But look at the whole picture. You only posted the opening sentence of an important section. Take note of the entire paragraph:

“Treaty Indian fisheries, on the other hand, could be addressed through section 7 consultation in the absence of an agreement and regardless of whether non-Indian fisheries were proposed because of their connection with the federal action of BIA funding. However, these circumstances would be unprecedented and require development of completely new documents and analyses. NOAA Fisheries' ability to proceed with a biological opinion would depend first on the tribes providing a clear and comprehensive plan in a timely manner; second, a biological opinion on tribal fisheries that would differ significantly from prior opinions on Puget Sound fisheries; and third, a "new" biological opinion that would likely be subject to the usual, but in this case heightened, legal and policy review sensitized to the unique circumstances. In addition, a separate tribal plan could require a new NEPA assessment by the BIA. While NOAA Fisheries believes proposals for tribal only fisheries could receive ESA approval so long as conservation objectives were being met, it is likely that the analysis and review of the newly-structured proposals would be time consuming, and might not be completed before the proposed fisheries would be over.”

Lucky Louie posted this earlier in the thread.

This paragraph is NOAA's attempt to highlight the risks to Tribal fisheries. These risks are not trivial. Indeed, the red tape associated with this outcome would be (quoting NOAA) "..... time consuming and might not be completed before the proposed (Tribal) fisheries would be over". That is exactly what they're saying to WDFW.

So I see a very strong incentive for the co-managers to reach an agreement. Both parties have alot to lose if they don't. NOAA is highlighting that as clearly and forcefully as they can.

While both sides have a lot to lose, I think the tribes have much less risk. The fisheries have been evaluated. IF they were to simply stick to their 50% they can argue they made no change and that actually the conservation outcome will be enhanced. They could push for more, under foregone opportunity, but that would just be adding a cherry to the sundae. NOAA has already approved their half.

They say that it is "unprecedented" but the true risk seems minimal and much more ambiguous than what is faced by the state...

I think this was an attempt by NOAA to tell the sporties to butt out. Last year, when the Mucks threatened the shut down many wanted to take it to court. NOAA just suggested that tactic would wipe out the NI fisheries.

I think the key in all of this is that NOAA must make the determination that the final management measures are consistent with the MSA and “other applicable law”. The other applicable law being the ESA, The Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST), and the fishing tribes treaty rights. The MSA and ESA are federal law and the treaties are negotiated at the federal level. Washington State has to live with these constraints. The management of Puget Sound chinook fisheries can continue as is, a mixed stock fishery with harvest extending from Alaska to wherever the stocks are deemed to low or impacts on wild stocks are to high. The alternative as mentioned would be fisheries confined to extreme terminal areas. That would mean a severe reduction of fisheries in the straits and North Sound. The prospect of no Puget Sound chinook fishery at all is not such a concern for those of us who fish close to home, we had that in area 10 last year. I would greatly prefers extreme terminal area fisheries.

If there are no Puget Sound recreational chinook fisheries one could ask what is the point of having state operated chinook hatcheries in Puget Sound. There is no reason for state funds to provide fish for Alaska, BC, and tribal fisheries. Let those entities fund their own hatcheries and if there are harvestable numbers they can be shared with the recreational fishery.

I would also note that the PST expires in 2018 and new negotiations are starting this year. It is a treaty and the negotiations are carried out by federal agencies, advised by interested parties and hopefully good scientific information. The concepts of river of origin, limiting weak stocks, and interception fisheries all must be addressed. The Yukon, Fraser, and Columbia rivers played a significant role in the present treaty. I think the Puget Sound chinook should be given a larger role in the upcoming negotiations and Alaska catches of southern stocks should be constrained. I know the west coast Vancouver Island fishery organizations are supporting Canadian research with the goal of increasing their chinook catch share. I hope that Washington and Oregon interested parties are getting involved.

Quite apropos, when one considers the current state of non-tribal fisheries in Puget Sound, but yes, only in government would such an acronym be admitted.

WN1A: "I would greatly prefers extreme terminal area fisheries."

While understanding the biological aspect of that comment it immediately reminded me of the following: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

Or, more to the point - how many boats can fish in an "extreme terminal area" at one time? And do so without being in (further) conflict with tribal gill netters and other commerce?

Better tool for biological aspects of management? Yes. But in terms of an orderly fishery? Not so much. And one guess whose fishery would have to give way?

It already does Larry with the closures on the Puyallup and Nisqually.

Agree, but I was addressing salt water unless "extreme terminal fishery" is defined as in-river only. Now wouldn't that be a paradigm change?

This is already open for interpretation in many instances.

Lets use for example the Wallace River early component Chinook program. CLOSED to fishing in 2015, and 2 FULL TOTES OF SURPLUS CHINOOK left their facility this season....

Look at the historical records of that program. Look at the historical SURPLUSES.

I believe that was the program which was supposed to have an increase in releases coupled with an increased number of eggs being supplied to the Tulalip tribe.

Now that the Suquamish have U&A in MA 8-1 and 8-2 any possibility of the State eliminating the Chinook program at Wallace would impact both tribes (think MA 9/10 marked selective and the Suquamish objection to the PNP ramp).

Edit: And also drag in the Mucks insofar as they and the Suquamish share U&As. Yes, it does seem like daytime soaps.....

The state has had salt water extreme terminal area chinook fisheries when enough fish made it back to the terminal area. Elliot Bay and Tulalip Bay are examples. In Elliot Bay conflicts were avoided by opening the fishery on different days for recreational and tribal fisheries. It was crowded but reasonably orderly. Some time back I fished regularly at Port Angeles. It was crowded and often time not so orderly.

I have fished at Tillamook Bay but not Buoy 10, Willapa Bay, or Grays Harbor. They are all to some degree terminal area fisheries. As long as there are fish to catch no one complains. Recently I have been seeing many complaints on this site about cosatal chinook mixed stock fisheries to the north. Let the fish get back to where they started their salt water journey before they are harvested.

Actually, there are folks who complain and either continue to fish those "combat" zones or vote with their feet and fish elsewhere even if the catching is not as productive. It might well be those latter fishers who would be most impacted.

How can Puget Sound ESA chinook be properly managed when they pass through the jurisdiction areas of six different managing agencies? What are the policies of the NPFMC, ADFW,Canada DFO,PFMC,WDFW and the NWIFC in regard to ESA Puget Sound Chinook? Are they all acting in unison and have a global plan for recovering these fish? Fat chance of that. Probably more or less like this for each of these managing entities:

From the NOAA letter
"The second legal requirement for approval of the annual fishery management measures is
compliance with the ESA. The impact of the PFMC fisheries on threatened Puget Sound Chinook has
most recently been addressed in a 2004 biological opinion. The analysis in the opinion, which
concludes the PFMC fisheries are not likely to jeopardize Puget Sound Chinook, relies on the
expectation that the impact of PFMC fisheries on Puget Sound Chinook has been and will continue
to remain low. "

I have always thought that the Bolt and Rafeedie decisions were poorly reasoned and rendered, now population pressure, harvest pressure, and poor management have the harvesters fighting over what little is left of the resource. I can see a situation developing, where the Tribes overplay their hand and we have a new and different version of fish wars.

In the future I would hope that the courts could do better than a simple, biblical, Solomon type solution as that has been tried and it does not seem to be working very well. It will take a different approach to arrive at a solution that will allow for harvest and for the Salmon to survive and prosper.

We live in interesting times.

Very good point.

Alaska's is not going to play unless forced. As long as they take BC fish, Canada won't play. It will take court action to force AK to change.

I really do not where to begin, but this letter is smartly wordsmithed to nothing more than "play nice or else" with the scale tipped towards native redress. Would I be wrong to state, regardless if an agreement is reached or not, the tribes will still be fishing? Leave no doubt, the "Right" card will get played! I can only imagine the how devastating the economic impact would be if sporties couldn't fish.. Perhaps that is what needs to happen! Hit 'em where it hurts!

We are long overdue on readdressing the Boldt Decision with so many other factors at play today. (E.g., ESA, habitat, numbers of fish, etc.) In this day and age, why do "we" allow less than one percent of the population continuously to bully us when the majority of tribes are blessed with millions of dollars a day at their casinos? Is the next indian war teetering? I think so. Unfortunately, our wonderful, highly educated leaders in Olympia cannot even fund K-12 education after two years (now until next year) despite a $100K a day fine, but want free community college for all Washington State residents. How do we expect them to contend with this issue?

Given the state of our anadromous fisheries I wonder how many of you are seriously considering not buying a license for 2016/17 season? If I was hanging around- no brainer! However, I would at least wait until the NOF process was over before a decision was made.

The gal and I leave Washington State next week for good. If you only folks knew how hard it for me to reflect back on 40-plus of salmon (and steelhead) fishing then stare into the possibility of no fishing in Puget Sound... I know the light at the end of the tunnel is dim, but how you guys and gals hang on to any hope at this point is beyond me. Fight the good fight!

I am truly hoping for nothing but the best for you! I'll continue to post from the Lost Coast!

One thing about WDFW that has concerned me lately is the unwillingness to really educate the stakeholders. More of a "trust us" thing.

What I think they should do, and they have the data and models to do this, is to do a 4-year (for Chinook) look at what needed recovery would look like. They can do forecasts for the next 4 years that will be at least as accurate as they will do then. Do this for each wild Chinook stock in WA.

Then, set the management goal is that, annually, the escapement would be at least 110% of that achieved 4 years earlier for that stock. Develop fisheries that would model EACH stock achieving the goal on paper. It isn't necessary to get down to days fished but you would know where a fish could be taken.

Present this to the public as this is what is needed to recover all the stocks and give us payoff for the millions spent in habitat restoration and protection.

At that point, we as a society and anglers can decide on a pathway to follow.

If you're referring to ESA recovery in Puget Sound, what you've asked for has already been done. It's known as the Puget Sound Chinook Recovery Plan. NOAA wrote it in 2005, and have updated it several times.

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/...overy_plan.html

It has just about everything you mentioned. It is heavily focused on habitat restoration, but also includes harvest and hatchery manage-ment. All ESA recovery plans should include the things you mentioned, although perhaps not in as much detail as we'd like.