Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Council debates which nearshore groundfish to keep in federal plan as stock‑definition review continues
Loading...
Summary
At the Pacific Fishery Management Council meeting the staff presented Phase 2 stock‑definition work to decide whether 42 remaining groundfish stocks need federal conservation and management in the EEZ; states, SSC, GMT and advisory panels differed on which stocks to retain, and legal context from an Alaska court ruling was discussed.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council spent extensive time on its Phase 2 stock‑definition project on Tuesday as staff, state delegations, and advisory bodies debated whether dozens of nearshore and shelf groundfish stocks are "in need of conservation and management" in the U.S. exclusive economic zone and therefore should remain in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan.
Council staffer Katrina Bernas told the council the action before members is to adopt final preferred alternatives for 42 species and to prepare an FMP amendment where appropriate. The analytical framework uses the 10 non‑exhaustive factors in National Standard guidance (50 CFR 603.05(c)) — for example whether a stock is a component of the marine environment, whether the fishery catches the stock, and whether federal management can improve the stock's condition.
Why it matters: Determining whether a stock is in need of federal conservation and management affects whether NMFS would continue to set annual catch limits, adopt overfishing limits or maintain species‑level Essential Fish Habitat. For nearshore species, the decision also affects how states and tribes coordinate with the council on shared stocks.
Legal and technical context: The council heard a legal briefing on a recent District of Alaska decision upholding NMFS authority to define an FMP fishery as applying to EEZ waters rather than extending federal measures into state waters. Corina McMacken, NMFS legal staff, summarized the June 2025 decision in the United Cook Inlet litigation and told the council the court emphasized the MSA preserves state jurisdiction within three nautical miles and found NMFS' approach reasonable in that case.
Advisory bodies and states: The Scientific and Statistical Committee recommended that when one spatial component of a species is retained in the FMP all spatial components should be retained, citing evidence of connectivity for several nearshore rockfishes and uncertainty about boundaries that align with political borders. The SSC also recommended caution about designating some historically landed but data‑poor species as EC (ecosystem component) when their life histories indicate high vulnerability.
State delegations expressed varying views. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife argued that past depth and area closures have biased catch location data and urged the council to consider how restricted access has shifted effort shoreward; ODFW recommended retaining several nearshore species and stock components because of their regional economic importance. Washington and California delegates emphasized the long history of state‑federal cooperation, cautioned that removing species could fragment transboundary management, and described existing state regulatory frameworks that could be used if federal management were removed.
Advisory views: The Groundfish Management Team and Groundfish Advisory Subpanel provided lists of species they recommend for each alternative (remain in FMP, remove from FMP, or designate EC species). The GAP urged caution about removing nearshore species that are economically important locally; the GMT highlighted the need for improved monitoring that would consistently separate catch by state and federal waters should classification change.
Council action and next steps: The council took no final FPA decisions on Phase 2 during this session. Staff told members the updated 10‑factor analysis and a draft environmental assessment and MSA analysis are available; they noted the Regulatory Flexibility and RIR portions would be completed after final action. The EA draft concludes that, for many proposed removals, fishing operations in the EEZ are not expected to change significantly and that EFH boundaries would not change because deeper species remaining in the FMU (such as sablefish) define offshore EFH extent.
Ending: Council members asked for clarifying rationales where similar stocks were being proposed under different alternatives (for example black rockfish across state lines). The project will return for additional council action; staff and advisory bodies will refine analyses and provide recommendations for final preferred alternatives at future meetings.
