1975 they had claimed only that two religious sites were in the area. On the basis of these religious sites, the Navajos assert that their rights under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and the First Amendment would be violated if they were not permitted to remain in control of the area. See Complaint and Hopi Memorandum, Manybeads v. United States, No. 88-0181-GAG. The Havasupai 13 Canyon Mine Case. In this case, cur rently pending before the Chief of the Forest Service, the Havasupai oppose the development of a small (17 acre), underground mine, on the ground that its existence is inconsistent with their religious beliefs and practices. In support of their position, the Havasupai claim that their area of religious significance encompasses the entire (but imprecisely defined) territory between the Grand Canyon in the north and the cities of Williams and Flagstaff, Arizona in the south. The claimed area is well over a million acres. In this area, the Havasupai claim to have over a thousand sacred religious sites. See Havasupai testimony before the Regional Forester, May 14, 1987, at 50, 60; Havasupai testimony before the Office of the Chief, February 27, 1987, at 50, Canyon Mine Appeal, Forest Service Nos. 1874, 1868. Indeed, the Havasupai claim that "[a]ll of the springs and seeps" on their aboriginal lands (2.2 million acres) are sacred and essential to the preservation of their religion and culture. Canyon Mine Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix G at 74. The Acoma Tribe El Malpais National Monument Dispute. The Acoma Indians opposed the creation of the El Malpais National Monument and a related conservation area on religious grounds. They argued that they practice their religion and have numerous religious sites throughout a 13,000 acre area of federal land. Consequently, they insisted that the area should not be included in the monument and conservation area because such inclusion would interfere with the Acomas' religious practices, by opening up the area to public use. Stumbo, Tribe Fights to Preserve Sacred Land, L.A. Times, Dec. 26, 1987, pt. 1, at 1, col. 1. The above examples illustrate the enormous scope and all-encompassing nature of Indian religious claims. Every imaginable use of federal lands can be, and has been, said to interfere with Indian religious practices. Thus it is clear that S.2250, by creating a statutory preference for Indian religious interests, will impair greatly the public's access to federal lands, harm the development of the nation's natural resources, and interfere severely with the government's management of public lands. 111. $.2250 IS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE NUMEROUS In his introductory remarks to S.2250, Senator Cranston referred to a 1979 Federal Agency Task Force report which contained an evaluation of various federal agencies' policies and procedures as they affected the practice of Native American religions. See 134 Cong. Rec. 53544-02 (daily ed. March 31, 1988). That report concluded that due to ignorance and prevailing attitudes, federal policies were often directly or indirectly hostile or indifferent toward traditional Native American religions. While the Task Force report may have painted an accurate portrait of the situation as it existed in 1979, it does not reflect the practices and policies of federal land management agencies today. Indeed, as the following discussion indicates, the statutes and regulations governing the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") give Indian tribes a special measure of influence when it comes to land management decisions. Far from being indifferent or hostile to Native American religious concerns, the Forest Service and BLM, in compliance with their regulations and policies, act to involve Indian tribes and accommodate their religious concerns in every aspect of public land management. Because S.2250 is an amendment to the American Indian Religious Freedom Act ("AIRFA"), it is appropriate first to point out that the Forest Service and BLM have, since the Task Force report was published, incorporated the purposes of AIRFA into their land management planning procedures. The National Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. SS 16001614 (1982), requires the Forest Service to develop and adopt land and resource management plans for the National Forest system. Among the principles on which forest planning must be based is the protection and preservation of the inherent right of American Indians to believe, express, and exercise their traditional religions. 36 C.F.R. § 219.1(a)(6)(1987). In addition, the Forest Service is required to identify, protect, and manage all significant cultural resources on National Forest lands, including Native American cultural resources. Id. 5 219.24. The Forest Service is also required to coordinate regional and forest planning with the planning efforts of Indian tribes, to notify tribes whose lands or treaty rights are expected to be affected by the agency's activity, to review and consider the objectives of Indian tribes as expressed in their plans and policies, and where conflicts are identified, to consider alternatives so that the conflicts may be resolved. Id. S 219.7. In short, the Forest Service's land management planning already gives special treatment to Indian tribes as interested parties, and expressly provides that American Indian religious practices must be respected. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act ("FLPMA"), 43 U.S.C. SS 1701-1784, requires the Secretary of the Interior to develop and implement land use plans for the use of public lands administered by the BLM. 43 U.S.C. S 1712. The BLM, under its regulations implementing FLPMA, is required to provide for meaningful involvement of Indian tribes in the development of resource management plans. 43 C.F.R. S 1610.3-1(a). The BLM is expressly required to provide "Indian tribes opportunity for review, advice, and suggestion on issues and topics" of importance to them. Id. S 1610.3-1(b). The BLM is also required to notify Indian tribes when it intends to prepare, amend, or revise a resource management plan. Id. S 161.0.3-1(d). The importance of Native American religion and the requirement for consultation with Native Americans is expressly incorporated into the BLM Manual, part 1623.14(b), which provides: [P]ursuant to the American Indian Religious implementation. In sum, the Forest Service and the BLM are both required to consider and respect American Indian religious concerns in their land use planning. Native American religious val ues can be protected by the agencies in the ongoing planning process if the Native Americans will advise the agencies in advance of the need for protection. Once a Native American interest receives protection in a land use plan, an agency cannot permit subsequent actions that are inconsistent with that interest. Aside from the statutes and regulations governing public land planning, a variety of other statutes applicable to the Forest Service and the BLM help ensure that Native Americans are involved in land management decisions. The National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 43 U.S.C. S 4321, requires federal land management agencies to prepare environmental impact statements for major federal actions having a significant effect on public lands. As part of the |