79W 91;, "Iti11,1','1 7., '111 1: . ,,,, . '11.}, "“1 ,1'121'I" 1711'1'151111'"1,,'1 "1:111: "11 . 1‘ Id,1,1 11.1111, "'1 1' . 7 11:1 4'1‘1'1' :1 £1117 ,.'.l 17'1‘1 1, 1 11" ‘7 '111'"" 1 153‘“ 3-...4“; m ..._..,...:.:.~.-:::-. -.__w;:9'x_'~:1:.7:.» : :yfj't—fginxtn—w- "a. ‘ -gyg‘w W4. .. ‘2‘“ . :.- -.-.--..,.3... 1, ”1, 111,11 1111111. , , " '1'1.111'1 "1' 1'"'" , 11,, "'1.,,','1'1"' ""11," , '11‘171'1‘1 . ... 11 1 51,11, 11"111"'1‘1"" I " ‘1F1171"fi1'1 11,1' ' ' 11111: I"' 1 1.11.7.7“, 1111;; '1' 111"" ~‘w--_“ é'cj‘ 1'1'1‘111‘1 7.5 1 "1'51" 911' ' 1'17, II..11" ,ji'1‘1‘111","111'1‘11,. 11.1 7 ;,11 111" '1' ,111 . I l ' 1 ""4111” 1,1,; ‘111 , 1,1,“, '11" 1“ , 11,1"11'1'11'111'1'1 1111, 11"! 1111'1'1""1""""""1' 1M munfiwwu W' 111 111,1"1" '17 ""1 1 1 "1";7,,11‘117" 1711,;1 11" '1'1 I' 'U1 ,7: '15:" "I ,1‘11f1‘“ 17, ' 1; 14.1,; '1 ‘1‘1‘ $51,; 111.12 '11 q [7,1‘. 111' '1 1}}3 1 1 .11 ”11,311. .r‘ . :5:- r.‘ 2 3.; .—.-....__ 1" 1 ‘1‘“: "'""‘11""‘1‘1‘1 .1 1'1""11'” 11111, 1 "'1 111' +1. 1:111" '1" 7 ,1711 ,';':1 "'1 ,3'111 1 1;: "1111"” 111:1‘1n"" "'1"1" 1" 1,5511 "W, 1 "“ '1'f'""1"11"11 V" FMN '15.. "','|'1'l,1| "7'1": (1'1, 1,, 1'1» .25: 7:93. 77.75:. .77; fr. 7-,? . MI“; 1111:; 111‘ 1,1,},11‘ .1" '1'-1,1 "111,1" ”if“; 1,1" "" "1" 1111;. I" ‘4111, 'M11I'1'I' 54‘ $.37 ”=11" 1.».-.w.” .7. —.—-—«-—~ M 7’553- ‘ 7 ‘ ‘5 ‘«<-e- =71. w c’ . +1.1 ,m '3’: ”M7,; - n.3, 1-70.,7 ’w.» ”4.; .2. 7. .m..-.‘:.=-.“L_..L “xi-:9 _ _’ 111‘” __.r .. -...*';—. *‘":.:i:c: 1'7' .x<.'°-—~_r7'- E77 .. ., ,.Ill| ,,1:41|_,|'1 1,171111 .- 11111. 4,1 I171'1’ 1. 1:5,: 'iH'I'I'J'III" ”16:11 7";1'" ';1':".'11.;‘I II'I'.1‘, ,2,111 ,1‘1;. '1" ('"fi‘ """""'"1"1h1 1 '1‘1 “1"" 1;:1117. {“1} 1'1" . — £3:- . .0... .7 ,.= . _ 7. 7‘ ' - 3:35. .. ~_ . J‘: ,.,,._<_,;: "1'1""? :"1'1 53‘1", ‘i ":1 1,711" 1 1'" 1 WWW...» g . _. may-.. ---M... ,, ”111‘ ~rE-=:;~.-"< A WiEfi-E‘fi- .. -L N .' 73:; ... :r': : ~W25767- M .331" . ”£35 ' EEF‘z-E‘E 55-3“ 3?...73‘21- ‘ . :2"; . 1,...7..-“ .. . "w $223572 -;r- ,. ~53” fiét 7.77775: 2. .. .;—.. apmnaz..- ' {"255}?! .- 2‘: :1 ' ~§ ,I'I'IINI', 1,1,4: "-'1“":1,"" “'1' 11's..“1-17 1':‘ " ‘1 WI, 1.,:,I;‘§ '1" "1'11'1" 1,1,, ““723. i .. 3:32.-.. . .1 '77“. 7:1,“. 7"r)-"1.’1“""'r :2 ""1: . 7, I7 711 ),|,.,1,11:;"‘,\‘., , 7'1"" 1,1111%,1‘113'7‘u 1 1 1 . , [1,1,1'1'7'1';'7‘."111 1 "I 1 H76, .1,1‘l.1,77u" .‘77‘13 ,{1'1'1".'""'""' "77"7”: "'H'i""11 mw ,II,\‘7 £11 771'71'1' ‘ll‘ 3.7-,111‘”..,\'-.'., 11."""'7'1'~"':"" ”£65"? V 7' ,1 7', ,‘ljuu . , XX" 7““7 . I'M} '1""“ 1:511:75" 7'31"! "1" 7:7",7' 7,131: .7 ""' ”1:13,, £57,133,“ ,, 4;, '1'5'7'1‘ {3,717,135}, ,: 7,11,, "15‘7"?“ '7,7}1. 7"1'\‘1‘7,§-."V'1.'7'7’\7 ‘-‘7'«r V" 1" ,."",§;"" €131"? 1,1,1‘ '1 1,99,“: “fink ‘4'71 E‘gfi'fiu, " 1'l'xl 1:17.711“ 1511- ' "1‘ ' 1 - 1:11:17." 1- 111-, '1 1 £1 ‘ '1'?" l 3, .Iz' 7‘7'7'7'1'1' ""d' ' 1‘11 ’9‘“ 3;. :37". 17" “.7 ‘r .3 d‘.’."2‘ “.4513- .. ”473.37- . b..." . mg??? L" 7’“ .'._ f 4:45.: 7.. "':2*'7'7,"7‘ - 7,11? 7 -5 7' 4?! ’ 45'“; - .37)?" ' _. 1.555. .3 1 "1.. 1;“ 9'". k ‘11 mp: . . . ‘I .51}, 1; 1115711777 79.7.5, 11. 77 Lo 0L." .. 1:311:73" Tawny-7 111331... . . 1.17M m LIBRARY , Michigan State ' University This is to certify that the thesis entitled ANTICIPATED EFFECTS OF MUNICIPAL SEWERS 0N DEVELOPMENT OF LAKE MITCHELL WETLANDS presented by Alan Clark Frier has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M.S. dey?em Resource Development fiflztszé.’ Me/jor professor Date M . a?! APE?“ 2000 “111/2; 5 m SEPIIZMU? 3 “Pb $90: 042 W” 593?. Kelli/0 73/ 3 A) x 0 ‘- W ‘7’?) I“ ‘ ANFICIPATED EFFECTS OF MUNICIPAL SEWERS t ‘ CN DEVELOPMENT OF LAKE MITCHELL WETLANDS 3 By Alan Clark Frier A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Resource Development 1978 (J \H ABSTRACT ANTICIPATED EFFECTS OF MUNICIPAL SEWERS (N DEVELOPMENT OF LAKE MITCHELL WETLANDS By Alan Clark Frier Wetlands are an essential ecological element. A sewer project to serve the Lake Mitchell area near Cadillac, Michigan will solve the problem of further eutrophocation of the lakes caused by on-site sew- age disposal, but may make hundreds of acres of environmentally sen~ sitive areas ripe for development. A survey of owners of vacant wet- lands adjacent to the sewer project was made to determine how much development should be expected. The results were compared with re- cords of permits issued for construction of on-site sewage disposal systems. It was projected that residential development will increase by over 50%. It was also found that hundreds of acres of land will be offered for sale, which may increase this percentage significantly. Wetlands protection tools currently available to Wexford County and protections in use elsewhere are analyzed. This study should prove useful in the Wexford County planning process and in future consider- ation of similar sewer projects. In Memory of HAROLD L. FRIER 1908 - 1976 ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was undertaken because of a personal interest of the author. The final product is not the result of an individual effort, however, but was only possible with the help of many others. Thanks must be extended to numerous governmental officials who searched their files for relevant material and provided leads to further information. Those officials who deserve special mention include: Edward Clinton, Wexford County Zoning Administrator; Edward Miller, Wexford County Planner; Bruce Reynolds, Cheif Sanitarian, District Health Department #1; Frank Vining, Water Quality Specialist, Michigan Department of Natural Resources; Joseph Dumont and Donald Buchanan, Soil Conserva- tion Service; and Chuck Grant and Greg Piaskowski, Northwest Michigan Regional Planning and Development Commission. A special thanks is given to the Wexford County Commission for providing postage and the use of office equipment. This student's graduate committee should be recognized for the guidance they provided. Dr. Daniel A. Bronstein served as advisor and Dr. Keith Honey and Dr. Ronald Shelton completed the committee. The author would also like to thank Dr. Sanford Farness and Dr. Raleigh Barlowe, two dedicated professors who provided limitless in- gpiration. Most of all, I would like to thank my wife and mother for their endless support. I. V. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . 0 LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS . . . . . INTRODUCTICN . . . o . ... . LOCATIIN AND DESCRIITIIN OF THE AND MITCHELL BASIN . . . . 0 Geographical and Political Geologic and Hydrologic Description . . . Description of Land USe THE PROBLEM C O O O C O O . Growth of the Problem . Responsible Agencies . . Goals ooooooooo WEI‘LANDSIOOOOOOOOO The Value of Wetlands . Lake Mitchell Wetlands . Photographs LAKES 00...... Setting 0 CADILLAC O Soils and Property Ownership Survey of Lake Mitchell Wetlands Wildlife of Lake Mitchell Wetlands 0.00 .0... RESULTS OF WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS . . . . . . . Analysis of Bacteriological Results . . . Chemical Analysis of Water in Lake MitChell Yletlands o o o o o o o o o o o o OBJECTIVE AND METHODS OF STUDY ANALYSIS OF SURVEY RESUITS . . . . . . . . . o AnalySiSOfErrorS.oooooooooo iv 0 O O O 0 O VII. METHODS OF PROTECTING LAKE MITCHELL WETLANDS EXiSting Protections o o o o o o o o 0 Sanitary Code for District Health Deml‘tment#1oooooooooo Wexford County Rural Zoning mdinance 0.0.0.000... Michigan's Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act . . . . United States Army Corps of Engineers............ Environmental Protection Act . . . Protection in Other Areas . . . . . . . Marinette County Shoreland Zoning Ordinance............ Just v. Marinette County . . . . . Impact in Other States . . . Wetlands Protection in Michigan . . . . State Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . VIII. CG‘ICLUSICNS AND RECOMMENDATICI‘IS . . . . . . BBLImRAPIIY O I O O O O O O O C I I O O O C 95 99 100 102 103 105 106 109 110 115 117 121 Table 1 - Table 2 - Table 3 - Table A - Table 5 - LIST OF TABLES Soil Classifications and Ownership of Lakes Cadillac and Mitchell Watershed . . . . . . . . . 41 Results of Bacteriological Analysis Of Lake MitChEll Wetlands o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 63 Results of Partial Chemical Analysis Of Lake Mitchell Wetlands o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 69 Permits Issued by District Health Department #1, 1972-197? 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 85 Results of Survey of Property Owners . . . . . . . . . 88 vi Figure Figure Figure 1 _ 2- 3.. Figure 4 - Figure 5 — Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 6- 7- 8- 9.. LIST OF FIGURES Regional location of Wexford County. The Lakes Cadillac and Mitchell Watershed is located in the southeastern corner of the county Map showing approximate outlines of Lakes Cadillac and Mitchell Watershed, including approximate boundaries of wetlands Map showing zoning districts for the area near Lake Mitchell Map showing locations of survey sampling sites, with reference to photographs in text Map showing area to be served by sewer porject Geographic location of property owners surveyed Cover letter mailed with questionaire Questionaire Reminder 10 - Projected residential development in Lake Mitchell wetlands 11 - Comparison of past approved permits with future development vii 11 45 7? 81 82 89 89 LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS Photograph #1 - Along west side of M—115, north of Black River, facing towards Lake Mitchell Photograph #2 - Along west side of M—115, south of Black River, facing west towards Lake Mitchell Photograph #3 - East side of M-115, north of intersection with North Lake Mitchell Drive, facing east from highway. Area was filled in 1972 Photograph ## - North side of Loughrin Road, facing south- west.towards Lake Mitchell. This area is also shown in photographs #25 and #26. The problem with the fill is described in the text on page 98 Photograph #5 — Along North Lake Mitchell Drive, north of Black River, facing east, away from Lake Mitchell Photograph #6 - Along North Lake Mitchell Drive, south of Black River, facing east, away from Lake Mitchell Photograph #7 - Along North Lake Mitchell Drive, south of West Division, facing east, away from Lake Mitchell. Pros- pective purchasers of this parcel have been informed by the District Health Department that an application for on-site sewage disposal would be denied Photograph #8 - Along North Lake Mitchell Drive between Fern and Arbutus Avenues, facing west. Photo shows "frost heave", an indication of water table near the ground surface Photograph #9 - North side of North Lake Mitchell Drive in block 3 of the Plat of Flowing Wells Park, looking south- east. A driveway has been filled in, but no permits have been issued for construction Photograph #10 - Lots 3 and A of block 4 of the Plat of Flowing Wells Park, looking north. A permit for con- struction of an on-site sewage disposal system was denied by the District Health Department in 1977 Photograph #11 - Potter Woods, facing south from Teal Court. The typical lot in this subdivision is 40' x 80' viii 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 29 30 30 Photograph #12 - Potter Woods facing south from Eagle Court Photograph #13 - Lot #19 of the Plat of Potter Woods, looking northeast. A permit for construction of an on-site sewage disposal system at this location was denied by the District Health Department in 1973 Photograph #1# - East side of North Lake Mitchell Drive across from Potter Woods, facing east. Mrs Potter owns 240 acres of undeveloped property at this location, over 96% of which is wetlands Photograph #15 — This is a short distance south of the previous photograph Photograph #16 - This is still part of Mrs. Potter's property, but further south than the first two pictures Photograph #1? - Area east of Brandy Brook facing east along the shoreline of Lake Mitchell. This area was filled approx- imately 10 years ago. The developer has been anxious to pro- ceed with his development Photograph #18 - View immediately north of the area shown in photograph #17 Photograph #19 - Property in northwest corner of section 3 of Cherry Grove Township, facing southwest from North Lake Mit- chell Drive. This property is not immediately adjacent to the sewer project, but is part of a large parcel Photograph #20 - Manistee National Forest property along Lake Mitchell Drive, south of Wheeler Creek Photograph #21 — Property in northeast corner of NW% of section 11 of Cherry Grove Township, facing west from 33% Road Photograph #22 - In area of lot 48 of Lake Mitchell Shores, facing southeast Photograph #23 - View across road from 509 North Lake Mitchell Drive, facing east. This photo shows weeping willow and elderberry bushes. The for sale sign is an indication of what may become of much of the wetlands in the area Photograph #24 - Facing east in area approximately 650 feet south southeast of photo #23. Picture shows marsh grasses and cattails 31 31 22 32 33 33 35 35 36 46 A7 Photograph #25 - Facing south toward Loughrin Road between M-115 and North Lake Mitchell Drive. Spoil from the sewer project was being used to fill this area. The County Zoning Administrator sought court action to stop it Photograph #26 - Taken 150 feet north of Loughrin Road, facing north, in the area of photo #25. This view shows the fragile ecology being disturbed by the fill. Note the graceful hemlocks. Many varieties of sedges are also found in this area Photograph #27 - Gytcha Creek, facing north from North Lake Mitchell Drive Photograph #28 - Looking north toward Gytcha Lake, near outlet Photograph #29 - Facing northwest from approximately A00 feet west of North Lake Mitchell Drive at Elm Court Photograph #30 - Facing southwest from same vantage point as photo #29, A tamaraok can be seen in the distance Photograph #31 - Photograph #32 - Photograph #33 - Photograph #3A - Close up of elderberry blossoms, taken near North Lake Mitchell Drive and Mitchell Creek Photograph #35 - Tamarack, east of North Lake Mitchell Drive and south of Mitchell Creek A8 A9 50 51 52 52 55 55 56 57 58 INTRODUCTION Approximately ten years ago, increasing problems with and re- strictions on on-site sewage disposal and a growing concern over lake water quality led to demands for a municipal sewage disposal system to serve the Lake Mitchell area near Cadillac, Michigan. The demands for this system came from area residents and organizations including the Chamber of Commerce and the local health department. Following many delays, the project was begun in late 1977 with 75% federal and 5% state funding. During the planning stages of this project, the concern was with the deteriorating quality of the lakes and the problems associated with on-site sewage disposal. The possible secondary impacts of this project do not appear to have been considered. The major secondary impact is an increase in the potential for development. Other secon- dary impacts could include traffic congestion, crowded schools, sed- imentation and erosion, windfall land profits, increased surface run-off and flooding, increased housing costs, non-point water pol- lution, and loss of open space.1 Not all secondary impacts are adverse. 1For more discussion of the secondary impacts of sewer projects, the reader is referred to Richard D. Tabors, Michael H. Shapiro and Peter P. Rogers, Land‘ygg'ggg 3h; Pipgz Planning for Sewerage, Lexing— ‘ ton, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1976de Richard N. Binet- sky, Secondary Impact 2: Sewerage Systems, Trenton, New Jersey: New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, 1975. Clifford R. Humphrys, "Lake Development Problems", paper presented at meeting of Michigan Society of Registered Land Surveyors, Caberfae Lodge, February 21—2A, 1967 and William M. Marsh and Thomas E. Berton, Inland Lake Watershed 1 The project will bring money into the community during construction and may increase the tax base. The primary impact of this project will be to eliminate possible contamination of the lakes from on—site sewage disposal, and consideration of this benefit may outweigh all possible adverse secondary impacts. This study was undertaken to determine the most basic secondary impact; that is, the effect of the sewer on future development, and, in particular, development in environmentally sensitive areas. If the amount and type of development is known, other secondary impacts can be estimated. The author first became concerned with possible secondary impacts of the sewer porject while working as Wexford County Environmental Sanitarian with District Health Department No. 1. Stiff regulations on on-site sewage disposal enforced by the Health Department prevented development in environmentally sensitive areas. With municipal sewers, the health department regulations would no longer apply, and there did not appear to be alternate controls to protect these areas. The first four chapters describe the situation; chapter five ex- plains a survey of owners of wetlands adjacent to the sewer project; and the results of the survey are analyzed in chapter six. Existing protections and protections in other areas which could be adapted to the Lake Mitchell situation are analyzed in chapter seven. Conclusions and recommendations are given in chapter eight. 1Analysis: A Planning and Management Appgoach, Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1976 provide informative dis- cussions on the impact of development on water quality. CHAPTER I LOCATICN AND DESCRIPTION OF THE LAKES CADILLAC AND MITCHELL BASIN Geographical and Political Setting The Lakes Cadillac and Mitchell watershed is a relatively small surface water drainage area encompassing approximately fifty six square miles, located in the southeastern corner of Wexford County in northwestern lower Michigan. Its regional location is shown on the map on page four. Land use management concerning the watershed has a distinct pol- itical advantage as the watershed is located completely within the boundaries of Wexford County. Lake Cadillac is located almost entire- ly inside the city of Cadillac with the downtown area located on the east end of the lake. Lake Mitchell is located almost completely with- in the boundaries of Selma Township CTEEN, R1OW) and Cherry Grove Town- ship CT21N, R1OW). In addition to these three political subdivisions, portions of the watershed are located in Haring Township €T22N, R9W) and Clam Lake Township CT21N, R9W). The boundaries of the basin and political subdivisions are shown on the map on page five. Geologic and Hydrologic Description Lakes Cadillac and Mitchell are the remains of a glacial lake originally many times larger. The lakes are surrounded by high mor- ainic hills formed by four different ice lobes of the Wisconsin 3 I— IOHOOLMUT . MICHIGAN DEPAQTMENT OF COMMERT‘E OFFICE OF ECONOMIC EXPANSION ecu 0' UILIO 00 L06! -——' l [— .1 cumin (" CANADA —--—-—.q F‘Tiofiif'fi *1 . I. ... @bw ' /"3‘ an." "' ”9%" [w I canon“ ' A K E U A > L / a Ono-noun 'l r L 000'”: L") [U I, .‘n‘.‘ Janina?" k“’\ I...._. _._.[Td~—.~' I ALI" '8\ .__ . “NEW. I—Wfl. r'Lm" \ I . _j '_T' rr 1. D ./‘\‘ n ‘i 6 ‘ Y b WEXFORD % COUNTY b k Lu k ”t Figure l - Regional location of Wexford County. . ‘ I mum:l ISL I“ I l i autumn ____ ._ .. '5’ :7: I _r_jonsoo nonnative;— “'9“ C. :OQ o 5:": AuTmu— I I 3‘" l .' . I I 7, é _J____ ,__-_._. V —. . . _ “I KAI-“SKA I camoao I—oscou-—_I ALco-u O IINZIE‘I-GIMO I ‘ I I “final I . _ z _____ I -___, ___.. umSTtt-L'WIISSAUKEE Ijscomon‘I—ocun . nosco I555555555I - I I Rflfifiss ! - - _ _L..,...:.I_ _I__- .L_.,._. --_I-—— '( Ilsm I LIKE OSCEOL7_ CLARI IFZ-LD'IIH ' LIENIC ‘ I I I '1 ‘C HUIM I ' _I . an \* ocun ' aunt-.0 . azcosn I—suuu I wound) 5' ._...-—--1 ____. I I I I Yuscou I snnuc ' "IL OHAI j""I I usxtcmL _—I——— nonm- J—TMATuor-I— sun I ‘4‘ r" ' . JLAPEEI e um I I I Vanna—JI— 3.”: I ofi-i I I_Iouu T ecu-non Izmm I I I I I I l .1. __ TL... _1 I— _L .I—w- i OAKLAND m I .EEMI —'—;Am um I mom I uvuumr- I I v ‘ I l I _L_ will ‘ __——v ——-— _l V“ Tum “L mA100 I.— CALHOUN I ucxsou I “sauna! I “m I l I I I ‘ CANADA ' .1 __ -___ll_,_,,_l- .F. l IWIU I—C—zs. . :1}; . ”W . mm: I LEIAI‘EI I ”I“ I I I O I ' \urt In: . I / a . I 1. .l l f \‘. —— --——-.L_.-.___. __ "— -‘— . INDIANA ——-— —-—- ,d\-— The Lakes Cadillac and Mitchell watershed is located in the southeastern corner of the county (nfiw..m...~.nu,1~. . L. 5 . . 1114 Y V‘llILTA l 1 zoom Mkwq Qtvxngi ".7 'I\ h an in Map showing approximate outline of Lakes Cadillac and Mitchell including approximate boundaries of wetlands ’ Figure 2 watershed Glacier. The Lake Michigan Ice Lobe from the west, the Lake Superior Ice Lobe from the north, the Lake Huron Ice Lobe from the east, and the Saginaw Ice Lobe from the southeast came together at Cadillac and left behind hills over 1700 feet above sea level and the lakes at 1289 feet above sea level.2 Bedrock lies under 700 to 1200 feet of glacial drift. Water well logs from the Lake Mitchell area show approximately 100 feet of sand soils over 100 to 200 feet of heavy clay, with more sand from 300 to 500 feet below ground surface. There are no wells in the area over 500 feet deep. Lakes Cadillac and Mitchell are both shallow lakes; Lake Cadillac being a maximum of twenty eight feet deep, and Lake Mitchell, twenty two feet. Lake Mitchell is the largest lake in Wexford County (2,658 acres) and Lake Cadillac is the third largest (1,177 acres). The only lake in the county besides Mitchell which is larger than Lake Cadillac is an artificial impoundment behind'the Hodenpyle Dam on the Manistee River. Mitchell Creek which enters Lake Mitchell from the west is the most important inlet to the lakes. There are two other inlets worth noting, Gyttja Creek which enters Lake Mitchell from the north and Brandy Brook which enters Lake Mitchell from the northwest. Prior to the time a canal was dug between the lakes for logging purposes, Lake Mitchell had been approximately one foot higher in 2This information comes from an unpublished paper by Chester Finster, local geoligist, retired from the Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation. elevation than Lake Cadillac. The lakes are now nearly the same level although there is a slight flow through the canal from Lake Mitchell to Lake Cadillac. In his book portraying the history of Wexford County, Judge Wil- liam Peterson explains the effects of the canal as follows: "The digging of the canal in 1873 had served to move logs and facilitate boating between the lakes. But it had also served to speed the flow of water through the lake system and out the Clam River outlet. The natural connection between the lakes, the Black River, had been shallow, winding and broken by num- erous windfalls and other obstructions which tended to retard the flow of water between the lakes and keep the water table high in the areas to its west which constituted the great por— tion of the drainange basin. The Black Creek brings some water into Lake Cadillac from the north. At its mouth, it is only five to six feet wide and only a few inches deep. Except during wet periods, very little flow can be ob- served. The Clam River is the only outlet from the lakes. It flows from the north side of Lake Cadillac near the east end. The Clam flows southeasterly approximately twenty five miles where it meets with the Muskegon River. The Muskegon flows southwesterly and enters Lake Mich— igan at Muskegon. A dam on the Clam River near the outlet controls the levels of both lakes. The present structure was completed in 1975. There has been a long running controversy over the lake levels, dating back to the 1870's. In the mid 1960's a legal level was estab- lished by the Circuit Court. After experiencing floods in the fall of 3William R. Peterson, The View From Courthouse Hill, Philadelphia: Darrance & Co., 1972, pp. 315-317. 1975 and again in the spring of 1976 followed by a drought in 1977, public attention is again focused on this issue. ______ There are extensive wetlands surrounding the lakes (approximately. 9,900 acres). These wetlands are a primary consideration of this study. Most of the natural wetlands on the east end of Lake Cadillac have been lost in the name of deve10pment, beautification, malaria control and numerous other reasons. Because of the canal and the dam which controls the level of the lakes, it is very difficult to consider the lakes as separate hydro- logical units. Data gathered by the author in a May 1978 study was separated along what would have been the natural divide between the lakes, taking into consideration the effect of the canal. This was done in an attempt to find out at what locations changes in land use and other factors having an effect on water quality would have an im- pact on Lake Mitchell only. Over three fourths of the poorly drained soils were found to be within the Lake Mitchell portion of the water- shed. Because of this and because the sewer project will have little effect on the wetlands which drain to Lake Cadillac, this study focuses on the Lake Mitchell area. Description of Land Use The first white settlers arrived in the area after the Civil War. Cadillac was chosen for a settlement because of the lakes and prime white pine stands. The lakes were used for floating logs to the mills located on the shores of Lake Cadillac. Cadillac was a boom town, but by 1920 the pine had all been cut or lost to forest fires, the supply of hardwoods was dwindling, and the area fell upon difficult times. To help fill the void left by the loss of the mills, the area turned to the resort trade. Most of the prime land and much of the not so prime land near Lake Mitchell was platted for resorts and summer homes between 1910 and 1930. There were some lean years during the de- pression, but the resort business has continued to prosper since the end of World War Two. Approximately fifteen years ago a change in the trend occured. More and more year round homes began to be built and many summer homes began to be winterized for year-round use. Also with improved trans- portation facilities, a higher standard of living, and the advent of the snowmobile, many of the summer homes began to be used throughout the year. Most of the Lake Mitchell shoreline is used for seasonal and year round single family residences. William Mitchell State Park is locat- ed between the lakes and south of the canal and Hemlock National Forest Campground is located on the southwest corner of Lake Mitchell. Com- mercial develOpment is concentrated in the area between the lakes and along the south shore of Lake Mitchell. The Wexford County Planning Commission includes the Lake Mitchell area as part of the primary development area of the County. They pro— ject increased resort development in the immediate lake areas, with ur- ban growth between the lake and the City of Cadillac. The Planning Commission also projects commercial development along Highway M-115 through the wetlands on the east of Lake Mitchell. Selma, Cherry Grove and Clam Lake Townships are covered by the 1O Wexford County Zoning Ordinance. Haring Township and the City of Cad- illac have their own ordinances. The map on page eleven shows the zon- ing districts for the area near Lake Mitchell. The immediate lake area, which is to be served by the sewer, is zoned almost entirely re- sort-residential. Primary uses in this zone include: single and two '};;iiy dwellings; home professional offices; tourist homes; and public- ly owned buildings, parks and playgrounds. Under special conditions, rental cabins, mobil homes, and antique shops are allowed. The follow- ing uses are among those allowed subject to special approval: frater- nal buildings, dance halls, golf courses, mobil home parks, motels, restaurants, shops, bowling alleys, apartments, and condominiums. 11 .5522 /fl.€<‘ q EEFwZCZ. 25:52:... 0 22:21:55: .v. :2: = n. 1:2 5...” :_ 2:25:05“: : o< Figure 3 - Map showing zoning districts for the area near Lake Mitchell 222.23.... .535 : = _<:z=:v.,_: = :22 _:.r. =_ ( DZmnlam: CHAPTER II THE PROBLEM Growth of the Problem As noted in the first chapter, the lakes were a prime reason for settling the area. When the City of Cadillac was founded as the Vill- age of Clam Lake in 1871, the lakes served the lumber industry. By 1886, it was noted that the crystal purity of the lakes had disappeared due to misuse by man.4 There was concern over the quality of the lakes because the city drew its drinking water from them, but for economic purposes, the quality of the lakes was not important until the end of the lumbering era when the community turned to the resort trade. Since that time, the quality of the lakes has been a primary concern. The best land for constructing cottages was the sand shoreline and this is where the early cottages were built between 1910 and 1930. This was the beginning of poor lake development as described by Dr. Clifford R. Humphrys of the Department of Resource Development at Mich- igan State University. 5 After the prime lakefront land had been de- veloped, pressures turned to multiple tier developments and wetlands 4Ibid., p. 316. 5Humphrys, op. cit. 13 contiguous to the lake. With the exception of the National Forest property, most of the direct ties between the wetlands and Lake Mit- chell have been filled in. In 1965 Wayne H. Verspoor concluded in his Master's thesis sub— mitted to the Department of Resource Development at Michigan State University that: "Michigan's northern Lower Penninsula may be considered a tran- sition zone betWeen the characteristic low development of the Upper Penninsula and the high development of the southern Lower Penninsula. "Most Lower Penninsula lakes are within three or four hours drive from large southern Michigan population centers. Consequently, demand for frontage is high. "Lakes are used for a large variety of seasonal recreational uses and seasonal use is not limited to summer months in some areas. ”Continued development should be expected with more population pressure6 easy access and shorter driving time from population centers. About the same time, Gerald H. Matthews in his research for a Master's thesis submitted to the School of Urban Planning and Land- scape Architecture at Michigan State University found: "People moving to lakes has turned once resort oriented lakes into small social com- munities of mixed permanent and summer residents".7 Both these evaluations could be applied to Lake Mitchell in the mid 1960's. 6Wayne Harris Verspoor, "The Characteristics of Lakefront Property Development on Selected Inland Lakes in Michigan", Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University, 1965, p. 109, 1964 abstract. 7Gerald H. Matthews, ”Inland Lake Waterfront Deve10pment - A Case Study of Hess Lake, Newaygo County Michigan", Unpublished Master's Thesis, School of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture, Michigan State University, 1964, abstract. 14 With changes in use came problems with on-site sewage disposal. The systems which had been adequate for seasonal homes which were used only a few days a year, proved to be grossly inadequate when these homes began to be used more frequently or were converted to year round use. Worse yet, the same inadequate systems were being installed on new homes. Realization of these problems brought about adoption of a strong sanitary code by Wexford County in 1965. I The strong provisions of the sanitary code rendered most of the vacant wetlands unsuitable for development. The same provisions applied to replacement systems to serve existing premises and caused many ex- pensive site modifications. These reasons, coupled with a concern for lake water quality, brought pressure for a municipal sewerage system. A 1970 report on a possible sanitary sewer interceptor was prompted by: "First, the possible pollution of Lake Mitchell rendering it use- less for bathing, swimming and fishing by changing its ecology; and second, the fear of contaminatigg water from shallow wells which could result in an epidemic." Sewage disposal is only one of over a dozen "Major Lake Problems" listed by Dr. Humphrys. Others include: surface runoff, overcrowding, overuse, conflicts between users, poor development and separation of 9 water surface from marshes and swamps. Many major sources of water pollution have not been documented, but a deterioration of water quality has taken place in many Michigan lakes.10 The conclusion leads to 8Chester H. Finster, Lake Mitchell, Sanitary Sewer Interceptor System, 1970, p. 7. 9Humphrys, op. cit. 10William M. Marsh and Thomas E. Borton, Michigan Inland Lakes and Their Watersheds, an Atlas, Flint: Stewart - Jackson Printing Co., 'N’o‘v. 1971:, p. XIII?" 15 non-point sources of pollution such as run-off from yards, construction sites, farm fields, roads and parking lots. Water is often heavily laden with sediment, highway salt, fertilizer and animal excreta. Cgmf pdetion of the sewer project may result in denser development and lead to secondary impacts including increased sealed surfaces, increased run:3ff, sedimentation and erosion, and a greater number of fertilized lawns. Unless we are aware of these secondary impacts and plan accord- -ingly, completion of the sewer project could result in an increase in non-point sources of pollution, loss of wetlands, and cause a greater deterioration of water quality than is eliminated. Since the passage of Public Law 92-500 which provides 79% federal funding for local sewer projects, the availability of sewers has begun replacing highways as the prime determinant of the location of develop- ment.11 Sewers have a high initial cost and so have a long design per- iod; generally around fifty years.12 The availibility of excess capac- ity sets in motion a process of development which must be adequately planned for. The Wexford County Planning Commission realized this when they stated as one of their policies: "There should be no water or sewer system extensions into areas where land use development is 11Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality: [Th3 Fifth Annual Repgrt.gf the Council‘gp_Environmental Quality, Washing- K ton, D.C.: 0.8. Government Printing Office, 1974, pp. 56e57. 1aTabors, et. al., op. cit., p. a. 16 13 not desirable, such as flood plains, wetlands, ...”. In the area near Lake Mitchell, most of the desirable land has already been developed and most of what remains can accurately be des— \ cribed as wetlands. There is a dilemma that in order to solve the sew- age disposal problems of existing homes, hundreds of acres of valuable wetlands may be lost to development. Responsible Agencies Numerous agencies have some influence over this problem. Among them are the four townships; the City of Cadillac; Wexford County; State of Michigan; County agencies such as the Road Commission, the Drain Commission, the Board of Public Works, and the Helath Depart— ment; State agencies such as the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Public Health; the Federal government and Federal agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Pro- tection Agency, and the U.S. Forest Service; the Cadillac Area Chamber of Commerce; and the Lake Mitchell Property Owners Association. It // seems safe to say that all of these agencies wish to maintain an "op— timal" water quality level in the lakes. Concerning wetlands management, the ultimate authority lies with the State of Michigan, but until appropriate legislation is enacted, the ball is in the hands of the county. The sewer project is progressing under the guidance of the Wexford County Board of Public Works and the 13Inventory of Wexford County Planning Commission, Unpublished 17 county has a zoning ordinance in effect in the two townships adjacent to Lake Mitchell. For these reasons, Wexford County is considered to be the primary decision maker in protection of the Lake Mitchell wet- lands 0 Goals The goals of Wexford County relating to this problem have been stated in the 1970 sewer proposal: "The prime objective is to clean up and to keep relatively pure the waters of Lake Mitchell which in turn will outlet only clean water into Lake Cadillac."14 And in the 1975 Inventory of the Wexford County Planning Commission: "Preservation of county lakes and streams should be given a high priority. Although the county has attempted to protect these valuable resources by adopting zoning and sanitary ordinances, proper protection has not become a reality because of the already intense usage of watershed property by existing owners and the reluctance of governing bodies to implement severe controls on remaining undeveloped watershed areas. It is felt that in the public interest, the county should assume the responsibility for preserving these lands for the future." "CTo) Promote the wisest possible use of all natural resources in Wexford County for present and future generations..... Develop- ment should be limited on flood plain and wetland areas in the county. These lands should be specifically identified and pro- visions developed in local zoning ordinances to prohibit develop- ment not compatible with the soil characteristics. Specific uses for these areas, such as reservoir sites, wild life refuges, 14Finster, op. cit. 15Wexford County Planning Commission, op. cit., p. 11-20. 18 limited agricultural uses, and gecreaticn areas should be identi- fied in the zoning ordinance."1 And in the 1975 Wexford County Environmental Survey: "Ecg'ested lands with wetland areas. No development should be allowed in these areas. Recreation or utility right-of-way purposes can be achieved if proper site cau~ tions are observed. But these uses should occur with minimum veg- etation removal and without changing surface water levels or water table elevations. The damage to vegetation in a fairly large area through water table alteration can be extensive and may not show up for several years. Development proposals in area adjacent to the wetlands sites should be closely scrutinized and in great de- tail. What effect will surface drainage from streets or roads have upon water conditions? What effect will septic tank leakage have on the wetland areas? What effect will salt from winter road clearance have? How will gravel erosion near bridges affect water quality? Extreme caution is necessary in dealing with this land category."1 Wexford County has repeatedly stated that wise land use policies are necessary when considering wetlands. Without the sewer, pressure for development in the wetlands has been very limited, however, with the sewer project nearing completion, the time is fast approaching for Wexford County to take action to implement these stated goals. With an understanding of the goals of Wexford County, the remainder of this thesis explores the reasons wetlands are worth protecting, specific as- pects of the Lake Mitchell wetlands, pressures for development of Lake Mitchell wetlands, and ways Wexford County can control development and protect the most critical areas. The primary tool for protection to be considered in chapter VII will be local zoning. 16mm. 17"Wexford County Environmental Survey", Mount Pleasant, Michigan: Johnson, Johnson & Roy, Inc., 1975, p. 14. CHAPTER III WETLANDS The Value of Wetlands "To convert all 'wastes' - all deserts, estuaries, tundras, ice- fields, marshes, steppes, and moors - into cultivated fields and cities would impoverish rather than enrich life esthetically as well as ecologically." Wetlands are among our most valuable natural resources. Values include fish and game production, flood control, nature laboratory, open space, climate control and air and water pollution control. In addition to these values, there is an esthetic value which is diffi- cult to describe, but easily experienced. Other than trappers, hunters, naturalists, and environmentalists, however, few people know this value of wetlands. According to Dr. Christa Schwintzer of the University of Michigan Biological Station at Pellston: "Wetlands (marshes, swamps, bogs, and meadows) are important in determining the quality of lake waters and the seasonal flow rates into the lakes, In addition they affect the quality and quantity of stream flow and ground water. They improve water quality by filtering out wastes and breaking them down into simple inorganic compounds which can be taken up by vegetation. Wetlands also re- gulate the seasonal flow of water by storing water temporarily during periods of high input due to snow-melt and rainfall and 18Paul Shepard, The Subversive Science: Essays Toward fig Ecology 2; Man, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1969, p. . 19 20 discharging it during periods of low input. The effectiveness of individual wetlands in performing these functions depends on many characteristics including size, location, soil, vegetation, and relationship to the regional water table." To the owner of wetlands, they are often considered potential nui- sances at best and cause substantial increases in the economic use of the land at worst. Because it is difficult, if not impossible, to put a price tag on the values of wetlands, they usually appear as liabil- ities in economic analyses. Attempts to price non-market items tend to become complex and are often not reliable. Consequently, the eco- logical values of wetlands are often understated, or more often, not even considered. A monumental attempt is made by Jon H. Goldstein to_give a com- plete picture of the value of wetlands in Compgtition f9; Wetlands ip £22 Midwest: Ag Economic Analysis.20 The only social value of wet- lands considered by Goldstein in detail, however, is that of waterfowl habitat, and that eventually breaks down because the primary emphasis is on waterfowl as game and hence an economic commodity. Because of the difficulty of comparing ecological values with economic values, a misallocation of wetlands is likely. The value of reclaimed land is often overestimated in the planning stages. Areas of the Florida Everglades have been reclaimed and also 19Quote attributed to Dr. Christa Schwintzer in Northwest Mich— igan Planning and Development Commission internal memorandum to Bill G. Rowden, Executive Director, from Greg Piaskowski, dated November 30, 1973- 20Jon H. Goldstein, Compgtition for Wetlands ip the Midwest: An Economic Analysis, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971, 105 pages:— 2’] much of Lake Hornborgasjon in Sweden. Much of this reclamation has proven uneconomical, but the local ecology has been significantly al- tered and the delicate balance that existed before man's activities has been forever lost. 21 The productivity of wetlands is phenomenal. The production is not generally used directly by man, but is directly in the food chain of fish and game. The higher species of animals that inhabit wetlands include mink, muskrat, racoon, otter, pheasant, grouse, partridge, quail, waterfowl, rabbit, squirrel, woodcock, deer, beaver, fox, op— possum, and skunk. Wetlands are exceedingly important to the survival of migratory birds and harbor many organisms of scientific and aesthe- tic interest. Wetlands serve a vital function in the control of air and water pollution. Many marsh plants convert carbon monoxide which is the primary pollutant in automobile exhaust, into carbon dioxide, which in turn is converted to oxygen by other plants.22 Wetlands cycle nutrients. This process is powered by the sun. Substances washed in from the air or uplands are used by plants in the creation of living matter. This vegetation is eaten by animals.m Dead material decomposes and contin- ues the cycling process.23 Without wetlands, this process would take 21John B.'Elkington, "The Impact of Development Projects on Es- tuarine and ther Wetland Ecosystems", Environmental Conservation, Vol. Lt, NO. 2, Slimmer 1977, p0 1390 22San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, "Marshes and Mudflats of San Francisco Bay, 1966, p. 21. 23T.T. Macan, Ponds and Lakes, New York: Crane, Russak and Com- pany? Inc.’ 1973, p. 1L}. 22 place in the lakes. The first part of the cycle would result in the excessive growth of weeds, and the decomposition process would deplete the lake's oxygen supply which is vital to the survival of fish. Most water pollutants can be diaposed of through oxidation. With abundant light and water, wetlands produce algae which produce oxygen necessary to reduce pollutants. The loss of wetlands results in the loss of an important pollution filter. Wetlands have a tempering effect on climate. The wet areas remain at a more constant temperature than the surrounding land. This temp- erature difference is responsible for air movements. Also, the evap- oration of water on hot days has a cooling effect. The tempering effects of open water are well known, but these same effects are not often considered when viewing wetlands. As noted by Dr. Schwintzer, wetlands play an important role in flood control. They act something like a giant sponge, absorbing vast quantities of water during wet periods and slowly releasing it during dry Spells. Development in flood plains means heavy investment in flood control structures which may simply transfer the problem else- where. Wetlands also have educational values. They are biologically un- ique and diverse. There are plants and animals that are found only in this kind of environment. Wetlands are of educational value not only to biologists, but also to children, schools, and others who like to study and explore nature. Wetlands are also attractive to developers and, their economic value is often put foremost. It is a sad commentary, but develOpers 23 often sell their product (developed wetlands) at far above a fair price. If prospective purchasers were aware of the problems such as settling, frost action, decay due to moisture, and flooding, the selling price of wetlands might be more realistic. Often wetlands are filled in for no other purpose than aesthetics. The dense vegetation and inaccessibility appear as a forbidding unknown. In order to tame these wild areas, man procedes to destroy them.2h Those who are familiar with wetlands respect them for what they are. By developing wetlands, air pollution is intensified, water pol— lution remains unpurified by nature, climatic conditions deteriorate, and flood losses are increased. Goldstein compares replacing lost wet- lands with regrowing the redwoods after the forests have all been log- ged. "We now know that when wetlands are filled and covered with dwell- ings or concrete, not only is open space lost, but an entire eco- system is destroyed. A biologically rich and productive natural resource which sustained plant and animal life at the bottom of the food chain, as well as provided natural flood protection and and oxidation of wastes, is exchanged for a man-made creation which serves only its own ends." 21{An example of this with which the author is familiar involved a piece of prOperty in Potter Woods, near Lake Mitchell. The property was heavily wooded with fair sized hemlock, cedar, poplar, birch, tama- rack and white pine. There was also a heavy growth of underbrush. There was a six foot difference in elevation on the 80 by 100 foot par- cel and the high ground made it developable with strict limitations on placement of sanitary facilities. The property owner retired to this site from a downstate urban area. He insisted on converting the pro- perty to something he was more familiar with and proceeded to out every tree and fill the entire parcel to the level of the highest ground. 25Elain Moss, editor, Land Use Controls in the United States, A Handbook 23 the Legal Rights 2: Citizens, New York: The Dial Press James Wade, 1977, p. 2. 21+ Lake Mitchell Wetlands "Discover your local wetland!" This may sound like the world's least inviting travel poster, but where else can one find so many exo- tic and colorful flowers and birds? These are called wastelands by those too impatient to notice their quiet beauty. The remainder of this chapter is a description of the Lake Mitchell wetlands. This des- cription begins with several pages of photographs showing the wetlands in the spring of the year. This is followed by a description of a study undertaken by the author in May 1978 in order to quantify land within the watershed according to broad soil classification, location by town- ship, location within the watershed, and property ownership. The chap— ter concludes with a description of a survey undertaken by the author in July 1978 in order to take a look at plant and animal life within the wetlands and to get a general idea of water quality. This chapter is primarily a narrative description of the present conditions in the Lake Mitchell wetlands. The information provided here could perhaps be used sometime in the future for comparison purposes. Photographs The series of photographs on the following pages were taken on April 22, 1978. These pictures were taken during the spring thaw and some lingering snow can be seen in photos number 19 and 22. The year 1977 was a drought year in the area and in spite of the blizzard of '78, the total snowfall for the winter was not abnormally high and the spring 25 thaw was very slow. The result is that these photographs do not show flood conditions, but rather show conditions during a relatively dry spring. Photograph #1 — Along west side of M-115, north of Black River, facing towardsLake Mitchell. 26 Photograph #2 - Along west side of M-115, south of Black River, facing west towards Lake Mitchell. Photograph #3 - East side of M—115, north of intersection with North Lake Mitchell Drive, facing east from highway. Area was filled in 1972. 27 Photograph #4 - North side of Loughrin Road, facing southwest towards Lake Mitchell. This area is also shown in photographs #25 and #26. The problem with the fill is described in the text on page‘mi Photograph #5 - Along North Lake Mitchell Drive, north of Black River, facing east, away from Lake Mitchell. 28 , I , '3 ' , K ‘ ‘ ,3 .L ,, . - » : ' q l ‘ L 7) . _ -..’ k, .r . ,\_._ / V ' Photograph #6 - Along North Lake Mitchell Drive, south of Black River, facing east, away from Lake Mitchell.. war-v - . . '—~‘;&+§“_ ‘ - Irv“ “WM-w». ‘e 3‘ - _ . \- g Photograph #7 - Along North Lake Mitchell Drive, south of West Division, facing east, away from Lake Mitchell. Prospective purchasers of this parcel have been informed by the District Health Department that an ap- plication for on-site sewage disposal would be denied. t" .\ “v it? it’ll- ‘ “A" w 2 !. Photograph #8 - Along North Lake Mitchell Drive between Fern and Ar- butus Avenues, facing west. Photo shows "frost heave", an indication of water table near the ground surface. 73% Photograph #9 - North side of North Lake Mitchell Drive in block 3 of the Plat of Flowing Wells Park, looking southeast. A driveway has been filled in, but no permits have been issued for construction. gm. 1 , “.7 .., --__/‘_. 7. V. V Photograph #10 - Lots 3 and 1+ of block 1+ of the Plat of Flowing Wells Park, looking north. A permit for construction of an on-site sewage disposal system was denied by the District Health Department in 1977. Photograph # 11 - Potter Woods, facing south from Teal Court. The typical lot in this subdivision is 40' x 80'. 31 ' ,/',/ 4 ' , ’J 0 ‘ 1‘ Photograph #13 - Lot #19 of the Plat of Potter Woods, looking northeast. A permit for construction of an on-site sewage disposal system at this location was denied by the District Health Department in 1973. I ”fig; ,7 , 7 Photograph #11} - East side of North Lake Mitchell Drive across from Potter Woods, facing east. Mrs. Potter owns 240 acres of undeveloped property at this location, over 90% of which is wetlands. Photograph #15 - This is a short distance south of the mevicus photo- graph. 33 ‘.-. $.31! “I“ imam!) W Photograph #16 - This is still part1 of Mrs. Potter' 5 property, but fur- ther south than the first two pictures. q‘Lm-Afll wir’fimflfl. m A" _"".a.!-:' .> ‘ 'a .‘h' v .. Photograph #17 - Area east of Brandy Brook facing east along the shore- line of Lake Mitchell. This area was filled approximately 10 years ago. The developer has been anxious to proceed with his development. Photograph #18 - View immediately north of the area shown in photograph #17. Photograph #19 - Property in northwest corner of section 3 of Cherry Grove Township, facing southwest from North Lake Mitchell Drive. This property is not immediatly adjacent to the sewer project, but is part of a large parcel. a1 Forest property along Lake Mitchell tee Nation 18 c Man Photograph #20 - Drive, south of Wheeler Creek. in northeast corner of NWV: of section 11 of facing west from #SBJé Road. 1P9 Property Photograph #21 - Cherry Grove Townsh 36 Photograph #22 - In area of lot 1+8 of Lake Mitchell Shores, facing southeast. 37 Soils and Property Ownership The first step of this portion of the study was to obtain copies of detailed soils maps. The Soil Conservation service is in the pro- cess of mapping Wexford County and maps covering nearly all of the watershed were available for limited distribution. One key map was not completed, but work on the area within the watershed was finished. On this map it was necessary to borrow the soil scientist's field map and trace the information onto another sheet of paper using a light table. Work has not yet begun on mapping the soils in the far north- western corner of the watershed. In this area a simple distinction was made of surface water, wetlands, and uplands by viewing aerial photographs through a Stereoscope. Because this area constitutes a very small portion of the watershed and is mostly uplands, it is not felt that accuracy suffered appreciably despite the lack of detailed soils maps. The general outline of the watershed as shown on page five in chap- ter one was obtained from a publication by William M. Marsh and Thomas —————-————————-—.— —— This general outline was then compared with United States Geological Survey Maps of the area. There were several problems encountered in delineating the watershed: 1. On the west, north, and east the watershed is surrounded by high terminal moraines. These hills are extremely sandy and gravelly and no definite pattern of surface drainage has developed. Between the moraines and the watershed are outwash plains. The boundary of the 44.4.1 38 watershed falls somewhere on these outwash plains, but without exten— sive research it is not possible to say at what point the divide falls between surface runoff and ground water recharge. As there are no wetlands involved in these areas, the problem is not significant. 2. To the south, surface drainage is to the Pine - Manistee River watershed. During the glacial melt period, the drainage from the Lakes Cadillac - Mitchell watershed was in this direction. There are still wet areas that could be connected to either watershed and some old timers say the water flows in different directions under dif- ferent conditions. In this area, natural and artificial barriers to the flow of water were considered; that is, where wetlands narrowed or where it was felt that highway M—55 would have an effect on the flow of water. 3. There are two small lakes in the northern part of the water— shed, Woodward Lake and Pleasant Lake. There is no surface connection from Woodward Lake to the rest of the watershed, although it is evident that during the period of glacial melt, this lake was part of the sur— face water drainage system, and it is evident that it is still connect- ed through subsurface drainage. It could be argued that this lake is not truly part of the watershed, but it was included because of the sub- surface drainage and because Borton and Marsh included it. Pleasant Lake Greates a special problem in delineating the water- shed. The natural drainage is to the south toward Lake Mitchell, and the situation is similar to that of Woodward Lake. However, an arti- ficial drain has been constructed which drains the wetlands on the east side of the lake directly to the Clam River. It is difficult to say where the influence of this drain ends. Also, there is an engineering plan under consideration which would provide for regulation of the lake level. This plan provides for the excess water to be diverted to the artificial drain. For these reasons, Pleasant Lake was considered both as a separate watershed and as part of Lakes Cadillac and Mitchell water- shed.Lakes Cadillac and Mitchell were also considered a part. After the delineation of the watershed had been transfered to the soils maps, the wetlands were colored in. A distinction was made be- tween those soils classed by the Soil Conservation Service as poorly drained and those classed as somewhat poorly drained. Both of these classes are considered wetlands, the distinction being that the some- what poorly drained soils do not generally flood, but the water table is only a foot or two below the ground surface. This type of soil is pictured in photograph #8 on page 29. The other photographs show poorly drained soils. The somewhat poorly drained soils include Kawkawlin, AuGres, and Iosco. The poorly drained soils include Roscommon, Tawas, Loxley and Lupton. The limitations for sanitary facilities and for community develOpment for all these soils are severe because of wetness, high water table, and flooding. Once the soils within the watershed had been classed as surface water, poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained or uplands, the property ownership was mapped on PVC overlays. Ownership was determined through township plat maps, the official map of the City of Cadillac, and re- cords at the Wexford County Courthouse. Ownership was classed as pri- vate, Manistee National Forest, State of Michigan and local municipal- ities. The State of Michigan property includes a pike marsh, the Wil- liam Mitchell State Park and 400 acres in the midst of the Manistee 40 National Forest. The property owned by local governments includes a summer camp operated by the schools, parks, cemetary, school sites and an abandoned dump. In the next step of the study the colored soils map, the PVC over— lay and a grid of dots were placed on a light table. The dots were then counted to determine the relative portion of land in the water- shed, surface waters, poorly drained soils and somewhat poorly drained soils. Each of these classes was counted separately for each class of property ownership. The four lakes in the watershed were classed as public surface waters and the remaining ponds were classed as being held by the owner of the adjacent property. When a soils map included portions of more than one geographic township (the City of Cadillac was not calculated separately) or more than one subdivision of the watershed (Pleasant Lake, Lake Mitchell, Lake Cadillac), the data cal- culated separately for each township or division of the watershed. The data collected are tabulated on pages #1 and 42. A great deal of data was obtained in this portion of the study which provides much valuable information. Some of the key figures in- clude area of the watershed (36,193 acres or 56.5 square miles), area of Lake Mitchell (2,658 acres) and area of Lake Cadillac (1,177 acres). The major purpose was to obtain information of the wetlands. The fol— lowing results were obtained: % of total wetlands Total area of wetlands - 9900 acres 100% Poorly drained - 8278 acres Somewhat poorly drained - 1622 acres Area of wetlands flowing to Lake Mitchell (Including Pleasant Lake) - 7556 acres 76% Poorly drained - 6586 acres Somewhat poorly drained - 970 acres 41 ENTIRE WATERSHED PRIVATE PROPERTY 83535.8 85883 SESEEE 35339.15 EESSESEEEEEEAE PLEASANT LAKE SUBDIVISION OF WATERSHED ONLY ACRES 2228'7 129] 356[ 75] 128| 1752] 289] 25| 2| % OF CATEGORY 6.2%] 3.1%| 4.3% 4.6%| 3.2%] 8.0%[ 5.7% 2.2% 2.3%! LAKE MITCHELL SUBDIVISION OF WATERSHED ONLY ACRES 23965 2772 6230 895 2731 11929 2710 479 20 % OF CATEGORY 66.2% 66.9% 75.3% 55.2% 67.6% 54.6% 53.3% 42.0% 27 6% LAKE CADILLAC SUBDIVISION OF WATERSHED ONLY ACRES 10000 1241 1692 652 1180 8182 1500 636 50 % OF CATEGORY 27.6% 30.0% 20.4% 40.2% 29.2% 37.4% 29.5% 55.8% 70.4% SELMA TOWNSHIP ONLY ACRES 18447 1107 3898 962 1056 10014 1824 576 30 % OF CATEGORY 51.0% 26.7% 47.1% 59.3% 26.2% 45.8% 35.9% 50.5% 41.6% HARING TOWNSHIP ONLY ACRES 2838 27 543 227 - 2726 543 227 27 % OF CATEGORY 7.8% 0.6% 6.6% 14 0% — 12.5% 10.7% 19.9% 37 7% CHERRY GROVE TOWNSHIP ONLY ACRES 9050 1800 3330 151 1795 4957 1806 72 5 % OF CATEGORY 25.0% 43.5% 40.2% 9.3% 44.5% 22.7% 35.5% 6.3% 6.8% CLAM LAKE TOWNSHIP ONLY ACRES 5858 1208 508 282 1187 4166 328 266 10 % OF CATEGORY 16.2% 29.2% 6.1% 17.4% 29.4% 19.1% 6.4% 23.3% 14.1% TOTALS TOTAL ACRES 36193 4142 8278 1622 4038 21862 4500 1140 71 % OF WATERSHED 100% 11.4% 22.9% 4.5% 11.2% 60.4% 12.4% 3.2% 0.2% % OF LAND AREA — — 25.8% 5.1% — 68.2% 14.0% 3.6% 0.2% % OF CATEGORY 100% 100% 100% 100% 97.5% 60.4% 54.4% 70.3% 1.7% .g-w Table l - Soil Classifications and Ownership of Lakes Cadillac and Mitchell Watershed 42 MANISTEE STATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT NATIONAL FOREST OWNED PROPERTY OWNED PROPERTY >4 >4 >4 e E... A e a... A e a... A Z 014 Lil Z O14 [II-l Z 014 Lil H OH H H OH H H OH E“l a E :8 g a 2 :8 g E E :8 g 3 A E 8 5 4 pa 8 5 4 ES 8 14 14!!) Z <1 14 1403 Z <1 i 14:!) Z <1 <3 {Z114 H 1174 < M14 EH 13-1 M14 EH #1 8 88 68 e 8 88 68 e 8 88 68 e H 04V) (DO U) H Q40) (AD (I: H 134:!) (DD (0 L349l67lsol— —l-|-| -l I l I3.8%I2.0%I11.9% — I — I - I I — I — I 8750 2301 380 21 400 238 16 - 154 23 20 - 95.9% 68.9% 90.0% 100% 61.7% 60.9% 53.3% - 29.4% 45.6% 92.7% - 21 12 - - 248 153 14 10 370 27 2 2 0.2% 0.3% - - 38.3% 39.2% 48.0% 100% 70.5% 53.6% 7.3% 100% 7305 2058 366 21 ~ — — 72 16 20 — 80.1% 61.6% 85.0% 100% - - - 13.7% 32.8% 92.7% - - — — - - - - 112 - — - — - - — — — - 21.5% - - — 1815 1280 64 — 400 238 16 - 82 6 — - 19.9% 38.3% 15.0% - 61.7% 60.9% 52.6% - 15.6% 12.8% - — — — - - 248 153 14 10 257 27 2 2 - — - - 38.3% 39.2% 47.4% 100% 49.1% 53.6% 7.3% 100% 9120 3338 430 21 648 391 30 10 524 50 22 2 25.2% 9.2% 1.2% 0.06% 1.8% 1.1% 0.08% 0.03% 1.4% 0.14% 0.06% - 28.5% 10.4% 1.3% 0.07% 2.0% 1.2% 0.09% 0.03% 1.6% 0.16% 0.07% - 25.2% 40.3% 26.5% 0.5% 1.8% 4.7% 1.9% 0.23% 1.4% 0.6% 1.4% 0.04% ‘_ , . 43 Area of wetlands flowing to Pleasant Lake - 431 acres 4% Poorly drained - 356 acres Somewhat poorly drained - 75 acres Area of wetlands flowing to Lake Cadillac — 2344 acres 24% Poorly drained - 1692 acres Somewhat poorly drained - 652 acres Area of wetlands in Selma Township - 4860 acres 49% Poorly drained - 3898 acres Somewhat poorly drained - 962 acres Area of wetlands in Haring Township - 770 acres 8% Poorly drained - 543 acres Somewhat poorly drained - 227 acres Area of wetlands in Cherry Grove Township - 3481 acres 35% Poorly drained - 3330 acres Somewhat poorly drained - 151 acres Area of wetlands in Clam Lake Township - 784 acres 8% Poorly drained - 508 acres Somewhat poorly drained - 282 acres Area of privately owned wetlands - 5640 acres 57% Poorly drained - 4500 acres Somewhat poorly drained - 1140 acres Area of wetlands in Manistee National Forest 3768 acres 38% Poorly drained - 3338 acres Somewhat poorly drained - 430 acres Area of state owned wetlands - 421 acres 4% Poorly drained - 391 acres Somewhat poorly drained - 30 acres Area of local government owned wetlands — 72 acres 1% Poorly drained - 50 acres Somewhat poorly drained - 22 acres The information has been broken down even further. For example, there are 1824 acres of privately owned poorly drained soils within the watershed located in Selma Township. This is 35.9% of the private- ly owned poorly drained soils in the watershed. Another 35.5% of this category is located in Cherry Grove Township. The purpose of this dis- cussion is to show that effective protection could be given to over 70% 111, of this most critical area by implementation Of regulations by just two townships or through the Wexford County Zoning Ordinance. The above example is just one possible use of this information. It could also be used to show what impact policies of the National Forest would have on the lakes, what impact regulations by one, two or three townships would have on Lake Mitchell only, or what impact strong protections on government owned property and no protection of privately owned wetlands would have. The purpose of this portion of the study was not to provide ans- wers to the above questions, but rather to provide background infor- mation for the rest of this study and for future studies. The data should prove to be very valuable in the Wexford County planning pro- 6956. Survey of Lake Mitchell Wetlands 0n the weekend of July 7 to July 10, 1978, a survey of the Lake Mitchell wetlands was made with field identification books and camera in hand. Water samples were also collected from a dozen locations. The survey began at the William Mitchell State Park and continued counterclockwise around Lake Mitchell following Lake Mitchell Drive. On the following pages, the locations from which water samples were taken are described in detail. Photographs were taken to show some of the common plant life found in the Lake Mitchell wetlands. These photographs are interspersed with the water sample site descrip- tions and many of them coincide. The map of page 45 shows the location —_—~- ISL AND ' LAKE WH/TLOCK MISSAUKEE JUNCT l7 ............ ............ ........... .......... -_-_-—- ...... ......... ......................... ................. ................... .............. ..................... ............ LAKE l MITCHELL ...... ...... ....... ....... ........ ........ ----------- Huh-0"-.- ----- ......... ......... l4 BENSON R, Fwfiif C 23 IS I; I, \ F? (D //\l E: _—_/r——\II ‘ I 1,1 fig HOBART (‘1 ($54 33 3| I l 1 ‘z’ . ' .— R —— —...'- 27 no. 29 Rd. 31 Rd. 33 Rd. 35 Rd. 37 Rd. 39 Rd. 41 Rd_ 43 Rd. 45 Rd. 47 Rd. Figure 4 - Map showing locations of survey sampling sites, with reference to photographs in text 46 of the sampling sites and gives the photograph number if a picture of the site is included. Site #1 - This sample was taken from the canal between Lakes Cad- illac and Mitchell, on the south side, a few feet from the Lake Mitchell shore. This location is within the William Mitchell State Park; high- way M~115 crosses the canal 150 feet to the east; and a summer cottage is located on the north side of the canal. The water was 70°F., 18 inches deep, and had a slight flow toward Lake Cadillac. The canal has, for all practical purposes, replaced the natural drainage channel between the lakes. The water at this location should be typical of Lake Mitchell and suitable for total body contact. Photograph #23 - View across road from 509 North Lake Mitchell Drive, facing east. This photo shows weeping willow and elderberry bushes. The for sale sign is an indication of what may become of much of the wetlands in the area. 47 Site #2 - This sample was collected from the area between M4115, North Lake Mitchell Drive, Loughrin Road, and the Black Creek. The location is approximately 650 feet east southeast Of 509 North Lake Mitchell Drive and is shown in photograph #24. The water was 739F., eight inches deep, and was brown in color. There was no observable flow, but in all probability, it is laminar toward the Black Creek, which is the natural channel between Lakes Cadillac and Mitchell. The surrounding vegetation was marsh grasses, and the water was relatively clear of suspended matter. Photograph #24 - Facing east in area approximately 650 feet south southeast of photo #23. Picture shows marsh grasses and cattails. 48 Other plants identified in the area of photograph numbers 23 and 24 included several varieties of bullrushes, dead elm trees, blue flags, and bittersweet nightshade. Site #3 - Approximately 150 feet north of Loughrin Road, between M—115 and North Lake Mitchell Drive. The site is near the camera lo- cation of photos 25 and 26. The sample was collected from a small pool of water, approximately four feet by six feet and six inches deep. The water temperature was 849F., and a fair amount of suspended matter was collected with the sample. Photograph #25 — Facing south toward Loughrin Road between M-115 and North Lake Mitchell Drive. Spoil from the sewer project was being used to fill this area. The County Zoning Administrator sought court action to stop it. 49 Photograph #26 - Taken 150 feet north of Loughrin Road, facing North, in the area of photo #25. This view shows the fragile ecology being disturbed by the fill. Note the graceful hemlocks. Many varieties of sedges are also found in this area. Site #4 - Gytcha Creek on north side of north Lake Mitchell Drive. This site is shown in photo #27. Gythcha Creek runs from a small pri— vate lake to Lake Mitchell. The watershed is several hundred acres, a high percentage of which is wetlands. There is a handful of hunting and fishing cabins within the watershed, but it is basically undevelop— ed and over half of it is under the control of the Manistee National Forest. At the time the sample was taken, the water was 74°F., six inches deep, clear, and had a very slight flow. On August 26, 1970, the flow in this creek was measured at 0.20 cubic feet per second.‘26 The area near sample site #4, shown in photograph numbers 27 and 28 is a gold mine (or crimson, or multi-colored mine) for the natural- ist. Cardinal flowers, pickerel weed, joe pye weed, square stem 6 2 Department of Natural Resources internal memorandum to George Liddle from Leon Cook, dated December 1, 1970. 50 monkey flower, spotted touch-me-not, and many varieties of ferns are just a few of the diverse and calorful plants found at this location. Photograph #27 - Gytcha Creek, facing north from North Lake Mitchell Drive. Site #5 - Drain on north side of North Lake Mitchell'Drive, across from township park, and in front of lots three and four of Block four of the Plat of Flowing Wells Park. This artificial drain has been dug in the natural drainage way and drains approximately fifty acres of wetlands. At the time the sample was taken, the water was 72°F., eight inches deep, had a very slight flow, and a light brown color. Site #6 - South of Maple Court on lot #157 of the Plat of Potter Woods, No. 2. Thirty-five acres of land in this area have been sub- divided into 233 lots with a typical size of 40 by 80 feet. Approxi- mately sixty-five year round and seasonal homes have been built on 51 these lots. The natural drainage has been obstructed by numerous fills, leaving stagnant water in many areas. The water was 68°F., six inches deep, had no flow and was light brown in color. This sample is thought to be the most likely of the dozen taken to show evidence of contamina- tion. Photograph #28 - Looking north toward Gytcha Lake, near outlet. 52 I v ' l I" [In w; r," ‘ “ / my 1/ ., " /‘ “5:71 /] . V13} Photograph #29 - Facing northwest from approximately #00 feet'west of North Lake Mitchell Drive at Elm Court. Photograph #30 - Facing southwest from same vantage point as photo #29. A tamarack can be seen in the distance. 53 Site #7 - Across North Lake Mitchell Drive from Elm Court in Potter Woods. The area of this sample is shown in photo #30. With- out the fills, this area would naturally drain through the area des- cribed under site #6. The water was 74QF., six inches deep, had no flow and was brown in color. Photographs 29 and 30 show acres upon acres of cattails. This property is part of a 275 acre parcel. Thirty-five acres of this property, near the lake, have been subdivided. The United States For- est Service is negotiating purchase of the remaining 2#O acres. Site #8 ~ Brandy Brook on south side of North Lake Mitchell Drive. This stream is the second major tributary to Lake Mitchell and drains over 2000 acres. The watershed is undeveloped and nearly entirely Iunder the control of the Manistee National Forest. At the time the sample was taken, the water was 67°F., two feet deep, had a slight flow, and was a very light brown color. Site #9 - From canal in Hideaway Subdivision, in front of lot #79. This canal was dug by a developer in order to extend his number of water front lots. There is no flow in the canal. Most of the homes were built when sanitary standards were minimal, and the typical septic system in only twenty—five feet from the water's edge. The small amount of wetlands adjacent to the canal was filled with spoil from the digging of the canal. This sample should give an indication of the present impact of on-site sewage disposal on the lake. At the time the sample was taken, the water was 65°F., clear, and approxi- mately two feet deep. Site #10 - This sample was taken from a culvert on the south side 5% of North Lake Mitchell Drive, in the northwest corner of Boulevard Beach Subdivision #6. This culvert is the terminus of a small water- shed, less than 100 acres in size. Approximately one half of this watershed is wetlands, and it is entirely undeveloped and under public ownership. The area of the sample is shown in photos number 31, 32, and 33. Boulevard Subdivision;#6 is a 35.5 acre parcel which was split into 480 lets in 1919. The typical lot is 25 by 100 feet, or less. There are six similar subdivisions in the area. Fortunately, most of the land is under the control of the public schools as part of a children's camp. Three hundred eighteen lots, or nearly 73% of Bou— levard Beach #6, however, is under the ownership of one individual. Most of these 318 lots are under water much of the year, but the sewer will be less than one quarter mile away and could provide impetus for development. This sample was by far the worst appearing of the dozen taken. It was very dark, and its color appeared to be due to an iron bacteria or fungus rather than tannates. The water was 62°F., eight inches deep, and had a slight flow. Photographs number 31, 32 and 33 were taken approximately 150 feet south of North Lake Mitchell Drive in the northwest corner of Boulevard Beach Subdivision #6. Photo 31 is facing southwest, 32 south, and 33 southeast. The hemlock and northern white cedar trees in this area are typical of swamp vegetation. Bullrushes and ferns are also plenti- ful. 55 Photograph #31 t nephew, t ins Photograph 3452 ‘1’ ,. .7, .- i . ‘1 o , 19Af Photograph #53 Site #11 - This sample was taken from Mitchell Creek on the South side of North Lake Mitchell Drive. Mitchell Creek is the major tri- butary of the lake and drains approximately one third of the Lake Mite chell watershed. Most of this land is undeveloped and part of the National Forest, although there are some farms on the upper reaches of the watershed. A major portion of the watershed is wetlands. The sewer will not have an impact on this portion of the watershed. At the time the sample was taken, the water was 7#°F., two feet deep, clear and had a slight flow. On August 26, 1970, the flow in this creek was measured at 1.75 cubic feet per second.27 Site #12 - This sample was taken from an artificial drain across Birch Drive from lot #1 of Lake Mitchell Shores Subdivision. This 27Ibid. 57 drain connects a 100 acre area of wetlands to Lake Mitchell. There is also natural drainage and other artificial drainage; so the influence of this drain is not known. The wetlands are surrounded by a handful of homes, although most of the development is on the lakeshore. At the time the sample was taken, the drain was choked with duckweed. Other plants found in the area of the last two photographs in— cluded pussywillow, columbine, and tall meadow rue. The results of the water quality survey are explained and analyz— ed in Chapter IV. Photographfiéh - Close up of elderberry blossoms, taken near North Lake Mitchell Drive and Mitchell Creek. n m 58 Photograph #35 - Tamarack, east of North Lake Mitchell Drive and south of Mitchell Creek. Wildlife of Lake Mitchell Wetlands Over forty percent of the land area in the Lake Mitchell water- shed is under the control of the Manistee National Forest. On June 30, 1978, this student met with George M. Irvine, Wildlife Biologist with the Huron - Manistee National Forests. Mr. Irvine explained that information on the Lake Mitchell wetlands is very limited, but that an inventory of wetlands in the Manistee National Forest is currently 59 underway. Unfortunately, the inventory has just been started, and there are areas in the forest where oil drilling is proposed and are considered more critical than Lake Mitchell. Mr. Irvine said that to his knowledge there are no plants or an- imals living in the Lake Mitchell wetlands which are on the endangered species list. If the inventory noted in the preceding paragraph were to identify an endangered species, action could be initiated to stop development by any individual under Act 127, P.A. of 1970, Michigan's Environmental Protection Act. Act 127 is discussed further on page 102, in Chapter VII. The wetlands are a major deer wintering area and an important stopping point for migrating birds. Mr. Irvine pointed out that in the late Summer, migrating birds, primarily ducks, including mallards, wood ducks, canvas backs, and ringnecks, can be seen flying back and forth between the Lake Mitchell area and the Olga Lake area to the southwest, strengthening their wings for the long flight south. Al— though there are none nesting in the area, bald eagles can occasional- ly be seen feeding. This student was very fortunate in seeing a sand hill crane near Brandy Brook in September 1975. The crane is not a regular resident of the area and was probably preparing for migration. In addition to the birds noted above, there are numerous varieties of song birds which spend the summers in the Lake Mitchell wetlands. Ruf- fed Grouse are virtually the only non—migratory birds which can be found in the wetlands. In addition to deer, racoons are plentiful and might even be con- sidered over abundent. Also, squirrel, including red, gray, and black, 6O woodchucks, mink, muskrat, snowshoe hare, beaver, fox, and oppossum are common in the Lake Mitchell wetlands. With the absense of any endangered plant or animal life, the Lake Mitchell wetlands may not appear to be unique. However, all wetlands play a vital role in the balance of the ecosystem, and their numbers are dwindling fast. Loss of wetlands in the Lake Mitchell area may not be significant to the state or country as a whole, but the local area would certainly suffer. "If area were the only consideration, the aggregate of wetlands would make them insignificant against the vast expanse of other types of open landscape - prairie, steppe, scrub, and desert. But they have been an integral, functional element in the total environment. And t g burden of proof lies upon those who regard them as worthless.” 28Paul B. Sears, Lands Beyond the Forest, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1969, p. 125. 61 CHAPTER IV RESUDTS OF WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS On the afternoon of July 10, 1978, water samples were collected from a dozen locations in and near Lake Mitchell, as described in Chapter III. This survey was undertaken with the cooperation of Dis- trict Health Department #1 and the Michigan Department of Public Health. Two samples were collected at each location, using containers supplied by the health department. The first sample, taken in a sterile con- tainer, was to be analyzed for total coliform, fecal coliform, and fecal streptococcus bacteria. The second sample was to provide chem- ical analysis of the water, including nitratenitrogen, orthophosphate, chlorides, pH, specific conductance, and dissolved solids. The sam- ples were taken and transported to the lab in accordance with recom- mendations of the Michigan Department of Public Health, and all tests were conducted in their water laboratory. The purpose of this brief survey was to obtain background infor- mation on the present water quality, to gain an indication of the im- pact of on-site sewage disposal on the water quality, and to provide data for future comparisons. As will be shown in Chapter VI, pressures for development in the Lake Mitchell wetlands can be expected to in- crease significantly as a result of the sewer project. If this devel- opment is allowed without controls, it is the opinion of the author m. "a 62 that the negative secondary impacts of the sewer project would have a greater effect on water quality than the desired primary benefit of eliminating on-site sewage disposal. The net result would be a deter- ioration of water quality. Comparisons in the future could prove this opinion to be right, or could show that the combination of controls discussed in Chapter VII and the elimination of on-site sewage dis- posal will have resulted in an improvement in water quality. The weather on the afternoon of July 10 was cool and mostly sunny. The air temperature was in the low 60's and cummulus clouds covered approximately 30% of the sky. There was a gentle breeze, ap- proximately five to ten miles per hour, out of the northwest. The weather had been moderately dry since the spring run off, although there had been 0.21 inch of rain the previous night. The dry weather made sampling somewhat difficult, as the water table in most areas was not much above the ground surface. Generally, sites were found where the water was six inches to one foot deep, or samples were taken from ditches, drains, or creeks which channel large areas of the wetlands. Analysis of Bacteriologial Results The results of the bacteriological analysis done by the Bureau of Laboratories, Michigan Department of Public Health, are tabulated on page 63. It should be noted that just one sample from each location does not provide reliable results, but does give an indication of what the water quality is. A brief explanation of the significance of the bacterial tests <33 cm.0 «.0 0m 0m ccc.a uaam azonm .ua .moms assoc NH N.a me.c ccm 0mm 000.H “Ham sumac .aoqa sumac an n.0n 0.0 0s 0N 0mm “Ham steam .xc .momc cum>acc 0H 0.0H 0.0 cm 00 00¢ camm ummac .aomc Hmamc 0 . n . .QBOHm . HQ c.m~ m N 0mm 000 H 00H m “Ham sum .aosc sumac c > mc.n H.H 000 000 000.0N son: eaoum .moea csmam a me.0 amc.0 caN 0H ccm.N has: stone .nn .aocc macaw 0 mm.~ mc.n cam one ccc.en has: aeonm .on .aoma camuc m sm.n ac.a ca can 000.cn scam sumac .moca nemec e me.c H 0H 0H ccm.~ has: mecca .aosc camem m HH.0 Hc00.0 ccc.nc 0c 000.000 has: asoum .aoms seems N m.H 0 0H 00 ccc.q scam ummac .mocs Hmamc H zmcaanc mcccccca macaw mm\cm -mmmam zmcaHacc zmcaanc .mZma chamHMcmmc ezmcmmc cases macaw macaw abe expected is known, other sec- ondary impacts such as the effects on lake water quality and the need for roads, schools, and health care facilities can be estimated. By knowing or accurately estimating these secondary impacts, future de- veIOpment in the watershed can be intelligently planned for. The research hypothesis of this study is that completion of the \g' sewer project will significantly increase pressure for development of wetlands in the area. Determination of this was made through the following steps: 1. Determination of vacant privately owned wetlands adjacent to the sewer project. 2. Survey of the property owners found in step one. 3. A comparison of the results of the survey with past records. Prior to undertaking the study, a comparison of the undevelOped high land with the excess capacity of the sewer was intended. Corre- spondence to the author dated January 30, 1978 from Frank E. Remsburg 7b. 75 of Snell Environmental Group, designers of the sewer, states: "As per EPA regulations for federal financial assistance, sanitary sewers can only be designed to serve existing developments in the project area." However, Mr. Remsburg goes on to say that the system is designed on the basis of "expected future peak flow of four (4) times the present day estimated average flow." Mr. Remsburg also stated that the pres- sure-gravity design of the system ”effectively levels off peak flow rates." It seems that in spite of the claim of no excess capacity, the actual excess capacity will be at least three times the present need. It appears that the capacity of the sewer will be sufficient to serve all the adjacent land, both high and low, and platted and unplatted. For this reason, it was felt that a comparison of the ex- cess sewer capacity with the land most suitable for development would not be meaningful. The first step, determination of vacant privately owned wetlands adjacent to the sewer project, was the most time consuming. Before this could be determined, precise definitions were necessary. Webster's defines wetland as "land containing much soil moisture.”l+2 Wetlands include bogs — "wet spongy ground; esp: a poorly drained usually acid area rich in plant residues, frequently surrounding a body of open water, and having a characteristic flora";l+3 marshes - m, "tract of soft wet land usually characterized by grasses or cattails"; and swamps - "wet spongy ground saturated and sometimes partially or w Massachusetts: G.&C. Merriam—Co., 19 7. p. 1013. 43 a g x ' Jebster's Seventh New Colle iate Dictionar , Springfield, Ibid., p. 94. #qlbid., p. 518. 76 45 intermittently covered with water”. Wetlands covers a wide number and variety of lands. A practical definition would include "lowlands covered with shallow and sometimes temporary or intermittent waters".l+6 This study used a pragmatic approach to the definition of wetlands. Soils mapping in the area adjacent to the sewer project has been com- pleted by the Soil Conservation Service. For the purposes of this study, wetlands were defined as being those lands classified by SCS as ”poorly drained" or "somewhat poorly drained". Both these class- ifications have "severe limitations for community development" be— cause of wetness and/or flooding. A parcel was classified as wetlands if a majority of it fit this definition. Definition of "adjacent to the sewer project? - Parcels of land were considered as being adjacent to the sewer project if the parcel will actually be served by the sewer. Figure 5 on page 77 shows the area to be served by the sewer project. Parcels greater than one acre and less than 20 rods (330 feet) from the sewer, and parcels greater than ten acres and less than one quarter mile from the sewer as the crow flies, were also considered as being adjacent to the sewer pro- ject. Contiguous parcels under the same ownership were treated as a single parcel. A concise definition of ”vacant" proved to be the most difficult. In the end, conciseness was forced to give way to common sense. As 451bid., p. 888. éDenis Binder, "Taking Versus Reasonable Regulations: A reappra- isal in Light of Regional Planning and Wetlands", universigngf Florida Law Review, Volume XXV, No. 1, Fall 1972, p. 18.. .. ”aw-.0 «L— x 77 . LAKE MITCHELL, DIVISION 8 Figure DIVISION C H In 5 - Map showing area to be served by sewer project 78 noted in the preceeding paragraph, all adjacent parcels under the same ownership were considered as single parcels. Any parcel with no structure which was or could be used as a residence or business was considered vacant. The problem came with parcels which were large enough to accomodate additional development and meet all zoning re- strictions on size, setbacks, etc. In general, these parcels were also considered "vacant". However, large parcels on which the land- scaping, placement of buildings, etc., made it apparent that no fur- ther development was intended were not included. For example, a par- cel made up of eight lots, one lake front with 40 feet of frontage and seven back lots, with a total area of less than 27,000 square feet, and with a cottage on the lake front lot was included. A parcel made up of three lots with over 300 feet of lake frontage and nearly 40,000 square feet was not included because the landscaping and fencing made it apparent that the owner had no intention of further development. Determination of "vacant privately owned wetlands adjacent to the sewer project" was made by superimposing soil maps, plat maps, and engineering plans for the sewer project. The results of this process were then compared with records in the Wexford County Equalization Office to determine vacant parcels and to obtain the names and address- es of property owners. Step two of the study involved a survey of all owners of vacant privately owned wetlands adjacent to the sewer project determined in step one. If the same individual owned more than one parcel, his name is included only once. One hundred seventy nine property owners were Surveyed. This included all owners of vacant privately owned wetlands 79 adjacent to the sewer project, thus eliminating any possible sampling error. As a large proportion of the prOperty owners are from out of town, this survey was done by mail . The relative location of property owners is shown in the figure on page 80. In order to assure maximum response, the number of questions was kept to a minimum, and respondents were given a stamped self addressed envelope for reply. The cover let- ter and questionnaire are shown on pages 81 and 82 respectively. The addressograph machine in the Equalization Department was used to add- ress the cover letters, and they were placed in windowed envelopes. The response1x>the first half of the Questionnaire can be inter- preted as "Do you intend to develop your property?" and "If so, when?". The results of this survey were analyzed in terms of single family unit equivalents. As the concern of this study is with area of wetlands and not number of people, gallons of wastewater, or other factors which are frequently converted to family unit equivalents, for the purpose of this study, a single family unit equivalent was defined in terms of area. Although the Wexford County Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet in the resort residential districts, article 10.02E allows any lot of record to be occupied. Residential lots near Lake Mitchell range in size from 20' x 100' to 100' x 500', with the typical or average being approximately 50' x 100'. A re- spondent proposing a single family residence, whether seasonal or year-round, was counted as one unit, regardless of size of property. Commercial development was converted to single family unit equivalents by dividing the area of proposed development by 5000. 80 Outside Michigan F1'Qure 6 - Geographic location (- '\ 49 / \o, 4 \_\~ \ M'C~0GAN DEPARTMENT o: COMMEq-E '\ O“ICE OF ECONOMIC eprNSION I ' on. k '.>"'. “NJ 0' “'5‘. “ :uounn ! LUC! . ,,‘,\ B r‘—**d I .’ q? ‘ ' ' (await C . u.“ rujjcuoownur I l \‘ ANADA i r 1;: L. _ q M" i -- fab/30%“: . I ,fl‘f‘v' ,,,,,, .. \ ' ' 5 uthom u 6’0 'fis < 4 b O [II-1'7 lc-ueuug 4v ‘/-\‘ .‘ g ,nuout C‘ v C7 {V r ---r| voix i "" ,6 . ‘ i Jerks: [—1— -__H_ .5“ 3': .1 _-‘__JCY!loc 907mm:— Atnu c :OQ ° {.3 m‘ ! ’ fl’ ‘5" [/1 . I i 10 C “ * w, firema‘ffimrgnjim o h ‘ IKNZIE }“ ‘ ' l l l . 2 b no; mféZQ-bfi-mu’ ’12:;- ' mjd+ sgsco W EX F O R D ._.._ { ”hem—3 Il [ 0 d O C CO U N T Y b fll;- i_Lao o~—(:A:£— cue-m ' entunc . . ' "‘- '4 maul \ . ._-_T;-——-— T— l____J_-_] ' uv 33* oct nu utumo ' hitcas'n s A: ufltm _ fl." 3 I tuscou i 3“:—“ ”Te-on F'Ez'i—JJOTF i6 3 Cl ginaw 'u L__T Jefiand ‘Rapids‘@ 'TJUKI’LTJ/ i ' I/ ‘ IF lint ‘ rji:;;TL;:j of property owners surveyed 820 Lincoln Street Cadillac, Michigan 49601 June 13, 1978 Dear Lake Mitchell Area Property Owner, I am a graduate student at Michigan State University working on a Master's degree in Resource DevelOpment. For my thesis I am investigating the expected impact of the sewer project on develop- ment in the Lake Mitchell area. If you would take just a few minutes of your time to complete the enclosed questionaire, it would be most helpful. It 15.223 necessary to give your name, address or location of prOperty. The sewer project is likely to have a major effect on develop- ment. This study is being undertaken with the cooperation of Wex- ford County and I intend to give a COpy of the results to the County Planning Commission to help them make appropriate plans. A self addressed stamped enve10pe is enclosed. Without a large response to this questionnaire, the results of this study will not be a meaningful part of my thesis. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, flW/Z/ Alan C. Frier Figure 7 - Cover letter mailed with Questionnaire. 82 QUESTIONNAIRE If you own more than one parcel of land in the Lake Mitchell area, an attempt has been made to send you just one questionnaire. This was done in order to save you time in responding. Please include data for all parcels on this one questionnaire. How long have you owned this land? years What is your intention for this land? Summer home? Retirement home? Year-round home? Commercial development? Number of acres? No development of property is intended. If development is intended, what year do you expect to begin? 19 Has the sewer project had an effect on your plans? If yes, has it: Delayed plans? Moved plans ahead? Influenced you to sell property? Influenced you to buy property? Other? - Please explain under comments. Comments: Figure 8 - Questionnaire. For comparison purposes, this same approach was taken on information in the files of the District Health Department. Comparisons were made between residential development, commercial development, and total development. The purpose of the first question and the second half of the questionnaire was to give a qualitative analysis of the impact of the sewer project on proposed development. It was felt that because most of the prOperty involved in this study is not suitable for development without the sewer, the most common response would be that develomment had been delayed until completion of the sewer project. After receiving approval of the university Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, the survey was mailed on June 1h, 1978. On June 30, 1978, a reminder in the form of a postcard was sent. A sample of this postcard is on page 54. The combination was calculated for maximum response. It is felt that from the outside, the survey appeared "official" and drew attention (the addressograph machine is also used for mailing tax notices). How- ever, the cover letter made it apparent that the survey was not a governmental invasion of privacy. In addition, the option of anonymity, the stamped return envelope, the simple questionnaire, the reminder; and interest in the subject all figured into an excellent response of over 60%. Step three involved a determination of parcels of land classified as "wetlands” and "adjacent to the sewer project” in step one which have been approved for develOpment during the last six years. This was done on a year by year basis for January 1, 1972 to December 31, Dear Lake Mitchell Area Property Owner, On June 13th I wrote to ask for your help in .determining the impact of the Lake Mitchell sewer project on future development. I am undertaking this project as part of the research for my master's thesis. If you have responded, I would like to extend my sincere thanks; if you have not yet, will you please take just a few moments to complete the questionnaire? @KM/Q/ Thank you. Alan C. Frier Figure 9 - Reminder 1977 by checking records of issuance of permits by the Wexford County Office of District Health Department No. 1. The results of this determination are shown below. 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 Number of approved permits issued in 10 9 8 3 2 3 study area. Table 4 - Permits issued by District Health Department - 1972-1977 By comparing this information with the results of the survey, the projected impact of the sewer project can be determined. Because of the importance of our wetlands, any loss is to be regretted, but with 85' or without sewer the loss of some marginal areas (e.g., those which flood only one out of ten years or those somewhat poorly drained areas as shown in photograph.#8) should be expected. An increase of twenty five percent per year over what has been experienced for the past six years should be considered highly significant. At this rate, not only the marginal areas will be lost, but in a few short years all the wet- lands in the Lake Mitchell area will be filled in. The results of the survey are analyzed in the following chapter and compared with the determination of step three. CHAPTER VI ANALYSIS OF SURVEY RESULTS Of the 179 questionnaires, 110 responses were received. In addition, two return envelopes were sent back with other responses. One of these gave a return address, and apparently the property was owned by a husband and wife, partially under each of their names. It is assumed that the second case involved something similar. It appears that under the definitions in Chapter V, these should have been treated as being under the same property ownership. These two returns were counted neither as responses nor as part of the original mailing, and for analysis the number of questionnaires sent out was reduced to 177. One reply was received notifying the author that the property in- volved had recently been sold and giving the name and address of the purchaser. Unfortunately, it was received too late to send the new owner a questionnaire. As the reply did not include the questionnaire nor answer any of the questions, it had to be counted as a non-response. The response to the survey was excellent. As noted above, 110 of 177 questionnaires or 62.1% were returned. The response included a representative mix of local and out of town property owners and owners of platted lots and acreage. Of four major prOperty owners identified, at least two responded. These two respondents hold a total of 360 acres. Neither said he (she) had any intention to develop the land, 86 but both indicated that the sewer had influenced them to sell their property. The heart of this survey was to determine how much development can be expected in the Lake Mitchell wetlands as a result of the sewer. The responses are tabulated below and corrected by a factor of 1.61 to correlate data to the entire study area. Table 5 - Results of Survey of Property Owners responses responses x 1.61 Summer homes!“2 18 29.0 Retirement homes 22 35.4 ‘Year-round homes _;Ei_ _233§L_ Total residences 55 88.6 Commercial development (in single family unit equivalents) ‘3223 1.2 Total 2;;I- 859.8 1If a respondent checked the space - "No development of property is intended" and any other space in this section, it was inter- preted to mean - "No further development is intended". Any other spaces checked were considered as applying to existing development. 21f a respondent checked more than one type of deveIOpment, it was counted first as a summer home, second as a retirement home, and thirdly as a year-round home. For example, if both summer home and retirement home were checked, it was interpretted to mean that the proposed dwelling would be used as a summer home until the owner retires and counted as a summer home. 3One respondent who indicated an intention for commercial develop- ment did not list acreage. This was counted as just one single family unit equivalent. 88 It is very evident that the sewer will have an effect on commercial development. It was found that there had been no commercial develOpment within the study area over the last six years; so the projected 859.8 single family unit equivalents is certainly a significant increase. All the respondents indicating commercial development said the sewer had an effect on their plans. Most indicated that it had moved their plans ahead. One stated that his property "could not be used pre- viously because of high ground water" and another said "If plat is made, availability of sewer will be major factor." It should be noted that the questionnaire grouped everything but single family residences into "commercial" development. Also, respond- ents were not asked for a description of their proposed developments, as the concern of this thesis is primarily with land area. Present zoning would allow commercial development along Highway M-115, east of the lake, and would allow many commercial uses subject to special approval in the resort residential district. The second purpose of this survey was to determine when this pro- jected development could be expected. Unfortunately, most responses to the question "If deveIOpment is intended, what year do you expect to begin?" were very indefinate. None of the respondents checking commercial development indicated a specific beginning date. More than half of the respondents indicating residential development were not specific either. Many did not answer the question and other typical responses included: "?”, ”Unknown", "after 1980", and "mid-1980's". The graph at the top of page 90 shows a possible projection of resident- ial development in the Lake Mitchell wetlands. It was felt that the \/’ /4 ,/ , 89 12 X 10 X x ° X 8 ' X Number of x Residences 6 x ‘ X X C h x X x 2 x x x 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 198E* 1985 1986 1987 x - responses . — responses x 1.61 X - projected from indefinite responses Figure 10 - Projected Residential Development in Lake Mitchell Wetlands 12 x 10 x x 0:) N N N Number of Residences $~ C\ x 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 8o 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 Sewer project under construction Figure 11 - Comparison of past approved permits with future development 90 majority of those property owners with development plans but no definite date would not hold the undeveloped land for more than 10 years. Also, it was felt that those property owners who will begin development in the next two or three years know the approximate date they will begin. Therefore, the indefinate responses were projected on a declining basis beginning in 1981 and running until 1987. The projected 88.6 residences over the ten years is an average of 8.86 per year, or a k// 51.9% increase over the average 5.85 permits issued per year between 1971 and 1977. The chart on the bottom of page 89 is a combination of the data on page 8% and the chart at the top of page 89 and shows ap- proved permits issued between 1971 and 1977 followed by projected de- velOpment for 1978 to 1987. The above figures and charts indicate a significant increase in residential develOpment. It was indicated in the last chapter that the most common response expected to the second half of the questionnaire was that the sewer had made the property deveIOpable and moved plans ahead. This was only true where commercial development was indicated. Nearly 40% indicated the sewer has not influenced their plans. Another % did not respond to the question. The responses of the 55% who indicated the sewer had influenced their plans were analyzed separately, depending on whether or not they indicated development was proposed. Approximately 50% fell into each category. Of those whose plans were influenced by the sewer and indicating that no deveIOpment was intended, nearly 86% said the sewer had in- fluenced them to offer their property for sale. These responses re- present over 5,600 single family unit equivalents or nearly 6,000 91 when multiplied by the factor of 1.61. This finding was unexpected and is perhaps the most important result of this study. Area realtors have stated that there has been a recent increase of vacant land in the Lake Mitchell area being offered for sale and that this land is selling.47 According to Emil Meyer of Meyer Realty, "there has been no decent land available in the Lake Mitchell area for several years", but now with the sewer being available, he expects "the whole area will eventually be built up." Even though a present owner does not intend to develop a parcel, future owners may have other plans. With the sewer being accessible and with questionable wetlands protections as discussed in the next chapter, a very significant portion of the Lake Mitchell wetlands could be lost to development. As one respondent said, "(1) am thankful for the sewer. It has made my property more saleable.’l A Many respondents indicated that their develOpment plans had been delayed by the sewer project. Because most of the prOperty surveyed was unsuitable for development with on-site sewage disposal, the accuracy of this response is highly questionable. One individual stated that his plans had been delayed by the sewer project even though an application for a permit for on-site sewage disposal had been denied. He stated that if it were not for the sewer, he "would have taken legal action and very probably would have won and built with a septic." However, his major argument was that "the local officials #7Interviews by the author with Jeanne Vander Molen, North Ameri- can Real Estate, 2:50 p.m., August 51, 1978, Mary Kearns, McCarthy Real Estate, 4:00 p.m., August 51, 1978 and Emil Meyer, Meyer Real Estate, 2:00 p.m., September 1, 1978. 92 were enforcing an illegal statue (export facto law)." (Misspellings and misconceptions are the respondent's.) In general, it appears that the sewer project has been well received. Comments on the questionnaire included: "the sewer pro- ject has been a good development for the area and in addition increas- ed the value of the property," "very necessary to keep the water in the lakes clean," ”glad the sewer is going in," "good improvement," "believe property will appreciate rapidly," "a good deal," and "sewers were needed." Many respondents who had owned their land for 15 to 40 years and had no intention of development appear to have been forced by the sewer assessment to make a decision to develop or sell. As noted above, the overwhelming response has been that they will sell. under- standably, these people resent the sewer project, and some of their comments included: "I don't think the sewer was necessary; it won't benefit that many people," "I can not afford to pay for sewer which I will never use," "Like all politicians, they Don't Care," "I am of the opinion that the septic tanks now in use have no adverse effect on the ecology," "has the effect of increasing the lot cost but the mar— ket will not accept the higher price. The net result is a lower capi- tal gain,” and "May your thesis be more practical than the sewer system." Analysis of Errors As was pointed out earlier, the survey was sent to all owners of vacant privately owned wetlands adjacent to the sewer project, thus eliminating any sampling error. At over 60%, the response was 93 excellent, and appeared to be representative. Of the 67 questionnaires which were not returned, the postoffice was unable to deliver six. A reminder,sent to a seventh prOperty owner was also undelivered. The fate of the questionnaire is not known. In addition to a good mix of local and out of town property owners and owners of platted lots and acreage, there seemed to be a good mix of opinions on the sewer pro- ject, and judging from the literacy of comments, the respondents' ed- ucational background appeared to represent a broad cross section of society. Income is generally correlated with education, so the replies probably represented a cross section of incomes. An accurate analysis of respondents' backgrounds can not be made because questions on back- ground were not asked on the questionnaire. These questions were not asked because it was felt that the response would not be as good. Be- cause of the good response and the apparent mix of respondents' back- grounds, it is felt that the non-response error is minimal. An attempt was made to put any error in the evaluation of the survey response on the side of no develOpment. Thus, if a respondent indicated both a summer home and a retirement home, it was interpreted that he intended to first build a summer home and later retire to it. It could have meant that he intended to build a summer home and later sell it and build a retirement home, or the respondent may have been a developer who intended to build several of each. Likewise, where a respondent checked summer home and no development of property was in- tended, it was interpreted to indicate an existing summer home and no further deveIOpment was intended. It could have meant that no develop- ment other than a prOposed summer home was intended. The most critical error involved in this study is that it is a comparison of peOple's intentions at different stages of development. At the point an individual receives an approved permit for construction of an on-site sewage disposal system, he is relatively committed to development plans. Many of the proposed develOpments for which per- mits were issued never materialized. However, they were included in the study as approved developments because it was felt more accurate to compare past intentions with future intentions than past completed developments with future intended developments. An individual who indicates on an anonymous questionnaire that he intends to build a summer home in 1985 is not at all committed to the proposal, nor is the individual who states he intends no development. It is felt that these two exist in approximately equal prOportions. Of course, people's intentions can be changed dramatically by government regulation as examined in the following chapter. As one respondent stated: "Changes, if any, in housing restrictions could cause me to abandon any retire- ment plans that I might have." The results of this study indicate that if property owners' in- tentions materialize, there will be a significant increase in deve10p- ment in the Lake Mitchell wetlands as a result of the sewer project. The greatest increase, both proportionally and in actual land area will be in commercial development, but there will also be a signifi- cant increase in residential development. CHAPTER VIII METHODS OF PROEECTING LAKE MITCHELL WETLANDS The purpose of this chapter is to explore various options avail- able to provide protection of the Lake Mitchell wetlands. The chapter begins with an analysis of existing regulations which can be adapted to provide some measure of protection. Regulations in other areas are then examined, including a very successful ordinance in Marinette County, Wisconsin. The chapter concludes with an analysis of the situation in Michigan. Existing Protections At the present time there are no ordinances or laws in Wexford County or the State of Michigan which are specifically addressed to wetlands. There are several measures on the books, however, which offer some degree of protection for these valuable resources. These measures include the Sanitary Code for District Health Department #1, the Wexford County Rural Zoning Ordinance, Michigan's Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Law (Act 547 of 1972), Section 404 of The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 enforced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Michigan's Environmental Protection Act (Act 127 of 1970). Each of these protections will be briefly analyzed in this chapter. 96 Sanitary Code for District Health Department #1 The Sanitary Code was adopted by the Board of Health of District Health Department #1 in 1965, under the authority of Act 306 of 1927 as amended. District #1 includes the counties of Crawford, Kalkaska, Missaukee and Wexford. The code was adopted by all four counties and has the effect of a county ordinance. Violation is a criminal offence and punishable as a misdemeanor. The primary purpose of the sanitary code is to protect the public» health. An important aspect of this role is the assurance of preper sewage disposal. To this end, the Sanitary Code regulates and sets standards for the operation, construction or alteration of all on-site sewage disposal facilities. The Sanitary Code requires a property owner to apply for and re- ceive a permit from the Health Officer before beginning "construction of any privy, septic tank, septic toilet, or subsurface disposal system“!+8 Section 4.52 of the code provides for the denial of an application for a permit under four conditions. The fourth of these, Section 4.524 states: "Where ground water levels, surface flooding or poorly drained heavy soils would prevent the efficient operation of the system or create potential pollution problems}+9 Denial of permits under this section, or the threat of denial has been a major obstacle to the development of wetlands. The permit is required only for 8Sanitary Code for District Health Department #1, p. 4. 49170215.. , pp. 14-15. 97 developments to be served by an on-site sewage disposal system, howb \ ’5” ever, and will no longer serve as a deterrent to development of these ecologically sensitive areas after completion of the sewer loop. Wexford County Rural Zoning Ordinance The Wexford County Rural Zoning Ordinance was adopted in June of 1971 after nearly three years of operation under an Interim Zoning Ordinance. It was adopted in accordance with the county zoning en- abling legislation (Act 183 of 1943). A special permit is required to alter the terrain within fifty feet of swamps, lakes, streams and other natural water bodies. Section 11.06 C titled "Water Supply Conservation" states: "1. To facilitate the preservation of natural watersheds of the County; to promote a continuing and stable supply of clean, potable water, free from sewage disposal, and protected from accelerated soil erosion and pollution by discharged soil nutri- ents and other waste into swamps, lakes, streams and other nat- ural water bodies, no terrain shall hereafter be altered, or veg- etative cover be removed from any land abutting such waterbodies for a distance of fifty (50) feet from the edge of the highest known water level, without a Special Permit from the County Zon- ing Commission. Application for such permit shall be made through the office of the County Zoning Administrator. 2. In making its determination, the Zoning Commission shall seek the counsel of the County Health Department and the County Soil Conservation District, taking into special account soil type, of vegetative cover, slope of the land, and use of land for which permit is petitioned. 3. No swamp, wet land area, watershed area, and no lake or stream, flood plain area, shall hereafter be filled except by Special Permit from the Zoning Commission, who shall have in- vestigated each application for intended use, and may place such restrictions as may be required for such intended use." 50 The Special Permit requires the consideration of the County 50Wexford County Rural Zoning Ordinance, January 1977, p. 15. 98 Zoning Commission. In making its determination, the commission is required to consider the following: ”1. Whether the proposed use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be in reasonable harmony with the existing and intended character of the general vicinity in which it is proposed. "2. Whether the prOposed use will be adequately served by essential services and facilities. "3. Whether the proposed use will limit or disrupt the order- ly and proper development of the District. . "4. Whether the use will discourage or limit the appropriate development and use of adjacent buildings or premises, or neigh— borhood; or defeat the purpose and intent of the Ordinance. In making a final determination, the commission may impose additional conditions and safegaurds it feels anr necessary to insure that the objectives of the Ordinance are carried out. One of these objectives as stated in Section 1.02 is "to encourage the use of lands and re- sources of the county in accordance eith their character and adapt- ability.52 The requirement for a special permit has not been generally en— forced in the past. The reason for this lack of enforcement is that it has been felt that enforcement of the Sanitary Code served the same purpose. It had appeared that a court test of this provision of the zoning ordinance would come about as a result of the fill shown in photos #4 and #25 on pages 27 and 48. The owner of this property was ordered by the Wexford County Zoning Administrator to cease filling until he had abtained a special permit. The owner ignored the order 51 Ibid., pp. 14—15. In making its determination, the commission would consider much the same criteria as it would under the concept of impact zoning. Consequently, impact zoning is not addressed in this study. 52Ibid., p. 1 99 and was brought into District Court on misdemeanor charges. He pled guilty at the preliminary hearing. On August 3, 1978, the owner ap- peared before the Wexford County Zoning Commission with an application for a special permit. The application was denied and the owner was ordered to remove the fill which had been brought in after the first notice was issued. He has since carried out the order and it does not appear that he intends to pursue the matter further. As a special use permit is not a matter of right, the Zoning Commission could establish a major protection of the Lake Mitchell wetlands by adopting a policy of permit denial of applications for special permits under Sec. 11.06C except on platted lots. By strong enforcement of Section 11.06C on platted lots, strict limitations could be placed on development. This could provide for orderly de- velopment with the least damage to the environment. Michigan's Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act Act 347 of 1972 was passed by the state legislature after the problem was highlighted by the indiscriminate rerouting of a creek by deve10pers of the Grant Plaza in Traverse City. The law addressed itself primarily to highly erodible soils and steep slopes. However, compliance is required any time the soil is disturbed. The highly organic soils characteristic of wetlands are not con- sidered highly erodible, but the nature of the wetlands themselves and their close proximity to Open water makes erosion control a very important factor. Strict enforcement of Act 347 would not prevent development of 100 the wetlands, but it could minimize damage to the environment. United States Army Corps of Engineers Since 1899 the United States Army Corps of Engineers has had the regulatory responsibility to protect navigation channels and harbors against encroachments. In 1972 this responsibility was extended to include authority to restore and maintain water quality by regulating the discharge of dredged or fill material in coastal and inland waters and wetlands. The basis for this authority is the Federal Water Pol- lution Control Act of 1972. Section 404 of that Act charges the Corps to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material in the waters of the United States. Until challenged in court in 1975, the Corps had limited its regulatory authority under Section 404 to waters which are presently used, were used in the past, or could be used by reasonable improvements to transport interstate commerce. On March 27, 1975, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the Corps to extend its responsibility to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material to all waters of the united States. The Section 404 requirements are enforced through a permit program. A permit is required for the discharge of fill into lakes, 10 acres or larger in size, or their adjacent wetlands. Wetlands are defined as: "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands 101 generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.53 "Adjacent" wetlands means those that are tied to the lake through surface water and/or ground water flows. A permit may be denied if it is found that the proposal would have "an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds, and fishery areas, wildlife, or recreational areas."54 The full impact from Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is not yet known. The Corps of Engineers is still formulating a wetlands policy and enforcement in areas such as Lake Mitchell is uncertain. On May 8, 1978, the author discussed this point with Vince Antonich of the Grand Haven office of the Army Corps of Engineers at a meeting at which Edward Millar, Wexford County Planner, and Edward Clinton, Wex- ford County Zoning Administrator, were also present. It appears that the required permit will be issued almost automatically. After receipt of the application, public comments will be solicited. If none is re- ceived, the permit will be issued. If comments are received, a public hearing will be held. At the present time, it does not appear that violators (those who fail to apply for a permit) will be punished. It is also apparent that the Corps does not intend to evaluate applications, but only objections. 53"U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit Program: A Guide for Applications", Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of En- gineers, Washington, D.D., Nov. 1977, p. 19. 54"Applications for Department of the Army Permits for Activities in Waterways", Washington, D.C.: Department of the Army, Corps of En- gineers, Oct. 1974, p..A-2. 102 As the 404 permit program is still in its infancy, the above criticism may be unfair. However, it took the Corps three years after the passage of the Clean Water Act and a court mandate to admit re- sponsibility for wetlands protection and they have had three years since to formulate a policy. According to one authority, the Corps' regulatory procedings are better designed to veto than to approve projects.55 However, it is first necessary for someone to raise an objection which is not common for small scale development. The Sec- tion 404 permit requirement may prove to be a valuable wetlands pro- tection tool, but in all probability, this will happen only with an active citizen participation. Environmental Protection Act. Act 127 of 1970, Michigan's Environmental Protection Act, is ef- fective in preserving sensitive natural resources, but requires court proceedings which may be costly and lengthy. The Michigan Environmental Protection Act was the first of its kind in the country and has been widely imitated. Its most unusual feature is that it does not require an individual to be a property owner to sue to stop or prevent damage to the environment. The dis- advantage of the law is that it requires court litigation. It can be expensive and time consuming, and each case must be considered separate- ly. In spite of its disadvantages, it could be used effectively in 55Garrett Power, "The Fox in the Chicken 000p: The Regulatory Program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers”, Virginia Law Review, May 1977, v01. 63, No. 4, pp. 503 - 560. 103 preserving Lake Mitchell wetlands. Protection in Other Areas In the course of research for this chapter, two areas stood out because of progressiveness of wetlands protection and the apparent effectiveness of their programs. These two areas are Marinette County, Wisconsin and the San Francisco Bay area. After an in depth analysis of the programs in both these areas, it is apparent that the San Francisco Bay experience has little application to Lake Mitchell. The Marinette County experience, however, could easily apply to Wexford County and a detailed evaluation follows. Marinette County Shoreland Zoning Ordinance Wisconsin's Shoreland Zoning Act of 1966 has had a far reaching impact on wetlands' protection. The remainder of this chapter will analyze a county ordinance adopted under this act, a subsequent court challenge and its effect elsewhere in the country, including Michigan. Marinette County, with a population of approximately 40,000, is located on Green Bay and the Michigan border in Wisconsin's far north- eastern corner. In September 1967, the Marinette County Board of Super- visors adopted the "Marinette County Shoreland Zoning Ordinance3#24" following a model ordinance published by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. The ordinance stated that regulatory measures were necessary be- cause "uncontrolled use of shorelands and pollution of navigable waters of Marinette County, Wisconsin, adversly affect public health, safety, 104 convenience and general welfare and impairs the taxbase".56 The or- dinance listed five purposes: 1. Further the maintenance of safe and healthful conditions through: regulating septic tanks, well installations, and building construction; and limiting structures to certain areas. 2. Prevent and control water pollution through: regulating sew~ age disposal and establishing minimum lot sizes. 3. Protect spawning grounds, fish and aquatic life through: preserving wetlands, regulating pollution sources and controlling shoreland alterations. 4. Control building sites, placement of structures and uses. 5. Preserve shore cover and natural beauty.57 The ordinance included a diversity of police power regulations, but applied to only certain defined areas of the county. The regula- tion affected the shorelands of navigable waters (Wisconsin has a very liberal interpretation of navigable waters). "Shorelands" included all land within 1000 feet of the normal high water mark of a lake or pond or within 300 feet of the normal high water mark of a river or stream. The ordinance defined districts, established rules of new subdivisions and existing building sites, set construction standards and regulated water supply and waste disposal. Shorelands in the county were classed as General Purpose Districts, 56Marinette County Shoreland Zoning Ordinance No. 24, Marinette, Wisconsin, pp. 1-2. 57Ibid., p. 2. 105 Residential - Recreational Districts, or Conservancy Districts. The General Purpose Districts covered those areas not specifically mapped for one of the other two classes. Permitted uses in the General Pur- pose Districts included commercial, agricultural, residential and rec- reational.58 Conditional uses in these districts included industrial.59 Permitted uses in the Residential - Recreational Districts included year-round or seasonal single family dwellings, accessory uses, signs, and any use permitted in Conservancy Districts.6O Conditional uses in these districts included hotels, resorts, motels, restaurants, taverns, clubs, institutions, camps, giftshops, marinas, mobile home parks, tra- vel trailer parks, boathouses and conditional uses allowed in Conser- vancy Districts.61 It is the provision for Conservancy Districts which set this and other Wisconsin Shoreland Zoning Ordinances apart from typical zoning ordinances. The Conservancy Districts included all shorelands designated as swamps or marshes on the United States Geological Survey Maps. The permitted uses in the Conservancy Dis- tricts were numerous, but by many people's standards, the most import- ant property rights were disallowed.. The permitted uses included har- vesting of any wild crOp; sustained yield forestry; utilities; hunting; fishing; preservation of scenic, historic, and scientific areas; 58Ibid., p. 5. 59Ibid. 6OIbid. 61 Ibido, p. 60 106 wildlife preserves; non-residential buildings used solely in con- junction with raising water fowl, minnows, and other similar lowland animals, fowl or fish; hiking trails; and bridle paths.62 Noticeably missing from the list was any right of develOpment; residential, com- mercial, industrial, or other. Basically, the property owner was left with the right to maintain his property in a near natural state. Some develOpment may be allowed as a conditional use. These conditional uses included farming; water resource projects such as dams, ponds, filling, draining, or dredging; removal of top soil or peat; cranberry bogs; and piers, docks and boathouses.63 The remaining provisions of the Marinette County Shoreland Zoning Ordinance were not particularly noteworthy. The section on subdivis- ions was similar to many subdivision control ordinances; the section on building sites contained provisions for setbacks and lot sizes similar to a typical zoning ordinance; the requirements for structures were not unlike those found in most building codes; and the provisions for water supply and waste disposal could be found in most sanitary codes. Just V. Marinette County As might be expected, it was not long before the Conservancy Dis- trict concept was challenged. In February of 1968, less than six months after the ordinance went into effect, Ronald Just began filling shore- land property without the required conditional use permit. The county 62Ibid. 631bid. 107 sued to obtain an injunction and the landowners counter sued to have the ordinance declared unconstitutional. The case was deceided in favor of the county by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in October 1972. The case of Just v. Marinette Countyél+ was resolved on four key points. These were: constitutionality, public trust, the importance of wet- lands and the taking issue. On the issue of constitutionality, the court ruled "a regularly enacted statute is presumed to be constitutional and the party attack- 4 ing the statute must meet the burden of proof of showing unconstitu- tionality beyond a reasonable doubt."65 In regards to the public trust doctrine, the court said "The active public trust duty of the state of Wisconsin in respect to navigable waters requires the state not only to promote navigation but also to protect and preserve those waters 66 for fishing, recreation, and scenic beauty. "Lands adjacent to or near navigable waters exist in a special relationship to the state."67 The issues of constitutionality and the public trust doctrine have been important in Wisconsin, 68 but the court's comments on the value of wetlands and the relationship of this case to the taking issue have had a major impact outside Wisconsin. Because of the 64Just v. Marinette County, 201 N.W. 2d 761. 65 66 Ibid., at 772 Ibid., at 768 67 68 Just v. Marinette County has been cited in many cases involving constitutionality of legislation including: Simanco Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 203 N.W. 2d 651; In Re: Reynolds, 206 N.W. 2d 428; Weber v. State, 208 N.W. 2d 396; and many others. In cases in- volving the public trust doctrine, Just v. Marinette County has been cited in Wisconsin's brief in the Reserve Mining Comapny case,380F. Supp. 11 and 394 F. Supp. 233. Ibid., at 769 108 importance of these points, the decision is quoted at some length here to show its far reaching implications. "(This) is a conflict between the public interest in stopping the despoilation of natural resources, which our citizens until recently have taken as inevitable and for granted, and an owner's asserted right to use his property as he wishes. The protection of public rights may be accomplished by the exercise of the police power unless the damage to the property owner is too great and amounts to a confiscation. The securing or taking of a benefit not presently enjoyed by the public for its use is obtained by the government through its power of eminent domain. The dis~ tinction between the exercise of the police power and condem- nation has been said to be a matter of degree of damage to the property owner. In the valid exercise of the police power reason- ably restricting the use of property, the damage suffered by the owner is said to be incidental. However, where the restriction is so great the landowner ought not to bear such a burden for the public good, the restriction has been held to be a constructive taking even though the actual use or forbidden use has not been transferred to the government so as to be a taking in the tra- ditional sense. . . . Whether a taking has occured depends upon whether the restriction practically or substantially renders the land useless for all reasonable purposes. . . . The loss caused the individual must be weighed to determine if it is more than he should bear. . . "Many years ago, Professor Freund stated in his work on the Police Power, 'It may be said that the state takes property by eminent domain because it is useful to the public, and under the police power because it is harmful . . . . . . "(In this) case we have a restriction on the use of a citizen's prOperty, not to secure a benefit for the public, but to prevent a harm from the change in the natural character of the citizen's property. . . . What makes this case different from most condem- nation or police power zoning cases is the interrelationship of the wetlands, the swamps and the natural environment of shore- lands to the purity of the water and to such natural resources as navigation, fishing, and scenic beauty. Swamps and wetlands were once considered wasteland, undesirable, and not picturesque. But as the people became more sophisticated, an appreciation was ac- quired that swamps and wetlands serve a vital role in nature, are part of the balance of nature, and are essential to the purity of the water in our lakes and streams. Swamps and wetlands are a necessary part of the ecological creation and now, even to the uninitiated, possess their own beauty in nature. "Is the ownership of a parcel of land so absolute that man can change its nature to suit any of his purposes? The great forests of our state were stripped on the theory man's ownership was unlimited. But in forestry, the land at least was used 109 naturally, only the natural fruit of the land (the trees) were taken. The despoilage was in the failure to look to the future and pro- vide for the reforestation of the land. An owner of land has no absolute and unlimited right to change the essential natgpal char- grter of his land so as to use it for agpurpose for which it was unsuited in its natural state and which injures the rights of others.* 0 o o "The changing of wetlands and swamps to the damage of the general public by upsetting the natural environment and the nat- ural relationship is not a reasonable use of that land which is protected from police power regulation. . . . Nothing this court has said or held in prior cases indicate that destroying the natural character of a swamp or a wetland so as to make that location available for human habitation is a reasonable use of that land when the new use, although of a more econimical value to the owner, causes a harm to the general public. " . . . Too much stress is laid on the right of an owner to change commercially valueless land when that change does damage to the rights of the public. . . . "The Justs argue their property has been severely depreciated in value. But this depreciation of value is not based on the use of the land in its natural state but on what the land would be worth if it could be filled and used for the location of a dwell- ing. While loss of value if to be considered in determining whether a restriction is a constructive taking, value based upon changing the character of the land at the expense of harm to the public rights is not an essential factor or controlling." 9 Impact In Other States The Just v. Marinette case has been used to justify similar wet- lands protection in several other states. For example, the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled in 1975 that "Regulation of the use of marsh- es and wetlands having environmental and ecological importance to the continued existence of species of wildlife and to mankind is a valid "70 exercise of governmental power. The Superior Court of New Hampshire *emphasis added 69201 N.W. 2d 761 at 767 - 771 7OSnads Point Harbor, Inc. v. Sullivan, 346 A 2d 612. 11o stated in a 1975 case: "Denial of a permit did not depreciate the value of the marshland or cause it to become 'of practically no pecuni- ary value'. Its value was the same after the denial of the permit as before and it remained as it had been for milleniums. . . . the action of the board denied plaintiffs none of the normal traditional uses of the marshland including wildlife observation, hunting, haying of marshgrass, clam and shellfish harvesting, and aesthetic purposes. The board has not denied plaintiffs' current uses of their marsh but prevented a major change in the marsh that plaintiffs seek to make for speculative profit."71 In a third example, the high court of Florida has ruled that "the legislature possess the power to prohibit the destruction of a mangrove area even by a landowner on his own prOperty."72 Wetlands Protection In Michigan The story of wetlands protection in Michigan has been dismal. Michigan court cases do not hold out the same hope of protection of our wetlands as those states which have followed the trend begun by Just v. Marinette County, and any meaningful legislation has been stymied by special interest groups. There have been two cases of filling of wetlands which have been heard by the Michigan Supreme Court. Both these cases involved dis- posal of rubbish in wetland areas in townships in Oakland County during 71Sibson v. State, 336 A 2d 239. 72Hillsborough City Environmental Protection Commission v. Fran- dorson Properties, Fla. App 283 So 2d 65. 111 the 1950's. The most recent case was Keller versus the Township of 73 which was decided in November 1959. Emma.R. Keller Farmington sought a permit to fill property between Grand River Avenue and the Rouge River with rubbish from the City of Detroit. Her reasoning was to give her a usable piece of property, to cover a low and unsightly marshy area, to eliminate breeding ground for rats and other pests, and to restrict the Rouge River to its basin. Under the township zoning ordinance, the board denied her request for a permit to fill on the grounds that it would constitute a commercial dump and for reasons of flood control. In ruling against the township, the court found that there was no specific language relative to flood control in the zoning ordinance and concluded by saying "Filling in of this property will more likely con- duce to, rather than harm, public safety, health and welfare."7£+ The case of Plum Hollow Golf and Country Club vs. Township of Southfield75 decided in November 1954 was very similar. Virtually the only difference was that the wetlands in the Plum Hollow case were not contiguous to a body of water. The outcome was the same. These two cases have been cited as justification for challenging zoning ordinances to allow for disposal of solid wastes, but the issue of wetlands has not been challenged in the State Supreme Court in nearly twenty years. 73 74 Keller v. Township of Farmington, 358 Mich 106. Ibid., at 112. 75Plum Hollow Golf and Country Club v. Township of Southfield, 341 Mich 84. 112 The validity of wetlands zoning remains an Open question in the Michigan Courts. In the Keller case, the Michigan Supreme Court avoid- ed the issue by stating that flood control was not mentioned in the township zoning ordinance and so was not pertinent to the case. In 1971, the Court of Appeals left the question open in Sturdy Homes, Inc. v. Township of Redford.76 The court found that the plaintiff's land was not subject to floods, but did not find the ordinance uncon- stitutional and in fact found that the ordinance's purposes were "reasonably related to the public health, safety, and welfare."77 The rules for testing the validity of zoning ordinances are spelled out in Kirk V. Tyrone Township.78 The court reaffirmed earlier decisions and stated that for a successful challenge, the plaintiff must prove that "there is no reasonable governmental interest being advanced" or "that the ordinance may be unreasonable because of the purely arbitrary, capricious and unfounded exclusion of other types of legitimate land use from the area in question." It is this author's Opinion that it would be impossible to prove that flood plains and wetlands protection is not in the public interest and that unless the classifications of wetlands and flood plains are not related to the physical reality, the ordinance would not be found to be exclusionary. 76Sturdy Homes, Inc. v. Township of Redford, 186 N.W. 2d 43. 77Ibid., at 46. 78Kirk v. Tyrone Township, 398 Mich 429. 113 In spite of the unfavorable court rulings and the lack of state enabling legislation, many townships in Michigan have adopted wetlands and flood plains protections. Oakland.Township near Rochester was one of the first in the state when it adopted its "Township Flood Plain and Wetlands Protection Ordinance" in 1973. This ordinance was passed under the general police power of the township and it is addressed specifically to flood plains and wetlands protection, thus answering the earlier concerns of the Michigan Supreme Court. In a letter to the author, Lawrence D. Heitsch, counsel for Oak- land Township, stated: "This writer feels very comfortable with the Zoning Ordin- ance and Wetlands Ordinance under the Michigan law. Michigan, as a part of the Northwest Territory was subject to the North- west Ordinance which clearly recognized the public interest in waterways and water resources. This public position has been supported throughout our history and is more clearly evident in the comparatively recent legislature and legislation under the submerged lands act and matters dealing with the shore lines of the Great Lakes. Without specific legislation, with the current stated policy of both the Federal Government and of Michigan would clearly indicate that the public has a paramount interest to be protected in such natural resources and it is suggested that local zoning may be the appropriate tool with which to control and preserve same." The language of the Oakland Township ordinance is not at all similar to the Marinette County ordinance, but the purpose is the same and its passage was probably aided by the Wisconsin experience. The Oakland Township ordinance applied to wetlands and all lands below the 100 year flood elevation in the township. The definition of wetlands included isolated or perched wetlands, but the ordinance did not apply to wetlands which cover an area of less than two acres. 79Correspondence to the author from Lawrence D. Heitsch, dated September 13, 1978. 114 Dredging and filling were prohibited in any watercourse, wetland area, or within twenty-five feet of the edge of any watercourse. Dredging and filling may be allowed under permit if it were in con- junction with a permitted use. These permitted uses included: "Conservation of soil, vegetation, water, fish and wildlife; Outdoor recreation including play and sporting areas; field trails for nature study, hiking and horseback riding; swimming, skin diving, boating, trapping, hunting and fishing where other- wise legally permitted and regulated; Grazing, farming, gardening and harvesting of crops,1and forestry and nursery practices where otherwise legally permitted and reg- UIated; o o a" 0 Uses subject to a special permit include: "Private recreation facilities as permitted and regulated under the Township Zoning Ordinance, and when consistent with the in- tent and objectives of this Ordinance; Utility transmission lines; Driveways and roads where alternative means of access are proven to be impractical." 1 The Oakland Township ordinance appears to provide the most effec- tive wetlands protection in the state of Michigan. It has not yet faced a court challenge, but it is the opinion of this author that the Michigan Courts would follow the Wisconsin example. "Although variations in court decisions continue to exist in this area, the most predominant trend in recent decisions on wetlands cases 82 reflects the judgments of the Wisconsin court." 8OOakland Township Flood Plain and Wetlands Protection Ordinance, Rochester, Michigan, Oakland Township, Jan. 1973, p. 15. 81Ibido, pp. 15 - 16. 82Moss, op. cit., p. 258. 115 State Legislation Other states have been much more progressive than Michigan in efforts to preserve wetlands. Critical area programs have been set upiin Florida, Maine, Wyoming, Oregon, Minnesota, Nevada, Colorado and Maryland among others. New York requires a permit for draining, dredging or filling any wetland area and for any construction in in- ventoried wetlands. Massachusetts has given local conservation com- missions regulatory authority over wetlands. In Michigan, special interest groups have managed to stymie all efforts to pass a meaningful wetlands bill. When house bill 4329 was introduced in mid 1977, it was viewed as the answer to the problem. However, it was amended and weakened to the point that environmental groups campaigned against it, and it was never reported out of com- mittee. According to Roger Conner, director of the West Michigan Environmental Action Council, the shortcomings of the bill was that it would be nearly impossible to enforce, it had major loopholes for utilities and mining interests, it did not require that alternatives be considered before wetlands were used and it did not provide funds for enforcement.83 In early 1978, the staff of the House Conservation Committee scrapped the bill and began afresh. The bill being considered when this study was completed would provide for enforcement of the Section 404 permit program by the Mich- igan Department of Natural Resources. It is argued that the wetlands 83Joan Verdon, "Environmentalists Campaign to Bolster 'Weak' Wet- lands Bill", The Grand Rapids Press, Nov. 14, 1977, Sec. C, p. l. 116 protections exist, and it is just a matter of whether the state or the federal government enforce them. However, as noted previously, en- forcement by the Army Corps of Engineers has been very haphazard up to this time. Enforcement by the Michigan Department of Natural Re— sources could not help but be an improvement. The bill is again being blocked by special interest groups and has not been reported out of committee. In the meantime, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources is preparing a program to preserve Michigan's wetlands. Without specific legislation, however, the program of the DNR is not likely to be of much value. As noted previously, until the state legislature takes action, the best wetlands preservation tools are in the hands of local government. Even if state legislation is eventually passed, the most effective regulation will come from the local level. CHAPTER VIII CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The survival problem of our wetlands cannot be solved unless our government is willing to make hard, informed and potentially unpopular decisions. It is not necessary to halt growth or to preserve the status quo, but to channel balanced growth into those areas best suited to contain it. We should not allow the destruction of our wetlands to continue as long as someone feels able to profit personally from it. Without ecological considerations and only economic, the only practical use of wetlands ends with pollution of the environment. This thesis has shown that completion of the sewer project near Lake Mitchell will significantly increase pressures for development of adjacent wetlands. Many of the ecological values of wetlands have been pointed out and some light has been shed on some possible solutions to the problem on the local level. The following paragraphs contain the recommendations of the writer. The most effective protection of the Lake Mitchell wetlands could be provided by the passage of a wetlands protection ordinance by Wex- ford County. This ordinance should be based on the ordinances which have proven themselves in Marinette County and Oakland Township. A county ordinance would prove to be more effective on the local level 117 118 than a state law. Land use controls are generally most effective when they are adopted at the level at which they must be endured, and an effective state law protecting wetlands may be several years away. The use restrictions necessary to save our wetlands must be harsh ones, but uncontrolled deveIOpment will easily destroy the ecological values of the wetlands. Pending the passage of the ordinance recommended above, or on the failure of Wexford County to pass effective controls, a shotgun ap- proach is recommended. This approach would use all the presently avail- able tools for protection, official actions of the county, and public education. Chapter eight evaluated five ordinances and laws presently avail- able which could be used to protect wetlands. The combination of these tools, although more cumbersome, could prove to be as effective as a specific ordinance. Many actions of the county serve to encourage or discourage the development of wetlands. The sewer project is one example; other examples include road construction, actions of the zoning commisSion, construction of public buildings, actions of the drain commissioner, etc. The county should consider and weigh the impact on ecologically sensitive areas of all its decisions. People who buy property in wetlands areas are frequently unaware of the problems until they have lived there awhile. They can see the lake across the street, but they do not picture their house settling, flooding, or rotting, or the problems with frost heave, or the mos- quitoes, etc. Public education could make prospective buyers aware of 119 these problems before they purchase wetlands. Unfortunately, when the initial developer becomes aware of the problems, the damage to the environment is generally already done and it is permanent. Attempted solutions such as more fill and liberal use of pesticides only increase the damage. We should not allow land which we all know for a fact to be in- undated with water every few years to be developed and sold to un- suspecting newcomers. Those in a position to stOp this sort of de- velopment and who fail to do so have just as much moral responsibility as the developers themselves. Considering recent trends, it should not come as a surprise if in the future, homewoners sue local governments for failing to protect their property from floods. Corrections at that time would be far more expensive than controls today. If the Michigan courts follow the trend begun in Marinette County, Wisconsin, excellent protection of wetlands can be provided by regulat- ion. However, even if it were necessary for the county to purchase undeveloped wetlands in the Lake Mitchell area, in the long term this would be far less expensive than the costs of removing excess veg- etation and silt from the lakes, the loss of fishing, recreational, and asthetic values, and corrections of other problems associated with the loss of wetlands. A last recommendation is that tax assessments should reflect the value of non-exploitative uses of the property. The land should not be valued for what if could be, but for what it is. The fact that a parcel has been taxed as a marsh or swamp and not a building site pro- vides a strong argument for any court challenges. 120 It is up to the County to make certain that the life supporting characteristics of the land are preserved for the quality of life as well as life itself. BIBLIOERAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Binder, Denis. "Taking versus Reasonable Regulations - A Reappraisal in Light of Regional Planning and Wetlands." Uhiversit of Flor- ida Law Review. Vol xxv, No 1 (Fall 1972) ppm 118. Binetsky, Richard N. Secondggy Impact'gf Sewerage Systems. Trenton, ,J, New Jersey: New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, 1975. 9’ Bronstein, Daniel A. and Leighty, Leighton L. Upper“ Great Lakes Re- gional Plannipg Stugy- Part 4: Land Dee Controls. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin- Extension, 1974. Cadillac Eveninngews. "Blueprints Drafted to Save Frail Wetlands." March 2, 1978. "County Zoners Table Bid for Dredging Along Lake. " May 6 ’79 19780 "Maps for Wetlands Plans Awaited." August 14, 1978. "Sewer Work Underway." November 9, 1977. Carlisle, Richard K., Ayres, Lewis, Norris and May, Inc. Correspond- ence to A.C. Frier, dated January 10, 1978. Clark, Lewis J. Wild Floweg§.gf Marsh and Wate . Vancover, British Columbia: Evergreen Press, ltd., 1974. Clinton, Fred. "Wetlands - Where Life Begins." Michigan Natural Re- sources Mggazine. July - August, 1978, p. 18. Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Quality: The Fifth Annual Repgrt of the Council on.Environmental,guality.~ Washington, *~*—_— D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974. Crawford, Clay, Jr., Esq. Michigan Zoning and Planning. Ann Arbor: Institute of Continuing Legal Education, 1967. Crow, Garrett E. "An.Ecological Analysis of a Southern Michigan Bog." The Michigan Bo_t_a_nist, vol. 8, 1969. pp. 11-27. Detroit Free Press. "Wetlands: A Showdown is at Hand." June 3, 1978. 121 122 . "Wetlands: If the Legislature Stays Mired in Inaction, State Risks Losing Control of Them to Federal Government." March 17, 1978. . "Wetlands: Our Swamps and Marshes are too Important to go Unprotected." May 13, 1978. District Health Department No. 1. Environmental Health Files, Cadillac, Michigan. . "Lakes Sample Survey Report." Cadillac, Michigan. 1967. . Sanitary Code. Cadillac, Michigan, 1972. Elkington, John B. "The Impact of Development Projects on Extuarine and Other Wetland Ecosystems.” Environmental Conservation, vol. 1+, No. 2 (Summer 1977) pp. 135-144. Elmwood Township. Propgsed Ordinance'tg Amend the Elmwood.Townshi Zoning Ordinance. Traverse City, Michigan, April, 197 . Errington, Paul L.'9§ Menuagd Marshes. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1957. Finster, Chester. Untitled paper on the geology of Wexford County. Cadillac, Michigan, undated. . Lake Mitchell, Sanitagy Sewer Intercepter System. Cadillac, Michigan, 1970. Geha, Joanne. "Lake Area Paying for Old Errors." Cadillac Evening News. June 1. 1978. . "Zoning Officials Halt Lake Area Dredging." Cadillac Evening News. April 15—16, 1978. Geldreich, E.E.; Best, L.C.; Kenner, B.A.; and VanDonsel, D.J. "The Bacteriological Aspects of Stormwater Pollution Control." Journal 2;: flags: P ' 9mm, Vol. 40, No. 2, Part 1 (November 1968) pp. 1 61-1 72., Geldreich, E.E. Sanitary Sigificance 9f Fecal Coliforms in the En- vironment. Cincinatti: Cincinatti Water Research Laboratory, 1 . Glassamer, Cyndi, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Com- mission. Correspondence to A.C. Frier, dated February 22, 1978. Goldstein, Jon H. .Qompetition for Hetlands in the Midwest: An Economic Analysis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971. 123 Grand Ra apids_______ Press. "Wetlands Protection Program is Being Developed ___by DNR."~ March 26,1978. Hamburg Township. Natural Liver District an___d Fl___9__od Plain, Floodm _a__n__d Floo dm Fringe Districts. Ann Arbor, Michigan, August 1977. Heitsch, Lawrence D., Counsel for Oakland Township. Correspondence to A.C. Frier, dated September 13, 1978. Hillsborough City Environmental Protection Commission v. Frandorson Porperties, Fla App 283 So 2d 65. Hotchkiss, Neil. Common Marsh, Underwater and Floating leaved Plants of the United _S______tates_—_ and C__a_n___ada. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1972. Humlahrys, Clifford R. "Lake Developnent Problems." Presented at meeting of Michigan Society of RegisteredLand Surveyors, Cab- erfae Lodge, February 21-2’+, 1967. . Watershed Management. Lansing, Michigan, undated. Independence Township. Flood Plain Management. Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1978. Jamens v. Avon Township, 78 Mich App 289 (July 1977). Jamens v. Shelby Township, 1+1 Mich App 461 (June 1972). Just v. Marinette County, 201 N.w. 2d 761 (October 1972). Kamps, Ray B., Marinette County Zoning Administrator. Correspondence to A.C. Frier dated March 1, 1978. Keller v. Township of Farmington 358 Mich 106 (November 1959). Kirk v. Tyrone Township, 398 Mich z+29 (December 1976). Klimsa, John E. and Cunningham, James A. Wildflowers _9__f Eastern America. New York: Alfred A Knopf, Inc., 1971+. " ' ' Koger, Daniel. "House Committee is Bogged Down Over Wetlands - Pro- tection Rules." Grand Rapids Press. June 11, 1978. Lee, Leslie John. "Construction Begun on Lake Sewer Loop." Cadillac Evening News. December 9, 1977. "Injunction Holds up Selma Assessments." Cadillac Evenin1n_____g News. January 7-8, 1978. 124 . "Officials Field.Questions on Joint Sewer Project." Cadillac Evening News. September 27, 1977. Lufkin, Dan W. The Spgiler's Hand -- The e‘gf Gain. New York: Newcomen Society in North America, 197 . Macan, T.T. POnds and Lakes. New York: Crane, Russak and Company, Inc. 9 1973. McCallister, P., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Correspondence to A.C. Frier, dated February 2#, 1978. Mann, Grady E. "Ducks and Their Water Home." The Conservation Vol- unteer, May - June, 1957: p. 28. . "Wetlands - Liquid Assets." The Conservation yolunteer, Vol 29, No. 30, 1966, p. 36. Marinette County. .Marinettg County Shoreland Zoning Ordinance #2#. Marinette, Wisconsin, 1969. Marsh, William M. and Borton, Thomas E. Inland Lake Watershed‘gg- alysis - A_Planning and_Management Appgoach. Lansing, Michigan, 197 . and . Michigan Inland Lakes and Their Water- shed, gg Atlas. Flint, Michigan: Jackson Printing Co., November 197:. Mathews, Gerald H. "Inland Lake Waterfront DevelOpment - A Case Study of Hess Lake, Newaygo County, Michigan." Unpublished Master's Thesis, School of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture, Michigan State University, 196#. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. "A Better Environment Through Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control." Lansing, Michigan, 1977. ; "Did You Know That Wetlands Are Nature's Masterpiece." Lansing, Michigan, 1978. . "Environmental Guilelines for Inland Lakefront Property Owners." Lansing, Michigan, undated. . Bureau of Water Management Files, Cadillac, Michigan. . "Water Quality Criteria for Michigan Waters." Lansing, Michigan, 1976. . "Wetlands and You." Lansing, Michigan, 1978. 125 Michigan House of Representatives. House Bill,Ng. #182 (Local and State Land USe Programs). Lansing, Michigan, 1977. . "Analysis of House Bill #189." Lansing, Michigan, 1977. . House Bill No. #329. (Preservation, management, pro- tection, and use of wetlands). Lansing, Michigan, 1977. . "Analysis of House Bill #329." Lansing Michigan, 1977. Michigan National Bank v. Windsor Township, 76 Mich App 387 (June 1977). Moss, Elaine, ed. Land Use Controls‘ig the United States,'A,Handbook 3n the Legal Rights 9.; Citizens. New York: The Dial Press 7 James Wade, 1977. Northwest Michigan Regional Planning and Development Commission. Files. Traverse City, Michigan. . "You Can Help Preserve Lake Water Quality." Traverse City, Michigan, August, 1977. Oakland Township. Flood Plain and Wetlands Protection Ordinance #26. Rochester, Michigan, 1973. Pere Marquette Railway Company v. Muskegon Township Board, 289 Mich 51 (June 1941). Pestrong, Raymond. "Unnatural Shoreline." Environment, Vol. 16, No. 9 (November 197#)9 pp. 27-350 Peterson, William R. The View From Courthouse Hill. Philadelphia: Dorrance & Company, 1972. Phelps, Carolyn, Oakland Township Clerk. Correspondence to A.C. Frier, dated February 1978. Plum Hollow Golf and Country Club v. Township of Southfield, 341 Mich 8# (November 1954). Powell, Elain. "Wetlands - Beautiful and Bountiful." American For- ests, Vol. 81, No. 6 (June 1975), pp. 38—41. Power, Garrett. "The Fox in the Chicken 000p: the Regulatory Pro- gram of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers." Virginia Law Review, Vol. 63, No A (May 1977). pp. 503-560. Reilly, William K., ed. The USe of Land: A Citizens' Policy Guide 59 urban Growth. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1973. Remsburg, Frank.E., Shell Environmental Group. Correspondence to A.C. Frier, dated January 30, 1978. 126 In Re: Reynolds, 206 N.W. 2d 428. Sands Point Harbor, Inc. v. Sullivan, 3A6 A 2d 612. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 1926 Annual Repgrt. San Francisco, California, March 1977. . Marshes and Mudflats.gf San Francisco Bay. San Francisco, California, 1 . Sussan Marsh Protection Plan. San Francisco, California, December, 1976. Sather, Henry J., ed. Proceedings.gf the National Wetlands glass— _ification and Inventory Workshgp. Washington, D.C.: U.S. De- partment of the Interior, July, 1976. Sears, Paul B. Lands Beyond the Forest. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1969. Shepard, Paul, The_§ubversive Science: Essays Toward fig Ecology.2§ Man. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1969. Sibson v. State, 336 A 2d 239. Simanco Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 203 N.W. 2d 651. Simonds, Roberta L. and.Tweedie, Henrietta H. Wildflowers'gf Michigan, Fennville, Michigan, 1978. Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. "Water Quality Sampling in Southeast Michigan." September, 1977. Stair, Eliot G. and Etter, John L. "1976 Annual Survey of Michigan Law - Local Government." Wgyge Law Review, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Jan- uary 1977), pp. 765-818. Sturdy Homes, Inc. v. Township of Redford, 186 N.W. 2d 43. Tabors, Richard D.: Shapiro, Michael H.; and Rogers, Peter P. Land USe and the Pipe: Planning for_§gwerage, Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1976. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. "Applications for Department of the Army Permits for Activities in Waterways." Washington, D.C., October, 1974. . "Permit Program - A Guide for Applicants." Washington, D.C., November, 1977. "'Section [+040 Permit Hogram." Washington, D.C., September, 1975- 127 Van Ardel v. Addison Township. 37 Mich App 613 (1972). Verdon, Joan. "Environmentalists Campaign to Bolster Wetlands Bill." Grand Rapids Press. November 1%, 1977. Verspoor, Wayne Harris. "The Characteristics of Lakefront Property Development on Selected Inland Lakes in Michigan." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University, 1965. Weber v. State, 208 N.W. 2d 396. Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Diction . Springfield, Mass- achucetts: G. & C. Merriam Co., 1967. Wexford County. Wexford County Rural Zoning_9rdinance No. é. Cad— illac, Michigan, 1977. Wexford County Planning Commission. Wexford County Comprehensive Plan - Existing Conditions, Trends, Eptentials. Cadillac, . Wexford County Environmental Survey. Cadillac, Michigan, June, 1975. Wexford County Zoning and Planning Office. Files. Cadillac, Michigan. Winegarten, Gene. "Last-Minute Bid Made to Bolster Wetlands Controls." Detroit Free Press. March 15, 1978. MICHIan STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES mWNW“WWIHHHWWIHIWIWWIIIWHl 31293103611905