Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Will Disaster Relief Come Through for North Carolina’s Small Farms?

News Feed
Wednesday, November 27, 2024

When Hurricane Helene ripped through North Carolina this September, Nicole DelCogliano sheltered with her two daughters in Asheville, while her husband rode out the storm alone on their 16-acre organic vegetable farm, Green Toe Ground, in nearby Yancey County. After the storm subsided, DelCogliano fretted for hours until finally a text came through from an unknown number: “Farm flooded,” her husband, Gaelan Corozine, wrote. “I’m safe. Love you.” The next day, Corozine—who drove over 50 miles of washed-out roads to reunite with his family—told them that everything was gone. Green Toe Ground farm in Yancey County, North Carolina, after Hurricane Helene. (Photo courtesy of Green Toe Ground) “We were all hugging and sobbing together,” DelCogliano later recalled, her voice quavering. Road closures blocked their return to the farm, so the family hiked over hills and hitched rides. Arriving there felt like seeing the aftermath of an earthquake, DelCogliano said. “The whole landscape was different, trees everywhere . . . barn rubble everywhere, our van on the side of the road and the tunnels a mess of plastic and metal.” Green Toe Ground Farm is nestled into a bend of the South Toe River, which crested at 30 feet above its normal height during Helene, inundating the farm. When the river ebbed from their fields, it took all their crops, scoured the topsoil from one field, and left sand deposits in two others. The storm destroyed their four high tunnels, two utility buildings, and barn. It swept away the potatoes, winter squash, and dried flowers for wreath-making, stored in the barn, and their 20-year-old horse, Star Darling, which they found wrapped in barbed wire and badly injured. Their home, which is set back from the river, was spared, though many neighbors weren’t so lucky, DelCogliano said. DelCogliano estimates they lost 30 percent of their annual revenue because the farm was fully planted. The infrastructure will cost $150,000 to replace, and tree removal and land grading will add further costs. All told, the storm will cost the family roughly $300,000. Green Toe Ground is one of many small, diversified farms serving local markets in western North Carolina that was devastated by Hurricane Helene. The full extent of regional agricultural damages is unknown, but “many [farms] have had 50 to 100 percent of their crops wiped out, infrastructure destroyed, and lots of topsoil loss and soil contamination from the flooding,” said Aaron Johnson, co-director of policy at the Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA (RAFI). Farmers who didn’t lose everything are struggling to find markets for crops that were spared.   “Every farm in our network will be impacted by the storm, either by direct damage or through loss of market outlets,” said Sarah Hart, communications coordinator at Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project (ASAP), a membership organization with 900 farms and 400 food businesses. A Limited Federal Safety Net In the storm’s immediate aftermath, neighbors offered DelCogliano a lifeline. “People came together to clear the roads, bring out chainsaws . . . help each other navigate basic food and water,” she said. “The only thing we had was each other.” Vermont farmers lost $44 million due to extreme weather in 2023, but received only $1.5 million in USDA relief funds. Over the short term, western North Carolina’s tight-knit food and farming community is helping farmers recover. RAFI, ASAP, and other groups are offering small grants and helping connect farmers to markets for products not destroyed by the flood, including relief organizations. Other organizations are raising money to pay farmers who have been donating products to relief groups. Wendy Burgh, co-owner of Dry Ridge Farm, a small poultry and livestock operation in Mars Hill, North Carolina, donated $4,000 worth of eggs the first week after the storm and was later repaid by Farm Connection. “Getting paid was a game changer, both emotionally and for the financial stability of the farm,” she said. Over the longer term, however, North Carolina farmers face a limited safety net to help them recoup losses and rebuild their operations. Charitable aid can only go so far. Some state aid is available for farmers, but the bulk of disaster assistance comes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) covers personal losses only. Yet there are many obstacles to obtaining USDA relief, including onerous paperwork, low payouts, coverage exclusions, and a shortage of staff. Also, some of the agency’s emergency relief funds depend on ad hoc congressional approval, which means payments can arrive years after a disaster. What’s more, USDA’s federal crop insurance, commodity support, and disaster relief programs were designed for, and largely benefit, big commodity-crop growers. “Most farmers in the United States are small or mid-sized family farmers, but these are the producers that are left behind from the USDA programs that are supposed to help in the aftermath of disaster,” said Billy Hackett, a policy specialist at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) and author of the report “Unsustainable: State of the Farm Safety Net.” Navigating USDA’s Relief Programs It’s still early days for USDA’s response to North Carolina’s disaster. The experience of Vermont farmers after epic flooding in 2023 and 2024, however, offers a window into the shortcomings of a federal disaster relief system that may be further weakened under a second Trump administration. Vermont farmers lost $44 million due to extreme weather in 2023, but received only $1.5 million in USDA relief funds, according to the Vermont Agricultural Recovery Task Force. What’s more, only 30 percent of the state’s 6,800 farms carry crop insurance. Ansel Ploog, co-owner of Flywheel Farm in Woodbury, Vermont, standing at the edge of the creek that swelled in 2023, taking all of the farm’s crops. (Photo credit: Meg Wilcox) For small farmers in the wake of disaster, getting USDA relief can be daunting—especially when they’re coping with traumatic loss. Trauma can lead to cognitive impairment, lack of concentration, and difficulty with problem solving or even just reading complex forms, noted Ansel Ploog, co-owner of Flywheel Farm in Woodbury, Vermont, which flooded in 2023. Ploog said she was too exhausted by the paperwork requirements, which were hard to translate to her two-acre farm, and hardship in her community, to apply for relief. “The harder part [of recovery] is navigating all the resources,” DelCogliano said. “I felt paralyzed every time I opened my computer, like, let me go drag some shit around. It’s way easier.” “There’s no one in this area who isn’t traumatized in some way,” said Wendy Brugh, co-owner of Dry Ridge Farm, a small poultry and livestock operation in Mars Hill, North Carolina, whose farm lost a hoop house and much of its fencing. Her biggest problem has been finding ongoing markets for the thousands of eggs her farm produces daily. “Being in the presence of that kind of destruction [in the community] on a regular basis is heavy.” Farmer support organizations are helping farmers with USDA paperwork and deadlines—but they can only do so much, notes Roland McReynolds, executive director of Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, which compiled a comprehensive listing of relief resources for farmers. The USDA held webinars last month to explain its relief programs, noting on October 7 that it had embedded staff with FEMA and had more than 200 people involved in the response. “We’re looking for ways that we can streamline, that we can enhance our flexibility to get folks in, that we can reduce barriers . . . to make it easier for folks to take advantage of our programs,” said Robert Bonnie, USDA’s Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation. While that’s encouraging, Maddie Kempner, policy and organizing director at the Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA) Vermont cautions, “the availability of a lot of these [USDA] programs ends up being like a mirage,”  because farmers learn that exclusions make them ineligible, or the payouts are too small to make the applications worth the trouble. Federal programs that can help smaller, diversified farms recover from extreme weather include the noninsured crop disaster assistance program (NAP) and the Whole Farm Revenue Protection program (WFRP). For both, farmers must be enrolled before disaster strikes. USDA also offers cost-share programs for needs such as land cleanup and tree removal, and for losses in livestock, feed, and grazing land. Emergency loans are sometimes available, too. Farmers access all these programs, except WFRP, through USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) network. The Noninsured Crop Disaster Program (NAP) NAP is a hybrid crop insurance and disaster assistance program designed for farmers unable to access traditional crop insurance, which is geared for big farms. It offers free basic coverage for new and socially disadvantaged farmers, including women. But NAP has been relatively under-enrolled in western North Carolina, said McReynolds. “Anticipating a one in 100-, 500- or 30,000-year flooding event just wasn’t on folks’ radar.” Moreover, crops must be planted before certain dates under NAP, and those dates don’t match up with southern Appalachian crop seasons. Green Toe Ground did not have NAP protection. The program requires farmers to enroll each crop individually, which is a burden for farmers like DelCogliano, who grows 30 different organic vegetables and raises a few animals to create compost for soil health. “The most cumbersome aspect with diversified vegetable farming is, it’s hard to fit into the USDA boxes,” she said. Other farmers have had mixed experience with NAP. Digger’s Mirth Collective Farm in Winooski, Vermont, for example, lost $250,000 in revenue after 2023’s massive floods, but thus far has been reimbursed only $1,300, according to Hilary Martin, one of its members. “I spent so many hours, I had literal back pains from the paperwork involved in submitting all our crop information and losses,” she said. After the farm flooded again in July 2024, Martin said the collective decided not to bother filing a claim until their FSA agent urged them to file. But when Martin filed for 2024 losses, she learned they weren’t eligible because they had replanted before their agent visited the farm. “We were just way more aggressive about replanting,” this year, she said. While they had taken pictures and documented everything they had done, they had violated the terms of coverage. That means they will not receive any reimbursements from USDA for their 2024 losses. Instead, they have relied on state and local charitable funds. Having to wait for an FSA agent to visit your farm makes it that much harder when the staffing at those offices is minimal, said Kempner. USDA has waived that requirement for farmers impacted by Helene. David Marchant, co-owner of River Berry Farm in Fairfax, Vermont, a diversified vegetable and fruit grower, makes NAP work for him, which he receives for free. “The federal programs are good,” he said. “[But] they’re very, very slow. The amount of paperwork is extraordinary. You got to know how to figure it out.” Whole Farm Revenue Protection The Whole Farm Revenue Protection program (WFRP) was created in part to address NAP shortcomings. It allows farmers to enroll in crop insurance based on their overall revenue rather than on a crop-by-crop basis. Nevertheless, participation remains low, with only 1,967 U.S. farmers (.01 percent of farms) purchasing a policy in 2023. Complicated rules and paperwork, farmer skepticism, and disinterested insurance agents who make more money from policies covering one or two crops on large farms discourage farmers from enrolling, according to the NSAC report. Crop losses also have to be substantial for a payout to make a difference, noted Marchant. Tiny Bridge farm in Hendersonville, North Carolina, before Hurricane Helene. (Photo courtesy of Ed Graves) DelCogliano was not covered by WFRP, which is not uncommon in western North Carolina. In fact, less than five percent of the farmers in ASAP’s network are covered by any crop insurance, said Hart. Ed Graves, however, was motivated to purchase the coverage after experiencing bad flooding on his Hendersonville farm in  2021. His five-acre organic vegetable farm, Tiny Bridge, lost all its fall plantings to Hurricane Helene—broccoli, cauliflower, potatoes, leafy greens, carrots, radishes, and turnips. He pays $1,500 annually to carry WFRP and hopes to be reimbursed $10,000 from it, based on his earnings the past three years. Tiny Bridge immediately after Hurricane Helene. (Photo courtesy of Ed Graves) “I know how to fill out paperwork,” he said. “Maybe it’s because I worked in civil service for 20 years, so I understand how to ask for what I need from a bureaucracy.” Cost-Sharing and Emergency Loans Several USDA disaster relief grant programs are a good fit for smaller farms, such as the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), both of which help farmers clean up and regrade disaster-impacted land. Neither of these programs covers the costs of soil testing or rebuilding, although farmers can seek assistance for longer-term soil health improvement, such as cover crop planting, through USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS). RAFI has been most successful helping farmers apply for ECP, Johnson said, noting that some farmers have already received preliminary approval for land clearing and grading work. They’ll be reimbursed for 75 percent of the costs up to a $125,000 cap, depending on their farm size, though it’s unclear how quickly they’ll receive that money. “While we cannot predict the exact timing of payments being issued, we can assure that every effort is made to provide the resources needed to get the assistance to those who need it as soon as possible,” a USDA spokesperson said in an email to Civil Eats. DelCogliano filed an application for ECP funds but has not yet received approval and does not know how much money the farm may receive. Brugh estimates it will cost $100,000 to get all the dangerous trees removed from her farm, and she is exploring multiple sources of funding, including ECP. For farmers who don’t have prior NAP or WFRP coverage, and whose major losses are crops, equipment or buildings, a USDA emergency loan is about all that is available to them. “It’s shocking for a farmer who has hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses, who has maybe had to lay off their entire crew, especially at the peak of harvest season, to be told all they can offer you is a loan,” Kempner said. USDA’s emergency loans become available when the agricultural secretary or president declares a disaster in their county, but these are historically underutilized, in part because they often have higher interest rates than USDA direct loans, a USDA spokesperson said in an email to Civil Eats. In other words, if a farmer qualifies for private credit, they are not eligible for a USDA emergency loan. For Joie Lehouillier, co-owner of Foote Brook Farm in Vermont, it “was a real kick in the teeth” to be told that her good relationship with a private lender disqualified her from a lower-interest USDA loan. Lehouillier’s farm lost 95 percent of its crops and more than half a million dollars in equipment and supplies in the 2023 floods, she said. “Even though we got a tremendous amount of help through [state funding], it’s going to be a struggle for the next few years to just get back on our feet,” especially with the high-interest debt, she added. The Farm Bill, the Future, and Prospects for Reform  In addition to the programs above, USDA provides supplemental emergency disaster funds to farmers when approved by Congress. Prior to the Biden Administration, that aid went only to farmers enrolled in a crop insurance or disaster program, leaving out most small farms. Congress has not yet appropriated such aid for 2023 or 2024 disasters. President Biden recently asked Congress to authorize $24 billion in emergency relief funds for USDA, appealing for that aid to reach all impacted farmers, including those not enrolled in a USDA program. Hackett told Civil Eats that there is considerable momentum to pass a relief bill, and that it’s “very possible” that the current Congress will authorize disaster assistance inclusive of all farmers. That possibility becomes “less likely” with the next Congress, Hackett said.  Advocates have proposed changes to the farm bill to make USDA’s safety net more inclusive of small farmers hit by extreme weather. But Congress will likely not pick up the bill until later in 2025. With Republicans regaining control of the U.S. Senate, Congress has bigger fish to fry, such as a tax overhaul package, Johnson said. In the meantime, a USDA spokesperson said, “the farm bill expiration does not impact the ability of FSA and NRCS to support producers impacted by hurricanes,” and that “hurricane recovery efforts will continue through the administration transition.” “There’s no one in this area who isn’t traumatized in some way.” Kempner, of NOFA Vermont, is pessimistic that a Republican farm bill will embrace the reforms that are needed to help small-scale, diversified farmers remain resilient in the face of climate change. She is also concerned about Trump’s history of withholding aid for communities that don’t support him politically. Nevertheless, she said, “It’s important that we’re talking to each other across state lines about the kinds of structural changes that we need to be pushing for long term,” such as the creation of a permanently available disaster relief program within USDA based on farm revenue and with a short turnaround of, say, 30 days. DelCogliano, meanwhile, awaits the results of soil tests to learn what remediation may be necessary as she plans how to rebuild Green Toe Ground. “It’s a lot of things to figure out—the barn, the greenhouses, all the systems.” On top of that, she has to figure out how to rebuild for resiliency to increasingly extreme weather. The whole riparian zone has changed, she said. “Any big rain event is going to be much higher impact than before, because there’s nothing on the sides of the rivers holding it [within] its banks anymore. What would a rebuild look like in a way that could mitigate risk? Where’s our safety valve?” Like many other farmers, DelCogliano and Corozine are waiting for USDA approval of their application for land cleanup reimbursements. Meanwhile, they’re relying on a personal GoFundMe account and local charitable aid to pay their bills. “I still don’t have an idea of what [federal support] is going to look like,” DelCogliano said. “And that’s challenging.” The post Will Disaster Relief Come Through for North Carolina’s Small Farms? appeared first on Civil Eats.

After the storm subsided, DelCogliano fretted for hours until finally a text came through from an unknown number: “Farm flooded,” her husband, Gaelan Corozine, wrote. “I’m safe. Love you.” The next day, Corozine—who drove over 50 miles of washed-out roads to reunite with his family—told them that everything was gone. “We were all hugging and […] The post Will Disaster Relief Come Through for North Carolina’s Small Farms? appeared first on Civil Eats.

When Hurricane Helene ripped through North Carolina this September, Nicole DelCogliano sheltered with her two daughters in Asheville, while her husband rode out the storm alone on their 16-acre organic vegetable farm, Green Toe Ground, in nearby Yancey County.

After the storm subsided, DelCogliano fretted for hours until finally a text came through from an unknown number: “Farm flooded,” her husband, Gaelan Corozine, wrote. “I’m safe. Love you.” The next day, Corozine—who drove over 50 miles of washed-out roads to reunite with his family—told them that everything was gone.

The aftermath of a flooded farm, with crops destroyed and wires hanging haphazardly

Green Toe Ground farm in Yancey County, North Carolina, after Hurricane Helene. (Photo courtesy of Green Toe Ground)

“We were all hugging and sobbing together,” DelCogliano later recalled, her voice quavering.

Road closures blocked their return to the farm, so the family hiked over hills and hitched rides. Arriving there felt like seeing the aftermath of an earthquake, DelCogliano said. “The whole landscape was different, trees everywhere . . . barn rubble everywhere, our van on the side of the road and the tunnels a mess of plastic and metal.”

Green Toe Ground Farm is nestled into a bend of the South Toe River, which crested at 30 feet above its normal height during Helene, inundating the farm. When the river ebbed from their fields, it took all their crops, scoured the topsoil from one field, and left sand deposits in two others. The storm destroyed their four high tunnels, two utility buildings, and barn.

It swept away the potatoes, winter squash, and dried flowers for wreath-making, stored in the barn, and their 20-year-old horse, Star Darling, which they found wrapped in barbed wire and badly injured. Their home, which is set back from the river, was spared, though many neighbors weren’t so lucky, DelCogliano said.

DelCogliano estimates they lost 30 percent of their annual revenue because the farm was fully planted. The infrastructure will cost $150,000 to replace, and tree removal and land grading will add further costs. All told, the storm will cost the family roughly $300,000.

Green Toe Ground is one of many small, diversified farms serving local markets in western North Carolina that was devastated by Hurricane Helene. The full extent of regional agricultural damages is unknown, but “many [farms] have had 50 to 100 percent of their crops wiped out, infrastructure destroyed, and lots of topsoil loss and soil contamination from the flooding,” said Aaron Johnson, co-director of policy at the Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA (RAFI). Farmers who didn’t lose everything are struggling to find markets for crops that were spared.

These eastern North Carolina counties were heavily impacted by Hurricane Helene in 2024. The map shows more than a dozen counties in eastern North Carolina, plus two farms included in the article, that were affected by the rains and flooding from the hurricane. (Source: Civil Eats research)

 

“Every farm in our network will be impacted by the storm, either by direct damage or through loss of market outlets,” said Sarah Hart, communications coordinator at Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project (ASAP), a membership organization with 900 farms and 400 food businesses.

A Limited Federal Safety Net

In the storm’s immediate aftermath, neighbors offered DelCogliano a lifeline. “People came together to clear the roads, bring out chainsaws . . . help each other navigate basic food and water,” she said. “The only thing we had was each other.”

Vermont farmers lost $44 million due to extreme weather in 2023, but received only $1.5 million in USDA relief funds.

Over the short term, western North Carolina’s tight-knit food and farming community is helping farmers recover. RAFI, ASAP, and other groups are offering small grants and helping connect farmers to markets for products not destroyed by the flood, including relief organizations.

Other organizations are raising money to pay farmers who have been donating products to relief groups. Wendy Burgh, co-owner of Dry Ridge Farm, a small poultry and livestock operation in Mars Hill, North Carolina, donated $4,000 worth of eggs the first week after the storm and was later repaid by Farm Connection. “Getting paid was a game changer, both emotionally and for the financial stability of the farm,” she said.

Over the longer term, however, North Carolina farmers face a limited safety net to help them recoup losses and rebuild their operations. Charitable aid can only go so far. Some state aid is available for farmers, but the bulk of disaster assistance comes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) covers personal losses only.

Yet there are many obstacles to obtaining USDA relief, including onerous paperwork, low payouts, coverage exclusions, and a shortage of staff. Also, some of the agency’s emergency relief funds depend on ad hoc congressional approval, which means payments can arrive years after a disaster.

What’s more, USDA’s federal crop insurance, commodity support, and disaster relief programs were designed for, and largely benefit, big commodity-crop growers. “Most farmers in the United States are small or mid-sized family farmers, but these are the producers that are left behind from the USDA programs that are supposed to help in the aftermath of disaster,” said Billy Hackett, a policy specialist at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) and author of the report “Unsustainable: State of the Farm Safety Net.”

Navigating USDA’s Relief Programs

It’s still early days for USDA’s response to North Carolina’s disaster. The experience of Vermont farmers after epic flooding in 2023 and 2024, however, offers a window into the shortcomings of a federal disaster relief system that may be further weakened under a second Trump administration. Vermont farmers lost $44 million due to extreme weather in 2023, but received only $1.5 million in USDA relief funds, according to the Vermont Agricultural Recovery Task Force. What’s more, only 30 percent of the state’s 6,800 farms carry crop insurance.

A woman wearing flannel and a cap is a farmer, standing in front of the woods

Ansel Ploog, co-owner of Flywheel Farm in Woodbury, Vermont, standing at the edge of the creek that swelled in 2023, taking all of the farm’s crops. (Photo credit: Meg Wilcox)

For small farmers in the wake of disaster, getting USDA relief can be daunting—especially when they’re coping with traumatic loss. Trauma can lead to cognitive impairment, lack of concentration, and difficulty with problem solving or even just reading complex forms, noted Ansel Ploog, co-owner of Flywheel Farm in Woodbury, Vermont, which flooded in 2023. Ploog said she was too exhausted by the paperwork requirements, which were hard to translate to her two-acre farm, and hardship in her community, to apply for relief.

“The harder part [of recovery] is navigating all the resources,” DelCogliano said. “I felt paralyzed every time I opened my computer, like, let me go drag some shit around. It’s way easier.”

“There’s no one in this area who isn’t traumatized in some way,” said Wendy Brugh, co-owner of Dry Ridge Farm, a small poultry and livestock operation in Mars Hill, North Carolina, whose farm lost a hoop house and much of its fencing. Her biggest problem has been finding ongoing markets for the thousands of eggs her farm produces daily. “Being in the presence of that kind of destruction [in the community] on a regular basis is heavy.”

Farmer support organizations are helping farmers with USDA paperwork and deadlines—but they can only do so much, notes Roland McReynolds, executive director of Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, which compiled a comprehensive listing of relief resources for farmers.

The USDA held webinars last month to explain its relief programs, noting on October 7 that it had embedded staff with FEMA and had more than 200 people involved in the response.

“We’re looking for ways that we can streamline, that we can enhance our flexibility to get folks in, that we can reduce barriers . . . to make it easier for folks to take advantage of our programs,” said Robert Bonnie, USDA’s Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation.

While that’s encouraging, Maddie Kempner, policy and organizing director at the Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA) Vermont cautions, “the availability of a lot of these [USDA] programs ends up being like a mirage,”  because farmers learn that exclusions make them ineligible, or the payouts are too small to make the applications worth the trouble.

Federal programs that can help smaller, diversified farms recover from extreme weather include the noninsured crop disaster assistance program (NAP) and the Whole Farm Revenue Protection program (WFRP). For both, farmers must be enrolled before disaster strikes. USDA also offers cost-share programs for needs such as land cleanup and tree removal, and for losses in livestock, feed, and grazing land. Emergency loans are sometimes available, too. Farmers access all these programs, except WFRP, through USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) network.

The Noninsured Crop Disaster Program (NAP)

NAP is a hybrid crop insurance and disaster assistance program designed for farmers unable to access traditional crop insurance, which is geared for big farms. It offers free basic coverage for new and socially disadvantaged farmers, including women.

But NAP has been relatively under-enrolled in western North Carolina, said McReynolds. “Anticipating a one in 100-, 500- or 30,000-year flooding event just wasn’t on folks’ radar.”

Moreover, crops must be planted before certain dates under NAP, and those dates don’t match up with southern Appalachian crop seasons.

Green Toe Ground did not have NAP protection. The program requires farmers to enroll each crop individually, which is a burden for farmers like DelCogliano, who grows 30 different organic vegetables and raises a few animals to create compost for soil health. “The most cumbersome aspect with diversified vegetable farming is, it’s hard to fit into the USDA boxes,” she said.

Other farmers have had mixed experience with NAP. Digger’s Mirth Collective Farm in Winooski, Vermont, for example, lost $250,000 in revenue after 2023’s massive floods, but thus far has been reimbursed only $1,300, according to Hilary Martin, one of its members. “I spent so many hours, I had literal back pains from the paperwork involved in submitting all our crop information and losses,” she said.

After the farm flooded again in July 2024, Martin said the collective decided not to bother filing a claim until their FSA agent urged them to file. But when Martin filed for 2024 losses, she learned they weren’t eligible because they had replanted before their agent visited the farm.

“We were just way more aggressive about replanting,” this year, she said. While they had taken pictures and documented everything they had done, they had violated the terms of coverage. That means they will not receive any reimbursements from USDA for their 2024 losses. Instead, they have relied on state and local charitable funds.

Having to wait for an FSA agent to visit your farm makes it that much harder when the staffing at those offices is minimal, said Kempner. USDA has waived that requirement for farmers impacted by Helene.

David Marchant, co-owner of River Berry Farm in Fairfax, Vermont, a diversified vegetable and fruit grower, makes NAP work for him, which he receives for free. “The federal programs are good,” he said. “[But] they’re very, very slow. The amount of paperwork is extraordinary. You got to know how to figure it out.”

Whole Farm Revenue Protection

The Whole Farm Revenue Protection program (WFRP) was created in part to address NAP shortcomings. It allows farmers to enroll in crop insurance based on their overall revenue rather than on a crop-by-crop basis. Nevertheless, participation remains low, with only 1,967 U.S. farmers (.01 percent of farms) purchasing a policy in 2023. Complicated rules and paperwork, farmer skepticism, and disinterested insurance agents who make more money from policies covering one or two crops on large farms discourage farmers from enrolling, according to the NSAC report. Crop losses also have to be substantial for a payout to make a difference, noted Marchant.

a farm with rows and white canopy over a lot of green with a pink sky

Tiny Bridge farm in Hendersonville, North Carolina, before Hurricane Helene. (Photo courtesy of Ed Graves)

DelCogliano was not covered by WFRP, which is not uncommon in western North Carolina. In fact, less than five percent of the farmers in ASAP’s network are covered by any crop insurance, said Hart.

Ed Graves, however, was motivated to purchase the coverage after experiencing bad flooding on his Hendersonville farm in  2021. His five-acre organic vegetable farm, Tiny Bridge, lost all its fall plantings to Hurricane Helene—broccoli, cauliflower, potatoes, leafy greens, carrots, radishes, and turnips. He pays $1,500 annually to carry WFRP and hopes to be reimbursed $10,000 from it, based on his earnings the past three years.

An image of brown water flooding a farm in North Carolina

Tiny Bridge immediately after Hurricane Helene. (Photo courtesy of Ed Graves)

“I know how to fill out paperwork,” he said. “Maybe it’s because I worked in civil service for 20 years, so I understand how to ask for what I need from a bureaucracy.”

Cost-Sharing and Emergency Loans

Several USDA disaster relief grant programs are a good fit for smaller farms, such as the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), both of which help farmers clean up and regrade disaster-impacted land. Neither of these programs covers the costs of soil testing or rebuilding, although farmers can seek assistance for longer-term soil health improvement, such as cover crop planting, through USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS).

RAFI has been most successful helping farmers apply for ECP, Johnson said, noting that some farmers have already received preliminary approval for land clearing and grading work. They’ll be reimbursed for 75 percent of the costs up to a $125,000 cap, depending on their farm size, though it’s unclear how quickly they’ll receive that money.

“While we cannot predict the exact timing of payments being issued, we can assure that every effort is made to provide the resources needed to get the assistance to those who need it as soon as possible,” a USDA spokesperson said in an email to Civil Eats.

DelCogliano filed an application for ECP funds but has not yet received approval and does not know how much money the farm may receive. Brugh estimates it will cost $100,000 to get all the dangerous trees removed from her farm, and she is exploring multiple sources of funding, including ECP.

For farmers who don’t have prior NAP or WFRP coverage, and whose major losses are crops, equipment or buildings, a USDA emergency loan is about all that is available to them.

“It’s shocking for a farmer who has hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses, who has maybe had to lay off their entire crew, especially at the peak of harvest season, to be told all they can offer you is a loan,” Kempner said.

USDA’s emergency loans become available when the agricultural secretary or president declares a disaster in their county, but these are historically underutilized, in part because they often have higher interest rates than USDA direct loans, a USDA spokesperson said in an email to Civil Eats.

In other words, if a farmer qualifies for private credit, they are not eligible for a USDA emergency loan. For Joie Lehouillier, co-owner of Foote Brook Farm in Vermont, it “was a real kick in the teeth” to be told that her good relationship with a private lender disqualified her from a lower-interest USDA loan.

Lehouillier’s farm lost 95 percent of its crops and more than half a million dollars in equipment and supplies in the 2023 floods, she said. “Even though we got a tremendous amount of help through [state funding], it’s going to be a struggle for the next few years to just get back on our feet,” especially with the high-interest debt, she added.

The Farm Bill, the Future, and Prospects for Reform 

In addition to the programs above, USDA provides supplemental emergency disaster funds to farmers when approved by Congress. Prior to the Biden Administration, that aid went only to farmers enrolled in a crop insurance or disaster program, leaving out most small farms. Congress has not yet appropriated such aid for 2023 or 2024 disasters. President Biden recently asked Congress to authorize $24 billion in emergency relief funds for USDA, appealing for that aid to reach all impacted farmers, including those not enrolled in a USDA program.

Hackett told Civil Eats that there is considerable momentum to pass a relief bill, and that it’s “very possible” that the current Congress will authorize disaster assistance inclusive of all farmers. That possibility becomes “less likely” with the next Congress, Hackett said. 

Advocates have proposed changes to the farm bill to make USDA’s safety net more inclusive of small farmers hit by extreme weather. But Congress will likely not pick up the bill until later in 2025. With Republicans regaining control of the U.S. Senate, Congress has bigger fish to fry, such as a tax overhaul package, Johnson said.

In the meantime, a USDA spokesperson said, “the farm bill expiration does not impact the ability of FSA and NRCS to support producers impacted by hurricanes,” and that “hurricane recovery efforts will continue through the administration transition.”

“There’s no one in this area who isn’t traumatized in some way.”

Kempner, of NOFA Vermont, is pessimistic that a Republican farm bill will embrace the reforms that are needed to help small-scale, diversified farmers remain resilient in the face of climate change. She is also concerned about Trump’s history of withholding aid for communities that don’t support him politically. Nevertheless, she said, “It’s important that we’re talking to each other across state lines about the kinds of structural changes that we need to be pushing for long term,” such as the creation of a permanently available disaster relief program within USDA based on farm revenue and with a short turnaround of, say, 30 days.

DelCogliano, meanwhile, awaits the results of soil tests to learn what remediation may be necessary as she plans how to rebuild Green Toe Ground. “It’s a lot of things to figure out—the barn, the greenhouses, all the systems.”

On top of that, she has to figure out how to rebuild for resiliency to increasingly extreme weather. The whole riparian zone has changed, she said. “Any big rain event is going to be much higher impact than before, because there’s nothing on the sides of the rivers holding it [within] its banks anymore. What would a rebuild look like in a way that could mitigate risk? Where’s our safety valve?”

Like many other farmers, DelCogliano and Corozine are waiting for USDA approval of their application for land cleanup reimbursements. Meanwhile, they’re relying on a personal GoFundMe account and local charitable aid to pay their bills. “I still don’t have an idea of what [federal support] is going to look like,” DelCogliano said. “And that’s challenging.”

The post Will Disaster Relief Come Through for North Carolina’s Small Farms? appeared first on Civil Eats.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Chesapeake Bay’s oysters make a steady comeback

The Maryland mollusks have survived decades of overharvesting, disease and drought.

For the fifth year in a row, the oyster population in the Chesapeake Bay is doing well after decades of combating drought, disease, loss of habitat and overharvesting.The Maryland Department of Natural Resources said in March that its annual fall oyster survey showed that the “spatfall intensity index” — a measure of how well oysters reproduced and their potential population growth — again hit above a 40-year median.“We seem to be making some headway,” said Lynn Waller Fegley, director of fishing and boating services for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. “With the work we’ve done to help restore oysters, and combined with the fact that we’ve been gifted with some really favorable environmental conditions, we’ve seen the oyster population trend upward.”Oyster-processing companies, oystermen, conservation groups and local fish and wildlife departments in the region have spent years trying to boost the population of oysters, which serve an important role as “filter feeders,” sifting sediment and pollutants such as nitrogen out of the water.The cleaner water in turn spurs underwater grasses to grow, while oyster reefs create habitats for fish, crabs and dozens of other species. Adult oysters can filter up to two gallons of water per hour, making them the bay’s “most effective water filtration system,” according to experts at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, a nonprofit organization that advocates for the health of the bay.Oysters thrive in brackish water — a mix of saltwater and freshwater. They attach and grow on hard surfaces such as rocks, piers or old shells. Too much rain lowers the salinity, while drought makes water too salty. Both situations can create conditions in which oysters can become vulnerable to disease or unable to reproduce as well.Before the 1880s, the oyster population was so healthy it could filter in a week a volume of water equal to that of the entire bay — about 19 trillion gallons — according to the bay foundation. But now it would take the vastly smaller oyster population more than a year to do the same amount.This fall, biologists in Maryland collected more than 300 oyster samples from the bay and tributaries, including the Potomac River, for their annual survey. The results were promising, experts said, given that 2023 was an unusual year for oysters because drought conditions raised the salinity in the bay.There are several other encouraging signs, experts said. The mortality rate of oysters has stabilized, their “biomass index,” which shows how oyster populations are doing over time, has been increasing for the past 14 years, and an analysis of their habitat showed continued improvements.“They’ve been hit by a pretty severe drought, then got pretty decimated by disease,” Fegley said. “They’ve been cycling back, and we’re now in a state of grace.”Another sign oysters are doing better is their “spat sets” — the process of the tiny larvae (spat) attaching to a hard surface so they can grow into mature oysters. A high number of spat equals successful reproduction. A low number means there are fewer young oysters that will grow into adults.Fegley said last year, the bay’s oysters had “epic, generational spat sets.”“Not only were there a lot of young oysters, which is a good sign of health, but they were distributed through the bay in a way that we had not seen in many years where they were farther up tributaries,” Fegley said. “We’ve had years where the conditions in the bay were just right — with a good balance of salinity levels, no disease and good reproduction.”The success of oysters is also due in part to Maryland and Virginia working over the past few years to build more oyster reefs along the bottom of the bay so oysters could grow successfully, according to Allison Colden, executive director of Maryland for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. In recent years, she said, more than 1,300 acres of oyster reefs have been replenished in both states.In the past decade, Virginia has also tried to boost its oyster population with aquaculture farms that raise oysters in cages and return their spat to natural waters. The commonwealth increased its number of oyster farms to more than 130 in 2018, up from 60 in 2013, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.Last season, Virginia harvested 700,000 bushels of oysters, one of the highest annual harvests since the late 1980s, according to Adam Kenyon, chief of the shellfish management division at the Virginia Marine Resources Commission.Those efforts, plus Mother Nature, have helped create the delicate combination oysters need to survive.“In the last five years, we’ve seen a rebound,” Colden said. “Reproduction has been higher than the long-term average, and we’re seeing more consistency in how they’re doing year-to-year, and that’s a positive sign.”For Jeff Harrison, a fifth-generation waterman who serves as president of the Talbot County Watermen Association, the changes have been like a roller coaster over the 47 years he has made a living off the bay. He’s seen diseases hit, oyster-harvesting seasons shortened, prices fluctuate and many other watermen leave the business because they couldn’t turn a profit.“I’ve seen some of the worst seasons in oystering,” he said. “We’d always have ups and downs. Now we’re seeing a steady up, and we’re hoping we have turned the corner.”

These communities are unaware they’ve lived near toxic gas for decades. Why has no action been taken?

Five facilities near schools and houses in LA County fumigate produce shipped from overseas with methyl bromide. But the air agency doesn’t plan to monitor the air or take any immediate steps to protect people from the gas, which can damage lungs and cause neurological effects.

In summary Five facilities near schools and houses in LA County fumigate produce shipped from overseas with methyl bromide. But the air agency doesn’t plan to monitor the air or take any immediate steps to protect people from the gas, which can damage lungs and cause neurological effects. In a quiet Compton neighborhood near the 710 freeway, children on a recent afternoon chased each other at Kelly Park after school. Parents watched their kids play, unaware of a potential threat to their health.  On the other side of the freeway, just blocks from the park and Kelly Elementary School, a fumigation company uses a highly toxic pesticide to spray fruits and vegetables.  The facility, Global Pest Management, has been emitting methyl bromide, which can cause lung damage and neurological health effects, into the air near the neighborhood for several decades.  Earlier this year, the South Coast Air Quality Management District asked the company — along with four other fumigation facilities in San Pedro and Long Beach — to provide data on their methyl bromide usage. But the air quality agency does not plan to install monitors in the communities that would tell residents exactly what is in their air, or hold community meetings to notify them of potential risks. Instead, the South Coast district has launched a preliminary screening of the five facilities to determine if a full assessment of health risks in the neighborhoods is necessary. But even if that analysis is conducted, the agency won’t require the companies to reduce emissions unless they reach concentrations three times higher than the amounts deemed a health risk under state guidelines, said Scott Epstein, the district’s planning and rules manager. Piedad Delgado, a mother picking up her daughter from the Compton school, said she “didn’t even know” that the hazardous chemical was being used nearby. When a CalMatters reporter told her about the fumigation plant, Delgado wondered if it was causing her daughter’s recent, mysterious bouts of headaches and nausea. “It’s concerning. We may be getting sick but we don’t know why,” she said. For about the past 30 years, the companies have sprayed methyl bromide on imported produce arriving at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to kill harmful pests. Adults and children are shown after school at Kelly Elementary School in Compton, which is near a facility that uses a highly toxic fumigant, methyl bromide. Photo by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters Methyl bromide, which was widely used to treat soil on farm fields, has been banned worldwide for most uses since 2005 under a United Nations treaty that protects the Earth’s ozone layer. Exemptions are granted for fumigation of produce shipped from overseas. While little to no residue remains on the food, the gas is vented into the air where it is sprayed. State health officials have classified methyl bromide as a reproductive toxicant, which means it can harm babies exposed in the womb. With acute exposure, high levels can cause headaches, dizziness, nausea and difficulty breathing, while chronic exposure over a year or longer could cause more serious neurological effects, such as learning and memory problems, according to the California Air Resources Board. “It’s concerning. We may be getting sick but we don’t know why.”Piedad Delgado, Compton Resident State and local air quality officials are responsible for enforcing laws and regulations that protect communities from toxic air contaminants such as methyl bromide, while the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner issues the permits to the fumigation companies. After CalMatters reported about the facilities last month, members of Congress representing the communities demanded “greater monitoring, transparency and oversight surrounding these fumigation facilities and their toxic emissions.” “We have serious concerns about the prevalent use of methyl bromide, a toxic pesticide, by container fumigation facilities in Los Angeles County,” U.S. Reps. Nanette Barragán, Maxine Waters and Robert Garcia wrote in an April 11 letter to state and local air regulators and county and federal agricultural officials.  “Several of these fumigation facilities are located close to homes, schools, parks, and other public spaces. Our communities deserve a greater understanding of the levels of toxic emissions from these facilities, the health risks from exposure to such emissions, and the oversight processes in place to ensure all protocols are maintained at these sites,” they wrote. “Our communities deserve a greater understanding of the levels of toxic emissions from these facilities, the health risks from exposure to such emissions, and the oversight processes in place.”U.S. Reps. Nanette Barragán, Maxine Waters and Robert Garcia Even though the San Pedro facility at the Port of Los Angeles and the Compton plant use the largest volumes of methyl bromide — a combined 52,000 pounds a year — the air in nearby communities has never been tested.  The two Long Beach facilities use much less, yet state tests in 2023 and 2024 detected potentially dangerous levels in a neighborhood near an elementary school. South Coast district officials said although certain levels of methyl bromide in the air could cause health effects, it doesn’t necessarily mean immediate action is necessary.  “We don’t want to go out and unnecessarily concern folks if there isn’t (a health concern), but we are actively investigating this right now,” said Sarah Rees, the South Coast district’s deputy executive office for planning, rule development and implementation.   Global Pest Management, which fumigates in Compton and Terminal Island, did not return calls from CalMatters. An employee at the facility declined to comment. A general manager at SPF Terminals in Long Beach also declined to comment.  Greg Augustine, owner of Harbor Fumigation in San Pedro, said his company has been permitted for more than 30 years and complies with all requirements. “To protect the health of our community, the air district establishes permit conditions and we comply with all of those permit conditions,” he said. “Those are vetted by the air district…and they’re all designed to protect the health of our community.”  “To protect the health of our community, the air district establishes permit conditions and we comply with all of those permit conditions.” Greg Augustine, owner of Harbor Fumigation in San Pedro Daniel McCarrel, an attorney representing AG-Fume Services, which fumigates at facilities in Long Beach and San Pedro, did not respond to questions but previously told CalMatters last month that the company is adhering to all of its permit conditions.  High levels found in Long Beach  Back in 2019, during regionwide testing, South Coast district officials detected methyl bromide in the air near the two West Long Beach facilities close to concentrations that could cause long-term health effects. The South Coast district took no action at the time — other than to publish a large study online of all toxic air contaminants throughout the four-county LA basin. Then, several years later, the state Air Resources Board found that the two facilities — SPF Terminals and AG-Fume Services — spewed high concentrations of methyl bromide at various times throughout the year. The state’s air monitor near Hudson Elementary School in West Long Beach — which is just about 1,000 feet from the two facilities — detected an average of 2.1 parts per billion in 2023 through part of 2024. Exposure to as little as 1 ppb for a year or more can cause serious nervous system effects as well as developmental effects on fetuses, according to state health guidelines. Spikes of methyl bromide were as high as 983 and 966 ppb in February and March of 2024. Short-term exposure to 1,000 ppb can cause acute health effects such as nausea, headaches and dizziness.  But state and district air-quality officials didn’t inform nearby residents about any of the monitoring data for longer than a year — not until three months ago, in a community meeting held in Long Beach.  First: Edvin Hernandez, right, waits to pick up his son at Kelly Elementary School in Compton, which is near a fumigation plant. Last: SPF Terminals in Long Beach uses methyl bromide. High levels of the gas were found near an elementary school in West Long Beach. Photos by Joel Angel Juarez and J.W. Hendricks for CalMatters Upon learning of the test results, the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner a few months ago added new permit conditions for SPF Terminals and AG-Fume Services, including shutting doors, installing taller smokestacks and prohibiting fumigation during school hours, according to permits obtained by CalMatters. But the county permits for the three San Pedro and Compton facilities, which use much larger volumes of methyl bromide, remain unchanged, with none of the protections added to the Long Beach permits. And officials still have not held any community meetings there. The agricultural commissioner’s office declined to comment on the facilities. A complex web of ‘hot spots’ rules for methyl bromide About 38% of the methyl bromide used in California for commodity fumigation is in LA County, according to Department of Pesticide Regulation data for 2022. After many Long Beach residents expressed concerns, the South Coast district assessed all nine facilities permitted to use the chemical in the region and determined that five could pose a risk to residents.  Now the agency is going through a complex process outlined under the state’s Air Toxics “Hot Spots” law, enacted in 1987. Usage data, weather patterns and proximity to neighborhoods will be used to calculate a “priority score” for each of the five facilities. If a facility’s score is high enough, then the company will be required to conduct a full health risk assessment to examine the dangers to the community. None of the scores have been released yet. Risk assessments under the air district’s rules are a complicated, multi-step process likely to take many months. Smokestacks are shown at a facility that fumigates imported produce at the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro. AG-Fume Services and Harbor Fumigation operate at this facility. Photo by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters And these health assessments may not trigger any changes at the facilities. It all depends on whether certain thresholds for hazards are crossed. The state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has set guidelines, called reference exposure levels, for concentrations of methyl bromide that could cause the long-term or short-term health effects, such as respiratory and neurological damage, nausea and fetal effects, based on human and animal studies. But South Coast district officials said action isn’t triggered if methyl bromide exceeds these reference levels. Instead, the district uses a state-created “hazard index” based on them. If a facility’s hazard index reaches one — which means concentrations outside the facility have reached the reference dose and could cause harm — the company must notify the public, under a South Coast district regulation. However, the facilities will only be required to take steps to reduce emissions if the hazard index reaches three — three times the reference level that indicates potential harm, according to that regulation. Expedited action is required under the rule if the index is five times higher.   “Just because it’s above the (reference level), it doesn’t mean it’s going to cause health impacts,” said Ian MacMillan, assistant deputy executive officer at the South Coast air district. He said the reference level indicates “there’s a possibility that there could be health impacts.”  The series of escalating thresholds is designed as a balancing act between regulating facilities and protecting the public, officials said. MacMillan also said methyl bromide emissions must be considered in the context of overall air quality in the region — the entire LA basin has an average hazard index of 5.5 when considering all sources of toxic air pollutants from industries and vehicles, he said. When told about the fumigation plants and lack of air testing and risk assessments, residents contacted by CalMatters were outraged. “There’s no interest from the government to protect our health,” said Edvin Hernandez, a father picking up his 9-year-old son from Kelly Elementary School in Compton. “We’re surviving by the hand of God.” The members of Congress — Barragán, Waters and Garcia — asked air regulators to install monitors near all Los Angeles County fumigation facilities, compile inspection records, conduct health assessments in the communities and provide all of the results on a public website.  “It is egregious that communities in California are still being impacted by this harmful and unnecessary chemical,” said Alison Hahm, a staff attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which is working with community members. “In addition to stopping this ongoing public health threat in West Long Beach and Los Angeles, residents are demanding accountability and remedies for the harm endured.” The methyl bromide facilities in L.A. County are subjected to a different permitting process than elsewhere in California.  That’s because in 1996, the South Coast air district and the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner agreed to share responsibility for regulating fumigating facilities. The agricultural office is tasked with issuing permits and the air agency is in charge of setting emissions limits and enforcing them.   In the Bay Area, the local air district has a similar agreement with agricultural departments that originated in 1997. However, the district decided that agreement is out of date so it is now issuing permits, too. One facility in the Bay Area uses the pesticide, Impact Transportation of Oakland. In 2019, the air district assessed the health risks of that facility and modeled how the fumes spread.   In the San Joaquin Valley, new facilities or those changing their methyl bromide use are subject to a health risk evaluation before a permit is issued. Facilities permitted before the air district was established in 1992 are subject to a review like the one that the South Coast district is now launching in San Pedro and Compton. The Los Angeles Agriculture Commissioner’s office, when asked whether it conducts a risk assessment before issuing permits, declined to answer any questions. CalMatters filed a public records request seeking risk assessments, but they said they had no records matching the request.   South Coast air regulators said they and the commissioner are now considering if any changes to their agreement should be made.  Allowed to use up to a half-ton of methyl bromide a day  Fumigation of produce using methyl bromide occurs within an enclosed facility, and the produce is covered by a tarp when sprayed. The fumes are then released into the atmosphere through tall smokestacks, a process called aeration. CalMatters filed a public records request with the county agricultural office and received the five facilities’ permits for 2023 through 2025. The permits show that the two Long Beach companies are now required to take an array of new precautions to limit fumes emitted into communities that the three Compton and San Pedro families are not — even though the Long Beach ones use much smaller volumes of methyl bromide. The San Pedro and Compton plants are allowed to use up to 1,000 pounds of methyl bromide in a 24-hour period. In contrast, the Long Beach plants can use up to 200 pounds in 24 hours, and in Oakland, Impact Transportation’s permit allows only 108 pounds.  First: Pallets of produce are piled up at the outer berths at the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro. Last: A tarped area holds a tank that contains a hazardous gas, most likely methyl bromide. A fan and roof vents ventilated the area while garage doors were left open on April 8, 2025. AG-Fume Services and Harbor Fumigation operate at this location. Photos by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters The San Pedro and Compton facilities release fumes into the atmosphere during the daytime, except when they use an exhaust stack meeting certain height requirements, according to their permits. The two Long Beach facilities, SPF Terminals and AG Fume Services, have new, additional requirements this year: Fumigation can’t occur between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. when a school is within 1,000 feet. And by the end of this month, they must replace their smokestacks with taller ones that are at least 55 feet tall, which disperse the fumes better. All doors must be closed during fumigation and aeration and fans must be used in the aeration process.  ‘We don’t have a choice’ At a ballpark on a recent day in San Pedro, Eastview Little League players took the field.  When a 13-year-old boy on the Pirates team was up to bat, his mom, Amy Shannon, cheered him on.  “Let’s go D! Deep breath boy, you got it!” she shouted.  Then she paused. Maybe she shouldn’t be encouraging her son to take a deep breath, she said. Shannon had just learned from CalMatters about the fumigation facility across the street from the baseball field. Amy Shannon, left, and Roxanne Gasparo, right, attend their children’s Little League game at Bloch Field near the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro on April 8, 2025. Both women were unaware that a fumigation facility nearby has been using a toxic gas for about 30 years. Photo by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters At the facility where AG Fume and Harbor Fumigation operate, located at 2200 Miner Street, it was business as usual that day. A ship was docked on one side of the Los Angeles Port berth. On the other side, hundreds of stacks of fruits and vegetables were visible through several large garage doors.  Some of the stacks were covered with plastic. A tank containing a fumigant — labeled with a hazard sign depicting a skull — was hooked up outside. Yellow smokestacks protruded from the facility.  An AG-Fume Services truck was parked near one of the garage doors. Workers wearing yellow vests and sun-protective hats closed the garage doors, but left them slightly open at the bottom.  At the baseball field, Shannon watched the game with a friend, Roxanne Gasparo. Both women grew up in San Pedro. Gasparo said she wasn’t at all surprised to learn that a dangerous gas could be in their air.   “Because it’s a port town, unfortunately, we’re used to pollution. We have the port, obviously, and all the refineries next to us,” Gasparo said. “There’s really no way to get out of it unless you leave the city, and because most of the families here are blue collar families that rely on the unions, we kind of don’t have a choice,” she added. “We just deal with it and raise our kids the best we can.” More about air pollution in port communities ‘We should be in crisis mode’: Toxic fumigant could be seeping into these communities March 21, 2025March 26, 2025 Polluted communities hold their breath as companies struggle with California’s diesel truck ban December 10, 2024December 10, 2024

Costa Rica Ghost Net Cleanup Saves Marine Life in Puntarenas

For the Oceans Foundation successfully completed the first stage of its ghost net rescue campaign in Costa de Pájaros, Puntarenas, removing approximately 15 tons of abandoned fishing nets from the seabed, enough to nearly fill a 20-ton truck, according to social media reports and foundation statements. The initiative aims to eliminate these silent killers that […] The post Costa Rica Ghost Net Cleanup Saves Marine Life in Puntarenas appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

For the Oceans Foundation successfully completed the first stage of its ghost net rescue campaign in Costa de Pájaros, Puntarenas, removing approximately 15 tons of abandoned fishing nets from the seabed, enough to nearly fill a 20-ton truck, according to social media reports and foundation statements. The initiative aims to eliminate these silent killers that harm marine life and promote sustainable fishing practices in Costa Rica’s coastal communities, a critical step toward preserving ourcountry’s rich biodiversity. Ghost nets are abandoned, lost, or discarded fishing gear that continue to trap marine life, such as fish, sea turtles, dolphins, and sharks, while damaging coral reefs and seagrass beds. Globally, an estimated 640,000 tons of ghost gear pollute the oceans, contributing to 10% of oceanic litter, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization. In Costa Rica, these nets threaten iconic species like the hawksbill turtle and disrupt artisanal fishing livelihoods, exacerbating ocean pollution and habitat loss. The cleanup effort united 20 artisanal fishing families, professional rescue divers, and more than 60 volunteers, showcasing community-driven conservation. The operation was led by Captain Gabriel Ramírez of UDIVE 506, with eight fishing boats navigating the Gulf of Nicoya’s challenging currents. Reportedly, organizations including the Parlamento Cívico Ambiental, ACEPESA, Coast Guard, Red Cross, IPSA, REX Cargo, and Cervecería y Bebidas San Roque provided logistical support, transportation, hydration, and assistance with sorting and processing the recovered nets. Marine Biology students from the National University (UNA) played a key role by preparing the nets for recycling, ensuring minimal environmental impact. “Each of us can contribute to the environment. This is not for me or for you—it’s for Costa Rica, for the planet, and for marine life,” said Jorge Serendero, Director of Fundación For the Oceans. This cleanup builds on Costa Rica’s leadership in marine conservation, with over 30% of its territorial waters protected as of 2021, a global benchmark. The foundation reported a tense moment when a diver became entangled in a drifting net due to strong currents. Thanks to the quick action of his colleagues, he was freed unharmed, underscoring the risks of such operations. This campaign highlights the power of collective action in protecting marine ecosystems, a priority for Costa Rica as it expands marine protected areas like Cocos Island. Fundación For the Oceans plans additional cleanups in 2025 to address ghost nets across Costa Rica’s Pacific coast. Interested individuals can contact For the Oceans Foundation at info@fortheoceansfoundation.org or +506 8875-9393 to volunteer, donate, or learn about upcoming initiatives to safeguard the oceans. The post Costa Rica Ghost Net Cleanup Saves Marine Life in Puntarenas appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Commercial salmon season is shut down — again. Will California’s iconic fish ever recover?

While it’s an unprecedented third year in a row for no commercially caught salmon, brief windows will be allowed for sportsfishing in California.

In summary While it’s an unprecedented third year in a row for no commercially caught salmon, brief windows will be allowed for sportsfishing in California. Facing the continued collapse of Chinook salmon, officials today shut down California’s commercial salmon fishing season for an unprecedented third year in a row.  Under the decision by an interstate fisheries agency, recreational salmon fishing will be allowed in California for only brief windows of time this spring. This will be the first year that any sportfishing of Chinook has been allowed since 2022. Today’s decision by the Pacific Fishery Management Council means that no salmon caught off California can be sold to retail consumers and restaurants for at least another year. In Oregon and Washington, commercial salmon fishing will remain open, although limited. “From a salmon standpoint, it’s an environmental disaster. For the fishing industry, it’s a human tragedy, and it’s also an economic disaster,” said Scott Artis, executive director of the Golden State Salmon Association, an industry organization that has lobbied for river restoration and improved hatchery programs.  The decline of California’s salmon follows decades of deteriorating conditions in the waterways where the fish spawn each year, including the Sacramento and Klamath rivers. California’s salmon are an ecological icon and a valued source of food for Native American tribes. The shutdown also has an economic toll: It has already put hundreds of commercial fishers and sportfishing boat operators out of work and affected thousands of people in communities and industries reliant on processing, selling and serving locally caught salmon.  California’s commercial fishery has never been closed for three years in a row before.  Some experts fear the conditions in California have been so poor for so long that Chinook may never rebound to fishable levels. Others remain hopeful for major recovery if the amounts of water diverted to farms and cities are reduced and wetlands kept dry by flood-control levees are restored.  This year’s recreational season includes several brief windows for fishing, including a weekend in June and another in July, or a quota of 7,000 fish.   Jared Davis, owner and operator of the Salty Lady in Sausalito, one of dozens of party boats that take paying customers fishing, thinks it’s likely that this quota will be met on the first open weekend for recreational fishing, scheduled for June 7-8.   “Obviously, the pressure is going to be intense, so everybody and their mother is going to be out on the water on those days,” he said. “When they hit that quota, it’s done.” One member of the fishery council, Corey Ridings, voted against the proposed regulations after saying she was concerned that the first weekend would overshoot the 7,000-fish quota. Davis said such a miniscule recreational season won’t help boat owners like him recover from past closures, though it will carry symbolic meaning. “It might give California anglers a glimmer of hope and keep them from selling all their rods and buying golf clubs,” he said.  “It continues to be devastating. Salmon has been the cornerstone of many of our ports for a long time.”Sarah Bates, commercial fisher based in San Francisco Sarah Bates, a commercial fisher based at San Francisco’s Fisherman’s Wharf, said the ongoing closure has stripped many boat owners of most of their income.  “It continues to be devastating,” she said. “Salmon has been the cornerstone of many of our ports for a long time.” She said the shutdown also has trickle-down effects on a range of businesses that support the salmon fishery, such as fuel services, grocery stores and dockside ice machines. “We’re also seeing a sort of a third wave … the general seafood market for local products has tanked,” such as rockfish and halibut. She said that many buyers are turning to farmed and wild salmon delivered from other regions instead. Davis noted that federal emergency relief funds promised for the 2023 closure still have not arrived. “Nobody has seen a dime,” he said.  Fewer returning salmon Before the Gold Rush, several million Chinook spawned annually in the river systems of the Central Valley and the state’s northern coast. Through much of the 20th century, California’s salmon fishery formed the economic backbone of coastal fishing ports, with fishers using hook and line pulling in millions of pounds in good years.  But in 2024, just 99,274 fall-run Chinook — the most commercially viable of the Central Valley’s four subpopulations — returned to the Sacramento River and its tributaries, substantially lower than the numbers in 2023. In 2022, fewer than 70,000 returned, one of the lowest estimates ever. About 40,000 returned to the San Joaquin River. Fewer than 30,000 Chinook reached their spawning grounds in the Klamath River system, where the Hoopa, Yurok and Karuk tribes rely on the fish in years of abundance.  The decline of California’s salmon stems from nearly two centuries of damage inflicted on the rivers where salmon spend the first and final stages of their lives. Gold mining, logging and dam construction devastated watersheds. Levees constrained rivers, turning them into relatively sterile channels of fast-moving water while converting floodplains and wetlands into irrigated farmland.  Today, many of these impacts persist, along with water diversions, reduced flows and elevated river temperatures that frequently spell death for fertilized eggs and juvenile fish. The future of California salmon is murky Peter Moyle, a UC Davis fish biologist and professor emeritus, said recovery of self-sustaining populations may be possible in some tributaries of the Sacramento River.  “There are some opportunities for at least keeping runs going in parts of the Central Valley, but getting naturally spawning fish back in large numbers, I just can’t see it happening,” he said. Jacob Katz, a biologist with the group California Trout, holds out hope for a future of flourishing Sacramento River Chinook. “We could have vibrant fall-run populations in a decade,” he said.  That will require major habitat restoration involving dam removals, reconstruction of levee systems to revive wetlands and floodplains, and reduced water diversions for agriculture — all measures fraught with cost, regulatory constraints, and controversy.  “There are some opportunities for at least keeping (salmon) runs going in parts of the Central Valley, but getting naturally spawning fish back in large numbers, I just can’t see it happening.”Peter moyle, uc davis fish biologist State officials, recognizing the risk of extinction, have promoted salmon recovery as a policy goal for years. In early 2024, the Newsom administration released its California Salmon Strategy for a Hotter, Drier Future, a 37-page catalogue of proposed actions to mitigate environmental impacts and restore flows and habitat, all in the face of a warming environment.  Artis of Golden State Salmon Association said the state’s salmon strategy includes some important items but leaves out equally critical ones, like protecting minimum required flows for fish — what Artis said are threatened by proposed water projects endorsed by the Newsom administration. “It fails to include some of the upcoming salmon-killing projects that the governor is pushing like Sites Reservoir and the Delta tunnel, and it ignores the fact that the Voluntary Agreements are designed to allow massive diversions of water,” he said. Experts agree that an important key to rebuilding salmon runs is increasing the frequency and duration of shallow flooding in riverside riparian areas, or even fallow rice paddies — a program Katz has helped develop through his career.  On such seasonal floodplains, a shallow layer of water can help trigger an explosion of photosynthesis and food production, ultimately providing nutrition for juvenile salmon as they migrate out of the river system each spring.  Through meetings with farmers, urban water agencies and government officials, Rene Henery, California science director with Trout Unlimited, has helped draft an ambitious salmon recovery plan dubbed “Reorienting to Recovery.” Featuring habitat restoration, carefully managed harvests and generously enhanced river flows — especially in dry years — this framework, Henery said, could rebuild diminished Central Valley Chinook runs to more than 1.6 million adult fish per year over a 20-year period.  He said adversaries — often farmers and environmentalists — must shift from traditional feuds over water to more collaborative programs of restoring productive watersheds while maintaining productive agriculture. As the recovery needle for Chinook moves in the wrong direction, Katz said deliberate action is urgent.  “We’re balanced on the edge of losing these populations,” he said. “We have to go big now. We have no other option.” more about salmon ‘No way, not possible’: California has a plan for new water rules. Will it save salmon from extinction? by Alastair Bland December 16, 2024December 16, 2024 A third straight year with no California salmon fishing?  Early fish counts suggest it could happen by Alastair Bland October 30, 2024October 30, 2024

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.