Posted Draft EIS Comments

First of all, we should not be negotiating with Enbridge about the tunnel when they’ve yet to respect tribal sovereignty and remove their pipelines from tribal land, which was never approved and is vehemently opposed. All 12 tribal nations in Michigan oppose the continued use of this tunnel and have made that clear (see narf.org and baymills.org). Furthermore, the site of the proposed tunnel is sacred to the Bay Mills Community and to continue with this process would be to continue a terrible disrespect to them and all Anishinaabe.

Whether indigenous or not, we all should be protecting the Great Lakes, not putting them at risk. They are a lifeline for many in Michigan, through fishing, tourism, and many other activities. With pipelines, we know it’s not a matter of if they’ll spill, but when and where, and such a spill at this location would be devastating to the environment and people in this area and beyond. Enbridge and Line 5 have terrible records and we need to remove their risk from our state and waters! (https://www.oilandwaterdontmix.org/enbridge_safety_record)

The idea. of a tunnel through the straits has not been rationally or honestly thought through. The potential for an accident that could forever alter the Great Lakes ecosystem for hundreds of years. The money to be used for an enclosed pipeline would be logically better spent on building a new pipeline around the Great Lakes, through Ontario. If a break were to happen it would be much easier to contain it on land than water. The easy way is never the overall best solution. Stop putting profits first and consider the lives of the next generation. Why leave potential disasters for others when their safety can be assured by you now.

What is the point of this silly exercise in appeasement- you have made your faulty decision and you will have to live with it !

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the draft EIS for Line 5/Tunnel. I have just read through the draft; your observations and statements are impressive and seem comprehensive. Which is why your conclusions about the safety of the tunnel are blind-siding. You have gone thru a lot of data and trouble to clearly lay out the dangers that could happen to the waters and resources in the event of a leak or rupture on land. But you are taking the word of a company that has no history nor expertise to grant a permit to create a tunnel under the most precious of waters in the US. Have there been mock-ups? Have they worked? Because if the mock-ups don’t work, how can you expect the real thing to work. And how realistic are those building plans? Please take into consideration the concerns of others – including those with on-the water expertise. Although your scope did not include Wisconsin, you do have to consider the entire line. Because you are the linch-pin here; if you ok this foolish plan, it will affect not only the tunnel and its surrounding, but also the entire planned re-route. And in Wisconsin, the damage to our wetlands would be catastrophic to tribes and to those whose water depends on access to the underground resources that the line will impact. Your responsibility truly is not just for the tunnel. Your mission statement says your job is to protect the waters – the rivers and wetlands. Please do. Thank you.

Please do not allow the Enbridge Line 5 Tunnel project to go forward. The loss of bat habitat and critical wetlands is too great a cost to wildlife and the environment. There is also the possibility of an oil spill into the fresh waters of the Great Lakes, which would have an enormous impact on Michigan’s economy and the health of its citizens and wildlife. Please stop this ill advised project before irreparable harm is done. The pipeline needs to be shut down completely.

Constructing new fossil fuels infrastructure in the 21st century is like making a new liquor cabinet for a liver-diseased alcoholic.

I agree with line 5 tunnel under the lake bed , encased in cement. This has been dragging thru the courts much too long . Let’s get it done already !

The potential for catastropic damage is monumentally high and I encourage you to deny this project.

I am writing today to voice my dissent against a project that seeks to secure line 5. The line is advanced severely in age and has suffered numerous close calls. We do not need to look far to see what irreparable damage an oil spill in our great lakes could cause. There are numerous concerns about this project and the advancement of any pipeline. I do not support any construction designed to aid the growth of this pipeline and firmly believe that decommissioning this aged and structurally unsound pipeline is of the utmost importance to the environmental security that we cherish in our Great Lakes region. I hope that you will consider my comment towards the decommissioning of this danger before catastrophic damage is brought to our wildlife and to our people.

As a retired business professor, I’m very concerned about the economic impact should a catastrophic accident happen. More than 1.3 million jobs, equating to $82 billion in wages, are directly tied to the Great Lakes. Unfortunately, as humans we tend to underestimate the impact of low (but not zero) probability events. The risk is not worth it for an outdated source of energy.