JUNEAU, Alaska — Alaska Native tribes and multiple conservation organizations have filed lawsuits challenging a recent federal land exchange deal intended to allow construction of a road through one of Alaska’s most sensitive wildlife refuges. The legal disputes, filed on Wednesday, mark at least three separate challenges aimed at overturning the controversial agreement.

The land exchange, finalized last month between Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and an Alaska Native village corporation, would enable the potential construction of a 19-mile road linking the remote community of King Cove to an all-weather airport in Cold Bay. Opponents of the plan argue that the decision was insufficiently analyzed, poses significant environmental risks, and threatens migratory bird populations relied upon by Alaska Native communities for food and cultural practices.

---

King Cove’s Push for Road Access

King Cove, a small community of approximately 870 residents located near the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, has long advocated for a road connection to Cold Bay’s airport, roughly 18 miles (29 kilometers) away. Residents and local officials stress the road is critical for emergency medical evacuations, as King Cove’s existing airstrip is often unusable due to severe weather, and water travel to Cold Bay is frequently impeded by rough seas.

Alaska’s governor and congressional delegation have publicly supported the project, framing it as a life-and-safety measure. They argue that without reliable access to an all-weather airport, residents face heightened risks during medical emergencies.

---

Details of the Land Exchange

Under the agreement, the federal government would transfer approximately 490 acres (199 hectares) of land to King Cove Corporation to establish a potential road corridor. In exchange, the corporation would convey roughly 1,739 acres (704 hectares) to the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and relinquish selection rights to additional land. Interior Secretary Burgum’s decision document notes that the proposed road would largely traverse refuge lands, but clarifies that securing permits and funding would be the corporation’s responsibility.

---

Opposition From Native Tribes and Conservation Groups

A coalition of Native tribes—including the Native Village of Hooper Bay, Native Village of Paimiut, and Chevak Native Village—filed one of the lawsuits, alongside the Center for Biological Diversity, a prominent environmental organization. While these tribal governments are located hundreds of miles north of King Cove, they emphasize that road construction could disrupt migratory bird patterns vital to their communities’ subsistence and cultural traditions.

Angutekaraq Estelle Thomson, traditional council president of the Native Village of Paimiut, highlighted the ecological and cultural significance of the refuge’s eelgrass wetlands. “These wetlands are a lifeline for emperor geese, black brant, and other birds that feed our families and connect us to Indigenous relatives across the Pacific,” Thomson said. “Defending Izembek is inseparable from defending our subsistence rights, food security, and our ability to remain Yup’ik on our own lands.”

Additional lawsuits have been filed by a coalition of conservation groups represented by Trustees for Alaska, and by Defenders of Wildlife, citing potential environmental harms and risks to migratory bird species protected under federal law.

---

Environmental and Legal Implications

Environmental advocates warn that road construction through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge could fragment sensitive habitats, disrupt migratory routes, and set a precedent for further development in protected areas. Legal analysts note that the lawsuits may hinge on whether federal agencies fully assessed environmental impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and whether the land exchange process complied with statutory requirements for public consultation and tribal engagement.

An Interior Department spokesperson, Elizabeth Peace, declined to comment on ongoing litigation.

As the lawsuits proceed, stakeholders on both sides are closely watching the case, which could have lasting implications for land management, Indigenous rights, and conservation policy in Alaska.