Supplemental Draft EIS Comments

In my original remarks on the Enbridge Line 5 Tunnel Project, I expressed the view that my preferred alternative is the No Action Alternative along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1.

This tunnel should never been constructed in the first place, the reasons among which include Native American treaty rights. The damage was originally done in 1953 when the pipelines were constructed and became operational. Although there have been no spills from the twin pipelines in the actual Straits, there have been 29 spills since 1968 spewing at least 1.13 million gallons of oil along Line 5. If that is not a significant warning, I don't know what is.

Enbridge's safety record is abysmal. The most egregious example was the largest and most costly inland oil spill in United States history. On July 25th, 2010, that spill saturated approximately 40 miles of the Kalamazoo River watershed. Compounding the spill was the fact that the rupture went undetected and unreported for almost 17 hours. What king of a safety record is that?

Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1 poses the least amount of damage to the Strait itself, the surrounding environment and its wildlife. I therefore support this alternative. Just because horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is now considered feasible does not make this alternative worth considering. Again the preferred alternative should be the No Action along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

In my original remarks on the Enbridge Line 5 Tunnel Project, I expressed the view that my preferred alternative is the No Action Alternative along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1.

This tunnel should never been constructed in the first place, the reasons among which include Native American treaty rights. The damage was originally done in 1953 when the pipelines were constructed and became operational. Although there have been no spills from the twin pipelines in the actual Straits, there have been 29 spills since 1968 spewing at least 1.13 million gallons of oil along Line 5. If that is not a significant warning, I don't know what is.

Enbridge's safety record is abysmal. The most egregious example was the largest and most costly inland oil spill in United States history. On July 25th, 2010, that spill saturated approximately 40 miles of the Kalamazoo River watershed. Compounding the spill was the fact that the rupture went undetected and unreported for almost 17 hours. What king of a safety record is that?

Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1 poses the least amount of damage to the Strait itself, the surrounding environment and its wildlife. I therefore support this alternative. Just because horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is now considered feasible does not make this alternative worth considering. Again the preferred alternative should be the No Action along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

In my original remarks on the Enbridge Line 5 Tunnel Project, I expressed the view that my preferred alternative is the No Action Alternative along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1.

This tunnel should never been constructed in the first place, the reasons among which include Native American treaty rights. The damage was originally done in 1953 when the pipelines were constructed and became operational. Although there have been no spills from the twin pipelines in the actual Straits, there have been 29 spills since 1968 spewing at least 1.13 million gallons of oil along Line 5. If that is not a significant warning, I don't know what is.

Enbridge's safety record is abysmal. The most egregious example was the largest and most costly inland oil spill in United States history. On July 25th, 2010, that spill saturated approximately 40 miles of the Kalamazoo River watershed. Compounding the spill was the fact that the rupture went undetected and unreported for almost 17 hours. What king of a safety record is that?

Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1 poses the least amount of damage to the Strait itself, the surrounding environment and its wildlife. I therefore support this alternative. Just because horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is now considered feasible does not make this alternative worth considering. Again the preferred alternative should be the No Action Alternative along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

In my original remarks on the Enbridge Line 5 Tunnel Project, I expressed the view that my preferred alternative is the No Action Alternative along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1.

This tunnel should never been constructed in the first place, the reasons among which include Native American treaty rights. The damage was originally done in 1953 when the pipelines were constructed and became operational. Although there have been no spills from the twin pipelines in the actual Straits, there have been 29 spills since 1968 spewing at least 1.13 million gallons of oil along Line 5. If that is not a significant warning, I don't know what is.

Enbridge's safety record is abysmal. The most egregious example was the largest and most costly inland oil spill in United States history. On July 25th, 2010, that spill saturated approximately 40 miles of the Kalamazoo River watershed. Compounding the spill was the fact that the rupture went undetected and unreported for almost 17 hours. What king of a safety record is that?

Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1 poses the least amount of damage to the Strait itself, the surrounding environment and its wildlife. I therefore support this alternative. Just because horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is now considered feasible does not make this alternative worth considering. Again the preferred alternative should be the No Action Alternative along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

In my original remarks on the Enbridge Line 5 Tunnel Project, I expressed the view that my preferred alternative is the No Action Alternative along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1.

This tunnel should never been constructed in the first place, the reasons among which include Native American treaty rights. The damage was originally done in 1953 when the pipelines were constructed and became operational. Although there have been no spills from the twin pipelines in the actual Straits, there have been 29 spills since 1968 spewing at least 1.13 million gallons of oil along Line 5. If that is not a significant warning, I don't know what is.

Enbridge's safety record is abysmal. The most egregious example was the largest and most costly inland oil spill in United States history. On July 25th, 2010, that spill saturated approximately 40 miles of the Kalamazoo River watershed. Compounding the spill was the fact that the rupture went undetected and unreported for almost 17 hours. What king of a safety record is that?

Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1 poses the least amount of damage to the Strait itself, the surrounding environment and its wildlife. I therefore support this alternative. Just because horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is now considered feasible does not make this alternative worth considering. Again the preferred alternative should be the No Action Alternative along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

In my original remarks on the Enbridge Line 5 Tunnel Project, I expressed the view that my preferred alternative is the No Action Alternative along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1.

This tunnel should never been constructed in the first place, the reasons among which include Native American treaty rights. The damage was originally done in 1953 when the pipelines were constructed and became operational. Although there have been no spills from the twin pipelines in the actual Straits, there have been 29 spills since 1968 spewing at least 1.13 million gallons of oil along Line 5. If that is not a significant warning, I don't know what is.

Enbridge's safety record is abysmal. The most egregious example was the largest and most costly inland oil spill in United States history. On July 25th, 2010, that spill saturated approximately 40 miles of the Kalamazoo River watershed. Compounding the spill was the fact that the rupture went undetected and unreported for almost 17 hours. What king of a safety record is that?

Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1 poses the least amount of damage to the Strait itself, the surrounding environment and its wildlife. I therefore support this alternative. Just because horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is now considered feasible does not make this alternative worth considering. Again the preferred alternative should be the No Action Alternative along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

In my original remarks on the Enbridge Line 5 Tunnel Project, I expressed the view that my preferred alternative is the No Action Alternative along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1.

This tunnel should never been constructed in the first place, the reasons among which include Native American treaty rights. The damage was originally done in 1953 when the pipelines were constructed and became operational. Although there have been no spills from the twin pipelines in the actual Straits, there have been 29 spills since 1968 spewing at least 1.13 million gallons of oil along Line 5. If that is not a significant warning, I don't know what is.

Enbridge's safety record is abysmal. The most egregious example was the largest and most costly inland oil spill in United States history. On July 25th, 2010, that spill saturated approximately 40 miles of the Kalamazoo River watershed. Compounding the spill was the fact that the rupture went undetected and unreported for almost 17 hours. What king of a safety record is that?

Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1 poses the least amount of damage to the Strait itself, the surrounding environment and its wildlife. I therefore support this alternative. Just because horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is now considered feasible does not make this alternative worth considering. Again the preferred alternative should be the No Action Alternative along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Please shut down Enbridge Line 5 as soon as possible.
The risk to the health, safety, economic welfare of present and future citizens of the State of Michigan is at risk for this failing pipeline.
Please do not approve the construction of a tunnel in the Straits of Mackinaw:
1. Boring activity necessary has the risk of affecting the integrity of the anchoring of the Mackinac Bridge. An example of this is back in the 90's when the Alpena Cement Plant did some major boring for mining of limestone, it vibrated my entire house even though I live five miles from the operation.
2. Boring activity necessary to construct the tunnel has the risk of affecting water wells of adjacent residences and businesses necessary for living and making a living. The cost of replacement is unknown but puts a burden on an already economically deprived area.
3. The Army Coprs of Engineers must acknowledge the dangers they themselves reported during their research which includes the risk of an explosion from trapped gases from a pipe line leak after constsruction, or during construction as methance gas has been detected in the sub terrain of the planned tunnel.
4. As a citizen proud of our Michigan Water Wonderland, I object to the catering to the oil and gas industry by the creation of sopposed loop holes that have thus far allowed Enbridge Tunnel #5 to operate in the Straits of Mackinaw despite its failing condition; ignoring contracts put into place when the pipe line was first allowed which give the state the power of oversight and protection of our Great Lakes for the safety and welfare of our drinking water and economic sustenance. It is clear the State of Michigan does not approve of the pipeline or the tunnel. Our governor and prosecuting attorney were voted into office because they promised to close down the pipeline. We citizens must be listened to through their leadership.

Please shut down Enbridge Line 5 as soon as possible.
The risk to the health, safety, economic welfare of present and future citizens of the State of Michigan is at risk for this failing pipeline.
Please do not approve the construction of a tunnel in the Straits of Mackinaw:
1. Boring activity necessary has the risk of affecting the integrity of the anchoring of the Mackinac Bridge. An example of this is back in the 90's when the Alpena Cement Plant did some major boring for mining of limestone, it vibrated my entire house even though I live five miles from the operation.
2. Boring activity necessary to construct the tunnel has the risk of affecting water wells of adjacent residences and businesses necessary for living and making a living. The cost of replacement is unknown but puts a burden on an already economically deprived area.
3. The Army Coprs of Engineers must acknowledge the dangers they themselves reported during their research which includes the risk of an explosion from trapped gases from a pipe line leak after constsruction, or during construction as methance gas has been detected in the sub terrain of the planned tunnel.
4. As a citizen proud of our Michigan Water Wonderland, I object to the catering to the oil and gas industry by the creation of sopposed loop holes that have thus far allowed Enbridge Tunnel #5 to operate in the Straits of Mackinaw despite its failing condition; ignoring contracts put into place when the pipe line was first allowed which give the state the power of oversight and protection of our Great Lakes for the safety and welfare of our drinking water and economic sustenance. It is clear the State of Michigan does not approve of the pipeline or the tunnel. Our governor and prosecuting attorney were voted into office because they promised to close down the pipeline. We citizens must be listened to through their leadership.

Please shut down Enbridge Line 5 as soon as possible.
The risk to the health, safety, economic welfare of present and future citizens of the State of Michigan is at risk for this failing pipeline.
Please do not approve the construction of a tunnel in the Straits of Mackinaw:
1. Boring activity necessary has the risk of affecting the integrity of the anchoring of the Mackinac Bridge. An example of this is back in the 90's when the Alpena Cement Plant did some major boring for mining of limestone, it vibrated my entire house even though I live five miles from the operation.
2. Boring activity necessary to construct the tunnel has the risk of affecting water wells of adjacent residences and businesses necessary for living and making a living. The cost of replacement is unknown but puts a burden on an already economically deprived area.
3. The Army Coprs of Engineers must acknowledge the dangers they themselves reported during their research which includes the risk of an explosion from trapped gases from a pipe line leak after constsruction, or during construction as methance gas has been detected in the sub terrain of the planned tunnel.
4. As a citizen proud of our Michigan Water Wonderland, I object to the catering to the oil and gas industry by the creation of sopposed loop holes that have thus far allowed Enbridge Tunnel #5 to operate in the Straits of Mackinaw despite its failing condition; ignoring contracts put into place when the pipe line was first allowed which give the state the power of oversight and protection of our Great Lakes for the safety and welfare of our drinking water and economic sustenance. It is clear the State of Michigan does not approve of the pipeline or the tunnel. Our governor and prosecuting attorney were voted into office because they promised to close down the pipeline. We citizens must be listened to through their leadership.