North Carolina Fisheries Association Archives

NORTH CAROLINA: Commercial fishermen have taken a nosedive in the past 20 years

August 16, 2021 — North Carolina commercial fishermen have complained for decades that government regulations and a variety of other factors threaten their livelihood and have them headed the way of endangered species.

Glenn Skinner of Newport, executive director of the North Carolina Fisheries Association an advocacy group of commercial fishermen, said statistics back that up.

According to the state Division of Marine Fisheries, the number of people with commercial licenses who sold seafood has dropped more than 50 percent since 2001.

The number was 4,273 in 2001 and it was 1,897 in 2020 — a decline of 2,376.

“These declines are the result of many different factors. with regulations, the fear of future regulations or outright bans on commercial fishing gears being a significant factor,” Skinner said.

Read the full story at The Free Press

North Carolina flounder: Prices rise, but Southern species cut back to rebuild stock

August 9, 2021 — North Carolina’s summer flounder trawl fishery typically occurs in waters off New Jersey and New York, outside of the Southern flounder range, with the catches landed in North Carolina under the state’s summer flounder quota — the lion’s share among East Coast states at 27.44 percent.

For the 2019-21 fishing seasons, the coastwide commercial quota is set at 11.53 million pounds, approximately a 49 percent increase over the previously set 2019 quota.

Harvest of both summer and Southern flounder in North Carolina remained consistent for the past several years. Prices have also remained consistent with the average retail price from $8 to $12 a pound for filets and $4 to $5 a pound for whole fish. Price to fisherman has varied between a low of $3.50 to $5 throughout the season.

Jeff Styron of Garland Fulcher Seafood, Oriental, N.C., says things are looking up after a year of covid.

“We were basically shut down last year,” says Mr. Styron. “With few restaurant purchasing products, we ended up with a lot of frozen fish and slim markets. Now the demand has gone crazy.”

Read the full story at National Fisherman

NORTH CAROLINA: Division of Marine Fisheries publishes annual stock overview/ASMFC 2021 Summer Meeting Webinar Supplemental Materials Now Available

July 30, 2021 — The following was released by the North Carolina Fisheries Association:

The N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries today released its annual Stock Overview of state managed marine fisheries species.
The 2021 North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries Stock Overview reviews available information, such as long-term trends in catch, biological data and management, through 2020 to determine the overall condition of North Carolina’s state-managed species. It also provides links to information on federally-managed and interstate-managed species important to North Carolina.

Highlights of this year’s stock overview for state managed species include:

Estuarine Striped Bass –A 2020 peer-reviewed benchmark stock assessment using data through 2017 found that the Albemarle-Roanoke estuarine striped bass stock is overfished and overfishing is occurring. This triggered stricter harvest restrictions in the Albemarle Sound Management Area that took effect Jan. 1, 2021. Amendment 2 to the N. C. Estuarine Striped Bass Fishery Management Plan is being jointly developed with the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.
Shrimp – In February 2020, the Marine Fisheries Commission approved proposed rule language to reclassify special secondary nursery areas that have not been opened to trawling in years to permanent secondary nursery areas. The commission adopted the reclassification of nine areas in February 2021 through a revision to the Shrimp Fishery Management Plan Amendment 1. The rules became effective in May 2021. Development of the Shrimp Fishery Management Plan Amendment 2 is underway and focuses on further reducing bycatch of non-target species and minimizing ecosystem impacts.
Blue Crab – Amendment 3 to the Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan was approved in February 2020, and management measures were implemented to address the overfished and overfishing status of the stock based on results from the peer-reviewed 2018 benchmark stock assessment. Amendment 3 also contained the framework for establishing criteria for Diamondback Terrapin Management Areas (DTMA) where terrapin excluder devices are required. Two DTMAs were established in May 2020 in Masonboro Sound and the lower Cape Fear River, and beginning in March 2021, all pots used in these areas are required to have an approved excluder device in each funnel from March 1 to Oct. 31.
Southern Flounder – Commercial and recreational seasons implemented in 2020 reduced landings but did not fully meet reductions required by the Southern Flounder Fishery Management Plan Amendment 2. Development of the Southern Flounder Fishery Management Plan Amendment 3 is under way. Amendment 3 will examine more robust management strategies, such as quotas, slot limits, size limit changes, gear changes, and species-specific management for the recreational fishery.

For more information, contact Lee Paramore at 252-473-5734.

ASMFC 2021 Summer Meeting Webinar Supplemental Materials Now Available

Supplemental materials for the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s 2021 Summer Meeting Webinar are now available at http://www.asmfc.org/home/2021-summer-meeting-webinar for the following Boards/Committees (click on “Supplemental” following each relevant committee header to access the information). For ease of access, all supplemental meeting materials have been combined into one PDF – http://www.asmfc.org/files/Meetings/2021SummerMeeting/2021SummerMtgSupplementalCombined.pdf.

Below is the list of documents included in the supplemental materials.

American Lobster Management Board – Revised Meeting Overview and Workgroup Report on Vessel Tracking Devices in Federal Lobster and Jonah Crab Fisheries

Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board – Revised Draft Agenda & Meeting Overview; Draft FMP Review; Technical Committee Memo on Review of Juvenile Abundance Index for the Albemarle Sound/Roanoke River; Staff Memo on Potential Options and Timelines to Address Commercial Quota Allocation; Advisory Panel Nominations; and Public Comment

Tautog Management Board – Industry feedback on Tautog Commercial Harvest Tagging Program

Sciaenids Management Board – Atlantic Croaker and Red Drum FMP Reviews; and Florida FWC Commercial Atlantic Croaker Implementation Plan

Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Board Concurrent with Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council – FMP Reviews for Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass; and Policy Board Directive to Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Board

Atlantic Menhaden Management Board – Public Comment

Business Session – Bluefish Allocation and Rebuilding Amendment Summary, and Draft Amendment for Public Comment

Webinar Information
Board meeting proceedings will be broadcast daily via webinar beginning Monday, August 2 at 1:30 p.m. and continuing daily until the conclusion of the meeting (expected to be 3 p.m.) on Thursday, August 5. The webinar will allow registrants to listen to board deliberations and view presentations and motions as they occur. To register for the webinar go to https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/1268548762865393678 (Webinar ID: 606-517-315).

Each day, the webinar will begin 30 minutes prior to the start of the first meeting so that people can troubleshoot any connectivity or audio issues they may encounter. If you are having issues with the webinar (connecting to or audio related issues), please contact Chris Jacobs at 703.842.0790.

If you are joining the webinar but will not be using VoIP, you can may also call in at 415.655.0052. A PIN will be provided to you after joining the webinar; see webinar instructions for details on how to receive the PIN. For those who will not be joining the webinar but would like to listen in to the audio portion only, you can do so by dialing 415.655.0052 (access code: 904-450-431).

Public Comment Guidelines
To provide a fair opportunity for public input, the ISFMP Policy Board approved the following guidelines for use at management board meetings. Please note these guidelines have been modified to adapt to meetings via webinar:

For issues that are not on the agenda, management boards will continue to provide an opportunity to the public to bring matters of concern to the board’s attention at the start of each board meeting. Board chairs will ask members of the public to raise their hands to let the chair know they would like to speak. Depending upon the number of commenters, the board chair will decide how to allocate the available time on the agenda (typically 10 minutes) to the number of people who want to speak.

For topics that are on the agenda, but have not gone out for public comment, board chairs will provide limited opportunity for comment, taking into account the time allotted on the agenda for the topic. Chairs will have flexibility in deciding how to allocate comment opportunities; this could include hearing one comment in favor and one in opposition until the chair is satisfied further comment will not provide additional insight to the board.

For agenda action items that have already gone out for public comment, it is the Policy Board’s intent to end the occasional practice of allowing extensive and lengthy public comments. Currently, board chairs have the discretion to decide what public comment to allow in these circumstances.

In addition, the following timeline has been established for the submission of written comment for issues for which the Commission has NOT established a specific public comment period (i.e., in response to proposed management action).

Comments received 3 weeks prior to the start of the webinar (July 12) will be included in the briefing materials.
Comments received by 5:00 PM on Tuesday, July 27 will be included in the supplemental materials.
Comments received by 10:00 AM on Friday, July 30 will be distributed electronically to Commissioners/Board members prior to the meeting.

Comments should be submitted via email at comments@asmfc.org. All comments must clearly indicate the commenter’s expectation from the ASMFC staff regarding distribution.

NORTH CAROLINA: Legislative Update-Representative Billy Richardson Files Net-Ban Bill (H-513)/NCFA Position on H-513/Commercial Bluefish Proclamation

April 1, 2021 — The following was released by the North Carolina Fisheries Association:

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE for 4/16/2021: NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY:

Note that due to the length of this update, the list of bills will be abbreviated so only the two new bills will be listed. The previous bills had no action this week.

The most significant issue related to the General Assembly this week was the introduction of a net ban bill by Representative Billy Richardson from Cumberland County. He did something similar in 1994. Back then his bill called for a “non-binding referendum put to the voters statewide. If it would have passed, it still would have needed action by the General Assembly to be put in place. That bill was killed in the Rules Committee without any discussion. I’ll go into more detail about that history later.

H-513 is Rep. Richardson’s net ban bill. The name listed for the bill is PEOPLES’ CHOICE FOR MARINE SOURCES. That is probably a typo for the title and should be RESOURCES, but that certainly isn’t the only problem with the bill. When filed, the only other sponsor was Representative Marvin Lucas, also from Cumberland County. Larry Yarborough added his name later. The bill was referred to House Rules.

The other bill introduced this week is H-518 by Representative Ed Goodwin. All of the sponsors are listed below. The title is TEMPORARILY WAIVE COMMERCIAL FISHING FEES. The bill would waive Standard Commercial Fishing Licenses, Retired SCFL, Shellfish licenses and Commercial fishing vessel registration for the period of April 1, 2021 through June 29, 2022. Any fees paid already would be subject to a refund upon request. NCFA supports the measure with the following modifications:

1.) Provisions must be made for the Division of Marine Fisheries to recoup some of the revenue lost as a result of the measure. A portion of the money DMF derives from these license sales is used to support programs essential to the commercial fishing industry.

2.) A request to consider including for-hire licenses in the exemption as well.
The bill has been referred to the Marine Resources Committee.

H-513 PEOPLES’ CHOICE FOR MARINE SOURCES

Sponsored by Richardson, Lucas, Yarborough

Currently in House Rules; https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2021/Bills/House/PDF/H513v1.pdf

H-518 TEMPORARILY WAIVE COMMERCIAL FISHING FEES

Sponsored by Goodwin, Hanig, Wray, Richardson, Autry, Brisson, Carney, Carter, Fisher, Harrison, Hunter, Iler, Insko, Lucas, McNeely, Moss, Shepard

Currently in House Marine Resources; if favorable to Finance, then Rules. https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2021/Bills/House/PDF/H518v1.pdf

God bless,
Jerry

NCFA POSITION ON H-513; PEOPLES’ CHOICE FOR MARINE SOURCES; (NET BAN BILL):

It goes without saying that the North Carolina Fisheries Association is opposed to H.B. 513, PEOPLES’ CHOICE FOR MARINE SOURCES, or the Net Ban Referendum Bill.

While the stated purpose of H.B. 513 is “to protect saltwater finfish, shellfish, and other marine animals from unnecessary killing, overfishing, and waste “the true purpose, as with all gear ban or gamefish bills, is to reallocate the resource from one user group to another.

Did you know that no commercial fishing gear ban has ever been implemented by a state or federal agency tasked with managing coastal fisheries? Why is legislation always used to ban commercial gears rather than the fisheries management process?

The answer is quite simple: gear bans are not necessary and not supported by science unless, of course, you include the political sciences. Fisheries Managers regulate the use of gears, rather than prohibit them, to achieve sustainable harvest and have done so in NC. Gill nets are the most highly regulated gear in North Carolina mostly due to perception and not reality.

Rhetoric from groups like the Coastal Conservation Association (CCA) and the North Carolina Wildlife Federation (NCWF) have painted nets as an unregulated, indiscriminate, and destructive gear but the data tells a different story. Dead discards or “waste“ from gill nets have been greatly reduced for many species of finfish like Red Drum, Southern Flounder and Striped Bass simply by regulating the construction and \ or use of the gear. Waste from gill nets now makes up a very small percentage of the total removals for these species while waste in the recreational fisheries has become a significant portion of the total removals. For example, between 2008 and 2017 the recreational sector removed 3,895,597 Red Drum from the stock, 1,568,177 of which were dead discards or waste. These 1,568,177 fish wasted recreationally, over this ten- year period, alone exceeds the total commercial removals, harvest and dead discards combined, for the 29 – year period from 1989 to 2017 of 1,550,130 red drum. If waste in our fisheries is a concern you need to look at all gears for both sectors and determine the level of waste and how or even if it is impacting overall abundance, not single out a gear for prohibition based simply on personal perception.

Since 1994 the number of gillnet trips has decreased by more than 50% as have the number of vessels and fishermen participating in the gill net fisheries. The pounds of fish harvested by gill nets has also been reduced by more than 50% which is interesting, considering the many gear restrictions implemented in this time period. One would assume harvest would have dropped significantly more than effort did. During this same time period the number and pounds of fish harvested recreationally has changed very little but the numbers of fish released and subsequent dead discards or waste has increased dramatically, nearly tripling. This shows that overall, recreational opportunity to catch fish has increased despite what you may have heard to the contrary.

I’m not sure what the bill sponsors mean by “unnecessary killing “but as we interpret it, unnecessary means something that is not a necessity or non-essential. One of the most important lessons gleaned from the covid-19 pandemic has been that domestic food production is essential to national stability. While some states chose to prohibit recreational fishing, commercial fishermen across this country were deemed essential workers in the food production industry and allowed to operate. As meat processing facilities across the country struggled, many Americans turned to their local seafood market for the protein they needed. Nets are an essential gear for many, small scale, North Carolina fishermen and without this gear seafood production will certainly be reduced, as it has with every gill net regulation implemented since the mid 90’s. Commercial fishermen and their gears are necessary and essential to the millions of citizens who are unable to access our fisheries resources for themselves.

Commercial gear bans have been adopted in many coastal states as you may have heard many times. What you probably have not heard is that fisheries managers in those states cannot tell if the predicted benefits from the net bans have been realized. While recreational fishermen often claim success, as they are now catching fish previously harvested by commercial gears (reallocation), managers will tell you the net bans have not prevented overfishing or resulted in overall increases in abundance for many species. In fact, recreational size limits have increased and creel limits have decreased for many highly valued recreational species like Red Drum, Speckled Trout, and Southern Flounder despite the commercial gear bans and \ or gamefish status. While there is some anecdotal evidence of increases for a couple of species, changes to recreational regulations and fish stocking programs make it impossible to determine if the net ban was responsible. The only quantifiable impact of the gear bans has been the negative impacts to commercial fishing families and their communities.

Gill nets certainly interact with “other marine animals “as do other commercial and recreational gears. North Carolinas anchored gill net fisheries currently operate under two Federal Incidental Take Permits ( ITP’s ) meant to reduce interactions with endangered sea turtles and sturgeon. These ITP’s are required for any fishery to legally interact with endangered species. The recreational sector is known to illegally capture endangered sea turtles but the state has taken no action to either reduce or prevent these interactions from occurring. Simply put , the law has not been evenly applied to all citizens making commercial fishermen feel like second class citizens. A quick google search will show that recreational anglers catch turtles, birds, and dolphins but no one has ever drafted a bill proposing a ban on hook and line gear. Again, conservation is not the goal of gear bans so those proposing the ban only point out the issues with the gear they no longer wish to compete with.

As mentioned above reallocation is and always has been the true goal and result of net bans. I recently had the opportunity to provide feedback on a paper, written by a scientist at UNC, for the NC Marine and Estuary Foundation. The paper compared North Carolinas fishery management structure and strategies to the 23 other coastal states and gear bans were part of that comparison. In this paper gear bans were listed under the heading “Resource Allocation “as that is the driving force behind net bans.

Net bans and gamefish bills are not management strategies. They are political strategies utilized by groups who want to reduce the ability of those they view as competition to harvest fish. Nothing more!
By proposing a public referendum, the bill sponsors are hoping to give these groups the opportunity to win over NC voters who are largely uneducated when it comes to coastal fisheries issues. If this bill were passed these groups will ramp their efforts to misinform the public, as they have done in other states, knowing that the group that controls messaging controls the vote.

Members of the NC General Assembly have a responsibility to educate themselves on an issue before taking action. Likewise, NCFA members should be aware of the issues above when speaking or writing about the issue. Unlike the “other side”, let’s use facts and not rhetoric when corresponding or talking to elected officials. And consider this: even if you have all the facts but are disrespectful to those you are conversing with, you lose! And if you lose, WE lose!

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this issue before corresponding with your elected officials, contact us.

Glenn Skinner
NCFA-Executive Director

PROCLAMATION: RE: BLUEFISH – COMMERCIAL PURPOSES – POSSESSION LIMIT

This proclamation supersedes proclamation FF-6-2021, dated December 11, 2020. It establishes the possession limit for the commercial bluefish fishery. The fishery will close by proclamation once the commercial quota is projected to be reached or December 31, 2021, whichever occurs first.

John G. Batherson, Acting Director, Division of Marine Fisheries, hereby announces that effective at 12:01 A.M., April 16, 2021, the following restrictions will apply to the commercial bluefish fishery in Coastal Fishing Waters:

I. HARVEST LIMIT AND PERIOD

It is unlawful for an individual or commercial fishing operation, regardless of the number of persons, license holders, or vessels involved, to possess, sell, or offer for sale more than 800 pounds of bluefish per day or per trip, whichever is more restrictive.
The fishery will close by proclamation once the commercial quota is projected to be reached or December 31, 2021, whichever occurs first.

SEE PROCLAMATION LINK BELOW FOR MORE INFO.

http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=31cde6f3-7d56-4d1c-91b4-337da86bf20e&groupId=38337

NORTH CAROLINA: Stakeholder Input Needed From Fishing Industry

March 24, 2021 — The following was released by the North Carolina Fisheries Association:

North Carolina Fisheries Stakeholders

Coastal Carolina Riverwatch seeks your valued input and participation in a new program that will be developed by fisheries stakeholders to benefit fisheries in North Carolina – Water Quality for Fisheries (WQ4F) Program.

The WQ4F program, through the development of an inclusive Industry Working Group, will determine, from the fishing communities, what water quality issues are impacting our fisheries, will evaluate current water quality programs and research in coastal North Carolina, and will collaboratively develop outreach for coastal citizens and visitors to better understand water quality impacts on fisheries and what all of us can do in our daily lives to help improve coastal water quality.

As a valued member of the fishing community, we look to you for your guidance, input, and participation in this process by attending a series of facilitated Industry Working Group stakeholder meetings.

Please register for the first Stakeholder meeting to be held on Wednesday, April 7th from 4:30 – 6:00 PM.

This will be a virtual (Zoom platform) meeting with participation by phone available. We will begin the meeting at 4pm to troubleshoot with those who need assistance with connecting to the Zoom meeting. Click here to register.

Thank you for your interest, and we look forward to working with you to protect and improve our fisheries for today and for future generations.

NC Fisheries Association seeks to intervene in civil suit against state

February 11, 2021 — A seafood industry nonprofit seeks to intervene in a civil case between a conservation group and state fisheries managers.

The N.C. Fisheries Association, a nonprofit dedicated to supporting the state seafood industry, filed Jan. 28 in Wake County Superior Court a motion to intervene in the civil complaint filed Nov. 10, 2020, by the Coastal Conservation Association’s North Carolina branch against the state. CCANC, a recreational fishing and conservation nonprofit, alleges state officials have mismanaged coastal fisheries resources.

According to a statement posted Feb. 5 on the NCFA’s website, the association “felt obligated to protect the interest of our members and those who rely on commercial fishermen as their source to access North Carolina seafood.”

“Along with our motion to intervene, we have filed a proposed motion requesting the dismissal of the CCA lawsuit against the state,” the association said. “Regardless of the outcome of these motions, the NCFA will address, in court or publicly, each false claim put forward by the CCA.”

Read the full story at the Carteret County News-Times

North Carolina Fisheries Association Files Motion to Intervene in CCA Lawsuit

February 5, 2021 — The following was released by the North Carolina Fisheries Association:

On Thursday, January 28, 2021 the North Carolina Fisheries Association filed a motion to intervene as a party-defendant in the lawsuit filed against the State of NC by the Coastal Conservation Association (CCA) of North Carolina.

On November 10, 2020 the CCA filed a lawsuit alleging that, by allowing the use of gillnets and shrimp trawls, the State has violated the NC Constitution and/or the public trust doctrine by failing to protect our coastal fisheries resources.

Among their many allegations, the CCA claims the State of NC has shown a bias towards the fishing industry by “allowing the commercial fishing industry to dictate or exert a disproportional influence on the States coastal fisheries resources management policies and plans.”

They assert that this alleged bias has, in part, resulted in the mismanagement of our marine resources, violating the public trust doctrine and recreational angler’s constitutional rights.

The CCA’s view – that recreational fishing is a constitutional right which cannot be infringed upon, while commercial fishing is a narrow, limited privilege afforded only by statute – is not a view shared by the NCFA.

We believe all stakeholders, recreational, commercial, and consumer have a right to access our marine resources and a duty to protect them for future generations.

With this in mind the NCFA felt obligated to protect the interest of our members and those who rely on commercial fishermen as their source to access NC seafood.

Along with our motion to intervene we have filed a proposed motion requesting the dismissal of the CCA lawsuit against the State.

Regardless of the outcome of these motions the NCFA will address, in court or publicly, each false claim put forward by the CCA.

If you would like to contribute/donate to NCFA to help with this lawsuit, please make checks payable to:
NCFA Legal Fund
PO Box 86
Morehead City, NC 28557

Motion to Intervene

Affidavit of NCFA Executive Director John Glenn Skinner

Motion to Dismiss

North Carolina state fisheries under legal attack

November 12, 2020 — The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries is fielding attacks from two recreational fishing groups, alleging the agency exhibits “abject failure in properly managing the state’s coastal fisheries resources.”

The lawsuits have been filed by the North Carolina Coastal Fisheries Reform Group (NCCFRG) and most recently, by the Coastal Conservation Association of North Carolina (CCA).

Both actions take aim at the state’s “public-trust responsibilities to manage coastal fish stocks in a way that protects the public-trust rights of the public.”

According to Glenn Skinner, executive director of the North Carolina Fisheries Association, these attacks on the state’s fisheries agencies and the commercial industry are nothing new, but he has noted a change.

“While none of this is surprising, the number of attacks has definitely increased,” says Skinner. “There seems to be an effort to ‘go for the throat’ lately on multiple fronts. Attacks such as these mirror a lot of what’s gone on in other states, especially regarding the CCA.”

Read the full story at National Fisherman

NORTH CAROLINA: That Seafood May Not Be What You Think

September 21, 2020 — Jeffrey Styron sold a lie.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of lies neatly packaged for buyers — primarily small seafood retailers and restaurants — who trusted they were buying crabmeat harvested in the United States.

After all, that’s what the labels on crabmeat from Garland Fulcher Seafood Co. Inc. said.

Earlier this month, Styron, treasurer of the corporate board of officers for Garland Fulcher in Oriental, pleaded guilty to falsely labeling crabmeat as “Product of USA.”

Glenn Skinner, executive director of the North Carolina Fisheries Association, warns consumers to stay away from imported seafood “since you don’t know what you’re getting.”

“To me whether it’s local or not shouldn’t determine whether they should buy seafood,” he said. “I would try to get domestic, whether caught or farm raised, either way.”

Read the full story at Coastal Review Online

Outer Banks seafood sent to Louisiana as part of Hurricane Laura relief

September 16, 2020 — More than 11,000 pounds of Outer Banks shrimp and fish is going to help with storm relief in Louisiana, another area known for seafood and devastating hurricanes.

The North Carolina Fisheries Association coordinated the effort with companies in Wanchese, Grantsboro, Washington, N.C., and Hampton, Va., to gather and ship 11,225 pounds of seafood, including more than 2,000 pounds of shrimp and nearly 9,000 pounds of filleted flounder and other fish, said Jerry Schill, government affairs director for the fisheries organization, in an email.

The seafood shipment was part of a relief effort to help those affected by Hurricane Laura.

“Hurricanes hit the Atlantic and Gulf coasts on a regular basis so we need to have the infrastructure in place and do what we can, just as they would do the same for us,” Schill said.

Read the full story at The Virginian-Pilot