Columbia Riverkeeper is releasing key documents that show that political pressure, not science, controlled the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s decision making for the controversial Morrow Pacific coal export terminal in Oregon. The documents provide a rare and unsettling look at how Corps’ decisions are made.
Riverkeeper prevailed in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that forced the Corps to disclose internal documents about why it took a shortcut environmental review, instead of a conducting a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Without an EIS, there are no public hearings or input. The scientists and engineers at the Corps’ Portland office determined an “EIS is the best tool for taking the requisite hard look” at the impacts of the coal export terminal, but there was “strong push back from HQ [headquarters]” to an EIS. Ultimately, it appears that the Corps’ leaders in Portland bowed to Washington D.C. pressure—decided to “acquiesce” as one email says—and proceeded with a short-cut Environmental Assessment (EA) instead of the thorough review in an EIS.
Our Executive Director, Brett VandenHeuvel provides a quick summary:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/NoER-lrg42Q[/youtube]
Investigative results: Corps emails and documents on the Morrow Pacific Coal Export Terminal:
Document 320Email Chain re: Thoughts from today’s briefing on the export terminals.
Document: Memorandum for the Record "Determination of the requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Millennium Bulk Terminals Longview project."Quotes:
- Colonel Eisenhauer to Colonel Funkhouser: “It's going to do the applicant no good to finalize an EA since I have determined that "it is obvious an EIS is required. Not to do so will only further delay the final permitting decision. I'll be sure to "document ... reasons for requiring an EIS.’”
- Colonel Eisenhauer to Colonel Funkhouser: “This increased barge traffic involves an extremely high degree of controversy (we've received over 30,000 comments from the public on this issue versus our normal receipt of less than 1,000 comments on typical projects and have also been asked to look at it by the EPA and USFWS)”
- Maher to Colonel Eisenhauer: “A thought -- Regardless of the reasons for strong push-back from HQ the subject issue appears to hinge exclusively on process, namely completion of an EA first. After careful review of the draft "Requirements Analysis" for proceeding directly to an EIS there remains no doubt our current course of action is correct. However, because the concern is process driven and not substantive, perhaps we acquiesce and complete the EA despite the fact we will conclude with several findings of significant impact and move forward with the EIS. It’s not the best business practice but it may settle the politics and get on back on track toward meaningful progress.”
- Colonel Eisenhauer to Maher: “We can do that, but at additional expense to the taxpayer. It comes down to, knowing we'll need an EIS, should the taxpayer foot the bill for the remainder of the EA with the same outcome or should the applicant foot the bill for information that will ultimately be included in the EIS?”
Email Chain Re: Second Draft EIS memo
Document: “Memorandum for the Record” (MFR), written by Corps Portland staff. The MFR is the official document the Corps uses to explain the need for a full Environmental Impact Statement.
Importance: Memo draft written by Corps Portland staff, outlines why a full Environmental Impact Statement should be required. Document 191
Email Chain re: Coyote Island Terminal phase II comm plan.
Document: Coyote Island Terminal phase II comm plan.
Importance: Email exchange between Corps Portland office and Corps Headquarters in Washington D.C. Headquarters stopped the release of the announcement of the Environmental Impact Statement. Document 080
Email Chain re: New Meeting: Regulatory Permitting Meeting.
Importance: Suggests that HQ did not want an EIS. Document 039
Email Chain re: Regulatory Permit - Coyote Terminal.
Importance: Portland recognizes an EIS was necessary but acquiesced to HQ. Document 058
Email Chain re: NEPA and treaty rights - Additional considerations (pt 1 of 2).
Importance: Concerned with drafted work being FOIA’d, and mention that HQ is not appreciating the seriousness of tribal intent and risk ignoring it. Document 030
Email Chain re: NEPA and treaty rights - Additional considerations (pt 2 of 2).
Importance: Recognizing an EIS is the best tool. Document 133
Letter from Colonel Eisenhauer, Army Corps Portland District Commander, to Ambre Energy (Coyote Island Terminal) stating that the coal export project requires an EIS because of the significant impacts.
Importance: Portland Corps was planning on informing applicant, Ambre Energy, that an EIS was required. Note: Doc. # 133, 191, 226 redacted documents were provided to Riverkeeper in late November by the Corps.
In Dec., Corps produced the second batch of unredacted documents 039, 080, 058, 030.
Background information:
