First, a double standard would mean than a situation exists where both parties have equal claim to something, yet a decision is made that is biased to one party or the other...double standard.

I don't think this is the case here. The tribes definitly have a different standing and claim to fishery resources (and others) than the state or it's citizens do. So, you really can't claim that a double standard exists.

Second, the state's fisheries have been piggy-backed on the tribal federal action (BIA funding of fisheries management) since the first ESA authorization in Puget Sound was given. When the state and tribes could not reach and agreement, that severed the tie between the actions and also severed the connection to any federal action for the state's fisheries. Again, there is a different pathway for the state now, than before. The tribe's path is the same as before. So, not a double standard but a different legal requirement. NOAA is following the law. Do you expect them to violate the law for the state's fisheries, thereby opening themselves and the state up to third-party litigation?