Support recovered Pacific rockfish keeping their protected status

Issues on the record, awaiting the decision

• PendingThe EA dismisses impacts on protected resources by stating that 'management-induced changes in the distribution and intensity of groundfish fishing are unlikely to discernibly affect food web dynamics

  The EA dismisses impacts on protected resources by stating that 'management-induced changes in the distribution and intensity of groundfish fishing are unlikely to discernibly affect food web dynamics' and finds no significant impact, yet Section 4.2.1 confirms that a Take Reduction Team for humpback whales in the sablefish pot fishery was established in November 2025 and its draft Take Reduction Plan had not been finalized as of the document's preparation. The agency acknowledges it is 'uncertain whether any mitigation measures identified in the TRP may be implemented during the 2027-28 biennium.' This means the EA analyzes protected species impacts without knowing what additional take constraints the TRP may impose on the sablefish pot fishery during the same biennium. The agency should either delay finalizing the EA until the TRP is complete, or provide a contingency analysis showing how ACLs and management measures would be adjusted if TRP constraints reduce sablefish pot effort.

  A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document

• PendingSection 5.1.2 states flatly that 'there are no reasonably foreseeable environmental effects that, when combined with the effects of the Proposed Action, would cause significant impact to socioeconomic

  Section 5.1.2 states flatly that 'there are no reasonably foreseeable environmental effects that, when combined with the effects of the Proposed Action, would cause significant impact to socioeconomics.' Yet Section 6.4.2 shows coastwide commercial community income falling by $19.6 million relative to No Action, with Astoria-Tillamook alone losing $10.6 million and Newport losing $4.1 million. Section 4.5.3 acknowledges these reductions are 'large enough' to produce 'negative' community impacts. The agency cannot simultaneously acknowledge material negative community income effects in the RIR and then assert in the NEPA section that no significant socioeconomic impact is foreseeable, without explaining the analytical standard being applied and why a $19.6 million coastwide income loss does not meet it. The agency should articulate the specific threshold or criteria it uses to determine socioeconomic significance under NEPA and explain why the documented losses fall below that threshold.

  A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document

• PendingThe sablefish ACL drops by approximately 59 percent relative to No Action (from 26,688 mt to 10,962 mt north of 36 degrees N.

  The sablefish ACL drops by approximately 59 percent relative to No Action (from 26,688 mt to 10,962 mt north of 36 degrees N. lat., per Table 3), yet the socioeconomic analysis in Section 4.5.3 repeatedly characterizes sablefish as a positive offset that will 'mask' widow rockfish losses for many participants. The agency does not analyze the combined effect of a 59 percent sablefish cut alongside a 44 percent widow rockfish cut on the same Oregon and Washington ports. Section 6.4.2 shows Astoria-Tillamook losing $10.6 million in community income and Newport losing $4.1 million, but no disaggregated analysis isolates the sablefish contribution to those losses. The agency should provide a port-level disaggregated income analysis that separately quantifies sablefish and widow rockfish ACL reductions so that the public and the Council can assess whether the mitigation rationale holds.

  A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document

• PendingSection 1.3 states that the agency reevaluated the 2015 EIS and found its assumptions 'remain valid,' but the 2015 EIS was prepared before the fishery experienced the dramatic widow rockfish stock col

  Section 1.3 states that the agency reevaluated the 2015 EIS and found its assumptions 'remain valid,' but the 2015 EIS was prepared before the fishery experienced the dramatic widow rockfish stock collapse now driving a 59 percent ACL reduction, before yelloweye and quillback rockfish were declared rebuilt, and before sablefish ACLs hit historic highs and then fell by nearly 60 percent. The document tiers from the 2015 EIS for its analysis of protected resources (Section 4.2), EFH (Section 4.3), and ecosystem impacts (Section 4.4) without explaining how a six-biennium-old programmatic document remains adequate when the fleet distribution, target species mix, and fishing intensity are all materially different. The agency should either prepare a supplemental EIS analyzing these changed conditions or provide a detailed, species-by-species and gear-by-gear explanation of why the 2015 EIS tiering remains valid given the documented changes in stock status and fishing patterns.

  A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document

• PendingThe agency chose Alternative 1 (higher ACL) over Alternative 2 for chilipepper, stating that 'new information indicates that there may be additional opportunity for chilipepper harvest, due to changin

  The agency chose Alternative 1 (higher ACL) over Alternative 2 for chilipepper, stating that 'new information indicates that there may be additional opportunity for chilipepper harvest, due to changing market conditions.' Section 8.2 cites this market information as the basis for departing from the preliminary preferred alternative. However, the document never identifies what that market information is, cites no study or data source, and does not explain how market conditions constitute 'best scientific information available' under National Standard 2 for the purpose of setting a biological catch limit. The chilipepper ACL under Alternative 1 is 3,211 mt in 2027 versus 2,114 mt under Alternative 2, a 52 percent difference. The agency should identify and make publicly available the specific market data used to justify selecting the higher chilipepper ACL and explain how that information satisfies the BSIA standard.

  A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document

• PendingThe EA's Tribal consultation section (Section 9.1) states only that 'Tribal comments and participation at the Council played a role in developing and analyzing the Proposed Action' and declares compli

  The EA's Tribal consultation section (Section 9.1) states only that 'Tribal comments and participation at the Council played a role in developing and analyzing the Proposed Action' and declares compliance with Executive Order 13175. The widow rockfish ACL under the FPA is approximately 44 percent below the No Action level, and sablefish ACLs drop nearly 59 percent. Both stocks are significant components of Pacific Coast treaty Tribe fisheries. The four Washington coastal treaty Tribes hold rights to 50 percent of the harvestable surplus in their usual and accustomed areas. The document provides no analysis of how these ACL reductions affect the Tribes' treaty harvest rights, no documentation of government-to-government consultation outside the Council process, and no assessment of whether the Tribes' 50 percent share is achievable under the proposed specifications. The agency should conduct and document government-to-government consultation specifically addressing treaty harvest rights impacts and provide a quantitative analysis of Tribal allocation impacts before finalizing the rule.

  A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document

• PendingThe document states in Section 3.1 that 'factors contributing to impacts on genetic structure have not materially changed from what is disclosed in the 2015 EIS' and therefore drops any further geneti

  The document states in Section 3.1 that 'factors contributing to impacts on genetic structure have not materially changed from what is disclosed in the 2015 EIS' and therefore drops any further genetic structure analysis. However, the 2027-28 specifications include a 59 percent reduction in widow rockfish ACL driven by a substantially revised stock assessment showing a major decline in stock productivity, a nearly 60 percent reduction in sablefish ACL, and new rebuilding declarations for yelloweye and quillback rockfish. These are material changes in fishing mortality and spatial distribution of effort that could affect genetic structure of heavily fished populations. The 2015 EIS analysis of genetic impacts was based on fishing intensity and stock conditions that no longer exist. The agency should explain specifically why these changed harvest levels and stock conditions do not alter the genetic structure conclusions of the 2015 EIS, or conduct updated analysis.

  A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document

• PendingThe agency set the widow rockfish ACL for Alternative 2 Sub-option 2b at 6,720 mt for both 2027 and 2028, which its own analysis acknowledges exceeds the SSC-recommended OFL of 6,239 mt.

  The agency set the widow rockfish ACL for Alternative 2 Sub-option 2b at 6,720 mt for both 2027 and 2028, which its own analysis acknowledges exceeds the SSC-recommended OFL of 6,239 mt. The MSA prohibits the Council from adopting an ACL that exceeds the ABC, and the National Standard 1 Guidelines state that ABC may not exceed the OFL. Despite labeling Sub-option 2b as 'not a viable option,' the agency fully analyzed it as a live alternative in Table 7 and Section 4.1.1, generating confusion about what alternatives were actually lawfully available. The agency should explain in the final rule why Sub-option 2b was retained for full analysis rather than screened out at the alternatives design stage under Section 2.1, and should clarify what safeguards prevent a future Council from re-adopting an above-OFL ACL under the same framing of 'economic relief.'

  A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document

• PendingThe EA's RIR section (Section 6.6) states that 'the harvest specifications and routine management measures considered in this action are not expected to result in additional regulatory costs for any d

  The EA's RIR section (Section 6.6) states that 'the harvest specifications and routine management measures considered in this action are not expected to result in additional regulatory costs for any directly regulated entity' and that 'there are no impacts with respect to direct compliance, reporting, or recordkeeping costs.' This sweeping no-cost conclusion conflicts with Section 7.3, which acknowledges that within the trawl sector smaller entities may be at a competitive disadvantage if quota pound prices increase for canary rockfish or shortspine thornyhead, and that sablefish allocation decreases will negatively affect profitability. The agency characterizes price changes and profitability losses as cost-free to regulated entities even though quota pound markets are the primary mechanism through which IFQ participants access fish. The agency should provide a quantitative analysis of expected quota pound price changes and their distribution across small and large entities, and reconcile the no-cost finding with the profitability impacts identified in Section 7.3.

  A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document

• PendingFor yellowtail rockfish north of 40 degrees 10 minutes N.

  For yellowtail rockfish north of 40 degrees 10 minutes N. latitude and widow rockfish Sub-option 2d, the agency set the 2027 ABC and ACL just one metric ton below the OFL, creating a near-zero buffer against overfishing. The agency's own justification for this approach is that the Council can take inseason action at 'any one of five annual meetings.' However, Section 3.4 acknowledges that catch projections assume full attainment and that actual catches vary due to weather, markets, and other factors. The agency provides no quantitative analysis of the probability that inseason action would actually prevent the OFL from being exceeded given monitoring lags and the one-metric-ton margin. The agency should either provide a quantitative risk analysis showing that a 1 mt buffer is sufficient to prevent overfishing under realistic attainment scenarios, or justify the buffer size with reference to specific monitoring data, before finalizing these HCRs.

  A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document