Smalma -- in the past, through what ESA-related process has the state obtained "take" coverage for chinook encounters with respect to the steelhead, cutthroat and bass fisheries you mention? Based on your comments, it would appear that such coverage was obtained via the annual state/tribal agreements on the salmon fisheries and the related sec. 7 consultation on BIA funding of tribal fisheries management. I just want to make sure my understanding is correct.

It seems to me, whether or not the state and tribes reach an agreement for this year, it would be prudent for the state to immediately seek long-term ESA take coverage for listed chinook encounters through a different mechanism (e.g., 4(d) exemption or Sec. 10 permit) least we find ourselves in the same situation year after year. I don't think obtaining such coverage would or should preclude proceeding through the usual state/tribal agreement and BIA sec. 7 consultation process (and I hope the state and tribes stay committed to "co-management"), but it would provide a fall back position that potentially would aid the state's position in future negotiations with the tribes.

Although I may be mistaken, I think Oregon has ESA take coverage for listed coastal coho encounters through a Rule (4) exemption. Tribal treaty rights in Washington would complicate a similar process/analysis for Puget Sound chinook -- and it may force NOAA to make some contentious decisions about allocation of ESA impacts vis a vis treaty fishing rights -- but I still think a Rule 4(d) exemption or Sec. 10 permit could be obtained, especially in light of this year's "focusing event."