Ontario: Licensing Private Natural Gas Wells

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) has now released the final version of its "Approach for Licensing Private Gas Wells".  This internal operating policy directive establishes the criteria by which operating, pre-existing private gas wells can become licensed by the MNR under the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act.  The requirement for a license came into effect for all wells, private or commercial, in June 1997.  However, many private wells were not licensed.

The policy directive clarifies the terms and establishes minimum guidelines for licensing pre-existing private wells.  According to MNR, the policy addresses potential safety and environmental risks posed by those wells, while recognizing the benefits of having private well operators come forward to obtain a well licence.  Read the policy directive at: Licensing Existing Private Natural Gas Wells.

On the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry, the MNR has also posted a summary of various comments it received during the review process and its responses to these comments:

1. “Private Use” of Gas

Comment: Natural gas from these wells is often consumed by someone on a property other than the one on which the gas well is located. Such a transfer of gas, or the transfer of a gas well itself in some cases, may have been captured in a written agreement between the two parties who believe they are acting within the law. The policy describes any sale of gas as disqualifying the well from being considered as “private use”. The suggestion was made to allow flexibility to recognize these ‘good faith’ agreements as being within the definition of private use.

MNR Response: To accommodate these types of agreements, the interpretation of “private use” has been revised to include persons with a legal interest in the well. MNR recognizes that such agreements exist and will have various levels of complexity and sophistication. Agreements will be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine if there is substantial evidence to support the legitimate use of gas by someone other than the well owner.

2. Annual Consumption of Gas

Comment: The policy requires that the annual consumption of gas from a well be less than 10,000 m3 for it to be considered a private well. Some respondents commented that this threshold should be removed from the policy altogether. Others commented that the limit was too low and should be increased to accommodate farmers who use the gas in the operation of their farm (for drying crops, heating outbuildings, etc).

MNR Response: The annual consumption limit has been removed from the policy.

3. Adjacent Lands

Comment: The policy allows for use of gas on “adjacent” properties so long as those properties are owned by the well operator. The meaning of the term “adjacent” needs to be clarified.

MNR Response: The term adjacent has been clarified in the policy to mean “two properties that share a common boundary.”

4. Pipelines Crossings Right-of-Ways

Comment: Transmission of gas through a pipeline crossing or alongside a municipal road allowance or right-of-way disqualifies the well for licensing unless the pipeline is inspected by the Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA) and authorized by the municipality. A number of respondents were uncomfortable with the idea that TSSA might be contacted by MNR, because TSSA operates on a cost-recovery basis and could cause undue hardship for well owners.

MNR Response: MNR is responsible only for the licensing of the gas well. The intention of this requirement was to ensure well owners recognized that MNR’s gas well licence may not be the only approval needed for the operation of a private well. The wording in the policy has been revised to make clear that it is the responsibility of the well owner to obtain any other necessary approvals that may be required to use and/or transmit gas from a private well. The onus to seek other approvals rests solely with the well owner or operator and will not be a condition of licensing.

5. Qualified Persons

Comment: The list of Qualified Persons in the policy should be expanded to include technicians and technologists, not just engineers, geoscientists, and Examiners. Respondents pointed out that the cost of using an engineer, for example, may be prohibitive.

MNR Response: The policy is revised to state that other persons not already qualified as Class II Examiners may seek to qualify as a Class II Examiner and thereby become a Qualified Person. This would include someone certified as an engineering technologist (C.E.T.) or certified technician (C. Tech) with the Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists.

6. Cementing Around the Wellhead

Comment: Generally respondents felt that the requirement to cement around the wellhead was not practical and should be removed from the policy. The freezing and thawing of the ground around the wellhead will cause the cement to fracture and break apart, defeating its intended purpose. In some locales, the ground around a well is made of hard clay and is already impervious to water.

MNR Response: MNR has removed the requirement to cement around the wellhead from the minimum Acceptable Well Conditions described in the policy. However, it is still required that the ground around the wellhead be sloped away in all directions to prevent the pooling of water in the vicinity of the well.

7. Setbacks

Comment: Setbacks from buildings and other infrastructure were the subject of many responses. Some pointed to the fact that many wells had been encroached upon by development (i.e. were there prior to the infrastructure, not vice-versa) and therefore the setbacks unfairly penalize the well owners. The 30 metre (m) setback from a property boundary was the subject of most comments. People noted that many wells were purposefully placed near a property boundary to keep them from obstructing farming operations. Others remarked that utility installations were often located within 10m of a roadway and felt that private gas wells were being unfairly penalized by requiring a 10m setback from the road allowance.

MNR Response: MNR has made the following changes to the setbacks in the policy:

• The 30m setback from a property boundary has been removed.
• Reduced the setback from road allowance to 5m (from 10m).
• Removed the 50m setback from Great Lakes and tributaries. A 15m setback will apply to water bodies.

Other setbacks, namely the 30m setback from private residences and the 75m setback from public buildings, remain unchanged. However, the ministry will consider a reduced separation distance if it is supported by the opinion of a professional engineer hired by the well owner.

8. Term of Licence

Comment: A number of respondents did not agree with limiting the term of a private gas well licence to 10 years. Some thought it should be longer than 10 years; others thought that there term should not be limited at all. There was a general concern that the licensing conditions will be different in 10 years time and wells that had previously received a private licence would no longer qualify.

MNR Response: The policy has been changed so that licences will be eligible for a 10-year renewal upon expiry. The 10-year renewal is subject to an evaluation confirming that the well continues to meet the requirements expressed in the policy.

9. Transfer of Licence

Comment: Most respondents agreed that a private well licence should be transferable to a new land owner. One person suggested that the requirement for an evaluation prior to transfer be waived if the well had recently been evaluated.

MNR Response: The well licence will be transferable without the requirement for a new evaluation if the well owner can provide proof that the well had been evaluated within the last year.

10. Safeguards

Comment: The policy requires that methane detectors be installed in buildings being supplied gas from a private well and that barriers be built around a well with the potential to be struck by a vehicle. Although several respondents recognized methane detectors would improve safety for those using the gas, it was felt by some that that it was not within the MNR’s authority to establish such a requirement. Several respondents supported the requirement for barriers to protect the well where there was potential for a vehicle to collide with the well.

MNR Response: The safeguard section has been reworded to recommend the installation of methane detectors and vehicular barriers as a “best practice”.

11. Incentives

Comment: Many respondents who commented on the proposed incentives thought that the MNR should pay the entire cost of upgrading or decommissioning a well. One commentor suggested that the MNR pay for half (50%) of the well operator’s cost to become compliant. Another commentor did not support the use of government resources to upgrade or decommission private wells.

MNR Response: The MNR has decided to proceed with incentives to help well operators meet the requirements established by the policy.

MNR releases final version of Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) has approved and released the final version of its Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects.  A decision was made on July 29, 2011 to proceed with the proposal for the guidelines, following a period of public consultation during which 68 comments were received.  The online comments can be viewed at: comments. 

The MNR says that it has incorporated the following recommendations received during the consultation period into the guidelines:

• Enhanced protection for bat hibernacula habitat has been provided by increasing the significant wildlife habitat designation associated with hibernacula from 200m to 1000m. 
• Methodologies related to significant bat maternity roosts/colonies have been revised and coordinated with Ecological Land Classification.
• Monitoring methods for evaluating bat significant wildlife habitat and post-construction mortality monitoring have been revised to reflect public/industry comments and scientific recommendations.
• Data submission procedures related to the Wind Energy Bird and Bat Monitoring Database has been detailed.
• Ecological Effectiveness Monitoring Plan information requirements have been updated to reflect the Ministry of the Environment’s Renewable Energy Approval Regulation amendments of January 2011.

Environmental Bill of Rights Registry - Regulating Private Gas Wells in Ontario

Licensing Existing Private Natural Gas Wells

The Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act requires that all wells for oil and natural gas be licensed by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). Newly constructed wells are currently authorized (or licenced) under the requirements of the Ontario Provincial Operating Standards (per Regulation 245/97), however many private natural gas wells pre-dated the Provincial Operating Standards.

Using a risk-based approach, an internal operating policy directive is proposed to define the licensing criteria that MNR staff will use to evaluate licence applications for existing private natural gas wells.

• The proposed policy elements include the following:
• Definition of “private” gas wells
• Restricted areas and setbacks from receptors
• Qualified person requirements
• Acceptable well conditions (and associated equipment requirements)
• Exceptions
• Term of the licence (i.e. 10 years)
• Other safeguards (signage, barriers, detectors, etc)
• Transfer of licences
• Administration

Public Consultation:

The proposal has been posted for a 29 day public review and comment period starting June 09, 2011.  All comments received prior to July 08, 2011 will be considered as part of the decision-making process by the Ministry of Natural Resources if they are submitted in writing or electronically using the form provided in the notice and reference EBR Registry number 011-2981 (see: Notice).

The Draft Internal Operating Policy Directive is available at the following link: Directive.

Ontario puts hold on off-shore wind energy development pending further study

Renewable Energy Approval Requirements for Off-shore Wind Facilities - An Overview of the Proposed Approach

On June 25 2010, the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) posted a policy proposal on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry that outlined a proposed approach for developing regulatory requirements for offshore wind facilities. This policy proposal outlined considerations to provide clear, up-front provincial rules for offshore wind facilities, including a proposed five kilometre shoreline exclusion zone for offshore turbines from the water’s edge of the Great Lakes, other inland lakes (e.g. Lake St. Clair), and major islands.

In addition to MOE’s June 2010 posting, on August 18, 2010 the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) posted a policy proposal entitled “Offshore Windpower: Consideration of Additional Areas to be Removed from Future Development” (Environmental Registry posting # 011-0907). This policy proposal sought feedback on where, when and how Crown land should be made available for offshore wind facilities. The Decision Notice for the MNR’s policy proposal can be viewed using the link on the right of this notice.

In light of the comments received in response to MOE and MNR's postings and in particular the identified need for further study, Ontario is not proceeding with any development of offshore wind projects until the necessary scientific research is completed and an adequately informed policy framework can be developed. An offshore wind project is defined as any project classified under the Renewable Energy Approval regulation (O.Reg. 359/09) as a Class 5 wind facility.

Offshore wind power development in ocean environments is relatively well-understood technology and has been successfully deployed in several locations in Europe. By contrast, offshore wind power development in freshwater lakes is relatively new and presents technical challenges that do not exist in a saltwater environment, such as the need to manage potential impacts to drinking water and the effects of ice build-up on support structures. A recently constructed offshore wind pilot project is currently operating in Lake Vänern, a freshwater lake in Sweden. A second pilot project has been proposed in the State of Ohio in Lake Erie near Cleveland. Ontario will monitor these projects and the resulting knowledge gained from their construction and operation. Ontario will work with our US neighbours to undertake collaborative research and study that will ensure that any future projects are designed and implemented in a manner that is protective of human health, cultural heritage and the environment.

A bi-national collaborative approach to conducting research would leverage resources and expertise from within the entire Great Lakes region to focus on the scientific and technical challenges of developing offshore wind power in a freshwater environment. These challenges include a better understanding of how noise behaves over water and ice, foundation designs, water quality impacts, and impacts to shoreline ecosystems and wildlife.

The Government of Ontario will be implementing this direction through a coordinated multi-agency approach. During this time, applications for offshore wind projects in the Feed-In-Tariff program will no longer be accepted and current applications will be cancelled; the MNR will be cancelling all existing Crown land applications for offshore wind development that do not have a Feed-In-Tariff contract, including those with Applicant of Record status. MNR will not be accepting any new Crown land applications for offshore wind development. When there is greater scientific certainty, consideration of offshore wind development will resume.

Going forward, members of the public and all interested parties will have an opportunity to review and comment through the Environmental Registry on proposed technical, environmental and other requirements as they are developed . It is anticipated that once offshore wind-specific requirements are fully developed they would be included in regulation, policy and guidelines.

Public Consultation on the proposal for this decision was provided for 74 Days, from June 25, 2010 to September 07, 2010.

As a result of public consultation on the proposal, the Ministry received a total of 1403 comments: 206 comments were received in writing and 1197 were received online.

In response to its posting, the MOE received over 1,400 submissions which included comments from individual members of the public, community-based associations, environmental non-governmental organizations, municipalities, energy-developers and Aboriginal communities. A wide range of views was expressed. A majority of respondents expressed concern either that the proposed 5 km exclusion zone may not be far enough from the shoreline to be adequately protective, or that there were significant areas of scientific uncertainty resulting in the need for further study by provincial ministries and the Federal government. Considerations for further study include measures for protecting drinking water, transportation and navigation, and potential effects on fish and wildlife and shoreline ecosystems. The remaining respondents were either supportive of the proposed policy direction or expressed concern that the proposed 5 km exclusion zone may be too far from the shoreline and would result in Ontario foregoing significant opportunity to harvest clean energy.

Ontario - Birds and Bird Habitats: Updated Guidelines for Wind Power Projects

The Green Energy Act 2009 (GEA) places a priority on expanding Ontario’s use of clean and renewable sources of energy, including wind power. A key element of the GEA is a new integrated approval process that establishes clear up-front requirements for most renewable energy projects. These requirements are outlined under the Ministry of the Environment’s (MOE) Renewable Energy Approval (REA) regulation (O.Reg. 359/09) and the Ministry of Natural Resource’s (MNR) Approval and Permitting Requirements Document (APRD).

The REA regulation describes the requirements for wind power projects related to significant natural features, including significant wildlife habitat. Birds are an important part of Ontario’s biodiversity. To provide further clarity and certainty on the renewable energy approval requirements for wind power, MNR has prepared updated Guidelines for application to both Crown and private lands.

The Guidelines address the new requirements of the REA regulation, incorporate new North American science and information and provide guidance on identifying and addressing potential negative effects on birds and bird habitats during the planning, construction and operation of wind power projects by:

focusing pre-construction monitoring on identification and evaluation of bird habitats to consider potential impacts of wind power development on birds and bird habitats;

identifying methods for evaluating the significance of candidate bird significant wildlife habitat and adopting a habitat setback approach, with assessment and monitoring based on proximity to significant habitat;

establishing of post construction bird mortality monitoring requirements for all onshore wind power projects, via an environmental effects monitoring plan; and

establishing a requirement for an additional two years of scoped monitoring when a threshold of bird mortality exceeds:

• 18 birds/ turbine/year;

• 0.2 raptors/turbine/year (all raptors);

• 0.1 raptors/turbine/year (raptors of provincial conservation concern); or

• 2 raptors/windpower project (<10 turbines).

This proposal has been posted for a 45 day public review and comment period starting November 05, 2010. If you have any questions, or would like to submit your comments, please do so by December 20, 2010 to the individual listed under "Contact". Additionally, you may submit your comments on-line.

All comments received prior to December 20, 2010 will be considered as part of the decision-making process by the Ministry of Natural Resources if they are submitted in writing or electronically using the form provided in this notice and reference EBR Registry number 011-0112.

All comments on this proposal must be directed to:

Kathleen Pitt
Program Officer
Ministry of Natural Resources
Policy Division
Renewable Energy Program
300 Water Street
Floor 5
Robinson Place South Tower
Peterborough Ontario
K9J 8M5
Phone: (705) 755-5321
Fax: (705) 755-1206

Ontario aiming to improve Conservation Authority permitting process for applicants

As part of the Open for Business initiative of the government, the Ministry of Natural Resources is proposing amendments to Ontario Regulation 97/04, (the “Content of Conservation Authority Regulations under Subsection 28 (1) of the Act: Development, Interference With Wetlands And Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses”) under the Conservation Authorities Act. The proposed amendments are intended to simplify and streamline the permitting process that conservation authorities undertake under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act through 36 individual authority regulations.

The proposed amendments are also intended to support conservation authority compliance with the timelines for decisions on Conservation Authority Act Section 28 permit applications outlined in the ‘Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authority Plan Review and Permitting Activities’ document (‘Policies and Procedures’ document) previously posted to the Environmental Registry (Environmental Registry # 010-8243). The ‘Policies and Procedures’ document forms a chapter of the Conservation Authorities Policies and Procedures Manual that guides provincial aspects of conservation authority operations. The intent of the chapter is to describe the roles of conservation authorities in municipal planning and plan review, and under the Conservation Authorities Act Section 28 permitting related to development activity and the protection of environmental interests.

The Ministry is streamlining the permitting process by:

Enabling the conservation authority to delegate its powers under the regulation including the power to make positive permit decisions to the conservation authority’s executive committee or conservation authority employees.

Extending the maximum period of validity of a permit from 24 months to 60 months.

The anticipated environmental consequences of the regulation proposal are considered to be neutral. The improvements to the permitting process are for the applicant or development proponent and do not impact what the conservation authority regulates or by what considerations.

The anticipated social consequences are positive to neutral. This proposal is intended to reduce wait times for a decision on a permit for an applicant or development proponent for straight forward and uncomplicated development activities. For larger development applications and proponents the proposal is intended to reduce frustration, cost and duplication of effort in having to re-apply for a permit where a development project may require permits or approvals from other regulatory bodies that cannot be reasonably obtained before the expiration of the Conservation Authorities Act Section 28 permit. This is intended to improve business relationship between the conservation authorities and applicants or development proponents for Conservation Authorities Act Section 28 permits.

The anticipated economic consequences are positive to neutral. The amendments streamline the permit process by delegating positive permit decisions to conservation authority staff. Currently the Conservation Authority Board which met generally monthly make all permit decisions, by delegating to staff, wait times for some permit decisions are reduced for the applicant. With the extension of the validity of a permit from 24 months to 60, this may reduce the requirement for larger development proponents to need to re-apply for a permit while waiting for other approvals from other regulatory bodies or given extended construction timelines.

All comments on this proposal must be directed to:


Chris Popovich
Great Lakes & Water Policy Section Intern
Ministry of Natural Resources
Policy Division
Biodiversity Branch
Great Lakes & Water Policy Section - Peterborough
300 Water Street
Floor 5 South
Peterborough Ontario
K9J 8M5
Phone: (705) 755-5591
Fax: (705) 755-1957

MNR Policy for Protecting Agricultural Property from Elk

Policy Proposal Notice: EBR Registry Number: 011-0745

Title: Policy for Protecting Agricultural Property from Elk Ministry:
Ministry of Natural Resources
Date Proposal loaded to the Registry: August 30, 2010

Description of Policy:


Between 1998 and 2001 the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), in collaboration with many partners and volunteers, released 443 elk from Elk Island National Park in Alberta at four locations (Bancroft, Blind River, south of Sudbury and south of Kenora) across the province as part of an elk restoration program. Since 1998, monitoring has revealed that restored elk herds have grown, dispersed and in some areas struggled with adapting to Ontario’s diverse landscape patterns and uses.

In 2009, following public and stakeholder consultation, the Ministry released Ontario’s Cervid Ecological Framework which provides overarching provincial guidance for the sustainable management of all Ontario’s cervid species (moose, deer, caribou and elk). Consistent with the Cervid Ecological Framework, and in response to the need for more species specific guidance for the management of Ontario’s elk populations, the Ministry released an Elk Management Plan in 2010, following public and stakeholder consultations. The plan includes a number of objectives and strategic actions to guide management decisions that support sustainable and healthy elk populations, including objectives and strategies aimed at specifically addressing human-elk conflicts.

Ontario’s overall policy approach related to addressing conflict with wildlife, as a public resource, is to provide landowners with the tools and information to prevent and mitigate conflict and associated damage. The Strategy for Preventing and Managing Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Ontario provides overarching policy direction to address human-wildlife conflict in Ontario.

Consistent with this broad provincial approach, the Elk Management Plan refers to the need for tools to help address the impact of human-elk conflicts. In response to this need, the government amended the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (FWCA) to add American elk to the list of species that can be harassed, captured or killed in accordance with authorization from the Ministry of Natural Resources (s. 31(3)). The proposed Policy for Protecting Agricultural Property from Elk provides direction for the issuance of authorizations to harass or kill elk that are causing or are about to cause damage to agricultural property. The proposal outlines the process and prerequisites to obtaining an authorization and outlines the conditions of their use.

Purpose of Policy:

To consult on a proposed Policy for Protecting Agricultural Property from Elk, as part of a provincial management program intended to support self-sustaining elk populations for the continuous provision of ecological, cultural, economic and social benefits to the people of Ontario.

Other Information:

The following weblinks provide supporting/ additional information about this notice:

Proposed Policy for Protecting Agricultural Property from Elk

Proposed Policy for Protecting Agricultural Property from Elk – Executive Summary

Elk Management in Ontario website

The ministry is currently consulting on several other components of elk management through the Environmental Registry to support a comprehensive elk management program in Ontario, including:

Proposed Elk Population Objective Setting Guidelines (Registry Number 011-0743)

Proposed Elk Harvest Allocation System (Registry Number 011-0741)

Proposed Elk Harvest Management Guidelines (Registry Number 011-0744)

Proposed Regulations to establish an Elk Hunt (Registry Number 011-0746)

Proposed Elk Population Objective for the Bancroft-North Hastings Area Herd (Registry Number 011-0742)

More information on these proposals can be found by searching the appropriate Registry Number at www.ontario.ca/environmentalregistry

Public Consultation:

This proposal has been posted for a 45 day public review and comment period starting August 30, 2010. If you have any questions, or would like to submit your comments, please do so by October 14, 2010 to the individual listed under "Contact". Additionally, you may submit your comments on-line.

All comments received prior to October 14, 2010 will be considered as part of the decision-making process by the Ministry of Natural Resources if they are submitted in writing or electronically using the form provided in this notice and reference EBR Registry number 011-0745.

Please Note: All comments and submissions received will become part of the public record. You will not receive a formal response to your comment, however, relevant comments received as part of the public participation process for this proposal will be considered by the decision maker for this proposal.

Other Public Consultation Opportunities:

Preliminary consultation has occurred with local farmers and landowners in the Bancroft area (i.e., the area where the majority of human-elk conflicts are occurring), as well as key provincial stakeholders. Select focused stakeholder meetings may be arranged to consult further with interested parties.

Butternut Trees on your Ontario farm? Be aware of the Endangered Species Act, 2007

The following is a notice posted yesterday on the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) Registry in Ontario in connection with the proposed removal of ONE butternut tree:

Title:
Permit under clause 17(2) (c) of the Endangered Species Act, 2007 for Removal of one Butternut tree by Hydro One
 
Members of the public are invited to submit their written comments by June 21, 2010 to the contact person listed in this notice.

Rationale for Exemption to Public Comment:
 
This proposal is not prescribed by Ontario Regulation 73/94 under the Environmental Bill of Rights as a classified proposal for an instrument.

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is voluntarily posting this notice to advise the public of the proposal and to invite the public to submit written comments on this proposal to the contact person identified in this notice.

Description:

Hydro One (applicant) has applied for a permit for the removal of one Butternut tree (Juglans cinerea) for the purpose of clearing and maintaining a transmission corridor beneath a transmission line located in Ottawa, Ontario.

Butternut is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List, in Ontario Regulation 230/08 under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA), as an endangered species. Clause 9 (1)(a) of the ESA, provides that no person shall kill, harm, harass, capture or take a living member of a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as an extirpated, endangered or threatened species.

The health of the Butternut tree at this site has been assessed by a qualified Butternut Health Assessor and was determined not to be severely affected by Butternut Canker and therefore retainable. The identification of retainable trees is based on an assessment of crown dieback and the coverage of the stem and root flare by cankers conducted by a qualified Butternut Health Assessor. Retainable trees do not qualify for the exemption in section 5 of Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA and can not be removed without an authorization. The retainable Butternut tree within this project area would be removed.

The Minister may issue a permit to an applicant under clause 17(2)(c) of the ESA that authorizes the person to engage in an activity that would otherwise be prohibited by section 9 or 10 of the ESA if the Minister is of the opinion that the main purpose of the activity authorized by the permit is not to assist in the protection or recovery of the species specified in the permit, but,

(i) the Minister is of the opinion that an overall benefit to the species will be achieved within a reasonable time through requirements imposed by conditions of the permit,

(ii) the Minister is of the opinion that reasonable alternatives have been considered, including alternatives that would not adversely affect the species, and the best alternative has been adopted, and

(iii) the Minister is of the opinion that reasonable steps to minimize adverse effects on individual members of the species are required by conditions of the permit;

The options of leaving the tree in its current location and avoiding or transplanting it have been examined. The location of the Butternut tree would cause it to come in contact with overhead hydro-electric lines and potentially cause a future safety risk. Transplanting the tree has been considered as an option, but the tree is too large to be transplanted successfully.

An overall benefit could be achieved for Butternut by planting and tending replacement trees. Based on the size of the Butternut tree threatened with removal (i.e. diameter at breast height), the Forest Gene Conservation Association guidelines recommend that the applicant plant 5 seedlings from a local seed source in suitable sites. The ratio of five seedlings planted per tree removed is intended to provide an overall increase to the seed production capacity of the species. Establishing and tending to these seedlings in a protected area will result in a net increase in the local reproductive potential for the species.

To achieve overall benefit for Butternut, the applicant is proposing to plant a total of five new Butternut seedlings in Coronation Park, owned by the City of Ottawa. Hydro One would plant, tend and monitor the seedlings for a period of five years from the time of planting. Under the supervision of a qualified professional biologist or forester, the five Butternut trees would be planted in locations suitable to support Butternut. Tending and monitoring of the Butternut seedlings on site would take place over a five year period to ensure that at least half of the planted trees will be alive (e.g., a minimum of three Butternut trees at the end of five years). These newly planted Butternut trees will receive protection under the ESA.

Purpose of the Notice:

The purpose of this notice is to ensure that the public is made aware of, and given an opportunity to comment on, the proposal, including the proposed conditions and outcomes of the permit for which the Hydro One is applying in order to remove one Butternut tree. The proposed permit would be issued under clause 17(2)(c) of the ESA.

Decision:

This notice will be updated when more information is available.

Other Information:

Please email comments to Esa.permits.agreements@ontario.ca and quote the registry number in the subject line.

The following web-links provide additional information about this notice:

Endangered Species Act, 2007 (Section 9 and 17 are sections of the Endangered Species Act that are referred to in this posting)

Butternut Tree Regulation  Section 5 of general regulation 242/08 addresses the exemptions pertaining to Butternut

Ontario's new proposal to protect bats from wind turbines

The Green Energy Act 2009 (GEA) placed a priority on expanding Ontario’s use of clean and renewable sources of energy, including wind power. A key element of the GEA is a new integrated approval process that establishes clear up-front requirements for most renewable energy projects. These requirements are outlined under the Ministry of the Environment’s (MOE) Renewable Energy Approval (REA) regulation (O.Reg. 359/09) and the Ministry of Natural Resource’s (MNR) Approval and Permitting Requirements Document (APRD).

The REA regulation describes the requirements for wind power projects related to significant natural features, including significant wildlife habitat. Bats are an important part of Ontario’s biodiversity. To provide further clarity and certainty on the renewable energy approval requirements for wind power, MNR has prepared updated draft 2010 Guidelines for application to both Crown and private lands.

The 2010 Draft Guidelines address the new requirements of the REA regulation, incorporate new North American science and information and provide guidance on identifying and addressing potential negative effects on bats and bat habitats during the planning, construction and operation of wind power projects in Ontario by:

• removing the previous requirement for pre-construction monitoring, as results indicate that this information was not useful to assessing the impact of wind turbine development on bats;
• identifying methods for evaluating the significance of candidate bat significant wildlife habitat and adopting a habitat setback approach, with assessment and monitoring based on proximity to significant habitat;
• establishing three years of post construction bat mortality monitoring requirements for all onshore wind power projects, via an environmental effects monitoring plan;
• including for the first time, guidance for offshore wind projects that, in the absence of practical assessment and monitoring methods in offshore environments, uses mandatory mitigation as a precautionary approach to protecting migratory bats; and
• establishing a threshold approach to bat mortality (10 bats/ turbine/year), upon which mandatory operational mitigation would be required.

This operational mitigation would consist of reducing turbine blade cut-in speed/ feathering of 5.5 metres/second and would be applied for a 10 week period during peak bat activity (July-October). This mitigation is deemed to be the best approach, based on studies that identify up to 70% reduction in fatalities and only a 0.3 - 1% loss of energy production.

Purpose of Policy:

To give notice of and invite comment on MNR’s proposed Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects (2010).

Other Information:

The draft 2010 Guidelines is intended to support the implementation of the REA regulation by establishing provincial guidance on identifying and addressing potential negative effects on bats and bat habitats during the planning, construction and operation of wind power projects in Ontario. 

MNR’s Guideline to Assist in the Review of Wind Power Proposals: Potential Impacts to Bats and Bat Habitats. Developmental (Working Draft August, 2007) no longer applies to wind power projects being reviewed under the Renewable Energy Approval regulation (O.Reg. 359/09). As interim direction until final Guidelines are approved, the criteria and procedures identified in this proposed draft 2010 Guidelines will be deemed to be acceptable by MNR for wind power projects being reviewed under the REA regulation (O.Reg. 359/09). 

Public Consultation:

This proposal has been posted for a 45 day public review and comment period starting April 06, 2010. If you have any questions, or would like to submit your comments, please do so by May 21, 2010 to the individual listed under "Contact". Additionally, you may submit your comments on-line.

All comments received prior to May 21, 2010 will be considered as part of the decision-making process by the Ministry of Natural Resources if they are submitted in writing or electronically using the form provided in this notice and reference EBR Registry number 010-9521.

See the EBR posting at: Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects (2010)

Natural Heritage Systems are coming - so are land use restrictions

"Natural Heritage Systems" are being implemented across Ontario through local Conservation Authorities and municipalities and land use restrictions are coming.  Land use planning in Ontario is guided by the Ministry of Natural Resources' Provincial Policy Statement (PPS - the current edition is from 2005), which includes policies intended to protect the natural heritage of the province (which may affect areas including fish habitat, woodlands, marshes, meadows, etc.).  Individual municipalities implement these policies through their official plans and zoning by-laws following the completion of natural heritage studies.  For example, in 2006, the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority and the County of Oxford completed the Oxford Natural Heritage Study.  The report included the recommendation that the County proceed to designate significant natural heritage areas and to regulate the use of these areas through the Official Plan. 

Although the PPS says that nothing in the Natural Heritage Policy is "intended to limit the ability of existing agricultural uses to continue", there is no similar protection for proposed changes in use or urbanized or other development of land.  In some situations, therefore, a natural heritage designation may remove the possibility of developing a property beyond agriculture (or expanding an existing agricultural operation) and thereby decrease its value on the market.  While the designation may not affect the current use of a property, landowners should be aware that the incoporation of natural heritage designations into municipal planning may affect future use of their land.  In some areas of the province, natural heritage systems have already been established.  In other areas, the study and planning process is still underway.

Guiding the planning process is the MNR's Natural Heritage Reference Manual.  Read the MNR's Draft 2009 Second Edition of the Natural Heritage Reference Manual at: Draft 2009 Manual.