Trespass Settlement Terms Disputed

The Squaxin Tribe has challenged 2010 trespass settlement terms.

Should the bigger question be:  Were the 17 treaty Indian tribes aware in 2007 tidelands managed by the State may have Tribal Treaty rights impacted?
 http://nwifc.org/about-us/shellfish/commercial-shellfish-growers-settlement/

In 2010, settlement terms for trespassing may have done so. 

In 2009 Taylor Shellfish, Seattle Shellfish, and Arcadia Point Seafood were all found to be trespassing on State tidelands.  These tidelands were adjacent to private tidelands which had been leased and cultivated, in one case since 1998.  Over this period one, perhaps two harvests occurred with the recent plantings being perhaps a third "crop."  In the 1998 case, settlement terms allowed harvest of the 1/2 acre of planted State lands for a payment of $75,000.

[Our comment:  1/2 acre of geoduck, after expenses, nets up to $500,000 for the grower.  Was a settlement of $75,000 for geoduck worth $500,000 in the best interest of the State and the Tribes?  Were Tribal members notified cultivation and harvesting would occur on State tidelands when letters from the growers were mailed or did those letters only identify the privately held tideland parcels?  Should the growers be allowed to retain ownership of the geoduck planted on State tidelands?]

The Squaxin Tribe does not agree with the settlement terms for reasons outlined in a Magistrate's decision here: 
http://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/dct-order.pdf 

If the Magistrate's decision stands, should the 2007 settlement also be challenged?