US denies disaster aid for red tide in Massachusetts

In a blow to struggling shellfishermen, a federal agency ruled yesterday that the widespread red tide outbreak along the Massachusetts coast is not severe enough to qualify as a disaster.

Massachusetts had asked the Federal Emergency Management Agency for unemployment benefits and crisis counseling for shellfishermen. Unemployment benefits, which would have varied for each fisherman depending on annual income, would have meant steady paychecks while the shellfish beds are closed, and the counseling would have provided emotional support.

''I don't know what they're thinking," said Jeffrey Thomas, an Ipswich clammer who added that he is considering going to Washington state to clam until the red tide abates. ''It's been awful hard. I have to go all the way across the country to make money, and they say it's not bad enough here to help us."

It is not uncommon for disaster requests to be turned down, said FEMA spokeswoman Nicole Andrews. Requests are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and states must prove they are overwhelmed by a situation and cannot handle it without federal assistance, she said. Last year's hurricanes in Florida, for example, devastated so many people that the state did not have enough resources to provide sufficient help and needed federal assistance, she said. Flooding from Hurricane Ivan alone caused so much damage that 15 states, including Florida, received a disaster declaration.

Massachusetts officials said they would appeal the FEMA decision.

''It's not over," said Julie Teer, spokeswoman for Governor Mitt Romney. ''We continue to believe a disaster declaration is in order."

The persistent algae bloom has crippled the shellfish industry in Maine and Massachusetts, putting 2,000 fishermen out of work and costing an estimated $3 million a week since the outbreak began last month.

FEMA said the impact is largely economic and has not caused enough damage to require federal assistance.

''It has been determined that the impact of this event is not of the severity and magnitude that warrants a major disaster declaration," Michael D. Brown, the agency's undersecretary for emergency preparedness and response, wrote in a letter received by Romney yesterday afternoon.

Besides looking at an event's economic impact, FEMA considers how many people are affected, whether those people have insurance, whether there is loss of housing or other physical damages, and many other factors before deciding whether a situation qualifies as a disaster, Andrews said. There is no typical case, she said.

''A flood in Iowa is very different from a flood in Florida," she said.

New England's toxic algae bloom, which is caused by an explosion of single-celled organisms, stretches from the Nova Scotia border in Canada to Martha's Vineyard. It collects in clams, oysters, and other shellfish, and it can cause illness or even death in humans if eaten in enough quantity. It does not affect lobsters, shrimp, crabs, or finned fish, and swimming is safe, public health officials say.

While scientists have reported that toxicity levels in some parts of southern Maine and a few pockets around Cape Cod dropped slightly this week, officials expect the shellfish beds will remain closed for another two to four weeks.

Massachusetts has 30 days to appeal FEMA's decision. Teer said that since Romney filed for aid June 10, the bloom has continued to spread; with the new data collected in the past two weeks, she said, the state was optimistic that the severity of the outbreak will be documented.

''We're very confident that we have even stronger data now to go back to FEMA with," she said.

FEMA spokesman Marty Bahamonde called the agency's decision complicated.

''It's challenging because this was not a normal type of disaster," he said.

Requests for disaster aid because of red tide are rare, Bahamonde said. The last request came from Florida in 2001 and was denied, he said.

Massachusetts has never asked for FEMA's help during an outbreak of red tide, he said.

The government has stepped in to aid the state because of red tide only once before, during a monthlong outbreak in 1972, but that was before the agency existed, he said.

US Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, urged President Bush to reconsider.

''I am deeply disappointed that the administration did not declare a national disaster for Massachusetts today that would have provided badly needed relief for shellfishermen in crisis," he said.

US Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, pledged to seek other aid.

''Massachusetts shellfishermen and their families are in dire need of this aid," he said, ''and the federal government ought to acknowledge that by declaring our affected coastline a disaster site."

New England shellfishermen are getting some federal relief. The Small Business Association has pledged low-interest loans to Massachusetts shellfishermen, and state officials have asked the US Department of Agriculture for similar aid for aquaculturists. The US Commerce Department also has declared a ''fishery failure" in Massachusetts and Maine, which allows Congress to appropriate money for federal grants or loans.

But some fishermen, many of whom have been draining their savings accounts and working odd jobs to make ends meet while the shellfish beds are closed, say that they are reluctant to seek loans they will have to pay back and that they were hoping for unemployment benefits.

FEMA could not say what percentage of pay would be reimbursed if the benefits are granted.

''That's going to leave me with a lot less money in my savings account," said Barry Greco, a Chatham clammer who has been out of work since public health officials closed most of the state's shellfish beds more than a month ago. ''I don't know if they know how bad it's been. I was hoping for anything I could get."