Mr. Hutchinson's argument ignores most of the relevant information on dead zones, menhaden, and even the basic ecology of the Gulf of Mexico and Chesapeake Bay.
July 24, 2013 — On his Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) blog, RFA Managing Director Jim Hutchinson argues that the perennial dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and the Chesapeake Bay are directly traceable to the menhaden fishery in these areas (“SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE: How 'Gas & Oil' Industry Helps Create Coastal Dead Zones,” 6/21). But his argument ignores most of the relevant information on dead zones, menhaden, and even the basic ecology of the Gulf of Mexico and Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. Hutchinson writes: “it should be of no surprise to anyone that the biggest dead zones in coastal U.S. waters are at the mouth of the Mississippi and in a small region of the Chesapeake, right where factory menhaden reduction operations…are based.” It is certainly unsurprising, but not for the reason Mr. Hutchinson alleges. Conspicuously absent from his highly selective account is any reference to agricultural runoff, by far the largest contributor to the formation of dead zones, especially in the Gulf of Mexico.
A dead zone forms when nutrients, like nitrogen, stimulate an excessive growth, or “bloom”, of phytoplankton. These small, plant-like organisms are at the base of the ocean food chain. As blooms proliferate and die off, they consume most or all of the oxygen in the surrounding waters.
When crafting his narrative, Mr. Hutchinson inexplicably fails to mention that huge quantities of nitrogen, in the form of fertilizer from farming, pour into rivers like the Mississippi and estuaries like the Chesapeake every year. This is despite the fact that it is easily one of the largest influences on the growth of dead zones.
The Gulf of Mexico’s annual summer dead zone is one of the largest in the U.S., forming around where the waters from the Mississippi River and its watershed meet the Gulf. The Mississippi watershed itself is massive: according to a NOAA fact sheet, water from 41 percent of the continental United States eventually discharges into the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi. Much of the land in that watershed is dedicated to farming, and much of that farming requires nutrient-rich fertilizer that will eventually return to the watershed, with dead zones being the direct result.
In its 2013 forecast, NOAA cites conditions in the watershed, specifically “flood conditions in the Midwest that caused large amounts of nutrients to be transported from the Mississippi watershed to the Gulf,” for the estimated size of this year’s dead zone.
What responsibility does NOAA assign menhaden for this year’s algal bloom? The agency’s forecast does not mention menhaden at all. In contrast, mentions of menhaden comprise the bulk of Mr. Hutchinson’s piece. But given the volume of nutrients that flow into the Gulf every year, blaming its dead zones on a lack of menhaden is absurd.
Similar flows of nutrients from farms and population centers have led to dead zones in the Chesapeake Bay. As with the Gulf, the key is the flow of nutrients into the Bay. According to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the reductions in the size of the dead zones can be attributed to programs designed to limit nutrient inflow, including “upgrades to wastewater treatment plants, stormwater management controls, [and] the implementation of agriculture management practices such as cover crops.”
But even if an overwhelming amount of nutrients weren’t flowing into U.S. rivers and estuaries, would menhaden be able to improve water quality by “filtering” phytoplankton? While Mr. Hutchinson certainly believes so, claiming that menhaden can rid the water of “4 to 6 gallons of algae” per minute, a substantial amount of evidence shows the opposite.
Several studies show that menhaden have limited filtering abilities, and that their ability to remove phytoplankton from the water decreases as they age. Juvenile menhaden have been found to consume relatively more phytoplankton than adults, which consume relatively more zooplankton, tiny marine animals such as krill. This is an important distinction because the menhaden fishery only harvests adult menhaden, and zooplankton do not contribute to algal blooms.
The most recent study, published in 2010 by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, found that menhaden only eat phytoplankton in significant quantities until they reach the age of 1. After that, they primarily consume zooplankton, meaning that adult menhaden do nothing to directly prevent algal blooms. A 2006 study from scientists at the National Marine Fisheries Service and the University of Massachusetts reached a similar conclusion: adult menhaden do not consume large amounts of phytoplankton. As a result, the fishery’s influence on the growth of algal blooms and the persistence of dead zones appears to be limited.
Dead zones are not the only environmental issue that Mr. Hutchinson gets wrong: his inaccuracies extend to his descriptions of how one company, Omega Protein, operates. He describes the company as a “resource degradation outfit” that “functions to take as much menhaden from areas of the Chesapeake and Gulf of Mexico as is technological [sic] possible.” Not included in this overzealous denunciation is the fact that Omega Protein operates within the catch limits set by the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions for the menhaden fisheries in the Chesapeake and Gulf of Mexico.
The company has also taken other environmentally conscious steps to reduce emissions and improve energy efficiency at its facilities in Reedville, Virginia and along the Gulf, as well as updating wastewater treatment equipment on its fishing vessels, and supporting oyster restoration efforts in the Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. Hutchinson’s attacks on Omega Protein’s hiring practices are similarly long on rhetoric and short on reality.
He is particularly irate about the hiring of what he dismissively and demeaningly labels “cheap foreign labor,” in actuality temporary, seasonal workers hired through H2B visas. He writes that when “the Louisiana unemployment rate was 3.7% in 2006-2007, topping 6.5% in Mississippi during the same period, Omega’s manufacturing facilities in that region had utilized close to 600 of those low-paid foreign workers.” Such a statement is clearly ignorant of the actual requirements of the H2B program.
In order to even be eligible to hire non-domestic workers through an H2B visa, a company must first demonstrate that it can’t fill the positions domestically. While Mr. Hutchinson criticizes Omega Protein’s hiring of individuals born outside of the United States, the company was only able to fill the positions through the H2B program because of a lack of response from the domestic workforce.
Recent reductions in the menhaden harvest in the Chesapeake Bay have forced that company to consolidate its Chesapeake fleet. At the same time three boats were being decommissioned, two new boats were unveiled as part of an effort to modernize the fleet. Grasping at straws, Mr. Hutchinson sees this as evidence of hypocrisy on Omega Protein’s part. But, according to Monty Deihl, Omega Protein’s Director of Fishing Operations, the two newly commissioned vessels were purchased as part of a long-planned effort to improve its fishing vessels, before the ASMFC had even considered the new, harsh regulations. As Mr. Hutchinson himself notes, these are the first new vessels commissioned in Reedville in over 20 years. This isn’t hypocritical of Omega Protein, but instead represents a long-term investment in the menhaden fishery and the surrounding communities that depend on it.
Mr. Hutchinson makes only a cursory attempt at proving menhaden responsible for dead zones, instead diverting into irrelevant tangents about oil money and CIA conspiracies. The facts that are presented are obviously tailored to fit his preconceived notions, and omit some of the most relevant information on menhaden, the Gulf, and the Chesapeake. If Jim Hutchinson’s intention was to educate his readers on dead zones, he completely missed the mark. What he presents more closely resembles ideological opinionating, rather than objective reporting.