Supplemental Draft EIS Comments

An oil tunnel through the public bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac won’t protect the Great Lakes from a 645-mile long, 73-year-old Line 5 crude oil pipeline that has leaked at least 33 times into Michigan's environment. Even when its oil isn't spilling into the water, it adds to our climate crisis when burned by spilling carbon into the atmosphere every day. The time to end the threat of a catastrophic oil pipeline rupture is now. Instead of leaving a vulnerable and hazardous oil pipeline operating in the Mackinac Straits for years while trusting a dishonest Enbridge to protect the Great Lakes, I support your action to revoke the Line 5 easement and urge you to prevent an oil tunnel from being constructed. I oppose the drilling plan under the great lakes.

I strongly oppose the Line 5 oil pipeline project that would drill in the narrow waterway where Lake Michigan and Lake Huron meet. The risk of an oil spill or damage in our Great Lakes would be catastrophic.

I implore you to honestly look at the complete longterm effects of replacing the Line 5 tunnel in any way.

Have we learned nothing from the past?

Its not just that Enbridge as a company has a terrible track record with leaks/damage in the pipelines they currently make use of.

If we determine there is indeed a necessity to keep the oil flowing in this general direction there are safer ways to do it---its hard to fathom that it was ever a good idea to place an oil pipeline underneath the Straits, where ANY kind of leak or damage would have terrible consequences, long and short term.

Disastrous consequences not simply or only for Michigan or Ontario, but the entire larger biosystem that relies on the healthy water of the Great Lakes, for life, recreation, food, fishing, tourism, economy.

Surely we are beyond simply replacing a questionable idea with something similar, or believing that putting it underground is an improvement on that.

This is much more than an engineering challenge to be met.

Its about all of our future---.Michigan, Ontario, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and outward.

Just because something may be possible to do as an engineering feat doesnt mean that it is wise to.

What do you want your legacy to be?

What about future generations?

I am totally opposed to this proposal to use horizontal drilling in the Great Lakes. I do not even understand why this is even an option now when Enbridge reported in their June 15, 2018 study that Horizontal directional drilling is Not feasible!

Horizontal directional drilling
• Several HDD options were considered but all were determined to be not technically feasible,
so the HDD alternative was withdrawn from consideration. Reasons included: the 30-inch
diameter of the pipe required; the hard characteristics of the subsurface rock (dolomite
and limestone); and the length of the drill required, which would be more than double any
comparable crossing that has been completed to date.

What has changed since 2018?? Are they requesting this now because there is so much pushback to the building of a tunnel?

The bottom line is that NOTHING Enbridge wants to do is economically or environmentally advantageous to those of us who live in this great state and LOVE the Great Lakes. Say NO to this latest request!!!!

Michelle Greko
Alpena, Michigan

This pipeline never should have been approved in the first place! 30 years past its life expectancy, it surely must be decommissioned!

This is incredibly short sighted and dangerous! We cannot risk irreplaceable natural resources to transport oil and gas which can easily be transported through other pipelines! Do not risk our precious water - far more precious than oil or gas! -or the natural beauty of our treasured state!

To Whom It May Concern:

I would like to start by thanking the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the chance to comment on the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS), and ask that you extend the comment periods and offer more widespread public notice for this and other cases.

I also thank the USACE for expanding the scope of the risk assessment from May's DEIS for the Line 5 Tunnel. Examples include factoring in critical habitats suitable for Michigan's endangered and threatened species into the SDEIS (USACE, 2025, November, pp. 3-19-22, Tbl. 3.5-2 and pp. 4-34-35, Tbl. 4.5-3), citing risk of geologic hazards and Karst formations (ibid., p. 3-26 and pp. 4-44-46), and the prospect of hazardous gas pockets (ibid., p. 4-86, Tbl. 4.14-1).

That said, this plan raises as many concerns as the tunnel, or the continued existence of the dual Straits pipelines, if not more. As a disclaimer, I will state I am not an engineering expert. On that note, however, the USACE previously dismissed valid concerns about whether installing anchor braces for the original pipeline, designed to rest on the lakebed and with flexibility to adapt to the Straits' unpredictable currents, would cause more help or harm on grounds of the speakers lacking engineering expertise. The braces turned out to exacerbate structural damage to the pipeline from another anchor strike in 2020 (Gravelle, in Groundwork, 2025, 38:32-40:36). Therefore, I hope you will see all concerns as worth heeding, not just those in line with your interests and views.

I stand with the intervening parties' questioning the applicant's sudden interest in this option, given how much time and effort they had previously spent seeking permits for the tunnel, and whether the Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) attempt will be any less harmful than their prior expansion attempt of Minnesota's Line 3 (Doll, 2022). Regardless of any question of how valid the applicant's promises of improved HDD technology and Best Management Practices are, there is no denying that should ruptures, explosions, collapses or other hazards occur, in either this new option, the tunnel, or the continued pipelines, the State of Michigan would be held responsible for repairs and cleanup, even though the applicant's base in Sarnia receives much of the product Line 5 transports. Therefore, in this case, as with the previous DEIS, I urge you to make the following decision:
If the applicant insists on proceeding with any of their favored options, that they shoulder the responsibility for holding to best management practices, fund any repairs, cleanup and restoration, and work in line with recommendations of those who depend on the impaired waters, ecosystems, archaeological areas, etc.
If the applicant contests the feasibility of the above, then join with the intervening states and groups in withdrawing permission from the projects, and insisting on decommissioning the pipelines.
Thank you for your time and consideration.

Works Cited enclosed in attachment

I am writing to urge you to deny Enbridge's permit application for the Line 5 tunnel and protect Michigan taxpayers from billions in financial risk.

I request that you

1. Complete a comprehensive review of the tunnel project's full environmental, economic, and financial impacts before making any decision. No Michigan agency has yet completed such a review.

2. Address the explicit warnings from Michigan's Attorney General and Department of Natural Resources about the severe financial risks this project poses to taxpayers. Their concerns about inadequate liability protection and the ownership structure cannot be ignored.

3. Reject this permit. The tunnel would transfer catastrophic financial risk to Michigan taxpayers while Enbridge profits. With insurance covering less than 4% of potential damages and Michigan slated to own the infrastructure, this is a bad deal for our state.

Michigan families should not be left holding the bill for Enbridge's profits. I'm counting on you to make the right decision and deny this permit.

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. This would leave Michigan taxpayers with the damage. Line 5 oil pipeline project is a safety risk to the water, and citizens and should not be supported.

I am writing to declare my opposition to the Line 5 Tunnel and the granting of a permit for this project as originally proposed and the alternative HDD. I believe Line 5 should be decomissioned and under no circumstances should an oil line be drilled beneath the Straits of Macinac.

There are many reasons to deny this permit:

*the history of Enbridge in providing oil via lines is full of spills and environmental damage
*the construction proposal will have serious negative environmental impacts on the region
*the bedrock where the pipeline is proposed is not adequate for such a project based on scientific studies and will most likely result in spills
*putting water and food resources at risk is unconscionable
*the pipeline currently traverses multiple tribes ancestral lands illegally and without their approval, should never be considered

The only option is to decommission Line 3 and to deny any and all permits for Line 5.

Sincerely,

Rob Morrison