Yes CM, NOAA/NMFS will have to evaluate the state plan in light of the effects of all the other plans like PST, PFMC, and tribal. They can't look at the state plan by itself to assess whether it meets ESA requirements for Chinook, SRKW etc. The state could submit their plan but for sure the tribes would submit their own too. The tribes may proclaim that there plan defines their treaty fishing right. Not surprisingly, both the state and tribal plans would probably have some fat in them (dont lead with your target in negotiations). NOAA/NMFS would like at all the provisions in the plans together and likely conclude "sorry, fishing according to these plans will significantly impede the chance of recovery for ESA animals. You gotta cut back". The PST and PFMC plans are in place now and not going to change soon. Well, who do you think the burden of that is going to fall on? NOAA/NMFS is not gonna say both the states and tribes each have to cut X%. Its gonna be more like "state, you have to work with tribal plan to get down there so the combined fisheries work for ESA". The tribes could easily stand pat on their plan and say "good luck state" which could very well be that the state has less to work with than they do now. Or you get right back to the leverage that the tribes have every preseason, only in this case its a multi-year plan. Presumably, the multi-year state plan wouldn't have the annual late night deal making but you would know early on that the state fisheries are crap. Uncertain crap like now vs known crap under a multi-year state plan. You pick em.