Posted Draft EIS Comments

To Whom it May Concern @ USACE Detroit District,

I’m voicing my opposition to the Line 5 tunnel proposal. It’s time to stop fast-tracking this proposal and bring an end to this dangerous and ill-considered project once and for all.

The Great Lakes water system is vitally important not only to the contiguous states, but also to the larger region, the nation and larger scale environmental / ecosystem relationships. The existing Line 5 pipeline presents an unreasonable risk to it. This pipeline has leaked more than 30 times and released more than 1 million gallons of oil during its lifetime. A pipeline failure places more than 700 miles of Great Lakes shoreline at risk of being polluted according to a 2016 University of Michigan study. Having already experienced documented anchor strikes, the aging Line 5 is only getting more failure-prone. A major spill in the Straits would have dire consequences for the whole system, impacting habitat and water quality and recreation.

The fast-tracking of the USACE evaluation permits less public review and less scientific study. The draft environmental impact statement was put out on May 30 with only 30 days for public comment. If the USACE plans to finalize the EIS in the fall, that timeline is too short for proper public comment on what MUST be a detailed and comprehensive technical document. There is no "energy emergency" that can justify the fast-tracking of this process and, indeed, the project itself.

It's time to identify alternatives and close down Line 5. The existing system could adjust quickly in the near term. To quote a 5/28/25 online article from the University of Michigan: “The Bad River Band case in Wisconsin had a trial where this was front and center and then an independent consulting agency, PLG Consulting, did a study. The conclusions from both are that virtually every barrel of oil that’s now supplied by Line 5 could be replaced by the market through other sources within three months. Then every barrel, not just almost every barrel, would be replaced within 18 months, from other pipelines, rail and especially waterborne transport from the Gulf of Mexico around to Montreal. We know that’s possible because, prior to 2015, that’s what was happening. This is incredibly important because what that shows is that prices won’t rise.” (Source: https://news.umich.edu/line-5-and-its-risks-the-consequences-of-failure-would-be-catastrophic/

Looking forward, the rise of renewable energy sources and infrastructure is underway must be supported. It’s time to remove Line 5 from the Great Lakes.

I am in stark opposition to the Line 5 tunnel project. This proposed project has dire consequences that have not been properly vetted. It seems like common sense to not go ahead with this project. Hearing the concerns from last night's open commenting session split the people into two distinct categories: those that care for the environment and see the facts of the situation, and those that have direct financial connections to this project. It would be unethical to listen to the voices who are biased by money. Those that spoke on the likely environmental degradation, rather catastrophe, that this project would be responsible for, are not speaking for their own gain. These folks are water protectors and had science to back them up. The proposed project wants to dig into porous bedrock that is unlikely to be stable enough for such construction, necessitating concrete slurry which would disrupt our ecosystems. There is risk of explosion when you would just need a pinhole leak into the open air in the tunnel to cause a spark. The opposing, money funded side spoke of jobs and economic invigoration but the jobs would be less that 100 people, temporary and Enbridge would likely be bringing their own people so Michigan wouldn't be seeing any of this so called benefit. They also spoke about how this is vital for the homes in the UP, but how is that so if only 5% of this oil goes to Michigan residents? The water protectors from last night had the best solution possible. When the money driven folks said they wanted to protect the environment by putting the pipe below the water line, the other folks said what would be even better than that? Decommission the pipeline. We don't need to ensure usage of oil for a hundred years into the future, we need to be immediately transitioning away from it. This proposal is giving us the space to actually say no, we want none of it. Let's choose the water and the planet and ourselves and start making a change. This is a good place to start as this pipeline is essentially a surplus line. Research says that every barrel of oil that line 5 supplies could be replaced by the market through other sources within 3 months, and the price of gas would not go up by more than a penny. With all this information, it becomes quite obvious what the right thing to do is. Decommission line 5. We don't need to risk 20% of the freshwater that this planet has. Water that 40 million people rely on daily for drinking water. You need to listen to the folks this land actually belongs to, as this project and line 5 itself infringes on their treaty rights. Extend the comment period. Listen to and consider what indigenous folks are saying. Decommission line 5.

This pipeline is too risky because accidents happen. We should listen to the Native American Tribes. They can teach us a lot.

The water of the Great Lakes is what makes Michigan, Michigan. It is what we are all so proud of and is by far our most valuable resource. To SEVERELY risk our water supply, fish, and habitats for a Canadian oil company and marginal benefit is completely insane. Where is the protection for what really matters? The risk of a spill is too great. Enbridge should have been shut down everywhere after Kalamazoo.

Line 5 has already spilled over a million gallons and just 7 months ago 70,000 gallons spilled in Wisconsin.

Enbridge showed how little they care with their bedrock and geology report, only sampling rock every 950 feet while industry standard is 50-250 feet. We cannot put the safety of our water in the hands of people who don't care.

I strongly encourage the approval of the proposed pipeline tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. I believe the proposed utility tunnel is the best solution to both protect the environment and provide affordable energy to the region. The gasoline, diesel, home heating propane, and thousands of petroleum-based products derived from Line 5 must continue reaching communities across our state. As a licensed professional engineer working in the state of Michigan for decades in the oil and gas industry and responsible for the operation of hundreds of miles of pipelines in the state, building a tunnel to house the pipeline is a sound way to mitigate the risk of a spill into the waters if the Great Lakes while allowing for the continued operation of the pipeline. Pipelines are by far and away the most efficient and safest way to deliver hydrocarbon products.

As a propane customer in the Traverse City area, I would be directly affected by higher prices for energy were the pipeline shutdown. Like me, there are thousands of rural residents and small businesses in the Upper Peninsula and the northern Lower Peninsula that rely on a secure and operational Line 5 to deliver this product to the local market in the safest, most efficient, and affordable way possible, with minimal impact on communities, roadways, and the environment (i.e., via pipeline). Without Line 5, an estimated 503,104 additional trucking miles would be driven each month on Michigan's highways to deliver crude oil to refineries in Toledo and Detroit. This represents an unnecessary risk and increase in emissions that Michigan can avoid by constructing the tunnel and placing Line 5 safely beneath the Straits of Mackinac. No viable alternative currently exists.

It is in the best interest of every Michigan resident who cares about protecting the Great Lakes and preserving reliable and affordable energy supply to move forward with the Great Lakes Tunnel Project. I believe the applicant, Enbridge, has met the requirements necessary for this permit and urge the Army Corps of Engineers to move this project forward without further delay. Thank you for consideration of my comments on this matter.

Regards,
Jim Schramski, P.E.
11900 S Trails End
Cedar, MI 49621

I support the US Army Corps' issuance of a permit for the Line 5 tunnel under the Straights of Mackinac. These are pristine fresh water Great Lakes. Let's keep them this way. Line 5 is essential to ensure safe, efficient and affordable energy for the surrounding mid-west states. This solution will have minimal impact on communities, roadways, and the environment. It is in the best interest of all who live in Michigan to protect the Great Lakes, our economy and our way of life by supporting the Great Lakes Tunnel Project. Please move this permit forward for Enbridge

Hello! I am writing to ask you to please not move forward with the building of Line 5. Many experts have told us that the logistics of building this tunnel have been deemed dangerous and challenging, and the risks of a leak from this tunnel would be absolutely catastrophic for Michigan's economy and drinking water. To move forward with this project without a thorough and comprehensive assessment is insane and irresponsible.

Line 5 is an old pipeline that, at over 70 years in age, is past the point when it should be used. Due to its age it is at point when it is more likely to develop leaks. It was only designed to last 50 years. Any leak in the portion that passes through the Great Lakes would be a very big problem because the leak would cause major damage to the Great Lakes. Line 5 should be shut down and there would be no need for a tunnel if it is shut down. Line 5 is not needed because there are other ways to get oil to the areas it serves.

Please extend the public comment period for another 6 months, at least.

I oppose the Line 5 Tunnel Project and strongly oppose the building of any new pipelines in the Macinac Straits and support the decommissioning and demolition of the existing Line 5. I reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). My opposition is based on the detrimental impacts on local resources, including air, water, public and historical sites, a history of spills by Enbridge, and most importantly, the violation of the sovereignty of local native American tribes.

Enbridge has a history of pipeline spills, including Line 5 and as a resident who lives near the Kalamazoo River, one of the impacted waterways, this is unacceptable. The applicants preferred alternative includes “detrimental impacts” for at least six months during construction to nearby public lands, historical sites, recreationists and “adverse effects” on archeological sites, including a loss of wetlands “High-Level Summary of Impacts”, DEI, May 2025).

The pipeline is built on the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabe tribe and it is opposed by the tribe which is a sovereign nation. Indigenous tribes have pulled out of the EIS process due to a violation of their sovereignty and lack of involvement in this process.