I am not sure if this is the season of the severely duped or the season of the extreme connivers. One thing for certain we are already suffering from our first snow job of the season. It is a snow job to claim the oil terminal project will not stink or effect air quality, it is a snow job that shipping Bakken crude can be made safe, or spilling diluted bitumen can be cleaned up, it is a snow job that our first responders will be able to handle an oil fire or explosion, it is a snow job that our oil spill response can handle a serious spill, it is a snow job that scores of local jobs and great benefit will come with crude oil storage and transport in Grays Harbor. And maybe the worst snow job is the rumor going around that Hoquiam lacks the authority or does not have the requisite knowledge to deny the Substantial Shoreline Development Permit.
The City of Hoquiam through its administrator has a fundamental obligation, good reason and ample legal authority to deny the Substantial Shoreline Development Permit.
All of the permits issued to Westway were vacated and remanded by the Shorelines Hearings Board on Dec. 9, 2013. A formal EIS process reset the permit process. Under SEPA (the state Environmental Protection Act) if a determination of significance is issued “each agency with jurisdiction shall commence action to suspend, modify, or revoke any approvals until the necessary environmental review has occurred.” Previous project permits, including the original Substantial Shoreline Development Permit issued under the mitigated determination of non-significance, JARPA (joint aquatic resource permit application, and the conditional use permit were issued prior to completion of the environmental impact statement (Sept. 30, 2016) and were issued without inclusion of environmental impact statement findings. Westway must re-apply for all permits, including the conditional use permit. Under the current Hoquiam Municipal Code a new conditional use permit for the Westway bulk “crude oil” storage facility is prohibited.
The state Supreme Court recently granted review and heard arguments over the exclusion of ORMA (Ocean Resources Management Act) considerations in the permit process and permit requirements for coastal projects that bring an adverse impact to coastal resources. One of the specific considerations in their review is whether ORMA requirements need to be met prior to the approval and permitting of Westway’s oil terminal project. If the court rules ORMA does apply then Hoquiam would fall short of its own code requirement to include ORMA standards when appropriate. Even without the tougher permit requirements of ORMA the standards of review within SEPA will still hold.
Washington’s land use vesting doctrine does not apply to Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, nor does it apply to health and safety laws.
Hoquiam, as the permitting entity, has substantive and ultimate authority to deny the shoreline substantial development permit on the findings of the EIS and the authority granted under SEPA alone. Overwhelming evidence and repeated public testimony point out that the project would result in significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated. The final environmental impact statement points out 12 of the 28 identified significant impacts would cause “unavoidable significant adverse impacts” (executive summary FEIS s-4—s-65).
It is time to get out the snowplow, clear this blizzard before it buries us and shovel enough to find the truth. Under SEPA, if the impacts are significantly adverse, cannot be mitigated, and therefore unacceptable, the permits can and should be denied.
Larry Thevik is a commercial crab fishermen who serves as vice president of the Washington Commercial Crab Fishermen’s Association and lives in Ocean Shores.
