In this case, however, the district court was not required to further develop the facts because they had been conceded in Zah I. Moreover, even in their original complaint Appellants did not seek a declaration of what portion of the land constituted Indian Country. We believe the circumstances of this case make Watchman inapposite. In short, Watchman simply does not require fact- finding hearings when the operative fact issues have been resolved through other means. Appellants make no other challenge to the district court's National Farmers analysis. Our review of the district court's careful and detailed consideration of the circumstances leads us to conclude its judgment is free of error on this issue.
Appellants next argue the district court erroneously assumed certain facts as true.
We review the district court's factual findings for clear error. Appellants contend the district court erred in assuming all of their activities occurred within Indian Country. Appellants argue they sought to show the district court, on remand, that some of their business is conducted on land that is not part of a dependent Indian community. Appellants also assert Indian Country is not synonymous with Navajo Indian Country. However, as discussed above, this is a latter day change of position from Appellants' previous concession that the disputed land was within the definition of both Navajo Indian Country and Indian Country.