Posted Draft EIS Comments

Multiple sources cite that the current fast-tracking of Enbridge's pipeline 5 operation is ignoring the obvious threats to our Great Lakes. There's a job at hand to thoroughly review the plans to make sure it is environmentally safe. There is enough evidence to support that it is NOT safe and the plan should be denied. This tunnel project would turn the Straits of Mackinac into an experimental industrial zone for six-plus years of construction, violate Indigenous treaty rights, and threaten the Great Lakes that provide drinking water for 40 million people.

Here are some questions:

The Army Corps received over 77,000 public comments during scoping, with over 90% of Michigan testimony opposing this project when given adequate time to comment. Why are you ignoring this overwhelming public opposition?

This experimental tunnel poses serious explosion risks from submerged methane, would destroy wetlands and endangered bat habitat, and uses an untested design that independent experts warn is dangerous. How can you justify these risks to benefit a Canadian oil company?

Construction costs have already ballooned from $500 million to potentially $1.5 billion, while Enbridge's own experts testified that removing Line 5 would only increase transportation fuel prices by 0.5 cents per gallon. Why should Michigan bear these costs and risks for such minimal benefit?

Thank you for reading.

To whom it may concern,

I urge you to reject the Line 5 tunnel permits for the following reasons:
1. The geology of the area makes the project hazardous.
2. Alternatives exist, such as transporting oil to the west of Lake Michigan.
3. The oil transported through line 5 has a particularly large impact on climate change.
4. The project is not worth the expense and risk considering the above and the transition to electric vehicles.
Sincerely,
Fred Cepela

The Cheboygan Salmon Tournament along with myself supports the Line 5 tunnel. By upgrading you are avoiding environmental hazards.
Without being upgraded a leak would be detrimental to the Straits of Mackinac and all of its fishing.

Bozho,

My name is Brent Rush. I am an employee of Enbridge and an enrolled citizen of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation. I’ve lived in Michigan since 2021, traveling areas of the State from which my Potawatomi, also known as Bodéwadmi, ancestors were forcibly removed to Indian Territory, in what is now Oklahoma, in the 1830s. The Potawatomi are part of the Council of Three Fires, with the Ojibwe and Odawa.

It was with some level of excitement I relocated to Michigan, thinking the Tunnel Project would be a benefit to Tribes by protecting Treaty rights through the protection of the water at the Straits of Mackinac. Unfortunately, excitement quickly turned to frustration as Tribal leadership, and the Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (ENGOs) advising them, continue to fight the Tunnel Project despite its clear benefit for everyone in Michigan who want to protect our Great Lakes.

During my time in Michigan, I’ve worked tirelessly on behalf of Enbridge to foster respectful conversations with Tribes about the Line 5 Great Lakes Tunnel Project, but to no avail. While there have been many one-on-one conversations, there has not been any effort from formal Tribal leadership to simply talk with Enbridge. In fact, it is disheartening to see personal attacks on social media and elsewhere against myself and others who attempt to consult with Tribal leaders.

Some Tribal voices claim they haven’t been heard during the permitting process. I know first-hand this is not true, given the many attempts I and others on behalf of Enbridge have made to engage and to let Tribal leadership know that they can reach out to me at any time. Enbridge wants to consult and work with Tribes and has been doing so in a positive and mutually beneficial way with both Tribes and First Nations in the United States and Canada for many years.

As I continue my lifelong journey, I continue to learn about my culture and our Seven Grandfathers teachings. These teachings positively guide my efforts through Enbridge to consult with Tribes and ensure protection of our Great Lakes.

I encourage other Tribal citizens to join me in supporting the Line 5 Great Lakes Tunnel as the best solution to protect our people, fish, medicines, and sacred places.

Migwetch,
Brent Rush
Enrolled Citizen
Citizen Potawatomi Nation

I am opposed to Line 5. Find an alternative route that does not involve our precious Great Lakes

I'm very concerned about the vulnerability of the aged pipeline on the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. At over 70 years old, Line 5 has leaked over 30 times, putting Michigan's environment at risk. Even when its oil isn't spilling into the water, it adds to our climate crisis when burned by spilling carbon into the atmosphere every day.

To Whom It May Concern - I have spent the last 10 years educating, organizing and working to protect 21% of the worlds fresh water here in Michigan. The Great Lakes Bioregion is a sacred and important place in the world. The fresh water making our boundaries that is distinquishable from space, supplies the lifeline to dozens of industries worth billions of dollars annually. One of our most important industries that makes us the 2nd most diverse agricultural state would be devasted by any Line 5 complications. A tunnel as proposed neglects the treaty rights of our indgenious neighbors and threatens the ecologaical sanctity of the Great Lakes themeselves. The lakebed is sacred. We hardly know of the power that it holds. The safety concerns of the tunnel have been well documented. The threat of a bomb effect is horrifying, I don't need to further explain the outcomes of this worst case scenario.

The cheapest form of energy is utility scale solar. I work in the industry daily. We can replace these fuels with alternative energies that don't threaten our water like the proposed Line 5 tunnel. We must. We must protect these waters for future generations. I urge you to take this matter very seriously.

Enbridge cannot be trusted. The well documented Kalamazoo River disaster is ongoing and quite frankly will never be cleaned completely. The one constant with Enbridge is human rights concerns. The human trafficking from these types of projects is well documented. These jobs are temporary and dangerous for the communities they operate in. Michigan doesn't need this product and we certainly don't need the risks involved.

We stand at a critical moment in history. We will succomb to corporate greed and ill-fated outdated fossil fuel projects or will we work to restore ecological harmony? The Earth is angry and we are reaping the effects of poor quality from Canadian wildfires nearly daily in Michigan. These deep concerns are real and affecting us Michiganders.

Please use your power wisely. Future generations are dependent on fresh and clean water. The future of humanity may very well be in your hands.

Thank you,

Greetings,
I am writing to express my concern about the Line 5 tunnel in the straits of Mackinac.

I believe the risk to the Great Lakes ecosystem and our drinking water is too high. I admit to being a fossil fuel user— even though we have had an EV for 2 years. But we need to invest in charging stations— not oil— for our infrastructure.

Michigan residents are not obligated to provide an economic gift to any company let alone a Canadian company.
Climate change requires that we help people move to renewable energy sources — not invest in outmoded ones.

I have recently learned that the rock quality is very poor in portions of the route— a verifiable fact by the USACE. Please address this issue carefully and publicly.

Enbridge has gotten many free bonus years of operation even after Gov Whitmer called for the line’s closure— and many more free years of access prior to that. The line is living on borrowed time and the folly of a tunnel may just be a very expensive ploy to extend the $2M per day Enbridge earns operating the route. At $2M per day, the cost to draw up plans, rent expensive equipment and pay lawyers can just be chalked up to operational costs.

Alternatives (of sort):
1. To see if Enbridge truly intends to make a tunnel in a timely manner, require that the line be shut down during the decision making period and during the entire construction process.

2. If Enbridge and USACE truly care about the safety of the Great Lakes, require that the pipeline AND tunnel be shut down during severe weather and the entire winter season when access to a leak or spill would be difficult, dangerous or impossible due to waves and ice cover.

We owe nothing to Enbridge. If the tunnel is going to be approved, then this is the only opportunity to make Enbridge agree to strict safety standards such as closing during severe weather. Don’t give away our beloved water quality without the highest level of environmental accountability, transparency and financial assurances for prevention and potential disaster remediation.
Thank you,
Amy Pflughoeft
Traverse City, Michigan

Please correct the EIS to reflect the danger to the most precious freshwater resource in the world. The Line 5 tunnel is not a good alternative to allow petrochemicals to flow near the Great Lakes. Brian O'Mara, a tunnel engineer with decades of experience notes that the rock that is being proposed for the tunnel to go through has extremely poor for tunneling. The rock would act more like gravel than a solid substrate that would be consistent for a tunnel. This factor alone makes the tunnel dangerous to the environment it is passing through and potentially could contaminate Michigan's greatest resource and symbol, the largest freshwater body in the world, the Great Lakes.

I encourage the Army Corps of Engineers to reject the proposed tunnel.

Sincerely,
Michael DeVries
Traverse City, MI

This tunnel is a huge waste to resources and is risky due to the poor geological conditions. We shouldn’t be risking the safety of our incredible water resource here. It’s gonna become a stranded asset because it’s used to transport, fossil fuel that we are actively transitioning away from. It doesn’t make any sense to invest in something that we are trying to avoid at the great risk that this poses on our natural environment and climate