Pacific Fishery Management Council Marine Planning Committee co-chairs and staff on Friday discussed next steps for a draft cumulative impacts framework intended to help decision-makers evaluate large‑scale offshore renewable development.

The committee, which staff described as a tool for “catalog[ing] issues, items, data gaps and scientific concerns” related to potential build‑out of offshore renewables, agreed that the draft should appear in the council’s March briefing book but carry firm caveats about remaining work and the need for more scientific coordination. Kerry Griffin, staff officer for the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s marine planning committee, told the group that the draft links to recently released regional research work but still needs more input from NOAA Fisheries and other science partners.

Why it matters: Committee members said the document could shape where external researchers focus limited funding and how federal and state agencies frame environmental assessments. Several members noted the timing of a White House review of offshore wind leasing and permitting after the new administration’s directive, saying the council’s priorities could be useful to those federal reviews if the paper is clear about limits and uncertainties.

The committee’s discussion centered on three points: (1) whether to reproduce elements of the NOAA/NMFS strategic science plan inside the framework or simply reference it; (2) how to narrow the long list of data needs into a manageable set of priority questions that would actually guide research; and (3) the need to explicitly ask for a science‑policy dialogue with NOAA/NMFS and other regional partners before the council refines the framework further.

“The memo freezing funding and grants was rescinded,” Kerry Griffin said in the meeting’s opening remarks when describing the recent executive‑branch actions that have affected federal grant programs; committee members flagged that such administrative shifts complicate planning and public communication.

Committee co‑chair Mike Conroy led a wide‑ranging discussion of draft text and recommended procedural next steps. Members agreed to a near‑term schedule: staff and the co‑chairs will clean up the draft language and return a revised version for the council’s advanced briefing book; if the work cannot be tightened in time, the committee will hold the document for the briefing book’s supplemental materials. The group also asked staff to make the link to NOAA/NMFS’s Offshore Wind Strategic Science plan explicit in the draft and to annotate where the framework reproduces those priorities versus where the council is adding or emphasizing additional priorities.

Several members said priorities should be re‑stated as focused information questions researchers could address — for example, how floating foundations or subsea cables may alter oceanographic processes in local upwelling hotspots, and how anchoring and cable burial practice should be sized to protect benthic fisheries habitat. Arlene Marums of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife urged the committee to refine the list so it is actionable; Scott McMullen (ecosystem advisory subpanel) and others suggested pairing each identified deficiency with a short description of how new information would change council analyses or management decisions.

John Hansen of the West Coast Ocean Alliance said his organization has funding to begin a needs assessment on cumulative impacts and will issue a request for proposals; the committee asked staff to coordinate closely with that work so the council’s priorities can inform any RFP language.

What the committee directed: staff were asked to (a) revise the draft to make it clear which entries mirror NOAA/NMFS priorities and which are council additions, (b) add a short, plain‑language cover paragraph that describes the document’s limits and the reason the committee is submitting it now, and (c) flag the need for sustained science‑policy dialogue with NOAA/NMFS and other regional partners. The co‑chairs and staff agreed to attempt a revised draft for the council advanced briefing book next week but acknowledged that if the draft could not be tightened in time it should appear as a supplemental briefing‑book item instead.

Next steps and context: committee members repeatedly stressed that the framework is intended to be a living document — a menu of information needs for outside researchers and agencies — not a council research program or formal management decision. Several speakers emphasized that the document should not be framed as the council’s operational research plan but as a prioritized set of information gaps to help federal, state, tribal and non‑governmental research efforts.

The committee will continue work on the document and coordinate with NOAA/NMFS, the West Coast Ocean Alliance, and other partners before returning to the council for further guidance at the next meeting cycle.

Ending: Committee members said the draft puts the council’s concerns on record and will make it easier for external funders and regional research partnerships to align projects with the information the council needs to evaluate future offshore development scenarios.