SUBJECT: Part 303, Wetland Protection, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended.

Petition of Greg Schmidt

File No. 98-04-0199
__________________________________________________________________

The above captioned matter was the subject of a contested case hearing resulting in the issuance of a Proposal for Decision dated June 21, 1999. In a letter of the same date, the Office of Administrative Hearings gave the Parties until July 12, 1999, to file written Exceptions to the Proposal for Decision. That date was extended on two occasions at the request of Mr. Schmidt, and he filed his Exceptions on September 13, 1999. The Department of Environmental Quality did not file Exceptions. Neither Party requested Oral Argument before this Tribunal.

The matter is now before the Director of the Department of Environmental Quality for a final agency decision pursuant to Executive Order 1995-18. In rendering the decision in this case consideration has been given only to the Proposal for Decision, the written Exceptions, exhibits, pleadings and arguments.

According to the exhibits on this record the activity proposed in the application for a permit is the placement of 3,162 cubic yards of fill material in a wetland area in order to construct a 110 x 65 foot residence and garage, a 60 x 40 foot septic system, and a driveway 15 feet wide and 60 feet long. The amount of fill was later reduced to 2,745 cubic yards.

The Proposal for Decision accurately recites the procedural history of this case as it involves the question of whether the activity is proposed to occur on the bottomland of Lake Huron. Therefore, I adopt its finding that Part 325, Great Lakes Submerged Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), 1994 PA 451, as amended, is not at issue. Given this, Mr. Schmidt's Exceptions concerning the placement of fill in the bottomlands of Lake Huron, specifically the survey, are moot. This Final Determination and Order is concerned only with the question of whether Mr. Schmidt is entitled to the permit for which he applied under the provisions of Part 303, Wetland Protection, of NREPA.

In his Exceptions, Mr. Schmidt contends the Proposal for Decision did not address the issues which he presented at the hearing, and inaccurately described the proposed project. However, a review of this record does not reveal the Proposal for Decision misapplied either Part 303 or the administrative rules, nor contains obvious error that affects the substantial rights of either party. Further, there is no indication the Proposal for Decision fails to address a relevant issue, makes factual findings inconsistent with the evidence or excludes or includes evidence which substantially affect the outcome of the case. Thus, no showing has been made which would allow for the Proposal for Decision to be rejected due to material error.

The only issue properly before this Tribunal is whether the activity proposed in the application for a permit can be permitted under Part 303. Upon a review of the application, a legal conclusion was reached that a feasible and prudent alternative location exists. Specifically, the Proposal for Decision found the utilization of the existing upland, perhaps coupled with an attendant amount of fill in the adjacent wetland, is a feasible and prudent alternative to the activity proposed in the application for a permit. In this regard, Mr. Schmidt asserts Department staff will not cooperate with him regarding exactly what could be permitted next to the existing upland on the site. However, it is Mr. Schmidt's responsibility to provide the requisite information. MCL 324.30306(1)(d). The record is silent as to what is necessary in order to satisfy the stated need to utilize the property as a home site. To render a determination on this point a new application which precisely delineates the amount and location of the additional fill must be provided. MCL 324.30311.

Finally, Mr. Schmidt has provided extra-record evidence with his Exceptions. The review of this Proposal for Decision is limited to only that evidence which was adduced at the hearing and the arguments of the Parties. MCL 24.285. The material provided by Mr. Schmidt along with his Exceptions can neither be considered nor maintained in the administrative file, so it shall be returned to him. Of course, Mr. Schmidt is not foreclosed from submitting this material, along with any other statutorily required information, to the Department in the form of a new application for a permit under Part 303.

The Director of the Department of Environmental Quality ADOPTS AND INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE the Proposal for Decision including the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Based upon those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is DETERMINED the application for a permit of Greg Schmidt be DENIED under the permitting criteria of Part 303.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Proposal for Decision of June 21, 1999, is ADOPTED and INCORPORATED by reference into this Final Order.

2. The application for a permit submitted by Greg Schmidt under File No. 98-04-0199 is DENIED.

3. The Department of Environmental Quality does not retain jurisdiction in this matter.

Dated: September 24, 2000
Russell J. Harding, Director
Department of Environmental Quality

SUBJECT: Part 303, Wetland Protection, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), 1994 PA 451, as amended.

Petition of Greg Schmidt

File No. 98-04-0199

Date: June 21, 1999
Richard A. Patterson
Administrative Law Judge

An application for a permit was filed by Mr. Greg Schmidt (Petitioner) on August 4, 1998. State Exhibit 1. The activity proposed in the application involves filling in a wetland contiguous to Lake Huron (St. Marys River), in Chippewa County. The application was set for Public Notice on September 29, 1998. Id. The application was denied by the Department of Environmental Quality (Department) by certified letter dated December 8, 1998. State Exhibit 9. The Petitioner timely filed a petition for a contested case hearing with this Tribunal on January 19, 1998. The contested case hearing was conducted on May 28, 1998.

The contested case hearing in this matter was conducted pursuant to Part 303, Wetland Protection, MCL 324.30301 et seq., MSA 13A.30301 et seq., of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended, and the administrative rules promulgated thereunder. The hearing was governed by the Administrative Procedures Act, 1969 PA 306, as amended; MCL 24.201 et seq.; MSA 3.560 (101) et seq.

Pursuant to the Property Rights Preservation Act, 1996 PA 101, MCL 24.421 et seq.; MSA 24.421 et seq., in formulating this Proposal for Decision, the undersigned has reviewed the Takings Assessment Guidelines and considered the issue of whether this governmental action equates to a constitutional taking of property.

The Petitioner appeared in propria persona and presented as witnesses himself, Mr. Herbert Raedeke, present owner of the subject property upon which Petitioner has an option to purchase, and Mr. Loren Shaffer, a neighboring property owner.

The professional staff of the Department is charged with the day-to-day implementation of the Part 303 and is the Respondent in this case. The Department is represented by Mr. Fred Gottschalk, Contested Case Supervisor, Land and Water Management Division (LWMD). The Department presented four witnesses: Ms. Virginia Pennala, Supervisor, LWMD, Marquette District; Mr. Craig Outwater, LWMD Analyst, Newberry Office; Mr. Cary Gustafson, LWMD Analyst, Crystal Falls Office, and Ms. Linda Telder, an neighboring property owner.

During the hearing the Petitioner introduced 19 exhibits and the Department introduced 34. The Petitioner's exhibits are labelled "Petitioner" and the Department's exhibits "State". A list and description of these exhibits is included at the end of this Proposal for Decision.

During the pre-hearing conference on April 16, 1999, the Parties entered into the following stipulations:

1) The Petitioner, who has contracted with the owner to purchase the property conditioned on the issuance of a permit, is the proper applicant for a permit.

2) The processing of the application was procedurally correct.

3) The activity proposed in the application is a regulated activity, a permit in necessary and the Department has jurisdiction.

I find these stipulations are legally correct, and I adopt them as findings. Stipulations entered into by the parties shall be used as evidence at the hearing and are binding. MCL 24.278; MSA 3.560(178); Dana Corporation v Employment Security Commission, 371 Mich 107, 110 (1963).

The subject site is located in the DeTour Township, Chippewa County, Michigan. The property consists of an outlot adjacent to Lot No. 1 of the Kristen Subdivision. Petitioner Exhibit 1. It is irregular in shape and is comprised of approximately .75 acres. State Exhibit 2. The unimproved lot is on the shoreline of the St. Marys River at its northerly border.

The application requests a permit to place approximately 3,162 (later revised down to 2,745, Petitioner Exhibit 7) cubic yards of fill material in a wetland area to construct a 110 by 65 foot residence and garage, a 60 by 40 foot septic system, and a 15 foot wide by 60 foot long driveway. State Exhibit 1 and Petitioner Exhibits 6 and 7.

In addition to the wetland impacts resulting from the activity, the Department was concerned that the project may involve activity at or below the ordinary high water mark of the St. Mary's River. If that is the case, the permitting provisions of Part 325, Great Lakes Submerged Lands, are invoked. To determine if the activity was to take place on the bottmlands of the St. Marys River the Department requested additional information. In response to that request, the Petitioner commissioned a survey of the parcel by James H. Granger, a licensed professional surveyor. Petitioner Exhibits 3, 4 and 5.

It was the Department's position that the survey was inconclusive because it was performed in February, necessitating readings through the snow and ice (Exhibit 29), and as such could only approximate the line of the ordinary high water mark. Given this, the Department requested the permission of the Petitioner to have the parcel surveyed by a Department of Natural Resources crew. However, when the crew went to the site to perform its survey they were denied entry by the Petitioner. The reason for doing so, according to his testimony, was the owner of the property, Mr. Raedeke, could not be contacted so as to obtain his approval. The Petitioner also testified that further surveying would be an exercise in futility. During the hearing the Department agreed not to pursue the Part 325 issues and to argue this case exclusively on the wetlands impacts under Part 303.

Two Project Review Reports were generated by the Department in this matter. The first (State Exhibit 2) was performed by Mr. Richard J. Sikkenga on November 13, 1998. In the comment section thereof, he states:

Wetland is saturated to the surface with some pockets of standing water. Excellent nesting cover. Adjacent area has open water pockets; good brood rearing area. Evidence of beaver activity. The project would seriously impair the functions of this wetland. Deny application. No permittable alternatives.

Mr. Sikkenga also noted the activity may be proposed to occur "below OHWM", or the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and thus on bottomlands. It was this assessment upon which the Department denied the application.

On December 10, 1998, Ms. Virginia Pennala performed another site visit and completed a Project Review Report (State Exhibit 10) and observed:

December site review past growing season. Water levels about 2' down. Whole site would be under water in normal water levels. Appears whole lot is below the OHWM & old spoils area were until filled (historic bottomlands) & owner would need survey (for elevations to prove above state OHWM). Met w/ Ed Arthur, Corps - All of lot below Corps OHWM. See attached measurements. See attached soils survey information. Aquents & Histosols ponded.

Ms. Pennala testified the entire lot is wetland, and the proposed fill would cover approximately 1/2 of the wetland. Aquent and Histosols soils ponded is described in the Chippewa County Soil Survey attached to Ms. Pennala's report (State Exhibit 10) as:

...deep, nearly level, very poorly drained organic soils. These soils are in drainageways and depressions and along lakeshores. The water table is at or above the surface during most or all of the year, except for unusually dry periods...Most areas of the Histosols and Aquents are marsh land, but a few areas include wooded beaver floodings. These soils are well suited to wetland wildlife habitat. They are generally unsuited to most other uses.

This is significant because the fill would be in the front or lakeward side of the property, and according to Ms. Pennala would result in a permanent replacement of pike spawning habitat, as well as habitat for eagles, osprey, herons, bitterns, geese, songbirds, frogs and amphibians. In addition the fill would adversely impact flood and erosion control as well as possibly impacting water quality. She concluded, therefore, that the project was not wetland dependent and that a feasible and prudent alternative exists in the nature of utilizing the area previously filled under a wetland permit issued to Mr. Raedeke in 1993. State Exhibit 7.

Mr Craig Outwater had been on the site three times and described the subject site as a definite coastal wetland which, in his opinion, lies below the OHWM and is entirely historical bottomland. He characterized the existing upland as spoils from prior dredging. One of his major concerns of the proposed activity is the cumulative impact due to the existence of substantial fill in other locations in the immediate area. Mr. Cary Gustafson is also familiar with site, especially since he issued the 1993 wetland permit. He testified that pike, muskie and carp use emergent marshes to spawn and that they are good habitat for minnows and pan fish. While spawning fluctuates with water levels, fish population and species, higher water translates to increased spawning.

Ms. Linda Telder who lives adjacent and to the east of the subject parcel testified the water level of the lake rises and falls. She entered an aerial photograph of the site from the spring of 1987 (Exhibit 30) showing inundation virtually up to her pole barn. This demonstrates that, at that point in time, there was surface water over the area subsequently filled by Mr. Raedeke under the 1993 wetland permit. She testified she has observed both pike and carp spawning in the subject site numerous times. She has also observed the presence of eagles, waterfowl, muskrat, beaver, frogs, minnows and red wing black birds.

In denying the project as applied for the Department suggested utilizing the existing upland created under the 1993 wetland permit issued to Mr. Raedeke. Id. Specifically, the 1993 permit allowed for:

Place up to 2,280 square yards of clean fill to construct a driveway 122 ft. long x 14 ft. wide and a parking pad for a recreational vehicle or travel trailer with self contained septic holding ability. In accordance with attached plan modified 4/19/93.

In support of the Petitioner's request Mr. Shaffer testified that, in his opinion, the proposed fill is not harmful based on the fact he has filled much of his property to the east and south with no untoward impacts. In fact, since the filling he observes more wildlife than he did in the past. As to the subject parcel, he has not observed ducks nesting in the area of the proposed fill. The ponded water he estimates to be at a higher elevation than the River and it becomes stagnant in the summer. He agrees with Petitioner that a culvert would serve to alleviate the ponding problem by enhancing water flow. Mr. Shaffer admitted, however, on cross examination that he was unfamiliar with the permitting criteria of Part 303 or its predecessor.

The Petitioner testified and argued vehemently that he desires to co-exist with the wetlands and that he fails to see any problem with fish or flood control. He is willing to place rocks on the shoreline, which he feels will help prevent erosion, and will install a culvert to enhance water flow. As to water quality concerns, he testified he has been given a County Health Department permit for a septic system conditioned upon obtaining a permit from the Department. He also testified to his frustration over an aborted meeting with Department staff for which he traveled over 500 miles, and a perceived lack of response to his settlement offers from the Department. He disputes that utilizing the existing permitted fill is a feasible and prudent alternative because the dimensions of the residence he is proposing cannot be accomplished on the existing upland. Significantly, he presented no scientific evidence to rebut the evidence offered by the Department on the adverse impacts to the environmental values inherent in this wetland.

The foregoing recitation sets forth the Parties respective positions and arguments in this matter. It is against this back-drop that the proposed activity will be analyzed under the permitting criteria of Part 303.

The first issues which must be addressed are whether or not the subject property is a wetland as defined under Part 303, and if so, whether a permit is required for the proposed activity. The Party's stipulations address these two issues. Based upon the factual stipulations, I find, as a Matter of Fact, the activity is proposed in regulated wetland and a permit is required for the proposed activity.

Section 30304 prohibits the deposit or placing of fill in a regulated wetland without the benefit of a permit from the Department. MCL 324.30304. To issue a permit for the fill requested by the Petitioner, the criteria of §30311(1) must be considered. It states:

(1) A permit for an activity listed in section 30304 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.

MCL 324.30311(1).

Section 30311(2) provides the criteria for determining of whether the project is in the public interest. MCL 324.30311(2).

(2) In determining whether the activity is in the public interest, the benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal shall be balanced against the reasonably foreseeable detriments of the activity. The decision shall reflect the national and state concern for the protection of natural resources from pollution, impairment and destruction. The following general criteria shall be considered:

(a) The relative extent of the public and private need for the proposed activity.

_____________________________________________

The Department contends that because Petitioner has an existing residence across the bay he has no need to build on the subject property and hence no private need. This Tribunal is dubious of this proposition because an individual is entitled to a reasonable use of their property irrespective of ownership of other property.

The Petitioner's need for fill is of a purely private nature, that being to facilitate the construction of a residence, garage, septic system and driveway. I find, as a Matter of Fact, the private need for the proposed activity is, according to the testimony of the Petitioner, relatively great. As regarding the location for accomplishing this activity, that issue is discussed under feasible and prudent alternatives.

The public need for the proposed activity is negligible. However, the public need for retaining this coastal marsh and the benefits it provides, specifically, as it pertains to fisheries and wildlife values and water quality is great. Therefore, I find, as a Matter of Fact, the public need outweighs the private need.

(b) The availability of feasible and prudent alternative locations and methods to accomplish the expected benefits from the activity.

_____________________________________________

This consideration closely follows the above under the facts of this case. The Department contends that utilization of the upland created under the 1993 permit in conjunction with the offer in the denial letter of "...a lesser amount of fill, adjacent to the upland area" (State Exhibit 9) is a feasible and prudent alternative location for accomplishing the Petitioner's stated purpose of constructing a residence on the site. Admittedly, this alternative does not fully facilitate the Petitioner's exact desires, but it will give him a use of the property for his stated purpose while preserving the resource to the greatest extent possible. The utilization of the upland at the rear of the lot with a living area confined to a smaller residence, mobile home, or recreational vehicle is not as ideal to the Petitioner as a full homesite. However, the recreational use of the property as a residence with access to the water and enjoyment of the view would be essentially the same as that proposed in the application.

(c) 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.

_____________________________________________

Mr. Rex Ainslie, a Wildlife Biologist for the Department of Natural Resources, visited the site and observed osprey and red winged black birds which exhibited behavior indicative of nesting activity. State Exhibit 24. In his report Mr. Ainslie noted that the wetland is "...very definitely a coastal wetland", and as such is valuable to the conservation and maintenance of wildlife. Id. Mr. Jim Waybrant, a Fisheries Biologist for the Department of Natural Resources, indicated in a report that the wetland is valuable due to the spawning which occurs on it and for its role in maintaining the water quality of the St. Marys River. State Exhibit 23.

As previously discussed, there was extensive testimony of Department staff as to the unique values and functions the wetland provides, specifically flood and erosion control, wildlife and fisheries habitat and its function in maintaining water quality. The Petitioner did not rebut this testimony with any scientific evidence.

Based on the foregoing, I find, as a Matter of Fact, the proposed activity would have a permanent detrimental effect on the values and functions of this wetland. Conversely, I find, as a Matter of Fact, utilizing the existing upland would provide the beneficial effect sought by the Petitioner while totally eliminating the detriment inherent in the proposed activity.

(d) The probable impact of each proposal in relation to the cumulative effect created by other existing and anticipated activities in the watershed.

_____________________________________________

Based on the testimony regarding the considerable fill that has previously been accomplished in the area, I find, as a Matter of Fact, that the filling of the resource as proposed would have a cumulative adverse impact with existing fill activities in the watershed.

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

_____________________________________________

There is no contention the fill would impact recognized historic or cultural values or public health. Scenic values are by their nature subjective. The Petitioner would prefer to build in such a way that the view and use of Lake Huron and/or the St. Marys River is maximized. The Department would prefer maintaining the existence of the parcel in a natural state. Ecological values, as previously discussed, would be adversely impacted. Recreational values to the Petitioner would be increased. Fish and wildlife would be adversely impacted for the reasons previously stated.

(e) The size of the wetland being considered.

_____________________________________________

The wetland as determined by the Department, and essentially unrebutted by the Petitioner, is approximately 3/4 of an acre.

(g) The amount of remaining wetland in the general area.

_____________________________________________

If the proposed activity were to be permitted it would encompass approximately 1/2 of the wetland on site. As to the general area, there is testimony demonstrating the non-existence of any wetlands of the character and quality of the subject parcel. It is evident that much of the surrounding property has been previously filled as well as some fill being placed on the subject parcel under the previous permit. It is also important to reiterate that the fill proposed is close to the water, which testimony indicates is an area crucial for the values and functions inherent in the wetland.

(h) Proximity to any waterway.

_____________________________________________

The wetland is on the shore of the St. Marys River.

(i) Economic value, both public and private, of the proposed land change to the general area.

_____________________________________________

The economic value of the parcel would be greatly enhanced, and thus the proposed activity equates to a benefit to the Petitioner. An increase in the Township's tax base would also ensue if Petitioner built as proposed. However, if the alternative discussed above was pursued, the same benefit, perhaps to a lesser degree, would result. While there was no testimony as to the economic impact to the public, the preservation of the resource has an intrinsic economic value.

After considering the aforegoing criteria, § 30311(2) requires a balancing of the benefits against the reasonably foreseeable detriments of the activity to determine if the activity is in the public interest. In balancing these criteria, I find as a Matter of Fact, the proposed project is not in the public interest.

Section 30311(1) also requires a determination as to whether the permit is necessary to realize the benefits derived from the activity. The benefit derived from the proposed activity is the construction of a residence and attendant activities. I find, as a Matter of Fact, the permit as requested is not necessary to realize the benefits derived from the proposed activity due to the existence of a feasible and prudent alternative location on site. The third determination required by this section is whether the activity is otherwise lawful. The construction of a residence on this parcel is not unlawful, and I so find, as a Matter of Fact. However, a permit under Part 303 does not negate the requirement to obtain other necessary federal, state and local permits. See 1988 AACS, R 281.923(6).

Section 30311(3). In considering a permit application, the department shall give serious consideration to findings of necessity for the proposed activity which have been made by other state agencies.

There have been no finding of necessity made by other state agencies.

Section 30311(4). A permit shall not be issued unless it is shown that an unacceptable disruption will not result to the aquatic resources. In determining whether a disruption to the aquatic resources is unacceptable, the criteria set forth in section 30302 and subsection (2) shall be considered. A permit shall not be issued unless the applicant also shows either of the following:

(a) The proposed activity is primarily dependent upon being located in the wetland.

(b) A feasible and prudent alternative does not exist.

The proposed activity contemplates the placement of fill in 50% of this coastal marsh wetland. This wetland is in an area where there has been extensive historical fill, especially in close proximity of the shore. In so doing, the values and functions of this wetland, which has been discussed in detail above, would be eliminated. As previously noted, the Petitioner offered no scientific evidence on this record which in any manner refutes the evidence offered by the Department. While the Petitioner is entitled to his opinion on the effect the proposed activity will have, this Tribunal must base its decision on the record.

The activity as proposed is not primarily dependent on being located in the wetland, because an upland alternative is available. I find, as a Matter of Fact, the utilization of the existing upland with a lesser amount of fill adjacent to the upland is a feasible and prudent alternative to the activity proposed in the application for a permit.

The criteria to be considered pursuant to MCL 324.30302(b)(i) through (vi) and subsection (2) addressed above would, for the reasons stated, be materially and adversely effected by the proposed activity. I find, therefore, as a Matter of Fact, the proposal will cause an unacceptable disruption of the aquatic resources. I also find, as a Matter of Fact, an unacceptable disruption to these resources would not result from utilizing the existing upland with a lesser amount of fill adjacent to the upland.

Based on the Findings of Fact, I conclude as a Matter of Law:

1. I conclude, as a Matter of Law, based upon the Stipulation of the Parties, the subject site is comprised of regulated wetland and a permit is required pursuant to §30304(a) and (b) of Part 303 of NREPA.

2. I conclude, as a Matter of Law, based on the stipulation of the Parties, the processing of the application for a permit was procedurally correct and that Greg Schmidt is the proper applicant for a permit.

3. The proposed activity is not in the public interest.

4. There is a feasible and prudent alternative method and location to the proposed activity. MCL 324.30311(2)(b) and MCL 324.30311(4)(b).

5. The proposed activity will cause an unacceptable disruption to aquatic resources. MCL 324.30311(4).

6. The proposed project is not dependent on being located in the wetland. MCL 324.30311(4).

Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is proposed that a Final Order be entered denying the application for a permit submitted under File No. 98-04-0199. This does not preclude the Petitioner from availing himself of the Department's offer in its denial letter to allow some additional fill adjacent to the existing upland. He must, however, submit an application which precisely delineates the amount and location of the additional fill, along with all other information required by Part 303.

Dated: June 21, 1999

Richard A. Patterson
Administrative Law Judge

Petition of Greg Schmidt

File No. 98-04-0199

1 White three ring binder.
2 Letter dated March 29, 1991 to John J. Steel, Jr., Agent for Herbert Raedeke from Gary R. Mannesto, chief, Regulatory Functions Branch, Construction-Operations Division, Department of the Army, Detroit District Corp of Engineers. [Located in the inside pocket of the white three ring binder.]
3 Survey dated February 26, 1999, mounted on poster board, 11" x 17".
4 Survey dated February 26, 1999, mounted on poster board, 11" x 17".
5 Survey dated February 26, 1999, mounted on poster board, 11" x 17".
6 Hand colored drawing of the original and altered proposal, Future Building Site Plan, 11" x 17".
7 Hand colored drawing of the original and altered proposal, Proposed Wetland Fill, 11" x 17".
8-16 Colored photographs, 3½" x 5".
17 Ten colored photographs, 3½" x 5", taped together on poster board for a panoramic view of the area. Labeled, photo's take in Oct. 1997, Notice Water Level, Proposed Fill Area, Rear of Property No Fill.
18 A calculation slip which totals $6,303.68 and the Property Tax Receipts from 1980 - 1998 for Herbert D. & Pauline - WF Raedeke.
19 Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation & Property Classification the year 1998.

State Exhibits

1 Public Notice, dated September 29, 1998 for Greg Schmidt, File No. 98-04-0199W, Department of Environmental Quality [DEQ], Land & Water Management Division [LWMD].
2 Project Review Report, Department of Natural Resources [DNR], LWMD, signed by R. Sikkenga and dated 11/13/98.
3 Colored photograph, 4" x 6", labeled, Looking NE from what is called BREAKWALL on drawing, 98-4-199W, R.J. Sikkenga, 11/13/98.
4 Colored photograph, 4" x 6", labeled, Looking WSW along south property line. 2 wood stakes on property line, 98-4-199W, R.J. Sikkenga, 11/13/98.
5 Colored photograph, 4" x 6", labeled, Looking NE from what is called BREAKWALL on drawing, 98-4-199W, R.J. Sikkenga, 11/13/98.
6 Colored photograph, 4" x 6", labeled, Looking West from Radisson Road Existing fill is just off the right of this photo, 98-4-199W, R.J. Sikkenga, 11/13/98.
7 DNR, Modified Permit No. 90-04-0320, Herbert D. Raedeke, issued on June 8, 1993.
8 Letter dated October 16, 1998 from Wayne and Lynn Suida to LWMD, Newberry.
9 Letter dated December 8, 1998 from Ginny Pennala, LWMD to Greg Schmidt.
10 Project Review Report dated 12/10/98.
11 Joint Public Notice, US Army Corps of Engineers dated December 1, 1998.
12 Photocopy of aerial photograph dated 07/19/97, 1:15840; MDNR, 516-205-161.
13 Colored photograph, 3½" x 5", labeled 98-04-0199, dated 4/21/99, looking south from SE corner.
14 Colored photograph, 3½" x 5", labeled 98-04-0199, dated 4/21/99, looking south from SE corner.
15 Colored photograph, 3½" x 5", labeled 98-04-0199, dated 4/21/99, looking NW from SE corner.
16 Colored photograph, 3½" x 5", labeled 98-04-0199, dated 4/21/99, looking NW from E. Central part of property.
17 Colored photograph, 3½" x 5", labeled 98-04-0199, dated 4/21/99, looking N from SE corner.
18 Colored photograph, 3½" x 5", labeled 98-04-0199, dated 4/21/99, looking E from West part of property.
19 Colored photograph, 3½" x 5", labeled 98-04-0199, dated 4/21/99, looking N from W. Central part of property.
20 Colored photograph, 3½" x 5", labeled 98-04-0199, dated 4/21/99, looking South from W. Central part of property. Dredge soil in the background.
21 Colored photograph, 3½" x 5", labeled 98-04-0199, dated 4/21/99, looking NW from E. Central part of property.
22 Letter dated October 5, 1998 to Craig Atwater from Linda & Tim Telder.
23 DNR, Interoffice Communication dated March 19, 1999 to Craig Outwater, LWMD from Jim Waybrant, Fisheries Biologist.
24 DNR, Interoffice Communication dated May 6, 1999 to tom Weise, Wildlife Supervisor, Newberry and Craig Outwater, LWMD from Rex Ainslie, Wildlife Biologist, Sault Ste. Marie.
25 Not Entered.
26 Handwritten letter dated January 26, 1999 to DEQ, LWMD from Robert Jones.
27 Handwritten letter dated May 12, 1999 To Whom it May Concern from Loren & Joan Shaffer.
28 Not Entered.
29 Letter dated March 24, 1999 to Jenny Pennela from Steven Granger.
30 Colored photograph, 3½" x 5", labeled Linda Telder, 32722 S. Radisson, Box 495, Detroit, MI 49725.
31 Colored photograph, 3½" x 5", labeled Linda Telder, 32722 S. Radisson, Box 495, Detroit, MI 49725.
32 Colored photograph, 3½" x 5", labeled Linda Telder, 32722 S. Radisson, Box 495, Detroit, MI 49725, Crane, taken behind our house back pond, July, 1978.
33 Colored photograph, 3½" x 5", labeled Linda Telder, 32722 S. Radisson, Box 495, Detroit, MI 49725, summer 1986.
34 Colored photograph, 3½" x 5", labeled Linda Telder, 32722 S. Radisson, Box 495, Detroit, MI 49725.