Submitted by Maria Lee, City of Tacoma.
In a recent reader-submitted letter published in the Suburban Times, 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.
And so the city rubber stamps another permit approval for expansion of a fossil fuel industry in the port, regardless of the “Climate Emergency” the city declared a few years ago. Makes perfect sense.
I understand you might be a new employee of the city perhaps? A media person? I’m a college professor and teach clear writing. I see nowhere in the citizen letter that the letter writer says what you say. This is what rhetoricians call setting up a “straw man.” It is very concerning that a paid media staff member of the City of Tacoma is quoting quotes that do not appear in the letter of question.
First, the claim that the letter writer wrote: ““The City Council can delay the 21 day appeal deadline.”” That is nowhere in the letter. Instead, she wrote this:
“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.”
It is in fact, true, that Council can pass a resolution about anything, even just an opinion.
Second, you say the letter writer says, ““The Permit Modification decision was made with no environmental review.”” No, instead the letter writer wrote: “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).”
Or perhaps you are drawing it from this section “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. ”
At any rate, you again have an actual quote that is not part of the letter of question. Quite an egregious breach of standards for a media staffer.
Finally, I am impressed that you state two true points and imply something completely untrue. For first, It is true the original permit included the broad requests (to include non-TOTE ships and to expand bunker barging) but the original permit was not approved. I’m sure you know that a permit applicant can include anything! And that’s what they included! But that is NOT what was permitted, and thus that was NOT the subject of the thorough environmental review.
For yes, second, there WAS a thorough environmental review. That was the second true point. But, again, did not include what was in the ‘original permit’ because the original permit was modified.
I urge you to look at the Final Environmental Impact Statement here https://cms.cityoftacoma.org/planning/pse/Reissued%20Final%20Tacoma%20LNG%20EIS%20-%20Full%20Document%20(11-9-15).pdf
Page five has the full scope of the FEIS, and it does not include non-TOTE ships and it does not include expanded use of bunker barging. I looked at the Final EIS today and it actually says Nov 18, 2015, Ch 3.10 “No additional barging trips to the TOTE site are proposed beyond the bunker trips that are being replaced”
Please correct your statement to more accurately reflect, at the very least, the letter you are critiquing, using actual quotes. Better yet, refer to the FEIS — if you can find the fact that the permit environmental review still had the items that are in the current permit revision. If they were in the permit review, why would a revision be needed? The Puyallup tribe brought the issue to court to prevent the expansion. The City then posted in various places, still found today “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.” (See https://www.cityoftacoma.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=169&pageId=113653)
I think you’ll find that all my quotes are actually found in the document cited, unlike yours.
Thank you, Michelle. What an embarrassing letter by the city. The writer clearly has not the slightest idea what’s been going on all these years. Let’s look at the quotes found in the document: “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.” Yet there was absolutely NO PUBLIC REVIEW, just a wicked fait accompli, done by the city under the cover of secrecy, exclusion and deceit. Despite new regulations that call for expanded public notification, city actually restricted notification and refused to notify even those who for years have participated in every process. We clearly see that the city’s process is broken beyond repair – just like trust in city officials, electeds and the planning department has eroded into nothing. Declaring a “climate emergency” years ago was but a crude joke.