Opinion ID: 148933
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Insufficient Consultation with the Tribe

Text: We first consider Plaintiffs' argument that the BLM approved the Amendment without complying with its duty under the NHPA to consult with the Tribe. The NHPA implementing regulations require agencies to provide a tribe with a reasonable opportunity to identify its concerns about historic properties, advise on the identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and cultural importance, articulate its views on the undertaking's effects on such properties, and participate in the resolution of adverse effects. 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(c)(2)(ii)(A). [19] Further, [c]onsultation [with Indian tribes] should commence early in the planning process, in order to identify and discuss relevant preservation issues, id., and must recognize the government-to-government relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, id. § 800.2(c)(2)(ii)(C). Plaintiffs argue that the BLM failed to initiate consultation with the Tribe in a timely fashion. Cortez proposed the Amendment to the BLM in July 2003. The BLM waited a full year to contact the Tribe, notifying the Tribe about the proposed Amendment in a July 28, 2004, letter after it had contacted all other consulting parties. The BLM sent this letter to the Tribe approximately one month before the BLM submitted the EA for the Amendment for public comment and three months before the BLM issued its first DR/FONSI. The BLM also left at least two phone messages with the Tribe in September. Although consultation about the Amendment between the BLM State Director and the Tribe eventually took place, the consultation occurred after the BLM issued its DR/FONSI. The BLM and Cortez argue that, in light of the BLM's previous consultation with the Tribe for the original HC/CUEP and other projects in the area, the BLM provided the Tribe with a sufficient opportunity to identify its concerns about historic properties as provided by 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(c)(2)(ii)(A). We agree. Notably, this case has a somewhat unique historic background, because the BLM began consulting with the Tribe while working on the original HC/ CUEP and other projects. Indeed, as a result of one of the ethnographic studies that was a part of this earlier process, Mount Tenabo/White Cliffs and Horse Canyon were designated as National Register eligible PCRIs. We also note that the Amendment did not propose to enlarge the project area in which exploration would take place; rather, it increased the amount of land that could be disturbed within the project area. Plaintiffs acknowledge these past efforts by explicitly stating that they do not challenge the BLM's previous efforts to identify historical, cultural, or religious sites within the project area. As emphasized by Plaintiffs, [t]he issue is whether BLM properly conducted government-to-government consultation on this Project. . . . Here, Plaintiffs do not identify any new information that the Tribe would have brought to the attention of the BLM had it been consulted earlier in the approval process for the Amendment. Significantly, they concede that the BLM's research and investigation of culturally important sites was adequate for the original HC/CUEP EA. They thus fail to show or even argue that early consultation would have prevented any adverse effect on any yet-to-be identified National Register eligible PCRI. Additionally, Plaintiffs do not identify any new information regarding how the additional exploration would adversely affect the identified PCRIs, again failing to demonstrate how early consultation with the Tribe might have affected the BLM's determination. Moreover, the fundamental purpose of the NHPA is to ensure the preservation of historical resources. See 16 U.S.C. § 470a(d)(1)(A) (requiring the Secretary to promulgate regulations to assist Indian tribes in preserving their particular historic properties and to encourage coordination.. . in historic preservation planning and in the identification, evaluation, protection, and interpretation of historic properties); see also Nat'l Indian Youth Council v. Watt, 664 F.2d 220, 226 (10th Cir.1981) (The purpose of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), is the preservation of historic resources.). Early consultation with tribes is encouraged by the regulations to ensure that all types of historic properties and all public interests in such properties are given due consideration... . 16 U.S.C. § 470a(d)(1)(A); cf. Pit River Tribe, 469 F.3d at 785-86 (holding that dilatory environmental review is insufficient to comply with NEPA because inflexibility may occur if delay in preparing an EIS is allowed: After major investment of both time and money, it is likely that more environmental harm will be tolerated. (quoting Save the Yaak Comm. v. Block, 840 F.2d 714, 718 (9th Cir.1988) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted))). While the Plaintiffs are correct that the NHPA's implementing regulations recognize the government-to-government relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, they do so to ensure that consultation be conducted in a manner sensitive to the concerns and needs of the Indian tribe. . . . 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(c)(2)(ii)(C). In sum and as reflected in the record, the BLM has consulted with the Tribe regarding PCRIs within the project area for many years. In addition, the Tribe has made no showing that it would have provided new information had it been consulted again earlier in the Amendment's approval process. We therefore conclude that the BLM did not violate its obligation to consult with the Tribe and thus did not violate the NHPA. 36 C.F.R. § 800.1; see also Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, 177 F.3d at 806-07; Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. FAA, 161 F.3d 569, 582 (9th Cir. 1998); cf. Pit River Tribe, 469 F.3d at 785-86. [20]