Opinion
July 20, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Luciano, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled that "the construction given statutes by the agency responsible for their administration is entitled to great deference and shall be upheld if not irrational or unreasonable" (Matter of Wedinger v. Goldberger, 129 A.D.2d 712, 715; see, Matter of Haines v. Flacke, 104 A.D.2d 26). Contrary to the petitioner's present contentions, we find that Declaratory Ruling DEC 25-02, which authorizes the amendment of tidal wetlands boundary maps at any time, including the period subsequent to the filing of a permit application, constitutes a rational interpretation of the Tidal Wetlands Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder. The Legislature has expressly required that the Commissioner of the DEC readjust and amend the maps in order to reflect physical changes in tidal wetlands (ECL 25-0201). Similarly, the Commissioner has rationally interpreted this grant of authority to include the power to alter the boundaries of a given wetland area on an inventory map when conditions so warrant (see, 6 NYCRR 661.27 [b]; see generally, Matter of Merrick Jewish Centre v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 128 A.D.2d 877). Given the strong declaration of policy to preserve and protect wetlands (see, ECL 25-0102), the natural propensity of wetlands boundaries to change with the passage of time, and the Commissioner's need for the most recent and accurate scientific information when reviewing a tidal wetlands permit application (see, ECL 25-0403, [3]), we conclude that it is reasonable for the DEC to conduct on-site inspections of a given parcel and to propose a map amendment if warranted (see generally, Matter of Merrick Jewish Centre v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, supra), even where an application for a permit to develop the affected realty has already been filed (see, Jack Coletta, Inc. v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 128 A.D.2d 755).
We have considered the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.