Regulatory Reform

NANA Regional Corporation, an Alaska Native Corporation, supports the proposed regulatory reform by arguing that National Park Service Bulletin 38 is inconsistent with Alaska-specific laws (ANCSA and ANILCA) and creates unnecessary burdens on mining projects. They specifically request that Bulletin 38 be revised to exclude "landscapes" from eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places and recommend the revocation of the BLM's Public Lands Rule.

The Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico Counties, representing multiple counties and various industries, opposes the proposed National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) policy changes. They argue that the new policies overstep statutory authority, prioritize landscape conservation and climate change over the original purposes of individual refuges, and unfairly favor non-governmental partners and tribal knowledge over local government and private landowner interests.

SalmonState, an Alaska-based conservation organization, opposes the Department of the Interior's proposal to streamline and deregulate permitting processes for extractive industries on federal public lands. They argue that such actions would harm Alaska's tourism and commercial fishing industries, compromise wildlife and salmon habitats, and lead to costly legal challenges by removing established environmental review safeguards.

The Council for Museum Anthropology, Archaeology Division, and Council on Heritage and the Anthropology of Tourism, representing sections of the American Anthropological Association, support the current NAGPRA regulatory framework. They urge the Department of the Interior to preserve the 2024 updates and request increased funding and administrative support to help institutions comply with the new requirements.

The commenter argues that the NAGPRA regulations are essential for the respectful repatriation of Native American human remains and cultural objects. They emphasize that these regulations protect Tribal Sovereignty and facilitate necessary communication between tribes, museums, and the federal government.

A coalition of land stewards, tribal nations, ranchers, and other stakeholders supports the Public Lands Rule as a necessary framework for sustainable land management. They argue that the rule provides essential tools for balancing economic development with environmental health, incorporating traditional ecological knowledge, and protecting taxpayers from the costs of industrial accidents.

The Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) supports the proposed regulatory reform, arguing that reducing regulatory burdens is essential for effective conservation and responsible stewardship of public lands. They provide specific recommendations, including reforming Endangered Species Act regulations to focus on recovery incentives, empowering local land managers, and utilizing market-based approaches.

The Next 100 Coalition and The Trail Posse oppose the proposed expedited permitting process for energy production on public lands. They argue that the shortened timelines for emergency projects undermine scientific review, public engagement, and existing environmental and historic protections, potentially harming local economies and rural communities.

The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) supports the Department of the Interior's efforts to reduce regulatory burdens while emphasizing that the DOI must maintain its statutory obligations and adequate staffing. They propose specific actions including increased funding for SHPOs and THPOs, greater emphasis on tribal consultation, expedited tax credit reviews, and a one-time grant for heritage preservation technology.

Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness, The Wilderness Society, and Center for Biological Diversity are submitting comments in opposition to the proposed regulatory reform. They specifically argue against the potential revocation of Public Land Order 7917, which protects the Rainy River watershed from mining, and oppose the rescission of specific BLM regulations that limit mineral lease acreages.