IN RE: Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act
Appeal of Farida Enterprises
File No.85-7-15, 86-7-007W

The Natural Resources Commission, having considered the Proposal for Decision dated June 25, 1990, of the Administrative Law Judge, and the files, pleadings, briefs, and written/oral arguments in the matter, hereby adopts and incorporates the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Proposal for Decision and finds that:

The denial of the Farida Enterprises permit by the Department is sustained.

December 6, 1990
Thomas, J. Anderson, Chairman
Natural Resources Commission

IN RE : Goemaere-Anderson Wetlands Protection Act Appeal of
Farida Enterprises

Cause No.85-7-15, 86-7-007W

Dated: June 25, 1990
William C. Fulkerson
Administrative Law Judge

This matter is a contested case hearing resulting from the denial of the permit application of Farida Enterprises to fill lands for a mobile home park expansion.

PARTIES

The professional staff of the Department of Natural Resources are charged with the day-to-day implementation of the Goemaere-Anderson Wetland protection Act. The Applicant, Farida Enterprises, requested a contested Case Hearing pursuant to the above mentioned act.

JURISDICTION

Applications to fill wetlands are controlled by the Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act (WPA) MCL 281.701 et seq.

INTRODUCTION

Farida Enterprises submitted an application on February 12, 1985 to fill parts of a wetland for construction of a 115-Unit Mobile Home Park. The application materials were incomplete and a notice was sent to Farida requesting additional information. There was a response from Farida with additional information, but again DNR notified them there was still some information missing.

In April, Mr. Ron Brown of the Land Resources Programs Division of DNR visited the site and personally notified Farida's manager, Mrs. Jean David, that there were certain areas which could not be developed since they were wetlands. He indicated there were also other wetland areas which might be developed if proper permits were acquired. He followed that visit with a letter, (April 11th, 1985), officially notifying her of the areas which could not be developed and those which might be allowed. Mrs. David testified she submitted the drawings which had previously been requested on the 15th of April. The DNR has no record of receiving them. An additional request for supplemental information (drawings) by DNR was then disregarded by Mrs. David since she felt she had already sent them. It appears that the request from DNR and response from Mrs. David may have "crossed" in the mails. DNR had no record of having received those drawings and there was no further action by DNR on that application. There was contact by Farida's engineering firm (Edmands Engineering) with DNR concerning those areas of the property which were designated by Mr. Brown as being undevelopable.

There was no further action by either party concerning this permit until an additional permit application was received by DNR for a 95-Unit Mobile Home Park from Edmands Engineering (on behalf of Farida) on January 17, 1986. The cover letter indicated that there were significant changes to the plans since the site visitation by Mr. Ron Brown. DNR treated this application (for Farida) as a different file and different permit application. On February 4, 1986, DNR sent Mrs. David a letter closing the original permit application file, since DNR had not received the additional information and drawings previously requested. DNR requested additional information for this second permit application and considered the file complete on March 11,1986. The Department then issued a denial letter for the proposed activity on May 16, 1986.

That denial prompted Farida to request a Contested Case Hearing. Farida claimed that DNR did not take into consideration all of the criteria set forth in WPA (MCL 281.709). Farida further claimed in their request for the Contested Case Hearing that, "[T]he proposed expansion of existing mobile home park is primarily dependent upon being located as proposed and no feasible alternative exists." Petitioner questioned if the "proposed site is 'wetland' under the Act " [WPA]; (Petition for Contested Case Hearing). A hearing was conducted on November 9, 1989, and a proposal For Decision determined that Petitioner's original 115+ unit permit request was automatically issued because there was no official action by DNR (approval nor denial) within the 90 day period required by WPA Sec 8(2) .The Natural Resources commission rejected this decision (See Proposal For Decision, September 22, 1989, Attached) and remanded the case for a decision on the merits.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The first issue which must b~ resolved is to determine what areas constitute wetlands and thus are covered by WPA. The letter and diagram, (Petitioner's Exhibit #10 and #28) by Mr. Ron Brown, indicate there are certain areas of wetland within the proposed development. He made this rough diagram which was apparently presented to Mrs. David after his site visitation of April 8,1985. There is no other documentary evidence presented by DNR that this area constitutes wetlands nor a stated means of determining which areas may constitute wetlands. However, Mr. Brown's letter and Rite-O-Gram (petitioner's Exhibit #10 and #27) indicate areas which may not be developed under WPA. He describes the area which would require a wetlands permit for development. He also identified the uplands for which no permit is necessary.

A letter from Margaret T. Kolar of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on April 4, 1986 provides additional indication of the wetlands contained in this area. She describes the area as palustrine forest/scrub shrub wetland. The areas being referred to in this letter are shown on the Proposed Wetland Fill diagram, 1/7/86, (Respondent's Exhibit #7 and #5). The area on the diagram designated as "non-developable" would be used by wading birds as well as water fowl. The "proposed expansion area" may also be wetlands and would be used by a variety of other wetland species. (Respondent's Exhibit #7).

The soil testing report by Soils and Materials Engineers, Inc. (Petitioner's Exhibit #36) indicates there are extensive wetlands in the proposed activity site. Several sites they tested on July 17, 1985 showed standing water. These are within the same areas Mr. Brown had indicated were not developable. Other areas, particularly some within the area Mr. Brown had indicated as being "potentially developable", showed a foot or more of "black, sandy topsoil." The report also indicated that the soil in the areas is .perched up to an elevation of 897' USGS, depending upon the particular weather and seasonal conditions. This gives strong evidence that these areas are also to be considered wetlands according to WPA.

Mr. Sikkenga testified he visited the site and concurred with Mr. Brown's observations of the wetlands present on the site. He testified the wetlands are regulated wetlands because they are
contiguous to a small stream that flows from the property. Mrs. David testified she did not contest the DNR's findings of wetlands. The Petitioner offered no evidence concerning the presence or extent of wetlands on the property.

As a finding of fact, there are extensive contiguous wetlands in the proposed activity area and they include those areas at USGS 897' and below. with wetlands established as being present, the mandates of the Goemaere-Anderson Wetlands Protection Act must be followed.

PERMIT ISSUANCE STANDARDS

The WPA requires a permit for any filling or dredging within a wetland, (MCL 281.705 Sec.5 (a-d)). To receive a permit for these prohibited activities, the sections of MCL 281.709 must be satisfied. Section 9 states that a permit, "...shall not be approved unless the department determines that the issuance of a permit is in the public interest, that the permit is necessary to realize the benefits derived from the activity, and that the activity is otherwise lawful."

As previously stated, the area does contain wetlands and development therein requires a permit under WPA. The activity being proposed by Farida appears to be a lawful use as indicated by the R-3 zoning information for the area; (Petitioner's Exhibit #6 and #35).

The determination of whether this proposed activity is in the "public interest" is determined by balancing reasonably foreseeable detriments of the activity against the benefit which can reasonably be expected to accrue from the proposal [MCL 281.709 Sec 9(2) , (a-i)].

FINDINGS OF FACT

Subsection (a) states: "The relative extent of the public and private need for the proposed activity." There is no particular public interest in this development since it is on private land and the public will not normally have access to it. However, information was presented that indicates a need for additional, low to moderate income, housing in Ogemaw County; (petitioner's Exhibit #24) .I find that a public interest does exist to the extent that housing is in short supply. There is no other public need indicated. The private needs of the Petitioner to enlarge his business are personal.

Subsection (b) states: "The availability of feasible and prudent alternative locations and methods to accomplish the expected benefits from the activity." Mr. Brown's letter indicated there were upland sections of the tract of land which can be developed without need for a permit. Some of the uplands may be developed and can provide a feasible and prudent alternative to impacting the wetlands which are present. Mr. Sikkenga testified that the project could feasibly be scaled down and located on uplands. The modified plan, submitted to DNR which became the second file, clearly illustrates that alternatives which are feasible do exist. Considering the modified plan developed by Edmands Engineering for Farida Enterprises (petitioner's Exhibit #12) ; the fact that Ogemaw County is a predominantly rural community with a variety of uplands for possible development; the letter from Mr. Richard Sikkenga (Petitioner's Exhibit #22) ; and Mr. Sikkenga's testimony, I find that there are feasible and prudent alternative methods or locations for this activity.

Subsection (c) states: "The extent and permanence of the beneficial or detrimental effects which the proposed activity may have on the public and private uses to which the area is suited, including the benefits the wetland provides."
The filling of the wetlands within the area would have a permanent detrimental effect in that it would eliminate them completely. Destruction of these wetlands would eliminate the present use by wading birds and other waterfowl. Further, the filtering effect and runoff water retention would be lost (Respondent's Exhibit #7).  Mr. Sikkenga testified that he believed that this development would cause detriment to the small stream flowing through the property. More likely, the stream would be filled and eliminated. These detriments, while somewhat local, will adversely effect the public by impairing and/or destroying a natural resource of the state. The beneficial aspect of increased housing in the county is relative to the need in the county.
­
As a Finding of Fact, the proposed activity will have a permanent detrimental effect on the wetlands therein by its total destruction.

Subsection (d) states: "The probable impact of each proposal in relation to the cumulative effect created by other existing and anticipated activities in the watershed." Mr. Sikkenga testified that issuance of this permit would probably cause others to want to pave similar permits approved. This indicates there would. be a cumulative effect. Nationwide there has been considerable loss of wetlands and Michigan is estimated to have lost approximately 70% of its wetlands since 1800, (Respondent's Exhibit #7) .This proposed activity would continue that loss of Michigan's wetlands.
It should be noted that there are industrial activities locally (Refinery, Tank Farm, Industrial Park) and road runoff, which may have already had an impact. As well, there has been previous filling and previous encroachment into portions of this wetland. The proposed filling would essentially destroy the majority of the remaining wetlands.

As a Finding of Fact, the proposed filling would compound the impact/degradation/elimination of wetlands that has already occurred.

Subsection (e) states: "The probable impact on recognized historic, cultural, scenic, ecological, or recreational values and on the public health or fish or wildlife. "

There was no testimony about any particular cultural, historic, scenic, nor unique ecological conditions in or around this site. The U.S. Fish and wildlife Service (Respondent's Exhibit #7) indicated no endangered species were known to exit in the area. There was no testimony about any special recreational uses of this area. It is unknown if there are any particular public health implications involved here. However, it has been noted that the wetlands are used for feeding, wading, and nesting by various game and non-game species (Respondent's Exhibit #7) .
I find that there would be no impact on cultural, recreational, historical, scenic concerns, unique species, nor threatened assemblages of organisms. However, a loss of this wetlands would certainly effect the ecological value relative to those organisms presently using the wetlands.
Subsection considered."

f) states: "The size of the wetland being

The wetland to be impacted is approximately 19.8 acres (Respondent's Exhibit #7) .It's unknown what percentage of the remaining local wetland this would entail. Within this developed
area of West Branch, this wetland probably represents a significant amount of wetlands.

Subsection (g) states: "The amount of remaining wetland in the general area."

While there was little information as to the amount that would remain should this proposal be accepted, there are indications from the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service's response that the proposed activity site constitutes a major portion of the entire wetlands in the immediate area (ReSpondent's Exhibit #7).

Subsection (h) states "Proximity to any waterway." There is no indication of any navigable waterways in the immediate vicinity. There are, however, small sloughs or drainage channels indicated on various topographical maps (petitioner's Exhibit #12, #39, #20, and #16). There was testimony given which indicated a small stream running through the property. I find the wetlands area contiguous to a stream.

Subsection (i) states: "Economic value, both public private, of the proposed land change to the general area."
The only public benefit indicated from this proposed filling activity is that of the proposed increased housing availability. The only dollar value given is an estimate by Mrs. David that the development value would be close to $600,000 (petitioner's Exhibit #8).

As a finding of fact, most of the economic value involved here is private, and there is minimal economic value to the public.

WPA requires, in MCL 281.709, Sec 9 (4) that: "A permit shall not be issued unless it is shown that an unacceptable disruption will not result to the aquatic resources." I find that the
proposed activity of filling in the wetlands will cause an unacceptable disruption of the aquatic resources.
Sub-section (4) further states:
A permit shall not be issued unless the applicant also shows either of the following:
(4) (a) The proposed activity is primarily dependent upon being located in the wetland.
(4) (b) A feasible and prudent alternative does not exist.

This proposed activity does not depend upon being located in the wetland as asserted by Petitioner. The reason this site was proposed is because the Petitioner owns this piece of property and it is contiguous to his present enterprise. The Petitioner, by his plans to fill-in the wetlands, obviously does not want the wetlands there. Expansion at the present location is partially dependent upon wetland fill. This is not an activity that is primarily dependent upon being located in the wetland.
As a Finding of Fact, this activity does not depend upon being sited in a wetland.

Testimony by Mr. Sikkenga as well as his denial letter (Petitioner's Exhibit #22), the modified plan submitted by Edmands Engineering for Farida Enterprises, and information from the U.S.. Fish and wildlife Service (Respondent's Exhibit #7) indicate there are feasible and prudent alternatives to disrupting these wetlands.

As a Finding of Fact, there are feasible and prudent alternatives to this proposed activity.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1) The Petitioner's proposed activity involves wetlands contiguous to an inland stream and a permit is required under WPA.
2) Based on the Findings of Fact, I conclude that the permit, as requested, cannot be issued because the proposal will cause an unacceptable disruption of the aquatic resources.

3) Adoption of a definition of wetlands in this specific area as being at 897' USGS and below would allow development in several sections of the Farida tract. A permit to cross a small section of wetlands, for access to the developable southeastern uplands section, would provide a feasible alternative to the total wetland destruction. This alternative of minimal wetland fill, to reach uplands, would not cause an unacceptable disruption of the aquatic resources.

PROPOSAL

Based on the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is proposed that the denial of Farida Enterprises permit by the Department be sustained. It is further proposed that a Modified Permit using 897' USGS and below, as constituting wetlands and thus undevelopable area under WPA, be entertained by DNR.

Dated: June 25, 1990
William C. Fulkerson
Administrative Law Judge

IN RE : Goemaere-Anderson Wetlands Protection Act Appeal of
Farida Enterprises

Cause No.85-7-15, 86-7-007W

Dated: September 22, 1989
William C. Fulkerson
Administrative Law Judge

This matter is a contested case concerning the application of Farida Enterprises for a Wetlands Permit.

JURISDICTION

The hearing was conducted pursuant to 1979 PA 203, the Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act.

PARTIES

The professional staff of the Department of Natural Resources is charged with the day-to-day implementation of the Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act. Farida Enterprises filed for a contested case hearing pursuant to the act.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Petitioner, Farida Enterprises, is the owner of land in West Branch Township, Ogemaw County, Michigan. The Petitioner owns several acres of land, the exact size was not in evidence. The application was for various land modifications to accommodate a 115 unit expansion to an existing mobile home park. The application was for the area site-work necessary to install the units. The project called for construction of the mobile-home pads, installation of support utilities, and roads, and excavation of the storm-water retention pond, together with re-routing and enclosing of an existing on-site stream. Through a confusing chain of events, about a year later the Petitioner submitted a revised application for a permit to construct a 95 lot mobile-home park expansion, support utilities, and re-routing the existing drainage. Ultimately, both permit applications were denied.

The presence of wetlands on Petitioner's property is not a disputed fact. The Petitioner believed that the drain running through the property was not an inland lake or stream, however, there was no proof offered to contradict the testimony of Mr. Sikkenga and the field reports of Mr. Brown, which concluded that the wetland was contiguous to a inland lake or stream. I, therefore, find that the wetlands on the Petitioner's property are contiguous to an inland lake or stream and are subject to regulation. As such, a permit is required. for the activity proposed by the Petitioner.

It was the Petitioner's position throughout the proceedings that the Department failed to act in a timely fashion upon the application of Farida Enterprises and, thus, the permit was to be issued automatically, pursuant to Sec 8 (2) MCL 281.708 (2). That section states, "If a hearing is not held, the department shall approve or disapprove the permit application within 90 days after the completed permit application is filed with the department." The operative word is "completed".

To address this question, it is necessary to review the history of the application in this case. Briefly, Farida applied for a 115 site mobile-home park expansion. Several months later, Farida submitted plans for a 95 lot expansion to their mobile-home park. This revised plan was given a new application number and shortly thereafter the original application file was closed, for failure to provide information.

The Department's obligation to provide a decision within 90 days commences at the time of having a complete application. Although the rules under the Wetlands Act were promulgated subsequent to the applications in this case, it is my belief that their discussion of a complete application is an appropriate and reasonable interpretation of the statute. R 281.922 (2) states:

An application for a permit shall not be deemed as received or filed until the department has received all information requested on the application form, the application fee, and other information authorized by the act and necessary to reach a decision. The period for granting or denying an application begins as soon as all such information and the application fee are received by the department.

The critical point in time is the April period of requests for information and various filings by the Applicant. It is the Department's belief that, as of April 16, 1985, when the Department asked for revised plans and cross-sections of the park, based on Ron Brown's letter, that the file was incomplete. Mrs. David testified that she ignored the correction letter, because she believed she had filed everything that was necessary. Among the materials filed was a plan sheet, Petitioner's exhibit P-12, which is a modified plan, avoiding the area identified by Ron Brown as wetland. Further, Mrs. David's letter, Petitioner's exhibit P- ll, clearly states that it enclosed two additional plans--one being the original plan, the second being the modified. Mrs. David testified she had Edmands Engineering draw a simple drawing, showing 95 lots and avoiding the wetland. It was further Mrs. David's testimony that she believed that she had filed all things necessary for a complete application, and therefore, needn't respond to the April 16 letter asking for revised plans. The letter asking for revised plans says that the "application will be held pending receipt of the indicated item(s)". However, the application gives no indication of what is to be done, if it is not received. It does state that in the case of an Inland Lakes and Streams application, that is not responded to within 30 days, the application would be withdrawn and the file would be closed. If the application is complete, the Department has three options; 1) approve, 2) deny, or 3) request modifications. If the permit application is approved, the Department shall issue a permit. If the Department denies or requests modifications, the Department shall send notice of the denial or modification requests, and the reasons for the denial or the modifications requested. The Petitioner in this instance was given none of the above. It could be argued that the letter of Mr. Brown, Petitioner's exhibit P-10, was a denial, as to the wetland area he inspected. specifically, he states;

The area I feel can definitely not be developed is the southeast corner of the proposed expansion area. As I outlined to you, that area extends approximately "900" topographic line indication appearing above the work "Refinery", on the plan, in an easterly direction until it meets the 898' contour line at the western extremity of the proposed storm retention pond. From that point, the non-development area extends southerly along the 898' contour line to a point where the upland is intersected.

It is my opinion that the Department had sufficient material upon which to evaluate the application. Instead, the Department requested revised plans. The appropriate action, by the Department at that time, would have been a denial, with a request for modifications. It is my opinion that the Department did, in fact, deny the construction within the area identified as "no development" by Mr. Brown. The Petitioner apparently accepted the fact that those wetlands had to be avoided, and prepared, in a preliminary fashion, P-12, which was the initial drawing of the 95-unit park. Ultimately, the 95-unit park plan was done in detail and filed with the January 1986 permit application. Based on the entire record, it is my opinion that the Department had a complete application, that is, a sufficient application upon which to make a decision in April of 1985 and failed to do so. The Act imposes an obligation upon the Department to act within 90 days, upon complete applications. This cannot be reasonably construed to say there is no obligation to act at all, if the application is incomplete. Here, there was considerable confusion between the Department and the Applicant, as to whether the application was complete. The Department gave no notice of any potential sanction for failure to complete the application. The Applicant believed they had completed all required data. If the Applicant believes their application is complete, they are entitled to a review. The 90 day period should have begun from the date of the last request for information by the Department. The Department did not act, other than a preliminary denial of a portion of the application. Based on the fact that there had, in fact, been a partial denial and there had been revised plans submitted, although there remains a question whether they were actually received, that is, P-12. The law presumes that materials placed in the mail are received. The Department received the cover letter and one enclosure. We have uncontradicted sworn testimony that the plan sheets were included. There is nothing in the record to explain their absence from the file. The presumption is that they were received, GOOD v DAIIE, 67 Mich App 270; 241 NW2d 71 (1976). I conclude that a permit should have automatically issued for the plans as detailed in Petitioner's exhibit P-12, due to the failure of the Department to act within 90 days of the April 16th correction return letter. This is primarily because the request
for additional information was a request for a modification or revised plans. It appears that this file, like the plans, slipped through the system. The Applicant was entitled to have their file processed.
It is also recognized that this case developed prior to the present staffing and tracking system now in place. Therefore this case probably is unusual, as a last vestige of the early efforts to get a program in place.

PROPOSAL

Based on the foregoing, it is proposed that a permit should have issued automatically for a 95 unit mobile home park, as described in Exhibit P-12, Farida Country Village Estates Mobile Home Park Expansion.

Dated: 9/22/89
William C. Fulkerson
Administrative Law Judge

In Re: Goemaere--Anderson Wetland Protection Act Appeal of Farida Enterprises

Cause No. 86-7-007W

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

P-1.  Letter, dated 12/05/84 sent to Real Estate One from Clyde L. Johnson, P.E., Edmands Engineering.
P-2.  Letter, dated 01/07/85 sent to Lonny King from Michael R. DeMatio.
P-3. Survey of Farida Country Village Estates Mobile Home Park dated 11/05/85.
P-4.  Letter, dated 01/17/85 sent to Clyde Johnson, P.E. from Ronald Kelley.
P-5.  Letter, dated 01/18/85 sent to DNR, Land Resources Programs Division from Lonny King, Edmands Engineering.
P-6.  Letter, dated 01/23/85 sent to Clyde Johnson from Adrian Dantzer.
P-7.  Letter, dated 02/20/85 sent to Farida Enterprises from John Kennaugh.
P-8.  Letter, dated 03/13/85 sent to DNR from Roberta Jean David.
P-9.  Letter, dated 03/19/85 sent to Real Estate One from John Kernnaugh.
P-10 Letter, dated 04/11/85 sent to Real Estate One from Ronald Brown.
P-11.  Memo, dated 04/13/85 sent to DNR from Jean David.
P-12.  Plans sheet by Edmands Engineering of Farida Country Village Estates Mobile Home Park Expansion.
P-13.  Letter, dated 04/16/85 sent to Farida Enterprises from John Kennaugh.
P-14.  Letter, dated 08/15/85 sent to Farida Country Village Estates from Diane M. Philbrick.

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Cont. File No. - 85-7-15

P-15.  Letter, dated 12/05/85 sent to DNR, Flood Plain Control Unit from Terry A. Bartels, Edmands Engineering.
P-16.  Letter, dated 01/14/86 sent to DNR, Land Resource Programs Division from Mark P. Sohlden.
P-17.  Map of Michigan, dated 01/15/86 entitled Status Of National Wetland Inventory.
P-19.  Letter, dated 02/04/86 sent to Farida Enterprises from DNR, Division of Land Resource Programs.
P-20.  Letter, dated 02/18/86 sent to DNR, Land Resource Program Division from Mark P. Sohlden, Edmands Engineering.
P-22.  Letter, dated 05/16/86 sent to Farida Enterprises from Richard J. Sikkenga.
P-23.  Letter, dated 09/29/87 sent to DNR from Terry Bartels, Wade-Trim/Edmands.
P-24.  County of Ogemaw, 1988 Michigan CDBG Program Application for A Home Improvement Program Under The Housing Grant Program.
P-25.  Copy of Plat Map of West Branch Area copyright dated 1982, Rockford Map Publs., Inc.
P-26.  Ogemaw County Mobile Home Checklist revision 06/13/88.
P-27.  Rite-O-Gram, dated 04/23/85 sent to Mark Sohlden from Ron Brown.
P-28.  Copy of Map for Farida Country Village Estates Mobile Home Park.
P-30.  Application for Permit, Applicant is Farida Enterprises.
P-32.  Inter Office Communication, dated 06/20/85 regarding Farida MHP by Edmands Engineering.
P-34.  Letter, dated 07/11/85 sent to Edmands Engineering, Inc. from Harold Smith, Jr.

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Cont.  File No.         85-7-15.

P-35. Ogemaw County Michigan Zoning ordinance dated 11/71, revised 07/26/80.
P-36.  Geotechnical Investigation Report for Proposed Farida Country Village Estates Mobile Home Park Expansion dated 08/14/85.
P-38.  Entire DNR file, related to considerations made on Farida file.
P-39. Map of Farida Country Village Estates Mobile Home Park Expansion Preliminary Lot Layout dated 11/84.
There were no exhibits admitted by Petitioner for P-18, P-21, P-29, P-31, P-33 and
P-37.

 RESPONDENT DNR’S EXHIBITS

R-1. Application for Permit, dated 02/09/85.
R-2. Cover letter, dated 03/13/85 with attachments related to making application complete by Roberta Jean David, Farida Enterprises.
 R-3.  Letter, dated 12/05/85 sent to DNR, Flood Plain Control Unit from Terry A. Bartels, Edmands Engineering.
R-4.  Letter, dated 01/09/86 sent to Terry Bartels from Suzanne Elms.
R-5.  Letter, dated 02/06/86 sent to Jean David from Brad Wilkins.
R-6.  DNR Public Notice dated 03/11/86 on File No. 86-7-7W.
R-7.  Letter, dated 04/04/86 sent to Elmer Shannon from Margaret T. Kolar.
R-8.  DNR, Land Resource Programs Division, Project Review Report, dated 05/15/86.
R-9.  DNR Permit, issued 01/08/88 to Farida Enterprises.
R-10.  InterOffice Communication, dated 05/09/86 sent to Richard Sikkenga from Fred W. Gottschalk.