From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. United States Forest Service
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
177 F.3d 800 (1999)
The United States Forest Service (USFS) (defendant) and the Weyerhaeuser Company (Weyerhaeuser) entered into the Huckleberry Mountain Exchange (exchange), a land exchange authorized by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1716. The USFS traded old-growth forest lands (forest lands) containing the ancestral grounds of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (tribe) (plaintiff) for land owned by Weyerhaeuser. The forest land included the Huckleberry Divide Trail (trail), a 17.5-mile historic transportation route. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 470-w, and a federal regulation, 36 C.F.R. § 800.5(a), required federal agencies to assess the effects of proposed undertakings on historic property. An additional regulation, 36 C.F.R. § 800.93(c)(3), authorized the use of restrictions or conditions as mitigation measures if they ensured the preservation of a property’s significant historic features. To mitigate the effects of the exchange, the USFS proposed to map and photograph the trail. The USFS rejected easements or covenants as impractical mitigation measures, because those measures required the monitoring of Weyerhaeuser’s land practices. The USFS also rejected the inclusion of conditions to prevent logging and other harmful activities. Although NHPA regulations required the USFS to consult with tribal leaders and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to identify cultural resources, the USFS denied the tribe’s request to study additional historic sites in the forest area. The USFS justified its denial on the basis that the USFS had already conducted research in the area and that the tribe had refused to disclose information about the additional sites. The tribe sued the USFS for violating the NHPA, claiming that (1) the USFS failed to adequately consult with the tribe regarding the identification of historic sites, (2) the USFS’s mitigation measures were inadequate, and (3) the USFS failed to nominate sites to the National Register of Historic Places (register). The district court denied the tribe’s claims, and the tribe appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 219,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.