Full opinion text
ORDER STRAND, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs, the Havasupai Tribe and individual members of the Tribe, seek judicial review of the final decision by the Chief of the Forest Service to approve a modified Plan of Operations (the “Plan”) submitted by co-defendant Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. in October 1984, for the Canyon Uranium Mine located in the Kaibab National Forest near the Grand Canyon National Park. Defendants in this action are: the United States of America, The Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; the Secretary of Agriculture; Chief of the Forest Service; the Regional Forester of the Southwest Region; the Forest Supervisor of the Kai-bab National Forest (collectively referred to as the “federal defendants”); Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. (“EFN”) and Energy Fuels Exploration Company, a corporation (collectively referred to as “Energy Fuels”). Plaintiffs challenge the Forest Service’s decision approving the Plan on four grounds. First, plaintiffs allege that the approval of the Plan by the Forest Service violates plaintiffs’ first amendment rights to freely exercise their religion at the Canyon Mine site. Second, plaintiffs assert that the actions of both the Forest Service and EFN violate the plaintiffs’ aboriginal right of access to the Canyon Mine site. Third, plaintiffs argue that the Forest Service breached its fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs by failing to preserve plaintiffs’ alleged right of access to the Canyon Mine site. Fourth, plaintiffs allege that the Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) is deficient and fails to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. (“NEPA”). Plaintiffs seek declaratory and permanent injunctive relief under the first three claims, and on their fourth claim, request that the court declare the EIS inadequate and order the Forest Service to prepare an EIS in compliance with NEPA. The matter before the court has been extensively briefed and argued by the parties. Having considered the Administrative Record, the memoranda of the parties and their positions at oral argument, the file in this matter, and the pertinent legal authority, the court now renders its decision. II. BACKGROUND In October 1984, Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. submitted to the United States Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest, a Plan of Operations for the Canyon Mine site, pursuant to Forest Service regulations, 36 C.F.R. § 228, Subpart A. EFN’s Plan proposed the development of a uranium mine on an unpatented mining claim located on the Tusayan Ranger District of the Kaibab National Forest in Coconino County, Arizona. The Canyon Mine site is located on land which was part of the original Grand Canyon Forest Reserve established in 1893 pursuant to the Forest Reservation Act of 1891. In 1908, the area was incorporated into the Coconino National Forest. Between 1908 and 1934, the area in dispute underwent numerous administrative name changes, however, the area officially became part of the Kaibab National Forest in 1934. The Canyon Mine site is approximately thirty-five miles southeast and upstream from the Havasupai Reservation. The Canyon Mine involves the underground mining of breccia pipe uranium deposits. The Canyon Mine site will require disturbance of approximately 17 acres for the mine shaft and surface facilities. EFN has conducted exploratory drilling on the site during the period between 1978-1985 (excluding 1979). See generally, V.4BD.215-P.4664; Id. at P.4652 (affidavits setting out history of development at the Canyon Mine site). The Havasupai are a federally recognized Indian Tribe who have made their home in and around the Grand Canyon located in Northern Arizona since before the first contact with Europeans. It is undisputed that plaintiffs’ aboriginal lands once encompassed the Canyon Mine site. Plaintiffs contend that the location proposed for the Canyon Mine is a sacred and religious place for the members of the Ha-vasupai Tribe. Plaintiffs believe that complete development of the Canyon Mine will deny plaintiffs’ access to their sacred site and destroy the very essence of their religious and cultural system. E.g., V.2BD.59-P.1827 (Transcript of Oral Presentation before the Deputy Regional Forester, May 14, 1987); V.3B-D.122-P.3137-3143 (Affidavit of Four Havasupai Tribe members); V.3D-D.176-P.3716-3825 (Transcript of Oral Presentation before the Chief of the Forest Service, February 25, 1987). Following submission of the Plan by EFN, the Forest Service distributed more than 100 copies of the Plan to interested parties. The Forest Service received over 200 letters in response to requests for written comment. Analysis of these comments and input from several public meetings made it clear there was substantial public concern and controversy about the proposal and its potential effects on the quality of the human environment. Consequently, the Forest Service, pursuant to NEPA, decided to prepare an EIS. The notice of the decision to prepare an EIS, which formally begins the scoping process, was published in the Federal Register on April 30, 1985. 50 Fed.Reg. 18281. Following the decision to prepare an EIS, the Forest Service distributed more than 2,000 scoping letters to federal, state, and local government agencies, Indian tribes, news media and other interested individuals in preparation for a public scoping session to be held in Flagstaff, Arizona, on May 15, 1985. As a result of the scoping process, the Forest Service identified the principal areas of concern to be addressed in the EIS. The Forest Service prepared a draft EIS considering various alternatives and released it to the public for comment on February 28, 1986. The deadline for public comment was May 1, 1986. The Forest Service released a final EIS, which was revised to reflect the comments received on the draft EIS, on September 29, 1986. On September 26, 1986, Forest Supervisor, Leonard Lindquist, issued his Record of Decision documenting the approval of the modified Plan of Operations. On November 10, 1986, following the issuance of the Record of Decision approving the modified Plan of Operations, plaintiffs and others filed a timely appeal from the Forest Supervisor’s decision with the Regional Forester, pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 211.18. Appellants also sought a stay of site preparation and drilling pending the appeal. On November 21, 1986, the Regional Forester, Sotero Muniz, stayed the drilling of the uranium mine pending appeal, but authorized commencement of the mine site preparation activities. On February 17, 1987, the Forest Supervisor filed his responsive statement with the Regional Forester and the public. On August 28, 1987, the Regional Forester affirmed the Forest Supervisor’s decision on the merits. On September 25, 1987, plaintiffs and others appealed from the Regional Forester’s decision to the Chief of the Forest Service, pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 211.18, and again sought a stay of drilling at the site. On October 22, 1987, the Chief of the Forest Service continued the stay that had been issued by the Regional Forester. On June 9,1988, the Chief of the Forest Service issued his decision affirming the Regional Forester’s decision of August 28, 1987. The Secretary of Agriculture decided neither to review the procedural appeal nor the appeal on the merits, so the Chief’s decisions became the agency’s final determination. Plaintiffs brought the instant suit seeking review of the agency’s final decision. Following a hearing on the plaintiffs’ application for preliminary injunction on June 17, 1988, the parties stipulated and the court ordered that the stay entered by the Forest Service would remain in effect until the court rules on the merits of the controversy and thereafter until time for appeal has expired. III. EXTINGUISHMENT OF ABORIGINAL TITLE Plaintiffs claim that they have a prior and superior right of access to their sacred site at the Canyon Mine site based on their aboriginal title which plaintiffs argue was preserved by the Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act, 16 U.S.C. § 228i (hereinafter the “GCEA”). Defendants assert that plaintiffs’ reliance on the GCEA is misplaced and that there is no doubt that by the time the GCEA became law in January 1975, all interest of the Havasupai Tribe in any of the non-trust lands comprising the Kaibab National Forest, including the Canyon Mine site had been extinguished. It is undisputed that plaintiff’s aboriginal title once encompassed the area of the Canyon Mine site. Aboriginal title is a term of art used to describe an Indian possessory interest in land which Indians have inhabited since time immemorial. County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 470 U.S. 226, 234, 105 S.Ct. 1245, 1251, 84 L.Ed.2d 169 (1985) (citing Cohen, Original Indian Title, 32 Minn.L.Rev. 28 (1947)). The Supreme Court has consistently recognized the aboriginal rights of the Indians to their lands. The Indians right of occupancy is “ ‘as sacred as the fee simple of the whites.’ ” Id. at 235, 105 S.Ct. at 1251 (quoting Mitchel v. United States, 9 Pet. 711, 746, 9 L.Ed. 283 (1835)). Aboriginal title is a permissive right of occupancy granted by the federal government. United States v. Gemmill, 535 F.2d 1145, 1147 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 982, 97 S.Ct. 496, 50 L.Ed.2d 591 (1976) (citing Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, 573-74, 5 L.Ed. 681 (1823) (Marshall, C.J.)). Aboriginal title may be extinguished by the federal government at any time, although an “extinguishment cannot be lightly implied in view of the avowed solicitude of the Federal Government for the welfare of its Indian wards.” Id. at 1147 (quoting United States v. Santa Fe P. R.R. Co., 314 U.S. 339, 354, 62 S.Ct. 248, 255, 86 L.Ed. 260 (1941)). Congress’s power to extinguish aboriginal possession is supreme, “whether it be done by treaty, by the sword, by purchase, by the exercise of complete dominion adverse to the right of occupancy, or otherwise....” United States v. Santa Fe Pacific R.R. Co., 314 U.S. at 347, 62 S.Ct. at 252 (citations omitted). Therefore, the issue is whether the Havasupai aboriginal title to the land, including the Canyon Mine site, has been extinguished. The treatment of the land is instructive to the issue of extinguishment. The original Havasupai reservation had been created by executive order in 1880. In 1882, the Havasupai reservation was diminished in size by executive order to an area of about 518 acres. The creation of an Indian Reservation, however, does not invariably extinguish aboriginal title to outlying areas. United States v. Santa Fe P. R.R., 314 U.S. 339, 351-56, 62 S.Ct. 248, 253-56, 86 L.Ed. 260 (1941); Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. United States, 494 F.2d 1386, 1389, cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1021, 95 S.Ct. 497, 42 L.Ed.2d 295 (1974). An action of extin-guishment by executive action depends on the acquiescence of Congress for its efficacy. United States v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 543 F.2d 676, 689 (1976). The Canyon Mine site is located on ground that was part of the original Grand Canyon Forest Reserve established by presidential proclamation in 1893 pursuant to the Forest Reservation Act of 1891. In 1908, the area was incorporated into the National Forest System as part of the Co-conino National Forest. The area officially became part of the Kaibab National Forest in 1934. Several courts have determined that the reservation of lands for forest purposes effectively extinguishes Indian title. United States v. Pueblo of San Ildefonso, 513 F.2d 1383, 1386, 1391-92, 206 Ct.Cl. 649 (1975); Gemmill, 535 F.2d at 1149. In Gemmill, the Ninth Circuit determined that “any ambiguity about extin-guishment that may have remained after the establishment of the forest reserves, has been decisively resolved by Congressional payment of compensation to the ... Indians for these lands.” Id. at 1149. In the instant case, the final judgment entered by the Indian Claims Commission and payment of the judgment by Congress resolves any doubt that aboriginal title of the Hava-supai Tribe was extinguished. In the Ha-vasupai’s petition to the Indian Claims Commission, the Havasupai asserted that the action of the United States barring the “... Tribe from its original territory after November 21, 1871, in establishing a Hava-supai Reservation and in excluding the ... Tribe from that portion of the Havasupai country outside the said Reservation therefore constituted a wrongful taking of all rights, title and interest in the said land belonging to the ... Tribe.” The Havasupai Tribe v. United States, Docket No. 91 (Jan. 22, 1951); Hearing exhibit # 13 at 1141. The Commission did not have the power to extinguish aboriginal title, but was a mechanism set up by Congress to make determinations of whether title had, in fact, been extinguished. The Commission determined that “by establishing a reservation for the [Havasupai] on June 8, 1880 and March 3, 1882, the United States wrongfully took [Havasupai] aboriginal title lands without payment of compensation therefor....” The Havasupai Tribe v. United States, 20 Ind.Cl.Comm. 210, 220 (1968); Hearing exhibit # 15. The determinations of the Commission in establishing the taking date should be given great weight if reasonable. Pueblo of San Ildefonso, 513 F.2d at 1391. In Gemmill, the Ninth Circuit recognized the difficulty of establishing the exact date on which Indian title has been extinguished. 535 F.2d at 1149. The Ninth Circuit’s conclusion, which is equally applicable to the instant case where counsel went through the various actions in detail, is that “[a]ny one of these actions examined in isolation, may not provide an unequivocal answer to the question of extinguishment.” Id. However, the actions by the federal government which culminated in the payment of the compromise settlement agreement show that the aboriginal title of the Havasupai has been extinguished. See id. Because of the payment of the compromise settlement by Congress, the court need not set an exact date for extinguishment of the Havasupai Tribes aboriginal title. The court simply recognizes that prior to the enactment of the GCEA, the Havasupai had no aboriginal title in the lands encompassing the Canyon Mine site. Plaintiffs rely on the Examiners’ Report on Tribal Claims to Released Railroad Lands in Northwestern Arizona, (May 24, 1942); Hearing exhibit # 4, for their proposition that Havasupai aboriginal title and the right of use had not been extinguished prior to enactment of the GCEA. The purpose of the examination was to determine whether and to what extent any of the lands released to the Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company were subject to outstanding occupancy or other rights. It is undisputed that the land under scrutiny in the Examiners’ Report did not concern the land which now comprises the Canyon Mine site. Plaintiffs contend that the analysis of their aboriginal title is applicable to the instant case. The examiners were of the opinion that no such extinguishment of aboriginal title had occurred. Id. at 49. The Examiners’ Report, however, predates the Indian Claims Commission created by Congress in 1946, the final judgment entered by the Commission in 1969, and the Gemmill decision and United States v. Dann, 873 F.2d 1189, 1194 (9th Cir.1989). In light of the foregoing extinguishment analysis, the court finds that the Examiners’ conclusions are not applicable to the instant litigation. Most recently, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed these principles in United States v. Dann, 873 F.2d 1189 (9th Cir.1989). There, the Ninth Circuit stated where a claim has been paid pursuant to a determination by the Indian Claims Commission, “we cannot avoid the rule of Gemmill that payment for the taking of a aboriginal title establishes that title has been extinguished.” Id. at 1194. The Supreme Court left open the issue of individual aboriginal title. Id. at 1193 (citing United States v. Dann, 470 U.S. 39, 50, 105 S.Ct. 1058, 1064, 84 L.Ed.2d 28 (1985). At oral argument, plaintiffs contended that they could establish individual aboriginal title based upon Dann and Cramer v. United States, 261 U.S. 219, 43 S.Ct. 342, 67 L.Ed. 622 (1923), but the court declined to permit the presentation of evidence on this issue. The Administrative Record indicates that the plaintiffs’ claims have been based on their status as Havasu-pai Indians. The Record fails to reflect any claim of individual aboriginal rights to the Canyon Mine site. The plaintiffs raised the issue after the issuance of Dann on January 11, 1989. The discussion in Dann, however, is instructive on this issue. The Ninth Circuit noted that no individual claim had been made. 873 F.2d at 1196. However, the Court of Appeals noted that no remnants of tribal title can survive thereafter in individual tribal members. Id. This court agrees. The Court of Appeals then focused on a narrower view of individual aboriginal title as discussed in Cramer. Id. at 1197. In Cramer, three Indians had occupied 175 acres of public land for years prior to the United States grant of a patent to a railroad. 261 U.S. 219, 43 S.Ct. 342. The Supreme Court upheld their title to the land actually enclosed and occupied by the individual Indians. Id. at 234-36, 43 S.Ct. at 346-47. The Ninth Circuit’s analysis of Cramer reveals that the decision was based upon a federal policy at the time to favor “land settlement in general and Indian occupancy in particular.” 873 F.2d at 1197. The Ninth Circuit noted that the policy of public lands settlement underlying Cramer no longer exist. Id. at 1198. An Indian cannot gain a right of occupancy simply by occupying public lands. Id. Even accepting the religious significance and use of the site by the individual Indians (as set forth in the Record and the Offer of Proof), the court finds that this does not amount to actual possession of the Canyon Mine site to the exclusion of all others. See id. at 1199. Plaintiffs contend that 25 U.S.C. § 194 is applicable in this matter and that defendants have failed to carry their burdens of production and persuasion. The court finds and concludes that this statute is inapplicable since aboriginal title had been extinguished. Furthermore, the term “white person” does not include the United States. See Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 99 S.Ct. 2529, 61 L.Ed.2d 153 (1979) (Section 194 does not apply against a sovereign state). Alternatively, the defendants have carried any burden that section 194 imposes through their extinguishment arguments. Accordingly, the court finds and concludes that plaintiffs aboriginal title to the lands encompassing the Canyon Mine site was extinguished prior to the enactment of the Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act of 1975. IV. LEGAL BARRIERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS Defendants also contend that plaintiffs are barred by statute and by principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel from asserting the present claims of right of access. Congress created the Indian Claims Commission to hear and determine all Indian claims against the federal government accruing as of the date of the Act. The Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946, 25 U.S.C. § 70 et seq. (terminated on Sept. 30, 1978). The purpose of the Act was to provide a forum in which Indian tribes could present “all their claims of every type and variety” against the federal government. Congress vested the ICC with jurisdiction “[bjroad enough to include all possible claims.” White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Clark, 604 F.Supp. 185, 187 (D.Ariz.1984), aff'd, 784 F.2d 921 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1006, 107 S.Ct. 644, 93 L.Ed.2d 700 (1986) (quoting Act of August 13, 1946, Pub.L. No. 726, 1946 U.S. Code Cong.Serv. (60 Stat.) 1347, 1355). Based upon the grant of jurisdiction of the Act as well as its legislative history, all claims arising prior to 1946 were to have been brought before the Indian Claims Commission or were forever barred. Id. at 187 (citing 60 Stat. 1049, 1052); Navajo Tribe of Indians v. New Mexico, 809 F.2d 1455, 1464-66 (10th Cir.1987); Temoak Band of Western Shoshone Indians v. United States, 593 F.2d 994, 998, 219 Ct.Cl. 346, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 973, 100 S.Ct. 469, 62 L.Ed.2d 389 (1979). In White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Indian tribe brought suit alleging that an 1887 survey erroneously excluded certain acreage from their reservation. The Tribe petitioned the ICC for redress for alleged wrongs committed by the United States; namely loss of property. The ICC determined that title outside of the reservation was extinguished. A stipulated settlement in the amount of $4.9 million dollars was reached between the Indian tribe and the United States. The court determined that under the principles of res judicata, the Indians’ present claim was either settled or foreclosed by the earlier proceedings initiated by the ICC. 604 F.Supp. at 187-89. Similarly, the Havasupai petitioned the Indian Claims Commission alleging that the United States had wrongfully deprived the Havasupai of their aboriginal lands. See The Havasupai Tribe v. United States, 20 Ind.Cl.Comm. 210 (1968); Hearing exhibits # 13 and # 15. The Indian Claims Commission concluded that the Havasupai did not voluntarily abandon any of their aboriginal lands. Id. at 220; Hearing exhibit # 15. Further, the ICC determined that the United States wrongfully took the Havasupai aboriginal title without payment of compensation when the government established a reservation for the Havasupai by the Executive Orders of June 8, 1880 and March 3, 1882. Id. at 220, 234-35. The Indian Claims Commission entered final judgment, incorporating a stipulated agreement between the Havasupai and the United States, awarding the Havasupai the sum of $1,240,000. The Havasupai Tribe v. United States, 21 Ind.Cl.Comm. 324, 341 (1969); Hearing exhibit # 16. The United States made payment of the awarded compensation to plaintiffs within the meaning of the Indian Claims Commission Act, 25 U.S.C. § 70u(a). See Act of December 26, 1969, Pub.L. 91-166, ch. 9, 83 Stat. 447; Act of September 29, 1972, Pub.L. 92-438, 86 Stat. 741. Payment occurred, for purposes of this litigation, when Congress authorized and appropriated said payment. Whether the Indians accept payment is not determinative. United States v. Dann, 470 U.S. 39, 44, 105 S.Ct. 1058, 1061, 84 L.Ed.2d 28 (1984). Section 70u(a) of the Indian Claims Commission Act is a statutory bar which provides that “The payment of any claim, after its determination in accordance with this chapter, shall be a full discharge of the United States of all claims and demands touching any of the matters involved in the controversy.” In this case, the court finds and concludes that the plaintiffs’ current right to access claim “touches” a matter involved in the prior case before the Indian Claims Commission because the Canyon Mine site is within the area of land that was in controversy during those proceedings involving the Havasupai. Plaintiffs assert that the ICC did not provide a forum for the plaintiffs to bring the present action against private parties such as Energy Fuels for allegedly wrongful future actions. This approach fails to recognize that by the time of the ICC’s determination, plaintiffs’ aboriginal title had been extinguished. Thus, plaintiffs cannot avoid the statutory bar, as well as the principle of res judicata. The plaintiffs’ claim may also be barred under the principles of collateral estoppel. See Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Homestake Mining Co., 722 F.2d 1407, 1413 (8th Cir.1983) (ICC decision bars Oglala Sioux Tribe from relit-igating whether previous Congressional act extinguished rights in their former aboriginal territory.) The Havasupai also expressly stipulated that the Tribe would be barred from asserting any claim with respect to their aboriginal land, including claims which they could have, but did not assert. Entry of final judgment in said amount shall finally dispose of all rights, claims or demands which the petitioner has asserted or could have asserted with respect to subject matter of Docket No. 91, and petitioner shall be barred thereby from asserting any such right, claim or demand against defendant in any future action. 21 Ind.Cl.Comm. at 337. Plaintiffs point to another provision in the stipulation which states that: The final judgment entered pursuant to this stipulation shall be by way of compromise and settlement and shall not be construed as an admission by either party, for the purposes of precedent or argument, in any other case. Id. at 337. Plaintiffs contend that the stipulation as well as any reference to the ICC opinions cannot be used as they are not part of the Administrative Record. The court agrees that the stipulation cannot be used as a factual admission by the plaintiffs in this matter. The ICC proceedings, however, are an appropriate subject for judicial notice and are material to this case as they pertain to the defendants’ legal arguments concerning extinguishment (i.e., claim was made and claim was paid concerning plaintiffs’ aboriginal territory). See Gemmill, 535 F.2d at 1149; Dann, 873 F.2d at 1194. Accordingly, the court finds and concludes that plaintiffs’ present action, based on its assertion of aboriginal title, is statutorily barred by 25 U.S.C. § 70u and barred by the principles of res judicata due to the final judgment and payment of the compensation in the proceeding before the Indian Claims Commission. V. INTERPRETATION OF THE GRAND CANYON ENLARGEMENT ACT Plaintiffs’ position is that the first and only act of Congress extinguishing Ha-vasupai aboriginal title was the Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act of 1975, 16 U.S.C. § 228i. Plaintiffs assert that the GCEA extinguished all of the rights of the Havasupai in their aboriginal title except one. Plaintiffs analysis relies heavily, in the first instance, on the supposition that aboriginal title had not been extinguished prior to the enactment of the GCEA. The court, however, has determined that the plaintiffs’ aboriginal title was extinguished prior to the GCEA. See supra Sec. III. Plaintiffs argue that section 228i(c) specifically preserves a right of access to sacred religious places such as the Canyon Mine site. The court disagrees. Section 228i(c) provides, in part, that: Nothing in Section 228a-228j of this title shall be construed to prohibit access by any members of the Tribe to any sacred or religious places or burial grounds, native foods, paints, materials and medicines located on public lands not otherwise covered in Section 228a to 228j of this title. The court has reviewed the Grand Canyon Enlargement Act and its legislative history. First, the legislative history reveals that the Havasupai Tribe sought enlargement of their reservation to include lands that did not include the lands encompassing the Canyon Mine site. See Hearing Exhibits #17-18. Second, the legislative history reveals that Congress did discuss and debate the issue of extinguishment of the Havasupai aboriginal title in light of the Indian Claims Commission determination. Third, whether or not aboriginal title of the Havasupai had previously been extinguished was not a necessary finding with respect to the action taken by Congress in passing the GCEA. Fourth, Congress could and did enlarge the Hava-supai reservation. Fifth, the language upon which plaintiffs rely does not create an affirmative right of access. The main focus of the GCEA was to increase the size of the Grand Canyon National Park and secure its beauty and splendor for generations to come. See 16 U.S.C. § 228a-228j; 120 Cong.Rec. H10436-10437 (Oct. 11, 1974). Within this context, the problem of the Havasupai Tribe came to the forefront. E.g., 120 Cong.Rec. S8523-8524 (May 20, 1974) (statement of Sen. Goldwater); 120 Cong. Rec. S11443 (June 25, 1974) (statement of Sen. Humphrey). The legislative history reveals that much debate was had on whether or not to increase the size of the Havasupai reservation to include approximately 251,000 acres desired by the Tribe, which represented the lands that they were then using for grazing as allowed under Section 3 of the Act of February 26, 1919. E.g., 120 Cong.Rec. H10435-10450 (Oct. 11, 1974). The legislative history reflects that Congress did debate whether or not the Hava-supai’s aboriginal title had been extinguished by the 1969 settlement before the ICC. See 120 Cong.Rec. H6683-6684 (July 17, 1974) (statement of Rep. Udall). However, such a determination was not necessary, as Congress had the power to enlarge the reservation: “Whether or not title was extinguished when the reservation was created, there is no doubt that the Congress can enlarge any Indian reservation, if it chooses to do so, by setting aside lands belonging to the United States in trust for the use of the tribe.” House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Report with Dissenting and Additional Views on S.1296, Report No. 93-1374, at 9 (Sept. 25, 1974); see, also, 120 Cong.Rec. H10444 (statement of Rep. Foley); (“Congress has the responsibility and the power to create, add to or abolish Indian reservations as it sees fit.... The question here is one of need, and the committee concluded that the tribe indeed needs a larger land base.”) Id. at 10440 (statement of Rep. Udall) The legislative history reflects a concern on behalf of some members of Congress that expansion of the Havasupai Reservation would undermine the entire process under the Indian Claims Commission. 120 Cong. Rec. H10449-10450 (statement of Rep. Del-lenback); Id. at H10450 (statement of Rep. Taylor). The legislative history reflects the fact that the ICC paid the compensation for the Tribe’s .aboriginal lands, but allowed them to use the area they now sought for an enlarged reservation for grazing purposes. House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Report with Dissenting and Additional Views on S.1296, Report No. 93-1374, at 9. The situation of the Havasupai appeared to be unique to other claims settled by the ICC and would not create a dangerous precedent to claims by other Indian Tribes. See id. at 10; 120 Cong.Rec. H10440 (statement of Rep. Udall); 120 Cong.Rec. H6684 (July 17, 1974). Congress declared that an additional 185,000 acres were to be held in trust enlarging the reservation of the Havasupai Tribe. 16 U.S.C. § 228i(a). Congress, however, did place various restrictions on the Havasupais’ use of the land consistent with the Congressional intent to preserve the splendor of the Grand Canyon. See id. at § 228i(b). Congress also designated 95,300 acres as Havasupai use lands for grazing and other traditional purposes. Id. at § 228i(e). In reference to the use area, the legislative history recognizes that “this area contains places of historic significance to the tribe, as well as burial grounds and religious shrines, the Committee agreed that access within the area should be guaranteed for tribal members.” House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Report with Dissenting and Additional Views on S.1296, Report No. 93-1374, at 10. It is undisputed that neither the enlarged reservation or designated use lands encompass the Canyon Mine site. An examination of the language in section 228i(c), which plaintiffs rely upon, indicates that Congress did not create, preserve, or confirm any affirmative right to access. The parties have not presented, and the court is unable to find, any legislative history concerning the relevant part of section 228i(c) which supports the plaintiffs’ interpretation. Section 228i(c) clearly indicates that the Grand Canyon Enlargement Act shall not be construed to prohibit access. There is no part of the GCEA which prohibits plaintiffs’ access to the Canyon Mine site. The language in section 228i(c) is a statement of statutory neutrality to judges, administrative agencies, and others not to interpret the GCEA to prohibit access on other public lands. Such a statement of statutory neutrality is particularly appropriate in light of the past friction between the Havasupai and some agencies of the federal government. See, e.g., 120 Cong.Rec. S7554, 7555 (statement of Sen. Kennedy); 120 Cong.Rec. Extension of Remarks in the House (July 8, 1974) (editorial from the Los Angeles Times); 120 Cong.Rec. H6684 (July 17, 1974) (statement of Rep. Udall); 120 Cong.Rec. H10440 (Oct. 11, 1974) (statement of Rep. Udall); V.3D-D.172 (p. 166)-P.3633. A review of other sections of the GCEA support the court’s determination that section 228i(c) does not create an affirmative right of access. Congress knew how to create land in trust for the benefit of the Havasupai. Section 228i(a) provides that Lands “are hereby declared to be held by the United States in trust for the Havasu-pai Tribe.” Congress also knew how to create a right of access. The sentence immediately preceding the disputed sentence in § 228i(c) states that: “the Secretary shall have the right of access to any lands hereby included in the Havasupai Reservation.” No similar grant in trust or affirmative right of access is created by the language plaintiff cites. Plaintiffs also analogize the language contained in the GCEA to extinguishment of title and preservation of rights in the Massachusetts and Connecticut Indian Land Claims Acts, 25 U.S.C. § 1771; 25 U.S.C. § 1751. In those acts, however, Congress did not preserve aboriginal rights, but only personal claims of individual Indians. It is also interesting to note that in those acts the reservation occurred in the same clause as the extin-guishment. In the GCEA, the language that plaintiffs assert support a grant of reservation does not appear in the same subsection of the GCEA that addresses ex-tinguishment. This further supports an interpretation against creation of an affirmative right of access. The language of § 228i(c) neither acknowledges or preserves an aboriginal right in any non-trust land or defines a trust responsibility on the part of the United States. This interpretation is further supported by the fact that intense debate occurred at the time of the GCEA on whether to give the Havasupai Tribe any additional lands at all. In light of the debate on whether to give the Havasupai lands in trust at all, this court cannot infer that Congress intended to give the Havasupai a power that would amount to a veto over activities on public lands not otherwise covered by the act. The area which plaintiffs claim a right to access covers over three million acres. There is no indication that Congress intended to prohibit such activities as mining throughout this area. See Pathfinder Mines Corp. v. Hodel, 811 F.2d 1288, 1291 (9th Cir.1987). Based upon the analysis in Sections III, IV, and V of this Order, the court finds and concludes that plaintiffs do not have an aboriginal right of access to the Canyon Mine site. Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their claim of right of access as set forth in their Complaint. Accordingly, judgment shall be entered in favor of defendants on Count II of plaintiffs’ Complaint. VI. FOREST SERVICE APPROVAL OF THE PLAN OF OPERATIONS FOR THE CANYON MINE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION The Havasupai assert that the Forest Service’s decision approving the modified plan of operations for the Canyon Uranium Mine violates their first amendment rights to freely exercise their religion at the Canyon Mine site. The Havasupai assert that the Canyon Mine site is sacred and any mining will interfere with their religious practices at and near the mine, will kill their deities, and destroy their religion or “Way.” E.g., Complaint, at 7-11; V.2B-D.59-P.1827 (Transcript of Oral Presentation before the Deputy Regional Forester, May 14, 1987); V.3B-D.122-P.3137-3143 (Affidavit of Four Havasupai Tribe members); V.3D-D.176-P.3716-3825 (Transcript of Oral Presentation before the Chief of the Forest Service, February 25, 1987). For purposes of this section of analysis, the court can assume that all of plaintiffs’ assertions about the religious sanctity of the Canyon Mine site and adverse affects upon the Havasupai belief system are true. The case of Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 485 U.S. 439, 108 S.Ct. 1319, 99 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988) is applicable to the instant case and is disposi-tive of plaintiffs’ first amendment claim. In Lyng, the Forest Service had prepared a final environmental impact statement for a proposal allowing logging in, and construction of a six-mile paved road through the Chimney Rock section of the Six Rivers National Forest in California. It was undisputed that insofar as Indian religious practices were concerned the proposed actions would have severe adverse, if not devastating effects. Id. at 451, 108 S.Ct. at 1326. The Supreme Court assumed that for purposes of their decision the government’s action would “virtually destroy the Indians’ ability to practice their religion.” Id. (quoting the Ninth Circuit’s opinion). Further, the Supreme Court recognized that the traditional religious practices were intimately bound up with the unique features of the Chimney Rock area and that the government’s action would physically destroy those environmental conditions. Id. The Supreme Court determined that the “Constitution simply does not provide a principle that could justify upholding” the Indians’ first amendment claims. Id. at 452, 108 S.Ct. at 1326-27. Similarly, in the instant case, the Forest Service’s approval of the Plan does not violate the free exercise clause of the first amendment. Plaintiffs here, as in Lyng, assert that their religious and cultural belief systems are intimately bound up with the Canyon Mine site. Plaintiffs assert their belief that EFN’s operations will destroy their religion. The Supreme Court, in Lyng, made the same assumption in reaching its conclusion of no first amendment violation. Accordingly, the court finds and concludes that no first amendment violation is present in this case. Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish Lyng on several grounds, all of which the court finds to be unavailing. First, plaintiffs argue that coercion is present in this case as the Canyon Mine site is the embodiment and center of the Havasupai Tribe universe. The court finds no distinction from Lyng which necessitates a different result. The majority specifically rejected the dissent’s balancing approach, noting the practical impossibility of determining the centrality of a religious belief. Id. at 457-58, 108 S.Ct. at 1329-30. The Supreme Court did not find governmental coercion which implicated a “compelling justification” test. On this subject the Court stated: This does not and cannot imply that incidental effects of government programs, which may make it more difficult to practice certain religions but which have no tendency to coerce individuals into acting contrary to their religious beliefs, require government to bring forward a compelling justification for its otherwise lawful actions. The crucial word in the constitutional text is “prohibit”: “For the Free Exercise Clause is written in terms of what the government cannot do to the individual, not in terms of what the individual can exact from the government. Id. at 451, 108 S.Ct. at 1326 (quoting Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 412, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 1798, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963) (Douglas, J., concurring)). The court can find no meaningful distinction between this case and Lyng. Plaintiffs are not penalized for their beliefs, nor are they prevented from practicing their religion. Second, plaintiffs argue that Lyng should be distinguished because this case involves private mining activities while Lyng involved the building of a road by the government. As in Lyng, however, fee title of the land in this case remains with the government. Union Oil Co. of California v. Smith, 249 U.S. 337, 349, 39 S.Ct. 308, 311, 63 L.Ed. 635 (1919). “Whatever rights the Indians may have to use the area ... those rights do not divest the Government of'its right to use what is, after all, its land.” Lyng, 485 U.S. at 453, 108 S.Ct. at 1327. Moreover, the Havasupai apparently have thousands of other religious sites within their former aboriginal lands. Y.3D-D.176-P.3766. Giving the Indians a veto power over activities on federal land that would “easily require de facto beneficial ownership of some rather spacious tracts of public property.” Id. at 453, 108 S.Ct. at 1327. Finally, plaintiffs argue Lyng is distinguishable because there the Indians still had access to their religious site, where in the instant case, the mining laws give EFN the right to possession and exclusion of the Havasupai. Plaintiffs point to the fence and no trespassing signs at the Canyon Mine site in support of their claim that they are denied access to the site. There is no evidence in the record, however, to show the plaintiffs have been denied reasonable access to the Canyon Mine site, that they have been treated any differently than the general public, or that any mining law has been applied against plaintiffs in a discriminatory manner. The court recognizes that plaintiffs’ access to the Canyon Mine site may be different from what they would like; however, any limitation does not amount to a violation of the first amendment. This ease is simply not distinguishable from Lyng. Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their claim based upon the free exercise clause of the first amendment. Accordingly, judgment will be entered in favor of the defendants on Count I of plaintiffs’ Complaint. VII. FOREST SERVICE APPROVAL OF THE PLAN OF OPERATIONS FOR THE CANYON MINE DID NOT VIOLATE ANY FIDUCIARY DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO THE HAVASUPAI Plaintiffs contend that the Forest Service failed to recognize and consider the government’s fiduciary duty to the Havasupai in reviewing EFN’s plan of operations throughout the administrative process. The court disagrees. The Deputy Regional Forester stated that: Federal agencies may have statutorily established fiduciary duties associated with the management of Indian lands and resources. No such duties are at issue here since the lands embraced within EFN’s mining claims are National Forest System lands, not Indian lands. There is nothing in the record to support appellant’s contention that the development and operation of the Canyon Mine on National Forest System land will have a deleterious effect on the Reservation .... V.4A-D.256-P.5234; see, also, V.5-D.256P.5234 (concurrence by Chief in decision on the merits). Furthermore, the Forest Service concluded that it “has met any fiduciary duty it may have through the exhaustive analysis undertaken for the Canyon Mine and the imposition of extensive monitoring, mitigation and reclamation measures.” V.4A-D.256-P.5234. It is undisputed as a general principle that the federal government has broad fiduciary obligations to the Indian tribes akin to that of a guardian and a ward. E.g., Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286, 296-97, 62 S.Ct. 1049, 1054, 86 L.Ed. 1480, 1777 (1942); Vigil v. Andrus, 667 F.2d 931, 934 (10th Cir.1982); Crain v. First National Bank, 324 F.2d 532, 535 (9th Cir.1963). Any federal government action is subject to the government’s general fiduciary responsibilities toward the Havasupai Tribe. See Nance v. Environmental Protection Agency, 645 F.2d 701, 711 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081, 102 S.Ct. 635, 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981). It is equally clear that the federal government is not obligated to provide particular services or benefits, nor to undertake any specific fiduciary responsibilities in the absence of a specific provision in a treaty, agreement, executive order, or statute. Vigil, 667 F.2d at 934; North Slope Borough v. Andrus, 642 F.2d 589, 611 (D.C.Cir.1980); Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, 427 F.2d 1194, 190 Ct.Cl. 790 (1970). Plaintiffs allege that the specific fiduciary duty arises in the instant case from: (1) the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; (2) the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (“AIRFA”); (3) the GCEA; and (4) the government’s general course of dealing with the Indians. A. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo The governments of the United States and Mexico signed the. Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (“the Treaty”) on February 2, 1848 ceasing hostilities between the two nations. 9 Stat. 922 (1848). Relying on United States v. Abeyta, 632 F.Supp. 1301 (D.N.M.1986), plaintiffs contend that this Treaty secures them the religious right of access to the Canyon Mine site. Article IX of the Treaty states: Mexicans who, in the territories aforesaid, shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican republic, con-formably with what is stipulated in the preceding article, shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the constitution; and in the mean time shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion without restriction. There is no dispute that the members of the Havasupai Tribe were citizens of the Mexican Territory at the time the Treaty was entered in 1848. In Abeyta, a member of the Isleta Pueblo was charged with the knowing possession of parts of a golden eagle, without a permit, in violation of the Bald Eagle Protection Act. 632 F.Supp. at 1302. The use of eagles and their feathers in religious ceremonies constituted an indispensable part of an Indian ritual. Id. at 1303. The District Court for the District of New Mexico determined that the Bald Eagle Protection Act did not repudiate the guarantee of religious freedom under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The district court considered the Treaty as an international compact securing religious freedom to Mexican citizens in the ceded territories. Id. at 1306. The district court concluded that it was up to Congress to abrogate the Treaty. Id. at 1306-07. In light of the fiduciary relationship to the Indians, the district court determined that Congress did not intend to repudiate the protections the court believed had been created by the Treaty. Id. at 1306-07. This decision from the District Court for the District of New Mexico is not binding upon this court, nor does this court find it to be persuasive. First, the validity of the decision is questionable in light of United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734, 106 S.Ct. 2216, 90 L.Ed.2d 767 (1986). In Dion, the Supreme Court concluded that a treaty with the Yankton Sioux Tribe did not protect an Indian from prosecution under the Bald Eagle Protection Act. Id. at 743, 106 S.Ct. at 2222. See, also, U.S. v. Thirty Eight Golden Eagles, 649 F.Supp. 269, 277-278 (D.Nev.1986) (holding, contrary to Abeyta, that Bald Eagle Protection Act not facially unconstitutional burden to Indian’s right to free exercise of religion) The second and more compelling reason, however, is the plain language of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo itself. The Treaty guaranteed the residents of what is now Arizona and New Mexico, formerly of Mexico, the right to “free exercise of their religion without restriction” until they became “incorporated into the Union of the United States.” Thereafter they would be entitled to “the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the constitution.” The Treaty, by its own terms, does not create any right beyond the constitutional religious freedom rights. The Treaty simply affords those rights to residents in the area prior to statehood. The court finds and concludes that no specific fiduciary duty is created by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. B. American Indian Religious Freedom Act — (AIRFA) Plaintiffs reliance on AIRFA is misplaced. AIRFA provides that it is: The policy to the United States to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian ... including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites. 42 U.S.C. § 1996. AIRFA does not create a cause of action or any judicially enforceable rights. Lyng, 485 U.S. at 455, 108 S.Ct. at 1328. In an attempt to distinguish Lyng, plaintiffs assert that the plaintiffs in Lyng brought a separate count under AIR-FA, while here, the Havasupai claim is related to a breach of a fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs purported distinction is unavailing. The court agrees that AIRFA does impose an obligation on a federal agency to protect Indian religious freedom. However, AIRFA does not create a specific fiduciary relationship or the obligations imposed by such a fiduciary relationship. Wilson v. Block, 708 F.2d 735, 745-47 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 956, 104 S.Ct. 371, 78 L.Ed.2d 330 (1983) and 464 U.S. 1056, 104 S.Ct. 739, 79 L.Ed.2d 197 (1984). AIRFA requires a federal agency to evaluate their policies and procedures with the aim of protecting Indian religious freedom, to refrain from prohibiting access, possession and use of religious objects and the performance of religious ceremonies, and to consult with Indian organizations in regard to the proposed action. AIRFA does not require Indian traditional religious considerations to always prevail to the exclusion of all else. 708 F.2d at 745-46. AIR-FA requires the federal agency to consider, but not necessarily defer to Indian religious values. It does not prohibit agencies from adopting land uses that conflict with traditional Indian religious beliefs or practices. Id. at 747. An agency undertaking a land use project will be in compliance with AIRFA if, in the decision-making process, it obtains and considers the views of Indian leaders, and if, in project implementation, it avoids unnecessary interference with Indian religious practices. Id. at 747. The court finds and concludes that the Forest Service has fulfilled its obligations to the Havasupai Tribe under AIR-FA through its undertakings during the NEPA process. C. Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act — (GCEA) As previously discussed, see supra V., the GCEA does not create a right of access for the plaintiffs to the Canyon Mine site. Accepting plaintiffs’ interpretation of the GCEA would be a prerequisite to its assertion that the statute creates a fiduciary duty toward the Havasupai. Since the court has found that no right of access was reserved to the Havasupai Tribe in the GCEA, the court finds and concludes that no fiduciary duty is created thereby. D. General Government Fiduciary Duty Plaintiffs also assert a fiduciary duty based upon a general course of dealing between the United States and the Ha-vasupai. In Nance v. Environmental Protection Agency, 645 F.2d 701 (9th Cir.1981), the Ninth Circuit examined similar fiduciary duty claims. There, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) had approved the Northern Cheyenne Tribe’s re-designation of its Reservation from a Class II to Class I air quality standard. The Crow Tribe challenged the EPA approval of the redesignation as not considering the effects of the action upon their reservation. The Ninth Circuit stated, however, “that adequate procedures were provided by the Clean Air Act and the EPA regulations to fulfill this responsibility.” Id. Similarly, the court finds that the Forest Service satisfied any general fiduciary duty it may have had to the Havasupai Tribe by complying with the NEPA statute and regulations, as discussed below. In conclusion, the court finds and concludes that the grounds set out by the Havasupai fail to establish the violation of government fiduciary duty or responsibility to the Indian tribe. Accordingly, judgment shall be entered in favor of defendants on Count III of plaintiffs’ Complaint. VIII. THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT CLAIM The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. seeks “to declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man....” Id. § 4321; see, also, § 4331 (“Congressional declaration of national environmental policy”). The goal of the NEPA is to ensure that federal agencies carefully consider the environmental consequences of actions they undertake. The NEPA process requires an agency to take certain steps in evaluating the potential impacts of proposed actions, including the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) under certain circumstances. Id. at § 4332 (requirements of a federal agency in fulfilling this national policy); 40 C.F.R. § 1501. The procedures set forth in regulations promulgated by the Counsel on Environmental Quality at 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500-17. (“CEQ Regulations”) implement the NEPA requirements. As discussed, the Forest Service decided to prepare an EIS and gave formal notice of the decision on April 30, 1985. The established procedures for EIS preparation require four basic steps: (1) “scoping”; (2) data gathering and publication of a draft EIS; (3) public comment on the draft EIS; and (4) publication of the final EIS and “Record of Decision.” The purpose of an EIS is to both “provide deci-sionmakers with enough information to aid in the substantive decision whether to proceed with the project in light of its environmental consequence, and to provide the public with information and an opportunity to participate in gathering information.” Citizens for a Better Henderson v. Hodel, 768 F.2d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.1985). The fact that an EIS discloses that a proposition may have some adverse effects on the environment or human health does not necessarily indicate a violation of NEPA. See, e.g., -id. at 1058. An EIS need not discuss remote and conjectural environmental consequences. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. Hodel, 544 F.2d 1036, 1039 (9th Cir.1976), but only every reasonable alternative. Citizens for a Better Henderson, 768 F.2d at 1057. While the NEPA does set forth significant substantive goals for the federal government, the duties imposed upon an agency are “essentially procedural.” Strycker’s Bay Neighborhood Council v. Karlen, 444 U.S. 223, 227, 100 S.Ct. 497, 500, 62 L.Ed.2d 433 (1981). The NEPA does not impose any substantive requirements or priorities upon agencies, and does not restrict the decisions or choices that an agency makes so long as the decision is fully informed and well considered. Id. at 227-28, 100 S.Ct. at 500. Before the court for review is the Forest Service’s approval of EFN’s Modified Plan of Operations. Plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative remedies. Judicial review of the Forest Service’s decision is governed by the standards set out in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706. Accordingly, a reviewing court cannot impose its judgment on an agency. The proper role for the court is to ensure that the Forest Service adequately considered and disclosed the environmental impact of its action, that its decision was not arbitrary and/or capricious. Id.; see, also, Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. N.R.D.C, 462 U.S. 87, 97, 103 S.Ct. 2246, 2252, 76 L.Ed.2d 437 (1983). The adequacy of an EIS depends upon whether it was prepared in observance of the procedure required by law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D); Animal Defense Council v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 1432, 1435-36 (9th Cir.1988); State of California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 761 (9th Cir.1982). The Ninth Circuit has adopted a “rule of reason,” test that requires inquiring into whether an EIS contains a reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the probable environmental consequences, and whether the EIS’s form, content and preparation foster both informed decisionmaking and informed public participation. Once satisfied that the agency has taken this procedural and substantive “hard look” at environmental consequences in the EIS, the court’s review is at an end. Animal Defense Council at 1435-36; State of California v. Block at 761. Within this framework of review, the Havasupai Tribe alleges that the EIS prepared by the Forest Service is deficient and fails to comply with the procedural requirements of NEPA. Specifically, the Havasu-pai Tribe alleges that the EIS for the Canyon Uranium Mine: (1) fails to consider the “no-aetion alternative” of not approving the Plan of Operations for the mine; (2) fails to give adequate consideration to the plaintiffs’ religious and cultural interests in the site; (3) is based on incomplete hydro-geological information; (4) fails to adequately consider the environmental impact of disposal of radioactive waste; and (5) fails to adequately consider the environmental cumulative impacts of mining in the region in which the Canyon Mine is located. If the EIS fails to comply with NEPA, the court must remand the case to the Forest Service for such further action as may be necessary to comply with the statute. The court will discuss each of these issues in turn. A. The No-Action Alternative NEPA requires that an EIS provide information in detail and consider every reasonable alternative to the proposed action. Citizens for a Better Henderson, 768 F.2d at 1057; see 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(c)(iii). The analysis of the varying alternatives constitutes the heart of the EIS. The CEQ Regulations contemplate that an EIS will include a no-action alternative to permit the agency and the public to address the option. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(d). In the instant case, the Forest Service selected five alternatives, including the no-action alternative. The Havasupai Tribe alleges that the Forest Service never considered any alternative other than approval of the Canyon Uranium Mine. Plaintiffs allege that the entire EIS process was used as a means to justify an end. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.2(g) (EIS shall assess environmental impact of proposed agency actions, rather than justifying decisions already made.). The basis for plaintiffs’ assertion consists of alleged statements by Dennis Lund, the Forest Supervisor who had primary responsibility in drafting the EIS. Plaintiffs contend that Mr. Lund stated that the Forest Service was going to approve the Plan of Operations because it did not have legal authority to deny it. See V.2A-D.30P.1051, 1053 (March 13, 1985 letter from Joe P. Sparks to Dennis Lund). The court finds, however, that the Forest Service considered the no-action alternative in a manner consistent with established law and procedures and did not use the NEPA process to justify a decision already made. The Formal Notice in the Federal Register which initiated the scoping process indicates a “range of alternatives for the development of the proposed mine including, but not limited to, approval of the proposal, approval of the proposal with specific mitigation measures and no-action, will be considered.” V.2A-D.37-P.1222, 50 Fed.Reg. 18,281. Moreover, the Forest Service clearly described it’s approach to the no-action alternative in the final EIS: The No-Action Alternative, for the purposes of this environmental evaluation, would involve disapproval of the Plan of Operations for the Canyon Mining Project. The plan would be returned stating the reasons for disapproval and request the proponent to submit a new plan that would meet the environmental and administrative constraints. While the Forest Service can require or impose reasonable environmental controls or conditions on an operating plan, they do not have the authority to disapprove a reasonable operating plan for a mining operation which will be conducted in a reasonable and apparently environmentally responsible manner (re: General Mining Law and 36 C.F.R. 228). Th