 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Canadian Environmental Network
Manitoba Eco-Network gratefully acknowledges the support of Manitoba Conservation
Eco-Journal
Volume 15, Number
3
May / June 2005
view PDF version (3.5MB)
Seine River Under Threat: Floodway Structure cuts
River in Two
by David Danyluk, Save Our Seine River Environment,
Inc.
Eco-Network’s 2005 Environmental Awards
The Toxic Tale of Smelters
by Anna Tilman
Caribou at the Crossroads
by Ron Thiessen, Western Canada Wilderness
Committee
Mosquito Control Policy: Hoping for the Best
by Glenda Whiteman, Concerned Residents
of Winnipeg, Inc.
A Vision for a Floodway Greenway
by Lorna Hendrickson, The Red River Floodway
Trail Coalition
Red River Basin Commission Report: Lake of the Woods
Under Threat
by Lindy Clubb
Invasive Species, Biological Diversity &
Biological Control
by Cory Lindgren, Manitoba Purple Loosestrife
Project
Weed Control in the Organic Garden
by John Hollinger, Manitoba Agriculture,
Food and Rural Initiatives
All About Alternative Energy
by David Henry
Organic Lawn Care Project 2005
ENGOs Now Moved to MEC Building: We’ve Arrived!
Seine
River Under Threat: Floodway Structure cuts River in Two
By David Danyluk, Save Our Seine River Environment, Inc.
You may wonder what the Red River Floodway has to do with the Seine River. You are not alone. In fact, very few people realize that the Floodway actually severs the Seine River in two. This has tremendous negative impacts on both the upper and lower Seine River. Today our governments are considering an opportunity to correct the situation.
Sixty years ago, when our political leaders were proposing the Floodway concept, few were concerned about negative environmental impacts. This is somewhat understandable when you consider the then recent flood of 1950—with $125 million in damages. The anticipated expropriation of family homes and farms was a more significant concern to citizens. The $60 million Floodway was likely the best solution at the time, in order to avoid sandbagging and evacuating the city on a recurring basis. The Floodway diversion has been used about twenty times, often unnoticed, saving many millions of dollars and grief each time.
But how does it affect the Seine River? In order to understand we should describe the structure created to allow the river to cross under the floodway and into the city. Simply imagine a squat, U-shaped pipe with the river flowing in one end and out the other, the bottom of the U being buried below the bottom of the Floodway channel. It is commonly referred to as an inverted siphon.
The Seine River was re-channeled to direct flow into an Inlet Structure where the river is spliced. Water flowing over the weir (dam) portion is directed into the floodway channel and thus completely removed from the Seine’s bioregion. In the other case, some water is able to flow through the metal grate (if it is not clogged with debris), down a 10-foot deep shaft, and into a 48" diameter pipe that extends under the floodway for 467 meters (1,450 feet), where the water emerges from the Outlet Structure. This subterranean river course below the Floodway, with restricted water volumes, has replaced 1-2 kilometers of the Seine’s natural habitat.
To function, the system relies on gravity and is designed with a small drop in elevation at the Outlet Structure—creating flow. Simple as this principle seems, there was a complete failure of the system in the late 1990s, during which time no water was getting across the floodway to the lower 26.2 kilometers of the Seine. Save Our Seine River Environment Inc. (SOS) successfully campaigned for its repair in 2000.
In 2004 SOS was granted research funding from Manitoba Conservation for a study on the Seine River Crossing. SOS reported the findings to the Clean Environment Commission (CEC) on March 3 2005. The conclusions were shocking. We learned that the crossing is a total barrier to upstream fish passage. This denies the movement of fish and other aquatic species to the 300+ kilometers of river upstream! This crossing may even be considered as an illegal crossing under the terms of the current Federal Fisheries Act.
Discharging into Floodway
It was also discovered that the volume of water actually able to
cross underground was drastically less than originally thought.
The bulk (~75%) of the river’s natural water, derived from
90% of the Seine’s watershed, is being discharged directly
into the floodway! This results in artificially low water levels
along the lower 26 kilometers—impacting both water quality
and quantity—and thereby the health of the aquatic habitat.
The effects are most severe along the shoreline’s sensitive
edge, (called the ‘bench’), plant communities on the
shoreline, and floodplain habitats. In Winnipeg, there are 55 kilometers
of affected shoreline, with over 380 acres of floodplain that are
denied this natural ‘flushing’ effect. This impact has
been compounded for the past half century.
It should be clarified that high water levels seen between Fermor Avenue and the Red River are a result of the Red River ‘backwater effect’ and not from the watershed beyond the Floodway. Urban runoff is another source of water in the river channel (there are numerous land drainage and sewer outfalls into the river) but runoff is richer in salts and other pollutants, not precious and healthy silt deposits.
To make a bad situation worse, in 2002 another crossing, the Grande Pointe Control Structure (Highway #59 bridge/crossing) was built across the Seine, just upstream from the Floodway. This is yet another impact. It further limits the flow that is available to the inverted siphon and thus into the lower 26 kilometers of the Seine. This new crossing is suspected of being yet another fish barrier! When a trash rack was installed two winters ago, the Seine River was dammed, dropping the water levels below the ice. Once completed, the river was permitted to flow again, in sub-zero temperatures. As a result, the river was flooded with a foot of water over the ice, which quickly froze solid. This sudden drop in water levels and subsequent flooding and freezing caused untold damage to the aquatic habitat.
Different structures recommended
SOS has asked the CEC to recommend having the Seine River Crossing
replaced with a structure that allows fish passage and adequate
levels of water to sustain the critical riverbank habitat. The Federal
Fisheries Act was apparently not followed in the 1960s, and it is
feared it may be conveniently ignored again in 2005. Thus far, the
Manitoba Floodway Authority (MFA) has agreed to meet and discuss
the issues but has, to date, insisted that replacing the crossing
is out of the question. SOS also urged the modification of the Grande
Pointe Control Structure to be addressed at the same time, as both
structures must be redesigned together.
It should be emphasized that this study, conducted by Cochrane Engineering Ltd., and Greenspaces Environmental Consulting, investigated improving river flow conditions while maintaining flood protection. It concluded that the lower Seine could easily accommodate much higher flows. The recommendations would not threaten properties in Winnipeg or Grande Pointe.
The original Floodway was built at a time when The Environment Act did not apply to such projects. Hence, there was no Environment Act Licence for the project. Today, the project needs to be licenced as a Class 3 development under the Act. This applies to the whole project, not just the expansion. The fact that the inverted siphon and the Grande Pointe structure are part of the Floodway, and that they act as fish barriers, must be addressed in terms of the Floodway’s environmental impact on the Seine.
Citizen action needed!
As a citizen, the next step is yours. If the issue of the Seine
River is not elevated in the public consciousness and perceived
as a concern to society as a whole, our politicians will not actively
pursue its resolution. Please contact the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Agency at the address below and voice your concern. Let
your Provincial and Federal Governments know that now is the time
to correct this appalling but reversible disaster... if you won’t
save our Seine, who will?
David Danyluk is the Coordinator of Save Our Seine River Environment Inc. (SOS) and the biggest fan of Winnipeg’s rivers. Contact: 470-9247 ddanyluk7@yahoo.com.
Eco-Network’s 2005 Environmental Awards
After the nominations for this year’s environmental awards closed, the Steering Committee had the challenge of deciding (by vote) who amongst our peers should be honoured this time around. It’s never an easy choice—so many individuals and groups in this province contribute in all kinds of ways to the “awareness and protection of Manitoba’s environment”—everyone who does their part deserves the recognition and gratitude of the whole community.
Individual Award
From amongst numerous nominations for the “individual”
award, David Barnes, a Brandon teacher and naturalist, emerged as
this year’s recipient. Nominated by David Neufeld, and as
he put it “a conspiracy of former students and friends”,
David Barnes is a key member of Brandon’s environmental and
activist community, serving as Past President and active member
of the Brandon Naturalists Society, board member of the Marquis
Project, and a founder of the Brandon and Area Environmental Council.
He also runs the award-winning EcoOdyssey program at Neelin High School, a program that, for half a school year, instills a sense of environmental awareness and social responsibility among students from all three high schools in Brandon and from the surrounding districts.
While David’s interests and community involvement speak to his deep concern for environmental and social justice, both here in Canada and overseas, Neufeld says “we are most impressed with the way Dave conducts his personal life in keeping with his social and environmental principles. He avoids vehicular transport. He eats organic food and makes efforts to buy his food from local sources”. The nomination goes on to state “Dave has won the love and respect of hundreds of his students over the years (and every one of their parents) because of his ability to gently and persistently encourage young people to see their world with new eyes—both to know and appreciate the natural world and its messages to us, and to take responsibility for changing the attitudes and practices of others—citizens and leaders”.
Group Award
The list of nominees for notable group was much shorter—only
one group was nominated this year! The Steering Committee agreed
that Western Canada Wilderness Committee—Manitoba Chapter
was deserving of the award.
Nominator Dave Nickarz enumerated several recent accomplishments of the Wilderness Committee on the East Side of Lake Winnipeg. WCWC has been active in the East Side Advisory Committee, while working to extend the park reserve protection status for the Poplar/Nanowin River area. Their mass mailing postcard campaign and continued pressure on the Provincial government, contributed to the backcountry protection designation for 1500 meters on either side of the Manigotagan River, and their lobbying resulted in the deferral of logging in the habitat of the Owl Lake caribou herd habitat. The forestry company Tembec has agreed to not log there until 2007, buying a much-needed respite for this most southerly range of woodland caribou, while government discussions continue about whether to place these threatened creatures on the endangered species list.
Finally, of several nominations in the “special” category (which recognizes Manitobans in all walks of life that have made a difference to the environment), Helen Fallding, currently the Science Reporter at the Winnipeg Free Press, was the choice for this year’s award. Lindy Clubb, an activist and fellow writer, commented in her nomination that she gains a lot of information from Helen’s articles, which, she says, cover environmental issues in a fair and honest style. Helen’s research and interviews are credible, and Lindy further states that “As advocates, we seek and seldom find good coverage by reporters and mainstream media people—I believe that Helen has helped to translate our work as engos (environmental non-governmental organizations) to the public, who in turn influence decision makers, and she has made herself available for this task”.
The 2005 awards were presented at the Annual General Meeting on May 26.
The
Toxic Tale of Smelters
By Anna Tilman
Base metal smelters are a major source of pollution in Canada. For the most part, these large metallurgical facilities have been operating for decades in fairly remote areas, and are a central and dominant feature of their communities.
These operations are in the business of extracting metals of "economic value" from rock for global markets--primarily copper, lead, zinc and nickel, with numerous other metals, such as, cobalt, cadmium, silver, gold, platinum and palladium as by-products. In the process of extracting these metals, vast amounts of hazardous pollutants of detrimental value to human health and the environment are released to air, land and water.
To a large extent, these facilities remain far from the Canadian public eye--out of sight and mind, until an incident or an over-arching environmental issue, such as acid rain, impacts on the larger populated areas of Canada and the U.S.
Over the years, in the face of regulated limits, many smelters have reduced their emissions by the construction of sulphuric acid plants and the introduction of other technologies. Despite this, the base metals sector remains the single largest industrial source of sulphur dioxide emissions in Canada, as well as emissions of a number of highly toxic metals--mercury, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, beryllium, and nickel.
To put this into numerical perspective, approximately 800,000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide (SO2) are emitted annually from smelters in Canada, about one-third of all industrial sources. Three facilities alone--Inco Copper Cliff (Sudbury), Inco Thompson and Hudson Bay Mining & Smelting (HudBay) in Flin Flon contribute to more than 80% of these emissions, with each of the two Manitoba facilities emitting in the order of 200,000 tonnes.
The HudBay smelter, in operation since 1930, is notorious for its emissions of mercury--one of the most pervasive toxic substances known. While emissions from this facility were in the order of 20 tonnes about 15 years ago, they remain inordinately high (over 1340 kg annually) today, making this facility the largest point source of mercury emissions to air in Canada.
None of this bodes well for human health and the environment.
SO2 along with other pollutants are a major cause of acid deposition which is intrinsically linked to other environmental issues such as climate change and the leaching of mercury (in its most toxic form, methylmercury) into rivers, lakes and streams. Likewise, the toxic metals--arsenic, cadmium and the like, add to the witches' brew of toxins that poison water and soil, severely compromising the health and diversity of the forests, vegetation and the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems upon which we all depend.
In terms of human health, exposure to SO2 (as a gas and in the form of miniscule sulphate particles) can contribute to asthma, bronchitis, cardiovascular disease and possibly lung cancer. Workers directly exposed to SO2 are particularly at risk to lung disease. Similarly, mercury and lead are extremely toxic and a cause of developmental and neurological disorders as well as damage to organs, while arsenic, nickel, chromium and cadmium are associated with the development of various cancers. For a number of these substances, there is no threshold below which adverse effects cannot be found.
Communities in Sudbury, Thompson, Rouyn, Flin Flon, Trail and other smelter towns, as well as nearby communities, bear the brunt of the pollutants most directly, and are particularly at risk of having elevated rates of asthma, cancer and other pollutant-related ailments. But it doesn't stop there. Because many of these pollutants, such as SO2 and mercury, are long-distance travellers, their influence on environmental and human health is exerted hundreds and even thousands of kilometres from their source.
The legacy from these smelters will live on long after these facilities shut down. In economic terms, the costs for remediation, health care and lost opportunities for other development are significant. The toll from these emissions is very disturbing for a country with an "advanced" economy.
Clearly, action is called for to deal with this most serious problem. So what is being done or not done?
Manitoba Smelters--Action or Inaction
Despite decades of operation, the two Manitoba smelters (Inco-Thompson and HudBay), which currently contribute about 50% of all the SO2 emissions from this industry, do not have the technology in place to capture the sulphur or otherwise reduce their emissions substantively. These facilities are the only two smelters operating in Canada without sulphur fixation or a similar method of avoiding such emissions. "Canada is alone among developed countries in permitting the operation of a smelter without sulphur fixation".1 Nor have these companies expressed willingness to invest in such technology or alternative approaches to significantly reduce these emissions, something which should have been done years ago.
The province of Manitoba has prescribed annual limits on emissions of SO2 of 220,000 tonnes for each smelter, effective in 1994 (with a monthly limit of 23,000 tonnes). These limits were set in 1988 at a time when emissions were typically greater than the present case2. However, from 1998 on, emissions of SO2 have been below the prescribed limits--emissions for 2002 were in the order of 178,000 and 196,000 tonnes for HudBay and Inco Thompson respectively. In other words, based on the annual provincial regulated limits, these companies don't have to do anything about their SO2 emissions, at least by provincial requirements, and can continue to do "business as usual" and pollute as usual.
When it comes to the protection of individuals from exposure to SO2, Manitoba's 24-hour air quality guideline is considerably weaker, by a factor of about three, than the guideline established by the World Health Organization (WHO), which reflects the current understanding of the degree of SO2 toxicity.3 While the province reports a decrease in the number of yearly exceedances of its guideline, one needs to re-examine the outcome if the WHO level were applied to indicate exceedances in the two smelter communities.
Regrettably, the province does not see fit to require more stringent limits--and is reluctant to recognize the health and environmental consequences from such massive releases. It is difficult to fathom how such amounts of SO2 cannot be harmful both locally and far from the source. Clearly, increased acid deposition due to the Manitoba smelters is a factor in the acidification of lakes in regions of Northwest Ontario and Northern Saskatchewan and elsewhere. Who knows what the fate of such high levels of mercury is--but, for a substance as complicated and destructive as mercury, a traveller without a passport, the emissions from HudBay alone are formidable and intolerable.
Federal Action--long awaited
In 2002, the Federal Government was criticized by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada for not having put control measures on the Base Metals Sector.
Federal action was finally triggered when releases from primary and secondary copper and zinc smelters and refineries were declared toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 99) in September 2002.4 Under CEPA 99, Environment Canada was required to develop a regulation or instrument within 2 years to manage these toxic substances.
The instrument chosen was Pollution Prevention (P2) Planning, a non-regulatory instrument. The proposed P2 Planning Notice (issued September 25, 2004) lists facility-specific targets for emission reductions of SO2 and respirable particulate matter that are factors to consider, in other words, not enforceable. Most of the targets are inadequate to realize any significant reductions in the next 10 years. For example, HudBay is asked to reduce emissions of SO2 to 166,000 tonnes by 2008 and Inco Thompson to 174,000 tonnes, which is barely significant relative to their emissions in 2002 (HudBay--178,000 tonnes, Inco Thompson--196,000 tonnes).
What's more, it is proposed that emissions reduction targets for
releases of toxic metals be set through a voluntary Code of Practice
by the companies, not by the federal ministry.
Yet even this measure is being strongly resisted by the companies
and in particular, the province of Manitoba, which along with the
industry, argues that protecting health and the environment will
result in lost jobs in smelter communities.
The only way to stop the destruction wrought by emissions from these smelters is to force technological change through strong regulation at both federal and provincial levels. Voluntary initiatives do not work unless they are backed up by a well-defined regulatory backstop strategy with associated enforcement and penalties for non-compliance.
At this time, Canada's base metal smelters are enjoying greatly increased profitability because of rising commodity prices. It is the ideal time to require that the dividend from these profits be spent to protect the health of the very workers and communities that have produced it and sustained this industry at the expense of their health over the past several decades.
Furthermore, the metals industry in Canada is undergoing changes in practices, ownership and management. It is essential that governments take into account the ramifications of these changes and bring in measures to ensure that the Base-Metals Sector across Canada utilizes the best technology and preventative measures in the world. This would be in line with the sentiment of the Federal Minister of Environment, Stéphane Dion, who recently proposed "developing a competitive economy anchored by a sustainable environment whose objective is to attain the highest levels of environmental quality as a means to enhance the well-being of Canadians, preserve our natural environment and advance our long-term competitiveness".
Finally, in recognizing the nature of the business in this sector and its role in the communities as a major employer, it behooves the industry and all levels of governments (federal, provincial and regional) to undertake measures to creatively address the interests and needs of the affected communities.
The use of just-transition programs and community reinvestment funds can counter the employment impacts on these communities of the potential closure of facilities or down-sizing as technologies change. No person should be forced to work in an environment which endangers their health and the health of their families because of economic constraints or threats to their livelihood.
We can and must do better as a society. Please contact your MLA and/or MP and raise these issues with them. We must advocate for appropriate and timely action on the largest emitters of Toxic substances in Canada.
Anna Tilman has been involved in consultations as a representative of environmental organizations regarding the Base Metals Smelters since 1999, and is a member of the Base Metals Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (BEMAG).
Sources for data and other information in this article may be found
at:
Environment Canada websites:
National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/npri/npri_home_e.cfm
Canada-wide Acid Rain Strategy;
2004 Canadian Acid Deposition Science Assessment--Summary of Key
Results
www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/saib/acid/acid_e.html
Proposed Pollution Prevention Planning P2 Notice:
www.ec.gc.ca/nopp at "Consultations"(archived)
Environmental Code of Practice for Base Metals Smelters and Refineries (proposed first edition, June 2004) www.ec.gc.ca/nopp/docs/cp/bms/en/index.cfm
Review of Environmental Releases for the Base Metals Sector prepared--Hatch
consultants (2000)
http://www.ec.gc.ca/nopp/docs/consult/bms/en/bms_releases_sum.cfm
Other references:
Letter to Ministers by Environmental Organizations:
http://www.miningwatch.ca/issues/toxics/P2_letter.html
World Health Organization on SO2 exposure:
www.euro.who.int/document/aiq/7_4sulfurdioxide.pdf
Manitoba Conservation Submission to Environment Canada--March 11, 2004
For further information on submissions to Environment Canada during consultations on the Base Metals Sector, contact Serge Langdeau, Environment Canada, at 819-994-0457.
For submissions by Anna Tilman, contact annatilman@sympatico.ca.
1 CRU International (Commodities Research Unit) reports that only
6% of copper smelters had no sulphur fixation in 2001.
2 Emissions of SO2 were 266 000 tonnes for HudBay and 283 000 at
Inco Thompson in 1988.
3 Manitoba's 24-hour guideline of 0.11 ppm (parts per million, equivalent
to 314.6 µg/m3) whereas the WHO value is 0.04 ppm (equivalent
to 125 µg/m3). The WHO guideline was reconfirmed in 2000 ref.
WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen Denmark--Air Quality
Guidelines for SO2 (Chapter 7.4).
4 The CEPA-toxic substances include Sulphur Dioxide (SO2), Particulate
Matter (PM) containing metals, respirable particulate matter less
than or equal to 10 microns (PM10) and releases to air of lead,
mercury, arsenic, cadmium and nickel.
Caribou at the Crossroads
By Ron Thiessen, Western Canada Wilderness Committee
The urgency of protecting woodland caribou recently sparked a national meeting of 37 woodland caribou experts. Held in Winnipeg, the event was organized to discuss how to create a healthy future for this threatened icon of Canada’s vast boreal forests. Manitoba was an ironic location as our provincial government continually fails to officially recognize woodland caribou as a species at risk—an omission that could fatally compromise national woodland caribou recovery efforts in our province.
The two-day expert assembly was followed by a public session. Many attendants were surprised to learn that Manitoba’s Conservation Minister Stan Struthers would be arriving to say a few words. The excitement flared as many in attendance predicted the Minister would announce that the provincial government would make good on a five-year old commitment to provide legal protection for woodland caribou in the province.
After all, the federal government has listed woodland caribou under the Species At Risk Act (SARA) and the Manitoba NDP government signed the National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk that obligates Manitoba to develop complementary measures with the federal government to protect species at risk. Legal protection under the Manitoba Endangered Species Act (MESA) would fulfill the Accord commitment. Furthermore, as all Manitoba’s woodland caribou live on provincially managed lands, the federal government’s recovery efforts require the province’s cooperation in order to be effective.
Minister Struthers talked at length about Manitoba’s commitment to caribou conservation. He noted Manitoba’s participation in the National Recovery Strategy, and how Manitoba’s Endangered Species Advisory Committee had recommended protecting woodland caribou under MESA. I thought to myself, ‘the pieces are in place and the long standstill on protecting Manitoba’s woodland caribou is about to end.’
Further consultations with stakeholders
The Minister’s next words were potentially devastating to
the future of Manitoba’s woodland caribou as he declared that
his government was unprepared to protect woodland caribou under
MESA. The primary reason provided was that he wants to consult with
First Nations as well as stakeholders such as Manitoba Hydro and
forestry companies before making a decision. I commend the Minister
for rightfully including these parties in designing a future for
woodland caribou, as their involvement is essential in planning
on-the-ground protection. However, determining whether a species
is at risk should be based purely on biological criteria.
The woodland caribou’s future depends on ensuring that scientists, not politicians, determine whether the caribou is at risk, and they have. Both federal and Manitoba government species advisory committees have declared woodland caribou a threatened species in Manitoba. Furthermore, the alarming Manitoba government estimates that the provincial woodland caribou population has decreased by 50% since 1950 is basis enough for listing.
The Minister went on to say that his government is devising a ‘plan’ for woodland caribou and it would be ready soon. It’s difficult to have confidence in the upcoming plan when the NDP won’t even admit that woodland caribou are a species at risk in the province.
Health of Caribou’s Boreal Forest Home Critical
A growing drive by scientists, industry, and the public to prevent
further decline of woodland caribou is accompanied by the march
to conserve Canada’s shrinking boreal forests. It’s
a logical marriage as woodland caribou require intact boreal forest
to make a ‘living’, and symbiotically, the boreal forest
needs all of its components, including woodland caribou, to maintain
a healthy ecosystem balance.
Canadians of all interests have become engaged in keeping our boreal forests intact. It’s not surprising as every Canadian relies on the boreal for either a home, or a job, or essentials such as fresh water, climate regulation, medicine, wood, paper, and food.
Resource companies are standing up for caribou as well. Tembec, the logging company on the east side of Lake Winnipeg, acknowledges the federal status for woodland caribou in Manitoba and sent a letter to the Manitoba government stating its support for listing woodland caribou under MESA. If a timber company supports legal protection for woodland caribou, why is the Manitoba government so hesitant to do the right thing?
Manitoba’s woodland caribou have become an international issue as evidenced by 28,000 letters sent this spring from North Americans asking the Manitoba government to list and protect the woodland caribou under MESA—why is the NDP ignoring public concern?
First Nations traditional teacher Garry Raven, who lives in caribou country at Hollow Water, Manitoba, acknowledges the value of the woodland caribou and its boreal forest home. Raven noted, “Protecting woodland caribou’s boreal forest habitat is important for our future.”
The right decisions need to be made
Manitoba woodland caribou are at a crossroads. If the right decisions
are made right now, woodland caribou can be sustained into the future
within our province’s vast boreal forests. It’s time
for the NDP government to show the world that Manitoba is first-class
when it comes to protecting wilderness and habitat for wildlife.
Listing and protecting woodland caribou under the Manitoba Endangered
Species Act will take the caribou, our boreal forests, and Manitoba
society another step toward a sustainable future.
For more information, or to voice your support for the woodland caribou, contact the Wilderness Committee at (204) 942-9292, or visit our websites at www.wildernesscommittee.mb.ca or www.caribounation.org.
Mosquito Control Policy:
Hoping for the Best
By Glenda Whiteman, Concerned Residents of Winnipeg (CROW),
Inc.
So, we’ve all heard some hopeful things about Winnipeg’s new bug control policy approved unanimously on March 23 by City Council. We want to believe that our new Entomologist, Taz Stuart, will be able to achieve his goal of reducing the use of chemical pesticides in Winnipeg. Yet, folks educated about environmental issues, like you, are asking questions. People want to know, is mosquito control this year really going to be substantially different than it’s been in the past?
To his credit, Stuart was able to significantly alter the previous mosquito control policy. To compare the old and new policies, read pp 30-35 on the City’s website: http://www.winnipeg.ca/CLKDMIS/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=4952&InitUrl=
Let’s hope this new policy will turn out to be the breath of fresh air it is intended to be; its preamble states, “The Insect Control Branch’s long term strategy is to reduce the necessity for controlling adult nuisance mosquitoes.” (Hip, hip hooray!)
A quick read will show that the new policy still seems to leave a lot of power in the hands of the Entomologist, as did the previous one, but there is a subtle difference. Whereas his predecessor had the authority to spray, Taz Stuart now has the authority to not spray.
Under the new policy, consideration to initiate or stop adulticiding will be based on more than simply the average number of mosquitoes in the city. From now on, the following factors (called Adulticiding Factor Analysis or AFA guidelines) will also be considered in future judgements: moisture, mosquito development, environmental conditions relative to mosquito development, stage of current adult mosquito generation, and effectiveness of larviciding.
The new policy permits a range of responses ranging from pre-emptive
action (which may or may not include chemicals) to localized fogging
with less toxic choices (called barrier treatments) “as determined
necessary by the City Entomologist” and it is furthermore
spelled out that “the City Entomologist may exclude specific
areas of the City from an adulticiding program.”
‘Environmental acceptability’ is listed as the first
factor to be considered when selecting adulticide products and this
policy was in fact approved along with a new financial commitment,
supported by all Councillors, to increase the use of less-toxic
larvicides and reduce reliance on Dursban for larviciding.
Plans to research alternatives are included in the new strategy. “The emphasis of this research will be directed towards identifying safer insecticides; the economics of use; and methodologies with improved information on insecticides and their efficacy in the environment. Research will also examine alternatives to insecticide use and methods of operation that reduce risks to human health and non-target organisms.”
Buffer zones to be respected
The Pesticide Use Permit, including the 100 metre buffer zones,
will continue to be respected and the identity of buffer registrants
(whom they call anti-pesticide registrants or APR’s) will
not be divulged.
Recommendations elsewhere in the Administrative Report (approved by the Standing Policy Committee on Protection and Community Services) include such common-sense ideas as plans to repopulate beneficial insects like dragonflies and damselflies, seeding permanent water bodies with minnows and phasing out chemical larvicides (such as Dursban) over the next three years. The accompanying financial commitment to less toxic alternatives should give us confidence that the new Entomologist is serious about this last goal and that Councillors should be prepared to back him up.
That all looks great on paper but the proof will be in the pudding. We all know that our new Entomologist will be facing political demands to fog. Few City Councillors are sympathetic to those of us who condemn pesticides; they, like everyone else, need to accept responsibility for the damage being caused to human and environmental health. This year, it’s more important than ever to tell your Councillor that exposure to repeated doses and combinations of toxins has untold consequences and is not considered in Health Canada’s registration decisions; continuing to endorse the use of toxic chemicals for non-essential purposes is morally indefensible.
After you’ve called your councillor, there are some other
ways you can protect yourselves and support the new steps being
taken at Insect Control Branch.
• Cover babies, children and any other vulnerable people with
long, loose, light clothing and keep them indoors at dusk and dawn.
• Use insect repellents sparingly, if you have to, and put
it on clothing, not directly on skin.
• If you see a mosquito around the house, there is a 50 percent
chance it hatched in your own yard! Do everything you can to reduce
the need for insect control by eliminating or covering up any standing
water where mosquito larvae can grow and hatch on your property.
• Get your lawn off drugs. Another hugely important thing
you can do to help repopulate beneficial insects is to reduce chemical
pesticide and fertilizer use for cosmetic lawn care. If you are
already using organic lawn care methods, let your neighbours know
how easy it is. For more information, ask the Manitoba Eco-Network
about their organic lawn care workshops: 947-6514, www.mbeconetwork.org.
• Call your MP and complain about the Noxious Weeds Act. I
was recently told that Manitoba has more species in its Noxious
Weeds Act than any other province. According to Weeds of Canada
and the Northern United States (France Royer and Richard Dickinson),
of the 175 species represented, at least 35 are listed as noxious
ONLY IN MANITOBA.
• Finally: Buffer Up! Let the City know you support chemical-free
measures. Protect your family by registering your buffer zone request
with the Insect Control Branch at insectcontrol@winnipeg.ca
or 3 Grey Street, R2L 1V2 and Parks and Open Space Division, IPM
Services Section, Att: Sharon McDougall, 700 Assiniboine Park Dr.,
R3P 2N9, or SMcDougall@winnipeg.ca.
Ask to be notified of all pesticide applications in your area.
You can find more information on safer alternatives (and fun stuff
like how to build a dragonfly pond or a dandelion wine recipe) on
the Concerned Residents of Winnipeg website at www.CROWinc.org
or by calling 229-9613.
A Vision for a Floodway
Greenway
By Lorna Hendrickson, The Red River Floodway Trail Coalition
Have you ever thought about the Red River Floodway as a place to walk, cycle, cross country ski or horseback ride? These are a few of the activities the Red River Floodway Trail Coalition envisions that could be integrated into a comprehensive master plan for a greenway along the expanded floodway.
The Red River Floodway Trail Coalition is a coalition of approximately 40 member groups that is advocating the development of a greenway along the expanded floodway. The groups represented on the Coalition are diverse—from the Manitoba Horse Council to the Cross Country Ski Association of Manitoba, from the R.M. of East St. Paul to the Manitoba Hang Gliders, from Resource Conservation Manitoba to Entreprises Riel—in total, thousands of Manitobans are represented by the Coalition.
The Red River Floodway Trail Coalition has accomplished a lot in its short history. The Coalition was formed in March 2004 to respond to the Manitoba Floodway Authority’s “Call for Expressions of Interest” regarding recreation and economic development opportunities along the expanded floodway. Since that time, the Coalition and Rivers West—Red River Corridor Association Inc., which has provided financial and organizational support to the Coalition, have hosted a workshop with over fifty participants, a tour of the Grand Forks Greenway, surveyed stakeholders to determine needs, presented to the Clean Environment Commission hearings on the expanded floodway, and held several meetings with politicians to explain our vision.
The Coalition wants to maximize the opportunity that the floodway expansion project presents for the development of a greenway. The existing floodway has been described as a scar on the landscape. Our vision is to turn this scar into a legacy—something that Manitobans and visitors to Manitoba can enjoy for years to come.
The Coalition is advocating for the development of a long-term master plan for the greenway—something similar to what Meewasin Valley Authority has undertaken in Saskatoon. We realize that a greenway can not be developed overnight. This will be a long tem commitment that requires the support and cooperation of municipalities, recreational stakeholders, and government departments. The Coalition also recognizes that government can not be the only partner in this initiative. Stakeholder groups will need to be involved in fund raising and greenway maintenance.
A need for interpretation of the floodway
The map (at left) helps to explain our vision—we envision
the greenway to be a series of loops or trails that build upon existing
attractions and infrastructure along the floodway, supported by
interpretation of the natural and historic/cultural attributes of
the floodway.
Did you know that the Red River Floodway is one of two man made
features of the world visible from outer space (the other one is
the Great Wall of China)? Did you know that the Red River Floodway
is a National Historic Site? These are just a few things that interpretive
signage could explain to visitors to the floodway.
Rivers West is planning to undertake further consultation with stakeholder organizations, rural municipalities, government departments and the general public regarding issues, needs, concerns and options that would need to be addressed in the development of a greenway. This will be summarized and presented to the Manitoba Floodway Authority and the federal and provincial governments for further discussion. A meeting of Coalition members and other interested stakeholders is planned for June following the release of the Clean Environment Commission report on the Floodway Expansion project.
If you want to get involved in or have any questions regarding the Coalition activities, please contact Lorna Hendrickson at 987.4356 (lhendricks@gov.mb.ca) or Janice Lukes at 275-7659 (jlukes@shaw.ca).
Red River Basin Commission
Report: Lake of the Woods Under Threat
By Lindy Clubb
The Red River Basin Commission (RRBC) is a non-profit organization that works across the political boundaries of Manitoba, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, to create a shared vision for action with regard to land and water issues. It’s an organization with broad representation throughout the Red River Basin, and their watershed restoration projects are excellent. The organization works across political and national borders to bring citizens of the area into a cohesive group who are committed to “the development of projects that assure adequate flood protection, water quality standards and water quality initiatives in the Red River basin.” Its intent is to bring people together for a shared vision of how we might help the area, and the conferences are designed to expedite that process. I attended my first one a few months ago.
The Red River Basin Commission held its 22nd annual Land &
Water International Summit Conference in Fargo, North Dakota on
January 12-14th. Called “Shared Resources, Shared Responsibilities”,
it was a successful and well organized two day event bringing presenters
and members together from Manitoba, Minnesota, North Dakota and
South Dakota. RRBC has two offices, one in the States and one here,
but predictably, the U.S. has a larger presence at the Board of
Directors’ table.
Support for water protection
Winnipeg’s office has a competent, caring, hardworking staff
led by Harold Taylor, the Commission’s Deputy Executive Director.
With the breadth of experience and contacts Mr. Taylor has brought
to the commission on behalf of our province, we are well represented.
Right now, the Red River Basin Natural Resources Framework Plan
is being edited by RRBC staff before a public review. This document
will guide the Commission’s work in the future.
A surprising number of Manitobans attended this international conference—fishermen from Lake Winnipeg, concerned citizens from north of the Floodway Expansion, officials from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, bureaucrats from all levels and many water departments, municipal reeves and local councillors—so I’d venture to say communication is good. The presentations had geographic, agricultural, historical, hydrological and regulatory content. Ecological concerns may have ranked well below prevention of flooding and business as usual, but RRBC has funded and supported several successful and innovative programs to protect the water on both sides of the border.
Rhetoric aside (and I did hear lots of it), the presenters were informed and well-meaning, but I detected a sour note when the Bureau of Reclamation’s representative put the Lake of the Woods on a projected list of possible water supplies for future industrial and residential growth south of the border. That alarmed me. So does the environmental impact assessment of the current proposal to divert water from the Missouri River to the Sheyenne (a tributary to Devil’s Lake and the Red River), which is forthcoming. It’s just another version of the old Garrison project (minus the irrigation component) which simply refuses to go away.
The Devil’s Lake outlet is close to completion and forging ahead. If Lake Winnipeg and Hudson’s Bay had voices they would raise them in protest. So should we.
Since Manitoba hasn’t treated its water well enough to keep Lake Winnipeg healthy, the attitude in the States is ‘not to worry’. Basic biota information for what’s in the salty, silty water of Devil’s Lake isn’t being released, which dilutes our hard-to-prove arguments about harmful effects. As for the Lake of the Woods, Winnipeg is piping in large amounts from the area to quench its own thirst and so precedent has been set.
Manitoba and Minnesota vs. North Dakota?
In spite of our own past mistakes, we need to support the present
position of the provincial government and the state of Minnesota
in opposition to these schemes. The alternatives to have water supplied
to the Fargo/Moorhead area in times of drought are promising—the
Wild Rice Watershed District potential Red River Water Supply Project
would establish 32,000 acre feet of water about 18 miles away from
the cities, in a large, very green belt of wetlands in a low lying
part of North Dakota. The current proposal is for water to be piped
in from Lake of the Woods 246 miles away. Which one would you choose?
The next RRBC annual conference will be held in Winnipeg. It’s being organized now, and sounds very promising. Since I’m the only environmentalist attending from north of the border, I’d welcome comments and opinions about these issues and others of concern to Canadians, to bring to the RRBC table. Please contact me at 204 475-9608, or email me at Lindy@frozen.ca.
Invasive Species,
Biological Diversity & Biological Control
By Cory Lindgren, Manitoba Purple Loosestrife Project
When I discuss my research interests with friends and family I
can only imagine the images they conger up. Space aliens, men from
mars, Marvin the Martian, Klingons, and the latest National Inquirer
report of a three-headed man-eating fish species—these are
invasive alien species?
Invasive alien species have risen to prominence over the past several
years fueled in the USA by President Clinton’s 1999 executive
order and in Canada with the development of the 2004 Strategic Plan
Addressing the Threat of Invasive Species. As the trend towards
globalized economies continues, the rates of introduction of invasive
alien species into Canada, which includes alien plant species, is
not likely to decline. Globalization has broken down barriers that
previously restricted flora dispersion. We can expect to see more
challenging invasive alien species in the days ahead.
Ecological and economic damage
While not all invasive alien species are deleterious, some cause
ecological and economic damage. Estimating the economic impacts
of invasive alien species is a challenge, however many have carried
out this exercise. It has been estimated that invasive species cost
the US economy 140 billion dollars a year. Ecological impacts include
displacing native species, altering ecological processes, degrading
habitat that provides food, shelter and breeding substrates for
wildlife, and further stressing species at risk. It’s believed
that over 40% of the species on the threatened or endangered species
list are at risk primarily because of invasive species.
One such invader, purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), is estimated to invade 1 million acres of wetland habitat annually. It can be found in wetland areas that also serve as critical breeding habitat for species at risk such as the least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) or yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis). It’s one serious weed.
Introductions of invasive plants are due in large part to gardeners and landscapers. Many escape from gardens and proliferate in natural areas degrading biological diversity. The increasing public demand for attractive plants to use in aquascaping and water gardens will likely escalate exotic introductions.
Purple loosestrife is a case in point—it’s still found in many gardens and cultivated varieties once thought to be sterile and safe for landscaping have hybridized, further contributing to its spread. Managing the spread and impact of alien invasive plants is further complicated by the fact that while some provinces have reacted to alien invasive plants by banning the sale and plantings of a problem plant, other provinces have continued to allow retail sales and general plantings.
Biological diversity simply defined is the variety of life. The Convention on Biological Diversity, an international treaty adopted in 1992, reported that the rate of biodiversity loss is increasing at unprecedented rates and that introductions of alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats and species are a contributing factor.
Monocultures replacing native flora
Invasive alien species have demonstrated that they are capable of
reducing overall biological diversity. Purple loosestrife is capable
of invading aquatic and natural areas and in some cases forming
near-monocultures that replace native flora—reducing ecosystem
biological diversity.
Biological control, a process that attempts to reunite an invasive
weed with its natural enemies, can provide a mechanism through which
biological diversity may be enhanced. The classical biological control
of purple loosestrife is proving to be one of the great biological
control success stories. Initial releases took place across North
America in 1992 and are continuing as new provinces and states implement
biological control programs against purple loosestrife. Biological
control has historically offered solutions in agricultural systems.
As an aquatic invader, purple loosestrife has served to introduce
new “wet” audiences to the science of biological control.
The results of North American biological control programs against purple loosestrife can be found throughout the science literature. In some cases, biological control agents have resulted in almost 100% reduction in the target weed. Researchers are finding that niches once invaded by purple loosestrife are being re-occupied by desirable native species including sedges and cattail. The purple loosestrife story is a great example of how an invasive alien species can be managed through a classical biological control program leading to enhanced ecosystem biological diversity.
For more information on the Manitoba Purple Loosestrife Project visit www.purpleloosestrife.org.
Weed Control in the Organic
Garden
By John Hollinger, Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Inititatives
Every growing season is an opportunity to ‘go organic’, if you haven’t already. The first step, of course, is to stop using chemical pesticides and fertilizers—which means dealing with weeds the same way your grandparents did, for one. John Hollinger offers some tried-and-true methods here.
Mulch is your best friend
A thick layer of mulch keeps light from reaching weeds. Without
adequate light, plants don’t produce enough chlorophyll to
grow well. Most of these plants sicken and die before you even notice
them. The few plants that do manage to poke their leaves into the
light will be shallowly rooted and very easy to pull.
Organic mulches (straw, grass clippings, leaves, shredded bark) nourish the soil as they decompose. They are fairly effective weed barriers. For even better weed protection, use several sheets of newspaper, kraft paper (the paper used to make grocery bags) or cardboard under these mulches. In a 1992-93 study at the University of Vermont, a six-inch layer of shredded newspaper applied at the beginning of one season allowed no more than eight weeds per square yard to sprout for two summers. Without renewing the mulch layer, the newspaper controlled weeds for two seasons. Kraft paper and cardboard allow even less light to reach weeds and are even more impenetrable. And no, don’t mention the fact that using kraft paper is a “cheesy” solution.
Hoe, Hoe, Hoe
Annual weeds die when you sever the stems from the roots just below
the soil surface. With a sharp hoe, the weeds cut easily. Forget
about the square-headed traditional garden hoe for this job—go
for an oscillating or a swan neck hoe instead.
To hoe your garden without cultivating a backache, hold the hoe
as you would a broom, that is, with your thumbs pointing up. Skim
the sharp sides of the hoe blade through the top inch of soil.
Solarization
You can let the sun help you get rid of persistent weeds if you’re
willing to leave the bed fallow for six weeks in the summer. Get
started in the late spring or early summer by pulling, hoeing or
raking out as many weeds as you can from the garden bed. Then, moisten
the soil and cover it with clear plastic, weighing down or burying
the edges. Leave the plastic in place for six weeks. When you remove
the plastic, the sun will have cooked weeds that would otherwise
have sprouted.
Corn Gluten Meal
You can suppress the growth of weed seeds early in the season by
spreading corn gluten meal over the area where they’re growing.
Corn gluten meal, a by-product of corn processing that’s often
used to feed livestock, inhibits the germination of seeds. Bear
in mind that once the weeds have gone beyond the sprout stage, corn
gluten will not affect them. Also, corn gluten doesn’t discriminate
between seeds you want to sprout and those you don’t want,
so avoid using corn gluten meal where you’ve sown seeds. It
works best in established lawns and perennial beds.
Hand pulling
Here’s the trick to comfortable, quick weed pulling: put your
hands in front of you, thumbs up and palms facing your body, one
hand in front of the other. Now roll your hands, like kids do when
singing “This old man goes rolling home.” Pinch your
forefinger and thumb together as you reach the outermost edge of
the imaginary circle your hands are tracing and move your arms to
the side as you roll your hands.
With practice, you will be surprised by how quickly you clean up a row in the garden with this movement.
Persistence
This is your most important long-range weapon against weeds. Mulch
well, pull what you can, hoe where you have to, and use a handy
tool or two for a few minutes whenever you visit your garden. Do
these things consistently for a few seasons, and you will slowly,
but surely, expel the invaders for good.
“Weeds are just plants growing where they are not wanted.”
John Hollinger is an Organic Business Development Specialist with
Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Inititatives.
For more information on organic lawn care and organic growing methods, you can always contact the Manitoba Eco-Network at (204) 947-6511, or check www.mbeconetwork.org. The book “How to Get Your Lawn and Garden Off Drugs” by Carole Rubin is also a great resource—it’s available in the Manitoba Eco-Network’s Alice Chambers Memorial Library.
To find organic farmers’ markets and sources of both organic and conventional produce, see Manitoba Agriculture’s website at www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/food/index.html. Fruit growers (berries) are listed at www.pfga.com. The sites are updated when the season starts in June.
The Organic Food Council of Manitoba and Manitoba Agriculture are planning an organic farm tour for sometime in the summer. Details are TBA, but it will be informative, and a lot of fun! Contact John Hollinger, Organic Agriculture Specialist with Manitoba Agriculture at (204) 745-5643 or jhollinger@gov.mb.ca if you want to participate.
All About Alternative
Energy
by David Henry
Every summer, I try to make sure to celebrate one of the most ancient indicators of time passing—the Summer Solstice. The Summer Solstice stands as one of two solar events that helped establish (and measure) the length of the year, largely because it isn’t very hard to determine the day where the sun reaches the highest point in its arc across the northern sky. The other event is the Winter Solstice, of course.
You can use a stick to measure the relative height of the sun’s arc, simply marking the shadow on the ground. It’s pretty much that easy, which is why someone figured it out a very long time ago. Various forms of celebrating the solstices have been with us ever since.
As a young child, I first noticed the different lengths of days when I realized that there was more daylight for playing in during the summer. I began to pay attention to how the length of each day changed—and generally began to learn about the sun and its central role in all our lives. Over four decades later, I still find myself pondering the sun and how essential it is.
What so important about the sun?
When considering alternative energy sources, we often think of simply
substituting one non-renewable fuel source with another, renewable
one. Much-talked about priorities are the replacment or reduction
of oil-based fuels with hydrogen or methanol, or eliminating coal-burning
electricity generators and replacing them with windmill farms. These
are important steps to take, of course, as they help ensure the
sustainability of economy-driving industries and the supply of energy
to urban centres.
For example, Manitoba’sAlternative Energy Chair will be holding a Renewable Transportation Conference on June 20, (10am—5pm at the University of Manitoba SmartPark) . The conference will focus on the possible role of plug-in hybrids (PHEV) for applications in Manitoba. This is good to see discussion of, and noone can deny that it is important.
More decentralized forms of alternative energy production are also discussed often—solar, wind and micro-hydro systems that can provide energy ‘off the grid’. All of these types of solutions are being discussed within mainstream culture now, and there is no longer a question of ‘why’, just how and when.
But what about fueling ‘alternative’ activities? What about changes in activities that seriously decentralize energy use, and even eliminate the need for energy storage?
The only thing you need for powering a bicycle is the food and water needed to keep those legs pumping. And vegetable gardening reduces the amount of transportation required to bring food to the table. More to the point, what we consume as individuals drives the very industries that further compel us to purchase even more electronic devices. Just imagine the energy savings of not watching the latest ‘reality TV’ show and instead enjoying the genuine reality of going outside and playing. Like, flying a kite.
The longest day of the year
The Summer Solstice, the day when the sun spends more time crossing
the sky than any other day, seems to be the perfect day for celebrating
alternative energy. Solar power, on average, is most plentiful on
that day. And wind power is really solar power—that sun heats
the atmosphere and causes large masses of warmed air to start moving.
Even if it is cloudy on the Summer Solstice, the sun is working
away, creating the very weather conditions that brought those clouds.
If it’s raining, that means weather conditions are perfect for making kites, if not flying them. Reusing scrap materials can make for an even more ‘alternative’ alternative, with all kinds of odd bits being used for the tail, some reclaimed wood or plastic for the frame, and used paper for the lift surfaces. It’s hard to find good lengths of used string—but kites need not fly high. It’s still fun to run around pulling a kite behind, and you are less likely to loose a favourite kite by flying it close by.
Yes, let’s go fly a kite this June 21. The summer is here, and “living is easy”. Or should be.
David Henry used to offer workshops on games and activities that teach sciences and environmentally-sound practices. He also likes making kites.
Organic Lawn Care Project 2005
We are pleased to announce the beginning of our 2005 Organic Lawn Care Project. This is year five for this public education program! Things began a little late this year, with summer student programs being somewhat delayed, but we have hired our team, and they are preparing for two months of workshops and information sharing on how to have a beautiful and healthy green space around your home or business.
Tom Bailey is an environmental science student at the U of M’s Faculty of Environment, with a focus on environmental health. He is excited to be doing a summer job directly related to his area of interest.
Eszti Nagy studies Urban Policy and the Environment at the University of Winnipeg. Her goal is to pursue environmental education for the general public, so she sees an excellent opportunity to learn new skills in this summer position.
As in prior years, the team will be delivering workshops at libraries and other venues all around the city of Winnipeg. They are currently booking spaces, and the schedule will be placed on the lawn care section of our website when available. In addition, they will be seeking opportunities to set up displays at a variety of community events, and happy to book special noon hour sessions for workplaces too.
Funding for this year’s project is provided by the Province of Manitoba’s Urban Green Team, the Federal Human Resources and Skills Development Summer Career Placement, and the City of Winnipeg Parks and Open Spaces Division. Our thanks to them for their support. Look for a workshop in your neighbourhood soon! See the Organic Lawn Care page of this site for dates.
ENGOs Now Moved to MEC Building: We’ve Arrived!
The Eco-Centre has finally arrived in our wonderful new space on the third floor of Mountain Equipment Co-op. We moved in on May 12 and 13, and the construction was completed on Friday, May 27. The unpacking and settling in process is continuing, but the general consensus is that we’ll be happy and comfortable in our new digs. Conservation Minister, Stan Struthers, came for a tour this week, and was genuinely impressed with what he saw. We’ll be pleased to show you around—if you come to visit, please use the door on Portage Avenue, just east of the MEC main entrance, for the time being. (Those who require elevator access can inquire at the Member Services desk in the store and staff will be pleased to assist). We expect the elevator will be fully useable very soon.
We have many folks and institutions in the community to thank, and we’ll need to celebrate with our members and friends—an official “opening and thank you” will take place likely in September. Meanwhile, the good work of all our groups continues through the summer.
The new mailing address is: 3rd Floor, 303 Portage Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3B 2B4.
| Copyright 2007 Manitoba Eco-Network |