With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (amending Act No. 6687 (2004), which repealed 4 V.I.C. §§ 33-40, and reinstating appellate jurisdiction in this Court); Revised Organic Act of 1954 § 23A; 48 U.S.C. § 1613a. Findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. See Poleon v. Argument The Appellants argue that they relied on the Gauriloff map as representing the boundary between their land and Estate Anna’s Retreat. They assert that Gauriloff re portray the boundaries of Estates Langmath and Estate Anna’s Retreat. Instead, it portrays a subdivision, Parcel No. 173, in Estate Anna’s Retreat. Thus, even if the Harrigan map was a representation by Farrington, to rely on the Harrigan map for anything more than the boundaries of Parcel No. 173 in Estate Anna’s Retreat would be unreasonable. See, e.g., Slagle, 809 F. Supp. at 710 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the doctrine of equitable

A: holding that the united states corps of engineers publication of maps of navigable waters did not constitute affirmative misconduct for equitable estoppel purposes
B: holding that it was unreasonable for a party to rely on maps drafted by the united states corps of engineers that bore the heading waters covered by section 10 of the 1899 rivers and harbors act under the jurisdiction of the st paul district corps of engineers  and the caption that all other waters and wetlands not shown on this map should be considered to be covered by section 404 of the 1972 act to determine whether bodies of water outside the scope of the map were considered navigable
C: holding that wetlands adjacent to navigable waters are included in the term territorial waters
D: holding that the land under navigable waters was not granted by the constitution to the united states but was reserved to the states respectively and that new states have the same rights jurisdiction and sovereignty over the soil under navigable water as the original states
B.