Supplemental Draft EIS Comments

The Line 5 pipeline is an imminent threat, and building a tunnel to house it is no solution. Construction would destroy wetlands, disrupt aquatic habitats, and perpetuate our reliance on fossil fuels during a critical time for climate action. Worse, the tunnel poses risks of explosion from natural gas liquids, shifting financial liability to Michigan taxpayers for 100 years.

It is not only a threat to Michigan but all states surrounding the Great Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Superior. Accidents Happen ~ Water Flows. Thank You!

I am writing to register my strong opposition to the proposed construction of a massive tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac to house the Line 5 oil pipeline. This project poses unacceptable risks to the largest connected freshwater system on Earth, threatens ecologically sensitive and culturally significant lands, and locks Michigan into decades more reliance on fossil fuels at a time when urgent transition is required.

The company pursuing this project is the same entity responsible for the catastrophic Kalamazoo River oil spill—one of the largest inland oil spills in U.S. history. That disaster demonstrated the severe consequences of pipeline failure, the long-term ecological damage that follows, and the company’s inadequate safety record. Granting this company permission to drill horizontally through delicate ecosystems and beneath a critical freshwater resource is irresponsible and dangerous.

The Straits of Mackinac are an extraordinarily high-risk location for any oil infrastructure. The Great Lakes contain roughly 20% of the world’s surface freshwater and provide drinking water, fisheries, recreation, cultural resources, and economic stability for millions of people. A failure in the proposed tunnel—whether during construction or future operation—could have irreversible consequences. The geology beneath the Straits is complex, fragile, and not fully understood; the risks of tunneling through it cannot be overstated.

Additionally, the proposed route crosses and impacts land that is culturally and spiritually important to Indigenous nations. Proceeding with this construction without their full consent continues a long history of disregarding Indigenous sovereignty, traditional ecological knowledge, and treaty-protected rights. The Army Corps has a legal and moral obligation to consider these impacts with the seriousness they deserve.

From a broader policy perspective, the project is fundamentally at odds with national and global climate commitments. Line 5 primarily transports Canadian oil through Michigan so it can be refined and used largely in Canada—not for the benefit of the people of Michigan. Approving this tunnel would extend the lifespan of fossil fuel infrastructure for many decades, despite the fact that the continued use of oil is directly responsible for the approximately 2°F of global warming since the mid-1800s. At a time when we must be accelerating the transition to cleaner, safer energy, this project would instead deepen our dependency on the very fuels driving climate instability.

Given the company’s track record, the unacceptable environmental and cultural risks, the lack of direct benefit to Michigan residents, and the project’s incompatibility with climate goals, I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to deny the permit for the Line 5 tunnel project.

Protecting the Great Lakes and the communities who depend on them must take precedence over the interests of a foreign oil company. I respectfully request that the Corps choose the path that safeguards our water, honors Indigenous rights, and advances a sustainable energy future.

I strongly oppose the need to construct a new pipeline running under the Mackinac straits. This project, I believe, is a depreciated approach to the future of energy use in the United States. The risk far outweighs the reward and there is only a matter of time before a breach in the infrastructure occurs and damages the surround ecosystem and freshwater. This project is outdated and fails to highlight the need to focus our resources on alternative and sustainable energy sources.

I’m disturbed by the prospect of the oil company that’s responsible for the Kalamazoo River Oil Spill drilling a giant tunnel horizontally underneath the straits of Mackinac, through sensitive ecosysems, through culturally important indigenous land, and underneath the largest continuous freshwater body on the Earth’s surface to house a pipeline transporting Canadian oil through Michigan to be used primarily in Canada and locking our region into decades more of reliance on fossil fuels, rather than pivoting away from the energy source that is directly responsible for 2 degrees Fahrenheit of warming since the mid 1800s, towards renewable and environmentally responsible sources instead. I disagree with the continued use of Line 5 entirely, and fully support a responsible transition to new energy sources before a preventable tragedy occurs that could easily wreak absolutely devastating ecological destruction.

Use that same energy to submit a public comment on the US Army Corps of Engineers website opposing the Line 5 Tunnel before midnight TONIGHT! Link below.

Our Great Lakes watershed is an invaluable habitat to its native flora and fauna that has only just now started to recover from prior industrial pollution, in part due to the careful and laborious work of officials, experts, and volunteers. It is among the highest ranks of what provides Michigan its spirit, beauty, and quality of life to those of us who get to enjoy it in a daily basis, and while you cannot place the value of natural beauty, maritime merriment, and the lives of our native fauna in mere economic terms, the tourists and sportsmen who flock here for it certainly bring in revenue. Risking that to disrupt our communities, commutes, and lifestyles at no clear benefit to Michiganders would be a morally bankrupt mistake.

This is a bait and switch by Enbridge and the Army Crops of Engineers. Enbridge cannot safely perform HDD Drilling in the Straits of Mackinac, and their track record of frack-outs in their line 3 expansion project demonstrates this. This project still forces Michigan taxpayers to carry all the risk for a foreign corporation. 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.

There has to be a better way. Don't do this.

I am writing to oppose the use of HDD in the Straits of Makinac. Here are some of the reasons:

- This is a suspicious change by Enbridge and the Army Corps of Engineers, after focusing on the tunnel for years.
- The Executive Summary says "The HDD Installation Alternative was evaluated in USACE’s May 2025 Draft EIS but considered infeasible, based on a 2018 Enbridge report, and therefore eliminated from detailed analysis in the EIS. USACE subsequently received information indicating that the HDD Installation Alternative is now feasible due to advances in technology since the 2018 report. I find it hard to believe that just 7 months after the EIS, this is a total turnaround. Again, it is suspicious.
- The May EIS concluded that this alternative was not technically feasible due to the length of the replacement pipeline, length of drill required, and the hard characteristics of the subsurface rock. Things like that don't change with a few years of technology advances. Certainly not the subsurface rock!
Has a HDD of the length (3.5 miles), under a major waterbody (not a small stream or riverbed) ever been contemplated or successfully accomplished? Why would we be ok with such an important waterbody, the Straits of Mackinac, being the testing ground for such an attempt?
- The assembly areas require "Tree clearing (approximately 31.9 acres South and 9.6 acres North) would result in long-term impacts due to the slow regeneration rate of trees." Darn right! I have spent time in those cedar groves overlooking the Mackinac bridge and Straits. "The degree of impact to the viewscape would depend on individual location and perception." My perception is that this is not acceptable! "Overall vegetation clearing (including logging) could be up to 51.4 acres South and 47.8 acres North." This in sensitive areas (Headlands International Dark Sky Park, French Farm Lake Flooding State Wildlife Management Area, McGulpin Lighthouse, Mackinaw Area Historic Society Heritage Village, Colonial Michilimackinac Historic State Park, and Hiawatha National Forest) we don't want changed from forest to meadow (per the SEIS). Nor do we believe these changes would end when construction is complete! That is a false statement at best.
- 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.
- Regarding groundwater: Approximately 15.8 acres total ground disturbance would occur within expected construction footprints, which could result in detrimental impacts to surface waters adjacent to construction footprints due to erosion and sedimentation. We are not convinced that adherence to the SESC plan and required permits (including NPDES) would mitigate this.
- During construction, there would also be potential for detrimental impacts associated with unintended release of contaminants, such as equipment fuel. Again, evidence shows Enbridge doesn't repair the messes they leave. Citizen monitors in MN show that groundwater heating, contamination and other problems continue. Enbridge pays a pittance of a fine and doesn't permanently correct the issues. See work of Adookawad Amikwaad. Same with wetlands - Enbridge has been fined $72 million for breaking water use laws in MN, but we still trust them? Line 5 has leaked over 30 times, that we know of. Just last year in Jefferson County, WI, which they didn't report for over a month, saying is was 2 gallons when it was more like 70,000 galloons! Why do we keep doing the same thing over and over with Enbridge expecting a different result? Their pipelines cause problems that they don't fix.
- We brush off concerns about surface water, wetlands, groundwater, aesthetics, terrestrial and aquatic habitat as "temporary", but that just isn't true when you are significantly changing the landscape. Concerns about protected species like long-eared and tricolored bats are "mitigated" by tree cutting outside pup season. And massasauga rattlesnake - they will coordinate with USFWS and MDNR. So what does that mean to those species?
- Archeological resources - "potential impacts/impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation efforts minimized". How about not disturbing them in the first place. Regarding Treaty Rights they don't even pretend to mitigate - just "To Be Determined in the Record of Decision"
- Enbridge minimizes even serious geological concerns: "the potential for development of karst conditions can lead to challenges with excavation stability. Vibrations given off by the HDD during drilling activities have the potential to cause shifts in the geology around the alignment, which could contribute to borehole instability and the possibility of inadvertent returns of drilling fluid." But all this will be mitigated later. Again, look at Enbridge's track record. We can't trust them with our precious resources for CN oil company profits.
Of great concern is the risk of blowing up the area. "If pockets of hazardous gas (e.g., methane) exist along the HDD alignment, the potential to encounter those pockets is greater for the HDD Installation" because technology including sensors on the drilling head are not available for HDD. That is an unacceptable risk. This alone should disqualify HDD drilling in the Straits.
- Overall - everything that will or could go wrong or have a negative impact is minimized as either temporary, or to be mitigated. But many impacts are definitely not temporary, and mitigation isn't the point. We don't want it impacted in the first place to continue fossil fuel infrastructure for another 100 years in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes belong to the people - not a Canadian oil company focused on continued planet warming fossil fuel use so they can preserve their profits, while Great Lakes States take all the risk.

This project still forces Michigan taxpayers to carry all the risk for a foreign corporation. A recent report shows:
- Michigan will own the tunnel and inherit massive liability
- Enbridge's insurance covers less than 4% of potential damages
- Worst-case costs could exceed $45 billion
- The "watchdog" agency was designed to partner with Enbridge, not protect taxpayers
- No comprehensive review of these types of risks has been completed

This line does nothing to mitigate the disaster posed by the previous line, line 5. Building a new line beneath an active line, a risky line at that, does nothing but continue to perpetuate the risk of oil contaminating the Great lakes IRREPERABLY. This is the most blatant bait and switch tactic, and it is beyond lazy. We the citizens are telling you no, you cannot build a new oil pipeline beneath the current pipeline. That poses an intense risk to Michigan waters & ecology. This would not be an oil spill that could be cleaned. Our fresh water in Michigan is the largest fresh water source on earth. It is abysmal you would even consider doing this for the sake of profit. Lastly, Canada legally is not owed access to this land, water or oil. This is unacceptable. You may NOT proceed. We are not asking, we are telling you. Shame on you.

Please allow further research and investigation as well as public comment before approving this permit.
The number of dangers and risks that the communities of Michigan would have to take on is egregious.
I'm greatly concerned about the ground water quality and the fact that monitoring would only occur for 2 years after construction. This is highly inadequate when we can only estimate how long it would take for contamination to spread from the site and where. Even so, if a problem is found years later, how would it be addressed? I can only be reminded of other such communities that suffered years later after drinking contaminated water.
The risk during construction and after construction puts many local people at risk who get their drinking water from ground water wells.
After construction, should there be a pipeline rupture or fracture, how will it be contained? How will the integrity of the pipeline be tested and confirmed without causing contamination to any aquifer that is being bore through? How will it be tested for compliance after it is in operation? How will a fracture be corrected should one occur during construction after the line has been put in place beneath the lakebed? Has any research been done for repair construction should it need to occur and the impact that it would have? How would this impact the surface water as well as the ground water? The geology suggests that it wouldn't be feasible to contain and repair such a fracture.
Further study needs to be done on who could potentially be affected by contamination to their drinking water and those people have a right to be informed.
I also have concerns how this would affect local fish populations. This is within a highly critical pinch point between the two lakes. Has the effect of vibrational and sound disturbance been studied and documented for the areas of spawning close to the construction? How will the construction affect any existing ecological restoration occurring in the area and how will that be remedied?

Please consider this permit affects more than just water and land. It will disrupt many communities way of life and has the potential for permanent irreversible harm.