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

Heading: the national historic preservation act claims

Text: 12 The Muckleshoot Tribe is made up principally of descendants of tribes or bands that were parties to the Treaty of Point Elliott and the Treaty of Medicine Creek. The Tribe was organized pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934. See United States v. State of Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312, 366 (W.D.Wash.1974). The United States, acting by and through the Secretary of the Interior and his duly authorized delegatees, has consistently recognized the Muckleshoot Tribe as the political successor in interest to certain of the Indian tribes, bands and villages that were parties to the Treaty of Point Elliott or the Treaty of Medicine Creek. Id. 13 The Indian ancestors to the present Muckleshoot Tribe included people from villages on the Green and White Rivers that form part of the drainage for Huckleberry Mountain. The Tribe alleges that for thousands of years, the ancestors of present tribal members used Huckleberry Mountain for cultural, religious, and resource purposes--uses that continue to the present day. The Forest Service lands exchanged to Weyerhaeuser were part of the Tribe's ancestral grounds. 14 Section 10 of NHPA requires that, prior to any federal undertaking, the relevant federal agency take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ... a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertaking. 16 U.S.C. § 470f; see also Hoonah Indian Ass'n v. Morrison, 170 F.3d 1223, 1999 WL 156061  7 (9th Cir. March 24, 1999); 36 C.F.R. § 800. The Exchange was such an undertaking. 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(o). 15 We have held that Section 106 of NHPA is a stop, look, and listen provision that requires each federal agency to consider the effects of its programs. See Apache Survival Coalition v. United States, 21 F.3d 895, 906 (9th Cir.1994). Under NHPA, a federal agency must make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties, 36 C.F.R. § 800.4(b); determine whether identified properties are eligible for listing on the National Register based on criteria in 36 C.F.R. § 60.4; assess the effects of the undertaking on any eligible historic properties found, 36 C.F .R. §§ 800.4(c), 800.5, 800.9(a); determine whether the effect will be adverse, 36 C.F.R. §§ 800.5(c), 800.9(b); and avoid or mitigate any adverse effects, 36 C.F.R. §§ 800.8(e), 800.9(c). The Forest Service must confer with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and seek the approval of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council). 16 Additional NHPA provisions apply to Indian tribes. 17 (A) Properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe ... may be determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register. 18 (B) In carrying out its responsibilities under Section 106, a Federal Agency shall consult with any Indian Tribe ... that attaches religious and cultural significance to properties described in Subparagraph (A). 19 16 U.S.C. § 470a(d)(6). 20 The Tribe's claims under NHPA can be divided into three categories. The Tribe first contends that the Forest Service failed to consult adequately with it regarding the identification of traditional cultural properties. The Tribe also contends that the Forest Service inadequately mitigated the harmful impact of the exchange on sites of cultural significance. Finally, the Tribe argues that the Forest Service violated NHPA by failing to nominate certain sites to the National Register. We conclude that the Forest Service has not satisfied NHPA's mitigation requirements. 21
22 This Court has not yet had the opportunity to interpret the specific consultation requirements of NHPA. The regulations interpreting NHPA require that: 23 [T]he Agency official, the State Historic Preservation Officer and the [Advisory] Council [on Historic Preservation] should be sensitive to the special concerns of Indian tribes in historic preservation issues, which often extend beyond Indian lands to other historic properties. When an undertaking will affect Indian lands, the Agency Official shall invite the governing body of the responsible tribe to be a consulting party and to concur in any agreement.... When an undertaking may affect properties of historic value to an Indian tribe on non-Indian lands, the consulting parties shall afford such tribe the opportunity to participate as interested persons. Traditional cultural leaders and other Native Americans are considered to be interested person with respect to undertakings that may affect historic properties of significance to such persons. 24 36 C.F.R. § 800.1(c)(2)(iii). 25 Although we confront somewhat different issues, Pueblo of Sandia v. United States, 50 F.3d 856, 860 (10th Cir.1995) is instructive. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the agency's mailing of form letters soliciting information from knowledgeable parties, combined with an address to the All Indian Pueblo Council requesting the same detailed information solicited by the form letter did not satisfy section 470f. In Sandia, the Forest Service did not find any of the properties eligible for inclusion and withheld relevant information from the SHPO during the consultation process. Id. at 862. The court found that although none of the tribes provided the information specifically solicited by the letters and presentation, the statements of the Governor of the Sandia Pueblo, a religious leader, and a highly qualified anthropologist, all indicating that the land was sacred, and that the tribes were unlikely to reveal information on the use of these lands, were sufficient to require the agency to evaluate the property for inclusion in the National Register. Id. at 861. The court also determined that the agency had failed to perform the required good faith consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office, and reversed the district court order approving the federal action. Id. at 862. 26 In the case before us, the record shows that the Forest Service researched historic sites in the Exchange area and communicated several times after the commencement of the public comment period with Tribal officials regarding the identification and protection of cultural resources that might be affected by the Exchange. The Forest Service initially identified only Mule Springs as eligible for listing in the National Register, and concluded that any adverse effect may be negated through appropriately conducted data recovery. Two years later, after considering the concerns of the Tribe, the Forest Service excluded Mule Springs from the Exchange and retained the Forest Service access road in a cost-share status. Because this site was excluded from the Exchange, the district court correctly concluded that the Tribe suffered no injury. The Forest Service initially concluded that the Huckleberry Divide Trail (Divide Trail) was ineligible for listing. After the SHPO suggested otherwise, the Forest Service reconsidered and found it eligible for listing but nonetheless included it in the lands exchanged to Weyerhaeuser. We discuss the Divide Trail in more detail below. 27 The Tribe also contends that the Forest Service ignored its claims that numerous other places of historical importance were situated on the portions of Huckleberry Mountain proposed for exchange. The Tribe requested a study of its historical places and trails, but in response, the Forest Service, which had already carried out research in the area, simply requested the immediate disclosure of any information the Tribe possessed about those sites. The Tribe was unable, or unwilling, to provide information sufficient to persuade the Agency that it should reconsider its decisions. 28 The Forest Service's action is in tension with the recommendations of the National Register Bulletin 38: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (Bulletin 38). Bulletin 38 provides the recognized criteria for the Forest Service's identification and assessment of places of cultural significance. In Sandia, the Tenth Circuit's finding that the agency had violated NHPA rested in part upon its finding that the agency failed to adhere to that document. 50 F.3d at 861. The Tribe urges us to find a comparable violation in this case. 29 While the deviations from Bulletin 38 policies in this case are similar to those in Sandia, they appear not to be as egregious, and probably do not provide sufficient grounds to conclude that the Forest Service failed to comply with NHPA identification and consultation requirements. First, Bulletin 38 does not impose a mandatory procedure, but merely establishes guidelines. Contravention of those recommendations, standing alone, probably does not constitute a violation of NHPA. Second, in this case, unlike Sandia, the Forest Service continued to seek the requested information over a period of time, cf. Sandia, 50 F.3d at 861-62, and the Forest Service had previously conducted research of its own to identify relevant traditional cultural properties. 30 Unlike in Sandia, there is no evidence that the Forest Service withheld information from the SHPO pertaining to historic sites, or failed to engage in good faith negotiations with SHPO. Cf. Sandia, 50 F.3d at 862. The record shows that the Forest Service resisted the Tribe's requests for a formal study of cultural properties because it would impede the finalization of the Exchange. Given more time or a more thorough exploration, the Forest Service might have discovered more eligible sites. However, the record also shows that the Tribe had many opportunities to reveal more information to the Forest Service. Although the Forest Service could have been more sensitive to the needs of the Tribe, we are unable to conclude that the Forest Service failed to make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties. 4 Because we are reversing on other grounds, and because the record shows that the Forest Service's understanding and appreciation of the importance of the Huckleberry Mountain area to the Tribes grew over time, the Forest Service will have an opportunity to re-open its quest for and evaluation of historic sites on Huckleberry Mountain.
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.
41 Finally, the Tribe contends that the Forest Service violated the Preservation Act by failing to properly nominate the Divide Trail to the National Register. In light of our ruling, we need not address this issue. Upon remand, the Forest Service may wish to reconsider its treatment of the historic properties in the Exchange lands.