Third, inconsistent decision-making has contributed to the dilemma. There have been instances 

 where public agencies have been granted permission to reconstruct impoundments on public lands; 

 however, no private property owner has yet to receive similar consideration. One example is the 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) of the U.S. Department of the Interior. The Ecological 

 Services Branch of USFWS in Charleston, SC, has consistently opposed impoundment construction 

 or repair activities in wetlands, while its sister branch at the Cedar Island Wildlife Refuge in North 

 Carolina has proposed to construct impoundments in tidal wetlands for waterfowl management 

 purposes. The message to impoundment owners and managers has been confusing indeed. 



Fourth, factors other than scientific "fact" must be considered in the decision-making process. 

 These include an assessment of the benefits and costs of the proposed activity (economics), a 

 consideration of what is in the public interest, and, of course, the political process itself, which 

 involves a number of interest groups. 



And fifth, applicants seeking permits for impoundment activities in South Carolina must work 

 their way through a very complex permitting process that is illustrated in Figure 1. 



A CASE STUDY FROM SOUTH CAROLINA 



Several of the points we have made can be illustrated by examining a case study. It involves 

 an application first submitted to the State of South Carolina in 1971 to impound 1,000 acres of 

 salt marsh, most of it formerly impounded, for the attraction of waterfowl and the initiation of 

 an aquacultural operation. In 1981, the application was revised and resubmitted; the wetland area 

 involved was reduced to 660 acres. 



At the State level, the application was submitted to the South Carolina Coastal Council (SCCC) 

 and sent out for public comment. It was quickly opposed by the State Attorney General's Office 

 on grounds of ownership, by the SCWMRD on the basis of wetland and fisheries impacts, and by 

 a number of concerned citizens' groups for various reasons. Nevertheless, the SCCC approved the 

 application with conditions. 



This permit action was immediately appealed by the Attorney General's Office, the Sierra Club, 

 the League of Women Voters, and others. After a long hearing and appeals process, the SCCC 

 decided to uphold its initial decision and issue the permit. This was immediately appealed to the 

 State circuit court by the appellants (and ultimately to the State Supreme Court). 



At the same time, the Charleston District office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE) 

 handled the application on the Federal level. Recommendations for denial were offered to the 

 USACE by the USFWS, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA), and the USEPA 

 However, the USACE decided to concur with the State decision and issued its "intent to issue" a 

 Federal permit. The USEPA immediately made a request that the decision be elevated to the 

 USACE's Washington office, which was rejected by the Charleston District. The USEPA then 

 invoked Section 404(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, which provides 

 the USEPA Administrator with the authority to prohibit dredge and fill activities if "the discharge 

 of such materials into such area will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water 

 supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (including spawning and breeding areas), wildlife, or 

 recreational areas." 



However, before the USEPA Administrator could finalize his decision, the South Carolina 

 Supreme Court ruled on the appeal of the State permit. In essence, the court ruled that the 



103 



