Posted Draft EIS Comments

I would like to go on record as supporting the Great Lakes Tunnel project. This pipeline is a vital necessity for the economic and environmental success of Michigan. It is a win-win for the economy and citizens as well as the environmental concerns. Here's how. The tunnel is a win for the environment as it will place the pipeline in a sealed conduit across the straits safely under the shipping channel above. This will allow technicians to closely monitor the pipeline for condition and maintenance. The pipeline in the tunnel will protect it from corrosion and subsequent degradation. The pipeline will also reduce wear and tear on the Mackinac Bridge through reduced truck traffic as the product will have to be moved via truck or rail. The tunnel is a win for the economy and commerce by continuing the flow of affordable energy for the citizens of Michigan as well as the good paying, permanent jobs held by the people who will monitor and maintain the pipeline. The tunnel will also support such essential infrastructure such as fiber optic lines bringing high speed internet to the Upper Peninsula. This project has been held up for many years in the approval process and needs to move forward immediately.

Is a pipe that attaches underneath the Mackinac Bridge to span the strait not an option?

Do not approve the tunnel, or any of the options the Corps is considering for Line 5. Locking in continued fossil fuel use by approving fossil fuel infrastructure in 2025 will lead to devastating climate impacts. There is no justification for approving this project. Line 5 must be shut down within a reasonable timeframe.

The recently-released environmental review of Line 5 alternatives is limited by its assumption that discontinuing the flow of petroleum at the straits is off the table due to future "market demand". The lion's share of the petroleum traveling Line 5 serves Canada, not Michigan nor the states bordering the Great Lakes whose future is endangered by Line 5 AND Enbridge's long history of unreliability as it relates to protecting against a catastrophic rupture and oil release. I would first urge the Corps to revisit the reasonableness and viability of discontinuing Line 5 which poses an existential threat to Michigan and Great Lakes partners. If the Corps is not willing to revisit that option even in light of the worst case scenario, the tunnel option may be the next best option depending on feasibility (AND time it would take to construct because the passage of time is critical - every day that passes represents an unfathomable risk to our State's lifeblood and economy). Lastly, the option chosen MUST contain assured ways of keeping Enbridge or any other successor accountable - Enbridge has proven itself an unreliable steward of our natural resources - look only at the inspection and maintenance requirements it blithely ignored in the original lease to use the straits. As with any meaningful risk management approach to something like this, there must be an independent way to ascertain: 1) the continued necessity of this risk - any option that's indefinite time-wise is irresponsible; 2) whether the potential for harm has changed due to aging, changes in water and weather conditions, use of the straits, etc., 3) viability of new energy alternatives that better meet the US need and offer greater environmental protection. Aside from general apathy, those of us who are aware of the dangers of Line 5 failure remain worried sick over the potential for catastrophic harm. Addressing this risk has taken far too long while Enbridge has shown even recently an inability or unwillingness to protect that line against anchor strikes, against continued aging and breakdown. I urge the Corps to set aside politicization of this issue and prioritize protection of our fresh water. The risk/benefit analysis - especially considering the benefit to Michiganders and other US states bordering the Great Lakes which should be the Corps' focus, makes the decision for discontinuation of Line 5 seemingly a no-brainer ethically, morally and practically. If that's not the case, then please, please, please build in enough oversight, protections and accountability so the tunnel option is as safe as possible.

please do not put a tunnel under the Straits of Mackinaw.

Build it please. I am a propane user. I'm in the upper peninsula. We need jobs.

No To The Line 5 Tunnel!
As someone whos family has been in michigan for generations I strongly disagree with the building of an experimental tunnel & line 5 under the great lakes! Line 5 be should be shut down completely not used as an excuse for a dangerous never been done under water tunnel that will disrupt the environment & put out great lakes at risk for spills. Enbridge has has multiple leaks & spills over the years that have directly harmed wildlife and waterways. The Great Lakes need to be protected as the largest source of fresh water on earth! To build this tunnel is to put our fresh water in danger for no reason. A canadian company does not need to be allowed to destroy our water & nature. Stop line 5 Now! Protect Michigan's fresh water and wildlife. We have seen the dangers this will cause with the spills and harm from other lines. Think of the danger you are putting our state in to allow this experimental tunnel to be built! Shut down line 5 as it needs to be done. A destructive tunnel under our fresh water is Not the answer! Please think of the water, land and animals! Just the construction will be disastrous and cause great harm to our great lakes! Stop the building of the Line 5 tunnel!

The lakes are sacred treat them with the utmost respect,no line 5

Love the idea of putting line 5 in a tunnel. Much safer for the pipe. Easter repairs and more things can be put in the tunnel.

testing new field addition