Again is this really advantage tribes?

From the NOAA letter "In addition, a separate tribal plan could require a new NEPA assessment by the BIA."

What kind of time frame can the tribes and the NEPA process take to get this done considering WDFW had to offer the tribes help to get their HGMP's turned in a timely fashion.

The process of NEPA is certainly not going to be done before the tribal fishing season begins this year if an agreement isn't found.

Below is a general outline with specifics in the link regarding all aspects for the EA and EIS.
http://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/xraca/documents/text/idc009157.pdf

The NEPA Process

Three Step Review

NEPA requires agencies to follow a three-step review process:
1. Conduct a preliminary screening for NEPA’s applicability;
2. Prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required; and
3. Prepare an EIS if required (an EIS is required if a proposed action may “significantly affect the quality of the human environment”).
For BLM, developing or revising an RMP automatically requires an EIS. Amendingan RMP requires an EA, and may or may not require an EIS.
Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508)
The Council on Environmental Quality developed these regulations to complement and implement NEPA. Key points from the regulations include the following:
• Agencies must integrate NEPA into their planning processes as early as possible
• EISs must highlight reasonable alternatives that would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the environment. They are used to inform decisions – not to justify already-made decisions.
• The format for EISs should include the following:
o Cover
o Summary
o Purpose and need
o Alternatives including the proposed action
o Affected environment
o Environmental consequences (of each alternative)
o Appendix
• Agencies must solicit comments on draft EISs
• The Environmental Protection Agency reviews all EISs
• Agencies must prepare a “Record of Decision” for all EISs. In part, this document states decisions and the alternatives considered (including specifying the environmentally-preferable alternative).

The BLM issued the NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1) to provide instructions for complying with the CEQ NEPA regulations. The handbook describes the following process for completing a decision in accordance with NEPA:
1. Scoping the EIS
a. Publish a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register
b. Develop a preparation plan
c. Develop a strategy for public involvement and interagency/intergovernmental coordination and consultation
d. Define the proposed action
e. Identify the purpose and need, alternatives to be considered and impacts to be analyzed
f. Identify information and data needs
g. Identify cooperating agencies
h. Determine contracting needs
i. Determine staffing and budget needs and proposed schedule
2. Conduct the analysis and prepare the Draft EIS
a. Conduct the analysis
b. Select the preferred alternative
c. Prepare a Preliminary Draft EIS
d. Complete the Draft EIS
3. Issue the Draft EIS
a. Print the Draft EIS
b. File with EPA
c. Publish a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS for review
d. Distribute the Draft EIS
e. Hold public meetings/hearings
4. Analyze comments and prepare the Final EIS
a. Evaluate and respond to public comments
b. Prepare a Preliminary Final EIS
c. Reevaluate and revise the preferred alternative or proposed action
5. Issue the Final EIS (publish an NOA if actions have effects of national concern)
6. Reach and record the decision
a. Evaluate public comments
b. Document the decision
c. Publish an NOA regarding the availability of the Record of Decision

Or would they simply fish effectively challenging the U.S. Government to respond?

In a major election year? This is the perfect storm.

The tribes have the money to push their agenda. I would not be at all surprised IF they have not already started the process. They, after all, have their own biologist and plenty of legislative power in their pockets.

EVEN IF they are required to "jump through hoops", I'm sure they have, or soon will have, prepared enough of the ground work to present a major threat at the bargaining table at NOF. Remember lessons learned. They are masters of taking the mountain one stone at a time. They only have to present enough of a viable plan as to get the WDFW to negotiate away more sport fishing as to appease them. They will, of course, increase demands in small portions next year...and so it goes.

Remember, too, that the Tribes will only have to justify half a fishery. Plus, since most of their fisheries are terminal they won't have to deal with balancing mixed stock needs.

They will be proposing, for the most part (Makah Troll and Fraser Sockeye notwithstanding) the biologically most appropriate fisheries which are terminal/extreme terminal on maturing fish in locations where it is much more likely that you can fish on numbers of fish that are reasonably known. It will be much easier for them to justify their proposals than for WDFW to justify theirs.

+1
I agree that there is plenty of incentive for both parties to work out an agreement as a panel of attorneys representing the state, and tribes will have to assess the circumstances if in the event a consensus at NOF might not be obtained in this or coming years.

It will be interesting to watch the dynamic between the Makahs and the inland PS tribes.

Can the tribes lay claim to their treaty share before the fish enter the Strait of Juan de Fuca? And who will have priority?

According to Boldt, the Makah could take 100% of the Treaty Share. Numerous instances, in the past, of one tribe corking another.

Makah has the weak stock problem associated with mixed stock fishing. Remember back when their troll fishery went bonkers and took too many fish? Who had to cut back?

You mean when they took something like 20K and fish tickets (buyers) were going in to WDFW which, under the prior regime, Caesar fiddled while Rome burned?

Yup, I sure remember whose fishery was cut back.

Edit: And I also seem to recall part of the issue then was that there was no agreed upon number of fish for them to harvest.

There was an agreed to number in that the fishery was expected to take X. Took way more than that but because WDFW had the data and said nothing.............

Those numbers are just "guidelines".

My recollection is a bit fuzzy but agree with you that there was a "sorta" number but the egregious aspects were:

1. The Makahs just kept on fishin'
2. WDFW had info that clearly showed harvest had grossly exceeded any pre-season set harvest number (describe it any way you want) and never raised the yellow warning flag.
3. Non-tribal (recs) took it in the shorts as a result; can't catch 'em if they aren't there.

I just love the word "guidelines" when it comes to harvest numbers......kind of like "adaptive management."

Makahs made the assumption that if there was problem WDFW would speak up. Yeah.

As I recall, WDFW tod folks that it wouldn't be up to the non-Indians to make up the overage. Except when it was.

Tell us more oh Swami.

I’m looking at last year’s NOF handouts and there are various ESA listed Chinook stocks caught in Area 3:4 treaty troll mixed fishery when the Thomson salmon are in. In fact, there are more limiting Lake Washington Chinook caught in these areas than all the other fisheries in the state except the ET&FW tribal net fishery itself. The tribe’s impacts are 74% to sport 26% according to the WDFW model.

I guess NOAA didn’t get that memo.

The difference between your depiction and mine is the reason that NOAA and the Department of Commerce warn the tribes about a BiOp and NEPA assessment. Not only does NOAA require some assurances but so does the public and the processes are in place to be able to observe and dispute possible flawed information.

Recognize that the State and the Tribes are not dividing up the allocation (50/50).
They are dividing up the incidental take allowed under ESA. NMFS is well aware of this.

The reason the Tribes gets 74% of the impacts (see above) is that in order for the Tribes to get their 50% share, they need 74% of the ESA impacts. Recall they use gillnets and do not practice catch and release. Since the State mandates a mark-selective fishery, they can take their 50% with only 26% of the impact. That's the benefit of a mark-selective fishery.

But if the catch and release mortality estimate from recreational fishing is too low, as the Tribes claim, the impacts on ESA listed stocks is too high. Thus, it's important that we all take the utmost care in releasing wild salmon and steelhead.

Yes, but the tribes said it was the recs who weren't reporting crab harvest yet look who has been in the news the last year or two with huge undocumented harvests. Not saying we shouldn't be using best techniques for release BUT we should do so because it is the right thing to do - not because tribal commercial interests are trying to use the pointy finger at us.

Ya, but Dungeness crabs are not ESA listed. NOAA has some management authority but for the most part, allocation is between Washington and the Tribes.

This is a case of NOAA brandishing a big paddle (ESA) over their collective butts, telling them to play nice or else.....

True, but whether EPA related or not unsupported self-serving assertions are just that - unsupported and self-serving.

Actually the Tribes claim of unreported recreational harvest is not unsupported. It's very well supported. The State agrees that unreported recreational harvest is a huge issue. But now that some Tribal members have been caught, the door swings both ways......

But it is self - serving? Yes, but we all benefit by ensuring that harvest is well documented, by whoever is doing the harvesting.

Are you talking about unreported CRCs? If so, I agree that there are a lot of folks who do not report as required. However, after years of performing further analysis on those unreported CRCs via phone calls WDFW determined a fairly accurate correction factor (and that the average harvest for those unreported CRCs is far lower than for those who were reported).

Exactly when/where did the State agree that this is a huge problem?

The archaic CRC technology is in a vast need of updating. Smartphone technology is the answer, imo. If they could produce an app that was VOLUNTARY to submit real time CRC data AND VTR info, I think it would be to a great benefit of the state rec. management modeling. They could require an online signature to agree to terms and conditions of use, etc.

If people are feeling salty about it give them the old card, but I for one would gladly volunteer for the app.