Supplemental Draft EIS Comments

December 2, 2025

US Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District,
The Village of Mackinaw City Parks and Recreation Board does not support pipeline-related construction on publicly owned and protected lands in and adjacent to Mackinaw City, including those identified in HDD Sub-Alternative 1, South of the Straits of Mackinac, in the November 14 Environmental Impact Study (EIS) from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

At least two properties in the November 2025 EIS identified for timber removal and construction in Sub-Alternative 1 are specifically protected by conservation easements, intended to protect them from
development and degradation, and restrict activities on the property to low-impact public recreation endeavors and nature studies. The impact of this extensive timber removal and forest segmentation would undermine decades of collaborative conservation planning among the Village of Mackinaw City, Emmet County, the State of Michigan, the Little Traverse Conservancy, Dark Sky International, and the many foundations, partners, and taxpayers who invested in preserving these public lands.

The intended purpose of all these impacted public parks, conservation lands, and trail systems is fundamentally incompatible with industrial construction or activities associated with pipeline construction and installation. These natural areas are a vital economic and cultural asset for our region,
drawing visitors from around the world to experience a natural shoreline, night sky viewing, ecological diversity, and to experience quiet and tranquility. Potential construction impacts such as vegetation loss, soil disturbance, noise and vibration, long-term aesthetic changes, and limitations on public access pose substantial risks to the environmental integrity of the area as well as to the recreational opportunities that residents and visitors rely on.

The proposed construction path appears to interrupt the flow of vehicle traffic at the point of entry to public parks, as
well as multiple interconnected trail systems, segments of the Tip of the Mitt Trail, the North Country Trail, and a popular snowmobile and bike route. Neighboring McGulpin Point, also publicly owned and
managed for recreation and cultural education, would experience significant disturbance that could limit or even temporarily suspend its operations.

For these reasons, we respectfully request that the USACE remove HDD Installation Sub-Alternative 1 (South) from further consideration. We urge the Corps to uphold stringent federal environmental review
standards and conduct diligent research with respect to the public-trust obligations associated with these properties.

Sincerely,

Village of Mackinaw City Parks & Recreation Board

We submit our complete disapproval of Enbridge pipeline plans. We are northern Michigan citizens who value the Great Lakes.

I vehemently oppose drilling anywhere by anyone, but especially by such a reckless company like Enbridge. Their repeated safety offenses make it clear that they are incapable of handling such a difficult job. This proposal, if approved, will lead to increased health concerns for countless people, adding more financial strain to an already exhausted system.

I oppose vehemently the plan to drill under the Great Lakes! I oppose the Line 5 plan in the strongest possible terms!

The costs, along with short and long term effects don’t seem to outweigh the costs: Long-term detrimental effects would primarily be limited to vegetation removal, as forested areas would not regenerate quickly post-construction. While the HDD Installation Alternative would require less ground disturbance than the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative, vegetation clearing would be more extensive due to the required pipeline assembly area, which would extend approximately 4 miles from the limits of the HDD workspace either south or north of the Straits (HDD Installation Sub-Alternative 1 or 2, respectively). Vegetation removal would occur on both Applicant-owned land and on private property (the Applicant would be required to obtain temporary easements). While vegetation would be restored following construction, forested areas would take many years to regenerate, and it is possible that cleared forest in wetland areas may regenerate with emergent vegetation, which would represent a permanent change in wetland composition. Ground disturbance under this alternative would also likely have an adverse impact to cultural resources, including to a National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligible Traditional Cultural Landscape (which includes and extends beyond all the alternatives/sub- alternatives analyzed in the EIS), as well as impacts to an NRHP-eligible archaeological historic district. If the Applicant were to pursue this alternative, surveys would be required to characterize existing resources and determine potential impacts and impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation efforts.
Most other environmental consequences would be short-term, with effects resolving once construction is completed. Construction-related consequences primarily involve increased traffic due to construction vehicles, construction-related noise, disruption to terrestrial and aquatic life, sedimentation to receiving waters, disruption to shoreline and water-based recreation, and construction-related lighting impacts. Construction induced vibration levels, whether from the HDD or other construction activities, are primarily predicted to be below impact thresholds for human disturbance and structural damage (fragile and non-fragile structures, including the existing Dual Pipelines). Under HDD Installation Sub-Alternative 2, construction vibration from the pipeline assembly area could result in short-term and localized detrimental effects as four residential properties and one building are located inside or within 25 feet of the workspace boundary. Additionally, risk of damage to US-2 under this sub-alternative is possible from auger bore vibrations; however, adherence to state and local requirements would minimize risk.
Short-term beneficial effects would result from increased demand for local services and supplies during construction. Long-term beneficial effects would be related to a reduced need for in-water maintenance activities related to the existing Dual Pipelines.
Cumulative impacts would occur for any environmental consequences that are projected to be long-term. Short-term impacts would resolve upon completion of construction and therefore would not be cumulative. Long-term effects would combine with the effects of past actions that have resulted in the current environment, as well as impacts from ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future projects to have an incremental impact on certain resources. However, no specific ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future projects were identified within the project action area (see Appendix H of the May 2025 Draft EIS). Detrimental cumulative effects from the HDD Installation Alternative would be anticipated to land use and biological resources due to loss of vegetation, which would result in aesthetic changes, decreased function of previously forested wetlands, and wildlife behavior in the time that trees are regenerating in cleared areas.

Hello,
My name is Howard Pfeifer and I am writing to oppose the Line 5 drilling plan under the GreatLakes.

For years, the government said it would only review a tunnel proposal. Now they’re suddenly shifting to a new drilling plan instead — this is a bait-and-switch.

The company behind Line 5, Enbridge, has a history of drilling accidents and spills. If something goes wrong under the Straits, oil could spread quickly into two Great Lakes at once. And Michigan taxpayers — not the company — would be left with the damage.

Thank you for your attention.

Howard Pfeifer

Has there been any study on the aquafirs that the line will be going through? Where I'm going with this is we have property west of Mackinaw city in wilderness pk with great well water at wells located anywhere from 80 to 185 feet in depth. Id like to know has an analysis been done on what affects will the drilling have on these aquafirs and therefore potentially our wells? Thanks look forward to hearing your comment.

Hello,

I am writing because I am concerned about the Line 5 oil pipeline project. I oppose drilling under the Great Lakes. This is too big of a risk for oil to go into the Great Lakes, water that the midwest relies on (and will rely on more as climate change impacts the future).

Thank you,

Sarah

This is relative to the proposed Enbridge Horizontal Directional drilling.
Will the preassembled pipeline being pushed thru the drilled hole be as durable and safe from failure as conventional construction? After the pipe is installed in the hole will it be inspected on the outside and inside for issues.
What are the diffences between doing it at the north vs. the south end.
What are they doing to rebuilt and replace the landscape that was disturbed and removed?

I am opposed to drilling under the Straits of Mackinac for Line 5.

For years, the government said it would only review a tunnel proposal. Now they’re suddenly shifting to a new drilling plan instead

Enbridge has a history of drilling accidents and spills. If something goes wrong under the Straits, oil could spread quickly into two Great Lakes at once. And Michigan taxpayers — not the company — would be left with the damage.

Let’s not further endanger the source of drinking water for millions of Americans.