Columbia Venture LLC v. S.C. Wildlife Federation

Decision Date03 April 2009
Docket NumberNo. 06-1072.,No. 08-1034.,No. 08-1033.,No. 05-2398.,05-2398.,06-1072.,08-1033.,08-1034.
Citation562 F.3d 290
PartiesCOLUMBIA VENTURE LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, and Heathwood Hall Episcopal School, Intervenor/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SOUTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE FEDERATION; Dr. John Grego; Dr. Daniel Tufford; Riverland Park Neighborhood Association, Intervenors/Defendants-Appellants, and Federal Emergency Management Agency, Defendant. Columbia Venture LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, and Heathwood Hall Episcopal School, Intervenor/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Defendant-Appellant, and South Carolina Wildlife Federation; Dr. John Grego; Dr. Daniel Tufford; Riverland Park Neighborhood Association, Intervenors/Defendants. Columbia Venture LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, and Heathwood Hall Episcopal School, Intervenor/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Defendant-Appellant, and South Carolina Wildlife Federation; Dr. John Grego; Dr. Daniel Tufford; Riverland Park Neighborhood Association, Intervenors/Defendants. Columbia Venture LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, and Heathwood Hall Episcopal School, Intervenor/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Defendant, and South Carolina Wildlife Federation; Dr. John Grego; Dr. Daniel Tufford; Riverland Park Neighborhood Association, Intervenors/Defendants-Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

ARGUED: Sharon Swingle, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; James Blanding Holman, Southern Environmental Law Center, Charleston, South Carolina, for Federal Emergency Management Agency, South Carolina Wildlife Federation, John Grego, Daniel Tufford, and Riverland Park Neighborhood Association. Manton McCutchen Grier, Haynsworth, Sinkler & Boyd, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Columbia Venture LLC and Heathwood Hall Episcopal School. ON BRIEF: Jordan S. Fried, Associate Chief Counsel for Litigation, Lynda K. Pilgrim, Senior Trial Attorney, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC; Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Kevin F. McDonald, Acting United States Attorney, Michael Jay Singer, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Federal Emergency Management Agency. J. Preston Strom, Jr., Strom Law Firm, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, Frank R. Ellerbe III, Robinson, McFadden & Moore, P.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Heathwood Hall Episcopal School; Sarah Michaels Montgomery, William C. Boyd, Elizabeth H. Black, Haynsworth, Sinkler & Boyd, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Columbia Venture LLC.

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by published PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA"), the South Carolina Wildlife Federation, Dr. John Grego, Dr. Daniel Tufford, and the Riverland Park Neighborhood Association ("Defendants") jointly appeal the district court's order vacating the 2001 base flood elevation determinations adopted by FEMA for Richland County, South Carolina. The district court vacated these determinations because of FEMA's failure to timely publish notice in the Federal Register as required by 42 U.S.C. § 4104(a). Because Columbia Venture did not establish that it was prejudiced by this failure to publish, we reverse the district court's Order of Vacatur and remand for further proceedings.1

I
A.

FEMA is responsible for implementing the National Flood Insurance Program ("NFIP"), 42 U.S.C. § 4001(c). To that end, FEMA develops federal criteria aimed at inducing state and local governments to "guide the development of proposed construction away from locations which are threatened by flood hazards." 42 U.S.C. § 4102(c)(2). FEMA makes various scientific and technical determinations to help identify flood hazards for a given area. One such determination, the "base flood elevation," measures the potential water level height during a base flood.2 FEMA uses these base flood elevation determinations to prepare flood insurance rate maps ("flood maps") for local communities participating in NFIP. These maps, among other things, delineate the minimum regulatory floodway that a community must adopt to comply with NFIP.3

In establishing base flood elevations for a local community, FEMA follows a specified set of procedures. It must "first propose such determinations by publication for comment in the Federal Register, by direct notification to the chief executive officer of the community, and by publication in a prominent local newspaper." 42 U.S.C. § 4104(a). The newspaper publication must occur at least twice during the 10-day period following notification to the local government, and the second newspaper publication triggers a 90-day period during which "any owner or lessee of real property within the community who believes his property rights to be adversely affected [by the proposed determinations] ... may appeal such determination to the local government." Id. § 4104(b). The local government reviews any appeals and decides whether to appeal the determinations to FEMA in the name of the local community. Id. § 4104(c). If the community chooses not to appeal, FEMA instead consolidates and reviews the individual appeals filed with the community. Id. § 4104(d).

The sole grounds for an appeal under § 4104(b) is a claim that the elevations are scientifically or technically incorrect. Id. FEMA must "review and take fully into account" any submitted data that tends to "negate or contradict the information upon which [the] proposed determination is based." Id. § 4104(e). Once FEMA resolves the administrative appeal, any appellant aggrieved by its final determination has 60 days to appeal to the federal district court where the community is located.

B.

In 1998, FEMA began the process of redrawing the flood maps for the portion of the Congaree River located in Richland County, South Carolina. Columbia Venture planned to build a research development park on property along the Congaree River. Because local ordinances sharply restricted construction within FEMA's regulatory floodway, the park's success largely depended on FEMA adopting a floodway that did not include Columbia Venture's land. In August 1999, FEMA issued its proposed base flood elevation determinations for this section of Richland County. FEMA held a meeting on August 19, 1999, to present these determinations to the public. Pursuant to § 4104, FEMA enclosed its determinations in a letter to Richland County on September 1, 1999, and gave public notification in The State, a "prominent local newspaper," on September 7 and 14, 1999. Critical to this case, although the § 4104(b) 90-day appeals period began on September 14 and ended on December 13, 1999, FEMA had not yet published its August 1999 proposed determinations in the Federal Register.

The August 1999 proposed determinations did not implicate or affect the portion of Columbia Venture's land upon which the development park was to be built. Therefore, although other parties lodged an appeal with FEMA during the 90-day period, Columbia Venture did not. Nevertheless, Columbia Venture submitted technical information to FEMA in support of the August 1999 proposed determinations. In addition, FEMA individually contacted Lockwood Greene, an engineering firm working for Columbia Venture, and offered to meet and discuss the proposed flood map, "the data and analysis that you have provided, and any additional data that you may have." J.A. 2219. Lockwood Greene made a formal presentation to FEMA in April 2000, and Columbia Venture contacted FEMA officials several times thereafter. These contacts culminated in a letter from Columbia Venture to FEMA stating that "your agency has provided more than adequate opportunities for all interested parties to submit pertinent information" and urging FEMA to "complete the mapping process as soon as possible and issue the final letter of determination." J.A. 2177.

On September 26, 2000, FEMA issued revised flood insurance studies and rate maps which altered and superceded the August 1999 proposed determinations. FEMA notified Columbia Venture of these September 2000 revised determinations, as Columbia Venture's land was within the new floodway. FEMA provided an initial 30-day period for comment and subsequently granted Columbia Venture's request for additional time. Columbia Venture took advantage of this opportunity, submitting extensive additional technical information for FEMA's consideration and attending two meetings to discuss the September 2000 determinations. The extended deadline for comment expired on February 15, 2001, more than 140 days after Columbia Venture and other parties received notification of the revisions.

On February 16, 2001, FEMA first published notice in the Federal Register as required by § 4104(a). In that publication, FEMA referenced the August 1999 proposed base flood elevation determinations, even though those determinations had been superceded by the September 2000 revised determinations. The February 2001 Federal Register publication also stated that the comment period would run for 90 days from the date of the second publication in a prominent local newspaper. Because FEMA's second publication in The State occurred on September 14, 1999, this period had expired more than a year before the Federal Register publication.4 FEMA ultimately issued a final determination in August 2001, which adopted the September 2000 revised determinations and therefore adopted a floodway encompassing Columbia Venture's land.

Columbia Venture challenged FEMA's August 2001 decision in federal district court, disputing the technical and scientific basis for the base flood elevation determinations pursuant to § 4104(g). In 2005, Columbia Venture first learned of FEMA's defective publication. It filed a motion to vacate the final base flood elevation determinations for the Congaree River, arguing that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Columbia Venture, LLC v. Richland Cnty.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • August 12, 2015
    ...which caused most of Columbia Venture's land to be designated as lying within the regulatory floodway. Columbia Venture LLC v. S.C. Wildlife Fed'n, 562 F.3d 290, 294 (4th Cir.2009). The federal district court vacated FEMA's determinations based on FEMA's failure to strictly comply with the ......
  • Bintz v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • September 4, 2019
    ...must show that the violation resulted in prejudice to the party seeking judicial review. Id. § 706 ; see Columbia Venture LLC v. S.C. Wildlife Fed'n, 562 F.3d 290, 294 (4th Cir. 2009). Under this narrow standard of review, the court should not "substitute its judgment for that of the agency......
  • D.C. Venture LLC v. Dewberry & Davis LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • May 12, 2010
    ...appeal of FEMA's determination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 4104 that was ultimately unsuccessful. See Columbia Venture, LLC v. SC Wildlife Fed., 562 F.3d 290 (4th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (holding that FEMA's failure to timely publish notice in accordance with § 4104 was harmless and did not warr......
  • North Carolina Growers' Ass'n, Inc. v. Solis
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
    • June 29, 2009
    ...Plaintiffs are able to make the requisite showing that they were prejudiced by the comment restriction. See Columbia Venture LLC v. S.C. Wildlife Fed'n, 562 F.3d 290, 294 ("[T]he party who claims deficient notice bears the burden of proving that any such deficiency was prejudicial, and if t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT