Federal Government Must Prevent Extinction of Sage-Grouse in Canada

The stunning Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus urophasianus) is facing extinction in Canada. It could disappear from Alberta within a year if action for its protection is not taken immediately.

Today, through a legal petition issued on our behalf by Ecojustice, Nature Canada called on the federal Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Peter Kent, to recommend that Cabinet issue an emergency order to prevent further degradation of Greater Sage-grouse critical habitat and take the necessary measures to ensure the survival of this iconic species.

We are joined in this effort by 11 other conservation organizations, including our partners in the Canadian Nature Network, Nature Alberta, Nature Saskatchewan, Grassland Naturalists and Lethbridge Naturalists Society, as well as our US partner in BirdLife International, the National Audubon Society-Rockies.

We're also calling on the public to send letters in support of immediate action to save the Sage-grouse.

The Canadian population of Sage-grouse declined by almost 90 per cent between 1988 and 2006. By 2010, there were only 42 males at 2 active breeding grounds or “leks” in Saskatchewan. In Alberta, there are thought to be only 13 males remaining with the total provincial population estimated at approximately 30 birds in 2011.

The alarming population decline of Greater Sage-grouse demands immediate attention both to prevent the species from disappearing from Canada and because of what it tells us about the mounting habitat degradation in Canada’s grasslands. In Alberta, only 30% of native grasslands remain. Less than 2% of Alberta's grasslands natural region is protected, yet it supports 70% of the mammal, bird, reptile, and amphibian species at risk in that province. Greater Sage-grouse are indicators of the health of Canada’s shrub-steppe and Great Plains ecosystems. Measures taken to protect and restore sage-grouse habitat will benefit many other species at risk including: Burrowing Owl, Swift Fox, Badger, Sprague’s Pipit and Great Plains Toad.

The Greater Sage-grouse has long been the subject of fascination and research because of its elaborate and spectacular courtship displays. In early spring, males congregate in large numbers at areas referred to as leks to perform their annual courtship rituals. The male's notorious "strutting display" is described as a series of forward struts, "wing swishes", inflations and deflations of the throat sac while making popping and whistling sounds, fanning out of its tail and erecting its head plumes while throwing its head back and forth.

Females rear their young on their own with no help from males. The average clutch size ranges from six to nine eggs and the incubation period is 25 to 29 days. The Greater Sage-grouse's young are precocial, meaning they leave the nest soon after hatching.

The Greater Sage-grouse reside in warm, dry, grasslands, as sagebrush, which grows in the described area, is their main food source. Although young and adult birds will feed on other plant species and some insects in the summertime, sagebrush consists of 47-60% of the adult bird's diet in the summer and 100% in the winter.

Sage-grouse need large blocks of unfragmented sagebrush grassland habitat to thrive. Their range in Canada has been reduced to only 6% of its historic extent because of loss and degradation of this habitat. Sage-grouse are now found only in the southeast corner of Alberta and southwest corner of Saskatchewan.

Sage-grouse are highly sensitive to disturbance. Recent scientific research suggests that rapid encroachment of oil and gas development on the areas where Sage-grouse spend the winter, breed, nest and raise their young is the leading factor in their extreme population drop. ­

Alberta and Saskatchewan each have a Wildlife Act and voluntary guidelines for energy development near sage-grouse habitat, but provincial protections are so lax that Sage-grouse continue to decline.

Under section 80 of Canada’s Species at Risk Act (SARA), the federal Cabinet has the power to make an emergency order to protect important habitat of an endangered species anywhere in Canada. The emergency order can prohibit any activities that may harm the species or the habitat necessary for its survival or recovery. Under SARA, the federal environment Minister has a mandatory duty to recommend that Cabinet make an emergency order if he or she is of the opinion that the species faces “imminent threats to its survival or recovery”.

In addition to seeking federal protection for sage-grouse under SARA, we are calling on the oil and gas industry to voluntarily provide sage-grouse with the protection they need. You can learn more about Greater Sage-grouse, read our petition and send a letter to Environment Minister Peter Kent asking for immediate emergency action to prevent this shameful extinction!

We Need Your Voice: Help Protect the Boreal Woodland Caribou

Nicknamed ‘grey ghosts’ for their shy, elusive nature, Boreal Woodland Caribou can't elude encrouching industrial activity that's destroying its habitat.

Back in August, the federal government released a proposed a recovery strategy to boost the Boreal Woodland Caribou’s numbers. The Caribou is threatened by industrial activities that have caused some herds to be critically endangered – and the rest are under increasing pressure.


While it's an important step in the right direction, we need a strong strategy to ensure a return to vibrant Boreal Woodland Caribou populations across the country -- and this plan isn't it.  

The recovery strategy is available online and the public can comment until October 25. You can visit the Species at Risk Public Registry's web site to post your comments, or go our site to send a letter asking Environment Minister Peter Kent to take these measures:

1. Strengthen the goal

The proposed strategy allows a 40% chance that herds will continue to decline – this is an unacceptably weak threshold. Make it a strategy for recovery, not continued decline.

2. Protect more habitat

The proposal would keep, at most, only 65% of the caribou’s range intact, and as little as 5%. Much more than 65% of habitat needs to remain intact for self-sustaining caribou populations to thrive.

3. Don’t kill wolves instead of protecting caribou.

Indefinite killing of wolves, moose, and deer is not an acceptable alternative to protecting caribou habitat. This is not a sustainable solution – protecting intact habitat is the solution.

I strongly encourage you to speak up on behalf of the Boreal Woodland Caribou and ensure stronger measures are taken to protect this iconic species.

National Park Profile: Jasper

Photo © Parks Canada

Jasper is the largest and most northerly national park in Canada's Rocky Mountains, and is part of a spectacular World Heritage Site. In this special corner of the country, you can experience Athabasca Glacier up close, resign yourself to a relaxing soak in the Miette Hotsprings, ride the rapids on a white water rafting adventure or connect with nature along 1,000-plus kilometres of trails.

• Walk on the largest ice field in the Canadian Rockies

Take a tour on the icy slopes of the glacier in an Ice Explorer. You'll be fascinated with all there is to know about ancient ice - some of it that was formed about 400 years ago!

• Laze away your day at the Miette Hot Springs

Who doesn't want to lounge in the hottest mineral springs in the Rockies? In addition to two hot pools, a cool poolside shower and a cafe and gift shop, you can hike the interpretive trail to see where the hot springs come from. Keep your eyes open - this is an excellent place to see big horn sheep, black bear and deer.

• Get ready for the adventure of a lifetime white water rafting

Are you ready for the adventure of a lifetime? If so, then hang on. This white water rafting trip on the Athabasca River will take you through many small sets of rapids and also some calm stretches (for those less daring). Get ready 'cause it's about a 2 1/2 hour trip.

Find out more about each of these great activities through the Jasper National Park My Parks Pass location page. 

Plus, Jasper is the destination for the grand prize trip in our Canada's Ultimate Family Adventure contest. If you, or your Grade 8 / Secondary 2 son or daughter, have your pass just flip it over and enter your V.I.P. Code for a chance to win. But you'd better hurry - the contest closes on May 31!

Two years later: Canada still silent on gas drilling in National Wildlife Area

Today marks the two year anniversary of the release of recommendations of the Joint Review Panel assessing a proposal by EnCana Corporation (now Cenovus) to drill 1,275 shallow gas wells in the Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Suffield National Wildlife Area. As we have done previously, the Suffield Coalition today wrote a letter to the Ministers of Defence and Environment to inquire about the government’s response to the Panel report, which we still await two years later.

The Suffield Coalition comprises seven groups who actively participated in the Joint Review Panel process. The members are: Alberta Wilderness Association, Nature Alberta (formerly Federation of Alberta Naturalists), World Wildlife Fund Canada, Nature Saskatchewan, Southern Alberta Group for the Environment, Grasslands Naturalists, and Nature Canada.

In today's letter we once again called on the federal government to close the door to any further industrial development in CFB Suffield National Wildlife Area and to ensure the long term conservation of Suffield as one of the most important areas of native grasslands remaining in North America.

Two years ago the Suffield Coalition concurred with the Panel’s findings that the Cenovus/EnCana project would likely interfere with the conservation of wildlife, the core purpose of the National Wildlife Area. As the Panel pointed out, avoiding such interference is a requirement of the Wildlife Area Regulations. We therefore believe that federal permits to proceed with additional drilling in the NWA under the Wildlife Area Regulations or the Species at Risk Act should be denied.

In their Report, the Panel recognized the importance of the NWA as one of the few large blocks of dry mixed-grass prairie remaining in Canada, and that the NWA was created to protect the ecological integrity of this land and the species that occupy it, including at least 15 species listed as endangered, threatened or of special concern under the Species at Risk Act.

Sixteen of the Panel's 27 recommendations are prefaced by “should the project proceed”. They demonstrate the considerable challenges and uncertainties involved in mitigating the risk of significant adverse effects from the proposed drilling as well as from current activities on sensitive soils, native grassland, wetlands, ungulate winter range, five species of snakes and fifteen species at risk. Taking the risk implied within these recommendations is not appropriate within a National Wildlife Area. We believe it is not in the public interest to approve the project.

The other 11 Panel recommendations are designed to address major deficiencies in environmental management within the NWA and CFB Suffield overall, whether or not the project proceeds. These recommendations include working with stakeholders like the Suffield Coalition. We are ready, willing, and able to help. But we await a response from the federal government.

The EnCana Trial That Wasn't

In 2007, EnCana (now Cenovus) was charged with violating the Canada Wildlife Act by building a section of a pipeline without a permit within CFB Suffield National Wildlife Area.

The trial was postponed numerous times -coincidentally, as EnCana's proposed project to drill more than 1,200 wells in the Suffield National Wildlife Area was undergoing an environmental assessment review. A year ago, the case was stayed temporarily. Now, it turns out that legally speaking it never happened.

The government has yet to make a decision on whether the Cenovus project will be approved and, if so, under what conditions.

Given that the panel that conducted the environmental assessment concluded the project would interfere with the conservation of wildlife, and set a very high bar for any approval, one could speculate that the "disappearance" of those charges are one less thing for the government, and Cenovus, to worry about.

Of course those of us concerned about the enforcement of wildlife conservation laws and the integrity of Suffield National Wildlife Area, have one more thing to worry about. Canadians need to have confidence that their government will uphold and enforce the rules intended to protect this irreplaceable wildlife habitat, including environmental assessment conditions.

What's threatening Alberta's protected areas? The law, actually...

UPDATE:

Since posting this story just hours ago, we've learned that Bill 29, the proposed "Alberta Parks Act", has been officially withdrawn from debate. Cindy Ady, Alberta's Minister of Tourism, Parks and Recreation, has also agreed to conduct a public consultation on the proposed legislation, responding to urgent requests from concerned citizens and conservation organizations, alike. You can read more in the Edmonton Journal and in the Sierra Club of Canada's related press release.

We thank all Canadians - particularly Albertans - who spoke out in favour of the province's iconic protected areas system! We look forward to results of upcoming public consultations and hope that conservation remains the number one priority in Alberta's protected spaces!

******************************

On Tuesday, Nature Canada, the Sierra Club of Canada (SCC) and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) submitted a joint letter to Alberta Premier, Ed Stelmach, asking him to immediately withdraw Bill 29, the proposed "Alberta Parks Act". This Bill threatens to redefine the management priorities in Alberta's parks and will reclassify the province's existing Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves and Wildland Parks. These and other changes could threaten the ecological integrity of 1 existing and 1 nominated World Heritage Site in Alberta, in addition to risking new external pressures on 2 other World Heritage Sites in the province.

In a substantial step backward for the province's protected areas system, Bill 29 proposes to "balance" conservation objectives with recreation and tourism. In our view, conservation should be prioritized over other activities in a system that effectively "...conserves unique and representative land within Alberta’s natural regions for present and future generations..." (cited from s.2(1) of the Bill).

Astonishingly, there was no public consultation on Bill 29 prior to members of Alberta's Legislative Assembly debating and voting on it. As detailed in a joint press release issued November 23rd by Nature Canada, the Sierra Club of Canada and CPAWS,

The [Bill] removes prescriptive laws specifying what can and cannot happen inside parks, opens all parks to tourism development and off-road motorized recreation, and leaves all decisions between development and protection inside parks to Ministerial opinion. That includes Dinosaur [Provincial Park], Áísínai'pi [Writing-on-Stone Provincial Park], and the parks contiguous with Wood Buffalo, Banff and Jasper [National Parks].

What's more, if Bill 29 passes into law it could affect the ecological integrity of numerous Important Bird Areas (IBAs) that coincide with provincially protected areas throughout Alberta. As BirdLife International's Canadian co-partner in implementing the IBA program, alongside Bird Studies Canada, we're concerned about what this could mean for birds and their habitats - especially Alberta's grassland birds. Nature Canada estimates that the proposed changes to Alberta's protected areas system would affect 5 nationally significant IBAs, 4 continentally significant IBAs and 35 globally significant IBAs. Visit the IBA Canada website to learn more about these and other IBAs across Canada.

Bill 29 has already passed its second reading by members of Alberta's Legislative Assembly (MLAs) and could rapidly become law after its third reading. But the government of Alberta needs to hear what Albertans and Canadians think of this draft Law before it's too late!

Our colleagues at CPAWS and the Sierra Club have organized letter-writing campaigns to help the public voice concerns over Bill 29 and the way it has proceeded. You can find them here:

Alberta's new Parks Act puts parks at risk
and
Alberta's Parks Need You

Help to safeguard Alberta's protected areas - for current and future generations of all Canadians.

Photo 1: Bighorn Sheep, Alberta's provincial mammal
Photo 2: Suffield National Wildlife Area, SE Alberta (A. Teucher)

Native Prairie Saved From Potato Production

We previously told you about a shocking plan to sell public prairie land in Alberta for potato production. Since then, SLM Spud Farms has withdrawn its offer to purchase public native prairie rangeland in Alberta's Bow Island Provincial Grazing Land (BIPGR).

Keith Ypma, SPL Spud Farms' family spokesperson, said the withdrawal was due to the "negative attention" the proposal stirred up.

This case is a great example of how the public can make a difference by voicing their opposition to the destruction of endangered habitats and wildlife and conserving Canada's natural heritage! But, the sale of public lands could continue. Environmental groups and opposition party members in Alberta are urging the government to complete land-use plans that protect the province's lands, and engage the public in a transparent and open process should any public land be put up for sale.

Native Prairie Threatened by Potato Production

White potatoes
by Julep67 via flickr

The Alberta Cabinet is considering a proposal to sell 13,600 acres of public native prairie rangeland in the Bow Island Provincial Grazing Reserve (BIPGR) to SLM Spud Farms for conversion into irrigated cropland for potato production.

This plan is absolutely shocking.

The central grasslands of North America are considered one of North America’s most endangered ecosystems. In this International Year of Biodiversity and as governments from around the world are gathered in Nagoya, Japan to work towards addressing alarming biodiversity loss, entertaining a proposal to convert endangered native prairie lands to potato production should be out of the question.

We wrote last week to Alberta's Premier to urge him to reject this proposal and prevent the significant impacts this conversion would have on Canada’s biodiversity. Read our letter.

How Much is a Duck Worth?

According to a provincial court in Alberta, about $1,868.

Syncrude Canada has been sentenced to pay an award of approximately $3 million CAD for the death of over 1,600 ducks that dove into its 12 square kilometre tailings pond north of Fort McMurray in Alberta. Syncrude had been found guilty in June 2010 of violating both the federal Migratory Birds Convention Act and Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act.

How does it add up to $3 million?

- $300,000; the maximum fine under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, which will be paid to the federal Environmental Damages Fund (EDF)

- $500,000; the maximum fine under the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act. Half of this money will be used for the establishment of a program to monitor and protect birds, and to be integrated with aboriginal training at Keyano College in Fort McMurray, Alberta

- $1.3 million; to be given to the University of Alberta's Avian Protection Research Study

- $900,000; for the purchase of lands in the Golden Ranches Conservation Area near Edmonton

$3 million does not come close to the true value of the wildlife that was lost. Help us make sure tragedies like this one don't happen again. Sign Nature Canada's petition to stop the tar sands!

Contaminants in the Athabasca River

A study, carried out by Dr. David Schindler and several of his colleagues from the University of Alberta, found high levels of mercury, lead and arsenic in the Athabasca River. Their findings challenge data found in government reports and are an indication that the tar sands industry has had a significant impact on the Athabasca River. Local fishermen have realized that migratory species such as ducks no longer land where they used to and have even found fish that were deformed or had lumps on them. The report will become available in the scientific journal 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Science'.

The team has recommended that monitoring must be improved in order to properly assess and control the industry’s impact on the environment. In a press conference on Monday the Edmonton Journal reported Dr. Schindler saying:

"There's no way industry can be belching out hundreds of kilograms of toxins every year and this not be detectable in the environment unless the monitoring program is totally incompetent." ... All of this is in clear violation of the Fisheries Act. The Fisheries Act is not based on amounts released or concentrations in the river; it just says flatly that there will be no deposition of any deleterious substance to a river or near enough to a river to get into it. Period. ... You have to ask where is Environment Canada on all of this? ... You have to wonder why do we have money for propaganda and not for proper science? Government has been putting money into their propaganda campaign to tell people everything is OK. I just think that's not the way democracy should work. If people can see what's really going on and they still choose to develop in the oilsands that's democracy. But making people think that everything's OK when it really isn't and therefore getting them to agree to this is not the way the government of this country or this province was set up to work.

Both the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP) and Alberta Environment are challenging Dr. Schindler's results. Alberta Environment would like to look at supplementary data before making comparisons and Fred Kuzmic from RAMP has said that such high levels are 'associated with naturally occurring compounds'. According to Dr. Schindler, RAMP, an industry led group overseeing the river's water quality, should be replaced with Environment Canada.

Help Nature Canada stop the tar sands from expanding and destroying significant habitat for wildlife by signing our letter to Prime Minister Harper.

Syncrude – Guilty for the Deaths of Over 1,600 Ducks!

Photo: David Dodge

Last Friday, June 25, 2010, Syncrude Canada was found guilty for the death of over 1,600 ducks that dove into the tar sands giant 12 km² tailings pond north of Fort McMurray in Alberta. The company was charged under the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act for failing to avoid dumping hazardous waste in wildlife’s way and under the Migratory Birds Convention Act for allowing hazardous waste to be deposited in areas visited by migratory birds.

Syncrude has requested a hearing, saying that both charges are unfair. The hearing is scheduled for August 20, 2010. Upon completion of the hearing, a sentence will be given for one or both charges. Potential fines could be in the amount of $500,000 to the provincial and $300,000 to the federal government.

Syncrude claims the weather conditions at the time would not have permitted them to place the right deterrents although several of its employees stated that the company was not adequately equipped and was understaffed when it came to bird deterrent activities. Judge Ken Tjosvold also stated that Syncrude could have prepared their bird deterrent in advance and that "it was reasonable to take those precautions and Syncrude did not."

Help us make sure tragedies like this one don't happen again. Sign Nature Canada's petition to stop the tar sands!

The case began as a private case that was initially filed by a Sierra Club member and later taken over by the provincial government.

Mackenzie and Suffield: Opportunities for Sustainability?

The Joint Review Panel of the Mackenzie Gas Project spent two years writing a report that optimistically and ambitiously set out the conditions under which the Panel believes the basin-opening project could be the basis for sustainable development in the Mackenzie Valley and Delta.

The report tackles the big picture issues and many of its recommendations aim to mitigate negative cumulative impacts and maintain a high standard of care for future developments. If all the 176 report recommendations were to be fully implemented, perhaps the project could be a positive thing. But the chances for that are looking slim.

The National Energy Board responded last week to the Joint Review Panel's recommendations by rejecting the integrated approach to sustainability the Panel recommended. Despite claiming in November 2009 that it's taking a sustainability approach, the NEB seems inclined to taking a narrow approach to the Mackenzie Gas Project. The NEB can still reconsider after its hearings in April and the federal and territorial governments have yet to respond to the Panel's recommendations, so a commitment to sustainability might still prevail.

Yes, I'm trying to be positive today.

Another place where an opportunity to do the right thing is waiting to be seized is Suffield National Wildlife Area, or perhaps I should say EnCana's headquarters. As readers of this blog are aware, EnCana has applied to drill an additional 1,275 gas wells within Suffield National Wildlife Area. But why does EnCana still want to drill there? In North America, proven reserves of natural gas have increased substantially in the past two years, so the time may be just right for EnCana to abandon further drilling within Suffield National Wildlife Area. Read more here. And stay tuned, we'll continue to report on both energy projects, as well as the Northern Gateway.

Image: CFB Suffield by Cliff Wallis

The Mackenzie Gas Project: Your Say

Last week, we told you that Nature Canada has submitted its final comments about the Mackenzie Gas Project to the National Energy Board. We also wanted to know your thoughts about the project.

Our most recent quick poll asks: Do you think construction of the Mackenzie Gas Project should proceed?

Overwhelmingly, the responses have been no - the Mackenzie Valley should be off-limits to large-scale industrial development (84% of responses). A further 13% of respondents believe that the project would be acceptable if all 176 recommendations of the Joint Review Panel are implemented to reduce damage to the environment and provide lasting benefits to the people living in the area. Only 3% of the responses indicate that construction should proceed regardless of its impacts because the project is an important source of revenue for the northern economy.

We also asked how you would feel if natural gas from the pipeline was used to expand tar sands operations.

Most responses agreed with this statement that "gas from the pipeline should absolutely not be used to expand tar sands operations."

Among the concerns expressed was the worry that, even if all the recommendations were implemented, there could still be environmental impacts:

"I think it would be a gross misuse of an energy resource, and a massive environmental insult. And the construction of the pipelines, roadways and other infrastructures will cause unforeseen problems to local peoples and wildlife."

Many responses also suggested that the money being directed towards oil and gas development could be better spent on alternative energy sources:

"I would prefer to see alternative energies from wind, solar and tidal sources receive as much investment as is given to tar sands development. Bolster that which is sustainable, not that which is destructive, harmful."

"We need to tap alternate, less invasive energy sources. Pristine habitat is rare in our world and we should be doing everything to protect what is left for the other billions of creatures with which we share this planet."

The overall feeling of the responses can be summed up with this one:

"The pipe line should not be built - we need to preserve the land free from development. If the gas from the pipe line were used to develop the tar sands it would be a double assult on our natural environment."

Your support provides direction for our work. If you haven't made your voice heard yet, why not vote now? Or, check out some of our other quick polls to share your thoughts.

The Northern Gateway: Another unsustainable proposal?

The Great Bear Rainforest; First Nations lands, livelihoods and traditions; grizzlies, wild salmon, orcas and 28 Important Bird Areas; a tanker moratorium; Climate Change... these are just but a few of the many reasons a proposed pipeline to Kitmitat, BC for exporting tar sands oil should be of great concern to all Canadians.

The project should have been reviewed through a public inquiry, but the government has instead established a Joint Review Panel under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Nature Canada recently joined 18 environmental groups in urging the government to undertake a much more comprehensive environmental assessment than is currently planned of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project.

Enbridge's Gateway Pipeline Inc. proposes to construct and operate pipelines, 1,170 km in length, between an inland terminal near Edmonton, Alberta and a marine terminal near Kitimat, British Columbia. Approximately 500 km of the pipeline will be in Alberta, and 670 km in British Columbia. The project will include an export oil sands product pipeline, an import condensate (a hydrocarbon) pipeline, terminal facilities, integrated marine infrastructure at tidewater to accommodate loading and unloading of oil and condensate tankers, and marine transportation of oil and condensate.

The scope of an environmental assessment is one of the most critical elements determining whether the review can be a meaningful exercise and contribute to sustainability. Does purporting to assess the environmental impact of this proposed pipeline without reviewing the impact of tanker traffic and of the increased oil sands production make any sense? To me, it's like calculating the harm done by a gunshot by considering the trajectory of the bullet, but not what it hits or who pulled the trigger.

A recent Supreme Court decision states that authorities conducting environmental assessments can't scope the review to avoid addressing a project's full environmental impacts. So there is perhaps some hope that Minister Prentice will decide the review of the Enbridge Pipeline will be a meaningful one.

The Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project put sustainability at the center of its assessment, released on December 30, 2009. While I have some reservations about their conclusions, their approach to sustainability should become best practice for all environmental assessments of major projects. It should be applied in reviewing the Northern Gateway project. Many don't want the pipeline at all. Stay tuned...

Photo by Tom Middleton