Black tern, South Padre Island, Texas, 25 June 2010In this alleged advanced age we presume that all has been discovered, all is known. Why bother looking around your backyard or neighborhood or state when surely scientists and naturalists have covered all of the angles? What could possibly be new to find?
If you live on or around the Gulf of Mexico, particularly that segment in Texas, the answer is everything. Consider the black tern. Black terns are a marsh-nesting bird, breeding in the Northern American interior away from the coasts. This tern is a migrant along our Gulf coast, thus we only see them as they come or go. Fall flocks can number in the tens of thousands, and such aggregations have been noted at tidal flats such as San Luis Pass for over a century.
Yet in mid-summer, for example late June, black terns are found in sizable numbers along our coast. They do not breed here. They do not winter here. These are nonbreeders, mostly young birds, that migrate only as far north as the Gulf before settling in for the season.
Black tern, South Padre Island, Texas, 25 June 2010As I said, most are young birds, the product of last year’s breeding season. But this is not always the case. On 25 June I counted over 300 black terns feeding around the South Padre Island jetties (Texas). Most were what I presume to be second-year birds, but several (perhaps 1 out of 15 or 20) were in immaculate breeding plumage. Are these failed breeders? Are these early migrants (which I sincerely doubt)? Or is there something else at work here, something that we have yet to learn or to understand?
With the Gulf Gusher still spewing offshore, wouldn’t it be important to know how many of these black terns are summering along our coast? This tern is a Category 2 Candidate for the U.S. Endangered Species List, and is either listed or is being closely monitored in states along its southern breeding range. Surely these young birds are important to the future of the species, and they are, at this moment, at risk.
The well still gushes, the tropics are threatening, and BP and their apologists are still obfuscating. Not all apologists work for BP or the private sector. Many reside in Congress. The extent of the damage will unfold over years. Any NRDA (National Resource Damage Assessment) at this point will be preliminary. Tragically, this is a work in progress, and Congress appears to be willing to wait.
Here is the bad news (there is nothing new about Congress being bad). BP cannot return the Gulf to its former state. I can only hope that, with time, the Gulf will heal itself. Let’s also consider the condition of the Gulf before this blow out. Dead zones off the Mississippi delta, rapidly eroding wetlands along the Louisiana coast, and three hurricanes (Katrina, Rita, and Ike) left the Gulf on life support. We need to think beyond triage.
Let’s begin with demographics. Currently around 14 million Americans live in Gulf coast counties, a number less than 5% of the U.S. population. Even that number is misleading, though. This estimate includes Harris County, Texas, and Houston. The Florida Gulf counties include Hillsborough and the city of Tampa. Without those two metropolitan areas (and leaving New Orleans and Corpus Christi in the mix) the Gulf population is minuscule and easily dismissed by the rest of the country.
Without population, the region has little political power. With much of its economy in the hands of non-Gulf companies (such as BP), the region has little economic clout. Populated by a dazzling (and eclectic) diversity of cultures and ethnicities, the region has no single voice (or single language) to speak to its concerns. The Gulf gives food, transportation, energy, and entertainment, and in return gets dead zones and oil spills.
What if BP’s oil now fouled the beaches of Long Island or the Hamptons? What if the Palos Verdes peninsula or the San Diego beaches were awash in this black goo? The nation has chosen to protect the Pacific and Atlantic coasts while laying waste to the Gulf.
On the afternoon of January 29, 1969, an environmental nightmare began in Santa Barbara, California. A Union Oil Co. platform stationed six miles off the coast of Summerland suffered a blowout. Oil workers had drilled a well down 3500 feet below the ocean floor. Riggers began to retrieve the pipe in order to replace a drill bit when the “mud” used to maintain pressure became dangerously low. A natural gas blowout occurred. An initial attempt to cap the hole was successful but led to a tremendous buildup of pressure. The expanding mass created five breaks in an east-west fault on the ocean floor, releasing oil and gas from deep beneath the earth.
For eleven days, oil workers struggled to cap the rupture. During that time, 200,000 gallons of crude oil bubbled to the surface and was spread into a 800 square mile slick by winds and swells. Incoming tides brought the thick tar to beaches from Rincon Point to Goleta, marring 35 miles of coastline. Beaches with off-shore kelp forests were spared the worst as kelp fronds kept most of the tar from coming ashore. The slick also moved south, tarring Anacapa Island’s Frenchy’s Cove and beaches on Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa and San Miguel Islands.
Only days after the spill began, Get Oil Out (GOO) was founded in Santa Barbara. Founder Bud Bottoms urged the public to cut down on driving, burn oil company credit cards and boycott gas stations associated with offshore drilling companies. Volunteers helped the organization gather 100,000 signatures on a petition banning offshore oil drilling. While drilling was only halted temporarily, laws were passed to strengthen offshore drilling regulations. Union Oil suffered millions in losses from the clean-up efforts, payments to fishermen and local businesses, and lawsuit settlements. But maybe worse, the reputation of the oil industry was forever tarnished.
U.S. President Richard Nixon said that “it is sad that it was necessary that Santa Barbara should be the example that had to bring it to the attention of the American people. What is involved is the use of our resources of the sea and of the land in a more effective way and with more concern for preserving the beauty and the natural resources that are so important to any kind of society that we want for the future. The Santa Barbara incident has frankly touched the conscience of the American people.”
A year later the nation celebrated the first Earth Day. The Nixon administration began to initiate the most sweeping environmental regulations in the nation’s history. One can argue that the Santa Barbara spill gave birth to the nation’s environmental movement. The Santa Barbara spill totaled 200,000 gallons, while the Gulf gusher already has spewed between 40 and 80 million gallons into the Gulf. But does anyone expect a cathartic uprising this time?
Louisiana isn’t California, is it? Isn’t it interesting that in all of the bitching about New Orleans after Katrina (the people don’t want to help themselves, the city shouldn’t be rebuilt below sea level, all Louisiana politicians are corrupt), no one took the time to consider the nation without the Gulf, without the Port of New Orleans, without the Mississippi River transportation corridor, without the oil and its products that fuel the rest of the nation.
Between the nation and its raw greed is the Gulf. Between the Gulf and the nation is a cultural “gulf,” a socio-economic chasm. Subject to the malevolence of greed is nature, forever the victim.
Corrupted by wealth and power, your government is like a restaurant with only one dish. They’ve got a set of Republican waiters on one side and a set of Democratic waiters on the other side. But no matter which set of waiters brings you the dish, the legislative grub is all prepared in the same Wall Street kitchen. – Huey Long
There are examples from the past to consider. In the early 1900s fashionable women in the northeast demanded plumes and feathers for their hats. Egrets, herons, spoonbills and their kin were slaughtered along the Gulf coast by the countless numbers so that the feather merchants could supply this demand. The conservation movement began in the swamps of Florida and Louisiana, where lone wardens funded by the National Audubon Society and the American Ornithological Union fought (and died) to protect Teddy Roosevelt’s first refuges from the pillagers.
Ironically, less than a century later the National Audubon Society began oil and gas development in its Paul J. Rainey Sanctuary in coastal Louisiana. According to PERC, “since the early 1950s, 37 wells have pumped natural gas (and a small amount of oil) at various times from Audubon’s Paul J. Rainey Sanctuary, a 26,000-acre preserve at the edge of the Intracoastal Waterway and Vermillion Bay in Louisiana. These wells have produced more than $25 million in revenues for the Society.” There is a lesson in that irony, one that the early Audubon movement would not have ignored.
Actions deferred are all too often opportunities lost, particularly in safeguarding our natural resources. I urge the enactment of this proposal at the earliest possible date so that a further significant step may be taken to assure the availability and accessibility of land and water-based recreation opportunities for all Americans — President John Kennedy, 1962 letter to Congress
Flash forward to the early 1960s. Acting on the wishes of the recently assassinated president, Congress established the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in 1965. The Act designated that a portion of receipts from offshore oil and gas leases be placed into a fund annually for state and local conservation, as well as for the protection of our national treasures (parks, forest and wildlife areas).
Although authorized at $900 million from revenues generated from federal offshore oil royalties, the LWCF has only been fully funded once. More than $16 billion remains in the Fund on paper as an unspent balance, but has been diverted to the federal treasury. The demand for such funding has dramatically increased since the 1960s, yet this fund, established for this expressed purpose, remains gutted.
The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods. — HL Mencken
Congress clearly indicated that the new Federal program should have a lasting effect on the supply of recreation sites and facilities by requiring that sites assisted be added permanently to the national recreation estate. As a result, Section 6(f)(3) of the Act states unequivocally that grant-assisted areas are to remain forever available for “public outdoor recreation use,” or be replaced by lands of equal market value and recreation usefulness.
Initially, three sources of revenue to the fund were designated: proceeds from sales of surplus Federal real property, motorboat fuel taxes and fees for recreation use of Federal lands. The level of funding from FY 1966 through FY 1968 reached about $100 million per year, which was far short of Congress’ expectations. To remedy this shortfall, it was proposed that Outer Continental shelf (OCS) mineral leasing receipts be tapped. In 1968, P.L. 90-401 raised the Fund’s level to $200 million a year for five years, beginning in FY 1969, making OCS revenues available to cover the difference between this minimum level and receipts from other sources.
By 1970, growing demands on the Fund led to enactment of P.L. 91- 485, which increased the LWCF again to a $300 million annual level from FY 1971 through FY 1989. This amendment reveals that Congress’ perception of needs for the Fund program had expanded in three ways: the State grant program should give more emphasis to urban parks and recreation areas; the grant program should help acquire and develop recreation facilities within urban areas, not just nearby; and the Federal side of the Fund program should also contribute to meeting close-to-home recreation needs.
The Fund’s increase in authorized funding to its current level came with enactment of P.L. 95-42 in June 1977, which increased the LWCF to $900 million for FY 1978 and subsequent years. Congress also enacted P.L. 95-625, which created, among other things, the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR), as a complement to the LWCF program. This program encouraged local governments to rehabilitate existing recreation facilities, demonstrate innovative programs, and plan for overall revitalization of community recreation systems.
Since 1965, funding for the grants program has averaged approximately $100 million per year, with a peak of $369 million in 1979. In the last 20 years, annual appropriations have decreased to a low of zero funding in 1982 and 1996-1999. However, as a direct by-product of the effort to enact the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, the drought ended in FY 2000 with appropriations that ranged from $140 million in FY 2002 to $28.3 million in FY 2006.
The LWCF is intended to use offshore lease revenue to fund recreation and conservation projects throughout the nation. Since its inception Congress and the various administrations (Democrat and Republican alike) have viewed this fund as one of those sources of revenue to raid. The Obama administration, for example, budgeted less than half of the authorized $900 million for FY 2009. And while the funding appropriated is shared with the entire nation, the damage is generally limited to the Gulf.
The policy changes needed are simple. First, raise the LWCF appropriation to no less than $1 billion annually. Second, pass legislation to permanently fund the LWCF, insulating the fund from raids. Third, expand the LWCF by dedicating additional OCS revenues to conservation and recreation efforts in the Gulf states. Fourth, appropriate the LWCF funds that previously were authorized but not spent (around $13 billion) for a one-time “get right with God” appropriation. Give priority to the Gulf states, and remove the matching-fund requirement for stateside grants in this one-time appropriation. As now structured, the LWCF requires matching funds from local grantees, insuring that the poorest will continue to remain without.
The LWCF is not a true trust fund in the way “trust fund” is generally understood in the private sector. The fund is credited with revenues totaling to $900 million annually, but Congress must authorize appropriations; if appropriations are not made from the fund, the revenues remain in the U.S. Treasury and can be spent for other federal activities. If these funds are spent for other activities, no interest is accrued in the LWCF account. In addition, because the fund goes through the annual appropriations process, the funds are subject to earmarks and other more precise directions from Congress each year.
“Deposits” to the LWCF are thus, in effect, only an authorization of expenditures that accumulate if the funds are not appropriated. Through FY2001, the total amount that could have been appropriated over the years was $24.5 billion, but only $11.4 billion has been appropriated.
The OCS lands are the property of all citizens of this country. The damage being done is restricted to a few. A law is already in place to begin to make this right, the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Now is the time for this administration and Congress to atone for the sins of the past, and to begin the long, painful process of recovery. Now is the time to finally make good on the promise.
There is a new page on the BirdSpert blog – Avitourism Research. There I have provided links to many of our research reports and surveys, as well as to the macro-level surveys such as the NSRE, the USFWS, and the Outdoor Foundation. Soon I will post a crib sheet of important bullet points, as well as PowerPoint with voice that can be used by you to argue about the importance of birding and bird conservation. Stay tuned.
We have added a new page to the Fermata weblog – Avitourism and Birding. This page details our work in birding, and provides links to both our research articles and reports as well as to the various macro-level surveys of birders (NSRE, USFWS, Outdoor Foundation). In the next few weeks we will post a “crib sheet” with bullet points that every birder and conservationist should know, as well as a PowerPoint with voice that can be used to argue the economic case for bird conservation.
The first decade of the millennium is past. How will those ten years be remembered? WW II is the 1940s, the cultural revolution is the 1960s, a roaring economy is the 1920s. How will we label the 2010s?
For many 9/11 will be the moment that brands the decade. Perhaps the wars in the Middle East will give 9/11 a run for its money, although all of these events bleed together, literally. For many, though, I suspect that the decade is the period when we were all greened.
This nation (and world) has passed through conservation eras before. The late 1890s and early 1900s were Roosevelt years. In nine short years Theodore Roosevelt (with help from Pinchot, Garfield, and Lacy) set aside over 230 million acres and established the standard for the world (I should mention, though, that Grant preserved Yellowstone, creating the world’s first national park). The early 1970s brought the environmental years, with Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring spurring the movement to clean our air and water. We often forget that it was President Nixon who brought about the Clear Water Act, Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and NEPA.
How ironic that the two most momentous periods in Amiercan conservation and environmental history were guided by Republican presidents. Times do change.
In most cases these eras can be tied to a single or series of catalyzing events. The 1929 Wall Street collapse, Pearl Harbor, the Selma march, the Tet offensive, and 9/11 were prelude to immense social and political change. In the case of 9/11, we are still in the midst of that shift.
Conservationists and environmentalists have similar cataclysmic events to point to. The Cuyahoga River Fire in 1969, Love Canal, the first Earth Day, and Three Mile Island all led to significant changes in public perception and policy. I still remember W. Eugene Smith’s vivid images in Life Magazine showing the effects of mercury poisoning in Minamata, Japan. Humans often need a dramatic event to crystallize the issues that are otherwise amorphous and poorly defined. The current lack of public concern about global climate change is a perfect example. Perhaps when Manhattan or Miami goes under the public will finally take note.
By “greened” I am referring to the popularization of environmental concerns. “Green” is a marketing term, a way of branding a product or act. A brand may well be a promise, but that promise is not always kept. In this past decade PR, marketing, and company flacks convinced the county (and the world) that a new age of sustainability had arrived. And, as with so much of marketing, no one actually took the time to look beyond these promises to see actual proof. Remember, in the green decade British Petroleum morphed into Beyond Petroleum. Now we see the proof that belies that claim in the Gulf of Mexico.
Let’s look past the hype and to the numbers. According to a recent article in New Scientist “the average fuel efficiency of the US vehicle fleet has risen by just 3 miles per gallon since the days of the Ford Model T, and has barely shifted at all since 1991.”
These are the conclusions reached by Michael Sivak and Omer Tsimhoni at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute in Ann Arbor. They analysed the fuel efficiency of the entire US vehicle fleet of cars, motorcycles, trucks and buses from 1923 to 2006. Progress has stalled since then, though, despite growing environmental concerns. From 1991 to 2006 the average efficiency improved by only 1.8 per cent to 17.2 mpg (7.31 km/l).
The average size of a North American suburban home in 1950 was 800 sq ft, in 1970 it was 1500 sq ft, and in 2000 it was 2266 sq ft. According to the US Census Bureau, the average size of a US home as of 2006 is 2,469 square feet. In the same period, the average household size (number of people) dropped from 3.54 to around 2.5. Houses grow larger, and families grow smaller. Here is another scrap to remember – since at least 2005, there have been more TVs per household on average than people per household. I guess we need the TV’s to fill that extra space.
Surely public involvement in environmental issues is an area that showed an increase during the green decade? Here are the numbers. Gallup Poll 2010
The latest Gallup survey shows a decline in the percentage of people who are active in or sympathetic toward the environmental movement, and a doubling of those who are unsympathetic. Yes, environmental supporters still outnumber opponents by a wide margin, but wouldn’t we have expected growth in the age of green?
Even more dramatic is the decrease in the percentage of the American public that believes that the environmental movement is doing more harm than good.
Gallup survey, perceived impact
We rail about the oil industry, yet refuse to take the steps necessary to dramatically raise the average fleet mileage (and a CAFE standard of 34.1 by 2016 is hardly dramatic). We have smaller families to feed yet larger houses to heat, cool, and decorate. We buy green, yet act gray. What gives?
Let’s begin with awareness. Just how aware are Americans about the details of our environmental challenges? Young adults today are among the first to have taken environmental education classes (they were certainly absent when I attended school). We now have environmental learning centers, environmental educators, environmental tv channels, environmental cartoon shows, and environmental organizations constantly pushing environmental education. Shouldn’t we see a higher level of environmental knowledge and literacy than in the past?
But for most Americans, it [environmental literacy] falls far short. Most people accumulate a diverse and unconnected smattering of factoids, a few (sometimes incorrect) principles, numerous opinions, and very little real understanding. Research shows that most Americans believe they know more about the environment than they actually do. For example, 45 million Americans think the ocean is a source of fresh water; 120 million think spray cans still have CFCs in them even though CFCs were banned in 1978; another 120 million people think disposable diapers are the leading problem with landfills when they actually represent about 1% of the problem; and 130 million believe that hydropower is America’s top energy source, when it accounts for just 10% of the total. It is also why very few people understand the leading causes of air and water pollution or how they should be addressed…NEETF, Roper
If Americans struggle with the details, green marketers are more than willing to gloss over the facts for them. According to the American Marketing Association, green marketing is the marketing of products that are presumed to be environmentally safe. But what do they mean by presumed? What is safe? Who is sitting in judgment about what is or is not “green?” The auto industry gave Americans SUVs and Hummers splashing through wetlands on your television set while killing the electric car. The same industry has opposed meaningful CAFE standards since first considered. Exxon may donate to an environmental group, but then gives millions to global warming deniers. Check this for more information about greenwashing, and this older (but still germane) article about green marketing.
This is not to say that green marketing, PR, and communications can’t contribute. I will argue that given the American public’s penchant to buy what is being hawked, green marketing and communications could be a powerful voice and force for good. But to be such a force for good, marketers will need to be accurate, honest, and transparent. In other words, don’t use BP as the model for honest green PR.
Being greened, though, involves more than outside forces (the industries and their marketers). More importantly, we, the public, must be complicit for greenwashing to work. We have to suspend common sense and buy into the shtick.
Americans have been led to believe (and are willing to follow) that change can happen without sacrifice. To even mention sacrifice in American politics is certain death. We do not mention raising taxes (we fight our wars on credit), we do not talk about dramatic changes in transportation systems (we offer virtually meaningless mileage standards), and we want to keep our automobile culture without sacrificing clean beaches and safe seafood. We want all for nothing.
Here is an analogy. Drug consumption in the U.S. is well on its way to destroying a neighboring country – Mexico. Without our consumption, there is no drug war. Gas consumption in this U.S. works the same way, and its reach is global. The oil spilling onto our Gulf beaches is like cocaine washing ashore in Florida.
In this confusing, conflictive time, Americans are looking to their leaders for guidance. In the past, we have found answers from our clergy, elected officials, and the press. Now the clergy is either muted by scandal, or is itself politicized by social campaigners that link abortion, gay marriage, and the environment. The traditional press, the 4th Estate, is in economic meltdown, and environmental writers are an endangered species themselves. Want proof? After a 14-year run, Columbia has suspended its environmental journalism program. Congress has always been relatively easy to influence, but with increased campaign spending access is becoming even easier to buy. If you doubt this, just check campaign donations from the oil industry.
Who is left? What about advocacy groups, the nonprofits that campaign for social change? Remember that perfect storm? The green groups, I fear, have contributed to this blow up as well.
In the 1970’s groups such as the Sierra Club were instrumental in forcing the environmental legislation that shifted both American policy and perception. Losing their tax exempt status in those early skirmishes, the Sierra Club continues today with a concerted political effort. However, most environmental and conservation groups now steer clear of advocacy. In part this is due to their 501 (c) 3 IRS status which restricts political activity. But even in areas where they are able to act most have chosen not to. Why?
Perhaps in part this failure to act is because the environmental movement has calcified, and become unable to march to the front. I suspect in part it is due to an honest desire to avoid confrontation, to be “good citizens.” I also believe that in part the green groups quickly embrace those initiatives that are conflict free, and avoid those that may entail blood on the carpets. Notice how many green groups have rushed to the Last Child in the Woods campaign, a feel-warm-all-over effort if ever there was one. Of course we want our kids and grandkids to grow up with an appreciation for nature and the outdoors. But, honestly, will issues such as the Deepwater Horizon gulf gusher wait for 4th graders to be able to vote? And, more importantly, is there any proof that this environmental education effort will be any more effective than those of the past?
In the U.S. there are over 1 million 501 (c) 3 charity organizations, one for every 300 American men, women, and children. Between 1998 and 2008 the number of these organizations grew by over 64%. Of course not all are conservation groups (many are churches and religious groups), but the growth is remarkable nevertheless. In the environmental world, nonadvocacy organizations such as land conservancies and land trusts have enjoyed spectacular growth as well. We now have more and more groups competing for what is generally a same-sized pie. To survive, many have chosen to focus on local land and planning initiatives, and avoid politics. Even international groups such as The Nature Conservancy prefer to stand back from political advocacy. As a result we have more green groups and fewer green acolytes.
Of course all of these groups are desperate for funding, and many of the extractive industries (oil and gas, timber, mining) have responded by filling some of the gap. BP has donated millions to The Nature Conservancy, and ConocoPhillips has supported Audubon and conservation efforts around the country. Perhaps they are simply being good corporate citizens. But in an essay published in the Wall Street Journal, the influential neoconservative Irving Kristol counseled that “corporate philanthropy should not be, and cannot be, disinterested,” but should serve as a means “to shape or reshape the climate of public opinion.”
Most of the groups will deny (testily, I might add) any link between the money they receive and the purity (as one recently put it) of the mission. Perhaps. But an exchange between a donor and a recipient involves at least an implied quid pro quo. The company donates money, and receives, in turn, at least the good will and good name of the recipient. And, of course, those “good names” have been more than helpful in greening the American public.
Edward Abbey said, “the idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders.” At no time in my life has this been more true. The Gulf gusher shows that no matter how much land you conserve, you can never buy enough. If you could buy enough, you can never adequately protect it from the outside world. Isolationism does not work in international policy or conservation. The defenders of nature must be advocates, engaged in a political system that makes decisions daily (such as whether or not to exempt a proposed well from an EIS) that directly impact the resources we strive to protect.
As Zaradic, Pergams, and Kareiva recently noted, “Ultimately, the fate of biodiversity and intact ecosystems may depend less on rates of habitat loss or invasive species, than on public perception of whether conservation should be supported at all.” In order to stem this tide of change, the green groups will need to slip outside of their skins and embrace their neighbors rather than just their fellow members and donors.
Abraham Lincoln said that “public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed.” The environmental movement must reenlist the public, and invite both their involvement and their sentiment. Perhaps the existing structures should be altered. Shellenberger and Nordhaus, in The Death of Environmentalism, argued that “above all else, we need to take a hard look at the institutions the movement has built over the last 30 years. Are existing environmental institutions up to the task of imagining the post-global warming world? Or do we now need a set of new institutions founded around a more expansive vision and set of values?”
Whatever is needed, the change will be forced from the outside rather than come from inside the current structure. Can the Tea Party be the only current movement that understands the power of grassroots activism? Shellenberger and Nordhaus believe that “we need to take an urgent step backwards before we can take two steps forward.” If this step backwards is one returning the movement to the basic concepts of public engagement and grassroots organizing, then I agree. Absent strong political (particularly presidential) leadership, there is no other choice.
Ted Eubanks
Austin and Galveston, Texas
14 June 2010
