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.