Posted Draft EIS Comments

Please see enclosed a letter from Stephen Lecce, Ontario Minister of Energy and Mines.

Dear U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:

Enbridge must not be permitted to build an oil pipeline tunnel via our Great Lakes for 3 major reasons: risk to our unparalleled freshwater resources, the company's track record of negligence and noncompliance with US orders, and the lack of major benefit to American public. Indeed Enbridge needs to decommission the existing Line 5 pipelines as it has been ordered to do and use alternative fuel transportation routes.

As a Michigan citizen, a farmer's daughter who grew up on the shores of Lake Huron and now lives off Lake Michigan, and as a former employee of the City of Grand Rapids' Engineering Department, I implore you not to allow Enbridge's project to proceed, much less be rushed through the process without a full environmental impact study.

First- environmental degradation and risk of catastrophic spills. Thank you for releasing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. In it, you outline the expectation for minor contamination to both groundwater and surface water, as well as the potential for great harm, from the drilling process and operations. That negative impact will be compounded by other degradation of the surrounding environment - the loss of acres of vegetation, loss plus fragmentation of wetland habitat, and broad geological impacts . Any engineer, or any farmer, knows that no action happens in isolation from its environment. We all know that water is life and fresh water an increasingly scarce across our own country, not to mention the world. Water is a much more necessary natural resource than fossil fuels. A project of this scale, posing any such threat to the 21% of the world's surface freshwater through our linked network of lakes, should only be undertaken because of dire need (or perhaps immense financial gain to our government and citizens, far more than might be achieved through a tunnel pipeline).

Secondly, Enbridge, a Canadian corporation whose 2010 rupture of Line 6B caused the largest inland oil spill, cannot be trusted to mitigate harm. Their current Line 5 system is over two decades past its projected expiration. Damage to Line 5 has been documented since at least 2018-20 when an anchor hit the already-deteriorating pipeline and Enbridge did not even properly report the damage. Our state leaders have documented evidence of necessary maintenance to Line 5's coatings. In 2021, Michigan's Governor Whitmer, with broad support across our state, worked to shut down Line 5 and address local fuel and employment needs other ways, but it has been held up in court. Michigan's efforts to protect our natural resources ran up against not just Enbridge but also Canadian governmental pushback. We clearly can neither trust Enbridge not to be a bad actor, nor bring any sure force to bear against them when necessary to protect American interests. Throughout your draft environmental review are promises from Enbridge to follow a spill plan and monitor wells throughout construction and at least two years after, among a range of others like minimizing damage to protected species through their drilling schedule. Those promises hold little weight while we are fighting the (foreign) company's negligence and lack of accountability thus far.

Finally, American citizens have no need for this tunnel pipeline, and the anticipated benefits to us are nowhere near as compelling as the projected risks to our water are damning. What is this American fuel crisis? America has massive fuel reserves, capacity to increase refinement or production of many forms of energy, and multiple governmental and business levers on international fuel availability. Enbridge's own consultant projected a half-cent/gallon price increase, which is laughable. Worse case, Midwesterners will absorb the small increase fuel costs - much more easily than the damage to 700 miles of Michigan shoreline and its many industries that would be gutted by pollution to the Straits of Mackinaw. Shutting down Line 5 without a tunnel would not even cause a major local fuel transportation issue, when nearby routes can absorb the flow and traffic. The State of Michigan can figure out how to get propane to the Upper Peninsula, and Midwestern airports and refineries have multiple fuel sources. What we don't have, and can't possibly buy, are the vital freshwater resources this tunnel pipeline threatens.

One more crucial reason to reject the tunnel proposal, which I didn't mention above as it is outside my expertise, is the violation of any treaty rights of Bay Mills Native American tribes. All Native tribes have refused to be cooperating agents with Enbridge any longer. They recognize the sacredness of our Earth and water supply. They see a clear threat to it, and no clear benefit to the people or the land, from the tunnel project.

As do I, though through a Catholic upbringing on a small farm and work in City policy and engineering. These Native representatives and I, different as we are in many ways, understand there will be an immense and irrevocable long-term price to pay if we are negligent stewards of our natural environment. Now, I don't expect religion to guide you. Or even civic-mindedness. What I ask is for you to please use your evidence-based, scientific and cost-benefits-analysis rigor in your review of the proposal. It will come out the same: no tunnel pipeline.

We Michiganders - these Native tribes, the City engineers who were my colleagues, my 80 year old farmer father, my twin six year old children and all their peers who are our future - will be the ones who still have to live here if our Great Lakes become Polluted Lakes. Perhaps you will, too, if you are in the Detroit, Chicago or Buffalo Regions of the USACE. Or the West Coast and Southern areas that already have water shortages.

Sincerely, Katie Assarian

Some sources:
-USACE Draft Environmental Impact Statement, May 2025
-USACE and Enbridge websites
-involvement in local water activism
-Great Lakes Now (Detroit PBS): https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2025/06/a-guide-to-the-federal-review-of-the-line-5-tunnel/
-WCMU Public Media: https://radio.wcmu.org/local-regional-news/2022-06-09/line-5-shutdown-would-raise-gas-prices-half-cent-per-gallon-enbridge-consultant-says-in-court-documents
-Detroit Free Press: https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2025/05/30/army-corps-environmental-impact-line5-oil-gas-pipeline-tunnel-straits-mackinac/83922540007/
-Bridge Michigan: https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-environment-watch/michigan-drops-one-lawsuit-revisits-another-enbridge-line-5-fight
-MI League of Conservation Voters: https://www.michiganlcv.org/line5/
-"Potential Enbridge Line 5 Closure" https://environmentaldefence.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Potential-Enbridge-Line-5-Closure-Meyers-Energy-Consulting-LLC-FINAL.pdf

Thank you so much for allowing me more time to respond. I had surgery and have had trouble doing tasks. Please stop Enbridge from proceeding with Line 5. I am following this case and want you to uphold the treaties and do the best for the environment. Thank you so much. I want you to do the best thing.

Most Sincerely,

Debbie Andresen

I call to reject this fast track plan without attention to proper accepted ecological and water quality effects. We need to protect the environment and to prevent potential devastating situations that can result from unreliable decisions made to hasten a project of this scale.

Say NO to the Line 5 Tunnel Project. There is a history of pipeline leaks in Michigan that can be referenced to show that no pipeline is 100% safe. Do we really want to risk the health of the Great Lakes region for corporate profits?

See enclosed letter with attachments.

Dearest Army Corps of Engineers,

Please extend the public comments period so that the public has the time to review the DEIS and respond appropriately.
The public comment period was shortened due to the Emergency Executive Order by 30 days however, products are moving through Line 5 presently so how can this fall under an Emergency. Even though it has been deemed an Emergency, it should not diminish the proper studies and even the Army Corps of Engineers has stated that it will not. The public comments are an important part of the environmental study and if they are limited, that does not abide by Army Corps of Engineers own statements nor NEPA.

Members of the public, also have disabilities which demand access to be part of the process. Denial of an extension would be a violation of disability access.

Hence, we are looking at 2 major violations if the army Corps does not extend the public comment period.

Please notify the public as soon as possible that you make your decision on an extension which is in everyone's best interest, including the Army Corps of Engineers as this will limit partial public comments entered and then follow up comments.

Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Matthew Borke

I strongly oppose the Line 5 tunnel project.
The Line 5 tunnel project has not undergone a comprehensive risk assessment, which is crucial for a project that poses risks to the Great Lakes, our climate, and our future.
Many tunnel experts who have reviewed Enbridge's plans share concerns for the logistics of placing a tunnel under the lakebed, considering it to be complicated, dangerous, and technically challenging. Experts also share concerns for the workers who are subjected to the dangerous pipeline construction and operations.
The supposed "energy emergency" used to justify fast-tracking this project is false and politically motivated, and should not override public safety and environmental protections.
An oil spill in the Great Lakes would be catastrophic for drinking water, wildlife, and Michigan’s economy. More than 1.3 million jobs, equating to $82 billion in wages, are directly tied to the Great Lakes.
Approving this tunnel locks us into decades of fossil fuel dependency, exacerbating the climate and public health crises; it must be thoroughly assessed for its greenhouse gas emissions and health impacts before proceeding.
Tribal nations and Indigenous communities have not been meaningfully consulted. Their rights, treaties, and voices must be honored.
As a lifelong Michigan resident I know that our Great Lakes are too precious of a resource to risk oil spills and contamination. Our wildlife, farming, and local economies depend on our clean water. Lining the pockets of big oil companies is not worth destroying our beautiful Great Lakes. I strongly urge you to reconsider this proposal.