Understanding AEMERA’s role within IRMS

1. Understanding AEMERA’s role within IRMS July 9, 2014

2. Outline • KETT Mandate and Scope • Key Direction from DM/CEO Steering Committee • Overview of Approach and Application to AEMERA

3. Team Scope: As per DM/CEO Email Clearly lay out IRMS system components and requirements for monitoring, evaluation and reporting using the Lower Athabasca Region Plan (LARP) as a live "working" test case to understand ultimate roles.  That will: -Lay out the clear provincial/regional scope for AEMERA in terms of environmental knowledge and monitoring that will clearly delineate what is known and what is currently "grey"; -Identify current state practice and start working with IRMS partners on the gap analysis as to what part of the current system can be transitioned and what needs to be "created", with clear direction for the DM/CEO groups as to considerations and implications for decision.  This will also start the formal delineation of AEMERA's roles in the areas that are currently "grey" at the sub-regional scale.

4. DIRECTION: Coupled Knowledge and Data AEMERA Baseline: Understanding of Provincial and Regional Trends Current State Understanding plus Future Forecasts Land Use Planning , Policy Development and Assurance Guide Monitoring Design Determine Specific Triggers/Limits Update Monitoring: Design, Install, Operation, Collect, Evaluate (data quality), report back into system (on data)

5. Current State of “Authoritative Science and Evaluation” in Alberta With current data and knowledge silos, are we confident that we have the “right data” at the “right time”? AER ESRD NRCan Env Canada NGOs Industry Consultants Universities NO! All of these groups have their own authoritative version of knowledge

6. Direction: Scope Record of Discussion - April 22nd AEMERA will function as the single authoritative voice on behalf of the IRM system relative to ambient environmental conditions and trends, precluding competing sources amongst the core IRMS players. Reference to ‘competing science’ in the Record should be qualified to denote challenges from external sources/scientists.

7. Direction: Evidence vs. Decisions AEMERA is Accountable/Responsible for: • Generating the overall picture of the environmental trends and conditions (stratosphere to the core of the earth) that are used by others to make decisions regarding policy, land use, management and response by others.

8. Demarcation on “science” roles Clear boundary that allows information flow and access to Knowledge SME’s Land Use Decisions AEMERA Management Decisions Policy Decisions Response Decisions ESRD/Energy/AER Knowledge Generators SME’s Scientist Scientist Knowledge Generator Knowledge Translation and Application Process Owner Knowledge Translation and Application Function Maintained with Process Owners Knowledge Generators Provide the provincial/regional picture as to what is happening in the system that provides context for decisions by others in terms of planning, policy, management and response.

9. Scale: Function Overrides Known-Known: AEMERA provides authoritative knowledge and operates monitoring systems at this scale. Provincial Scale Land Use Region Known-Unknowns (GREY): What is AEMERA’s role at the scale that applies to management at the finer scale in conjunction with partners? Sub-Region Allocation Basin Site Known-Known: AEMERA does not conduct site focused monitoring for compliance assurance and response. Point Source

10. AEMERA’s Scope within IRMS Need to define in terms of following: • Function/Role • Knowledge Generator vs. Knowledge User • SME/Context vs. Decision maker • SME/Context vs. Responder • Obvious exceptions?

11. CSA ISO 31000 Risk Management

12. IRMS and ISO 31000 Framework ISO 31000 is THE international standard for operationalizing Plan-Do-Check-Adapt

13. Steps/Roles for Risk Management

14. Establishing the Context Definition: Defining the external and internal parameters to be taken into account when managing risk. Setting the scope and risk criteria for the Risk Management Policy IRMS Context: Provincial strategies, commitments, policies with desired outcomes. Accountable/Responsible: Policy Makers Consulted: • IRMS Partners • Internal and External stakeholders.

15. Risk Identification Definition: Process of finding, recognizing and describing risks. Note 1: Involves identification of risk sources, events, their causes and potential consequences; Note 2: Can involve historical data, theoretical data analysis, informed and expert opinions and stakeholder needs IRMS Context: Gathering the sources of knowledge that will be considered in the Land Use Planning Exercise. Includes Example: Groundwater Quality – Regional picture (spatial) and historical baseline and future trends forecast. Accountable: Land Use Planners Responsible: Knowledge Generators Historical Baseline Future Forecast Groundwater Quality Indicators Regional Knowledge and Context for Groundwater Quality Indicators 1950 2000 2050 Time

16. Risk Analysis • Definition: Process to comprehend the nature of risk and to determine the level of risk (Forecast scenarios • Note 1: Provides basis for Risk Evaluation and decisions about Risk Treatment • Note 2: Includes Risk Estimation • IRMS Context: Forecast scenarios on the likelihood that hazards may impact on groundwater quality and the potential consequences. Depict visually by populating a risk matrix. • Example: Threats to Groundwater Quality Hazards Consequences High Likelihood of Occurrence Medium Low Low Medium High Consequence

17. Risk Evaluation • Definition: Process of comparing the results of the Risk Analysis with Risk Criteria to determine whether the risk and/or its magnitude is acceptable or tolerable. • Note: Assists in the decision about Risk Treatment • IRMS Context: Decisions about what activities are acceptable and/or can be tolerated based on a range of controls: policy, management, regulatory tools, monitoring. High Intolerable Risk Level: Inadequate controls in place to reduce risk to acceptable level Tolerable Risk Level: Risks can be reduced with either current or future controls Likelihood of Occurrence Medium Acceptable Risk Level: Monitor and further reduce where practicable. Low Accountable/Responsible: Policy Makers Responsible: Land Use Planners Low Medium High Consequence

18. Risk Treatment Definition: Process to modify risk. Can involve avoiding the risk by deciding not to start or continue with the activity that gives rise to the risk; taking or increasing risk in order to pursue and opportunity; removing the risk source; changing the likelihood; changing the consequences; sharing the risk with another party or parties; and retaining risk by informed decision. IRMS Context: *Decisions: Decisions on controls - strategies in regional plans environmental monitoring frameworks, regulatory, tools, policy. *Implementation: Implementing controls Controls Hazards Consequences Preventative Controls (Reduce the Likelihood of Occurrence): Policy, Management Frameworks, Regulatory Tools Reactive/Response Controls (Minimizes Impacts of Occurrence): Monitoring, Regulatory tools, response protocols

19. Monitor and Review Ambient: Ongoing monitoring evidence as to how the natural system is performing. • Accountable/Responsible: Knowledge Generators • Informed: Policy Makers, Regulators, Land Use Planners, Responders. Performance: Ongoing review of the performance of the controls based on the ambient monitoring evidence. • Accountable: System Manager • Responsible: Policy Makers, Regulators, Land Use Planners, Responders • Consulted: Knowledge Generators

20. Within AEMERA • Build out understanding and vision for what are IRMS needs for Knowledge and Evaluation and Monitoring • Focus on three areas of Accountability/Responsibility • Risk Identification • Monitoring and Review • Communication and Consultation

21. Environmental Knowledge Requirements for Risk Identification LARP Sub-Themes LARP Themes Quality AIR Risk Analysis Process Acid Deposition Emissions LAND Disturbed Land Undisturbed Land Terrestrial Habitat Detailed List of indicators requiring knowledge and tailored monitoring WATER (surface and groundwater) Aquatic Habitat Quality Quantity BIODIVERSITY Biotic Community Species at Risk Wildlife (Terrestrial) Aquatic Life

23. Environmental Monitoring and Review Requirements LARP Sub-Themes LARP Themes Quality AIR Acid Deposition Emissions LAND Disturbed Land Undisturbed Land Risk Treatment Monitoring Plans Developed to Report against Regional Plan Indicators Terrestrial Habitat WATER (surface and groundwater) Aquatic Habitat Quality Quantity BIODIVERSITY Biotic Community Species at Risk Wildlife (Terrestrial) Aquatic Life

24. Environmental Communication and Consultation Requirements LARP Sub-Themes LARP Themes Quality AIR Acid Deposition Emissions LAND Disturbed Land Undisturbed Land Ambient Reporting (Both data and knowledge on Condition of Environment) Monitoring Plans Developed to Report against Regional Plan Indicators Terrestrial Habitat WATER (surface and groundwater) Aquatic Habitat Quality Quantity BIODIVERSITY Biotic Community Species at Risk Wildlife (Terrestrial) Aquatic Life

25. Decision Points: Policy Shift Sheet • To discuss • Team comments in by noon on July 15. • Distribute to IRMS Executive teams with collated comment back to Froese by noon on July 24. • Presentation to DM/CEO Steering on July 28 as a Decision Item.