Whether the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) (MCL 324.1701 et seq.) authorizes a collateral challenge to the Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) decision to issue a sand dune mining permit under the Sand Dune Mining Act (SDMA) (MCL 324.63701 et seq.) in an action challenging the flaws in the permitting process unrelated to whether the conduct involved has polluted, impaired, or destroyed, or will likely pollute, impair, or destroy natural resources protected by MEPA

MEPA does not authorize a collateral attack challenging flaws in the permitting process in the DEQ’s decision to issue a sand dune mining permit under the SDMA unrelated to whether the conduct involved has polluted, impaired, or destroyed, or will likely pollute, impair, or destroy natural resources protected by the MEPA. MEPA affords no basis for judicial review of agency decisions under § 63702(1) because that inquiry is outside MEPA’s purview. The focus of MEPA is to protect our state’s natural resources from harmful conduct. It offers no basis for invalidating an issued permit for reasons unrelated to the holder’s conduct. To hold otherwise would broaden by judicial fiat the scope of MEPA and create a cause of action with no basis in MEPA’s language or structure. The Court of Appeals erred by treating plaintiff’s challenge to defendant-TechniSand’s eligibility for a permit under § 63702(1) as a MEPA claim. Since plaintiff brought its claim more than 19 months after the DEQ issued the permit, plaintiff’s claim was time-barred. The court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded to that court for an expedited review of the plaintiff’s remaining issues.

Dissenting Justices Kelly, Cavanagh, and Weaver opined the majority’s decision wrongly insulates the Sand Dune Mining Act permit eligibility determinations from judicial review. The decision to issue a sand dune mining permit pursuant to the SDMA inherently includes an environmental component. The justices would hold issuance of the permit in this case can be challenged under the MEPA. The Legislature intended the MEPA to apply to permit applications. Application of the act to permit determinations is entirely consistent with the Legislature’s intent to stringently preserve Great Lakes sand dunes against degradation and to protect the integrity of that environment. Plaintiff’s case was not barred by the statutory limitations periods of the APA and the RJA. The Court of Appeals correctly remanded the case for entry of an order granting summary disposition to plaintiff. Its decision should be affirmed.