Saving Seafood

ASMFC 2019 Summer Meeting Supplemental Materials Now Available

July 31, 2019 — The following was released by Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission:

Supplemental materials for the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Summer Meeting are now available at http://www.asmfc.org/home/2019-summer-meeting for the following Boards/Workshop (click on “Supplemental” following each relevant committee header to access the information). For ease of access, supplemental meeting materials have been combined into one PDF. Not included in the combined document are supplemental materials for the Executive Committee.

South Atlantic State/Federal Fisheries Management Board – Revised Draft Agenda & Meeting Overview; Atlantic Cobia Technical Committee Meeting Summary; Atlantic Croaker Traffic Light Analysis (TLA) Report; Spot TLA Report; Draft Atlantic Cobia Fishery Management Plan Review; Draft Atlantic Croaker Fishery Management Plan Review

American Eel Management Board – Revised Meeting Overview

Horseshoe Crab Management Board – Advisory Panel Call Summary

Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Management Board – Public Comment; Black Sea Bass Commercial Options; Review of Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Discard Mortality

Tautog Management Board – 2019 Draft Fishery Management Plan Review

Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board – Draft Addendum VI; 2019 Draft Fishery Management Plan Review; Public Comment

Wind Power Workshop for New England and Mid‐Atlantic Commissioners and NOAA Fisheries –Revised Draft Agenda

As a reminder, Board meeting proceedings will be broadcast daily via webinar beginning at 10:15 a.m. on Tuesday, August 6th and continuing daily until the conclusion of the meeting (expected to be 5:00 p.m.) on Thursday, August 8th. The webinar will allow registrants to listen to board deliberations and view presentations and motions as they occur. No comments or questions will be accepted via the webinar. Should technical difficulties arise while streaming the broadcast the boards/sections will continue their deliberations without interruption. We will attempt to resume the broadcast as soon as possible. To register, please go to https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/3215930074468838914

Oregon wants to untangle whales from crab fishery

July 23, 2019 — Oregon fishery managers are changing how the state’s lucrative Dungeness crab fishery will be managed to avoid tangling whales in commercial fishing gear.

Though the changes happening this season are relatively minor for commercial fishermen, difficult discussions are on the horizon.

The number of whales entangled so far this year off Oregon, Washington state and California appears to be down compared to prior years, according to preliminary reports. But Oregon wants to avoid a lawsuit like the one brought against California by the Center for Biological Diversity. That lawsuit, over impacts to whales from commercial fishing activities, settled in March.

For now, fishery managers will eliminate a two-week postseason cleanup period in the commercial Dungeness fishery — a grace period for fishermen to clear gear out of the water. Instead, all commercial gear must be out of the water by the last day of the season on Aug. 14.

The measure, along with others, including the introduction of new buoy tags to help better identify gear, were among a list of recommendations proposed by the Oregon Whale Entanglement Working Group. The stakeholder group, which includes fishermen and industry representatives as well as researchers and fishery managers, began meeting in 2017 following several years of record-high incidents of whale entanglement.

Read the full story at The Astorian

Massive shift underway in China’s aquaculture, fisheries sectors

July 19, 2019 — It’s unlikely anyone on the average Chinese aquaculture worker’s wages will afford to eat often at “Guo,” a fancy new restaurant which opened recently at the New Century Hotel in Dalian, one of China’s traditional fishing and seafood processing hubs – and the home town of the Zoneco Group.

Punters pay CNY 500 (USD 73.00, EUR 64.76) to sit amid chic décor at a buffet of “Dongbei” treats including lobsters and crabs.

The average annual income for a Chinese fisherman (including aquaculture workers) stood at CNY 18,450 (USD 2,685, EUR 2,390) in 2017. That’s lower than an industrial wage in China – and this in a workforce that is now officially shrinking. And that might explain why so many are exiting the sector.

China claims a total 18.7 million people are active in fisheries, which includes related industries. Other figures suggest five million involved directly in aquaculture. But it’s not clear how long many of the small-time players in the industry – and that huge headcount – will last.

Several factors are combining to radically transform China’s fisheries and aquaculture sector. Most significant among those are a nationwide environmental crackdown and the domestic market’s mounting concern over food safety and the overuse of chemicals and antibiotics in local aquaculture production.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Kona Crab, Bigeye Tuna Among Fishery Science Discussions Next Week in Honolulu

June 11, 2019 — The following was released by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council:

Renowned scientists from throughout the Pacific will meet June 18-20 in Honolulu to consider a range of issues facing the offshore fisheries of Hawai’i and the US Territories of American Samoa, Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Recommendations from this group known as the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will be forwarded to the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, which meets in Honolulu on June 25-27. The Council develops fishery management measures for the fisheries, which are transmitted to the US Secretary of Commerce for approval and implemented by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

Kona Crab: SSC members will hear reports to inform their setting the acceptable biological catch for the main Hawaiian Islands Kona crab. Updated information is now available from a 2019 benchmark stock assessment with catch projection to 2026. The SSC’s recommendation, including a new way to incorporate management uncertainties and risk of overfishing, will help the Council specify multi-year harvest limits for fishing years 2020-2023.

Bigeye Tuna: In December 2018, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission agreed to limit the US longline bigeye tuna catch in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean to 3,554 metric tons annually in 2019 and 2020. In 2014, an amendment to the Council’s Pelagic Fishery Ecosystem Plan in part provided NMFS with the authority to specify annual catch limits in US participating territories. It also allows NMFS to specify a limit, recommended by the Council, authorizing a US participating territory to allocate a portion of that specified catch limit to eligible US vessels through a fishing agreement. The SSC will decide on potential catch and/or allocation limits to recommend to the Council, in addition to considering if the limits should be re-evaluated annually or after multiple years.

Other Issues:

  • The SSC will review and provide input on a NOAA Fisheries framework for determining that stock status determinations and catch specifications are based on the best scientific information available.
  • A working group of the SSC will seek to define benefits and limitations to spatial management actions, both existing and potential, relative to pertinent regional fishery issues and management objectives.
  • The SSC will review and may endorse a process developed by its working group to comply with the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Act (2018) requirement for greater incorporation of non-governmental information sources into federal fisheries management.

Summary of Action Items for the 178th Meeting of the WPRFMC

June 5, 2019 — The following was published by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council:

The 178th meeting of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council will convene June 25-27, 2019, at the Laniakea YWCA, Fuller Hall, Honolulu, Hawai’i. The Council will consider and may take action on the issues summarized below, including any public comments on them. Written public comments should be received by the Council’s executive director by 5 p.m. (Hawai’i time), Thursday, June 20, 2019, by postal mail, fax or email as indicated below. After June 20, it is the submitter’s responsibility to provide at least 40 copies of the written comment to Council staff at the Council meeting.

Mail: Ms. Kitty M. Simonds
Executive Director
Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council
1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400
Honolulu, HI 96813

FAX: (808) 522-8226
E-mail: info.wpcouncil@noaa.gov

Action Item Summaries
A
1. Specifying Harvest Limits for the Main Hawaiian Islands Kona Crab

The Council will consider specifying multi-year harvest limits for the main Hawaiian Island Kona crab for fishing years 2020-2023. The best scientific information available is the 2019 benchmark stock assessment with catch projection to 2026[1]. Based on this updated information, the maximum sustainable yield was estimated to be at 73,609 pounds and the overfishing limit at 33,989 pounds. The Council’s P* and SEEM* Working Groups and the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) evaluated the scientific, social, ecological, economic, and management uncertainties and recommended a risk level for the Council to consider. The SEEM* working group used a new standardized process developed by the Social Science Planning Committee (SSPC), in which the social, ecological, and economic dimension is used to determine the risk of overfishing, and the monitoring and compliance/management criteria are used to determine management uncertainty. The risk of overfishing informs the Council’s consideration of annual catch limit (ACL) specification, and the management uncertainty informs the Council’s consideration in setting the annual catch target (ACT).

The Council will evaluate the following options:
1) No Action. No harvest limits will be specified for fishing year 2020-2023.
2) Specify the previous harvest limit at 3,500 pounds using the 2015 assessment (Thomas et al. 2015) for fishing year 2020-2023.
3) Specify the ACL equal to the acceptable biological catch (ABC) at P*=38 percent at 30,802 pounds and set an ACT at P*=30 percent at 28,324 pounds based on the P* and SEEM* Analysis using the 2019 benchmark stock assessment.
4) Specify the ACL equal to the ABC at P*=38 percent at 30,802 pounds and set an ACT 10 percent lower than the SEEM* analysis at P*=20 percent at 25,491 pounds using the 2019 benchmark stock assessment
5) Specify the ACL equal to the ABC at P*=38 percent at 30,802 pounds and set an ACT 20 percent lower than the SEEM* analysis at P*=10 percent at 21,243 pounds using the 2019 benchmark stock assessment

At its 178th meeting, the Council will consider taking final action to specify the harvest limits and the accountability measure that will prevent the fishery from overfishing the stock.

citation
[1]Kapur MR, Fitchett MD, Yau AJ, Carvalho F. 2019. 2018 Benchmark Stock Assessment of Main Hawaiian Islands Kona Crab. NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-PIFSC-77, 114 p. doi:10.25923/7wf2-f040

B
2. Hawai’i Fishery Ecosystem Plan Amendment to Precious Coral Essential Fish Habitat

The Council at its 173rd meeting in June 2018 directed staff to develop options to redefine essential fish habitat (EFH) and any habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for precious corals in Hawai’i for Council consideration for a Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) amendment. EFH information was reviewed through the 2015 and 2016 annual Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report cycles and an options paper was developed for the 174th meeting in October 2018.

New observations of precious corals have occurred throughout the region, with research concentrated in the Hawai’i Archipelago. Observations in the territories and of the larval phase of precious corals are rare or nonexistent. However, new information exists to refine the habitat characteristics and geographic extent of deep- and shallow-water precious coral EFH in the Hawai’i Archipelago. Narrative information on which the EFH designations are based and information to fulfill the EFH requirements of fishery management plans may also be used to update the archipelagic FEPs. The redefinition of precious corals EFH is framed in three separate actions: refinement of deep-water species complex EFH; refinement of shallow-water precious coral species complex EFH; and update of the narrative information.

The Council at its 174th meeting reviewed the following options for each of the three actions:
Action 1 – Update EFH for deep-water precious coral species
Options
1) No change (status quo)
2) Revise EFH by depth range
3) Refine the geographic boundary of existing precious coral beds
4) Refine the geographic boundary of existing beds and add new beds

Action 2 – Update EFH for shallow-water precious coral species:
Options
1) No change (status quo)
2) Update geographic extent and habitat characteristics.

Action 3 – Update EFH narrative information
Options
1) Update the FEP narrative information on EFH
2) Do not update the FEP narrative information on EFH

The Council took initial action at its 174th meeting directing staff to prepare an amendment to the Hawai’i FEP to revise the Precious Corals EFH and selected the following preliminary preferred options:

Action 1 – Option 4: Refine the geographic boundary of existing beds and add new beds.
Action 2 – Option 2: Update geographic extent and habitat characteristics.
Action 3 – Option 1: Update the FEP narrative information on EFH.
At its 178th meeting, the Council will consider taking final action to amend the Precious Coral EFH section of the Hawai’i FEP.

C
3. Managing Loggerhead and Leatherback Sea Turtle Interactions in the Hawai’i-Based Shallow-Set Longline Fishery

The Council at its 173rd meeting in June 2018 recommended amending the Pelagic FEP to establish a management framework for the Hawai’i shallow-set longline fishery that consists of 1) annual limits on the number North Pacific loggerhead and leatherback turtle interactions consistent with the anticipated level of annual interactions that is set forth in the current valid biological opinion (BiOp) and 2) individual trip interaction limits for loggerhead and leatherback turtles. The Council also recommended specifications under the framework as follows: 1) annual limits of 37 North Pacific loggerhead turtles and 21 leatherback turtles; and 2) individual trip limit of five North Pacific loggerhead turtles.

The Council’s recommendation for specifying the loggerhead and leatherback turtle annual limits was based on the anticipated level of interactions analyzed in the biological evaluation (BE) initiating reconsultation of the Hawai’i shallow-set longline fishery under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation process. As part of its recommendation, the Council noted that it would review its recommendation if the new BiOp from the ongoing consultation results in a jeopardy decision or otherwise results in a different incidental take statement for North Pacific loggerheads or leatherbacks. The new BiOp was originally scheduled to be completed by Oct. 31, 2018, but the draft was not completed in time for the October SSC and Council meeting. Following the October meetings, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO) set a new timeline to deliver the draft BiOp by Jan. 31, 2019, and a final BiOp by Feb. 28, 2019. Due to the federal government shutdown, the draft BiOp timeline was further delayed to March 25, 2019.

At its October 2018 meeting, the SSC received a presentation from the NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) on the population viability analysis (PVA) for loggerhead and leatherback turtles prepared for the ongoing Section 7 consultation. The modeling was conducted in response to a request by the PIRO Protected Resources Division for the purpose of examining the long-term viability of the species. PVA results indicate that the North Pacific loggerhead population has a mean estimated population growth rate of 2.4 precent, while the Western Pacific leatherback turtle population has a mean estimated population growth rate of 5.3 percent. The growth rates reflect long-term population trends based on nesting beach data representing approximately 52 percent of the North Pacific loggerhead turtle population and approximately 85 percent of the Western Pacific leatherback turtle population.

The Council at its 174th meeting in October 2018 reviewed the approach to the assessment for the BiOp and considered the SSC’s report regarding the PVA. The Council recommended convening an interim Council meeting, if needed, to review draft BiOp and consider any revisions to its June 2018 recommendations based on the BiOp and stated that it will reconsider a specification of leatherback individual trip limits if necessary.

The Council convened its 175th Meeting on Dec. 17, 2018, to consider final action on additional mitigation measures for the Western Pacific leatherback turtles in advance of the draft BiOp completion, taking into consideration the results of the PVA model indicating a continuing long-term declining trend of the population. The Council deferred action until the draft BiOp and more complete information on the impacts of the fishery on the Western Pacific leatherback turtles are available to fully inform the Council decision.

The draft BiOp was provided to the Council on March 28, 2019. The Council convened its 177th meeting on April 12, 2019, to review its recommendations on the management framework from the 173rd meeting for consistency with the draft BiOp and to consider taking final action on the management framework. The draft BiOp concluded that the shallow-set longline fishery is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of ESA-listed species, including loggerhead and leatherback turtles. However, the draft BiOp also contained Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs) that were inconsistent with the Council’s recommended framework. The Council at its 177th meeting maintained its management framework recommendation from the 173rd Council meeting, additionally recommended an individual trip limit of two leatherback turtles and requested that NMFS consider revising the RPMs for consistency with the Council recommended action.

At its 178th meeting, the Council will review the final BiOp for consistency with the 177th meeting recommendations and may consider taking additional final action if any discrepancies remain with the previously recommended action.

D
4. US Participating Territory Longline Bigeye Catch/Allocation Limits

Bigeye tuna comprises a Pacific-wide population that is internationally managed and assessed as separate stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) and Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Association (IATTC), respectively. The best scientific information available indicates that both stocks are not subject to overfishing nor are they overfished, according to the stock status determination reference points in the FEP for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. The scientific bodies of the WCPFC and IATTC will consider new benchmark stock assessments for both stocks in 2020.

In December 2018, the WCPFC agreed on CMM 2018-01, which limits the US longline bigeye tuna catch in the WCPO to 3,554 metric tons (mt) in 2019 and 2020. CMM 2018-01 does not establish an individual limit on the amount of bigeye tuna that may be harvested annually in the Convention Area by Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Participating Territories, including American Samoa, Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Limits are not provided to the SIDS and Participating Territories in recognition of their fisheries development aspirations.

In 2014, Amendment 7 to the Council’s Pelagic FEP was approved and implemented (50 CFR 665.819). It established the territorial catch/effort and allocation limit measure that provides NMFS with authority to:
Specify annual catch or effort limits for a US Participating Territory, as recommended by the Council, not to exceed any WCPFC-adopted limits;
Specify a limit recommended by the Council authorizing a US Participating Territory to allocate a portion of that specified catch or effort limit to eligible US vessels through a specified fishing agreement; and
Review and approve specified fishing agreements for consistency with the Pelagic FEP and other applicable laws.

The Council must annually review the conservation status of the fishery resource, the needs of fishing communities dependent on the particular fishery resource and consistency with the Pelagics FEP and other applicable laws in considering its recommendations for territorial catch, effort and allocation limits as well as its review of specified fishing agreements. Amendment 7 also established a territorial longline bigeye tuna catch limit of 2,000 mt for each territory and an allocation limit of 1,000 mt for each territory. At its 173rd meeting in June 2018, the Council took final action to modify the territorial catch/effort and allocation limit measure and implementing regulations. Should NMFS approve the action, it will amend the Pelagic FEP to remove the requirement for establishing separate total catch or effort limits for the US Participating Territories in order to establish an allocation limit and also would allow multi-year limits. The Council would annually review any established limits to determine whether the best available scientific information or the needs of fishing communities warrant modifying or rescinding such limits.

At its 178th meeting, the Council will consider recommending territorial bigeye tuna catch and/or allocation limits to take effect beginning in 2020, given the Council’s recommended modification of the territorial catch, effort and allocation limit measure. The Council will consider the following options:
1. No catch or allocation limits (no action)
2. 2,000 mt catch and 1,000 mt allocation limits
3. No catch limit and up to 2,000 mt allocation limits

The Council will also consider the fishing years in which the limits will take effect or expire, in consideration of the requirement for annual review, availability of new scientific information and potential for multi-year limits.

In a settlement over whale entanglement, California’s Dungeness crab fishermen lose the spring season

June 3, 2019 — The worst-case scenario has been averted — no multiyear closure of California’s Dungeness crab fishery. But fishermen will feel the sting for years to come after a settlement in a lawsuit over whale and sea turtle entanglements has closed spring crabbing in the state for the foreseeable future. And the fishermen are not happy.

“The settlement is going to be extremely painful and extremely difficult to deal with,” said Noah Oppenheim, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, noting that millions of dollars in product will be left in the water this year. “But this was the best possible deal that was acceptable to all parties.”

At issue is a 2017 lawsuit in federal court by the Oakland, Calif.-based Center for Biological Diversity that argued the state of California was in violation of the Endangered Species Act after a three-year spike in whale entanglements in Dungeness crab fishing gear from 2014 to 2017.

The lawsuit sought to force the state of California to obtain a federal incidental take permit for whales and turtles — a process that takes around three years to implement. It would have been possible for the fishery to remain closed during the intervening years, although the CBD says it never sought an indefinite closure through litigation.

In 2015, 50 whales, including humpback, gray and blue whales, were confirmed to have become entangled in fishing gear, up from an average of less than 10 annual entanglements in the 15 years prior. In 2016, the number of entanglements remained high at 48 confirmed whale entanglements. Numbers in 2017 were down, but still above historical norms, with 31 confirmed entanglements on the West Coast.

Read the full story at National Fisherman

Cell-based seafood faces labeling fight in US

June 3, 2019 — Those who remember the introduction of surimi to the U.S. in the early 1980s might still recall a fight that rose to the federal level involving what it would officially be named.

“Sea Legs,” “King Krab,” “Crab Shapes,” and “crab sticks” were all put forward as options. Eventually, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration required – but did not have the manpower to enforce – the term “imitation crab.” Finally, it agreed in 2006 to the long-winded “Crab-flavored seafood, made with surimi, a fully cooked fish protein.”

Previously, the U.S. government oversaw a protracted fight by the dairy industry against “oleomargarine.” The fight involved questions over classification of the product for tax purposes and a mishmash of state laws, some of which included a requirement to sell margarine in its original pale grey color – the yellow dye to be physically mixed in by the consumer – to avoid deception.

Now the scene is playing out for cell-based meats, if that is what they will finally be called.

“Cell-based meat,” “cell-cultured meat,” or “lab-grown meat,” are all terms referring to artificially cultured muscle or organ cells of animals. The Good Food Institute (GFI), which lobbies for and promotes the plant-based meat analog and cell-based meat industries, promotes the term “clean meat.”

“Rather than obtaining meat from animals raised on environmentally destructive factory farms and slaughtered in filthy slaughterhouses, clean meat is produced by taking a small sample of animal cells and replicating them in a culture outside of the animal. The resulting product is 100 percent real meat, but without the antibiotics, E. coli, salmonella, or waste contamination – all of which come standard in conventional meat production,” the organization explains on its website.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Port of Seattle would sink without Alaska’s fisheries

May 24, 2019 — If not for Alaska’s fisheries, the Port of Seattle would not be what it is today.

How important is Alaska to its bottom line?

An economic report released this month by the Port of Seattle reveals that Seattle is home  to about 300 fishing vessels and of those, all but 74 make their fishing living in Alaska. The Seattle-based boats harvest Alaska pollock, Bering Sea crab, flounders, salmon and many other high value species, and they vary in size from huge, 150 crew catcher-processors to much smaller seiners and trawlers.

In 2017, fishing vessels that moored at one of Seattle’s three terminals and operated in the Alaskan fisheries generated gross earnings of more $455 million, or nearly half of the gross earnings from Alaska’s fisheries. That represented 44% of all gross earnings from the North Pacific fisheries.

Boats fishing in Puget Sound and other Washington areas earned $26.6 million at the Seattle docks.

An estimated 7,200 jobs were directly associated with commercial fishing at the Port of Seattle in 2017. Of that, 5,100 jobs were on fishing vessels, of which all but just 200 operated in Alaska fisheries.

Read the full story at Alaska Fish Radio

Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Protects Crab and Salmon from Mining Operations in Alaska

May 23, 2019 — The following was released by NOAA Fisheries:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) recently released for public comment a General Permit for Floating Mining Operations in Alaska State Navigable Waters, including marine waters. The permit includes new measures to protect red king crab and salmon which migrate through Norton Sound and into rivers to spawn. NOAA Fisheries reviews public notices and offers expertise to the USACE for the conservation of living marine resources.

Floating mining operations use a dredge in nearshore waters to ‘vacuum’ up gravel and sand substrates which are then sifted to retain gold. The new protections restrict mining operations during certain spring and summer months when juvenile red king crab settle to the seafloor. Mining operations will also be restricted in waters deeper than 30 feet and within one nautical mile of stream mouths to avoid areas where salmon concentrate.

An Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation with NOAA Fisheries is required whenever a federal agency authorizes, funds, or undertakes activities in an area that will affect EFH. Together, the agency and NOAA determine how best to conduct the coastal activity while supporting fish habitat and minimizing or avoiding environmental damage. The science conducted through this consultation helped USACE make management decisions; balancing mining and fishery interests in the Norton Sound.

In recent years, researchers and scientists from the University of Alaska, Fairbanks and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center used regular baseline sampling, analysis, monitoring, and new side-scan sonars technologies to inform studies on the benthic environment and red king crab in Norton Sound. Results showed that habitats deeper than 30 feet of water take more time to recover, while shallower habitats are routinely disturbed by natural events and recover quickly. Surveys also showed that crab larvae settle in nearshore substrates. These findings were used to better inform managers with the most recent science for the EFH consultation process.

NOAA Fisheries has provided USACE with EFH conservation recommendations relating to suction dredging operations in Norton Sound since 1999.

Read the full release here

6 Reasons Why Alaska’s Aleutian Islands are a Hot Spot for Sea Life

May 17, 2019 — The following was released by NOAA Fisheries:

  1. The Aleutian Island ecosystem supports a rich diversity of species found in few other places in the world. Such intense biodiversity, more typically associated with tropical rainforests or coral reefs, is especially rare at high latitudes.
  2. A convergence of seas, storms, and volcanoes create the dynamic environment that supports incredible biodiversity. The Aleutians separate the Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea. They are whipped by notorious winds and battered by 50 foot waves. They form the 1,200-mile northern arc of the Pacific Ring of Fire.
  3. NOAA Fisheries scientists continue to discover new species of fish and invertebrates in the Aleutians. Some Aleutian species show promise in medicine, including a potential treatment for cancer.
  4. Whales, porpoises, sea otters, seals, sea lions, and seabirds live and feed in the Aleutian ecosystem. Some islands are important rookeries for seals and sea lions. Passages between islands are critical migration routes for endangered whales.
  5. Not only a great diversity, but a great abundance of life thrives in seas surrounding the Aleutians. Overall Alaska is responsible for more than half of the nation’s seafood harvest.
  6. The Aleutian Islands are home to Dutch Harbor, America’s biggest and busiest fishing port. Alaska Pollock is the highest volume fishery, but other important harvests include halibut, cod, rockfish, and crab.

Read the full release here