Posted Draft EIS Comments

This proposal has been very poorly vetted. Tunnel experts are appalled by it. Tunnel safety is one of the most urgent concerns raised by them. Enbridge's assumptions in their engineering report which supported the tunnel assumed very good rock conditions, minimal groundwater inflow, no toxic gasses or methane, and most importantly that the annulus will be totally willed with concrete. None of these conditions are true. Enbridge did not adequately sample the rock -- not doing enough borings, not going deeply enough and not sampling where they should have. The rock quality in their public report is extremely poor to very poor quality. Please do not permit this risky project to proceed.

This tunnel is a disaster waiting to happen-disrupting our Great Lakes environment which is vital to all of Michigan for a pipeline that is going from Canada to Canada is all about money - it goes against indigenous rights, the awfulness of oil invading our beaches and water that is vital to myself where I live on Lake Michigan - this tunnel needs to be shut down! Not start construction! Do not approve this!

The environmental impact report is dire, in spite of the fact that the testing not even met minimum standards. Please don’t allow this project to go forward. So much damage will occur for the benefit of the few.

This comment is in support of the Line 5 tunnel. For those who are opposing, do you know the real reason? Sometimes people jump on board for the wrong reasons, only hearing one side of the story. This project has been researched and thought about objectively through all angles to support thousands of residents. This is the best solution environmentally and economically. The projected route is using state of the art technologies that will ensure a safer and well contained construction. Please think about the people that will be affected if this project doesn’t allow the fuels needed to sustain. Thank you.

Michigan Lakes and Streams Association has been working inland with waterfront property residents since 1961. We are aware of many threats and issues that all our freshwater faces, including those that stem from issues in the Great Lakes. Any small slip-up with the Line 5 Tunnel or pipeline that drives oil through our freshwater is game over. We cannot afford to allow oil to pollute our fresh water here in any part of the Great Lakes. So many people depend on drinking water from Lake Michigan. We have done so much work to rehabilitate Lake Michigan from past mistakes; we need to stop the transport of oil through the Great Lakes watershed altogether.

For the safety of the largest source of freshwater in the US, we must Shut down Enbridge’s Line 5 tar sands pipeline. Both the costruction process and the product would have detrimental impacts to the surrounding area, as noted in the Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary. This pipeline is 70 years old. A catastrophic spill will happen, and when it does, will destroy ecosystems and lives of millions of people. A Line 5 rupture would impact 700 miles of Great Lakes shoreline, take years to clean up, and would devastate our Great Lakes economy, putting 214,000 Michigan tourism jobs at risk. The Great Lakes are 20% of the world’s freshwater — we can’t afford to contaminate them with oil. Building out fossil fuel projects is also bad for the economy. The clean energy transition is ramping up, and funneling more money into oil that may become obsolete in the next decade is a bad investment. Additionally, an inevitable oil spill will take millions of dollars to clean up. Line 5 is also facing numerous legal challenges, including a federal judge ordering Enbridge to remove the pipeline from the Reservation of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Bad River’s lands by June 2026. The pipeline is still operating illegally. Shutting down Line 5 would have little impact on gas prices for consumers, as Enbridge’s own expert admitted at trial that an immediate shutdown of Line 5 would, at most, lead to a one penny increase in the price of a gallon of gasoline in Wisconsin. There are numerous safer alternatives for transporting crude oil and propane to the Line 5 delivery area. It makes most sense, financially, ethically, environmentally — to stop investing more money into an environmental catastrophe waiting to happen, and instead work towards building out clean energy, such as wind turbines and solar. The benefits of shutting down line 5 far outweigh any benefits it may propose. In a time where climate change is already claiming millions of lives, we must listen to science and prevent carbon emissions and contamination wherever possible. I am a lifelong resident of Michigan, who studied environmental sustainability at Grand Valley; Great Lakes are are precious. We must protect them to survive.

I urge the USACE to move forward with permitting construction of the Great Lakes Tunnel.
It’s clear from the Draft EIS that the significant, long term benefits of the Great Lakes Tunnel outweigh the short-term and manageable disruption to the environment in the construction area.
Tunnels are common and are proven infrastructure that many of us use every day. The Great Lakes Tunnel will be built safely, and what’s more, it will make an already safe Line 5 pipeline even safer by getting a portion of the line out of the water and into a tunnel deep below the lakebed.
The Great Lakes Tunnel energy infrastructure project was approved by the Michigan legislature and signed by the governor in 2018. Construction of the Tunnel is a matter of public law.
State experts have concluded that the risk of a spill into the straits from the Tunnel is “virtually zero.” Line 5 delivers up to 23 million gallons per day of the fuel Michigan and surroundingstates use to gas up their cars, power their equipment at work, and create jobs.
I ask you to move forward imediately with permitting the Line 5 tunnel for construction.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I have a strong personal connection to the Mackinac Straits but do not live or own property in vicinity. I am a member of one of the Northern Michigan Tribes that has withdrawn from Corps’ environmental impact statement (EIS) Cooperating Agency status but do not speak on behalf of it or any Tribe. My observations, opinions and recommendations are mine alone and must not be interpreted as reflecting those of any other person or organization. I have read the EIS, support the Line 5 tunnel project (Applicant’s Preferred Alternative) and offer the following comments:

Not Just Best Alternative, the Only Alternative. Let’s be practical: Oil and natural gas from western Canada will be transported to refineries in southeastern Ontario to meet binational energy and security needs, and the routes of transport are limited to the following:

1. Via pipeline from Superior across northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula to St. Ignace, across the Mackinac Straits to Mackinaw City, and to Sarnia using existing infrastructure plus the proposed Straits tunnel segment. (Applicant’s Preferred Alternative).
2. Via pipeline from Superior across northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula to St. Ignace, across the Mackinac Straits to Mackinaw City, and to Sarnia using existing infrastructure including the current aging underwater Straits segment. (Present state).
3. Via a newly constructed 800-mile pipeline around Lake Michigan from Superior to Chicago to Sarnia.
4. Via a newly constructed 1,100-mile pipeline around Lake Superior and Lake Huron to Sudbury to Sarnia
5. Via yet-to-be-built massive oil tankers carrying waterborne crude oil over Lake Superior, the St. Mary’s River and Lake Huron from Superior to Sarnia.

Studies and logic indicate the current underwater Straits pipeline (2 above) will someday give way and potentially cause an environmental disaster. Building a thousand miles of new pipeline around the Great Lakes (3 and 4) would take decades to complete and pose its own environmental, engineering, financial and legal challenges. No fleet of oil tankers (5) exists to transport oil over the Great Lakes, and any built would operate ten months a year while the Soo Locks are open and pose a catastrophic risk to all of the Lakes including Superior if a ship were to wreck or suffer a breached hull.

The pipeline operator, federal and state government officials and the Corps have appropriately faced the reality that the Mackinac Straits crossing poses a short, dangerous segment that must be isolated to the greatest extent possible from damage to the Great Lakes. Stopping the flow of oil is not feasible, relying on the current pipeline to last indefinitely without incident is unrealistic, and opponents have not proposed better solutions. The proposed tunnel mitigates risks and is not just the best alternative, it is the only alternative.

Building is Easy. Monitoring and Maintenance are Hard. As a longtime government official, I understand the attention that goes into building infrastructure and systems that support public and commercial purposes. Planning, engineering and construction phases tend to be awash in money, focus and support as projects evolve from concept to reality. The real challenges start when construction ends and operations begin.

The pipeline operator must agree to rigorous reporting, inspection, emergency planning, continuous investment and financial contingency requirements to ensure the pipeline performs safely 100 percent of the time. As new technologies and threats emerge, the operator must adjust accordingly to take advantage of opportunities and eliminate risks. Safety, transparency, accountability and compliance must guide all decisions.

Likewise, federal, state, local and Tribal authorities must be prepared to oversee the operation of the tunnel and pipeline in perpetuity from the first moment oil flows. It concerns me that Tribes have removed themselves as Cooperating Agencies, but they must be fully engaged if and when all legal barriers to the project are removed, construction begins and the tunnel/pipeline goes into operation. Tribal representatives (or Tribal members, if Tribes refuse to participate) must be included on any regulatory or oversight panel(s) to ensure Native American perspectives are considered and respected.

Cultural Artifacts Must be Preserved. The tunnel project, both on shore and in the lakebed, is likely to disturb Native American remains and artifacts found during construction. The pipeline operator and government officials must strictly adhere to all legal requirements and best practices to ensure objects are handled and repatriated with utmost care and respect. Again, tribal representatives and/or members must be closely involved.

Mackinac Bridge Replacement Trial Run? Someday in the distant future, the State of Michigan, federal government and Tribes will confront replacement of the Mackinac Bridge opened in 1957. Like the Channel Tunnel (Chunnel) that connects England and France, officials may then consider a transportation tunnel that goes under the lakebed rather than a bridge that hangs between the peninsulas. Michigan transportation officials should closely monitor the Line 5 tunnel project to gather information that may be used decades hence.

Seven Generations Principle. I strongly believe, as did my Native American forefathers, that the decisions we make today must serve our children seven generations in the future. The Line 5 tunnel must be engineered, constructed and maintained with the expectation that it will be in good service for the next 150 years and the environment around my beloved Mackinac Straits will still provide clean water and fish for my Tribe as required under the Treaty of 1836. There is no alternative to this principle.

Thank you for your consideration, and please contact me if you would like to discuss.

I am a lifelong Michigan resident, a grandmother, an activist, a nature-lover, and I am desperately opposed to any promotion of infrastructure related to fossil fuel extraction, transport of it, and particularly related to the Line 5 TUNNEL. Everything I know about the existing aged-out pipeline seems to indicate all parties agree it is "at risk." Building a tunnel, especially as facts and projections suggest an even stronger possibility (and probability) of imminent failure, to a small or hugely devastating "accidental" degree, flies in the face of common sense and engineering experts advisement.

The economic, cultural, and environmental impact of a likely "accident" are beyond my humble imagination, and worst nightmares.

I believe that the fossil fuel industry's greed, Enbridge's record of poor response to the "accident" in the Kalamazoo River, and the USACE's pressure to plow ahead, are a recipe for DISASTER beyond the scope of any threat to the Great Lakes, ever!

Impact on aquatic ecosystems, release of drilling fluids, water contamination, habitat destruction, increased noise and vibration cannot be avoided if the tunnel proceeds. Studies have shown the difficult geologic conditions, geological variations and unstable ground under the Straits. Tunnel collapse, fire and explosions, accidents and injuries to tunnel workers, and the devastation of the most vital fresh water source in the world are NOT worth the economic benefit to Enbridge, nor the temporary impact of employment in the area, when compared to the permanent costs of destructive forces at risk.

The shortsighted nature of advancing a costly project such as this defies the need to invest in alternative sources of energy to sustain a future of healthy Michiganders, Canadians, and global citizens. Please end this decades long fight between corporate interests, versus concern for the environment upon which we depend, enjoy, and of which we have inherited a reciprocal stewardship; for our home. Would you want this project under your home?

Thank you for considering my words here, and the lives of the next seven generations!

I deeply oppose the continued operation of the Enbridge Line 5. I support the decommissioning of this tunnel that could cause devastating consequences to our Great Lakes when there is an inevitable spill or rupture.