Posted Scoping Comments

Ref: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project LRE-2010-00463-56-A19

I am requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conduct a thorough and complete review of the proposed project as part of its Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act.

This review should be as thorough as possible in scope, including a detailed review of at least all of the following:

A) Comprehensive alternatives analysis: Independent studies have revealed that Line 5 is not a necessary piece of infrastructure and that other options for transporting the products currently transported on Line 5 exist and could be implemented in short order. A review of the existing Line 5 pipeline vs. the tunnel as the only two options would accordingly be inadequate. To avoid this inadequacy, the alternatives analysis should include an alternative that considers using the existing capacity in Enbridge’s pipelines to transport the petroleum products that the proposed project is designed to accommodate. If existing capacity is inadequate, the alternative should assess expanding capacity elsewhere within Enbridge’s existing pipeline system, as well as alternative forms of transport such as trains and trucks. The “no action” alternative should account for the fact that Enbridge is operating Line 5 in Michigan without a valid easement, and in Wisconsin, it continues to operate years after being evicted by the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. Ongoing lawsuits from the State of Michigan and the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa could soon lead to the decommissioning of the Line 5 pipeline. Thus, in USACE’s alternatives analysis, the “no action” alternative cannot assume that Line 5 will continue to function indefinitely.

B) Cumulative impacts: Regardless of its scope, the EIS must consider all indirect and cumulative impacts and avoid segmentation of other pending proposals to modify Line 5, including, but not limited to, the proposed reroute of Line 5 through northern Wisconsin. Allowing Enbridge to improperly segment permitting requests for multiple concurrent projects on one pipeline could prevent a thorough review of the cumulative impacts and potential environmental and climate damages of an unnecessary pipeline expansion through a critical and fragile ecosystem.

C) Inadequacy of geotechnical studies: Initial geotechnical studies performed on the site for the Line 5 tunnel are inadequate, comprising roughly 1/10th of the industry recommended research for a tunnel of this scope. The inadequacy of the geotechnical review has not been considered by either the review of Michigan EGLE or MPSC. USACE must thoroughly review the complex geological and hydrogeological conditions that exist in the Straits of Mackinac and could preclude the feasibility of safely building a tunnel in this location.

D) Potential archaeological and cultural site: USACE must meaningfully consult with Tribal Nations, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in the NHPA Section 106 process regarding potential adverse effects to the potential 10,000-year-old Indigenous cultural site that has been located at the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac, near the proposed tunnel project. Tunnel construction could destroy this potential world heritage site and important cultural resource for local Tribal nations, and all care must be taken to ensure that this will not happen.

E) Explosion risk during construction and operation: Over the course of MPSC’s review of this proposal, expert testimony indicated a significant risk of explosion due to operating an oil and NGL pipeline within the confines of a subterranean tunnel with an open annulus design. Further, PHMSA expressed concerns to MPSC about the operations and maintenance of this pipeline within the confined space of a tunnel. USACE must fully evaluate this risk. Further, in the limited geotechnical analysis that was completed, dissolved methane in groundwater above reportable levels was detected. This leads to an explosivity risk during construction as well.

F) Climate impacts: Also, in MPSC testimony, experts presented climate impact analyses of this proposal and indicated that this project would potentially add 27 million metric tons of carbon pollution annually. USACE must fully review the potential climate impacts of this proposal to ensure that it adheres to the goals of the U.S. and global climate policy.

G) Drilling slurry: The applicant proposes to use a bentonite drilling slurry in the Tunnel Boring Machine to drill through the Straits of Mackinac. Bentonite drilling slurry is a potential hazardous waste. Bentonite, when released into surface water, expands and can coat the gills of fish, resulting in large fish kills. Given that the Straits of Mackinac are Treaty-protected fishing grounds for local Tribes and are, in fact, the most productive part of the Great Lakes Tribal fishery, the use of bentonite drilling slurry must be evaluated. Enbridge’s track record of recent frac-outs on the Line 3 expansion project should call its methods into question. A bentonite slurry spill into the Straits of Mackinac must be avoided at all costs.
This precious resource must be protected.
Thank you.

Ref: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project LRE-2010-00463-56-A19

I am requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conduct a thorough and complete review of the proposed project as part of its Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act.

This review should be as thorough as possible in scope, including a detailed review of at least all of the following:

A) Comprehensive alternatives analysis: Independent studies have revealed that Line 5 is not a necessary piece of infrastructure and that other options for transporting the products currently transported on Line 5 exist and could be implemented in short order. A review of the existing Line 5 pipeline vs. the tunnel as the only two options would accordingly be inadequate. To avoid this inadequacy, the alternatives analysis should include an alternative that considers using the existing capacity in Enbridge’s pipelines to transport the petroleum products that the proposed project is designed to accommodate. If existing capacity is inadequate, the alternative should assess expanding capacity elsewhere within Enbridge’s existing pipeline system, as well as alternative forms of transport such as trains and trucks. The “no action” alternative should account for the fact that Enbridge is operating Line 5 in Michigan without a valid easement, and in Wisconsin, it continues to operate years after being evicted by the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. Ongoing lawsuits from the State of Michigan and the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa could soon lead to the decommissioning of the Line 5 pipeline. Thus, in USACE’s alternatives analysis, the “no action” alternative cannot assume that Line 5 will continue to function indefinitely.

B) Cumulative impacts: Regardless of its scope, the EIS must consider all indirect and cumulative impacts and avoid segmentation of other pending proposals to modify Line 5, including, but not limited to, the proposed reroute of Line 5 through northern Wisconsin. Allowing Enbridge to improperly segment permitting requests for multiple concurrent projects on one pipeline could prevent a thorough review of the cumulative impacts and potential environmental and climate damages of an unnecessary pipeline expansion through a critical and fragile ecosystem.

C) Inadequacy of geotechnical studies: Initial geotechnical studies performed on the site for the Line 5 tunnel are inadequate, comprising roughly 1/10th of the industry recommended research for a tunnel of this scope. The inadequacy of the geotechnical review has not been considered by either the review of Michigan EGLE or MPSC. USACE must thoroughly review the complex geological and hydrogeological conditions that exist in the Straits of Mackinac and could preclude the feasibility of safely building a tunnel in this location.

D) Potential archaeological and cultural site: USACE must meaningfully consult with Tribal Nations, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in the NHPA Section 106 process regarding potential adverse effects to the potential 10,000-year-old Indigenous cultural site that has been located at the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac, near the proposed tunnel project. Tunnel construction could destroy this potential world heritage site and important cultural resource for local Tribal nations, and all care must be taken to ensure that this will not happen.

E) Explosion risk during construction and operation: Over the course of MPSC’s review of this proposal, expert testimony indicated a significant risk of explosion due to operating an oil and NGL pipeline within the confines of a subterranean tunnel with an open annulus design. Further, PHMSA expressed concerns to MPSC about the operations and maintenance of this pipeline within the confined space of a tunnel. USACE must fully evaluate this risk. Further, in the limited geotechnical analysis that was completed, dissolved methane in groundwater above reportable levels was detected. This leads to an explosivity risk during construction as well.

F) Climate impacts: Also, in MPSC testimony, experts presented climate impact analyses of this proposal and indicated that this project would potentially add 27 million metric tons of carbon pollution annually. USACE must fully review the potential climate impacts of this proposal to ensure that it adheres to the goals of the U.S. and global climate policy.

G) Drilling slurry: The applicant proposes to use a bentonite drilling slurry in the Tunnel Boring Machine to drill through the Straits of Mackinac. Bentonite drilling slurry is a potential hazardous waste. Bentonite, when released into surface water, expands and can coat the gills of fish, resulting in large fish kills. Given that the Straits of Mackinac are Treaty-protected fishing grounds for local Tribes and are, in fact, the most productive part of the Great Lakes Tribal fishery, the use of bentonite drilling slurry must be evaluated. Enbridge’s track record of recent frac-outs on the Line 3 expansion project should call its methods into question. A bentonite slurry spill into the Straits of Mackinac must be avoided at all costs.

Thank you.

Ref: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project LRE-2010-00463-56-A19

I am requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conduct a thorough and complete review of the proposed project as part of its Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act.

This review should be as thorough as possible in scope, including a detailed review of at least all of the following:

A) Comprehensive alternatives analysis: Independent studies have revealed that Line 5 is not a necessary piece of infrastructure and that other options for transporting the products currently transported on Line 5 exist and could be implemented in short order. A review of the existing Line 5 pipeline vs. the tunnel as the only two options would accordingly be inadequate. To avoid this inadequacy, the alternatives analysis should include an alternative that considers using the existing capacity in Enbridge’s pipelines to transport the petroleum products that the proposed project is designed to accommodate. If existing capacity is inadequate, the alternative should assess expanding capacity elsewhere within Enbridge’s existing pipeline system, as well as alternative forms of transport such as trains and trucks. The “no action” alternative should account for the fact that Enbridge is operating Line 5 in Michigan without a valid easement, and in Wisconsin, it continues to operate years after being evicted by the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. Ongoing lawsuits from the State of Michigan and the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa could soon lead to the decommissioning of the Line 5 pipeline. Thus, in USACE’s alternatives analysis, the “no action” alternative cannot assume that Line 5 will continue to function indefinitely.

B) Cumulative impacts: Regardless of its scope, the EIS must consider all indirect and cumulative impacts and avoid segmentation of other pending proposals to modify Line 5, including, but not limited to, the proposed reroute of Line 5 through northern Wisconsin. Allowing Enbridge to improperly segment permitting requests for multiple concurrent projects on one pipeline could prevent a thorough review of the cumulative impacts and potential environmental and climate damages of an unnecessary pipeline expansion through a critical and fragile ecosystem.

C) Inadequacy of geotechnical studies: Initial geotechnical studies performed on the site for the Line 5 tunnel are inadequate, comprising roughly 1/10th of the industry recommended research for a tunnel of this scope. The inadequacy of the geotechnical review has not been considered by either the review of Michigan EGLE or MPSC. USACE must thoroughly review the complex geological and hydrogeological conditions that exist in the Straits of Mackinac and could preclude the feasibility of safely building a tunnel in this location.

D) Potential archaeological and cultural site: USACE must meaningfully consult with Tribal Nations, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in the NHPA Section 106 process regarding potential adverse effects to the potential 10,000-year-old Indigenous cultural site that has been located at the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac, near the proposed tunnel project. Tunnel construction could destroy this potential world heritage site and important cultural resource for local Tribal nations, and all care must be taken to ensure that this will not happen.

E) Explosion risk during construction and operation: Over the course of MPSC’s review of this proposal, expert testimony indicated a significant risk of explosion due to operating an oil and NGL pipeline within the confines of a subterranean tunnel with an open annulus design. Further, PHMSA expressed concerns to MPSC about the operations and maintenance of this pipeline within the confined space of a tunnel. USACE must fully evaluate this risk. Further, in the limited geotechnical analysis that was completed, dissolved methane in groundwater above reportable levels was detected. This leads to an explosivity risk during construction as well.

F) Climate impacts: Also, in MPSC testimony, experts presented climate impact analyses of this proposal and indicated that this project would potentially add 27 million metric tons of carbon pollution annually. USACE must fully review the potential climate impacts of this proposal to ensure that it adheres to the goals of the U.S. and global climate policy.

G) Drilling slurry: The applicant proposes to use a bentonite drilling slurry in the Tunnel Boring Machine to drill through the Straits of Mackinac. Bentonite drilling slurry is a potential hazardous waste. Bentonite, when released into surface water, expands and can coat the gills of fish, resulting in large fish kills. Given that the Straits of Mackinac are Treaty-protected fishing grounds for local Tribes and are, in fact, the most productive part of the Great Lakes Tribal fishery, the use of bentonite drilling slurry must be evaluated. Enbridge’s track record of recent frac-outs on the Line 3 expansion project should call its methods into question. A bentonite slurry spill into the Straits of Mackinac must be avoided at all costs.

I am a lifelong resident of Michigan. In Michigan we love and treasure our Great Lakes. They are a natural wonder unique in all the world. They are a pleasure for us residents and a big part of our tourism. I have a long memory. I know what Enbridge did to our Kalamazoo River. Please help protect and preserve these amazing lakes.

Thank you.

Ref: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project LRE-2010-00463-56-A19

I am requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conduct a thorough and complete review of the proposed project as part of its Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act.

This review should be as thorough as possible in scope, including a detailed review of at least all of the following:

A) Comprehensive alternatives analysis: Independent studies have revealed that Line 5 is not a necessary piece of infrastructure and that other options for transporting the products currently transported on Line 5 exist and could be implemented in short order. A review of the existing Line 5 pipeline vs. the tunnel as the only two options would accordingly be inadequate. To avoid this inadequacy, the alternatives analysis should include an alternative that considers using the existing capacity in Enbridge’s pipelines to transport the petroleum products that the proposed project is designed to accommodate. If existing capacity is inadequate, the alternative should assess expanding capacity elsewhere within Enbridge’s existing pipeline system, as well as alternative forms of transport such as trains and trucks. The “no action” alternative should account for the fact that Enbridge is operating Line 5 in Michigan without a valid easement, and in Wisconsin, it continues to operate years after being evicted by the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. Ongoing lawsuits from the State of Michigan and the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa could soon lead to the decommissioning of the Line 5 pipeline. Thus, in USACE’s alternatives analysis, the “no action” alternative cannot assume that Line 5 will continue to function indefinitely.

B) Cumulative impacts: Regardless of its scope, the EIS must consider all indirect and cumulative impacts and avoid segmentation of other pending proposals to modify Line 5, including, but not limited to, the proposed reroute of Line 5 through northern Wisconsin. Allowing Enbridge to improperly segment permitting requests for multiple concurrent projects on one pipeline could prevent a thorough review of the cumulative impacts and potential environmental and climate damages of an unnecessary pipeline expansion through a critical and fragile ecosystem.

C) Inadequacy of geotechnical studies: Initial geotechnical studies performed on the site for the Line 5 tunnel are inadequate, comprising roughly 1/10th of the industry recommended research for a tunnel of this scope. The inadequacy of the geotechnical review has not been considered by either the review of Michigan EGLE or MPSC. USACE must thoroughly review the complex geological and hydrogeological conditions that exist in the Straits of Mackinac and could preclude the feasibility of safely building a tunnel in this location.

D) Potential archaeological and cultural site: USACE must meaningfully consult with Tribal Nations, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in the NHPA Section 106 process regarding potential adverse effects to the potential 10,000-year-old Indigenous cultural site that has been located at the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac, near the proposed tunnel project. Tunnel construction could destroy this potential world heritage site and important cultural resource for local Tribal nations, and all care must be taken to ensure that this will not happen.

E) Explosion risk during construction and operation: Over the course of MPSC’s review of this proposal, expert testimony indicated a significant risk of explosion due to operating an oil and NGL pipeline within the confines of a subterranean tunnel with an open annulus design. Further, PHMSA expressed concerns to MPSC about the operations and maintenance of this pipeline within the confined space of a tunnel. USACE must fully evaluate this risk. Further, in the limited geotechnical analysis that was completed, dissolved methane in groundwater above reportable levels was detected. This leads to an explosivity risk during construction as well.

F) Climate impacts: Also, in MPSC testimony, experts presented climate impact analyses of this proposal and indicated that this project would potentially add 27 million metric tons of carbon pollution annually. USACE must fully review the potential climate impacts of this proposal to ensure that it adheres to the goals of the U.S. and global climate policy.

G) Drilling slurry: The applicant proposes to use a bentonite drilling slurry in the Tunnel Boring Machine to drill through the Straits of Mackinac. Bentonite drilling slurry is a potential hazardous waste. Bentonite, when released into surface water, expands and can coat the gills of fish, resulting in large fish kills. Given that the Straits of Mackinac are Treaty-protected fishing grounds for local Tribes and are, in fact, the most productive part of the Great Lakes Tribal fishery, the use of bentonite drilling slurry must be evaluated. Enbridge’s track record of recent frac-outs on the Line 3 expansion project should call its methods into question. A bentonite slurry spill into the Straits of Mackinac must be avoided at all costs.

Thank you.

Ref: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project LRE-2010-00463-56-A19

I am requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conduct a thorough and complete review of the proposed project as part of its Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act.

This review should be as thorough as possible in scope, including a detailed review of at least all of the following:

A) Comprehensive alternatives analysis: Independent studies have revealed that Line 5 is not a necessary piece of infrastructure and that other options for transporting the products currently transported on Line 5 exist and could be implemented in short order. A review of the existing Line 5 pipeline vs. the tunnel as the only two options would accordingly be inadequate. To avoid this inadequacy, the alternatives analysis should include an alternative that considers using the existing capacity in Enbridge’s pipelines to transport the petroleum products that the proposed project is designed to accommodate. If existing capacity is inadequate, the alternative should assess expanding capacity elsewhere within Enbridge’s existing pipeline system, as well as alternative forms of transport such as trains and trucks. The “no action” alternative should account for the fact that Enbridge is operating Line 5 in Michigan without a valid easement, and in Wisconsin, it continues to operate years after being evicted by the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. Ongoing lawsuits from the State of Michigan and the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa could soon lead to the decommissioning of the Line 5 pipeline. Thus, in USACE’s alternatives analysis, the “no action” alternative cannot assume that Line 5 will continue to function indefinitely.

B) Cumulative impacts: Regardless of its scope, the EIS must consider all indirect and cumulative impacts and avoid segmentation of other pending proposals to modify Line 5, including, but not limited to, the proposed reroute of Line 5 through northern Wisconsin. Allowing Enbridge to improperly segment permitting requests for multiple concurrent projects on one pipeline could prevent a thorough review of the cumulative impacts and potential environmental and climate damages of an unnecessary pipeline expansion through a critical and fragile ecosystem.

C) Inadequacy of geotechnical studies: Initial geotechnical studies performed on the site for the Line 5 tunnel are inadequate, comprising roughly 1/10th of the industry recommended research for a tunnel of this scope. The inadequacy of the geotechnical review has not been considered by either the review of Michigan EGLE or MPSC. USACE must thoroughly review the complex geological and hydrogeological conditions that exist in the Straits of Mackinac and could preclude the feasibility of safely building a tunnel in this location.

D) Potential archaeological and cultural site: USACE must meaningfully consult with Tribal Nations, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in the NHPA Section 106 process regarding potential adverse effects to the potential 10,000-year-old Indigenous cultural site that has been located at the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac, near the proposed tunnel project. Tunnel construction could destroy this potential world heritage site and important cultural resource for local Tribal nations, and all care must be taken to ensure that this will not happen.

E) Explosion risk during construction and operation: Over the course of MPSC’s review of this proposal, expert testimony indicated a significant risk of explosion due to operating an oil and NGL pipeline within the confines of a subterranean tunnel with an open annulus design. Further, PHMSA expressed concerns to MPSC about the operations and maintenance of this pipeline within the confined space of a tunnel. USACE must fully evaluate this risk. Further, in the limited geotechnical analysis that was completed, dissolved methane in groundwater above reportable levels was detected. This leads to an explosivity risk during construction as well.

F) Climate impacts: Also, in MPSC testimony, experts presented climate impact analyses of this proposal and indicated that this project would potentially add 27 million metric tons of carbon pollution annually. USACE must fully review the potential climate impacts of this proposal to ensure that it adheres to the goals of the U.S. and global climate policy.

G) Drilling slurry: The applicant proposes to use a bentonite drilling slurry in the Tunnel Boring Machine to drill through the Straits of Mackinac. Bentonite drilling slurry is a potential hazardous waste. Bentonite, when released into surface water, expands and can coat the gills of fish, resulting in large fish kills. Given that the Straits of Mackinac are Treaty-protected fishing grounds for local Tribes and are, in fact, the most productive part of the Great Lakes Tribal fishery, the use of bentonite drilling slurry must be evaluated. Enbridge’s track record of recent frac-outs on the Line 3 expansion project should call its methods into question. A bentonite slurry spill into the Straits of Mackinac must be avoided at all costs.

Thank you.

Ref: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project LRE-2010-00463-56-A19

I am requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conduct a thorough and complete review of the proposed project as part of its Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act.

This review should be as thorough as possible in scope, including a detailed review of at least all of the following:

A) Comprehensive alternatives analysis: Independent studies have revealed that Line 5 is not a necessary piece of infrastructure and that other options for transporting the products currently transported on Line 5 exist and could be implemented in short order. A review of the existing Line 5 pipeline vs. the tunnel as the only two options would accordingly be inadequate. To avoid this inadequacy, the alternatives analysis should include an alternative that considers using the existing capacity in Enbridge’s pipelines to transport the petroleum products that the proposed project is designed to accommodate. If existing capacity is inadequate, the alternative should assess expanding capacity elsewhere within Enbridge’s existing pipeline system, as well as alternative forms of transport such as trains and trucks. The “no action” alternative should account for the fact that Enbridge is operating Line 5 in Michigan without a valid easement, and in Wisconsin, it continues to operate years after being evicted by the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. Ongoing lawsuits from the State of Michigan and the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa could soon lead to the decommissioning of the Line 5 pipeline. Thus, in USACE’s alternatives analysis, the “no action” alternative cannot assume that Line 5 will continue to function indefinitely.

B) Cumulative impacts: Regardless of its scope, the EIS must consider all indirect and cumulative impacts and avoid segmentation of other pending proposals to modify Line 5, including, but not limited to, the proposed reroute of Line 5 through northern Wisconsin. Allowing Enbridge to improperly segment permitting requests for multiple concurrent projects on one pipeline could prevent a thorough review of the cumulative impacts and potential environmental and climate damages of an unnecessary pipeline expansion through a critical and fragile ecosystem.

C) Inadequacy of geotechnical studies: Initial geotechnical studies performed on the site for the Line 5 tunnel are inadequate, comprising roughly 1/10th of the industry recommended research for a tunnel of this scope. The inadequacy of the geotechnical review has not been considered by either the review of Michigan EGLE or MPSC. USACE must thoroughly review the complex geological and hydrogeological conditions that exist in the Straits of Mackinac and could preclude the feasibility of safely building a tunnel in this location.

D) Potential archaeological and cultural site: USACE must meaningfully consult with Tribal Nations, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in the NHPA Section 106 process regarding potential adverse effects to the potential 10,000-year-old Indigenous cultural site that has been located at the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac, near the proposed tunnel project. Tunnel construction could destroy this potential world heritage site and important cultural resource for local Tribal nations, and all care must be taken to ensure that this will not happen.

E) Explosion risk during construction and operation: Over the course of MPSC’s review of this proposal, expert testimony indicated a significant risk of explosion due to operating an oil and NGL pipeline within the confines of a subterranean tunnel with an open annulus design. Further, PHMSA expressed concerns to MPSC about the operations and maintenance of this pipeline within the confined space of a tunnel. USACE must fully evaluate this risk. Further, in the limited geotechnical analysis that was completed, dissolved methane in groundwater above reportable levels was detected. This leads to an explosivity risk during construction as well.

F) Climate impacts: Also, in MPSC testimony, experts presented climate impact analyses of this proposal and indicated that this project would potentially add 27 million metric tons of carbon pollution annually. USACE must fully review the potential climate impacts of this proposal to ensure that it adheres to the goals of the U.S. and global climate policy.

G) Drilling slurry: The applicant proposes to use a bentonite drilling slurry in the Tunnel Boring Machine to drill through the Straits of Mackinac. Bentonite drilling slurry is a potential hazardous waste. Bentonite, when released into surface water, expands and can coat the gills of fish, resulting in large fish kills. Given that the Straits of Mackinac are Treaty-protected fishing grounds for local Tribes and are, in fact, the most productive part of the Great Lakes Tribal fishery, the use of bentonite drilling slurry must be evaluated. Enbridge’s track record of recent frac-outs on the Line 3 expansion project should call its methods into question. A bentonite slurry spill into the Straits of Mackinac must be avoided at all costs.

Thank you.

Ref: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project LRE-2010-00463-56-A19

I am requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conduct a thorough and complete review of the proposed project as part of its Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act.

This review should be as thorough as possible in scope, including a detailed review of at least all of the following:

A) Comprehensive alternatives analysis: Independent studies have revealed that Line 5 is not a necessary piece of infrastructure and that other options for transporting the products currently transported on Line 5 exist and could be implemented in short order. A review of the existing Line 5 pipeline vs. the tunnel as the only two options would accordingly be inadequate.

To avoid this inadequacy, the alternatives analysis should include an alternative that considers using the existing capacity in Enbridge’s pipelines to transport the petroleum products that the proposed project is designed to accommodate.

If existing capacity is inadequate, the alternative should assess expanding capacity elsewhere within Enbridge’s existing pipeline system, as well as alternative forms of transport such as trains and trucks.

The “no action” alternative should account for the fact that Enbridge is operating Line 5 in Michigan without a valid easement, and in Wisconsin, it continues to operate years after being evicted by the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.

Ongoing lawsuits from the State of Michigan and the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa could soon lead to the decommissioning of the Line 5 pipeline.

Thus, in USACE’s alternatives analysis, the “no action” alternative cannot assume that Line 5 will continue to function indefinitely.

B) Cumulative impacts: Regardless of its scope, the EIS must consider all indirect and cumulative impacts and avoid segmentation of other pending proposals to modify Line 5, including, but not limited to, the proposed reroute of Line 5 through northern Wisconsin. Allowing Enbridge to improperly segment permitting requests for multiple concurrent projects on one pipeline could prevent a thorough review of the cumulative impacts and potential environmental and climate damages of an unnecessary pipeline expansion through a critical and fragile ecosystem.

C) Inadequacy of geotechnical studies: Initial geotechnical studies performed on the site for the Line 5 tunnel are inadequate, comprising roughly 1/10th of the industry recommended research for a tunnel of this scope. The inadequacy of the geotechnical review has not been considered by either the review of Michigan EGLE or MPSC. USACE must thoroughly review the complex geological and hydrogeological conditions that exist in the Straits of Mackinac and could preclude the feasibility of safely building a tunnel in this location.

D) Potential archaeological and cultural site: USACE must meaningfully consult with Tribal Nations, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in the NHPA Section 106 process regarding potential adverse effects to the potential 10,000-year-old Indigenous cultural site that has been located at the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac, near the proposed tunnel project. Tunnel construction could destroy this potential world heritage site and important cultural resource for local Tribal nations, and all care must be taken to ensure that this will not happen.

E) Explosion risk during construction and operation: Over the course of MPSC’s review of this proposal, expert testimony indicated a significant risk of explosion due to operating an oil and NGL pipeline within the confines of a subterranean tunnel with an open annulus design. Further, PHMSA expressed concerns to MPSC about the operations and maintenance of this pipeline within the confined space of a tunnel. USACE must fully evaluate this risk. Further, in the limited geotechnical analysis that was completed, dissolved methane in groundwater above reportable levels was detected. This leads to an explosivity risk during construction as well.

F) Climate impacts: Also, in MPSC testimony, experts presented climate impact analyses of this proposal and indicated that this project would potentially add 27 million metric tons of carbon pollution annually. USACE must fully review the potential climate impacts of this proposal to ensure that it adheres to the goals of the U.S. and global climate policy.

G) Drilling slurry: The applicant proposes to use a bentonite drilling slurry in the Tunnel Boring Machine to drill through the Straits of Mackinac. Bentonite drilling slurry is a potential hazardous waste. Bentonite, when released into surface water, expands and can coat the gills of fish, resulting in large fish kills. Given that the Straits of Mackinac are Treaty-protected fishing grounds for local Tribes and are, in fact, the most productive part of the Great Lakes Tribal fishery, the use of bentonite drilling slurry must be evaluated. Enbridge’s track record of recent frac-outs on the Line 3 expansion project should call its methods into question. A bentonite slurry spill into the Straits of Mackinac must be avoided at all costs.

Thank you.

Ref: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project LRE-2010-00463-56-A19

I am requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conduct a thorough and complete review of the proposed project as part of its Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act.

This review should be as thorough as possible in scope, including a detailed review of at least all of the following:

A) Comprehensive alternatives analysis: Independent studies have revealed that Line 5 is not a necessary piece of infrastructure and that other options for transporting the products currently transported on Line 5 exist and could be implemented in short order. A review of the existing Line 5 pipeline vs. the tunnel as the only two options would accordingly be inadequate. To avoid this inadequacy, the alternatives analysis should include an alternative that considers using the existing capacity in Enbridge’s pipelines to transport the petroleum products that the proposed project is designed to accommodate. If existing capacity is inadequate, the alternative should assess expanding capacity elsewhere within Enbridge’s existing pipeline system, as well as alternative forms of transport such as trains and trucks. The “no action” alternative should account for the fact that Enbridge is operating Line 5 in Michigan without a valid easement, and in Wisconsin, it continues to operate years after being evicted by the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. Ongoing lawsuits from the State of Michigan and the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa could soon lead to the decommissioning of the Line 5 pipeline. Thus, in USACE’s alternatives analysis, the “no action” alternative cannot assume that Line 5 will continue to function indefinitely.

B) Cumulative impacts: Regardless of its scope, the EIS must consider all indirect and cumulative impacts and avoid segmentation of other pending proposals to modify Line 5, including, but not limited to, the proposed reroute of Line 5 through northern Wisconsin. Allowing Enbridge to improperly segment permitting requests for multiple concurrent projects on one pipeline could prevent a thorough review of the cumulative impacts and potential environmental and climate damages of an unnecessary pipeline expansion through a critical and fragile ecosystem.

C) Inadequacy of geotechnical studies: Initial geotechnical studies performed on the site for the Line 5 tunnel are inadequate, comprising roughly 1/10th of the industry recommended research for a tunnel of this scope. The inadequacy of the geotechnical review has not been considered by either the review of Michigan EGLE or MPSC. USACE must thoroughly review the complex geological and hydrogeological conditions that exist in the Straits of Mackinac and could preclude the feasibility of safely building a tunnel in this location.

D) Potential archaeological and cultural site: USACE must meaningfully consult with Tribal Nations, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in the NHPA Section 106 process regarding potential adverse effects to the potential 10,000-year-old Indigenous cultural site that has been located at the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac, near the proposed tunnel project. Tunnel construction could destroy this potential world heritage site and important cultural resource for local Tribal nations, and all care must be taken to ensure that this will not happen.

E) Explosion risk during construction and operation: Over the course of MPSC’s review of this proposal, expert testimony indicated a significant risk of explosion due to operating an oil and NGL pipeline within the confines of a subterranean tunnel with an open annulus design. Further, PHMSA expressed concerns to MPSC about the operations and maintenance of this pipeline within the confined space of a tunnel. USACE must fully evaluate this risk. Further, in the limited geotechnical analysis that was completed, dissolved methane in groundwater above reportable levels was detected. This leads to an explosivity risk during construction as well.

F) Climate impacts: Also, in MPSC testimony, experts presented climate impact analyses of this proposal and indicated that this project would potentially add 27 million metric tons of carbon pollution annually. USACE must fully review the potential climate impacts of this proposal to ensure that it adheres to the goals of the U.S. and global climate policy.

G) Drilling slurry: The applicant proposes to use a bentonite drilling slurry in the Tunnel Boring Machine to drill through the Straits of Mackinac. Bentonite drilling slurry is a potential hazardous waste. Bentonite, when released into surface water, expands and can coat the gills of fish, resulting in large fish kills. Given that the Straits of Mackinac are Treaty-protected fishing grounds for local Tribes and are, in fact, the most productive part of the Great Lakes Tribal fishery, the use of bentonite drilling slurry must be evaluated. Enbridge’s track record of recent frac-outs on the Line 3 expansion project should call its methods into question. A bentonite slurry spill into the Straits of Mackinac must be avoided at all costs.
Just the thought of going forward at this critical time in human history is too much, but going forward with this extremely flawed plan is indescribably foolhardy. Someday all of you will look back on your lives & you will be horrified by your irresponsible actions ! Wake Up !

Thank you.

Ref: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project LRE-2010-00463-56-A19

Construction of a tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac will take years.

In the meantime, there remains a looming and ever present risk of catastrophic harm to the health and wealth of the residents of Michigan and Ontario, and hundreds of species of plants and animals.

I ask the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to document the full cost of all human and environmental harm of a rupture to Enbridge Line 5, and require all of the following before allowing any further discussions:


1) Shutdown Line 5 until the following tasks have been completed.

2) Detailed plans describing how a rupture will be detected and exact steps to shut down the line and initiate and complete remediation actions.

3) Weekly testing of rupture detection and shutdown procedures.

4) The full cost of remediation to be posted and held in escrow


Thank you.

Ref: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project LRE-2010-00463-56-A19

I am requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conduct a thorough and complete review of the proposed project as part of its Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act.

This review should be as thorough as possible in scope, including a detailed review of at least all of the following:

A) Comprehensive alternatives analysis: Independent studies have revealed that Line 5 is not a necessary piece of infrastructure and that other options for transporting the products currently transported on Line 5 exist and could be implemented in short order. A review of the existing Line 5 pipeline vs. the tunnel as the only two options would accordingly be inadequate. To avoid this inadequacy, the alternatives analysis should include an alternative that considers using the existing capacity in Enbridge’s pipelines to transport the petroleum products that the proposed project is designed to accommodate. If existing capacity is inadequate, the alternative should assess expanding capacity elsewhere within Enbridge’s existing pipeline system, as well as alternative forms of transport such as trains and trucks. The “no action” alternative should account for the fact that Enbridge is operating Line 5 in Michigan without a valid easement, and in Wisconsin, it continues to operate years after being evicted by the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. Ongoing lawsuits from the State of Michigan and the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa could soon lead to the decommissioning of the Line 5 pipeline. Thus, in USACE’s alternatives analysis, the “no action” alternative cannot assume that Line 5 will continue to function indefinitely.

B) Cumulative impacts: Regardless of its scope, the EIS must consider all indirect and cumulative impacts and avoid segmentation of other pending proposals to modify Line 5, including, but not limited to, the proposed reroute of Line 5 through northern Wisconsin. Allowing Enbridge to improperly segment permitting requests for multiple concurrent projects on one pipeline could prevent a thorough review of the cumulative impacts and potential environmental and climate damages of an unnecessary pipeline expansion through a critical and fragile ecosystem.

C) Inadequacy of geotechnical studies: Initial geotechnical studies performed on the site for the Line 5 tunnel are inadequate, comprising roughly 1/10th of the industry recommended research for a tunnel of this scope. The inadequacy of the geotechnical review has not been considered by either the review of Michigan EGLE or MPSC. USACE must thoroughly review the complex geological and hydrogeological conditions that exist in the Straits of Mackinac and could preclude the feasibility of safely building a tunnel in this location.

D) Potential archaeological and cultural site: USACE must meaningfully consult with Tribal Nations, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in the NHPA Section 106 process regarding potential adverse effects to the potential 10,000-year-old Indigenous cultural site that has been located at the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac, near the proposed tunnel project. Tunnel construction could destroy this potential world heritage site and important cultural resource for local Tribal nations, and all care must be taken to ensure that this will not happen.

E) Explosion risk during construction and operation: Over the course of MPSC’s review of this proposal, expert testimony indicated a significant risk of explosion due to operating an oil and NGL pipeline within the confines of a subterranean tunnel with an open annulus design. Further, PHMSA expressed concerns to MPSC about the operations and maintenance of this pipeline within the confined space of a tunnel. USACE must fully evaluate this risk. Further, in the limited geotechnical analysis that was completed, dissolved methane in groundwater above reportable levels was detected. This leads to an explosivity risk during construction as well.

F) Climate impacts: Also, in MPSC testimony, experts presented climate impact analyses of this proposal and indicated that this project would potentially add 27 million metric tons of carbon pollution annually. USACE must fully review the potential climate impacts of this proposal to ensure that it adheres to the goals of the U.S. and global climate policy.

G) Drilling slurry: The applicant proposes to use a bentonite drilling slurry in the Tunnel Boring Machine to drill through the Straits of Mackinac. Bentonite drilling slurry is a potential hazardous waste. Bentonite, when released into surface water, expands and can coat the gills of fish, resulting in large fish kills. Given that the Straits of Mackinac are Treaty-protected fishing grounds for local Tribes and are, in fact, the most productive part of the Great Lakes Tribal fishery, the use of bentonite drilling slurry must be evaluated. Enbridge’s track record of recent frac-outs on the Line 3 expansion project should call its methods into question. A bentonite slurry spill into the Straits of Mackinac must be avoided at all costs.

Thank you.