On May 6, 2026, the Department of the Interior announced it had conveyed approximately 1.4 million acres of land along the Dalton Utility Corridor to the State of Alaska. Secretary Doug Burgum stated the transfer advances the Alaska liquefied natural gas (LNG) project, the Ambler Road, and other rare-earth mining opportunities in the Ray Mountains.

The transfer follows the February 2026 issuance of Public Land Order (PLO) 7966, which revoked the longstanding withdrawals (PLOs 5150 and 5180) covering approximately 2.1 million acres. With this conveyance, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has fulfilled more than 96% of Alaska’s statehood land entitlement. Governor Mike Dunleavy called the transfer “a leap forward in advancing Alaska’s ability to responsibly develop its resources.” Conservation groups have condemned the transfer, stating it removes federal protections supporting subsistence hunting and Alaska Native communities. The litigation challenging PLO 7966—discussed below—remains pending.

PENDING LITIGATION

On March 10, 2026, a coalition of ten environmental organizations filed suit in federal court in Alaska: Northern Alaska Environmental Center, et al. v. Burgum, Case No. 3:26-cv-00108 (D. Alaska). The lawsuit challenges PLO 7966, the order that revoked PLOs 5150 and 5180 within the Dalton Utility Corridor (approximately 2.1 million acres north of the Yukon River).

Plaintiffs allege the revocation violates five federal statutes: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The State of Alaska has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the court lost jurisdiction once the lands were conveyed.

KEY LEGAL ISSUES

1. Can BLM revoke these corridor withdrawals?

ANCSA § 17(c)

ANCSA § 17(c) states that when the Secretary withdraws a utility or transportation corridor, neither the State nor Native corporations may select lands from the withdrawn area.

Plaintiffs argue § 17(c) permanently bars selection of these corridor lands, and that nothing in the statute authorizes later revocation of the withdrawal. Defendants respond that the withdrawals are administrative actions subject to modification or revocation under FLPMA § 204. Defendants’ argument is similar to DOJ’s position in Hopi Tribe v. Trump, where the federal government defended President Trump’s reduction of national monuments against claims that the power to reserve land did not include the power to later reduce or revoke those reservations. Under Defendants’ theory, once the corridor withdrawal is lawfully revoked, the State’s prior topfilings may take effect.

Defendants also point to Executive Order 14153, Secretarial Order 3422, and Congress’s disapproval of the 2024 Central Yukon Resource Management Plan (RMP) through the Congressional Review Act as evidence of executive and legislative support for revocation—see Timeline below.

ANILCA 906(e)

Plaintiffs further argue that the prohibition of revoking utility corridor PLOs is backed by ANILCA. ANILCA § 906(e) extended the State’s selection period by ten years, allowed prioritization, and authorized “topfilings” as future selections that become effective when land later becomes available, if “otherwise valid.” 43 U.S.C. § 1635(e).

When the State’s selected topfilings become effective, the parcels are segregated, and federal subsistence protections cease. Plaintiffs argue that ANILCA § 906 “does not alter ANCSA section 17(c)’s statutory prohibition on State selection” of those corridor lands—PLO 5150 & 5180—and, therefore, the State’s topfilings are “not ‘otherwise valid,’ and cannot be treated as effective selections.”

2. Was the environmental review adequate? (NEPA)

BLM relied on the 2024 Central Yukon Resource Management Plan (RMP) and its Final Environmental Impact Statement as the environmental basis for PLO 7966.

Plaintiffs allege the RMP was a broad planning document that did not analyze the specific consequences of opening 2.1 million acres to State selection. The RMP itself recommended retaining PLO 5150. Defendants contend the RMP already analyzed full and partial revocation scenarios, and that a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) connects the prior analysis to PLO 7966.

Plaintiffs challenge each finding in the Secretary’s Decision Rationale and BLM’s DNA, arguing that the increased acreage and changed prioritization between the Central Yukon RMP ROD and PLO 7966 altered land status, access rules, and management authority in ways requiring more project-specific review and community outreach.

BLM responds that the prior analysis remains adequate because the ACECs analyzed under Alternative D of the Central Yukon RMP “overlap with the Dalton Utility Corridor once the land is conveyed to the State,” so “the change in prioritization results in no substantive changes to the conclusions made in the PRMP/FEIS.” Although BLM admits the change “greatly increases the acreage impacted”—from 650,000 to 1.6 million acres—it concludes that the Central Yukon RMP had already found revocation would restrict subsistence access for affected villages, so “the change in the quantity of acreage would not change the result.”

3. Were subsistence protections properly addressed? (ANILCA § 810)

ANILCA § 810 requires federal agencies to evaluate whether a proposed action may restrict subsistence uses. If it may, the agency must provide notice and hold hearings in affected communities before acting.

BLM acknowledges the revocation may restrict subsistence uses, including loss of federal hunting and fishing regulations, firearm restrictions near the Dalton Highway, and limits on off-highway vehicle access.

Plaintiffs allege BLM did not hold community hearings specific to PLO 7966, instead relying on virtual hearings from 2021 conducted during the Central Yukon RMP process. Defendants contend that those prior hearings satisfy § 810.

4. Was tribal consultation adequate?

BLM began government-to-government consultation with Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations in July 2025. Three entities requested formal consultation: Doyon Limited, Stevens Village, and Allakaket Village Council. BLM met with Doyon in August 2025. A scheduled meeting with Stevens Village was canceled by the Tribe. Allakaket members did not join their virtual session. No additional consultation occurred before the Secretary signed the revocation on February 20, 2026.

Plaintiffs allege this was insufficient, particularly because PLO 7966 affects more communities than received notice. The Secretary’s Decision Rationale lists 8 communities as potentially affected; the Central Yukon RMP had previously identified 24 communities for full-revocation scenarios. The reduction was not explained.

“A reduction in the availability of subsistence resources and limitations on subsistence user access, due to revoking PLOs 5150 and 5180 within the Dalton Utility Corridor, may significantly restrict subsistence uses for the communities of Alatna, Allakaket, Anaktuvuk Pass, Coldfoot, Bettles, Evansville, Stevens Village, and Wiseman.” – Secretary’s Decision Rationale

IMPLICATIONS FOR ANCs AND TRIBES

Regardless of whether Alaska Native Corporations (ANC) or Tribal entities support or oppose development of the Ambler Mining District, LNG pipeline, or other regional projects, the following issues arise:

• Subsistence & Cultural Protections. Federal subsistence priority under ANILCA Title VIII ends when land is conveyed to the State. BLM acknowledges this will result in restrictions to subsistence uses, including shorter hunting seasons, smaller bag limits, loss of firearm use in traditional areas, and reduced off-highway vehicle access. BLM has stated it will have no authority to minimize adverse impacts after conveyance.

• Public Land Access. Alaska law prohibits off-highway vehicle use within 5 miles of the Dalton Highway. State conveyance may restrict access to adjacent federal, Native, and allotment lands. BLM has entered a non-binding memorandum of agreement with the State regarding future easement identification. The commitments are voluntary.

• Tribal Consultation & Co-Stewardship. Tribal leadership in the region has raised concerns about the adequacy of federal consultation before PLO 7966 was issued, including the federal government’s trust responsibility to Tribes. Although the adequacy of consultation remains a contested issue in the litigation, BLM has indicated a continued commitment to tribal consultation and co-stewardship. BLM will implement Secretarial Order 3403 to fulfill its trust responsibility and seek co‑stewardship with federally recognized Alaska Native Tribes.
• Economic Participation. ANCs and Tribes should evaluate opportunities for preferential treatment in competitive contract bidding for infrastructure and resource projects, including the Ambler Road, LNG pipeline, and rare earth mining in the Ray Mountains.

KEY STATE TOPFILING TIMELINE

• 1971-72 – ANCSA enacted. PLO 5150 withdraws the Dalton Corridor for utility and transportation purposes, blocking State and Native selections.
• 2024 – Central Yukon RMP recommends retaining PLO 5150 in full.
• Jan. 2025 – Executive Order 14153—“Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential”—directs evaluation of revoking PLO 5150.
• Oct.–Dec. 2025 – Congress overturns the 2024 Central Yukon RMP recommendation via the Congressional Review Act.
• Feb. 3, 2025 – Secretarial Order 3422 Initiates agency action to implement withdrawal revocation.
• Feb. 25, 2026 – PLO 7966 issued. Revokes PLOs 5150 and 5180; opens approximately 2.1 million acres.
• March 10, 2026 – Federal lawsuit filed (Northern Alaska Environmental Center, et al. v. Burgum).
• March 27, 2026 – State topfilings convert to effective selections. Federal subsistence protections removed.
• May 6, 2026 – DOI conveys approximately 1.4 million acres to the State. BLM reports 96%+ of statehood entitlement fulfilled.
• May 7, 2026 – State of Alaska files motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing sovereign immunity bars the court from divesting the State of conveyed land. 

We also acknowledge the contributions of Sophia Tidler, Law Clerk, in the development of this update.

This article summarizes aspects of the law and opinions that are solely those of the authors. This article does not constitute legal advice. For legal advice regarding your situation, you should contact an attorney.