Posted Draft EIS Comments

The Line 5 project is a dangerous and completely irresponsible project that impacts millions of people. It is a risk to drinking water, our beautiful environment, and doesn’t support long term transition to sustainable energy.

Greetings!

I am a certified coastal kayaking instructor and am very familiar with the northern Lake Michigan and Lake Huron area—from the water.

I am respectfully asking the US army Core if Engineers to NOT fast track the EIS for Line 5. I live in Kalamazoo and lived through the oil spill on the Kalamazoo River 15 years ago. The habitat was disrupted for a decade. Paddling was disrupted for a good two years. The area is still suffering as a result.

Fast tracking the EIS on Line 5 runs a very high risk of not fully understanding the risks involved in the proposed Line 5 tunnel. Our Great Lakes are a treasure to be protected, not an easy highway for oil.

If a spill should occur along line 5, which is a very real risk, Mackinaw Island would be at risk, the Wilderness State Park would be at risk, the North Channel Islands would be at risk, and Blois Blanc Island, not to mention Les Chenaux. I have paddled all of these areas and the thought of this environment being polluted with the sludge of oil is heartbreaking.

I’m not sure that the US Army Corps of engineers really understands how central this area is to Michiganders and kayakers. I am appealing to your aesthetic sensibilities—to see the area through our eyes as a resource that must be protected for generations to come.

Thank you for your attention.

Carol Anderson

I am writing in opposition of the Army Core of Engineers fast-tracking the Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel project. This project has not undergone a full environmental review. A detailed report (of the evaluations performed and defined protections in place for public safety) needs to be presented to the public. The project report needs to include extensive review and how/what of the impacts related to our current climate and protections in place for public health . More in-depth evaluations of the risks to our Great Lakes being contaminated/poisoned need to done of what would happen if Line 5 breaks and how many millions of people will be harmed. Public safety should be the paramount goal when decisions are made. Fast-tracking will only lead to errors in judgements and we can't have that risk taken. Our fresh waters source which Line 5 runs through serves America and Canada and we must slowly and carefully evaluate all possibilities of contamination to the waters, animal and plant life, so more time is need for these assessments. Respectfully Theresa Landrum

With the implementation of Line 5, there is an increased risk for an oil spill within our beautiful Great Lakes. One oil spill from a pipeline like this will cause significant damage and disruption in our shoreline communities. As an educator on the beaches of Saginaw Bay, an oil spill would devastate the region as the shallow waters would be consumed by oil at all depths, meaning a gargantuan loss of aquatic life. Oil spilled in these lakes will not just stay on the surface, but will circulate through all layers of the lake and be nearly impossible to clean all that was spilled.

The Great Lakes hold 20% of the entire world’s fresh water, up to six quadrillion gallons. We need to protect it to the highest degree, as this water provides sanctuary to our fisheries, our orchards, our lumber mills, our shipping freighters, our migratory birds, and our water recreation operations. In politics, these lakes give us incredible soft power around the globe as the production and shipping industry has been an envy of the world for generations.

Our shores of Saginaw Bay are already struggling with harmful algal blooms (HABs) that deter tourists, beachgoers, and even put them at risk for E. coli contamination. We do not want to have additional concerns for oil spills. Enbridge has already left a pipeline without maintenance beneath the Straits of Mackinac for several years beyond its recommended safety standards. Our shoreline communities deserve better and our Great Lakes deserve to be protected. One oil spill in our Great Lakes will devastate shoreline communities across the eight U.S. states and two Canadian provinces that resides within our beautiful watershed.

Dear Army Corps of Engineers. Please do proper and due diligence in your assessment of environmental impact on this project.

The Embridge Line 5 Tunnel Project will have a negative impact on all categories listed above. The data is easily available.

Michigan taxpayers have rejected the risk, scope and impact of Line 5 in any form for many years.

The pipeline is not needed. It does not deliver a significant amount of energy to Michigan.

The risk of environmental damage to this important fresh water system is astronomical.

There is no protection for residents, businesses and tourism guests against environmental disaster.

Embridge has proven it's unreliability repeatedly. Oil leaks throughout its network have ruined community resources and precious environments without proper clean up or compensation for the damage done.

The cost to existing businesses through lost jobs and economic downturn negatively offsets the few jobs that might be created.

The geography of the area does not support a tunnel. This data already exists. Please be professional and do a thorough environmental impact study.

Native rights are not supported by this project. Everything from archeological sites and treaties to contemporary disruption of lifestyle and safety are real concerns.

The Tunnel Project does not benefit the people of Michigan. We do not want the risk or the cost (which is escalating and remains unlimited).

Anne Dwyer
8290 Edgewater Beach Trail
Mackinaw City, MI 49701
(ground zero for an oil leak)

I object to building a tunnel for Line 5. First, it has not undergone adequate risk assessment. Secondly, it is being fast tracked under false and political measures. Thirdly, an oil spill would be catastrophic endangering drinking water and tourism. Fourth, tribal nations and indigenous people have not been consulted which endangers their treaty rights.

Please don't make a rushed judgement on this potentially very dangerous tunnel.

I am writing to express strong opposition to Enbridge Energy’s application for a Section 10/404 permit for the proposed tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac that would house a new segment of the Line 5 pipeline.

The risks of this project far outweigh the benefits, and the Army Corps has both the authority and responsibility to reject this permit in the interest of protecting public health, the environment, and U.S. sovereignty. This Canadian-owned pipeline has no place jeopardizing one of the most vital freshwater ecosystems in the world.

Line 5 is owned and operated by Enbridge Inc., a Canadian multinational corporation with a history of significant oil spills and regulatory failures. The crude oil and natural gas liquids it transports are sourced in western Canada, routed through the U.S., and refined almost entirely in Sarnia, Ontario. Very little of the product from Line 5 remains in the United States.

In effect, the U.S. is being asked to bear all the environmental risk to benefit a foreign company and another country’s energy supply chain. The pipeline runs through sensitive U.S. lands and waters, yet the primary beneficiaries are across the border. No responsible government should allow a foreign corporation to endanger the Great Lakes—our drinking water, fisheries, tourism economy, and tribal resources—for the sake of Canadian fuel logistics.

Enbridge’s track record should disqualify it from receiving a new permit in such an ecologically critical area. In 2010, Enbridge’s Line 6B pipeline ruptured and spilled over one million gallons of heavy crude into the Kalamazoo River. That spill took over five years and more than $1 billion to clean up. It remains one of the largest and costliest inland oil spills in U.S. history.

Line 5 itself has leaked over 1 million gallons of oil and natural gas liquids in more than 30 documented spills since 1968. It was never designed to operate for 70+ years and is dangerously outdated infrastructure, particularly in the turbulent waters of the Straits of Mackinac. Anchor strikes, shifting currents, and structural corrosion all pose immediate and ongoing threats to pipeline integrity.

The tunnel project is pitched as a safety solution, but it is nothing more than a means to extend fossil fuel operations for decades to come. Worse, the tunnel construction process itself carries environmental risks, especially to wetlands and submerged lands protected under federal and state law.

The Great Lakes represent 90% of the United States’ surface freshwater and provide drinking water to over 40 million people. They support a multi-billion-dollar regional economy based on fishing, shipping, agriculture, and recreation. A spill in the Straits of Mackinac could release hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil within hours—oil that would be nearly impossible to contain due to the strong and complex currents that flow through the straits.

The Army Corps must recognize that the potential consequences of a Line 5 failure in this location are not theoretical—they are catastrophic.

The proposed tunnel—and the continued operation of Line 5—violates the rights of Indigenous Nations whose lands, waters, and treaty-protected resources are directly impacted. The Bay Mills Indian Community and other Anishinaabe tribes have made it clear that Line 5 threatens their sovereignty, cultural practices, and the health of the ecosystems they steward. Federal agencies have a legal and moral obligation to consult in good faith and uphold treaty commitments—not rubber-stamp projects that cause lasting harm.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for any major federal action significantly affecting the environment. The proposed tunnel clearly meets that standard, and I urge the Corps to proceed with a full EIS process—not an expedited or limited review. The stakes here demand nothing less than the most thorough, science-based assessment possible, with full public participation.

Finally, approving this tunnel contradicts the nation’s climate goals. At a time when the U.S. is working to transition to clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, approving long-term fossil fuel infrastructure that enables continued dependence on oil for decades is counterproductive and irresponsible.

The climate crisis is already affecting communities through wildfires, floods, droughts, and rising costs. We should be investing in a just, sustainable energy future—not greenlighting a project that locks us into the past.

For all these reasons—environmental, legal, tribal, geopolitical, and moral—I urge the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to deny Enbridge’s permit application for the Line 5 tunnel. The Great Lakes are too precious, and the risks are too high, to allow a foreign oil company to continue operating dangerous infrastructure on U.S. soil.

Please protect our water, honor Indigenous rights, and uphold your responsibility to the American people.

I plead with you to stop the Line 5 agreement. This is way too high of a risk for our precious Great Lakes which are our most valuable natural resource of clean water for our human survival as well as recreation. Oil leaks happen, and have happened in Michigan before. No pipeline should exist through these waters.

I oppose the proposal to install a tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac.
I am a retired Professional Chemical Engineer with over 40 years experience in industry.
My reasons to oppose this tunnel are:
1. It does not address the potential impacts of the aging remainder of Line 5 and it's trespasses on indigenous lands and out natural habitats,
2. Enbridge is a Canadian company that has been ordered to shut down Line 5 and find other means to get their crude to Sarnia, Ontario. They have arrogantly continued to operate despite this court order and record of minor spills turning into fairly major environmental issues that have not adequately be cleaned up.
3. The job created would be temporary with the likelihood of many from out of state coming to do the work.
4. This is unproven technology and cannot be compared to the Detroit-Windsor tunnel. No where near the same endeavor. It will be unsafe during building and remains a threat under operation. Experts have discussed the dangers of unstable ground makeup as well as dissolved Methane gas in the ground water. All this creating potential for damage, explosions and crude oil spills.
5. The Enbridge oil spill in the Kalamazoo River was a prolonged disaster and has yet to be adequately cleaned up. That spill was allowed to go on for over 17 hours and likely will never be completely cleaned up.
6. This project is a reminder of the Deep Water Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. That spill had devastating effects to the gulf, the coast and has never been adequately cleaned up.
7. I don't believe the statements that Michigan UP needs Line 5 for propane supply to heat their homes. With the population of the UP being about 3% of Michigan's population, they should be easily be accommodated. Besides, shifting the flow from crude to propane seems to be a messy option.
8. As to alternatives, that is Enbridge’s problem. Running a 70 year old line is not a viable one.
Please be sure to consider my concerns as an engineer who has worked in industry for decades and has seen some short sighted decisions being made.

Sincerely yours,
Doug Cornell PE, Retired
501-318-4534