- Federal regulators took another step toward a permitting decision on the Line 5 petroleum pipeline tunnel
- A final decision on the project is expected as soon as next month
- Both tunnel supporters and foes anticipate the US Army Corps of Engineers will approve the project
The US Army Corps of Engineers on Friday took another step toward approving the proposed Line 5 tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac, publishing its final analysis of the project’s potential impacts on the environment.
The move sets the timer on a 30-day waiting period, after which the agency will decide whether to issue key permits for the project to replace the existing segment of the 73-year-old petroleum pipeline that sits in the open water of the Great Lakes.
Fears that the pipeline could rupture, causing a catastrophic oil spill in one of the world’s most important freshwater reserves, have underpinned years of competing efforts to either it shut down — the preferred alternative of environmental groups — or relocate it into a concrete-lined tunnel — the preferred alternative of Canadian oil giant Enbridge Energy and allied labor and business groups.
The Corps’ publication Friday of a final environmental impact statement comes as the Trump administration looks to bolster fossil fuel energy and forestall renewable energy development. In response to that policy stance, the Corps abolished plans to consider climate impacts caused by the tunnel project.
Corps spokesperson Carrie Fox declined to comment on the release.
Friday’s environmental review largely mimics a draft version released in May, in which Corps officials concluded that most impacts from the tunnel-drilling project would be “short-term with the effects resolving once construction is completed.”
Still, the agency acknowledged that the project would destroy several acres of wetlands, reduce habitat for endangered northern long-eared and tricolored bats and harm archaeological sites and places that are culturally important to Native American tribes.
While tunnel supporters hailed Friday’s release as “a big step forward” for the tunnel project, environmentalists panned the project and criticized the Corps for failing to reach a conclusion about the tunnel project’s impact on tribal treaty rights.
The Corps review says those impacts are “To Be Determined in the Record of Decision.”
“That is not environmental justice, and it is not meaningful consultation,” Sean McBrearty, campaign coordinator for Oil & Water Don’t Mix, an anti-Line 5 coalition that includes Michigan tribal organizations.
Rather than a solution to spill concerns, McBrearty said, the tunnel project is “a massive industrial intrusion into the Great Lakes, designed to keep oil flowing for decades longer.”
Frustrated with a review process they described as rushed and flawed, seven Michigan tribes withdrew from treaty talks with federal officials in March.
“This is just the latest chapter in a long story of the federal government disregarding the rights of tribal nations to favor corporations,” said Bay Mills Indian Community President Whitney Gravelle.
She added that the tribe will “absolutely be litigating” if the Corps grants tunnel permits.
Fox, the Corps spokesperson, declined to answer questions from Bridge Michigan, including why tribal treaty rights were omitted from the review.
An Enbridge spokesperson on Friday said the Corps had taken a “careful and methodical approach” with its review.
“We look forward to the completion of this process, a permit decision from the USACE, and the opportunity to advance this critical infrastructure project,” company spokesperson Ryan Duffy said.
In addition to the tunnel proposal, the Corps studied a range of alternatives. Among them is scrapping the tunnel and instead pursuing horizontal directional drilling, an option that the Corps abruptly placed on the table in November, years into its review of the tunnel project.
Business and labor groups aligned with Enbridge — from the Michigan Chamber of Commerce to the Michigan Laborers District Council — hailed the tunnel project as a good thing for business and the environment.
“Energy affordability matters to Michigan manufacturers,” said Mike Witkowski, environmental and regulatory policy director for the Michigan Manufacturers Association. “We’re confident (the) Corps will do the right thing and greenlight this critical energy infrastructure project.”
While obtaining the federal permit would mark a milestone in Enbridge’s efforts to build the tunnel, the company is awaiting water resources permits from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy. Meanwhile, the Michigan Supreme Court has taken up a lawsuit challenging the legality of a tunnel permit issued by the Michigan Public Service Commission.
Separately, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and state Attorney General Dana Nessel have been pushing for years to shut the existing pipeline down — an effort that suffered a setback in December when a federal judge ruled that federal pipeline safety law leaves no room for the state to regulate the pipeline. The state has appealed the ruling to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
It’s unclear how or whether that ruling will affect a separate state court lawsuit that Nessel is pursuing in hopes of securing a shutdown. That case is paused in Ingham County Circuit Court while the US Supreme Court prepares to decide which court — federal or state — has jurisdiction over the lawsuit.
Originally advertised as a $500 million project that might finish by 2024, construction on the tunnel is now likely to run into 2030 and cost billions.
Thank you to our Michigan Environment Watch sponsors
Bridge Michigan Environment Watch is made possible by generous financial support from our sponsors. Sponsorship supports our independent journalism mission but does not constitute sponsor endorsement of individual articles or editorial content. Bridge Michigan journalism remains fact- and data-driven and independent at all times.
Please visit the About page for more information and to subscribe to Environment Watch. Interested in becoming a sponsor? Contact Emma Carr.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under our Republication Guidelines. Questions? Email republishing@bridgemi.com
