Posted Draft EIS Comments

Creating line 5 under the Great Lakes would be detrimental to the environmental health of the lakes as a whole. It would be harmful in the process of construction and during operation. The Great Lakes are the pride of Michigan and putting them in danger puts Michigan citizens in danger who rely on fishing in them for sustenance, providing tourism, etc. what happens when the line fails and oil leaks polluting the water and wildlife? Michigan should invest in sustainable, reliable renewable energy that doesn’t harm its environment or citizens.

As Executive Director of the Oregon Economic Development Foundation, I write in support of the Great Lakes Tunnel project. In Oregon, Ohio, and across the Great Lakes region, Line 5 is vital for energy reliability. Local industries, public services, schools, and healthcare providers rely on stable, affordable fuel sources.

This project represents a responsible solution—relocating Line 5 into a tunnel beneath the lakebed significantly reduces environmental risk to Lake Michigan and the surrounding ecosystems, while maintaining energy access for millions.

The project has undergone extensive review and public engagement. It supports long-term energy security, creates economic opportunity, and balances environmental protection with infrastructure modernization.

I respectfully urge the Army Corps of Engineers to approve the permit and allow this critical investment to move forward.

As a native of northern Michigan, I am acutely aware of the value in fragile nature of the northern lake, Huron ecosystem.
A catastrophic spill of any proportion of oil from 95 weather encased in a tunnel or Lang, an the lake bed, it would cause irreparable harm. The fishing industry and many, many species along both the northern Huron and Michigan lake shorelines. There are many other ways to move oil across michigan that do not put one of the world's largest freshwater resources at risk for centuries of harm.

The idea proposed that there is an energy emergency seems suspiciously motivated by greed. The Line 5 tunnel is a disaster in all aspects and a danger to the Great Lakes. Proceed with caution and muster up some courage to do the right thing.

I would like to see Line 5 shut down. While Enbridge and the US Army Corp of Engineers have accomplished wonderful projects this risk to our Great Lakes is too great. We were appalled at the Kalamazoo River disaster… this cannot happen again. I am concerned about the families who use propane in the U. P., but I understand propane can be transported by train and truck. As I look toward the future for our children and grandchildren protecting the Great Lakes freshwater system is paramount. We need that water! And we need to continue our efforts toward renewable energy. Thank you.

I wholeheartedly support the building of the tunnel for line 5
It will provide a safe way to provide the energy we desperately need and protect our Great Lakes for future generations.

Oil pipelines have no business being in any of our beautiful Great Lakes. The threat of an accident that could ruin these extremely limited bodies of fresh water is too great a risk to take. There are safe alternatives to pipelines. Why would we not employ those while at the same time continuing to explore safe, responsible methods of providing energy to our citizens and the citizens of Canada. Decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels is the logical solution.

Stop line 5 before you destroy a fresh water resource. There are alternative solution find one and move on.

No one on either side of this issue can conclusively predict whether the construction of Line 5 will be safe. Even amid the interesting arguments, our concerns will at best create the need to assess a risk.
In my career as an early childhood professional, and as a County Commissioner for Emmet County (at the southern end of the Straits), the need to responsibly assess risks arose on a daily basis.
The assessment of every risk is twofold: it weighs the magnitude of harm against the frequency of occurrence. Every risk inescapably involves these two considerations.

The frequency of harm for Line 5 is admittedly low. But it is not nonexistent. The magnitude of harm, on the other hand, is catastrophic. Our Great Lakes comprise 20% of the world’s surface fresh water. The magnitude of harm for the planet would be immeasurable.
Alternative corridors and alternative energies exist.
I respectfully and earnestly implore you to not impose this magnitude of harm on our conscience, or on the wellbeing of our successors.
Deborah J. Rohe