Report guardian (UK): Smart businesses will act now to reduce their environmental impact

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/23/companies-roll-out-contingency-plans-as-power-remains-cut-off-in-areas-of-downtown-calgary/

Major energy and financial companies with offices in downtown Calgary rolled out contingency plans on the weekend, bracing for disruptions Monday as officials continued to survey flood-related damage and power remained cut off from pockets of the city’s core.

The city at the heart of Canada’s energy industry remains in a state of emergency more than four days after the Bow and Elbow rivers spilled over their banks, swamping nearby communities and city streets and forcing thousands from their homes.

Officials said parts of the downtown could be without power until at least mid-week. “We don’t know yet what the extent of the damage is, which is why we leave a fairly wide open time frame,” said Bruce Burrell, director of the Calgary Emergency Management Agency.

Gianna Manes, chief executive officer of power company Enmax Corp., said one of three substations that service the downtown had taken on water. Speaking to reporters Sunday, Ms. Manes said the company is still assessing damage to the units and transmission infrastructure. “We are guardedly optimistic,” she said, saying the overall electrical system in the city remained “strong.”

She said crews from Epcor Utilities Inc. in Edmonton were assisting in recovery efforts, and that Enmax would seek help from other utilities “as necessary.” Of 24,000 customers without power, roughly 10,000 were located in the downtown core as of Sunday afternoon, officials said.

By Sunday evening, companies were rolling out contingency plans. Natural gas giant Encana Corp. is asking workers to stay home as per city instructions, spokesman Jay Averill said. “We expect many Encana staff have been impacted. Their safety and security are the most important right now,” he said in an email.

More than 3,000 employees can access computer systems remotely, Mr. Averill said. “We have asked that anyone that is working on business critical functions and others that are capable of accessing their workstations from home to do so in the coming days.”

Employees at Suncor Energy Inc., Canada’s largest oil company, were being redirected from its downtown tower to satellite offices elsewhere in the city, spokeswoman Sneh Seetal said in an interview Sunday. “We’re encouraging them not to use remote connections so they don’t tax the system,” she said.

She said the flood has not impacted operations. Employees are being contacted via social media services such as Twitter and Facebook, she said. The company has not assessed damages to its downtown office, she said.

Imperial Oil Ltd. will remain closed Monday, spokesman Pius Rolheiser said in an emailed message. Essential services will be maintained via remote access and car washes at the company’s Esso gas stations have been shut down, he said.

Canada’s National Energy Board has closed its downtown office and activated an emergency operations centre, it said in a message posted to its web site.

The board is monitoring the high water and flooding in southern Alberta, it said. “Major hearings and applications have not been affected,” the board said, adding that it is “monitoring pipelines under our jurisdiction and they remain safe.”

Also Sunday, Enbridge Inc. shut down two major oil sands pipelines as a precaution because of heavy rain conditions, spokesman Graham White confirmed. The shutdown of the 570,000-barrel-a-day Athabasca and the 600,000-barrel Waupisoo pipelines, which connect oil sands deposits in the north to export hubs at Edmonton and Hardisty, Alta., followed an unrelated leak of 750 barrels of light, synthetic crude on the company’s Line 37 north of Cheecham, Alta. Mr. White did not say when the lines would be restarted.

Calgary’s downtown houses about one-third of the city’s employment base, or between 150,000 and 180,000 workers, said Adam Legge, president and CEO of the Calgary Chamber of Commerce. None of them currently have access to their workplace, he said.

Indications are that the full extent of the evacuation will be measured in weeks, not days, he said. Smaller businesses face a “triple whammy,” Mr. Legge said, including lost revenue, damage to premises and damage to inventory.

Data is scant at this point in terms of direct impacts on business, but Mr. Legge said companies that don’t have remote technology and those that rely on foot traffic would be most impacted by the shutdown. Larger oil and financial services companies typically house their computer networks off-site, he said.

In hard hit High River, Alta., Bank of Montreal has brought in a trailer to take over operations for one of its swamped branches, spokesperson Laurie Grant said. A flooded branch near Calgary’s Elbow Park will remain closed. About 75 staff from the bank’s evacuated downtown offices would be relocated to other BMO locations.

Ken Warren, managing partner of the Calgary office of law firm Gowlings, said computer systems were transferred to the firm’s Vancouver office in anticipation of a power outage that never actually came. The Calgary office remains under evacuation order and physical damage is considered limited, he said.

“Our internal stuff can all wait. It’s really making sure our clients get dealt with,” Mr. Warren said Sunday. That is complicated because the legal business remains largely paper-based, and lawyers who are currently cut off from their filing cabinets have few options. “For us, it really will be access to the building” that will let things get back to normal. “And then we’ll play catch-up. We’re a service industry.”

Back to Menu

_________________________________________________________________
Mondaq: Canada: Endangered Species Act: Permit By Rule Going Ahead

http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/246752/Endangered+Species+Act+Permit+By+Rule+Going+Ahead

Ontario's Ministry of Natural Resources is moving ahead to shift some Endangered Species Act permits to a "permit by rule"/ registration system, through  Ontario Regulation 176/13. This "Modernization of Approvals" initiative is modelled on the successful one already well underway in the Ministry of the Environment. It was supported by the report of the Endangered Species Act Panel, as one of its six themes.
I'm a strong supporter of the "Modernization of Approvals"/permit by rule concept: the idea that common, low risk, frequently permitted activities can be governed by a standard set of rules, instead of a bespoke permit. If the activities are well chosen and the rules are well designed, a registration/permit by rule system makes routine permits faster, more predictable and more uniform, without reducing species protection. Enforcement is essential, of course, but it should be easier to enforce standard rules than it is to enforce one-off permits bedevilled by  little variations. And reducing the number of routine permits should free up regulatory staff to focus on the more challenging applications, as has been happening at the Ministry of the Environment.

Please note that MNR is calling its approach "Rules in regulation", instead of the more common "permit by rule". The Ministry of Environment calls the same approach its "registry" or "EASR" system.

In a telling sign of the importance of Endangered Species Act protection, the Ministry received 10034 comments on its proposal: 9469 comments writing and 565 online. 90% were form letters, both for and against the proposal. As a result, a number of useful amendments were made to the proposal, now Ontario Regulation 176/13 (which amends O. Reg. 242/08)

Expert Panel Recommendations

Here is what the expert panel recommended:

The Ministry of Natural Resources should implement an approval continuum where a  "permit by rule" (PBR) approach is implemented for certain projects/activities, which must meet a prescribed standard set of implementation conditions instead of proceeding through the regular negotiated approvals process (Permit by Review). Projects/activities that would suit this approach are those which are common and repeated, where there is confidence in the mitigation and therefore a lower risk to the species / habitat and where acceptable implementation best management practices are followed / repeated, such as conservation projects where the purpose is habitat creation. Risk assessment criteria could be developed by MNR to determine what other types of projects/activities would be subject to this PBR standard condition approach. It is recommended that PRB will only be implemented in exceptional circumstances for a relatively small proportion of approval applications in cases where the risk to ESA species is demonstrably low.

Compliance would be enforced by focusing on self-regulation with random audits of activities, and charges being laid for non-compliance, as appropriate.

Public Comments and MNR response

Here is a summary of the public comments that were received on the concept, along with MNR's responses:

"1. The ESA should be strengthened, but the proposal weakens the Act and would lead to a degradation of habitat; the proposal does not meet MNR's mandate or the intent of the ESA

The regulatory amendments continue to maintain a high level of protection of species at risk and their habitat. MNR is changing the way its work is carried out to better serve those who rely on the ministry for programs and services in a way that is consistent with MNR's mandate. There are no changes to the Act, but rather to O. Reg. 242/08, which is a regulation enabled by the current legislation. The changes are consistent with the purposes of the ESA.

Some of the changes after consultation and engagement that strengthen the protection of species at risk required by the proposal are:

• 
  The regulation requires proponents to consider Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge (ATK) when preparing a mitigation plan, which will facilitate engagement at the community level.
  
• 
  Aquatic Species (s. 23.4) Conditions in the standardized approach were expanded to provide more options for taking actions to benefit affected species.
  
• 
  Ecosystem protection (s. 23.11)
  

species that are found on-site late in the activity process are not eligible for this provision and a permit would be required for this circumstance.

• 
  Newly-listed and transition species – development (s. 23.13) and Early exploration mining (s. 23.10) Proponents are prohibited from carrying out any part of the activity in an area that is being used, or has been used at any time in the previous three years, by woodland caribou (forest-dwelling boreal population) to carry out a life process related to reproduction, including rearing.
  
• 
  Pits and quarries (s. 23.14) The time period in which to complete a mitigation plan when a species first appears on a site was reduced from three to two years.
  
• 
  Safe harbour habitat (s. 23.16) The "safe harbour plan" concept was removed. The regulation now only allows eligible safe harbour habitat (i.e. temporary habitat for species at risk, that will be removed at a later date) to be created or enhanced in accordance with a permit or agreement issued by or entered into with the Minister. .
  
• 
  Species protection, recovery activities (s. 23.17) An animal care protocol is required for activities involving handling of certain types of species at risk, in order to minimize potential adverse effects on the species.
  
• 
  Threats to health and safety, not imminent (s. 23.18)
  

• 
  A number of species are excluded from specific sections of the regulation due to the potential risk the activities present to these particular species.
  

The administrative changes to the regulation (Trapping – incidental catch s. 23.19, Possession for educational purposes, etc. s. 23.15, and Commercial cultivation of vascular plants, etc. s. 12) do not alter species protections but rather help avoid duplication and integrate a number of approvals with other planning processes in place within MNR.

Under the "rules-in-regulation" model put in place by these regulatory amendments, proponents of activities that would otherwise have prohibited impacts on species at risk or their habitats must satisfy requirements set out in the regulation. In most case proponents are required to register their activities with the Ministry and take a number of steps to minimize adverse effects on protected species or habitat. MNR will continue to conduct education and outreach activities, monitoring, auditing, and where necessary enforcement actions for the purpose of protecting and recovering species in Ontario.

3. Need increased efficiencies and flexibility for industry (e.g., there should be a window of two years before mitigation of adverse effects is required, health and safety proposal should not have any excluded species)

The Ministry is providing greater flexibility to industry by proceeding with a "rules-in–regulation" regulatory model for eligible activities in a way that continues to protect species at risk. The Ministry is focusing its efforts and resources on responding to requests for ESA permits for activities not covered in this regulation that are likely to have greater potential to impact species at risk.

4. The Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA) already provides for needs of SAR; the forest sector is required to continuously update their management practices to be consistent with provincial recovery strategies developed under the ESA; the forestry sector should be exempt from the ESA based on unnecessary duplication with CFSA.

The new provision dealing with forest operations sets out the conditions that persons conducting forest operations impacting species at risk or their habitats must comply with if not acting under an ESA permit. This provision will apply to forest operations conducted before July 1, 2018 (5 years), during which time the Ministry will establish a panel to review the linkages between the ESA and the CFSA. The panel will include members from Aboriginal communities, along with stakeholders from the forest industry, municipalities and environmental organizations.

5. Recommendation to charge fees for permits as a means to offset budget cuts and avoid exemptions

Implementing a full cost recovery system for permitting is under consideration, but is out of scope for the current regulatory amendments.

6. General concern that registration and "rules-in-regulation" are intended to replace permitting; new SAR on sites should be addressed through overall benefit permits.

Where appropriate, MNR is shifting from a "review and approval" model to a registration and "rules–in-regulation" model. The rules set out in the regulation are comparable to permit conditions and include requirements such as: registering with MNR; taking reasonable steps to minimize adverse effects on the species; developing mitigation plans using expert advice and the best available information; monitoring and reporting on the effectiveness of mitigation measures and beneficial actions (where applicable); and, reporting of sightings to MNR. Some activities are eligible only if linked to existing instruments or approvals. In some instances, higher risk activities, species, community types or sensitive time periods for species have been excluded from the applicability of the regulation.

Permits will continue to be required where an activity is not eligible for one of the provisions of the regulation, or the requirements of the regulation cannot be met.

In addition, overall benefit permits would still be required for the development or construction phases of many activities that impact species at risk or their habitat. For existing operations, newly found species must be protected as soon as they are found by avoiding and minimizing adverse effects, followed by the development and implementation of a longer term mitigation plan.

7. Registration must be mandatory for all proposals; registration will not provide enough information for MNR to monitor when exemptions are being used, or the cumulative effects resulting from activities occurring under the exemptions.

All of the new regulatory provisions require the proponent to comply with rules laid out in the regulation. All but two of the eighteen provisions require registration; activities, locations and species will be recorded in the registration. The Ministry will be aware of activities that are occurring under the regulation, where they are taking place on the landscape, and which species are affected; this will facilitate analysis of cumulative effects.

Two of the regulatory provisions (Commercial cultivation of vascular plants, etc. s. 12 and Forest operations in Crown forests s. 22.1) do not require the proponent to register with the Ministry before undertaking a specified type of activity. The amendments to s. 12 (Commercial cultivation of vascular plants etc.) leave that section largely unchanged, though cultivators will no longer be required to give notice to MNR.

Forest operations carried out under approved forest management plans would not require an ESA permit provided the proponent complies with the rules set out in regulation. MNR is responsible for approving forest management plans under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. The regulatory scheme in place under that Act already includes requirements to address impacts to species at risk; it also requires reports that will assist the Ministry with assessing the cumulative disturbance of forestry operations. Additional conditions in the regulation include direction consistent with the Caribou Conservation Plan related to forest management planning.

8. Comments and questions about consultation, the amount of information in the first posting and the makeup of the ESA Panel

This proposal notice about the ESA regulatory amendments was originally posted on the Environmental Registry (ER) for a 45 day comment period on December 5, 2013. The comment period for this notice was subsequently extended, and the notice was updated with a ten page document containing additional information on January 24, 2013, for a total of 82 days. MNR continued to consult with stakeholders during the development of the regulation.

The ESA Panel was developed to deliver advice to the ministry on improving the implementation of the ESA and represented a range of interests and expertise.

• 
  To be eligible for the "transition" provision (Newly-listed and transition species – development s. 23.13) there are a number of conditions that must be followed for activities that were approved or planned prior to dates specified in the regulation. These include conditions that require proponents to protect individual members of species at risk carrying out critical life processes such as reproduction and hibernation. Conditions also require proponents to take steps to avoid or minimize adverse effects on species or habitat; monitor and prepare a report on the effectiveness of these actions annually; develop and implement a mitigation plan for affected species at risk, carrying out habitat restoration or enhancement activities; and report observations of species identified to MNR.
  
• 
  The ER notice dated December 5, 2012 included a number of potential sectors that might be included in the "transition provision". The document that was added on January 24, 2013 providing additional detail included a list of specific activities; other sectors that felt they might be eligible for this provision were invited to provide comments to MNR. Activities that have been added to the "transition" provision as a result of comments received by the Ministry are:
  

• 
  Clarification was requested regarding eligibility under an existing transition regulatory provision for development and infrastructure affecting Redside Dace. Clarification regarding eligibility under s. 23.1 has been added to the regulation.
  

• 
  Wind facilities (s. 23.20 ) This section applies to a person who is engaged in the operation of a wind facility within the meaning of Ontario Regulation 359/09 (Renewable Energy Approvals under Part V.0.1 of the Act) made under the Environmental Protection Act.
  
• 
  Early exploration mining (s. 23.10) This section applies with respect to certain mining activities that constitute early exploration as defined in s. 1 (1) of Ontario Regulation 308/12 (Exploration Plans and Exploration Permits) made under the Mining Act.