But look at the whole picture. You only posted the opening sentence of an important section. Take note of the entire paragraph:

“Treaty Indian fisheries, on the other hand, could be addressed through section 7 consultation in the absence of an agreement and regardless of whether non-Indian fisheries were proposed because of their connection with the federal action of BIA funding. However, these circumstances would be unprecedented and require development of completely new documents and analyses. NOAA Fisheries' ability to proceed with a biological opinion would depend first on the tribes providing a clear and comprehensive plan in a timely manner; second, a biological opinion on tribal fisheries that would differ significantly from prior opinions on Puget Sound fisheries; and third, a "new" biological opinion that would likely be subject to the usual, but in this case heightened, legal and policy review sensitized to the unique circumstances. In addition, a separate tribal plan could require a new NEPA assessment by the BIA. While NOAA Fisheries believes proposals for tribal only fisheries could receive ESA approval so long as conservation objectives were being met, it is likely that the analysis and review of the newly-structured proposals would be time consuming, and might not be completed before the proposed fisheries would be over.”

Lucky Louie posted this earlier in the thread.

This paragraph is NOAA's attempt to highlight the risks to Tribal fisheries. These risks are not trivial. Indeed, the red tape associated with this outcome would be (quoting NOAA) "..... time consuming and might not be completed before the proposed (Tribal) fisheries would be over". That is exactly what they're saying to WDFW.

So I see a very strong incentive for the co-managers to reach an agreement. Both parties have alot to lose if they don't. NOAA is highlighting that as clearly and forcefully as they can.