[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6199533,"mediaKeyId","3826035-48ead707912e0ef892d829a8445477e7","parentId",3826035,"title","Council continues Phase 2 stock‑definition work; 40 species undergo 10‑factor review and dozens more staged for final review","audioSeconds",216,"startMs",2700000,"endMs",2916000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3826035-48ead707912e0ef892d829a8445477e7&start=2700&end=2916","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3826035-48ead707912e0ef892d829a8445477e7/thumbnail_2700000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6199533/Washington/Council-continues-Phase-2-stockdefinition-work-40-species-undergo-10factor-review-and-dozens-more-staged-for-final-review","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6199533-2fed3769382f85e0da9d6c362d1c49a5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771072611&Signature=YJ4DE6Ff~12uxMJOCY9hESzyw6VXs-Jms7F4OKcCzAoxAqk973t3bdPkJcap56TGoL~sMNyyzcyUpmLgncoYxcR7xyIO~On4ImLMnWQtFo~6gN4~mYjUibob15J6Rx2KgipM3Je5kv41V1uiSZ7xz54wWcu9zzJAjvYgJY0B~gqGixYLSbqXMrb-159tcCeI1WurZcG88q3KfDQ-k6LkcEO5OvBW7w8n7exo30gJwFctswtJruR8qmkHXBYsyAmufloj1IZnP~Fn~vcJnNk1EIrSFUepUdnJKK~~vnP6REItB2cXaonj5JeTuntdGOJs3ZsMO7smjDFXPRXcGkeFdg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Fishery Management Council, Pacific","date","2025-06-15T02:22:31.697Z","article","The council’s multi‑year Phase 2 stock‑definition project advanced at the June meeting as staff, technical teams and advisory bodies presented an exhaustive 10‑factor evaluation of 40 groundfish species and supplemental analyses for 47 species for which the council had already set a preliminary preferred alternative (PPA) in March.

What the project does
Phase 2 implements MSA guidance (50 C.F.R. § 600.305) requiring councils to identify stocks “in need of conservation and management” in the EEZ. The adopted framework asks councils first to weigh three key biological/resource factors (ecological importance, whether the species is caught in EEZ fisheries, and whether a federal fishery management plan can help maintain or improve stock condition), then to consider economic/social/fishery development factors and an overarching governance (factor 10) test about whether other authorities already adequately manage the stock.

Materials and process
- Attachment 1 (47 species): staff analyzed species the council had put forward as PPAs in March; 28 of those species lacked formal stock definitions and the council was asked to adopt stock‑definition options (coastwide or state breaks). NMFS/GMT recommended option 1 (single stock, coastwide or state-specific) for 46 of the 47 species; harlequin rockfish was treated separately and flagged for further review.
- Attachment 2 (40 species): staff and the GMT completed the 10‑factor evaluation called for in the council’s March decision. That technical analysis grouped species into ecological/fishery “bins” (shallow nearshore, deeper nearshore, shallow shelf, deep shelf, flatfish, no‑mortality, elasmobranch) to summarize factor results.

Advisory body input and themes
- SCIENTIFIC AND STATISTICAL COMMITTEE (SSC): Generally supportive of using the factors; recommended precise technical approaches for combining assessments (e.g., how to combine subarea assessments of different assessment “category” levels). The SSC reiterated a long‑standing caution: nearshore rockfish typically show finer‑scale population structure, and where uncertainty exists councils should be cautious about excluding spatial components of a species from the FMP; consistent data collection remains critical.
- GROUND FISH MANAGEMENT TEAM (GMT): Recommended the council adopt Alternative 1 as final preferred alternative (FPA) for 46 of 47 Attachment 1 species (harlequin excepted); recommended option 1 stock definitions (single stock) for most undefined species. For the 40 species subjected to the 10‑factor review GMT provided species‑by‑species PPA recommendations and rationale in table form. GMT also recommended a regular (biennial) automated review of ecosystem‑component (EC) species mortality so the council can quickly revisit EC designations if mortality trends change.
- GROUND FISH ADVISORY SUBPANEL (GAP): GAP supported retaining many species in the FMP if NMFS can continue to manage them; GAP stressed the council should retain stocks that are economically or culturally important. GAP recommended Alternative 1 FPA for most Attachment 1 species but asked that harlequin, rose‑thorn and striped‑tail rockfishes be reconsidered under the 10‑factor pathway because of rarity, taxonomic confusion, or low fishery value.
- TRIBAL INPUT: Coastal treaty tribes provided a focused submission identifying seven species of particular commercial and subsistence concern to treaty tribes (black rockfish, blue/deacon, quillback, rocksole, sandsole, cabezon, kelp greenling) and asked the council to retain these species in the FMP and in assessment/monitoring/management pathways.
- HABITAT COMMITTEE: Observed that removing species from the FMP will change EFH (essential fish habitat) text and spatial descriptions. EFH designations and habitat consultation rely on the FMP definitions; removing species can therefore alter the set of habitats that are explicitly described and protected as groundfish EFH and might weaken the scope of EFH consultations.

Technical and policy points to note
- The council adopted a 25% threshold (seen in prior scoping) to designate a species as “principally caught” in the EEZ for the purposes of the factor 2 analysis. A number of species showed de minimis or low EEZ mortality (sometimes <0.1 mt/yr), and those low‑mortality species were often moved toward alternatives that remove them from the FMP or make them EC species.
- The SSC cautioned about combining assessments of different assessment categories (category 1, 2, 3). It recommended that, where category 1 and 2 subarea assessments are combined, status determinations should use summed current abundance and summed FOY estimates; where category 3 (less certain) subareas are combined with category 1/2, the status determination should generally rely on the category 1/2 result unless category 3 biomass is a large fraction of the total.
- The GMT and SSC emphasized that decisions are reversible under council procedures: stock definitions and FMP membership can be revisited if new science or fisheries conditions warrant.

Outcomes from the June discussion
- The meeting ended with robust debate and technical reports but no final single‑meeting closure on all Phase 2 decisions; many species had PPAs identified in March and the council obtained a wealth of technical material (GMT tables, SSC guidance, GAP and tribal input) to use before final preferred alternatives are adopted.
- The council asked for additional clarity about the relationship between EC designations and EFH, and GMT requested staff produce a short plan for routine EC mortality tracking (to be discussed at the September meeting) rather than immediately widening the scope of Phase 2 to formally change EC designations.

Why this matters
- Defining which species are “in need of conservation and management” in federal waters determines whether they remain under coordinated West Coast FMP management (which triggers ABC/ACL processes, EFH descriptions, federal consultations and coastwide stock assessments) or whether they are removed from the FMP/managed via state processes or EC designations.
- Changes will affect how EFH is described (habitat protections), how data are collected and assessed, and where future management attention will be focused. Several advisory bodies urged caution and a stepwise approach; the SSC and GMT emphasized the technical steps (e.g., combining assessments) needed to avoid unintended localized depletion or loss of habitat protections.

Next steps and staff work requested
- Council staff and GMT will refine analyses, publish corrected attachment tables, and prepare materials for final preferred alternative decisions at a later meeting (September was discussed as next substantive check‑in). GMT asked staff to outline an automated EC mortality‑tracking product for periodic review and to prepare a short memo describing options for management measures that could apply to EC species.
- NMFS/SSC technical guidance requested on combining different assessment categories and on the implications of merging subarea assessments for OFL/ABC setting.

Selected speakers and submissions cited
- Todd Phillips, Council staff — program overview and analytical framing of alternatives.
- Katrina Bernhouse, Council staff — described alternatives, scope and requested decision points.
- Jason Schaffler (SSC) — read SSC position and recommendations on combining assessments and caution on nearshore population structure.
- Whitney Roberts (GMT) — summarized technical 10‑factor outcomes and recommended PPAs and stock options in Table 2 of supplemental Attachment 2.
- Merritt McCray (GAP) — GAP species‑specific positions and request that NMFS continue federal management where possible; recommended additional 10‑factor consideration for rare species.
- Tribal representatives (written and oral comments) — flagged seven species of high subsistence/commercial importance and requested continued inclusion in the FMP.

What to watch for
- SSC technical guidance on combining assessments and how subarea category discrepancies will be treated for OFL/ABC setting.
- Staff corrections to supplemental Attachment 1 (posted corrections) and updated tables for the next council meeting.
- GMT‑proposed automated EC‑mortality monitoring product and the council’s decision whether to adopt a biennial EC review within the harvest‑specifications cycle.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","June 2025 PFMC Council Meeting Day 2: 6/14/25","oneSentenceSummary","Phase 2 of the council’s stock‑definition project advanced: GMT and staff presented a 10‑factor evaluation for 40 species and an FPA analysis for 47 species; advisory bodies (SSC, GMT, GAP, tribes, Habitat Committee) provided detailed technical advice and cautions.","taxTitle","Fishery Management Council, Pacific, Governor's Office - Boards & Commissions, Executive, Washington","taxId",24240,"location","Washington","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6199538,"Pacific Council approves modest sablefish trip-limit increases and readies rollback of quillback depth restrictions",372,439000,811000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3826035-48ead707912e0ef892d829a8445477e7&start=439&end=811","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3826035-48ead707912e0ef892d829a8445477e7/thumbnail_439000.jpg","/articles/6199538/Washington/Pacific-Council-approves-modest-sablefish-trip-limit-increases-and-readies-rollback-of-quillback-depth-restrictions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6199538-48d6c7a6642f4bf012bf17230cb24a32/orig.mp4?Expires=1771072611&Signature=W9oZ3qdcfOx43j1FbxLEPNLCr0Aq1eVPRgGc-MP2jkxDJNMhatpQGG8~HjMGE7RQwqwCt~WqUh8iVyjEP~h8uvNEAhdrDRxXbCY910RMq8xj6gNnPZCXY7jenogT55qr3aykVDm6T-zbZ-Q1xyrmQWpDTW~kYrF8zfvbl8MGh4~eoI8GKMgHX~uar5Dtdsj~~RFgQwU9ag-2OlmiBRpm5HAx~wStyPFd89zbzdNj-Cj-KN7d~F1PKZOfpQxu705OWBsZW4P6GxQCu7Muh0QIA5LQjbqQeWuWSFxyP8xGdATrXJTqpecS9PQ1DX8zhFWTmEKW~ukTuUlP7wlvLSP~xw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Pacific Fishery Management Council on day two of its June meeting approved two in-season measures aimed at easing economic pressure on West Coast fixed-gear and open-access sablefish fishers and adopted a package of preparatory steps to scale back quillback-related restrictions in California if scientific review validates a revised assessment.

Under an agenda item on groundfish in-season adjustments (E3), the council approved a staff-and-advisory-team recommended, precautionary increase to sablefish trip limits for limited entry fixed gear (LEFG) and open access (OA) sectors north and south of 36° N latitude. The increases, described by the Groundfish Management Team (GMT) and supported by the Groundfish Advisory Subpanel (GAP), were modeled to expand opportunity while keeping projected impacts to shortspine thornyhead within the non-trawl allocation. The council enacted the recommendation by voice vote; the motion was made by Marcy (Marci) Remco, seconded by Mark Guralnick, and passed unanimously.

GMT staff told the council that some vessels in both the limited-entry and open-access sectors have already hit more than 90% of their status-quo sablefish trip limits in recent bimonthly periods, and that 2025 landings and prices show mixed signals. The GMT used a range of price scenarios based on 2023–24 price patterns and found option 1 — the conservative increase requested by industry in several areas — to be the best balance between increased utilization and a precautionary approach to shortspine thornyhead mortality.

GAP members and industry representatives who testified during the E3 presentation told the council that quota trading and bycatch constraints from recent ACL reductions for canary, shortspine thornyhead and petrale sole have pinched shore-based trawl and non-trawl processors and that higher sablefish trip limits would help some vessels access markets more reliably. The GAP recommended option 1 across the L EFG and OA sectors north and south of 36°.

In a second, separate but related action, the council approved a motion to direct National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and agency staff to prepare in-season management changes to restore deeper fishing opportunities off central and northern California — a package the mover described as a “quillback rollback on the fast track.” That motion lays out a sequence of federal in-season and state regulatory steps that would be triggered if the forthcoming California quillback (Sebastes maliger) benchmark assessment and the review process yield “substantially similar” abundance and annual catch limits to those in the draft assessment. The rollback package the council approved would, if implemented, restore shoreward non-trawl rockfish conservation area (RCA) boundaries and day/season/depth structures that had been constrained by quillback-related conservation measures implemented in late 2023; it also specifies revised trip limits for nearshore, shelf and other complexes in the affected groundfish management areas.

Council staff and NMFS noted that the quillback work is contingent on the stock assessment review (STAR panel) and subsequent scientific-subcommittee findings. NMFS counsel and staff emphasized they could not enact emergency in-season regulatory changes until the STAR review and SSC determinations were complete; the council’s action was therefore intended to stage and prioritize rulemaking and state coordination (California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Fish and Game Commission) so that, if the assessment review confirms the draft’s conclusions, the administrative steps would already be in motion and relief could be implemented as quickly as possible. The motion to prepare the suite of rollback actions was made by Marcy (Marci) Remco, seconded by Mark Guralnick, and passed unanimously.

What the council decided and why
- Sablefish trip-limit increases: GMT modeling (multiple price scenarios) found modest increases would provide greater landing opportunities for some vessels while producing only small projected increases in shortspine thornyhead mortality; GAP and industry requested those increases for logistical and market reasons. Council approved option 1 increases for LEFG and OA north and south of 36° (motion passed unanimously).
- Quillback rollback: Council approved a staging motion directing NMFS, staff and (as appropriate) the state of California to prepare in‑season and state regulatory changes that would restore deeper fishing opportunities and nearshore trip limits if the STAR panel and SSC designate the draft quillback assessment as the best available science (substantially similar to the draft). Motion passed unanimously.

Who said what (selected attributions)
- Todd Phillips, Council staff: overviewed the GMT/GAP materials and reminded the council that the GMT and GAP would present recommendations and that the council’s actions would be limited to adopting in-season, precautionary measures for 2025.
- Thompson (Groundfish Management Team presenter): presented detailed GMT modeling of sablefish trip-limit options and sea‑son/pricing scenarios and summarized projected impacts to shortspine thornyhead under the modeled options.
- Gary Richter (GAP): summarized GAP support for a conservative trip‑limit increase (option 1) and explained the commercial and recreational hardships driven by the 2023–24 harvest specification declines and the resulting effects on quota markets, processors and the shore-based industry.
- Industry and public commenters: Multiple commercial and recreational stakeholders testified in person and online about economic hardship tied to ACL declines for canary, shortspine and petrale sole; charter operators and private recreational anglers urged restoration of deeper seasonal access to reduce pressure on nearshore reefs and port economies.

Legal and policy authorities cited
- Magnuson‑Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), including National Standard guidance on “stocks in need of conservation and management” and the council’s in‑season authority (as articulated in the groundfish FMP and council operating procedures).
- California Fish and Game Commission / California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) state rulemaking authority (cited by staff as necessary to conform state waters with any federal in‑season depth changes affecting state jurisdiction).

Decisions and next steps
- NMFS will finalize rulemaking steps for sablefish trip limit increases and process state/federal coordination materials for the quillback rollback pathways if the STAR review and SSC determinations support the draft assessment conclusions.
- Council staff will explore whether the SSC meeting for quillback could occur sooner than September; NMFS and council staff will report back under “workload planning.”

Why it matters
- The sablefish increase provides immediate, modest economic relief to limited-entry and open-access fixed-gear fleets while GMT modeling attempts to limit bycatch consequences.
- The quillback motion demonstrates the council’s intent to move quickly — contingent on scientific review — to restore recreational and commercial access that was constrained by precautionary measures implemented after the 2023 assessment. The approach balances potential socio‑economic relief for coastal communities with the requirement that restoration be grounded in peer review and SSC findings.

What to watch for next
- The STAR panel review and SSC determination on the California quillback benchmark assessment (dates now scheduled and described in GMT/NMFS briefings) and NMFS determination about administrative pathways for in‑season implementation.
- September follow-up on potential SSC timing and any finalized emergency or in‑season rules that would follow an SSC determination supporting the draft assessment.","The Pacific Fishery Management Council approved modest increases to sablefish trip limits for several sectors and directed staff to prepare rollback measures for quillback-related depth restrictions in California if the forthcoming stock assessment review supports that change. Both council votes passed unanimously.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council continues Phase 2 stock‑definition work; 40 species undergo 10‑factor review and dozens more staged for final review

Pacific Council approves modest sablefish trip-limit increases and readies rollback of quillback depth restrictions