1. Future of our Salmon A summary of the origins and legal fundamentals of the role of artificial production in the Columbia River Presented by: John Ogan

2. 1855 Stevens and Palmer Treaties In 1855, the United States entered into several treaties with Indian tribes and bands living along the Columbia River and its tributaries in what are now the states of Oregon, Washington and Idaho. The 1855 treaties were cession agreements in which the Tribes reserved homelands, sovereignty, and other rights, including fishing rights.

3. The Treaty Fishing Clause The treaties expressly provide: "That the exclusive right of taking fish in the streams running through and bordering said reservation is hereby secured to said Indians; and at all other usual and accustomed stations, in common with the citizens of the United States [or Territory]....” Applies to all fish “destined to pass their U&As” – U.S. v. Oregon (1969). Hatchery fish are Treaty fish – U.S. v. Washington (1985).

4. Nature and Scope of the Fishing Right They are property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Menominee Tribe v. U.S. (1963). Include, right to have fish available for harvest; access; protection from federal actions; right to have federal court protect the fishery.

5. Congress Authorizes Hatchery Mitigation to Offset Hydro Impacts Mitchell Act mitigation 1938. Implemented through states with state priorities. Mitigation for fish “destined to pass” Tribes’ fishing illusory. Lower Snake Compensation 1976

6. Tribes Launch Initiative to Modify Artificial Production Northwest Power Act United States v. Oregon negotiations Litigation ESA processes Research/Science

7. The ESA Tension Internal -- “recovery in the wild” v. explicit authority to use artificial propagation External – treaty fishing right not abrogated or subservient

8. NMFS Policy on Hatchery Origin Fish in Listing Determinations Four key attributes: abundance; productivity; genetic diversity; and spatial distribution. The effects of hatchery fish on the status of an ESU will depend on which of the four are currently limiting the ESU, and how the hatchery fish within the ESU affect each of the attributes. Which attributes are currently limiting the ESU, and how do hatchery fish within the ESU affect each of the attributes?

9. NMFS Policy (Cont.) Hatchery can positively affect the status of the ESU by contributing to increasing abundance and productivity of the natural populations in the ESU, by improving spatial distribution, by serving as a source population for repopulating unoccupied habitat, and by conserving genetic resources of depressed natural populations in the ESU. A hatchery managed without adequate consideration of its conservation effects can affect a listing determination by reducing adaptive genetic diversity of the ESU, and by reducing the reproductive fitness and productivity of the ESU.

10. ESA and Treaty Fishing Rights Reconciled in Theory and Policy In the mid-1990’s the Administration subsequently assures that there is “no conflict between the statutory goals of the ESA and the federal trust responsibility to Indian tribes” Letter from NOAA Ass’t Sec. Garcia. NOAA and DOI issue a Joint Secretarial Order #3206 on ESA and Tribal Rights (to assure that “tribes do not bear a disproportionate burden for the conservation of listed species”).

11. Harmonizing ESA Recovery and Treaty Promises for Fishery Common sense and flexible ESA implementation Recovery means threats “controlled” not necessarily eliminated Reject the temptation to declare the science on artificial production is “settled”

12. Questions?

13. Thank You! www.karnopp.com