A few things here, firstly, I am an overall supporter of public lands. That access that is provided to utilize the outdoors is one of the great things about Alaska, and most of the western states. It belongs to everyone and doesnt become the private enclave of the rich or well placed, which is what you find with places like Texas. So with that caveat, there are times when the restrictions placed on development in those places are potentially short sighted in certain circumstances. Then of course when it becomes obvious that some reasonable development needs to be made, it takes an act of Congress.
It's funny, but the Rich love public lands too. Have you ever done research on the effects of "open space" laws in California? Ever wonder why California land is so expensive, that no one but the rich can afford to live there? There's a reason.
Open space laws, and public land laws, deny land to the public to be used. So in a community in California, a bunch of Rich people get together, and propose and pass an open space law, that denies people building rights on land.
What does that do? Supply and Demand, remember? A growing population, will always have higher demand. But with an "Open Space" law, the amount of available land is reduced. What's the result? Lower supply, higher demand... land and home prices sky rocket. This is great for Rich people, and horrible for lower and middle income people. The Rich love public land. They can systematically shut lower income people out of their communities using it.
But of course, the Rich don't want to be considered greedy, or holding people down by denying lower and middle class housing. So instead they paint public lands as being a benefit to the lower and middle class. Just like you detailed here.
Btw, before public lands, and open space laws in California, the average home cost for CA was comparable to any other state.
All of this is from Thomas Sowell's book
Economic Facts and Fallacies.
Well it isnt my Native Corp, it is a different one I am not affiliated with. But that is besides the point, because that local corp, will benefit greatly by the road being built. They own the local store, and are part owners in the local seafood processing plant. This will allow them to fly goods in and out of Cold Bay, which is the third longest runway in the state and is fully IFR equipped. So it will mean not only access to better medical facilities, but cheaper goods, and a higher profit on exported goods that dont need to be flown to Cold Bay.
Again, my point is, it should never have been in federal hands. The reason your state did not benefit from the roads it needed for the past ten years or more, is because you allowed the federal government to dictate to you what you could do with your own land. You got exactly what you deserved.
Same thing with ANWR. You gave the federal government control over a huge chunk of Alaska, and then bewailed the fact that you couldn't extract your own natural resources for 20+ years.
While you play politics with who "allowed you to use your own land", you ignore the fact, it should never have been in their hands to begin with.
If the government had no control over Alaska at all, would you have built the road? Of course, and likely 10 years ago. If the government had no say, would you be drilling in ANWR?
Heck yeah, and likely would have started more than 20 years ago. But instead you allowed the federal government, which has no constitutional right, to dictate to you what you can do with your own land.
And in the name of prevent the Rich from using it? Are joking? The Rich are benefiting the most from this. Higher cost of goods, due to a lack of a service road, means more profits for the Rich. Higher cost of oil, due to a lack of getting the oil we have, results in higher profits for the Rich.
You are not stopping the Rich, you are literally lining their pockets.
Yeah, youd probably be surprised. In person, I generally listen first and speak second. 
