Posted Draft EIS Comments

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I have a strong personal connection to the Mackinac Straits but do not live or own property in vicinity. I am a member of one of the Northern Michigan Tribes that has withdrawn from Corps’ environmental impact statement (EIS) Cooperating Agency status but do not speak on behalf of it or any Tribe. My observations, opinions and recommendations are mine alone and must not be interpreted as reflecting those of any other person or organization. I have read the EIS, support the Line 5 tunnel project (Applicant’s Preferred Alternative) and offer the following comments:

Not Just Best Alternative, the Only Alternative. Let’s be practical: Oil and natural gas from western Canada will be transported to refineries in southeastern Ontario to meet binational energy and security needs, and the routes of transport are limited to the following:

1. Via pipeline from Superior across northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula to St. Ignace, across the Mackinac Straits to Mackinaw City, and to Sarnia using existing infrastructure plus the proposed Straits tunnel segment. (Applicant’s Preferred Alternative).
2. Via pipeline from Superior across northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula to St. Ignace, across the Mackinac Straits to Mackinaw City, and to Sarnia using existing infrastructure including the current aging underwater Straits segment. (Present state).
3. Via a newly constructed 800-mile pipeline around Lake Michigan from Superior to Chicago to Sarnia.
4. Via a newly constructed 1,100-mile pipeline around Lake Superior and Lake Huron to Sudbury to Sarnia
5. Via yet-to-be-built massive oil tankers carrying waterborne crude oil over Lake Superior, the St. Mary’s River and Lake Huron from Superior to Sarnia.

Studies and logic indicate the current underwater Straits pipeline (2 above) will someday give way and potentially cause an environmental disaster. Building a thousand miles of new pipeline around the Great Lakes (3 and 4) would take decades to complete and pose its own environmental, engineering, financial and legal challenges. No fleet of oil tankers (5) exists to transport oil over the Great Lakes, and any built would operate ten months a year while the Soo Locks are open and pose a catastrophic risk to all of the Lakes including Superior if a ship were to wreck or suffer a breached hull.

The pipeline operator, federal and state government officials and the Corps have appropriately faced the reality that the Mackinac Straits crossing poses a short, dangerous segment that must be isolated to the greatest extent possible from damage to the Great Lakes. Stopping the flow of oil is not feasible, relying on the current pipeline to last indefinitely without incident is unrealistic, and opponents have not proposed better solutions. The proposed tunnel mitigates risks and is not just the best alternative, it is the only alternative.

Building is Easy. Monitoring and Maintenance are Hard. As a longtime government official, I understand the attention that goes into building infrastructure and systems that support public and commercial purposes. Planning, engineering and construction phases tend to be awash in money, focus and support as projects evolve from concept to reality. The real challenges start when construction ends and operations begin.

The pipeline operator must agree to rigorous reporting, inspection, emergency planning, continuous investment and financial contingency requirements to ensure the pipeline performs safely 100 percent of the time. As new technologies and threats emerge, the operator must adjust accordingly to take advantage of opportunities and eliminate risks. Safety, transparency, accountability and compliance must guide all decisions.

Likewise, federal, state, local and Tribal authorities must be prepared to oversee the operation of the tunnel and pipeline in perpetuity from the first moment oil flows. It concerns me that Tribes have removed themselves as Cooperating Agencies, but they must be fully engaged if and when all legal barriers to the project are removed, construction begins and the tunnel/pipeline goes into operation. Tribal representatives (or Tribal members, if Tribes refuse to participate) must be included on any regulatory or oversight panel(s) to ensure Native American perspectives are considered and respected.

Cultural Artifacts Must be Preserved. The tunnel project, both on shore and in the lakebed, is likely to disturb Native American remains and artifacts found during construction. The pipeline operator and government officials must strictly adhere to all legal requirements and best practices to ensure objects are handled and repatriated with utmost care and respect. Again, tribal representatives and/or members must be closely involved.

Mackinac Bridge Replacement Trial Run? Someday in the distant future, the State of Michigan, federal government and Tribes will confront replacement of the Mackinac Bridge opened in 1957. Like the Channel Tunnel (Chunnel) that connects England and France, officials may then consider a transportation tunnel that goes under the lakebed rather than a bridge that hangs between the peninsulas. Michigan transportation officials should closely monitor the Line 5 tunnel project to gather information that may be used decades hence.

Seven Generations Principle. I strongly believe, as did my Native American forefathers, that the decisions we make today must serve our children seven generations in the future. The Line 5 tunnel must be engineered, constructed and maintained with the expectation that it will be in good service for the next 150 years and the environment around my beloved Mackinac Straits will still provide clean water and fish for my Tribe as required under the Treaty of 1836. There is no alternative to this principle.

Thank you for your consideration, and please contact me if you would like to discuss.

I am a lifelong Michigan resident, a grandmother, an activist, a nature-lover, and I am desperately opposed to any promotion of infrastructure related to fossil fuel extraction, transport of it, and particularly related to the Line 5 TUNNEL. Everything I know about the existing aged-out pipeline seems to indicate all parties agree it is "at risk." Building a tunnel, especially as facts and projections suggest an even stronger possibility (and probability) of imminent failure, to a small or hugely devastating "accidental" degree, flies in the face of common sense and engineering experts advisement.

The economic, cultural, and environmental impact of a likely "accident" are beyond my humble imagination, and worst nightmares.

I believe that the fossil fuel industry's greed, Enbridge's record of poor response to the "accident" in the Kalamazoo River, and the USACE's pressure to plow ahead, are a recipe for DISASTER beyond the scope of any threat to the Great Lakes, ever!

Impact on aquatic ecosystems, release of drilling fluids, water contamination, habitat destruction, increased noise and vibration cannot be avoided if the tunnel proceeds. Studies have shown the difficult geologic conditions, geological variations and unstable ground under the Straits. Tunnel collapse, fire and explosions, accidents and injuries to tunnel workers, and the devastation of the most vital fresh water source in the world are NOT worth the economic benefit to Enbridge, nor the temporary impact of employment in the area, when compared to the permanent costs of destructive forces at risk.

The shortsighted nature of advancing a costly project such as this defies the need to invest in alternative sources of energy to sustain a future of healthy Michiganders, Canadians, and global citizens. Please end this decades long fight between corporate interests, versus concern for the environment upon which we depend, enjoy, and of which we have inherited a reciprocal stewardship; for our home. Would you want this project under your home?

Thank you for considering my words here, and the lives of the next seven generations!

I deeply oppose the continued operation of the Enbridge Line 5. I support the decommissioning of this tunnel that could cause devastating consequences to our Great Lakes when there is an inevitable spill or rupture.

I am a born and raised 54 year old Michigander. I love our Great Lakes and oppose Line 5. Enbridge has lied and threatened the State of Michigan for years over Line 5. This is a foreign entity that has a proven track record of shotty material and has caused oil spills in our recent past. They also have a shotty record of oil spills outside our precious state of Michigan in other U.S. states. Let Enbridge's record stand for what WILL happen in the future; another oil spill. We should have no loyalty to this company.

When spills have occurred in the past their response was slow and inefficient to restoring our natural resources. When the disaster occurs we will have no recourse other than to try to sue them. By then the world's largest fresh water source will be destroyed. There is no Plan B. We either invest in new technology or wait and pray for a disaster not to strike. That is NOT leadership. There are other ways to distribute resources that are needed.

I do not support Line 5 and pray your search your conscience. Line 5 is wrong for the State of Michigan and wrong for the United States.

Thank you for your serious consideration.

Shelly Winney
1760 Aberdeen St NE
Grand Rapids, MI 49505

Why can’t we just get this pipeline finished. The state economy and citizens of the state need this pipeline to survive. We cannot let a couple acres of endangered species carry more weight than the whole state of Michigan and surrounding area. Let us for once use some common sense and finish what is needed.

Please consider shutting down the line 5 project. Michigan's lakes are one of the largest fresh water sources in the US. It is vital to our drinking water, food sources and tourism. It would be devastating to our State and others that rely on the lake for drinking water, if a spill happended. Enbridge does not have a safe track record and their assurance cannot be taken seriously. A mishap is bound to occur which would imperil our State's drinking water, food source, and tourism industry. Please deny Enbridge Line 5 which is used more by Canadian's than those of us in America.

Thank You

Producing a subterranean enclosed space with pressurized, explosive materials produced by a company with a history of leaks and not expecting it to have a costly, explosive, and possibly catastrophic problem in the future seems naive at best, and negligent at worst. The 2016 simulations by David Schwab showed the 1162 kilometers of shorefront, the 17,000 square miles of open water that could be impacted by a 10,000-barrel oil spill in the Straits of Mackinac. That amount is less than half the amount that Enbridge was responsible for releasing into the Kalamazoo River in 2010. While Enbridge's estimates of a worst-case spill are less than that, that is based on their planned measures to address potential leaks. Given that the current pipeline has already leaked 1 million gallons over its lifetime and the clear focus on profits over environmental protection, I do not put any confidence in their ability or commitment to following through on an ability to limit leaks below 10,000 barrels. These are the reasons I believe there are considerable environmental risks to the proposed pipeline.
At current prices and the stated flow rate for the current pipeline, it is possible that there are 14.3 billion dollars of petroleum products are transported every year. In exchange for threatening over 1100 kilometers of shoreline and many thousands of square miles of water, Enbridge pays 12.1 million dollars in payroll and 75.8 million dollars in property taxes every year in Michigan. The Lake Huron fisheries are worth 5.1 billion dollars annually alone. That is only one example of the annual economic impact of one body of water threatened by a failure of the proposed pipeline. The possible risk to the shorefront and open water from a potential spill seems far too costly from the environmental and monetary standpoint when compared to what the state gets back in leaking infrastructure and being a pass-through for Enbridge's oil and money. This is why I believe there is a lack of economic benefit compared to the possible economic loss from future leaks and problems.

I have grown up in Michigan all my life, and remember learning about Line 5 in middle school, and the potential dangers it threatens to my beloved state. Now that I am 22, I continue to be disappointed that nothing has been done to protect Michigan’s freshwater and the ecosystems our water supports— including our own! This risky Line 5 project that has not been verified by environmental scientists and engineers, only taken at the word of those making profit off the risk to our most invaluable resource, threatens a catastrophe that would impact all Michiganders’ health and safety. Our lakes benefit the state of Michigan economically more than the pipeline ever has. We must protect Michigan workers, tourism, and environment and refuse to be put at risk by greedy oil companies. This is a chance to push forward renewable energy that can protect and serve our state for many generations to come, not just until the oil spills or dries up.

I do not approve of Line 5 Tunnel.

We constantly have many projects that mess up local atmospheres and contribute to the issue of global deterioration. I ask that everything that happens with this plan if it does go through at its maximum capacity that there should be a clear limit to how far the project will go and the damage it will cause.