I am sure that different folks will focus on different parts of that long dissertation but, to me, this is the crux of the matter:

"If there is no co-manager agreement on Puget Sound fisheries, any non-Indian fishery in Puget Sound likely would lose its "interrelated and interdependent" relationship with the tribal fishery, may no longer be associated with a "federal action" and if so, would not be eligible for a section 7 consultation. In that case, a proposed non-Indian fishery could only be determined to comply through sections of the ESA that take much longer to put in place - longer than the fishery itself. The section 7 consultation provides a more timely mechanism for the ESA determination on a North of Falcon agreement because it has fewer procedural requirements and can be completed more quickly than alternative ESA review processes4•"

In short, I take that as meaning should there not be an agreement via NOF the tribal interest takes precedent and may proceed administratively in a manner that would allow for their fishery to occur. The State fishery would fall outside the "consultation" methodology and have to stand alone for review via the longer ESA procedure (and we know how quickly NOAA/NMFS is processing those types of review).

We are for sure lesser citizens.