Updates

June 13-16, 2025  

Council Meeting Decision Summary Documents highlight significant activities and decisions made at Council meetings. Fishery management decisions made by the Council are formally transmitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as recommendations and are not final until NMFS approval.  Results of agenda items that do not reach a level of highlight significance are typically not described in the Decision Summary Document.  For a more detailed account of Council meeting discussions, see the Council meeting record and transcripts.  

Cross Fishery Management Plan

Council Response to Executive Orders and Administration Updates

The Council received a presentation from Mr. Sam Rauch of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on Executive Order (EO) 14276, Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness, along with other Administration updates. Section 4 of the EO requires that each Regional Fishery Management Council submit a prioritized list of recommended actions to reduce burdens on domestic fishing and to increase production of sustainable fisheries. In response to Section 4 of the EO, the Council adopted a preliminary set of priorities for all Fishery Management Plans and Pacific halibut, which reflect measures previously prioritized on the Council’s Year at a Glance and other anticipated actions. Council members also expressed interest in communicating the broader context within which fishery management takes place, stressing the importance of trade, science, and other factors which are critical to ensuring a vibrant domestic seafood industry and the goals of the EO. Draft priorities and discussion of broad contextual factors will be included in the advanced briefing book to support final action at the September Council meeting.

The Council also discussed the Pacific Whiting Conservation Cooperative’s intent to submit an exempted fishing permit application to process whiting south of 42° N latitude, in response to the EO. The Council discussed its desire to have NMFS coordinate with the Council should it receive applications outside of the Council’s exempted fishing permit review process.

Research and Data Needs – Final Action

The Council adopted an updated set of final research and data needs, as recommended by the Scientific and Statistical Committee (see Appendix in Agenda Item D.3.a, Supplemental SSC Report 1). This fulfills the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement to review and provide a list of the Council’s priorities to support the management of U.S. west coast fisheries. The updated research and data needs will be transmitted to NMFS and other West Coast institutions, as well as posted to the Council’s website. The Council will review and consider the process for developing the new format of Research and Data Needs in the spring of 2026, for future implementation.

Groundfish Management 

Limited Entry Fixed Gear Actions: Gear Endorsements, Cost Recovery, and Other Administrative Changes-Final Action

The Council adopted the following as the final preferred alternative:

• Gear Endorsements: Alternative 3 with suboption a. Create a single limited entry non-trawl endorsed permit. Vessels registered to a permit with this endorsement would be permitted to use any legal non-trawl groundfish gear, except entangling nets, to harvest their quota.
• Base Permit Designation: Alternative 1, Remove the base permit designation and associated regulations at 50 CFR 660.25(b)(3)(iii)(C).
• Removal of Start/End Time: Alternative 1, Remove the start and end times (i.e., hours of the day) in groundfish regulations for the dates on which the sablefish primary season opens (April 1) and closes (December 31).
• Cost Recovery: Alternative 1, suboption a: Develop a cost recovery program for the limited entry fixed gear tier program in which the vessel owner or authorized representative pays the cost recovery fee.

The Council elected to take no action on permit price reporting and therefore no permit price information for limited entry fixed gear-endorsed permit will be collected.
Additionally, the Council adopted the proposed FMP amendment as shown in Agenda Item E.2.a, Supplemental Attachment 2, June 2025.

Inseason Management-Final Action

The Council recommended trip limit increases for limited entry fixed gear (LEFG) and open access (OA) sablefish North and South of 36 degrees N. lat., as described in Agenda Item E.3.a, Supplemental GMT Report 2 and shown below in Table 1.

Table 1. Council recommended LEFG and OA sablefish trip limits for north and south of 36° N. lat.

Fishery	Area	Recommended Trip Limit
LEFG	North of 36° N. Lat.	5,500 lbs./week not to exceed 11,000 lbs./2 months
	South of 36° N. Lat	3,000 lbs./week
OA	North of 36° N. Lat.	4,000 lbs./week not to exceed 8,000 lbs./2 months
	South of 36° N. Lat	2,500 lbs./week not to exceed 7,500 lbs./2 month

In response to the draft 2025 full assessment of quillback rockfish off California (pre-STAR Panel review), the Council recommended that NMFS proceed with the inseason management actions listed below for California groundfish fisheries as soon as possible, contingent upon the outcome of the California quillback rockfish stock assessment review and Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) recommendations. The Council also requested the SSC meet before the September Council meeting to review the California quillback rockfish assessment and provide recommendations, after the Groundfish Subcommittee of the SSC had completed their review.

Recreational
Restore all-depth fishing in the open season for the Northern, Mendocino, San Francisco, and Central Groundfish Management Areas from April 1 through December 31. 

Remove the recreational management line at Point Lopez (36° N. lat.) that created two sub-areas within the Central Groundfish Management Area.

Commercial

Non-trawl Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA) Boundary Modifications: Restore the shoreward Non-trawl RCA Boundary lines to those in place prior to the actions taken to protect quillback rockfish, specifically for the areas:

• 42° to 40° 10′ N. lat.: 30 fathoms (fm)
• 40° 10′ to 38° 57.5′ N. lat.: 40 fm
• 38° 57.5′ to 34° 27′ N. lat.: 50 fm

Trip Limit Modifications:

Restore LEFG and OA trip limits as follows: Modify LEFG and OA nearshore rockfish complex trip limits from “Closed” to the following:

Between 42° to 40° 10′ N. lat.

• Black rockfish: 7,000 lbs/ 2 months
• Nearshore rockfish excluding black rockfish: 2,000 lbs / 2 months, of which no more than 75 lbs may be copper rockfish

South of 40° 10′ N. lat.

• Shallow nearshore rockfish: 2,000 lbs/ 2 months
• Deeper nearshore rockfish: 2,000 lbs / 2 months, of which no more than 75 lbs may be copper rockfish

1. Modify LEFG and OA cabezon trip limits from “Closed” to unlimited between 42° to 40° 10′ N. lat. and south of 40° 10′ N. lat.
2. Modify LEFG and OA lingcod trip limits to remove the text “seaward of the Non-Trawl RCA; CLOSED inside the Non-Trawl RCA.” between 42° to 40° 10′ N. lat. and south of 40° 10′ N. lat.
3. Modify LEFG and OA other flatfish trip limits to remove the text “seaward of the Non-Trawl RCA; CLOSED inside the Non-Trawl RCA.” between 42° to 40° 10′ N. lat. and south of 40° 10′ N. lat.
4. Modify LEFG and OA shelf rockfish complex, excluding bronzespotted rockfish, trip limits between 40° 10′ and 34° 27′ N. lat. to the following:

LEFG

• 8,000 lbs per 2 months, of which no more than 500 lbs may be vermilion/sunset rockfish.

Open Access

• 4,000 lbs 2 months, of which no more than 300 lbs may be vermilion/sunset rockfish

The Council also requested the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, in conjunction with the NMFS West Coast Region, to add 2026 catch projections to the 2027-28 catch-only assessment updates currently being completed for petrale sole, shortspine thornyhead, and canary rockfish. The Council recommended that, if possible, Council staff and NMFS develop ad hoc acceptable biological catch control rules for SSC and Council consideration at the September 2025 meeting.

Intersector Allocation Review – Final Action

The Council adopted the Intersector Allocation Review (Agenda Item E.5.a, Supplemental REVISED Attachment 1, June 2025) as final.  The next review of the formal allocation is expected to start in 2031 (see Council Operating Procedure 27).

Phase 2 Stock Definitions – Final Action

The first task was for the Council to consider adopting a final preferred alternative (FPA) to identify 47 groundfish species (from a total of 86 species) as in need of conservation and management and to adopt stock definitions for species not yet defined.

The second task was for the Council to consider adopting a preliminary preferred alternative (PPA) and, as appropriate, stock definition(s) for the remaining 39 groundfish species. These species were analyzed under the 10 Factors at Section 600.305(c) to inform the Council in their decision-making regarding if the species should be considered as in need of conservation and management in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and retained in the Fishery Management Plan (FMP, Alternative 1), or not in need of conservation and management in the EEZ and hence removed from the FMP (Alternative 2), or designated as an ecosystem component (EC) species in Chapter 3 of the FMP (Alternative 3). For any species adopted under Alternative 1 as PPA, a stock definition Option was required to be adopted as well.

Final Preferred Alternative Species

The Council adopted Alternative 1 for 44 species as their FPA, designating them as in need of conservation and management in the EEZ. The Council adopted their PPA stock definition of Option 1, single stock, single area for 25 species. The spatial definition of this single stock Option varies by species, as adopted by the Council; 3 species were adopted as California-only stocks, while the remaining 22 were defined as a single coastwide stock. Stocks defined under either Amendment 31 or Amendment 35 were not reconsidered under this action. These recommendations are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Species adopted under Alternative 1 and their stock units. Species with an “*” indicate they were defined under Amendment 31 or Amendment 35; their stock units are provided for reference.

Species	Stock Definition		Species	Stock Definition
Arrowtooth flounder	Coastwide		Pacific ocean perch	Coastwide
Aurora rockfish	Coastwide		Pacific sanddab	Coastwide
Bank rockfish	Coastwide		Pacific spiny dogfish*	Coastwide
Big skate	Coastwide		Petrale sole*	Coastwide
Blackgill rockfish	Coastwide		Redbanded rockfish*	Coastwide
Bocaccio rockfish	Coastwide		Redstripe rockfish	Coastwide
California scorpionfish	CA-only		Rex sole*	Coastwide
Canary rockfish*	Coastwide		Rougheye/Blackspotted rockfish*	Coastwide
Chilipepper*	Coastwide		Sablefish*	Coastwide
Cowcod	CA-only		Sharpchin rockfish	Coastwide
Darkblotched rockfish	Coastwide		Shortraker rockfish	Coastwide
Dover sole*	Coastwide		Shortspine thornyhead*	Coastwide
English sole*	Coastwide		Silvergray rockfish	Coastwide
Flathead sole	Coastwide		Splitnose rockfish	Coastwide
Greenspotted rockfish	Coastwide		Squarespot rockfish*	Coastwide
Greenstriped rockfish	Coastwide		Starry rockfish	CA-only
Lingcod*	N/S of 4010 N. Lat.		Vermilion rockfish*	OR/WA
Longnose skate	Coastwide		Vermilion/Sunset rockfish*	CA-only
Longspine thornyhead	Coastwide		Widow rockfish*	Coastwide
Pacific cod	Coastwide		Yelloweye rockfish*	Coastwide
Pacific hake	Coastwide		Yellowmouth	Coastwide

The Council agreed with the Staff recommendation that harlequin rockfish be included for consideration under Alternatives 2 & 3, and it was hence considered for adoption of a PPA. The Council also recommended that rosethorn and stripetail rockfishes be further analyzed under the 10 factors at 600.305(c) to be considered under Alternatives 2 & 3 going forward.

Preliminary Preferred Alternative Species

The Council considered 39 species for the PPA portion of this Action. As described above, an additional species, harlequin rockfish, was added for consideration in the PPA portion of this action, bringing the total number of species to 40. The Council adopted Alternative 1 for six species. Option 1, a single stock, single area was adopted for three species and Option 2 was adopted for three species with geographic specifications as described (Table 2). These species would remain in the FMP and have their stock(s) defined, per the Options available under Alternative 1.

Table 2. Species adopted under Alternative 1 as PPA and their PPA stock definitions. An “*” indicates the species was defined under Amendment 31.

Species	PPA Stock Delineations
Black rockfish*	An Oregon stock and a Washington stock
Blue/Deacon rockfish	An Oregon stock and a Washington stock
Cabezon	Washington only stock
Copper rockfish *	Washington and Oregon stock
Kelp greenling	Washington only stock
Quillback rockfish *	Washington stock, Oregon stock, and California stock

The Council adopted Alternative 2 for 26 species as PPA (Table 3). Alternative 2 indicates these species are not in need of conservation and management in the EEZ and would be removed from the FMP. Stocks of certain species would be removed from the FMP off specific states, whereas certain stocks of the same species may be retained in the FMP (see Table 2) which are indicated in Tables 2 & 3 in parentheses.

Table 3. Species adopted under Alternative 2. For species with state abbreviations in parentheses, the species would be removed from the FMP off those states only, but stocks of the same species may remain in the FMP off other states, as detailed in Table 2.

Black and yellow rockfish	Half-banded rockfish
Black rockfish (CA)	Harlequin rockfish
Blue rockfish (CA)	Honeycomb rockfish
Brown rockfish	Kelp greenling (OR/CA)
Cabezon (OR/CA)	Kelp rockfish
Calico rockfish	Leopard shark
Chameleon rockfish	Light dusky rockfish
China rockfish	Olive rockfish
Copper rockfish (CA)	Pink rockfish
Dwarf red rockfish	Pinkrose rockfish
Freckled rockfish	Pygmy rockfish
Gopher rockfish	Swordspine rockfish
Grass rockfish	Treefish

The Council adopted Alternative 3 for 12 species as PPA (Table 4). Alternative 3 indicates these species are not in need of conservation and management in the EEZ and would be designated as EC species in Chapter 3 of the FMP.

Table 4. Species adopted under Alternative 3.

Species
Bronzespotted rockfish	Butter sole
Flag rockfish	Curlfin sole
Greenblotched rockfish	Rock sole
Rosy rockfish	Sand sole
Speckled rockfish	Starry flounder
Tiger rockfish
Mexican Rockfish

The Council provided staff with additional guidance to further analyze the 40 species for which they adopted PPA before considering adoption of an FPA. Council staff will also prepare a full 10-Factor analysis of rosethorn and stripetail rockfishes to consider for adoption of an FPA.

Harvest Specifications Flexibility – Scoping

The Council directed staff to develop a concise problem statement using the discussion of fleet impacts in Agenda Item E.7.a, Supplemental GAP Report 1. 

The Council also established the scope for this action which includes (in priority order):

1. Carryover of Unutilized annual catch limit (ACL): Consider adjusting harvest specifications (ABC/ACL) in a subsequent year based on unutilized ACL in a prior year.
2. Phase-In ABC Control Rule: Develop a framework for a phase-in ABC control rule to stabilize fisheries by minimizing short-term disruptions from new stock assessments.
3. Mid-Biennium Harvest Specifications Change (“Green Light”): This item considers adding a framework to the FMP to allow for an increase in the harvest specifications (overfishing limit/ABC/ACL) for a species based on a new stock assessment for the second year of a biennium (“green light”).
4. Off-the-Top Accounting Change: Consider accounting for off-the-top deductions (research, incidental OA, exempted fishing permits, tribal) in between the ABC and ACL rather than off the ACL (resulting in the fishery harvest guideline).
5. Change from Biennial to Annual Specifications: Consider moving the biennial specifications cycle into an annual specifications cycle.

Additionally, the Council tasked staff with beginning a dialogue with the SSC on preventing and evaluating overfishing on a multi-year time scale through ideas such as looking at average catch compared to multi-year ABCs/ACLs.

2027-28 Harvest Specifications and Management Measures Planning  

The Council adopted the process and planning document for the 2027-28 harvest specifications and management measure process (Agenda Item E.8, Supplemental Revised Attachment 1, June 2025).

The Council gave guidance to staff and the GMT to investigate aspects related to canary allocation, trip limits for individual species within the shelf rockfish stock complex north of 40° 10’ N. lat, and in the California recreational fishery to remove recreational Rockfish Conservation Areas in favor of management via sub-bag limits only. This work is to be accomplished over the summer and presented to the Council at the September 2025 meeting to inform their decision-making in the harvest specifications and management measure process. These items were recommended by the GAP (Agenda Item E.8.a, Supplemental GAP Report 1, June 2025) and GMT (Agenda Item E.8.a, Supplemental GMT Report 1, June 2025).

Highly Migratory Species Management  

International Management Activities

The Council heard updates on international activities from Christa Svensson (Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, WCPFC, Delegate) and Ryan Wulff.  The Council endorsed the recommendations in F.2.a, Supplemental HMSAS Report 1 and made the following recommendations to NMFS, to carry forward in upcoming international negotiations.

Related to Pacific bluefin (PBF) management, NMFS and the U.S. Delegation to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) WCPFC-Northern Committee Joint Working Group on PBF should endorse and emphasize the following core principles:

• The West-East allocation of fishing impacts should be not less than 70:30.
• Long-term harvest strategy objectives should maintain and increase the spawning stock biomass, prevent overfishing, and significantly limit the catch of small fish (particularly age-0) in the Western Pacific Ocean that are critical for stock conservation.
• Recruitment uncertainty and any long-term harvest strategy must be paired with efforts to address the recruitment index and additional conservation measures (in the form of exceptional circumstances) that are responsive to evidence of low or declining recruitment trends. The improvements to the recruitment index and additional conservation measures should be in place as soon as possible, and no later than 2027.
• Recreational fishing should not be included within management measures or country quotas.

Regarding the selection of a harvest control rule (HCR) evaluated in the PBF management strategy evaluation, the Council recommends that NMFS and the U.S. Delegation:

• Consider HCRs 9 – 16, which include a 70:30 West/East allocation, as the basis for negotiations.
• Within HCRs 9-16, priority should be given to those that prioritize safety and stability in the short to medium term, specifically HCR 10, which provides an adequate buffer between the threshold (ThRP) and limit (LRP) and will incentivize action to maintain the stock at or above current levels of spawning stock biomass.
• Do not support HCRs 5, 6, 7,13, 14 or 15 that have high risks related to safety and significantly increase catch of Western and Central Pacific Ocean small fish.
• Develop additional HCR measures that reduce catch of small fish and specifically age-0 fish if the stock status breaches the ThRP and approaches the LRP.

Related to North Pacific Albacore Tuna, the Council recommends that no proposals should be submitted or adopted this year; but the U.S. should conduct additional stakeholder engagement and the U.S. should conduct bilateral conversations with Canada on a potential future regime.  NMFS should support total allowable effort controls as opposed to total allowable catch on surface commercial fisheries and catch controls on others.  In addition, NMFS should consider providing more clarity on:

• How “effort” will be defined for purposes of management,
• Assuring U.S. fishery participants that any Canadian fishing effort in the U.S. EEZ will be attributed to the U.S. when establishing our historic effort per the U.S.-Canada Albacore Treaty,
• What it could mean to fishery participants if a management response is triggered, and
• The potential management and operational implications of an exceptional circumstance.

Regarding South Pacific Albacore (SPA) wctuna, the Council supports further development of a Joint Working Group (JWG) between the WCPFC and IATTC to address management of SPA as soon as possible.  The U.S. should take the lead on formation of the JWG and the goals articulated in the JWG framework and should prioritize the interests of the West Coast highly migratory species (HMS) fleet while pursuing their articulated goals of a common approach to harvest strategy, alignment of catch and effort limits, improving monitoring, and data exchange through joint scientific research.  In addition, NMFS should emphasize the importance that the JWG recognize the de minimis impact of the U.S.-based SPA surface fishery when considering any potential restrictions or management strategies.

Regarding circle hooks, although the recent IATTC circle hook workshop did not reach consensus, the Council recommends that the U.S. delegation should take a strong position on the need to make progress on circle hooks in 2025. Lack of progress on circle hooks is not acceptable and should be included in tropical tuna negotiations this year. 

Exempted Fishing Permits-Final Action

The Council considered two exempted fishing permit (EFP) applications (F.3 Attachment 1 and Attachment 2) and one request to renew an existing EFP (F.3 Attachment 3). All three EFPs considered are for night deep-set buoy gear fishing. The Council recommended that all three be forwarded to NMFS for review and approval, with no need for further Council consideration.

Highly Migratory Species Roadmap Development

The Council considered information and recommendations from its Ad Hoc Fisheries Innovation Workgroup (FIW), which is charged with developing elements of the HMS Roadmap. Topics included developing EFP performance metrics and process improvements, the draft FIW Terms of Reference (TOR), how the National Seafood Strategy pertains to the HMS Roadmap, and a proposed FIW workplan. Based on the recommendations in F.4.a, FIW Report 1 and Supplemental FIW Report 2, the Council:

• Adopted the FIW Terms of Reference described in FIW Report 1.
• Directed the FIW to develop near-term revisions to Council Operating Procedure 20 for consideration at the September Council meeting. The near-term revisions are to focus on designating the November and March Council meetings for consideration of HMS EFPs (instead of June and September), allowing EFP applicants to bring new EFP applications to either meeting, and giving the Council the flexibility to utilize a one-meeting process when warranted. The Council may also consider providing an opportunity for early evaluation of EFPs by the HMS Management Team, NMFS, and/or Council Staff, in advance of submitting EFP applications. 
• Tasked the FIW with prioritizing the development of HMS EFP performance goals including acceptable bycatch and economic metrics to evaluate EFP performance and bringing these back for adoption at a future Council meeting.
• Adopted the FIW workplan outline described in Supplemental FIW Report 2, prioritizing production of an EFP application template and EFP application guidance.
• Adopted the recommended HMS Roadmap edits in F.4.a, FIW Report 1, with a clean version to be included in the November Briefing Book.  The FIW may recommend future modifications as appropriate, for Council consideration. However, the Roadmap is considered sufficiently complete at this time, and the FIW will focus its work on EFP performance metrics, process improvements, and other deliverables related to its charge.

Administrative Matters 

Fiscal Matters

The Council considered the fiscal status, risks, and outlook for 2025. Significant uncertainties exist regarding the Council’s fiscal outlook for the remainder of 2025 and beyond. These risks and their associated implications led the Council to make several decisions regarding fiscal expenditures for 2025, including:

1. Leave the open staff officer position vacant, at least until the Council’s fiscal picture is clarified.
2. Hold a partial in-person September Council meeting. The Council, some staff, and the Scientific and Statistical Committee will meet in person. The Groundfish Management Team, Groundfish Advisory Subpanel, and Enforcement Consultants will be remote.
3. Convene the Executive Committee in mid- August to consider the format of the November Meeting.
4. Plan for a September 2025 Budget Committee meeting to review a 2025 Operational Budget and review a proposed preliminary 2026 Budget.

Membership Appointments and Council Operating Procedures

The Council made the following appointments:

• Elected Mr. Pete Hassemer as Council Chair and Mr. Butch Smith as Council Vice Chair for the August 11, 2025 – August 10, 2026 term.
• Appointed Ms. Aja Szumylo as the Council’s representative to the Joint Management Committee to the Pacific Hake/Whiting Treaty.
• Appointed Deputy Assistant Special Agent in Charge Eric Morgan as the primary National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Law Enforcement representative on the Enforcement Consultants. Mr. Brian Corrigan would be the designee.
• Appointed Ms. Megan Mackey to one of the National Marine Fisheries Service positions on the Groundfish Management Team.
• Appointed the following to the At-Large positions on the Scientific and Statistical Committee
  • Dr. Selina Heppell
  • Dr. Alberto Rovellini
  • Dr. Francisco Werner

The Council tasked staff with re-advertising for the tribal position on the Groundfish Advisory Subpanel.

Chair Pettinger appointed Arlene Merems to the Habitat Committee seat and Kevin Godes to the Salmon Advisory Subpanel seat on the Marine Planning Committee.

The goal of this process is to identify key science and management topics in the CPS fishery, generating a list that the Council can continuously reference to establish workload priorities. Over time, the Council may continue to weigh in on CPS science and management topics, making modifications to the list as current workload priorities are completed or as new priorities and topics arise. Constituents, members of the CPS advisory bodies, and other stakeholders may also propose new topics and potential priorities as a part of this process. They may also recommend which items from the existing list should be prioritized.

It is important to note that if any topics are prioritized for action development, it is possible they may not be scheduled immediately. Work is scheduled after an assessment of Council and National Marine Fisheries Service staff capacity.

In April 2025, the Council adopted the list below of coastal pelagic species (CPS) science and management priorities. This list came together from the topics proposed by Council staff in Agenda Item G.5 Attachment 1 and the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) in Agenda Item G.5.a Supplemental Report 1, both available in the April 2025 briefing book.

The Science and Management Priorities adopted by the Council include:

1. Pacific sardine stock structure
2. Use of E_MSY in Pacific sardine harvest control rules
3. Distribution term in CPS harvest control rules (HCRs)
   1. Pacific Sardine HCRs
   2. Northern Subpopulation of Northern Anchovy HCRs
4. Stock Assessment Frequency
   1. Pacific Mackerel assessment
   2. Northern Subpopulation of Northern Anchovy assessment
5. Managing Annual Opportunity
   1. Central Subpopulation of Northern Anchovy Annual Catch Limit
   2. Incidental landing limits of CPS
   3. More responsive harvest control rules
   4. Review of overfishing limits for other CPS

From this list the following items and their subtopics were prioritized by the Council:

1. Pacific Sardine Stock Structure
2. Stock Assessment Frequency
3. Managing Annual Opportunity

The first topic scheduled for development from this list will be ‘Pacific Sardine Stock Definitions’ in November 2025.

The Council will continue to make recommendations to schedule future workload based on the topics list and prioritization of topics defined above. This topics list may be revised or re-prioritized by the Council in the future, as they deem necessary.

For more information, please contact Katrina Bernaus, CPS Staff Officer at katrina.bernaus@pcouncil.org or (503)-820-2420

Cautionary Note — These preliminary motions do not represent the final official administrative record. The motions and amendments contained in this blog are as projected on the screen at the Council meeting at the time of the Council vote and often use expedited language and references without the benefit of any final editing or proofing. They may use short-hand language or abbreviations that may not be clear without the context of verbal comments and clarifications made during their development at the meeting, or may contain inadvertent transposition errors. They have not been approved by the Council to represent the final official record of Council action. The final official record will be posted on the Council website after the Council approves the full meeting record at a future Council meeting.

• A.3 – Approve Agenda
• E.2 – Limited Entry Fixed Gear – Final Action
• E.3 – Inseason Management – Final Action
• F.3 – Exempted Fishing Permits
• E.5 – Intersector Allocation Review – Final Action
• E.6 – Phase 2 Stock Definitions
• E.7 – Harvest Specifications Flexibility – Scoping
• E.8 – Harvest Specifications and Management Measures Planning
• D.2 – Council Response to EOs and Administrative Updates
• D.3 – Research and Data Needs – Final Action
• C.3 – Fiscal Matters
• C.4 – Approval of Council Meeting Records
• C.5 – Membership Appointments and COPs