## Facts

- The U.S. Forest Service approved the “Huckleberry Mountain Exchange,” trading federal land on Huckleberry Mountain in Washington’s Mt. Baker–Snoqualmie National Forest to Weyerhaeuser for nonfederal lands.
- The federal parcels included old-growth forest, the 17.5-mile Huckleberry Divide Trail (a historic transportation route), and areas of religious and cultural importance to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.
- The Tribe historically used the area for religious and cultural practices and as a gathering area.
- The Forest Service prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the exchange.
- For historic-resource impacts, the Forest Service relied primarily on mitigation consisting of mapping and photographing the Huckleberry Divide Trail, and rejected deed restrictions, easements, covenants, or other binding conditions on post-exchange land uses as “impractical” due to monitoring concerns.
- The Tribe sought additional opportunities to survey the exchange area for cultural and historic sites; the Forest Service declined, citing prior research and the Tribe’s reluctance to disclose details about sensitive sites.
- The Tribe and other organizations sued, alleging violations of NEPA and NHPA; the district court granted summary judgment for the federal defendants and Weyerhaeuser.

## Issues

1. Whether the Forest Service’s EIS satisfied NEPA’s requirement to take a “hard look,” including adequate analysis of cumulative impacts and reasonable alternatives to the exchange.
2. Whether the Forest Service complied with NHPA § 106 and implementing regulations by making a reasonable, good-faith effort to identify historic and cultural resources, consulting affected tribes and the SHPO, and adopting adequate measures to avoid or mitigate adverse effects.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgment for defendants and remanded.
- The court held the Forest Service failed to comply with NEPA because the EIS inadequately analyzed cumulative impacts and did not evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives, including exchange terms using deed restrictions or similar conditions to protect historic resources.
- The court held the Forest Service failed to comply with NHPA § 106 because it did not conduct adequate consultation and identification efforts with the Tribe and adopted mitigation measures (documentation of the trail) that were insufficient in light of foreseeable adverse effects.
- The court enjoined further activities undertaken pursuant to the exchange agreement until the Forest Service satisfied its statutory obligations consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA requires an agency to take a “hard look” at environmental consequences, including analysis of cumulative impacts and consideration of reasonable alternatives.
- An alternatives analysis is deficient when an agency dismisses feasible protective measures (such as restrictions or conditions on transferred property) without meaningful evaluation.
- NHPA § 106 requires agencies to consult with affected tribes and the SHPO and to make a reasonable, good-faith effort to identify historic properties and assess effects before proceeding with an undertaking.
- Mitigation under NHPA must be adequate to address expected adverse effects; mere documentation of a historic property may be insufficient when physical damage or destruction is reasonably foreseeable.
- Agency compliance with NEPA and NHPA is reviewed under the APA’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard, with careful attention to required procedural steps.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit set aside approval of the Huckleberry Mountain land exchange and barred further exchange-related activity because the Forest Service’s NEPA review inadequately assessed cumulative impacts and alternatives, and its NHPA process failed to provide meaningful tribal consultation, reasonable identification efforts, and effective mitigation for threatened historic and cultural resources.


Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 177 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 1999)