Supplemental Draft EIS Comments

EIS
I am submitting this comment to express my strong opposition to the Line 5 Tunnel Project as outlined in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). After reviewing the project information, I believe the EIS fails to fully address several significant concerns that directly affect environmental health, community well-being, and long-term regional sustainability.
Environmental Impact
The EIS does not adequately account for the broader environmental risks associated with continuing to transport fossil fuels through the Great Lakes region. The long-term threat of spills, leaks, and groundwater contamination—whether during construction or operation—poses unacceptable dangers to the Great Lakes ecosystem. Even low-probability events could have severe consequences given the ecological sensitivity and economic importance of the area. The EIS should more thoroughly analyze these risks and consider safer, sustainable alternatives.
Deforestation and Habitat Loss
Construction of the tunnel and associated infrastructure will require clearing vegetation, removing trees, and disrupting existing wildlife habitat. The EIS lacks a detailed assessment of how this deforestation will affect biodiversity, migratory routes, and sensitive species that depend on intact ecosystems. Reducing forest cover also weakens natural carbon sequestration and increases the likelihood of erosion and runoff, further harming nearby waterways.
Air Quality Concerns
The EIS underestimates the air quality impacts associated with heavy construction equipment, material transport, and increased vehicle traffic. Particulate matter, diesel exhaust, and other emissions generated during construction will affect both workers and nearby communities. The proposed mitigation measures are vague and do not ensure that air quality degradation will be prevented throughout the construction period.
Noise Pollution
Noise generated by tunneling, drilling, blasting, and continuous vehicle movement will create sustained disturbances for residents, wildlife, and recreational users of the area. The EIS does not provide a clear plan for monitoring or limiting noise impacts, nor does it sufficiently address the cumulative effects on wildlife behavior and human health.
Conclusion
For these reasons—environmental risk, deforestation, air quality degradation, and noise impacts—I urge the responsible agencies to reject the current Line 5 Tunnel proposal and require a more comprehensive evaluation that prioritizes ecological protection and public health.
Thank you for considering my comment.

The Enbridge corporation has never filled me with confidence. Neither has the Enbridge subsidiary that is aggressively and hurriedly pushing for tar sand oil products flowing beneath the Straits of Mackinac.
Enbridge, after all these years, has done an insufficient number of rock core samples along the projected route for their drilling. The core samples were shallow. The industry standard is for a core sample every 50-200 feet. By its own report, Enbridge did not do that. Even Enbridge had to admit that their core samples found 25% of the rock beneath the Straits to be very poor and another 25% to be poor. Their personnel are taking significant shortcuts and hoping naively for the best.
An undetected methane leak caused the massive explosion beneath the Lake Huron bed in 1971 that killed 22 skilled workers. Methane has been detected in groundwater in the Straits region; Enbridge has chosen to not recognize that (as in, hoping it doesn’t happen).
Enbridge contractors severely damaged their own pipeline supports in 2019 (on the Lake Michigan bed) but failed to detect it until 2020. When Line 6B spilled into the Talmadge Creek and Kalamazoo River, the controllers in Calgary were clueless – the company shows repeatedly that it doesn’t know how to handle emergencies. Just a couple weeks before the Kalamazoo area spill, Enbridge executives testifying to Congress insisted that they would know within 10 minutes if a spill occurred and would shut down immediately. Then 6B ran for over 17 hours before being stopped!
If Enbridge was hiring the same engineers who built the Eurostar Chunnel, I might trust them to drill beneath the Great Lakes. But with the companies they have suggested hiring to drill into the indeterminate rock geology under 295 feet of water, I am not confident.
Enbridge uses the scare tactic of telling Michiganders that we can’t do without Line 5 to heat our homes in the winter. UP propane providers care about their local customers and already have contingency plans in place. Ferrellgas has already assured their customers of this fact. In fact, if the Enbridge Corporation were truly interested in supplying U.P. residents, they would send the required amount (via Line 5) to their facility in Rapid River near Escanaba. This would be only 1300 barrels per day. The flow could stop there.
For years, Enbridge and its related companies have been pushing for a tunnel. Now suddenly they are switching gears quickly. That in itself is concerning. This project has not undergone a full environmental review, including its impacts on climate, public health, and tribal fishing rights. The risks are too high. I ask that you pause the fast-tracking of this project and require Enbridge to prove within a shadow of a doubt that they know what they are doing. The risks otherwise are too great!

Again. I appreciate the opportunity for public comment. This note is not my first in opposition to the Line 5 Tunnel, but hopefully it will be the last as the Michigan Supreme Court finally brings the matter to a close in favor of the will of Michiganders.
The HDD alternative is even more risky, despite claims of new technology. If claims for safety were not so obvious as blatant baloney, I and other Michiganders would not be compelled to continue writing in opposition.
The time to end this sham of supporting a dying and dangerous fossil fuel industry is overdue. Fouling the lives of tunnel construction workers, entire livelihoods of those who depend on fisheries and tourism, and the water system of the Great Lakes has been a bad idea since the pipeline was installed, and particularly since the idea of the tunnel’s inception.
Please consider this plea, not from an engineer, but from a concerned, lifelong Michigander who knows, as a grandmother and Earthling, that seven generation s from now will regret this proposed black snake!

The 67-year-old Line 5 pipeline is not safe to operate, and Enbridge has violated its easement agreement with the state of Michigan by committing numerous safety violations. The proposed Line 5 tunnel is not just an environmental risk, but it’s a massive financial threat to the people of Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, and all who rely on our Great Lakes for fresh water, tourism, recreation, and more.

Environmental and safety concerns:
Oil spill risk: The pipeline is aging and has sustained damage from anchor strikes, increasing the risk of a rupture. A spill in the Straits of Mackinac is particularly concerning due to strong currents, and a worst-case scenario could contaminate over 700 miles of Great Lakes shoreline.
Drinking water contamination: The Great Lakes are the source of drinking water for over 40 million people. A spill could have catastrophic and long-lasting impacts on this water supply.
Poor safety record: Line 5 has a history of spills and leaks, with over 1.1 million gallons spilled since 1968. This track record is further evidence of safety failures and that the pipeline cannot be trusted.
Proposed tunnel project: The proposed concrete-encased tunnel to house the pipeline is seen by some as a short-term solution that still poses environmental risks, potentially causing habitat loss, wetlands disturbance, and other impacts.

Legal and social arguments
Violation of public trust: Michigan's Attorney General filed a lawsuit arguing that the pipeline's operation violates the public trust doctrine and public nuisance laws.
Tribal treaty rights: The pipeline runs through lands and waters that are significant to Native American tribes. Its operation violates their treaty rights.
Climate change: The pipeline locks Michigan into supporting outdated fossil fuel infrastructure at a time when the state and country should be transitioning to clean, renewable energy.
Economic threat: A major oil spill could be catastrophic for Michigan's economy, particularly its tourism industry, which relies on the Great Lakes.

For the love of all that is holy, please do not build this tunnel, or entertain any further testing or even speculation regarding this horrendous and unnecessary oil tunnel. With all we know about climate change to still be working on an oil pipelines is not only reckless but inconsiderate of our future generations. This pipeline will only help the Enbridge oil company and will have no real benefit to the citizens of Michigan or Canada. We also must take into consideration the Native Americans who are firmly opposed to this project. Europeans have already stolen most of their land and now you are considering a pipeline that could rupture and damage our Great Lakes. I will do everything in my power to oppose this needless project, to include voting out any elected officials who continue to let this monstrosity go forward. Wake up and stop serving the elite and consider the plight of the common man.

Oil and water do not mix!

Do not approve any oil pipelines in the Great Lakes!

Environmental Impact

If Line 5 were to leak oil in the Straits of Mackinaw, this could be catastrophic to the environment. Either a tunnel or Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) pose risks of such a leak.

A tunnel would be subject to water leaks from the lake. This could cause corrosion of the pipeline, and the leakage of oil into the Straits of Mackinaw, which would be catastrophic to the environment.

Enbridge cannot safely perform horizontal directional drilling in the Straits of Mackinac. Their track record of frac-outs in their Line 3 expansion project demonstrates this. Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) is a hazardous process. "Frac outs" are likely to occur, especially in icy environments. A frac out is the unintentional release of drilling fluids into a body of water. During installation, these frac outs are very likely to happen, and for that reason, numerous certifications and requirements are set in order to preserve sensitive waterways. The release of drilling fluid is either from loss of control, different elevations in drilling location, rock fractures, or other complications. That being the case, what exactly is in drilling fluid? This differs with construction companies, but as for Enbridge, they are allowed to use “proprietary ingredients and suspending agents.”

Cost of Cleanup

If there were any leakage, either during construction or operation of the pipeline, the State of Michigan would be responsible for the cost of remediation. If Line 5 continues to operate, Enbridge should be responsible for the cost of remediation.

Beneficiaries of Line 5

Enbridge would benefit financially from the operation of this pipeline.

The State of Michigan does not substantially benefit from the operation of Line 5. Recipients of the products produced by the oil flowing through Line 5 are primarily outside of Michigan.

Michigan Upper Peninsula

Enbridge has claimed that Upper Peninsula homes that use heating oil would not get sufficient supplies if Line 5 is closed. If that were true, why couldn't Enbridge build a pipeline completely over land from Wisconsin to the Upper Peninsula?

We know that line 5 is a pass-through for oil from Canada through the U.S. and back to Canada by a private corporation-Enbridge. The U.S. uses only a miniscule portion of the contents sent through the pipeline. The U.S. taxpayers and Michigan taxpayers in particular assumes a reported 60% of the risk of an oil spill in economic terms. That equates to hundreds of millions or billions of dollars should there be a rupture. The U.S. no benefit, and all the risk of a spill. Why the MPSC ever even considered a pipeline tunnel makes no sense. The pipeline's permissions have been rescinded by the state of Michigan, it illegally crosses indigenous lands, is an environmental threat to plants and wildlife and our entire ecosystem.

The Corps of Engineers is responsible for protecting the resources of U.S. citizens and not private for-profit corporations. Enbridge has lied repeatedly about the safety of the pipeline. It is beyond it's useable age, and a tunnel is no guarantee of safety. It has been made clear by a Michigan Tech study funded by Enbridge that a rupture would be catastrophic and impossible to clean up completely.

There is nothing positive in keeping the pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac except to Enbridge. Fossil fuels are becoming outdated and we don't need another 100 year addition to a planet-destroying product. If it were critical, the pipeline can be rerouted across dry land by Enbridge at their expense.

I implore you to stop this madness and reject any further permits and approvals to move forward with this project I also request you to find that Line 5 violates indigenous sovereignty and close it permanently and immediately.

This plan still puts the burden on taxpayers to support a proposal that, with their track record, Enbridge cannot operate safely. There is serious opposition to Line 5, and only investor support. We must protect the environment and our citizens from faulty plans like this one.

Please do not permit Enbridge to drill under the straits of Mackinac. Line 5 is a dangerous piece of infrastructure and its existence and continued use puts the entire Great Lakes region at risk of irreparable ecological disaster. Do everything you can to stop this project and shut down Line 5 for good. Thank you.