Not all parties that could be impacted by this regional and international project are
participating in this public process. Enbridge has not demonstrated, nor provided evidence, of it’s good faith intention, capacity or accountability for such an ill fated, high
risk engineering project of this magnitude.
The Line 5 pipeline that runs from Wisconsin, through the Straits of Mackinac, and into Canada, bringing 500,000 oil barrels daily to our neighbor – mainly for their benefit only – cannot and must not continue to be in operation or be buried underneath porous lakebed rock. There is no energy emergency; only a political one that is driven by a short-sighted desire for profits and a continuation of a deadly status quo: the reliance on fossil fuels. The risk of a leak, spill, or explosion (because of a hastily engineered and executed project, not to mention the use of oil itself) is too great for the Straits of Mackinac, our Great Lakes, and all the 40 million stakeholders of this region. Andrew Buchsbaum, an expert in Great Lakes and environmental law pointed to PLG Consulting’s study, which, concluded that “…every barrel [supplied by Line 5], not just almost every barrel, would be replaced within 18 months, from other pipelines, rail and especially waterborne transport from the Gulf of Mexico around to Montreal…that’s possible because, prior to 2015, that’s what was happening. This is incredibly important because what that shows is that prices won’t rise.”
Buchsbaum also states that “Enbridge’s own experts…admitted that gasoline prices in the U.S., if Line 5 were to shut down tomorrow, would rise between half a penny and a penny a gallon. Refineries would continue to get the same oil they did before and so they wouldn’t lose jobs and the energy supply would remain the same.” It is clear to me that Line 5’s oil supply is not necessary, there is no energy emergency, and its continued use creates catastrophic risks that outweigh the perceived benefits. If we care about the future of our nation, and Michigan, we must urgently shift from using fossil fuels to renewable energies – Enbridge itself is poised to do that. We cannot use fossil fuel technology and expect to move forward safely and responsibly as a state or country.
The proposed Oil Tunnel is no solution. In fact it poses a significant environmental and economic risk.
Fast tracking the approval for this project means it has not undergone a full environmental review, including its impacts on climate and public health without fully evaluating the risks.
Economically, this tunnel is unnecessary.
It will – at immense expense ($2 billion +) – add redundant capacity to transport an energy source that still puts the land and water at significant risk and contributes further to climate change, when we should be seeking sustainable replacements for fossil fuels.
From an engineering standpoint – little is known for certain about the geological structure beneath the Straits.
Enbridge has taken inadequate samples of the bedrock, which has high hydraulic conductivity and hydrostatic pressure through the proposed tunnel’s path, posing an unacceptable risk of collapse or explosion.
I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed Enbridge Line 5 Tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac and to submit public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) released in May 2025. As a sixth-generation Michigan resident whose family were early settlers of the Petoskey area and the Straits, I feel both a personal and moral obligation to speak out.
The Great Lakes are not only our region’s defining natural treasure—they are our most vital and irreplaceable resource. They have sustained Michigan’s people and economy for centuries: from Indigenous nations to the fishing, and tourism industries that have depended on clean, navigable waters. My own family’s survival and livelihood have been tied to these waters for generations. It deeply concerns me that the proposed tunnel could cause irreversible harm to this fragile ecosystem and compromise the clean water that defines our identity, sustains our wildlife, and supports millions of people.
Specific Concerns
1. Incomplete Lakebed and Habitat Analysis (Chapter 3, “Biological Resources”)
The DEIS, particularly Chapter 3 and Sections 3.4–3.5, fails to sufficiently evaluate the disruption to the lakebed floor, benthic habitats, and spawning grounds. These zones are ecologically sensitive and essential to the health of the broader aquatic ecosystem. Sediment plumes, vibration, and chemical leaks during and after construction pose direct threats to long-standing fish populations and other wildlife.
2. Threatened and Endangered Species at Risk
The current DEIS lacks sufficient detail regarding several federally or state-listed species that may be affected by tunnel activity, including:
Lake Sturgeon – A Michigan-threatened species that depends on undisturbed lakebed areas for spawning.
Snuffbox Mussel – A federally endangered species particularly vulnerable to sedimentation and water quality decline.
Northern Long-Eared Bat – Threatened, with habitat at risk from associated deforestation and lighting impacts.
Piping Plover – Endangered shorebirds nesting in sensitive dune and beach habitats that may be disrupted by construction traffic, noise, and light.
The DEIS provides no credible mitigation strategies for these species and no ecosystem-wide view of how tunnel construction may permanently alter their habitats.
3. Request for Independent and Peer-Reviewed Study
I urge the Corps to require and incorporate independent, peer-reviewed research into the Final EIS. This should include a full geotechnical and ecological assessment of the lakebed floor, hydrology, sediment behavior, and potential spill or structural failure scenarios. Input from Great Lakes fisheries biologists, hydrologists, and tribal ecological experts must also be prioritized.
4. Michigan Bears the Risk, With Minimal Benefit
This project does not serve Michigan. It serves foreign oil interests while placing the long-term well-being of our lakes, wildlife, and people at risk. The few temporary jobs it would create cannot outweigh the lasting damage that a compromised water system would inflict on generations to come—especially in communities like mine, which have long depended on these waters for economic survival and cultural identity.
Conclusion
As someone whose family has lived along these waters for over 150 years, I believe we have a solemn responsibility to protect them—not only for ourselves, but for future generations. The current DEIS is inadequate in its assessment of ecological risk and must be revised to reflect the true scale of potential harm. The Army Corps of Engineers should deny permits for the Enbridge Tunnel until meaningful, science-based environmental and cultural review is completed.
Thank you for your consideration. I ask that this letter be entered into the public record.
Sincerely,
Stefanie Fitzpatrick