTO) communications satellite missions awarded to U.S. providers. The Proposed Action is
necessary to support the growing Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch manifest at LC-39A and LC-40. In
addition, the Proposed Action is needed to facilitate a shift in operations to support both cargo and crew
missions to the ISS, as well as a handful of deep space missions from the east coast of the U.S. As
established by the Office of the President and directed by Congress, it is NASA’s mission to expand
commercial uses of space and the space industry. This directive is detailed in the NASA Authorization Act
of 2010 and the Space Act of 1958, as amended.
The purpose of the Proposed Action from NASA’s perspective is to expand its spaceport capabilities to:
enable improved access to KSC's space launch and test operation capabilities by commercial and other nonNASA users; advance NASA’s mission by fostering a commercial space launch and services industry; and
improve the return on taxpayer investment of KSC spaceport facilities through expanded and improved
utilization. In support of these goals, NASA’s action is to develop and implement an EUL for the Roberts
Road property. Commercial use of KSC real property supports NASA’s mandate to encourage the fullest
commercial use of space, supports the goals of the National Aeronautics and Space Act, and advances the
National Space Policy that federal agencies shall ensure that U.S. Government space technology and
infrastructure is made available for commercial use on a reimbursable, noninterference, and equitable basis.

1.4 Structure and Scope of the Environmental Assessment
This EA presents the analysis and description of potential environmental impacts that could result from the
Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. As appropriate, the affected environment and
environmental consequences of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative are discussed in context
with resource area descriptions.
The structure of the EA is as follows: Section 2 describes the Proposed Action, the No Action Alternative,
and Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Analysis, and discusses standards for alternative selection
or non-selection. Section 3 describes the affected environmental resources and potential direct and indirect
effects (consequences) of the Proposed Action and the No Action.
______________________________________________________________________________
Section 1: Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

5

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
The resources analyzed in detail are:















Land Use/Visual Resources
Noise
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Air Quality
Climate
Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste
Water Resources
Geology and Soils
Transportation
Utilities
Health and Safety
Socioeconomics
Environmental Justice

Section 4 describes cumulative impacts on the resource areas from other similar past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions. Section 5 presents a list of those who prepared the EA and key
personnel who contributed to its preparation. Section 6 lists references cited in the EA.

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 1: Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

6

 SpaceX Operations Area EA

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
2.1 Introduction and Background
This section provides a discussion of the Proposed Action, the SpaceX Roberts Road development on KSC
including a launch and landing control center, booster and fairing processing and storage facility, a rocket
garden, a security office and a utilities yard. It also provides descriptions of alternatives considered but
eliminated. The Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative are evaluated.

2.2 Description of Proposed Action
SpaceX plans to develop the Roberts Road site to support the growing Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch
manifest at LC-39A and LC-40. The proposed development would be located on Roberts Road (Figure 12) to include the abovementioned facilities which are further described in the following paragraphs. The
conceptual site plan is provided at the end of Section 2 (Figure 2-1). SpaceX is using abandoned facilities
on CCAFS referred to as Area 59, for all planned Dragon processing operations. Area 59 was formerly
used by the USAF for satellite processing.
Additional facilities may be required in the future to support the launch manifest or new launch vehicle
specifications. The scope of prospective actions has not yet been defined and future facilities are not in
planned development at this time.
Launch and Landing Control Center
The launch and landing control center would be of sufficient size to host a data center; firing room;
engineering room; control center for Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy and Dragon; customer control center;
temporary customer offices; and indoor and outdoor meeting space. The launch control center is envisioned
to be world-class, architecturally distinctive, and equipped for satellite, cargo, and crew missions (Figure
2-2). In addition to hosting remote launch operations to prepare Falcon launch vehicles for flight, the center
would provide customer accommodations, including administrative space for senior executives on launch
day, meeting space, technical control rooms, management rooms, and viewing accommodations for
customers. The launch and landing control center would occupy an approximate footprint of 2,973 m2
(32,000 ft2) with the maximum height of the building not to exceed 92 m (300 ft). The facility would also
include an adjacent parking facility for up to 200 vehicles, with access via paved roads.
Booster and Fairing Processing and Storage Facility
With SpaceX plans to refurbish and reuse Falcon vehicles to support manifest rate, an additional vehicle
processing and storage facility is required. A graphic of a notional Falcon hangar is provided in Figure 23. This facility would require a footprint of 12,356 m2 (133,000 ft2) with a height not to exceed 31 m (100
ft). It is assumed that approximately 8,175 m2 (88,000 ft2) be utilized for booster processing and storage,
while approximately 4,181 m2 (45,000 ft2) be utilized for fairing processing and storage. It is possible that
these two functions may be split into two unique facilities if beneficial for operations.

Future plans may include development of a connected facility for end-of-line rockets to allow for
decommissioning of parts and hardware investigation. This facility would have a footprint not to exceed
2,973 m2 (32,000 ft2). Further, if flight hardware storage requires expansion, an additional facility would
be built on the site with a footprint of up to 9,290 m2 (100,000 ft2).
______________________________________________________________________________
Section 2: Description of Proposed Action

7

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
Rocket Garden
SpaceX will incorporate a location to display historic space vehicles (referred to as a rocket garden) within
this development. These vehicles may include Dragon and Falcon 9 staged vertically or horizontally. All
vehicles will be completely inert, with no hazardous material present on the interior or exterior of the
system. The display may accommodate up to several Dragon and Falcon 9 vehicles.
Security Office
To help monitor the site and provide a centralized security hub, SpaceX proposes a security office of 232
m2 (2,500 ft2) near the main entrance off of Roberts Road.
Utilities Yard
Additional utilities would be required to support the proposed facilities. Utilities including fiber
communications, domestic wastewater, potable water, and gas would be run from State Road (SR) 3 and
tie in to the northeast corner of the property. The 26,013 m2 (280,000 ft2) utilities yard would be located at
the northeast corner of the property and enable utilities support for the entire site. The centralized waterchilled HVAC system would consist of water tanks, cooling towers and pumps housed at the utilities yard.
Water lines will be run from each facility to the yard most likely along internal roads. Alternately, airchilled HVAC units would be utilized on a per facility basis.

A wastewater lift station would be installed to support flow rate to the entire site. If additional wastewater
capability is required, SpaceX would work with NASA on enhancements to the domestic wastewater
collection/transmission system. In the rare, unanticipated case that a wastewater treatment plant would be
required, one could be built in the utilities yard.
If needed, SpaceX would work with FPL to develop a new substation to be housed at the utilities yard on
site or at a location off site. FPL and KSC would define the appropriate location and perform necessary
environmental evaluations. Prior to completion of a new substation SpaceX would potentially utilize the
Mars substation located near Exploration Park, with temporary generator support for redundancy. A
feasibility study is being performed to determine whether SpaceX would be able to initially tie-in to electric
lines along SR 3.
Road improvements would include paving Roberts Road and A Avenue to support two lanes along the
length of the site and adding a left turn lane capability on SR 3. Internal site roads would provide access to
facilities within the site boundary. As SpaceX develops new vehicles, Roberts Road could be expanded to
provide four-lane capability, if needed. A parking lot south of the utilities yard is tentatively proposed and
would provide parking for up to 300 cars.
SpaceX would also connect to the existing fiber communications line and gaseous nitrogen pipeline along
SR 3. A helium pipeline does not currently exist along SR 3 but SpaceX would connect to one if it becomes
available in the future.

2.3 Proposed Action Alternatives
The following project alternatives are being evaluated for purposes of establishing booster and fairing
processing and storage, and a launch and landing control center on the east coast. The Proposed Action
and No Action Alternatives (Section 2.5) were identified and carried forward for further evaluation. Several
other alternatives, described in Section 2.4, were eliminated due to increased hazard risks to KSC personnel,
______________________________________________________________________________
Section 2: Description of Proposed Action

8

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
greater adverse environmental impacts, or inability to meet other site selection standards, such as line of
sight requirements.
The Roberts Road Development site is isolated from other NASA facilities and operations eliminating
issues with quantity distances (QDs) and buffers (Figure 2-3). There is easy access to SR 3 and
infrastructure including water, sewer, electric, and gas distribution. The site is abandoned and was
previously comprised of citrus groves. A land use change from Renewable Energy to Assembly, Testing
and Processing would be required for this site development. A site plan would need to be submitted for the
land use change request to be vetted through the Master Plan Amendment Process.

2.4 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Consideration
Title 32 CFR 989.8 discusses the analysis of alternatives. An EA must include an analysis of reasonable
alternatives to the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. Reasonable alternatives are those that
meet the underlying purpose and need for the Proposed Action. Alternatives may be eliminated from
detailed analysis based on selection standards. They must also support the stated purpose and need
discussed in Section 1. Considerations for the SpaceX Roberts Road development include:








QD requirement of 381 m (1,250 ft) to reduce operational conflicts
Proximity to existing NASA facilities and infrastructure
Driving distance to LC-39A
Infrastructure requirements and availability
Outside of existing hazardous clear areas
Line of sight to LC-39A and LC-40
Compatibility with KSC Master Plan

Additional areas evaluated for the SpaceX development site are discussed below and depicted in Figure 24.
2.4.1 Schwartz Road
This location would require a new access road extending north from Schwartz Road. The site conforms to
the KSC Master Plan, but could potentially limit future operations and development outlined in the Master
Plan from occurring in this area when the 381 m (1250 ft) QD is taken into consideration. Infrastructure
upgrades at this site would be costlier due to its farther distance from existing utilities along SR 3.
2.4.2 HMF Area
Land use of this area is already designated Assembly, Testing, and Processing. However, of the sites
considered, the Hypergol Maintenance Facility (HMF) area is the greatest distance from LC-39A. In
addition, the QD of 381 m (1,250 ft) would encroach upon occupied facilities M7-1059 and M7-1357.
2.4.3 Fluid Services Road
Additional infrastructure construction would be required for this site. Line of sight constraints between the
Launch Control Center and LC-39B are present at the Fluid Services Road site. NASA may eventually
need this area for future programmatic needs and/or to combat climate change impacts, given its proximity
to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) and other program assets. This location creates risks to hazardous

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 2: Description of Proposed Action

9

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
NASA activities at LC-39B and the Ordnance Storage Facility. Blast Danger Areas of LC-39B and
Ordnance Storage Area QD could potentially encumber a nearby processing facility.
2.4.4 SLF Area
The SLF area land use designations are Horizontal Launch and Landing, and Conservation/Operational
Buffer. The SpaceX development would encroach upon future SLF development. Also, KSC Master
Planning will not site two conflicting uses by separate entities in such close proximity.
2.4.5 Other
Various sites and facilities not located on KSC were also considered for the proposed project. None of
these alternatives were determined to meet the stated purpose and need for the proposed project.

2.5 Description of the No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would mean there would be no EUL between NASA and SpaceX and a SpaceX
development on KSC would not be built. SpaceX booster and fairing processing would take place off site
at another east coast location and additional facilities needed to support cargo and crew missions to the ISS,
along with deep space missions, would be constructed elsewhere. This could result in longer turnaround
times between launches. There would be less diversity in use of KSC property and fewer commercial
customers for whom the majority of SpaceX contracted launches through 2020 are planned.

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 2: Description of Proposed Action

10

 SpaceX Operations Area EA

Figure 2-1. SpaceX KSC Operations Area on Roberts Road Conceptual Site Plan

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 2: Description of Proposed Action

11

 SpaceX Operations Area EA

Figure 2-2. Graphic Rendering of the Proposed Launch and Landing Control Center

Figure 2-3. Conceptual SpaceX Hangar for Falcon Maintenance and Storage
______________________________________________________________________________
Section 2: Description of Proposed Action

12

 SpaceX Operations Area EA

Figure 2-4. Additional KSC Sites Considered for the SpaceX Operations Area.

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 2: Description of Proposed Action

13

 SpaceX Operations Area EA

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES
This chapter provides a description of the existing environment that could be affected by the proposed
action at KSC, followed by an analysis of potential environmental impacts of the proposed action. As
directed by NEPA, CEQ regulations on implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), NASA’s regulations
for implementing NEPA (14 CFR 1216), and NASA NEPA management requirements (NPR 8580.1A), the
description of the affected environment focuses on those resource areas potentially subject to impacts.
Therefore, the level of detail used in describing a resource is in accordance with the anticipated level of
environmental impact. The analysis in this EA considers the current conditions of the affected environment
and compares those to conditions that might occur should SpaceX implement any of the alternatives. The
affected environment for this EA includes the geographic extent of the land encompassed by the proposed
SpaceX Roberts Road development. The following parameters are used to evaluate the duration and extent
of potential impacts associated with the Proposed Action and alternatives:







Short term or long term. These characteristics are determined on a case-by-case basis and do not
refer to any stringent time period. Generally, short-term effects occur only with respect to a
particular activity or for a finite period, such as the time required for construction. Long-term
effects are more likely to be persistent and chronic.
Direct or indirect. A direct effect is caused by and occurs contemporaneously at or near the
location of the action. An indirect effect is caused by a proposed action and might occur later in
time or be farther removed in distance but still be a reasonably foreseeable outcome of the action.
None, minimal, moderate, or major. These relative terms are used to characterize the magnitude
or intensity of an impact. The term “none” would be used when there are no impacts expected.
Minimal effects are not expected to be measurable, or are too small to cause any discernable
degradation to the environment. A moderate impact would be measurable, but not substantial,
because the impacted system is capable of absorbing the change, or the impacts could be managed
through conservation measures and mitigation. A major effect could be substantial either
individually or cumulatively.
Adverse or beneficial. An adverse effect is one having unfavorable or undesirable outcomes on
the man-made or natural environment. A beneficial effect is one having positive outcomes on the
man-made or natural environment. A single act might result in adverse effects on one
environmental resource and beneficial effects on another resource or could result in both adverse
and beneficial impacts on a single resource.

This EA examines the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives on the
following resource areas: land use, visual resources, coastal zone management, noise, biological resources,
cultural resources, air quality, climate, hazardous materials and wastes, water resources, geological
resources, transportation, utilities, health and safety, socioeconomics, and environmental justice.
NASA’s NEPA policy requires NASA Centers to maintain an Environmental Resources Document (ERD)
that provides a detailed description of environmental resources and related permits. There is a complete
description of all resource areas in the 2015 ERD for KSC (NASA 2015a). The 2015 ERD can be accessed
at https://environmental.ksc.nasa.gov/projects/documents/ERDrevF.pdf. Information on the resources
evaluated in this EA are well described in the recent KSC PEIS (NASA 2016).

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

14

 SpaceX Operations Area EA

3.1 Land Use/Visual Resources
Land use can be defined as the human use of land resources for various purposes including economic
production, natural resources protection, or institutional uses. Land uses are frequently regulated by
mission objectives, program and project plans, policies, ordinances, and regulations that determine the types
of uses that are allowable, or protect designated or environmentally sensitive land. The proposed action
site is bound by NASA land use regulations. Visual resources are defined as the natural and man-made
features that give an area its aesthetic qualities. These features define the landscape character of an area
and form the overall impression received by an observer of the property.
3.1.1 Affected Environment
Detailed discussions of land use at KSC are available in the KSC PEIS and the KSC ERD, (NASA 2016,
NASA 2015a). A summary is provided in the following paragraphs.
Land Use
Land and open water resources of KSC comprise 57,400 ha (142,000 ac) in Brevard County and Volusia
County, and are located along the east coast of central Florida at approximately 28° 38’N, -80°42’W. The
majority of the KSC land areas are located on the northern part of Merritt Island, which forms a barrier
island complex adjacent to Cape Canaveral. Undeveloped areas (uplands, wetlands, mosquito control
impoundments, and open water) comprise approximately 95% of KSC. Nearly 40% are open water areas
of the Indian River Lagoon system (IRL), including portions of the Indian River, Banana River, Mosquito
Lagoon, and all of Banana Creek (NASA 2015a).

KSC was established under NASA jurisdiction for the purpose of implementing the Nation’s space program
(National Space Act 1959). NASA maintains operational control over approximately 1,787 ha (4,415 ac)
of KSC (NASA 2015a). These are the operational areas, which are dedicated to NASA ground processing,
launch, and landing activities, and include facilities and associated infrastructure such as roads, parking
areas, and maintained right-of-ways. Undeveloped lands within the operational areas are dedicated safety
zones or are reserved for planned and future expansion.
The overall land use and management objectives at KSC are to maintain the Nation’s space mission
operations while supporting alternative land uses that are in the Nation's best interest. KSC land use is
carefully planned and managed to provide required support for missions while maximizing protection of
the environment. Land planning and management responsibilities for areas not directly utilized for NASA
operations have been delegated to the USFWS at Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (MINWR) and
the National Park Service (NPS) at Canaveral National Seashore (CNS). The 54,723 ha (135,225 ac)
outside of NASA operational control are managed by the NPS and the USFWS. The NPS administers a
2,693 ha (6,655 ac) area of the CNS, while the USFWS administers the remaining 52,030 ha (128,570 ac)
of the CNS and the MINWR (NASA 2015a). This unique relationship between space flight and protection
of natural resources is carefully orchestrated to ensure that both objectives are achieved with minimal
conflict.
The Refuge was created in 1963 by agreement between the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (later
USFWS) and NASA to manage the undeveloped lands needed as a safety buffer around KSC. KSC has an
agreement with the U.S. Department of the Interior for management of a part of the CNS by the NPS and
a part by the FWS.

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

15

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
The future land use plan for KSC promotes the best and most efficient use of land area resources balanced
with an understanding of development suitability and capacity. The Master Plan outlines a development
framework that would support the growth of the multi-user spaceport model. KSC devised eighteen land
use categories to describe regions within which various types of operational or support activities are
conducted (NASA 2016). Table 3-1 lists existing and future acreages for designated land use at KSC.
Table 3-1. Existing and Proposed Future Land Uses at KSC.
Land Use
Existing
Future
Acreage
Acreage

Change
Acreage1

Administration
Assembly, Testing and Processing
Central Campus
Horizontal Launch and Landing
Launch Operations and Support
Open Space
Operational Buffer/Conservation
Operational Buffer/Public Use
Public Outreach
Recreation
Renewable Energy
Research and Development
Seaport
Support Services
Utility Systems
Vertical Launch
Vertical Landing
Water
Total

-64.03
1,419.36
138.75
1,305.37
92.84
-1,873.64
-3,285.97
-19.42
306.12
0.00
1,043.31
779.13
0
-252.51
2.37
367.76
40.56
0.00
0.00

104.76
475.41
NA2
501.25
398.75
1,873.64
44,583.14
34,844.14
216.01
161.36
66.54
88.36
30.92
723.91
1,327.23
360.32
NA
55,541.81
141,297.54

40.72
1,894.77
138.75
1,806.62
491.59
NA
41,297.17
34,824.72
522.13
161.36
1,109.85
867.49
30.92
471.40
1,329.60
728.08
40.56
55,541.81
141,297.54

1

Total difference in size between current land use and future land use for each category; numbers in red represent a
future land use amount that would be smaller than the current amount for the category; numbers in green signify a
future land use amount that would be larger than the current amount for the category. 2Not Applicable. Source: NASA
2016.

The Roberts Road location is currently designated Renewable Energy to accommodate varying forms of
naturally replenished energy applications. The location corresponds to fallow agricultural land. This land
use type is also identified for research and production facilitating the KSC goal of achieving increased onsite generation of its power from renewable sources. No facilities or associated infrastructure have been
historically located here.
Visual Resources
The area of consideration for visual resources includes the viewshed around the Proposed Action site such
as adjacent lands at and surrounding KSC within view of facilities, such as off-station lands within safety
clear zones. Visual resources are any naturally occurring or man-made feature that contributes to the

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

16

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
aesthetic value of an area. Areas such as coastlines, national parks, and recreation or wilderness areas are
usually considered to have high visual sensitivity.
NASA considers the extent to which any lighting or other visual impacts associated with an action would
create an annoyance among people in the vicinity or interfere with their normal activities. Visual and
aesthetic resources refer to natural or developed landscapes that provide information for an individual to
develop their perceptions of the area. The existing conditions at KSC are characterized as having low visual
sensitivity, because the site is currently an industrialized area that supports rocket launches. Notable visual
structures include the lightning protection towers at LC-39B. Due to the flat topography and the height of
the lightning towers (approximately 161 m [528 ft]), the lightning protection towers can be seen several
miles away. Other highly visible structures include the VAB and the Visitor Complex Space Shuttle
Atlantis External Tank and Solid Rocket Booster Display.
The visual resources at KSC are typical of an administrative and industrial campus. The LC-39 area is
characterized by launch vehicle assembly, testing and processing facilities while the Industrial Area
includes various administrative, payload and launch vehicle processing, and research facilities. Specialized
development at KSC includes the SLF and associated hangars and fueling facility, LC-39A and LC-39B.
Undeveloped areas on KSC (approximately 54,592 ha [134,900 ac]) are comprised of expanses of saltmarsh
and freshwater wetlands, impounded areas, hardwood hammocks, scrub oak, pine flatwoods, and open
water areas. Nearly 40% of KSC consists of open water areas of the IRL system (NASA 2015a).
Existing light sources at KSC include nighttime security lighting at the launch complexes and buildings.
NASA has guidelines to address the light impacts to wildlife species under the KSC exterior lighting
requirements in Chapter 24 of Kennedy NASA Procedural Requirements (KNPR) 8500.1 Rev. E (NASA
2018). The installation and use of any lighting that is visible from the exterior of a facility must be in
compliance with these guidelines. Development of a Lighting Operations Manual that meets the exterior
lighting requirements is mandatory for all new structures.
Coastal Zone
Federal activity in a coastal zone requires preparation of a Coastal Zone Consistency Determination in
accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 as implemented by NOAA through
State coastal zone management offices. Any activities, which directly affect the State's coastal zone are
subject to a determination of consistency with the State's Coastal Management Program (15 CFR 930.3044). NASA, USAF, and other federal agencies are required to review their activities with regard to direct
effects on the coastal zone and are responsible for making the final coastal zone consistency determinations.
Florida’s statewide coastal management program, executed by the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP), oversees activities occurring in or affecting the coastal zone and is based on a network
of agencies implementing 24 statutes protecting coastal resources. The State of Florida’s coastal zone is
the area encompassed by the entire state and its territorial seas.

The CZMA provides for management of our Nation’s coastal uses and resources. CZMA encourages
coastal states to develop and implement comprehensive management programs that balance the need for
coastal resource protection with the need for economic growth and development in the coastal zone. Once
a management program is developed and approved by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), the state is authorized to review certain federal activities affecting the land or
water uses or natural resources of its coastal zone for consistency with the program. This authority is
______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

17

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
referred to as “federal consistency”. The Florida Coastal Management Program was approved by NOAA
in 1981 and is codified in Chapter 380, Part II, Florida Statute (F.S.).
Federal activities at KSC which are likely to require consistency determinations include:




Any project subject to state or federal dredge and fill permitting review
Point or new non-point source discharge to surface waters
Major industrial expansion or development projects

The review of consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Program is coordinated through the Florida
State Clearinghouse. Because any federal action, which directly affects the coastal zone would also be
subject to NEPA, consistency review is typically addressed in the NEPA documentation which is submitted
to the Clearinghouse for review.
3.1.2 Environmental Consequences
The following describes potential impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative on land use,
visual resources and coastal zone management at KSC.
Land Use/Visual Resources
The Proposed Action would require a land use change from Renewable Energy to Assembly, Testing and
Processing which includes facilities operations, and land areas that are essential to space vehicle component
assembly, integration and processing prior to launch. Laboratories; material support and interface testing
to achieve final assembly; test and closeout to prepare and test payloads; space systems; and systems
components for flight and integration which may include hazardous commodities are also included in this
classification.

This site is not currently a NASA operational area but is managed by USFWS and would have to be
removed from MINWR oversight. Once removed from MINWR oversight, these lands would no longer
be available for controlled burning operations. The fire management program administered by the MINWR
controls vegetative fuel loads at KSC to reduce the potential of wildfires. MINWR would have to consider
site activities in their management planning and coordination, including prescribed burning in adjacent
lands to ensure that operations, equipment, and payloads at these facilities would not be negatively
impacted. The change in land use designation and removal from MINWR would result in a moderate
impact. A site plan will be submitted so this land use change request can be vetted through the Master Plan
Amendment Process
Potential visual impacts to the landscape in the vicinity of the Proposed Action include light emissions and
facilities that block the view of natural surroundings. The impact of the SpaceX Roberts Road development
to visual resources would be moderate. Roberts Road is outside of the public access area with exception of
Visitor Complex tour buses and visitors during launch viewing events. Though the Proposed Action would
require some construction and modifications, these additions would be consistent with existing
infrastructure and not cause a significant impact to the area. SpaceX would submit a site plan to NASA
with details on building dimensions and site layout. The KSC site plan review process identifies potential
constraints including land use, operational conflicts, natural resources, line-of-sight (LOS), safety, and
security.

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

18

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action alternative there would be no new construction or reuse of existing facilities or
property. Therefore, there would be no project related impacts to land use or visual resources.
Coastal Zone Management
Florida's coastal zone includes the entire state and its territorial seas. NASA has determined that the
Proposed Action to allow SpaceX to develop the Roberts Road site on KSC is consistent with the Florida
Coastal Management Plan and would result in no significant impact to coastal resources. As part of the
CZMA determination process, this EA will be sent to the FDEP and the Florida State Clearinghouse during
the public review period.

No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative there would be no new construction of facilities and no additional
operations related to SpaceX spacecraft processing. Therefore, there would be no additional impacts to
coastal zone resources.

3.2 Noise
Noise is defined as any sound that is undesirable because it may interfere with communication, be of
sufficient intensity and time to result in decreased hearing acuity, or is otherwise intrusive. Given certain
intensities, frequencies, and duration, noise can change the behavior of humans and wildlife. Noise is often
generated by activities essential to a community’s quality of life, such as construction or vehicular traffic.
Noise is measured in decibels (dB) and an A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA) is commonly applied.
The Noise Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-574) directs federal agencies to comply with applicable federal,
state, and local noise control regulations. In 1974, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided
information suggesting continuous and long-term noise levels in excess of day/night average sound level
65 dBA are normally unacceptable for noise-sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, churches, and
hospitals. The Brevard County Code §46-131 includes a nuisance noise ordinance which does not set
specific not-to-exceed noise levels. The county noise ordinance exempts construction noise between the
hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. (NASA 2016).
3.2.1 Affected Environment
Background information on noise in the vicinity of the Proposed Action is well described in the recent KSC
PEIS (NASA 2016) and the KSC ERD (NASA 2015a). Noise generated at KSC originates from: 1) aircraft
noise, 2) industrial operations, 3) construction, 4) launches, and 5) traffic noise. Noise levels around
facilities at KSC approximate those of any urban industrial area, reaching between levels of 60 to 80 dBA.
KSC is a large controlled access area where the noise environment is isolated to the activities within the
areas where launch vehicle and spacecraft processing and launch represent the primary mission. Aircraft,
rocket launches, and landings present sound levels that extend beyond the boundaries, but only for a short
duration. As described in Section 1, KSC is strategically located away from large population areas, with
the closest major municipalities being the City of Titusville, approximately 15 km (9.5 mi) to the west, and
the City of Cape Canaveral, approximately 14 km (8.5 mi) from the KSC Industrial Area. The sound
produced by current rocket launches is noticed in all local population areas and the perimeter of KSC is
commonly visited by the public for launch viewing.

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

19

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
Traffic noise is generated by employees traveling to and from their workplace and the local traffic
movement. Road surfaces are mostly asphalt with a maximum speed limit of 89 km per hour (55 miles per
hour [mph]) on the major roadways and commonly 56 km per hour (35 mph) or less on local roads. Typical
noise levels from passenger vehicles, tourist buses, and heavy trucks range between 72 and 86 dBA at
speeds up to 89 km per hour (55 mph) at a distance of 15 m (50 ft). Overall noise from these sources is
dependent on many factors including traffic volume, speed, vehicle type, roadway geometry, and local
structures. Most of the vehicular activity is during the daylight hours, commonly between 6:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m. There are both second and third work shifts at KSC, however the population and traffic is greatly
reduced during those times.
3.2.2 Environmental Consequences
Under the Proposed Action, short- and long-term minimal adverse effects would be expected. They would
result in the continuation of many of the types of noise presently occurring at KSC.
Short-term increases in noise would result from the use of heavy equipment during construction and
modification activities at any of the locations. Construction noise is largely limited to the site being
developed, yet noise can carry to surrounding areas. Typical values for noise levels from construction and
associated vehicles are described in the PEIS (NASA 2016). Construction sound levels typically range
from 78 to 89 dBA at a 15 m (50 ft) distance from the source. Noise generated during construction activities
of the Proposed Action or at any of the option locations would potentially have discernable, but temporary
effects on wildlife occurring nearby. Most wildlife occurring closer to noise sources would be free to move
away or find shelter (e.g., burrows); therefore, the impacts would be expected to be minimal.
Long-term effects would be from the addition of stationary sources of noise such as standby generators,
heavy equipment, increased traffic in areas, and daily industrial operations. A noticeable increase would
occur at the Roberts Road location, as this site is currently undeveloped. The loudest noise generated by
industrial activities at KSC is produced by hydraulic pumps and scrubbers operating within the confines of
their enclosures. Operators are required by Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and
NASA regulations to be equipped with ear protection devices. Other intermittent raised levels of noise
occur during operation of lifting equipment, diesel-powered generators, heavy-duty service vehicles, and
certain sheet metal forming and cutting processes. Even the highest levels of noise from industrial activities
will have minimal impact on the environment and none will affect areas beyond the KSC boundary when
exposed to these levels (see Table 3-2 for typical noise sources), (NASA 2015a). There would be no
impacts to typical noise levels experienced currently by communities adjacent to KSC property due to
normal daily operations.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative there would be no new facility construction or SpaceX operations.
Therefore, there would be no construction or operations related impacts to noise.
Table 3-2. Typical Noise Sources and Levels
Outdoor
Sound Level Indoor
(dBA)
Construction site

100

Factory machinery

Tractor/boiler room

90

Garbage disposal

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

20

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
(Table 3-2. Continued)
Outdoor

Sound Level Indoor
(dBA)

Heavy traffic

85

Hand saw

Freight train

80

Manual machine tools

Freeway traffic

70

Classroom chatter

Normal conversation

60

Sewing machine

Rainfall

50

Refrigerator

Quiet residential area

40

Library/quiet office

Sources: NASA 2016, OSHA (July 2017), and CHC (July 2017).

3.3 Biological Resources
Biological resources include vegetation, wildlife, and the habitats in which they occur. The variety of
habitats found on KSC and the adjacent federal properties provides for the richest biodiversity of wildlife
among federal facilities in the continental U.S. (Breininger et al. 1994). This diversity has been attributed
to the location of KSC within a biogeographical transition zone, having faunal and floral assemblages
derived from both temperate and tropical/subtropical biotic provinces. It is bordered on three sides by the
IRL system, considered to be one of the most diverse estuarine ecosystems in the U.S. (Swain et al. 1995).
Further to the west of KSC lies the St. Johns River Basin ecosystem, one of the largest freshwater marsh
systems in the state. In addition, KSC’s proximity to the coast fosters an abundance of migratory birds.
All of these factors contribute to the exceptional species diversity found on KSC (Breininger et al. 1994).
3.3.1 Affected Environment
Chapter 3.9.1 of the PEIS (NASA 2016) and Section 6 of the ERD (NASA 2015a) describe in detail the
natural resources found on KSC, and provide a regulatory overview. A brief summary focusing on the
proposed action location is provided below.
Habitats and Vegetation
In the mid-1800s, Douglas Dummitt established a thriving citrus business on KSC; ultimately 8,000 ha
(20,000 ac) of citrus were cultivated. These groves were privately owned and remained active until 2008
when the leases expired and were not renewed by the USFWS. The majority of the Roberts Road location
is former citrus grove, with 87% of the site classified as either grove or grove dominated by Brazilian
pepper. The remaining 13% of the landcover at the proposed location is comprised of ruderal-herbaceous,
freshwater scrub-shrub wetland, hardwood hammock, and dirt road (primary infrastructure) (Table 3-3).
The freshwater scrub-shrub wetland is a man-made ditch that was created to help drain the citrus grove.
The only intact natural habitat that would be impacted by 100% build out of the site would be the 0.3 ha
(0.8 ac) of hardwood hammock.

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

21

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
Table 3-3. Various Habitat Types Present at the Roberts Road Site
Habitat Type
Roberts Road
Development
ha (ac)
Citrus

13.7 (33.9)

Citrus to Brazilian Pepper

9.8 (24.1)

Hardwood Hammock

0.3 (0.8)

Infrastructure-Primary

1.0 (2.4)

Ruderal-Herbaceous

1.4 (3.5)

Wetland Scrub-Shrub-Freshwater

0.9 (2.2)

TOTAL

27.1 (66.9)

Wildlife
Fish: On the SpaceX development site, the drainage ditch that runs through the center of the site had very
little standing water at the time field visits were made in spring and summer of 2017. However, when water
is present, several species of small fish could potentially be present (e.g., mosquitofish [Gambusia affinis],
sailfin mollies [Poecilia latipinna], and flag fish [Jordanella floridae]). No protected or game species
would be expected at the site.

Amphibians and Reptiles: Seventy-one species of amphibians and reptiles have been documented as
occurring on KSC (Seigel et al. 2002, updated information 2017 [Rebecca Bolt pers. comm.]): four
aquatic/semi-aquatic salamanders, 16 frogs and toads (including two introduced exotic species), one
alligator, 11 turtles, 12 lizards (including three introduced exotic species), and 27 snakes. The highly
disturbed habitat at the site could provide habitat for some of the frogs and toads, lizards, and snakes, but
the only amphibian or reptile species that was observed during field surveys was the exotic Cuban (or
brown) anole (Anolis sagrei). There are two federally protected species that could potentially occur at the
site, the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) and eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi). No
gopher tortoise burrows were found during site visits and the soils on site are not conducive to burrowing.
Indigo snakes have been documented using the habitat types present on the site and indigos may occur
there. The average home range size for radiotagged male indigos in Brevard County was 202 ha (499 ac)
and the average home range size for females was 76 ha (188 ac) (Breininger et al. 2011). The entire acreage
that would be developed for the SpaceX Operations Area (27 ha, [67 ac]) is approximately 13% of an
average home range for a single male indigo and 36% of an average home range for one female snake.
Birds: There have been 318 species of birds documented on KSC, and MINWR is considered to be one of
the top 10 birding sites in the U.S. (NASA 2015a). There are 87 nesting species; some of these are yearround residents and others come to KSC specifically to nest. There are over 100 winter residents and over
100 species are classified as migratory or accidental.
The site has a small amount of hardwood hammock (< 0.5 ha [1.2 ac]) that could potentially support hawks,
owls, and song birds. The wetlands present are too severely encroached by Brazilian pepper and other

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

22

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
woody shrub species to attract wading birds or shorebirds. No protected species of birds are expected to
occur at the site. An active eagles’ nest is located approximately 700 m (2297 ft) northeast of the site.
Mammals: There have been 29 species of mammals documented to occur on KSC, including 5 non-native
species (NASA 2015a). Only two species are protected: the southeastern beach mouse (Peromyscus
polionotus niveiventris) and the Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus). The SpaceX development site does
not have habitat to support either species.
3.3.2 Environmental Consequences
Even if there was 100% build out of the site, the impacts would be expected to be minimal. The majority
of the habitat is highly disturbed and comprised of non-native species. Loss of the small acreage of natural
habitat (hardwood hammock) would not have significant impact. A potential wildlife consequence would
be to eastern indigo snakes, and the loss of such a small amount of habitat is expected to have minimal
impact.
Migratory birds traveling in large flocks, particularly at night, are susceptible to striking tall buildings and
towers. Most of these species are not listed as threatened or endangered, but are protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. It is not understood why this mortality occurs, but evidence suggests that nightmigrating songbirds are either attracted to or disoriented by tower obstruction warning lighting systems,
especially during overcast (i.e., low cloud ceiling), foggy, or other low visibility conditions (USFWS 2016).
KSC bird strike potential is reasonably high because of its location along the Atlantic Flyway migration
route. The coastline of Florida is used as a guide by birds as they travel during the fall and spring.
Current estimates for bird collisions with communication towers in the U.S. are over 6 million. The risk
appears to increase with infrastructure height (USFWS, March 2018: https://www.fws.gov/birds/birdenthusiasts/threats-to-birds/collisions.php). The USFWS reports that strike risk increases with towers that
are over 350 feet tall, use steady burning lights, have guy wire supports, and are located in areas with
frequent inclement weather patterns (i.e., storms, fog), in areas with a higher density of migrating birds,
and along ridgelines where the air space impacts bird flight patterns.
The SpaceX launch and landing control center will be a very uniquely shaped building with limited
windows. It is anticipated to be no more than 300 feet tall, but will be far more robust than a communication
or wind tower. Mitigation to reduce bird collisions will be addressed in the final design and will comply
with all FAA obstruction and marking guidelines.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative there would be no land clearing for construction of facilities. Therefore,
there would be no impacts to vegetation or wildlife and their habitat.

3.4 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources are historic assets associated with human use of an area. Properties are defined by the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, cultural items are defined by the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, archaeological resources are defined by the Archaeological
Resources Protection Act of 1979, sacred sites are defined by EO 13007, and collections and associated
records are defined by 36 CFR 79. Cultural resources may include locations or landscapes, intangible
traditional use sites, or physical remnants associated with past and/or present activities. Physical remnants
of cultural resources are usually referred to as archaeological sites or historic properties. KSC has
______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

23

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
developed an Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan (ICRMP) that reflects NASA’s commitment
to the protection of its significant cultural resources; the most recent version of the ICRMP covers the 20142018 time period (NASA 2014). The regulatory framework governing preservation and documentation of
cultural resources on KSC can be found in the ICRMP and the PEIS (NASA 2016).
3.4.1 Affected Environment
There are no documented cultural resource sites within the boundary of the SpaceX Roberts Road
development location. There are two historic areas in the general vicinity. One is located 215 m (705 ft)
south of the southeast corner of the project area and is comprised of two structures that appear to have been
associated with a homestead. The second is 325 m (1,066 ft) west of the southwest corner of the project
area and contained six structures that were part of a large citrus grove.
3.4.2. Environmental Consequences
There are no documented historical or archaeological resources within the proposed site boundaries. No
impacts are expected to any cultural resources from the Proposed Action.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative the SpaceX development on KSC would not be built. Therefore, there
would be no land disturbance resulting in impacts to cultural resources.

3.5 Air Quality
Chapter 3.6.1 of the PEIS (NASA 2016) and Section 3.1 of the ERD (NASA 2015a) describe in detail the
regulatory context and regional air quality resources for, as well as provide a discussion of types and
quantities of air pollutants emitted from NASA’s activities on KSC. A brief synopsis is provided below.
3.5.1 Affected Environment
Air quality at KSC is regulated under Federal Clean Air Act regulations (Title 40 CFR Parts 50 through 99)
and Florida Administrative Code (FAC) Chapters 62-200 through 62-299.
The U.S. EPA sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful
to public health and the environment. The EPA identifies the following six criteria air pollutants for which
NAAQS are applicable:







carbon monoxide (CO)
lead (Pb)
nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
ozone
particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
sulfur dioxide (SO2)

KSC is located in Brevard County and is classified as an attainment area with NAAQS and State of
Florida Standards. Table 3-4 shows state and federal ambient air quality standards.
The FDEP classifies KSC as a Title V major source for the potential to emit for the criteria pollutant
nitrogen oxide (NOx), which exceeds the Title V major source threshold of 100-tons per year of NOx. KSC
is considered a minimal source for carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), particulate
matter, sulfur dioxide, and lead emissions. NASA holds a Title V Air Operation Permit which governs the
air emissions from those activities. The Title V Air Operation Permit provides a list of emissions units and
______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

24

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
also shows insignificant emissions units and/or activities. NASA operated air emission sources are listed
on the NASA Title V Air Operation Permit.
The ambient air quality at KSC is predominantly influenced by daily operations such as vehicle traffic,
utilities, fuel combustion, and standard refurbishment and maintenance operations. Other operations that
occur infrequently throughout the year, including launches and prescribed fires, also play a role in the
quality of air as episodic events. Stationary point sources of air emissions typically include launch vehicle
processing, fueling, and other point sources such as heating/power plants, generators, incinerators, and
storage tanks. Mobile sources include support equipment, commercial transport vehicles, rocket launch
vehicles, and personal motor vehicles.
Presented below is a summary of air emissions for years 2010 through 2015 for KSC (Table 3-5) of actual
tons per year of the NAAQS regulated criteria pollutants and total hazardous air pollutants HAPs that are
included in the current Title V Air Operating Permits.

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

25

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
Table 3-4. State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant
Average
State of Florida
Federal Primary Federal Secondary
NAAQS
Time
Standard
NAAQS
8-houra

9 ppm

9 ppm

N/A

1-houra

35 ppm

35 ppm

N/A

Quarterly

1.5 µg/m3

1.5 µg/m3

1.5 µg/m3

3-Month

1.5 µg/m3

0.15 µg/m3b

0.15 µg/m3

Annual

0.053 ppm

0.053 ppm

0.053 ppm

1-hourd

0.10 ppm

0.10 ppm

0.10 ppm

8-hourh

0.075 ppm

0.075 ppm

0.075 ppm

1-houri

N/A

0.12 ppm

0.12 ppm

Particulate Matter
(PM10)

24-houre

15 µg/m3

150 µg/m3

150 µg/m3

Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)

Annualf

15 µg/m3

15 µg/m3

15 µg/m3

24-hourg

N/A

35 µg/m3

35 µg/m3

Sulfur Dioxide

Annual

0.02 ppm

0.03 ppm

0.5 ppm

24-houra

0.10 ppm

0.14 ppm

0.14 ppm

1-hourj

N/A

0.075 ppm

N/A

3-hour

0.5 ppm

N/A

0.5 ppm

Carbon Monoxide

Lead

Nitrogen Dioxide

Ozone

a. Not to be exceeded more than once per year. b. Final rule signed October 15, 2008. c. Annual mean. d. 98 th
percentile-averaged over 3 years. e. Annual 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration averaged over 3
years. f. Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years. g. Annual mean averaged over 3
years. h. 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations averaged over 3 years. i. EPA revoked the 1hour ozone standard in all areas, although some areas have continuing obligations under that standard (“antibacksliding”); the standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly
average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is <1. j. The 3-year average of 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour
average must not exceed 75 ppb. Source: NASA 2015a.

Table 3-5. KSC History of Actual Annual Emissions (tons per year)
Pollutants 2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
CO
3.209565 4.615386 6.115449 7.216737 9.566955
HAPS
0.481
0.620608 0.494365 0.551531 0.548092
NOX
10.482851 15.349532 23.105867 24.982164 33.99334
PB
0
0
0
0
0
PM
0.681244 1.127629 1.446277 1.694932 2.355932
PM10
0.678
1.076285 1.443928 1.691475 2.348127
PM2.5
0.529171 0.861775 1.254227 1.443872 2.054483
SO2
0.013569 0.018507 0.022093 0.027068 0.439758
VOC
4.582289 4.717711 3.561213 4.365129 4.682131

2011
10.766932
0.660688
38.685013
0.00013
2.68276
2.669978
2.346908
0.518586
6.283344

2010
10.385496
0.599648
36.859529
0.00031
2.545668
2.555286
2.234567
0.492052
10.6881

2009
11.169308
1.164176
40.1191
0.00111
2.806149
2.803877
2.486821
0.501152
11.16449

Source: FDEP 2017

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

26

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
3.5.2 Environmental Consequences
This section describes the potential impacts to air quality resulting from the Proposed Action and the No
Action Alternative. Environmental consequences on local and regional air quality are determined based on
changes in regulated air pollutant emissions, and upon existing air quality. A significant impact on air
quality would occur if the action would cause pollutant concentrations to exceed one or more of the NAAQS
or state air quality standards within Brevard County. The PEIS determined the proposed action of KSC
transitioning into a multi-user spaceport would have short- and long-term minor adverse effects on air
quality. No additional evaluation under tiered NEPA would be required unless the project met certain
criteria (Section 3.6.2.1.5 of PEIS, NASA 2016).
Impacts to air quality from construction of the proposed action at would be minimal and of short duration.
In the immediate vicinity of the site, dust from the removal of vegetation and exposure of topsoil and
exhaust from heavy machinery would temporarily decrease the local air quality. Air pollutants generated
could include PM10, sulfur and nitrogen oxides, and others. These materials would quickly dissipate and
the air quality would return to the average ambient levels found at each location. Particulates and fugitive
dust could be controlled with periodic water spraying. Temporary increases in local vehicle use,
construction and land clearing equipment would be insignificant and not adversely impact the existing
NAAQS. These fugitive emissions would not be substantial enough to change NAAQS attainment status.
There would also be short term increases in regulated air pollutants from possible burning of cleared
vegetation at the site. The use of controlled burns to dispose of ground cover from land clearing activities
is a common practice in Florida. Burning debris emits smoke and ash into the air, reducing air quality.
Open burning is a regulated activity and requires authorization from the Florida Division of Forestry and a
burn permit from the KSC Duty Office. Burning vegetative debris on KSC requires strict adherence to
specific procedures, restrictions, and criteria to be followed during the burning activities. On a regional
scale, construction-related air quality impacts are expected to be negligible for the Proposed Action
activities.
Impacts to air quality from operations conducted at the Proposed Action site is also expected to be minimal
and of short duration. Typical activities at the space vehicle processing facilities could include cleaning,
vehicle preparation, and testing. Various cleaning solvents, including isopropyl alcohol (IPA) would be
used before and after vehicle preparation. IPA is not a listed or regulated hazardous air pollutant due to its
low toxicity and flammability characteristics. KSC’s Title V Air Operation Permit identifies general
chemical and solvent use as an insignificant emission source.
Because the exact types and quantities of exhaust-generating devices for the Proposed Action are not
known, reasonably foreseeable air quality impacts from boilers, hot water generators, and backup electric
generators, and non-toxic substances often associated with ground processing activities are addressed here.
The capacities for typical operations of the size proposed at all of the Proposed Action site locations are
estimated to be small, have low fuel usage, and are not expected to produce emissions above potential to
emit threshold levels established as major sources of pollution listed in Chapter 62-213.430 F.A.C.. For
that reason, the emissions are estimated to have minimal air quality impacts. SpaceX would be required to
meet all federal, state, and local air quality requirements, and would apply for their own Title V operating
permits if expected to have any regulated air pollution sources, operations, or processes.
The increase of emissions related to traffic associated with the SpaceX Roberts Road site facilities
operations would be negligible. The addition of workforce expected for the Proposed Action could increase
______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

27

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
traffic emissions. However, this increase would not exceed emissions that were associated with previous
traffic volume, prior to the end of the Space Shuttle Program.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative there would be no construction of new facilities or operations related to
spacecraft and satellite processing occurring at the Proposed Action sites. Therefore, there would be no
impacts to Air Quality.

3.6 Climate
3.6.1 Affected Environment
Climatic conditions in the east-central Florida area are influenced by latitude and proximity to the Atlantic
Ocean and the IRL system. The climate is characterized as subtropical, with summer conditions
predominating for nine months of the year. Average temperatures in the summer range between 21o Celsius
(C) and 32oC (70o Fahrenheit [F] and 90oF). Winter months are January through March with average
temperatures between 4.5oC and 24oC (40oF and 75oF). Detailed climate information can be found in the
KSC ERD (NASA 2015a).
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise
Solar irradiance, the greenhouse effect, and earth’s reflectivity are the key factors interacting to maintain
temperatures on Earth within critical limits. Relatively recent changes in greenhouse gas concentrations
(primarily carbon dioxide [CO2]) have been identified as the principal factor influencing Earth’s current
climate trends (EPA 2009). Human land use changes and burning of fossil fuels for energy are the major
contributors to increases in greenhouse gases that are accelerating the rate of climate change. Impacts
include warmer temperatures, rising sea levels, changes in rainfall patterns, and a host of other associated
and often interrelated effects. For the KSC region, the average air temperature for the 30-year climate
baseline period is 22o C (72o F) (NASA 2015). Climate forecasts indicate that average temperatures will
increase by as much as 3.3oC (6oF) during the latter part of the century. Other anticipated impacts are
described in the KSC Shoreline Protection EA (NASA 2015). Emissions of CO2 at KSC are primarily
associated with vehicle traffic, ground support operations, and launch events. On KSC, CO2 emissions in
2016 were estimated at 99,025.2 metric tons (mt), equaling a 54% reduction in sources controlled by the
government and a 32% reduction from non-government sources from 2008 baseline emission statistics
(NASA 2016a).

During the last two decades, erosion along the KSC coastline has increased as a result of frequent storm
surges from nor’easters, tropical storms, and hurricanes. Erosion may have been exacerbated by effects
from rising sea-levels which have exceeded 12.7 centimeters (cm) (5 inches [in]) in the last 20 years, as
measured at the Trident Pier in the adjacent Port Canaveral. As a result, the area has been categorized as
“critically eroded” by the FDEP (FDEP 2016). Over 1.8 km (1.0 mi) of artificial dune have been created
along the KSC coastline to protect space program assets and important wildlife habitat (NASA 2015); an
additional 9.2 km (5.7 mi) of dune creation is being planned for 2018/2019.
3.6.2 Environmental Consequences
In February 2010, the CEQ issued NEPA guidance for considering the effects of climate change and
greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, if a proposed action would be reasonably anticipated to cause
direct emissions of 25,000 mt or more on an annual basis, agencies should consider this an indicator that a
______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

28

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
quantitative and qualitative assessment may be meaningful to decision makers and the public (CEQ
Memorandum 18 February 2010). Based on the anticipated addition of 70 employees and the benign
activities that would occur at the facilities, annual direct emissions should be well under 25,000 mt.
Therefore, the impact of this project to global or regional climate change, including sea level rise, is
anticipated to be minimal.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no new construction or spacecraft processing taking place
for SpaceX on Roberts Road. Therefore, there would be no greenhouse emissions resulting in climate
change impacts.

3.7 Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste
A hazardous material is any item or agent (biological, chemical, radiological, and/or physical), which has
the potential to cause harm to humans, animals, or the environment, either by itself or through interaction
with other factors. Hazardous materials are defined and regulated in the U.S. primarily by laws and
regulations administered by the EPA under 29 CFR 1910, OSHA under 40 CFR 355, the U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT) under 49 CFR 171-180, the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, the Toxic Substance Control Act, the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission under 10 CFR 20.
Hazardous waste is defined in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as any solid, liquid,
contained gaseous, or semi-solid waste, or any combination of wastes that could or do pose a substantial
hazard to human health or the environment. Waste may be classified as hazardous because of its toxicity,
reactivity, ignitability, corrosive properties, or listed status. All hazardous wastes generated on KSC must
be managed, controlled, stored, and disposed of according to regulations found in 40 CFR Parts 260 through
282 and FAC Chapter 62-730.
Hazardous materials and solid and hazardous wastes are managed and controlled in accordance with federal,
state, and local regulations. KSC has established plans and procedures to implement these regulations. The
use, management, and disposal of hazardous materials on KSC is further described in Kennedy NASA
Procedural Requirement 8500.1 - KSC Environmental Requirements
3.7.1 Affected Environment
Hazardous Materials
Numerous types of hazardous materials are used to support the various missions and general maintenance
operations at KSC. These materials range from common building paints to industrial solvents and
hazardous fuels. Categories of hazardous materials used in support of past launch activities include
petroleum products, oils, lubricants, VOCs, corrosives, refrigerants, adhesives, sealants, epoxies, and
propellants. Storage for helium and nitrogen would also be installed at the SpaceX Operations Area.
Management of hazardous materials is the responsibility of each organization.

The KSC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan (KSC-PLN-1919) outlines the
criteria established by KSC to prevent, respond to, control, and report spills of oil. Various types and
quantities of oil are stored, transported, and handled to support the operations of KSC. The KSC SPCC
Plan describes both the facility-wide and site-specific (KSC-PLN-1920) approaches for preventing and
addressing spills.
______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

29

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
Hazardous materials would be handled in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
SpaceX trains employees to immediately report spills to the SpaceX Environmental Health and Safety team
and contain spills if safe to do so. On pervious surfaces, SpaceX manages cleanup and reporting to NASA
KSC. For spills of hazardous materials to impervious surfaces, off site discharges, or other emissions,
SpaceX immediately reports to KSC emergency responders. SpaceX will develop programs and maintain
environmental compliance as per the EUL.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative there would be no new operations requiring the use of hazardous materials.
Therefore, there would be no impacts from hazardous materials.
Hazardous Waste
This section discusses the presence of known or suspected contaminants near the Proposed Action sites.
Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs), Potential Release Locations (PRLs), and Areas of Concern
(AOCs) are generally concentrated in operational areas such as the VAB, launch complexes, and the KSC
Industrial Area. The most prevalent soil contaminants are petroleum hydrocarbons, RCRA metals, and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The most prevalent groundwater contaminants are chlorinated solvents
and associated degradation products.

KSC has programs to evaluate sites where contamination is present under RCRA and its Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments. KSC's Remediation Program was initiated in response to an agreement with
FDEP in the late 1980s regarding KSC's oldest contamination remediation sites or SWMUs, Wilson
Corners and the Ransom Road Landfill. Since then, KSC has been working with the EPA and FDEP to
identify potential release sites and implement corrective action at those sites as needed. In addition to
corrective action sites, the NASA Remediation Group also manages petroleum contamination sites. To
date, NASA has identified and investigated approximately 108 SWMU sites and 227 PRLs, of which 93
still require further investigation to confirm the presence or absence of contamination.
No contaminated media had been previously identified within the boundary of the Roberts Road location.
At the request of SpaceX, Universal Engineering Sciences conducted limited soil and groundwater quality
testing at the Roberts Road site in February 2018. Results from this investigation disclosed that constituents
of concern, arsenic and PCBs, were detected in soil samples above the FDEP residential soil cleanup target
levels, but below commercial and industrial soil cleanup target levels. No constituents of concern were
detected in groundwater above the FDEP groundwater cleanup target levels from this investigation. NASA
was apprised of this report and its findings, and is conducting confirmatory sampling of media to identify
constituents of concern at this location. Results from this sampling event have not yet been received by
NASA.
Two areas located in close proximity to the site that have been previously investigated are PRL #114 KSC
Background Study Locations, and PRL #160 Fire Department Staging Building #1 Area. The results of the
investigation for PRL #114 did not confirm exceedances detected in media at any of the locations of
concern. These results indicated that no further investigation was warranted for the media evaluated at any
of these locations. FDEP approved the No Further Action (NFA) recommended status in April 2002.
The Fire Department Staging Building #1 Area (PRL #160) consisted of three different locations. These
locations were all private residences prior to acquisition by NASA in the early 1960s. Results from the
investigation recommended confirmatory sampling. Groundwater samples were collected and the results
______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

30

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
of this investigation indicated that releases have not occurred, and that groundwater has not been negatively
impacted. Further investigation at this site was deemed unnecessary. Based upon no groundwater
detections above Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels, NFA was recommended at this site and was
approved by the KSC Remediation Team in August 2008.
3.7.2 Environmental Consequences
Due to the size and proximity of KSC fuel storage tanks to waterways, these locations are subjected to the
SPCC regulations of 40 CFR 112. KSC currently maintains plans for spill prevention, response and
reporting. An active pollution prevention program is in place to reduce the use of hazardous materials and
generation of hazardous waste.
All generated wastes would be properly containerized, stored, labeled, manifested, shipped, and disposed
of in full regulatory compliance. Hazardous wastes generated by SpaceX and their contractors would be
manifested, shipped, and disposed of under one of the company’s EPA identification numbers. SpaceX
currently manages wastes under multiple EPA identification numbers based upon the address of the site.
Copies of waste management records and manifests would be maintained onsite and provided for review
by NASA, or regulatory agencies upon request. BMPs in place for the handling of hazardous materials and
hazardous would result in minimal impacts from the Proposed Action.
The Proposed Action, including construction and operation, should not have a significant impact on the
NASA KSC Remediation Program plans for managing SWMU or PRL sites, since there are no confirmed
remediation sites located within the project area at this time. NASA is awaiting results from the
confirmatory sampling that was recently conducted at the Roberts Road location, and would coordinate any
remedial actions required at this location if the presence of constituents of concern are confirmed.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no new construction and no additional processing of
spacecraft by SpaceX. Therefore, there would be no additional impacts from hazardous waste management.

3.8 Water Resources
Chapter 3.4 of the PEIS (NASA 2016) and Section IV of the ERD (NASA 2015a) describe in detail the
water resources (water quality, regulations, permitting, etc.) within KSC. A concise review is provided in
the following sections.
3.8.1 Affected Environment
Surface Water
The inland surface waters in and surrounding KSC are shallow estuarine lagoons and include portions of
the Indian River, Banana River, Mosquito Lagoon, and Banana Creek. The area of Mosquito Lagoon within
the KSC boundary and the northernmost portion of the IRL, north of the Jay Railway spur crossing (north
of SR 406), are designated by the State as Class II, Shellfish Propagation and Harvesting areas. All other
surface waters at KSC have been designated as Class III, Recreation and Fish and Wildlife Propagation
areas. All surface waters within MINWR are designated as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) as required
by Florida Statutes for waters within national wildlife refuges. Surface water quality at KSC is generally
good, with the best water quality being found adjacent to undeveloped areas of the IRL, such as Mosquito
Lagoon and the northernmost portions of the Indian and Banana Rivers (NASA 2015a). Florida water
bodies that are not attaining water quality criteria for designated uses require the establishment of Total

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

31

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) to meet and maintain Water Quality Standards. The IRL and Banana
River Lagoon have been identified by FDEP as impaired for nutrients and mercury, and Mosquito Lagoon
as impaired for mercury (NASA 2015a). Both the Indian River (north of the 520 Causeway) as well as the
Banana River (north and south of the 520 Causeway) are listed as impaired waters. Causes of impairment
for the Indian River include low dissolved oxygen as well as fecal coliform and mercury in fish tissue above
required thresholds. Similarly, causes of impairment in the Banana River include low dissolved oxygen
and mercury in fish tissue above required thresholds (USAF 2015). Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
have been established for segments of the Indian River and Banana River Lagoons adjoining KSC. The
site-specific nature of the OFW water quality standard and TMDL is designed to ensure against any surface
water degradation.
Fresh surface waters within KSC are primarily derived from the surficial groundwater, which is recharged
by rainfall. Shallow groundwater supports numerous freshwater wetlands. Both man-made drainage
ditches and natural wetland areas are found within the Roberts Road site. Previous low lying areas required
drainage for citrus production. Natural flow of surface water across the Roberts Road site would be west
toward the Indian River. SR 3 is recognized by FDEP as the divide between the drainage to the Banana
River to the east and Indian River to the west. Historically, drainage ditches within and bordering the site
drained to grove discharge pump N10 (which has since been demolished) and water was pumped west to
the IRL.
Floodplain
Executive Order (EO) 11988 directs agencies to consider alternatives to avoid adverse effects and
incompatible development in floodplains. The Proposed Action alternative sites are located across two
different Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zone categories, X and X500. Zone X
lands are outside of the 100-year and 500-year floodplains. Zone X500 represents areas between the limits
of the 100-year and 500-year flood, or certain areas subject to 100-year flood with average depths less than
0.3 m (1 ft), or where the contributing drainage area is less than 2.6 km2 (1 mi2). Due to lack of significant
topographic relief, floodplains on KSC extend beyond the coastal dune and wetlands and into portions of
all of the upland plant communities. The majority of KSC lies within the 100-year floodplain. FEMA
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) 12009C0245G were examined at the FEMA web site, FEMA Map
Service Center. The Roberts Road location is on Map 12009C0245G and is in Floodzone X with a small
portion in Floodzone X500. Northeast of the site, in close proximity, is Floodzone AE, which include areas
inundated by 100-year flooding with determined base flood elevations.
Groundwater Sources
The State of Florida has created four categories used to rate the quality of groundwater in a particular area.
The criteria for these categories are based on the degree of protection that should be afforded to that
groundwater source, with Class G-I being the most stringent and Class G-IV being the least. The
groundwater at KSC is classified as Class G-II, which means that it is a potential potable water source and
generally has a total dissolved solids content of less than 10,000 mg/l (parts per million [ppm]). The
subsurface of KSC is comprised of the Surficial Aquifer, the Intermediate Aquifer, and the Floridian
Aquifer. Recharge to the Surficial Aquifer system is primarily due to precipitation. Of the approximately
140 cm (55 inches (in)) of precipitation occurring annually, approximately 75% returns to the atmosphere
through evapotranspiration. The remainder is accounted for by runoff, base flow, and recharge of the
Surficial Aquifer. However, the quality of water in the KSC aquifer is influenced by the intrusion of saline

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

32

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
and brackish surface waters from the Atlantic Ocean and the IRL. This is evident from the high mineral
content, principally chlorides, that has been measured in groundwater samples from various KSC surveys.
Groundwater Quality
The quality of water in an aquifer is dependent upon the characteristics of the underlying rocks, the
proximity of the aquifer to highly mineralized waters, the presence of residual saline waters, and the
presence of chemical constituents in the aquifer and overlying soils.

The Surficial Aquifer is classified by FDEP as a Class G-II, defined as able to supply water treatable for
human consumption. The surficial aquifer does not, nor is planned to, be used to supply potable water to
KSC.
Unconsolidated, surficial aquifers are subject to contamination from point sources and from general land
use. Contaminants may include trace elements, pesticides, herbicides, and other organics. Urban and
agricultural land uses have affected some Florida Aquifers (Rutledge 1987, Barbash and Resek 1996). Point
source contamination to the KSC Surficial Aquifer has occurred at certain facilities (NASA 2015a).
Baseline conditions of the KSC Surficial Aquifer have been studied in some detail (Schmalzer et al. 2000,
Schmalzer and Hensley 2001). In the 2001 study, six sample sites were located in each subsystem of the
Surficial Aquifer for a total of 24 sites. Shallow and deep groundwater samples were analyzed for
organochlorine pesticides, aroclors, chlorinated herbicides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, total metals,
DO, turbidity, pH, specific conductivity, temperature, total dissolved solids, and total organic carbon.
These data suggested that widespread contamination of the Surficial Aquifer on KSC has not occurred
(Schmalzer and Hensley 2001).
The groundwater quality in the Intermediate Aquifer system varies from moderately brackish to brackish
due to its recharge by upward leakage from the highly mineralized and artesian Floridan Aquifer system,
and in some cases from lateral intrusion from the Atlantic Ocean. Groundwater in the semi-artesian Sand
and Shell Aquifer is brackish. Groundwater in the Shallow Rock Aquifer is brackish with some sites
receiving seawater intrusion. The limited data for the thin Hawthorn Limestone Aquifer indicate that it is
moderately brackish (Clark 1987).
The Floridan Aquifer system underlying KSC contains exceedingly mineralized water with high
concentrations of chlorides as a result of seawater that was trapped in the aquifer when it formed. The high
concentrations of chlorides can also be explained to a lesser degree by induced lateral intrusion (due to
inland pumping) and a lack of flushing due to a low proximity to freshwater recharge areas (Clark 1987).
Site-specific groundwater flow direction is expected to mimic site topography. At the Roberts Road site,
groundwater flow is generally west in the direction of the Indian River. Local features such as the location
of drainage ditches and large surface water bodies would influence groundwater flow direction.
3.8.2 Environmental Consequences
This section describes potential impacts on surface water and groundwater resources as a result of the
Proposed Action and No Action alternative. Determination of water resource impacts is based on an
analysis of the potential for activities to affect surface water or groundwater quality as defined by applicable
laws and regulations. Considered in this analysis is activity-related introduction of contaminants into
surface water or groundwater resources, and physical alterations or disturbances of overland surface water
flows and groundwater recharge.
______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

33

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
Many construction activities can impact surface water quality by increasing run-off from vegetation
clearing, soil disturbance, and grading. Exposed soils are more easily transported and can increase turbidity
and nutrient loads of surface waters or wetland systems. Compacted soils are less permeable and can
increase runoff. These impacts could potentially be significant, but would be lessened to moderate through
the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Infrastructure such as facilities, paved areas, and landscaped areas would alter, to some degree, the
hydrological cycle and surface/groundwater quality. Specific site plans for the proposed sites have not yet
been finalized, so exact quantities of new impervious surfaces cannot be determined. Impervious surfaces
such as roads, sidewalks, parking lots, and buildings reduce the area available for rainwater to percolate
into the soil. This has two direct consequences: there is less water available for recharging the local surficial
aquifer, while at the same time, the amount of runoff that flows into low-lying areas increases. Stormwater
management systems would help mitigate many of the impacts associated with impervious surfaces.
However, extreme rainfall events associated with tropical systems would likely exceed the capacity of most
stormwater systems, and some runoff could be transported off-site.
Surface Water
Land disturbing activities during construction at all Proposed Action sites would have the potential to result
in moderate impacts to surface water quality. These impacts would be lessened with the implementation
of BMPs.

There are drainage ditches and wetlands at the site, some of which would require filling. This would involve
permitting through the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and would constitute a moderate impact. Measures would be taken to minimize harm to
wetlands, including implementing BMPs and adherence to permit conditions. Stormwater management
systems would be built to treat runoff from impervious surfaces of new facilities. An Environmental
Resource Permit (ERP) would be obtained from the SJRWMD.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no new construction and no change in impervious surface.
Floodplain
A very small area of the Roberts Road site is within floodplain zone X500 which represents areas between
the limits of the 100-year and 500-year flood.

NASA would ensure that its actions comply with EO 11988, Floodplain Management, to the maximum
extent possible. Since the Proposed Action would involve federally funded construction in the floodplain,
this EA serves as NASA’s means for facilitating public review as required by EO 11990 and EO 11988.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no new construction. Therefore, there would no additional
impact to floodplains on KSC.
Groundwater
Groundwater quality is affected by runoff that percolates into the surficial aquifer from roadways and
facilities. Construction at the Roberts Road site for the Proposed Action would temporarily increase the
amount of sedimentation and, therefore, pollutants that could migrate into the groundwater system.

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

34

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
Employing BMPs such as silt fences and turbidity barriers and constructing stormwater management
systems would reduce groundwater quality impacts to a minimal amount.
For Roberts Road site development, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Stormwater Construction Permit would be required by FDEP, and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) would have to be implemented. A stormwater management system would need to be designed
and an ERP obtained from SJRWMD for any activity that meets the requirements listed in Rule 40C, F.A.C.
The Proposed Action would have minimal impact to the groundwater quality. Impacts from surface
water degradation would be absorbed by the surface water management system that would be
constructed, preventing transfer of pollutants into the groundwater.
Impacts to groundwater would be minimal to none with required treatment of runoff by a permitted
stormwater management system prior to percolation into the ground. The potential local impacts to
hydrology and water quality from the construction and operation of vehicle processing, and fuel storage
sites are summarized in Table 3-6.
No Action Alternative
No construction or ground disturbing activities would occur under the No Action Alternative. Therefore
there would be no impacts causing groundwater degradation.
Table 3-6. General Site-Specific Impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality Associated with
Construction and Operations of Roads and Facilities
Activity
Impact
Vegetation Clearing

Alters local evapotranspiration processes, exposes soil to wind and
rain erosion (turbidity), reduces storage, increases runoff potential,
alters surficial aquifer recharge rates.

Soil Disturbance

Alters runoff, storage, and infiltration rates. Increases turbidity
potential.

Grading

Alters runoff, storage, and infiltration rates. Increases turbidity
potential.

Impervious Surfaces

Alters runoff, storage, and infiltration rates.
Alters local
evapotranspiration processes. Reduces local surficial aquifer
recharge.

Landscaping

Alters local evapotranspiration processes, runoff, storage, and
infiltration rates. Use of fertilizers and pesticides. Mowing and other
maintenance often required.

Irrigation

Alters local evapotranspiration processes, runoff, storage, and
infiltration rates. Impacts to surficial aquifer.

Stormwater Conveyance

Alters local evapotranspiration processes, runoff, storage, and
infiltration rates. Impacts to surficial aquifer.

Retention Ponds

Alters local evapotranspiration processes runoff, storage, and
infiltration rates. Impacts to surficial aquifer.

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

35

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
Activity

Impact

Vehicle Use

Increased loading of pollutants associated with parking lots, roads,
tires, fossil fuel combustion (NO2, CO, CO2, grease and oil,
polycyclic hydrocarbons, metals).

Ground Processing

Accidental releases of a variety of chemicals could occur during the
operational phase of the Proposed Action and potentially affect
surface and groundwater quality.

3.9 Geology and Soils
Florida has a complex geologic history with repeated periods of deposition when the Florida Plateau was
submerged under the ocean alternating with erosion when the ocean receded. The oldest formations known
to occur beneath the KSC area were deposited in the early Eocene Epoch (56 to 43 million years ago) in an
open ocean. The ensuing cycle of erosion and deposition through the ages resulted in a current surface
strata of primarily unconsolidated white to brown quartz sand containing beds of sandy coquina of
Pleistocene and Holocene age (NASA 2015a). A detailed description of the geologic process is given in the
PEIS (NASA 2016).
Merritt Island formed as a prograding barrier island complex (i.e., one that builds seaward). The eastern
edge of Merritt Island along the Mosquito Lagoon and the Banana River is a relict cape aligned with False
Cape. Multiple dune ridges interspersed with low-lying areas represent successive stages in this growth.
The western portion of Merritt Island is substantially older than the east, and erosion has reduced the
western side to a nearly level plain. Cape Canaveral is also part of the prograding barrier island complex,
the result of southward growth of an original cape at the site of the present False Cape. Multiple dune
ridges on Cape Canaveral are evidence that alternating periods of deposition and erosion occurred there as
well.
Soil is a collective term for the inorganic and organic substrate covering bedrock in which vegetation
grows and a multitude of organisms reside. Soil resources provide a foundation for both plant and animal
communities, and these resources are equally important in both terrestrial and aquatic environments
(NASA 2015a).
Detailed discussions of geology and soils at KSC are available in the KSC PEIS and ERD (NASA 2016,
and NASA 2015a). A summary is provided in the following paragraphs.
3.9.1 Affected Environment
The soils at KSC were mapped by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS); now the Natural Resources
Conservation Service) and its Florida partners in the soil surveys for Brevard County (SCS 1974) and
Volusia County (SCS 1980). Fifty-eight soil series and land types occur at KSC, even though Merritt Island
is a relatively young landscape (NASA 2015a).
Soils at the Roberts Road site are comprised of five types: Anclote Sand (0.6 ha [1.6 ac]), Bradenton Sand
(13.3 ha [32.9 ac]), Copeland Complex (11.9 ha [29.4 ac]), Myakka Sand (0.5 ha [1.2 ac]), and Wabasso
Sand (0.7 ha [1.8 ac]). All of these soils are poorly drained and nearly level. Permeability is rapid in the
sandy types and moderate in the Copeland Complex (SCS 1974).
______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

36

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
3.9.2 Environmental Consequences
Land clearing and site preparation activities at the Roberts Road site would cause disturbance to the upper
soil layers of this heavily vegetated location, but the poorly drained soil types present are common on KSC
and in east-central Florida. Overall impacts would be considered none to geology and minimal to soils.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no new construction or land disturbance. Therefore, no
additional impacts to geology and soils on KSC would occur.

3.10 Transportation
KSC is serviced by over 340 km (211 mi) of roadways. NASA Causeway is the primary entrance and exit
for cargo, tourists, and personnel to KSC. The four-lane road originates on the mainland in Titusville as
SR 405 and crosses the Indian River onto KSC. After passing through the Industrial Area, the NASA
Causeway reduces to two lanes of traffic, crosses the Banana River, and enters CCAFS, serving as the Air
Force installation’s west access road. The major north-south artery for KSC is Kennedy Parkway (SR 3).
It can be accessed from the north where it intersects with US 1 south of Oak Hill and from Titusville via
SR 406/402. The southernmost entrance and exit for KSC is SR 3 on north Merritt Island.
Currently, only one gate operates at CCAFS, the south (main) gate on SR 401, and serves as the primary
entrance and exit for cargo and personnel. SR 401 eventually leads into Phillips Parkway, which is the
main north-south artery for the installation. CCAFS may also be accessed from the west via NASA
Causeway leading over from KSC (USAF 2017).
A majority of the roads at KSC are the product of the intense federal investment in infrastructure that was
made at the dawn of the space program in the 1960s. At that time, Merritt Island was sparsely populated
and the space program required significant federal dollars to achieve its ends
(https://masterplan.ksc.nasa.gov/Future-State/Future-Transportation/Road). Cape Canaveral also remained
largely uninhabited until the mid-nineteenth century. The federal government’s interest in Cape Canaveral
increased in the late 1940s when the federal government began to purchase land from the state to establish
a long-range proving ground (USAF 2015).
3.10.1 Affected Environment
From the proposed site, transport of space vehicles to LC-39A would involve taking SR3 to Saturn
Causeway, which leads directly to the LC-39A. Transportation to LC-40 would require traveling on SR 3
to NASA Causeway east to CCAFS. Once on the Air Force installation, Phillips Parkway to Heavy
Launcher Road to ICBM Road would lead to LC-40.
The Roberts Road site is currently undeveloped and would require upgrades to Roberts Road south of the
site and A Avenue along the east side. SpaceX intends to pave Roberts Road and A Avenue along the
length of the proposed site and add left turn lane capability to SR 3.

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

37

 SpaceX Operations Area EA

Figure 3-1. SpaceX Transportation Routes on KSC and CCAFS

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

38

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
3.10.2 Environmental Consequences
The Proposed Action would result in the continuation of many of the modes of transportation presently
occurring at KSC, but potentially in greater amounts. SpaceX estimates a possible 150 construction jobs
associated with the initial development of the Proposed Action, and approximately 70 new SpaceX
employees to support additional operations on KSC. SpaceX plans to launch more than 4,000 satellites
with the intention that most of these satellites will be launched from LC-39A and LC-40. Short- and longterm moderate adverse effects would be expected.
The Proposed Action is not expected to cause
appreciable changes in the overall traffic volume at KSC, however, some components could affect the level
of service at intersections or roadways both on and off the Center (NASA 2016). Short-term increases in
traffic would result from construction worker commutes during construction and modification activities of
new or existing facilities. Long-term effects would be primarily due to additional worker commutes,
transport of spacecraft components, and changes in traffic patterns near more centralized activities at KSC.
Increased traffic volumes and changes in traffic patterns would have moderate effects, as would planned
improvements to Roberts Road, A Avenue, and new turn lane on SR 3. There would be some long-term
beneficial effects from upgrades in transportation infrastructure along Roberts Road leading to the site. The
Roberts Road site is currently undeveloped and would require upgrades to Roberts Road, currently a one
lane unpaved road, and connections to infrastructure paralleling SR 3. The PEIS (NASA 2016) assessed
the effect of proposed KSC operations and construction on traffic and transportation for a planning horizon
of 2012-2032. No additional evaluation under tiered NEPA would be required unless the project met certain
criteria including addition or closure of roadways or access control points, or construction of greater than
92,900 m2 (1,000,000 ft2 ). The proposed SpaceX action does not meet these criteria and therefore no traffic
study is necessary.
No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would result in no changes in the impact to traffic and transportation. KSC
operations and the current levels of activities would continue without changes, and traffic and transportation
would remain unchanged when compared to existing conditions (NASA 2016). Road improvements would
not be necessary.

3.11 Utilities
The SpaceX Roberts Road Operations Area would require access to electric, fiber connectivity, water,
sewer, and high-pressure gases. Development of the new facilities would include activities such as
construction of roads, upgrading and installing aboveground and underground utilities, excavation,
foundation pouring, and the building of structures. Existing utilities in the vicinity of Roberts Road are
shown in Figure 3-2.
KSC is a retail electricity, natural gas, and fuel oil customer. The Utilities Systems land use classification
at KSC includes land and facilities associated with KSC utilities infrastructure and systems (i.e., water,
wastewater, gas, electrical, chilled water, medium temperature hot water, communications and sewer
systems). Utility systems currently occupy over 404 ha (1,000 ac) of land at KSC. Utility easements help
to define patterns and impacts associated with the development of utility systems and the overall land use
pattern (NASA 2015a).

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

39

 SpaceX Operations Area EA

Figure 3-2. Existing Utilities in Vicinity of the SpaceX Roberts Road Site

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

40

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
3.11.1 Affected Environment
Drinking Water
The Safe Drinking Water Act was established to protect the quality of drinking water and its surface water
and groundwater sources. Florida is divided into five regional water management districts. Brevard County
is located in the SJRWMD. The water management districts are responsible for regulating the supply of
drinking water and conserving the state’s water resources (FDEP 2014). KSC is subject to regulation under
the Safe Drinking Water Act as suppliers since each separately operates a Non-Transient, Non-Community
“Public Water System” as defined by state and federal regulations.

The source of KSC’s drinking water supply is surface water from the Taylor Creek Reservoir and
groundwater from wells located in east Orange County. The City of Cocoa operates the Claude H. Dyal
Water Treatment Plant that treats the raw water from these sources. Water from this plant is transmitted to
KSC via a 61 cm (24 in) primary distribution system from the South Gate to the VAB area. Throughout
KSC there are various storage systems and secondary pump systems to supply water needs for fire
suppression, launch activities, and potable water (NASA 2015a).
Domestic and Industrial Wastewater
State regulatory authority over wastewater treatment facilities was established by the Florida Air and Water
Pollution Control Act Chapter 403 F.S. of 1967. Under these laws, the State of Florida has delegated the
FDEP to promulgate regulations and administer programs for the enforcement of state and federal laws
concerning the disposal of domestic wastewater. FDEP has developed the Domestic Wastewater Program
to set treatment standards and operating practices to protect the health and safety of the public, to protect
aquifers, lakes and rivers from harm, and to promote reuse of reclaimed water. FDEP and State Health
Departments are responsible for enforcing these regulations and permitting treatment systems (NASA
2015a).

In an effort to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters,
the federal government enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the Clean
Water Act amended in 1977. Most industrial wastewater discharges are regulated by specific federal
requirements at a minimum. However, if additional treatment is necessary to protect Florida's water quality
standards, the industries must provide it (NASA 2015a).
To manage domestic wastewater, KSC and CCAFS have a collection and transmission system that
transports wastewater to the Cape Canaveral Regional Waste Water Treatment Facility (WWTF) located
on CCAFS and operated by the Air Force under Permit FL0102920. Domestic wastewater processed by
the WWTF meets all federal and state requirements for testing and quality. The system dates to the 1950s
when Cape Canaveral was first built. The wastewater system consists of water treatment facilities, pretreatment facilities, and lift stations. These facilities are connected by a collection system of almost 161
km (100 mi) of sewer mains, about 80 km (50 mi) of which are located on KSC property (KSC 2017).
The only groundwater point source discharge at CCAFS is the treated domestic wastewater effluent. The
treatment plant effluent and groundwater monitoring is stipulated by the NPDES permit to ensure no
significant degradation of groundwater, and to ensure effluent is not discharged to surface waters. The
CCAFS WWTF includes advanced treatment processes that produce effluent suitable for re-use. Impacts
to CCAFS groundwater resources, primarily groundwater mounding, are limited to a small area in the
immediate vicinity of effluent disposal facilities. No significant impacts have been documented or
______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

41

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
anticipated on the natural communities near the WWTF and the percolation ponds from the disposal of
wastewater effluent (USAF 2015).
Stormwater
Impervious areas constructed after 1992 are subject to the FAC and requirements of the SJRWMD to
provide for the treatment of pollutants and the attenuation of potential flooding impacts. As facilities
are improved or built, stormwater systems must be built or upgraded to be consistent with the
requirements of SJRWMD Rule 40C-4, FAC. SpaceX would be required to submit plans for stormwater
treatment systems to the SJRWMD as part of the ERP application process and receive permits prior to
beginning construction.

Man-made ditches exist within the Roberts Road site and were used to drain low lying areas required for
citrus production. These ditches and those bordering the site historically drained to grove discharge pump
N10 and were pumped west to the IRL. Pump N10 is no longer operational. There are currently no
stormwater permits for this site.
Natural Resources and Energy
The electrical power for KSC is purchased from FPL at 115 kV and stepped down to 13.8 kV at two
locations to serve KSC. The Center owns and maintains the 13.8 kV medium voltage distribution system,
which would serve the facilities at the SpaceX site on Roberts Road.

In a unique public-private partnership between FPL and NASA that demonstrates a commitment to bringing
clean-energy solutions to the state of Florida, solar photovoltaic power facilities have been constructed at
KSC. This partnership is helping to provide clean, renewable power to Florida residents and to support
America’s space program by supplying electricity directly to KSC and reducing reliance on fossil fuels
thereby working toward improving the environment (KSC 2017).
An FPL solar array located in the southern portion of KSC produces an estimated 10 megawatts of clean,
emissions-free power for FPL customers, which is equivalent to serving approximately 1,100 homes. A
separate solar facility of approximately one megawatt located in the Industrial Area provides clean power
directly to KSC and is helping NASA meet its renewable energy goals. Additional solar photovoltaic power
facilities are planned for the future (KSC 2017).
From an efficiency or sustainability standpoint, FPL breaks down their energy production by fuel type for
2016 as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.

70% Natural Gas
23% Nuclear
3% Purchased Power
4% Coal

Source: http://www.nexteraenergy.com/pdf/annual.pdf 2016.
A natural gas distribution infrastructure was built in 1994 to support the activities at KSC. The system was
expanded in 1999 to CCAFS. Natural gas is used as the main fuel source for heating plants at the VAB and
at the KSC Industrial Area, providing hot water for building heating and domestic hot water purposes. The
main pipeline runs through KSC property but is owned by Florida City Gas, the local natural gas utility.
The main 30 cm (12 in) natural gas pipeline enters KSC where NASA and Kennedy Parkways intersect. A
20 cm (8 in) branch line continues to serve CCAFS. Florida City Gas is responsible for the gas main from
______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

42

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
its station off of NASA Causeway up to and including meters to various facilities in the VAB and industrial
areas of KSC. Contractors on KSC are responsible for operation and maintenance of natural gas systems
downstream of the meter stations (KSC 2017).
3.11.2 Environmental Consequences
Impacts to electricity, natural gas, communications, and solid waste infrastructure at KSC would be
moderate. These utilities and services are currently available at or within reasonable proximity to the
Proposed Action. Some utilities ducts and infrastructure would need to be laid and tie-ins established during
construction. A new electric substation may be required and would be developed in coordination with FPL.
A wastewater lift station would be installed to support flow rate to the entire site. Enhancements to the
existing KSC force main may be necessary. Industrial wastewater not listed as an approved discharge in
the KSC Industrial Wastewater Inventory or approved for discharge to the CCAFS wastewater treatment
facility would have the potential for moderate impacts. However, these impacts would be mitigated by
obtaining an FDEP industrial Wastewater Permit as required and adhering to permit conditions. Water
supply impacts during construction would be minimal since potable water resources are available near the
proposed site. The KSC water distribution system is sized to accommodate short-term, high-volume flows
required for launches (NASA 2016). Therefore, impacts to water supply and treatment to support activities
at the SpaceX Operations Area would be minimal.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no new facilities construction requiring modification or
installation of utilities. Therefore, no additional impacts to KSC utilities would occur.

3.12 Health and Safety
It is NASA policy to provide a safe and healthy work environment for its workforce. KSC complies with
applicable regulations of other federal agencies exercising regulatory authority over NASA in specific areas
(e.g., the Department of Labor’s OSHA, and the DOT), as well as internal NASA safety policies and
requirements. In the event of conflicting standards or regulations, the more stringent requirements are
applicable.
3.12.1 Affected Environment
The areas in and around KSC that could be affected by payload processing and transport are the subject of
health and safety concerns. Range safety regulations for KSC are contained in NPR 8715.5A, which
incorporates information that Range Safety organizations review, approve, and monitor; safety holds on all
prelaunch and launch operations are imposed when necessary. The objective of the Range Safety Program
is to ensure that the general public, personnel, environment, and area resources are provided an acceptable
level of safety, and that all aspects of prelaunch and launch operations adhere to public laws. Hazardous
materials such as residual propellants, ordnance, chemicals, and booster/payload components are
transported in accordance with U.S. DOT regulations for interstate shipment of hazardous substances (Title
49 CFR 100-199). All personnel involved in the handling of hazardous materials and hazardous waste
receive safety and environmental awareness training concerning the property handling techniques and spill
response activities for these hazardous materials (NASA 2018).
KSC, CCAFS, the City of Cape Canaveral, and Brevard County have a mutual-aid agreement in the event
of an emergency. During launch activities, CCAFS maintains communication with KSC, Brevard County
______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

43

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
Emergency Management, the Florida Marine Patrol, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the State coordinating
agency, the Division of Emergency Management. Range Safety monitors launch surveillance areas to
ensure that the risk to people, aircraft, and surface vessels is within acceptable limits. Control areas and
airspace are closed to the public as required (USAF 1998).
Emergency medical services for KSC personnel are provided by the KSC Occupational Health Facility
staff. Additional health care services are available at nearby public hospitals in Titusville, Rockledge, and
Cocoa Beach. Fire and police protection on KSC are provided by private contractors.
3.12.2 Environmental Consequences
Potential adverse effects to human health and safety could occur during construction and facility
modifications, and industrial operations attributed to the Proposed Action. Compliance with OSHA
regulations and other recognized standards would be implemented during the construction and operational
phases. Construction contractors would comply with OSHA regulations, other recognized standards, and
applicable NASA regulations or instructions prescribed for the control and safety of personnel and visitors
to the job site.
Daily industrial operations would result in the continuation of many of the types of noise presently
occurring at KSC. The loudest noise generated by industrial activities at KSC is produced by hydraulic
pumps operating within the confines of their enclosures. Operators are required by OSHA and NASA
regulations to be equipped with hearing protection devices. Therefore, human health and safety would not
be adversely impacted by general construction-related hazards or daily industrial operations. With the
implementation of safety and health plans, and environmental protection measures, potential health risks to
project personnel and the public from construction and operations would be minimal.
Physical hazards typical for outdoor environments are present in the proposed project areas and have the
potential to adversely impact the health and safety of personnel during construction. To provide for the
health and safety of workers and visitors who may be exposed to hazards during construction, federal OSHA
regulations would be implemented, and health and safety plans would be developed and implemented. To
minimize the potential adverse impacts from hazards during construction and operations, awareness training
would be incorporated into the worker health and safety protocol. Therefore, human health and safety
would not be adversely impacted by construction/modification and operational hazards. With the
implementation of safety and health plans, and environmental protection measures, potential health risks to
project personnel and the public from construction/modifications and operations would be minimal.
Commercial entities that use KSC would be required to comply with all applicable safety regulations for
storage, use, and transfer of toxic and hazardous materials associated with their projects. In the Proposed
Action, the frequency with which hazardous materials are used, handled, transported, etc., would be
increased. As a result of the increase in exposure and the activities related to these materials, the risks
associated with them are also slightly increased. The importance of adhering to proper safety procedures
must be viewed as a top priority for future operations to minimize the risks of accidental release and
personnel exposure. Due to the regulatory and safety requirements inherent in the industry and the nature
of expected operations, it is considered likely that sufficient engineering and administrative controls would
mitigate the risks associated with the presence of these materials to the lowest possible level.
QDs show radii for intralines, inhabited buildings, and other pertinent assets. These QDs are based on the
greatest allowable amount of explosives, solid rocket motors, liquid propellants, or other hazardous
______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

44

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
materials that may be stored at a facility. The radius distances are calculated from the formulas and tables
in the Air Force Regulation 127-100. This regulation implements the Department of Defense Ammunition
and Explosives Safety Standards outlined in DOD Directive 5154.4-S. These standards also agree with
OSHA Standards 1910.109 (NASA 2015a).
The severity of an unplanned event is unlikely to increase. The probability of an accidental release would
increase due to the increased activities and quantity of materials, but best practices would ensure this
increased risk is minimal. Due to the potential storage of significant quantities of hazardous commodities,
SpaceX is required by NASA to submit documentation of worst case storage and processing scenario
possibilities and how spills/releases would be managed and contained. If reasonable and prudent measures
are taken, operations associated with the Proposed Action would result in minimal impacts to health and
safety, with the probability of a major spill kept at a minimum (NASA 2016).
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no construction of new facilities and no additional
processing of spacecraft by SpaceX on KSC. Therefore, there would be no additional impacts to health and
safety would occur.

3.13 Socioeconomics
A detailed overview of the current socioeconomic conditions for both the KSC vicinity and the state of
Florida is provided in the KSC PEIS (NASA 2016). It identifies socioeconomic issues that would be
sensitive to changes affected by the KSC Master Plan for a multi-user spaceport over a 20-year period
(2012-2032).
3.13.1 Affected Environment
The KSC PEIS (NASA 2016) presents data for Brevard and Volusia counties and compares them to
demographic and economic data for the State of Florida. Potential impacts with the greatest likelihood,
magnitude, duration, and extent would occur in Brevard and Volusia counties. The proposed SpaceX site
represents one of many notional components considered in the PEIS. SpaceX estimates a possible 150
construction jobs affiliated with the development of the Proposed Action and approximately 70 new SpaceX
employees for the additional operations on KSC.
3.13.2 Environmental Consequences
Overall, the direct, economic impacts resulting from the SpaceX site would be positive. The Proposed
Action would create beneficial moderate impacts due to the creation of jobs and labor income over the next
two decades. Indirect and long-term impacts from this project on the local economy depends on factors
such as awareness and financial commitment, specifically to the SpaceX program. If commitment is
sustained over the long-term, indirect economic impacts would be significant. Future employees for
SpaceX and its subcontractors would represent new purchasing power that would concomitantly support
additional jobs and payroll at local retail and service establishments in the area. The KSC PEIS (NASA
2016) described the larger multiplier effect associated with consumer spending of employees directly
supported by new programs such as the Proposed Action. Through this spending, the SpaceX proposed
action could support hundreds of indirect and induced jobs.

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

45

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
No Action Alternative
Should the proposed project not be implemented, no socioeconomic changes would occur in Brevard or
Volusia counties. There would be no change to employment, population, income, housing, economic
activity, or quality of life. Fluctuations would occur at rates consistent with historical patterns.

3.14 Environmental Justice
As described in detail in the KSC PEIS (NASA 2016), the population inhabiting the Region of Influence
(ROI) for the Proposed Action (Brevard County and Volusia County) is not comprised of greater than
50% minorities and does not exceed the percentage of minorities as compared to the rest of Florida. In
addition, the poverty level coupled with median household income levels are lower or comparable to the
rest of Florida, and the majority of the population is living well above the poverty level as defined by the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Therefore, disproportionate impacts to either minorities
or low-income residents in the ROI would not occur.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative the SpaceX site on KSC would not be built. There would be no
additional spacecraft processing by SpaceX on KSC. Therefore, no impact on Environmental Justice
would occur as a result of the implementation of the No Action Alternative.

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

46

 SpaceX Operations Area EA

4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Federal regulations implementing NEPA require that federal agencies include an analysis of potential
cumulative effects of a proposed action. CEQ regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA
define cumulative effects as follows (40 CFR Part 1508.7): 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 entity (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions.
This includes those that may be "individually minimal but collectively significant actions taking place over
time."

4.1 Projects Considered for Potential Cumulative Effects
Future development and activities that may occur at o r near the Proposed Action were researched and
considered. Projects planned at CCAFS, Port Canaveral, and KSC including Exploration Park and the
Visitor Complex are discussed in the following paragraphs. Many of these actions involve federal agency
agreements or funding and have already had required NEPA documents prepared or would be required to
go through NEPA coordination and documentation.
The future land use plan for KSC promotes the most efficient use of land area resources balanced with an
understanding of development suitability and capacity. KSC’s transition to a multi-user spaceport
advocates compatible relationships between adjacent land uses, encourages infill development, and
preserves environmentally sensitive areas (NASA 2016). Current actions at KSC include Ground Systems
Development and Operations (GSDO) leading the Center's transformation from a historically governmentonly launch complex to a spaceport with activity involving government and commercial vehicles alike.
The program's primary objective is to prepare the Center to process and launch the next-generation vehicles
and spacecraft designed to achieve NASA's goals for space exploration.
Under a 20-year Commercial Space Launch Act agreement between NASA and SpaceX, LC-39A is being
used for processing and launch of Falcon 9 vehicles. It is also being modified to support launch of the
Falcon Heavy vehicle in the near future. In 2015 SpaceX constructed a 4,645 m2 (50,000 ft2) Falcon Integration
Hangar at t h e ent r an ce t o L C -3 9A . Primary components of the hangar include dual overhead bridge
cranes, embedded integration rail, and an over-sized door for access of flight hardware and ground support
equipment.
LC-39B is under the process of redevelopment for the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion
spacecraft. The pad was returned to a clean design after removal of the Fixed Service Structure. This will
allow multiple types of vehicles to launch from LC-39B arriving at the pad with service structures on the
mobile launch platform rather than custom structures on the pad. NASA has announced LC-39B would be
available to commercial users during times when it is not needed by SLS.
KSC’s newest launch pad, designated 39C, is designed to accommodate Small Class Vehicles. Located in
the southeast area of the LC-39B perimeter, this new concrete pad measures about 15 m (50 ft) wide by
about 30 m (100 ft) long. Launch Pad 39C will serve as a multi-purpose site allowing companies to test
vehicles and capabilities in the smaller class of rockets, making it more affordable for smaller companies
to break into the commercial spaceflight market. As part of this capability, NASA’s Ground Systems
Development and Operations Program developed a universal propellant servicing system, which can

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 4: Cumulative Impacts

47

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
provide liquid oxygen and liquid methane fueling capabilities for a variety of small class rockets. This
system is slated for operational readiness in the summer of 2016.
With the addition of Launch Pad 39C, KSC can offer the following processing and launching features for
companies working with small class vehicles (maximum thrust up to 200,000 lbs):






Processing facilities – i.e. Vehicle Assembly Building
Vehicle/payload transportation (KAMAG, flatbed trucks, tugs, etc.) from integration facility to pad
Launch site
Universal propellant servicing system (liquid oxygen [LOX], liquid methane)
Launch control center/mobile command center options

The GSDO plans to construct LC-48 as a multi-use launch complex for Small Class Launch vehicles. This
launch complex would be located approximately 1,981 m (6,500 ft) southeast of LC-39A and 1,591 m
(5,220 ft) north of LC-41. Development could also include construction of a Horizontal Integration Facility,
Manufacturing and Refurbishment Facility, and Vertical Landing Facility near the launch complex, on other
undeveloped areas at KSC, in an area sited for industrial use, on CCAFS, or elsewhere off Center property.
Blue Origin is building a manufacturing facility that is partially operational and projected to be fully
operational by the end of 2018. That project location is Exploration Park Phase 2 and consists of 5 6
h a ( 139 ac) located on the west side of Space Commerce Way and would include site preparation,
construction, and operation of a manufacturing and processing facility that would support development of
reusable launch vehicles utilizing rocket-powered Vertical Take-off and Vertical Landing systems
(GSDO 2017). There are also plans for additional development by Blue Origin on a parcel of land south
of the current development site for expansion of their manufacturing, assembly, and test facilities.
OneWeb has begun construction of a 9,290 m2 (100,000 ft2) satellite spacecraft integration facility at
Exploration Park (GSDO 2017, Space Florida 2017). The facility is expected to open in 2018. A U.S.
subsidiary of a Swiss aerospace company, RUAG Space USA Inc., is opening a spacecraft parts
manufacturing plant in Titusville. Initially they will manufacture satellite structure for OneWeb. RUAG
will be a tenant of the Port Canaveral Logistics Center in south Titusville.
Increased flight operations at the SLF would involve construction of new facilities and increased flight
operations at the SLF in the following broad categories: commercial spaceflight program and mission
support aviation, aviation test operations including unmanned aerial vehicles, airborne research and
technology development and demonstration, parabolic flight missions, testing and evaluation of
experimental spacecraft, ground based research and training, and development and demonstration of future
supersonic passenger flight vehicles. To take full advantage of the capabilities of the SLF, new construction
would occur at both the south- field and mid-field sites.
A fuel farm is proposed for construction on the north corner of the existing apron at the SLF that was used
as the foundation for the Shuttle mate/de-mate device. The fuel farm will consist of a new 75,708 l (20,000
gal) Jet-A fuel storage tank, a 3,785 l (1,000 gal) compartmentalized fuel tank for both diesel and unleaded
gasoline, space for a future 75,708 l (20,000 gal) Jet-A fuel storage tank, a spill containment area, fuel level
monitoring systems for all three fuel types, bollards to protect the fuel tanks, and the associated electrical
work to tie the new system into the existing electrical system at the SLF.
Virgin Galactic’s space tourism spinoff company, Virgin Orbit, has developed LauncherOne to serve the
small-satellite industry. LauncherOne is a two-stage, expendable, LOX/RP-1 rocket that launches from a
______________________________________________________________________________
Section 4: Cumulative Impacts

48

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
dedicated 747-400 carrier aircraft. It may operate from multiple locations including KSC. LauncherOne
will be capable of placing a 300 kg (661 lbs) payload into a sun-synchronous orbit and a 450 kg (992 lbs)
payload into an equatorial orbit (Virgin Orbit 2017).
Space Florida has announced that cargo airline FedEx Express will set up operations at the SLF. FedEx
Express, a subsidiary of courier company FedEx Corporation will be the first commercial aircraft of its kind
to be located at the SLF (FedEx 2017).
The Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex proposes to construct a new access road providing an entry
from Space Commerce Way. The four-lane road would connect Space Commerce Way to the southwest
corner of the existing Visitor Complex parking lot. Construction would include the necessary stormwater
treatment facilities and a multi-use utility corridor.
The Visitor Complex plans to focus on Mars missions with a major expansion in the next five years. In the
works are a “Mars Rover,’ as well as an attraction allowing visitors to experience weightlessness or
increased G-forces similar to what astronauts experience. The Mars Deep Space attraction could open as
early as 2021 (Florida Today 2017).
There are also plans to add more exhibits of space-flown vehicles, including a SpaceX Dragon capsule that
hauled cargo to the International Space Station. There could also be a revamp of the Launch Complex 39
observation gantry into an activity learning center that might include a Mars simulation and a launch
viewing center.
A new Installation Development Plan is currently being written that will align the future vision for CCAFS
and Patrick Air Force Base with the priority of achieving short- and long-term sustainability of the
installation. The 45th Space Wing Mission Statement is “One team…delivering assured space launch,
range, and combat capabilities for the Nation” with a vision of becoming the “World’s Premier Gateway to
Space” (USAF 2017). Future development would be guided by sustainability, and increases in launch
tempo and associated support activities would occur sustainably and compatibly with the efficient use of
land and energy, the conservation of natural resources and the safe operation of launch vehicles and
processing facilities. New facilities and launch complexes would be developed as to minimize any potential
impact or compatibility with current facilities and the environment.
SpaceX is building two additional landing pads at Landing Zone 1 (LZ-1), formerly LC-13, on CCAFS to
support landing operations. Operations at LZ-1 would include landing of up to three booster stage vehicles,
post-flight and landing safing of the vehicles, and Dragon static fire testing.
An abandoned USAF satellite processing area on CCAFS, referred to as Area 59, has been made available
by the 45th Space Wing for use by SpaceX. Existing facilities will be re-utilized to support Dragon
processing requirements. No major construction will be required. It will support Dragon processing
requirements including hypergolic propellant (monomethlyhydrazine [MMH] and nitrogen tetroxide
[NTO]) load and offload; post flight and static fire helium and propellant tank ullage venting; and system
and component decontamination and checkouts.
SpaceX completed rebuilding LC-40 at CCAFS after the Falcon 9 static fire mishap in September 2016,
and saw the successful CRS-13 cargo mission to the ISS in December 2017. LC-40 is needed for Falcon 9
missions so that final elements of work on LC-39A can be completed for Falcon Heavy missions.

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 4: Cumulative Impacts

49

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
Blue Origin proposes to construct and operate an Orbital Launch Site at LC-11 and LC-36 on CCAFS. The
facility would support testing of rocket engines, integration of launch vehicles, and launches of liquid
fueled, heavy-lift class orbital vehicles.
Moon Express has negotiated an agreement to use LC-17 and LC-18 from the USAF at CCAFS. Several
buildings at LC-17 will be renovated including a former spacecraft integration building and an engineering
building. Test stands will be constructed to support work for its spacecraft engines. LC-18 will be used as
a test flight area for tethered and free-flight tests of Moon Express landers.
Space Florida holds an FAA Launch Site Operator License for LC-46. This allows Space Florida to offer
the site for launches of solid and liquid propellant launch vehicles to launch operators for several types of
vertical launch vehicles. The proposed launch vehicles and their payloads would be launched into low earth
orbit or geostationary orbit. All vehicles are expected to carry payloads, including satellites (FAA 2008,
EA for Launch Complex 46). Orbital ATK plans to launch a Minotaur IV rocket from LC-46 in August
2017. LC-46 will also be used by NASA for the Orion Ascent Abort-2 test mission. This mission,
scheduled for 2018, will launch an Orion mock-up using a first stage booster from a Peacekeeper missile
modified by Orbital Sciences Corporation to demonstrate a successful abort under the highest aerodynamic
loads it will experience in flight.
The short-term forecast for CCAFS and KSC includes launches from LC-37B, LC-39A, LC-41, and LC
46. LC-37 is used to launch communications and GPS satellites aboard the Delta IV launch vehicle. A
Delta IV Medium launched a communications satellite in March of 2017. A GPS satellite is scheduled to
be launched from LC-37 no earlier than 2018.
There were twelve launches of the SpaceX Falcon 9 from LC-39A and one launch from LC-40 in
2017, including ISS resupply missions, a U.S. Government National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)
intelligence satellite, the USAF X-37B, and various communications satellites. SpaceX successfully
launched the Falcon Heavy rocket on its maiden flight from LC-39A on February 6, 2018.
LC-41 is currently used by United Launch Alliance for Atlas V launches. A USAF payload was launched
from LC-41 in January 2017. An Orbital ATK unmanned resupply Cygnus spacecraft was flown from LC41 to the ISS in April 2017. A communications satellite is scheduled for launch in August as well as an
NRO satellite later the same month. There are plans to launch a USAF communications satellite aboard
Atlas V in October, and an early warning missile detection system in November to finish out 2017. There
is a weather satellite and a USAF payload already scheduled for 2018 along with a military communications
satellite to be launched from LC-41 no earlier than 2018. A Minotaur IV rocket is scheduled to be launched
from LC-46 in August 2017. This will be the first launch of an Orbital ATK Minotaur rocket from CCAFS.
The mission will launch a surveillance satellite for the USAF. LC-46 will also be used by NASA for the
Ascent Abort-2 test mission of Orion planned for 2018.
Space Florida proposes to develop a non-federal launch site that is state-controlled and state-managed.
Under the Proposed Action, Space Florida would construct and operate a commercial space launch site
known as the Shiloh Launch Complex consisting of two vertical launch facilities and two off-site operations
support areas. The proposed 80 ha (200 ac) launch complex would accommodate up to 24 launches per
year as well as up to 24 static fire engine tests or wet dress rehearsals per year. The vehicles to be launched
include liquid fueled, medium- to heavy-lift class orbital and suborbital vertical launch vehicles. FAA is
the lead agency in the development of an EIS for the proposed launch site.

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 4: Cumulative Impacts

50

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
The Canaveral Harbor or Port Canaveral is a man-made, deepwater port located on the barrier island north
of the City of Cape Canaveral. A summary of the Port’s future development plans includes but is not
limited to the following paragraphs (Port Canaveral 2017).
Internal road and pier improvements are ongoing and more are planned including replacement of the
outdated drawbridge on SR 401. In addition, a SR 528 widening project is tentatively scheduled to start in
2022. The road will be expanded from four to six lanes from Interstate 95 to Port Canaveral to
accommodate projected passenger and cargo traffic generated by Port expansion projects.
Connection of Port Canaveral to inland ports via a rail line through NASA and USAF property has been
under consideration for several years. The CCAFS-KSC Freight Rail Extension Alignment Feasibility
Study was complete in December 2016 and provided to the Surface Transportation Board. Discussions are
continuing with a recent change to the proposed action to construct and operate a rail line through CCAFS
rather than pursuing the original Banana River-Merritt Island alignment.
A project to deepen the channel to 13 m (44 ft) has been underway since 2005 and is nearing completion.
Due to its expanding cargo operations and the construction of larger vessels, the Port has initiated a study
looking at the feasibility of deepening the channel.
Cruise ship activity continues to increase with additional homeport ships including some of the largest in
the world. Port Canaveral is currently the world’s second busiest cruise port for multi-day embarkation.
With more travelers taking to the water and new cruise ships continuing to be built, the Port’s cruise industry
is set to expand even further. Recent developments include the new Cruise Terminal One, and multi-million
dollar renovations to Cruise Terminals Five, Eight, and Ten. Carnival, Disney, Royal Caribbean, and
Norwegian Cruise lines all sail out of Port Canaveral.
Port Canaveral continues to develop facilities and capacity to become a premier cargo port. The first quarter
of 2017 saw significant increases in vehicle, slag, salt and petroleum imports. New cargo services in 2016
include Blue Stream, a weekly container service connecting Central Florida with Europe, Central America
and the Caribbean. In 2016 an auto processing company AutoPort opened a 14.7-acre terminal for new
vehicles arriving at the docks.
SpaceX has taken on a 5-year lease of the facility located just north of the port at 620 Magellan Road. This
facility is designated for multi-purpose operations.

4.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Cumulative impacts result from the incremental effect of an action when added to other past, present, and
reasonable foreseeable future actions, regardless of the proponent undertaking these actions. Minimal or
negligible impacts from individual projects may, over a period of time, become collectively significant.
Past, current, and future launch vehicle processing operations at KSC and CCAFS, along with present and
future actions occurring on a regional basis, must be considered when evaluating cumulative impacts. The
construction of new facilities and associated infrastructure or modification of existing facilities and
infrastructure, and operations associated with the proposed facilities would be consistent with existing KSC
activities and pose no new types of impacts.
As described in Section 3, no direct or indirect impacts were identified for cultural resources or
environmental justice. When considered with other past, present, and foreseeable future actions, the

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 4: Cumulative Impacts

51

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
Proposed Action would not contribute to any cumulative effects associated with these resource categories
and, therefore, were not carried forward for detailed cumulative impacts analysis.
Under the No Action Alternative there would be no change in baseline conditions for the resources
evaluated in this EA. Existing conditions at KSC would continue as described in Section 3. No new
cumulative impacts would be expected.
4.2.1 Land Use
Development at Roberts Road would be expected to have a moderate cumulative effect on land use due to
the undeveloped nature of the area and the required change in land use designation. Currently the land is
managed by MINWR for wildlife and habitat diversity. However, relatively few natural areas on KSC are
being converted to operational use. Mitigation for impacts to the site could be accomplished through habitat
restoration in other degraded areas. There would also be an impact on prescribed burn management
activities which would require increased coordination between facility operators and MINWR.
Overall, cumulative impacts to land use would be moderate and easily absorbed by consolidation of
operations into small geographic areas with compatible uses during future land use planning. No significant
adverse cumulative impacts to Visual Resources or Coastal Zone Management would occur as a result of
the Proposed Action.
4.2.2 Noise
There would be no significant increase in cumulative impacts from noise in the region due to the Proposed
Action. Variations in timing and location of construction activities would result in noise generation being
spread out and intermittent, lasting only for the duration of each construction project. Minimal effects of
operational activities from use of heavy equipment and processing of spacecraft would contribute to the
overall cumulative noise impacts from other noise sources in the area. Industrial activities would be spread
out spatially, aircraft operations would be infrequent, and launches would not occur simultaneously,
therefore cumulative noise impacts would not be significant.
4.2.3 Biological Resources
The majority of impacts on biological resources from implementation of the Proposed Action would be
limited to ruderal habitat on already disturbed land. Disturbance of natural vegetation would be limited to
small areas. Minimal impacts to eastern indigo snakes would result from construction activities and would
be lessened by mitigation and conservation measures. No cumulative impacts to biological resources at
KSC are anticipated because the project area is small compared to the amount of habitat available.
4.2.4 Air Quality
The most routinely influential air quality fluctuations are created by the emissions from automobiles
entering and departing KSC. However, an increase in emissions from traffic due to the Proposed Action
and foreseeable actions in the region are not expected to exceed that experienced at KSC in the past or
result in cumulative impacts. Also, the atmospheric emissions associated with spacecraft processing
activities are brief and sporadic, long-term cumulative air quality impacts in the lower atmosphere are not
expected to be significant.
The Proposed Action added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the region would result
in minimal, temporary increases in air emissions. This incremental contribution to cumulative air quality
impacts from the Proposed Action would not be significant.
______________________________________________________________________________
Section 4: Cumulative Impacts

52

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
4.2.5 Climate
Impacts on climate from direct emissions resulting from the Proposed Action are expected to be minimal.
Individual sources of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions resulting from construction and operations
of the SpaceX site alone would not be large enough to accelerate regional climate change. Therefore,
contributions from this project would not be significant. An appreciable impact would only result when
combined with other greenhouse gas emissions from man-made activities on a global scale.
4.2.6 Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste
Although many hazardous materials and wastes are known to accumulate in the environment, it is not
expected that there would be any cumulative effects caused by environmental contamination as a result of
the Proposed Action. Continued implementation of BMPs for the handling and disposal of hazardous
materials and waste in compliance with RCRA regulations would limit the potential for impact. Safeguards
would be in place to minimize the release of toxic chemicals in the environment, and rapid spill response
plans would ensure that unintended releases would be cleaned up quickly. Therefore, the Proposed Action
is not expected to result in cumulative impacts due to hazardous materials and waste.
4.2.7 Water Resources
With the implementation of stormwater management systems, development of the KSC site would have a
moderate cumulative effect on hydrology and water quality. Regionally, vegetated lands are increasingly
being covered by impervious surfaces (buildings, parking lots, roadways) resulting in increased runoff and
limiting replenishment of groundwater. Although stormwater management has been implemented for
construction efforts since the 1990s, these retention and detention ponds are generally not able to
accommodate large amounts of water associated with heavy rainfall, resulting in some excess runoff
flowing into wetlands, ditches, and the IRL. However, quantities are generally episodic and can be absorbed
by the lagoon system.
The cumulative effects on surface water quality in the IRL from the development of the Roberts Road site
would be moderate. Even with stormwater management plans implemented, heavy rains would cause
runoff from the site. Eventually, stormwater could reach the IRL, although some of the sediment would
have settled out and the concentrations of other pollutants would be reduced.
Surface water discharges from the selected site would be managed according to requirements of the
SJRWMD conditions for issuance of Environmental Resource Permits. The SJRWMD Applicants
Handbook for Management and Storage of Surface Waters, Chapter 10.3 states “The post-development
peak rate of discharge must not exceed the pre-development peak rate of discharge, and the peak discharge
requirement shall be met for the 25-year frequency storm. In determining the peak rate of discharge, a 24hour duration storm is to be used”. In addition, the SJRWMD requires wet detention systems to be designed
in a manner that meets applicable water quality standards in SJRWMD Rule 40C-42.026(4). Water quality
impacts to the OFW associated with the IRL and MINWR would be minimized by the design, operation,
and maintenance of stormwater management systems that would meet or exceed all requirements of the
SJRWMD.
Construction of facilities at the Proposed Action location would be conducted following best engineering
practices to minimize hydrologic and water quality impacts onsite and to surrounding areas. Stormwater
management plans would be developed with conceptual land use plans to determine site design.
Stormwater analyses would be conducted to determine the amount of land necessary to provide adequate
______________________________________________________________________________
Section 4: Cumulative Impacts

53

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
treatment and storage capacity for both pre-developed and post-developed conditions. The resulting
stormwater storage and treatment areas would help filter much of the suspended solids out of the water
percolating into the ground. In addition, the biological and chemical processes that take place in stormwater
detention/retention ponds would reduce the amount of contaminants found in runoff, and fewer pollutants
would make their way into the water table.

4.2.8 Geology and Soils
No impacts to the geology of KSC would result from the Proposed Action. Therefore no significant
incremental impacts to the regional geology would be expected. There would be minimal impact to soils
due to construction and land disturbance. Cumulative impacts on soils from construction activities would
not be significant as these soils are common locally and regionally.

4.2.9 Transportation
Increases in traffic during construction of the Proposed Action would be short-term with only minimal
adverse effects. Increases in traffic and any changes in traffic patterns due to operations would be minimal
and primarily localized, concentrated on KSC, and not expected to result in cumulative impacts to regional
transportation.

4.2.10 Utilities
The cumulative effects on utilities and services as a result of Proposed Action activities combined with
current and future KSC actions would be moderate. Any changes to utility services such as electrical,
communications, natural gas, and solid waste would occur within KSC and result in relatively small
cumulative impacts to regional service providers. The future water supply could become more limited.
Future operations and personnel could implement water conservation measures and evaluate alternative
water sources in order to minimize impacts on this resource.
Upgrades to the KSC and CCAFS infrastructure, beyond the expansion of the domestic wastewater
collection/transmission system, may be required for connection to the KSC and CCAFS sanitary sewer
system. These upgrades may include increasing the ability of the KSC domestic wastewater
collection/transmission system to transmit, store, and equalize the flow to the CCAFS plant. An increase
in the treatment capacity of the CCAFS Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant may be necessary.
4.2.11 Health and Safety
Minimal adverse impacts to worker health and safety during construction and operation of the Proposed
Action and cumulative projects would be expected. Contractor and operations personnel would be required
to follow and implement OSHA, and NASA safety standards to establish and maintain a safe working
environment. There would be no cumulative impacts to worker or public health and safety as a result of
the Proposed Action.

4.2.12 Socioeconomics
Cumulative impacts from the Proposed Action would potentially be beneficial to KSC and surrounding
communities. There would be increased employment opportunities during construction and operation of
the proposed SpaceX site that would eventually ripple out into other businesses and industries in the local
communities.

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 4: Cumulative Impacts

54

 SpaceX Operations Area EA

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
The following persons prepared the EA and provided insight into specific resource areas.
Table 5-1. Preparers of EA
NAME
TITLE

AREA OF CONTRIBUTION

KEMCON Contractor to SpaceX
Rebecca Bolt

Wildlife Ecologist

Writer

Patrice Hall

Environmental Engineer

Lead Writer

Michelle Moore

Environmental Scientist

Writer

Jane Provancha

Project Manager/Ecologist/

IMSS Project Manager, Editor, Writer

Kandi Lawson

Secretary

Format

SpaceX
Matthew Thompson

Environmental, Health and Editor, Project Manager
Safety

Gabrielle Inder

Launch Operations

Site Plans, Technical

NASA NEPA Manager

Technical, Reviewer

NASA
Don Dankert

Table 5-2. Contributors of Information for EA
NAME
AREA OF CONTRIBUTION
KEMCON Contractor to SpaceX
Christine Vanaman

Air quality information

Tom Price

Stormwater

Resa Cancro

Maps and figure support

Other
David Thorpe

Community Planner/NASA

Eva Long

NEPA Specialist/ EA reviewer/ USAF

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 5: List of Preparers and Contributors

55

 SpaceX Operations Area EA

6.0 LITERATURE CITED
Barbash, J.E. and Resek, E.A. 1996. Pesticides in Ground Water; Distributions, Trends, and Governing
Factors. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, Michigan.
Breininger, D.R., Barkaszi, M.J., Smith, R.B., Oddy, D.M., and Provancha, J.A. 1994. Endangered and
potentially endangered wildlife on John F. Kennedy Space Center and faunal integrity as a goal for
maintaining biological diversity. NASA Technical Memorandum 109204, pp. 451.
Breininger, D.R., Bolt, M.R., Drese J.H., Stolen, E.D. 2011. Factors influencing home-range sizes of
Eastern Indigo Snakes in central Florida. Journal of Herpetology 45:484-490.
Blue Origin 2016. Environmental Assessment for Blue Origin Orbital Launch Site at Cape Canaveral Air
Force Station, Florida. November 2016.
CHC 2017. Center for Hearing and Communication. Common Environmental Noise Levels. Accessed July
2017 at http://chchearing.org/noise/common-environmental-noise-levels/.
Clark Engineers-Scientists, Inc. 1987. KSC subsurface hydrology and groundwater survey. Volume IV.
The areawide groundwater survey program. KSC-DF-3081. Edward E. Clark Engineers-Scientists,
Inc., Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Contract No. NAS10-11293.
EPA 2009. Past Climate Change: Causes of Change Prior to the Industrial Era (pre-1780). Environmental
Protection Agency. Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Washington, D.C.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html.
FedEx 2017. Orlando Business Journal February 1, 2017. Website accessed June 2017 at
https://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/news/2017/02/01/breaking-fedex-express-to-open-locationat-kennedy.html.
FDEP 2014. Water Management Districts.
Website accessed July14, 2017: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/secretary/watman/
FDEP 2016. Critically Eroded Beaches in Florida. Division of Water Resource Management.
https://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/publications/pdf/CriticalErosionReport.pdf.
FDEP 2017. Air Emissions. Website accessed June 2017 at
http://prodenv.dep.state.fl.us/DarmAircom/public/searchFacilityPILoad.action.
Florida Today 2017. KSC Visitor Complex New Attractions. Website accessed June 2017 at:
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/local/2017/02/03/ksc-visitor-complex-plans-major-newattractions/97365190/.
GSDO 2017. The Front Page, KSC Center Planning and Development. Website accessed June 2017 at
http:///kscpartnerships.ksc.nasa.gov/.
KSC

Master Plan 2017.
Current State: Current Utilities.
https://masterplan.ksc.nasa.gov/Current-State/Current-Utilities.

Accessed

July

16,

2017:

NASA 2014. Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan, NASA Kennedy Space Center, Brevard and
Volusia Counties, FL, Fiscal Years 2014-2018. KSC-PLN-1733/Rev A.

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 6: Literature Cited

56

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
NASA 2015. Environmental Assessment for the Kennedy Space Center Shoreline Protection Project.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida. 169 pp.
NASA 2015a. Environmental Resources Document. KSC-PLN-1911 Rev F, March 2015. 412 pp.
https://tdksc.ksc.nasa.gov/servlet/dm.web.Fetch/ERD_2015_Rev_F_Environmental_Resources_
Document.pdf?gid=1011554&FixForIE=ERD_2015_Rev_F_Environmental_Resources_Docume
nt.pdf
NASA 2016. Center Master Plan, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, NASA Kennedy
Space Center, FL.
NASA 2016a. Kennedy Space Center Annual Sustainability Report.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/asr2017_web.pdf
NASA 2018. Kennedy NASA Procedural Requirements (KNPR) 8500.1 Rev. E, in publication.
OSHA 2017. OSHA Technical Manual: Noise. Accessed July 2017 at
https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/new_noise/index.pdf .
Port Canaveral 2017. BizNotes, Thursday, February 9, 2017. Website accessed June 2017 at
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Business-Community-News--February2017.html?soid=1102224464455&aid=p8rWrvpNPpw.
Rutledge, A.T. 1987. Effects of land use on groundwater quality in Central Florida-Preliminary results:
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-4163. Tallahassee, Florida.
pp. 49.
SCS 1974. Soil Survey of Brevard County, Florida. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, in cooperation with University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations.
SCS 1980. Soil Survey of Volusia County, Florida. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, in cooperation with University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations.
Schmalzer, P. A., M. A. Hensley, M. Mota, C.R. Hall, and C. A. Dunlevy. 2000. Soil, Groundwater, Surface
Water, and Sediments of Kennedy Space Center, Florida: Background Chemical and Physical
Characteristics. NASA Technical Memorandum 2000-20853. 595 pp.
Schmalzer, P. A. and M. A. Hensley. 2001. Background characteristics of groundwater in the
Surficial Aquifer of Kennedy Space Center, Merritt Island, Florida. Florida Scientist 64:250273.
Seigel, R. A., R. B. Smith (Bolt), J. Demuth, L. M. Ehrhart, and F. F. Snelson, Jr. 2002. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida: A Long-Term Assessment of a Large
Protected Habitat (1975-2000). Florida Scientist 65:1-12
Space Florida 2017. Newsletter Vol 5 Issue 1 March 2017. Website accessed June 2017 at
http://www.spaceflorida.gov/press-room/space-florida-newsletter.
Swain, H.M., D.R. Breininger, D.S. Busby, K.B. Clark, S.B. Cook, R.A. Day, D.E. Defreese, R.G.
Gilmore, A.W. Hart, C.R. Hinkle, D.A. McArdle, P.M. Mikkelsen, W.G. Nelson, and A.J.
Zahorcak 1995. Indian River Lagoon Biodiversity Conference - Introduction. Bulletin of Marine
Science 57:1-7.
______________________________________________________________________________
Section 6: Literature Cited

57

 SpaceX Operations Area EA
USAF 1998. Final Environmental Impact Statement – Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program, HQ
USAF/ILEVP, 1260 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, D.C. April 1998.
USAF 2015. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for the 45th Space Wing, August 2016 update.
USAF 2017. Installation Development Plan (IDP) 90% Submittal. Cape Canaveral Air Force
Station/Patrick Air Force Base, Florida. April 2017.
U.S. Department of Agriculture 1974. Soil Survey of Brevard County, Florida. Soil Conservation Service
and the University of Florida Agriculture Experiment Stations.
U.S. Department of Agriculture 1980. Soil Survey of Volusia County, Florida. Soil Conservation Service
and the University of Florida Agriculture Experiment Stations.
USFWS. 2016. Recommended Best Practices for Communication Tower Design, Siting, Construction,
Operation, Maintenance, and Decommissioning Division of Migratory Bird Management U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Falls Church, Virginia, August 2016, 6pp.
Virgin Orbit 2017. LauncherOne information. Website accessed July 2017 at https://virginorbit.com

______________________________________________________________________________
Section 6: Literature Cited

58