Supplemental Draft EIS Comments

The tunnel should not be allowed and line 5 should be shut down asap.

Take down line 5. Methane explosions could happen (VERRRRYYY likely). Don't drill, your drills are going to fail. A tunnel is a terrible idea.

Line 5 needs to be REMOVED, ENDED. Stopped. No longer.

As someone who cares deeply about the Great Lakes, I am writing to express my clear expectation that you will deny Enbridge's permit for the Line 5 tunnel. The comment period has closed, and now it's time for leadership that puts the Great Lakes first.

The choice is clear: Protect the Great Lakes we all share. Massive construction through the Straits of Mackinac isn't worth the risk to this irreplaceable freshwater system that provides drinking water to 40 million people. Only you can protect the Great Lakes!

I urge you to:

1) Respect Tribal sovereignty and science - Listen to the Bad River Band and other Tribal nations who have made their opposition clear.

2) Protect the Great Lakes economy - Tourism, fishing, and communities across the region depend on clean water, not risky infrastructure projects.

3) Choose the best, safest path forward - Denying these permits is the common-sense choice for our shared Great Lakes. Doing less puts the fate of the Great Lakes in the hands of Big Oil.

People across the Great Lakes region and beyond are closely watching this decision. We expect you to stand with our Great Lakes, our Tribal partners, and the communities that depend on clean water by denying Enbridge's tunnel permits.

Thank you for your leadership in protecting the world's most important freshwater system.

Sincerely,
Evie Maher

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.