that claims may be brought for injuries to tribal interests pursuant to the APA and the statutes under which plaintiffs sue, plaintiffs lack Article III standing to assert those claims because plaintiffs are not a federally recognized tribe, and as set forth above, the court lacks authority to adjudicate the issue of whether plaintiffs are entitled to acknowledgment of previous federal recognition. However, as the court held in its prior Order, tribal status is not plaintiffs’ only-available basis for Article III standing. The Ninth Circuit has held that having cultural and religious ties to an area suffering an environmental impact can be a sufficient basis to establish injury-in-fact for standing purposes. See Pit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 469 F.3d 768, 779 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court has also held that
holding that plaintiffs claim was moot because there was no standing because the supreme court considered plaintiffs claims to have drifted into the area of speculation and conjecture  so that there was no cognizable injuryinfact and hence no case or controversy upon which jurisdiction could stand holding that plaintiffs adequately pled injuryinfact to allege nepa violations where the plaintiffs had used the affected area for cultural and religious ceremonies for countless generations holding that rookerfeldman did not bar the plaintiffs federal action where a pennsylvania state court had previously dismissed the plaintiffs petition for review of an agencys decision for failure to comply with the pennsylvania rules of appellate procedure since the extent of the plaintiffs compliance with those rules had no bearing on the merits of the plaintiffs constitutional claims holding in suit under the cwa that environmental plaintiffs adequately allege injury in fact when they aver that they use the affected area and are persons for whom the aesthetic and recreational values of the area will be lessened  quoting sierra club v morton 405 us at 735 92 sct 1361 holding that scienter had not adequately been pled where the plaintiffs provided none of the required facts underlying the complaints allegations as to the information that was supposedly available to the individual defendants