WPC 8MLr_˖< ,\1FWn̤W T8,8?"``G!Dkt\DݐK3L$(>6'g%Ohx09eUgXN+sgEO˘Yw<ge%r$cC-P150F-铘WАW(z>}4R%{Oh2Gw]SZ1X={ XHa";9 ԰Qv v6Lw;d2".S1m1" {>WYZ`"[ K;E^?BJ^T3YؖOw俤"A V' D k#U N % 0: UN) UBw U> UF ^ = wI 4M a p mr b N 0 U 8y U 0 0D b% - 1c4444EfaC BHP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0(A Z6Times New Roman Regular($USUS.,(A Z6Times New Roman Regular<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi\( 9Z+&Courier RegularQ 9Z+.Courier New Regularl.s .?,}backup3|xU- -(wG2HI$ !USUS.,    =dd=  m  0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <\( 9Z+Courier (#$  0  - -  HI$USUS.,  =wdd=    1    _=wdd= ` XXXXXXAnaffidavitwasattachedtothecomplaint,butit  containedavaguereportbasedonlyoninadmissiblehearsay,and  neitherthe_affiant_Ԁnorthealleged_declarant_Ԁtestifiedatthe \ hearing.   HI$USUS.,  =wdd=    2    _=wdd= ` XXPresumably,BrownwastheeyewitnessHarrisspokeofat  theonsitemeetinginOctober2002,buttherecorddoesnotmake  thisclear.      HI$USUS.,  =wdd=    4    _=wdd= ` XXBoththepartiesandthedistrictcourtassumedthatthe  _NHPA_ԀgivestheTribeaprivaterightofactioninthiscase.  BecausethisisastatutoryquestionratherthanoneofArticleIII \ jurisdiction,wemaybypassitwherethecasecanotherwisebe 2 resolvedindefendant'sfavor.SeeRestorationPres.Masonry,Inc. X v.GroveEuropeLtd.,325F.3d54,5960(1stCir.2003).Wedoso . here. ' HI$USUS.,  =wdd=    6    _=wdd= ` XXXXXXIronically,theTribeitselfhadhiredPAL"quiteoften"  inthepasttohelpwitharchaeologicalprojects. Thereisno  questionaboutPAL'scompetenceinthefield.  !9 ' Turner0Turner .    Y HI$USUS.,  =wdd=    3    _=wdd= ` XXAttherequestofthecourt,thepartieshavesince  reportedthattheyintendtomeetagainto"engageingoodfaith  effortstoconsult,"butthattheyhavenotresolvedthecase. #XXXX#TABLE A 9 HI$USUS.,  =wdd=    5    _=wdd= ` XXXXXXThe"agencyofficial"inthiscaseistheheadofthe  Authority,whohasbeendelegatedresponsibilitiesunder106.  See36_C.F.R._Ԁ800.16(k). d !USUS.,  _ew  *,X` XX*TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !w     8XXdd8=XXdd=UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals#w?#lw  FortheFirstCircuit #llK#;l#;/#XX  mAj!) ` dE ` A   #X& XXX#XX XX&No.022672 K  @ _NARRAGANSETT_ԀINDIANTRIBE,  G  @ Plaintiff,Appellant,   @NN)v. O  @&&WARWICKSEWERAUTHORITY, K  @ Defendant,Appellee.  Aj!) ` dER` A S   APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT 8 FORTHEDISTRICTOFRHODEISLAND ^ @[Hon.RonaldR._Lagueux_,SeniorU.S.DistrictJudge]   Aj!) ` dEe` A f @^^'Before K   Lynch,Lipez,andHoward,CircuitJudges. G  Aj!) ` dEx` A y!    ` DouglasJ._Luckerman_,withwhomJohnF._Killoy_,Jr.was ^ # onbriefforappellant.#X& XXX#XX XX&#XX#XX 4!$  ` IanC._Ridlon_,withwhomJeffreyS.BrennerandNixon "0& Peabody_LLP_wereonbriefforappellee. #' *"j#ddd Xdd Xdd Xe(#e(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  8&!*8&!  SI&!+ u@37804u@SJuly3,2003 r'"-  RHCH(#." u@37804 u@ R(&!/  (* !#X& XXX ##w XX& #  $*t%0? _wXX  8XXdXXd8Oa=XXdXXd= ` LYNCH,CircuitJudge .The_Narragansett_ԀIndianTribe  appealsfromthedistrictcourt'sdenialofapreliminaryinjunction x againsttheWarwickSewerAuthority.TheTribeclaimsthatthe $t Authorityisproceedingwithasewerconstructionprojectwhich   risksdesecrationofancestralburialsites.TheTribearguesthat |  theAuthorityfailedtoconsultadequatelywiththeTribeaboutthe ( x  project,asrequiredby106oftheNationalHistoricPreservation $  Act(_NHPA_),16U.S.C.470f(2000),anditsattendantregulations,   36_C.F.R._ԀPt.800(2002). ,|   ` Thedistrictcourtdeniedthepreliminaryinjunction.We ( affirm,becausewefindthattheTribefallsfarshortofthe  standardsforapreliminaryinjunction.Indeed,itappearsthatthe 0 Authorityhasactedresponsiblytocomplywiththe_NHPA_Ԁandtoavoid , anyadverseimpactonimportantculturalartifacts.    I. 4  ` Thedistrictcourtheldanevidentiaryhearingonthe 0 preliminaryinjunctionmotiononNovember15,2002. Thefollowing   factsaredrawnprincipallyfromevidencepresentedthere. 8!"  ` TheAuthorityhasundertakenaconstructionprojectto "4$ linktheeasternportionofWarwick,RhodeIsland,tothecity's $& existingsewersystem,requiringsome2.5milesofsewerline. The <&!( partiesagreethattheentireprojectmustcomplywith106ofthe '8#* _NHPA_Ԁasaconditionoffederalfundingitreceives. Section106and )$, itsimplementingregulations,discussedingreaterdetailbelow, @+&. requiresponsorsoffederallyfundedundertakingstoconsidertheir  impactonhistoricallyorarchaeologicallyimportantareas.The \ regulationsalsorequireconsultationwithastatedesignated X historicpreservationofficerand,insomecircumstances,with   affectedIndiantribes.Inearly2000,theAuthorityretained `  PublicArchaeologyLaboratory,Inc.(PAL),anonprofitconsulting  \  groupfoundedbyfivearchaeologistsformerlyassociatedwithBrown   University,toassistinensuringthesewerproject'scompliance d  withthesemandates.  `   ` Alan_Leveillee_,aregisteredprofessionalarchaeologist   andcofounderofPAL, conductedaninitialassessmentsurveyofthe h project. _Leveillee_Ԁcompletedapreliminaryreportbasedonthis d investigation.Hedeterminedthatmostoftheproposedsewerlines  wouldrununderexistingroadsinhighlydevelopedsuburbanareas, l sothatexcavationwasunlikelytoencounteranyremaining h archaeologicalmaterialofsignificancethathadnotalreadybeen  disturbed. Forthesesectionsoftheproject,thereportconcluded p  thatitwouldbesufficienttohavearchaeologiststrain !l" constructionsupervisors,conductperiodicfieldchecks,andremain "$ oncallincaseunexpectedmaterialsofpotentialhistoricalvalue t$& wereencountered.   &p!(  ` However,thereportnotedthatseveralsegmentsofthe '#* projecthadpotentiallygreaterarchaeologicalsensitivity.Of x)$, particularrelevancetothislitigation,_Leveillee_Ԁidentifieda $+t&. stretchofapproximately1,350feetneartheintersectionofWest  ShoreRoadandSandyLane,adjacenttoBuckeyeBrook. Inthisarea, \ theproposedsewerrouteranthrougharelativelyundisturbed X wetlandsarearatherthanunderanexistingroadway. Becauseof   thisdifference,andthefactthatIndianartifactsareoftenfound `  alongwatercoursescloseto_Narragansett_ԀBay,suchasBuckeyeBrook,  \  thereportrecommendedthatarchaeologistsstayonsitetomonitor   allconstructioninthisarea.  d   ` OnJanuary10,2001,_Leveillee_Ԁmailedcopiesofthe `  preliminaryreportbothtoRhodeIsland'sstatehistoric   preservationofficer(knownunder106asthe"_SHPO_")andtothe h Tribe'shistoricpreservationofficer(the"_THPO_"). Hiscover d lettersstated:"Pleaseprovideanycommentsorconcernsyoumay  have.Ifyourequireadditionalinformation,pleasedonothesitate l tocallmeatyourconvenience." TheTribeneverrespondedtothis h letter. Incontrast,the_SHPO_Ԁwrotebackto_Leveillee_ԀonJanuary  19,andsentcopiesofitsresponsetothe_THPO_,theAuthority,and p  theproject'schiefcontractors. The_SHPO_Ԁconcurredinmostof !l" _Leveillee_'sconclusionsandproposals,butrecommendedthatshovel "$ testpitsshouldbeexcavatedintwoofthemoresensitiveareas, t$& includingtheonenearBuckeyeBrook,to"determinethepresenceor  &p!( absenceofculturalmaterial."  '#*   ` PALcompliedwiththe_SHPO_'ssuggestioninthenextphase x)$, ofitsinquiries,excavatingnineteentestpitsintheBuckeyeBrook $+t&. area. SouthofBuckeyeBrook,this"intensivearchaeological  survey"foundremainsofanagriculturalhomesteadthathadbeen \ inhabitedintheeighteenthandnineteenthcenturies.PALreported X that"NativeAmericanculturalmaterials...wererecoveredinlow   densities...andrepresentincidentalincursions," indicating `  only"limitedoccupation"oftheareabyNativeAmericans. Thetest  \  excavationsuncovered225bonefragments;thesewereanalyzedinthe   labandallwerefoundtobeanimalbones,mostlikelyfromthe d  homestead'sfoodwastes. _Leveillee_ԀandotherPALarchaeologists `  preparedadetailedtechnicalreportelaboratingonthesefindings.    _Leveillee_Ԁtestifiedthatfurtherinvestigationwouldberequiredto h determinethearchaeologicalsignificanceofthehomestead. The d reportrecommendedinsteadthatthesewershouldbereroutedto  avoidthehomesteadsiteentirely.  l  ` Thetechnicalreportwasagainsenttoboththe_SHPO_Ԁand h the_THPO_ԀinMarch2002.The_SHPO_Ԁconcurredinthereport's  recommendations.TheTribeagaindidnotrespond. Basedonthe p  suggestionmadebyPALandthe_SHPO_,theAuthorityalteredthesewer !l" routeinApril2002toavoidtheundisturbedareasouthofBuckeye "$ Brookwherethehomesteadsitelies. Thenewundergroundrouteruns t$& southdownWestShoreRoad(whichisalsostatehighwayRoute117),  &p!( ratherthanalongsideit,andthenturnsattheintersectionto '#*  proceedwestdownSandyLane. WestShoreRoadwasoriginallybuilt x)$, intheearlytwentiethcenturyandtherehasbeenfurther  constructiononitseveraltimessince.  \   ` AlthoughtheTribedidnotcommentoneitherofPAL's X reports,testimonyatthehearingbyboth_Leveillee_ԀandtheTribe's   deputy_THPO_,DouglasHarris, indicatedthattheTribedidhave `  contactwiththeAuthorityandPALaboutthesewerprojectinboth  \  2001and2002. AccordingtoHarris,thisincludedameetingwith   theexecutivedirectoroftheAuthorityearlyintheconsultation d  process,anddailycellphonecommunicationwithPALduringthetest `  excavationssouthofBuckeyeBrook.     ` AttheconstructionsiteonOctober18,2002,_Leveillee_ h metwithrepresentativesofthe_THPO_,theAuthority,andtheArmy d CorpsofEngineerstodiscussthenonarchaeologicaltopicoffish  runsinthebrook. AfterdiscussingtheTribe'sconcerns,Harris l suggestedthattheremightbe_Narragansett_ԀIndianburialsinthe h areasouthofthebrook. ThiswasthefirsttimetheTribeever  mentionedsuchaprospect.Harrissaidthathehadbeentoldbyan p  eyewitnessthathumanremainshadbeenexposedduringprevious !l" constructionnearthere,butwereimmediatelycoveredbackup. "$ _Leveillee_ԀaskedforthenameofHarris'informant,butHarris t$& declinedtoprovideit. Harrisalsoshowed_Leveillee_Ԁamoundof  &p!( dirtwithshellandglassfragments; Harristestifiedatthehearing '#* thatthemound"couldbeconsistentwithaburial." Themoundwas x)$, locatedwherethehomesteadlies, soitssurroundingshadalready $+t&. beeninvestigatedextensivelyandthesewerroutewasalready  changedtoavoidthearea.  \  ` TheonlyotherevidencetheTribepresentedinthecase X aboutburialsnearWestShoreRoadwasthetestimonyofMaxBrown,   a77yearoldTribememberandretiredconstructionworker._ #  1      _ Brown `  saidhehadonceworkedonaprojectwhereacoworkeruncovered  \  bonesthat"lookedlikeanarmandalegor[a]handanda_leg";_Ԁhe   didnotapproachortouchthemandheleftwithoutfindingoutwhat d  theboneswereorwhathiscoworkerdidwiththem. Whenaskedto `  identifythetimeofthisincident,Brownstatedthatit"musthave   beenthefifties,Iguess."Astolocation,hestated,"Well,I h livedownaroundthere.I'veworkedsomanyplacestheyalllook d thesame.Ican'trememberjustwhichoneiswhich,butIdid  yeah,inthemdaysIhaddugupthesebones." Eventually,guided l byquestioningfromtheTribe'scounsel,BrownmarkedamapofEast h Warwickwithan"X"neartheintersectionofWestShoreRoadand  SandyLane. Harrisalsotestifiedthathehadspokentovarious p  otherTribemembersaboutthehistoryofthesite,althoughthere !l" wasnoevidenceaboutwhattheytoldhim. #  2       "$  ` Despitethedearthofspecificinformationprovidedby  theTribe,_Leveillee_Ԁpromptlynotifiedthe_SHPO_ԀandtheAuthority \ ofthesenewcontentionsinaletteronOctober28,2002. Inlight X ofthenewinformation,herecommendedthatarchaeologistsshould   beonsitetomonitorallconstructionactivityalongWestShore `  RoadnearBuckeyeBrookandSandyLane,ratherthanmerelybeingon  \  callaswasthecaseelsewhereintheproject. The_SHPO_Ԁagreedwith   thisrecommendationandwrotealettertotheAuthoritythenextday d  sostating.Sincethen,constructionintheareahasbeenmonitored `  byonsitePALarchaeologists. Inaddition,thereisaprotocolin   placefortheentireproject,writtenby_Leveillee_,whichdictates h howsupervisorsaretodealwithunanticipateddiscoveriesofhuman d remainsorothersignificantmaterials.    ` Theletterfromthe_SHPO_Ԁalsostatedthat"monitoring l shouldbeconductedinconsultationwiththe[_THPO_]asrequiredby h theNationalHistoricPreservationAct." TheAuthorityandthe  Tribeheldsomediscussions,includingameetingonNovember7, p  2002,buttheywereunabletoreachanyagreement.TheTribe's !l" requestsweremadeexplicit.TheTribewantedtheAuthoritytohire "$ HarrisandperhapsotherTribememberstomonitorconstruction. The t$& TribehasastandingagreementwiththeRhodeIslandDepartmentof  &p!( Transportationunderwhich_THPO_Ԁrepresentativesarepaidupto$25 '#* anhourtoserveasarchaeologicalmonitors,andapparentlysought x)$, asimilararrangementwiththeAuthority. TheAuthorityindicated $+t&. Oa     _itswillingnesstohavemonitorsfromtheTribeinadditiontothe  PALarchaeologists,butrefusedtopaythemandwanted \ indemnificationforanyinjuriesamonitormightsufferwhileatthe X constructionsite.     ` Themeetingendedacrimoniously,andthesamedaythe `  Tribefiledacomplaintindistrictcourtseekingdeclaratoryand  \  injunctiverelief. ThecomplaintreliedonbothRhodeIslandlaw   andtheNHPA,butonlythedenialofpreliminaryinjunctiverelief d  undertheNHPAisappealed. AstheTribe'scounselexplainedatthe `  districtcourthearingandatoralargumentbeforethiscourt,the   injunctivereliefsoughtis:(1)arequirementthattheAuthority h consultwiththeTribepursuantto106;(2)arequirementthatthe d Authorityuseabucketwithaflatbladeratherthanteethfor  digging;and(3)arequirementthattheAuthorityallowmembersof l theTribetoserveasmonitorsattheconstructionsite,andpay h thesemonitorsfortheirservices.    ` Thedistrictcourtenteredatemporaryrestrainingorder p  onNovember14,2002,underwhichtheTribewaspermittedtomonitor !l" theprojectwithoutpay,provideditindemnifiedtheAuthority. The "$ preliminaryinjunctionhearingwasthenextday,aFriday.On t$& Monday,November18,2002,thedistrictcourtdeniedthepreliminary  &p!( injunctionandvacatedthetemporaryrestrainingorder. TheTribe '#* broughtthisinterlocutoryappeal.See28U.S.C.1292(a)(1) x)$, (allowinginterlocutoryappealwheninjunctionsaredenied).We $+t&. wereinformedbycounselatoralargumentthatconstructionis  continuingtoproceeddownWestShoreRoad. #  3       \   II. X S ` TheTribehastheburdentoshowthatapreliminary   injunctionshouldhavebeengrantedunderthefamiliarfourpart `  test,whichconsidersthelikelihoodofsuccessonthemerits,the  \  potentialforirreparableinjury,thebalanceofequitiesforand   againstaninjunction,andtheeffectonthepublicinterest.See d  Bercovitchv.BaldwinSch.,133F.3d141,151(1stCir.1998); `  NarragansettIndianTribev.Guilbert,934F.2d4,5(1stCir.   1991).Onappeal,thiscourtaffords"considerabledeference"to h the"judgmentcalls"thedistrictcourtmadeinapplyingthistest, d whilereviewingpureissuesoflawdenovoandfactualfindingsfor  clearerror.Langloisv.AbingtonHous.Auth.,207F.3d43,47(1st l Cir.2000);seeBercovitch,133F.3dat151. h  ` Section106providesthatplannersofafederally  supportedprojectmust"takeintoaccount"itseffectonanyarea p  eligibleforinclusionintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces. !l" 16U.S.C.470f;seeid.470a(a)(NationalRegisterguidelines). "$  Inaddition,theNHPAprovidesthatplanners"shallconsultwithany t$& Indiantribe...thatattachesreligiousandculturalimportance"  toaneligibleaffectedarea.Id.470a(d)(6)(B). #  4       \   ` Congressoftenimposesaconsultationrequirementin X statutessuchastheNHPA,particularlywheninteractionwithtribes   isinvolved.SeeD.C.Haskew,FederalConsultationwithIndian `  Tribes,24Am.IndianL.Rev.21,21n.3(collectingstatutesand  \  regulationsrequiringconsultationwithtribes).Thebareword   "consult"standingalone,undefined,canleadtodifferingviewsand d  toconflictingjudicialinterpretations.See,e.g.,Campanale& `  Sons,Inc.v.Evans,311F.3d109,11719(1stCir.2002);id.at   12425(Lynch,J.,dissenting);Haskew,supra,at4155(collecting h andanalyzingconflictingcasesinterpretingconsultation d requirements).   ` Fortunately,theNHPAexplicitlydelegatesauthorityto l theAdvisoryCouncilonHistoricPreservation(the"Council")to h promulgateregulationsinterpretingandimplementing106.16  U.S.C.470s.TheCouncilhasissueddetailedregulationstogive p  substanceto106'sconsultationrequirements.36C.F.R.pt.800; !l" see65Fed.Reg.77698(Dec.12,2000)(revisingregulations).This "$ "complexconsultativeprocess"includesspecifiedstepsand_time t$& limits.SaveOurHeritage,Inc.v.Fed.AviationAdmin.,269F.3d  49,62(1stCir.2001).Ofcourse,wedefertoanauthorized \ administrativeagency'sreasonableelaborationofanambiguous X statutorytermsuchas"consultation."ChevronU.S.A.,Inc.v.   NaturalRes.Def.Council,467U.S.837,84244(1984). `   ` Section106ischaracterizedaptlyasarequirementthat  \  agency_decisionmakers_Ԁ"stop,look,andlisten,"butnotthatthey   reachparticularoutcomes._Muckleshoot_ԀIndianTribev.U.S.Forest d  Serv.,177F.3d800,805(9thCir.1999)(percuriam);see_Nat'l_ `  Mining_Ass'n_v.Fowler,324F.3d752,755(D.C.Cir.2003)   (requirementsimposedby106areprocedural,notsubstantive);cf. h ConservationLawFound.v._Busey_,79F.3d1250,1271(1stCir.1996) d (characterizingNationalEnvironmentalPolicyActinsimilarterms).  UndertheCouncil'sregulations,theagencyofficialisresponsible l forinitiatingconsultationwithtribes.36_C.F.R._Ԁ800.3(c).$ #  5      ׀A h tribemaybecomeaconsultingpartywhenitconsidersasitethat  mightbeaffectedbytheundertakingtohavereligiousorcultural p  significance.Id.800.2(c)(2)(ii).Suchaconsultingtribeis !l" thenentitledto: "$ 0 ` areasonableopportunitytoidentifyitsconcernsabout t$& historicproperties,adviseontheidentificationand J% ' evaluationofhistoricproperties,includingthoseof  &p!( traditionalreligiousandculturalimportance,articulate &F") itsviewsontheundertaking'seffectsonsuch '#* properties,andparticipateintheresolutionofadverse  effects.h` (#` (# Id.800.2(c)(2)(ii)(A).Eachofthesestagesofconsultation 2 initiatingtheprocess,advisingonidentificationofproperties, . expressingviewsonassessingtheundertaking'seffectsonthem,and   participatinginresolvingthoseeffectsisthenspelledoutin 6   greaterdetail.Seeid.800.3800.7.  2   ` TheAuthoritydutifullyinitiatedconsultation.In   January2001,theTribewasprovidedwithPAL'sdeterminationthat :  theprojectwouldnotaffectanysignificantartifactsorproperties 6 andwasinvitedtocommentonthatconclusion.Underthe  regulations,theTribe'sfailuretorespondwithinthirtydays > permittedtheAuthoritytoproceed.Seeid.800.4(d)(1).From : January2001toOctober2002,therewasnofurtherindicationthat  theprojecthadanyimpactonburialsorNativeAmericanartifacts. B TheTribewasnonethelesskeptinformedaboutongoinginvestigation, > bymeansoftheMarch2002technicalreportandothercommunication.  TheTribe'sowndeputy_THPO_ԀtestifiedthathespokedailywithPAL F ! duringitsfieldresearchintheBuckeyeBrookarea.Meanwhile,the !B# Authority,PAL,andthe_SHPO_Ԁworkedtogethertoidentifythe #% homesteadsiteandreroutetheprojecttoavoidaffectingit. J% '  ` TheregulationsallowtheTribetotakearoleinthe &F") consultationprocesslater,butnottoturnbacktheclock."Ifthe (#+ _SHPO_/_THPO_ԀreenterstheSection106process,theagencyofficial N*%- shallcontinuetheconsultationwithoutbeingrequiredtoreconsider +J'/ previousfindingsordeterminations."Id.800.3(c)(4).Evenif  theTribevalidly"reentered"consultationbyraisingitsconcerns \ attheonsitemeeting,itcannotdemandareversaloftheprior X findingthattheroutedownWestShoreRoadwouldnotaffect   significantNativeAmericanarchaeologicalmaterial. `   ` TheevidencethattheremaybeburialsunderWestShore  \  Roadisgossamerthin.Cf._Guilbert_,934F.2dat8("[_T]here_Ԁwas   nocompellingreasontobelievethatartifactsofhistoric d  significanceexistedonthe...property.").Thecurrentroute `  avoidsthepossiblesitethatHarrispointedoutto_Leveillee_,so   thatleavesBrown'svagueanduncorroboratedtestimonyastheonly h indicationofaffectedburials.PAL'scomprehensiveanalysispoints d theotherway.Excavationalongtherouteofanexistingstate  highway,inthewakeofpreviousroadconstructionandutility l installation,isunlikelytouncoverpreviouslyundisturbed h archaeologicalmaterials. Nevertheless,theAuthorityrespondedto  theTribe'seleventhhourobjectionwithsensitivity.PALpromptly p  informedthe_SHPO_ԀoftheTribe'sinformation,andtheAuthority !l" initiatedtherecommendedonsitemonitoring.Moreover,theTribe "$ concedesthatconsultationhascontinuedsincethattime,andthat t$& thepartieshaveagreedtomeetagain.   &p!(  ` Wherenohistoricpropertyhasbeenidentified,theTribe '#* hasnobasisunderthe_NHPA_Ԁtodemandparticularactionsbythe x)$, Authority.See_Morongo_ԀBandofMissionIndiansv.Fed.Aviation $+t&. Admin.,161F.3d569,582(9thCir.1998)(tribalconcurrencenot  necessaryunder_NHPA_Ԁwherefindingofnopossibleeffectonhistoric \ propertiesisproperlymade);Native_Ams_.for_Enola_v.U.S.Forest X Serv.,832F.Supp.297,300(D.Or.1993),vacatedonother   grounds,60F.3d645(9thCir.1995)(regulationsdonotrequire `  consultationonsignificanceunder800.4(c)whennohistoric  \  propertiesarefoundunder800.4(b)).TheTribeisentitledto   "identifyitsconcerns,"to"advise,"to"articulate,"andto d  "participate."36_C.F.R._Ԁ800.2(c)(2)(ii)(A).Butconsultation `  isnotthesamethingascontroloveraproject.SeeSaveOur   Heritage,269F.3dat62("[_T]he_Ԁchoicewhethertoapprovethe h undertakingultimatelyremainswiththeagency.");seealsoDavis d v._Latschar_,202F.3d359,361(D.C.Cir.2000)(allowing  undertakingtoproceedbecausesubstanceofobjectionwasgivenfull l consideration). h  ` Becausenohistoricpropertyhasbeenidentified,the  _NHPA_Ԁprovidesnogroundsforaninjunctionregardingtheuseofa p  particulartypeofdiggingbladeorpaymentformonitoring !l" personnel.Fortheseaspectsofitsrequestedrelief,theTribehas "$ nopossibilityofanysuccessonthemerits(muchlessalikelihood t$& ofsuccess).Andbecausethereisnotribalveto,theTribesuffers  &p!( nocognizableinjurywhenitspreferredremedyisnotadopted(much '#* lesstherequiredirreparableinjury).Theonlyremaining x)$, injunctiverelieftheTriberequestsisanorderthatconsultation $+t&. occur.ButthefactsshowthattheAuthorityhasalreadyfulfilled  itsconsultationresponsibilitiesandcontinuestodoso.The \ Tribe'sargumentstothecontraryareunavailing. X  ` #X& XXX #XX XX&Initsappellatebrief,theTribesuggeststhatthereis   noevidencetoprovethatitactuallyreceivedtheinitialJanuary `  2001letterandreportthatinitiatedthe106process. However,  \  _Leveillee_Ԁtestifiedthatthedocumentsweremailedwithreturn   addressesandwereneverreturned.The_SHPO_Ԁcertainlyreceivedits d  copy. Thisgivesrisetoarebuttablepresumption,whichtheTribe `  doesnothingtorebut,thataproperlymaileddocumentwasreceived.   1_J.M._ԀMcLaughlin,Weinstein'sFederalEvidence301.06[5],at301 h 28.5(2ded.2003);cf.Univ.EmergencyMed.Found.v.Rapier_Invs_., d Ltd.,197F.3d18,21&n.6(1stCir.1999)(discussingcommonlaw  "mailboxrule").#X& XXX#XX XX& l  ` TheTribealsoimpliesthattheAuthorityacted h impermissiblybyhiringPALtocompletethearchaeological  assessments. Thereisnosupportforthiscontention,andwethink p  justtheoppositeistrue. #  6      ׀Theregulationsthemselvesexplicitly !l" contemplatetheuseofconsultantstoprovideanalysesforusein "$ the106process.36_C.F.R._Ԁ800.2(a)(3).Itiscompletelyclear t$& fromthematerialsprovidedtotheTribethatPALwasactingasthe  &p!( Authority'sagent.Byretainingexpertsandfollowingtheir '#* recommendations,theAuthoritydemonstrateditscommitmentto  historicpreservation.TheAuthorityretainslegalresponsibility \ forcompliancewiththe_NHPA_,id.,andnooneissuggesting X otherwisehere.    ` TheTribe'smostplausibleargumentonthemeritsrelies `  heavilyonPuebloofSandiav.UnitedStates,50F.3d856(10thCir.  \  1995),forthepropositionthat"amererequestforinformationis   notnecessarilysufficienttoconstitutethe'reasonableeffort' d  section106requires."Id.at860.Eventhougharequestfor `  informationisnotnecessarilysufficient,itmightbe,depending   onthecircumstances.Wewouldtakerealinadequaciesinthe h initialstepsofidentifyingpropertiesseriously,sincethey d influenceallthatfollowsinthe106process.See_Attakai_v.  UnitedStates,746F.Supp.1395,140506(D.Ariz.1990). l  ` Therearenosuchinadequacieshere.PuebloofSandiais h quitedifferentfromthiscase.First,theAuthorityextendedmore  thana"mererequestfor_information";_ԀitprovidedtheTribewith p  reportsonPAL'sfindings,engageditinothercontactaboutthe !l" project,andsoliciteditscomments.Second,thesurrounding "$ circumstancesinPuebloofSandialedthecourttoconcludethatthe t$& agencythere,theUnitedStatesForestService,hadnotengagedin  &p!( reasonableorgoodfaitheffortstodetermineifitsundertaking '#* wouldaffectculturalproperties.TheForestServicesentform x)$, letterstotribesaskingforverydetailedinformationinspecific $+t&. formatsbutprovidingnoinformationinreturn;thetribesresponded  withrelevantinformationindicatingthepresenceofcultural \ properties,whichtheForestServiceignored.50F.3dat86061. X TheForestServicealsowithheldsignificantinformationfromthe   _SHPO_Ԁthere.Id.at862.Incontrast,theAuthorityandPALtook `  theslimmestevidencefromtheTribeveryseriouslyandreportedit  \  tothe_SHPO_Ԁhererightaway.    ` Eveniftherewereanypossibilityonthemeritsthatthe d  Tribecoulddemonstrateflawsintheconsultationprocessan `  assumptionwhichweindulgeonlyforthesakeofargumentthe   factsdonotshowthatirreparableinjurywouldoccurwithouta h preliminaryinjunction.TherouteunderWestShoreRoadavoidsthe d potentiallysensitiveareasouthofBuckeyeBrookandproceeds  throughonewherethediscoveryofartifactsisunlikely.BothPAL l andthe_SHPO_'sprincipalarchaeologisttestifiedthatthetypeof h diggingbladeusedbytheAuthorityisappropriateunderthe  circumstances. PALarchaeologistsaremonitoringworkandwill p  continuetodoso,andaprotocolguidesstepstobetakeninthe 8!" eventthatsignificanthistoricmaterialscometolight. "4$  ` Insum,theTribehasfailedtocarryitsburdenintwo $& separaterespects,provingneitherlikelihoodofsuccessnor <&!( irreparableinjury. '8#*    )$, III.   ` TheAuthority,consciousofitsresponsibilityunderthe \ _NHPA_Ԁandstatelawtoproceedwithsensitivitytohistoric X preservationconcerns,soughtexpertadvicefromPALatthevery   outsetofthisproject.ItadoptedrecommendationsfromPALandthe `  _SHPO_Ԁateveryturn,includingthedecisiontorerouteconstruction  \  toavoidthehomesteadsite.ItkepttheTribeinformed.Whenthe   Triberaisedbelatedobjections,theyweretakenseriouslydespite d  thepaucityofevidencesupportingthem,andtheAuthorityagain `  adjusteditsplanstoaccommodatethem.Inshort,asthedistrict   courtconcluded,theAuthority'sexperts"dideverythingright,and h theycontinuetodoeverythingright"tocomplywithboththeletter d andthespiritof106.    ` Thedistrictcourt'sdenialofapreliminaryinjunction l is affirmed .CostsareawardedtotheAuthority.#X& XXXb##w XX& #