Bid to halt gravel mining near Big Hill Springs Provincial Park fails

Article content material

An appeals board has refused to halt the UCP authorities’s approval of a gravel quarry opponents declare will poison the waters of Huge Hill Springs Provincial Park.

However these critics of the gravel quarry say the ruling additionally provides them hope to proceed their struggle.

Article content material

Whereas the Alberta Environmental Appeals Board (AEAB) concluded the Bighill Creek Preservation Society (BCPS) raised affordable issues over the potential impacts of gravel mining, it dominated its problem wasn’t more likely to meet its objectives and that the quarrying firm, Mountain Ash Restricted Partnership, would face larger hurt by having its mining exercise halted.

Article content material

“The board finds that though (mining opponents had been) profitable in some elements of the take a look at, a keep is unlikely to realize what the appellant hopes to realize when it comes to stopping the event of the pit and can hurt the (gravel miners),” acknowledged the March 6 ruling by the board.

“Granting a keep wouldn’t be simply and equitable.”

The tiny provincial park — a 20-minute drive northwest of Calgary treasured for its distinctive tufa formations, tumbling mineral springs and waterfalls, hillside mountaineering trails and picnic areas, whose founding dates again to the Fifties — attracts about 250,000 guests a 12 months.

Opponents of close by quarrying contend eradicating the topsoil and 25 metres of gravel reduces pure filtration and would enable the flushing of such dangerous substances as arsenic, cadmium, chromium and selenium by groundwater into the springs.

Authorized battle ongoing for earlier 5 years

The battle over the Summit quarry — one which the AEAB says will finally cowl 208 acres and whose preliminary work has already commenced 1,300 metres from the park’s boundaries — has been waged within the courts and regulatory our bodies for the previous 5 years.

Article content material

Article content material

In October 2019, Courtroom of Queen’s Bench dominated in favour of a problem by two native landowners close to the park who contended the cumulative results of noise, visitors and mud produced by the proposed pits hadn’t been taken under consideration by Rocky View County.

However on July 20, 2021, the Alberta Courtroom of Attraction overturned that ruling, siding with the county and gravel suppliers, successfully clearing the best way for the quarrying close to Freeway 567 and Vary Highway 40 beforehand accepted by Rocky View County councillors.

In its March ruling, the AEAB mentioned BCPS had correct standing to enchantment the province’s July 2023 sanctioning of the gravel mine below the province’s Water Act as a result of its issues over attainable environmental hurt.

“The board finds that the appellant has proven there’s a affordable risk that the (provincial) approval and its related actions might trigger hurt to the groundwater,” the board acknowledged in its written ruling.

Article content material

The board additionally famous quarry opponents cited Alberta Surroundings and Parks’ personal issues concerning the potential groundwater impression expressed in a February 2021 letter the ministry despatched to Rocky View County Council and that the provincial authorities ought to take its personal reservations extra critically.

“(Opponents) submitted that is very sturdy proof that the general public curiosity requires a keep of the approval till this enchantment is heard and the impacts of mining to the groundwater, and the evaluation of identical by the (province) in issuing the approval, are absolutely assessed and thought of,” mentioned the enchantment board.

However the AEAB additionally famous Mountain Ash’s competition opponents’ environmental arguments aren’t backed up by enough science to justify halting their work.

“The approval holder submitted that the harms alleged by the appellant are speculative, and are usually not instant dangers that would come up upon graduation of the actions,” mentioned the ruling.

Mountain Ash has additionally insisted a monitoring program ought to assist allay issues over environmental harm.

‘By the point they discover one thing unsuitable it’ll be too late’

Article content material

However quarry opponents say the ruling additionally makes clear the venture will go earlier than an AEAB public listening to later this 12 months that can give attention to scientific knowledge.

“That wasn’t the case earlier than March 6,” mentioned authorized Prof. Shaun Fluker, who has been representing the BCPS below the College of Calgary’s Public Curiosity Legislation Clinic.

“We’ve got but to actually hash out the science on this.”

A person whose property lies 800 metres from the pit mentioned the board’s view Mountain Ash would undergo larger hurt if a keep was granted is absurd given the potential impacts on water and air high quality from mud.

“The corporate’s personal water specialists informed me there’s no ensures my water (nicely) wouldn’t be affected,” mentioned Harry Hodgson, a member of the BCPS.

“They are saying they’ll be essentially the most harmed by it however my daughter has bronchial asthma.”

Hodgson mentioned he has no religion within the firm’s water monitoring as a result of “by the point they discover one thing unsuitable it’ll be too late.”

Representatives from Mountain Ash didn’t reply to a request for remark.

Suggestions from the AEAB public listening to will go to Alberta’s Surroundings and Protected Locations minister for consideration.

BKaufmann@postmedia.com

X (Twitter): @BillKaufmannjrn

Article content material