SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

Citizens for Responsible Growth in Clemson (CRGC) seeks a contested case hearing to challenge a decision by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) granting a project under the stormwater management and sediment control permit to Wal-Mart Store # 3222, Pickens County (Wal-Mart). The disagreement on the issuance of the permit places contested case jurisdiction in the Administrative Law Judge Division under S.C. Code Ann.§§ 1-23-310 et seq. (Rev. 1987 & Supp. 2000) and 25 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-72.201 (Supp. 2000). After considering the evidence and applicable law, the permit must be granted.

1. Should a stormwater management and sediment control permit be granted to Wal-Mart allowing the disturbance of thirty-eight acres at the corner of Highway 123 and Issaqueena Trail in Pickens County?

2. Should the permit be conditioned on more innovative stormwater management practices than that submitted in Wal-Mart's stormwater management and sediment control plan?

1. Positions of Parties

CRGC argues that the stormwater permit should be denied for four reasons.

First, Wal-Mart's stormwater management and sediment control plan is inconsistent with the regulatory standards for stormwater management and sediment reduction. More particularly, CRGC argues that Wal-Mart has not demonstrated a non-erosive flow to the receiving waterway after land disturbance (26 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 72-307(C)(4)(b) (Supp. 2000)), that the plan was inadequate in that it did not cover the entire area to be developed (Regs. 72-307(C)(3) (Supp. 2000)), and that Wal-Mart has not adequately demonstrated that it will achieve the required sediment removal efficiency for its sediment basin during construction (Regs. 72-307(C)(5)(b) (Supp. 2000)).

Second, CRGC argues that the water quality standards under Regulation 61-101 require denial of the permit. Specifically, CRGC argues that the construction of the proposed project will result in cumulative adverse impacts on water quality and that a feasible alternative to the proposed project exists which alternative significantly reduces the adverse impacts.

Third, the proposed project will constitute a nuisance to neighboring landowners.

Fourth, the proposed project will violate the ordinances of the City of Clemson.

DHEC and Wal-Mart disagree with CRGC. They both assert that Wal-Mart's stormwater management and sediment control plan meets all of the applicable regulatory requirements. They also maintain that Regulation 61-101 does not apply to the evaluation of an application for a stormwater permit. They further maintain that issues such as nuisance and zoning must be considered in a separate action from this contested case on the stormwater permit.

2. Findings of Fact

I find by a preponderance of the evidence the following facts:

Wal-Mart seeks to build a Supercenter store and parking lot within a 53 acre site at the corner of Highway 123 and Issaqueena Trail in Pickens County, South Carolina. Wal-Mart plans to develop approximately 38 acres of the site. Wal-Mart does not currently own the site; however, it has a pending contract for the purchase of the 38 acres it plans to develop with the development contingent on receiving the necessary approvals and permits to construct the project. ⁽¹⁾ No current plans exist to develop the remaining acreage on the site.

a. Permitting Agencies

At least two permitting agencies have a bearing upon the 38 acres involved in this case.

i. Federal Permitting

A portion of the 38 acres has been delineated as a wetland. Therefore, Wal-Mart needed a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before engaging in any land disturbing activities on the site. Wal-Mart obtained three nationwide permits from the Corps of Engineers on February 10, March 23, and May 17, 2000 for land disturbance, installation of a sewer line across a tributary of Eighteen Mile Creek, and installation of a storm water outfall pipe at the edge of the tributary.

There is some uncertainty regarding DHEC's issuance of a state water quality certification in connection with the Corps of Engineers' issuance of the nationwide permits. Counsel for DHEC indicated at the hearing during oral arguments that DHEC had issued a certification prior to the Corps' issuance of the nationwide permits. However, no testimony or other evidence was presented on this point. ⁽²⁾

ii. State Permitting

On March 30, 2000, Wal-Mart applied to DHEC for a project permit under the stormwater management and sediment control regulations. As part of the application, Wal-Mart submitted a stormwater management and sediment control plan. The plan provides for construction of the store with an accompanying parking lot and landscaping. All areas of the site will drain to a series of catch basins conveying runoff through an underground storm drainage system to a detention pond. The detention pond will be sized to handle the first half-inch of runoff from the drainage area, as well as the 2-year, 10-year, 25-year, and 100-year storm events. The pond will restrict stormwater runoff to pre-development discharge rates and it will have a staged outlet to manage each storm.

The pond will also serve as the sedimentation and erosion control pond during the construction phase of the development. After the site has been stabilized, the silt will be removed from the pond and the pond will be graded to its final configuration. A second basin will be installed on the south side of the site and will be used for sediment control during construction only. It will be removed after the site is stabilized.

b. Discharge Velocities

The design features in Wal-Mart's stormwater plan will reduce the discharge velocity to less than pre-development conditions. Mitchell Bohannon, III, an expert in stormwater management, erosion control and water quality, testified that Wal-Mart's stormwater management system can accommodate a 100-year storm event and even reduces the velocity from the 100-year event, helping to reduce current erosion in the receiving stream.

The original plans called for runoff to be discharged approximately 100 feet from the channel of a tributary of Eighteen Mile Creek. However, following a public hearing on Wal-Mart's permit application, DHEC required Wal-Mart to revise the design to discharge directly into the stream near the edge of the property. The runoff will be angled in the direction of the stream's natural flow which will reduce erosion.

Additionally, rip-rap, which will dispel the force of the discharge velocity, will be placed on both sides of the stream. The use of rip-rap to slow the water is a common method used to achieve non-erosive discharge velocities from a pipe system to an open channel. The runoff numbers used to size the rip-rap are based on the entire drainage basin. The rip-rap has been sized to prevent bank erosion in a 25-year storm event and will handle not only Wal-Mart's runoff, but also existing runoff.

c. Sediment Removal Efficiency

The soil loss model conducted by Wal-Mart's engineers originally contained an erodibility factor of 0.24 in the calculations to determine sediment removal efficiency. Using this factor, Wal-Mart's engineers calculated a sediment removal efficiency of 87.75 % for the sediment basin, higher than the 80% removal efficiency required by Reg. 72-307.C(5)(b). This calculation is conservative since it does not take into account the fact that additional measures such as silt fencing, inlet protection, and diversion ditches will also be used in addition to the sediment basin to trap sediment. With these added measures, the whole sediment removal system for the entire drainage area will have a sediment removal efficiency that is even higher than that calculated by Wal-Mart's engineers.

CRGC's expert expressed concern that the 0.24 factor does not adequately reflect the actual sediment loss that will occur from the extensive grading of the site. Therefore, Wal-Mart's engineers recalculated the sediment removal efficiency with a higher erodibility factor of 0.28 and found that the sediment removal efficiency was actually improved using this higher factor.

d. Issuance of permit

DHEC issued a project permit to Wal-Mart on May 24, 2000. On May 30, 2000, CRGC requested a contested case hearing challenging DHEC's issuance of the permit.

3. Conclusions of Law

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:

Under the facts of this case, the issue becomes determining whether DHEC properly applied the applicable law in granting the permit.

a. Applicable Law in General

The Stormwater Management and Sediment Reduction Act charges DHEC with developing a State Stormwater Management and Sediment Reduction Program. S.C. Code Ann. § 48-14-50(A) (Supp. 2000). To assist in accomplishing its task, the General Assembly authorized DHEC to promulgate regulations governing, among other things, the types of activities requiring a stormwater management and sediment control permit, specific design criteria and minimum standards and specifications, and permit application and approval requirements. S.C. Code Ann. § 48-14-50(C) (Supp. 2000). Pursuant to that authority, DHEC promulgated regulations governing standards for stormwater management and sediment reduction. See 26 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 72-300 through 72-316 (Supp. 2000).

In this case, Wal-Mart's proposed project will involve land disturbance of more than five acres. Therefore, the provisions of 26 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 72-305 and 72-307 (Supp. 2000) apply to Wal-Mart's permit application.

Additionally, Wal-Mart's proposed project will also involve a discharge of stormwater into waters of the State and waters of the United States. ⁽³⁾ Therefore, Regulation 61-9, governing water pollution control permits, applies to Wal-Mart's proposed project. Regulation 61-9 contains provisions for implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program under the federal Clean Water Act and the South Carolina Pollution Control Act. Under the Program, DHEC may issue a general permit governing a particular category of discharges within a geographic area and regulating a particular category of sources. In the current case, DHEC notified Wal-Mart of its coverage under General Permit #SCR104963 when it issued the stormwater management and sediment control permit on May 24, 2000. None of the requirements of Regulation 61-9 are in dispute in this case.

b. Regulations: Standards For Disturbance of More than Five Acres

Standards for the evaluation of a proposed project disturbing more than five acres are found in Regulations 72-305 and 72-307. Of the requirements listed in Regulation 72-305, none are in dispute. Of the requirements identified in Regulation 72-307, the only ones in dispute are: (1) the stormwater management plan for a specific project shall be based on the entire area to be developed (Regs. 72-307.C(3)); (2) discharge velocities shall be reduced to provide a non-erosive velocity flow from a control measure or the velocity of the 10-year, 24-hour storm runoff in the receiving waterway prior to the land disturbing activity, whichever is greater (Regs. 72-307.C(4)(b)); and (3) the sediment basin must be designed to accommodate anticipated sediment loading from the land disturbing activity and meet a removal efficiency of 80 percent suspended solids (Regs. 72-307.C(5)(b)).

i. Entire Area To Be Developed

Regs. 72-307.C(3) explains that stormwater management requirements for a specific project shall be based on the entire area to be developed, or if phased, the initial submittal shall control that area proposed in the initial phase and establish a procedure and obligation for total site control. CRGC argues that there are parcels on the site that will be developed in the future that were not included in Wal-Mart's stormwater plan. I disagree.

Here, the weight of the evidence shows that only 38 acres of the site will be developed and that Wal-Mart's stormwater plan adequately provides for these areas. Therefore, I conclude that Wal-Mart's plan meets the requirement of Regs. 72-307.C(3).

ii. Discharge Velocity

Regs. 72-307.C(4)(b) sets forth a design criterion for the purpose of water quantity control. See introduction to 26 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 72-307.C(4) (Supp. 2000) ("The following design criteria for flow control is established for water quantity control purposes . . . ."). This criterion requires that discharge velocities shall be reduced to provide a non-erosive velocity flow from a structure, channel, or other control measure or the velocity of the 10-year 24-hour storm runoff in the receiving waterway prior to the land disturbing activity, whichever is greater. In light of the criterion's stated purpose of controlling water quantity, the language "whichever is greater" is obviously not intended to discourage reduction of discharge velocity to even less than the velocity of the 10-year storm in the receiving waterway or less than a non-erosive velocity. Rather, this language gives flexibility to stormwater plan designers to reduce discharge velocity to merely the greater of the two stated velocities.

CRGC argues that Wal-Mart's stormwater plan fails to meet the criterion of Regs. 72-307.C(4)(b). I disagree.

Here, the credible expert testimony indicates that the design features in Wal-Mart's stormwater plan will reduce the discharge velocity to less than pre-development conditions. Mitchell Bohannon, III, an expert in stormwater management, erosion control and water quality, testified that Wal-Mart's stormwater management system can accommodate a 100-year storm event and even reduces the velocity from the 100-year event, helping to reduce current erosion in the receiving stream. The runoff will be discharged into the stream near the edge of the property and will be angled in the direction of the stream's natural flow which will reduce erosion.

Additionally, rip-rap will be placed on both sides of the stream, which will dispel the force of the discharge velocity. The runoff numbers used to size the rip-rap are based on the entire drainage basin. The rip-rap has been sized to prevent bank erosion in a 25-year storm event and will handle not only Wal-Mart's runoff, but also existing runoff.

CRGC also argues it is not possible to determine compliance with the non-erosive flow requirement of Regs. 72-307.C(4)(b) without conducting a study or taking measurements of the receiving waterway prior to development. However, the testimony establishes that a variety of models exist to calculate velocity through various structures, networks, and channels, and that published tables exist of non-erosive velocities for different types of channels and structures. The testimony further establishes that the common method used to assure non-erosive discharge velocities from a pipe system to an open channel is to use rip-rap to slow the water. Thus, sufficient data exists to evaluate Wal-Mart's stormwater plan against the requirement of Regs. 72-307.C(4)(b).

In conclusion, the testimony establishes that Wal-Mart's discharge velocities will actually be less than the velocity of the 10-year 24-hour storm runoff in the receiving waterway prior to land disturbance. Therefore, I conclude that Wal-Mart's plan meets the criterion of Regs. 72-307.C(4)(b).

iii. Sediment Removal Efficiency

Regs. 72-307.C(5)(b) requires a sediment basin to control stormwater runoff to a single outlet. The sediment basin must be designed to accommodate anticipated sediment loading from the land disturbing activity and meet a removal efficiency of "80 percent suspended solids or .5 ML/L peak settable solids concentration, whichever is less." Further, Reg. 72-307.C(5)(b) requires the outfall device or system design to take into account the total drainage area flowing through the disturbed area to be served by the basin.

CRGC argues that the stormwater permit should be denied because Wal-Mart's plan contains an erroneous erodibility factor in the calculation used to project the sediment removal efficiency of the sediment basin. I disagree.

The soil loss model conducted by Wal-Mart's engineers originally contained an erodibility factor of 0.24 in the calculations to determine sediment removal efficiency. Using this factor, Wal-Mart's engineers calculated a sediment removal efficiency of 87.75 % for the sediment basin, higher than the 80% removal efficiency required by Reg. 72-307.C(5)(b). Wal-Mart's experts opined that this calculation is conservative in that it does not take into account measures in addition to the sediment basin which will trap sediment, such as silt fencing, inlet protection and diversion ditches. With these added measures, the whole sediment removal system for the entire drainage area will have a sediment removal efficiency that is even higher than that calculated by Wal-Mart's engineers.

CRGC's expert expressed concern that the 0.24 factor does not adequately reflect the actual sediment loss that will occur from the extensive grading of the site. Therefore, Wal-Mart's engineers recalculated the sediment removal efficiency with a higher erodibility factor of 0.28 and found that the sediment removal efficiency was actually improved using this higher factor. Therefore, Wal-Mart's failure to use the 0.28 erodibility factor did not result in any undisclosed divergence from the standard set forth in Reg. 72-307.C(5)(b).

c. Applicability of Regulation 61-101

CRGC maintains that the water quality standards of Regulation 61-101 should be applied to the evaluation of Wal-Mart's stormwater permit application. Specifically, CRGC argues that the construction of the proposed project will result in cumulative adverse impacts on water quality and that a feasible alternative to the proposed project exists which reduces these adverse impacts. I disagree.

The introductory paragraph to Regulation 61-101 states the following: "This regulation establishes procedures and policies for implementing State water quality certification requirements of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1341." 25A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-101.A(1) (Supp. 2000). A Section 401 water quality certification is not required as a prerequisite to the issuance of a stormwater permit under Regulation 72-305. Rather, such a certification is the subject of a separate proceeding and is a prerequisite to the Corps of Engineers' issuance of a permit under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. Because Regulation 61-101 pertains only to the implementation of state water quality certification requirements of the federal Clean Water Act, the standards of Regulation 61-101 are not appropriate for application to a state stormwater permitting decision.

CRGC argues that it received neither notice nor an opportunity to be heard on the state water quality certification issued in connection with the Corps of Engineers' permitting decisions on Wal-Mart's proposed project. CRGC maintains that because it was denied due process in connection with the state water quality certification decision, CRGC should be afforded an opportunity to be heard on the issues arising under Regulation 61-101 in this contested case proceeding. I cannot agree.

In the instant matter, CRGC filed its written request for a contested case hearing challenging a specific DHEC staff decision. ⁽⁴⁾ That decision decided a stormwater permit and not a Section 401 water quality certification. ⁽⁵⁾

If CRGC believes it has in fact been denied due process on a water quality certification decision, then CRGC must seek the appropriate relief in a separate proceeding addressing DHEC's alleged failure to give CRGC notice of the decision.

d. Nuisance, Takings, & Zoning Ordinance

CRGC argues that Wal-Mart's operation of its Supercenter store will unreasonably interfere with neighboring residents' use and enjoyment of their property and will, therefore, constitute a nuisance. CRGC maintains that where neighboring property owners' investment-backed expectations will be lost due to Wal-Mart's permitted activities, CRGC may be entitled to assert a regulatory takings claim against DHEC. Further, CRGC also argues that the proposed project violates the land use plan and ordinances of the City of Clemson. For these reasons, CRGC argues, the permit should be denied. I am unable to agree.

The issues of regulatory takings, nuisance, and violations of local zoning ordinances are not meaningful considerations in a contested case proceeding deciding a stormwater permit request.

A "taking" is not a basis for denying a stormwater permit. Rather, proving that proper actions of a State agency have deprived a land owner of all economically beneficial use of land is a basis for an action in a forum authorized to award compensation for damages. For instance, the appropriate redress for a takings claim lies with a jurisdiction having authority to award money damages. See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112 S.Ct. 2886 (1992) (State must pay compensation to landowner where it seeks to sustain regulation that deprives land of all economically beneficial use); Agins v. City of Tiburon, 100 S.Ct. 2138, 2143, n. 2 (1980) ("Inverse condemnation is 'a shorthand description of the manner in which a landowner recovers just compensation for a taking of his property when condemnation proceedings have not been instituted.'").

Likewise, CRGC's claim of nuisance is not a basis for denying a stormwater permit. Rather, proving such claims belong in a forum with jurisdiction to entertain actions founded in common-law nuisance or nuisance, per accidens. See, e.g. LeFurgy v. Long Cove Club Owners Ass'n, Inc., 313 S.C. 555, 443 S.E.2d 577 (Ct.App. 1994) (where a master-in-equity had jurisdiction to declare a "tee box" a nuisance and order an injunction) and O'Cain v. O'Cain, 322 S.C. 551, 473 S.E.2d 460 (Ct.App. 1996) (where circuit court had jurisdiction to find that the presence of hogs was not a nuisance).

Furthermore, as to zoning, DHEC is not charged with the responsibility of establishing the land use mix within an area. Rather, local zoning authorities hold the primary responsibility for land use decisions and those authorities exercise wide discretion in decision making. See Bear Enterprises v. County of Greenville, 319 S.C. 137, 459 S.E.2d 883 (Ct. App. 1995); Rushing v. City of Greenville, 265 S.C. 285, 217 S.E.2d 797 (1975). Indeed, local zoning ordinances constitute a separate hurdle for Wal-Mart to overcome and the mere fact of the issuance of a stormwater permit does not prevent local zoning authorities or appellate zoning bodies from prohibiting the proposed construction. All that is decided here is that the stormwater management and sediment control permit is proper.

Accordingly, in the absence of an applicable state regulatory directive or standard (none being established in this case), a state stormwater permit cannot be denied based on the arguments that the granting of the permit will result in a "taking," will create a nuisance, or will conflict with local zoning ordinances. Such positions must be litigated in other forums.

B. Permit Conditions

1. Positions of Parties

CRGC argues that adequately protecting existing water quality requires that Wal-Mart's proposed project use significantly more innovative design criteria in its stormwater management plan than the plan proposed by Wal-Mart delivers. CRGC maintains that the permit, if granted at all, must have significant conditions imposed by DHEC in order to protect water quality.

Wal-Mart and DHEC disagree with CRGC's view. Wal-Mart and DHEC argue that no conditions on the permit are needed since the stormwater management plan meets all applicable regulatory requirements.

2. Findings of Fact

Wal-Mart's stormwater management and sediment control plan provides for construction of a store with an accompanying parking lot and landscaping. All areas of the site will drain to a series of catch basins conveying runoff through an underground storm drainage system to a detention pond. The detention pond will be sized to handle the first half-inch of runoff from the drainage area, as well as the 2-year, 10-year, 25-year and 100-year storm events. The pond will restrict stormwater runoff to pre-development discharge rates and it will have a staged outlet to manage each storm.

The pond will also serve as the sedimentation and erosion control pond during the construction phase of the development. After the site has been stabilized, the silt will be removed from the pond and the pond will be graded to its final configuration. A second basin will be installed on the south side of the site and will be used for sediment control during construction only. It will be removed after the site is stabilized.

Wal-Mart's original plans called for runoff to be discharged approximately 100 feet from the tributary channel. Following a public hearing on Wal-Mart's permit application, DHEC required Wal-Mart to revise the design to discharge directly into the stream.

The design features in Wal-Mart's stormwater plan will reduce the discharge velocity to less than pre-development conditions. Wal-Mart's stormwater management system will accommodate a 100-year storm event and will even reduce the velocity from the 100-year event, helping to reduce current erosion in the receiving stream. The runoff will be discharged into the stream near the edge of the property and will be angled in the direction of the stream's natural flow which will reduce erosion. Additionally, rip-rap will be placed on both sides of the stream, which will dispel the force of the discharge velocity. The runoff numbers used to size the rip-rap are based on the entire drainage basin. The rip-rap has been sized to prevent bank erosion in a 25-year storm event and will handle not only Wal-Mart's runoff, but also existing runoff.

The soil loss model conducted by Wal-Mart's engineers originally contained an erodibility factor of 0.24 in the calculations to determine sediment removal efficiency. Using this factor, Wal-Mart's engineers calculated a sediment removal efficiency of 87.75 % for the sediment basin, higher than the 80% removal efficiency required by Reg. 72-307.C(5)(b). Wal-Mart's experts opined that this calculation is conservative in that it does not take into account measures in addition to the sediment basin which will trap sediment, such as silt fencing, inlet protection and diversion ditches. With these added measures, the whole sediment removal system for the entire drainage area will have a sediment removal efficiency that is even higher than that calculated by Wal-Mart's engineers.

After CRGC's expert expressed concern that the 0.24 factor does not adequately reflect the actual sediment loss that will occur, Wal-Mart's engineers recalculated the sediment removal efficiency with a higher erodibility factor of 0.28. They found that the sediment removal efficiency was actually improved using this higher factor.

3. Conclusions of Law

South Carolina Code Ann. § 48-1-50 (Supp. 2000) empowers DHEC to impose conditions on environmental permits. DHEC has traditionally placed conditions on environmental permits in order to ensure that a proposed project will meet the applicable regulatory requirements for the particular permit being issued. In this case, no persuasive showing has been made that in the absence of special conditions, the proposed project will not meet the applicable stormwater management and sediment control regulations. In fact, the preponderance of the evidence shows that in some instances Wal-Mart's stormwater plan exceeds the minimum regulatory requirements.

Therefore, no need exists to add conditions to the permit.

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control is directed to grant the request for a stormwater management and sediment control permit sought by Wal-Mart for construction at Highway 123 and Issaqueena Trail in Pickens County, South Carolina.

During and after construction on the site at Highway 123 and Issaqueena Trail, Wal-Mart shall carry out those approved stormwater management practices set forth in its stormwater management and sediment control plan.

Pursuant to Regulation 72-308.B, Wal-Mart shall perform or cause to be performed preventive maintenance of all completed stormwater management practices set forth in its stormwater management and sediment control plan to ensure proper functioning.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED

______________________

RAY N. STEVENS

Administrative Law Judge

Dated: May 8, 2001

Columbia, South Carolina

1. Wal-Mart is currently seeking access across the area that is between the proposed parking lot and Issaqueena Trail. This area is located within the City of Clemson and is zoned residential. The City of Clemson initially denied Wal-Mart's request for access. Wal-Mart now has an action pending in circuit court challenging the City's decision.

2. Further, counsel for CRGC asserted during oral argument that if DHEC issued a state water quality certification for the Wal-Mart development, CRGC received neither notice nor an opportunity to be heard on the certification.

3. "Waters of the State" include streams, creeks and all other bodies of surface or underground water which are within the State. 24 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-9.122.2(b)(93) (Supp. 2000). "Waters of the United States" include tributaries of waters which may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce and all other waters such as intrastate streams which could affect interstate or foreign commerce. 24 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-9.122.2(b)(94) (Supp. 2000). In this case, the discharge will be into a tributary of Eighteen Mile Creek.

4. See CRGC's request for contested case hearing filed May 30, 2000; see also ALJD Rule 11 ("The request for a contested case hearing shall be filed with the affected agency within the time frame authorized by that agency. The request shall contain the following information: A. . . . the issue(s) for which the hearing is requested; B. The caption or other information sufficient to identify the decision, order, action or inaction which is the subject of the hearing; C. The relief requested."); cf. Pringle v. Builders Transport, 298 S.C. 494, 381 S.E.2d 731 (1989) ("A petition for circuit court review pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) must direct the court's attention to the abuse allegedly committed below, including a distinct and specific statement of the rulings of which appellant complains. The circuit court lacks jurisdiction of the appeal if the notice is insufficient.") (citations omitted).

5. CRGC references another case in which issues concerning consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Program were considered in a proceeding on a stormwater permit. That case, however, is distinguishable from the current case, as it involved a project in the state's coastal zone which required a determination of consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Program as a prerequisite to issuance of the stormwater permit. See Chapter III, South Carolina Coastal Management Program Document, page III-62.