Biden-Harris Administration Suspends Water and Wetlands Permit for Ambler Mining Road in Alaska

The Biden-Harris administration has recently suspended a water and wetlands permit for the proposed Ambler mining road in Alaska, just a month and a half after the Bureau of Land Management rejected the project. Earlier this month, the Army Corps of Engineers notified the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority—a state-owned development bank—that the previously granted permit to fill in roughly 1,400 acres of wetlands was suspended “effective immediately.” The proposed 211-mile industrial road aims to support new mining operations for minerals like zinc and copper in northwestern Alaska, which is rich in minerals and could boost the local economy. The Trump administration had approved this road project in 2020, a decision that faced legal challenges. In June, the Biden-Harris administration’s Bureau of Land Management officially canceled the right-of-way permits required for the project to cross federal lands.

The Biden-Harris administration has rejected the 211-mile industrial road planned through the Brooks Range foothills, which would have facilitated commercial mining in a remote Arctic region of Northwest Alaska. The Bureau of Land Management, under the Biden-Harris administration, formalized its denial of the right-of-way permit essential for constructing the Ambler Access Project. This road was intended to connect the Dalton Highway to the Ambler mining district. Given Alaska’s sparse road infrastructure—having about the paved road mileage as Maryland despite being around 58 times larger—this road was seen as crucial for making mining in this mineral-rich but isolated area economically viable.

In its decision record, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) highlighted several adverse effects it anticipated from the proposed road, including habitat fragmentation for the Western Arctic Caribou Herd and other wildlife, damage to fish habitats, air and water pollution, accelerated permafrost thaw, and cultural disruptions. The BLM argued that these combined impacts would negatively affect Indigenous communities in the area. It noted that “impacts on subsistence and public health, including stress, food insecurity, and potential toxin exposure from the road, would disproportionately harm low-income and minority populations, particularly Alaska Native villages reliant on the surrounding environment for subsistence.”

In the record of the decision, the BLM cited several negative impacts it believed would occur from the road, including fragmentation of habitat used by the Western Arctic Caribou Herd and other wildlife, degradation of fish habitat, air and water pollution, accelerated permafrost thaw and cultural disruptions. Those combined impacts, it said, would harm Indigenous communities in the road area. “Impacts to subsistence and public health, including stress, subsistence-food insecurity, and potential exposure to toxins from the road, would disproportionately negatively affect low-income and minority populations, specifically Alaska Native villages in and near the project area that depend on the surrounding area for their subsistence lifestyle,” it said.

However, some critics argue that this decision contradicts the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA), which explicitly mandates agencies to facilitate access to the Ambler district. ANILCA’s language is clear: Congress authorized the road and instructed the Secretary of the Interior to approve it. Section 201 (4)(b) of ANILCA, which established the Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, states that “Congress finds a need for access for surface transportation across the Western (Kobuk River) unit of the Gates of the Arctic National Preserve (from the Ambler Mining District to the Alaska Pipeline Haul Road) and the Secretary shall permit such access in accordance with the provisions of this subsection.”

Deantha Skibinski, executive director of the Alaska Miners Association, stated, “Clearly, the Administration and its agencies believe they are above the law. At the same time, they are hypocritical; they advocate for domestic mineral production while rejecting multiple proposals for mineral development in the U.S.” The Biden-Harris administration has also turned down other mineral development projects in Alaska, Minnesota, and other states.

Alaska’s congressional delegation has condemned the decision. Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, along with Democratic Representative Mary Peltola, all support the road project. Murkowski highlighted that nine years of permitting work have been invested in the project, which she argues would provide access to crucial minerals, spur development in a rural area, and offer strategic advantages under higher environmental and safety standards compared to other countries. She stated that the Biden-Harris administration has, “ignored federal law, national security needs, and Alaska’s strong track record of responsible development, all for election-year politics.” Despite their oath to uphold U.S. laws, the administration has disregarded legal mandates.

Currently, China leads in the mining and processing of critical minerals, often relying on child labor in the Congo for cobalt and cheap coal power for mineral processing. The Biden-Harris administration’s rejection of U.S. mineral development, which is essential for green technologies, places the United States in a vulnerable position, as American companies may have to source these minerals or the green products they require from China.

Background

The Biden administration decision reverses an approval granted by the Trump administration in 2020, which issued a 50-year right-of-way permit to build the road just days before President Trump left office. After two lawsuits were filed that sought to overturn the Trump administration’s approval, the Biden-Harris administration’s BLM launched a new study of environmental effects, with a focus on subsistence and Indigenous cultural values. The new study concluded that the Trump administration’s analysis understated the negative impacts of the road.

Conclusion

This decision by the Biden-Harris administration is just one more against energy development in Alaska. It has handed the environmentalist movement major victories in Alaska, including the cancellation of previously awarded oil and gas lease sales, ignoring the law on drilling activity in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and the removal of lands from oil development in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. The Biden-Harris administration’s decision on the Ambler Access project, however, ignores the support of local communities for the project, denies jobs for Alaskans, and critical revenues for a region where the young are being forced to leave because of a lack of opportunity. It also makes the United States vulnerable to the availability of critical minerals and green technologies from China, which dominates those supply chains. The State of Alaska is expected to sue and since the law is so clearly in its favor, should prevail, so these actions in an election year are simply a waste of taxpayer money and unduly postpones economic development in this region of Alaska, which experiences some of the nation’s greatest poverty.