### Interior Department Upholds Protections for 28 Million Acres of Alaska Public Lands
The U.S. Department of the Interior has made a significant move by retaining protections for 28 million acres of public lands in Alaska. This decision reverses the Trump administration’s bid to open these lands to oil and gas leasing, a move that was widely criticized for its potential environmental impacts and disregard for the rights of Alaska Native communities.
#### Historical Context
The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 designated these lands as D-1 lands, which are protected from mineral and oil and gas development to ensure that public interests are considered. Specifically, the act safeguards these regions to preserve food access and traditional resources for Alaska Native peoples and communities. Despite this, the Trump administration attempted to lift these protections in its final days, citing the need for economic development.
#### Biden Administration’s Actions
One of the Biden administration’s first actions upon taking office was to pause the Trump-era orders and initiate an environmental review. This comprehensive review aimed to assess the potential effects of lifting protections on fish and wildlife habitats, subsistence resources, and the well-being of Alaska Native communities. The review was supported by over 15,000 public comments, with overwhelming support from Alaska Native groups for retaining the protections.
#### Community Involvement
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) conducted 19 community meetings to gather inputs on the proposal. These meetings and the extensive public comment process highlighted the importance of preserving these lands for future generations. Andy Moderow, senior director of policy at the Alaska Wilderness League Action, emphasized that the decision to retain protections is crucial because “these lands currently sustain our communities and have supported our people for generations”.
#### Environmental Impact
The BLM’s final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) found that revoking protections would have severe consequences, including harming subsistence hunting and fishing, as well as causing lasting