Posted Draft EIS Comments

The shortened comment period is insufficient for the public to address the 1000s of pages of detailed technical information: the public deserves the full time period to read and assess the proposal.

I oppose building a tunnel to house the Line-5 pipeline.

Regarding Native American that are affected by this decision, I believe that they were wronged in 1950 when the state of Michigan disregarded the treaty with them, and this should not happen a second time. Their ideas should be listened to, respected, and treaties should be honored.

The ecosystem of the Straits of Mackinaw would be significantly damaged during the creation of a tunnel. The Army Corps of Engineers draft environmental impact statement acknowledged detrimental effects from construction, including nearly five acres of wetland loss, groundwater aquifer drawdown of two feet, and impacts to surface waters, not to mention clearing of 5 acres of forested land, and nineteen acres of vegetation.

Finally, why would we want to jeopardize the largest body of fresh water on our planet to build over a six year period, a tunnel to house a pipeline that that carries petroleum products that eventually will not be needed?

Hi there! As someone who lives in this region of Wisconsin, I am extremely concerned about the well being of my community, the environment, and water access after reading the draft EIS. I am also an environmental scientist and advocate for water safety who has been keeping up with Enbridge’s pipelines since 2013. Not only do I think this is unnecessary, but I believe this to be an extremely dangerous choice. This pipeline is not needed and it puts the lives of rural, tribal, and wild lives at stake. As a first step, I need more time for this pubic comment period to remain open as I gather my thoughts and opinions. Already I have noticed that under Appendix F, the alternative of eradicating Line 5 has not been considered. In order to have the most comprehensive list of options, that must be included. Thank you for your time.

Please allow for more time to review the EIS. It is an extremely long document and I’m very concerned about the construction in the straits. I’m a Sault Tribe member and a yooper. I do not want to see more pollution and destruction of my home yet again from a Canadian company. Rural and Indigenous communities are always the sacrificial homes that Canada takes advantage of for industrial pollution. I do not agree with the understated impacts in the EIS and minimization of the effects of the construction. Allow for further review by the public. Crowd sourcing is extremely important and efficient for large projects.

Hello, I am a Minnesotan with ties to the area of Wisconsin that Line 5 would impact. Minnesota has seen the negative impacts of Line 3 and I am concerned that Wisconsin will be faced with similar issues. Therefore, I am writing to request more time to review this EIS so I can provide further details about my concerns. As an archaeologist I am not only concerned with the environmental impact, but the wider cultural impact as well. Culture and the environment are inextricably tied, especially from an indigenous perspective, and I believe that moving the pipeline from a reservation to an important wilderness area has the potential to be culturally disrespectful. If the pipeline is going to be moved out of respect for indigenous communities, the land needs to be respected as well. I look forward to being able to further review this EIS.

As a concerned resident and advocate for environmental and economic sustainability, I strongly oppose the continued operation and proposed tunnel project for Enbridge Line 5 in Michigan.

Line 5 poses a clear and present danger to the Great Lakes, which hold 21% of the world’s surface fresh water and provide drinking water for over 40 million people. A spill in the Straits of Mackinac would be catastrophic—not only environmentally, but economically. The Great Lakes support over 1.3 million jobs and generate more than $82 billion in wages annually through tourism, recreation, commercial and sport fishing, and shipping. These industries rely on clean, healthy water.

Allowing a foreign corporation to transport oil through aging infrastructure beneath one of the most ecologically and economically valuable freshwater systems on Earth is short-sighted. The potential for irreversible harm far outweighs any short-term economic benefit. Preserving our freshwater resources is not only an environmental imperative—it is an economic necessity.

Michigan has the opportunity to lead in clean energy and sustainable economic growth. We should invest in renewable infrastructure, not double down on fossil fuel dependency.

For the sake of our environment, economy, and future generations, I urge regulators to decommission Line 5 and reject the tunnel proposal.

Sincerely,
Frances

The risks posed to the nations largest store of freshwater is simply unacceptable. The waste water dumped into Lake Michigan as part of the proposed plan is insulting to those who use the resource as a place for recreation, food, and of course as a water source. It is important as well to remember that the lake is home to many organisms all of whom would have a hard time seeing the value in a project with such anthropogenic origins and goals. The great lakes is not just here as another thing for man to use up and discard.

As a property owner in the Les Cheneaux Islands, I am adamantly opposed to the building of the line to transport crude oil under the Straits of Mackinac. This is one of the most beautiful areas in the world and our family has enjoyed the islands for five generations. The risk of damaging this pristine is not worth any amount of money.