Supplemental Draft EIS Comments

Great concern about the impact on the recreational areas such as Headlands, McG lighthouse and shoreline.
Do not agree with the recent proposal to construct the pipeline on a 4 mile/80 foot wide swath on the south side of the Straits.
The impact on the Headlands, French Farm, and forest lands to the south would have generational negative impact and dramatically affect tourism which contributes economic well-being of the area.
A better choice would be on the north side of the straits where impacts would be less detrimental to the general public and tourism.

The EIS for the line 5 replacement project is unacceptable. By allowing the HDD project, the Great Lakes are being put at risk, as it’s not a question of if but when the tunnels leak. This is a foreign company that can do expensive harm to biological life and the quality of the lakes for generations to come. I urge you to not grant Enbridge the supplemental EIS for the line 5 replacement project. The citizens of the Great Lake do not want this.

This proposal from Enbridge is blatantly absurd and clearly only being offered to make the tunnel proposal more palatable by comparison. It is patently impossible that Enbridge could complete the entire crossing under the Straits of Mackinac using HDD, they could hardly complete a small stream crossing here for the Line 3 replacement without frac-outs and ongoing damage to the Mississippi Headwaters region, it's absolutely ridiculous to think this could work without disaster for the Great Lakes.

Dear Army Corps of Engineers,

Where I understand this is most specific to the HDD alternative, the project as a whole needs to be denied. This late alternative is an example as it's reasoning that "technology is now available." HDD has been available for a while but not the desired method, hence, it was not added earlier in the process. Technology exists that shows specifically that Line 5 is no longer needed but that will be withheld as Enbridge wants to build the project for their own financial future. Any project that puts even the smallest risk to destroying the great lakes is in fact a threat to our national security as the great lakes is the largest fresh water resources in the world. For that reason alone, the only alternative is the denial of any permit that would allow crude oil in the Straits.
Much like the problem with the Tunnel, HDD comes with a slew of problems. The continued vibrations of the drill will affect sea life. The Great Lakes are already up 2 degrees, which has been not just detrimental to the whitefish population but heading towards extinction. Continuous drilling will continue to heat the great lakes destroying the whole eco-system.

Most frack-outs (Inadvertent Returns or IRs) are seen through visual inspection. Yet there will be no ability to visually inspect. A company could notice through the return but even though technology, or really just common sense, could tell when the drilling fluid is not being returned. But loss of drilling fluid underground is not regulated. Therefore, drilling fluid could be lost for days while drilling and even though technology exists to understand and study underground loss, it is ignored.

There are ongoing court cases including Nessel v Enbridge and Bad River v Enbridge that should also be noted. In Nessel v Enbridge, it is being argued that any crude oil moving through the great lakes is a violation of the Public Trust. Which is because it threatens our national security. It has been confirmed in Bad River v Enbridge that they have been trespassing since 2013. At a Federal level. That in itself is grounds for debarment. Enbridge should not be allowed to even ask for new permits while they are in fact active criminal actors.

As sad as it is to admit this, the reality is. In 1953, tribes were not consulted. Tribal members were still considered savages. And the goal was to eradicate all tribal heritage. Just because Line 5 was installed in 1953, does it mean that that it was a good idea nor to be used for the next 100s of years. Technology has changed as this supplement shows. We are lucky that it has not burst yet. That doesn’t mean we should count on luck.
The ”emergency order” is also a sham as the United States has become the largest exporter of crude oil in the world. So what then is the emergency? And do we/you have any choice? A lessor of 2 evils is not actually a choice. If the Army Corps of Engineers is not able to deny this permit, the only responsible thing to do is speak up about it. This oil isn’t even from the US or for the US.

Drilling through the straits will demolish the structure of the breccia. Long term effects are unimaginable. An imaginable effect is the destruction of the Mackinaw Bridge.

The only correct and honest environmental impact assessment is that any construction of HDD or a Tunnel would be destructive to the great lakes and that the environment costs far out way the benefit. To destroy something that took over a millennia to create in a couple of years would be irresponsible.

Thank you for your consideration.

Matthew S. Borke
45140 Patrick Dr.
Canton Mi. 48187

If someone asked generally whether it was a good idea to put a giant horizontal drill to force a massive oil pipeline under the bedrock of the narrow Straits gatewaying the world's largest source of freshwater during a climate catastrophe--common sense would dictate that the answer should automatically be "hell no."

More specifically, I find a lot of considerations missing from this draft EIS, I am disturbed to see the USACE consider the HDD Installation Alternative, I am disturbed by the USACE's rushed and politically motivated approval of the permits they've approved so far, and I am strongly against any construction of new Enbridge pipelines. I am speaking as a graduating student of Princeton's Masters in Public Policy program, a former employee of Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition and the Department of Energy, a climate organizer, a researcher on environmental justice impacts of oil pipelines, and a Michigander fighting for the future of our state. I will first speak on the scope of the EIS, then the missing impact analyses, and a critique of the impact measurements that do exist.

The solution is not to extend the lifeline of fossil fuels and Frankenstein pipelines in the Great Lakes, but to transition away from fossil fuels using a railway-based alternative that can be phased out over time as we reduce dependence on propane (impossible with an oil pipeline which locks us in to a level of consumption over time). This report only compares various pipeline plans when a 2023 PLG Report and a 2025 Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis both recommend shuttering any Line 5 pipeline completely with this rail-based alternative. The scope and alternatives considered by the EIS are far too narrow and take it for granted there simply must be an oil pipeline in the Straits, which is an absurd assumption. This is not the trolley problem: the option to simply hit the brakes or take a track with no people strapped to it exists.

Second, this report omits any EIS analysis on 1) the impacts of extending the lifeline of fossil fuel emmissions in the context of climate change, which is set to put global temperature increases beyond a catastrophic 3C warming and displace and kill millions to billions of people globally, 2) the opposition of all Michigan's Tribal nations to this pipeline and its violation of Treaty Rights, 4) the specific detrimental impacts to vegetation and aquatic life that fall under those Treaty Rights, such as wild rice harvesting and sturgeon fishing, 5) and the reliability and safety of the pipeline long-term in the event of a rupture (estimates put the cost to Michigan at $2billion and possible damage to over 700 miles of shoreline).

The existing EIS is also grossly underestimating the impacts of the pipeline:
-- In analyzing the duration of these impacts, they estimate "during construction" to be 2-3 years--even though other Enbridge reroutes have gone far longer beyond their projected conclusion date.
--In analyzing the duration of impacts to land use, biological resources, environmental resources, and socioeconomics, they estimate impacts are short-term during construction. But you can't just clear an ecosystem, destroy the shoreline, devastate fishing and tourism industries, and expect them to snap back the minute construction is over. Regrowth of forests takes decades--and without their regrowth the other aspects of ecosystem and local economies can't recover.
--Impacts to ecosystems do not consider whatsoever the destruction of wild rice (manoomin) harvests which will take decades to recover (if ever), are sacred lifeways for Ojibwe peoples, a vital food source, and protected by Treaty Rights.
--Moreover, while cultural sites are mentioned generally, it is not specified that Indigenous cultural sites fall under Treaty Rights and there is no way to "mitigate" the harm of destroying thousands of years of history, in the context of ongoing colonialism, while blatantly ignoring the rights and wishes of the living Tribal nations.
--Impacts to tourism and fishing industries are grossly underestimated. First, impacts to noise and air pollution are generally underestimated. For example, Enbridge claims that there will be no impact to night sky viewing in Dark Sky Park and minimal noise damage. At Line 3, bright lights shone almost 24/7 on construction sites, obliterating night sky viewing, while the constant shrieking noise of the drill echoed for miles. That wasn't drilling through bedrock. Tourism and fishing on the Greak Lakes generate $52 billion annually. How many billions will this cost over 2-6 years? And economies don't just snap back overnight.
--The stakes of an oil spill are not addressed. The worst-case-scenario is SO devastating it is immeasurable.
--Reliability and Safety considerations don't consider the constant safety violations documented on Enbridge's Line 3 and Line 6 spills. We should analyze how many times Enbridge has promised things wouldn't occur, that then did occur, during and after construction.
--The estimates on surface and groundwater impacts do not mention chemicals like benzine, which can't easily be cleaned up *ever* particularly during the cold months when freezing will occur. This toxin was released during Line 3 frackouts that violated Enbridge's easement in Minnesota, and can permanently poison drinking water, soil, and animals and results in cancers and other serious sicknesses.

Ultimately, this is not the time to be handing out free-for-all passes to corporate abusers like Enbridge. This is not the time to consider environmental impacts myopically, and suddenly approve dangerous and unproven technology like the HDD Installation. The Greak Lakes are not the place for a mad scientist to run experiments under the bedrock. Michiganders are not the lab rats of the Army Corps of Engineers or Enbridge or the federal government. You can't drink oil. But 30 million Americans drink from these precious waters. It's time to consider the big picture--of climate change, of Enbridge's abusive company history, of freshwater, of our Lakes, and of the future of our economy and the real, phase-out alternatives that exist.

I am against line 5 and feel as though it would directly negatively effect future generations, fresh water security, amongst many other good and valid reasons. Please stop

As a citizen of the United States, lifelong resident of Michigan, frequent visitor to the Tip of the Mitt (Lower Peninsula), and respecter of tribal treaty rights, I have deep and abiding interest in the preservation of the cultural, environmental, economic, and social benefits provided by the waters of the Straits of Mackinac and the land and ecosystems associated with them to all the people of the Great Lakes.

Enbridge Energy’s Line 5 presents a grave threat to the integrity of this entire region, currently at risk of catastrophic and irreversible harm should a major rupture of Line 5 occur underwater. For the past five years, since Governor Whitmer revoked the easement authorizing Enbridge to operate the dual pipelines currently conveying over 20 million gallons of fossil fuel products daily across the Straits, the pipeline company has fought to continue operating the pipeline despite the near-misses we have already experienced from a poorly-maintained system that is long past its expected service life.

Concurrently, ever since the deal reached at the end of 2018 between outgoing Michigan Governor Snyder and Enbridge Energy, proposals related to the construction of some sort of alternative method of conveyance of fossil fuel products across the Straits of Mackinac have been subject to review by many public agencies, including the US ACE, that are allegedly empowered to protect the public’s interest on a variety of grounds.

Now you, the US ACE, are presenting a new alternative, one that Enbridge itself rejected as implausible and impractical several years ago.

I must concur with the observations of experts in the field who argue that this whole deal smells fishy, and not in an appetizing way.

The EIS review process for the tunnel was already compromised due to its artificially-restricted scope. This new proposal offers no substantial reassurance that the review of this alternative design (using horizontal directional drilling to create a borehole for the pipeline) will proceed in a conscientious manner, given the haste with which the whole process is unfolding. There’s been insufficient notice, inadequate time for response, and incomplete information provided to us.

If there were genuine benefits to be had from either the original tunnel proposal or this last-minute suggestion, objections from the general public, hydrologists, ecologists, recreational users of the Straits, and–most importantly, given the history of the region–the Tribal nations seeking to uphold their treaty rights to hunt and fish would not have continued and indeed increased in these intervening years.

The ongoing attempt to legitimize any alternative method of transmitting massive quantities of fossil fuel products across the precious and unique Straits of Mackinac defies common sense. It ignores the inexorable consequences of maintaining an energy system relying almost entirely on the burning of fossil fuels. It violates treaty rights that should take priority over these decisions. It dodges accountability for the ongoing risk presented by the daily operation of the dual pipelines in their current state. It ignores the inexorable consequences of maintaining an energy system relying almost entirely on the burning of fossil fuels. Approval of expensive and unproven infrastructure of any sort to perpetuate this system is a waste of time, money, and resources that should be devoted instead to shutting down Line 5 permanently. I urge rejection of this alternative.

I firmly oppose this pipeline. It will devastate Michigan's ecosystem and indigenous land. We need to look into fossil fuel alternatives instead. Let's protect the future of our children!

As a 79-year summer resident on the Straits of Mackinac, I am appalled that a new proposal by Enbridge for a tunnel to carry oil under the Great Lakes Enbridge is being considered. The company has no experience in this sort of construction. Too much is at stake to allow them to proceed. The clean water of the Great Lakes is a precious resource that would be threatened should an accident occur, along with the wildlife that depends on this environment. Moreover, the disruption of the lakebed would destroy valuable ancient man-made structures that were only recently discovered under the Straits, and that have religious significance for the indigenous peoples and scientific importance for anthropologists, who have not had time to study them. This tunnnel—and the pipeline it is intended to replace—would not benefit the United States, only Canada, where it begins and ends. I think the current aged pipeline should be closed down and not replaced by either a tunnel or a pipeline. Let Enbridge build its pipeline or tunnel in Canada, across dry land. The risks to the Great Lakes are too great to allow the Enbridge proposal to be accepted.

Hello,

As a life long Michigan resident, I cherish our state’s abundant natural resources. I am writing to greatly oppose the line 5 tunnel for the extreme threat it would cause to the environment of the Great Lakes. A leak in this tunnel would also drastically negatively impact Great Lakes tourism, property values, and overall state revenue. I urge lawmakers to do everything in their power to stop the construction of this tunnel as it threatens life itself for our great state.

Sincerely,
Trevor Drost