“Environment is but our looking glass.”

James Allen

August 2015 Lethbridge Waste Diversion Policy

SAGE Meetings—no The City of Lethbridge approved Council members were also tion followed by the introduc- meeting in August. a Waste Diversion Policy on briefed on potential five-, sev- tion of surcharges on tipping June 20th which sets a five-year en- and 10 year implementa- fees for targeted materials at Riparian Restoration Work- target of a 30-per-cent overall tion schedules for a diversion the landfill and, in the final shops. August 21st, 28th per-capita waste disposal reduc- strategy for waste from the phase, regulations which could and 29th in Turner Valley. tion by 2021 and a 15-year tar- local ICI/C&D sectors, which include mandatory recycling Registration $50 at Sustain- get of 50 per cent by 2030. together comprise about 75 per and/or disposal bans.” ability Resources. cent of the waste that enters the From the City of Lethbridge: landfill each year. Each pro- The Industrial, Commercial Lethbridge Sustainable Liv- “Existing residential recycling posed implementation schedule and Institutional Recycling ing Association is planning programs divert about 20 per would include a three-phase Implementation Strategy de- AppleFest for August 29th. cent of residential waste from approach, starting with educa- scribes the plan which includes See their website for details the landfill. The draft policy focused stakeholder engage- and apple-picking opportu- proposes to increase residential ment and the development of nities: waste diversion to 50 per cent by best practices to help Leth- www.lethbridgesustainableli 2021 and 65 per cent by 2030. It bridge become a leader in ving.org/ also would target a 25-per- waste diversion from this sec- cent reduction by 2021 in waste tor. Lethbridge River Valley in from the Industrial, Commercial, the running for Great Places Institutional (ICI) as well as Environment Lethbridge had in . Vote at great- the Construction & Demolition identified waste diversion as a placesincanada.ca/view- (C&D) sectors, increasing to 45 primary focus in collaboration 2015-nominations/ per cent by 2030. with the community partners.

Carbon Pricing Dialogue Banff Introduces Feed‐In‐Tariff for Photovoltaic Robert Gagne, founder at Carbon Con- The town of Banff (population 9600) has Banff expects to install 165 kW of PV versions in Calgary, is organizing a sum- decided to use an environmental reserve capacity on residences and businesses, mit on carbon pricing this fall, tentatively fund to incentivize the installation of making the town the highest per capital in both Calgary and Red Deer. photovoltaic (PV) power generation. producer of solar power in the province.

The summit will “start with a presenta- Banff council have assigned $300,000 by From Green Energy Futures, Grant Can- tion covering the broad strokes of what's lottery to reduce PV paybacks from ap- ning, councillor and deputy mayor of happening in Canada and internationally, proximately 20 years to 7 years, making Banff town council said: “Really, it’s just and 's options to broadly price the technology both environmentally and doing the right thing. As we move for- carbon ... to the point of speaking the financially attractive. ward, transitioning off of non-renewable same language.” Presentations will be energies is the right thing to do for our followed by wider discussions amongst The environmental reserve fund is sup- community, it’s the right thing to do for the participants. SAGE has been invited. ported by the rents collected from utilities our residents and our business community.

to use space (under roads and sidewalks) If the town of Banff has the means to en- The goal is to prepare for a province- for their infrastructure. Banff has used courage our community to get involved wide consultation on a new climate this fund previously to fund LED light- then council absolutely supports that.” change policy for the province, as an- ing, waterless urinals, and energy effi- nounced by Environment Minister Shan- ciency rebates. non Phillips. “Environment is but our looking glass.” Page 2

Milk River Management Committee – On Watch for 25 Years

Based on the recommendations of a non- Thank you SAGE representatives: governmental task force, in 1987 the Mel McCaugherty (1990-1996); Bob Campbell (1997-2005); and Cheryl Bradley Alberta Government through order-in- (2006 - present). council designated the small (10 km2) Kennedy Coulee Ecological Reserve 2 In June 1990, a dozen individuals with tional boundary, the Pinhorn Grazing bordered by the much larger (54 km ) th diverse and often divergent interests Reserve and the deepest part of the Milk Milk River Natural Area – the 100 natu- committed to resolve their differences River canyon. Few visit the area because ral area in the province. The two desig- and work together to guide management of its remoteness. It is as the prairie nations were a compromise. Ecological of the Milk River Natural Area and Ken- would have appeared prior to European reserve status placed priority on main- nedy Coulee Ecological Reserve. Their settlement and a reference point for un- taining a benchmark area of mixed grass- common goal as the Milk River Manage- derstanding how our activities have af- land in climax condition. Natural Area ment Committee (MRMC) was to protect fected the prairie landscape. status allowed for human activities, in- and maintain the ecological and aesthetic cluding livestock grazing and recreation, character of this 64 km2 block of mixed- Widespread interest in the area’s future provided they were compatible with the grass prairie with minimal human inter- arose in the 1970s when conservation main conservation objective. ference. Twenty-five years later the interests concerned over loss of native MRMC continues its work with four of suggested protective designa- (Continued on Page 5) the original members still involved – tion at the same time that this parcel of Terry Hood, William King, Ken Kultgen public land, ungrazed by livestock since Jr. and Cliff Wallis – and six other rela- the early 1960s, was being withdrawn tive newcomers – Lee Finstead, Joan from the Lost River Ranch as a result of Environment Lethbridge Hughson, Cam Lockerbie, Cheryl Brad- limits placed on the size of government Fundraiser ley, Darwyn Berndt, and Peter Swain. grazing dispositions. A public hearing of Rain Barrels—$70 each Many others too numerous to mention the Advisory Committee on Wilderness have contributed to the work of the Areas and Ecological Reserves in 1984 (Only 3 remaining) MRMC. heard not only from individuals wanting Order Online: to maintain a benchmark of dry mixed http:// The area over which these dedicated in- without livestock grazing, but www.environmentlethbridge.org/ dividuals keep watch is a native prairie also from those wanting to expand live- landscape of great beauty and diversity stock grazing, guarantee motorized ac- tucked into a remote nook of the Milk cess for hunting and discourage large River watershed bounded by the interna- numbers of visitors.

Interesting Links:

Natural Capital at Risk: a study of the top 100 business impacts. http://www.naturalcapitalcoalition.org/

The State of Food Insecurity in the World, 2014. http://www.fao.org/

Growing Water Scarcity in Agriculture: Future Challenge to Glboal Water Security http://www.water.ox.ac.uk/

Global Water Scarcity: Risk and Challenges for Business http://awsassets.panda.org/

Southern Alberta Group for the Environment (SAGE)

A Leading Voice for a Healthy and Environmentally Sustainable Community. Visit us at: http://sage-environment.org/ If you are interesting in getting involved, contact us at: [email protected] “Environment is but our looking glass.” Page 3

Draft Report on Waste Management in Lethbridge Part 3 - What are the Benefits of Recycling?

Not all materials can be recycled. Paper foam trays, beverage lids, dis- Some materials can be recycled posable plates. into a closed loop (to make equiv- 60% energy savings alent products), and others are 95% less air pollution Energy savings are: downcycled (to make inferior Recycling one tonne of paper products). Some materials save a saves 20 trees and over 7000 gal- PETE 70% lot of energy by recycling lons of water. (compared to virgin materials), HDPE 50% while some materials save only a Glass PVC 55% little energy reprocessing into PP 45% new products. So, what are the 50% energy savings benefits of recycling? 20% less air pollution and 50% PS 45% less water pollution In general, recycling reduces the Glass can be recycled indefinite- amount of waste sent to the land- ly. Energy savings do not include fill; it prevents pollution created transportation energy, which can in extracting raw materials, and Plastics be significant for lightweight ma- emissions from the landfill when terials like plastic. For this reason, disposed; it conserves natural re- About 4% of the world oil produc- polystyrene is often not accepted sources; it saves energy; and tion is used to make plastics. at recycling stations. helps sustain the environment for other species and for future gener- Thermoplastics can be recycled PVC is not often recycled due to ations. (typical of food containers), but dangerous gases produced when thermoset plastics (epoxy, silicone, reheating or burning. Aluminum melamine, polyester) cannot be recycled. Much of the recycled plastics are Aluminum has dramatic environ- downcycled to fibers (for textiles, mental and economic benefits Thermplastics (according to their for example), or lower grade plas- when recycled. recycling number) include: tics (#7 Other). PETE, for exam- 95% energy savings 1. Polyethylene terephthalate ple, can be recycled back into bot- 95% pollution reduction (PETE) used for soda bottles; tles or downcycled to fibres, 4 kg of bauxite not excavated 2. High-density polyethylene whereas HDPE is often for every 1 kg of aluminum (HDPE) used for milk bottles; downcycled to secondary uses. As 3. Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) a result, they have less value for Steel used for shampoo bottles, olive plastics recyclers. oil containers; 75% energy savings 4. Low-density polyethylene One tonne of recycled steel saves (LDPE) used for bottle caps 1.25 tonnes of iron ore, and 0.5 and single use bags; A final report on waste manage- tonnes of coal. 5. Polypropylene (PP) used for ment in Lethbridge will be made margarine and cottage cheese available this fall. containers; 6. Polystyrene (PS) used for “Environment is but our looking glass.” Page 4

Confronting Hidden Threats to Sustainability: State of the World 2015

The annual publication from The Ben Caldecott offers a chapter ti- The final essay titled Childhood’s Worldwatch Institute focusses on tled Avoiding Stranded Assets End by Tom Prugh is a call for threats to sustainability, including which explores the risk of investing greater resilience through partici- emerging and escalating issues in industries that can no longer patory and deliberative forms of like unsustainable economic contribute to a low-carbon econo- democracy - as opposed to the growth, agricultural losses due to my. He suggests: “Visionary man- “sound-bite democracy of manipu- water scarcity, disease vectors, agement of policies, companies, lation and electoral advantage” climate change, and resilience of and investments is needed to ensure that we have become familiar with oceans. that new investments are consistent in recent years. with environmental health and re- It is a welcome return to environ- silience, and the economies are Prugh quotes Gus Speth at length: mental issues compared to the past weaned, smoothly and efficiently, “We’ve got to ask afresh, ‘What is few years which have dealt with off investments that are harmful to an environmental issue?’ The con- governance, technology and pros- sustainability” (p.52). ventional answer is air and water perity issues. pollution, climate change, and so The author cites a 2013 TEEB re- on. But what if our answer is: Tim Jackson, the author of Pros- port that suggests “in 2009, un- ‘Whatever determines environ- perity without Growth, offers a priced natural capital costs associ- mental outcomes.’ Once we think precise evaluation of economic ated with primary production about it this way, then, surely the growth in a finite natural world. (agriculture, forestry, fisheries, creeping plutocracy and corpora- He says: “While economic growth mining, oil and gas exploration, tocracy we face – the ascendency has brought higher living stand- utilities) and processing (cements, of money power and corporate ards and jobs for many people, steel, pulp and paper, petrochemi- power over people power – these along with tax revenues for gov- cals) totaled $7.3 trillion annually, are environmental issues. And ernments, it has been achieved at the equivalent of 13 percent of more: The chartering and empow- the cost of depleted soils and aqui- global economic output that ering of artificial persons to do fers; degraded lands and forests; year” (p.58). The significance of virtually anything in the name of contaminated rivers, seas, and this value is that a diminished envi- profit and growth – that is the very oceans; disrupted cycles of car- ronment will have harmful effects nature of today’s corporation; the bon, nitrogen, and phosphorous; on these industries - stranding cur- fetish of GDP growth as the ulti- and more” (p.39). rent and future investments in these mate public good and the main assets. aim of government; our runaway The popular idea of decoupling consumerism; our vast social inse- material throughput from a grow- Another example, “adhering to a curity with half the families living ing economy is unsupported by carbon budget that limits tempera- paycheck to paycheck. These are evidence presented by researchers ture increase to 2ºC requires that among the underlying drives of like Smil and Wiedmann. They some 80 percent of proven environmental conclude: “As wealth grows, fuel reserves remain unburned – outcomes. To countries tend to reduce their do- which would make them stranded succeed, … en- mestic portion of materials extrac- assets” (p.54). The current move- vironmentalists tion through international trade, ment to encourage (or coerce) insti- are going to whereas the overall mass of mate- tutions to disinvest in fossil fuel have to address rial consumption generally in- companies becomes a wise busi- these is- creases” (p.44). ness decision from this perspective. sues” (p.134).

“Environment is but our looking glass.” Page 5

Milk River Management Committee – On Watch for 25 Years (Continued from p.2)

Over its 25-year history the MRMC has versity of native species and vegetation trips over a four-year period successfully consisted of representatives of the pro- communities. eliminating the population. Two forays vincial government (public lands, parks have been made into the Milk River Can- and fish & wildlife), County of Forty Data from monitoring of vegetation tran- yon to control a nuisance species, Rus- Mile, and of non-government interests sects in the Natural Area and Ecological sian olive and a third foray is planned. including the ranching community, Al- Reserve in the 1990s was analyzed by This will be an ongoing effort as there is berta Wilderness Association, Foremost Public Lands to define climax communi- a large source of seed from an expanding Fish & Game Association and Southern ty types and assess differences in plant patch of Russian olive originally planted Alberta Group for Environment. For sev- species diversity between the Natural around a farm south of the international eral years the local MLA was an ex- Area and Ecological Reserve. Research- boundary. Crested wheat grass planted officio member. The non-government ers concluded that the management goals in fields along the southern border of the members are directors of a non-for-profit of both the Ecological Reserve and Natu- Ecological Reserve and Natural Area has society and hold a recreational lease on ral Area were being achieved. been a concern for the MRMC since es- the Natural Area. Each year members tablishment of the protected area. A veg- strive to have a winter business meeting Visits in 1999 to the ungrazed grasslands etation plot was established in 1992 to and a summer field tour targeted to a and riparian areas in the Ecological Re- document spread of this agronomic spe- specific management issue or undertak- serve by internationally-recognized ex- cies into native grassland. ing. perts in range management and in ripari- an area management have verified the In 2012 a broad survey was undertaken One of the first accomplishments of the protected area’s uniqueness and useful- in the Ecological Reserve to assess the MRMC, in 1992, was agreeing on an ness as a benchmark against which to extent of invasion of non-native invasive operational management plan that guides evaluate management actions in mixed- plant species and to obtain advice on decisions. This plan has served the com- grass prairie. control measures available to manage mittee well with no major amendments these invasions effectively. This survey needed for two decades. Specific plans, Over the last 25 years, permits have been found that three species on the provincial procedures and activities have been de- issued to a variety of researchers who noxious list are present in significant fined as needed for monitor- have enhanced knowledge of range con- amount – downy brome, Japanese brome ing, and management of weeds, fire, ac- dition/health, vegetation inventory/ and creeping thistle. In addition there are cess and livestock grazing. assessment, invasive-alien plants, mam- four nuisance weeds that may be of eco- mals, grassland-nesting birds, raptors, logical concern and an additional seven Biodiversity monitoring species at risk, reptiles, amphibians, di- species that are escaped from agricultural nosaur , lichens and bryophytes, areas, including sweet clover, smooth ecology of springs, grassland and ripari- brome, creeping foxtail and crested Biophysical inventory in the 1970s and an plant communities, rare plants, soils, 1980s documented the plants, animals wheat grass. The consultant recommend- geological mapping, leopard frog diseas- ed introducing grazing to suppress inva- and significant natural features that occur es, fish in Kennedy Creek, butterflies and in the Natural Area and Ecological Re- sion of some invasive species and a spot other insects. spraying program to control others. In serve. In 1991 the MRMC began a bio- diversity monitoring program to evaluate response, the MRMC received Alberta the impact of management strategies on Weed management Parks permission for an early-season the grassland. Focus of surveys along grazing trial, targeted towards problem transects annually from 1991 to 1995 and Over its 25-year history the MRMC has weed areas on the uplands of the Ecolog- again in 1998, 1999, 2006 and 2011 has been vigilant in monitoring for presence ical Reserve. The trial began in 2013, been on vegetation, rare plants, breeding and spread of invasive non-native plants, will continue for three years, and will be birds, small mammals, northern leopard particularly noxious weeds, through veg- assessing effects on invasive non-native frog and short-horned lizard. Raptors etation surveys and field tours. When species. Other options to manage weeds along the Milk River canyon were sur- patches of nodding thistle, a prohibited will be carefully reviewed and consid- veyed in 1997 and 1999. Following noxious weed, were found on the uplands ered. wildfires in 1991 and 2007, transects in the Ecological Reserve in 2006, a were established to monitor vegetation County of Forty Mile crew used back- Fire management response to burning. Introduction of pack sprayers to apply herbicide. This livestock grazing on the uplands of the was followed with MRMC members Fire is considered to be a natural part of Ecological Reserve in 2013 is accompa- pulling and bagging any surviving plants the grassland ecosystem however social nied by a plan to assess effect on biodi- prior to flowering as part of annual field “Environment is but our looking glass.” Page 6

Milk River Management Committee – On Watch for 25 Years (Continued from p.5) implications restrict its use as a manage- Livestock grazing manage- on the success of managing a protected ment tool. Wildfires are supressed and ment area through a committee that involved any prescribed burning will require a representatives from a variety of govern- detailed plan approved by all members of ment agencies as well as ranchers and the MRMC. The fire chief for the Coun- One of the first projects of the MRMC non-government organizations, some ty of Forty Mile, Aden volunteer fire was fencing of pastures in the Natural with a history of conflict. The MRMC chief, and sheriffs of Liberty County and Area to allow livestock grazing while has defied the odds. Members have Hill County in have mutual-aid minimizing risk to sensitive features, demonstrated their commitment to pro- agreements to contain fires in the Eco- including preventing access to the river tecting and maintaining the ecological logical Reserve and Natural Area prefer- valley and Kennedy coulee. Since 1991 and aesthetic character of this special entially using methods that minimize livestock have grazed the uplands of the tract of mixedgrass prairie by basing de- surface disturbance. Wildfires in Sep- Natural Area through a contract publicly cisions on sound science, learning from tember 1991, August 2007 and April tendered and administered by the society. each other, being good neighbours, con- 2010 along the southern boundary of the The MRMC in consultation with the con- tinuing to work through their differences, Natural Area and Ecological Reserve tractor, guides rate and timing of grazing and most importantly, by sticking togeth- were quickly suppressed with little last- from year to year depending on weather, er. ing environmental impact. range productivity and water supply. For example in 1992, cattle were not put in Key challenges that lay ahead for the Access management the Natural Area due to drought. MRMC include reviewing the manage- A and a water reservoir formed ment plan, weed management, assessing by damming a small creek are the main and defining the role of grazing and other No motorized access is permitted in the sources of water for livestock in the Nat- Ecological Reserve and the boundary is ecosystem management options within ural Area. To alleviate impact on the the Ecological Reserve, getting all the signed where it abuts the Pinhorn Graz- riparian area a fence was constructed ing Reserve. A sign is posted at the en- years of data in a comprehensive data- around the reservoir in 1991 and in the base and geographic information system, trance to the Natural Area indicating dry late 1990s a hardened ramp and gravity- weather access only and encouraging and realizing tourism benefits while be- fed piping system to a trough were in- ing sensitive to local concerns. Any bets drivers of motorized vehicles to stay on stalled. Observations are that cattle pref- the main access trail. Vehicles are per- on success for the next 25 years? erentially drink from the trough. mitted on existing trails north and east of the main access trail in the Natural Area, Following investment in re-constructing but only to the edge of valley slope and the border fence and a portable electric only under dry or fozen ground condi- fence to protect springs and riparian are- tions. No motorized access is permitted as along Kennedy Creek, the MRMC was south or west of the main access trail and permitted to introduce light livestock early in its history the MRMC closed grazing to a portion of the Kennedy Cou- several trails off of the designated route lee Ecological Reserve in 2013 continu- using rocks or posts. Signage has been ing to 2015. The goal of livestock intro- kept to the minimum required to ensure duction is to control invasion of specific safety and compliance with designated non-native plant species while maintain- access. ing or improving biodiversity of native species and vegetation communities as- In July 2008 three automated traffic sociated with a dry mixed grassland eco- counters were buried at key points along system in climax condition. The effec- the main access trail in the Natural Area. tiveness of the management activities Analysis of five years of data indicates will be assessed over the next few years. that there is low overall annual usage (less than 100 entries in a year) with by far the highest peak in activity during the The next 25 years? hunting season (October – November). During the spring and summer there are Henry Ford said - “Coming together is a generally less than five entries per week, beginning; keeping together is progress; and the majority that do occur appear to working together is success.” Twenty- be for livestock management purposes. five years ago few would have bet money