Wildlife board chair muzzles Savannah port discussion

The chairwoman of South Carolina’s wildlife commission wants an agency official to pipe down about the state’s controversial decision to allow dredging at the port of Savannah.

While the Department of Natural Resources says the project could hurt the environment, DNR board chairwoman Caroline Rhodes said Wednesday she is concerned the agency could be dragged into a lawsuit challenging the $600 million harbor deepening project.

That’s why she has told agency official Mike McShane he should no longer speak on behalf of the DNR’s interests in the matter, state senators were told during a hearing in Columbia.

The S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control approved the Savannah port dredging in November after the governor’s office intervened, which outraged environmentalists and supporters of ports in Charleston and Jasper counties.

McShane is the DNR’s representative on the Savannah River Maritime Commission, which along with environmentalists, has sued to stop the project. The state commission examines issues involving the Savannah River.

“My understanding is, since it is in a legal action, that the agency cannot be part of that – (that) he has to represent himself as a member of that commission,” not as a DNR representative, Rhodes said. “The agency does not need to be part of a lawsuit against another agency.”

But Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Berkeley, said it is the DNR’s job to raise questions about the environmental impacts of dredging and participate in discussions. He is a leading critic of DHEC’s decision to approve the dredging.

Rhodes made her comments under oath during a three-hour Senate hearing to discuss veteran agency director John Frampton’s apparent forced retirement by the DNR board. The hearing was spiced with conflicting testimony about Frampton’s sudden decision last fall to retire after 37 years at the agency, less than a year after Gov. Nikki Haley took office. A senate committee that called the hearing put DNR board members under oath and peppered them with questions about their role in Frampton’s departure, as well as the future direction of the wildlife agency under pro-business Haley.

Frampton, credited with bringing the state more than $90 million in federal funds for wildlife habitat protection, said Rhodes asked him to resign on behalf of the board. But Rhodes said she only wanted to know about his retirement plans. Details of his departure first erupted at a December DNR board meeting.

Among the new details that emerged Wednesday:

DNR board member Mike Hutchins said the board would have voted to oust Frampton if the matter had needed formal action. Hutchins and board members Cary Chastain and Randy Lowe said they were concerned about Frampton’s performance, in part because of his travel schedule. Chastain said he understood the chairwoman would be talking to Frampton about those concerns when they met in late October. But Rhodes said she never planned to voice the concerns, only discuss Frampton’s retirement plans.

DNR board members said under oath they were concerned about Frampton’s heavy travel schedule. Hutchins also said he was concerned because morale in the agency was bad and the department had been decimated by budget cuts.

Frampton’s notes indicate he believes Haley’s office was behind the push to force his resignation. The notes, made after his meeting with Rhodes and provided to senators, said his travels were likely “the excuse for asking for my resignation.” The notes said Frampton would “assume the governor’s office is involved?” and that “something is not right.” But his notes said previous boards had encouraged travel to represent the agency and build relationships.

DNR board members conceded under questioning that they gave a misleading evaluation last fall of Frampton’s performance, saying he’d done an excellent job – even as they privately talked about Frampton’s future. Rhodes said glowing evaluations were agency practice to help gain funds and a higher salary for Frampton.

It was Rhodes’ request to McShane not to represent the DNR about the Savannah port decision that appeared to most concern some senators.

Grooms said the DNR, by law, is supposed to comment on environmental permit decisions proposed by DHEC, such as with the port dredging. And sometimes, the agencies are at odds, which is healthy, he said. About two decades ago, the DNR even sued DHEC over continued operation of a hazardous waste landfill on Lake Marion.

“To say that if DNR disagrees with another agency, the DNR needs to be quiet about it is a problem,” Grooms said. “When they know something, it’s their job to speak out.”

The dredging approval has so incensed lawmakers that they have approved a resolution seeking to suspend DHEC’s authority on Savannah River dredging decisions. Haley must decide whether to veto the legislation.

Wednesday’s discussion comes amid concerns about changes at the DNR under Haley, whose spokesman said recently the board wants the department to go in a different direction. Haley has installed a majority of new board members at the DNR and at DHEC as she seeks to make South Carolina departments more business friendly.

Conservationists and a number of lawmakers say the DNR has operated as a watchdog for the state’s environment and they don’t want to see that mission compromised. Rhodes said the department does not want to change directions and has no mandate from Haley to do so.

Rhodes noted that the DNR also had not changed its position on the Savannah dredging project, only that McShane could not represent the DNR’s interests on the Maritime Commission because of legal liability. She said Frampton told her McShane could not speak for the DNR, but Frampton said it was Rhodes who gave the order not to speak.