March 8 was the deadline for Georgians to comment on a justifiably controversial project proposed in Camden County, known as "Spaceport Camden." If approved, this spaceport would be the only such facility in the U.S. ever sanctioned to launch rockets over privately owned and occupied property. Moreover, the "hazard zone" for launching includes the world-renowned Cumberland Island National Seashore, part of which is a federally designated Wilderness Area.
Since 1997, under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, Georgia's Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has been authorized to review major federal permits to determine if they are consistent with Georgia's Coastal Management Program. DNR's Coastal Resources Division (CRD) is currently engaged in evaluating Spaceport Camden.
Accordingly, CRD invited public comments on the agency's proposal to issue Coastal Consistency Certification. If certified by CRD/DNR, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which administers spaceports under U.S. law, would have to decide whether to license Spaceport Camden. Most agree that without state certification, FAA would be less likely to grant the license.
As objectionable as the project certainly is for jeopardizing humans, wildlife, valuable homesites, tourism destinations, and rare natural resources, there is a less apparent but closely related reason to oppose the spaceport - the appalling lack of detailed information to evaluate such risks responsibly. After years of unsubstantiated claims about the spaceport's benefits, compounded by incomplete, contradictory, and illogical review of the project, fundamental questions remain unanswered.
For instance:
- Inexplicably, federal authorities used human-hazard risks as a substitute for independently evaluating environmental risk. Falling debris deemed incapable of causing human fatalities is assumed to cause no significant individual or cumulative harm to the environment. In its "human hazards analysis," the FAA deems only a small portion of the thousands of debris fragments resulting from a collision to be "dangerous." This approach cannot adequately assess environmental risks.
- Even if a rocket explodes on the launch-pad, nearly three-quarters of the immediate "Hazard Zone" area is designated as "State waters." These are public resources, including coastal wetlands and waterways, that would be in harm's way. Once a rocket is airborne, more extensive areas of state-owned sensitive tidewaters and tidal marsh will be at risk. If CRD were to approve this project, the agency would sanction the spaceport's use of significant Georgia marshes and tidewaters as the primary hazard zone. Yet, no one has evaluated these impacts.
- Perhaps most preposterous, the risks are evaluated using a hypothetical rocket that doesn't even exist. The smallest U.S. rocket under development (not yet operational) is about 150% larger than Camden's imaginary "Key Assumptions" rocket. However, rockets within the same "license category" can be up to 44 times more powerful (and thus larger) than Camden's hypothetical one.
- All analysis of the primary facilities for the spaceport shown in the latest documents is virtually unchanged from the original "Draft Environmental Impact Statement" (DEIS), despite the recent "downsizing" to smaller rockets. The DEIS investigates the impacts of a rocket that's some 77-times larger than the hypothetical rocket now under consideration.
Some opponents have objected to the spaceport because the costs to the public treasury of promoting and developing the facility are too high. There is no credible evidence of a return on investment in the form of jobs and income generated through related business activities. Licensed spaceports have repeatedly failed due to a lack of demand.
While these concerns are valid and the spaceport is extremely unlikely to generate any so-called "net-benefits," financially speculative projects of all kinds are often permitted.
The DNR should, however, scrutinize these considerations in light of the statement-of-purpose for the Georgia Coastal Management Program:
"It is the mission of the [program] to balance economic development in Georgia's coastal zone with preservation of natural, environmental, historic, archeological, and recreational resources for the benefit of Georgia's present and future generations."
The pending decision must focus on preserving coastal resources, which must not be compromised by "economic development" ambitions.
Aside from wasted time and money, the public could suffer potentially catastrophic consequences if this project were to be approved. Whether by DNR or FAA, the review process is devoid of essential information and lacks vital accountability. Approving the spaceport under these conditions would violate various obligations under public law.
DNR's proposed issuance of "Coastal Consistency Certification" for the spaceport raises troubling doubts about the agency's administration of Georgia's Coastal Management Program, which is accountable to both state and federal legal requirements.
Due to the FAA's inadequate environmental examination, the DNR must apply Georgia's Coastal Management Program to protect the public interest by rejecting the spaceport certification. To do otherwise would politicize this critical decision instead of complying with the law as written.
Approval of Spaceport Camden at this time would be absurdly irresponsible and will endanger lives, property, and natural resources. The Center has advised the DNR that the information available cannot support an accountable decision regarding the Coastal Consistency Certification.
For more information about glaring deficiencies and contradictions in the spaceport proposal, visit spaceportfacts.org.