Posted Draft EIS Comments

There are significant regional concerns about the environmental impact of the Line 5 Pipeline, which is owned by Canadian company Enbridge and transports oil and liquid natural gas from Superior, Wisconsin to Sarnia, Ontario.
The potential impacts of building a tunnel around Line 5 across the Straits, as well as potential impacts of project are to land use and recreation, aesthetics, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology, soils, transportation and navigation, air quality, noise and vibration, socioeconomics, reliability and safety. In addition, the cultural impacts to historic properties are threatened as well.
The proposed Line 5 Tunnel Project would impinge upon or abrogate treaty rights. The Final EIS MUST comply with all applicable legal and policy requirements, including its federal trust responsibility to Tribal Nations, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act.
The public comments include concerns about pipeline safety and spills, public health and safety and greenhouse gas emissions. Enbridge has a long history of accidents, spills, and inadequate cleanup. Degradation of their systems has gone unreported. Enbridge is responsible for the two largest inland oil spills in U.S. history, and has a long record of negligence, regulatory violations, and cover ups.
With over 95% of the Line 5 coming from and returning to Canada, it makes no reasonable sense for Michigan to build a tunnel for Canadian oil. Enbridge experts testified and independent experts agree that Line 5 can be shut down without spiking energy prices. Even the USACE determined that the proposed Project could significantly affect the quality of the human environment. DO NOT ISSUE A PERMIT TO ENBRIDGE’S PROPOSED LINE 5 TUNNEL PROJECT

I love living in the beautiful State of Michigan. I am saddened by past blunders that have caused environmental damage and illness. These include PBB and PFAS use and distribution, among others. I am very concerned that should the new Line 5 tunnel to transport oil on the floor bed of the Great Lakes and then through the land mass of Michigan will once again prove to be an environmental blunder that will be considered an error (a BIG one) in the future. Taking a chance of spilling oil into the Lakes and the water shed is a very real possibility, considering the many spills and the damage created by "man made" plans to move oil. Additionally, there is the issue of treaty rights. Let's honor these and not walk over people's rights as is proposed. The current administration in Washington wants to "fast track" this project. All the more reason to be concerned. Oil is outdated, messy, dangerous. It despoils our lands during extraction.It pollutes the air when used. I encourage the people with the power to stop this monstrous project to step on the breaks. Think a new plan. Be creative and forward thinking. Quit getting stuck in the old methods and ideas of ripping up our lands and water.

Line #5 should be shut down and new tunnel or pipeline not allowed. The potential for disastrous spills emanate from this plan due to the expectation that the company will intervene to mitigate any rupture. The reality is that the design of a tunnel for this and additional pipelines is not safe on a basic design level. A rupture will provide fuel for any minor ignition source leading to fire and/or explosion(s) further damaging the tunnel creating even larger scope of destruction to the natural environment above. The rupture under the straights gives access for the spill to travel throughout the lower lakes reaching Lake Michigan, Lake Huron & Georgian Bay, the St. Clair river, Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River, Lake Erie and the St Lawrence system.

As a Michigan citizen, the onus will be on the state to take responsibility for the cleanup and in perpetuity maintain and monitor the line. This is an expense not needed by the citizens, especially as this administration in Washington is cutting resources to cope with a spill that would have international consequences. As a lakefront property owner on Georgian Bay, a family property that has been in the family for nearly 100 years, I could further be impact by drifting pollutants from any Michigan spill.

The lakes have enough of a challenge handling current human pollution, we need not add to the mix such potential for a horrendous disaster. Line #5, as well as other Embridge lines, have failed. Line #5 has spilled over 1 million gallons (that we know of) already through the years. As we learn to use other energy better, let's not make the mistake of stepping backwards in our evolution to further fossil fuels dependence and the disaster we create with such a project, as one day it will fail...

I think that the current pipeline should not remain in place but should be removed and disposed of safely.

I think that the line in entirety should be replaced, considering the age and the number of other leaks in other parts of Michigan.

Ideally oil pipelines should be looking at sunsetting dates, and pipeline companies consider other energy models.

I dissent this regulatory action and approval for line 5 tunnel. I dissent the current and future use of the Great Lakes to transport oil. Despite the report and government officials and business wealthy elites approval and claim that line 5 tunnel is needed, this is not a sound and reasonable decision for the people of the Great Lakes region. Line 5 will lead to oil spills, contamination of our water, and further erode the ecology and environment of the Great Lakes for humans and non human species. We are in a climate crisis and must move away from oil and dependency on oil. The report also indicates that anchors from passing boats could continue to cause damage or hit this line. This is not a reasonable plan. Your descendants and the descendants of this region will suffer from this tunnel. Please listen to people who live here and who care about our waterways. Our lives and the lives of animals in this region are more important than making money from oil and the continued business of oil.

I am adamantly opposed to the Line 5 Tunnel project and have read numerous articles and studies about this project. I have come to an understanding that this project is dangerous and unnecessary for Michigan.

I've learned the main reason for the pipeline is to supply crude oil and natural gas to Canada, by way of a short cut through our straits of Mackinaw (Great Lakes), Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. There are other safe ways to move that dirty oil to Canada using Trucks or they could build their own pipeline. The pipeline does not benefit Michigan enough to allow this massive environmentally dangerous project to run through our lakes or our land. There is not enough benefit for our state or country to justify building this tunnel. Enbridge is not reliable and could never pay for the recovery of our land and water to justify this project if it fails. Enbridge has proven over and over that they are not a responsible and have had too many failures on their record to ever take on such a project across our straits. Enbridge is not to be trusted. https://www.oilandwaterdontmix.org/enbridge_safety_record#:~:text=Publicrecordsgobackonly,oilleakingfromtheirpipeline. https://www.oilandwaterdontmix.org/pipeline_spill_danger "Oil and gas pipeline spills are not unusual, accounting for hundreds of explosions, fires, seeps, and spills in the United States every
year."

The current pipeline # 5 is old and should be shut down immediately, even if a tunnel is built. Line 5 is a disaster waiting to happen and we may never recover our precious Great Lakes resources if this happens. If Canada wants this oil and gas then they need to figure out a way to move it in their country to where it needs to go. The end does not justify the means. The minimal rise in cost for the limited Michigan users of the oil and gas does not come close to the cost of this project if and when it fails.

Finally, our future is not compatible with fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are limited and renewable sustainable energy is not. The expense of this tunnel could be put to better use for something that will create jobs and protect our environment and our future. The Army Corp of Engineers Must stop this project.

Weeping over the future of our beautiful Great Lakes and the proposed destruction and danger to the public waters and environment.

No No No to Line 5. This is an UNSAFE Idea. Also, not needed, as alternative, renewable energy sources are coming on line.
Please can we stop the short sighted madness!!!

Among my degrees, one of them is in "Environmental, Health & Safety" and while now retired I was highly trained in HAZWOPER (Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response) and was the OSC (On Scene Commander) for a major Naval Station.

My position is in favor of the Line 5 tunnel, as while it will provide temporary disruptions, in the long run it will be good for the environment and the economy.

The Line 5 pipeline is aging and while holding a superior track record for safety the age is beginning to show. Also, the "exposed" nature of the current pipeline leaves it vulnerable to attack by terrorists of all types (including "environmentalists"), not to mention individuals who simply fail to follow the rules (i.e. no anchoring). Replacing the existing pipeline with one enclosed in a tunnel will address these safety concerns.

Closing the pipeline without replacement (as suggested by some "environmentalists") is a fool's errand as despite calls for ending fossil fuel use are also shortsighted as many of us rely on them (i.e. propane) for our survival (and I do not use that word lightly).

Replacing the pipeline with trucking over the bridge is an equally ridiculous suggestion due to the shear volume transported through the pipeline. The number of trucks required, the wear and tear on the bridge, the increased likelihood of an accident, not to mention the environmental impact of all the truck emissions that would be created are just some of the reasons that make this alternative untenable.

So, in summary I feel that it is best to move forward with the tunnel while continuing to safely operate the existing pipeline until it can be replaced with a new one that is installed in the tunnel. Continuing to delay the construction is in itself increasing the likelihood of something going wrong. If construction had moved forward when first suggested we may already be operating within it!