The law is supposed to be an expression of the people's desire. Agency bureaucracy is supposed to be an expression of the people's intended action and outcome. The intersection between the law and bureaucracy isn't necessarily a clean one. In the present case it is awkward, complicated, and dynamic, which makes it a moving target.

After 3 1/2 years, NMFS completed the draft EIS a couple of weeks ago that analyzes the 117 Puget Sound region hatchery program anadromous fish stocks. It's on the web if you want to look it up on NMFS' website. It's also 1600 pages long. It examines draft HGMPs dating back to 2002. Quite a few of those HGMPs, although never officially approved, have been updated since the initial drafts were prepared, and the DEIS hasn't evaluated those. I'm left to think that this process can't be completed because hatchery programs are not static. They are always changing in response to new information, changing needs and wants within the fishery management community, program funding, and who knows what else.

This creates ripe fruit for additional lawsuits. But they would be lawsuits based on process and procedural compliance, compliance that might be on a "ya' can't get there from here" pathway. Agencies frequently lose lawsuits for process compliance. I'd kind of like to see what happens if a suit is filed based on scientific analysis. Agencies are in a better position to win when it's based on technical analysis.

Sg