Lose-Lose Decision

Last evening (December 13, 2012)  Charleston County Council made a Lose-Lose choice when they breathed new life into a transportation option that they had unanimously rejected over a year ago.  After a strong push by the business community and the City of Charleston to complete I-526, the interstate that currently extends ¾ of the way around the Charleston Metro area, the Council caved in a 5 to 4 vote to approve Alternative G which, if built, will be a low-speed parkway with 6 intersections, running through a corner of James Island County Park and through the heart of James and Johns islands.  Most people, if they are honest, will tell you they prefer to see I-526 completed as a high-speed expressway.  Alternative G is a compromise plan with the selling points being that it is the lowest- cost alternative to complete the interstate and the easiest for which to obtain acquisition rights because it will directly impact the fewest property owners.

With the inclusion of last- minute amendments to the proposal that add fly-overs at two intersections and double the distance from the parkway from 500 feet to 1,000 feet for property owners to make diminution in value claims, an undetermined increase in cost and number of acquisition rights has been added to the project, diluting the arguable merits of the option. The Council added other band-aids such as green buffers, all without studying the feasibility of the amendments.  This came after refusing to study claims from the Nix 526 folks that there are engineering solutions to resolve traffic congestion on the sea islands that would be less expensive than Alternative G and would impact area residents to a far lesser degree. As it was, many on the Council had not seen some of the amendments ahead of time. Voting on the measure in a Committee Meeting and a Council Meeting on the same night got the deed done in time to lock up the promised funds before the composition of the SIB board changes in January but did not allow time for thoughtful review. The question of whether the amendments materially change the whole proposal may be an issue of concern.

We credit the Council with good intentions, long-suffering patience, and compassion.  We hold the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) accountable for their carrot and stick approach, first promising revenues that may exist far in the future for a project that is rated  15th in priority in the state, and then threatening to require Charleston County to repay the $11 million tab already spent for multiple engineering studies.  On top of committing taxpayers to a very expensive parkway, the County still needs to bond multiple smaller projects to alleviate traffic congestion at already designated choke points so that residents of the sea islands can even get to the parkway. It has been suggested that these smaller, less expensive projects that needed to be undertaken anyway may have been enough to relieve traffic congestion.

Much attention was given to what the direct effects to property owners nearest the proposed parkway will be, but the indirect effect of a roadway that is projected to increase development on Johns Island between 20% and 40%, thus threatening its rural character and thereby affecting all the residents, did not seem to really make an impact.  Other indirect effects include rising property values that come with denser development.  That may sound good to many, but apparently not to a large number of existing home owners on fixed or limited incomes that would be hard-pressed to pay the resultant higher property taxes. This proposal also increases the vulnerability of heirs’  property and the whole Gullah culture along with the working farms that supply the Charleston metro area with fresh produce.  Increased development brings with it more traffic congestion, thus a vicious cycle is promoted rather than thoughtfully mitigated.

When will we learn that what we build, where and how we build it, determines the quality of a place far more than any Comprehensive Plan or Zoning and Development Ordinances?  Where we place infrastructure shapes future growth patterns.   Simply sighing and saying that an area is growing and we can’t do anything about it except accommodate it shows regrettable short-sightedness.

Angela T. Jones, Conservation Chair
The Robert Lunz Group of the SC Sierra Club Chapter

Camp St Christopher Remarks

The mouth of the North Edisto River is bounded on the north by Seabrook Island and on the
south by Botany Bay Island, and right in the middle is Deveaux Bank. The biological diversity of
this area, with bird and turtle rookeries in summer, is absolutely enthralling. At the water’s edge
on Seabrook Island is Camp St Christopher. The facility is owned by the South Carolina Diocese
of the Episcopal Church and serves both Church and secular clients, providing housing and
dining services to visiting groups. In addition, the Camp is host to a Barrier Reef environmental
education program that reaches several thousand school children each year.

The national Sierra Club rented space at Camp St Christopher earlier this year for staff
meetings. The South Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club has also rented the facility for events
in years past. As noted above, the location is fabulous and services provided have always been
exemplary.

Recently, the relationship between the Sierra Club and Camp St Christopher came to an end, as
was reviewed in the Faith and Values and Editorial sections of the Post and Courier. The issue
arose because of positions regarding same-sex marriage. The national Episcopal Church and
the South Carolina Diocese have differences on this issue, with the Diocese (owners of Camp
St Christopher) taking the position of not recognizing same-sex marriages. The national Sierra
Club has a policy of non-discrimination towards same-sex marriage. Given these differences, the
national Sierra Club elected to inform Camp St Christopher that as long as their policy remains
in force, the Club will not make further use of the facility.

The local Sierra Club affiliate, the Robert Lunz Group (representing Berkeley, Charleston,
Colleton and Dorchester counties) was not consulted on this issue and did not have any input into
this decision to cease patronizing Camp St Christopher. The decision to take this course of action
was completely “top-down.”

The Robert Lunz Group does not have the financial resources to book Camp St Christopher,
and the South Carolina Chapter only does so rarely, so the main Sierra Club users of Camp St
Christopher were national staff members. The national Sierra Club has many constituencies, and
balancing potentially disparate needs can be complicated.

The Robert Lunz Group (we are members of the Sierra Club; some of our members are
Episcopalians; some probably identify as LGBT) gets caught in the middle and has no input in
either direction for decisions made.

The country is coming to grips with a host of environmental issues, from climate change to
fracking to maintaining air and water quality standards. Locally we face a number of issues,
including sea level rise, the possible extension of I-526, funding for the SC Conservation Bank,
nuclear waste disposal, bicycle safety, and alternate public transportation. The Lunz Group
has only volunteer staff and a limited budget. We oppose or support public policy through our
activist volunteers and general membership. The symbolic decision to withdraw our patronage
of Camp St Christopher will have little economic impact on the SC Diocese of the Episcopal
Church and spends political capital that we are short of here in South Carolina. Whether taking the stance against the Diocese has significant repercussions in membership or fundraising
remains to be seen. In the meantime, we remain committed to the Sierra Club mission: To enjoy,
explore, and protect the wild places of the Earth.

Of course life is nearly always hectic, so its nice to be able to kick back and relax from time to time. I recently collapsed into the easy chair and happened upon a documentary about the aftermath of the earthquake, the resulting  tsunami and the disastrous disabling and subsequent explosions at the Fukishima  Nuclear Power complex. What we have to deal with there is huge area that is basically taken out off the books as far as human habitation is concerned. A larger region might be amenable to clean up but at phenomenal cost. Another TV documentary dealt with the exclusion zone around the Chernobyl power plant. The program showed how the former industrial city's town square is not being slowly reclaimed by the surrounding forest and in particular how a series of wolf packs are now living in the region and apparently producing pups. That human exclusion zone around Chernobyl will be there for generations. Ironically, because of this moratorium on human activity the entire region has reverted to what is in effect a wildlife sanctuary albeit a flawed one. In the US the nuclear power industry had been on long decline after the Three Mile Island incident. There was a renewed interest in nuclear power up until the March 2011 Fukushima disaster and sequelae. Here in South Carolina there are plans afoot to expand the V.C. Summer nuclear plant on the Broad River in Fairfield County SC near Jenkinsville. The proposed expansion will take about 40 million gallons of water out of the Broad River PER DAY to use for cooling. Now the plan is to actually pump the water from what is currently the cooling  reservoir but the reservoir is filled from the river. On the Savannah River in Georgia the Vogtle nuclear power plant is planning expansion from two units to four. This will obligate additional water withdrawal from the Savannah river at time when interbasin water transfer in Georgia is being discussed to as to satisfy growth in the greater Atlanta region.  As Steve Willis reminded us at the April membership meeting, these two potential water removal projects fly directly into the face of the plans to dredge nearly forty miles of the Savannah river to "improve" shipping access for deeper draft ships. With less fresh water flowing to the sea, the saltwater intrusion up the watershed will increase. On top of all these contraindications for nuclear power are these considerations. As part of the process to build a nuclear powerplant, the sponsoring Utility company can begin charging increased rates to current power users right now. The Utility is guaranteed to be able to charge users sufficiently to make a profit. On top of all that you as a consumer are not even getting stock in the company and if at some point the utility decides not to go forward with the plant you the consumer still have to pay the rate increases to cover their debt. Now a friend of mine often says as she views life, 'what's the worst that can happen?'. If you examine Chernobyl and Fukushima you can  see the worst that can happen if there is a serious accident and you can examine your power bill to see how you are paying right now to take on the additional risks. Is it worth it to you? Is it worth it to your descendents?

Looking Ahead at Charleston's Port Deepening: A Panel Discussion

It’s often difficult to know with certainty how to place events into a proper perspective. A case in point is the proposed deepening of the Charleston ship channel from its present control depth to 50 feet. On the one hand Charleston has always been a fine harbor and commerce by sea has always been central to the human economy. So on the face of it you might think that making the rather narrow ship channel a mere 4% deeper would have minimal adverse effects. Further more if it helps commerce this might be enough to persuade you. As Sierrans we appreciate that most actions, when viewed narrowly can seem a good idea. After all who has not been tempted for a second helping at the supper table without consideration of the consequences. But it’s in our Sierran nature to discipline ourselves to take a broader view and to understand as many outcomes as possible for our public actions. You might also think that its all well and good look at both sides carefully but who has the time? And so, the Robert Lunz Group has gone to some effort to recruit a panel of experts to discuss with you various aspects of port deepening project. Our panel will include Dana Beach, Executive Director of the Coastal Conservation, Lt Col Edward Chamberlayne USACE Charleston District Commander, Jim Newsome Chairman and CEO of SC State Ports Authority and Steve Willis

from the Georgia Sierra Club. The discussion will be led by Steve Eames of the Coastal Conservation League. Here are some thoughts that occur to me and that I have read about. What happens if we do not deepen the channel? Will our transshipment tonnage drop grow or stay the same? Does EVERY port in the South East US have to be dug to the Panamax level? Its worth pointing out that deepening the Savannah River ship channel requires a bit shy of 40 miles of deepening compared to well under 10 miles for Charleston. There are substantial environmental risks to deepening the Savannah river. What about such risks for Charleston’s harbor? I want fishers of all ages to continue to harvest and safely consume fish, crabs and shrimp from our harbor. I trust that the waters of the harbor will remain swimmable throughout, that the manatees and dolphins remain and that the sturgeon will return. I hope that the historic forts of the harbor are not adversely impacted and I would like for Crab Bank to remain intact as a viable sea bird rookery whatever the outcome. There is plenty of intriguing political and legal activity going on as well. So watch the P&C daily for news, check out the background info on the USACE Project 45 web site, and plan to bring your thoughts and questions to ask the experts on Thursday April 5, 2012 to listen.

March 1 Membership Meeeting Talking Points

1. Wolves in Idaho and Montana were removed from the endangered species list through a rider in the budget bill. The rule was not subject to judicial review and this ruling cannot be taken back to the courts. Recently, the Obama administration has agreed to strip wolves of their endangered species protections in Wyoming as well. This also includes parts of Utah, Oregon, and Washington. Lawmakers defend their actions as a solution to in the interests of residents and ranchers.

2. Hunting (called harvesting) began in Idaho August 30. A bill is circulating in the Idaho legislature that would allow ranchers to use motorized vehicles, night vision scopes, neck snares, foothold traps, electronic calls that imitate other wolves and injured prey, traps with live bait, and ultra-light aircraft like powered parachutes. Permission has been granted to gun down 75 wolves from aircraft. Idaho Gov "Butch" Otter approved legislation that directs him to issue an executive order declaring a statewide wolf disaster emergency. No one has been injured by a wolf in Idaho since the species was restored. People have been told to stay in their houses, refrain from outdoor activities like walking and jogging, and to keep pets inside. In fact, no wolf has attacked a human since the federal reintroduction in the 1990's, and of two million cattle, only 75 were killed by wolves in 2010. To date 285 wolves have been killed in Idaho.

3. In Wyoming wolves will be shot on sight across almost 90% of the state. Wolves will remain protected in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and will receive limited protections in a handful of other areas. Wyoming is poised to allow virtually unrestricted killing of wolves across the majority of the state. This also includes killing pups. Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead told state legislators to approve the plan before concerned citizens had a chance to challenge it in the courts. The controversial wolf plan has gained national attention as it would allow wolves to be killed along the John D. Rockefeller Parkway that connects Yellowstone and Grand Teton.

4. Montana "sportsmen" are offering $100 bounties for dead wolves. Some radicals are even calling for "wolf war, round two".

Good news

1. In December 2011, The Washington state Fish & Wildlife commission approved the state's final wolf recovery plan, charting a course toward the long-term sustainability of its growing wolf population. There are least 27 wolves and three breeding pairs in the state. Unfortunately, that's one less than they would have had after a collard wolf from the Diamond Pack wandered into Idaho and was trapped on Dec 20.

2. The number of Mexican gray wolves in Arizona and New Mexico has grown for the first time in four years. The fragile population is up to at least 58 wolves and six breeding pairs. But this small population is still extremely vulnerable. Arizona and federal official need to release more wolves into the wild. Last year, several releases were planned by the fish and wildlife service, but never happened. Several wolves are eligible for release in Arizona and New Mexico right now. Some of the wolves have even been specially conditioned to avoid preying on cattle. They deserve a chance at life in the wild.

Pat Luck

Membership Chair Robert Lunz Group

Stopping Federal Funding of aerial Wolf hunts in Idaho

Did you know that your tax dollars could be used to pay for an ill-conceived aerial wolf cull in Northeastern Idaho, an unscientific plan to boost game populations that could kill as many as two thirds of the wolves in the Lolo District of the Clearwater National Forest.

President Obama can stop this, but he needs to hear from us.

I just signed a petition to the President to stop the use of federal tax dollars to kill these wolves and I hope you will too.

Sign the petition online now at: http://dfnd.us/zwmnmn

Thanks for helping!

Saving the Edisto River from contamination!

We need your help saving the Edisto River from contamination!

As you may recall from the fall issue of theCongaree Chronicle, the North Edisto River could be at risk due to a wastewater agreement between the town of Batesburg-Leesville and Saluda County Water and Sewer Authority. The agreement states that Saluda County Water and Sewer Authority would send an additional one million gallons of raw sewage per day to the Batesburg-Leesville wastewater treatment plant.

The plan would call for the discharge of treated wastewater into Duncan Creek, which feeds into Chinquapin Creek and the North Edisto River. The additional volume of treated wastewater could severely impact the quality of the river, which is in direct violation of South Carolina DHEC's Antidegradation standard.

Please take a minute to call Saluda County Water & Sewer Authority (SCWSA) member Mr. Jerry Strawbridge at (803)604-1110 or send him a letter to 105 Arbor Drive, Leesvillle, South Carolina 29070.

Let him know that you are opposed to the agreement between Batesburg-Leesville & Saluda County Water & Sewer Authority because:

• The construction of the pump station and sewer lines from Saluda County to Batesburg-Leesville, if allowed to continue, will create significant, recognizable damage to the environment of the Edisto River. The damages would consist of dramatic increases of nutrient concentrations and organic residues of sewage in the stream.

• Any degradation of the Edisto River will create repercussions for all citizens downstream of Batesburg-Leesville, including Orangeburg, Bamberg, Colleton, Dorchester, and Charleston counties, all of whom draw their water from the Edisto River.

• We are opposed to any interbasin transfer of wastewater, that is, sending Saluda county’s wastewater to Lexington county.

• The Edisto River is widely used for recreation purposes, including fishing, swimming and canoeing/kayaking, to name a few. The degradation of the Edisto River would limit the recreational possibilities for the river.

Thank you for taking a moment to help save one of South Carolina's important waterways.

Sincerely,

Kurt Henning

Sierra Club Oyster Roast and Auction! Sunday, February 12, 2012

Please join us for the annual

Sierra Club Oyster Roast and Auction!

Sunday, February 12, 2012

2:00 - 5:00 pm

Bowen’s Island Restaurant, off Folly Road

Adults $20 Students $15 Children (6-12) $5 Under 6 - free

Ticket price includes oysters, chili, hot dogs, and Ben & Jerry’s ice cream.

Live music by Lime and the Coconuts!

Draft beer available for $2 donation.

Open to the public. Purchase tickets at the gate.

Bid on great auction items! Bring cash or check.

Auction items include: Restaurant gift certificates, sailing classes,

kayak tours, gift baskets, books, theater tickets, hot-stone massage and more!

Please bring your own reusable cup, plate and eating utensils

Sierra Club mission: Explore, enjoy and protect the planet.

What the Fukashima? by Susan Corbett Chapter Chair

Susan Corbett, Chair,
South Carolina Chapter
What the Fukushima?
Since my last column in the Chronicle, the event so
many anti-nuclear activists were worried about most
has happened: a catastrophic series of unforeseen
events has led to a chain of multiple reactor-breakdowns, resulting in the
continued release of massive amounts of radiation and the contamination of large
areas of land, water and food supplies. The accident at Fukushima has brought
into sharp relief the myriad of problems inherent in nuclear power as it is currently
employed in this country and others. Designs are based on foreseeable events.
Too often, catastrophic events are completely unforeseeable. How can you plan
for what you cannot conceive could happen?
One must wonder how the best engineering minds in Japan, a country whose
engineering acumen has amazed the world, and who based their nuclear designs
on ours, came to believe that building nuclear reactors near major fault and
tsunami zones would be okay, and they would be prepared for any event. Clearly,
that is not the case. How many reactors are in similar situations in our country?
The answer, sadly, is too many. And the same ―we‘re ready for anything‖ mindset
is deeply ingrained in the industry here. But are we really ready? To answer that,
simply ask yourself which one of the 104 reactor sites around the country with a
large population around it is ready to be evacuated for twenty to thirty miles and
never allowed to be re-populated? How many of these reactors even have an
evacuation plan in place for the tens of thousands that would have to leave in case
of an accident, say at the Catawba plant outside Rock Hill/Charlotte? If you are
interested in evacuation plan details, please check out the Japanese disaster tab
on our website and look for the recent video on NRC plans for evacuating large
areas around U.S. reactors.
What is most disconcerting to many of us is how quickly this event fell from the
media‘s (and the world‘s) attention. While the reactors were still melting and
spent fuel pools were still boiling, the media attention shifted mercurially to Libya
and never looked back. Once that happened, the Japanese government, nuclear
industry and other agencies began in earnest to hush the event and curtail the
amount of information being released. And in response to the renewed criticisms
about nuclear energy, the nuclear boosters resumed an old chant: ―no one has ever
died from nuclear power.‖ This is the same cry they raised after Chernobyl and
Three Mile Island. Their assertions are both naïve, disingenuous and false. Every
radiation study ever done has affirmed that radiation, even in low doses, can cause
cancers of all types, birth defects and genetic damage. But what makes radiation
the perfect crime is that these effects may not become apparent for ten, twenty or
thirty years, or more. And unlike some carcinogens, like tobacco, or asbestos, you
cannot definitely say when radiation causes the cancer or other deleterious effect.
Except for acute radiation poisoning that is apparent from very high doses,
radiation leaves no definite fingerprint and cannot be conclusively blamed. It‘s a
very slick trick . . . expose the population, no one dies right away, so you can
claim it‘s all okay. And who‘s around thirty years later to make the correlation?
Actually, a few brave epidemiologists have begun looking into this: noted
researcher Steve Wing, Ph.D. from UNC Chapel Hill and his associates found two
to ten times higher rates of lung cancer and leukemias downwind of the Three
Mile Island accident than upwind. Their work has also led to revelations that the
industry lied or downplayed the amount of radiation released during the accident.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has admitted it was pressured by the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to spin the numbers from
Chernobyl.
Recent studies are showing that millions have or will be affected
from past exposures to the millions of curies still circulating the
globe from Chernobyl. And how many will be added from the
emissions coming from Fukushima?
We are seeing a similar syndrome occurring in Japan. The
amount of radiation still being released is being underreported,
(as we go to print, an evening news story reported the estimates
of radiation released are now two-times what was originally
reported) and the Japanese government has refused to let
independent or environmental groups perform any monitoring.
Here, in this country, we have stopped monitoring, even though
elevated levels of radiation have been found in Hawaii‘s milk
cows and other parts of the food chain. The insidious thing
about radiation is that none of us knows our own tolerance to it,
and how or when the ingestion or inhalation of alpha and beta
particles will affect us. To say no one has or will die from
Fukushima or other reactor emissions of radiation is a lie.
Many activists are concerned it‘s just a matter of time before it
happens here. If you plot a graph of reactor safety, it ends up
looking like a bathtub: high safety risk at the beginning of the
reactor‘s life (both TMI and Chernobyl were newly started),
relative lower risks in the middle, and high risks again at the end
of the reactor‘s life-cycle (Fukushima is currently over thirty
years old). We are in a period when many reactors have been
relicensed to operate far past their design; thus, we are increasing
our chances of an accident. Here in South Carolina, we have
four of the country‘s six most safety-challenged reactors: three at
Oconee in Seneca and one at H.B. Robinson in Florence.
These four have been cited by the NRC for repeated safety
infractions, events and violations. Around the country, under
heightened scrutiny, vulnerabilities are popping up, like the news
this past week that the Limerick plant, outside Philadelphia,
might not be ready to prevent damage from flood or fire if the
plant was struck by an earthquake. Even so, the NRC did its
cursory inspection and pronounced everything was fine. The
released report indicates that the inspectors concluded that ―the
licensee met the current licensing and design bases for fire
protection and flooding." This conclusion was reached despite
findings that "many of the (systems, structures and components)
relied upon to mitigate flood and fire events at Limerick are not
designed to meet seismic qualification standards. Therefore, a
design basis seismic event at the site could adversely impact the
plant's fire and flood mitigation capabilities."
If you think this situation is unusual—think again. The U.S.
nuclear fleet is awash with reactor close-calls, questionable
designs and locations and very scary backup systems.
Emergency Diesel Generators, or EDGs, that are the fall-back
when power goes out, are notoriously unreliable, and there are
multiple incidents of their failures. The fact that virtually every
reactor design must rely on EDGs when there is a power outage,
is frightening in and of itself, and sets up what engineers call a
―single point of vulnerability.‖ Of even more concern are the
spent fuel pools, awash in highly radioactive, thermally hot spent
fuel rods, which have been a major source of intense gamma and
other kinds of radioactive releases at Fukushima. Lest we forget,
an almost exact duplicate of the Fukushima Mark I reactors
continues to operate a scant fifty miles from Myrtle Beach, at the
Brunswick location, on the ocean, south of Wilmington, North
Carolina.
What will it take to protect the public from a Fukushima type
disaster? Sadly, the NRC, the agency created to protect us, has
proven itself to be a pawn of the very industry it promises to
regulate, not unlike the Minerals Management Service that
facilitated the BP Gulf oil disaster. And with both houses of
Congress dead set on going full speed ahead with the ―nuclear
renaissance,‖ it‘s not surprising they have hardly taken a breath
to truly study and learn from what exactly happened at
Fukushima, and how it could (and most likely will) happen in
the U.S and, indeed, other countries. Nuclear is an industry of
extremes: very safe, until it‘s a complete catastrophe. Radiation
is the perfect crime, and, now, like the scientific evidence of
climate change, the industry is trying to downplay or outright
deny the devastating effects of man-made radiation on life on
this planet. The fact that nuclear can crash the world‘s third
largest economy and our leaders do not blink an eye is testament
to the power of the industry and its invested interests. The
sooner we move away from nuclear, close down the aging
plants, secure the spent fuel, and find somewhere to bury to
60,000 tons of deadly waste we have created, the safer we, and
all life on the planet, will be.

The Robert Lunz Group of the Sierra Club would like to invite you to our monthly membership meeting Thursday, March 1. It will be held in the Baruch Auditorium, 284 Calhoun Street at 7pm. We will be showing the documentary film, "Lords of Nature, Life in a Land of Great Predators". This film shows the critical role wolves and mountain lions play in their environments.

The connection between top predators and ecosystems was discovered by scientists who studied Yellowstone for decades trying to understand why the park's Aspens and other plants were doing so poorly. Around 1995 the plant systems began to recover. This was the same time wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone. As the scientists studied the plants' recovery, they decided to find out when the plants began to fail. They found that the degradation of the plants began in the early 1900's. It was also at this time that the last wolf had finally been eradicated from the lower 48 states. We are making the same mistake again.

The wolf has been removed from the Endangered Species List and control of their numbers has been turned over to the individual states. Powerful groups of hunters and ranchers with financial interests have been responsible for this delisting. Our politicians chose to listen to these groups instead of science based data proving the benefit of the wolf's presence.

Many Western states have already started hunting wolves. Trapping and snaring will be allowed, and in some states pups will be gassed in their dens. One hunter was quoted as saying, "Gut shot them. That way they won't die right away and when they do, they'll be food for something else". Federal sharpshooters are preparing to gun down up to 75 wolves from aircraft on public lands in Idaho. Montana "sportsmen" are offering $100 bounties for dead wolves. Aerial killing is allowed in Alaska where a pack will be driven for miles until exhausted. Usually one wolf will be wounded. The pack will not leave a member and this allows the aerial shooters to wipe out an entire pack. Wolves will be shot on site in some of our national parks, parks that belong to all of us.

Wolves do kill cattle. But there are many non-lethal ways of controlling this and groups such as Defenders of Wildlife have programs in place to reimburse ranchers for cattle lost to wolves. It takes a great deal of effort, but it is possible to coexist with wolves and mountain lions.

Please join us and learn about the importance of our top predators and why we need them.

Patricia A. Luck

Membership Chair Robert Lunz Group

The Port Again 50' channel and Post Panamax Ships

Background. The Panama Canal was built with a maximum width. Ships have been built for a century with a planned maximum width not to exceed the safe transit width of the Panama Canal. Ships were said to be Panamax if they could fit. Over the past few years efforts have been underway to widen the Panama Canal and lock system. This means that larger ships will be able to transit the canal and that in turn means that such ships will be financed, constructed and out into service. Wider longer ships have a tendency to have deeper draft depths.

Most American ports cannot handle ships with 50 foot drafts. The biggest ships will not be able to service American ports. The search is on for Global Gateway port facilities. Two options emerge. Find a suitable port from an existing harbor or modify existing ports to accommodate the anticipated deeper draft ships.

Freeport in the Bahamas has a natural 65 foot harbor and probably could be made into an ideal offloading port for the new Panamax ships. No dredging required.

In the US the major infrastructure projects are designed and built by the US Army Corps of Engineers. USACE offices are independent entities and for example the Charleston and Savannah Offices of USACE do not consider what’s happening in adjacent districts. Advancement is based on projects garnered at one port. There is no Southeast regional body in USACE that could adjudicate project differences or even consider a regional approach. The Savannah Office need not take into account anything happening in any other districts.

The current dredge depth of the Savannah River is 42 feet. The port facilities of Savannah are a full 32 miles from the open ocean. Any plan to deepen the existing Savannah river channel would be required to excavate a 32 mile long 8 feet deep portion of sand mud and such to create a 50 foot navigable channel for the Savannah port. That’s 256 cubic miles of spoil.

Charleston port facilities are more like 7 miles from the Ocean and 5feet deeper for 7 miles is 35 cubic miles of spoil produced to create the 50 foot depth.

Either way that's a lot of material to pick up, move and dump. That's going to cover a significant ocean bottom. Searching for an optimal spoil zone is an on-going task.