In my view, WFC's letter looks like it is designed to set up (or at least make it look to NMFS like WFC is setting up), a legal challenge under NEPA. That's why, among other things, the letter repeatedly asserts that the proposed fishery is "controversial." (The degree a proposed action is controversial in terms of environmental impacts is one factor NMFS must consider in determining whether an EIS is required.)

If NMFS were to conclude, based on its EA, that an EIS is required, we can kiss goodbye not only this season, but likely next year's season as well, because preparation of an EIS normally takes well over one year (especially for an agency as bogged down in NEPA and ESA paperwork as NMFS).

The good news is that NMFS can respond to the concerns raised in WFC's letter in its EA (or elsewhere in the administrative record) and thereby create a more favorable record should a legal challenge be brought. That may be one reason for NMFS's delay in issuing the go-ahead (just my speculation).

Although I moved about 6 years ago down to Oregon, I still dream of returning to fish the Sauk and Skagit at least a few more times before father time catches up to me. Those rivers and their steelhead are simply magnificent. A sincere thanks to all who have volunteered their blood, sweat and tears to the effort to re-open the Skagit and Sauk.

Here's my email.

Mr. Thom – The Skagit River steelhead harvest management plan is duly conservative; DOJ has good lawyers to defend your EA; call the Wild Fish Conservancy’s bluff; open the Skagit!

Best regards,

Brian McLachlan