Whether a prima facie violation of the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) was established; Judicial review of an alleged MEPA violation; MCR 324.1701; Attorney Gen ex rel Natural Res Comm’n v Balkema; Dafter Sanitary Landfill v Michigan Dep’t of Natural Res; The Portage factors; Portage v Kalamazoo Cnty Rd Comm’n; Michigan Electrical Transmission Company, LLC (METC); Wildlife Recovery Association (WRA)

The court held that the trial court did not err by finding that defendant-WRA failed to establish a violation of the MEPA arising from plaintiff-METC’s plans to build transmission lines over WRA’s wetlands. METC sought to acquire an easement across the front of the WRA property for the transmission line. WRA filed a counterclaim under the MEPA, asserting “that both the construction of the transmission line and the transmission line itself would kill many animals and damage the value of the property as a wildlife sanctuary.” The trial court granted summary disposition for METC, finding WRA failed to establish a prima facie violation of the MEPA. On appeal, the court rejected WRA’s argument that the trial court erred by finding METC’s plans did not impact the environment to the extent necessary to warrant judicial intervention pursuant to the MEPA. It found that the trial court appropriately considered the Portage factors and did not err in its analysis. As to the first factor, it “did not err by finding that the land did not contain wildlife that is rare, unique, endangered, or historically significant.” As to the second factor, it did not “err by finding that the resources at issue are easily replaceable.” And as to the third factor, there was “no evidence suggesting that other natural resources will be impacted.” Finally, as to the fourth factor, it did not “err by finding that WRA did not establish that the impact of the transmission lines would affect a critical number of animals or vegetation.” Affirmed.