Supplemental Draft EIS Comments

The public needs absolute transparency if this new horizontal drilling is an option. Why was this put on the table now, at the last hour ? What is the geological impact, stability, long term shifting ?? What are the inspection options for this new option ? What happens if it blows ? Environmental impacts ?

Line 5 - Recent COE option to allow horizontal drilling.
This option is total bonkers! Way way more liability and risk to the waters of the Great Lakes and the overall fresh water supplies of the US & Canada.
Now retired, I served the US DoD and the nation for over 47-years--with over half of them in environmental and safety & health management programs. I grew up at the Straits of Mackinac. That pipeline has threatened the lands, people and waters of our citizens for more than 50-years.

Our precious resources should be preserved and made safe for generations to come.

I oppose the proposed pipeline and possible tunnel, in its entirety. I favor rerouting out of the USA. The risk for future calamity is too great. Put the burden on the shoulders of this Canadian operation on Canada.

Get the pipeline out of and away from America.

Thank you for your consideration to my input.

Michael P. Donahue
198 Kreiger Dr.
Skandia, Michign 49885

Proud resident of Marquette County, Upper Peninsula, Michigan

Line five has no value to the people of Michigan. It represents a danger to a vast natural and cultural resource in the form of the Great Lakes. Enbridge is in violation of treaty rights and their lease has expired. A leak or explosion would be devastating not just to the Mackinac Straits but to the region stretching from Wisconsin to the Atlantic Ocean on both sides of the international border.

Environmentalist groups have assembled vital and sound science making the case to shut down the 72-year-old dual span pipeline, which currently sits exposed in the open water as it crosses the 4-mile Straits of Mackinac, transporting 540,000 barrels per day of oil and natural gas liquids from Superior, Wisconsin to Ontario, Canada.

Toprotect the Great Lakes, then there should be an option that involves no transportation of fossil fuels across the Great Lakes,

Key Evidence That Line 5 Is Dangerous to the Great Lakes

Risk of a Massive Spill and Wide Shoreline Impact

A University of Michigan study modeled 840 spill scenarios for the pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac. In some of these, oil could reach up to 720 miles of Great Lakes shoreline.
The Michigan Daily

Another analysis estimated about 1,160 kilometers (∼720 miles) of U.S. and Canadian shoreline could be vulnerable to a major spill.
The Council of Canadians

Aging Pipeline and Structural Issues

Line 5 was built in 1953, making it quite old.
Flow Water Advocates
+1

There are documented gaps in protective coating on parts of the pipeline in the Straits, exposing bare metal, which increases corrosion risk.
EcoWatch
+1

According to For Love of Water (FLOW), parts of the pipeline are suspended above the lakebed (supported by anchors), rather than resting on stable ground — this increases risk from currents and external damage.
Flow Water Advocates

Anchor Strikes and Mechanical Damage

In 2018, a boat anchor dragged along the Straits caused significant damage (dents, scrapes) to the pipeline.
Michigan.gov

That kind of risk is not hypothetical: with anchors allowed (or at least previously allowed), the pipeline is exposed to serious external trauma.

Historical Leaks

The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) reports that the land-based sections of Line 5 have leaked at least 29 times since 1968, releasing over 1 million gallons of oil.
The National Wildlife Federation Blog

The NWF also argues that spill response in the Straits would be extremely difficult because of strong, unpredictable currents.
The National Wildlife Federation Blog

Environmental and Public Health Threats

A rupture could threaten drinking water for many communities, since Great Lakes water is used for municipal supply.
National Wildlife Federation
+1

Wildlife and fisheries are at risk: a spill could damage critical habitats, including for species that depend on the lakes.
National Wildlife Federation

Tourism and the recreation economy around the lakes could suffer massive damage from a spill.
National Wildlife Federation

Tribal and Indigenous Concerns

Tribes (like the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa) have argued that a spill would threaten their lands, water, and treaty-protected resources.
National Wildlife Federation

There are also claims that in certain segments (e.g., river banks) the pipeline has very little soil cover, increasing exposure risk.
National Wildlife Federation

Economic Cost of a Spill

According to a risk report, the cost of a catastrophic spill could be very high, factoring in natural resource damage, tourism losses, cleanup, etc.
National Wildlife Federation

Some analyses suggest that shutting it down would have a relatively small economic impact compared to the potential cost of a spill.
Michigan League of Conservation Voters

Regulatory & Design Risk

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted an analysis and found that even a proposed tunnel (to house a replacement segment) could have “sweeping environmental impacts” during construction, including wildlife disruption, archaeological damage, wetland loss, etc.
Michigan Public

According to FLOW, Enbridge has made design changes (e.g., installing supports) without apparently obtaining full regulatory review under certain submerged lands laws.
Flow Water Advocates

Any structure being built under water poses and environmental threat

I am re-submitting (and amending) a comment here that had been submitted earlier on the DRAFT EIS but upon searching the pervious comments, it wasn't found (And therefore probably not addressed). Please respond to the questions raised regarding monitoring for the potential buildup of an explosive atmosphere within the tunnel!
I am a retired Civil Engineer and am somewhat familiar with the methane explosion that occurred in the 60’s at Port Gratiot related to the construction of Detroit’s Lake Huron water intake tunnel.
Last Spring, I attended a presentation by an Enbridge engineer who stated that there would be no long-term monitoring for explosive atmosphere buildup in the tunnel since they intended for the tunnel to be low maintenance and would only be monitored when being inspected.
How would operators become aware of a potential methane leak into the tunnel should one occur? I think no monitoring would be a disaster waiting to happen if that were true.
Please clarify what precautions will be taken to avoid and deal with an explosive atmosphere if it were to develop at any point in the future.
I realize that the Port Gratiot incident was construction-related but since there will be an empty, unventilated tunnel in this case long term the potential for an explosive atmosphere is certainly possible over time.
Additional Comment below:
Despite the Supplemental DRAFT EIS, I understand that Enbridge's intent is still to construct the tunnel although the most recent alternative includes the installation of a smaller (42" diameter) casing pipe to carry the 30" pipeline through.
If the casing pipe were directionally drilled, would the annular space be filled with another inert material? If not, how would the annular space be monitored for a leak of the pipeline? would it have pressure testing equipment installed for periodic pressure testing of the integrity of the casing pipe?
This project is potentially too impactive of the water quality of all of the Great Lakes to rush through however, I do believe that a casing pipe with its integrity ensured through periodic automatic pressure testing for leaks represents an improved level of reliability for Great Lakes Water Quality than both a tunnel and the current exposed pipeline.
Thank you
Dennis Benoit

As a citizen of the state of Michigan, an archaeologist and anthropologist, and someone who treasures the Great Lakes as not only a natural or geologic wonder, but also a cultural touchstone to the lives of millions of people who call the region home, I write to oppose the permitting of the Line 5 project. I firmly believe in the Ripuarian Rights to the same clean water that all my neighbors upstream enjoy and wish to guarantee that same quality of water to all my neighbors downstream. I also hold that the 1854 Treaty of La Pointe, and similar treaties with the First Nations entitle them to hunting, fishing, and access to resources from their traditional range unspoilt. As an archaeologist and anthropologist, I can confidently assert that human beings form complex relationships with their world, so much so that the line between "Human" spaces, and the "Natural World" is rather arbitrary if not invisible. Michiganders, Canadians, and all the states along the lakeshores have established a deep connection to these bodies of water, even going so far as being able to discern distinct personalities to them. If you believe this to be an exaggeration, look no further than Gordon Lightfoot's Edmund Fitzgerald song, and listen to how he describes these lakes as individuals with different roles. We know these lakes. They are our neighbors, cornerstones in our cultural affiliation to this state, and this region. When harm or illness befalls these bodies, it is always a great wound in our lives as well. As the lakes struggle against invasive species and agricultural runoff, we can feel the impact in quality. All the more concern as this project is going to be executed in the straits that connect all lakes. Line 5 does not need to exist; I would argue that its value as "crucial" lies more with those who will not feel the impacts of its failure. I do not dispute that there is an energy independence emergency in Michigan and the USA, but this emergency has been exacerbated by oil and non-renewables, never resolved. If the Corps of Engineers truly wished to resolve the US energy crisis, it would be scrambling its resources to upgrade aged electric grids so that they can withstand increasingly unpredictable weather and accept new energy technology. While the current administration is here today, ordering the Corps of Engineers to fast track these projects, our children and grandchildren will be here tomorrow, asking questions as to why the heck the US doubled down on oil when we have the cheapest solar tech that ever has been. The Corps of Engineers' has a duty to future citizens of the United States just as much as it has a duty to the executive offices appointed over them. I understand the concerns of Enbridge, who fear another anchor drop on the existing line will result in a terrible ecological disaster. I feel that same disquiet. But burying the line under the straits does not prevent any leaks, it just makes it harder to cap. The best way to mitigate a disaster such as an oil pipeline leak in one of the world largest bodies of fresh water, is to not put an oil pipeline in one of the world's largest bodies of fresh water.

Enbridge line 5 tunnel is not needed. It poses an enormous risk to 20% of the world’s freshwater and the Michigan’s economy. This Canadian company makes $1.8 million per day, therefore has a major stake in maintaining this line at any cost. Competitors can easily pick up the volume from line 5. Enbridge own internal documents state the cost impact of shutting down line 5 would be less than one penny per gallon. The tunnel project is unvetted… horizontal drilling is nothing more than a political maneuver. We do not need this oil line. The line should be shut down immediately.

I oppose the newly proposed narrow tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac to carry the Line 5 pipeline based on the previous Army Corps of Engineers decision that is was not viable due to the presence of a rock layer under the straits.

The Great Lakes are unique aquatic ecosystem and shortsighted economic development plans endanger not only the environment but also, human health and economic wellbeing.

This is a time to be forward thinking and progressive, not to focus on short term economic gain. Please reconsider this proposal and do the right thing, versus the easy or most lucrative thing.

To the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to allowing Enbridge to continue operating Line 5 beneath the Great Lakes, and to voice my objection to any proposed alternatives such as tunneling or drilled boreholes that would keep this aging pipeline in service. The most responsible and forward-looking course of action is to shut Line 5 down permanently.

Line 5 is operated by Enbridge, a foreign corporation, and its continued operation places millions of Americans at direct risk for the benefit of a company that has already received decades of economic advantage from this infrastructure. The United States owes Enbridge nothing further. This pipeline has long surpassed its intended lifespan, and any attempt to justify extending it through new construction or tunneling ignores both its track record and the changing needs of our region and nation.

Enbridge’s history of negligence cannot be overlooked. Their 2010 Kalamazoo River disaster—one of the largest inland oil spills in U.S. history—was catastrophic and avoidable. It took Enbridge more than 17 hours to even recognize the spill, and the environmental damage took years to remediate and will have lasting impacts for decades. This is not a company that has earned the trust of the public or proven itself capable of safely operating risky infrastructure in our most sensitive ecosystems.

The Great Lakes are the largest source of fresh surface water on Earth and a drinking-water supply for tens of millions, including countless communities in Michigan. The economic consequences of a spill in the Straits of Mackinac would be devastating—tourism, fisheries, shipping, recreation, and local economies would all suffer harms orders of magnitude greater than any temporary benefit provided by continued operation of Line 5. The stakes could not be higher.

Furthermore, the energy landscape is shifting rapidly. Investing billions into tunneling or borehole construction for a pipeline whose economic justification declines every year is fiscally irresponsible. The cons of any expansion—environmental risk, economic risk, and long-term liability—vastly outweigh the limited and short-term pros.

This moment calls for prudence, responsibility, and a commitment to protecting Americans, not a foreign corporation seeking to prolong the lifespan of outdated and dangerous infrastructure. The safest alternative is also the simplest: bring Line 5 to its rightful and overdue end.

I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to reject any permit or proposal that would allow Line 5 to continue operating, whether through tunneling, replacement, or relocation. It is time to put the health, safety, and economic well-being of the Great Lakes region first.

Respectfully,

Michael Jefferies