But #7 reads, in pertinent part, as follows

" Once effective, this release and hold harmless agreement shall continue in force and with the same effect until such time as NOAA Fisheries completes its review and issues its final determination regarding approval under 50 C.F.R. § 223.203(b) and/or 50 C.F.R. § 223.209 of Joint RMPs, HGMP, or HGMPs for WDFW PS hatchery programs. This release and hold harmless agreement shall expire by its own terms upon completion of NOAA Fisheries’ review and issuance of its final determination regarding approval under 50 C.F.R. § 223.203(b) and/or 50 C.F.R. § 223.209 of the Joint RMPs, HGMP, or HGMPs for WDFW PS hatchery programs. “Final determination” means NOAA Fisheries determination regarding approval of a WDFW HGMP or HGMPs for a period of three years or more. Nonetheless, a second determination by NOAA Fisheries on a specific WDFW HGMP or HGMPs shall be considered a final determination regardless of the length or title of the approval."

This clearly puts NOAA/NMFS into play and to the extent that they may have failed to take timely action thereby precluding issuance of the required permit one might argue that WDFW has acted in good faith and is not in violation of either the agreement or the law.

But, of course, that is why we have lawyers. Just have to wonder if WFC were to lose would they end up paying back some of the $58K they squeezed out of WDFW in attorney fees? Naaa, never happen - and please don't miss the sarcasm.