Posted Scoping Comments

BEFORE THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS ENBRIDGE APPLICATION FOR TUNNEL PERMIT IN THE STRAITS OF
MACKINAC STATEMENT OF STRAITS OF MACKINAC
ALLIANCE SEPTEMBER 23,
2022 Leonard Page, Vice



Chair The Straits of Mackinac Alliance is a local group of upper Great Lakes property owners, most of whom have lakefront homes on the Straits. Our concern is preserving the waters, wetlands, shorelines, wildlife, vegetation and fisheries of the Great Lakes. We accept the fact that, pending transition to renewable energy sources, pipelines may be the safest way to transport oil. But we adamantly oppose the placement and continued operation of oil pipelines anywhere near environmentally sensitive areas. The risk of a devastating oil spill far outweighs the rather insignificant benefits to Michigan. The State’s prior Attorney General once noted that an oil pipeline would not be approved for placement in our sacred Straits today. We agree – and therefore, ask why an oil pipeline should be allowed to operate in such a high-risk location today, or in the

future. We are pleased that the USACE is preparing a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposed tunnel to house a new Line 5 segment in the Straits. You have asked the public for scoping advice on what should be examined and what alternatives should be considered and evaluated. In particular, you have asked the public to address the range of actions, alternatives and potential impacts to be considered in the EIS. The Straits Alliance offers its unique perspective of the issues that should be

addressed. While the current capacity of Line 5 is about 540,000 barrels a day of Alberta crude oil products – very little of that capacity actually stays in Michigan. Well over 90% of that volume is received in Sarnia, Ontario for the Canadian market, or for export. On an average daily basis, 1,300 barrels of propane are stripped out at Rapid RIver in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula for about 13,000 Yooper propane users. (About 18% of Yoopers heat with propane and there are other sources than Line 5) The Detroit Marathon refinery receives about 30,000 barrels a day of light crude to satisfy only about 2-3% of Michigan’s gasoline

needs. In the event of a Line 5 shutdown, other alternatives are readily available to meet any Line 5 shortfalls at Rapid River or Detroit Marathon. Suggestions that there could be serious shortages, or significant price hikes in Michigan propane or gasoline prices from a Line 5 shutdown are just more of the sad state of media fear-mongering that has become far too common. (In 2020, a Michigan state court ordered a partial shutdown of Line 5 for 82 days. The shutdown had absolutely no impact on gasoline prices. ( Study: Partial Line 5 shutdown has not impacted gas prices, despite Enbridge warnings ⋆ Michigan Advance, August 10,

2020) Neither the pipeline Treaty of 1977 between Canada and the USA, or any other international agreement requires that Michigan or the USA serve as a permanent high risk shortcut for moving Alberta shale oil products to eastern

Canada. A worst case spill of 2.5 million gallons of Alberta oil in the Straits (Michigan Tech Study of 2018) will be largely unrecoverable, given currents and weather conditions; and thus could trigger an indefinite hold on ship passage through the Straits. The economic and environmental devastation is well beyond our comprehension. Such a spill would be the end of all that is “Pure





Michigan”.

-2- TUNNEL

CONCERNS The SMA urges the USACE to evaluate whether explosive natural gas liquids should be pumped through the enclosed 21- foot diameter tunnel, over 4 miles in length, and connecting two

cities. There has been much hype about the alleged greater level of safety from an oil release in a new Line 5 segment enclosed in a tunnel. However, there has been little or no response to the danger of a release of natural gas liquids from Line 5 inside the proposed tunnel. Line 5 will be pumping explosive and heavier- than- air natural gas liquids 20% of the time. Any leak of NGLs would accumulate at the low sections near the midpoint of the tunnel. As retired Dow engineer Gary Street has warned for several years now, the release of this gas inside a tunnel can create the world’s largest pipe bomb. Column: Why the Enbridge Line 5 tunnel is a pipe bomb at the Straits ⋆ Michigan Advance, April 8,

2022. A gas explosion from a methane pocket is also a serious issue during the construction phase. Not enough boring samples were taken for a project of this size and importance. An explosion of methane gas during construction of the Port Huron water tunnel on December 11, 1971 killed 22 construction workers. An explosion of an Enbridge gas pipeline in Kentucky in August, 2019 left one dead and five injured and has been blamed on lax oversight and maintenance. No one, least of all Enbridge after its July, 2010 Marshall Line 6B million gallon spill debacle, should find comfort in human and/or electronic sensors, electro/mechanical devices, or repair crews as an adequate barrier to an oil spill disaster. “Black Swan events” are almost always an unfortunate combination of natural, mechanical and human calamities. There is a good reason that no other U-shaped tunnel in the world contains a natural gas liquid

pipeline. The Gary Street report has been submitted to the USACE for this scoping review, and must be addressed. An explosion from a potential NGL leak could likely rupture the tunnel, and cause extensive damage to both St. Ignace and Mackinaw City. Fatalities could occur. The USACE needs to carefully and properly evaluate these new explosion dangers introduced by the tunnel project during both its construction, and while in

operation. The Tunnel Agreement of December 2018, between the State of Michigan and Enbridge, does not guarantee that a tunnel will be constructed. Article 5.1 of that Agreement clearly states that Enbridge obligations under that agreement are conditioned on the approval by

Thank you for creating an EIS and for soliciting our ideas and opinions.

I just finished reading the EPA’s Oct.7 comment to the USACE, and it’s amazing! I never thought I would see something from a federal agency that was so in line with my thinking and understanding of what’s important. I hope that you at the USACE feel the same way. Not only did the EPA folks address many of my biggest concerns about the tunnel, with detailed recommendations to demand that Enbridge offer information and analyses, they also introduced me to some threats I didn’t know about before.
“Discuss the potential for vibrations from the drilling operation to adversely impact the Mackinac Bridge, nearby structures, historical/cultural sites, the existing pipeline, and aquatic life within the Straits.” Oh my goodness! How could you think about approving a project that has the potential to threaten the structural integrity of the Mackinac Bridge, the dual pipelines, and more? And the possibility of blasting in the vicinity of these structures is also terrifying.
Now, you can ask Enbridge to write something about these risks, but you can’t trust a word they say. There are so many examples of this, but I’ll mention just one: the multiple aquifer breaches that they caused in northern Minnesota in 2021, as they installed the new Line 3, now known as Line 93. Their permit allowed them to dig down to 10 ft. for horizontal directional drilling under a waterway, and they cavalierly dug down 18 ft, then drove pilings down to a depth of 28 ft, breaching the aquifer and endangering a calcareous fen. Please watch this 7 min. video (https://tinyurl.com/EnbridgeDamage) produced by Waadookawaad Amikwag / Those Who Help Beaver, which uses drone footage to explain the horrendous, likely permanent damage that has been done to Minnesota’s land and water. Do not let Enbridge despoil Michigan too!
“Assess how intensified and stronger oil spill preparedness and response planning may be warranted. To the extent that a new pipeline and subsequent system upgrades could lead to higher flows and potentially heavier commodity flows (e.g., Tar Sands) along the entirety of Line 5, without planning for these potential results, the risk of environmental impact to the Straits from more probable spills at inland river crossings near the Straits (i.e., Line 5 near the US-2 and I-75 corridors) with challenging response implications may be increased.”
This is another point that should really be enough on its own to scuttle this project. The rest of the pipeline would likely give up the ghost when subjected to the pressures that the new pipeline would bear. When even Enbridge admits that their tunnel will be worthless in 20 years because society will have moved away from fossil fuels, how could it make sense to sink so much money into a project that will only last 2 decades while gravely endangering a myriad of things that are more valuable than it?
It’s time for our government agencies to take a stand that recognizes the new reality: we are in deep trouble because of climate change, and we need to stop digging ourselves into a deeper hole. What you decide will affect how many billions live or die. That sounds exaggerated, but it’s a fact that so much global warming is now baked into our future, that billions will die. The question is, will some survive? Stopping an existing pipeline would be precedent setting and could lead to a rapid move away from fossil fuels. And that could give our grandchildren a chance to survive.
I am very encouraged by the EPA letter. I figure it must mean that the Biden Administration realizes the many dangers of this pipeline (and hopefully, of all the others too!). But I do not know what the USACE will do with it. And I do know what Enbridge will do: promise plenty, but deliver nothing.
Based on its history, it seems that Enbridge does not want to spend the time or money on a real EIS. It dropped its proposed Sandpiper pipeline in 2016 when it realized it would have to do an EIS. In April 2022 it seems like Enbridge tried a slightly different tack. If you look at the DEIS that the WI DNR published in April, you know that the contractor who did that spent very little time on it. It was so pitifully, laughably inadequate. We’ll see what response the WI DNR gives to the many folks who demanded a new DEIS, done by a different entity. If the DNR stands up and ask for something like what the EPA calls for, it could be that Enbridge will also walk away from this project.
They might realize how much money it would cost to create such a thorough EIS, and it would unmask their project as a disaster waiting to happen. Let’s hope so. You can do your part to save 20% of the world’s fresh water and some portion of humanity by adopting the EPA’s suggestions and making Enbridge tell the truth.
Thank you. Please note the attachment, which has 122 more comments for you.
Phyllis Hasbrouck
3113 View Rd
Madison, WI 53711

Appreciate your opportunity for citizens and groups to participate in your decision-making process.
I am deathly afraid of what might possibly happened in our beloved Straits of Mackinac and to our Great Lakes if there are any, even tiny, ruptures in the proposed pipeline, even as the tunnel is being built.
It is a waste of money to construct a tunnel, if by the time it is built, our states have mostly already switched over to alternative means of energy.

My drinking water comes from Lake Huron. I eat fish that come from Lake Huron. My house sits next to Lake Huron. My community is located on the edge of Lake Huron. My life would be severely impacted in a very negative manner should a disastrous breach of the pipe occur. The tunnel that would supposedly protect the pipe (not proven) would take years to prepare for and build. Meanwhile the pipe remains as a ticking time bomb for the entire Great Lakes. Please do not build the tunnel. It would allow the Enbridge company to continue to pretend that their method of transporting oil is safe. It is not. Please shut down the pipeline now.

A pipeline for the transportation of fossil fuels is not what we should be spending money on as a nation. We should be investing in clean energy technology instead of risking polluting one of the largest fresh bodies of water IN THE WORLD.

The tunnel is an uneccessary risk! Please don’t risk lives of Michiganders for the profits of a Canadian company. The tunnel will put the workers in danger during construction and then it will provide perfect access for human traffickers. PLEASE PLEASEDo not let this project move forward!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With Enbridge and pipelines:
Spills are inevitable NOT accidental.

Thank you.

I write today about the current state of Enbridge’s Line 5 Pipeline and their proposed tunnel. In our history, there has been a lack of proper studies and community led research. For starters, It appears that we, as a community, are playing with a “stacked deck” otherwise shutdown procedures of the existing Line 5 pipeline would already be taking place. Usually, when someone in this country is acting illegally, they are stopped and even arrested with criminal charges creating a remedy which will hopefully stop the criminal activity in the future. Does the Army Corps involve itself in criminal enforcement? Does any state or federal enforcement team involve itself with criminal enforcement of Enbridge? Since I’m aware that there is No criminal enforcement, how is Enbridge even allowed to operate in the United States. Are they above the law? Are they even responsible to carry insurance? Just as a starting process, this seems to be futile on “fair play.” Legal and financial accountability and criminal enforcement should be included in the scoping of the Line 5 Tunnel project.

It is my understanding that ACE looks at pipeline construction, section by section. That is not reasonable for a proper environmental study. In looking at the environmental impact of a project, the whole project should be studied as it has cumulative impacts throughout the project. If other sections of the project do not fall within ACE jurisdiction, the project should be halted for lack of regulatory oversight until a solution is created. If ACE is aware of this problem, as I believe you are, we expect that you will take steps to assure a solution. The proper scope for this EIS should include the whole length of Line 5.

Other studies that need to be represented include sound effects of drilling activities within the great lakes. The effects of sound itself has been its own debate, unexplored until more recently, as enough scientific studies have been allowed to be established. We have sound-based warning systems for our human population for emergencies. The military industrial complex uses sound as a weapon. So how does it affect aquatic life? If you were to have a drill running nonstop for 2 years, how do you think it would affect you? When you step on that branch in the woods and the deer runs, do you think it was the sound that caused that reaction to the wildlife?
The Great Lakes is a sensitive ecosystem that has already been affected by industry in general causing problems from algae blooms to invasive species to the Flint Water Crisis. And not just within the Great Lakes themselves, but within the whole Great Lakes Region. Are there any studies towards what fish species went extinct due to the 2010 Kalamazoo Oil Spill by Enbridge? What about the 1991 Enbridge Spill in Grand Rapids Minnesota? What is the criminal penalty to killing off a species? Presently speaking, the Asian Carp have been on a rise in the Great Lakes. Red crawfish too. And whereas carp may be able to live past an oil spill, most other indigenous species will not. What did happen to the local Crappie fish population that used to be found in the Straights of Mackinaw in the 90s? Upon acknowledgement that the croppy population had diminished, fishing became no longer allowed in the Straights. Was it overfishing that created the crappie population to disappear? Has the population of croppies returned? Or was it because the active Line 5 has slow leaks that no one knows about because we trust that Enbridge is providing us all the information. Has anyone at the actual Army Corps of Engineers even traveled down to the Straights to inspect Line 5, or do we expect 3rd parties that are paid by Enbridge to be self-reporting?

And then what about the vibrations? When the earth vibrates, we usually call it an earthquake. Do we know what earthquakes do to our tectorial plates, underground water systems, structure of buildings, and migration patterns? The vibrations that will be created through this construction will undoubtedly affect the environment around it. It could, and probably will, even create future earthquakes. How would an earthquake affect the tunnel? The Mackinaw Bridge? And the Great Lakes? And what about the heat generated by the process? Vibrations create heat as well as the water that is used to cool the drill that is to be returned to the watershed. How has this heat contributed to our growing problem of algae blooms within the Great Lakes.

Archaeological research. Citizen monitors have already discovered 1 Archeological site that dates back to nearly 10,000 years. What of the rest of the floor of the Great Lakes? Quite honestly, the floor of the Great Lakes is a plethora of archeology that has yet to be studied. It’s home to humanity’s creation story. Do we really think that Enbridge would stop their construction if they found any other sites? We know thus far, the Great Lakes used to be an ocean. Michigan is now built upon a block of salt. Salt caverns stretch miles across Michigan and even into Canada. What would happen if during the process a sinkhole were to connect to one of these caverns? Unfortunately, it could effectively drain the Great Lakes, causing damage that is barely imaginable. Some of these caverns are used for natural gas storage. Can you imagine the explosions?
As others have discussed, the scope must address prevention of Missing and Murdered Indigenous People epidemic that comes with creation of Man Camps for Enbridge workers. Again, the concerns have now been proven. During the construction of the Line 3 replacement project, it was agreed upon that law enforcement would do some stings for human traffickers. They did 2 stings during construction. Both stings caught Enbridge construction workers, who made up 30% of the arrestees.

https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/2-arrests-in-human-trafficking-sting-were-line-3-workers

https://kstp.com/kstp-news/local-news/6-arrested-in-human-trafficking-sting-including-2-enbridge-line-3-pipeline-workers/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/04/minnesota-pipeline-line-3-sexual-women-violence

Please reference full comment in pdf as 1000 words was not enough space.

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.

Thank you
Antoinette Bonsignore