Originally Posted By: Chasin' Baitman
cohoangler - this is enlightening. Thanks.

This leads to my other big question (and I apologize if this is pedantic)...

Why does NMFS basically rubber-stamp the plan when tribes and state have an agreement at NOF, but when they don't (like now), the path forward with NMFS is totally unclear? I understand there's more work when there are 2 plans instead of 1, but going from rubber-stamping to "totally unclear" is a vast difference.





Not sure if this is accurate, but it stands to reason that, as long as the State and the Tribes reach an agreement, that approval of the plan is reasonably simple. The agreement implies that there are no treaty disputes, and as long as the impacts pencil out, a rubber stamp treatment is probably not entirely inappropriate.

Absent an agreement, both plans submitted may violate treaty terms, and NMFS will be required to make any necessary determinations to that end. To further complicate matters, NMFS will have to consider the cumulative impacts of both proposals in deciding whether ESA restrictions are sufficient to meet conservation objectives. This all adds up to more time and money, neither of which NOAA has in the budget. The result would likely be a slow, painful process that takes months or even years to complete, as NMFS is warning both sides.