I will take a shot at answering, although other folks will likely have different answers.

It would probably help you get an answer if you also provide some indication of why you want this information. That is, for what purpose do you intend to use it?

Even without that info, here goes:

In short, HGMP's (Hatchery Genetic Management Plans) are not required by the Endangered Species Act. HGMP's are a NMFS creation. They were developed as a way to help State/Federal/Tribal hatcheries comply with the ESA. But HGMP's are not required and cannot be enforced directly thru the ESA. NMFS can enforce compliance with the ESA (obviously) but they cannot force anyone to write an HGMP. Nobody can sue anyone for not having an HGMP. However, an agency can be sued for being out of compliance with the ESA. An HGMP is a convinent way of facilitating compliance with the ESA but I would suggest its not the only way.

That should answer questions 1, 2, and 4.

Question 3 asks how long it will take to do a 4(d) rule. Only a NMFS person will be able to answer that one for NMFS. However, since I don't work for NMFS, I will guess that it depends on overall workload, staff time, complexity of the rule, other competing work priorities, public interest in the rule, etc. If someone wants it badly enough, it could get done quickly. Otherwise, it's one of many important things that NMFS needs to get done.

Question 5 gets to the issue of when does an action agency need to reintiate consultation (Section 7/10) in the event of a new listing. There is great debate on that point for the reason you've given. Some agencies say they don't have to consult on new listings until there is a change in project operations. The ESA agencies (NMFS/FWS) believe reintiation occurs whenever there is a new listing. Seems to me that a good compromise would be that reinitation of consultation should occur when 1) there is a new ESA listing and 2) the on-going action "may affect" the newly listed species. There should be no need to reinitiate consultation if there is no effect on the newly listed species. But then again, if there is agreement on the "no effect" determination, consultation could be completed rather quickly.

As I stated, I don't work for NMFS so please don't get the impression that this is their position on these issues.