
Comments closed November 2
Demand the Army Corps stop the first Ambler Road mine
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers · Subarctic Creek, Kobuk River
- What
- The Ambler Road is meant to reach this mining district, and the Arctic mine is the first one to seek a federal permit.
- Where
- Subarctic Creek, Kobuk River, Ambler Mining District, AK
- How much
- Wetlands and waters filled for good: 120.7 acres. Total footprint: 1,727.2 acres. Ore processed a day: 11,000 short tons.
- Decided
- Comments closed November 2, 2026. No decision document is on file yet.Date from Army Corps of Engineers public notice POA-2019-00081 ↗, read October 9, 2026.
Where these four lines come from
- WhatOur plain-English read of the Army Corps public notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words under Case.
- WhereThe places and states the notice names, as PLAN read them.
- 120.7 acres“Fill placement would result in permanent impacts to approximately 120.7 acres (48.9 ha) of wetlands and other waters” Corps notice, p. 2 Open the document at p. 2 ↗
- 1,727.2 acres“The Project would have a total disturbance footprint of approximately 1,727.2 acres (699 hectares [ha])” Corps notice, p. 2 Open the document at p. 2 ↗
- 11,000 short tons“The Project is designed to process approximately 11,000 short tons per day” Corps notice, p. 1 Open the document at p. 1 ↗
- DecidedNovember 2, 2026, from Army Corps of Engineers public notice POA-2019-00081, notice of intent ↗: “EXPIRATION DATE: November 2, 2026”. Read October 9, 2026. The decision document is the one on file in PLAN’s record.
- Read from PLAN’s record November 14, 2026.
Our reportingOur Ambler Road investigation →
What the proposal said, and what the decision did
No figure from the proposal has been checked against the decision on this fight yet. What the record does hold is the issues ledger below.
No decision document is on PLAN’s record for this fight yet. When the agency’s decision lands, what it answered goes here.
PLAN's read: critical threat
The Ambler Road is meant to reach this mining district, and the Arctic mine is the first one to seek a federal permit.
What’s at risk
If this goes through
Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.
By the numbers, from the documents on the record
- Wetlands and waters filled for good
Corps notice, p. 2
Open the document at p. 2 ↗“Fill placement would result in permanent impacts to approximately 120.7 acres (48.9 ha) of wetlands and other waters”
- Total footprint
Corps notice, p. 2
Open the document at p. 2 ↗“The Project would have a total disturbance footprint of approximately 1,727.2 acres (699 hectares [ha])”
- Ore processed a day
Corps notice, p. 1
Open the document at p. 1 ↗“The Project is designed to process approximately 11,000 short tons per day”
- Operating life
Corps notice, p. 2
Open the document at p. 2 ↗“Construction is expected to require approximately 3 years followed by an anticipated operating life of approximately 13 years.”
- Water treatment over the 100-year closure period, undiscounted ($258 million discounted)
Trilogy Metals Form 10-K, fiscal 2025, p. 59
Open the source ↗“amounting to $1,095 million over the 100-year closure period. These costs equate to $258 million when discounted at 4.3% p.a. to the first year of post-production.”
- EIS record of decision due
Corps notice, p. 6
Open the document at p. 6 ↗“USACE plans to issue a Record of Decision concluding the EIS by September 15, 2028”
Testing the agency’s case
What the agency argues, and whether its own record backs it
- 2
- Hold up
- 2
- Not fully backed
The Army Corps of Engineers plans to prepare an environmental impact statement before it decides whether to issue a Section 404 permit for Ambler Metals' open-pit Arctic Mine. The fill for the mine and roads would permanently affect about 120.7 acres of wetlands and other waters. The Corps says a full review is required because the mine could significantly affect water, fish, wildlife, subsistence and the regional economy.
“USACE has determined that the Project has the potential to result in significant impacts to aquatic resources, water quality, fish and wildlife resources, subsistence uses, and regional socioeconomic conditions.”
Project Background
Purpose and needNot fully backedThe project is needed to bring domestic supplies of critical minerals to market, as well as to maximize value for Ambler Metals.
The notice gives some support. The project was added to the Federal Permitting Dashboard under Executive Order 14241, Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production. The ore would come from the Arctic Deposit in northwestern Alaska, which is a domestic source, and shipping concentrate to smelters or refineries outside of Alaska doesn't by itself make the supply foreign. Still, the notice never says which of copper, zinc, lead, gold and silver count as critical minerals. It also doesn't say whether the smelters or refineries are in the United States.
The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words
The agency says
“The primary need for the Project is to bring domestic supplies of critical minerals to market and maximize value to Ambler Metals LLC.”
Purpose and Need
Elsewhere in the same document
“In Fairbanks concentrate would be transferred to rail for transport to Anchorage, where it would be loaded onto marine vessels for shipment to smelters or refineries outside of Alaska.”
Project Description
AlternativesNot fully backedReasonable alternatives will be those that are technically, legally and economically feasible and that meet the identified project purpose and need, developed through scoping.
The notice commits to studying more than the applicant's plan. It lists a no action alternative, alternatives that avoid, minimize and compensate for impacts both inside and outside the project footprint, and alternatives using alternative practices, all to be developed through scoping. The stated need also includes bringing domestic supplies of critical minerals to market, not only maximizing value to Ambler Metals. Still, the applicant's purpose is to extract minerals profitably with proven, economical methods. The notice doesn't explain how much weight that company goal will carry in deciding which alternatives are reasonable.
The agency’s words, the record and the law +Hide the words
The agency says
“Reasonable alternatives that are technically, legally, and economically feasible and also meet the identified Project purpose and need will be developed through the scoping process.”
Alternatives
Elsewhere in the same document
“The applicant’s purpose is to profitably extract commercial quantities of copper, zinc, lead, and other valuable minerals from the Arctic Deposit ore reserves using proven and economical mining and milling methods.”
Purpose and Need
The law
“consistent with the provisions of this chapter, study, develop, and describe technically and economically feasible alternatives;” National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(F) ↗
Where its own record backs the agency
AuthorityThe Corps can decide this project through a Section 404 permit because building it requires discharging fill into waters of the United States.Why it holds +
The Project Description says fill placement would permanently affect about 120.7 acres of wetlands and other waters. That's the kind of fill discharge the cited permit covers, and the figures add up: 110.6 acres of wetlands plus 10.1 acres of ponds and streams. The notice doesn't say which permit would cover the treated water piped into Subarctic Creek, but that gap doesn't weaken the fill permit's reach.
The agency says
“Ambler Metals LLC submitted a complete application for a Section 404 permit to USACE on May 19, 2026 to authorize discharge of fill material into waters of the United States required to construct the Project.”
Project Background
Its own record backs it
“Fill placement would result in permanent impacts to approximately 120.7 acres (48.9 ha) of wetlands and other waters including approximately 110.6 acres (44.8 ha) of wetlands and 10.1 acres (4.1 ha) in other waters (i.e., ponds and streams).”
Project Description
ProcessScoping gives Tribes and the public a real opportunity to review the project and shape the issues the review covers.Why it holds +
The notice gives several ways to take part. There's a 45-day scoping period, planned meetings in Shungnak, Ambler, Kobuk and Fairbanks, a virtual meeting, and comments by the project website, email, mail or in person. It invites the Native Villages and cities of Ambler, Buckland, Deering, Kiana, Kivalina, Kobuk, Kotzebue, Noorvik, Selawik and Shungnak to act as cooperating and participating entities. It also commits to consultation under Executive Order 13175 and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Some gaps remain. No in-person meetings are listed in Kivalina, Kotzebue, Noorvik, Selawik, Buckland, Deering or Kiana, and the meeting details are tentative and could change because of weather.
The agency says
“Scoping provides agencies, Tribes, stakeholders, and the public with an opportunity to review the proposed Project, understand the federal decision-making process, and provide input on the environmental issues that should be considered during preparation of the NEPA document.”
Scoping
Its own record backs it
“Given the remote nature of the Project area and the potential for weather-related travel disruptions in rural Alaska, meeting dates, times, locations, and virtual participation details remain subject to change.”
Scoping
How this was read
Read from the agency’s own notice ↗, all 32 pages. Every quote is checked word for word against it, a claim marked contradicted stands on a quote from the same document, and a second reading argued the agency’s side of every verdict before it was published. The verdicts are our reading; the quotes are the agency’s. A court can set aside agency action it finds “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” (5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A) ↗), which is why these gaps are worth putting in the record.
In the agency’s own words
Ambler Metals LLC proposes an open-pit copper, zinc and lead mine at the Arctic Deposit in the Ambler Mining District of northwestern Alaska, processing about 11,000 short tons of ore a day for about 13 years. The project would disturb about 1,727.2 acres, permanently fill about 120.7 acres of wetlands and other waters, store tailings behind an engineered dam at the headwaters of Subarctic Creek, and truck concentrate over the Ambler Access Project to Fairbanks. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, will prepare an EIS before deciding on a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit, and is taking scoping com…
The groups on this fight
Six groups have a public record on the Ambler Road
Each is a plaintiff or counsel in the suit over the reissued Ambler Road permits, or has published its opposition to the road. Every link goes to the filing or release itself. Give straight to them; nothing routes through us.
- National Parks Conservation Association
Named plaintiff and author of the road's economic analysis
A plaintiff in Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. Trump over the Ambler Road permits, and the group that commissioned the independent economic analysis of the road.
NPCA report and two-page fact sheet ↗ - Trustees for Alaska
Counsel for the plaintiffs
Its attorneys signed the amended complaint challenging the reissued Ambler Road right-of-way permits (3:20-cv-00187, D. Alaska).
Third amended complaint, Jan 22 2026 ↗ - Tanana Chiefs Conference
Opposes the road, in its own words
Condemned the 2025 decision to move the road forward and says it will keep fighting to stop it.
TCC press release ↗ - Northern Alaska Environmental Center
Named plaintiff
Lead plaintiff in the suit over the reissued Ambler Road permits.
Third amended complaint, Jan 22 2026 ↗ - Alaska Wilderness League
Named plaintiff
A plaintiff in the suit over the reissued Ambler Road permits.
Third amended complaint, Jan 22 2026 ↗ - The Wilderness Society
Named plaintiff
A plaintiff in the suit over the reissued Ambler Road permits.
Third amended complaint, Jan 22 2026 ↗
Every group above is on STAND for Public Lands, with its court record, its filings and who backs it.
Who signs it
The notice names no signer PLAN could read. PLAN names a decision-maker only when the document names one.
The ground
The window has closed, so there’s no watch to set on it here.
The photograph on this page: A river below Brooks Range peaks, Alaska, from the air. More Than Just Parks.
In court on this ground
This fight isn’t bound to a land unit in PLAN’s record yet, so there are no court cases to show for its ground.
Who holds the vote
PLAN’s record doesn’t tie a member of Congress to this fight yet. The scorecard grades the votes and bills that decide public lands; nothing joins a vote or a bill to this decision, so there’s no member to name here without guessing.
See how your members vote ↗Army CorpsWe track this on the agency’s own system of record, where most on-the-ground decisions live.
On the record for this fight
34 people told us they filed on this fight through PLAN; we haven’t found any of their letters on the agency’s record yet.
- Milton M.38 seals
- Al, California48 seals
- Katherine S.7 seals
- Naomi Z.31 seals
- John R.7 seals
- Amy M.59 seals
- Angeline58 seals
- Emily, California35 seals
- and 20 more stewards
Ranked on letters found on the agency’s record, then letters filed. Readers appear as first name and last initial, or as a steward in their state; switch yours off in your record. All boards
The reporting behind this
From More Than Just ParksKnow an open comment period we are missing, or spotted a wrong deadline? .
More fights that need you
Go deeper for free
See how your members of Congress vote on public lands
Every representative, graded on the votes that decide the fate of parks, forests, and refuges.
Open ↗The mapSee the places under active threat
A live map of the parks, monuments, and wild country in the crosshairs right now.
Open ↗A wrong fact, a dead link, a form that wouldn’t take your letter: one tap and it comes to the people who build PLAN, with this fight attached.