Grijalva, Merkley, Colleagues Call to Center EJ and Climate Impacts of Dakota Access Pipeline; Urge Increased Transparency and Tribal Consultation in Environmental Analysis
Washington, D.C. – House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) today led more than 30 House and Senate colleagues in a letter to the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps) expressing their concerns with the agency’s climate analysis in the court-ordered Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). The lawmakers’ letter calls to light problems with insufficient climate analysis and lack of transparency regarding the environmental impacts of the DAPL, specifically spotlighting how the Corps’ policies limit the ability of the environmental justice community of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to protect itself in the event of an oil spill.
“The Corps' climate analysis in the DEIS systematically underestimates the climate impacts of DAPL,” the lawmakers write. “It is especially troubling that the Corps ignores the pipeline's climate impacts, including downstream emissions, because the Corps claims the oil would be transported through other means or extracted from a different region if the pipeline were shut down. Simply assuming away the no-action alternative by saying limiting fossil fuel supply would not affect emissions ignores a robust and growing body of literature, and it is not acceptable.”
As it stands currently, the DEIS relies on outdated climate projections, does not report climate impacts beyond 2050, and uses flawed greenhouse gas and social cost of carbon calculations.
“In the Final EIS, the Corps should account for both upstream and downstream emissions by evaluating climate impacts from the project, consider the impacts of climate change on DAPL, quantify the emissions from the project, and recalculate the social cost of carbon and GHG estimates to include the project's complete lifecycle emissions,” the lawmakers urge.
Aside from the climate impacts the DEIS fails to account for, the lawmakers expressed concern about the long history of limited transparency the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has experienced from the Corps and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHSMA). The Corps and PHMSA are redacting documents that underpin the DEIS.
“It is impossible for the Tribe and the broader public to draft substantive comments on the DEIS when the supporting justification remains undisclosed. If the public is to provide substantive comment on a DEIS, the Corps must find a way to provide access to the underlying information,” the lawmakers write.
The Tribe is still waiting to receive unredacted versions of documents that detail potential pipeline spills and provide information essential to the creation of emergency plans needed to prepare an adequate spill response plan.
“As federal agencies, you have a trust responsibility to not only consult with Tribes but to protect and support Tribal lands, assets, and resources – a responsibility enshrined in countless treaties. Tribal consultation is paramount in recognizing Tribal sovereignty and self-determination,” the letter continues.
"In our Lakota culture, water is considered our first medicine. Protecting our water is a cultural imperative. That is why we need the information being hidden from us by the Corps of Engineers - in order to protect our water, today, and for future generations,” said Doug Crow Ghost, Director of Standing Rock Department of Water Resources.
The letter is endorsed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Center for Biological Diversity, Food and Water Watch, Earthjustice, Oil Change International, and Women's Earth & Climate Action Network.
Read the full letter HERE or see text below:
Dear Assistant Secretary Connor,
We write to express our concerns with the climate analysis in the Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) court-ordered Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) and how Corps' policies limit the ability of the environmental justice community of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to protect itself in the event of an oil spill. Thank you for the extended timeframe for public comment to allow the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and other stakeholders more time to meaningfully engage. We believe that a thorough Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is essential to ensuring projects are well-designed and protect the environment. We urge you to ensure that the Final EIS thoroughly examines the climate impacts of DAPL and to work with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and any other relevant agencies to provide the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and other stakeholders with the information they need to meaningfully participate in the public comment and Tribal consultation process.
Insufficient Climate Analysis
The Corps' climate analysis in the DEIS systematically underestimates the climate impacts of DAPL. The DEIS relies on outdated climate projections, fails to report impacts beyond 2050, uses flawed greenhouse gas (GHG) and social cost of carbon calculations, and limits relevance to such a narrow scope to make the assessment meaningless.
It is especially troubling that the Corps ignores the pipeline's climate impacts, including downstream emissions, because the Corps claims the oil would be transported through other means or extracted from a different region if the pipeline were shut down. Simply assuming away the no-action alternative by saying limiting fossil fuel supply would not affect emissions ignores a robust and growing body of literature[2], and it is not acceptable.
The environmental analyses required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are valuable tools that must not be shortchanged or neglected. Unfortunately, we believe this DEIS does just that. In the Final EIS, the Corps should account for both upstream and downstream emissions by evaluating climate impacts from the project, consider the impacts of climate change on DAPL, quantify the emissions from the project, and recalculate the social cost of carbon and GHG estimates to include the project's complete lifecycle emissions.
Transparency
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has repeatedly expressed concerns with the Corps' and PHMSA’s lack of transparency. The Tribe has still not received unredacted versions of documents relating to potential pipeline spills and emergency planning that it needs to craft an adequate spill response plan. Now, PHMSA and the Corps are redacting documents that underpin the DEIS.
The DEIS justifies its findings by citing these redacted materials in the spill model report and facility and geographic response plans, which remain undisclosed. It is impossible for the Tribe and the broader public to draft substantive comments on the DEIS when the supporting justification remains undisclosed. If the public is to provide substantive comment on a DEIS, the Corps must find a way to provide access to the underlying information. With respect to the DAPL DEIS, the Corps should reconsider the redactions in Appendices F, the Facility and Geographic Response Plans, and G, the Optimization Modeling Reports.
Conclusion
As federal agencies, you have a trust responsibility to not only consult with Tribes but to protect and support Tribal lands, assets, and resources – a responsibility enshrined in countless treaties. Tribal consultation is paramount in recognizing Tribal sovereignty and self-determination. Per the White House's Uniform Standards for Tribal Consultation, this process is "a two-way, Nation-to-Nation exchange of information and dialogue between official representatives of the United States and of Tribal Nations regarding Federal policies that have Tribal implications." Therefore, an open exchange of information and communication is central to ensuring meaningful consultation – and continuing to withhold documents that are the basis of the DEIS, and that the Tribe needs to develop their own spill response plan, prevents achieving meaningful engagement.
We ask that the Corps reevaluate the assumptions made in the DAPL DEIS to provide a thorough, quantitative analysis of climate impacts, consistent with the intent of NEPA, by considering the full scope of the climate impacts in the Final EIS for the DAPL project. Transparency and scientific integrity are essential to the NEPA process and vital to any community's ability to meaningfully review and respond to an agency's conclusions about a project's environmental impacts.
We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Press Contact
202-740-4715
Next Article Previous Article