Supplemental Draft EIS Comments

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.

To the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

I am submitting this comment to express my strong opposition to the proposed Line 5 tunnel and replacement pipeline across the Straits of Mackinac. After reviewing available information and considering the purpose and requirements of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process, it is my position that the risks associated with this project far outweigh any potential benefits.

1. The Straits of Mackinac Are One of the Most Sensitive and High-Risk Locations in North America
The Straits represent a unique hydrological system where powerful and rapidly shifting currents move water between Lakes Michigan and Huron. Multiple studies, including those commissioned by the State of Michigan, have shown that even a relatively small spill in this area could spread oil across vast areas of the Great Lakes in a matter of hours. No technology currently exists that can fully contain or remediate a deep-water spill under those conditions—particularly beneath ice cover during winter months.

2. Enbridge Has a Documented History of Major Safety Failures
Enbridge’s track record is well known. The 2010 Kalamazoo River spill remains one of the most costly inland oil disasters in U.S. history. This was not an unavoidable accident; federal investigators reported delayed response, pipeline monitoring failures, and operational negligence. It is difficult to justify permitting a new long-term pipeline project in one of the most environmentally critical areas on the continent when the applicant has repeatedly failed to demonstrate adequate operational safety.

3. The Tunnel Proposal Introduces New Environmental Risks Rather Than Eliminating Existing Ones
While proponents describe the tunnel as a “safer” alternative, the construction and long-term operation of a pipeline through a confined, hard-to-access underground structure introduces its own set of hazards:

Tunnel construction would disrupt aquatic habitat and lakebed stability.

The geology of the Straits is complex, and tunneling introduces seismic, groundwater, and structural risks that remain insufficiently understood.

An incident inside a tunnel—fire, explosion, leak—would be more difficult to detect, access, or mitigate.

The project locks the region into decades more fossil-fuel dependency at a time when viable alternatives exist.

An EIS must analyze not only the proposed project, but reasonable alternatives—including decommissioning, transitioning to modern energy infrastructure, and avoiding increased long-term risk to the Great Lakes.

4. The Great Lakes Are an Irreplaceable Public Resource
The Great Lakes provide drinking water to over 40 million people, support thousands of jobs in tourism and fishing, and are protected as one of the most valuable freshwater ecosystems in the world. The consequences of a spill are not merely environmental—they are economic, cultural, and generational.

Even a low-probability, high-impact event in this location would be catastrophic. No pipeline benefit can justify jeopardizing a resource of such magnitude.

5. Public Comment Shows Overwhelming Opposition
Recent public meetings have demonstrated significant and consistent concern from citizens, environmental experts, tribal nations, and community organizations. The strong public opposition reflects an understanding that the risks are real, the location is uniquely vulnerable, and alternatives exist that do not require endangering the Great Lakes.


Based on the substantial environmental risks, inadequate safety assurances, and available alternatives, I respectfully request that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:

Deny the permit for the proposed Line 5 tunnel project.

Require the decommissioning of the existing Line 5 pipeline through the Straits.

Prioritize protection of the Great Lakes consistent with the Corps’ obligations under NEPA, the Clean Water Act, and the public trust doctrine.

Protecting the Straits of Mackinac and the Great Lakes is a responsibility that extends far beyond the interests of any single corporation. These waters are essential to the people, economy, and ecology of our region. The safest pipeline under the Straits is no pipeline at all.

Thank you for considering this comment.

Respectfully submitted,
Scott Bates
8662 Mystic Pines Ct.
Pinckney, Mi. 48169

As a taxpayer, homeowner and seasonal resident, I am against the horizontal drilling proposal. It significantly adds to environmental impact including destruction of protected lands and recreational opportunities. Construction traffic and noise over a larger area for a long period of time is detrimental to quality of life. As a neuroscientist I am concerned about the neurological impact of constant noise and vibration in residential areas. A logical alternative is a Canadian route for oil coming from Canada on its way through Michigan back to Canada for the profit of a Canadian corporation.

Do not dirty our fresh water with your selfish greedy oil drilling crap. Or i will be pissed and i wont be alone.

And it was only the review of tunnel proposal that was indicated not drilling. Enbridge,has a bad reputation of drill accidents and spills we dont want it.

I live in Chicago. My fresh water comes from Lake Michigan. I oppose drilling under Lake Michigan. I oppose pipelines under Lake Michigan.

I have been following this project for the last 10 years. I remember learning more and more about it as the time passed....about very idea that a 70 year old pipeline still exists under the straits......waiting for a catastrophe to happen. The latest plan, offered by our own USACE, is not even one that is preferred by Enbridge. They still favor the tunnel!!!! All of these approaches put Michigan's environment at risk....one slip and the entire Great Lake system would be at peril....and Enbridge's record of repair with the Kalamazoo River and their Line 3 blunders, gives me a big headache. Do the right thing and shut down this operation...we, taxpayers of Michigan, will be on the hook for maintenance, etc. after this Canadian company completes construction. We can find a better way to supply the gas amount to the UP than one that threatens our whole state. Refuse these approaches and look at the way of the future with less reliance on fossil fuels.