Opinion ID: 692058
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Good Faith Effort

Text: 32 The Pueblo also claims that the Forest Service failed to make the requisite good faith effort to identify traditional cultural properties in Las Huertas Canyon. It bases this assertion on the fact that the Forest Service withheld relevant information from the SHPO during the required consultation process. The district court expressed concern about the Forest Service's commitment to the section 106 process and placed great weight upon the SHPO's concurrence in granting summary judgment. Thus, the withdrawal of that concurrence upon discovery of the withheld information suggests that the Forest Service did not put forth a good faith effort to identify historic properties. 33 The regulations require that [i]n consultation with the [SHPO], the Agency Official shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties. 36 C.F.R. Sec. 800.4(b). Indeed, consultation with the SHPO is an integral part of the section 106 process. See Attakai v. United States, 746 F.Supp. 1395, 1407 (D.Ariz.1990) ([T]he regulations clearly require consultation with the SHPO.) Affording the SHPO an opportunity to offer input on potential historic properties would be meaningless unless the SHPO has access to available, relevant information. Thus, consultation with the SHPO mandates an informed consultation. 34 The Forest Service did not provide the SHPO copies of the Lauriano and Brandt affidavits until after the consultation was complete and the SHPO had concurred. See Aplt.Supp.Br., Addendum 1. In fact, the Forest Service informed the SHPO during consultation that [c]onsultations with pueblo officials and elders, and other users of the Las Huertas Canyon area, disclosed no evidence that the ... area contains traditional cultural properties. Aplt.App. at 152. The SHPO's initial concurrence was based on this report. Aplt.Supp.Br., Addendum 1. Once the SHPO acquired access to the withheld information, he withdrew his concurrence, noting the relevance of the documents and his concern that our not having received [them] has affected our ability to consult appropriately under Section 106 of the [NHPA]. Id. 35 Moreover, the regulations require that once the agency concludes that no historic properties are present, it must provide the SHPO documentation of that finding. 36 C.F.R. Sec. 800.4(d). The Forest Service rendered its final decision that no traditional cultural properties exist in Las Huertas Canyon on April 29, 1993. Aplee.Br., Addendum. The report was sent to the SHPO on May 4, 1993, prompting the SHPO's concurrence nine days later. The relevant documents, i.e., the Lauriano and Brandt affidavits, were not communicated to the SHPO until January 14, 1994. Aplt.Supp.Br., Addendum 1. Thus, the Forest Service failed to provide documentation of its decision to the SHPO in a timely manner. 36 Prior to the SHPO's letter revealing that the Forest Service withheld relevant information, the district court expressed reservations about the Forest Service's approach to the section 106 process. The court noted its concern that the Forest Service does not appear to have taken the requirements of this Act very seriously. Order at 12. Those reservations were partially alleviated by the fact that the SHPO had concurred, at that time, with part of the Forest Service's new management plan. Id. at 11. By withholding relevant information from the SHPO during the consultation process, however, the Forest Service further undermined any argument that it had engaged in a good faith effort. We thus hold that the Forest Service did not make a good faith effort to identify historic properties in Las Huertas Canyon. 37 Because we conclude that the Forest Service did not make a reasonable and good faith effort in its evaluation of Las Huertas Canyon, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.