Submitted by Barbara Church.
Broken Promises: Tacoma Planning Department Facilitates PSE’s Expanded LNG Fueling and Bunker Barging Without Environmental Review or Public Input
Seven years ago, the Planning and Development Services (PDS) Department of the City of Tacoma, its director Peter Huffman and other staff, made a commitment to the public: They would ensure protection through environmental review and public participation if Puget Sound Energy (PSE) ever sought to expand its fueling operations to other vessels or bunker barges. Yet, on November 28, 2023, PDS approved PSE’s request for an infrastructure expansion on the Blair Waterway, which will allow additional vessel dockside refueling and the capability to fill bunker barges traversing the Salish Sea waterways with LNG fracked gas.
Because PDS sought approval for this environmentally harmful expansion through a shoreline-permit “revision,” the City has allowed it to bypass any public review, other agency review, or assessment of environmental impact. There is only a short 21-day period to appeal this approval, which expires on or about December 19, 2023. So time is short and the urgency is great.
This expanded scope, both at the dock for fueling new vessels (beyond the two Tote ships) and for fueling never-before-permitted bunker barges, was not adequately studied in the original project’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). One reason: Because PSE misleading promised as part of that assessment that “[n]o additional barging trips to the TOTE site are proposed beyond the bunker trips that are being replaced.” (11/9/2015 FEIS, Ch. 3.10, Transportation, p. 3-10-14).
Such broken promises still linger on the City’s website, assuring residents of protection and inclusion. Regarding the possibility of a supplemental EIS, the City promised: “According to PSE and TOTE, the configuration of the fueling arm is unique to the TOTE ships, and a conventional bunker barge could not be refueled using this infrastructure…It is recognized by all parties that additional shoreline permitting and public review, as well as additional review by the Coast Guard (which has authority over vessels), would be required.”
These same promises were echoed by PDS Director Peter Huffman in a memo to then-City Manager TC Broadnax on January 4, 2017. Additionally, Shirley Schultz, a Planning Supervisor at PDS, continued the same assurances to environmental groups and activists via email. Despite these and other assurances, and despite high community interest in the planning and permitting stages of the original PSE LNG project, the community was not informed of PSE’s request in early 2023 for approval of the shoreline permit revision to allow expansion of barging and fueling infrastructure. Prior to Huffman’s approval decision on November 28th, the City did not alert the public and stakeholders that the permit request was pending, it did not update its LNG website to mention the potential increase in project scope, and it did not allow any avenue for public input despite its posted promise that such review would be required. All these omissions reflect an unacceptable lack of transparency and accountability.
PDS claims to be following accepted practices based on state and local laws and regulations in approving, “behind closed doors,” PSE’s requested shoreline permit revision. This approach circumvents environmental review, thwarts the public process, shrouds controversial decisions in secrecy, and violates the public’s trust. These poor outcomes result from the lack of transparency practiced by the City Manager, the City Attorney, and PDS. The question remains: Will they ever become accountable to the people?
Expanding LNG fueling and bunker barging almost certainly poses significant risks to the environment, health, and safety of our City. City Manager Elizabeth Pauli and PDS Director Huffman have found a way to circumvent the public process designed to inform and protect us from such developments. The only way to address this debacle is to contact these three City administrators via email (epauli@cityoftacoma.org, shuffman@cityoftacoma.org, sschultz@cityoftacoma.org), and to speak to Tacoma’s Mayor and Council Members at this Tuesday’s Council meeting, in order to demand a pause in the 21-day appeal period – which expires on or about December 19, so that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) can be prepared to thoroughly study the environmental, health, and safety impacts of this proposed expansion. Specifically, you can request the Council to pass an expedited resolution expressing concern about this expansion and requesting the City Manager to instruct PDS immediately to undertake an SEIS or contract a third party to do the same. In addition to, or instead of, testifying at the upcoming meeting, you can submit comments by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, December 11, to cityclerk@cityoftacoma.org, urging them to uphold the City’s promises to the public. Email addresses for the Mayor and Council Members are at https://www.cityoftacoma.org/government/city_council. (Every Monday you can submit comments.)
There are two statements made about the recent PSE Permit Modification decision that are factually inaccurate. I am highlighting those two statements here, along with the facts:
“The City Council can delay the 21 day appeal deadline.”
There is nothing the City Council can do to affect this deadline. The decision at issue is a Modification of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The appeal is to the Shoreline Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58, the Shoreline Management Act. WAC 461-08-305, subsections 340 and 355 are what establishes the 21-day appeal period.
“The Permit Modification decision was made with no environmental review.”
The subject of this Permit Modification was expressly included in PSE’s original permit application. That application, including the infrastructure that is the subject of the Permit Modification, received a thorough SEPA environmental review by the City of Tacoma as well as a supplemental review by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. Tacoma’s SEPA decision was appealed up to Division II of the Washington State Court of Appeals. The correctness and thoroughness of Tacoma’s SEPA review and decision was affirmed at every level. This is explained in detail in the Permit Modification decision.
The grounds for the City’s decision on the Permit Modification are explained in detail in the written decision. The decision is under appeal, and the City will not comment further until the appeal process is concluded.
The article I wrote does not include either of the quote-marked statements cited in the response by Maria Lee of the City’s Media and Communications Department. So the rebuttal is confusing at best. The article never asserted that the Council, itself, can pause the 21-day appeal period. It asked readers to direct their demand for a pause to three City administrators involved in permit review and to the Council (the City Manager attends Council meetings).
The article also asked the Council to pass a resolution requesting the City Manager to have a Supplemental Environmental Impact assessment conducted.
The article noted that the original 2015 FEIS stated that no additional barging trips beyond TOTE were proposed by PSE, which the City’s rebuttal post does not dispute. It also does not dispute that the public had no opportunity to review and comment on this now-approved permit revision or that the City website promised, in a pre-2018 FAQ, that “the configuration of the fueling arm is unique to the TOTE ships, and a conventional bunker barge could not be refueled using this infrastructure…[and] additional shoreline permitting and public review, as well as additional review by the Coast Guard (which has authority over vessels), would be required.” Barbara Church