FleaFlicker-

There will be game fish closures in freshwater areas not because the salmon returns are such that impacts would be excessive but rather because with no agreement the State doesn't have the paper work to cover those ESA encounters and will not have that coverage until such time as they get the permits to go alone (assuming they don't allow the game fish coverage to fall through the cracks).

BrainM-
You are correct the game fish coverage was achieved under a section of the co-manager's Puget Sound Chinook management plan which without an agreement doesn't provide that coverage (I think because of the tribal connection it was under a section 6 permit). It was just easier for the Feds and the State to short cut the process to do it under.

Not familiar enough with the entire permitting process to know which way is the best way to go to get that ESA take coverage. However have a real concern about the potential time it may take to achieve that coverage. Need to look no further than the various hatchery genetic management plans and the length of time it took to review and approve those. Which is clearly why folks are advocating for encouraging the decision makers to increase the pressure on the feds to move quickly.

Curt