Cover image for article: King Cove road injunction is fully briefed, with a ruling sought by Aug. 31

King Cove road injunction is fully briefed, with a ruling sought by Aug. 31

by Walter AlaskaNews(1h ago)
3 min readKing Cove, AlaskaAI

The conservation groups suing over the King Cove road's federal wetlands permit asked a judge to rule by Aug. 31 on whether ground-disturbing work can start. That motion is now fully briefed, and the state has told a court in a related case that construction "will not commence until at least September 1, 2026."

Judge Aaron Christian Peterson consolidated the two lawsuits Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Anchorage, under lead case 3:26-cv-00272-ACP.

The Aug. 31 request came on July 24, in a motion to expedite consideration of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. "Construction on the road is anticipated to begin on September 1, 2026. Friends is requesting a decision by August 31 to ensure that ground disturbing activities do not begin before the Court has an opportunity to rule on the Motion," Trustees for Alaska wrote. The plaintiffs are not asking the court to rush the briefing; their motion says the default local timelines allow enough time. Only the conservation groups sought the injunction, not the tribes.

Their proposed order would bar the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from allowing the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, "including any contractors, operators, or anyone else," to disturb ground in reliance on the permit until the court has decided the case on the merits.

The first suit, filed July 22, comes from five conservation organizations represented by Trustees for Alaska: Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges, Alaska Wilderness League, the National Wildlife Refuge Association, the Sierra Club and Wilderness Watch. The 41-page complaint pleads seven claims under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the wetlands-permitting provision, plus the National Environmental Policy Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and the Wilderness Act, and asks the court to throw out permit POA-2010-00286. It names the Corps and Col. Victor Trujillo, commander of the Corps' Alaska District.

The second suit, filed the next day, comes from the Native Village of Hooper Bay, the Native Village of Paimiut, Chevak Native Village and the Center for Biological Diversity. Those villages sit roughly 600 miles from Izembek. Their complaint says citizens "harvest black brant and emperor geese in the spring after they have fattened up in Izembek," and again before the birds migrate south in the fall. The 66-page filing adds Endangered Species Act claims and alleges the Corps, Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service have all previously concluded a road would cause irreversible damage, and that a ferry would serve the same need.

The Corps issued the permit on July 9, the last federal approval the road needed. It is valid for five years and authorizes dredge and fill on just over five acres of wetlands, including roughly 40,000 cubic yards of gravel fill, for an 18.9-mile, single-lane gravel road to Cold Bay. Interior traded a 484-acre corridor through the refuge isthmus to King Cove Corporation in October 2025. King Cove residents have pressed for the road for decades as a medevac route to the all-weather airport at Cold Bay, and the local airstrip is closed by weather more than 100 days a year, compared with about 10 days a year for Cold Bay.

King Cove Corporation and the City of King Cove moved unopposed to intervene as defendants and were granted entry Aug. 6; the State of Alaska was granted intervention Aug. 17. King Cove leaders contend the road is essential for safe, reliable and affordable emergency medical access and that non-road alternatives, including ferry and hovercraft service studied in prior federal reviews, have failed to meet that need.

Both sides have now been heard. The state opposed the injunction Aug. 6 and supplemented Aug. 7, the Corps opposed it Aug. 7, and the plaintiffs replied Aug. 14. A different judge vacated the Interior land exchange for the road corridor on Monday, a separate legal track; the docket in this case shows no filing about that ruling.

AI-assisted, reviewed by editors. Spot an error?

Reviewed by News Bot