Name
Timothy Carpenter
Organization/Affiliation
GeoDynamics Consultants (Retired, Past President)
Entry Date
October 14, 2022 5:12 pm
Attachment
Comments
Timothy Carpenter, MSCE, PE
Retired Civil / Geotechnical Engineer
October 14, 2022
Ref: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project LRE-2010-00463-56-A19
I have over 50-years of experience planning, executing and analyzing geotechnical investigations for thousands of projects including soft ground and hard rock tunneling.
I have not conducted a comprehensive analysis of all available data and acknowledge that some of my observations may be covered in prior works.
Given the overall geological conditions, the drilling and exploration program is beyond inadequate. Early documentation indicates a gap of roughly 8.000 feet where there is absolutely no test boring data. That is unacceptable under any circumstances. To assert uniformity within the profile invites disaster. For example, we know there was a river channel running through the straights and that there was a significant waterfall somewhat east of the bridge. This suggests a major variation in the rock properties. The existence of the channel gives rise to the possibility that it may be following an ancient fault line.
There is no indication of any geophysical exploration to identify faults that may exist along the alignment.
Michigan limestone formations often include layers of shale and are often found with sizable pockets of methane under considerable pressure.
During and post construction the tunnel will act as a drainage conduit, subject to collecting groundwater, methane and radon. One must enquirer as to how the exhaust from the tunnel ventilation may affect the local environment.
Cuttings ( aka muck or slurry) will likely be handled in a closed loop system whereby solid cuttings will be extracted while a liquid slurry of water, bentonite and fine rock flour will be recirculated. This system must be foolproof because release of such products into local waters could be catastrophic.
At some point in the various summaries, it is posited that at its deepest point the tunnel will have 25 feet of rock cover. Based on what is presented in the materials reviewed, such an assertion is wildly speculative. Other documents suggest that the tunnel design may purposely include mixed face mining (soil & rock at the same time). Such operations are fraught with problems that could be disastrous to the project.
The design apparently includes tunneling on a downward slope to the middle of the alignment and then tunneling upward to the recovery shaft. this methodology is exceptionally dangerous for mining personnel and should thus be replaced with conventional methods.
My considered assessment of the materials at hand is that that the project should not be approved under any circumstances.
Regards,
Timothy Carpenter, MSCE, PE
Retired Civil / Geotechnical Engineer
October 14, 2022
Ref: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project LRE-2010-00463-56-A19
I have over 50-years of experience planning, executing and analyzing geotechnical investigations for thousands of projects including soft ground and hard rock tunneling.
I have not conducted a comprehensive analysis of all available data and acknowledge that some of my observations may be covered in prior works.
Given the overall geological conditions, the drilling and exploration program is beyond inadequate. Early documentation indicates a gap of roughly 8.000 feet where there is absolutely no test boring data. That is unacceptable under any circumstances. To assert uniformity within the profile invites disaster. For example, we know there was a river channel running through the straights and that there was a significant waterfall somewhat east of the bridge. This suggests a major variation in the rock properties. The existence of the channel gives rise to the possibility that it may be following an ancient fault line.
There is no indication of any geophysical exploration to identify faults that may exist along the alignment.
Michigan limestone formations often include layers of shale and are often found with sizable pockets of methane under considerable pressure.
During and post construction the tunnel will act as a drainage conduit, subject to collecting groundwater, methane and radon. One must enquirer as to how the exhaust from the tunnel ventilation may affect the local environment.
Cuttings ( aka muck or slurry) will likely be handled in a closed loop system whereby solid cuttings will be extracted while a liquid slurry of water, bentonite and fine rock flour will be recirculated. This system must be foolproof because release of such products into local waters could be catastrophic.
At some point in the various summaries, it is posited that at its deepest point the tunnel will have 25 feet of rock cover. Based on what is presented in the materials reviewed, such an assertion is wildly speculative. Other documents suggest that the tunnel design may purposely include mixed face mining (soil & rock at the same time). Such operations are fraught with problems that could be disastrous to the project.
The design apparently includes tunneling on a downward slope to the middle of the alignment and then tunneling upward to the recovery shaft. this methodology is exceptionally dangerous for mining personnel and should thus be replaced with conventional methods.
My considered assessment of the materials at hand is that that the project should not be approved under any circumstances.
Regards,
Timothy Carpenter, MSCE, PE
Name
Nichole Biber
Organization/Affiliation
Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, tribal citizen
Entry Date
October 14, 2022 5:11 pm
Attachment
Comments
Clean water for this and future generations is of concern to our treaty rights, as related to Indigenous cultural sovereignty. We cannot practice our traditional life ways if our water and wildlife is poisoned and damaged.
The EIA must include a thorough review of the contamination to the waters as related to the proposed retention ponds. The pollutant profile is of public concern and needs to be transparent insofar as health risks to both humans and to our nonhuman relatives. The construction of a tunnel is not only extenuating the contamination risk of an oil spill, but also is degrading the waters by the additional load of chemicals and sediments associated with the proposed project.
The EIA must include a thorough review of the contamination to the waters as related to the proposed retention ponds. The pollutant profile is of public concern and needs to be transparent insofar as health risks to both humans and to our nonhuman relatives. The construction of a tunnel is not only extenuating the contamination risk of an oil spill, but also is degrading the waters by the additional load of chemicals and sediments associated with the proposed project.
Name
Linda Reik
Organization/Affiliation
Entry Date
October 14, 2022 4:56 pm
Attachment
Comments
In line with WECAN’s excellent research and teaching over many years, I request USACE conduct a complete review of the proposed project as part of its EIS under the National Environmental Policy Act. According to WECAN, Line5 is unnecessary. It may have a very short lifespan for a pipeline, so it would be better to move oil through the existing Enbridge transport system. Enbridge has a history of not reporting mistakes and spills. Do not take a chance in Straits of Mackinac, Great Lakes, that hold 95 percent of the fresh surface water in the U.S., providing more than 30 million people with drinking water.
The Enbridge-proposed expansion through 180+ waterways that flow into Mashkiiziibii, the Bad River watershed, in 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. Built in 1953 with an engineered lifespan of 50 years, the decaying Line 5 has spilled over a million gallons, with soil contamination found as recently as last month. Be cautious of this company, Enbridge, which has not demonstrated protection of natural resources. It would be prudent for USACE to decommission Line 5.
The EIS must recognize that any action short of decommissioning Line 5 directly undermines Indigenous rights, violates long-standing Treaty agreements with sovereign Indigenous nations that are designated by US Constitution Article VI as the supreme law of the land, threatens the majority of the country’s fresh surface water, and perpetuates the climate crisis. Continuing to run fossil fuels under the Straits of Mackinac places massive, unnecessary risk on the Great Lakes and Michigan’s twelve federally recognized Tribal Nations – which together make up the Three Fires Confederacy of the Ojibwe, Odawa, and Potawatomi – against their will, in effect furthering cultural genocide. Damage to land and water destroys food and cultural lifeways that are core to Tribal members’ identity and survival. I am in full support of protecting ALL Tribal agreements with US treaties, lands and waterways.
The Enbridge-proposed expansion through 180+ waterways that flow into Mashkiiziibii, the Bad River watershed, in 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. Built in 1953 with an engineered lifespan of 50 years, the decaying Line 5 has spilled over a million gallons, with soil contamination found as recently as last month. Be cautious of this company, Enbridge, which has not demonstrated protection of natural resources. It would be prudent for USACE to decommission Line 5.
The EIS must recognize that any action short of decommissioning Line 5 directly undermines Indigenous rights, violates long-standing Treaty agreements with sovereign Indigenous nations that are designated by US Constitution Article VI as the supreme law of the land, threatens the majority of the country’s fresh surface water, and perpetuates the climate crisis. Continuing to run fossil fuels under the Straits of Mackinac places massive, unnecessary risk on the Great Lakes and Michigan’s twelve federally recognized Tribal Nations – which together make up the Three Fires Confederacy of the Ojibwe, Odawa, and Potawatomi – against their will, in effect furthering cultural genocide. Damage to land and water destroys food and cultural lifeways that are core to Tribal members’ identity and survival. I am in full support of protecting ALL Tribal agreements with US treaties, lands and waterways.
Name
Kyle Brandt
Organization/Affiliation
Entry Date
October 14, 2022 4:56 pm
Attachment
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.
Thank you.
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.
Name
Moira Birss
Organization/Affiliation
none
Entry Date
October 14, 2022 4:54 pm
Attachment
Comments
Ref: USACE Project LRE-2010-00463-56-A19
Thank you for accepting public input regarding the scope of this crucial EIS. In solidarity with the affected Indigenous women who have been meeting with you – the Indigenous Women’s Treaty Alliance facilitated by the Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) – regarding the disastrous ongoing and potential impacts of Enbridge Line 5 on their territories, I request USACE conduct a complete review of the proposed project as part of its EIS under the National Environmental Policy Act.
This review should be as thorough as possible in scope, including at minimum:
* Comprehensive alternatives analysis – independent studies have shown Line 5 is unnecessary (1); other options for transporting its products exist and could be implemented in short order. Therefore, framing the review with the only two options being the existing Line 5 versus the proposed tunnel can produce only an incomplete analysis. To avoid this inadequacy, the alternatives analysis should include an option that considers using the existing capacity elsewhere within Enbridge’s pipeline system. If existing capacity is inadequate, the alternative should assess expanding capacity elsewhere within Enbridge’s 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 MI without a valid easement (2), in violation of the expressed will of Michigan’s twelve federally recognized Tribal Nations who are stewards of this land and water (3), and in spite of banishment by the Bay Mills Indian Community (4); and in Wisconsin, Enbridge continues operating Line 5 years after eviction by the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (5). Ongoing lawsuits from the State of MI and the Bad River Band could result in the decommissioning of this pipeline, significant for the “no action” alternative. In fact, in May 2021, Enbridge filed a depreciation study with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in which it proposed an accelerated depreciation schedule, estimating its Lakehead System had a remaining economic life of 19 years (6) – until 2040 – making Line 5 and the proposed oil tunnel an obvious candidate for decommissioning in 2022.
* Cumulative impacts – 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 expansion through 180+ waterways that flow into Mashkiiziibii, the Bad River watershed, in 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. Built in 1953 with an engineered lifespan of 50 years, the decaying Line 5 has spilled over a million gallons, with soil contamination found as recently as last month (7).
* Tribal sovereignty – the EIS must recognize that any action short of decommissioning Line 5 directly undermines Indigenous rights, violates long-standing Treaty agreements with sovereign Indigenous nations that are designated by US Constitution Article VI as the supreme law of the land, threatens the majority of the country’s fresh surface water, and perpetuates the climate crisis. Continuing to run fossil fuels under the Straits of Mackinac places massive, unnecessary risk on the Great Lakes and Michigan’s twelve federally recognized Tribal Nations – which together make up the Three Fires Confederacy of the Ojibwe, Odawa, and Potawatomi – against their will, in effect furthering cultural genocide. Damage to land and water destroys food and cultural lifeways that are core to Tribal members’ identity and survival.
* 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 located at the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac, near the proposed project. Tunnel construction could destroy this potential world heritage site and important cultural resource for local Tribal nations. Significant care must be taken to prevent this.
* Inadequacy of geotechnical studies – Initial geotechnical studies performed on the site for the Line 5 tunnel are inadequate, comprising roughly one-tenth of the industry recommended research for a tunnel of this scope. The inadequacy of geotechnical study has not been considered by either the review of Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) or Michigan Public Service Commission (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.
* 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 liquid gas 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.
* Climate impacts – In MPSC testimony (8), experts presented climate impact analyses of this proposal and indicated the 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 it adheres to the goals of the U.S. and global climate policy.
* Drilling slurry – The applicant proposes to use a bentonite drilling slurry in a massive 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
Thank you for accepting public input regarding the scope of this crucial EIS. In solidarity with the affected Indigenous women who have been meeting with you – the Indigenous Women’s Treaty Alliance facilitated by the Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) – regarding the disastrous ongoing and potential impacts of Enbridge Line 5 on their territories, I request USACE conduct a complete review of the proposed project as part of its EIS under the National Environmental Policy Act.
This review should be as thorough as possible in scope, including at minimum:
* Comprehensive alternatives analysis – independent studies have shown Line 5 is unnecessary (1); other options for transporting its products exist and could be implemented in short order. Therefore, framing the review with the only two options being the existing Line 5 versus the proposed tunnel can produce only an incomplete analysis. To avoid this inadequacy, the alternatives analysis should include an option that considers using the existing capacity elsewhere within Enbridge’s pipeline system. If existing capacity is inadequate, the alternative should assess expanding capacity elsewhere within Enbridge’s 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 MI without a valid easement (2), in violation of the expressed will of Michigan’s twelve federally recognized Tribal Nations who are stewards of this land and water (3), and in spite of banishment by the Bay Mills Indian Community (4); and in Wisconsin, Enbridge continues operating Line 5 years after eviction by the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (5). Ongoing lawsuits from the State of MI and the Bad River Band could result in the decommissioning of this pipeline, significant for the “no action” alternative. In fact, in May 2021, Enbridge filed a depreciation study with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in which it proposed an accelerated depreciation schedule, estimating its Lakehead System had a remaining economic life of 19 years (6) – until 2040 – making Line 5 and the proposed oil tunnel an obvious candidate for decommissioning in 2022.
* Cumulative impacts – 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 expansion through 180+ waterways that flow into Mashkiiziibii, the Bad River watershed, in 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. Built in 1953 with an engineered lifespan of 50 years, the decaying Line 5 has spilled over a million gallons, with soil contamination found as recently as last month (7).
* Tribal sovereignty – the EIS must recognize that any action short of decommissioning Line 5 directly undermines Indigenous rights, violates long-standing Treaty agreements with sovereign Indigenous nations that are designated by US Constitution Article VI as the supreme law of the land, threatens the majority of the country’s fresh surface water, and perpetuates the climate crisis. Continuing to run fossil fuels under the Straits of Mackinac places massive, unnecessary risk on the Great Lakes and Michigan’s twelve federally recognized Tribal Nations – which together make up the Three Fires Confederacy of the Ojibwe, Odawa, and Potawatomi – against their will, in effect furthering cultural genocide. Damage to land and water destroys food and cultural lifeways that are core to Tribal members’ identity and survival.
* 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 located at the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac, near the proposed project. Tunnel construction could destroy this potential world heritage site and important cultural resource for local Tribal nations. Significant care must be taken to prevent this.
* Inadequacy of geotechnical studies – Initial geotechnical studies performed on the site for the Line 5 tunnel are inadequate, comprising roughly one-tenth of the industry recommended research for a tunnel of this scope. The inadequacy of geotechnical study has not been considered by either the review of Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) or Michigan Public Service Commission (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.
* 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 liquid gas 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.
* Climate impacts – In MPSC testimony (8), experts presented climate impact analyses of this proposal and indicated the 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 it adheres to the goals of the U.S. and global climate policy.
* Drilling slurry – The applicant proposes to use a bentonite drilling slurry in a massive 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
Name
Mitchell Coleman
Organization/Affiliation
Citizen
Entry Date
October 14, 2022 4:48 pm
Attachment
Comments
The development of the Line 5 tunnel is a mistake and should not go forward.
The risks of damage to the environment and our citizens is significant. They range from continued carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels to an oil leak or explosion, polluting our Great Lakes, and harming our economy. Enbridge has other options to transport oil and propane through other tunnels and other methods. Michigan will not benefit from this tunnel. Stop this project.
The risks of damage to the environment and our citizens is significant. They range from continued carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels to an oil leak or explosion, polluting our Great Lakes, and harming our economy. Enbridge has other options to transport oil and propane through other tunnels and other methods. Michigan will not benefit from this tunnel. Stop this project.
Name
Timothy Van Deelen
Organization/Affiliation
UW-Madison
Entry Date
October 14, 2022 4:47 pm
Attachment
Comments
Name
Beth Wallace
Organization/Affiliation
National Wildlife Federation
Entry Date
October 14, 2022 4:41 pm
Attachment
Comments
National Wildlife Federation scoping comments – Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Enbridge Line 5 Tunnel Project
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Project LRE-2010-00463-56-A19. These comments provide National Wildlife Federation’s (NWF) call for a robust EIS, including an assessment of alternative transportation options, for Enbridge Energy’s proposal to construct an oil pipeline tunnel through the bottomlands of the Great Lakes to prolong the life of the 70-year-old Line 5, bringing additional risk to the Great Lakes, wildlife and Tribal Nations.
We first call on the USACE to build out a scope of review to include a full review of construction methods, a review of current and projected need as well as a review on alternatives beyond to continued use of Line 5. These aspects of Enbridge’s proposal are not being fully considered under the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) or the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) permits due to Enbridge’s extensive efforts to greatly limit how each agency considers this project. Critical assessment of the proposed design, environmental and climate impacts, the risk and planned construction protocols have not yet been reviewed. Without a full review and an extension of scope, no agency is considering the core risks or impacts from this project, which leaves communities, Tribal nations, wildlife and our natural resources at risk.
With NWF’s comments, we will focus on three core requirements that need to be included in any EIS process for Enbridge’s proposal:
-USACE must evaluate current and projected need for Line 5 that includes an assessment of state and federal energy transition efforts, policies and executive orders that advance our society from a fossil fuel driven economy to one that has a focus on clean and renewable energy sources.
-An EIS must account for potential impacts to Tribal rights.
-USACE much evaluate direct and indirect impacts to wildlife.
In addition to the above areas, NWF is a signor and fully supports the comments submitted by the Oil and Water Don’t Mix coalition, which call for:
-USACE must perform a comprehensive alternatives analysis, including analysis of alternative methods and locations for transport of oil currently routed through Line 5.
-Cumulative impacts of this project, including climate impacts and related projects along the path of Line 5, must be fully considered.
-USACE must thoroughly review the complex geological and hydrogeological conditions in the Straits of Mackinac and remedy the inadequacy of existing geotechnical studies.
-USACE must assess risks of damaging potential archaeological and cultural sites near the tunnel profile in partnership with the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and relevant Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPO).
-USACE must thoroughly evaluate the risk of explosion both during construction and during operation once construction is completed.
-USACE must consider the full history of environmental and safety violations committed by Enbridge as it considers potential environmental impacts of the project.
The NWF has extensive concerns around Enbridge's proposed oil tunnel and calls on USACE to fully fulfill its duty under NEPA to protect our natural resources, Tribal Nations, wildlife and communities
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Project LRE-2010-00463-56-A19. These comments provide National Wildlife Federation’s (NWF) call for a robust EIS, including an assessment of alternative transportation options, for Enbridge Energy’s proposal to construct an oil pipeline tunnel through the bottomlands of the Great Lakes to prolong the life of the 70-year-old Line 5, bringing additional risk to the Great Lakes, wildlife and Tribal Nations.
We first call on the USACE to build out a scope of review to include a full review of construction methods, a review of current and projected need as well as a review on alternatives beyond to continued use of Line 5. These aspects of Enbridge’s proposal are not being fully considered under the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) or the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) permits due to Enbridge’s extensive efforts to greatly limit how each agency considers this project. Critical assessment of the proposed design, environmental and climate impacts, the risk and planned construction protocols have not yet been reviewed. Without a full review and an extension of scope, no agency is considering the core risks or impacts from this project, which leaves communities, Tribal nations, wildlife and our natural resources at risk.
With NWF’s comments, we will focus on three core requirements that need to be included in any EIS process for Enbridge’s proposal:
-USACE must evaluate current and projected need for Line 5 that includes an assessment of state and federal energy transition efforts, policies and executive orders that advance our society from a fossil fuel driven economy to one that has a focus on clean and renewable energy sources.
-An EIS must account for potential impacts to Tribal rights.
-USACE much evaluate direct and indirect impacts to wildlife.
In addition to the above areas, NWF is a signor and fully supports the comments submitted by the Oil and Water Don’t Mix coalition, which call for:
-USACE must perform a comprehensive alternatives analysis, including analysis of alternative methods and locations for transport of oil currently routed through Line 5.
-Cumulative impacts of this project, including climate impacts and related projects along the path of Line 5, must be fully considered.
-USACE must thoroughly review the complex geological and hydrogeological conditions in the Straits of Mackinac and remedy the inadequacy of existing geotechnical studies.
-USACE must assess risks of damaging potential archaeological and cultural sites near the tunnel profile in partnership with the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and relevant Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPO).
-USACE must thoroughly evaluate the risk of explosion both during construction and during operation once construction is completed.
-USACE must consider the full history of environmental and safety violations committed by Enbridge as it considers potential environmental impacts of the project.
The NWF has extensive concerns around Enbridge's proposed oil tunnel and calls on USACE to fully fulfill its duty under NEPA to protect our natural resources, Tribal Nations, wildlife and communities
Name
Lori Coleman
Organization/Affiliation
White Lake Area Climate Action Council
Entry Date
October 14, 2022 4:38 pm
Attachment
Comments
The environmental impacts and risks associated with this project make it a bad decision for the State of Michigan. The pipeline needs to be closed down to protect the water, the health of humans and wildlife, and the economy of our beautiful state. Enbridge has a poor record of safety with its pipelines including the devastating oil spill in the Kalamazoo river in July 2010. Enbridge has other alternatives to route oil and propane, including the line through Wisconsin to Illinois. Ultimately we should be moving away from oil and gas transport to other sources of renewable energy. Why doesn't Enbridge use its massive resources to develop these types of solutions? Building this tunnel and pipeline will leave Michigan with stranded assets to maintain and address after oil is gone. This is a poor economic decision for our state.
Name
allison youngs
Organization/Affiliation
Entry Date
October 14, 2022 4:32 pm
Attachment
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.
Thank you.
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.