COCHRANE - The Alberta government has removed a major hurdle for a gravel company to start mining up against Big Hill Springs Provincial Park, but the preservation society that takes its name from the nearby creek is asking them both to just hold their horses.
Bighill Creek Preservation Society (BCPS) spokesman Gerry Bietz said they filed their appeal of the province’s decision to the Alberta Environmental Appeals Board under the Water Act on July 26. The approval to gravel company Mountain Ash Ltd. was issued by the province six days earlier.
Now, the watchword for the entire process is uncertainty.
BCPS’s appeal centres on a few main concerns around the proposed construction and operation of a surface mine located on 130 hectares (323 acres) of land overlying the aquifer that sustains Bighill Creek. The open pit operation would be located northeast of Cochrane at the corner of Highway 567 and Range Road 40.
The society is concerned the mine would pose a material risk to the region’s groundwater resources and as a result, potentially jeopardize the springs, creek, provincial park and related wetlands and riparian habitats.
In their statement of appeal, the society further claimed “the park receives approximately 250,000 visitors annually and was recently renovated at a cost of $1.2 million due to heavy use, so if there is no assessment of the cumulative risks of this and future mines, this investment will have been entirely wasted.”
The park’s ecology is sustained by the main spring that issues from an aquifer extending approximately 78 square kilometres (km) to the north and west. The aquifer is located underneath the mine site. Big Hill Springs Provincial Park lies at the approximate centre of the watershed.
The aquifer’s water provides about half the flow into Bighill Creek. A broad range of native and some introduced fish occupy the creek. BCPS is currently assessing the creek as to its suitability for reintroducing endangered Bull Trout and Westslope Cutthroat Trout.
BCPS filed a Statement of Concern with Alberta Environment and Protected Areas (EPA) in relation to the application last year.
The society retained an expert, Dr. Jon Fennell, whose report stated that when buried sediments are excavated and exposed to the atmosphere, the local geochemical conditions change. The increased chance of mineral oxidation, combined with the unusual weathering and leaching reaction would result in the release of various constituents into the local groundwater.
Fennell is a professional geologist, hydrologist, and geochemist who specializes in water security and climate resiliency. His report last year recommended that gravel excavations not be allowed within 1.6 km of the park boundary. For a further 800 m from the boundary, a minimum of a four-metre separation between excavations and groundwater would be required.
Both Fennell and Alberta Parks recommended gravel excavations not be allowed within 1.6 kilometres of the park boundary, and argued a minimum four-metre separation between excavations and groundwater should be required. Mountain Ash Ltd. is proposing to leave a one-metre separation.
BCPS’s appeal document said this week’s decision fails to address any of these concerns, including similar complaints registered by Alberta Parks – despite assurances from the provincial department that all of their concerns would be addressed.
“The information we got from [EPA] is that the project can go ahead while we await the results of the appeal,” Bietz said.
“We don’t know if they can start stripping land, or how aggressively they can move forward.”
He added BCPS is disappointed in the decision, but just as importantly, they can’t find any rationale from the province, or explanation of any response to any of the concerns raised by the expert’s report.
“We don’t [feel EPA] provided sufficient acknowledgement of the issues we raised, and we’re still coming to grips with the basis on which they made their decision,” Bietz said. “They refer to a series of appendices, but they didn’t attach the appendices, so we’re at a bit of a loss.”
The mine would be located about 800 m from the spring. At this location, almost the entire flow issues from the Paskapoo bedrock in an area smaller than the size of an average bungalow.
According to BCPS’s research, this and other prospective mines in the region will remove the vegetated organic soil, the subsoil, and up to 25 m of gravel, leaving only one metre of gravel above the estimated and fluctuating level of groundwater.
Adjacent to the park in addition to the subject lands, six quarter sections or about 1,000 acres (404 hectares) are controlled by gravel operators.
Burnco, with three of those quarter sections immediately across the barbwire fence from the park, is currently evaluating their lands for gravel mining.
BCPS claims that with up to five operating gravel mines on its boundary, the park use would be subject to untenable noise, dust, and industrial impacts.
“The Decision fails to address remediation and reclamation of the subject lands and provides no apparent assurance that the project applicant will be held financially responsible to mitigate, remediate and reclaim any impacts on the Spring, Creek or Park,” BCPS’s appeal states.
The application to mine gravel was approved on March 2, 2021 by Rocky View County (RVC) council at a special public hearing. An official from what was then called Alberta Environment and Parks wrote emails and letters to RVC expressing concerns about the gravel extraction plans and advised that more studies were needed. Council approved the application in spite of that opposition.
Since then, stakeholders on the project have been awaiting word from the province on whether the Water Act provisions were being adequately addressed.
This week’s ruling means that the province not only has rejected BCPS’s arguments, but they’ve ignored advice from their own department.
An emailed statement to The Eagle from EPA reads:
"The regulatory review process closely considered all of the Statement of Concerns that were received, in accordance with EPA legislation. This included those raised by Bighill Creek Preservation Society, among others. The project approval includes mandatory terms and conditions that are designed to appropriately manage any impacts to surface water, groundwater and other environmental components.
"While an appeal has been filed, Mountain Ash can start work authorized under their Water Act approval, provided they have all necessary approvals from Rocky View County."
Bietz believes it’s still “up un the air” as to whether Mountain Ash will proceed and begin stripping the area – as they are now allowed to do – or wait for the results of the appeal.
Mountain Ash submitted a report to the province (conducted by SLR Consulting on their behalf) that states: “The report demonstrates that no adverse net impact of the operations on the hydrologic/hydrogeologic setting is expected.
“Under the current excavation scheme, the overall risk of any significant negative impacts on water resources as a result of the development are negligible. This is based on the fact that the aggregate resource will not be mined into the water table, and therefore changes to the groundwater flow system are extremely unlikely.”
A somewhat ironic backdrop to all this is that RVC has once again embarked on a review of their aggregate extraction policy – something that has been on-again off-again since 2018.
Bietz said he is a sitting member of a committee that has been struck by the County to reconsider an aggregate extraction plan.
“It’s hard to imagine what would happen if a plan came out saying projects like Mountain Ash’s do not conform to societal needs – or whatever that process might determine,” he said.
“So that process is all going on in the background,” he said.
.jpg;w=120;h=80;mode=crop)
