Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22208 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 26

1 THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

2

3

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE

8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., Case No. C70-9213 9 Petitioners, Subproceeding No. 19-1 10 vs. TULALIP MOTION FOR SUMMARY 11 JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTION STATE OF WASHINGTON et al., 12 Noting Date: July 31, 2020 Respondent. 13

14 I. Motion 15 The Tulalip Tribes file this Motion for a Summary Judgment to prohibit the Lummi Nation 16 (“Lummi”) from engaging in any fishing for finfish or shellfish in Shellfish Region 2 East. Tulalip 17 also moves for a permanent injunction enjoining Lummi and its fishers from engaging in 18 any fishing in the named Region. 19

20 II. Background and Statement of the Case.

21 This subproceeding was triggered by recent Lummi attempts to engage in crab fisheries in Region

22 2E. In 2018, Lummi filed for a crab fishery in Region 2E. Most recently, Lummi scheduled an

23 opening on November 6, 2019. Lummi issued the regulation opening the Region 2 East crab

24 fishery even though it has never before fished for crab in Region 2 East and has not established a

25 right to fish there. See Lummi 2019-65 Region 2E Crab Regulation, attachment 2 hereto. That

TULALIP MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Morisset Schlosser Jozwiak & Somerville Page 1 811 First Avenue, Suite 218 Civil Case No. C70-9213/Subproceeding 19-1 Seattle, WA 98104 206.386.5200 Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22208 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2 of 26

1 particular opening was barred by a preliminary injunction filed by the court on December 3, 2019.

2 Dkt. No. 22124.

3 Region 2 East encompasses waters of prime importance to Tulalip. Those waters, including

4 the secluded waters east of Whidbey Island, as well as Possession Sound, Port Susan, and Saratoga

5 Pass, are shown on the attached map. Attachment 1. These are all “home” waters near or adjacent

6 to the Tulalip reservation and of prime importance to Tulalip fishers. Tulalip, along with the

7 Swinomish Tribal Community and the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe (collectively, the “Region 2 East

8 Tribes”) has managed and participated in the crab fishery in Region 2 East for many years. The

9 Region 2 East Tribes issued regulations to open the winter crab fishery in Region 2 East on

10 November 4, 2019.

11 Despite never having participated in a Region 2 East crab fishery, Lummi responded with

12 a regulation opening the same fishery, estimating an effort of 10 boats. Attachment 2 supra. Even

13 if Lummi limits its effort to ten boats, its fishery will likely cause the treaty harvest to surpass the

14 agreed quota and it would be expected that all participating fishers would suffer unexpected

15 economic loss. See November 5, 2019 Declaration of McHugh, attachment 3 herein. Because of

16 the proximity of the subject waters to the Tulalip reservation, this impact will be significant. See

17 November 5, 2019 Declaration of Gobin, attachment 4 herein. In order to prevent this harm to

18 Tulalip and its fishers, as well as to the other Region 2 East Tribes, Tulalip brings this Motion for

19 Summary Judgment.

20 In filing its regulation No. 2019-65 of November 4, 2019, attachment 2, last year, Lummi

21 made substantial misrepresentations. It claimed in its regulation to be filing “per co-management

22 agreement for the 2019-2020 region 2E” crab harvest. However, Lummi is not a co-manager of

23 the 2E crab harvest. Lummi does not have U&A in the area and there is no management agreement

24 that opens this area to Lummi fishing for crab in-kind with the four existing tribes who planned

25 the 2019 treaty Region 2 East crab fishery. See November 5, 2019 Declaration of McHugh, Para.

TULALIP MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Morisset Schlosser Jozwiak & Somerville Page 2 811 First Avenue, Suite 218 Civil Case No. C70-9213/Subproceeding 19-1 Seattle, WA 98104 206.386.5200 Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22208 Filed 05/29/20 Page 3 of 26

1 7. The Lummi regulation constitutes a “drastic modification” of the status quo. McHugh

2 Declaration Para. 5. Lummi has a fleet of approximately 200 fishing vessels which represents a

3 significant and potentially uncontrolled fishery effort that was not included in planning the Region

4 2 East fishery. Id., Para. 6. Lummi has not fished for crab in Region 2 East nor have they

5 participated in meaningful management actions. Id., Para 7. There are no known landings for

6 Lummi fishers since the affirmance of tribal shellfish rights. Id. Para 7. Although the event that

7 triggered this action was the Lummi shellfish regulation, Tulalip seeks to bar all Lummi fishing in

8 2E.

9 This fishery is centrally important to Tulalip tribal members. November 5, 2019

10 Declaration of Gobin, Para 3. A large part of Tulalip fisher’s income is derived from the fishery.

11 Id. It is of critical cultural significance. Id. Area 2E is the heartland of the Tulalip Tribes and

12 Lummi attempts to impose their massive fleet into the heartland is deeply offensive to Tulalip.

13 The presence of a Lummi fleet will substantially diminish the opportunity for a Tulalip

14 fishery. Id. The 2 East area provides 95% of Tulalip ceremonial and subsistence harvest of

15 shellfish. The precipitous action of Lummi violates and hinders Tulalip reliance on this area.

16 The requesting party Tulalip Tribes is a political successor in interest to certain tribes,

17 bands, and groups of Indians which were parties to the Treaty of Point Elliott, 12 Stat. 927, and

18 holds fishing rights under that treaty.

19 The Tulalip U&As are set forth in Findings of Fact 380 and 381, U.S. v. Washington, 626 20 F. Supp. 1527, 1530-1531 (W.D. Wash. 1985), subject to certain limitations and exclusions 21 contained in that decision. Tulalip U&As include substantially all of Region 2 East. 22

23 III. Argument

24 A. Motion for Summary Judgement—Standard of Review

25

TULALIP MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Morisset Schlosser Jozwiak & Somerville Page 3 811 First Avenue, Suite 218 Civil Case No. C70-9213/Subproceeding 19-1 Seattle, WA 98104 206.386.5200

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22208 Filed 05/29/20 Page 4 of 26

1 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Tulalip moves for Summary Judgement that Lummi

2 possesses no fishing U&A for any species in State shellfish harvest area 2E and for an injunction

3 prohibiting all fishing in the area by Lummi.

4 Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Courts view 5 inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving 6 party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Corp. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986). Once the 7 moving party meets its burden under Rule 56(c), the adverse party “may not rest upon the mere 8 allegations or denials of the adverse party’s pleading, but the adverse party’s response, by 9 affidavits or as otherwise provided in this Rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is 10 a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). The non-moving party must do more than 11 simply show “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita. The mere 12 existence of “a scintilla of evidence” supporting the non-moving party’s position is insufficient;

13 there must be evidence on which the finder of fact could reasonably find for the non-moving

14 party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986).

15 In this case, the Preliminary Injunction issued by the court prevented Lummi from fishing

16 where it has never fished before. A permanent injunction is needed to preserve the status quo and

17 eliminate continued probes by Lummi to expand its fishing areas.

18 B. Lummi’s Incursion into Region 2 East 19 In May 2018, Lummi issued a regulation purporting to open a Region 2 East fishery, 20 refused during negotiations with the Region 2 East Tribes to commit to abstaining from fishing 21 pursuant to its regulation, and threatened to open catch area 24A (Skagit Bay) if its demands 22 were not met. United States v. Washington (Subp. No. 18-1), Dkt. 9 ¶¶ 12-16. The Region 2

23 East Tribes sought and were granted a request to open Subproceeding 19-1 and filed motions for

24 temporary restraining orders. United States v. Washington (Subp. No. 18-1), Dkt. 7. Only then

25

TULALIP MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Morisset Schlosser Jozwiak & Somerville Page 4 811 First Avenue, Suite 218 Civil Case No. C70-9213/Subproceeding 19-1 Seattle, WA 98104 206.386.5200

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22208 Filed 05/29/20 Page 5 of 26

1 did Lummi withdraw its threat. United States v. Washington (Subp. No. 18-1), Dkt. 19, at p. 1

2 (“the Lummi have no present plan to fish in those waters.”)

3 On September 24, 2019, Lummi unequivocally stated its intention to fish in Region 2 East:

4 “Lummi intends to have up to 10 fishers and fishing vessels participate in the next 2E tribal crab

5 opening” which was (and is) planned for early November 2019. E.g. November 5, 2019 Schuyler

6 Declaration, Dkt. No. 14. Days later, at a September 27 conference sought by the Region 2 East

7 Tribes, Lummi retreated from its position, stating its council would need to approve (and had not 8 approved) opening that fishery. Id., ¶ 15. Not until 4:22 p.m. on November 4,2019, did Lummi 9 again unequivocally state it would fish in Region 2 East, by issuing a regulation purporting to 10 open Region 2 East to Lummi fishers and fishing vessels at 10:00 a.m. on November 6, 2019. 11 November 5, 2019 Schuyler Declaration, Dkt. No. 14, Ex. 4, ¶ 16. 12 Lummi’s incursions are disruptive and will cause irreparable harm to Tulalip unless the 13 Court enjoins Lummi. 14

15 C. Lummi Does Not Have Established U&A in Region 2 East.

16 The respondent Lummi Nation (“Lummi”) was a party to the Treaty of Point Elliott, 12

17 Stat. 927, and holds fishing rights under that treaty. U.S. v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 313, 360

18 (W.D. Wash. 1974) (FF 43).

19 The Lummi U&A findings pertinent to this subproceeding include:

20 The Lummis had reef net sites on Orcas Island, San Juan Island, Lummi Island and Fidalgo Island, and near Point Roberts and Sandy Point. . . . These 21 Indians also took spring, silver and humpback salmon and steelhead by gill nets 22 and harpoons near the mouth of the Nooksack River, and steelhead by harpoons and basketry traps on Whatcom Creek. They trolled the waters of the San Juan 23 Islands for various species of salmon. Id. (FF 45) 24 [T]he usual and accustomed fishing places of the Lummi Indians at treaty 25 times included the marine areas of Northern Puget Sound from the Fraser River

TULALIP MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Morisset Schlosser Jozwiak & Somerville Page 5 811 First Avenue, Suite 218 Civil Case No. C70-9213/Subproceeding 19-1 Seattle, WA 98104 206.386.5200

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22208 Filed 05/29/20 Page 6 of 26

1 south to the present environs of Seattle, and particularly Bellingham Bay. Id. (FF 46 2 This case calls for yet another familiar exercise under Paragraph 25(a)(1) of determining 3 whether the waters of east of Whidbey Island are within Lummi U&As as determined by Judge 4 Boldt in 1974. Prior proceedings have determined that the description of the Lummi U&As is 5 unclear and ambiguous as to geography, so this Court is called upon to “construe the provision so 6 as to give effect to the intention of the issuing court,” by examining “the entire record before the 7 issuing court and the findings of fact.” Muckleshoot Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 141 F.3d 1355, 8 1359 (9th Cir. 1998). “In these circumstances, the district judge, who is the trier of fact, may resolve 9 conflicting inferences and evaluate the evidence to determine Judge Boldt’s intent.” Upper Skagit 10 Indian Tribe v. Washington, 590 F.3d 1020, 1025 n. 9 (9th Cir. 2010). 11 There are ample grounds to conclude that Lummi has no U&As in the waters east of 12 Whidbey Island. There is nothing in the Lummi U&A finding itself, the Lane reports Judge Boldt 13 relied upon, or any other materials cited by Judge Boldt as supporting his Lummi U&A finding 14 that would support inclusion of Region 2 East within Lummi U&As. Judge Boldt did not intend 15 to include these waters. 16 As evidence for this U&A finding, Judge Boldt primarily relied, as he so often did, on the 17 work of Dr. Barbara Lane, the recognized anthropological expert of U.S. v. Washington.1 Boldt 18 cites two Lane reports. In the first, Political and Economic Aspects of Indian-White Culture 19

Contact in Western Washington in the Mid-19th Century, 5/10/1973, admitted as evidence in the 20

21 original Boldt trial as Ex. USA-20, Lane states at p. 39, that the principal fisheries of the Lummi

22

23 1 “[T]he court finds that in specific facts, the reports of Dr. Barbara Lane have been exceptionally well researched 24 and reported and are established by a preponderance of the evidence. They are found to be authoritative and reliable summaries of relevant aspects of Indian life in the case area at and prior to the time of the treaties.” 384 F. Supp. At 25 350; see also id. (“Dr. Lane’s opinions, inferences and conclusions based upon the information stated in detail and well documented in her reports, appeared to the court to be well taken, sound and reasonable.”).

TULALIP MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Morisset Schlosser Jozwiak & Somerville Page 6 811 First Avenue, Suite 218 Civil Case No. C70-9213/Subproceeding 19-1 Seattle, WA 98104 206.386.5200

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22208 Filed 05/29/20 Page 7 of 26

1 include the reef-net locations for sockeye at Point Roberts, Village Point, on the east coast of San

2 Juan Island as well as other locations in the San Juan Islands. Other fisheries included

3 Bellingham Bay and the surrounding saltwater areas. The Lummi had important freshwater

4 fisheries on the river systems draining into Bellingham Bay. 5 Later, in Lane’s Anthropological Report of the Identity, Treaty Status and Fisheries of the 6 Lummi tribe of Indians, Ex. USA-30, Lane elaborates upon her earlier summary. Lane notes that 7 “it is feasible to indicate the general area of [Lummi’s] fishing operations and within the general 8 area to designate certain sites as important or principal fishing locations.” Id. at 23. Lane dealt 9 first with the reef netting sites, all of which are north and west of Region 2 East. Lane then 10 describes Lummi trolling for salmon “in the contiguous waters of Haro and Rosario Straits and 11 in the islands, speared in the bays and streams of the mainland, and took them by means of weirs 12 and traps in the rivers.” Id. at 24. Lane then notes: “The traditional fishing areas discussed thus 13 far extended from what is now the Canadian border south to Anacortes.” Id. In her conclusion, 14

15 Lane states: “The traditional fisheries of the post-treaty Lummi included reefnet sites in the San

16 Juan Islands, off Point Roberts, Birch Point, Cherry Point and off Lummi Island and Fidalgo

17 Island.” Id. at 26.

18 Thus Dr. Lane identified Lummi’s principal fisheries as near its traditional homeland,

19 north or west of the waters east of Whidbey. Although there are plenty of specific geographic

20 locations mentioned, nothing in Lane’s reports, or Judge Boldt’s U&A finding, or any of the

21 other documents listed by Judge Boldt as sources for the Lummi U&As finding refer to any

22 geographic anchor or feature of any of the waters east of Whidbey Island. ¶ 23

24

25

TULALIP MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Morisset Schlosser Jozwiak & Somerville Page 7 811 First Avenue, Suite 218 Civil Case No. C70-9213/Subproceeding 19-1 Seattle, WA 98104 206.386.5200

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22208 Filed 05/29/20 Page 8 of 26

1 D. There Is No Evidence That Lummi Traveled, Let Alone Fished, in Region 2 East.

2 Dr. Lane also described travel on the open marine highways. “The Straits and Sound

3 were traditional highways used in common by all Indians of the region.” Ex. USA-30 p. 25. Lane 4 described this “traditional highway” within Lummi fishing U&As by including “the Straits and 5 bays from the Fraser River south to the present environs of Seattle.” Id. at 26. There is nothing in 6 this record or in anything else in U.S. v. Washington to indicate that the secluded waters east of 7 Whidbey Island were part of any traditional marine highway open to all tribes. 8 The marine highway discussed by Dr. Lane’s report and included by Judge Boldt in 9 Lummi U&As is on the west side of Whidbey Island, outside of Region 2 East. This marine 10 highway was the central issue in Subp. 11-2 and the basis of the recent 9th Circuit decision that 11 filled the Lummi U&A gap between the San Juan Islands and Admiralty Inlet. U.S. v. Lummi 12

Nation, 876 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2017). Lummi prevailed in that case by claiming and 13

14 emphasizing that the waters west of Whidbey Island were the direct marine route and one of the

15 deepwater marine highways described by Dr. Lane. Brief of Respondent-Appellant Lummi

16 Nation, 9th Cir. No. 15-35661, Dkt. #21, 12/23/15, pp. 41-55, JD 38-53.

17 As part of this argument Lummi contrasted the Region 2 East waters east of Whidbey

18 Island with the waters west of Whidbey Island. Id. at 52-55, JD 50-53. Lummi invoked both

19 Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Washington, 590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010), and Tulalip Tribes v.

20 Suquamish Indian Tribe, 794 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2015), to argue that the travel route was on the

21 west side of Whidbey Island, and not on the east side. 22 Lummi was correct in its briefing in Subp. 11-2. The most extended discussion of this 23 point occurs in Upper Skagit, which affirmed this Court’s ruling in Subp. 05-3 that Suquamish 24 had no U&As in waters east of Whidbey Island because there was no evidence before Judge 25

TULALIP MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Morisset Schlosser Jozwiak & Somerville Page 8 811 First Avenue, Suite 218 Civil Case No. C70-9213/Subproceeding 19-1 Seattle, WA 98104 206.386.5200

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22208 Filed 05/29/20 Page 9 of 26

1 Boldt of Suquamish travel, let alone fishing, there. In addressing the “U&A by travel” argument,

2 the Court observed, 590 F.3d at 1024:

3 While [Dr. Lane] did say that the Suquamish travelled widely by canoe . . . Lane provided no evidence that the tribe fished in Saratoga Passage or Skagit Bay. 4 Her report listed where the Suquamish traditionally took fish, but neither Skagit Bay nor Saratoga Passage was among them. 5

6 The same is true regarding Lummi U&As in this case.

7 In contrasting the waters west of Whidbey Island with those east of Whidbey, the Court

8 noted, id. at 1025, n. 9:

9 Geographically, Saratoga Passage and Skagit Bay are nearly enclosed or inland waters to the east of Whidbey Island. … The northern exits through Deception Pass and 10 Swinomish Slough are narrow and constricted; both areas were controlled by the Swinomish at treaty time. 11 This observation supporting the distinction between the travel route west of Whidbey 12 Island and east of Whidbey Island also bears upon this case even more than in the Suquamish 13 case, because Lummi would approach Region 2 East from the north. 14

15 In addition, Judge Boldt used specific geographic anchor points in describing other

16 tribes’ U&As. From this it is reasonable to conclude that when he intended to include an area, it

17 was specifically named as a U&A. That Judge Boldt neglected to include [waters east of

18 Whidbey Island] in Lummi’s U&A supports the conclusion that he did not intend to include

19 them.

20 The lack of Region 2 East geographic anchor points in the Lummi U&As, or in Lane’s

21 report and the other sources upon which on which the U&As were based, leads to the same

22 conclusion. Further, in Tulalip Tribes, supra, 794 F.3d at 1135, 9th Circuit, affirming this Court’s

23 decision in Subp. 05-4, noted that Suquamish’s travel route “would have passed through the waters

24 west of Whidbey Island.” See also Upper Skagit Tribe v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 871 F.3d 844,

25

TULALIP MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Morisset Schlosser Jozwiak & Somerville Page 9 811 First Avenue, Suite 218 Civil Case No. C70-9213/Subproceeding 19-1 Seattle, WA 98104 206.386.5200

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22208 Filed 05/29/20 Page 10 of 26

1 1849-50 (9th Cir. 2017) (Suquamish travel route was west, not east, of Whidbey Island) The same

2 is true of Lummi when traversing from Lummi territory to and from the environs of Seattle.

3 IV. Concurrence in Swinomish and Upper Skagit arguments. 4 Tulalip concurs in the arguments contained in the motions of the Swinomish Tribal 5 Community and Upper Skagit Indian tribe, filed May 29, 2020 . 6

7 V. Conclusion.

8 A brand-new fishery by Lummi, after decades of no participation in that fishery, will

9 impact Tulalip especially hard. In addition, Lummi has no adjudicated U&A in the waters involved

10 here nor is there any evidence in the record to support such a conclusion. For the foregoing

11 reasons, the Court should preserve the status quo by so declaring and permanently enjoining

12 Lummi and its fishers from fishing for all species in Region 2 East. 13 EXECUTED this 29th day of May, 2020 at Seattle, Washington. 14

15 MORISSET SCHLOSSER JOZWIAK & SOMERVILLE 16

17 By /s/ Mason D. Morisset Mason D. Morisset, WSBA # 00273 18 811 First Avenue, Suite 218 Seattle, Washington 98104 19 Telephone: 206.386.5200 E-mail: [email protected] 20

21 ATTORNEY FOR THE TULALIP TRIBES

22

23

24

25

TULALIP MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Morisset Schlosser Jozwiak & Somerville Page 10 811 First Avenue, Suite 218 Civil Case No. C70-9213/Subproceeding 19-1 Seattle, WA 98104 206.386.5200

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22208 Filed 05/29/20 Page 11 of 26

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2 I hereby certify that on May 29, 2020 I electronically filed the attached Tulalip Motion for

3 Summary Judgment And Injunction with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which

4 will send notice of the filing to all parties registered in the CM/ECF system for this matter.

5 Dated this 29th day of May, 2020 at Seattle, Washington. 6 By: /s/ Mason D. Morisset 7 Mason D. Morisset, #00273 Counsel for the Tulalip Tribes 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

TULALIP MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Morisset Schlosser Jozwiak & Somerville Page 11 811 First Avenue, Suite 218 Civil Case No. C70-9213/Subproceeding 19-1 Seattle, WA 98104 206.386.5200

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22208 Filed 05/29/20 Page 12 of 26

1

2

3 4 Attachment 1 5 6 Map of Region 2 East 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

TULALIP MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Morisset Schlosser Jozwiak & Somerville Page 12 811 First Avenue, Suite 218 Civil Case No. C70-9213/Subproceeding 19-1 Seattle, WA 98104 206.386.5200

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22208 Filed 05/29/20 Page 13 of 26 REGION 2 EAST Catch areas 24A, 24B, 24C, 24D, and 26AE

REGION 2 EAST

24C 24A — — — — — — — — — WHIDBEY ISLAND 24B

24D

26AE

24A: Saratoga Passage 24B: Port Susan 24C: Skagit Bay 24D: Holmes Harbor 26AE: Possession Sound

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22208 Filed 05/29/20 Page 14 of 26

1

2

3 4 Attachment 2 5 6 Lummi Regulation of 7 November 4, 2019 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 24 25

TULALIP MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Morisset Schlosser Jozwiak & Somerville Page 13 811 First Avenue, Suite 218 Civil Case No. C70-9213/Subproceeding 19-1 Seattle, WA 98104 206.386.5200

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22208 Filed 05/29/20 Page 15 of 26 LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL 2665 Kwina Road, Bellingham, WA 98226. (360) 312-2000 Natural Resources Department. Fax: (360) 380-6989 2019-65 REGION 2E CRAB REGULATION Filing Date: 11/4/2019 Supersedes Reg: None Filing Organization: Lummi

EFFECTIVE DATES: Effective from November 06 2019 to March 31 2020, or until superseded or Treaty harvest is taken AFFECTED WDFW, NWIFC, Suquamish, Tulalip, Swinomish and Upper Skagit ORGANIZATIONS 2E CATCH AREA WDFW MFSFCR Areas 24A, 24B, 24C, 24D and 26AE 2E AREA(S) OPEN TO WDFW MFSFCR Area 24C FISHING ON/OFF Off RESERVATION FISHERY TYPE Commercial LEGAL GEAR Pot and ring gear EXPECTED EFFORT 10 Boats EXPECTED HARVEST 1,000,000 lb or remainder of tribal share of quota, whichever comes first. DAYS/HOURS BY OPEN: 10:00AM Wednesday November 6, 2019 GEAR CLOSE: 6:00PM Saturday November 16, 2019 or when the treaty share is taken, whichever comes first. RESTRICTIONS 1. No more than 50 tagged pots per fisher and boat; for 2E, pot registration tags will be white. 2. Must have a valid treaty crab fishing ID card on person 3. Only standard commercial crab pots with two escape rings of not less than 4 ¼ inch inside diameter fixed on the upper half of the pot can be used. 4. Each pot must have a 3-inch by 5-inch biodegradable cord panel (natural fiber, maximum thread size 120, or approximately 1/8-inch) or a biodegradable loop attached to the pot lid hook. 5. Each pot must be attached to a surface buoy capable of floating with a 5-pound weight attached and clearly marked with the registered owners fishing ID number. 6. The use of ground lines are prohibited. 7. Pots must be registered with the Lummi Natural Resources Department. 8. Pots must be harvested by the registered owner of the commercial gear and vessel identified at the time of registration. 9. Illegal to possess females, males of less than 6 ¼ inch caliper measure across the back immediately in front of the tips, or males with a soft-shell. 10. Pots may not be harvested between one half hour after sunset and one half hour before sunrise. 11. All gear shall be removed from the water by the closure of opening. In the event that weather, or other circumstances, prohibits removal of pots and harvest, pots may be left on the grounds clustered in a non-fishing position and collected at a later date provided that notice has been given to the Natural Resource Enforcement at 312-2274 or 384-7185 of the pot number and position and late retrieval. 12. No crab may be landed, sold or purchased more than four hours after closure of the fishery. 13. Must comply with all provisions of Title 10 of the Lummi Code of Laws JUSTIFICATION This regulation is a notice to proceed with a harvest as per co-manager agreement for the 2019-2020 Region 2E Dungeness Crab Harvest Management Plan and is promulgated pursuant to Chapter 10.6 of the Lummi Law and Order Code.

Lummi Regulation 2019-65 Page 1 of 1 Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22208 Filed 05/29/20 Page 16 of 26

1

2

3 4 Attachment 3 5 6 McHugh Declaration of 7 November 5, 2019 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 24 25

TULALIP MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Morisset Schlosser Jozwiak & Somerville Page 14 811 First Avenue, Suite 218 Civil Case No. C70-9213/Subproceeding 19-1 Seattle, WA 98104 206.386.5200

Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22208 Filed 05/29/20 Page 17 of 26 Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22208 Filed 05/29/20 Page 18 of 26 Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22208 Filed 05/29/20 Page 19 of 26 Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22208 Filed 05/29/20 Page 20 of 26 Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22208 Filed 05/29/20 Page 21 of 26 Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22208 Filed 05/29/20 Page 22 of 26

I these fleetsto "fish-out" a quota in just several days require the need to declare the true size and intent 2 of a party's fisheryparticipation. This is a cornerstoneof effective co-management and followsthe 3 intent of the Consent Decree and ShellfishImplementation Plan. If a partywere to obscures the true 4 intent of their total fisherparticipation, such as suggesting that only l O vessels out of a possible 200 5 commercial vessels were to participate, as is the case with the Lummi regulation, it would casts a doubt 6 about Lummi's true intent with its regulation. The participation of the same Lummi crab fleet, within the 7 waters of Region 2 West as well as Region 3, farexceed 10 vessels. Because of the ability of the four 8 existing and actively fishingtribal fleetsto harvest greaterthan 100% of the treaty share in a number of 9 days, and with the Lummi fleetreasonably numbering greaterthan 10 vessels and possibly up to 100 10 vessels, there is a need to notifythe existing fourtribes of true fisheryintentions by the Lummi Nation. 11 This has not happened and the burden is on Lummi to openly declare a fisheryand effectively 12 communicate the true nature of their expected harvest. This has not occurred. 13 14 I DECLARE under penalty of perjurythat the foregoingis true and correct. 15 Executed this day ofNovember, 2019, at 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27 DECLARATIONOF MICHAEL MCHUGH (No. 70-9213, Subp. 18-X) - 6 28 MORlSSET, SCHLOSSER. JOZWIAK & SOMERVILLE 8111" A\·c.Suitc:?18 SEATTLE. WASIIINGTON 9Sl04 (106)386-5� Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22208 Filed 05/29/20 Page 23 of 26

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on November ), 2019, I electronically filedthe foregoingwith the Clerk of 3 the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filingto the parties registered 4 in the CourtCM/ECF system. 5 DATED: November 5, 2019 6 7 slMason D. Morisset Mason D. Morisset 8 9 \\MORSERV2\T_Drive\WPDOCS\0075\98902 Subp 18-1\98902 - Corresp & Misc\Updated McHugh 10 Declaration l 0-8-19 .doc I) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 DECLARATION OF MICHAEL MCHUGH (No. 70-9213, Subp. 18-X) - 7 28 MORISSET. SCHLOSSER, JOZWIAK & SOMERVILLE Sii l"Ave.Suite218 SEATTLE. WASfUNGTON 98!� (:!06)386-.5100 Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22208 Filed 05/29/20 Page 24 of 26

1

2 Attachment 4

3 4 Gobin Declaration of 5 November 5, 2019 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

TULALIP MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Morisset Schlosser Jozwiak & Somerville Page 15 811 First Avenue, Suite 218 Civil Case No. C70-9213/Subproceeding 19-1 Seattle, WA 98104 206.386.5200 Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22208 Filed 05/29/20 Page 25 of 26 Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 22208 Filed 05/29/20 Page 26 of 26