662 



6) Have BPA and other federal eruities met federal treaty and trust responsibilities to the 

 Indian tribes in managing the resources of the Columbia River? What, if any, additional 

 steps should be taken to improve federal relations with the tribes? 



The numbers salmon available to the Columbia River treaty tribes for harvest have been 

 reduced from mUlions in 1855 to 20,000 to 40,000 in recent years. The United States' treaty 

 guarantees securing the tribes' fishing rights are not being fulfilled. 



The United States must demonstrate a commitment to rebuilding salmon runs specificaUy 

 to benefit the tribes. Under the treaties, state and federal management must provide for salmon 

 harvest by the tribes as an objective co-equal with conservation of the salmon. Currently, 

 millions of dollars are being directed to various federal agencies to fulfill the mandates of the 

 Endangered Species Act to conserve members of the listed populations. Undoubtedly some of 

 this investment will inure to the benefit of the tribes' fishing interests. However, obtaining a 

 "no-jeopardy opinion" from NMFS under the ESA is a fundamentally different objective tl^ 

 fulfilling the United States' treaty fishing guarantees. Unfortunately, a no-jeopardy opinion 

 appears to be the "holy grail" for most federal agencies' actions affecting salmon, while fulfilling 

 treaty fishing rights is anathema. 



The federal government must first understand the treaty commitments it made to the 

 Columbia River tribes. Then, these treaty commitments must become as engrained in federal 

 agency management and policies as efforts to protect salmon under the ESA. 



Unfortunately, federal agencies, such as BPA, openly disavow their responsibilities to 

 the tribes. Consider the following remarks directed by BPA only a few weeks ago to the 

 Council regarding the Phase IV amendments to the fish and wildlife program. 



It is BPA's objective to fulfill its fish and wildlife obligations to 

 the Region through implementation of activities that benefit the 

 Region as a whole. BPA is committed to spending ratepayer 

 dollars to benefit all ratepayers equally. Since BPA had no 

 obligation to act specifically on behalf of the regions' Indian tribes 

 prior to the Act, and since the Act did not affect or modify and 

 treaty or other right of an Indian, BPA has no duty to fund specific ' 

 measures aimed at restoring or mitigating for "losses that the 

 Indian culture has suffered." 



Evidently, BPA has no understanding of their federal govemm«it's trust responsibility, let alone 

 the federal government's treaty obligations to the tribes. BPA's complete ignorance of its 

 obligations to fulfill Indian treaty rights simply underscores the tribes' call for elimination of 

 BPA's Fish and Wildlife Division. 



