Posted Draft EIS Comments

Several days is not a sufficient window of time for a representative sample of common working people to review and synthesize the meaning of a 1000 page technical document. Please please please consider extending the window of time available for public comment.

This comment period is too short for such a long document. I am requesting more time for the public to review and comment on this EIS

I am requesting more time for the public to read the 1000 page environmental impact statement for line 5. I am requesting people honor treaties with indigenous people in regard to land and water.

The public needs more time to review this statement before a vote can be taken

the public needs more time to review the more than 1000 page document!! this would allow for more time for discussion and comments from the very people this would affect

Please give the public more time to review the draft EIS and leave comments. It is quite long

Hello! Please allow more time for our review of the EIS. I’m a Minnesotan who has followed Line 3 and the damaging results already being noted by an environmental scientific community group Waadookawaad Amikwag (https://waadookawaadamikwag.org/). I am concerned that WI and MI will face similar troubles if the Line 5 tunnel is allowed to proceed. More time will allow me to give more details about my concerns, as you ask for on your website

The public should have much more time to review this impact statement, but above all, Line 5 should be completely decommissioned. It poses too much risk to the Great Lakes, with or without the tunnel; they’re a much more important natural resource than the oil transported by that pipeline, and we have responsibility to protect them.

The public needs more time to review and read this 1000 page long document!