United States v. State of Washington

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided April 20, 2020·No. 2:70-cv-09213·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., CASE NO. 2:70-CV-09213-RSM 11 Plaintiff, Subproceeding No. 89-3-12 (Shellfish) 12 v. PERMANENT INJUNCTION 13 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., 14 Defendant. 15

On May 8, 2015, the Skokomish Indian Tribe (“Skokomish”) filed a Request for Dispute 16 Resolution under § 9 of the Revised Shellfish Implementation Plan (“RFD”), requesting the 17 Court resolve ongoing disputes between Skokomish and Gold Coast Oyster, LLC (“Gold 18 Coast”). Dkt. 1. On January 31, 2020, the Court entered an Order on Request for Dispute 19 Resolution and, on April 20, 2020, entered an Amended Order on Request for Dispute 20 Resolution (“Order”). Dkt. 122, 142. In the Order, the Court found Gold Coast violated the 21 Revised Shellfish Implementation Plan (“SIP”). Id. The Court found Skokomish and the Port 22 Gamble S’Klallam and the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribes (S’Klallam”) had not shown they were 23 24 1 entitled to compensatory damages, but found a permanent injunction was appropriate in this 2 case. Id. at p. 30. 3 The Court directed the parties to meet and confer and present a stipulated proposed order 4 detailing appropriate injunctive relief. Dkt. 122, p. 30-31. If the parties were unable to agree on a

5 stipulated proposed order, the Court directed Skokomish and S’Klallam to present a proposed 6 order and directed Gold Coast and any interested party to file responses to the proposed order. Id. 7 at p. 30. Skokomish and S’Klallam each filed a Proposed Order on March 5, 2020. Dkt. 132, 8 133. Gold Coast filed a Response on March 25, 2020. Dkt. 137. Squaxin Island Tribe submitted 9 its Response on April 9, 2020. Dkt. 138. Skokomish filed a reply on April 13, 2020. Dkt. 139. 10 S’Klallam filed a Reply on April 14, 2020. Dkt. 140. 11 After review of the relevant record and the Proposed Orders, Responses, and Replies, the 12 Court enters the following permanent injunction that is unique to the particular facts of this case. 13 This Permanent Injunction is applicable only to the parties in this case as related to issues raised 14 in the RFD.

15 I. Definitions 16 For the purposes of this Permanent Injunction only: 17 1. The term “SIP” means the Revised Shellfish Implementation Plan (C70-9213, Dkt. 18 No. 14331); 19 2. The term “PSA” means the Partial Settlement Agreement (Sp. 89-3-12, Dkt. No. 20 63); 21 3. The term “Order” means the Amended Order on Request for Dispute Resolution 22 (Sp. 89-3-12, Dkt. No. 142); 23 24 1 4. The following are individually a “Party” and collectively the “Parties” to the 2 Permanent Injunction: the Skokomish Indian Tribe, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, 3 Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, Suquamish Indian 4 Tribe, Gold Coast Oyster, LLC and their respective officers, agents, servants,

5 employees, attorneys and any other persons who are in active concert or 6 participation with any of the foregoing persons or entities; 7 5. Shellfishing Activities means any cultivating, enhancing, producing, harvesting, 8 removing, or transferring of shellfish on a Property;1 and 9 6. The term “Property” means real property located in the State of Washington that 10 has a tideland in Hood Canal, on which: 11 a. Gold Coast Oyster, LLC holds any active registration, license or permit 12 (including but not limited to Aquatic Farm Registrations, Harvest Site 13 Certifications, Emerging Commercial Fishery Permits/Licenses, Trial 14 Commercial Fishery Permits/Licenses, and/or US Army Corps of Engineer

15 issued Permits/Licenses); or 16 b. Gold Coast Oyster, LLC controls by agreement, contract, lease, license or by 17 other arrangement; or 18 c. Gold Coast Oyster, LLC engages in Shellfishing Activities. 19 II. Required Conduct for All Parties 20 1. All Parties shall comply with all provisions of the SIP and the PSA. 21 2. Conditions Applicable to Shellfishing Activities: 22

23 1 The Court reiterates the definition of Shellfishing Activities is applicable to this Permanent Injunction 24 only based on evidence of Gold Coast’s conduct and activities. 1 a. Except for the notice requirements set forth in this Permanent Injunction, 2 Tribal notice requirements have been satisfied and no notices, as required 3 under the SIP, need to be re-served prior to a Tribe conducting 4 inspections, surveys, and/or population estimates on each Property.

5 b. A Party shall not, for any reason whatsoever, obstruct, limit or restrict any 6 other Party’s access or inspections, surveys, and/or population estimates. 7 c. A Party must conduct inspections, surveys, and/or population estimates on 8 each Property prior to engaging in any Shellfishing Activities on that 9 Property. 10 i. The survey must be consistent with or more precise than those 11 utilized by the State of Washington. 12 ii. Gold Coast is required to engage a biologist or similarly qualified 13 expert, using sound and accepted management methods, to perform 14 surveys and population estimates and to determine the “sustainable

15 harvest biomass.” 16 iii. No later than fourteen (14) days after an inspection, survey, and/or 17 population estimate is completed, the Party that conducted the 18 survey and/or population estimate must provide a copy of the 19 results to all affected Parties. 20 iv. Parties may dispense with an inspection, survey, and/or population 21 estimate for each specific Property if the affected Parties so agree 22 and enter into a harvest plan prior to engaging in any Shellfishing 23 Activities.

24 1 d. Affected Parties must enter into a harvest plan prior to engaging in 2 Shellfishing Activities. 3 i. Within thirty (30) days of the results of a survey and/or population 4 estimate, the Party conducting the survey and/or population

5 estimate must present a reasonable harvest plan to the affected 6 Parties. 7 ii. A Party shall not object to the proposed harvest plan without good 8 cause. 9 iii. The harvest plan shall contain agreed upon or judicially 10 determined harvest amounts. 11 iv. If a Party does not agree to the proposed harvest plan within five 12 (5) business days of when notice was provided, the Parties may file 13 a new request for dispute resolution as to the specific Property, 14 using procedures that will be established by the Court.

15 3. Engaging in Shellfishing Activities: 16 a. Except for the notice requirements set forth in this Permanent Injunction, 17 Tribal notice requirements have been satisfied and no notices, as required 18 under the SIP, need to be re-served prior to a Tribe engaging in 19 Shellfishing Activities. 20 b. No Party shall obstruct, limit or restrict any other Party’s harvest of 21 shellfish, which may be conducted in compliance with this Permanent 22 Injunction. 23

24 1 c. Harvest quotas are limited to each Parties’ allocation of shellfish (e.g., 2 Treaty and non-Treaty shares) as set forth in the SIP. 3 d. Tribal access to harvest any Property governed by Section 7 of the SIP is 4 subject to the terms of the SIP (see SIP at § 7.2.4) and prior decisions in

5 United States v. Washington (SIP at § 1.3). 6 4. Required record-keeping for Shellfishing Activities: 7 a. A detailed report accounting for all cultivating, enhancing, producing, 8 harvesting, removing, or transferring of shellfish from each Property shall 9 be exchanged by the Parties within thirty (30) days of such Shellfishing 10 Activity. 11 b. For a harvest, removal, or transfer of shellfish, the detailed report shall 12 include the following information: 13 i. The dates of each harvest or removal of shellfish; 14 ii. The quantity (in dozens for oysters and pounds for clams), size (in

15 standard metric measurement), and species of shellfish harvested 16 or removed from each specific property as identified by County 17 parcel number; and 18 iii.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. State of Washington, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

United States v. State of Washington (United States v. State of Washington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

D'ANTONIO v. United States
626 F. Supp. 1 (S.D. Ohio, 1983)
United States v. Washington
19 F. Supp. 3d 1252 (W.D. Washington, 1999)