Opinion ID: 764212
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Effects of the Exchange

Text: 31 The Tribe also claims that the Forest Service's attempt to mitigate the adverse effect of transferring a portion of the Divide Trail, an important tribal ancestral transportation route, was inadequate. We agree. 32 When an agency determines that a property is eligible for listing, it must assess the effects of any proposed undertaking on the eligible property, 36 C.F.R. § 800.4(e), giving consideration to the views ... of interested persons. 36 C.F.R. § 800.5(a). Interested persons include tribes. 36 C.F.R. § 800.1(c)(2). 33 An undertaking has an effect when the undertaking may alter characteristics of the property that may qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register ... [including] alteration to features of a property's location, setting, or use.... 36 C.F.R. § 800.9(a). An effect is adverse when it may diminish the integrity of the property's location, ... setting ..., feeling, or association. 36 C.F.R. § 800.9(b). Examples of adverse effects include physical destruction, the introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the property or alter its setting, and transferring the property. Id. 34 In 1995, the Forest Service re-evaluated the eligibility of the Divide Trail for listing. The Divide Trail is a 17.5 mile historic aboriginal transportation route. The Forest Service found that portions of the trail possessed adequate integrity of location, setting and feeling to satisfy the eligibility criteria of 36 C.F.R. § 60.4. In the proposed Exchange, a portion of the intact trail would be transferred to Weyerhaeuser, where it would likely be logged and rendered ineligible for listing. Transfer and destruction of historic property are adverse effects. See 36 C.F.R. § 800.9(b). 35 The regulations offer three options to mitigate an otherwise adverse effect so that it is considered as being not adverse, two of which are implicated here. 36 C.F.R. § 800.9(c). First, an agency may conduct appropriate research [w]hen the historic property is of value only for its potential contribution to archeological, historical, or architectural research, and when such value can be substantially preserved through the conduct of appropriate research.... 36 C.F.R. § 800.9(c)(1) (emphasis added). Second, an adverse effect becomes not adverse when the undertaking is limited to the transfer, lease, or sale of a historic property, and adequate restrictions or conditions are included to ensure preservation of the property's significant historic features. 36 C.F.R. § 800.9(c)(3) (emphasis added). The Tribe insists that the Forest Service elected the wrong remedy. We agree. 36 To mitigate the adverse effect of the Exchange, the Forest Service proposed to map the trail using a global positioning system and to photograph significant features along the trail. It rejected an easement or covenant because it concluded that it was too expensive and impractical to monitor Weyerhaeuser's land practices, and because only 25 percent of the eligible miles of trail would be transferred out of federal ownership. It also rejected the imposition of conditions to prevent logging and other degradation. Although the Forest Service purports to have acted under (c)(3), photographing and mapping the trail are not adequate restrictions or conditions that ensure preservation of the property's significant historic features. See 36 C.F.R. § 800.9(c)(3). 5 The parties agree that the trail is likely to be logged if it is transferred. The Forest Service has already concluded that previously logged and obliterated portions of the trail are ineligible for listing. 37 The district court determined erroneously that the Forest Service had proceeded under (c)(1) and concluded that the agency acted properly because any adverse effect may be negated if the historical and archeological value of the property can be preserved by conducting research on the site. The Forest Service did not, and could not, proceed under (c)(1). Under 36 C.F.R. § 800.9(c)(1), research is appropriate mitigation where the historic property is of value only for its potential contribution to archeological, historical, or architectural research. The Muckleshoots value the Divide Trail for more than its potential contribution to ... research. 38 The Forest Service insists that it acted properly, because the SHPO concurred in its proposal to document the trail, provided that it document the entire intact portion, regardless of ownership, and maintain the portions of the trail not being transferred. These conditions do not preserve the trail's significant historic features. Moreover, in 1994, when SHPO first suggested that the Divide Trail probably was eligible for listing, it concluded that 39 [i]n view of the unusual nature and remote location of the trail, documentation is probably not an effective mitigative measure. Rather, [SHPO] suggests execution of an easement or covenant attached to the transferring instrument. This easement would provide for the ongoing preservation of the Divide Trail and its setting after the land has been transferred. 40 While we do not decide whether the Forest Service's reasons for rejecting deed restrictions were valid, we note that it could have removed the trail from the Exchange as it did with Mule Springs. We conclude that documenting the trail did not satisfy the Forest Service's obligations to minimize the adverse effect of transferring the intact portions of the trail.