Posted Draft EIS Comments

Dear U.S. Corps of engineers, please give the public more time to review to the EIS Line 5. I’m a Minnesotan who has followed Line 3 and the damaging results already being noted by Ojibwe water protectors and an environmental scientific community group Waadookawaad Amikwag (https://waadookawaadamikwag.org/). I am concerned that WI and MI will face similar troubles of construction tailings and oil from the Line 5 pipieline contaminating water and wild rice if the Line 5 tunnel is allowed to proceed. More time will allow me and others to give more details about my concerns, as you ask for on your website. The EIS is very long, and the public needs more time to read it.

To whom it may concern,

I am in opposition to building a Line 5 tunnel for the following reasons. In general I believe that Line 5 should be permanently shut down and end this practice of transporting Canadian oil and gas across Michigan lands and waters. I would think that the economic impact alone if a spill was to happen again would be enough of a reason to shut this down all together. Has anyone calculated the dollar impact not to mention the catastropic damage to our waters, aquatic life, commercial and sport fishing, tourism, loss of jobs, etc. It is just ludicrous to think that this tunnel could even be allowed to happen not to mention just shutting down the pipeline. Who would profit the most from a tunnel. I for one do not mind paying a bit extra at the pump or for natural gas.

1. Risk of Oil Spills
Catastrophic Consequences: A spill in the Straits could severely impact Lakes Michigan and Huron, which are hydrologically connected.
Difficult Cleanup: Strong and shifting currents make containment and cleanup extremely difficult.
Drinking Water Threats: Over 5 million people rely on the Great Lakes for drinking water, which could be contaminated in the event of a leak.

2. Ecosystem Disruption
Aquatic Habitat Damage: Construction and operation of the tunnel may disturb fish spawning grounds and other sensitive aquatic habitats.
Endangered Species Risk: The Straits region includes species protected under federal and state law, which may be harmed by construction or a spill.

3. Climate Impact
Fossil Fuel Dependence: Continuing to transport oil and gas through Line 5 reinforces dependence on fossil fuels at a time when rapid decarbonization is needed to address climate change.
Emission of Greenhouse Gases: The combustion of oil and gas transported through the pipeline contributes significantly to carbon emissions.

4. Legal and Indigenous Rights Issues
Tribal Treaty Violations: Several Native American tribes argue that Line 5 and its construction infringe on their treaty-protected fishing rights and sacred lands.
Sovereignty Concerns: The project has drawn opposition from tribal governments asserting their sovereign rights and environmental stewardship responsibilities.

5. Geological and Tunnel Safety Risks
Tunnel Integrity Concerns: Experts have questioned the safety of building a tunnel in the unique geology of the Straits, citing risks from earthquakes, water infiltration, and equipment failure.
Long-Term Liability: Future maintenance or accidents in the tunnel could pose major financial and environmental costs.

6. Economic and Tourism Impact
Tourism and Fisheries: A spill or environmental degradation would threaten industries such as commercial fishing, boating, and tourism—key economic drivers in the region.
Local Jobs vs. Regional Harm: While some local jobs would be created temporarily, the long-term risk to regional economies outweighs these short-term gains.

Please do not approve this tunnel project and instead let's focus on getting Canadian oil and gas off of Michigan land and out of our waters.

Respectfully,

Jeff Annatoyn
Glen Arbor, MI

As a lifelong Michigander & a human in need of clean drinking water, I do NOT want this tunnel approved & want Line 5 decommissioned. The benefits (approximately 200 SHORT TERM jobs & keeping gas prices .5 cents lower) do NOT outweigh the danger to 20% of the world's fresh water & Michigan's recreation & resource benefits.

According to the USACG's report there will be:
Direct, long-term/permanent, detrimental impacts:
Associated with a change from undeveloped forest land to developed industrial land, and from permanent alteration of geology along the proposed Tunnel alignment & to Straits bottomlands/lakebed.

Comments received during the scoping process assert that the Applicant's Preferred Alternative would not provide secondary containment because there is a risk that potential methane in the substrate or a leak from the new pipeline could result in an explosion that would destabilize the proposed Tunnel.

NO to this application!!

For generations, my family has enjoyed spending time in the Straits of Mackinac and around the Great Lakes. We consider it a cherished privilege to enjoy the wild lands and clean water.
This area is unique in the world and very much worth preserving in its pristine state for generations to come.
Most important of all, clean water is the most valuable resource in the world, and we have more of it than anywhere else on the planet. It is our duty and responsibility to guard its safety. Please, let’s not take any risks running an oil pipeline underneath the straits—a leak would imperil all of our fresh water and ruin this most important resource. Can we find other ways to transport the oil? How can we find other ways of moving oil south?
We are all counting on you to be problem-solvers and avoid risking our water.
My father was a water resources manager for the state so our family has a special sensitivity and appreciation for proper management of Michigan’s lakes and rivers. We send you massive encouragement for dealing with the complexity of distribution of oil. Please: not under the water.
Thank you,
Constance Weber

get rid of trump

I am writing to vehemently oppose the fast-track approval process for the Line 5 tunnel project under the Great Lakes, and to state my broader opposition to any new oil infrastructure in this region — period.

The Great Lakes are not only a globally significant source of fresh water but a lifeline for millions of people, countless ecosystems, and local economies. Approving a project like Line 5 without rigorous, transparent, and science-driven review is reckless, short-sighted, and fundamentally unacceptable.

We are in the midst of a global climate crisis. Expanding fossil fuel infrastructure — especially under one of the world’s most vital freshwater resources — flies in the face of what responsible leadership demands. It deepens our dependence on dirty energy at the precise moment we should be investing in renewable alternatives and safeguarding critical natural resources for future generations.

Line 5 poses an unacceptable risk to the Great Lakes, their shoreline communities, and Indigenous nations whose sovereignty and treaty rights must be respected. There is no such thing as a “safe” oil pipeline in this fragile ecosystem. A rupture or leak would be catastrophic, both environmentally and economically, and the history of pipeline failures shows this is not a matter of if, but when.

Fast-tracking this process undermines public trust, sidesteps due diligence, and prioritizes the profits of Enbridge over the health, safety, and future of our region. I call on you to reject the Line 5 project entirely, halt the expansion of oil infrastructure, and commit to a just transition toward clean, renewable energy.

The Great Lakes are not a sacrifice zone. Do the right thing — for the water, for the people, and for the planet.

Dear folks at USACE,
We need more time to read your 1000+ page EIS on the proposed Enbridge Line 5 tunnel through the Straits of Mackinac. Please extend the time allowed for public comment. We the public need more time than, say, Enbridge does. I have been following the investigative efforts of Waadookawaad Amikwag (https://waadookawaadamikwag.org/) and I hope you have been too.
I live in Wisconsin and am very concerned about any project which could possibly endanger our pure waters. Perhaps you have answers to all of my concerns, but I don’t know because I have not had a chance to read the entire thing. I know that there must be thousands of people in the same boat. So please show you care about the people’s chance to understand and comment, by extending the comment period.

The existing pipeline and the proposed tunnel are both much too risky to the 5 great lakes. We cannot take the risk of ruining such a huge percentage of the fresh water on Earth. A leak would endanger all of the lakes and result in dire consequences for not just the USA but the earth itself.

As a Michigan resident, I am highly concerned about the plan to run an oil pipeline through the Great Lakes. The safety of these pipelines degrades over time, leaving the lakes vulnerable to toxic leaks; we have see the damaging long term effects of these leaks in other environments, on land and in the water. Oil companies will always act in their own financial interests, they have no interest in the long term sustainability of our energy system or in the environmental costs of their production.

I strongly disagree with the proposal. My recommendation is to shut down Line 5 and invest instead in sustainable energy, like solar, wind, and geothermal energy.

All it takes is one accident to cause a spill. Oil will be considered archaic soon so why waste money to build something that will be passé and could have catastrophic consequences. We all need the largest body of fresh water to stay clean and safe.
It’s a waste of resources and money. We need to support clean energy. Think future not money for a corporation that doesn’t seem to care about the risk it will employ.