Court Opinion

ID: 9580818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:09:17.324727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:33.149864
License: Public Domain

Opinion by Judge BEA; Dissent by Judge WILLIAM A. FLETCHER.
BEA, Circuit Judge:
In this case, American Indians ask us to prohibit the federal government from allowing the use of artificial snow for skiing on a portion of a public mountain sacred in their religion. At the heart of their claim is the planned use of recycled wastewater, which contains 0.0001% human waste, to make artificial snow.1 The Plaintiffs claim *1063the use of such snow on a sacred mountain desecrates the entire mountain, deprecates their religious ceremonies, and injures their religious sensibilities. We are called upon to decide whether this government-approved use of artificial snow on government-owned park land violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq., and the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 470 et seq. We hold that it does not, and affirm the district court’s denial of relief on all grounds.
Plaintiff Indian tribes and their members consider the San Francisco Peaks in Northern Arizona to be sacred in their religion.2 They contend that the use of recycled wastewater to make artificial snow for skiing on the Snowbowl, a ski area that covers approximately one percent of the San Francisco Peaks, will spiritually contaminate the entire mountain and devalue their religious exercises. The district court found the Plaintiffs’ beliefs to be sincere; there is no basis to challenge that finding. The district court also found, however, that there are no plants, springs, natural resources, shrines with religious significance, or religious ceremonies that would be physically affected by the use of such artificial snow. No plants would be destroyed or stunted; no springs polluted; no places of worship made inaccessible, or liturgy modified. The Plaintiffs continue to have virtually unlimited access to the mountain, including the ski area, for religious and cultural purposes. On the mountain, they continue to pray, conduct their religious ceremonies, and collect plants for religious use.
Thus, the sole effect of the artificial snow is on the Plaintiffs’ subjective spiritual experience. That is, the presence of the artificial snow on the Peaks is offensive to the Plaintiffs’ feelings about their religion and will decrease the spiritual fulfillment Plaintiffs get from practicing their religion on the mountain. Nevertheless, a government action that decreases the spirituality, the fervor, or the satisfaction with which a believer practices his religion is not what Congress has labeled a “substantial burden” — a term of art chosen by Congress to be defined by reference to Supreme Court precedent — on the free exercise of religion. Where, as here, there is no showing the government has coerced the Plaintiffs to act contrary to their religious beliefs under the threat of sanctions, or conditioned a governmental benefit upon conduct that would violate the Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, there is no “substantial burden” on the exercise of their religion.
Were it otherwise, any action the federal government were to take, including action on its own land, would be subject to the personalized oversight of millions of citizens. Each citizen would hold an individual veto to prohibit the government action solely because it offends his religious beliefs, sensibilities, or tastes, or fails to satisfy his religious desires. Further, giving one religious sect a veto over the use of public park land would deprive others of *1064the right to use what is, by definition, land that belongs to everyone.
“[W]e are a cosmopolitan nation made up of people of almost every conceivable religious preference.” Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 606, 81 S.Ct. 1144, 6 L.Ed.2d 563 (1961). Our nation recognizes and protects the expression of a great range of religious beliefs. Nevertheless, respecting religious credos is one thing; requiring the government to change its conduct to avoid any perceived slight to them is quite another. No matter how much we might wish the government to conform its conduct to our religious preferences, act in ways that do not offend our religious sensibilities, and take no action that decreases our spiritual fulfillment, no government — let alone a government that presides over a nation with as many religions as the United States of America— could function were it required to do so. Lyng v. Nw. Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n, 485 U.S. 439, 452, 108 S.Ct. 1319, 99 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988).
I. Factual and Procedural Background3
The Snowbowl ski area (“the Snow-bowl”) is located on federally owned public land and operates under a special use permit issued by the United States Forest Service (“the Forest Service”). Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Serv., 408 F.Supp.2d 866, 883-84 (D.Ariz.2006). Specifically, the Snowbowl is situated on Humphrey’s Peak, the highest of the San Francisco Peaks (“the Peaks”), located within the Coconino National Forest in Northern Arizona. Id. at 869, 883. The Peaks cover about 74,000 acres. Id. at 883. The Snowbowl sits on 777 acres, or approximately one percent of the Peaks. Id. at 883-84.
The Forest Service designated the Snowbowl as a public recreation facility after finding the Snowbowl “represented an opportunity for the general public to access and enjoy public lands in a manner that the Forest Service could not otherwise offer in the form of a major facility anywhere in Arizona.” Id. at 884. The Snowbowl has been in operation since the 1930s and is the only downhill ski area within the Coconino National Forest.4 Id.
The Peaks have long-standing religious and cultural significance to Indian tribes. The tribes believe the Peaks are a living entity. Id. at 887. They conduct religious ceremonies, such as the Navajo Blessing-way Ceremony, on the Peaks. Id. The tribes also collect plants, water, and other materials from the Peaks for medicinal bundles and tribal healing ceremonies. Id. According to the tribes, the presence of the Snowbowl desecrates for them the spirituality of the Peaks. Id. Certain Indian religious practitioners believe the desecration of the Peaks has caused many disasters, including the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the Columbia Space Shuttle accident, and increases in natural disasters. Id.
This case is not the first time Indian tribes have challenged the operation of the Snowbowl. In 1981, before the enactment of RFRA, the tribes brought a challenge to the Forest Service’s approval of a number *1065of upgrades to the Snowbowl, including the installation of new lifts, slopes, and facilities. See Wilson v. Block, 708 F.2d 735, 739 (D.C.Cir.1983).5 The tribes asserted that the approved upgrades would “seriously impair their ability to pray and conduct ceremonies upon the Peaks” and to gather from the Peaks sacred objects necessary to their religious practices. Id. at 740. According to the tribes, this constituted an unconstitutional burden on the exercise of their religion under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Id.
The D.C. Circuit in Wilson rejected the Indian tribes’ challenge to the upgrades. Id. at 739-45. Although the court noted that the proposed upgrades would cause the Indians “spiritual disquiet,” the upgrades did not impose a sufficient burden on the exercise of their religion: “Many government actions may offend religious believers, and may cast doubt upon the veracity of religious beliefs, but unless such actions penalize faith, they do not burden religion.” Id. at 741-42. The Indian tribes have continued to conduct religious activities on the Peaks ever since. Navajo Nation, 408 F.Supp.2d at 884.
With this brief background, we turn to the Plaintiffs’ challenge in this case. In 2002, the Snowbowl submitted a proposal to the Forest Service to upgrade its operations. Id. at 885. The proposal included a request for artificial snowmaking from recycled wastewater for use on the Snow-bowl. Id. The Snowbowl had suffered highly variable snowfall for several years; this resulted in operating losses that threatened its ski operation. Id. at 884-85, 907. Indeed, the district court found that artificial snowmaking is “needed to maintain the viability of the Snowbowl as a public recreational resource.” Id. at 907.
The recycled wastewater to be used for snowmaking is classified as “A+” by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (“ADEQ”).6 Id. at 887. A+ recycled wastewater is the highest quality of recycled wastewater recognized by Arizona law and may be safely and beneficially used for many purposes, including irrigating school ground landscapes and food crops. See Ariz. Admin. Code R18-11-309 tbl. A. Further, the ADEQ has specifically approved the use of recycled wastewater for snowmaking. Id.
In addition to being used to make snow, the recycled wastewater also will be used for fire suppression on the Peaks. Navajo Nation, 408 F.Supp.2d at 886. The pipeline that will transport the recycled waste-water to the Snowbowl will be equipped with fire hydrants to provide water for fire suppression in rural residential areas and to fight forest fires. Id. Further, a reservoir of recycled wastewater will be kept on the Snowbowl for forest fire suppression. Id.
The Forest Service conducted an extensive review of the Snowbowl’s proposal. As part of its review, the Forest Service made more than 500 contacts with Indian *1066tribes, including between 40 and 50 meetings, to determine the potential impact of the proposal on the tribes.7 Id. at 885. In a December 2004 Memorandum of Agreement, the Forest Service committed to, among other things: (1) continue to allow the tribes access to the Peaks, including the Snowbowl, for cultural and religious purposes; and (2) work with the tribes periodically to inspect the conditions of the religious and cultural sites on the Peaks and ensure the tribes’ religious activities on the Peaks are uninterrupted. Id. at 900-01.
Following the review process, the Forest Supervisor approved the Snowbowl’s proposal, including the use of recycled wastewater to make artificial snow, and issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement and a Record of Decision in February 2005. Id. at 885-86. The Plaintiffs appealed the Forest Supervisor’s decision approving the Snowbowl’s proposal to an administrative appeal board within the Forest Service. Id. In June 2005, the Forest Service issued its final administrative decision and affirmed the Forest Supervisor’s approval of the proposed upgrades. Id. at 886.
After their unsuccessful administrative appeal, the Plaintiffs filed this action in federal district court. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Forest Service’s authorization of the use of recycled wastewater on the Snowbowl violates: (1) RFRA; (2) NEPA; (3) NHPA; (4) ESA; (5) the Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act (“GCEA”), 16 U.S.C. § 228i; and (6) the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (“NFMA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600 et seq.8 Id. at 871. Following cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court denied the Plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment and granted the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all claims, except the RFRA claim. Id. at 869, 908.
After an 11-day bench trial on the RFRA claim, the district court held that the proposed upgrades, including the use of recycled wastewater to make artificial snow on the Peaks, do not violate RFRA. Id. at 883, 907. The district court found that the upgrades did not bar the Plaintiffs’ “access, use, or ritual practice on any part of the Peaks.” Id. at 905. As a *1067result, the court held that the Plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate the Snowbowl upgrade “coerces them into violating their religious beliefs or penalizes their religious activity,” as required to establish a substantial burden on the exercise of their religion under RFRA. Id.
A three-judge panel of this court reversed the district court in part, holding that the use of recycled wastewater on the Snowbowl violates RFRA, and in one respect, that the Forest Service failed to comply with NEPA. See Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Serv., 479 F.3d 1024, 1029 (9th Cir.2007). The panel affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the Defendants on four of five NEPA claims and the NHPA claim. Id. We took the case en banc to revisit the panel’s decision and to clarify our circuit’s interpretation of “substantial burden” under RFRA.
II. Standard of Review
We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 177 F.3d 800, 804 (9th Cir.1999). We review the district court’s conclusions of law following a bench trial de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. Lentini v. Cal. Ctr. for the Arts, Escondido, 370 F.3d 837, 843 (9th Cir.2004).
III. Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993
Plaintiffs contend the use of artificial snow, made from recycled wastewater, on the Snowbowl imposes a substantial burden on the free exercise of their religion, in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq. We hold that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish a RFRA violation. The presence of recycled waste-water on the Peaks does not coerce the Plaintiffs to act contrary to their religious beliefs under the threat of sanctions, nor does it condition a governmental benefit upon conduct that would violate their religious beliefs, as required to establish a “substantial burden” on religious exercise under RFRA.9
RFRA was enacted in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990).10 In Smith, the Supreme Court held that the Free Exercise Clause does not bar the government from burdening the free exercise of religion with a “valid and neutral law of general applicability.” Id. at 879, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Applying that standard, the Smith Court rejected the Free Exercise Clause claims of the plaintiffs, who were denied state unemployment compensation after being discharged from their jobs for ingesting peyote for religious purposes. Id at 890, 110 S.Ct. 1595.
Congress found that in Smith, the “Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion.” 42 U.S.C. *1068§ 2000bb(a)(4). Congress further found that “laws ‘neutral’ toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise.” Id. § 2000bb(a)(2). With the enactment of RFRA, Congress created a cause of action for persons whose exercise of religion is substantially burdened by a government action, regardless of whether the burden results from a neutral law of general applicability. See id. § 2000bb-l. RFRA states, in relevant part:
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Id.

To establish a prima facie RFRA claim, a plaintiff must present evidence sufficient to allow a trier of fact rationally to find the existence of two elements. First, the activities the plaintiff claims are burdened by the government action must be an “exercise of religion.” See id. § 2000bb-l(a). Second, the government action must “substantially burden” the plaintiffs exercise of religion. See id. If the plaintiff cannot prove either element, his RFRA claim fails. Conversely, should the plaintiff establish a substantial burden on his exercise of religion, the burden of persuasion shifts to the government to prove that the challenged government action is in furtherance of a “compelling governmental interest” and is implemented by “the least restrictive means.” See id. § 2000bb-l(b). If the government cannot so prove, the court must find a RFRA violation.
We now turn to the application of these principles to the facts of this case. The first question is whether the activities Plaintiffs claim are burdened by the use of recycled wastewater on the Snowbowl constitute an “exercise of religion.” RFRA defines “exercise of religion” as “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2(4); 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7)(A). The Defendants do not contest the district court’s holding that the Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs are sincere and the Plaintiffs’ religious activities on the Peaks constitute an “exercise of religion” within the meaning of RFRA.
The crux of this case, then, is whether the use of recycled wastewater on the Snowbowl imposes a “substantial burden” on the exercise of the Plaintiffs’ religion. RFRA does not specifically define “substantial burden.” Fortunately, we are not required to interpret the term by our own lights. Rather, we are guided by the express language of RFRA and decades of Supreme Court precedent.
A.
Our interpretation begins, as it must, with the statutory language. RFRA’s stated purpose is to “restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(b)(l). RFRA further states “the compelling interest test as set forth in ... Federal court rulings [prior to Smith ] is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty *1069and competing prior governmental interests.” Id. § 2000bb(a)(5).
Of course, the “compelling interest test” cited in the above-quoted RFRA provisions applies only if there is a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. That is, the government is not required to prove a compelling interest for its action or that its action involves the least restrictive means to achieve its purpose, unless the plaintiff first proves the government action substantially burdens his exercise of religion. The same cases that set forth the compelling interest test also define what kind or level of burden on the exercise of religion is sufficient to invoke the compelling interest test. See Hernandez v. Comm’r, 490 U.S. 680, 699, 109 S.Ct. 2136, 104 L.Ed.2d 766 (1989) (noting the “free exercise inquiry asks whether government has placed a substantial burden” on the free exercise of religion (citing Yoder and other -pre-Smith decisions)). Therefore, the cases that RFRA expressly adopted and restored — Sherbert, Yoder, and federal court rulings prior to Smith — also control the “substantial burden” inquiry.
It is to those decisions we now turn.
B.
In Sherbert, a Seventh-day Adventist was fired by her South Carolina employer because she refused to work on Saturdays, her faith’s day of rest. Sherbert, 374 U.S. at 399, 83 S.Ct. 1790. Sherbert filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits with the South Carolina Employment Security Commission, which denied her claim, finding she had failed to accept work without good cause. Id. at 399-401, 83 S.Ct. 1790. The Supreme Court held South Carolina could not, under the Free Exercise Clause, condition unemployment compensation so as to deny benefits to Sherbert because of the exercise of her faith. Such a condition unconstitutionally forced Sherbert “to choose between following the precepts of her religion and forfeiting benefits, on the one hand, and abandoning one of the precepts of her religion in order to accept work, on the other hand.” Id. at 404, 83 S.Ct. 1790.11
In Yoder, defendants, who were members of the Amish religion, were convicted of violating a Wisconsin law that required their children to attend school until the children reached the age of sixteen, under the threat of criminal sanctions for the parents. Yoder, 406 U.S. at 207-08, 92 S.Ct. 1526. The defendants sincerely believed their children’s attendance in high school was “contrary to the Amish religion and way of life.” Id. at 209, 92 S.Ct. 1526. The Supreme Court reversed the defendants’ convictions, holding the application of the compulsory school-attendance law to the defendants “unduly burden[ed]” the exercise of their religion, in violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Id. at 207, 220, 92 S.Ct. 1526. According to the Court, the Wisconsin law “affirmatively compelled the defendants], under threat of criminal sanction, to perform acts undeniably at odds with fundamental tenets of their religious beliefs.” Id. at 218, 92 S.Ct. 1526.
The Supreme Court’s decisions in Sherbert and Yoder, relied upon and incorporated by Congress into RFRA, lead to the following conclusion: Under RFRA, a *1070“substantial burden” is imposed only when individuals are forced to choose between following the tenets of their religion and receiving a governmental benefit (Sherbert) or coerced to act contrary to their religious beliefs by the threat of civil or criminal sanctions (Yoder). Any burden imposed on the exercise of religion short of that described by Sherbert and Yoder is not a “substantial burden” within the meaning of RFRA, and does not require the application of the compelling interest test set forth in those two cases.
Applying Sherbert and Yoder, there is no “substantial burden” on the Plaintiffs’ exercise of religion in this case. The use of recycled wastewater on a ski area that covers one percent of the Peaks does not force the Plaintiffs to choose between following the tenets of their religion and receiving a governmental benefit, as in Sherbert. The use of recycled wastewater to make artificial snow also does not coerce the Plaintiffs to act contrary to their religion under the threat of civil or criminal sanctions, as in Yoder. The Plaintiffs are not fined or penalized in any way for practicing their religion on the Peaks or on the Snowbowl. Quite the contrary: the Forest Service “has guaranteed that religious practitioners would still have access to the Snowbowl” and the rest of the Peaks for religious purposes. Navajo Nation, 408 F.Supp.2d at 905.
The only effect of the proposed upgrades is on the Plaintiffs’ subjective, emotional religious experience. That is, the presence of recycled wastewater on the Peaks is offensive to the Plaintiffs’ religious sensibilities. To plaintiffs, it will spiritually desecrate a sacred mountain and will decrease the spiritual fulfillment they get from practicing their religion on the mountain. Nevertheless, under Supreme Court precedent, the diminishment of spiritual fulfillment — serious though it may be — is not a “substantial burden” on the free exercise of religion.12
*1071The Supreme Court’s decision in Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n, 485 U.S. 439, 108 S.Ct. 1319, 99 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988), is on point. In Lyng, Indian tribes challenged the Forest Service’s approval of plans to construct a logging road in the Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Forest in California. Id. at 442, 108 S.Ct. 1319. The tribes contended the construction would interfere with their free exercise of religion by disturbing a sacred area. Id. at 442-43, 108 S.Ct. 1319. The area was an “integral and indispensable part” of the tribes’ religious practices, and a Forest Service study concluded the construction “would cause serious and irreparable damage to the sacred areas.” Id. at 442, 108 S.Ct. 1319 (eita-tions and internal quotation marks omitted).
The Supreme Court rejected the Indian tribes’ Free Exercise Clause challenge.13 The Court held the government plan, which would “diminish the sacredness” of the land to Indians and “interfere significantly” with their ability to practice their religion, did not impose a burden “heavy enough” to violate the Free Exercise Clause. Id. at 447-49, 108 S.Ct. 1319.14 The plaintiffs were not “coerced by the Government’s action into violating their religious beliefs” (as in Yoder) nor did the “governmental action penalize religious activity by denying [the plaintiffs] an equal share of the rights, benefits, and privileges *1072enjoyed by other citizens” (as in Sherbert). See id. at 449, 108 S.Ct. 1319.
The Lyng Court, with language equally applicable to this case, further stated:
The Government does not dispute, and we have no reason to doubt, that the logging and road-building projects at issue in this case could have devastating effects on traditional Indian religious practices.
Even if we assume that ... the [logging] road will “virtually destroy the ... Indians’ ability to practice their religion,” the Constitution simply does not provide a principle that could justify upholding [the plaintiffs’] legal claims. However much we might wish that it were otherwise, government simply could not operate if it were required to satisfy every citizen’s religious needs and desires. A broad range of government activities— from social welfare programs to foreign aid to conservation projects — will always be considered essential to the spiritual well-being of some citizens, often on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs. Others will find the very same activities deeply offensive, and perhaps incompatible with their own search for spiritual fulfillment and with the tenets of their religion.
* * *
No disrespect for these practices is implied when one notes that such beliefs could easily require de facto beneficial ownership of some rather spacious tracts of public property.
* * *
The Constitution does not permit government to discriminate against religions that treat particular physical sites as sacred, and a law prohibiting the Indian respondents from visiting the Chimney Rock area would raise a different set of constitutional questions. Whatever rights the Indians may have to the use of the area, however, those rights do not divest the Government of its right to use what is, after all, its land.
Id. at 451-53, 108 S.Ct. 1319 (citation omitted) (last emphasis added).
Like the Indians in Lyng, the Plaintiffs here challenge a government-sanctioned project, conducted on the government’s own land, on the basis that the project will diminish their spiritual fulfillment. Even were we to assume, as did the Supreme Court in Lyng, that the government action in this case will “virtually destroy the ... Indians’ ability to practice their religion,” there is nothing to distinguish the road-building project in Lyng from the use of recycled wastewater on the Peaks. We simply cannot uphold the Plaintiffs’ claims of interference with their faith and, at the same time, remain faithful to Lyng’s dictates.
According to the Plaintiffs, Lyng is not controlling in this RFRA case because the Lyng Court refused to apply the Sherbert test that was expressly adopted in RFRA. Hopi Br. at 40. In support, the Plaintiffs cite the Supreme Court’s statement in Smith that Lyng “declined to apply Sherbert analysis to the Government’s logging and road construction activities on lands used for religious purposes by several Native American Tribes.” Smith, 494 U.S. at 883, 110 S.Ct. 1595. This contention is unpersuasive.
“The Sherbert analysis” to which the Supreme Court referred in the quoted sentence from Smith is the Sherbert “compelling interest” test. See id. (noting that in recent cases, including Lyng, the Court had upheld the application of a valid and neutral law “regardless of whether it was necessary to effectuate a compelling interest” under Sherbert). But the Sherbert *1073compelling interest test is triggered only when there is a cognizable burden on the free exercise of religion. Lyng declined to apply the compelling interest test from Sherbert, not because Lyng purported to overrule or reject Sherbert’s analysis, but because the burden on the exercise of religion that was present in Sherbert was missing in Lyng.
The Lyng Court held the government’s road-building project in that case, unlike in Sherbert, did not deny the Plaintiffs “an equal share of the rights, benefits, and privileges enjoyed by other citizens.” Lyng, 485 U.S. at 449, 108 S.Ct. 1319. In Sherbert, the plaintiff could not get unemployment compensation, available to all other South Carolinians. In Lyng, all park users, including the Indians, could use the new road and the lands to which it led. Because the government action did not “burden” the exercise of the Indians’ religion, the Lyng Court had no occasion to require the government to present a compelling interest for its road-building. Thus, Lyng is consistent with the Sherbert standard codified in RFRA and forecloses the Plaintiffs’ RFRA claims in this case.
Finally, the Supreme Court’s pre-Smith decision in Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693, 106 S.Ct. 2147, 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986), is also on point. In Bowen, the parents of an American Indian child brought a Free Exercise Clause challenge to the statutory requirement to obtain a Social Security Number for their daughter in order to receive certain welfare benefits. Id. at 695-96, 106 S.Ct. 2147. The plaintiffs believed the government’s use of a Social Security Number would “ ‘rob the spirit’ of [their] daughter and prevent her from attaining greater spiritual power.” Id. at 696, 106 S.Ct. 2147. The Bowen Court rejected the plaintiffs’ Free Exercise Clause claims and stated:
Never to our knowledge has the Court interpreted the First Amendment to require the Government itself to behave in ways that the individual believes will further his or her spiritual development or that of his or her family. The Free Exercise Clause simply cannot be understood to require the Government to conduct its own internal affairs in ways that comport with the religious beliefs of particular citizens. Just as the Government may not insist that [the plaintiffs] engage in any set form of religious observance, so [the plaintiffs] may not demand that the Government join in their chosen religious practices by refraining from using a number to identify their daughter. “[T]he Free Exercise Clause is written in terms of what the government cannot do to the individual, not in terms of what the individual can extract from the government.”
Id. at 699-700, 106 S.Ct. 2147 (quoting Sherbert, 374 U.S. at 412, 83 S.Ct. 1790 (Douglas, J., concurring)) (emphasis in original).
The plaintiffs in Bowen could not force the government to alter its internal management procedures to identify their daughter by her name, even though they believed the use of a Social Security Number would prevent her from attaining greater spiritual power. It necessarily follows that the Plaintiffs in this case, despite their sincere belief that the use of recycled wastewater on the Peaks will spiritually desecrate a sacred mountain, cannot dictate the decisions that the government makes in managing “what is, after all, its land.” See Lyng, 485 U.S. at 453, 108 S.Ct. 1319 (emphasis in original).15
*1074C.
For six principal reasons, the Plaintiffs and the dissent would have us depart from the Supreme Court’s pr e-Smith jurisprudence in interpreting RFRA. We decline to do so and will address each of their contentions in turn.
First, the dissent asserts our interpretation of “substantial burden” is inconsistent with the dictionary definition of that term. Dissent at 1086-87. According to the dissent, “[bjecause Congress did not define ‘substantial burden,’ either directly or by reference to pr e-Smith case law, we should define ... that term according to its ordinary meaning.” Id. at 1088.
But here, Congress expressly referred to and restored a body of Supreme Court case law that defines what constitutes a substantial burden on the exercise of religion (i.e., Sherbert, Yoder, and other pre-Smith cases). See 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb(a)(4)-(5); 2000bb(b)(l).16 Thus, we must look to those cases in interpreting the meaning of “substantial burden.” Further, the dissent’s approach overlooks a well-established canon of statutory interpretation. Where a statute does not expressly define a term of settled meaning, “courts interpreting the statute must infer, unless the statute otherwise dictates, that Congress means to incorporate the established meaning of th[at] ter[m].” See NLRB v. Town & Country Elec., Inc., 516 U.S. 85, 94, 116 S.Ct. 450, 133 L.Ed.2d 371 (1995) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations in original). Here, Congress incorporated into RFRA a term of art — substantial burden — previously used in numerous Supreme Court cases in applying the Free Exercise *1075Clause. The dissent would have us ignore this Supreme Court precedent and, instead, invent a new definition for “substantial burden” by reference to a dictionary. Dissent at 1086-87. This we cannot do. Rather, we must presume Congress meant to incorporate into RFRA the definition of “substantial burden” used by the Supreme Court.
Second, the dissent asserts that our definition of “substantial burden” is “restrictive” and cannot be found in Sherbert, Yoder, or any other pre-Smith case. Dissent at 1088.17 The dissent contends it is “clear that RFRA protects against burdens that, while imposed by a different mechanism than those in Sherbert and Yo-der, are also ‘substantial.’ ” Id. at 1090.
For this purportedly “clear” proposition, the dissent cites no authority. That is, the dissent cannot point to a single Supreme Court case where the Court found a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion outside the Sherbert/Yoder framework. The reason is simple: There is none. In the pr e-Smith cases adopted in RFRA, the Supreme Court has found a substantial burden on the exercise of religion only when the burden fell within the Sherbert/Yoder framework. See Sherbert, 374 U.S. at 403-06, 83 S.Ct. 1790; Yoder, 406 U.S. at 207, 220, 92 S.Ct. 1526; Thomas, 450 U.S. at 717-18, 101 S.Ct. 1425 (applying Sherbert); Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n of Fla., 480 U.S. 136, 140-45, 107 S.Ct. 1046, 94 L.Ed.2d 190 (1987) (applying Sherbert); Frazee v. Ill. Dept of Employment Sec., 489 U.S. 829, 832-35, 109 S.Ct. 1514, 103 L.Ed.2d 914 (1989) (applying Sherbert). Because Congress expressly restored pre-Smith cases in RFRA, we cannot conclude RFRA’s “substantial burden” standard expands beyond the pr e-Smith cases to cover government actions never recognized by the Supreme Court to constitute a substantial burden on religious exercise.18
Third, the Plaintiffs assert RFRA’s compelling interest test includes a “least restrictive means” requirement, which “ ‘was not used in the pr e-Smith jurisprudence *1076RFRA purported to codify.’ ” Hopi Br. at 31 (quoting City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 535, 117 S.Ct. 2157); see also Dissent at 1084-85. The Plaintiffs note that, whereas the government must establish only a compelling interest to withstand a Free Exercise Clause challenge, the government must establish both a compelling interest and the least restrictive means to withstand a RFRA challenge. That is true enough, but it puts the cart before the horse. The additional statutory requirement of a least restrictive means is triggered only by a finding that a substantial burden exists; that is the sole and threshold issue in this case. Absent a substantial burden, the government need not establish a compelling interest, much less prove it has adopted the least restrictive means.
Fourth, the Plaintiffs contend RFRA goes beyond the constitutional language that “forbids the ‘prohibiting’ of the free exercise of religion and uses the broader verb ‘burden’: a government may burden religion only on the terms set out by the new statute.” Hopi Br. at 31-32 (quoting United States v. Bauer, 84 F.3d 1549, 1558 (9th Cir.1996)); see also Dissent at 1084. This contention ignores the Supreme Court’s repeated practice of concluding a government action “prohibits” the free exercise of religion by determining whether the action places a “burden” on the exercise of religion.19 Thus, the difference in the language of the Free Exercise Clause (“prohibit”) and the language of RFRA (“burden”) does not affect what constitutes a “burden” on the exercise of religion, under the very cases cited by RFRA as embodying the congressionally desired rule of decision.
Fifth, the Plaintiffs assert Congress expanded RFRA’s definition of “exercise of religion” with the enactment of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq. Navajo Br. at 29; see also Dissent at 1084-85. Prior to RLUI-PA’s enactment, “exercise of religion” under RFRA meant “the exercise of religion under the First Amendment to the Constitution.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2(4) (1994). The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects only “the observation of a central religious belief or practice.” Hernandez, 490 U.S. at 699, 109 S.Ct. 2136 (emphasis added).20 RLUIPA, however, amended RFRA’s definition of “exercise of religion” to include “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2(4); 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7)(A).
The Plaintiffs’ assertion conflates two distinct questions under RFRA: (1) what constitutes an “exercise of religion” and (2) what amounts to a “substantial burden” on the exercise of that religion. The first question, that the Plaintiffs’ activities *1077are an “exercise of religion,” is undisputed in this case. Of course, that question has no bearing on the second, “substantial burden,” question. RFRA’s amended definition of “exercise of religion” merely expands the scope of what may not be substantially burdened from “central tenets” of a religion to “any exercise of religion.” It does not change what level or kind of interference constitutes a “substantial burden” upon such religious exercise.
Finally, the dissent attempts to justify its expansive interpretation of RFRA on the basis that RFRA applies “in all cases” where the free exercise of religion is burdened, whereas pr e-Smith jurisprudence excluded entire classes of cases from scrutiny under the compelling interest test, e.g., prison and military regulations. Dissent at 1085. But no one disputes that RFRA applies here; it is not an issue. That RFRA applies to classes of cases in which the First Amendment’s compelling interest test is inapplicable is irrelevant. This observation does not define what constitutes a “substantial burden” and, therefore, does not speak to the threshold question whether a “substantial burden” exists.
In sum, Congress’s statutory command in RFRA to restore the Supreme Court’s pr e-Smith jurisprudence is crystal clear, and neither the dissent nor the Plaintiffs have offered any valid reason for departing from that jurisprudence in interpreting RFRA.
D.
In support of their RFRA claims, the Plaintiffs rely on two of our RLUIPA decisions. For two reasons, RLUIPA is inapplicable to this case. First, RLUIPA, by its terms, prohibits only state and local governments from applying regulations that govern land use or institutionalized persons to impose a “substantial burden” on the exercise of religion. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc; 2000cc-l; 2000cc-5(4)(A). Subject to two exceptions not relevant here,21 RLUIPA does not apply to a federal government action, which is the only issue in this case. See id. § 2000cc-5(4). Second, even for state and local governments, RLUIPA applies only to government land-use regulations of private land — such as zoning laws — not to the government’s management of its own land. See id. § 2000ce-5(5).22 Nonetheless, even were we to assume the same “substantial burden” standard applies in RLUIPA and RFRA actions, the two RLUIPA cases cited by the Plaintiffs do not support their RFRA claims.23
First, in Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989 (9th Cir.2005), an American Indian inmate brought a RLUIPA challenge against a prison policy requiring all male inmates to maintain their hair no longer than three inches. Id. at 991-92. Warsol-dier refused to comply with the policy because of his “sincere religious belief that he may cut his hair only upon the death of a loved one,” and was punished by confinement to his cell, the imposition of additional duty hours, and revocation of certain privileges. Id. at 991-92. We held the prison policy imposed a substantial burden on Warsoldier’s exercise of his religion because it coerced him to violate his religious beliefs under the threat of punishment. Id. at 995-96.
*1078Warsoldier is a straightforward application of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Sherbert and Yoder. As in Sherbert and Yoder, Warsoldier was coerced to act contrary to his religious beliefs by the threat of sanctions (i.e., confinement to his cell and the imposition of additional duty hours), and forced to choose between following the tenets of his religion and receiving a governmental benefit (i.e., by the revocation of certain privileges in prison). In contrast, and as analyzed above, the Plaintiffs in this case cannot show the use of recycled wastewater coerces them to violate their religious beliefs under the threat of sanctions, or conditions a government benefit upon conduct that would violate their religious beliefs.
Second, the Plaintiffs rely on our statement in San Jose Christian College v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir.2004), that, under RLUIPA, a “substantial burden” on a religious exercise must be “a significantly great restriction or onus upon such exercise.” Id. at 1034. The Plaintiffs contend the use of recycled wastewa-ter on the Peaks imposes a “significantly great restriction or onus” on the exercise of their religion.
San Jose Christian College’s statement of the “substantial burden” test does not support the Plaintiffs’ RFRA claims in this case. That “substantial burden” means a “significantly great restriction or onus” says nothing about what kind or level of restriction is “significantly great.”24 Instead, the “substantial burden” question must be answered by reference to the Supreme Court’s pre-Smith jurisprudence, including Sherbert and Yoder, that RFRA expressly adopted. Under that precedent, the Plaintiffs have failed to show a “substantial burden” on the exercise of their religion, and thus failed to establish a pri-ma facie RFRA claim. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s entry of judgment for the Defendants on the RFRA claim.25
*1079IV. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Plaintiffs contend the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the Defendants on five claims under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 el seq. We adopt the parts of the original three-judge panel opinion affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Defendants on the following four NEPA claims: (1) the Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the use of recycled wastewater; (2) the FEIS failed to discuss and consider the scientific viewpoint of Dr. Paul Tor-rence; (3) the FEIS failed adequately to consider the environmental impact of diverting the recycled wastewater from Flagstaff's regional aquifer; and (4) the FEIS failed adequately to consider the social and cultural impacts of the Snow-bowl upgrades on the Hopi people. See Navajo Nation, 479 F.3d at 1054-59.
The remaining NEPA claim, which is raised only by the Navajo Plaintiffs, is that the FEIS failed adequately to consider the risks posed by human ingestion of artificial snow. The Navajo Plaintiffs’ complaint did not include this NEPA claim or the factual allegations upon which the claim rests. The Navajo Plaintiffs raised this claim for the first time in their motion for summary judgment. In their opposition to the Navajo Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion, the Defendants contended the Navajo Plaintiffs had failed to raise this NEPA claim in their complaint. In response, the Navajo Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add a distinct and new NEPA cause of action claiming for the first time that the FEIS failed to consider the risks posed by human ingestion of artificial snow. The district court denied the Navajo Plaintiffs’ motion to amend and did not address this NEPA claim on the merits. Navajo Nation, 408 F.Supp.2d at 908. The Navajo Plaintiffs failed to appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to amend, and therefore, the district court’s denial of said motion is not before us.
Further, on this appeal, the Navajo Plaintiffs do not explain why their complaint is otherwise sufficient to state this NEPA claim — despite the Defendants’ assertions that the Navajo Plaintiffs failed to plead this NEPA claim.26 Indeed, the Na*1080vajo Plaintiffs concede “the specific allegations at issue were not included” in their complaint. Navajo Reply Br. at 23-24. Rather, the Navajo Plaintiffs assert this NEPA claim was adequately presented to the district court because the claim “was briefed at summary judgment by all parties and presented at oral argument [to the district court].” Id. at 24. Nevertheless, our precedents make clear that where, as here, the complaint does not include the necessary factual allegations to state a claim, raising such claim in a summary judgment motion is insufficient to present the claim to the district court. See, e.g., Wasco Prods., Inc. v. Southwall Techs., Inc., 435 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir.2006) (“ ‘Simply put, summary judgment is not a procedural second chance to flesh out inadequate pleadings.’”); Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968-69 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that the complaint did not satisfy the notice pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) because the complaint “gave the [defendants] no notice of the specific factual allegations presented for the first time in [the plaintiffs] opposition to summary judgment”).27 Because the Navajo Plaintiffs failed sufficiently to present this NEPA claim to the district court and also failed to appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to amend the complaint to add this NEPA claim, the claim is waived on appeal. See O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1063 n. 3 (9th Cir.2007).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Defendants on all NEPA claims.
Y. National Historic Preservation Act
Finally, the Plaintiffs contend the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the Defendants on their claim under the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 470 et seq. We adopt the part of the original three-judge panel opinion affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Defendants on the NHPA claim. See Navajo Nation, 479 F.3d at 1059-60.
VI. Conclusion
We affirm the district court’s entry of judgment in favor of the Defendants on the RFRA claim, and the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Defendants on the NEPA and the NHPA claims.
AFFIRMED.

. It appears that some of the Plaintiffs would challenge any means of making artificial snow, even if no recycled wastewater were used. Panel Oral Argument (Sept. 14, 2006) at 12:25-12:45 (Hopi Plaintiffs).

. The Plaintiffs-Appellants in this case are the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, the White Mountain Apache Nation, Bill Bucky Preston (a member of the Hopi Tribe), Norris Nez (a member of the Navajo Nation), Rex Tilousi (a member of the Havasupai Tribe), Dianna Uqualla (a member of the Havasupai Tribe), the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Flagstaff Activist Network.
The Defendants-Appellees are the United States Forest Service; Nora Rasure, the Forest Supervisor; Harv Forsgren, the Regional Forester; and Intervenor Arizona Snowbowl Resort Limited Partnership.

. We find no clear error in the district court's findings of fact, so our statement of the facts is based on the district court opinion. The dissent cursorily asserts that "the majority misstates the evidence below," Dissent at 1081, but fails to cite any fact in the opinion that it claims to be misstated, or as to which the district court erred in its findings of fact.

. In addition to downhill skiing, many other activities are conducted on the Peaks: sheep and cattle grazing, timber harvesting, road building, mining, motorcross, mountain biking, horseback riding, hiking, and camping. Navajo Nation, 408 F.Supp.2d at 884. Further, gas and electric transmission lines, water pipelines, and cellular towers are located on the Peaks. Id.

. At the time Wilson was decided, artificial snow from recycled wastewater was not used on the Snowbowl and was thus not at issue.

. The recycled wastewater that will be used at the Snowbowl "will undergo specific advanced treatment requirements, including tertiary treatment with disinfection. In addition, the reclaimed water will comply with specific monitoring requirements, including frequent microbiological testing to assure pathogens are removed, and reporting requirements.” Navajo Nation, 408 F.Supp.2d at 887. Further, the recycled wastewater will "comply with extensive treatment and monitoring requirements under three separate permit programs: the Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ('AZPDES') Permit, the Arizona Aquifer Protection Permit Program, and the Water Reuse Program.” Id.

. Of course, the impact of the Snowbowl proposal on the American Indian tribes is not the only factor the Forest Service must consider in administering the Coconino National Forest. Congress has directed the Forest Service to manage the National Forests for "outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes." 16 U.S.C. § 528. Additionally, the Forest Service must follow a number of other directives under federal laws and executive orders in administering the Co-conino National Forest, including, but not limited to: NEPA; NHPA; the Endangered Species Act of 1973 ("ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.; the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986, 16 U.S.C. § 497b; the Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1131 et seq.; and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, 16 U.S.C. §§ 528 et seq. Navajo Nation, 408 F.Supp.2d at 896.
The Forest Service’s task is complicated by the number of sacred sites under its jurisdiction. In the Coconino National Forest alone, there are approximately a dozen mountains recognized as sacred by American Indian tribes. Id. at 897. The district court found the tribes hold other landscapes to be sacred as well, such as canyons and canyon systems, rivers and river drainages, lakes, discrete mesas and buttes, rock formations, shrines, gathering areas, pilgrimage routes, and prehistoric sites. Id. Within the Southwestern Region forest lands alone, there are between 40,000 and 50,000 prehistoric sites. Id. The district court also found the Navajo and the Hualapai Plaintiffs consider the entire Colorado River to be sacred. Id. at 897-98. New sacred areas are continuously being recognized by the Plaintiffs. Id. at 898.

. On appeal, the Plaintiffs have abandoned their claims under the ESA, GCEA, and NFMA, leaving only the RFRA, NEPA, and NHPA claims.

. The Defendants do not contend RFRA is inapplicable to the government’s use and management of its own land, which is at issue in this case. Because this issue was not raised or briefed by the parties, we have no occasion to consider it. Therefore, we assume, without deciding, that RFRA applies to the government's use and management of its land, and conclude there is no RFRA violation in this case.

. In City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997), the Supreme Court invalidated RFRA as applied to the States and their subdivisions, holding RFRA exceeded Congress’s powers under the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 532, 536, 117 S.Ct. 2157. We have held that RFRA remains operative as to the federal government. See Guam v. Guerrero, 290 F.3d 1210, 1220-22 (9th Cir.2002).

. As the Supreme Court later elaborated:
Where the state conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or where it denies such a benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, a burden upon religion exists. While the compulsion may be indirect, the infringement upon free exercise is nonetheless substantial.
Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 717-18, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 67 L.Ed.2d 624 (1981) (emphasis added) (discussing Sherbert).

. The dissent's assertion that we misunderstand the "nature of religious belief and practice” is misplaced. See Dissent at 1096. One need not study the writings of Sir Francis Bacon, id. at 1080-81, or William James, id. at 1096, to understand "religious exercise invariably, and centrally, involves a 'subjective spiritual experience.'" Id. at 1096. We agree with the dissent that spiritual fulfillment is a central part of religious exercise. We also note that the Indians’ conception of their lives as intertwined with particular mountains, rivers, and trees, which are divine parts of their being, is very well explained in the dissent. Nevertheless, the question in this case is not whether a subjective spiritual experience constitutes an "exercise of religion” under RFRA. That question is undisputed: The Indians' religious activities on the Peaks, including the spiritual fulfillment they derive from such religious activities, are an "exercise of religion.”
Rather, the sole question is whether a government action that affects only subjective spiritual fulfillment "substantially burdens” the exercise of religion. For all of the rich complexity that describes the profound integration of man and mountain into one, the burden of the recycled wastewater can only be expressed by the Plaintiffs as damaged spiritual feelings. Under Supreme Court precedent, government action that diminishes subjective spiritual fulfillment does not "substantially burden” religion.
Indeed, the Supreme Court in Yoder drew the same distinction between objective and subjective effect on religious exercise that the dissent criticizes us for drawing today: "Nor is the impact of the compulsory-attendance law confined to grave interference with important Amish religious tenets from a subjective point of view. It carries with it precisely the kind of objective danger to the free exercise of religion that the First Amendment was designed to prevent.” Yoder, 406 U.S. at 218, 92 S.Ct. 1526 (emphasis added). Contrary to the dissent’s assertions, in Yoder, it was not the effect of the high school's secular education on the children’s subjective religious sensibilities that constituted the undue burden on the free exercise of religion. Rather, the undue burden was the penalty of criminal sanctions on the parents for refusing to enroll their children in such school. See Lyng, 485 U.S. at 457, 108 S.Ct. 1319 ("(Tihere is noth*1071ing whatsoever in the Yoder opinion to support the proposition that the ‘impact’ on the Amish religion would have been constitutionally problematic if the statute at issue had not been coercive in nature.”); Yoder, 406 U.S. at 218, 92 S.Ct 1526 ("The impact of the compulsory-attendance law on respondents’ practice of the Amish religion is not only severe, but inescapable, for the Wisconsin law affirmatively compels them, under threat of criminal sanction, to perform acts undeniably at odds with fundamental tenets of their religious beliefs.”). Likewise, in Sherbert, the protected interest was the receipt of unemployment benefits and not, as the dissent contends, the right to take religious rest on Saturday. See Sherbert, 374 U.S. at 410, 83 S.Ct. 1790 ("This holding ... reaffirms a principle that ... no State may exclude ... the members of any ... faith, because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). The Sherbert Court certainly did not hold public employers were required not to work their Seventh-day Adventist employees on Saturdays, or not to fire them if they refused to work on Saturdays. Hence, the protected interest was not a mandatory day off, but the money from unemployment benefits that voluntarily taking the day off would otherwise forfeit.

. That Lyng was a Free Exercise Clause, not RFRA, challenge is of no material consequence. Congress expressly instructed the courts to look to pre-Smith Free Exercise Clause cases, which include Lyng, to interpret RFRA. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(a)(5) ("[T]he compelling interest test as set forth in ... Federal court rulings [prior to Smith ] is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental ipterests.”).

. Our dissenting colleague is therefore incorrect in his assertion that “Lyng did not hold that the road at issue would cause no 'substantial burden’ on religious exercise.” See Dissent at 1089-90. Although Lyng did not use the precise phrase “substantial burden,” it squarely held the government plan did not impose a "burden ... heavy enough” on religious exercise to trigger the compelling interest test: “It is undisputed that the Indian respondents’ beliefs are sincere and that the Government’s proposed actions will have severe adverse effects on the practice of their religion. Those respondents contend that the burden on their religious practices is heavy enough to violate the Free Exercise Clause unless the Government can demonstrate a compelling need [in its project.] We disagree.” Lyng, 485 U.S. at 447, 108 S.Ct. 1319. Thus, Lyng declined to require the government to show a compelling interest because the burden on the exercise of the Indians’ religion was not "heavy enough”— not, as the dissent asserts, despite the presence of a substantial burden on the exercise of their religion. See Dissent at 1089-90.

. Our circuit's RFRA jurisprudence is consistent with the Supreme Court’s pre-Smith precedent examined in this section. In Guam v. Guerrero, 290 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.2002), we held that a Guam statute criminalizing the importation of marijuana did not substantially burden the practice of Rastafarianism under RFRA, even though “marijuana use is sacra*1074mental in the practice of that religion.” Id. at 1212-13, 1222-23. After noting "RFRA reestablishes the Sherbert standard,” we defined "substantial burden” as " 'substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs,’ including when, if enforced, it 'results in the choice to the individual of either abandoning his religious principle or facing criminal prosecution.' ” Id. at 1218, 1222 (citation omitted) (quoting Thomas, 450 U.S. at 718, 101 S.Ct. 1425; Braunfeld, 366 U.S. at 605, 81 S.Ct. 1144). Applying this test, we held that the Guam statute did not substantially burden Guerrero’s free exercise rights, because Rastafarianism does not require the importation, as distinguished from simple possession, of marijuana. Id. at 1223.
The dissent contends that our substantial burden standard is inconsistent with Mockaitis v. Harcleroad, 104 F.3d 1522 (9th Cir.1997). In Mockaitis, this court held that state prison officials substantially burden a Catholic priest’s religious exercise under RFRA, when the officials intrude into the Sacrament of Penance by recording a confession from an inmate to a priest. Id. at 1530-31. Mockaitis cannot serve as precedent here for two reasons. First, its holding has been invalidated by the Supreme Court's decision in City of Boerne, where the Court found RFRA unconstitutional as applied to the States and their subdivisions. See City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 532, 536, 117 S.Ct. 2157. Second, we find Mockaitis unhelpful in formulating the substantial burden test. Mockaitis did not define substantial burden, let alone analyze the substantial burden standard under the Sherbert/Yoder framework restored in RFRA, nor did the decision attempt to explain why such framework should not apply to define substantial burden.

. The dissent would limit the significance of Congress's citation of Sherbert and Yoder strictly to the content of what constitutes a compelling interest, not also when that test should be applied. But both Sherbert and Yoder use the same compelling interest test. If that is all Congress intended by the citation of the two cases, its citation of Yoder was redundant and superfluous. We "must interpret statutes as a whole, giving effect to each word and making every effort not to interpret a provision in a manner that renders other provisions of the same statute inconsistent, meaningless or superfluous.” Boise Cascade Corp. v. EPA, 942 F.2d 1427, 1432 (9th Cir.1991). Hence, we apply the two separate and distinct substantial burden standards in Sherbert and Yoder to determine when the compelling interest test is invoked.

. Relatedly, the dissent states “Sherbert and Yoder used the word 'burden/ but nowhere defined, or even used, the phrase ‘substantial burden.' ” Dissent at 1088-89. The dissent is correct that neither Sherbert nor Yoder used the precise term "substantial burden.” Sherbert held that a "burden" on the free exercise of religion requires the government to show a compelling interest, Sherbert, 374 U.S. at 403, 83 S.Ct. 1790, and Yoder held that an "undu[e] burden[]” on the free exercise of religion does the same, Yoder, 406 U.S. at 220, 92 S.Ct. 1526. For our purposes, however, this distinction is immaterial. Later Supreme Court cases have cited Yoder and other pre-Smith decisions for the proposition that only a "substantial burden” on the free exercise of religion triggers the compelling interest test. See Hernandez, 490 U.S. at 699, 109 S.Ct. 2136 (noting the "free exercise inquiry asks whether government has placed a substantial burden” on the exercise of religion "and, if so, whether a compelling governmental interest justifies the burden” (citing Yoder and other pre-Smith decisions)); see also Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Bd. of Equalization of Cal., 493 U.S. 378, 384-85, 110 S.Ct. 688, 107 L.Ed.2d 796 (1990). Where the Supreme Court has equated the content of "substantial burden” to "burden” and "undue burden,” we must do the same.

. For the same reason, the dissent is incorrect in its assertion that "[h]ad Congress wished to establish the standard employed by the majority, it could easily have stated that 'Government shall not, through the imposition of a penalty or denial of a benefit, substantially burden a person's exercise of religion.' " See Dissent at 1087 (emphasis in original). The addition of the italicized text would have been superfluous, because the cases Congress restored in RFRA recognize a substantial burden on the exercise of religion only when individuals are forced to choose between following the tenets of their religion and receiving a governmental benefit (Sherbert) or coerced to act contrary to their religious beliefs by the threat of civil or criminal sanctions (Yoder).

. See Yoder, 406 U.S. at 220, 92 S.Ct. 1526 ("A regulation neutral on its face may, in its application, nonetheless offend the constitutional requirement for governmental neutrality if it unduly burdens the free exercise of religion.” (emphasis added)); Sherbert, 374 U.S. at 403, 83 S.Ct. 1790 ("We turn first to the question whether the disqualification for benefits imposes any burden on the free exercise of appellant's religion.” (emphasis added)).

. Nevertheless, the Hernandez Court also cautioned: "It is not within the judicial ken to question the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith." Hernandez, 490 U.S. at 699, 109 S.Ct. 2136; see also Smith, 494 U.S. at 887, 110 S.Ct. 1595 ("What principle of law or logic can be brought to bear to contradict a believer's assertion that a particular act is 'central' to his personal faith?”). In light of the Supreme Court's disapproval of "the centrality test,” we have held the sincerity of a religious belief, not its centrality to a faith, determines whether the Free Exercise Clause applies. Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 884-85 (9th Cir.2008).

. Sections 2000cc-2(b) (burden of persuasion) and 2000cc-3 (rules of construction) apply also to the federal government. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(4)(B).

. RLUIPA defines a “land use regulation’’ as "a zoning or landmarldng law ... that limits or restricts a claimant’s use or development of land , if the claimant has an ownership, leasehold, easement, servitude, or other property interest in the regulated land." 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(5) (emphasis added).

.Because RLUIPA is inapplicable to this case, we express no opinion as to the standards to be applied in RLUIPA actions.

. The RLUIPA case cited by the dissent, Shakur, 514 F.3d 878, is not to the contrary. Dissent at 1090, 1093-94. In Shakur, we held that a triable issue of fact existed as to whether prison officials' denial of Halal meat to Shakur, a Muslim inmate, imposed a "substantial burden” on his religious exercise. Shakur, 514 F.3d at 888-89. The prison offered Kosher meat meals to Jewish inmates, but denied Halal meat meals to Shakur. Id. at 883, 891. The alternative, vegetarian diet exacerbated Shakur’s hiatal hernia and caused excessive gas that "interfere[d] with the ritual purity required for his Islamic worship.” Id. at 888 (emphasis added). Contrary to the dissent's assertions, Dissent at 1093-94, both meal choices provided to Sha-kur in prison were "unacceptable” to his religion — the non-Halal meat meals were forbidden by his religion and the Halal vegetarian meals interfered with the ritual purity required for his religious activities. Shakur, 514 F.3d at 889 (internal quotation marks omitted). Like the Seventh-day Adventist in Sherbert, who could obtain unemployment benefits only by working on Saturdays and thereby violating her religious tenets, Shakur could have a meal in prison and avoid starvation only if he violated his religious beliefs. Relying on Sherbert and Thomas, we held that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the prison policy imposed a substantial burden on Shakur's religious exercise, because the policy conditioned a governmental benefit to which Shakur was otherwise entitled — a meal in prison — upon conduct that would violate Shakur’s religious beliefs. Id. Thus, Sha-kur is a straightforward application of the Sherbert test and is consistent with the substantial burden standard we adopt today.

. As a last resort, the dissent invokes provocative soundbites, accusing us of "effectively readfing] American Indians out of RFRA.” Dissent at 1013-14. The dissent contends "the strength of the Indians' argument in this case could be seen more easily by the majority if another religion were at issue.” Id. at 1097. In support, the dissent notes the use of artificial snow on the Peaks is no different than the government "permitt[ing] only” baptismal water contaminated with recycled wastewater for Christians or "permitt[ing] *1079only” non-Kosher food for Orthodox Jews. Id. at 1097.
Putting aside the Equal Protection Clause violation that may arise from a law targeting only Christians or only Jews, the dissent’s examples are clearly distinguishable. When a law "permits only” recycled wastewater to carry out baptisms or "permits only” non-Kosher food for Orthodox Jews, the government compels religious adherents to engage in activities repugnant to their religious beliefs under the penalty of sanctions. Such government compulsion is specifically prohibited by the Supreme Court's decision in Yo-der. A law permitting Indians to use only recycled wastewater in their religious or healing ceremonies would likewise constitute a substantial burden on their religious exercise. But there is no such law in this case. When the government allows the use of recycled wastewater on a ski area, it does not compel the Plaintiffs to act contrary to their religious tenets. The Plaintiffs remain free to use natural water in their religious or healing ceremonies and otherwise practice their religion using whatever resources they may choose.

. The dissent quotes a sentence from the Navajo Plaintiffs' reply brief that cursorily states this NEPA claim was " 'properly pled' ” in the district court. Dissent at 1110 (quoting Navajo Reply Br. at 23). Nevertheless, the Navajo Plaintiffs' reply brief does not state what words in the complaint are sufficient to plead this NEPA claim, nor does the brief cite any case or rule that makes it so. It is well-established that a bare assertion in an appellate brief, with no supporting argument, is insufficient to preserve a claim on appeal. See Dennis v. BEH-1, LLC, 520 F.3d 1066, 1069 n. 1 (9th Cir.2008). The dissent’s advocacy of why the Navajo Plaintiffs’ complaint satisfies the notice pleading requirements of *1080Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) is the dissent's own invention and disregards the rule that we do not manufacture arguments for an appellant. See id.

. The dissent notes that the Navajo Plaintiffs raised the issue of human ingestion of artificial snow during the preparation of the FEIS and in the administrative appeal. Dissent at 1108-09. This, of course, is irrelevant to the question whether this claim wás presented to the district court. A party may raise a claim at the administrative proceedings, but forego that claim on judicial review. Further, presenting a claim during the administrative proceedings does not put the defendants on notice that such claim will also be raised before the district court.