Opinion ID: 4115355
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Respondents' Projects Are Transportation

Text: Respondents' projects also constitute transportation under DOE's ocean management regulations. Under DOE's ocean management framework, ocean transportation includes such uses as: Shipping, transferring between vessels, and offshore storage of oil and gas; transport of other goods and commodities; and offshore ports and airports. The following guidelines address transportation activities that originate or conclude in Washington's coastal waters or are transporting a nonrenewable resource extracted from the outer continental shelf off Washington. WAC 173-26-360(12) (emphasis added). In this case, an integral part of respondents' projects is loading petroleum products onto ocean vessels to be shipped to refineries. Neither party disputes this fact. This is clearly a transportation activity that originate[s] or conclude[s] in Washington's coastal waters. Id. The activity must originate or conclude in Washington's waters or include a nonrenewable resource from Washington's continental shelf; it need not do both. Id. However, the Court of Appeals held that the projects cannot be transportation because they are not 'ocean use[s]. ' Quinault Indian Nation, 190 Wn. App. at 714. We find instead that respondents' projects are ocean uses and thus also qualify as transportation. Once built, these projects will result in an estimated 310 percent increase in vessel traffic through Grays Harbor annually. Indeed, the expanded facilities would be served by three separate modes of transportation: 19 Quinault Indian Nation, eta/. v. Imperium Terminal Svcs., eta/. No. 92552-6 water, rail, and truck. Therefore, respondents' terminals constitute transportation because they serve no other purpose than to facilitate and increase the movement of petroleum products across both the ocean via tanker ships and land via rail. 3. Respondents' Proposed Facility Expansion Projects Are Coastal Uses under WAC 173-26-360(6) While the parties dispute whether the projects are ocean uses under the WAC, neither party has addressed whether the projects qualify as coastal uses under WAC 173-26-360(6). Though no party has discussed this provision in their briefing, we have the inherent authority to consider issues not raised by the parties if necessary to reach a proper decision. Alverado v. Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys., 111 Wn.2d 424, 429, 759 P.2d 427 (1988). Here, it is clear that the language of the regulation, if applied to respondents' proposals, would trigger ORMA revtew. DOE's rules read in relevant part, [l]ocal govermnent and the department may permit ocean or coastal uses and activities as a substantial development, variance or conditional use only if the criteria ofRCW 43.143. 030(2) listed below are met. ...  WAC 173-26-360( 6) (emphasis added). Coastal use is not defined in DOE's ocean management rules, nor is it defined in ORMA. To determine the meaning of an undefined term, we may look to standard English dictionaries. Kitsap County v. Allstate Ins. Co., 136 Wn.2d 567, 576, 964 P.2d 1173 (1998). In 20 Quinault Indian Nation, et al. v. Imperium Terminal Svcs., et al. No. 92552-6 standard English, coast means land immediately abutting the sea and coastal means of or relating to a coast or located on or near a coast. WEBSTER's THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 433 (2002). In this case, it makes common sense to conclude that the respondents' proposed terminal expansion projects on the shores of Grays Harbor constitute coastal uses pursuant to WAC 173-26-360(6). Based on the plain meaning of the text, DOE intended ORMA to be considered before permitting construction projects along Washington's shores or coasts. Therefore, we hold that the administrative rules clearly intended its development projects, both ocean and coastal, be reviewed under ORMA. Respondents' argument that ORMA does not apply to their projects because they are not ocean uses ignores the fact that ORMA does apply to coastal uses under both the statutory and administrative frameworks. Both ORMA and DOE's promulgated rules for ocean management plainly include coastal uses. The Court of Appeals erred when finding that ORMA does not apply to respondents' projects because they are not ocean uses. In doing this, the Court of Appeals reads coastal use out of the statute entirely. Even if one could find that these projects do not qualify as ocean uses under ORMA, respondents make no argument that their projects are not coastal uses under either the RCWs or WACs. Respondents cannot argue that their projects are not ocean uses and then ignore 21 Quinault Indian Nation, et al. v. Imperium Terminal Svcs., eta/. No. 92552-6 their qualification as coastal uses simply to evade ORMA review. Indeed, the construction sites sit on the shores of Grays Harbor, as close as 160 feet from the Chehalis River. Because respondents' projects abut the waters of both Grays Harbor and the Chehalis River, these projects constitute coastal uses pursuant to WAC 173-26-360(6).