March 2021 Decision Summary Document

March 4-5, 8-11, 2021

Council Meeting Decision Summary Documents are highlights of significant decisions made at Council meetings.  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 or the Council newsletter.

Salmon Management

Reintroduction of Salmon Above Grand Coulee Dam

The Council agreed to send a letter of general support to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation for investigating the concept of reintroducing salmon to the upper Columbia Basin through a feasibility study that uses a science-based phased approach.

Review of 2020 Fisheries and Summary of 2021 Stock Forecasts

The Council adopted the stock abundances, overfishing limits, acceptable biological catches, and annual catch limits as presented in the 2021 Preseason Report I, for use in 2021 salmon management.

Adopt 2021 Management Alternatives for Public Review

The Council adopted for public review three management measure alternatives for the 2021 ocean commercial and recreational salmon fisheries beginning May 16. The Council also adopted six alternatives proposed by the Tribes for 2021 treaty Indian ocean salmon Fisheries. The Council is scheduled to adopt final 2021 ocean salmon regulations at its April 6-9 & 12-15 meeting held via webinar.  The Oregon and California alternatives included inseason actions that were taken during the Council meeting to modify fisheries occurring prior to May 16, 2021.

The Council also scheduled one public hearing for each coastal state to discuss the salmon alternatives. The hearings will occur online and are scheduled for evenings of Tuesday, March 23 (Washington and California), and Wednesday March 24 (Oregon). 

Pacific Halibut Management

Incidental Catch Recommendations: Options for Salmon Troll and Final Action on Recommendations for Fixed Gear Sablefish Fisheries

The Council adopted three alternatives for incidental halibut retention in the 2021 and early 2022 Salmon troll fishery, consistent with the Salmon Advisory Subpanel report.  Each alternative included a landing and possession limit of one halibut for every two Chinook, plus one additional halibut in excess of the possession/landing ratio. The possession/landing limit per trip ranged from 25 to 35 halibut among the three options. The Council is scheduled to adopt a final alternative at its April meeting.

The Council’s final recommendation for the 2021 incidental halibut catch restrictions in the fixed gear fishery north of Point Chehalis from April 1 through October 31 was to set the limit at 225 pounds of dressed weight halibut for every 1,000 pounds dressed weight of sablefish, plus 2 additional halibut in excess of the ratio, which was consistent with the Groundfish Advisory Subpanel report

Groundfish Management 

Workload and New Management Measure Priorities

The Council added three new items to the list of unprioritized groundfish management measures as shown in Table B of GMT Report 1. The new items are: 

  • Prohibition on directed fishing for shortbelly rockfish
  • Lingcod trip limit adjustments N of 40° 10’ N. latitude in the salmon troll fishery
  • Cowcod Conservation Area (CCA) Modification

A public proposal for a prohibition on directed fishing for shortbelly rockfish will be considered for inclusion  in the 2023-2024 groundfish harvest specifications and management measure process.  The lingcod trip limit measure proposed by the Salmon Advisory Subpanel and as described in Supplemental GMT Report 2, will be scoped in April by the Groundfish Management Team (GMT) to determine if the proposal can be completed through routine inseason action. The CCA area modification proposes to repeal the CCAs and decouples the CCA area modification issue from the non-trawl rockfish conservation area modification scoping process scheduled for April 2021. The Council considered, but did not add to Table B, reactivation of an Ad Hoc Cost Recovery Committee.  The Council also directed staff and the GMT to make corrections to the list of unprioritized actions to better clarify the measures in that table.

The Council maintained mothership utilization and non-trawl rockfish conservation area/Emley-Platt exempted fishing permit regulation items as priorities. 

The Council also added an item to the March agenda and prioritized its development at this meeting: Emergency Rule to Consider Changing Seasonal Processing Limitations in the At-Sea Whiting Fishery (see G.6 below).

Pacific Whiting Utilization in the Mothership Sector 

The Council adopted a final purpose and need statement proposed by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife as well as the following range of alternatives for analysis and public review: 

1.     Whiting Season Start Date (for all whiting sectors)

  • Status Quo: May 15
  •  Alternative 1: May 1, annual cooperative applications and Salmon Mitigation Plans due 45 days prior to the season start date.

2.     Mothership Processor Obligation

  • Status Quo: Mothership processor obligation made by November 30 through mothership catcher vessel endorsed limited entry permit renewal.
  • Alternative 1: Remove mothership processor obligation from regulation.

3.    Mothership Processor Cap

  • Status Quo: 45%
  • Alternative 1: 65%
  • Alternative 2: 85%
  • Alternative 3: Remove mothership processor cap from regulation.

4.    Mothership Processor & Catcher-Processor Permit Transfer  

  • Status Quo: A vessel cannot be registered to a mothership permit and a catcher-processor permit in the same calendar year
  • Alternative 1: A vessel can be registered to a mothership permit and a catcher-processor permit in the same calendar year.

 i.   Sub-option A: A vessel can switch between the mothership sector and catcher-processor sector up to two times during the calendar year through permit transfer.

ii.  Sub-option B: A vessel can switch between the mothership sector and catcher-processor sector up to four times during the calendar year through permit transfer.

              iii.        Sub-option C: Unlimited transfers.

Inseason Adjustments – Final Action

The Council reviewed the status and projections for 2021 fisheries but did not recommend  inseason adjustments.

Electronic Monitoring Program Update

The Council recommended no modifications to the draft electronic monitoring program guidelines and provider manual. The Council has tentatively scheduled an update on electronic monitoring implementation for its June 2021 meeting.

Emergency Rule to Consider Changing Seasonal Processing Limitations in the At-Sea Whiting Fishery

The Council modified the March agenda to allow consideration of an emergency action to allow an at-sea Pacific whiting processing platform to operate as both a mothership and a catcher-processor in the same calendar year during the 2021 Pacific whiting fishery. This action was taken at the request of industry representatives and the Groundfish Advisory Subpanel to prevent fishery disruption if a mothership processor decides to abandon that sector this year to mitigate their risk associated with the current COVID-19 pandemic. Such a disruption would otherwise leave catcher vessels in the mothership sector without a processing platform, potentially stranding their whiting quota, which would result in significant economic impacts. Allowing a catcher-processor vessel to temporarily operate as an at-sea processor in the mothership sector mitigates the impacts associated with the current processing limitations in these two sectors.  

Highly Migratory Species Management

Review of Essential Fish Habitat – Phase 2

The Council adopted the Phase 2 Action Plan for developing potential revisions to highly migratory species (HMS) essential fish habitat provisions as part of a Fishery Management Plan amendment process.  The Council directed the HMS Management Team (HMSMT), Southwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) West Coast Region, and Council staff to consider the recommendations of the HMSMT, in further development of the amendment process. 

Deep-Set Buoy Gear Permit Clarifications 

Based on questions and proposed interpretations in NMFS Reports 1 and 2, the Council adopted the following clarifications to its proposed measures for authorizing deep-set buoy gear (DSBG) adopted in September 2019:

  • Confirmed that a DSBG limited entry permit may be held by a person as defined 50 CFR 660.702, which includes corporations, partnerships, or other entities, but in all cases permit transfers are prohibited except for a one-time transfer to a family member upon the death of an individual permit holder. In cases where an entity holds a permit, transfers by means of changes in the ownership of the entity will be prohibited.
  • Clarified that for the purpose of limited entry DSBG permit qualification, “EFP holder” means vessel operators on board when DSBG was used or individuals identified as having managed the exempted fishing permit (EFP) including owners of vessels to which the EFP was assigned.
  • Supported the NMFS recommendation for a single qualification period but included Tier 8 (see description below). Ranking within tiers would be based on total swordfish landings for Tiers 1-5 and on a first come, first served basis for the remaining tiers.

The Council modified the DSBG limited entry permit qualification tiers so that they read as follows:

  1. EFP holders, with at least 10 documented calendar days of DSBG fishing effort by December 31, 2018. Documentation shall consist of a West Coast Observer Program record indicating either:
    1. the EFP holder as vessel captain for that fishing day; or
    2.  fishing effort for that day conducted on a vessel owned by or under the EFP managed by that individual.
  2. California Drift Gillnet (DGN) Shark and Swordfish permit holders who made at least one large mesh DGN swordfish landing between the 2013-2014 and 2017-2018 fishing seasons and surrender their state or federal DGN permit as part of a DGN permit trade-in or buy-back program.
  3. EFP holders approved by the Council prior to April 1, 2021 who conducted at least 10 calendar days of DSBG fishing effort or with 10 days of DSBG effort on their vessel or by vessels they manage under the EFP by the effective date of the Final Rule authorizing DSBG. Documentation shall consist of a NMFS West Coast Observer Program record or a properly submitted NMFS DSBG logbook indicating either:
    1. the EFP holder as vessel captain for that fishing day; or
    2. fishing effort for that day was conducted on a vessel owned by or under the EFP managed by that individual.
  4. California General Swordfish permit holders who possessed a permit during the 2018-2019 fishing season and made at least one swordfish landing using harpoon gear between the 2013-2014 and 2017-2018 fishing seasons.
  5. California DGN Shark and Swordfish permit holders who have made at least one large-mesh DGN swordfish landing between the 2013-2014 and 2017-2018 fishing seasons and who did not surrender their state or federal DGN permit as part of a trade-in or buy- back program.
  6. California DGN Shark and Swordfish permit holders who have not made a swordfish landing with large-mesh DGN gear since March 31, 2013 and who surrender their state or federal DGN permit as part of a permit trade-in or buy-back program.
  7. State or Federal DGN Limited Entry (LE) permit holders who have not made a swordfish landing with DGN gear since March 31, 2013 and did not surrender their DGN LE permit as part of a state or Federal DGN permit trade-in or buy-back program.
  8. Any individual with documented commercial swordfish fishing experience between January 1, 1986 and the effective date of the final rule on a first come first served basis. The basis for documenting commercial swordfish fishing experience attributable to the applicant will be possession of a valid commercial fishing license on that date and either:
    1. A valid California Department of Fish and Wildlife fish landing receipt identifying the individual as the fisherman of record; or
    2. A valid state or federal logbook where swordfish were taken and identifying the individual as captain or crew on that day; or
    3. A signed affidavit from a vessel owner or captain identifying the individual as vessel captain or crew on the day that swordfish were taken.
  9. Any individual on a first come first served basis.

Biennial Harvest Specifications and Management Measures

The Council approved the maximum fishing mortality threshold proxy and the second proxy proposed for minimum stock size threshold in Option 3 of NMFS Report 1 as applicable to status determinations for Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) yellowfin and bigeye tuna stocks based on the probabilistic framework in the 2020 benchmark assessments for those stocks as prepared by Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission scientific staff. Resulting status determination criteria indicate EPO yellowfin are likely not overfished or subject to overfishing, and EPO bigeye are likely not overfished or subject to overfishing.

Ecosystem Management

California Current Ecosystem and Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) Report and Science Review Topics

The Council endorsed Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) review of two ecosystem research topics: Threshold relationships between environmental drivers and performance of salmon preseason abundance forecasts and year-class strength and distribution of post-settled groundfish. The SSC Ecosystem Subcommittee will meet in conjunction with the September 2021 Council meeting to review the research, and the SSC will report to the Council on its recommendations in March 2022.

Climate and Communities Initiative Workshop Report

The Council adopted the Report on Regional Workshops focusing on the Implications of Climate Change for West Coast Fisheries and Fishing Communities and directed the Ad Hoc Climate and Communities Core Team to prepare a brief summary and synthesis report to the Council for its September 2021 meeting.  The summary report should include consideration of the priority actions in the Report on Regional Workshops and recommendations on future related activities, which may be in the form of Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) Initiatives. The Core Team will also conduct a workshop to brief Council advisory bodies on its synthesis report before the September 2021 Council meeting.

The Council also directed staff to draft a letter responding to NMFS’ call for information on climate-resilient fisheries per Section 206(c) in Executive Order 14008 Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad (see Legislative Matters below).

Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) Five-Year Review

The Council directed the Ad Hoc Ecosystem Workgroup (EWG) to prepare a final draft of the revised FEP for review by the Council at its September 2021 meeting. The EWG should also provide a complete draft of the stand-alone document, Guidance Document on Offshore Non-Fishing Activities. In doing so, the EWG should consider recommendations made by the Council and contained in advisory body reports for this agenda item and, as appropriate, note how those recommendations were addressed.

The Council directed the EWG to develop concepts for an “ecosystem-level performance report,” which would be a periodic reporting mechanism to track progress towards the goals and objectives listed in Chapter 1 of the revised FEP. These concepts could then form the basis for a candidate initiative that the Council would undertake at a future date. 

Administrative Matters

Marine Planning Update

Representatives from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) presented information on Aquaculture Opportunity Areas, and representatives from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) presented information on planning for offshore wind development.  The Council expressed concerns about how data is being used, about ensuring accurate fisheries-related information, and discussed ways to engage with agency partners and address marine planning issues.  The Council Executive Director and staff will continue regular communication with relevant agencies and other organizations and will ensure that Council advisory bodies are provided updated information regarding marine planning issues.

Legislative Matters

The Council approved the letter from the Council Coordinating Committee (CCC) on Executive Order (EO) 14008 section 216(a) detailing how the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and its implementation by the Regional Fishery Management Councils conserves and protects fishery and other living marine resources. The Council directed staff to draft a letter to the Secretary of the Interior for the April Briefing Book with additional examples from the Pacific Council. The Council also directed staff to draft a letter to NMFS focusing on Section 216(c) of the EO and describing Pacific Council actions that can help fisheries and protected resources be more resilient to climate change. Finally, the Council directed the Legislative Committee to meet at the April 2021 Council meeting.

Membership Appointments and Council Operating Procedures

The National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) has informed the Council that Sean Stanley, the Deputy Special Agent in Charge of the West Coast Division will be replacing Mr. Killary as OLE’s alternate Enforcement Consultant.  West Coast Division Assistant Director Greg Busch will remain as OLE’s primary Enforcement Consultant. 

Dr. Michele Zwartjes was appointed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife position on the Groundfish Endangered Species Workgroup formerly held by Ms. Robin Bown.

Press release: Pacific Fishery Management Council releases alternatives for 2021 West Coast ocean salmon fisheries

Portland, Oregon—The Pacific Fishery Management Council has adopted three alternatives for 2021 ocean salmon fisheries off Washington, Oregon, and California for public review. The Council will make a final decision on salmon seasons at its meeting on April 6-9 and 12-15. Detailed information about season starting dates, areas open, and catch limits for the three alternatives are available on the Council’s website at www.pcouncil.org.

Forecasts for many Chinook and coho stocks have improved over last year; however, the Council is constrained by requirements to conserve Fraser River (Canada) Washington coastal and Puget Sound natural coho runs, lower Columbia River natural tule[1] fall Chinook, and Klamath River fall Chinook.

“Meeting our conservation and management objectives continues to be the highest priority for the Council,” said Council Executive Director Chuck Tracy. “Balancing those objectives while providing meaningful commercial and recreational seasons remains a challenge in 2021.”

Council Chair Marc Gorelnik said, “the Council is considering the needs of Southern Resident killer whales as part of its deliberations. We are also considering the need to rebuild some Chinook and coho stocks that have been designated as overfished.”

Washington and Northern Oregon (north of Cape Falcon)

Fisheries north of Cape Falcon (in northern Oregon) are limited by the need to constrain catch of lower Columbia River natural tule Chinook and Washington coast coho stocks of concern. Additionally, three coho salmon stocks remain categorized as “overfished” (Queets River, Strait of Juan de Fuca) or “not overfished/rebuilding” (Snohomish), which is also a concern when structuring 2021 fisheries. 

Tribal ocean fisheries north of Cape Falcon

Tribal negotiations are underway, but at this time the Chinook and coho quotas for tribal ocean fishery alternatives range from 0 to 50,000 for Chinook salmon (compared to 35,000 in 2020), and from 0 to 35,000 coho (compared to 16,500 coho in 2020).  Under the range of alternatives, seasons open May 1 and continue through September 15.

Commercial season alternatives

For the non-Indian ocean commercial fishery North of Cape Falcon, there are two alternatives with traditional seasons between May and September. Chinook quotas for all areas and times range from 25,000 to 32,000, compared to 27,460 in 2020. Coho quotas range from 4,800 to 14,400 marked coho, compared to 2,000 in 2020.  The third alternative has the season closed in this area.

Sport season alternatives

For the ocean sport fishery north of Cape Falcon, there are two alternatives with Chinook recreational quotas ranging from 25,000 to 28,000, compared to 26,360 in 2020. For coho, recreational quotas range from 75,200 to 95,600 marked coho, compared to 26,500 in 2020. Starting dates range from June 14 to June 19, and in both alternatives recreational fisheries are scheduled to run through September. Chinook retention is allowed throughout the proposed seasons, but coho retention is limited in some of the alternatives.  The third alternative has the season closed in this area.

Oregon (south of Cape Falcon) and California

Fisheries south of Cape Falcon are limited mainly by the low abundance forecast for Klamath River fall Chinook. Klamath River and Sacramento River fall Chinook contribute significantly to ocean harvest, and Klamath River fall Chinook are categorized as overfished. This year’s management alternatives are designed to provide fishing opportunity for the more abundant Sacramento River fall Chinook while reducing fishing impacts on Klamath River fall Chinook.

Commercial season alternatives

Commercial season alternatives south of Cape Falcon to Humbug Mountain are open either beginning in late March or May through October, with closed periods in most months.  A limited incidental hatchery coho season is also being considered.

The commercial alternatives in the Oregon Klamath Management Zone provide a range of Chinook only season alternatives opening from late March through May, and include quotas in June and July in two alternatives. All alternatives have the California Klamath Management Zone closed for the season.

Commercial seasons south of the California Klamath Management Zone vary considerably between the alternatives and management areas (Fort Bragg, San Francisco, and Monterey), but in general provide similar or reduced levels of opportunity compared to last year.

Sport season alternatives

Chinook fishing in the Tillamook, Newport, and Coos Bay areas all open March 15, with alternative 1 running continuously through October 31, similar to the 2020 season.  Alternative 2 and 3 have varied closures to Chinook retention during August.

Oregon ocean recreational alternatives include mark-selective coho fishing seasons starting in early to late June and running through most of August south of Cape Falcon, with intermittent Chinook non-retention periods in specific areas. Quotas range from 110,000 to 120,000 marked coho (compared to 22,000 in 2020). In addition, non-mark-selective fisheries are proposed in all alternatives for the area between Cape Falcon and Humbug Mountain starting in September, with quotas ranging from 11,000 to 14,000 coho (compared to 3,000 in 2020).

The range of alternatives include proposed fisheries for the Klamath Management Zone in both California and Oregon with the majority of the fishing opportunity occurring June through August in Oregon and during July in California.

California ocean recreational alternatives for the Fort Bragg and San Francisco areas have reduced opportunity compared to 2020, whereas alternatives for the Monterey area have similar or increased opportunity. Seasons vary between management areas. 

Management Objectives for Southern Resident Killer Whales

The Council has worked collaboratively with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to understand the effects of Council-area fisheries on Southern Resident killer whales, which are listed as endangered. Based in part on information provided by the Council’s ad-hoc Southern Resident Killer Whale Workgroup, NMFS provided guidance on the structure of the 2021 salmon fisheries to address the needs of the whales while providing salmon harvest opportunities. Chinook abundance is well above the level that would require additional fishery restrictions.

Management Process

The Council has scheduled one public hearing for each coastal state to hear comments on the alternatives. The hearings will occur online and are scheduled for Tuesday, March 23 (Washington and California) and Wednesday March 24 (Oregon).  The public will also be able to comment on the alternatives during the April Council meeting.  Materials and instructions for joining online Council meetings and hearings will be posted to the Council website

The Council will consult with scientists, hear public comment, revise preliminary decisions, and choose a final alternative at its meeting via webinar April 6-9, and 12-15.

The Council will forward its final season recommendations to NMFS for its approval and implementation no later than May 16.

All Council meetings are open to the public.

Council Role

The Pacific Fishery Management Council is one of eight regional fishery management councils established by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 for the purpose of managing fisheries 3-200 miles offshore of the U.S. coastline. The Pacific Council recommends management measures for fisheries off the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington.


[1] Tule Chinook generally spawn lower in the Columbia River than salmon that continue to migrate up the mainstem.

###

Contact:     

On the Web

Joining a meeting hosted by RingCentral

The Pacific Fishery Management Council uses RingCentral to host its virtual meetings. Here’s what you need to know to successfully attend and participate in one of our meetings.

Joining the Council Webinar:

To participate in the Council Webinar you must install the RingCentral app.

Please note: RingCentral recently retired their RingCentral Meeting (Powered by Zoom) app and transitioned to RingCentral Video, an internally hosted virtual meeting platform. If you have previously installed the RingCentral Meeting app, please uninstall it and install the latest version of RingCentral.

Unsupported App
Updated RingCentral Video App

If you wish to join the Council Webinar via web browser only, you can do so, but you will be an attendee in listen only mode. Need to present to the Council but can’t install the app?

Joining any other meeting we host:

For any other meeting we host, you can either use the installed app, or join the meeting through a web browser (without the need to download and install the RingCentral app).

Please note only Google Chrome & Microsoft Edge are currently supported (Firefox and Safari support coming soon).

Join using the RingCentral Video app:

  1. Download and install the RingCentral app.
  2. Launch the app, and click “Join a meeting”
  3. Enter the Meeting ID, and your name. Please add affiliation if applicable
    ex: Kris Kleinschmidt (PFMC IT)
  4. Click Join.
Video demonstrating how to use RCV Application

Join via a web browser:

  1. Click the link to join the meeting from our webpage OR navigate to: https://v.ringcentral.com
  2. If this is the first time you’ve joined via web browser, you may be prompted to allow access to your Mic. You will need to allow. if you happen to have the RingCentral app installed, it may prompt you to open it in the app vs web browser.
  3. Enter Meeting ID & your name, then click “Join.”
Video demonstrating how to join via web browser

I’ve heard I might need a panelist invite. How does it work?

A panelist invite only applies to Council meetings (not advisory body or management team meetings) and is intended for Committee members who cannot install RingCentral on their device.

A Panelist invite will generate a phone number to allow individuals the ability to communicate with the Council to present a report, PowerPoint, etc. It does not apply for giving public comment. The Council hosts its Council meetings using RingCentral Webinar, a variation of RingCentral Video which segregates participants giving presentations from attendees who are listening.

  • If you are using the RingCentral application, you do not need a panelist invite to be able to participate.
  • The only people who need panelist invites are those joining via web browser to give a presentation (public comment requires you to use the RingCentral app)
  • If you will be joining via web browser and will need the ability to speak during the meeting, please fill out our JotForm in advance of the meeting and we will create a panelist invite for you. You will not be able to share your screen, but will be able to communicate.
  • The panelist invite is an automated email from PFMC WEBINAR, and the key information is at the bottom of the invite where the “dial in” instructions are to join via telephone. You will join via web browser first (as an attendee) for the visual portion of the meeting, then follow the instructions in the invite to connect via telephone audio, using the unique to you participant ID to join your telephone to the Panelist list to be able to speak. *6 is your command to mute/unmute yourself.

Alternative options: Join using RingCentral smartphone or tablet app

RingCentral offers an app available in both iOS and Android app stores. Download and install the application to your smartphone or tablet to participate.

Why doesn’t the Council use other platforms that are approved by my organization?

The Council has spent a significant amount of time testing various meeting platforms. Ultimately the decision was made to use RingCentral because it met the primary needs of our organization.

The Council’s role is to host transparent and publicly accessible meetings to help facilitate fishery management. To manage these meetings and to ensure we are not victims of “zoom bombs” and other disruptions, it is important that our meeting platform allow us to limit those who can share their screens, unmute themselves, and control screen annotations, etc., while remaining easy for general public use.

We also need a platform with webinar functionality to host our Council meetings so that we can host hundreds of people and segregate panelists from attendees to ensure a smooth meeting flow. We also offer YouTube live streaming during our Council meetings as another way to make it easy to follow the Council process.

The Council continually looks for alternative solutions as products update and change over time in order to find the best platform that works for our mission.

Questions? Want to schedule a test run? Need assistance?

Please contact Kris Kleinschmidt at 503-820-2412 or kris.kleinschmidt@noaa.gov

PRELIMINARY DRAFT MARCH 2021 MOTIONS IN WRITING

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.

Fact Sheet: Fishery Ecosystem Plan

A beaver
Beavers are important ecosystem restoration elements for salmon. (USFWS)

The purpose of the Council’s Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) is to enhance species-specific management with more ecosystem science, broader ecosystem considerations, and policies that coordinate management across the Council’s fishery management plans and the California Current Ecosystem (the California Current affects the entire West Coast). The FEP helps the Council consider policy choices and tradeoffs as they affect managed species and the ecosystem.

The Council adopted the FEP in April 2013.

The FEP helps improve management decisions by providing biophysical and socioeconomic information on climate conditions, climate change, habitat conditions, and ecosystem interactions. For example, information generated through the FEP helps provide buffers against the uncertainties of environmental and human-caused impacts to the marine environment. The FEP also helps the Council prioritize research needs to address gaps in ecosystem knowledge and policies, particularly with respect to the cumulative effects of fisheries management on marine ecosystems and fishing communities.

The FEP is meant to be an informational document. Information in the FEP, results of the Integrated Ecosystem Assessment, and the annual California Current Ecosystem Status Report are available to the Council for use in management, but how these items will affect fishery management decisions is at the discretion of the Council.

Ecosystem initiatives

The FEP identifies “initiatives,” or actions the Council can take to promote ecosystem-based fishery management. These initiatives are meant to be broad-scale, affecting   more than one fishery management plan.

When the Council adopted the FEP it identified these initiatives to consider taking up in future years:

  • Protection of Unfished Forage Fish
  • Potential Long-Term Effects of Council Harvest Policies on Age- and Size- Distribution in Managed Stocks
  • Bio-Geographic Region Identification and Assessment
  • Cross-FMP Bycatch and Catch Monitoring Policy
  • Cross-FMP Essential Fish Habitat
  • Cross-FMP Safety
  • Human Recruitment to the Fisheries
  • Cross-FMP Socio-Economic Effects of Fisheries Management
  • Cross-FMP Effects of Climate Shift
  • Indicators for Analyses of Council Actions
  • Optimum Yield Considerations

Every March, the Council decides whether to start working one of the initiatives listed above.  Every two years, the Council has the opportunity to identify new initiatives for the future.

The FEP itself is undergoing comprehensive review.

Protecting unfished, unmanaged forage fish

The first initiative taken up by the Council aimed to prohibit the development of new directed fisheries on forage species that are not currently managed, at least until the Council has had an adequate opportunity to assess the science relating to any proposed fishery and any potential impacts to our existing fisheries and communities.

The Council completed work on the initiative in 2015, and protective measures for forage species were added to each of the Council’s four fishery management plans in 2016.

Coordinated Ecosystem Indicator Review Initiative

The Council completed this initiative in 2016. Through this initiative, the Council and its advisory bodies recommended improvements to the annual California Current Ecosystem Status Report to ensure it better supports Council decision making.

Climate and Communities Initiative

The Council embarked on this initiative in 2017 by combining the Cross-FMP Effects of Climate Shift and the Cross-FMP Socio-Economic Effects of Fisheries Management initiatives. The goal of this initiative is to consider strategies for improving the flexibility and responsiveness of Council management actions to near-term climate shift and long-term climate change, and strategies for increasing the resiliency of Council-managed stocks and fisheries to those changes. This initiative is ongoing [learn more].

Contact: Kit Dahl