Posted Draft EIS Comments

I am in full support of the Line 5 tunnel. As a retired heavy construction manager, I am aware of the tunnel and pipeline construction process and how they impact the local environment. I also have experience working on several COE projects and know how they take the environment seriously and plan and monitor those concerns. The tunnel and subsequent pipeline are far superior in protecting the Great Lakes vs any other type of transportation. In addition the tunnel could provide safe passage for communication, power and other conduits. The tunnel also removes the potential for an accidental or intentional pipe leak. Our society and country will continue to need petroleum products for the future and this project will only enhance the safety of that delivery. As a long time Michigan resident, I fully support the tunnel and pipeline project.

I oppose Line 5 in all aspects. I will be 70 this month and I am retired from teaching. This underwater pipeline is close to my age, so I can tell you that it has outlived any safety measures that could be taken. The body ages and the pipeline is aged as well and must be retired.

I know you want me to discuss the report, but I don't need to do that to prove my point. Enbridge is responsible for the largest oil
spill in Michigan down in Kalamazoo. Michigan's most precious resource, as well as one-fifth of the world's freshwater, lie all around this aging pipeline. A spill during construction of a tunnel would be devastating, to say the least.

The pipeline must be retired.

Please shut down line 5 entirely. There really isn’t a safe way to send under the straits without the risk of a huge environmental catastrophe. It should have been shut down a long time ago. Instead of spending a bunch of money and resources on creating this “tunnel” let’s focus on building up renewable energy sources (wind, solar, hydroelectric) for the UP so that less oil is needed. That would focus us on the future instead of just slapping a bandaid on the problem and kicking the can down the road for the next generation to figure out.

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!

There are other avenues to energy independence, such as solar, wind, geothermal, batteries and electrical storage, and reduction of demand that supersedes the dangerous method of transporting oil through our source of fresh water. By allowing Enbridge, a Canadian oil company, to put all of our lives at risk (via either an oil spill or the reliance on fossil fuels) for the sole reason of profits to stockholders, is an abrogation of your duties as an institution dedicated to PROTECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST. Not Enbridge’s interest, but THE PUBLIC’S INTEREST. The vast majority of citizens want Line 5 shut down, not expanded. Please do your duty and deny Enbridge’s request to put the entire Great Lakes ecosystem in grave danger.

Shut down line 5 completely. There is no amount of energy flowing thru it that is worth the devastation that could be caused by a leak. Building a tunnel might make it slightly safer but eliminating it completely is the best option. Stop bowing down to fossil fuel companies.

This EIS demonstrates the severe problems with Enbridge’s proposed tunnel project. First, the existence of/risk for methane pockets, seismic stability and contamination are too high. Second, too much forest land will be lost to the industrial activities involved in construction the pipeline and this in turn will result in the loss of animal habitat. Although these are said to be associated only with the construction stage, supposedly small impacts like these ripple out to nearby land, and there is absolutely no guarantee that the project will be completed within the stated timeline. Third, the history of this 80 year old pipeline is dismal - at least 36 oil spills since then. The tunnel is supposed to alleviate this problem but b/c of Enbridge’s very poor track record vis a vis its care of the pipelines, the pronouncements by Enbridge cannot be trusted. 4th, the very existence of the pipeline is illegal under treaty rights and other laws and the tunnel construction is also illegal. Fourth, tourism and outdoor recreation is a key to the socioeconomic wellbeing of the straits, the Great Lakes as a whole, and the nearby lands. I have visited the area several times and plan to keep doing so in the future. The construction of the pipeline will keep me away for the duration of construction at least and I will visit other areas that have not been despoiled by such an harmful and impactful project.

United States Army Corp of Engineers,
I am a citizen living in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. In the time it has taken to do the Environmental assessment, consult with environmental groups and tribal governments, much time has been wasted in red tape bureaucracy. Its obvious the Line 5 Tunnel is the best alternative and must move forward. Michigan needs safe and reliable delivery of energy resources on both sides of the Straights. The tunnel makes more sense than anything else that has been put on the table for an alternative solution. BUILD THE TUNNEL !!!!!

Advocating for the closure of harmful pipeline projects is critical to protect valuable freshwater resources. Public safety and the integrity of our natural resources must remain a priority. The funds used for this environmentally harmful project would be better used for sustainable sources of energy for those who currently rely on the aging pipeline that was stupidly placed under the Straits so many years ago.

Environmental Protection
Shutting Down Line 5: The closure of harmful pipeline projects is critical to protect valuable freshwater resources. Public safety and the integrity of our natural resources must remain a priority. The astronomical costs of drilling a tunnel through the bedrock of the Great Lakes could be better put to use supplying clean energy to those who now rely on the aging pipeline.