With regard to NOAA I have to disagree. For a bureaucrat NOAA's Mr. Jones made a very significant statement when he said (paraphrasing him) that the costs, etc. were NOAA's responsibility - a mea culpa if you will.

I do believe that his testimony further established a commitment for a much more timely performance by NOAA; one that they will be held to at least in the court of public opinion.

That said, I am still very concerned about the lack of a specific plan that reasonably calls for completion of all reviews before the agreement with WFC runs out or that there is an alternate plan if achieving that goal with the settlement's time frame cannot be achieved.

The law is supposed to be an expression of the people's desire. Agency bureaucracy is supposed to be an expression of the people's intended action and outcome. The intersection between the law and bureaucracy isn't necessarily a clean one. In the present case it is awkward, complicated, and dynamic, which makes it a moving target.

After 3 1/2 years, NMFS completed the draft EIS a couple of weeks ago that analyzes the 117 Puget Sound region hatchery program anadromous fish stocks. It's on the web if you want to look it up on NMFS' website. It's also 1600 pages long. It examines draft HGMPs dating back to 2002. Quite a few of those HGMPs, although never officially approved, have been updated since the initial drafts were prepared, and the DEIS hasn't evaluated those. I'm left to think that this process can't be completed because hatchery programs are not static. They are always changing in response to new information, changing needs and wants within the fishery management community, program funding, and who knows what else.

This creates ripe fruit for additional lawsuits. But they would be lawsuits based on process and procedural compliance, compliance that might be on a "ya' can't get there from here" pathway. Agencies frequently lose lawsuits for process compliance. I'd kind of like to see what happens if a suit is filed based on scientific analysis. Agencies are in a better position to win when it's based on technical analysis.

Sg

As I understood the situation from NOAA's Mr. Jones' presentation many of the HGMPs previously submitted will have to be updated and resubmitted and maybe this is where he (Jones) stated that NOAA would be moving forward on HGMP reviews rather than waiting to rework the draft EIS leading to a final EIS before dealing with HGMPs. Gad, draft EIS of 1600 pages?

And while I do believe they (NOAA) are feeling the heat there is no question in my mind that they are still trying to shove an elephant through a rat hole (the WFC agreement's timeline). I would like to believe that WDFW and NOAA are working together to find a way to make this happen timely.

Three and a half years, my ass. I was contracted to start work on this starting in 2003. You do the math. Everybody involved in this should be spanked.

OK then, after 11 1/2 years . . .

The upshot is that the DEIS is already out of date, and there doesn't appear to be a path forward where it ever becomes up to date as HGMPs continue to change.

Are you volunteering to be first?

Sure I could be. The main difference is that I did my part of the work.

How about a bit of soothsaying as to where you see this "can't get there from here" situation going given the lawsuit settlement time constraints, ESA listings, ever changing HGMPs, and NOAA/NMFS budgets?

Is Chicken Little right this time?

As long as ESA requires permits and WDFW doesn't have them, there will be lawsuits.

The God Squad could change that paradigm. Or Congress could change the law. Lacking those actions, have to go with what the law currently is.

Larry, I wouldn't lay any money on my ability as a soothsayer. I think Carcassman is right that as long as there is "low hanging legal fruit" that WDFW will be sued for permits it doesn't have. However, if the Columbia River (FCRPS) lawsuit is in a lull for a while, then NMFS might reasonably be able to re-direct resources to getting the PS HGMPs/ NEPA house in order, or as close to that as is humanly possible. I don't know that that is a sure thing tho.

Sg

So, absent God Squad intervention at some point or (not likely) a change in ESA law the slightly illuminated path to success is for NOAA/NMFS to implement what was outlined in Mr. Jones' presentation. That is, to group HGMPs (updated as necessary) and work those as their No. 1 priority (well, he actually said that P.S. is their NO. 1 focal point within their area of responsibility) with the goal of processing those HGMPs and issuing permits before the WDFW/WFC agreement expires (well, he didn't exactly say that either but should have). I also assume WDFW will be working diligently to respond to any NOAA/NMFS requests in order to prevent further unnecessary delays.

1. How realistic is this scenario?

2. If permits are not issued and WFC threatens to go back to court will WDFW cave (again)?

3. Or, will NMFS/NOAA find a way to issue a temporary permit covering HGMPs it has under consideration?

Yes, WDFW will cave as if there is the requirement to have permits and don't there really isn't much of a defense.

Perhaps they should try the following (numbers are made up to serve as an example only)

1. Define clearly the acceptable result. Hatchery introgression into wild spawners, as measured by the following:
a. No more than 5% of total spawners are hatchery.
b. No more than 1% of emergent fry have hatchery parents.
c. No more than 3% of smolts are of hatchery origin.

2. 2 out of 3 of the above need to be met annully.

4. First four years are "free" as those smolts are already out there.

5. Two consecutive years of meeting one or fewer results in complete closure of that particular program for a decade.

6. One year of non-monitoring of any of 1 a,b, or c results in a decade closure of that program.

Look for actual results, not plans.

Just out of curiosity, what do you reckon your criteria will achieve? Some of your criteria roughly coincide with segregated programs, so how would you address integrated and recovery programs? Are you talking about listed species only?

One important aspect to consider is that just because hatchery spawners are present doesn't mean that they're changing the genetic composition of a native, natural stock. For example, spawn timing and reproductive capacity of hatchery fish need to be considered; presence on spawning grounds does not equate to gene flow in other words.

I understand that your proportions are being used as a example, but fish populations are highly elastic and it's exceedingly difficult to set specific objectives when the environment and its effects on fish abundance is so dynamic.

All things considered, I would wager restoration and protection of nearshore and river ecosystems would have a much more significant impact on wild fish populations. Focusing on hatcheries is a distraction and whatever results may come in the next decade regarding hatchery production will likely have zero impact on the health of natural populations. I'm far more concerned that the population of Pugetropolis is expected to grow by the millions in the next decade than what my local hatchery produces.

The intent is to set specific criteria for each program, whether it is production, integrated, segregated, recovery. Not one size fits all but watershed specific based on management goals.

Hatcheries are part of the solution. I am just recommending that if we have a hatchery it should have specific goals as they relate to the natural spawners. And, in order to set up the system so that it should not be subject to performance lawsuits there needs to be teeth in the monitoring.

It seems that what you're suggesting is entirely no different than the guidelines and principals of Hatchery Reform.

My suggestions include teeth.........