Opinion ID: 1349418
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Delineated by the Army Corps of Engineers

Text: We further disagree with the ALC as to the effect of the 1993 refinements. In finding that the CMP is inapplicable to the property in question, the ALC cited the following language as limiting application of the CMP policies to wetlands over which the Army Corps has jurisdiction: Once delineated by the Corps of Engineers, Coastal Council manages the wetlands through the policies contained in Chapter III of the State's Coastal Zone Management Program. The passage cited by the ALC, considered in context, does not support the ALC's interpretation. The passage provides as follows: The South Carolina Coastal Council is required by both State and Federal law to review projects in the State's coastal zone which require State and Federal permits to determine if the project is consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Program. To provide incentive for developers to approach wetland management on a comprehensive basis, and to provide some flexibility when developing adjacent to wetlands, the Coastal Council uses a wetland master planning concept as stated below. . . . Wetland master planning is applied to all projects undergoing consistency certification in the coastal zone, including Section 404 wetland permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps of Engineers is mandated by Federal law to delineate wetlands. Once delineated by the Corps of Engineers, Coastal Council manages the wetlands through the policies contained in Chapter III of the State's Coastal Zone Management Program document. Again, we find nothing to overrule the broad language regarding jurisdiction set forth in the original version of the CMP. In fact, the first sentence cited above seems to reaffirm the expansive application of the CMP: The South Carolina Coastal Council is required by both State and Federal law to review projects in the State's coastal zone which require State and Federal permits to determine if the project is consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Program. This paragraph addresses the consistency review which includes, but is not limited to federal permits, and the sentences cited by the ALC follow the phrase including Section 404 wetland permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers. Therefore, the language regarding delineation merely expounds on consistency review of federal permits, rather than imposing a limitation on the consistency review of state permits. Moreover, even reading the sentences cited by the ALC as imposing a limitation on review of state permits, the ALC erroneously reads into the term delineate a requirement that the Army Corps of Engineers have jurisdiction over the land in question. In our view, one part of the language cited above deals with the scope of the project and the other with mapping. The term delineate is defined in part as to indicate by lines drawn in the form or figure of: represent by sketch, design, or diagram. Webster's Third Int'l Dictionary 597 (2002). Under the ALC's own finding, the property in question contains a wetland delineated by the Army Corps of Engineers. Consequently, application of the CMP is proper. Following the SWANCC decision, DHEC promulgated an emergency regulation pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. § 1-23-130. A statement accompanying the emergency regulation included the following: The SWANCC decision held that the Corps does not have jurisdiction over isolated wetlands and therefore removed the Department's opportunity to issue water quality and coastal zone consistency certifications for activities in those areas. Admittedly, this statement appears to concede that DHEC lacks statutory authority to apply the CMP to isolated freshwater wetlands located in the coastal zone. As explained below, we believe DHEC misread SWANCC when it promulgated this regulation. The SWANCC decision affected the ability of the federal government to require permits for filling isolated wetlands. SWANCC, 531 U.S. 159, 121 S.Ct. 675, 148 L.Ed.2d 576. However, as noted above, federal jurisdiction is not essential to consistency review. Under S.C.Code Ann. § 48-39-80, DHEC possessed authority to review both federal and state permits for consistency. Though certain DHEC documents overlook the agency's authority to review state permits, statements by agency employees alone may not abrogate the authority granted by statute. See City of Rock Hill v. South Carolina Dep't of Health and Envtl. Control, 302 S.C. 161, 165, 394 S.E.2d 327, 330 (1990) (noting that DHEC, as a creature of statute, possesses only those powers specifically delineated); Carolina Nat. Bank v. State, 60 S.C. 465, 38 S.E. 629, 633 (1901) (officer could not vary authority granted by statute). We find that the ALC erred in finding that the CMP, by its own terms, does not apply to the site in question in the instant case. The language of the CMP sets forth broad jurisdiction over the coastal zone, thereby supporting DHEC's interpretation of the CMP as applicable to the Spectre site.