Posted Draft EIS Comments

This EIS is a 1000 pages. No one can review and validate that in one week. The public comment period needs to be extended at least 60 days.
Our federal elected officials didn't read the BBB before they voted on it. Don't expect us to do the same.

Hello,

This is far too short of a public comment period for the public to review a 1,000 page document. Please extend the time frame so those of us who live near the tunnel have adequate time to review and give thoughtful input. It is clear you are rushing this project through and that need to stop.

Thank you

Regarding the decision to allow Enbridge to bore a tunnel to deliver crude oil under the Straits of Mackinac, I write to ask for the tunnel permits to be denied.

I am Mary Reilly ,a UM graduate in Biology, with an honors distinction in Limnology, the study of lakes.

I have lived in the lower peninsula near the straits (Emmet County) for 39 years and am active recreationally in Sturgeon Bay.

My limnology studies demonstrated the delicate balance of the various types of algae in lakes. Areas such as wetlands operate to keep to keep the lake cleansed as well as providing a critical land mass for a variety of important plant and animal species. The EIS created by the Army Corp of Engineers identifies several risks to this delicate balance, noted below.

Groundwater: “Direct, detrimental impacts” with the potential for drilling fluids or contaminants to be released as the tunnel is drilled, which could take 6 – 8 months. It could also lower the water level by as much as 2 feet in a 130-foot area.
Surface water: “Direct, detrimental impacts” with the potential release of 20,000 gallons of drilling fluid and unintended release of contaminants. Wetlands: “Direct, detrimental impact” with permanent losses of 4.3 acres of wetland and indirect impact of fragmentation of wetland systems.
Habitats: Various “direct, detrimental impacts” due to removal of up to 19 acres of vegetation, which includes 5.2 acres of forested land. Construction noise and vibration could affect wildlife on land and in the water. The potential release of 20,000 gallons of drilling fluids could also affect aquatic wildlife.
Protected species: Loss of 7.7 acres of habitat for the federally endangered northern long-eared bat and tricolored bat, including clearing of 287 roost trees. The Piping Plover, an endangered bird, has recently made gains away from extinction in this area due to the efforts of many dedicated professionals and volunteers. They are vulnerable to the type of disruptions the tunnel will bring.




In addition, it has been noted in this study:
(McMillen Jacobs & Associates for MDOT, Technical memorandum: DRAFT Geotechnical Exploration Level of Effort for the Line 5 Replacement Tunnel )

The type of rock they are planning to bore the tunnel through is porous, and will allow water to permeate and mix with Lake Michigan, so that any breaches would directly impact this precious resource. A technical review by the Michigan Department of Transportation raised several red flags, citing poor geology, and a potential for methane gas pockets that could cause an explosion.

Given that this oil moves from Canada to Canada, and does not benefit Michigan, and that Michigan is the legal trustee of the Straits, and has the power and the duty to protect them for Michiganders and future generations. I ask you to please live up to this responsibility and deny the permits that enable this tunnel.

I am requesting more time for the public to review this very large document regarding this very serious issue.

Thank you!

The main problem with "line 5" is "tunnel vision"!
The project should be expanded to be like the "Chunnel" connecting England & France, ie..
Utility tunnel for pipeline & other utilities, train tunnel & highway tunnels
THAT would be a worthwhile project

I live in the northern Lower Peninsula and am extremely aware of the value of the environment of the Straits of Mackinac and how important it is to protect the resources in and surrounding the Straits.
I urge the Corps to issue a Final EIS for the Line 5 project which opposes construction of the tunnel and, instead, recommends the total shut-down of Line 5.
I understand that the scope of the project did not – as it should have – include a review of the environmental impacts of maintaining Line 5. Our nation’s continued reliance on fossil fuels is unnecessary and ill-advised. We need to quickly transition to greater reliance on renewables, and soon Line 5 will not be needed. There is no “energy emergency” in the U.S. which justifies keeping this dangerous pipeline in place.
Even if the Straits section of the pipeline is enclosed in a tunnel, the 645 mile expanse of Line 5 poses significant risks to the water resources through which is passes on this route. We saw what happened when the Enbridge pipeline leaked and caused immense pollution of the Kalamazoo River. Leaks in Line 5, which would not be quickly detected or stopped, could easily pollute many wetlands, rivers, creeks and lakes along its route.
The products which are transported by Line 5 can be feasibly delivered through other means. An Enbridge consultant testified that a shutdown of Line 5 would likely only raise gas prices by a half cent per gallon. Most of the product transported by Line 5 goes from Canadian producers to Canadian consumers. It is not our responsibility to assume the risk for this.
In its draft report, the Corps seems to indicate that the impacts of constructing the tunnel are justified. However, these stated impacts to groundwater, wetlands, air, surface water, and habitats are significant and, in many cases, permanent or long term. This is not justified. The Straits is a critical habitat for many plant and animal species. It is a critical flyway for thousands of raptors and butterflies each year. The project would destroy the habitat of a federally protected bat specie.
While tunnel proponents state that its construction will provide approximately 200 jobs, it is highly unlikely that many of these jobs will go to local residents. We only need to look to other areas of petroleum industry development to see the impact of imported workers and hastily constructed and sited ‘man-camps.’ These temporary communities of temporary workers are likely to cause disruption to local housing and commerce, promote sexual trafficking and abuse, and generally be detrimental to northern Michigan without benefiting the local economy.
I recently heard a presentation on the proposed tunnel by international tunnel expert Brian O’Mara. Mr. O’Mara detailed the significant safety risks to construction and maintenance of the proposed tunnel under the Straits. This was truly terrifying. It is hard to imagine that the Corps would not find this information sufficient to oppose the tunnel project.
The decision is not a binary one between an extremely risky, aging pipeline or an extremely risky, ill-conceived tunnel. There is a third viable alternative which the Final EIS Report should recommend. Decommission Line 5 as soon as possible. This has the least negative impact to the environment and many benefits.

I am opposed to any crude oil pipelines crossing the Straits of Mackinac because they pose such a risk to our freshwater Great Lakes and the environment. I live in a community (Midland, MI) that pipes in drinking water from Lake Huron. A leak in these pipelines would devastate other communities like mine using Great Lakes water, as well as the catastrophic environmental impact on fish, wildlife, and humans. The risk is too great to have pipelines running under our critical water resources. It makes me physically ill when I imagine a pipeline failure and the amount of damage that may never be repaired.

Comment letter attached.