November 2025 Decision Summary Document

November 15-19, 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

Marine Planning

The Council received a briefing on issues described in the Marine Planning Committee (MPC) Report 1, including the recently issued Final Environmental Impact Statement on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Aquaculture Opportunity Areas (AOAs) in the Southern California Bight, pending revisions to the National Oil and Gas (O&G) Leasing Program, the Oregon Offshore Wind Roadmap, plans for installation of telecommunication cables off Washington State, and updates from the West Coast Ocean Alliance.

The Council expressed concerns about potential impacts to fisheries and habitats resulting from the potential ocean development projects and endorsed the MPC recommendation to monitor activities related to NOAA AOAs, the National O&G Leasing Program, and telecommunication cable installation. When public comment opportunities arise, Council Staff will alert the Executive Director and prepare MPC comments in coordination with the Habitat Committee. The Council’s quick response process will be utilized as necessary.

The Council also endorsed the MPC recommendation to engage with the State of Oregon’s offshore wind energy roadmap efforts and potentially provide comments in response to the issuance of draft documents.

Habitat Issues

Current Habitat Issues

The Council considered Supplemental HC Report 1, which includes several updates on issues relevant to Council authorities and interests, and Report 2, which focuses on water issues in California. The Council expressed concern that Federal water management operations are changing to the detriment of Pacific salmon species and essential fish habitat on which they depend. While there are positive actions being undertaken (e.g., removal of the Klamath River dams), the Federal prioritization of water withdrawals for human uses may be likely to substantially affect the habitat of Pacific salmon species under the authority of the Council.

The Council endorsed the HC’s suggestion for Council staff to request detailed updates on California water operations and issues from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, NMFS, and the California State Water Resources Control Board. 

The Council also heard updates on several pending actions relevant to the Council’s habitat protection authorities, including the pending Environmental Impact Statement on the Chehalis Basin “Flow Through” Dam, and the pending environmental review of the Pacific Coast Intermodal Port Project (PCIP)in Coos Bay, Oregon.

In addition, the Council endorsed the HC’s recommendation to extend the Pacific salmon essential fish habitat review Call for Informationcomment period, to ensure adequate opportunity for interested parties, including Federal government agencies, to submit information. Council staff and the Executive Director will confer with NMFS on the appropriate extension length.

Groundfish Management 

Adopt Stock Assessments

The Council adopted catch-only projections for bocaccio and Oregon black rockfish for use in groundfish fishery management for the next biennium and beyond. 

The Council delayed adoption of an update assessment of widow rockfish and requested further review of this assessment as recommended by the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC).  The full SSC is planning to conduct a second Supplemental Review webinar in January 2026 to review any additional analyses for the 2025 widow update assessment. This supplemental review is being planned for January 20 and January 22. Final confirmation of meeting dates will be available on the Council’s website. SSC recommendations will be available for Council consideration at the March 2026 meeting. 

With the goals of conducting a full benchmark assessment for widow rockfish in 2027 and setting 2027-2028 harvest levels consistently with National Standards 1, 2, and 8, the Council requested the following topics be included in the Supplemental Review:

1. The SSC conduct the review, with requests to the stock assessment team (STAT) as noted in F.2.a Supplemental SSC Report 1, and recommend the best scientific information available for widow rockfish for use in 2027-2028.
2. The STAT use that best scientific information available to project a ramp-down that departs from the proxy harvest control rule while keeping the stock above B_40% in 2029 (e.g. annual catch limits [ACLs] of 8,842 mt in 2027 and 7,958 mt in 2028, representing a 10 percent decrease in the “assumed catch” from Table 4 of F.2 Attachment 3 each year).
3. The STAT include a Bayesian projection to evaluate the probability that the stock would remain above B_40% in 2029, if such a method is feasible to achieve within existing workload capacity and model structure.
4. The SSC review the ramp-down forecast for the March 2026 meeting.
5. Staff and NMFS explore and discuss with the SSC the discretion to recommend alternate acceptable biological catches to the Council for preventing overfishing.
6. The STAT and SSC work on a Q&A document to answer the questions the Groundfish Advisory Subpanel (GAP) outlined in Agenda Item F.2.a, Supplemental GAP Report 1 (November 2025).

Harvest Specifications and Management Measures for 2027-28 (Part 1) 

The Council adopted interim final default 2027-28 overfishing limits (OFLs), P*/acceptable biological catches (ABCs), and annual catch limits (ACLs) as presented in Table 1-9 of  Attachment 1, and Table 2 of Attachment 2 (aurora rockfish), including utilization of the 2026 OFL and ABC for Oregon kelp greenling for both 2027 and 2028 as recommended by the SSC (Agenda Item F.3.a Supplemental SSC Report 1). 

The only Council stock which does not yet have default harvest control rule (HCR) harvest specifications for 2027-28 is widow rockfish, as the 2025 update stock assessment undergoes continued supplemental review (see Agenda Item F.2).

The Council adopted a range of alternative HCRs for more detailed analysis as described in Table 1 below, with the preliminary preferred alternative in bold.

Table 1. Stocks with alternative harvest control rules

Stock	Alternative 1: Default HCR	Alternative 2
Yellowtail rockfish north of 40° 10′ N. lat.	ABC = ACL, P* 0.45	Ad hoc phase-in
Chilipepper rockfish	ABC = ACL, P* 0.45	Constant ACL = 2,114 mt
Rougheye/ blackspotted rockfish	ABC = ACL, P* 0.45	Constant ACL = 300 mt
Yelloweye rockfish	ABC = ACL, P* 0.40 (SPR = 0.50)	Constant ACL = 85 mt
Canary rockfish	ABC > ACL, P* 0.45 (40-10 rule)	ABC = ACL, P* 0.45, no 40-10 rule adjustment
Shortspine thornyhead	ABC > ACL, P* 0.45 (40-10 rule)	Constant ABC = ACL 902 mt
Petrale sole	ABC = ACL, P* 0.45	Constant ABC = ACL 2,489 mt

Further details on Alternative 2 HCRs are found in Agenda Item F.3.a Supplemental GMT Report 1 November 2025.

In addition, the Council adopted a range of harvest specification values to further analyze for widow rockfish; 2027 = lower 4,796 mt and upper 9,754 mt bounds, 2028 = lower 4,998 mt and upper 9,255 mt bounds (see Table 16, Agenda Item F.3.a Supplemental GMT Report 1).

Exempted Fishing Permits

The Council considered two exempted fishing permit (EFP) applications under this agenda item, a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) EFP to collect opportunistically caught yelloweye rockfish and cowcod from recreational commercial passenger fishing vessel (CPFV) off the coast of California and a whiting industry EFP to allow at-sea processing of Pacific hake (i.e. whiting) south of 42° N. lat.  The Council also reviewed interim progress EFP reports from CDFW and the West Coast Seafood Processors Association.

The Council reviewed statements submitted by the Groundfish Management Team (GMT), GAP, CDFW, the Enforcement Consultants, the Salmon Advisory Subpanel, and the Salmon Technical Team, as well as public comment. The Council adopted a motion to forward the CDFW EFP proposal for public review. The Council recommended that if NMFS considers issuing the EFP to the applicants listed in Agenda Item F.4 Attachment 2, to process whiting south of 42° N. lat. that it consider the complete record, including the points raised in Council discussion, the recommendations of advisory bodies and management entities, and public comment received under Agenda Item F.4 and at the June and September 2025 Council meetings.

The Council was scheduled to contemplate the merits of developing an ‘out of cycle’ EFPs process. Briefly, based on Council Operating Procedure (COP) 9 and COP 19, the Council only reviews groundfish EFPS within the biennial harvest specifications and management measure process every two years. An out-of-cycle EFP could offer additional flexibility and efficiencies to the groundfish fishery. However, due to time constraints, the Council gave guidance to Staff that this discussion should be scheduled at a later date in order to allow for a robust discussion regarding this issue.  The intent is to include this discussion as part of the Flexibility and Adaptive Management agenda item scheduled for April of 2026.

Harvest Specifications and Management Measures Flexibility

The Council adopted the following problem statement:

“Steep changes in harvest specifications, resulting from changes in the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s (Council) scientific understanding of the status of a species between assessments and staleness penalties for older assessments (i.e., time-varying sigma), can lead to vessel operators changing their fishing behavior and harvest strategies, and can cause market disruption. For a groundfish stock commonly caught in assemblages (i.e., fishing gear may not be highly selective or target stocks are not found in high concentrations or schools), reduced harvest specifications for one stock can reduce the fisheries’ access to multiple co-occurring stocks, thus magnifying the negative socioeconomic impacts of harvest specification adjustments made in response to evolving scientific information. Reduced access to the groundfish resources off the U.S. West Coast reduces the number of annual recreational charter and private angler fishing trips, and reduces the number and/or length of commercial fishing trips. This can lead to reductions in the profitability of such trips, revenue losses for fish processors and other fishery-dependent businesses, and general market disruption. Additionally, a substantial amount of Council time is dedicated to the Biennial Harvest Specifications and New Management Measures development process, as opposed to measures brought forward to holistically improve how the Council manages groundfish fisheries.

The action items considered in this analysis are designed to promote increased access to, and landings of, groundfish resources off the U.S. West Coast and long-term stability for the groundfish fishery. The purpose of this action is to modify the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) in order to provide additional management tools that would allow the Council and the National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS) to address changes in the Best Scientific Information Available (BSIA), and other unforeseen circumstances, in a more expeditious manner; thus allowing for increased access to healthy groundfish stocks, while protecting overfished and depleted stocks, and promoting overall fishery and market stability. Frameworks considered in this action could streamline and reduce incremental workload each biennial harvest specifications cycle.”

The Council adopted the following as the range of alternatives and preliminary preferred alternative (noted by action item) as recommended by the Groundfish Advisory Subpanel (Agenda Item F.5.a, Supplemental GAP Report 1, November 2025) and GMT:

Carryover of Unutilized ACL

No Action: The National Standard 1 Guidelines allowances for Carryover would not be incorporated in the groundfish FMP.

Alternative 1- ABC Carryover: Modify the ABC Harvest Control Rule (HCR) in the FMP to allow ABCs to be increased up to but not exceeding the overfishing limit (OFL) from the current ABC value when there is unharvested baseline ACL in a recent prior year.  The ACL HCR would not be modified. (PPA)

Alternative 2 – ACL Carryover: Modify the ACL control rule in the FMP to allow ACLs to be increased when there is unharvested baseline ACL in a recent prior year from the value resulting from the default ACL control rule to up to ABC=ACL. (PPA)

*Baseline ACL refers to harvest specifications that do not include any Carryover quota

Eligibility Criteria 

For Alternative 1 (ABC Carryover),

• Option A: Stock status is known and stock is not overfished.
• Option B: Stock is not subject to Phase-In ABC control rules.
• Option C: Stock has not exceeded ACL more than once in the past four years.
• Option D: Stock has not exceeded OFL in past four years.
• Option E: Stock status is known and stock is above management target.

For Alternative 2 (ACL Carryover),

• Option A: Stock status is known and stock is not overfished.
• Option B: Stock is not subject to Phase-In ABC control rules.
• Option C: Stock has not exceeded ACL more than once in the past four years.
• Option D: Stock has not exceeded OFL in past four years.
• Option E: Stock status is known.
• Option F: NMFS has not made a finding that rebuilding progress is inadequate.

Options for Alternatives

Process Options

Process Option A: Carryover is approved by the Council on a stock-by-stock basis, similar to alternative ABC/ACL HCRs during development of the biennial harvest specifications, and Carryover would be continued for the stock unless the Council determines otherwise. (PPA)

Data Options

Option A: Use final mortality data from Year 1 to issue Carryover in Year 3. (PPA)

Buffer Between OFL and ABC

Buffer Option A: Allow for the maximum extent possible of ABC carryover, which would set the ABC at X percent (to be determined by the Council) less than the OFL.

Buffer Option B: The allowance to increase the ABC would be based on the category of the assessment. 

Specifications/Management Measures

1. Tribal Off-the-Top Deductions: Add option for Tribes to indicate species for which carryover would be beneficial and apply a proportional increase
2. How should allocations, HGs, etc change?
   • Option C: Conditional increase based on recent attainment. (PPA)
3. Should at-sea set asides change- and how?
   • Option B: Proportional increase based on trawl allocation. (PPA)
   • Option C: Conditional increase based on recent attainment

Phase-In of ABC Changes

Alternatives

No Action: The Council could continue to consider deviating from the default ABC control rule for any stock on a case-by-case basis, including both a phase-in increase or decrease.

Alternative 1: Specify a phase-in framework in the groundfish FMP which would allow phase-in ABC increases or decreases for a maximum of up to three years as permitted by the National Standard 1 guidelines.  (PPA)

Eligibility Criteria

Option A: Stock is not selected for ABC carryover in the same year.

Mid-Biennium Harvest Specifications Change:

Alternatives

No Action: Harvest specifications (OFL, ABC, and ACL) changes outside the biennial process are allowed through FMP Section 5.5, which allows harvest specifications to be reduced via the “Red Light” provision for rebuilding stocks, or for any stock through the “points of concern” framework. Section 5.5 also allows harvest specifications to be changed higher or lower when there is a technical correction, or under the socioeconomic framework.

Alternative 1: Develop a framework to allow a mid-biennium harvest specifications increase for previously identified stocks, i.e. “green light”. Stocks would be identified for potential candidates for the framework in June of even years when final recommendations for stock assessments for the next biennium are made. The same P* applied in the biennial process would be applied throughout the framework and no changes to research, EFP, or IOA off-the-top deductions would occur. Final recommendations for a mid-biennium increase would occur in September or November of odd years for implementation in the following year. (PPA)

Specifications/Management Measures

1. Tribal Off-the-Top Deductions: Add option for Tribes to indicate species for which carryover would be beneficial and apply a proportional increase
2. How should allocations, HGs, etc change?
   • Option C: Conditional increase based on recent attainment. (PPA)
3. Should at-sea set asides change- and how?
   • Option B: Proportional increase based on trawl allocation. (PPA)
   • Option C: Conditional increase based on recent attainment

Accounting for Off-the-Top Deductions:

Alternatives

No Action: Expected harvests for the upcoming biennium from sources outside the recreational, and non-tribal commercial groundfish fisheries (scientific research, IOA, tribal fisheries, and EFPs) are deducted from the ACL with the exception of sablefish north of 36° N. lat.

Alternative 2: Revise the off-the-top accounting structure for sources outside the recreational and commercial non-tribal groundfish fisheries (scientific research, non-groundfish fisheries, tribal fisheries) to be deducted from the ABC prior to setting the ACL. Any EFP off-the-top deductions would come off the sector specific allocation (if applicable) rather than off-the-top of the ACL. Alternative 2 would revise the catch accounting framework for all species/stocks, except sablefish North of 36° N. lat. (PPA)

Harvest Specification Frequency

Alternatives

No Action: All groundfish specifications are set on a biennial cycle as described in Council Operating Procedure 9. (PPA)

Alternative 2, Biennial Cycle with Varying Specification Frequency: Modify the biennial harvest specifications and management process to allow for setting of harvest specifications (OFL, ABC, and ACL) for a to-be-determined period rather than a two-year period. 

Inseason Adjustments for 2025-26 including Pacific Whiting Off-the-Top Bycatch Deductions – Final  Action

No Council action was taken under this agenda item. The Council considered a canary rockfish commercial non-trawl trip limit adjustment proposed by the GMT and GAP and the annual adoption of Pacific hake (whiting) yield set-asides in pink shrimp and research fisheries. However, due to the Federal Government furlough, notice of this meeting was unable to be published within the time needed to allow for final action to occur for inseason adjustments. NMFS stated they would use their authority to implement the Pacific hake set-asides outside of the Council process as this item needed to be implemented in early 2026 to meet statutory needs for the whiting fishery. The GMT and GAP noted in their statements that the canary rockfish commercial trip limit adjustment was not an urgent request and could be addressed as part of the March 2026 Council, as appropriate. The Council directed the GMT to bring back this request with updated analysis at the March 2026 Council meeting, as appropriate.

Trawl Catch Share Program Review

The Council adopted the trawl catch share program review (Agenda Item F.7.a, Attachment 1, November 2025) as final, including the research and data needs as described in Agenda Item F.7.a, Supplemental SSC Report 1, November 2025 and Agenda Item F.7.a, Supplemental GMT Report 1, November 2025 and conclusions as described in Agenda Item F.7.a, Supplemental GAP Report 1, November 2025.

Harvest Specifications and Management Measures for 2027-28 (Part 2)

Under this item, the Council considered a range of management measures for analysis over the winter to achieve fishery objectives for the 2027-28 biennium. These management measures are developed to implement the harvest specifications as adopted under Agenda Item F.3. The Council reviewed and adopted the recommendations found in the four GMT reports and the single GAP report for overwinter analysis. The recommendations are organized in the bulleted list shown below to reflect the method shown in the Action Item Checklist (Agenda Item F.8, Attachment 1 November 2025, the DRAFT Action Item Checklist) and are presented here in a similar fashion.

Action Item 1. Harvest Specifications

All interim harvest specifications were adopted under Agenda Item F.3 and no recommendations were made by the Council under this Agenda Item.

Action Item 2 Area Management

• Maintain status quo Groundfish Conservation Area coordinates
• Analyze removing from regulations the following Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Areas that have never been implemented,
  • Off of California: Point St. George, South Reef, Reading Rock, Point Delgada (North) and Point Delgada (South)
  • Off of Oregon: which are the Tillamook, Newport, Stonewall Bank expansions 1 and 2, Florence

Action Item 3 Off-the-top Deductions

• Analyze preliminary off-the-top deductions from the ACLs as shown in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 of Supplemental GMT Report 1 and the corrections in Appendix 1 of Supplemental GMT Report 4, specifically:
  • Research: use the rolling 5-year median of research mortality to set research set-asides in 2027-28, except for yelloweye rockfish use 2.92 mt for the research set-aside, based on anticipated research projects.
  • Incidental Open Access: use the rolling 5-year average mortality to set IOA set-asides in 2027-28
  • Exempted Fishing Permits: no set-asides requested for 2027-28

Action Item 4: Tribal Management Measures

• Analyze preliminary Tribal management measures and set-asides as outlined in F.8.a Supplemental Tribal Report 1, November 2025.

Action Item 5 Annual Catch Targets

• Analyze status quo ACTs for
  • Copper Rockfish South of Pt. Conception (34° 27′ N. lat.)
  • Shortspine Thornyhead Non-trawl North of Pt. Conception (34° 27′ N. lat.)

Action Item 6 Biennial Trawl/Non-Trawl Sector allocation percentages

Analyze status quo biennial trawl/non-trawl allocations (as recommended by the GAP in Supplemental GAP Report 2 and detailed in GMT in Supplemental GMT Report 2) for all stocks and stock complexes, except for the slope rockfish complex south of 40° 10’ N lat. and widow rockfish as shown in Table 1

Table 1. Analytical options to be analyzed for the slope rockfish complex south of 40° 10’ N lat. and widow rockfish

Stock	Option	Trawl Allocation	Non-Trawl Allocation
Slope rockfish south of 40° 10’ N lat.	Opt. 1.	63%	37%
	Opt. 2	“Blackgill Math” methodology
	Opt. 3	52%	48%
Widow rockfish	Opt. 1	Remainder to trawl	300 mt
	Opt. 2	Remainder to trawl	150 mt

Action Item 7. Within Non-Trawl Allocations

• Analyze status quo within non-trawl allocations for
  • Cowcod south of 40° 10′ N. latitude
  • Bocaccio south of 40° 10′ N. latitude

Action Item 8. Sablefish Allocations

Sablefish north of 36° N lat. analyze the following:

• Research set-asides: a rolling 5-year median as recommended by the GMT and GAP
• EFP set-asides: none requested for 2027-2028
• Recreational set asides: explore an increase from 30 mt

Sablefish south of 36° N lat. analyze the following:

• Research set-asides: A rolling 5-year median as recommended by the GMT and GAP
• Incidental Open Access: a rolling 5-year average as recommended by the GMT and GAP
• EFPs: None requested for 2027-2028
• Recreational set asides: Status quo of 10 mt
• Within non-trawl shares- status quo shares for LE and OA fixed gear

Action Item 9 Yelloweye Rockfish Allocations

• Analyze status quo biennial allocations for yelloweye rockfish
  • Status quo trawl/non-trawl sharing: 8 percent trawl, 92 percent non-trawl
  • Status quo within non-trawl sharing percentages
• Explore removing the non-trawl ACTs and allowing limited retention in non-trawl fisheries

Action Item 10 Canary Rockfish Allocations

• Retain the status quo Trawl/Non-Trawl allocations
• Analyze the proposal described in F.8.a Supplemental WDFW Report 1, November 2025

Action Item 11 Within trawl Set-aside

Analyze the 2027-2028 at-sea set asides as described in F.8.a, Supplemental GMT Report 2, November 2025, Table 4, and an option to analyze a 200 mt set-aside for widow rockfish

Action Item 12 Shore Based Individual Fishing Quota

Analyze status quo individual fishing quota (IFQ) trip limits for non-IFQ species

Action Items 13 – 16: Commercial Non-Trawl Open Access and Limited Entry Fixed Gear North and South of 40° 10′ N. lat

As recommended by the GMT (Supplemental GMT Report 3) analyze trip limits and items to reduce regulatory complexity (e.g., Lasuen Knoll and non-trawl trip limit tables).

Action Item 17 Washington Recreational Fishery

WDFW and the GMT, as needed, will analyze routine measures such as bag limits, season structures, depth limits, and length limits, etc., that keep catch from exceeding harvest targets for the Washington recreational fishery.

Action Item 18 Oregon Recreational Fishery

ODFW and the GMT, as needed, will analyze routine measures such as bag limits, season structures, depth limits, and length limits, etc., that keep catch from exceeding harvest targets for the Oregon recreational fishery, including exploring allowing lingcod retention in the longleader gear (i.e., Holloway Gear) fishery.

Action Item 19 California Recreational Fishery

Analyze routine adjustments to bag limits, bag limit structure, season structures, size limits, sub-bag limits, and depth limits as appropriate based on harvest specifications, including limited retention of cowcod.

The next step in the process is for the GMT and Council staff to complete the overwinter analysis of these items. The Council is scheduled to be updated regarding findings at the March 2026 Council meeting, adopt preliminary preferred alternatives for management measures at the April 2026 Council meeting, and final preferred alternatives for management at the June 2026 Council meeting.

Marine Mammal Take Reduction Team Update

The Council received an update from NMFS on the Take Reduction Team for the Federal sablefish pot fishery. A future agenda item will be scheduled to provide the Council and its advisory bodies an update on the Take Reduction Team after meetings are held over the winter and spring.

Salmon Management

Final 2026 Preseason Management Schedule

The Council approved the 2026 salmon management schedule, including the tentative dates for public hearings.  The hearings are tentatively scheduled for Monday, March 23 in Westport, Washington and Santa Rosa, California and Tuesday, March 24 in Newport, Oregon. The Council requested that the Newport, Oregon hearing be held in a hybrid format to allow for remote participation. The final schedule and plan for the hearings will be adopted at the March 2026 meeting.

Methodology Review Results

The Council adopted the following two methodologies that were reviewed by the Salmon Technical Team and Scientific and Statistical Committee Salmon Sub-Committee at the 2025 Salmon Methodology Review meeting for implementation beginning in 2026.  

1. Modification to the Oregon Production Index Hatchery (OPIH) Coho Salmon Forecast Methodology as presented in Agenda Item G.3 Attachment 1 

The Council’s adopted modified approach utilizes an exponential decay weighting approach that allows for more recent patterns to influence which models are selected in the multi-model methodology used for forecasting OPIH coho. The Council requested the Oregon Production Technical Team (OPITT) provide information on the continued performance of the modified approach at the March 2026 meeting.

2. Technical Revision to the Marine Survival Forecast of the Oregon Coast Natural (OCN) Coho Workgroup Harvest Matrix as presented in Agenda Item G.3. Attachment 2

In recent years, the approved method for calculating the OCN coho marine survival index has relied on data from five life cycle monitoring (LCM) sites. However, statewide reductions to Oregon’s general fund budget will result in the closure of two LCM sites beginning in 2026, meaning data from these locations will no longer be available. The Council’s adopted approach uses a multivariate state-space model to interpolate the missing data from the two closed sites.

Sacramento River Fall Chinook Fishery Management Plan Amendment – Workgroup Report, Initial Scoping

In recent years, the Council has been exploring potential updates to the Sacramento River fall Chinook (SRFC) F_MSY, S_MSY, conservation objective, and harvest control rule. In September 2025, the Council indicated they wish to further explore updating these aspects of SRFC management through an FMP Amendment process.  

At this meeting, the Council reviewed a report and appendices developed by the Sacramento River Fall Chinook Workgroup (SRWG) on their progress to date and two documents developed by Council staff that outlined the expertise needed and tentative timeline for the development of a SRFC FMP Amendment (Attachment 1 and Attachment 2). Attachment 1 also described that the scientific elements of the FMP amendment will require peer review and described different kinds of peer review processes the Council could consider.

The Council expressed support for an independent peer-review process focused on determining an updated S_MSY value. They recommended that the peer-review body begin with a neutral evaluation of all four approaches analyzed by the SRWG, as presented in its report, and potentially work iteratively with the SRWG to develop the best recommendation for an updated S_MSY value. The Council also advised that the peer-review body be composed primarily of individuals not currently involved in the PFMC process, to ensure neutrality and avoid conflicts of interest. Potential reviewers could include experts from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the Center for Independent Experts, academic institutions, or other relevant organizations.

The Council requested that staff develop draft charges for a peer-review body for the Council to review and provide additional feedback on at a future meeting.

Klamath River Fall Chinook Workgroup Progress Report

The Klamath River Fall Chinook Workgroup (KRWG) provided a report outlining their progress on the tasks given by the Council in November 2024. The Council discussed that the buffered exploitation rate approach used in 2024 should be considered again for 2026 and beyond, as necessary, as it remains the only sufficiently developed option for implementation. They requested that the Salmon Technical Team evaluate whether the buffer could be applied solely to the non-Tribal portion of the Klamath River fall Chinook allocation.

The Council did not provide any guidance to the Workgroup at this time. Going forward, the Council is interested in receiving updates on salmon restoration and recovery in the Klamath Basin and to remain informed about any implications for fisheries and management tools resulting from changes to hatchery production and coded-wire-tagging programs associated with dam removal. Staff will coordinate with NMFS and CDFW to provide this information.

Pacific Halibut Management

2026 Commercial and Recreational Catch Sharing Plan and Annual Regulations – Final Action

The Council took preliminary action to adopt the Washington and Oregon state sport season proposals as presented in the Washington and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife reports, an April 1 (or as early as practicable) start date for the California sport season, as recommended by the Groundfish Advisory Subpanel (GAP), and status quo (the same season structure as in 2025) for the directed commercial halibut fishery, as recommended by both the GAP and the Salmon Advisory Subpanel.

The Council will hold an online special Council meeting on December 18 at 1 PM to take final action on changes to the 2026 commercial and recreational Pacific halibut Catch Sharing Plan. A meeting notice is expected shortly and the Briefing Book is scheduled to be available the week of December 1.

Highly Migratory Species Management 

International Management Activities

The Council heard an update from Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) Commissioner Christa Svensson on recent and upcoming international meetings and issues. Several of these meetings, as well as agenda items on the December 1 – 5 WCPFC meeting, are listed in the I.2 Situation Summary. Ms. Svensson noted that compliance issues on the WCPFC agenda may be of particular interest to the Council. She also suggested that because the WCPFC Permanent Advisory Committee meeting was cancelled, the Council should consider sending recommendations by the November 17, 2025 deadline. The Council expressed interest in continuing to support consideration of circle hook requirements at upcoming international meetings and approved submitting recommendations for inclusion in the December WCPFC meeting. Those recommendations, including the September and November 2025 HMSAS supplemental reports, were subsequently transmitted prior to the deadline.

Ryan Wulff gave a NMFS update. He noted that the parties to the Agreement on International Dolphin Conservation met in October 2025 and a list of resolutions will be available on its website. The meetings of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission’s (IATTC) Fleet Capacity Working Group and the working group on the bigeye tuna management strategy evaluation will both be rescheduled. Mr. Wulff also noted that an online stakeholder meeting for north Pacific albacore tuna will be scheduled in the near future.

Exempted Fishing Permits – Preliminary or Final

The Council considered three applications for HMS EFPs. Attachment 1 proposes night deep-set buoy gear and night linked buoy gear. Attachment 2 proposes EFP fishing with Extended Link Buoy Gear simultaneously set deep and shallow, above and below the thermocline. Attachment 3 proposes incorporating hookless ring gear with deep-set buoy gear. The Council was supportive of all three applications and expressed enthusiasm for the innovative approaches.

The Council recommended that NMFS approve the EFP applications in Attachments 1 and 2, and recommended that the proponents of the application in Attachment 3 bring back the application for additional discussion and consideration at the March 2026 Council meeting. The Council also requested that NMFS build flexibility when considering EFP applications, to allow for variation in fishing configurations within environmental review processes and analyses.

HMS Roadmap: Exempted Fishing Permits (EFP) Goals and Metrics

The Council provided guidance to the Fisheries Innovation Workgroup (FIW) to move forward with finalizing the following:

The HMS EFP performance goal “Support and test fishing practices that have the potential to be economically viable and consistent with National Standard 9 guidelines” (identical to HMS Roadmap Goal B).

The economic viability and bycatch benchmarks and performance metrics described in I.4.a Supplemental FIW presentation 1 (slides 19 and 22, respectively) below:

Economic viability benchmarks and performance metrics:

Performance Metric	Total # of Benchmarks	Species	Fisheries datasets	Time Horizon
Ex-vessel price per pound	6	Swordfish	Hawaii shallow-set longline and WC DGN	10-year avg
		Bluefin tuna	Bluefin hook-and-line fishery and WC DGN	5-year avg
		All HMS landings	Hawaii shallow-set longline and WC DGN	10-year avg
CPUE	4	Swordfish	Hawaii shallow-set longline and WC DGN	10-year avg
		All HMS landings	Hawaii shallow-set longline and WC DGN	10-year avg
Ex-vessel revenue	7	All landings	All authorized WC HMS fisheries and Hawaii shallow-set longline	10-year avg

Bycatch benchmarks and performance metrics:

Performance Metric	Total # of Benchmarks	Fisheries datasets	Time Horizon
Discard rate	2	Hawaii shallow-set longline and WC DGN	10-year avg
Individual species-level counts of bycatch	TBD – pending final list of priority bycatch species
Individual species bycatch-to-catch ratios

CPUE = catch per unit effort

WC = West Coast

DGN = drift gillnet

The Council provided additional guidance to:

Consider developing ratio-based metrics (e.g., bycatch-to-target catch, bycatch-to-revenues) which facilitate comparison of different EFPs and contain information on both economic and bycatch performance.

Consider adding gross profits as an economic viability metric consistent with the HMSAS recommendation and rationale that fishing operations often pay their crew based on gross profits. The costs of the trip (fuel, bait, groceries, and ice) are deducted from gross revenues to arrive at the funds from which crew is paid, then an agreed upon formula will split those funds between the boat, captain, and crew shares.

For fishery data sources:

Use data sources from both shallow and deep-set longline east of 140°W longitude, as well as data from the drift gillnet and deep-set buoy gear fisheries and include all HMS landings to the West Coast when developing final benchmarks for EFP comparison.

Consider removing purse seine and albacore data sources, as appropriate.

For acceptable levels of bycatch and benchmarks: Determine an acceptable amount of bycatch for each species or species group of concern. This could be based on potential biological removal, observed bycatch rates in other fisheries, or other considerations, and would not preclude the use of rates and/or ratios to evaluate EFP performance. (from Supplemental HMSMT Report 1).

Acceptable levels of bycatch and benchmarks should focus on the species list and those animals discarded dead or injured. Live discards will still be captured in observer reports and available to consider separately from the benchmarks.

Acceptable levels of bycatch and benchmarks are to be used by the Council when examining EFP performance. They would not have any force of regulation nor be used to cancel EFPs. They will have no impact on approved gear types and fisheries and will be used when reviewing EFP performance after each EFP annual report and at the conclusion of EFPs to inform Council consideration of regulatory changes and/or authorization of new fishing configurations.

For a species list:

Consider an updated species list from all species in Option 1 in Supplemental HMSMT Report 1 along with the “potential additions” from Option 2, and the addition of all shearwater species.

Coastal Pelagic Species Management

Methodology Review

The Council approved the Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) proposal for a methodology review covering the change from the net previously used on the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) survey to a new Multi-Function Trawl Net in the Integrated West Coast Pelagics Survey (a.k.a. “Integrated Survey”). The methodology review will be scheduled for February 24-26, 2026, to be held at the SWFSC in La Jolla, California. The Council also adopted the proposed Terms of Reference (TOR) for the review, requesting that staff revise the TOR to include a progress report on previous research recommendations from the last review of the CPS Acoustic Trawl Method Survey in April 2018. The Scientific and Statistical Committee and the Council will review the methodology review report to approve the survey products to be included in CPS stock assessments.

Pacific Sardine Stock Definitions

The Council established the scope of this action to revise the Pacific sardine stock definition, adopting a Purpose and Need statement, a range of alternatives, and a preliminary preferred alternative. The Council did not elect to include Japanese sardine within the scope of this action, though discussion covered continued monitoring of the species’ presence in U.S. waters.

Purpose and Need

Due to newly published research on the population structure of Pacific sardine, this action aims to re-evaluate the Fishery Management Unit (FMU) for sardines in the CPS Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Specifically, the action will determine if the Pacific sardine stock in the FMU is defined consistent with current science.

This action is necessary to ensure Pacific sardine conservation and management is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the National Standards, and the CPS FMP.

Range of Alternatives

No Action – The Council would not define stocks other than those currently defined in the CPS FMP (Section 1.2, Table 1-1). Only the northern subpopulation of Pacific sardine would continue to be defined as a stock in the FMU.

Alternative 1 – The Council would amend the CPS FMP (Section 1.2, Table 1-1) to include all Pacific sardine in U.S. waters in the FMU. The FMU would include one stock of Pacific sardine, delineated coastwide.

Administrative Matters 

Membership Appointments and Council Operating Procedures

The Council appointed Ms. Christina Lingvay to one of the two CDFW seats on the Groundfish Management Team. The Council confirmed the approach for the Klamath River Workgroup, as outlined above under Agenda Item G.5.  Solicitations for the following vacancies will be announced in December

• Washington At-Large position on the Ecosystem Advisory Subpanel
• Processor position on the Salmon Advisory Subpanel. The Council welcomes applications from all processors and is especially interested in those with experience in Washington and Oregon.
• At-large position on the Scientific and Statistical Committee