Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
We find unpersuasive the petitioners' contention that the DEC lacked authority to hold a map-amendment hearing to reclassify the subject property from the status of an "adjacent area" to that of land which was "formerly connected [to] tidal wetlands" (see, 6 NYCRR 661.4 [b] [1]; [hh] [6]). The Tidal Wetlands Act (ECL art 25) expressly authorizes the amendment of wetlands maps (see, ECL 25-0201), and the Commissioner of the DEC has reasonably interpreted this grant of authority to include the power "to alter the classification of a wetland * * * as may be necessary to conform such maps to actual on-site conditions" (6 NYCRR 661.27 [b] [1]). Similarly, the proof of tidal inundation and the existence of various types of wetlands vegetation and marine organisms on the subject property demonstrates that the reclassification of the area had a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see generally, F.L.D. Constr. Corp. v. Williams, 122 A.D.2d 189, appeal dismissed 68 N.Y.2d 996; Matter of Haines v Flacke, 104 A.D.2d 26; Matter of Cohn v. Flacke, 84 A.D.2d 595; Town of Hempstead v. Flacke, 82 A.D.2d 183).
We have considered the petitioners' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.