A slight clarification regarding NOAA/NMFS role. (Hope I get this right.) NMFS has oversight of PFMC and NOF to ensure that the process complies with the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act (MSFCA) and the ESA. PFMC has a federal nexus and is subject to the relatively (speaking) quick ESA Section 7 review and biological opinion. PFMC and NOF covers ocean fisheries. Then comes fishing in "inside waters." This is subject to the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Resource Management Plan, which is reviewed by NMFS under the ESA Section 4(d) provision that exempts specific activities from more extensive ESA reviews under Sections 7 and 10. When the co-managers agree on a plan, like the PS Chinook plan, NMFS conducts a speedy review for ESA compliance under the existing exemption of 4(d).

When the co-managers don't agree, all hell breaks loose from an ESA review perspective. The tribes used the BIA because, as a federal agency, a "federal nexus" exists, and the review and permit can occur under ESA Section 7, a formal consultation, that while extensive, and be fast tracked and was in 2016 so the tribes didn't miss out on any fishing. WDFW is NOT a federal agency, has no federal nexus, and has no access to ESA Section 7. WDFW could proceed under ESA Section 10, but that is more time intensive and wouldn't be completed within a single salmon fishing season. That means a permit for 2018 might be issued in 2019, but more likely in 2020. So not very useful. Further, the Section 10 plan and application would be reviewed against pre-existing ESA coverages like what the tribes would have through their more speedily reviewed and approved ESA Section 7 permit obtained via BIA. This is truly the tail wagging the dog, but it gets the tribes fishing for salmon in the same season that they are present, whereas the state has no such option.

WDFW needs to pursue a Section 10 long-term plan (they are limited to 5 years, maybe 10, can't remember), or have 4(d) re-visited - if that's even possible - so that plans independent of co-manager agreement can be considered and reviewed.

And all of that ESA-related stuff is independent of catch sharing under US v WA - Boldt.