Posted Draft EIS Comments

it is beyond time to move away from fossil fuels. we ‘small folk’ have been gaslighted by greedy corporations for decades about the true detrimental impacts. money and resources dedicated to alternative fuels such as biofuels would improve quality of life for every existing being that shares this earth. this pipeline is not the future. it is an absolute disgrace and stain on history that this soulless ‘administration’ thinks to fast track this project and call it ‘great.’ the future is alternative. the future is taking care of our neighbors, the flora and the fauna, it is empathy and compassion. it is not fossil fuels.

I reside in Antrim county and propane is my ONLY source of energy to heat my home in the winter. I am a graduate Civil Engineer from Michigan State University with an MBA from Harvard Business School. I was employed by MDOT and General Motors for over 30 years. If the Line 5 pipeline is decommissioned, trucking is the ONLY method for transporting propane and other petroleum fuels. The EIS for the “decommissioning alternatives” does not consider the environmental and/or economic impact or the significant risks of transporting Petroleum fuels over the road, the Mackinac bridge as well as all the other roads and bridges in the State. Choosing thousands of trucks over a soundly engineered pipeline system does not protect the environment from an oil or gas spill. That over the road trucking plan is a recipe for disaster. The EIS also does not consider the infrastructure, personnel, and logisitics required to execute such a plan. I am in complete support of transporting fuels through a pipeline system. I also support building the tunnel to enclose the pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac. Finally, I am in complete support of maintaining the pipeline across the Upper Peninsula making improvements and modernizing as required to ensure environmental safety. A comprehensive EIS should include the negative impact of the “over the road” trucking alternative. This EIS fails to do so.

Please register my objection to the proposed Line 5 tunnel project. There is little doubt that the President’s creation of an “Energy Emergency” has caused the Corps to expedite the permitting process. I am hopeful that the Corps’ treatment of this vetting process will not compromise the final document. Public input to the EIS is an imperative, and could potentially identify missed considerations. Halving the public comment period for a 1000 plus page EIS to 30 days puts meaningful review and response out of reach for most citizens. Please consider extending the comment period.

First of all, there is no energy emergency that this project will address. This is a Canadian company moving Canadian oil to Canadians in Ontario across the United States, specifically, Wisconsin and Michigan. The people of Michigan and Wisconsin have nothing to gain from this pipeline and everything to lose. Enbridge has a poor environmental track record. Line 5 has spilled 33 times and at least 1.1 million gallons along its length since 1968.
The pipelines in the Straits of Mackinac cross one of the most ecologically sensitive areas in the world. The Great Lakes are home to 21 percent of the world’s fresh surface water, upon which millions depend upon for drinking water, as well as for the fisheries and other resources the Great Lakes provide. If Enbridge was such a responsible company, why did they not upgrade this pipeline when it reached its 50-year mark for life expectancy? Instead, they ignored the potential for a great damage and have continued to operate what is now a 73 year old pipeline which has contributed more than 1 million gallons of oil to the environment. 17 tribes and tribal organizations oppose the pipeline. Why have their concerns not been addressed?

I read the Draft EIS. Let’s get something straight: this tunnel project is a reckless bet on an aging fossil fuel addiction we should’ve kicked decades ago.

On climate impacts (Draft EIS Section 4.2, “Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions”):
Your own document admits this project will generate significant emissions during construction and operation. Yet somehow, you keep calling it “necessary infrastructure.” Necessary for who? Definitely not for people trying not to get barbecued alive by record-breaking heat waves or flooded out of their homes by “once-in-a-century” storms happening every other Tuesday.

On water and spill risks (Draft EIS Section 4.3, “Water Resources”):
You mention “mitigation measures” like they’re some magic spell. News flash: there’s no “mitigation” for oil in the Straits of Mackinac. We’re talking about a fragile, high-current area that can spread contamination faster than you can say “whoops.” One accident and 40 million people lose clean water. You can’t fix that with a couple boom barriers and a PR statement.

On Indigenous rights and cultural resources (Draft EIS Section 4.9):
Your EIS notes potential impacts to tribal treaty rights but somehow skips to “continued consultation” as if that’s a get-out-of-jail-free card. You do realize “consultation” isn’t a cute meeting in a conference room, right? It’s about respecting sovereignty and legal treaty obligations. This project violates core rights of the Anishinaabe and other Indigenous communities whose lives and economies depend on those waters.

On geology and tunnel safety (Draft EIS Section 4.4, “Geology and Soils”):
The Straits are a geological nightmare. The Draft EIS basically admits it’s complicated — unstable bedrock, sediment disturbance, fracture risks. But the conclusion? “It’ll probably be fine.” That’s not science; that’s wishful thinking. You wouldn’t let your kid eat soup off the garage floor and call it “probably safe.” Why do it here?

On alternatives (Draft EIS Section 2.0, “Alternatives Including Proposed Action”):
The so-called “alternatives” barely consider a real future. There’s a half-hearted nod to renewable options, but no serious exploration. You act like not building this tunnel would collapse the universe. Meanwhile, the real alternative — investing in cleaner energy and transitioning off fossil fuels — gets about as much love as a soggy napkin.

Personal perspective (a.k.a. the “human” part):
I drink Great Lakes water. I swim in these lakes. I’d prefer my kids and grandkids not have to boil their tap water or move out because we turned their home into an oil disaster zone. My family depends on healthy tourism, fishing, and recreation economies — all of which go straight down the toilet with one spill.

Trade-offs? Let’s talk.
We’re always told we “need” oil for energy security. But the cost? Climate collapse, poisoned water, and obliterated Indigenous rights. Is that a trade-off you’d make for your own family? Probably not. So why force it on us?

Alternative suggestion:
Here’s a wild idea: take no action on the tunnel. Invest in strengthening renewable energy infrastructure instead. That’s cheaper long-term, aligns with climate commitments, and doesn’t risk drinking water for half the Midwest. You want resilience and economic stability? Build solar and wind. Upgrade the grid. Stop betting on aging pipes under the largest freshwater system in the world.

Final point:
The tunnel is an expensive distraction from the real work we need to do: get off fossil fuels before they get us all.

It’s absolutely wild that we even have to say this: No, you shouldn’t build a new oil tunnel under the largest source of freshwater in the world. But I guess that’s where we’re at — a world so dystopian that memes do more than logic, and we’re compelled to flip off billion-dollar corporations to defend something as basic as clean water.

The day the attached photo was taken, the sky was so full of wildfire smoke from Canada that you couldn’t even see the South Haven lighthouse from shore. You could literally taste climate change in the air while standing in water that this tunnel could destroy forever.

Michigan already ordered Line 5 shut down because it’s a ticking time bomb under the Great Lakes — but Enbridge keeps it running, buying time with lawyers and lobbyists while risking our water, our rights, and our future.

You have a choice: stand with people and the planet, or go down in history as the officials who let a foreign oil company gamble away 20% of the world’s fresh water for profit.

Shut it down. No tunnel. No more excuses. Thanks for sticking through my rant. NOW DO THE RIGHT THING.

I am writing in strong opposition to building a tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac for the Line 5 pipeline. Although the purported intent is admirable, this is not a safe or sustainable solution. The short-term impacts from use of heavy equipment, drilling, and excavation such as the release of drilling fluids, ground disturbance, loss of wetlands and forests, drawing down of groundwater aquifers, and contamination of water are reason enough not to pursue this tunnel, and the long-term impacts are even more concerning. This tunnel may also impinge upon tribal treaty rights. The stakes are extremely high — a huge region, over 40 million people rely on the Great Lakes for drinking water, not to mention fishing and recreation for locals and tourists. The economic impact for the entire region, as well as the environmental impact, could be catastrophic. We cannot take this lightly and we cannot forge ahead with this project lacking the confidence that we are protecting the Great Lakes and the surrounding communities.

Enbridge has a long and terrible history of accidents, spills, and insufficient cleanup, including the two biggest oil spills in United States history, as well as violations of regulations and cover ups. Further, the tunnel would be an explosion hazard due to the air inside — any small leak, even the size of a pinhole, which allows fumes into the chamber, could cause an explosion. The poor-quality rock the pipeline will travel through further exacerbates this issue and creates the possibility of a sinkhole opening which would be absolutely catastrophic not only for the Mackinac Straits, but for the entire Great Lakes region (https://news.umich.edu/line-5-and-its-risks-the-consequences-of-failure-would-be-catastrophic/).

The rush on this project means there hasn’t been time for adequate study of the viability, feasibility, and hazards, or for public comment. Enbridge hasn’t even done borings yet to confirm if the rock is solid or porous and the state’s consultants have stated there is insufficient research on the rock. We do not know if the tunnel can even successfully be built, let alone if it will be safe. While I appreciate that we are trying to address the current hazards of Line 5, we cannot just trade the current set of hazards for a different set that is equally terrible if not worse. We need a better, safer, more permanent solution to the hazards that Line 5 presents. Please do not proceed with the Line 5 tunnel. Thank you.

Line 5 should not be approved. Any failure of this line will be catastrophic and wreak unimaginable damage on the entire region which depends on the clean, fresh water of the Great Lakes for survival. There is no justification for this line other than greed. The fuel can be transported other ways more safely, and represents a decreasing need as the world turns to renewable energy. Look only to the safe and sustainable windmills that now line the straits. Shut down Line 5 immediately.

Without a comprehensive risk assessment, we have no idea what detrimental effects the Line 5 tunnel project will have on the environment and Michiganders’ health going forward. Why is this project being fast-tracked when the risks it poses to the Great Lakes are serious and evident? In addition to the risk of spillage, the ill effects of climate change are already being felt throughout our state with changing weather patterns that disrupt agriculture, smoke from forest fires, surges in pest populations and tick-borne diseases, and many other undesirable outcomes. This is no time to promote the further use of fossil fuels, which scientists almost unanimously agree are the primary driver behind global warming. Please do not approve this project!

I’m requesting an extension, because 30 days is not enough time for the public to review and respond to the roughly 1,000 pages of detailed technical information. Please provide the public an extension to review the materials and provide informed comment.

Hello, please allow more time for the public to review the environmental impact statement. It is needed for safe decisions to be made.
Thank you.