SUBJECT: Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, and Part 303, Wetland Protection, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), 1994 PA 451, as amended.

Petition of Vandercook Lake Improvement Association on the permit issued to John Dobben

File No. 96-13-0079
___________________________________________________________________

The above captioned matter was the subject of a contested case hearing resulting in the issuance of a Proposal For Decision dated February 3, 2000. Upon issuance of the Proposal for Decision the Office of Administrative Hearings gave the Parties until February 24, 2000 to file written Exceptions to the Proposal for Decision. Neither the Petitioner nor the Permittee filed Exceptions, while the Land and Water Management Division (LWMD) filed a letter which requested the Proposal for Decision be adopted.

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 to the Proposal For Decision, exhibits, pleadings and arguments.

The issue in this case is a challenge by the Vandercook Lake Improvement Association to a modified permit issued to John Dobben for an 18 slip seasonal marina facility on Vandercook Lake. The permit required the facility be relocated to an area farther from the confluence of the Grand River and Vandercook Lake and provided for a conservation easement on a portion of the property. The Proposal for Decision found the modified permit was consistent with the permitting provisions of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of

the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. MCL 324.30101 et seq.

The Director of the Department of Environmental Quality ADOPTS AND INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE the Proposal For Decision dated February 3, 2000, including the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Based upon those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is DETERMINED John Dobben is entitled to the permit issued to him on September 3, 1998.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Proposal for Decision of February 3, 2000, is ADOPTED and INCORPORATED by reference into this Final Order.

2. The application for a permit submitted by John Dobben under File No. 96-13-0079 is GRANTED consistent with all of the terms and conditions contained in the modified permit issued on September 3, 1998.

3. This Final Determination and Order constitutes the final agency decision of the Department of Environmental Quality in this matter.
 

Dated: May 10, 2000
Russell J. Harding, Director
Department of Environmental Quality

This contested case involves a third party Petition for a Contested Case Hearing filed by the Vandercook Lake Improvement Association (Petitioner) on October 27, 1998. The Petition concerns a permit issued to Mr. John Dobben on September 3, 1998. The permit at issue in this case allows for the construction of an 18 slip seasonal marina facility on Vandercook Lake for use by home owners in the adjacent River Glen Subdivision. The proposed facility is to consist of a 4 foot by 92 foot head dock, a 4 foot by 92 foot T-dock and eight 2.5 foot by 16 foot finger docks.

The contested permit was issued under the provisions of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA). The hearing in this matter was originally scheduled to begin on May 17, 1999, but that date was adjourned to allow the Petitioner to obtain substitute counsel, with the hearing ultimately being held on September 7 and 8, 1999.

The hearing was conducted pursuant to Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams of NREPA, 1994 PA 451, as amended; MCL 324.30101 et seq.; MSA 13A.30101 et seq., 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 is represented by Mr. Edmund R. Marroso, Esq. Testifying at the hearing for the Petitioner were: Dr. Clifford Humphries, Ph.D., Professor, Michigan State University; Mr. Ronald Hoppe, President of the Association; Mrs. Judy Andrews, riparian owner; Mr. William Paterson, riparian owner; and Ms. Carrie Hardigan, a Land and Water Management Division (LWMD) employee who was called as part of the Petitioner's case.

The professional staff of the LWMD of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality is the a Respondent in this case. The LWMD is represented by Ms. Carrie Hardigan. In addition to Ms. Hardigan, Mr. Hal F. Harrington, Unit Chief, LWMD, testified on behalf of the Department.

On November 18, 1998 the Permittee filed a Motion to Intervene in this case. The motion was granted on November 20, 1998. The Permittee is represented by Paul Bohn, Esq., and presented Mr. Todd Dobbin as his only witness during the hearing.

There are 17 exhibits entered into the record. A list and description of those exhibits is attached to this Proposal for Decision. In addition, a video tape admitted into evidence and played during the hearing is in the file.

During the pre-hearing conference on January 26, 1999, the Parties stipulated that John Dobben is the proper applicant for the permit, the activity proposed in the permit application is a regulated activity, a permit is necessary and the Department has jurisdiction.

Stipulations of fact 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).

At the conclusion of the hearing it was agreed the Parties would file their written closing arguments, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by October 8, 1999. However, due to a delay in the delivery of the hearing transcripts that filing date was extended to November 8, 1998. On November 16, 1999, the Petitioner filed a Motion to Strike the Permittee's post-hearing filing due to it being untimely. Consistent with the directive of this Tribunal the Permittee's post-hearing brief and a response to the motion was ultimately filed on November 22, 1999. In a letter of that same date this Tribunal denied the Motion to Strike and accepted the Permittee's filing.

In the facsimile cover sheet enclosing his post hearing brief the Permittee made reference to the August 3, 1999, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals in Michigan Department of Natural Resources v. Chalet du Paw Paw Condominium Association and Beachfront Development, Inc., Docket No. 205384. In raising the Chalet du Paw Paw decision the Permittee asserts the Court's holding essentially invalidates Part 301 jurisdiction over the type of project at issue in this case.

This Tribunal allowed the Petitioner and LWMD to respond to the Petitioner's contention regarding Part 301 jurisdiction by December 8, 1999. In its response the Petitioner correctly notes that under the Michigan Court Rules, MCR 7.215(C)(1), unpublished opinions are not precedentially binding under the rule of stare decisis. In addition, as LWMD argues, there is no factual record developed in the matter before this Tribunal to make a determination whether the reasoning in Chalet du Paw Paw may be applicable. The reason such a record was not developed is because the Parties stipulated there are facts supporting the Department's jurisdiction and the matter was tried in that posture. Therefore, because of these considerations the holding in Chalet Paw Paw is not instructive in analyzing this matter.

The property under development by the Permittee is comprised of a total of approximately 35 acres of upland and wetland adjacent to Vandercook Lake and the Grand River in Summit Township, Jackson County. Exhibit 4. The marina at issue in this case is proposed to be located near where the Grand River enters Vandercook Lake. Exhibit 6. Immediately adjacent to the project area is a subdivision comprised of 23 individual lots known as River Glen. Five of the lots front on Vandercook Lake, while the remaining 18 lots do not abut the Lake but are adjacent to the subdivision's common area. Exhibit 10. The common area includes over 500 feet of frontage on Vandercook Lake and over 2,000 feet of frontage on the Grand River. Exhibit 3. Vandercook Lake is an all-sports lake of approximately 140 acres and is accessed by an existing public boat ramp along its northeastern shore.

The application for a permit requested a 24 slip facility in close proximity to the confluence of the Grand River and the Vandercook Lake. Exhibit 4. A modified permit was ultimately issued on September 4, 1998, for a smaller facility limiting the slips to 18 with a provision of one boat per lot owner. Exhibit 10. In addition, the location of the facility was moved to the northwest, placing it farther from the confluence of the Grand River and Vandercook Lake and closer to the northern property line of the common area. Lastly, a conservation easement was recorded governing the use of the common area. Exhibit 11.

The Petitioner Association is comprised of 42 members, all of whom are riparians on the Lake and comprise 80% of the total of 52 riparian owners. The Petitioner considers itself "aggrieved" by the issuance of the permit and alleges the proposed structure and related activity will have an adverse effect on the Lake by increasing boat traffic and increasing safety concerns, especially in light of an anticipated expansion of the county park and access ramp. In addition, the Petitioner argues the water of the Lake will be polluted by boat motors stirring up the bottomland in shallow areas. Petitioner's Opening Statement, pg. 13 of Volume 1.

The Permittee and the Department counter with the assertions that the review of the application properly addressed all applicable criteria under Part 301 and the rules. Further, the modified permit, with the provision for a conservation easement, meets those criteria. As to the potential for increased boat traffic on Lake as a result of the proposed marina and the county park, Ms. Hardigan testified she understood the county park proposal was to improve, as opposed to expand, the existing facilities. The respective arguments of the Parties will be addressed individually below.

One of the major concerns of the Petitioner is the potential overcrowding of the Lake by the introduction of 18 additional boats. The Petitioner did not perform a carrying capacity study for the Lake, but instead relied on the testimony of Dr. Clifford Humphries. Dr. Humphries has a Ph.D. in land utilization and based his testimony studies he has conducted over a number of years concerning boat carrying capacities of lakes, in addition to the application of a study performed by the State of Wisconsin. The conclusion of his studies were encompassed in what he termed as a "rule of thumb" that there should be 20 acres of lake surface for each boat, or 40 acres if boats are pulling a skier. Transcript, pg. 18, volume 1.

As to Vandercook Lake, Dr. Humphries testified he had reviewed information concerning the Lake and immediately prior to the hearing he observed it from a boat. He was unaware of the number of riparian owners, the number of registered motor boats on the Lake or the average riparian lot width on the Lake. Given the lack of data concerning the acreage of the water surface at a depth of 5 feet or more, Dr. Humphries declined to come to a conclusion as to an appropriate number of boats per acre or a lake carrying capacity.

Essentially, LWMD reviewed the application from the perspective and focus of the lineal lake frontage of the common area coupled with the number of slips sought. Ms. Hardigan testified LWMD has, in the past, performed a number of lake surveys on residential use and lot sizes, none of which included Vandercook Lake. From these studies it was determined the average lake front lot width was 65 to 75 feet and the average number of boats was 1 1/2 per lot. In response to Dr. Humphries testimony, she asserted that each lake must be evaluated on its own merits. Therefore, the studies have no direct relevance to Vandercook Lake but are merely a basis upon which she assessed the density or lack thereof. Based on these figures, and using them as a frame of reference, she considered the introduction of 18 boats on frontage approximating 2000 feet on the River and 500 feet on the Lake as being much less than average. This is especially true, in her opinion, with the conservation easement preventing any further development of the common area frontage on the Lake and River. Based on these considerations, she concluded the proposal would not cause overcrowding on the Lake.

Mr. Harrington testified he was of the opinion that a lake carrying capacity study was not necessary in order to determine whether the proposed activity could be permitted under Part 301. The basis for not requiring a study was his belief the number of slips allowed in the modified permit was reasonable under the circumstances, and the fact such studies are very time and labor intensive.

Mr. Ronald Hoppe, who lives on the Lake and owns 5 boats, performed a boat count and took notes. Exhibit 12. On Tuesday, July 6, 1999, he observed from the end of his dock the following number of boats: 14 at 4 p.m.; 13 at 5 p.m.; 12 at 6 p.m.; 14 at 7 p.m.; and 12 at 8 p.m. On Sunday, August 22, 1999, he observed 11 boats at 2 p.m.; 16 at 5 p.m.; 9 at 6 p.m.; 10 at 6 p.m.; and 9 at 8 p.m. On Saturday, May 29, 1999, he observed and took pictures of the county park and ramp three doors from his residence. Exhibit 13. His notes indicate the presence of 20 vehicles in the parking area, of which 16 had boat trailers attached. Based on his frequent observations of the park Mr. Hoppe testified the number of vehicles were not representative of a normal day, but were "peak conditions". He further testified of observing on May 29, fewer boats on the Lake than trailers, leading to the assumption some of the users of the ramp were boaters who had gone through Vandercook Lake to access Browns Lake.

Mrs. Judy Andrews, a riparian owner to the immediate north of the marina, performed similar counts boat counts. Exhibit 17. On the Sunday of Memorial Day weekend, May 30, 1999, she observed the Lake at one hour intervals from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. and noted an average of 7 boats including all types of craft at each hour interval. The next day, May 31, it was raining and the count was lower, with an average of 2.5 boats on the hour. On Saturday, June 5, the average was 5.4, and on Sunday, June 6, the average was 9 with a peak of 17. On Sunday, September 5, she observed a total of 17 boats at 3 p.m., 15 at 4 p.m., and 11 at 5 p.m. The following day was Labor Day, and the weather was variable, and she observed an average of 9.3 boats.

Mrs. Andrews also testified to an inventory of boats owned by the riparian residents as being 127. The break down of this total is 38 jet skis, 62 power boats and 27 non motorized boats, for and average of approximately 2 power boats per household. She testified that based on her surveys indicating an average range of 5 to 10 motorized boats, including jet skis, there are approximately 5 to 10 percent of those 100 boats on the water at any given time. She also acknowledged she would not anticipate any use pattern different than this by the 18 owners using the marina. This would mean, on average, the introduction of .9 to 1.8 boats from the marina and on the water at any one time.

Mr. William Paterson, a riparian owner on the Lake, testified overcrowding on the Lake is currently remedied by the self control of the owners. He testified they watch the Lake and time their use around the number of other boats present. He doubts the users of the proposed marina would do this because they cannot see the Lake from their homes and would be committed if they walked to the marina. However, Mr. Todd Dobbins, who has a boat at the subject marina, testified he could see the Lake from his home in River Glen. As a full-time resident, Mr. Paterson acknowledged week day usage was less than on weekends.

On Sunday, September 5, 1999, Mr. Bohn shot a video tape from a boat piloted by Mr. Todd Dobben. Mr. Dobben testified there were no other boats on the Lake when they went out at 3:30 p.m., and while they were out he saw only 5 boats total. He described this as average and stated he did not consider Vandercook Lake as heavily used. His observation of week day use is 1 to 2 boats at a time and 0 to 4 on weekends.

According to Ms. Hardigan, LWMD considered safety considerations, but did not review marine safety data. Specifically, she testified to her understanding that the Jackson County Sheriff's Department did not spend much time on the Lake, thereby inferring there were no major safety concerns. Mr. Dobben testified he has not witnessed any accidents and has never seen the sheriff's patrol on the Lake.

Mr. Hal Harrington has not been on site, but testified he had reviewed the file and had considerable discussion regarding the project with Ms. Hardigan. He concurred the allowance of 18 slips would not cause overcrowding or safety concerns. Further, in his opinion, consolidating 18 slips into one contiguous structure was much less impacting than 18 or more separate non-contiguous docks spread out over the area. He also considers the conservation easement over the remaining property an added benefit because it prevents any further riparian or marina development in that area.

Mr. Dobben testified the present water depth in the immediate area of the marina ranges from 3 1/2 feet to 6 1/2 to 8 feet, depending on where you enter. The point is there appears to be sufficient water depth to alleviate disruption of the bottom in the area surrounding the marina even in this period of relatively low water levels. He testified the shallow mucky area at the confluence of the Grand River and the Lake is not conducive to motor boat travel. This is consistent with Mr. Paterson's testimony that the shallow water in and around the mouth of the Grand River created difficulty in his traversing that area in a shallow draft paddle boat. However, according to the testimony of Mr. Dobben, the marina is at least 80 to 100 feet from that area. Mr. Dobben testified there was sufficient room to maneuver a boat and to avoid any small craft in that area. In Mr. Harrington's opinion, the relocation of the marina under the modified permit away from the mouth of the Grand River is beneficial in that it is more distant from the shallow water in that area.

Section 6 of Part 301, MCL 324.30106, MSA 13A 30106, provides as a preface:

The department shall issue a permit if it finds that the structure or project will not adversely affect the public trust or riparian rights.

There is no evidence specifically addressing the navigability of Vandercook Lake, or whether it is impressed with the public trust. Dr. Humphries refused to acknowledge that the Army Corps of Engineers determined the Grand River system to be navigable. Ms. Hardigan acknowledged Part 301 requires a proposal not adversely affect the public trust and testified the public trust constituted the public's interest in the use of the waterbody and quality of the water.

As a matter of common law, the public trust is limited to the public's right to navigate, fish and fowl. Collins v. Gerhardt, 237 Mich. 38; 211 NW 115 (1926). Under the case of Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Illinois, 446 US 387, 19 S CT 110 (1892), as adopted in Michigan in Collins, there must be a substantial impact to the public trust to deny a permit on that basis. Even assuming Vandercook Lake may be impressed with the public trust, the proposed marina would not substantially impact the public's right to navigate, fish or fowl. Therefore, I find, as a Matter of Fact, there would be no adverse affect to the public trust sufficient to prohibit the issuance of a permit.

The proposed marina is confined to the riparian interest of the River Glen common area. The conservation easement will also eliminate any potential of future impacts on adjacent riparians, as there will be no further development of the frontage subject to that document. On that basis, I find, as a Matter of Fact, the proposed marina does not encroach or interfere on the interests of the adjoining riparian owners, and would not result in an adverse affect on any other riparian rights.

In that neither the public trust nor riparian rights are adversely affected by the proposed marina, the analysis must turn to the specific criteria enumerated in the remainder of § 30106 which provides:

In passing upon an application, the department shall consider the possible effects of the proposed action upon the inland lake or stream and upon waters from which or into which its waters flow and the uses of all such waters, including uses for recreation, fish and wildlife, aesthetics, local government, agriculture, commerce, and industry. The department shall not grant a permit if the proposed project or structure will unlawfully impair or destroy any of the waters or other natural resources of the state. This part does not modify the rights and responsibilities of any riparian owner to the use of his or her riparian water. A permit shall specify that a project completed in accordance with this part shall not cause unlawful pollution as defined by Part 31.

The only recreational activity that would be potentially impacted by the proposed marina is boating, and there was no testimony that swimming, fishing or any other recreational use of the Lake would be affected. As stated, the proposed marina is located within the owners riparian interest and does not interfere with adjacent riparians.

As to boating over the entire surface of the Lake, while the testimony of Dr. Humphries alluded to the need for considerable area to accommodate motor boats and especially those towing skiers, the record of actual boat usage does not indicate the Lake is overcrowded. Further, the impact of the additional boats at the proposed marina, considering usage patterns of 5% to 10%, would minimally impact traffic, if at all. The average number of boats observed by all witnesses comes to approximately 10 on the Lake at any given time. If all of those are evenly spread over 140 acres each boat would have approximately 14 acres of lake surface. While that number is a greater density than Dr. Humphries' "rule of thumb" of the need for 20 to 40 acres, it should be noted that his testimony was not specific to Vandercook Lake. When reviewing an application under Part 301 each lake must be considered onto itself and separately analyzed. In so doing, the net effect of the introduction of 2 boats at any given time on Vandercook Lake, which is slightly in excess of the anticipated average usage, would compute to a boat every 11.6 acres.

Based on the foregoing, I find, as a Matter of Fact, the proposed marina and its consequent activities will have no adverse effect on recreation in the immediate area or Vandercook Lake in general.

There was no testimony or contention the proposed marina would have any impact, adverse or otherwise, on fish and wildlife.

There is no contention the marina structure itself is not aesthetically attractive. In addition, it would have no material effect on the aesthetics of the water.

There is no contention nor would there be any impact, adverse or otherwise on agriculture.

There is a county park on the Lake and there is no evidence the marina will impact its use, or the use of the Lake by those gaining public access. There is also no evidence of any use of the Lake for industry or commerce.

Section 30106 prohibits the Department from issuing a permit "...if the proposed project or structure will unlawfully impair or destroy any of the waters or other natural resources of the state." To implement this provision of § 30106 the Department promulgated 1985 AACS, R 281.814 (Rule 4), which states:

In each application for a permit, all existing and potential adverse environmental effects shall be determined and a permit shall not be issued unless the department determines all of the following:

(a) That the adverse effects to the environment and the public trust are minimal and will be mitigated to the extent possible.

(b) That the resource affected is not a rare resource.

(c) That the public interest in the proposed development is greater than the public interest in the unavoidable degradation of the resource.

(d) That no feasible and prudent alternative is available.

It has been previously found that the proposed marina poses no significant adverse effects to the public trust. In relation to effects to the environment, the Petitioner argues that propeller wash from boats using the proposed marina will re-suspend particulates on the bottomland, resulting in the pollution of the water. However, the evidence clearly indicates this concern is unfounded. First, there appears to be sufficient depth in the immediate area of the marina to alleviate propeller wash impacting the bottom. Second, and more important, there is no evidence of any materials imbedded in the bottom which are toxic or detrimental to water quality. Any testimony regarding this contention was premised on generalities and hypothesis regarding the presence of contaminants either in the area of the proposed marina, or in the entirety of the Lake. Further, the record shows that a seasonal dock, the greater portion of which is above the water, would not have any more than a de minimis impact on either the bottomland or water quality.

I find, therefore, as a Matter of Fact, the proposed marina will not cause a potential adverse effect to the environment. That being the case, Rule 4 is not applicable to this case. See In Re: Inland Lakes and Streams Act (346), Appeal of Harold Kreeger, File No. 90-9-409 (1994); In Re: Inland Lake and Streams (Part 301), Appeal of James M. Schenden, File No. 94-10-733 (1998).

Next, 1985 AACS R 281.819 (Rule 9) requires the Department to consider a number of criteria in reviewing an application for a marina operating permit. The rule provides:

In acting upon an application for marina operating permit, the department shall not issue a permit unless the department determines that the facility meets all of the following criteria:

(a) The facility does not unreasonably affect the public trust or riparian interests.

(b) Ingress and egress are within the riparian owner's interest area or written authorization is secured from the adjacent owner whose riparian or property interest is or may be affected.

(c) The recreational watercraft-carrying capacity of the waterbody upon which the facility is located is not exceeded by the increased use brought about by the marina, and the increased use attributable to the marina will not create congestion or safety problems or aggravate existing recognized congestion or safety problems.

(d) The construction and operation of the facility will not destroy or adversely impair the use of the waters or natural resources of the state.

(e) The facility is not aesthetically displeasing and conforms to similar structures and activities in the area on similar watercourses.

(f) The facility has adequate parking space to accommodate anticipated users.

(g) The facility is in compliance with local zoning ordinances. If the facility is not in compliance, and the local unit of government having proper jurisdiction notifies the department at the time of public notice objecting to the issuance of a permit, the department shall withhold permit issuance for 30 days from the expiration of public notice. If the local unit of government does not file an action to restrain operation of the facility in a public forum within the specified 30-day time frame, the department may issue a permit for marina operation if all other criteria are met.

(h) The structures do not constitute a safety or navigational hazard and are in good repair.

(i) The potential adverse environmental effects of operating a marina have been determined pursuant to R 281.814.

All criteria except those under subsections (f) and (g), have been previously addressed. As to subsection (f), parking is not an issue, as the proposed marina is near the home sites and will not, therefore, require parking of any kind. Subsection (g) is not an issue because there is no contention the local zoning ordinances have not been complied with or, the local unit of government objected. Therefore, I find, as a Matter of Fact, all of the criteria of Rule 9 are satisfied under the terms of the modified permit.

1. Based on the Stipulation of the Parties, under Part 301, Inland Lakes & Streams, MCL 324.30101 et seq., the proposed marina is a regulated activity, a permit is necessary, and the Department of Environmental Quality has jurisdiction.

2. Vandercook Lake is by definition an inland lake subject to regulation under § 30101(e).

3. The proposed activity affects the bottomlands of Vandercook Lake because the it would occur at or below the ordinary high water mark of the Lake.

4. For the reasons stated in the Findings of Fact and pursuant to the criteria of § 30106, the proposed activity will not adversely affect the public trust or riparian rights.

5. 1985 AACS, R 281.814 is not applicable to this case in that it has been found there are no potential adverse environmental effects as a result of the proposed marina.

6. The proposed marina meets all of the criteria of 1985 AACS, R 281.819.

PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is proposed a Final Order be entered which issues, with immediate effect, the modified permit to John Dobben.

February 3, 2000

________________________________

Richard A. Patterson
Administrative Law Judge

Petition of Vandercook Lake Improvement Association on the permit issued to John Dobben

File No. 96-13-0079

1 NOT ENTERED
2 Large aerial photograph.
3 River Glen Boat Docks, Summit Township, Jackson, Michigan, three (3) pages, dated December 27, 1995.
4 Public Notice and the Application for the Permit dated March 15, 1996 on File No. 96-13-0079/96-15-1331.
5 A copy of a PROFS note from Rick Schramm to Carrie Hardigan on May 20, 1996.
6 Diagram, 8½" x 11" paper, of aerial view of Vandercook Lake, Lot 5, dated July 12, 1996 S.I., R. Schramm.
7 Letter dated August 21, 1996 from Carrie Hardigan, Land & Water Management Division (LWMD), Lansing to Rick Schramm, LWMD, Jackson
8 Handwritten memo to DEQ File No. 96-15-1331-13 from Carrie Hardigan dated October 11, 1996.
9 DEQ Facsimile Cover sheet and site plan to Carrie Hardigan from Rick Schramm dated April 25, 1997.
10 Letter dated September 4, 1998 from Carrie Hardigan to John Dobben and a modified permit for construction also enclosed.
11 Conservation Easement dated July 29, 1998.
12 Faxed August 22, 1999, Watercraft Activity, Vandercook Lake on July 6, 1999 by Ron Hoppe; July 25 signed by Judy Andrews; and August 22, 1999 signed by Ron Hoppe and Jo-Ellen Hoppe.
13 Four (4) color panoramic photographs.
14 A Resolution by the Jackson County Parks and Recreation at their March 14, 1995 meeting.
15 Stated on the record to be copied and sent to the Court Reporter by Paul Bohn. [Jackson Paper]
16 Stated on the record to be copied and sent to the Court Reporter by Paul Bohn. [Article 11/15/96]
17 Watercraft Activity Reports, five (6) pages, Vandercook Lake by Judy Andrews.
18 Computer generated plat.
Unmarked video tape.