In August 2019, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) released a Final Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement for the deepening and widening of the Matagorda Ship Channel. The Matagorda Ship Channel Improvement Project would allow very large oil tankers (up to Suezmax size) to transit between Point Comfort, Texas and the Gulf of Mexico. Following the Final EIS (FEIS), the Project was authorized by Congress in December 2020.
In December 2021, Ian Goodman and Brigid Rowan of The Goodman Group, Ltd. (TGG) provided Expert Testimony to Earthjustice, acting on behalf of a coalition of community and environmental groups, who opposed the Project. The Coalition was concerned with protecting the ecosystems and fisheries of the Matagorda Bay in the Gulf of Mexico. Specifically, the Project’s threats included mercury contamination from dredging a Superfund site, impacts on the livelihoods of people working in the local fishing, oyster, and shrimp industries, and increased greenhouse gases.
Following the 2019 publication of the Final EIS, a number of circumstances in the Matagorda Bay area had changed and new information had come to light, which warranted revisiting of the EIS. In particular, the Project acquired a new private partner, Max Midstream. And Max Midstream had announced plans to develop infrastructure at Port Calhoun (in Point Comfort) to create a major global crude oil export hub, providing an export alternative to other Texan oil ports. Shipping for the new infrastructure was reliant on the Project for a deepened and widened channel. This new infrastructure would have potentially serious climate implications at a time when the Biden Administration had identified the urgency of addressing the climate crisis.
In 2021, Project opponents began to request that the Corps undertake a Supplemental EIS (SEIS) to revisit the conclusions of the 2019 FEIS to reflect these new circumstances. Earthjustice retained TGG to provide Expert Testimony on the economic justification of a need for an SEIS in the changed circumstances.
In our testimony, TGG analyzed the very significant changes in the economic context related to US crude exports since the 2019 FEIS. These included:
In our testimony, TGG analyzed the very significant changes in the economic context related to US crude exports since the 2019 FEIS. These included:
- a dramatic tenfold increase in the crude export volumes enabled by the Project (compared with the FEIS projections), based on estimates by Max Midstream;
- a significant and continuing increase in US crude exports; and
- an increase in US crude oil prices, which was highly favorable for exports.
TGG concluded that the combination of these changes would likely result in significant environmental impacts that were not considered in the August 2019 EIS.
Furthermore, TGG challenged two major simplifying assumptions in the FEIS that were no longer valid in 2021:
- crude export volumes from the Port of Port Lavaca – Point Comfort (the Port) would be the same with or without the Project; and
- the Eagle Ford Shale (vs the Permian Basin) as the main source of exports from the Matagorda Ship Channel.
TGG’s testimony demonstrated that:
- circumstances have changed materially since the FEIS made these assumptions;
- these changes substantially undercut the validity of the FEIS in evaluating the impacts of the Project.
Given changes in the economic context related to the crude oil market, TGG concluded that a Supplemental EIS should be required.
On December 6, 2021, the Coalition sent a follow-up letter to the Corps with three export reports (including TGG’s Expert Testimony) related to the impacts of expanded crude exports in Matagorda Bay. However, the Corps failed to undertake a Supplemental EIS and instead began preparing for construction of the Project.
In May 2022, Earthjustice, on behalf of the Coalition, filed a lawsuit (Complaint for Declarative and Injunctive Relief) at the US Federal Court (US District Court for the District of Columbia). The Coalition sought to halt the construction of the Project until a Supplemental EIS was undertaken by the Corps. Earthjustice justified the need for the SEIS with the three expert reports, including TGG’s testimony.
In December 2022, in response to the lawsuit, the Corps withdrew its approval of the Project and committed to “extensive additional environmental review, including a full Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.” Earthjustice and its allies viewed this outcome as a significant victory: Project construction has been halted indefinitely and the Corps now has to go back to the drawing board and fully evaluate the environmental impacts of the Project in light of the significant changes that have occurred since 2019. According to Earthjustice, this evaluation could take years to complete.
Update: According to its website, the Corps has restarted the EIS process for the Project and held a public scoping meeting in June 2023. At the meeting, the Corps outlined a potential path forward for the Project and announced a timeline for the SEIS. This timeline indicates that a Draft SEIS (DSEIS) was due in Spring 2024 with a Final SEIS would be released in Fall 2024. Environmental groups expressed concern that that Corps could still move forward with the Project. However, at the time of writing (Summer 2024), the Corps has not yet published a DSEIS.
