For anyone interested: NASA is looking into the potential development of land for their CVLC launch complex. They have identified 2 areas -- one inside of existing NASA space, and the other, alarmingly, is along SR3 and the southern area of Mosquito Lagoon.
Pardon the pun but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if they build along the SR3 area, we'll see a large portion of access (both kayak and boat launch as well as water access) in the southern Mosquito Lagoon area closed off, probably permanently.
Public meetings are scheduled, but I know for many they are hard to get to. Still, take some time and send an email to the address at the bottom voiceing your concerns over the Alternative Site #2 proposed location. Like anything else, the more they hear, (perhaps!) the more they will listen.
I've tried to copy the Word doc but of course the picture that shows the area(s) won't come out. I'll try to figure out how to post it ....
I'll also post a copy of the letter I sent to them already ...
AP
=============================================
Proposed Commercial Vertical Launch Complex at J. F. Kennedy Space Center:
Project Description and Environmental Assessment Information
February 2008
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
John F. Kennedy Space Center
Environmental Program Office
Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899
Introduction
NASA is proposing a project which would allow for the development and operation of a Commercial Vertical Launch Complex (CVLC) on approximately 200 acres of Kennedy Space Center. The land use agreement would be with a non-NASA entity. This announcement provides a brief description of the proposed project, describes the associated Environmental Assessment that will be used to evaluate the proposed action, and begins the solicitation of public input related to this proposal. The Federal Aviation Authority is a cooperating agency with NASA on this proposal.
A key concept of the notional CVLC is shared use of the facility by multiple entities involving several potential launch vehicles and associated infrastructure. The complex concept includes two separate launch pads with two potential vehicle integration approaches (horizontal and vertical). It also includes a common rocket and ground support test facility, and common propellant storage for multiple users. The potential launch vehicle types supported would have up to 2 million pounds thrust, and use standard or modified liquid propellants. Some vehicles could utilize small, strap-on solid rocket boosters.
In 2007, NASA commissioned the “KSC Vertical Launch Site Evaluation Study” to evaluate potential CVLC site locations on KSC property. The siting evaluation criteria included over-flight restrictions, available launch azimuths, distance from residential areas, minimum contiguous acreage, proximity to existing roads and utilities, hurricane storm surge inundation risk, proximity to public use areas, and preliminary environmental factors. Based on this study, NASA selected two potential sites for further evaluation. These are shown as Alternative Site 1 and Alternative Site 2 in the figure on page 3. Alternative 1 is located along the Atlantic coast south of Shuttle launch complex 39A and north of the Atlas launch complex 41. The Alternative 2 site is located more inland, east state of State Route 3, north of State Route 406, and south of the Scrub Ridge Trail Road.
Why is an Environmental Assessment (EA) being prepared?
NASA is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to assess the impacts that the implementation of this proposal might have on the environment. Under NEPA, “environment” includes the physical (air, water, land) and biological (plants, animals) environments, and human relationships to the environment (i.e., archeological, cultural, health, safety, jobs, housing, schools, and aesthetics). While NEPA does not require that preparing an EA includes gathering public comments (scoping) to define issues that should be analyzed, NASA has concluded that gathering such information is in the best interests of the public and the mission. Therefore, NASA is conducting a series of meetings to inform and involve the public. Following scoping, a Draft EA will be prepared which will be available for public review and written comment. That input will be considered in the preparation of the Final EA.
Within the EA, a range of reasonable alternatives will be compared and contrasted. The alternatives identified to date include the two locations shown in the figure, and No Action, which is the alternative of not implementing the proposal. The EA will evaluate a variety of factors associated with each Alternative and the degree to which they could impact the environment. The assessment will, at a minimum, include:
• local job market and economy
• water and air quality
• wetlands and other habitats
• wildlife and plants
• State and federally protected species
• traffic and utilities
• archaeological and historical resources
• public use (hunting, fishing, Playalinda Beach access, etc.)
The environmental consequences (short and long-term) of the Alternatives will be compared and contrasted. Construction and ground support operations impacts will be assessed in this EA; impacts from specific vehicles/programs will be evaluated individually by future users of the site as their detailed plans develop.
Schedule
The Draft EA is scheduled for release in late spring or early summer 2008, and will be made available for public comment. The Final EA is anticipated to be completed in fall 2008.
NASA seeks to actively involve the public in its decision-making process regarding the CVLC. Input from the public is encouraged, welcomed, and appreciated. To provide comments to NASA regarding the issues that should be addressed during the preparation of this EA, or to obtain additional information, the following options are available:
1. Via the World-wide Web: http://environmental.ksc.nasa.gov/projects/ksc-cvlc.htm (operational on February 22, 2008)
2. Attend one of the following scoping meetings:
• February 25, 2008, Titusville City Council Chamber, 1 p.m. and 6 p.m.
• February 28, 2008, New Smyrna Beach Public Library, 10 a.m. and 5 p.m.
3. Via E-mail: [email protected]
Availability of the EA for public review and comment will be announced on the website, and in the Florida Today and Daytona Beach News Journal newspapers.
For More Information Contact:
Mario Busacca; Environmental Program Office
Mail Code TA-C3
Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899
Telephone: 321-867-8456; FAX: 321-867-8040
E-mail: [email protected]
Locations of Alternative Sites 1 and 2 for the proposed Commercial Vertical Launch Complex on Kennedy Space Center, Florida.
New NASA CVLC Launch Site -- South end of ML closed off??
New NASA CVLC Launch Site -- South end of ML closed off??
Disclaimer: Do not take anything I'm about to tell you seriously .......
My letter (feel free to plagerize as your own)
AP
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: NASA CVLC Project -- Site Selection Committee -- Environmental Assessment
FROM: Andrew P. Harrell
DATE: 02/15/08
RE: Concerns over Alternative Site 2 for the Proposed CVLC Project
Gentlemen:
My name is Andrew Harrell, and I am writing this as a concerned individual who questions the choice of Site 2 (the SR3 area) of the proposed Commercial Vertical Launch Complex (CVLC).
While it's hard for me to understand all the budgetary reasons why at a time that government spending is being slashed in so many other areas that NASA has the funds to go ahead with this project, I will put that argument aside for now and simply focus on the two alternative sites proposed for the location of the CVLC.
My immediate concern is the possibility that NASA might choose Alternative Site 2 ( the SR3/406 area) as the location for CVLC. For me, in comparison to Site 1, I can see absolutely no benefit to anyone, including NASA, for selecting this site.
As a outdoorsman, I have spent many years enjoying the pristine beauty that is the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (MINWR), and the Canaveral National Seashores area and Park. Selecting Site 2 would obviously impact my ability to get to these areas to enjoy a large portion of the Refuge. I fish the Mosquito Lagoon area, and can easily extrapolate that a large area of the southern Lagoon would have to be closed off to public use if Site 2 is selected. This would be a shame, as it would force an increasing number of flats-fishermen like myself into a much smaller area in which to pursue our enjoyments. I can only guess that the increased boat traffic and public access into a smaller area would have a negative impact on what already is a fragile and delicate (and precious!) ecosystem.
How are you going to work around the negative environmental issues surrounding the use of Site 2? This is prime Scrub Jay habitat -- a threatened species protected by both State and Federal laws. With this site selection you will have a multitude of State (i.e. FWC), Federal (i.e. USFWS) and Private (i.e. Audubon Society, Sierra Club) environmental entities you will have to contend with. This is only the tip of the environmental iceberg you will have to overcome for this site to be a viable option.
Commercial interests would be affected by the choice of Site 2. While not a large number of people, you have fishing and environmental guiding services that would be affected, again forcing them out of an area and into a more congested area. Commercial fisherman (crabbers) would be affected and their livelihood impacted by the choice of Site 2.
NASA itself is affected. I fail to see how Site 2 would not end up being the more (financially) costly of the two choices. First, it will be removed from any close-by existing facilities. It will cost more money to build the basic infrastructure -- this includes everything from parking lots to support buildings to manpower. Second, it will cost more money to secure the areas surrounding Site 2 as they are now Public access. These areas include both land and water. Water Patrol and land security costs would have to be increased to secure this area. There may even have to be special road or water access issues to deal with during launch times that would cost additional dollars to cover.
Now, let us look at Site1 in comparison.
The site is already inside of NASA (restricted access) space. There are no public access issues. There would be fewer environmental issues for NASA to deal with. There would be no commercial interests affected. You would be closer to existing facilities, in theory meaning reduced costs in building and in infrastructure needs. Patrol and Security would not have to change.
I can't see how this would not end up saving money, both short-term and long-term, for NASA.
So in conclusion, I believe that should this project go forward, that it would be in NASA's best interest to select Site 1 as the site for the CVLC project. I know there are public meetings regarding the CVLC project that I will be unable to attend. I am hoping that this letter carries the same weight and clout as standing before you at one of these meetings. I am in the process of contacting fellow like-minded citizens and organizations who I hope will give you their views on this project in general and their thoughts on the site selection process.
I thank your for your consideration of the points raised in this letter.
Sincerely,
Andrew P. Harrell
4449 Harbour Lights Ct.
Orlando FL. 32817
([email protected])
AP
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: NASA CVLC Project -- Site Selection Committee -- Environmental Assessment
FROM: Andrew P. Harrell
DATE: 02/15/08
RE: Concerns over Alternative Site 2 for the Proposed CVLC Project
Gentlemen:
My name is Andrew Harrell, and I am writing this as a concerned individual who questions the choice of Site 2 (the SR3 area) of the proposed Commercial Vertical Launch Complex (CVLC).
While it's hard for me to understand all the budgetary reasons why at a time that government spending is being slashed in so many other areas that NASA has the funds to go ahead with this project, I will put that argument aside for now and simply focus on the two alternative sites proposed for the location of the CVLC.
My immediate concern is the possibility that NASA might choose Alternative Site 2 ( the SR3/406 area) as the location for CVLC. For me, in comparison to Site 1, I can see absolutely no benefit to anyone, including NASA, for selecting this site.
As a outdoorsman, I have spent many years enjoying the pristine beauty that is the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (MINWR), and the Canaveral National Seashores area and Park. Selecting Site 2 would obviously impact my ability to get to these areas to enjoy a large portion of the Refuge. I fish the Mosquito Lagoon area, and can easily extrapolate that a large area of the southern Lagoon would have to be closed off to public use if Site 2 is selected. This would be a shame, as it would force an increasing number of flats-fishermen like myself into a much smaller area in which to pursue our enjoyments. I can only guess that the increased boat traffic and public access into a smaller area would have a negative impact on what already is a fragile and delicate (and precious!) ecosystem.
How are you going to work around the negative environmental issues surrounding the use of Site 2? This is prime Scrub Jay habitat -- a threatened species protected by both State and Federal laws. With this site selection you will have a multitude of State (i.e. FWC), Federal (i.e. USFWS) and Private (i.e. Audubon Society, Sierra Club) environmental entities you will have to contend with. This is only the tip of the environmental iceberg you will have to overcome for this site to be a viable option.
Commercial interests would be affected by the choice of Site 2. While not a large number of people, you have fishing and environmental guiding services that would be affected, again forcing them out of an area and into a more congested area. Commercial fisherman (crabbers) would be affected and their livelihood impacted by the choice of Site 2.
NASA itself is affected. I fail to see how Site 2 would not end up being the more (financially) costly of the two choices. First, it will be removed from any close-by existing facilities. It will cost more money to build the basic infrastructure -- this includes everything from parking lots to support buildings to manpower. Second, it will cost more money to secure the areas surrounding Site 2 as they are now Public access. These areas include both land and water. Water Patrol and land security costs would have to be increased to secure this area. There may even have to be special road or water access issues to deal with during launch times that would cost additional dollars to cover.
Now, let us look at Site1 in comparison.
The site is already inside of NASA (restricted access) space. There are no public access issues. There would be fewer environmental issues for NASA to deal with. There would be no commercial interests affected. You would be closer to existing facilities, in theory meaning reduced costs in building and in infrastructure needs. Patrol and Security would not have to change.
I can't see how this would not end up saving money, both short-term and long-term, for NASA.
So in conclusion, I believe that should this project go forward, that it would be in NASA's best interest to select Site 1 as the site for the CVLC project. I know there are public meetings regarding the CVLC project that I will be unable to attend. I am hoping that this letter carries the same weight and clout as standing before you at one of these meetings. I am in the process of contacting fellow like-minded citizens and organizations who I hope will give you their views on this project in general and their thoughts on the site selection process.
I thank your for your consideration of the points raised in this letter.
Sincerely,
Andrew P. Harrell
4449 Harbour Lights Ct.
Orlando FL. 32817
([email protected])
Disclaimer: Do not take anything I'm about to tell you seriously .......
-
Capt Bob J.
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
- Location: East Central Florida
- Contact:
Here's what I wrote them:
Concerning the construction of a commercial vertical launch facility on the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge -
This is a very bad idea fueled by short-sightedness and greed. The Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, which is also a bird sanctuary, should not suffer due to human encroachment under the guise of progress, growth, or potential jobs.
Neither site, nor any other within the refuge, is a good idea, simply for the potential danger they pose to the refuge's plant & animal population and to the people of our local communities. To many concerned, it is obviously not worth the risk.
East Central Florida’s water supply, rivers, forests, native plants, and wildlife have suffered greatly over the past five decades due to Florida’s business & political preoccupation with tourism, unmanaged growth, development, and urban sprawl.
It is time for us to stop this destructive spiral, and though some may not realize it, there is more at risk here than just jobs and financial profit. Canaveral National Seashore and the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge are the only remaining natural wildlife ecosystems in East Central Florida that are protected from this destructive so-called “progress”.
I trust NASA and the United States Air Force to handle their launches in a safe manner, with minimum impact on the environment and the people living in this area, and their record has proven that to be true. I also credit NASA for having the foresight to create the opportunity for such incredible places as the MINWR and CNS to continue to exist.
I don't trust a commercial company or a conglomerate with our safety or the safety of the refuge’s wildlife and related habitat. Would you like a commercial launch pad capable of launching ballistic-type missiles, operated by profit-motivated privately owned business concerns, within 20 miles of your home?
Concerning the construction of a commercial vertical launch facility on the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge -
This is a very bad idea fueled by short-sightedness and greed. The Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, which is also a bird sanctuary, should not suffer due to human encroachment under the guise of progress, growth, or potential jobs.
Neither site, nor any other within the refuge, is a good idea, simply for the potential danger they pose to the refuge's plant & animal population and to the people of our local communities. To many concerned, it is obviously not worth the risk.
East Central Florida’s water supply, rivers, forests, native plants, and wildlife have suffered greatly over the past five decades due to Florida’s business & political preoccupation with tourism, unmanaged growth, development, and urban sprawl.
It is time for us to stop this destructive spiral, and though some may not realize it, there is more at risk here than just jobs and financial profit. Canaveral National Seashore and the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge are the only remaining natural wildlife ecosystems in East Central Florida that are protected from this destructive so-called “progress”.
I trust NASA and the United States Air Force to handle their launches in a safe manner, with minimum impact on the environment and the people living in this area, and their record has proven that to be true. I also credit NASA for having the foresight to create the opportunity for such incredible places as the MINWR and CNS to continue to exist.
I don't trust a commercial company or a conglomerate with our safety or the safety of the refuge’s wildlife and related habitat. Would you like a commercial launch pad capable of launching ballistic-type missiles, operated by profit-motivated privately owned business concerns, within 20 miles of your home?
Capt. Robert Jaspers
thanks Bob -- I really agree with your sentiments. I wonder if the SR3 sight is, unfortunately, more "palatable" since it keeps the civilian/corporate launch mechanisms seperate and out of the existing NASA secured space.
In any event, I agree with you -- nothing good can come of this, and lots of bad stuff are a distinct possibility.
AP
In any event, I agree with you -- nothing good can come of this, and lots of bad stuff are a distinct possibility.
AP
Disclaimer: Do not take anything I'm about to tell you seriously .......
Just to clarify Andrew, this is the federal government dealing with federal land. They can basically do whatever the hell they want to insofar as environmental regulations are concerned (they may have to file NEPA impact statements, and they possibly may have to get Corp dredge and fill permits for the wetlands impacts, but that's probably it). State rules don't apply and private interests like the Sierra Club have no actual say in the decisionmaking.
That said, this proposal for Site 2 makes absolutely no sense. Hopefully this outcry will appeal to the reason of the decisionmakers.
That said, this proposal for Site 2 makes absolutely no sense. Hopefully this outcry will appeal to the reason of the decisionmakers.
The NASA web site link is working: http://environmental.ksc.nasa.gov/projects/ksc-cvlc.htm
You can send them an email and let them know what you think.
They have some pdf documents there that give further explanations on how they selected the sites. The only positive I took from it is that the recommendation from the consultants was for Site1 (inside NASA), not Site2!!
Now someone has to tell me if we have to go yell at USAF to allow this site (Site1) to be used in the first place.
AP
You can send them an email and let them know what you think.
They have some pdf documents there that give further explanations on how they selected the sites. The only positive I took from it is that the recommendation from the consultants was for Site1 (inside NASA), not Site2!!
Now someone has to tell me if we have to go yell at USAF to allow this site (Site1) to be used in the first place.
AP
Disclaimer: Do not take anything I'm about to tell you seriously .......
Hey PhilBlueCrab wrote:I don't get the impression Site 1 is on the Air Force base. Am I missing something?AndrewP wrote:Now someone has to tell me if we have to go yell at USAF to allow this site (Site1) to be used in the first place.
-- from your link (Orlando Sentinal article) you posted earlier ...."So far, all have spoken passionately against the proposed plan that could include closing parts of the popular refuge. They have urged NASA to consider using abandoned launch pads at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.
NASA has said it could not use the property since it's owned by the Air Force not NASA.
That's why I assumed ................ but maybe Site1 is in NASA's own area and the talk is about other launch pads that are in USAF-owned land.
Sometimes hard to figure out who owns what .... maybe they like it that way.
AP
Disclaimer: Do not take anything I'm about to tell you seriously .......
Had a friend attend the NSB meeting with NASA -- here is his report:
The NSB meetings today were marked equally by large attendance and passion. Our own TH spoke to the threat of limited access to our 'goon, as well as bi-county economic issues, quite well and received a large round of applause. There were also several outbursts of profanity and indignation from folks whose familial generations had long preceeded Nasa on this spit of land between the North Indian River and The Mosquito Lagoon.
As for me, there were three men that stood and told these folks from Nasa, EPA, Nat'l Parks, etc; where it was at, and they were two lawyers and a former employee of the Interior Dep't; the latter exposed the shell game while the two formers laid out the legal obsticles this sitting board has between today and the completion of a report due before the national election in November.
The former Int' Dep't guy explained that the Site 2 location is so obviously flawed in all of the investigative aspects that it essentially gives a free ride to Site 1; that's the shell game. He said "... if this choice were offered in Texas, Site 2 would be The Alamo and Site 1 would be in Amarillo or somewhere up in the Panhandle out of everyone's way". That is to say, the goal all along was to get Site 1 approved by baiting the public with the hugely objectionable Site 2. The real truth is that both sites are flawed, tragically so if you area a local, an environmentalist, a commercial or recreational fisherman, nudist, birder or left handed Croat banjo picker with an abiding lust for Elvis's near cousin Fiona that happens to like redfish cought from a balsa raft: this comes down on all equally. No matter the EPA study, the Economic Impact study, etc; the fact remains that if the plan goes forward it will pave two hundred acres of wetlands just for openers. This "200 acre"" figure does not include the so called "mission creep" that makes costs and acquisitions go up over the life of any government project. Obviously, the danger indicater here is the land acquisition: the larger the footprint of the project, the larger the resulting restrictions on access.
The lawyers, bless their hearts, enumerated the conflicts in federal statute and environmental law that stand in the way of Nasa ultimately approving either plan. Case law was quoted from the enactment of the National Seashore by Congress resulting in a dispute over who really does control the land. The arbitration of this dispute will result in the delay of any enactment. The potential abuses to several endangered species were mentioned as the basis for law suits by the attorney representing The National Audubon Society. This fellow pointed out that the intramural disputes between fedral government departments will also take up a bunch of time. Capt. Will Smith said in the shop today that, to him, it seemed doubtful that a time-line such as this study proposes can be met in an election year; I concur.
The board members present this evening passed out cards, especially to the lawyers, and solicited written views and opinions from key participants stressing that the written view and opinion will carry the most weight upon final review. Congressmen, Senators, Chamber of Commerce, and/or other entities that purport to represent you should receive these written opinions and views early and often, by the ton. Also, it seems that these folks want to count people so be sure to mention your interest in this fight: concerned resident, fisherman, business owner, nudist, birder, conservationist, yakero, photographer, painter, boater,etc;.
So, maybe things look like there will be some long delays before anything moves forward, but I would still take the time to write or email all mentioned above to give them your thoughts ....
AP
The NSB meetings today were marked equally by large attendance and passion. Our own TH spoke to the threat of limited access to our 'goon, as well as bi-county economic issues, quite well and received a large round of applause. There were also several outbursts of profanity and indignation from folks whose familial generations had long preceeded Nasa on this spit of land between the North Indian River and The Mosquito Lagoon.
As for me, there were three men that stood and told these folks from Nasa, EPA, Nat'l Parks, etc; where it was at, and they were two lawyers and a former employee of the Interior Dep't; the latter exposed the shell game while the two formers laid out the legal obsticles this sitting board has between today and the completion of a report due before the national election in November.
The former Int' Dep't guy explained that the Site 2 location is so obviously flawed in all of the investigative aspects that it essentially gives a free ride to Site 1; that's the shell game. He said "... if this choice were offered in Texas, Site 2 would be The Alamo and Site 1 would be in Amarillo or somewhere up in the Panhandle out of everyone's way". That is to say, the goal all along was to get Site 1 approved by baiting the public with the hugely objectionable Site 2. The real truth is that both sites are flawed, tragically so if you area a local, an environmentalist, a commercial or recreational fisherman, nudist, birder or left handed Croat banjo picker with an abiding lust for Elvis's near cousin Fiona that happens to like redfish cought from a balsa raft: this comes down on all equally. No matter the EPA study, the Economic Impact study, etc; the fact remains that if the plan goes forward it will pave two hundred acres of wetlands just for openers. This "200 acre"" figure does not include the so called "mission creep" that makes costs and acquisitions go up over the life of any government project. Obviously, the danger indicater here is the land acquisition: the larger the footprint of the project, the larger the resulting restrictions on access.
The lawyers, bless their hearts, enumerated the conflicts in federal statute and environmental law that stand in the way of Nasa ultimately approving either plan. Case law was quoted from the enactment of the National Seashore by Congress resulting in a dispute over who really does control the land. The arbitration of this dispute will result in the delay of any enactment. The potential abuses to several endangered species were mentioned as the basis for law suits by the attorney representing The National Audubon Society. This fellow pointed out that the intramural disputes between fedral government departments will also take up a bunch of time. Capt. Will Smith said in the shop today that, to him, it seemed doubtful that a time-line such as this study proposes can be met in an election year; I concur.
The board members present this evening passed out cards, especially to the lawyers, and solicited written views and opinions from key participants stressing that the written view and opinion will carry the most weight upon final review. Congressmen, Senators, Chamber of Commerce, and/or other entities that purport to represent you should receive these written opinions and views early and often, by the ton. Also, it seems that these folks want to count people so be sure to mention your interest in this fight: concerned resident, fisherman, business owner, nudist, birder, conservationist, yakero, photographer, painter, boater,etc;.
So, maybe things look like there will be some long delays before anything moves forward, but I would still take the time to write or email all mentioned above to give them your thoughts ....
AP
Disclaimer: Do not take anything I'm about to tell you seriously .......