**Interior Department Upholds Protections on Alaska’s Public Lands, Defying Trump-Era Plans for Oil and Gas Leasing**
In a significant decision, the U.S. Interior Department has reaffirmed protections on 28 million acres of public lands in Alaska, reversing a bid by the previous administration to open these areas to oil and natural gas leasing. This move comes as part of the Biden administration’s early efforts to reevaluate the environmental and socio-economic impacts of such developments.
### Historical Context
The at stake lands, designated as D-1 under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971, were originally withdrawn from mineral and oil and gas development to ensure the preservation of fish and wildlife habitats and to protect subsistence resources essential for Alaska Native communities. These protections have remained in place for decades, serving as a cornerstone of federal policy aimed at safeguarding the ecological integrity and cultural heritage of Alaska’s vast public lands.
### Reversal of Trump Era Plans
The Trump administration had sought to lift these protections in its final days, sparking widespread opposition. Interior Secretary David Bernhardt’s efforts to open up these lands for extractive activities were deemed unlawful by the current administration due to a lack of comprehensive environmental analysis and inadequate tribal consultation. The Interior Department has now taken a robust stance to ensure that such decisions prioritize the well-being of both the environment and Alaska Native communities.
### Environmental and Social Impact Assessments
To inform its decision, the Interior Department undertook an extensive environmental review. 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 analysis revealed that revoking these protections would lead to severe harm to subsistence hunting and fishing practices in local communities. It also highlighted that lifting any of these protections could result in lasting negative impacts on wildlife, vegetation, and permafrost, further exacerbating climate change concerns in the region.
### Tribal Consultation and