Opinion ID: 4115355
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Respondents' Projects Are Ocean Uses

Text: DOE has established a set of ocean management mles that help determine when ORMA applies to particular projects and proposals. In these rules, DOE provides definitions for both ocean uses and transportation. WAC 173-26360(3), (12). The parties contest whether respondents' projects fall under either definition. We hold that these projects are contemplated under both definitions. While we give agencies great deference to their interpretation of mles within their area of expertise, we may substitute our interpretation of the law for that of an 16 Quinault Indian Nation, eta/. v. Imperium Terminal Svcs., eta/. No. 92552-6 agency. Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hr 'gs Bd., 151 Wn.2d 568, 593, 90 P.3d 659 (2004). It is valid for an agency to fill in the gaps via statutory construction as long as the agency does not effectively amend the statute. Hama Hama, 85 Wn.2d at 448. In this case, DOE improperly contorted the statute when it reasoned that respondents' projects are not ocean uses or transportation. The regulation defines ocean uses as activities or developments involving renewable and/or nonrenewable resources that occur on Washington's coastal waters and includes their associated off shore, near shore, inland marine, shoreland, and upland facilities and the supply, service, and distribution activities, such as crew ships, circulating to and between the activities and developments. WAC 173-26-360(3 ). Here, respondents' construction projects are designed to increase petroleum storage and transportation through facilities built on the edge of Grays Harbor. Such projects are precisely developments involving ... nonrenewable resources that occur on Washington's coastal waters. Id. DOE's contrary interpretation incorrectly narrows the definition ofocean uses, thereby improperly altering the intent of ORMA. Likewise, the Court of Appeals' holding that the projects were not ocean uses was error. Quinault Indian Nation, 190 Wn. App. at 713. The terminals not only sit as close as 160 feet from the water, but they extend over the water. See AR at 124, 228 (pipelines would connect the tank farms and overhang the water to load 17 Quinault Indian Nation, eta/. v. Imperium Terminal Svcs., eta/. No. 92552-6 vessels in the port); see also id. at 757 (aerial picture of facilities indicating the same). Because these projects sit on the shores of Grays Harbor and overhang the water, we find that respondents' projects qualifY as[ o]cean uses pursuant to WAC 173-26-360(3). To conclude otherwise would permit DOE's interpretation of ORMA to effectively amend the statute by substantially narrowing its scope. Both DOE and the city of Hoquiam argue that the definition ofocean uses does not apply to respondents' projects because these projects do not literally sit on Washington's coastal waters. As explained above, this argument misreads RCW 43.143.030, which states that uses involving nonrenewable resources on Washington coastal waters that require permits, and that will adversely impact navigation or other ocean or coastal uses, must first meet ORMA's review criteria. Further, DOE and the city's argument ignores DOE's own rule stating that local governments may permit ocean or coastal uses and activities as a substantial development . . . only if ORMA's criteria are met. WAC 173-26-360(6) (emphasis added). Accordingly, because these projects are developments that use nonrenewable resources and are situated on Washington's coast, we find that they qualifY as ocean uses. 18 Quinault Indian Nation, et al. v. Imperium Terminal Svcs., et al. No. 92552-6