United States v. Washington

• Decision Date: 18 February 2015
• Docket Number: No. C70–9213RSM.,C70–9213RSM.
• Citation: 88 F.Supp.3d 1203
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, et al., Plaintiffs, v. State of WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington

88 F.Supp.3d 1203

UNITED STATES of America, et al., Plaintiffs

v.State of WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants.

No. C70–9213RSM.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle.

Signed Feb. 18, 2015.

Kerry Jane Keefe, U.S. Attorney's Office, Cory J. Albright, Phillip Evan Katzen, Jane Garrett Steadman, Kanji & Katzen, Eric J. Nielsen, Nielsen Broman & Koch, Seattle, WA, Fawn R. Sharp, Tribal Attorney, Taholah, WA, Lori Ellen Nies, Raymond G. Dodge, Jr., Tribal Attorneys, Skokomish Nation, WA, Alix Foster, Emily Rae Hutchinson, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, James Miller Jannetta, Office of the Tribal Attorney, La Conner, WA, Michelle Hansen, Suquamish Tribe, Suquamish, WA, Colleen Kelley, United States Department of the Interior, Portland, OR, Vanessa Boyd Willard, U.S. Department of Justice, Denver, CO, Riyaz Amir Kanji, Kanji & Katzen, Ann Arbor, MI, Katherine K. Krueger, Quileute Natural Resources, Lapush, WA, Thomas A. Zeilman, Law Office of Thomas A. Zeilman, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiffs.

Department of State, U.S., pro se.

Joseph V. Panesko, Michael S. Grossmann, Attorney General's Office, Bryce E. Brown, Jr., Laura J. Watson, Noah Guzzo Purcell, Philip Michael Ferester, Terence A. Pruit, Olympia, WA, for Defendants.

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO DEFINE BURDEN OF PROOF

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Petitioner Makah Indian Tribe (the “Makah”) (Dkt. # 248), Motion for Summary Judgment by Respondents Quileute Indian Tribe (the “Quileute”) and Quinault Indian Nation (the “Quinault”) (Dkt. # 251), as well as Motion to Define the Burden of Proof by the Quileute and Quinault (Dkt. # 283). Both dispositive motions concern the application of equitable defenses in this subproceeding, specifically whether Makah's claims are barred by laches, judicial estoppel, and acquiescence. The Court deems oral argument unnecessary, having fully considered the extensive evidentiary record submitted by the parties, including the parties' moving papers, attached declarations and exhibits, briefs filed by the numerous participating Interested Parties, and the remainder of the record in this subproceeding. Being fully apprised, the Court grants partial summary judgment on behalf of the Petitioner and denies Respondents' summary judgment motion. The Court further denies in part and defers in part Respondents' motion to define the burden of proof in this subproceeding.

BACKGROUND

The Makah initiated this subproceeding by filing a Request for Determination on December 4, 2009, seeking the Court's determination of the Quileute and Quinault's Pacific Ocean usual and accustomed fishing grounds (“U & A”). Dkt. # 1, ¶ 4. In particular, the Makah assert that the western boundary of the Quileute and Quinault U & A “appears to be approximately 5 to 10 miles offshore.” Id. at ¶ 3(c)(ix). If the Makah are correct, the Quileute and Quinault have been conducting fisheries for salmon, halibut, and blackcod outside their U & A, as well as asserting intentions to enter the Pacific Whiting fishery beyond their U & A's western boundary. This subproceeding is brought under Paragraph 25(a)(6) of Final Decision # 1, pursuant to which the Court exercises jurisdiction to determine the location of any of a tribe's U & A's not specifically determined by Judge Boldt in Final Decision # 1. U.S. v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312, 419 (W.D.Wash.1974) (“Final Decision # 1” ). Bench trial in this matter is scheduled to commence March 2, 2015.

While the procedural history of this subproceeding is well known to the parties and shall not be repeated here, a rough recitation of the underlying events and prior related subproceedings is necessary to set forth the factual predicate of the Court's rulings herein. When this case was initiated over 40 years ago, the case area was limited to waters within the jurisdiction of the State of Washington. Final Decision # 1, 384 F.Supp. at 400. The case area has since expanded as, among other developments, the Makah requested an adjudication of their own Pacific Ocean U & A, which the Court determined extends approximately 40 miles offshore. See U.S. v. Washington, 626 F.Supp. 1405, 1467 (W.D.Wash.1985), aff'd 730 F.2d 1314. While the Quileute and Quinault have moved in the past to limit the Makah's ocean fisheries, they have not moved for a similar adjudication of their own asserted ocean U & A's. See id. at 1471.

(1) Federal Regulatory Boundaries

The Pacific Ocean customary fishing grounds of the Quileute and Quinault have, however, been implicated in prior federal regulation. The Magnuson Fishery Conservation Management Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq., vests authority in federal regulatory agencies to issue fishery management regulations consistent with the provisions of the Act and other applicable law. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 1853 —1855. Pursuant to the Act, in 1986, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) adopted western boundaries for the Quinault and Quileute ocean fishing areas for the purpose of describing Subarea 2A–1, the tribal area for halibut fishing. 51 Fed.Reg. 16471 (May 2, 1986). The regulations provide that Subarea 2A–1 “is not intended to describe precisely the historic off-reservation halibut fishing places of all tribes, as the location of those places has [not] been determined” and that the boundaries of a tribe's fishery within the Subarea “may be revised as ordered by a Federal court.” Id. ; see Dkt. # 58, Ex. J, pp. 2, 4.

The Quileute and Hoh Tribes, joined by the Quinault, shortly thereafter submitted a comment letter on the Halibut rule, in which they contested the legal basis for the western boundaries of their ocean fishing areas delineated by NOAA, asserting that “[n]o court, and no agreement, has ever established a western boundary for our treaty fishing areas.” See Dkt. # 58, Ex. A, p. 2; see also Ex. B (letter from Quinault joining in the Quileute and Hoh Tribes' concerns). The Regional Director of the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) responded by inviting the Quileute, Quinault, and Hoh to submit information to justify a modification of the regulations. Id. at Ex. C.

The Quileute again contested the delineated western boundary for the tribes after the Halibut boundaries were incorporated into salmon fishing regulations in 1987. See id. at Ex. D (comment letter from Quileute to NMFS); 52 Fed.Reg. 17264 (May 6, 1987). The NMFS Assistant Administrator for Fisheries responded by noting that the Tribes had not answered NMFS's 1986 request for information concerning the tribes' historic boundaries and again solicited information. Id. at Ex. E.

NMFS included the same boundaries in its 1996 framework rule for the establishment of tribal groundwater fisheries. 61 Fed.Reg. 28786, 28789 (June 6, 1996) ; see Dkt. # 58, Ex. L. The rules' preamble explains the rationale behind it, as well as its limitations:

Under this rule, NMFS recognizes the same U & A areas that have been implemented in Federal salmon and halibut regulations for a number of years. The States and the Quileute point out that the western boundary has only been adjudicated for the Makah tribe. NMFS agrees. NMFS, however, in establishing ocean management areas, has taken the adjudicated western boundary for the Makah tribe, and extended it south as the western boundary for the other three ocean tribes. NMFS believes this is a reasonable accommodation of the tribal fishing rights, absent more specific guidance from a court. NMFS regulations, including this regulation, contain the notation that the boundaries of the U & A may be revised by order of the court.

Id. In the response to comments, the agency agreed with the Quinault that “this rule is without prejudice to proceedings in United States v. Washington. As stated above, NMFS will modify the boundaries in the regulation consistent with orders of the federal court.” Id. at p. 9.

(2) The Halibut Litigation

Subarea 2A–1 became the subject of further dispute when the Makah filed suit in 1985 against the Secretary of Commerce under the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”) seeking judicial review of the Secretary's regulations setting harvestable fishing quotas for halibut between treaty and non-treaty fishermen. See Makah Indian Tribe v. Mosbacher, C851606. In 1992, the Mosbacher court ruled on cross motions for partial summary judgment that the threshold issues in the case concerning the nature and extent of the Makah's treaty right to take halibut had to be resolved in the context of the continuing jurisdiction of the U.S. v. Washington court, and accordingly transferred the proceeding into the instant case. See Dkt. # 248–2—248–5 (“Joner Decl.”), Exs. K & L. The Makah then initiated Subproceeding 92–1, seeking confirmation of their previously adjudicated U & A and their treaty right to take halibut. See id. at Ex. M, pp. 1–2.

Makah subsequently moved for preliminary injunction in Mosbacher, seeking to prevent the Secretary from allocating less than 35% of the total allowable catch of halibut in the larger Area 2A to the Subarea 2A–1 Indian treaty fishery. The Makah argued that the Secretary's halibut regulations set forth the fishing areas of each of eleven tribes in addition to the Makah within Subarea 2A–1, and that these regulations had never been challenged by the States of Washington or Oregon. See Id. at Ex. Q, pp. 14–15 (citing 50 C.F.R. 301.5(c), 301.19 (1992)). The Makah further argued on reply, responding to opposition from the State intervenors, that because Mosbacher was an APA case, Washington had the burden to prove that the regulations were arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, which it had not done. The Makah also asserted that “substantial evidence” supported the Secretary's determination on tribal treaty rights in the Subarea. Id. at Ex. R, pp. 4–5.

Following consolidation of Mosbacher and Subproceeding 92–1, the Court...