This Article examines the nature of the threats that climate change poses and will continue to pose for salmon recovery, as well as possible legal responses to combat these threats. It also considers the future prospects of Pacific salmon in a world that will include significant climate change and other threats to preserving and equitably apportioning the salmon resource, whose environmental sensitivity and expansive life cycle will continue to pose substantial challenges for the foreseeable future.

This Comment examines the legal framework for state protection of nonfederal waters and its implications for cooperative federalism. After a brief overview and legal background, it identifies some recent state actions that attempt to fill gaps in coverage created by changes in federal interpretations of the Clean Water Act. It then summarizes the current scope of state regulation of waters in every state, in order to discern the likely impact of changes at the federal level on the status of waters in the states.

The Tana River in northernmost Norway is the most diverse Atlantic salmon river in the world. Its native salmon population has declined dramatically and resulted in a fishing ban that has affected indigenous life and distressed the local economy. Concern is mounting over the secondary infestation of Pacific pink salmon, transplanted decades ago, which creates a potential threat to the river’s genetic diversity and challenges the regime structures of international fisheries.

Salmon require cool temperatures to migrate and reproduce. The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop and implement water quality standards sufficient to produce fishable waters. Nearly a half-century after its 1972 enactment, the modern federal statute’s goal of fishable waters has yet to be achieved in the case of salmon streams.

State wildlife agencies commonly claim they are entitled to manage wildlife under the public trust doctrine (PTD). This assertion is frequently made in judicial proceedings, with state requests that their managerial authority be given due force throughout state, private, federal, and even tribal lands. One might conclude that a rich body of PTD practices and policies exists for wildlife; in reality, the PTD in state wildlife management proves to be ephemeral.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service raises important questions about the scope of the Endangered Species Act’s (ESA’s) protections for critical habitat. Foremost among them is a question one might think was long settled: what is “habitat”? In a short ruling, the Weyerhaeuser Court opined that “critical habitat” must first be “habitat,” but it did not attempt to define exactly what habitat is or how much deference the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should get on what is both a biological and policy question.

This Article, adapted from Chapter 16 of What Can Animal Law Learn From Environmental Law?, 2d Edition (ELI Press, forthcoming 2020), explores existing and potential wildlife conservation policies that could play a vital role in mitigating global climate change. It describes how climate change is impacting wildlife and biodiversity around the globe and reviews the history and current state of U.S. policy, including how the federal government currently manages climate change issues under the ESA.

Section 401 certification and permit conditioning under the Clean Water Act is one of the most significant tools for states to influence federally permitted activities involving discharges into navigable waters. However, states are required to set conditions within one year or they forgo their ability to do so. In practice, the one-year review is difficult for states to meet and led to a common practice known as “withdraw and resubmit” in which states could reset the clock. But in Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm’n, the D.C.

The Endangered Species Act defines an endangered species as one at risk of extinction “throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) has repeatedly defined “significant portion” to mean an area of the range essential to species persistence. This definition is redundant, and various iterations of the definition have been struck down in the past. At the same time, other proposals to list a species only in a portion of its range fail to satisfy the statutory requirements.

The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to calculate total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) of individual pollutants that impair their waters.