To my understanding, the question of which law (Treaty or ESA) takes absolute precedence has not been adjudicated.

If the tribes were held to a 50:50 sharing of ESA impacts they certainly would not get their 50% of the truly harvestable fish. Because they will not, with some notable (and voluntary on their part) exceptions.

There are real risks to both sides in taking this to court. If ESA is supreme, then you will see the tribes aggressively pushing for rapid restoration so they can fish (AK and BC would love this) and be more aggressive on getting habitat fixed.

If the treaties win, then there goes wild fish.