The passage you provided is incomplete and doesn't contain a clear claim. It seems to be hinting at a conflict between economic development (building a new plant) and environmental conservation (preserving wildlife).

To understand the author's claim, we need more context. For example, we need to know:

* What is the specific nature of the wildlife preserve? Is it a crucial habitat for endangered species?

* What are the potential impacts of the plant on the wildlife? Will it destroy habitat, introduce pollution, or disrupt migration patterns?

* What are the arguments for and against building the plant? Does it create jobs and boost the economy? Are there alternative locations available?

Without these details, it's impossible to determine the author's claim.

Possible claims the author could be making based on the limited information:

* The importance of protecting wildlife: The author may be arguing that preserving the wildlife preserve is essential to maintain biodiversity and ecological balance.

* The conflict between development and conservation: The author may be highlighting the tension between economic growth and environmental protection.

* The need for a balanced approach: The author may be suggesting that a compromise is needed, where development can occur without causing significant harm to the environment.

To understand the author's true claim, you need to provide the complete passage with the context surrounding the conflict.