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.

Line 5, and its ill designed route, and questionable tenure and competency, is something I am very familiar with.

I walked 800 miles researching a Wisconsin hiking guidebook - and another 900 miles while working on a U.P. companion volume. I am familiar with many of the pristine waters and remote shorelines Line 5 threatens.

Line 5 is an oozing menace. I have authored numerous op-ed commentaries, in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and other publications, warning of the catastrophic hazards of Line 5 and other Enbridge pipelines.

Why risk squandering a fortune in freshwater? Why risk tomorrow's water for yesterday's petroleum product?

In addition, the technical aspects of the proposed tunnel construction are highly suspect. Before turning to outdoor writing I spent 25 years in the tool and die trade, including time spent as an elected union steward and a technical college and apprentice instructor.

Don't underestimate the negative impacts of this proposal for a single minute.

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

A) 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.

Honor the treaties. Consult and respect the tribal nations.

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. Tribal nations have their way of interacting with the natural resources in their land and water ranges and which have served them well for thousands of years. There is NO NEED for Line5 oil pipeline because use of oil is declining. Allowing Enbridge to build Line5 through lands and the Great Lakes is much too risky based on mistakes and non-reporting that Enbridge has done prior to now.

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. Hurricane IAN clearly exposed the increased power of storms due to warming atmosphere, mostly from burning fossil fuels. To ACOE, please do not add more heat to OUR Earth's atmosphere by supplying Line5 oil to be burned.

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. For your information, I saw fish in the Lackawaxen River between New York State and Pennsylvania with gills packed with mud when Tennessee Gas company drilled under that river, and of course, those fish died.

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.) As shown in the proposal Line 5 goes from Point La Barbe to McGulpin Point, the shortest distance between Upper Peninsula (UP) and the Lower Peninsula (LP). Looking at a map will make clear that there is a very narrow corridor where the two peninsulas are this close together. Not by coincidence this same route has been used by migrating birds since the Great Lakes formed. Birds that migrate up the Lower Peninsula in the spring or funnel down the east coast of Lake Superior in the fall follow this route between Point LaBarbe and McGulpin Point since they need to remain over land as much as possible. Many birds, notably raptors (hawks, eagles, kites, falcons, and vultures), need thermals (heat rising from the land) to gain altitude then soar for extended periods. Over water there are no thermals so birds cannot maintain aloft without continuous flapping and resultant fatigue. When construction begins on Line 5 there will be significant activity at both Point La Barbe and McGulpin Point which will likely disrupt the migration. While I am not in a position to address the impact on migrating birds, it definitely should be addressed in the environmental impact study. Many of the migrating species are vital to the ecosystem so the environmental impact study must address the impact to migrating birds

One side note on this migration route, the Mackinac Straits Raptor Watch (MSRW) has been counting migrating raptors for many years. Their stated mission is to “Promote and conduct scientific research on the numbers and timing of migration of birds of prey and associated migrants in the Straits of Mackinac region of Michigan.” The data they have collected has proven extremely valuable in understanding migration numbers and paths. The location where these counts take place is the exact same location where construction of the tunnel will take place. I have been told by MSRW that the land they conduct their surveys on is owned by Enbridge, so it is a certainty that the continuation of the count will be seriously disrupted or completely impossible during construction, which will take a minimum of seven years. Much important data would be lost if this occurs.

B) 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.

Additionally, the need for petroleum products in the future is projected to drop. Due to climate change the use of fossil fuels is being reduced to limit the amount of CO2, methane and other chemicals released into the atmosphere. Specifically, it is projected that by 2030 the majority of automobiles sold in the United States and Canada, the only users of Line 5’s petroleum products, will be electric. One of the primary by-products of Line 5 is gasoline. Therefore, the need for Line 5 will be greatly reduced.

C) 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. Further, the remainder of Line 5 is 69 years old and has also exceeded its life expectancy. Over one million gallons have leaked over the years and this will only get worse. Even though the permit is for the tunnel, the environmental impact of the line as a whole needs to be considered.

D) 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.

E) 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 constructioncoulddestroythispotentialworldheritagesiteandimportantculturalresourceforlocalTribalnationsandallcaremustbetakentoensurethatthiswillnothappen.F)Explosionriskduringconstructionandoperation:OverthecourseofMPSC’sreviewofthisproposalexperttestimonyindicatedasignificantriskofexplosionduetooperatinganoilandNGLpipelinewithintheconfinesofasubterraneantunnelwithanopenannulusdesign.FurtherPHMSAexpressedconcernstoMPSCabouttheoperationsandmaintenanceofthispipelinewithintheconfinedspaceofatunnel.USACEmustfullyevaluatethisrisk.Furtherinthelimitedgeotechnicalanalysisthatwascompleteddissolvedmethaneingroundwaterabovereportablelevelswasdetected.Thisleadstoanexplosivityriskduringconstructionaswell.G)Climateimpacts:AlsoinMPSCtestimonyexpertspresentedclimateimpactanalysesofthisproposalandindicatedthatthisprojectwouldpotentiallyadd27millionmetrictonsofcarbonpollutionannually.USACEmustfullyreviewthepotentialclimateimpactsofthisproposaltoensurethatitadherestothegoalsoftheU.S.andglobalclimatepolicy.H)Drillingslurry:TheapplicantproposestouseabentonitedrillingslurryintheTunnelBoringMachinetodrillthroughtheStraitsofMackinac.Bentonitedrillingslurryisapotentialhazardouswaste.Bentonitewhenreleasedintosurfacewaterexpandsandcancoatthegillsoffishresultinginlargefishkills.GiventhattheStraitsofMackinacareTreaty-protectedfishinggroundsforlocalTribesandareinfactthemostproductivepartoftheGreatLakesTribalfisherytheuseofbentonitedrillingslurrymustbeevaluated.Enbridge’strackrecordofrecentfrac-outsontheLine3expansionprojectshouldcallitsmethodsintoquestion.AbentoniteslurryspillintotheStraitsofMackinacmustbeavoidedatallcosts.ThankyouPeterMotzenbeckerRoyalOak&HesselMI

New infrastructure fo fossil fuel pipelines has been described by the IPCC and the International Energy Agency as driving us into climate chaos. We must eliminate the potential 27 million metric tons of carbon pollution annually from the Line 5 project. In addition, the cumulative environmental impact of such a project must be considered (frequent spills from similar pipelines make this proposal problematic). The impact on Native people in the area and anyone who depends on clean water could be significant if there is a spill (and there will be). 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 a lifelong Michigan resident weighing in on my feelings about Line 5.

It is horrifying the direction the environment on this planet is headed, and the complacency around it. I remember when there were bumblebees all over the playground, butterflies everywhere I looked in the summer. Now, both of those are a serious rarity. Each Summer forms new world records of "the hottest temperatures recorded". I'm witnessing this downfall in real-time, I'm only in my 20s and things are rapidly speeding up.

Line 5 is not only an ill-fated structure, but Enbridge has no business running it. The 2010 rupture on their watch demonstrates that they are in no way competent, and trusting their word that their proposed projects would not only further propel the downward environmental spiral we are in would be worse than ill-advised. A tunnel is no better an idea, the area needs to be left alone entirely if we want to avoid any further harm.

Our Great Lakes can no longer be considered "great" other than in mass if they are polluted to the extent this project would cause. There are other alternatives to energy production than fossil fuels, ones that are of urgent matter to pursue. This is but one of many articles on the subject: https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2020/Q2/can-renewable-energy-really-replace-fossil-fuels.html

Please consider those who are even younger than I who have never even seen the fields of butterflies.

Enbridge’s proposed Line 5 tunnel project will only wreak further havoc on the ecosystems and people which have already been harmed by the existing Line 5. As a concerned citizen, I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to think realistically about the future of our living planet when conducting this Environmental Impact Study on the Line 5 project. The extraction and burning of oil sands are some of the most environmentally damaging ways to produce energy—even more damaging than the industry has admitted, as found by a study done by John Liggio, et al. in 2019 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09714-9). Furthermore, Enbridge does not have a good track record with replacement projects — as recently as the construction of Line 3 last year, Enbridge claimed to be building a new pipeline in order to avoid operating a pipeline in a dangerous condition, and in doing so caused an aquifer breach and subsequent groundwater leakage (https://www.mprnews.org/story/2022/08/06/line-3-aquifer-breach-is-leaking-more-groundwater). The project also damaged several wild rice lakes – which are sacred to the region’s Indigenous population – to the point where they can no longer be used by these communities. And this is just the tip of the iceberg – countless other untold sufferings have been caused by the recent construction of Line 3.

With this in mind, the impacts of Line 5 on local communities and on the global climate crisis will not be abstract — especially when we consider that the proposed project will cause further disruption to the Straits of Mackinac, even more than the existing pipeline already has. This will not only harm the land and water which Indigenous people of the region understand as sacred, but it will also risk contamination of the drinking water of more than 40 million people in the U.S. and Canada. Even if the proposed Line 5 project didn’t treat our water supply as something to be sacrificed for the sake of enriching those who profit from the oil industry, it would contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, with Canada projected to blow right past its Paris Agreement promises (https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/01/30/analysis/canadas-climate-gap-widens-yet-again). Most importantly of all, though, the proposed Line 5 tunnel has already been found to trespass on the treaty lands of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa (https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/wisconsin-judge-rules-against-enbridge-dispute-line-5-pipeline). Those of us whose ancestors arrived on this land as colonial settlers have a moral obligation to do everything we can to return this land to the Lake Superior Chippewa, who have stewarded the region and its ecosystems for centuries.

It is certainly a tall order to provide energy to an increasingly overpopulated Canada and the United States and to maintain living wages for those employed by the existing energy sector. The solution, however, is not the status quo of building more tarsands pipelines. Rather, we must make a rapid transition away from dirty energy like tarsands. Shutting down Line 5 and stopping the Line 5 tunnel are critical steps in that direction.

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.

No line 5 tunnel

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; 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, in violation of the expressed will of Michigan’s twelve federally recognized Tribal Nations who are stewards of this land and water, and in spite of banishment by the Bay Mills Indian Community; and in Wisconsin, Enbridge continues operating Line 5 years after eviction by the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. 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 – 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.

* 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.

* Climate impacts – In MPSC testimony, 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.
I fully support the Indigenous Women’s Treaty Alliance, who sent you a letter in April asking for the first-ever EIS of the entirety of Line 5, explaining: “We write to you as concerned Indigenous grandmothers, mothers, aunties, daughters, sisters, and two-spirit relatives who seek to protect all that is sacred for future generations. We are of the Great Lakes, where food grows on water. The wild rice (manoomin) is our sacred food. In our traditions, we view the land and water, the plants and animals, and the birds and fish as our relatives. We hold a responsibility to protect our water, our ecosystems, and our cultural lifeways for the next seven generations. Both the current Line 5 and the proposed Line 5 expansion threaten to irreversibly damage our drinking water, our ecosystems, and manoomin. Both the existing and proposed pipelines violate our tribal usufructuary rights. They endanger the Great Lakes’ waters and fisheries important to many people. They exacerbate the climate crisis that affects the whole planet. We oppose the continued operation of the old and failing Line 5. It transports 22 million gallons of crude oil each day through northern Wisconsin, Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, and under the Straits of Mackinac. It threatens catastrophic spills into the Great Lakes, which hold 95 percent of the surface freshwater in the United States. Bechtel Corporation built this pipeline in 1953 and Enbridge continues to operate it nearly 20 years past its engineered lifespan.”