MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ADELAIDE POINTE MARINA

(CENTRAL AND EASTERN BASINS) for

EGLE PERMIT APPLICATION

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Adelaide Pointe QOZB, LLC

The purpose of this project is to create a vibrant mixed use waterfront development
where residents can take advantage of the recreational boating activities afforded by the
location of the site and the conversion of the existing private waterfront property into a
public waterfront accessible to all. The project has unanimous support from local units
of government as there is a significant demand for residential units in the Muskegon
market and need for increasing public access to Muskegon Lake. Market studies show
there is a high demand for safe and secure access to boat slips and docks capable of
supporting larger vessels (in excess of 26 feet), as well as dockage and safe refuge for
transient sea planes.
Unique characteristics of this 30 acre site include:
 Located in the southwestern end of Muskegon Lake on property currently zoned
as Lakefront Recreational and General Industrial
 Currently identified as a brownfield pursuant to Brownfield Redevelopment
Financing Act 381
 Over 6,216 linear feet of Muskegon Lake shoreline
 Has two conservation easements within the central basin protecting
approximately 1.911 acres of the nearshore and wetland habitats along
approximately 2,335 linear feet of shoreline
 Was formerly a foundry site where waste products were dumped into the
nearshore and open water areas of the lake
 Currently is not providing nor encouraging public access to the shoreline and
other natural features of the property. Public access to the current City of
Muskegon property (east basin) is gated and locked due to damage from high
water levels, restricting access to the general public.

A summary of the proposed activities needed for the construction, operation,

maintenance, and monitoring of this proposed development within the central and
eastern basins of the project are bulleted below:
Central Basin
 Dredge approximately 80,000 cubic yards of material for providing safe navigable
depths for boating ingress, egress, and dockage

1
 Place approximately 13,390 cubic yards of stone (i.e., mattress stone, angular
quarry stone, and rounded Michigan field stone) to construct the western rock
breakwater, and install an ADA compliant concrete walkway atop the breakwater
structure to provide unrestricted public access to Muskegon Lake for fishing and
sightseeing
 Place approximately 620 cubic yards of stone (i.e., mattress stone, angular
quarry stone, and rounded Michigan field stone) to construct the central rock
entry breakwater
 Install approximately 48,811 square feet of floating docks
 Construct approximately 3,422 linear feet of bio-engineered soft shoreline,
comprised of coconut fiber coir logs and native wetland vegetation
 Install five main piers at 8’ width for a total of 3,243 linear feet.
 Install 121 finger piers, perpendicular to the main piers, to create 273 slips of
various lengths and widths, including areas for broadside mooring.
 Install three aluminum ADA compliant gangways, 80’ long by 6 feet wide
 Install 119 wood spring piles approximately 12 inches in diameter
 Install three steel guide piles approximately 12 inches in diameter
Eastern Basin
 Dredge approximately 26,260 cubic yards of material to provide safe navigable
depths for boating ingress, egress, and short term mooring
 Placement of approximately 2,533 cubic yards of stone (i.e., mattress stone,
angular quarry stone, and rounded Michigan field stone)
 Placement of approximately 49 cubic yards of MDOT plain riprap for scour and
toe stone along the proposed SSP walls
 Install approximately 264.5 linear feet of permanent steel sheet pile wall, and 32
linear feet of temporary steel sheet pile wall (to be removed following
construction of the boat launch ramp).
 Construct approximately 1,793 linear feet of bio-engineered soft shoreline,
comprised of coconut fiber coir logs and native wetland vegetation
 Install one fixed pier, approximately 80 feet long by six feet wide, and one fixed
pier approximately 80 feet long by eight feet wide to facilitate Travelift operations
 Install approximately 7,445 square feet of floating dock
 Install a boat ramp, 32’ wide by 92.5’ long
 Install four floating sea plane docks, totaling 3,968 square feet, anchored with
eight 10" diameter steel guide piles and eight 8” diameter steel pipe piles
 Install a boardwalk over the central peninsula stone revetment at 10 feet wide,
totaling 3,300 square feet
 Install two aluminum ADA compliant gangways, 80’ long by six feet wide
 Install two articulating stairs, three feet long by six feet wide.

2
 Wetlands
 Place approximately 3,968 cubic yards of fill within approximately 0.528 acres of
the interior and shoreline wetlands of the proposed development
 Construct approximately 600 linear feet of ten foot wide open piled boardwalks
impacting approximately 0.003 acres of wetland along the shoreline of Muskegon
Lake to provide access to the public waterfront and fishing access points.
 Excavate approximately 0.336 acre of shoreline wetland
 Impact 0.001 acre of wetland at the southern edge of the East Basin through
construction of a boat launch ramp.
 Construct approximately 352 linear feet of ten foot wide open-piled boardwalks
across approximately 0.075 acres of wetland along the shoreline of Muskegon
Lake to provide public and private access to the public waterfront and fishing
access points. Pilings will impact 0.003 acre of wetland.
 Mitigate for the proposed impacts to approximately 0.867 acre of regulated
wetland (pursuant to Section 404 and Part 303) by purchasing 1.3005 acres of
mitigation wetland banking credit from the Muskegon River Watssershed
Wetland Mitigation Bank

B. Statutory Criteria

Section 324.30311 of Part 303, Wetland Protection, of the Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Act (“NREPA”), P.A. 451 of 1994, as amended, provides
regulatory guidelines on determining public interest and whether a permit can be or
should not be issued by EGLE. It is the intent of this document and the information
contained in this Memorandum, as compiled by Adelaide Pointe QOZB, LLC and their
consultants, including but not limited to GEI Consultants of Michigan P.C. (“GEI”), to
demonstrate that the necessary criteria under Section 30311 of Part 303 have been
satisfied.

II. REVIEW OF STATUTORY CRITERIA - Section 30311(1) and (2) of Part 303

Section 324.30311(1) of Part 303 provides that upon receipt of a wetland permit
application, the EGLE is to determine whether “the issuance of a permit is in the public
interest, the permit is necessary to realize the benefits of the activity, and the activity is
otherwise lawful.” Section 324.30311 (2) of Part 303 provides the framework by which
the proposed activities can be assessed to determine whether they are in the public
interest, inclusive of criteria used to balance the benefits which may reasonably be

3
expected to accrue from the project when compared to the potential for reasonably
foreseeable detriments of the project/activity. A wetland permit is to be issued upon a
determination by the EGLE that the foregoing criteria are satisfied.

As EGLE considers the application and the information contained in this Memorandum,
it will become evident that the Proposed Project is in the public interest as the purpose
of the Project, as proposed by Adelaide Pointe QOZB, LLC, is to provide residential
housing, boating access, harbor of refuge for larger vessels and sea planes, and
greater public access to Muskegon Lake, where there is currently a shortage of and
demand for said amenities.

A. Permit is necessary to realize benefits of project

The Project, including the space needed to accommodate the proposed dockage,
various buildings, and appurtenances within the upland portions of the property
previously described above, cannot be constructed and operated without impacting
wetlands and the bottomland of Muskegon Lake. In siting this project, several other
properties in the adjacent vicinity were considered but ultimately rejected because of
high environmental impact and inadequate water protection and/or space to
accommodate all the required boat slips, buildings, and appurtenances. Use of this site,
compared to other sites evaluated, would result in less wetland impact. Without a permit
to impact wetland (Part 303) and the bottomland of Muskegon Lake (Part 301), the
marina development cannot be constructed and the proposed public access to
Muskegon Lake cannot be provided.

B. Activities are lawful

The development, construction, and operation of the proposed marina and residential
housing development (the Project) and its related infrastructure are lawful activities. The
marina and housing development will operate in accordance with all applicable local,
state, and federal laws and regulations.

C. Public interest

Section 30311(2) states that “in determining whether the activity is in the public interest,
the benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal shall be
balanced against the reasonably foreseeable detriments of the activity. The decision
shall reflect the national and state concern for the protection of natural resources from
pollution, impairment, and destruction.” The statute provides nine (9) general criteria
that shall be considered in determining public interest.

4
These 9 criteria are listed in Section 324.30311(2)(a) to (i), and they have been
assessed with respect to the Project as discussed below. EGLE is required to assess
these criteria in making their decision as to public interest. Some of these criteria may
indicate the Project is in the public interest while others will show the Project is not. Not
all criteria need to be found favorable to the public interest to allow EGLE to determine
that the project is in the public interest. It is a balancing of the criteria that is done to
determine whether a project is or is not in the public interest. The discussions below of
each criterion are provided to assist EGLE with their review and finding that the project
is within the public interest despite the project having some level of impact to regulated
wetlands and water resources below the ordinary high water mark of Muskegon Lake.
The creation and establishment of multiple-points for public access to and use of
Muskegon Lake (for fishermen and other passive uses) is opined to be of greater public
interest than the restricted use of the bottomland within the marina basin.

(a) The relative extent of the public and private need for the proposed activity.

The purpose of the project is to create a mixed-use residential and marina

development with direct connectivity to Muskegon Lake for recreational boating
opportunities. The project has received unanimous support from local units of
government as there is a significant demand for residential housing and commercial
boat dockage in the Muskegon market. Market studies from the past several years
show the greatest demand in Muskegon and along the western coastline of Lake
Michigan is for waterfront homes, boat slips, and access to Lake Michigan and other
large bodies of water. Letters and minutes from various local units of government
supporting the public need for this project are provided in the attached Muskegon
City Commission Meeting Minutes unanimously approving the proposed Adelaide
Pointe Planned Unit Development. Please see also attached letters of support.
There is also a strong private need for the proposed activities. The landowner
purchased the property in 2021 for the purpose of redeveloping this brownfield
property. The previous owner also utilized the property as a boat launching and haul
out facility. The western portion of the property is privately owned and is currently
used for boat storage and light commercial and shipping operations for a packaging
company. The eastern portion of the proposed project is owned and managed by
the City of Muskegon as part of the existing Hartshorn Marina. The City of
Muskegon and the owners of Adelaide Pointe are working together in a public-
private partnership to facilitate the transformation of these currently private and
fenced-off public properties into a vibrant and active public waterfront that greatly
expands public access to Muskegon Lake.
East Peninsula
The easternmost peninsula of the combined site is owned and managed by the City
of Muskegon as the eastern edge of Hartshorn Marina’s Small Boat Basin. This

5
peninsula has been fenced off from the general public for decades and used to
provide parking and access to approximately 30 small (<25’) boats until 2018. The
facility was closed to boating during the period of record high water on Lake
Michigan and Muskegon Lake, and the docks and infrastructure were severely
damaged. Additionally, the facility did not comply with the 2010 ADA requirements
for recreational boating. The peninsula has not been accessible to the public for
several years, and has been used for storage for abandoned boats, marina
equipment, broken docks, and other debris. Additionally, the north end of the
peninsula was part of a 2011-12 federally funded shoreline habitat restoration
project, but most of that restoration was destroyed by record high waters. In the
aftermath of that loss, there has been a resurgence of invasive plant species into
these shoreline areas.
At this time, the eastern peninsula offers essentially no public access to the public.
The proposed plan will transform this peninsula into an accessible public waterfront
by taking down the fences and removing all trash, debris, abandoned vehicles, and
old marina equipment. The destroyed small boat basin docks will be completely
removed. New docks will be constructed in compliance with local and state
standards and codes within the central basin as part of the new Adelaide Pointe
Marina. Invasive species will be removed along the east peninsula shoreline, and
soft shoreline strategies will be implemented to reconstruct and replant the nearly
vegetation devoid shoreline areas. New public paths will link this new public space
with the existing regional bike trail, and new natural stone outcrops will provide
relatively flat access for shore fishing. These improvements will be constructed,
maintained, and paid for by the developer. This land will remain fully owned by the
City of Muskegon as a waterfront park; therefore, public access is guaranteed in
perpetuity.
East Basin Waterway
The east basin waterway is the narrow body of water located between the East
Peninsula and Central Peninsula. This area was historically the City’s Small Boat
Basin slips but is now fully fenced off from the public on all three sides. Existing
water quality and circulation is very low, and sediment samples show the presence
of approximately 10,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediments. Analyses of
sediment samples show the presence of contaminants such as mercury, cadmium,
copper, zinc, etc (See attached Trace Analysis Report of East Basin Sediment).
With the destruction of the Small Boat Basin slips from recent high water, there is
currently essentially no public use or access to this waterway.
The project proposes to improve water quality and expand public access to this
waterway and Muskegon Lake through the following improvements:
 Removal of all fencing currently preventing public access to the shoreline

6
 Removal of all contaminated sediments in the lakebed of the basin. Sediment
sampling reports and a dredge spoil management plan are included in the
attached Dredge Spoil Management Technical Memorandum
 Increase the depth of the existing basin by 2.5 feet (to approximately 569.5
IGLD 1985 water datum) and increase the width of the basin by
approximately 40%. This will improve water circulation and turnover rates
significantly from that of the prior narrow basin. For additional information on
water quality and circulation, please see the circulation study included in this
package.
 Construct bio-engineered soft shorelines along the length of the western edge
of the newly widened east basin and utilize a sloped stone revetment in place
of the originally proposed steel sheet pile wall where necessary to
accommodate safe navigation.
 Utilize the existing low sheet pile wall along the south end of the east side of
the basin to control erosion and sedimentation into the basin
 Maintain safe navigable depths
 Removal of the abandoned public restroom facility that was damaged by high
water and has been closed to the public for many years. All existing Small
Boat Basin marina facilities that have been destroyed by high water will be
reconstructed as part of the new Adelaide Pointe Marina and will be made
available to the public.
 Construct a new public boat launch facility to be owned by the City of
Muskegon at the southernmost end of the east basin. This new launch will
replace the existing launch facility within the Central Basin. It will
accommodate longer and heavier boats than can be accommodated by the
nearby existing launch ramp. The proposed facility will also contain a 100-ton
travelift well that will support forklift operations to launch small boats from the
dry rack storage facility. The dry rack storage facility is located upland and to
the south of the boat launch area and will provide affordable boat storage and
launch access for small boats. The design of the lift well has been modified
to reduce the total length of steel sheeting to the absolute minimum
necessary to facilitate this operation.
 Construct new floating public “shopper docks” that will provide free mooring
for local boaters visiting the Adelaide Pointe project and utilizing the in and
out dry rack storage facility.
 Construct a new boater services floating dock that will provide safe and code
compliant marine fueling operations and sanitary pump-out facilities.
All facilities will be compliant with the guidelines outlined in ASCE Manual 50,
Planning and Design Guidelines for Small Craft Harbors, and will be constructed
and maintained to comply with all US federal and ADA requirements, MDNR
marina standards, Michigan codes and local Department of Public Health
requirements, and Michigan Clean Marina standards.

7
Central Basin Waterfront
The Central Basin waterfront area is composed of the western and middle
peninsulas that form the central basin, along with the connecting shoreline that
forms the southern edge of the basin. Immediately south of this waterfront is an
existing public trail funded through LWCF grant funds and owned by MDNR. All of
the waterfront property within this basin is privately owned and is not open for public
use. However the property owner is committed to transforming this entire waterfront
to public use for fishing access and recreation in perpetuity via dedicated permanent
public access easements granted to the City of Muskegon.
With the exception of the existing concrete boat ramp facility located in the center of
the property, the majority of the shoreline is located within a conservation easement
and was the site of a major federally funded, shoreline habitat restoration project
constructed between 2011-2012. The vast majority of the restored shoreline was
destroyed by waves and high water. The peninsula shoreline is currently severely
eroded with exposed gravel, slag debris from steel mill operations, litter, and the
remnants of synthetic netting used in the shoreline habitat restoration project. There
are no existing structures along this portion of waterfront except the boat launch and
remains of stone armoring from the shoreline restoration project. The relative quality
of existing wetland habitat along the peninsula edges is very low.
As part of the proposed public-private partnership, the Adelaide Pointe project
proposes to collaborate with the City of Muskegon and the MDNR to transform this
low-quality waterfront into a vibrant and active public waterfront through the following
actions:
 The entire length of the waterfront and all waterfront areas between the public
multi-use trail and the water’s edge will be permanently dedicated to public
use under formal dedicated easements to the City of Muskegon. These
easements will be codified in writing in the Developer Agreement between
Adelaide Pointe and the City of Muskegon in perpetuity, and Adelaide Pointe
will have no right to restrict public access to this area.
 The existing public multi-use trail owned by MDNR will be relocated closer to
the water and completely reconstructed by Adelaide Pointe. Adelaide Pointe
will collaborate with MDNR on the conversion of the existing deeded property
to the new location, and MDNR will retain deeded ownership of the new path.
Adelaide Pointe will have no right to restrict public access to the multi-use
trail. The newly reconstructed path is proposed to incorporate solar energy
generation in the pavement surface to offset energy usage on site.
 The proposed plan for the shoreline complies with all requirements of the
existing conservation easement, as documented in the March 29, 2022, letter
from the Muskegon Conservation District (Attachment A). Shoreline that was
previously restored and subsequently destroyed by high water will be
reconstructed by Adelaide Pointe. Shoreline restoration will extend to include

8
 the area currently occupied by the existing concrete boat launch ramp,
increasing the total area of shoreline habitat restoration by approximately 70
feet. With the construction of the offshore breakwater, the entire shoreline of
the internal basin will be protected from wave action. This will allow for the
complete removal of all existing rock revetment within the central basin and
the construction of a natural shoreline habitat within the central basin,
resulting in a dramatic improvement over the existing broken concrete, brick,
gravel, and slag that currently occupies this area.
 The upland portions of the waterfront area will be improved with a native plant
palette intended to attract native wildlife and pollinators. Low impact public
pathways will be constructed on the peninsulas to provide safe and
accessible public paths, and natural rock outcroppings will provide shoreline
fishing access.
 Shoreline habitat along the outer exposed portions of the peninsulas will be
rebuilt using natural shoreline, bioengineering techniques, resulting in vastly
improved wildlife habitat. Supplemental armoring will be limited to the extent
needed to prevent future destruction of the shoreline habitat from high waters.
 There will be an increase in dedicated public access to the shoreline of
Muskegon Lake of 86,545 sf (1.99 acres) and approximately 5,000 linear feet
of new dedicated public shoreline.
 There will be an increase of dedicated public waterfront trails from the existing
2,110 linear feet to 5,732 linear feet (a 272% increase in dedicated public
trails).
 Dark sky compliant lighting will ensure safe evening use. Suitable site
furnishings will provide areas for seating and rest to improve access for the
elderly.

Central Basin Marina and Breakwater

Public access to Muskegon Lake for fishing, boating, and passive forms of recreation,
will be greatly enhanced by the completion of the proposed marina and breakwater as
follows:
 The proposed rubble mound breakwater is designed to be as narrow and low as
possible while also providing the necessary protection for the floating dock
infrastructure, soft shoreline habitat, and safe public access/use.
 The design of the rubble mound breakwater will utilize quarried stone in the core
stone and armor layers, with a surface layer of Michigan field stone specifically
selected to provide better habitat for macroinvertebrates and fish (aquatic biota).
The inner edges of the structure will incorporate a shelf of smaller diameter
Michigan field stone and gravel to provide substrates that encourage spawning,
feeding, and other habitat uses from various fish species, including, but not

9
 limited to, walleye, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, and other Centrarchid
species.
 The rubble mound structure was selected as the most effective breakwater
structure over many other options due to the habitat benefits outlined above, its
performance in providing appropriate wave protection, and its performance in
reducing and absorbing wave energy. See the included evaluation and
documentation of wave attenuation performance in the alternatives analysis.
These structures are widely used throughout the Great Lakes due to their proven
performance, reasonable cost, and habitat benefits.
 The breakwater structure will have a fully accessible concrete walking path
incorporated into the structure, connected to the western peninsula and
extending the public multi-use trail by means of an elevated boardwalk. The
breakwater will be fully accessible to the public for fishing and pedestrian access
at all times, with no gates or fences of any kind to restrict access.
 The location of the breakwater is placed on the site of the previously existing
breakwaters that enclosed the central basin area in the 1970s. Providing safe
navigable depths to a maximum depth of 569.5 IGLD 1985 within the marina
basin from the current approximate depth of 574.5 IGLD 1985 will require the
removal of approximately 80,000 cubic yards of Pigeon Hill sand that was placed
in the water over many decades by the former steel foundry operations. This
sand was determined, after sediment analysis, to be clean inert material
comprised of 95% - 99% sand. Sediment analysis of these bottom substrates is
also provided in Trace Main Marina Basin Dredge Analytical Report. This
material will be removed hydraulically and utilized entirely on site. We do not
anticipate the need to import or export any significant amount of fill for the
construction of the proposed upland projects.
 The marina will utilize a floating dock system and telescoping spud piles to
minimize impacts to the bottomlands of Muskegon Lake. All facilities will be
compliant with the guidelines outlined in ASCE Manual 50, Planning and Design
Guidelines for Small Craft Harbors, and constructed and maintained to comply
with all US federal and ADA requirements, MDNR marina standards, Michigan
codes and health department requirements, and Michigan Clean Marina
standards. The walking surfaces of the floating docks are proposed to have
photovoltaic panels to generate electricity and offset energy use by the marina.
 The marina will be privately owned and operated, but open for leasing to the
general public without restriction. There will be no private ownership or “condo”
slips in the marina, and no requirement that slip lessees own, rent, or purchase
any portion of the upland Adelaide Pointe residential products. The facility will
include approximately 273 slips, of which 70 are permanently dedicated to
transient use for the life of the facility. This dedicated transient use will be
documented and codified through a US Fish and Wildlife Service Grant Funding
agreement through the MDNR, and the developer will have no right to take them
out of public use.

10
 Additional low cost and affordable public access opportunities provided on site
will include ADA compliant paddlecraft launch facilities, kayak and paddleboard
rentals, boat rentals, and boat clubs.
(b) The availability of feasible and prudent alternative locations and methods
to accomplish the expected benefits from the activity.

This criterion necessitates evaluation of (1) prudent and feasible location(s) apart
from the proposed Project location; (2) prudent and feasible locations associated
with the existing location; and (3) prudent and feasible methods of designing or
reconfiguring the Project at the respective location to minimize impacts to the
wetlands. Alternatives to the encroachment of buildings, structures, roads,
pathways, and appurtenances into the wetland must be both feasible and prudent,
not either feasible or prudent. An alternative location and/or design may not be
feasible because of some physical and/or operational impediment and/or may not be
prudent because of the cost and/or operational impediment. By way of illustration, it
might be feasible from an engineering and construction perspective to build a private
bridge across Lake Michigan, but the cost for the same would not be prudent.

Alternative locations, configurations, and methods for the construction of the

proposed residential and commercial marina development were assessed.
Alternatives assessed for each of these are outlined in the following subsections.
Alternative Locations
Alternative locations preliminarily assessed included several large parcels around
Muskegon Lake. These properties did not have the potential to provide adequate
lake frontage, acreage for development, and boating opportunities which are
associated with the existing property. Ultimately, these properties were rejected from
further analysis due to high cost for development and/or environmental impacts.
Properties that were preliminarily assessed and determined not to be economically
prudent included the Sappi Property and parcel adjacent to the Shoreline Inn.
Alternative sites assessed and concerns associated with those properties, and the
bases for their rejection as a feasible and prudent alternative are provided below:
Property 1: Sappi Property
The Sappi property is a 120-acre property located west of the Adelaide Pointe
property on the south side of Muskegon Lake. While the opportunities for the Sappi
site are vast, the amount of environmental impact and high cost to purchase the
property made it both economically and environmentally unfeasible to develop such
a property in the timeframe of which Adelaide Pointe QOZB, LLC is aiming to
develop in order to meet the demand for marina and public transient slips.
Property 2: Parking lot adjacent to Shoreline Inn

11
The parcel next to Shoreline Inn, east of Adelaide Pointe and currently a parking lot,
was also investigated as a potential marina site. However, several environmental
contaminants were discovered beneath the parking lot, making the development of
buildings on-site environmentally unfeasible.
Alternative Configurations
Several alternative configurations for the development were assessed. A key
feature determined to be critical to an economically viable project was a balance of
boating access to Muskegon Lake and appropriate mixed-use upland development.
The cost of cleaning up the brownfield site, removing contaminated sediments from
the east basin, reconstructing the shoreline habitat restoration, rebuilding the Small
Boat Basin marina infrastructure, removing invasive species, expanding the public
trail system, improving the west and central peninsulas to create safe public access,
and removing trash, debris, and fencing to open up the east peninsula for public
access is significant. There is no way to fund site remediation, public access, and
habitat restoration improvements of this magnitude without an economically viable
development plan. Achieving an economically viable plan requires a reasonable
balance in the number of slips and boating access opportunities relative to the
number of upland mixed-use and residential units, and an overall development value
and number of upland units sufficient to fund the cost of land acquisition, public
improvements, and a reasonable return for the project developers.
On the following pages are just a few of several site configurations that were
assessed with respect to their ability to provide the required features and amenities
to be marketable, economic viability, anticipated impacts to wetlands, and impacts to
adjacent properties relative to public and private uses and navigation. Larger scale
plans of these alternatives are provided in Appendix B.
Alternative #1: Do Nothing
The “do nothing” alternative would result in no waterfront improvements. It was
rejected for the following reasons:
 Without a marina of reasonable size and capacity commensurate with market
demand and the scale and capacity of the upland project components, the overall
project would not be financially viable.
 No revenues would be generated to support the shoreline restoration or habitat
improvements, so therefore no shoreline improvements to the site would be
possible.
 Without any shoreline improvements to the site, safe, public access to the site for
the community and adjacent neighbors would not be possible.
 Without marina revenues, no reconfiguration of the east basin and new launch
facilities would be possible, resulting in no improvements to the east peninsula,
and no expansion of public access.

12
 Without the marina, no expansion of boating access opportunities for the general
public would be financially viable, so no expansion of public access to the lake or
waterfront would be possible
A bulleted Pros and Cons analysis of this alternative are provided below:
Pros:
 No encroachment on Muskegon Lake of any kind.
Cons:
 No expansion of public access for the neighboring community
 No expansion of fishing or shoreline access
 Ne expansion of the public trail system
 No removal of contaminated sediments from the lakebed
 No restoration of the shoreline wetland habitat
 Continued loss of the wetland habitat area protected by the Conservation
Easement
 No cleanup of slag and debris materials
 No cleanup/removal of the trash, debris, derelict docks, fences, invasive
species, and plastic fabric from the waters around the eastern peninsula
 No expansion of public boating access
 No provision of ADA compliant, low cost paddlecraft rental and access
 No mixed-use waterfront components and associated economic activity
 No jobs created, and the loss of all positive economic benefits to the
community
Photographs depicting existing site conditions that would remain if the project is not
approved are provided on the following page.

13
Existing Condition Photos

14
Alternative 2: EGLE Permitted Plan
This alternative, dated July 31, 2018, was previously
permitted by EGLE and proposed a fixed dock system
that extended approximately 319’ from shore, with a
total of 14 slips, in addition to fixed pier structures
designed to support a travelift and expanded boat
ramp haul-out operation (see inset figure right and full-
page plan view in Appendix B). The dock structures
were intended primarily to support staging for the haul-
out and launching operations rather than having a
primary use as a seasonal marina.
This facility was designed as a standalone element to
support only a private boat storage operation rather
than a vibrant, mixed-use waterfront with extensive
expansion of public access.
This alternative was rejected by Adelaide Point QOZB,
LLC for the following reasons:
 The permitted size of the facility was grossly
insufficient to meet the demand for slips and
public access to Muskegon Lake and was
incapable of generating sufficient economic value to support the overall project
and the construction of the extensive shoreline improvements, public access
facilities, and habitat restoration.
 The permitted design did not include any wave attenuation, which is absolutely
necessary at this location. The permitted design would likely be completely
destroyed by wave or ice action within three to five years. Further, without any
wave attenuation, it is not possible to reconstruct the natural shoreline habitat
with any confidence that it would survive future high water events.
A bulleted Pros and Cons analysis of this alternative are provided below:
Pros:
 This plan has the smallest footprint of any of the proposals explored for the site.
Cons:
 This plan provides the lowest number of slips (14) meant to provide staging for a
haul-out operation
 With only 14 slips, this plan does not have sufficient revenue generating capacity
to support any meaningful traditional marina operations, nor does it expand
public access to Muskegon Lake in any meaningful way.

15
  The plan is financially infeasible as a traditional marina operation (as opposed to
a launch staging area)
 The location of the boat launch and travelift operation through the center of the
site greatly restricts the use of the waterfront in this area for public access. Large
boat hauling equipment up to 100 ton capacity moving through the center of the
site presents serious safety concerns and greatly reduces the overall value of the
upland areas from a neighborhood design strategy.
 This plan does not include any wave attenuation or mitigation of ice shove forces,
which would likely result in serious damage or even complete loss of the
structures within three to five years.
 This plan offers no wave protection to the shoreline within the existing
Conservation Easement, which will nearly ensure the destruction of the
remaining remnants of the shoreline habitat restoration project already mostly
lost to high water and waves.
 This plan offers no ability to manage and direct sedimentation, which means
there would likely be a need for greater annual maintenance dredging
requirements in the future.
Alternative 3: Maximum Slip Concept
This alternative, dated January 14, 2021,
explored an alternative configuration that
maximized the potential for marina development
on the site (see inset figure right and full-page
plan view in Appendix B). The plan proposed
orienting the marina in a more northwesterly
configuration and extending northward as far as
possible towards the federal navigation channel
marker, and the limits of the shallow water shelf.
The proposed rubble mound breakwater
extended nearly 200’ farther north into
Muskegon Lake and wrapped around the east
end of the middle peninsula to create a
protected overlapping entry. The breakwater is
approximately 700’ longer than the current
proposed plan, and the marina offers 371 slips,
or nearly 100 slips more than the current
proposed plan.
While this alternative is the most economically beneficial and offers the most slips, this
alternative was rejected for the following reasons:
 The proposed size of the facility had a greater potential impact on bottomlands
and potential encroachment on the federal navigation channel. The length of
breakwater required to shelter the harbor was significantly longer, resulting in

16
 longer walks for the boaters, higher construction cost and longer construction
schedule.
 While the current marina market demand would support this significantly larger
marina, it was felt that the smaller proposed facility was a reasonable
compromise between revenue generation, public access, and overall economic
viability.
A bulleted Pros and Cons analysis of this alternative are provided below:
Pros:
 This plan provides the maximum number of slips, and the highest potential
economic return.
 This plan offers the most public boating access to Muskegon Lake, and a well-
protected harbor
Cons:
 This plan has the greatest impact on the bottomlands of Muskegon Lake, the
most dredging, and the largest breakwater
 The layout of the breakwater is close to encroaching on the federal navigation
channel and may impact navigation of large commercial vessels
 The upland infrastructure requirements for parking and access to support a
marina of this size would potentially compromise the ability to provide an
appropriate balance of mixed-use amenities on shore.
 The volume of dredge material required to construct this harbor may not be able
to be utilized fully on site, and therefore significant additional trucking and costs
may be incurred in removing excess materials from the site

Alternative Construction Methods

In addition to alternative sites and configurations, alternative methods for construction of
the outer fishing pier, interior of the central and eastern basins, and the peninsula that
separates these basins were assessed.
Alternative Breakwater Strategies
Prior to determining that the rubble mound strategy for constructing the public fishing
pier that protects the inner harbor is the best overall approach, the engineering team
considered a range of alternative strategies to protect the boaters and floating docks.
The requirements for wave protection are dictated by the tranquility needed at the boat
slip berth. This requirement varies as a function of the size of the vessel, the orientation
of the vessel relative to an approaching wave, and the frequency of recurrence of the
condition, from a daily or weekly event, out to a rare 50- to 100-year event. While
survival is paramount, the operational performance of the protection is more critical from

17
a life safety and boater experience perspective. The following table summarizes the
target agitation level desired in a yearly wave event.

The dockage plan for Adelaide calls for a slip deployment that places the slips in
essentially a “beam sea” orientation relative to storm wave direction. Note from the
table, for boats up to roughly 50+ ft in length, which is the boating population intended
for Adelaide, that when wave periods are in the range of 2-5 seconds, the required
wave height is dictated to be 0.5 feet (6 inches) or less. The wave analysis for the
Muskegon Harbor reveals that storm generated waves would be expected to have wave
periods in the 2-4 second range. Boat wakes from passing vessels would have similar
wave periods. Therefore, the requirement for wave attenuation is very stringent to
achieve such a mild tranquility.
Edgewater Resources explored three different wave protection strategies: a rubble
mound rock breakwater, a vertical panel wall breakwater, and floating wave attenuators.
Following is an assessment of each.
Floating Wave Attenuator
A floating wave attenuator is an imperfect breakwater, hence the use of the term
attenuator instead of breakwater. The efficiency of an attenuator is a function of both its

18
draft and its width. Attenuators are more efficient when deeper draft, with the benefit of
one foot of draft roughly equating to the benefit of adding six feet of breadth to the
attenuator. The performance of an attenuator rapidly declines once wave period
exceed about three seconds in period. For naval architecture stability reasons an
attenuator needs to have some finite width to remain stable against rolling. Practically,
a 12- foot wide attenuator is usually used to assure stability. Calculations of attenuator
efficiency with that kind of breadth suggest a draft of eight feet or greater is needed to
achieve the tranquility goal in ten feet of water (High lake level) for a period of three
seconds. However, with roughly six feet of lake level variation, this same attenuator
would become grounded at low lake levels and would not be structurally capable of
performing. In addition, though less than a full vertical wall would produce, the vertical
sides of a deep draft wave attenuator which produce partial wave reflections. Because
the attenuator is generally built as a straight float, these wave reflections may be
misdirected back toward opposing shoreline, or worse, into the path of watercraft,
triggering potential shoreline erosion and/or unsafe navigational approaches.
Therefore, an attenuator option was discarded as not being viable.
Panel Breakwall
Given the wave period and wave height expected at the site, a vertical panel wall
breakwater of near zero footprint is a structurally viable option. However, in this
application, the panel breakwall solution presents three negative outcomes. 1) the
panel wall is generally never built to a full depth due to a desire for fish migration, as
such, it is little better than a floating attenuator in achieving the interior basin tranquility
required. 2) the vertical wall of the panel breakwater will be 100% reflective of incoming
wave action, especially given the wave periods and water depths. This will radiate
reflected waves along the breakwater, making transit past the breakwater
uncomfortable, at best, and more likely unsafe as these will be beam seas causing
rolling of the smaller craft, particularly during an approach into the marina. 3). The
vertical panel wall will suffer from significant toe scour, with erosive action digging into
the bottom 3-6 ft. This has long term structural safety implications, needing most likely
the addition of scour stone at the base of the wall to mitigate. The impacts outlined
above apply to essentially all vertical wall structures regardless of width, and therefore
this approach was rejected.
Rubble Mound Breakwater
The rubble mound breakwater is the preferred solution for this location given the
combination of wave climate, lake level fluctuations and the tranquility needs of the
marina. The benefits are: 1) a much reduced level of internal and external wave
reflection, 2) the ability to also use natural field stone (i.e. boulder, cobble, and gravel
sized material) which provides a better medium for macroinvertebrate colonization (as
opposed to quarry/limestone), spawning, feeding, and other habitats for various fish
species associated with Muskegon Lake, 3) to create a more natural shoreline shape
which generally better dissipate wave energy that walls do, and 4) the ability to provide

19
public/angler access out to the water not possible with the other solutions. Specifically,
as it relates to wave reflectivity, note the following nomograph duplicated from the US
Army Shore Protection Manual which compares the reflection factor c, which ranges
from 100% to 0.0%, to the slope and texture of the structure.

For the specific wave environment computed for Lake Muskegon, the blue circle in the
figure represents the level of reflection to be expected by the rubble breakwater,
approximately as low as 30%. The red circle represents the reflection coefficient for the

20
vertical panel wall, and approximately the floating wave attenuator. Note also, that for
rubble breakwaters, we generally never expect a reflection coefficient to be greater than
about 60%, whereas panel walls are always nearly 100%.
More recent research looking at the energy absorption specifically in the armor layer
alone of a breakwater indicates the strong dependence of wavelength as compared to
the armor size as a controlling factor. ASCE Manual 50 for Planning and Design of
Small Craft Harbors presents the following, which illustrates how the reflection changes
as a function of the armor layer thickness versus the local wavelength.

Absorber layer thickness versus energy absorption

If wave lengths are long in comparison to the armor size (or armor layer thickness), the
reflection can be greater. Coastal swell waves from distinct storms would be an
example of when a rock breakwater could be very reflective. However, for the Adelaide
site, the wave period is in the range of three seconds with a local wavelength of
approximately 40 feet assuming ten feet of water. The nominal armor diameter selected
is two feet, producing a layer thickness of four feet. Hence the reflection coefficient
associated with just the armor is expected to be 60%. The aggregate 30% reflection
estimate given from the SPM is therefore supported by this calculation of energy
absorption by the armor layer.
For this application, a rubble mound breakwater to provide the required wave sheltering
is selected as the most appropriate and beneficial to the project.
Quarry stone vs. Michigan Fieldstone
The use of quarry stone is preferred due to its angular shape and ability to interlock
with other quarry stone increasing rigidity and reducing maintenance issues

21
commonly associated with the use of fieldstone. However, Michigan fieldstone
provides a better medium/habitat for macroinvertebrates and fish. To balance these
benefits, the plan proposes quarry stone be used as the base/core of the breakwater
/fishing pier structures, with an outer layer of fieldstone being place over the quarry
stone in the water.
Steel retaining wall vs. Bio-engineered natural shoreline
The most recent plan reduces the linear footage of vertical retaining walls and hard
armoring of the shoreline within the central and eastern basins, utilizing natural/soft
bio-engineered shorelines instead. This is made possible by the proposed stone
breakwalls around the perimeter of the basin to afford protection of these inner
wetland shoreline areas from the erosive waves/forces of Muskegon Lake.
Natural shoreline reconstruction methods evaluated for establishing and maintaining
coastal wetlands within this portion of Muskegon Lake and this proposed
development have included, but not limited to, the use of coconut fiber coir logs and
blankets, soil lifts, toe stone, densely planting these shoreline areas with
submergent, emergent, and woody shrub vegetation, and use of live-stakes.
Natural Shoreline Design
Much of the proposed natural shoreline design is based on the original restoration
design concept that was funded by NOAA and administered through WMSRDC. This
work was constructed in 2011 under permits 09-61-0026-P and 10-61-0041-P. In the
original design, the areas of the site exposed to higher wave energy included a rock
toe that was constructed of stone varying between 8” and 24” in size and
constructed to a height of 581.0. The rock toe included several breaks that allowed
for wildlife passage between the land and water, and native plants were installed
above and around the rock toe.
During the high water period between 2018 and 2021, much of the shoreline
restoration was damaged by waves and high water. WMSRDC and the Muskegon
Lake Watershed Partnership (MLWP) noted this during 2019 site monitoring, and the
erosion continued through 2021 (https://muskegonlake.org/habitat-management-
plan/). Much of the area that was damaged is also held in a conservation easement
with the Muskegon Conservation District.
The proposed new design includes an extension of the rock toe from an elevation of
581.0 to 583.0 to provide added protection during future high water periods. Breaks
in the rock toe will be installed (similar to the original design), topsoil will be placed
above the rock toe, native seed will be installed, and the native seed with be covered
with a 100% biodegradable coconut erosion control blanket. The same native seed
mixes and native plants installed in the original 2011 restoration will be installed as
part of this proposed effort to help re-establish the ecological integrity of the original
shoreline restoration.

22
In addition to the restoration of the outer, higher energy shorelines, the shorelines
within the marina will also be re-constructed using natural shoreline techniques
where possible. With the original shoreline configuration, much of the shoreline was
exposed to high wave energies, which necessitated a rock toe in many locations.
Despite the original rock toe, shoreline damage still occurred in many locations due
to the high water and waves. However, due to the construction of the new proposed
breakwater, wave energies within the marina will be significantly reduced. This will
allow the use of softer techniques to rebuild the shoreline than those originally
proposed. Therefore, on the interior of the marina, the shoreline will be restored by
installing 1-2 12” diameter coir logs at the water’s edge, topsoil backfill behind the
coir log, native seed, and 100% biodegradable coconut erosion control fabric.
Existing broken stone, concrete, bricks, slag, and other remnant debris will be
removed prior to completing soft shoreline restoration work.
(c) The extent and permanence of the beneficial or detrimental effects that the
proposed activity may have on the public and private uses to which the area is
suited, including the benefits the wetland provides.

Public and Private Use

The Project will be located on private property and will include features (e.g.,
breakwater with concrete walkway) that will increase and provide opportunities
for the public to access Muskegon Lake. It is anticipated that this breakwater and
walkway will be highly utilized by the public and fishermen. The breakwater
provides not only protection for the vessels within the marina but also provides
spawning, feeding, and other habitats for wide array of fish species associated
with Muskegon Lake. Similarly, the interior wetlands that are being restored/
replanted will also provide greater habitat value for wildlife and aquatic biota than
those currently existing within the recently damaged shoreline (from recent high
water elevations and erosion).

The subject property is well-suited for the proposed activities given its location
along the southern shore of Muskegon Lake and close proximity to the local
community and its amenities. Private uses of the property will be greatly
enhanced by providing wharfage and access to Muskegon Lake. Currently, the
waterfront property does not permit an ecologically immersive experience to the
greater Muskegon community due to the Site’s current utilization and impaired
habitat.

Wetlands
Wetlands within the proposed impact areas include nearshore and interior
wetlands. Nearshore wetlands primarily consist of a sparse emergent plant
community established on fill composed of foundry sand, sand castings, slag and

23
other foreign materials. The emergent plant community consist of Bidens cernua
(nodding beggar-ticks), Cephalanthus occidentalis (buttonbush) seedlings,
Impatiens pallida (pale touch-me-not), Persicaria hydropiper (water pepper),
Potentilla anserina (silverweed), and Verbena hastata (blue vervain). Protected
shorelines (i.e. the east sides of the peninsulas) are more densely vegetated with
Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife), Eupatorium perfoliatum (boneset), Iris
virginica (southern blue flag), Nuphar advena (yellow pond lily), Salix interior
(sandbar willow), Schoenoplectus pungens (threesquare), and Typha latifolia
(broad-leaved cattail). Scrub-shrub nearshore wetland is located adjacent to
portions of the East Basin. Dominant vegetation within scrub-shrub wetland
consists of sandbar willow, buttonbush, Populus deltoides (eastern cottonwood),
Salix amygdaloides (peach-leaved willow), and Salix nigra (black willow).
Nearshore wetlands are degraded by wave energy and foundry waste, including
slag, sand castings, bricks, and metal fragments.

Interior wetlands are primarily emergent and include Wetlands A, G, and H

(noted as Wetlands A, E, and C in Fishbeck’s 2021 wetland delineation report).
Area A is located at the perimeter of three constructed stormwater detention
basins which receive municipal stormwater from West Western Avenue. Area
H is 0.007 acre in size and apparently formerly received stormwater from an
outlet pipe at its east edge. Species commonly observed in interior wetlands
included Phragmites australis (common reed), Typha angustifolia (narrow-leaved
cattail), Echinochloa muricata (barnyard grass), Cyperus esculentus (yellow
nutsedge), Agrostis hyemalis (ticklegrass), Persicaria pensylvanica (smartweed),
Juncus nodosus (joint rush), Leersia oryzoides (rice-cut grass), and
Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani (softstem bulrush).

Additional information relating to the wetlands and upland at the subject property
are provided within Fishbeck’s report entitled Wetland Delineation – 33-Acre
Lakefront Property, City of Muskegon, Muskegon County, Michigan, dated
November 22, 2021.

Wetland Benefits
Field observations conducted to date determined that the wetlands that are
proposed to be impacted by the Project are currently providing minimal nesting,
cover, perching, and feeding sites for wildlife.

The wetlands are degraded by foundry and demolition waste (including fill
material, sand castings, brick, slag, rebar) along the shoreline and buried in the
soil. Nearshore wetlands experience high wave energy and accelerated erosion,
thus are sparsely vegetated and low growing. Although wetlands are known to
mitigate erosive wave action, the Site’s west-facing, nearshore wetlands are

24
degraded and do not serve that purpose. Nearshore wetlands lack topsoil and
are primarily comprised of sand, which possess a low cation exchange capacity.
Therefore, they do not readily capture nutrients. The sandy soils also have a low
capacity for hydrologic absorption and storage capacity (carbon and water).
Because the Site’s nearshore wetlands are consistently narrow and sparsely
vegetated along much of their extent, any wetland functions and benefits are
spatially and functionally limited.

A variety of songbirds and small mammals are expected to be using the

nearshore wetlands. Due to the site’s current condition, these species are
expected to be limited to those acclimated to the human-built environment. It is
probable that Canada geese frequent the waterfront site due to its mowed
condition. Other shorebirds may temporarily use the site as a stopover to forage
along the shoreline. Mammals expected to be using these wetlands and the
surrounding upland habitats include, but are not limited to, squirrels, chipmunks,
skunks, opossums, raccoons, and cottontail rabbits. Minks and weasels may also
utilize this narrow fringe of wetland in search of food.

Interior wetlands likely capture nutrient runoff and serve as flood and storm
control features due to their depressional configuration. These functions are
limited due to the small size of the wetlands. Garter snakes may seek cover at
wetland perimeters. However, interior wetlands offer poor wildlife refuge, as
adjacent upland areas are intensely developed and routinely disturbed by
mowing activities, pedestrian traffic, and other anthropogenic impacts. Further,
interior wetlands are severely fragmented from larger tracts of suitable habitat.
No threatened and endangered species were observed onsite.

Invasive Species Management

Since the original restoration was completed in 2012, MLWP has worked with the
previous landowners to manage invasive species at the property. To support this
effort, Landowner Management Plans were developed for these properties,
which are both available at the MLWP website. https://muskegonlake.org/
habitat-management-plan/). Additionally, the MLWP website includes a lakewide
habitat management plan for the restoration sites, including detailed information
on invasive species treatments. It is the intent of Adelaide Pointe QOZB, LLC to
manage the natural areas of the site, including invasive species, in a manner
consistent with the already established guidance for these sites.
Proposed site redevelopment will have a beneficial effect on the public and
private uses of the property, for which this lakefront property is suited. It provides
greater public access and enjoyment of the lake (including, but not limited to,
fishing) and improvements to the existing wetlands on the property.

25
(d) The probable effects of each proposal in relation to the cumulative effects
created by other existing and anticipated activities in the watershed.

There are three other proposed residential and marina-related development

projects currently under EGLE review on Muskegon Lake. It is our understanding
that this project results in the least amount of wetland impact compared to the
other pending marina projects (e.g., Harbor 31, Damfino, and Windward Pointe).
None of the other proposed marina projects are proposing to provide the level or
extent of natural soft shoreline nor increased public access and fishing
opportunities as this project.

None of the other marina projects on the lake are proposing to reclaim
bottomland that was formerly used for logging and timber storage for their marina
developments (as is with this project). Additionally, this project provides nearly
two acres of new dedicated public waterfront and over 5,000 linear feet of public
waterfront access to Muskegon Lake. To which issuance of a permit for this
marina should be treated independently of the other marina developments as
they propose a vastly different level of resource impact, restoration of natural
wetland shorelines, and public access and benefit.

Issuance of a permit to Adelaide Pointe would encourage others to provide for

greater public access and use of their Muskegon Lake frontage, which would
lead to a positive cumulative impact on public access and use of Muskegon
Lake.

Issuance of a permit to Adelaide Pointe could encourage others to propose

expansions out into Muskegon Lake, which could cumulatively have an impact on
bottomland resources if no off-setting resource improvements/benefits are
proposed for those areas (like Adelaide is currently proposing).

(e) The probable effects on recognized historic, cultural, scenic, ecological, or

recreational values and on the public health or fish or wildlife.

A preliminary review of the State of Michigan’s historical database did not identify
any records of any historic or cultural resources that will be impacted by the
proposed activities within the Project site. Specifically, no records were found of
any historical buildings or Indian burial grounds on the property.

26
 As noted under previous criteria above, the project will have significant positive
effects on recreational values. The property is only minimally used by fishermen
and by persons walking their dogs, taking hikes, or using the public bike trail. The
project will provide a greater acreage and linear shoreline footage for legal
access to Muskegon Lake, specifically an increase from zero to 1.99 acres, and
2,110 to 5,215 linear feet, for various recreational activities (e.g. fishing, bird-
watching, biking).

As discussed previously, the wetlands within the Project area are providing
relatively minimal nesting, cover and feeding habitat for songbirds, small
mammals, and other terrestrial and aquatic biota. No state or federally listed
threatened or endangered animal or plant species were found within the site.

The Project will permanently impact incidentally created wetlands that developed
in manmade stormwater detention basins. Much of the narrow fringe of wetlands
along the shoreline will be temporarily impacted during construction and replaced
with higher quality and more floristically diverse wetlands. Unavoidable wetland
impacts will to be mitigated through the purchase of wetland mitigation bank
credits from an EGLE-approved wetland bank within the Muskegon River
watershed.

(f) The size of the wetland being considered.

The Site’s shoreline wetlands encompass 2.857 acres. The Site’s interior
(landlocked) wetland encompass 0.255 acre, including the man-made
stormwater detention basin wetland.

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

Using the National Land Use Land Cover Data and pixel to acreage conversion,
there are fewer than 102.4 acres of wetland within the general area of the Project
and its proposed regulated and non-regulated wetland impacts. The general area
is defined as a 2-mile radius around the proposed impact area, based upon
EGLE’s Michigan Rapid Assessment Methodology for Wetlands protocol.

(h) Proximity to any waterway.

The Project directly abuts Muskegon Lake.

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

27
The Project is located on land already owned and controlled by the City of
Muskegon and Adelaide Pointe QOZB, LLC. The proposed land change will have
a positive economic impact on the value of the existing private lands surrounding
the project area. The proposed land change will have a positive economic value
for the private landowner, the adjacent private property owners (by raising the
values of their residences), the public (by providing additional services within the
development), and to local retailers that will benefit from the increase in
population.

In its current state, the entire property is either privately owned, or if in public
ownership, fenced off to prevent access by the public, resulting in essentially no
public access to Muskegon Lake. Despite a conservation easement and major
shoreline habitat restoration project completed approximately ten years ago, the
shoreline itself is currently eroding away due to high water and waves. The
“wetland” edge conditions are generally exposed gravel and slag with vertical
edges where erosion has removed appropriate topsoil and wetland plants.
Despite these poor quality and unsafe conditions, the neighboring community
trespasses regularly to gain access to fishing opportunities along the shores of
Muskegon Lake. The proposed plan will transform all of this private and fenced
off land into public accessible waterfront for everyone in the community to access
and use. Permanent easements will ensure the perpetuity of public access.
Softer shoreline habitats will be created, and slag and debris removed. Fences
will be taken down, and trash and debris removed. New public paths and rock
outcroppings for fishing access will be added, along with the removal of invasive
species and establishment of extensive native shoreline plantings. Every inch of
the waterfront will be open to the public and dedicated to the public in perpetuity.
The rubble mound breakwater that protects the harbor will include a continuous
accessible concrete walkway, converting the structure into a public fishing pier
open to everyone.

28
III. REVIEW OF STATUTORY CRITERIA - Section 30311(3) and (4) of Part 303

Section 30311(3) provides that in considering a permit application, the Department

shall give serious consideration to findings of necessity for the proposed activity which
have been made by other state agencies.

At the present time permits/approvals, and some level of tacit findings of necessity have
been received from the following local and state agencies:
 City of Muskegon Planning Commission approved Planned Unit Development
(August 2021)
 City of Muskegon City Commission approved Planned Unit Development
(September 2021)

Section 30311(4) provides that a permit shall not be issued unless it is shown that an
unacceptable disruption will not result to the aquatic resources. In determining whether
a disruption to the aquatic resources is unacceptable, the criteria set forth in section
30302 and subsection (2) [i.e., 30311(2) above] shall be considered. A permit shall not
be issued unless the applicant also shows either of the following:
(a) The proposed activity is primarily dependent upon being located in the wetland.
(b) A feasible and prudent alternative does not exist.

Section 30302, states “the legislature finds that:

(a) Wetland conservation is a matter of state concern since a wetland of 1 county
may be affected by acts on a river, lake, stream, or wetland of other counties.
[Applicant concurs].
(b) A loss of a wetland may deprive the people of the state of some or all of the
following benefits to be derived from the wetland: [Applicant concurs].
(i) Flood and storm control by the hydrologic absorption and storage capacity
of the wetland.
(ii) Wildlife habitat by providing breeding, nesting, and feeding grounds and
cover for many forms of wildlife, waterfowl, including migratory waterfowl, and rare,
threatened, or endangered wildlife species.
(iii) Protection of subsurface water resources and provision of valuable
watersheds and recharging ground water supplies.
(iv) Pollution treatment by serving as a biological and chemical oxidation
basin.
(v) Erosion control by serving as a sedimentation area and filtering basin,
absorbing silt and organic matter.
(vi) Sources of nutrients in water food cycles and nursery grounds and
sanctuaries for fish.
[Applicant concurs that wetlands provide these benefits and proposes to re-
establish wetland and natural shoreline within the project limits coupled
with purchasing mitigation wetland bank credits].
(c) Wetlands are valuable as an agricultural resource for the production of food and
fiber, including certain crops which may only be grown on sites developed from
wetland. [Applicant concurs – however wetlands on this site are not
providing this function, value, benefit, or use].

29
 (d) That the extraction and processing of nonfuel minerals may necessitate the use
of wetland, if it is determined pursuant to section 30311 that the proposed activity is
dependent upon being located in the wetland and that a prudent and feasible
alternative does not exist. [Applicant concurs – none of these actions are
proposed by the applicant].

Section 30311(2)

Criteria set forth in Section 30311(2) was evaluated and discussed in the
previous section entitled II. REVIEW OF STATUTORY CRITERIA - Section
30311(1) and (2) of Part 303.

In summary, the proposed activities will have an impact on the man-made

stormwater management wetlands that were historically created on the property.
The project will also temporarily impact the fringe of wetlands along the
shorelines of the project area, however those wetlands will be restored and re-
established to provide greater functions, values, benefits, and uses than what
currently exists.

Permanent impacts to wetlands will be compensated for at appropriate mitigation

ratios and mitigation wetland banking credits purchased from the Muskegon
River Watershed Wetland Mitigation Bank. Analysis of feasible and prudent
alternatives by Adelaide Pointe QOZB LLC determined that the selected
alternative was the most feasible and prudent for providing the primary needs of
the Project and did attempt to minimize impacts to wetlands where possible.

30
 Wetland (Water) Dependency

The State of Michigan’s Water Resource Division’s Policy and Procedures for the
Evaluation of Feasible and Prudent Alternatives

Under Part 303, Wetlands Protection, of the NREPA (originally effective August
25, 2011, and reformatted March 6, 2013) states, in part, that:
Michigan’s "wetland dependent" criterion is based on the
similar federal term "water dependent," and staff can look to
the federal definition and case law for help in interpretation of
this term. The preamble to the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines
of the federal Clean Water Act includes discussion of the
term "water dependent" as it relates to the use of wetlands
and other "special aquatic sites."

The Project is water dependent since contact with and impacts to the waters of
Muskegon Lake are necessary for the Project. It requires the placement of
structures within Muskegon Lake and along the shoreline/wetland areas to
provide the necessary features of this development (e.g. marina, wharfage,
access to Muskegon Lake) to attract and retain local and regional economic
development of this area. There is not another property available to the applicant
that will provide this same level of opportunity to the local and regional area for
residential housing with water access/amenities.

Historically, the MDNR and MDEQ determined that development of marinas

within wetlands was a water/wetland dependent activity. The currently
reformatted protocols provide an example of “extraction of sphagnum moss” as a
water/wetland dependent activity. Both of which require impacting water
resources to achieve the main objective of the requested activity.

(b) A feasible and prudent alternative does not exist. An alternative is feasible
and prudent if both of the following provisions apply: (a) the alternative is
available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing
technology, and logistics, and (b) the alternative would have less adverse impact
on aquatic resources.

This has already been addressed in Section II. REVIEW OF STATUTORY

CRITERIA - Section 30311(1) and (2) of Part 303.

31
 ATTACHMENT A

INSERT ALL LETTER or APPROVALS of SUPPORT

32
 ATTACHMENT B

Alternative Site Plans

33
ALTERNATIVE #2

34
 ALTERNATIVE #3

35