Being in the middle is a terrible place to be.
It's this process that isn't credible.
While your estimation of NAS comes from one direction, the NAS's findings on Klamath are being challenged bty the enviros.
My estimation? It's Moyle who has betrayed his own bias. The activist thugs will always sue because that's their job and you know it. So why are you assuming that the solution is found compromising with extortion artists? This was never about fish, plants, or animals; it's about money. Best you learn that.
Every single "stakeholder" in this mess is skewing their data in to benefit their case. Even if the NAS were purely objective (which they're not), how are they to know what's credible information? These decisions are necessarily unreliable simply because of the motivational architecture under which the players operate.
Ben, truth isn't necessarily found in the middle, nor is it an art of compromise. The NAS has no more business making policy decisions than the RICOnuts do, because optimizing the sheer number of competing risks in a an ecosystem is beyond human capability when utilizing a hierarchical decision-making system, even on a purely ecological basis. By the time they follow NEPA and take cultural and economic risks into consideration... OOPS! They're unqualified for that; need more scientists. How many years is that going to take?
Ben, I want you to imagine how huge every environmental decision would get if they really followed every step to its logical conclusion under the law and if it could ever be afforded. Then I want you to consider how long each such decision would take and how much damage the inaction would induce.
It's the system that's the problem, Ben. It's broken. Worse, it's not even the one we were given under the Constitution.
Socialism is less capable of running the environment than it is running the economy. It's going to take decades to learn how to use a free-market system, but until we do this kind of paralysis is going to get worse. Best we get started.