This is the final week in court for the long and hard-fought battle over Enbridge Line 5. It is an oil and gas pipeline that courses through northern Wisconsin. Enbridge wants to reroute a portion of the line, and the Wisconsin DNR OK’d the company’s plan.
But the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and environmental groups have been pushing back. They want an administrative law judge to rule against the plan.
READ: Judge to decide if pipeline project proceeds in water- and habitat-rich region of northern Wisconsin
Since August, all sides have been making their case. Last week, it was Enbridge's turn. Its Line 5 has been transporting oil and gas from Superior, Wisconsin, to Sarnia, Ontario, for more than 70 years. The pipeline is 645 miles long, and one section cuts straight through Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa land. For years, an easement agreement gave Enbridge permission to cross tribal land.
The deal has long expired, and the Bad River Band wants the pipeline gone. The tribe says the pipeline puts the region’s intricate system of wetlands and streams at risk. So Enbridge proposed rerouting that portion of the pipeline around and outside tribal land.
The new 41-mile stretch would fall within the same watershed.
Last week in Madison, Timothy Drake was one of the people Enbridge called on to support its case for the new route. Drake is technical director of Minneapolis-based Environmental Resources Management.
He says he reviewed four routes Enbridge considered to avoid Bad River tribal land. "Based on the materials reviewed and developed, it’s my opinion that the preferred route is the least environmental-damaging practicable alternative,” Drake says.
Drake says when the company settled on the 41-mile route, “Enbridge surveyed wetlands and waterbodies to attempt to avoid wetlands where possible, minimize wetland crossings where practicable and adjust the route through that iterative process,” he says.
In one case, Drake says, Enbridge reduced environmental impacts by shifting a section of the pipeline 50 feet to the north.
Drake says Enbridge’s plan addresses concerns about stormwater and runoff that critics say stand to impact soils, streams and wetlands.
“Enbridge has a very robust training program initially for people working on the project, with enhanced training specifically for those involved directly with the installation and maintenance of erosion sediment controls,” Drake says.
And he pointed to additional safeguards. “It's the first time in my 28 years of working on pipeline projects that actually requires inspection of erosion controls prior to a predicted rain event of a half inch or greater,” Drake says.
One week earlier in Ashland, Wisconsin, the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa argued Enbridge's plan poses untenable risks to the watershed that supports fragile habitat and wild rice sloughs.
“There’s a lot of wetlands, there’s a lot of streams, there’s a lot of waterways that the reroute will cross,” Robert Blanchard, executive director and tribal chairman of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.
“If there was a release of any oil, it would affect a lot of what we have in front of us here today, and more,” Blanchard says.
Wetlands expert Alice Thompson testified in support of the Bad River Band’s concerns.
“I can’t overstate how the Kakagon Sloughs is an internationally recognized wetland with wild rice beds that no one else has, no other tribe, no other place has these beds. This is a unique location. And in my opinion, this permit does not go far enough to protect what is at risk,” Thompson says.
She says construction will impact more than 700 wetlands.
And while the company pledges to offset the impacts, “It’s a one-size-fits-all. Here’s one seed mix, we’re going to put it everywhere. Here are some trees, we’re going to put them everywhere. There’s no fine-tuning of the existing composition of soils and hydrology,” Thompson says.
This week, the Wisconsin DNR presents its case to Administrative Law Judge Angela Chaput Foy.
The DNR maintains it followed state law when granting Enbridge permits for the project and issued multiple conditions the company would have to meet.
Judge Foy is expected to make a decision before the year ends.
