The Biden administration has voiced support for a contentious plan to construct a road through a national wildlife refuge in Alaska, sparking a divide among environmentalists, local residents, and political figures.
A draft environmental review published this week shows the administration backing the road project, which would link the remote King Cove area to an airport deemed essential for emergency medical evacuations. Proponents argue that the road is a matter of life and death, but opponents contend that it could jeopardize the refuge’s fragile ecosystem, threatening wildlife and habitats crucial to Indigenous tribes.
Balancing conservation and community needs fuels Alaskan road controversy
Estelle Thomson, leader of the Native Village of Paimiut, expressed her community’s concerns to The Hill, pointing out that the land is home to bird species like the emperor goose, which are vital to her people’s food sources. “A decline in their population could be catastrophic for us,” she stated, highlighting the profound relationship between her village and the wildlife.
Although the Obama administration rejected the road, the Trump administration later approved it. However, faced with pushback from progressives over other Alaskan oil projects, the Biden administration rescinded the approval, citing procedural mistakes in the previous review.
The Fish and Wildlife Service issued a statement on Wednesday, confirming that it had corrected the previous administration’s errors. Nevertheless, the review still reaches the same conclusion: the road construction can proceed.
The new review stresses that land swaps for economic gain cannot be justified on their own. It stipulates that any exchange must align with the conservation goals of the Alaskan wildlife refuge system and preserve subsistence rights and habitats.
Additionally, it highlights that the proposed deal would add 30,000 acres to the refuge, including 1,700 acres designated as Wilderness. Even if the Biden administration had opposed the road, it is likely that it would have been approved under a future administration.
