US officials release Line 5 environmental review; conclude project is needed

• Corps officials on Friday released a long-awaited environmental review of the Line 5 tunnel project
• It’s the first major step toward deciding whether to permit the project
• That decision is expected this fall; the Corps is accepting public comments now

Federal regulators on Friday released a long-awaited draft environmental review of a $1 billion proposal to encase Enbridge Inc.’s Line 5 oil pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac in a tunnel, concluding that, beyond impacts on vegetation and cultural resources, “most other environmental consequences would be short-term with the effects resolving once construction is completed.”

Although the document is not an official decision — US Army Corps of Engineers officials say they’ll issue that this fall — it gives the first public indication of how the agency views the project. 

After studying the tunnel project alongside two alternatives, Corps officials concluded that the tunnel would both dramatically reduce oil spill risks and contain any spilled oil before it reaches the Straits, while the alternatives would not. 

You can read the full review here. The Corps is accepting public comments through June.

Over the course of hundreds of pages, the document assesses whether the tunnel is needed while comparing its environmental impacts against two other options: denying the permits and allowing Line 5 to remain on the lake bottom or covering the exposed pipes with a gravel or rock protective cover instead of building the tunnel. 

Environmentalists had urged the Corps to consider simply shutting down the 72-year-old dual span pipeline, which currently sits exposed in the open water as it crosses the 4-mile Straits of Mackinac, transporting 540,000 barrels per day of oil and natural gas liquids from Superior, Wisconsin to Ontario, Canada. 

“They're putting blinders on to the fact that, if the goal is to protect the Great Lakes, then there should be an option that involves no transportation of fossil fuels across the Great Lakes,” Debbie Chizewer, an attorney representing the Bay Mills Indian Community with the nonprofit group Earthjustice, said.

But Corps officials concluded that continued petroleum transport is needed, noting market demand is expected to remain steady or increase in the coming 25 years.

“Furthermore, these projections were calculated prior to the Executive Office of the President revoking and replacing previously established energy policies as part of its directive to encourage domestic energy exploration and production,” the document states.

Corps officials also cited long-term benefits from decommissioning the existing underwater pipes, including eliminating the need for in-water maintenance and improving water-based recreation in the Straits.

The pipeline has been a subject of controversy for years because of the risk of an oil spill in the Straits. Ships’ anchors have repeatedly struck the pipeline, and Michigan officials including Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel have unsuccessfully sought to shut it down.

In response to oil spill concerns, Enbridge in 2018 proposed replacing the lake bottom lines with a new pipeline encased in a concrete tunnel deep beneath the lakebed.

The company and its supporters in the business and labor sectors laud that option as a safer alternative, while environmentalists who oppose the pipeline question those safety vows while arguing it is unwise to build infrastructure that would lock in decades of continued reliance on the fossil fuels that are causing climate change. 

Project supporters were buoyed by the Corps’ study. Marty Fittante, CEO of the economic development group InvestUP, said in a statement that “we’re confident the Army Corps will grant the necessary permits,” while an Enbridge spokesperson called the study a “critical step forward” for the tunnel project.

RELATED: 

• Trump administration to fast-track Line 5 tunnel, calling project 'emergency'
• Seven tribes in Michigan withdraw from federal talks over Line 5 tunnel permit
• Judges return Line 5 case to Michigan court, hand Dana Nessel win

“Our goal is to have the smallest possible environmental footprint,” Enbridge spokesperson Ryan Duffy said. “The tunnel design already reflects that intent, and we will use the (Corps’) findings … to further refine the project.”
Environmentalists decried the environmental review as incomplete, arguing it seemed designed to justify approving the tunnel project rather than to fully explore its impacts and alternatives. 

They argued the Corps should have more fully considered the risks of tunnel construction mishaps, and the likelihood of inland oil spills caused by the pipeline’s continued operation.

At The Island Bookstore, located just miles away from Line 5 on Mackinac Island, owner Diane Brandonisio said she was “devastated” by the review’s findings, saying they seemed to ignore the climate disruption that will result from continuing to burn fossil fuels transported by Line 5.

Earth’s temperature has been steadily increasing as a result of greenhouse gas emissions, leading to increasingly severe heatwaves, drought, megastorms, wildfires and other effects. Leading climate scientists say humanity has mere years to stop emitting greenhouse gases or risk catastrophic destabilization of the global climate.

“They can say it's safe as long as they want,” Brandonisio said of the tunnel proposal, “but the point is, we have a climate crisis going on. So they're going to build this tunnel, it's going to take so many years, and then it's the lifetime of that will be decades.”

“Approval of the tunnel project will perpetuate the operation of Line 5, which means that we'll continue to see more oil spills,” Chizewer said.

Federal reviewers found that the do-nothing alternative would allow continued deterioration of the pipelines, failing to address the spill concerns that motivated the tunnel proposal to begin with. 

“In addition,” they wrote,” the potential for vessel anchor strikes would remain.”

They found that covering the lakebed pipes with rocks or gravel, the third option on the table, would reduce the potential of an anchor strike but offer no containment in the event of a spill.

Enbridge needs several local, state and federal permits before it can begin construction on the project, and has obtained several key ones, although a legal challenge to one of those permits remains in play. Corps officials, who have been working on their permit review for years, announced in April that they would expedite the process in keeping with President Donald Trump’s orders to speed up approval of fossil fuel projects.

Relying in part on the information contained in the environmental review, Corps officials have the option to issue the permit outright, issue it with changes, or deny it. That decision is expected this fall.

Pending approval of the Corps permit and another crucial state permit that Enbridge is awaiting, Duffy said construction on the pipeline could begin early next year. 

Meanwhile, Enbridge is locked in a court battle with Nessel over the fate of the existing pipelines. Nessel wants them shut down, while Enbridge contends the state of Michigan has no authority to order a shutdown.

Bridge Michigan reporter Jordyn Hermani contributed to this report.