### Retention of Alaska Public Lands Protection Sparks Debate in the Oil and Gas Industry
The decision by the U.S. Interior Department to retain protections on 28 million acres of D-1 public lands in Alaska has significant implications for the oil and gas industry, reversing a bid by the previous administration to allow extractive activities on these lands. Here, we delve into the context and implications of this decision.
#### Historical Context
In 1971, Congress authorized protections from mineral and oil and gas development under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). These protected lands, known as D-1 lands, are managed by Alaska’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM), a division of the Interior Department. The D-1 lands span across Northwest, Southwest, Southcentral, and Southeast Alaska, encompassing critical habitats for fish and wildlife, including vital salmon populations, large caribou herds, and migratory bird habitats.
#### Trump-Era Attempts at Development
During the final days of the Trump administration, Interior Secretary David Bernhardt attempted to open up these protected areas to oil and gas extraction without adequate environmental assessments or consultation with local Alaska Native communities. This move was widely criticized for its lack of consideration for the potential impacts on subsistence hunting and fishing, as well as the cultural and ecological significance of the lands.
#### Biden Administration’s Response
One of the Biden administration’s early actions was to pause the Trump-era orders and initiate a comprehensive environmental review. This review aimed to evaluate the potential effects of lifting the protections on fish and wildlife habitats, subsistence resources, and Alaska Native communities.
#### Community Input and Environmental Impact Statement
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) conducted 19 community meetings and received over 15,000 public comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The overwhelming majority of these comments supported retaining the protections, particularly from Alaska Native groups. The final EIS concluded that revoking