Enbridge’s proposed Line 5 oil tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac would permanently damage wetlands and harm an area of deep cultural and historical importance to Indigenous tribes, prompting renewed criticism from pipeline opponents, according to a new federal environmental review.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed tunnel concludes that Enbridge’s preferred alternative would permanently disturb wetlands and alter geological resources during construction. The report also finds the project would cause adverse effects to the Straits of Mackinac Traditional Cultural Landscape and to culturally important resources for Anishinaabe tribal nations.
The environmental review identifies permanent wetland losses caused by fill and construction within multiple wetland areas and says those wetlands may not recover after construction. It also estimates that about 665,000 cubic yards of excavated material would be removed during construction of the tunnel, shafts, and portals, permanently changing subsurface geology beneath the Straits of Mackinac.
The report also states that construction activity, noise, and visual disturbance could interfere with tribal ceremonial and cultural practices and would adversely affect archaeological resources and traditional use areas along both shorelines of the Straits of Mackinac.
Sean McBrearty, campaign coordinator for Oil & Water Don’t Mix, a group opposed to the pipeline, said Friday that the Corps’ findings undercut the case for the tunnel.
“From start to finish, the Army Corps fast-tracked Enbridge’s tunnel proposal under political pressure. Even so, the Final EIS makes clear that this project would cause lasting harm to the Great Lakes,” McBrearty said.
He added that the report confirms permanent wetland loss and the large-scale excavation required to construct the tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac.
“These impacts are not temporary, and they cannot be undone,” McBrearty said.
McBrearty also pointed to the Corps’ acknowledgment that the project would adversely affect archaeological sites and a traditional cultural landscape and that industrial activity associated with construction could interfere with tribal ceremonial and cultural practices.
He criticized what he described as unresolved treaty rights concerns associated with the project and said the federal review leaves critical questions unanswered about how tribal rights would be protected.
“This tunnel is not a solution,” McBrearty said. “It’s a massive industrial intrusion into the Great Lakes, designed to keep oil flowing for decades longer.”
The Army Corps’ environmental review does not approve or deny the project. A final permit decision will be issued later in a formal record of decision.
McBrearty said opponents are now urging state regulators to block the tunnel, arguing that Michigan is not required to follow the federal government’s conclusions.
The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) will decide whether to issue a Clean Water Act permit for the project.
Based on the Corps’ own findings of permanent wetland loss, lasting environmental damage, unresolved treaty rights, and years of disruptive construction, EGLE and Governor Gretchen Whitmer have both the authority and the responsibility to reject Enbridge’s tunnel scheme and protect the Great Lakes for future generations,” McBrearty said.
Meanwhile, the future of Line 5 is tied up in court. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case in March that could determine whether a long-running lawsuit by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel seeking to shut down the existing Line 5 pipelines in the Straits of Mackinac belongs in state or federal court.
Nessel originally sued Enbridge in 2019, arguing the decades-old dual pipelines pose an unacceptable risk of a catastrophic oil spill where Lake Michigan and Lake Huron meet. After Enbridge succeeded in moving the case to federal court, Nessel challenged that transfer, arguing the company missed the legal deadline to remove the case from state court.
A federal appeals court later agreed with Nessel and ordered the case sent back to state court, finding Enbridge’s request to move the case had been filed too late. Enbridge then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review that ruling, arguing the appeals court’s decision conflicts with how other federal courts have interpreted the removal deadline.
The high court’s review is expected to resolve that dispute and determine where Nessel’s shutdown lawsuit will ultimately be heard. Enbridge has said the Supreme Court case does not affect its separate lawsuit challenging Whitmer’s decision to revoke the company’s easement to operate Line 5 on the lakebed beneath the Straits of Mackinac.
Related story
Inside the fight to shut down Line 5
When President Barack Obama officially rejected the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline in September, it marked the end of a seven-year battle that even he admitted had become largely symbolic. The issue…
