SpaceX has received a green light from the Federal Aviation Administration to construct a spaceport in South Texas.

The Environmental Impact Statement (see .pdf of documents), issued by the FAA’s Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation George Nield, concludes with:

The undersigned finds that the Proposed Action is consistent with existing national environmental policies and objectives as set forth in Section 101(a) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

The proposed 56.5-acre launch site at Boca Chica beach would launch up to 12 rockets a year, including two Falcon 9 Heavy rockets, which could begin flying in 2015. These launches would be for commercial (i.e. satellites) as well as possibly NASA purposes.

This statement from the FAA was the key regulatory approval SpaceX had been waiting for before announcing the location of its independent launch site. It is also considering sites in Florida, Georgia and Puerto Rico. The company says a final decision has not been made.

However earlier this year the company’s founder, Elon Musk, said Texas would be the choice if environmental clearance were given.

So when might SpaceX act? I asked the company’s spokeswoman, Hannah Post, who replied:

Though Brownsville remains a finalist for the development of a commercial orbital launch complex, the decision will not be made until all technical and regulatory due diligence is complete. Following the release of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, the FAA will issue a final Record of Decision (ROD). Pending the ROD, there would be several other criteria that will need to be met before SpaceX makes a decision. While the timing of some of these critical steps is not within SpaceX’s control, we are hopeful that these will be complete in the near future.

According to the FAA, the proposed site is completely undeveloped and consists of 25.43 acres of wetlands and 31.07 acres of sporadically vegetated sand dunes. The area surrounding the proposed vertical launch area is primarily used for recreational purposes.

The project was not expected to affect water resources or air quality in the area, according to the report.