Posted Draft EIS Comments

I am asking for an extension for the public commenting period, the time given for the public to read through the sheer amount of technical information provided in the EIS is not enough to give thorough feedback and bring up concerns about the project. The deadline should be pushed back at least two months.

In the attached file, the Great Lakes Business Network and the National Wildlife Federation submit our comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated May 2025 for the proposed Line 5 tunnel. Included as part of our comments are 17 attachments. Because of their size, we are uploading them separately in groups: Attachments 1-5, Attachments 6-10, Attachments 11-15, and Attachments 16-17. For convenience and where possible, the references in the text also include a digital link to the documents.

If you have any questions, please contact me, Andy Buchsbaum, at buchsbauma@gmail.com, 734-717-3665. Thank you.

It’s time to build the Great Lakes Tunnel. We urge the USACE to move forward with permitting construction of the Great Lakes Tunnel. It’s clear from the Draft EIS that the significant, long-term benefits of the Great Lakes Tunnel outweigh the short-term and manageable disruption to the environment in the construction area.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) appreciates this opportunity to submit comments on the US Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) request for information as you scope the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Enbridge Line 5 project to replace and relocate the segment of Line 5 crossing the Straits of Mackinac into a tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac.

API represents all segments of America’s oil and natural gas industry, which supports nearly 11 million U.S. jobs and is backed by a growing grassroots movement of millions of Americans. Our approximately 600 members produce, process and distribute the majority of the nation’s energy and participate in API Energy Excellence, which is accelerating environmental and safety progress. API has developed more than 800 standards that enhance operational safety, environmental protection and sustainability. Promoting technological, environmental and regulatory innovation is a driving force for API and our members to ensure we have the energy used every day by tens of millions of American families and businesses.

API and its member companies support the prompt approval of the EIS and all required permits and authorizations, which will allow Enbridge to move forward with the Line 5 Great Lakes Tunnel Project as quickly as possible, as the tunnel is the best option from an environmental and safety perspective. The proper scope of the USACE’s EIS should focus on assessing tunnel alignments across the Straits, not a review of the entire pipeline. The design and engineering of the tunnel project adheres to the principle of having a minimal impact on the surrounding environment and protecting the Great Lakes. The tunnel project offers the greatest possible safeguards to Lake Michigan while continuing to deliver essential energy to the region. Line 5 meets the propane demands for more than half of the State of Michigan and 65 percent of the Upper Peninsula alone.

Safety is a core value that is paramount in every aspect of our industry’s operations. Pipelines are the safest way to transport the natural gas and oil that Americans use every day, and consumers - whether hospitals, schools, emergency responders, manufacturers, or families - have an expectation that energy will be there when they need it. The Great Lakes Tunnel Project will help ensure the safety and reliability of Line 5 in the Straits by housing 30-inch diameter pipeline replacement segment 100 feet below the lakebed within the subsurface easement issued by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to the Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority (MSCA). There is almost no impact to wetlands and no permanent impact to the lake bottom, which is why the tunnel was chosen by the State of Michigan.

As determined by the State, the tunnel enhances safety of the Straits, as compared to other alternatives, by providing secondary containment to virtually eliminate the potential for a release into the Straits. Other alternatives to replace Line 5’s crossing of the Straits would likely result in significant environmental impacts to the Great Lakes, such as dredging associated with the installation of a pipeline on the lakebed. Additionally, non-pipeline alternatives are not an option to connect Enbridge’s existing Line 5 facilities on either side of the Straits. The significant amounts of petroleum products reliably and safely transported by the dual pipelines could not possibly be carried by trucks across the Mackinac Bridge, by vessel as barge transportation infrastructure at the Straits does not exist and would adversely impact vessel traffic transiting the Straits, or by rail as infrastructure between Enbridge’s existing Straits’ facilities does not exist. Transportation alternatives like trains, trucks and ships use fuel to move fuel, is a less environmentally friendly and sustainable approach and puts Michiganders at far greater risk than a well-protected pipeline under the Straits. Additionally, non-pipeline alternatives have higher greenhouse gas emissions compared to pipelines and could result in a higher frequency of incidents on a per mile basis.

At a time when we least can afford it, this would be another lost opportunity for Michigan if we do not leverage the chance to help protect and preserve our environment by building the Great Lakes Tunnel. This is the right plan for the environment and Michigan. The Great Lakes Tunnel can help ensure extra layers of safety and environmental protection in our waterways without compromising the delivery of the energy on which Michigan depends. There is a reason more than 70 percent of Michiganders support the Great Lakes Tunnel project; it will provide additional connectivity between the Peninsulas, safeguarding important utilities while helping protect the waterways that millions treasure and still provide much-needed affordable, reliable energy.

API and the pipeline industry are committed to safely delivering its products to market without incident by employing robust and holistic safety practices. The reality is there are no viable alternatives to the Great Lakes Tunnel to house a replacement section of Enbridge Line 5, and the Tunnel will continue to help support the safe and reliable delivery of essential energy supplies to Michigan residents and the region. We urge the USACE to ensure a timely review and decision on the approval of the tunnel project EIS as it has now been over 5 ½ years since Enbridge filed their first permit.

I live in north central Wisconsin closest to Lake Michigan of the Great Lakes. A spill in the Line 5 tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac would affect Lake Michigan which is one of Wisconsin's borders and has many miles of shoreline here. There is also still a commercial fishery in Lake Michigan. I have not had time this month to review all the documents related to the tunnel project and would like to do that. I am an attorney and have submitted comments to the Army Corps on the Line 5 reroute in Wisconsin, as well as other fossil fuel projects. This is being rushed without a full environmental review despite concerns raised by experts about the tunnel construction . The State of Michigan opposes continued operation of Line 5 which transports oil from Canada to Canada and provides little or no benefit to the U.S., so it won't ameliorate any imaginary "climate emergency" in the U.S. Oil and gas production are at record levels here and we are suffering the snowless winters and arid summers of the resulting climate change. Tribal nations should be allowed meaningful informed consent as required by the U.N. Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People. Give us more time to comment or take no action on the proposal.

we are the world's #1 producer of gas & oil. we eport gas and oil. we don't need more oil drilling anywhere. especially not on public lands.

A spill in the Straits could ruin Lake Huron and beyond.

Line 5 is 65+ years old, already has leaked 33 times, and mostly serves Canadian markets.

If Line 5 spills in the Great Lakes, Michigan taxpayers could be on the hook for up to $6 billion in cleanup, while most of the oil goes to Canada and all profits to Enbridge.

We could do without this pipeline. Studies show Michigan and the Midwest can meet energy needs without it, and do it safer, cleaner, and smarter.

Please look ahead, shut down line 5 and capitalize on sustainable options instead.

Hi,
I am strongly opposed to Line 5 being in our Straits of Mackinac, or anywhere in our Great Lakes.

The Great Lakes contain 20% of the world's freshwater. Why would anyone allow this, especially the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, who fully understand the impact on communities who rely on the water from the Great Lakes should something go wrong and oil is spilled into our Lakes. Why would they allow Enbridge to use our precious lakes as their "short cut" to enhance corporate profits? The fresh water in the Great Lakes is vital, I know that you all know that. The communities on the lakes, up and down the coast, in America and in Canada, are threatened should something happen that compromises this pipeline.

There are safer alternatives - trucking. Enbridge has a really awful track record when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect the environment. What basis is the the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers using to validate putting their trust in Enbridge?? Enbridge has repeatedly failed to care properly for their pipeline, violating their agreement with the State of Michigan. 700 miles of shoreline are at risk. Once Enbridge harms the Lakes, I don't know if we will recover. They are not huge oceans. They are freshwater lakes. Please protect our Great Lakes and advise Enbridge to truck or rail their propane. I wanted to send a note to voice my concerns, I'm at work, and I saw today was the last day. I apologize for my comments being written quickly, I felt it was more important to send you something, even if it isn't as comprehensive as I would have liked.

Thank you for considering my objection to the proposed pipeline.
Respectfully, Elena Wakeman