Posted Draft EIS Comments

Frankly, I'm shocked that the Corps did not consider the climate disruption that will result from continuing to burn fossil fuels transported on Line 5, and declined to study the possibility of shutting down the pipeline altogether.
Putting the Great Lakes at risk no longer seems like a priority. It is 20% of the WORLD'S fresh water supply.
Somehow that is just ignored altogether.

1. Even if approved today and started this year, the existing, vulnerable and past-service-life pipeline will not be replaced for years. This prolongs the risks, e.g. anchor strike, that Enbridge is urging be reduced on an expedited-approval basis. The replacement environmental and socioeconomic impact study is, in that sense, missing the point. To elaborate:
2. The economics do not add up. There are other transport methods than Line 5, as submitted by other commenters. Predictions of steady or increasing oil demand in Eastern North America for the life of the tunnel, made by the Petroleum Institute, are self-serving and unrealistic. Oil demand is peaking worldwide -- likely peaked in China, one of the biggest drivers of oil demand, in 2023. Industry and consumers are moving on from fossil fuels, driving markets. Renewables have overtaken fossil fuels, and regardless of misguided and protectionist government policies, oil demand will go the way of the horse and buddy. Prices are low, while cost estimates for the tunnel have ballooned, so Enbridge faces decreasing economic incentives to promptly completing the replacement of Line 5. Everything points to likely dangling the prospect of replacement only to keep the old line operating. This is not a trade, an upgrade, a risk-reduction. This is a delaying tactic, to keep profiting from a pipeline that should have been shut down years ago.
3. Tearing up wetlands and some of the best lake shoreline in the state, disrupting ecosystems and tourism, have to be evaluated frankly in the financial and practical context, that the replacement likely will not be timely, and might never be completed. The cost-benefit analysis is flawed from the start. The Corp should be looking at evaluating the dismantling of Line 5, instead.
4. Regulators must take into account Enbridge's bad record of leaks, from the manageable to the disastrous. Line 5, no matter how conceived and improved, does not erase the risk that anything Enbridge builds and operates, will leak badly somewhere along the line, be that in inland waterways, Great Lakes shoreline, or under the Straits of Mackinaw. There is no obligation for the Corps to entertain engineering projections from a discredited source. Enbridge cannot be trusted to represent facts in a disinterested manner, and keep its promises. The comment landing page should show the oil slick in the Kalamazoo River, not the pristine view of the Mackinaw Bridge.

I strongly oppose the proposed Enbridge Line 5 pipeline project as presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This project represents a significant and unacceptable risk to our environment, economy, and, critically, to the inherent and treaty-protected rights of Indigenous Tribal Nations.

The Draft EIS, in its current form, fails to adequately address the catastrophic consequences of a potential oil spill from Line 5. The proposed alternatives do not sufficiently mitigate the risks posed to the Great Lakes, which are an irreplaceable freshwater resource vital to millions of people and countless ecosystems. The potential for a spill in the Straits of Mackinac, a highly sensitive and dynamic environment, is simply too great, and the long-term ecological and economic devastation would be irreversible. The document also falls short in fully exploring and committing to robust, modern spill prevention and response measures that would truly protect these precious waters.

Furthermore, I unequivocally call for the immediate decommissioning of the existing Line 5 pipeline. This aging infrastructure, particularly its segment traversing the Straits of Mackinac, is a ticking time bomb. Continued operation, regardless of proposed "safety" measures, perpetuates an unacceptable risk. The focus of this EIS should not be on perpetuating fossil fuel infrastructure, but rather on a swift and just transition away from it, prioritizing renewable energy solutions that do not endanger our natural heritage.

Most importantly, the Draft EIS demonstrates a profound disregard for the treaty rights and sovereignty of the Anishinaabeg (Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi) and other Indigenous Tribal Nations whose ancestral lands and waters are directly impacted by this pipeline. These treaties, affirmed by the U.S. Constitution, guarantee the rights to hunt, fish, and gather in ceded territories – rights that are inextricably linked to the health and integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem. A pipeline spill would directly violate these sacred rights, contaminating traditional food sources, disrupting cultural practices, and undermining the spiritual connection Indigenous peoples have with these lands and waters. The consultation process, as outlined or implied, appears insufficient and does not reflect true nation-to-nation engagement based on respect and free, prior, and informed consent. Any project that threatens the ability of Tribal Nations to exercise their treaty rights is inherently unjust and must be rejected.

Beyond the direct environmental and treaty impacts, the proposed project poses a severe threat to the Straits Traditional Cultural Place, a sacred and historically significant area for the Anishinaabe. This landscape is not merely a geographical location but a living cultural heritage, encompassing cultural significant places and areas vital for traditional practices. A pipeline rupture would not only desecrate these irreplaceable cultural and historical sites but also inflict profound and irreparable harm on the cultural identity, spiritual well-being, and historical continuity of the Anishinaabeg and other Indigenous communities who have stewarded these lands and waters for millennia. The Draft EIS's failure to adequately recognize and protect this critical cultural landscape is a significant oversight that undermines its credibility and legality.

The long-term impacts on climate change are also inadequately addressed. Approving new fossil fuel infrastructure like Line 5 locks us into decades more of carbon emissions, directly undermining efforts to combat the climate crisis. We must prioritize sustainable solutions that protect our planet for future generations, not perpetuate reliance on dangerous and outdated energy sources.

For these reasons, I urge the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to reject the proposed Line 5 project and instead mandate the decommissioning and removal of the existing pipeline. A thorough and equitable assessment must prioritize environmental protection, public safety, and the upholding of tribal treaty rights above corporate interests.

Moving forward with Line 5 has not been properly vetted with a vital environmental impact study. NO NEED to skip this or rush it! The long range environmental impact is NOT worth the intended action. Why not consider other energy options - solar, wind, nuclear. There is no energy emergency, just a political administration that is pro fossil fuel production. Tribal treaties have not been properly included. I strongly encourage the ACE to pause and consider what might indeed be best for this great county. Line 5 is not. Thank you for you attention

I am very concerned about the risk that the tunnel poses to the great lakes. A spill would result in the destruction of one of the greatest natural marvels in the entire world, and would also be devastating to Michigan's economy for people that rely on the great lakes for fishing, tourism, recreation, and more.

Permitting of the Line 5 Tunnel Project based on the Environmental Impact Statement should be unequivically denied. The risk of irreparable harm and degradation to the environment, ecosystem and waters of the Great Lakes and the State of Michigan are much too great to warrant approval of this ill conceived project. University of Michigan scientists have pointed to the high risk of explosion. The Lake Michigan lakebed is part of the public trust of the residents of Michigan and this fragile ecosystem must not be disturbed for private profit. The entire premis of long term risk to our environment, when the national economy has already begun the necessary transitioning away from fossil fuels which degrade our environment, is utter madness. It has been shown there are other viable options to transport these commodities (rail, truck) which pose much less risk to the Great Lakes. With recent MPSC approval of the new Semco Energy natural gas pipeline in the western Upper Peninsula, the argument for the need of Line 5 to provide natural gas in the UP is invalid. The waters of Lake Michigan are our State's most valuable asset and should not be exploited for minimal return to the American public trust for Canada's gain and advantage. The current aged and decaying Line 5 pipeline must be decommissioned now before an environmental tragedy occurs. The proposal to cover the underwater pipeline with gravel is ludicrous - what could go wrong with that?!? Let's not allow a future tragedy in the form of a tunnel to be built like another ticking time bomb. It does not take a rocket scientist to determine this is very bad business for Michigan, both environmentally and economically. In 4 years it is likely the political winds will shift away from fossil fuels and the project will be halted anyway. You must also factor in the present value of a future oil leak cleanup or loss of life during construction.
SAY NO TO THIS LINE 5 TUNNEL PERMIT!!!!!

As a PhD biologist, I understand the threat posed by a spill as well as the threat posed by continuing to invest in fossil fuels when we are now fully aware of the unacceptable consequences. The EIS has failed to address this threat and puts citizens and the environment at great risk. The alternative to shut down Line 5 must be considered. Both allowing the aging infrastructure to continue operating and investing in fossil fuel have terrible consequences that were not considered in this flawed EIS. The permit should be denied and real alternatives need to be considered.

First of all, we should not be negotiating with Enbridge about the tunnel when they’ve yet to respect tribal sovereignty and remove their pipelines from tribal land, which was never approved and is vehemently opposed. All 12 tribal nations in Michigan oppose the continued use of this tunnel and have made that clear (see narf.org and baymills.org). Furthermore, the site of the proposed tunnel is sacred to the Bay Mills Community and to continue with this process would be to continue a terrible disrespect to them and all Anishinaabe.

Whether indigenous or not, we all should be protecting the Great Lakes, not putting them at risk. They are a lifeline for many in Michigan, through fishing, tourism, and many other activities. With pipelines, we know it’s not a matter of if they’ll spill, but when and where, and such a spill at this location would be devastating to the environment and people in this area and beyond. Enbridge and Line 5 have terrible records and we need to remove their risk from our state and waters! (https://www.oilandwaterdontmix.org/enbridge_safety_record)

The idea. of a tunnel through the straits has not been rationally or honestly thought through. The potential for an accident that could forever alter the Great Lakes ecosystem for hundreds of years. The money to be used for an enclosed pipeline would be logically better spent on building a new pipeline around the Great Lakes, through Ontario. If a break were to happen it would be much easier to contain it on land than water. The easy way is never the overall best solution. Stop putting profits first and consider the lives of the next generation. Why leave potential disasters for others when their safety can be assured by you now.

What is the point of this silly exercise in appeasement- you have made your faulty decision and you will have to live with it !