THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED ......THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., Petitioners,

vs.

STATE OF WASHINGTON et al.,

Respondent.

Case No. C70-9213

Subproceeding No. 19-1

TULALIP MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTION

Noting Date: July 31, 2020

I. Motion

The Tulalip Tribes file this Motion for a Summary Judgment to prohibit the Lummi Nation

(“Lummi”) from engaging in any fishing for finfish or shellfish in Shellfish Region 2 East. Tulalip

also moves for a permanent injunction enjoining Lummi and its fishers from engaging in

any fishing in the named Region.

II. Background and Statement of the Case.

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

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

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

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

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

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


206.386.5200

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

Dkt. No. 22124.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 4, 2019.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary Judgment.

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

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

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

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

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

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 3 811 First Avenue, Suite 218 Civil Case No. C70-9213/Subproceeding 19-1 Seattle, WA 98104 206.386.5200

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2E.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

holds fishing rights under that treaty.

The Tulalip U&As are set forth in Findings of Fact 380 and 381, U.S. v. Washington, 626

F. Supp. 1527, 1530-1531 (W.D. Wash. 1985), subject to certain limitations and exclusions

contained in that decision. Tulalip U&As include substantially all of Region 2 East.

III. Argument

A. Motion for Summary Judgement—Standard of Review



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

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

prohibiting all fishing in the area by Lummi.

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

inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving

party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Corp. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986). Once the

moving party meets its burden under Rule 56(c), the adverse party “may not rest upon the mere

allegations or denials of the adverse party’s pleading, but the adverse party’s response, by

affidavits or as otherwise provided in this Rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is

a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). The non-moving party must do more than

simply show “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita. The mere

existence of “a scintilla of evidence” supporting the non-moving party’s position is insufficient;

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

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

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

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

eliminate continued probes by Lummi to expand its fishing areas.

B. Lummi’s Incursion into Region 2 East

In May 2018, Lummi issued a regulation purporting to open a Region 2 East fishery,

refused during negotiations with the Region 2 East Tribes to commit to abstaining from fishing

pursuant to its regulation, and threatened to open catch area 24A (Skagit Bay) if its demands

were not met. United States v. Washington (Subp. No. 18-1), Dkt. 9 ¶¶ 12-16. The Region 2

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

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



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tribes, Lummi retreated from its position, stating its council would need to approve (and had not

approved) opening that fishery. Id., ¶ 15. Not until 4:22 p.m. on November 4,2019, did Lummi

again unequivocally state it would fish in Region 2 East, by issuing a regulation purporting to

open Region 2 East to Lummi fishers and fishing vessels at 10:00 a.m. on November 6, 2019.

November 5, 2019 Schuyler Declaration, Dkt. No. 14, Ex. 4, ¶ 16.

Lummi’s incursions are disruptive and will cause irreparable harm to Tulalip unless the

Court enjoins Lummi.

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

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

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

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

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

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 Indians also took spring, silver and humpback salmon and steelhead by gill nets 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 Islands for various species of salmon. Id. (FF 45) [T]he usual and accustomed fishing places of the Lummi Indians at treaty times included the marine areas of Northern Puget Sound from the Fraser River



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

south to the present environs of Seattle, and particularly Bellingham Bay. Id. (FF 46

This case calls for yet another familiar exercise under Paragraph 25(a)(1) of determining

whether the waters of east of Whidbey Island are within Lummi U&As as determined by Judge

Boldt in 1974. Prior proceedings have determined that the description of the Lummi U&As is

unclear and ambiguous as to geography, so this Court is called upon to “construe the provision so

as to give effect to the intention of the issuing court,” by examining “the entire record before the

issuing court and the findings of fact.” Muckleshoot Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 141 F.3d 1355,

1359 (9th Cir. 1998). “In these circumstances, the district judge, who is the trier of fact, may resolve

conflicting inferences and evaluate the evidence to determine Judge Boldt’s intent.” Upper Skagit

Indian Tribe v. Washington, 590 F.3d 1020, 1025 n. 9 (9th Cir. 2010).

There are ample grounds to conclude that Lummi has no U&As in the waters east of

Whidbey Island. There is nothing in the Lummi U&A finding itself, the Lane reports Judge Boldt

relied upon, or any other materials cited by Judge Boldt as supporting his Lummi U&A finding

that would support inclusion of Region 2 East within Lummi U&As. Judge Boldt did not intend

to include these waters.

As evidence for this U&A finding, Judge Boldt primarily relied, as he so often did, on the

work of Dr. Barbara Lane, the recognized anthropological expert of U.S. v. Washington.1 Boldt

cites two Lane reports. In the first, Political and Economic Aspects of Indian-White Culture

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

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

1 “[T]he court finds that in specific facts, the reports of Dr. Barbara Lane have been exceptionally well researched 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 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.”).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

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

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

fisheries on the river systems draining into Bellingham Bay.

Later, in Lane’s Anthropological Report of the Identity, Treaty Status and Fisheries of the

Lummi tribe of Indians, Ex. USA-30, Lane elaborates upon her earlier summary. Lane notes that

“it is feasible to indicate the general area of [Lummi’s] fishing operations and within the general

area to designate certain sites as important or principal fishing locations.” Id. at 23. Lane dealt

first with the reef netting sites, all of which are north and west of Region 2 East. Lane then

describes Lummi trolling for salmon “in the contiguous waters of Haro and Rosario Straits and

in the islands, speared in the bays and streams of the mainland, and took them by means of weirs

and traps in the rivers.” Id. at 24. Lane then notes: “The traditional fishing areas discussed thus

far extended from what is now the Canadian border south to Anacortes.” Id. In her conclusion,

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

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

Island.” Id. at 26.

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

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

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

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

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



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

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

were traditional highways used in common by all Indians of the region.” Ex. USA-30 p. 25. Lane

described this “traditional highway” within Lummi fishing U&As by including “the Straits and

bays from the Fraser River south to the present environs of Seattle.” Id. at 26. There is nothing in

this record or in anything else in U.S. v. Washington to indicate that the secluded waters east of

Whidbey Island were part of any traditional marine highway open to all tribes.

The marine highway discussed by Dr. Lane’s report and included by Judge Boldt in

Lummi U&As is on the west side of Whidbey Island, outside of Region 2 East. This marine

highway was the central issue in Subp. 11-2 and the basis of the recent 9th Circuit decision that

filled the Lummi U&A gap between the San Juan Islands and Admiralty Inlet. U.S. v. Lummi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

west side of Whidbey Island, and not on the east side.

Lummi was correct in its briefing in Subp. 11-2. The most extended discussion of this

point occurs in Upper Skagit, which affirmed this Court’s ruling in Subp. 05-3 that Suquamish

had no U&As in waters east of Whidbey Island because there was no evidence before Judge



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

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

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. Her report listed where the Suquamish traditionally took fish, but neither Skagit Bay nor Saratoga Passage was among them.

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

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

noted, id. at 1025, n. 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 Swinomish Slough are narrow and constricted; both areas were controlled by the Swinomish at treaty time.

This observation supporting the distinction between the travel route west of Whidbey

Island and east of Whidbey Island also bears upon this case even more than in the Suquamish

case, because Lummi would approach Region 2 East from the north.

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

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

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

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

them.

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

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

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

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

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



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

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

IV. Concurrence in Swinomish and Upper Skagit arguments.

Tulalip concurs in the arguments contained in the motions of the Swinomish Tribal

Community and Upper Skagit Indian tribe, filed May 29, 2020 .

V. Conclusion.

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

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

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

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

Lummi and its fishers from fishing for all species in Region 2 East.

EXECUTED this 29th day of May, 2020 at Seattle, Washington.

MORISSET SCHLOSSER JOZWIAK & SOMERVILLE

By /s/ Mason D. Morisset

Mason D. Morisset, WSBA # 00273 811 First Avenue, Suite 218 Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: 206.386.5200 E-mail: [email protected]

ATTORNEY FOR THE TULALIP TRIBES


mailto:[email protected]


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

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

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

Dated this 29th day of May, 2020 at Seattle, Washington.

By: /s/ Mason D. Morisset Mason D. Morisset, #00273 Counsel for the Tulalip Tribes



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Attachment 1 Map of Region 2 East


REGION 2 EAST Catch areas 24A, 24B, 24C, 24D, and 26AE

— — — — — — — — — WHIDBEY ISLAND

24C 24A

24B

24D

26AE

REGION 2 EAST

24A: Saratoga Passage

24B: Port Susan

24C: Skagit Bay

24D: Holmes Harbor

26AE: Possession Sound



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Attachment 2

Lummi Regulation of November 4, 2019


LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL2665 Kwina Road, Bellingham, WA 98226. (360) 312-2000

Natural Resources Department. Fax: (360) 380-6989

Filing Date: 11/4/2019 Supersedes Reg: None Filing Organization: Lummi

2019-65 REGION 2E CRAB REGULATION

Effective from November 06 2019 to March 31 2020, or until superseded or Treaty harvest is takenEFFECTIVE DATES:

WDFW, NWIFC, Suquamish, Tulalip, Swinomish and Upper SkagitAFFECTED ORGANIZATIONS

WDFW MFSFCR Areas 24A, 24B, 24C, 24D and 26AE2E CATCH AREA

WDFW MFSFCR Area 24C2E AREA(S) OPEN TO FISHING

OffON/OFF RESERVATION

CommercialFISHERY TYPE

Pot and ring gear LEGAL GEAR

10 BoatsEXPECTED EFFORT

1,000,000 lb or remainder of tribal share of quota, whichever comes first.EXPECTED HARVEST

OPEN: 10:00AM Wednesday November 6, 2019CLOSE: 6:00PM Saturday November 16, 2019 or when the treaty share is taken, whichever comes first.

DAYS/HOURS BY GEAR

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 person3. 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

RESTRICTIONS

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.

JUSTIFICATION

Lummi Regulation 2019-65 Page 1 of 1



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Attachment 3

McHugh Declaration of November 5, 2019







I these fleets to "fish-out" a quota in just several days require the need to declare the true size and intent

2 of a party's fishery participation. This is a cornerstone of effective co-management and follows the

3 intent of the Consent Decree and Shellfish Implementation Plan. If a party were to obscures the true

4 intent of their total fisher participation, 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, far exceed 10 vessels. Because of the ability of the four

8 existing and actively fishing tribal fleets to harvest greater than 100% of the treaty share in a number of

9 days, and with the Lummi fleet reasonably numbering greater than 10 vessels and possibly up to 100

10 vessels, there is a need to notify the existing four tribes of true fishery intentions by the Lummi Nation.

11 This has not happened and the burden is on Lummi to openly declare a fishery and effectively

12 communicate the true nature of their expected harvest. This has not occurred.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I DECLARE under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this day ofNovember, 2019, at

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL MCHUGH (No. 70-9213, Subp. 18-X) - 6

MORlSSET, SCHLOSSER. JOZWIAK & SOMERVILLE 8111" A\·c.Suitc:?18

SEATTLE. WASIIINGTON 9Sl04 (106) 386-5�


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2 I hereby certify that on November ), 2019, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of

3 the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the parties registered

4 in the Court CM/ECF system.

5 DATED: November 5, 2019

6

7

8

9

10

I)

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

slMason D. Morisset

Mason D. Morisset

\\MORSERV2\T_Drive\WPDOCS\0075\98902 Subp 18-1\98902 - Corresp & Misc\Updated McHugh Declaration l 0-8-19 .doc

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL MCHUGH (No. 70-9213, Subp. 18-X) - 7

MORISSET. SCHLOSSER, JOZWIAK & SOMERVILLE Sii l"Ave.Suite218

SEATTLE. WASfUNGTON 98!� (:!06)386-.5100



206.386.5200

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Attachment 4 Gobin Declaration of

November 5, 2019




Documents

THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED ......THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et