Environmental remedial action plan; Jurisdiction; Whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to conduct pre-enforcement review of a “response activity selected or approved” by defendant-MDEQ; § 20137(4) of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act; Deferring judicial review; Failure to respond to remedial plan

The trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s MEPA claim seeking pre-enforcement review of a “response activity selected or approved” by defendant-MDEQ for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the applicable statute. Plaintiff operated a leather tannery located along the lake and began a staged lagoon treatment operation. Plaintiff argued that dredging the lake would harm the environment in violation of Part 17, which seeks to preserve the environment through declaratory and injunctive relief, and that Part 17 trumped the pre-enforcement bar to judicial review in Part 201, which encourages prompt cleanup of hazardous waste and assignment of financial liability. The court held that Part 17 supplements, but does not supplant the statute’s denial of subject matter jurisdiction. Affirmed.