Supplemental Draft EIS Comments

Drilling in the Straits of Mackinac has got to be one of the dumbest things you have ever considered. When are you going to take into consideration that no oil company has ever successfully had any pipeline not leak? This is a disaster that you are going to be complicit in, and when it leaks, you should have to be held personally liable. The ACOE should have to pay all the costs of the damage. But instead, you will make the public have to pay for the contamination and loss of usable water, the harm to local economies and all because you really don’t care to do what every agency in government is required to do: protect us.

Approving this should be considered a criminal act.

I strongly oppose this 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.
Withdraw this horrendously harmful proposal.

Horizontal drilling is worse than building the tunnel. After witnessing the impacts HDD had on Line 3 in Minnesota, I was shocked that Enbridge has raised this as an alternative to the tunnel-- it failed an average of every 2 out of 3 attempts. Not only is the rate of failure due to HDD is a lot more likely, but it is far more invasive than the tunnel-- the vibrations and noise alone will disturb or kill aquaculture, and then the resulting leaks will kill Michiganders via contaminated drinking water. The current pipelines are too old, that much has been agreed upon by everyone. The tunnel is risky due to potential risk of explosion, but HDD is practically guaranteed to fail every single time they try it.

If you want to kill native plants, animals, and Michiganders, then yes, HDD is a good idea. But if you actually care about life, anyone's life, then Line 5 must be shut down. It's as simple as that.

I oppose Line 5 categorically, and this revised EIS as faulty and deceptive.
- 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. Unacceptable.

I strongly oppose the HDD drilling in the straits on line 5. Please take into consideration the devastating impact it could have on our fragile environment like it has before. Thank you. Ellen.S

I have been opposed to Line 5 for many years. It poses an enormous risk to our Great Lakes and its use can be reconfigured in better and safe ways than a pipeline or tunnel. Please do not approve this project in any form. Thank you.

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.

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.

Shut down the 70 year old line 5 pipeline. We don't need a tunnel. We need to shut it down. There's too many risks for our Great Lakes, drinking water and environment. Our children deserve better futures with clean drinkable water and a healthy planet. We need renewable energy for the sake of our environment,human health and our animals.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the November 2025 Supplemental EIS for the Enbridge Line 5 Tunnel project. My comments refer to text in the Executive Summary.

Geology (Executive Summary, p. 10): As I noted in my comments previously submitted to the earlier EIS, the rock quality designation (RQD) of 25% of the project area is zero (0). The Supplemental EIS does not address how this very poor quality of rock could affect the construction using the Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) alternative. Shifting could result in strain on or breakage of the line. The Supplemental EIS should address this directly, with references to success cases that prove drilling in such rock under these circumstances has proven effective.

Secondary Containment (Executive Summary, p. 16) This alternative would not provide secondary containment, virtually guaranteeing that any leak of the line will contaminate the water of the Straits of Mackinac. This is obviously unacceptable for the numerous environmental reasons many others have outlined over the years.

Summary of mitigation measures (p. 18). This summary uses phrases such as “The Applicant would comply with applicable design and safety standards and procedures related to all project elements, for any alternative or sub-alternative implemented” and “Construction activities under any implemented alternative would be conducted in accordance with federal, state, and local requirements, laws, and regulations.” It is written as though Enbridge authored it. However, the USACE has no legal assurances or guarantees that Enbridge would in fact comply, therefore, USACE should not present these as statements of fact. This section should be modified to state that the USACE evaluation of the HDD was completed assuming that Enbridge would comply and act in accordance with all laws and regulations (if that was the case). Given that Enbridge has committed numerous environmental violations in the past, it would be imprudent to assume they will not operate outside the laws and regulations in the future.

Decommissioning. The Supplemental Draft EIS only refers to decommissioning of the line installed with HDD in terms of anchor strike. What requirements does USACE expect/recommend for the proper decommissioning of the potential HDD borehole containing a pipeline under surface waters to negate or minimize environmental impacts and safety hazards? Alternatives for decommissioning of the line installed with HDD should be outlined and evaluated in the Supplemental EIS.

Again, thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Mark Wilson