On December 16, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) released a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Enbridge Energy’s plan to construct a new segment of the Line 5 oil pipeline in northern Wisconsin. Under state law, the draft EIS must contain information about how the project would impact people, natural resources, and the economy.
The DNR is taking comments on the draft EIS through March 18 and held a virtual hearing on February 2 that lasted 10 hours, with 147 people speaking in opposition to Line 5. You can find the draft EIS and more information here.
This is a critical time period to demonstrate the broad range of concerns around the pipeline.
Here are some resources that may be useful to you as you prepare your testimony and public comments:
- Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission letter to DNR re: draft EIS (GLIFWC)
- Intertribal agency raises concerns with state’s draft review of a proposed oil pipeline reroute (WPR)
The DNR is accepting public comments through March 18, 2022.
Written comments are due by March 18, 2022 and you can submit them by emailing them to DNROEEACOMMENTS@WI.GOV or by
Mail to “Line 5 EIS Comments, DNR (EA/7),” 101 South Webster Street, Madison, WI 53707 (must be postmarked by March 18)
Tips for Written Comments
All of the tips for testifying apply when writing your comments- don’t be intimidated, be kind, and be clear in what you’re asking for. Here are some tools to help you put your written comments together:
- Writing comments on an EIS (Physicians for Social Responsibility)
- Public Comment Guidance (Sierra Club)
- Worksheet for putting together your comments
Use these suggested talking points for composing your comment or testimony:
- The draft EIS claims that the Line 5 expansion would have no effect on climate change because this is a reroute of an existing line. But a whole new pipeline could be built one section at a time, resulting in decades more of fossil fuel use. Also, they did not consider emissions associated with workers’ commuting, the transportation and on-site use of equipment, and the creation of the pipes and other materials.
- There are some places that are uniquely inappropriate for a pipeline carrying toxic oil, and this is one of them. No stricter permit conditions could ever make the risks acceptable in the Bad River Watershed. Yet the draft EIS (DEIS) says, “The proposed Project is not novel, nothing is uniquely different about it or the proposed environmental effects.”
- The frac outs and aquifer breaches during construction of Line 3 in Minnesota, the former caused by Enbridge’s willful flouting of its permit, are a dire warning to Wisconsin. Stricter permit conditions that the WI DNR might apply will have no effect on a company that breaks rules willfully. Enbridge is willing to risk breaches and ruptures because they can lead to faster completion of construction, or a whole new line (as when the ruptured Line 6b was replaced with the larger Line 78). Our environment and economy cannot afford the damage that Enbridge will likely cause.
- The 1842 U.S. treaty with Chippewa Tribes guarantees them the right to hunt, fish, and gather in ceded territory, through which the Line 5 expansion is routed. This right is nullified if a spill results in contamination of the resources there. The DEIS did not realistically consider the consequences of a (very possible) spill into the Kakagon Sloughs (home of wild rice) and Lake Superior, and it lists only 3 out of 10 tribes granted these rights!
- TRC, the company contracted by the DNR to create the dEIS, states on its website, “TRC already has strong relationships with a number of large Canadian firms, including TransCanada, Enbridge, Kinder Morgan and Canadian National Railway.” DNR needs to thoroughly review all of the information that TRC included in the EIS, question the assumptions made, and provide its own analysis backed up by evidence. TRC made many errors, including using outdated data, showing an incorrect route, and completely omitting sections on cumulative effects and water quality. The DNR has an obligation to change, update, and improve this information.
- This draft EIS is an inadequate portrait of all the potential impacts of the Line 5 expansion. It needs to be reworked with our current global situation in mind.
Intro to Sample Comment
To sign onto our commnet and to add your own, brief personal message, click here. However, the most effective comments are based on your experience or knowledge, but if you are rushed, you can use our sample. Please start with at least a sentence or two about why you care about this issue. You could tell about a special place that you fear will be ruined, your knowledge of a resource that will be impacted, the urgency of stopping climate chaos, or experiences with clean or dirty drinking water, for example.
I’m writing about the draft Line 5 Relocation EIS describing the impacts of Enbridge’s proposed new 41-mile section of the pipeline through the Bad River Watershed.
Why doesn’t the draft EIS (DEIS) address how updating an existing line enables oil to flow and be burned for many more years, ensuring that the climate-enhanced disasters of 2021 (the wildfires, droughts, heatwaves, hurricanes, flooding, and severe weather), will continue and intensify? The DEIS also neglected the additional carbon emissions that would be caused by workers’ commuting, the transportation and on-site use of equipment, and the creation of the pipes and materials.
The DEIS states, “there is nothing uniquely different about [the project] or the proposed environmental effects.” In reality, the area is incredibly watery, fragile, and treasured. Both construction and spills of a new Line 5 segment could cause devastation to Copper Falls State Park; the Kakagon Sloughs, aka “the Everglades of the North” where the Bad River Band harvests wild rice; the entire Bad River Reservation (the Band’s only home); Lake Superior and the Apostle Islands. The damage to wildlife, clean water, humans, and the tourism economy would be severe and probably not fixable, and it’s not properly described in the DEIS.
The DEIS doesn’t mention the ecological devastation that Enbridge caused while constructing the new Line 3 through MN. Its worst artesian aquifer breach (Jan. 2021) caused water to gush out at about 100,000 gallons per day, with no fix yet. They caused the breach by willfully digging deeper than permitted. There were also 28 frac outs (releases of toxic drilling liquids into waterways) during horizontal directional drilling under bodies of water. Enbridge plans to use the same technology here, so the impacts of similar disasters here must be considered.
The DEIS describes the Chippewa Tribes’ treaty rights to hunt, fish and harvest wild rice, etc. in the area, but doesn’t recognize how a potential spill or a construction accident could ruin these resources, negating the tribes’ ability to use their rights. The DEIS is nonchalant about the impacts of a spill which would contaminate Lake Superior: “While it could be possible for spilled oil to reach Lake Superior, it is unlikely that a large volume of oil would reach area (sic)…”. The DNR shouldn’t rely on such unproven statements, but rather ask area first responders if they could stop oil spilled upstream of Copper Falls State Park from reaching Lake Superior.
Unproven statements minimizing grave threats seem to be the norm for TRC, contracted by the DNR to write the DEIS, including: “Given the volume of Lake Superior, it is unlikely that a release into a river or estuary would result in significant long-term impacts to its water quality and its aquatic resources” and “Given the size and volume of Lake Superior the impacts of construction on [it] would likely be very minor compared to existing sediment and pollutant loading.” These aren’t the result of scientific research and should have no place in a report released by the DNR. But these statements aren’t surprising, considering that their website states, “TRC already has strong relationships with a number of large Canadian firms, including TransCanada, Enbridge, Kinder Morgan and Canadian National Railway.”
In summary, the WI DNR needs to update the DEIS to acknowledge the severity of the pipeline’s impacts on the water, wetlands, and climate of Wisconsin, and to replace incorrect data, do its own analysis, and add sections on cumulative effects and water quality before moving forward.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft EIS. Please continue to offer many public input opportunities before moving forward with a decision on permits.