Posted Draft EIS Comments

The line 5 project is far too risky and jeopardizes the largest fresh water supply in the United States, and could jeopardize the health and safety of all who rely on the Great Lakes for water. Please do not approve this project, fir these reasons. The Enbridge project in Marshall, Michigan recently had a spill, it is far too risky to allow the Line 5 project to create a catastrophic event directly impacting the Great Lakes.

The fasttrack of the Line 5 Tunnel Project moves our state and nation in the wrong direction. Not only does it encourage continued reliance on burning fuel that accelerates climate change, it poses a substantial risk to our most valuable resource, our beautiful lakes and the water they provide for so many residents. It is a critical decision that will have impacts that last for generations. Fast tracking the approval process for something of such critical importance is a mistake. We need to have a full and public review process and allow all stakeholders to contemplate the benefits, costs, and risks before moving forward.

I will keep this under 100 words.

You all know the known risks but all it takes is one mistake now or in the future with this project to surface for serious, long term negative impacts to the citizenry of the Great Lakes region in the USA and Canada. Any analysis can easily be wrong when we take into account black swan events.

Short-term “easy” solutions are not the correct way forward and are an indignity to every American who was, is, and will be.

I urge this project be stopped.

The 30-day comment period and the compressed NEPA timeline have no justification in science. They are predicated upon a bogus “energy emergency” declaration by the president, for which he has offered no scientific reasons. USACE has a duty to follow the law, and should at least acknowledge in its record of decision that a meaningful EIS of the Line 5 Tunnel proposal cannot be accomplished under these circumstances, even if USACE is compelled to reach a “decision” under pressure from the executive branch.

The great lakes are one of the most important sources of fresh water in the world. Line 5, while important to the infrastructure of the United States, is a risk to the fresh water in the great lakes. Building a tunnel is just one of many options to avoid polluting the great leaks should it leak, not it is not the most effective option at motivating the risk; it is the cheapest and most convenient to the energy provider. Shutting down line 5 would prevent any risk to the great lakes and their native fishing waters, drinking water, and recreation opportunities for millions of Americans and Canadians. The alternatives, while more expensive, would provide a greater mitigation of risk to the environment, economies, and health of the state of Michigan, as well as all the states and provinces that border the great lakes.

Please pause all approvals until a full environmental review is completed—including assessments of climate impacts, Indigenous rights, and public health. I do not support Enbridge’s Line 5 project.

When a man who worked on the Chunnel build drives 250 miles to make comments against the practicality and viability of the Line 5 tunnel project, it is wise to listen.

The Line 5 tunnel project is a boondoggle for the taxpayers of the State of Michigan.

It is a threat to the environment.

It is a threat to fishing, tourism and other businesses in the Great Lakes water shed.

It is a threat to residents. No insurance or assurance is given regarding property damage due to the build process or due to any accident- including leaks and explosions from the tunnel project.
(Kalamazoo is still polluted from the 2010 spill. Embridge is responsible for some of the worst oil spills and has a deplorable record regarding clean up and compensation for these spills).

What compensation can be offered for something as priceless as the Great Lakes freshwater water shed.

The noise and disruption from the build will disturb residents and wildlife.

There are treaty issues.

There are concerns with a foreign company putting such an environmental risk and tax burden on Michigan residents.

There are no benefits from the tunnel project to the taxpayers in Michigan – only risk and costs

Not building the Line 5 tunnel AND decommissioning the Line 5 pipeline is the alternative Michgan taxpayers have supported for many years.

Communities around an oil line build experience more violence and crime. Native women are especially vulnerable. Rape and murder are huge concerns.

There is evidence of native artifacts along the site of the planned tunnel build.

The land for easements do not belong to Embridge.

The land above and below the water are subject to many environmental stresses that the tunnel cannot withstand (see the Chunnel comment from the St. Ignace Army Corps of Engineers open comment meeting).

The tunnel design has flaws. Access is limited. Emergency plans are incomplete. The potential for electrical sparks from static electricity is high. There is not enough space within the tunnel for proper maintenance.

Building the tunnel would destroy the beauty of the area and disrupt the surrounding ecosystems.

Security for the tunnel would ruin the natural beauty of the area. There are already too many bright lights and buildings obstructing scenic views. Light pollution is obstructing the night skies.

These points are all well documented. Michigan taxpayers have rejected this project many times over. To proceed without a thorough environmental impact assessment goes against the will of the residents.

I live Wisconsin. I know that Line 5 has left a death-affirming trail all the way across Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. A trail of dishonesty.
Reports have not given Line 5 safety verification. A trail of disrespect: one group after another has been rubbed in the mud. Disrespect of towns
through lies. Dangerous disrespect of Native Americans. A trail of danger: spill, spill, spill. But of course the tunnel under the lake has been hailed
as safe. All lies. One only needs to remember the danger of the Kalamazoo spill to see how much danger there really is. Permits to finish this pipe
line should be issued. Period.

Any leak during construction will affect at least three and possibly four of the Great Lakes and the St Lawrence Seaway cleanup would be impossible.

I am writing to object to building a tunnel under the waters of the Straits of Mackinac. I vehementy oppose the US Army Corps of Engineers fast-tracking the approval for that project because of a sham energy emergency. The rush does not allow for a thorough risk risk assessment. Tribes & indigenous communities have not been adequately consulted & there are treaties that must be honored. 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. It is my understanding that in an oil spill typically only 20% of the spill is actually cleaned up. This is an unacceptable risk. Please protect the waters of the Great Lakes for future generations.