September 20, 2022

Parkland Realt , Inc.

75 W Walton A e STE A
M skegon, MI 49440

State of Michigan
Department En ironment Great Lakes and Energ
Attn: Chad Hipshier

Re: EGLE P blic Notice HPE-4ME3-M7FCX

M skegon Lake
1204 W Western

Dear EGLE:

We are the o ners of se eral properties in Do nto n M skegon, propert on M skegon Lake at 730,
750, and 770 Terrace Point Road, and are the p rchaser of the propert adjacent to the s bject propert
at 965 W Western. Thank o for the opport nit to comment on this proposal. Please consider this letter
a formal req est for a p blic hearing and additional st dies on the project impact.

The Cit of M skegon, State of Michigan, local agencies and gro ps, b siness leaders and philanthropists
ha e been restoring M skegon Lake and the s rro nding areas o er the last co ple decades from a
contaminated ind strial h b into a bea tif l ater a ith increased options for recreational acti ities.
This incl des not onl boating, b t fishing, ka aks, paddle boards, and general recreation. While
M skegon Lake s restoration has come a long a , there is m ch more ork to be done to ndo the
acti ities of the past and to ens re a better lake for c rrent and f t re generations.

We ha e concerns abo t the application and proposed project that e think sho ld be considered b the
p blic that se and rel pon M skegon Lake. If appro ed, this project ill be the largest marina on
M skegon Lake and co ld res lt in additional economic de elopment for M skegon. At the same time,
it ill res lt in the largest taking/pri ati ation of p blic ater a in M skegon Lake (at o er 11 acres
of s rface ater) and the largest infill of M skegon Lake (at o er 1 acre) in recent memor . We belie e
this project deser es f rther anal sis and consideration b the p blic before the p blic reso rces are
indefinitel committed to pri ate ses.

1. Impacts to the P blic Tr st.

The proposed project ill res lt in an impact to the p blic tr st, se, and nat ral reso rces in the area.
S ch effects o ld e tend ell be ond the constr ction limits. C rrentl , the s bject area is sed b
boaters, fisherman, ka aks, paddle boards, and general recreation. The e tent of proposed remo al of
p blic tr st se area is significant and there are fe options to mitigate s ch an e tensi e loss.

The propert o ned b the de eloper consists of 24.87 acres (1,083,337 sq are feet) according to the
M skegon Co nt GIS Map. According to the application, the project req ests to transfer 11.25 acres
(489,874 sq are feet) of M skegon Lake ater a o t of the p blic tr st and gift it to the de eloper to
de elop the marina. This eq ates to an amo nt of s rface ater eq al to 45% of the area c rrentl o ned

1
b the de eloper. The project also in ol es infilling 1.1 acres of M skegon Lake to create t o large
penins las to s rro nd the marina.

The proposed lake ard encroachment and taking of s rface ater area for commercial benefit is
aggressi e, and it is an nprecedented taking of p blic reso rces. Man de elopers e pand their marina
b b ilding a basin into their land; the do not b ild most of the marina o t into the bod of ater. The
closest comparable si e marinas on M skegon Lake are Harbo r To ne and Terrace Point Marina, hich
are both smaller than the proposed project, and both marinas ere constr cted b e panding the amo nt
of ater a a ailable to the p blic not taking it a a from the p blic. There is no precedence that e
kno of for this amo nt of pri ati ation of p blic reso rces in the Great Lakes. The project as proposed
ill hinder na igation in the immediate icinit .

The ad erse impacts to the p blic tr st and the en ironment are not minimal and greater disc ssions are
arranted ith the p blic to determine if this is an appropriate, irre ocable encroachment on M skegon
Lake. Strong consideration sho ld be gi en to red cing the impact to the p blic tr st, hich co ld be
done b req iring the de eloper to either shrink the si e of the marina so that it does not protr de be ond
the imaginar line bet een the t o e isting penins las, or ha ing the de eloper se its e isting propert
to b ild a basin to obtain the desired amo nt of boat slips.

2. Impacts to Fisheries.

The ad erse impact and loss to fisheries reso rces from the past se of the site are belie ed to be
significant. The area adjacent to the e isting shoreline and the area proposed for marina occ pation is
c rrentl a fishing area. This proposed project co ld e acerbate the historical impacts and ma depri e
and/or red ce fisheries se and tili ation of the area.

It is s rprising to s that a project of this magnit de, and loss of both se and habitat area, o ld be
allo ed itho t a fisheries st d . The DNR sho ld consider cond cting a fisheries st d in the area, both
from a c rrent se and anticipated impact perspecti e, incl ding loss of benthic habitat, before deciding
hether to act on the permit.

3. Impacts to Wildlife.

Wildlife se of the s bject area, incl ding the ater s rface area, is both e tensi e and aried. Seasonal
se and species di ersit is significant.

It is onl pr dent the DNR cond ct an e al ation of the potential impacts to ildlife and related di ersit
ithin and adjacent to the proposed project area, before deciding hether to act on the permit.

4. Water Q alit concerns.

There does not appear to be an storm ater management on the site once de eloped. Will the r noff
simpl be piped into M skegon Lake? At a minim m, the r noff sho ld be some combination of
detention, retention (for e ample, discrete rain gardens), and treatment (for e ample, oil/grit separator)
prior to release into M skegon Lake.

2
 5. Wetland Impacts.

The amo nt and e tent of site etlands appear to ha e been re ised se eral times. EGLE sho ld ens re
all etland areas, incl ding n egetated areas of h dric soils, nearshore benthic areas less than si feet
in depth, and those areas lost to historic fill, be incl ded in the total impact calc lation.

It is apparent from the e tensi e amo nt of proposed etland destr ction that there ill be a disr ption
to aq atic reso rces. It is also apparent not all the proposed etland taking is dependent pon being in
the etlands. There certainl appear to be alternati es hich o ld red ce the amo nt of proposed
etland destr ction.

Beca se the s bject etlands are coastal etlands (adjacent and ab tting to federall na igable aters
(Sec. 10 aters)), the minim m compensator mitigation ratio sho ld be at least 2:1. There is reg lator
precedent for this assertion based on pre io s and pending permit applications. Coastal etlands can also
be rare and imperiled, req iring a 5:1 replacement ratio.

6. Floodplain concerns.

In pre io s permit applications in and adjacent to M skegon Lake, the Lake Michigan floodplain
ele ation has been req ired to be sed. Wh is that not the case for this application? Use of an old FEMA
map, hich is ackno ledged to be o tdated, sho ld not be permitted.

As ith most floodplain reg lation, the amo nt of lost storage area and ol me sho ld be compensated
b accomplishing a like amo nt of c t, or increased storage ol me, at least ithin the immediate
atershed of the Lake.

7. Dredging concerns.

The proposed dredging ill destro a large area of shallo ater and shoreline habitat. This impact needs
to be compensated for in an mitigation consideration.

The proposed dredge q antit is h ge, and M skegon Lake sers and occ pants (incl ding s) are
concerned abo t contamination, incl ding PFAS compo nds. Beca se the proposed dredge area is also
a shoaling area, ne sediment deposits ill occ r relati el q ickl and the need for maintenance
dredging ma be ongoing. There sho ld be consideration of req iring ne sediment anal sis prior to an
f t re dredging. Since chemicals and compo nds of concern ma be disco ered in the f t re, an ongoing
testing regimen req irement sho ld incl de the abilit of the State too add ne chemicals of concern.

Similarl , dredging to a depth of 8 belo LWD seems e cessi e. F rther j stification for this proposed
depth sho ld be req ired. We q estion hether the diked storage areas ha e adeq ate capacit . What
additional preca tions ill be p t in place to ens re no sediment laden ater ret rns to the lake? The
diked areas ill be f ll of et sediment long before adeq ate de atering occ rs, ca sing intermittent
ork stoppage. What conditions or actions are in place to accommodate the anticipated periodic dela s?

The maintenance of a f nctioning and adeq ate sediment c rtain or barrier is critical. What action plan
is proposed to ens re dail integrit of the barrier, incl ding d ring periodic ork dela s? Materials to
repair the barrier sho ld be on site and read to be immediatel implemented sho ld the need arise.
Dredging sho ld cease d ring an barrier repair or replacement.

3
Since the proposed spoil disposal area ill be de eloped, here and ho ill an ongoing maintenance
dredge spoils be handled? Where ill the be deposited?

8. Alternati es.

There appear to be alternati e means and methods a ailable to red ce the proposed impact to etlands,
the p blic tr st, and related nat ral reso rces.

Since the application is so e tensi e and has so man reg lator elements, e plan to closel re ie
each element and pro ide f rther disc ssion of all identified or potential alternati es at the p blic hearing.
Since alternati es are pres med to e ist, the inadeq ate demonstration of same ithin the application
sho ld be addressed.

9. H dra lic concerns.

The p blic deser es to ha e a a e st d performed to nderstand the implications to the entire lake
from this large project in the center of M skegon Lake.

The proposed site has significant a e energ and heights depending on the pre ailing fetch. This is
e ident based on the application itself and the stated need for a break ater or a e atten ation. The
proposed project ill alter e isting a e and energ patterns. Potential refraction and reflection ma
ad ersel affect adjacent properties and shorelines. S ch a dramatic change as proposed co ld ha e
d namic h dra lic effects hich co ld reach far be ond the project limits.

The proposal ill alter e isting c rrents and potentiall ca se addition sedimentation and shoaling,
partic larl d ring major storm e ents or large fetch scenarios. S ch changes can ad ersel affect
e isting benthic habitat and reso rces.

It appears imperati e a h dra lic st d and a e anal sis be req ired prior to an consideration of permit
iss ance. Serio s consideration sho ld be gi en to the se of a a e atten ator that does not reflect as
m ch acti it across the lake.

10. Use of historic na thori ed lake filling.

The e isting penins las and shoreline fill hich as placed historicall ma ha e been na thori ed b
the State, or the Corps nder the Ri ers and Harbors Act of 1899. It sho ld be relati el eas to check
for an prior State or Federal permits related to the historical fill areas. Regardless, se of these fills to
j stif f rther encroachment into the lake is inappropriate. The loss of lake bottom and p blic se of the
filled areas is and has been significant and has ad ersel impacted the area for ears. The permit
application sho ld be re ie ed as if from the original or modified shoreline as of 1899. It is do btf l an
agenc o ld allo the proposed lake ard encroachment and loss of s rface ater reso rces hen
ie ed from this perspecti e.

If these filled areas (ackno ledged not performed b the applicant) are considered as a basis for
appro ing the project, then the al e of s ch a consideration sho ld be ackno ledged and considered.
The ears of p blic and reso rce impacts m st be compensated for in an appro al. It ma be logical and
pr dent to req ire mitigation for these filled areas, both from a lake s rface area, fisheries, and etland
area impact perspecti e.

4
 11. Filter cloth t pe nspecified.

There are man different t pes of filter cloth, and the t pe sed m st be appropriate for the setting and
p rpose. The applicant sho ld be req ired to specif hat material is being sed, if is it biodegradable,
and to hat e tent and here. It is possible t o or more different t pes of geote tiles co ld be sed on
the project. There are potential ad erse impacts from an inappropriate choice.

12. Wharfage.

Man of the proposed reg lated project elements are not in accordance ith pre io s criteria tili ed to
re ie permit applications. We plan to more closel e al ate all the dimensional specifics ithin the
proposed marina and ill comment f rther at the p blic hearing.

The amo nt and e tent of proposed docks e ceeds hat o ld s all be present on the lineal feet of
marina frontage. The Department has restricted the n mber of docks based on the lineal feet of related
OHWM. S ch a calc lation t picall does not incl de frontage nder conser ation easement, different
o nership, historical na thori ed fills (the penins las), or proposed for an nrelated, non-aq atic se.
This is a large de elopment for a confined area.

13. Protected species.

A project of this magnit de sho ld incl de a re ie for potential impact to threatened, endangered, or
special concern species. For e ample, lake St rgeon are kno n to be present in M skegon Lake. In
addition, creating preferred habitat for in asi e species m st also be e al ated. There are man species
hich ca se concern in this area, and each sho ld be in estigated and appropriate mitigation, incl ding
monitoring and remedial action if disco ered, be req ired. An st d or response to this concern needs
to incl de the seasonal migrants hich freq ent the site.

14. Ke hole de elopment.

The project appears to be a classic e ample of ke hole de elopment, hich is allo ing non-riparian
o ners (condos) or apartment renters to access, harf, and se a er limited amo nt of nrestricted
frontage. We kno the Department has disco raged similar proposals in the past. It appears the applicant
is pro iding significant riparian and se potential to non-riparian entities.

15. Distance into M skegon Lake

It appears the proposed marina ma e tend be ond (or comes close to) the e isting red na igation b o s
in M skegon Lake. The M skegon comm nit has plans to attract more large cr ise ships in the
pcoming ears and to e pand shipping in the area. We o ld like to better nderstand the impact to the
deep- ater na igabilit from this project, and the impact to commercial and recreational traffic.

16. Federal J risdiction.

It is pr dent to note the Arm Corps of Engineers Ordinar High-Water Mark is one foot higher than the
State. Therefore, an fill q antities and impact dimensions ma e pand significantl d ring the Federal
permitting process.

5
After re ie of the s pplemental information, f rther comments ma be s bmitted at the p blic hearing.
The abo e list is a s mmar list of o r q estions. We look for ard to commenting f rther at the p blic
hearing. Thank o for o r time and consideration.

Sincerel ,

Jon Rooks, President

Parkland Realt , Inc.