Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Council debates whiting processing exempted fishing permit; motion to block out‑of‑cycle review withdrawn
Loading...
Summary
A proposal to allow Pacific whiting processing south of 42° drew prolonged council discussion about bycatch risk and process. A motion to discourage NMFS from prioritizing an out‑of‑cycle EFP review was introduced and later withdrawn; the council urged NMFS to coordinate timing so the council and advisory bodies can provide input.
A proposal to allow shore processing of Pacific whiting south of 42° generated prolonged debate at the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s June meeting. Council discussion focused on process, bycatch risk, and allocation of groundfish set‑asides, and culminated in a motion that was introduced to discourage National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) from prioritizing EFP review outside the council process. The maker subsequently withdrew the motion following extended discussion.
What was proposed and why it matters: Industry representatives indicated they would pursue an exempted fishing permit (EFP) to allow whiting processing south of 42° N latitude. Proponents said the EFP was intended to improve market access and processing opportunities; opponents and some advisory bodies warned it could increase bycatch risk — especially of salmon in northern California — and pose allocation and quota accounting problems for other groundfish sectors.
Motion, debate and withdrawal: Councilmember Marcy Ripko moved that the council recommend NMFS not prioritize review, development or issuance of an EFP outside the council process for the Pacific Whiting Conservation Cooperative’s proposal. The motion was seconded and then extensively debated. Proponents and several council members acknowledged the urgency of expanding processing opportunities; critics pointed to potential bycatch and allocation consequences and to notice and process concerns.
Supporters of council review said bypassing the council’s established EFP review process would deny the GMT, GAP and SSC the opportunity to examine terms and conditions, including off‑the‑top set‑aside implications. Mark Relder (speaking in support of the motion) said: "The current restrictions on processing South Of 42 were adopted through a very careful open public process" and warned that a shortcut would be "disrespectful to the council process." Several speakers noted recent overages in some ATSI (all‑sector) set‑asides in 2022–2024 for species such as shortspine thornyhead and sablefish and argued those allocative pressures argue for full council consideration.
Opponents said NMFS has authority and experience to consider EFPs and that early agency coordination could overlap with council meetings and public comment. Council staff and NMFS officials said there is no statutory prohibition on NMFS processing an EFP, and that EFP review includes public notice and comment. Kelly Ames, council deputy director, noted that early agency coordination could be timed to overlap council meeting public comment: "There is no reason why that federal register notice couldn't overlap with the November 2025 council meeting," she said.
Workload and timing concerns: NMFS officials cautioned that staff workload could limit agency ability to act quickly. Ryan Wolf of NMFS West Coast Region said EFPs carry agency workload both in reviewing applications and in preparing terms and conditions, and that publishing and managing a Federal Register notice requires staff resources. At the same time, industry representatives said they sought expedited consideration to address market needs and that some EFPs could be converted to regulatory changes if sufficient evidence accumulates.
Outcome and next steps: After the extended debate the mover withdrew the motion; the council did not take a formal vote directing NMFS not to proceed. Instead, participants reached a practical outcome: council members and staff urged that NMFS coordinate timing with the council so any application (should one be submitted) would be noticed in a manner that allows council and advisory body input, either via overlapping Federal Register public comment or by scheduling council consideration at an upcoming meeting. NMFS said it would consider the council’s concerns about notice and terms and conditions; council staff said they would monitor and notify the council if an application is submitted so discussion can be scheduled.
Stakeholder and advisory‑body positions: GAP and other advisory bodies emphasized that groundfish EFPs implicate off‑the‑top set‑asides and cross‑sector allocations and therefore warrant council consideration. Several council members and advisory‑body representatives urged applicants to use the established onramps for EFP consideration (the groundfish workload/prioritization process and the preliminary EFP agenda item planned for November) to ensure transparency and to allow GMT assessment of allocation impacts.
