Opinion

Dept of Environment Great Lakes and Energy v. Robert L Brotherton

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Filed: Jan 12, 2023
Status: Unpublished
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 22.4%

The opinion

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, GREAT UNPUBLISHED

LAKES, AND ENERGY, January 12, 2023

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v No. 359401

Mackinac Circuit Court

ROBERT L. BROTHERTON, LC No. 2017-008039-CE

Defendant-Appellee,

and

PETER COROGIN and DANA COROGIN,

Defendants.

Before: SHAPIRO, P.J., and BORRELLO and YATES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this environmental dispute involving the alleged placing of fill material and improper

construction of a logging road in wetlands, plaintiff Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and

Energy1 appeals as of right the trial court’s judgment, following a bench trial, finding that one of

the two sites involved was not a wetland and that the logging road constructed by defendant Robert

Brotherton in the other site was exempt from the wetland permit requirement because it was a

forest road that had minimal adverse impacts on the wetland. In challenging the trial court’s

decision, plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred in denying its earlier motion for partial

summary disposition. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we reverse the trial court’s summary

disposition ruling only with respect to the pole barn site, remand the matter for an entry of an order

granting summary disposition in plaintiff’s favor only with respect to Brotherton’s violation of

The Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) was formerly the Michigan

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

-1-

MCL 324.30304 by his activities on the pole barn site, and affirm the trial court’s ruling following

the bench trial with respect to the logging road.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises from a dispute over whether Brotherton constructed a road in a wetland

and placed additional fill material to build a pole barn and related improvements in a wetland

without obtaining the necessary permits from plaintiff pursuant to Part 303 of the Natural

Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), MCL 324.30301 et seq., involving the

protection of wetlands.

Kristina Wilson, who was employed by plaintiff, was the first person to observe the alleged

unauthorized activity on Brotherton’s property in June 2014. According to Wilson, she was

responding to an unrelated complaint in the area when she saw a “new road” that had been

constructed near the shoreline of South Manistique Lake in what Wilson referred to as “regulated

wetland.” Wilson took photographs that were admitted into evidence at trial. Wilson’s first picture

showed the “new fill placement” for the road, located within 500 feet of South Manistique Lake.

Wilson did not observe a permit posted on the site that would have indicated that the activities had

been authorized by plaintiff. Wilson posted a Notice of Violation on a tree on the property

indicating that the observed activities violated Part 303 of the NREPA. Because Wilson’s

coworker, Ryan McCone, was responsible for the area where the property was located, Wilson put

McCone’s contact information on the Notice of Violation.

McCone, who was employed by plaintiff as a quality analyst at the time, was contacted by

Brotherton as a result of the posted Notice of Violation. McCone met with Brotherton on the

subject property on August 1, 2014. Brotherton indicated that he had constructed the road to

harvest a stand of cedar trees at the west end of the new logging road. Based on this visit to the

property, McCone completed a standard Wetland Determination Data Form. McCone explained,

“This is a form where information collected at a sample point in the field is recorded for use in

determining whether this site that -- that’s the sampled site that’s representative of the area is

wetland or not.” McCone determined that the area surrounding the new logging road was a

wetland because all three necessary components of a wetland—hydric soil, wetland hydrology,

and hydrophytic vegetation—were present.

McCone further concluded that Brotherton had constructed the new logging road2 without

minimizing its impact on the wetland area. McCone noted that the new fill for the road had “buried

the wetland” and that he found a non-native, invasive species of upland plant growing in the fill.

He also stated that the road was approximately 200 feet from the lake, was wider than necessary

based on his observation of the width of the tracks from the equipment driving on the road, that

the fill was too deep, and that the new road had been built parallel to a pre-existing “two track”

road that had previously been created for logging. Additionally, McCone expressed concern that

There was a discussion on the record between the attorneys and the trial court clarifying that the

“new” road, which is the subject of this lawsuit, was built over at least “portions” of a pre-existing

two-track or “skid” road. There was also the separate two-track road that remained to the south of

the new road. This separate two-track road to the south is not at issue in this lawsuit.

-2-

the culverts under the road were not properly embedded in the soil and that plastic culverts were

used rather than steel culverts. Culverts serve to allow an unimpeded path for surface water that

would normally drain across a wetland area to continue to flow through the fill used to create the

road. Functional culverts prevent the road from acting as a dam. McCone was concerned that the

weight of the fill used for the road, along with heavy equipment driving on the road, would crush

the plastic culverts and prevent them from functioning properly.

At some point in late 2014 or early 2015, Wilson viewed an aerial image of the area

surrounding the road that showed that fill had also been placed in an area south of the new logging

road. Wilson stated that she was not aware of this additional area of fill before she viewed this

areal image. On April 29, 2015, Wilson conducted an onsite investigation of the newly discovered

additional fill area, which contained a pole barn, septic field, and driveway. 3 She estimated that

the driveway was approximately 240 to 270 feet long. Based on her investigation, Wilson

determined the site was situated in a wetland.

The pole barn was on property owned by defendants Peter and Dana Corogin, and the

driveway ran from Brotherton’s property to the pole barn. According to Peter’s affidavit, he had

purchased this property from Brotherton on August 14, 2014, after Brotherton “cleared the land,

placed the fill for the pole barn, the septic field, and the lay-down area around the future site of the

pole barn.” Peter averred, “Other than negotiating the purchase price for the property and the price

of Mr. Brotherton’s performing the pre-purchase activities, I did not have any involvement with

any activity on the property prior to August 14, 2014.” After closing on the property, Peter hired

other contractors to construct the pole barn. Peter stated that these contractors obtained any

necessary permits. Peter averred that Brotherton never informed him that “the site of the pole barn

or any other portion of the purchased property was a regulated wetland.” Peter further averred that

he did not know that his property was regulated wetland until he received the July 6, 2015 notice

of violation from plaintiff and that “[t]hroughout the process of planning and constructing the pole

barn neither I nor the contractors I hired understood that a Wetland Permit was necessary.”

In 2017, plaintiff initiated this civil action against Brotherton and the Corogins in the

Ingham Circuit Court. Plaintiff sought injunctive relief and civil fines for the filling of a wetland

and for maintaining a use in a wetland without a permit in violation of Part 303 of the NREPA.

The complaint alleged that Brotherton had not complied with a March 11, 2015 Order to Restore

issued by plaintiff that required Brotherton to remove the unauthorized fill material and restore the

wetland to its original grade with respect to the logging road that had been built without first

obtaining a Part 303 permit from plaintiff. The complaint alleged that Brotherton placed fill

material on his property to create the driveway leading to the Corogins’ pole barn. Additionally,

the complaint alleged the Brotherton was the contractor responsible for placing the fill material on

the Corogins’ property related to the pole barn, septic system, and driveway. Brotherton also

allegedly installed the septic system and a well on the Corogins’ property. The complaint further

Wilson testified that the driveway leading to the pole barn consisted of “fresh top dressing” or

“additional sand material base” applied to a “pre-existing skid trail.” She stated further that this

roadway was not “improved in scope.”

-3-

alleged that Brotherton and the Corogins had failed to comply with August 25, 2016 orders to

restore the wetland relative to the pole barn, septic system, and driveway area.

Brotherton’s subsequent motion to change venue to Mackinac County, where the subject

property is located, was granted. The Corogins reached a settlement agreement with plaintiff, and

the matter was dismissed with prejudice as to the Corogins.4 The case remained pending with

respect to Brotherton. Based on the settlement with the Corogins, plaintiff was not seeking

removal of the pole barn, septic system, or driveway leading to the pole barn. With respect to the

pole barn site,5 plaintiff was seeking to hold Brotherton liable for a fine regarding those activities.

The matter eventually proceeded to trial. At the beginning of trial, the court ruled that it

would rely on the version of Part 303 of the NREPA as it existed in 2014 at the time of the

underlying events and not as subsequently amended.6

Plaintiff called McCone to testify as an expert in the field of wetland science and the

administration and application of Part 303. McCone testified that during his August 1, 2014 visit

to the property, he walked the length of the approximately 1,420-foot long road and observed the

vegetation. McCone determined that the predominate vegetation consisted of species that tended

to grow in wet conditions such as yellow birch, red maple, quaking aspen, a type of bulrush that

was very indicative of wetland conditions, a wetland species of fern, and cattail. McCone stated

that he found “muck soils, which are an organic hydric soil common in wetlands,” at several places

“across this site.” He could identify this soil by its dark color, the presence of algae, and “cracking”

in the soil. McCone testified that he determined there was wetland hydrology because he found

saturation beginning at a depth of 2 inches below the soil surface.

As previously stated, McCone completed a standard Wetland Determination Data Form

based on information collected from a sample point in the field during his August 1, 2014 visit.

He described the area containing the logging road as “a swamp.” He also determined that the area

was a wetland because it had hydric soil, wetland hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation, which

were the three necessary components of a wetland. McCone specifically stated,

That conclusion in this summary was based on the documented presence of a

dominance of hydrophytic vegetation and all of the vegetative layers that were

present. The hydric soil was present. That was based on the profile of the soil pit

that was done. And that there was indicators of wetland hydrology present

sufficient to fulfil all three requirements to show that this was, indeed, a wetland.

McCone testified that he followed the procedures and requirements for making wetlands

determinations as set forth in the United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation

The Corogins are not parties to this appeal.

We refer to the entire area encompassing the pole barn, driveway, and septic system as “the pole

barn site.”

The parties agreed that the former version of the statute was applicable.

-4-

Manual and the Northcentral and Northeast Regional Supplement, as required by statute. He

explained that he took one sample point for the road because of the homogeneity and consistency

of the vegetation in the area. As he investigated the area along the road, he “saw nothing out there

that would indicate that there was a chance for significant difference from one area adjacent to the

road to another.” McCone further indicated that “the Northcentral and Northeast Regional

Supplement allows for that where you have a rather homogeneous site to collect just, you know,

one or a few sample points.” McCone opined that the area surrounding the logging road was a

regulated wetland under the statute based on the required standards for determination of a wetland

and the wetland’s proximity to South Manistique Lake.

McCone testified about the construction of the road, stating that the “depth of the fill for

this road was in some places five feet, I mean, several feet deep, far beyond what you would

typically see for a forest road or a logging road.” He also opined that the road was too wide

because it was significantly wider than the track marks made by the equipment using the road.

According to McCone, the road had been created from fill approximately 2 to 5 feet deep, and the

road was approximately 20 to 35 feet wide. The road had also been built parallel to a pre-existing

“two track” road that had previously been created for logging. McCone opined that there would

have been less impact on the wetland by using the pre-existing road.7 McCone expressed concern

that plastic culverts were used rather than steel culverts. Culverts serve to allow an unimpeded

path for surface water that would normally drain across a wetland area to continue to flow through

the fill used to create the road. Functional culverts prevent the road from acting as a dam. McCone

explained his concerns:

While plastic pipes are common, they’re suitable for only a certain amount

of cover. That’s the depth of material over them.

Because they’re plastic, they don’t have the strength that metal does, and if

you place too much fill over them or if you run equipment that’s too heavy over

them, you will crush them.

And when they get crushed, it’s kind of like if you take a plastic straw and

bend at the two ends, then it’d stick up, and it no longer functions properly.

McCone additionally testified that the culverts were not installed properly. He explained

that the culverts should have been embedded in the soil, with about 20% of the diameter of the

culvert below the soil surface, in order to properly function to convey hydrology and allow wetland

wildlife to pass through the road. The culverts in Brotherton’s logging road were not embedded.

The culverts were also too long and extended beyond the width of the road. Finally, discussing

one particular culvert, McCone stated that there was “a bag of Quikrete concrete mix sitting on top

of [the ends of the culvert] apparently trying to weigh that down because the end of the pipe was

elevated from the amount of fill placed in the center of the culvert.” He further explained, “The

There was clarification on the record in a discussion involving the trial court and the parties’

attorneys, in which it was explained that there were two old “two-track” roads and that portions of

the new logging road at issue in this case involved improvements to one of the old two-track roads

(Tr I, 82-83).

-5-

significance of that is that there’s really no reason to put ballast or weight on the end of a culvert

if it’s properly installed. In this case the only reason you’d do that is to try to weigh the end of the

culvert down because it’s become elevated.”

McCone opined that Brotherton, in constructing the new logging road,8 had not minimized

his impact on the wetland area. He also stated that the new fill for the road had “buried the

wetland” and that he found a non-native, invasive species of upland plant growing in the fill.

Wilson, testifying as an expert in wetland science and administration and application of

Part 303, agreed that the road was not constructed in a manner that would minimize the adverse

impact on the surrounding wetlands because of its excessive width and depth, as well as its

impedance to the free flow of water between sides of the road. Wilson noted that the culverts were

not properly installed and that there were signs of excessive standing water near the road, which

indicated that the culverts were not functioning adequately to allow water to pass through the road.

Wilson opined that the road was acting as a barrier to the free flow of water in the wetland, which

would contribute to a change in the vegetation and soil conditions and impact the wetland beyond

the actual footprint of the road.

Plaintiff’s logging experts, David Price and Warren Suchovsky, both testified that

Brotherton could have harvested the trees without building the road because other viable

alternatives existed. Both testified that Brotherton could have conducted logging operations during

a cold winter while the ground was frozen and the impact on the soil would thus be diminished.

Brotherton also could have used pre-existing roads or temporary roads. Price further explained

that Brotherton could have used cabling or skidding methods to bring the logs harvested from the

wetland area up to the adjacent upland to the south instead of constructing the east-west logging

road at issue in this litigation through the wetlands. Suchovsky also referred to “harvesting

equipment” that could have been used to reach the wetland trees from the upland area.

Wilson also testified about her visit to the pole barn site on April 29, 2015. It was late

spring, and there was still some snow on the ground. Wilson opined that the pole barn site was a

wetland, with hydrology draining downhill toward the lake to the north. Wilson also opined that

south of the pole barn site, and uphill, was a transition area where the ecology transitioned to non-

wetland based on the change in the tree species and vegetative community. Wilson explained that

she determined the pole barn site was in a wetland based on the (1) dominance of wetland

vegetation, (2) presence of hydrology as evidenced by the water table within 11 inches of the soil

surface and water saturation to the soil surface, and (3) presence of hydric soil based on the

indicators she observed in her soil samples. Wilson’s determination was based on two data

collection points near the pole barn, including soil samples at those sites. She also confirmed the

presence of hydric soil near the driveway. Wilson did not find any frozen conditions in her soil

pits. She testified that her data collection process was in accordance with the Army Corps of

There was a discussion on the record between the attorneys and the trial court clarifying that the

“new” road, which is the subject of this lawsuit, was built over at least “portions” of a pre-existing

two-track or “skid” road. There was also the separate two-track road that remained to the south of

the new road and this is not at issue in this lawsuit.

-6-

Engineers manual and the regional supplement. She determined that this site was a regulated

wetland based on its size and proximity to the lake.

On cross-examination, Brotherton’s counsel questioned Wilson about the National

Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)9 soil survey map of the area surrounding Brotherton’s

property. Wilson acknowledged that according to the soil survey map, “approximately half, if not

a little more than half,” of the logging road was in Iosco sand, which is a non-hydric soil. Wilson

also appeared to agree with Brotherton’s counsel that her soil samples for the pole barn site came

from areas designated as non-hydric soils on the soil map. On direct examination, Wilson had

explained that the soil survey maps are essentially estimates of the locations of various soil types,

created by comparing soil samples collected from the ground in discrete locations with aerial

images of the vegetation in the area, topographic maps, known water features, and other relevant

data. Wilson opined that there could be inclusions of other minor soil types that differed from the

major soil type shown on a soil survey map. She stated, “we observed hydric soils within those

mapped units [of non-hydric soils].” Wilson also testified,

The soil maps themselves, the data contained in those soil maps are not used

to make a wetland determination as required by this Northcentral and Northeast

Regional Supplement.

But the soil map descriptions tell us what types of vegetative communities

and the hydrology that we could anticipate to find at a specific site.

Wilson maintained that her methods for determining that the pole barn site was in a wetland

were in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers manual and the regional supplement, and

she also maintained that she determined both sample points were in wetlands.

Brotherton’s counsel similarly cross-examined McCone about the soil survey map with

respect to the logging road. McCone acknowledged that “roughly half” of the road was in the non-

hydric soil, Iosco sand, according to the soil survey map. The soil map indicated that the other

half of the road was in hydric soils. McCone collected his soil sample from the area shown on the

soil map as consisting of hydric soil. However, McCone also stated that soil maps are

approximations and that his method of determining that hydric soil was present for the area

containing the road was proper according to the Army Corps of Engineers manual and regional

supplement.

Brotherton testified that he earns most of his income through “logging operations” and that

he constructed the road at issue in this case for purposes of harvesting timber on his property. He

currently cuts his own trees and pays a log truck driver to haul his logs to the saw mill. In the past,

he had contracted with companies to harvest the trees on his property. In some situations, he would

still hire a contractor to cut his trees.

The NRCS is a federal government agency that is part of the United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA).

-7-

When he was asked how he selected the location for the logging road at issue, Brotherton

replied that there was an existing “skid trail” in that location that he “upgraded . . . to being a

logging road” and that it was the “shortest path” and required “the least amount of work” to access

the trees he was going to harvest. Brotherton indicated that there was “a greater concentration of

quality timber more towards the end of the road,” but he was also harvesting trees along the entire

length of the road. He also explained that a fully loaded logging truck weighs approximately

165,000 pounds and could not traverse a skid trail. Brotherton indicated that he constructed his

new road to accommodate a logging truck, which he thought was necessary to access the timber.

He did not believe the nearby alternative trail, which McCone had stated should have been used,

was a viable alternative because it was closer to the lake and involved navigating a hill and more

turns, which would have required even more fill to construct a road that would accommodate a

logging truck. Brotherton testified that he did not build the new logging road any wider or deeper

than necessary. Brotherton admitted that one of the plastic culverts had failed, causing water to

back up and wash out the road.

Brotherton admitted that it was possible to access the area without a road during the winter

if the weather was cold enough for a sufficient time, but he indicated that recent winters had not

provided the necessary weather conditions. Brotherton indicated that he had attempted to use the

skid trail before he added the fill to turn it into the logging road at issue, but this was not a viable

alternative because his vehicles became stuck due to the wet conditions.

Brotherton additionally presented the testimony of Rory Mattson as an expert in wetland

identification and delineation, forestry, timbering and logging, forest and logging roads, and

construction of forest and logging roads.

Mattson agreed that an area could not be considered a wetland if it did not have wetland

hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and hydrology. He opined that the area at the far west end of

the logging road, where he dug two holes and found “muck soils,” was “probably considered

wetland.” Mattson based this opinion on the hydric soil, vegetation, and hydrology he found in

that area. Mattson further testified that he did not know where the wetland ended and that he could

not figure out the boundary line of the wetland without spending substantially more time on the

site and digging “numerous, numerous holes.” He estimated that he dug about “a dozen” holes

along the road. He also explained that according to the NRCS soil survey map, the soil in most of

the area through which the road traveled was Iosco sand, which is a non-hydric soil, and the holes

that he dug along the road confirmed that this soil mapping was accurate. Mattson therefore opined

that the logging road was not exclusively located in a regulated wetland. He disagreed that one

soil sample in this case was sufficient to determine that the entire 1,420-foot road was in a wetland,

and he disagreed that the vegetation was fairly uniform along the entire length of the road. Mattson

opined that there were small inclusions of “miniature” wetlands within the upland, Iosco sand

portion of the road, so he determined the area was not a wetland. He stated, it was “definitely an

upland.”

Mattson further explained that the characteristics of the environment frequently changed

in this area:

-8-

In this instance, if you go to the lake and you start working yourself north

-- south. Excuse me. North would be the lake. South, you’ll see the timber change

within probably a hundred to 200 feet, and then the timber types change again.

And there’s numerous what I would call wetland draws or ephemeral draws,

which means they live for one day. Basically, snow melt areas, because there’s a

slope there, and that water is going to, through snow melt, through large

precipitations, and then work its way to the lake.

* * *

So there’s -- there’s just numerous, numerous changes throughout this whole area

along that lake.

Mattson disagreed that harvesting methods involving cabling or skidding the logs out of

the wetland were practical alternatives to constructing the logging road; Mattson believed that such

methods would destroy Brotherton’s property as the trees were dragged across the ground.

However, he clarified that this process would not damage the soil but would tear up any vegetation.

Mattson also testified that the width of the road Brotherton constructed was reasonable and not

excessive. According to Mattson, the large equipment to be used on the road for logging purposes

required that the road be sufficiently wide at turns and have only gradual inclines. Mattson stated

that the width of this logging road was typical and that he had seen multiple logging roads that

were wider. Mattson testified that a logging road needed to be significantly wider than the width

of the equipment that would drive on it. He opined that the placement of the logging road was

“perfect.” Mattson indicated that there were no alternative routes for the logging road that would

have less impact on the wetland and that Brotherton used the shortest, most direct route with “the

least impact in the whole area.”

Mattson testified that plastic culverts could be used if they were installed correctly, but he

opined that steel culverts were “the best.” He explained that if plastic culverts were not properly

sunk partially into the ground or if too much of the plastic protruded beyond the edges of the road,

then snow and ice would often cause plastic culverts to bend up and fail, which in turn would cause

the road to wash out. Mattson opined that if an insufficient amount of fill was placed over the

plastic culverts, the weight of the logging trucks would not be sufficiently distributed and the trucks

would crush the culverts. Mattson opined that the trucks, rather than excessive fill, presented the

risk of crushing the culverts. Mattson testified that he told Brotherton that all of his culverts were

showing signs that they were potentially going to fail.

Additionally, Mattson critiqued the adequacy and quality of plaintiff’s analysis of whether

the pole barn site was a wetland. Mattson testified that the soil map showed that the pole barn site

was comprised of Solona Loam, which is a non-hydric soil. Mattson also testified that it was not

uncommon in the Upper Peninsula for snow to be on the ground in April, when Wilson conducted

her evaluation, and that hydrology determinations should be made “probably the 15th of June or

later” so the results are not improperly influenced by “spring run-off, melt, and/or high

precipitation events in April and May, which the U.P. always gets.” Mattson did not believe that

Wilson collected sufficient soil sample data to conclude that the entire pole barn site consisted of

hydric soil.

-9-

Mattson also disagreed with Wilson’s conclusion regarding wetland vegetation because he

would not have concluded that the mixture of vegetation documented by Wilson justified the

conclusion that wetland vegetation was present. Mattson opined that Wilson’s data sheets did not

evidence predominantly facultative wetland vegetation as Wilson had claimed to have observed

when testifying at trial. Essentially, Mattson disagreed that Wilson’s documented vegetation data

justified her conclusion about the presence of wetland vegetation, and Mattson would not have

concluded from the documented vegetation data that the area contained hydrophytic wetland

vegetation for purposes of determining the area was a wetland. Mattson opined that Wilson did

not conduct an adequate investigation to determine that the pole barn site was a wetland.

Plaintiff called Chad Fizzell as one of its rebuttal witnesses. Fizzell, an environmental

quality specialist for plaintiff’s wetlands, lakes, and streams unit, testified as an expert in

Geographic Information Systems (GIS),10 aerial photograph interpretation, and aerial wetland

mapping. He stated that his “typical responsibilities include coordinating the wetland inventory

efforts for the state,” which involves “[e]ssentially mapping the wetlands of the state.” Fizzell also

explained that “the way the wetlands are mapped in the state from a state-wide perspective is from

aerial imagery,” noting that wetlands “are very distinctive on aerial imagery” because the presence

of water and wetland vegetation could be discerned from the images. Fizzell testified that he used

multiple years of aerial imagery, GIS, and high-resolution topography to create a map showing the

wetland boundary for the area at issue in this case. This map showed that wetlands encompassed

the entire logging road and pole barn sites. Maps like this one are used as “guides,” so it was

always necessary to have an expert conduct an on-the-ground wetland boundary determination as

well.

Wilson also testified on rebuttal that she followed the protocols of the regional supplement

in completing her data sheets for the pole barn site and that her data for the site satisfied the

dominance test outlined in the manual for concluding that hydrophytic vegetation was the

dominant type of vegetation on the site with respect to both of her sample points. Wilson agreed

that the regional supplement cautioned that some hydrology indicators could be naturally

temporary or seasonal and impacted by meteorological conditions. Wilson further agreed that the

regional supplement cautioned that surface water could be present in non-wetland areas after

rainfall, periods of unusually high precipitation, or runoff, and that if surface water was observed

outside of the growing season and it was questionable whether wet conditions normally extended

into the growing season, a follow-up visit during the growing season could be necessary. Wilson

acknowledged that her April visit to the pole barn site was “[p]robably not during the growing

season” and that she did not conduct a follow-up wetlands investigation on the site during the

growing season.

Following the bench trial, the trial court issued a written opinion containing its findings of

fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found that plaintiff had not proven by a preponderance

of the evidence that the pole barn site was a wetland, specifically due to what the court found to

be an inadequately performed analytical process by plaintiff, and that Brotherton therefore did not

According to Fizzell, “GIS is essentially digital mapping where we’re taking, you know,

multiple layers of data and overlaying them within an additional mapping system.”

-10-

need to obtain a wetland permit to complete the work he performed on that site. The trial court

additionally found that the logging road was exempt from the permit requirement pursuant to MCL

324.30305(2)(j) because adverse impacts on the wetland had been minimized.

On a related note, the trial court found “[t]hat the roadway, as used, developed and constructed by

the Defendant was a logical and practical route given the general nature of the property involved

and equipment contemplated to be used in harvesting his timber.” Finally, the trial court ordered

Brotherton to take the following actions:

A.) That the Defendant shall, within a reasonable time, 45 days from the

date of this order, retain a professional wetland consultant, (a non-witness) to

review the stated concerns of the DEQ, per correspondence received by the

Defendant on the logging road site only;

B.) That said consultant shall review the site in a timely fashion to determine

the most reasonable path to address those stated concerns of the DEQ, and state

within 120 days from the date of hire, a written plan any steps he or she may

determine are necessary, if any, to accomplish or rectify those concerns. The plan

shall be submitted for review and comment by the DEQ within 30 days from

receipt, and a copy submitted to the Court. The plan shall also outline a reasonable

timetable for the completion of any remedial tasks determined necessary. Culvert

repairs may commence as soon as practical, consistent with standard practices for

the same.

C.) The Court will retain jurisdiction and reserve, until the completion of

this review, and satisfactory resolution of the matter and its assessment of any fines

against the Defendant.

Following the completion of the report by Brotherton’s consultant, the trial court entered a

final order in which it declined to impose fines or penalties but ordered “those remedial measures

such as culvert repair must be addressed before further activity can commence by the Defendant.”

This appeal followed. Further facts will be discussed in the analysis section below as

necessary.

II. ANALYSIS

A. SUMMARY DISPOSITION

On appeal, plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred by denying its pretrial motion for

partial summary disposition on the issues whether both the logging road and the pole barn sites

were regulated wetlands.

Plaintiff moved for partial summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing that it

was entitled to judgment as a matter of law regarding liability for the violation involving the fill

placed by Brotherton related to the pole barn, driveway and septic field because there was no

genuine issue of material fact that Brotherton admitted to placing the fill without a permit, that

plaintiff’s experts determined the pole barn area was a regulated wetland, and that Brotherton’s

-11-

only named expert had not been asked to give an opinion on the pole barn area. Regarding the fill

for the new logging road, plaintiff argued that there was no genuine issue of material fact that

Brotherton placed the fill without a permit and that both plaintiff’s experts and Brotherton’s expert

agreed that the road went through a regulated wetland. Plaintiff thus contended that the only

disputed issue for trial regarding liability was “whether Defendant Brotherton’s activities qualified

for the forest road permit exemption in MCL 324.30305.”

The evidence relied on by plaintiff in support of its motion included deposition testimony

of Brotherton and Brotherton’s expert witness, Mattson. Brotherton testified that he placed the fill

on the pole barn site to level the site for construction of the pole barn and to “upgrade” the existing

“skid trail” leading to the location for the pole barn. Brotherton testified that he placed the fill to

improve another existing skid trail into the logging road at issue so that he could drive a logging

truck on the road.11 This logging road was “about a quarter mile long.” However, Brotherton did

not believe that he needed a permit from plaintiff to build the road because he built the road for

the purpose of conducting logging operations.

Mattson testified in his deposition that he went to the property to assess whether he thought

the new logging road violated Part 303, to assess whether the road qualified for the forest road

exemption to the permit requirement, and to give Brotherton “guidance.” Mattson opined that

“[p]art of this road is wetland, part of it is not wetland.” However, Mattson testified that he was

not as concerned with the precise boundaries of the wetland and non-wetland areas because the

most important issue was whether the logging road had been constructed to minimize its impact

on the wetlands such that it could qualify for the forest road exemption; Mattson explained that

this was the focus of his assessment. Regarding the pole barn site, Mattson testified that he “did

not go into this site” but was “requested to come back for that on a separate issue.” Mattson

clarified that he originally went to Brotherton’s property to inspect the logging road and that he

returned later only for “forestry” inspection purposes.

Plaintiff additionally relied on the affidavits of Wilson and McCone in which they each

opined, respectively, that the pole barn site and logging road area were regulated wetlands. Finally,

plaintiff cited Brotherton’s forest management plan, which acknowledged that much of his

property was wetland and soil sensitive such that there were limitations on the process to be used

for logging the property. The forest management plan was prepared for Brotherton by a forester

and covered over 250 acres of property. The forest management plan stated that Brotherton’s

objective was as follows:

Based on acres and percentage of soils in the Markey and Charbondale;

Angelica Muck class, objective for this property is wildlife and timber

management. Due to sensitivity and equipment limitations on these soils, objective

would be selected seasonal harvesting only. It is the intention of owner to harvest

The logging road and the driveway to the pole barn were treated as two distinct roadways in the

trial court, but they apparently intersect via an intervening road at some point near the eastern end

of the logging road.

-12-

these properties as the correct opportunity for harvesting becomes present.

Example would be Very dry summer or extremely cold winter.

Brotherton opposed plaintiff’s motion for partial summary disposition. He argued that

Mattson had opined that the logging road was not in a protected wetland except for approximately

200 feet of the western portion of the road. Brotherton further argued that Mattson had examined

the pole barn site, including the areas containing the driveway and septic system, and that Mattson

had opined that these sites were not in a protected wetland. Brotherton maintained that the

conflicting expert opinions created a genuine question of material fact and that plaintiff was

therefore not entitled to summary disposition.

Brotherton attached an affidavit by Mattson, in which Mattson averred that he had

inspected both the logging road site and the pole barn site. Mattson averred that based on his

inspection, he determined that most of the logging road was constructed in non-hydric soil and

thus was not in a wetland. Mattson further averred that he observed some “ephemeral drainage

areas” that allowed water movement from higher to lower terrain but that “only exist for a short

period following precipitation or snow melt.” It was Mattson’s opinion that “only about 200 feet

of the west end of the road is in a wetland.” Additionally, Mattson averred that the pole barn site

was not in a wetland based on the nature of the vegetation and soils in the area.

Brotherton averred in his affidavit, which was also attached to the response, that he “did

not believe that the upgraded logging road or the Corogin driveway, pole barn and septic system

were built in wetlands.” He also averred that in performing the work on the pole barn site, he

obtained “a septic permit from the Mackinac County Health Department.” A copy of this permit

was attached to Brotherton’s response. On the permit approval documents, there were comments

that “[m]uck layer at test hole areas was saturated” and that the muck layer would have to be

“[s]crape[d] off” before installing the system.

Plaintiff filed a reply, arguing that the trial court should quash the affidavits of Brotherton

and Mattson because they contradicted Mattson’s prior deposition testimony. Plaintiff contended

that Brotherton could not create a question of fact by relying on affidavits that contradicted the

deposition testimony of Brotherton’s expert. Plaintiff further argued that Mattson had testified

that he did not inspect the pole barn site to determine whether it was a wetland. Plaintiff also

claimed that Mattson’s affidavit and deposition testimony were contradictory with respect to the

“wetland draws” through which the logging road traveled. Plaintiff argued that Brotherton had

failed to supplement his discovery responses to reflect any new information obtained after

Mattson’s deposition was taken. Moreover, plaintiff claimed that it had requested the “facts and

opinions to which any of Defendant’s experts would testify and the ground for those opinions,”

but Brotherton had not provided this information.

The trial court held a hearing at which it heard oral arguments from the parties. Plaintiff

argued consistently with its written filings and also noted that Brotherton had not contested that he

placed the fill in the areas at issue without a permit. Brotherton’s counsel argued that the pole barn

site was not a wetland, that the logging road did not run entirely through wetlands, and that the

logging road met the forestry road permit exemption. Brotherton’s counsel also argued that

Mattson’s affidavit was not inconsistent with his deposition testimony because during Mattson’s

deposition, plaintiff never asked him any questions about the pole barn site. Furthermore,

-13-

Brotherton’s counsel maintained that Mattson’s deposition testimony and affidavit were consistent

with respect to his opinions regarding the logging road.

The trial court issued a written order, striking Brotherton’s untimely exhibits, affidavits,

and additional witnesses. The trial court additionally ruled that there was no genuine issue of

material fact that Brotherton placed the fill for both the road and the pole barn site, and that

Brotherton did so without permits from plaintiff. The court concluded, however, that there were

genuine questions of fact regarding whether the logging road and pole barn sites were in wetlands

and whether the logging road met the requirements for the permit exemption. The trial court

explained its summary disposition ruling in pertinent part as follows:

As noted above, the standard of review in these matters requires the Court

to view the matter in a light most favorable to the party opposing the Motion(s). It

is anything but clear to this Court that the specific road construction area is a

wetland in its entirety, given the experts conflicting testimony and even if a

wetland, as pointed out by the Plaintiff, the issue of the road still rests on whether

the Defendant is exempt from MDEQ requirements under MCL 324.30305.

The Court, on these facts, takes judicial notice that fill was placed in a

disputed wetland area and that no permits were pulled in order to comply with the

same. The Court’s findings would also agree on the same points as to the matter of

the pole barn, road and septic system being constructed without permits from the

MDEQ, in an arguably wetland area, noting for the record that various permits were

pulled by the Defendant, from other governmental entities, for the establishment of

the septic system and pole barns construction.[12]

“This Court reviews the grant or denial of summary disposition de novo to determine if the

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118;

597 NW2d 817 (1999). Summary disposition is proper under MCR 2.116(C)(10) if “[e]xcept as

to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party

is entitled to judgment or partial judgment as a matter of law.” MCR 2.116(C)(10). “A party may

move for dismissal of or judgment on all or part of a claim in accordance with this rule.” MCR

2.116(B)(1). On a motion under 2.116(C)(10), “a trial court must consider all evidence submitted

by the parties in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion,” and the motion may

only be granted if “there is no genuine issue of material fact.” El-Khalil v Oakwood Healthcare,

Inc, 504 Mich 152, 160; 934 NW2d 665 (2019). “A genuine issue of material fact exists when the

record, giving the benefit of reasonable doubt to the opposing party, leaves open an issue upon

which reasonable minds might differ.” West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183; 665 NW2d

468 (2003).

The trial court also stated: “The Court, having reviewed the matter of Motions for Partial

Summary Disposition under MCR 2.117 (C) (10) [sic] and the Motion to Strike, GRANTS, in

limited scope, by the Court taking judicial notice only of the facts argued under the Motion for

Partial Summary Disposition, as noted below. The Court also GRANTS the Motion to Strike, for

the below stated reasons.”

-14-

“The NREPA is a comprehensive statutory scheme containing numerous parts, all intended

to protect the environment and natural resources of this state.” Dep’t of Environmental Quality v

Gomez, 318 Mich App 1, 13; 896 NW2d 39 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Activities in wetlands are controlled by Part 303 of the NREPA. See Huggett v Dep’t of Natural

Resources, 464 Mich 711, 715; 629 NW2d 915 (2001); MCL 324.30301 et seq.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that Brotherton’s activities with respect to the logging road

and the pole barn site violated MCL 324.30304(a) and (c). At the time of the alleged violations,13

the statute provided:

Except as otherwise provided in this part or by a permit issued by the

department under sections 30306 to 30314 and pursuant to part 13, a person shall

not do any of the following:

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

* * *

[MCL 324.30304, as amended by 325 PA 2004.]

Further, MCL 324.30301 provided in relevant part as follows regarding the determination

of a regulated wetland:

(1) As used in this part:

(a) “Department” means the department of environmental quality.

* * *

(m) “Wetland” means land characterized by the presence of water at a

frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances

does support, wetland vegetation or aquatic life, and is commonly referred to as a

bog, swamp, or marsh, and which is any of the following:

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

or a river or stream.

(ii) Not contiguous to the Great Lakes, an inland lake or pond, or a river or

stream; and more than 5 acres in size.

As previously stated, the trial court ruled that it would rely on the version of Part 303 of the

NREPA as it existed in 2014 at the time of the underlying events and not as subsequently amended.

This ruling is not challenged on appeal. Nonetheless, the minor changes in the subsequent

amendment to MCL 324.30304 have no bearing on the issues presented in this appeal. See MCL

324.30304, as amended by 631 PA 2018.

-15-

(iii) Not contiguous to the Great Lakes, an inland lake or pond, or a river or

stream; and 5 acres or less in size if the department determines that protection of

the area is essential to the preservation of the natural resources of the state from

pollution, impairment, or destruction and the department has so notified the owner.

(2) The department and local units of government shall apply the technical

wetland delineation standards set forth in the United States army corps of engineers

January 1987 wetland delineation manual, technical report Y–87–1, and

appropriate regional United States army corps of engineers supplements, in

identifying wetland boundaries under this part, including, but not limited to, section

30307. [MCL 324.30301, as amended by 247 PA 2012.14]

On appeal, plaintiff argues that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law that both the

logging road site and pole barn site were regulated wetlands because there was no evidence

properly before the trial court from which it could conclude that there were genuine issues of

material fact whether the disputed areas were regulated wetlands. Plaintiff maintains that

Mattson’s affidavit provided the only basis on which the trial court could have found a genuine

factual dispute on these issues but that Mattson’s affidavit could not be considered because it

contradicted his deposition testimony. Specifically, plaintiff argues that although Mattson testified

in his deposition that he never reviewed the pole barn site to determine whether it was in a regulated

wetland, he contradicted this testimony in his affidavit by stating that he had inspected the pole

barn site and concluded that it was not in a regulated wetland. Plaintiff additionally argues that

Mattson’s statement in his affidavit that the logging road was not constructed in a regulated

wetland except for a small portion of the road at the western end contradicted his deposition

testimony that the western end of the logging road was in a regulated wetland and that the rest of

the logging road traversed multiple small wetland areas that were regulated wetlands because they

were contiguous to the lake.

“This Court has held that parties may not contrive factual issues merely by asserting the

contrary in an affidavit after having given damaging testimony in a deposition.” Dykes v William

Beaumont Hosp, 246 Mich App 471, 480; 633 NW2d 440 (2001) (quotation marks and citations

omitted). “Deposition testimony damaging to a party’s case will not always result in summary

judgment. However, when a party makes statements of fact in a clear, intelligent, unequivocal

manner, they should be considered as conclusively binding against him in the absence of any

explanation or modification, or of a showing of mistake or improvidence.” Id. (quotation marks

and citations omitted). Moreover, “this principle is not limited to parties who make contradictory

assertions. The principle that contradictory affidavits should be disregarded stands irrespective of

the identity of the maker of the conflicting statements.” Id. at 481 (quotation marks and citation

omitted).

The definition of “wetland” is now contained in MCL 324.30301(1)(n). The definition is still

similar, but it has undergone significant revision. See MCL 324.30301, as amended by 631 PA

2018. The effect of these revisions is not at issue in this case. Former MCL 324.30301(2) is now

contained in MCL 324.30301(4) and the amended language only involves changes to

capitalization. See MCL 324.30301, as amended by 631 PA 2018.

-16-

Here, the trial court struck Brotherton’s and Mattson’s affidavits but nonetheless concluded

that there were genuine questions of fact regarding whether the logging road and pole barn sites

were in wetlands. In its order, the trial court did not cite any specific evidence that the areas were

not wetlands. Instead the trial court merely referred generally to “the experts conflicting

testimony.” Hence, the question becomes whether there was record evidence, without considering

the affidavits, from which the trial court could properly conclude that there were genuine questions

of material fact that both sites were regulated wetlands.

With respect to the pole barn site, Mattson averred in his affidavit that he had inspected the

pole barn site and determined that it was not in a wetland based on the nature of the vegetation and

soils in the area. Although Mattson’s deposition testimony on this point was not as clear as plaintiff

appears to believe, plaintiff is correct that Mattson indicated in his deposition that he did not

originally inspect the pole barn site and that the record does not contain any deposition testimony

by Mattson opining on whether the pole barn site was in a regulated wetland. Mattson appeared

to imply in his deposition that he visited the pole barn at some unspecified date for some other

forestry related issue, but the record does not contain any indication that Mattson provided further

details about that visit in his deposition. Mattson’s averment that the pole barn site was not in a

regulated wetland was the only evidence Brotherton relied on for this proposition in opposing

plaintiff’s summary disposition motion. Plaintiff, however, provided an affidavit from its expert,

Wilson,15 that she had inspected the pole barn site and determined that it was a wetland that was

contiguous to the lake and thus a regulated wetland.

Because the trial court struck Mattson’s affidavit, the only evidence remaining before the

trial court on summary disposition undisputedly indicated that the pole barn site was in a wetland

for purposes of former MCL 324.30301(1)(m). Further, the trial court ruled that there was no

factual dispute that Brotherton placed the fill and did so without a permit. Accordingly, there was

no genuine issue of material fact that Brotherton violated MCL 324.30304 by his activities on the

pole barn site. The evidence that Corogin did not know the site was a regulated wetland and that

other necessary permits were obtained is not evidence that the site was not a wetland. Brotherton’s

bare allegations, denials, and arguments, without supporting record evidence were insufficient to

establish a genuine issue of fact for trial. MCR 2.116(G)(4). “A litigant’s mere pledge to establish

an issue of fact at trial cannot survive summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). The court

rule plainly requires the adverse party to set forth specific facts at the time of the motion showing

a genuine issue for trial.” Maiden, 461 Mich at 121.

The trial court could not somehow take “judicial notice” of the parties’ arguments

regarding whether the area was a wetland while simultaneously striking the only record evidence

supporting Brotherton’s position because, in doing so, the trial court essentially allowed

Brotherton to proceed to trial on the issue whether the pole barn site was a wetland based solely

on his promise to establish a factual issue at trial. Id.

The trial court also could not rely on any apparent disbelief of plaintiff’s assertions or the

court’s view of the credibility of plaintiff’s experts because “it is well settled that the circuit court

may not weigh the evidence or make determinations of credibility when deciding a motion for

There is no indication that Wilson was ever deposed.

-17-

summary disposition.” Innovative Adult Foster Care, Inc v Ragin, 285 Mich App 466, 480; 776

NW2d 398 (2009). Furthermore, to the extent there was evidence actually admitted at trial that

would support the existence of a genuine factual dispute regarding the pole barn’s status as a

wetland, that evidence is immaterial to deciding the question whether plaintiff’s motion for partial

summary disposition was properly denied because this Court’s review of a decision on a motion

for summary disposition “is limited to the evidence that had been presented to the circuit court at

the time the motion was decided.” Id. at 475-476.

“If the pleadings show that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, or if the

affidavits or other proofs show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the court shall render

judgment without delay.” MCR 2.116(I)(1). The trial court erred by denying summary disposition

to plaintiff with respect to Brotherton’s violation of MCL 324.30304 on the pole barn site. Maiden,

461 Mich at 118.

With respect to the logging road, the evidence was more nuanced than plaintiff makes it

appear in its appellate argument. Plaintiff submitted McCone’s affidavit, in which he averred that

he determined that the road went through a regulated wetland because the site was contiguous to

the lake and satisfied the “three-factor approach” considering the following indicators: hydric soil,

wetland hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation. As relevant to the present discussion, McCone

averred that hydric soils are soils “that formed under saturated, flooded, or ponded conditions for

long enough periods of the growing season to develop anaerobic (i.e., oxygen depleted) conditions

in their upper layers.” He averred that the soil through which the road traveled was hydric soil

because he observed 11 inches of organic, mucky peat soil over sand. McCone also explained:

A single wetland sample point was collected at a point representative of the

entire violation site to document the soil, vegetation, and hydrology characteristics

present. I inspected the soils, vegetation, and hydrology characteristics at numerous

locations through the remainder of the site and determined there was no

considerable variation throughout. As such, additional sample points were deemed

unnecessary.

Mattson testified in his deposition that “[p]art of this road is wetland, part of it is not

wetland.” Mattson also testified that he primarily focused on whether the road had been

constructed in a manner that would minimize its impacts on the wetlands, rather than the precise

boundaries of the wetlands, because he believed the most important question was whether the road

could qualify for the forest road exemption to the permit requirement. Mattson also explained in

his deposition that an area is a wetland if it has the requisite type of soil, vegetation, and hydrology,

and that he agreed with the NRCS soil map showing that some of the area where the road was

constructed was Iosco sand, which is a non-hydric soil. Mattson acknowledged in his deposition

that the soil map was “only accurate to 2 to 3 acres,” that there could nonetheless be wetland areas

included within the area of the soil map generally designated as Iosco sand, and that this was “why

you have to do the ground determination.” Mattson testified that he found small areas of wetland

that touched the lake in this otherwise upland area. However, he did not specifically discuss the

nature of the soil in these areas he termed “wetland draws.”

-18-

Accordingly, even without Mattson’s affidavit, there was record evidence contradicting

McCone’s affidavit16 that the logging road traveled entirely through wetlands. Reasonable minds

could disagree regarding whether at least some portion of the road was not in a wetland, creating

a genuine issue of material fact such that the trial court did not err by denying summary disposition

on this issue. El-Khalil, 504 Mich at 160; West, 469 Mich at 183.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of summary disposition regarding whether the logging

road area is a wetland, but we reverse the trial court’s summary disposition ruling regarding the

pole barn site and remand for entry of an order granting summary disposition in favor of plaintiff

on the issue whether Brotherton violated MCL 324.30304 by his activities on the pole barn site.

B. FOREST ROAD EXEMPTION

Next, plaintiff challenges the trial court’s rulings following the bench trial. Specifically,

plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by determining the pole barn site and logging road area

were not wetlands and that the trial court further erred by determining that the logging road met

the statutory forest road exemption from the permit requirement.

As an initial matter, as a result of our conclusion on plaintiff’s summary disposition

argument plaintiff’s argument regarding the trial court’s ruling on the pole barn site after trial is

moot. Because we have determined that plaintiff is entitled to judgment in its favor on

Brotherton’s violations for activities on the pole barn site, there is no further relief that this Court

can grant plaintiff with respect to that issue. A matter becomes moot when “it presents only

abstract questions of law that do not rest upon existing facts or rights” or “an event occurs that

renders it impossible for a reviewing court to grant relief.” B P 7 v Bureau of State Lottery, 231

Mich App 356, 359; 586 NW2d 117 (1998). We thus confine ourselves to addressing plaintiff’s

arguments regarding the logging road.

Findings of fact made by the trial court following a bench trial may only be set aside on

appeal if clearly erroneous. Dep’t of Environmental Quality v Sancrant, 337 Mich App 696, 700,

714; 976 NW2d 874 (2021). “A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous unless there is no evidence

to support it or the reviewing court on the entire record is left with the definite and firm conviction

that a mistake has been committed.” Id. at 714 (quotation marks and citation omitted). This Court

reviews de novo the trial court’s conclusions of law, Menhennick Family Trust v Menhennick, 326

Mich App 504, 509; 927 NW2d 741 (2018), as well as any questions of statutory construction,

Sancrant, 337 Mich App at 714.

As previously stated, the “NREPA is a comprehensive statutory scheme containing

numerous parts, all intended to protect the environment and natural resources of this state.”

Gomez, 318 Mich App at 13 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Activities in wetlands are

controlled by Part 303 of the NREPA. See Huggett, 464 Mich at 715; MCL 324.30301 et seq.

There is also no indication that McCone was deposed.

-19-

Plaintiff alleged that Brotherton violated MCL 324.30304(a) and (c), which provided as

follows at the time of the alleged violations:

Except as otherwise provided in this part or by a permit issued by the

department under sections 30306 to 30314 and pursuant to part 13, a person shall

not do any of the following:

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

* * *

[MCL 324.30304, as amended by 325 PA 2004.]

MCL 324.30301 provided in relevant part as follows regarding the determination of a

regulated wetland: