South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
South Carolina State Ports Authority vs. SCDHEC

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
South Carolina State Ports Authority

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
08-ALJ-07-240-CC

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

CONSENT ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner South Carolina State Ports Authority (SPA) and the Respondent South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), jointly move this Court for dismissal of this contested case.

This matter arose from a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of OCRM to conduct a consistency review under the South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Program Document over a proposed lease agreement between SPA and the U.S. Department of Interior’s Mineral Management Service (MMS). The proposed lease would allow SPA to recover and excavate dredged material from the Charleston Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) for use as fill for the construction of an access road and a marine container terminal at the former Charleston Naval Base (Project).

Subsequent to SPA’s initiation of the administrative review process, OCRM requested approval from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the federal agency which administers the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seq. and its implementing regulations, to review the proposed lease for consistency pursuant to 15 C.F.R. § 930.54(a). By letter dated June 13, 2008, NOAA issued its decision denying OCRM’s request to review the proposed lease. As the federal agency administering the CZMA has ruled on this issue, and the parties accept NOAA’s decision as final and binding, SPA’s challenge to OCRM’s jurisdiction to conduct a consistency review in this contested case is moot and this matter should be dismissed. See Mathis v. S.C. State Hwy. Dep’t, 260 S.C. 344, 195 S.E.2d 713 (1973); Town of Blenheim v. S.C. Dep’t of Health and Envtl. Control, Docket No. 01-ALJ-07-0550-CC (S.C. Admin. Law Ct. July 2, 2002).

Therefore, because the issue presented has been mooted, it is hereby ORDERED that the above-captioned contested case is DISMISSED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________________________

The Honorable Ralph King Anderson, III

Administrative Law Judge

1205 Pendleton Street, Suite 224

Columbia, South Carolina 29201-3731

Columbia, South Carolina

June 30, 2008


WE SO MOVE AND CONSENT: WE SO MOVE AND CONSENT:

___________________________ ____________________________

Mitchell Willoughby Elizabeth A. Dieck

Randolph R. Lowell Evander Whitehead

Willoughby & Hoefer, P.A. South Carolina Department of Health

930 Richland Street and Environmental Control

Columbia, SC 29201 1362 McMillan Avenue, Suite 400

Tel: (803) 252-3300 North Charleston, SC 29405

Fax: (803) 256-8062 Tel: (843) 953-0200

Fax: (843) 953-0201

Philip L. Lawrence

Chief Legal Counsel Counsel for Respondent

S.C. State Ports Authority South Carolina Department of

Post Office Box 22287 Health & Environmental Control

Charleston, SC 29413-2287

Tel: (843) 577-8777

Counsel for Petitioner

South Carolina State Ports Authority


~/pdf/080240.pdf
PDF

Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court