Groups sue DNR over approval of plans for petroleum pipeline

321-mile project would bring Canadian oil through state

By LEE BERGQUIST
lbergquist@journalsentinel.com

Posted: Dec. 21, 2006

Environmental groups on Thursday sued a state agency over the review of a 321-mile petroleum pipeline from Superior to Delavan.

Pipeline

Quotable

One need only walk this corridor to see that these wetlands have been irreversibly altered by past construction, in both function and beauty. - Becky Abel, executive director of the Wisconsin Wetlands Association

Recent Coverage

11/30/06: DNR backs 321-mile oil pipeline

But environmentalists say they are equally concerned about a second stage of the project by Enbridge Inc. of Calgary, Alberta, to expand a $2 billion U.S.-Canadian pipeline through new areas of Rock County - where no pipeline exists - into Illinois.

That 23-mile expansion, if approved by regulators, would be the first petroleum pipeline through an undeveloped corridor of Wisconsin in at least a decade, state officials say.

Both projects are part of a massive pipeline that carries oil from northern Alberta to Illinois for storage and refining.

Together, they would deliver 400,000 barrels of oil a day through Wisconsin, in addition to existing capacity of 940,000 barrels a day, Enbridge said.

The company says that the pipelines are needed to meet demand and accommodate growing production in Alberta for a tar-like grade of petroleum called bitumen that can be refined for gasoline and other uses.

Both projects include a 42-inch crude oil pipeline and a 20-inch pipeline that carries hydrocarbons to Canada to dilute the mined substance known as oil or tar sands.

But the Wisconsin River Alliance, Wisconsin Wetlands Association and the Friends of the St. Croix Headwaters are challenging a decision by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to approve the first stage of the project from Superior to Delavan.

The groups took issue with the DNR for deciding not to complete a more exhaustive environmental impact study and concluding the pipeline would have only a minor effect on the environment.

The DNR declined to comment because the matter is now before a judge in Dane County Circuit Court.

The first phase of the project was expected to begin this winter and be completed by the first quarter of 2008; the second phase will be done a year later, Enbridge says.

The DNR "glossed over their responsibility" to protect wetlands, said Becky Abel, executive director of the Wisconsin Wetlands Association. "One need only walk this corridor to see that these wetlands have been irreversibly altered by past construction, in both function and beauty."

Even though the first phase largely follows an existing pipeline route, the groups worry about how it would affect wetlands, rivers and forests during the construction phase.

The project would require 242 crossings of streams and rivers - some of them tiny and intermittent and others traversing important waterways such as the Namekagon River, which is federally protected.

To build the pipeline, Enbridge wants to temporarily increase the swath of land needed from 80 feet to 180 feet.

The groups also said the DNR did not take into account the track record of the company, which includes a spill of about 250,000 gallons in 2002 in Itasca County, Minn.

In Wisconsin, Enbridge has been responsible for seven spills since 1999, the DNR said. Six of the spills were at the company terminal in Superior and were largely contained, the agency said.

"Our track record in Wisconsin has . . . not reached our goal of error free," said Denise Hamsher, a spokeswoman for Enbridge.

But she said the company's record on spills is outside the purview of state permits.

She rejected claims by the environmentalists that the company didn't have plans to restore lands disturbed by the project.

Hamsher also said Enbridge agreed that the DNR didn't need an environmental impact study because officials have spent nearly two years assessing the project.