Posted Scoping Comments

The Great Lakes hold 95% of surface fresh water in the United States, and a project of any type that might impact this essential resource must be evaluated as broadly and fully as possible. This proposal, concerning a pipeline that has so far spilled at least 1.1 million gallons of oil in 33 leaks over the last 50 years, deserves and requires the highest degree of scrutiny.

A comprehensive and detailed review is also particularly merited given the ongoing history of Enbridge's construction and operations micsonduct across the continent. Here in Minnesota, state agencies, Tribal Nations, and other local residents are continuing to face the consequences of aquifer breaches, frac-outs, and other permit violations from the Line 3 expansion project that finished construction more than a year ago, on a rushed timeline that also led to unsafe conditions including worker fatality.

The scope of the Line 5 EIS must be as thorough as possible, including a detailed review of all of the following:

1- Comprehensive alternatives analysis – independent studies have shown Line 5 is not a necessary infrastructure project (1) and that other options for transporting its products exist and could be implemented in short order. A review of the existing Line 5 pipeline vs. the tunnel as the only two options can only produce 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 Michigan 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. Thus, in USACE’s alternatives analysis, the “no action” alternative cannot assume that Line 5 will continue to function indefinitely.

2- 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 of Line 5 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).

3- 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.

4- 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 (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.

5- 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 and commitments.

While the NEPA process is long and detailed, what is included now in the scope will affect the alternatives available in the future. The scope cannot simply seek alternative paths to operating a crude oil pipeline across the straits to serve downstream refineries at current levels - it must weigh all reasonable ways to meet whatever the energy needs may be over the next 40 years, with minimum adverse effect on natural and Tribal resources.

This EIS cannot simply weigh building the tunnel or leaving the current Line 5 pipes in place. The real choice the Corps must consider is what is best for our future: allowing Line 5 to operate under the Straits indefinitely, or protecting everyone in Michigan and across the country from exacerbation of the climate crisis and shutting down Line 5 as Governor Whitmer has ordered.

Thank you,
Tess Dornfeld
Clean Water Action Minnesota

References:
(1) https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-environment-watch/new-report-finds-enbridge-line-5-closure-will-cause-little-pain-michigan
(2) https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2021/01/12/enbridge-not-comply-easement-revocation-continue-line-5-operation/6630978002/
(3) https://www.baymills.org/_files/ugd/869f65_f8e5288d82084540a9f0e7d5d6c0921f.pdf
(4) https://narf.org/nill/documents/20210510BayMills_banish_Enbridge.pdf
(5) http://www.badriver-nsn.gov/natural-resources/threats/
(6) https://jacobinmag.com/2021/12/enbridge-oil-pipline-fossil-fuels-climate-crisis-energy-costs
(7) https://wcmcoop.org/2022/08/12/citizens-demand-independent-investigation-as-enbridge-line-5-leaks-in-wisconsin-and-line-3-aquifer-breach-in-minnesota-ruptures-again/
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTljIAY6yJs&t=28802s

This is unnecessary risk to our freshwater drinking supply for an unnecessary project. It demands all of the most rigorous scrutiny available.
Thank you

The Great Lakes region is great because of the lakes. Because of the water. I oppose the construction of line 5 because I choose to care for my neighbors. One (highly probable) human error has the potential to sicken and/or kill so many plants, animals, and people and their right to a healthy environment. We need to listen to Indigenous voices. We need to more deeply care about Earth again. Our future dangles on a thin string. Look at all mass climate destruction happening across the globe. You have the ability to oppose something that can and will cause damage. Keep our water clean. Be vocal. Stop Line 5.

Please see attached file.

Please protect our beautiful Lake Michigan. It's too dangerous to let oil pass through it.

No pipelines under or near The Great Lakes. Water is life.

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

Please, 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 listed items:

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 for your consideration.

We have known for decades that continued fossil fuel burning and degradation of the our vital air, water and land will cause murderous harm to all living things. How many times must we show and document this? The original residents of this land knew how to live here and how to avoid destructive practices. The plan for this massive project will put the original people and all living things at risk and for what? All pipelines leak and break and this one will too.

The pipeline is running illegally in both MI and WI, holding expired permits with the Bay Mills Indian Community, the State of Michigan, and the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. In addition the pipeline operating company Enbridge is actively defying an eviction order in MI, and has been ruled trespassing by a WI judge. Enbridge is responsible for the two largest inland oil spills in United States history, and has a long record of negligence, regulatory violations, and cover ups. Enbridge is not trustworthy, and their proposals should be reviewed with the highest scrutiny.
I request USACE to 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 explosive risk during construction as well.

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 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 and aquifer breaches

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.