IN RE:   GREAT LAKES SUBMERGED LANDS
ACT (247) PETITION OF KNIGHT  HARBOR MARINA
File No. 90-8-92G
 

At a session of the Natural Resources Commission held in the City of Traverse City on the 10th day of November, 1994

Chairman Larry DeVuyst, Presiding

WHEREAS the above-entitled matter has been the subject of a contested case hearing resulting in a Proposal for Decision and is now before the Commission for review, and

WHEREAS the Commission has duly considered the Proposal for Decision as well as appropriate exhibits, submissions and arguments of the parties, and

WHEREAS the Commission has, by a majority of the Commissioners eligible and voting, decided to ACCEPT the Proposal for Decision.

THEREFORE, the Proposal for Decision dated August 25, 1994, shall be and hereby is ACCEPTED for the reasons set out therein and during the Commission Discussion and Deliberation of the above matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

Larry DeVuyst
Commission Chairman
Dated:  ________________________

IN RE:             Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act [247]
Petition of Knight Harbor Marina
File No. 90-8-92G

August 25, 1994
William C. Fulkerson
Administrative Law Judge

IN RE:             Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act [247]
Petition of Knight Harbor Marina
File No. 90-8-92G

This matter is a contested case arising out of an application for a permit under the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act, 1957 PA 247, as amended, MSA 13.700(l), MCL 322.701. Mr. Meagher is the Petitioner in this case.  He applied for a permit to dredge a channel and extend existing 2,500 foot long breakwalls an additional five hundred feet into the waters of Saginaw Bay.  The project was proposed to provide more dependable access to deep water from a marina, Knight Harbor, Mr. Meagher owns.  The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Glenn Doyle, his attorney.  Mr. Chris Shafer represented the staff of the Department.

The hearing was conducted under the authority of to the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act, the Act, and the promulgated rules.  The procedures followed at the hearing were those required under the Administrative Procedures Act 1969 PA 306, as amended, MCL 24.201 et seq., MSA 3.560(101).

Mr. Meagher owns, Knight Harbor, a small marina in Hampton Township, Bay County, on Saginaw Bay of Lake Huron.  The marina is in a particularly shallow area of shoreline and has been plagued by problems in attempting to maintain an open channel to navigable water. Following dredging, the channel mouth quickly fills with sand which closes the opening.  This problem leads to a need for annual dredging to keep the channel mouth open.  It is Mr. Meagher's opinion that by extending the breakwalls he can eliminate much of the dredging and keep the channel mouth open by using his own equipment from the proposed breakwall extension.  The last couple of seasons the marina has not been open because the end of the entrance channel has been blocked by sand.  This sand has drifted into the channel rendering it too shallow for navigation.  Mr. Meagher was offered a permit for annual maintenance dredging to maintain an open channel to reach navigable water depths.  He maintains dredging by barge or hydraulically, which is necessary on an annual basis, is too expensive for so small an operation as his.  It is cost prohibitive.  He proposes to extend his existing 2,500 foot long breakwalls 500 foot by dredging material from the channel and piling it on either side of the channel to create a forty foot wide breakwall or jetty upon which he can move and operate his own equipment.  At the terminus of the breakwall a semi-circular area 70 feet in diameter would be filled.  This area would allow the equipment to turn around and permit the dredging equipment further reach to maintain the channel opening.  Mr. Meagher testified the extended breakwall would keep the channel open with a lesser need for maintenance dredging, and he could perform whatever dredging is necessary with his own equipment.  The Department is opposed to any further extension of fill into the lake and the occupancy of bottomlands by the breakwalls on both sides of the channel.  The Department will permit maintenance dredging, but as the discussion will detail, it has numerous objections to the methods proposed by Mr. Meagher and the occupancy of the bottomlands by the structures he proposes.

It is undisputed the proposed activity will take place on Great Lakes bottomlands below the ordinary high-water mark of Lake Huron and thus, requires a permit.  It is also undisputed that Mr. Meagher is the owner of the upland adjoining this project and is the riparian owner who is a proper applicant for a permit.

The setting for the marina and breakwalls was described by the witnesses as a shallow marsh.  The character of the area is influenced by the water level of the Bay.  In low water years there will be more reeds and cattails exposed than in high water years.  In all cases the water depth is very shallow out a long distance from the shore.  The bottom is a series of bars and troughs.  The fluctuating water levels periodically expose the bars.  In times of low water the nearshore area is more like a marsh than an open water area.  There is very little bottom slope; water depths change almost imperceptibly as one moves from the shore lakeward.

Before a permit may be issued the Department must find the proposal, "will not substantially affect the public use thereof for hunting, fishing swimming, pleasure boating or navigation or that the public trust in the state will not be impaired...". MCI, 322.702.

In making the statutory determination it is necessary to examine the various uses to be made of the waters, including the environmental values associated with the area proposed for construction.  This project is to serve private non-commercial navigation.  The channel from the marina to an open water depth where boats can navigate is an integral part of any marina operation.  A marina which cannot provide access to boatable water is of no value.  There is no argument that Mr. Meagher needs a channel to open water to conduct his business.  His request for maintenance dredging has been granted and apparently will continue to be granted on an annual basis.  Department staff testified almost every marina on Saginaw Bay has to dredge on an annual basis and that some may need to dredge twice a year.  Mr. Meagher testified annual maintenance dredging was too expensive for an operation as small as his and the annual cost would exceed his revenues from marina operation.  The issue is not one regarding the need to reach boatable water, the need is undisputed.  The issue is one of the public trust implications from the extension of the breakwalls into Saginaw Bay an additional 500 feet.

The Department cites three reasons for denying the fill.  One is that it will interfere with navigation.  The second is that the fill will eliminate valuable fish habitat.  The third reason is that the extension will interfere with water circulation which may cause harm to waterfowl.  Stagnant water conditions can lead to a form of botulism outbreak that is fatal to waterfowl.  A further reason of importance is the Department's contention the breakwall extension will not eliminate the need for dredging.  The Department contends the breakwalls would have to be extended a total of 1,500 feet to reach a depth of water sufficient to eliminate the need for annual maintenance dredging.  The Department is opposed to a 1,500 foot extension, as well as a 500 foot extension, and Mr. Meagher has never indicated he wanted such a breakwall.  He believes a 500 foot extension will adequately serve his needs.

Littoral drift is the term used to describe the movement of bottom sediments caused by wave action and currents in lakes.  The Department hired a consultant, Dr. Meadows, to make a determination of the likely impact of extending the breakwalls an additional 500 feet into the bay.  He is an engineering professor at the University of Michigan and operates a consulting business, Coastal Dynamics, Inc.  His specialty is wave action on shorelines and the nearshore area.  He was asked by the Department to perform a study to evaluate the effect of a 500 foot extension to the existing breakwall on littoral drift.  He used NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) depth and climatology information to run a computer simulation of conditions at the site.  It was his opinion a 500 foot extension would not eliminate the need for annual maintenance dredging to maintain an open channel.  He opined a 1,500 foot extension was necessary to accomplish that goal.  This would mean the breakwalls would have to extend 4,000 feet from the shore to be effective.  The basis of his opinion was that the shallow nearshore area was actively moving 40% of the time, the sand bars were not moving 60% of the time.  The primary cause of littoral drift, sand movement, is storms.  He testified any place sandbars are present, there is active transport of material taking place.  To avoid sand movement into the channel mouth it is necessary to extend the breakwalls beyond the active surf zone, which in this case is approximately 1,500 feet further into the bay from their current terminus.  Based on all of the available materials he concluded a 500 foot extension would not eliminate the need for annual maintenance dredging because the end of the channel would still be in the active surf zone.  He predicted the end of the proposed channel would fill with sand within one year and that shallow water would continue for another 1,000 feet out into the bay.  To extend the breakwalls beyond the active surf zone would require a 1,500 foot extension.  As was previously discussed, Mr. Meagher has not requested such an extension, nor did he indicate in his testimony that he wanted one of that length.

Dr. Meadows testified that interference with water circulation was directly related to the length of the structure.  That is, the longer the structure the greater the interference with water circulation.  He also testified a 500 foot extension probably would have a minimal effect on littoral drift and water circulation; as the structure was lengthened its effect on littoral drift would increase.  Dr. Meadows testified a 1,500 foot extension of the breakwalls would have a serious effect upon littoral drift and water circulation.  He did not offer an opinion as to what volume of material would have to be dredged to maintain an open channel.  His opinion related to the dynamics of littoral drift and the movement of sands.  Mr. Meagher testified he felt propeller wash, the disturbance caused by the force of the propeller turning and moving water, from boats entering and leaving the channel would aid in keeping the channel open.  This factor was not considered by Dr. Meadows.  It seems logical that propeller wash may be of some consequence at the channel mouth, it seems unlikely it would have an effect for the additional 1,000 feet necessary to reach beyond the active surf zone.  Also, the boating season does not encompass the entire period of open water and propeller wash would not occur in early spring and late fall if it were to be a factor in maintaining an open channel.

I find that maintenance dredging to reach beyond the active surf zone is necessary and it is unlikely that Mr. Meagher can accomplish his goal of eliminating annual maintenance dredging by extending his breakwalls another 500 feet.

The Department sampled the bottom and fish populations in the area of the proposed breakwalls.  The purpose of the sampling was to assess the amount of lost habitat caused by the bottomland occupancy.  Filling the bottomland for the breakwalls eliminates the habitat present.  Dredging between the breakwalls converts shallow water habitat to an open channel.  The Department offered the testimony of personnel who had visited and evaluated the site for its fisheries value.  The proposed fill area is generally less than four feet deep.  The bottom is a series of bars and troughs with the bars being about a foot higher than the troughs.  The bottom is fairly productive of insects which form the food base for the fish in the vicinity.  The fisheries value is as a nursery and spawning area.  There are a number of forage species present including bass, pike, walleye, crappie and perch.  A nearby boat launch provides access for small boat fishermen who use the area.  The primary fishing is for crappie, perch, walleye, bass and channel catfish.  The breakwall extension would occupy approximately 2 acres of habitat for these species.  The staff of the Department expressed the opinion the loss of habitat was significant and could be avoided by engaging in annual maintenance dredging.  The annual dredging does disturb the bottom, but is not a permanent structure occupying bottomlands.  A fish survey conducted on the site found 25 species of fish present.  Most of the fish were small.  This is an indicator the area is used as a nursery for young fish.  A Department witness testified the presence of 25 species indicates a very diverse fish population and he would expect a greater variety of fish to use the area, since the fish    species present at the site would vary seasonally.  That is, he would expect different types of fish to be present at different times of the year.  The Department expressed concern more bottomland would be lost by permitting this project.  The existing breakwall system already occupies a significant amount of bottomland, it is 2,500 feet long and each side is 40 feet wide.  The witnesses were unable to quantify the additional loss of habitat, but were of the opinion it was an excessive and unnecessary loss of habitat for fish and the organisms they eat.

There was no evidence the bottomlands were unique or of unusual value for Saginaw Bay.  It is a predictable consequence that if a permit is granted for bottomlands fill, the area filled is lost as habitat for aquatic organisms.  The question to be decided is, whether under all of the circumstances, the loss is acceptable.

The Department has recently built an access site for small boats, the Jones road access site, which is not too distant from the subject property.  There isno intention at this time to perform maintenance dredging at the launch site.  It is intended the site will be used by whatever craft are capable of launching at the ramp in its present condition.  The immediate vicinity is seasonally popular for fishing.  The primary usage is spring, fall and winter.  Obviously the winter access is not by boats.  The boats launched from the launch site are small outboards capable of operating in the very shallow water.  The Department has no plans to dredge the launch site, and expects the use to be limited to those watercraft capable of navigating the shallow water.  A Consumers Power Company electrical generating plant, which discharges warm water to the bay, is to the West of Knight Harbor.  This warm water can be an attractant to fish.  To the East of the subject property is an old, late 1800's, water intake for Bay City; it is no longer in operation.  Both of these facilities have dikes or structures extending into the bay further than Mr. Meagher's proposed breakwalls and are physical obstacles to watercraft movement.  The immediate vicinity is a very shallow area enclosed on two sides by large structures extending into the water with the Knight Harbor breakwalls located between the other two.  The Department expressed concern the breakwall extension would interfere with small boat navigation and could be a hazard in a storm.  It is a fact that any structure which extends into the water interferes with the movement of boats.  It is also obvious the shallow nature of the immediate area makes it accessible by only the smallest of boats.  As Dr. Meadows described, the active surf zone extends another 1,500 feet outward beyond the Knight Harbor breakwalls.  This means the area is navigable by small boats under good conditions, and under storm conditions would be expected to be very hazardous.  The bars and troughs likely are a navigational hazard under any conditions, but certainly must be under low or rough water conditions.  From the standpoint of evaluating the physical obstruction of navigation, an extension of the breakwall 500 feet is probably not of much consequence.  The area is marginal for boating as it exists.  It is unlikely the extension would create an increased hazard to small boats using the area.  It may provide shelter from the wind and waves depending upon wind direction.  I find, as a matter of fact, the primary affect on fishing is the loss of habitat which yields an unquantifiable loss of fisheries value through the elimination of 2 acres of bottomland.

The amount of bottomland occupancy appears excessive in light of the proposal.  To construct a 40 foot wide breakwall on each side of the channel seems to be of a greater width than is reasonably necessary to accommodate equipment.  The Department and the Petitioner offered no alternative construction methods to accomplish the Petitioner's objective.  The Petitioner believed his approach was a sound one and the Department was opposed to any further placement of structures on the bottomland at this location.  Thus, construction alternatives were not in evidence.  However, it does appear there could be some mitigation measures available to reduce the amount of bottomland occupancy.  It will be unnecessary to deal with this aspect of the project in light of the result recommended.  But, if this project were to be permitted a detailed examination of ways to reduce the amount of fill would be necessary.

The area has value for shorebirds and waterfowl which rest and feed in the shallow water areas.  Like the fishermen, waterfowl hunters come into the area in small boats to hunt.  The immediate effect of the structure is the loss of some potential wildlife habitat, although that concern was not the primary one expressed by the Department wildlife expert.  The wildlife biologist responsible for the area was concerned about the effect on water circulation an additional 500 feet of breakwall might have.  In Saginaw Bay, and similar shallow warm water environments, there have been periodic outbreaks of a form of botulism that kills waterfowl.  This bacteria is present in the soils and becomes a problem under stagnant, warm water conditions.  It was opined any extension of the breakwalls could increase the likelihood of stagnant conditions.  Further, there is some drift of the thermal plume of warm water from the powerplant in the direction of the breakwall.  Dr. Meadows' work on littoral drift is the only solid evidence in the record examining the dynamics of water movement.  It is logical to assume if sediment transport is taking place there is movement of water.  Dr. Meadows expressed the opinion a 500 foot extension of the breakwall would not interfere with littoral drift or water circulation in a significant way.  Thus, it follows no significant interference with water movement is likely if the breakwalls are extended 500 feet.  I find, as a matter of fact, the primary anticipated concern for wildlife is the botulism threat and that threat will not be significantly increased by a 500 foot extension of the breakwalls.  The existing physical condition of the area probably poses the greatest threat, and that condition is unlikely to change because the existing large structures probably are an impediment to water circulation.  The structures have existed for some time and no testimony was offered that this area had suffered an outbreak of botulism poisoning.  This is an area where other large structures are present on the bottomlands, 500 additional feetof breakwall in this environment is unlikely to be of significance to water circulation or wildlife.

The alternative offered to Mr. Meagher is to perform annual maintenance dredging.  As Mr. Meagher testified, the cost of annual maintenance dredging is excessive in relation to his revenues.  He keeps his costs low by personally performing the work and is the only employee of the marina.  He testified it would cost him $75,000.00 to buy a hydraulic dredge to keep the channel open and that his gross revenue from slip rental is only $25,000.00.  Another alternative would be to use a barge mounted dredge to maintain the channel.  Mr. Meagher testified, a barge was not available in the vicinity and the area around his breakwalls was too shallow to use a barge mounted dredge.  From an economic perspective it is neither feasible nor prudent for this size of an operation to afford annual maintenance dredging.  The evidence shoes annual maintenance dredging will be required even if the breakwall extensions are permitted.  It is unlikely the economics would become any more favorable to Mr. Meagher by dredging 1,000 feet to the open water instead of 1,500.  This presents a very obvious and serious dilemma for Mr. Meagher.  If he were granted a permit, he likely would not accomplish his goals.  It should be noted he was previously granted a permit to extend and even up the length of his existing breakwalls, it seems likely he thought his problems would be resolved by that change.  Unfortunately, an open channel cannot be assured without dredging.  The breakwall construction is feasible for Mr. Meagher, however, it will not accomplish his goal of an easily maintained channel.  The alternative of maintenance dredging is feasible but not economically prudent because it involves extraordinary costs in relation to the benefits to be derived from the expenditure.

There was no evidence of any adverse effect to riparian rights or an objection by nearby riparians to the proposal.  There was one letter from neighbors who appeared more concerned with wetland filling, which is not a part of this proposal.  They apparently want the property to remain natural, but voiced no objections from a riparian point of view.  I find, as a matter of fact, there will be no adverse effects to riparian rights.

The public trust determination is more involved.  The proposal is one that is in aid of navigation; allowing a safe harbor for small watercraft to reach navigable water.  The effect on navigation is minimal, as is the effect on fishing or hunting.  The effect is an environmental one, the loss of 2 acres of bottomland that is habitat for fish and used by waterfowl and shorebirds.  The department witnesses stated in various forms that it is Department policy to disapprove proposals to fill bottomlands for dike extensions.  The phrase, "there will be no dike expansion on state owned bottomlands", appeared several times in the testimony and in comments on the permit application.  The field staff, in particular, seemed to embrace the concept as the proper standard to apply.  A general predisposition against sidecasting was also expressed because, "it is never the least damaging alternative."  The legal efficacy of these pronouncements will be addressed within the Conclusions of Law in this opinion.

It is extremely difficult to assess the availability of alternatives when the underlying proposal is probably ineffectual to achieve the desired result.  This is the real difficulty in this case, there is no clear solution to Mr. Meagher's access problem.  While he is confident his proposal is the solution to the access problems, the evidence leads to a contrary conclusion.  How does one evaluate the feasibility and prudence of alternatives when one alternative is ineffective to achieve its purpose, and the other is clearly too expensive in light of the benefit to be derived?  An objective appraisal of the situation leads to the conclusion the alternative of doing nothing is likely appropriate in view of all of the circumstances.  A letter from a long time neighbor to the property (Exhibit A) describes 50 years of problems keeping the channel open.  There are no feasible and prudent alternatives or methods to accomplish Mr. Meagher's objectives.  Annual maintenance dredging is necessary to assure a viable, accessible operation and the marina business is too small to support it.  That is the fundamental problem, one for which this Department can offer no solution.  In summary, there are no feasible and prudent alternatives and the alternative preferred by Mr. Meagher will not accomplish his goal.  The construction of an extension that is ineffective would serve no purpose.  It would result in the unnecessary occupation of public trust lands with no benefit to the public or to Mr. Meagher.

1.         Pursuant to the Act, the applicant is a proper party to make application and the proposed activity requires a permit.

2.         The Department staff, at least some of it, reviewed the application under an improper standard, that is, one which prohibits the extension of dikes or breakwalls on state owned bottomlands.  That legal interpretation is incorrect.  The correct standard does not prohibit such activity, it requires each permit application to be reviewed under the statutory standards and the rules.  No blanket prohibition exists against the extension of breakwalls and dikes, nor can one be reasonably implied from the statute.

3.         The proposed activity will not impair or destroy the public trust in the broadest sense.  The activity takes place where there is limited navigation or fishing because the water is shallow.  To the extent limited boating takes place, the dikes could interfere with their movement.  There was no allegation, nor is it likely the breakwalls would interfere with commercial navigation.  The breakwall extensions, if effective, would enhance navigation in that it would provide access to a safe harbor and allow watercraft to reach boatable water from the harbor.  As is the case with fishing, the effect on hunting would not be significant.  There was no evidence of any swimming in the vicinity, there is no real beach and the nearshore area is too marshy to be suitable for swimming or other in water recreation.  The effect on the public trust is the loss of bottomland caused by filling for the dikes.  The bottomland loss is permissible if there is no substantial impairment of the public trust and it is not excessive.  There is no substantial impairment in this case, although the amount of bottomland proposed for occupancy seems unreasonable.  However, the public's interest in the bottomland requires it not be conveyed when no useful purpose is served.  The Act permits bottomland occupancy for private purposes if the public trust will not be impaired.  It does not permit the occupancy of public bottomlands when there is no private benefit to be derived from the occupancy.  The balance clearly requires retention of bottomlands in public use when the private use is illusory or unnecessary.  Solely because an activity might not substantially impair the public trust, does not lead to the conclusion it is a permissible activity.  If this project actually eliminated annual maintenance dredging and were not an excessive occupation, it might be permissible.  I conclude, as a matter of law, this permit should not be granted because it is an occupancy of public trust bottomlands that unreasonably encroaches on the public's interest in the bottomlands.  Although a true public interest test is not the standard to be applied in evaluating a reallocation of a public trust resource, it is a proper consideration to preserve and protect the interest of the public in the bottomlands (MCL 322.702).  The interest of the public in the bottomlands is paramount when the occupancy proposal is one of doubtful private benefit or the occupancy is unnecessary and excessive.

4.         1983 AACS, R 322.1015 requires the Department to perform an environmental assessment of the proposed activity.  Mr. Meagher's proposal is ineffective to accomplish his purpose.  That is not the standard to be applied.  The environmental impacts are more illusory to assess, there will be a loss of bottomland, 2 acres, should the project be permitted.  This is a productive nearshore area valuable for both fish and wildlife, it will be depreciated to some degree if the permit is issued.  Maintenance dredging without sidecasting is the least damaging method to accomplish Mr. Meagher's objectives.  It is neither feasible nor prudent to use a barge or hydraulic dredge in this factual setting.  This case seems to lead in circles because the proposed project does not accomplish the permit applicant's objectives.  To extend the channel to reach boatable water (1,500 feet out) is unacceptable because it would require much greater fill amounts, occupy three times the bottomlands and seriously interfere with littoral drift and water circulation.  To grant such a permit would impair the public trust and cause unacceptable damage to the environment.  In a factual situation, such as in this case, the decision should be weighted in favor of protection of the bottomlands from unnecessary use or occupation.  The loss of habitat is unacceptable in light of the excessive occupancy of bottomlands and the doubtful effectiveness of the proposal.

Based on the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law, it is proposed that Knights Harbor Marina be denied a 500 foot extension of the existing breakwalls and that annual maintenance dredging permits be issued.

August 25, 1994

William C. Fulkerson
Administrative Law Judge

A-1      Public Notice and Application for Permit on Permit No. 90-8-92G dated September 11, 1990.
A-2      Certified Letter dated November 9, 1990 to Knight Harbor Marina from Robert P. Zbiciak.
A-3      Rite-O-Gram dated November 2, 1990 to Chuck Dodgers from James P. Baker.
A-4      MDNR Interoffice Communication dated October 23, 1990 to Chuck Dodgers from Thomas Prawdzik.
A-5      MDNR Interoffice Communication dated September 12, 1990 to LWMD Supervisor in Bay City from Great Lakes Shorelands Section, LWMD.
A-6      Project Review Report dated November 1, 1990 and signed by Dodgers.
A-7      Letter dated October 19, 1990 to Chuck from Rob Zbiciak.
B          Knight Harbor Structure Evaluation, Bay County, Hampton Township, Michigan to MDNR, LWMD, Lansing, Michigan from Coastal Dynamics, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.
B-1      Drawing with scale 1" = 1000'.
B-2      Wave Information Studies of US Coastlines, WIS Report 26, Hindcast Wave Information For The Great Lakes:  Lake Huron by Robin D. Reinhard, David B. Driver, Jon M. Hubertz, US Army Corps of Engineers dated December, 1991, Final Report.
C         MDNR Fisheries Division, Fish Collection Report dated July 29, 1993.
D         Copy of File No. 88-16-67, File Name: Knight Harbor Marina.
E          Letter dated August 18, 1987 to Charter Township of Hampton from Ronald H. Treadwell, Jr., President of Treadwell Real Estate Company.
F-1      Color copy of aerial photograph dated November 8, 1978, with codes: 1:10,000; MDNR-Huron; and No. 000309.
F-2      Color copy of aerial photograph dated April 10, 1987 with codes: 1:6000; MDNR; 343.
F-3      Black & White aerial photograph dated July 30, 1963 with code: BDC-2DD-198.
F-4      Two colored photographs mounted on 81/2" x 11" sheet of paper.  Top Picture Labeled: Knight Road/Meagher Site.  Hampton Road  Bottom Picture Labeled: Knight Road/ Meagher Site.  Hampton Twp.  Dated April 21, 1993, JCA.
F-5      Two colored photographs mounted on 81/2" x 11" sheet of paper.  Labeled: Knight Road/Meagher Site.  Dated April 21, 1993, JCA.
Exhibits G - J are located in brown tube measuring 3" in diameter and 40" long.
G         Saginaw River Project Plan for year 1991, Maintenance Dredging.
H         Saginaw Bay Polyconic Project-with sounding in feet.
I           Aerial photograph of site dated April 16, 1989.
J           Black & White Aerial photograph of project site.