The reason that hatchery consultations are slipping thru the cracks (and thus increasing everyone's litigation risk) is the lack of a clear adverse impact on ESA listed species.

If, for example, someone were engaged in an activity that results in the direct take of listed species, that activity would be a high priority at NMFS. In other words, if the activity results in dead bodies, that activity goes to the top of the priority list. Hydropower operations fall squarely within this range. It's not hard to find dead salmon downstream of a hydropower project. To NMFS, this constitutes the most important consultations to be completed. These get the attention, and for good reason. The next highest priority would likely be habitat projects such as timber harvest, wetland fill permits, road construction, and near-shore development (e.g., marinas, bridges, bulkheads).

Hatchery consultations do not rise to the same level. Hatchery stocking does not normally result in dead bodies or direct loss of habitat. Hatchery releases have the affect of reducing future productivity thru genetic introgression, and other indirect affects. So, there may be an adverse impact, but it's also an impact that is hotly debated (on this BB and others), and can be a issue of considerable scientific debate and inquiry. On the other hand, nobody disputes that a hydropower project kills fish. Or that a timber sale affects instream habitat. So, if you were to prioritize the workload at NMFS, where would you put your limited resources (i.e., your staff time)? In my view, it would NOT be on hatchery consultations. Those are small potatos. Good management dictates that you put your resources where the biggest impacts are. That is, those activities that result in dead bodies or destroyed habitat. After that, you can work on the small stuff.

But if the big issues never go away, the small issues never get the attention required by law. And the litigation risk goes up. The folks at WFC, or whoever, know this very well. My cynical side says WFC or whoever, is more interested in getting paid than they are in saving fish. Otherwise, why would they target an activity with a low and unclear risk to ESA listed fish?