Opinion ID: 2820496
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Suquamish’s UA

Text: In Upper Skagit, we drew on our prior decisions interpreting Judge Boldt’s U&A findings for various tribes to develop a two-step mode of analysis. First, the moving party bears the burden of offering evidence that a U&A finding was “ambiguous, or that Judge Boldt intended something other than [the text’s] apparent meaning.” Upper Skagit, 590 F.3d at 1023 (citing Muckleshoot I, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. 3 As in the prior cases where we have discussed all three Muckleshoot cases, we name them chronologically, rather than based on the order in which they appear in this opinion. TULALIP TRIBES V. SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE 9 Lummi Indian Nation, 234 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2000) (Muckleshoot II), and Muckleshoot III). Second, the moving party bears the burden of showing that “there was no evidence before Judge Boldt” that would indicate that the contested area was included or excluded in the U&A of the nonmoving tribe. Id. We have determined previously that, for the finding describing the Suquamish’s U&A, Judge Boldt intended something different than the language’s apparent meaning, which neither the Suquamish nor the Tulalip contest. Upper Skagit, 590 F.3d at 1025 (affirming the district court’s determination that the Upper Skagit Tribe met its burden on the first prong). In Upper Skagit, the district court’s reasoning, which we affirmed, began with a finding that the apparent meaning of the term “Puget Sound” from the Suquamish’s U&A included the waters at issue in that case—Saratoga Passage and Skagit Bay. Id. at 1023. But, the district court determined that nothing before Judge Boldt demonstrated that the Suquamish fished in those contested waters, or traveled through those areas on their way to the Fraser River area. Id. at 1023–24. Therefore, the district court reasoned, Judge Boldt must have intended something other than the language’s apparent meaning in defining the Suquamish’s U&A. Id. It does not matter that the contested areas at issue here are slightly different; the finding that Judge Boldt intended something different than the plain text of the Suquamish U&A finding remains intact. We adhere to that determination and do not analyze further prong one of the Muckleshoot analytical framework. Under prong two, the Tulalip have “the burden to show that there was no evidence before Judge Boldt that the Suquamish fished . . . or traveled” through the contested 10 TULALIP TRIBES V. SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE areas. See Upper Skagit, 590 F.3d at 1023. All the contested waters here surround Whidbey Island, which is on the east side of Puget Sound. In United States v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 901 F.2d 772, 778 (9th Cir. 1990), we stated that the “Suquamish . . . were not entitled to exercise fishing rights on the east side of Puget Sound.” However, this statement is from the concluding paragraph of an opinion where we did not address the boundaries of the Suquamish’s U&A. Rather, in that case, we affirmed the district court’s finding that the Suquamish did not merge or consolidate with the Duwamish,4 and therefore was not the successor in interest to the Duwamish’s fishing rights. Id. at 777–78. Thus, Suquamish does not control the status of the contested waters in this subproceeding. For analysis, we divide the contested areas into two categories: those east of Whidbey Island (Possession Sound, Port Gardner Bay, and the mouth of the Snohomish River) and those west of Whidbey Island (Cultus Bay, Useless Bay, Mutiny Bay, and Admiralty Bay).
We have made determinations previously about waters north of the eastern contested waters, east of Whidbey Island. In Upper Skagit, we affirmed the district court’s determination that the Suquamish’s U&A does not include Skagit Bay and Saratoga Passage. 590 F.3d at 1026. We stated that “[t]here is no evidence in the record before Judge 4 The Duwamish’s U&A on the eastern side of Puget Sound included Lake Washington, Lake Union, Lake Sammamish, the Black and Cedar Rivers, and the lower White or Duwamish River below its junction with the Green River. Id. at 774 n.2. TULALIP TRIBES V. SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE 11 Boldt that the Suquamish fished or traveled in the waters on the eastern side of Whidbey Island.” Id. at 1025. Evidence that was before Judge Boldt indicates that the eastern contested waters are distinguishable from those at issue in Upper Skagit. In particular, the evidence before Judge Boldt demonstrates that the Suquamish traveled to the mouth of the Snohomish River and the waters immediately surrounding it to fish. Materials from Dr. Lane, namely her reports and trial testimony, constitute evidence before Judge Boldt that the Suquamish traveled to the eastern contested waters to fish. The Suquamish, Dr. Lane explained, “had very limited kinds of resources within their home territory because almost uniquely of [the other tribes in this case] they had no large streams in their territory.” The Suquamish “did in fact go to the larger rivers on the mainland in order to harvest salmon because they had no rivers in their own country.” They “were accustomed to harvest their fall and winter salmon supplies at the rivers on the east side of Puget Sound. Modern Suquamish, as well as neighbouring Indians, have attested that the Suquamish traditionally fished at the mouths of the Duwamish and Snohomish Rivers as well as in the adjacent marine areas.” Dr. Lane’s testimony and reports constitute evidence that the Suquamish traveled to the mouth of the Snohomish river and the areas immediately surrounding it to fish. In light of this evidence, the Tulalip failed to meet their burden to show that there was “no evidence” before Judge Boldt that the Suquamish fished in or traveled through the eastern contested areas. See id. at 1023. The Tulalip argue that we already determined this issue in Upper Skagit. We disagree. The evidence here relates to 12 TULALIP TRIBES V. SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE the mouth of the Snohomish River and its immediate surroundings, rather than the waters further north or the waters east of Whidbey Island more generally. Indeed, Dr. Lane stated several times that the mouths of rivers and the surrounding areas were unique. First, she testified, as noted above, that the Suquamish “did in fact go to the larger rivers on the mainland in order to harvest salmon because they had no rivers in their own country.” Despite its proximity to Whidbey Island, the Snohomish River is a large river on the mainland. Second, Dr. Lane explained that people “would gather to troll for the salmon as they gathered in the bays just prior to their entry into the rivers.” This evidence supports the district court’s determination that Judge Boldt intended to include Possession Sound and Port Gardner Bay in Suquamish’s U&A because salmon would swim through the marine waters just before entering the Snohomish River. By contrast, Skagit Bay and Saratoga Passage, discussed in Skagit Bay, were larger bodies of water separate from a river. Third, Dr. Lane’s opinion about the Suquamish’s harvest “on the east side of Puget Sound” including “at the mouths of the Duwamish and Snohomish rivers as well as in the adjacent marine areas” is distinct from Skagit Bay and Saratoga Passage because the river mouths are not near those areas. As the district court concluded, in light of this evidence, the Tulalip cannot demonstrate that there was “no evidence” before Judge Boldt that the Suquamish fished or traveled in the eastern contested waters. See Upper Skagit, 590 F.3d at 1023. We hold that the Tulalip did not satisfy its burden to show that Judge Boldt intended to exclude the eastern contested waters from the Suquamish’s U&A. TULALIP TRIBES V. SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE 13
As with the eastern contested waters, the Tulalip must “show that there was no evidence before Judge Boldt that the Suquamish fished . . . or traveled through” the western contested waters. See id. The Tulalip failed to meet that burden here because the record contains evidence that the Suquamish fished in these waters. Dr. Lane explained in a Suquamish-specific report that the Suquamish territory included “possibly. . . the west side of Whidbey Island. It is difficult at this time to establish the precise nature of Suquamish use of the west coast of Whidbey Island.”5 While Dr. Lane added that “there appears to be no clear evidence of Suquamish winter villages on the west side of Whidbey Island,” she reported elsewhere that the “Suquamish travelled [sic] to Whidbey Island to fish.” Moreover, there is other evidence supporting the Suquamish’s use of the western contested waters. Dr. Lane explained generally that “[t]he deeper saltwater areas, the Sound, the straits, and the open sea, served as public thoroughfares, and as such, were used as fishing areas by anyone travelling [sic] through such waters.” As indicated by the plain text of the Suquamish’s U&A, the Suquamish traveled from “the marine waters of Puget Sound from the northern tip of Vashon Island to the Fraser River.” Decision II, 459 F. Supp. at 1049. When traveling from Vashon Island to the Fraser River, the Suquamish would have passed through the waters west of 5 Dr. Lane cited two treaty-time accounts: one from Achilles de Harley, who mentioned that the “Soquamish” occupied the west side of Whidbey Island in 1849, and one from George Gibbs, who wrote in 1854 that the Snohomish and Skagit tribes occupied Whidbey Island, but omitted the Suquamish. 14 TULALIP TRIBES V. SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE Whidbey Island, and likely would have fished there while traveling. This general evidence, too, constitutes some evidence before Judge Boldt and supports the district court’s determination that Judge Boldt did not intend to exclude these contested bay areas from Suquamish’s U&A. Therefore, we hold that the Tulalip did not meet its burden to demonstrate that there was no evidence before Judge Boldt supporting Suquamish fishing or traveling through the western contested waters. See Upper Skagit, 590 F.3d at 1023.