OP
Greg_MacMaster
Guest
Here's a link to a site that Michigan DEQ relies very heavily as far as what would be considered acceptable:
http://www.glfc.org/pubs/SpecialPubs/Sp90_2.pdf
The "Position Statement" on Page 1 says it all is is always referenced in denial letters. "Deleterious" is the nail in the coffin.
It dates back to the mid 80's with a final edit done in 1990. Very outdated and no updates have been done since then.
Now on to Law: What they consider in the permit application process to sink a vessel.
In reviewing an application for permit the Department must consider Rule 15. 1982 AACS, R 322.1015. It states:
In each application for a permit, lease, deed, or agreement for bottomland, existing and potential adverse environmental effects shall be determined. Approval shall not be granted unless the department has determined both of the following:
a) That the adverse effects to the environment, public trust, and riparian interests of adjacent owners are minimal and will be mitigated to the extent possible.
b) That there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the applicant's proposed activity which is consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare.
Riparian owners possess, among other things, a proprietary interest in the uninterrupted flow of sand carried to their land by littoral current in its natural state. Peterman v Dep't of Natural Resources, 446 Mich 177, 196; 521 NW2d 499 (1994). Conversely, the Petitioner, as a riparian has, among other things, the right to wharfage to navigable water. Hilt v. Weber, 252 Mich 198; 233 NW 159 (1930).
The only environmental effect under the two proposals being considered is the impact on the along shore current or littoral drift. The impact could have been potentially significant in that if a solid structure, as originally applied for, was constructed sand flow would be disrupted, resulting in the potential of build up on one side and depletion on the other.
The Department's proposal, for the above reasons, constitutes a feasible and prudent alternative within the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare.
This states makes it virtually impossible to even attempt to sink a vessel.
By teh way, our state is rankjed 50th in tourism. Wonder why?
I'll bet no one ever considered the financial impact this book would have on underwater tourism now.
http://www.glfc.org/pubs/SpecialPubs/Sp90_2.pdf
The "Position Statement" on Page 1 says it all is is always referenced in denial letters. "Deleterious" is the nail in the coffin.
It dates back to the mid 80's with a final edit done in 1990. Very outdated and no updates have been done since then.
Now on to Law: What they consider in the permit application process to sink a vessel.
ADMINISTRATIVE RULE 15
In reviewing an application for permit the Department must consider Rule 15. 1982 AACS, R 322.1015. It states:
In each application for a permit, lease, deed, or agreement for bottomland, existing and potential adverse environmental effects shall be determined. Approval shall not be granted unless the department has determined both of the following:
a) That the adverse effects to the environment, public trust, and riparian interests of adjacent owners are minimal and will be mitigated to the extent possible.
b) That there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the applicant's proposed activity which is consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare.
Riparian owners possess, among other things, a proprietary interest in the uninterrupted flow of sand carried to their land by littoral current in its natural state. Peterman v Dep't of Natural Resources, 446 Mich 177, 196; 521 NW2d 499 (1994). Conversely, the Petitioner, as a riparian has, among other things, the right to wharfage to navigable water. Hilt v. Weber, 252 Mich 198; 233 NW 159 (1930).
Environmental Effects
The only environmental effect under the two proposals being considered is the impact on the along shore current or littoral drift. The impact could have been potentially significant in that if a solid structure, as originally applied for, was constructed sand flow would be disrupted, resulting in the potential of build up on one side and depletion on the other.
Feasible and Prudent Alternatives
The Department's proposal, for the above reasons, constitutes a feasible and prudent alternative within the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare.
This states makes it virtually impossible to even attempt to sink a vessel.
By teh way, our state is rankjed 50th in tourism. Wonder why?
I'll bet no one ever considered the financial impact this book would have on underwater tourism now.
