Supplemental Draft EIS Comments

To the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

I am submitting this comment to express my strong opposition to the proposed Line 5 tunnel and replacement pipeline across the Straits of Mackinac. After reviewing available information and considering the purpose and requirements of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process, it is my position that the risks associated with this project far outweigh any potential benefits.

1. The Straits of Mackinac Are One of the Most Sensitive and High-Risk Locations in North America
The Straits represent a unique hydrological system where powerful and rapidly shifting currents move water between Lakes Michigan and Huron. Multiple studies, including those commissioned by the State of Michigan, have shown that even a relatively small spill in this area could spread oil across vast areas of the Great Lakes in a matter of hours. No technology currently exists that can fully contain or remediate a deep-water spill under those conditions—particularly beneath ice cover during winter months.

2. Enbridge Has a Documented History of Major Safety Failures
Enbridge’s track record is well known. The 2010 Kalamazoo River spill remains one of the most costly inland oil disasters in U.S. history. This was not an unavoidable accident; federal investigators reported delayed response, pipeline monitoring failures, and operational negligence. It is difficult to justify permitting a new long-term pipeline project in one of the most environmentally critical areas on the continent when the applicant has repeatedly failed to demonstrate adequate operational safety.

3. The Tunnel Proposal Introduces New Environmental Risks Rather Than Eliminating Existing Ones
While proponents describe the tunnel as a “safer” alternative, the construction and long-term operation of a pipeline through a confined, hard-to-access underground structure introduces its own set of hazards:

Tunnel construction would disrupt aquatic habitat and lakebed stability.

The geology of the Straits is complex, and tunneling introduces seismic, groundwater, and structural risks that remain insufficiently understood.

An incident inside a tunnel—fire, explosion, leak—would be more difficult to detect, access, or mitigate.

The project locks the region into decades more fossil-fuel dependency at a time when viable alternatives exist.

An EIS must analyze not only the proposed project, but reasonable alternatives—including decommissioning, transitioning to modern energy infrastructure, and avoiding increased long-term risk to the Great Lakes.

4. The Great Lakes Are an Irreplaceable Public Resource
The Great Lakes provide drinking water to over 40 million people, support thousands of jobs in tourism and fishing, and are protected as one of the most valuable freshwater ecosystems in the world. The consequences of a spill are not merely environmental—they are economic, cultural, and generational.

Even a low-probability, high-impact event in this location would be catastrophic. No pipeline benefit can justify jeopardizing a resource of such magnitude.

5. Public Comment Shows Overwhelming Opposition
Recent public meetings have demonstrated significant and consistent concern from citizens, environmental experts, tribal nations, and community organizations. The strong public opposition reflects an understanding that the risks are real, the location is uniquely vulnerable, and alternatives exist that do not require endangering the Great Lakes.


Based on the substantial environmental risks, inadequate safety assurances, and available alternatives, I respectfully request that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:

Deny the permit for the proposed Line 5 tunnel project.

Require the decommissioning of the existing Line 5 pipeline through the Straits.

Prioritize protection of the Great Lakes consistent with the Corps’ obligations under NEPA, the Clean Water Act, and the public trust doctrine.

Protecting the Straits of Mackinac and the Great Lakes is a responsibility that extends far beyond the interests of any single corporation. These waters are essential to the people, economy, and ecology of our region. The safest pipeline under the Straits is no pipeline at all.

Thank you for considering this comment.

Respectfully submitted,
Scott Bates
8662 Mystic Pines Ct.
Pinckney, Mi. 48169

As a taxpayer, homeowner and seasonal resident, I am against the horizontal drilling proposal. It significantly adds to environmental impact including destruction of protected lands and recreational opportunities. Construction traffic and noise over a larger area for a long period of time is detrimental to quality of life. As a neuroscientist I am concerned about the neurological impact of constant noise and vibration in residential areas. A logical alternative is a Canadian route for oil coming from Canada on its way through Michigan back to Canada for the profit of a Canadian corporation.

Do not dirty our fresh water with your selfish greedy oil drilling crap. Or i will be pissed and i wont be alone.

And it was only the review of tunnel proposal that was indicated not drilling. Enbridge,has a bad reputation of drill accidents and spills we dont want it.

I live in Chicago. My fresh water comes from Lake Michigan. I oppose drilling under Lake Michigan. I oppose pipelines under Lake Michigan.

I have been following this project for the last 10 years. I remember learning more and more about it as the time passed....about very idea that a 70 year old pipeline still exists under the straits......waiting for a catastrophe to happen. The latest plan, offered by our own USACE, is not even one that is preferred by Enbridge. They still favor the tunnel!!!! All of these approaches put Michigan's environment at risk....one slip and the entire Great Lake system would be at peril....and Enbridge's record of repair with the Kalamazoo River and their Line 3 blunders, gives me a big headache. Do the right thing and shut down this operation...we, taxpayers of Michigan, will be on the hook for maintenance, etc. after this Canadian company completes construction. We can find a better way to supply the gas amount to the UP than one that threatens our whole state. Refuse these approaches and look at the way of the future with less reliance on fossil fuels.

I oppose the Enbridge pipeline across the Mackinaw Straits. Enbridge's failure to ensure safe operation of pipe lines is already documented . These are failures that should not be given a pass for whatever reason.
A leak in this location could have major consequences for the Great Lakes far beyond the straits. We've witnessed oil spills and the economic and enviromental results.

Enbridge has a miserable record for pipeline disasters involving Michigan waters and puts its profit motive over the need to preserve the environment and the well-being of Michigan citizens. It must not be allowed to continue to jeopardize the waters of the Great Lakes State. Please, do not permit their tunnel project to be a threat to the Straits of Mackinaw.

I oppose the drilling plan under the Great Lakes! Water is too precise a resource to squander. The company behind Line 5, Enbridge, has a history of drilling accidents and spills. If something goes wrong under the Straits, oil could spread quickly into two Great Lakes at once. And Michigan taxpayers — not the company — would be left with the damage.

Building this tunnel is just a bad idea. Enbridge Energy has not been a transparent operator and the pipeline should be shut down as it is not safe for the lake. Water is a valuable resource not to be taken lightly and the pipeline should be decommissioned sooner than later. Given the comments at the hearing were predominately against this option and the pipeline itself and those that may be most affected are the people around the lake the application must be denied.

We need to save the Great Lakes from future oil spills, and to honor Indigenous land rights and our Mother Earth. Water is Life (we can't drink fossil oil). I support a complete and permanent shutdown of Line 5. There should be no tunnel, no reroute and no new fossil fuel infrastructure. I hear that Michigan will own the tunnel, and inherit up to $45 billion in taxpayer risk. This is unacceptable. Please do not allow this tunnel, rerouting, or new fossil fuel infrastructure. The earth depends on us.