Supplemental Draft EIS Comments

As we have an obligation to ourselves as Michiganders, to other members of the Great Lakes Compact, to our broader community and humanity, the only sensible and acceptable resolution to the issue of Line 5 is its complete and permanent removal from the straits.

The revised Enbridge proposal for still does not address the issue of using an untested technology through a delicate geological formation to replace an outdated solution to moving fossil fuels beneath the Straits of Mackinac. This is not only putting fresh water - our most precious resource - at risk, it ignores the threat to future generations of Americans posed by a continuing reliance on petroleum when there are much better, sustainable solutions to address our growing energy needs.

Please deny the Enbridge Line 5 tunnel. They have proven that they can't perform HDD drilling safely in the straits of Mackinac with their line 3 expansion frack-outs. This project is also forcing Michigan taxpayers to hold ALL the financial and environmental risk for a foreign company, while the company rakes in all the profit. As this tunnel will primarily benefit Canada, why should we accept this risk? Please do your duty to America and Michigan and don't allow this project to continue. Our great state cannot afford to ruin our ecology for corporate greed.

I oppose the alternate proposal of horizonal drilling a bore hole beneath the Great Lakes for the purpose of installing a pipeline for the transportation of natural gas and/or crude or processed petroleum products for economic gain by the Enbridge energy delivery company. Enbridge has a documented history of transportation failure along their pipelines in the United States. There is no zero trust on the part of the citizens of the planet that this new Enbridge-owned project would be done safely. Protection of the absolutely vital fresh waters of the Great Lakes is the ultimate responsibility of this review board. I sincerely hope that the United States Corp of Engineers will do their job to the highest standards of responsibility granted to them and secure with their utmost integrity the future of this sacred fresh water resource. There is no replacement if the waters should become despoiled by corporate interests. Planet, not profit, should be the Corps mission statement!

Please do not approve the reroute for line 5. It’d be so detrimental to our ecosystem and especially for the Great Lakes. Oil spills are detrimental to the wildlife and for our own health, in terms of drinking water. It would be beneficial to remove the rotting pipeline once and for all, then utilize trucks for the transportation of oil.

The entire idea of building new infrastructure to move dangerous petrochemicals under a sensitive waterway (ecologically and in terms of water supply), is profoundly immoral, counterproductive, and evil on its face. Future generations will look back on the proponents and enablers of this project with deep disgust. You know that this is wrong for us and for the planet. We have safer options. Please change direction or get used to having a troubled conscience and descendants that feel deep shame when your name is uttered.

This deal with Enbridge has only served to erode public trust. We've seen how they've handled their numerous spills in the past and the current flurry to bait and switch us into a new tunnel design? This poorly conceived tunnel, or bore hole or whatever the flavor is today is still going to be built and managed by a shady company notorious for cutting corners.

Northern Michigan is nothing without it's pristine waters. Let's not spoil that for the dubious opportunity to subsidize some foreign profits.

Shut this down, and remove the existing line. We have other, better options.

Please reject this proposed alternative for replacement of the pipeline. The pipeline will still pose a major environmental risk and financial risk to taxpayers. A pipeline in the Great Lakes, regardless of the "safety" of replacement through the Straits is simply too much of a risk to water resources.

No need for Line 5 or a tunnel to "encapsulate it," why continue the extremely hazardous transportation of poisonous material through 25% of the world's fresh water and 60% of the fresh water in the USA? Need for fossil fuels is dropping, and will drop by choice or by consequences that continue to build and threaten all life on this plant from their ongoing use. Look what could be done for renewable energy development and installation with the same time, money, and resources that will continue to go into this project. Stop this waste of our tax dollars endangering the fresh water we need to survive and what makes this region of the country so valuable to all life. Leave Tar Sands Oil where it is in Canada, don't allow the ongoing pumping of the worst of the worst, and most dangerous oil through a body of fresh water to continue.

The current Line 5 below the Mackinaw Straits needs an alternative.
Homeowners are entitled to quite enjoyment of our property.
We live just west of Mackinaw City and are among the closest five homes to the proposed South Side job site. We are about 1000 feet away from the existing Enbridge station.
We first wish to comment on the environmental Noise issues. The draft EIS documents, original and supplemental, clearly identify that increased Noise is going to be an issue affecting us. Our primary concern is that the report falls short in identifying the magnitude of the issue and in calling for effective mitigations.
We have two special considerations regarding the magnitude of the project Noise issue. 1) This rural area is special because of the current noise levels. When calm, this area is silent. We can clearly hear lake freighter engines as they occasionally pass by, then silence again. When not silent, we’re treated to the calming sounds of gently lapping waves. When the Straits are vibrant, we enjoy the soothing sounds of crashing ocean surf. The SOUNDS are a major part of why we bought and enjoy our residence on the Straits. We feel the report sanitizes the impact to us, minimizing the impact to our quiet enjoyment behind “impact threshold numbers” which suggest acceptable levels that are MUCH higher than our current sound environment.
2) We note some sound measurements, particularly at night, are based on the assumption that residents will be indoors. We are outdoors much of the time, and particularly at night, from Spring through Fall, we sleep in a screened room off the west side of our residence. When Enbridge has performed construction in the past, we clearly hear it.
Hidden among impact thresholds, our quite enjoyment is going to be severely impacted. Noise will be above impact thresholds, but more importantly the noise will dominate the current audible environment relative to what exists today.
Our second major point regarding the EIS treatment of Noise is that the suggested mitigations are relatively weak. The target seems to be to mitigate to the point of achieving impact thresholds, which we will find unacceptable. Mitigation Plans must go beyond making neighbors aware of when it’s going to be loud, or adding sound mufflers to specific equipment. We’re needing a more substantial Noise mitigation plan to dampen the impact to those that visit (Headlands, Lighthouse) as well as those that live nearby, such as us. We expect to see a more comprehensive noise mitigation plan than the laundry list of suggestions currently documented in the EIS report. We expect the impact threshold of a 10dB change from the current sound environment to be the standard to which those noise mitigation plans be evaluated.
Lastly, we enlisted the AI tool ChatGPT to create a model of the sound impact to our particular home. Its modeling suggests that we should expect sound levels in the 70-85 dBA range for this particular project based on publicly available information and industry standards. This exceeds the EIS analysis and expectations.
Beyond the Noise issue, we also have comments on the three EIS alternatives in general (Original Preference, Sub-alternative 1 (South Assembly Area) and Sub-alternative 2 (North Assembly Area).
Sub-alternative 1 (South Assembly Area) is an egregious alternative. A four-mile long clear cut through Headlands, May Woods and French Farm Lake would dramatically affect the usability of this entire area – enjoyed by residents and visitors alike. Each of these areas have trail systems which would be decimated by a pipeline running through their midst. The May Woods trail system has been recently completed, for hikers, bikers, snowshoers, and cross-country skiers. This recent work would be decimated by the pipeline construction footprint, rending the trail systems unusable.
We’re not fans of Sub-alternative 2 either, and we urge our UPers to comment as well.
But what we find most notable of the two HDD Sub-Alternatives is the failure to propose and evaluate a third alternative: A Pipeline SEGMENT Construction alternative. The pipeline can be built and installed in segments, which would NOT require the 4-mile clearcut and resulting environmental damage.
Lastly, with respect to the three alternatives proposed by Enbridge, why are we not evaluating a non-drilling alternative against these alternatives which have great risk and environmental impact? This “Fourth Alternative” should include using existing infrastructure and overland mechanisms to replace the oil and gas flows through Line 5. This could include increased use of the existing Line 78, plus rail transport, plus freighters or trucks. While these transport alternatives have their own risk profiles, those risks are much better known and are potentially less expensive to mitigate than the uncertainty of any of the drilling alternatives.
The current Line 5 below the Mackinaw Straits needs an alternative.
Homeowners are entitled to quite enjoyment of our property.
Consider the Fourth Alternative of using existing technologies, with known and smaller risk profiles to transfer Line 5 oil and gas overland for as long as we continue to need it.