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

Petition of Ted Stanczak.

File No. 94-05-0229
_________________________________________________________________

This contested case involves the denial of an application for a permit to place fill to enable constructing a garage/storage building and sinking of a well, in an area on property adjacent to Douglas Lake, Munro Township, Cheboygan County, Michigan. The Application For Permit, filed August 4, 1994, was denied under the provisions of the former Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act, MCL 281.701 et seq.; MSA 18.595(51) et seq., currently Part 303, Wetland Protection, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended. Mr. Ted Stanczak, the Petitioner, requested a hearing pursuant to Part 303 of the Act. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (Department) asserted jurisdiction under the Act. A contested case hearing was held in this matter on March 22, 1996. Final briefs were submitted on the issues. Pursuant to Section 85, MCL 24.285; MSA 3.560(185), of the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act, this is the Final Determination and Order of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality in this matter.

This matter was brought under 1994 PA 451, as amended, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA); Part 303, Wetland Protection, MCL 324.30301 et seq.; MSA 13A.30301 et seq. and the rules promulgated under the Act.

On October 1, 1995, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) was created by Executive Order 1995-18. Through this Executive Order, the authority to administer these statutes was transferred from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) to the "Department". The hearing on this matter was conducted pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, 1969 PA 306, as amended; MCL 24.201 et seq.; MSA 3.560(101) et seq.

Ted Stanczak is the Applicant for a permit. He is the property owner and the proper "Petitioner" in this case. The professional staff of the Department is responsible for administering Part 303 of the Act and is the Respondent in this case.

The Petitioner represented himself throughout the course of these proceedings. The Respondent was represented by Richard J. Sikkenga of the Land and Water Management Division, Department of Environmental Quality.

The Petitioner testified on his own behalf and submitted exhibits to the record. The Respondent presented one witness, Mr. Brad Wilkins, of the Department. The Department also entered exhibits into the record. A listing, "Exhibits," with a description of each exhibit entered, is attached to the Final Determination and Order. The Petitioner's exhibits are labelled "P"; and the Department's exhibits are labelled "R".

The Petitioner is the owner of property located in Munro Township, Cheboygan County, Michigan. Petitioner's property is adjacent to a privately maintained, graveled roadbed extension of Silver Strand Road, called Van Road. The parcel is also located within 1/2 mile of the Maple River. On the lakefront side of the road the Petitioner has a parcel measuring 78' wide x approximately 310' deep. The Petitioner's parcel located across the private road measures approximately 78' wide x 135' deep and is within 500' of Douglas Lake. The Petitioner's Application requests he be permitted to "place approximately 700 cubic yards of fill material in a 78 by 80 foot area for construction of a storage building . . .." Exhibit R-1. The Application was public noticed on August 24, 1994. The Application was denied by Department staff in a certified letter dated October 11, 1994. The basis of the denial is threefold: 1) the proposed activity will have a significant adverse impact on the natural resources associated with area contiguous wetlands because of the cumulative effect of this and like proposed projects; 2) a storage building is not considered a wetland dependent activity; 3) the current on-site building and upland areas on the lakefront lot could be utilized for storage. Exhibit R-3. Based on the denial of the Application, Mr. Stanczak filed a Petition For Contested Case Hearing on October 26, 1994. I find, as a Matter of Fact, the Petitioner is a proper applicant for a permit and his Application For Permit was processed correctly by the Department.

In an attempt to resolve this matter the Parties participated in a mediation conference, November 8, 1995. During the conference, in an effort to compromise with the Department and secure a permit for filling and building of a storage structure, Mr. Stanczak modified his request for the fill area from the Application request to fill an area 80' x 78' x 3' to fill an area measuring 25' x 78' x 3'. The Department did not accept his compromise for settlement of the matter for the above-stated reasons. Mr. Stanczak reiterated his offer in the pre-hearing statement, filed December 27, 1995. While he does not believe the area to be filled is regulated wetland, he does believe the compromised plan would give him adequate usage of his private property located across from his home on the landward side of the road.

At the hearing Mr. Brad Wilkins, Supervisor, Land and Water Management Division, of the Department testified if a structure were to be permitted on the proposed site, it would need to be built on stilts or pilings; no fill would be required and the wetlands would remain in a natural state. Other than questioning whether or not the local health department had authorized the sinking of a well on the site, the Department did not offer an opinion regarding this aspect of the proposed project.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The first issue presented is whether or not the subject property is a wetland as defined by the Act. Wetland is currently defined in Section 30301(d) as:

`Wetland' means land characterized by the presence of water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances does support wetland vegetation or aquatic life and is commonly referred to as a bog, swamp, or marsh . . ..

A determination that a property is or is not a wetland is

indicated by three criteria: See, 1988 AACS, R 281.924 (2)(a) and (b).

1) The type of vegetation
2) Hydrological indicators for water, and
3) The soil characteristics.

In his Final Brief, the Petitioner asserts the same information he reported on his Application For Permit: "This is a marginal at best wetland--it has [sic] dry parts of the year and up to [sic] 1/2 during dry summers, I see no evidence of any endangered flora or fauna being effected by filling in this area." Following a site inspection of the property, the Department completed a "Project Review Report" and determined the site is a scrub-shrub type wetland, contiguous to Douglas Lake. Standing or ponded water was also present on the site, as is clearly shown on Exhibit R-9. The Department further reported the area is characterized by Willow Sp., Tag Alder, Sensitive Fern and Silver Maple. Exhibit R-2. Also see Exhibits R-7 and R-8. The soils were found to be dark organic soils, as noted in Exhibit R-2, the Project Review Report. The record does not indicate whether actual soil samples were taken. Additionally, the Department testified the parcel is within 1/2 mile of the Maple River and a surface groundwater connection exists with this body of water.

I find, as a Matter of Fact, the subject parcel of land is a wetland as defined in Part 303 of the Act.

The second issue is whether this wetland parcel is subject to regulation under the Act. Subsection (d)(i) and (d)(ii) of Section 30301, MCL 324.30301(d)(i)(ii), provides criteria which must be found before the Department may regulate a wetland. It must be either:

(i) Contiguous to the Great Lakes or Lake St. Clair, an inland lake or pond or a river or stream.

(ii) Not contiguous to the Great Lakes, an inland lake or pond, or a river or stream; and more than 5 acres in size; except this subdivision shall not be of effect, except for the purpose of inventory, in counties of less than 100,000 population until the department certifies to the commission of natural resources it has substantially completed its inventory of wetlands in that county.

As applicable to this site, 1988 AACS, R 281.921(1)(b)(iii) further defines "contiguous" as:

(b) `Contiguous' means any of the following:

(iii) A wetland is partially or entirely located within 500 feet of the ordinary high watermark of an inland lake or pond or a river or stream or is within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high watermark of one of the Great Lakes or Lake St. Clair, unless it is determined by the department, pursuant to R 281.924(4), that there is no surface water or groundwater connection to these waters.

The subject wetland parcel is contiguous to Douglas Lake. While the project site is across a privately maintained, graveled roadbed called Van Road, it is within 500 feet of Douglas Lake. Mr. Stanczak testified placement of fill for the road has made a significant impact on the surface/groundwater connection to Douglas Lake. However, by definition the parcel is determined to be contiguous to Douglas Lake. Therefore, I find, as a Matter of Fact, the project site is proposed to be completed on regulated wetlands.

The Petitioner's activity involves placing fill material in a regulated wetland. Under Section 30304 of Part 303 of the Natural Resources Environmental Protection Act, all such activities are prohibited without a permit, as follows:

Except as otherwise provided by this Act or by a permit obtained from the Department under sections 30306 to 30314, a person shall not do any of the following:

(a) Deposit or permit the placing of fill material in a wetland.

(b) Dredge, remove, or permit the removal of soil or minerals from a wetland.

(c) Construct, operate, or maintain any use or development in a wetland.

(d) Drain surface water from a wetland.

In order to issue a permit for the activity requested by the Petitioner, the criteria of Section 30311 of the Act, MCL 324.30311(1), must be considered.

(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.

A determination of whether the project is in the public interest is made by applying criteria enumerated in Part 303, Wetland Protection, of the NREPA. These criteria are found in Section 30311(2) as follows:

(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 Petitioner asserts his private need for the building of a storage facility is substantial. While he has a building on the lakeside of the road, it is divided into parts, with half of the structure being designed and used as a "bath house". The remainder of the building is used for storage, but it is inadequate to meet the Petitioner's needs. Utilizing other uplands on the lakefront of the road for expansion of the existing building or building of a new structure is not feasible; a mounded septic system has been constructed there.

The Petitioner believes he is entitled to make reasonable usage of his property across the road. His need for adequate storage of vehicles, recreational and maintenance equipment, tools and wood to heat his home are uses that facilitate his living on Douglas Lake. He intends to make his permanent residence on the Lake when he retires, therefore, his utilization of these things, as well as having a "workshop" will be on-going. See Petitioner's Pre-hearing Statement, December 27, 1995. In the meantime, the building would provide a place for him to protect his assets from the elements and from possible theft or vandalism. Additionally, he believes the aesthetic value of having his belongings housed in a storage structure outweighs the Department's value for the aesthetics associated with leaving the parcel in its natural state. The Petitioner testified the proposed fill and building would cause a minimal impact to the resources associated with the parcel.

There does not appear to be any public need for the proposed project. On the other hand, it does not appear there is any public objection to the proposed project; many of the adjacent property owners have proposed like projects for their properties across the private road from Douglas Lake. Several of the File Application numbers are referenced on the Department's Project Review Report of this site. Exhibit R-2. This particular proposal is for the avowed purpose of providing adequate storage for the Petitioner, on property he currently owns.

The Department's major concern about this proposed project is that it is like so many others being proposed in the adjacent vicinity. It contemplates the cumulative effect of this and other like projects having a measurable, negative effect on the wetlands in and around the watershed of Douglas Lake.

I find, as a Matter of Fact, the public need for the proposed project is not measurable, while the private need for building a storage structure is relatively large.

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

Petitioner maintains that moving the facility to another location on the lakefront of the property would not accomplish his purpose and there are, therefore, no alternatives. At the mediation conference Mr. Stanczak offered, then reiterated in his pre-hearing statement and testified to at the hearing, downsizing the proposed project as a feasible and prudent alternative. Mr. Stanczak is willing to accept a permit to fill an area 25' x 78' x 3'. The Department has suggested the Petitioner "maximize upland areas on the lakefront lot for storage" and make use of the storage facility currently on the lakefront lot. Mr. Stanczak has stated, and shown by illustration presented with his Application, the referenced building is inadequate for his complete storage needs. Further, half of the building has been designed for use as a bathhouse to compliment water recreation associated with the Lake. The Petitioner testified the mounded septic system would be disturbed if an attempt were made to place the building on the lakefront side of the road. Additionally, the Petitioner testified current placement of the current water wells is between the mounded septic system and the house, a well referenced as "dry well #1" is used in an emergency for water and for "sink and shower". Mr. Stanczak further testified trees obstruct the other well and would obstruct building there as well. If a structure were to be built between the road and the house, there would be no way to access the wells. Also see Exhibits R-10, R-11 and R-12. Part of the Petitioner's proposed plan is to sink a well on the landward side of the road, along with building the storage structure. Currently, Mr. Stanczak testified he does not have district health department permits to drill and is not sure of all the requirements to dig a well at the site. He will investigate the matter further once the matter of the fill and building permit is resolved with the Department. At the present time, he is reliant on the wells located on the lakefront parcel and needs to have them accessible for maintenance and repair.

I find, as a Matter of Fact, feasible and prudent alternative locations on the lakefront parcel for the fill and building of a storage facility are not available. Further, alternative locations for the garage/storage building and its proposed location away from the Petitioner's property may be feasible, but is not prudent or reasonable and would not meet the Petitioner's needs.

(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.

The Project Review Report, under the "Permit Application Review Criteria," states the project poses potential adverse impact upon the water circulation, wildlife and water quality of the area. Exhibit R-2. The Petitioner testified the property across the road has already been impacted by the roadbed and filling used to extend Silver Strand Road to enable access to his and adjacent home sites. Mr. Wilkins of the Department testified placing fill and a structure on the property would pose an adverse impact to the substrate, water circulation and filtration and wildlife habitat. Mr. Wilkins did not provide data or estimates of how substantial these impacts might be, in lieu of the larger wetlands in the area. He further testified the parcel provides flood and storm water storage and the surface vegetation filters nutrients, like a kidney, which makes for purer surface and/or groundwater to enter the east branch of the Maple River, which is 1/2 mile from the site. Mr. Wilkins also testified there is waterfowl present on the site. The current use of the property by the general public is non-existent and, currently, there is little private usage of the property. The proposed fill, using the Petitioner's modified plan, would permanently disrupt an area of wetland measuring approximately .044 acre (78' x 25' / 43,560).

I find, as a Matter of Fact, wetlands values would be impacted to a minimal, immeasurable degree if the modified, proposed project were to be completed.

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

The statute mandates cumulative effect of the proposed project be considered in relation to wetlands in the affected watershed. In this case, the watershed is connected to Douglas Lake. There was no evidence presented regarding the actual size of the Douglas Lake watershed. There was testimony considerable wetlands exist, some of them public, within the Douglas Lake watershed. There appears to be interest by adjacent property owners to construct similar structures to the one applied for by the Petitioner. This fact is the core of the Department's concern about issuing permits for pole barns and/or storage buildings in the subject area. It fears the cumulative effect factor of like proposed projects appears to be threatening the natural wetlands ecology of the area. The area, however, is relatively isolated and sparsely populated. There was no evidence presented the area around Douglas Lake is being pressured by on-going development.

I find, as a Matter of Fact, there are abundant, but not specifically measured, wetlands in the Douglas Lake area and watershed.

In the "Notes/Comments:" section of the Project Review Report there is specific reference to an adjacent site where a similar proposed project was denied. Reference is also made to several other files that have had denied project applications. The Department's concerns about the effect of cumulative impact from filling appear to be over-emphasized and used as a primary basis to deny permits filed for similar projects in this area. In the past there has been some illegal placement of fill and the Department has taken a strong stance against such occurrences. Those persons violating the statute are acting improperly and swift, stern action is appropriate. However, blanket denial of permits as a policy to prevent the cumulative impact of filling within the area is a misapplication of the statutory intent.

The impact of fill for construction of this storage building cannot be measured in lieu of the vast remaining wetlands in the area. The impact is not measurable because the watershed is so vast. The road extension has undoubtedly had more impact on the wetland function of the watershed than any one or cumulative, like projects contemplated for this immediate area.

To continue to assure the effect to the wetlands resource remains minimal, the Petitioner should grant a conservation easement to the Department for the remainder of the lot not being considered for fill, building construction, well drilling and potentially a garden plot.

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

There is testimony on the record as to the project's impact on ecological values. The ecological impact of the project is considered by the Department to potentially be extensive, when viewed in consideration with that of other like, approved projects. Mr. Wilkins testified placing fill and a structure on the property would pose an adverse impact to the substrate, water circulation and filtration. Mr. Wilkins also testified the project would impact the public health, because water quality would be effected by the loss of surface vegetation filtering of groundwater if filling were to take place in the watershed. He testified the filtration benefits provided by the site for surface and groundwater protects the quality of the water that runs into the Maple River, located some 1/2 mile from the parcel. No data or estimates of how substantial these impacts might be, in lieu of this parcel or the larger wetlands in the area, was provided for the record.

There was testimony the attraction of this area is because of the natural state in which it remains, but there was no specific testimony as to how recognized historic, cultural, or scenic values have been or would be impacted as a result of the project.

Testimony on the potential impact to fish values in the watershed was that is would be minimal. Mr. Wilkins did testify the impact on wildlife would be adverse, however, he indicated there are no known endangered species on this parcel. Further, no testimony about specific species of animals to be effected were named or presented as exhibits for the record. While Mr. Wilkins testified he believes waterfowl exist on the parcel and recreational hunting may be affected by the proposed project, the Petitioner testified public use of the property is non-existent.

The wetland values for the area have been sparsely disrupted, if not to an immeasurable degree. I find, as a Matter of Fact, the proposed activity poses no measurable adverse impact on the values referenced in subsection (e).

(f) The size of the wetland being considered.

The Petitioner's landward wetland parcel of property measures approximately 135' deep x 78' wide.

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

The record does not indicate the size or vastness of remaining wetlands in the vicinity. However, it is documented the Petitioner's property backs up to a large parcel of lands owned by the University of Michigan containing wetlands and there are acres of lands considered "public wetlands" in the vicinity. Further, the watershed around Douglas Lake is known to contain vast acres of wetlands.

(h) Proximity to any waterway.

The wetland is within 500' of and contiguous to Douglas Lake.

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

There would appear to be an economic benefit to the Petitioner if he were able to construct a garage/storage building. His possessions could be protected from the elements and/or possible theft or destruction. The natural deterioration occurring when equipment is left outside and subject to the elements would be lessened if storage were available for vehicles, recreational equipment, implements and tools. There is no testimony as to the economic impact on the adjacent owners. The fact several adjacent owners are seeking the same type of permits from the Department would indicate the local public favors the project as part of a general benefit to the area. The project would add to the local tax base and add value to the Petitioner's property as a whole. In its present state, the landward parcel has little economic value.

After considering each of the above criteria, the statute requires a balancing of the benefits against the detriments in order 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 in the public interest.

Section 30311(1) also requires a determination as to whether a permit is necessary to realize the benefits derived from the activity. The benefits that would be derived from the activity, as previously stated, can only be accomplished by securing a permit under Part 303 of the Act. I find, as a Matter of Fact, the permit, as applied for, is necessary to realize the benefits to be derived from the activity.

Section 30311(1) requires a third determination; whether the proposed activity is otherwise lawful. I find, as a Matter of Fact, the proposed project is otherwise lawful.

Sec. 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 findings of necessity made by other state agencies.

Sec. 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 3 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.

Based on the previous Findings of Fact, I find an immeasurable disruption to the aquatic resources would occur as a direct consequence of the project. I find, as a Matter of Fact, the proposed activity is primarily dependent upon being located in a wetland--as the landward parcel of property, owned by the Petitioner, is the only reasonable and prudent location for the proposed activity. I find, as a Matter of Fact, the Petitioner has no feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed activity, other than the one he proposes, to reduce the size of the fill being requested for the construction.

While the Department in testimony opined this project will have more than a minimal impact on the associated wetlands, the position is not supported by the evidence presented at the hearing or from the exhibits. As previously found, feasible and prudent alternative locations for the proposed project are not available. The Department's proposed method for construction of the storage facility being on poles or pilings in not reasonable, in lieu of the finding for the project having a minimal cumulative effect--one that does not raise to the level of an unacceptable disruption of the aquatic resource. Cumulative effect is only one of nine factors to be considered in determining whether a proposed project will result in an unacceptable disruption. The Legislative intent is to encompass this consideration with the other eight considerations and to weigh and balance all of them to make a determination. Mr. Stanczak made proper Application, explored alternatives and proposed a compromise that fits with the balance of the nine criteria. In consideration of the minimal fill required, other existing and proposed fills in this sparsely populated area and the remaining abundant wetlands in the watershed, no unacceptable disruption to the wetlands will result from undertaking the project.

The Petitioner has testified to and shown a need for the additional garage/storage building and, potentially, sinking a well. The Petitioner has proposed a reasonable alternative for the proposed project. The proposed fill, using the Petitioner's modified plan, would permanently disrupt an area of wetland measuring approximately .044 acre (78' x 25' / 43,560). The proposed location of the fill and the building placement will have the least amount of impact on the parcel, with the building being located as close to the roadbed as feasible. The Petitioner is to keep the berm close to the building and grade it sharply, only having enough fill in place to support the structure from underwashing. Fill for a single lane drive access to the building, from the private road, is to be permitted. A building without safe ingress/egress is useless. Any clearing and minimal fill beyond the structure is to be for a reasonable size garden and an area where a water well may be drilled.

I find, as a Matter of Fact, to permit less would deny the Petitioner of any reasonable use of this parcel and would leave his possessions subject to the elements and potential destruction or theft. Left in its current state, the taxed parcel serves no personal benefit to the Petitioner. There will not be measurable disruption to the aquatic resources associated with the Douglas Lake watershed or to the water migrating into the Maple River with the permitting of this modified project.

As part of avoiding projected long-term cumulative effects to the watershed of Douglas Lake and to prevent future encroachment in the wetland parcel, a conservation easement on the remainder of the lot should be granted to the Department by the Petitioner. Such an Agreement can be initiated between the Parties; the Office of Administrative Hearing will not retain jurisdiction over the matter.

1. I conclude, as a Matter of Law, the subject property is a wetland which is contiguous to an inland lake or stream. Thus, it is a regulated wetland and a permit is required, pursuant to Section 30304(a) and (b) of the Act.

2. I conclude, as a Matter of Law, the Applicant, Ted Stanczak, is the proper Petitioner in this matter. I also conclude the Application For Permit was properly processed.

3. I conclude, as a Matter of Law, the proposed activity is in the public interest, pursuant to Section 30311(1).

4. I conclude, as a Matter of Law, the proposed activity will not cause an unacceptable disruption to the aquatic resources of the Douglas Lake watershed.

5. I conclude, as a Matter of Law, the proposed project is wetland dependent.

6. I conclude, as a Matter of Law, there is not a feasible and prudent alternative location or method for the proposed project.

7. I conclude, as a Matter of Law, there is no feasible and prudent alternative for the proposed activity.

Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is DETERMINED permitting the Petitioner's Application, as proposed at mediation, pursuant to Part 303, Wetland Protection, of 1994 PA 451, as amended, will not cause an unacceptable disruption to the aquatic resources associated with the Douglas Lake watershed, Munro Township, Cheboygan County.

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED: the Petitioner's application for a permit, as modified for an area of fill measuring 25' x 78' x 3', is to be PERMITTED.

Dated: April 7, 1996

________________________________

Richard G. Lacasse, Acting Chief
Administrative Law Judge

IN RE: Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended; Part 303, Wetland Protection, Petition of Ted Stanczak.

File No. 94-05-0229W

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

P-1 Detailed sketch drawing, with referenced dimensions, of proposed storage building, current lakefront home site and neighboring property. Re: Ted Stanczak.
P-2 Mortgage Survey, for the Township of Monro, Cheboygan County; sourth 78 feet of the north 310 feet of government Lot 2, Section 19, Town 37 North, Range 3 West. Made for Ted and Mary Ann Stanczak. Scaled. Dated May 22, 1991.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

R-1 "Public Notice" filed by the State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources, regarding a proposed project for Ted Stanczak to, "place approximately 700 cubic yards of fill material in a 78 by 80 foot area for construction of a storage building . . .." Submitted with attached copy of Application For Permit (August 4, 1994). Dated August 24, 1994.
R-2 "Project Review Report" for Application for Permit, File #94-5-229W, completed by MDNR September 21, 1994, regarding wetland fill Application filed by Ted Stanczak. Dated September 21, 1994.
R-3 Correspondence, certified mail, denial letter for proposed project, re: DNR File #94-5-229, Ted Stanczak. Dated October 11, 1994.
R-4 Correspondence, Re: for DNR File #95-5-229W; "file review;" Interoffice Communication" regarding referenced and surrounding, like proposed projects. Attachments. Dated October 28, 1994.
R-5 Detailed sketch drawing, with referenced dimensions, of lakefront property and appendages with neighboring property. Re: Ted Stanczak. Undated.
R-6 Detailed sketch drawing, with referenced dimensions, of roadside property where proposed project is planned. Reference to type of wetlands. Re: Ted Stanczak. Undated.
R-7-12 Photographs; Silver Strand Road; Subject, Ted Stanczak property and proposed project site; taken by staff, MDNR. Dated November 7, 1995.