PRESERVE THE DUNES INC V DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PRESERVE THE DUNES, INC.,
FOR PUBLICATION
October 28, 2004
9:00 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 231728
Berrien Circuit Court
LC No. 98-003789-CE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY and TECHNISAND, INC.,
ON REMAND
Defendants-Appellees.
Official Reported Version
Before: Owens, P.J., and Markey and Murray, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Our Supreme Court has remanded this case to this Court with an instruction to review the
trial court's finding that defendant TechniSand's mining dune sand does not violate the Michigan
Environmental Protection Act (MEPA), MCL 324.1701 et seq.; we are also directed to expedite
our review. 471 Mich 508, 521, 525; 684 NW2d 847 (2004). We do not tarry restating our prior
decision,1 or our Supreme Court's decision to the contrary. Instead, we proceed with the task at
hand.
In general, we review de novo the proper application of MEPA. Preserve the Dunes, 471
Mich 513; Trout Unlimited, Muskegon-White River Chapter v White Cloud (After Remand), 209
Mich App 452, 456; 532 NW2d 192 (1995). But we will not overturn a trial court's findings of
fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Id.; Portage v Kalamazoo Co Rd Comm, 136 Mich App
276, 279; 355 NW2d 913 (1984). A finding is clearly erroneous when evidence exists to support
it but this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake. Id.
at 279-280; Trout Unlimited, supra at 456. On appeal, we recognize that the trial court "'heard
the witnesses, observed their demeanor on the stand, and was in the best position to determine
their credibility and to conclude what the facts in the case really were.'" Ray v Mason Co Drain
Comm'r, 393 Mich 294, 303; 224 NW2d 883 (1975), quoting Martin v Arndt, 356 Mich 128,
140; 95 NW2d 858 (1959); see, also, MCR 2.613(C).
1
253 Mich App 263; 655 NW2d 263 (2002).
-1-
The trial court heard testimony over seven days, viewed the site with representatives of
all parties to the suit, and made the following factual determinations. In November 1996,
defendant Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) issued a permit authorizing TechniSand
to mine sand in an area partially designated as a "critical dune area" under the sand dune mining
act (SDMA), MCL 324.63701 et seq., and the sand dune protection and management act
(SDPMA), MCL 324.35301 et seq. The SDMA incorporates the definition of "critical dune
area" found in the SDPMA. MCL 324.63702(1); MCL 324.35301(c). Plaintiff filed suit under
MEPA, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting TechniSand's proposed mining
activities in that area.
The 126.5 acre site at issue is one mile inland from Lake Michigan in Berrien County,
east of Interstate 196. Slightly more than half (seventy-one acres) is designated as "critical dune
area." The trial court found that the critical dune acreage at issue constitutes one-tenth of one
percent of the statewide total of critical dune area. I-196, the Blue Star Highway, residential
parcels, and county roadways separate the site from Lake Michigan. The trial court also found
that "this site is the last acreage within critical dune areas in the entire state in which sand mining
could be authorized by the DEQ." The trial court recognized that sand is a natural resource and
that the critical dune area contained other natural resources, such as flora and fauna.
Both sides presented expert testimony. For various reasons the trial court ultimately
concluded that defendants' experts were more credible than plaintiff 's experts. Defendants'
experts testified that the site was "typical and unexceptional as to flora in comparison with most
of the 71,000 acres of critical dune area of the state." In addition, the court accepted defendants'
expert's opinion that the water table and the inland dune ecosystem would not be significantly
affected by TechniSand's proposed mining activity as restricted by the permit2 and carried out in
accord with the mining and reclamation plan. MCL 324.63704(2)(c), 324.63706. Plaintiff does
not contest the trial court's factual findings, and we find no clear error.
In making its ultimate findings under MEPA, the trial court followed the road map of
MCL 324.1703(1) to determine: (1) whether plaintiff established a prima facie case that
TechniSand's conduct has "or is likely to pollute, impair, or destroy the air, water, or other
natural resources," and, if so, (2) whether defendants rebutted plaintiff 's prima facie case with
evidence to the contrary, and, if not, (3) whether defendants established as an affirmative defense
that "there is no feasible and prudent alternative . . . and that [such] conduct is consistent with the
promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare in light of the state's paramount concern for
the protection of its natural resources from pollution, impairment, or destruction." Id.; see Ray,
supra at 308-309; Nemeth v Abonmarche Development, Inc, 457 Mich 16, 24-25; 576 NW2d 641
(1998). The trial court also concluded the "[p]roper application of MEPA's impairment standard
requires a statewide perspective," citing Thomas Twp v Sexton Corp, 173 Mich App 507, 517;
2
The permit restrictions included TechniSand granting the DEQ a permanent conservation
easement to maintain the highest dune crests and distancing mining operations from an adjacent
wetland and threatened plants.
-2-
434 NW2d 644 (1988). The court applied the four factors outlined in Portage, supra at 282,3
along with other considerations, properly recognizing that the Portage factors are "not
mandatory, exclusive, or dispositive," Nemeth, supra at 37, and concluded that TechniSand's
proposed mining activities did not violate MEPA.
MEPA, at MCL 324.1701, provides:
(1) The attorney general or any person may maintain an action in the
circuit court having jurisdiction where the alleged violation occurred or is likely
to occur for declaratory and equitable relief against any person for the protection
of the air, water, and other natural resources and the public trust in these resources
from pollution, impairment, or destruction.
(2) In granting relief provided by subsection (1), if there is a standard for
pollution or for an antipollution device or procedure, fixed by rule or otherwise,
by the state or an instrumentality, agency, or political subdivision of the state, the
court may:
(a) Determine the validity, applicability, and reasonableness of the
standard.
(b) If a court finds a standard to be deficient, direct the adoption of a
standard approved and specified by the court.
Thus, when deciding a claim filed under MEPA, the trial court must first determine
whether a pollution control standard exists and whether to apply it. MCL 324.1701(2); Nemeth,
supra at 35. MCL 324.1701(2) specifically authorizes the court to determine the validity,
reasonableness, and applicability of any standard for pollution or pollution control "and to
specify a new or different pollution control standard if the agency's standard falls short of the
substantive requirements of the MEPA." Nemeth, supra at 30, quoting Her Majesty the Queen v
Detroit, 874 F2d 332, 337 (CA 6, 1989) (emphasis in Queen).
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by considering how the proposed mining would
affect the total critical dune area in the state because each and every critical dune area must be
protected unless one of the two exceptions in MCL 324.63702 applies. But our Supreme Court's
3
In the context of whether a proposed action's effect on wildlife would be so significant as to
constitute an environmental risk requiring judicial intervention, the Portage Court opined that
the factors "[t]he trial court should consider include: (1) whether the natural resource involved is
rare, unique, endangered, or has historical significance, (2) whether the resource is easily
replaceable (for example, by replanting trees or restocking fish), (3) whether the proposed action
will have any significant consequential effect on other natural resources (for example, whether
wildlife will be lost if its habitat is impaired or destroyed), and (4) whether the direct or
consequential impact on animals or vegetation will affect a critical number, considering the
nature and location of the wildlife affected." Portage, supra at 282.
-3-
holding in the present case that "the SDMA does not contain an antipollution standard," and
eligibility for a sand dune mining permit under § 63702 is "unrelated to whether [TechniSand's]
proposed activities on the property violate MEPA" fatally undercut plaintiff 's argument. 471
Mich 516, 519.
Plaintiff also claims that the Legislature established applicable pollution control
standards in its findings in § 35302 of the SDPMA, MCL 324.35302:
(a) The critical dune areas of this state are a unique, irreplaceable, and
fragile resource that provide significant recreational, economic, scientific,
geological, scenic, botanical, educational, agricultural, and ecological benefits to
the people of this state and to people from other states and countries who visit this
resource.
(b) Local units of government should have the opportunity to exercise the
primary role in protecting and managing critical dune areas in accordance with
this part.
(c) The benefits derived from alteration, industrial, residential,
commercial, agricultural, silvicultural, and the recreational use of critical dune
areas shall occur only when the protection of the environment and the ecology of
the critical dune areas for the benefit of the present and future generations is
assured.
Plaintiff argues that because the Legislature found that sand dunes are "unique" and
"irreplaceable," the scope of the analysis of the environmental effect of sand mining must be
limited to the particular dune that will be impaired or destroyed.
The trial court rejected subsections b and c of MCL 324.35302 as pollution standards, but
ruled that it would give subsection a "due weight." The court determined that because
subsection b deals with the role of local government in the protection of dunes, it could not be
construed as a pollution standard. Furthermore, the word "use" in subsection c could not apply
to the DEQ in granting permits for sand mining because the definition of "use" in the SDPMA
expressly excludes sand mining under the SDMA.4 The trial court reasoned:
4
MCL 324.35301(j) provides:
"Use" means a developmental, silvicultural, or recreational activity done
or caused to be done by a person that significantly alters the physical
characteristic of a critical dune area or a contour change done or caused to be
done by a person. Use does not include sand dune mining as defined in [the
SDMA].
-4-
By exempting sand dune mining from the definition of "use" in Part 353
(MCL 324.35301(j)), and yet in the succeeding section, declaring that critical
dune areas are irreplaceable, it is clear that the legislature contemplated sand dune
mining in critical dune areas under the umbrella of MEPA. . . . The calculus for
the court's de novo determination must include the notion that sand as a natural
resource in a critical dune area will be removed, but that fact is not dispositive in
and of itself to preclude mining. Indeed, plaintiff concedes that permanent
removal of sand is not a per se violation of MEPA.
The trial court further opined that to read MEPA and the SDPMA as barring any
permanent removal of sand for commercial or industrial purposes would, in essence, render the
SDMA meaningless. The trial court then determined that the Portage factors were "partially
instructive" and concluded on the basis of its review of the expert testimony presented that
TechniSand's proposed mining activities did not violate MEPA.
Regarding the removal of sand from the critical dune area in question, the trial court
reasoned that
71 acres of this site is located in a critical dune area as defined. Critical dune
areas, as a whole in the state of Michigan are a resource under MEPA's
umbrella of protection. As part of all critical dune areas in Michigan, this
subject 71 acres is one tenth of one percent (0.1%) of the entire state's resource.
In addition, as already stated, this is the last site in Michigan under current law
which is eligible for the issuance of a sand dune mining permit in a critical dune
area. Accordingly, the mining of this 71 acres will not implicate a scarce or
even soon-to-be scarce resource. Indeed, under current law, the critical dune
resource of our state has absolute protection from further mining henceforth.
Under these circumstances, this court cannot conclude that the critical dune
areas as a whole in this state will be destroyed or impaired within the meaning
of MEPA.
We can find no legal error in the trial court's reasoning. Our Supreme Court opined in
this case that MCL 324.63709 was the appropriate statute under which to consider plaintiff 's
claims under MEPA. 471 Mich 521. MCL 324.63709 incorporates MEPA into the SDMA by
providing that the DEQ "shall deny a sand dune mining permit if, upon review of the
environmental impact statement, it determines that the proposed sand dune mining activity is
likely to pollute, impair, or destroy the air, water, or other natural resources or the public trust in
those resources, as provided by [MEPA]." Thus, in a MEPA action involving the SDMA, such
as this one, the statute requires the trial court to use an approach that assesses the total effect of
the sand dune mining on the environment, not just the effect on the particular location from
which sand is to be removed. We find support for this conclusion in the scope of the
environmental impact statement (EIS) necessary to obtain a sand dune mining permit. MCL
324.63704(2)(b), 324.63705. The EIS must specifically address the effect of the proposed
activity on the immediate area and on other natural resources, including the groundwater, air,
flora, fauna, and wildlife habitats. Id.
-5-
Moreover, in MCL 324.35302(a), the Legislature refers collectively to the critical dune
areas of Michigan as a natural resource. The individual dunes themselves are apparently not
contemplated. Consequently, the trial court did not err in assessing the mining of the critical
dune area on the site in relation to its effect on the total acreage of critical dune area in the state
to determine the extent to which the natural resource, i.e., all the critical dune areas in the state,
would be impaired or destroyed by TechniSand's mining of sand.
After concluding that TechniSand's proposed mining activity would not impair or destroy
this state's natural resource, critical sand dune areas, within the meaning of MEPA, the trial court
assessed "whether other natural resources on the site will be implicated so as to rise to the
level of impairment or destruction of a natural resource." The trial court concluded that
evidence of minimal effect on nonscarce animal life did not merit judicial intervention under
MEPA. The trial court recognized that "one of the primary purposes of the MEPA is to protect
our natural resources before they become 'scarce.'" Nemeth, supra at 34. Nevertheless, the trial
court found the evidence did not merit MEPA intervention. We find no error.
The trial court also found from the expert testimony presented at trial that three plant
species of potential significance existed at the site: Juncus Scirpoides, Ludwigia Alternefolia,
and Rexus Virginia. Of these three species, the trial court found that only Juncus was
threatened. Further, the trial court found from the testimony of plaintiff 's expert, Dr. Barbara
Madsen, who testified that the site was "ecologically significant," that plaintiff had presented
sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of a MEPA violation. But the trial court
found that Madsen's testimony, for a number of reasons, was unpersuasive on critical points.
Instead, the trial court accepted both the testimony of Peter Collins, who prepared the EIS for
TechniSand's application for its sand dune mining permit, and Dr. Frederick Goff, whom the
trial court found to be highly qualified in the science disciplines necessary to the
determinations in this case. The trial court found the testimony defendants presented to be
"persuasive to the point of conclusively rebutting that portion of plaintiff 's case relating to
flora." Consequently, the trial court found it "unnecessary to address the statutory affirmative
defenses propounded by the defendants . . . ." We do not find clear error in the trial court's
factual findings, nor do we find error in the trial court's application of the law. Nemeth, supra
at 24-25; Portage, supra at 279.
Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred by utilizing the Portage factors because, as
our Supreme Court stated in Nemeth, supra at 34, the primary purpose of MEPA is to protect our
natural resources before they become scarce. Instead, as noted above, plaintiff asserts the
appropriate standard is that set forth by the Legislature: critical dune areas are unique and
irreplaceable. Plaintiff 's argument presents a question of law, the proper application of MEPA,
which we review de novo. 471 Mich 513.
As we discussed above, the standard to apply to claims that MEPA has been violated in
the context of the SDMA is found at MCL 324.63709, which incorporates MEPA. To obtain a
sand dune mining permit, the applicant must complete an EIS pursuant to the requirements of
-6-
MCL 324.63705. Many of the factors listed in the statute are comparable to the factors this
Court outlined in Portage.5 Thus, both MCL 324.63705 and Portage require the court to
evaluate the environmental situation before the proposed action, the effect of the activity on the
surrounding environment, and whether the proposed activity will affect the flora, fauna, or other
natural resources in the area. In addition, both Portage and MCL 324.63705 state that the list of
factors is not exclusive. Plaintiff has not argued, and cannot successfully argue, that the factors
in MCL 324.63705 are not "valid, applicable, and reasonable." Nemeth, supra at 35; MCL
324.1701(2)(a).
Our review of the trial court's opinion reveals that its analysis focused on the expert
testimony both in support of and challenging the findings in the EIS. In writing its opinion, the
court conducted a review de novo of the evidence and made detailed factual findings based on
the experts' testimony. Nemeth, supra, at 34; City of Jackson v Thompson-McCully Co, 239
Mich App 482, 489; 608 NW2d 531 (2000). The court did not limit its review to consideration
of the Portage factors; it also addressed other considerations such as the effect of the mining on
ground water levels, the proximity of the mining to other development, the compatibility of the
mining with adjacent uses and setback requirements, and the experts' opinions regarding the
inventory of threatened and endangered flora and fauna. All these considerations are pertinent to
demonstrating a MEPA violation justifying judicial intervention. Consequently, the trial court
did not apply the wrong standard.
In sum, we find no clear error by the trial court in its findings of fact, and we find no
error in the trial court's application of MEPA in the context of the SDMA permit issued by the
DEQ to TechniSand to permit sand dune mining as restricted by the permit at the site in
question. Accordingly, we must affirm the decision of the trial court.
We affirm.
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
5
See n 4.
-7-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.