This was a group project I completed in Autumn of 2008, for a class on Resolving Social Conflict about environmental issues. My team conducted a stakeholder and conflict analysis covering an Environmental Impact Statement submitted by NiSource Columbia Gas in 2007, which included a request for a 50-year Incidental Take Permit. This analysis included the interests, frames, goals, and concerns of NiSource, the Ohio EPA, environmentalist groups, local landowners, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and other state and local agencies. We also addressed the permitting process, as well as legal issues related to the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This SlideShare presents our analysis and recommendations for conflict prevention.

1. NiSource Columbia Gas:
Conflict Analysis
Anna McCreery
Amanda Nahlik
Ryan Pilewski
Kristina Slagle
Chris Stoneburg

3. NiSource Columbia Gas Background
NiSource is a natural gas distributer and is responsible for
transmission pipelines and storage facilities
On 11 October 2007, submitted a notice of intent to apply
for Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance permits
• Request for a 50-year Incidental Take Permit (ITP)
•To construct, expand, and maintain pipelines
• Without requiring permits for individual projects
•ITP protects NiSource from liability associated with the
incidental “take” of species listed under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA)

4. Background
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969
•NEPA involves U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
•Public meetings legally required
•Allows for comment by the general
public and affected stakeholders
http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/transport.asp

5. Background
•Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)
must be provided by NiSource
•Mitigates and protects any affected
species and “ensure that the taking is
incidental to, and not the purpose of,
an otherwise lawful activity”
•Required for Incidental Take Permit
(ITP)
http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/transport.asp
•1-mile corridor across the 17,000
miles of pipeline

6. Location
NiSource operates a network of pipelines in 17 states
 Midwest, Southern, and Eastern United States
Eight states are included by NiSource in
a multi-region Habitat Conservation
Plan (HCP)
Ohio has the largest expanse of pipeline:
3,000 miles or one-fifth of the total
pipeline

7. Current Timeline

8. The Problem
 ESA compliance permit process
 Time consuming
 Expensive
 NiSource and USFWS had discussions to reduce
costs associated with individual projects
 50-year “Blanket Request”
Eastern Spadefoot Toad
Disputes
 Lengthy permit request
 “taking” of endangered species
 Landowner property rights
http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2003-04/7416110.jpg

10. NiSource: Roles and Strategies
 Activities may impact environment, applying for ESA
compliance permits.
 Role = Applicant
 Maintain a modest and professional identity frame
 No evidence of elevating or righteous self-images
 Negative characterization frames are often embedded in
environmental conflict
 Has avoided using such frames
 Interest to keep the support of the stakeholders
 Stakeholders’ positions are important because they can
influence the permit process

11. NiSource: Interests
 Interests:
 Blanket ITP saves time and money
 Perspective:
 “hot tub” group: Shared values between NiSource and the
stakeholders
 Concerned with matters of interest
 most stakeholder groups are concerned with matters of principle
 Believe environmental and economic development are
important and compatible

12. NiSource: Goals and Frames
 Goal:
 Create a HCP that serves their own needs for an ITP
while meeting the principles of the environmental and
land owner stakeholders
 Framed under the Misunderstanding Model:
 NiSource is increasing communication with stakeholders
in hopes that an agreement will materialize

13. NiSource: Actions
NiSource put time, money, and effort into a pre-negotiation
phase
 Identified over 1300 potential stakeholders
 Used formal invitations, emails, websites, and media
announcements to publicize meetings
 Held “open house” scoping meetings in each region involved in
permits
In holding scoping meetings, NiSource has
 Actively involved stakeholders
 Passed information along
 Collected ideas for improvement from stakeholders
By maintaining open communication, NiSource
has so far avoided conflict spirals

14. NiSource: Approach
 Collaborative Approach
 Cooperating with other parties, but assertive concerning their
own needs
 NiSource has
 Openly accepted written suggestions from stakeholders
 Outlined and organized each concern and suggestion
 Compiled results from scoping meetings into a public “Scoping
Report”
 Plans on addressing each of the stakeholders’ concerns
in the draft HCP
 Also will be open for public review

15. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Roles & Responsibilities
 Draft an EIS
 Evaluate NiSource’s HCP
 Hear comments from other stakeholders, and
incorporate them into the process
 Decide whether to grant an ITP to NiSource
Interests
 Protect endangered species by enforcing the ESA
 Enable building or maintenance projects to be
undertaken carefully, and with appropriate protections

16. USFWS: Approach to the Conflict
 Collaborating with NiSource
 Involving other stakeholders through the public
scoping process
 They have not yet taken a position, and will not do so
until the draft EIS is complete
 Framing the issue as “business as usual”, despite the
unprecedented 50-year time span

17. Environmentalist Groups
Group Principles Tools
Ohio •Air/Water •Litigation
Environmental Quality •Legislation
Council •Land-use •Science
Buckeye Forest •Forest •Member activism
Council Preservation •Legislative communication
Ohio Chapter of •Environmental •Grassroots Activism
the Sierra Club Preservation •Litigation
•Education

18. Environmentalist Groups: Frames
Frame Substantive Identity Outcome
Type:
What it Characterize Who we are Focus is on
is: substance of conflict outcome
How it’s “This is an assault “Environmental “We do not want
used: on the ESA!” Protectors” this 50-year ITP
to be issued.”

19. Public & Private Property Owner Roles
Role of the Public and Land Owners:
•Provide comments, information and suggestions to
the USFWS and NiSource for their development of
the EIS and HCP
Issues:
•pipeline siting
•eminent domain and land use
rights
•health and safety
•environmental impact
•more stringent enforcement of
ESA http://www.maverickengineering.com/includes/images/pipelines/image01.jpg

20. Landowner Contacts
•Specific landowner contact information was
undisclosed
•Landowner comments were listed
anonymously
Public Comments by
Landowners:
•Concerns about property rights
•Questions about the use of herbicides and
pesticides in pipeline management
•Disclosure to the landowners of such
chemical use
http://www.tensor.ws/_borders/backhoewelding.jpg

21. Similar Case:
Rockies Express Pipeline (REX)
• Proposed 42 inch, 1,323 mile natural gas pipeline system
Colorado to Clarington, Ohio
• Citizens have voiced concerns and questions over the
line placement
• “Keep homes at a reasonable distance from the pipeline,
minimizing land devaluation and potential dangers”
(Residents Against the Rockies Express Pipeline)
• Use of the popular website YouTube
"Stop the REX Pipeline!"
http://www.tensor.ws/_borders/backhoewelding.jpg

22. ~NIMBY~ ~GOOMBY~ ~LULU~
In the REX case: Hard framing of the issue by land owners
mistrust among landowners with governing bodies and private
companies laying claim to pipeline routes in their back yard
Photo Credit: http://pstrust.org/library/docs/vol3no1/pstnewsletter_vol3no1.pdf

23. State and Local Agencies
Roles & Responsibilities
 Provide comments and suggestions to coordinating
agency/organization
 Make sure the project maintains the best interests
of state and local agencies

24. State and Local Agencies
Interests
 Protect state endangered and threatened species
 Making the sure the federal agencies involve state and local
agencies during the process
 Protect the environment
 Have an understanding of social and economic development
needs

25. State and Local Agencies
Approach to the Conflict
 Provide worthwhile comments to the coordinating
organization
 All affected state and local parties are involved
 Make sure state and local agencies have the ability to
review plans and procedures
 Make sure state threatened and endangered species are
included in conservation plans

27. Issues
 NiSource has already responded to some issues by including:
 candidate and threatened species in addition to nationally
endangered species to their incidental take list
 adaptive management plan if the current HCP is not working for a
particular species
 Proposed timeline not followed
 Draft HCP release delayed until early 2009
 Information not updated on websites or timelines
 In need of better communication of their progress through
 Website and directly to participating stakeholders

28. Issues
 13 scoping meetings were scheduled, averaging roughly one
meeting per state
 Potential stakeholders may have been missed or excluded due
to meeting locations
 USFWS made the Scoping Report and meeting information public
 Allowed for written comments
 USFWS received minimal comments from the public scoping
period related to:
 Notice of intent
 Application for a permit
 USFWS expects more substantive comments from the public
after the Draft EIS is released

29. Recommendations for Resolution
• Conflict is in early stages of development
• Too early to predict
• Too early for specific recommendations
General Recommendations
• Increased Communication between Stakeholders
• Delays in original timeline
• Updates on progress
• Negotiation Meetings
• Neutral third party
• Increased communication
• Compromise
http://www.shelbycounselingassociates.org/clientimages/33040/conflict.jpg

30. Thank you!
Questions?