Contentious gravel pit near creek gets nod
Rocky View County approves new quarry next to Big Hill Springs Provincial Park
A 131-hectare gravel pit opponents fear will foul Big Hill Springs Provincial Park's signature creek was approved Tuesday by Rocky View County.
Councillors voted 6-3 in favour of the application by Mountain Ash LP to extract sand and gravel from a quarry about 300 metres from the creek's underground headwaters and 1,200 metres from the park's boundary.
That vote came despite a letter from Alberta Environment and Parks officials urging them to delay a decision until a more thorough environmental review could be done.
“As the Big Hill springs are so closely linked to the groundwater at the Mountain Ash site, we question the proposal's potential impact on groundwater quality and spring chemistry, affects on tufa formation, and its effects on fish and fish habitat,” it states.
The letter repeatedly cites the environmental concerns expressed by hydrogeologist and Rocky View resident Dr. Jon Fennell, who was enlisted by the quarry's opponents and seemed to take lawmakers and project proponents by surprise.
“It's certainly an exceptional and very unusual circumstance — some of the concerns expressed there are factually incorrect,” said Ken Venner, a consultant working for Mountain Ash.
County administrators recommended the project — to mine the area just north of the park for the next 30 to 40 years — be approved and accepted environmental assessments provided by the company.
But as the approval appeared imminent, area Coun. Crystal Kissel said her colleagues might live to regret their vote.
“We only have one Big Hill Springs park and if we destroy the spring by making a bad decision today, that'll last for generations,” she said.
“We're going to put gravel before a park and that's sad.”
The park 20 minutes northwest of Calgary is known for its tumbling creek, unique tufa mineral features, hillside hiking trails and picnic areas, and is visited by 250,000 people a year.
The county received 31 audio and video presentations for the hearing, all of them opposed to the proposal, though 105 emails sent to the county were more evenly split.
In his presentation, Fennell urged councillors to reject the proposal due to the risk he says is posed by removing 25 metres of overburden and its filtration effect that would unleash toxic metals.
“We'll get this leaching of arsenic, cadmium, chromium and selenium and that's already being found, so opening up this pit is going to exacerbate it,” said Fennell.
Any efforts to erect underground barriers to stymie the movement of tainted water would disrupt the natural flow feeding the spring, he added. “It could trigger a (federal) Fisheries Act violation and nobody wants that,” said Fennell, who suggested a 1.6-kilometre setback from the park for any gravel mining and no excavation closer than four metres to the water table.
There's no indication that would happen, said hydrogeologist consultant Steven Usher, who helped author a report for Mountain Ash.
“We have demonstrated there's no contamination in the groundwater ... fish habitat and water quality will be the same,” he said.
“There's no need to elaborate on remediation efforts or how they might perform.”
Some lawmakers who voted in favour of the proposal said opponents' failure to meet with the company and its consultants to discuss technical matters was fatal to their cause. “The middle ground was there and one group didn't take it,” said Coun. Kim Mckylor.
The county stands to be paid about $8 million in levies from 20 million tonnes of product extracted from the mine during its life — money that funds local infrastructure, said the company.
But critics say that's a pittance compared to what could be lost, and also argued provincial safeguards are weak and would challenge irreversible effects only after they arise.
“In cases where significant environmental damage is at risk, Alberta's code of practice for (gravel) pits is totally inadequate to ensure environmental protection,” said Gerry Bietz of the Bighill Creek Preservation Society.
His group's plan to reintroduce bull trout into the creek would be threatened by mine-degraded water, he said.
County administrators say it would ultimately be up to provincial officials to address any concerns arising from the quarry's operations.
The quarry is one of several proposed for the area, whose final approval was blocked after a resident's challenge led to a Court of Queen's Bench ruling in October 2019, which concluded the county hadn't taken into proper consideration their cumulative effects.
But Rocky View County appealed and a decision is expected in the coming weeks.
Some of the quarry's opponents say the county should have waited for the results of the appeal before making a decision.
A month ago, county councillors rejected a large gravel pit proposed on Calgary's northwest city limit amid considerable concerns over effects on the environment, water, health and property values.