POS Clerk,

Thanks to Coho and Ramon for their thorough response to your questions. I think some context might help in understanding your question regarding time frames. So many species ESUs were listed in 1998 and 1999, and so many human activities affect the listed species that NMFS and all the agencies required to consult under the ESA were over-whelmed by the sheer magnitude of the task. It certainly exceeded anything ever contemplated by the original ESA legislation. As a result, the timeframes established by law were ignored, not so much by intent, as by the fact that there was far more compliance work required than could possibly be performed within the allowable time. NMFS and everyone else has been playing catch up for about four years. Most of the out-of-compliance things I'm familiar with should be caught up within the next year.

As you know, we're very litigious in the U.S., and anyone can sue almost anyone else for just about anything. But getting a case to stick can be another matter. Making a case for ESA non-compliance these past four years usually required the plaintif to demonstrate a lack of effort, or even a lack of intent, to comply. Many required consultations hadn't occurred, but they were sort of lined up in a que, demonstrating the intent to comply just as soon as humanly possible. I think it would have been difficult to successfully sue a party who was trying to comply, but was waiting in line for their project to come up. Just the same, I did see a fair amount of re-prioritizing of projects, as managers tried to adjust which consultations were most important to complete first.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.