Supplemental Draft EIS Comments

Dear U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Please stop Enbridge from threatening the Great Lakes and 20% of the freshwater in the world! No matter all the details, all the obfuscation, all the promises - the threats and costs are too great! What are you waiting for to say this bottom line? The water eventually goes to Canada too!

Line 5 should be shut down and the proposed tunnel violates treaty rights and puts at high risk 20% of the world‘s freshwater along with Michigan economy! This is not debatable. Competitors have stated they can easily pick up the volume from line 5. Enbridge making $1.8 million per day should not be a reason to keep this line open and horizontal drilling is just a bait and switch. Please we need you to do your job and shut down line 5, and stop the tunnel.

I am very much opposed to the installation of a replacement pipeline segment under the bed of the Straits of Mackinac by horizontal directional drilling. This directional installation alternative puts our Great Lakes in danger of pollution, will be disruptive to the surrounding environment, and if there is any sort of breakage of this pipeline will cause lasting damage to our Great Lakes. Please do not approve its installation. It is easy to assure us that nothing bad will happen...then when some damage does occur we'll be told, "Oh, we are so sorry. We did not anticipate this would happen."
You have the research that shows this is not a safe thing to do...so, DON'T VOTE TO PERMIT THIS ACTION!! DON'T PUT MICHIGAN WATERS IN DANGER. KEEP OUR FRESH WATERS SAFE.

Please stop the Enbridge projects, its is crucial to take care of Lake Superior and all people living nearby. Enbridge is there for the money and cares little for nature and the lakes

I am very concerned about this project and the possible effects it could have on our quality of water. Oil and water don"t mix. Even a small leak would be devastating to our water and we, as Michigan residents, would be on the hook for consequences and costs. Please vote NO on this project.

The USACE should kill this project and make Enbridge start over on the EIS. This is clearly a Bait and Switch tactic and does not follow due process. Enbridge's bad track record using fracking with Line 3 shows that this approach is not realistic. They are just trying to get the project approved and then will make more changes to the project that will endanger the Great Lakes and the water supplies and public health of Michigan, Ontario, and other downstream areas.
Michigan taxpayers should not be forced to carry all the risk for Enbridge, a foreign corporation. They have to be held accountable.

THIS IS A BAIT AND SWITCH BY ENBRIDGE AND THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AFTER FOCUSING ON THE TUNNEL FOR YEARS. ENBRIDGE CANNOT SAFELY PERFORM HDD DRILLING IN THE STRAITS OF MACKINAC, THEIR TRACK RECORD OF FRAC-OUTS IN THEIR LINE 3
EXPANSION PROJECT DEMONSTRATES THIS. THIS PROJECT STILL FORCES MICHIGAN TAXPAYERS TO CARRY ALL THE RISK FOR A FOREIGN CORPORATION.

Dear Members of the Review Board,
I am writing to urge you to reject the current EIS for the Line 5 Tunnel Project — and to deny the permits that would allow construction — because the proposal fails to meet the environmental, geological, cultural, and long-term public-interest standards that protect the Great Lakes, Michigan communities, and future generations. My reasons are:
1. Unacceptable environmental risk to the Great Lakes.
The Straits of Mackinac — where the tunnel would be bored — is among the most ecologically sensitive freshwater regions in North America. A catastrophic failure (e.g., a spill, leak, or structural collapse) would threaten not only water quality, but fisheries, wetlands, wildlife, recreation, local economies, and the drinking water of millions.
(thealpenanews.com)

The proposed tunnel does not eliminate broader risks associated with the rest of Line 5 Pipeline, which crosses hundreds of waterways, wetlands, and sensitive ecosystems in Michigan. The tunnel project therefore only locks in — rather than resolves — long-term fossil-fuel infrastructure and spill risk.
(Oilfield Workers)

2. Inadequate geological and safety analysis.
Independent experts have raised serious concerns about the geological suitability of the proposed tunnel route. According to one reviewer, the rock core samples beneath the Straits appear of “poor quality,” and fundamental geotechnical practices — such as thorough core drilling and multiple-phase analysis to identify voids, faults, or unstable rock — were not adequately carried out.
(Michigan Advance)
Without fully understanding the subterranean conditions, the risk of collapse, leaks, or other failures is unacceptably high. For a project of this scale and potential impact, proceeding without exhaustive geological investigation fails to meet basic engineering and environmental standards.
(Michigan Advance)

3. Failure to account for climate, long-term public interest, and alternatives.
The draft EIS does not include a meaningful analysis of greenhouse gas emissions, climate impacts, or how building new fossil-fuel infrastructure fits into long-term climate and sustainability goals. This omission undercuts the project’s legitimacy in an era of urgent climate crisis.
(Michigan Advance)
By extending the life of Line 5, the tunnel delays or discourages needed investment in clean and renewable energy alternatives — investments that would support sustainable energy, public health, and climate resilience over the long term.
(Oilfield Workers)

4. Threat to Indigenous rights, cultural heritage, and public trust.
The Straits of Mackinac are part of treaty-protected waters and lands for Indigenous communities. The tunnel project threatens fish, burial sites, sacred waters, and traditional livelihoods (fishing, gathering, hunting) that depend on the health and integrity of the Lakes.
(Michigan Public)
(Earthjustice)
The regulatory and permitting process — including the EIS review — appears insufficient to fully respect or safeguard cultural, tribal, and public-trust interests. Given the irreversible potential damage, the burden of proof must be high; this project has not demonstrated that it meets that burden.
(Michigan Public)

5. Unacceptable financial and public liability.
According to recent reporting, the construction agreement envisions that ownership of the tunnel could transfer to the State of Michigan (or a public authority) after completion, meaning that if something goes wrong — collapse, spill, environmental damage — public funds (taxpayer dollars) could be used for cleanup, remediation, water-system repairs, tourism losses, and public health emergencies.
(910News.com)

The legacy costs and risks far outweigh any purported benefits, especially when safe renewable-energy alternatives exist.

6. The project fails to meet the standard of “no more than minimal impact” required by law.
Under the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act (and associated public-trust doctrines), any use of submerged lands must “result in no more than minimal impact” on public waters, ecosystems, and community resources. Because the proposed tunnel carries significant risks of disastrous consequences, it fails this fundamental threshold.
(WCMU Public Radio)
(Michigan Public)

Given these risks — environmental, geological, cultural, fiscal — approving the tunnel would erode the safeguards meant to protect the Great Lakes, and set a dangerous precedent for future extractive infrastructure.

Conclusion and Request
Given the serious shortcomings in environmental protection, geological safety, climate accountability, tribal and public-trust interests, and long-term fiscal liability, I urge EGLE and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to deny the permits and reject the current EIS for the Line 5 Tunnel Project.

Sincerely,
Adriana Jarrett

I have serious concerns about the Line 5 project. Enbridge is a foreign company with a demonstrated track record of failures in pipeline operation. There have been over 1,000 pipeline spills recorded between 1999 and 2013, with over 7 million gallons of oil spilled. The Straits of Mackinac are a very sensitive location, being the gateway to the lower Great Lakes. An oil spill here would be catastrophic and pose a risk to Lakes Michigan and Huron, a hugely important source of fresh water. The current aging Line 5 is already a threat and I believe needs to be shut down, and allowing this company to build a tunnel for another pipeline is a terrible idea that will end in disaster.

Pipeline leaks are rare occurrences. That means they happen. Until a rupture damage assessment and mitigation costs are studied the cost benefit of this project cannot be determined. Who is liable for damages? To many questions left unanswered. This project should not move forward.